AC Chooses Boeing

[Homerun]

Tell you what Moeman, you get your union and the others together and come up with a concession package for the new aircraft. If you expect the pilots to operate it for less than contract rates then all the other employee groups should do the same.

[ChicoChico]

Listen chico

...whaaa?

[dagger]

So Dagger, do you still stand by the argument that Air Canada's costs won't escelate in the coming years. All you have to do is to look at a comment like that and realize that not much has changed through CCAA, new paint and Celine Dion.

Well, considering that Air Canada will take delivery of three 777-300s next year, and add an equivalent amount of revenue-generating new routes to support those aircraft, and that AC will have $3.5 billion cash in the bank once a half interest in Aeroplan is floated, and it is plain to see that AC's costs are not rising as a result of this deal. Right now, you can also expect positive cash flow from operations to help as well. Personally, I would be more worried about your cost structure.

[mrlupin]

Mitch, if only it was that simple. For new equipment, the contract says the 2 sides will meet to determine a pay rate, etc. That in isolation might not be so bad. However, with the primary determinate of pay rate being weight, and several variants of 777, all with different MTOW, not to mention the release says the 787 will be flown as a common type with it's own MTOW, it gets complicated pretty quick. With the 340's, we fly the -500 at the -300 rate despite it being about 40% heavier. That was one of the concessions given up in order to introduce the airplane into the fleet.

We know that AC will propose that the lowest 777 weight be used, perhaps even 767 rates, as they will argue it's a replacement. The 767-300's were introduced before a rate was established, and it was years until a proper pay rate was agreed to. That mistake will not be repeated, the aircraft won't move until there is a pay rate. The time for concessions is long gone, and if management expects that the pilot group will subsidize the purchase of these aircraft with a reduced rate of pay, they are sadly mistaken.

Standby for the fireworks.

Mitch,

According to our collective aggreement, if you were to get the endorsement for both airplanes you would get a premium of 30.00$/per month, times two.A sizeable pay increase!!!

60$ extra per month!!!!

(and we get to fix all the types we are endorsed on at once!!)

Maybe we should attempt to get a pay rate that is proportional to the max weight of the airplanes.....

Eric

[moeman]

Who said anything about pay cuts? Fact is, there is no hard pay scale at ACE for these aircraft, it's more of a concept than anything else. And going by the quote to which I was referring, you guys would hold a knife to the company's throat to get back some of what you lost in the last contract. So if I understand that point of view correctly, the fireworks will have nothing to do with earning a really great standard of living, something every wide-body pilot should have even if they are paid the same as they were paid 10 years ago as it's still a pretty fair penny, but the fireworks will be all about payback/revenge for past concessions.

I don't begrudge anyone else for doing well for themselves. I say, good for them. The question is, why can't you?

I have no problem with what pilots make. They earn it, IMO. I do have a problem with any group, not just pilots, that threatens to sink this ship because they want even more than what is already a pretty good rate of pay and will settle for nothing less. You may be underpaid, but you surely aren't poorly compensated if you look at it from the real world.

Do I expect the company to try to get the best deal they can from you guys? Absolutely. Do I expect your union to try to get the best deal they can for you? Same story. Unfortunately, neither side seems to want to focus on a fair deal, they will both want what's best for one to the detriment of the other if history repeats itself. But judging from a couple of comments here, especially

The 767-300's were introduced before a rate was established, and it was years until a proper pay rate was agreed to. That mistake will not be repeated, the aircraft won't move until there is a pay rate

the threat of topedoing the whole purchase is something that you guys would follow through upon if you don't get X-dollars to fly these things, even if what is offered by the company is what would seem like an obscene amount of money to most of us. You would take us all down to get what you think is fair, even if what was offered is pretty damned good. You forget that these aircraft will most likely keep us all in employment longer than killing the deal would. That, more than anything else, reminds me of the hockey players. They'd destroy the game to get what they felt was a fair salary instead of seeing that without the game there is no salary to fight over. When it gets too expensive to pay the players, despite what they used to make in a different economic climate, it's either cut back, become smaller so there are less well-paying jobs to go around, or shut down completely. Personally, I'd rather make a pretty good living doing what I enjoy for a long time than make a great living and have it all taken away from me sooner than later.

Perhaps it is time to look at a seniority based pay system instead of having to fight this fight every time ACE wants to modernize it's fleet. Then all this fighting over who works what will be minimized and everybody, not just the top guys, will earn a better average standard of living than they do today. Perhaps it's not just ACE that needs to modernize.

[Vsplat]

Ah, so begins the rhetoric.

Has ACPA brought the airline down yet?

Recent history suggests that, when push comes to shove, management does the pushing and ACPA gets shoved. Most of the 'temporary' cuts of the other unions were permanent among ACPA members. Furloughs have lasted longer than inflight, etc, etc.

No, this is not the start of a pity party. In the end, ACPA will do, as was suggested above, try for the best deal they can. What will limit that deal will not be whether or not AC survives, but just how much stabbing and back-stabbing takes place.

Probably the best thing anyone can do for AC, the passengers and, indeed the industry that tends to use AC wages to improve their own pay scale (except, of course, those who already have a better deal) is to step back and let the back room warriors do their thing.

I will re-issue this reminder. Every person who has sacrificed for this airline and stayed with it has a stake in believing in the future. Saying that the sacrifice was not worth it and staying was a mistake makes the speaker look like a fool. Saying that the best way to make back the sacrifice is to have a wildly successful future is more what I can accept.

Here is to that future, bumpy road that it may be.

All the best

Vs

[dagger]

Mitch, if only it was that simple.  For new equipment, the contract says the 2 sides will meet to determine a pay rate, etc.  That in isolation might not be so bad.  However, with the primary determinate of pay rate being weight, and several variants of 777, all with different MTOW, not to mention the release says the 787 will be flown as a common type with it's own MTOW, it gets complicated pretty quick.  With the 340's, we fly the -500 at the -300 rate despite it being about 40% heavier.  That was one of the concessions given up in order to introduce the airplane into the fleet.

We know that AC will propose that the lowest 777 weight be used, perhaps even 767 rates, as they will argue it's a replacement.  The 767-300's were introduced before a rate was established, and it was years until a proper pay rate was agreed to.  That mistake will not be repeated, the aircraft won't move until there is a pay rate.  The time for concessions is long gone, and if management expects that the pilot group will subsidize the purchase of these aircraft with a reduced rate of pay, they are sadly mistaken.

Standby for the fireworks.

Well, AC is acquiring three variants of the 777 which happen to have the same MTOW. Yes, optional fuel tanks and such can change that, but not by much. I'll worry about the 787 a little closer to its arrival.

[boestar]

Hey Moeman,

It's no worse then your mentality:

"These pilots make too damn much, so even though the new planes will fly heavier, farther, faster and carry more people than the ones they are replacing, the pilots should fly them for less money, because they don't deserve it. They are just overpaid, whining cry babies anyway. Why can't thay take another pay cut on top of the already 20-30% they took last year. I mean come on, it's not like what they do is work anyway..." blah, blah, blah.

I have the utmost respect for what other people do for a living, and except for the CEO's who take home an obscene amount of money, I don't begrudge anyone else for doing well for themselves. I say, good for them. The question is, why can't you?

John.

Oh and BTW you stated "a secure and wealthy lifestyle". Listen chico, I have to put my job on the line every 6 months (sim) and again every year (medical) until I retire. Nice and secure! And wealthy lifestyle. I've been at this flying thing since I was 17 (18 years ago) and I'm making the same now compared to what I was making almost 10 years ago (if you factor in inflation, it is actually less), and I now have a family to look after. Sorry, your argument doesn't wash here buddy!!!

I think Mitch would agree that we should be paid by gross weight as well. We maintain these aircraft and it takes alot more to maintain a 747 or 777 than an RJ. Perhaps we should be paid the same as pilots. Of course since I am primarily RJ I would ge SCREWED.

B

[Homerun]

Well, AC is acquiring three variants of the 777 which happen to have the same MTOW.

From Boeing. The 777-300 ER has a MTOW of 775,000lbs and the -200LR is 766,000. The freighter is also 766,000. The regular 777-300 is 660,000.

Moeman, in your contract you have a rate for Purser for the 767 and 340 and a slightly higher rate for the -500. You will have to negotiate a rate for the 777/787. What if AC says you have to fly it for narrow body rates. Are you okay with that?

[dagger]

Here's what the unions will do: Mr. Teplitsky

With the new dispute resolution mechanism in a number of labor agreements, they will ask him for a binding solution.

So far, he's exhibited the wisdom of Solomon.

really, don't get your knickers in a knot, Homerun.

[Mitch Cronin]

We know that AC will propose that the lowest 777 weight be used, perhaps even 767 rates, as they will argue it's a replacement.

... Ok, so if that's their offer, you could park a 777 alongside a 67 and invite them all to come for a talk... Just to drive home the point.

Standing beside the darlin's should very quickly make that notion laughable in anyone's eyes!

Someone here said it many moons ago... when you see a 67 beside a triple 7, you could easily think you're looking at a 37 parked beside a 67.

787's are a replacement for 67's... not the triple bogie'd behemouths. But I guess they might be considered a replacement for 340's?

[moeman]

Moeman...What if AC says you have to fly it for narrow body rates. Are you okay with that?

Apples and oranges and quite irrelevant. That's like asking the pilots if they'd accept CRJ rates for the 777. Never happen. Now, if they said we would get 767 pay for working the 777, I'd have to say that it wouldn't faze me a bit as it's still pretty good coin. I definitely wouldn't threaten to shut things down if I didn't get A340-500 pay.

[Gumbi]

I see ACPA has not given their approval for this order...

So what?

Get rid of that "pay by weight" mentality, welcome to the new millenium!

[Homerun]

Moeman, percentage wise, flying the 777 for 767 rates, is greater than widebody Purser rate compared to narrowbody Purser rate. Are you willing to give another concession? The pilot group is not.

[Mitch Cronin]

Now, if they said we would get 767 pay for working the 777, I'd have to say that it wouldn't faze me a bit as it's still pretty good coin.

If I was a manager, I'd cut and paste that into several bits of correspondence and even bring it back come contract negots time... "Consider it done."

Must be nice to be working for this airline and be able to utter words like "pretty good coin"? Oh well... maybe by the time I retire I'll be able to say the same... ?

I guess I really have no idea how F/A pay is calculated, but unlike Pilots, it doesn't seem to me that it should be tied to the size of the aircraft at all.... I thought you folks had a 1 F/A to 50 pax ratio, or something like that, so why should it matter if it's a 50 people ship or a thousand, as long as the ratio is maintained? (In fact, if that were accurate, I'd say the lone F/A on the RJ should be paid most, since he/she is alone.)

[moeman]

Mitch, I don't really disagree with you there as I've never had to work as hard as when I flew the CRJ, but the big birds and the distances flown do bring their own challenges despite the fact that you have many more FA's helping you out.

My point about "pretty good coin" is akin to my comment about pilots making a pretty good living even thought they may not make as much money as they'd like. I think I make a good salary and for me to complain that I don't make enough wouldn't be right, I don't think. Is it as much as I'd expected to be making at this point in my career? No, as a few cuts and concessions have eaten into that. But I still make OK money doing what I love to do. And if it meant being paid almost as much money as the highest rate of pay to bring this aircraft and all the benefits it should bring to this company into the fold, I'd not hesitate a second to sign on. The company's bigger than me as without it I have no job.

Regardless, being paid 767 pay to work the 777 (only pursers have a higher rate of pay, by the way) isn't a pay cut IMO as it's a new aircraft and a newly drawn up pay scale. It might not be the rate of pay to which I had perhaps set my sights upon when the announcement was made, but it's still better than stopping the company from getting them, isn't it? After all, I'd still be doiing what I love to do and providing for my family a much better living than many people in many other lines of work. I feel fortunate to be in this position, something that many have either forgotten or never felt. I think you feel the same way. For those who don't, well we all have the option of leaving for greener pastures if things are so bad that they'd rather shut things down than accept less than they had perhaps hoped for a few years ago before things went south.

[moeman]

Moeman, percentage wise, flying the 777 for 767 rates, is greater than widebody Purser rate compared to narrowbody Purser rate.  Are you willing to give another concession?  The pilot group is not.

How can a non-existant pay rate be considered a concession before it's even been negotiated? And you're assuming the 777 will be at 767 rates. But yeah, I'd take the next-highest rate of pay in exchange for greater stability and a brighter future for the company. Again, it's not like they'd ask you or I to take CRJ pay to fly the darned things, is it?

Hopefully, if things work out, our profit-sharing cheques and the gains made from our shares rising will make up some, if not all, of the difference. You see, I believe that a successful company is more important than my union taking every penny it can as once those pennies are taken from the company, especially at gunpoint, it takes a pretty nasty situation to give them back. Been there once and I don't want to go there again any time soon. Perhaps you've been there so many times that you're numb, but I'm not and I don't ever want to become so. I want cooperation so we can all live happily ever after, not "me me me" as has been the case up until now from both the unions and the company.

But aren't we all getting the cart a little ahead of the horse here?

[Vsplat]

What is it about aviation people?

I continually see opinion offered as gospel here, generally denegrating our own colleagues. No wonder the industry is back sliding.

'Good coin'. Well, for some maybe. The statement suggests that all AC pilots make this amount for 20 years. Rubbish.

Math is something I know. Let's do some of the 'new' AC math together, shall we?

Let's take a pilot with two choices. Air Canada and Transport Canada. I use Transport Canada because their pay rates and hiring criteria are a matter of public record. Air Canada has the more stringent hiring standard, as you can join Transport Canada HQ (CAI-03) with a Class I Instructor rating and an ATPL based on a Seminole.

Starting salary at AC - mid 40's. Starting salary at Transport Canada (including flying pay) $75K plus overtime. Most CAIs are not offered the lowest rung but mid-line, so $80K is a better average.

So the baseline is set at 45 versus 80 + overtime. Both groups get expenses so I will leave that off to keep things together.

After two years of flat pay and then position group limits, the AC pilot hit his or her seventh anniversary just shy of $159K LESS than they would make had they gone to the government.

Assuming that TC has no more pay increases (a false assumption as the contract is already up for renewal), the AC pilot celebrates their 10th anniversary a mere $121K behind (plus loan/mortgage interest in trying to maintain the same family needs). Indeed, it's not until year 13 that the AC pilot actually passes the break even point, and that's assuming no OT for the Inspector, and that the AC pilot has made Captain on the EMB or equivalent as soon as possible, which translates into life at the bottom of reserve, something the Inspector does not have to endure.

Oh, and that assumes no furlough or illness. AC happens to have quite a number of pilots out on furlough at the moment, so that's a real possibility.

'Good coin'? Considering the number of AC new hires in their 40's (such WAS the competition), the exposure to the opportunity to recoup past deficits is brief indeed.

While the numbers may look good out of context, understand that for many, AC is becoming a second choice. For a seasoned, well trained pilot in their 40's, choosing AC does not mean 'good coin'. It means signing over your life to a crew scheduler for less money overall than many other options.

If AC is serious about growth and safety, then it stands to reason they will want to attract and retain the right pilots, not just those who couldn't get their first choice.

But, everyone is welcome to their opinion. This is mine. I ask only that folks look a bit deeper before they pronounce on what is fair.

Cheers

Vs

[dagger]

I don't think I would use the Government of Canada as an example for prudent spending.

I would use real-world competitive examples. And does the TC inspector start in the right seat of a 50-seat aircraft?

You imply that because AC isn't paying Government wages, it isn't serious about hiring the best. I think that's an unfortunate comment about your peers.

[Guest gldd]

Can someone tell me if this will be an uplift in aircraft to be flown or decrease.

[dagger]

Can someone tell me if this will be an uplift in aircraft to be flown or decrease.

If you mean the total number of widebody aircraft, it will increase... It will rise by at least two next summer, by a third next December... I don't expect retirement of any Airbus widebodies until 2007 when another eight 777s are delivered. The idea is to increase the size of the widebody fleet to serve those new China routes and a new India destination or two, plus a couple of other new intercontinental routes.

[Vsplat]

Dagger, you should know by now. I imply nothing. It is what it is. My reason for using the TC rates was because they were verifiable.

Real-world competitive - Air Canada has and continues to loose pilots to Transport Canada. Something that was unheard of 10 years ago.

Whether or not you agree with government fiscal policy, these are the rates. Of course the job stability goes with them.

Starting position? A desk, in one Division vetting private pilot examinations. Flying currency maintained in a Beech King Air, Cessna Citation or Bell B206 helicopter. Relatively few get exposure to airline equipment. Most try to stay away from the RJ. In that way I guess it is pretty representative of industry

The pay scales at Transport are similar to the RCMP and military. Less than the FAA. Not sure what else I can add.

An unfortunate comment about my peers? Hardly. Most did not sign on for these wages. They are here now. Anyone in aviation knows the central axiom that there will always be a pilot who will take the job, even if they have to pay for it. It doesn't make them less of a person. Are you saying that companies who offer competitive salaries are insulting their competitors?

Vs

[moeman]

'Good coin'. Well, for some maybe. The statement suggests that all AC pilots make this amount for 20 years.

I thought we were talking about pay rates on the 767/777/787? We're not talking about hiring off the street to fly these birds are we? Regardless, your statement seems to verify that pilots do in fact make good coin on the 767 and/or A340 right now. But I guess that's not enough for some, so much so that they figure it would be better to block the company's expansion plans than to accept less than what they think they're owed due to past sacrifices.

Bring on seniority based pay or maybe work on raising the base pay for everybody else. These aircraft give us all a little more job security and what price do you put on that?

[RussD]

Math is something I know.  Let's do some of the 'new' AC math together, shall we?

...............

I think you are on the cusp of making the quintessential argument in favour of Years of Service Pay vs. Equipment based pay. The whole idea is to take to the whole pay packet that your current formula and fleet composition would provide and homogenize it. Add a few bucks to the result to compensate the troops for all the money the Company is convinced it will save in retraining costs,, and your in business.

The net result is more money at the beginning of your career for less money later. Course if you're going to accumulate 4 or 5 ex wives by the latter part of your career, this may not work for you.

IMHO I think ACPA missed a grand opportunity when the Co. offered up a bunch of 74's but to be flown at 340 rates. It seems to me that could have opened the door to a flat wide body rate for the entire 2 aisle fleet close to the current 340/330 rate. It could have solved or ironed a lot of the wrinkles of a very contentious merger as well as lay the ground work for very competitive Int’l carrier.

[Guest Skirt]

Moeman,

You state: "But I guess that's not enough for some, so much so that they figure it would be better to block the company's expansion plans than to accept less than what they think they're owed due to past sacrifices"

We are not owed X amount for the 777 because of past sacrices. That's not the point. The point is we have a contract with the company that states that we get paid a certain formula for each A/C. (a contract which the pilots already gave 10's, if not 100's, of millions of dollars of savings to the Co.) The Co. knows this, we know this.

The point is that the 777 is a replacement for the 340, not the 767. It (the 777 that we are buying) is indeed heavier, faster and can fly further than the 340 (500 excluded), all variable which we used to figure out our formula pay. Why should we give the Co. MORE? We don't want more, we just don't want less! Understand?

Also, remember who we will be competing against with these A/C. Not WJ (yet...) or CJ, but Luftansa, Cathay, Air France etc, most of whom pay their pilots more $$$ then Air Canada does on the same equipment. Why wouldn't the Co. be able to make it work against other airlines with higher cost structures? (unless our cost structures are still higher, then it's not the pilot wages which need to be trimmed... Nah, that wouldn't be it.) Who knows?

Moeman, you are just playing into the Co. hand by trying to justify another pay cut to the pilots (which is what flying a 777 for 767 wage would be), and keeping this insane retoric afloat.

John.