Cargo TA

[Boooooo]

.

[montado]

Will every other group that gets involved take a pay cut? Will cargo dispatch make 10 percent less? Will cargo load masters make 10 percent less? Will cargo managers make 10 percent less, or the station attendants loading the cargo flights make 10 percent less?

I guess I could be on board if we are all in this together. 10 percent pay cut for everyone and we all win right? I wonder why one group is targeted for the cuts.

[Fanblade]

I wonder why one group is targeted for the cuts.

Because we have demonstrated our willingness. The other groups would laugh at the idea.

No different than when AC wanted to start a different specialty company that eventually was named Rouge. No one else was asked to take cuts. There was no point in asking. Who agrees to work for less?

[mbav8r]

I wonder why one group is targeted for the cuts.

Because we have demonstrated our willingness. The other groups would laugh at the idea.

No different than when AC wanted to start a different specialty company that eventually was named Rouge. No one else was asked to take cuts. There was no point in asking. Who agrees to work for less?

It’s been awhile, are the flight attendants a separate employee group making less than mainline? If so, there was obviously a transfer a jobs to a lower paid group, but other than that, no other group took a pay cut.

[Sceptical]

You are coming up with all the rationalizations, justifications and excuses management uses. In fact you sound extremely close in your thinking. Almost parroting.

I talked to an MEC member that did the same rationalizations. Very similar. You know there is something wrong when you talk to a union head and they sound like you are talking to the CEO.

I can only come to one conclusion. You must be an elected ACPA member.

Kidding.........at least I hope so. It is an anonymous forum so you never no.

The truth hurts sometimes but that is the rational behind the weight-speed formula. It has been that way for decades dating back to the first pilot union contracts. In fact, when jet aircraft and wide-bodies came into existence and the pay skyrocketed, owing to the use of the same weight and speed factors with faster and bigger airplanes, airline managements went berserk as it resulted in B747 Captains making ridiculously large amounts of money (in the minds of the executives, anyways).

[Sceptical]

I have stated many times before and I will again; $67 per hour is not make or break for an operation that probably costs are $10,000 per hour or more. The issue is a competitive labour rate given what the competition is paying and so far no one has provided an all-in pilot cost of AC versus CJ. I suspect that when everything is accounted for the AC pilot cost is still higher even with the 10% below mainline rates.

Sceptical:

I think that we are all in agreement that a 10% savings in pilot wages will not be the deciding factor in whether the Cargo Company turns a profit.

I am sure that the Corporation has done extensive analysis and determined that there is decent profit to be made in dedicated cargo, or else they would not want to go to all the trouble to start the operation.

Does the request for a 10% pay cut not boil down to the Corporation merely trying to maximize the amount of profit that they can extract from the operation?

Let's do a very rough analysis. Hypothetically, assume that management anticipates that the Cargo company would realize $20 million in profit in 2022 with 100 cargo pilots working at the 10% paycut.

Now suppose instead that the pilots were paid normal mainline rates. By Jimmy_Hoffa's math, that would equate to an extra $1.88 million in wages being paid out in one year. This would result in the Cargo operation realizing a slightly smaller profit of $18.1 million. I would argue that in tumultuous times like this, any profit, whether it is maximized or slightly less than maximum, is better than no profit.

This decrease in profit of $1.88 million equates to fully diluted earnings per share shrinking by $0.007/share, or less than 1 CENT PER SHARE.

The Executive team has an obligation to the shareholders to maximize profit, and their ask for a 10% reduction in pilot wages is nothing more than that.

The pilot group needs to recognize that at the end of the day, if the pilots vote NO to the 10% paycut, the Board will still choose to operate a cargo company paying normal wages and earning $18 million (as opposed to reduced wages and $20 million) rather than no cargo company at all!

I don't know where to begin in addressing this one but I will try at the beginning.

First of all, this is not a 10% pay cut; you can't cut something you've never had and AC pilots have never had, in over 25 years, a dedicated cargo operation, let alone one flying B767's. So let's call the proposed pay what it is - a competitive pay rate.

I think it is kind of obvious that if the pilot payroll for the 6 aircraft is $1.88M less than if the mainline 767 rates were paid, then the corp would make that much more or, alternatively, lose that much less. That's not rocket science.

The $0.007/share or 0.7 cents/share you calculate is interesting but spreading that saving over the entire, mainline, Rouge, CPA, Aeroplan, etc operation is a little unfair. Try spreading that $1.88M saving over the cargo operation alone and it will be a significantly larger number as the cargo operation would represent a significantly smaller business unit. Just using aircraft as a proxy for revenue, the 6 cargo aircraft in the context of a 240 aircraft fleet (pre-COVID and making the numbers easy) would a 40X impact.

I don't imagine that the proposed wages for B767F pilots is the difference between profit and loss; management would be crazy to engage in this business if that is the margin. But what the $1.88 M is part of what is required to achieve the corporate profitability requirements for new routes, new aircraft acquisitions, new business units, etc.. It could be a ROI( Return on Investment), ROE (Return on Equity), IRR (Internal Rate of Return), or any other measure they choose. And as I have stated to others, I like the way CR and Mike Rousseau have instilled financial discipline into the capital purchasing, route expansions, etc. - that is part of why AC was doing so well financially prior to COVID. They only invested if it provided an acceptable rate-of-return, much like investing in stocks, bonds, etc. No more chasing rainbows and losing a ton of money, no more CCAA, no more concessions during contract no negotiations (and, no, the proposed cargo pay is not a concession, it is ....a competitive pay rate for a new freighter operation).

I am willing to bet that if this deal is voted down there will be no cargo division; those of us who were on the property knows the reaction from HQ when a deal gets voted down - TA1 being the case-in-point. Booooo, where you hear for TA 1 circa 2012, 2013? If not, go into the ACPA archives and read about it, particularly the ACPA external audit that was done.

The other reason I think you are incorrect about the result of a no vote is that the corporation really doesn't need this cargo division that badly, particularly if a no vote would mean a re-negotiation and an acquiescence. It would set a terrible example to all of the labour groups that the final deal really isn't the final deal.

We all will be watching with great interest how this turns out...

[Torontomaplelaughs]

First of all, this is not a 10% pay cut; you can't cut something you've never had and AC pilots have never had, in over 25 years, a dedicated cargo operation, let alone one flying B767's. So let's call the proposed pay what it is - a competitive pay rate.

[/quote]

It is amazing how management or in this case, a union lackie who is a big company fanboy, can spin something into something it isn't.

The company is doing cargo right now. At full rates. They even converted aircraft.

If the company has a strategic vision to do cargo, it is going to do cargo. It doesn't give two hoots what the pilots want but if they can pay them less, all the better and all the better those middle manager negotiators will look to their higher ups.

Sceptical - I recognize this exact line from the union MEC. It is disgusting. Get out of your house and get on the line and be a pilot instead of a keyboard warrior. You are an embarrassment to this occupation.

I'm waiting for Air Canada's ULCC to roll out and it will pay 50% but it will be to "capture" flying and it is actually a "50% pay increase" because we have never had it and it is really a "50% increase" for junior furloughed pilots who will be forced into it.

But don't worry...we just need to first "capture" the flying and then we can negotiate a better rate when we will shoot thunderbolts from our ass at the next negotiation.

[Fanblade]

You are coming up with all the rationalizations, justifications and excuses management uses. In fact you sound extremely close in your thinking. Almost parroting.

I talked to an MEC member that did the same rationalizations. Very similar. You know there is something wrong when you talk to a union head and they sound like you are talking to the CEO.

I can only come to one conclusion. You must be an elected ACPA member.

Kidding.........at least I hope so. It is an anonymous forum so you never no.

The truth hurts sometimes but that is the rational behind the weight-speed formula. It has been that way for decades dating back to the first pilot union contracts. In fact, when jet aircraft and wide-bodies came into existence and the pay skyrocketed, owing to the use of the same weight and speed factors with faster and bigger airplanes, airline managements went berserk as it resulted in B747 Captains making ridiculously large amounts of money (in the minds of the executives, anyways).

Lol,

Just because I gave up doesn’t mean I agreed with you. Actually quite the opposite. I just realized what I was dealing with.

This statement did it for me. I realized it was pointless. You are essentially gas lighting this thread.

A weight speed formula still works for a leisure product or a cargo product but the same weight and speed factors cannot be used; the yield in the leisure market is less (i.e. no business class) and same for cargo. So taking the full fare passenger airline revenue generating capability factors and applying them to cargo is disingenuous.

You are making crap up........or it has been spoon fed.

Take a peek at the pilot wages across the boarder. Not to compare with Canadian wages. Rather to compare the wages of US full service airlines vs Fedex and UPS.

Now over to you for more rationalizations, justifications and excuses. However this time when I don’t bother to respond, don’t take it as agreement.

This will done tomorrow. You will probably get what you want. With that said your words here do speak of some desperation. So you never know maybe it won’t pass. After all, the last time we voted no was also the last time ACPA proposed a start up at reduced wages.

[Tdicommuter]

I have stated many times before and I will again; $67 per hour is not make or break for an operation that probably costs are $10,000 per hour or more. The issue is a competitive labour rate given what the competition is paying and so far no one has provided an all-in pilot cost of AC versus CJ. I suspect that when everything is accounted for the AC pilot cost is still higher even with the 10% below mainline rates.

Sceptical:

I think that we are all in agreement that a 10% savings in pilot wages will not be the deciding factor in whether the Cargo Company turns a profit.

I am sure that the Corporation has done extensive analysis and determined that there is decent profit to be made in dedicated cargo, or else they would not want to go to all the trouble to start the operation.

Does the request for a 10% pay cut not boil down to the Corporation merely trying to maximize the amount of profit that they can extract from the operation?

Let's do a very rough analysis. Hypothetically, assume that management anticipates that the Cargo company would realize $20 million in profit in 2022 with 100 cargo pilots working at the 10% paycut.

Now suppose instead that the pilots were paid normal mainline rates. By Jimmy_Hoffa's math, that would equate to an extra $1.88 million in wages being paid out in one year. This would result in the Cargo operation realizing a slightly smaller profit of $18.1 million. I would argue that in tumultuous times like this, any profit, whether it is maximized or slightly less than maximum, is better than no profit.

This decrease in profit of $1.88 million equates to fully diluted earnings per share shrinking by $0.007/share, or less than 1 CENT PER SHARE.

The Executive team has an obligation to the shareholders to maximize profit, and their ask for a 10% reduction in pilot wages is nothing more than that.

The pilot group needs to recognize that at the end of the day, if the pilots vote NO to the 10% paycut, the Board will still choose to operate a cargo company paying normal wages and earning $18 million (as opposed to reduced wages and $20 million) rather than no cargo company at all!

I don't know where to begin in addressing this one but I will try at the beginning.

First of all, this is not a 10% pay cut; you can't cut something you've never had and AC pilots have never had, in over 25 years, a dedicated cargo operation, let alone one flying B767's. So let's call the proposed pay what it is - a competitive pay rate.

I think it is kind of obvious that if the pilot payroll for the 6 aircraft is $1.88M less than if the mainline 767 rates were paid, then the corp would make that much more or, alternatively, lose that much less. That's not rocket science.

The $0.007/share or 0.7 cents/share you calculate is interesting but spreading that saving over the entire, mainline, Rouge, CPA, Aeroplan, etc operation is a little unfair. Try spreading that $1.88M saving over the cargo operation alone and it will be a significantly larger number as the cargo operation would represent a significantly smaller business unit. Just using aircraft as a proxy for revenue, the 6 cargo aircraft in the context of a 240 aircraft fleet (pre-COVID and making the numbers easy) would a 40X impact.

I don't imagine that the proposed wages for B767F pilots is the difference between profit and loss; management would be crazy to engage in this business if that is the margin. But what the $1.88 M is part of what is required to achieve the corporate profitability requirements for new routes, new aircraft acquisitions, new business units, etc.. It could be a ROI( Return on Investment), ROE (Return on Equity), IRR (Internal Rate of Return), or any other measure they choose. And as I have stated to others, I like the way CR and Mike Rousseau have instilled financial discipline into the capital purchasing, route expansions, etc. - that is part of why AC was doing so well financially prior to COVID. They only invested if it provided an acceptable rate-of-return, much like investing in stocks, bonds, etc. No more chasing rainbows and losing a ton of money, no more CCAA, no more concessions during contract no negotiations (and, no, the proposed cargo pay is not a concession, it is ....a competitive pay rate for a new freighter operation).

I am willing to bet that if this deal is voted down there will be no cargo division; those of us who were on the property knows the reaction from HQ when a deal gets voted down - TA1 being the case-in-point. Booooo, where you hear for TA 1 circa 2012, 2013? If not, go into the ACPA archives and read about it, particularly the ACPA external audit that was done.

The other reason I think you are incorrect about the result of a no vote is that the corporation really doesn't need this cargo division that badly, particularly if a no vote would mean a re-negotiation and an acquiescence. It would set a terrible example to all of the labour groups that the final deal really isn't the final deal.

We all will be watching with great interest how this turns out...

Stay in your lane.

Pilots. Jobs... Fly planes.
We do not get, nor should have to think about business plans etc. If we did we should get paid like execs not pilots. But we are pilots, so do not use speculation, assumptions, and threats for either argument. I asked for this a long time ago. Use the facts we have.

This LOU ( LT KAFEE) is going to put all narrow jet aircraft at risk of having to work 18-19 days a month. That should be a show stopper. Dead. This is not an MOA, or have snap backs, or anything else handsome worthwhile selling out eternity of NJA flying to try to potentially ( they don't have to start the company) for nothing.

If you are trying to quote business numbers or fleet plans please remember... You are only speculating because only a small handful of people know what the 5 year, 10 year etc plans look like and they don't call ACPA to share the news.

Please vote no

[Sceptical]

The truth hurts sometimes but that is the rational behind the weight-speed formula. It has been that way for decades dating back to the first pilot union contracts. In fact, when jet aircraft and wide-bodies came into existence and the pay skyrocketed, owing to the use of the same weight and speed factors with faster and bigger airplanes, airline managements went berserk as it resulted in B747 Captains making ridiculously large amounts of money (in the minds of the executives, anyways).

Lol,

Just because I gave up doesn’t mean I agreed with you. Actually quite the opposite. I just realized what I was dealing with.

This statement did it for me. I realized it was pointless. You are essentially gas lighting this thread.

A weight speed formula still works for a leisure product or a cargo product but the same weight and speed factors cannot be used; the yield in the leisure market is less (i.e. no business class) and same for cargo. So taking the full fare passenger airline revenue generating capability factors and applying them to cargo is disingenuous.

You are making crap up........or it has been spoon fed.

You know, if you invested a fraction of the time you spend on this forum chirping away and used it to study the history of pilot unions and our pay structure, you wouldn't look quite as foolish. I invite you to read "Flying the Line - The First Half Century of the Airline Pilots Association"
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5q34cEujdo)
where you will learn that history of formula pay. Just in case you can't be bothered to do so, there is a quote from this book (page 71) that puts the lie to your claim that I am making this stuff up:

Because of ALPA’s steadfast support of FDR during the airmail crisis,the President subsequently showed his gratitude by insisting that the temporary mail contractors pay their pilots by the formula specified in Decision 83of the National Labor Board (NLB). Decision 83 required airlines to compensate their pilots on the basis of both the mileage and the time they flew.This formula guaranteed pilots a share in the increased productivity of the
equipment they flew In short, a pilot flying Long & Harmon’s Ford Trimotor might not work any more hours than one flying a Stinson Reliant, but the
law required that he be paid more because the Ford flew faster.

Take a peek at the pilot wages across the boarder. Not to compare with Canadian wages. Rather to compare the wages of US full service airlines vs Fedex and UPS.

Let's do that. Using Airline Pilot Central, here are the hourly rates for 12 year B767 Captains ($ USD):
Delta - $296
FedEx - $326
Atlas Air Cargo - $196

As you can see, FedEx is the highest paid. But before you get all excited, remember that FedEx is more than a cargo airline - it offers a full, end-to-end product from pick-up to delivery, which not only attracts a premium but also differentiates itself from a pure cargo airline. Next, is the Delta Airlines passenger guy at $296 and finally, the pure cargo pilot at Atlas at $196.

Delta - Atlas is the best comparison for the reasons mentioned above and you will see that the Atlas pilots are working at a 1/3 discount to what a mainline airline B767 Captain is making. AC's proposed 10% reduction from a mainline B767 rate for an all cargo operation compared to the mainline passenger operation is a good deal in comparison. So this US only comparison of relative wages (mainline versus cargo), as you suggested, further undermines your point.

So, in addition to do some reading about the history of our pay structure, perhaps take a little time and so some research about what is going on across the border too.

[ACAV8R]

60% in favour

[Sceptical]

It is amazing how management or in this case, a union lackie who is a big company fanboy, can spin something into something it isn't.

The company is doing cargo right now. At full rates. They even converted aircraft.

If the company has a strategic vision to do cargo, it is going to do cargo. It doesn't give two hoots what the pilots want but if they can pay them less, all the better and all the better those middle manager negotiators will look to their higher ups.

Sceptical - I recognize this exact line from the union MEC. It is disgusting. Get out of your house and get on the line and be a pilot instead of a keyboard warrior. You are an embarrassment to this occupation.

It has been my experience over the years that those that like to name call, particularly calling one a union lackie or someone mimicking the union line, are those that have never spent any time either doing union work, particularly at an MEC or Negotiating Committee level, or have never negotiated anything more substantial than a mortgage or a car loan.

Having done both of these activities (union and negotiating business deals) it is easy to recognize individuals like yourself as those of your ilk seem to thing that you can wave your hands, stomp your feet and the party opposite will roll over. I don't fault individuals like yourself for your ignorance of how the big, wide world works. Perhaps some acknowledgement of your short comings would be nice but at minimum how about just dispensing with the denigrating comments about being an embarrassment to the occupation. And better yet, how about volunteering for your union as you will find it an interesting, rewarding and educational experience.

[Cappo1]

I wonder why one group is targeted for the cuts.

Because we have demonstrated our willingness. The other groups would laugh at the idea.

No different than when AC wanted to start a different specialty company that eventually was named Rouge. No one else was asked to take cuts. There was no point in asking. Who agrees to work for less?

I get back from my trip and find out it was a yes !? I never agreed to it. Your rationale presents itself as common sense . Shocked it was a yes especially when so much is at stake with the future of aviation and Air Canada Mainline. I stress Mainline.

If that's what they are willing to accept , they best not complain when they are all asked to make concessions just to have a job. It's coming. That yes just gave the company permission to screw us even more.

We need a backbone like the European pilots who are fighting against us merging with TS . Lufthansa and Brussels airlines don't want to be stuck doing domestics and Lagos because of us being predatory. That's an entirely new shite show coming our way.

[Fanblade]

I wonder why one group is targeted for the cuts.

Because we have demonstrated our willingness. The other groups would laugh at the idea.

No different than when AC wanted to start a different specialty company that eventually was named Rouge. No one else was asked to take cuts. There was no point in asking. Who agrees to work for less?

I get back from my trip and find out it was a yes !? I never agreed to it. Your rationale presents itself as common sense . Shocked it was a yes especially when so much is at stake with the future of aviation and Air Canada Mainline. I stress Mainline.

If that's what they are willing to accept , they best not complain when they are all asked to make concessions just to have a job. It's coming. That yes just gave the company permission to screw us even more.

We need a backbone like the European pilots who are fighting against us merging with TS . Lufthansa and Brussels airlines don't want to be stuck doing domestics and Lagos because of us being predatory. That's an entirely new shite show coming our way.

Cappo1,

It you want to truely understand why go back and read all of sceptical's posts. He/she does a masterful job encapsulating the way ACPA leadership thinks. Complete with the arrogant condescending tone, rationalization, justifications and logic that makes you go......what???

[Fanblade]

The truth hurts sometimes but that is the rational behind the weight-speed formula. It has been that way for decades dating back to the first pilot union contracts. In fact, when jet aircraft and wide-bodies came into existence and the pay skyrocketed, owing to the use of the same weight and speed factors with faster and bigger airplanes, airline managements went berserk as it resulted in B747 Captains making ridiculously large amounts of money (in the minds of the executives, anyways).

Lol,

Just because I gave up doesn’t mean I agreed with you. Actually quite the opposite. I just realized what I was dealing with.

This statement did it for me. I realized it was pointless. You are essentially gas lighting this thread.

A weight speed formula still works for a leisure product or a cargo product but the same weight and speed factors cannot be used; the yield in the leisure market is less (i.e. no business class) and same for cargo. So taking the full fare passenger airline revenue generating capability factors and applying them to cargo is disingenuous.

You are making crap up........or it has been spoon fed.

You know, if you invested a fraction of the time you spend on this forum chirping away and used it to study the history of pilot unions and our pay structure, you wouldn't look quite as foolish. I invite you to read "Flying the Line - The First Half Century of the Airline Pilots Association"
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5q34cEujdo)
where you will learn that history of formula pay. Just in case you can't be bothered to do so, there is a quote from this book (page 71) that puts the lie to your claim that I am making this stuff up:

Because of ALPA’s steadfast support of FDR during the airmail crisis,the President subsequently showed his gratitude by insisting that the temporary mail contractors pay their pilots by the formula specified in Decision 83of the National Labor Board (NLB). Decision 83 required airlines to compensate their pilots on the basis of both the mileage and the time they flew.This formula guaranteed pilots a share in the increased productivity of the
equipment they flew In short, a pilot flying Long & Harmon’s Ford Trimotor might not work any more hours than one flying a Stinson Reliant, but the
law required that he be paid more because the Ford flew faster.

I have read the book. My gas lighting comment was regarding your spin logic. It wasn’t meant to say there were no elements of truth in what you had to say. By definition that is what gaslighting is. Truth turned upside down and inside out to create a different reality. It comes with an abundance of rationalization, justifications and excuses as a warning sign. If you need rationalizations to make an argument you probably should not be making the argument In the first place.

As an example. Do you realize you used a quote talking about the history of cargo contractors getting formula pay to justify your position cargo pilots at Air Canada should not get formula pay.

Take a peek at the pilot wages across the boarder. Not to compare with Canadian wages. Rather to compare the wages of US full service airlines vs Fedex and UPS.

Let's do that. Using Airline Pilot Central, here are the hourly rates for 12 year B767 Captains ($ USD):
Delta - $296
FedEx - $326
Atlas Air Cargo - $196

As you can see, FedEx is the highest paid. But before you get all excited, remember that FedEx is more than a cargo airline - it offers a full, end-to-end product from pick-up to delivery, which not only attracts a premium but also differentiates itself from a pure cargo airline. Next, is the Delta Airlines passenger guy at $296 and finally, the pure cargo pilot at Atlas at $196.

Delta - Atlas is the best comparison for the reasons mentioned above and you will see that the Atlas pilots are working at a 1/3 discount to what a mainline airline B767 Captain is making. AC's proposed 10% reduction from a mainline B767 rate for an all cargo operation compared to the mainline passenger operation is a good deal in comparison. So this US only comparison of relative wages (mainline versus cargo), as you suggested, further undermines your point.

So, in addition to do some reading about the history of our pay structure, perhaps take a little time and so some research about what is going on across the border too.

Here you go again. You found a rationalization as to why FEDEX and UPS pilots are not Cargo pilots.

[PROC_HDG]

Mike,

You're spending an awful lot of time on avcanada for a guy getting paid 82 hours.

I would say "get back to work" but every bit of work you do cheapens and degrades our profession even further.

So maybe, just carry on then.

[RippleRock]

Geeeez.......I think the Corp is regretting not asking for a permanent 25% pay cut to fly the same aircraft we have flown since 1983. ACPA would have no doubt endorsed it and sold it to the Membership with a threat. Why bother with a contract at all? Seriously.

Brilliant. There is no hope for us going forward, not one shred.

FWIW, Good luck being taken seriously in future negotiations. What a joke.

[RippleRock]

There is nowhere but down now. Rest in Peace AC Pilots.

The career and respect our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers forged over decades of solidarity and self-sacrifice officially ended today.

Remember this date. November 23rd, 2020.

It's been a good ride.

[PostmasterGeneral]

Just got a call from a friend of mine who flies for Delta. He couldn’t believe it passed. Our union is officially the laughing stock of the industry now. Congratulations ACPA! At least you’re #1 at something I guess?

[a220hereicome]

There is nowhere but down now. Rest in Peace AC Pilots.

The career and respect our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers forged over decades of solidarity and self-sacrifice officially ended today.

Remember this date. November 23rd, 2020.

It's been a good ride.

Right...

Remember in 2017? “OMG, ACrouge will have 200 airplanes next year. It’s all over.”