Cargo TA

[Victory]

Is there any language at all to stop them from reducing other WB positions when adding these freighter positions? That seems critical to me. We aren't protecting any jobs if that's not there, and worse than that we are trading good positions for worse ones.

[Tdicommuter]

Travel demand here and abroad has been hammered by government restrictions such as mandatory quarantines. Three to five years will probably be required before passenger traffic returns to 2019 levels, Air Canada chief executive officer Calin Rovinescu said Monday, echoing a recent forecast made by the International Air Transport Association.

Correct me if I am wrong here but our 2019 levels saw us with almost 1000 open pilot positions, Murray was worried people could hold direct entry captain jobs, and we all thought the border would be opened and people would leave en masse. CAE is forecasting that 27,000 additional flying jobs will be required in 2021. Yes I agree things now look quite bleak, however if it takes three years for flying to return to 2019 levels we will be in a
Worse state as there have still been three years of retirements. No doubt some of us would still be surplus right now if they didn't think we would be useful in a two to three year period. RBC analyst yesterday noted Air Canada is in a strong position to survive and could easily raise extra capital is they needed, they are looking for a bail out because it will be a much more attractive rate.

I am a no on this matter. If they want to dip their toes in the pool and see how it goes I can live with 90 percent for no more than 1 year, but if it will be permanent it needs to be at least mainline conditions and pay period. If the pilot wages are the only thing keeping the entire operation solvent, then personally as a business venture I think it's too risky to do. I have 30 years left here and I don't want to be working more, and making less for them.

Last two cents, for the conspiracy guys and gals... Interesting that our new duty regs come into effect this year... And now we are going to agree to less days off? Do you think that will stay only on the cargo side?

[Puffpuffpass]

.

[Fidget]

Is there any language at all to stop them from reducing other WB positions when adding these freighter positions? That seems critical to me. We aren't protecting any jobs if that's not there, and worse than that we are trading good positions for worse ones.

Cargo in WB aircraft right now is under a TC let and will expire soon. I don’t think they will reduce WB positions and these freighters are in addition to the current fleet. Sounds like they needed dedicated fins. My worry is the 10% pay cut and the precedent it makes should there be a dedicated B777 freighter in the future.

[rudder]

Is there any language at all to stop them from reducing other WB positions when adding these freighter positions? That seems critical to me. We aren't protecting any jobs if that's not there, and worse than that we are trading good positions for worse ones.

Cargo in WB aircraft right now is under a TC let and will expire soon. I don’t think they will reduce WB positions and these freighters are in addition to the current fleet. Sounds like they needed dedicated fins. My worry is the 10% pay cut and the precedent it makes should there be a dedicated B777 freighter in the future.

“It is important to note that this LOU is based on the cargo specialty company using only B-767 freighters to start. As the Cargo Specialty Company is not yet in place and its business plan and ability to generate cargo revenues remains unclear, the LOU provides for a mechanism address the potential addition of other fleet types.

The LOU provides for negotiations between the parties to come to an agreement on pay rates, rules and working conditions if any aircraft other than B-767 are operated; if an agreement is not achieved within nine months prior to any aircraft other than B-767s operating, either party may refer the matter to interest arbitration.”



Does this not suggest that pay rates and WAWCON for non-767 freighters could be submitted to an arbitrator by the employer removing the option of just saying ‘No’?

[skypirate88]

That's exactly what it suggests Rudder and it's one of my largest concerns about this steaming pile.

In my mind there's a real risk of eventually shuttling over 777 jobs at a 10% discount in the future. That impacts my dollars today, but also in retirement, where my pension is solely based on career earnings (CWIPP)

[Fanblade]

Is there any language at all to stop them from reducing other WB positions when adding these freighter positions? That seems critical to me. We aren't protecting any jobs if that's not there, and worse than that we are trading good positions for worse ones.

Cargo in WB aircraft right now is under a TC let and will expire soon. I don’t think they will reduce WB positions and these freighters are in addition to the current fleet. Sounds like they needed dedicated fins. My worry is the 10% pay cut and the precedent it makes should there be a dedicated B777 freighter in the future.

“It is important to note that this LOU is based on the cargo specialty company using only B-767 freighters to start. As the Cargo Specialty Company is not yet in place and its business plan and ability to generate cargo revenues remains unclear, the LOU provides for a mechanism address the potential addition of other fleet types.

The LOU provides for negotiations between the parties to come to an agreement on pay rates, rules and working conditions if any aircraft other than B-767 are operated; if an agreement is not achieved within nine months prior to any aircraft other than B-767s operating, either party may refer the matter to interest arbitration.”



Does this not suggest that pay rates and WAWCON for non-767 freighters could be submitted to an arbitrator by the employer removing the option of just saying ‘No’?

Absolutely. Not only does the deal offer a 10% pay cut but also introduces a provision basically eliminating our ability to say no in the future.

It’s garbage that ACPA allowed this through to a vote. At the very least a snap back to 100% pay......but no. What does ACPA agree to? The potential to expand on the discount without consent from the membership.

[discountpilot]

Is there any language at all to stop them from reducing other WB positions when adding these freighter positions? That seems critical to me. We aren't protecting any jobs if that's not there, and worse than that we are trading good positions for worse ones.

Zero protection.

[discountpilot]

Is there any language at all to stop them from reducing other WB positions when adding these freighter positions? That seems critical to me. We aren't protecting any jobs if that's not there, and worse than that we are trading good positions for worse ones.

Cargo in WB aircraft right now is under a TC let and will expire soon. I don’t think they will reduce WB positions and these freighters are in addition to the current fleet. Sounds like they needed dedicated fins. My worry is the 10% pay cut and the precedent it makes should there be a dedicated B777 freighter in the future.

If we start a dedicated cargo op, and the converted freighters stop flying and that flying is taken over by the 767... what do you think all those pilots who have been kept busy with these 3000+ cargo flights will do?

Bid reduction, forced to the C767 Freighter for 10% less.

Just watch.

We are all so dumb.

[discountpilot]

Is there any language at all to stop them from reducing other WB positions when adding these freighter positions? That seems critical to me. We aren't protecting any jobs if that's not there, and worse than that we are trading good positions for worse ones.

Cargo in WB aircraft right now is under a TC let and will expire soon. I don’t think they will reduce WB positions and these freighters are in addition to the current fleet. Sounds like they needed dedicated fins. My worry is the 10% pay cut and the precedent it makes should there be a dedicated B777 freighter in the future.

“It is important to note that this LOU is based on the cargo specialty company using only B-767 freighters to start. As the Cargo Specialty Company is not yet in place and its business plan and ability to generate cargo revenues remains unclear, the LOU provides for a mechanism address the potential addition of other fleet types.

The LOU provides for negotiations between the parties to come to an agreement on pay rates, rules and working conditions if any aircraft other than B-767 are operated; if an agreement is not achieved within nine months prior to any aircraft other than B-767s operating, either party may refer the matter to interest arbitration.”



Does this not suggest that pay rates and WAWCON for non-767 freighters could be submitted to an arbitrator by the employer removing the option of just saying ‘No’?

That's exactly what it says.

[fish4life]

And an arbitrator will probably say “you thought 10% less was ok on the 767 so 10% less is ok for the 777”

[thenoflyzone]

Just curious - assuming the MOA ratifies, what if 6 months from now AC announces that the 6 777-200’s are not coming out of the desert again for mainline passenger ops, but then the next day offers to bring them out with a cargo conversion and 90% pay?

There is no B77L passenger to freighter conversion program. So it can't happen.

They can bring those birds back, remove the seats and do what they are currently doing with the B77Ws and A330s, but that's about it. And it's nowhere near as efficient as a full freighter conversion.

It's more likely we will see some B77W go p2f. The 77W p2f program was announced last year, and first frames wont be operational until 2023.

[teacher]

Easy NO for me.

Same plane, same routes than same pay. It’s simple.

How about anyone touching the cargo division from the CEO down to the rampie take a 10% pay cut as well?

Yah, didn’t think so.

[discountpilot]

Just curious - assuming the MOA ratifies, what if 6 months from now AC announces that the 6 777-200’s are not coming out of the desert again for mainline passenger ops, but then the next day offers to bring them out with a cargo conversion and 90% pay?

There is no B77L passenger to freighter conversion program. So it can't happen.

They can bring those birds back, remove the seats and do what they are currently doing with the B77Ws and A330s, but that's about it. And it's nowhere near as efficient as a full freighter conversion.

It's more likely we will see some B77W go p2f. The 77W p2f program was announced last year, and first frames wont be operational until 2023.

I'm personally more worried about the 330's....

[330heavy]

Costly to do P2F. Here's a few:

767-300F : 14M USD
330-300 P2F : 18M USD
777-300 ERBDSF : 28-30M USD
Source : IBA/ISTAT

Add in the time and cost of a heavy check while it's stripped. If they are willing to spend that much coin, what's 10% of pilot salaries to them? Nothing! It's for future suppression and degrading of T&Cs

[RippleRock]

It's been stated before, but there is contract language covering the start-up of a dedicated cargo op. There is ZERO need to go off-contract once again.

This MEC has proven that they are unable to follow the contract and instead, chose to negotiate concessionary side deals.

10% reduction is an insult. Period. It would have no direct financial bearing on the viability of the operation to pay normal contract rates. None.

Through the use of a "burning platform" and a short voting timeline for a contract ammedment that has no "snap-back" clause to mend the obvious resulting unity divide that yet another pay scale would bring, proves that we are being disrespected as a group by our own MEC.

This MEC has gone completely rogue by once again failing to adhere to the contract we signed with the Company. That contract is there to protect us, not to be treated like toilet paper.

They should all resign immediately.

[discountpilot]

We had the opportunity to evict some from their long standing LEC Chair positions recently but the members felt keeping the status quo and below average representation was best. Great work everyone.

[altiplano]

The MEC bit on the same argument from TA1 when the LCC was introduced.

That the aircraft were going to be retired to the desert, or in this case worse - sold to competitors who will start up and do the flying.

Did anyone really think they would stop flying to Cancun and Florida if we didn't create a second tier? That we had to capture the flying?

Does anyone think if there is money to be made in a sector that has seen and will see more significant growth - that's straight out of Rovinescu's mouth - that they will walk away for a few bucks an hour? Remember, businesses and stocks, thrive on growth.

They have had a run on hiring in the cargo department getting ready for this.

They already have the plan in place.

They have already set up the slots for the conversions.

They are just seeing now if we'll bite for a concession to do the work we own. We don't need a vote on doing the work, it's in our contract, we have had freighters in the past, this is only a vote on the wage concession.

And of course it's a - "Hurry up and vote" because they want to announce the new contracts and strategy to boost the stock and start selling the new cargo product. It isn't so they can develop the business plan, that's already done...

Or here's an idea -
why don't they ask the dispatchers for a 2% discount,
the rampies for 2%,
the AME's for 2%,
the executives/managers for 2%,
and then the pilots can come in with the other 2%..

There's your 10%.

What? Nobody else will work for second (third for us) tier wages? Not even 2%? So why the F-k should we take 10%? WE ARE THE ONLY ONES CONTEMPLATING CONCESSIONS FOR THIS.

And remember the most recent hurry up rush jobs.

COV MOA 1 - Pilots first to rush and give and days later CEWs announced, had we taken the time to vote CEWs would have come before it was approved.

COV MOA 2 - Rushed vote, webinars not even done and the vote was almost over, within days Transat acquisition announced... riiiight....

Now what? CARGO MOA rush job... then what will we hear?

- Industry specific aid deal reached
- Corporation in fact already has aircraft at an MRO getting converted
- Vaccine distribution ahead of schedule
- ??? we don't know, we are at a disadvantage when we rush

This is a permanent concession, not only on 767 freighters, but all types that may follow. Will we see a transfer of 777s jobs to tier 2? It's possible.

If we vote 'Yes', based on our history, we will end up having to trade other wage and working conditions to fix issues we can or can't foresee... we have seen tremendous stagnation in our contract fixing/improving divides like the LCC wawcon and DC pension. Why are we going to introduce another divide?

This will be some if the most difficult and unproductive flying at the airline, do you really want to do it for less?

This isn't a vote about us doing or capturing freighter flying - it's ours, there is no question.

This is a vote about concessions and division. Do you really want to vote for that?

If we vote 'No' and the flying doesn't happen - long shot based on executive/industry comments/sentiments - it's still a win because we have not divided ourselves.

[Fanblade]

Alti,

The problem isn’t this MOU. The MOU is rather a symptom of the problem.

Until we deal with the actual problem, the symptoms will stay persistent.

It’s not the people within ACPA. It’s the lack of proper resources needed to make good decisions.

ACPA doesn’t have anyone that I know of with intimate cargo operations knowledge on staff. They certainly didn’t during the cargo jet wet lease trial. ACPA has trouble getting good advise because that usually takes time. We get put under time pressure and eventually shoot from the hip.

We are simply not nimble enough. Business is fast paced and won’t wait. That is the problem. Until we address the root problem we will keep shooting from the hip and blowing off toes.

We missed an opportunity this fall during elections. There is a very good chance that the merger with Transat won’t give another opportunity to vote ACPA out.

Two more years for another opportunity.

[RVR6000]

Is there any language at all to stop them from reducing other WB positions when adding these freighter positions? That seems critical to me. We aren't protecting any jobs if that's not there, and worse than that we are trading good positions for worse ones.

Cargo in WB aircraft right now is under a TC let and will expire soon. I don’t think they will reduce WB positions and these freighters are in addition to the current fleet. Sounds like they needed dedicated fins. My worry is the 10% pay cut and the precedent it makes should there be a dedicated B777 freighter in the future.

If we start a dedicated cargo op, and the converted freighters stop flying and that flying is taken over by the 767... what do you think all those pilots who have been kept busy with these 3000+ cargo flights will do?

Bid reduction, forced to the C767 Freighter for 10% less.

Just watch.

We are all so dumb.

It’s the lack of engagement from the YVR and YUL crowd and their satisfaction with status quo. If this POS passes it’s on those 2 bases.