COVID MOA 2

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

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

Post Reply
snowcone
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:02 am

COVID MOA 2

Post by snowcone »

So, with the new MOA out, what is the consensus?

It seems we either have to protect the junior jobs and give up scope or roll the dice.

Since the company is already in violation of scope, why would the NC even consider bringing this to the membership.

What’s the point of saving something if there is nothing left in the end?

I do not trust the company one bit and more or less the same with ACPA. If this passes why would one even consider staying an ACPA member? Besides the occasional golf tournament and Wonderland day.....what do they do to really look out for our careers?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Tail-Chaser
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:24 pm

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by Tail-Chaser »

snowcone wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:58 pm So, with the new MOA out, what is the consensus?

It seems we either have to protect the junior jobs and give up scope or roll the dice.

Since the company is already in violation of scope, why would the NC even consider bringing this to the membership.

What’s the point of saving something if there is nothing left in the end?

I do not trust the company one bit and more or less the same with ACPA. If this passes why would one even consider staying an ACPA member? Besides the occasional golf tournament and Wonderland day.....what do they do to really look out for our careers?
Please explain where the give in scope is.
---------- ADS -----------
 
snowcone
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:02 am

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by snowcone »

Unlimited expansion of rouge... (transat?) or anything else they decide.

Further expansion of code shares.

When the company knows they already exceed the scope limits, why are we even thinking of the idea of rouge expansion?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Tail-Chaser
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:24 pm

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by Tail-Chaser »

snowcone wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:36 pm Unlimited expansion of rouge... (transat?) or anything else they decide.

Further expansion of code shares.

When the company knows they already exceed the scope limits, why are we even thinking of the idea of rouge expansion?
I get the initial hesitation but codeshares are long term ventures that likely won't have any bearing in a 6 month window. The market Rouge targets is severely depressed and likely will be for a long time. Even if they did expand Rouge, it would be curtailed at the end of the 6 month agreement. I get there's concerns about Transat but I don't think there's any information to even make an educated guess about what would happen in this scenario. The CPA scope violation is a problem. The company asked for a let twice. We've said no twice. Voting down this MOA will not rectify that scope violation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
RobertAl
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:14 am

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by RobertAl »

Sounds like fear mongering
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1207
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by BTD »

Tail-Chaser wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:09 pm
snowcone wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:58 pm So, with the new MOA out, what is the consensus?

It seems we either have to protect the junior jobs and give up scope or roll the dice.

Since the company is already in violation of scope, why would the NC even consider bringing this to the membership.

What’s the point of saving something if there is nothing left in the end?

I do not trust the company one bit and more or less the same with ACPA. If this passes why would one even consider staying an ACPA member? Besides the occasional golf tournament and Wonderland day.....what do they do to really look out for our careers?
Please explain where the give in scope is.
By definition JV and code share are part of scope. Any let on that is a let on scope by definition. See section 1.02.01.

Now what the company do with that or if we as a group care is another matter. But by default it is scope.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1207
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by BTD »

Tail-Chaser wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:46 pm
snowcone wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:36 pm Unlimited expansion of rouge... (transat?) or anything else they decide.

Further expansion of code shares.

When the company knows they already exceed the scope limits, why are we even thinking of the idea of rouge expansion?
I get the initial hesitation but codeshares are long term ventures that likely won't have any bearing in a 6 month window. The market Rouge targets is severely depressed and likely will be for a long time. Even if they did expand Rouge, it would be curtailed at the end of the 6 month agreement. I get there's concerns about Transat but I don't think there's any information to even make an educated guess about what would happen in this scenario. The CPA scope violation is a problem. The company asked for a let twice. We've said no twice. Voting down this MOA will not rectify that scope violation.
So then the question we need to ask becomes. If there is no value in short term JV and code share, as you allude to above, then why do they want a let on it? What good would it do for them? Why is it in there? That is what we need answered.

There is either value to it that we need to provide a give for, or there isn’t and they don’t need it. I don’t know the answer and I can in fact think of a few legitimate (non nefarious) reasons they would want a let, but I’ve been around long enough to have been duped by ACPA on more than one occasion. So I’ll try to consider all sides.

The old adage “easier to ask forgiveness, rather than ask permission” is creeping into my head here. This bears further investigation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Tail-Chaser
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:24 pm

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by Tail-Chaser »

BTD wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:54 pm
Tail-Chaser wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:46 pm
snowcone wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:36 pm Unlimited expansion of rouge... (transat?) or anything else they decide.

Further expansion of code shares.

When the company knows they already exceed the scope limits, why are we even thinking of the idea of rouge expansion?
I get the initial hesitation but codeshares are long term ventures that likely won't have any bearing in a 6 month window. The market Rouge targets is severely depressed and likely will be for a long time. Even if they did expand Rouge, it would be curtailed at the end of the 6 month agreement. I get there's concerns about Transat but I don't think there's any information to even make an educated guess about what would happen in this scenario. The CPA scope violation is a problem. The company asked for a let twice. We've said no twice. Voting down this MOA will not rectify that scope violation.
So then the question we need to ask becomes. If there is no value in short term JV and code share, as you allude to above, then why do they want a let on it? What good would it do for them? Why is it in there? That is what we need answered.

There is either value to it that we need to provide a give for, or there isn’t and they don’t need it. I don’t know the answer and I can in fact think of a few legitimate (non nefarious) reasons they would want a let, but I’ve been around long enough to have been duped by ACPA on more than one occasion. So I’ll try to consider all sides.

The old adage “easier to ask forgiveness, rather than ask permission” is creeping into my head here. This bears further investigation.
I've been trying to figure it out too. Best guess is trying to maintain opportunities that might arise but I don't know. It's a good question for the webinar.
---------- ADS -----------
 
planebored
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:24 am

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by planebored »

Tail-Chaser wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:46 pm
snowcone wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:36 pm Unlimited expansion of rouge... (transat?) or anything else they decide.

Further expansion of code shares.

When the company knows they already exceed the scope limits, why are we even thinking of the idea of rouge expansion?
I get the initial hesitation but codeshares are long term ventures that likely won't have any bearing in a 6 month window. The market Rouge targets is severely depressed and likely will be for a long time. Even if they did expand Rouge, it would be curtailed at the end of the 6 month agreement. I get there's concerns about Transat but I don't think there's any information to even make an educated guess about what would happen in this scenario. The CPA scope violation is a problem. The company asked for a let twice. We've said no twice. Voting down this MOA will not rectify that scope violation.
Then why is it in the MOA?

If they aren't going to use it then why fight to have it in the agreement?

Questions that need to get asked.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Jimmy_Hoffa
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:46 pm

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by Jimmy_Hoffa »

BTD wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:54 pm
Tail-Chaser wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:46 pm
snowcone wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:36 pm Unlimited expansion of rouge... (transat?) or anything else they decide.

Further expansion of code shares.

When the company knows they already exceed the scope limits, why are we even thinking of the idea of rouge expansion?
I get the initial hesitation but codeshares are long term ventures that likely won't have any bearing in a 6 month window. The market Rouge targets is severely depressed and likely will be for a long time. Even if they did expand Rouge, it would be curtailed at the end of the 6 month agreement. I get there's concerns about Transat but I don't think there's any information to even make an educated guess about what would happen in this scenario. The CPA scope violation is a problem. The company asked for a let twice. We've said no twice. Voting down this MOA will not rectify that scope violation.
So then the question we need to ask becomes. If there is no value in short term JV and code share, as you allude to above, then why do they want a let on it? What good would it do for them? Why is it in there? That is what we need answered.

There is either value to it that we need to provide a give for, or there isn’t and they don’t need it. I don’t know the answer and I can in fact think of a few legitimate (non nefarious) reasons they would want a let, but I’ve been around long enough to have been duped by ACPA on more than one occasion. So I’ll try to consider all sides.

The old adage “easier to ask forgiveness, rather than ask permission” is creeping into my head here. This bears further investigation.
This is all explained in the Member Q&A link in yesterday’s email.
---------- ADS -----------
 
planebored
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:24 am

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by planebored »

I don't want coles notes or a FAQ.

I want to see the MOA in full. The exact language that was signed by both parties.

Why was that not released day one?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Tail-Chaser
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:24 pm

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by Tail-Chaser »

planebored wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:11 pm I don't want coles notes or a FAQ.

I want to see the MOA in full. The exact language that was signed by both parties.

Why was that not released day one?
It's available on the site now.
---------- ADS -----------
 
planebored
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:24 am

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by planebored »

Delete
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by planebored on Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tailgunner
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by tailgunner »

With regard to the JV freedoms introduced by MOA2, let’s see how it might work.
Flight AC XYZ has 63 Pax. YYZ-FRA.
LH ABC has 89 pax. YYZ-MUC.
Air Canada decides that it is cheaper to put their 63 passengers on LH, and connect them through MUC than fly a 787 to FRA burning 40+ tonnes of fuel.
The original AC crew still get paid like they flew the trip, but the costs are way lower.
Just a thought.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1207
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by BTD »

tailgunner wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:29 pm The original AC crew still get paid like they flew the trip, but the costs are way lower.
Maybe or maybe not. Depends on the DBMs and how far out they planned it. Say it is February and DBMs would have been 73 for fleet x, but they have offloaded a bunch of flying to LH so DBMs are actually 65. No AC pilot is getting paid the difference of that time specifically because the scope let has been given.

I’m not saying that is what will happen, but it is important to talk through potential unintended consequences.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1207
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by BTD »

Jimmy_Hoffa wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:44 pm
BTD wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:54 pm
Tail-Chaser wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:46 pm

I get the initial hesitation but codeshares are long term ventures that likely won't have any bearing in a 6 month window. The market Rouge targets is severely depressed and likely will be for a long time. Even if they did expand Rouge, it would be curtailed at the end of the 6 month agreement. I get there's concerns about Transat but I don't think there's any information to even make an educated guess about what would happen in this scenario. The CPA scope violation is a problem. The company asked for a let twice. We've said no twice. Voting down this MOA will not rectify that scope violation.
So then the question we need to ask becomes. If there is no value in short term JV and code share, as you allude to above, then why do they want a let on it? What good would it do for them? Why is it in there? That is what we need answered.

There is either value to it that we need to provide a give for, or there isn’t and they don’t need it. I don’t know the answer and I can in fact think of a few legitimate (non nefarious) reasons they would want a let, but I’ve been around long enough to have been duped by ACPA on more than one occasion. So I’ll try to consider all sides.

The old adage “easier to ask forgiveness, rather than ask permission” is creeping into my head here. This bears further investigation.
This is all explained in the Member Q&A link in yesterday’s email.
Unfortunately it isn’t answered. Effectively they say we aren’t near the baselines and we have benefited more in the past from these JV. So it isn’t a big deal.

If it isn’t a big deal, why is it such a big deal?

Edit to slightly add to the above: I see one legitimate reason in the Q and A. That is, so they don’t have to pass on a legitimate JV during an anomaly in ASMs during COVID.

Doesn’t explain the L74 let though.

Again. We need to think hard about unintended consequences.
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4250
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by altiplano »

There are only lets in this agreement.

Why?

If we vote "NO" flat pay pilots still go to 75/77.5

Minimum 70 hour DBMs kick in with a blocking window of 65-71 hours and a MRG of 65.

We might protect 175 jobs for 6 months, that's not a certainty though. But at the cost of SCOPE? Let that go it might not come back. Nothing Air Canada would like more than to sell tickets and have flights they don't actually operate... and have the ones they do at B scale. How are we protecting jobs long term giving away scope anyway?

MOA#1 we had the company violating parts and we just gave in, and we have a major CPA scope violation ongoing with aircraft ACPA pilots used to fly.

Does anyone think it will be any different this MOA? The company will do what they will do. Don't give an inch and let them take a mile.

If they want to get serious there has to be some real benefits to us, real ERIP incentives, etc. They need to fix their scope violation. All I see is ACPA pilots giving here, while we're locked into a 10 year deal that was supposed to ride through these downturns. What was the point if we just give concessions anyway?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Dockjock
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1007
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: south saturn delta

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by Dockjock »

The 10-yr deal was supposed to carry us through this. We gave up massive upside during the best years of aviation in history to secure ourselves through recession. Just because a large portion of the membership wasn’t on the property in 2014 doesn’t make it less true. We gave up the right to strike, bargain during 2015-2019 (Best Years EverTM), and now we’re throwing away what we traded for? 6 months to reassess was needed, prolonging the MOA further is insane.
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4250
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by altiplano »

Dockjock wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:25 am The 10-yr deal was supposed to carry us through this. We gave up massive upside during the best years of aviation in history to secure ourselves through recession. Just because a large portion of the membership wasn’t on the property in 2014 doesn’t make it less true. We gave up the right to strike, bargain during 2015-2019 (Best Years EverTM), and now we’re throwing away what we traded for? 6 months to reassess was needed, prolonging the MOA further is insane.
Right on.

And it's extendable without member say.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tailgunner
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm

Re: COVID MOA 2

Post by tailgunner »

BTD,
Fair point.
I would guess that the 6 month term of this MOA will cover a period of very reduced flying hours. I suppose that if the flying miraculously picks up, we could not extend it March 1 2021.
Cheers
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”