AVCANADA

It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:47 am

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 1:34 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:18 am
Posts: 2571
Frankly wrote:
yycflyguy wrote:
It's ok to laugh.

Where can I find a link that confirms there was a a "group of thugs" running the show?

I suppose you support the new co-operative relationship between ACPA and AC and this "professional" approach will secure a more lucrative and equitable contract for the entire membership? How'd that "professional" approach work out for the failed TA1 and recalled leaders?

Which union would you say has the greatest solidarity and is paid the most disproportionately? I'd say CAW. How do they consistently secure great contracts? By invoking industrial action and taking a stand. By having quick, decisive decisions made by their leadership. Something AC pilots know nothing about because they are too worried about appearing "professional".
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/23/air-canada-ground-crew-return-to-work-after-wildcat-strike-causes-flight-chaos/


Rudder has it right, if you want to keep pointing fingers in the wrong direction, its going to happen again. Ignoring the advice of the experts has already proven to be very costly. We just paid a couple of independent auditors to tell us what went wrong, and now you want to ignore them because you dont like the answer. Good luck with that.


Um. You're the one pointing fingers saying a "militant minority" and a "group of thugs" caused everything. I provided a recap of how we got to FOS from the debacle that was TA1. You know, the TA that was defeated by the membership and was NOT endorsed by the MEC but was full of agenda from NC1.

The "unbiased audit" wasn't even acknowledged as an audit by its author. It is a report. His fact finding mission omitted interviews with members from NC2 and the MEC of the day. How is that even fact finding?

Don't worry though. You have your cooperative President now. Your cooperative Scope chair and your cooperative Negots chair all ready to negotiate away whatever is left. If I was a company negotiator, I would pee myself laughing at how easy it is to take away WAWCON from those "professional" pilots and distribute them amongst the executives in the form of bonuses. I hope your 5 year old is ok with Daddy working a second job!



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 3:43 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm
Posts: 517
ratherbee wrote:
Stig

Have you read the audit? Although the MEC is returning to the path of reason it is only after retreating from the path of ignorance. They now seem to be following advice that they pay for, listening to committee experts, and have put politics aside to show actual leadership.

ACPA has a history of circling the wagons and then shooting inwards. Here's a perfect example where a militant minority did just that and screwed themselves in the process.


Ratherbee,

Yes, I've read the report and I want my money back. Maybe I'm just overly sceptical of the companies intentions and ACPA's ability to deliver on its promises. What changes to our agreement do you think the company considers required to provide a viable feeder network? Or what changes it feels are needed to address the market attributes of YVR and YUL? Doesn't provide me with a warm fuzzy feeling.



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 4:22 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm
Posts: 607
Frankly wrote:
You must have missed the point of the report, which was how we went from TA1 to TA minus 1.


And that is part of the problem. It's all in what question was asked. I would have hoped we we would have asked how did TA1 happen? How did it come to pass that the NC1 signed an MOA without TA1 first being vetted by the MEC? That's kind of a big deal since in reality that one act locked ACPA into TA1. Why are those not important lessons we should learn from?

Well it's pretty obvious to me, from someone who thinks there were errors committed by both NC1 and NC2. The report is biased. Biased right down to saying they would not name names, but then naming names or referring to a title. In each case those who were in charge between TA1 and 2 targeted.

F$&k up number 1. NC1 signed an MOA without MEC approval. This act committed ACPA to TA1.

F$&k up number 2. NC2 refused to acknowledge they were locked into TA1, against the advise given, and the company took advantage of that.

The problem? Committees operating outside the control and direction of the MEC. I could have told everyone that for a lot less $ and in a much less biased way.

But we need to focus forward. New sim new day.

Has this problem been fixed?

No it has not. Committees to this day still operate in a state of autonomy. Outside the direction of the MEC. More accurately don't follow the direction given or go beyond the direction given without first seeking a mandate to do so.

We need a baby sitter. The best one I know of is ALPA



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 7:10 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 10:12 am
Posts: 121
Ok I think I understand your concerns and I think they are shared my a number of others due to the misinformation that was being spread by that vocal minority referred to in the audit.

I was a little surprised to see the names too because it was supposed to focus on structure not competence. Maybe we assumed that the crash happened because of flawed SOP's not pilot error? They had no choice but to use names because some elected officials made significant errors while others were negligent in fulfilling their fiduciary duties.

FU#1: The MEC set the goalposts on the various issues- pension, scope, LCC, group pay etc. and they gave the NC authority to reach an agreement. It then went to the MEC for approval where it should have been accepted or rejected. However several of the MEC then moved their goalposts reacting to the social media frenzy. For example, one of the strongest supporters of a DC plan was a certain young Vice Chair in YYZ who reversed his position after the TA was signed. Integrity?

FU#2: I agree. However if the recalls didn't take place, throwing the entire association into a tailspin, then it's likely that the TA could have been modified after it's ratification failed. However the membership wanted to see what was behind door #3 instead -so we got what we deserved.

So other than NC2 I don't see where our committees act autonomously. If they don't follow the rules then they should be removed from their positions.

As for ALPA they have their problems too. I would rather see us try and fix our house than move across the street into a bigger one with plenty of problems.



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 7:40 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:16 pm
Posts: 291
[quote="ratherbee"I would rather see us try and fix our house than move across the street into a bigger one with plenty of problems.[/quote]
Even Mike Holmes couldn't put a dent of this fixer-upper! Too many narcissistic small minded people waltzing around with fancy hats on to get any real work done in the rebuilding of this "union"............
Time for a clean, no new, slate!



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 8:32 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm
Posts: 607
Ratherbee,

Don't makes excuses. Names did not need to be given. There was zero requirement. Because of the concern of bias, and the auditors own statement promising no names? The fact that there are names kicks at the reports credibility. You see I have my doubt's that an auditor of the calibure we chose would put a name in after saying he wouldn't. This smacks of interference in what was supposed to be independent.

FU#1. You may be correct that the MEC off loaded the responsibility to NC1 to sign an MOA. It doesn't really matter who made this error. It was an error of massive proportions. Once the MOA was signed ACPA was committed. Committed in this case without the MEC having the final say. I'm not even sure why they debated or voted. If the MEC relinquished control to a few people then they made the mistake. If the committee went beyond their mandate they did. Either way it was a huge mistake.

Yes we do have committees to this day taking their marching orders from the MEC and amending them as they see fit. The issues are small potatoes. Problem is when I see it, I realize people are not listening. The governance review was for everyone else but them I guess.

ALPA has its own issues true. I don't believe TA2 would ever have happened under their roof.

I have seen enough.



Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]

For questions/comments please send them to
avcanada@gmail.com


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a topic or post is inappropriate email us at avcanada@gmail.com .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site. 

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.