YTZ Flying

[mattedfred]

Brickhead,

The games Senior Executives play.

Our folks are telling us that their goal is to diversify our revenue stream by expanding our non-CPA work because it isn't good business sense to put all of our eggs in one basket.

Your folks are telling you that Jazz has them over a barrel because of your scope language.

Your folks and our folks are telling each of us that they need our help.

I don't trust JR or CR as far as I can throw them.

We would not be having this conversation had we been able to merge seniority lists. Think about that while you ponder loosening up your scope language.

CR has convinced you to change course and he hasn't even broken a sweat.

[dream_big]

Ok on a side note here.....away from our mixed feelings!

We all know there is a lot of animosity between AC pilots and Jazz pilots. I've heard a many times as to why the senior boys are soured towards the other team....just to hear the other side, why is there so much hostility towards jazz pilots from AC side. Never really heard any stories of jazz f'ing over AC pilots. someone fill me in with stories

do share?

[Understated]

just to hear the other side, why is there so much hostility towards jazz pilots from AC side. Never really heard any stories of jazz f'ing over AC pilots.

How about the 1995 lawsuit? There is nothing like a good law suit against you to temper your friendship!

Then in 2001, how about the Jazz strike, where the bands of picketing Jazz pilots surrounded the Air Canada pilots on their way to their flight planning office, calling them "Scabs." No sh*t. Scabs, for continuing to operate flights, including overseas flights, while those pilots were picketing regarding wages and working conditions that they found unacceptable about the formerly DC-9 flying that had been taken away from the Air Canada pilots and given to them.

No hard feelings, eh?

[tallun123]

What about N.D on national TV saying JAZZ pilots will fly anything AC has for 100 grand (I might be a little off on this figure, it s been a while;))

[RFN]

Brickhead - I like you. A seemingly well-informed civil discourse on this topic is so far past overdue.

Please remember in the posts that follow these points:

1) A large chunk of us Jazz types were not even in the industry at any level in 1995. I was a University student and all around snot-nosed 19 year old.

2) Another large chunk of us Jazz types were hired 2005- onwards. We were not busy behaving like children on the picket line in 2001. I was working on the ramp and driving a semi.

3) The lawsuit has never been explained to me to my satisfaction by EITHER side. It involves a small amount of senior AO pilots, but obviously still impacts the rest of us.

4) Driving down the cost of the Tier 2 flying is not going to make AC want to pay you better to fly the Embraers. At least I don't think so. I am not privy to that kind of info though.

5) If we came up with some sort of flow-through set-up (yes I know it's difficult with the non-common employer stuff), then that would take the wind out of the sails of this kind of thing.
Most of us get so worked up about this because we are trying to make Jazz a career, some not by 1rst choice. This YTZ diversification threatens my plans to ever become a Captain here.

[dream_big]

How about the 1995 lawsuit? There is nothing like a good law suit against you to temper your friendship!

Then in 2001, how about the Jazz strike, where the bands of picketing Jazz pilots surrounded the Air Canada pilots on their way to their flight planning office, calling them "Scabs." No sh*t. Scabs, for continuing to operate flights, including overseas flights, while those pilots were picketing regarding wages and working conditions that they found unacceptable about the formerly DC-9 flying that had been taken away from the Air Canada pilots and given to them.

No hard feelings, eh?

Like someone quoted below, most of us weren't even around for that, so why there still hostility going on is beyond me. I personally believe it's just the ego's that have carried on through the years.

Are you referring to the AO lawsuit? Take a step back and look at WHY that lawsuit came to be. It happened because of AC PILOTS screwing over another company!!!! Sorry I wasn't around for that but I can't give pity over being sued cause the pilots were the one who reneged and caused the whole mess.

Which brings to point 2. HOW on earth do you expect 'those' pilots to then show respect to 'those' AC pilots crossing the picket line after they were treated like a piece of dirt back in attempted merge.

That is why I was LEGITIMATELY asking why AC pilots have hard feelings for Jazz pilots. Just because from stories I know it just seems like it's more of an ego/I'm better then you attitude that just carried on through the years (and your points prove that). So again I'm sure there are more stories and reasons and explanations that I truly would like to hear from another perspective. If anyone has any actual ones please fill me in.

[mattedfred]

Jazz pilots have never been on strike

perhaps you are referring to the Air Ontario strike in 97'?

[Understated]

Jazz pilots have never been on strike...perhaps you are referring to the Air Ontario strike in 97'?

You are correct. Sorry about the error. All I remember is coming in from Europe one afternon, heading to back to our flight planning office and being swarmed by a bunch of placard-carrying, name-calling youths who were evidently unhappy now doing the flying to YSB, YYB, YAM, and other places that I spent over 15 years doing in order to finally get into the left seat. They were doing our flying, and calling us SCABs!

They probably had some legitimate issues with their employer, but calling me a SCAB did not exactly lead me to sympathize with their grievances. And yes, its was Air Ontario pilots indeed who filed personal lawsuits against a number of my associates--who are still waiting for the final resolution of the legal actions 15 years later.

[teacher]

Keep in mind I didn't have a PPL when this whole lawsuit things happened but having said that, ACPA should have never gone into BINDING ARBITRATION if they never intended to honour the results. It's called BINDING for a reason.

As for the YTZ thing my feelings have been made clear all over these forums. IT's bad for Jazz and opens the door for bad things at AC. We are all getting played AGAIN.

[Altstar]

We need to stop looking at the past while our profession's WAWCON erode. We've got to shift our focus to the future for the good of all pilots. This battle cannot be ACPA vs. ALPA while the executives' wallets get fatter, it has to be ACPA & ALPA vs. CR & JR.

[teacher]

Agreed but sadly words like that often fall on deaf angry ears.

[gonnabeapilot]

Keep in mind I didn't have a PPL when this whole lawsuit things happened but having said that, ACPA should have never gone into BINDING ARBITRATION if they never intended to honour the results. It's called BINDING for a reason.

As for the YTZ thing my feelings have been made clear all over these forums. IT's bad for Jazz and opens the door for bad things at AC. We are all getting played AGAIN.

To me, this posts sums up exactly why I don't think things will ever really get better. You've admitted that you had absolutely no stake in the original issue and yet you obviously have formed a rather strong opinion about it. These battles should have been over and done with long ago to allow both sides to begin working together. New people should be coming in with fresh ideas but instead all they seem to do is pick up the battle cry of those already there who are carrying old grudges. You're advocating for everybody to work together to avoid "getting played again" and yet you still couldn't resist picking up the battle cry in your post. The past is the past... let it go. Now let's all work towards making both companies stronger.

[hypoxic]

I really think "the race to the bottom" as some have called it, won't be an issue once the College of Professional Pilots http://www.collegeofpilots.ca/ is up and running. It will certainly take time to get everything established and it won't solve all of our issues but we can eliminate "the race to the bottom".

Regarding the Q400's I've heard that ACPA may consider having another carrier do the work out of YTZ as long as ACPA pilots are flying the A/C.

[Understated]

Regarding the Q400's I've heard that ACPA may consider having another carrier do the work out of YTZ as long as ACPA pilots are flying the A/C.

Which one, Skyservice? Wouldn't that be a déjàvu? 2001 all over again. CR and RG together were flogging that one to the Air Canada pilots then. Maybe they can finally ink the deal, now that RM is (apparently) out of the picture.

[Martin Tamme]

Regarding the Q400's I've heard that ACPA may consider having another carrier do the work out of YTZ as long as ACPA pilots are flying the A/C.

No, that is not what ACPA said; please re-read the newsletter issued by the Scope Committee less than 3 hours ago. They clearly state that they want this flying to be given to a 3rd-party carrier that is not crewed by either Air Canada or Jazz pilots.

Nevertheless, the Air Canada pilots from the Toronto base are dead set against this. Today, at the Toronto General Council Meeting, the pilots overwhelmingly endorsed a motion that directs the Union not make any changes to Article 1 of the Collective Agreement (Scope), regardless of the results of the present poll. However, there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the MEC from ignoring the wishes of the YYZ pilots and doing as they please.

[mattedfred]

what were the results of the poll?

[Martin Tamme]

what were the results of the poll?

It's on-going as we speak - closes in 4 days from now.

[mattedfred]

thanks

so to recap

the ACPA MEC voted 7 to 5 in favour of amending the current scope language

the ACPA President vetoed the vote

the membership is being polled on the issue

the YYZ Council does not support a change to the scope language

and another question for any ACPA member...

do you think it would be more or less difficult to take back all of the regional flying as CO/UAL have hinted at if ACPA agreed to amend their current scope language to allow another Tier 2 CPA carrier?

[Mig29]

Man the more and more I read, the more my brain wants to run somewhere faaaaarrr away from aviation!!!
I mean, all of you guys are trying to defend your point, some actually agree with each other, but the problem is the guys on the top of the helm will end up doing as they please.......

I wonder if lawyers, doctors and cops do this to each other??? When will it stop!? And the most disgusting thing of all is that they are trying to turn us against each other!!!

[accumulous]

I wonder if lawyers, doctors and cops do this to each other???

They don't have time.

The lawyers are too busy sorting out the unions' lawsuits, the doctors are trying to determine if the pilots are stable enough to fly and the cops are standing by in case the parking lot erupts into a knuckle sandwich.

[teacher]

Hey "gonnabeapilot" reread my (and other) previous posts. I was simply answering a question. What I stated was fact. Someone asked why the lawsuit happened and why some senior Jazz (ex AO) pilots are still angry. That's the reason. I'm not living in the past, this doesn't affect me, will never affect me and is not on my radar in the least.

Having said that if you were being screwed over by someone else breaking the law by walking away from a binding motion wouldn't you be upset? I understand why they feel the way they do but I'm concerned about where I work NOW and not shit that happened when I was in highschool.

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

ACPA should have never gone into BINDING ARBITRATION if they never intended to honour the results. It's called BINDING for a reason.

Let's deal with a few facts. First of all, "ACPA" did not exist at the time of the Picher arbitration. So your statement doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It is meaningless. ACPA came later, largely by reason of the Picher award.Here is a copy of the statement of claim of the AO pilots, that was largely dismissed:

http://www.nelligan.ca/e/PDF/ACPAClaim52501.pdf

Second, rules only apply to the game being played. If the game is called because of rain, its over. The Air Canada pilots said good-bye to the whole game. So much for being bound by the game referee's decision. Game over. No game, no rules.

Air Canada pilots were paying for approximately 60% of the expenses of operating CALPA, but had only about 40% of the votes. No problem, until it came to redefining the scope of their work. New game. ACPA.

Now, let's talk about that "binding arbitration" proposition. What was binding was an interpretation by the arbitrator of the existing CALPA policy. The arbitrator did not have the authority to order a merger or anything else. What was binding, as a result of his award, was the requirement to "negotiate," which doesn't compel anthything substantive.

In law, an agreement to agree is void for uncertainty. It is not legal, according the legal advice I have. You cannot enforce something that is not properly defined.

An arbitration award that says that says that you agree to "negotiate," is even less binding than a contract that says you agree to agree, which is unenforceable.

Further, the Supreme Court of Canada said the argument based on breach of contract had no merit (another Google search):

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2002/2 ... scc40.html

So, binding? I don't think so.

[RFN]

Hey Teacher,

With respect, I believe the entire circus surrounding the breakup of CALPA, PICHER, and the AO lawsuit have a great deal to do with our careers. I would say that they influenced our careers even before we had them.

It is far beyond time for us 90th percentile "normals" to allow the loudest 10% to dicate the terms of a battle that should not even exist.

If I am wrong, it is because NO ONE has explained the Picher / AO Lawsuit to my satisfaction from either side.

Still waiting.


PS Whatever the reasons that the ACPA YYZ members voted against messing with Scope, I for one appreciate it. I am about to operate YYZ-IAH and if that is as contentious as I believe it is, then how many more arguments for NOT messing with the scope clause can you think of?

[mattedfred]

Perhaps I should start inserting a little emotion and attitude into my posts as respectfully submitted direct questions appear to solicit few replies.

[Brick Head]

Hey Teacher,

With respect, I believe the entire circus surrounding the breakup of CALPA, PICHER, and the AO lawsuit have a great deal to do with our careers. I would say that they influenced our careers even before we had them.

It is far beyond time for us 90th percentile "normals" to allow the loudest 10% to dicate the terms of a battle that should not even exist.

If I am wrong, it is because NO ONE has explained the Picher / AO Lawsuit to my satisfaction from either side.

Still waiting.

You know I don't really want to touch this with a ten foot pole. On the other hand maybe a little history rehash is needed. It certainly is needed to understand why the response from AC pilots is what it is on this issue.

to the best of my memory.

The Air Canada pilots MEC did not agree to binding arbitration with its regional's. They were forced into it by the CALPA governing body in which the AC Pilots only had a 40% say.

The CALPA governing body was trying to prevent what we have seen for the last decade and a half, and which was well underway in Canada at the time. AirBC and Air Nova were both flying jets by this point. Scope was in its infancy.

They had the right idea as hind sight tells us.

The AC MEC, while being forced into the arbitration warned everyone. If we don't like the outcome we will take our ball and go home.

The Picher award placed furloughed AC pilots, DOH with the regional pilots on the bottom of the list, behind the last AC pilot not furloughed. To give you an idea. AC's list at the time was about 1500 pilots. The regionals about 900. Some furloughed AC pilots who were 1500 on the AC list now became 2300 on the proposed list.

The AC MEC found this unacceptable. Left to form ACPA. AO Law suit started. CALPA was financially unable to survive with 60% of their revenue lost. They became ALPA. ACPA started focusing on scope to protect work. Negotiated for the RJ's Air Nova had ordered. Then all the Air Canada regional went on strike.

In 2003, during CCAA, ALPA Jazz offered to fly all AC metal for 100K. They managed to get a contract, in violation of AC scope, to fly 75 jets. 30 705's/45 E190's. ACPA would not sign their TA causing near failure in CCAA. An arbitration agreement over the jets was the compromise. However to get the compromise ACPA was forced to sign a document specifying the wages for 75-110 seat aircraft. It was take it or leave it. EMJ FO wages are very poor to this day as a result.

What if Picher had just end tailed the regional pilots?

We wouldn't be where we are today.

PS Whatever the reasons that the ACPA YYZ members voted against messing with Scope, I for one appreciate it. I am about to operate YYZ-IAH and if that is as contentious as I believe it is, then how many more arguments for NOT messing with the scope clause can you think of?

The message coming out of YYZ is about remembering the history above that I just wrote. You may not have been around but most of us were. This is a turning point once again. Many people get it.

However as always with pilots. 3000 pilots? 3000 opinions.

Martin. Very good motion at the meeting.