A "NEW" One List?

Discuss topics relating to Westjet.

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

Post Reply
JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

A "NEW" One List?

Post by JBI » Tue May 21, 2019 7:19 am

What things do mainline pilots want/need to see in a new LOA in order for them to vote for a one list?

It seems the other One List thread has officially "jumped the shark" (google it - great photos of the Fonz!). Since the No vote last week there has been a fair bit of support from mainline pilots to keep the One List. That's great! Sincerely.

But, what are the conditions that mainline pilots want changed that will make them vote in favour of keeping the one list?
Is it "full bumping or bust"?
What about 'one way' bumping - i.e mainline pilots could bump Encore pilots but not vice versa?
Any other types of wording that would need to change?

I've tried to explain that for any mainline pilot hired before May 2015, bumping provisions have no effect on their job security whatsoever. Let's repeat - If you were hired before May 2015 bumping provisions will give you no additional lay-off protection that you already have now. That's 1400 mainline pilots that will not be impacted by bumping (if the company wants to layoff anyone hired before May 2015 they'd have to renegotiated the CBA).

For the remaining 150 Mainline pilots (roughly 80 OTS and 70 Encore Flow), there isn't bumping, but they still have much stronger lay-off provisions than Encore (i.e. you don't 'need' bumping if the company won't lay you off before they lay off Encore people). Again, I've tried to explain the difference in wording that because Encore is a CPA of mainline, the company would have a giant headache and significant legal costs if they were going to try and lay-off mainline pilots before Encore pilots.

From most of what I've heard here or from mainline friends, the consensus seems to be that there has to be somesort of bumping. Is that the threshold? Or are there other ways that a No voter would consider voting Yes with some different wording?
---------- ADS -----------
  

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

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by Biff » Tue May 21, 2019 9:19 am

How about this; if we truly want “one list” then make it one list. If there are layoffs to be made, then the layoffs start at the bottom of the list. Doesn’t matter where they are(Encore or Mainline), whoever is at the bottom gets laid off.

For example, in the case of a reduction, the first thing is to offer LOA’s to the affected type group. If 50 lay-off positions become inevitable then the bottom 50 pilots on the “one list” will be laid off. If those laid off pilots(or portion of) are at Encore and the reduction is at mainline, then the pilots at mainline would be able to take whichever jobs at Encore that their seniority could hold(most likely FO positions). If the FO’s at mainline decided, they could also take a LOA, allowing some of their junior pilots to have their lay-off notice rescinded(based on seniority order).

Much like right now at mainline. If mainline decides that we are getting rid of the 787’s, those pilots would not be laid off, they would bump back into the 737(to a position their seniority could hold) unless they wanted to take a LOA.
---------- ADS -----------
  

sstaurus
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by sstaurus » Tue May 21, 2019 12:31 pm

Is there any other airline precedent for the 'bump and flush'? I have a hard time seeing any company agree to that. Given hard times necessitating lay offs, the last thing they would want is to trigger all the expense of the sudden extra training required. Just playing devil's advocate here...
---------- ADS -----------
  

cjet
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:26 pm
Location: yyc

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by cjet » Tue May 21, 2019 12:49 pm

sstaurus wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 12:31 pm
Is there any other airline precedent for the 'bump and flush'? I have a hard time seeing any company agree to that. Given hard times necessitating lay offs, the last thing they would want is to trigger all the expense of the sudden extra training required. Just playing devil's advocate here...
That's the idea. We need to make lay offs unappealing for Westjet. Currently lay offs cost WJ very little. If the Max doesn't fly soon we may see lay offs soon at WJ but if in the future lay offs are costly that is a deterent.

Cjet
---------- ADS -----------
  

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by JBI » Tue May 21, 2019 12:58 pm

Biff wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 9:19 am
How about this; if we truly want “one list” then make it one list. If there are layoffs to be made, then the layoffs start at the bottom of the list. Doesn’t matter where they are(Encore or Mainline), whoever is at the bottom gets laid off.
I'm definitely in favour of this. However, what if its the other way around from your example? The company wants to get rid of a bunch of Qs and there ends up being mainline pilots junior to Encore pilots. Do we still bump mainline pilots?

The issue is that there's a strong argument that if an Encore pilots bumps a mainline pilot due to layoffs, the company is now in violation of the second part of section 1-1.05 in the mainline CBA.

So does the CBA get changed? Or do mainline pilots agree to "one way" bumping? (i.e. mainline can bumped Encore but not vice-versa)
---------- ADS -----------
  

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

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by Biff » Tue May 21, 2019 2:31 pm

JBI wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 12:58 pm
Biff wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 9:19 am
How about this; if we truly want “one list” then make it one list. If there are layoffs to be made, then the layoffs start at the bottom of the list. Doesn’t matter where they are(Encore or Mainline), whoever is at the bottom gets laid off.
I'm definitely in favour of this. However, what if its the other way around from your example? The company wants to get rid of a bunch of Qs and there ends up being mainline pilots junior to Encore pilots. Do we still bump mainline pilots?

The issue is that there's a strong argument that if an Encore pilots bumps a mainline pilot due to layoffs, the company is now in violation of the second part of section 1-1.05 in the mainline CBA.

So does the CBA get changed? Or do mainline pilots agree to "one way" bumping? (i.e. mainline can bumped Encore but not vice-versa)

Whoever is at the bottom of the "one list" gets laid off. Doesn't matter if its a Dash guy or a 737 guy or a 767 guy or a 787 guy. That's the idea of "one list".
---------- ADS -----------
  

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by JBI » Tue May 21, 2019 2:59 pm

Biff wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 2:31 pm
Whoever is at the bottom of the "one list" gets laid off. Doesn't matter if its a Dash guy or a 737 guy or a 767 guy or a 787 guy. That's the idea of "one list".
Agreed, and I would love that, but how does this get done if it violates the mainline Collective Agreement?
---------- ADS -----------
  

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

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by Biff » Tue May 21, 2019 3:53 pm

JBI wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 2:59 pm
Biff wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 2:31 pm
Whoever is at the bottom of the "one list" gets laid off. Doesn't matter if its a Dash guy or a 737 guy or a 767 guy or a 787 guy. That's the idea of "one list".
Agreed, and I would love that, but how does this get done if it violates the mainline Collective Agreement?
Well, I’m not the lawyer, lol, but can't an LOA, agreed upon by all parties and voted on by the membership, supersede the contract?
---------- ADS -----------
  

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by JBI » Thu May 23, 2019 4:24 am

Biff wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 3:53 pm

Well, I’m not the lawyer, lol, but can't an LOA, agreed upon by all parties and voted on by the membership, supersede the contract?
Haha put me on the spot :P

Short Answer for an anonymous aviation message board: No, an LOA cannot violate a term in the CA

Short Lawyer Answer: It depends, while, generally speaking, an LOA cannot violate a term in the CA, it can clarify or amend one.

Long Lawyer Answer: The line between when an LOA is violating the CA verses when it is clarifying or amending it actually is very dependent on the circumstances, the wording of the CA, the importance of the clause and the seriousness of the ramifications if breached. And how it would be treated by the board in this particular situation is unclear, especially as it is something different than what other airlines in Canada do. I'll get my junior associate to research it for you at only $175 per hour and get back to you in a few weeks.
---------- ADS -----------
  

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

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by Biff » Thu May 23, 2019 6:51 am

Ok, fair enough.

Can you now post why a proposed one list would go against the article in the CBA that you referenced?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Jep
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:46 pm

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by Jep » Thu May 23, 2019 7:20 am

Biff wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 6:51 am
Ok, fair enough.

Can you now post why a proposed one list would go against the article in the CBA that you referenced?
He did exactly that in a separate topic almost two weeks ago -
“Lay-Off And Scope Considerations of the One List LOA“

Strangely enough it received virtually no attention. I guess he should have named it one list something or other!
---------- ADS -----------
  

Barney
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:58 pm
Location: Canada

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by Barney » Sat May 25, 2019 2:15 pm

The one list wasfor flow to be hired at Mainline. No bumping positions up or down. Too expensive for the company, not gonna be an option.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
George Taylor
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:21 am

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by George Taylor » Sat May 25, 2019 2:33 pm

Barney wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 2:15 pm
The one list wasfor flow to be hired at Mainline. No bumping positions up or down. Too expensive for the company, not gonna be an option.
The wording was there before.
---------- ADS -----------
  

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by JBI » Sat May 25, 2019 4:40 pm

George Taylor wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 2:33 pm
The wording was there before.
Sort of. The ability to bump was in the non-unionized WJPA mainline and Encore contracts from 2015. However, not included in those contracts was the very strong scope clause that now exists in the mainline ALPA contract. The contractual clauses issue that I have referred to (which AGAIN, provides really strong lay off protection for the mainline pilots... this is a good thing!) were not there in the WJPA contracts - there was no real scope and there wasn't lay-off protections. Now there is. The lay-off protections in the current ALPA contract is significantly stronger than in the WJPA contracts.
---------- ADS -----------
  

DropTanks
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:56 am

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by DropTanks » Sun May 26, 2019 5:50 am

JBI wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 4:40 pm
George Taylor wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 2:33 pm
The wording was there before.
Sort of. The ability to bump was in the non-unionized WJPA mainline and Encore contracts from 2015. However, not included in those contracts was the very strong scope clause that now exists in the mainline ALPA contract. The contractual clauses issue that I have referred to (which AGAIN, provides really strong lay off protection for the mainline pilots... this is a good thing!) were not there in the WJPA contracts - there was no real scope and there wasn't lay-off protections. Now there is. The lay-off protections in the current ALPA contract is significantly stronger than in the WJPA contracts.
But here’s the thing. What was or wasn’t in the previous WJPA contract is irrelevant. We’re not here to vote on the WJPA contract. We were to vote on the tri-party One List LOA. Nobody’s saying we don’t have some protections from lay-off built into the new contract, minimal as they may be. Yes I said minimal because I’ve seen much better lay-off protections in CA’s. It’s never been about the lay-off protections, it was about what we could do AFTER all those protections had been utilized and our position at mainline no longer existed. Bumping down in order of seniority on the exact list you wish to live on. Because guess what...doing so would inherently become a lay-off prevention tool due to training costs for WestJet. See how that works? Secondly if the content of the LOA was in fact so good then I dare say we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It’s as simple as that. People don’t need lawyerly dissection of a document that makes them simply feel cheated. If it feels wrong then it feels wrong and they voted as such. Now the powers that be have very quickly felt the wrath of the group for their inadequate LOA and are working on new solutions. That’s how the system works. Vote for what’s in front of you.
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by mbav8r » Sun May 26, 2019 8:40 am

DropTanks wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 5:50 am
JBI wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 4:40 pm
George Taylor wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 2:33 pm
The wording was there before.
Sort of. The ability to bump was in the non-unionized WJPA mainline and Encore contracts from 2015. However, not included in those contracts was the very strong scope clause that now exists in the mainline ALPA contract. The contractual clauses issue that I have referred to (which AGAIN, provides really strong lay off protection for the mainline pilots... this is a good thing!) were not there in the WJPA contracts - there was no real scope and there wasn't lay-off protections. Now there is. The lay-off protections in the current ALPA contract is significantly stronger than in the WJPA contracts.
But here’s the thing. What was or wasn’t in the previous WJPA contract is irrelevant. We’re not here to vote on the WJPA contract. We were to vote on the tri-party One List LOA. Nobody’s saying we don’t have some protections from lay-off built into the new contract, minimal as they may be. Yes I said minimal because I’ve seen much better lay-off protections in CA’s. It’s never been about the lay-off protections, it was about what we could do AFTER all those protections had been utilized and our position at mainline no longer existed. Bumping down in order of seniority on the exact list you wish to live on. Because guess what...doing so would inherently become a lay-off prevention tool due to training costs for WestJet. See how that works? Secondly if the content of the LOA was in fact so good then I dare say we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It’s as simple as that. People don’t need lawyerly dissection of a document that makes them simply feel cheated. If it feels wrong then it feels wrong and they voted as such. Now the powers that be have very quickly felt the wrath of the group for their inadequate LOA and are working on new solutions. That’s how the system works. Vote for what’s in front of you.
This is exactly why I questioned the timing of the Encore vote and One List vote, if it were me at Encore, I would’ve voted no the the contract until the results of the one list vote or as an MEC member I would’ve delayed the vote for the same reason. I believe had the one list results been known prior to the contract vote, it would have turned out different.
Please excuse the indifference, Encore pilots have no one to blame but themselves for how it turns out, they had some leverage if they voted no until the seniority was resolved, now it’s completely up to the mainline pilots how this goes.
I’m also surprised they didn’t have a 17 year deal shoved it front of them, given according to yycjetdriver, us bad Jazz pilots set a huge precedent and everyone will have to sign extremely long term deals(paraphrasing, of course) guess he was wrong, shocker!
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by JBI » Sun May 26, 2019 4:34 pm

DropTanks wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 5:50 am
JBI wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 4:40 pm
George Taylor wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 2:33 pm
The wording was there before.
Sort of. The ability to bump was in the non-unionized WJPA mainline and Encore contracts from 2015. However, not included in those contracts was the very strong scope clause that now exists in the mainline ALPA contract. The contractual clauses issue that I have referred to (which AGAIN, provides really strong lay off protection for the mainline pilots... this is a good thing!) were not there in the WJPA contracts - there was no real scope and there wasn't lay-off protections. Now there is. The lay-off protections in the current ALPA contract is significantly stronger than in the WJPA contracts.
But here’s the thing. What was or wasn’t in the previous WJPA contract is irrelevant. We’re not here to vote on the WJPA contract.
While I actually agree with you that what was in the previous contract is irrelevant, my comment was a direct response to "George Taylor" who suggested, I think, that because the wording was in the previous WJPA contract it should/could be in a new LOA. I was suggesting why it was different.

We're not here to vote on the WJPA contract nor the previous LOA. The topic of this discussion was to try and figure out what exactly mainline pilots who voted no want to see in an LOA that will make them vote yes. Some want bumping - that's fair. I've outlined why I don't think that that may be an unobtainable negotiating position. But, if there are other alternatives I'm interested to hear.
DropTanks wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 5:50 am
We were to vote on the tri-party One List LOA. Nobody’s saying we don’t have some protections from lay-off built into the new contract, minimal as they may be. Yes I said minimal because I’ve seen much better lay-off protections in CA’s. It’s never been about the lay-off protections, it was about what we could do AFTER all those protections had been utilized and our position at mainline no longer existed. Bumping down in order of seniority on the exact list you wish to live on.
Aw, Twenty Dollars?! I wanted a peanut!

In my opinion, as a May 4, 2015 hire you have some incredible lay-off protection outlined in the current mainline scope clause (not in the lay-off section). You have this whether an LOA gets passed or not. The company cannot lay you off without renegotiating the CBA. I've outlined my reasons why ad nauseam. If I were in your position I'd honestly rather have that protection than the ability to bump. Arguably, if the company gets to the point where you're facing a lay-off there won't be anyone's position to bump into.
DropTanks wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 5:50 am
Because guess what...doing so would inherently become a lay-off prevention tool due to training costs for WestJet. See how that works? Secondly if the content of the LOA was in fact so good then I dare say we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It’s as simple as that. People don’t need lawyerly dissection of a document that makes them simply feel cheated. If it feels wrong then it feels wrong and they voted as such. Now the powers that be have very quickly felt the wrath of the group for their inadequate LOA and are working on new solutions. That’s how the system works. Vote for what’s in front of you.

You can feel however you want to feel. My "lawyerly dissection" will tell you what the contract (a document written by union and company lawyers) actually says.

I mean if your feeling is even though the company has to literally ask to renegotiate the CBA in order to lay you off and you still feel cheated, there's not much I can say to that. Also, if your feeling is that the only way you'll vote for a new LOA is that if, in addition to the contractual scope clause prohibiting layoffs for those hired May 2015 and earlier AND also prohibiting lay-offs of those after that date if as a result of business with Encore or any other commercial relationship you need the company to agree to something more, that's fine. If all the no voters feel that way too, that's fine. But it does give me a good sense of the actual chance of success of any future LOAs.

The old LOA is dead. Long live the LOA!

So is bumping the threshold? (As I've said, I'm not arguing against bumping. In fact my feelings towards bumping are very positive). But I've outlined my concerns with having that as a negotiating position. Is there any other positions that would make you (presumably a no voter), decide to vote yes if included in a new LOA?
mbav8r wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 8:40 am
This is exactly why I questioned the timing of the Encore vote and One List vote, if it were me at Encore, I would’ve voted no the the contract until the results of the one list vote or as an MEC member I would’ve delayed the vote for the same reason. I believe had the one list results been known prior to the contract vote, it would have turned out different.
Please excuse the indifference, Encore pilots have no one to blame but themselves for how it turns out, they had some leverage if they voted no until the seniority was resolved, now it’s completely up to the mainline pilots how this goes.
I’m also surprised they didn’t have a 17 year deal shoved it front of them, given according to yycjetdriver, us bad Jazz pilots set a huge precedent and everyone will have to sign extremely long term deals(paraphrasing, of course) guess he was wrong, shocker!
mbav8r,

If only it were that easy. Due to a number of reasons I've outlined previously, simply voting No on a TA while waiting for the One List LOA to be signed wasn't an option. For a number of reasons, it did need to be the second step in the process.

I don't condone non-Jazz pilots from playing armchair quarterback on the Jazz TA. Respectfully, if you don't completely understand the situation suggesting that "Encore pilots have no one to blame but themselves" is a misguided statement.
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by mbav8r » Sun May 26, 2019 5:37 pm

mbav8r,

If only it were that easy. Due to a number of reasons I've outlined previously, simply voting No on a TA while waiting for the One List LOA to be signed wasn't an option. For a number of reasons, it did need to be the second step in the process.

I don't condone non-Jazz pilots from playing armchair quarterback on the Jazz TA. Respectfully, if you don't completely understand the situation suggesting that "Encore pilots have no one to blame but themselves" is a misguided statement.
Thank you for pointing that out, I agree, I don’t know the situation, I can’t even come up with a reason for it needing to be the second step. I apologize for the remarks but we at Jazz have had LOUs attached and conditional on the contracts passing, this seems no different to me.
One of those LOUs was a four party agreement to “flow” over to AC, no seniority however if ACPA had agreed to that it would’ve been included. In fact one of those were the original PML that had Jazz pilots defer and accrue seniority for two years, if the contract failed, so would the LOU, I’m obviously missing something here.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"

DropTanks
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:56 am

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by DropTanks » Sun May 26, 2019 5:40 pm

JBI

It seems you’re operating on wrong assumptions. Allow me to set it straight. I’m not in this for myself. I do feel relatively safe from lay-off (knock on wood). The people I’m thinking of are the 1yr, 2yr, even 3yr mainline FO’s that sit stuck at the bottom of the list much longer than at any other company. Vulnerable to job loss. Nobody seems to give two shits about them. The only padding they had was bumping into Encore which is hiring a 4 times the rate of mainline. But that’s gone now isn’t it? The LOA conspicuously omitted the only single solitary item that actually was there for the BOTL guys at mainline. Poof! Gone. Oh well apparently I’m supposed to vote YES anyway because you know...unity.
---------- ADS -----------
  

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by JBI » Sun May 26, 2019 7:23 pm

DropTanks,

I apologize if it seemed that I was suggesting you were only it in for yourself. That was not my intention. I was outlining that those in your position and senior to you have very strong lay-off protections.

I've also outlined in previous posts that for those at mainline junior to you (currently about 150 OTS and Encore flow pilots), the lay-off protections are not quite as iron clad, but in conjunction with flow from the LOA, my personal position, as someone who would have been covered in that particular cohort was that the scope provisions combined with the interaction of the two contracts was still a very strong deterrent to lay-offs. I have numerous friends that are in this group as well. I do care about their well being and job security. Though ironically, they have significantly less job security with the failure of the LOA at the moment.

It's a moot point; the old LOA will obviously not be resurrected in its previous form.

So for a new LOA, if we ever get there, what needs to be in it?
---------- ADS -----------
  

DropTanks
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:56 am

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by DropTanks » Sun May 26, 2019 7:44 pm

Fair enough. To answer your question...

Two-way travel on the list. Guaranteed, iron clad true two way travel on the One list. Any job reductions at any of the three companies would result in the lay-off of the most junior person on the entire list regardless of the letterhead on his/her paycheck. Positions and training would shift accordingly. We may not (likely not) get common employer so let’s go for common seniority list.
---------- ADS -----------
  

skyhighh
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:55 pm

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by skyhighh » Mon May 27, 2019 4:10 pm

I love how in order for the One list to come back again there is this lay off protection that is so important for the WestJet pilots. So if something happens at mainline, they can go back to Encore. I agree 100%. But in that case, let's make it work both ways. If something happens to Encore the Encore pilots should be able to take WestJet's spots. A true one list.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
George Taylor
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:21 am

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by George Taylor » Mon May 27, 2019 4:58 pm

Absolutely, one list flows both ways! Including Encore bumping up when seniority dictates.
---------- ADS -----------
  

tps8903
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by tps8903 » Mon May 27, 2019 5:21 pm

George Taylor wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 4:58 pm
Absolutely, one list flows both ways! Including Encore bumping up when seniority dictates.
How would that work in practice? All the OTS guys since Encore started would be forced back to encore while 150-200 guys move to mainline to replace them?

Then all hiring would have to be done through Encore regardless?

Might be crazy, but I don't think the company would go for this.

Or are you suggesting true seniority moving forward with status quo unless there is a layoff event?

Honest questions.
---------- ADS -----------
  

laserstrike
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: A "NEW" One List?

Post by laserstrike » Mon May 27, 2019 9:21 pm

tps8903 wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 5:21 pm
George Taylor wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 4:58 pm
Absolutely, one list flows both ways! Including Encore bumping up when seniority dictates.
How would that work in practice? All the OTS guys since Encore started would be forced back to encore while 150-200 guys move to mainline to replace them?

Then all hiring would have to be done through Encore regardless?

Might be crazy, but I don't think the company would go for this.

Or are you suggesting true seniority moving forward with status quo unless there is a layoff event?

Honest questions.
Usually in situations like this, they would be protected in their current position and base but wouldn't be able to bid anything new until their seniority could hold it on the one list. Pretty simple really.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “WestJet”