Pilots vote "NO" to 787s and 777s
Jun 19, 2005, 10:14 am
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chilling with penguins
Posts: 13,043
Originally Posted by parnel
Agree, except for one point.....I believe the government could make an order in council type of decision to suspend the union and allow the company flight rights with a "newco". This government just does not have the cojones to do it. The decision could be based on national interest,etc.
After all, Transport stayed out of the picture when AC was in banruptcy protection and refused to provide any bailout money.
Jun 19, 2005, 10:33 am
#63
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K MM * DL MM * HH Diamond * Marriott Lifetime Titanium * Queen's '92
Posts: 5,950
Originally Posted by Stranger
And in the process it's his job to secure whatever agreements he needs from whoever he needs them.
No. Trying to make my point. Milton's domestic agenda is his, not ours (either as customers or shareholders).
Simon
Jun 19, 2005, 10:42 am
#64
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,291
[QUOTE=negotiator]
I would like to think so, however, with both ACE & Boeing issuing releases that talk to the cancellation, I wonder if there really is a hidden timeline that would allow for reinstatement (perhaps at a penalty?) before the spots on the production line are offered to other airlines awaiting orders.
The deal is not dead however. If RM and Monty still want their birds, they have to work a bit harder for them. My advice is for them to get back to the table immediatly. The leadership of the ACPA has to be de-briefed by the membership as to what the actual problem was with the proposed settlement and bargain from there. Sometimes it's just a small move that will push through a deal - that's what I suspect here.
I notice the non-threatening, concillatory words used by Monty in his press realese from Montreal about the ACPA leadership...this is the kind of leadership AC needs in resolving their labour relations problems...no more RM tantrums or threats! I suspect that RM's arrogrance is half the problem with the rejection outcome.
They are close to a deal and they have to keep voting untill is comes out right.
I notice the non-threatening, concillatory words used by Monty in his press realese from Montreal about the ACPA leadership...this is the kind of leadership AC needs in resolving their labour relations problems...no more RM tantrums or threats! I suspect that RM's arrogrance is half the problem with the rejection outcome.
They are close to a deal and they have to keep voting untill is comes out right.
I would like to think so, however, with both ACE & Boeing issuing releases that talk to the cancellation, I wonder if there really is a hidden timeline that would allow for reinstatement (perhaps at a penalty?) before the spots on the production line are offered to other airlines awaiting orders.
Jun 19, 2005, 10:59 am
#65
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PSP
Programs: AC*SE
Posts: 1,878
Originally Posted by parnel
The union leadership probably hasn't got the balls to ratify it w/o the membership on side but maybe AC should go to court and try to get union management forced into signing the deal since as you say its not a contract renewal and the elected union management has agreed to it. That would cause some wildcat strikes no doubt but AC would have the legal side covered.
I agree...The ACPA executive doesn't have the balls to just sign the deal outside of a vote. You have to remember that the guys that control ACPA are the old guard that took the pilots out of the International Pilot Union in the first place because they precieved that organization to be un-democratic.
AC would be unsuccessful in taking this matter to court because the methodolgy of ratification of the 'contract' is in the hands of ACPA.
The only way AC could insist that a bona fide contract existed is for them to convince the court that was a clear and unambigious 1) Offer, 2) acceptance; and, 3) consideration.
In labour deals, the acceptance part is the most difficult because in a contract renewal situation the 'members' must vote on the offer and/or in this situation (where an amendement to the agreement took place) either the executive or the members must ratify the deal (unless there is an agreement in the memorandum that upon signing by the 'union offical(s) the contract is binding).
The only way for this to be resolved is for the parties to retun to the table and put together a deal that takes into consideration the 'intrests' of both sides.
I'll say it again...this thing can be saved and so it should. There's too much at stake for all concerned. AC and ACPA have been in percarious situations like this before and have pulled it together somehow. Now's the time for them to show that they can work together for their mutual benefit, for the benefit of AC shareholders and, most importantly, for the benefit of the PAX.
Cheers
Last edited by negotiator; Jun 19, 2005 at 11:03 am
Jun 19, 2005, 11:06 am
#66
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AE
Posts: 10,566
Hmm, wow. I'm a bit torn on this. From my previous posts you can tell I'm no fan of ACPA (a union founded on the principle of "sticking it" to your so called "union brothers"). On the other hand this does represent a spectacular failure on the part of mgmt. If these cost-cutting deals were so important, why weren't they negotiated while the company was under protection? To go back to an employee group after you've wrung concessions once is shortsighted.
parnel, I think your plan is a little out there. There's no way the gov't will step in, this is a business plan issue, not one of the company failing. On the other hand, is there anything stopping AC from handing over all narrow-body flying to Jazz and reconstituting the intercontinental section of the company as a separate Canadian carrier with pilots voting on a separate union? Far fetched I suppose.
Is the sky falling? From what I can see there's nothing to prevent AC from ordering new airbii, presumably under the contract that was good enough for creditor approval. There's also nothing to stop 767 refurbishment, it can be tied to an Airbus order or proceed on its own.
The whole mess indicates to me that AC needs to think a little less about lie-flat seats and a little more about labour relations, its traditional Achilles Heel.
PS, why would someone suggest firing the ex-CAIL pilots, when it appears they were in favour of the deal
PPS if 1,000 pilots didn't vote perhaps we'll see a revote as was done with the Jazz FA's when they rejected their reorganization contract.
parnel, I think your plan is a little out there. There's no way the gov't will step in, this is a business plan issue, not one of the company failing. On the other hand, is there anything stopping AC from handing over all narrow-body flying to Jazz and reconstituting the intercontinental section of the company as a separate Canadian carrier with pilots voting on a separate union? Far fetched I suppose.
Is the sky falling? From what I can see there's nothing to prevent AC from ordering new airbii, presumably under the contract that was good enough for creditor approval. There's also nothing to stop 767 refurbishment, it can be tied to an Airbus order or proceed on its own.
The whole mess indicates to me that AC needs to think a little less about lie-flat seats and a little more about labour relations, its traditional Achilles Heel.
PS, why would someone suggest firing the ex-CAIL pilots, when it appears they were in favour of the deal
PPS if 1,000 pilots didn't vote perhaps we'll see a revote as was done with the Jazz FA's when they rejected their reorganization contract.
Jun 19, 2005, 11:11 am
#67
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PSP
Programs: AC*SE
Posts: 1,878
[QUOTE=californiadreamin']
I would like to think so, however, with both ACE & Boeing issuing releases that talk to the cancellation, I wonder if there really is a hidden timeline that would allow for reinstatement (perhaps at a penalty?) before the spots on the production line are offered to other airlines awaiting orders.
Maybe - Deadlines are very important in labour negotiations.
Negotiations is all about understanding your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). If Boeing and AC come up with a cut off point where other carriers are offered slots, or AC suffers a significant penalty for cancelling, it will push the parties towards a settlement because, and only because, the alternatives are worse than the settlement itself. In other words, when your BATNA is worse than the 'final' offer, take the offer - it's that simple!
Cheers
Originally Posted by negotiator
The deal is not dead however. If RM and Monty still want their birds, they have to work a bit harder for them. My advice is for them to get back to the table immediatly. The leadership of the ACPA has to be de-briefed by the membership as to what the actual problem was with the proposed settlement and bargain from there. Sometimes it's just a small move that will push through a deal - that's what I suspect here.
I notice the non-threatening, concillatory words used by Monty in his press realese from Montreal about the ACPA leadership...this is the kind of leadership AC needs in resolving their labour relations problems...no more RM tantrums or threats! I suspect that RM's arrogrance is half the problem with the rejection outcome.
They are close to a deal and they have to keep voting untill is comes out right.
I notice the non-threatening, concillatory words used by Monty in his press realese from Montreal about the ACPA leadership...this is the kind of leadership AC needs in resolving their labour relations problems...no more RM tantrums or threats! I suspect that RM's arrogrance is half the problem with the rejection outcome.
They are close to a deal and they have to keep voting untill is comes out right.
I would like to think so, however, with both ACE & Boeing issuing releases that talk to the cancellation, I wonder if there really is a hidden timeline that would allow for reinstatement (perhaps at a penalty?) before the spots on the production line are offered to other airlines awaiting orders.
Maybe - Deadlines are very important in labour negotiations.
Negotiations is all about understanding your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). If Boeing and AC come up with a cut off point where other carriers are offered slots, or AC suffers a significant penalty for cancelling, it will push the parties towards a settlement because, and only because, the alternatives are worse than the settlement itself. In other words, when your BATNA is worse than the 'final' offer, take the offer - it's that simple!
Cheers
Last edited by negotiator; Jun 19, 2005 at 11:14 am
Jun 19, 2005, 11:13 am
#68
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: BA Gold/Marriott Gold/HH Diamond/IC Plat Amba
Posts: 5,992
Originally Posted by negotiator
I'll say it again...this thing can be saved and so it should. There's too much at stake for all concerned. AC and ACPA have been in precarious situations like this before and have pulled it together somehow. Now's the time for them to show that they can work together for their mutual benefit, for the benefit of AC shareholders and, most importantly, for the benefit of the PAX.
Cheers
Cheers
If this was a protest vote by disgruntled junior pilots over the old CAIL pilot seniority issues and not the actual issues it has to rank up there on the dumb scale with when Ontarians voted in Bob Rae's NDP government as a protest against the Libs and Tories.
Last edited by Crampedin13A; Jun 19, 2005 at 11:16 am
Jun 19, 2005, 11:16 am
#69
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PSP
Programs: AC*SE
Posts: 1,878
Originally Posted by Crampedin13A
^ Very well put.
If this was a protest vote by disgruntled junior pilots over seniority issues and not the actual issues it has to rank up there on the dumb scale with when Ontarians voted in Bob Rae's NDP government as a protest against the Libs and Tories.
If this was a protest vote by disgruntled junior pilots over seniority issues and not the actual issues it has to rank up there on the dumb scale with when Ontarians voted in Bob Rae's NDP government as a protest against the Libs and Tories.
Jun 19, 2005, 11:19 am
#70
At Large
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: oakville Ontario canada;AC*SE
Posts: 16,985
Originally Posted by negotiator
I'll say it again...this thing can be saved and so it should. There's too much at stake for all concerned. AC and ACPA have been in percarious situations like this before and have pulled it together somehow. Now's the time for them to show that they can work together for their mutual benefit, for the benefit of AC shareholders and, most importantly, for the benefit of the PAX.
At this point it becomes apparent that RM and AC are not the bad guys here.........something that most people are missing.
Jun 19, 2005, 11:20 am
#71
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,291
You know, it's been reported (and obvious from Boeing's statement) that AC had the right to cancel, without penalty. The ACPA vote is of course the reason why it was canceled, but there is no legal tie to that decision. So all this conjecture about legality of the union leadership requiring - or not - a membership vote, etc., is irrelevant to the point: ACE decided the vote was sufficient for it to cancel the order, no other rationale required.
Jun 19, 2005, 11:27 am
#72
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,671
Originally Posted by Overwing
ACPA will not fall apart over this, ACPA endorsed this deal and it was tossed back by the membership.
The A330 is not the aircraft that AC needs more of right now, The B763 is better than the A330 for what AC is trying to do. Range is the issue.
The A330 is not the aircraft that AC needs more of right now, The B763 is better than the A330 for what AC is trying to do. Range is the issue.
My vote is to keep the 333's and add some 332's, keeping the RR power of course ^
Jun 19, 2005, 11:28 am
#73
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PSP
Programs: AC*SE
Posts: 1,878
Originally Posted by californiadreamin'
You know, it's been reported (and obvious from Boeing's statement) that AC had the right to cancel, without penalty. The ACPA vote is of course the reason why it was canceled, but there is no legal tie to that decision. So all this conjecture about legality of the union leadership requiring - or not - a membership vote, etc., is irrelevant to the point: ACE decided the vote was sufficient for it to cancel the order, no other rationale required.
If RM wants the Boeing deal to work it's going to have to have further dialogue with ACPA. If RM pulls the plug (permantly) on the Boeing birds, why would ACPA even consider going back to the table to discuss anything? ACPA has to find out from their members 'what's the problem' then go back to the table to seek out a solution with a 'flexible' AC negotiator.
Cheers
Jun 19, 2005, 11:34 am
#74
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PSP
Programs: AC*SE
Posts: 1,878
Originally Posted by parnel
Then your union buddies should figure a way to get it ratified as is because AC is probably going to play chicken with them or offer a morsel just to get the union execs off the hook. But in any even the Company should not move on its agreement as the problem is an internal union one.
At this point it becomes apparent that RM and AC are not the bad guys here.........something that most people are missing.
At this point it becomes apparent that RM and AC are not the bad guys here.........something that most people are missing.
Parnel,
You don't make any sence (i.e. the Company should not move on its agreement as the problem is an internal union one).
By it's very definition this is an internal problem and therefore it's incumbant on AC executive to attempt any, and all, solutions to get what the need (the Boeings) for the Company, it's emplyees, it's shareholders and, the PAX.