Traf wrote:Who really owns their flying? What does that mean to "OWN" it? Why couldn't they threaten to CPA mainline flying? Did they not have an outside source hauling doing mainline cargo flying?
C'mon Traf,
Air Canada owns the flying. We scope Air Canada and you scope Jazz.
Under the old structure one of the groups ALPA Jazz/ACPA had contractual claim to everything down to 30 seats? ( not totally familiar with your scope clause) And of course we fought over the dividing line between us which at this point is around 75 seats.
Today however only one group has a contract with Air Canada ( the owner of the work). That is ACPA and our scope of work ends at 75 seats. Everything else falls outside of what is protected. Today ALPA Jazz still has a scope clause with Jazz but the change is that Jazz does not own the flying.
Pre CPA ALPA Jazz pilots contractually had ownership of all flying between xx seats and xx seats.
Now ALPA Jazz pilots contractually have ownership of flying between xx seats and xx seats
if Jazz retains the CPA.
This takes us to the crux of the issue over GS. ACPA can not bargain for Jazz pilots at the bargaining table to protect flying. We have no right. It would be illegal. Air Canada would no doubt claim we were bargaining in bad faith if we tried to . The only way around this is a merge. Unfortunately Air Canada, Jazz and ACE would have to agree to it, to make it happen since we are all separate now. They said no.
So the only group that can negotiate scope with the owner of the flying, Air Canada, is ACPA, but they have no legal standing to negotiate for those that they do not represent.
We missed the boat. As a group we have lost control over flying that falls outside ACPA's scope agreement.
As for Cargo. ACPA struck a Cargo LOU with Air Canada during CCAA. The LOU gave a temporary exemption to our scope, for a cargo only operation, with limited hours, so AC could test the cargo market. The LOU expired July 02/07 and AC has decided that they will not pursue a heavy lift operation.
This spring ACPA and Air Canada struck another LOU because Air Canada felt there was a business case to protect the Toronto-Frankfurt operation until they had enough 777 lift on the route. So a new LOU, that exempts for one year on specific routes, Air Canada from our scope.
With the exception of going over the hours prescribed in the first LOU Air Canada has been fully compliant. Compensation for the overage in hours during the first LOU and as a condition of the current 1 year extension is being paid by AC to ACPA at this time.
The fact that AC is paying ACPA almost 10 million over the next year in compensation is a pretty clear picture of how AC views their commitment under our scope language.
Looking back I can not come up with an instance where AC just arbitrarily outsource work in violation of our collective agreement. There has been lots of saber rattling during negotiations of course but no actual instances I can think of. Ultimately in all cases, that I can think of, where scope changes have taken place AC has gained the legal right to do so through negotiation, mediation or arbitration.
The one possible exception might be the F-28 flying right after the merge. But as you know it is pretty hard to call that a clear willfully violation of our collective agreement since the violation came with the purchase of Canadian. However, in the end we were compensated for that too.