CEWS

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

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

alkaseltzer
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:16 pm

Re: CEWS

Post by alkaseltzer »

rudder wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 8:38 am There is a significant employer expense associated with job sharing vs layoff savings. Pension. Benefits. Vacation accrual. Pay progression. Payroll taxes. Etc.
The other airlines are doing the CEWS at nil cost to their pilot body. Why do we need to have taxable benefits paid while on CEWS?
kiaszceski wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 7:03 am So you are saying the ACPA couldn’t negotiate a tiny 5% pay cut to avoid sacrificing 162 families ?
Exactly. From the people getting laid off...majority of the bottom half of the seniority list is of the opinion that ACPA only cares about the top 10%.
Sharklasers wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 7:22 am We all got into this knowing the score.
We cannot allow the WAGCON to permanently erode to temporarily save junior jobs. We already have a 30% pay cut due to our hours cut saving hundreds of jobs. Eventually we have to worry about the quality of the remaining jobs.
This is where many people strongly disagree. $150-220k for the upper end vs being classified to a Dollarama worker for the junior pilots. We all heavily invested and took paycuts to be here.
L39Guy wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 8:34 am Perhaps it's easy being on the sidelines now as a retiree but I think ACPA and AC pilots should endure some pain for its junior members facing furlough.

Virtually no sector of society is untouched by this event and the notion that senior pilots will carry on their merry way while junior ones take it on the chin is not right or fair. Everyone should feel some of the economic pain of this pandemic.

Even if all 700+ furloughs cannot be avoided, even a 10% cut in hours (~8 hours per month) would at least keep 300+ employed and make it just that much closer for the remaining 400 or so to come back.
CEWS is a government entitlement, we are not asking for AC to cover the taxable benefits - highly unreasonable to expect so.
200Above wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 6:36 am As for other airlines offering the subsidy... I hear WJ has been misapplying CEWS. Not sure about the details or anything, but maybe there was some confusion as to how its been applied in the past, and how it's supposed to be applied in the future. This may warrant a second look at the pros/cons of the program moving forward.
Westjet, Sunwing, Transat...all run by seasoned accountants. Hard to believe.
---------- ADS -----------
 
kiaszceski
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:29 am

Re: CEWS

Post by kiaszceski »

Sharklasers wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 7:22 am We all got into this knowing the score.
We cannot allow the WAGCON to permanently erode to temporarily save junior jobs. We already have a 30% pay cut due to our hours cut saving hundreds of jobs. Eventually we have to worry about the quality of the remaining jobs.
I’m sure you know the difference between 5% pay cut on a 150k and a fellow pilot working to feed the family.
So speaking about quality of the remaining jobs, taking another 5% pay cut will bring you to the poverty line and you won’t be able to afford you luxurious life anymore?
Things need to change.
If earning 120k a year is not enough for the next year or two while having earned 200k for the last 10 years you might have seek financial advice.
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4301
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: CEWS

Post by altiplano »

Do you think the guy getting reduced 320 CA to 737 FO at 55 hours isn't taking a big pay cut? More like 50+%?

Everyone is taking big hits. Everyone has obligations.

Are you sure that guy has been earning 200K for the last 10 years?

How many jobs do you think another 5% is going to save?

Everytime we give on the contract it's gone forever.

There are going to be furloughs, we've minimized them and bought time for ourselves, that's just what it is. Plan accordingly if you don't see somewhat of a recovery coming within the year.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2260
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: CEWS

Post by rudder »

kiaszceski wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 2:05 pm I’m sure you know the difference between 5% pay cut on a 150k and a fellow pilot working to feed the family.
So speaking about quality of the remaining jobs, taking another 5% pay cut will bring you to the poverty line and you won’t be able to afford you luxurious life anymore?
Things need to change.
If earning 120k a year is not enough for the next year or two while having earned 200k for the last 10 years you might have seek financial advice.
The AC plan for 2021 is to match expense to revenue (or better). So if the revenue projection for 2021 is 75-80% of 2019 revenue then that is the expense limitation. That means 75-80% total pilot budget as compared to 2019. That represents “the pie”. It won’t get bigger. Hopefully won’t need to get smaller either.

How do you propose to divvy up the pie? The corporate plan is to remove just shy of 800 pilots (plus the early retirements plus the normal retirements) from payroll and operate with the ‘pilots on lay-off’ provisions of the CBA. DMM’s probably quite low for many rosters as commercial responds to as an yet unknown demand environment in the different markets. Lots of pilots assigned RSV on even lower monthly guarantees.

There is a reason that pilot CBA’s have provisions for reductions, reduction in force, and layoff. It is because it is a (sad) reality of the airline business. We dodged it for 10 years. That was a great run. Unprecedented. But the last ones hired in each hiring cycle have unfortunately always been most affected.

JT is running around with his COVID era “sunny ways” plan throwing money at anything and anyone (except the airline business). But it will not change the reality of the impact on the economy of COVID. We cannot wish it away and things will not be back to normal anytime soon.
---------- ADS -----------
 
alkaseltzer
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:16 pm

Re: CEWS

Post by alkaseltzer »

rudder wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 2:51 pm
JT is running around with his COVID era “sunny ways” plan throwing money at anything and anyone (except the airline business). But it will not change the reality of the impact on the economy of COVID. We cannot wish it away and things will not be back to normal anytime soon.
All the other airline pilots in Canada that can enjoy the CEWS past June 30th are definitely enjoying JT's "sunny ways".
---------- ADS -----------
 
L39Guy
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:04 pm
Location: Canada

Re: CEWS

Post by L39Guy »

rudder wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 2:51 pm There is a reason that pilot CBA’s have provisions for reductions, reduction in force, and layoff. It is because it is a (sad) reality of the airline business. We dodged it for 10 years. That was a great run. Unprecedented. But the last ones hired in each hiring cycle have unfortunately always been most affected.
The CBA does indeed have provision for reductions, etc. The CBA, like any other living document, also has provisions to modify itself owing to the circumstances that may present themselves from time-to-time. A recent example was the grounding of the B737.

The furlough and other provisions have been in pilot CBA's forever; but remember that at one time airlines hired 20 year-olds fresh out of flying college or even just off the street. Furloughing a 20 year old (or something thereabouts) is one thing as they generally have few financial commitments (family, mortgage, etc.). Today's new-hire pilot comes complete with a fancy post-secondary education, thousands of hours of flying experience - all of that take time to achieve such that AC hires individuals in the their late 20's, 30's and beyond. These people have financial obligations and commitments (family, mortgage, etc.). And, these individuals also made a commitment to AC. The paradigm has shifted over the past 30 years from hiring 20 years olds, sticking them in the centre seat to hiring highly educated, experienced (and hence older) pilots to go directly into the right seat, the right seat of widebodies and potentially direct entry captains.

The notion of furloughs during a normal economic downturn is bad enough; COVID is an entirely different event where I believe that everyone should feel a little pain just like the wider society does. ACPA, ALPA and others can choose to recognize this new reality or they can pretend that things were like they were in the '70's when 20 years were being furloughed.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
'97 Tercel
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: CEWS

Post by '97 Tercel »

These "sunny ways" will come back to bite us in the form of a hidden tax called inflation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Jimmy_Hoffa
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:46 pm

Re: CEWS

Post by Jimmy_Hoffa »

L39Guy wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 12:19 pm
rudder wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 2:51 pm There is a reason that pilot CBA’s have provisions for reductions, reduction in force, and layoff. It is because it is a (sad) reality of the airline business. We dodged it for 10 years. That was a great run. Unprecedented. But the last ones hired in each hiring cycle have unfortunately always been most affected.
The CBA does indeed have provision for reductions, etc. The CBA, like any other living document, also has provisions to modify itself owing to the circumstances that may present themselves from time-to-time. A recent example was the grounding of the B737.

The furlough and other provisions have been in pilot CBA's forever; but remember that at one time airlines hired 20 year-olds fresh out of flying college or even just off the street. Furloughing a 20 year old (or something thereabouts) is one thing as they generally have few financial commitments (family, mortgage, etc.). Today's new-hire pilot comes complete with a fancy post-secondary education, thousands of hours of flying experience - all of that take time to achieve such that AC hires individuals in the their late 20's, 30's and beyond. These people have financial obligations and commitments (family, mortgage, etc.). And, these individuals also made a commitment to AC. The paradigm has shifted over the past 30 years from hiring 20 years olds, sticking them in the centre seat to hiring highly educated, experienced (and hence older) pilots to go directly into the right seat, the right seat of widebodies and potentially direct entry captains.

The notion of furloughs during a normal economic downturn is bad enough; COVID is an entirely different event where I believe that everyone should feel a little pain just like the wider society does. ACPA, ALPA and others can choose to recognize this new reality or they can pretend that things were like they were in the '70's when 20 years were being furloughed.
Wider society isn’t ‘feeling a little pain.’ It’s essentially the same as the provisions in the CBA. Haves vs have nots. I know tons of people still receiving full pay working from home. This outnumbers the people I know who have lost any percentage of income. I will admit my socioeconomic circle is slanted that way due to demographics, but the argument doesn’t change. Most pilot unions have been able to take collective reductions in WAWCON to temporarily reduce the need for layoffs. But that’s all it should be, temporary. While your statement about the average 20yo having less financial obligations than others later in midlife may be true, the vast majority of pilot rosters compromise of those midlife demographics. Why should the majority suffer for the minority. The cost of an employee goes far beyond their individual hourly wage, so any long term mitigation efforts are going to be a cancer more than a cure. Keeping x people employed is a noble effort, but if x+y employees can’t meet financial obligations then what’s worse?
Should CBA’s evolve, sure, but by your logic they should just lay off the top of the seniority list because they should be the most financially secure right?
---------- ADS -----------
 
TheStig
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: CEWS

Post by TheStig »

Air Canada has announced lay offs for up to 60% of its workforce. Having a surplus of around 800 out of 4500 on property shows that the airline is going to be very heavy on pilots for the foreseeable future. It's inaccurate to suggest that pilots who have avoided furlough aren't going to feel massive financial strain. There are reductions coming, there are hundreds of fewer Captains positions are currently available that were being held by pilots hired since 2014. Block hours will be cut to a minimum, the ESOP program has been terminated and obviously profit sharing has evaporated.

The airline has shown its hand, obviously pilot requirements could change massively again one the next bid, but if the airline is genuinely planning on implementing its new structure there are two things to be gained from ACPA's perspective: 1) No amount of concessions will prevent furloughs. 2) They should not concede on the 900 hour/year pay clause.
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4301
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: CEWS

Post by altiplano »

TheStig wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 5:38 am Air Canada has announced lay offs for up to 60% of its workforce. Having a surplus of around 800 out of 4500 on property shows that the airline is going to be very heavy on pilots for the foreseeable future. It's inaccurate to suggest that pilots who have avoided furlough aren't going to feel massive financial strain. There are reductions coming, there are hundreds of fewer Captains positions are currently available that were being held by pilots hired since 2014. Block hours will be cut to a minimum, the ESOP program has been terminated and obviously profit sharing has evaporated.

The airline has shown its hand, obviously pilot requirements could change massively again one the next bid, but if the airline is genuinely planning on implementing its new structure there are two things to be gained from ACPA's perspective: 1) No amount of concessions will prevent furloughs. 2) They should not concede on the 900 hour/year pay clause.
900 hour guarantee? Which clause is that?
---------- ADS -----------
 
TheStig
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: CEWS

Post by TheStig »

LOU 83, however, having had to look it up I see its not going to offer any protection because one of the clauses voiding its protection are blocks under 57 hours...and it ended in 2017. Sorry if I got your hopes up.
---------- ADS -----------
 
L39Guy
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:04 pm
Location: Canada

Re: CEWS

Post by L39Guy »

Jimmy_Hoffa wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 5:06 pm Wider society isn’t ‘feeling a little pain.’ It’s essentially the same as the provisions in the CBA. Haves vs have nots. I know tons of people still receiving full pay working from home. This outnumbers the people I know who have lost any percentage of income. I will admit my socioeconomic circle is slanted that way due to demographics, but the argument doesn’t change. Most pilot unions have been able to take collective reductions in WAWCON to temporarily reduce the need for layoffs. But that’s all it should be, temporary. While your statement about the average 20yo having less financial obligations than others later in midlife may be true, the vast majority of pilot rosters compromise of those midlife demographics. Why should the majority suffer for the minority. The cost of an employee goes far beyond their individual hourly wage, so any long term mitigation efforts are going to be a cancer more than a cure. Keeping x people employed is a noble effort, but if x+y employees can’t meet financial obligations then what’s worse?
Should CBA’s evolve, sure, but by your logic they should just lay off the top of the seniority list because they should be the most financially secure right?
With the exception of the health care, truck transport, food industry and perhaps others, I would be hard pressed to think of any part of society that has not been economically damaged by this pandemic. I know of law firms, dental practices, medical clinics, cosmetic industries, entertainment industries, service industries that have either shutdown or reduced their operations. But whether the wider society is affected or not is not necessarily important; what is important is our industry.

We should try to define "temporary" - is it a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade? If the predictions are correct that it will take 3 years for the airline industry to rebound to its pre-COVID level, that is the upper bound.

Assuming the 768 is the extent of the furloughs, over the next three years there will be ~100 retirement per year so what is a 768 surplus in 05/20, becomes 668 in 05/21, 568 in 05/22 and 468 in 05/23. That is a given as age 65 is a hard number.

A 10% reduction in flying and an increase of 330 jobs (all rough figures based upon 3300 positions in CMSC 20-01), makes the 05/20 surplus
438, 05/21 of 338, 05/22 of 268 and 05/22 of 138.

I suspect that the FDR were deferred as the industry cannot afford the financial burden at this time as it is loosing millions per day; once that is re-implemented that will be a few hundred jobs (I think 500-700 jobs on the monster bid last year were attributed to FDR changes), let's say in 2022 and let's say its 400 with the scaled down operations. That results in zero surplus two years from now.

All of this, with the exception of the retirements and the 10% reduction in flying/increase in positions, is pure speculation.

"Why should the majority suffer for the minority" - because you are in a union; because you have compassion for your fellow professional colleague; because you make a way above the average family wage; because 50% of what you give up it taken by the taxation system. I think those are pretty good reasons.

I have difficulty believing that someone that is making $200K+ "cannot afford" a 10% hit for a couple of years. It might be one fewer new car, or less going into savings. If you're telling me that "y" number of pilots, making $200K+ per year can't make their financial obligations with a 10% pay cut, then they should manage their lives a little better as the average family income in this country is $60K. But what about those "x" colleagues that will be on EI in two months?

As far as costs to keep people around in addition to wages, there are also costs to furloughs - financial, i.e. training, and non-financial, i.e. morale. Tough to quantify the latter but I know that the infamous 249 that layed-off from AC were still bitter 25 years later.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Jimmy_Hoffa
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:46 pm

Re: CEWS

Post by Jimmy_Hoffa »

L39Guy wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 8:44 am
Jimmy_Hoffa wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 5:06 pm Wider society isn’t ‘feeling a little pain.’ It’s essentially the same as the provisions in the CBA. Haves vs have nots. I know tons of people still receiving full pay working from home. This outnumbers the people I know who have lost any percentage of income. I will admit my socioeconomic circle is slanted that way due to demographics, but the argument doesn’t change. Most pilot unions have been able to take collective reductions in WAWCON to temporarily reduce the need for layoffs. But that’s all it should be, temporary. While your statement about the average 20yo having less financial obligations than others later in midlife may be true, the vast majority of pilot rosters compromise of those midlife demographics. Why should the majority suffer for the minority. The cost of an employee goes far beyond their individual hourly wage, so any long term mitigation efforts are going to be a cancer more than a cure. Keeping x people employed is a noble effort, but if x+y employees can’t meet financial obligations then what’s worse?
Should CBA’s evolve, sure, but by your logic they should just lay off the top of the seniority list because they should be the most financially secure right?
With the exception of the health care, truck transport, food industry and perhaps others, I would be hard pressed to think of any part of society that has not been economically damaged by this pandemic. I know of law firms, dental practices, medical clinics, cosmetic industries, entertainment industries, service industries that have either shutdown or reduced their operations. But whether the wider society is affected or not is not necessarily important; what is important is our industry.

We should try to define "temporary" - is it a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade? If the predictions are correct that it will take 3 years for the airline industry to rebound to its pre-COVID level, that is the upper bound.

Assuming the 768 is the extent of the furloughs, over the next three years there will be ~100 retirement per year so what is a 768 surplus in 05/20, becomes 668 in 05/21, 568 in 05/22 and 468 in 05/23. That is a given as age 65 is a hard number.

A 10% reduction in flying and an increase of 330 jobs (all rough figures based upon 3300 positions in CMSC 20-01), makes the 05/20 surplus
438, 05/21 of 338, 05/22 of 268 and 05/22 of 138.

I suspect that the FDR were deferred as the industry cannot afford the financial burden at this time as it is loosing millions per day; once that is re-implemented that will be a few hundred jobs (I think 500-700 jobs on the monster bid last year were attributed to FDR changes), let's say in 2022 and let's say its 400 with the scaled down operations. That results in zero surplus two years from now.

All of this, with the exception of the retirements and the 10% reduction in flying/increase in positions, is pure speculation.

"Why should the majority suffer for the minority" - because you are in a union; because you have compassion for your fellow professional colleague; because you make a way above the average family wage; because 50% of what you give up it taken by the taxation system. I think those are pretty good reasons.

I have difficulty believing that someone that is making $200K+ "cannot afford" a 10% hit for a couple of years. It might be one fewer new car, or less going into savings. If you're telling me that "y" number of pilots, making $200K+ per year can't make their financial obligations with a 10% pay cut, then they should manage their lives a little better as the average family income in this country is $60K. But what about those "x" colleagues that will be on EI in two months?

As far as costs to keep people around in addition to wages, there are also costs to furloughs - financial, i.e. training, and non-financial, i.e. morale. Tough to quantify the latter but I know that the infamous 249 that layed-off from AC were still bitter 25 years later.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I will sum it up with this. The contract provides protections by making it expensive to lay off. Those protections come in the forms of reductions in value of other parts of the contract. So in essence that person making $200k+ has been giving up things his entire career as did people before him for those protections. The membership has already made concessions for 6 months to reduce the required layoff to only 600. The taxes we pay go to providing social services to society as a whole. Turning the contract into a social utopia to protect employment numbers is a weak argument given your implication that we should give up as much as we can to save all 600 jobs, and anything less than the full 600 is the same as all 600. It’s no ones fault but their own if any of the 243 are still bitter. Same with this group now. Yes layoffs suck, but most people know what seniority is and what it means inside a union. How is it fair that the person who already lost their seat in a down-bid then give up even more. If the flying isn’t there nothing we give will help. It’s better to protect the quality of the job to come back to over the job itself.

As for all your numbers. It’s pure speculation. Nothing has been mentioned about FTDL being postponed or exemptions being extended.

-Jimmy
---------- ADS -----------
 
kiaszceski
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:29 am

Re: CEWS

Post by kiaszceski »

altiplano wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 2:42 pm Do you think the guy getting reduced 320 CA to 737 FO at 55 hours isn't taking a big pay cut? More like 50+%?
I am talking about those 10 to 15% Top Captain.

Everyone is taking big hits. Everyone has obligations.
altiplano wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 2:42 pm Are you sure that guy has been earning 200K for the last 10 years?
I am still talking about those 10 to 15% Top Captain.
altiplano wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 2:42 pm How many jobs do you think another 5% is going to save?
I don't know, you tell me, but that is not the point.
altiplano wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 2:42 pm Everytime we give on the contract it's gone forever.
"Plan accordingly" to get back what you gave.
And oh, this is why going into a strike is useful, isn't it?
altiplano wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 2:42 pm There are going to be furloughs, we've minimized them and bought time for ourselves, that's just what it is. Plan accordingly if you don't see somewhat of a recovery coming within the year.
Stop this magical non-sense words: "Plan accordingly"

Everyone is aware of the slowdown due to a financial crisis is quite predictable and plans accordingly at least in the aviation industry, but tell me, who could have seen today's crisis be the next instead of a "normal" slowdown?


I guess we just have to agree to disagree, the system is biased, that's not because an old pilot experienced one or multiple downturns that it should be the same for younger folks.
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4301
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: CEWS

Post by altiplano »

TheStig wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 6:10 am LOU 83, however, having had to look it up I see its not going to offer any protection because one of the clauses voiding its protection are blocks under 57 hours...and it ended in 2017. Sorry if I got your hopes up.
No, hopes weren't up, I knew it wasn't there.

But I keep hearing guys talking about our 900 hour guarantee which doesn't exist, seems lots of us think it's there still.
---------- ADS -----------
 
McKinley
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: CEWS

Post by McKinley »

Plan accordingly? Yes, downturns are not normal but look at the data below.

Each successive recession only worsens things...what would planning accordingly look like for a 3-5 year downturn? From the time I’ve been in the industry, the recessions get worse and the wages and benefits don’t rebound.

I worry for the next generation of pilots coming up ...

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washing ... utType=amp
---------- ADS -----------
 
ayseven
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:17 am

Re: CEWS

Post by ayseven »

I wouldn't. Everything is relative. I am not going to complain, because it all worked out for me - well - less so in aviation - but all that depends where you live. the 80's recession lasted a lot longer in the western provinces than it did in Ontario. And it depends also in the industry one is in. This one is particularly vulnerable to changes, as we know. I used to equate it to the entertainment business; it is about as stable a job.
---------- ADS -----------
 
L39Guy
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:04 pm
Location: Canada

Re: CEWS

Post by L39Guy »

I see that Delta is working towards avoiding 2300 lay-offs among its pilot group (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/01/delta-u ... ilots.html. That is how a union is supposed to work.


If I recall correctly, AC and ACPA avoid some, if not all, furloughs following the 2008 financial crisis. I would like to think that those who benefited from this act of solidarity would be the ones championing a furlough mitigation this time.
---------- ADS -----------
 
L39Guy
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:04 pm
Location: Canada

Re: CEWS

Post by L39Guy »

Plan accordingly? Interesting proposition; I suppose it means that new hires and junior pilots should plan, with their pathetic flat salary, to plan for a furlough when they can barely make ends meet while being based in Toronto or Vancouver. That is an interesting trick.

May I suggest that "plan accordingly" take on a different meaning: Everyone - senior, junior, newhire - plan for an industry downturn sometime in the future and be prepared to see a 10% to 15% drop in hours and hence wages to weather these storms. That means not buying stuff - house, cars, toys, etc. - at or beyond your means to pay. How about living slightly under your wage so that when events like this occur you're not pleading poverty while being in the top 5% of wage earners in this country?
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2260
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: CEWS

Post by rudder »

L39Guy wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:13 pm I see that Delta is working towards avoiding 2300 lay-offs among its pilot group (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/01/delta-u ... ilots.html. That is how a union is supposed to work.
To put it in context, what DAL ALPA is talking about is early retirement packages. DAL already has offers in place for non-cons (non union staff). Now DAL ALPA is waiting to see what is offered to the pilots.

AC did the early retirement step first.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”