Meanwhile in 'Merica

[5degrees]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

Unions and strikes don't change things??? That's an absolute asinine statement, historically unions are responsible for the implementation of what we now consider basic work rules eg the 8 hour work day. The relationship between management and employees can't get much worse. Your posts give the impression that you're more concerned with your personal situation than what's good for the pilot group.

Unions, as organizations on papers and buildings in which they are housed don't change a thing, rather it is the people, hence the saying a union is as good (or bad) as the people on it. Your 19th century shibboleth no longer applies as we are not dealing with tyrant mining companies who force workers underground with no safety measures. It's generally safe now! Next time read the comments before going off on a rehearsed union incantation reply!

Lol, my reading comprehension is fine. You wrote some BS about strikes being ineffective and some simple broad statement about people changing things.
Yeah we're dealing tyrant stock holders instead. Someone posted that you're a Swoop DEC in the Sunwing forum? If so, that explains your anti alpa bias.

[Mach1]

In my opinion, WestJet has never been just another "regular" airline if that makes any sense, with unique compensation and culture. I believe this is partly why the ALPA transition hasn't fully worked in its favor (yet). Perhaps still its approach ought to be unique and something that fits IT as opposed to other airlines in the past and fierce negotiations, done as "partners"? Food for thought.

WestJet, the company, dismantled the culture a long time ago. That's why the union was brought in, not the other way around. Then they dismantled the compensation model. Now you are seeing the result of that action in play right now.

It would be lovely to be living in the past but, things have changed. And not through the actions of the employees.

[cloak]

Lol, my reading comprehension is fine. You wrote some BS about strikes being ineffective and some simple broad statement about people changing things.
Yeah we're dealing tyrant stock holders instead. Someone posted that you're a Swoop DEC in the Sunwing forum? If so, that explains your anti alpa bias.

I have no bias, just exchanging ideas. You are not forced to participate. Good luck.

[Realitychex]

If pilots or ame’s want to earn a salary in US$ working for a US domiciled airline, the best way to accomplish this is to jump through the hoops, get a green card or the appropriate work visa and move to the US.

US airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in US dollars.

Canadian airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in Canadian dollarettes, with a large portion of expenses, (fuel, rentals and maintenance) paid in dollars. The economics are completely different.

Until that changes, (not to mention the ridiculous tax regime in Canada) and it won’t anytime soon, if ever, Canadian domiciled airline will continue to operate with a huge economic disadvantage to US brethren. As a result, comparing pay rates in the two jurisdictions is a mugs game.

There can be no better strategy than threatening to strike and diverting desperately needed revenue to the ULCC entrants who will be frantically trying to keep their heads above water in May as they lurch between peak seasons.

Canada is a very different economic sandbox than the US, and it’s only going to get worse under the current political regime.

The best way to play in the US economic sandbox is to move to the US.

[cdnavater]

If pilots or ame’s want to earn a salary in US$ working for a US domiciled airline, the best way to accomplish this is to jump through the hoops, get a green card or the appropriate work visa and move to the US.

US airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in US dollars.

Canadian airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in Canadian dollarettes, with a large portion of expenses, (fuel, rentals and maintenance) paid in dollars. The economics are completely different.

Until that changes, (not to mention the ridiculous tax regime in Canada) and it won’t anytime soon, if ever, Canadian domiciled airline will continue to operate with a huge economic disadvantage to US brethren. As a result, comparing pay rates in the two jurisdictions is a mugs game.

There can be no better strategy than threatening to strike and diverting desperately needed revenue to the ULCC entrants who will be frantically trying to keep their heads above water in May as they lurch between peak seasons.

Canada is a very different economic sandbox than the US, and it’s only going to get worse under the current political regime.

The best way to play in the US economic sandbox is to move to the US.

I don’t believe anyone has suggested pay on par with the U.S, just that we have fallen way behind. Despite the cost factors you mentioned we have a cost advantage over them for attracting Americans to fly on Canadian carriers to points other than or even in Canada.
What would you say the breakdown is for domestic versus trans border, either way a pretty good cost advantage on those routes which means room to increase and still be competitive.
No one wants a strike but to try and scare Canadian pilots into submission with threats like we will push passengers to the ULCC, it’s transparent to say the least, again if you are no longer affiliated with WJ, what’s your angle here.

[yowflyer23]

If pilots or ame’s want to earn a salary in US$ working for a US domiciled airline, the best way to accomplish this is to jump through the hoops, get a green card or the appropriate work visa and move to the US.

US airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in US dollars.

Canadian airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in Canadian dollarettes, with a large portion of expenses, (fuel, rentals and maintenance) paid in dollars. The economics are completely different.

Until that changes, (not to mention the ridiculous tax regime in Canada) and it won’t anytime soon, if ever, Canadian domiciled airline will continue to operate with a huge economic disadvantage to US brethren. As a result, comparing pay rates in the two jurisdictions is a mugs game.

There can be no better strategy than threatening to strike and diverting desperately needed revenue to the ULCC entrants who will be frantically trying to keep their heads above water in May as they lurch between peak seasons.

Canada is a very different economic sandbox than the US, and it’s only going to get worse under the current political regime.

The best way to play in the US economic sandbox is to move to the US.

Username is on point. The US is a far bigger market and is an entirely separate labour pool as there is no, or very limited, labour mobility. Until that changes, you're wasting your breath thinking that they can be compared. That does not mean that Canadian airlines can't pay living wages though. I don't think we need to be making $500k (that's outrageous and only going to work against us in the long run), but the wages on offer are pretty insulting for the level of responsibility held as a 737 FO after spending 100k on flight training and enduring 5-10 years of scraping by at a 703, flight instructing, regional in a major city, etc... Having worked in management, I've personally seen the breakdown of hourly operating expenses from the 319 to the 77W of a certain canadian airline for different combinations of stage lengths and departure times, and I really don't think paying pilots a living wage is going to make or break any airline worth operating. At the end of the day, management's job is to keep costs as low as possible and revenue as high as possible. It's nothing personal - it's a business that reports to the shareholders/investors. Unfortunately, most companies seem to be obsessed with the short term and they can't seem to appreciate the long term benefits of a good employer-employee relationship. Best of luck to you all in contract negotiations. You deserve a good contract.

[Mach1]

Username is on point. The US is a far bigger market and is an entirely separate labour pool as there is no, or very limited, labour mobility. Until that changes, you're wasting your breath thinking that they can be compared. That does not mean that Canadian airlines can't pay living wages though. I don't think we need to be making $500k (that's outrageous and only going to work against us in the long run), but the wages on offer are pretty insulting for the level of responsibility held as a 737 FO after spending 100k on flight training and enduring 5-10 years of scraping by at a 703, flight instructing, regional in a major city, etc... Having worked in management, I've personally seen the breakdown of hourly operating expenses from the 319 to the 77W of a certain canadian airline for different combinations of stage lengths and departure times, and I really don't think paying pilots a living wage is going to make or break any airline worth operating. At the end of the day, management's job is to keep costs as low as possible and revenue as high as possible. It's nothing personal - it's a business that reports to the shareholders/investors. Unfortunately, most companies seem to be obsessed with the short term and they can't seem to appreciate the long term benefits of a good employer-employee relationship. Best of luck to you all in contract negotiations. You deserve a good contract.

I appreciate your post. I am going to take exception to one phrase that has been pushed so much that it is generally accepted without challenge. It is not directed at you but at the phrase itself.

It is personal. It is one of the most personal things that one can do. You are talking about a person's worth to society, their family, and their ability to survive, pay the bills and hopefully thrive. How is that not personal? It is an absolutely dehumanizing thing to say that we all seem to accept as fact but it wasn't always this way. Throughout history some business owners have valued their employees and those companies have always thrived. Henry Ford was a great example of a business owner recognizing that if his own employees couldn't afford to buy his cars the company wasn't going to survive. The fact that this phrase is thrown around and never challenged goes to show you just how effective management has been at turning human beings into numbers on a balance sheet. It is hard to get more personal than that. The psychopaths running businesses in this nation need to be replaced but since they have rigged the game so only others like them rise to the top, it would almost require a revolution. It is long past time that we start treating people like humans once again. As the 40 year surplus of labour draws to a close and the power dynamic shifts, hopefully we will see a quiet revolution on who runs the companies and the very idea of being a good corporate citizen that contributes to society rather than acting as a drain.

[RippleRock]

If pilots or ame’s want to earn a salary in US$ working for a US domiciled airline, the best way to accomplish this is to jump through the hoops, get a green card or the appropriate work visa and move to the US.

US airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in US dollars.

Canadian airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in Canadian dollarettes, with a large portion of expenses, (fuel, rentals and maintenance) paid in dollars. The economics are completely different.

Until that changes, (not to mention the ridiculous tax regime in Canada) and it won’t anytime soon, if ever, Canadian domiciled airline will continue to operate with a huge economic disadvantage to US brethren. As a result, comparing pay rates in the two jurisdictions is a mugs game.

There can be no better strategy than threatening to strike and diverting desperately needed revenue to the ULCC entrants who will be frantically trying to keep their heads above water in May as they lurch between peak seasons.

Canada is a very different economic sandbox than the US, and it’s only going to get worse under the current political regime.

The best way to play in the US economic sandbox is to move to the US.

What a bunch of garbage. That's a Management comment right there.

Do you think for one second that the Corp doesn't step up to pay when the need to? Do you think the hesitate when a Leap engine needs replacement and is paid in USD? How about a hydraulic fitting in USD? Fuel in Chicago? It's sickening that Canadian Carriers run the operation on the backs of poor employee compensation. Ya....flying an expensive endeavour....CHARGE ACCORDINGLY.

The cost of pilots is going up, period. That can be factored into operational costs. Did a 2x4 econo-stud going from $1.79 to $9.88 stop housing construction? Not at all, the builder immediately passed on the extra cost to the consumer. It's time Canada steps up and pays proper fares for travel in Canada. Otherwise, the Shareholder can take a slight hit on their profit. Over at Big Red, all we are asking for is 2003 wages again, adjusted for inflation. No more gain than that. Is that "unreasonable"? If not, WHY? Management is using a US comparator for their compensation packages for their Executive Suite, why can't we? It's a pretty damning. Extremely damning actually, as I'm not just talking about the CEO, but nearly everyone in the E-Suite.

The average Canadian traveler pays $85 to go to the airport in a dirty, shitty Prius -one way- plus tip, then balk at paying $299 for a round trip fare from YYZ-YYC return. This is insane. It's the ONLY industry that seems immune to inflationary pressure. Operators come and go in Canada on this point alone. If airfares were actually keeping up with the rising direct operational costs, there wouldn't be so many failures.

If anyone thinks for one second that raising the cost of air travel in Canada will bring the US carriers in, here's something to ponder......they are now compensating their pilots fairly, and if they can make a "go of things" up here, than pilot wages WEREN'T THE PROBLEM to begin with. If they come to Canada, and take our flying, then the Operators up here don't deserve it.

Flying across Canada isn't a "gift", and Management needs to stop trying to provide it on the backs of employee groups. It's time they started to look elsewhere for the "low hanging fruit".

Enough is enough. See you on Friday.

[Canadaflyer46]

If pilots or ame’s want to earn a salary in US$ working for a US domiciled airline, the best way to accomplish this is to jump through the hoops, get a green card or the appropriate work visa and move to the US.

US airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in US dollars.

Canadian airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in Canadian dollarettes, with a large portion of expenses, (fuel, rentals and maintenance) paid in dollars. The economics are completely different.

Until that changes, (not to mention the ridiculous tax regime in Canada) and it won’t anytime soon, if ever, Canadian domiciled airline will continue to operate with a huge economic disadvantage to US brethren. As a result, comparing pay rates in the two jurisdictions is a mugs game.

There can be no better strategy than threatening to strike and diverting desperately needed revenue to the ULCC entrants who will be frantically trying to keep their heads above water in May as they lurch between peak seasons.

Canada is a very different economic sandbox than the US, and it’s only going to get worse under the current political regime.

The best way to play in the US economic sandbox is to move to the US.

What a bunch of garbage. That's a Management comment right there.

Do you think for one second that the Corp doesn't step up to pay when the need to? Do you think the hesitate when a Leap engine needs replacement and is paid in USD? How about a hydraulic fitting in USD? Fuel in Chicago? It's sickening that Canadian Carriers run the operation on the backs of poor employee compensation. Ya....flying an expensive endeavour....CHARGE ACCORDINGLY.

The cost of pilots is going up, period. That can be factored into operational costs. Did a 2x4 econo-stud going from $1.79 to $9.88 stop housing construction? Not at all, the builder immediately passed on the extra cost to the consumer. It's time Canada steps up and pays proper fares for travel in Canada. Otherwise, the Shareholder can take a slight hit on their profit. Over at Big Red, all we are asking for is 2003 wages again, adjusted for inflation. No more gain than that. Is that "unreasonable"? If not, WHY? Management is using a US comparator for their compensation packages for their Executive Suite, why can't we? It's a pretty damning. Extremely damning actually, as I'm not just talking about the CEO, but nearly everyone in the E-Suite.

The average Canadian traveler pays $85 to go to the airport in a dirty, shitty Prius -one way- plus tip, then balk at paying $299 for a round trip fare from YYZ-YYC return. This is insane. It's the ONLY industry that seems immune to inflationary pressure. Operators come and go in Canada on this point alone. If airfares were actually keeping up with the rising direct operational costs, there wouldn't be so many failures.

If anyone thinks for one second that raising the cost of air travel in Canada will bring the US carriers in, here's something to ponder......they are now compensating their pilots fairly, and if they can make a "go of things" up here, than pilot wages WEREN'T THE PROBLEM to begin with. If they come to Canada, and take our flying, then the Operators up here don't deserve it.

Flying across Canada isn't a "gift", and Management needs to stop trying to provide it on the backs of employee groups. It's time they started to look elsewhere for the "low hanging fruit".

Enough is enough. See you on Friday.

[yowflyer23]

I appreciate your post. I am going to take exception to one phrase that has been pushed so much that it is generally accepted without challenge. It is not directed at you but at the phrase itself.

It is personal. It is one of the most personal things that one can do. You are talking about a person's worth to society, their family, and their ability to survive, pay the bills and hopefully thrive. How is that not personal? It is an absolutely dehumanizing thing to say that we all seem to accept as fact but it wasn't always this way. Throughout history some business owners have valued their employees and those companies have always thrived. Henry Ford was a great example of a business owner recognizing that if his own employees couldn't afford to buy his cars the company wasn't going to survive. The fact that this phrase is thrown around and never challenged goes to show you just how effective management has been at turning human beings into numbers on a balance sheet. It is hard to get more personal than that. The psychopaths running businesses in this nation need to be replaced but since they have rigged the game so only others like them rise to the top, it would almost require a revolution. It is long past time that we start treating people like humans once again. As the 40 year surplus of labour draws to a close and the power dynamic shifts, hopefully we will see a quiet revolution on who runs the companies and the very idea of being a good corporate citizen that contributes to society rather than acting as a drain.

You know, I really like your perspective on that. It makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, that kind of perspective would need to come from the very top for that mentality to be adopted on a large scale i.e. C-suite. They're the ones who set the precedence for all departments to follow. I guess when I say that it's not personal, I'm referring to those whom are sitting on the other side of the negotiating table, those in finance, revenue management, HR, network planning, etc.; they are just doing their jobs to meet certain targets as directed from above. One could speak up if something didn't make sense, but it would fall on deaf ears from my experience. A lot of senior management is in serious need of CRM training. There were so many occurences in my experience where my team would come to a conclusion that a project wasn't going to work through extensive analysis, but then we'd be told by the VP that we're doing it anyways. Maybe this is a common occurence in HR for discussions on renumeration too. The folks I worked with had a lot of respect for pilots though. I didn't get the impression that they held pilots in contempt. At worst, they were ignorant about the issues facing those in the career and maybe that's half the issue right there. Pilots definitely have a PR issue. The average joe still thinks we all make >$100k from the start and enjoy luxurious lifestyles. I went into management during covid after my flying job disappeared and it sent me on a bit of an identity crisis to say the least. I was in an entry level role making $65k, monday to friday 9-5, great benefits, pension, etc. I was asked every time I met someone new if I ever wanted to get back into flying when things opened up again and I would tell them no. I'd explain to them what it takes to enter and progress in the career and they'd be absolutely shocked at the realities of it. I've since changed my mind of course - it's hard to leave flying when you love it so much...

Supply and demand is tried and true. The supply is drying up and there's undoubtedly going to be some gains going forward. There's already been examples of this at Encore, Flair, Sunwing, Porter, etc. I'm optimistic that the trend will continue.

[RippleRock]

I appreciate your post. I am going to take exception to one phrase that has been pushed so much that it is generally accepted without challenge. It is not directed at you but at the phrase itself.

It is personal. It is one of the most personal things that one can do. You are talking about a person's worth to society, their family, and their ability to survive, pay the bills and hopefully thrive. How is that not personal? It is an absolutely dehumanizing thing to say that we all seem to accept as fact but it wasn't always this way. Throughout history some business owners have valued their employees and those companies have always thrived. Henry Ford was a great example of a business owner recognizing that if his own employees couldn't afford to buy his cars the company wasn't going to survive. The fact that this phrase is thrown around and never challenged goes to show you just how effective management has been at turning human beings into numbers on a balance sheet. It is hard to get more personal than that. The psychopaths running businesses in this nation need to be replaced but since they have rigged the game so only others like them rise to the top, it would almost require a revolution. It is long past time that we start treating people like humans once again. As the 40 year surplus of labour draws to a close and the power dynamic shifts, hopefully we will see a quiet revolution on who runs the companies and the very idea of being a good corporate citizen that contributes to society rather than acting as a drain.

You know, I really like your perspective on that. It makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, that kind of perspective would need to come from the very top for that mentality to be adopted on a large scale i.e. C-suite. They're the ones who set the precedence for all departments to follow. I guess when I say that it's not personal, I'm referring to whom are sitting on the other side of the negotiating table, those in finance, revenue management, HR, network planning, etc.; they are just doing their jobs to meet certain targets as directed from above. One could speak up if something didn't make sense, but it would fall on deaf ears from my experience. A lot of senior management is in serious need of CRM training. There were so many occurences in my experience where my team would come to a conclusion that a project wasn't going to work through extensive analysis, but then we'd be told by the VP that we're doing it anyways. Maybe this is a common occurence in HR for discussions on renumeration too. The folks I worked with had a lot of respect for pilots though. I didn't get the impression that they held pilots in contempt. At worst, they were ignorant about the issues facing those in the career and maybe that's half the issue right there. Pilots definitely have a PR issue. The average joe still thinks we all make >$100k from the start and enjoy luxurious lifestyles. I went into management during covid after my flying job disappeared and it sent me on a bit of an identity crisis to say the least. I was in an entry level role making $65k, monday to friday 9-5, great benefits, pension, etc. I was asked every time I met someone new if I ever wanted to get back into flying when things opened up again and I would tell them no. I'd explain to them what it takes to enter and progress in the career and they'd be absolutely shocked at the realities of it. I've since changed my mind of course - it's hard to leave flying when you love it so much...

Supply and demand is tried and true. The supply is drying up and there's undoubtedly going to be some gains going forward. There's already been examples of this at Encore, Flair, Sunwing, Porter, etc. I'm optimistic that the trend will continue.

To focus on the "pilot supply" situation as the reason for potential gains is short sighted.

We are NOT business people. We fly planes. Few Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) drivers worry about the economics of running a bus company, or the "supply of bus drivers", yet they earn more than us "per seat mile" by a very, very, very wide margin. They don't stand for crap pay. Why do we?

We need to divorce ourselves from the "business end" of this argument. Business concerns are NOT our problem, nor are they our expertise. Let those who are trained and hired to deal with the economics of a "low yield" competition environment do their job. Our job is exclusively to move aircraft safely from point A to point B. That's it. It is not our job to create or sustain "pseudo economic viability" through low pay and onerous working conditions. That concept is self defeating and unsafe.

The problem is, carriers in Canada factor in "crap pilot compensation" into their business models at the get go. It is THEM, not US that choose to sell seats for $50, creating a "stupid unsustainable environment" of insanely low or even negative yields. That acceptance of ultra low fares has nothing to do with us. Not one thing.

We ----NEED TO STAY IN OUR LANE----, and not be bedazzled and confused by the "business end" of a "low compensation argument" in a field that --REFUSES TO RAISE FARES-- like they should.....like -every other damn field or business- is doing out there.

[Mach1]

You know, I really like your perspective on that. It makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, that kind of perspective would need to come from the very top for that mentality to be adopted on a large scale i.e. C-suite. They're the ones who set the precedence for all departments to follow. I guess when I say that it's not personal, I'm referring to whom are sitting on the other side of the negotiating table, those in finance, revenue management, HR, network planning, etc.; they are just doing their jobs to meet certain targets as directed from above. One could speak up if something didn't make sense, but it would fall on deaf ears from my experience. A lot of senior management is in serious need of CRM training. There were so many occurences in my experience where my team would come to a conclusion that a project wasn't going to work through extensive analysis, but then we'd be told by the VP that we're doing it anyways. Maybe this is a common occurence in HR for discussions on renumeration too. The folks I worked with had a lot of respect for pilots though. I didn't get the impression that they held pilots in contempt. At worst, they were ignorant about the issues facing those in the career and maybe that's half the issue right there. Pilots definitely have a PR issue. The average joe still thinks we all make >$100k from the start and enjoy luxurious lifestyles. I went into management during covid after my flying job disappeared and it sent me on a bit of an identity crisis to say the least. I was in an entry level role making $65k, monday to friday 9-5, great benefits, pension, etc. I was asked every time I met someone new if I ever wanted to get back into flying when things opened up again and I would tell them no. I'd explain to them what it takes to enter and progress in the career and they'd be absolutely shocked at the realities of it. I've since changed my mind of course - it's hard to leave flying when you love it so much...

Supply and demand is tried and true. The supply is drying up and there's undoubtedly going to be some gains going forward. There's already been examples of this at Encore, Flair, Sunwing, Porter, etc. I'm optimistic that the trend will continue.

I know the problem begins at the C, P, E, and V levels of the management chain. I have also had management experience and know the joys of being stuck in the middle. Most companies seem to succeed in spite of themselves.

You make a very valid point about HR people having no clue what their employees do. There is also the fact that the HR department is there to insulate the company rather than work for the employees. Human Resources is a misnomer.

I agree with you, supply and demand will fix the problem, eventually. Unless the companies are successful in convincing the government to bring in low paid foreign workers to prevent wages from going up. Something they are trying to do and something our government has been all too accommodating with in the past.

[bradleyscotts]

I have never been able to understand why pilots in Canada assign the pay and benefits entirely to ALPA and their ability to negotiate. Do you guys not remember when all these ALPA carriers were paying 20-30K a year? Pay and working conditions in the US at ALPA carriers prior to the Colgan crash was actually at the regional level below Canada.

Its the 1500hr rule that's changed everything. Companies tried for a while after it was implemented to offer signing bonuses to avoid re opening the contracts. That worked for a bit, once pilots realized if they switched regionals they could collect the signing bonus somewhere else, companies approached the unions to look for a solution. It was the leverage given to ALPA by the implementation of the 1500hr that actually changed the game. it wasn't ALPA's lawyer or expertise in negotiating.

Want the same leverage in Canada? Don't wait for a plane to crash and/or people to die for things to change. Spend every dollar your union has lobbying our government to implement a similar rule. Get ALPA US to lobby the US government to require all foreign airlines, flying into the US to have at a min 1500hr FOs.

Airlines are making investments in order to deleverage the unions. Cygnet aviation. 0 to hero in 20 months.
https://skiesmag.com/press-releases/cho ... %20program.

You won't be paid like the Americans as long as AC, WS and every other 705 carrier can hire a person for the right seat that 20 months ago had 0 hours. The same candidate will meet TC Requirements to be a captain once he's reached 1500hrs. That cannot happen in the US, hence the shortage, hence the leverage.

[twa22]

I have never been able to understand why pilots in Canada assign the pay and benefits entirely to ALPA and their ability to negotiate. Do you guys not remember when all these ALPA carriers were paying 20-30K a year? Pay and working conditions in the US at ALPA carriers prior to the Colgan crash was actually at the regional level below Canada.

Its the 1500hr rule that's changed everything. Companies tried for a while after it was implemented to offer signing bonuses to avoid re opening the contracts. That worked for a bit, once pilots realized if they switched regionals they could collect the signing bonus somewhere else, companies approached the unions to look for a solution. It was the leverage given to ALPA by the implementation of the 1500hr that actually changed the game. it wasn't ALPA's lawyer or expertise in negotiating.

Want the same leverage in Canada? Don't wait for a plane to crash and/or people to die for things to change. Spend every dollar your union has lobbying our government to implement a similar rule. Get ALPA US to lobby the US government to require all foreign airlines, flying into the US to have at a min 1500hr FOs.

Airlines are making investments in order to deleverage the unions. Cygnet aviation. 0 to hero in 20 months.
https://skiesmag.com/press-releases/cho ... %20program.

You won't be paid like the Americans as long as AC, WS and every other 705 carrier can hire a person for the right seat that 20 months ago had 0 hours. The same candidate will meet TC Requirements to be a captain once he's reached 1500hrs. That cannot happen in the US, hence the shortage, hence the leverage.

I agree with you to a certain degree that the 1500 hour rule helped with wage increases, but, until not long ago

1) no biggish 705 was hiring with less then 1500 hours, not even Jazz pre covid (other then a small sample from certain cadet programs, hardly significant to quantify)

2) everyone likes to point to the Colgan crash which led to the 1500 hour rule... while yes, that is true to a certain degree, let's not forgot, both pilots had well over 2000 hours. Captain had 3379, FO had 2274...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/benbaldanz ... 1d9e8e6a0a

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... /32008451/

So, with that said, let's not pretend that a 1500 hour rule will magically fix wages in Canada

[Torontomaplelaughs]

I have never been able to understand why pilots in Canada assign the pay and benefits entirely to ALPA and their ability to negotiate. Do you guys not remember when all these ALPA carriers were paying 20-30K a year? Pay and working conditions in the US at ALPA carriers prior to the Colgan crash was actually at the regional level below Canada.

Its the 1500hr rule that's changed everything. Companies tried for a while after it was implemented to offer signing bonuses to avoid re opening the contracts. That worked for a bit, once pilots realized if they switched regionals they could collect the signing bonus somewhere else, companies approached the unions to look for a solution. It was the leverage given to ALPA by the implementation of the 1500hr that actually changed the game. it wasn't ALPA's lawyer or expertise in negotiating.

Want the same leverage in Canada? Don't wait for a plane to crash and/or people to die for things to change. Spend every dollar your union has lobbying our government to implement a similar rule. Get ALPA US to lobby the US government to require all foreign airlines, flying into the US to have at a min 1500hr FOs.

Airlines are making investments in order to deleverage the unions. Cygnet aviation. 0 to hero in 20 months.
https://skiesmag.com/press-releases/cho ... %20program.

You won't be paid like the Americans as long as AC, WS and every other 705 carrier can hire a person for the right seat that 20 months ago had 0 hours. The same candidate will meet TC Requirements to be a captain once he's reached 1500hrs. That cannot happen in the US, hence the shortage, hence the leverage.

You just need to ask the US government why they allow Jazz crews with less than 1500 hrs to enter their airspace

67 yrs old pilots aren't allowed in so why should 300 hrs Q400 pilots be

[av8r374]

I hear some productive points coming out of this discussion.
-Canada is not the US- we are two different countries with a different operating environment and a different set of challenges.
-Similarly, yesterday’s needs and today’s needs are different, as will be tomorrow's.
-That doesn’t mean solutions and ideas can’t be borrowed in principle but will need to be reshaped and aimed at addressing issues in our industry for today’s environment and for the environment come.
-We may sometimes have to look to unintended artifacts of certain actions to extract potential solutions (after all Viagra was never actually intended to raise anything).
-It’s just business and it’s not personal- but the two really ought to find a way to meet in the middle.
-Cost, revenue and profitability are each individual targets for different groups and one cannot truly focus on any single one without compromising another. What ought to be the focus is establishing a sustainable point of equilibrium between the three.
-We all need to stay in our respective lanes - but we ought to find ways to align the flow in a common direction efficiently while providing safe exits to different paths as our desired destinations will inevitably different.
-Progress is a long rigorous struggle when done correctly and responsibly- timing and patience are critical.

Stay well and don't let the unstable air ruin the journey

[RippleRock]

I have never been able to understand why pilots in Canada assign the pay and benefits entirely to ALPA and their ability to negotiate. Do you guys not remember when all these ALPA carriers were paying 20-30K a year? Pay and working conditions in the US at ALPA carriers prior to the Colgan crash was actually at the regional level below Canada.

Its the 1500hr rule that's changed everything. Companies tried for a while after it was implemented to offer signing bonuses to avoid re opening the contracts. That worked for a bit, once pilots realized if they switched regionals they could collect the signing bonus somewhere else, companies approached the unions to look for a solution. It was the leverage given to ALPA by the implementation of the 1500hr that actually changed the game. it wasn't ALPA's lawyer or expertise in negotiating.

Want the same leverage in Canada? Don't wait for a plane to crash and/or people to die for things to change. Spend every dollar your union has lobbying our government to implement a similar rule. Get ALPA US to lobby the US government to require all foreign airlines, flying into the US to have at a min 1500hr FOs.

Airlines are making investments in order to deleverage the unions. Cygnet aviation. 0 to hero in 20 months.
https://skiesmag.com/press-releases/cho ... %20program.

You won't be paid like the Americans as long as AC, WS and every other 705 carrier can hire a person for the right seat that 20 months ago had 0 hours. The same candidate will meet TC Requirements to be a captain once he's reached 1500hrs. That cannot happen in the US, hence the shortage, hence the leverage.

What exactly has the starting hourly requirement difference got to do with long term wages, or our worth compared to our American peers?? Why exactly will "we not be paid like Americans...." The leverage has ZERO to do with a pilot shortage. ZERO.

Ridiculous. Everyone starts somewhere. Does starting at a 705 with low hours dictate long term career compensation? I'm completely missing the logic. Probably because there isn't any.

Know your worth.

[bradleyscotts]

I have never been able to understand why pilots in Canada assign the pay and benefits entirely to ALPA and their ability to negotiate. Do you guys not remember when all these ALPA carriers were paying 20-30K a year? Pay and working conditions in the US at ALPA carriers prior to the Colgan crash was actually at the regional level below Canada.

Its the 1500hr rule that's changed everything. Companies tried for a while after it was implemented to offer signing bonuses to avoid re opening the contracts. That worked for a bit, once pilots realized if they switched regionals they could collect the signing bonus somewhere else, companies approached the unions to look for a solution. It was the leverage given to ALPA by the implementation of the 1500hr that actually changed the game. it wasn't ALPA's lawyer or expertise in negotiating.

Want the same leverage in Canada? Don't wait for a plane to crash and/or people to die for things to change. Spend every dollar your union has lobbying our government to implement a similar rule. Get ALPA US to lobby the US government to require all foreign airlines, flying into the US to have at a min 1500hr FOs.

Airlines are making investments in order to deleverage the unions. Cygnet aviation. 0 to hero in 20 months.
https://skiesmag.com/press-releases/cho ... %20program.

You won't be paid like the Americans as long as AC, WS and every other 705 carrier can hire a person for the right seat that 20 months ago had 0 hours. The same candidate will meet TC Requirements to be a captain once he's reached 1500hrs. That cannot happen in the US, hence the shortage, hence the leverage.

What exactly has the starting hourly requirement difference got to do with long term wages, or our worth compared to our American peers?? Why exactly will "we not be paid like Americans...." The leverage has ZERO to do with a pilot shortage. ZERO.

Ridiculous. Everyone starts somewhere. Does starting at a 705 with low hours dictate long term career compensation? I'm completely missing the logic. Probably because there isn't any.

Know your worth.

Its pretty simple really. The 1500hr Rule decreases the pool of pilots available for airlines to hire, aka creates a shortage. A shortage gives you the leverage to demand higher wages. The US is the only country in the world with that rule, the US is also the country experiencing the biggest gains for pilot wages.

I know my worth, but people don't get paid based on what they are worth. People are paid what they NEGOTIATE!

[bradleyscotts]

I have never been able to understand why pilots in Canada assign the pay and benefits entirely to ALPA and their ability to negotiate. Do you guys not remember when all these ALPA carriers were paying 20-30K a year? Pay and working conditions in the US at ALPA carriers prior to the Colgan crash was actually at the regional level below Canada.

Its the 1500hr rule that's changed everything. Companies tried for a while after it was implemented to offer signing bonuses to avoid re opening the contracts. That worked for a bit, once pilots realized if they switched regionals they could collect the signing bonus somewhere else, companies approached the unions to look for a solution. It was the leverage given to ALPA by the implementation of the 1500hr that actually changed the game. it wasn't ALPA's lawyer or expertise in negotiating.

Want the same leverage in Canada? Don't wait for a plane to crash and/or people to die for things to change. Spend every dollar your union has lobbying our government to implement a similar rule. Get ALPA US to lobby the US government to require all foreign airlines, flying into the US to have at a min 1500hr FOs.

Airlines are making investments in order to deleverage the unions. Cygnet aviation. 0 to hero in 20 months.
https://skiesmag.com/press-releases/cho ... %20program.

You won't be paid like the Americans as long as AC, WS and every other 705 carrier can hire a person for the right seat that 20 months ago had 0 hours. The same candidate will meet TC Requirements to be a captain once he's reached 1500hrs. That cannot happen in the US, hence the shortage, hence the leverage.

I agree with you to a certain degree that the 1500 hour rule helped with wage increases, but, until not long ago

1) no biggish 705 was hiring with less then 1500 hours, not even Jazz pre covid (other then a small sample from certain cadet programs, hardly significant to quantify)

2) everyone likes to point to the Colgan crash which led to the 1500 hour rule... while yes, that is true to a certain degree, let's not forgot, both pilots had well over 2000 hours. Captain had 3379, FO had 2274...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/benbaldanz ... 1d9e8e6a0a

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... /32008451/

So, with that said, let's not pretend that a 1500 hour rule will magically fix wages in Canada

I never claimed the 1500hr rule would have prevented the Colgan crash. I merely stated that the rule came as a result of it. It was a recommendation by the NTSB to the FAA.

Airlines in Canada haven't been hiring sub 1500FOs because they have had enough pilots to draw from. We are experiencing growth at many different levels which will is draining the pool of pilots.

Look all over the world and you will see the highest paid pilots are in countries where there is a shortage

[RippleRock]

Anyone thinks there's a shortage of qualified applicants at DELTA, or United.....WRONG.

The only portion of the field affected by the 1500 hour rule is the commuter airline ops. They don't dictate wages at the Legacy Carriers. Pilots at large American carriers know their worth, they negotiate openly for it. No backroom deals, daily updates. They also aren't trying to race each other to the bottom. They stay out of the business end of things. Not their problem, so it isn't for them to find a cost saving solution for Management.

[JBI]

If pilots or ame’s want to earn a salary in US$ working for a US domiciled airline, the best way to accomplish this is to jump through the hoops, get a green card or the appropriate work visa and move to the US.

US airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in US dollars.

Canadian airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in Canadian dollarettes, with a large portion of expenses, (fuel, rentals and maintenance) paid in dollars. The economics are completely different.

Until that changes, (not to mention the ridiculous tax regime in Canada) and it won’t anytime soon, if ever, Canadian domiciled airline will continue to operate with a huge economic disadvantage to US brethren. As a result, comparing pay rates in the two jurisdictions is a mugs game.

There can be no better strategy than threatening to strike and diverting desperately needed revenue to the ULCC entrants who will be frantically trying to keep their heads above water in May as they lurch between peak seasons.

Canada is a very different economic sandbox than the US, and it’s only going to get worse under the current political regime.

The best way to play in the US economic sandbox is to move to the US.

Realitychex,

I always appreciate your posts and while I don't necessarily disagree with some of what you've posted above, I suggest that you make a logical leap that doesn't quite follow. Yes, the 'easiest' way to earn a US salary is to immigrate to the US. And, yes, the tax/revenue equation between Canadian and US airlines is different. However, comparing pay rates is hardly a "mugs game".

WJ has always compared itself to all North American Airlines both in operational performance metrics and financials. Under a previous (American) COO we would constantly get monthly completion, A15 and D0 rankings and, when a public company, the financial performance of WJ was compared to AC and the public US Carriers. The reality is that WJ is indeed competing with carriers both in Canada and in the US. I think, to a certain extent, pilots can recognize that based on higher costs there may be a small difference in pay, however, right now some pilots at WJ are literally making 50% of what 737 pilots at Alaska, Delta and Southwest are making and that's NOT factoring the exchange rate.

For example, a 2nd year 737 FO at WJ is making roughly $70 CAD per credit whereas an Alaska airlines 2nd year 737 FO is making $149 USD per credit.

WJ operates the same equipment, flies to dozens of the same airports, and in the case of code shares, carry the same passengers. This isn't a situation of being a couple dollars off, these are drastically different pay rates at companies that are consistently listed as comparators by the Company itself.

While executive compensation can be distinguished on the very fact that there are a dozen or so execs and 1800 (or 2300 including Encore) pilots, I'm doubtful that our current and previous international executives were being paid 50 cents on the dollar to work for a Canadian Airline because the "economics are completely different". Executives would simply look for a more competitive offer. Our pilots are now doing the same.

As has also been stated publicly, WJ/Encore/Swoop have lost significant numbers of pilots in the last year. While most have gone to Air Canada and other Canadian carriers, a not insignificant number have gone to the US as a result of either previous citizenship or pursuing a visa. The hurdles are becoming comparatively smaller when the differences are considered.

So while maybe there's an argument to say that an exact dollar for dollar match to our US counterparts isn't reasonable, looking at their rates of pay is indeed helpful to see what WJ's competitors are paying their pilots (and other staff). Just as executives would look at an offer of 50 cents on the dollar as not being competitive, the pilots are doing so as well.

A comment with regard to ULCCs which seems to get missed by current and former WJ management is that for roughly half or more of the current WJ/Swoop/Encore pilot group, their career prospects are improved with the continued growth and expansion of other ULCCs. The current flow time from Encore to WestJet is approximately 5 - 6 years. The current upgrade time at WJ is approximately 10 years (or more depending on the base). Lynx, Flair and Porter are all hiring pilots and, if their expansions are successful, will have drastically shorter upgrade times. The current job conditions at WestJet/Swoop/Encore simply do not offer enough of an incentive for junior pilots to continue their careers at the "WestJet Group of Companies". While there's a risk going to newer and/or expanding airlines, the risk/reward factor right now is simply too enticing. So this consistent talk of "what's good for WJ is good for the pilots" is simply not correct for a large portion of the pilot group and head office staff.

One of the values written on the wall in one of WJ's buildings is to "align the interests of WestJetters with those of the Company" - it wouldn't surprise me if you were the original author. Unfortunately, for so many current pilots, this simply is no longer the case. While I won't deny that I would like to make more money and have better career prospects (who doesn't?) I truly feel that this WJ Company value needs to be true again for the majority of its employees for WJ to again be successful. In order for the pilots to feel that their career prospects are indeed aligned with those of WJ, the difference between our current rates of pay and our US competitors need to be a lot closer AND, in doing so, it will also make the prospects of leaving to an expanding Lynx, Flair, Porter or Air Canada significantly less desirable.

[CaptDukeNukem]

If pilots or ame’s want to earn a salary in US$ working for a US domiciled airline, the best way to accomplish this is to jump through the hoops, get a green card or the appropriate work visa and move to the US.

US airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in US dollars.

Canadian airlines collect the vast majority of their revenue in Canadian dollarettes, with a large portion of expenses, (fuel, rentals and maintenance) paid in dollars. The economics are completely different.

Until that changes, (not to mention the ridiculous tax regime in Canada) and it won’t anytime soon, if ever, Canadian domiciled airline will continue to operate with a huge economic disadvantage to US brethren. As a result, comparing pay rates in the two jurisdictions is a mugs game.

There can be no better strategy than threatening to strike and diverting desperately needed revenue to the ULCC entrants who will be frantically trying to keep their heads above water in May as they lurch between peak seasons.

Canada is a very different economic sandbox than the US, and it’s only going to get worse under the current political regime.

The best way to play in the US economic sandbox is to move to the US.

Realitychex,

I always appreciate your posts and while I don't necessarily disagree with some of what you've posted above, I suggest that you make a logical leap that doesn't quite follow. Yes, the 'easiest' way to earn a US salary is to immigrate to the US. And, yes, the tax/revenue equation between Canadian and US airlines is different. However, comparing pay rates is hardly a "mugs game".

WJ has always compared itself to all North American Airlines both in operational performance metrics and financials. Under a previous (American) COO we would constantly get monthly completion, A15 and D0 rankings and, when a public company, the financial performance of WJ was compared to AC and the public US Carriers. The reality is that WJ is indeed competing with carriers both in Canada and in the US. I think, to a certain extent, pilots can recognize that based on higher costs there may be a small difference in pay, however, right now some pilots at WJ are literally making 50% of what 737 pilots at Alaska, Delta and Southwest are making and that's NOT factoring the exchange rate.

For example, a 2nd year 737 FO at WJ is making roughly $70 CAD per credit whereas an Alaska airlines 2nd year 737 FO is making $149 USD per credit.

WJ operates the same equipment, flies to dozens of the same airports, and in the case of code shares, carry the same passengers. This isn't a situation of being a couple dollars off, these are drastically different pay rates at companies that are consistently listed as comparators by the Company itself.

While executive compensation can be distinguished on the very fact that there are a dozen or so execs and 1800 (or 2300 including Encore) pilots, I'm doubtful that our current and previous international executives were being paid 50 cents on the dollar to work for a Canadian Airline because the "economics are completely different". Executives would simply look for a more competitive offer. Our pilots are now doing the same.

As has also been stated publicly, WJ/Encore/Swoop have lost significant numbers of pilots in the last year. While most have gone to Air Canada and other Canadian carriers, a not insignificant number have gone to the US as a result of either previous citizenship or pursuing a visa. The hurdles are becoming comparatively smaller when the differences are considered.

So while maybe there's an argument to say that an exact dollar for dollar match to our US counterparts isn't reasonable, looking at their rates of pay is indeed helpful to see what WJ's competitors are paying their pilots (and other staff). Just as executives would look at an offer of 50 cents on the dollar as not being competitive, the pilots are doing so as well.

A comment with regard to ULCCs which seems to get missed by current and former WJ management is that for roughly half or more of the current WJ/Swoop/Encore pilot group, their career prospects are improved with the continued growth and expansion of other ULCCs. The current flow time from Encore to WestJet is approximately 5 - 6 years. The current upgrade time at WJ is approximately 10 years (or more depending on the base). Lynx, Flair and Porter are all hiring pilots and, if their expansions are successful, will have drastically shorter upgrade times. The current job conditions at WestJet/Swoop/Encore simply do not offer enough of an incentive for junior pilots to continue their careers at the "WestJet Group of Companies". While there's a risk going to newer and/or expanding airlines, the risk/reward factor right now is simply too enticing. So this consistent talk of "what's good for WJ is good for the pilots" is simply not correct for a large portion of the pilot group and head office staff.

One of the values written on the wall in one of WJ's buildings is to "align the interests of WestJetters with those of the Company" - it wouldn't surprise me if you were the original author. Unfortunately, for so many current pilots, this simply is no longer the case. While I won't deny that I would like to make more money and have better career prospects (who doesn't?) I truly feel that this WJ Company value needs to be true again for the majority of its employees for WJ to again be successful. In order for the pilots to feel that their career prospects are indeed aligned with those of WJ, the difference between our current rates of pay and our US competitors need to be a lot closer AND, in doing so, it will also make the prospects of leaving to an expanding Lynx, Flair, Porter or Air Canada significantly less desirable.

Incredible post. Well done

[lostaviator]

Google WestJet circular 2019. This would be our last annual circular prior to going private.

There is an entire section dedicated to executive compensation.

Find page 46.

There are 20 comparators listed. 40% of them are American.

So. Tell me why it is ok to use American salaries as a comparator when we are discussing executive salary, but not when we are discussing pilot salary?

[tbaylx]

Google WestJet circular 2019. This would be our last annual circular prior to going private.

There is an entire section dedicated to executive compensation.

Find page 46.

There are 20 comparators listed. 40% of them are American.

So. Tell me why it is ok to use American salaries as a comparator when we are discussing executive salary, but not when we are discussing pilot salary?

Because Westjet competes on an international level for executive talent as they can get work visas in the USA. Pilots (unless qualified under the NIW) cannot so they only are required to compete within Canada for pilots.

If there was an open border and pilots were free to seek work in the USA all Canadian carriers would be forced to compete with American compensation or risk not having enough pilots, so far that isn't the case.

[lostaviator]

Fair point but opens the door to another question/problem. Even with a compensation model that incorporates comparators from other n.a carriers, westjet can’t find domestic talent in the executive pool either. Most of our recent executives most likely required a Canadian geography lesson before their first day. A quick scroll through the executive list of other Canadian carriers you’ll see they don’t have this problem. Will always be a mystery.

Regardless of how you feel about our pay matching US pay, I don’t think you can deny that the current supply/demand curves are screaming pay problem. Every Canadian carrier is going to have to up their competitiveness. Flying is cheap enough. People can fork out an extra $1-5 a flight to keep highly qualified pilots up front.