Don't forget the AC EMJ Purser that is making $60K+............KFCpilot wrote:Speaking of costs, don’t forget its all new hires flying the ERJ. FOs start at 36000 ish for unlimited flying for two years. I don’t think Jazz would be more cost effective.
Mainline will never be able to generate the kind of returns on investment that WJ enjoys because they are run differently and have different route structures, contracts etc. The one thing that AC could do to lower it's training budget would be to implement a status pay system. As it is now, people are jumping from one type to the next at the earliest opportunity in order to make more $$$. This includes many of the first group that got on the ERJ. How many of them have since bid onto the Bus so as to get out of the pay group in year 3?
I doubt a pilot making 20 dollars an hour less is going to achieve anything other than lowering the pilots standard of living. Robert did that once already, shame on him. A second time? Shame on us! I do believe ACPA and ALPA realize this.
I agree with you. I'm a relative new hire with AC, (love the company by the way) many of the people in my class of 22 bid off the ERJ because of pay. Personally I would have been perfectly happy on the ERJ but I know the 320 pays much better for the same job. I guess in the big picture they have to decide what makes more economic sense, paying the ERJ FOs more or training new FOs on both types with the bids.prop2jet wrote:. The one thing that AC could do to lower it's training budget would be to implement a status pay system. As it is now, people are jumping from one type to the next at the earliest opportunity in order to make more $$$. This includes many of the first group that got on the ERJ. How many of them have since bid onto the Bus so as to get out of the pay group in year 3?
May I ask what started this thread? Is GS done? ACPA hasn't told us it is. Twinpratts, were you told something at WJ the rest of us on the Red team don't know? Or are you just stirring and spinning? I must be missing something.twinpratts wrote:So that's it? It a dead horse?
Bede that is exactly what we are trying to prevent. Next time how about AC gives up the 320 for "more widebodies", Jazz gives up the RJ for the 320, and...then what? Give your head a shake.I believe that is the way everyone can win.:AC gives up emb for widebodies, Jazz gives up -8 for emb, the company saves money, and everyone's pay goes up because of the larger aircraft. This type of economics makes far more sense than this union gimme-gimme stuff.
As a result , i highly doubt that ALPA and ACPA will have any meaningful collusion for the forseeable future on working conditions-quite the opposite.
ALPA 's mandate will be to aquire as much flying as possible for their members. Nothing has changed-it is pathetic.
Talking about how we can work together now is water under the bridge. I believe this was the last shot at really fixing the 2 group problem.
If that is indeed an accurate statement, which I doubt, then there lies the root of all your problems with regard to a decent contract. Serving only to the detriment of its' own members and the rest of the pilot community. I believe ALPA will be working toward a better contract for the flying they already have. That mandate is from ALPA National who is trying to put an end to the erosion of pilot wages.piggy wrote: ALPA 's mandate will be to aquire as much flying as possible for their members.
The group that needs to role up their sleeves in 2009 to achieve a better contract ain't Jazz Alpa. $$$ are nice but you need lifestyle to go with it.Jaques Strappe wrote:piggy wrote: I believe ALPA will be working toward a better contract for the flying they already have. That mandate is from ALPA National who is trying to put an end to the erosion of pilot wages.
Tonytonysoprano wrote:May I ask what started this thread? Is GS done? ACPA hasn't told us it is. Twinpratts, were you told something at WJ the rest of us on the Red team don't know? Or are you just stirring and spinning? I must be missing something.twinpratts wrote:So that's it? It a dead horse?
The MEC said on one of our recent newsletters. That both groups don't have the same "vision" to carry GS forward. And that now the empahsis is to get a better contract for 2009, or something along those lines anyways. You menitoned earlier that both groups are talking again sometime this month, we have not heard anything of the such in our end. (I heard that from you first............. in this forum )
The MEC closed by saying that despite all this, relationships have improved between our two groups and that ALPA is open to negotiations in the future. At least that is my umderstanding of it anyways.
Thanks for the update. I wasn't aware of that. Like I said, our camp tells us the talks are still on. If this is not the case, we should be told so in the near future. In my view the group should include all pilots in Canada but we can't even seem to get two companies together. Nobody said this was going to be easy but I'm happy to see an attempt was made or is being made. This may go down to the wire into late 2008 but I'm confident more progress will be made.
i was told by a GS committee member that if no agreement is made by the end of 2007-there never will be one as the unions are limited in resources and must concentrate on their own collective agreement neg. starting in 2008.
if they are talking still about GS, great. it would appear from the latest fromALPA that GS is dead.
I also find it hard to believe that they say they are still working together on neg for 2009. really, without 1 group, how far does that go??
Piggy,piggy wrote:Of course alpa is going to try and get more flying-it has always been the case and always will as long as there is 2 groups.
Pre CPA, when ALPA had ownership of its flying, the 1 group idea would have worked. Today however, without the Jazz pilots owning their flying, ACPA/ALPA can not create 1 group. There is nothing stopping AC in the future from having a CPA with another carrier or a multiple of carriers for that matter and creating the same issues all over again with them.
In other words we missed the boat.
As for Jazz having 2000 pilots in the future. That will completely depend on how competitive Jazz's business model is in comparison with other companies doing the same work. If you can make money and out bid the competition you have massive potential into the future. For example I believe it is skywest that has a CPA with both Delta and United.
There is a tonne of transboarder work being done through CPA's. There is nothing stopping Jazz from bidding on that work as the renewals take place.
As for specifically going after ACPA work in 2009? You can try. But I am telling you, if you go into negots in 2009 with that attitude you going to get out flanked at the table by Jazz. Your management is in transition to a business model that relies on CPA's with major airlines. They care not about what flying they do. Competitiveness with other CPA providers will be key to profitability and growth.
I believe they can as long as it is transboarder flying and the aircraft originates in its home country.socrates wrote:Is it even legal for a Canadian company to do CPA work for an American company or the other way around? I don't think so.
Just my opinion.
During the US airways Chapter 11 (part II) Air Canada, as part of their 200 million investment, tried to snag maintenance and CPA work for ACTS and Jazz. It didn't happen as the company doing the CPA became a large creditor and in turn negotiated the retention of the CPA and a guaranteed extension. Very few of the CPA's in the states have come up for renewal recently or will soon because of so many bankruptcies.
Somewhere in the Jazz prospectus (I don't have time to find it) it states basically the same thing. Something a long the lines of CPA work for airlines in the states is a possible growth opportunity for the future. At the moment the CPA's are all locked in due to the recent industry turmoil.
As for specifically knowing the legality of transboarder flying for an American carrier? I must admit I have made the assumption that Jazz knows what they are talking about on the matter.
C'mon Traf,Traf wrote:Who really owns their flying? What does that mean to "OWN" it? Why couldn't they threaten to CPA mainline flying? Did they not have an outside source hauling doing mainline cargo flying?
Air Canada owns the flying. We scope Air Canada and you scope Jazz.
Under the old structure one of the groups ALPA Jazz/ACPA had contractual claim to everything down to 30 seats? ( not totally familiar with your scope clause) And of course we fought over the dividing line between us which at this point is around 75 seats.
Today however only one group has a contract with Air Canada ( the owner of the work). That is ACPA and our scope of work ends at 75 seats. Everything else falls outside of what is protected. Today ALPA Jazz still has a scope clause with Jazz but the change is that Jazz does not own the flying.
Pre CPA ALPA Jazz pilots contractually had ownership of all flying between xx seats and xx seats.
Now ALPA Jazz pilots contractually have ownership of flying between xx seats and xx seats if Jazz retains the CPA.
This takes us to the crux of the issue over GS. ACPA can not bargain for Jazz pilots at the bargaining table to protect flying. We have no right. It would be illegal. Air Canada would no doubt claim we were bargaining in bad faith if we tried to . The only way around this is a merge. Unfortunately Air Canada, Jazz and ACE would have to agree to it, to make it happen since we are all separate now. They said no.
So the only group that can negotiate scope with the owner of the flying, Air Canada, is ACPA, but they have no legal standing to negotiate for those that they do not represent.
We missed the boat. As a group we have lost control over flying that falls outside ACPA's scope agreement.
As for Cargo. ACPA struck a Cargo LOU with Air Canada during CCAA. The LOU gave a temporary exemption to our scope, for a cargo only operation, with limited hours, so AC could test the cargo market. The LOU expired July 02/07 and AC has decided that they will not pursue a heavy lift operation.
This spring ACPA and Air Canada struck another LOU because Air Canada felt there was a business case to protect the Toronto-Frankfurt operation until they had enough 777 lift on the route. So a new LOU, that exempts for one year on specific routes, Air Canada from our scope.
With the exception of going over the hours prescribed in the first LOU Air Canada has been fully compliant. Compensation for the overage in hours during the first LOU and as a condition of the current 1 year extension is being paid by AC to ACPA at this time.
The fact that AC is paying ACPA almost 10 million over the next year in compensation is a pretty clear picture of how AC views their commitment under our scope language.
Looking back I can not come up with an instance where AC just arbitrarily outsource work in violation of our collective agreement. There has been lots of saber rattling during negotiations of course but no actual instances I can think of. Ultimately in all cases, that I can think of, where scope changes have taken place AC has gained the legal right to do so through negotiation, mediation or arbitration.
The one possible exception might be the F-28 flying right after the merge. But as you know it is pretty hard to call that a clear willfully violation of our collective agreement since the violation came with the purchase of Canadian. However, in the end we were compensated for that too.
What about all those connections, YYZ-TQB, YYZ-YFC/YQM, YYC-YLW, YYC-YXE, etc, etc. What about burning the shareholders of the jazz income trust
I believe the CPa is ineffect to 2014 or something like that, with an extension beyond that (it is a long term contract)-i cant remember
if anything , a us airline regional will fill the role of degrading our profession at JAzz and AC (indirectly).
AH WELL , soon all the airlines around the world, will be so short of experienced pilots , (as will almost all professions), there will be pilots quitting the all mighty AC.
The remarks I made envisioned you replacing them. Not the other way around. You made the remark about 2000 pilots at Jazz didn't you? That is the only place I can see that much growth opportunity for Jazz. Unless of course it was just a thinly veiled attempt at suggesting Jazz is getting the 190?
Of course AC can not have a CPA with a US feeder to fly domestically.
Competition for the AC CPA domestically will likely develop slowly and come from companies such as CMA or Georgian.
The CPA is in effect longer actually. Dec. 31 2015. However the CPA was amended just prior to the Jazz IPO. Among other things the guarantees beyond this date were removed. Jazz's lock on the AC CPA is for about 130 aircraft until Dec. 2015. Outside those parameters AC is free to use anyone they want if they need more lift.
Why would AC care about the Jazz income trust?
It says that 99 % (or something like that) of Jazz reason to exist is AC and given the fact they would be paid in US $, and operate in canadian $(just like ontario manufacturers-250000 layoffs), I find it hard to believe flying for a us airline would be profitable. I am not an econimist or CEo, just trying to stay alive, haha.
I look at history with the growth of the regionals in canada and usa, the fact that airline analysts say that AC 's costs are still too high, increased growth in passengers overall predicted for the future. As AC's intl. traffic grows JAzz will grow in concert respecting the ASM restiction of 12 %(?). It is almost a certainty that Jazz will get more RJ (probably 705/700/900/1000). If there is a cyclical economic downturn which there will be , the reasoning for Jazz growth will only make more sense.
I also think that now ACE has divided up the companies into isolated units, it will be easier to push the limits of scope. the 190 will never be at Jazz unless the is a major stressor like CCAA. However, growth of 705/900/1000 crj is a strong possibility. If CMA/Porter, etc get Jazz flying the why would Jazz not get EMB flying or growth in Large CRJ-it is a lose lose situation, IMO, for pilots in Canada
Also , Jazz could absorb CMA flying as a B scale as well (suggested in CCAA neg.)
I suppose 50 more aircraft at jazz (500 pilots)would be far fetched if the emb stayed at AC.
Piggy,piggy wrote:Fair enough. However given Jazz management style which involves very little imagination or incentive to acquire additional flying, I doubt they will ever fly for anyone else.
I don't know about that. I would put beer on the line that says the opposite. And I like beer.
Think of it this way. The AC CPA and the Jazz IPO were and are an in-term step in the direction Jazz is heading.
If there was one group out of the old AC that I thought would be dead in the water it would have been ACGHS. I figured there is no way they would ever compete with the likes of Hudson General and Globe ground.
Contracts in the last few months.
-Globespan Air YVR/YYC/YHM
-Royal Jordanian YUL
-Air Jamaica YYZ
-Express Jet YVR
-American eagle YOW
-Jet Airways YYZ India.....never heard of them
If I am coming across as down on Jazz ignore it. That is not my intent. My only intent is to illustrate that the world as we know it has changed. What it will look like a few years from now is unclear except to say it will be drastically different than it was prior to CCAA.
Not necessarily bad just different.