One list

Discuss topics relating to Westjet.

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

Post Reply
User avatar
Mr. North
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:27 am

Re: One list

Post by Mr. North »

cloak wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 7:21 am
Firstly, Encore has grown to be a sizeable airline with its own advantages compelling some to consider it for the long haul. Secondly, the great majority of the initial experienced group that established Encore has already flowed to WestJet or left for other greener pastures. The majority of new recruits, in comparison, are at the beginning of their careers and need not such incentives. And finally, the compensation package has improved and this new contract has already priced in a replacement for the "one list" in the form of monetary reward for Encore pilots and placing them ahead of direct-hire pilots. This model is sustainable.
What advantages does Encore posses that make it a lasting career choice? There is no pension, the ESP is only 10%, and the work rules (while better than Swoop) still fall short of mainline. Aside from the literal 5-6 individuals positioned in training with ambitions for management, I do not know a single line flying pilot who would consider Encore as a career destination, especially in this pilot hungry environment. The notion that somehow new or young pilots are less deserving of the benefits of seniority (that have been enjoyed up until now) is ridiculous and speaks to your disregard for your peers at Encore and pilots junior to you.

Compensation is now roughly on par with Jazz and Porter. The two year top up when one flows does not begin to approach the monetary value of the one list. The bump up is to recognize the service of Encore pilots and alleviate the transitional pay cut. It is not by any means intended to replace the incredible value of the one list which defines upgrades on the jet. It's absence would mean Encore pilots (present and former) would see their upgrade times on the jet extend by YEARS. A paltry $28K in no way "replaces" the financial impact of such a delay to captaincy.

When considering the financial and lifestyle gains an OTS pilot might enjoy should the one list disappear, it's easy to understand how they may develop a sense of unfairness. That bias however is misplaced and would be better directed by holding up a mirror. OTS pilots most certainly do have a say in labor conditions prior to employment, it's called not accepting the job! You accepted the job, you accepted the conditions.

Whether they deem the current system just or not, all OTS pilots should consider the risk to upsetting the apple cart. Are you willing to alienate hundreds of your peers already at mainline? Drive a wedge between an entire employee group working for the same parent company? Consider for a moment, the negative implications this could have at negotiations in 2023 and beyond. With flow times currently standing at 3.5 years and estimated to be 5+ for new hires, why on earth would anyone go to Encore just to start over again at WestJet? Especially when the Jazz/AC route offers a much shorter and concise timeline. Such a shortage would mean management would have to entice pilots to Encore by financial means. At whose expense do you think that will come from? If OTS pilots are so desperate for the left seat, go to AC where upgrades are holding steady at 2-4 years.

The only way to improve upon conditions at the top is to accommodate those at the bottom. Oh and avoiding a civil war helps too.
---------- ADS -----------
  

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1749
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: One list

Post by fish4life »

Did any encore pilots go to swoop when they had a hiring ban on?
---------- ADS -----------
  

DropTanks
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:56 am

Re: One list

Post by DropTanks »

.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by DropTanks on Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

cloak
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:08 pm

Re: One list

Post by cloak »

Admittedly it is a difficult discussion to have in the presence of emotional attachment, at the same time pragmatically it is quite likely not just the OTS pilots, but also the ones that fly with them and know them and their experience. This is natural "human" tendency, albeit seemingly unfair to some, and this is why such arrangements normally come to an end. If it doesn't normally exist, is because it doesn't work in the long run. And the market has a way of balancing things, for instance those that have recently flowed have missed the top up pay, but they have flowed.

And accepting a job under certain conditions does not mean that one is married to those conditions in perpetuity. For instance those pilots that have recently joined Air Canada under the 4 long years of probationary pay are not obliged to uphold those conditions forever and CAN in the future, rather they must, when opportunity presents itself, work towards improving those conditions. In like manner, a senior pilot, or even management cannot, must not, remonstrate their efforts saying that they had joined under those conditions and must submit to it forever. Life is dynamic and things change in response to market needs and forces.
---------- ADS -----------
  

skyhighh
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:55 pm

Re: One list

Post by skyhighh »

cloak wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 9:51 am
Admittedly it is a difficult discussion to have in the presence of emotional attachment, at the same time pragmatically it is quite likely not just the OTS pilots, but also the ones that fly with them and know them and their experience.
The conversation between OTS hires and Encore pilots must come with an understanding that a lot of OTS hires have a lot less experience than the Encore pilots. The reason why some went to mainline and others to Encore was just...luck. In the last few ground school, none of the OTS hires had more experience than any Encore Captain. Lets remember that Encore have pilots that came from heavy jets and/or have experience flying worldwide. The belief that OTS hires deserve to have seniority over the Encore pilots due to experience is just wrong. Let's remember how Encore got created and how WestJet forced pilots to go to Encore in order to go at some point to WestJet.

For the ones saying "It's okay it's just 3-4 years of your carreer"... well it is not... it's more like 10 years. Most of the Encore captains have 5.000+ hours and if they left Encore to go to any other airline they will go behind 500-1000h pilots, and if they go to mainline without keeping their seniority they would be behind 1500h pilots... Making all their experience built in the last basically 10 years... worth...nothing!

WestJet pilots are against the one list because they want to "screw" the company because of Swoop...But think about it for more than 2 seconds... What do you think Encore pilots are going to do if the one list fails? All the FOs are going to apply at Swoop and start building seniority + YOS... and then what? Mainline will be crying because Swoop will be more alive than ever!

Let's remember one thing... How many Encore pilots went to Swoop? How many WestJet pilots went to Swoop? The ones that are keeping Swoop alive are the WJ pilots, not the Encore ones. Encore pilots stood behind their brothers and sisters during the entire process, even during all the uncertainty.

If the LOA doesn't pass, not only will it create animosity between the two pilots group but you would be digging yourself a bigger hole that has already been done. The one list is legit one of the only thing that prevents Swoop from growing.

Be smart, vote smart.

An Encore pilot that has been standing behind the WJ pilot group for many years.
---------- ADS -----------
  

sarg
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:44 pm

Re: One list

Post by sarg »

JBI wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 2:04 am


In the mainline CA, Section 1-1 deals with Scope.

Section 1-1.03 provides a max amount of regional aircraft at "WestJet Encore and/or through a CPA or similar arrangement"

Section 1-1.04 provides that Swoop can operate up to 30 NB aircraft (without additional mainline capacity)

Section 1-1.05 is the important one where (a) there will be 90% of active WJ pilot positions and (b) No pilot shall be laid off as a direct result of a number of different commercial agreements.

While the Encore TA does have some similar language in section 2-4.01, it is less robust. There is no numbers of aircraft scope and there are significantly less types of commercial relationships specified that the company cannot use to affect lay-offs.

So, while hopefully no one at any of WJ/Swoop/Encore will have to deal with lay-offs, it would generally be much easier for the company to start with lay-offs at Encore than at mainline or Swoop.

BUT, if we have one-list for both flow AND lay-offs, there could potentially be Encore pilots more senior than either Mainline or Swoop pilots as there is right now. If we went straight to one list for example, there are a significant number of Encore pilots senior to the most junior Swoop pilots and even a few of the most junior mainline pilots. However, right now only senior Encore pilots hold a bid onto a mainline position, but really junior pilots can hold a bid into Swoop positions as most senior pilots, in support of Mainline pilots, haven't bid into Swoop.

If we had one list for lay offs too, the junior Swoop and mainline pilots (part of the same bargaining unit) would be susceptible to being bumped by senior Encore pilots.

Moving on now to the One List LOA document. It does say that WJ/Swoop pilots being laid off get to bid on open Encore positions but Encore pilots don't get to bid on open Swoop/WJ positions in sections 8.01 and 9.01. Although many mainline folks are reading this provision as "I don't get to bump Encore pilots if I'm laid off" the real way to read it is "Senior Encore pilots can't bump junior Swoop/WJ pilots if THEY get laid off".

Things ARE messy no doubt. 3 companies, 2 unions. But please let's read through all the documents and discuss things.

To Victory!
Section 1-1.05 guarantees the number of pilots on Jan 1, 2019.

So 787's arrive for the next couple of years, maybe 20 of them growth by 20% or so in pilot numbers then the next 9/11 occurs company lays off 25% of the current (a few years down the road) pilot numbers. They still meet Section 1-1.05 clause but almost every current Encore pilot, because of flow, plus any OTS pilot are on the street while Encore pilots with less overall seniority are still employed.

This LOA needs to be fixed to work for all now and in the future.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Biff
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:36 pm

Re: One list

Post by Biff »

skyhighh wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 10:38 am

The conversation between OTS hires and Encore pilots must come with an understanding that a lot of OTS hires have a lot less experience than the Encore pilots. The reason why some went to mainline and others to Encore was just...luck. In the last few ground school, none of the OTS hires had more experience than any Encore Captain. Lets remember that Encore have pilots that came from heavy jets and/or have experience flying worldwide. The belief that OTS hires deserve to have seniority over the Encore pilots due to experience is just wrong. Let's remember how Encore got created and how WestJet forced pilots to go to Encore in order to go at some point to WestJet.

For the ones saying "It's okay it's just 3-4 years of your carreer"... well it is not... it's more like 10 years. Most of the Encore captains have 5.000+ hours and if they left Encore to go to any other airline they will go behind 500-1000h pilots, and if they go to mainline without keeping their seniority they would be behind 1500h pilots... Making all their experience built in the last basically 10 years... worth...nothing!

WestJet pilots are against the one list because they want to "screw" the company because of Swoop...But think about it for more than 2 seconds... What do you think Encore pilots are going to do if the one list fails? All the FOs are going to apply at Swoop and start building seniority + YOS... and then what? Mainline will be crying because Swoop will be more alive than ever!

Let's remember one thing... How many Encore pilots went to Swoop? How many WestJet pilots went to Swoop? The ones that are keeping Swoop alive are the WJ pilots, not the Encore ones. Encore pilots stood behind their brothers and sisters during the entire process, even during all the uncertainty.

If the LOA doesn't pass, not only will it create animosity between the two pilots group but you would be digging yourself a bigger hole that has already been done. The one list is legit one of the only thing that prevents Swoop from growing.

Be smart, vote smart.

An Encore pilot that has been standing behind the WJ pilot group for many years.
I’m not sure why the Encore pilots would believe they are doing mainline pilots a favour by not applying at Swoop. As a mainline pilot, I would rather see the Swoop captain positions go to an Encore employee then to a DEC from outside the company. As far as I can tell, everyone at mainline believes the same.

Please, if you’re an Encore pilot and you want to go to Swoop, go. Swoop is going to keep growing(until management decides it’s not worth wasting any more money) whether it’s by hiring DEC from Encore or from OTS. We would rather it go internal.
---------- ADS -----------
  

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: One list

Post by JBI »

Biff wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 6:47 pm

I’m not sure why the Encore pilots would believe they are doing mainline pilots a favour by not applying at Swoop. As a mainline pilot, I would rather see the Swoop captain positions go to an Encore employee then to a DEC from outside the company. As far as I can tell, everyone at mainline believes the same.

Please, if you’re an Encore pilot and you want to go to Swoop, go. Swoop is going to keep growing(until management decides it’s not worth wasting any more money) whether it’s by hiring DEC from Encore or from OTS. We would rather it go internal.
Hi Biff,

Thanks for your comment. While I generally share your thoughts and won't judge a pilot Encore or OTS for going to Swoop, respectfully, both the WJ MEC and Encore MEC and most of the mainline pilots that I've spoken with don't share your thoughts. While it is different now that Swoop is considered single employer with WestJet, the general thought is that is Swoop can't attract enough qualified candidates they'll have to improve the conditions at Swoop.

Cheers
---------- ADS -----------
  

Biff
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:36 pm

Re: One list

Post by Biff »

JBI wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 5:27 pm

Hi Biff,

Thanks for your comment. While I generally share your thoughts and won't judge a pilot Encore or OTS for going to Swoop, respectfully, both the WJ MEC and Encore MEC and most of the mainline pilots that I've spoken with don't share your thoughts. While it is different now that Swoop is considered single employer with WestJet, the general thought is that is Swoop can't attract enough qualified candidates they'll have to improve the conditions at Swoop.

Cheers
Really? I have no idea what the Encore MEC is saying to the Encore pilots but I haven’t read or heard of the WJ MEC discouraging Encore or WJ pilots to apply to Swoop.
---------- ADS -----------
  

DropTanks
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:56 am

Re: One list

Post by DropTanks »

.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by DropTanks on Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: One list

Post by JBI »

DropTanks wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 3:13 am

Yeah I’m gonna have to call BS on this entire post dude. You make it sound as if there’s a plethora of salty old grey-haired pilots climbing into the Q at Encore when usually the comment is closer to “does his mommy know he’s not in school today?”

Second, the notion that one guy goes to Encore and the other goes to Mainline is based on, oh how did you put it...luck. BS. You went to a Encore because you applied there, interviewed there and took the job. Don’t whine about your lot in life as is good old Lady Luck screwed you. You screwed you. Some of us told Encore to pound sand or never applied.

While a lot of us OTS pilots believe in the spirit of the One list, this particular LOA document is doggy doo doo and we will try to protect ourselves. Furthermore some of us are sick and tired of being painted as “lucky” to be at mainline or as horned, buck toothed monsters trying to screw the precious Encore Pilots at every turn.
Hi Droptanks,

I take your point about OTS pilots wanting to protect themselves. I don't blame them. But let's get away from the name calling. Besides, most of my OTS friends at mainline all have great teeth :lol:

The demographic categorization of Encore pilots isn't really fair either. While yes, like every regional airline in North America the new FOs tend to be younger, looking at the current WestJet Pilot Seniority List (WSPL) the next 100 or so Encore pilots to flow are mostly in their 30s or 40s and have a family. I'm assuming it's the somewhat confusing lay-off provisions? While I'm working on a summary of my interpretation of those sections at the moment I'd also like to direct your attention to another section.

I think the most important and well written sections are sections 11.01 and 11.03. Section 11.01 gives ANY party to the contract (I'm looking at you mainline pilots :wink: ) provide written notice that they wish to amend the agreement or, worse case scenario section 11.03 allows any party to the contract to cancel it with 90 days notice AND the pilots currently on the list will have their seniority numbers reserved. These provisions literally allow the pilots to have their cake and eat it to. You won't be screwing over 500 Encore pilots who supported WJ but if the pilot group is really unhappy with the lay off provisions in the LOA, you can cancel them (though with no LOA there's still no lay-off protection for mainline pilots).
---------- ADS -----------
  

Biff
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:36 pm

Re: One list

Post by Biff »

JBI

A “no” vote means the company and ALPA go back and rework it.

A “yes” vote means we are happy with it and don’t want any changes.

It’s as simple as that. To suggest the 90 day clause will be acted upon is strange. “Vote yes now and we will cancel it right away”. Is that even legal? If I was the company, I would claim 1. Abuse of the process and 2. ALPA failed to negotiate in good faith and 3, ALPA MEC is neglecting the will of the majority.

I believe that action would be headed to arbitration and with our record in that arena we would be stuck with another substandard agreement which would never be reworked.

The real disappointment is that this was presented to us in the first place by our MEC. I thought the ALPA toolbox would have done better for us.
---------- ADS -----------
  

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: One list

Post by JBI »

Biff wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 5:18 am
JBI

A “no” vote means the company and ALPA go back and rework it.

A “yes” vote means we are happy with it and don’t want any changes.

It’s as simple as that. To suggest the 90 day clause will be acted upon is strange. “Vote yes now and we will cancel it right away”. Is that even legal? If I was the company, I would claim 1. Abuse of the process and 2. ALPA failed to negotiate in good faith and 3, ALPA MEC is neglecting the will of the majority.
I don't think that simply saying yes but then cancelling it is the way to go, but it offers significant protection for the mainline pilots if things don't go smoothly.

Honest question then, why would the company renegotiate after the mainline pilots vote no? If I were in their position I certainly wouldn't be in any rush to.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Biff
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:36 pm

Re: One list

Post by Biff »

JBI wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 5:50 am

I don't think that simply saying yes but then cancelling it is the way to go, but it offers significant protection for the mainline pilots if things don't go smoothly.

Honest question then, why would the company renegotiate after the mainline pilots vote no? If I were in their position I certainly wouldn't be in any rush to.
Your first paragraph is baffling. “If things don’t go smoothly”. Do you mean if there is a lay-off at mainline? At that time we will give our 90 days notice of termination? A little late don’t you think for the 10% of the mainline pilot group that could be laid off.

As for your second paragraph, I don’t think either side should be in a rush. Let’s take our time and get it right.

And let’s not forget the company needs an agreement to encourage hiring at Encore.
---------- ADS -----------
  

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: One list

Post by JBI »

Biff wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:38 am

Your first paragraph is baffling. “If things don’t go smoothly”. Do you mean if there is a lay-off at mainline? At that time we will give our 90 days notice of termination? A little late don’t you think for the 10% of the mainline pilot group that could be laid off.

As for your second paragraph, I don’t think either side should be in a rush. Let’s take our time and get it right.

And let’s not forget the company needs an agreement to encourage hiring at Encore.
While the One List will certainly aid in recruitment and be extremely helpful in having a predictable cost structure for the hub and spoke network, I wouldn't go so far as to say the company "needs" the LOA. They've got both pilot groups under contract without any right to strike or have job action for a 4 and 5 years years. There would be no incentive for the company to rush back into any negotiations - it'd be ok, well, let's see how things go from here. Especially considering a No vote would create a giant rift between the pilot groups the company is in no obligation to come to the bargaining table on an LOA.

In the meantime, however, a no vote doesn't provide any extra lay-off protections to the mainline pilots. Things don't go back to the WJPA contract clauses where mainline pilots could bump junior Encore pilots AND Encore pilots could bump junior mainline pilots. Layoffs would still be only by seniority list and you'd still run into the same concerns.

The only difference is that if Encore pilots choose to flow to WestJet they would be bottom of the list and, in theory, be the first ones to get laid off.

So is there a rush? Actually sort of. With the predicted flow rates right now you have 60 or so Encore pilots who have flowed since Jan 2019 or were planning on flowing this year who will be left in a very uncertain situation with regard to their seniority. For many it could make the different between deciding to stay at Encore (for example so they could keep a Calgary base) or going to mainline and starting LOS.

If there wasn't clause 11.01 that provides the ability to renegotiate the contract upon 30 days notice (and the company WOULD be then obligated to come to the bargaining table) I would agree with you that we shouldn't rush to get things 'right'. However, since most of the risk is mitigated by both the renegotiation and cancellation clauses, the downsides to voting No, leaving dozens of Encore pilots in a completely unpredictable situation, causing uncertainty in the company, causing a rift between the pilot groups while still hoping the company will come to the table again far outweigh voting yes.

Again, I am not suggesting that mainline pilots vote yes and immediately invoke the cancellation or negotiation clause, but if "things don't go smoothly" i.e. there are some additional concerns that crop up with respect to the one list or hiring or there are new MEC people etc. etc. mainline pilots truly are not stuck with the One List (but unlike a No vote, all the pilots currently on the property at Encore, Mainline and Swoop will have certainty of their seniority number).
---------- ADS -----------
  

Ex DC10 Driver
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:58 am

Re: One list

Post by Ex DC10 Driver »

JBI

A “no” vote means the company and ALPA go back and rework it.

A “yes” vote means we are happy with it and don’t want any changes.

It’s as simple as that. To suggest the 90 day clause will be acted upon is strange. “Vote yes now and we will cancel it right away”. Is that even legal? If I was the company, I would claim 1. Abuse of the process and 2. ALPA failed to negotiate in good faith and 3, ALPA MEC is neglecting the will of the majority.

I believe that action would be headed to arbitration and with our record in that arena we would be stuck with another substandard agreement which would never be reworked.

The real disappointment is that this was presented to us in the first place by our MEC. I thought the ALPA toolbox would have done better for us.

With the exception of thinking the ALPA tool box would have done better for us, I completely agree.

No to this LOU.
---------- ADS -----------
  

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: One list

Post by JBI »

Ex DC10 Driver wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 9:14 am
JBI

A “no” vote means the company and ALPA go back and rework it.

A “yes” vote means we are happy with it and don’t want any changes.
A "no" vote means ALPA can go back to the company and ask to rework it. There is NOTHING requiring the company to agree so.

Maybe the company will come to the table or maybe they'll just say "nah, bro, I'm good" or maybe they'll just come to the Encore MEC and sweeten the pot on the Encore deal.

In the meantime, mainline pilots will have directly caused a significant unnecessary career uncertainty for over 100 Encore pilots who would then need to decide to flow and potentially lose out on seniority or wait but then lose out on LOS. And while I wouldn't necessarily take it personally, I think most of the Encore pilots will 100% think mainline pilots completely betrayed them.

Ex DC10 Driver wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 9:14 am

It’s as simple as that. To suggest the 90 day clause will be acted upon is strange. “Vote yes now and we will cancel it right away”. Is that even legal? If I was the company, I would claim 1. Abuse of the process and 2. ALPA failed to negotiate in good faith and 3, ALPA MEC is neglecting the will of the majority.

I believe that action would be headed to arbitration and with our record in that arena we would be stuck with another substandard agreement which would never be reworked.
Cool opinion, though saying it twice doesn't make it right. My Law Degree is from Dalhousie in Halifax, where's yours from?

Honestly, I hate playing the 'lawyer' card but to suggest that something is "simple as that" and then completely get the contractual clauses of the LOA wrong or use the terms "abuse of process" or "good faith" without a full legal understanding is basically the same as passengers coming up to you after the flight and saying "Oh hey there skipper, the wing sure looked like it was bending a lot, you may want to get maintenance to check that out!"

For the record, I never suggested that ALPA should tell its pilots "vote yes and then we'll cancel it". However, it is me and my legal background telling the mainline pilots that you have MORE options available to you for renegotiation if you vote Yes to the LOA than if you vote No.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Ex DC10 Driver
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:58 am

Re: One list

Post by Ex DC10 Driver »

For the record JBI I was not directing my comment at you. I cut and pasted from Biff who’s post I agreed with..but not with his views on ALPA. Only after did I see I also copied your name so I see why you would think I was directing it at you. Sorry, that was not my intention.
---------- ADS -----------
  

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: One list

Post by JBI »

Ex DC10 Driver wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:40 am
For the record JBI I was not directing my comment at you. I cut and pasted from Biff who’s post I agreed with..but not with his views on ALPA. Only after did I see I also copied your name so I see why you would think I was directing it at you. Sorry, that was not my intention.
All good, sir. I really do see your position and normally I'd agree to not say yes if you weren't sure about something especially if the status quo did have better lay off protection but it doesn't. But even putting aside that a No vote will have a really negative impact on my personal situation, I strongly disagree with the assumption that if we vote No we'll just go renegotiate with the company. I'll keep outlining why but am enjoying the respectful debate.

Cheers
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4045
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: One list

Post by altiplano »

This is an interesting topic... not just as it relates to Westjet/Encore but as related to other airlines.

Certainly worth looking at how other airlines manage flow from their regionals both now and in the past - including flow from wholly owned regional subsidiaries.

Do any offer seniority DOH carry over? Flow up or back?

American/PSA (wholly owned) -guaranteed flow, no interview... BOTL.

American/Piedmont (wholly owned) - guaranteed flow, no interview... BOTL. Can flow back to original seniority if you wash out at American.

American/Envoy (wholly owned) - guaranteed flow, no interview... BOTL.

American/American Eagle (wholly owned) - old Envoy deal - flowed with some seniority in terms of YOS pay... BOTL. There was also a flowback provision when American furloughed. Turned out a mess in the flowback/recall/flowup resulting in an arbitration awarding higher seniority to some AE pilots during recalls/flowups.

Delta/Endeavor (wholly owned) - 18 months as a Captain, clean employment record = guaranteed interview... BOTL

Delta's other regionals, guaranteed priority application review... BOTL.

Delta (Northwest)/Compass (wholly owned) - prior to being sold, full flow up/down agreement. All flow down Delta pilots were to sit senior to the most senior Compass pilot (except any senior "protected" pilots who bypassed flow up), all flow up regional pilots go BOTL.
90% of regional positions guaranteed to Delta (Northwest) pilots in a flow down, 10% guaranteed to protected pilots who bypass flow up and locked in seniority relative the larger list.

United - various express interview or priority application review deals... BOTL.

Alaska/Horizon (wholly owned) - "Pathway" gives hiring quotas from the regional and priority application/interview... BOTL

Air Canada/Jazz - Current pilot mobility agreement gives interview/flow in relative Jazz seniority, hiring quotas, and 90% acceptance guaranteed... BOTL.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Biff
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:36 pm

Re: One list

Post by Biff »

JBI wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:10 am
A "no" vote means ALPA can go back to the company and ask to rework it. There is NOTHING requiring the company to agree so.

Maybe the company will come to the table or maybe they'll just say "nah, bro, I'm good" or maybe they'll just come to the Encore MEC and sweeten the pot on the Encore deal.

In the meantime, mainline pilots will have directly caused a significant unnecessary career uncertainty for over 100 Encore pilots who would then need to decide to flow and potentially lose out on seniority or wait but then lose out on LOS. And while I wouldn't necessarily take it personally, I think most of the Encore pilots will 100% think mainline pilots completely betrayed them.
You are correct, the company could do that. It doesn't change the fact that the document is missing on a few different levels. I'm willing to take the risk, knowing that it could be detrimental to our Encore pilots. I'm hoping it won't be but I also refuse to be held hostage.
JBI wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:10 am
Cool opinion, though saying it twice doesn't make it right. My Law Degree is from Dalhousie in Halifax, where's yours from?
Law degree from Dalhousie? That's impressive, mine's engineering, but I'm not an engineer. How many years did you practice contractual law?
JBI wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:10 am

Honestly, I hate playing the 'lawyer' card but to suggest that something is "simple as that" and then completely get the contractual clauses of the LOA wrong or use the terms "abuse of process" or "good faith" without a full legal understanding is basically the same as passengers coming up to you after the flight and saying "Oh hey there skipper, the wing sure looked like it was bending a lot, you may want to get maintenance to check that out!"
What was the contractual clause of the LOA that I got wrong?

" Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others."

As far as good faith goes, would you not agree that ratifying an agreement solely to get something in writing, knowing that you are going to effectively cancel it once it's ratified is almost the exact opposite of the above definition? Regardless, it would most likely be up to an arbitrator to decide if it was in good faith, not you or me. I'll say it again, I don't feel that a trip back to the arbitrator will do us any good.
JBI wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:10 am

For the record, I never suggested that ALPA should tell its pilots "vote yes and then we'll cancel it". However, it is me and my legal background telling the mainline pilots that you have MORE options available to you for renegotiation if you vote Yes to the LOA than if you vote No.
This is where a lot of mainline pilots disagree with you. Perhaps we've become accustomed to being presented an inferior document while being told to not worry about the details they will be worked out later, only to be told later that we agreed to what was written.
---------- ADS -----------
  

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: One list

Post by JBI »

altiplano wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 1:02 pm
This is an interesting topic... not just as it relates to Westjet/Encore but as related to other airlines.

Certainly worth looking at how other airlines manage flow from their regionals both now and in the past - including flow from wholly owned regional subsidiaries.
Altiplano, respectfully what other airlines have is somewhat irrelevant at this juncture as unlike all of them, Encore pilots were always given one list. This was a key term in the terms of employment at Encore when being hired and Encore pilots have a seniority number on the WestJet Pilot Department List. In addition, the Mainline Pilots and ALPA consistently reassured the Encore pilots that they supported One List. It would be a different story if we didn't have Seniority and wanted something new.
Biff wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 1:41 pm

You are correct, the company could do that. It doesn't change the fact that the document is missing on a few different levels. [...] I'm hoping it won't be but I also refuse to be held hostage.
What items other than the potential lay-off provisions do you find lacking? Or that the company is holding the mainline pilots' hostage with?
Biff wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 1:41 pm

I'm willing to take the risk, knowing that it could be detrimental to our Encore pilots.
In Unity? Make no mistake, it will be extremely detrimental for a significant number of Encore pilots. A No vote will be dividing this pilot group. We've spent the last two years working on improving things for our pilot groups. The Encore pilots have been supporting the mainline pilots to prevent the company from being able to whipsaw between us. A No vote will accomplish something that the company would love - pitting the two groups against each other. Marvelous. For me, meh, I'm content to stay at Encore, practice some law on the side and live a good life in Calgary when we move back to Canada, but for most senior Encore pilots, especially those living in Calgary, a no vote is completely 'f-ing' them over.

If you're ok with that, especially when there is a very clear path to still improve things with not splitting the pilot group, well that's your prerogative I suppose.

But that gets us back to the first part. The mainline pilots will accomplish something that the management group hasn't been able to accomplish - animosity and division between the two groups. There's no reason for management to come back to the mainline pilots and say "ah ok, what can we do for you to make it pass?" until they've first gone to the Encore group and said "So, can we do anything for you guys instead?" Flow certainly helps recruitment, but there are certainly many other options available to the company, especially if they are now working with a divided pilot group.
Biff wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 1:41 pm
Law degree from Dalhousie? That's impressive, mine's engineering, but I'm not an engineer. How many years did you practice contractual law?
6 years full time practicing plus another 2 part-time after I returned to flying. I am an active practicing lawyer with the Law Society of British Columbia and was previously a member of the Nova Scotia Barrister's Society. I've lectured on aviation, negligence and contract law for flight instructor refresher courses and aviation insurance conferences. I've also written legal articles for various aviation magazines as well as a book on pilot careers in Canada and have spoken career fairs.
Biff wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 1:41 pm

What was the contractual clause of the LOA that I got wrong?

" Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others."

As far as good faith goes, would you not agree that ratifying an agreement solely to get something in writing, knowing that you are going to effectively cancel it once it's ratified is almost the exact opposite of the above definition? Regardless, it would most likely be up to an arbitrator to decide if it was in good faith, not you or me. I'll say it again, I don't feel that a trip back to the arbitrator will do us any good.
Section 11.01 provides that a party seeking modifications to this Agreement (just the LOA - not the CA) shall provide written notification of its desire to amend this agreement. Thereafter, meetings to address such notification shall occur within thirty (30 calendar days). Nothing contained herein shall prevent the Parties from utilizing a a facilitator to help resolve any differences.

This clause requires the company to come to the table regarding this LOA. It doesn't require them to settle something, but it gives all parties an avenue to renegotiate. Section 11.03 gives the parties an option to cancel the agreement.

If the MEC came out in writing and said "Vote for this and then we'll immediately seek and amendment" then yes, that probably wouldn't be considered good faith. However, if its voted in but there's a change in the mandate from the pilots on how they want the agreement to be interpreted there's nothing made in bad faith there. As we've seen recently, a pilot group's opinions are a fickle thing.

As of right now there is no reason for the company to renegotiate if the LOA is a No vote. And there is no additional lay-off protections for the vast majority of mainline pilots. But it is certain that there will be a pretty incredible betrayal of the Encore pilots. There is a significant downside for no real upside other than an artificial feeling of being able to tell the company "screw you"
Biff wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 1:41 pm

This is where a lot of mainline pilots disagree with you. Perhaps we've become accustomed to being presented an inferior document while being told to not worry about the details, they will be worked out later, only to be told later that we agreed to what was written.
I'm not saying don't worry about the details. Other than the lay-off provisions and vague notions that mainline pilots can somehow use the One List LOA as leverage for better working conditions at Swoop or mainline, I've not heard significant problems with this LOA. There is some pretty clear language on how mainline pilots can choose to transfer back to Encore and keep years of service as well as vacation (which again, with the status quo and a No vote is not an option), it outlines that some disciplinary items can't be used to prevent pilots flowing as was previously allowed and provides more clarity with respect to transferring between Swoop and WestJet.

With regard to the lay-off provisions, currently the status quo is that there are no provisions for bumping. The old WJPA contract had those provisions, the ALPA contracts do not. If you vote No, Mainline pilots still won't be able to bump Encore pilots. You're not gaining anything by voting No.

Honestly, if I thought there was strategically something to gain for you guys, I'd be saying so. But there's not anything to gain and a whole lot to lose.
---------- ADS -----------
  

sarg
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:44 pm

Re: One list

Post by sarg »

JBI wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 3:02 pm




Section 11.03 gives the parties an option to cancel the agreement.

I

I'm not saying don't worry about the details. Other than the lay-off provisions and vague notions that mainline pilots can somehow use the One List LOA as leverage for better working conditions at Swoop or mainline, I've not heard significant problems with this LOA. There is some pretty clear language on how mainline pilots can choose to transfer back to Encore and keep years of service as well as vacation (which again, with the status quo and a No vote is not an option), it outlines that some disciplinary items can't be used to prevent pilots flowing as was previously allowed and provides more clarity with respect to transferring between Swoop and WestJet.

With regard to the lay-off provisions, currently the status quo is that there are no provisions for bumping. The old WJPA contract had those provisions, the ALPA contracts do not. If you vote No, Mainline pilots still won't be able to bump Encore pilots. You're not gaining anything by voting No.

Honestly, if I thought there was strategically something to gain for you guys, I'd be saying so. But there's not anything to gain and a whole lot to lose.
So as a lawyer do you care to comment on the balance on Section 11.03 that says basically "if a pilot has received a reserved seniority right they get to keep it even if the agreement is cancelled"?

It seems to this layman that if the vote is Yes the company get what they want, the current Encore pilots are covered the company has no reason to renegotiate or even maintain the agreement. They can tell every future Encore pilot it's flow only and every future OTS at WestJet for the next few years will get to dwell on the bottom of the list.

The only way this gets fixed is if there is pressure on the company to get this fixed, a Yes vote seems to remove this pressure.
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4045
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: One list

Post by altiplano »

I think learning from other groups, successes, failures, or otherwise is totally relevant... learning from the past and present, but considering the future also, and know that none of us know what may come around the next corner...

What happens if Encore gets sold? What happens if Encore buys Pacific Coastal, or Pacific Coastal's 705 operation to integrate the CPA flying? Lots of guys with a bunch of seniority at Pasco 20+ years... I assume they get date of hire too when they join your group? What if WS wants to whipsaw the regionals and buys Georgian? Or Porter? Do they get the same deal? What happens when the slowdown, or lay offs come? What happens if there's a cadet program some day through Encore? Are ab initio 100 hour MPL guys going to accrue seniority ahead of a driver coming out of flying military transports for the past 20 years who went straight to mainline while they were technically hired but training?

Maybe those scenarios are far fetched... but there are ones coming that we can't even dream of... I'd want things spelled out a lot clearer than a broad seniority integration in only one direction.

I'd want protections from mergers at the regional, layoffs at the Mainline, and many other things before I just did a feel good unity Yes vote.

Protecting yourself and your position today and into the future is not only good for Mainline pilots, but for Encore pilots who haven't flowed yet... even if they felt it's a betrayal, that will be their position too, and they'll appreciate it's protected... a couple years seniority? Tough to lose, but we all suck it up moving through this career at some point... things change... even then, I imagine most will have long careers ahead of them, probably with 25+ years in the left seat at Mainline...

Seniority is highly valuable for so many reasons - and the issue you face is so much more than the couple hundred people it affects mildly either way at your airlines today. That's why it's protected without exception today at all those airlines I listed... you just don't know what's coming next...

Unintended consequences.
---------- ADS -----------
  

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: One list

Post by JBI »

According to a mainline friend who listened to the All pilot call tonight, the WJ MEC indicated that it will NOT ask to try and renegotiate (As is 100% their right to do so) if the LOA vote fails.

A "no" vote does NOT mean they try to renegotiate. A "no" vote means mainline pilots will not get a chance to rework things and they will be significantly screwing over the Encore pilots.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “WestJet”