Air Transat Announcements

[Malcolm]

1 hour ago, J.O. said:

Putting replacement FA's into their program would take a lot more than just a snap of the finger. IOW, new legislation or not, it simply can't happen. No operator with a modicum of brain cells would think it was a good idea to put an entire crew of newbies on board their flights, and they don't have nearly enough managers on staff to take the lead FA role.

So they do indeed have leverage.  

[Malcolm]

Interesting pricing......

Can you fly round-trip from Toronto to Lisbon for as little as $2?

No, but it might seem like you could if it weren't for taxes, fees and other surcharges on an Air Transat booking that CBC Toronto reviewed for next month.

That's because the base fare for the trip is $2, but the carrier's air transportation charge is $600, and other taxes and fees bring the all-inclusive price up to $719.85.

A Greater Toronto Area travel agency flagged the toonie base fare after booking similar round-trip flights to the same destination for clients through Air Transat with a base fare of $3.50 and an all-in price of $723.59.

Jeff Verman, CEO of Plus Travel Group, said he believes airlines are dropping base fares and raising carrier surcharges to avoid paying commissions to travel agents.

"This is a deliberate move to pay us less," Verman said. "[Our] service fee alone does not make us profitable. Commission is what we need to be profitable each transaction."

Unlike many travel agencies, Verman's survived the COVID-19 pandemic. But he said his company is about half the size it was before — and it can't afford to be operating at a loss on bookings, like making a commission of 18 cents on a $3.50 base fare.

Travel agents get commission only on base fares, and with Air Transat, that commission is five per cent.

 

Jeff Verman, CEO of Plus Travel Group, says travel agencies have struggled since the COVID-19 pandemic, and he can't afford to be operating at a loss on bookings, like making a commission of 18 cents on a $3.50 base fare. (Craig Chivers/CBC)© Provided by cbc.ca

"It's insulting," he said. "It feels like cheating, that we're being cheated."

Verman said he doesn't see base fares quite this low every day, but he told CBC Toronto that his company regularly encounters base fares under $100. In most of those cases, he said, the vast majority of a consumer's total ticket price is made up of unexplained surcharges from the airline.

Air Transat in line with industry, airline says

CBC Toronto asked Air Transat how its base fares can be so low, what costs are covered by base fares and surcharges for a flight, and whether base fares are dropping to reduce the amount the airline pays in commission to travel agents.

In an emailed statement, a spokesperson didn't answer those questions but said Air Transat is in line with Canadian and global industry practices, including for its fare structure, and that it displays the total price of its flights.

On Tuesday, CBC Toronto looked at what it would cost for one passenger to fly round-trip between Toronto and Lisbon on Jan. 23, 2024, returning on Feb. 18, 2024, with Air Transat. This is the price breakdown provided for the flights. (airtransat.com)© Provided by cbc.ca

"It is well known that flight prices fluctuate based on supply and demand, and our valued partners and travel industry professionals ... understand the competitive and dynamic nature of pricing we provide," spokesperson Bernard Côté said. "This results in the best value and highest quality experience for our mutual customers."

But a travel industry expert said travel agencies "are getting squeezed" on base fare commissions because there are no regulations around what costs can be considered a surcharge, and airlines would prefer to issue tickets themselves.

"It's the Wild West when it comes to the surcharges," said John Gradek, a faculty lecturer and co-ordinator of the aviation management program at McGill University in Montreal.

"Surcharges are very much a tool that they're using to basically drive competitive behaviour, but also driving profitability on the route. [Airlines] would rather increase the surcharges rather than increase the base fare."

No financial impact on consumers: expert

Despite having an impact on commissions, Gradek said the shift in pricing from the base fare to surcharges doesn't change much for consumers because the Canadian Transportation Agency has required carriers to provide all-inclusive ticket prices since 2012.

"The bottom line is that you tell a customer what he or she's going to pay, and then the government says I don't really care how it's split up after that," he said.

But Verman said it should still matter how fares are split. "It's basically saying to consumers that you're flying for free, except for the taxes and surcharges etcetera," he said. "No one believes $3.50 is what the actual fare should be."

Verman has filed a complaint with the federal Competition Bureau over what he considers misleading pricing. The bureau acknowledged his report.

When it comes to commissions, Verman and another travel agency owner believe the issue could be partially resolved with a minimum commission fee per booking for travel agencies.

"If we're going to issue a ticket for the airline, we should be compensated for issuing that ticket," said Rocky Racco, owner of TTI Travel in Toronto.

Gradek said he thinks commissions are headed in the opposite direction.

"[Airlines] don't want to pay commission ... they don't want to pay incentives. They don't want to do it," he said. "They would much rather you booked directly with them."

[Kip Powick]

When it comes to commissions, Verman and another travel agency owner believe the issue could be partially resolved with a minimum commission fee per booking for travel agencies

And if they get a minimum comission  for each booking, I wonder who will be paying that ADDITIONAL buried fee.???....I'm just saying...

 

 

[Malcolm]

• 
   

Reuters

FollowAir Transat reaches agreement in principle with flight attendant union - Travelweek

Air Transat reaches tentative agreement with flight attendants' union

 

FILE PHOTO: An Airbus A330-200 aircraft of Air Transat airlines takes off in Colomiers near Toulouse, France, July 10, 2018. REUTERS/Regis Duvignau/File Photo© Thomson Reuters

By Allison Lampert and Rajesh Kumar Singh

(Reuters) - Canadian leisure carrier Air Transat said on Thursday it had reached an in-principle agreement with the union representing its flight attendants, averting a possible strike during the busy holiday travel season.

The deal to renew the Transat collective labor agreement, which is subject to a vote, comes as flight attendants at several U.S. carriers protest for better pay and work rules in their new contracts.

Transat's release said details of the agreement will be presented to members in the coming days. "Travelers can enjoy their travel plans with peace of mind," it said.

United Airlines flight attendants, who are demonstrating nationwide on Thursday, as well as their counterparts at other carriers, like Transat, are demanding an end to an industry practice of not paying for their time during boarding and waiting around the airport before and between flights. Currently, they are paid only for the period when the aircraft is in motion. Delta Air Lines is the only U.S. carrier that pays its flight attendants during boarding time. Earlier this month, flight attendants at Southwest Airlines voted down a tentative five-year contract deal that would have made them the highest paid cabin crews in the industry. The agreement, however, did not provide for boarding pay.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), who represent the 2,000 Transat workers, would not divulge details of the contract until they are discussed with members.

In late November, Transat flight attendants voted to authorize a mandate to strike, which would have become legal as of Jan. 3 under the Canadian Labor Code.

(Reporting by Allison Lampert in Montreal, Rajesh Kumar Singh in Chicago and Shivansh Tiwary in Bengaluru; Editing by Sriraj Kalluvila, Bill Berkrot and Sharon Singleton)

[Malcolm]

Canada's Air Transat flight attendants reject tentative labor deal - letter | Reuters

Reuters

Follow

Canada's Air Transat flight attendants reject tentative labor deal - letter

Story by Reuters  • 1h

(Reuters) -Flight attendants at Air Transat have voted to reject a new tentative contract with the Canadian leisure carrier, according to a letter from the union to cabin crew seen by Reuters on Tuesday.

More than 98% of the votes cast were against the agreement, as per the letter, posing a potential hurdle for the company as it looks to capitalize on a boom in air travel demand.

The airline last month reached a tentative agreement with the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which represents about 2,000 Transat workers.

The agreement offered pay increases of about 18% over five years, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Air Transat did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In late November, Transat flight attendants voted to authorize a mandate to strike, which would have become legal as of Jan. 3 under the Canadian Labor Code.

In the past two years, unions in the aerospace, construction, airline, and rail industries have advocated for higher wages and more benefits amid a tight labor market

Flight attendants are urging an end to the industry practice of not compensating them for the time spent during boarding and waiting at the airport before and between flights.

At present, flight attendants receive payment solely for the duration when the aircraft is in motion. Delta Air Lines is the only U.S. carrier that pays its flight attendants during boarding time.Thousands of flight attendants in the US and Canada are

Last month, flight attendants at Southwest Airlines voted against a five-year contract that would have made them the highest paid cabin crews in the industry, but did not include compensation for boarding time.

(Reporting by Shivansh Tiwary and Allison Lampert; Editing by Krishna Chandra Eluri and Sriraj Kalluvila)

[conehead]

45 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Flight attendants are urging an end to the industry practice of not compensating them for the time spent during boarding and waiting at the airport before and between flights.

At present, flight attendants receive payment solely for the duration when the aircraft is in motion.

Curious; do pilots recieve pay for some of this time that the F/A's are asking for?

[Kip Powick]

Pilots = Brakes released, (pushback),to Brakes set, ( arrive at Gate)

Not paid for waiting for next flight, flight planning, walk arounds ......always hourly pay for "bird" in motion.

[IFG]

4 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

Pilots = Brakes released, (pushback),to Brakes set, ( arrive at Gate)

Not paid for waiting for next flight, flight planning, walk arounds ......always hourly pay for "bird" in motion.

Although nominally paid by the flight-hour, most airline pilots working under a collective agreement do have provisions that mitigate, or at least address ground-time issues. The most common formulas will assess a pairing for flight time, or a factor of total on-duty time, total away-from-base time , or a minimum hrs/day. Most pilots will block out about 1000 credit-hrs/yr, majority will not actually fly 1000 hours.

There isn't a 1-size-fits-all solution, and provisions can be tweaked to fit usual operational considerations. Kind of surprised that F/A's would not have me-too'd those sorts of provisions long ago

Cheers, IFG - 

[conehead]

11 minutes ago, IFG said:

Kind of surprised that F/A's would not have me-too'd those sorts of provisions long ago

Cheers, IFG - 

Well, I guess that’s what they’re looking for.

[Malcolm]

Canada's Air Transat cabin crew members reject second labor deal

Story by Reuters • 1h

 

FILE PHOTO: FILE PHOTO: An Airbus A330-200 aircraft of Air Transat airlines takes off in Colomiers near Toulouse, France, July 10, 2018. REUTERS/Regis Duvignau/File Photo/File Photo© Thomson Reuters

By Shivansh Tiwary and Allison Lampert

(Reuters) -Air Transat flight attendants rejected a new tentative agreement with the Canadian leisure carrier, their union said on Thursday, as North American cabin crews are demanding steep pay gains at a time of strong travel demand.

About 82% of the votes cast opposed the new agreement, rejecting an Air Transat proposal for a second time, according to CUPE, the union representing 2,100 cabin crew members at the Montreal-based airline.

Unions in the aerospace, construction, airline and rail industries have pressed over the last two years for higher wages and more benefits amid a tight labor market.

Flight attendants at Alaska Airlines are voting through Feb. 13 on whether to give authorization for their union to strike for the first time in decades.

Transat flight attendants have voted in favor of renewing a strike mandate that had expired on Jan. 23. No strike or lockout notices have been issued yet by either party.

Montreal-based Transat said negotiations will resume in the next days and operations will continue as planned.

"We are disappointed it was rejected for a second time," said Julie Lamontagne, a Transat spokesperson. "We are returning to the bargaining table and our objective remains to find a mutually satisfactory agreement as soon as possible.”

Cabin crews at carriers in Canada and the United States are demanding to be paid for more of their hours at work - a fundamental change from how the industry currently compensates them by paying largely only when the aircraft is in motion.

Remuneration for hours worked on the ground before takeoff and after landing as well as the question of onboard staffing were the main sticking points, CUPE said.

Flight attendants at Southwest Airlines have approved a strike authorization after rejecting a tentative contract in November. An email seen in January by Reuters dismissed earlier plans to hold a new vote for that deal.

(Reporting by Shivansh Tiwary in Bengaluru and Allison Lampert in Montreal; Editing by Krishna Chandra Eluri and Mark Porter)

[Falken]

"Remuneration for hours worked on the ground before takeoff and after landing as well as the question of onboard staffing were the main sticking points, CUPE said."

What does this mean?

[conehead]

15 hours ago, Falken said:

"Remuneration for hours worked on the ground before takeoff and after landing as well as the question of onboard staffing were the main sticking points, CUPE said."

What does this mean?

Seems obvious to me… they want to be paid for some time period prior and after each flight, because that is time spent “working”. Currently that is unpaid time. Also, they want to staff some flights with more F/As than what they do now, which creates more F/A jobs. Anyone can correct me if I’m wrong..

[Falken]

I was wondering the type of work, or hours of it, that they actually do before takeoff and after landing?

[Malcolm]

checking the catering, checking the condition of the seating, checking for other supplies, boarding passengers, settling seating disputes etc.  ,  just a guess and I be some on on who are presently serving as a FA can add to the list.  

 

[Rich Pulman]

13 hours ago, conehead said:

Seems obvious to me… they want to be paid for some time period prior and after each flight, because that is time spent “working”. Currently that is unpaid time. Also, they want to staff some flights with more F/As than what they do now, which creates more F/A jobs. Anyone can correct me if I’m wrong..

They do get paid for that time. Their hourly rate reflects the time outside of block time. If they want the clock to start/stop at check-in/check-out, the hourly rate will need to be reduced accordingly. I.E. no change in net pay, just in how it is accounted for. And if all that non-chock-to-chock time is factored in, it will make short-haul flying more lucrative than long-haul flying which might have some unintended consequences.

[Falken]

They should also have to pay over $100,000 dollars to get their FA license with all the tests and medicals that follow it! 

[IFG]

20 hours ago, Rich Pulman said:

....Their hourly rate reflects the time outside of block time. If they want the clock to start/stop at check-in/check-out, the hourly rate will need to be reduced accordingly. I.E. no change in net pay, just in how it is accounted for ....

Seems to draw a pretty stiff negotiating line, Rich ! 

Seriously, your point is well taken (assuming your "net pay" reflects the economic value of any compensation settlement, regardless of structure). I think this sort of argument is made for (and by) people who don't understand how flight-crews work.

Credit systems seem complicated and arbitrary, but they are grounded in, and address simple everyday realities around flight time & duty time. They're also flexible for fit to specific needs at any particular shop. And they serve as much to equalize work terms for the employees as to hold the employers to some level.

IAC, a straight-up "they-make-me-work-for-nothing" argument is just not intellectually honest. The issue is whether at the end of the day, when your work's done, are you paid enough? 

Cheers, IFG - 

Edited February 4 by IFG

[Rich Pulman]

1 hour ago, IFG said:

IAC, a straight-up "they-make-me-work-for-nothing" argument is just not intellectually honest. The issue is whether at the end of the day, when your work's done, are you paid enough? 

Yes, that’s really my point. I’m all for “fair compensation” (whatever that means! ), but the claim that we (they) aren’t compensated when the wheels aren’t turning is false and it preys on those who don’t know any better by setting the bar much higher than will be possible to achieve. Which might have something to do with the failure to ratify in the above mentioned case.

[J.O.]

On 2/3/2024 at 5:22 PM, Rich Pulman said:

Yes, that’s really my point. I’m all for “fair compensation” (whatever that means! ), but the claim that we (they) aren’t compensated when the wheels aren’t turning is false and it preys on those who don’t know any better by setting the bar much higher than will be possible to achieve. Which might have something to do with the failure to ratify in the above mentioned case.

I had a similar conversation with a former colleague of ours and it's fair to say it wasn't well received. They were on the negotiating team and they should have known how it goes. I reminded them that whenever negotiations start, the company comes to the table with a given bucket of money and other than assuring the flights are crewed with qualified people, they don't much care how the union decides to divvy it up. But just because you decide on a different pay model that creates more payable hours doesn't automatically increase the capacity of the company's money bucket. It's like buying a pie. The buyer can decide how many slices they want to cut but the more cuts you make, the smaller the slice becomes for each person.

[boestar]

On 2/2/2024 at 5:22 PM, Falken said:

I was wondering the type of work, or hours of it, that they actually do before takeoff and after landing?

When you board the plane, Are there FA's there?  yes.  Not being paid.

When you get off the plane and here "buh bye" from an FA....Not getting paid.

When you are sitting in the lounge and waiting.  When do the FA's walk down the bridge onto the Aircraft? 30 min, 40 min?, and hour?  of course this depends on the flight and aircraft size but lets just say an hour for arguments sake.  They are not being paid.  Not until the door is closed.  Is this right?  Would you work for free?  I didn't think so.

How about after the flight when the cattle have left the plane and left their refuse behind all over the place?  They still have duties and are not being paid for it.

They Should be.

 

[Malcolm]

5 hours ago, boestar said:

When you board the plane, Are there FA's there?  yes.  Not being paid.

When you get off the plane and here "buh bye" from an FA....Not getting paid.

When you are sitting in the lounge and waiting.  When do the FA's walk down the bridge onto the Aircraft? 30 min, 40 min?, and hour?  of course this depends on the flight and aircraft size but lets just say an hour for arguments sake.  They are not being paid.  Not until the door is closed.  Is this right?  Would you work for free?  I didn't think so.

How about after the flight when the cattle have left the plane and left their refuse behind all over the place?  They still have duties and are not being paid for it.

They Should be.

 

I agree but does their basic compensation package provide for that? In other words would any change end in reducing their basic package or are they being sold on the idea that any compensation negotiated re wait time would be add on top of what they now get paid?

[Airband]

52 minutes ago, boestar said:

How about after the flight when the cattle have left the plane and left their refuse behind all over the place?  They still have duties and are not being paid for it.

They Should be.

Golly - they should get a union.

[Rich Pulman]

5 hours ago, boestar said:

When you board the plane, Are there FA's there?  yes.  Not being paid.

When you get off the plane and here "buh bye" from an FA....Not getting paid.

When you are sitting in the lounge and waiting.  When do the FA's walk down the bridge onto the Aircraft? 30 min, 40 min?, and hour?  of course this depends on the flight and aircraft size but lets just say an hour for arguments sake.  They are not being paid.  Not until the door is closed.  Is this right?  Would you work for free?  I didn't think so.

How about after the flight when the cattle have left the plane and left their refuse behind all over the place?  They still have duties and are not being paid for it.

They Should be.

 

Their hourly rate reflects their duties when the wheels aren’t turning. If they want to be “paid” from the time they show up for work until they leave the office, their hourly rate would be reduced accordingly. In other words, as JO has explained, their overall pay would not change, it would just be calculated differently. What’s happening is that the FAs are wanting to keep their current hourly rate and apply it to time “working” outside the chock-to-chock time. Someone has convinced them that they aren’t being paid during that time and they are doing their best to convince those who don’t know better of the same. 

[Seeker]

1 hour ago, Rich Pulman said:

Their hourly rate reflects their duties when the wheels aren’t turning. If they want to be “paid” from the time they show up for work until they leave the office, their hourly rate would be reduced accordingly. In other words, as JO has explained, their overall pay would not change, it would just be calculated differently. What’s happening is that the FAs are wanting to keep their current hourly rate and apply it to time “working” outside the chock-to-chock time. Someone has convinced them that they aren’t being paid during that time and they are doing their best to convince those who don’t know better of the same. 

I've been telling FAs this for a few decades - very few seem to understand.  Somehow they think they deserve to be paid  $40, $50 (whatever) dollars per for every hour at work.    Standing at the gate, waiting for aircraft to be towed over and one of them will pipe up - "we're not even getting paid for this!"

[IFG]

Question for any helpful soul - What are the CAR's duty time reg's for F/A's (if any?) A bit of searching is only yielding up "flight crew member" limits, defined as pilot or flight engineer, whereas F/A's are defined as "crew members". I haven't pored over CAR's for a few years, and the search functions don't seem to have improved any 

If F/A's are governed by annual flight time limits similar to pilots, then it is likely in their interest to base pay on flight time (at an appropriate rate to achieve a desired T4#), particularly where longer-haul flying is the norm, but better still with a super-imposed credit system to prevent abusively inefficient scheduling (& best with some sort of credit system).

Cheers, IFG -