TA

[rudder]

The webinar was interesting- the more I read about the deal the more I like it. As Charlene says, we didn’t get everything we wanted but we got a lot. And we can build on this for more QOL things in 3 years.
But more importantly, we have no choice now but to accept the deal. The labor minister was in the room, watching AC negotiate in good faith while bringing $$$ to the table.
If we turn down a deal that the union recommends (which they now have), under labor law the minister sends the whole matter to binding arbitration - the same arbitration the company so desperately wanted all along. Like the previous MOU we voted down, right now the BOD is desparately hoping we vote this down. The most likely arbitration “spanking” for us greedy pilots would be the company’s previous offer less the retro pay.
If the “beareded children” vote this down, they are going to get an incredibly expensive lesson in labor law they will remember for the rest of their careers.

Without comments on the merits of the TA, what ‘labour law’ are you referring to?

And, assuming that the government - through legislation or sustained Ministerial action - places this dispute (or any dispute) in to binding arbitration, the terms of reference for the arbitrator are critical.

It is extremely unlikely that any arbitrator generates an award “less than the rejected TA”. The TA has retro pay because it became effective (for pay purposes) in September 2023.

This decision is up to the membership now. The NC did its work. The ACA MEC had its say. So now the only opinion that matters is that of a voter.

Hopefully it will be a facts based debate.

[khedrei]

The webinar was interesting- the more I read about the deal the more I like it. As Charlene says, we didn’t get everything we wanted but we got a lot. And we can build on this for more QOL things in 3 years.
But more importantly, we have no choice now but to accept the deal. The labor minister was in the room, watching AC negotiate in good faith while bringing $$$ to the table.
If we turn down a deal that the union recommends (which they now have), under labor law the minister sends the whole matter to binding arbitration - the same arbitration the company so desperately wanted all along. Like the previous MOU we voted down, right now the BOD is desparately hoping we vote this down. The most likely arbitration “spanking” for us greedy pilots would be the company’s previous offer less the retro pay.
If the “beareded children” vote this down, they are going to get an incredibly expensive lesson in labor law they will remember for the rest of their careers.

Funny how the minister says that his first obligation is to ensure fair collective bargaining with the threat of back to work orders if there is no agreement. You can't support collective bargaining AND arbitration at the same time. He's as big of a talking head as JT

[cdnavater]

How about this? I will step back from the criticism for a bit to have a genuine question answer period. Hopefully some of the pro TA people will come and meet me there.

Genuine questions for the ones that are on board with senior guys getting a new guys salary x 1.3 for a raise while the new guy doesn't even get past wages+inflation.

Do you think a captain is legitimately worth 3-5x an FO? Previous claims say they don't do the same job. I claimed they do, with added responsibility. I think that's accurate. Perhaps this is a wording issue. Yes they make more decisions, but do they not perform the same tasks in the cockpit aside from what... filling out the log book and taxiing? If you think that the added responsibility and decision making is worth 3-5 times the wage, fine. We have our answer. I don't agree, same as most people who have commented here along with the entire industry in the US. I guess the vote will see. Also, not all captains are in that spot because they have more experience. There are plenty who could have 3k hours and upgraded in 2 years. A new FO might have way more experience but worked up north for 10 years. Seniority is a bitch that way, but I get it. I just think the experience argument falls apart in plenty of situations but I digress, that's not the point. Please tell me how much you think a captain is worth compared to an FO?

If you don't think they are worth 3-5x the wage, I ask why you still think what happened is ok? Because they got it? Because it benefits you? Because you had to do the 4-6 years of pain so you don't think they should jump that high that fast? Because they don't deserve it? And if they don't, why not? These are all legitimate answers, just say it and be honest.

Referencing the other thread, is it because making the wages more even just because is communism and we shouldn't do it for that reason alone?

Do you support this disparity because you think it's the best we can do?

The things that I don't think anyone would argue is that the union did not do what they promised. Not a world class contract. The pilots said if you don't get one, strike. They didn't do that.

Do you believe this contract is pretty good because the captains wages got close to the US captains wages? I have heard this claim. So I ask, why are you satisfied that the Captains got close but the FOs didn't. If you are fine with that, I'm curious why. Are the reasons the same as I listed above?

You're answer might be "I don't care, my wages went up a lot". Fine, that's an answer. I think it's selfish, but it's still a legitimate answer. If it's your answer, at least be honest about it. Say it.

If this passes I'm glad I won't be in the cockpit. The unity will be non existent.

The thing about your claim that they didn’t even get inflation, bank of Canada inflation calculator says 48,000 in the year 2000 is equivalent to 81,153 today, very close to actual inflation for the approximate starting wage in 2000.
It’s not that FOs aren’t worth 66 2/3% of a Captain, this was tongue in cheek a little, it’s that there is value to how long someone spends at their airline, there is value in their past concessions, past lets, past bankruptcy forced changes, they are essentially being paid back for all of that, some would even argue not enough.
Just because they are making 300k and will now make 400k does not mean they didn’t earn it, it’s also worth noting that in the last 25 years that it took most of them to hold left seat 777, there have been many, many downturns and the subsequent fallout. Layoffs, mergers, the list is long and they should be paid back for that.
The reality is, anyone on the first four years has a choice, vote no and see if there are enough no votes, if not the other choice is find employment elsewhere, I hear Flair pays more but really your desire for more money does not trump the senior pilots who’ve been through some shit to finally see a payback.
I find this whole thing funny really, I was at Jazz when we signed our best ever contract, 2010, most of the gains went to the junior, year 1 had the highest increase, year 2 a little less, year 3 less, 4, 5, 6 all a bit less, 7-9 almost nothing, then increasing back up to the top scale, I was right in the spot that had almost nothing and I thought well, that kind of sucks but I didn’t go around yelling that the junior and senior pilots screwed me.
Then after that, we signed the worst contract we’ve ever signed, and literally any chance at improving since then has gone to fixing those changes which were all at the bottom and for those hired after 2015, every single improvement has been for them and what do we get for that, shitheads giving us grief how we screwed them, we didn’t screw anyone, they screwed themselves by taking the job. But, we tried to get back to where we once were and all I’ve had since the contract in 2010 is 2% per year, which has not kept up with inflation. Then last Sept we had some money thrown at us, by thrown I mean hard fought because yet again the company only wanted to put money where the problems were and our union said no way, all or nothing!
So as a top scale pilot, I got a lot of flack about my long service award of 6000, barely scratches the surface of where I should have been if not for pilots taking job at an airline who’s entire purpose for existence was to bring our union and wages down.
I’ve been through several downturns, I’m not saying this because I want others to experience it, I’m merely pointing out I’ve had to start over a few times, it’s not pleasant and I’m finally at a point where I get to enjoy life and not worry so much about if I can pay my bills, I won’t apologize for thinking that seniority friggen counts, it’s literally everything in this business, it rules your entire career and handcuffs you to your chosen airline and why you make more at the top.

Thanks for the answer. To clarify, there was no tongue and cheeks in my post. No sarcasm. These were legitimate normal toned questions.

Yes, it looks like the FO raises ALMOST caught up to inflation, thanks for the correction. But they came up just short. The new effective salary of the FOs is 78k. Hard to accurately compare annual airline salaries vs hourly to an average persons salary because under the old system it was 75 hrs per month, now it's 84.

Regardless, it seems that in summary you think the old guys are bring repaid for past confessions and their time value for many years of service earned them the big raise. The 66% thing doesn't much matter for the FOs as they will be paid appropriately when they put in their time.

Again, no sarcasm here. If I got something wrong, let me know.

But I ask you this follow up question. The old guys had to pay long ago. They are being paid back deservedly now. I think youd agree that they shouldnt have had to make these consessions back then. So, how do we stop the cycle? The guys starting off today will say the same thing in 10-15 years when raises are again much bigger for the top than they are for the bottom because they had to go through it.

It’s not necessarily because they went through it, you should too, I know that sentiment has been passed around, I actually quite happily support the fact pilots don’t have to go up North and scare themselves, there are definitely cons to that though.
All I’m trying to say is, the longer you have been abused, the more you should be getting in reparations.
As for the new hire pay, minimum is 75 or reserve DBM which could be 84, I’d be planning for an average of 80, which make the new salary 83,980, add in training out side the window a few times that goes up, so lets call it 85k.
As I said in another thread, WJ when their next step up happens in January has a couple dollar an hour advantage until next September, at which point AC pilots pull ahead and stay ahead for the duration.
It’s not perfect and fell short of where I thought it would end up, I believed year 1 would be 100 minimum but AC seems hell bent on keeping the training cost recovery scheme, which is ridiculous, no one going to AC is planning on getting the training and skipping town, well maybe the odd one might be planning an overseas job but that’s going to happen from time to time.
Again and I can’t emphasize this enough, if it doesn’t meet a potential candidate’s expectations, they should not be taking the job, AC might not fix the salary but if classes went unfilled you’ll see the signing bonuses the US airline were handing out, I however don’t have hope for that happening, somehow pilots always find a way to justify the job acceptance which is exactly why AC didn’t feel the need to change it!

[ant_321]

I personally would be a no vote even if the money was doubled. Basically no QOL improvements. Nearly everyone on a narrow body at AC works 16 days/month. Then train outside the block. I have a friend on the 787 that has worked 20 days several times in the last 6 months.

Ant, have you read the 37 page document provided to AC pilots or are you going by the executive summary?
I talked to a buddy, he basically said the executive summary was terrible and should not have been published, it leads one to think there were no improvements, after he read the new information, he feels he doesn’t need to go to the road show now, much more information and it’s section by section of what’s changed. I’m pretty sure training outside the block is double time, so if the company trains you outside the block, there is a cost for them.
I haven’t read it, so it’s hearsay at this point but it did sound like there were enough improvements, his biggest request and only things he put on his survey was scheduling and pension contributions, he’s a yes!

Yes I have read it. I am also married to an Air Canada pilot. They threw some money at the middle and the top and did shit all for QOL.

[cdnavater]

I personally would be a no vote even if the money was doubled. Basically no QOL improvements. Nearly everyone on a narrow body at AC works 16 days/month. Then train outside the block. I have a friend on the 787 that has worked 20 days several times in the last 6 months.

Ant, have you read the 37 page document provided to AC pilots or are you going by the executive summary?
I talked to a buddy, he basically said the executive summary was terrible and should not have been published, it leads one to think there were no improvements, after he read the new information, he feels he doesn’t need to go to the road show now, much more information and it’s section by section of what’s changed. I’m pretty sure training outside the block is double time, so if the company trains you outside the block, there is a cost for them.
I haven’t read it, so it’s hearsay at this point but it did sound like there were enough improvements, his biggest request and only things he put on his survey was scheduling and pension contributions, he’s a yes!

Yes I have read it. I am also married to an Air Canada pilot. They threw some money at the middle and the top and did shit all for QOL.

Ok, fair enough.

[braaap Braap]

Yes, it looks like the FO raises ALMOST caught up to inflation, thanks for the correction. But they came up just short. The new effective salary of the FOs is 78k. Hard to accurately compare annual airline salaries vs hourly to an average persons salary because under the old system it was 75 hrs per month, now it's 84.

Not an AC pilot but Im pretty sure the 84 hrs/month is only for the retro pay calculation. MMG is still 75

[cdnavater]

Yes, it looks like the FO raises ALMOST caught up to inflation, thanks for the correction. But they came up just short. The new effective salary of the FOs is 78k. Hard to accurately compare annual airline salaries vs hourly to an average persons salary because under the old system it was 75 hrs per month, now it's 84.

Not an AC pilot but Im pretty sure the 84 hrs/month is only for the retro pay calculation. MMG is still 75

It says for the first two years it’s 75 or the reserve DBM, whichever is higher.

[Bede]

It is extremely unlikely that any arbitrator generates an award “less than the rejected TA”. The TA has retro pay because it became effective (for pay purposes) in September 2023.

Extremely unlikely according to who? The FOS arbitration in 2013 got the AC pilots $50M less than the TA value.

Pilots seem to greatly underestimate the risk involved in any labour action whether it's a strike or arbitration. Sometimes it works out for the better, other times it doesn't.

[BaldChewbacca]

Just wondering if someone can clarify for me. Why is a strike by the pilot group essentially impossible? I thought striking was a right that we had as Canadians as long as we aren't an essential service. Yet we've seen it thwarted with the rail employees, we sort of saw it with the teachers union, and we're seeing it with the AC pilots (we know the pilots will be ordered back to work and sent to arbitration before a strike even starts). So how is that the case?

I'm not looking to stir shit. I genuinely don't know and can't figure it out from looking online.

[flyingcanuck]

Just wondering if someone can clarify for me. Why is a strike by the pilot group essentially impossible? I thought striking was a right that we had as Canadians as long as we aren't an essential service. Yet we've seen it thwarted with the rail employees, we sort of saw it with the teachers union, and we're seeing it with the AC pilots (we know the pilots will be ordered back to work and sent to arbitration before a strike even starts). So how is that the case?

I'm not looking to stir shit. I genuinely don't know and can't figure it out from looking online.

government favors corps over people

[BaldChewbacca]

Just wondering if someone can clarify for me. Why is a strike by the pilot group essentially impossible? I thought striking was a right that we had as Canadians as long as we aren't an essential service. Yet we've seen it thwarted with the rail employees, we sort of saw it with the teachers union, and we're seeing it with the AC pilots (we know the pilots will be ordered back to work and sent to arbitration before a strike even starts). So how is that the case?

I'm not looking to stir shit. I genuinely don't know and can't figure it out from looking online.

government favors corps over people

Lol ya I know that. I meant more along the lines of how it is legal. Denying the right to strike is pretty heavy handed. I'm more wondering HOW it's happening, and with apparently no repercussions

[braaap Braap]

Just wondering if someone can clarify for me. Why is a strike by the pilot group essentially impossible? I thought striking was a right that we had as Canadians as long as we aren't an essential service. Yet we've seen it thwarted with the rail employees, we sort of saw it with the teachers union, and we're seeing it with the AC pilots (we know the pilots will be ordered back to work and sent to arbitration before a strike even starts). So how is that the case?

I'm not looking to stir shit. I genuinely don't know and can't figure it out from looking online.

government favors corps over people

Lol ya I know that. I meant more along the lines of how it is legal. Denying the right to strike is pretty heavy handed. I'm more wondering HOW it's happening, and with apparently no repercussions

The repercussions exist, the process to right the wrongs is just slow and drawn out so the news cycle moves on. Right to strike enshrined in the constitution came from the supreme court over workers in Saskatchewan. Public servants being capped at 1% in Ontario struck down. Westjet AMFA made quick work of things but that was only because they had the balls to shut it all down. The railways are challenging the use of section 107 in court.

[BaldChewbacca]

government favors corps over people

Lol ya I know that. I meant more along the lines of how it is legal. Denying the right to strike is pretty heavy handed. I'm more wondering HOW it's happening, and with apparently no repercussions

The repercussions exist, the process to right the wrongs is just slow and drawn out so the news cycle moves on. Right to strike enshrined in the constitution came from the supreme court over workers in Saskatchewan. Public servants being capped at 1% in Ontario struck down. Westjet AMFA made quick work of things but that was only because they had the balls to shut it all down. The railways are challenging the use of section 107 in court.

So, potentially illegal, but they did it anyway? And even if it is illegal, it doesn't matter because binding arbitration happened anyway and they still got screwed? Is that about right?

[braaap Braap]

Lol ya I know that. I meant more along the lines of how it is legal. Denying the right to strike is pretty heavy handed. I'm more wondering HOW it's happening, and with apparently no repercussions

The repercussions exist, the process to right the wrongs is just slow and drawn out so the news cycle moves on. Right to strike enshrined in the constitution came from the supreme court over workers in Saskatchewan. Public servants being capped at 1% in Ontario struck down. Westjet AMFA made quick work of things but that was only because they had the balls to shut it all down. The railways are challenging the use of section 107 in court.

So, potentially illegal, but they did it anyway? And even if it is illegal, it doesn't matter because binding arbitration happened anyway and they still got screwed? Is that about right?

Idk if illegal is the right word. Its more like an overstep/reach/generous interpretation of a section of regulation and the fight is to point out that it was an overreach

Its like when Crew Sched assigns/drafts/extends you inappropriately but you have to wait for crew resolutions to finally acknowledge your email but by that point you’ve already missed Timmy’s birthday

[Dronepiper]

Just to add some flame to the fire.

WJ pilots actually make more than rates you posted above. FO's receive an additional $605/month as a lump sum payment. Captains receive $858/month.

So come Jan 01, a Westjet FO with just 2 years of service (Pay step 3) will be making the following:

120.16 x 77.5 x 12 = $111,758 + $7400 = $119,148.

So as a paystep 3 FO I will be making $119,148 base pay + 10% that goes into our new DB pension (+ per diems I guess).

Based on the DB pension calculator, I will retire with a guaranteed pension of around $260k/year (Will vary slightly depending on upgrade time - I used 8 YOS with no time on the 787)

For October I was scheduled to work 9 days
For August I was scheduled to work 10 days
For July I was scheduled to work 11 days
For June I was scheduled to only work 3 days (I used 2 weeks of vacation). Because of FLICA I was able to drop the other 3 days and have the full month off.

With my time off, I also try and pick up some easy opentime. I aim for 16 hours of OT a month, so that adds $35k/year without really trying. When I am only working 10 days a month on average, adding in 3 days of extra work doesn't feel like much. I also live in base though, so that makes things easier.

Some months I really whore myself out to the opentime though. In August I made an additional $9800 in overtime alone by working an additional 8 days (some of it was 2.0x OT). Still had 13 days off.....

Is Air Canada allowed to bid stats? Since we can bid stats it basically adds in an extra 2 weeks of biddable vacation each year.

So for vacation:

Year 1-3 = 4 Weeks
Year 4-6 = 5 Weeks
Year 7+ = 6 Weeks

Our vacation is 4.5 credits/day

I was convinced you guys would shoot miles ahead of us with your new contract. I was really surprised to see the outcome.

I really hope you guys go back to the table and get what you guys deserve. A stronger AC contract is good for the entire industry.

[BTD]

The webinar was interesting- the more I read about the deal the more I like it. As Charlene says, we didn’t get everything we wanted but we got a lot. And we can build on this for more QOL things in 3 years.
But more importantly, we have no choice now but to accept the deal. The labor minister was in the room, watching AC negotiate in good faith while bringing $$$ to the table.
If we turn down a deal that the union recommends (which they now have), under labor law the minister sends the whole matter to binding arbitration - the same arbitration the company so desperately wanted all along. Like the previous MOU we voted down, right now the BOD is desparately hoping we vote this down. The most likely arbitration “spanking” for us greedy pilots would be the company’s previous offer less the retro pay.
If the “beareded children” vote this down, they are going to get an incredibly expensive lesson in labor law they will remember for the rest of their careers.

Without comments on the merits of the TA, what ‘labour law’ are you referring to?

And, assuming that the government - through legislation or sustained Ministerial action - places this dispute (or any dispute) in to binding arbitration, the terms of reference for the arbitrator are critical.

It is extremely unlikely that any arbitrator generates an award “less than the rejected TA”. The TA has retro pay because it became effective (for pay purposes) in September 2023.

This decision is up to the membership now. The NC did its work. The ACA MEC had its say. So now the only opinion that matters is that of a voter.

Hopefully it will be a facts based debate.

One correction. It isn’t retro pay. It is ratification pay. That makes a difference. If the TA isn’t ratified the argument for that to be gone is easily made. Also if there are work stoppages it adds fuel to the argument for arbitration, that it won’t be paid out.

[rudder]

It is extremely unlikely that any arbitrator generates an award “less than the rejected TA”. The TA has retro pay because it became effective (for pay purposes) in September 2023.

Extremely unlikely according to who? The FOS arbitration in 2013 got the AC pilots $50M less than the TA value.

Pilots seem to greatly underestimate the risk involved in any labour action whether it's a strike or arbitration. Sometimes it works out for the better, other times it doesn't.

Context.

The terms of the arbitration were baseball style (FOS). ACPA chose to swing for the fences. The company offered less than the TA. Situational awareness may have dictated a different proposal from ACPA.

In any case, it is more than one step to get to a sustained order for arbitration. And there is zero chance that both parties would agree to submit the matter to arbitration, unless of course the baseline was the TA.

[khedrei]

Yes, it looks like the FO raises ALMOST caught up to inflation, thanks for the correction. But they came up just short. The new effective salary of the FOs is 78k. Hard to accurately compare annual airline salaries vs hourly to an average persons salary because under the old system it was 75 hrs per month, now it's 84.

Not an AC pilot but Im pretty sure the 84 hrs/month is only for the retro pay calculation. MMG is still 75

Ok well if that's the case then I calculated 78k for an annual salary not 84k for year 1.

Perhaps I missed something. I had originally thought it was 75 hours, so I got 78k. Then a buddy showed me a more detailed document that said 84 hours. I'll have to take your word for it I guess.

87x75x12=87300

[flyinhigh]

Lol ya I know that. I meant more along the lines of how it is legal. Denying the right to strike is pretty heavy handed. I'm more wondering HOW it's happening, and with apparently no repercussions

The repercussions exist, the process to right the wrongs is just slow and drawn out so the news cycle moves on. Right to strike enshrined in the constitution came from the supreme court over workers in Saskatchewan. Public servants being capped at 1% in Ontario struck down. Westjet AMFA made quick work of things but that was only because they had the balls to shut it all down. The railways are challenging the use of section 107 in court.

So, potentially illegal, but they did it anyway? And even if it is illegal, it doesn't matter because binding arbitration happened anyway and they still got screwed? Is that about right?

With the WJ mechanics the minister invoked Section 80 of the CLC. Essentially referring the matter to be settled by the CIRB via arbitration. The Friday of the strike the CIRB ruled that while the matter will be settled via arbitration, the engineers maintained the right to strike, to which they did. This resulted in bargaining in good faith and they had a deal 48 hrs later, whereas arbitration takes weeks.

For the rail (going to court) the new minister invoked section 107 which has been rarely ever used. 107 basically says, that the minster solely has the right to direct the CIRB to maintain labour piece as the minister see fit. (I.e, under this provision, the minister stated your going to arbitration, get to work).

For the rail situation, one person ruled, and that rule is law this circumventing the Supreme Court of 2015.

FYI, I’m no lawyer, just how I read it.

[BrassCraft]

Gonna be a hard NO! From me.

[faraneith]

Good afternoon,

Any chance someone would be able to share the new agreement? Either right here or via PM. CAs are usually on the Negotech website, but the latest one is not there yet. I would be interested to read it.

Thanks a lot!