Cargo TA

[sanjet]

I voted for the last MOA but this is a easy no for me.

-No SnapBack to normal pay if cargo revenue increases passed a threshold.
-with the loss of 737/220 orders, no job protection.

We are able to buy another airline but can’t pay our pilots normal rate?!

[bobcaygeon]

Does the cargo 767 come with a retro paint scheme?

165092.jpg (754.12 KiB) Viewed 5394 times

[Fanblade]

1.11 Specialty Companies

1.11.01 A Specialty Company is any Affiliate of the Company dedicated to air carrier operations within a narrower segment of the travel market than that in which Air Canada operates, such as air cargo, leisure market, low cost carrier or charter operations.

1.11.02 The Company or its Affiliates will not create or otherwise form any Specialty Company without the express written consent of ACPA.

Definition:

1.03.03 Affiliate means any entity incorporated in Canada or operating aircraft in Canada that controls the Company or that the Company controls and any Specialty Company.


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

Previous AC CEO’s have said that there is no money in dedicated cargo ops. The current CEO fleeted the airline to derive cargo revenue from available below deck cargo capacity. All dedicated cargo carriers saw their stock sell-off yesterday on the news of a COVID vaccine which portends an eventual recovery to normal.

I guess it is a slippery slope. And it is not up to the pilots to set the business plan. But would the answer from the AC pilots be any different if there were not pilots on layoff?

AC had this issue last decade before the triples showed up. They couldn’t bid certain contracts because they couldn’t guarantee the belly space due to weight restrictions. On perishables the penalties are high. At that time Europe was the problem and it was addressed by a temporary wet lease. The more recent Cargo Jet wet lease was to accommodate freight in and out of South America that the high density Rouge 767’s had trouble carrying plus a little Frankfurt.

Now we have a situation where the Rouge 767 is parked. That is a problem for South America Cargo.

If the Triples get parked Europe might be an issue. I’m not familiar enough with the 787’s capabilities vs the triple.

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

Exactly why you don’t go down that path. Yet time and again we take the bait. Then during the next negotiations we will have to spend bargaining capital trying to fix it while putting other areas on the back burner.

Then we wonder why we are so far behind our peers....... We even recently voted to reinforce this as the kind of representation we want.

Hook, line, sinker.

AC clearly sees a need for dedicated cargo post pandemic. The business plan is probably targeting South America and possibly Frankfurt again. We know AC has been struggling with a strategy to deal with South America for a few years. Now the parking of the Rouge 767 has created a crisis point. It’s not like they would walk away from the revenue. If that were the case they already would have. That business plan can’t hinge on 10% of a pilots wage. To believe that is simply irrational.

This is nothing more than the company taking the opportunity to hack a piece of the contract. It has been so successful for them they would be crazy to pass on any opportunity. We have spent the last decade fixing the problems introduced during FOS. Now just as we are coming to the end of that process, we are willingly introducing another problem we will have to fix.

Are we really this blind? Rovinescu is probably walking Rousseau through the process.

https://media.giphy.com/media/YP1Jb0JNc ... /giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7btNa0R ... /giphy.gif


I give up.

[alkaseltzer]

1.11 Specialty Companies

1.11.01 A Specialty Company is any Affiliate of the Company dedicated to air carrier operations within a narrower segment of the travel market than that in which Air Canada operates, such as air cargo, leisure market, low cost carrier or charter operations.

1.11.02 The Company or its Affiliates will not create or otherwise form any Specialty Company without the express written consent of ACPA.

Definition:

1.03.03 Affiliate means any entity incorporated in Canada or operating aircraft in Canada that controls the Company or that the Company controls and any Specialty Company.


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

Previous AC CEO’s have said that there is no money in dedicated cargo ops. The current CEO fleeted the airline to derive cargo revenue from available below deck cargo capacity. All dedicated cargo carriers saw their stock sell-off yesterday on the news of a COVID vaccine which portends an eventual recovery to normal.

I guess it is a slippery slope. And it is not up to the pilots to set the business plan. But would the answer from the AC pilots be any different if there were not pilots on layoff?

AC had this issue last decade before the triples showed up. They couldn’t bid certain contracts because they couldn’t guarantee the belly space due to weight restrictions. On perishables the penalties are high. At that time Europe was the problem and it was addressed by a temporary wet lease. The more recent Cargo Jet wet lease was to accommodate freight in and out of South America that the high density Rouge 767’s had trouble carrying plus a little Frankfurt.

Now we have a situation where the Rouge 767 is parked. That is a problem for South America Cargo.

If the Triples get parked Europe might be an issue. I’m not familiar enough with the 787’s capabilities vs the triple.

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

Exactly why you don’t go down that path. Yet time and again we take the bait. Then during the next negotiations we will have to spend bargaining capital trying to fix it while putting other areas on the back burner.

Then we wonder why we are so far behind our peers....... We even recently voted to reinforce this as the kind of representation we want.

Hook, line, sinker.

AC clearly sees a need for dedicated cargo post pandemic. The business plan is probably targeting South America and possibly Frankfurt again. We know AC has been struggling with a strategy to deal with South America for a few years. Now the parking of the Rouge 767 has created a crisis point. It’s not like they would walk away from the revenue. If that were the case they already would have. That business plan can’t hinge on 10% of a pilots wage. To believe that is simply irrational.

This is nothing more than the company taking the opportunity to hack a piece of the contract. It has been so successful for them they would be crazy to pass on any opportunity. We have spent the last decade fixing the problems introduced during FOS. Now just as we are coming to the end of that process, we are willingly introducing another problem we will have to fix.

Are we really this blind? Rovinescu is probably walking Rousseau through the process.

https://media.giphy.com/media/YP1Jb0JNc ... /giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7btNa0R ... /giphy.gif


I give up.

So my question is, why would ACPA put forth this to the members at 90% pay? Is there a disclosure for any kickback to the ones at the negotiating table? Has this ever been an issue with this MEC in the past?

The stock market has reflected these news in a positive way (32% increase by today).

10% less pay without burning a course right seems fair.

Especially since this pandemic will take at least 3 years to get to 2019 levels.

Also don't know what's all the bitching by MAX captains or other pilots that have barely flown OR worked, yet earnings throughout the year will top $180k. Acpa saved jobs, more than any other airline and if it's a 10% paycut for a different lifestyle, then sign me up. Some guys like flying freight.

Last call for boarding on the gravy ...

[discountpilot]

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

This

[discountpilot]

ML rates - 10% rates at 18-19 days a month for 70-75 hours? This will pay less than Rouge did due to lack of 77.5, 2x draft and min day rate.

PASS.

If I wanted to fly 18-19 days a month I would have stayed at Jazz.

[PostmasterGeneral]

If it's the same flying, in the same airplanes, WHY is it being done at a cheaper rate? Who gives a shit if there's people or cargo in the back? And cargo flying often has WORSE scheduling and work conditions, if anything it should pay more.

Who in their right mind would bid to go over there? Am I missing something?

[discountpilot]

As pilots we never interact with passengers other than saying goodbye at the end of the flight. To us it doesn't matter what's the the back, we fly from A to B. If anything cargo flying should pay MORE due to it's unproductivity, back of the clock flying and airport appreciation time.

We had the chance to get rid of this MEC a month ago and didn't take it. This is what we get.

[Fanblade]

10% less pay without burning a course right seems fair.

......if it's a 10% paycut for a different lifestyle, then sign me up.

Last call for boarding on the gravy ...

Now I need alka seltzer.

10% less = a gravy train? That my friend is why we are in a union. If we negotiated on our own we would be working for next to nothing because of that attitude. So now that I know your willing to work for 10% less on a 767, what reduction are you willing to take for a triple? 15%? 20?

Yes there is always a few that see an opportunity to jump the Q if wages fall in a certain position. Do you know how many people I heard say they were concerned ACPA would fix the Rouge pay rates to a point where they could no longer hold their current position? Add it to the reasons to never go down that path. The devisiness becomes destructive.

How about we just do the flying for the negotiated rate?

Problem is it is too late for that. It is incredibly rare that we vote against an MEC recommendation. This 10% pay cut is now most likely locked in. It’s why these issues should never get past the MEC.

[Fanblade]

https://acpa.ca/members/about-us.aspx

ACPA - About us - Values - Professionalism and career development

Having chosen to pursue a career in such a highly specialized and technical arena, ACPA members constantly seek to improve our profession, working conditions, compensation and benefits — not just on behalf of our own member pilots, but also in support of our chosen profession.

No one laugh.

[discountpilot]

https://acpa.ca/members/about-us.aspx

ACPA - About us - Values - Professionalism and career development

Having chosen to pursue a career in such a highly specialized and technical arena, ACPA members constantly seek to improve our profession, working conditions, compensation and benefits — not just on behalf of our own member pilots, but also in support of our chosen profession.

No one laugh.

[thrust set]

Just found out that all three members of Pilots for Change that won successfully in the last election, supported this cargo LOU.
No transparency, no backbone, just follow in line.

Their new logo .......“Pilots looking for $ change”

You’re welcome.

TS

[skypirate88]

Just found out that all three members of Pilots for Change that won successfully in the last election, supported this cargo LOU.
No transparency, no backbone, just follow in line.

Their new logo .......“Pilots looking for $ change”

You’re welcome.

TS

What are you talking about? None of the members who won election were even remotely connected to Pilots for Change.

Even if they were, the term doesn't start until the new year so they wouldn't be in office.

Your entire post is completely incorrect. Perhaps you should get a better source, because the one you're using is completely full of shit.

I honestly can't tell if you believe this nonsense or if you're just on a fishing expedition.

[thrust set]

One LEC chair that won ( well nobody ran against him ) and 2 National MEC members in positions now, but lost in their local base elections. All three are P4C...... my point is they ran on a platform of change. 18 days a month, 10% less ,no bunks??
And it seems they never pushed back over this Cargo agreement....nope, not a peep.

That’s change, that’s pilots for change. ( sorry I can hardly keep a straight face !)

[discountpilot]

One LEC chair that won ( well nobody ran against him ) and 2 National MEC members in positions now, but lost in their local base elections. All three are P4C...... my point is they ran on a platform of change. 18 days a month, 10% less ,no bunks??
And it seems they never pushed back over this Cargo agreement....nope, not a peep.

That’s change, that’s pilots for change. ( sorry I can hardly keep a straight face !)

The issue with your claim is that there's no way to corroborate it. If only ACPA MEC had an available voting record for members to review.

There's so many issues.

It's all connected.

[Victory]

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

[Tdicommuter]

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

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

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

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

[Puffpuffpass]

.

[Fidget]

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

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

[rudder]

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

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

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

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



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

[skypirate88]

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

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

[Fanblade]

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

[discountpilot]

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

Zero protection.

[discountpilot]

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

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

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

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

Just watch.

We are all so dumb.

[discountpilot]

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

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

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

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



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

That's exactly what it says.