Stig, where do you stand on the issue, your vote aside, do you think it's a good thing that AC pilots are essentially voting to "bring regional routes back" at a reduced rate?
Wages to be determine but guaranteed to be lower than mainline rates, otherwise what's the point, the language even referenced a blended pairing, so if you have a four day pairing, of which 6 of the 12 legs are RRA flying, those 6 legs are at the reduced rate.
This is the part that baffles me, historically AC has started some new routes with Express and once it becomes viable to put a mainline aircraft on the route, they repatriated that flying, now they will do the same thing at a reduced rate. So, you sell your soul to the devil, what are you getting for it?
Also, apparently there's this shortage of pilots occurring and it is very likely AC would need to up gauge some routes as Express finds it harder to fill seats, again you are giving them a reduced cost on a commercial need, I hope you're getting some major improvements for this.
As a Jazz pilot who is happy to stay put, I truly hope that you are getting some major improvements and this has nothing to do with, "sticking it to them" syndrome, which I thought we were getting past and hopefully still headed that way.
I'm not sure where you've got your information, and i have no idea what Rudder is talking about(!)? The reference to the Regional Route Replacement is in LOU74 (ie Rouge).
Here's how it reads, any route that has been at express for a 12 month period can be replaced by mainline using an aircraft (other than a B757 or E190) and operated under LOU74. That aircraft would not be counted under the growth/sink (mainline vs. rouge) ratio negotiated under this deal. However, with respect to the overall ratio of mainline/regional scope the Regional Route replacement aircraft are counted as Mainline aircraft.
So what does it mean? AC can upgauge a route like YYZ-MSY with a rouge A319 and redeploy the Jazz CRJ705 or SR E175 to BNA.