US Regional FO - Year 1 - $206,000 Canadian

[Ash Ketchum]

As a junior flat pay pilot, my line in the sand is 100% increase to flat pay and only 1-2 years of it not the current 4. 50% minimum increase to formula pay. And of course lifestyle improvements also needed.

Get rid of the flat pay in this agreement, and doesn't drag down future negotiations.
Otherwise company will bring back flat pay when the economy goes down

I would also like to see flat pay gone however even the US majors have 1 year of probationary/flat pay at about $110 USD/hour. I think given the way that AC assigns seniority numbers in PIT by pulling names out of a hat it wouldn't be fair if some new hires made more than others.

[sstaurus]

Yes 'Flat pay' is not so much the issue, its just the rate that's the problem. It's just an MMG which is much simpler and spread evenly throughout the year, like almost every other airline I believe...

Do the US airlines use an MMG type system? Or do they use convoluted formulae as well...

[cjp]

Yes 'Flat pay' is not so much the issue, its just the rate that's the problem. It's just an MMG which is much simpler and spread evenly throughout the year, like almost every other airline I believe...

Do the US airlines use an MMG type system? Or do they use convoluted formulae as well...

It's the rate and the 4 YEARS of it, that's the problem. The work-around is burning a NB left seat bid early in your career progression.

Have a few friends still hovering year 3 and 4, and sometimes I forget where they are timeline wise. Inevitably, flat pay comes up and I find out how little they are making 4 years into the mix - and to be honest, the gains over their careers aren't enough to justify 4 years of it.

Good luck boys, fingers, toes, knees and nuts are crossed (albeit painfully) for you to succeed in this round of negots.

You win, we all win. Raise that bar.

[yowflyer23]

What is a trip rig for those of us not familiar with the airline world?

[accountant]

Statistically I suspect 20% of us will think the expectation or ask is underwhelming. 20% will think our expectations are unrealistically high. Accountant will fit in with this camp. 60% will think the ask is appropriate

Nope. I think more than you think will believe the expectations are unrealistically high depending on what you take to the table.

Who knows though what you’ll ask for. All that’s heard right now is the outlandish ask but will that be the line in the sand or will something different be presented that’s more reasonable?


Time will tell.

[Fanblade]

Statistically I suspect 20% of us will think the expectation or ask is underwhelming. 20% will think our expectations are unrealistically high. Accountant will fit in with this camp. 60% will think the ask is appropriate

Nope. I think more than you think will believe the expectations are unrealistically high depending on what you take to the table.

Who knows though what you’ll ask for. All that’s heard right now is the outlandish ask but will that be the line in the sand or will something different be presented that’s more reasonable?


Time will tell.

I was being sarcastic. You have made it clear you think we are worth less today than in 2003. That requesting our old wage back is outlandish.

I can’t imagine the initial ask being anything less than 2003 plus. Well north of WJ wages. Bare minimum.

100% chance you will think the ask is unreasonable.

[altiplano]

We are roughly 55%+- behind our 2002 wage package, and have given massive lets on our working conditions and Scope. The Corp pocketed all of it for 20+ years. Good for them, it's good business sense. They have benefited from our direct loss for decades now. It's time to play FAIR and PAY BACK a little.

The Corp could afford our wage package in 2002. Why not now during billion dollar quarters? For the record, CCAA was not caused by pilot compensation. Our company is now a license to print money, and that isn't ending soon. Fairly adjusting our wage for inflation alone from 2002 wouldn't be a significant burden. There are plenty of ways to save the difference..

RippleRock,

I appreciate your posts and agree with you 99.9% of the time. But you are mistaken with your statement that we are currently 55% behind our 2002 wages. We need to stay accurate otherwise our credibility disappears. Our own expectations become distorted.

For clarity.

55% is roughly the change in inflation from 2002 to 2023. https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/relat ... alculator/

For 55% to be an accurate reflection of how far we are behind 2002, it would mean we haven’t had a raise in 20 years. That is not the case.

There is also very likely a miscommunication happening that is often problematic when using percentages. If you take a 50% pay cut? You need a 100% raise to get back to even. Whenever you hear a percentage you have to ask. Relative to what? Accountant has had fun manipulating this recently.

I will give you a 12 year 737CA as an example.

The current AC 737CA wage is about 30% behind 2003 wages adjusted for inflation.
The current AC 737CA wage needs about a 40% wage increase to match 2003 adjusted to inflation.
The current WJ 737CA wage plus about $50/hour approximates AC 737 wages inflation adjusted from 2003.

This number also approximates what US carriers are making today without currency exchange. Very similar to the 2002 era where we made approximately what the US carriers made but in CAD.

I understand you find those numbers underwhelming. I like your determination. But to be accurate you can’t claim you want 2002 wages adjusted for inflation and in the next sentence reject those wages as not good enough.

You clearly want nothing to do with our old wages. My read on your position is that you want US wages in USD converted into CAD. That is how you view “North American Standard”. You absolutely have a point. However that is a much larger number than our old wages adjusted to today.

To be clear though. As of yet I have heard nothing from ALPA about 2003 adjusted for inflation. Maybe they too view it as substandard. We will know shortly I think.

For increased clarity.

Actual AC 12Y 320CA wage in 2003. $213/hour CAD

Inflation adjusted AC 12Y 320CA wage to today. $333/hour CAD

Actual AC 12Y 320CA wage in 2023. $237/hour CAD

United 12Y 320 CA wage today. $340/USD or $459/hour CAD.

The 55% change you are referring to is $213 to $333. But we don’t make $213 today. Today we make $237. $237 requires a 40% raise to equal $333. $237 requires a 93% raise to equal $459 CAD.

As you can see our 2003 wages adjusted for inflation are similar to US carrier wages WITHOUT consideration of currency. However our 2003 wages adjusted for inflation are not even close to current US carriers wages when placed side by side in the same currency.

2003 AC 737 wages + inflation doesn't cut it.

2003 AC 737 wages were ZIP 737-200s, 118 PAX, ~52T MTOW
2023 AC 737 wages are Mainline 737 Max 8, 169 PAX, ~82T MTOW

Same goes for 320 wages. 00-04 contract only mentions 319/320, Seating then maybe 130-140 pax.
Whereas today most of the fleet are 196 pax 321s and soon to be 321XLRs.

Completely different aircraft and formulas to account for. 40% might have cut it if AC showed leadership and got out ahead of this in '21, not now though. And certainly not after the last few years and what this company has done, the liberties they have taken, the bad faith they have acted in.

[DanWEC]

Just to add my 2c, if this is data driven, and we're using 55% inflation, it's a red herring. Garbage in garbage out.
That stat can and will be be used because it's officially posted, but it's completely arbitrary. We all know full well a house or rent is not merely 55% more. Groceries, restaurants, all more that doubled as well, and those are the necessities of life- not electronics or airfare as what plays into the Consumer Price Index.

True cost of living, not monetary inflation, needs to be the metric IMO. And the comparables must ONLY be for the major cities the airline is based in unless they want to cover commuting entirely or apply problematic geographic COL adjustments as many corps do.

Property value is a decent indicator of true COL:

YYZ 2003 $293k, 2022 $1.2m
YVR 2003 $420k, 2022 $2.4m

It's only fair from my perspective.

[Fanblade]

2003 AC 737 wages + inflation doesn't cut it.

2003 AC 737 wages were ZIP 737-200s, 118 PAX, ~52T MTOW
2023 AC 737 wages are Mainline 737 Max 8, 169 PAX, ~82T MTOW

Same goes for 320 wages. 00-04 contract only mentions 319/320, Seating then maybe 130-140 pax.
Whereas today most of the fleet are 196 pax 321s and soon to be 321XLR’s

Absolutely correct. However the weight change isn’t as impactful to pay as you may think. Maybe another 5%. The reverse has happened to WB weights over the last 2 1/2 decades.

My point was simply to make sure people understood what our old wages were. There appears to be some confusion. My intent was not to state what I think is an appropriate target.

Our old wages inflation adjusted to today, even after correcting the NB fleet for increase weight, approximates current US wages without FX exchange. In the same currency our old wages are not comparable to US carriers today.

That is a factual statement.

The point I’m making is this. If that isn’t a good enough wage then you don’t want our old wage or anything to do with inflation from 2003.

What you want is a North American market driven rate.

Anyone talking about inflation numbers from 2003 and then saying $340CAD isn’t good enough for a 320/737CA, is contradicting themselves.

That’s it. I am simply saying the logic doesn’t fit. There seems to be a lack of understanding of what our old wages amount to today after inflation. They don’t amount to US wages in the same currency. They do however represent a significant leapfrog of WJ wages in the direction of our stated goal of a North American standard.

Where all this lands? No idea.

I have no idea what the overall group is thinking. Do they expect a NA standard today? Or do they expect to cross a few waypoints on the way to that target? Are our old wages an appropriate waypoint? Or substandard?

These are all questions I have for which I don’t have an answer. Only the MEC and NC have the data on what the pilot groups expectations are. Only the pilot group as a whole defines what a World Class contract looks like. No single individual does.

We can sit here all day long and speculate what we believe a WCC looks like. But our personal opinion really is irrelevant. The only one that gets to define what a WCC looks like is the overall pilot group through polling.

[CanadaAir]

What is a trip rig for those of us not familiar with the airline world?

Trip Rigs

A trip rig is pay credit based on time away from base.

This means that from the time you report for duty until the time you are released from duty in domicile equals a quantity of time.
Let’s look at a 1:3.5 trip rig. This means that for every 3.5 hours that you spend away from domicile (ie, on a trip), you are paid one hour at your specified hourly rate. Here is an example as to how this is calculated. Dave reports for duty in his ANC domicile at 1500Z (zulu time) on Monday. He flies to SLC and arrives at 1900Z. He has a 30 minute debrief, so he is released from duty at 1930Z. He has an SLC layover and flies back to ANC the next day, arriving at 2000Z, with a release time of 2030Z. He was away from domicile for a total of 29:30 hours. In order to find out what a trip rig would pay on this, you would take 29.5 and divide it by 3.5. The result is 8:42. If you were paid for this trip using a trip rig, this is the amount times your hourly rate that you would receive.

A trip rig becomes important when you have lengthy layovers. Those of us who endured the days at the commuter with no trip or duty rigs remember that we were only paid when the engines were running, ie block to block. Having a long layover in some hotel meant you were only receiving per diem.

A trip rig prevents the lack of pay on long layovers and pays you from the time you report for duty in your domicile until the time you are released back in domicile.

Air Canada pilots should be aiming for at least a 1:2 trip rig in their new agreement.

Duty Rigs

A duty rig is pay credit based on the amount of time that you spend on duty.

Let’s look at another example. Harley reports for his trip in ANC at 1900Z, and departs at 2000Z for YWG. He arrives at 0030Z in YWG and departs for ORD at 0200Z, arriving at 0330Z, with a release time of 0400Z. His total duty can be found by subtracting his release time from his report time for the duty period. This equals 9 hours. If the duty rig that his contract offers is 1:1.5, this means that for every 1.5 hours that Harley spends on duty, he is paid for 1 hour times his current hourly rate of compensation. In this case, we would divide 9 by 1.5. Harley would receive 6 hours times his hourly rate of pay for this trip using a duty rig computation.

Air Canada pilots should be aiming for at least a 1:1.3 duty rig in their new agreement.
In Europe, some airlines pay pilots 1:1 for duty time.

Average Daily Guarantee (ADG) is the minimum the pilot will be paid per day during a trip.

For instance, the pilot contract might provide an ADG rig stating that a pilot will be paid a minimum of 6.0 hours credit per day of a trip. Therefore, a three-day trip would pay a minimum of 18.0 hours credit. Without the ADG rig, the airline could, for instance, schedule you to fly a three-day trip where you don’t fly at all on the second day and only fly 2.0 hours on the other two days; therefore the trip might only pay 4.0 credit hours for a three-day trip.

The Government already requires if you report to work at the call of your employer, you must receive wages for at least 3 hours at your regular rate of wages. This applies whether or not your employer asks you to do any work after reporting to work.

Air Canada pilots should be aiming for at least a minimum of 6.5 hours credit per day of a trip in their new agreement.

World class might go for 1:1 duty rig and 8 hours minimum daily credit.

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/art ... s-101.html
https://aerocrewnews.com/education-2/ta ... -and-rigs/

[rudder]

What is a trip rig for those of us not familiar with the airline world?

Trip Rigs

A trip rig is pay credit based on time away from base.

This means that from the time you report for duty until the time you are released from duty in domicile equals a quantity of time.
Let’s look at a 1:3.5 trip rig. This means that for every 3.5 hours that you spend away from domicile (ie, on a trip), you are paid one hour at your specified hourly rate. Here is an example as to how this is calculated. Dave reports for duty in his ANC domicile at 1500Z (zulu time) on Monday. He flies to SLC and arrives at 1900Z. He has a 30 minute debrief, so he is released from duty at 1930Z. He has an SLC layover and flies back to ANC the next day, arriving at 2000Z, with a release time of 2030Z. He was away from domicile for a total of 29:30 hours. In order to find out what a trip rig would pay on this, you would take 29.5 and divide it by 3.5. The result is 8:42. If you were paid for this trip using a trip rig, this is the amount times your hourly rate that you would receive.

A trip rig becomes important when you have lengthy layovers. Those of us who endured the days at the commuter with no trip or duty rigs remember that we were only paid when the engines were running, ie block to block. Having a long layover in some hotel meant you were only receiving per diem.

A trip rig prevents the lack of pay on long layovers and pays you from the time you report for duty in your domicile until the time you are released back in domicile.

Air Canada pilots should be aiming for at least a 1:2 trip rig in their new agreement.

Duty Rigs

A duty rig is pay credit based on the amount of time that you spend on duty.

Let’s look at another example. Harley reports for his trip in ANC at 1900Z, and departs at 2000Z for YWG. He arrives at 0030Z in YWG and departs for ORD at 0200Z, arriving at 0330Z, with a release time of 0400Z. His total duty can be found by subtracting his release time from his report time for the duty period. This equals 9 hours. If the duty rig that his contract offers is 1:1.5, this means that for every 1.5 hours that Harley spends on duty, he is paid for 1 hour times his current hourly rate of compensation. In this case, we would divide 9 by 1.5. Harley would receive 6 hours times his hourly rate of pay for this trip using a duty rig computation.

Air Canada pilots should be aiming for at least a 1:1.3 duty rig in their new agreement.
In Europe, some airlines pay pilots 1:1 for duty time.

Average Daily Guarantee (ADG) is the minimum the pilot will be paid per day during a trip.

For instance, the pilot contract might provide an ADG rig stating that a pilot will be paid a minimum of 6.0 hours credit per day of a trip. Therefore, a three-day trip would pay a minimum of 18.0 hours credit. Without the ADG rig, the airline could, for instance, schedule you to fly a three-day trip where you don’t fly at all on the second day and only fly 2.0 hours on the other two days; therefore the trip might only pay 4.0 credit hours for a three-day trip.

The Government already requires if you report to work at the call of your employer, you must receive wages for at least 3 hours at your regular rate of wages. This applies whether or not your employer asks you to do any work after reporting to work.

Air Canada pilots should be aiming for at least a minimum of 6.5 hours credit per day of a trip in their new agreement.

World class might go for 1:1 duty rig and 8 hours minimum daily credit.

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/art ... s-101.html
https://aerocrewnews.com/education-2/ta ... -and-rigs/

Your ‘targets’ do not exist in any North American CBA.

1:1.75/1:3.5/5-5.5 do.

[garfield]

It's simple, offer and demand. You can search on google if you don't know the concept.

[rudder]

It's simple, offer and demand. You can search on google if you don't know the concept.

I spent 25 years at the bargaining table.

I don’t think that google will teach me anything about collective bargaining that I do not already know from personal experience.

p.s. I grew up in a generation where we learned by ‘doing’, not by reading about it on the internet.

[Army of one]

I spent 25 years at the bargaining table.

rudder

With that type of experience, let me ask you. In a few sentences, did you ever discuss pay for outbound delays during those years at the table? With more and more responsibilities being dumped on us outbound, it will be a non starter for me when it comes time to vote on the looming TA.

Im just curious, is its something you and your colleagues had ever tried to address.

[rudder]

I spent 25 years at the bargaining table.

rudder

With that type of experience, let me ask you. In a few sentences, did you ever discuss pay for outbound delays during those years at the table? With more and more responsibilities being dumped on us outbound, it will be a non starter for me when it comes time to vote on the looming TA.

Im just curious, is its something you and your colleagues had ever tried to address.

TBH - in the context of the operations that I was involved in, not really.

The CAR’s and the prior regs covered departure delay/delayed check in/duty period issues. The CBA simply placed guardrails for pay (duty in to a day off) or minimum days off/day off replacement options.

Ultimately, departure delays probably have more to do with fatigue. Hard to capture that in a CBA.

[Army of one]

Sorry, I could have more clear,..

I understand the legality side of your reply, but maybe I was not clear enough. Let me try it this way;

Example;
Your flight time is 10 hours. 3 Pilots, your duty is 13. In the afternoon, with a winter storm about to hit, you call in for a 4th, duty day now 18.

4 of you check in for your flight, 1.5 hours prior to departure (CA) and sit for 7 hours (all legal) then depart. Duty day 17 hours, but paid for 10 hours.

Under that scenario it would be very easy to calculate the minutes delayed. In my opinion those 4 pilots should be paid for those 7 delayed hours, minus the 1.5 to prepare the flight, and despite the reason for the delay.

[flyingcanuck]

Sorry, I could have more clear,..

I understand the legality side of your reply, but maybe I was not clear enough. Let me try it this way;

Example;
Your flight time is 10 hours. 3 Pilots, your duty is 13. In the afternoon, with a winter storm about to hit, you call in for a 4th, duty day now 18.

4 of you check in for your flight, 1.5 hours prior to departure (CA) and sit for 7 hours (all legal) then depart. Duty day 17 hours, but paid for 10 hours.

Under that scenario it would be very easy to calculate the minutes delayed. In my opinion those 4 pilots should be paid for those 7 delayed hours, minus the 1.5 to prepare the flight, and despite the reason for the delay.

A more reasonable compromise would be paid flight + 1.5 hours (briefing and programming) and not less than 75% of Duty day. This would reduce long sits between flights, and prompt the company to fix delay issues.

[rudder]

Sorry, I could have more clear,..

I understand the legality side of your reply, but maybe I was not clear enough. Let me try it this way;

Example;
Your flight time is 10 hours. 3 Pilots, your duty is 13. In the afternoon, with a winter storm about to hit, you call in for a 4th, duty day now 18.

4 of you check in for your flight, 1.5 hours prior to departure (CA) and sit for 7 hours (all legal) then depart. Duty day 17 hours, but paid for 10 hours.

Under that scenario it would be very easy to calculate the minutes delayed. In my opinion those 4 pilots should be paid for those 7 delayed hours, minus the 1.5 to prepare the flight, and despite the reason for the delay.

A more reasonable compromise would be paid flight + 1.5 hours (briefing and programming) and not less than 75% of Duty day. This would reduce long sits between flights, and prompt the company to fix delay issues.

I think(?) there is an FA contract out here that has a daily credit of not less than duty day-X. I am not aware of that provision in any Pilot CBA but it might be a solution to the scenario that you described.

[furloughedAC]

I quite like Morningstar's system (copied Fedex). They get straight credits for flight time and then they add on non flying duty time (1:4) and layover time (1:6).

Would make a huge difference on long layovers. For example, the 767 freighter would fly down to Lima. You get about 9 credits or so operating two legs. Then you may sit there for 80 hours or so at times. Sometimes even longer in extreme examples (broken plane or whatever). You then get eight hours on the flight home. So at AC you get 17 credits flying, the daily may add up to being higher, so maybe you get 20 credits.

If Morningstar did that same pairing they would get an additional 14 credits or so.

You'd have to do 4 of these four/five day pairings at AC while at Morningstar three would being paying you out some OT.

[HFNav]

AC pilots could go for daily min pay of 6 or 8

Canada Labour Standards Regulations require a minimum of 3 hours pay showing up to work.

Air Canada pilots having 4 hours isn’t a big benefit.

Having 5 hours is a small gain in the new agreement, and wouldn’t be much cost to change how AC schedules.

6 hours is a minimum to negotiate for

8 hours would force AC to make large scheduling changes and increase pilot flying time instead of waiting around at the airport.



Reporting Pay
11.1 An employer shall pay an employee who reports for work at the call of the employer wages for not less than three hours of work at the employee’s regular rate of wages, whether or not the employee is called on to perform any work after so reporting for work.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/reg ... l#h-602965

[HFNav]

I quite like Morningstar's system (copied Fedex). They get straight credits for flight time and then they add on non flying duty time (1:4) and layover time (1:6).

Agreed.

All flight time flown or scheduled should be paid at straight credits.
Then add on non-flying duty time at 1:1.5 or 1:1.25
Layover time at 1:4

Add in 6 hour minimum if show up at work.
100% pay or 1:1 for deadheading time, so the company stops all the inefficient cross country deadheads.