Westjet Pilot T4, $315,000.....


Recommended Posts

DEFCON, all 3 factors contributed to C3's bankruptcy: merger, 9/11, and Tango. I know this for a fact because for instance Tango was selling Toronto -Montreal in the low 100s, and the day after Canada 3000's bankruptcy, they jacked up the price to over $800!! Predatory pricing targeting C3's routes and schedule. Royal purchase itself was ok because it combined forces with (eliminated) a major competitor, but due diligence perhaps was missing. Even though the price was only 84 millions, perhaps inherited too much debt? On the issue of the union though, it was clear that ALPA was no help to the pilots, even though the local groups at both camps worked hard, ALPA left as soon as C3 was no more!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Quote from Bean "Read the disclaimer at the bottom. Its basically a union advertorial. Most WJ'rs would read this and see the countless inaccuracies verging on lies and would have to ask if that is t

could get interesting.

If you approach a union as something you have to control, you'll get the union you deserve. If you approach it as something to collaborate with to ensure mutual gains and success, you'll get the union

MD2

Clearly, a number of factors added up to disaster for C3. Where might the Company be today had 911 not have happened and the purchase of Royal never been considered. Excepting 911, the drive to grow perpetually inspires executives and investors alike, but the strategy seems more likely than not to lead to a carrier's demise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So... June 16th has passed. Were WestJetters actually running to sign union cards or was this a last minute, hail mary union advertising campaign before the rule changes took effect?

I think they have entered the horse latitudes. Many people are relieved that the last minute run has subsided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

from the CBC story, Do it my way or else. I wonder how the WestJet Pilots feel about this type of intimidation? Could they take it as seeing how the future could unfold without a union? I know it would get my back up.

Both WestJet's chief executive, Gregg Saretsky and its founder and chairman Clive Beddoe sent company wide emails earlier this month imploring pilots and flight attendants to think hard before signing union cards.
Saretsky's email said that forming a union would not guarantee anything, including current wages and working conditions.
Link to post
Share on other sites

from the CBC story, Do it my way or else. I wonder how the WestJet Pilots feel about this type of intimidation? Could they take it as seeing how the future could unfold without a union? I know it would get my back up.

I think it's a dose of reality for some (and not speaking specifically of pilots and flight attendants, but the greater group of front line employees). I used to have very candid talks with WestJet employees who pondered the benefits of a union.

Lots of dreaming... "if we had a union, I bet we'd have a lot more 4x4's and shifts with weekends off"... coming from an IAM/CAW background at AC, I used to ask "what would you be willing to give up to get that?" That used to get a lot of confused looks. "What do you mean give up?" I'd explain that at AC, in order to get X, the IAM or CAW had to give up Y in the last contract negotiation. Hmmm... never thought about it that way!

Many at WS just assume they build off what they have and it's about adding benefits. The concept of give and take if unionized hasn't been fully considered by many from my experience. Some understand it, but there are many who do not understand the entire picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

from the CBC story, Do it my way or else. I wonder how the WestJet Pilots feel about this type of intimidation? Could they take it as seeing how the future could unfold without a union? I know it would get my back up.

So you are saying making a big decision like that should be based on getting your back up? A lot of bad decisions have been made by people from all walks of life because they "got their back up"

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying making a big decision like that should be based on getting your back up? A lot of bad decisions have been made by people from all walks of life because they "got their back up"

Also of course a lot of decisions have been made by people who read the handwriting on the wall or thought they did. What if there is no union and what if WestJet makes a unilateral decision to change to terms of what they offer the pilots ? With no union, any reaction would likely be not unanimous or effective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think that such unilateral decisions by management are reserved for non-union shops, then think again. Lots of employers in unionized places do it too, hoping to win the inevitable grievances / arbitration that will follow. There's no better example than our fearless leader.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear that WJ’s labour force doesn’t believe the in house one size fits all approach to unionism is of continuing benefit to them.

Then there's the issue of critical mass. WJ began with a crew of people that for the most part had never been members of unions like CALPA / ALPA, but as the company grew it inevitably attracted people away from employers with shops represented by those and other unions. It’s likely that most of WJ’s current technical staff were at one time, or another, union members.

After weighing the experience with both styles of representation, the masses who were never connected as so-called 'founders', are expressing their discomfort with the status quo. That the pilots want to unionize, but avoid the group approach, aka ALPA, says they respect the limitations of said group approach and would prefer to advance their agenda as a separate, but almost certainly, affiliated entity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think that such unilateral decisions by management are reserved for non-union shops, then think again. Lots of employers in unionized places do it too, hoping to win the inevitable grievances / arbitration that will follow. There's no better example than our fearless leader.

"Fearless Leader" Corporate or ?

But if contracts are broken, union agreements have some protection under law. Gentlemen agreements don't. By the by I never did like big unions (I was only in one for 7 of my 35 years at CP) but unions do serve to put the brakes on bad management and arbitrary contractual changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unions do serve a purpose. That purpose, however, has been perverted over the years into a give me everything or F@#$ you attitude.

Unions are supposed to work WITH the company to ensure the health of the company remains good and to ensure the health of the workforce also remains good.

Todays unions need to look at the big picture. Sure we can hand out a 10% increase across the board but in 6 months time you will all be earning less than 65% of your working wage on the Unemployment line.

A successful company SHOULD share in that success with the employees. After all it is the employees that built that success. That said, the share should leave enough in the coffers if things take a slide. Wanting it all and wanting it now does not help anyone.

With or without a union one cannot expect to get large increases or contract gains if the company itself is in financial trouble. Many times this is lost on the Union side. The LONG TERM health of the company ensure employment going forward. if that long term health fails then the employees lose union or not.

Personally over the last 30 years I have worked union and non union shops and always did better in better conditions in a Non Union shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fearless Leader" Corporate or ?

But if contracts are broken, union agreements have some protection under law. Gentlemen agreements don't. By the by I never did like big unions (I was only in one for 7 of my 35 years at CP) but unions do serve to put the brakes on bad management and arbitrary contractual changes.

Contracts written under both methods of union and non-union representative models are protected under the law by the same labour code. Airlines fall under the labour code as they are federally regulated.

The difference comes under the remedy which is sought under common law in the non-union environment or to the quasi judicial CIRB if you are certified. These agreements are signed contracts and not mere gentleman's agreements.

Link to post
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.