ACPA - ALPA

[UpperDeck]

Turbofan..

 

Thank you for such a detailed response.

In my opinion....of very little value I confess.....people are pursuing hollow grails.

At the end of the day, if ACPA is de-certified and ALPA becomes the bargaining agent, the AC pilots are a "component" with local executives and a master council. 

The same people are going to seek election whether under ALPA or ACPA.

The same happened when CALPA was de-certified. There were new names at the beginning....trusted and known names....but within a relatively short time, the guys whose voices were heard in crew rooms were elected and resumed the norm.

 

Yes....you will have access to ALPA resources....but who will make the decision to access those resources? I suggest.....the very same people you have now!!

If you are unhappy....change your reps....emphasize the Wacon (sp?)....become more grass roots...let your voices be heard.

But...I don't think changing agents will make an ounce of difference.

 

Ok...I'll shut up now!!

[Kasey]

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/03/14/possible-air-canada-pilots-association-merger-with-air-line-pilots-association/?fbclid=IwAR2WuvaZiC8FlOTE_-yldNfx2awG6I80ku6hcj80s9yy4qCLutwwVBaovNs

[PinC]

How many months before we hear "wow this ALPA deal didn't do anything at all, same reps and same problems...and all of our increased dues are heading to the US"?

The unrealistic expectations that the Pilots-for-spare-change group have created are going to make it almost impossible for any MEC to negotiate and deliver a new Collective Agreement.

News flash, no one is getting 34% or 40% raises.

 

 

[Seeker]

17 hours ago, PinC said:

How many months before we hear "wow this ALPA deal didn't do anything at all, same reps and same problems...and all of our increased dues are heading to the US"?

The unrealistic expectations that the Pilots-for-spare-change group have created are going to make it almost impossible for any MEC to negotiate and deliver a new Collective Agreement.

News flash, no one is getting 34% or 40% raises.

 

 

The general sentiment, amongst the people I have asked, is that ALPA could not possibly do worse than ACPA has done and therefore it's worth the gamble.

[Turbofan]

On 3/16/2023 at 2:06 PM, PinC said:

The unrealistic expectations that the Pilots-for-spare-change group have created are going to make it almost impossible for any MEC to negotiate and deliver a new Collective Agreement.

News flash, no one is getting 34% or 40% raises.

 

 

One old fart to another old fart.

Your showing your bias wth your pilots for spare change put down.  Your also showing the attitude that has brought us to where we are today.

I was around 25 plus years ago.  I remember ACPA when it was a real union and not yellow.  I also know today we make 30-40% less than we did 20 years ago after inflation.  No other group, and I don’t just mean pilots, I mean society at large, has done this poorly.

Explain to me why 30-40% is not a good goal to set?  Has our value changed since 2003?  
 

If your trying to portray that 30-40% is the expectation day one of a new CBA.  Yeah.  No.  It is likely to be more than one contract period to correct this mess.  It took Delta pilots a decade.  We will be no different.

Goals are good though.  It prevents doing things that go against said goals.  Like 10% off for Cargo.  XX amount off for Rouge.  XX amount off for Relief Pilots.  XX amount off for FO’s.  None off those things brought us closer to our value 20 years ago.  What they did is incrementally increase the CCAA losses from 15% to todays 30-40%.

I think the young guns are on the right track.  I think we, as in our generation, lost the plot.

[Turbofan]

On 2/7/2023 at 6:40 PM, UpperDeck said:

Turbofan..

 

Thank you for such a detailed response.

In my opinion....of very little value I confess.....people are pursuing hollow grails.

At the end of the day, if ACPA is de-certified and ALPA becomes the bargaining agent, the AC pilots are a "component" with local executives and a master council. 

The same people are going to seek election whether under ALPA or ACPA.

The same happened when CALPA was de-certified. There were new names at the beginning....trusted and known names....but within a relatively short time, the guys whose voices were heard in crew rooms were elected and resumed the norm.

 

Yes....you will have access to ALPA resources....but who will make the decision to access those resources? I suggest.....the very same people you have now!!

If you are unhappy....change your reps....emphasize the Wacon (sp?)....become more grass roots...let your voices be heard.

But...I don't think changing agents will make an ounce of difference.

 

Ok...I'll shut up now!!

Upper deck,

You don’t need to shut up its a forum.  
 

Maybe a bit more history.
 

ACPA put a couple of nails in its coffin in 2011 when a concessionary MOA was signed and later forced on us through Final Offer Selection Arbitration.  The 10 year deal in 2014 put the final nails in ACPA’s coffin as it locked in the FOS arbitration and locked ACPA into cost neutral bargaining. This created two groups. Those hired pre FOS/ 10 year deal and those hired post FOS/ 10 year deal. Pre pilots got MPU increases until 2024, 5% raises for Captains and grandfathered pay rates. Post FOS pilots got four years flat pay doubled from 2.  30% pay cuts for RP’s, 10% cuts for FO’s, and no DB pension.  

This of course has led to massive dissatisfaction and resentment from post FOS hires, toward ACPA and the senior demographic, who they view sold them out.  One doesn’t need to be a brain surgeon to figure out that when this demographic had the numbers to seize control they would.  In fact it is precisely why the pre FOS pilots handed themselves 10 years worth of MPU’s in 2014.  They (we all) knew this would be the last.

In 2014 ACPA launched a governance review of the MOA/FOS debacle. The recommendations were watered down or not actioned.  The one thing that did come from this is a very top down corporate model of governance within ACPA.  It’s actually a bit eerie to go back and read that governance report.  It predicted very well what would happen if ACPA didn’t get its governance in order.

In 2012 we had about 2700 pre FOS pilots. Today we probably have around 2000.  But our ranks have swollen to around 4500.  Post FOS pilots now out number pre FOS pilots.

Those pilots by in large from ALPA carriers.  The current ACPA MEC, by in large, made up of former ALPA leadership.

If ACPA had been performing over the last decade this wouldn’t be happening.  But ACPA couldn’t perform because they had locked themselves into 10 years of cost neutral bargaining.  The kettle really boiled over when ACPA barely pushed through 10% pay cuts for a Cargo operation with 600 post FOS pilots on furlough and unable to vote. 
 

It’s too late.  The distain from the bottom half of the list is too strong. ACPA is done.  But again the final straw was likely 10 years ago.  It just took this long for demographics to catch up.

[UpperDeck]

Turbo.....

Understood but.....my "issue" is with culture ( obviously changing) and personnel ( always the same).

Years ago, I was in London at a time when within CUPE, the Flight attendants were dealing with the Cdn/AC merger. There was a ratified Airline Division merger policy. I spoke with the component president of Cdn and "suggested" (strongly) that they should initiate proceedings to compel CUPE to abide by the policy. He replied; "We've got it all under control". 

They agreed to a "no review" arbitration protocol and Brian Keller took a "Mitchnik" approach and there was no recourse. The top of the bell curve of Cdn flight attendants lost 9 years of seniority.

There is now an issue related to the use by AC of contingent travel passes for non-AC personnel. Complaint has been made to the union and their reply has been; "This was grieved and the adverse decision was judicially reviewed". Turns out that the issue was NOT grieved but in 2011, there was a bargaining proposal by CUPE regarding pass travel.....and it was withdrawn!!

And here's the rub.....many of the same people continue over the years to make the wrong decisions on behalf of the membership.

Note....1) am not a great fan of unions and, 2) Delta crew seem to have managed quite well with employee associations.

 

Finally....culture....Hollis Harris met regularly with Gary Dean and it seems that much was accomplished ( for good or bad) by relying on a personal relationship than on a union structure. I may be wrong but I don't think any union leaders have that kind of perspective and relationship any longer.

[Seeker]

1 hour ago, UpperDeck said:

 

Finally....culture....Hollis Harris met regularly with Gary Dean and it seems that much was accomplished ( for good or bad) by relying on a personal relationship than on a union structure. I may be wrong but I don't think any union leaders have that kind of perspective and relationship any longer.

How does that saying go?  The best system of government is a benevolent king and the worst is a malevolent one.

Same goes for corporations;. A generous and open CEO will generate productivity far beyond what he/she pays in dollars.

Of course they don't teach that in the MBA course and most CEOs will think it's a good idea to install time punch clocks for half a million dollars if they might save a hundred dollars on payroll.

IOW, union leaders do not have the ability to create a "good relationship" if the boss isn't interested.

 

[UpperDeck]

And, respectfully, I suggest that building a relationship takes time, commitment AND TRUST. Whether it be personal or employment-related; "It don't come easy".

At present, the company has not fostered an abiding relationship with its employees and there is a lack of trust. It is "whip-sawing" employee groups and the employees are tolerating those tactics.

So....speak loudly with a united voice ( a la Delta) or "reward" the company with internecine battles.

Or....foster and develop interpersonal relationships for mutual benefit.

Forgive me a moment's rambling. In the 80's, Air Ontario pilots went on strike ( 1986). They were joined by the flight attendants on the picket line....many in bathing suits. They socialized on layovers; worked as a team; and, most have maintained some contact because of the friendships formed.

My wife was a Cdn FA and I had the luxury of time to accompany her on many, many pairings. Cdn seemed to have a far greater respect for seniority than did AC, no doubt due to the mergers in its history. There also seemed to be a lot of respect...a sense of team...between cabin and flight crew. I became friendly with quite a few pilots over those few years and was often on the flight deck. Pairings were great fun and almost always included the pilots and attendants meeting in the lobby at 6:00 for a dinner outing.

And then merger and then financial woes and Sept. 11th.

And nothing seems the same. Some years ago ( post- merger) , I met two guys newly hired returning from sim training and....maybe mistaking me for a pilot.... They spoke of the "instructions" they had received on non-fraternization with cabin crew.

There's something wrong with that!! This is YOUR team. What "team captain" would tell some members of the team to sit on a different bench? You all know that so what was the source of the directive? One assumes HR....who know nothing about the importance of teamwork on an aircraft to enhance safety.

And sot it goes. Collectively, we are our own worst enemies.

Rant out!

[Kip Powick]

35 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

And nothing seems the same. Some years ago ( post- merger) , I met two guys newly hired returning from sim training and....maybe mistaking me for a pilot.... They spoke of the "instructions" they had received on non-fraternization with cabin crew.

There's something wrong with that!! This is YOUR team. What "team captain" would tell some members of the team to sit on a different bench? You all know that so what was the source of the directive? One assumes HR....who know nothing about the importance of teamwork on an aircraft to enhance safety.

Perhaps there is some validity to what you have posted, however, my two cents...how did two pilots returning from SIM get involved with discussing fraternization with cabin crew ........unless their instructor may have got "burned" by being up close and too personal with a member of the cabin crew and, as a result of his 'problem', issued "his" warning.

I think it is a mistake to "assume" it was HR, unless that is a new class for "new-hires".  ((I never met a HR employee in my entire carreer ))

 Personal  social paranoia  is everywhere now , perhaps because of the total access to the Internet and many of the social platforms people frequent.

Before I was punted through the goal posts, I flew with a fellow pilot who had what looked like a ball-point pen  but was an actual mini voice recorder.....He turned  it on everytime a female FA entered the cockpit......... why ??? I didn't ask.   

Best crew "teamwork" ??   WD and Canadian....

[FA@AC]

1 hour ago, UpperDeck said:

At present, the company has not fostered an abiding relationship with its employees and there is a lack of trust. It is "whip-sawing" employee groups and the employees are tolerating those tactics.

So....speak loudly with a united voice ( a la Delta) or "reward" the company with internecine battles.

The 10-year contracts (ACPA and CUPE) were supposedly a demonstration of trust from all sides.  The respective union leadership teams bought in.  The majority of the membership, at least at CUPE, did not despite narrow approval of the deal.  The reward for the company has been 10 years of labour peace.  What the reward for the union memberships was, I’m not sure.  In the case of CUPE, and from I gather in ACPA’s case too, there’s widespread dissatisfaction with how far behind our US counterparts we have fallen.  I don’t know the specifics of the ACPA contract, but wages at the FA group are nowhere near keeping up with inflation, and the company is resisting union efforts to have the contract’s COLA clause invoked.  There are many other gripes.  Some of them are valid in my view.  Others aren’t.

Negotiations for all groups will be interesting.  Back to work legislation (likely trotted out before any strike even starts, especially if there’s a Conservative government in power at the time) should ensure no work stoppages, but things are bound to be fractious.  

[Turbofan]

3 hours ago, FA@AC said:

My understanding is back to work legislation is no longer legal in an effort to prevent a strike from happening at all.  It is a constitutional right. It is why Doug Ford went the notwithstanding clause route as a work around.  Essential service designation is another risk.  However that risk can be mitigated by making a request for an essential service assessment in advance.  The WJ pilots have done this.

This doesn’t change the ability to legislate back to work after a strike is already in progress if the government deems its required.

Stepping in at 1 minute to midnight to prevent the strike from happening at all is not legal

[Turbofan]

https://www.flightglobal.com/strategy/air-canadas-pilots-vote-to-join-pilot-union-alpa/153085.article

[FA@AC]

4 hours ago, Turbofan said:

https://www.flightglobal.com/strategy/air-canadas-pilots-vote-to-join-pilot-union-alpa/153085.article

Well, that was decisive.  Were AC’s FAs to vote on joining, say, the AFA, I’m sure the results would be similar.

Although I might vote along the same lines myself, I’m not sure that I get it.  From the horrible events of 911 until recently, we in Canada held our own while our US counterparts saw their pension plans torched and their wages slashed to levels below ours.  ALPA represented most American pilots, and AFA represented most US FAs throughout this time.  Our American friends are now doing a lot better than we are in wages, but the lackluster Q1 results that the US carriers are showing might suggest that the huge wage increases they have negotiated aren’t sustainable over the long term.  US airline workers now do poorly in pension in comparison to us, but perhaps high wages are seen to offset that.  In working conditions, they (the American FAs—I’m not sure about Pilots) are less well off than we are.

All of this to say that market forces might have a lot to do with what can be negotiated.  More, that is, than the name of the union that holds the bargaining certificate for a given group.

[Seeker]

5 hours ago, FA@AC said:

 

Although I might vote along the same lines myself, I’m not sure that I get it.  From the horrible events of 911 until recently, we in Canada held our own while our US counterparts saw their pension plans torched and their wages slashed to levels below ours.  ALPA represented most American pilots, and AFA represented most US FAs throughout this time.  

I don't think which union represents the employee groups has anything at all to do with what happened to pensions - it's the laws that make the difference.  In the USA pensions are given much less protection in the event of financial problems at the company.

 

5 hours ago, FA@AC said:

Our American friends are now doing a lot better than we are in wages, but the lackluster Q1 results that the US carriers are showing might suggest that the huge wage increases they have negotiated aren’t sustainable over the long term.  

Sustainable?  The high price for jet fuel isn't sustainable but it just gets factored into the ticket price.  Same thing for employee wages (pilot, FA and other).  

I read somewhere else that a 25% raise for the pilots equates to about $1/flight hour.  So a Toronto Vancouver costs $305 vs $300.  Of course this depends on the route, the aircraft, etc but the point is that even a huge (and probably unrealistic) wage increase has a small effect on ticket prices.  With a more realistic increase of, say, 10% we're talking about pennies.

[Bobcaygeon]

3 hours ago, Seeker said:

I don't think which union represents the employee groups has anything at all to do with what happened to pensions - it's the laws that make the difference.  In the USA pensions are given much less protection in the event of financial problems at the company.

 

Sustainable?  The high price for jet fuel isn't sustainable but it just gets factored into the ticket price.  Same thing for employee wages (pilot, FA and other).  

I read somewhere else that a 25% raise for the pilots equates to about $1/flight hour.  So a Toronto Vancouver costs $305 vs $300.  Of course this depends on the route, the aircraft, etc but the point is that even a huge (and probably unrealistic) wage increase has a small effect on ticket prices.  With a more realistic increase of, say, 10% we're talking about pennies.

I wish it was that simple. The ripple effect causes every other employee group to demand larger pay raises as well. The recent PSAC TA will cost us taxpayers huge coin as it ripples through the federal, provincial, as municipal bureaucracy.  A $2500 "bonus" to cover the 8 days of lost pay during the strike removed all risk of walking the picket line next time. 

[Seeker]

1 hour ago, Bobcaygeon said:

I wish it was that simple. The ripple effect causes every other employee group to demand larger pay raises as well. The recent PSAC TA will cost us taxpayers huge coin as it ripples through the federal, provincial, as municipal bureaucracy.  

Sure but everyone is getting hit with inflation so what's the solution?  

[Turbofan]

On 5/1/2023 at 11:19 PM, FA@AC said:

Well, that was decisive.  Were AC’s FAs to vote on joining, say, the AFA, I’m sure the results would be similar.

Although I might vote along the same lines myself, I’m not sure that I get it.  From the horrible events of 911 until recently, we in Canada held our own while our US counterparts saw their pension plans torched and their wages slashed to levels below ours.  ALPA represented most American pilots, and AFA represented most US FAs throughout this time.  Our American friends are now doing a lot better than we are in wages, but the lackluster Q1 results that the US carriers are showing might suggest that the huge wage increases they have negotiated aren’t sustainable over the long term.  US airline workers now do poorly in pension in comparison to us, but perhaps high wages are seen to offset that.  In working conditions, they (the American FAs—I’m not sure about Pilots) are less well off than we are.

All of this to say that market forces might have a lot to do with what can be negotiated.  More, that is, than the name of the union that holds the bargaining certificate for a given group.

FA@AC,

I don’t think it was US wages that spurred the dumping of ACPA.  We certainly have been much closer to their wages in the past, but never that I recall at par after currency exchange.  Without exchange we were historically close.

What spurred the dumping of ACPA was that we are now 25-40% behind our pre CCAA wages when adjusted for inflation.  Actually some positions like 3-4 year flat pay over 100% behind. Yet we only took a 15% pay cut in CCAA.  How the heck did that happen you say?  It would need to be a book.

How have FA’s done?

Most unions try to claw back at least some of their CCAA losses once profitability returns.  Not us. ACPA leadership was not supportive in addressing it.  They resisted to the end.  Behaving like an extension of management rather than a union. In fact they kept bringing deals to us that included more pay cuts like cargo.  
 

12 years ago Air Canada pilot pay was in the top quartile of the North American industry.  Today we are in the bottom.  Today Air Canada enjoys a CASM that rivals low cost carriers like JetBlue and Southwest.

The ALPA vote was more like a performance review of the last 15 years as the bulk of the damage happened, not in CCAA, but rather post 2010.

 

 

[Turbofan]

On 5/2/2023 at 10:09 AM, Seeker said:

Sure but everyone is getting hit with inflation so what's the solution?  

The solution is reduced standards of living for Canadians who don’t have their wages keep up with inflation.

Or at least some people think that is the favourable solution.  Let’s face it PSAC didn’t even keep up with their losses to inflation. Their standard of living just got reduced and people still think they got too much.

Bobcaygeon is correct.  Wage increases keeping up with inflation can create a cycle of more inflation.  Let’s also not forget that when inflation goes up, someone in the supply chain somewhere is cashing in.  I don’t know if you were paying attention to Loblaws Q1 numbers yesterday.  They took the unusual step of outing Pepsi, and 2 other companies for their 16-10% hike in prices.

Lets pretend a box of Costco chicken goes from $30 to $45.  This is actually a fact.  Let’s say Costco targets a very reasonable 4% profit margin.  They aren’t gouging anyone.

However the dollar value profit on that sale of chicken just went from $1.20 a box to $1.80.  A 30% increase.

Naturally Costco would like to keep that increase for shareholders.  Naturally Costco employees will want Costco to share that increase with them.

But the BOC says.  No don’t share it with them.  You will cause more inflation.  I will have to raise rates higher.  

Let them raise rates and suppress inflation in a way that impacts everyone equally.  Not on the backs of the working class.  

Most of us have the luxury of making easy decisions when hit with inflation.  Go out for dinner less.  Put off buying that car.  Pair down the vacation.  Poor me. Exactly the behaviour the BOC is seeking.

Low income earners are putting most of their income into food and rent.  Which one do they pick to reduce as their buying power declines?

 

[FA@AC]

Hi Turbofan,

Thanks for your outline of the reasons for our pilots' dissatisfaction with ACPA.  I generally believe that the outcome of negotiations depends more on whom a membership elects to represent them and on economic conditions at the time of bargaining than on the name of the union that holds the bargaining certificate, but I see where you're coming from.

You asked about the FA group.  I don't have figures to compare pre-911 and/or pre-CCAA wage rates to current ones on an inflation adjusted basis, but our newest FAs sometimes barely make minimum wage which suggests that today's wage rates compare poorly.  The company's refusal to invoke the COLA clause in our contract for minimum wage earners while some of the senior executives who have responsibility for the appalling mess of last summer's operation accept generous increases to their own compensation hasn't helped morale.  The FA group would probably opt to leave CUPE (and go where, I'm not sure) if a vote on the subject was held.

I can compare AC FA wages to those of US carriers today, and they generally compare very poorly, particularly so for those at Rouge.  We at AC do better in pension, and for the most part we do better in working conditions (although substantially less well at Rouge) than our US counterparts.  Nonetheless in arbitration, should our next round of negotiations end up there, I think the comparators will be other carriers in Canada rather than those in the USA, and I expect the same will be the case for the Pilot group unless green cards become easier to get and AC starts losing pilots in droves.

  

[Turbofan]

3 hours ago, FA@AC said:

Nonetheless in arbitration, should our next round of negotiations end up there, I think the comparators will be other carriers in Canada rather than those in the USA, and I expect the same will be the case for the Pilot group unless green cards become easier to get and AC starts losing pilots in droves.

  

FA@AC,

The court rulings surrounding strike have been clarified.  We all have a right to strike.  There is a “ we can’t strike” hangover from 2012,  that is not based on the current rules of engagement.  Today is more like 1998 than 2012.

Air Canada did not meet the fleet guarantee within our contract.  Watch for the pilots to announce in the coming weeks that the 10 year framework is over and we are entering formal negotiations.  That will mean the B1 issue will disappear.  They will be removed on the spot most likely as they are tied to the framework.  Personally I couldn’t care less.  But I know it’s been an issue for others.

I suspect by this time next year we will also be on the verge of strike like WJ.  
 

The change in leadership.  The change in union.  The cancelling of the 10 year deal.  None of these things and there timing are a coincidence.

We have more pilots on DC pension than DB now.  The US pensions are vastly superior to our DC pensions.  Not even comparable.

 

 

 

[FA@AC]

I believe that we had the right to strike in 2012 as well.  In the case of the FA group, the government of the day trotted out some clause--I'm not sure whether it was from the labour code or elsewhere--that allowed the government to prohibit a strike if a strike would potentially damage the health and safety of Canadians, as, it was contended, an AC shutdown would do.  From the best of my recollection ACPA didn't get as far as calling a strike,  Rather, AC announced that it would lock ACPA out, upon which the government swooped in and prohibited the lockout.  It was obvious that it had all been choreographed between AC management and government.  You're more savvy on the current law than I am, but even if courts had clarified our respective rights to strikes before AC announced its lockout of ACPA or CUPE announced its intention to strike AC, could not the same the same scenarios have played out?  I guess the WestJet situation will be the test case if the parties don't reach agreement before the strike deadline.  I'm skeptical that a government that has been so heavily criticized (and rightly)) for allowing the industry to descend into chaos since travel restrictions were lifted will tolerate a WestJet shutdown if it can find any mechanism at all for kiboshing it or ending a strike 10 minutes after it starts.  Things bode well for labour if I'm incorrect.

Interesting times.

Edited May 6, 2023 by FA@AC

[Turbofan]

FA@AC

What you are recollecting is all correct.  But what happened in 2012 was deemed unconstitutional.  Harper operated in the same fashion to many other groups as well.  Those other groups challenged and won.  Yeah not CUPE, ACPA or the IAMAW. It’s why Doug Ford tried to use the notwithstanding clause as an attempted work around.  Back to work legislation is unconstitutional.  He has tried wage cap legislation that has failed on constitutional grounds as well.

Westjet will be able to strike.  It’s the law.  But the mere fact that they can actually strike, probably reduces the likelihood of said strike.
 

Of course I’m not naive enough to say it can’t happen.  Doug Ford has attempted to do an end run on the rules more than once. Fortunately the unions he attempted it on fought back.  We will need to be prepared to defend our rights this time.
 

 

[FA@AC]

On 5/5/2023 at 11:45 PM, Turbofan said:

Air Canada did not meet the fleet guarantee within our contract.  Watch for the pilots to announce in the coming weeks that the 10 year framework is over and we are entering formal negotiations.

 

 

 

As you were saying.......

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-air-canada-pilots-pressing-for-historic-gains-say-full-bargaining/?fbclid=IwAR11Y3enA1YHqgEpviA75juo8oHElCxcLiNTZkYEal8N5kK-JtjV53klBEI

[Turbofan]

I don’t think it has hit the press.  WJ tried to play the essential service card this week with the CIRB and came away with nothing.

In 2012 you will recall the Harper government had back to work legislation waiting and ready to go.  Once one side gave 72 hours notice the Government immediately introduced  that legislation to have it passed within the 72 hour window.

If Westjet or ALPA give 72 hours notice and the government does nothing?  
This is not 2012.