Haven't seen the language yet, possibly out today. It's unrestricted thru the scope, only in what TS-PD have negotiated. We were told the are some restrictions thru the competition bureau if one party went "wild".
The problem is that it would be up to the airline to challenge it, we experienced that with the Jazz/AC agreement. PAL was a complete violation but Jazz didn’t challenge it.
Hopefully this is not the situation for you guys, I noticed this morning Transat posted a net loss for the fourth quarter of 12.5 mil, I fully expected them to post a profit after getting an agreement with your group, ie; they were just telling you “we’re losing money”
I would put my money on there being more than enough legal precedent to support the company's side if it went to arbitration, given that it was signed quite a while before the TA.
I also saw about the loss but they turned a 240M profit for the whole year? TS is quite the case study because I believe they've lost more money than they have ever made. Its mostly red quarters with a very light sprinkling of black. Yet somehow, they're still around and have expanded throughout all those negative years. There has to be something else at play here. Creative accounting? The Quebec factor? Combination of both? Something else? Yes, they got a huge chunk of the covid bailout forgiven, but they weren't exactly a financially healthy company before covid.
This is why pilots should never concern themselves with the financial health of the company when it comes to bargaining. Playing nice and taking less than you are worth will not save the company if its headed to bankruptcy/closure. Similarly, getting paid your worth will not drive the company to bankruptcy either. If TS ends up there down the line, it won't be due to the latest pilot contract. Yet Im sure that won't stop many on these forums from claiming otherwise.
Yes, I only saw the headline, now that I’ve looked at the full article it seems the profit came from two sources, without loan forgiveness and the Pratt & Whitney settlement would there be any profit?
“The stiffer competition comes at a fraught time for Transat as it struggles to manage a large net debt load — still $1.6 billion, despite a major restructuring of pandemic-era debt earlier this year that forgives hundreds of millions of dollars owed“
“More than half of last year's windfall came from compensation doled out by aircraft engine giant Pratt & Whitney after it recalled turbofans for inspection and repair, affecting numerous airlines”
The problem is that it would be up to the airline to challenge it, we experienced that with the Jazz/AC agreement. PAL was a complete violation but Jazz didn’t challenge it.
Hopefully this is not the situation for you guys, I noticed this morning Transat posted a net loss for the fourth quarter of 12.5 mil, I fully expected them to post a profit after getting an agreement with your group, ie; they were just telling you “we’re losing money”
I would put my money on there being more than enough legal precedent to support the company's side if it went to arbitration, given that it was signed quite a while before the TA.
I also saw about the loss but they turned a 240M profit for the whole year? TS is quite the case study because I believe they've lost more money than they have ever made. Its mostly red quarters with a very light sprinkling of black. Yet somehow, they're still around and have expanded throughout all those negative years. There has to be something else at play here. Creative accounting? The Quebec factor? Combination of both? Something else? Yes, they got a huge chunk of the covid bailout forgiven, but they weren't exactly a financially healthy company before covid.
This is why pilots should never concern themselves with the financial health of the company when it comes to bargaining. Playing nice and taking less than you are worth will not save the company if its headed to bankruptcy/closure. Similarly, getting paid your worth will not drive the company to bankruptcy either. If TS ends up there down the line, it won't be due to the latest pilot contract. Yet Im sure that won't stop many on these forums from claiming otherwise.
Yes, I only saw the headline, now that I’ve looked at the full article it seems the profit came from two sources, without loan forgiveness and the Pratt & Whitney settlement would there be any profit?
“The stiffer competition comes at a fraught time for Transat as it struggles to manage a large net debt load — still $1.6 billion, despite a major restructuring of pandemic-era debt earlier this year that forgives hundreds of millions of dollars owed“
“More than half of last year's windfall came from compensation doled out by aircraft engine giant Pratt & Whitney after it recalled turbofans for inspection and repair, affecting numerous airlines”
I'm not sure what to make of it, honestly. My understanding is that their "problem" debt was the roughly 800M incurred due to covid, of which over half has been forgiven. I believe the rest of the debt are the lease liabilities since Transat leases all (most?) of its tails. Those leases would be amortized on their balance sheets but still appear as large debts. So I wouldn't expect the lease liabilities debt to decrease unless they shrink their fleet. If I understand it correctly, anyways.
I would put my money on there being more than enough legal precedent to support the company's side if it went to arbitration, given that it was signed quite a while before the TA.
I also saw about the loss but they turned a 240M profit for the whole year? TS is quite the case study because I believe they've lost more money than they have ever made. Its mostly red quarters with a very light sprinkling of black. Yet somehow, they're still around and have expanded throughout all those negative years. There has to be something else at play here. Creative accounting? The Quebec factor? Combination of both? Something else? Yes, they got a huge chunk of the covid bailout forgiven, but they weren't exactly a financially healthy company before covid.
This is why pilots should never concern themselves with the financial health of the company when it comes to bargaining. Playing nice and taking less than you are worth will not save the company if its headed to bankruptcy/closure. Similarly, getting paid your worth will not drive the company to bankruptcy either. If TS ends up there down the line, it won't be due to the latest pilot contract. Yet Im sure that won't stop many on these forums from claiming otherwise.
Yes, I only saw the headline, now that I’ve looked at the full article it seems the profit came from two sources, without loan forgiveness and the Pratt & Whitney settlement would there be any profit?
“The stiffer competition comes at a fraught time for Transat as it struggles to manage a large net debt load — still $1.6 billion, despite a major restructuring of pandemic-era debt earlier this year that forgives hundreds of millions of dollars owed“
“More than half of last year's windfall came from compensation doled out by aircraft engine giant Pratt & Whitney after it recalled turbofans for inspection and repair, affecting numerous airlines”
I'm not sure what to make of it, honestly. My understanding is that their "problem" debt was the roughly 800M incurred due to covid, of which over half has been forgiven. I believe the rest of the debt are the lease liabilities since Transat leases all (most?) of its tails. Those leases would be amortized on their balance sheets but still appear as large debts. So I wouldn't expect the lease liabilities debt to decrease unless they shrink their fleet. If I understand it correctly, anyways.
Regardless of the reason, it’s still good that it wasn’t a loss for the year.
The problem is that it would be up to the airline to challenge it, we experienced that with the Jazz/AC agreement. PAL was a complete violation but Jazz didn’t challenge it.
Hopefully this is not the situation for you guys, I noticed this morning Transat posted a net loss for the fourth quarter of 12.5 mil, I fully expected them to post a profit after getting an agreement with your group, ie; they were just telling you “we’re losing money”
That was AC going with a third party, not sure how that could apply to us? Scope stops TS from starting another airline and any partner growth of our flying has to be met at least 100%.
They posted a Q4 loss but a net profit for the year. Word is that once they started parking aircraft things picked up really fast at the table.
I only made the comparison because Jazz and AC agreed that Jazz would be the only tier II operator for AC until 2025, when AC violated that, Jazz did nothing to challenge it.
So, if Porter bought a bunch of 321s and Transat didn’t challenge it, what can the pilots do?
That's a good question and also a very low probability of happening if you ask me. I'd rather focus on the fact we made huge gains the plan at headquarters seems to be working. Analysts seem cautiously optimistic from what saw in a very brief search last night, I havent really dug into it yet.
The problem is that it would be up to the airline to challenge it, we experienced that with the Jazz/AC agreement. PAL was a complete violation but Jazz didn’t challenge it.
Hopefully this is not the situation for you guys, I noticed this morning Transat posted a net loss for the fourth quarter of 12.5 mil, I fully expected them to post a profit after getting an agreement with your group, ie; they were just telling you “we’re losing money”
That was AC going with a third party, not sure how that could apply to us? Scope stops TS from starting another airline and any partner growth of our flying has to be met at least 100%.
They posted a Q4 loss but a net profit for the year. Word is that once they started parking aircraft things picked up really fast at the table.
I only made the comparison because Jazz and AC agreed that Jazz would be the only tier II operator for AC until 2025, when AC violated that, Jazz did nothing to challenge it.
So, if Porter bought a bunch of 321s and Transat didn’t challenge it, what can the pilots do?
Are we talking about Jazz ALPA? Because they have been tied up in the courts forever fighting AC, still to this day 2.5 years later
That was AC going with a third party, not sure how that could apply to us? Scope stops TS from starting another airline and any partner growth of our flying has to be met at least 100%.
They posted a Q4 loss but a net profit for the year. Word is that once they started parking aircraft things picked up really fast at the table.
I only made the comparison because Jazz and AC agreed that Jazz would be the only tier II operator for AC until 2025, when AC violated that, Jazz did nothing to challenge it.
So, if Porter bought a bunch of 321s and Transat didn’t challenge it, what can the pilots do?
Are we talking about Jazz ALPA? Because they have been tied up in the courts forever fighting AC, still to this day 2.5 years later
Yes, I am aware and my point is, when there is an agreement between companies that is supposed to prevent negative consequences to the pilots, obviously if you leave it up to the company to fight for you, they won’t. Far better to have scope of your own and despite TFTMB heavy preferring to focus on the good things, fact is, there is a reason it was a non starter with Transat and it isn’t because it would benefit the pilots!
cdnavater wrote: ↑Fri Dec 19, 2025 9:02 am
I only made the comparison because Jazz and AC agreed that Jazz would be the only tier II operator for AC until 2025, when AC violated that, Jazz did nothing to challenge it.
So, if Porter bought a bunch of 321s and Transat didn’t challenge it, what can the pilots do?
Are we talking about Jazz ALPA? Because they have been tied up in the courts forever fighting AC, still to this day 2.5 years later
Yes, I am aware and my point is, when there is an agreement between companies that is supposed to prevent negative consequences to the pilots, obviously if you leave it up to the company to fight for you, they won’t. Far better to have scope of your own and despite TFTMB heavy preferring to focus on the good things, fact is, there is a reason it was a non starter with Transat and it isn’t because it would benefit the pilots!
The non starter is TS breaking a commercial agreement with PD and risk litigation and financial hardship. Would I rather have them in the scope, of course. Is it worth voting no and asking the MEC to revisit it when they've explained is was pretty much a lost cause, no.
You make a good point but sometimes reality trumps those. So back to focussing on the gains made, very good ones for a first scope btw. Maybe the next bargaining round we can capture more?
Are we talking about Jazz ALPA? Because they have been tied up in the courts forever fighting AC, still to this day 2.5 years later
Yes, I am aware and my point is, when there is an agreement between companies that is supposed to prevent negative consequences to the pilots, obviously if you leave it up to the company to fight for you, they won’t. Far better to have scope of your own and despite TFTMB heavy preferring to focus on the good things, fact is, there is a reason it was a non starter with Transat and it isn’t because it would benefit the pilots!
The non starter is TS breaking a commercial agreement with PD and risk litigation and financial hardship. Would I rather have them in the scope, of course. Is it worth voting no and asking the MEC to revisit it when they've explained is was pretty much a lost cause, no.
You make a good point but sometimes reality trumps those. So back to focussing on the gains made, very good ones for a first scope btw. Maybe the next bargaining round we can capture more?
No, you’re right, like you say you were basically told it wasn’t happening and with good gains it will be a better place to work. Hopefully you get some expansion and hiring down the road and I do hope that Porter is not going to eat into your flying. Obviously nothing has been announced about any more fleet changes over there, so nothing in the near term.
Cheers
