Rouge rosters?

[Counterpoint]

FanB,

"The negotiators of TA1 got sucked into believing the Rouge jobs were growth."

"The TA1 negotiators gave AC all the big ticket items they asked for in exchange for growth and Quid in other areas."

Which is it...?

Rudder,

Can you be more specific...?

[TheStig]

Counterpoint,

During FOS AC removed all the quid from TA1 giving them the big ticket items for free. Post FOS there is no growth.

The LCC stayed in the FOS Contract, the scope language was altered to allow the E175's to leave the fleet. The pay groupings disappeared, but the bidding restrictions stayed (albeit altered) etc, etc.

[Fanblade]

FanB,

"The negotiators of TA1 got sucked into believing the Rouge jobs were growth."

"The TA1 negotiators gave AC all the big ticket items they asked for in exchange for growth and Quid in other areas."

Which is it...?

Rudder,

Can you be more specific...?

Which is it?

Have to admit I'm a little confused by the question. But both.

The negotiators of TA1 traded the big ticket items that AC wanted for:

1) growth. AC was promising a 235 aircraft fleet plan. 50 at Rouge. But this was not in writing. Rather trust.

2) Quid. Meal allowance. Pay groupings. Grandfathering. Scope. Ect.

During FOS AC removed the quid used to attain the things they wanted and none of the growth promised ever happened.

Not sure if you work at AC. If you do there is a 45 narrow body mainline reduction coming over the next 30 months.

At the end of the day. AC has what it wants for free. No quid for the pilots on the changes and no growth. Rather just the transfer of 45 narrow body aircraft from AC to Rouge

Help?

But back to the question. With AC attaining everything it wanted for free, how on earth is ACPA in a leveraged position????

The most important part of negotiations is having an accurate and realistic picture of your leverage. Not that ACPA has been stellar in that department.

The leverage barely has a heart beat above zero.

[Counterpoint]

If AC had 205 aircraft in 2012 (I might have that wrong, but I'll use it as a starting point), and you needed 10 aircraft to start the rouge airline, that would make 215. If after that you had to expand the rouge airline with the addition of the new 787 fleet, (looks like a fleet of 12 by 2015) that would make 227.

If you then remove the 20 319 aircraft and send them to the rouge airline, it brings you to 207. In order to get to 30 319 aircraft at the rouge airline, you'd have to purchase (or lease) 10 more 319 aircraft which would mean 217 aircraft.

In order to get to 20 767 aircraft at the rouge airline, you would have to get (4 start up + 12 transferred (from the 787 order) = 16) 4 more 787 additions. That makes 221. AC has ordered 5 "new" 777, and as I understand it the rouge airline can substitute the transfer of 767 aircraft for either the 777 or 787, leaving one extra 777 added to the fleet. I count 222. The 222 number has the rouge airline filled to 50 aircraft. Any additional 787 aircraft would be more growth. Seeing as they had/have 36 on order then 36 minus the 12 I've used means an increase of 24 more aircraft. Now I'm at 246.

I believe all of that made it into "writing" in the contract you voted on, again I could be wrong. My 246 would have to be reduced by 5 of the 777 aircraft because they weren't "on the books" when the contract was voted on (guessing here). Which gets me to 241. I'd also have reduce that number by the 24 787 because they probably won't be flying until after 2015. So that takes me back down to 217. You'd have to decrease that number (24) by a few because of the 787 delays since the vote, thus increasing the 217 by whatever the delay cost in on-time deliveries.

If my work-through is right (feel free to correct), it looks like there was/is growth. But not the 235 you mention. Also, if these numbers are close, it would seem that the negotiators didn't get "sucked in" but did provide growth, but that would depend on the math above.

[MB22]

When are the 787 scheduled to start arriving? Is it still Spring 2014?

[Fanblade]

If AC had 205 aircraft in 2012 (I might have that wrong, but I'll use it as a starting point), and you needed 10 aircraft to start the rouge airline, that would make 215. If after that you had to expand the rouge airline with the addition of the new 787 fleet, (looks like a fleet of 12 by 2015) that would make 227.

If you then remove the 20 319 aircraft and send them to the rouge airline, it brings you to 207. In order to get to 30 319 aircraft at the rouge airline, you'd have to purchase (or lease) 10 more 319 aircraft which would mean 217 aircraft.

In order to get to 20 767 aircraft at the rouge airline, you would have to get (4 start up + 12 transferred (from the 787 order) = 16) 4 more 787 additions. That makes 221. AC has ordered 5 "new" 777, and as I understand it the rouge airline can substitute the transfer of 767 aircraft for either the 777 or 787, leaving one extra 777 added to the fleet. I count 222. The 222 number has the rouge airline filled to 50 aircraft. Any additional 787 aircraft would be more growth. Seeing as they had/have 36 on order then 36 minus the 12 I've used means an increase of 24 more aircraft. Now I'm at 246.

I believe all of that made it into "writing" in the contract you voted on, again I could be wrong. My 246 would have to be reduced by 5 of the 777 aircraft because they weren't "on the books" when the contract was voted on (guessing here). Which gets me to 241. I'd also have reduce that number by the 24 787 because they probably won't be flying until after 2015. So that takes me back down to 217. You'd have to decrease that number (24) by a few because of the 787 delays since the vote, thus increasing the 217 by whatever the delay cost in on-time deliveries.

If my work-through is right (feel free to correct), it looks like there was/is growth. But not the 235 you mention. Also, if these numbers are close, it would seem that the negotiators didn't get "sucked in" but did provide growth, but that would depend on the math above.

Nope. That was a lot of work for something that could have just been looked up in the financial reports.

Fleet plan
AC is shrinking from 205 to 164 aircraft. Rouge is 42. Combined total 206.

[Counterpoint]

Well yes I suppose I did use some of the fleet data from the latest MD&A, but if I were to use it all and use your numbers, I think it would look like this.....

If we take your 206 and add the 15 Embraers that were protected in "writing" from going to a CPA carrier you would get 221.

Then add the 10 start-up jets required from the "writing" in order to start the rouge airline net of fleet, that would be 231, then you could add back 10 319 aircraft that are shown as transferred after the allowed maximum of 20 from the "writing", we come to 241.

So, the "writing" that was somehow erased from the contract the acpa voted on, let the company get rid of 15 (EMJ)+ 10 (start-up 4 767 and 6 319) + 10 (319 above the 20 allowed)= 35 aircraft.

It would seem to me that those 35 jets were erased from protected language they got in "writing".

You can hardly blame the negotiators for the resultant unprotected fleet count drop......I still say they got growth, in "writing", but since the fallout has erased the "writing", your 206 is not bad.

[Fanblade]

Well I don't know if you have some attachment to TA1 but I am going to have to disagree. Even if you add the 15 175's back you end up with mainline down from 205 to 179. Rouge 42 for 221.

Are suggesting letting mainline drop by 26 fins (quality jobs) in order to gain 15 fins over all of poor quality was a good idea? Or what NC1 had envisioned?

IMO both NC 1 and 2 got completely undressed by the company. I hear a lot of people take sides. I call BS. They both blew it. I realize NC 2 got hosed by the government but what they put on the table during FOS was rediculous.

ACPA has serious credibility issues.

[Counterpoint]

It isn't so much an attachment as it is a highlight that, there was indeed growth, which you had suggested wasn't there.

I think someone mentioned that 235 was the mark broadcast, which had the 15 EMJ aircraft stayed, would have been achieved. Mainly because of the 50 LCC aircraft and 185 ML aircraft.

[Fanblade]

You exemplify why I get frustrated with both sides of this argument. The short sightededness is awful.

First off just the facts.

The fleet plan shows 206 aircraft by the end of 2015.

If the 175's stayed it would be 221 not 235. 14 fins missing.

If you want to look into the future and add 8 more 767's (229 total now) then you had better also look at narrow body replacement.

The company has said repeatedly larger but fewer. NC1 knew this. The numbers thrown around in the press by AC has been 80-100 larger Narrow bodies.

That leaves the mainline fleet 140-160 and Rouge at 50.

Let's hope AC orders at least 100 narrow body aircraft. If they don't the combined company will shrink. Even if they do order 100 the combined fleet is stagnent.

Absolutely brutal that as pilots we can't see just how bad a job both Negotiating committees did.

As for NC1. They were sold a bill of goods when they bought into growth. It is just transfer.

[TheStig]

FanBlade, very well put.

Counterpoint I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers from? Sounds like you've mixed up what was supposed to have happened with what has happened.

WRT the LCC LOU the company has already violated the contract by not adding any B767's and A319's net of the fleet and launching rouge with 10 aircraft, and has already admitted they plan to transfer 30 A319's all from the mainline fleet, not 20 from the fleet with 10 from net of the Nov 2010 fleet (just 2 of each type) which the LOU specifies.

I have no clue what the long term plan for rouge, but I would be surprised if we ever see more than 70-80 new narrow bodies ever painted in Air Canada's paint scheme.

As pointed out by FB early in this thread, Air Canada is doing whatever they want, period. You can get all pissed off if you'd like about either or both rounds of negotiations, various union members, or the fact that ACPA is not only not fighting the airline on any current issues with the contract but facilitating them in any area they need assistance, but above all else, understand Air Canada is doing whatever they want. CR made his agenda very clear, the unions do not run the airline.

[Fanblade]

I would be surprised if we ever see more than 70-80 new narrow bodies ever painted in Air Canada's paint scheme.

I think one has to ask themselves why NC1 got a fleet protection for an exiting fleet. Why seek temporary protection when they simply could have gone with a minimum narrow body fleet requirement.

The answer in my mind is simple. They couldn't secure a minimum number for fleet renewal. AC was willing only to agree to a temporary fleet guarantee.

The 175's leaving now or latter makes no difference to the end result.

The business plan is the business plan. TA1 or FOS would not change the final outcome.

NC1 gave Calin the keys for some cash. NC2 gave back the cash.

I think we should be aghast at how bad our representation performed.

ALPA anyone?

[Counterpoint]

I disagree with your assessment about the negotiators. In fact, because you seem to be getting the tentative agreement and the fallout mixed up, it seems you are happy to blame the negotiators. I'm going to have to assume that you are frustrated by the lack of growth, and that you didn't understand that you had protection from fleet loss and growth guarantee.

Let me try and explain;

Here is why the fallout has no growth;

The loss of any EMJ fleet was protected by 1.10.03.03 (erased during FOS) and the job losses by 1.04.01.03, amended slightly by 1.04.02. Loss to the acpa growth of 15 aircraft. Notice the "equivalent or larger" reference, that's what I think protected the acpa on the narrow body fleet renewal, a 320 or EMJ gets replaced by "equivalent or larger". It was in effect "exiting" aircraft protection.

The rouge airline start up of 10 growth aircraft was L 74.01.04.01. The rouge airline is not starting up with 10 growth aircraft, but with the transfer of 2 767 and 2 319 aircrafts. Loss to the acpa of another 10 growth aircraft, total so far 25.

In the projections that you use (206), 30 319 aircraft are being transferred to the rouge airline. That is not allowed by L74.01.04.02. Only 20 are allowed, the other 10 have to be from somewhere else (growth). That's another 10 loss to the acpa growth, for a total of 35.

In these three instances, the language that provided growth, was written by the negotiators, whom you blame for the stagnation. I think you've got it mixed up. I think the negotiators had a written deal with AC (referenced above), one that ensured growth, and now that the FOS amended that deal, AC is taking full advantage, and pulling a fast one on the acpa. Hardly the negotiators fault.

I tend to agree with Stig, what is happening now, is not what would have happened. Even the requirement for the 60 705 aircraft has probably been reduced, because in FOS, without the protections in the original agreement, AC can now reduce the need by the 15 175 aircraft provided to them in FOS.

I also think that their plan has changed, because of what they got and what they are ignoring in the FOS.

[Fanblade]

you didn't understand that you had protection from fleet loss and growth guarantee.

Let me try and explain;

Here is why the fallout has no growth.

The rouge airline start up of 10 growth aircraft was L 74.01.04.01. The rouge airline is not starting up with 10 growth aircraft, but with the transfer of 2 767 and 2 319 aircrafts. Loss to the acpa of another 10 growth aircraft, total so far 25.

In the projections that you use (206), 30 319 aircraft are being transferred to the rouge airline. That is not allowed by L74.01.04.02. Only 20 are allowed, the other 10 have to be from somewhere else (growth). That's another 10 loss to the acpa growth, for a total of 35.

In these three instances, the language that provided growth, was written by the negotiators, whom you blame for the stagnation. I think you've got it mixed up. I think the negotiators had a written deal with AC (referenced above), one that ensured growth, and now that the FOS amended that deal, AC is taking full advantage, and pulling a fast one on the acpa. Hardly the negotiators fault.

I tend to agree with Stig, what is happening now, is not what would have happened. Even the requirement for the 60 705 aircraft has probably been reduced, because in FOS, without the protections in the original agreement, AC can now reduce the need by the 15 175 aircraft provided to them in FOS.

I also think that their plan has changed, because of what they got and what they are ignoring in the FOS.

Guarantees huh.

I asked about why LOU 74's startup aircraft are not arriving from outside the fleet. The answer I got was they have. The 5 777's take care of 4 767 and 2 319's. 3 returned mexicana aircraft were considered new. For the one missing 319 AC threatened to just park one at mainline and lease a new one at Rouge, so a let was given.

Well written guarantee I would say.

[Fanblade]

Another guarantee.

What happened to the 29:100 ratio that was the glue that protected us. That guaranteed that mainline would have to grow if regional grew?

Worked well. When I asked why the 175's leaving wouldn't break the 29:100 ratio as NC1 had promised. NC1 told us the ratio sat at 28.2:100. I was told NC1 made a mistake. I said huh? What mistake? The current ratio is really 21:100. I said what, how did that happen? We don't know was the answer.

And please don't take my word for it. Go ask.

I want to he clear here. I don't blame ACPA current leadership. Every time I have asked why are you doing this or allowing that I get a logical explanation. Each time there are holes or mistakes in the language that AC is exploiting. The holes go back to TA1. FOS made the holes larger.

I don't want to get involved in a circular blame game as it serves no purpose. I am not going to blame ACPA current because they are just trying to cope with the mess left behind by NC1 and NC2.

What I am saying is this. ACPA got castrated. We have zero leverage. An honest look in the mirror is needed but nothing is happening.

I have given up on ACPA representing me. In fact I am fearful of ACPA representing me. I feel this way based on multiple leaderships.

This isn't meant to be personal. I know everyone has done what they feel was best. Passionately so in cases.

But face it. We are incompetent at managing an association and collective bargaining.

Another example.

Where the heck was LRD and legal when NC2 put their FOS document on the table. Do you know how lucky we are this isn't much worse?!!!!!! That the company didn't take even more. They probably swore at themselves when they saw NC2's submission.

For our own good we need to end this insular experiment called ACPA. If you are junior and agree please start pushing your reps. We have the most to lose.

[Counterpoint]

"I asked about why LOU 74's startup aircraft are not arriving from outside the fleet. The answer I got was they have. The 5 777's take care of 4 767 and 2 319's. 3 returned mexicana aircraft were considered new. For the one missing 319 AC threatened to just park one at mainline and lease a new one at Rouge, so a let was given."

Have a look at 1.10.02.03 and compare it to the tentative contract of 1.10.03.03, see the difference ? Notice the ability to reduce is different than what the negotiators had in "writing" ?

Now look at the transfer language in L74.01.04.02 and .03

Can you see that a reduction isn't a transfer ?

Now factor in a let that the acpa has given to AC for the rouge airline start up. Now do you see that the "writing" the negotiators used would have prevented what is going on for the start up of the rouge airline ?

See what I mean by AC pulling a fast one on the acpa ?

Pfft....The acpa lost 10 growth aircraft.

"What happened to the 29:100 ratio that was the glue that protected us. That guaranteed that mainline would have to grow it regional grew? Worked well."

Compare the L 74.01.08 from the tentative contract to the FOS. With the stroke of a pen, all 767 rouge flying will now count as AC mainline ASM. to put that into perspective, to me it would appear that will essentially equal more than the 319 ASM count. The effect on the ASM ratio is big, and essentially negates most of the protection the negotiators built in.

AC has room now for CPA carriers to expand. That would be new room. Room that didn't exist before. Thanks gods it's still a domestic ratio elsewhere. Imagine if they changed it back to the old system wide 12:100 with all the new 777 coming.

The negotiators limits were more protection lost in the FOS.

[Fanblade]

You just won't give up on defending crap.

Show me where TA1 prevented AC from parking 320's and acquiring new ones for Rouge to meet the startup conditions.

Your 29:100 explanation is rediculous. Yes it good concept. NC1 missed the current domestic ASM ratio by a mile. They said it was 28.2:100 when in fact it was 21:100. This singular mistake, had it not been made, would have protected us well. The fact that it is so far off left us wide open. Wide wide open.

Until you accept that mistakes by the plenty were made by everyone you will never come around to the real issue. What do we do now? What do we do about ACPA's repeated incompetence.

I dont want them representing me.

Better yet. Do you want ACPA representing you in 2016?

[Counterpoint]

You just won't give up on defending crap.

I'm defending your attack on the negotiators not having a deal in "writing" and that they got "sucked in".

Show me where TA1 prevented AC from parking 320's and acquiring new ones for Rouge to meet the startup conditions.

1.10.03.03, I've already referenced the narrow body fleet renewal and, the different language regarding reduction and transfers, in a previous post.

Your 29:100 explanation is rediculous. Yes it good concept. NC1 missed the current domestic ASM ratio by a mile. They said it was 28.2:100 when in fact it was 21:100. This singular mistake, had it not been made, would have protected us well. The fact that it is so far off left us wide open. Wide wide open.

I don't think it's at 21:100, because ASM reductions were made at Jazz to make room for SkyRegional flying. Which brings me to my theory that AC is pulling a fast one on the acpa, including the ratio. I've found an even more ASM grabs by AC via FOS with the LCC ASM count.

Until you accept that mistakes by the plenty were made by everyone you will never come around to the real issue. What do we do now? What do we do about ACPA's repeated incompetence.


Maybe we can address the quid you mentioned earlier. I think you mentioned, Grandfathering, Pay Grouping, Meal expenses ect. Perhaps then we can measure the quid vs. incompetence.

I don't think the negotiators made a mistake, I believe they had a deal, one which they put in "writing". I've even shown you where, and why I don't think they got "sucked in". That deal has been altered by FOS, as I have attempted to explain with the three acpa growth losses.

All you've done is compare the fallout post FOS (what has happened) with the negotiators. Which I don't think is fair when you look at the changes made by FOS.

[rudder]

I don't think it's at 21:100, because ASM reductions were made at Jazz to make room for SkyRegional flying. Which brings me to my theory that AC is pulling a fast one on the acpa, including the ratio. I've found an even more ASM grabs by AC via FOS with the LCC ASM count.

Nope. The 4 parties went to MT and he ruled that the SJA remains in effect and binding on the parties and that the only Jazz ASM limitation is 12:100 where the SKY EMB175 ASM's count against the mainline (100).

Not exactly sure where the Jazz ASM count is YOY but AC and CHR have seemed to represent publicly that fleet substitutions have reduced fleet and block hour totals but that capacity (ASM's) have remained fairly neutral.

I am sure that this info is readily available in the CHR quarterly MD&A.

[Fanblade]

You just won't give up on defending crap.

I'm defending your attack on the negotiators not having a deal in "writing" and that they got "sucked in".

Yet when confronted with fact you refuse to believe it and then promptly start the circular blame game. Its someone else's fault.

Your 29:100 explanation is rediculous. Yes it good concept. NC1 missed the current domestic ASM ratio by a mile. They said it was 28.2:100 when in fact it was 21:100. This singular mistake, had it not been made, would have protected us well. The fact that it is so far off left us wide open. Wide wide open.

I don't think it's at 21:100, because ASM reductions were made at Jazz to make room for SkyRegional flying. Which brings me to my theory that AC is pulling a fast one on the acpa, including the ratio. I've found an even more ASM grabs by AC via FOS with the LCC ASM count.

I am no contract expert. I have had the same questions you have had. Each time I ask for an explanation about something it ultimately comes back to language. Yes some of it is the result of FOS. but some of it is the result of the original TA. This leaves the current ACPA leadership, the ones you want to blame in a tough spot. They know what the intent was. But the language doesn't either fully support it, is vague or contradictory in other sections.

The 29:100 ratio is a perfect example. We all know what was intended. Unfortunately what was intended and what was written were two different things. The intention was to make sure regional growth could not happen without mainline domestic growth. Great idea. Unfortunately the wrong number was used. The ratio should have been 22:100 to achieve the concept. Oops.

Look this is pointless. I get that I have offended you with my comments. As a result you keep arguing about the past. I don't care about the past and have no interest in rehashing it. I've done too much already.

We don't agree. It looks like we never will on the past. But who cares. How about we agree to disagree.

What about the future? Forget about my offending remarks.

Are you comfortable with ACPA representing your interests?

[Fanblade]

I don't think it's at 21:100, because ASM reductions were made at Jazz to make room for SkyRegional flying. Which brings me to my theory that AC is pulling a fast one on the acpa, including the ratio. I've found an even more ASM grabs by AC via FOS with the LCC ASM count.

Nope. The 4 parties went to MT and he ruled that the SJA remains in effect and binding on the parties and that the only Jazz ASM limitation is 12:100 where the SKY EMB175 ASM's count against the mainline (100).

Not exactly sure where the Jazz ASM count is YOY but AC and CHR have seemed to represent publicly that fleet substitutions have reduced fleet and block hour totals but that capacity (ASM's) have remained fairly neutral.

I am sure that this info is readily available in the CHR quarterly MD&A.

Yes I was told that as well. Just don't want to encourage the circular rearward blame game that counterpoint, and many others, are fixated on.

But now that you have done it. And there are more but there is no point.

We don't really have a 29:100 ratio. It went bye bye. Apparently Mr T slapped it down because it was illegal to do in the first place. Where was ACPA legal on that one?

Either way. Drop it. Accept ACPA is an incompetent organization. Quite freeing really.

I do not want ACPA to represent me.

I have seen enough.

It is not just me either. Many hired over the last decade have had enough. Once the consequences of our ineptitude come home to roost over the next couple of years, I think voices like mine will grow louder. At the moment many are in denial. As the mainline reductions grow and the flush to rouge increases, people will wake up.

That is a good thing. Hopefully we can take the resulting anger and make positive use of it.

[ratherbee]

Its not ACPA that is flawed. It is the leaders we elected. Soapbox politicians with no experience who ignored the advise of lawyers, professional negotiators, committee chairs, and even old unionists like Buzz Hargrove. Then they blamed their failure on conspiracies!

We need to recognize this flaw in our election process and make sure we don't repeat it again this fall.

Its too bad for the junior pilots who were so badly screwed by the incompetents they blindly supported. Live and learn.

[Counterpoint]

FanB,

I'm not sure you understood what I've been getting at, but your observations about laying blame circularly are off the mark.

In my posts, you'll see I haven't layed blame on anyone. I have however, produced a "counterpoint" of view to your comments about the negotiators not having a "written" agreement as it related to getting "sucked in" to growth.

I've tried to show, using references to provisions that run opposed to your belief that the acpa negotiators are incompetent, an argument you hold without offsetting the quid as a measurement.

I've backed up my theory, with the exception of the ASM ratio, which is only a theory, with references to the FOS contract that show the changes made negated the "growth" offset.

This isn't about blame, it's about opposing an unfair comment you made with respect to the fallout that resulted from language that was changed because of the FOS contract. I wouldn't blame the negotiators. Because I believe they in fact had a deal and it included growth.

I've answered your imperative question ("show me where....") which I found rather rude, with a reference and now you've asked that we drop the whole thing. Because you think it's a circular blame argument.

My hope is that you've kept an open mind about what I've shown, read the references and perhaps understand that this is not necessarily a case of negotiators being responsible for the fallout.

Rudder,

The way I read this is that the 12:100 must still be respected as a "maximum". It doesn't necessarily mean that AC has to provide the "maximum" to Jazz. And so, my theory is that by contracting the jazz ASM, to make room for the 29:100 on the ALL other CPA flying, AC stays within both limits. As rouge grows in 767 flying to 20 aircraft, the ASM count will be greater than all of the 319 aircraft flying (thanks to FOS).

MT has settled the maximum ratio, and only that, I believe.

I also don't believe the domestic ASM ratio is at 21:100, it doesn't make sense, it may not be at 29:100 but the difference considering the domestic flying shift, seems too large. That's why I think the acpa is being taken for a ride on this. Again only a theory.

[Fanblade]

Counterpoint,

My apologies. As you can see my posts are filled with frustration. I don't want to place blame anywhere. I want to look at the end result and call it what it is.

Incompetence.

And I think you agree with me because you feel such need to deflect that incompetence from TA1 negotiators. Your having trouble with where I am pointing with that word. Fair enough. I have no problems being wrong with my finger pointing. I don't actually want to do it. However it is nessisary to look at the mistakes and how we got here to make a decision moving forward. What both sides of this issue are doing is deflecting and defending their position. No one is assessing if we are, as an organization competent enough to represent the pilot group.

In my mind it matters not how we got here. What matters is we got here.

I'm going to ask you this question for a third time. All the finger pointing aside. Just consider what happened post TA1 if you like.

Do you feel comfortable that ACPA will do a good job representing our interests into the future?

We just had a poll asking the same basic question. Do you trust ACPA?

77% said no.

Why are we doing nothing about it?

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/news/ ... gotiations

[rudder]

Rudder,

The way I read this is that the 12:100 must still be respected as a "maximum". It doesn't necessarily mean that AC has to provide the "maximum" to Jazz. And so, my theory is that by contracting the jazz ASM, to make room for the 29:100 on the ALL other CPA flying, AC stays within both limits. As rouge grows in 767 flying to 20 aircraft, the ASM count will be greater than all of the 319 aircraft flying (thanks to FOS).

MT has settled the maximum ratio, and only that, I believe.

That is my understanding as well. AC cannot use the arbitrated 29:100 as a rationale for limiting Jazz ASM's. AC can only use 12:100 to limit Jazz ASM's on the basis of the SJA and pre-arbitration ACPA Article 1 ASM component formula with the EMB 175 ASM's remaining on the AC side of the ledger.