New hire thoughts

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Canpilot7
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:12 am

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by Canpilot7 »

eagle7044 wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:43 am
Canpilot7 wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:29 am Not going to arbitration would be the first good plan. No reason to do so - just have to hope that any union members suggesting doing it are cleaned out asap. ALPA turned their back on a strike mandate from the WestJet pilots and that had a major affect on the industry. Have heard the current batch at westjet isn't the type to do that again, so here's hoping.

As for the feds forcing back to work there is a ton of evidence to say they wouldn't do that (the prime minister and his ministers on several occasions adamantly arguing against forcing back to work or any interference of that sort) and zero evidence that they'd force back to work. So I think that assuming it's the current government in place and we don't see some government come in promising to stamp down an airline strike.... I can't see any possibility they intervene. It'd be political suicide
Can you explain the WJ thing? You're saying the pilots didn't want to strike cause those guys all drank the profit sharing koolaid back in the day, or was it the union who didn't want to recommend a strike?

So as it stands, we have the legal right to strike? Didn't we try and fail to reacquire that right in 2012? Beyond a change in gov't, are the laws somehow different now?

I'm also unclear on the arbitration process. If we can assume that an arbitrator won't support any kind of legacy high water mark strategy, and maybe give us inflation at best, isn't it in the company's best interest to get to arbitration as fast as possible? If I understand correctly, the company can request an arbitrator, so we don't exactly have the power to avoid arbitration as a strategy.

And even if we can stave off arbitration, what are the legal ways that we can apply pressure? Obviously ACPA telling everyone in 2012
to call sick was both illegal and ineffective, since most pilots didn't have the stomach to do it, and those who did almost lost their jobs.

Asking lots of questions here, I know. I may be 100% wrong on everything, just trying to wrap my head around all this.
The WestJet pilots voted for a strike, and instead of going on strike the union chose binding arbitration.

There's a big difference between binding and non binding. So for instance right now, WestJet will have federal government mediation... That's just a step on the road that you have to take to get to a strike.

Going to binding arbitration is where both sides decide they'll agree to whatever the arbitrator picks and then they go in and fight it out. You don't have to do this, and in the current environment there's no reason any reasonable person would even consider it.

Edit: and no need to apologize for asking questions. If every pilot took your efforts to get to know the process we'd be in an incredibly effective position in all negotiations.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Little Star
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2023 11:13 am

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by Little Star »

Just don't choose Bill Kaplan as the arbitrator. He likes to keep the corporate world happy.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1693
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by Fanblade »

eagle7044 wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:15 am
Fanblade wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:59 am
eagle7044 wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:40 am

This thread has veered into 18 different directions so I'm likely to make a new post about this.

But I'm not sure strong unions are the cause. I think it's simply a matter of competition. None of the majors can afford to trail significantly or the pool of qualified applicants will dry up and the union will get pissed off about it. Air Canada has nothing to lose by keeping their contract as-is, because they're still simply the top of the Canadian pile when it comes to long-term career prospects.

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to see major contract gains, but I'm waiting for someone to give me a justified reason that it's not only possible but LIKELY before I get my hopes up.

The US carriers have been matching up. In Canada ACPA has been matching down. 10% less for cargo. Rouge matching WJ and Transat are examples.

In the US a legacy sets a new benchmark. In that bargaining cycle everyone that follows matches it. Next cycle someone sets a new benchmark. Everyone that follows matches it. And so on.

In Canada ACPA’s matching down has put a lid on the entire industry.

Matching down in Canada vs matching up in the US is what has led to the massive pay disparity over time.

Couple of points from the US.

- Setting a new benchmark is a hard fought battle. Some US carriers have had expired contracts for a few years.
- The legacy sets it.
- It has taken US carriers multiple bargaining cycles to get this far ahead of us. It was only 2014-17 they made the same as us without currency exchange.

Lesson. If we want to set a Canadian benchmark we will have to fight. Fight hard. If we can’t stomach that we will fail. I believe this pilot group is ready for a fight.
Oorah!

But how do we fight that fight? Management knows any strike will get shut down by the fed, and arbitration will likely only lead us to getting a boost to match anticipated inflation. So is it just a question of voting no and accepting any pressure strategies the union organizes? The no vote from last fall was highly encouraging, but I'd say the jury's still out on whether or not the pilot group has the stomach for a prolonged conflict. (But I'll tell you what - I am.)
Let’s get some of what you just said back into facts. Prior to Prime Minister Harper, Governments only intervened after a strike was ongoing and only if it looked like the parties were at impasse. This was standard labor practice in Canada.

Then came Prime Minister Harper’s government preemptively forcing a whole bunch of federally regulated labor groups into arbitration before they could exercise their right to strike. It took years but these labor groups challenged and won the right to strike to the Supreme Court. Back to work legislation is illegal today. The reason is that labor is completely undermined if the employer thinks they don’t have to negotiate. They will simply always choose the cheapest option. There is questions though. Is back to work legislation only illegal when it is used preemptively? Or can it still be used as it was in the past pre Harper? After the fact when the impasse is hopeless? I have read at least one opinion stating basically we are back to pre Harper. Legislation after the fact is still possible.

Will government try some other work around to preemptively stop a strike? Doug Ford tried the notwithstanding clause as a workaround. He was forced to repeal that legislation but it took the threat of a wildcat strike. Trudeau hasn’t embarked on any work arounds. So far, at least in the last rail strike, he didn’t intervene. Both parties eventually agreed to arbitration. How much arm twisting was going on by the Federal government behind the scenes? Probably a fair bit.

So to answer your question. Can we strike. Yes. If it’s prolonged could the government bring in legislation. Possibly yes.

Management doesn’t know what will happen or what the government may or may not do. Or how long that might take them. Relying on after the fact back to work legislation could be very expensive. Which is the way the situation is supposed to evolve. It applies pressure to both sides equally to find a solution. It doesn’t give a sledgehammer to the corporation.

Another issue is strategy and not encouraging the company to seek arbitration. The company wants to give new hires a raise to attract quickly upgradable applicants. An arbitrator is going to be hard pressed to give people not yet working here 100-200% raises and the rest of the group cost of living. That is not a likely out come from an arbitrator. It’s why the union can’t agree to new hire raises without overall raises. To do so will remove a stumbling block for the company wrt to arbitration. It may encourage them to seek arbitration.

It might seem like holding new hires hostage. I get the sentiment. But we are all in this together. Everyone. Old shits like me. Young like others. Pilots that are not here yet.

I’m up for the fight.
---------- ADS -----------
 
eagle7044
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:58 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by eagle7044 »

Canpilot7 wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:47 am The WestJet pilots voted for a strike, and instead of going on strike the union chose binding arbitration.

There's a big difference between binding and non binding. So for instance right now, WestJet will have federal government mediation... That's just a step on the road that you have to take to get to a strike.

Going to binding arbitration is where both sides decide they'll agree to whatever the arbitrator picks and then they go in and fight it out. You don't have to do this, and in the current environment there's no reason any reasonable person would even consider it.

Edit: and no need to apologize for asking questions. If every pilot took your efforts to get to know the process we'd be in an incredibly effective position in all negotiations.
I appreciate that :)

So the WJ pilots want something, and then the union representing their interests chooses to do something else? How the hell does that happen?

Mediation and arbitration are two different things. Federal mediation would imply the feds are just there to facilitate talks but have no jurisdiction to make any sort of decision. The union choosing binding arbitration implies the opposite - that both sides make their case and then the "neutral" third-party makes a decision.

So if all of that is true, how then is a decision to pursue binding arbitration the first step on the road to a strike? Whatever you mean by that, it seems like if the union are pursuing the legal steps to strike, then they're not going against pilot wishes as it seems you were suggesting.

And in the case of arbitration, you said this was a bad idea in this climate. Is that simply because share prices are still much closer to March 2020 then they are to 2019 values? Are we expecting the company to play their little violin and claim to be too broke to pay us competitively?
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5377
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by altiplano »

Crewbunk wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:32 am
Fanblade wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:02 am BS yet again.

A 10 year 767F CA in an 82 hour month is still under 20K. About 240K/ year. Overtime isn’t a raise. 50K is a lot of overtime.

You are embellishing what a 10 year 767 CA makes in a normal month. 290k/year is about an 18% overstatement. This is exactly why I stick to hourly pay only. Apples to apples.

I’m sure with the pilot shortage overtime is aplenty everywhere. But it’s not a raise.
2023 rates for the 767F are $266.08 an hour. Do your own maths. 10 years from now, (assuming ALPA can do no better than 2% a year) will be $323.29 an hour.

In a recent thread, I was discussing “10 year seniority”. Looking at forecast hiring, one additional 777, three additional 787s and two A330s, it was not a stretch to assume someone hired at the start of this hiring batch could hold bottom 787 or 777 Captain in 10 years. It’s what the CMSC is suggesting to the company and what they are budgeting for.

As I said above, it’s all about choices, and AC offers choices in spades.

"Do your own maths"

Year 10 F767 CA hourly rate is $237.74 1/2 D/N. We aren't on 2023 rates yet.

Captain overseas pay is $11.82, and if you're buddy is doing Western turns he's not getting much of that.

82 x $237.84, plus say 50 hours of overseas pay would be about $20K/month. 12 months a year would be about $240K.

You are out of touch on the numbers or your buddy is a draft whore and outlier, not representative of the majority who fly their blocks and have a life/family/things to do outside of work.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tbaylx
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:30 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by tbaylx »

schnitzel2k3 wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:40 am
Crewbunk wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:14 am
schnitzel2k3 wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:43 am
Agreed Personally, I am rooting for Porter. But, the economics of the E2 does not lend to a low cost carrier. Presently, they are competing with price even though I admire the on-board product.
Would you expand on that?

From what I've experienced they've got the product, they've got the pricing and hopefully, soon they'll have more routing.
\
The E2 has about 5% lower operating costs than a 737 Max8 with about 57 (43%) fewer seats. On top of that, Porter offers free food, alcohol, and WiFi. It's a great product to compete with a premium economy product at AC or Westjet but right now they're matching ULCC fare levels and not a premium economy fare. They are also one of the only E2 operators in NA so spare parts pools for AOG aircraft are sparse and harder to get, plus the fleet size is too small for the next couple of years for economy of scale or route density for recovery of IROPS.

It doesn't take a lot of complicated math if your CASM is 50% higher than a ULCC and you're matching fares that you're losing money. They can keep it up for a while to stimulate demand for their product but eventually, they're going to have to raise fares in a very competitive environment in order to have any sort of positive yield.

You can't compete with a ULCC using an E2, so you need to compete vs Westjet and AC, both of whom can fare match on Porter's routes and have existing loyalty plans that make them more attractive to frequent fliers. Porter's product is quite nice, but how they become profitable with it is a challenge.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by tbaylx on Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1502
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by BTD »

.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by BTD on Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1693
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by Fanblade »

BTD wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:41 pm
One thing to note is that even though the 767f is labelled NB for bidding it counts as a WB for overseas pay. So we get min 71 hrs overseas per month. However, your numbers are closer to what I end up at.

The 71 hrs shows on the ACPA website pay tables and it was listed in some of the newsletters although that could take me a while to find.
I'm pretty sure the 71 hours of overseas pay/month is for calculating minimum monthly guarantee.

In a normal month you just get paid what you do
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5377
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by altiplano »

BTD wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:41 pm
altiplano wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:15 am
Crewbunk wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:32 am

2023 rates for the 767F are $266.08 an hour. Do your own maths. 10 years from now, (assuming ALPA can do no better than 2% a year) will be $323.29 an hour.

In a recent thread, I was discussing “10 year seniority”. Looking at forecast hiring, one additional 777, three additional 787s and two A330s, it was not a stretch to assume someone hired at the start of this hiring batch could hold bottom 787 or 777 Captain in 10 years. It’s what the CMSC is suggesting to the company and what they are budgeting for.

As I said above, it’s all about choices, and AC offers choices in spades.

"Do your own maths"

Year 10 F767 CA hourly rate is $237.74 1/2 D/N. We aren't on 2023 rates yet.

Captain overseas pay is $11.82, and if you're buddy is doing Western turns he's not getting much of that.

82 x $237.84, plus say 50 hours of overseas pay would be about $20K/month. 12 months a year would be about $240K.

You are out of touch on the numbers or your buddy is a draft whore and outlier, not representative of the majority who fly their blocks and have a life/family/things to do outside of work.
One thing to note is that even though the 767f is labelled NB for bidding it counts as a WB for overseas pay. So we get min 71 hrs overseas per month. However, your numbers are closer to what I end up at.

The 71 hrs shows on the ACPA website pay tables and it was listed in some of the newsletters although that could take me a while to find.
I thought we got away from calling the 767 an NB with this one? 767 being a NB was left with the L767.

edit: you're right for article 20 purposes it's a NJA...

I was also under the impression that the 71 hour overseas pay you mention is a component of MBG and if you are above the MBG pay guarantee for a given DBM you aren't getting it.

For example 82 hour DBM brings a guarantee based on a 70 hour MBG and 71 overseas MBG for a total of $17,565.59.

If you flew 80 hours of domestic/transborder freighter @ 1/2 D/N = $19,019.20 and you are above the pay guarantee for that DBM without a single overseas hour.

I might be wrong, that's what was explained to me years back when I flew a mostly domestic WB block years ago and noticed that I didn't have guaranteed overseas and inquired. But could be I was just getting fucked on pay... happens often it seems... But there's no overseas line getting added on my cheque now either, even though NBs also have overseas & nav guarantees. Or maybe I just don't understand the "new" pay summary reports...
Screenshot_20230309-160856.png
Screenshot_20230309-160856.png (162.24 KiB) Viewed 2182 times
Screenshot_20230309-155801.png
Screenshot_20230309-155801.png (341.14 KiB) Viewed 2182 times
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1502
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by BTD »

.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by BTD on Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1502
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by BTD »

You are correct Altiplano, I misspoke. The 767F is its own beast with its own course right. It is not considered a NB like rouge was
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1502
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by BTD »

Edit

I retract my previous statements about ovs pay. I may stand corrected and will have to dig deeper to confirm.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
schnitzel2k3
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 11:17 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by schnitzel2k3 »

tbaylx wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:40 pm
schnitzel2k3 wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:40 am
Crewbunk wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:14 am
Agreed Personally, I am rooting for Porter. But, the economics of the E2 does not lend to a low cost carrier. Presently, they are competing with price even though I admire the on-board product.
Would you expand on that?

From what I've experienced they've got the product, they've got the pricing and hopefully, soon they'll have more routing.
\
The E2 has about 5% lower operating costs than a 737 Max8 with about 57 (43%) fewer seats. On top of that, Porter offers free food, alcohol, and WiFi. It's a great product to compete with a premium economy product at AC or Westjet but right now they're matching ULCC fare levels and not a premium economy fare. They are also one of the only E2 operators in NA so spare parts pools for AOG aircraft are sparse and harder to get, plus the fleet size is too small for the next couple of years for economy of scale or route density for recovery of IROPS.

It doesn't take a lot of complicated math if your CASM is 50% higher than a ULCC and you're matching fares that you're losing money. They can keep it up for a while to stimulate demand for their product but eventually, they're going to have to raise fares in a very competitive environment in order to have any sort of positive yield.

You can't compete with a ULCC using an E2, so you need to compete vs Westjet and AC, both of whom can fare match on Porter's routes and have existing loyalty plans that make them more attractive to frequent fliers. Porter's product is quite nice, but how they become profitable with it is a challenge.
Yeah - I would imagine the ULCC fare theatrics are going to be short lived.

As the product matures, you'll likely see positioning of the fares much like the salaries - in and around the 60-75th percentile. I don't see them attempting to compete directly with AC on pricing as the products are very different. WS doesn't compete with either, they just sort of exist (tell me how you really feel right?). Dragging down the end user pricing of the big boys or pushing them to up their economy game may be what ultimately transpires with Porter in the mix.

With years of negative press towards AC and WS, I see travelers rage booking with POE for their next few trips - and that will be the deciding factor to their success - can they maintain customer satisfaction.

Time will tell.
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5377
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by altiplano »

BTD wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:39 pm You are correct Altiplano, I misspoke. The 767F is its own beast with its own course right. It is not considered a NB like rouge was
I think you're right.

The cargo LOU says for purposes of article 20 (position assignment/bidding) it's a NJA. The people on property in 2020 all got a single use cargo course right to either seat, but moving forward new hires don't get that, and will use their NB CA/FO as applicable.

It also protects the senior guys waiting to upgrade into 787 or 777 CA from out of the group. In the event the cargo specialty company reduces 767 positions at some point or moves to all 777s or whatever, the group protection for those on the 767 will be into NB CA not WB CA.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Crewbunk
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:46 am

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by Crewbunk »

tbaylx wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:40 pm You can't compete with a ULCC using an E2, so you need to compete vs Westjet and AC, both of whom can fare match on Porter's routes and have existing loyalty plans that make them more attractive to frequent fliers. Porter's product is quite nice, but how they become profitable with it is a challenge.
For fun, I recently flew out to YVR and back to try two products I’ve never flown. YYZ-YVR Porter Reserve on their E2 returning the next day Westjet Premium.

Maybe they have some adjustments to do, but Porter is actually very good economy where Westjet was similar to AC Business class. I don’t see Porter Reserve as a product that would attract anything more than an Economy passenger looking for a better experience. The seat is Economy sized, the food is served in cardboard tubs (not on a tray) and my sparkling water was served in a paper cup. Sitting in row three on the aisle, I was shoulder to the bathroom line for most of the 5 hours.

On Westjet, it was a Business class seat, a regular meal on a tray, glassware and I don’t know if it’s policy, but there was no line up to use the lav.

The fare? $460 on Porter, $910 on Westjet.

For the E2 to work, they need to be charging more than airlines flying the 737. They aren’t.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Crewbunk
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:46 am

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by Crewbunk »

altiplano wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:15 am "Do your own maths"

Year 10 F767 CA hourly rate is $237.74 1/2 D/N. We aren't on 2023 rates yet.

Captain overseas pay is $11.82, and if you're buddy is doing Western turns he's not getting much of that.

82 x $237.84, plus say 50 hours of overseas pay would be about $20K/month. 12 months a year would be about $240K.

You are out of touch on the numbers or your buddy is a draft whore and outlier, not representative of the majority who fly their blocks and have a life/family/things to do outside of work.
I had to ask him first before I stated it on a public forum, (remember, we are restricted by Air Canada’s Code of Conduct) but he is an IOETC. A position available to anyone, and a pretty good gig for those with a natural tendency for instruction.

(It’s also why a normal line pilot would not see some flying, as it’s allocated to training).

Honestly, you guys are a lot more engaged in this discussion than me. I say again, I was only responding to the comment comparing a Porter DEC to a 10 year AC pilot. Maybe I misread the tone, but it sounded condescending to me. I was defending the actions of the $160K/yr FO who had choices that pay more, but likely didn’t fit his lifestyle.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Curiousflyer
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:13 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by Curiousflyer »

Crewbunk wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 5:00 pm
altiplano wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:15 am "Do your own maths"

Year 10 F767 CA hourly rate is $237.74 1/2 D/N. We aren't on 2023 rates yet.

Captain overseas pay is $11.82, and if you're buddy is doing Western turns he's not getting much of that.

82 x $237.84, plus say 50 hours of overseas pay would be about $20K/month. 12 months a year would be about $240K.

You are out of touch on the numbers or your buddy is a draft whore and outlier, not representative of the majority who fly their blocks and have a life/family/things to do outside of work.
I had to ask him first before I stated it on a public forum, (remember, we are restricted by Air Canada’s Code of Conduct) but he is an IOETC. A position available to anyone, and a pretty good gig for those with a natural tendency for instruction.

(It’s also why a normal line pilot would not see some flying, as it’s allocated to training).

Honestly, you guys are a lot more engaged in this discussion than me. I say again, I was only responding to the comment comparing a Porter DEC to a 10 year AC pilot. Maybe I misread the tone, but it sounded condescending to me. I was defending the actions of the $160K/yr FO who had choices that pay more, but likely didn’t fit his lifestyle.

It’s an interesting take for you to back away from your comments, then come back and make more inaccurate comments as if they were fact, to only back away from those comments again.

I don’t think there is any chance of the new hires coming in today to see WB captain in 10 years, 3 or 4 more widebodies on order is no where near enough growth for that to happen. Unless you count the 767F which pays $10 more an hour than the 320.

For those looking at the 767 pay scales, make sure you’re looking at the F-767, as that’s the freighter pay. Which is significantly less than the 767 when looking at hourly rate. The freight pays $10 more an hour than the 320, that’s all.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Crewbunk
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:46 am

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by Crewbunk »

My story hasn’t changed.

A 767F IOETC makes $266.08/hr. In other words over $270K a year. That is not including OVS or NAV pay, VO, Draft, expenses and allowances. As even looking at the contract, I can’t decipher if the position qualifies for OVS/NAV. Someone hired at the beginning of this hiring spree should be able to hold it with 10 years seniority.

You may not consider the 767 as a wide body, I do.

And, gentleman, that’s all I’m going to say on the issue. Do I care if you believe me? Well if you could work the phrase “rat’s ass” into the answer, you’d be close.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Canpilot7
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:12 am

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by Canpilot7 »

eagle7044 wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:15 am
Canpilot7 wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:47 am The WestJet pilots voted for a strike, and instead of going on strike the union chose binding arbitration.

There's a big difference between binding and non binding. So for instance right now, WestJet will have federal government mediation... That's just a step on the road that you have to take to get to a strike.

Going to binding arbitration is where both sides decide they'll agree to whatever the arbitrator picks and then they go in and fight it out. You don't have to do this, and in the current environment there's no reason any reasonable person would even consider it.

Edit: and no need to apologize for asking questions. If every pilot took your efforts to get to know the process we'd be in an incredibly effective position in all negotiations.
I appreciate that :)

So the WJ pilots want something, and then the union representing their interests chooses to do something else? How the hell does that happen?

Mediation and arbitration are two different things. Federal mediation would imply the feds are just there to facilitate talks but have no jurisdiction to make any sort of decision. The union choosing binding arbitration implies the opposite - that both sides make their case and then the "neutral" third-party makes a decision.

So if all of that is true, how then is a decision to pursue binding arbitration the first step on the road to a strike? Whatever you mean by that, it seems like if the union are pursuing the legal steps to strike, then they're not going against pilot wishes as it seems you were suggesting.

And in the case of arbitration, you said this was a bad idea in this climate. Is that simply because share prices are still much closer to March 2020 then they are to 2019 values? Are we expecting the company to play their little violin and claim to be too broke to pay us competitively?
You've got it figured out, I was just using "non binding arbitration" as a fill in for the federal mediation you're talking about - just for the sake of anyone confused about binding arbitration vs what WestJet is going to do now.

As for the union not pursuing a strike after a convincing strike mandate, that was the last negotiation. The pilots were ready to go but the union was less so. This time I don't think that'll be the case.

Edit: I missed your last question/comment. My bad. Ya, the reason I think arbitration would be a disaster is that the airlines will still play poor, and right now there's no outlier operation with amazing compensation to use as an example of "see - THAT is the industry norm". The arb will ignore US and international compensation and instead look around Canada, and realistically think an inflation raise is fair. Same goes for both AC and WestJet. Arbitration just isn't the place for big wins.
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5377
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: New hire thoughts

Post by altiplano »

Crewbunk wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 5:00 pm
altiplano wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:15 am "Do your own maths"

Year 10 F767 CA hourly rate is $237.74 1/2 D/N. We aren't on 2023 rates yet.

Captain overseas pay is $11.82, and if you're buddy is doing Western turns he's not getting much of that.

82 x $237.84, plus say 50 hours of overseas pay would be about $20K/month. 12 months a year would be about $240K.

You are out of touch on the numbers or your buddy is a draft whore and outlier, not representative of the majority who fly their blocks and have a life/family/things to do outside of work.
I had to ask him first before I stated it on a public forum, (remember, we are restricted by Air Canada’s Code of Conduct) but he is an IOETC. A position available to anyone, and a pretty good gig for those with a natural tendency for instruction.

(It’s also why a normal line pilot would not see some flying, as it’s allocated to training).

Honestly, you guys are a lot more engaged in this discussion than me. I say again, I was only responding to the comment comparing a Porter DEC to a 10 year AC pilot. Maybe I misread the tone, but it sounded condescending to me. I was defending the actions of the $160K/yr FO who had choices that pay more, but likely didn’t fit his lifestyle.
LOL... keep on adding ît in... IOETC... and he teaches ART... and he does max VO... there are very few doing $295K - the amount you said - as a 10 year anything at this company.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”