Cargo TA

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

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

Post Reply
FL-510
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:18 am

Re: Cargo TA

Post by FL-510 »

GATRKGA wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:38 am
The merged group of approx 4800 will have around 3500-4000 jobs to fight over.
Perhaps. Not sure about AC, but any TS pilot deemed a surplus in those numbers has a 10 year recall period I believe?

Nobody will be jobless because of this merger.

A few things to consider.

Those 4800 pilots inside of 3500-4000 positions do not take into account fencing. If leisure does indeed spring back, wouldn't it be AC pilot's left on the streets and not TS pilots? That's the whole point of fencing the operation for X amount of years; preventing a cross-over bid. I have a hard time seeing a massive equipment bid leaving a surplus under a consolidated collective agreement. Maybe I'm too short-sighted, which is possible.

The senior TS pilots will also draw up their own deal to either retire early or accept concessions in the last 5 years of their careers. Which sounds better? Will depend on each individual.

Rudder, how many retirements do you figure between 2021-22, 22-23, 23-24, 24-25? Wasn't AC set for another retirement spree by 2027?

Those 3500-4000 positions may look bleak, but I question whether those 4800 would actually be 4800 in the next few years?

As an example, how many years is #800 away from retirement right now? #1200? #2600? There exists a lot of people in the 4800 who weren't all hired in their 20's.

Such as a lot of those guys and gals who came home from the ex-pat world had less than 5 years left in their careers whether it's because they're due for retirement, or because AC wasn't all that it was cracked up to be now that their command is no longer 6 months away. They all sit in the 3000's-4000's. I know at least 50 of my peers and acquaintances that meet this category and that's just the guys and gals I know. A few already quit AC for greener pastures, and a few more are on the way out switching to corporate as we speak, and many went back to being an expat in Asia, etc.

Perhaps it is as bleak as you portray it with those numbers. But I think between TS early-retirements, AC sporadic retirements throughout the 4800 you claim, and a lot of ex-pats who just didn't sign up for what they got, this thing is not as bad as it sounds. But perhaps you can correct my numbers rudder, alti, etc.

Thanks guys.
The way I understand it is there is no guarantee that Air Canada take all the Transat employees. Out of the 680 pilots how many will be merged on to the Air Canada list? 300? 400? 450 ? All of them? Same goes for FA's , management etc... AC is purchasing a smaller company than planned, they are expecting a smaller workforce than planned. I do hope AC takes all the TS pilots, but who knows what will happen?
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2317
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by rudder »

FL-510 wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 1:52 pm
The way I understand it is there is no guarantee that Air Canada take all the Transat employees. Out of the 680 pilots how many will be merged on to the Air Canada list? 300? 400? 450 ? All of them? Same goes for FA's , management etc... AC is purchasing a smaller company than planned, they are expecting a smaller workforce than planned. I do hope AC takes all the TS pilots, but who knows what will happen?
Not sure what the deal is for CUPE or IAM, but every TS Pilot will get an AC seniority number

What that number will be is a function of the merger process (including arbitration).
---------- ADS -----------
 
FL-510
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:18 am

Re: Cargo TA

Post by FL-510 »

I think they will too, but! I would put nothing passed AC management. I don't know the details well enough but I would imagine the ALPA agreement protects pilots in this scenario.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Chooch918Heavy
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2019 7:40 am

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Chooch918Heavy »

FL-510 wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:33 pm I think they will too, but! I would put nothing passed AC management. I don't know the details well enough but I would imagine the ALPA agreement protects pilots in this scenario.
Ac management won’t have a say. It’s Labor law. Seniority will be negotiated via both unions.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Kaykay
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:21 am
Location: Canada...sometimes

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Kaykay »

mmm..bacon wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:48 pm
TOGAPowa wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 5:04 pm
Usually (at crew's discretion), no headset above 10 000' in good radio reception areas. There is no hot mic intercom in the 767s (as far as I have seen). You can use pretty much whatever you want. If you have over-ears headset, you usually have one ear out on your partner's side for cockpit communication.
Sorry for the thread drift.. "no hot mic intercom" What?? Is the cockpit that quiet? Or headsets are tiring/hot/painful on long haul flights? I'm somewhat stunned that a multi-million $$ wide-bodied airliner dosn't have a hot mic system...
Correct, no hot mic intercom. Have to push to talk on intercom or just talk to each other and speak up a little if you have one ear on the headset. Flight deck is more than quiet enough. Headsets are not often used above 10,000 unless there’s a specific reason
---------- ADS -----------
 
RVR6000
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by RVR6000 »

Chooch918Heavy wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:46 pm
FL-510 wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:33 pm I think they will too, but! I would put nothing passed AC management. I don't know the details well enough but I would imagine the ALPA agreement protects pilots in this scenario.
Ac management won’t have a say. It’s Labor law. Seniority will be negotiated via both unions.
..
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by RVR6000 on Wed Dec 23, 2020 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PostmasterGeneral
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:50 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by PostmasterGeneral »

Chooch918Heavy wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:46 pm
FL-510 wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:33 pm I think they will too, but! I would put nothing passed AC management. I don't know the details well enough but I would imagine the ALPA agreement protects pilots in this scenario.
Ac management won’t have a say. It’s Labor law. Seniority will be negotiated via both unions.
Where do the rules differ on a merger vs an acquisition?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by PostmasterGeneral on Sun Nov 29, 2020 7:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
alkaseltzer
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:16 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by alkaseltzer »

Chooch918Heavy wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:46 pm
FL-510 wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:33 pm I think they will too, but! I would put nothing passed AC management. I don't know the details well enough but I would imagine the ALPA agreement protects pilots in this scenario.
Ac management won’t have a say. It’s Labor law. Seniority will be negotiated via both unions.
I will ask the question - anyone can answer - what if this cargo initiative is an entirely separate entity? Where AC pilots that bid over to it, BEFORE the transat merger, don't lose equipment seniority? So if I were to hold NB Captain, but bid Cargo NB Capt...then the transat merger happens, would the legal argument become, I may lose my spot due to the merging of seniority lists? Or since this cargo division was never contingent on the Transat deal, that your respective seniority on the cargo list (vs overall) is untouched? By the time this merger were to happen, wouldn't all the cargo spots, both captain and FO, get filled up? Would there be active displacement is probably the better question.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2317
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by rudder »

alkaseltzer wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:35 pm
I will ask the question - anyone can answer - what if this cargo initiative is an entirely separate entity? Where AC pilots that bid over to it, BEFORE the transat merger, don't lose equipment seniority? So if I were to hold NB Captain, but bid Cargo NB Capt...then the transat merger happens, would the legal argument become, I may lose my spot due to the merging of seniority lists? Or since this cargo division was never contingent on the Transat deal, that your respective seniority on the cargo list (vs overall) is untouched? By the time this merger were to happen, wouldn't all the cargo spots, both captain and FO, get filled up? Would there be active displacement is probably the better question.
A provision of almost every integrated list solution - whether negotiated or arbitrated - is a “no bump/no flush”
condition on implementation.

So the short answer is ‘no’.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2317
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by rudder »

PostmasterGeneral wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:10 pm
Where do the rules differ on a merger vs an acquisition?
Everybody is acting like the wheel is being reinvented for the AC/TS merger. It is not.

If the TRZ transaction is consummated, there will be 1 resulting pilot seniority list. Why? Because the ACPA CBA says so. ACPA could waive that, or ACPA could allow additional operating certificates (i.e. Cargo), but that is unlikely in this case. AC will have to decide on a commercial/operational structure going forward that is compliant with the restrictions contained in the ACPA CBA.

History is the teacher. Look at the AC/CDN merger. Always possible there will be CIRB intervention if rules of natural justice are not followed in the seniority integration process. The CIRB will not be involved in determining how many sub-businesses that AC may run.
---------- ADS -----------
 
FL320
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Cargo TA

Post by FL320 »

rudder wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 7:31 am If the TRZ transaction is consummated, there will be 1 resulting pilot seniority list. Why? Because the ACPA CBA says so.
ALPA CBA too; so they should be on the same page.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Squid
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Timmins

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Squid »

This is going to arbitration anyway you slice it. I agree history is indeed the teacher and I would expect with past precedent set it will be a quick decision or ruling. Alpa and acpa are already preparing with alpa wanting date of hire pure and simple but my money is on a formula.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2317
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by rudder »

Squid wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:33 pm This is going to arbitration anyway you slice it. I agree history is indeed the teacher and I would expect with past precedent set it will be a quick decision or ruling. Alpa and acpa are already preparing with alpa wanting date of hire pure and simple but my money is on a formula.
The AC list is not a DOH list (due to the CDN merger). Therefore, a DOH solution is not an option.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1145
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Fanblade »

rudder wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:59 am
Squid wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:33 pm This is going to arbitration anyway you slice it. I agree history is indeed the teacher and I would expect with past precedent set it will be a quick decision or ruling. Alpa and acpa are already preparing with alpa wanting date of hire pure and simple but my money is on a formula.
The AC list is not a DOH list (due to the CDN merger). Therefore, a DOH solution is not an option.
Getting off topic. It doesn’t stop one side from trying though. Initially the Canadian pilots were pushing for a DOH list even though their own list wasn’t DOH. It forced a two part arbitration. The first part, arguments for and against DOH or Ratio. Ratio was the arbitrated result. Then the arbitration moved on to integration.

So trying, although a very very long shot, is not out of the question. What that stance does guarantee though is arbitration. It will mean ACPA will move in the polar opposite direction. Not even giving a single shot at seeing eye to eye on the issue.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
RRJetPilot
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Cargo TA

Post by RRJetPilot »

AC renegotiated the purchase at $5/share, with a requirement any competing offer must be above $6. At the moment the stock is sitting at $5.94. The market almost 100% believes AC will not purchase TS and that another buyer (or government) will step in. So right now the purchase does not even look like it will go through.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2317
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by rudder »

Fanblade wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:16 am
rudder wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:59 am
Squid wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:33 pm This is going to arbitration anyway you slice it. I agree history is indeed the teacher and I would expect with past precedent set it will be a quick decision or ruling. Alpa and acpa are already preparing with alpa wanting date of hire pure and simple but my money is on a formula.
The AC list is not a DOH list (due to the CDN merger). Therefore, a DOH solution is not an option.
Getting off topic. It doesn’t stop one side from trying though. Initially the Canadian pilots were pushing for a DOH list even though their own list wasn’t DOH. It forced a two part arbitration. The first part, arguments for and against DOH or Ratio. Ratio was the arbitrated result. Then the arbitration moved on to integration.

So trying, although a very very long shot, is not out of the question. What that stance does guarantee though is arbitration. It will mean ACPA will move in the polar opposite direction. Not even giving a single shot at seeing eye to eye on the issue.
You cannot make apple pie with a mix of apples and oranges.

Regardless, take a look at the last decade of arbitrated awards and they are all ratios, some with delayed ratio start point imposed, and some with variable ratios.

Don’t want to turn this in to a merger thread. I am sure there will be several if the TRZ transaction is consummated.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2317
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by rudder »

RRJetPilot wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:01 am AC renegotiated the purchase at $5/share, with a requirement any competing offer must be above $6. At the moment the stock is sitting at $5.94. The market almost 100% believes AC will not purchase TS and that another buyer (or government) will step in. So right now the purchase does not even look like it will go through.
Covered this issue already.

TRZ share price is rising only because there is a feature of the revised purchase agreement that allows TRZ shareholders to take AC stock in lieu of $5/share in cash.

As the ratio for share exchange was fixed, the recent increases in AC share value has increased the effective value of a TRZ share and that is being reflected in the daily trading price of TRZ shares.
---------- ADS -----------
 
columbia
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:25 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by columbia »

rudder wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:07 am
RRJetPilot wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:01 am AC renegotiated the purchase at $5/share, with a requirement any competing offer must be above $6. At the moment the stock is sitting at $5.94. The market almost 100% believes AC will not purchase TS and that another buyer (or government) will step in. So right now the purchase does not even look like it will go through.
Covered this issue already.

TRZ share price is rising only because there is a feature of the revised purchase agreement that allows TRZ shareholders to take AC stock in lieu of $5/share in cash.

As the ratio for share exchange was fixed, the recent increases in AC share value has increased the effective value of a TRZ share and that is being reflected in the daily trading price of TRZ shares.
Exactly. TRZ stock is basically an option right now.
---------- ADS -----------
 
milhouse
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:55 am

Re: Cargo TA

Post by milhouse »

RRJetPilot wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:01 am AC renegotiated the purchase at $5/share, with a requirement any competing offer must be above $6. At the moment the stock is sitting at $5.94. The market almost 100% believes AC will not purchase TS and that another buyer (or government) will step in. So right now the purchase does not even look like it will go through.
Just to expand on what everyone already said, TRZ shares can be exchanged for AC shares at a valuation of 17.47$ per AC share. In other words buying TRZ shares is like buying an option to buy AC for 17.47$.

So the more AC goes up, the better the chances of the deal being approved by the shareholders are, as it is makes it a better deal for them.

Basically you are completely misunderstanding the market.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Ratherbe
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 1:18 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Ratherbe »

Anyway it’s all contingent on the EU approval. I’m sure our former Prez will be trying to block it for the benefit of AF.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”