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.