Bede wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 5:11 am
Rarely will you hear me say that things are that simple, but I will in this case. This grievance gets more absurd the deeper you look into it.
In this integration bid, there are a small handful of pilots who were FO's at SWG who will be captains at WJ. For example, Pilot A has been a SWG FO for 10 years. He's presently on year 10 FO pay and will go to year 10 CA pay once he gets his CA line check done. There's another SWG pilot, call him Pilot B, who was a SWG FO for 5 years, and SWG CA for 7 years for a total of 12 years. He retained his CA spot in the bid. WJ management is paying him at year 7 CA pay.
ALPA will absolutely win this grievance.
I agree, it's a no brainer.
However if it is so obviously easy to win, why would management try ? They would have to payback the affected pilots right ?
Arbitration happened and ALPA didn’t win that grievance.
Didn’t ALPA showed up with the stupidest most retarded and incompetent lawyer and got completely humiliated to the point that they had to withdraw their grievance?
Remember that when you pay your dues next time …
---------- ADS -----------
Complex systems won’t survive the competence crisis
I agree, it's a no brainer.
However if it is so obviously easy to win, why would management try ? They would have to payback the affected pilots right ?
Arbitration happened and ALPA didn’t win that grievance.
Didn’t ALPA showed up with the stupidest most retarded and incompetent lawyer and got completely humiliated to the point that they had to withdraw their grievance?
Remember that when you pay your dues next time …
That’s a pretty accurate summary. He also racked up a several hundred dollar bar tab that all our ALPA dues will cover.
Biff wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2026 10:23 pm
It was withdrawn without prejudice. Why isn’t the MEC refiling it with a different lawyer?
The grievance was based on the article 189(1) of the labour code, which was clear about continuous employment and looked like a homerun. The problem was that article 189 was part of Division IV: Annual Vacations, and was not applicable to wages. That was raised by the WestJet lawyer during opening statements and the whole case collapsed. In the end, the language of the collective agreement was applicable and Length of Service, by definition, did not include time spent as Sunwing.
There was no contingency plan and no obvious plan B, which is why the grievance was withdrawn without prejudice rather than losing it. But even changing the lawyer is not going to make a case, it looks like there was no case from the start.
Biff wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2026 10:23 pm
It was withdrawn without prejudice. Why isn’t the MEC refiling it with a different lawyer?
The grievance was based on the article 189(1) of the labour code, which was clear about continuous employment and looked like a homerun. The problem was that article 189 was part of Division IV: Annual Vacations, and was not applicable to wages. That was raised by the WestJet lawyer during opening statements and the whole case collapsed. In the end, the language of the collective agreement was applicable and Length of Service, by definition, did not include time spent as Sunwing.
There was no contingency plan and no obvious plan B, which is why the grievance was withdrawn without prejudice rather than losing it. But even changing the lawyer is not going to make a case, it looks like there was no case from the start.
Translation, “the incompetent ALPA lawyer fucked up a layup and then racked up a $600 bill at the bar on all us union dues payers.”
Biff wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2026 10:23 pm
It was withdrawn without prejudice. Why isn’t the MEC refiling it with a different lawyer?
The grievance was based on the article 189(1) of the labour code, which was clear about continuous employment and looked like a homerun. The problem was that article 189 was part of Division IV: Annual Vacations, and was not applicable to wages. That was raised by the WestJet lawyer during opening statements and the whole case collapsed. In the end, the language of the collective agreement was applicable and Length of Service, by definition, did not include time spent as Sunwing.
There was no contingency plan and no obvious plan B, which is why the grievance was withdrawn without prejudice rather than losing it. But even changing the lawyer is not going to make a case, it looks like there was no case from the start.
Translation, “the incompetent ALPA lawyer fucked up a layup and then racked up a $600 bill at the bar on all us union dues payers.”
I’m confused…he was incompetent because he lost the case that didn’t seem winnable based on the section of the labour code that was mentioned above?
Biff wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2026 10:23 pm
It was withdrawn without prejudice. Why isn’t the MEC refiling it with a different lawyer?
The grievance was based on the article 189(1) of the labour code, which was clear about continuous employment and looked like a homerun. The problem was that article 189 was part of Division IV: Annual Vacations, and was not applicable to wages. That was raised by the WestJet lawyer during opening statements and the whole case collapsed. In the end, the language of the collective agreement was applicable and Length of Service, by definition, did not include time spent as Sunwing.
There was no contingency plan and no obvious plan B, which is why the grievance was withdrawn without prejudice rather than losing it. But even changing the lawyer is not going to make a case, it looks like there was no case from the start.
Translation, “the incompetent ALPA lawyer fucked up a layup and then racked up a $600 bill at the bar on all us union dues payers.”
I’m confused, he was incompetent because he lost the case that didn’t seem winnable based on the section of the labour code that was mentioned above?
On rereading this, my confusion is that there seem to be two different stories here. One is that it was unwinnable and the other is that the “ALPA lawyer fucked up a layup”. The second suggesting that it was an easy win if only we had a different lawyer. If the ALPA lawyer really did @#$! it up, then why wouldn’t you refile with a different lawyer? I don’t get why you would give up on the grievance if there was a chance to win it with different players.
I think both are true. My understanding is that the case was not winnable to start with, but would article 189 have applied it would have been an easy win.
ALPA legal worked on that case without making sure that this article, which was the whole foundation of the grievance, was applicable. Which seems unreal since anyone reading the code could, and should, have spotted the problem. It was not a secret trick, it is simply that the title of the applicable division was written before article 183, 6 or 7 pages prior to article 189.
In hindsight, none of the other stakeholders - grievance committee or Sunwing pilots involved - identified the problem either. That makes me think that too many people thought it was easy and started counting the money instead of doing the grind work. Too much “it’s common sense” and not enough law articles.
If someone could come up with a way to win that case, I imagine the grievance would restart, but it is clear that this case was rotten from the start and never was winnable. It is also clear that ALPA legal in general, and that lawyer in particular, messed up big time.
Out of curiosity, what is management’s position on AR? Would they like it to continue?
What is ALPA’s position on it? Are they stuck between representing the supposed rights of the(less than 100 I think) AR pilots and the other over 2500 WestJet pilots that would oppose the program’s continuation?
Hopefully this win gets us old guys back in the cockpit soon. Teaching in the sim sucks chowing down on Mr Noodles between sessions. Could use a proper layover in Winnipeg.
Booming wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2026 8:37 pm
Well done ALPA!!
Hopefully this win gets us old guys back in the cockpit soon. Teaching in the sim sucks chowing down on Mr Noodles between sessions. Could use a proper layover in Winnipeg.
Lol yea we need the guys who can't use an IPAD to check the weather at the alt to come mentor the decade +FOs.
Let me tell you about paper maps & sextants!! Plus I’ll teach you about the good old days, when sex was safe and flying was dangerous on the DC-10!
You young whippersnappers don’t know how good you’ve got it...I miss the good times of chasing flight attendants, when if your first wife wasn’t one, your second one was!
And Christ, those were the days smoking Players down to the filter in the cockpit while barreling down to mins off the loc backcourse.
Those were the days, kid. Now pull up a chair and let an old retired airline pilot tell you how to fly
I genuinely don’t understand why some 65+ AR pilots feel the need to continue working indefinitely. If they’ve managed their finances reasonably well, many of them have likely accumulated significant wealth through their careers and WestJet stock options.
At some point, though, it’s worth considering the broader impact of that decision. By choosing to continue flying well beyond 65, they are directly contributing to slower career progression for the pilots behind them. Instead of the 2–3 year upgrades that many of us once expected, some First Officers are now potentially looking at 15+ year upgrade times. That’s a massive change in career progression, and it’s difficult not to question whether continuing to work primarily for additional financial gain is worth the cost to the pilots who are waiting behind them.
It’s especially frustrating when the motivation appears to be accumulating even more wealth—another boat, another investment, or simply adding more to an already substantial retirement portfolio—while younger pilots see their own career progression pushed further and further into the future.
That said, I suppose this attitude also helps explain why there is now such a push for seniority-based bidding after benefiting from a system of socialized bidding for so many years. If the priority is maximizing individual benefit at the expense of the broader pilot group, the position becomes a little easier to understand.
rudder wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2026 8:28 am
Anybody have a copy of the arbitration decision?
Thx. Arbitrator made it clear that status quo will not prevail.
FWIW - I think you guys are headed for a Jazz AR65 type arrangement (you may want to take a look at that LOU). It isn’t great. But perhaps that was by design.
rudder wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2026 8:28 am
Anybody have a copy of the arbitration decision?
Thx. Arbitrator made it clear that status quo will not prevail.
FWIW - I think you guys are headed for a Jazz AR65 type arrangement (you may want to take a look at that LOU). It isn’t great. But perhaps that was by design.
Thx. Arbitrator made it clear that status quo will not prevail.
FWIW - I think you guys are headed for a Jazz AR65 type arrangement (you may want to take a look at that LOU). It isn’t great. But perhaps that was by design.
Could you please post the Jazz LOU ?
Very bad (if you want to stay past 65).
- Base bidding restrictions
- Equipment bidding restrictions
- AR65 positions capped (for both line positions and training dept positions)
- no purpose built ‘domestic only’ pairings
- schedule bidding remains seniority based
- no eligibility to bid a RSV schedule (irrespective of seniority)
- must bid an AR65 position prior to age 65
- an AR65 pilot can be bumped out of an AR65 position by a more senior pilot subsequently bidding for an AR65 position
Perhaps someone currently at Jazz can post the AR LOU. In the meantime, I will see if I can find a publicly available link.
The Airline Pilots in the service of Jazz Aviation LP
as represented by the
Air Line Pilots Association, International (the “Association”)
AND
Jazz Aviation LP (the “Company”)
Re: Agreement Respecting Age-Restricted Pilot Positions
WHEREAS the International Civil Aviation Organization (herein “ICAO”) establishes civil
aviation standards and recommended practices amongst United Nations member states; Annex
1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (herein “Annex 1”) establishes standards for
personnel licencing, including limitations and curtailment of licence privileges of pilots who have
attained their 60th and 65th birthdays:
A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders
thereof to act as pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air
transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in
the case of operations with more than one pilot, their 65th birthday.
[ICAO Annex 1, Chapter 2.1.10]; and,
WHEREAS Canada, by Section 701.9 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, and the United
States, by §129.5 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, have each enacted regulations requiring
foreign air carriers comply with ICAO standards, including Annex 1; and,
WHEREAS the United States, by §121.383 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, has adopted
the international age standards of Annex 1 for United States-based domestic and flag air
operators; and,
WHEREAS Canada deviates from the standards of Annex 1, in that Canada does not limit or
curtail, based on age, the privileges of Canadian pilot licence holders, and notice of this
deviation is published by Transport Canada in LRA 1.8 of the Aeronautical Information Manual
(TC AIM).
THEREFORE the parties recognize that holders of a Canadian pilot licence who have attained
their 65th birthday are unable to act as pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air
transportation. Pilots who have attained their 65th birthday may only act as pilot of an aircraft
engaged in commercial air transport operations on Canadian-registered aircraft operating in
Canadian domestic airspace. Given the nature of international flight operations and routings
conducted by the Company, the parties recognize this restriction as a significant and disruptive
operational hardship.
NOTWITHSTANDING, the Company and Association recognize certain obligations pursuant to
the Canada Human Rights Act and met to determine how to accommodate pilots whose licence
is restricted by international standards and law. The parties have engaged in significant and
detailed discussions, taking into consideration Canadian constitutional rights, the legislative and
regulatory framework for domestic and international flight operations, the inherent principle of a
normal retirement date which informed past collective bargaining between the parties, other
challenges inherent in the aviation industry, and Company-specific operational information such
as block hours, route structure, aircraft types, number of pilots, and pilot bases, inter alia.
NOW THEREFORE the parties agree as follows:
The above recitals are true and form part of this agreement.
The parties agree to resolve by discussion any unforeseen issues respecting the
implementation or application of this agreement.
1) Age-Restricted Pilot Positions
a. Age-Restricted Pilot shall mean any Pilot on the System Seniority List who has
attained their 65th birthday (herein “AR Pilots”). Age-Restricted Positions (herein “AR
Position”) shall be established based on the following table:
NOTE 1: TP-AR Pilots shall be required to maintain the
minimum flight hours required by the Grievance Settlement
dated 12 May 2023. (sixty (60) Credits as an operating
crew member in the six (6) bid periods of February to July,
and August to January.)
b. AR Positions shall not be considered part of the Baseline Positions established in
Section 5-2.02 (FILLING OF ASSIGNMENTS). The Company and Association shall
jointly review AR Positions with each equipment bid, or more frequently, if necessary,
to determine if changes in legislation, regulation, or operational distribution of flying,
block hours, etc. warrant a modification. Any changes to the table shall be agreed in
writing between the Company and Association.
c. Pilots on the System Seniority List who wish to remain employed beyond their 65th
birthday shall notify the company in writing at least six (6) months in advance. Upon
achieving their 65th birthday, the Pilot shall be frozen in their current Position, if
available. If there is no AR position available in their current Position, they shall be
considered as Reduced out of their Position. This Pilot may Displace into an AR
Position in accordance with Section 5-7 POSITION REDUCTIONS AND
DISPLACEMENTS, subject to some restrictions as follows in paragraph 1d and 1e
below. For clarity, this transition may cause the Displacement of a more junior AR
Pilot.
d. The Company shall establish a Standing Bid system for processing changes in AR
Positions. Standing Bids for AR Positions shall be processed quarterly. AR Positions
changes shall be processed in order of seniority from standing bids, except that the
AR Pilots must also be more senior than the most junior Pilot within the baseline. The
Company and Association shall jointly conduct AR Position bids and awards. Training
Dates and Effective Dates for Pilots changing equipment will be at the discretion of
the company in consultation with the Association (CRC). The parties acknowledge
that AR Pilots will not normally be awarded a voluntary equipment change. The intent
of this agreement is to reasonably curtail voluntary equipment changes amongst AR
Pilots for AR Positions.
e. An AR Pilot who is unable to hold an AR position in their current Position will be
offered a vacant AR Position. In the event there are no vacant AR Positions available,
or if the vacant AR Position is not acceptable to the AR Pilot due to status and/or
base, they may exercise their seniority and elect any of the following:
i) Displace a more junior AR Pilot from their AR position (Section 5-7);
ii) Request a Leave of Absence in accordance with Section 16-1 until such time
as an AR Vacancy arises; or,
Iii) Request temporary accommodation in a different Company department per
the Temporary Accommodation Policy until such time as an AR Vacancy
arises.
f. Any moving provisions applicable with this agreement shall be in accordance with
Section 21-3 VOLUNTARY MOVE.
g. AR Pilots bidding a voluntary change of Equipment may be subject to Section 5-11
FREEZES.
2) Regulatory Considerations and Obligations
a. AR Pilots, including AR Pilots awaiting a vacant AR Position, shall maintain a
Category 1 medical. Temporary medical accommodations for TP-AR Positions who
cannot hold a Category 1 medical shall not be approved for longer than 12 months.
b. AR Pilots may not operate the domestic city pairings specified in a document held on
the EFB. Notwithstanding, AR Pilots shall ensure:
i) they are not dispatched to fly to/from international destinations;
ii) they are not dispatched with United States alternate airports; and,
iii) they are not dispatched on routings that overfly United States and territorial
waters, or the high seas (non-territorial waters beyond 12nm from land),
given due consideration to all operational factors.
3) Scheduling Considerations
a. AR Pilots shall bid and be awarded their monthly schedule according to their seniority
within the corresponding Baseline Position, in consideration of the forgoing
provisions.
b. AR Pilots may be scheduled with any qualified Pilot, including other AR Pilots.
c. AR Pilots shall not be assigned Reserve Duty (RSV).
d. TP-AR Pilots may be assigned Training Reserve (RCK), consistent with their bid and
seniority, except that RCK days may not be used to cover line operations.
e. AR Pilots shall be restricted from picking up open time or accepting WDO’s in
violation of any of the obligations of Paragraph 2 above.
f. AR Pilots shall bid for pairings which comply with the obligations of Paragraph 2
above. Should the bidding of a senior Pilot prevent an AR Pilot from being assigned a
full block, efforts will be made to build the AR Pilot a full block. These efforts shall not
include violating the bids of senior Pilots. AR Pilots unable to be assigned a full block
of flying shall have their MMPG reduced to the number of credits they are able to hold
and/or be assigned.
4) Reduced Time Blocks (RTB)
a. AR Pilots shall be awarded RTB’s according to their seniority within the corresponding
Baseline Position. The Company shall ensure that non-Age Restricted Pilots maintain
the full allotments contemplated by Section 16-4.02 of the Collective Agreement,
including unbid RTB’s remaining available in “open” notwithstanding AR Pilot bids.
The parties will meet to discuss implementation of this provision.
5) Vacation/STAT
a. AR Pilots shall bid for vacation/STAT according to their seniority within the
corresponding Baseline Position, and in a manner that ensures non-Age Restricted
Pilots maintain the full allotments contemplated by Section 15-2.02 of the Collective
Agreement. The parties will meet to discuss implementation of this provision.
6) Pension
a. Subject to legislative and regulatory requirements within the Income Tax Act and
Pension Act, AR Pilots who are members of the Defined Benefit Pension Plan shall
remain enrolled in the Defined Benefit Pension Plan while holding a position on the
System Seniority List.
b. AR Pilots who were not members of the Defined Benefit Pension Plan, or who cease
membership in the plan, shall be enrolled in the Defined Contribution Pension Plan
with a contribution rate commensurate with their years of service.
7) Group Benefits Beyond Normal Retirement Date (Age 65)
a. Group Benefits for Pilots beyond their 65th birthday shall be as follows:
Basic Life & ADD Coverage reduced by 50% at age 65; ceases at 70
Short-Term Disability ceases at age 65
Long-Term Disability ceases at age 65
Extended Health ceases at age 70
Dental ceases at age 70
Optional ADD ceases at age 65
Optional Life Ceases at age 65
All other provisions of the Collective Agreement shall apply, except as expressly
set out herein. This LOU may only be modified with the written agreement of both
parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this AGREEMENT on the
1st day of February 2024. This Agreement may be signed in counterpart and
electronically.
Why did they all save zero money? I've been saving since I was 20 with the goal to retire by 55. I can't understand how you could live through the period of greatest investment growth and way cheaper prices and still be broke after working for 45 years. It's so common though. They're all freaking broke.
Daniel Cooper wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2026 4:00 am
Why did they all save zero money? I've been saving since I was 20 with the goal to retire by 55. I can't understand how you could live through the period of greatest investment growth and way cheaper prices and still be broke after working for 45 years. It's so common though. They're all freaking broke.
Throw a couple of ex wives into the mix and it’s a lot harder to put money away apparently
Do you know how many baby boomers are bankrupt? Who have got nothing? Who have borrowed every dollar in their home? They're 70 and don't have a job, or options, and don't have a pension. They could live another 20 years and they don't have the money to pay for their housing or even buy food. The baby boomers, who had it really easy, and everything was on on a silver platter for them. It was too easy for them. 'I'll always be able to make more money. I'll always be able to get a job. The house will always be worth more'. That's a terrible retirement plan. It's the last thing you should do, to use your home as an ATM.
Dry Guy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 7:05 am
Do you know how many baby boomers are bankrupt? Who have got nothing? Who have borrowed every dollar in their home? They're 70 and don't have a job, or options, and don't have a pension. They could live another 20 years and they don't have the money to pay for their housing or even buy food. The baby boomers, who had it really easy, and everything was on on a silver platter for them. It was too easy for them. 'I'll always be able to make more money. I'll always be able to get a job. The house will always be worth more'. That's a terrible retirement plan. It's the last thing you should do, to use your home as an ATM.
Maybe those boomers shouldn’t have watched all that CBC garbage and saw those CHIP reverse mortgage commercials... I think their only other advertiser is the Acorn Stair Lifts.
