A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

Discuss topics relating to Westjet.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

Message
Author
User avatar
.80@410
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: CYYC

A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#1 Post by .80@410 » Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:42 pm

Wanted to take a moment to thank those at ACPA

I will simply quote a part of the email from ACPA to The Westjet pilots:

WJ MEC , ACPA letter of support.
"Currently, Air Canada management retains the right to hire whomever they see fit, and makes those decisions without consultation with ACPA. However, as fellow pilots and professionals, and in support of our WestJet colleagues across Canada, we support your request that pilots hired at Swoop be ineligible for employment at Air Canada, and have communicated this position to both our membership and Air Canada’s management team. "



.80
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by .80@410 on Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Just callin it like it is.

sportingrifle
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:29 am

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#2 Post by sportingrifle » Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:56 pm

0.80...

ACPA is correct, in that AC management can, and will, hire whomever they want. But in this case, not hiring from SWOOP may just work for them.

A month ago there were 338 pilot applications at AC from current WJ pilots. If AC were to hire from WJ instead of SWOOP, it would achieve a number of beneficial outcomes for Big Red. 1) They would be hiring well trained experienced 737 pilots with line experience while simultaneously creating increased training and crewing costs for their competitor. 2) The new hired line experienced 737 pilots would also be a help in getting their own 737 operation up and running. 3) By not hiring from SWOOP, without ever having said they wouldn't, people would soon figure out that applying to SWOOP limited their options at Big Red. This in turn might make it a bit harder for their competitor to get SWOOP up and running. 4) And after not hiring from SWOOP, ACPA would owe them a favor that they could call at the opportune time. The downside for AC? - Can't really think of one. Stranger things have happened.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#3 Post by telex » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:19 am

Does anybody remember ZIP? It was a LCC owned by a national carrier that paid pilots less and worked them harder. Kind of like Swoop.

No mention of a retroactive blacklist for these pilots?
---------- ADS -----------
  

sportingrifle
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:29 am

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#4 Post by sportingrifle » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:51 am

Probably because the Zip pilots were not likely to be applying en masse to their competitor. :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#5 Post by telex » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:55 am

sportingrifle wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:51 am
Probably because the Zip pilots were not likely to be applying en masse to their competitor. :roll:
Got it. It's about where one would apply. And here I foolishly thought it was about pilots not doing the same job for less money under the same company.

Get hired at Swoop and don't apply elsewhere and you don't make the blacklist?

Thanks for the clarity.
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2934
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#6 Post by altiplano » Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:36 am

telex wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:19 am
Does anybody remember ZIP? It was a LCC owned by a national carrier that paid pilots less and worked them harder. Kind of like Swoop.

No mention of a retroactive blacklist for these pilots?
There is no comparison.

That was a negotiated deal with labour, the union still owned the work. All unionised pilots that bid it from mainline.

Not subverting your existing labour group and going against previous agreements, while flipping them the finger.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mach1
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:04 am

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#7 Post by Mach1 » Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:11 am

Remember that time in the past when something happened? Well, we can't ever do anything different ever again because of that thing that happened in the past.

Unless someone somewhere has a time machine and the pure strength of will to change history there is no point in continuously pointing out what happened in the past because it is immutable. We can only deal with the present as we attempt to shape the future.
---------- ADS -----------
  
I'm going to knock this up a notch with my spice weasle. Bam!

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#8 Post by telex » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:09 am

altiplano wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:36 am
telex wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:19 am
Does anybody remember ZIP? It was a LCC owned by a national carrier that paid pilots less and worked them harder. Kind of like Swoop.

No mention of a retroactive blacklist for these pilots?
There is no comparison.

That was a negotiated deal with labour, the union still owned the work. All unionised pilots that bid it from mainline.

Not subverting your existing labour group and going against previous agreements, while flipping them the finger.
Your union actually negotiated less money for more work for the same job? I think the avcanada Labour Commission would call that scab and or cockroach labour.

The point is not about the union owning the work. The point is pilots doing more work for less pay.

Mach1 wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:11 am
Remember that time in the past when something happened? Well, we can't ever do anything different ever again because of that thing that happened in the past.

Unless someone somewhere has a time machine and the pure strength of will to change history there is no point in continuously pointing out what happened in the past because it is immutable. We can only deal with the present as we attempt to shape the future.
Here you are in present day Mach1. No time machine required. Pilots doing the same job for less pay while working more. It happened in the past and it's happening now. One union negotiated (according to the above) and one not. Please share your vision of the future as you attempt to shape it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

PROC_HDG
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:52 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#9 Post by PROC_HDG » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:29 am

Zip:

-Born out of turbulent times, global aviation industry downturn
-Multiple competing low costs in market (WestJet, JetsGo)
-Parent Company near bankruptcy
-Flying done by ACPA pilots

Swoop:

-Born out of the most profitable market in history, strong economy
-No real competing low costs in the market except for Flair
-Parent company extremely profitable
-Flying done by non-WJ pilots

If you don't understand how these two scenarios are critically different, then you need to do some reading.

PROC_HDG
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#10 Post by telex » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:46 am

PROC_HDG wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:29 am
Zip:

-Born out of turbulent times, global aviation industry downturn
-Multiple competing low costs in market (WestJet, JetsGo)
-Parent Company near bankruptcy
-Flying done by ACPA pilots

Swoop:

-Born out of the most profitable market in history, strong economy
-No real competing low costs in the market except for Flair
-Parent company extremely profitable
-Flying done by non-WJ pilots

If you don't understand how these two scenarios are critically different, then you need to do some reading.

PROC_HDG
Educate me wise one.

So it's pilots doing more work for less pay for the same job in both cases?

Some days it's ok for pilots to do the same job for less pay and more work and some days it isn't? The only difference is you moved the goal posts.

If there are competing low costs in the market you can be a (again to borrow the avcanada labour commission terms) scab or cockroach?

If the parent company is near bankrupt you can be a scab or cockroach to protect YOUR job/income/career?

If the economy is unfavourable you CAN be a scab and or cockroach to protect your interests?

What if there was an economic downturn with a pilot shortage? Could one be a scab and or cockroach with no repercussions?
---------- ADS -----------
  

PROC_HDG
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:52 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#11 Post by PROC_HDG » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:52 am

telex wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:46 am
PROC_HDG wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:29 am
Zip:

-Born out of turbulent times, global aviation industry downturn
-Multiple competing low costs in market (WestJet, JetsGo)
-Parent Company near bankruptcy
-Flying done by ACPA pilots

Swoop:

-Born out of the most profitable market in history, strong economy
-No real competing low costs in the market except for Flair
-Parent company extremely profitable
-Flying done by non-WJ pilots

If you don't understand how these two scenarios are critically different, then you need to do some reading.

PROC_HDG
Educate me wise one.

So it's pilots doing more work for less pay for the same job in both cases?

Some days it's ok for pilots to do the same job for less pay and more work and some days it isn't? The only difference is you moved the goal posts.

If there are competing low costs in the market you can be a (again to borrow the avcanada labour commission terms) scab or cockroach?

If the parent company is near bankrupt you can be a scab or cockroach to protect YOUR job/income/career?

If the economy is unfavourable you CAN be a scab and or cockroach to protect your interests?

What if there was an economic downturn with a pilot shortage? Could one be a scab and or cockroach with no repercussions?
In collective bargaining, you win and lose. Zip was a big loss in that it introduced lower pay etc. But the flying was kept within the ACPA seniority list. That means it couldn't be used as a whipsaw in the same way as Swoop. It had limits on it's scope and expansion. It maintained seniority rights for the pilots who bid it. Many pilots who flew at Zip did so as a result of being reduced into those positions, not by accepting the job outside of the union of their own accord.

Why are you using the term "scab"? "Scab" is a sacred term in labour that refers to workers who are willing to accept struck work. It is not to be used to describe this kind of thing, whether or not the avcanada braintrust does it.

Economic downturns lead to a union's bargaining position being weakened, as was the case when Zip came into being. In the case of Swoop, we are looking at WJ management attempting to set up a completely separate wage-killing entity, in a market that has never been stronger/more profitable.

These are major distinctions.

PROC_HDG
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2934
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#12 Post by altiplano » Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:08 am

Concessions/gains/trade-offs happen all the time in Collective Bargaining.

ACPA negotiates concessionary contracts all the time... nothing new there unfortunately...

But they are negotiated and ratified deals with labour, whatever the outcome or environment.

If you can't comprehend the differences here, - end running the workers and opening up down the street - you are likely trying to justify it for your own perceived advantage, playing stupid or just plain stupid.
---------- ADS -----------
  

atphat
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 426
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:01 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#13 Post by atphat » Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:41 am

altiplano wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:08 am
If you can't comprehend the differences here, - end running the workers and opening up down the street - you are likely trying to justify it for your own perceived advantage, playing stupid or just plain stupid.
Exactly. Drawing parallels where there are none. Over and over. Lol
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#14 Post by telex » Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:07 am

PROC_HDG wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:52 am
telex wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:46 am
PROC_HDG wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:29 am
Zip:

-Born out of turbulent times, global aviation industry downturn
-Multiple competing low costs in market (WestJet, JetsGo)
-Parent Company near bankruptcy
-Flying done by ACPA pilots

Swoop:

-Born out of the most profitable market in history, strong economy
-No real competing low costs in the market except for Flair
-Parent company extremely profitable
-Flying done by non-WJ pilots

If you don't understand how these two scenarios are critically different, then you need to do some reading.

PROC_HDG
Educate me wise one.

So it's pilots doing more work for less pay for the same job in both cases?

Some days it's ok for pilots to do the same job for less pay and more work and some days it isn't? The only difference is you moved the goal posts.

If there are competing low costs in the market you can be a (again to borrow the avcanada labour commission terms) scab or cockroach?

If the parent company is near bankrupt you can be a scab or cockroach to protect YOUR job/income/career?

If the economy is unfavourable you CAN be a scab and or cockroach to protect your interests?

What if there was an economic downturn with a pilot shortage? Could one be a scab and or cockroach with no repercussions?
In collective bargaining, you win and lose. Zip was a big loss in that it introduced lower pay etc. But the flying was kept within the ACPA seniority list. That means it couldn't be used as a whipsaw in the same way as Swoop. It had limits on it's scope and expansion. It maintained seniority rights for the pilots who bid it. Many pilots who flew at Zip did so as a result of being reduced into those positions, not by accepting the job outside of the union of their own accord.

Why are you using the term "scab"? "Scab" is a sacred term in labour that refers to workers who are willing to accept struck work. It is not to be used to describe this kind of thing, whether or not the avcanada braintrust does it.

Economic downturns lead to a union's bargaining position being weakened, as was the case when Zip came into being. In the case of Swoop, we are looking at WJ management attempting to set up a completely separate wage-killing entity, in a market that has never been stronger/more profitable.

These are major distinctions.

PROC_HDG
Indeed. In life you win and lose.

How is being reduced into a position different than accepting the same job that pays less for more work? Some days you win, some days you lose. Unless the union did not accept resignations?

In the perfect world anybody reduced to a Zip position would resign. You know, for the good of the industry. Imagine the crippling effect to the mother corporation. The only course of action would be to raise the WAWCON! But that didn't happen. Maybe a bit self serving.

Now Kingair pilots need to carry the torch and not apply at Swoop to advance the industry WAWCON.

What group had/has the power?

Search the site for scab cockroach. Improperly used terms but an industry deacon started a thread.

So at the end of the day I suppose your answer to the question of accepting less money for more work for the same job is it depends on major distinctions?
---------- ADS -----------
  

PROC_HDG
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:52 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#15 Post by PROC_HDG » Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:01 pm

Sorry, you're suggesting that the ACPA pilots reduced to Zip should have quit instead of accept the lower wages? In an industry where just having a job was a godsend?

I think you're completely out of touch.

PROC_HDG
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mach1
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:04 am

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#16 Post by Mach1 » Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:24 pm

What is the point you are trying to make here Telex?

We didn't blacklist Zip before so we shouldn't do that now?

We should have higher wages but we should be allowed to fight for that?

We need to retroactively fix the past?

Something else?

I actually don't have any clue what point you are attempting to make. The past is just that, the past. All we can do is work with the present and what we have now. If you want to live in the past, I don't think anyone can help you.
---------- ADS -----------
  
I'm going to knock this up a notch with my spice weasle. Bam!

Mostly Harmless
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 309
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:10 am
Location: Betelgeuse

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#17 Post by Mostly Harmless » Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:28 pm

Vladimir, comrade (Telex),

I know things have been a little dull in America lately but that is no excuse to start trolling Canadian pilots. Just go back to messing with the US, or taking shirtless pictures of yourself wrestling a lion or whatever your hobbies are and enjoy your weekend.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2054
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#18 Post by Donald » Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:58 pm

Remember that time a highly profitable company started a regional subsidiary, that paid 65% of industry standard. It then caused a ripple effect in the industry, whereby everyone started cutting wages.

Was there a blacklist for those pilots too?
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#19 Post by mbav8r » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:25 pm

Donald wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:58 pm
Remember that time a highly profitable company started a regional subsidiary, that paid 65% of industry standard. It then caused a ripple effect in the industry, whereby everyone started cutting wages.

Was there a blacklist for those pilots too?
No, for that there was “one list”
If only there was a way to predict future outcomes based on some assumptions, maybe like the same mistakes made by other groups at an earlier point in time, thereby preventing a repeat.

I would like to point out that the WJ pilots for the most part are preparing to fight this, with exception to a few vocal bad apples, good luck!
I think the problem I see developing here is how fast WJ management is moving on this, no doubt are preparing a vigorous defence with Encore as a precedent setting example. Also, it will be hard to get any judge to shut down an operation already up and running, what then, merge the operation in, including the pilots who should be blacklisted. This is going to be a messy battle and I’m predicting the WJ pilots will win the battle and maybe restrict the operation to whatever it is at the time of judgement, however it will still be an operation.
Anyone with a background in law who can contribute or perhaps tell me I’m wrong, I really hope I’m wrong!
---------- ADS -----------
  

Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2054
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#20 Post by Donald » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:47 pm

Merge the operation in....



Sounds like a great opportunity for any OTS DEC's....
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
'97 Tercel
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#21 Post by '97 Tercel » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:34 pm

What a mess WJ is....time to short some stock..
---------- ADS -----------
  

Ah_yeah
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:50 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#22 Post by Ah_yeah » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:18 pm

sportingrifle wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:56 pm
0.80...

ACPA is correct, in that AC management can, and will, hire whomever they want. But in this case, not hiring from SWOOP may just work for them.

A month ago there were 338 pilot applications at AC from current WJ pilots. If AC were to hire from WJ instead of SWOOP, it would achieve a number of beneficial outcomes for Big Red. 1) They would be hiring well trained experienced 737 pilots with line experience while simultaneously creating increased training and crewing costs for their competitor. 2) The new hired line experienced 737 pilots would also be a help in getting their own 737 operation up and running. 3) By not hiring from SWOOP, without ever having said they wouldn't, people would soon figure out that applying to SWOOP limited their options at Big Red. This in turn might make it a bit harder for their competitor to get SWOOP up and running. 4) And after not hiring from SWOOP, ACPA would owe them a favor that they could call at the opportune time. The downside for AC? - Can't really think of one. Stranger things have happened.
While I'm not aware of the amount of WJA applications at AC, acquiring that calibre of experience would be a coup for AC. Also, given the on-going retirements out west it could be a good fit for many applicants. As far as ACPA is concerned, lip service is our strong point.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#23 Post by telex » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:46 pm

PROC_HDG wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:01 pm
Sorry, you're suggesting that the ACPA pilots reduced to Zip should have quit instead of accept the lower wages? In an industry where just having a job was a godsend?

I think you're completely out of touch.

PROC_HDG
You can think whatever you like about me.

You've given yourself the ability to justify one group of pilots accepting lower WAWCON while condemning another group for doing the same.

Have it your way. Which appears to be both ways.
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2934
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#24 Post by altiplano » Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:10 pm

telex wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:46 pm
PROC_HDG wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:01 pm
Sorry, you're suggesting that the ACPA pilots reduced to Zip should have quit instead of accept the lower wages? In an industry where just having a job was a godsend?

I think you're completely out of touch.

PROC_HDG
You can think whatever you like about me.

You've given yourself the ability to justify one group of pilots accepting lower WAWCON while condemning another group for doing the same.

Have it your way. Which appears to be both ways.
Have it your way... "Plain stupid"...
---------- ADS -----------
  

yyc757
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:56 am

Re: A Thankyou to ACPA re: swoop ban.

#25 Post by yyc757 » Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:06 pm

Hey Telex,

Your company wants to hire me to take your job. They are offering me less then your pay but I'll take it. If you are an FO with 8 years in and just about to upgrade "too bad so sad" because I'm going take take your left seat.

If you don't don't understand this I hear they are auditioning for the star role in Forrest Gump 2.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “WestJet”