Meanwhile in 'Merica

[cloak]

In my opinion, WestJet has never been just another "regular" airline if that makes any sense, with unique compensation and culture. I believe this is partly why the ALPA transition hasn't fully worked in its favor (yet). Perhaps still its approach ought to be unique and something that fits IT as opposed to other airlines in the past and fierce negotiations, done as "partners"? Food for thought.

[TFTMB heavy]

In my opinion, WestJet has never been just another "regular" airline if that makes any sense, with unique compensation and culture. I believe this is partly why the ALPA transition hasn't fully worked in its favor (yet). Perhaps still its approach ought to be unique and something that fits IT as opposed to other airlines in the past and fierce negotiations, done as "partners"? Food for thought.

Binding arbitration is what got them a bum deal in their first contract under ALPA. ALPA offers support and makes recommendations, ultimately the MEC has the final word. If you go against the recommendations then you get what you get.

Never take the binding option, ever. Keep the final decision in the hands of membership, let the membership vote on their contract.

[JBI]

Binding arbitration is what got them a bum deal in their first contract under ALPA. ALPA offers support and makes recommendations, ultimately the MEC has the final word. If you go against the recommendations then you get what you get.

Never take the binding option, ever. Keep the final decision in the hands of membership, let the membership vote on their contract.

While I definitely agree, it should be noted that for the previous contract, the First Collective Agreement, s. 80 of the Canada Labour Code gives the CIRB more options with respect to forcing binding arbitration. There were less options in avoiding binding arbitration for the previous contract than there will be for this one.

[cloak]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

[TFTMB heavy]

Binding arbitration is what got them a bum deal in their first contract under ALPA. ALPA offers support and makes recommendations, ultimately the MEC has the final word. If you go against the recommendations then you get what you get.

Never take the binding option, ever. Keep the final decision in the hands of membership, let the membership vote on their contract.

While I definitely agree, it should be noted that for the previous contract, the First Collective Agreement, s. 80 of the Canada Labour Code gives the CIRB more options with respect to forcing binding arbitration. There were less options in avoiding binding arbitration for the previous contract than there will be for this one.

True but I think they voluntarily gave up the right to strike and agreed to binding arbitration.

[TFTMB heavy]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

The strike vote is usually used to measure the support behind the union. A strong participation and vote in favour show the company what they are up against. Nobody in their right mind wants to go on strike or be locked out. But once you commit to it you can't flinch or you get a bum deal.

[JBI]

True but I think they voluntarily gave up the right to strike and agreed to binding arbitration.

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration.

With the caveat that I wasn't at the table for those negotiations, it is important to understand the position that the previous ALPA MEC/Negotiating Committee was in during CA1. Saying that they agreed not to strike is a little like saying Gregg voluntarily chose to retire. It's not untrue per se, but when you look at the facts surrounding the situation, most of us believe Gregg really didn't have a choice about retiring and neither did the union have a choice of avoiding arbitration.

Section 80 of the Canada Labour code gives the CIRB a codified right to force mediation, but only for a first collective agreement. So, facing likely forced arbitration, the union attempted to still negotiate to put itself in the best position possible while covering its mandate (one of which was trying to prevent the company moving too much flying to lower wages at Swoop). Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily agree with every decision that they made, but I'm not going to armchair quarterback 5 years later and criticize because I wasn't at the table.

This is different than the current situation where ALPA now has a constitutional right to strike if need be. While there is always some risk of the Federal Gov't getting involved, ALPA's legal counsel did a great job explaining the situation on the most recent podcast on why that may not be too likely. While I do expect some communication with various federal ministers, I'm hopeful that they are less likely to interfere and permit the parties to negotiate a contract on their own. I truly hope we can reach an agreement without a strike, but in my experience over the last 6 years of being involved at various stages of negotiations, the Company will generally only resolves things at the last minute or when they are forced.

[TFTMB heavy]

True but I think they voluntarily gave up the right to strike and agreed to binding arbitration.

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration.

With the caveat that I wasn't at the table for those negotiations, it is important to understand the position that the previous ALPA MEC/Negotiating Committee was in during CA1. Saying that they agreed not to strike is a little like saying Gregg voluntarily chose to retire. It's not untrue per se, but when you look at the facts surrounding the situation, most of us believe Gregg really didn't have a choice about retiring and neither did the union have a choice of avoiding arbitration.

Section 80 of the Canada Labour code gives the CIRB a codified right to force mediation, but only for a first collective agreement. So, facing likely forced arbitration, the union attempted to still negotiate to put itself in the best position possible while covering its mandate (one of which was trying to prevent the company moving too much flying to lower wages at Swoop). Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily agree with every decision that they made, but I'm not going to armchair quarterback 5 years later and criticize because I wasn't at the table.

This is different than the current situation where ALPA now has a constitutional right to strike if need be. While there is always some risk of the Federal Gov't getting involved, ALPA's legal counsel did a great job explaining the situation on the most recent podcast on why that may not be too likely. While I do expect some communication with various federal ministers, I'm hopeful that they are less likely to interfere and permit the parties to negotiate a contract on their own. I truly hope we can reach an agreement without a strike, but in my experience over the last 6 years of being involved at various stages of negotiations, the Company will generally only resolves things at the last minute or when they are forced.

You're quoting me on a reply agreeing to the Section 80 info. I just added that I don't recall the CIRB forcing binding arbitration. I don't hold it against them either, it's done. Now is the time to right some wrongs for them though. Westjet pilots have a lot of momentum right now and with a strong vote in favour of a strike can put pressure on the company.

[FurHat]

So, facing likely forced arbitration, the union attempted to still negotiate to put itself in the best position possible while covering its mandate (one of which was trying to prevent the company moving too much flying to lower wages at Swoop). Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily agree with every decision that they made, but I'm not going to armchair quarterback 5 years later and criticize because I wasn't at the table.

The Companies position at the time was "Lock-out or Final Offer Selection Arbitration". The outcome of locking down Swoop flying and non-FOS arbitration was a way better outcome. Letting the CIRB decide down the road may have been a risky choice.

[sarg]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

People change things, sure. Sometimes you need to change the people the union has done that maybe it's time the company took a look at its people.

[kiaszceski]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

People change things, sure. Sometimes you need to change the people the union has done that maybe it's time the company took a look at its people.

They did. They put in charge someone that is going to make the company profitable.

[5degrees]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

Unions and strikes don't change things??? That's an absolute asinine statement, historically unions are responsible for the implementation of what we now consider basic work rules eg the 8 hour work day. The relationship between management and employees can't get much worse. Your posts give the impression that you're more concerned with your personal situation than what's good for the pilot group.

[digits_]

Take a look at the countries that have the most employee friendly laws. The ones with 36 hour work weeks, months of pregnancy leave, 6 weeks vacation, etc.
And look at their strike history....

Strikes work. Illegal (non-violent) strikes work even better.

That doesn't mean people like them. But they work.

[cloak]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

Unions and strikes don't change things??? That's an absolute asinine statement, historically unions are responsible for the implementation of what we now consider basic work rules eg the 8 hour work day. The relationship between management and employees can't get much worse. Your posts give the impression that you're more concerned with your personal situation than what's good for the pilot group.

Unions, as organizations on papers and buildings in which they are housed don't change a thing, rather it is the people, hence the saying a union is as good (or bad) as the people on it. Your 19th century shibboleth no longer applies as we are not dealing with tyrant mining companies who force workers underground with no safety measures. It's generally safe now! Next time read the comments before going off on a rehearsed union incantation reply!

[averageatbest]

Unions, as organizations on papers and buildings in which they are housed don't change a thing, rather it is the people, hence the saying a union is as good (or bad) as the people on it. Your 19th century shibboleth no longer applies as we are not dealing with tyrant mining companies who force workers underground with no safety measures. It's generally safe now! Next time read the comments before going off on a rehearsed union incantation reply!

You've made me feel uneducated with words such as shibboleth, incantation, and "the".

[5degrees]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

Unions and strikes don't change things??? That's an absolute asinine statement, historically unions are responsible for the implementation of what we now consider basic work rules eg the 8 hour work day. The relationship between management and employees can't get much worse. Your posts give the impression that you're more concerned with your personal situation than what's good for the pilot group.

Unions, as organizations on papers and buildings in which they are housed don't change a thing, rather it is the people, hence the saying a union is as good (or bad) as the people on it. Your 19th century shibboleth no longer applies as we are not dealing with tyrant mining companies who force workers underground with no safety measures. It's generally safe now! Next time read the comments before going off on a rehearsed union incantation reply!

Lol, my reading comprehension is fine. You wrote some BS about strikes being ineffective and some simple broad statement about people changing things.
Yeah we're dealing tyrant stock holders instead. Someone posted that you're a Swoop DEC in the Sunwing forum? If so, that explains your anti alpa bias.

[Mach1]

In my opinion, WestJet has never been just another "regular" airline if that makes any sense, with unique compensation and culture. I believe this is partly why the ALPA transition hasn't fully worked in its favor (yet). Perhaps still its approach ought to be unique and something that fits IT as opposed to other airlines in the past and fierce negotiations, done as "partners"? Food for thought.

WestJet, the company, dismantled the culture a long time ago. That's why the union was brought in, not the other way around. Then they dismantled the compensation model. Now you are seeing the result of that action in play right now.

It would be lovely to be living in the past but, things have changed. And not through the actions of the employees.

[cloak]

Lol, my reading comprehension is fine. You wrote some BS about strikes being ineffective and some simple broad statement about people changing things.
Yeah we're dealing tyrant stock holders instead. Someone posted that you're a Swoop DEC in the Sunwing forum? If so, that explains your anti alpa bias.

I have no bias, just exchanging ideas. You are not forced to participate. Good luck.

[Realitychex]

If pilots or ame’s want to earn a salary in US$ working for a US domiciled airline, the best way to accomplish this is to jump through the hoops, get a green card or the appropriate work visa and move to the US.

US airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in US dollars.

Canadian airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in Canadian dollarettes, with a large portion of expenses, (fuel, rentals and maintenance) paid in dollars. The economics are completely different.

Until that changes, (not to mention the ridiculous tax regime in Canada) and it won’t anytime soon, if ever, Canadian domiciled airline will continue to operate with a huge economic disadvantage to US brethren. As a result, comparing pay rates in the two jurisdictions is a mugs game.

There can be no better strategy than threatening to strike and diverting desperately needed revenue to the ULCC entrants who will be frantically trying to keep their heads above water in May as they lurch between peak seasons.

Canada is a very different economic sandbox than the US, and it’s only going to get worse under the current political regime.

The best way to play in the US economic sandbox is to move to the US.

[cdnavater]

If pilots or ame’s want to earn a salary in US$ working for a US domiciled airline, the best way to accomplish this is to jump through the hoops, get a green card or the appropriate work visa and move to the US.

US airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in US dollars.

Canadian airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in Canadian dollarettes, with a large portion of expenses, (fuel, rentals and maintenance) paid in dollars. The economics are completely different.

Until that changes, (not to mention the ridiculous tax regime in Canada) and it won’t anytime soon, if ever, Canadian domiciled airline will continue to operate with a huge economic disadvantage to US brethren. As a result, comparing pay rates in the two jurisdictions is a mugs game.

There can be no better strategy than threatening to strike and diverting desperately needed revenue to the ULCC entrants who will be frantically trying to keep their heads above water in May as they lurch between peak seasons.

Canada is a very different economic sandbox than the US, and it’s only going to get worse under the current political regime.

The best way to play in the US economic sandbox is to move to the US.

I don’t believe anyone has suggested pay on par with the U.S, just that we have fallen way behind. Despite the cost factors you mentioned we have a cost advantage over them for attracting Americans to fly on Canadian carriers to points other than or even in Canada.
What would you say the breakdown is for domestic versus trans border, either way a pretty good cost advantage on those routes which means room to increase and still be competitive.
No one wants a strike but to try and scare Canadian pilots into submission with threats like we will push passengers to the ULCC, it’s transparent to say the least, again if you are no longer affiliated with WJ, what’s your angle here.

[yowflyer23]

If pilots or ame’s want to earn a salary in US$ working for a US domiciled airline, the best way to accomplish this is to jump through the hoops, get a green card or the appropriate work visa and move to the US.

US airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in US dollars.

Canadian airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in Canadian dollarettes, with a large portion of expenses, (fuel, rentals and maintenance) paid in dollars. The economics are completely different.

Until that changes, (not to mention the ridiculous tax regime in Canada) and it won’t anytime soon, if ever, Canadian domiciled airline will continue to operate with a huge economic disadvantage to US brethren. As a result, comparing pay rates in the two jurisdictions is a mugs game.

There can be no better strategy than threatening to strike and diverting desperately needed revenue to the ULCC entrants who will be frantically trying to keep their heads above water in May as they lurch between peak seasons.

Canada is a very different economic sandbox than the US, and it’s only going to get worse under the current political regime.

The best way to play in the US economic sandbox is to move to the US.

Username is on point. The US is a far bigger market and is an entirely separate labour pool as there is no, or very limited, labour mobility. Until that changes, you're wasting your breath thinking that they can be compared. That does not mean that Canadian airlines can't pay living wages though. I don't think we need to be making $500k (that's outrageous and only going to work against us in the long run), but the wages on offer are pretty insulting for the level of responsibility held as a 737 FO after spending 100k on flight training and enduring 5-10 years of scraping by at a 703, flight instructing, regional in a major city, etc... Having worked in management, I've personally seen the breakdown of hourly operating expenses from the 319 to the 77W of a certain canadian airline for different combinations of stage lengths and departure times, and I really don't think paying pilots a living wage is going to make or break any airline worth operating. At the end of the day, management's job is to keep costs as low as possible and revenue as high as possible. It's nothing personal - it's a business that reports to the shareholders/investors. Unfortunately, most companies seem to be obsessed with the short term and they can't seem to appreciate the long term benefits of a good employer-employee relationship. Best of luck to you all in contract negotiations. You deserve a good contract.

[Mach1]

Username is on point. The US is a far bigger market and is an entirely separate labour pool as there is no, or very limited, labour mobility. Until that changes, you're wasting your breath thinking that they can be compared. That does not mean that Canadian airlines can't pay living wages though. I don't think we need to be making $500k (that's outrageous and only going to work against us in the long run), but the wages on offer are pretty insulting for the level of responsibility held as a 737 FO after spending 100k on flight training and enduring 5-10 years of scraping by at a 703, flight instructing, regional in a major city, etc... Having worked in management, I've personally seen the breakdown of hourly operating expenses from the 319 to the 77W of a certain canadian airline for different combinations of stage lengths and departure times, and I really don't think paying pilots a living wage is going to make or break any airline worth operating. At the end of the day, management's job is to keep costs as low as possible and revenue as high as possible. It's nothing personal - it's a business that reports to the shareholders/investors. Unfortunately, most companies seem to be obsessed with the short term and they can't seem to appreciate the long term benefits of a good employer-employee relationship. Best of luck to you all in contract negotiations. You deserve a good contract.

I appreciate your post. I am going to take exception to one phrase that has been pushed so much that it is generally accepted without challenge. It is not directed at you but at the phrase itself.

It is personal. It is one of the most personal things that one can do. You are talking about a person's worth to society, their family, and their ability to survive, pay the bills and hopefully thrive. How is that not personal? It is an absolutely dehumanizing thing to say that we all seem to accept as fact but it wasn't always this way. Throughout history some business owners have valued their employees and those companies have always thrived. Henry Ford was a great example of a business owner recognizing that if his own employees couldn't afford to buy his cars the company wasn't going to survive. The fact that this phrase is thrown around and never challenged goes to show you just how effective management has been at turning human beings into numbers on a balance sheet. It is hard to get more personal than that. The psychopaths running businesses in this nation need to be replaced but since they have rigged the game so only others like them rise to the top, it would almost require a revolution. It is long past time that we start treating people like humans once again. As the 40 year surplus of labour draws to a close and the power dynamic shifts, hopefully we will see a quiet revolution on who runs the companies and the very idea of being a good corporate citizen that contributes to society rather than acting as a drain.

[RippleRock]

If pilots or ame’s want to earn a salary in US$ working for a US domiciled airline, the best way to accomplish this is to jump through the hoops, get a green card or the appropriate work visa and move to the US.

US airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in US dollars.

Canadian airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in Canadian dollarettes, with a large portion of expenses, (fuel, rentals and maintenance) paid in dollars. The economics are completely different.

Until that changes, (not to mention the ridiculous tax regime in Canada) and it won’t anytime soon, if ever, Canadian domiciled airline will continue to operate with a huge economic disadvantage to US brethren. As a result, comparing pay rates in the two jurisdictions is a mugs game.

There can be no better strategy than threatening to strike and diverting desperately needed revenue to the ULCC entrants who will be frantically trying to keep their heads above water in May as they lurch between peak seasons.

Canada is a very different economic sandbox than the US, and it’s only going to get worse under the current political regime.

The best way to play in the US economic sandbox is to move to the US.

What a bunch of garbage. That's a Management comment right there.

Do you think for one second that the Corp doesn't step up to pay when the need to? Do you think the hesitate when a Leap engine needs replacement and is paid in USD? How about a hydraulic fitting in USD? Fuel in Chicago? It's sickening that Canadian Carriers run the operation on the backs of poor employee compensation. Ya....flying an expensive endeavour....CHARGE ACCORDINGLY.

The cost of pilots is going up, period. That can be factored into operational costs. Did a 2x4 econo-stud going from $1.79 to $9.88 stop housing construction? Not at all, the builder immediately passed on the extra cost to the consumer. It's time Canada steps up and pays proper fares for travel in Canada. Otherwise, the Shareholder can take a slight hit on their profit. Over at Big Red, all we are asking for is 2003 wages again, adjusted for inflation. No more gain than that. Is that "unreasonable"? If not, WHY? Management is using a US comparator for their compensation packages for their Executive Suite, why can't we? It's a pretty damning. Extremely damning actually, as I'm not just talking about the CEO, but nearly everyone in the E-Suite.

The average Canadian traveler pays $85 to go to the airport in a dirty, shitty Prius -one way- plus tip, then balk at paying $299 for a round trip fare from YYZ-YYC return. This is insane. It's the ONLY industry that seems immune to inflationary pressure. Operators come and go in Canada on this point alone. If airfares were actually keeping up with the rising direct operational costs, there wouldn't be so many failures.

If anyone thinks for one second that raising the cost of air travel in Canada will bring the US carriers in, here's something to ponder......they are now compensating their pilots fairly, and if they can make a "go of things" up here, than pilot wages WEREN'T THE PROBLEM to begin with. If they come to Canada, and take our flying, then the Operators up here don't deserve it.

Flying across Canada isn't a "gift", and Management needs to stop trying to provide it on the backs of employee groups. It's time they started to look elsewhere for the "low hanging fruit".

Enough is enough. See you on Friday.

[Canadaflyer46]

If pilots or ame’s want to earn a salary in US$ working for a US domiciled airline, the best way to accomplish this is to jump through the hoops, get a green card or the appropriate work visa and move to the US.

US airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in US dollars.

Canadian airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in Canadian dollarettes, with a large portion of expenses, (fuel, rentals and maintenance) paid in dollars. The economics are completely different.

Until that changes, (not to mention the ridiculous tax regime in Canada) and it won’t anytime soon, if ever, Canadian domiciled airline will continue to operate with a huge economic disadvantage to US brethren. As a result, comparing pay rates in the two jurisdictions is a mugs game.

There can be no better strategy than threatening to strike and diverting desperately needed revenue to the ULCC entrants who will be frantically trying to keep their heads above water in May as they lurch between peak seasons.

Canada is a very different economic sandbox than the US, and it’s only going to get worse under the current political regime.

The best way to play in the US economic sandbox is to move to the US.

What a bunch of garbage. That's a Management comment right there.

Do you think for one second that the Corp doesn't step up to pay when the need to? Do you think the hesitate when a Leap engine needs replacement and is paid in USD? How about a hydraulic fitting in USD? Fuel in Chicago? It's sickening that Canadian Carriers run the operation on the backs of poor employee compensation. Ya....flying an expensive endeavour....CHARGE ACCORDINGLY.

The cost of pilots is going up, period. That can be factored into operational costs. Did a 2x4 econo-stud going from $1.79 to $9.88 stop housing construction? Not at all, the builder immediately passed on the extra cost to the consumer. It's time Canada steps up and pays proper fares for travel in Canada. Otherwise, the Shareholder can take a slight hit on their profit. Over at Big Red, all we are asking for is 2003 wages again, adjusted for inflation. No more gain than that. Is that "unreasonable"? If not, WHY? Management is using a US comparator for their compensation packages for their Executive Suite, why can't we? It's a pretty damning. Extremely damning actually, as I'm not just talking about the CEO, but nearly everyone in the E-Suite.

The average Canadian traveler pays $85 to go to the airport in a dirty, shitty Prius -one way- plus tip, then balk at paying $299 for a round trip fare from YYZ-YYC return. This is insane. It's the ONLY industry that seems immune to inflationary pressure. Operators come and go in Canada on this point alone. If airfares were actually keeping up with the rising direct operational costs, there wouldn't be so many failures.

If anyone thinks for one second that raising the cost of air travel in Canada will bring the US carriers in, here's something to ponder......they are now compensating their pilots fairly, and if they can make a "go of things" up here, than pilot wages WEREN'T THE PROBLEM to begin with. If they come to Canada, and take our flying, then the Operators up here don't deserve it.

Flying across Canada isn't a "gift", and Management needs to stop trying to provide it on the backs of employee groups. It's time they started to look elsewhere for the "low hanging fruit".

Enough is enough. See you on Friday.

[yowflyer23]

I appreciate your post. I am going to take exception to one phrase that has been pushed so much that it is generally accepted without challenge. It is not directed at you but at the phrase itself.

It is personal. It is one of the most personal things that one can do. You are talking about a person's worth to society, their family, and their ability to survive, pay the bills and hopefully thrive. How is that not personal? It is an absolutely dehumanizing thing to say that we all seem to accept as fact but it wasn't always this way. Throughout history some business owners have valued their employees and those companies have always thrived. Henry Ford was a great example of a business owner recognizing that if his own employees couldn't afford to buy his cars the company wasn't going to survive. The fact that this phrase is thrown around and never challenged goes to show you just how effective management has been at turning human beings into numbers on a balance sheet. It is hard to get more personal than that. The psychopaths running businesses in this nation need to be replaced but since they have rigged the game so only others like them rise to the top, it would almost require a revolution. It is long past time that we start treating people like humans once again. As the 40 year surplus of labour draws to a close and the power dynamic shifts, hopefully we will see a quiet revolution on who runs the companies and the very idea of being a good corporate citizen that contributes to society rather than acting as a drain.

You know, I really like your perspective on that. It makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, that kind of perspective would need to come from the very top for that mentality to be adopted on a large scale i.e. C-suite. They're the ones who set the precedence for all departments to follow. I guess when I say that it's not personal, I'm referring to those whom are sitting on the other side of the negotiating table, those in finance, revenue management, HR, network planning, etc.; they are just doing their jobs to meet certain targets as directed from above. One could speak up if something didn't make sense, but it would fall on deaf ears from my experience. A lot of senior management is in serious need of CRM training. There were so many occurences in my experience where my team would come to a conclusion that a project wasn't going to work through extensive analysis, but then we'd be told by the VP that we're doing it anyways. Maybe this is a common occurence in HR for discussions on renumeration too. The folks I worked with had a lot of respect for pilots though. I didn't get the impression that they held pilots in contempt. At worst, they were ignorant about the issues facing those in the career and maybe that's half the issue right there. Pilots definitely have a PR issue. The average joe still thinks we all make >$100k from the start and enjoy luxurious lifestyles. I went into management during covid after my flying job disappeared and it sent me on a bit of an identity crisis to say the least. I was in an entry level role making $65k, monday to friday 9-5, great benefits, pension, etc. I was asked every time I met someone new if I ever wanted to get back into flying when things opened up again and I would tell them no. I'd explain to them what it takes to enter and progress in the career and they'd be absolutely shocked at the realities of it. I've since changed my mind of course - it's hard to leave flying when you love it so much...

Supply and demand is tried and true. The supply is drying up and there's undoubtedly going to be some gains going forward. There's already been examples of this at Encore, Flair, Sunwing, Porter, etc. I'm optimistic that the trend will continue.