I settled for a Sapporo but Bacardi Black is the everyday drinker and Havana Club the treat

I hope you ACPA guys aren't secretly encouraging this americanization of the regional flying here in Canada, just to spite Jazz. Just have a look south of the border....and tell me how many Embraer's are at mainline companies?

Be careful what you wish for.

Flaps, from what I understand they are NOT for it. There may be bad blood (what family doesn't), but they're not out to screw anyone or our industry in general.

KAG,

Isn't their support of Skyregional (thus another Tier 2 operator to do their flying) evident of this? From what I understand about ACPA....they think one man's loss is ACPA's gain. Do they really think by having cheaper Tier 2 flying, their salaries will go up...they better think again.

Flaps 1,

ACPA didn't approach the company on this, it was the company that wanted to do this.

ACPA is in the midst of a scope issue with AC which includes the Q400 based on the contract.

How is ACPA helping to foster or encourage this?

Here's a question for you, after no wage increases in a decade, and contract that is subpar at best and severely lacking in quality of life goodies, should ACPA use negotiating capital to try and prevent Sky Regional?

Or should it do what it's supposed to do - work for its members to get the best possible contract possible, while working to defend the items currently in the contract such as scope?

I'm all for a better contract for everyone however, as stated above if ACPA can use another pilot groups jobs as leverage to better their working conditions why can't others? You wanna fly our dash 8s? How about we fly your Embraers? You can't have it both ways, I don't want this, I'm just say'n.

Teacher,

Jazz has already tried to fly the Embraers. BUT...

I think we all need to take a step back - if we keep going around the merry-go-round like this, it's not going to work out in the end.

The Scope issue covers much more than the Q400, and it's not the Dash-8 that ACPA is after.

But frankly the line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere and somehow and it is at 76 seats. The Q400 has a certified max seating of 78.

What happens when Bombardier stretches the Dash-8 to 100 seats as they are evaluating?

What about if Airbus, Boeing or some other manufacturer comes out with an Airbus sized prop (like some of the concept designs - Think Piaggo P-180)?

So where do we go from here?

ACPA has to hold the line somewhere.

Flaps
Obviously I have no first hand info, but second hand info on a YYZ ACPA meeting was the YYZ pilot group was against this. I honestly can't see the pilot group in general wanting a third player, if only to prevent future whip sawing/downward slide of OUR industry. It happened, so now I guess time will tell how this plays out.

Scope doesn't cover Jazz turbo prop does it?
The 75 is for Jet only I think?
As far as I am aware, Jazz could operate a stretched 200 seat Dash as soon as Dash makes it.

Number of seats - so the Q400 is covered by it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the wording used to be Jets over 75 seats. At some point in time the CA was re-written and the wording was changed in the scope. I believe what is being challenged is whether the wording was changed intentionally or not. The intent of the scope was always to cover the size of jet aircraft. So in fact are you(ACPA) not just using a possible printing error to challenge what was always the intent of scope. Or was the scope re-visited at some point and the wording intentionally changed?
I guess my point is unless someone actually negotiated a change to the scope the original version will likely stand, as that is what was signed by both parties. But I'm not a lawyer, so who knows...

How is ACPA helping to foster or encourage this?

Unfortunately, our MEC held a "poll" regarding the diversification of tier II flying and with email persuasions from the Scope Chair they got their majority vote. This was after our president exercised his veto power to put it back to the membership. The MEC wanted to play ball with the company without even asking the ACPA membership. The MEC then used the surprised (coerced) "Yes" poll to authorize the company to allow SkyRegional to fly out of the island. The legality difference between a poll and a vote will never be examined. Although I, and many others, are against this ACPA MEC has fostered and encouraged the creation of another tier II. Sorry for shitting the bed.

How do you think a grievance judge will view ACPA ok'ing this deal utilizing Q400s but not wanting Jazz to use Q400's?

Maybe the scope said not above 75 seat JET was there back in the days because there was not Prop over that many seats at the time!?? I'm not really sure when did the scope originate and don't have precise date on when did Q400 start their service in aviation? I'm sure someone here does, so correct me please

Oh I get it don't get me wrong.

Once again I repeat myself but Jazz pilots didn't make a play fore anything. Jazz the company did. Jazz pilots didn't steal your RJs (although one could argue that mainline stole them from Air Nova) mainline wanted to dump them and Jazz the company offered to take them. The 2 issues I have with the seat count on scope is that there are no longer with few exceptions (ATR-42) any turboprops of that size being built. So let me ask this, the 100s and 300s need replacing I see 2 options buy foreign instead of domestic or have AC operate larger turboprops. Option 1 costs Canadian jobs and number 2 throws almost 1000 pilots out of work at Jazz. So what you're telling me is that ACPA stands for exporting Canadian jobs? I know it's a stretch but.........

Secondly, if Jazz can't operate Q400s due to scope than do you also see the hypocrisy of than voting in a second tier 2 carrier to operate them instead?

If ACPA argues scope on seats and jets than eventually there will no longer be any planes for Jazz to fly and over 1500 pilots will be out of a job.

The "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" mentality runs strong in this industry. I'd trust another pilot to watch my back and keep his word over an airline exec any day. By fighting Jazz pilots and allowing a second tier 2 carrier to take jobs away from Jazz pilots what do you think this tells the 1500 pilots at Jazz? What do YOU think our response would be if down the road you threat'n to strike or the EMB flying comes up again? People can't expect support if they don't give it. Yes it goes both ways and yes both parties are guilty but someone has to take the first step, ACPA had the chance and the blew it.

ACPA had the chance and the blew it.

Agreed.

I believe the gap in this conversation is that there is a difference between "Scope" as defined in the ACPA collective agreement, and the "Small Jet Settlement Agreement" signed between AC and Jazz.

"Scope" allows for a proportion of ASM's to be flown by Tier II carriers, regardless of seating capacity.

The "Small Jet Settlement Agreement" allows Jazz to maintain a covered fleet of 57 CRJ100/200, 16 CRJ 705 aircraft, and an unlimited number of Turboprop aircraft. If either AC or Jazz wish to increase their Jet fleet, then both ACPA and ALPA must be in agreement or it goes to arbitration.

Reference: JAZZ AIR INCOME FUND ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM March 30, 2009 pg 7,8

also of interest: the Scope language expires with the ACPA Collective Agreement, but the Small Jet Settlement Agreement has no set expiration date.

You're 100% correct, I was and most people are likely confusing the two. So what basis does ACPA have to sue for the q400's? With the small jet agreement, like you said, no limit on turboprops and no time limit.

Someone asked above about the supposedly random number of 76 seats. It wasn't random. If you recall, the issue of scope was debated first before the merger and during the original common employer hearings, before ACPA was formed out of that rubble. At the time Air BC and Air Nova operated Bae 146 jets, and not speaking for Air Nova, the Air BC ones had a seating configuration of 8/68 for a total of 76 seats. At the time of the original scope clause, it was anything over 50 seats, and the 146's were grandfathered in. Alot has changed since then, and I will not speak on the current arrangements.... just addressing the number 76.

Current ACPA scope language says 'MP' (medium prop) permitted at Tier 2 which is up to and including 80 seats.

The grievance was filed based on LOC50 (the Milton letter) not article 1.

Jazz is stupit

eep...2 Green wrote:Jazz is stupit

Can you explain STUPIT Mister green?

rudder wrote:Current ACPA scope language says 'MP' (medium prop) permitted at Tier 2 which is up to and including 80 seats.

The grievance was filed based on LOC50 (the Milton letter) not article 1.

Exactly correct.

And the intent of that letter? Arbitration over the small jet order. 705's and e190's. The letter had nothing to do with props. However the wording of the letter, writen in haste during ccaa, was all aircraft above 76 seats. Moreover the letter states article 1 was amended to 76 seats for all aircraft.

The key here will be intent. I don't even think the intent was props to 76 seats. I think the intent was jets to 76 seats and left props at 80. However I do agree we need to be careful about wording and letting things slide by. IOW if we don't challenge this could our scope on props be forfieted?

mbav8 r wrote:
With the small jet agreement, like you said, no limit on turboprops

mbav8r that opinion is exactly why this needs to be clarified. There is a limit. It is either 76 or 80 seats.


But yes another issue to create animosity.

Whats this crap have to do with Air Georgian getting Dash 8's?

Flaps 1 wrote:I hope you ACPA guys aren't secretly encouraging this americanization of the regional flying here in Canada, just to spite Jazz. Just have a look south of the border....and tell me how many Embraer's are at mainline companies?

Be careful what you wish for.

From this report looks like the trend is to reverse what was happening in the past! Maybe in Canada we are 15 years behind and the regionals are just started to grow!

http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2 ... tion/page1

Johnny#5 wrote:Whats this crap have to do with Air Georgian getting Dash 8's?

Do you know what flying Georgian is planning to do with their Dash 8's? Overseas maybe, or will the be competing directly with Air Canada.

If you think they will be doing Air Canada flying with them then this "crap" has everything to do with Georgian getting Dash 8's