Jazz Recalls?

[dhc#]

If the company needs short term flexibility on this scope issue to right size aircraft on some routes I think AC pilots will be happy to help - we always are - but it comes in exchange for permanent gains.

Otherwise they can go piss up a rope as far as I'm concerned, as was mentioned, this isn't a charity, there are clear lines on scope and they have already pushed the bar and pilfered too much from our contract. If they don't want to play or the numbers don't work, bring the E175s back. We have guys current that can fly those planes.

It is more likely than not that the COVID crisis is going to accelerate the end of the EMB era for both mainline and Express. Hoping to turn back the hands of time is not a high probability outcome.

Mainline will be smaller. Express will be smaller. But dreams of returning to the times of ‘only AC pilots fly the jets’ are pure folly.

What I am curious about is just how much "smaller" the Express and AC fleets will be in the near future?

[planebored]

Scope language is not ego.

Jazz is a contractor, plain and simple. I don't get what is so hard to understand about this.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the terms of the AC/CHR CPA. It - like the ACPA CBA - is a legally binding contract.

I worked at Jazz, I am familiar with the CPA.

If you think a CPA has priority over ACPA's scope language you're living on another planet.

[rudder]

Scope language is not ego.

Jazz is a contractor, plain and simple. I don't get what is so hard to understand about this.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the terms of the AC/CHR CPA. It - like the ACPA CBA - is a legally binding contract.

I worked at Jazz, I am familiar with the CPA.

If you think a CPA has priority over ACPA's scope language you're living on another planet.

It does not have priority. Equal footing on enforceability.

Both have FM provisions. Both are specific.

AC will be writing big cheques to everybody for doing nothing. At least until CCAA.

[rxl]

Jazz is a contractor, plain and simple. I don't get what is so hard to understand about this.

There’s nothing hard to understand about that fact.
Jazz is a contractor and has been for a very long time.
Jazz is a contractor that YOUR senior management has such confidence in and respect for that, not all that long ago, it made a significant equity investment in and signed a long term contract with until 2035.
Might as well get used to it.

[21cdnflyer]

If the company needs short term flexibility on this scope issue to right size aircraft on some routes I think AC pilots will be happy to help - we always are - but it comes in exchange for permanent gains.

Otherwise they can go piss up a rope as far as I'm concerned, as was mentioned, this isn't a charity, there are clear lines on scope and they have already pushed the bar and pilfered too much from our contract. If they don't want to play or the numbers don't work, bring the E175s back. We have guys current that can fly those planes.

Wholeheartedly agree, bring those 175s back, they should have never left your fleet but we all(over 30 years old) know why that happened.

[quote=rxl post_id=<a href="tel:1126523">1126523</a> time=<a href="tel:1599404713">1599404713</a> user_id=40209]
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.

How old are you cdnflyer? Seriously, there is major history you’re dealing with here, for starters Jazz was a wholly owned AC company, yes we are under contract but only because AC needed money post bankruptcy and sold it on the market, this seems to be lost on you.
The history of Jazz goes back to 1934 as Austin Airways, two years before TCA. Austin eventually became Air Ontario which is now one of the four that became Jazz. The only reason it’s “Air Canada flying” is ego. This slope you’re on has some slippery ramifications, when unions start fighting for their piece of the pie, you can bet some 100s would be added to the fleet, you’re dreaming if you think otherwise. I also believe there is some replacement language about 3 to 2 , RJs for Q400s, one thing for sure, this could get messy, force majeure has not been used yet. Careful what you wish for and remember who you’re dealing with, Calin Rovinescu rarely if ever is embarrassed by pilots.
[/quote]

It isn’t ego, it’s the reality of the business. Do you think Delta or United would stand for these types of violations? The history between AC and Austin/Air BC/Ontario/Nova/Canadian/Inter-Canadian/Alliance/Blah blah blah has no bearing on this argument.Jazz is a contractor, a fly for hire company. The contract for actual Air Canada pilots needs to be protected, at all cost. I guess they don’t teach scope at the puppy mill.

[planebored]

It isn’t ego, it’s the reality of the business. Do you think Delta or United would stand for these types of violations? The history between AC and Austin/Air BC/Ontario/Nova/Canadian/Inter-Canadian/Alliance/Blah blah blah has no bearing on this argument.Jazz is a contractor, a fly for hire company. The contract for actual Air Canada pilots needs to be protected, at all cost. I guess they don’t teach scope at the puppy mill.

The pilot groups at Delta and United would burn down the house. Mind you they have an actual union working for them.

[rxl]

It isn’t ego, it’s the reality of the business. Do you think Delta or United would stand for these types of violations? The history between AC and Austin/Air BC/Ontario/Nova/Canadian/Inter-Canadian/Alliance/Blah blah blah has no bearing on this argument.Jazz is a contractor, a fly for hire company. The contract for actual Air Canada pilots needs to be protected, at all cost. I guess they don’t teach scope at the puppy mill.

The pilot groups at Delta and United would burn down the house. Mind you they have an actual union working for them.

What union would that be?

[planebored]

Not ACPA.

[Sharklasers]

This slope you’re on has some slippery ramifications, when unions start fighting for their piece of the pie, you can bet some 100s would be added to the fleet, you’re dreaming if you think otherwise.

Lol I think your the one dreaming on that big man.
Ill take that bet any day of the week. Im sorry to tell you that your baby jets with there outrageous CASM are gone for good. Not even the big bad ACPA pilots being mean to Mr.Rovenscue by trying to enforce their mutually agreed upon contract are going to bring them back.

[rxl]

It isn’t ego, it’s the reality of the business. Do you think Delta or United would stand for these types of violations? The history between AC and Austin/Air BC/Ontario/Nova/Canadian/Inter-Canadian/Alliance/Blah blah blah has no bearing on this argument.Jazz is a contractor, a fly for hire company. The contract for actual Air Canada pilots needs to be protected, at all cost. I guess they don’t teach scope at the puppy mill.

The pilot groups at Delta and United would burn down the house. Mind you they have an actual union working for them.

Actually, those pilot groups have been through an awful lot throughout their very long histories.
I think they’re a little smarter than that.

[rudder]

This slope you’re on has some slippery ramifications, when unions start fighting for their piece of the pie, you can bet some 100s would be added to the fleet, you’re dreaming if you think otherwise.

Lol I think your the one dreaming on that big man.
Ill take that bet any day of the week. Im sorry to tell you that your baby jets with there outrageous CASM are gone for good. Not even the big bad ACPA pilots being mean to Mr.Rovenscue by trying to enforce their mutually agreed upon contract are going to bring them back.

Last time trough the AC CCAA car wash the ‘regional pilots’ fared pretty well. Ended up with a fleet of 140+ aircraft.

Same CCAA counsel has already been retained. Best in the business.

Right now that is the direction this is all pointing. The Jazz pilots will be fine no matter what.

[Inverted2]

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.

I guess you should have stayed at Jazz then. When you screw up my Tim Hortons order on my way to work there’s a major issue.

[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.

I do not understand how you do not understand that this is 0 sum.
Every passenger flown on a MPA/MJA is a passenger not flown on AC mainline metal. So the growth of the Jaz/sky fleet comes at the expense and furlough of an AC pilot. Alot of the trunk routes being flown by the regionals could be flown by mainline with some consolidation. The entire contingent of emb pilots can fly the 175 next week. You cannot possibly argue that there is no harm.
I too am interested in all pilots getting back to work but not at the expense of the ACPA pilots. We are running a union not a charity, we cannot be giving away entire sections of the contract for nothing in return.

Mbav8r, the threat that AC will go out to the desert source and bring back 50 clapped out parked RJ-100s during a time of massive contraction to stick it to the pilot union is silly and you know it.

"So the growth of the Jaz/sky fleet comes at the expense and furlough of an AC pilot." Growth? What growth? The current version of the Jazz CPA has fleet REDUCTIONS through most of its term. No growth here. Any growth in pilot numbers that there was at Jazz pre-pandemic was primarily to feed pilots to MAINLINE growth. Haven't seen the furlough of any AC pilot caused by Jazz/Sky growth.

"Alot of the trunk routes being flown by the regionals could be flown by mainline with some consolidation." No argument there. Ever hear of the "Regional Replacement Agreement"? However, why do you think your management has chosen to operate as it does with respect to the CPA? Why do you think that there are minimum guarantees written into the CPA?

"The entire contingent of emb pilots can fly the 175 next week. You cannot possibly argue that there is no harm." I think that the Skyregional pilot group and the Skyregional CPA may have a thing or two to say about that. And let’s be very clear about where the current “harm” is coming from. It certainly is not from the Express pilot groups.

"We are running a union not a charity, we cannot be giving away entire sections of the contract for nothing in return." Agreed. except no one said anything about giving away entire sections of the contract. What needs to be done is to ensure the company has the tools it needs right now to negotiate its way through the mess of the pandemic and come out the other side as strong as possible. If YOU come out of the other side with nothing in return, and the blame game inevitably begins, you’ll need look no further than the mirror. It certainly won't be the fault of the Express Pilots.

Good Luck to All!!

[Transition9er2]

Jumped on this site after dealing with real life for a few months and holy sh!t what a cluster fu*k....

You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Are you seriously fighting and bickering over who has more right to work and who should be laid off?? What the fu*k... are we pilots in a professional industry or are we a bunch of 5 year olds throwing temper tantrums?

We’re going through a bull sh!t global pandemic that’s affecting EVERYONE and ppl’s lives are getting completely blown up, some quite seriously, and our pilot group puts this on display for everyone to see? Holy sh!t.

If we can’t rally together in a time like this to make our industry stronger and better... we’re seriously screwed moving forward.

Perhaps I should stay off this site for a few more months... all I see here is a bunch of cry babies giving management even more excuses to manipulate and divide our ranks.

[planebored]

Jumped on this site after dealing with real life for a few months and holy sh!t what a cluster fu*k....

You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Are you seriously fighting and bickering over who has more right to work and who should be laid off?? What the fu*k... are we pilots in a professional industry or are we a bunch of 5 year olds throwing temper tantrums?

We’re going through a bull sh!t global pandemic that’s affecting EVERYONE and ppl’s lives are getting completely blown up, some quite seriously, and our pilot group puts this on display for everyone to see? Holy sh!t.

If we can’t rally together in a time like this to make our industry stronger and better... we’re seriously screwed moving forward.

Perhaps I should stay off this site for a few more months... all I see here is a bunch of cry babies giving management even more excuses to manipulate and divide our ranks.

Mate it has nothing to do with saying who should be laid off or not.

It's very simple. SCOPE.

If you wanted job security maybe not choosing to stick it out at a CPA regional contractor would have been a better idea. That's pretty much the only reason I left for AC. Everything about Jazz is better contractually other than the pay and the fact that AC owns the flying, and Jazz is a contractor.

I don't get what's so hard to understand about this?

[AA123455]

Am I crazy to say that the Chorus-AC contract is stronger than the AC-ACPA contract?

I mean, Chorus has a long term contract with AC. After all kinds of talk about “Force Majeurs” and whatever, it hasn’t happened, and AC keeps paying Chorus almost exactly what it paid them for his time last year.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I’d predict Jazz at %80 capacity with full call backs for All pilots before AC gets anymore flying.

If you can’t make money on a domestic or USA route with a RJ, there’s no way you’d make money on the same route with a AirBus or Boeing.

[AA123455]

I’m not a betting man, but if I was I’d say that Sky Regional struggles until it’s contract is up (2028 I think?) then it goes extinct.

Jazz continues strong until 2035 and beyond with its baseline Payments from AC of 85 tails, and all pilots are called back when the Sky contract is over to absorb the Sky flying.

AC is hit the hardest and is the last company to see full call backs for pilots, as international flying will be the slowest to rebound.

[planebored]

Am I crazy to say that the Chorus-AC contract is stronger than the AC-ACPA contract?

I mean, Chorus has a long term contract with AC. After all kinds of talk about “Force Majeurs” and whatever, it hasn’t happened, and AC keeps paying Chorus almost exactly what it paid them for his time last year.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I’d predict Jazz at %80 capacity with full call backs for All pilots before AC gets anymore flying.

If you can’t make money on a domestic or USA route with a RJ, there’s no way you’d make money on the same route with a AirBus or Boeing.

Yes you are. ACPA doesn't need a "long term contract" like Chorus/Jazz does because the flying is by default ours.

The fact this even needs to be explained.

[mbav8r]

Am I crazy to say that the Chorus-AC contract is stronger than the AC-ACPA contract?

I mean, Chorus has a long term contract with AC. After all kinds of talk about “Force Majeurs” and whatever, it hasn’t happened, and AC keeps paying Chorus almost exactly what it paid them for his time last year.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I’d predict Jazz at %80 capacity with full call backs for All pilots before AC gets anymore flying.

If you can’t make money on a domestic or USA route with a RJ, there’s no way you’d make money on the same route with a AirBus or Boeing.

Yes you are. ACPA doesn't need a "long term contract" like Chorus/Jazz does because the flying is by default ours.

The fact this even needs to be explained.

I do wonder if you were a Rouge pilot and say mid 2021 AC is looking to repeat history and list it as on the market to raise more capital as a separate entity with a long term contract, would you feel the same? Take some time to think about that, let it sink in because in CCAA all bets are off and everything is on the table.
Your flying, who cares, Jazz has a long term contract to do a minimum amount of it, given how many aircraft are parked I doubt there is a violation of the fleet limit. Remember the SJA doesn’t count, it’s notwithstanding and Sky Regional flying counts as mainline flying, it’s written in your contract that way, brilliant.
Anyhow, time will tell but I won’t lose any sleep over it

[AA123455]

Am I crazy to say that the Chorus-AC contract is stronger than the AC-ACPA contract?

I mean, Chorus has a long term contract with AC. After all kinds of talk about “Force Majeurs” and whatever, it hasn’t happened, and AC keeps paying Chorus almost exactly what it paid them for his time last year.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I’d predict Jazz at %80 capacity with full call backs for All pilots before AC gets anymore flying.

If you can’t make money on a domestic or USA route with a RJ, there’s no way you’d make money on the same route with a AirBus or Boeing.

Yes you are. ACPA doesn't need a "long term contract" like Chorus/Jazz does because the flying is by default ours.

The fact this even needs to be explained.

By “default ours,” I assume you mean the flying belongs to mainline employees?

I’ve never understood that logic, where does it say only air Canada employees can operate air Canada booked passangers or fly air Canada branded planes? I understand there’s a scope clause for mainline above 78 seats, but how strong is that, and I’m sure that could be undone in either arbitration or in a CCA situation. And what’s stoping air Canada from having Jazz/sky do %100 of the domestic and USA flying?

Mainline has another 12 months of cash on hand at the current burn rate before the government steps in, or they go broke. Any talk of having an employee union force the company to move flying into a higher cost model and away from a lean regional is just silly.

When the ship is about to sink, don’t fight over who gets the best rations in the mess. Get the ship through the storm, then fight over the scraps in the kitchen.

[planebored]

Am I crazy to say that the Chorus-AC contract is stronger than the AC-ACPA contract?

I mean, Chorus has a long term contract with AC. After all kinds of talk about “Force Majeurs” and whatever, it hasn’t happened, and AC keeps paying Chorus almost exactly what it paid them for his time last year.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I’d predict Jazz at %80 capacity with full call backs for All pilots before AC gets anymore flying.

If you can’t make money on a domestic or USA route with a RJ, there’s no way you’d make money on the same route with a AirBus or Boeing.

Yes you are. ACPA doesn't need a "long term contract" like Chorus/Jazz does because the flying is by default ours.

The fact this even needs to be explained.

By “default ours,” I assume you mean the flying belongs to mainline employees?

I’ve never understood that logic, where does it say only air Canada employees can operate air Canada booked passangers or fly air Canada branded planes? I understand there’s a scope clause for mainline above 78 seats, but how strong is that, and I’m sure that could be undone in either arbitration or in a CCA situation. And what’s stoping air Canada from having Jazz/sky do %100 of the domestic and USA flying?

Mainline has another 12 months of cash on hand at the current burn rate before the government steps in, or they go broke. Any talk of having an employee union force the company to move flying into a higher cost model and away from a lean regional is just silly.

When the ship is about to sink, don’t fight over who gets the best rations in the mess. Get the ship through the storm, then fight over the scraps in the kitchen.

It's the first paragraph of the collective agreement, and Canadian labour law backs that up.

And you're mistaken there isn't a scope clause above 78 seats. There's one for less. And everything above is ours, we don't have to "scope" our flying.

Again, the fact this needs to be explained is kind of hilarious.

[Sharklasers]

Sky Regional flying counts as mainline flying, it’s written in your contract that way, brilliant.
Anyhow, time will tell but I won’t lose any sleep over it

I’m not sure where you got that nugget of fake news but you are wrong. Sky’s flying is covered in the same article as the rest of the third party contractor flying.
Again, here is the ACPA collective agreement in case you want to stop looking foolish when you make shit up.
http://negotech.labour.gc.ca/eng/agreem ... 23006a.pdf

[FL-280]

[quote=. Remember the SJA doesn’t count, it’s notwithstanding and Sky Regional flying counts as mainline flying, it’s written in your contract that way, brilliant.

[/quote]

This information origintes from the Jazz YYZ crewroom for sure XD hahaha

[Sharklasers]

This information origintes from the Jazz YYZ crewroom for sure XD hahaha

....brilliant?

[dialdriver]

Yes you are. ACPA doesn't need a "long term contract" like Chorus/Jazz does because the flying is by default ours.

The fact this even needs to be explained.

By “default ours,” I assume you mean the flying belongs to mainline employees?

I’ve never understood that logic, where does it say only air Canada employees can operate air Canada booked passangers or fly air Canada branded planes? I understand there’s a scope clause for mainline above 78 seats, but how strong is that, and I’m sure that could be undone in either arbitration or in a CCA situation. And what’s stoping air Canada from having Jazz/sky do %100 of the domestic and USA flying?

Mainline has another 12 months of cash on hand at the current burn rate before the government steps in, or they go broke. Any talk of having an employee union force the company to move flying into a higher cost model and away from a lean regional is just silly.

When the ship is about to sink, don’t fight over who gets the best rations in the mess. Get the ship through the storm, then fight over the scraps in the kitchen.

It's the first paragraph of the collective agreement, and Canadian labour law backs that up.

And you're mistaken there isn't a scope clause above 78 seats. There's one for less. And everything above is ours, we don't have to "scope" our flying.

Again, the fact this needs to be explained is kind of hilarious.

Successor rights. A Canadian employer cannot contract out its work to bust a union. The law won't allow it.