Cargo TA

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

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

Post Reply
Hangry
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 375
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:05 am

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Hangry »

Fanblade wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 10:22 am
GATRKGA wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:23 am
True. But were there surpluses in that merger? I would imagine handling this merger would be different whereby you need fences to avoid major labour disruptions.
Funny thing is the merger and the AC/CAIL merger are looking very similar.

At first AC said that there would be no shrinkage during consolidation. The arbitrator didn’t believe that though stating in his report that he thought some consolidation was inevitable.

Then 911.

Then SARS.

Then CCAA and about a 20% reduction in pilot spots later reduced to about 15%.

That reduction bid saw massive reductions particularly on the YVR base which had the most overlap. To give you the magnitude of the reduction. Prior to the bid there were over 1100 pilots on the YVR/YEG base. Post bid. 600 and something. It was ugly ugly ugly.

Think about those numbers. The right sizing of the YVR base was a larger reduction than system wide layoffs. A lot of uhauls heading east.

But again the rationalization is this. After integration there is no longer us and them. Positive or negative it impacts everyone equally.

There is no attempt to protect a pre merger expectation. That expectation vaporized on acquisition. As much as people may try to rationalize why a pre merger expectation should be protected, it won’t. Not even remotely on the mind of an arbitrator.

First fact. We will be integrated.

Second fact. Pre merger expectations no longer exist.

Third fact. The company will take its staffing and adjust it to its go forward strategy. We will all take the ups and downs of that strategy as an integrated group.

Forth fact. It’s all completely out of our control.

Fifth fact. This will take a few years to actually see the final result.

Six fact. Protect your mental health. There is nothing you can do. No one is going to die. In the end it will get better. Go play with your kids.
OOF.

well said. strap in.
---------- ADS -----------
 
'97 Tercel
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by '97 Tercel »

So was the AC/Canadian merger not like Walmart merging with Target, and this will be like Walmart taking over King Larry's Vacuum Emporium?

There's not a different approach given the comparison value?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1693
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Fanblade »

'97 Tercel wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 10:29 pm
There's not a different approach given the comparison value?
No. Whatever value you perceived vaporizes the day AC buys Transat. Pay scales don’t matter. Expectations the day before don’t matter. You fly white and black wingy things. They fly purple wingy things. The arbitrators don’t fully understand the system we work under, nor really care to. Why? Because it is irrelevant.

In case you are not aware CAIL was half the size of AC. AC had hired about 800 pilots in the previous 5 years while CAIL hiring was stagnant. AC had 5 year 320 CA. CAIL 20 year 737 CA.

Interesting you use the word value though. That statement takes me back 20 years to ACPA’s position going into arbitration. They were pushing the concept that seniority is a currency. AC currency worth more than CAIL currency.

Read on as a warning as to what happens when you buy into your own version of reality, when it isn’t supported in the real world.

It failed miserably. In arbitration you need to argue facts that are based on real life precedent setting decisions. No arbitrator is going to come out with a decision that is wildly different. He/she will never work again if they did that. Arguing a position that he/she could never endorse simply means you are not giving anything to the arbitrator to work with on your behalf.

That is how arbitrations go horribly wrong and 8 AC pilots for every 1 CAIL pilot end up on the bottom of the list. While ACPA was arguing the value of an AC position over a CAIL position. CAIL pilots were arguing sweat equity. Time in is what matters. (They couldn’t argue DOH because the arbitrator had already ruled DOH was not appropriate because the CAIL list was not DOH)

CAIL won unopposed pretty much because ACPA didn’t counter with a position that was usable by the arbitrator.
---------- ADS -----------
 
JoeyBarton
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:02 am

Re: Cargo TA

Post by JoeyBarton »

So if CAIL came into the merger having same positions way more senior than AC in terms of YOS..Doesn't it seem a little fair that it went 1 for every 8 in their favor at the bottom?
Same can be said here where the majority of 330 positions go way more senior at AC vs TS..
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1693
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Fanblade »

Fanblade wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 9:25 am
Read on as a warning as to what happens when you buy into your own version of reality, when it isn’t supported in the real world.
That right there is what AC pilots should be concerned with. ACPA has a history of buying into its version of what it thinks reality should be, rather than what it actually is, and then trying to sell it. The end result, dismal failure when they run head long into reality.

A couple examples.

AC CAIL merger. AC pilot currency more valuable than CAIL.

Final Offer Selection. Totally disregarded the jurisprudence when you end up in arbitration with a previous MOA.

Even this latest cargo vote has elements of selling a twist on reality. The sell job tried to suggest article 12 doesn’t exist.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by rudder »

JoeyBarton wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 9:51 am So if CAIL came into the merger having same positions way more senior than AC in terms of YOS..Doesn't it seem a little fair that it went 1 for every 8 in their favor at the bottom?
Same can be said here where the majority of 330 positions go way more senior at AC vs TS..
Merger thread.....

Still unknown:

- DCC (date of corporate closing)
- snapshot date (critical in identifying active vs inactive)
- post acquisition operational structure (how many operating certificates?)
- terms of reference for the arbitration panel
- interim governance structure
- joint collective bargaining structure

So much more complicated than just a list.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1693
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Fanblade »

JoeyBarton wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 9:51 am So if CAIL came into the merger having same positions way more senior than AC in terms of YOS..Doesn't it seem a little fair that it went 1 for every 8 in their favor at the bottom?
Same can be said here where the majority of 330 positions go way more senior at AC vs TS..
Your arguing more for time in, sweat equity, length of service etc. Yes that is a realistic position to start from.

In reality the methodology used should render an outcome that matches equivalent positions with equivalent positions. That is at least the stated goal. The dispute will likely revolve around the definition of what is equivalent.

Because of that there is a temptation to go down the my job is of more value than your job route. Therefor not equivalent.

That won’t work. Money and expectations are not factored. The arbitrator will simply see people flying 320 wingy things and try to get them grouped together within a reasonable length of service bandwidth.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1693
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Fanblade »

JoeyBarton wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 9:51 am So if CAIL came into the merger having same positions way more senior than AC in terms of YOS..Doesn't it seem a little fair that it went 1 for every 8 in their favor at the bottom?
Same can be said here where the majority of 330 positions go way more senior at AC vs TS..
Think about your statement. Your also suggesting the bottom of the combined list be predominantly AC.

See the tug of war between length of service and matching like with likes? The disconnect between what might work in one demographic but not another?

The lesson learned from the AC CAIL merger should be this. Don’t take a position that can not be supported by past practice. If you buy into your own version of reality, the real world will come and smack you up side the head.
---------- ADS -----------
 
nowind
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2020 9:57 am

Re: Cargo TA

Post by nowind »

I red the whole thread and the other one talking about merger and I think we all know what the ac guys think about it. I think we all get it. But it seems like the transat guys are more quiet about how they think it should be done. Just curious if anyone from the ts team would lile to share on what they expect from this merger when It comes to seniority. Lets say we compare pre pandemic level. Where should the most junior 330 captain sit on the ac list, what about a 10 years captain. Not here to argue, we all have differents view and its ok. Again im just curious what the ts guys think would be fair with regard to seniority integration.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by rudder »

nowind wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:58 pm I red the whole thread and the other one talking about merger and I think we all know what the ac guys think about it. I think we all get it. But it seems like the transat guys are more quiet about how they think it should be done. Just curious if anyone from the ts team would lile to share on what they expect from this merger when It comes to seniority. Lets say we compare pre pandemic level. Where should the most junior 330 captain sit on the ac list, what about a 10 years captain. Not here to argue, we all have differents view and its ok. Again im just curious what the ts guys think would be fair with regard to seniority integration.
FWIW - an arbitration panel is going to decide the seniority integration solution. What is being debated here is submissions to that panel. Many recent awards have been based on agreed methodology with the arbitration panel deciding the final formulas. And in the end, neither party can control the result. Outrageous proposals will be ignored. Solution is largely predictable. It will be a ratio or series of ratios with a possible (likely) capped starting number for the most senior former TS pilot.

Instead, focus on what can be controlled. Most critically - the CBA. Hopefully all of the pilots can agree there will be just one, irrespective of what wish list the employer may be dreaming about. Seniority isn’t worth nearly as much when the WAWCON is substandard.

The company would love to see the pilots distracted by the seniority integration process while it diminishes the CBA.
---------- ADS -----------
 
nowind
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2020 9:57 am

Re: Cargo TA

Post by nowind »

Thanks Rudder,
I do understand how its gonna end and that we have no control on that. Maybe my question was not clear enough so ill ask again...for the TRANSAT ppl: what outcome would be fair to you.

What kind of ratio would make you happy. Again its just a personal question, no Judgment.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Savage Poetry
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:54 am

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Savage Poetry »

I have 6 years at Air Transat, I expect 6 Years at Air Canada. This merger is out of my control, why would I not get Date of Hire, it's only normal? no?
---------- ADS -----------
 
airboy1
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:54 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by airboy1 »

Yup. We will not tolerate anything less than at least years of service 1 to 1 for merge.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Sharklasers
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Sharklasers »

airboy1 wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 3:33 pm Yup. We will not tolerate anything less than at least years of service 1 to 1 for merge.
CAIL pilots didn’t get years of service and that merger was far more “like for like”.

You say you won’t tolerate anything less, so what’s your plan when the arbitrator rules against that? Will you quit? Because that would be pretty rad too.

Fanblade is right, it’ll be decided by an arbitrator based on factors that haven’t even been determined yet. As far as I understand the most junior TS pilot currently on property there and working wasn’t hired this millennium, so from an outside perspective it seems like any place on the ACPA list is a win.

Everyone just needs to relax before they start drawing hard lines in the sand,
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1693
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Fanblade »

Rabbit hole guys. Just the mention of DOH indicates a lack of understanding.

I wrote this on a previous page.

Actually a note of caution here. You have to understand your representatives are going to try and sell their version of how they think this should go. Careful buying into it. They can’t whisper in your ear “ yeah it’s a long shot but we are going to try anyway”. That will be the truth, but you will never hear it.


Then Group think gets up a head of steam and can’t be contained. Then when the real world hits you in the head your surprised. It’s why expectations need to be realistic from the outset.

Or put another way. Buying into your own BS is dangerous.

Like I said earlier.......who cares what they think. It doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is what the arbitrator says.

If you want an actual good guess on real world outcomes read Rudders post above.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Fanblade on Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
RRJetPilot
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Cargo TA

Post by RRJetPilot »

airboy1 wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 3:33 pm Yup. We will not tolerate anything less than at least years of service 1 to 1 for merge.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1693
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Fanblade »

RRJetPilot wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:09 pm
airboy1 wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 3:33 pm Yup. We will not tolerate anything less than at least years of service 1 to 1 for merge.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
It wouldn’t shock me in the least if Transat started from that position. The initial proposals can be very polarizing. It will take your blood pressure up three notches if you let it.

Heck it actually wouldn’t surprise me if Transat started with DOH even though it’s not a realistic starting position.

Then again wait to see what ACPA’s initial proposal looks like. The Transat pilots will go :shock:

Ignore it all.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1693
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Fanblade »

rudder wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:29 pm

FWIW - an arbitration panel is going to decide the seniority integration solution.
I’m picking up on the word panel. I was asking about this to someone else. Do you know if it is now standard in Canada to have an arbitration panel of three or more?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Savage Poetry
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:54 am

Re: Cargo TA

Post by Savage Poetry »

airboy1 wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 3:33 pm Yup. We will not tolerate anything less than at least years of service 1 to 1 for merge.
This will be great for us. It will be like if I never got a pfo notice by AC!
---------- ADS -----------
 
330heavy
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:56 pm

Re: Cargo TA

Post by 330heavy »

Disregard the obvious faux TS pilots trolling. I think by now most TS and even AC pilots have come to terms what may come to equitable solution from an arbitrator. In the end we all want to avoid a toxic environment like the CA merger and work together to start raising the bar again in a WAWCON
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”