ALPA Petition

[aeronauticaldisaster]

Jalmer's reputation at ALPA is trash.

There is a reason he isn't there anymore.

He is known for being a disconnected old man. Much like the old guard of ACPA

And American pilots currently have him as their financial guy (they just announced a TA by the way, no details yet).

Lol...

And one of the reasons this TA will be voted down

Two of their negotiations members have already resigned

[Ratherbe]

And AA is coming to ALPA as well. I wonder why when they could have the Jalmer

“ not a vote yet. Just a survey for interest to see if the BOD will go forward with a vote for a merger. Still a long ways off.”

[eurotrash]

A lot more than just a survey...committees, websites, newsletters

https://www.aapilots4alpa.info/

[Freshredmeat]

So AA pilots are choosing between Jalmer & ALPA?

Lol...

Anyone want to take bets on how this one will turnout?

[sportingrifle]

Honest question. Is this petition contemplating that the AC pilots join ALPA or ALPA(C)? They are not the same.

[altiplano]

Honest question. Is this petition contemplating that the AC pilots join ALPA or ALPA(C)? They are not the same.

Misinformation.

ALPA is ALPA.

And ACpa will merge and become an ALPA group A airline, the same as Delta, United, Fedex, and we will get a say, proportional to our membership numbers (roll call vote), in ALPA Canada affairs.

[sportingrifle]

It is not misinformation. I am asking a question.

Where can I find (if anywhere yet) an explanation of the relationship between ALPA and ALPA(C) and how AC pilots would function within them?

[negroni]

They are the same. It very much is misinformation. And you and all your YVR buddies know it yet you still keep peddling this fear narrative.

AC pilots would join ALPA. Period. And sit with their own EVP on the board. Group A status.

AC pilots would ALSO be part of ALPA C which is part of ALPA. It is not separate. To have a voice for Canadian specific lobbying/issues etc. Roll call voting (this is new, and good) based on the sizes of the various pilot groups in Canada.

There is no such thing as "joining ALPA C". You join ALPA and then based on where your are from you get placed into a group or if you have 4000+ members and or 10 million in dues you qualify for group A status. We would be part of both.

[sportingrifle]

So where is this laid out and explained?

[Dash.Trash]

So where is this laid out and explained?

https://acpa.ca/Media/ACPA/ACPAUpdates/ ... 100318.pdf


Article XIV, section 5.

Article XXII, section 1.

[sportingrifle]

Thank you.

[FL030]

Emails from ACPA are going out to random signers to verify the petition. I take this as a great sign that ACPA is recognizing it.

[Ratherbe]

I am genuinely curious as to what it is that AC pilots figure ALPA will do for them?

Like ACPA, ALPA is run by the pilots. The folks running ACPA could easily run for the LEC, MEC and be voted in and quite frankly do the same stuff.

What shallow thinking.

Its the structure of ACPA that has been a toxic nightmare for membership unity. There is no fixing anything. The reps are hamstrung with NDA's and coerced into believing they are "airline representatives". Your capitulation = airline success. ENOUGH. Our numbers are determined by Commercial and the CARS. Our conditions and wages are determined by our contract. This is where it should --always-- begin and end. Full stop.

The same commentary is going on now south of the border at ALPA. So all this rhetoric is a waste of bandwidth. ALPA also sends their pilots into the negotiating room signing NDA’s and coming back with MOA’s that don’t meet the expectations of line pilots.

“Are you kidding me? How could any pilot not want the current LEC / MEC, reps recalled, with what they have done. Are we ever going to fight for what we deserve. We need to get rid of any rep who voted against the pilots interests and for this abomination of a TA. There is no going forward without removing these guys and using this opportunity to fight for at least a reasonable contract.” (United pilot on Airline Pilot Central)

There seems to be a misconception that ALPA will take over negotiating and save us from ourselves - not true. The only difference is that ALPA has research support staff on payroll and ACPA hires specialized expertise when required. Pros and cons to each practise. If the MEC thinks that a consultant is offering false information or poor advise then ACPA can quickly look elsewhere. On the other hand, hiring and firing permanent staff can be very problematic. Also, a permanent staff member will be very reluctant to say anything that might upset the MEC or the membership. An independent lawyer or business consultant can be brutally honest with us, after all that’s why we would be paying them. Sometimes bureaucracy is less effective than being lean and mean (and no I’m not pointing out our low dues).

[Ratherbe]

So where is this laid out and explained?

https://acpa.ca/Media/ACPA/ACPAUpdates/ ... 100318.pdf


Article XIV, section 5.

Article XXII, section 1.

That draft wording is outdated in my understanding because “politics” took over the initiative. Politics - the very reason we left CALPA in 1995.

Here’s an update from 2019 found on the ACPA website if you search “ALPA” (MEC Update #13, May 14, 2019):

“ACPA’s Efforts to Re-engage

Over the past few months, your MEC has reached out multiple times to ALPA Canada and ALPA I, to congratulate the newly elected leaders and to seek to re-engage in unity discussions that would see us continue developing a mutually beneficial relationship.

As part of that process, ACPA hosted representatives of the ALPA Canada Board to meet for a frank and open dialogue just ahead of the April MEC meeting in Montreal. We believe this represented important progress in reinforcing our shared values and ACPA’s belief that pilot unity will benefit all pilots. At that time, the MEC asked what specifically was required to lift the pause in merger discussions, and the ALPA representatives were unable to respond with clarity.

In the days after our April MEC meeting -- after more than two years working in earnest to bring about greater pilot unity, and almost six months since ALPA Canada formally requested a halt to the merger process -- ACPA followed up more formally by letter, again asking ALPA Canada to express the specific substance or structure they require in order to re-engage in our unity process.

ACPA representatives recently attended a series of international pilot conferences in Berlin last month, which provided a further opportunity to engage in face-to-face dialogue with members of the ALPA-I and ALPA-C leadership. We strongly believe that, for unity to work, we must always strive to put the pilot profession ahead of politics.

While your MEC is fully engaged on this issue, we are also mindful of the importance of our preparation for bargaining in the 2020 Reopener and the implementation of regulatory changes. We remain committed to representing you effectively in negotiations with the Company and aim to have in the near term a clearer understanding the best path towards unity on behalf of our members.

Throughout this entire process, your MEC is keenly aware that, even as we consider the issue of pilot unity, our duty of representation is to you, our ACPA members.“

[Dash.Trash]

The question was asked about the relationship between ALPA (C) and ALPA-I and how Air Canada pilots would function within them.

Those constitutional changes are what was agreed to at the time. Yes, the process was put on hold for various reasons (politics, Transat), but there are new representatives at ALPA Canada and on the Board of Directors at ALPA. There is no reason we wouldn’t be offered the same deal this time around. And it will be put to the membership to decide if it’s the right move.

[negroni]

So where is this laid out and explained?

https://acpa.ca/Media/ACPA/ACPAUpdates/ ... 100318.pdf


Article XIV, section 5.

Article XXII, section 1.

That draft wording is outdated in my understanding because “politics” took over the initiative. Politics - the very reason we left CALPA in 1995.

Here’s an update from 2019 found on the ACPA website if you search “ALPA” (MEC Update #13, May 14, 2019):

“ACPA’s Efforts to Re-engage

Over the past few months, your MEC has reached out multiple times to ALPA Canada and ALPA I, to congratulate the newly elected leaders and to seek to re-engage in unity discussions that would see us continue developing a mutually beneficial relationship.

As part of that process, ACPA hosted representatives of the ALPA Canada Board to meet for a frank and open dialogue just ahead of the April MEC meeting in Montreal. We believe this represented important progress in reinforcing our shared values and ACPA’s belief that pilot unity will benefit all pilots. At that time, the MEC asked what specifically was required to lift the pause in merger discussions, and the ALPA representatives were unable to respond with clarity.

In the days after our April MEC meeting -- after more than two years working in earnest to bring about greater pilot unity, and almost six months since ALPA Canada formally requested a halt to the merger process -- ACPA followed up more formally by letter, again asking ALPA Canada to express the specific substance or structure they require in order to re-engage in our unity process.

ACPA representatives recently attended a series of international pilot conferences in Berlin last month, which provided a further opportunity to engage in face-to-face dialogue with members of the ALPA-I and ALPA-C leadership. We strongly believe that, for unity to work, we must always strive to put the pilot profession ahead of politics.

While your MEC is fully engaged on this issue, we are also mindful of the importance of our preparation for bargaining in the 2020 Reopener and the implementation of regulatory changes. We remain committed to representing you effectively in negotiations with the Company and aim to have in the near term a clearer understanding the best path towards unity on behalf of our members.

Throughout this entire process, your MEC is keenly aware that, even as we consider the issue of pilot unity, our duty of representation is to you, our ACPA members.“

You're funny

[Ratherbe]

Thanks!

Politics aren’t funny though. Most pilots hate that bs. Just get me a good contract. Enough with the band of brothers crap.

[negroni]

Thanks!

Politics aren’t funny though. Most pilots hate that bs. Just get me a good contract. Enough with the band of brothers crap.

Good luck getting a solid contract WITHOUT the "band of brothers crap." No Cap. (as the kids say)

[Ratherbe]

The question was asked about the relationship between ALPA (C) and ALPA-I and how Air Canada pilots would function within them.

Those constitutional changes are what was agreed to at the time. Yes, the process was put on hold for various reasons (politics, Transat), but there are new representatives at ALPA Canada and on the Board of Directors at ALPA. There is no reason we wouldn’t be offered the same deal this time around. And it will be put to the membership to decide if it’s the right move.

So you admit to spreading false information. Nice.

The discussions between ACPA and ALPA are likely over now. Instead, if the petition is successful, there will be a sales job by the team from the US of A and then a vote. Unless we get a voting seat at the big boys table it’s a hard NO.

[sportingrifle]

At this point it would be very prudent for the Air Canada pilots to very carefully study the events that lead to the exit from CALPA and the subsequent formation of ACPA. Without understanding the history, it wouldn’t be hard to repeat it.

[Ratherbe]

Thanks!

Politics aren’t funny though. Most pilots hate that bs. Just get me a good contract. Enough with the band of brothers crap.

Good luck getting a solid contract WITHOUT the "band of brothers crap." No Cap. (as the kids say)

Sorry the band of brothers expression comes from the CALPA days. It was the misguided belief that pilots looked after each other despite competing interests. AC pilots watched as the Jazz predecessors happily took our flying even during layoffs when mainline pilots were on the street. Then they offered to fly the A319 for Jazz rates, then they flew B757 for Thomas Cook at Jazz rates competing against our mainline vacation flying. Meanwhile, they were suing us for $300 million to solve a problem they created.

We don’t need the Jazz pilots to help us get a contract we deserve. They don’t need us to get the contract they deserve either.

[negroni]

Thanks!

Politics aren’t funny though. Most pilots hate that bs. Just get me a good contract. Enough with the band of brothers crap.

Good luck getting a solid contract WITHOUT the "band of brothers crap." No Cap. (as the kids say)

Sorry the band of brothers expression comes from the CALPA days. It was the misguided belief that pilots looked after each other despite competing interests. AC pilots watched as the Jazz predecessors happily took our flying even during layoffs when mainline pilots were on the street. Then they offered to fly the A319 for Jazz rates, then they flew B757 for Thomas Cook at Jazz rates competing against our mainline vacation flying. Meanwhile, they were suing us for $300 million to solve a problem they created.

We don’t need the Jazz pilots to help us get a contract we deserve. They don’t need us to get the contract they deserve either.

Oh Ok, I mistook that as a slight against trying to build some solidarity amongst the pilot group.

[Dash.Trash]

The question was asked about the relationship between ALPA (C) and ALPA-I and how Air Canada pilots would function within them.

Those constitutional changes are what was agreed to at the time. Yes, the process was put on hold for various reasons (politics, Transat), but there are new representatives at ALPA Canada and on the Board of Directors at ALPA. There is no reason we wouldn’t be offered the same deal this time around. And it will be put to the membership to decide if it’s the right move.

So you admit to spreading false information. Nice.

The discussions between ACPA and ALPA are likely over now. Instead, if the petition is successful, there will be a sales job by the team from the US of A and then a vote. Unless we get a voting seat at the big boys table it’s a hard NO.

No misinformation was spread. The constitutional change is a pretty good idea of what it would likely look like. Once talks restart (and they most definitely will), merger negotiations will take place and the full details will be presented to the membership for them to decide.

And everybody knows that Group A status is a must have item. All I’m saying is it was agreed to in the past, there is no reason to believe they would take that off the table when they know it is essentially our number one go/no-go item for bringing us in.

[Ratherbe]

Nice back pedalling attempt. You provided a misleading answer to an honest question. That says a lot.

I’m pretty sure you know exactly what happened when the merger was put on hold. There were elections within ALPA and ALPAc and the politics changed to the point that the proposed language was off the table.

Now there is a new ALPA President so maybe the politics have changed again. Oh great. We don’t need more politics we need a good contract and solidarity amongst the AC pilots.

[sportingrifle]

So without “spreading mis-information”, what are the implications of “Group A” status? (Not being an ALPA member I am ignorant of their airline “groupings.).” Will Group A status prevent the possibility of all the other ALPA(C) airlines joining together and dictating terms and policies to the detriment of the Air Canada pilots? This was essentially the issue in 1994 with CALPA.