Wear your goddamn lanyard!

[dillpickle]

It absolutely is pilot led. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

[RippleRock]

The MEC flushed the ex VP Flights Ops ACPA CEO. How we had the guy who locked out our pilots during the 1998 strike running the ACPA asylum is beyond me. Regardless, that turd was flushed. All leaders of ALPA are active pilots. Pilot led, staff supported. Not ex Manager led, shill supported

I fully agree with most of what you wrote, certainly the RG part.

The point I was trying to make above is that your post misses one huge component which was NOT flushed. There remains a very significant influence related to the direction of these negotiations, an influence fully imported from the debacle that was ACPA.

Its not pilot led, its the exact opposite.

For me, that is a huge concern.

I had the same concerns, so I went to some very smart individuals I trust 100% who are not currently union commitee members, but were once. They told me without hesitation that the individuals you're referring to will have "little impact on the outcome". They take their marching orders directly from the MEC, and they aren't putting up with any crap. I doubt they will bring anything to the Membership that is significantly "substandard". Those of us including the MEC Chair, who wears her "World Class Contract" lanyard proudly would end up looking profoundly stupid.



I will vote NO to anything that comes across the table. They can ALWAYS do better. MAKE IT BETTER. This will be the new "standard" that we will all live with for the next decade or three. Make it F'ING GOOD or send it back. Nothing left on the table. Not one thing.

Just like buying a house or a car, you NEVER accept the first deal that's slid across the table. Never. If it comes to a strike. Bring it on. The net outcome will be worth every single day you and I are out. No one should doubt the value of walking.

HOLD THE LINE

[rookiepilot]

I support you guys getting whatever you can. I would.

There might be a secular shortage of pilots, but the world is changing fast out there in the economy.

Get er done, my advice.

[Army of one]

Not everyone here is a kid. You realize you have a ton of colleagues in their late 30s and early 40s right? Like full grown adults with families and children?

This type of attitude is why so many of us can’t stand half of you older pilots. Disconnected from reality and sold away our futures for your pension. And continue to defend it. That’s great you “voted no” … funny how everyone says that but somehow things still passed. It’s only now we’re starting to pick up the pieces.

I bet having a woman who’s been here like 5 years as our MEC chair really drives you nuts, eh?

Ha, dude you crack me up. For real, you're funny. I appreciate you trying, but I was here for the best years of ACPA. Going forward I won't need any history lessons from you. I know it personally, all too well, I lived that embarrassing destructive and frustrating experience since its inception.

Ah ya, I do actually realize everyone at ALPA is not 59, or 65. And yes, I do realize many are like full grown adults with families, your observation. Very astute on your part though.

Stand or can't stand whoever you like. I could care less. Facts set out it would have been impossible for just the older pilots passing not only the shit WAWCON of the past 30 years, but worse, regularly voted in the people that perpetuated that. When a CA passes by nearly 80% (even 55%) then it's a problem far more invasive than one demographic. Sorry if facts make you feel sad or mad.

I have never voted YES to any contract the entire time Ive been here. I was also one of a very few voting NO to the damaging Constitution amendments which helped to build the walls around ACPA, and then shamelessly protected those within. Interestingly, they were the absolute worst attended votes, many times around 10 - 12% (if my memory serves me) of total members even participating. I also actively voted to remove as many of the members which brought us those shit sandwiches and was a vocal public proponent against the direction, and persons.

I find most of your post just thoughtless keyboard vomit, and lame, but I do agree that most people voted YES, supporting where we found ourselves. Again, Im sorry if it makes you sad, or mad, but I assure you it was not me. I was always outvoted by you young guys, and the old guys too and, most in between - the numbers, they don't lie Einstein. I sucked it up, that's democracy right?

Finally, wrong again. Im ecstatic regarding Charlene, not because she identifies in any gender and/or seniority, I could care less. Im ecstatic in fact, cautiously optimistic, I find her intelligent, well spoken, focused.

You, Im still undecided about.

[Army of one]

It absolutely is pilot led. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

You don't even know what Im talking about.

Now go blow your nose.

[accountant]

And you all thought I was the troll. Even your own pilots disagree with each other

[Fanblade]

The point I was trying to make above is that your post misses one huge component which was NOT flushed. There remains a very significant influence related to the direction of these negotiations, an influence fully imported from the debacle that was ACPA.

Its not pilot led, its the exact opposite.

Aof1,

The structure and governance within ACPA was fundamentally flawed. Repeatedly single individuals had an outsized impact on negotiations. It is why MS and OB, from the very beginning of our current chairs term, wanted to know who they were negotiating with. They didn’t mean which group P4C/ ACPA/ALPA. They meant which individual. Past practice for them was convincing one or two people is all it took to drive a deal.

That is not how successful negotiations work. The negotiating team are like players, not the football coach. The players execute the coaches instructions but they do not call the plays. They don’t decide when to kick. If the QB starts making calls on their own they get pulled.

In this case the coach isn’t even autonomous. The coach is a committee of 10.

The exact same thing is happening on the other side of the table. The company individuals are all working on mandates and instructions. The CEO and BOD are the coach calling the plays.

Done properly, no single individual can ever influence the negotiations.

Just think of how ACPA went terribly wrong on this front.

- TA1- The NC operating outside of a full MEC mandate. There should have been consequences. There weren’t
- MOA - signed before MEC had a chance to vote on it. Should have been consequences. There weren’t.
- FOS - The MEC handing control to the NC. No MEC oversight.
- Cargo. Negotiated by a few individuals circumventing the NC
- Failed MOA. No instructions from the MEC. Just go see what they want and let the pilots decide.

[Army of one]

And you all thought I was the troll. Even your own pilots disagree with each other

I don't find it hilarious. More like just a dumb comment, and intentional on your part.

We have over 5500 pilots at Air Canada. It's ridiculous to expect all members will agree on all matters, most especially, given to the historical dysfunction and pilot destruction, known as ACPA. There will be some growing pains, but we are finally on a positive course. Stand by for great things..

As for pickle, well, the content of his/her/them/they post(s) kinda speaks for themselves.

And you, you are a troll. You are not stupid, seems to me you are here eliciting reactions. Sometimes you make a valid point, not often in my opinion, but on occasion.

But you're still a troll. Troll away.

[Army of one]

Aof1,

The structure and governance within ACPA was fundamentally flawed. Repeatedly single individuals had an outsized impact on negotiations. It is why MS and OB, from the very beginning of our current chairs term, wanted to know who they were negotiating with. They didn’t mean which group P4C/ ACPA/ALPA. They meant which individual. Past practice for them was convincing one or two people is all it took to drive a deal.

That is not how successful negotiations work. The negotiating team are like players, not the football coach. The players execute the coaches instructions but they do not call the plays. They don’t decide when to kick. If the QB starts making calls on their own they get pulled.

In this case the coach isn’t even autonomous. The coach is a committee of 10.

The exact same thing is happening on the other side of the table. The company individuals are all working on mandates and instructions. The CEO and BOD are the coach calling the plays.

Done properly, no single individual can ever influence the negotiations.

Just think of how ACPA went terribly wrong on this front.

- TA1- The NC operating outside of a full MEC mandate. There should have been consequences. There weren’t
- MOA - signed before MEC had a chance to vote on it. Should have been consequences. There weren’t.
- FOS - The MEC handing control to the NC. No MEC oversight.
- Cargo. Negotiated by a few individuals circumventing the NC
- Failed MOA. No instructions from the MEC. Just go see what they want.

FB, dude we are FULLY on the same page. We lived it together. I was the ANTI ACPA, you and I were/are on the same team. It still disgusts me and angers me that since inception members like you and I and RippleRock had no way out of the asylum. We were trapped, and the majority of ACPA members seemed ok with that when it came time to vote.

No, they can't, you are correct. But, and this I'm important; There is one group, a group that walked over from ACPA, intact and unscathed, and who had a huge negative influence on EVERYTHING related to ACPA.

Im not sure how that will fit in under the ALPA Constitution. While not stated directly, it was alluded to above.

I don't know, I have been meaning to make some calls on it. Maybe it's time.

Better days ahead, brothers/sisters. Support your MEC its in all our best interests.

[Army of one]

Deleted. Duplicate of the above post.

[Dash.Trash]

I will vote NO to anything that comes across the table. They can ALWAYS do better. MAKE IT BETTER. This will be the new "standard" that we will all live with for the next decade or three. Make it F'ING GOOD or send it back. Nothing left on the table. Not one thing.

Just like buying a house or a car, you NEVER accept the first deal that's slid across the table. Never. If it comes to a strike. Bring it on. The net outcome will be worth every single day you and I are out. No one should doubt the value of walking.

HOLD THE LINE

I generally agree with most of what you write, but this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how negotiations work.

The offer presented to the membership is not the “first offer.” It is the result of months of back and forths, offers and counteroffers. The MEC has on numerous occasions stated they will not bring us an offer that polling indicates will pass by 51%. They will use surveys, data and polling and only bring a deal that will pass by a significant margin.

Voting no just for the sake of continuing your no vote streak is short-sighted. If the deal has everything you personally asked for in your surveys, you would still vote no? Doesn’t make any sense, they got you what you asked for.

There also CAN be (not always) serious repercussions (government/cirb intervention) to voting down a deal that was supposed to be negotiated in good faith. That’s not to spread fear; if for some reason the deal really is inadequate, vote it down. But if it meets the majority of your expectations, it makes zero sense to vote no “because I’ve always voted no and it’s the first offer.” It’s not.

[RippleRock]

I will vote NO to anything that comes across the table. They can ALWAYS do better. MAKE IT BETTER. This will be the new "standard" that we will all live with for the next decade or three. Make it F'ING GOOD or send it back. Nothing left on the table. Not one thing.

Just like buying a house or a car, you NEVER accept the first deal that's slid across the table. Never. If it comes to a strike. Bring it on. The net outcome will be worth every single day you and I are out. No one should doubt the value of walking.

HOLD THE LINE

I generally agree with most of what you write, but this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how negotiations work.

The offer presented to the membership is not the “first offer.” It is the result of months of back and forths, offers and counteroffers. The MEC has on numerous occasions stated they will not bring us an offer that polling indicates will pass by 51%. They will use surveys, data and polling and only bring a deal that will pass by a significant margin.

Voting no just for the sake of continuing your no vote streak is short-sighted. If the deal has everything you personally asked for in your surveys, you would still vote no? Doesn’t make any sense, they got you what you asked for.

There also CAN be (not always) serious repercussions (government/cirb intervention) to voting down a deal that was supposed to be negotiated in good faith. That’s not to spread fear; if for some reason the deal really is inadequate, vote it down. But if it meets the majority of your expectations, it makes zero sense to vote no “because I’ve always voted no and it’s the first offer.” It’s not.

Call it shortsighted if you like. I'm triggered to vote no as anything that has ever been presented to us in the past could have benefitted from a solid NO vote, at least ONCE. If you fear external forces acting on good faith bargaining, then we have little hope. As employees, we have rights that include bargaining a new collective agreement with our employer without external pressure.

I'm sick of the "yes crowd". They have brought us nothing but pain.

[Dash.Trash]

I will vote NO to anything that comes across the table. They can ALWAYS do better. MAKE IT BETTER. This will be the new "standard" that we will all live with for the next decade or three. Make it F'ING GOOD or send it back. Nothing left on the table. Not one thing.

Just like buying a house or a car, you NEVER accept the first deal that's slid across the table. Never. If it comes to a strike. Bring it on. The net outcome will be worth every single day you and I are out. No one should doubt the value of walking.

HOLD THE LINE

I generally agree with most of what you write, but this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how negotiations work.

The offer presented to the membership is not the “first offer.” It is the result of months of back and forths, offers and counteroffers. The MEC has on numerous occasions stated they will not bring us an offer that polling indicates will pass by 51%. They will use surveys, data and polling and only bring a deal that will pass by a significant margin.

Voting no just for the sake of continuing your no vote streak is short-sighted. If the deal has everything you personally asked for in your surveys, you would still vote no? Doesn’t make any sense, they got you what you asked for.

There also CAN be (not always) serious repercussions (government/cirb intervention) to voting down a deal that was supposed to be negotiated in good faith. That’s not to spread fear; if for some reason the deal really is inadequate, vote it down. But if it meets the majority of your expectations, it makes zero sense to vote no “because I’ve always voted no and it’s the first offer.” It’s not.

Call it shortsighted if you like. I'm triggered to vote no as anything that has ever been presented to us in the past could have benefitted from a solid NO vote, at least ONCE. If you fear external forces acting on good faith bargaining, then we have little hope. As employees, we have rights that include bargaining a new collective agreement with our employer without external pressure.

I'm sick of the "yes crowd". They have brought us nothing but pain.

You’re not wrong. It is important to remember that we’ve undergone a massive cultural and demographic shift since the last time we were in open bargaining. Yes, there are still a small contingent of “yes crowd” still kicking around and spewing old ACPA rhetoric and negativity. But understand they are the extreme minority now. The overwhelming majority expects significant gains, and that goes back to my original point of the MEC not bringing us a 50% + 1 deal.

And yes we have the right to bargain with our employer without external pressure, I don’t question that. It’s once you reach a TA “in good faith” and subsequently reject it. You CAN be opened up to external pressures, not that it always happens though. Call up your reps if you want to fact check that. But vote on the contents of the deal and how close it comes to what your expectations were, not to keep some track record of voting no and that it’s just the first offer.

[dillpickle]

Not everyone here is a kid. You realize you have a ton of colleagues in their late 30s and early 40s right? Like full grown adults with families and children?

This type of attitude is why so many of us can’t stand half of you older pilots. Disconnected from reality and sold away our futures for your pension. And continue to defend it. That’s great you “voted no” … funny how everyone says that but somehow things still passed. It’s only now we’re starting to pick up the pieces.

I bet having a woman who’s been here like 5 years as our MEC chair really drives you nuts, eh?

Ha, dude you crack me up. For real, you're funny. I appreciate you trying, but I was here for the best years of ACPA. Going forward I won't need any history lessons from you. I know it personally, all too well, I lived that embarrassing destructive and frustrating experience since its inception.

Ah ya, I do actually realize everyone at ALPA is not 59, or 65. And yes, I do realize many are like full grown adults with families, your observation. Very astute on your part though.

Stand or can't stand whoever you like. I could care less. Facts set out it would have been impossible for just the older pilots passing not only the shit WAWCON of the past 30 years, but worse, regularly voted in the people that perpetuated that. When a CA passes by nearly 80% (even 55%) then it's a problem far more invasive than one demographic. Sorry if facts make you feel sad or mad.

I have never voted YES to any contract the entire time Ive been here. I was also one of a very few voting NO to the damaging Constitution amendments which helped to build the walls around ACPA, and then shamelessly protected those within. Interestingly, they were the absolute worst attended votes, many times around 10 - 12% (if my memory serves me) of total members even participating. I also actively voted to remove as many of the members which brought us those shit sandwiches and was a vocal public proponent against the direction, and persons.

I find most of your post just thoughtless keyboard vomit, and lame, but I do agree that most people voted YES, supporting where we found ourselves. Again, Im sorry if it makes you sad, or mad, but I assure you it was not me. I was always outvoted by you young guys, and the old guys too and, most in between - the numbers, they don't lie Einstein. I sucked it up, that's democracy right?

Finally, wrong again. Im ecstatic regarding Charlene, not because she identifies in any gender and/or seniority, I could care less. Im ecstatic in fact, cautiously optimistic, I find her intelligent, well spoken, focused.

You, Im still undecided about.

Sounds like you and I agree.

[dillpickle]

It absolutely is pilot led. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

You don't even know what Im talking about.

Now go blow your nose.

Yeah you’re talking about LRD. I’m more educated and informed than you likely realize.

[dillpickle]

The point I was trying to make above is that your post misses one huge component which was NOT flushed. There remains a very significant influence related to the direction of these negotiations, an influence fully imported from the debacle that was ACPA.

Its not pilot led, its the exact opposite.

Aof1,

The structure and governance within ACPA was fundamentally flawed. Repeatedly single individuals had an outsized impact on negotiations. It is why MS and OB, from the very beginning of our current chairs term, wanted to know who they were negotiating with. They didn’t mean which group P4C/ ACPA/ALPA. They meant which individual. Past practice for them was convincing one or two people is all it took to drive a deal.

That is not how successful negotiations work. The negotiating team are like players, not the football coach. The players execute the coaches instructions but they do not call the plays. They don’t decide when to kick. If the QB starts making calls on their own they get pulled.

In this case the coach isn’t even autonomous. The coach is a committee of 10.

The exact same thing is happening on the other side of the table. The company individuals are all working on mandates and instructions. The CEO and BOD are the coach calling the plays.

Done properly, no single individual can ever influence the negotiations.

Just think of how ACPA went terribly wrong on this front.

- TA1- The NC operating outside of a full MEC mandate. There should have been consequences. There weren’t
- MOA - signed before MEC had a chance to vote on it. Should have been consequences. There weren’t.
- FOS - The MEC handing control to the NC. No MEC oversight.
- Cargo. Negotiated by a few individuals circumventing the NC
- Failed MOA. No instructions from the MEC. Just go see what they want and let the pilots decide.

[Army of one]

Sounds like you and I agree.

If that's an olive branch then ok, I accept it.

If not then perhaps I pounced on you a little prematurely, and I offer an olive branch.

We all need to stay keenly focused on our common enemy, all rowing with the same oar.

You're back in my good books.

Send the right message. Vote NO.

[Army of one]

I hope Im mistaken. Really I hope I am. I am FULLY supporting the MEC, I just hope this time it is different.

Thanks for supporting the MEC Aof1.

I totally get the apprehension caused by the past. Wary as a result is natural. Keeping the MEC accountable is required. Questioning required. It’s all part of an engaged group.

Are you sure the part you feel is the “same,” is simply the labour bargaining process? Because it is the same and will always be that way. It’s how we navigate that process between start and finish that will be different. The end result, threat of work stoppage, will be the same.

One of the problems in 1998 was the company didn’t believe we would really strike. Highlighting the importance of making sure the company is unequivocally aware we are willing. Deterrence. That is one of the purposes of informational picketing. The others are unity and a public warning.

I don’t recall any informational pickets from 1998 or 2012 of the magnitude and organization we see today. Yes there were small groups that showed up at a shareholder meeting. But they were easily taken as the vocal minority and ignored. Remember that hated term? It’s hard to ignore the groups showing up at today’s pickets.

Today we are not weak. Today we are more than willing to “make them”. And if we haven’t figured it out by now. We will get nothing until we are willing and able to “make them”

Heh Fanblade

I honestly DO feel hopeful this time around. As you say, we have a dirty pathetic history, but it's in the rear view mirror. The collapse of ACPA is right up there with the top three professional events of my long career here at AC.

The picket was impressive, they were all impressive. I like this MEC, they elected a great Chair, she seems like a controlled mobster.

Im concerned about LRD, I'll be honest. I don't get that.

I enjoy your perspective, keep contributing please.

Ill see you out on the line.

Send the right message. Lets take our power back, Ill be voting NO, again.

[dillpickle]

Sounds like you and I agree.

If that's an olive branch then ok, I accept it.

If not then perhaps I pounced on you a little prematurely, and I offer an olive branch.

We all need to stay keenly focused on our common enemy, all rowing with the same oar.

You're back in my good books.

Send the right message. Vote NO.

On that note. MEC email hot off the press.


It really baffles me how short sighted these executives are. This Labour VP guy…. making threats. Phenomenal move.

[Army of one]

Call it shortsighted if you like. I'm triggered to vote no as anything that has ever been presented to us in the past could have benefitted from a solid NO vote, at least ONCE. If you fear external forces acting on good faith bargaining, then we have little hope. As employees, we have rights that include bargaining a new collective agreement with our employer without external pressure.

I'm sick of the "yes crowd". They have brought us nothing but pain.

A full throated +1.

Ill be voting no as well, regardless.

[Dash.Trash]

Call it shortsighted if you like. I'm triggered to vote no as anything that has ever been presented to us in the past could have benefitted from a solid NO vote, at least ONCE. If you fear external forces acting on good faith bargaining, then we have little hope. As employees, we have rights that include bargaining a new collective agreement with our employer without external pressure.

I'm sick of the "yes crowd". They have brought us nothing but pain.

A full throated +1.

Ill be voting no as well, regardless.

You can’t say “I like this MEC, I trust them” in one breath and then say “I’m automatically voting no” in the next. By doing so, you are saying they are going to bring us a shitty deal, therefore you don’t actually trust them.

Like I told Ripple, if you vote no automatically to keep your streak going, you’re a fool. If you’re voting no, you don’t trust the MEC, something has gone horribly wrong and they’ve brought us a bad deal. Recalls to follow, etc. etc. If you vote no, do it because you truly believe it is a bad deal, not for some ideological purpose.

You should want them to succeed, want them to hold the line to bring us a deal that you can confidently and proudly vote yes on, whether that comes with labour action or without it.

[GeoffPilot]

Pretty clear message from our tenacious MEC Chair...

WEAR YOUR WORLD CLASS CONTRACT LANYARD

Shills are now easily identifiable

[RippleRock]

Call it shortsighted if you like. I'm triggered to vote no as anything that has ever been presented to us in the past could have benefitted from a solid NO vote, at least ONCE. If you fear external forces acting on good faith bargaining, then we have little hope. As employees, we have rights that include bargaining a new collective agreement with our employer without external pressure.

I'm sick of the "yes crowd". They have brought us nothing but pain.

A full throated +1.

Ill be voting no as well, regardless.

You can’t say “I like this MEC, I trust them” in one breath and then say “I’m automatically voting no” in the next. By doing so, you are saying they are going to bring us a shitty deal, therefore you don’t actually trust them.

Like I told Ripple, if you vote no automatically to keep your streak going, you’re a fool. If you’re voting no, you don’t trust the MEC, something has gone horribly wrong and they’ve brought us a bad deal. Recalls to follow, etc. etc. If you vote no, do it because you truly believe it is a bad deal, not for some ideological purpose.

You should want them to succeed, want them to hold the line to bring us a deal that you can confidently and proudly vote yes on, whether that comes with labour action or without it.

I'll tell you what Dash. I will vote "yes" if it is clearly a "World Class Contract".

If they fall short, which means comparable -directly- to our US counterparts on EVERY important metric, the lanyard and bag tags will have been a "joke on us". World Class is an achievable, but bold goal.

If it truly is world class, I'm in with a YES....... on the other hand if I, or we as a collective, vote yes to anything less than "World Class" we'd be hypocrites, wouldn't we. That's not a question.

I'm happy to wear the red Lanyard, but I implore the rest of you to not make me look stupid come voting time.

[Dash.Trash]

A full throated +1.

Ill be voting no as well, regardless.

You can’t say “I like this MEC, I trust them” in one breath and then say “I’m automatically voting no” in the next. By doing so, you are saying they are going to bring us a shitty deal, therefore you don’t actually trust them.

Like I told Ripple, if you vote no automatically to keep your streak going, you’re a fool. If you’re voting no, you don’t trust the MEC, something has gone horribly wrong and they’ve brought us a bad deal. Recalls to follow, etc. etc. If you vote no, do it because you truly believe it is a bad deal, not for some ideological purpose.

You should want them to succeed, want them to hold the line to bring us a deal that you can confidently and proudly vote yes on, whether that comes with labour action or without it.

I'll tell you what Dash. I will vote "yes" if it is clearly a "World Class Contract".

If they fall short, which means comparable -directly- to our US counterparts on EVERY important metric, the lanyard and bag tags will have been a "joke on us". World Class is an achievable, but bold goal.

If it truly is world class, I'm in with a YES....... on the other hand if I, or we as a collective, vote yes to anything less than "World Class" we'd be hypocrites, wouldn't we. That's not a question.

I'm happy to wear the red Lanyard, but I implore the rest of you to not make me look stupid come voting time.

Deal. All guns pointed outwards.

[RippleRock]

So, its official. Charlene says "wear the RED LANYARD."

Despite the Corps position, ALPA will back every pilot 100%.


FWIW, Remember that United, and Delta pilots would NEVER, ever allow themselves to be told what lanyard to wear as long as it didn't shed a negative light on their Company or have hateful or offensive intent. If you want a similar contract, act like them.

HOLD THE LINE