Recall of MEC Chair & Vice Chair

[ACPA2.0]

Yes you can.

Now you’re being extremely naive about the process and the politics. If we pushed into 107, with 90% certainty, our pay scales would be exactly the same as today.

So, no you can’t just snap your fingers. You can bang your fist and take a temper tantrum. But it won’t make a difference. Once the company has hit the end of their willingness to give, they will let a strike start and the government intervene. We are not working in an environment of limitless power. The power ends when the government decides it ends. And the government bends to voters opinions.

I struggle to see how you can’t see the limits after what happened to the FA’s, Rail workers and Port Authority. You keep responding as if the government doesn’t play a role. What’s up with that?

Sorry but this is BS and I've previously explained to you why. Cost of living goes beyond inflation and it has increased exponentially in the last 5 years. The average home now costs 10x the average income, whereas even just 10 years ago it was more like 3x. In your father's day a family home was 50k and he could easily support a family on a single income, so let's not even go there.

We also had kids earlier and more of them. I was born in a garage apartment because my mother was stay at home and my father was a new hire at AC. He flew floats on the side to make it work. My 4 children still joke about us adding pasta to hamburger helper to make it go further. Had to pull out of organized hockey when I took the job at AC. My wife was stay at home and I had a second part time job. I have a buddy with 6 kids. Actually two buddies with 6 kids. Yes housing is more expensive today. We spent our money differently, but we still struggled. You have it different. You are trading diapers for a mortgage.

I am not trying to diminish young people’s struggles with housing in anyway whatsoever. But I’m not a baby-boomer. I trailed them and didn’t make the money in housing they did. Not even close.

I commute because over 20 years ago living on base was a struggle with four kids.

I don’t appreciate you telling me I had it so much better than you. I have kids buying houses in this market. Yup it’s tuff. End result way less grandchildren. Lots of grand dogs. They are spending to their limit just like we did.

Listen I mean this with all due respect, this reads like I endure poverty so therefore you must also take your lumping's. It is absolute ridiculous that company valued in the billions, flying wide bodies to every continent in the world even twenty years ago was forcing you into that situation. Wrong is wrong, while we can disagree what a decent start waging is. How your describing how AC ran the operation is morally bankrupt and near criminal in some ways.

You need to pay your dues.

Peon.

ACPA 2.0

[BTD]

Fanblade wrote: ↑Sun Oct 05, 2025 9:10 am
You can’t snap your fingers and make the pot on the table bigger.

Yes you can. And that should be what ALPA is trying to achieve. You've been beaten down into this mindset. Just because the company says "there's only X amount of money" doesn't make it true. Especially when they turn around and do $500m worth of stock buybacks. Wake up.

It may be true that you can add more to the pot, but it will always be a pot. And the steeper pay scales will benefit most for the most amount of time. Now as I said I’d like the bottom to come up as well. So I’m not perfect with how it ended up. But one will objectively make more money by having a steeper pay scale.

[Fanblade]

Yes you can.

Now you’re being extremely naive about the process and the politics. If we pushed into 107, with 90% certainty, our pay scales would be exactly the same as today.

So, no you can’t just snap your fingers. You can bang your fist and take a temper tantrum. But it won’t make a difference. Once the company has hit the end of their willingness to give, they will let a strike start and the government intervene. We are not working in an environment of limitless power. The power ends when the government decides it ends. And the government bends to voters opinions.

I struggle to see how you can’t see the limits after what happened to the FA’s, Rail workers and Port Authority. You keep responding as if the government doesn’t play a role. What’s up with that?

Sorry but this is BS and I've previously explained to you why. Cost of living goes beyond inflation and it has increased exponentially in the last 5 years. The average home now costs 10x the average income, whereas even just 10 years ago it was more like 3x. In your father's day a family home was 50k and he could easily support a family on a single income, so let's not even go there.

We also had kids earlier and more of them. I was born in a garage apartment because my mother was stay at home and my father was a new hire at AC. He flew floats on the side to make it work. My 4 children still joke about us adding pasta to hamburger helper to make it go further. Had to pull out of organized hockey when I took the job at AC. My wife was stay at home and I had a second part time job. I have a buddy with 6 kids. Actually two buddies with 6 kids. Yes housing is more expensive today. We spent our money differently, but we still struggled. You have it different. You are trading diapers for a mortgage.

I am not trying to diminish young people’s struggles with housing in anyway whatsoever. But I’m not a baby-boomer. I trailed them and didn’t make the money in housing they did. Not even close.

I commute because over 20 years ago living on base was a struggle with four kids.

I don’t appreciate you telling me I had it so much better than you. I have kids buying houses in this market. Yup it’s tuff. End result way less grandchildren. Lots of grand dogs. They are spending to their limit just like we did.

Listen I mean this with all due respect, this reads like I endure poverty so therefore you must also take your lumping's. It is absolute ridiculous that company valued in the billions, flying wide bodies to every continent in the world even twenty years ago was forcing you into that situation. Wrong is wrong, while we can disagree what a decent start waging is. How your describing how AC ran the operation is morally bankrupt and near criminal in some ways.

Long branch

I’m trying to provide some context, history and the rational of why we have such a steep pay grid. The steep pay grid provides more career income. But obviously there are practical limits.

I’m not trying to justify. If you read back I am the first to admit we fell short on year 1-4 pay.

The part of my post you are likely referring to is me getting a little tired of that particular poster telling me how much worse he has it now than I did as a new hire. I am not saying I did it, so you have to.

It needs correcting.

[Fanblade]

Fanblade wrote: ↑Sun Oct 05, 2025 9:10 am
You can’t snap your fingers and make the pot on the table bigger.

Yes you can. And that should be what ALPA is trying to achieve. You've been beaten down into this mindset. Just because the company says "there's only X amount of money" doesn't make it true. Especially when they turn around and do $500m worth of stock buybacks. Wake up.

It may be true that you can add more to the pot, but it will always be a pot. And the steeper pay scales will benefit most for the most amount of time. Now as I said I’d like the bottom to come up as well. So I’m not perfect with how it ended up. But one will objectively make more money by having a steeper pay scale.

Very true

[Fanblade]

You need to pay your dues.

Peon.

ACPA 2.0

2nd post.

[ACPA2.0]

You need to pay your dues.

Peon.

ACPA 2.0

2nd post.

Attacking the messenger and not the message.

ACPA 2.0

[Fanblade]

You need to pay your dues.

Peon.

ACPA 2.0

2nd post.

Attacking the messenger and not the message.

ACPA 2.0

What. You expect respect with a second post like that? I checked your first post from three days ago. Much the same theme.

I assume you just decided to create a new username. Who were you 4 days ago?

[thepoors]

Fanblade wrote: ↑Sun Oct 05, 2025 9:10 am
You can’t snap your fingers and make the pot on the table bigger.

Yes you can. And that should be what ALPA is trying to achieve. You've been beaten down into this mindset. Just because the company says "there's only X amount of money" doesn't make it true. Especially when they turn around and do $500m worth of stock buybacks. Wake up.

It may be true that you can add more to the pot, but it will always be a pot. And the steeper pay scales will benefit most for the most amount of time. Now as I said I’d like the bottom to come up as well. So I’m not perfect with how it ended up. But one will objectively make more money by having a steeper pay scale.

Yes you might make more salaried earnings, but what both you and fanblade are missing is that a higher starting salary would allow greater (and sooner) savings and investments - which are generally taxed less and grow more over time than wages. It's like you guys have never heard of compound interest.

An example is those lotteries where you can chose $1000/week for life or a lump sum. Even though the lump sum payout is a lower amount, it is always the better choice. Money now wins every time. Hell just for the simple reason that you or I could die tomorrow and then no amount of career earnings matters. I will pick my family having a better standard of living now than having X more money when I'm 65.

[ACPA2.0]

Fanblade wrote: ↑Sun Oct 05, 2025 9:10 am
You can’t snap your fingers and make the pot on the table bigger.

Yes you can. And that should be what ALPA is trying to achieve. You've been beaten down into this mindset. Just because the company says "there's only X amount of money" doesn't make it true. Especially when they turn around and do $500m worth of stock buybacks. Wake up.

It may be true that you can add more to the pot, but it will always be a pot. And the steeper pay scales will benefit most for the most amount of time. Now as I said I’d like the bottom to come up as well. So I’m not perfect with how it ended up. But one will objectively make more money by having a steeper pay scale.

Yes you might make more salaried earnings, but what both you and fanblade are missing is that a higher starting salary would allow greater (and sooner) savings and investments - which are generally taxed less and grow more over time than wages. It's like you guys have never heard of compound interest.

An example is those lotteries where you can chose $1000/week for life or a lump sum. Even though the lump sum payout is a lower amount, it is always the better choice. Money now wins every time. Hell just for the simple reason that you or I could die tomorrow and then no amount of career earnings matters. I will pick my family having a better standard of living now than having X more money when I'm 65.

Company wouldn't go for it.

So best to bend over.

ACPA 2.0

[Fanblade]

Yes you might make more salaried earnings, but what both you and fanblade are missing is that a higher starting salary would allow greater (and sooner) savings and investments - which are generally taxed less and grow more over time than wages. It's like you guys have never heard of compound interest.

An example is those lotteries where you can chose $1000/week for life or a lump sum. Even though the lump sum payout is a lower amount, it is always the better choice. Money now wins every time. Hell just for the simple reason that you or I could die tomorrow and then no amount of career earnings matters. I will pick my family having a better standard of living now than having X more money when I'm 65.

“But what you and Fanblade are missing”

It’s actuaries and accounts that figure this stuff out. It’s not Fanblade and BDT.

We are just trying to explain it to you. Maybe not well I suppose. Nevertheless we are trying.

We all know what the time value of money is. The rule of 72. Compound interest.

The professional money people say steep is better.

How would you respond to an accountant who told you, you’re flying your aircraft wrong? You would laugh at them.

We are pilots. Don’t ever listen to a pilot for financial advice. Get it from a professional.

[BTD]

I understand compound interest. I also understand that there are scenarios that can exist where pay increases out grow what compounding can achieve. Below is an example of a scenario I threw into ChatGPT. I am not saying this is the case or desirable for our contract. I only choose ballpark numbers to illustrate a point. Compounding is great and should be used at every opportunity, pay scale and the associated ability to save could outperform the pay and savings earlier in a lifetime.

IMG_0324.jpeg (501.57 KiB) Viewed 901 times

[ACPA2.0]

Screw the junior pilots. They can do their time. You will spend more time at Step 12 than Step 1.

When you're Step 12, then you can shit on those loser Step 1 pilots.

Rinse. Repeat.

ACPA 2.0

[BTD]

Screw the junior pilots. They can do their time. You will spend more time at Step 12 than Step 1.

When you're Step 12, then you can shit on those loser Step 1 pilots.

Rinse. Repeat.

ACPA 2.0

You are an idiot.

[digits_]

I think what BTD is trying to say is that every dollar moved from the top of the pay scale to the bottom of the pay scale reduces career income for everyone. Including the new hire you just moved the money to. Reducing career income also reduces pension income. The overall impact to lifetime income is very significant.

But that's not how that would go.

It’s exactly how it would go. You do realize accountants/actuaries from ALPA Economic & Financial Analysis do this work for us? It’s not made up.

There is no justification for a 10+ year pay scale.

If we could pull off a pay scale based on year 11 and 12 I would agree with you. Anything less than that would damage career earnings. I don’t think a 2 year scale starting at year 11 is all that realistic. We are constrained by industry norms.

*This is not from ALPA. Hopefully I can paste this and it will still be readable. Its simplistic for illustration purposes.

STEEP pay scale with 2.5 million spread over 12 years. Career 35 years

1 $72,500.00
2 $97,500.00
3 $122,500.00
4 $147,500.00
5 $172,500.00
6 $197,500.00
7 $222,500.00
8 $247,500.00
9 $272,500.00
10 $297,500.00
11 $322,500.00
12 $347,500.00
13 $347,500.00
14 $347,500.00
15 $347,500.00
16 $347,500.00
17 $347,500.00
18 $347,500.00
19 $347,500.00
20 $347,500.00
21 $347,500.00
22 $347,500.00
23 $347,500.00
24 $347,500.00
25 $347,500.00
26 $347,500.00
27 $347,500.00
28 $347,500.00
29 $347,500.00
30 $347,500.00
31 $347,500.00
32 $347,500.00
33 $347,500.00
34 $347,500.00
35 $347,500.00

Career Pay.$10,512,500.00. Assuming 6% company pension contribution. $630,750. (No investment returns applied) Total compensation $11,143,250


FLATTENED pay scale of 2.5 million spread over 12 years. Career 35 years.

$182,500.00
$187,500.00
$192,500.00
$197,500.00
$202,500.00
$207,500.00
$212,500.00
$217,500.00
$222,500.00
$227,500.00
$232,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00
$237,500.00

Career pay $7,982,500.00. Assuming 6% company pension contribution $478,950. (No investment returns applied) Total compensation $8,461,450

$2,681,800 less than the steep pay scale.

Without more background info in how these are calculated it's almost meaningless. I have a very strong suspicion a lot of assumptions were made to make this point.

But even if taken at face value, I would absolutely choose the flatter pay scale when starting out today. The contract is likely only valid for 5 years or less, the company might go bust in 10 years and I could drop dead in 15.

If that means I lose out on an extra million (won't be much more than that as you can invest or save on your mortgage with the earlier extra money) 25 years from now, so be it.

[Fanblade]

Double post

[Fanblade]

Without more background info in how these are calculated it's almost meaningless. I have a very strong suspicion a lot of assumptions were made to make this point.

LOL. Nope this was overly simplifed deliberately. Two equal pots of money distributed differently. Then just adding up years 1-35 for a sum career total. It is after all just addition. Copy and paste each column into excel. Easy verification.

I find pilots like pictures. I took the time to paint you one.

It's an illustration of what people have been saying for pages. You spend 1 year at year 1. You spend 15-20 at year 12. The higher year 12 is? The more you make in your career

But even if taken at face value, I would absolutely choose the flatter pay scale when starting out today. The contract is likely only valid for 5 years or less, the company might go bust in 10 years and I could drop dead in 15.

I see some "I" s in there. Have you considered the following.

Lower career income.

Lower pensions.

A shallow pay scale will make us some of the lowest paid pilots in the western world again.

A lower 12 year pay scale will put downward pressure on other Canadian carriers making it more difficult to achieve raises for everyone. More difficult to pattern bargain when you have non industry standard pay grids.

Wages compound. Once the top is reduced a 5% raise will be less nominal dollars in perpetuity. Which means falling further and further behind everyone around us. I've watched this slippery slope.

What about the next generation and the future of the proffession.

10 years from now you will be supporting all this correct? You won't be yelling at the union. Why does XYZ airline make more than I do flying the same aircraft? How come I make less than previous generations? Why are we so far behind inflation? How come we fell further behind? Why is my pension lower than previous generations?

A good proffessional union doesnt operate with the "I" at the centre. They operate for the good of the whole proffession today tomorrow and into the future. We already lived through a decade and a half of losing sight of this.

Again. I agree years 1-4 need fixing. For me that was the most disappointing part of our new pay scale.

I do not agree with throwing out a pay system designed to put the most possible in your pocket over a career and into retirement. That would be asinine.

[rudder]

Maybe this is why nothing gets done on this issue?

Simple problem - year 1-4 FO pay is too low. 5 pages of analysis, history, and pontificating changes nothing.

Put it on the to-do list for 2027. And stop conflating it with other issues.

[thepoors]

I don't think anyone wants a flatter pay scale. What's needed is a much higher percentage of FO to CA pay. As I said before, this company has more than enough money to bring up the bottom and have increases throughout the pay scale. This narrative of it's one or the other needs to be dropped.

The issue here, and ultimately what this thread was about, is ALPA's failure to deliver significant gains for anyone except those already at the top. Not only did they massively overpromise and underdeliver, they have continued to gaslight the membership that this is best we could get.

Worst of all, it was the juniors who were left behind again and who suffer the most as a result. After all the talk of eliminating flat pay as a top priority they couldn't even get that done. And the only answer they have as to why that didn't happen is, "the company didn't want to." So that it's then. We'll just go f*ck ourselves because our union stops at what the company wants. There appears to be zero desire to actually make them do anything they don't want to or even enforce the things they already agreed to. Is this actually a union or an extension of the company's HR department? Cue the ACPA comparisons...

[Fanblade]

,they have continued to gaslight the membership that this is best we could get.

That's not gaslighting. It's stating their opinion. An opinion derived with many proffessionals providing input. And clearly not an easy decision based on the split vote. Obviously not everyone on the MEC agreed with the assessment.

Gaslighting is when you make up your own version of the truth and project it as a new reality. Do you really believe your MEC just decided they didn't want to get you more? Really?

After all the talk of eliminating flat pay as a top priority they couldn't even get that done. And the only answer they have as to why that didn't happen is, "the company didn't want to." So that it's then.

I don't think you understood the statement "the company didn't want to" in the context of negotiations.

Go back and have that explained to you. It is actually pretty important to understand that statement properly.

[thepoors]

I don't think you understood the statement "the company didn't want to" in the context of negotiations.

Go back and have that explained to you. It is actually pretty important to understand that statement properly.

My man, what other interpretation of that statement is there? Context clearly doesn't matter because they continue to use variations of it outside of negotiations as well. Please explain because from what I've seen anytime the company doesn't want to do something ALPA throws its hands up and goes oh well we asked nicely and we're out of ideas.

[Fanblade]

My man, what other interpretation of that statement is there? Context clearly doesn't matter because they continue to use variations of it outside of negotiations as well. Please explain.

I came on here 8 pages ago to clarify where we sit with regard to our 2003 wages. That was the plan anyway. That led to explaining ALPA SPSC strategy. That led to explaining why we have steep pay scales.

Where this is going next is explaining negotiating strategies at the table. I have never done negotiations training and am not qualified. Plus I'm not keen on another 4 pages.

The question you are asking is worth pursuing.

Ask how that statement is related to negotiating strategy.

[digits_]

Without more background info in how these are calculated it's almost meaningless. I have a very strong suspicion a lot of assumptions were made to make this point.

LOL. Nope this was overly simplifed deliberately. Two equal pots of money distributed differently. Then just adding up years 1-35 for a sum career total. It is after all just addition. Copy and paste each column into excel. Easy verification.

It depends on how you define 'equal pots'. It doesn't make much sense that you would have to reduce 25 years of salary with 100k to increase 10 years of pay with 100k. It all depends on how many pilots are on each pay scale level. The numbers as posted don't make much sense.

I find pilots like pictures. I took the time to paint you one.

It's an illustration of what people have been saying for pages. You spend 1 year at year 1. You spend 15-20 at year 12. The higher year 12 is? The more you make in your career

Yes, so there are likely many more pilots on year 12. Which means that a reduction of 20k at year 12 could result in a 100k raise of year 1, or not, depending on the amount of pilots in each year. It's not 1 on 1. That's why it's important to explain where your exact numbers come from.

If you're just keeping the sum of 1 to 12 constant, you're not making a correct comparison. You need to multiply every year of the scale with the amount of pilots present on that specific scale level.

But even if taken at face value, I would absolutely choose the flatter pay scale when starting out today. The contract is likely only valid for 5 years or less, the company might go bust in 10 years and I could drop dead in 15.

I see some "I" s in there. Have you considered the following.

Lower career income.

Lower pensions.

A shallow pay scale will make us some of the lowest paid pilots in the western world again.

A lower 12 year pay scale will put downward pressure on other Canadian carriers making it more difficult to achieve raises for everyone. More difficult to pattern bargain when you have non industry standard pay grids.

Really? What do you think will happen if one airline offers 187k to start and the others 70k?

Wages compound. Once the top is reduced a 5% raise will be less nominal dollars in perpetuity. Which means falling further and further behind everyone around us. I've watched this slippery slope.

Not sure why that's relevant. Ok, the top might be slightly lower, but you've made more money for the past 12 years.

What about the next generation and the future of the proffession.

They will make more money from day 1.

10 years from now you will be supporting all this correct? You won't be yelling at the union. Why does XYZ airline make more than I do flying the same aircraft? How come I make less than previous generations? Why are we so far behind inflation? How come we fell further behind? Why is my pension lower than previous generations?

Are you saying that people aren't saying these exact things right now?

But no, I won't be asking to change the system. I would expect the wages to keep up with inflation so they'll all have to go up again every year.

I'd be happy to commit to a 'year makes at least 80% of year 12' and 'FOs make at least 66% of CPTs', regardless of what the final numbers end up being.

A good proffessional union doesnt operate with the "I" at the centre. They operate for the good of the whole proffession today tomorrow and into the future. We already lived through a decade and a half of losing sight of this.

Oh please. I said 'I' because I don't know how other people would react to your proposed flat pay scale. I've never discussed it with anyone and I don't like speaking for others without at least having an idea on how that may go.

Again. I agree years 1-4 need fixing. For me that was the most disappointing part of our new pay scale.

I do not agree with throwing out a pay system designed to put the most possible in your pocket over a career and into retirement. That would be asinine.

On average it shouldn't make a difference. Sounds a lot like propaganda with wrong numbers to protect the higher end of the scale at the expense of the lower end of the scale. If you have a realistic estimate of the amount of pilots on each pay scale level of the steep numbers, I'll rework the flat pay scale and we can continue the discussion from there.

[thepoors]

Without more background info in how these are calculated it's almost meaningless. I have a very strong suspicion a lot of assumptions were made to make this point.

LOL. Nope this was overly simplifed deliberately. Two equal pots of money distributed differently. Then just adding up years 1-35 for a sum career total. It is after all just addition. Copy and paste each column into excel. Easy verification.

It depends on how you define 'equal pots'. It doesn't make much sense that you would have to reduce 25 years of salary with 100k to increase 10 years of pay with 100k. It all depends on how many pilots are on each pay scale level. The numbers as posted don't make much sense.

This whole idea is bullshit because ALPA could have just as easily said - the pilots on yrs 1-4 need the increases the most right now, let's get rid of flat pay asap (like we promised we would) and bring starting wages up considerably. Then in 2027 we can apply more increases towards the top of the scale, who are already comfortable.

I haven't looked up the exact numbers but easily a 1/3rd of the pilots on property have less than 5 years of service, and close to 2/3rds have less than 10. Bringing up the bottom now would have benefitted a significant majority of the membership and the rest of the scale could be worked on in subsequent rounds. If that was the trade off it should have been an easy choice. That way juniors would immediately have higher earnings and then would still benefit from the "steep" pay scale theory as they accrued YOS.

ALPA deliberately chose to do the opposite and allow juniors to languish while favoring the smallest portion of the pilot group who already make the most money. Anyone desperately trying to find a way to justify this, likely falls within that minority.

[Fanblade]

Wow. Just wow.

Fortunately I wasn’t here to debate the two of you. I was more interested in those lurking. It’s the only reason I put in the effort.

Since I am at the point of repeating myself. I’m done.

Hopefully those lurking can take what they have read and make their own educated decisions. Pilots are smart.

Good day Gents.

I do wish you the best in your career. I am very confident it will be far more lucrative than anyone who proceeded you overlapping 2003-2023.

All the best.

[Nick678]

Mentioned way earlier in the thread was the talk of the MEC getting topped up to 90 credits. That doesn't really sit well with me. During Negots sure why not. but seems crazy that it hasn't come back down after that. I understand that the company pays 80% of it. Besides sending a lame dart.