teacher wrote:I would just like to make a few points.

They have been working on this behind the scenes for YEARS. Progress on this issue will not happen by embarrassing the government on TV.
...
There are over 300,000 foriegn workers in Canada. Just over 200 are pilots. You guys get where I going with this? Do you really think it's a priority for these departments?

teacher wrote:
The company relented BUT did the law change? I'm no fan of the slow pace of change either but do you punch the guy in the face that you're trying to negotiate with? They don't have to change the laws to benefit us. They could argue that the savings to Canadians due to lower air fares justifies the current practices. Just ask those gunning for a complete open skies for all Canadian airspace. Some want the term cabotage to be a thing of the past.

Yes the pace is slow but for the meantime I am content to know that things are happening behind the scenes and change is happening albeit to slow for all our liking.

If anyone were making progress, the numbers wouldn't be growing every year. If someone tells me he's getting back on the ILS, he had better be moving towards the Loc not away from it.

There may be just over 200 foreign pilots but there were 30 miners and 45 RBC employees. We may be a small fish in a big pond but so far the minnows are generating all of the attention.

If the government has an open door policy on wet leases etc, is that not Open Skies Light?

No one is gunning for changing all of the laws. We are just expecting that our government enforce the ones in place now.

I would argue ALPA is being successful in their approach, Sunwing has hired more pilots this year and will probably have to bring in less. ALPA is more than a one party cause, i know it suits Transat fine to come on here and use them against their competition but there are many more issues than just foreign pilots that ALPA deals with. I paid a lot in ALPA dues last year as well and I would not like to see them taken over by a special interest group.

I don't see a big doom and gloom for the Canadian airline industry, its less than 200 pilots that are taking part in a reciprocal program. The same thing that Sky service did for years, only difference now is Transat is losing money because they are dealing with legacy costs and are not competitive. Personally as an anglophone I would be a lot more sympathetic to Transat's causes if they hired more than a handful of anglophones. I know I would have a slim chance of getting hired because I only speak English.

Takeoff okay - if you want to learn about what your dues are going towards then read a fast pass or two. Don't forget the million we at ALPA lent you to get your contract for your strike fund.

A million bucks for my strike fund? Not me, buddy. By the way, what's a "fast pass"?

Anyway, can you please give me some specific examples of what ALPA Canada has accomplished at the federal level?

monkey wrote:I would argue ALPA is being successful in their approach, Sunwing has hired more pilots this year and will probably have to bring in less. ALPA is more than a one party cause, i know it suits Transat fine to come on here and use them against their competition but there are many more issues than just foreign pilots that ALPA deals with. I paid a lot in ALPA dues last year as well and I would not like to see them taken over by a special interest group.

I don't see a big doom and gloom for the Canadian airline industry, its less than 200 pilots that are taking part in a reciprocal program. The same thing that Sky service did for years, only difference now is Transat is losing money because they are dealing with legacy costs and are not competitive. Personally as an anglophone I would be a lot more sympathetic to Transat's causes if they hired more than a handful of anglophones. I know I would have a slim chance of getting hired because I only speak English.

Takeoff okay - if you want to learn about what your dues are going towards then read a fast pass or two. Don't forget the million we at ALPA lent you to get your contract for your strike fund.

Monkey, you have it all wrong. First of all there is no reciprocity. It's all a big lie.

Sunwing intends to have more aircraft next winter than this past winter, and the hiring they did, was not to increase the proportion of Canadian pilots they will have next year, but to at least maintain the status quo. They will probably not be able to quadruple in size from summer to winter, so they will stick to tripling. They went from 10 to 29 last winter, and if they intend to grow to 36 next winter, they need to add a few full time aircraft to their summer fleet. My guess is 3 aircraft. Why 3 ? Because last year they had 10 aircraft and sent 4 on wet-leases to Europe, leaving six in Canada (and the US). This year they are sending 7 to Europe which is why I predict a fleet increase of 3, so roughly 45 Canadian pilots. Another reason they need more Canadian pilots has nothing to do with ALPA. It's caused by the new Collective Agreement with their pilots which puts restrictions on the time each individual pilot may be deployed to Europe. It seems now that just about everyone will have to pitch in and spend at least some time overseas.

Transat's problem has nothing to do with legacy costs. Our problem is that we had an all wide body fleet. We used all of them very profitably on TransAtlantic routes in the summer, the work they were made for. When winter came around, we used them on southern destinations just to break even, which allowed us to keep our equipment and personnel year round with minimal lay offs. We did lay off some F/A in the winter, not because of less aircraft or less flying, but because the type of rotations we did in the winter, with many turns, required less F/A than the type of rotations we did in the summer, when we had crews scattered all over cities of Europe, on their crew rest.

How Sunwing's arrival affected us was not because of legacy costs, but because they deprived us of the market we had used in the winter to justify keeping our wide bodies and the pilots active and paying for themselves. Their business model brought the price of tickets down so much that instead of breaking even using our wide bodies in the winter, we lost tons of money (50 million), much more than we made with them in the summer. One might think this is a huge a amount, but if we carried 1 million passengers, it comes out to $50 per passenger. Not much considering they pay $1200 to $1500 for a one week package down south.

If it were possible to have accordion fleets with A-330s as it is with B-737s, Transat probably would do just like Sunwing: call its summer program a "seasonal" one, bring its year round 330/310 fleet to 7 aircraft in the winter, and back to 21 in the summer. To triple in size. We would do the same with 737s, go from 5 in the summer, to 15 in the winter, and shuttle our pilots from the A-330 in the summer to the B-737 in the winter, and back the other way every time the season changed.
When the A-320 Neo becomes available, we could use them instead of the 737 and save ourselves the training, both being of the same type rating.

The problem is, I do not think one can just dry-lease 14 A-330s for six months every summer and return them in winter. From whom ? TUI maybe ? But would they not to likely do as they do to Sunwing, and require that an equal proportion of TUI pilots be hired as a condition to letting us use their aircraft ? Probably.

How is Air Transat going to resolve this problem and return to profitability ? Tough times ahead. But legacy costs ? You are dead wrong.

Now as for what ALPA's priorities should be:
CIC has not been enforcing its own regulations, allowing hundred of foreign pilots into Canada under fake reciprocity.
HRSDC allows hundred of foreign pilots into this country under the pretext of them not being type rated. What will it be next: must be type rated and have at least 1000 hours experience with HUDs ? What will you say when Canadian 737 rated pilots are turned down in favor of foreigners because the TUI 737s will be fitted with HUDs and that Sunwing will require experience on those as an excuse to hire the TUI pilots instead ?. Will the HUD requirement be valid and accepted to exclude Canadians ?
Transport Canada is violating its own regulations in order to accommodate these foreign pilots.
CAR 407.01, 705.01, CAR 203.03 to name a few. There are others.

These are all issues ALPA should deal with and in a forceful manner. For ALPA is not lobbying to change existing regulations. If it were. I would agree that this can only be done in a friendly manner over beers and cappuccinos.

But what ALPA needs to do is to ask that EXISTING regulations be enforced which is another ball game. And that must be done forcefully and in courts if required.

Takeoff OK wrote:
Anyway, can you please give me some specific examples of what ALPA Canada has accomplished at the federal level?

The new FT/DT rules.

rudder wrote:

Takeoff OK wrote:
Anyway, can you please give me some specific examples of what ALPA Canada has accomplished at the federal level?

The new FT/DT rules.

When did Canada get new FT/DT rules?

Takeoff OK wrote:

rudder wrote:

Takeoff OK wrote:
Anyway, can you please give me some specific examples of what ALPA Canada has accomplished at the federal level?

The new FT/DT rules.

When did Canada get new FT/DT rules?

If you are not aware of what is going on with FT/DT rules then you are not paying attention. I guess in your world you just snap your fingers and get what you want? If you want to see what the world looks like when you are disconnected from the political decision makers then just look at how the AC pilots did in their last round of collective bargaining. It will take many years if ever to eliminate a B-scale that will eventually cover almost one quarter of the membership.

Yes, I believe that ALPA could be more effective on the foreign pilot issue. The debate appears to be one of strategy not goals. However, the ultimate proof will be in what transpires during the 2013-2014 winter season at the vacation operators. But you clearly are not aware of the multitude of safety, technical, administrative, regulatory, and political issues that the ALPA Canada Board and its committees deal with on a regular basis. This is but one of many issues. Having said that, it is a critical one.

You are missing my point. I am very much aware of the many issues that the Canada Board is working on. The problem is that they have never actually gotten anything done. The FT/DT issue is a tough one for sure, especially since our current duty regs are far more lenient (read dangerous) than the ones in the US even before the Colgan accident. ALPA worked very hard at getting change down there, but even that would not have happened without significant public outrage at the fatigue factors that led to that crash. The irony here is that there is now a relatively scientific model (the new US regs) for Canada to use to formulate new duty regs for all of us, but they are not getting anywhere. A large reason, I'm sure, is that the Canadian carriers are lobbying against them as far too restrictive (read expensive).

My point is this: If the cozy relationship method that ALPA Canada has been using since its inception has effectively gotten nothing done, why should we expect any different results on the foreign pilot issue? As Gilles pointed out; this isn't even about getting rules changed. It's about getting the current rules enforced.

Let me add this: Which political party does ALPA historically support in Canadian elections? I honestly don't know the answer to this, as maybe I should.

The shouldn't support any. Reason? Because if the one you don't publicly support is not in power the governing party will not be eager to talk to you. It's about playing the game, their game. You feel that nothing is being done fast enough? You ever hear of the term "moving at the speed of government"? It's not just a saying. I have friends that worked in the PMO and other departments and they said it best when describing how "fast" things get done.

ALPA doesn't want to take on the government over psoriasis media but rather in person. Fine, I pay them my dues because they can do their job better than I can. Do I feel they should do more over social media? Yes, and I've told them as much.

teacher wrote:I would just like to make a few points.

1) I had the opportunity to talk to Dan Adamus of ALPA Canada recently. When asked why they are not in the news making the issue more well known he said this. They have been working on this behind the scenes for YEARS. Progress on this issue will not happen by embarrassing the government on TV. Yes, they have had 50 meetings with various departments and ministers but that is how change is done. Embarrass the Harper government and criticize them on national television and the doors are closed, done, finished and no more talking which means no progress and no changes.

2) millions of flights have been taken by Canadians from the US. That is also the use of foriegn pilots. Consumers care about cost, not jobs.

3) Playing the safety card is a red herring and everyone knows it. We're not getting incompetent pilots from 3rd world countries. As much as i've loved the youtube videos of bush pilots up north doing what Canadian pilots do this is a jobs issue, not a safety one. It's twisting reality to make our point.

I walked away from the discussion with a better understanding of the methods being used and why. Are things happening slowly? Yes. But that's government for you. Now, my 2 cents:

1) There are over 300,000 foriegn workers in Canada. Just over 200 are pilots. You guys get where I going with this? Do you really think it's a priority for these departments?

2) Has anyone who marched on parliament hill demanding to be heard ever been heard with this government? Do protestors get their 10 minutes with the PMO? Not these days. Do I agree with it? Of course not but it is the way things are run these days so you have to play the game or lose before you ever started.

Gilles, I support your fight, I do. However, how many meetings with the labour and industry minister have you had? You have done a great job bringing us all up to speed on this is issue. I will 100% agree that you've been way more informative than ALPA BUT ALPAs updates have all been internal for the reasons stated above. They don't want to be heard by the public, they want to be heard by those that can affect change and actually change the legislation and the rules. The best way is quietly without making a scene. If that's the way they know is best than so be it.

I will continue to support the fight against this misuse of foriegn aircrew in Canada but I will do it knowing that behind the scenes ALPA IS ACTUALLY working on the matter quietly to make changes, even of they don't do it in the public eye.

The intersection between politics and the application of public policy (ie what senior public servants do) is ultimately centered on only one question. Will the public policy in question positively or negatively affect votes for the governing party in the next election ? I think the recent foreign workers controversy has real traction, and not in a good way for the Conservatives.

There will never be a new Chinese national miner working underground in any mine in Canada before the next election because that person will be on the 6 pm TV news on the first shift of their first day. There is no way to spin this as a good news story so the miners union has already won.

The problem with ACPA's approach is while you absolutely have to keep a steady working level dialogue with the public servants, The reality from personal experience, is years of relationship building mean nothing if what you want is contrary to what the departments political masters want.

The only real leverage you have on public servants is the prevailing political winds. ACPA has been given a huge gift as result of the broader foreign worker controversy. It doesn't matter that only 200 pilots are affected, what matters to the TC executive level is whether the issue could move from the application of public policy to the political sphere. The usual way this happens is when an issue starts getting media attention. TC will do almost anything to keep this issue from gaining a media profile.

ACPA has been given an opportunity to move the goal posts permanently in a way which will directly improve the job prospects for Canadian pilots. This window will not be open forever so they need to go all in on this. You won't win this one in Tower C, you will win it on the front page of the Toronto Star.

teacher wrote:The shouldn't support any (political party). Reason? Because if the one you don't publicly support is not in power the governing party will not be eager to talk to you. It's about playing the game, their game.

And herein lies yet another significant difference between ALPA on either side of the border. ALPA National, through ALPA PAC, is a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party because they have historically been more pro-labour than the Republicans. Conversely, ALPA Canada is trying to be everyone's friend all of the time, which is an inherently flawed way to go about affecting change. Obviously, private campaign financing doesn't really happen up here (Thank God!), but the sentiment and message are what really matters. ALPA Canada doesn't want to step on anyone's toes at all, EVER. As a result of this, nothing gets done. The lack of any real progress on FT/DT in Canada --YEARS after them being rewritten south of the border -- is a perfect example.

I pay ALPA dues so they can negotiate collective agreements, protect me when I need a lawyer, and file grievances when the company shits on our contract. I do not pay them to cozy up to Ottawa. If there was a return on investment, I might feel otherwise. But there isn't.

It comes down to this: Sometimes you have to take a stand, even if it pisses people off. Now is that time for ALPA Canada. If Dan Adamus is unable or unwilling to recognize this, then he needs to step down, or be removed. Honestly, guys; this is the time. It will not come again. And once it's gone, it's gone for good.

As an aside to the Jazz guys and girls out there: I may be mistaken, but didn't Harper and Co. secretly threaten back-to-work legislation if you didn't immediately return to the table after your successful strike vote during your last contract negotiations? So how, exactly, did Adamus and his cozy relationship help you in that situation?

rudder wrote: Gilles,

If the ALPA update on the application of reciprocity is accurate, and it is also true that the number of SW/CJ pilots going to Europe this sumer on a non-wet lease basis is ZERO, and wet lease pilots do NOT count towards the head count for reciprocity, then the number of foreign pilots that should receive approval under the CIC reciprocal program this winter will be ZERO.

Now, if TC and the CTA and CIC and HRSDC want to start to talk about reciprocity for wet lease purposes only, then that is a different story and that would be a new benchmark that does not currently exist. The comparisons must all be apples to apples. And in that regard I hope that the facts are measured and not just the rhetoric. There are certain corporate parties that use the word 'reciprocal' in a fashion that is not even remotely close to being accurate. For example, if all 200 SW pilots participate to varying degrees in the wet lease assignments covering 7 SW aircraft in Europe this summer, then there is no credible claim to be made under the CIC reciprocal program. The only avenues available for foreign pilots would be via TFWP or straight wet leases.

When is the application deadline for companies seeking TFWP pilots for the upcoming winter season?

For reciprocity, that's the way I thought it would be applied. But I'm no longer certain, for, if you read the ALPA April 22 2013 FastRead carefully, this is what it actually says about reciprocity:

ALPA has also received assurances from CIC that foreign pilots operating under wet lease agreements would not be counted toward reciprocity.

Foreign pilots on wet lease would not count. It says nothing about Canadian pilots on wet-lease not counting. I called Brad Small, ALPA VP and brought it up, suggesting this might have been a mistake, and it has not been corrected, so I guess it means what is written, not what we thought it meant. This is far from progress. It actually allows more foreign pilots into Canada.

I think that reciprocity should be overhauled and integrated into the wet-lease authorizations: a Canadian company sends 7 aircraft to Europe on wet-lease, so is allowed to bring in 7 European aircraft on wet-lease in Canada. That would be fair and acceptable.

There is no deadline for TFWP applications. Last year, Canjet made theirs on Sept 15th. Sunwing made theirs on Oct 24 and Nov 19.
But they must fist recruit the foreign pilots, hire them, provide them with the required training and licences, do three sessions of simulator, write several exams (dangerous goods, de-icing etc) and a short line check. They must also run ads for at least 2 weeks in aviation web-sites (right here on AvCanada) and on the goverment jobbank website.

Last year, Sunwing was recruiting foreign pilots in Europe as early as June, when an internal memo was circulated at Air Berlin asking for volunteers to work in Canada.

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:
For reciprocity, that's the way I thought it would be applied. But I'm no longer certain, for, if you read the ALPA April 22 2013 FastRead carefully, this is what it actually says about reciprocity:

ALPA has also received assurances from CIC that foreign pilots operating under wet lease agreements would not be counted toward reciprocity.

Foreign pilots on wet lease would not count. It says nothing about Canadian pilots on wet-lease not counting. I called Brad Small, ALPA VP and brought it up, suggesting this might have been a mistake, and it has not been corrected, so I guess it means what is written, not what we thought it meant. This is far from progress. It actually allows more foreign pilots into Canada.

I hope that it was just a poorly written bulletin. If not, it would mean that there is a continued gross misapplication of the employment reciprocity provisions. If there is an interest in creating 'wet lease reciprocity' rules, then that is a new concept that will need to be further evaluated and defined.

Reciprocal employment work permits

The basis of a reciprocal employment work permit is subsection 205(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) which allows issuance of work permits to foreign nationals whose work in Canada will "create or maintain reciprocal employment of Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada in other countries". This specialized category has historically flown under the radar, but can offer great flexibility for an organization, especially if it sends Canadians abroad for business purposes.

The policy behind this category recognizes that formal and informal international exchange programs provide Canadians and permanent residents (and their employers) with the opportunity to gain international experience and to be part of a cultural exchange. Thus, in circumstances where it can be shown that temporary opportunities exist for Canadians overseas, the Canadian government is willing to facilitate the issuance of reciprocal employment work permits to inbound temporary foreign workers. Strict job-for-job reciprocity is not necessary to obtain a reciprocal employment work permit, as long as opportunities for Canadians and permanent residents to take similar positions abroad, in the same general order of magnitude, can be demonstrated.

Reciprocity can be demonstrated through a copy of a your organization's global mobility policy, any relevant human resources policy that contemplates overseas placement or training opportunities, excerpts from a collective agreement contemplating the seasonal hiring of foreign workers and overseas opportunities for Canadian employees, or a list of Canadian workers employed within a related entity overseas.

Some examples of circumstances when a reciprocal employment work permit may be issued include:

Organizations who require an influx of skilled workers from abroad seasonally, and who also send personnel overseas to work in the off-season, may be able to obtain reciprocal employment approval to bring foreign workers to Canada on a seasonal basis as long as some reciprocity can be demonstrated;

Companies with international management training programs that rotate senior managers and executives through affiliated operations in several countries can often demonstrate a sufficient level of reciprocity to obtain work permits for foreign workers bound for Canadian operations; and

Employers that have foreign workers coming to work in Canada and have operations in other countries which employ Canadians. In these circumstances, detailed written submissions about the employment opportunities available to Canadians abroad are required.

As this type of work permit gains popularity, immigration officials are becoming increasingly familiar with reciprocal employment work permits and are more and more inclined to issue them in appropriate circumstances. That said, given the unique nature of this work permit category, it is best practice to secure an LMO exemption opinion from a temporary foreign worker unit before sending a foreign worker to the border to make a first-time reciprocal employment work permit application.


http://www.smss.com/abcnewsletter/AEC/A ... icle2.html

ALPA speaks out!

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1154925 ... er-program

ALPA Responds to Government's Announcement of Changes to Temporary Foreign Worker Program

OTTAWA, April 29, 2013 /CNW/ - The Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l (ALPA) issued the following statement in response to the announcement by the Human Resources and Skills Development (HRSDC) and Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism departments of changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. For years, ALPA has led efforts to tighten the rules governing the program under which Canadian airlines are currently able to augment their crews on a seasonal basis with foreign pilots.

"ALPA has long-advocated for reforming the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to ensure that Canadian airline pilots benefit from available aviation job opportunities. Of the announced changes, the requirement that employers who rely on temporary foreign workers must have a firm plan in place to transition to a Canadian workforce over time through the Labour Market Opinion (LMO) process is welcomed.

"This specific policy change is in line with information recently obtained by ALPA that one of the airlines which relies heavily on the program will, in the future, be expected to make investments in training for Canadian pilots commensurate with 25 percent of their annual requirement for foreign pilots via the LMO process, thereby gradually eliminating the need for foreign crews.

"While we have made progress, ALPA remains concerned that aviation jobs continue to be outsourced to foreign workers at a time when a number of highly qualified Canadian pilots are unemployed. Through our ongoing work with regulators and legislators, ALPA continues to advocate for further reforms to this and other programs under which foreign pilots are hired. We will not let up in our efforts to protect our members' jobs and bring furloughed Canadian pilots back to work."

Founded in 1931, ALPA is the world's largest pilot union, representing more than 50,000 pilots at 34 airlines in the United States and Canada, including the 2,800 Canadian flight crewmembers who fly for Air Transat, Bearskin, Calm Air, Canadian North, CanJet, First Air, Jazz Aviation, Kelowna Flightcraft, and Wasaya. Visit the ALPA website at www.alpa.org.

SOURCE: Air Line Pilots Association, Intl

For further information:
CONTACT:
Capt. Dan Adamus, ALPA Canada Board president, 613/293-0882, Dan.Adamus@alpa.org

So if I read this correctly, because Sunwing employed 119 foreign pilots through LMOs this year, they are only allowed 89 foreign pilots next year as long as they hire and train 30 Canadian pilots ?

Then they will we allowed another 105 under the reciprocal agreement, for they are sending 7 aircraft and 105 pilots to Europe this summer.

That comes out to 194 foreign pilots.

Then they will wet-lease whatever extra aircraft they need, with foreign crew, possibly another 100.

Next winter, Sunwing will still have more foreign pilots flying Sunwing aircraft than Canadians.

And ALPA is happy with itself. Go tell that to the ALPA members who lost their jobs in Oct 2012.

My position is that Canadian pilots on EI = No foreign pilots.

I read on the CBC website that the accelerated LMO process will be stopped, is this not how sunwing got their pilots from Europe this year? (well the 119 you mention, not withstanding the wetleases) Either way I think this would be good news to evening out the current number of pilots going each way.

Forgive me but,
SW has 200 or so pilots now and all are headed over seas this summer? They will be allowed to bring 194 pilots from over seas, according to Gilles. Is this not the reciprocity everyone is looking for?

Politically correct means you do things for both sides
in order to maintain the support for your party.
Whatever the resolve is, as far as the current employment
of foreign workers, it's not going to sway completely to the other
end as you may want.
Gilles, as much as you are "trying" to do something for the masses,
it still comes back to those on lay off from Transat.
Where exactly does it say that companies must hire pilots on layoff.
Sunwing has secured work for three more aircraft year round, and thus
has hired permanent full time pilots to fill those positions. I don't believe any
were from Transat, most probably because they jsut got called back to Transat.
Says to me, they would rather take the chance of being laid off again as opposed
to coming to Sunwing.
Sunwing did, however, hire a number of Canjet pilots who were willing to leave their
position at Canjet and commit to Sunwing full time. Even paid them $15,000 for
being endorsed.

Typical example of Sunwing abuse:

Sunwing is sending 7 aircraft to Europe on Wet-Leases

To fly these wet-leases full time they need 105 full time pilots.

If, because the pilots do not want to spend the full six month deployment in Europe or because their CA says they don't have to, they rotate 200 pilots in and out of Europe over six month to cover the work that could have been done by the 105. Does this allow them to import 200 pilots for six months in exchange ?

Furthermore, Sunwing is sending only Wet-Leases to Europe. Seven aircraft. In exchange, they should not be allowed to to import any European pilots to fly Canadian registered aircraft. They, should, in exchange, be allowed to import SEVEN wet-leased aircraft.

But you will see what they will do.

They will send those seven wet -leases to Europe and try to make it look like they sent 200 pilots to Europe.

In "reciprocity" they will ask work permits for 200 foreign pilots.

CIC may wisen-up and say no, you only get 105 foreign pilots

Then they will ask HRSDC for another 89 under the TFWP. Which they will get because they will have demonstrated that they hired and trained 30 Canadians, fulfilling the new more restrictive requirements.

Then they will go to the CTA and ask for foreign Wet-Leases. That is an insult.

The seven aircraft they will send to Europe, they will use to ask for reciprocal work permits to CIC. While Sunwing considers that the Wet-Leases they send overseas count as fulfilling the reciprocal obligations, they do not consider the foreign wet-leases they import from Europe as counting in the exchange. And CIC and the CTA will agree.

It's like asking someone to exchange a dollar bill for four quarters, and then asking for the dollar bill back after pocketing the quarters.

Last summer, Sunwing sent four aircraft on wet-leases to Europe, with about 60 pilots.

In exchange, CIC allowed them about 96 work permits for foreign pilots under the Reciprocal deal.

They also asked the CTA for authorization to import 7 wet-leased aircraft. The CTA approved all seven (2 B-767 and 5 B-737), all of which were in Canada 6 months.

Then they asked HRSDC for 119 LMOs.

But ALPA is happy with all the progress and salutes the government for answering their calls for reform.......

AsheetMaDraws wrote: Where exactly does it say that companies must hire pilots on layoff..

Here:

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/foreign ... ndex.shtml

Temporary foreign workers (TFW) can help employers meet their labour needs when Canadian citizens and permanent residents are not available.

How about the 30 ALPA members who got laid off from First Air ?

Do you think that a pilot who can land a 737 on a snow covered 5000 foot gravel runway in Canada's arctic at -40C will have trouble putting the same aircraft down on Varadero's 10,000 foot concrete runway at 25 degrees Celcius ? Is he not qualified ?

How about the Hercules pilot who hauls fuel and lands the Herc on pack-ice, is he not qualified to haul tourists to Cancun ?

If an employer is required to hire a laid off pilot, is it reasonable to ask that pilot to resign from their current job from which they were on furlough? Obviously this would be to prevent them from immediately hopping back when recalled while leaving their new employer short staffed and out the cost of training...

florch wrote:If an employer is required to hire a laid off pilot, is it reasonable to ask that pilot to resign from their current job from which they were on furlough? Obviously this would be to prevent them from immediately hopping back when recalled while leaving their new employer short staffed and out the cost of training...

So that pilot is asked to sign a bond to cover the cost of his training AND to resign from previous employer ?

If the bond is already there to protect the investment made in the training, what is the purpose of the resignation ?

florch wrote:If an employer is required to hire a laid off pilot, is it reasonable to ask that pilot to resign from their current job from which they were on furlough? Obviously this would be to prevent them from immediately hopping back when recalled while leaving their new employer short staffed and out the cost of training...

I've heard from some TS pilots who interviewed for SW recently they were asked to resign....and sign a bond which is double dipping IMHO, however that being said I believe a few did take the position. Best of luck to them!

AC and WJ required laid off TS pilots to resign as a condition of employment, a few have left TS for good to pursue those opportunities.

Cheers

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:

florch wrote:If an employer is required to hire a laid off pilot, is it reasonable to ask that pilot to resign from their current job from which they were on furlough? Obviously this would be to prevent them from immediately hopping back when recalled while leaving their new employer short staffed and out the cost of training...

So that pilot is asked to sign a bond to cover the cost of his training AND to resign from previous employer ?

If the bond is already there to protect the investment made in the training, what is the purpose of the resignation ?

Both are common, enough, and I'm not here to argue the merits of either. I just heard - second hand only, I'll say right off the bat - that some Transat guys refused jobs offered by SW when they were required to resign as a condition of employment. This is a little different than the story that's going on here that AT guys were being ignored for jobs. There is also the inconvenient timeline issue of the AT pilots being laid off too late to be useable by SW by the time hiring and training needed to be commenced.

So where does the truth lie?

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:

florch wrote:If an employer is required to hire a laid off pilot, is it reasonable to ask that pilot to resign from their current job from which they were on furlough? Obviously this would be to prevent them from immediately hopping back when recalled while leaving their new employer short staffed and out the cost of training...

So that pilot is asked to sign a bond to cover the cost of his training AND to resign from previous employer ?

If the bond is already there to protect the investment made in the training, what is the purpose of the resignation ?

Wait a minute, why are these mutually exclusive? One stops a competitor from scooping back an employee at the least convenient time just to hurt the new employer, and the other stops an employee from leaving to go to a third party with their shiny new endorsement. Makes sense to me.