Another slap in the face

[retired or retarded]

Nice to see that the airport workers in Vancouver are still able to threaten a strike and negotiate a contract and yet we are legally banned from negotiating a decent contract. What about the impact their strike would have on the travelling public. Or is it the fact the we just don't have the b@lls to take the stand required. Go ACPA

[DBC]

Must be since we were locked out instead of striking.

[MRP]

And then legislated back to work. Conservatives never allowed the fair bargaining process to resolve itself. Nothing to do with ACPA.

[ratherbee]

Everything to do with ACPA! Read the SPC report on the ACPA website. If you don't believe it then wait until the external review is completed. It had far more to do with adopting and staying with a losing strategy than with government interference.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

[ratherbee]

btw, according to PSAC they got a 4 year deal with annual pay raises of 2%/2%/2.25%/2.25%

also a small signing bonus and performance bonus.

[yycflyguy]

Everything to do with ACPA! Read the SPC report on the ACPA website. If you don't believe it then wait until the external review is completed. It had far more to do with adopting and staying with a losing strategy than with government interference.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Because NC1 introducing TA1 to the membership really helped the entire process.... they gave away the farm.

The SPC report did not even consult NC2, the MEC or MEC chair yet is being "overseen" by the President (cosy with TA1 and their cooperative philosophy). Nice unbiased review of what transpired... NOT.

You bid rouge yet?

[Counterpoint]

Yycfly,

Can you elaborate on "giving away the farm"....?

Also rouge positions seem to be full at the moment, so it looks like a popular place to be....

[dukepoint]

.

[ratherbee]

DP,

Well that's the rhetoric we've been hearing from ACPA "leaders" for the last two years and how they explain their failure to produce TA2 after promising us that it would only take a few months. Let's see what the external review has to say.

Since you can't argue with the facts, you go personal on a pilot who accepted a low level, barely management job. That's a weak deflection. How about this fact - a pilot with no AC Captain time could've bid rouge and made $167.22/hr as B767 CA. Instead the same pilot would now be paid $122.02/hr.

The bottom line is they lost over $250M from the TA in just over a year - that's why the contract we now have is not as good as it should have been. Although if they could implement the LOC's you were so concerned about, that would be an improvement (Flight Switch Program, PBS improvements, Sick Leave Rewards, ACPA Displacements etc).

[dukepoint]

.

[dukepoint]

Edited as topic is not worth the effort debating.

[Counterpoint]

Duke,

One of your "FACT"s needs a little clarification;

The negotiator you are accusing of bidding and influencing a pay raise to an awarded position was actually forced reduced along with at least three other pilot. His seniority also meant that he couldn't hold any other widebody FO position and so he bid the Captain on the EMJ position. Absolutely normal.

He was also not the leed (sic) negotiator.

As with the FanB va-et-viens, I am more than willing to debate the broad statements made by the acpa haters.

The Farm Give and No Growth language Myths have to be challenged.

[disco]

Everything to do with ACPA! Read the SPC report on the ACPA website. If you don't believe it then wait until the external review is completed. It had far more to do with adopting and staying with a losing strategy than with government interference.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

...and stupidity appears to be your currency of choice ratherbee. Not only is the SPC "report" a complete joke devoid of facts (I guarantee you that it was written by someone who wasn't present for ANY bargaining and that no one who actually WAS present was consulted whatsoever - you call that a report? Too much). Hilarious and convenient that you would latch on to such drivel - it suits your pre-formed opinion.

You wouldn't have the first clue about the bargaining strategy and all that was contemplated. You wouldn't be interested anyway as you are clearly part of the 33% that were willing to accept that total sell out of a TA which has resulted in a permanent negative impact on the profession. Yes, 33%. Why such a terrible yes vote? Because most of the changes in TA1 were not in any way directed by the membership nor approved by the MEC.

"Stupidity is a talent for misconception"

Edgar Allan Poe

"Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity."

Michel de Montaigne

[Counterpoint]

Disco,

Never mind the SPC report, let's see what the external audit by a third party delivers.

Can we debate the "total sell out of a TA which has resulted in a permanent negative impact on the profession"

Let me start;

-The TA had growth language
-The TA protected career wages and jobs
-The rouge LOU is a protective barrier to competition

That should be enough for now.

[ratherbee]

Because most of the changes in TA1 were not in any way directed by the membership nor approved by the MEC.

Now that is certainly a myth! The current YYZ LEC Chair was very much in favour of a DC Pension Plan and the current MEC Chair supported a lower scale LCC. The MEC gave NC1 approval for their bargaining strategy and most of the their decisions on proposals were unanimous. Read the minutes.

As for the membership, there were WAWCON surveys in '08,'09 and '10. There was a good participation rate in all these surveys and reams of good insight to what pilots wanted or did not want (crew meals come to mind). This was a big difference from the way you guys manipulated the pilots with the "Wish List" WAWCON and gave the NC2 carte blanche.

[yycflyguy]

Let me start;

-The TA had growth language
-The TA protected career wages and jobs
-The rouge LOU is a protective barrier to competition

That should be enough for now.

Growth? What growth? You mean the transfer of 42 FINs by 2015 to a low wage carrier that uses CARs maximums as their guideline? Job transfer is not growth, just like how TA1 offered pay raises. FYI - working more does not constitute a pay raise.

Over 3000 lines of protective language was removed from the CBA.... and TA1 architects were proud of that?? Years of collective bargaining thrown in the trash for MPUs and widebody protections. Who paid for it? New hires on 4 years of flat and a cheap DC plan. Shame on you.

Protected career wages and jobs? Yup for the top 33% of the membership, you are right, didn't affect them. They can have as many double frappucinos at Starbucks with CEOs as they please... no skin off their nose!

That POS FTA opened the door for the company to take even more concessions through government intervention. Who opened it? The TA1 architects. None of the committees were contact in their areas of expertise. It was a garbage proposal and 67% of the membership knew it was self serving. Problem is that opening the barn doors will haunt those in bottom 2/3rds for their entire careers. Well done.

[Counterpoint]

Yyc,

-Growth as in the acpa flying from 202 fins GROWING to 235 by 2015.
-Growth as in keeping the 767's instead of parking them as they were being replaced by 787's.
-Growth as in, instead of returning the 319's to the owners, keeping them at the LCC.
-Growth from 2900 pilots to 3500+ pilots to fly the 235 fins in 2015.

-Payraises that made sense in that a EMJ captain finally making more than an RP.
-Payraises grouped so that a EMJ captain finally making more than an FO.
-Payraises for not having to take courses, what is the difference in flying to LHR in a 767/330/777 anyway.

-CAR's maximum for duty day, but significant improvements to rest times.

-3000 lines seems like a lot, but what have you noticed about your month to month difference between the old way and the new...? Let's face it, the TA1 got rid of a lot of stuff that was contradictory, did anybody really understand pay protection? Why have contract language and then have contradictory Scheduling rules in the back of the contract?

-could you be more specific about what was erased from the old that you miss?

-career wages were protected and increased over the life of your career, in fact I can see how they tried to make it higher over the length of a pilot's career by using the groups, which made sense in that it was envisioned to make a career path by taking on more responsibility, RP to FO to captain.

-the wages were increased not the minimum hours. Smart move because the maximum hours were increased on a voluntary basis. If you didn't want to fly more, you still got an increase.

-what is POS FTA?

-the government wasn't involved in what turns out to be the fallout, until the acpa rejected the TA1 and similar offers afterward. They got really involved in what turns out to be the fallout, when we voted to strike, like the acpa didn't know that was going to happen.

-not sure about the committees not being contacted, but the scheduling chair had a big role, so did a longtime volunteer from the equipment-position committee.

-DC vs. DB is always a good debate, but look what that funding risk transfer has done to AC's bottom line. Sheeeesh, who gets employed with a DB as an airline pilot anymore, 16% DC isn't bad at all, especially when it's in your name. It's a new world out there, the days of db's are gone.

[pilotbzh]

Counterpoint,

I think you drank to much Cool Aid.... put your reality glasses on asap....

[Counterpoint]

bzh,

What 's with the frappacinos (yyc), and Koolaid comments......how come you guys don't want to use concrete arguments to back up your statements?

At least FanB made an effort.

[TheStig]

I don't know why we're still debating the merits of TA1. Counterpoint, you're right there were a number of good things in TA1, but you have to vote for the TA as a whole, not just parts of it. The negotiators clearly focused on extracting money out of the old contract for the pilots, but most of the pilots didn't feel it was enough. I'm not sure if its because more was expected than was delivered or were not properly prepared about the monumental changes about to be made. You'd have to assume that the Negotiating committee was keeping the MEC informed, so why wasn't the membership better prepared?

The MEC and NC clearly felt like they could trust the company, the pilot group feels differently. Unfortunately with the way events have unfolded it doesn't seem like we'll get a chance to see if a better relationship could have been possible because so many pilots are now scorned by companies unwillingness to negotiate with NC2, the threat of a lock out, and the resulting FOS. Now not only don't the pilots not trust AC, but they have no faith in ACPA's representation.

[pilotbzh]

reda7e5u.jpg (157.6 KiB) Viewed 6546 times

where do you see 235 fin by 2015 ??? the plan shows 207 ... pure transfers from mainline to rouge no new job no improvement to rest, lost rp to Athene... Cars rest is an improvement ???... FO salary decreased compare to Capt... new hire not on 16% DC, try 6... and 4 years MCdonald wages....

[SeaBat]

Counterpoint,

Why didn't the MEC and NC keep the membership informed of what may be coming down the pipe during the negotiating process and resultant release of TA1?

If you recall, the membership were fully expecting to recoup ALL of the concessions given in the previous 10 years. Hence, TA1 was a huge surprise to everyone, and instantly created dissension. Negotiating 101 states that the membership shall be apprised with weekly updates of the ongoing progress of all negotiations. What were you guys thinking?

[scopiton]

thanks BZH for posting this info, exactly what I've been looking for !
out of curiosity, how many pilots do you need to crew 12 767 and 30 319 ? roughly -
thanks

[snag]

180 for the 767 (less with no RPs). 330 pilots for the 319. Ballpark.

[Counterpoint]

bzh,

That is the fallout fleet plan. Under another thread with FanB, we covered how the growth language would have prevented this.

A quick résumé;

-In 2011 there were 86 A320 family aircraft in the fleet, with three being returned from MX. In you photo slide they are added that is why it shows 205.
-In 2013 they reduced by 3 767's, the three (2 to rouge and one unaccounted, probably parked), transfer 8 A319 aircraft to rouge, and transfer 15 E175 aircraft to SkyRegional.

Under the TA, none of the E175 aircraft would be allowed to be transferred, it was protected at the acpa.

Under the TA, there was a line for "net of fleet" for 6 A319 aircraft and 4 767 aircraft. That is not being respected because the acpa has given them a let (one way exchange, no quid) to just 5 A319 aircraft with an unlimited amount of transfers without 4 767 aircraft in the rouge fleet. Not allowed, but again the acpa is letting them do this based on the FOS transfer 2:1 from the new 777 aircraft. Under the TA, none of this would have been allowed, and the growth before transfer would have been 10 to rouge.

So that's -15 EMJ to SkyRegional, and -10 to rouge thanks to the acpa let on A319 aircraft and FOS language for a 2:1 transfer wide body:narrow body.

Now look at what happens to 2015. They transfer 29 A319 aircraft from mainline to rouge. This is not allowed, because the TA only allowed 20 aircraft transferred. They are also returning or parking one A319 aircraft in 2015 according to your photo slide.

So, the TA provided growth from 202 to 235, and AC have since bought in 3 777 aircraft with another 5 on the way. This is extra growth that was not predicted on TA rollout. Now your photo slide doesn't show 235, it shows 207, some growth and illigitimate transfers blessed by the acpa, not allowed under the TA.

CAR rules would/and can allow the 14 hour duty day. But there is significant protection in the rest periods when you change shifts. Apparently it is a carbon copy of the WJ rest period criteria. If you do a redeye flight, you can't work till 10am the next day. There are others.

We now see the rouge pairings. If you look at October on the A319 all of those pairings would be allowed using ML rules. When the new TC rules come in (using the table in the the REPORT OF THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATION ADVISORY COUNCIL (CARAC) FLIGHT CREW FATIGUE MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP) two of the flight pairings will have to change, the 06:30 PUJ turn and the 06:45 AZS turn. That means that two very productive pairings allowed under both rouge (CAR maximum) and Mainline rules will have to be amended. The report doesn't seem to have a Flight Time limits as does ML.

On the rouge 767 pairings, as you rightly point out, the out and return Athens no longer has a relief first officer, but that also applies to the return leg of the Venice as well. When the new rules will apply, all the pairings (including Venice EDIT: not including the Venice, see EDIT below) will conform to the new rules, with exception of the Las Vegas night turn (currently allowed at mainline rules) and only the return portion of Athens. I still can't see any Flight Time limitations in the report.

EDIT: I found the flight time limit for a single leg unaugmented flight at 10 hours. So that would mean the Venice would also need relief on the return.

So although the mainline rules restrict what is happening now, the new rules will allow all the 767 flying (except the return from Athens EDIT: and Venice) and then restrict two daytime pairings to the Caribbean, and one redeye to Las Vegas all three currently allowed under mainline rules.

I wonder what the acpa support level is for this report? Because it will impact mainline rules.

Now the rest portion at rouge is the WJ copy and it is stricter than the report. That is what I mean by considerably better rest period limitations.

FO salary lower compared to Captains. Yes I see your point, but my counterpoint would be an increased salary to the FO position because of the groupings pay. Also, if you go up the ladder, you get to a higher salary earlier and I guess longer until you get to the next step under groupings pay. It makes sense, you take less courses and get the higher salary earlier.

New hires don't ever stay new hires, and so will get to 16% DC for all but 4 years of their career. They start at 6% matching so 12% for two years, but can be as low as 6% after a minimum 3% match.

Nearly every airline pilot starts out at wages that are low.

stig,

I think the reason why I am debating the TA, is because in the fallout we still have the language, but mostly because I think the acpa are having a hard time making AC stick to the language. That language was due to the first negotiators and is being uncontested by the acpa.

I am also confused by the very emotional statements made by some here. It needs debate so, I guess that is why the need.

At some point, I'd like to debate the quid, as I proposed to FanB, because of what you are saying about not feeling the acpa got a good return. I can't understand how the acpa wasn't unprepared. Did they think that in 2011 AC was awash in $$'s?

bat,

If the acpa was fully expecting to recoup losses from the last 10-years, then like I said to Stig, did the acpa understand what kind of financial pressure AC was under in 2009 and 2010. Maybe the acpa though it was a huge surprise because the acpa wanted to "recoup ALL of the concessions given in the previous 10 years". In that case, I guess it would be a surprise. But don't you think that it was unrealistic considering the financial situation of the last 10-years?