Another slap in the face

[SeaBat]

Counterpoint,

The talk on the flight line was that either we were going to recoup our 30% pay cuts, or the vote would be NO. The rationale was that the Pilot pay was a very small percentage of the overall budget, and that management wasn't taking pay cuts but were still wasting money in other areas. So, why should the Pilots pay for all of their past blunders? The MEC and NC1 should have known the feeling of the Pilots before releasing something as earth-shattering as TA1.

For what its worth, I read the entire TA1 document, and voted yes. But it is painfully obvious to me (even without an independent study) as to why we failed.

[rudder]

Debating TA1 vs where things ended up is pointless. It is more of the affliction of pilots constantly looking in the rear view mirror.

More productive use of time and resources is spent examining where you are today and most importantly where things are headed.

Are you happy with where things are headed?

[Counterpoint]

bat,

I don't believe the acpa thought they could recoup enough money to prevent a NO. The flight line talk is just that, it can be devoid of reality when there are just two of you talking for hours at a time while flying.

I also believe that reading TA wouldn't have been able to figure out all the quid. Something at some time I'd like to debate. Reading the NL's was the way to understand the document. Getting an understanding of the groupings and extra cash for expenses tied it all together.

rudder,

How do you know you haven't made a mistake if you don't debate what happened? Even the acpa is wise enough to ask an independent auditor to review what happened and just how much money the acpa left on the table by turning down the TA. Those that don't want to look are kidding themselves that it won't happen again. With an auditor you get the numbers and the mood all wrapped into one package. The report is then ready to debate and the lessons are learned. I disagree it's pointless to look behind. That's how you learn.

How do you know where you are today, if you don't look at the what-ifs?

I think the acpa is happy that AC is cutting it's debt, I think the acpa is happy the future looks brighter and that bigger airplanes are forging ahead a vision for a larger network. I also believe that the acpa is not happy with the loss of growth from the EMJ fleet loss, loss of expense money and direct transfers over the limits set out in the TA for the LCC. So how did the acpa get the losses without the quid? That needs to be debated and learned from. I think it's a very well spent acpa resource. I like that direction.

[Rumors]

Counterpoint.

I just want to point out that it's hilarious reading your posts because of how you refer to ACPA as "the acpa".

Your probably the only one that does that and I believe it is correct it's just that no one ever refers to it as "the acpa" they just say ACPA.

Anyways sorry for hijacking the thread. Please continue talking about the past so the same mistakes can be repeated in the future as this is what usually happens in the World of Air Canada.

[SeaBat]

The flight line talk is just that, it can be devoid of reality when there are just two of you talking for hours at a time while flying.

I know what you are saying, but apparently it was true enough for the "NO" vote to win the day.

As an aside, many were saying that they couldn't vote YES simply because there was a fair amount of the contract missing. If both sides had taken the time to present a complete package, instead of sections in the contract that were to be promulgated at a later date, I think that we would have seen it pass.

[Rockie]

DC vs. DB is always a good debate, but look what that funding risk transfer has done to AC's bottom line. Sheeeesh, who gets employed with a DB as an airline pilot anymore, 16% DC isn't bad at all, especially when it's in your name. It's a new world out there, the days of db's are gone.

The people so willing to deny other people a DB pension whether they are government, executive or union always seem to have a DB pension plan themselves. If the days of DB plans are gone and a 16% DC isn't bad at all then politicians, executives and union leaders would be the first to sacrifice theirs in the name of leading by example.

But they aren't...are they?

[Spiraldive]

Counterpoint: you have no idea.

TA1 simply took money from junior pilots and new hires to pay for increases to ex-Cdn soon to be retires. The negots committee was simply paying themselves in retirement with the wages and pensions of the yet to be hired.

To wit: ta1 allowed Cdn pilots to qualify All of their years working for a different company as years worked for AC. That difference would have made the ta1 negots guys get an extra 25000$/yr for life in retirement.

They would have, and did, sell their mothers to get that cash.

There is no more money in pay groupings, never was. Not one dime in savings on training ever came back to the pilots.

There was no emb protection. TA1 only promised the people currently working on the emb would not be laid off. By now they could have sold the whole fleet of emb, as all of those pilots would still be employed.

The MEC chair and his minions were all promised 500000$/yr management jobs to design and sell ta1. Too bad for them.

Every, single, apparent increase in wages or improvement in working conditions in ta1 was paid for by the pilots elsewhere in the contract. A very few made out like bandits. Most were screwed by a chainsaw. It was a zero cost contract to the company.

The FOS used zero cost as a starting point, then reduced that.

The ta1 architects were feeble minded self serving sicophants who sold 75 years of respect down the river for two bits and a blowjob from a dirty whore named CR.

The rest, as they say, is history.

[CanadianEh]

What a gong show

[yycflyguy]

Counterpoint: you have no idea.

Actually, he does. He is directly related to the TA1 debacle. The rest of your analysis is spot on spiraldive.

[Counterpoint]

SeaB,

I wonder what parts of the contract they thought were missing?

Also, are you talking about the LOC’s when you say “promulgated at a later date”?

Rock,

So very true, in a way. but I think the overriding issue is how do you transfer the risk to save the bottom line at AC. It always seems to be the pension payments that bites the hardest. Both Ontario Teachers and Omers seem to be in distress now, how long before they succumb to reform?

Tough to lead by example when legislation prevents it.

spiral,

Your argument seems almost too hard to understand. Do you think that ex-Canadian pilots at AC were only going to get their time towards a pension from a former merged airline’s service because of the TA? If so, you must know that previous airline time in any of the former airlines has already counted, and it has counted since the merger, so I believe you are mistaken about it being incorporated in the TA.

Also, adding $25,000 a year for life in retirement is also impossible even though there were MPU increases in the TA. That too seems like a false statement.

There were EMB and Airbus protections. Read 1.10.02.03 of the TA and you’ll see. It's all there. In the FOS it was partially erased and replaced with only an Airbus protection. It’s one of the reasons that 15 EMJ’s have gone to SkyRegional, not allowed under the TA. See the growth thread earlier. In the FOS they added some layoff protection, under 1.04.02 which is new, but now seems useless as the transfer is complete and rouge is growing illegitimately.

Which $500,000/year jobs do you think the MEC Chair and his staff were promised. That wage grade is reserved for very senior executives. Seems highly unlikely.

You seem very annoyed, and make some pretty outlandish accusations, but as you can see I believe it’s because you didn’t understand that the ex-Canadian pilots didn’t get any extra service time they already didn’t have. You probably didn’t understand the EMJ and Airbus protections either. How many ex-Canadian pilots are you saying would have benefited from a $25,000 uplift to their pensions?

How did FOS use zero cost as a starting point? How then was it reduced? I don’t understand your argument.

yyc,

What do you mean by spot on? Most of his analysis doesn’t make any sense.

[Spiraldive]

Any ex-Cdn pilot who was due to retire during the 6 years ta1 was to be in effect got something they never had before: their time at Cdn counted towards the Top Hat, or serp. That is the 25000$/yr difference. Payable to a very specific group. Nothing to do with mpu increases.

[Counterpoint]

They were already entitled to the SERP prior to the TA.

Also, the TA was a 4-year deal. April 2011- April 2015.

[Rockie]

So very true, in a way. but I think the overriding issue is how do you transfer the risk to save the bottom line at AC. It always seems to be the pension payments that bites the hardest. Both Ontario Teachers and Omers seem to be in distress now, how long before they succumb to reform?

My wife is in OMERS and neither they or the teachers are contemplating eliminating the DB pension plan for new members because their union executive would be lynched for even suggesting it. There are other temporary measures that can be taken first that they are exploring, but as the economy improves that will become less of an imperative. We however have permanently let the company off the hook for any pilot hired from last summer on.

What temporary measures did ACPA suggest to take us over the hump? Did we offer to increase our own contributions as a bridge? Did we do anything except agree to end the plan?

This is why we get crushed in negotiations, we're only too willing to throw any other pilot in front of the bus as long as I'M not effected. One of the most disgusting terms I heard last summer was "we don't negotiate for people not on the property yet". Besides being morally reprehensible it's unbelievably short-sighted because those pilots who "weren't on the property" then are now, and as their numbers and voting power grows they're going to want compensation for getting screwed by US.

[Rumors]

So very true, in a way. but I think the overriding issue is how do you transfer the risk to save the bottom line at AC. It always seems to be the pension payments that bites the hardest. Both Ontario Teachers and Omers seem to be in distress now, how long before they succumb to reform?

My wife is in OMERS and neither they or the teachers are contemplating eliminating the DB pension plan for new members because their union executive would be lynched for even suggesting it. There are other temporary measures that can be taken first that they are exploring, but as the economy improves that will become less of an imperative. We however have permanently let the company off the hook for any pilot hired from last summer on.

What temporary measures did ACPA suggest to take us over the hump? Did we offer to increase our own contributions as a bridge? Did we do anything except agree to end the plan?

This is why we get crushed in negotiations, we're only too willing to throw any other pilot in front of the bus as long as I'M not effected. One of the most disgusting terms I heard last summer was "we don't negotiate for people not on the property yet". Besides being morally reprehensible it's unbelievably short-sighted because those pilots who "weren't on the property" then are now, and as their numbers and voting power grows they're going to want compensation for getting screwed by US.

I'm with Counterpoint on this one.

Like he said DB vs. DC will always be a good debate.

I for one favour DC.

There is alot of stuff in the media with regards to the positives of DB because money managers make alot more managing DB plans Vs. DC plans.

Look at Westjet?

Manulife Sunlife Great West Life can't make any money managing their pensions because they don't have any.

At 175% match I don't know how any new hire can complain about that.

The insurers/money managers big finance institutions will always lobby ottawa and OSFI to keep the regs with DBs the way they are cause they have the most to loose.

Rockie can a new hire complain about getting back a DB plan when they agreed to take a job that offers a DC plan?

[yycflyguy]

It’s one of the reasons that 15 EMJ’s have gone to SkyRegional, not allowed under the TA.

No. The only reason SkyRegional even exists today is because of a non-transparent "cooperative relationship" with the corporation and a sneaky poll by the MEC and facilitated and supported by the MEC Chair. It is part of the reason that those architects were recalled and should have faced union and legal sanctions for the damage created to the membership. Everyone knew that the "only out of YTZ" flying would expand quickly now that scope protection was given away. Subsequent "letters from concerned pilots", informal Starbucks (hence the double frappacino reference) meetings during NC2 efforts further damaged the membership and the hopes for a NEGOTIATED CBA.

FYI: POS FTA = Piece Of Sh1t, Failed Tentative Agreement. You really had never heard that used before?

-Payraises for not having to take courses, what is the difference in flying to LHR in a 767/330/777 anyway.

You're kidding right? Under that logic, every fleet type passes through YYZ, so what's the difference? You have minimized the value of utilizing formula pay that has been the standard at AC and other world carriers for decades. The reason EMB CA were making less than 777FOs was because of formula calculation and the penalty that was applied to the EMB (2003 CCAA) and A320 (-5% for "competitive reasons"). Just the way it is. If you want to debate the merits of status pay, save it for another thread.

TA1 opened the doors to the creation of a LCC. Now we have significant WAWCON differences WITHIN the membership. Inevitable internal negotiating whipsawing will be THE major hurdle in 2016. Pilot costs are a fraction of CASMs. We do not make or break this company. Stop inferring that we have to either increase productivity or accept status quo. That is not negotiating. The explanation of how the LCC would work in TA1 was never clarified by the architects or the corporation. Just a "promise" that the language would be clarified later. What kind of membership protection is offering your counterparts carte blanche?

We had scope protections prior to NC1 efforts. They were given away for quid and protections for the most very senior members (MPU increases, widebody quid).

The FTA sucked and 67% voted that way.

[Counterpoint]

The reason I even mentioned Ontario Teachers and OMERS is because they are the two largest in the country. And they are showing signs of distress.

The big difference between AC and the ones mentioned is that the AC plan has the ability to cripple the airline with payments it doesn't seem to be able to afford. That time is coming for the big two. It will be interesting to see how their Union leaders handle it. There isn't much appetite amongst tax payers to foot the bill in Ontario, when those payments are due, benefits will suffer. The upcoming battle royale in the federal service will serve as a precursor.

But to your point Rockie, how much more are you willing to increase your contributions for the DB in order to bridge the NH. The amount would be incredible. That's why I think the acpa negotiators had very little choice. Legislation prevents many options, like clawing back pensioner benefits.

If your airline suffers from crippling pension payments, what do you do? Increasing the member premiums isn't enough. Like I said, it's a new world. How long before a downturn in business limits the ability of AC to make the moratorium amounts?

I wonder if spiral understood the pay groupings enough to know just how much money there was in pay uplift?

[yycflyguy]

The reason I even mentioned Ontario Teachers and OMERS is because they are the two largest in the country. And they are showing signs of distress.

The big difference between AC and the ones mentioned is that the AC plan has the ability to cripple the airline with payments it doesn't seem to be able to afford. That time is coming for the big two. It will be interesting to see how their Union leaders handle it. There isn't much appetite amongst tax payers to foot the bill in Ontario, when those payments are due, benefits will suffer. The upcoming battle royale in the federal service will serve as a precursor.

But to your point Rockie, how much more are you willing to increase your contributions for the DB in order to bridge the NH. The amount would be incredible. That's why I think the acpa negotiators had very little choice. Legislation prevents many options, like clawing back pensioner benefits.

If your airline suffers from crippling pension payments, what do you do? Increasing the member premiums isn't enough. Like I said, it's a new world. How long before a downturn in business limits the ability of AC to make the moratorium amounts?

I wonder if spiral understood the pay groupings enough to know just how much money there was in pay uplift?

How do you explain the corporations "pension holiday" ignoring their pension obligations during healthy economic times?

When interest rates increase 2.5% and the pension liability vanishes, what other burning platform do you suggest we extinguish on behalf of a corporation that has shown it can't even select the right airframe for their LCC operations? Shall we continue to accept concessions for management blunders?

[Counterpoint]

Pension funding holidays are a factor of over contribution limits set by the government. The government wants it's tax dollars and so sets a limit.

If the increase in the DR doesn't come soon enough, then there is a time when distress sets in. The moratorium prevents the catastrophic wind up, that without the hike would/will surely happen.

Incidentally, the TA provided for both the acpa and AC to jointly advocate for an amendment to increase the overcontribution limit from the government mandated 105% to 110%.

So, AC didn't ignore their obligations, they couldn't afford them when it became too late. The blunder isn't entirely AC's. The burning platform is the acpa's without a moratorium, and you don't get that without reform. That reform was the end of DB pensions for the NH, and led to the moratorium.

[Counterpoint]

yyc,

Have a look at the TA, 1.10.02.02 prohibited SkyRegional from flying EMJ 175's. It doesn't matter how many CPA carriers there would have been flying for AC, the EMJ175 was only allowed at AC. Check out the conditions for increasing SkyRegional flying, 1.10.02.03. There is that growth language again.

Don't you think it was wise to have a presence at YTZ at a cost below Jazz's. Considering the damage Porter has done to RapidAir, it's probably a good move no matter the margin loss. The battle is prolonged though.

The recalls were probably an emotional backlash, probably understandable considering all the rumours like the ones we see here 2-years after the fact about what was actually IN the TA.

Thanks for the POS FTA translation, I knew it wasn't the Port-of-Spain Free Trade Agreement!

The groupings weren't status pay. They grouped like jobs together. EMJ-A320, and 767-787-330-777 all similar. The Formula pay hasn't been minimilized it's was still in the TA under article 12. The groupings $'s were the same money only distributed based on positions within the group. That resulted in huge pay increases to EMJ and 767 pilots.

The TA introduced the LCC. Do you believe that AC needs an LCC to compete? I do, and at the WJ and AT wages, increased by groupings, I think the acpa negotiators got it right. I mean how long do you think paying a relief pilot $135,000 can last. The groupings redistributed the formula pay based on rank, makes sense. The cost of pilots at a new organization is huge, I think you're referring to pilot cost at AC, as in all of it. How do you compete on leisure flying when your pilots cost more? You have to either increase productivity (pretty tough against those flying to CAR's limits) or pay less, right? With groupings the WJ and AT wages were incorporated and produced higher wages.

If the TA passed, the momentum probably would have carried over to the other unions. Unfortunately it hasn't, but the other unions NH's now work for the equivalent of provincial minimum. Not the mechanics, but the service agents, flight attendants and groomers. All thanks to FOS previous to the acpa's.

What promises were missing? Where is the carte blanche?

If an MPU goes up, it goes up for those that retire on the DB, not just the senior members.

Your all over the place yyc, some of it makes sense, but most of it is just plane wrong.

What is this informal Starbucks meeting?

Are you a concerned pilot? Why not? You may have been mislead by the uninformed, that should concern anyone. As you mentioned, you seem to be in good company as the 2/3's voted that way.

[Rockie]

But to your point Rockie, how much more are you willing to increase your contributions for the DB in order to bridge the NH. The amount would be incredible.

I would increase my contributions an awful lot to avoid the inevitable disaster coming our way between the "haves" and the "have nots". That combined with other measures might have carried us over the hump, but were we asked? Were we given an option?

You guys blindsided us with the pension and LCC. In what universe did you guys think that wouldn't be a problem?

[Counterpoint]

The is no hump. The damage is only overcome by delaying pension payments. A pilot's contribution in order to provide the same protection as the moratorium would eat up your net pay in no time.

The DR being so low for so long, prevents AC or plan members from making up the difference. That's probably why you, or the Teachers and Omerites won't be asked.

[yycflyguy]

The TA introduced the LCC. Do you believe that AC needs an LCC to compete? I do, and at the WJ and AT wages, increased by groupings, I think the acpa negotiators got it right. I mean how long do you think paying a relief pilot $135,000 can last. The groupings redistributed the formula pay based on rank, makes sense. The cost of pilots at a new organization is huge, I think you're referring to pilot cost at AC, as in all of it. How do you compete on leisure flying when your pilots cost more? You have to either increase productivity (pretty tough against those flying to CAR's limits) or pay less, right? With groupings the WJ and AT wages were incorporated and produced higher wages.

No. I do not believe AC needs an LCC. History has proven it. Several attempts have all been rolled back into mainline operation (Zip, tango). It is merely a mechanism to destroy the scope protections, move airframes, create leverage in future negotiations, split the union and shuffle money. Like I said, they couldn't even get the right airframe in their awarded FOS submission to do the work and 2 months after its creation approached "the" ACPA for a let for greater capacity. Their OC was awarded HOURS before the first flight. They have already had manning, MEL and ETOPS issues. The only groups that got a haircut to save this LCC master-plan was the pilots and FAs.

How about the bloated middle management costs? The true costs with agents, rampies, dispatch, maintenance, infrastructure, fuel and government taxation/fees are left unabated. Pilot costs are not the problem.

Instead of viewing an RP making six figures as a burden, how about this. Compare overseas augmentation like the Americans do. There is no such thing as an RP. They are all fully qualified, rated FOs that augment the flight. An FO making $135k sure is hell is worth his salt working trans-oceanic flights with 200-460 pax in the back. No more RPs only FOs. Oh, and those American carriers are dumbfounded when they hear that we don't augment until 9 hours flight time. They have a full compliment of CA + 2 FOs on every oceanic crossing. Stop comparing "the" ACPA to the lowest common denominator.

[DBC]

The TA introduced the LCC. Do you believe that AC needs an LCC to compete? I do, and at the WJ and AT wages, increased by groupings, I think the acpa negotiators got it right. I mean how long do you think paying a relief pilot $135,000 can last. The groupings redistributed the formula pay based on rank, makes sense. The cost of pilots at a new organization is huge, I think you're referring to pilot cost at AC, as in all of it. How do you compete on leisure flying when your pilots cost more? You have to either increase productivity (pretty tough against those flying to CAR's limits) or pay less, right? With groupings the WJ and AT wages were incorporated and produced higher wages.

Aren't RPs a benefit to the company? Even at 135k, which wasn't even possible last contract? We use lower paying positions when most of the rest of the world uses full pay FOs. If the company wanted to go that way I doubt anyone in ACPA would mind.

[Rockie]

The is no hump.

Then why are pension plans across the country improving? Including by the way OMERS and the Teachers.

The damage is only overcome by delaying pension payments.

I don't believe you. There are other ways that contribute as well like increasing our contribution. You asked me how much I would be willing...let's start with doubling my contribution until the crisis is over. Don't tell me there aren't ways.

[Counterpoint]

The FAA doesn't allow RP's only IRO's (specially qualified FO's).

TC does allow RP's. until you change how TC doles out licensing you got nothing.