2026 PIT FLEET AC

[altiplano]

I don't think we should be comparing overtime to straight time.

Take a look at the Delta pay table. You want to get paid like Delta, right?

12 year 350 FO $330/hr
12 year 220 CA $375/hr
12 year 321 CA $405/hr

[altiplano]

Take a look at the United pay table. You want to get paid like United, right?

12 year 777 FO $330/hr
12 year 220 CA $375/hr
12 year 321 CA $405/hr

$45-$75/hr difference.

See the trend?

Are Canadian NB Pilots worth less?

[Daniel Cooper]

To take home the same as the United or Delta FOs you would need to gross $580,000 CAD here.

[altiplano]

To take home the same as the United or Delta FOs you would need to gross $580,000 CAD here.

And?

Look, changes to tax law are beyond us and currency fluctuating is another thing altogether... I don't have all those answers...

But the point is... you want to get paid "like" US Majors, right?

Well, US Majors pay like what I posted.

Narrow body / wide body is a smaller pay gap. Pilots not only make more but they do it sooner. They aren't discounted as significantly from their wide body counterparts. I'm not looking to take away from 777 or 787 guys. I'm not advocating status pay. But the 737 and 320 guys need more money and better scheduling. We need to eliminate the captain flying pay gap in the pay formula component and push it higher on all fleets.

You always hear it here. "It's like it's two different airlines."
From pay to scheduling to the way your treated and it's time to end it. Be like the US Majors.

[Dry Guy]

All positions need massive raises, not just NB. Like 90% raises to put is in the ballpark of American pilots. All of us are undervalued.

[altiplano]

All positions need massive raises, not just NB. Like 90% raises to put is in the ballpark of American pilots. All of us are undervalued.

We need to eliminate the captain flying pay gap in the pay formula component and push it higher on all fleets.

Take a look at how formula pay is structured. Base flying pay, weight pay, speed pay, nav & overseas pay. Narrow body base pay is lower to start. Types are then compensated with higher weight and speed pays to account for their productivity. But all positions should start from the same base flying pay. This is a big part of the gap. And yes they all need to go up.

[Dias]

Narrow bodies are getting heavier. That will be good for their pay.

[The Brantford Boomer]

WHAT MATTERS IS IF IT'S MORE THAN THE OTHER GUY

[rudder]

Hey thanks for the updated numbers. I just keep hearing by our VP of commercial on earnings calls and our COO's vimeo videos how 2026 is the year we welcome 35 new 220's. Didn't realize so many had already arrived. Do you know where they're getting 35 from?

No idea. The only number I've heard for 2026 is 18.

The AC quarterly MD&A is the most reliable source for fleet projection as it is associated with a publicly traded company and therefore must meet reporting accuracy requirements.

Q3 2025 Page 14: 18 planned 220 deliveries in 2026. See also page 21.

https://content.presspage.com/uploads/3 ... .pdf?10000

Q4 2025 financial results and updated MD&A will be released on Feb 13.

Guidance now available on 2027 fleet plan (page 22):

https://content.presspage.com/uploads/3 ... .pdf?10000

[350driver]

No idea. The only number I've heard for 2026 is 18.

The AC quarterly MD&A is the most reliable source for fleet projection as it is associated with a publicly traded company and therefore must meet reporting accuracy requirements.

Q3 2025 Page 14: 18 planned 220 deliveries in 2026. See also page 21.

https://content.presspage.com/uploads/3 ... .pdf?10000

Q4 2025 financial results and updated MD&A will be released on Feb 13.

Guidance now available on 2027 fleet plan (page 22):

https://content.presspage.com/uploads/3 ... .pdf?10000

Thx rudder. So a net increase of 32 airplanes on property the next 24 months.

What is that, about 350 captain spots and 400 FO spots opening? In addition to 200-250 retirements the same 24 months?

Then the 14 787's hit 2028-2030, suggesting another 180 captain spots and 220 fo spots opening plus another 200-250 retirements in that timeframe.

When you add it all up, 350+400+250+180+220+250 = 1650

Are we really looking at an airline that needs to hire 1500-2000 pilots the next 4 years still? Or am I missing something?

Looks to me things should start moving soon. Let's see which bid reflects this. But this seems to suggest we are on track for an average of 400 new hires per year again. Unless we are already staffed for many of these '32' fins showing up the next 24 months.

Someone also said not too long agon the 'quality of life' improvements hadn't even been hired for yet. Not sure if that's accurate.

I will also say this, the way our Earnings Call sounded, it seriously suggests AC has intel as to what the 'new trade routes' will be. So they're clearly bullish on Air Canada's existence the next decade.

[rudder]

The AC quarterly MD&A is the most reliable source for fleet projection as it is associated with a publicly traded company and therefore must meet reporting accuracy requirements.

Q3 2025 Page 14: 18 planned 220 deliveries in 2026. See also page 21.

https://content.presspage.com/uploads/3 ... .pdf?10000

Q4 2025 financial results and updated MD&A will be released on Feb 13.

Guidance now available on 2027 fleet plan (page 22):

https://content.presspage.com/uploads/3 ... .pdf?10000

Thx rudder. So a net increase of 32 airplanes on property the next 24 months.

What is that, about 350 captain spots and 400 FO spots opening? In addition to 200-250 retirements the same 24 months?

Then the 14 787's hit 2028-2030, suggesting another 180 captain spots and 220 fo spots opening plus another 200-250 retirements in that timeframe.

When you add it all up, 350+400+250+180+220+250 = 1650

Are we really looking at an airline that needs to hire 1500-2000 pilots the next 4 years still? Or am I missing something?

Looks to me things should start moving soon. Let's see which bid reflects this. But this seems to suggest we are on track for an average of 400 new hires per year again. Unless we are already staffed for many of these '32' fins showing up the next 24 months.

Someone also said not too long agon the 'quality of life' improvements hadn't even been hired for yet. Not sure if that's accurate.

I will also say this, the way our Earnings Call sounded, it seriously suggests AC has intel as to what the 'new trade routes' will be. So they're clearly bullish on Air Canada's existence the next decade.

There is no magic formula. It will vary from airline to airline. It is almost entirely dependant upon aircraft utilization rates, efficiency of utilization, and efficiency penalties contained in the respective pilot CBA.

I am speculating but I would estimate AC staffing at around 14 pilots per fully utilized NB and 22-24 per fully utilized WB. These may be conservative estimates considering the impact of the FTDT rules and the phasing in of deferred CBA changes that may impact pilot efficiency.

AC has not identified on a medium term basis (i.e. beyond 2027) what its fleet composition will be. Public information is just a snippet and, as has been demonstrated, is subject to change.

Based on the latest info, it is not unreasonable to assume AC will need 500-600 more pilots plus attrition to staff the summer 2027 flying schedule. I think that would take the list out to 6500-6600? Trying to guess required staffing levels for 2030 lacks enough public information. Perhaps there is internal information that could sharpen that calculation. Regardless, airlines are leading indicators of softness in the economy, and lagging indicators of economic recovery. You would need to be a somewhat clairvoyant economic forecaster to get a 4 year projection right.

[piedpiper]

I am speculating but I would estimate AC staffing at around 14 pilots per fully utilized NB and 22-24 per fully utilized WB. These may be conservative estimates considering the impact of the FTDT rules and the phasing in of deferred CBA changes that may impact pilot efficiency.

I think you're SUPER conservative there. Probably closer to 20+ per NB and 30-35+ per WB with all the ULR flying now.

[Flyboy736]

I am speculating but I would estimate AC staffing at around 14 pilots per fully utilized NB and 22-24 per fully utilized WB. These may be conservative estimates considering the impact of the FTDT rules and the phasing in of deferred CBA changes that may impact pilot efficiency.

I think you're SUPER conservative there. Probably closer to 20+ per NB and 30-35+ per WB with all the ULR flying now.

Jazz varied between 12 to 14 per fin. I doubt an AC NB would be 20 plus people per fin when they work 16 days instead of 18

[jpilot77]

I am speculating but I would estimate AC staffing at around 14 pilots per fully utilized NB and 22-24 per fully utilized WB. These may be conservative estimates considering the impact of the FTDT rules and the phasing in of deferred CBA changes that may impact pilot efficiency.

I think you're SUPER conservative there. Probably closer to 20+ per NB and 30-35+ per WB with all the ULR flying now.

Jazz varied between 12 to 14 per fin. I doubt an AC NB would be 20 plus people per fin when they work 16 days instead of 18

Except the 321XLR will be doing Europe, North Africa and perhaps South America. So that will skew the number up a bit (especially as some routes and or departure times will require augmentation).

[rudder]

I think you're SUPER conservative there. Probably closer to 20+ per NB and 30-35+ per WB with all the ULR flying now.

Jazz varied between 12 to 14 per fin. I doubt an AC NB would be 20 plus people per fin when they work 16 days instead of 18

Except the 321XLR will be doing Europe, North Africa and perhaps South America. So that will skew the number up a bit (especially as some routes and or departure times will require augmentation).

Looks like end of 2025 was around 28 pilots per WB and 16 per NB. But low DBM means that fleet and flying levels can be increased and some of it can be absorbed by existing staffing thereby reducing these ratios.

[piedpiper]

I am speculating but I would estimate AC staffing at around 14 pilots per fully utilized NB and 22-24 per fully utilized WB. These may be conservative estimates considering the impact of the FTDT rules and the phasing in of deferred CBA changes that may impact pilot efficiency.

I think you're SUPER conservative there. Probably closer to 20+ per NB and 30-35+ per WB with all the ULR flying now.

Jazz varied between 12 to 14 per fin. I doubt an AC NB would be 20 plus people per fin when they work 16 days instead of 18

Do you work at AC?

Jazz flying is way more productive than AC. The amount of long layovers and single leg days we have at AC is what makes that 16 days.

We definitely have bigger crew ratios.

[Flyboy736]

I think you're SUPER conservative there. Probably closer to 20+ per NB and 30-35+ per WB with all the ULR flying now.

Jazz varied between 12 to 14 per fin. I doubt an AC NB would be 20 plus people per fin when they work 16 days instead of 18

Do you work at AC?

Jazz flying is way more productive than AC. The amount of long layovers and single leg days we have at AC is what makes that 16 days.

We definitely have bigger crew ratios.

I'm not sure how you are defining productivity, but a single leg to Tokyo or even San Francisco from yyz is a lot more productive for pilots and the plane then a Jazz pilot doing a Windsor turn then off to Washington.

We also have a lot of productive turns especially in the winter, just because someone junior doing Mexico red eyes doesn't mean someone else isn't getting productive Dominican turn

[piedpiper]

Jazz varied between 12 to 14 per fin. I doubt an AC NB would be 20 plus people per fin when they work 16 days instead of 18

Do you work at AC?

Jazz flying is way more productive than AC. The amount of long layovers and single leg days we have at AC is what makes that 16 days.

We definitely have bigger crew ratios.

I'm not sure how you are defining productivity, but a single leg to Tokyo or even San Francisco from yyz is a lot more productive for pilots and the plane then a Jazz pilot doing a Windsor turn then off to Washington.

We also have a lot of productive turns especially in the winter, just because someone junior doing Mexico red eyes doesn't mean someone else isn't getting productive Dominican turn

How do I define productivity? It's pretty easy. Doing a 4 day trip at Jazz worth 23-25 hours where AC pilots are doing 4 day trips with multiple long layovers and for less than 20 credits. Hell, a 20 hour 4 day these days is considered good. I am comparing domestic flying at Jazz to domestic flying at AC. And it's not anywhere close to comparable. I flew 12-13 days at Jazz for often close to 80 hours. I now regularly work 16 days a month for low 70's at AC.

If you're not at AC, which based on your comment makes me think you're not, you have no idea how bad the productivity is at AC. Yes there are lots of good productive turns, but they go to the top 10% and even then many of those pilots are still optimized to 15-16 days a month. Our bidding system is not a true seniority system, there is an optimizer that builds a more global solution. WB is a bit different becuase pretty much everything is fairly productive. That said many WB pilots out east on the 330 and 787 are still working 15-18 days a month.

When you talk about a SF turn vs Windsor and Washington, you are forgetting the biggest factor in overall productivity. Long layovers. That SF flight might be great flight time, but it's a 3 day trip with probably around a 20-25 hour layover. We have no ADG yet, so 3 days you're making maybe 11-12 hours. There's flights from YVR to SFO and LAX that are a single leg down, long layover, single leg back for under 10 hours of credit for 3 days away. Productivity includes layovers and overall time away from base, not just comparing flight times.

[thepoors]

Do you work at AC?

Jazz flying is way more productive than AC. The amount of long layovers and single leg days we have at AC is what makes that 16 days.

We definitely have bigger crew ratios.

I'm not sure how you are defining productivity, but a single leg to Tokyo or even San Francisco from yyz is a lot more productive for pilots and the plane then a Jazz pilot doing a Windsor turn then off to Washington.

We also have a lot of productive turns especially in the winter, just because someone junior doing Mexico red eyes doesn't mean someone else isn't getting productive Dominican turn

How do I define productivity? It's pretty easy. Doing a 4 day trip at Jazz worth 23-25 hours where AC pilots are doing 4 day trips with multiple long layovers and for less than 20 credits. Hell, a 20 hour 4 day these days is considered good. I am comparing domestic flying at Jazz to domestic flying at AC. And it's not anywhere close to comparable. I flew 12-13 days at Jazz for often close to 80 hours. I now regularly work 16 days a month for low 70's at AC.

If you're not at AC, which based on your comment makes me think you're not, you have no idea how bad the productivity is at AC. Yes there are lots of good productive turns, but they go to the top 10% and even then many of those pilots are still optimized to 15-16 days a month. Our bidding system is not a true seniority system, there is an optimizer that builds a more global solution. WB is a bit different becuase pretty much everything is fairly productive. That said many WB pilots out east on the 330 and 787 are still working 15-18 days a month.

When you talk about a SF turn vs Windsor and Washington, you are forgetting the biggest factor in overall productivity. Long layovers. That SF flight might be great flight time, but it's a 3 day trip with probably around a 20-25 hour layover. We have no ADG yet, so 3 days you're making maybe 11-12 hours. There's flights from YVR to SFO and LAX that are a single leg down, long layover, single leg back for under 10 hours of credit for 3 days away. Productivity includes layovers and overall time away from base, not just comparing flight times.

This right here. It's why we need the daily guarantee so badly. When it's implemented, watch how quickly the company is suddenly able to create way more efficient pairings.

[piedpiper]

4:30 sucks but it's a start. Only 10 months to go. At least those days I get DH'd out to YYC only to operate back a day and a half later for 8:50 credit will now be 13:30.

We need a true calender day min, or an ADG of 5:15 coupled with a MMG of at least 75 hours. Which is pretty industry standard. If we get that, with long call reserve and a moderate bump in 2027 I'll be relativley happy. I would also like to see the Year 10 vacation week that was lost in CCAA return.

Looking at productivity on a per leg basis is stupid. And really shows how little people understand how scheduling crews works. You need to look at it from a per trip TAFB basis and overall monthly basis. When 90% of NB pilots are making 73-75 hours and working 16 days it's a problem.

[350driver]

4:30 sucks but it's a start. Only 10 months to go. At least those days I get DH'd out to YYC only to operate back a day and a half later for 8:50 credit will now be 13:30.

We need a true calender day min, or an ADG of 5:15 coupled with a MMG of at least 75 hours. Which is pretty industry standard. If we get that, with long call reserve and a moderate bump in 2027 I'll be relativley happy. I would also like to see the Year 10 vacation week that was lost in CCAA return.

Looking at productivity on a per leg basis is stupid. And really shows how little people understand how scheduling crews works. You need to look at it from a per trip TAFB basis and overall monthly basis. When 90% of NB pilots are making 73-75 hours and working 16 days it's a problem.

I mean I think it's safe to say long call reserve is on the table this round. That changes the name of the game for all types of lifestyle reasons. I can see the commuters loving it when they can hold long call.

[Me262]

I'm not sure how you are defining productivity, but a single leg to Tokyo or even San Francisco from yyz is a lot more productive for pilots and the plane then a Jazz pilot doing a Windsor turn then off to Washington.

We also have a lot of productive turns especially in the winter, just because someone junior doing Mexico red eyes doesn't mean someone else isn't getting productive Dominican turn

How do I define productivity? It's pretty easy. Doing a 4 day trip at Jazz worth 23-25 hours where AC pilots are doing 4 day trips with multiple long layovers and for less than 20 credits. Hell, a 20 hour 4 day these days is considered good. I am comparing domestic flying at Jazz to domestic flying at AC. And it's not anywhere close to comparable. I flew 12-13 days at Jazz for often close to 80 hours. I now regularly work 16 days a month for low 70's at AC.

If you're not at AC, which based on your comment makes me think you're not, you have no idea how bad the productivity is at AC. Yes there are lots of good productive turns, but they go to the top 10% and even then many of those pilots are still optimized to 15-16 days a month. Our bidding system is not a true seniority system, there is an optimizer that builds a more global solution. WB is a bit different becuase pretty much everything is fairly productive. That said many WB pilots out east on the 330 and 787 are still working 15-18 days a month.

When you talk about a SF turn vs Windsor and Washington, you are forgetting the biggest factor in overall productivity. Long layovers. That SF flight might be great flight time, but it's a 3 day trip with probably around a 20-25 hour layover. We have no ADG yet, so 3 days you're making maybe 11-12 hours. There's flights from YVR to SFO and LAX that are a single leg down, long layover, single leg back for under 10 hours of credit for 3 days away. Productivity includes layovers and overall time away from base, not just comparing flight times.

This right here. It's why we need the daily guarantee so badly. When it's implemented, watch how quickly the company is suddenly able to create way more efficient pairings.

You guys don't have 4:30 min day or TAFB/4, whichever is greatest? Auch! World contract indeed

[Flyboy736]

Do you work at AC?

Jazz flying is way more productive than AC. The amount of long layovers and single leg days we have at AC is what makes that 16 days.

We definitely have bigger crew ratios.

I'm not sure how you are defining productivity, but a single leg to Tokyo or even San Francisco from yyz is a lot more productive for pilots and the plane then a Jazz pilot doing a Windsor turn then off to Washington.

We also have a lot of productive turns especially in the winter, just because someone junior doing Mexico red eyes doesn't mean someone else isn't getting productive Dominican turn

How do I define productivity? It's pretty easy. Doing a 4 day trip at Jazz worth 23-25 hours where AC pilots are doing 4 day trips with multiple long layovers and for less than 20 credits. Hell, a 20 hour 4 day these days is considered good. I am comparing domestic flying at Jazz to domestic flying at AC. And it's not anywhere close to comparable. I flew 12-13 days at Jazz for often close to 80 hours. I now regularly work 16 days a month for low 70's at AC.

If you're not at AC, which based on your comment makes me think you're not, you have no idea how bad the productivity is at AC. Yes there are lots of good productive turns, but they go to the top 10% and even then many of those pilots are still optimized to 15-16 days a month. Our bidding system is not a true seniority system, there is an optimizer that builds a more global solution. WB is a bit different becuase pretty much everything is fairly productive. That said many WB pilots out east on the 330 and 787 are still working 15-18 days a month.

When you talk about a SF turn vs Windsor and Washington, you are forgetting the biggest factor in overall productivity. Long layovers. That SF flight might be great flight time, but it's a 3 day trip with probably around a 20-25 hour layover. We have no ADG yet, so 3 days you're making maybe 11-12 hours. There's flights from YVR to SFO and LAX that are a single leg down, long layover, single leg back for under 10 hours of credit for 3 days away. Productivity includes layovers and overall time away from base, not just comparing flight times.

See the problem is you are cherry picking again. Half the pairings in the sheet are LAX/SFO 20-25 hr layovers but the other half are close to min rest, something you forgot to mention. If you think that's not true look at the OE pairings they take the gravy flying and explains why you are feeling left out.

You work 16 days a month for low 70s, that again is cherry picking. I wouldn't be surprised if you are on the 220 because that was overstaffed in anticipation of delayed fins. You talk about 20 hrs for 4 days as good in a personal antidote yet if you want mine I average 33 hours over 4 days by doing turns and I'm not in the top 10%. Guys 200 numbers junior to me are working 9 days a month in March which is quite a lot of block holders between him and I.

The other problem I have is people cherry pick the inefficient pairings and ignore the high credit day turns they have been optimized into to make up for those that lack productivity.

You were closer on the required fins then I was. 220/737/320 came out to 22-23 pilots per fin when you simply divide pilots on property vs fins. 330 24 pilots so I don't think the XLR flying is going to increase pilots per fin. The 777 and 787 are 30/33 respectively but with the 787 being overstaffed for last two years I think 30 per fin is more realistic.

I also double checked the Jazz numbers from before the sky regional merger and it was 12 FO and 12 Captain per fin, not total. So 24 per fin seems right in the alley of AC if not slightly more efficient.

[cdnavater]

I'm not sure how you are defining productivity, but a single leg to Tokyo or even San Francisco from yyz is a lot more productive for pilots and the plane then a Jazz pilot doing a Windsor turn then off to Washington.

We also have a lot of productive turns especially in the winter, just because someone junior doing Mexico red eyes doesn't mean someone else isn't getting productive Dominican turn

How do I define productivity? It's pretty easy. Doing a 4 day trip at Jazz worth 23-25 hours where AC pilots are doing 4 day trips with multiple long layovers and for less than 20 credits. Hell, a 20 hour 4 day these days is considered good. I am comparing domestic flying at Jazz to domestic flying at AC. And it's not anywhere close to comparable. I flew 12-13 days at Jazz for often close to 80 hours. I now regularly work 16 days a month for low 70's at AC.

If you're not at AC, which based on your comment makes me think you're not, you have no idea how bad the productivity is at AC. Yes there are lots of good productive turns, but they go to the top 10% and even then many of those pilots are still optimized to 15-16 days a month. Our bidding system is not a true seniority system, there is an optimizer that builds a more global solution. WB is a bit different becuase pretty much everything is fairly productive. That said many WB pilots out east on the 330 and 787 are still working 15-18 days a month.

When you talk about a SF turn vs Windsor and Washington, you are forgetting the biggest factor in overall productivity. Long layovers. That SF flight might be great flight time, but it's a 3 day trip with probably around a 20-25 hour layover. We have no ADG yet, so 3 days you're making maybe 11-12 hours. There's flights from YVR to SFO and LAX that are a single leg down, long layover, single leg back for under 10 hours of credit for 3 days away. Productivity includes layovers and overall time away from base, not just comparing flight times.

See the problem is you are cherry picking again. Half the pairings in the sheet are LAX/SFO 20-25 hr layovers but the other half are close to min rest, something you forgot to mention. If you think that's not true look at the OE pairings they take the gravy flying and explains why you are feeling left out.

You work 16 days a month for low 70s, that again is cherry picking. I wouldn't be surprised if you are on the 220 because that was overstaffed in anticipation of delayed fins. You talk about 20 hrs for 4 days as good in a personal antidote yet if you want mine I average 33 hours over 4 days by doing turns and I'm not in the top 10%. Guys 200 numbers junior to me are working 9 days a month in March which is quite a lot of block holders between him and I.

The other problem I have is people cherry pick the inefficient pairings and ignore the high credit day turns they have been optimized into to make up for those that lack productivity.

You were closer on the required fins then I was. 220/737/320 came out to 22-23 pilots per fin when you simply divide pilots on property vs fins. 330 24 pilots so I don't think the XLR flying is going to increase pilots per fin. The 777 and 787 are 30/33 respectively but with the 787 being overstaffed for last two years I think 30 per fin is more realistic.

I also double checked the Jazz numbers from before the sky regional merger and it was 12 FO and 12 Captain per fin, not total. So 24 per fin seems right in the alley of AC if not slightly more efficient.

Curious to know what numbers you used for the Jazz calculations, I went back and bid 1-2019, pre Covid, pre mergers and our list was 1756 plus 200 vacancies, fleet guarantee of 115. This is 17 per fin, after this there are many variables that affect the numbers but never have I seen 24 per fin.
Our most current list has 1116 pilots with a fleet of 80, 13.95 pilots per fin, in our hay days when we operated 133 fins at 900 departures daily we only had around 1600 pilots which is 12

[piedpiper]

I've been on three different NBs at AC and one WB. All the NB flying has been 15-16 days a month at various seniority in various seats. I'm not cherry picking anything. I get a lot of high credit single day stuff now but it still fails to bring my month down that much becuse PBS sees you as a crack in the foundation and uses you to fill up unproductive stuff knowing you have extra days to play with. And a Jr pilot ends up getting the higher credit multi day trips I want because of some so called phrase "jr right to a block".