Negotiations

[TheStig]

Quite the opposite. He came from the training department. Was an IOETC, then Line Check Pilot, then project pilot during the 787 introduction.

You guys are talking about different people, the Senior VP is who Crewbunk is referring to. The newly promoted VP FOPs was an MEC member, who after being recalled by the membership in the TA1-FOS era, went into management.

[Stu Pidasso]

$800/day plus expenses is pretty lame in this environment. Corporate pilot rates are about $1500/day and up.

HA! it was $1500 / day 8 years ago, now running close to $3000 / day.

[Crewbunk]

Quite the opposite. He came from the training department. Was an IOETC, then Line Check Pilot, then project pilot during the 787 introduction.

You guys are talking about different people, the Senior VP is who Crewbunk is referring to. The newly promoted VP FOPs was an MEC member, who after being recalled by the membership in the TA1-FOS era, went into management.

Yes, I was referring to the Senior VP of Flight Ops. However I think you are referring to the Managing Director - Flight Operations. He’s not called a VP of Flight Ops in my Flight Ops directory.

Or …. are we thinking of yet a third person?

[TheStig]

Quite the opposite. He came from the training department. Was an IOETC, then Line Check Pilot, then project pilot during the 787 introduction.

You guys are talking about different people, the Senior VP is who Crewbunk is referring to. The newly promoted VP FOPs was an MEC member, who after being recalled by the membership in the TA1-FOS era, went into management.

Yes, I was referring to the Senior VP of Flight Ops. However I think you are referring to the Managing Director - Flight Operations. He’s not called a VP of Flight Ops in my Flight Ops directory.

Or …. are we thinking of yet a third person?

Just two people, the former Managing Director has recently been promoted to Vice President - Flight Ops. I agree with your opinion of the Senior VP, although, I would add that the patience of the pilot group as a whole has wearing thin. You can't just continue to say the right things, at some point you have to do the right things, and the fact is we continue to have 4 years of atrocious fix rates. He has done a great job in many areas while dealing with the grounding of the MAX and then COVID. However, many had high hopes that he would be more of a champion for the pilot group, instead we saw more of then same in negotiations and now seems to be stepping away just as things get gritty.

[TheStig]

You guys are talking about different people, the Senior VP is who Crewbunk is referring to. The newly promoted VP FOPs was an MEC member, who after being recalled by the membership in the TA1-FOS era, went into management.

Yes, I was referring to the Senior VP of Flight Ops. However I think you are referring to the Managing Director - Flight Operations. He’s not called a VP of Flight Ops in my Flight Ops directory.

Or …. are we thinking of yet a third person?

Just two people, the former Managing Director has recently been promoted to Vice President - Flight Ops. I agree with your opinion of the Senior VP, although, I would add that the patience of the pilot group as a whole has worn thin. You can't just continue to say the right things, at some point you have to do the right things, and the fact is we continue to have 4 years of atrocious fix rates. He has done a great job in many areas while dealing with the grounding of the MAX and then COVID. However, many had high hopes that he would be more of a champion for the pilot group, instead we saw more of then same in negotiations and now seems to be stepping away just as things get gritty.

[TheStig]

Yes, I was referring to the Senior VP of Flight Ops. However I think you are referring to the Managing Director - Flight Operations. He’s not called a VP of Flight Ops in my Flight Ops directory.

Or …. are we thinking of yet a third person?

Just two people, the former Managing Director has recently been promoted to Vice President - Flight Ops. I agree with your opinion of the Senior VP, although, I would add that the patience of the pilot group as a whole has worn thin. You can't just continue to say the right things, at some point you have to do the right things, and the fact is we continue to have 4 years of atrocious fix rates. He has done a great job in many areas while dealing with the grounding of the MAX and then COVID. However, many had high hopes that he would be more of a champion for the pilot group, instead we saw more of then same in negotiations and now seems to be stepping away just as things get gritty.

[truedude]

Last year the AC MOA failed by a whopping 80%, which represents a massive disconnect with the pilot group. Instead of re-group and renegage, he ranted in new hire groundschools. And he keeps trying to claim everything is fine with staffing at Jazz, which clearly it isn't, nor will it be until he/they realize the industry has changed and there are only so many ATPLs out there.

But he won't, and continues to refuse to accept reality.

I would love to know which individuals refused to accept the agreement Jazz came to with out pilots, and on what rational grounds they used to turn it down. All it did was speed up the exit of pilots heading for the door. And those that come to AC will be angry at AC from before they step foot on property.

It is just so mind boggling watching this unfold.

[rudder]

The VP of Flight ops at AC, from my understanding, despises us, and hates that the regionals have jets. He is literally living in an old world, using old world thinking to try and solve new problems. The guy is a tool.

It would be sad if this was true, regardless of whether it was MS or any other senior manager at AC. It harkens back to a Copernican view of the industry and an insecure perspective on the role of AC pilots in the network.

AC has historically had some of the most restrictive regional scope language in the industry. That was generally owing to the CBA reflecting the wishes of the AC pilots. Reversion to the past would be symptomatic of clinging to a time that is long gone and would be even more shocking if sponsored by management.

It is likely just as challenging for CHR at the CPA bargaining table. It is easy to say the right things in public. It is a lot more difficult to share what is really being discussed.

AC has made several announcements regarding interior retrofits starting with the Express 76 seat jet fleet. Why spend millions sprucing up 20 year old aircraft if only to remove them from service?

Unless your objective is to return them to mainline. Unlikely but not improbable, particularly for the E175 fleet (previously AC owned and operated).

p.s. the E175 sim belongs to AC.

[Rowdy]

p.s. the E175 sim belongs to AC.

Wasn't it recently down for a considerable time frame being updated/refitted?

There is also significant chatter throughout about onboard wifi on all the express fleets. Would certainly make entertainment options available on some of the longer Q legs..

[rudder]

p.s. the E175 sim belongs to AC.

Wasn't it recently down for a considerable time frame being updated/refitted?

There is also significant chatter throughout about onboard wifi on all the express fleets. Would certainly make entertainment options available on some of the longer Q legs..

The former E190 sim has been converted to an E170 sim with FMS load 27 installed.

As for retrofit - I have not read everything released in the media but I have heard others mention a ‘Rouge’ style entertainment system (no IFE screens. On board wifi and an onboard router that streams an entertainment catalogue to an app that can be installed on any personal device).

No idea if the Q400 is part of the program.

There is money for the buses but no money for the bus drivers.

[rudder]

On Friday at the deadline, we were advised that Air Canada did not accept our proposal. Instead, they sent a pay table that they drafted “for discussion”.

The MEC intends to respond to Air Canada’s wage proposal…

There is only one response. “We have a deal with our employer”.

There have been previous overtures for multilateral discussions. No participation.

Seemingly, either Jazz overstepped it’s mandate or AC reneged on a commitment. Regardless, this should not fall on the lap of the JAZ MEC. Was bargaining conducted in good faith? That appears questionable.

Hiring. Retention. Flight completion. Training. Managing the CPA relationship. These are Jazz/CHR management responsibilities.

Pilots fly planes. And they get paid twice monthly. They should not have to concern themselves with any of the aforementioned issues. Nobody should feign shock or surprise when the pilots ask for market based compensation in a deficient CBA.

[Fanblade]

On Friday at the deadline, we were advised that Air Canada did not accept our proposal. Instead, they sent a pay table that they drafted “for discussion”.

The MEC intends to respond to Air Canada’s wage proposal…

There is only one response. “We have a deal with our employer”.

There have been previous overtures for multilateral discussions. No participation.

Seemingly, either Jazz overstepped it’s mandate or AC reneged on a commitment. Regardless, this should not fall on the lap of the JAZ MEC. Was bargaining conducted in good faith? That appears questionable.

Hiring. Retention. Flight completion. Training. Managing the CPA relationship. These are Jazz/CHR management responsibilities.

Pilots fly planes. And they get paid twice monthly. They should not have to concern themselves with any of the aforementioned issues. Nobody should feign shock or surprise when the pilots ask for market based compensation in a deficient CBA.

This is an interesting development. I’m sitting here wondering how this possibly plays out down the road with Chorus and the Jazz pilots having a previous agreement in principle.

I wonder if Chorus and ALPA have somewhat tied their hands and that in turn limits AC’s options.

[rudder]

On Friday at the deadline, we were advised that Air Canada did not accept our proposal. Instead, they sent a pay table that they drafted “for discussion”.

The MEC intends to respond to Air Canada’s wage proposal…

There is only one response. “We have a deal with our employer”.

There have been previous overtures for multilateral discussions. No participation.

Seemingly, either Jazz overstepped it’s mandate or AC reneged on a commitment. Regardless, this should not fall on the lap of the JAZ MEC. Was bargaining conducted in good faith? That appears questionable.

Hiring. Retention. Flight completion. Training. Managing the CPA relationship. These are Jazz/CHR management responsibilities.

Pilots fly planes. And they get paid twice monthly. They should not have to concern themselves with any of the aforementioned issues. Nobody should feign shock or surprise when the pilots ask for market based compensation in a deficient CBA.

This is an interesting development. I’m sitting here wondering how this possibly plays out down the road with Chorus and the Jazz pilots having a previous MOA.

I wonder if Chorus and ALPA have somewhat tied their hands and that in turn limits AC’s options.

It is likely that any MOA would have included in the preamble “subject to (third party) approval”.

Regardless, you bargain with who is sitting at the table. If the ultimate decision maker is not physically present, then you must presume that those that are present have both a mandate and authority to reach an agreement.

The MEC Bulletin lays out a sad tale of delay, non-responsiveness, and deadline extensions. These are not signs of a healthy bargaining environment or an effective commercial relationship.

AC watched what happened south of the border with Pilot compensation and does not want to see the same happen here. That applies to both Express and mainline. But it is happening here. Just look at WJ and Porter.

PAL announcement. PIT course offers to flow pilots out to December 2023. Rejigging the summer schedule and fleet deployment. These are all just stop gap measures. Market forces are acting on pilot compensation. And just like gravity, cannot be defied indefinitely.

[Nick678]

I’m wondering why chorus can’t divert money from leasing to Jazz? It must be loosing money having tails sit around.

[rudder]

I’m wondering why chorus can’t divert money from leasing to Jazz? It must be loosing money having tails sit around.

An ‘average’ 20% pay increase at Jazz would be approximately $20M per annum in incremental payroll expense.

Seemingly, nobody wants to pay that bill. But the bill for replacing 500 pilots per year is being paid.

[Morg]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/15/business ... index.html

United has a TA raises from 34.5 to 40.2% !

[Fanblade]

On Friday at the deadline, we were advised that Air Canada did not accept our proposal. Instead, they sent a pay table that they drafted “for discussion”.

The MEC intends to respond to Air Canada’s wage proposal…

There is only one response. “We have a deal with our employer”.

There have been previous overtures for multilateral discussions. No participation.

Seemingly, either Jazz overstepped it’s mandate or AC reneged on a commitment. Regardless, this should not fall on the lap of the JAZ MEC. Was bargaining conducted in good faith? That appears questionable.

Hiring. Retention. Flight completion. Training. Managing the CPA relationship. These are Jazz/CHR management responsibilities.

Pilots fly planes. And they get paid twice monthly. They should not have to concern themselves with any of the aforementioned issues. Nobody should feign shock or surprise when the pilots ask for market based compensation in a deficient CBA.

This is an interesting development. I’m sitting here wondering how this possibly plays out down the road with Chorus and the Jazz pilots having a previous MOA.

I wonder if Chorus and ALPA have somewhat tied their hands and that in turn limits AC’s options.

It is likely that any MOA would have included in the preamble “subject to (third party) approval”.

Regardless, you bargain with who is sitting at the table. If the ultimate decision maker is not physically present, then you must presume that those that are present have both a mandate and authority to reach an agreement.

My comment was more about process. I do get that the agreement was likely with the condition of third party approval.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the last place bargaining stopped between the two parties was at this agreement in principle. This matters in law. It matters in conciliation, mediation or arbitration. The jurisprudence is for the mediator/ arbitrator to start where the parties left off.

I get this situation is not exactly standard with AC as an unofficial third party. Add to that your contract is not open although it is not unusual for a contract to be amended part way. How much does this tie the hands, possibly deliberately, of Chorus and ALPA Jazz on future movement.

Or not at all.

[rudder]

This is an interesting development. I’m sitting here wondering how this possibly plays out down the road with Chorus and the Jazz pilots having a previous MOA.

I wonder if Chorus and ALPA have somewhat tied their hands and that in turn limits AC’s options.

It is likely that any MOA would have included in the preamble “subject to (third party) approval”.

Regardless, you bargain with who is sitting at the table. If the ultimate decision maker is not physically present, then you must presume that those that are present have both a mandate and authority to reach an agreement.

My comment was more about process. I do get that the agreement was likely with the condition of third party approval.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the last place bargaining stopped between the two parties was at this agreement in principle. This matters in law. It matters in conciliation, mediation or arbitration. The jurisprudence is for the mediator/ arbitrator to start where the parties left off.

I get this situation is not exactly standard with AC as an unofficial third party. Add to that your contract is not open although it is not unusual for a contract to be amended part way. How much does this tie the hands, possibly deliberately, of Chorus and ALPA Jazz on future movement.

Or not at all.

It is interest based bargaining. Nothing more. Nothing less. Failure to agree simply preserves status quo (as the AC pilots found out with the failed MOA).

But ALL bargaining must be done in good faith. Clean hands. Duty to disclose.

It is ok to bargain tough. But that is a luxury that falls to the party with greater leverage.

ALPA called the agreement ‘a proposal’. If that’s all it was then there was no reason to provide a bargaining update. But if it represented ‘an agreement’ (at least between two of the parties) then it gets much more complicated.

There is no reason for the JAZ MEC to be responsive to AC. AC isn’t the employer and likely will never be a party to the MOA.

Jazz told ALPA that the proposal was not approved. It should end there. The parties should already be aware of the consequences.

[truedude]

It is likely that any MOA would have included in the preamble “subject to (third party) approval”.

Regardless, you bargain with who is sitting at the table. If the ultimate decision maker is not physically present, then you must presume that those that are present have both a mandate and authority to reach an agreement.

My comment was more about process. I do get that the agreement was likely with the condition of third party approval.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the last place bargaining stopped between the two parties was at this agreement in principle. This matters in law. It matters in conciliation, mediation or arbitration. The jurisprudence is for the mediator/ arbitrator to start where the parties left off.

I get this situation is not exactly standard with AC as an unofficial third party. Add to that your contract is not open although it is not unusual for a contract to be amended part way. How much does this tie the hands, possibly deliberately, of Chorus and ALPA Jazz on future movement.

Or not at all.

It is interest based bargaining. Nothing more. Nothing less. Failure to agree simply preserves status quo (as the AC pilots found out with the failed MOA).

But ALL bargaining must be done in good faith. Clean hands. Duty to disclose.

It is ok to bargain tough. But that is a luxury that falls to the party with greater leverage.

ALPA called the agreement ‘a proposal’. If that’s all it was then there was no reason to provide a bargaining update. But if it represented ‘an agreement’ (at least between two of the parties) then it gets much more complicated.

There is no reason for the JAZ MEC to be responsive to AC. AC isn’t the employer and likely will never be a party to the MOA.

Jazz told ALPA that the proposal was not approved. It should end there. The parties should already be aware of the consequences.

AC made a choice. In response, my no overtime policy will continue. I wonder which one will cost more money in the end?

[canadian_aviator_4]

My comment was more about process. I do get that the agreement was likely with the condition of third party approval.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the last place bargaining stopped between the two parties was at this agreement in principle. This matters in law. It matters in conciliation, mediation or arbitration. The jurisprudence is for the mediator/ arbitrator to start where the parties left off.

I get this situation is not exactly standard with AC as an unofficial third party. Add to that your contract is not open although it is not unusual for a contract to be amended part way. How much does this tie the hands, possibly deliberately, of Chorus and ALPA Jazz on future movement.

Or not at all.

It is interest based bargaining. Nothing more. Nothing less. Failure to agree simply preserves status quo (as the AC pilots found out with the failed MOA).

But ALL bargaining must be done in good faith. Clean hands. Duty to disclose.

It is ok to bargain tough. But that is a luxury that falls to the party with greater leverage.

ALPA called the agreement ‘a proposal’. If that’s all it was then there was no reason to provide a bargaining update. But if it represented ‘an agreement’ (at least between two of the parties) then it gets much more complicated.

There is no reason for the JAZ MEC to be responsive to AC. AC isn’t the employer and likely will never be a party to the MOA.

Jazz told ALPA that the proposal was not approved. It should end there. The parties should already be aware of the consequences.

AC made a choice. In response, my no overtime policy will continue. I wonder which one will cost more money in the end?

Don’t forget to use those sick days.