T/A Vote

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog

turbo-beaver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: vancouver

T/A Vote

Post by turbo-beaver »

Below is part of the Agreement made with the OSFI and the Airline and employees to pay back the pension deficit.

Why would the MEC, and whoever made this agreement ( outside the normal bargaining process) even consider any arrangement to change the onus on the airline to pay the money back to the pension plan that they misappropriated from the plan prior to CCAA? They are obliged to pay these funds back under the following agreement. Why even consider any changes to this agreement?

Is anyone actually contemplating voting in favour?


NORMAL COSTS

6. A plan shall be funded in each plan year by a contribution equal to the normal cost of the plan.

SPECIAL PAYMENTS

7. (1) No special payment is required to be made in respect of the period beginning April 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2009 and in respect of the 2010 plan year.

(2) The amount payable to each plan for a plan year is equal to the amount determined by the formula

A × B/C

where

A is the lesser of

(a) the maximum past service contribution permitted under the Income Tax Act for the plan year, and

(b) one of the following amounts:

(i) in respect of the 2011 plan year, $150,000,000,

(ii) in respect of the 2012 plan year, $175,000,000, or

(iii) in respect of the 2013 plan year, $225,000,000;

B is the amount of the solvency deficit of the plan as at January 1 of the plan year; and

C is the aggregate amount of the solvency deficits for all plans as at January 1 of the plan year.

(3) An actuarial gain shall not be used to reduce the amount of any special payments due to the pension fund.

REMITTANCES

8. Payments to a plan shall be made as follows:

(a) the normal cost contributions shall be paid as an equal percentage of the anticipated remuneration to be paid to the members during the plan year and shall be paid monthly and not later than 30 days after the end of the month;

(b) the special payments shall be made in equal monthly instalments, with each instalment being due 30 days after the end of each month;

(c) the contributions of plan members shall be remitted to the administrator not later than 30 days after the end of the period in respect of which contributions were deducted; and

(d) the administrator shall immediately pay into a plan any amount remitted to the administrator.

SOLVENCY RATIO

9. For the purpose of paragraph 10.1(2)(b) of the Act, the prescribed solvency ratio level is the solvency ratio calculated on the basis of the most recent actuarial report filed in respect of the plan with the Superintendent in accordance with subsection 12(3) of the Act.

RIGHTS TO INFORMATION

10. The following information is prescribed for the purposes of subparagraph 28(1)(b)(iv) of the Act:

(a) the amount of the solvency deficit as shown in the last actuarial report filed with the Superintendent;

(b) the fact that the plan is being funded in accordance with these Regulations;

(c) the amount of payments, other than normal cost, that was required to be paid to the plan in the plan year covered by the statement;

(d) the amount of special payments that would have been paid to the plan in the year covered by the statement if the plan had been funded in accordance with Part 1 or 2 of the Solvency Funding Relief Regulations, 2009 and section 9 of the Act;

(e) if the solvency ratio of the plan is less than one,

(i) the value and description of the ratio,

(ii) a description of the measures the administrator has implemented or will implement to bring that ratio to one, and

(iii) the extent to which the member’s benefit would be reduced if the plan were terminated and wound up with that solvency ratio; and

(f) if the solvency ratio is greater than or equal to one, a statement that the plan is fully funded based on the most recent solvency ratio of the plan.

CEASE TO BE IN FORCE

11. These Regulations cease to be in force on January 30, 2014.

COMING INTO FORCE

12. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

REGULATORY IMPACT
---------- ADS -----------
 
frog
turbo-beaver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: vancouver

Re: T/A Vote

Post by turbo-beaver »

from ACPA negots website.....

Pension
. Increased restriction on the Company (more restrictive than current pension law) to prevent pension funding holidays.
. Pension MPU increases through 2015, without increasing pension solvency deficit.
. Defined Contribution Pension Plan for new hire pilots.
. Pension changes to manage solvency deficit negotiated (to be fully explained in a separate newsletter)

Now, while waiting to see what is going to be explained in this separate newsletter, it is obvious that on the ACPA negots website, the daily snow job on the tentative agreement which was responsible (and rightly so) for the recall of the MEC Chairperson, continues. This is the obvious attempt of what is left of the MEC to sell this agreement to the pilot group.
Why? Are all these guys in bed with the Company Management? Why such a massive sale job?

Take the example above....increased restriction on the Company ( more restrictive than current pension law) to prevent pension holidays....

Prior to CCAA, Air Canada had asked and were granted pension holidays on making contributions to the pension. Knowing that the pension was underfunded and asking for this holiday, was fraud. The Company was charged, and the result was the agreement to pay these funds back. That's why Victor Li went home.
Both the OSFI, and our ACPA pension guys were asleep at the switch.

The agreement with the OSFI has lots of built in protections. Why negotiate changes that would allow the company to walk away from their responsibility to bring the funding to 100%
---------- ADS -----------
 
frog
teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2450
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: T/A Vote

Post by teacher »

Does ACPA have a rule that MEC or other union members in leadership positions have to wait a certain amount of time before taking managment positions winthin Air Canada?
---------- ADS -----------
 
https://eresonatemedia.com/
https://bambaits.ca/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCWit8N8YCJSvSaiSw5EWWeQ
turbo-beaver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: vancouver

Re: T/A Vote

Post by turbo-beaver »

No, they do not. There has been a long history of MEC members taking management positions after their service to their unions dating back years. Every once and awhile, the union has discussed having management pilots lose their seniority once they elect to go to the dark side. Not a bad idea actually.
---------- ADS -----------
 
frog
User avatar
Thirteentennorth
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:06 pm

Re: T/A Vote

Post by Thirteentennorth »

turbo-beaver wrote:No, they do not. There has been a long history of MEC members taking management positions after their service to their unions dating back years. Every once and awhile, the union has discussed having management pilots lose their seniority once they elect to go to the dark side. Not a bad idea actually.
I proposed this back in the late 80's and brought it up every decade since, especially when there were PM's [permanent management] creating havoc among the troops, then they would blithely resume their protected seniority positions when they inevitably lost out in the frequent corporate shuffles. It was a matter of "Choose ye this day who ye will serve." Too many PM's had/have their cake and continued to eat that of the line pilots. They should be off the seniority list once they accept a permanent management position, and if they want to come back to the line it should be BOTL.

P.S. How's my ole Martin-pickin' pal?

P.P.S. Couldn't agree with ya more about the pensions. You've nailed it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The 4 most important words for a pilot: BRAKES SET, GO-AROUND!
dying2fly
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:55 am

Re: T/A Vote

Post by dying2fly »

Pardon my ignorance guys but what is going on with this TA then? Its hard to keep up with all these different threads going in different directions! I've worked hard all my career to hopefully one day get into AC and now all this crap is going on... dunno what to say

Is there a voting date set?
---------- ADS -----------
 
turbo-beaver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: vancouver

Re: T/A Vote

Post by turbo-beaver »

The vote is scheduled to start May 09 at noon and run for 10 days. The last few days the NC has been sending out newsletters on various issues of the TA that is obviously suppose to enlighten the pilot group.
What they could not sell the guys at the roadshows, at least the ones that were not cancelled, they are trying to sell with these newsletters.
They must think the troops are really stupid.
It is really hard to understand what is going on with this TA.....who is the driving force and why the MEC would even entertain a TA that was reached outside the normal bargaining process and why the NC would support it. It was obvious at the roadshow I attended that the MEC supported it 100% and were pushing for acceptance. I guess they cancelled the Toronto roadshow when they thought they may not get out of it alive.
So, why waste the time and money on this vote? The noose around the MEC Chairperson's neck should have been a clear enough signal that this agreement is a diabolical piece of garbage deviously devised by CR himself.

P.S..I am fine my old friend.....hope you are well.
---------- ADS -----------
 
frog
dying2fly
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:55 am

Re: T/A Vote

Post by dying2fly »

Thanks for the run down. So if pilots vote 'No', does that mean the AC management can't go on with the new changes (i.e. the LCC carrier and the B-scale pay), or will they go ahead anyways?

If they can't go ahead, then I shouldn't be too concerned since judging by reading these forums most people are against it and will vote NO. Or am I missing something?

Cheers,
D2F
---------- ADS -----------
 
El Comat
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:01 pm
Location: Sudbury

Re: T/A Vote

Post by El Comat »

Does anyone know the details of the proposed DC pension (contribution rates/company match)? Also, are you voting on a carbon copy of the T/A, or has it been tweaked slightly in hopes of it passing by a hair?

EC
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Thirteentennorth
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:06 pm

Re: T/A Vote

Post by Thirteentennorth »

My sources tell me that the TA has been sent out for ratification exactly as originally worded, no tweaking, nada. I predict it to be turned down with around 75-80% NO vote. Both AC and the MEC have seriously underestimated the visceral opposition to this TA. As my old pal TurboBeaver said, this one could have been written by Vlad the Impaler himself.

Of course, the MEC and the NC are in full "sky-is-falling" spin mode. Fortunately, for a majority of the pilots, their BS detectors are in full search-and-destroy mode. Better no TA than a bad one. When this TA is turned down, the AC pilots will just keep on operating under the terms of the present collective agreement until a new CA is negotiated.

And for those of you wannabies, remember that the current members of ACPA are also voting for you, to ensure that when you get on the property, you will have some decent working conditions. That's why you should listen to Turbo Beaver. He spent more time in front of the Chief Pilot than most of you have flying hours. and epitomizes the principle that you leave the workplace a better place than when you arrived.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The 4 most important words for a pilot: BRAKES SET, GO-AROUND!
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: T/A Vote

Post by Rockie »

This union simply doesn't get that what little credibility they had going into this has been sytematically obliterated by their own hand. When anger turns to wholesale ridicule only the seriously mentally deficient could miss the message.

Every single one of them should resign and that includes those who disagree but remain silent throughout this disgrace. How anybody could tolerate their name attached to this complete betrayal is beyond me.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mig29
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:47 pm

Re: T/A Vote

Post by Mig29 »

Rockie wrote:Every single one of them should resign and that includes those who disagree but remain silent throughout this disgrace. How anybody could tolerate their name attached to this complete betrayal is beyond me.
I have to give you a big :smt023 on this Rockie!!
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Thirteentennorth
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:06 pm

Re: T/A Vote

Post by Thirteentennorth »

Rockie wrote:This union simply doesn't get that what little credibility they had going into this has been sytematically obliterated by their own hand. When anger turns to wholesale ridicule only the seriously mentally deficient could miss the message.

Every single one of them should resign and that includes those who disagree but remain silent throughout this disgrace. How anybody could tolerate their name attached to this complete betrayal is beyond me.
Rockie, couldn't agree more, but if you dig deeper, I think that you will find the same Machiavellian hands manipulating this whole process that have been manipulating other contentious issues...if you get my drift.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The 4 most important words for a pilot: BRAKES SET, GO-AROUND!
FADEC
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:31 pm

Re: T/A Vote

Post by FADEC »

This TA should be shipped back to Transylvania from whence it sprung; VOTE NO!

Mr CR is not your friend, however much he tried to come across as all warm and fuzzy in his second coming. Ask Calin what his pension was after his first short stint at AC. Monte was fired because he refused to attack your pension, and CR decided to do it himself for his own greater glory and enrichment.

This MEC has wasted tons of your money already. IF mandatory retirement had gone away five years ago as suggested, the pension would be in far better shape. The MEC was told this by their own "Experts". Simple Grade Three arithmetic. If a retiring pilot gets 100K per year, that is a million out of the pension every year for every ten. The Actuarial effect is greater, (at least double) because that money stays in the plan longer, and the pilot collects for a shorter time. Suppose 100 pilots per year had stayed an extra year for the last five years; now ask your friendly local actuary (as I did) what the effect would be on the AC Pilot Pension.

The group bringing you this TA is the group that turned down the idea; perhaps they couldn't understand the concept, or perhaps they were thinking of their own short term advancement rather than thinking long term stability.

Watch for these geniuses to turn up in Management as happened to the CALPA Execs when the pilots turfed them; hopefully our current VP is smarter than the VP of the day.

As for taking seniority away from Management Pilots, it is a bad idea. At least they can resign and go back on the line when asked to do intolerable things. The F/A's did this little trick and got the "Management" they deserve. If you want "Experts" from all sorts of strange corners (Stores, Sales, etc as the F/A's got) then take away the seniority out of jealousy. Management is a thankless job (as is Union work) You have a better chance of getting decent managment if they have an out.
---------- ADS -----------
 
chatman
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:32 am

Re: T/A Vote

Post by chatman »

Lol c'mon guys just vote again to save em for the second time.
---------- ADS -----------
 
FADEC
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:31 pm

Re: T/A Vote

Post by FADEC »

Just to pick one of many holes in the ACPA letter "explaining" the TA. Regarding the issue of Early Retirement, ACPA says only one or two retire early in a given year, so why not change the magic number to 90/30, since it won't matter (paraphrasing).

Only thing is, their number isn't true. Air Canada's "Expert" stated in sworn testimony, that pilots do not retire early except when there is an Early Retirement Incentive Plan of some sort. When he was asked how come the average age of retirement was 59.2 if no pilot retires early, he was at a loss. This "Expert" was directed to go away and come back with the correct information. He did so, and guess what; lots of pilots retire early every year, and their average age is 55 and some months, thus the average age of retirement is less than 60.

With the new provision of 90/30, that (retiring at 55) cannot happen, unless someone was younger than 20 when they joined. So if no-one goes early, why change the rule? If pilots are using the current 80/25 rule, (and they are, by AC sworn testimony) changing the rule is worth more than we are being told. The ACPA letter justifying the TA is full of holes; AC and ACPA don't think you are smart enough to understand. Are they right?
---------- ADS -----------
 
turbo-beaver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: vancouver

Re: T/A Vote

Post by turbo-beaver »

As you vote, remember not only does the Corporation have a responsibility to the shareholders of the company, but they also have a duty to the employees. Before they take their big fat bonuses every year, and before they pad their own pensions, they should be living up to their responsibility to pay back the deficit in the employee's pensions. That is number one. There has been much discussion on this pension being deferred compensation....that is money they owe to the employees of this airline. Now it is time, before anything else, to pay this money back. And that includes shelving the 787....if you can't afford them, don't buy them. If you are manipulating the books of this airline to dodge this responsibility, you should go to jail. Time for the OSFI to wake up as well.
---------- ADS -----------
 
frog
yycflyguy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2786
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:18 am

Re: T/A Vote

Post by yycflyguy »

And that includes shelving the 787....if you can't afford them, don't buy them.
That was financed for years ago. With the Boeing delays and penalties Air Canada is making money on not having them on the property.
---------- ADS -----------
 
FADEC
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:31 pm

Re: T/A Vote

Post by FADEC »

So CR says; "we are an airline of 26000 supporting 29000". How did that happen? Well, CERBERUS sold off other parts of the company; Maintenance, (AVEOS), Aeroplan, etc. Now CR is giving the flying to other companies; Air Georgian, JAZZ, Air Canada Express, "LCC". AC (abetted by ACPA) continues to try to maintain the "Air Canada Policy" concerning Mandatory Retirement, where good employees are forced to stop contributing and start collecting. So whose fault is it that there are fewer employees to support the retirees?

Management can stop making the company smaller, and revise the pension contribution to make the pension viable; it's actually pretty simple. AC uses Mercer as a Pension consultant; Mercer can tell AC how to fix this; Ask their actuary!

insist that your Union defend your situation; or find another Union to represent you!

If CR cannot figure this out, the Board will turf him, but you have to give them an alternative; Bring all the flying inside AC. Contract the Ground Handling if necessary; bring the maintenance inside! Don't book off when you are not sick; don't come to work when you will make someone else sick. It can be done if you want it!
---------- ADS -----------
 
duranium
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:45 am

Re: T/A Vote

Post by duranium »

FADEC wrote:So CR says; "we are an airline of 26000 supporting 29000". How did that happen? Well, CERBERUS sold off other parts of the company; Maintenance, (AVEOS), Aeroplan, etc. Now CR is giving the flying to other companies; Air Georgian, JAZZ, Air Canada Express, "LCC". AC (abetted by ACPA) continues to try to maintain the "Air Canada Policy" concerning Mandatory Retirement, where good employees are forced to stop contributing and start collecting. So whose fault is it that there are fewer employees to support the retirees?

Management can stop making the company smaller, and revise the pension contribution to make the pension viable; it's actually pretty simple. AC uses Mercer as a Pension consultant; Mercer can tell AC how to fix this; Ask their actuary!

insist that your Union defend your situation; or find another Union to represent you!

If CR cannot figure this out, the Board will turf him, but you have to give them an alternative; Bring all the flying inside AC. Contract the Ground Handling if necessary; bring the maintenance inside! Don't book off when you are not sick; don't come to work when you will make someone else sick. It can be done if you want it!
What you wrote makes so much sense that no management type will dare touch this with a 20 mile pole. Ground Handling is one of the big and principal reasons AC cannot match the competition. When you have to shell out 50 G per annum in direct salary plus an other pile of fringe benefits that add up to over $10000/ year to mostly untrained, uneducated types, ( 8500 + ) no company can compete. Look at the salary Hudson General pays, that should give you all an eye opener. AC must find a way to unload that anvill around their neck, then the next one in the crosshair should be the F/As
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: T/A Vote

Post by Rockie »

duranium wrote:AC (abetted by ACPA) continues to try to maintain the "Air Canada Policy" concerning Mandatory Retirement, where good employees are forced to stop contributing and start collecting. So whose fault is it that there are fewer employees to support the retirees?
I've never understood the company position on mandatory retirement of pilots. Their salary costs are pretty much the same as long as they continue to fly the same type and number of aircraft, so it only makes sense from a company perspective to keep people around longer to reduce training costs and provide much needed relief to the pension. Air Canada knows they can easily accommodate pilots between 60 and 65 with the new ICAO rules that are in place, so why spend so much time and money fighting what they know to be an unwinnable battle? Could it be to appease ACPA?

I've speculated before that the company may be supporting ACPA on this in return for a quid pro quo. We may have seen that quid pro quo with this TA, and ACPA's total support in creating it and then selling it to the members. Afterall, the guys who brought us this TA are the same guys driving the age 60 strategy.

If ACPA fails Calin Rovinescu and this TA gets voted down, I suspect company support for maintaining mandatory retirement will disappear also.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
TheSuit
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:39 pm

Re: T/A Vote

Post by TheSuit »

duranium wrote:What you wrote makes so much sense that no management type will dare touch this with a 20 mile pole. Ground Handling is one of the big and principal reasons AC cannot match the competition. When you have to shell out 50 G per annum in direct salary plus an other pile of fringe benefits that add up to over $10000/ year to mostly untrained, uneducated types, ( 8500 + ) no company can compete. Look at the salary Hudson General pays, that should give you all an eye opener. AC must find a way to unload that anvill around their neck, then the next one in the crosshair should be the F/As
More than a little self serving, no?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
yyz monkey
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:36 am
Location: CNC3

Re: T/A Vote

Post by yyz monkey »

TheSuit wrote:
duranium wrote:What you wrote makes so much sense that no management type will dare touch this with a 20 mile pole. Ground Handling is one of the big and principal reasons AC cannot match the competition. When you have to shell out 50 G per annum in direct salary plus an other pile of fringe benefits that add up to over $10000/ year to mostly untrained, uneducated types, ( 8500 + ) no company can compete. Look at the salary Hudson General pays, that should give you all an eye opener. AC must find a way to unload that anvill around their neck, then the next one in the crosshair should be the F/As
More than a little self serving, no?
Just a bit. I'll get mine and throw everyone under the bus to get it. God forbid it ever comes to the pilots walking the line - I'll make sure that everyone on the ramp hears this opinion.

It's funny that this poster has the gall to sit there and bitch about how much ramp makes (without any supporting proof) while the pilots are negotiating for monthly uniform cleaning costs, full coverage of uniform costs & $200 every two years for shoes.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The Theory of Flight - Because even after 100 years, we're still not sure it works!
the original tony
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:18 pm

Re: T/A Vote

Post by the original tony »

F!?K the agents. F;,K the rampies and the FA's can join them.
People that get trained and online in the same time it takes for a pilot to get
through the interview process??? They need a "fair" deal?
So proud to name their strike captains and get what they deserve.... Try this:
Bring in a truck load of kiosks and the agents can kiss off. A few new belt loaders and the rampies can pound sand. Get a few "younger" guys/ gals that speak a few words of French and know how not to bitch at a second request for coffee and voila!!! Strike averted.
Last time I walked down younge on a Friday night I saw several "service directors"
That I'd rather stare at in J than club 60 and the heavy weights. Get it over with.
Fix and fly planes. That's what an airline needs. Everything else is expendable. Managers to manage managers? Kiss my big white.......
How to fix an airline 101.
Do we have pilots that are mean, arrogant? Sure do. But we aren't the front line meeting and dealing with pax 24/7. And quite rudely. Quite often.
Having Fa's sleeping on the floor of AC?? DURING the flight?
Calling in fatigued for the next flight then getting drafted to wakefulness?? Very professional.
If pilots started punching in false duty times for other pilots and got caught, you think us going on strike would help??? It did for some groups.
Enough pandering to these groups. Bring them inline like they are doing with the pilots.


Tony
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by the original tony on Wed May 11, 2011 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: T/A Vote

Post by Rockie »

Pointless discussion from either direction. Phrased another way each employee group is responsible for negotiating their own contract. Pilots don't negotiate ramp personel contracts and rampies are not responsible for ours. Each has every right and is expected to defend their own WAWCON.

The other day I overheard a mechanic complaining to a friend that they were way more skilled than pilots and should therefore get paid more. Absurd...but not because I think pilots are more skilled than mechanics. We each have different skill sets that don't easily measure up against the other. Apples and oranges.

If mechanics end up getting paid more with better benefits than pilots it's not because they are more skilled at their jobs, it's because they are more skilled at negotiating. That's it.

Lately Air Canada pilots are proving that a grade 6 class would be more skilled at negotiating.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”