Pilots vote "NO" to 787s and 777s
Jun 20, 2005, 7:15 am
#136
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Thanks for the Memories !!!
Posts: 10,658
Originally Posted by negotiator
Do yourself a favor and don't waste your time and money on a law suit.
It's meritless and misconcieved!
Cheers
It's meritless and misconcieved!
Cheers
?
Jun 20, 2005, 7:25 am
#137
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Programs: Bar Alliance Gold
Posts: 16,271
Originally Posted by Shareholder
But this issue goes back to a bone of contention RM has had with his long haul pilots for years...The cost of maintaining extra crew, loss of revenue front cabin seats, and other factors affect the profitability of AC's best-performing routes. While the new Boeings may offer better tech specs, as long as the work rules and crew costs also don't present such economies, AC will rely on more leased B763s and under performing Airbuses.
So while you still have to pay the reserve crew, you could now sell the seat(s) they occupy on Airbus/767 equipment.
Jun 20, 2005, 7:33 am
#139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by SEA_Tigger
The 777-200LRs can be equipped with pilot rest and relaxation modules above the main cabin ceiling, which would mean no J seats need to be given over to them for meals/sleep. I don't know if AC blocks out some Economy seats for the FAs, but they too can now rest and relax upstairs, which maximizes saleable seats and, being in the overheads and not down below, does not impinge on cargo space. I expect the 787 will offer the same feature.
So while you still have to pay the reserve crew, you could now sell the seat(s) they occupy on Airbus/767 equipment.
So while you still have to pay the reserve crew, you could now sell the seat(s) they occupy on Airbus/767 equipment.
Jun 20, 2005, 7:33 am
#140
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Programs: OWEmerald; STARGold; BonvoyPlat; IHGPlat/Amb; HiltonGold; A|ClubPat; AirMilesPlat
Posts: 38,186
Originally Posted by negotiator
Do yourself a favor and don't waste your time and money on a law suit.
It's meritless and misconcieved!
Cheers
It's meritless and misconcieved!
Cheers
Granted we don't live in the United States where courts have started to permit shareholder class action suits against management, but maybe it is about time the other side of the equation gets a dressing down. Demolishing ACE's business plan can hardly be classified as "meritless" when it wrecks havoc on the company's future plans and share price. Not to mention keeping up their personal vendetta against RM. Let's hope that some major pension plans also decide this might not be such a waste of money. Even Canadian courts have finally decided to permit such actions against miscreants like Conrad Black. So why not this band of turds?
To many of us on the outside, 95% of negotiating ploys on the part of unions would fall into the same category: "meritless and misconceived". But you guys get paid handsomely to be as arcane as lawyers in this regard.
One of the other issues mentioned in the STAR article was a jealousy over the stock options provided ACE senior execs. The pilots argue they should get the high pay they do because they can be called on to "save lives" in the case of problems inflight. Well, don't ACE's senior execs deserve similar rewards for staving off liquidation, and getting the airline into better operating shape? Imagine being an senior manager working 16-hour days and 80-hour weeks, while these pilots work 80-hour months for about the same pay, or more!
Jun 20, 2005, 7:38 am
#141
At Large
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: oakville Ontario canada;AC*SE
Posts: 16,985
Originally Posted by negotiator
Do yourself a favor and don't waste your time and money on a law suit.
It's meritless and misconcieved!
Cheers
It's meritless and misconcieved!
Cheers
I think AC might have grounds to force trustee ship of ACPA and get it reorganized.
Jun 20, 2005, 7:41 am
#142
At Large
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: oakville Ontario canada;AC*SE
Posts: 16,985
Originally Posted by canada_dry
If I were a shareholder, my attention would be more directed towards RM. His "plan B" won't work this time, and the airline is just headed towards CCAA 2010.
And please confirm your ties if any to AC.
Jun 20, 2005, 7:46 am
#143
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,671
I used to work for an aerospace company in the late 70's who were non-unionized. Two competing companies were very highly unionized and are no longer in business.
The customers of all three companies decided they liked to do business with a supplier with a flexible approach that would accept change and sweep away older and costly working practices that belonged in another era. The two companies that folded in the end just could not compete and the unions obstructed to the end, even when the outcome was crystal clear. They had entrenched their position so much that the union leaders could not change course without severe loss-of-face.
The company that survived was a supplier of fuel systems to Airbus but with their approach and pricing they recently captured Boeing as a customer as well. The employees attitude to change has ultimately proved more beneficial and secure for them in the medium-long term.
A good few of the ex-union members of one of the folded companies meet regularly in a local pub and discuss "the good old days" but they no longer have jobs but are still 100% convinced they were correct to stand up for their "rights".
A possible interesting parallel could develop here. Ultimately the pax will decide the outcome by deciding whether they will still use AC's older config aircraft and pricing structure that is likely to become increasingly uncompetitive.
Now if only I could work 80 hours a month.....
The customers of all three companies decided they liked to do business with a supplier with a flexible approach that would accept change and sweep away older and costly working practices that belonged in another era. The two companies that folded in the end just could not compete and the unions obstructed to the end, even when the outcome was crystal clear. They had entrenched their position so much that the union leaders could not change course without severe loss-of-face.
The company that survived was a supplier of fuel systems to Airbus but with their approach and pricing they recently captured Boeing as a customer as well. The employees attitude to change has ultimately proved more beneficial and secure for them in the medium-long term.
A good few of the ex-union members of one of the folded companies meet regularly in a local pub and discuss "the good old days" but they no longer have jobs but are still 100% convinced they were correct to stand up for their "rights".
A possible interesting parallel could develop here. Ultimately the pax will decide the outcome by deciding whether they will still use AC's older config aircraft and pricing structure that is likely to become increasingly uncompetitive.
Now if only I could work 80 hours a month.....
Jun 20, 2005, 8:14 am
#146
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Thanks for the Memories !!!
Posts: 10,658
Originally Posted by BOH
A possible interesting parallel could develop here. Ultimately the pax will decide the outcome by deciding whether they will still use AC's older config aircraft and pricing structure that is likely to become increasingly uncompetitive.
Jun 20, 2005, 8:21 am
#147
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PSP
Programs: AC*SE
Posts: 1,878
The Pilots are Just Plain Wrong
I just returned from getting a copy of today's Globe and I read the 'front page' story on ACPA rejecting the AC Boeing deal.
Having read the story, this is all making a lot more sence to me.
This issue is quite simply about some disgruntled AC pilots that, but for the Canadian Airlines merger in 2000, would be flying the new 777 and 787 Dreamliners. In orther words, a small group of pilots are pissed off because some former Canadian guys out rank them in seniorty and, therefore, will fly the new birds.
Some trade Unionists! NOT.
These AC pilots are a disgrace. For anyone who knows my writing, and which side of the fence I sit on, knows that this is harsh language comming from me but thats the way I see it.
ACPA better get back to the table right away while there's still a possiblity of salvaging the deal. If they don't and the deal falls through, then they will be responsible for the debacle that is surely going to happen to them, their fellow employees, the stakeholders, and the PAX
Having read the story, this is all making a lot more sence to me.
This issue is quite simply about some disgruntled AC pilots that, but for the Canadian Airlines merger in 2000, would be flying the new 777 and 787 Dreamliners. In orther words, a small group of pilots are pissed off because some former Canadian guys out rank them in seniorty and, therefore, will fly the new birds.
Some trade Unionists! NOT.
These AC pilots are a disgrace. For anyone who knows my writing, and which side of the fence I sit on, knows that this is harsh language comming from me but thats the way I see it.
ACPA better get back to the table right away while there's still a possiblity of salvaging the deal. If they don't and the deal falls through, then they will be responsible for the debacle that is surely going to happen to them, their fellow employees, the stakeholders, and the PAX
Last edited by negotiator; Jun 20, 2005 at 8:26 am
Jun 20, 2005, 8:36 am
#148
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 221
Ha! Ha! Ha! 
Love it when I get to say 'I warned you/ told you so'.
Also goes to prove that curses do work for some of us, if you'll recall my sincere wish that the unions give it to RM up the a== for doing this at this time.
The pilots may be acting like children fighting over a new toy, but too bad, so sad, ACE got what it deserves for trying to push this through without first getting it's employee relations in order.
And now it's back to en greve for me.
Love it when I get to say 'I warned you/ told you so'.
Also goes to prove that curses do work for some of us, if you'll recall my sincere wish that the unions give it to RM up the a== for doing this at this time.
The pilots may be acting like children fighting over a new toy, but too bad, so sad, ACE got what it deserves for trying to push this through without first getting it's employee relations in order.
And now it's back to en greve for me.
Jun 20, 2005, 8:40 am
#149
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Thanks for the Memories !!!
Posts: 10,658
Originally Posted by negotiator
I just returned from getting a copy of today's Globe and I read the 'front page' story on ACPA rejecting the AC Boeing deal.
Having read the story, this is all making a lot more sence to me.
This issue is quite simply about some disgruntled AC pilots that, but for the Canadian Airlines merger in 2000, would be flying the new 777 and 787 Dreamliners. In orther words, a small group of pilots are pissed off because some former Canadian guys out rank them in seniorty and, therefore, will fly the new birds.
Some trade Unionists! NOT.
These AC pilots are a disgrace. For anyone who knows my writing, and which side of the fence I sit on, knows that this is harsh language comming from me but thats the way I see it.
ACPA better get back to the table right away while there's still a possiblity of salvaging the deal. If they don't and the deal falls through, then they will be responsible for the debacle that is surely going to happen to them, their fellow employees, the stakeholders, and the PAX
Having read the story, this is all making a lot more sence to me.
This issue is quite simply about some disgruntled AC pilots that, but for the Canadian Airlines merger in 2000, would be flying the new 777 and 787 Dreamliners. In orther words, a small group of pilots are pissed off because some former Canadian guys out rank them in seniorty and, therefore, will fly the new birds.
Some trade Unionists! NOT.
These AC pilots are a disgrace. For anyone who knows my writing, and which side of the fence I sit on, knows that this is harsh language comming from me but thats the way I see it.
ACPA better get back to the table right away while there's still a possiblity of salvaging the deal. If they don't and the deal falls through, then they will be responsible for the debacle that is surely going to happen to them, their fellow employees, the stakeholders, and the PAX
Jun 20, 2005, 8:57 am
#150
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,810
Originally Posted by negotiator
I just returned from getting a copy of today's Globe and I read the 'front page' story on ACPA rejecting the AC Boeing deal.
Having read the story, this is all making a lot more sence to me.
This issue is quite simply about some disgruntled AC pilots that, but for the Canadian Airlines merger in 2000, would be flying the new 777 and 787 Dreamliners. In orther words, a small group of pilots are pissed off because some former Canadian guys out rank them in seniorty and, therefore, will fly the new birds.
Some trade Unionists! NOT.
These AC pilots are a disgrace. For anyone who knows my writing, and which side of the fence I sit on, knows that this is harsh language comming from me but thats the way I see it.
ACPA better get back to the table right away while there's still a possiblity of salvaging the deal. If they don't and the deal falls through, then they will be responsible for the debacle that is surely going to happen to them, their fellow employees, the stakeholders, and the PAX
Having read the story, this is all making a lot more sence to me.
This issue is quite simply about some disgruntled AC pilots that, but for the Canadian Airlines merger in 2000, would be flying the new 777 and 787 Dreamliners. In orther words, a small group of pilots are pissed off because some former Canadian guys out rank them in seniorty and, therefore, will fly the new birds.
Some trade Unionists! NOT.
These AC pilots are a disgrace. For anyone who knows my writing, and which side of the fence I sit on, knows that this is harsh language comming from me but thats the way I see it.
ACPA better get back to the table right away while there's still a possiblity of salvaging the deal. If they don't and the deal falls through, then they will be responsible for the debacle that is surely going to happen to them, their fellow employees, the stakeholders, and the PAX
However, as a customer, I don't deal with pilots, I deal with an airline. I can understand that most folks have strong reasons to be pissed off at the pilots, but that's not something I have any control on, or any legal relationship with. I buy my tickets from the airline. If I owned stocks, I would vote for the board. And expect the CEO to deal with labor issues in an effective way.
And surely, RM should have known the situation better than anyone? How come he didn't apparently? How come he let the situation get into this mess?
Surely, having used the bankruptcy thing to extract all sorts of concessions, but having let this deep resentment thing unsolved but still pretty much under the rug, then written that book of his and making himself look like a minor god in the process, he must be the worst-placed person in the world to deal with an unhappy pilot group?
(By the way, while this issue is in the air, have you considered running a spelling checker on your signature?)
