Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Discuss topics relating to Westjet.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

Message
Author
Schooner69A
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#26 Post by Schooner69A » Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:04 pm

"You’re trying to throw Encore under the bus because you didn’t get your way."

This is what you take home from this thread and others?

Somebody hasn't been paying attention...
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#27 Post by mbav8r » Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:14 pm

China_CAAC_Exam wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:35 am
A few comments before I start my work day.

First of all, I sleep well at night and have zero anxiety during the day. Listening to and learning from Dr Jordan Peterson I have the awareness that chaos or evil or fascism flourishes when people don’t speak up. Even when it’s uncomfortable. It is uncomfortable to speak up publicly about the problems with the One List under ALPA. It is less uncomfortable to speak up about the rights of OTS pilots hired since Encore began operations but it is still not easy. But I believe it has to be done.

Friends will be made and friends will be lost, but if I am so worried about public opinion that I can’t speak up for the truth and for those concerned with censure by fellow pilots, well, the 52 years I have spent creating myself to this point were a waste. If I don’t speak my mind now when it matters, than I think I would have no problem being the guard at Treblinka or the neighbour of the Jewish shop keeper who said nothing in 1932 when the black boots arrived. I know it’s a tad dramatic, but situation we find ourselves in, while not of my creation, demands that people speak up.

If you are an OTS pilot hired since May 2014 you need to contact your MEC and the President of ALPA in Herndon and the Canada Board President to advise them that you have concerns that your seniority rights may be in play due to the MEC Update of Nov 2, 2018.

Normally the Unfair Labour Practice complaint regarding a Duty of Fair Respresentation would require waiting until a CBA is ratified by the membership, but the current situation is unique. The Arbitrator is ruling in several key areas in contention, but the remaining agreed upon sections are complete. There will be no ratification, so there already is a collectively bargained agreement in place for the key area of Seniority, Section 22. It is on this basis, and the acknowledged agreement between the tw MEC’s that I believe, not being a lawyer, the time and conditions precedent are ripe (no more than 55 days remaining to do so) for a DFR complaint. Doing so will ensure that rights are protected and no laws are broken.

If the contacted parties fail to address the concerns raised, then the CIRB should be contacted to start the DFR claim process.
Finally, the true intent of his numerous posts.
You mentioned earlier that any union would have made it possible to keep the one list, you have not addressed how it is possible that Jazz ALPA is allowing seniority to pilots not even remotely associated with Jazz, financially or otherwise?
You’re so desperate to be right, you’re now calling on OTS pilots to file a complaint, so transparent, you’ve realized you’re wrong with all your previous posts, you make a last ditch effort to prove to everybody they shouldn’t have voted for ALPA.
If you cared at all about this profession, your efforts could have been much more productive had you focused on how to make the situation better, I honestly hope I never meet you, as you said people need to speak up and you would not want to hear what I would say to you.
Good luck to the Encore pilots, I hope the CIRB agrees that all parties new what they were getting when the accepted the job, make sure you let John know what you think of him when you see him, speak up or fascism will flourish!
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#28 Post by mbav8r » Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:33 pm

cloak wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:56 pm
SPR wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:45 pm
I did, actually, make arguments in my second paragraph. And yet, ironically, you didn't address any of the points that I made.
Is it possible that all of the ALPA reps at Jazz, Bearskin, Wasaya, WestJet, and Encore are better versed on the nuances of ALPA practices than an unhinged union-hater? Dare I say that they might even have direct communications with ALPA leadership and legal representation? No, it must be that they're just completely ignorant of their own rules, and only the great John Swallows has been able to see the light through the gloom!
Jazz is hardly an example to follow. Under the watchful eyes of ALPA no less, it has lowered the standard in piloting profession at least twice in recent times, once when it underbid Skyservice on the B757 flying and drove the final nail in its coffin, all in similar pay to Dash8 flying to make matters even worse, and second when it introduced B scale. And now to start at Jazz not only to be subject to second class status but also discover there are hundreds of pilots ahead that are not even on the property and do not contribute to the same airline? This is hardly worthy of emulation.

It could be argued that barring a true national system where all pilots get credit for service in airline operations and are members of a national organization, any sort of an "agreement" to allow members of other airlines on the seniority list puts current members of the said airline at a disadvantage. Furthermore, to use a simple "rule of majority" to attempt to pass such agreement is a failure of the representing union to discharge its "fiduciary responsibility" to every of its members to protect them and to do them no harm.
Not really the point, is it?
It’s not about emulating Jazz, it’s the fact Jazz ALPA is doing exactly what China... is saying is not possible. This current thread is nothing more than a final effort to drive a wedge between the two groups, which if successful will haunt you for a very long time.
Because I can’t stand simpletons who don’t understand what status pay is, those 57s were crewed at the exact same or more per hour, those nice folks who bid it just shared with the rest of us.
I also wish people would thank SR, GGN and Encore for lowering the bar, it doesn’t matter one iota what union represents you when your competition undercuts you by 30-40%, what choice do you have? I suppose we could’ve called ACs bluff and all ended up working for those three eventually, based on your apparent bias against Jazz, I suppose that’s your preferred outcome.
Your apparent support of the dismantling the one list will cost you severely, how much will you give up to protect scope when Encore pilots are asked to fly A220s for 80/hour, you kick them off the list, their goal in life will be to screw you back and Saretsky will celebrate his successes from his nice cozy retirement.
Best wishes, remember all choices have consequences!
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#29 Post by mbav8r » Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:37 pm

Schooner69A wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:04 pm
"You’re trying to throw Encore under the bus because you didn’t get your way."

This is what you take home from this thread and others?

Somebody hasn't been paying attention...
Why don’t you enlighten us then
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"

Schooner69A
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#30 Post by Schooner69A » Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:57 pm

"Why don't you enlighten us then?"

An impossible task. I'd just be rehashing everything that has gone on before and if you didn't understand it by now, I'd be wasting my time and yours.
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#31 Post by mbav8r » Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:03 am

Schooner69A wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:57 pm
"Why don't you enlighten us then?"

An impossible task. I'd just be rehashing everything that has gone on before and if you didn't understand it by now, I'd be wasting my time and yours.
It appears as though you fell for it hook, line and sinker. He initially came across as an alarmist trying to alert Encore and WJ pilots to this perceived situation, with all this “evidence”, non of it applicable to the current situation. In all of his so called evidence, it was dealing with mergers. Now that he’s been shown that it’s not going to apply, he has actually called on OTS pilots to file their CIRB complaint before the clock runs out.
So, he first tried to gain support to block ALPA, after certification he went on to cast doubt and now his last ditch effort is to get the OTS pilots riled up, all in an effort of his ultimate goal, decertification of ALPA.
I’m sorry if you have a different understanding than that.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"

SPR
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#32 Post by SPR » Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:07 am

Hangry wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:10 pm
I realize that. Encore pilots will have their seniority begin to accrue when they are on property as a WJ pilot. DOH

Real easy to comprehend. Things will be as they should have been.
I don't care what you think "should have been"; the fact of the matter is that OTS pilots hired since Encore was created knew the terms of the seniority list when they joined the company, and now they want to change the rules to benefit themselves. If they have their way, hundreds of Encore pilots who have flowed will be passed over for upgrades and the consequent pay raises. Those pilots will resent the OTS pilots for the rest of their careers, and will give the new captains no leeway. Expect every tiny, insignificant SOP infraction to be reported; if you're going 251 knots at 9999 feet, that'll be reported; if I'm going to the back to get a cup of coffee and you ask for one too, I'm coming back with only one cup. It's petty, but if you make the bed you'd better expect to lie in it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

SPR
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#33 Post by SPR » Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:10 am

cloak wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:56 pm
Jazz is hardly an example to follow. Under the watchful eyes of ALPA no less, it has lowered the standard in piloting profession at least twice in recent times, once when it underbid Skyservice on the B757 flying and drove the final nail in its coffin, all in similar pay to Dash8 flying to make matters even worse, and second when it introduced B scale. And now to start at Jazz not only to be subject to second class status but also discover there are hundreds of pilots ahead that are not even on the property and do not contribute to the same airline? This is hardly worthy of emulation.

It could be argued that barring a true national system where all pilots get credit for service in airline operations and are members of a national organization, any sort of an "agreement" to allow members of other airlines on the seniority list puts current members of the said airline at a disadvantage. Furthermore, to use a simple "rule of majority" to attempt to pass such agreement is a failure of the representing union to discharge its "fiduciary responsibility" to every of its members to protect them and to do them no harm.
I'm not talking about setting standards for WAWCON, I'm talking about legal precedent. The fact is that Jazz, Bearskin, and Wasaya MECs created a system to allow pilots at different companies to hold seniority; that system has been allowed to stand for over a year by ALPA, which establishes a legal precedent.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Bacunayagua
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 4:00 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#34 Post by Bacunayagua » Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:16 am

Those pilots will resent the OTS pilots for the rest of their careers, and will give the new captains no leeway. Expect every tiny, insignificant SOP infraction to be reported; if you're going 251 knots at 9999 feet, that'll be reported; if I'm going to the back to get a cup of coffee and you ask for one too, I'm coming back with only one cup. It's petty, but if you make the bed you'd better expect to lie in it.
This is an interesting comment that caught my attention.

You realize this is a two way street right? I wonder what the Captains will do when the FOs start pulling out their phones, or reading non company material during flight. God help the FO that wants to keep his IG account up to date with flashy pictures.
---------- ADS -----------
  

SPR
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#35 Post by SPR » Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:23 am

China_CAAC_Exam wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:12 am
SPR, it pains me to have respond to the points that you bring up in relation to direct entry Captains, as I should think it would be obvious as to why companies whose pilots are represented by ALPA are permitted to hire DEC’s.

What is obvious, is that those companies had no qualified pilots capable of assuming the command position. I suppose the company could reduce operations and wait until their FO’s gained enough experience to (hopefully) upgrade, but what reasonable people have done instead is to hire directly from the street. This happened when Skyservice took on a large number of the ex-C3 pilots when that company imploded. The Skyservice FO’s were senior to these new hires but not ready for upgrade.

Make sense?
So you're saying that Wasaya and Bearskin had no 1200-hour pilots? Because the PC-12, 1900 and Metro III are single-pilot aircraft, so their captains wouldn't even need an ATPL. If there was even a single FO with over 1200 hours at those companies when they hired DECs then that blows your argument out of the water; if the companies merely preferred to bring in higher experience rather than upgrade someone, then their positions are held, in your view, in contravention of ALPA rules. Likewise, once the Encore CBA is ratified, the matrix will be eliminated, all the DECs will be demoted, and every FO with an ATPL above them on the seniority list will be immediately upgraded. Is that what you're saying?
Furthermore, according to your interpretation of the rules, qualifications don't matter for upgrades; your entire entire argument has been that DOH is the sole determinant of upgrades, and therefore it shouldn't matter if a pilot has an ATPL. According to the arguments that you've made, every pilot at Jazz who's been passed over for an upgrade because they didn't have the appropriate licence should file a grievance against ALPA; they can't legally sit in the left seat, but they should be paid as captains based solely on DOH, according to your reasoning. Is that right? Or, could it be that you're misinterpreting this whole situation, reading to much into the merger policy, and missing that there are, in fact, other factors that can play into upgrades?
---------- ADS -----------
  

SPR
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#36 Post by SPR » Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:31 am

Bacunayagua wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:16 am
This is an interesting comment that caught my attention.

You realize this is a two way street right? I wonder what the Captains will do when the FOs start pulling out their phones, or reading non company material during flight. God help the FO that wants to keep his IG account up to date with flashy pictures.
The names of any OTS pilots filing a grievance with the CIRB will be publically available, and there likely wouldn't be a substantial number who took such action; every former Encore pilot would know their names. Conversely, there will be hundreds of FOs from Encore, and those OTS pilots might not know who is formerly from Encore and who was OTS, let alone which Encore pilots would be that petty; it would much more difficult to know to whom they should be returning the pettiness.
It's a lot like the original Swoop pilots: everyone knows their names, and their reputations will be remembered for a long time.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Bacunayagua
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 4:00 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#37 Post by Bacunayagua » Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:49 am

I wasn't referring to grievances. I am referring to your comment regarding the possibility of encore FOs writing up OTS Captains for minor infractions. It would be very easy to find out who reported the Captain, since the report would read something like:

"on December 5th 2018, during approach into CYYZ. It was reported that flight WS205 was in contravention of CARs blah blah blah by going 251knots below 10,000 feet".

Not exactly difficult for the captain to know who the FO was on that flight, now is it?

Then who knows, word may just get around of those FOs and their pettiness. Who knows how lenient training Captains and ACPs may be during their next recurrent.

Slippery slope.
---------- ADS -----------
  

cloak
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:08 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#38 Post by cloak » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:05 pm

SPR wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:31 am
The names of any OTS pilots filing a grievance with the CIRB will be publically available, and there likely wouldn't be a substantial number who took such action; every former Encore pilot would know their names. Conversely, there will be hundreds of FOs from Encore, and those OTS pilots might not know who is formerly from Encore and who was OTS, let alone which Encore pilots would be that petty; it would much more difficult to know to whom they should be returning the pettiness.
It's a lot like the original Swoop pilots: everyone knows their names, and their reputations will be remembered for a long time.
Remembering names, retaliation, vilification, personal attacks...in other words mob mentality! Argue for a case based on reason and labour law!
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#39 Post by mbav8r » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:08 pm

cloak wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:05 pm
SPR wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:31 am
The names of any OTS pilots filing a grievance with the CIRB will be publically available, and there likely wouldn't be a substantial number who took such action; every former Encore pilot would know their names. Conversely, there will be hundreds of FOs from Encore, and those OTS pilots might not know who is formerly from Encore and who was OTS, let alone which Encore pilots would be that petty; it would much more difficult to know to whom they should be returning the pettiness.
It's a lot like the original Swoop pilots: everyone knows their names, and their reputations will be remembered for a long time.
Remembering names, retaliation, vilification, personal attacks...in other words mob mentality! Argue for a case based on reason and labour law!
Did you knowingly accept employment under the one list?
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"

cloak
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:08 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#40 Post by cloak » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:37 pm

SPR wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:10 am
cloak wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:56 pm
Jazz is hardly an example to follow. Under the watchful eyes of ALPA no less, it has lowered the standard in piloting profession at least twice in recent times, once when it underbid Skyservice on the B757 flying and drove the final nail in its coffin, all in similar pay to Dash8 flying to make matters even worse, and second when it introduced B scale. And now to start at Jazz not only to be subject to second class status but also discover there are hundreds of pilots ahead that are not even on the property and do not contribute to the same airline? This is hardly worthy of emulation.

It could be argued that barring a true national system where all pilots get credit for service in airline operations and are members of a national organization, any sort of an "agreement" to allow members of other airlines on the seniority list puts current members of the said airline at a disadvantage. Furthermore, to use a simple "rule of majority" to attempt to pass such agreement is a failure of the representing union to discharge its "fiduciary responsibility" to every of its members to protect them and to do them no harm.
I'm not talking about setting standards for WAWCON, I'm talking about legal precedent. The fact is that Jazz, Bearskin, and Wasaya MECs created a system to allow pilots at different companies to hold seniority; that system has been allowed to stand for over a year by ALPA, which establishes a legal precedent.
Let's try to understand this. You are saying that Jazz has allowed unknown number of pilots from Bearskin and Wasaya to have reserved seniority spots on its master list and therefore it is precedent set by ALPA that it can/should/must do the same thing between WestJet and Encore?

I'm not sure if the numbers are even known, but at any rate, what happens at one airline represented by ALPA must not necessarily happen at another. There are many problems with this scheme, especially since there is no material partnership with these outfits and especially again since presumably these individuals automatically move when they wish. Among the many problems is that their hiring practices may not be similar, their cultures and values may not be similar, the expectations are not similar, their spheres of operations are not similar, etc.

Furthermore, it restricts Jazz to attract more experienced pilots as they don't feel rewarded to join the organization behind unknown number of other pilots not even working for and benefiting the same organization. It is clear that by such practices, not to mention its B scale, Jazz is devolving into a much more humble operations with lower expectations for remuneration. Air Canada is clearly saying that if one wishes to make a "high-paying" career in aviation in its group of companies, one can only do so when/if one makes it to Air Canada. This may be partly in response to insubordination it must have felt when Jazz ventured off to gain Thomas Cook B757 flying. While that process culminated effectively in bankrupting Skyservice, it seems it did not bring such good fortunes for Jazz either. This is how it is perceived from an unbiased perspective.

Again, none of these events are something that another group of pilots wants to recreate or emulate. And if one wishes to argue for a case it has to go beyond threats and vilification, and must be founded in reason and expandable to the larger group beyond putting individuals on the spot.
---------- ADS -----------
  

China_CAAC_Exam
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:12 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#41 Post by China_CAAC_Exam » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:23 pm

Precedent in the Bearskin/Wasaya has precious little to do with the contract signed between WJ pilots and their union (Constitution and policies); I wish it could help the Encore pilots. Additionally, until someone forwards a copy of the LOU we can’t very well verify what you maintain is applicable.

As well, the CIRB is not bound by precedent, not even its own, and that is a fact.

Finally, now that a WJ Pilot Seniority List is in existence, any effort to tamper with the seniority rights of OTS pilots, for no valid labour relations purpose, will invite a DFR challenge.

PS, “my brother’s upgrade will be delayed if we don’t do the LOU” is not a valid labour relations purpose.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by China_CAAC_Exam on Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hangry
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:05 am

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#42 Post by Hangry » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:24 pm

SPR wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:07 am
Hangry wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:10 pm
I realize that. Encore pilots will have their seniority begin to accrue when they are on property as a WJ pilot. DOH

Real easy to comprehend. Things will be as they should have been.
I don't care what you think "should have been"; the fact of the matter is that OTS pilots hired since Encore was created knew the terms of the seniority list when they joined the company, and now they want to change the rules to benefit themselves. If they have their way, hundreds of Encore pilots who have flowed will be passed over for upgrades and the consequent pay raises. Those pilots will resent the OTS pilots for the rest of their careers, and will give the new captains no leeway. Expect every tiny, insignificant SOP infraction to be reported; if you're going 251 knots at 9999 feet, that'll be reported; if I'm going to the back to get a cup of coffee and you ask for one too, I'm coming back with only one cup. It's petty, but if you make the bed you'd better expect to lie in it.

Ahh. So you’re a little baby man child. Are all Encore folk the same?
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#43 Post by mbav8r » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:27 pm

cloak wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:37 pm
SPR wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:10 am
cloak wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:56 pm
Jazz is hardly an example to follow. Under the watchful eyes of ALPA no less, it has lowered the standard in piloting profession at least twice in recent times, once when it underbid Skyservice on the B757 flying and drove the final nail in its coffin, all in similar pay to Dash8 flying to make matters even worse, and second when it introduced B scale. And now to start at Jazz not only to be subject to second class status but also discover there are hundreds of pilots ahead that are not even on the property and do not contribute to the same airline? This is hardly worthy of emulation.

It could be argued that barring a true national system where all pilots get credit for service in airline operations and are members of a national organization, any sort of an "agreement" to allow members of other airlines on the seniority list puts current members of the said airline at a disadvantage. Furthermore, to use a simple "rule of majority" to attempt to pass such agreement is a failure of the representing union to discharge its "fiduciary responsibility" to every of its members to protect them and to do them no harm.
I'm not talking about setting standards for WAWCON, I'm talking about legal precedent. The fact is that Jazz, Bearskin, and Wasaya MECs created a system to allow pilots at different companies to hold seniority; that system has been allowed to stand for over a year by ALPA, which establishes a legal precedent.
Let's try to understand this. You are saying that Jazz has allowed unknown number of pilots from Bearskin and Wasaya to have reserved seniority spots on its master list and therefore it is precedent set by ALPA that it can/should/must do the same thing between WestJet and Encore?

I'm not sure if the numbers are even known, but at any rate, what happens at one airline represented by ALPA must not necessarily happen at another. There are many problems with this scheme, especially since there is no material partnership with these outfits and especially again since presumably these individuals automatically move when they wish. Among the many problems is that their hiring practices may not be similar, their cultures and values may not be similar, the expectations are not similar, their spheres of operations are not similar, etc.

Furthermore, it restricts Jazz to attract more experienced pilots as they don't feel rewarded to join the organization behind unknown number of other pilots not even working for and benefiting the same organization. It is clear that by such practices, not to mention its B scale, Jazz is devolving into a much more humble operations with lower expectations for remuneration. Air Canada is clearly saying that if one wishes to make a "high-paying" career in aviation in its group of companies, one can only do so when/if one makes it to Air Canada. This may be partly in response to insubordination it must have felt when Jazz ventured off to gain Thomas Cook B757 flying. While that process culminated effectively in bankrupting Skyservice, it seems it did not bring such good fortunes for Jazz either. This is how it is perceived from an unbiased perspective.

Again, none of these events are something that another group of pilots wants to recreate or emulate. And if one wishes to argue for a case it has to go beyond threats and vilification, and must be founded in reason and expandable to the larger group beyond putting individuals on the spot.
For what it’s worth, you certainly don’t come across as unbiased, your disdain towards Jazz is quite obviously from a perceived slight, perhaps you were at Sky service or have friends who were. The final nail was of their own doing, since Thomas cook obviously felt they couldn’t be trusted to last the last season through. Thomas Cook approached Jazz, but if it makes you feel better to blame the Jazz pilots for accepting industry standard wages, which included Sky Service, go ahead then.
Next, there is no doubt the way the Thomas Cook venture was handled with regards to Air Canada did put a strain on the relationship but make no mistake, the biggest driver behind the diversification of the Express flying was because 98% of the already highly paid regional pilots voted to strike, right from Rovinescus mouth. That being said AC has taken around 800 pilots from Jazz in the last few years, not sure we’re having a problem with pilots who don’t qualify.
Lastly, these pilots don’t come to Jazz at free will, they interview as per normal and if successful they join with a determined seniority number, which according to John, aka China, etc... is not possible under ALPAs constitution.
Now, I’ll ask again, did you join WJ knowingly on the one list? If so, do you feel WJ owes you seniority now because you’re represented by ALPA?
The main reason that one list was basically demanded by WJ pilots was to avoid the whipsaw that a good portion of WJ pilots experienced prior to joining.
The outcome of a successful undoing of this list is very predictable, yet some selfish pilots will forge ahead anyhow.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#44 Post by mbav8r » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:30 pm

China_CAAC_Exam wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:23 pm
Precedent in the Bearskin/Wasaya has precious little to do with the contract signed between WJ pilots and their union (Constitution and policies); I wish it could help the Encore pilots. Additionally, until someone forwards a copy of the LOU we can’t very well verify what you maintain is applicable.

As well, the CIRB is not bound by precedent, not even its own, and that is a fact.

Finally, now that a WJ Pilot Seniority List is in existence, any effort to tamper with the seniority rights of OTS pilots, for no valid labour relations purpose, will invite a DFR challenge.

PS, “my brother’s upgrade will be delayed if we don’t do the LOU” is not a valid labour relations purpose.
Do you always talk out of both sides of your face, you wish you could help the Encore pilots but a few post back encouraging OTS pilots to file a CIRB challenge before it’s too late, man oh man you are rich!
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"

SPR
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#45 Post by SPR » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:22 pm

cloak wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:05 pm
Remembering names, retaliation, vilification, personal attacks...in other words mob mentality! Argue for a case based on reason and labour law!
I have, but you've ignored all of my factual points and focused on the emotional ones. That you completely ignore my actual arguments while demanding more says a lot more about you than the fact that I include emotional points among my logical arguments says about me. Your bias is tangible, and no argument will dissuade you, so you simply avoid them.
---------- ADS -----------
  

SPR
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#46 Post by SPR » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:30 pm

Hangry wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:24 pm
Ahh. So you’re a little baby man child. Are all Encore folk the same?
If someone shits in my mouth, you think I should say "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" If I don't have the ability to shit back in theirs, I'm going to wipe my ass-sweat in their sandwiches every chance I get.
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1108
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#47 Post by goingnowherefast » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:36 pm

China_CAAC_Exam wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:23 pm
Precedent in the Bearskin/Wasaya has precious little to do with the contract signed between WJ pilots and their union (Constitution and policies)
Except that Bearskin/Wasaya are held to the same ALPA constitution and policies as WJ, Jazz, Delta and FedEx, Transat, Mesa, etc.

How did Jazz offer seniority under an LOU to "career pathway pilots" from Bearskin and Wasaya. Surely a pilot who's not on property can not acquire seniority...oh wait, Jazz did that already.
---------- ADS -----------
  

SPR
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#48 Post by SPR » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:43 pm

China_CAAC_Exam wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:23 pm
Precedent in the Bearskin/Wasaya has precious little to do with the contract signed between WJ pilots and their union (Constitution and policies); I wish it could help the Encore pilots. Additionally, until someone forwards a copy of the LOU we can’t very well verify what you maintain is applicable.

As well, the CIRB is not bound by precedent, not even its own, and that is a fact.

Finally, now that a WJ Pilot Seniority List is in existence, any effort to tamper with the seniority rights of OTS pilots, for no valid labour relations purpose, will invite a DFR challenge.

PS, “my brother’s upgrade will be delayed if we don’t do the LOU” is not a valid labour relations purpose.
The CIRB may not adhere to the precedent, but the argument will still be presented by lawyers that the precedent exists. The Board might not accept it, but it's still difficult to ignore precedent, and makes for a stronger argument that the Merger Policy regarding seniority is not the end-all, be-all determining the status of the One List.
Since you didn't answer my question previously, I'm going to press you on this: in your estimation, according to your reasoning, will all DECs at all ALPA airlines be demoted in favour of more senior FOs if you have your way?
---------- ADS -----------
  

SPR
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#49 Post by SPR » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:48 pm

Here's another thought that occurred to me: Mr Kaplan ruled that as of Dec 1, all Swoop pilots will hold positions based on seniority. I'm pretty sure there are some captains at Swoop who moved there directly from Encore, meaning that they joined WestJet after the Swoop OTS pilots. And yet, they have the seniority to bump the OTS captains out of their positions. Doesn't that mean that Mr Kaplan considers seniority at Encore to be equivalent to seniority at WestJet?
---------- ADS -----------
  

MrMerth
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 8:37 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

#50 Post by MrMerth » Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:55 pm

SPR

Bingo!
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “WestJet”