AVCANADA

It is currently Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:56 am

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Air Canada Pilots Forum
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:51 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 2427
You keep taking them down.

I'll keep posting it.

https://acpilotsforum.vbulletin.net/


The new concessionary TA that the company had to threaten us to get is coming. ACPA will be selling it.

Meanwhile our own union has tried to isolate us and shut down open communications, they stop our own pilots from contacting each other about ACPA business.

Even on this forum they get threads pulled.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:42 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am
Posts: 506
I have no dog in this fight however, I'm a little disappointed that avcanada keeps removing these threads for no apparent reason other than bending to the will of ACPA.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:09 am 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm
Posts: 835
Clickable link to The "NEW" AC Pilots Forum:


https://acpilotsforum.vbulletin.net/forum







.



Last edited by Lost in Saigon on Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:48 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 4791
Location: On Borrowed Wings
So it's not all roses and puppy dogs and candy at the mothership!?!? :shock:


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:43 am
Posts: 31
The last 6 pilots I have flown with have chosen to not join the new forum, me too.

[Sarcasm]Well done guys, 1000 pilots down from 2400. That's a way to make sure everyone is informed.... [/sarcasm]



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:35 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:10 am
Posts: 195
Location: A Smokn' Hole
Let me tell you what you are missing...

A bunch of whiney pilots saying they will vote NO on the TA no matter what even before reading it like a bunch kindergarteners...



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:16 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:43 am
Posts: 31
ha ha :lol:

I suspect not only are they saying to vote No...they will all claim that they have never voted yes for any vote in ACPAs history....because if it's up for a vote, it's not good enough.

Very sad that so many people waste their time getting wound up about issues that they barely have any knowledge of.

They will probably also be claiming that ACPA is trying to "sell" a new deal. That's their job, guys.

But it's ok for that crowd to try and tear down any deal because they think they could do better or know better.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:12 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 5:24 pm
Posts: 18
If I can't say anything nice...


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:34 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:15 am
Posts: 240
Location: Near YOW
altiplano wrote:
You keep taking them down.

I'll keep posting it.

https://acpilotsforum.vbulletin.net/


The new concessionary TA that the company had to threaten us to get is coming. ACPA will be selling it.

Meanwhile our own union has tried to isolate us and shut down open communications, they stop our own pilots from contacting each other about ACPA business.

Even on this forum they get threads pulled.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:50 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 2427
First of all, it's sad you have such a low opinion of a colleague who maybe has a different viewpoint. Your lack of respect and willingness to understand you're colleagues' position is perhaps more telling of you.

Why don't you join your colleagues and contribute to the conversation if you have such an intimate understanding of the issues we are facing? Why don't you explain why we should be making concessions when the environment has never been better?

The more we communicate, the more united we are. Despite the difference in opinion we have a lot in common. I'd urge you to look past...



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:01 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:21 pm
Posts: 3
altiplano wrote:
First of all, it's sad you have such a low opinion of a colleague who maybe has a different viewpoint. Your lack of respect and willingness to understand you're colleagues' position is perhaps more telling of you.

Why don't you join your colleagues and contribute to the conversation if you have such an intimate understanding of the issues we are facing? Why don't you explain why we should be making concessions when the environment has never been better?

The more we communicate, the more united we are. Despite the difference in opinion we have a lot in common. I'd urge you to look past...


The environment has never been better?

May I respectfully ask if you are familiar with the terms of your current Collective Agreement, specifically with respect to the re-openers?

My understanding is that Air Canada pilots do not currently have the option of job action (contractually, or 'otherwise' - remember how few followed suit in the instance of a former union chair's illness book-off? That was a turning point - in the wrong direction - from a labor standpoint, anyway)

I don't understand how one might view the current circumstance as an environment conducive to making substantial gains. I believe the already-agreed-upon interest arbitration rules are very restrictive and that relevant comparators (read: Canadian-based carriers) that an arbitrator might look at are quite limited.

I cannot see how, for Air Canada pilots, that their current bargaining environment could be characterized in any positive way. And if you are perhaps suggesting that the profitability of the company or the health of the "pilot economy" (i.e. times of hiring and a potential future shortage on the supply side) are somehow relevant in this particular instance, I believe you are mistaken; that will only get their attention when the long line up of applicants dries up. And regardless, the framework for the re-openers is in place and not changeable, except by mutual agreement of the parties.

The only potential for upside of any substance under the current conditions would be if Air Canada pilots had something that was desirable to the company - something to leverage any possible gains against.

Not a great environment at all.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:53 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:52 pm
Posts: 159
w_tango wrote:
altiplano wrote:
First of all, it's sad you have such a low opinion of a colleague who maybe has a different viewpoint. Your lack of respect and willingness to understand you're colleagues' position is perhaps more telling of you.

Why don't you join your colleagues and contribute to the conversation if you have such an intimate understanding of the issues we are facing? Why don't you explain why we should be making concessions when the environment has never been better?

The more we communicate, the more united we are. Despite the difference in opinion we have a lot in common. I'd urge you to look past...


The environment has never been better?

May I respectfully ask if you are familiar with the terms of your current Collective Agreement, specifically with respect to the re-openers?

My understanding is that Air Canada pilots do not currently have the option of job action (contractually, or 'otherwise' - remember how few followed suit in the instance of a former union chair's illness book-off? That was a turning point - in the wrong direction - from a labor standpoint, anyway)

I don't understand how one might view the current circumstance as an environment conducive to making substantial gains. I believe the already-agreed-upon interest arbitration rules are very restrictive and that relevant comparators (read: Canadian-based carriers) that an arbitrator might look at are quite limited.

I cannot see how, for Air Canada pilots, that their current bargaining environment could be characterized in any positive way. And if you are perhaps suggesting that the profitability of the company or the health of the "pilot economy" (i.e. times of hiring and a potential future shortage on the supply side) are somehow relevant in this particular instance, I believe you are mistaken; that will only get their attention when the long line up of applicants dries up. And regardless, the framework for the re-openers is in place and not changeable, except by mutual agreement of the parties.

The only potential for upside of any substance under the current conditions would be if Air Canada pilots had something that was desirable to the company - something to leverage any possible gains against.

Not a great environment at all.


Actually, AC pilots have something that management desperately wants: Rouge expansion. The question is: why would ACPA give this up for anything less than the elimination of LOU74?

PROC_HDG



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:19 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:10 am
Posts: 195
Location: A Smokn' Hole
Well tomorrow we should hear something official...then the $hitstorm can commence


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:58 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:21 pm
Posts: 3
PROC_HDG wrote:
w_tango wrote:
altiplano wrote:
First of all, it's sad you have such a low opinion of a colleague who maybe has a different viewpoint. Your lack of respect and willingness to understand you're colleagues' position is perhaps more telling of you.

Why don't you join your colleagues and contribute to the conversation if you have such an intimate understanding of the issues we are facing? Why don't you explain why we should be making concessions when the environment has never been better?

The more we communicate, the more united we are. Despite the difference in opinion we have a lot in common. I'd urge you to look past...


The environment has never been better?

May I respectfully ask if you are familiar with the terms of your current Collective Agreement, specifically with respect to the re-openers?

My understanding is that Air Canada pilots do not currently have the option of job action (contractually, or 'otherwise' - remember how few followed suit in the instance of a former union chair's illness book-off? That was a turning point - in the wrong direction - from a labor standpoint, anyway)

I don't understand how one might view the current circumstance as an environment conducive to making substantial gains. I believe the already-agreed-upon interest arbitration rules are very restrictive and that relevant comparators (read: Canadian-based carriers) that an arbitrator might look at are quite limited.

I cannot see how, for Air Canada pilots, that their current bargaining environment could be characterized in any positive way. And if you are perhaps suggesting that the profitability of the company or the health of the "pilot economy" (i.e. times of hiring and a potential future shortage on the supply side) are somehow relevant in this particular instance, I believe you are mistaken; that will only get their attention when the long line up of applicants dries up. And regardless, the framework for the re-openers is in place and not changeable, except by mutual agreement of the parties.

The only potential for upside of any substance under the current conditions would be if Air Canada pilots had something that was desirable to the company - something to leverage any possible gains against.

Not a great environment at all.


Actually, AC pilots have something that management desperately wants: Rouge expansion. The question is: why would ACPA give this up for anything less than the elimination of LOU74?

PROC_HDG


Respectfully, I believe your point/rhetorical question is moot, or at the very least, somewhat confusing. How could ACPA both "trade"/leverage allowing expansion under the Rouge LOU and at the same time achieve the elimination of the Rouge LOU? That makes no sense to me. I would enquire as to whether you meant to write that the company would desire "Rouge expansion under LOU 74".

To further clarify (for the sake of those reading this who may not understand) it appears that the company wants Rouge expansion under the conditions specified in LOU 74. i.e. they wish to raise Rouge's current 50-airplane cap. With the rhetorical scenario as presented by the poster there would be no "trade" necessary - if Air Canada pilots could find a way to compel them to abandon LOU 74, obviously they could make Rouge 500 airframes if they wanted to - and operate them under the current mainline pilot collective agreement.

Having said that however, making LOU 74 go away under the current framework/bargaining environment is nothing more than wishful thinking. Why would the company willingly give up a pilot B-scale in negotiations? They won't. And there are no means/nothing to offer them to compel them to do so, are there? I can well understand that the NC, MEC, and every single last pilot member would prefer one set of wages and working conditions - but in the absence of being able to take some kind of job action or collectively bargain such a change, the current reality seems to be that it is here to stay. And no amount of finger-pointing, residual anger, or personal attacks will change that unfortunate fact.

Again, it's a poor bargaining situation to be in. I believe Air Canada pilots will eventually have a choice to make between holding their noses and allowing Rouge expansion in order to secure gains for the group as a whole, or accepting what interest arbitration may bring. That's a choice that I hope all will invest time and energy in making rather than simply subscribing to groupthink as some have in the past (from either 'camp'); a choice that will likely be largely dependent upon where one sits on the seniority list, and to which pension plan one currently belongs.

Furthermore, I suspect the waters will soon be muddied further when the company suggests that expanding Rouge will be the only means by which to keep the E190's (or something like that) around.

I certainly don't envy the difficult task the hard-working volunteers on the Air Canada pilots NC and MEC have before them.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:18 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:52 pm
Posts: 159
w_tango wrote:
PROC_HDG wrote:
w_tango wrote:

The environment has never been better?

May I respectfully ask if you are familiar with the terms of your current Collective Agreement, specifically with respect to the re-openers?

My understanding is that Air Canada pilots do not currently have the option of job action (contractually, or 'otherwise' - remember how few followed suit in the instance of a former union chair's illness book-off? That was a turning point - in the wrong direction - from a labor standpoint, anyway)

I don't understand how one might view the current circumstance as an environment conducive to making substantial gains. I believe the already-agreed-upon interest arbitration rules are very restrictive and that relevant comparators (read: Canadian-based carriers) that an arbitrator might look at are quite limited.

I cannot see how, for Air Canada pilots, that their current bargaining environment could be characterized in any positive way. And if you are perhaps suggesting that the profitability of the company or the health of the "pilot economy" (i.e. times of hiring and a potential future shortage on the supply side) are somehow relevant in this particular instance, I believe you are mistaken; that will only get their attention when the long line up of applicants dries up. And regardless, the framework for the re-openers is in place and not changeable, except by mutual agreement of the parties.

The only potential for upside of any substance under the current conditions would be if Air Canada pilots had something that was desirable to the company - something to leverage any possible gains against.

Not a great environment at all.


Actually, AC pilots have something that management desperately wants: Rouge expansion. The question is: why would ACPA give this up for anything less than the elimination of LOU74?

PROC_HDG


Respectfully, I believe your point/rhetorical question is moot, or at the very least, somewhat confusing. How could ACPA both "trade"/leverage allowing expansion under the Rouge LOU and at the same time achieve the elimination of the Rouge LOU? That makes no sense to me. I would enquire as to whether you meant to write that the company would desire "Rouge expansion under LOU 74".

To further clarify (for the sake of those reading this who may not understand) it appears that the company wants Rouge expansion under the conditions specified in LOU 74. i.e. they wish to raise Rouge's current 50-airplane cap. With the rhetorical scenario as presented by the poster there would be no "trade" necessary - if Air Canada pilots could find a way to compel them to abandon LOU 74, obviously they could make Rouge 500 airframes if they wanted to - and operate them under the current mainline pilot collective agreement.

Having said that however, making LOU 74 go away under the current framework/bargaining environment is nothing more than wishful thinking. Why would the company willingly give up a pilot B-scale in negotiations? They won't. And there are no means/nothing to offer them to compel them to do so, are there? I can well understand that the NC, MEC, and every single last pilot member would prefer one set of wages and working conditions - but in the absence of being able to take some kind of job action or collectively bargain such a change, the current reality seems to be that it is here to stay. And no amount of finger-pointing, residual anger, or personal attacks will change that unfortunate fact.

Again, it's a poor bargaining situation to be in. I believe Air Canada pilots will eventually have a choice to make between holding their noses and allowing Rouge expansion in order to secure gains for the group as a whole, or accepting what interest arbitration may bring. That's a choice that I hope all will invest time and energy in making rather than simply subscribing to groupthink as some have in the past (from either 'camp'); a choice that will likely be largely dependent upon where one sits on the seniority list, and to which pension plan one currently belongs.

Furthermore, I suspect the waters will soon be muddied further when the company suggests that expanding Rouge will be the only means by which to keep the E190's (or something like that) around.

I certainly don't envy the difficult task the hard-working volunteers on the Air Canada pilots NC and MEC have before them.


It's simple. Walk away from the table until LOU74 is trashed. Take our chances with arbitration. Status quo until the company wants it bad enough. ACPA's own lawyers say there is at least a 50% chance of getting DC pension gains in arbitration, and those are lawyers talking. I don't think there is much to lose by walking away.

It is as though AC mgmt is a used car dealership and ACPA has never bought a car before. Step away from the table until they show up with something worthwhile. We have what they want, which is the keys to Rouge expansion, and here we are about to throw it away over pennies. A TBP pension alternative that won't do much good when career earnings take the hit represented by more Rouge expansion.

PROC_HDG



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:11 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 2427
w_tango:

You are clearly not familiar with our agreement.

I didn't say we should be making big gains.

What we have though is an environment and agreement where we can not be forced into concessions in arbitration and will make gains in the areas defined under the MOA including the DC pension.

I am happy with that.

I don't believe we should make any concessions. Particularly looking at the current conditions of our employer, industry, or peers.

Unfortunately most of our group aren't familiar with our agreement beyond how it affects their day to day life. For some reason our representatives don't want to bring them up to speed.

Many of our new hires are fixed on one improvement and are willing to sell their lifestyles and earnings for what will turn into most of their careers in the best years of their lives. It's unfortunate that their rush for certainty of improvement on one thing - that will come anyway - will drag most of the rest of us down.

Here's a metaphor for you:
They would have been able to eat the best cake, and keep it too, instead they are giving away all the cakes for one that hasn't even been baked yet and won't be as good...

Or a story with a moral, maybe you know it?:
"There were 2 bulls on a hill looking down at a herd of cows. A young bull and an older bull..."

Anyway, if you read the Framework MOA, and the letter from LRD you will see what a grave mistake we are about to make here.

If this is what we do (concessions) when we are guaranteed steady incremental gains, what the @#$! are we going to do when we are in the shit....



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:13 am 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:21 pm
Posts: 3
altiplano wrote:
w_tango:

You are clearly not familiar with our agreement.

I didn't say we should be making big gains.

What we have though is an environment and agreement where we can not be forced into concessions in arbitration and will make gains in the areas defined under the MOA including the DC pension.

I am happy with that.

I don't believe we should make any concessions. Particularly looking at the current conditions of our employer, industry, or peers.

Unfortunately most of our group aren't familiar with our agreement beyond how it affects their day to day life. For some reason our representatives don't want to bring them up to speed.

Many of our new hires are fixed on one improvement and are willing to sell their lifestyles and earnings for what will turn into most of their careers in the best years of their lives. It's unfortunate that their rush for certainty of improvement on one thing - that will come anyway - will drag most of the rest of us down.

Here's a metaphor for you:
They would have been able to eat the best cake, and keep it too, instead they are giving away all the cakes for one that hasn't even been baked yet and won't be as good...

Or a story with a moral, maybe you know it?:
"There were 2 bulls on a hill looking down at a herd of cows. A young bull and an older bull..."

Anyway, if you read the Framework MOA, and the letter from LRD you will see what a grave mistake we are about to make here.

If this is what we do (concessions) when we are guaranteed steady incremental gains, what the @#$! are we going to do when we are in the shit....



Ahh, I see ... thank you for clarifying what you meant by "the environment has never been better". Given a previous post proclaiming that this group should "Maximize Gains!" (no doubt the NC would agree), I assumed the post under discussion meant that Air Canada pilots were somehow in a good bargaining position-- while constrained by a no-strike provision and an historical inability to pressure their employer. My mistake.

If you are satisfied with the conservative safety net that interest-based arbitration currently affords you, that's great. It appears then that those who negotiated the present framework/MOA may have indeed had great foresight, wouldn't you agree? Especially given the intervention by the government of the day in the evolution of the preceding "agreement".

I do find it interesting though that you suggest that your colleagues who may disagree with your position and would possibly prefer bargaining for certain items are generally ill-informed and impatient - I wonder if they would paint those with an opinion similar to yours with a brush of equal broadness? And if they have metaphors of their own that are equally illustrative of what they may possibly consider to be a limited perspective held by those who share your particular strategic vision? I'm sure they must.

Also, for the sake of clarity, although I believe it was a significant achievement at the time to keep Rouge flying in-house in the first place, I personally would find it extremely challenging to support a tentative agreement that allows for any subsequent growth there. Not only in light of the lack of proper augmentation rules, but also in view of my opinion that Low Cost Pilots are not what drives Rouge profitability.
(it would be interesting to know exactly what percentage of CASM is attributable to pilots' wages and working conditions ... maybe some Low Cost Executives, Low Cost Managers, and Low Cost Support Staff are in order as well?)

All the best.



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 2427
I wouldn't say they had great foresight...

"So you think we will do better in 2016?" they would say as they sold this deal.

Apparently we would have as record industry profits, big gains for other pilot groups, and low fuel prices followed.

I think most that voted yes on the 10 year deal feel some regret.

You say you find it interesting that I suggest those that don't understand the way the deal was structured are ill informed, what else would they be?

If you haven't read it, haven't got the LRD take on it, and possibly weren't even here 3 years ago when it was sold... what else can I say. You are ill informed and now you are taking the bait... fixing on 1 improvement and not seeing the rest.

My vision is what it is.
It's the deal that was written 3 years ago.
It was confirmed as that by our own union, our labour lawyers, and even a sector corporate executive at the time. It's in writing.

I am encouraging everyone to join in the discussion on the new Forum. No matter what side you think is right though. If someone has apprehensions or doesn't understand something or wants to air their views they should join.

The more open communication we have, the more solidarity we will have and the better a deal we will get, if not on this one, moving forward. Communication is good.

And if you don't want to read what's going on our hey other insights it's your loss, but I ask you to read the MOA, and have ACPA LRD explain to you what the intention of the explicit gains detailed for DC pension and benefits means. Then ask the NC what they think will happen if we go to arbitration for DC gains instead of making concessions.

If you want the Coles notes though:

LRD will tell you that the way the MOA was structured, it is impossible we will have concessions forced on us in arbitration in any situation short of near bankruptcy. They will also tell you that the big give we made was to give the corporation 10 years of labour stability, with no right to strike. The gain we have is also stability, 2%/yr, but with an express intent that incremental gains will be made in 3 areas. DC pension being the big one.

So even if we don't get it all in 2017, we still have 2020, and 2023.

The NC may not call you back, but if they tell you the truth they will also tell you that concessions in arbitration are highly unlikely, impossible even.

They have already told you in the last newsletter that we have 50/50 shot at TBP in this round of arbitration without selling out and giving on rouge. What they didn't tell you is there is 100% chance of significant gains.

If not TBP definitely higher DC matching from the company, possibly entire DC paid by the company, possibly Hybrid DC/DB like many of our other colleagues have (the comparators in the MOA), possibly SRP (top hat) same as DB guys have on top of a DC.

There are lots of ways improvements could come but it takes the strength to understand the improvements are coming and have faith in the unknown... Understanding the environment that will bring these improvements makes it so hard to watch us being out-maneuvered...

I wish everyone would just take the time to understand the deal.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:33 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:15 am
Posts: 240
Location: Near YOW
Altiplano,

Hear is a strange one for you. I may vote the same as you ... no but for completely opposite reasons. I do not like at all that Rouge is going to mainline vacation rules. My reply to you earlier response dropped the text part and only quoted you. Quite frankly I view our whole seniority system as antiquated. I find it promotes greed and huge sense of self entitlement. I say this knowing I would not have my current position if we didn't have it. I was brought up and preached to the value of fairness and hard work. I believe hard work should be rewarded. I personally believe both mainline and rouge should be socialized bidding for schedule and vacation. I believe if you want to work overtime you should be allowed to and get paid well for it. That it should not just go to the most senior guy, who also works the least days and has weekends off. Our seniority system is way to skewed out of whack!

We like to call ourselves professionals. That would be the same as Dr's, Lawyers, Engineers etc.
If a Dr moves to a new hospital, do you think he takes a 70% pay cut, losses summer vacation for 5 years or more and doesn't get any major holidays off? Lawyer, engineer either?

I understand I took a job at AC with the current system. That doesn't mean I am not allowed to try and change it, or that the current system is right. If I can't change it I will live with the way it is and be happy at work. I do like my job, but myself and many others are campaigning for a major change. I think the young guys with kids at home should be able to have the priority getting Christmas off not the 60 year old guys that have been here for 30 years. (note, this would be of no benefit to me as my kids are long out of the house).

We are on total opposite sides. I respect your position, but it is philosophically against my personal beliefs to follow a seniority is everything system, and that you are wrong for thinking so. I understand and accept you will think I am wrong. I will still have a beer with you, we just should talk about something else :).



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:23 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 2427
Skyhunter,

I hear you!

I think the debate for the exclusive advantages of our seniority system is a valid one. I also agree it goes too far and actually created division among us. I would vote for canned blocks at mainline again if someone would bring it forward... I don't like the hocus-pocus socialised PBS at rouge... too difficult to predict anything that you may get... and PBS swapping with all the inefficient pairings at Mainline is even worse... many guys can't even get what their seniority should offer so what's the point.

I think we need to respect since aspects of seniority, but throwing the bottom guys under the bus to do it is a fallacy.

Most importantly though, you shouldn't have to make a B-scale pay rate to do go fly under our socialized side, or not be afforded the protections of our contract...

CARs duty times, no augment, no dpg/thg, unpaid deadheads, downtown layover protective, no overseas pay, no night pay... what else am I missing...

That is wrong. We are doing the same job.

If you kept the CMSC position apart and equalised the wawcon, while keeping socialized bidding you would see a lot of people vote yes. I would take a hard look at it...

Would you agree equal pay and protections is something we should have? That it would reduce division among us? The division is a huge issue and by growing rouge we are widening the divide, making it more difficult to bring those pay rates back where they should be.

Are you on the forum? Bring your thoughts and ideas. The more people we get, the more communication and ideas we share, the more united we are.



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:40 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:50 pm
Posts: 97
And another one bights the dust. Shame.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:58 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 2427
Unreal.

There was some pretty good discussion going on, particularly on the actual TBP benefits (ie. not best case top earning your entire career scenario) vs. DC improvement possibilities.

I think it got pretty heated the last couple days between a couple members, one in particular was identified as a mole and suspended.

Now this.

Very disappointing to see another venue for member communication lost.

Management must be rubbing their hands together that another one will get by us... I guess I'll go get some koolaid...



Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:21 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 82
..


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 300_hour_wonder, Cheese Tray, PostmasterGeneral and 30 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.