New TA?

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

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

ActionAxson
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:42 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by ActionAxson »

Can anybody ELI5 (explain like I'm 5) the consequences of Rouge expansion? I heard someone mention it will mean more days worked per month to NB pilots. I guess I don't understand the differences between Mainline and Rouge very well.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by rudder »

ActionAxson wrote:Can anybody ELI5 (explain like I'm 5) the consequences of Rouge expansion? I heard someone mention it will mean more days worked per month to NB pilots. I guess I don't understand the differences between Mainline and Rouge very well.
Some Rouge flying is growth flying but thus far the majority is substitution for mainline flying.

Rouge is B scale pay. Rouge is B scale work rules.

It takes less pilots to do the Rouge schedule under LOU74 than it would under mainline rules so growth is partially offset by efficiency.

Separating Rouge flying from mainline shrinks the pool of flying on specific equipment that is available for monthly bidding.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Spruce Moose
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:48 am

Re: New TA?

Post by Spruce Moose »

So essentially, this TA allows Rouge to grow at the expense of Mainline NB flying?

When you put it that way it doesn't sound good at all, but obviously there is more to it than that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Old fella
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2394
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am
Location: I'm retired. I don't want to'I don't have to and you can't make me.

Re: New TA?

Post by Old fella »

rudder wrote:
ActionAxson wrote:Can anybody ELI5 (explain like I'm 5) the consequences of Rouge expansion? I heard someone mention it will mean more days worked per month to NB pilots. I guess I don't understand the differences between Mainline and Rouge very well.
Some Rouge flying is growth flying but thus far the majority is substitution for mainline flying.

Rouge is B scale pay. Rouge is B scale work rules.

It takes less pilots to do the Rouge schedule under LOU74 than it would under mainline rules so growth is partially offset by efficiency.

Separating Rouge flying from mainline shrinks the pool of flying on specific equipment that is available for monthly bidding.
Question (as a point of interest) and if you don't mind. I understand Rouge fleet is A319/20 and B767 so if you fly those types at mainline can you bid on Rouge per month or does he/she have to stay at Rouge for a period of time.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by rudder »

Spruce Moose wrote:So essentially, this TA allows Rouge to grow at the expense of Mainline NB flying?

When you put it that way it doesn't sound good at all, but obviously there is more to it than that.
CR and BS would probably like to see Rouge on any route that can support A319 or larger that does not require J-class inventory. That now includes RRA routes.

That is a lot of flying (think of every North American and sun destination leisure route and many overseas routes that are primarily tourism driven).

Rouge represents labour cost savings, pure and simple.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by rudder »

Old fella wrote:
Question (as a point of interest) and if you don't mind. I understand Rouge fleet is A319/20 and B767 so if you fly those types at mainline can you bid on Rouge per month or does he/she have to stay at Rouge for a period of time.
Nope. Rouge is a separate operating certificate. There is no interchangeability other than TC accepting pilot type qualification and currency if changing from a mainline position to a Rouge position.

There are freezes once assigned to a Rouge position.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DH772
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:05 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by DH772 »

The company contributes a higher percentage than the employee.

It really is a very very good DC pension.
Not a DC pension to start with.
What someone was referring to was the pension payout is higher than the DC because the employee/employer pay into it more since there is no ITA limits. In fact if you look at the pension estimator (well you probably cant since they didnt give DB access to it) if you take the additional payments made through the MEPP plan vs. DC and you factor that additional payment into the DC plan (say into a separate investment vehicle) the difference between the 2 plans is near 0.

Lastly, everyone needs to stop saying that the DC plan has been fixed. It has been improved but is still nowhere near DB levels!
The big reason (which i can understand) why many DB plan members voted yes for this believing the plan is fixed (lots of DC members voted no to this) is because they know if there is any chance in getting the DB plan indexed before the DC members out number the DB plan, then the DC plan had to be addressed ASAP.

Just wait, 2020 will allow widebody rouge expansion for an indexed DB plan meanwhile MEPP plan is still a good 30-50% below the current DB levels.
Let me ask you, how do MEPP members ask for increased pension in the future? The plan is pretty much setup at its maximum now.You cant really negotiate increases since you are already at max. A serp? How do you go about a SERP if you are already contributing 7.5%? Did ACPA run the numbers of gaining a SERP in the future? Personally, I feel the DC plan may be smaller payout for the time being but has much higher potential for improvements in the future and not to mention that money is your forever.

Trust me when I say this, this is far from a fixed pension. It is just a step forward so we can justify DB increases 3 years from now.

just my 2 cents
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by rudder »

I am fairly certain that the 7.5% required member contribution to a collective agreement related retirement vehicle is the highest of any legacy carrier in North America.

Also - forget DB indexation. It is the single most expensive component of any DB Plan.
---------- ADS -----------
 
groundpilot
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:10 am
Location: A Smokn' Hole

Re: New TA?

Post by groundpilot »

DH772 wrote:
The company contributes a higher percentage than the employee.

It really is a very very good DC pension.
Not a DC pension to start with.
What someone was referring to was the pension payout is higher than the DC because the employee/employer pay into it more since there is no ITA limits. In fact if you look at the pension estimator (well you probably cant since they didnt give DB access to it) if you take the additional payments made through the MEPP plan vs. DC and you factor that additional payment into the DC plan (say into a separate investment vehicle) the difference between the 2 plans is near 0.

Lastly, everyone needs to stop saying that the DC plan has been fixed. It has been improved but is still nowhere near DB levels!
The big reason (which i can understand) why many DB plan members voted yes for this believing the plan is fixed (lots of DC members voted no to this) is because they know if there is any chance in getting the DB plan indexed before the DC members out number the DB plan, then the DC plan had to be addressed ASAP.

Just wait, 2020 will allow widebody rouge expansion for an indexed DB plan meanwhile MEPP plan is still a good 30-50% below the current DB levels.
Let me ask you, how do MEPP members ask for increased pension in the future? The plan is pretty much setup at its maximum now.You cant really negotiate increases since you are already at max. A serp? How do you go about a SERP if you are already contributing 7.5%? Did ACPA run the numbers of gaining a SERP in the future? Personally, I feel the DC plan may be smaller payout for the time being but has much higher potential for improvements in the future and not to mention that money is your forever.

Trust me when I say this, this is far from a fixed pension. It is just a step forward so we can justify DB increases 3 years from now.

just my 2 cents
The pension issue is complex and filled with assumptions and variabilities.

Yes - those are just your 2 cents

When you say "In fact if you look at the pension estimator if you take the additional payments made through the MEPP plan vs. DC and you factor that additional payment into the DC plan (say into a separate investment vehicle) the difference between the 2 plans is near 0."

You are making assumptions based on market returns and who knows how you came up with those numbers. DC members have to take on the risk. This was about the management of risk. This plan is pretty good, particularly when you compare it to other corporations.

"Let me ask you, how do MEPP members ask for increased pension in the future?"

The answer is pretty simple, you increase salary. Then that increases contributions.

In reference to DC pension - "not to mention that money is your forever."

So is the MEPP. The company can't touch it through concessions. And the DC contributions are still in a locked in RRSP with all the CRA restrictions.
---------- ADS -----------
 
aV1aTOr
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:15 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by aV1aTOr »

The very fact that nay-sayers call the new pension plan the new DC plan tells you all you need to know. I'm guessing about 30 seconds of research was given to whether it was an improvement or not, and the gaping holes in understanding were filled in by the "facts" thrown around on the ACPA forum.
Those claiming the existing DC plan was excellent, I'll ask you, would you consider trading your DB plan for it? Sorry if I made you choke on your coffee just then. That's also how many DCers felt about having their retirement rely on a glorified RRSP. It's not just about the assumed (based on estimated market return) dollar amount at the end. It's about security and predictability. Just like your DB, albeit not as rich.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Jimmy_Hoffa
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:46 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by Jimmy_Hoffa »

aV1aTOr wrote:The very fact that nay-sayers call the new pension plan the new DC plan tells you all you need to know. I'm guessing about 30 seconds of research was given to whether it was an improvement or not, and the gaping holes in understanding were filled in by the "facts" thrown around on the ACPA forum.
Those claiming the existing DC plan was excellent, I'll ask you, would you consider trading your DB plan for it? Sorry if I made you choke on your coffee just then. That's also how many DCers felt about having their retirement rely on a glorified RRSP. It's not just about the assumed (based on estimated market return) dollar amount at the end. It's about security and predictability. Just like your DB, albeit not as rich.
Sadly enough, just change a couple of words and the same could be said of the understanding of the rest of the contract changes proposed from the junior members and all the "Facts" on their FB and WhatsApp groups.

The saddest part of all was the half truths and one sided information presented to the membership by its bargaining agent. I spent more time explaining to people that Mainline didn't need to grow by 30 fins before rouge could than I thought possible. Not one "nay sayer" I have encountered on the line or on the forum thought the DC plan was anything short of embarrassing, but what they did have issue with was what was being asked of the entire membership to give in return for fixing it beyond contractually bargained for previously. Small things like the ability to IPO rouge and what happens to the pilots who are on a leave of absence from Mainline while they work there. Plans to double rouge NJA with RRA directly costing jobs required and higher wages, read increased pensionable earnings, was another such example. There is also the artificial burning platform that ACPA created for itself by forcing people to chose between a direction with no fundimental membership support and arbitration. Avoiding arbitration alone probably accounted for 10%-15% of the Yes vote. The vote passed so I am not going to keep going, however it's not as simple and devious as you make it sound to vote No.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Skyhunter
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:15 am
Location: Near YOW

Re: New TA?

Post by Skyhunter »

Jimmy_Hoffa wrote:
aV1aTOr wrote:The very fact that nay-sayers call the new pension plan the new DC plan tells you all you need to know. I'm guessing about 30 seconds of research was given to whether it was an improvement or not, and the gaping holes in understanding were filled in by the "facts" thrown around on the ACPA forum.
Those claiming the existing DC plan was excellent, I'll ask you, would you consider trading your DB plan for it? Sorry if I made you choke on your coffee just then. That's also how many DCers felt about having their retirement rely on a glorified RRSP. It's not just about the assumed (based on estimated market return) dollar amount at the end. It's about security and predictability. Just like your DB, albeit not as rich.
Sadly enough, just change a couple of words and the same could be said of the understanding of the rest of the contract changes proposed from the junior members and all the "Facts" on their FB and WhatsApp groups.

The saddest part of all was the half truths and one sided information presented to the membership by its bargaining agent. I spent more time explaining to people that Mainline didn't need to grow by 30 fins before rouge could than I thought possible. Not one "nay sayer" I have encountered on the line or on the forum thought the DC plan was anything short of embarrassing, but what they did have issue with was what was being asked of the entire membership to give in return for fixing it beyond contractually bargained for previously. Small things like the ability to IPO rouge and what happens to the pilots who are on a leave of absence from Mainline while they work there. Plans to double rouge NJA with RRA directly costing jobs required and higher wages, read increased pensionable earnings, was another such example. There is also the artificial burning platform that ACPA created for itself by forcing people to chose between a direction with no fundimental membership support and arbitration. Avoiding arbitration alone probably accounted for 10%-15% of the Yes vote. The vote passed so I am not going to keep going, however it's not as simple and devious as you make it sound to vote No.

Dude, news flash!! here is one for you, some of us support Rouge expansion. On its own merits, for our own reasons, without worrying if mainline grew, would have been happy with that guarantees mainline doesn't shrink. I think your "B scale" argument is ludicrous. Having worked with Rouge rules and mainline rules. But guess I am just a "ROGUE." That's ok though, always did like Star Wars.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mooseontheloose
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 3:24 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by Mooseontheloose »

.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Mooseontheloose on Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jimmy_Hoffa
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:46 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by Jimmy_Hoffa »

Skyhunter wrote:
Jimmy_Hoffa wrote:
aV1aTOr wrote:The very fact that nay-sayers call the new pension plan the new DC plan tells you all you need to know. I'm guessing about 30 seconds of research was given to whether it was an improvement or not, and the gaping holes in understanding were filled in by the "facts" thrown around on the ACPA forum.
Those claiming the existing DC plan was excellent, I'll ask you, would you consider trading your DB plan for it? Sorry if I made you choke on your coffee just then. That's also how many DCers felt about having their retirement rely on a glorified RRSP. It's not just about the assumed (based on estimated market return) dollar amount at the end. It's about security and predictability. Just like your DB, albeit not as rich.
Sadly enough, just change a couple of words and the same could be said of the understanding of the rest of the contract changes proposed from the junior members and all the "Facts" on their FB and WhatsApp groups.

The saddest part of all was the half truths and one sided information presented to the membership by its bargaining agent. I spent more time explaining to people that Mainline didn't need to grow by 30 fins before rouge could than I thought possible. Not one "nay sayer" I have encountered on the line or on the forum thought the DC plan was anything short of embarrassing, but what they did have issue with was what was being asked of the entire membership to give in return for fixing it beyond contractually bargained for previously. Small things like the ability to IPO rouge and what happens to the pilots who are on a leave of absence from Mainline while they work there. Plans to double rouge NJA with RRA directly costing jobs required and higher wages, read increased pensionable earnings, was another such example. There is also the artificial burning platform that ACPA created for itself by forcing people to chose between a direction with no fundimental membership support and arbitration. Avoiding arbitration alone probably accounted for 10%-15% of the Yes vote. The vote passed so I am not going to keep going, however it's not as simple and devious as you make it sound to vote No.

Dude, news flash!! here is one for you, some of us support Rouge expansion. On its own merits, for our own reasons, without worrying if mainline grew, would have been happy with that guarantees mainline doesn't shrink. I think your "B scale" argument is ludicrous. Having worked with Rouge rules and mainline rules. But guess I am just a "ROGUE." That's ok though, always did like Star Wars.
Go back and re read this discussion. So far it has simply been trying to explain how much of the information presented was misrepresented and will probably not be as ACPA promised, not people ranting about the evils of rouge growth. I personally don't care if you support rouge growth just because, that's up to you. Some people are looking forward at the bigger implications of the degradation of the working conditions at Canada's flag carrier and how that tends to have a ripple effect across the industry. There are a lot of paths through life and this career and on the whole, many of the quality of life issues that have been vital to members and their families in the past which have been fought for are being negotiated away without a mandate.

Being told the growth shrink ratio is 1:1 for NJA and 2:1 for WJA sounds fair and reasonable. Learning that it's closer to 31 rouge : 0 ML changes the value of the negotiations. Some people qu action why we were lied to. Working more being paid less for the same job is the definition of B Scale, thebslides from the prthe sensation showed exactly that. Even with all the overtimenpeople we're doing they still made less money. Some people think what we are actually giving up is worth more than we got.

53% membership for such career changing issues should not be considered a win for ACPA or this industry.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TheStig
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by TheStig »

DH772 wrote: Not a DC pension to start with.
What someone was referring to was the pension payout is higher than the DC because the employee/employer pay into it more since there is no ITA limits. In fact if you look at the pension estimator (well you probably cant since they didnt give DB access to it) if you take the additional payments made through the MEPP plan vs. DC and you factor that additional payment into the DC plan (say into a separate investment vehicle) the difference between the 2 plans is near 0.
If you added the extra contributions to the current DC plan they wouldn't they be taxed as income (before you could contribute the funds to the DC) since they would exceed the ITA limit? Hardly seems like an apples to apples comparison when once example isn't possible.
DH772 wrote: Lastly, everyone needs to stop saying that the DC plan has been fixed. It has been improved but is still nowhere near DB levels!

The big reason (which i can understand) why many DB plan members voted yes for this believing the plan is fixed.

Just wait, 2020 will allow widebody rouge expansion for an indexed DB plan meanwhile MEPP plan is still a good 30-50% below the current DB levels.
DB plan members were given acccess to the MEPP estimator, or I was by mistake...it assumed that I started working at AC today, in my current position, with no prior contributions. With all the projections incorporated I was surprised to see that the MEPP payment was actually higher than the max DB pension.

The pension committee spent 5 years looking at all the options, spoke with experts and felt the Multi-employer pension plan was the best way forward. I've talked with some pretty sharp guys who have taken the numbers to financial experts and while the results vary great based on the number of years the pilot will contribute and their career projections, the MEPP was the winner. Almost everyone I talked to on the DC Plan wanted this, although most didn't like the idea of LCC expansion. One DC member told me he would rather stick with the DC plan but for the group as a whole the MEPP would be a huge benefit. I'd be curious to know if he's going to transfer into the new plan or not.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by rudder »

Mooseontheloose wrote:Please keep the discussion going guys, plenty of us outsiders learning from this. That being said, what does MEPP and SERP stand for?
Multiple Employer Pension Plan (i.e. a pooled pension to share risk/lower administrative cost and create a bigger investment account)

Supplemental Executive Retirement Program (i.e. a top hat pension to provide for benefits above the Revenue Canada maximum for federally regulated Registered Pension Plans)
---------- ADS -----------
 
atphat
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:01 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by atphat »

One does not have a choice.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: New TA?

Post by mbav8r »

I was told one of the benefits of the MEPP was that there is no limit on being overfunded, so no payment holidays and less risk of severe underfunding during a market low. In that sense, it's better than a DB plan.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Skyhunter
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:15 am
Location: Near YOW

Re: New TA?

Post by Skyhunter »

TheStig wrote:
DH772 wrote: Not a DC pension to start with.
What someone was referring to was the pension payout is higher than the DC because the employee/employer pay into it more since there is no ITA limits. In fact if you look at the pension estimator (well you probably cant since they didnt give DB access to it) if you take the additional payments made through the MEPP plan vs. DC and you factor that additional payment into the DC plan (say into a separate investment vehicle) the difference between the 2 plans is near 0.
If you added the extra contributions to the current DC plan they wouldn't they be taxed as income (before you could contribute the funds to the DC) since they would exceed the ITA limit? Hardly seems like an apples to apples comparison when once example isn't possible.
DH772 wrote: Lastly, everyone needs to stop saying that the DC plan has been fixed. It has been improved but is still nowhere near DB levels!

The big reason (which i can understand) why many DB plan members voted yes for this believing the plan is fixed.

Just wait, 2020 will allow widebody rouge expansion for an indexed DB plan meanwhile MEPP plan is still a good 30-50% below the current DB levels.
DB plan members were given acccess to the MEPP estimator, or I was by mistake...it assumed that I started working at AC today, in my current position, with no prior contributions. With all the projections incorporated I was surprised to see that the MEPP payment was actually higher than the max DB pension.

The pension committee spent 5 years looking at all the options, spoke with experts and felt the Multi-employer pension plan was the best way forward. I've talked with some pretty sharp guys who have taken the numbers to financial experts and while the results vary great based on the number of years the pilot will contribute and their career projections, the MEPP was the winner. Almost everyone I talked to on the DC Plan wanted this, although most didn't like the idea of LCC expansion. One DC member told me he would rather stick with the DC plan but for the group as a whole the MEPP would be a huge benefit. I'd be curious to know if he's going to transfer into the new plan or not.

The only choice available is to roll your current DC contributions into the new plan or put in a LIRA. Enrollment in the new plan from this point forward is mandatory. That choice to put current contributions into a LIRA or roll to the new plan is best made by talking to a financial planner and analyzing your specific needs and requirements. For me it can make sense to put in a LIRA.

I have taken the info on the new plan to a financial advisor, and received my own independent advice about whether to roll or put into a LIRA. The also looked at the plan and thought it was one of the best plans they had seen.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: New TA?

Post by rudder »

mbav8r wrote:I was told one of the benefits of the MEPP was that there is no limit on being overfunded, so no payment holidays and less risk of severe underfunding during a market low. In that sense, it's better than a DB plan.
If the plan is underfunded, OSFI still requires a recovery plan. And the time frame allowed to demonstrate 100% solvency is much shorter than permitted for DB plans.

In a MEPP that is underfunded (due to poor market return or low interest rates or missing contributions from insolvent employers) it is unlikely that contributions can be increased (member contributions are based on collective agreements) therefore benefits must be reduced to demonstrate 100% solvency. These reductions typically apply to both active members and retirees, but not necessarily on an equal basis.

There is a lot of literature out there about MEPP. Check out the Revenue Canada website and the OSFI website.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”