How to get rid of ACPA?

[Daniel Cooper]

Re-evaluate at that time? I'm just trying to see where you're coming from. You're saying we should vote NO now because in 6 months, when it's time to vote again, we might not vote NO then?

[planebored]

Can you say why it doesn't snap back to contract in 6 months when the MOA ends? I haven't seen any of the doomsayers explain that yet.

Air Canada will not have fully recovered by March, they will claim that the Scope LET has been very successful for the Corp, and they will be looking for another MOU. What then?

Well hopefully by then the people running for LEC Chair for P4C will have won, and ousted Mike McKay and rebuilt the negots committee with people who aren't looking out for the company's interests. And people who don't have massive conflict of interest also being on the MEC (like the Negots Chair!)...

[RippleRock]

.

[planebored]

Again vote Scope away for a few buck if you sleep better.

Ripple, Flat payer here- hard to go convey tone, so I wanna make clear I’m not stoking your fire. But help me see it the way you do - Spell it out for me.

My understanding of MOU2 is that the scope/JV lets are for 6 months, after that we go back to the 10 yr plan or work out a new MOU. With the demand as low as it is, I see this scope/JV point as using the right aircraft for the trip, and if that means consolidating and putting our pax on another airline, so be it. Do we really need WBs going across with 70 pax?

What am I missing?

It isn't the pilots job to allocate aircraft and seating. It is our job to protect the career for those coming behind us.

The 10 year framework is our best protection right now. Scope lets are very dangerous, especially so with the acquisition of TransAt on our horizon. After the purchase, there would be nothing stopping TransAt from spooling up to 100% and fly AC code while we sit watch. Remember our last big failing when Sky Regional was created with a "poorly worded pole", and tore a huge hole in us.

This will be a Scope LET VOTE, meaning we would be actively "saying yes" to Scope deviations. Scope is the very foundation on which this career is based. That is a "no-go zone". We MUST draw a line in the sand. These are very dangerous times, and dangerous precedents can be set. We have to choose which road we go down.

ACPA should have NEVER allowed this MOA to be proposed, especially with an active Scope grievance. That means the Corp isn't playing by the rules now. Will they in March?

Preach

[planebored]

And if anyone says "well it was already in MOA1" don't forget WE didn't vote for it. The MEC did.

By voting YES on this MOA you're basically giving a big thumbs up to the MEC for MOA1.

Kinda like how we fucked ourselves by voting in the 10 year contract which made us lose our ability to fight FOS in court.

[planebored]

I wonder if the Negots Chair (Who is also the YWG LEC Chair) recused himself from the MEC vote to support or not support this MOA?

My guess is he was a BIG yes vote and did everything he could to convince everyone else to do the same.

Voting should be recorded. I want to know who voted for what and why.

[indieadventurer]

I don't work at AC, but I'll say this, your SCOPE should never ever be on the table. "period, end of story" as the saying goes.

The cat is let out of the proverbial bag if you do this and even if the MOA states scope and conditions snap back to contract at the end of the MOA, it's too late, that precedent has been set and it's like telling the cat to get back in the bag 6 months from now. Do cats listen?!

Keep the cat in the bag.

[hithere]

For the uninformed... the scope “let” you are referring to is what exactly?

[rxl]

We left CALPA because the “tail was wagging the dog,” the union was in financial distress, and that they had pursued a labour relations experiment (industrial merger) that went horribly wrong. I see a real risk of a retreat to CALPA.

We could expect the c-ALPA Board to pressure our MEC to hand over our work to the regionals. In 1993, when the 243 junior AC pilots got laid off, our “brothers” flying dash 8’s we’re getting promoted. Reluctantly, they allowed us to come over and fly as their FO’s. Now we have a strong scope clause that has the potential to shut them down. ACPA fought for that scope language and gave up pay to get it.

By your reasoning, I guess you could therefore expect the ALPA Canada Board to pressure your MEC to hand your work over to WestJet or Encore or Perimeter/Bearskin or any of the other ALPA Canada pilot groups as well. Does this sound reasonable to anyone? Dreamt up misleading bull sh!t like this does not help when your group is contemplating an important decision.

A little context -
Interesting to note that IF the “labour relations experiment (industrial merger) that went horribly wrong” had been completed as contemplated by CALPA merger policy, the 243 most junior pilots system wide who were carrying out Air Canada’s business at the time would have been laid off. The majority would have been “regional” pilots. Your unfortunate “mainline” colleagues who were laid off out of system seniority would have kept their jobs and had the ability to bump into positions based on seniority.

This is all water that has long since passed under the bridge and there were plenty of mistakes made during this time period by all parties involved.
I only hope that the new guard learns from them.

[planebored]

Tons of ALPA fear mongering within the junior group as well.

So many people are just very very uninformed and listen to the bullshit spewed by guys like Ratherbe and take it as gospel.

[BTD]

You may not agree with RippleRock, but consider what he is saying closely. When the company continues to go above and beyond that scope provision after the end of MOA 2 and it is grieved and taken to arbitration (scope is already being violated Right now) you have shot yourself in the foot when making an argument against it. Much easier for an arbitrator to see the companies side or award a lesser award if the pilot group has already agreed to it once. Precedent is huge.

Tread carefully.

['97 Tercel]

Might it never go back to the main contract?

Maybe there will just be a string of MOU's lashed together for the next 3 or something years of "industry recovery" and "unprecedented times".

[thrust set]

So we get an increase from 55 to 63 hours as a minimum per month. The fixed rate pilots are paid 75 hours and rightly so, we left them to eat “click ham” for the last six months. I’m almost leaning towards yes just for these guys/gals. No more than the 600 pilots on the street and rescinding the 87 that were to be gone Oct 1/20. For this MOA the Rouge pilots are subject to Mainline wages and working conditions. So one can also argue that a precedent has been set and continue as is and roll it into the mainline once the market returns.

The language in both MOA’s are identical and it does not provide the company any relief with the respect to the CPA flying. But I will say I’m going to be on the webinar on Monday and listen to the exact explanation regarding the code sharing and joint venture.
Bottom line we need to get informed, stay engaged and avoid the “chicken little “ syndrome that certain forum members are pushing.

TS

[planebored]

If it's voted down they'll get 75 too...

[Tail-Chaser]

If it's voted down they'll get 75 too...

True, but there will be 194 more pilots on the street that otherwise would've been protected with full pay for 6 months.

[hithere]

“The language in both MOA’s are identical and it does not provide the company any relief with the respect to the CPA flying”

Ok so what is the scope let that RippleRock is talking about?

[BTD]

The difference is the pilot group agreeing to the scope let this time. When the company continues to violate it at the end of the six months it becomes much harder to argue against in arbitration when you have validated the precedent. It bears further scrutiny.

[hithere]

Which part of ACPA’s scope clause on the CPA carriers is being compromised with this MOA?

[tailgunner]

BTD et al,
I’m not sure from a legal sense that it really matters whether a contract, provision, or revision is accepted by the MEC iris voted on by the membership. In a legal sense, it is moot. We could have played Rock Paper Scissors, Bocce, held a vote, acclaimed it, or just had our MEC sign it, it doesn’t matter. It won’t matter one iota to an arbitrator In the future. The company will argue that al”the majority of the pilots accept this” and ACPA will argue that “ this was essentially under duress, with looming financial hardship”, I sense the arbitration will lean towards ACPA.
In summation, I believe that the MOA 1 already has JV revisions. This MOA2 merely codifies it. An future arbitration will not view HOW an agreement was reached, nor the acceptance of revisions. We are in unprecedented times.
Cheers

[Daniel Cooper]

Well said tailgunner.

If people are so concerned about some "genie out of the bottle" situation that can't be put back in with the end of the MOAs, well it already got let out 6 months ago anyways.

[teacher]

Do you all remember in the last reopener when the sky is falling people were screaming that Air Canada would “double Rouge overnight” if we voted yes?

COVID aside, that never happened, of course.

Ignore both extreme opinions and use your head and a little common sense.

[hithere]

Teacher,
Perhaps you can help me: Which part of ACPA’s scope clause on the CPA carriers is being compromised with this MOA?

[Dry Guy]

Scope isn't changed in this MOA. What we are witnessing is a form of hysteria.

[hithere]

Just as I thought

[DBC]

Well said tailgunner.

If people are so concerned about some "genie out of the bottle" situation that can't be put back in with the end of the MOAs, well it already got let out 6 months ago anyways.

Arbitrators can view a member ratified choice differently. It's the reason that we lost all hope of fighting FOS, when we chose to ratify those losses before the court case went through. I'm not saying they would, but I am extremely leery of any let on scope no matter how small. In my eyes, the real risk is if this isn't a short lived pandemic and we end up in CCAA with this voluntary precedent set.