What will Air Canada pilots do with their $0 bonus?

[flieslikeachicken]

Yes. At what point does being unionized matter if the union has no ability to enforce a contract and the company only follows the articles it feels like?

Being unionized is more than enforcing a contract.

We are all paying thousands in union dues every year, what is the return?

There are many benefits to being unionized.

In other words: what has ALPA forced the company to do, that it didn't want to?

ALPA is not there to force the company to do something that it doesn't want to do.

If penalties cannot be integrated there at least needs to be hard lines drawn where if the company does not implement or is not following a part of the contract, there is some immediate recourse for us. They can't be allowed to say "vendor dependent" indefinitely or milk the grievance process for years to their advantage.

Penalties can be negotiated, but they usually come with a cost associated. WestJet Encore had a penalty in the initial flow agreement where, for every pilot that did not flow, around $14,000 would be split among the pilot group as compensation.

If the grievance process in this country is broken why is ALPA Canada doing nothing about it? Why are they doing nothing about labour laws that favour corporations? This is where there is a disconnect from the dues I'm paying and the (lack of) action I'm seeing. I hear a lot of talk but when it counts we are not getting the representation we need, when we need it.

The grievance process is negotiated to allow for an agreeable resolution for issues that are either not covered in the contract, or for disagreements as to the meaning of items within the contract. Contract violations are usually disagreements in interpretation. As adults, we should all try to see the other parties' viewpoints as it allows us all to reduce conflict.

[Bingo Fuel]

We are all paying thousands in union dues every year, what is the return?

Prove it. Show us that you're paying more in union fees than the pay raises the union has negotiated. The burden of proof is on you, show us the numbers behind your claim.

[thepoors]

Being unionized is more than enforcing a contract.

There are many benefits to being unionized.

ALPA is not there to force the company to do something that it doesn't want to do.

You need to expand on these points. Sure there is more to it than just these things, but accomplishing these things is a fundamental function of the union. Why do you think they are not responsible for making the company do things it doesn't want to? The basic purpose of a union is to protect and enforce our labour rights which the company would not respect left to its own devices. Even with a union, the company is persistently violating them.

The grievance process is negotiated to allow for an agreeable resolution for issues that are either not covered in the contract, or for disagreements as to the meaning of items within the contract. Contract violations are usually disagreements in interpretation. As adults, we should all try to see the other parties' viewpoints as it allows us all to reduce conflict.

This is a very optimistic and altruistic view. And also very naive. The company does not respect us, the negotiation process, or the grievance process. They have proven over and over that they will play dirty games to get what they want. If one party is behaving that way and the other is being "honourable" and playing by the rules, the latter will lose every time. Would I like for it to function as you're describing? Yes. But that's not how it works in reality.

We are losing and people need to realize it's because ALPA is stuck playing by the rules while the company acts in bad faith with little to no consequences. They will continue to do so until they are held accountable. We need to stop playing nice.

[thepoors]

We are all paying thousands in union dues every year, what is the return?

Prove it. Show us that you're paying more in union fees than the pay raises the union has negotiated. The burden of proof is on you, show us the numbers behind your claim.

Cost and value are not the same thing.

[flieslikeachicken]

Being unionized is more than enforcing a contract.

There are many benefits to being unionized.

ALPA is not there to force the company to do something that it doesn't want to do.

You need to expand on these points. Sure there is more to it than just these things, but accomplishing these things is a fundamental function of the union. Why do you think they are not responsible for making the company do things it doesn't want to? The basic purpose of a union is to protect and enforce our labour rights which the company would not respect left to its own devices. Even with a union, the company is persistently violating them.

The grievance process is negotiated to allow for an agreeable resolution for issues that are either not covered in the contract, or for disagreements as to the meaning of items within the contract. Contract violations are usually disagreements in interpretation. As adults, we should all try to see the other parties' viewpoints as it allows us all to reduce conflict.

This is a very optimistic and altruistic view. And also very naive. The company does not respect us, the negotiation process, or the grievance process. They have proven over and over that they will play dirty games to get what they want. If one party is behaving that way and the other is being "honourable" and playing by the rules, the latter will lose every time. Would I like for it to function as you're describing? Yes. But that's not how it works in reality.

We are losing and people need to realize it's because ALPA is stuck playing by the rules while the company acts in bad faith with little to no consequences. They will continue to do so until they are held accountable. We need to stop playing nice.

I chose not to dive into the first few items because I think that any of us can easily find the benefits of a union by doing a google search or reading the comms sent out by them. As far as "forcing the company to do things that they don't want to do," it is an irrelevant concept because it doesn't matter if they want to do it or not, it's whether they have an obligation to do them in law or in the contract.

I understand that my argument feels altruistic and optimistic, but I've been down the hole of feeling like everything is a personal attack and I came to realize that a shift in mindset can change everything and nothing all at once.

[piedpiper]

Did bro really make it sound like the greiveance process is some amazing tool to resolve disputes? I mean maybe originally that was it's intent.

It's now turned into an process that allowed the corp to delay implementation or delay proper implementation (while disputing language THEY negotiated) to save money. Nothing more.

[flieslikeachicken]

Did bro really make it sound like the greiveance process is some amazing tool to resolve disputes? I mean maybe originally that was it's intent.

It's now turned into an process that allowed the corp to delay implementation or delay proper implementation (while disputing language THEY negotiated) to save money. Nothing more.

Try being at an ALPA airline without a grievance process. The thing with grievances is that it's there to protect all parties while ensuring a predictable way to navigate conflict. If one or more of the parties is looking to fight, that is a different story altogether.

[thepoors]

As far as "forcing the company to do things that they don't want to do," it is an irrelevant concept because it doesn't matter if they want to do it or not, it's whether they have an obligation to do them in law or in the contract.

Man are you serious? How is it irrelevant when you have the company doing exactly that and violating the contract/purposefully dragging its feet on it's obligations?

Sure in a negotiating environment forcing them to agree to certain things might be wishful thinking. But we are talking about the lack of implementation and enforcement of the current contract. Again: we are playing far too nice and they are exploiting it.

[piedpiper]

Did bro really make it sound like the greiveance process is some amazing tool to resolve disputes? I mean maybe originally that was it's intent.

It's now turned into an process that allowed the corp to delay implementation or delay proper implementation (while disputing language THEY negotiated) to save money. Nothing more.

Try being at an ALPA airline without a grievance process. The thing with grievances is that it's there to protect all parties while ensuring a predictable way to navigate conflict. If one or more of the parties is looking to fight, that is a different story altogether.

A greivance process exists via the labour code. There is no ALPA carrier "without a greivance process".

[piedpiper]

As far as "forcing the company to do things that they don't want to do," it is an irrelevant concept because it doesn't matter if they want to do it or not, it's whether they have an obligation to do them in law or in the contract.

Man are you serious? How is it irrelevant when you have the company doing exactly that and violating the contract/purposefully dragging its feet on it's obligations?

Sure in a negotiating environment forcing them to agree to certain things might be wishful thinking. But we are talking about the lack of implementation and enforcement of the current contract. Again: we are playing far too nice and they are exploiting it.

This next round we better just file conciliation the day we legally can. And start the clock. I don't want another 2 year drawn out negotiating cycle. It's fatiguing on everyone.

[thepoors]

As far as "forcing the company to do things that they don't want to do," it is an irrelevant concept because it doesn't matter if they want to do it or not, it's whether they have an obligation to do them in law or in the contract.

Man are you serious? How is it irrelevant when you have the company doing exactly that and violating the contract/purposefully dragging its feet on it's obligations?

Sure in a negotiating environment forcing them to agree to certain things might be wishful thinking. But we are talking about the lack of implementation and enforcement of the current contract. Again: we are playing far too nice and they are exploiting it.

This next round we better just file conciliation the day we legally can. And start the clock. I don't want another 2 year drawn out negotiating cycle. It's fatiguing on everyone.

2 years of negotiation (aka the company refusing to negotiate for 18 months), then 2 years to implement anything, then it's time to (not) negotiate again... but but pAtTeRn BaRgAiNiNg. Exactly the pattern the company wants.

[Bingo Fuel]

2 years of negotiation (aka the company refusing to negotiate for 18 months), then 2 years to implement anything, then it's time to (not) negotiate again... but but pAtTeRn BaRgAiNiNg. Exactly the pattern the company wants.

What do you think pattern bargaining means?

[thepoors]

2 years of negotiation (aka the company refusing to negotiate for 18 months), then 2 years to implement anything, then it's time to (not) negotiate again... but but pAtTeRn BaRgAiNiNg. Exactly the pattern the company wants.

What do you think pattern bargaining means?

Not what you think it means apparently. I've had to explain the definition here before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_b ... prov=sfla1

[Bingo Fuel]

2 years of negotiation (aka the company refusing to negotiate for 18 months), then 2 years to implement anything, then it's time to (not) negotiate again... but but pAtTeRn BaRgAiNiNg. Exactly the pattern the company wants.

What do you think pattern bargaining means?

Not what you think it means apparently. I've had to explain the definition here before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_b ... prov=sfla1

Okay. So how does pattern bargaining ensure that the company gets what it wants, and not the "process in labour relations, where a union gains a new and superior entitlement from one employer and then uses that agreement as a precedent to demand the same entitlement or a superior one from other employers"?

Do you think we would have achieved the same gains if we weren't building off the gains achieved by WestJet? Or that Transat's agreement didn't build off of AC's contract?

But then again, you seem to think that what we're doing isn't pattern bargaining, and that we only gained "crumbs" (your words from a different thread).

If Air Canada had their way, we'd be at 10 year framework rates +2% per year. Instead we had one of the most successful collective bargaining gains in the last 50 years of Canadian labour history.

[thepoors]

What do you think pattern bargaining means?

Not what you think it means apparently. I've had to explain the definition here before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_b ... prov=sfla1

Okay. So how does pattern bargaining ensure that the company gets what it wants, and not the "process in labour relations, where a union gains a new and superior entitlement from one employer and then uses that agreement as a precedent to demand the same entitlement or a superior one from other employers"?

Do you think we would have achieved the same gains if we weren't building off the gains achieved by WestJet? Or that Transat's agreement didn't build off of AC's contract?

But then again, you seem to think that what we're doing isn't pattern bargaining, and that we only gained "crumbs" (your words from a different thread).

If Air Canada had their way, we'd be at 10 year framework rates +2% per year. Instead we had one of the most successful collective bargaining gains in the last 50 years of Canadian labour history.

Yes we did get crumbs. Our contract is not objectively superior to WJ. We have a bit more pay, they have far superior QOL. If ALPA was achieving real pattern bargaining we would have all the same QOL items WJ achieved and higher pay. Exchanging one for the other is not a net gain. Do you understand what the word precedent means? We also gave up a bunch of huge compensation items like profit share. You're ignoring everything we gave up - we can't even sustain gains off our own old contract.

If you really believe that last line in your post you're delusional. "Most successful" is highly subjective when you consider the previous contract was absolute garbage. How low is your bar that you're celebrating improvements off that crap? We went from the shit pile to the dumpster. Is it an improvement? Sure. Is it anything to be proud of? No. There's a long way to go and if you think we're getting there by never striking, don't hold your breath.

[Mr. North]

There are a few structural realities being overlooked here.

WestJet pilots have historically enjoyed better QOL for a very simple reason. For most of its existence they could not match Air Canada pay rates. They didn't even have a pension! QOL was essential for recruitment and retention. Socialized bidding/vacation, ports, scheduling philosophy, these have long been substitutes for poor compensation.

That being said, it is materially easier for a carrier to close a pay gap than a manpower gap. You just cut a bigger check. Meanwhile vacation, staffing, and productivity rules have operational constraints tied directly to fleet, hiring pipelines, training capacity, and network coverage. One is strictly financial. The other is primarily structural. Different mechanisms, different constraints.

On profit share: describing it as a “huge compensation item” does not add up. It would not have triggered in 2024. Last year's performance, while stronger, would have only generated a modest payout. Roughly a few thousand dollars for most pilots. In exchange for moving the threshold up, we secured permanent wage increases that compound annually, flow through premiums, and are pensionable. Reasonable people can debate that trade, but the magnitude should be represented accurately. I personally prefer an enduring, compounding wage increase over a profit share that comes and goes.

More broadly, compensation analysis should be anchored to total earnings. For AC pilots the delta versus the prior agreement is measured in tens of thousands annually. That is not a trivial shift, particularly in a volatile global environment where predictability carries real value.

You're entitled to want more but I wouldn't burn the house down or insult people here because we didn't get heaven and earth all at once. We are on a good trajectory.

[ZackMorris]

What we’re seeing here is either a serious misunderstanding of the numbers -> or a deliberate misrepresentation of them.

The ALPA incentive bonus would have been maxed out the last two years. The trigger is 16.5% EBITDAR, not EBITDA. Those are not interchangeable metrics, and the company cleared that threshold comfortably. That's easily $30k per pilot of concessions.

If the people presenting this who I assume are on the MEC can’t distinguish between EBITDAR and EBITDA...or can’t properly interpret a financial statement...yikes...that’s a major red flag.

And if they can read it but chose to frame it differently, that’s even more concerning.

Then there’s the pattern bargaining argument:

We were told this was strong pattern bargaining. Yet we didn’t even surpass Flair’s starting pay, and we’re now trailing a broke ass leisure carrier that was supposed to represent the floor, not the ceiling. I mean we gave up our bonus...this is pattern bargaining DOWN.

Pattern bargaining only works if you actually set the pattern. Otherwise, it’s just a slogan.

And if we head into the next cycle with the same people — especially on the negotiating committee — members should be asking some serious questions. Surely some new faces would be beneficial?

At some point, results matter more than explanations.
Because what’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

This isn’t personal. It’s structural. If the strategy didn’t deliver competitive outcomes, repeating it with the same team should concern everyone.

Negotiations are high-stakes.
Credibility matters.
Financial literacy matters.
Leverage matters.

And if we’re serious about closing gaps instead of explaining them away, accountability has to be part of the conversation.

[3rdWorldClassPilot]

There are a few structural realities being overlooked here.

WestJet pilots have historically enjoyed better QOL for a very simple reason. For most of its existence they could not match Air Canada pay rates. They didn't even have a pension! QOL was essential for recruitment and retention. Socialized bidding/vacation, ports, scheduling philosophy, these have long been substitutes for poor compensation.

That being said, it is materially easier for a carrier to close a pay gap than a manpower gap. You just cut a bigger check. Meanwhile vacation, staffing, and productivity rules have operational constraints tied directly to fleet, hiring pipelines, training capacity, and network coverage. One is strictly financial. The other is primarily structural. Different mechanisms, different constraints.

On profit share: describing it as a “huge compensation item” does not add up. It would not have triggered in 2024. Last year's performance, while stronger, would have only generated a modest payout. Roughly a few thousand dollars for most pilots. In exchange for moving the threshold up, we secured permanent wage increases that compound annually, flow through premiums, and are pensionable. Reasonable people can debate that trade, but the magnitude should be represented accurately. I personally prefer an enduring, compounding wage increase over a profit share that comes and goes.

More broadly, compensation analysis should be anchored to total earnings. For AC pilots the delta versus the prior agreement is measured in tens of thousands annually. That is not a trivial shift, particularly in a volatile global environment where predictability carries real value.

You're entitled to want more but I wouldn't burn the house down or insult people here because we didn't get heaven and earth all at once. We are on a good trajectory.

Lol...are these company talking points or the MEC?

A whole lot of company problems in there like "staffing". Funny how there were low DBMs with many pilots at 68 hrs right after the great deal yet we couldn't get vacation credit till 2027 LMAO.

Also, less ChatGPT next post MrNorth

[altiplano1]

Can you explain the difference in the metrics as Air Canada reports them?

[Protonpilot]

The ALPA incentive bonus would have been maxed out the last two years. The trigger is 16.5% EBITDAR, not EBITDA. Those are not interchangeable metrics, and the company cleared that threshold comfortably. That's easily $30k per pilot of concessions.

I think you're making stuff up.

The difference between EBITDA and EBITDAR for Air Canada is actually very small. This was asked of our negotiating committee years ago when we switched between the two metrics. You could also reach out to someone on the negotiating committee (previous or present) or MEC to confirm this yourself. Or you could just continue to make stuff up.

Air Canada reported EBITDA of 14.0% for 2025, only slightly above the zero payout line of 13.6%. Max payout under the old program was at 16.5%

The EBITDAR for 2025 would likely have been between 14.0% and 14.5%, maybe a shade over 14.5%, but nothing close to the 16.5% you're claiming. Also nothing close to the $30,000 payouts you're claiming.

And once again, we didn't give it away. We exchanged it in bargaining for a bigger (compounding) pay raise that the membership needed to see for this deal to have any chance at ratification.

[altiplano]

Recall 8% of salary cap at max payout wouldn't be near 30K payout for anyone.

I do see management guidance pointing at 20% EBITDA target in the next few years which would trigger payout under the raised threshold.

[ZackMorris]

The ALPA incentive bonus would have been maxed out the last two years. The trigger is 16.5% EBITDAR, not EBITDA. Those are not interchangeable metrics, and the company cleared that threshold comfortably. That's easily $30k per pilot of concessions.

I think you're making stuff up.

The difference between EBITDA and EBITDAR for Air Canada is actually very small. This was asked of our negotiating committee years ago when we switched between the two metrics. You could also reach out to someone on the negotiating committee (previous or present) or MEC to confirm this yourself. Or you could just continue to make stuff up.

Air Canada reported EBITDA of 14.0% for 2025, only slightly above the zero payout line of 13.6%. Max payout under the old program was at 16.5%

The EBITDAR for 2025 would likely have been between 14.0% and 14.5%, maybe a shade over 14.5%, but nothing close to the 16.5% you're claiming. Also nothing close to the $30,000 payouts you're claiming.

And once again, we didn't give it away. We exchanged it in bargaining for a bigger (compounding) pay raise that the membership needed to see for this deal to have any chance at ratification.

I’m not making anything up — and this isn’t about personalities, it’s about math.

The difference between EBITDA and EBITDAR is not trivial for airlines. The “R” stands for rent, and for airlines that means aircraft operating leases — which are a very significant expense category. Adding rent back can materially change the margin calculation, especially for carriers with large leased fleets.

That’s precisely why many airlines report both metrics. Lease expense isn’t pocket change — it can run into the billions annually. Adding it back meaningfully changes the numerator in the margin calculation.

Even Air Canada’s past guidance acknowledged the structural difference between the two metrics, and other airlines (including U.S. carriers like Southwest) have shown clear separation between EBITDA and EBITDAR margins depending on lease exposure in a given year.

Now zoom out.

We gave up a contractual provision that provided real, needed money — particularly for new pilots who were starting below competitors like Flair. In exchange, we were told this was about “secure money,” despite the fact that virtually every other major airline maintains some form of profit sharing.

If we truly pattern bargained, we wouldn’t have had to make a concession of this magnitude. And if the airline is forecasting sustained profitability, the long-term cost of giving up a margin-based program will compound significantly over time.

Let’s also remember: this was presented as the company’s “final offer.” This was their deal. The enthusiasm in Rousseau's video wasn’t subtle.

[Protonpilot]

I'm not following you at all. EBITDAR is lower than EBITDA, not the other way around.

Air Canada switched its reporting from EBITDAR to EBITDA in 2019. If you look up the annual report from 2019 and compare it to the previous year, you get that one chance to see both metrics in the same year. You can see that in 2018 EBITDA was 17.8% and EBITDAR was 15.8%. Apologies, my math was a little backwards in my last post, but I'm actually more convinced that you're out to lunch on this.

In 2025 EBITDA was 14.0%, this would imply that EBITDAR in 2025 would have been about 12.0%.

Where do you get maximum payout from this?

I see that under the EBITDAR margin (our old methodology) the payout would have been zero (less than 13.7%) and if we were somehow using the EBITDA metric it would have been 1.2% of payroll. Even for a B777 Captain that would have been less than $5,000.

[ZackMorris]

Good to have this discussion but shocking we have to do this...

Quick explainer on EBITDA vs. EBITDAR for airlines:

**EBITDA** = Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation & amortization.
**EBITDAR** = EBITDA **plus Rent** (aircraft operating leases).

For airlines, that “R” matters.

Example:

Let’s say an airline has:
• Revenue: $20B
• EBITDA: $2.8B → **14% margin**
• Aircraft lease expense: $600M

EBITDAR simply adds lease expense back:

$2.8B + $0.6B = $3.4B

Now the margin is:

$3.4B ÷ $20B = **17%**

That’s a **3-point swing** in margin

Airlines lease a large portion of their fleets. Lease expense can run into the hundreds of millions (or billions) annually. Adding that back materially changes margin-based triggers.

So when someone says EBITDA and EBITDAR are “basically the same” for airlines, that’s just not accurate — especially in a lease-heavy business model.

So every EBITDA number you see...EBITDAR is HIGHER

[piedpiper]

It's actually shocking how much people don't understand how valuable that R is.