Future YYC pilot base?

[infiniteregulus]

Maybe it's a sustainability thing? Instead of having big booms and busts with the cyclical nature of the economy, they want to subdue and dampen the volatility with a sustainable model. I don't think they have any problem of attracting pilots, as I'm sure there's thousands lined up out the door. It is THE carrot for the regionals after all. The bean counters probably came to such a pay-figure to where they can have the cost savings without jeopardizing attraction.

[groundpilot]

Bottom line - AC year 1/2/3/4 year FO/RP pay is a fraction of that paid by all other North American legacy carriers. This is not a COLA issue, it is a straight cost saving centre for AC. One year? Fine. Two yeas? Really? Three years? Four years? By the end of 2018 there will be over 1000 AC pilots on this pay scale. That is over 1/4 of the seniority list.

This issue was not even touched in the TA.

Bang on

Four years flat pay was an insane win for the company. We have some of the lowest paid wide body FO's in the business.

The problem is compounded with the DC pension and flat pay. It was a huge sell out to all new hires.

[FADEC]

YYC Pilot base was a rumour my entire career at AC; don't hold your breath.

There are better ways than fixed bases anyway; they inflate costs artificially in many cases.

[Dockjock]

Bottom line - AC year 1/2/3/4 year FO/RP pay is a fraction of that paid by all other North American legacy carriers. This is not a COLA issue, it is a straight cost saving centre for AC. One year? Fine. Two yeas? Really? Three years? Four years? By the end of 2018 there will be over 1000 AC pilots on this pay scale. That is over 1/4 of the seniority list.

This issue was not even touched in the TA.

Bang on

Four years flat pay was an insane win for the company. We have some of the lowest paid wide body FO's in the business.

The problem is compounded with the DC pension and flat pay. It was a huge sell out to all new hires.

It bears mentioning that none of that was proposed by ACPA, it was gained in arbitration by the company. ACPA stepped on their dicks, multiple times, in that whole process, but I don't believe it is fair to categorize it as a sell-out as the fact remains that no pilot voted for it. We didn't gain anything from new hires' loss is what I'm trying to say, which would be my categorization of a sell-out.

[groundpilot]

Bottom line - AC year 1/2/3/4 year FO/RP pay is a fraction of that paid by all other North American legacy carriers. This is not a COLA issue, it is a straight cost saving centre for AC. One year? Fine. Two yeas? Really? Three years? Four years? By the end of 2018 there will be over 1000 AC pilots on this pay scale. That is over 1/4 of the seniority list.

This issue was not even touched in the TA.

Bang on

Four years flat pay was an insane win for the company. We have some of the lowest paid wide body FO's in the business.

The problem is compounded with the DC pension and flat pay. It was a huge sell out to all new hires.

It bears mentioning that none of that was proposed by ACPA, it was gained in arbitration by the company. ACPA stepped on their dicks, multiple times, in that whole process, but I don't believe it is fair to categorize it as a sell-out as the fact remains that no pilot voted for it. We didn't gain anything from new hires' loss is what I'm trying to say, which would be my categorization of a sell-out.

Fair enough!

['97 Tercel]

..

[thenoflyzone]

Not ever going to happen, if it weren't for the ACPPA, YUL/YWG would not exist as bases.

I doubt AC would get rid of its pilot base at YUL, even without ACPPA.

[Fanblade]

Bottom line - AC year 1/2/3/4 year FO/RP pay is a fraction of that paid by all other North American legacy carriers. This is not a COLA issue, it is a straight cost saving centre for AC. One year? Fine. Two yeas? Really? Three years? Four years? By the end of 2018 there will be over 1000 AC pilots on this pay scale. That is over 1/4 of the seniority list.

This issue was not even touched in the TA.

Bang on

Four years flat pay was an insane win for the company. We have some of the lowest paid wide body FO's in the business.

The problem is compounded with the DC pension and flat pay. It was a huge sell out to all new hires.

It bears mentioning that none of that was proposed by ACPA, it was gained in arbitration by the company. ACPA stepped on their dicks, multiple times, in that whole process, but I don't believe it is fair to categorize it as a sell-out as the fact remains that no pilot voted for it. We didn't gain anything from new hires' loss is what I'm trying to say, which would be my categorization of a sell-out.

The statement in bold is false. Arbitration imposed, with some adjustments, what the TA1 negotiations team negotiated.

It is true the pilot group voted no to the negotiated deal by a very large amount. However it is not true to claim ACPA didn’t negotiate it.


At the road show for TA1, the negotiations team justified the new hire pay with:

“we don’t negotiate for people not on the property”

“Market forces will drive up new hire pay if there are no applicants”

“Pilots are still applying, they don’t think it’s too low”

It is my view that as we look at our future (possibly ALPA) we must remember our past accurately.

ACPA negotiated the four year flat pay during TA1. The pilot group voted no. The negotiated flat salary was then imposed in arbitration. ACPA has had two negations since and has failed to address the problem.

They have tried to address Pension and Rouge pay steps but nothing on new hire pay.

TB Pension is based on the time value of money. People on this plan need to make more money early in their career. So the pension issue is really only partly addressed.

Rouge step on was for people who are not new hires.

We need ALPA in my view to make certain something like the TA1 fiasco never happens again. We will be giving in negotiations for well over a decade before we correct all the damage done by that TA.