Jump to content

AC/ ACPA Tentative Agreement


FA@AC
 Share

Recommended Posts

(*Conjecture only*)

I can see there being give and take in the negots but what happens in 15-20 years when these new hires out number the remaining DB? Its not the first time for a sell out but a divide on an issue this big could hurt the current pilots later.

Of course, that's only if you think that a DB plan is better than a DC. DC gives the employee many more options as they can leave anytime with all of their contributions, the employer's contributions and any earnings... a good option in the era of huge growth in overseas airlines. In addition, the employee has the option to change funds to take advantage of what they consider to be the best mix of investments (at least for savvy investors... and the not-so-savvy can leave their contributions in the most conservative mix).

(IF this is actually a part of the TA) it could be that the new hires might actually do better than a DB. Have you ever looked at comparisons between DB and DC plans and the actual payouts at the end of it all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Speaking theoretically, I'd say a DC plan is more appropriate for the airline industry. A projected DB income is just that - projected. Ask Nortel and Abitibi-Bowater plan members if they are getting the projected benefit. In any industry with a higher rate of bankruptcy than usual, like airlines, with a high degree of susceptibility to global economic events and trends, expecting every dollar of what one is promised in a DB plan is a risk in itself. Virtually all large DB plans are under water today, and will be for many years to come. That has two major disadvantages. it disadvantages the employer economically, therefore it disadvantages the employee by denying his or her union more ability to improve the collective agreement. if the employer doesn't have to push as much cash into a DB plan to meet a deficiency formula, it has more cash to spend to expand or modernize, or to pay out in salary, dividends, etc. Secondly, because of the downstream risks inherent in DB funding - i.e. the possibility that an economic recession forces companies at the worst possible time to increase payments to its pension plan - it makes it hard to actually improve a DB plan. With the predictable costing of DC employer contributions, it becomes easier for a union to negotiate increased contributions because there is no hidden or unpredictable downstream liability. If I were a union rep again, I'd rather have a DC regime than a DB. It's only ideological rigidity that makes unions hang on to the DB plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking theoretically, I'd say a DC plan is more appropriate for the airline industry. A projected DB income is just that - projected. Ask Nortel and Abitibi-Bowater plan members if they are getting the projected benefit. In any industry with a higher rate of bankruptcy than usual, like airlines, with a high degree of susceptibility to global economic events and trends, expecting every dollar of what one is promised in a DB plan is a risk in itself. Virtually all large DB plans are under water today, and will be for many years to come. That has two major disadvantages. it disadvantages the employer economically, therefore it disadvantages the employee by denying his or her union more ability to improve the collective agreement. if the employer doesn't have to push as much cash into a DB plan to meet a deficiency formula, it has more cash to spend to expand or modernize, or to pay out in salary, dividends, etc. Secondly, because of the downstream risks inherent in DB funding - i.e. the possibility that an economic recession forces companies at the worst possible time to increase payments to its pension plan - it makes it hard to actually improve a DB plan. With the predictable costing of DC employer contributions, it becomes easier for a union to negotiate increased contributions because there is no hidden or unpredictable downstream liability. If I were a union rep again, I'd rather have a DC regime than a DB. It's only ideological rigidity that makes unions hang on to the DB plans.

The DB Plan substitute model for legacy pilots in the US is company contribution level on the order of 12-13%. Is that what is being talked about? Less than 10% is NOT a DB substitute. Also, based on pension law it would be a gross error to accept the contributions in the form of a registered DC Plan. Group RRSP (with a provision for self direction) would be the only acceptable format for consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the ammended CPA, Jan 1, 2006:

Section 3.19 Employee Travel. Air Canada will extend to Jazz employees

duty/deadhead/business travel and personal travel privileges on flights operated by Air

Canada and on flights operated by Jazz pursuant to this Agreement. Such travel privileges for

Jazz employees and their eligible dependants will be subject to Air Canada's travel policy in

effect from time to time during the Term. Air Canada and Jazz acknowledge that all Air Canada

duty/deadhead/business and personal travel policies, including boarding priorities,

passholder eligibility, fees and charges, payment methods, available routing and destinations

are subject to change.

Good for you

You can find a half decade old superseded online document.

what a smart boy :icon_super:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A recent quote for you, from the powers to be:

"There are only three seats, we don't own on a Jazz (CPA) Aircraft."

It is no different than a Charter Flight, the Customer gets to pick who - rides.

(Two Pilots and One F/A, ...in case you were wondering)

So what you're saying sport, is that Calin owns my jumpseat and the cabin J/S as well? Really?

Reality is AC has owned Jazz seats for over 25 years, Mostly as the the majority or wholly owned parent. More recently thru a commercial agreement. Ironically today's employee travel agreement has more validity( as it is a consensual agreement between two separate corporate entities) than when Jazz was just the '**bleep** child'.

You can believe whatever you need to to get you thru the day tho :icon_super:

Edited by RussD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody has a gooood source.

- voluntary overtime (up to 100) at a higher premium

- no more sick-if-required on reserve

Maple Leaf is being represented as all growth work. Hard to believe that adding inventory in a low-cost(?) division will not poach from legacy traffic. I wonder how the other AC labour unions will respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- voluntary overtime (up to 100) at a higher premium

- no more sick-if-required on reserve

Maple Leaf is being represented as all growth work. Hard to believe that adding inventory in a low-cost(?) division will not poach from legacy traffic. I wonder how the other AC labour unions will respond.

It could be all growth, especially if AC keeps some of the 767s after the 787s arrive and goes after Transat's secondary Europe markets and develops places with a high VFR component (Athens, Belgrade from Toronto, Bucharest, Tunis, Strasbourg from Montreal, etc). The best part, for the customer, would be a clear distinction between the current full J product and the discounted Js of what the frequent flyers have dubbed - and dread - the three Amigos (the three 767s with the domestic business class that do routes like Barcelona in summer, as well as Hawaii year round). A separate all-economy product and branding for the Transat-type seasonal destinations would be interesting, and it might also lead to more all-Aeroplan flights, say, an Aeroplan flight to Gatwick or Luton or Orly or Hahn to burn off more of its points inventory. I think we'd all like to see the 787s flying year-round routes, including some new ones like Mumbai, Delhi. There is no way AC would want to serve marginal, seasonal routes with a 787. I'd guess those seasonal routes will be abandoned if there is no 767s left, and the 767s will only be feasible if their cost structure is similar to that of the 787s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the short term plan for the 767 fleet? Are the two ships we're getting from HA replacements for 687/689/690, or are they for growth?

no 767's leaving that I know of. There was talk of bringing 4 in, and two would leave, net increase of two, but that was a while ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea whether Air Canada is indeed planning a low cost long haul airline called 'Maple Leaf', but if so, and if I were an Air Canada pilot I would be afraid........very afraid. Just ask anyone from QANTAS how the Jetstar experiment has worked out for them or conversely how it has worked out for the Jetstar pilots. Great if you want that A320/A330 or B787 command, not so great if you actually have to pay your bills. Just another example of the creativity of airlines managers to undermine our profession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cause Zip and Tango worked so well?

At this point I would not bet against AC actually making something like "Maple Leaf" work.

They've shown a somewhat unsettling tendency to accomplish things of late...

There is also a thinly disguised "beat-you-to-the-punch" element with WJ in this as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea whether Air Canada is indeed planning a low cost long haul airline called 'Maple Leaf', but if so, and if I were an Air Canada pilot I would be afraid........very afraid. Just ask anyone from QANTAS how the Jetstar experiment has worked out for them or conversely how it has worked out for the Jetstar pilots. Great if you want that A320/A330 or B787 command, not so great if you actually have to pay your bills. Just another example of the creativity of airlines managers to undermine our profession.

One issue with Jetstar is that it's flying to some prime markets, and acquiring 787s. It has a number of markets on the radar that really ought to be Qantas routes with a 787 - like Vancouver. So there is a stronger argument there that Jetstar is competing with Qantas, i.e. taking away growth opportunities that might be profitable with mainline costs, especially flying a 787. With an AC low cost longhaul outfit, the type of plane and market would go a long way to determining if this is incremental growth into all-economy markets currently owned by the charters or Transat, or real competition for AC growth. If we're talking all-economy 767s flying to seasonal markets - markets AC likely won't serve with 787s - then it's a different kettle of fish than Jetstar.

If AC's plan (assuming this is part of the TA) is all-economy 767s flying to purely seasonal (and marginal) markets, then I'd be more worried if I was a Chorus 757 pilot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point I would not bet against AC actually making something like "Maple Leaf" work.

They've shown a somewhat unsettling tendency to accomplish things of late...

There is also a thinly disguised "beat-you-to-the-punch" element with WJ in this as well.

A bit of that, but more likely a punch-Chorus element.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of that, but more likely a punch-Chorus element.

Chorus isn't an airline or a tour company. It is a holding company for an ACMI operation that currently has 2 customers. AC's competition is Groupe Transat, TUI, Thomas Cook, and every non-STAR global carrier. I guess that all will have to wait and see whether this initiative - if realised - causes a competitive response from Thomas Cook that might have an impact on Chorus. Not sure how the suggestion that AC is going to run a 767 LCC will impact the very narrow portion of the Thomas Cook business that Chorus holds. AC has had a much larger impact on the Chorus bottom line through the CPA block hour reductions announced for 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One issue with Jetstar is that it's flying to some prime markets, and acquiring 787s. It has a number of markets on the radar that really ought to be Qantas routes with a 787 - like Vancouver. So there is a stronger argument there that Jetstar is competing with Qantas, i.e. taking away growth opportunities that might be profitable with mainline costs, especially flying a 787. With an AC low cost longhaul outfit, the type of plane and market would go a long way to determining if this is incremental growth into all-economy markets currently owned by the charters or Transat, or real competition for AC growth. If we're talking all-economy 767s flying to seasonal markets - markets AC likely won't serve with 787s - then it's a different kettle of fish than Jetstar.

If AC's plan (assuming this is part of the TA) is all-economy 767s flying to purely seasonal (and marginal) markets, then I'd be more worried if I was a Chorus 757 pilot.

I don’t necessarily dispute what you are saying Dagger, but my understanding is that QANTAS owns 100% of JETSTAR and all of JETSTAR’s profits go into the coffers of the QANTAS group. The thinking amongst all the ex-QANTAS and JETSTAR pilots I’ve worked with, and currently work with, is that the QANTAS strategy is to dilute the flying of the mainline pilots to the point where their CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) will entail anyone wanting a command will have to go through JETSTAR – in fact it is already happening. The vast majority of all aircraft orders are going to JETSTAR now. When there is nothing left of QANTAS (save a few big A380’s) the group will then re-brand JETSTAR as the new QANTAS. Result: much, much lower labour costs, much higher productivity and of course a much different CBA for the pilots to work under. Conspiracy theory? Perhaps. Nevertheless, the reality of what is going on in Australia speaks for itself. The other sad fact is that pilots worldwide will do about anything to fly big, shiny aircraft.

I sincerely hope that the Air Canada pilots don’t take their eye of the ball. ‘Maple Leaf’ might be logical step for the airline, but my gut says that it won’t help the profession in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. 'Maple Leaf' might be logical step for the airline, but my gut says that it won't help the profession in Canada.

Nothing will help the profession in Canada - by this I mean that the forces shaping the industry are larger than any single country or any single airline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think, if AC doesn't do this, WJ will. This would be doing the same damage to AC internationally which it can't afford. The international business is what keeps AC afloat. As for the Jazz TC flying, do we really think Jazz sprung this up without CR knowing, when 95% of Jazz revenue comes from the CPA. Not that stupid. Just my feeling. :Scratch-Head:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... The international business is what keeps AC afloat. ....

Wrong.

Most of the International business loses money (you cannot make money at $600 round trip Vancouver-Hong Kong) and the Domestic is the money maker (due to Westjet playing dead).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...