Interesting perspective on AC/WJ Lawsuit....

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:08 pm

cyyz wrote:Okay, volume is up.

But AC is suing WJ because they stole their customers by moving to YYZ, because if they hadn't looked at their numbers they would still be in YHM.

So if something was stolen, how come volume is up at Air Canada.

1 - 1 =! 2 but in this instance apparently it does.

Okay you sucked me in lol . The volume of passengers carried is up all over the world but you already knew that..

double-j · Post by **double-j** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:20 pm

Rebel wrote:
jazzy-j wrote:
Rebel wrote: Don't confuse fact with WJ Kool-Aid..

Yeah CanadaEH, don't you know that everything rebel spews out is gospel? jj
Its all in the court records look it up for yourself and correct your ignorants.

I see you cut-out the 430 part....
anyways, I'm out of this bullshit volley...can't wait for your next dire warning LOL!

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:14 am

tonysoprano wrote:JS.
Thanx. You're just a wealth of information, aren't you?

Not sure if that is an attempt at sarcasm or not. I know that the industry runs around saying that load factors are a closely guarded trade secret, yet as you can see, several airlines openly post theirs on a public access web site and Air Canada has been running around making sure that everyone knows that we have had record load factors for the past 2 years.

Doesn't seem to be much of a secret anymore, does it?

Besides, how often do we hear about how a grade 4 student can rip off someones identity using the internet? How smart is it then to save such critcal information there? I don't agree with Westjets' ethics but I also have little sympathy for Air Canada in this case.

Rebel:

I am aware of the employee pass travel site being password protected and not public but when you give away password access to ex employees, particularly fired ones,..............well, not so private anymore and the point I was trying to make in my last post was that airlines are not hiding such information anymore.

I am not a lawyer but from what I see, Air Canada stands to win more out of bad publicity for Westjet than they do with any settlement.

Just my 2cents.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:16 pm

JS.
I think we are saying the same thing. But one thing is clear to me that may not be clear to you. If WJ gained any financial gain because of what they did, then I would say the law has to address this. In the past, AC got their knuckles rapped for "unfair competition" tactics. We have been blaimed for unfair pricing and putting flights into markets or pulling them out in the interest of "unfair competition". How does this differ??. If AC did not do a good job of keeping sensitive data secret, that's our problem, and we should fix it, but we certainly did not commit an ulawful act as is the unauthorized retrieval of sensitive info commited by WJ. If no-one sees a problem here then why don't we just call each other up everyday and exchange this data over the phone so we can adjust our daily flights? Why can't we all just along? I wouldn't take all this as an oops - we goofed. WJ obviously whent out their way to retrieve info that was not for their eyes. Why are they no longer doing it? These are questions which must be addressed.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:38 pm

Jaques Strappe wrote:
tonysoprano wrote:JS.
Thanx. You're just a wealth of information, aren't you?
and the point I was trying to make in my last post was that airlines are not hiding such information anymore.

I am not a lawyer but from what I see, Air Canada stands to win more out of bad publicity for Westjet than they do with any settlement.

Just my 2cents.

Respectively sorry Jaques but Tony is right the law was broken. Period. What the courts will be looking at is the policy when the corporate espionage took place not what the industry is doing now.

The employees with pass privileges were not fired but became redundant. There is a legal difference.

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:37 pm

If WJ gained any financial gain because of what they did, then I would say the law has to address this.

Hey Tony, I agree with you on that point but.... I'll repeat something I posted a few lines ago: SARS, Iraq, high fuel costs, increased domestic competition, and CCAA to deal with - putting a number to "lost revenue" will be very difficult to do, especially if they did nothing to stop what was going on.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:53 pm

Rebel

Respectfully, none of us are in a position to be Judge and Jury. You are not qualified to make a blanket statement like "the law was broken.period.." That has yet to be determined by the courts. I do understand that it may be your opinion however and can certainly understand why.

Tony

You make a very valid point about unfair business practices and the fact that Air Canada has been accused of it in the past. To my knowledge however, this was always done by the competition bureau and the court of public opionon, not the criminal justice system. This is not as cut and dry as simply dropping your price to drive the competition out of a market. This is espionage, ...........or is it?

That is my whole point, nobody knows right now.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:12 pm

jaques

You are perfectly correct a person is considered innocence until proven guilty in this country. However no one can ever accuse me of not being opinionated as it comes with the territory. lol

What bothers me the most about this whole mess is the lying, arrogance of the WJ senior management in assuming the rest of us are just plain stupid. Corporate espionage is just that corporate espionage. They knew what they were doing and now must face the music. If they had come clean in the first place this mess would have been over a long time ago.

The wheels of Justice grind slowly but surely so you never want to get the process started in the first place as stopping the process is very difficult. It’s akin to a pilot never wanting to get in the spotlight as you may not survive the experience.

I have little doubt that WJ will be found guilty of corporate espionage however the second part of financial damage is going to be more difficult to determine.

As I’ve said before AC avoids getting involved in court cases because of the cost and lets face its not good for business but when they do, they hire the best and go for blood.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:12 pm

There seems to be a focus on how much AC lost or might have lost because of this. I don't know if this really matters as AC is suing for 2-3 hundred million dollars(?) anyway. So wether they lost $1 or $500 mil, I think they are still going after the above amount. And as I have said before, I'm not even sure that any losses have to be proven. Only that the law was broken, if indeed it was. Sort of like catching a bank robber who couldn't steal any money. He still broke the law. NO?

JS.
So where is the competition bureau now? Should they be looking into this?
I think that office was set up by the Liberals to try and hurt AC as much as possible. Should the RCMP get involved. I don't see much happening except for some news retoric and CEO vs CEO posturing. Just a silly game so far me thinks.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:18 pm

Tony

Good point however this is a civil case and not a criminal one. There is a risk that criminal charges could be laid by the crown after the conclusion of the civil one but that's another story..

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:47 pm

Yep. I think I'll stick to flying airplanes. This legality stuff isn't for me. Time for another cold pop.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:11 am

tonysoprano wrote:Yep. I think I'll stick to flying airplanes. This legality stuff isn't for me. Time for another cold pop.

It’s too bad we’re wasting our time discussing a legal issue over which we have no control when there’s a much bigger “Authority of the Pilot-In-Command” issue that we can influence but chose not to. AC and the old CALPA did attempt to educate the pilots on legal issues during command training in the past but never really provided a follow-up. Its rather sad since ACPA still retains legal consul and ALPA maintains a full legal department.

exbengal · Post by **exbengal** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:36 am

Rebel, for the last seven days you have gone on about this "white collard crime", if you will, holding a sword over WJ's head, and that those who commited this crime must be held accountable.

Reading your above post I'm assuming you are member of ACPA and at one time the old CALPA,when you joined CALPA, you signed a union card to uphold the union constitution.

So tell me Rebel, how does this "white collar crime" differentiate from reneging on binding arbitration i.e Picher.

You seem so quick to punish those who may have commited the espionage at WJ, I just wonder how your CREDIBILITY is with other "white collar crimes".

Remember Rebel the AO lawsuit has already been class certified by the same courts that you hold so dear in convicting WJ.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your knowledge from your command/legal course at AC/CALPA

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:38 am

exbengal

All I can tell you about the case is that I was sued along with every other AC pilot and then I never heard anymore about it. Since I’ve never been a union fan, although in after thought I’m glad I am, I never paid attention to the Picher report details as it didn’t affect me.

Trying to equate the WJ corporate espionage scandal with the Picher report is sort of a stretch don't you think?.

You really seem to have a hate on for AC what's your problem?

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:57 am

Picher. Ya, I think I remember him. What ever happened to him anyway?
We're over max gross, time to get rid of that baggage. How bout we concentrate on getting back what Milton took from us during CCAA?

exbengal · Post by **exbengal** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 10:25 am

Rebel wrote:exbengal

All I can tell you about the case is that I was sued along with every other AC pilot and then I never heard anymore about it. Since I’ve never been a union fan, although in after thought I’m glad I am, I never paid attention to the Picher report details as it didn’t affect me.

Trying to equate the WJ corporate espionage scandal with the Picher report is sort of a stretch don't you think?.

You really seem to have a hate on for AC what's your problem?

Rebel, being a union fan or not you (certian acpa members) have caused considerable damage to the ex AO pilot group, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that union members that harm other union members can be held accountable. We are in court again in a few weeks.

The only thing I find ironic is how you want blood from these courts for the WJ actions by harming your/our company, but you dont want
to be held accountable for your own aka"Picher didn't affect me" Perhaps you should take a good long look at yourself before casting stones

Believe me I don't have any hate on for A/C, I'm just calling BULLSHIT to your posting's

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:06 am

ExBen.

Forgive my lack of knowledge about the whole mess, but was the the Picher award not considered null and void a few years ago? I left AO in Jan 2000 and I recall the whole thing whent ACPA's way in Dec 1999. What was that all about? That being the case, is the harm argument not made very weak? How can you argue there was harm done when you didn't win the award in the first place? I guess you would have to open the whole Picher thing up again in the civil case. Don't get me wrong, I want justice done, but it seems we could just be going around the hold with min fuel. If the lawsuit doesn't go your way, can we finally put this thing behind us? I get the feeling there will be more...

Traf · Post by **Traf** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:25 am

Tony, I think what you are reffering to in 1999 was the COMMON EMPLOYER. That was Pineau or something like that and yes it went very bad for AO. Pineau did not however refute Picher, she simply ruled on the common employer.

I am not involved in the lawsuit but crewroom chatter would make me think it is directly related Picher. I think it would b e fair to say that they are going to try every option available. Correct me if I am wrong, but if they sue ACPA and lose, are they not then responsible for ACPA's legal costs?

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:41 pm

So is Picher still being disputed? My sense is that common employer was rejected and therefore so would Picher. If Picher was all about common employer, the two are then worthless? I don't know. Yes indeed, the word around my crewroom is that if the lawsuit fails, ALPA will be countersued for expenses. Ouch.

sober up! · Post by **sober up!** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:59 pm

Leave it up to some Jazz guy to try to divert the post! Nice comparison! WJ lawsuit vs. AO Lawsuit?

You should give your head a shake Exbengal!!!!

Traf · Post by **Traf** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:11 pm

Tony, I believe the common employer was simply that; an attempt to prove that there was a a common employer. Correct me if I am wrong, but Piche was a binding arbitration regarding seniority that was handed down and the AC guys from CALPA didn't like it so they left and formed ACPA.

If those facts are even close to the truth, it would be a fair guess that they are sueing over damages from Piche not being implemented. The reason Piche could not be implemented was because the ACPA group walked away from the union and started their own.

The whole thing kinda makes me dizzy just thinking about it.

Like I said, the facts here are just hearsay but I believe this is the version I have heard in the cockpit and the crewroom.

ALPA will be countersued for expenses

Not exactly. ALPA is not funding the AO suit. The guys that are involved (the 100 or so) are paying out of their own pockets. They are using their own money and they have private council not ALPA lawyers. Alpa at Jazz or even former AO were/are not supporting the lawsuit. I believe that at one point in time they(suers) tried to get support from ALPA national and were turned down because they did not want to be involved. The only people ACPA could countersue would be the names listed on the original suit. Anything else would be like Dick going after Tom for a lawsuit that Harry launched. believe it or not, the two are seperate issues. I don't know who's choice it was for the guys to support the legal action out of their own pockets, but as an ALPA memeber, I can tell you that I am glad I don't have to pay for any of it.

Are ALL the ACPA pilots (old, new, red blue) paying for this?

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:41 pm

Traf.
Thanks for refresher course. I hadn't given much thought to it for years.
As far as I know we are paying for it but the money will be refunded(?).
Thanks again.

The Raven · Post by **The Raven** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:05 pm

I shouldn't be wading into this Picher Award debate but I wanted to make one quick point.

Paragraph 13 in the Supreme Court decision to dismiss the Air Ontario lawsuit based on contract law states, "The Air Canada pilots were in negotiation with Air Canada for a new collective agreement at the time that the Picher Award was released. They refused to present a merged seniority list to Air Canada. The Picher Award had no practical force or effect without the agreement of the employer."

So in essence the Supreme Court says that the Picher Award was impotent without the agreement of the employer (Air Canada).

On March 23, 2004 under cross-examination Hollis Harris (the CEO of Air Canada at the time of the Picher Award) states...

1. He would never have agreed to a pilot seniority merger where the operations themselves were not merged

2. It was his personal view that any seniority merger which puts a regional pilot ahead of any mainline pilot would be unacceptabley unfair.

3. He opposed and would not have agreed to implement any seniority merger between Air Canada pilots and regional pilots under the Picher Award.

Now I am no lawyer, although I did play one in a high school play once, but the way I see it, no matter what was or wasn't agreed to vis a vis the Picher Award, Air Canada would not agree to it's implementation anyway.

Therefore, the Air Ontario pilots have no claim of harm as the list would not have been implemented.

Traf · Post by **Traf** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:16 pm

So in essence the Supreme Court says that the Picher Award was impotent without the agreement of the employer (Air Canada).

One could then argue that a Global Solution is a waste of time and energy because if AC doesn't want it, what would force them to accept it? Wouldn't matter if both sides agreed to a list if AC simply said, no, you guys are are seperate and that is how we would like to keep it.

All interesting info.

The Raven · Post by **The Raven** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:35 pm

Certainly without the blessing from Air Canada and Jazz any Global Solution agreement would not be implemented. However, it may be nice to have it negotiated between the unions, even if the company(s) don't agree to it. Some day they may change their tune and agree to implementing it.

Bottom line is, the company(s) will want to have a look at any Global Solution before deciding on whether to implement it or not. Let's face it, no employer will agree to any seniority list until he determines the effect on his operation. If the employer deems it a good thing, it gets implemented. If the employer deems it detrimental to the operation, it gets shelved (for the time being anyway).