New Agreement

[FADEC]

What should be in a new agreement?

First, no "B" scale, and no "B" scale pension; the other unions have figured this out. Sooner or later, the "B" scale employees will outnumber the "A" scale, and will outvote them; guess where that ends up.

No more flying to be contracted out. Work towards bringing all flying to one pilot group. There is no real reason this cannot be done. More employees in one group ensures a larger group supporting Pensions and other benefits. Whittling the company into smaller and smaller pieces is a recipe for destroying the viability of the operation.

The provision that would allow AC to underfund the pension, and then cut benefits has to go. If employees have to contribute a little more for a stable pension, so be it. ACPA or the successor union has to hire an actuary for good advice on this. Being a Jet Captain does not automatically qualify someone as an expert on finance; the NC needs expert help.

Pilot payroll costs are a very small percentage of operating costs; no separate wage scale for an LCC. Again, AC would shift more and more flying to the LCC, till there was no Mainline left. Then the LCC adds amenities to resemble the former mainline standard.

Boeing intends to have a common 777/787 pilot group, similar to the 757/767. The cockpits are so similar that no simulator is required on the transition. Normal and Abnormal procedures are the same, and the aircraft fly the same. This is significant, because AC will have a huge saving by having one Wide Body Pilot Group. ACPA was informed of this years ago, and advised to treat this the same as 330/340 by paying 777 rates on the 787 in exchange for the savings. ACPA execs did not understand the question and negotiated a lower 787 rate. The rejected TA had this issue buried in it; to the advantage of AC and the disadvantage of the Pilots. ACPA dropped the ball, because they didn't pay attention.

Ensure that the new agreement has one Wide Body rate, based on the present 777 rate with whatever raise is added.

It may be unlikely, but consider the possibility that AC will one day fly a larger type. Write it into the Contract; Think ahead and start acting instead of reacting to change.

Consider Status Pay for the Narrow Body fleet. Find a way to make provision for all AC flying to be done by AC pilots. Perhaps two Narrow Body Status Pay groups; one for Embraer and up, one for the smaller types. Make it economic, and AC will bring the flying in. End the whipsawing.

ACPA must accept the obvious; Mandatory Retirement is over. Negotiate the continuation of reasonable early retirement provisions, as well as ensuring that the AC savings from ending Mandatory Retirement are shared with the Pilot Group. There will have to be provisions for reasonable notice of intent to retire; maximum of three months, which represents the longest reasonable time to train a pilot. AC wants to end the Litigation; agree to this, with the proviso that AC pick up the costs.

There are more issues; surface them and give direction to the NC. Force the MEC to bring in expert help; consider asking ALPA for help from their resources. Tough times call for tough measures.

[hoghead]

I agree with you in principle, 100%.

I am just trying to sort out the facts objectively. I think you have to look hard at the pension issue and consider the following things (I am just asking):
How many people are on the pension right now?
How many people will be on the pension in 10, 20, 30 years?
AC only made $110 million profit on $10.8 billion revenue (on currency exchange), are they still on a pension fund payment holiday? How can they fund the plan if they are?
Whats the fund deficit now?
AC will always use the pension as a bargaining tool to strip more away from the pilots, why not seek a solution to take away that tool?

I wholeheartedly understand the principle of AC's obligation but I cant honestly see how they can afford it for the next 50+ years because that is what is going to be required for people starting today.

Im just trying to understand how it can work. I know its especially hard when the EVP's ,SVP's, COO's, and whatever else they call themselves are lining their pockets. What did Milton walk away with? 86 million or something?

Good luck, I hope it can get sorted.

[vic777]

There will have to be provisions for reasonable notice of intent to retire; maximum of three months

Anyone can retire now, whenever they want. What are the current "rules" on notification? Why change the current rules? If the Company wants notification, they must give up negotiating capitol to get it! FlyPast60 is here, the Company has no choice, they have no bargaining leverage.

[ratherbee]

Not quite Vic. The BFOR argument still has to be addressed and I believe the MP who introduced this Bill said that it would have to be fought inch by inch by every single employee. The Company will want to reduce costs and the pilots will want career progression. There's the conflict or negotiation. Not much leverage for anybody.

Back to the "New" agreement. Good luck.

You have to get AC to pay for any transition to a new pay system like in version 1. The pension is not sustainable and has needed an "H" check for almost a decade. Good luck.

Scope is about protecting work for the mainline. It is not about growing our ranks to make a "super-sized" union. Global solution, merged seniority lists? What about our retirees working at Sky Regional? Where would you put them? Good luck.

Hiring experts, tough measures? We fire experts and look for others if we don't like their advise, c'mon we're pilots!

If we are looking for principles in the "New" TA then maybe we should agree that it better have more dough in it than V1.0! The tally is already over $7M that has slipped by since April 1st. Good luck.

[accumulous]

The BFOR argument still has to be addressed and I believe the MP who introduced this Bill said that it would have to be fought inch by inch by every single employee.

There's no BFOR argument for any other airline in North America and there isn't one for AC. If you're hanging your hat on that twig, it already snapped off years ago.

[Understated]

There's no BFOR argument for any other airline in North America and there isn't one for AC. If you're hanging your hat on that twig, it already snapped off years ago.

You know that, and I know that. The problem is that both Air Canada and ACPA are denying that in their continuing submissions to the Tribunal, to the Federal Court, and the CIRB.

But they don't argue it through the front door. They argue it through the back door. They say that "accommodation" of pilots over age 60 is an issue (read the wording of the Federal Court's paragraph describing the referral of the BFOR issue back to the Tribunal).

The problem is that a requirement for accommodation arises only once a BFOR argument is established. Air Canada is saying that mandatory retirement at age 60 raises a BFOR. Go figure. In the current legislative scheme, what is age 60 but an arbitrary age? ACPA is saying, "It is the position of ACPA that the retirement date contained in the Collective Agreement is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of legitimate purposes and goals..." That is its BFOR argument. Does that sound like "a bona fide occupational requirement" to you? On that basis, it says that the employer should be able to terminate the employment of pilots at age 60, overriding the finding of the Tribunal and the Federal Court that discrimination on the basis of age is unlawful. Go figure.

[accumulous]

We all know that over 2600 pilots can’t come close to the 35 year pension cap unless they go past 60, indeed a large number have to go past 70.

Virtually ALL AC pilots have to proceed past 60 to make anything of a flying career, as ALL these pilots were allowed to be hired outside the previous AC hiring age limitation that was struck down by another Tribunal 30 years ago.

To use part of the phrase, over two thousand six hundred AC pilots have an ‘Occupational Requirement’ to proceed way past 60 just to maximize their earnings, pension, and career potential.

For now they can pretend not to want it in a Massive Failed Discriminatory Effort to eradicate the top end of the list, but when the dust settles shortly on their Charade (and Peek-a-Boo-yes-we-all-know-it's-a-Charade) they’ll enjoy a full career like every other carrier in the country. Colts in the holsters, feet full of holes, the powers that be will help them along in spite of themselves.

[Takeoff OK]

Age 60 is dead. Get over it. All it does is draw the discussion away from what needs to be done.

Fadec has his eye on the ball, and everyone should be paying attention.

The fly in the ointment is the pension. Maybe not now, but next time, or in 8 to 10 years, you all will be losing it, even if it takes bankruptcy to take it away from you. Also; any thought of bringing "outside" flying back inside is a fool's errand. Absolutely NOT going to happen. Everything else Fadec mentions, however, is pure gold.

[Rockie]

The fly in the ointment is the pension. Maybe not now, but next time, or in 8 to 10 years, you all will be losing it,

Isn't it strange that ACPA is doing nothing to protect the pension? One would think they would be stopping at nothing, but instead they continue to fight against measures that would increase the health of the pension at the same time they would willingly deny it to newhire Air Canada pilots.

Who were they working for anyway?

[turbo-beaver]

Rockie:

It was pretty evident who the last MEC Chair was working for and it was not the pilot group. Time will tell when we see what sort of management job the company has in store for this guy and his band of cronies.
Hopefully, the days of back room deals is over now but I would not bet money on it. Time will tell.
But time also is on their side as there is no rush to jump into a new collective agreement. The airline can initiate any changes they want as long as they fall within the parameters of the collective agreement currently in place.
Hopefully, there will be new leaders that will look deeply into what has occurred in this file and make the changes necessary to salvage the Association.
In the end, regardless of what transpires, someone will have to pay all the bills that are mounting up, and that will be the pilot group.
They have had ample warnings.

Too bad the pilot group does not choose to run with APLA as I am sure they would happily jump on board and pay the damages to get the AC pilots on board.

[snag]

You three Flypast60 posters should stop contaminating EVERY single thread. Now back to original post...

I agree with changes required, LCC, pay etc. But I disagree with the amount of outcry against the DC. Yes, its not for everyone, but many of the current pilots would be surprised just how many of the new hires WANT a DC pension. We are more financially savvy now, and also realistic about not expecting AC, the industry, regulations, the economy, government etc not changing for the next 60 years of our career/retirement and screwing up the DB. I would have probably chosen DC, then at least if any one of the above changes (and it will), I've already got cash in the bank. You want to do the new hires a favor, get rid of the 4 year flat pay instead.

Where the problem with the DC pension lies, is in the lack of clarity. Where is the money being put? Many places I've worked have the company deciding what to do with their portion of contributions, not the recipient. They could force investment in AC shares, for example. Also, who's running this pension plan? TD Bank? SunLife? Uncle Bob's investment services? And why the 5 year wait for full contributions?

Remember also, AC's pension is not a pyramid scheme. Don't need new contributors to keep it growing.

[rudder]

You three Flypast60 posters should stop contaminating EVERY single thread. Now back to original post...

I agree with changes required, LCC, pay etc. But I disagree with the amount of outcry against the DC. Yes, its not for everyone, but many of the current pilots would be surprised just how many of the new hires WANT a DC pension. We are more financially savvy now, and also realistic about not expecting AC, the industry, regulations, the economy, government etc not changing for the next 60 years of our career/retirement and screwing up the DB. I would have probably chosen DC, then at least if any one of the above changes (and it will), I've already got cash in the bank. You want to do the new hires a favor, get rid of the 4 year flat pay instead.

Where the problem with the DC pension lies, is in the lack of clarity. Where is the money being put? Many places I've worked have the company deciding what to do with their portion of contributions, not the recipient. They could force investment in AC shares, for example. Also, who's running this pension plan? TD Bank? SunLife? Uncle Bob's investment services? And why the 5 year wait for full contributions?

Remember also, AC's pension is not a pyramid scheme. Don't need new contributors to keep it growing.

This is what is being offered at UAL/CAL:

Retirement (Primarily based on Continental benefits with modified contribution rates):
o A Plan (CPRP): Remains frozen as is.
o B and C Plans:
o Consolidate legacy United plans into the legacy Continental 401(k) Plan and Money Purchase Pension Plan, with a 16% contribution rate
 Current Continental pilots phase-in contribution rate to 16% (additional 1.25% in first year and 0.5% increase in each of the next four years up to 16%)
 Current United pilots receive 16% contribution rate immediately
o Retain Continental plan documents and governance practices
o Prior to Single Operating Certificate, all new hires receive the plan of the organization they hire into
o After Single Operating Certificate all new hires receive 16% contribution rate

[Rockie]

You three Flypast60 posters should stop contaminating EVERY single thread. Now back to original post...

You should perhaps recognize the essential connection between retirement age, the health of the pension and the amount of pension you will or will not recieve as a result. Beats me why you and so many others consistently fail to see that relationship. Raising the subject isn't contaminating a thread, it is an integral part of the discussion despite your refusal to see it.

You should also consider that your self-admiring investment skills probably aren't as impressive as you would like to believe. As well a DC pension plan has inherent vulnerabilities and limitations that a DB plan doesn't, not least of which is an inability to smooth out the bumps of economic lows and total exclusion from actuarial averaging. You also shouldn't restrict yourself to one type of pension or the other. There are very generous, and some might say superior investment options that have nothing to do with DB or DC pensions. If your investment acumen were as good as you say you would do it all and spread the risk.

[snag]

Rockie,

I could start a thread about my preference for vanilla ice cream over strawberry, and you would still bring the retirement argument into it. Vic777 and accumulous would be right behind you. I understand the importance of the fp60 debate, but please guys, get a life.

I'm not saying I'm an investment genius either. Far from it. I just think anyone starting in the company now, hoping to see a full DB pension in 60 years is out to lunch. You're right, there are many options. I would have had the choice on the last TA, and that's what I feel is a safe option for ME. I just don't want others to sacrifice pay or benefits in the future for the sake of something that is acceptable to many in the target demographic.

Done with this post, see you and your friends on the next one.

[Rockie]

Rockie, I could start a thread about my preference for vanilla ice cream over strawberry, and you would still bring the retirement argument into it. Vic777 and accumulous would be right behind you. I understand the importance of the fp60 debate, but please guys, get a life.

I have one thank you, one in which retirement figures prominently. As does current working conditions. While I and several others prefer not to stick our heads in the sand pretending the mandatory retirement issue is not extremely relevant to the contract negotiations at hand or the immediate to long term future of every Air Canada pilot, you can do whatever you like.

Like starting a thread about your preference for vanilla ice cream over strawberry. I promise retirement won't be mentioned because it isn't relevant.

[Norwegianwood]

Ok staying on thread..................... from CBC news...... It's the me too clause!

"Lewenza blasted the Harper government's "heavy-handed" approach in ordering employees back to work just 16 hours after the strike began.

The CAW represents 3,800 members who are customer service and sales agents at Air Canada. Voting took place over the last week.

The contract is viewed by analysts as a template for negotiations between Canada's largest airline and its pilots, flight attendants and mechanics."

[Rockie]

Not only Air Canada employee groups. For the next 4-5 years every corporation in the country is going to use it as a template knowing the Conservatives will act as they have with Air Canada and Canada Post.

DB pensions will be under attack in every work place like never before along with employee rights to take job action. This is only the beginning of a dark several years for workers in Canada

[rudder]

Not only Air Canada employee groups. For the next 4-5 years every corporation in the country is going to use it as a template knowing the Conservatives will act as they have with Air Canada and Canada Post.

DB pensions will be under attack in every work place like never before along with employee rights to take job action. This is only the beginning of a dark several years for workers in Canada

And who here voted Conservative? This is what your vote bought you.

[c170b53]

Remember its your membership that protects what you get. Everything.. is in the contract, either you get or you don't. What is at risk if you allow the company to crack your shell? Albeit the company cannot " get at" your pension money like they can in the States. They can alter the provisions of the pension as in the payout ratio if you let them by allowing your protection to be reduced by DCers.

[FADEC]

Part of your pilot pension comes from general revenues. Once the DC outnumber the DB, AC could offer something to the pilot group to cut your benefit; and since the DC pilots would have no interest in your pension, guess what would happen.

Another slippery slope in the "TA" was the concept that AC could underfund the Pension, then cut the benefits by certain amounts. What do you think the probabilities of that are?

Your income as a pensioner will start to diminish the day you retire. I recently attended the funeral of an 87 year old retired pilot; his pension was worth 40% of when he retired. Some of us can remember inflation rates that were well into double digits. The older guys all knew how important the pension is; you might depend on it for twenty or thirty years; protect and increase it as top priority.

I have met lots of pilots who think they are better money managers than the pros; I know less than a dozen who actually were.

The same guys who think they are good money managers probably trust Harper; they'll learn.