FLAIR NOT PAYING PILOTS FOR WORK

[cdnavater]

Ape can fight the bear. Bring it on!

That’s all I’m saying. You guys are not paying pilots properly and it needs to be addressed. Also posting this info so pilots can make the right decision when choosing where to work. You say porter has financial problems? Well Porter pilots can wipe their tears with the fat paycheck they get. Cant say the same about Flair pilots.

Heh, I like how a few short months ago everyone was praising Flair pilots for setting the bar higher. Now WS and Porter both raised the bar even further and all of the sudden Flair is the bad guy.

Flair did not “raise” the bar they barely matched it! Show me anyone who wasn’t employed there who “praised” them!

[flying4dollars]

Minimum credits is 4 per day. The only definition for Day we have is calendar 0000-2359. There's no wording on multi day pairings, no wording based on periods (hours) of work that applies.

Looks like the company is using a 1 in 6 trip rig. Has it always been that way or they just started doing that?

It's a somewhat new thing at flair that we get layovers. So in that regard it's new. And if they use a 1/6 rig, that's just lovely but I'd like for them to point in the contract where that is agreed to.

Layovers are not new at Flair, just an fyi

[the_new_guy]

My friends tell me that Flair is not following the contract. Recently there was a lot of commotion about pilots not getting paid correctly and the ALPA reps deleted the internal chat group due to a lot of negativity within the pilot group. Apparently pilots are not paid according to the contract when it comes to multi day pairings where pilots have a layover. They only get the credit for day 1 and day 4 but day 2 and 3 (which involves a layover) are not paid. The ALPA reps have done nothing about it for the last couple months are pilots are speaking out.

Cojoe I’m glad you didnt select me cuz I wouldnt have accepted working for free. Transport Canada is also investigating Flair’s fatiguing scheds. 18 days of work and lowest paid pilots. Wow

Sadly it's true. there is 4 day and 5 day pairings with the layovers spanning over 24 hours without pay. It started with red eyes that spanned over 3 and you'd get 2 days pay and both union and company have been arguing for the past year on it. Union had a huge fallout with its group and the entire group is stepping down, i think just one guy that hasnt gotten the hint is running again. Mean while company group chat was shut down due to too much friction between pilots. If it all gets fixed is anyone's guess since Any new mec will need time to get settled and company loves to exploit the lower experience.

You can have a 18 day month with 65 to 72 credits and could go from OT to just min cred quite easily. With the mass exodus of pilots, the 17 to 18days a month normal block and the lack of future plans for planes.. and everything else I hear often doesn't make think flair a good long term plan. For the seniors they have no choice, lots are close to retiremnt as expats and some even have good schedules of 14 days a month. But there are always senior pilots in every company that are insulated from the problems or management making comments on avcanada as damage control.

As the ceo said with loads of 90%+ they are losing lots
of money, yxx and yow closing. Future plans of 4 planes in 2024 dropped to 2 then to 1 then zero in just a couple weeks and bills pilling up again flair is doing its best to maintain what they have.

Will flair fail? Maybe.. but the consensus right now is that they are trying their best to clean their books to go public in hope of paying off the 300 million at 18% to 777 and merging with lynx.(but that's a water cooler talk only).

Lots of things have improved and just as many gone downhill over the last 2 years.

My recommendation is to look for a bit more stability when choosing an airline. But really Who knows for sure . Goodluck everyone.

Hey.. I'm all for saying when things aren't right, but I have to say lots of your "info" isn't so.

1) Starting with the 4-5 day pairings. That's just not factually correct. What's true is there are indeed pairings not correctly credited. There were a few pairings with outrageously low credits per day, but those have been taken care of. There are still issues there, but to lesser extent. 3 day pairings not correctly paid, like I mentioned in earlier posts.

2) None of the current MEC reps are running again.

3) the group chat was taken down by the MEC after pilots made VERY clear their disagreement with current reps

4) you can indeed have only around 70 credits on your roster if your junior, but you'll be credited to 85 which is mmg.

5) future plans for aircraft deliveries did drop, best case 4 planes but could be 2 for 2024. Flair did not take the planes when they were available and now Boeing is having a hard time on deliveries. However the minimum planes planned for next year is 2, not one or zero like you indicated.

6) I always said if there was a merger, merging with Lynx would be a very logical move. But, except if you have some solid info that I somehow didn't hear of at all, this is not on the table. Not yet anyway. And tbh based on you offering the above info, I would say this latter one is probably not solid.

Could be wrong though. Let's see what happens I guess.

[вести70]

Thanks for clarifying and explaining the details from your view. I agree with you , typing away on my iPad it is easy to miss details.

What I should have better explained was that there is 4 day
Pairings from east coast now that technically fall into that window(I'm not sure about west coast) which is unpaid while away, and we have been told we are moving into 5 day pairings In the coming months with layovers becoming the Norm while single days will remain it will be like every other airline where single days will be for senior pilot that can hold it.

The union is working on it but it's another issue on top of the pile and likely a something that will be taken to arbitration with the result in the air which may take months if not year or longer.

You are correct that no mec memebers are running but there are people running that were involved with the union previously such as the current scheduling alpa volunteer running. That's what I was alluding to albeit unsuccessfully.

The 65 to 72 credit ,I mentioned makes you min credit. I should have specified mmg(85). Sadly that gives more tools for company to mess with pilots, I can only imagine how it effects reserve guys. Could possibly work 18 days for 85 credits.

They recently have stated that the 4 planes are no longer likely, then later said the minimum 2 are unlikely now too, and they were working on getting back a repoed NG that is now also off the table,so on that I think we are back to zero. Maybe I'm more up to date but I hope I'm wrong, i know how actively they are looking for planes but cant afford the current cost and the cost of the loss of maxes with the cheap leases have become apparent. Let's say there are lots of first officers recently that have pointed out they are leaving and a few good captains too.

The merger stuff is water cooler talk and the both the Cp and ceo avoided the topic by saying nothing on it explicitly and saying they have no comments so take what you will from that.

Honestly with our current exodus of pilots, experience and lack of crew here,and there are more news coming and likely not good but I hope I'm wrong. Meanwhile for anyone looking to make a move this way: My recommendation stands. look for a bit more stability when choosing a place to go. Going to an airline with such problems today and hoping they get their ducks in order when they are stagnant in growth, not making money or tails with pilots leaving with management on damage control while unwilling to meet halfway is likely not wise but your milage may vary, mine certainly did.

Let's sit back and watch this unfold.

[the_new_guy]

Thanks for clarifying and explaining the details from your view. I agree with you , typing away on my iPad it is easy to miss details.

What I should have better explained was that there is 4 day
Pairings from east coast now that technically fall into that window(I'm not sure about west coast) which is unpaid while away, and we have been told we are moving into 5 day pairings In the coming months with layovers becoming the Norm while single days will remain it will be like every other airline where single days will be for senior pilot that can hold it.

The union is working on it but it's another issue on top of the pile and likely a something that will be taken to arbitration with the result in the air which may take months if not year or longer.

You are correct that no mec memebers are running but there are people running that were involved with the union previously such as the current scheduling alpa volunteer running. That's what I was alluding to albeit unsuccessfully.

The 65 to 72 credit ,I mentioned makes you min credit. I should have specified mmg(85). Sadly that gives more tools for company to mess with pilots, I can only imagine how it effects reserve guys. Could possibly work 18 days for 85 credits.

They recently have stated that the 4 planes are no longer likely, then later said the minimum 2 are unlikely now too, and they were working on getting back a repoed NG that is now also off the table,so on that I think we are back to zero. Maybe I'm more up to date but I hope I'm wrong, i know how actively they are looking for planes but cant afford the current cost and the cost of the loss of maxes with the cheap leases have become apparent. Let's say there are lots of first officers recently that have pointed out they are leaving and a few good captains too.

The merger stuff is water cooler talk and the both the Cp and ceo avoided the topic by saying nothing on it explicitly and saying they have no comments so take what you will from that.

Honestly with our current exodus of pilots, experience and lack of crew here,and there are more news coming and likely not good but I hope I'm wrong. Meanwhile for anyone looking to make a move this way: My recommendation stands. look for a bit more stability when choosing a place to go. Going to an airline with such problems today and hoping they get their ducks in order when they are stagnant in growth, not making money or tails with pilots leaving with management on damage control while unwilling to meet halfway is likely not wise but your milage may vary, mine certainly did.

Let's sit back and watch this unfold.

I think your statement now makes more sense. Not exactly sure of all you said, but it could very well be true so I'm not going to argue it.

I'm not sure where I fall in the merger stuff, if it happened I think it wouldn't be the worst idea at all. But there are always negatives to everything so I guess we'll see where, when and if that shoe drops.

[ready]

Not sure about the logic here. For every negative statement in there you could probably counter it with a positive one. This place is like any other airline, some things are good, some are bad, some are bad because the contract is being misinterpreted and need to be fixed. Looks like a resolution has recently been made on the unpaid multiple day pairings. As for multi day pairings becoming the norm, I'd say that's water cooler talk as well. There will be more of them, which is what the commuters have all been hoping for, but there has been no distinct indication this will be the new norm. The pairings change every month, the routes are significantly different between summer and winter. Good news is there is more options coming for those that want to overnight. Sounds like a positive to me. As for how many airplanes are coming next year, not sure. One thing that is for sure is that the people posting on here definitely don't know. Unfortunately the growth is slower than we all hoped but instability does not seem to be an issue. Been working here a while and its been a great job. Had a better schedule after 6 months than I had at other airlines after 5 years. The reality is for the most part only people with negative opinions take the time to post on these sites. Take it for what is, if your considering taking a job here talk to someone other than the people online. I suspect you would be pleasantly surprised by the morale around here compared to how these few make it sound.

[the_new_guy]

Not sure about the logic here. For every negative statement in there you could probably counter it with a positive one. This place is like any other airline, some things are good, some are bad, some are bad because the contract is being misinterpreted and need to be fixed. Looks like a resolution has recently been made on the unpaid multiple day pairings. As for multi day pairings becoming the norm, I'd say that's water cooler talk as well. There will be more of them, which is what the commuters have all been hoping for, but there has been no distinct indication this will be the new norm. The pairings change every month, the routes are significantly different between summer and winter. Good news is there is more options coming for those that want to overnight. Sounds like a positive to me. As for how many airplanes are coming next year, not sure. One thing that is for sure is that the people posting on here definitely don't know. Unfortunately the growth is slower than we all hoped but instability does not seem to be an issue. Been working here a while and its been a great job. Had a better schedule after 6 months than I had at other airlines after 5 years. The reality is for the most part only people with negative opinions take the time to post on these sites. Take it for what is, if your considering taking a job here talk to someone other than the people online. I suspect you would be pleasantly surprised by the morale around here compared to how these few make it sound.

Multiday pairings IF paid correctly will be welcomed by the commuters you're right. I don't really agree that every negative statement has a positive to it. Kinda hard to find a positive to a mediocre contract, a company that doesn't honor their end of it completely and finds very creative ways of interpreting said contract.

I'm able to look at it for what it is. I've said it numerous times I like flair, I enjoy the work and the guys and gals I fly with. I like the product we sell because it makes possible for a larger group of people that maybe could not travel or not as much to travel now. Opens up possibilities for a lot of people. The approach is minimalist of course so if you're looking for business travel, we're not the answer but that's ok.

All that is all well, but the shortcomings of our MEC and our management cannot be overlooked. If you're willing to do so, you're either management or MEC yourself, or very senior so not as affected by those shortcomings as others can be. It's that simple, and you said it yourself you've been at flair for a while now, so.. I guess you're at least the latter, maybe you're MEC or management.

This is not an attack on you, I don't mind engaging in a discussion. And like I said, I like flair. But things need to change and on multiple levels. The faster the better.

[CaptDukeNukem]

I fly flair cuz it costs xx.xx$ for the MyId fee. Great airline.

[kiaszceski]

I fly flair cuz it costs xx.xx$ for the MyId fee. Great airline.

Do you think only pilots are reading this forum, and not TC or Tbaylx?

If you want this to cost you this price and stay the same, you should delete your post.

[tbaylx]

I fly flair cuz it costs xx.xx$ for the MyId fee. Great airline.

Do you think only pilots are reading this forum, and not TC or Tbaylx?

If you want this to cost you this price and stay the same, you should delete your post.

Tbaylx is very aware and also supports deleting that post

[lament]

do you support paying pilots in accordance with the CBA?

[tbaylx]

do you support paying pilots in accordance with the CBA?

I do, and I'm confident that we are doing so. If you actually work here and want to discuss it give me a call anytime.

[Apestogetherstrong]

do you support paying pilots in accordance with the CBA?

I do, and I'm confident that we are doing so. If you actually work here and want to discuss it give me a call anytime.

Example: you're operating on the first day early morning ykf - yvr, start off day 0600lt (ykf) and they have you operate a red eye back that lands in ykf on the third day at 0530lt. So say September 1st to 3rd. It is very much so a 3 day pairing, and you should get 12 credits but you get 9.7 credits because they say it's less than 48 hours total. Which of it were defined that way in the contract (based on 24h periods) that would be ok. But it's not. The contract defines a day of work by calendar day from 0000 to 2359.

Similar for 4 day pairings and 5 day pairings. Are pilots not getting their min 4hr credit on days in the middle if they have a layover?

[tbaylx]

do you support paying pilots in accordance with the CBA?

I do, and I'm confident that we are doing so. If you actually work here and want to discuss it give me a call anytime.

Example: you're operating on the first day early morning ykf - yvr, start off day 0600lt (ykf) and they have you operate a red eye back that lands in ykf on the third day at 0530lt. So say September 1st to 3rd. It is very much so a 3 day pairing, and you should get 12 credits but you get 9.7 credits because they say it's less than 48 hours total. Which of it were defined that way in the contract (based on 24h periods) that would be ok. But it's not. The contract defines a day of work by calendar day from 0000 to 2359.

Similar for 4 day pairings and 5 day pairings. Are pilots not getting their min 4hr credit on days in the middle if they have a layover?

I don't normally engage with you Ape, but since that's a respectfully put question I'll answer it.

The pairing in question is:

Day 1 Show YKF 0530L Checkout YVR 0855L. Credit 5:10
Day 2 Show YVR 2110L Checkout YKF 0545L +1 Credit 4:20

Total TAFB 48:15.

There is no trip (TAFB) rig in the CBA, so credit is paid strictly for the flight time, for a total of 9:30 and it has nothing to do with the trip being 48 hours or less (which it isn't). It's also almost exactly 2 days and not 3, although it does touch three calendar days, but that is irrelevant for pay purposes as you pointed out.

However, in the event that a pilot is away from base on a calendar day that has no duty, there is a minimum of 4 credit hours per day guarantee. In this particular pairing, there is no day (defined as a calendar day from 0000-2359) that does not have a duty on it, so the only credit generated is the flight credit.

If the check-in in YVR was 3 hours later (due to a delayed flight for example) and check-in was after midnight, then the second day would not have a duty assigned to it and it would generate an additional credit of 4 hours for a total of 13:30.

On any calendar day that does not have a flight duty pilots would be credited for 4 hours. If there is a flight duty, then they get credited for that instead. For example, if there was a YYZ-YUL-YYZ redeye turn that left at 2300 on day one and returned at 0400 on day 2, it spans 2 calendar days but there is a flight duty on both days. In that case, the pilot would not get 8 hours credit, but the flight credit for YUL and back, or 4 hours minimum.

Sometimes this will work in the favour of the pilot, sometimes not. If a pilot calls sick for the YKF-YVR-YKF pairing for example they are only using 2 sick days vs 3. If the YVR -YKF leg had a show time of 0001 on day 3 then an additional 4 credit hours would be awarded for no additional work.

If there is a calendar day in the middle of a pairing with no duty on it then pilots get 4 credit hours in accordance with the CBA.

I am confident that pilots are being correctly credited and paid in accordance with the CBA. Whether the CBA adequately compensates pilots for the YKF-YVR paring or not is a completely different topic, but there is no conspiracy to not pay pilots according to the contract.

In the end, it probably doesn't matter much if you're getting these pairings because you're guaranteed your MMG of 85 hours in a month. If you had a month of these you could only do 6 total. If it paid 12 that's 72 hours, if it pays 9.5 then you'd get 57 hours credit. Either scenario you end up with your MMG of 85 and get paid the same. The only time it would matter is if you had one or two of these (each one burns 3 of your max 18 days) and you managed to get so much credit in your remaining pairings that you'd be over 85 hours and into OT.

From a management perspective, that pairing is a terribly inefficient use of pilot productivity and we'd like to see it go away. The OP should change the title of the post to "Inefficient pairing forces Flair to pay pilots 85 hours for only 57 hours of work"

[cdnavater]

I do, and I'm confident that we are doing so. If you actually work here and want to discuss it give me a call anytime.

Example: you're operating on the first day early morning ykf - yvr, start off day 0600lt (ykf) and they have you operate a red eye back that lands in ykf on the third day at 0530lt. So say September 1st to 3rd. It is very much so a 3 day pairing, and you should get 12 credits but you get 9.7 credits because they say it's less than 48 hours total. Which of it were defined that way in the contract (based on 24h periods) that would be ok. But it's not. The contract defines a day of work by calendar day from 0000 to 2359.

Similar for 4 day pairings and 5 day pairings. Are pilots not getting their min 4hr credit on days in the middle if they have a layover?

I don't normally engage with you Ape, but since that's a respectfully put question I'll answer it.

The pairing in question is:

Day 1 Show YKF 0530L Checkout YVR 0855L. Credit 5:10
Day 2 Show YVR 2110L Checkout YKF 0545L +1 Credit 4:20

Total TAFB 48:15.

There is no trip (TAFB) rig in the CBA, so credit is paid strictly for the flight time, for a total of 9:30 and it has nothing to do with the trip being 48 hours or less (which it isn't). It's also almost exactly 2 days and not 3, although it does touch three calendar days, but that is irrelevant for pay purposes as you pointed out.

However, in the event that a pilot is away from base on a calendar day that has no duty, there is a minimum of 4 credit hours per day guarantee. In this particular pairing, there is no day (defined as a calendar day from 0000-2359) that does not have a duty on it, so the only credit generated is the flight credit.

If the check-in in YVR was 3 hours later (due to a delayed flight for example) and check-in was after midnight, then the second day would not have a duty assigned to it and it would generate an additional credit of 4 hours for a total of 13:30.

On any calendar day that does not have a flight duty pilots would be credited for 4 hours. If there is a flight duty, then they get credited for that instead. For example, if there was a YYZ-YUL-YYZ redeye turn that left at 2300 on day one and returned at 0400 on day 2, it spans 2 calendar days but there is a flight duty on both days. In that case, the pilot would not get 8 hours credit, but the flight credit for YUL and back, or 4 hours minimum.

Sometimes this will work in the favour of the pilot, sometimes not. If a pilot calls sick for the YKF-YVR-YKF pairing for example they are only using 2 sick days vs 3. If the YVR -YKF leg had a show time of 0001 on day 3 then an additional 4 credit hours would be awarded for no additional work.

If there is a calendar day in the middle of a pairing with no duty on it then pilots get 4 credit hours in accordance with the CBA.

I am confident that pilots are being correctly credited and paid in accordance with the CBA. Whether the CBA adequately compensates pilots for the YKF-YVR paring or not is a completely different topic, but there is no conspiracy to not pay pilots according to the contract.

In the end, it probably doesn't matter much if you're getting these pairings because you're guaranteed your MMG of 85 hours in a month. If you had a month of these you could only do 6 total. If it paid 12 that's 72 hours, if it pays 9.5 then you'd get 57 hours credit. Either scenario you end up with your MMG of 85 and get paid the same. The only time it would matter is if you had one or two of these (each one burns 3 of your max 18 days) and you managed to get so much credit in your remaining pairings that you'd be over 85 hours and into OT.

From a management perspective, that pairing is a terribly inefficient use of pilot productivity and we'd like to see it go away.

I think you might not win this one in arbitration, given the definition is a calendar day and for the purpose of that even though the duty begins on the second calendar day, it finishes on the third. You even state for the monthly total days worked it counts as three days, you seem to have it both ways. There is a min credit per calendar day and at the very least the credit assigned is the credit earned in that calendar day.
The company absolutely is taking advantage of no duty rig, period!

P.S. When the company takes liberties with contract language, I think you’ll find many pilots will take advantage of the only two days of sick time.. probably a higher percentage of book offs for said pairing.

[tbaylx]

Example: you're operating on the first day early morning ykf - yvr, start off day 0600lt (ykf) and they have you operate a red eye back that lands in ykf on the third day at 0530lt. So say September 1st to 3rd. It is very much so a 3 day pairing, and you should get 12 credits but you get 9.7 credits because they say it's less than 48 hours total. Which of it were defined that way in the contract (based on 24h periods) that would be ok. But it's not. The contract defines a day of work by calendar day from 0000 to 2359.

Similar for 4 day pairings and 5 day pairings. Are pilots not getting their min 4hr credit on days in the middle if they have a layover?

I don't normally engage with you Ape, but since that's a respectfully put question I'll answer it.

The pairing in question is:

Day 1 Show YKF 0530L Checkout YVR 0855L. Credit 5:10
Day 2 Show YVR 2110L Checkout YKF 0545L +1 Credit 4:20

Total TAFB 48:15.

There is no trip (TAFB) rig in the CBA, so credit is paid strictly for the flight time, for a total of 9:30 and it has nothing to do with the trip being 48 hours or less (which it isn't). It's also almost exactly 2 days and not 3, although it does touch three calendar days, but that is irrelevant for pay purposes as you pointed out.

However, in the event that a pilot is away from base on a calendar day that has no duty, there is a minimum of 4 credit hours per day guarantee. In this particular pairing, there is no day (defined as a calendar day from 0000-2359) that does not have a duty on it, so the only credit generated is the flight credit.

If the check-in in YVR was 3 hours later (due to a delayed flight for example) and check-in was after midnight, then the second day would not have a duty assigned to it and it would generate an additional credit of 4 hours for a total of 13:30.

On any calendar day that does not have a flight duty pilots would be credited for 4 hours. If there is a flight duty, then they get credited for that instead. For example, if there was a YYZ-YUL-YYZ redeye turn that left at 2300 on day one and returned at 0400 on day 2, it spans 2 calendar days but there is a flight duty on both days. In that case, the pilot would not get 8 hours credit, but the flight credit for YUL and back, or 4 hours minimum.

Sometimes this will work in the favour of the pilot, sometimes not. If a pilot calls sick for the YKF-YVR-YKF pairing for example they are only using 2 sick days vs 3. If the YVR -YKF leg had a show time of 0001 on day 3 then an additional 4 credit hours would be awarded for no additional work.

If there is a calendar day in the middle of a pairing with no duty on it then pilots get 4 credit hours in accordance with the CBA.

I am confident that pilots are being correctly credited and paid in accordance with the CBA. Whether the CBA adequately compensates pilots for the YKF-YVR paring or not is a completely different topic, but there is no conspiracy to not pay pilots according to the contract.

In the end, it probably doesn't matter much if you're getting these pairings because you're guaranteed your MMG of 85 hours in a month. If you had a month of these you could only do 6 total. If it paid 12 that's 72 hours, if it pays 9.5 then you'd get 57 hours credit. Either scenario you end up with your MMG of 85 and get paid the same. The only time it would matter is if you had one or two of these (each one burns 3 of your max 18 days) and you managed to get so much credit in your remaining pairings that you'd be over 85 hours and into OT.

From a management perspective, that pairing is a terribly inefficient use of pilot productivity and we'd like to see it go away.

I think you might not win this one in arbitration, given the definition is a calendar day and for the purpose of that even though the duty begins on the second calendar day, it finishes on the third. You even state for the monthly total days worked it counts as three days, you seem to have it both ways. There is a min credit per calendar day and at the very least the credit assigned is the credit earned in that calendar day.
The company absolutely is taking advantage of no duty rig, period!

P.S. When the company takes liberties with contract language, I think you’ll find many pilots will take advantage of the only two days of sick time.. probably a higher percentage of book offs for said pairing.

Again, the fact that this burns three days of a pilot's maximum of 18 works in the favour of the pilot, not the company.

There is no minimum credit for a calendar day if there is a duty assigned. See the example of a YUL redeye spanning 2 calendar days. It does not pay a min of 4 credits for each day. See the edit to my original post that makes all of this irrelevant in any case because almost every pilot operating these pairings is getting paid MMG regardless because they are so inefficient.

There is a minimum duty credit of 4 hours. or if there is no duty on a day away from base, then also 4 hours. We're happy to take this one to arbitration, but I'd suggest you'd need to show some language to support the assertion that there is a 4-credit minimum per calendar day that has a flight duty assigned.

There are no liberties being taken with contract language. We're following it exactly.

[cdnavater]

I don't normally engage with you Ape, but since that's a respectfully put question I'll answer it.

The pairing in question is:

Day 1 Show YKF 0530L Checkout YVR 0855L. Credit 5:10
Day 2 Show YVR 2110L Checkout YKF 0545L +1 Credit 4:20

Total TAFB 48:15.

There is no trip (TAFB) rig in the CBA, so credit is paid strictly for the flight time, for a total of 9:30 and it has nothing to do with the trip being 48 hours or less (which it isn't). It's also almost exactly 2 days and not 3, although it does touch three calendar days, but that is irrelevant for pay purposes as you pointed out.

However, in the event that a pilot is away from base on a calendar day that has no duty, there is a minimum of 4 credit hours per day guarantee. In this particular pairing, there is no day (defined as a calendar day from 0000-2359) that does not have a duty on it, so the only credit generated is the flight credit.

If the check-in in YVR was 3 hours later (due to a delayed flight for example) and check-in was after midnight, then the second day would not have a duty assigned to it and it would generate an additional credit of 4 hours for a total of 13:30.

On any calendar day that does not have a flight duty pilots would be credited for 4 hours. If there is a flight duty, then they get credited for that instead. For example, if there was a YYZ-YUL-YYZ redeye turn that left at 2300 on day one and returned at 0400 on day 2, it spans 2 calendar days but there is a flight duty on both days. In that case, the pilot would not get 8 hours credit, but the flight credit for YUL and back, or 4 hours minimum.

Sometimes this will work in the favour of the pilot, sometimes not. If a pilot calls sick for the YKF-YVR-YKF pairing for example they are only using 2 sick days vs 3. If the YVR -YKF leg had a show time of 0001 on day 3 then an additional 4 credit hours would be awarded for no additional work.

If there is a calendar day in the middle of a pairing with no duty on it then pilots get 4 credit hours in accordance with the CBA.

I am confident that pilots are being correctly credited and paid in accordance with the CBA. Whether the CBA adequately compensates pilots for the YKF-YVR paring or not is a completely different topic, but there is no conspiracy to not pay pilots according to the contract.

In the end, it probably doesn't matter much if you're getting these pairings because you're guaranteed your MMG of 85 hours in a month. If you had a month of these you could only do 6 total. If it paid 12 that's 72 hours, if it pays 9.5 then you'd get 57 hours credit. Either scenario you end up with your MMG of 85 and get paid the same. The only time it would matter is if you had one or two of these (each one burns 3 of your max 18 days) and you managed to get so much credit in your remaining pairings that you'd be over 85 hours and into OT.

From a management perspective, that pairing is a terribly inefficient use of pilot productivity and we'd like to see it go away.

I think you might not win this one in arbitration, given the definition is a calendar day and for the purpose of that even though the duty begins on the second calendar day, it finishes on the third. You even state for the monthly total days worked it counts as three days, you seem to have it both ways. There is a min credit per calendar day and at the very least the credit assigned is the credit earned in that calendar day.
The company absolutely is taking advantage of no duty rig, period!

P.S. When the company takes liberties with contract language, I think you’ll find many pilots will take advantage of the only two days of sick time.. probably a higher percentage of book offs for said pairing.

Again, the fact that this burns three days of a pilot's maximum of 18 works in the favour of the pilot, not the company.

There is no minimum credit for a calendar day if there is a duty assigned. See the example of a YUL redeye spanning 2 calendar days. It does not pay a min of 4 credits for each day. See the edit to my original post that makes all of this irrelevant in any case because almost every pilot operating these pairings is getting paid MMG regardless because they are so inefficient.

There is a minimum duty credit of 4 hours. or if there is no duty on a day away from base, then also 4 hours. We're happy to take this one to arbitration, but I'd suggest you'd need to show some language to support the assertion that there is a 4-credit minimum per calendar day that has a flight duty assigned.

There are no liberties being taken with contract language. We're following it exactly.

Ok, wow no min credit at all unless no duty assigned. Jesus, who negotiated this little gem? Amateurs or something worse I guess, anyone in this business knows you at least need a min credit per duty day. Are you saying that in a calendar day if duty is assigned even if it were 2 credits, that’s it?
As is being discussed in another forum, 18 days is a lot and with no minimum duty, there is nothing stopping the company from creating inefficient pairings, even with a min credit of 4:30 in 85 credits is slightly over 18 days.
That last sentence says a lot, you are following it exactly, which means the company negotiators knew exactly what they were doing when they put this in.
Anyhow, I was under the impression that you had a min credit if away from base per calendar day.
So for clarity, if you leave base early am day 1, call it Nov 1 and check in with any duty before midnight on Nov 2, you are only paid for that duty, even if only 5 minutes, you operate all night and arrive early am November 3. You only get the credit for the duty even though, and let’s be honest, November 3 is ruined so you’ve lost three calendar days but are paid for two duties. Do I have this correct.
So as a company, these inefficient pairings can be spread out so you still get the 18 days use out of them with a combination of these crap and some better ones.
At Jazz we had these donut pairings, except opposite of yours, checked in later on day 1 and finished late at YXY( I believe just after midnight), the whole next day off in YXY with an early report on day 3, it was extremely inefficient but still received min credit for all three days, minimum of 12:30 credit. I’d take these over yours for sure but still had a fairly high book off rate.

[digits_]

The pairing in question is:

Day 1 Show YKF 0530L Checkout YVR 0855L. Credit 5:10
Day 2 Show YVR 2110L Checkout YKF 0545L +1 Credit 4:20

Your day 2 is touching on an extra 'post midnight' day.

So it would be:
Day 1: Show YKF 0530L Checkout YVR 0855L. (Credit 5:10)
Day 2: Show YVR 2110L - Fly till midnight (Credit: min 4)
Day 3: Fly starting midnight till 0545L (Credit: min 4)

On which of these 3 calendar days does 21.4.2 not apply, and why?

21.4.2 A Pilot who reports to work shall be credited for any Day worked by the greater of:

a) A minimum of four (4.0) Credit Hours per Day, including Reserve;
b) Scheduled Flight Hours;
c) Actual Flight hours flown;
d) The calculated ratio of one (1) Credit Hour for every two (2) hours of Duty time in each Duty Period, excluding days involving Deadheading only.

[cdnavater]

The pairing in question is:

Day 1 Show YKF 0530L Checkout YVR 0855L. Credit 5:10
Day 2 Show YVR 2110L Checkout YKF 0545L +1 Credit 4:20

Your day 2 is touching on an extra 'post midnight' day.

So it would be:
Day 1: Show YKF 0530L Checkout YVR 0855L. (Credit 5:10)
Day 2: Show YVR 2110L - Fly till midnight (Credit: min 4)
Day 3: Fly starting midnight till 0545L (Credit: min 4)

On which of these 3 calendar days does 21.4.2 not apply, and why?

21.4.2 A Pilot who reports to work shall be credited for any Day worked by the greater of:

a) A minimum of four (4.0) Credit Hours per Day, including Reserve;
b) Scheduled Flight Hours;
c) Actual Flight hours flown;
d) The calculated ratio of one (1) Credit Hour for every two (2) hours of Duty time in each Duty Period, excluding days involving Deadheading only.

Interesting, I presume the definition of day is calendar days, if that is the language I’ll go back to good luck in arbitration!

[digits_]

The pairing in question is:

Day 1 Show YKF 0530L Checkout YVR 0855L. Credit 5:10
Day 2 Show YVR 2110L Checkout YKF 0545L +1 Credit 4:20

Your day 2 is touching on an extra 'post midnight' day.

So it would be:
Day 1: Show YKF 0530L Checkout YVR 0855L. (Credit 5:10)
Day 2: Show YVR 2110L - Fly till midnight (Credit: min 4)
Day 3: Fly starting midnight till 0545L (Credit: min 4)

On which of these 3 calendar days does 21.4.2 not apply, and why?

21.4.2 A Pilot who reports to work shall be credited for any Day worked by the greater of:

a) A minimum of four (4.0) Credit Hours per Day, including Reserve;
b) Scheduled Flight Hours;
c) Actual Flight hours flown;
d) The calculated ratio of one (1) Credit Hour for every two (2) hours of Duty time in each Duty Period, excluding days involving Deadheading only.

Interesting, I presume the definition of day is calendar days, if that is the language I’ll go back to good luck in arbitration!

Yes, 'day' is defined as 'calendar day', which is from 00:01 local time until 00:00. Based on the document linked to in the first page of this topic.

[the_new_guy]

Tb is doing his management job. Can't fault him for it.

But yes, the only definition for day of work is calendar 0000-2359 at home base. There's no trip rig, no "period pay". Nothing of the like.

I'm looking forward for the next MEC to grieve and bring it to arbitration. Pilots and company both agreed on this, but now it is overlooked. When the company first wrote this CA and the MEC agreed to it (...), layovers weren't a recurring thing. It is now, and we're not paid to the letter of our contract.

It's that simple. If a lawyer would point the other way, I'd shut up. But any lawyer worth it can't see it any other way, as it is not defined any other way. A lawyer looks at the paper and makes a determination. The paper says only one thing in this case.

[Apestogetherstrong]

Tb is doing his management job. Can't fault him for it.

But yes, the only definition for day of work is calendar 0000-2359 at home base. There's no trip rig, no "period pay". Nothing of the like.

I'm looking forward for the next MEC to grieve and bring it to arbitration. Pilots and company both agreed on this, but now it is overlooked. When the company first wrote this CA and the MEC agreed to it (...), layovers weren't a recurring thing. It is now, and we're not paid to the letter of our contract.

It's that simple. If a lawyer would point the other way, I'd shut up. But any lawyer worth it can't see it any other way, as it is not defined any other way. A lawyer looks at the paper and makes a determination. The paper says only one thing in this case.

Curious why your current MEC is doing nothing about it when it is clear as day?

[the_new_guy]

Tb is doing his management job. Can't fault him for it.

But yes, the only definition for day of work is calendar 0000-2359 at home base. There's no trip rig, no "period pay". Nothing of the like.

I'm looking forward for the next MEC to grieve and bring it to arbitration. Pilots and company both agreed on this, but now it is overlooked. When the company first wrote this CA and the MEC agreed to it (...), layovers weren't a recurring thing. It is now, and we're not paid to the letter of our contract.

It's that simple. If a lawyer would point the other way, I'd shut up. But any lawyer worth it can't see it any other way, as it is not defined any other way. A lawyer looks at the paper and makes a determination. The paper says only one thing in this case.

Curious why your current MEC is doing nothing about it when it is clear as day?

Not sure why. For about a year now it's been a constant discussion between MEC and pilots. And they haven't made any clear cut decision or rendered any verdict on it.

We were told what the company's opinion is, but we haven't grieved it nor have we asked for professional legal advice. At this point the general opinion is that our MEC is either not equipped to deal with it all or that they're buddies with management. It's not a good look and the only thing it's doing is revving up the group instead of keeping everyone calm. It also goes a long way in making the group believe the company is dealing in bad faith and this will in turn put the pilots in a less than agreeable mindset for the next contract which is closer than it seems.

Looking forward to the times ahead

[Fanblade]

The issue being discussed here is more wide spread than people obviously realize. Companies not paying at all if there is no duty on a specific colander day.

I assume Flair management is hanging it’s hat on this?

21.4.2 A Pilot who reports to work shall be credited for any Day worked by the greater of:

AC has always had Duty Period Guarantee. 4:25 per duty period. We have many three day pairings worth 8:50. Almost everyone works 16 days on the NB as a result.

Current best practice. US carriers started moving away from duty period guarantees a decade ago in favour of a Daily Guarantee or Daily Average Guarantee. They range from 5:00 to 5:40.

AC pilots will be seeking similar

[Gameon]

The intent of the CBA for days worked seemed pretty clear - a days work is 4 hours minimum credit or the higher of block time. ie your away for 4 days and only paid block time which is incredibly unproductive. So in theory gone 4 days and paid 9:45 min. Yikes. You will certainly work up to your max days that month. Yes, paid 85 mmg but also rostered for it as well. Doesn't seem like a good deal for anyone including the company. This certainly is a big issue that needs to get rectified in the next contract. Among others - paid personal days not paid at all and not included in any OT or premium pay, in essence those 4 hours of PAID credits are removed if you're over your OT threshold. Standard sick days seems to be the same. NOC is basically a disaster and each pilot must watch it like a hawk or risk unpaid credits or duties. Vacation allocation is shooting in the dark with no transparency. Overall, the company and the likes of TB are open to discussion - very positive - but its still a very immature company with too many on going issues. For next time, the contract language needs to improve and pay and conditions needs to increase 25-30% and maybe more if AC gets a big increases. Certainly a match to Porter conditions is a must if they want to keep experienced pilots and it should happen prior to the next contract. A steady stream of Capt and FOs are still leaving.

And where are we going now? ULCCs are nimble and can move quickly into new markets which is great, but the lack of clear planning and direction lately is concerning. Growth plans also put on hold due to the debacle earlier this year. 2025 is now the year of growth! Be very curious to see how many pilots are still here and how they will grow in 2025 without some big pay increases. Good luck Flair...