Unifor Positon on Passes

[Guest]

Do they really think AC will care?

Unifor 2002 Canada | e-news / e-nouvelle

Le message en français suit le texte en anglais

December 16, 2015 Air Canada, it’s beginning to look a lot like inequity

Unifor members are angry and upset as a result of the unequal boarding priority. We have heard from many of you, and we would like to thank everyone for their words of support and encouragement.

Ben Smith has agreed to meet but not until mid-January. Delaying discussions for this long is sending a clear message that this is not a priority issue for him. Meanwhile, our members get left behind.

Unifor members are the very people who see the boarding inequality of non-revenue passengers every day. Many are left behind as Pilots board with B1 passes and Flight Attendants with C1 passes.

Air Canada boasts about winning a Glassdoor Employee Choice award and being a top employer:

"Air Canada is very proud to be recognized by our own employees as one of the best places to work in Canada!"

"This endorsement from our employees follows our being named for a third consecutive year as one of Canada's Top 100 Companies... our focus on culture change and our employees is working..."

"The fact our employees feel valued is reflected in the extraordinary efforts they make every day to... deliver a level of service that has earned Air Canada the only Four Star rating among North American Carriers."

And yet, Unifor members aren’t feeling valued. Air Canada has chosen to divide its employees by giving preferential treatment to some groups. This division can only erode the culture of teamwork that the company had recognised as being a key component to their overall success. The message received by frontline employees, whose extraordinary efforts the company praises, is one of inequality and unfairness. Air Canada believes that some --- but not all --- successfully ratified agreements deserve special priority for travel passes.

Here's how you can help.

We need your support. Send a message to the company expressing your frustration and telling them they have created inequity and they need to fix this before it becomes a larger problem. Priority must be given to a meeting with Unifor leadership to bring equality to frontline workers whose efforts have equally contributed to the success of the airline.

Click the link below to send a clear message to Air Canada that preferential treatment for some is unfair and is counter-productive to the company’s "focus on employees." Our members are an integral part of the Air Canada operation and deserve respect and fair treatment.

Click here to send a letter to Air Canada

[Vsplat]

Well, rhetoric aside, it is as simple as this:

I don't get the same perqs as an executive. If I wanted their perqs I could simply train to meet the academic and experience requirements for the position, apply for the job, win the competition and show up for work every day to do it. But that's not really simple, is it? Would I pass the training? Pass the competition? Be any good at that job even if I got hired? Like the work? But, hey, I want the compensation and perqs anyway.

For every position, in EVERY work place, there are plusses and minuses. IMO, to expect all of the benefits of another position without all of the drawbacks and requirements is not reasonable.

As far as I understand, the rules of equality require equal compensation for work of equal value. We don't pay everyone in society the same because the jobs are different. So is this really about equality?

All just my opinion.

Vs

[Guest]

Vsplat: right on, there are always more "me too" than those who want to work hard or bargin for perks.

[acsidestick]

re;

Ben Smith has agreed to meet but not until mid-January. Delaying discussions for this long is sending a clear message that this is not a priority issue for him.

The pilots have had these passes since December 2014. Unifor's letter is dated December 2015. It seems not just Ben Smith considers it a non priority. Whatcha been doin all year Unifor?

Hey all you crabs, come on in, the waters fine.

[FA@AC]

The pilots have had these passes since December 2014. Unifor's letter is dated December 2015. It seems not just Ben Smith considers it a non priority. Whatcha been doin all year Unifor?

I think that the awarding of additional/improved travel privileges to a second unionised group (the FAs) is what has Unifor ticked off currently.

[UpperDeck]

Well...there's a subject upon which we can all disagree.

I suggest that you (collectively so far) are conflating a "travel benefit"---a privilege---with compensatory benefits. You agree to be paid $x./hr.; health benefits; pension---these are compensatory benefits negotiated on your behalf by a bargaining agent.

Within any particular unionized employee group employed by an airline, it is generally conceded that seniority is the governing principle that dictates access to position, equipment, base etc. Everyone lives (or dies) by the same sword.

The employer does not like the seniority system. Everyone and his brother knows that.

So----all airline employees have access to travel privileges (emphasis "privilege"); a "benefit" of employment within the industry regardless of whether one is a pilot CSA or baggage handler. Not everyone gets to enjoy that benefit, of course since the exercise of same requires that one has disposable cash. The highest paid unionized group---pilots---generally have greater means to utilize the benefit than rampies (for example).

And I pause to note that while many pilots consider unionization beneath them, calling it an "Association" doesn't alter its "nature and kind".

Given the above assumptions, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that no one employee group should be preferred over another in the assignment of "travel privileges"; for leisure travel, an employee should board SA based on his/her seniority; not by reason of function within the company.

At Canadian, for a brief period, one could purchase a "J" space available pass. It did not bestow priority but if you didn't buy access to "J", the aircraft could depart with you behind and empty "J" seats. There was relatively quick negative response from ALL employee groups because this policy favored the more affluent---you invest wisely or marry well and you get to fly up front without paying full freight.

I don't think there should be JSA passes; B-1's; C-1's---nada. Board SA from the front to the back based on seniority.

If you think your labors as a pilot or flight attendant or wheel chair pusher entitles you to "greater consideration" than other employee groups----then negotiate for more pay; test the market for your "worth".

Or---you can just continue to play into the company's hands and continue to hack away at union solidarity one small chink at a time. Pilots do it to other pilots; the flight attendants did it to each other (aka Burkett and the ignored CUPE airline policy); and, I am reasonably confident that in the short-sighted rush to squeeze out just a little more for "yourself", you'll continue to play; "I'm on board, Jack. Pull the ladder up!!"

[boestar]

This is exactly why, in the past, flight benefits were off the table for negotiation. there was a set policy that applied across the board. Every one was an equal when travelling on personal passes. (Business travel is different).

Now that this has become a negotiated "Benefit", the animosity begins. this will eventually lead to the erosion of what was once one of the best personal travel programs in the industry.

Once all this "me too" crap starts then we are seeing the beginning of the end.

[bluemic]

Sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree with these changes to the pass policy. The granting of B1 (pilots) and C1 (effays) passes is a slap in the face to all the other employee groups....and to the retirees.

Yes, in the past, changes/enhancements to the pass allocations have been granted for “above-and-beyond efforts, IROPS, etc” - usually on a “one-off” basis - and I don’t think anyone begrudges occasional perquisites such as those for specific services rendered. But generally speaking, the pass system used to treat all unionized and retired employees equally, i.e. ‘time in’ dictated your position in the queue.

Now we have a system where specific groups are singled out as being more worthy than other groups. Instant elevation to Prima-donna status in effect. Because now, a 35-year maintenance engineer will be left behind at the gate while a six month new-hire pilot/flight attendant gets the last seat(s). Has the mechanic’s contribution to the survival and success of the company been any less than theirs? Does a flight attendant do more for the operation than say, an agent? Or a scheduler? Are pilots more necessary to running an airline business than maintenance, baggage handlers and cleaners? (Belay that last question! We sign a document stating “T’is so!” when they pin on our wings and issue us the expanding hats.)

Imho, the company has discovered a gold-mine. After all, standby pass travel is pretty much a no-cost item for them - but it sure makes a nice trinket to toss on the table as it beguiles those on the other side. And in the “I’m thinking of only ME” attitude that’s hereditary in this industry, we marvel at the shiny bauble, scoop it up and proclaim, “SUCCESS!”

Meanwhile, the other trib...er, groups, mumble and grumble and scheme how to even the score when their turn comes up. (Those of us adrift on the ice are immune to such machinations as we’re merely along for the ride; we have no voice and anyway, no one listens to noises wafting across the frozen reaches.)

FWIW, I've written to the CEO and the VP Human Resources about this issue but I’m afraid that letters from retirees seem to fall on deaf ears. Oh, not that I haven’t had responses - polite ones for sure - but the responses are similar in thought to the letters sent to unsuccessful AC applicants.

Yet...in the spirit of Christmas wishes, genies-in-bottles and the Tooth Fairy, my fervent hope is that the other unions can convince those in charge of the divisiveness of this issue.

From the ice floes,

mic

[Vsplat]

Wow, UD. Maybe there are a few other issues coming through on your post.

Let's leave the caste overtone to another thread. I don't consider myself to be 'beneath' execs, any more than I consider myself to be 'above' another person, nor do I associate an employee group's perqs as some sort of reflection on my self worth. It is what it is.

Whether within the confines of a contract or other form of incentive, I think it is common practice for corporations to find meaningful ways to motive groups. If we try to level the table with a chainsaw, we are going to end up with a lot of sawdust and nothing to serve dinner on.

But that is just my opinion.

Vs

[moeman]

It's a slippery slope. Should Captains have a higher priority than FOs? What about relief pilots? Wide body pilots ahead of narrow? Service Directors higher than FAs? Should Leads get a higher priority? Concierges higher than other agents? Where does it stop? We're all employees of this company. I don't begrudge Management from having B passes, but Pilots are not our bosses (Yes, the Captain is "the boss" on his/her aircraft, but that's different) so I don't think they should have a higher priority than any other employee. I am not happy that my group got C-1 passes, either, FWIW.

My biggest peeve about all of this is how there are so many employees who seem to have a hate on for pilots these days because of it. I'm sure FAs will get the same looks of disgust from other employees when they use their new C-1s to bump someone senior to them. Personally, I don't harbour any ill will against the pilots or Management or whoever for using a perq they were granted. They're yours to use, so use them. If you want to be mad at someone about these passes, be angry with the people who granted them, not the recipients. If the company wants harmony among it's employees, this certainly isn't helping.

It's done. The grievances are in motion. Time will tell.

[UpperDeck]

Whether within the confines of a contract or other form of incentive, I think it is common practice for corporations to find meaningful ways to motive groups. If we try to level the table with a chainsaw, we are going to end up with a lot of sawdust and nothing to serve dinner on.

But that is just my opinion.

Vs

I take it you are opining that the use of travel pass priority to "reward" an employee group is an appropriate motivational tool. Without repeating myself, may I simply point out that Air Canada does not even attempt to suggest that was its purpose in bestowing the "gift".

Now, I may not be the brightest bulb on the street but I am sufficiently compos mentis to cynically assess the assertion that the B-1 pass (for example) was simply a "thank you" for a 10-year agreement. I have no hesitation however, disputing the suggestion that this was a calculated ploy to get more effort from pilots than might otherwise be expended by simple promises of access to more money and bigger and shinier equipment.

[Airband]

Changing pass priorities is a zero-sum game - somebody loses as much as someone else gains. I can't think of another wage or benefit area where this would be the case. A gift from the company to the pilots/FA's at no additional cost to the company, borne entirely by other employee groups.

[Guest]

Curious about how it is handled at WestJet where there is evidently no seniority. Is boarding done in order of booking or ?????

[QFE]

Seniority based doesn't cut it. Unlike agents, baggage handlers, F/As, etc.

a Pilot can't show up at 18 years old and get trained to do his job and be paid

while learning. Most spend 6 figures and many years before an airline will

even interview them.

[Guest]

Seniority based doesn't cut it. Unlike agents, baggage handlers, F/As, etc.

a Pilot can't show up at 18 years old and get trained to do his job and be paid

while learning. Most spend 6 figures and many years before an airline will

even interview them.

I guess I am missing your point, the compensation was always $$$$.

You also might like to take a look at the licensing requirements for the various categories of Mechanics. https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/maintenance-aarpb-general-general-2535.htm

As for the cost, the basic training comes in over $20,000.00

What qualifications do I need to enter the AME Diploma program?

You need the equivalent of a Manitoba Grade 12 High School diploma or equivalent and English proficiency; IELTS with a minimum overall band of 6.5.

How long is the program?

The program is typically 15 months long including a seven week summer break and various holidays. The duration may vary with start dates.

What do I receive upon graduation?

Graduates receive a Red River College diploma with a Transport Canada approval number diploma certifying that they have met the basic training requirements for an AME licence. As well, they receive a 19 month experience credit toward the 48 month experience requirement for the AME licence.

Are there any special program standards?

Students must maintain 95% attendance and marks over 70% to graduate with Transport Canada approved basic training and obtain the 19 month experience credit.

Students not maintaining attendance above 95% standard but attaining marks of 60% or more may receive a certificate of acceptable training. Acceptable training does not include the 19 month experience credit, and the graduate will have to write all of the Transport Canada technical exams to receive an AME licence.

What does the program cost?

Basic tuition fees are approximately $17,000.00 CAD with additional fees of $800.00 health insurance, $500.00 for books, and $500.00 to $2,000.00 for tools.http://www.rrc.ca/files/file/international/stevenson/AircraftMaintenanceEngineerFAQs.pdf

[Homerun]

Why is this issue even being discussed on this forum? It is not public business nor will any resolution or winner emerge from any discussion here.

[UpperDeck]

The only subjects that cannot tolerate light are those that thrive in darkness--and ignorance.

Unifor's position has been publicized. I can't imagine that anyone here has anything to fear from the passing interest in the subject (if any) of readers not within the "aviation family".

[Seeker]

The only subjects that cannot tolerate light are those that thrive in darkness--and ignorance.

Unifor's position has been publicized. I can't imagine that anyone here has anything to fear from the passing interest in the subject (if any) of readers not within the "aviation family".

There's no point in discussing this here. It won't be solved and no-one's mind will be changed by even the most eloquent keyboard.

[UpperDeck]

Seeker...is that a back-handed "one"?

But....isn't the point of these discussions to learn of the views of others and possibly...just possibly..be persuaded to re-consider our own opinions?

I understood that to be the perceived benefit of the lengthy exchanges on gun control and the battle against terrorism. I doubt anyone expected those exchanges to result in an epiphany in the hearts of legislators or jihadists.

[Airband]

There's no point in discussing this here. It won't be solved and no-one's mind will be changed by even the most eloquent keyboard.

Based on those criteria I guess we can close off these ones too:

"Culture Or Gun Driven Or Perhaps Culture And Gun Driven?"

"Time for a topic on What is going to help prevent Global Warming"

"Def. off topic but .... US Presidential Race will Effect Us"

"Post Election Topics"

[John S.]

. . .

I don't think there should be JSA passes; B-1's; C-1's---nada. Board SA from the front to the back based on seniority.

. . .

Simple. Easy. Quick. Fair.

Love it.

What could possibly be wrong with a priority system that lets ANYBODY make it to the top, wealth or rank possessing?

[Seeker]

Based on those criteria I guess we can close off these ones too:

"Culture Or Gun Driven Or Perhaps Culture And Gun Driven?"

"Time for a topic on What is going to help prevent Global Warming"

"Def. off topic but .... US Presidential Race will Effect Us"

"Post Election Topics"

Yeah, I know but in most of those threads the points and arguments being made do not have the same personal attachment that pass travel priorities have.

[Seeker]

Seeker...is that a back-handed "one"?

No, it wasn't.

[DEFCON]

QFE

I'm a pilot and so I think it's safe to assume we share similar sentiments on the issue.

Although the pilot won't likely be in a position to work for an air carrier until he's a bit older, when he does get there at the ripe age of about twenty-four, over the next four decades he can expect to watch all the other employee classifications fall far behind in the area of remuneration.

I don't know, but I've always favoured the system that places 'all employees' on equal footing seniority wise.

If I had a gripe that mattered, the passes wouldn't be subject to the collective bargaining process, management seniority would be considered on par with everyone else, something? would be done to address retiree seniority to provide an advantage to the working guy and pass travellers unaccompanied by the benefit holder should not carry said employee's seniority with them.

[Guest]

Defcon: why should not a retiree enjoy the seniority he/she earned when using passes? The old story about retiree's having all sorts of time to get there and back is no longer true when you look at todays loads and then of course the cost of being bumped and then having to pay for accommodation. Because travel is so difficult even with my seniority I most often purchase full revenue tickets on a carrier that will get me to my destination in time for what ever I have paid to do there.