Air Canada, ACPA, amend 10-year contract

[dagger]

Air Canada Concludes "Win-Win" Amendments to Long-Term Collective Agreement with Pilots

MONTREAL, Sept. 12, 2017 /CNW Telbec/ - Air Canada said today it has successfully concluded amendments to its existing long-term labour agreement with its 3,500 pilots represented by the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA).  The amendments to the ten-year agreement reached in October 2014 provide added commercial and operational flexibility as well as improved cost competitiveness while also providing attractive career growth opportunities and other advantages for its pilots. "These amendments recognize the valuable contribution of our pilots and provide additional flexibility and cost competitiveness that further strengthen Air Canada's ability to compete effectively in today's global competitive environment," said Benjamin Smith, President, Passenger Airlines at Air Canada.  "I thank our respective teams for their insights and productive discussions enabling us to 'Win as One Air Canada'."

[conehead]

More metal for Rouge?

[Vsplat]

More metal for Rouge, ya, among other things.  A lot of other things. 

We will have to wait for the actual wording to see how deep we got cut.   IMO, in many ways, this was a concessionary contract in a time of record profits. The level of fatigue among the mainline pilots will be worse.  Not like that has been a concern in our operation of late.....

You have to admire the company management team and its negotiators.  They knew their mark.

Vs

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

More metal for Rouge, ya, among other things.  A lot of other things. 

We will have to wait for the actual wording to see how deep we got cut.   IMO, in many ways, this was a concessionary contract in a time of record profits. The level of fatigue among the mainline pilots will be worse.  Not like that has been a concern in our operation of late.....

You have to admire the company management team and its negotiators.  They knew their mark.

Vs

Hmmm seems you think the ACPA group took a major hit.  If so, does the membership get to vote on it? On the other hand, maybe it will benefit all. (Only the shadow knows, at least for now  )

[Zan Vetter]

It was ratified today. 59.3% in favour, 91% participation. 

[flight-time]

46 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

You have to admire the company management team and its negotiators.  They knew their mark.

Admire?  I guess, in the same way that you might "admire" a hyena or a tapeworm; you know, some sort of scavenger or parasite.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Zan Vetter said:

It was ratified today. 59.3% in favour, 91% participation. 

Then I guess the masses (those interested) have spoken.  Those who didn't vote will now remain silent 

[FA@AC]

1 hour ago, Vsplat said:

The level of fatigue among the mainline pilots will be worse.

Why is that?  Concessions on duty limits, rest times, augmentation?

[dagger]

Since this was a no strike/no lockout reopener, there was no leverage for concessions from either side. Maybe someone can say what was given (if anything) and what was got?

 

[FA@AC]

39 minutes ago, dagger said:

Since this was a no strike/no lockout reopener, there was no leverage for concessions from either side. Maybe someone can say what was given (if anything) and what was got?

 

I'm curious too, but while leverage is maybe too strong a term, I think that both parties thought it wise to reach a negotiated agreement since an arbitrator might otherwise have imposed a settlement.  That's my (possibly incorrect) understanding of what the process was to be.

[Vsplat]

dagger, some will disagree, but from what I can tell the union created leverage - for the company.  They signaled there was one thing they wanted really badly, the company simply ratcheted up the price of said want.  There are gives in this contract that the union swore up and down would never be put on the table.

But, as I said, just my opinion.

As for details, honestly, the smoke and spin were so thick that i will hold off providing specifics, because so little was confirmed at time of voting that it was called a vote for an agreement in principle, not a tentative agreement, so the brass tacks lie ahead.

Vs

[FA@AC]

12 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

so little was confirmed at time of voting that it was called a vote for an agreement in principle, not a tentative agreement, so the brass tacks lie ahead.

Is the ratification binding as it would be were the deal called a tentative agreement?  Seems unusual to ratify in advance of the nailing down of a significant number of specifics.

[Vsplat]

I believe it is binding.  Judging from the press release, I think the company does too.

'Unusual' is just about the gentlest description I have read about the process today.  

In fairness, I am certain that there is a large portion of our membership that is relieved it passed (after all, they voted for it).  I can't tell you how sincerely I hope the yes voting block was right and all of the concerns over the process prove baseless.  We'll have to see.

Vs

[FA@AC]

Thanks for your insight Vsplat.

Good luck.

[Homerun]

The big ask by ACPA was improvements to the pathetic DC pension plan newhire pilots have been on since FOS arbitration.  AC tied any pension improvements to Rouge growth above 50 fins.

 

[rudder]

Is there anybody that believes that a deal supported by less than 60% of the membership is something that even should have been presented for ratification? What were the extraordinary circumstances? Where was the pressure? Who had the leverage? Who didn't?

Time to hire external auditors for an internal ACPA forensic review (again). Or perhaps just consider alternative representation.

AC has played ACPA like a fiddle. That seems to be a consistent theme.

[DEFCON]

It's not that ALPA isn't absent a pile of major shortcomings either. Afterall, Jazz fell into the same gutter.

 

[Zan Vetter]

Biggest bull market in pilot history continues unabated. 

 

[dagger]

Air Canada, pilots reach deal for more aircraft in low-cost Rouge unit

An Air Canada Rouge plane prepares for a flight to Las Vegas at Vancouver International Airport in Richmond, B.C., on Monday, April 28, 2014.

 

Air Canada has reached a deal with its pilots that will allow the airline to increase the number of aircraft operating in its low-cost Rouge unit.

Air Canada said in a news release that the Air Canada Pilots Association, which represents 3,500 pilots, agreed to amendments to the current 10-year labour deal that will allow the company to improve flexibility and lower costs.

"These amendments recognize the valuable contribution of our pilots and provide additional flexibility and cost competitiveness that further strengthen Air Canada's ability to compete effectively," Ben Smith, Air Canada's president of passenger airlines, said in a statement.

The agreement permits Air Canada to expand the number of narrow-bodied planes in the Rouge fleet as it expands its mainline fleet.

Under the initial agreement establishing Rouge as Air Canada's low-cost arm, Rouge was limited to a maximum of 50 planes. Air Canada is bumping up against that limit with the current Rouge fleet at 49.

The current Rouge fleet includes 25 Airbus narrow-body planes, while Air Canada's mainline fleet includes 75 narrow bodies in the Airbus A320 family.

Air Canada will begin taking delivery of 61 Boeing 737 Max narrow-bodied planes later this year.

Bombardier Inc. is scheduled to begin delivering 45 CS300 narrow bodies in 2019.

Mr. Smith said on the carrier's fourth-quarter financial results conference call earlier this year that the last plane was scheduled to be added to Rouge before the summer of 2018. He said on that call that Air Canada was in early discussions with its pilots about expanding Rouge.

"They have the capacity to fly some domestic routes, so maybe an expansion would them to fly–especially in the summer–routes that are more visiting friends and relatives type routes," said airline industry analyst Cameron Doerksen, who follows the company for National Bank.

The arrival of new Boeing 787 wide-bodied aircraft in recent years has fuelled an expansion of Air Canada's network, mainly to foreign markets.

Canada is in the midst of an air travel boom that may enable Air Canada to continue expanding and not retire older airplanes as the new narrow bodies arrived during the next several years.

The airline carried a record number of passengers in a single day earlier this year.

"Demand for air travel seems pretty strong right now, you just have to look at WestJet's traffic numbers yesterday: all-time record for the month of August," Mr. Doerksen said.

Kym Robertson, a spokeswoman for the Air Canada Pilots Association, said the amendments to the deal include a new pension plan for pilots hired after 2012 that is a multi-employer plan that improves on the existing defined contribution plan.

Pilots also won improvements in benefits, scheduling and working conditions, Ms. Robertson said.

"The improvements were achieved in part in exchange for allowing growth of the Air Canada Rouge narrow body fleet," she said.

Air Canada said on its second-quarter financial results conference call last month that traffic grew 13.6 per cent in the quarter, compared with a 13.5 per cent increase in capacity.

It also said that capacity growth will begin to slow.

The 10-year, no-strike deal that Air Canada signed with its pilots in 2014 was based in part on the airline growing, which would provide more opportunities for pilots to move up the ranks.

The carrier said it will deploy its new Boeing 737-800 planes next summer on Toronto-Shannon and Montreal-Dublin routes.

Rouge has generally displaced Air Canada mainline service on leisure routes, where travellers are most sensitive to price, including such flights as Vancouver-Honolulu, Calgary-Las Vegas and Toronto-Budapest.

But it also operates some domestic flights "and we have no restriction on deploying Rouge domestically if that's what we decide to do," Air Canada chief executive officer Calin Rovinescu said on the ocmpany's first-quarter conference call earlier this year.

 

 

 

[Vsplat]

This might look good in a press release, but the reality runs as follows:

Before Rouge, pilots on the narrow body bus and 767 had a mix of long haul, tiring but productive days and shorter days with shorter stage lengths and less productive.  When blocked together there was a chance to catch your breath from a steady diet of rapidairs or YYZ-LGA, say, and do something a bit longer.  Because the overall productivity was good,  the number of work days in a month allowed a break to recharge.

Now it is all one or all the other.  Long, single day Caribbean turns or many ocean crossings in a month at rouge, or week after week of high cycle days to try and get the hours out of non productive short legs. (mainline).  Both pilot groups, mainline and rouge, are a lot more tired than they would have been under the former schedule.

Add to that the disruptive effect of the scheduling 'flexibility'.  The ability to remove a pilot from their monthly schedule if the operation needs them to do other flying.  Not just their flight being disrupted, but as I read it (and other may correct me), if ANY flight in the system is off sked, the company can trigger the provision of 'protecting the operation'.

Speaking only for myself,  there are days I come to work thinking, OK, i didn't have the best sleep last night, but I'm good for the 5 hour flight I have today, plus a diversion if needed.  If I am now reassigned to Asia, how is that going to go? 

Is it a safety concern?  Time will tell. Like I said above, maybe this is all good and I've been given duff gen. 

Vs

[Seeker]

When I read these press releases I just shake my head.  Are we in some alternate universe were the laws of physics don't hold?  What kind of magic allows the company to reduce costs and increase flexibility while at the same time improving benefits, scheduling and working conditions for the pilots?  Here's a hint - it isn't possible.  Those things are in opposition to each other.  You cannot reduce costs and increase flexibility while improving scheduling and working conditions.

 

[DEFCON]

Over the years ACPA allowed CR to create and build a boutique of AC associated carriers. You can be sure all the leverage now rests in CR's hands and with so many new aircraft on the way, it seems obvious further allocation related contract adjustments will need to follow

.

 

[av8tor]

1 hour ago, Vsplat said:

This might look good in a press release, but the reality runs as follows:

Before Rouge, pilots on the narrow body bus and 767 had a mix of long haul, tiring but productive days and shorter days with shorter stage lengths and less productive.  When blocked together there was a chance to catch your breath from a steady diet of rapidairs or YYZ-LGA, say, and do something a bit longer.  Because the overall productivity was good,  the number of work days in a month allowed a break to recharge.

Now it is all one or all the other.  Long, single day Caribbean turns or many ocean crossings in a month at rouge, or week after week of high cycle days to try and get the hours out of non productive short legs. (mainline).  Both pilot groups, mainline and rouge, are a lot more tired than they would have been under the former schedule.

Add to that the disruptive effect of the scheduling 'flexibility'.  The ability to remove a pilot from their monthly schedule if the operation needs them to do other flying.  Not just their flight being disrupted, but as I read it (and other may correct me), if ANY flight in the system is off sked, the company can trigger the provision of 'protecting the operation'.

Speaking only for myself,  there are days I come to work thinking, OK, i didn't have the best sleep last night, but I'm good for the 5 hour flight I have today, plus a diversion if needed.  If I am now reassigned to Asia, how is that going to go? 

Is it a safety concern?  Time will tell. Like I said above, maybe this is all good and I've been given duff gen. 

Vs

Employers will push and push and push some more until one is willing to take a stand. If any pilot believes that fatigue will be a consequence of any given flight schedule then that pilot has a duty and obligation to ensure that he or she will remain in compliance with CAR 602.02

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/page-82.html#h-750

If, given the circumstances of any particular flight, he or she has reason to believe that they will not be in compliance with CAR 602.02 then they shouldn't do the flight. Particularly so because, safety aside, if something untoward does happen and it is found that fatigue was a factor then the pilot will carry the blame and the employer will be the first one to agree that the flight shouldn't have been flown by that particular pilot. You will be hung by your own "can do" petard. Will the employer be happy if you don't accept a flight because of CAR 602? No. Will the employer push back against your decision? Most likely. Possibly a "letter" on your file or a suspension or obligatory medical examination or any number of other things. And they will be doing such things not as a message to the "offender" but as a message to everyone else. Employers know that there's strength in numbers and it's in their best interest to cut the legs out from under an individual than it is to deal with the group as a whole.

Problem is, when it comes to fatigue, most pilots, as individuals, will avoid the grief of standing up for what is right and instead, do what is asked of them. Ninety-nine point nine per cent of the time everything works out but surprise, surprise, employers keep wanting more and more, all in the interests of "flexibility" and "protecting the operation". But remember this: if a pilot gets caught in a fatigue-related incident/accident - you're on your own and the employer will be the first one to pull the chair out from under you. And your "can do" attitude will count for squat.

 

[Guest]

From the outside looking in:

If this is so bad why would ACPA and their members 

Quote

 

It was ratified today. 59.3% in favour, 91% participation.

agree to it????  What was the big stick that prevented the membership from saying no?  On the other hand what was the carrot? 

[Trader]

13 hours ago, Vsplat said:

This might look good in a press release, but the reality runs as follows:

Before Rouge, pilots on the narrow body bus and 767 had a mix of long haul, tiring but productive days and shorter days with shorter stage lengths and less productive.  When blocked together there was a chance to catch your breath from a steady diet of rapidairs or YYZ-LGA, say, and do something a bit longer.  Because the overall productivity was good,  the number of work days in a month allowed a break to recharge.

Now it is all one or all the other.  Long, single day Caribbean turns or many ocean crossings in a month at rouge, or week after week of high cycle days to try and get the hours out of non productive short legs. (mainline).  Both pilot groups, mainline and rouge, are a lot more tired than they would have been under the former schedule.

Add to that the disruptive effect of the scheduling 'flexibility'.  The ability to remove a pilot from their monthly schedule if the operation needs them to do other flying.  Not just their flight being disrupted, but as I read it (and other may correct me), if ANY flight in the system is off sked, the company can trigger the provision of 'protecting the operation'.

Speaking only for myself,  there are days I come to work thinking, OK, i didn't have the best sleep last night, but I'm good for the 5 hour flight I have today, plus a diversion if needed.  If I am now reassigned to Asia, how is that going to go? 

Is it a safety concern?  Time will tell. Like I said above, maybe this is all good and I've been given duff gen. 

Vs

I would hope there are strict rules regarding 'flexibility'!!!!  Heard the exact same thing at Emirates and now we fly 95 plus hours per month and they squeeze in a few 'short' night turns between ULRs to make sure they get 'productivity' out of the pilots. Productivity, in the view of airline managers (at least in my opinion) is not only hours flown but days off - they hate seeing pilots getting more than 8 days off a month since other workers only get 8 days off a month. Combine that with Canada's complete lack of reasonable duty regs and your asking for it. Hopefully the union has it well thought out.