Rouge rosters?

[Fanblade]

Counterpoint,

This statement is incorrect. Go read the company message board. This question was posed and answered.

As rouge grows in 767 flying to 20don't carecraft, the ASM count will be greater than all of the 319 aircraft flying (thanks to FOS).

All you are doing is providing falsehoods about who did what.


TA1 limited domestic 767 ASM's from mexico. Normally domestic included Mexico. Now Mexico is included again. Suggesting that Rouge 767 overseas ASM's are included as domestic ASM's is wrong.

Can we stop this blame game yet? Out of fairness I have zeroed in on you simply because you are here on this board.

Both sides are equally guilty. We don't care who did what.

All we care about is what the organization called ACPA brought us to, and then what are we going to do about it?

I want my association to poll the group. Are we interested in ALPA?

I am very confident such a vote would bury ACPA. The sooner this happens the better.

[rudder]

I did not bring up representation as a consideration on the overall 'to do' list at AC, but there are arguments that could be made that it is at least time to give the matter some consideration so at least to establish whether or not status quo works for the majority. Isn't that exactly what transpired during the mid-nineties?

There is no other pilot union on the planet that offers the resources that ALPA does. And for those trapped in memories of the past, ALPA is nothing like CALPA. This debate should be about what options are available and what the majority desire as a certified bargaining agent. There is nothing wrong with a healthy discourse so long as it remains courteous and that in the end the will of the majority prevails. Any bargaining agent that does not have the support of its membership is doomed to be ineffective.

[TheStig]

James is that you? There aren't too many die hard supporters of TA1 out there…In all seriousness Counterpoint I'm glad you've weighed into the discussion, you've raised some great points. In all fairness, the scope language was one of the strong points of the TA that most of the group seemed happy with.

Fanblade, I'm not sure ALPA is going to be some 'White Knight', but I'd be curious to see what they have to say. Maybe some former/current ALPA members can weigh in here? In the current political environment with the PC's industry first and last mentality strong headed unionism isn't going to work.

Like yourself no doubt, one thing I am certain of is that I don't want ACPA representing me in its present forum. The HMS ACPA seems to be doing nothing more than floating aimlessly in the ocean as another storm approaches, the leadership in on the bridge fighting about which direction to steer the ship, while communicating nothing other than monthly updates about how great the shipping company is doing.

Remember the definition of insanity? Maybe it's time to give up on grassroots? There seem to be too many personal agendas.

[Counterpoint]

FanB,

You are talking about 1.10.03 (TA 1.10.04) and 1.10.04 (TA 1.10.05).

I'm referring to the ASM grab (thanks to FOS) of L74.01.08 (compare the TA language with the FOS).

"Wholly within Canada,......." Also the reference to 1.10.05 was erased and replaced with "Collective Agreement"......this is why I say that by the stroke of a pen, the ASM grab at the rouge airline will be bigger from the 767 aircraft than the 319 aircraft.

[Fanblade]

Counterpoint,

Nope. I knew you were referencing LOU 74. I read the message board regularly.

This question was asked and answered and explained by the company contract administrator. Obviously someone else either had the same concern as you, or heard via rumor what you are stating.

End result, this one is a non issue.

Rouge 767 overseas ASM's do not count as domestic ASM's. It was just the Mexico ASM's that changed. Right out of the administrators mouth.

By the way. I am thankful that the company has started this question and answer board. I think they were wise to do so considering how fractured ACPA is.

[Fanblade]

Like yourself no doubt, one thing I am certain of is that I don't want ACPA representing me in its present forum.

Remember the definition of insanity? Maybe it's time to give up on grassroots? There seem to be too many personal agendas.

Agreed. FWIW I have drawn the conclusion that ACPA's issues are systemic. I have only been here less than three years. Agenda's, governance, refusing to follow professional advice, trying to run away from an MOA.......and on and on.

What I see now is two groups blaming the other. TA1 proponents blaming the actions of NC2. NC2 supporters blaming NC1. The problem with this blame game is that it leaves the impression that without "the other groups actions" everything would be hunky dory. That what happened over the last few years is a one time event and just needs tweaking to correct.

Ratherbe makes very good remarks about this earlier in the thread but attributes cause to who the membership elects.

Both conclusions in my opinion are flawed. The same governance issues that were evident when I was first hired, are still here today even after elections and recalls. Individuals pursuing, what i am sure are well intentioned, agendas regardless of the wishes of the membership. Ignoring professional advice when it doesn't suit the agenda.

We clearly do not have proper governance, oversight or checks and balances in place. People just do as they wish. It is my understanding that governance reform has been brought forward in the past but always voted down by those in power.

We desperately need proper oversight. The current leadership doesn't have governance even on the radar. In fact we have some advocating less in the way of checks and balances. Vote me in and let me do what I want for my mandate. There was a push to go back and vet what happened over the last 2-3 years. That has been shelved.

Clearly with a measley 23% trust rating there is something wrong with ACPA. That trust rating is a direct result of the governance issues above. When you demonstrate repeatedly that you will peruse an agenda regardless of the memberships wishes ( I know best) and ignore professional advice in pursuit of that agenda you prove yourself untrustworthy.

Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? I get that ACPA's start came from what was considered need. That need is gone.

[Counterpoint]

FanB,

I never said 767 overseas ASM.

I said;

"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)"

[Fanblade]

FanB,

I never said 767 overseas ASM.

I said;

"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)"

First off it is hard to imagine how one could come to this conclusion without using 767 overseas ASM's.

Secondly the assertion that FOS somehow altered, in a large way, the amount of ASM's the Rouge 767 fleet will contribute to the domestic ASM ratio is incorrect.

The only thing that changed during FOS was the ASM's to and from Mexico. At the moment there are no Mexico ASM's.

If your statement in the end proves to be correct. I have my doubts but lets go with it. If the Rouge domestic 767 ASM's eventually out pace the 319, and only the Mexico ASM's changed during FOS, which NC would this be predominantly attributed to?

Can we stop yet?

[Counterpoint]

Follow me on this......

The rouge airline is a Specialty company (LOU 74 - Recognition).

Specialty companies are considered Affiliates (1.03.03)

Affiliates ASM don't count toward Air Canada ASM (1.03.05)

Any exceptions to the FOS contract with respect to the rouge airline are located in the table under Recognition.

Article 1 is not in the table, therefore not exempt.

Any other changes to provisions are allowed by the sentence under Recognition ("except as amended by.......").

This is where we find the new L74.01.08.

You say "Nope....." because on the message board someone has comforted you by saying that the language in 1.10.04 (excluding International flying....) will be respected as the limit.

Following the same logic (the language in Article 1 is to be respected), then 1.03.05 would supersede L74.01.08 which would mean none of the rouge airline's ASM would count at all. Not even the 319 aircraft.

The acpa doesn't trust the company, (your link to article).

How long do you think it will be before the message board author discovers the mistake and issues a reversal. In that case he would be forced to concede that the L74 language takes priority and that would have to mean that all the 767 ASM at the rouge airline would count. Otherwise, none of it counts according to 1.03.05.

To me it appears the "wholly within Canada....." was inserted in case there was a dispute. Now that it's erased, and if a dispute would require third party intervention, how do you suppose they'd rule ?

There is a reason the acpa doesn't trust the company, the message board might be one of them.

When can we discuss the quid ?

[Fanblade]

L74.01.08 85% of the total LCC A-319 ASMs and 85% of the LCC WB ASMs are ASM’s flown at Air Canada by Air Canada Pilots for the purposes of the Collective Agreement.

What does the collective agreement say?

1.10.04 Air Canada will ensure that a minimum of 100 ASMs are flown at Air Canada by Air Canada Pilots (excluding International flying by WJA equipment) for every 29 ASMs flown by CPA carriers for, or on behalf of, Air Canada or its Affiliates, and by Tier 3 carriers when they are operating flights which carry the AC IATA designator code or future similar designator code.

Why are you going to such great lengths to make the other side look bad over an issue that doesn't exist? Or suggesting the company will do something that violates the contract when they have already stated they won't. I don't trust them either but really?

And no I don't want to discuss quid. It no longer matters. Its done. Over. The only reason you want to discuss it is to make the other side look bad. Don't worry. I understand just how badly they screwed up. I have already stated NC1 gave AC what they wanted in exchange for quid. I am not suggesting there wasn't any. NC2 through their FOS submission gave AC the opportunity to take back all the quid NC1 had traded for.

I am done with engaging you on the past. It serves no purpose.

Let me be very clear. I am NOT a NC2 supporter. That FOS submission was a colossal mistake. By far the biggest mistake throughout the last three years. We are darn lucky we didn't lose more. How it got through LRD, legal and the MEC is unfathomable. This one thing alone should make us all pause and reflect.

The thing is, it isn't the only questionable thing that has transpired over the last few years. There are many and the trend is from bad to worse. I have seen enough.

[Counterpoint]

You say you've seen enough.

You say that despite growth language in the TA, and the quid that went with it, you'd rather not discuss the quid. Your mind is made up, you've had enough.

I don't think you can measure any performance unless you measure the quid. It's the offset.

The problem with many, is that it's too easy to make comment, lay blame, then when the details are laid out in front of you, you say, I've had enough, I don't want the acpa to represent me anymore, give me something else. In your case, it's the ALPA. After all, canjet and air transAt are represented by them, so it's not something that is out of the realm of possibility.

Let's keep an open mind and discuss the quid, then maybe you can make a judgement about just what was gained in bargaining, then lost in arbitration. Like we did with the "no growth" myth. Let's get into the meat, like we did with the growth language.

Why is it so frustrating to discuss this ? Keep calm and keep the forum of discussion open. There are so many good points to learn from this.

[disco]

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!.

Some of the lamest tripe on here in awhile. You are regurgitating total BS as repeatedly told by the Groupe 27, a dad, and their friends. Are you one of the friends or just horribly misinformed?

To be sure, you have it wrong.

[disco]

That FOS submission was a colossal mistake. By far the biggest mistake throughout the last three years. We are darn lucky we didn't lose more. How it got through LRD, legal and the MEC is unfathomable. This one thing alone should make us all pause and reflect. .

I'm sensing a serious misunderstanding of the ACPA FOS submission here Fanblade.

Please advise what in your estimation was a colossal mistake. A permanent shared risk pension solution that met the Act and provided a snap-back quality for better times when discount rates return to the normal stratosphere, a shared gain (approx. 50/50) of the massive financial gain of pilots working past 60 (did you understand this provision and the deliberate math involved therein?).

I am rather curious what areas of the submission (prepared by a team of labour lawyers, pension lawyers, pension actuary, airline industry and economic experts, and LRD) were so colossally flawed for you.

I think you are missing some facts or may have bought into some spin.

Do you realize how weak Air Canada's submission was and the dearth of evidence offered to support their concessionary position? Honest questions as you seem to be speaking with some conviction about the submission. Do you happen to have any arbitration or bargaining background? Are you aware that the Air Canada submission was actually a renege on the deal with ACPA before Stanley on what the submission construct was to consist of?

[Fanblade]

I will bite.

The jurisprudence for interest based arbitration, where a MOA exists, is the arbitrator will impose the MOA. There are exceptions but the test is extremely high. ACPA did not meet them.

The CUPE arbitration just before ACPA drove this warning home to all Air Canada unions. NC2 ignored the warning.

FOS brought in a wrinkle. The MOA would not be imposed rather the closest submission to it would be.

The arbitrator was left with no choice but to pick the companies submission.

Why did you not throw TA1 back on the table? Walking away from TA1 allowed AC to walk in the other direction and remove substantial parts of TA1.

Why did you refuse to work from TA1 even though the jurisprudence said you must.

Why did your FOS submission not look remotely like TA1. Similar sections completely reworded.

How many lawyers did it take to get one that would endorse walking away from TA1.

Why did you put an illegal age 60 submission in, when this was a take it or leave it choice for the arbitrator? This alone guaranteed ACPA's submission would fail.

Why did ACPA LRD or legal not stop you.

Why did the MEC endorse something that was sure to fail and harm the membership.

Incompetence

[disco]

Fanblade,

I am sorry but you are extremely misinformed and way off base. You are either running with completely false info (much of which I am rather aware of the source and have heard several times before) or you are grossly disingenuous. I believe the former to be likely. I doubt you could really be this disingenuous with this much conviction in your cyber tone.

You are repeating a great many TOTAL untruths that you have heard or read elsewhere Fanblade. I can guarantee this 100 percent. I am sorry to say this but you are demonstrating as rather gullible to me.

"The CUPE arbitration just before ACPA drove this warning home to all Air Canada unions. NC2 ignored the warning."

CUPE's situation was very different from ACPAs and all of the lawyers and LRD professionals will tell you that. They were certainly consulted fully. CUPE had NOT spent 13 months at the table on a completely different document from the MOA. They spent a brief period attempting to tweak their TA. Very different situation.

"Why did you refuse to work from TA1 even though the jurisprudence said you must."

Air Canada advised ACPA that TA1 was off the table in clear terms. Its in MEC and NC2 meeting minutes. I suppose you may have been unaware of that or are selective about what you read or what you believe. Furthermore, the jurisprudence you reference here is about arbitration Fanblade...not about returning to the bargaining table. Do not confuse these two different Collective Bargaining situations (in exactly the same way those that have fed you this stuff have done - I've read their confused and misinformed arguments on this). Bear in mind that the people you are repeating these untruths from actually have NO bargaining experience or training. Not great sources my friend.

You have also failed to read a portion of my post or perhaps did not understand it. Air Canada and ACPA agreed before Arb. Stanley that the document to be submitted would NOT be based on TA1. Let me repeat that: Air Canada and ACPA agreed before Arb. Stanley that the document to be submitted would NOT be based on TA1 I am extremely aware of the jurisprudence here Fanblade. The corp reneged in the final hours before submissions.

"How many lawyers did it take to get one that would endorse walking away from TA1."

Once again, this is pure regurgitation of an outright lie. ACPA utilized the Labour Firm it has worked with for many years and also sought a second opinion from one of the foremost Labour Firms in the country. Full stop. Please stick to actual facts rather than absolute BS you heard or read somewhere. Plain wrong and grossly disappointing.

"Why did you put an illegal age 60 submission in, when this was a take it or leave it choice for the arbitrator? This alone guaranteed ACPA's submission would fail."

There was nothing illegal about the ACPA submission with respect to Age 60. Stanley described it as untried and uncertain....the exact same conclusion must be applied to the corp's submission. Untried and uncertain. ACPA sought in-depth legal advice from a lawyer expert on the matter Fanblade. The bottom line is that both proposals would be untried and later tested within the Human Rights Act. The fact is that both parties were forced to propose untried and untested positions with respect to the Act and that ACPA's proposal represented zero financial risk to both parties should it later fail that test as no pilot would be unjustly under compensated in the intervening period of time.

In fact, the corp's Age 60 submission totally fails two of the major tests in arbitration theory - the theories of gradualism and replication. I won't bother explaining these here but suffice to say that if one party attempts a total windfall gain in FOS - it is normal for the arbitrator to award against such an attempt. The corp took 100% of the financial benefit for pilots working past 60. Do you really think that 5 pilots came up with this stuff and ran it unchecked into a proceeding as serious as this? How naive Fanblade. The ACPA submission was built and vetted by labor and pension lawyers, industry and economics experts, LRD and related ACPA committees.

Stanley also states in the award that the decision ultimately turns on 3 critical issues: pensions, scope and LCC; Stanley also states "I have reviewed the offers in their entirety, nothing in either offer, outside of the three critical issues I identified above, would be persuasive enough to displace my conclusions based on these three issues."

No mention Fanblade of the matter turning on the Age 60 submissions yet you confidently state here on this forum that ACPA's Age 60 proposal "guaranteed ACPA's submission would fail."???

Further, ACPA's submission very diligently explains the costing of Age 60 and everything else in the submission over a number of pages whereas the corp's submission doesn't really bother. One page - 5 or 6 line items.

Fanblade, you are very quick to throw a lot of accusations and insults without having your facts straight (incompetence? Your postings on this matter are not only incompetent but irresponsible as a result of your totally invalid data and sourcing - literally running with crap you've heard somewhere?) .

FOS is not an exercise in incompetence by 5 pilots who think they know what they are doing. As I said, it is a very large team of the industry's best and brightest who build, vet and present in a case like this.

It is amazing what little credit you give to the people and process you truly seem to understand very little about. Speaks volumes colleague.

You have bought a pile of crap from a particular solitude within the ACPA membership and are happy to spread it here as factual.

[Fanblade]

[quote"fanblade"]

"The CUPE arbitration just before ACPA drove this warning home to all Air Canada unions. NC2 ignored the warning."

CUPE's situation was very different from ACPAs and all of the lawyers and LRD professionals will tell you that. They were certainly consulted fully. CUPE had NOT spent 13 months at the table on a completely different document from the MOA. They spent a brief period attempting to tweak their TA. Very different situation.

No the situations were EXACTLY the same based on accepted jurisprudence. If you end up in arbitration, where an MOA exists, it will be imposed. Your attempt at rejecting the similarity between CUPE and ACPA is extremely lacking. Fact. At the end of the day both had MOA's and both ended up in arbitration. It does not matter how the situation developed. What matters is only that the parties ended up in arbitration with a previous MOA. Making the CUPE and ACPA situation exactly the same.

Arbitrators are to attempt to replicate what would have been the likely outcome in the dispute if intervention had not taken place.

Recommendation of a memorandum of agreement (MOA), if one exists, by a negotiating committee (Not the executive) has for decades been the benchmark used by arbitrators to determine where the parties would have ended up, if left to their own devices.

Arbitrators will impose an MOA, if one exists, on the parties of the dispute, except under exceptional circumstances.

Exceptional circumstances are defined as. The MOA must be erroneous, irrational, illogical or dysfunctional.

The membership simply not liking the MOA is specifically cited as NOT a good enough reason not to impose an MOA in arbitration.

The onus for proving the MOA is erroneous, irrational, illogical or dysfunctional rests solely with the party trying to retreat from the MOA and the benchmark required as proof is a very high standard.

What you did was ignore this past practise jurisprudence in favour of an untested charter argument. Quote from NC2 below. You followed this strategy even in the face of a CUPE arbitration, only 3 months earlier, where the head of the CIRB put to rest any doubt which jurisprudence they would use in arbitration. She even underlined the important parts for everyone, including dumb old me, to figure out. You ignored the warning that your untested argument was going to amount to squat.

The Negotiating Committee has sought legal advice regarding the handling of a failed TA. In the past, the approach for unions has been to accept the validity of the involved NC's opinion that a TA was good enough, essentially ignoring the members' opinion that a TA was unacceptable.

But in recent years, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that under the Charter, collective bargaining is rooted in members' individual rights to a form of "workplace democracy". If that right is to have any real meaning, unions must be given greater latitude to consult with their members, and labour boards and governments must not rush to dispense with member views because "the bargaining committee knew best"

At the end of the day this argument ended up in the garbage bin just like the head of the CIRB warned you it would.

"Why did you refuse to work from TA1 even though the jurisprudence said you must.

Air Canada advised ACPA that TA1 was off the table in clear terms. Its in MEC and NC2 meeting minutes. I suppose you may have been unaware of that or are selective about what you read or what you believe. Furthermore, the jurisprudence you reference here is about arbitration Fanblade...not about returning to the bargaining table. Do not confuse these two different Collective Bargaining situations (in exactly the same way those that have fed you this stuff have done - I've read their confused and misinformed arguments on this). Bear in mind that the people you are repeating these untruths from actually have NO bargaining experience or training. Not great sources my friend.

You have also failed to read a portion of my post or perhaps did not understand it. Air Canada and ACPA agreed before Arb. Stanley that the document to be submitted would NOT be based on TA1. Let me repeat that: Air Canada and ACPA agreed before Arb. Stanley that the document to be submitted would NOT be based on TA1 I am extremely aware of the jurisprudence here Fanblade. The corp reneged in the final hours before submissions.

Well duh they wanted to encourage you to walk away from TA1. The corp didn't renege on anything. They played you like a violin. The whole point of the government and AC colluding to introduce FOS, was to try and pull stuff out of TA1. Without FOS TA1 would be imposed. With FOS instead this became a game of who would be closest to TA1. AC wanted you to walk away from TA1 and they encouraged you to so so at ever oportunity. It allowed them to remove a bunch of quid from TA1 but still be closest to the TA1 the MOA. And yes what they did by promising you one thing, but then doing another, was probably unethical. But it worked nonetheless. They got you to walk away from TA1, even though past practice told you this would be a very bad idea. Even though the CIRB warned you not to ignore past practice jurisprudence, you did it anyway.

Based on juresprudence if you had placed a slightly tweaked TA1 on the table you would have won.

So please excuse my questioning of ACPA's competence. NC2 lost a sh!t pile of money because they out right refused to follow the correct jurisprudence even after being warned by the very people who would eventually impose an arbitrated settlement.

"How many lawyers did it take to get one that would endorse walking away from TA1."

Once again, this is pure regurgitation of an outright lie. ACPA utilized the Labour Firm it has worked with for many years and also sought a second opinion from one of the foremost Labour Firms in the country. Full stop. Please stick to actual facts rather than absolute BS you heard or read somewhere. Plain wrong and grossly disappointing.

Absolute BS I heard or read somewhere? LOL. You do realize someone, yes probably one of your opponents, leaked Waller's opinion on abandoning TA1. It was all over YYZ flight planning. Placed in mail folders. He wasn't supportive but provided advice if ACPA was going to go down the constitutional path anyway. Between what he wrote, and what the CIRB published (essentially the same) it is hard to understand why you stayed the course. The likelihood of success was remote. But hey I never read the other opinion explaining why past practice jurisprudence no longer applies. But even if I had bought in, the CIRB CUPE arbitration should have been a bloody big wake up call.

Fanblade, you are very quick to throw a lot of accusations and insults without having your facts straight (incompetence? Your postings on this matter are not only incompetent but irresponsible as a result of your totally invalid data and sourcing - literally running with crap you've heard somewhere?) .

FOS is not an exercise in incompetence by 5 pilots who think they know what they are doing. As I said, it is a very large team of the industry's best and brightest who build, vet and present in a case like this.

It is amazing what little credit you give to the people and process you truly seem to understand very little about. Speaks volumes colleague.

You have bought a pile of crap from a particular solitude within the ACPA membership and are happy to spread it here as factual.

[/quote]

I stick to my opinion in its entirety. The opinion is based on fact. I know you don't like the opinion, just like counterpoint didn't like it either. I don't want to point figures. I don't really even want to discuss the past. It is required to point out how badly we have been managed by ACPA. I'm not going to waste my time debating the past. Counterpoint has already taken too much of my time.

This is the only thing of importance.

Looking in the rear view mirror. Over multiple leaderships representation has been brutal.

Looking forward. Do I want ACPA representing me? Absolutely not.

[disco]

Fanblade,

believe me - I am keenly aware of what a waste of time this debate is. I truly have many more important things happening in my life. You have grabbed onto someone else's story loaded in untruth and revisionist history and little tidbits that are being used totally out of context or are being completely misunderstood. All to conveniently suit a predetermined conclusion.

The fact is, I actually question the value of any response at all at this point - however , against my better judgement, I will make a couple of brief points and then will endeavor not to waste another moment on this with you.

CUPE and ACPA's situation were very different and this was seen clearly by all of the experienced participants and advisers including LRD right to the very top but I understand how you might well know better than that entire group on matters such as this. Perhaps they should have consulted you rather than rely on their decades of collective bargaining experience.

You suggest that totally unethical and disingenuous bargaining by reneging on an agreed upon tenet before the arbitrator is a "well duh". The very foundation of bargaining is that the parties need to agree to issues piece by piece as they go along and they must reasonably expect these agreements be upheld. Their has to be trust between the parties that agreements are - well just that. That is how it works or you would never reach a deal in bargaining - ever. But I'm guessing you already understand how this works given the knowledge of bargaining that you attempt to convey.

The kind of game you are suggesting was a "well duh" for you is outrageous, unethical and never before seen by a large panel of experienced people (yes, including our professional negotiator and a lawyer who have been at the table with this very entity for many years). But here again, you are more bargaining savvy than that entire group and would have called this one for them. Hilarious. Very convenient for you to Monday morning quarterback that unheard of renege like it is totally predictable bargaining procedure. What ACPA could have done with such a powerful visionary is hard to imagine. Such a large group of gullible chimps could have been saved by one wundermind.

You repeatedly mix legal opinions, bargaining phases and context to fit a conclusion (just like the group you are regurgitating from with note for note similarity?). You only seem to leave out the laughable and fictional Hargrove reference - or perhaps you already tossed that one at us earlier in the thread. I'm not interested enough to look back and see.

You reference Waller's letter.

Waller's advice and that of another very reputable labour firm (which also advised how different our situation was from the jurisprudence and CUPE et al) led NC2 to repeatedly meet with the MEC to craft the ACPA submission closer to the TA in a series of consecutive meetings except where the parties had agreed to specific adjustments. You see, NC2 did nothing without MEC approval at every step.

Piece by piece NC2 and a team of expert consultants continued to weave the important TA1 components into the submission AS PER our legal advice including Waller's letter (bearing in mind the challenge that this had to be within the construct of our previous CA not the TA as agreed before Stanley).

You suggest that ACPA leadership such as JMB and Paul Strachan has been horrible? What the hell would you know about such matters? What do you know about how miserably the pilots of Air Canada failed their leadership when it mattered? In fact, what do you know about representing pilots at all? Have you done it?

Without a doubt, the parties would differ in places. That is to be expected. Regardless of what you seem to think or convey here - you really aren't very bargaining savvy Fanblade, you DO have your "facts" wrong, bent and out of context and you don't have the clear and factual picture of these last couple of years you purport.

To that end....I'm not very interested in further effort to convince you otherwise.

Its really not that compelling an outcome for me.

[Fanblade]

Disco,

Your right. Waste of time.

You can not walk away from an MOA. You did it anyway and the membership paid the price.

I think the facts of the case, and the outcome, speak for themselves.

When I heard you guys agreeing that TA1 was gone I thought you were just doing the dance with the corp. Both sides trying to get the other to move away from the pin sort of speak. When I read your submission it was obvious why you lost. You actually walked away! Insane.

[rudder]

You know what strikes me about this discourse? That one person seems process oriented but the other seems results oriented.

So how did it turn out? Awful. Enough said about whether the tactics were appropriate as the results speak for themselves. One party was playing chess and the other was playing checkers.

[accumulous]

Why did you put an illegal age 60 submission in, when this was a take it or leave it choice for the arbitrator? This alone guaranteed ACPA's submission would fail.

Reading through the FOS papers before they hit the table, it wasn’t incompetence that struck a chord, it was incontinence. A complete inability to stop jerking the same age 60 chain that ACPA had been jerking for almost a decade while the rest of the entire aviation industry had already quite easily strolled well past the issue.

What was immediately at question was whether or not the Arbitrator would already know the direction that all other AC unions had taken on the age 60 issue and indeed all of the other airlines in North America. And yet, clearly, here was a major Human Rights issue buried inside a FOS. The plan was quite simply to yank all Captains out of their left seats at age 60, and who knows, maybe give them an atta-boy, maybe 3 and a half stripes, or three gold stripes and a lanyard, and just help to shoe-horn them out of that left seat by carrot-sticking the issue with left seat wages, making them the most highly paid F/O’s in the Solar System, a real nut-bar of a corporate savings plan to be putting forward in a Final Offer that among other things was trying to be economical in light of AC’s economic woes. The most expensive F/O’s in the known universe would be remunerated by a sizable chunk of the windfall savings to AC of not having to hire a whack of new pilots. Did the FOS scheme happen to canvas the senior Captains to see what they thought about the proposal, while noting that if it failed, ACPA’s contract would be made into a little paper airplane and flown present position direct to the round file??

Were there a few itsy-bitsy problems with the ‘game plan’ that was obviously not dreamed up by any senior pilots??
1. Surely no Company would want to have the most expensive F/O’s in the Solar System.
2. The savings due to the end of Mandatory Retirement should rightfully be spread across the entire pilot population, not just the Captains that ACPA was trying punt sideways. So 3200 pilots, minus the boys who dreamed up the plan, should be really concerned about that.
3. Wasn’t mandatory retirement already being unceremoniously deleted in all the other AC unions with no strings attached, by Arbitrators? Therefore, would it have taken more than a moment for any Arbitrator to see through the scheme called Yank-the-Captains, for being diametrically opposed to the prevailing wind of the day??
4. But the really eye-opening jaw-dropping mistake of the FOS was expecting an Arbitrator to inadvertently rule on the hit-list wish-list of displacing fully qualified Captains out of their positions while at the same time acknowledging that they could continue being ‘employed’, in effect orchestrating a side-bar re-ordering of the Human Rights of one specific group, tried or untried, in a FOS function that was not supposed to be a Human Rights issue. The venue was all wrong. And what was especially bare naked obvious was that ACPA had publicly rejected any effort to represent any Human Rights grievances put forward by any of the senior pilots, to allow for an Arbitrator’s ruling on the same issue, but would slide Captain seat dismissals into the mix as a FOS side note to a package that had to go as a whole. Was the stage then set for complete failure??
5. Senior pilots had filed employment grievances and had expected to be represented in front of an Arbitrator, like all the other unionized employees at AC. ACPA refused to represent their own senior pilots in their grievance. So in the FOS submission, an Arbitrator was being presented with a pre-determined ruling on the very issue that ACPA would not allow the light of day to shine upon in the presence of an Arbitrator, which most assuredly had to be met with the dismissal of the proposal, because all the senior Captains would have lost their positions if the FOS were accepted?? The FOS tried to inject a very significant Human Rights issue into a contract proposal in front of an Arbitrator while simultaneously rejecting out of hand any representation for the same senior pilots for grievances to be heard by an Arbitrator. Surely that event alone sealed the fate of the contract?

[Fanblade]

Disco,
Well I just read the ACPA strategic planning committee report.

Can I assume you also think a committee sanctioned to look at what happened post TA1 is full of innuendo, false hoods, and the like as well? It is a honest look at ourselves and describes complete dysfunction and incompetence.

With that said finally some honest navel gazing is going on. I didn't realize ACPA had even commissioned this. I must say the report actually makes me more comfortable. We are looking in the mirror. Good.

I also see a president newsletter in tandum with the released study announcing an outside governance and LRD review. I thought this had been put on the back burner.

Looks like I am going to have to do my own retraction. My rant at ACPA has been based on the assumption we were doing nothing to correct the absolute failure of the last round of negotiations.

That assumption is apparently wrong. I will reserve judgment until I see concrete changes. Words are fluff however it is a start.

[disco]

The "report" was authored by someone who was never present ONCE In any negotiations activity and spent most of his time talking to his contact in management.

It is horribly inaccurate in many places and the author did not consult one person from NC2 and its becoming quite possible - the MEC. Based on some if the content, I am also rather sure the author wasn't provided with the comprehensive working group document that outlined bargaining protocols, control points etc because we followed it to the letter with full transparency and it it's completely in conflict with this "report".

I don't imagine you have any idea what document I am referring to and I truly don't care. You are brutally attempting to make conclusions on something you're not in any position to be a reference on.

Certainly sums up your desperation to appear credible that you would pounce to even more conclusions based on this laughably misleading and biased "report". Yes - biased. Most of the author's info and opinions comes from his contact on the other side. Don't get me started on how much they misled the group with newsletters throughout that time.

I understand the depth of character I am debating with.

Again, not interested,

[Fanblade]

Disco,

Let me get this straight. I should not be comforted by ACPA doing a review.

ACPA is so incompetent that they are f#$&ing up the review on the f#$% up?

By the way. It is not that I discount your opinion. In fact comments like this scare me.

"Don't get me started on how much they misled the group with newsletters throughout that time."

Totally agree. Are you saying the committee responsible for the report was NC1 biased?

God help us.

U am sick and tired of the BS.

[Counterpoint]

Disco,

"I am also rather sure the author wasn't provided with the comprehensive working group document that outlined bargaining protocols, control points etc because we followed it to the letter with full transparency and it it's completely in conflict with this "report". "

I'm not sure the ACPA SPC needed these documents. To me, the "report" reads as an autopsy of how and why the process failed in both rounds, not the what of the process.

It even says so in the first paragraph.

FanB,

"NC2 lost a sh!t pile of money because they out right refused to follow the correct jurisprudence even after being warned by the very people who would eventually impose an arbitrated settlement."

Would this be the quid from Tentative Agreement ?

"The opinion is based on fact. I know you don't like the opinion, just like counterpoint didn't like it either. I don't want to point figures. I don't really even want to discuss the past. It is required to point out how badly we have been managed by ACPA. I'm not going to waste my time debating the past. Counterpoint has already taken too much of my time."

I thought it was more of a show and tell, debate style, of how the language your negotiators built, actually protected the 35 aircraft, that the acpa will be losing from their position list. I thought with the relevant "written' language you could see that your position about the negotiators is/was wrong.

Now that your no-growth language myth has been corrected, maybe it's time we tackled the quid ?

[disco]

[quote="Counterpoint"]Disco,

"I am also rather sure the author wasn't provided with the comprehensive working group document that outlined bargaining protocols, control points etc because we followed it to the letter with full transparency and it it's completely in conflict with this "report". "

I'm not sure the ACPA SPC needed these documents. To me, the "report" reads as an autopsy of how and why the process failed in both rounds, not the what of the process.

It even says so in the first paragraph.

Counterpoint,

the "report" is a horribly inaccurate opinion piece written by an outsider who did not consult ANY of the direct participants from NC2 or the MEC. How on earth can this be called a "report"? It is a very poor and inaccurate opinion piece with a bias.