Jump to content

Acppa


Say Altitude
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interested in thoughts on ACPPA and;

1. If conventional wisdom holds that AC is pushing hard behind the scenes for repeal; (is there chatter on the Hill?)

2. If not, why not?

3. Would the Gov't actually do it or rather impose similar mandates on WJA and other carriers with respect language and other aspects.

Dag? Bean? Bueller? Bueller?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more likely scenario is that the feds clean up the ACPPA by deleting the maintenance base requirements now that AVEOS has fallen apart. Then it can say it is changing nothing, only clarifying the language of the act. The HQ and bilingual requirements won't change - political realities. The max shareholding rule is out of date, and could be scrapped. Why should AC be subject to any different shareholding requirements that other airlines, especially when ACE's ownership didn't even contravene the act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If every identifiable cost was considered; how much does AC's attempt to be compliant add up to on a yearly basis and should those costs of doing business be taken out against the employee groups remuneration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The HQ and bilingual requirements won't change - political realities.

So if lobbying is happening, and as I think we all believe the political landscape is such that the repeal of the language requirements won't go away, does AC now push for equal language restrictions on WJA especially given their near term push into the regional market? How much cost and infrastructure would this put on to WJA? Thoughts?

If we're going to stay in a duopoly, then the playing field should be level....just saying...

Edited to add:

I wonder how much Derek Vanstone is going to be working on this once, if it's even a priority?

Edited by Say Altitude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If every identifiable cost was considered; how much does AC's attempt to be compliant add up to on a yearly basis and should those costs of doing business be taken out against the employee groups remuneration?

I'm not sure how you take any cost a company incurs out of the equation, especially one which is statutory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line - treating AC (a private non-subsidised corporation) as a vehicle of public policy is a gross abuse of federal legislative prerogative. What was once a crown corporation failed in 2003 and no longer exists. Too bad the politicians that use taxpayer dollars to commute regularly in Executive class ON THE ONLY AIRLINE IN CANADA THAT OFFERS EXECUTIVE CLASS DOMESTIC SCHEDULED SERVICE refuse to acknowledge that and instead treat their seats on AC as a right rather than a privilege.

Edited by rudder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AC is subject to the Air Canada act. Remove that act for the level playing field.

Back to the premise that repeal won't happen, is the will there in YOW to impose the same mandate (language) on WJA? Maybe I'm being naive but I can't believe the repeal and/or change to ACPPA isn't a big target for AC now that scope has been blown wide open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the irony. The feds have already ruled that Jazz operated AC flights are subject to the ACPPA language criteria, including transborder flights. What happens if AC subcontracts to a US regional? I am sorry - Americans do not speak French and they never will. Just another absurdity of the ACPPA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To force WJA to follow the same rules as AC, as per the language act, will open up a can of worms for all other companies. Will never happen, I hope. Instead dump the AC Act, which should have been done during the restructing phase a few years ago.

If AC subcontracts a US regional, it would be interesting indeed. Most likely, an AC F/A will be placed on those flights to comply with the act.

IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No government is going to make that call, IMHO. For a majority government, the way the decision would be seen in Quebec is a ticket to a minority next time around. For a minority, it's a ticket to defeat.

With only five seats in the Province of Quebec (I love emphasizing that) why should they care? But nothing will happen during an election campaign. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if they exempt the LCC from the ACPPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With only five seats in the Province of Quebec (I love emphasizing that) why should they care? But nothing will happen during an election campaign. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if they exempt the LCC from the ACPPA.

I don't think they would want to hand nationalists in Quebec an argument. Quebec may not be pivotal for this government, but it doesn't want to contribute to reviving the unity debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they would want to hand nationalists in Quebec an argument. Quebec may not be pivotal for this government, but it doesn't want to contribute to reviving the unity debate.

So, does that mean that enforcing the strictest interpretation of the ACPPA and the OLA that AC is precluded from codeshare with foreign carriers that do not offer check-in and on board service in French? Of course not. The absurd rules only apply to Canadian based AC code operators. The ACPPA is a joke. Just look at the date on it. But don't bother suggesting to the politicos that times have changed. They all make decisions based solely on what will get them re-elected personally and what will keep their party in power. And they do love their Aeroplan miles, all provided by the Canadian taxpayer. Meanwhile WJ gets to make commercial and operational decisions based on the competitive landscape and common sense. Lucky for them. And guess where the company is based? That's right - Harper Heartland. No coincidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With only five seats in the Province of Quebec (I love emphasizing that) why should they care? But nothing will happen during an election campaign. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if they exempt the LCC from the ACPPA.

Considering the LCC is apparently I only going to be owned 49 percent by Air Canada it shouldn't. Maybe that's why air Canada is only going to own 49 percent so it won't come under the ACPPA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting discussion in the following document:

Bill C17: An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act

Legislative Summary - 1 December 2011

1 BACKGROUND

Bill C-17: An Act to Amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act (short title: Air Canada and Its Associates Act) was introduced by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Honourable Denis Lebel, on 17 October 2011 and given first reading the same day. The bill's main components:

* extend the application of Parts IV, IX and X of the Official Languages Act to designated air carriers under contract with Air Canada;

* deem the articles of ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. to include provisions respecting the location of its head office and the right of persons to communicate with that corporation in either official language; and

* exempt Air Canada from the application of section 25 of the Official Languages Act with respect to air services provided or made available by air carriers with which it has only code-sharing arrangements.

Bill C-17 is the latest in a series of amending bills (C-47, C-29 and C-36) with the same title that died on the Order Paper at the end of the sessions in which they were tabled.

...

Finally, Bill C-17 has still not addressed the issue of the language of work of employees of Air Canada entities (Part V of the LLO), despite much criticism in recent years from the Commissioner of Official Languages and from parliamentary committees. In their tesitmony before the Senate Committee, Air Canada representatives said it would be inappropriate to impose obligations regarding lanugage of work on entities under contract with Air Canada. They believe that doing so would invovle significant costs and resources, and that the company could even run the risk of losing its contracts with those entities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the LCC is apparently I only going to be owned 49 percent by Air Canada it shouldn't. Maybe that's why air Canada is only going to own 49 percent so it won't come under the ACPPA?

Jazz is 0% owned by air canada and still has to abide by the restrictions so why would the LCC differ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If AC subcontracts a US regional, it would be interesting indeed. Most likely, an AC F/A will be placed on those flights to comply with the act.

IMHO

Interesting point but then there'd be a Canadian individual working on an American airline. Is that legal?

As I understand the OLA or ACPPA applying to other airlines; Jazz operates flights using the AC code. Any airline using the AC code must abide by the language laws. Since code-share flights don't actually use the AC code, they'd be exempt. AFAIK.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but code sharing and CPA ar two totally different beasts. CPA - One airline purchases a fixed number of seats on an aircraft. in Jazz case it is 100% . Those seats are sold with an AC Code. In a Code share each airline sells seats on a particular flight and each airline sells it under their own code. There is no maximum or minimum number of seats sold by either party. No expenses are incurred by the airline selling tickets on the code share partner with regards to the operation of the flight.

In a CPA there are pass through costs to the airline purchasing capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't that complicated. The Canadian government seeks to impose its will upon those that fall within its sphere of control. Canadian based company doing business with AC? You are subject to the ACPPA. Foreign company doing business with AC? You are OK. WestJet? You are OK :wub:

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...