10 year agreement with pilots

[zulutime]

Singing bonus, ey? Ask the AC Flight attendants about their signing bonus when AC asked them to ratify the new deal when they bought Canadian. All original AC FA's are still waiting for their money!

Let's hope this potential new contract with the pilots isn't countered by the backs of the FA's (and others within the organization) who are also coming up for renegotiation.

[Stu Pidasso]

Don't confuse us as equals, Pilots can leave AC and double their salary on contract overseas. AC has the highest paid F/A's and Rampies in North America.

[TrailerParkBoy]

There seems to be a lot of positive stuff in the TA. Now time to look past the smoke and mirrors and ask why a "great" TA needs to include a signing bonus! If the bonus wasn't included, how many would still think it's great?

If accepted, CR will have everyone wrapped around his finger fir 10 years and that's only worth $1000 per year (minus 30-40% taxes of course). I think they call this selling your soul to the devil!

Good luck AC peeps!

[Radiocaster]

Does anybody want to tell us when is the vote? Or is it classified?

[flyincanuck]

No date has been set for a ratification vote. An extensive cross-country roadshow is underway to roll out the details. Both company and ACPA are giving the members time to digest the facts before rushing to vote.

[yycflyguy]

The "signing bonus" is not really a signing bonus. It is a codeshare grievance settlement that pays out the members a little less than half of what the grievance amount was. It clean slates that grievance. It was satisfactorily explained by ACPA legal at the roadshow.

It is debatable that the pay increases will outperform COL but the corp does have an aggressive expansion plan and incentive program tied to EBITDAR that makes it palatable.

It is a 10 year deal with the option for limited negotiations every 3 years if certain benchmarks are not reached.

New hire pay is improved. There is talk that massive hiring would be needed to match the growth.

Max MPU increased.

Would I have liked it to be more more aggressive? Yes.

Will it pass? Yes.

[duranium]

Word to the wise if the 10K is true. Don't spend it just yet because you could require part
or all of it and then some if the current court saga gives all the marbles to the adversary
in the Fly past 60 case. Time will tell

[Stu Pidasso]

You think the courts are going to award damages, paid by Line Pilots? That would mean some POOR Junior Pilot is going to cut a cheque to a retiree, who's pension is 3 times his salary.

In my experience courts aren't quite that stupid. The disturbing thing is, there are "fly past 60 " guys who would take the money with a smile on their face.

[Norwegianwood]

The disturbing thing is, there are "fly past 60 " guys who would take the money with a smile on their face.

They are flying right now in a plane close by and have the biggest grins that acpa could paint on that face! Next time you see a pilot flying that's over 60 be disturbed.........
(oh and by the way, the money they are getting is coming out of that same junior pilot' jeans

[Stu Pidasso]

Completely different context Norwegian, the over 60 guys still working is different than the Fly Past 60 crowd suing the active Pilots. For the record, I am not over 60.

Although I do appreciate the angst.

[Rockie]

the over 60 guys still working is different than the Fly Past 60 crowd suing the active Pilots.

No one is suing the active pilots. They are outstanding Human Rights challenges that began before the Federal Government decided to upgrade themselves from the 1950's closer to the 21st century. The only reason those challenges are outstanding is because Air Canada and ACPA pilots refused to similarly upgrade themselves to the bitter end. Place the blame for the fallout where it belongs.

[Stu Pidasso]

They are out to seek damages, from the Employer and the Association. Although we are not being "sued" in the technical term, it is the same damn thing. duranium made the statement, don't spend your money, because you'll need it.

Disgusting statement from my view point.

[Rockie]

It's nothing like the "same damn thing", and we all had years of opportunity to prevent this from the get-go but chose not to. I'm one of the ones that may have to pay yet I have no sympathy for our group because this is entirely self-inflicted. Stop whining as if this was somebody else's fault.

[Stu Pidasso]

A little edgy today Rockie, not sure where you got the "blame someone else" claim? We've beat this to death on this forum, I have no sympathy for this group. It is unconscionable to me that they would seek damages from the active Pilots.

That said, I don't believe they'll win a red cent (from the Pilots) and have wasted years (and money) chasing the false hope of ever returning to the Airline. Most of us simply hope to make it to 60 with our health and get the hell out.

[Rockie]

Not edgy, just tired of people blaming consequences they knowingly courted on somebody else and pretending to be hurt by it. This group needs to man up...

[leftoftrack]

What's the new starting wages?

[Raymond Hall]

It is unconscionable to me that they would seek damages from the active Pilots.

The primary issue of this thread has nothing to do with the Fly Past 60 issue, although one need always remind oneself of the outstanding issues overhanging any of the existing movements forward.

It goes without saying that it was never the intent of any of the approximately 200 Complainants to have this issue extend from 2005 to 2015, without resolution. The delay was obviously not part of their plan. However, having said that, one must also realize that there still exists a potential liability that is not going to be dealt with until the courts and the Tribunal provide the final resolution by way of binding decisions on both liability and damages (if liability is found).

Quite simply, the issue is not about conscionable actions or unconscionable actions. The issue is simply about a very real consideration of whether their terminations of employment that occurred up to nine years ago actually complied with the law. If not, the issue then focuses on the consequent cost to both the employer and the union of wrongful termination, in the form of damages. It is not about seeking damages from active Pilots. The union, in 2006, after telling GV that it would support his complaint for wrongful dismissal, voted to support the employer in the litigation against his Tribunal complaint. The die was thence cast, and the consequences of that decision have yet to be ultimately determined.

That said, the end is not that far off. The issues will indeed soon be determined by the Court of Appeal judges (and by the Tribunal adjudicator, if the Court of Appeal sides with the Complainants on the two key appeals before it). There is nothing personal about it. Its about the law.

As a matter of record, there is no shortage of my suggestions posted on this and the (now defunct) ACPA Forum about the issues and the probable outcomes. Time will soon tell as to whether there is any meat in that sandwich. But if there is, there will then be an issue that will have to be dealt with. And that will obviously affect those who are currently on staff to satisfy the consequential financial implications.

[snag]

Here you trolls go again. Another polluted thread. Please continue your circular discussion here:

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=97310&start=100

[yycflyguy]

Jumpn Jesus on a pogo stick.

flypast60 have to make this about them too???

For a bunch of retirees you are a bunch of spoiled babies.

[Rockie]

I'm not retired yet, but my resemblance to Walter Matthau in that picture concerns me a bit....

[ratherbee]

Back to the real thread...

New hire wages have been addressed in the last two rounds after years of neglect. The TA and resulting arbitration brought the flat pay up to an hourly rate from a $39,000 fixed salary. This TA brings up the floor and increases the hourly rate again.

They say a new hire first year will get about $55,000 yearly and in year four $65,000. That's a big change from 2010 and long overdue.

[Fanblade]

Back to the real thread...

New hire wages have been addressed in the last two rounds after years of neglect. The TA and resulting arbitration brought the flat pay up to an hourly rate from a $39,000 fixed salary. This TA brings up the floor and increases the hourly rate again.

They say a new hire first year will get about $55,000 yearly and in year four $65,000. That's a big change from 2010 and long overdue.

I wouldn't exactly call the wages good but they are better than what you have listed. Your numbers are based on a min guarantee of 75 hours at mainline and 77.5 hours at Rouge. Everything above that gets paid at the hourly rate. Also have to add the 2% each year.




Based on someone starting next spring. 2% included each year.

Min guarantee.

Yr1)49,000. Yr2). 55,600. Yr3) 64,700. Yr4). 73,900



80 hour month

Yr1)53,000. Yr2) 59,000. Yr3) 69,000. Yr4) 78,000

[Doug Moore]

I wouldn’t exactly call them good either.

In 1979 my first year CP Air flat salary pay was $1200/month or $14,400/year. Using an inflation calculator http://www.davemanuel.com/inflation-calculator.php that $1200 would be $3908.79 or $46,905.48/year in 2014 dollars. My second year flat salary was $2000/month or $24,000/year which today equates to $5747.13/month or $68,965.56/year. On my third year I went on formula pay and I’m guessing an average of $4000/month or $48,000/year which today equates to $10,416.67/month or $125,000.04/year. Math was never my strong suit so I hope I'm not passing on duff gen.

So slight gains for first year but second year doesn’t compare well at all and it just gets worse after that.

It would be interesting to compare senior executive wages and bonuses in the same fashion.

[ratherbee]

Interesting comparison Doug.

You were hired in the "glory days!" Ha ha how long did those days last anyway? I'm guessing you got laid off in the early '80's?

I can't find the pay tables anywhere but if memory serves me well I think your B747 skipper was making about $120k annually which works out to be over $390k in 2014 dollars. So wages have dropped from the top too.

As for the Execs well of course they have done well. In fact I think the CEO's were making about the same salary as the B747 skipper. Now they make, with bonuses, over 10 times that rate.

[Stu Pidasso]

In 1988 a Boeing 737 Captain at Canadi>n earned $135,000/year for a 75 hour month. That translates to 260K in 2014 dollars, not considering the increase in hours.

Over a 1/4 Century later a Boeing 767 Captain at Rouge earns $136K, roughly half what a 737 Captain made adjusted for inflation. A mainline 777 Captain does marginally better.

We know who the big winners are !