New TA reached!

[DLurker]

Here is an observation humbly from a TOTAL OUTSIDER.

ACPA should simply say to the company, our contract does not allow you to use a carrier to fly from
Toronto Island that we do not agree with.
We are not saying that you can not use another carrier only that it must be one that we have agreed
to, which would be Jazz and until we have a new agreement with something else in place it's NO FLY.

Having looked at all the information posted I would say that it would be in ACPA best interests to never agree to any other carriers except Jazz taking over extra flying. Otherwise it will be the beginning of total erosion of your work.

[Rockie]

ACPA should simply say to the company, our contract does not allow you to use a carrier to fly from Toronto Island that we do not agree with.

ACPA is in the company's hip pocket as recent events have proven. They are Air Canada with a different letterhead.

Even if they weren't, the company would flick ACPA off their sleeve like they were a mosquito should ACPA actually try and stop them. We've proven that as well.

Our union has no loyalty to the members, no integrity, no brains, and no balls.

It doesn't get any worse than this.

[Gentle Giant]

Here is an observation humbly from a TOTAL OUTSIDER.

ACPA should simply say to the company, our contract does not allow you to use a carrier to fly from
Toronto Island that we do not agree with.
We are not saying that you can not use another carrier only that it must be one that we have agreed
to, which would be Jazz and until we have a new agreement with something else in place it's NO FLY.

Having looked at all the information posted I would say that it would be in ACPA best interests to never agree to any other carriers except Jazz taking over extra flying. Otherwise it will be the beginning of total erosion of your work.

Welcome to the conversation. As it stands the Skyregional flying was supposed to be counted in the current allowed flying ratio. I'm not saying this is any sort of guarantee though.

[DLurker]

Here is an observation humbly from a TOTAL OUTSIDER.

ACPA should simply say to the company, our contract does not allow you to use a carrier to fly from
Toronto Island that we do not agree with.
We are not saying that you can not use another carrier only that it must be one that we have agreed
to, which would be Jazz and until we have a new agreement with something else in place it's NO FLY.

Having looked at all the information posted I would say that it would be in ACPA best interests to never agree to any other carriers except Jazz taking over extra flying. Otherwise it will be the beginning of total erosion of your work.

Welcome to the conversation. As it stands the Skyregional flying was supposed to be counted in the current allowed flying ratio. I'm not saying this is any sort of guarantee though.

Gentle Giant... Thanks for your response, the point is though there is no current agreement.
Only the one that is still in place until you negotiate and agree to a new one.

[Gentle Giant]

Gentle Giant... Thanks for your response, the point is though there is no current agreement.
Only the one that is still in place until you negotiate and agree to a new one.

OK, well, semantics I suppose. The old contract continues until a new one is negotiated so I'd call the "old one" the "current" agreement.

[rudder]

ACPA tool a poll. Then they took a vote (MEC). Then they gave a toe tap under the table (Calin) and SKY got the go ahead. Publicly, they said that no deal - no SKY. Then they got a deal and agreed to a ratification timeline that would have the deal approved prior to May 1st (first SKY flight). Then all hell broke loose.

Did I get it right?

[Gentle Giant]

ACPA tool a poll. Then they took a vote (MEC). Then they gave a toe tap under the table (Calin) and SKY got the go ahead. Publicly, they said that no deal - no SKY. Then they got a deal and agreed to a ratification timeline that would have the deal approved prior to May 1st (first SKY flight). Then all hell broke loose.

Did I get it right?

Yup, pretty much bang-on!

[Inceptive]

For all of you talking CPA Jazz and AC, please open a new thread on why the CPA exists!
In order to spin Jazz off, RM came up with a formula to make Jazz very presentable as a self sustainable
income on their own rights. (Jazz pilots, you are under paid, and I hold hope that we at AirCanada can get half
of what you did in your last agreement!)

Now.... Take what CR is spinning, watch Genuity Capitals involvement in both corporations, and get over it!

If you can't wrap your head around the fact that nothing of the CPA is pilot based, then I can't write the rest
of this sentence without having this post removed!

Sky Regional, (no offence to those involved), is the beginning of Colgan (KBUF crash) in Canada!

Our wages are worth a Vendi Coffee per pax, or a Timmies and six of pack of Timbits!

If you can't equate pilot pay into to the formula of operating costs, then our airlines should all be defunct!

The last 6 pages on here are crap, and it is the reason why we are where we are today.

AC serves a purpose, so does Jazz, WestJet, Canjet, Sunwing, Air Transat, Porter, etc.. etc...

But the minute that you think a CPA or someone elses wage (as a pilot) is pulling you down...

YOU ARE TALKING 1$ to 3$ a ticket for the difference.

Wrap your head around it... Get over it, and try to make it better for those to come! Not worse!

[mbav8r]

The following is public information and I know the CPA has been beaten to death, but it's abit of an eye opener, for me as well. I didn't realize how precarious our(Jazz) situation was. Currently we only own 37% of our aircraft, which are very high time Dash 8s. We lease 54% of our aircraft from Air Canada, I wonder what kind of lease rates we're getting, you know since we're such a drag on the AC bottom line. The way I see it, it's a money shuffle, out of the right pocket and into the left pocket. Jazz's CPA rates are cost plus a mark up, but a huge, HUGE part of our cost go directly back to Air Canada's other pocket. We also have to use ACGHS for our ground handling, part of the cost we pay, which goes back into ACs pockets. So if our cost are too high, it's because of what we pay for the majority of our services, which I'll say again, goes back into the other pocket of AC.
According to page 8 of the 2010 Annual Results MD&A.

We own 29 Dash 8-100
We own 19 Dash 8-300

7 Dash 8-100's are leased from Air Canada Capital.

9 Dash 8-300's are leased from third party lessors.

Of the 48 CRJ 100/200's in our fleet, 32 are leased directly from Air Canada. 15 are subleased from Air Canada Capital and 1 is leased from a third party.

Of the 16 CRJ 705's in our fleet, 15 are leased from Air Canada Capital and 1 is leased from a third party.

[mbav8r]

Gentle Giant, I fell as though you keep missing the point about Sky Regional, etc. The whole point about wasting bargaining capital on protecting Jazz jobs is pure non-sense, you might have been protecting our wages, which by association protects your wages. You keep mentioning the ratio of regional flying being unchanged, yes, that is correct and will likely not affect the AC pilot, this time around but it will come back to haunt you, certainly in the future. Any downward pressure on Tier 2 wages will affect you later on.
See my post above about how Jazz CPA puts money back into the AC coffers, I suppose AC could lease the aircraft to Sky Regional or whoever, when we return them after our flying is reduced. I wonder if they'll pay the same rate for them?
You're being played like a cheap fiddle and the sound, is certainly not music to my ears!

[rudder]

Aircraft sublease charges to Jazz from AC are subject to mark-to-market. This is so that Jazz is not subject to the onerous terms agreed to by AC with GECAS. This is a good deal for Jazz as most of the aircraft in question have a residual capital value close to zero.

ACGHS rates to Jazz are subject to mark-to-market. This is because Jazz has agreed to buy ACGHS services exclusively where available. This is a good deal for AC as it increases utilisation on existing fixed ACGHS infrastructure and spreads costs out over a larger revenue base.

[teacher]

"Inceptive" a very good post.

"mbav8r" Sad how how once again those numbers need to be posted to remind folks how Jazz /Chorus/Air Canada Express were created to line the pockets of AC managment. The CPA would be cheaper if:

A) RM hadn't saddled us with this ridiculous distribution which is now a dividend to boost the IPO price
B) We could do our own OR contract out ground handling services (cheaper and more reliable)
C) We didn't pay AC for leases on the oldest airplanes while returning newer CRJs owned by third parties.

The the Q400s that are arriving will be owned by Chorus if anyone was wondering.

This is my last post about the CPA on this thread. No more 7500ing I promise

[Gentle Giant]

Gentle Giant, I fell as though you keep missing the point about Sky Regional, etc. The whole point about wasting bargaining capital on protecting Jazz jobs is pure non-sense, you might have been protecting our wages, which by association protects your wages. You keep mentioning the ratio of regional flying being unchanged, yes, that is correct and will likely not affect the AC pilot, this time around but it will come back to haunt you, certainly in the future. Any downward pressure on Tier 2 wages will affect you later on.
See my post above about how Jazz CPA puts money back into the AC coffers, I suppose AC could lease the aircraft to Sky Regional or whoever, when we return them after our flying is reduced. I wonder if they'll pay the same rate for them?
You're being played like a cheap fiddle and the sound, is certainly not music to my ears!

No, I've clearly stated several times that one "effect" of the scope clause in the ACPA contract was to protect Jazz jobs. I never said that it was done for this purpose since it most definitely was not. I have also clearly stated several times that I do not trust management and that, IMO, they are a bunch of parasites who's ultimate plan is to screw all of us - Jazz pilots and Air Canada pilots. I don't wish any misfortune on the Jazz pilots nor do I wish for a non-union company to come along and undercut you. My purpose is simply to comment on what I expect to happen; I expect that the new T/A will allow basically unlimited tier 2 operations within a negotiated ASM ratio and I expect that the Jazz pilots will be subjected to strong pressure from their management as the CPA renewal approaches.

Now, I know someone will post a reply saying that ACPA should hold-the-line and refuse to allow any change to the current scope agreement and thereby continue with the status-quo and this, of course, brings us full circle - it takes bargaining capital to do this and, apparently, the choice is being made to "spend" it elsewhere.

[teacher]

My purpose is simply to comment on what I expect to happen; I expect that the new T/A will allow basically unlimited tier 2 operations within a negotiated ASM ratio and I expect that the Jazz pilots will be subjected to strong pressure from their management as the CPA renewal approaches.

I fully agree with your statement and think there is no doubt that this is where our relationship with AC is heading. One of our top union leaders said at a meeting a while back that he was surprised that it took this long.

Now, I know someone will post a reply saying that ACPA should hold-the-line and refuse to allow any change to the current scope agreement and thereby continue with the status-quo and this, of course, brings us full circle - it takes bargaining capital to do this and, apparently, the choice is being made to "spend" it elsewhere.

Full circle is right. I fully expect the next negotiations to be even more difficult than the last ones. We will have the CPA termination and reduction threat hanging very low over our heads. However the double edged sword for ACPA is that a pilot group having their employment threatened either by another group OR market/business forces will be much less likely to "take one for the team" and more and more end up looking out for number one. If flying gets taken away than it will have to be made up elsewhere, TC, other work with other airlines OR other flying that AC wants to dump. I doubt you'll find anyone at Jazz after the shenanigans of the last few months who will say "poor ACPA, maybe we should tell managment we don't want to do this". If ACPA wants an "every man for himself" world than that's what they'll get. That's what CR wants.

These aren't threats, they're just reality.

[Gentle Giant]

I doubt you'll find anyone at Jazz after the shenanigans of the last few months who will say "poor ACPA, maybe we should tell managment we don't want to do this". If ACPA wants an "every man for himself" world than that's what they'll get.

I agree with almost everything you said. Not trying to be antagonistic but what do you mean by "shenanigans"?

Also this not what ACPA wants, IMO, but rather the corner that we have been backing into.

[teacher]

Thomas Cook grievance, Q400 grievance and Sky Regional among the usual ACPA vs Jazz pilot BS

Jazz has also been backed into a corner albeit not as bad as ACPA has but we see the writing on the wall and are being proactive YEARS before we have no choice. The TC flying is just the start as we at Jazz know that we won't be able to count on AC forever. 2020 is a long way away and my hope is that our managment team doesn't sit and wait for it.

[aroundthewing]

ACGHS rates to Jazz are subject to mark-to-market. This is because Jazz has agreed to buy ACGHS services exclusively where available. This is a good deal for AC as it increases utilisation on existing fixed ACGHS infrastructure and spreads costs out over a larger revenue base.

FYI....ACGHS is now defunct!

[Gentle Giant]

Thomas Cook grievance, Q400 grievance and Sky Regional among the usual ACPA vs Jazz pilot BS

.

The TC grievance and the Q400 grievance are because the pilots think that their contract was broken - how do you see this as a "shenanigan" or somehow directed as an attack against the Jazz pilots? Aren't you one of the Jazz guys who was encouraging ACPA to stand up and fight for their contract or do you mean that we should fight only when it will also benefit you?

Also don't blame ACPA for the Sky regional mess - the vast majority of us want nothing to do with it either. This is a company initiated plan and, as you know, many of us are fighting tooth and nail against it and the rest of the tentative T/A. We are attempting to hold the line. I don't think there's any feeling at all that we should move toward every man for himself. In fact, most of the talk on the private forum revolves around drawing a line in the sand and refusing to move backwards and/or making working conditions better industry wide. If you think that any of this is directed toward Jazz you are wrong.

[ChallengerDan]

The CPA would be cheaper if:

A) RM hadn't saddled us with this ridiculous distribution which is now a dividend to boost the IPO price
No more 7500ing I promise

The distribution or dividends don't have nothing to do with the CPA costs. The distribution/dividends is what has supported the share price. It was set up like that because there is no real opportunity for this company (Jazz/Chorus) to grow. So the profits are given back to shareholders instead of reinvested to support growth. If you would cut the dividend, the CPA would still provide Chorus with a nice profit, the difference being they would be sitting on top of a stockpile of cash and the share price would plummet. But the CPA would still be expensive to AC. And many of those expensive cost are paid to AC anyways...

[Gentle Giant]

The CPA would be cheaper if:

A) RM hadn't saddled us with this ridiculous distribution which is now a dividend to boost the IPO price
No more 7500ing I promise

The distribution or dividends don't have nothing to do with the CPA costs. The distribution/dividends is what has supported the share price. It was set up like that because there is no real opportunity for this company (Jazz/Chorus) to grow. So the profits are given back to shareholders instead of reinvested to support growth. If you would cut the dividend, the CPA would still provide Chorus with a nice profit, the difference being they would be sitting on top of a stockpile of cash and the share price would plummet. But the CPA would still be expensive to AC. And many of those expensive cost are paid to AC anyways...

I think "teacher" is saying that without the distribution that the CPA could be cheaper.

[ChallengerDan]

I think "teacher" is saying that without the distribution that the CPA could be cheaper.

I know what he is saying. And that's the thing: it wouldn't be cheaper. The CPA costs are one thing: that's the deal that AC and Chorus have signed. It should be beneficial to both company. AC can have some cities served for cheaper than if they were to do it themselves, and the rates should permit Chorus to provide the service while making some money out of it.

The dividends that Chorus pays are the remainder of the profit that the company does not re-invest. Even if they didn't pay any dividend, Chorus would still be making a EBITDA margin of 8.1 % for 2010. The dividend is what they chose to do with that 8.1 % left after they pay everything. They gave 81.3% of the free cash flow back to the investors. The 18.7% was used to invest in down payments for Q400, participation in Pluna, etc. (re-investments)

But that way off-topic anyways..... But I get annoyed when people try to make a point with issues they don't understand. This is basic Financial knowledge.

[one8tee]

So what I can't figure out is even though we ALL know what is happening why is there still infighting? the only way either group is going to suceed here is together. Forget OAC/CA, Jazz/ AC and all the other bullsh!t. If we don't forget it fast this will be the beginning of the end.

You don't want to "waste bargaining capitol" on Jazz? Newsflash.. by doing that you would be using it for yourself because you would be one step closer to creating a united front against managment. Sure throw that in the garbage.. give it 5 or 6 years and you will be in a way wore situation, with 5 or 6 "mini Jazz's" competing against each other, driving down wages and making you guys look way more expensive.. What do you think will happen?

Grow up guys. Ps was JS'ing on a mainline flght and apparently crews on both sides have be declining JS to other pilots (has gone both ways). I'll say again.. grow up. Or we'll all be flying people around for bus driver wages.

I for one won't be operating a 705 YYZ to YYC. thats what sick days are for.

ACPA AND ALPA need to sit down and have a little chat.

180

[Gentle Giant]

You don't want to "waste bargaining capitol" on Jazz? Newsflash.. by doing that you would be using it for yourself because you would be one step closer to creating a united front against managment. Sure throw that in the garbage.. give it 5 or 6 years and you will be in a way wore situation, with 5 or 6 "mini Jazz's" competing against each other, driving down wages and making you guys look way more expensive.. What do you think will happen?

180

So tell me, how do you see this working? The company says to ACPA (for example) you can have a raise or keep the Jazz exclusive scope clause. Now, you're saying that we should pick "keep the scope clause" instead of the wage increase, right? How exactly does this help us? If we pick, "keep the scope clause" we get no raise, if we pick "get the raise" we might, sometime in the future, have to respond to lower wages in the tier 2 flying.

I hear lots of advise that we shouldn't cave in on allowing additional tier 2 competition but no advise on how to accomplish this feat - also no offers from Jazz for assistance to achieve this. Logically, Jazz stands to benefit greatly from the continuation of the status-quo so where is the offer of assistance???

[one8tee]

A) Has ACPA asked ALPA for help? If you guys can't figure out how to walk to the other side of the street and ask the world's largest pilot union for advice then is it really their place to shove it down your throat?

B) You've taken over a 25% rate cut since 2010. Why should you have to give up ANYTHING while CR gets a 5 million dollar bonus? The point here is that if all you guys can see is a 5% raise for the next 3 years we are all once again thinking waaaay too short term. Think of how better off we would be if we were all on one list all those years ago? Eventually we have to step up and take the short term hit for a guarenteed future.

If all the company can come up with every ten years is "you guys have to take a pay cut or we're going under" while painting airplanes all sorts of different colors, coming up with random start up airline ideas (SKY/ LCC) and reinventing new names for already existing services (Air Canada Express, Tango etc) then I think maybe its time for you to tell them to pound sand.

I'm no business major but you need pilots to run an airline. You don't need random mid level managers. You don't need legislation that holds back Air Canada unfairly against its competition. And you don't need to be based out of a province that has corporate tax rates over 6% higher than other parts of the country.

Grow a pair and continue to stand up for yourselves.. You've already done the right thing by getting rid of the MEC and throwing the TA in the garbage. Don't Stop!

[teacher]

I think "teacher" is saying that without the distribution that the CPA could be cheaper.

I know what he is saying. And that's the thing: it wouldn't be cheaper. The CPA costs are one thing: that's the deal that AC and Chorus have signed. It should be beneficial to both company. AC can have some cities served for cheaper than if they were to do it themselves, and the rates should permit Chorus to provide the service while making some money out of it.

The dividends that Chorus pays are the remainder of the profit that the company does not re-invest. Even if they didn't pay any dividend, Chorus would still be making a EBITDA margin of 8.1 % for 2010. The dividend is what they chose to do with that 8.1 % left after they pay everything. They gave 81.3% of the free cash flow back to the investors. The 18.7% was used to invest in down payments for Q400, participation in Pluna, etc. (re-investments)

But that way off-topic anyways..... But I get annoyed when people try to make a point with issues they don't understand. This is basic Financial knowledge.

I understand very much how it works thank you. At this point full elimination of the dividend is impossible in the short term as the value of the company and it's ability to borrow against itself would plummet. I know how it works. My point is Jazz was set up this way by Milton. High distribution, lucrative contract and CHA CHING! Had this not been the case the CPA costs would have been much lower as profits would not have had to of been handed out to shareholders.

Now, having said all that when Jazz and AC renegotiated rates a while back the distribution (back than as it was called) was reduced and the savings mitigated the cost reductions in the CPA. The same thing can be done now and in the future and slowly bring the dividend down as to minimize the effect on the share price.