Jazz Recalls?

[truedude]

Not quite chief.

“1.10.02.01.02 On an exceptional basis, and notwithstanding the Small Jets Settlement
Agreement of Mr. Martin Teplitsky of July 12, 2004, and A1.10.02.01.01,
CPA carriers may operate MJA configured at a maximum of 76 seats and/or
MPA configured at a maximum of 80 seats inclusive of all classes (and no
other MJA or larger jet equipment), at any one time for the purpose of
performing flight operations for or on behalf of Air Canada or its Affiliates
pursuant to a CPA or a codeshare, provided that:
1. AC agrees to continue to operate at mainline and ACrouge combined a
minimum of 86 – and, as of July 1, 2016, 90 – Airbus 319/320/321 aircraft
or B737 Max aircraft or combination thereof, or equivalent NJA aircraft,
including at least 61 NJA at mainline.
2. Regional Replacement Aircraft flown on Regional Routes as defined in
L74.01 are not counted as aircraft in the 90 NJA guarantee in
A1.10.02.01.02.01.”

Given that AC no longer meets the contractual narrow body baseline the CPAs are no longer allowed to operate Q400s or RJ900 at all. 0 MPA/MJA until the baseline is met.
The language is very clear, now it’s just a matter of how an arbitrator rules. So given our illustrious track record in that regard I fully expect to see the 787 in Jazz colours this time next year.

I’m not a lawyer but I could drive a truck through that language, AC will argue they are on the operating certificate so they are being operated. I don’t see any minimum hours per fin etc..
There is also language about 1 MJA per wide body. I guess we’ll see but you know thanks for your support, you have 20% of your pilots on furlough and Jazz has 50% and you want more blood, I guess we’re going back to screwing each other during bad times

I hope you drive that truck better than you lawyer. I never said I am out for blood, I was merely explaining the basis for the grievance. But our scope language must be aggressively defended and the ACPA pilots must be made whole, whether that’s through parking CPA fins, financial means or otherwise.

First off your confused about 1 MJA to CPA ect, that does not apply in this circumstance (AC does not meet the baseline) it applies to growth of the CPA fleet beyond the minimum. The language is clear, do not meet the baseline, do not pass go, Jazz does not operate MJA or MPA. The history behind the NJA language is rooted in the 2008-2012 threat that AC would become a WJA only operation with the CPAs providing all domestic and regional lift. The baseline is there to protect mainline jobs.

Secondly active aircraft is CLEARLY defined. Air Canada has explicitly said which fins are inactive. The history behind this language was that ACPA was concerned that AC would buy a fleet of clapped out fins in the desert to try exactly what you are suggesting. This language has precedent and is well established.

1.04.04.1
“Active Mainline NJA” excludes (i) the three Jetz-configured aircraft; (ii) any
inactive aircraft, e.g., spare aircraft, aircraft in heavy maintenance, or aircraft
grounded by unforeseen circumstances; and (iii) any new aircraft type in its first
year of service at mainline or any aircraft type in its last year of service.

You are beyond delusional if you think you have a hope in hell of winning this grievance. You are still staffed as if those airplanes are actually flying, meaning the spirit of scope agreement is being complied to. The only thing you stand to gain is them turning around and running downbid to staff the airline as it should, which will mean a lot more ACPA pilots on the street. But given ACPAs history of cutting off its own nose, this wouldn't surprise me either.

"ACPA pilots need to be made whole" Jesus... Wake the f$ck up!!!!

This is about industry survival, and you are running around counting the change in the cup holder while the car falls apart around you. Narrow minded, near sighted insanity.

[flyinggenius35]

I’m not a lawyer but I could drive a truck through that language, AC will argue they are on the operating certificate so they are being operated. I don’t see any minimum hours per fin etc..
There is also language about 1 MJA per wide body. I guess we’ll see but you know thanks for your support, you have 20% of your pilots on furlough and Jazz has 50% and you want more blood, I guess we’re going back to screwing each other during bad times

I hope you drive that truck better than you lawyer. I never said I am out for blood, I was merely explaining the basis for the grievance. But our scope language must be aggressively defended and the ACPA pilots must be made whole, whether that’s through parking CPA fins, financial means or otherwise.

First off your confused about 1 MJA to CPA ect, that does not apply in this circumstance (AC does not meet the baseline) it applies to growth of the CPA fleet beyond the minimum. The language is clear, do not meet the baseline, do not pass go, Jazz does not operate MJA or MPA. The history behind the NJA language is rooted in the 2008-2012 threat that AC would become a WJA only operation with the CPAs providing all domestic and regional lift. The baseline is there to protect mainline jobs.

Secondly active aircraft is CLEARLY defined. Air Canada has explicitly said which fins are inactive. The history behind this language was that ACPA was concerned that AC would buy a fleet of clapped out fins in the desert to try exactly what you are suggesting. This language has precedent and is well established.

1.04.04.1
“Active Mainline NJA” excludes (i) the three Jetz-configured aircraft; (ii) any
inactive aircraft, e.g., spare aircraft, aircraft in heavy maintenance, or aircraft
grounded by unforeseen circumstances; and (iii) any new aircraft type in its first
year of service at mainline or any aircraft type in its last year of service.

You are beyond delusional if you think you have a hope in hell of winning this grievance. You are still staffed as if those airplanes are actually flying, meaning the spirit of scope agreement is being complied to. The only thing you stand to gain is them turning around and running downbid to staff the airline as it should, which will mean a lot more ACPA pilots on the street. But given ACPAs history of cutting off its own nose, this wouldn't surprise me either.

"ACPA pilots need to be made whole" Jesus... Wake the f$ck up!!!!

This is about industry survival, and you are running around counting the change in the cup holder while the car falls apart around you. Narrow minded, near sighted insanity.

They will win this grievance and will be paid out accordingly.

Keep in mind, this is AC flying. Jazz/Sky are 3rd party contractors. You don’t own or any of this.

It rightfully belongs to the pilots flying for the actual airline, not a regional sailboat with a maple leaf.

[truedude]

I hope you drive that truck better than you lawyer. I never said I am out for blood, I was merely explaining the basis for the grievance. But our scope language must be aggressively defended and the ACPA pilots must be made whole, whether that’s through parking CPA fins, financial means or otherwise.

First off your confused about 1 MJA to CPA ect, that does not apply in this circumstance (AC does not meet the baseline) it applies to growth of the CPA fleet beyond the minimum. The language is clear, do not meet the baseline, do not pass go, Jazz does not operate MJA or MPA. The history behind the NJA language is rooted in the 2008-2012 threat that AC would become a WJA only operation with the CPAs providing all domestic and regional lift. The baseline is there to protect mainline jobs.

Secondly active aircraft is CLEARLY defined. Air Canada has explicitly said which fins are inactive. The history behind this language was that ACPA was concerned that AC would buy a fleet of clapped out fins in the desert to try exactly what you are suggesting. This language has precedent and is well established.

1.04.04.1
“Active Mainline NJA” excludes (i) the three Jetz-configured aircraft; (ii) any
inactive aircraft, e.g., spare aircraft, aircraft in heavy maintenance, or aircraft
grounded by unforeseen circumstances; and (iii) any new aircraft type in its first
year of service at mainline or any aircraft type in its last year of service.

You are beyond delusional if you think you have a hope in hell of winning this grievance. You are still staffed as if those airplanes are actually flying, meaning the spirit of scope agreement is being complied to. The only thing you stand to gain is them turning around and running downbid to staff the airline as it should, which will mean a lot more ACPA pilots on the street. But given ACPAs history of cutting off its own nose, this wouldn't surprise me either.

"ACPA pilots need to be made whole" Jesus... Wake the f$ck up!!!!

This is about industry survival, and you are running around counting the change in the cup holder while the car falls apart around you. Narrow minded, near sighted insanity.

They will win this grievance and will be paid out accordingly.

Keep in mind, this is AC flying. Jazz/Sky are 3rd party contractors. You don’t own or any of this.

It rightfully belongs to the pilots flying for the actual airline, not a regional sailboat with a maple leaf.

The pilots don't "own" the flying at either airline. It is a business, and will be run in a way that respects the business and obligates contractual language. Air Canada is staffed as if it were flying a much larger fleet. That is the only thing the arbitrator will look at. "It rightfully belongs to the pilots flying for thr actually airline" your are sh%thing me, right? Jesus, you guys are a real bunch of winers.

[planebored]

We actually do own the flying but keep pretending like you know what you're talking about.

It's literally the foundationin of which our contract is built.

Hence why it's the first paragraph.

[21cdnflyer]

You are beyond delusional if you think you have a hope in hell of winning this grievance. You are still staffed as if those airplanes are actually flying, meaning the spirit of scope agreement is being complied to. The only thing you stand to gain is them turning around and running downbid to staff the airline as it should, which will mean a lot more ACPA pilots on the street. But given ACPAs history of cutting off its own nose, this wouldn't surprise me either.

"ACPA pilots need to be made whole" Jesus... Wake the f$ck up!!!!

This is about industry survival, and you are running around counting the change in the cup holder while the car falls apart around you. Narrow minded, near sighted insanity.

They will win this grievance and will be paid out accordingly.

Keep in mind, this is AC flying. Jazz/Sky are 3rd party contractors. You don’t own or any of this.

It rightfully belongs to the pilots flying for the actual airline, not a regional sailboat with a maple leaf.

The pilots don't "own" the flying at either airline. It is a business, and will be run in a way that respects the business and obligates contractual language. Air Canada is staffed as if it were flying a much larger fleet. That is the only thing the arbitrator will look at. "It rightfully belongs to the pilots flying for thr actually airline" your are sh%thing me, right? Jesus, you guys are a real bunch of winers.

I mean when company can literally end your operation, I would have to agree with Genius here. This is AC flying, Jazz is lucky to have the contract. Without Air Canada, Jazz would be tarnished to the levels of bush flying. Air Canada pilots deserve and have the right to fly anything and everything with their brand on it. At the end of the day you guys are regionals, and if WestJet swept up your loyalties would change overnight. Not the case for the real employees.

[Inverted2]

I’m sure Calin is getting out his chequebook to write you all a big bonus as we speak.

Maybe he will sub in the A220 for the YSB and YTS routes with about 20-30 pax per flight. The 787 could do YQM with the bigger runway no problem. Just tell him it’s your flying after all.

[rudder]

I mean when company can literally end your operation, I would have to agree with Genius here. This is AC flying, Jazz is lucky to have the contract. Without Air Canada, Jazz would be tarnished to the levels of bush flying. Air Canada pilots deserve and have the right to fly anything and everything with their brand on it. At the end of the day you guys are regionals, and if WestJet swept up your loyalties would change overnight. Not the case for the real employees.

Good luck getting a ‘cease and desist’ remedy from the arbitrator.

ARIBITRATOR:

“What proportion of normal schedule is AC operating?”

“What proportion of AC pilots are active”

“Why did ACPA agree to a 55 hour MOA?”

“Why is ACPA extending the 55 hour MOA?”

“How have the AC pilots been harmed?”

Having said that, ALL provisions of a CBA remain valid until mutual agreement to set aside. And the FM provision of the ACPA CBA applies to a very narrow issue (minimum block hours).

I don’t see this grievance or remedy changing anything. But it makes for good entertainment and a distraction from the very real crisis facing AC and the industry.

[Malfunction]

The level of garbage on this thread make me sick. ALL I see is scared little boys and girls trying to grab as much as they can. If only pilots could work together instead of against each other. No wonder we are all underpaid.

[flyer 1492]

The level of garbage on this thread make me sick. ALL I see is scared little boys and girls trying to grab as much as they can. If only pilots could work together instead of against each other. No wonder we are all underpaid.

+1

[Sharklasers]

The level of garbage on this thread make me sick. ALL I see is scared little boys and girls trying to grab as much as they can. If only pilots could work together instead of against each other. No wonder we are all underpaid.

This is a grievance between ACPA pilots and their employer, not pilot vs pilot.

How long can ACPA pilots continue to ignore an obvious violation of our scope before it becomes desuetude?

Air Canada isn’t over staffing due to the charity of their hearts, they are staffing to the level of what they are able to train to or what has been negotiate. This grievance is part of the latter, it isn’t a personal attack against regional pilots but merely an attempt to enforce the rule of our contract. I am sure there will be a negotiated settlement soon which will see compensation in either the form of small financial gains similar to that of our wet lease clause or of further deferred furloughs. I am quite confident that this Grievance will not result in further hardship for our regional colleagues but merely a clarification of what is acceptable as we all move towards our new normal.


I am deeply disappointed in any pilot colleague who attempts to paint an effort to enforce our scope provisions and contract language as an act of greed or treason. I would never shame a regional pilot for trying to get or maintain what they were entitled too, we should be trying to lift each other up and part of that will be enforcing and maintaining contract language so that when things turn around our wawcon hasn’t been deeply eroded.

[Malfunction]

Hard times make hard men, soft times makes soft men. We have had a long time with soft times..i see the product from some people in this thread.

[Sharklasers]

Hard times make hard men, soft times makes soft men. We have had a long time with soft times..i see the product from some people in this thread.

Lol what’s are your babbling about? This is about contract enforcement, nothing else. “Hard men” never got anywhere from giving shit away for free. I get it that your sour you are floating around out there with your wet ink atpl and your college diploma that got you straight into Jazz and now you have to go work for a living, that sucks, I hope your back at work soon but not at the expense of an ACPA pilots family if it can be helped.
Good luck man.

[rxl]

It should be easy for all of us to agree that this is economically the worst time in the history of the airline (and just about every other) industry.
At the end of July, the Canadian Press reported that Air Canada lost almost $20 million per DAY through April, May and June, based on the company reported loss of $1.7 Billion for that quarter.
Another thing that we should all agree on is that preserving the integrity of collective agreements is paramount. The potential real world effects, however, of filing a grievance like this at a time like this has to raise a few questions.

The possibility of an arbitrated monetary settlement has been mentioned in this thread. Is this a wise thing to pursue given today’s economic realities?

Should the company not have the operational flexibility to deploy the entire fleet of aircraft that it has under its control in the most economically advantageous way?

Is pursuing this grievance the best way to get your/our brothers and sisters facing furlough back to work as soon as possible?

Is this the best investment of precious time and resources for all parties involved?

Is this the best way to help ensure the long term future and stability of the enterprise and, as a result, our careers?

[rxl]

Duplicate posting. Sorry!

[21cdnflyer]

It should be easy for all of us to agree that this is economically the worst time in the history of the airline (and just about every other) industry.
At the end of July, the Canadian Press reported that Air Canada lost almost $20 million per DAY through April, May and June, based on the company reported loss of $1.7 Billion for that quarter.
Another thing that we should all agree on is that preserving the integrity of collective agreements is paramount. The potential real world effects, however, of filing a grievance like this at a time like this has to raise a few questions.

The possibility of an arbitrated monetary settlement has been mentioned in this thread. Is this a wise thing to pursue given today’s economic realities?

Should the company not have the operational flexibility to deploy the entire fleet of aircraft that it has under its control in the most economically advantageous way?

Is pursuing this grievance the best way to get your/our brothers and sisters facing furlough back to work as soon as possible?

Is this the best investment of precious time and resources for all parties involved?

Is this the best way to help ensure the long term future and stability of the enterprise and, as a result, our careers?

This is why we are the lowest paid pilots on the planet.

[Sharklasers]

It should be easy for all of us to agree that this is economically the worst time in the history of the airline (and just about every other) industry.
At the end of July, the Canadian Press reported that Air Canada lost almost $20 million per DAY through April, May and June, based on the company reported loss of $1.7 Billion for that quarter.
Another thing that we should all agree on is that preserving the integrity of collective agreements is paramount. The potential real world effects, however, of filing a grievance like this at a time like this has to raise a few questions.

The possibility of an arbitrated monetary settlement has been mentioned in this thread. Is this a wise thing to pursue given today’s economic realities?

Should the company not have the operational flexibility to deploy the entire fleet of aircraft that it has under its control in the most economically advantageous way?

Is pursuing this grievance the best way to get your/our brothers and sisters facing furlough back to work as soon as possible?

Is this the best investment of precious time and resources for all parties involved?

Is this the best way to help ensure the long term future and stability of the enterprise and, as a result, our careers?

This site is hilarious.

Pilots at other organizations constantly bitch about Air Canada’s poor contract and working conditions. Then when we try to enforce the contract provisions we do have we are suddenly bad people.

They company can absolutely deploy whichever aircraft under their control that they would like. Either within the confines of the collective agreement wet lease or CPA section or simply with an ACPA Pilot at the controls, in case you haven’t heard there are currently 800 surplus of them to choose from. Those are the pilots (or brothers and sisters as you call them) I am personally interested in getting back to work first.

[mbav8r]

Sharklasers,
You are right to defend your contract or at the very least a temporary MOA to allow some flexibility in return for an extension to the no layoff provisions but when things like, I’m paraphrasing, when this grievance goes through Jazz will be laying off a lot more pilots. What did you expect as a response when half of our pilots are on the street already and come March when our temporary agreement to no more than 70 downgrades is over, it’s very likely that 15 years of service won’t hold left seat.
However, I will say this, in our contract it is mentioned in the fleet guarantee and elsewhere, that the small jet agreement forms a part of this agreement, so contractually Jazz can have a fleet of 50 RJs and 15 705s, notwithstanding any of your scope limits, meaning they don’t count. Also, as someone pointed out, you are still over employed compared to how many are needed, your grievance could have opposite consequences, perhaps force the company to right size.
Jazz management has told us the the flying is expected to remain and 20-30% of what we were supposed to be doing for the rest of the year, I’m not sure how a 70-80% reduction doesn’t fit with the ratio.
Good luck, truly, I have many friends at AC and hope we all come out of this soon.

[the-minister31]

This is a grievance between ACPA pilots and their employer, not pilot vs pilot.

I am deeply disappointed in any pilot colleague who attempts to paint an effort to enforce our scope provisions and contract language as an act of greed or treason. I would never shame a regional pilot for trying to get or maintain what they were entitled too, we should be trying to lift each other up and part of that will be enforcing and maintaining contract language so that when things turn around our wawcon hasn’t been deeply eroded.

The problem isn't with you pressuring AC to explain themselves or compensate you, it is with the guys that now look at the 20-30% or our flying and are pissed *at sky/jza* pilots for taking their flying. I have seen AC pilots on layoff bitching at sky/jza pilots on layoff too that they are flying too much... We are in the same boat, how fucking delusional do you have to be?

I am all for keeping staff on with CEWS for example, or monetery gain, in respect with the agreement, since our WAWCONs are definitely sensitive in Canada. But don't argue that "regionals fly too much", argue that "AC should bring back the 20% that are laid off and keep them on as long as regionals are still flying" or pressuring the federal even more to help airline re-hire their staff...

I am sure that the greivance is in favor of AC pilots gain and not regional pilots loss, but seems like some pilots only want regionals to shutdown because "they steal our routes". That's bullshit.

Even worst, some of those guys where very happy to fly the maple leaf at JZA, proudly saying that they "fly the flag" and suddenly at the first day of ground school at AC, now regionals are just "borrowing the flag" and the Express branding isn't worth shit anymore because they fly the real thing... Those guys do not help your case at all saddly when dealing with regional pilots.

I truly hope that you will get your staff back, that you will win that grievance. I just hope that it won't be at the expense of collegues jobs.

[rxl]

Not sure where I said anything about “bad people”.
We all have a stake in this and need to make sure that the things within our control are on track to help get things back towards normal and to get all of our colleagues back to work no matter what airline they work for. NO ONE’S stake in this is any more or any less important than anyone else’s.
Good luck with the grievance, but I have a hard time seeing how it’s helpful in the current situation.

[21cdnflyer]

NO ONE’S stake in this is any more or any less important than anyone else’s.

When ACPA pilots are jobless and regional guys are getting paycheck, there’s a major issue. So yes, the Air Canada pilot’s stake is what matters here; and is more important.