Thoughts on concessions

[Guest Pat Reid]

AC is asking for productivity improvements.

Here's some of my thoughts on the issue.

The setting up of Tech Ops and Cargo as separate units has been in the works for a while, both are posting profits. The standing joke in Cargo is that "imagine how much more we could make if it wasn't so screwed up here"

There are many oppurtunities there, but a reluctance from management to take the lead.

I'm sure the story is similiar in Tech Ops.

As for the setting up of "Ground Handling" as a separate unit, here are my thoughts based solely on a YYZ perspective. The GTAA has made it known that they want to control all ground handling at YYZ. The largest operator is AC. If AC spins off Ground Handling as a unit, and offers GTAA 49% share, GTAA has no training costs, equipment costs, etc. There would need to be work rule changes, in order to make it economically feasible to both sides.

Just a thought that has been rattling around in my head for a bit.

PR

[Guest JW]

My concerns with concessions are numerous, but overriding is the survival of AC as an entity. More specifically, my personal concern - maybe greed, but certainly self-interest - is with regard to my pension, at about 25 years of service.

It's been shown that historically wage concessions don't work. CDN was a prime example. If management continues with not stemming the losses the concessions mean nothing in the end.

AC has a major problem with the constraints of the Government, the Competition Bureau, and the ACPPAct. The unions constrain AC greatly, too. CCAA is not the "out" as Chapter 11 is in the USA. Possibly the CIRB can intervene under extraordinary circumstances, but I've failed to see that available, unless someone can point that aspect out to me.

ACPA has historically been faced with contract negotiation not only for the pilots, but also for every other branch of the unionized work force at the airline demanding "me too" clauses to match. This has made gains specific to the pilots somewhat more difficult in some areas.

Now, if the 'up-turn' negotiations include an implied or de facto "me too" clause, are the other unions of the airline willing to take the 'downturn' application in stride also? If ACPA gives it up in concessions, are all the other unions as willing to give up percentage wise too?

Bottomline, a wage or WAWCON moratorium or freeze is probably required. Certainly a different way of doing things must be considered vs. looking for a new job somewhere else. Concessions may be required. Things have to change. The AC style and probably the union style are anachronisms.

But there are two sides to this. If management throws up their hands saying - it's up to the unions - AC truly is done for as a viable entity.

The major concern for survival is that AC stops the bleeding. If the hole(s) is/are not plugged, the leaking continues despite any amount of concessions on the part of the employees.

As employees, we see fantastic waste all the time, but management appears to want to continue on their own merry, top-down-style, way of doing things despite employee input.

We just had the flight attendants attend a three day session to train them how to serve! This included many junior flight attendants that will never be able to hold overseas flying anyway. No matter how this is explained to me, I can not understand the rationale for that expedenditure - even when things were rolling along much better than current times.

AC MUST learn some lessons from Continental, Canadi>n and many other companies that have come to the brink. The knife must be sharp. Cuts must be made. Fundamental changes in the way of doing things must change.

[Guest flyersclub]

you're wrong on one acct., wage cuts at cdn allowed the company time to restructure their debt and find a buyer ... hence all unionized employees kept their jobs. if employees had not given wage concessions, the company might have failed before ac bought it and everyone would have been out on the street. everything helps when things are bad.

[Guest Starman]

"As employees, we see fantastic waste all the time, but management appears to want to continue on their own merry, top-down-style, way of doing things despite employee input."

You hit the nail right on the head there, JW. We need higher productivity, better aircraft utilization, and increased yield to bridge the gap between revenue and costs. We can increase revenue and decrease cost per seat mile by adding flying as we increase the productivity of our contract. This is a better option by far for everyone than cutting take home pay.

[Stickle]

Being an ex-CDN employee I don't think that this was necessarily the best outcome. They tried to survive on pure wage cuts and didn't do a great deal of work with the organized groups on productivity gains.

Had CDN failed there would still be employment for a great many of us that worked there but we would have been starting over. I certainly don't feel that we were owed anything by AC but am very grateful for what I ended up with.

I'm convinced that we will end up with some sore of salary cut but I want to see that compny has done all else to reduce costs. As Robert said in one of his earlier releases to the employees, "There are no sacred cows". In actual fact there are many and senior management doesn't seem inclined to address them for some reason. This initiative to save the company has to be "top-down" process.

If they have done some of this I would urge Robert to get them out to the employees so they can guage for themselves the progress the company is making.

[Guest GDR]

I think that it is important that we realize that what we are largely being asked to do is buy the company time, by taking a temporary pay cut, in order that hopefully all of us, (from Milton on down), can adjust and implement the some of the very things you talked about.

One thing I'd disagree with though is the idea of getting our yields up. We may be able to increase revenue by doing more flying, but at least domestically, yields are down to stay.

One other quick point is that when you talk about aircraft procductivity. With the number of aircraft that we now have leased on a power by the hour basis aircraft productivity is not the big item that it has always been in the past.

Greg Robinson

[Guest Dick Dastardly]

Although I feel that some sort of pay cuts are inevitable, I don't think that we should vote in favour of them without numerous changes in the way we do business. Our policy on line checks and the checking dept. in general, is a perfect example.

[Guest Sam of Old]

Now AC has to do what CDN did not do, cut down on the numbers. Your point only supports the argument that the wage concesssions did nothing but prolong the problem. CDN had too many employees and it appears now that AC is in the same boat.

[Guest GDR]

Either cut down on numbers, or increase the work. The likely solution, is a combination of both.

[Kip Powick]

A simplistic view... CDN cut everything to the bone and had a slick operation, very efficient on the flight ops side ...but one of the major reasons for failure was that, in my opinion,....Canada could not/can not sustain two major airlines in all market areas whether it be at home or abroad.

In this day and age the mighty Low Cost seems to be in style.....well that is how the market goes and if one's organization does have the fluidity to go with the flow....well so long...goodbye. Sure, there will be Low Cost, perhaps 2 or 3, in the big picture but I really don't think you will ever see two major airlines in Canada going head to head in all markets.

If I was still in, (AC), I would be advocating wage cuts, with a "snap back" clause in the negotiations. Cuts will allow AC to restructure and if you are not an advocate of wage cuts...read further.

I well remember a fairly senior F/A on one of our flights that came out with the most prepostorous statements I have ever heard as we at CP approached the brink of doom in the mid ninetys,.....

"I would rather stand in the unemployment line than give a nickel of my wages to this company."

We all gave and we soldiered on for another 5 years, and by God, morale was pretty high for the most part.

If your mindset is a close parallel to that CP F/A then I want to wish you luck. If any employee of AC thinks they are going to maintain the status quo, whether it be wages , working conditions, or benefits, you are sadly mistaken. Time to get a grip on reality, bite the bullet and ask yourself;

"Knowing I have to give something up, perhaps it is time to start seriously thinking about restructuring my own life."

Literally thousands of airline employees are living on a lot less than many of the AC employees make, so it is time to tighten the belt. Please no........ "oh yeah, you want to lower the bar", crap. No ....that is not the case at all....I would just like some folks to face reality.......NOTHING is going to stay the same, all the wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rhetoric is not going to change that fact..

Just my opinion from away out here.

[sustainable]

What is goo-age anyway?

[Guest Sam of Old]

I'm guessing that there is some industry acceptable ratio for employees to passenger revenue miles, and I'll go out on a limb and suggest that AC is way over that number, especially after buying CDN.

[Guest GDR]

Absolutely, but as I said one of the ways of remedying that is to increase RPMs. Hopefully the emphasis will be on that rather than reducing employees which is what MIlton seemed to indicate in his Feb 6 memo to employees.

[Guest Lupin]

We all will be subjected to concessions this week.Its a touchy subject as too how much to cut and where....

We all know Air Canada to be managed in a far too conservative manner. With every manager afraid to take important decisions its no wonder we are where we are.The spliting of all the business units should make us more aware of our costs and what has to go.

As for cuts and concessions,lets not let Air Canada lower the standard for the whole industry!!I am an Aircraft Maintenance Technician and i shure don't think I am over paid.A plumber makes roughly the same money I make with alot less responsability!The markets seem to pay roughly the same in our field of work, with Sky Service and Transat giving wages which are on par with Air Canada (without a pension plan I think) And WestJet's profit sharing resulting in their mechanics making roughly the same as An Air Canada technician.

If Air Canada wants cuts because its competitors are getting the work done for cheaper lets ask to bring salaries to the market rate.... then we will cut in the right areas and not penalise everyone for a few groups inflated salaries!!

[Guest]

Greg, there is no such thing as a temporary cut, once you roll back wages, those funds that you would have had are gone forever, the company is not going to reinstate your wage scale retroactive to the time it was cut.
I do like JW thinking, I myself have said this before, if Milton wants cuts (not just monetary) then start at the top and work your way down.If Milton truely cares about this airline, he will take a serious pay cut as will his executives and he will also recind all bonus pay as well as stock options, he will also cut a large number of these executives and middle management. Until such time do not even think about coming to the staff for help, lead by example!!

[Guest]

If you do cut the numbers the work load should increase

[Guest GDR]

My understanding is that they want to roll back salaries for a 3 month period.

[Guest George]

It's been shown that historically wage concessions don't work. CDN was a prime example

I'm surprised that you and many others make this superficial arguement. The CDN example? Well they lasted 5 or 7 years longer(possibly) than if they didn't make concessions. They were bought, didn't miss a paycheck, on average had large double digit pay increases with corresponding pension increases etc etc etc.....

How was this a failure? Because CAI was bought???

Given that you can't tell me what would have happened had they not given concessions, I think you had better give some facts to back up your sweeping statement.

Should unions, based on history, just say "no"? I have yet to hear of or see an example where that line of thinking "worked" as opposed to the concessions of CAI "failed".

So how about it. Stand up and say no concessions, no layoffs for ACPA, CAW and CUPE??? Then everyone can collect their $400 a week in the EI line.

AC has two problems, short term and long term.

Will concessions completely solve the long term AC problem????
NO

Will they allow the company time to solve the longterm issues? Well, I'll bet you a few bucks that its a better solution than a historically unquantifiable, superficial premise that concessions don't work.

If you have 25 years of pension time at AC, I'd suggest that one should be a little less dogmatic and a lot more lateral in your thinking (not just JW but all AC employees)

Should management should lead the way? If RM decreed that management take a 25% paycut, would you all line up and follow suit?

But I think that RM, CR, RG etc will have no trouble finding jobs in the outside world, I think the rank and file will be more than a little worse off.

IMHO GG

[zipped]

Greg,

I think you have done some serious thinking about the AC situation and want to appear to be compassionate about the Commpany. Thats okay. I think with a year or so to go for you that not much is going to affect your pension or working conditions. I tend to agree more with Roberts posting above or below. This company has been in denial for way too long. We all know change must take place. The problem RM faces cannot be solved without some major changes in management. So I say let them make the changes and show some leadership first. We don't run the company. RM does.

[Guest GDR]

Hi Zipped

It actually can have a large affect on my pension, but that isn't the point. It's not about me and it's not about you. It's about doing what is best for every employee in the company.


I tend to think that if we are going to look at what we can do as pilots to help solve the problem and take a leap of faith that the others are going to do their part as well, whether it be management or other unions.

In the end if we don't all work together on this issue it will be settled by the courts and the creditors. If we wind up being the only union that does take positive action we will have lost very little. If us taking positive action leads to others doing the same we stand to win a great deal.

We should IMHO worry about what we should do. What others do is up to them and hopefully they will play their part as well.

Greg

[Guest neo]

...is that usually involves both parties to the relationship. In addition to that, it usually involves one or both parties pointing the finger at the other and saying, "You change first, then I'll think about it." And when you suggest to the fingerpointers that perhaps the denial is shared, the answer is invariably, "Uh uh, it's not me, it's him. He's the one who's responsible."

And round, and round, and round it goes.

There is only one reliable way out of a state of denial, regardless of who is at fault: that is to change what you're doing yourself. In doing so, you change the dynamic under which the relationship operates. It thereby forces the other to change, or lose the relationship.

Attempting to force the other to change by assigning him the responsibility is futile. You're in the predicament precisely because the other doesn't feel responsible, or refuses to accept it. Take the responsibility for change on yourself, and reap the rewards.

neo

[Guest]

Neo,
I partially agree with you, yes there is always the finger pointing.
In the 2 ecades that I have been in this company, I have taken a few rounds of concessions, but in almost all occasions, management has alwys taken care of themselves at the expense of unionized employees, well it it time for management to make the first move, AC is more top heavy than it has ever been, it is almost as if the pyramid has been inverted.

[Guest George]

Well said.

I am getting tired of this pathetic whinning and whinging that "when management does this..."

You and I can only change ourselves. If you are an ACPA member, well you can only really change ACPA's actions. Not CUPE, not CAW, not IAM, and not management.

I wish people would grow up, and stop the childish behavior. If you think your job is worth keeping then start thinking and start the dialogue with management. On the other hand if you think you'd rather try out the EI line up and start over again at 35, 40, 45, 50 or whatever, just tell your union leadership that they should demand that management start first, that we will not change one i or t in the current CA. See how far that goes...

[Guest]

Greg, this is what the company wants from the IAM members, these are not temporary, these are to be permanent, while I agree with a few items, the rest is a virtual raping, sans vasaline!

AIR CANADA MEMBERS
Technical, Maintenance and Operational Support

Bargaining Unit
NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE


Dear Members,



On March 10, 2003, Air Canada presented us with a revised agenda for the current round of negotiations.? This agenda is currently in the hands of our legal counsel who are assessing the legality of the timing of adding new items to our current agendas.? Our approach to future discussions will be guided by this legal advice.



Our financial analysts are in Montreal this week starting the process of reviewing the Company?s books and business plans.? We feel this assessment is key in determining the strategy that best serves your interests.



The attached document contains the remaining open items from the Company?s current agenda, items from that agenda which had been previously closed or withdrawn that they are now considering open, as well as the new items put forward on March 10, 2003.? These collectively form what the Company considers their new agenda.



The Company?s new agenda contains major concessionary demands designed to achieve potential savings of approximately $208 million per year.? As you can see, these items represent radical changes to our wage, benefits and working conditions.



Your committee remains committed to protect your wage, benefits and working conditions as well as your long-term job security in the best manner possible.? We will be using all the resources at our disposal in this matter.



In Solidarity,



Jim Coller, President,

Negotiations Committee



BULLETIN NO. 26? - ISSUED MARCH 11, 2003
PLEASE COPY, POST AND CIRCULATE


R E V I S E D? A G E N D A?? I T E M S



???

ITEM M1:

(Open)
Amend Article 1.02 to include a reference to the nine (9) objectives established between the IAMAW and Air Canada in conjunction with the High Performance Work Organization initiative.




ITEM M5:

????? (Open)
Amend Article 4.02 Category 34 and its associated classifications to reflect a change in the role and responsibilities of the Building Attendant.




ITEM M6:

(Open)
Amend Article 4.02 Category 6 and Article 4.03.04 to change from Shop Inspector to Process Auditor-Shop.




ITEM M7:

(Open)
Discuss the handling/monitoring/disposal of chemical/hazardous waste.






ITEM M8:

(Open)


Discuss the amalgamation of the Cabin Servicing & Cleaning Attendant classification and Category 33 ? Aircraft Cleaning into one category in Air Canada Technical Services (ACTS) of the Collective Agreement. In addition, discuss the introduction of part-time employment.




Explanation: See M73




ITEM M11:

(Closed)

Re-open
Discuss the Company?s intention as it pertains to the present categories and classifications system.




Explanation: This involves a company request to merge or eliminate categories wherever practical to provide greater flexibility in the workplace.? Which categories this may involve has not been identified as of yet.



ITEM M13:

(Open)
Introduce a new classification of Customer Service Agent ? Part-Time, and amend the Collective Agreement accordingly.






ITEM M15:

(Open)

Refer to M52
Delete the reference to ?Irregular Shift? premiums as referred to in Articles 5.08, 5.09, 7.04, 7.05, 9.04 and 9.05 and amend shift premiums to hours worked.






ITEM M23:

(Open)

Refer to M56
Amend Article 10.02.01 a) to reflect double time basis, for those hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours and amend Article 10.02.01 d) to reflect on a double time basis, for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12).




ITEM M24:

(Closed)

Re-open
Amend Article 10.02.07.07 to provide for a process, which does not provide for pay credits for time not worked.




Explanation: This item would see the elimination of the paid overtime bypass.?





??????????????????????? ?/2



Page 2




ITEM M25:

(Closed)

Re-open
Discuss Article 10.03 - Company Sick Leave Policy.




Explanation: The Company wishes to re-open this item.? The last explanation we heard before this item was removed from the original agenda was to increase the waiting time from 90 days to one year before one would be entitled to full payment of benefits. More than one illness in a year would result in the loss of the first 1-3 days of pay depending on your length of service.







ITEM M29:

(Open)
Discuss Article 13 ? Vacations.




Explanation: This proposal would provide for a system in which vacation is taken in the year it is earned.



ITEM M31:

(Open)
Amend the Transfer and Staff Reduction provisions of the Collective Agreement


???????????????????????

Explanation: To provide increased restrictions on the ability to transfer and a system of lay-off/bumping that would restrict your bumping rights to your location if the layoff were of 60 days or less.



ITEM M32:

(Closed)

Re-open
Revise the Promotional Bulletin procedures to reflect that personal transfer expenses incurred as a result of successful application to a Promotional Bulletin will be at the employee?s expense.




Explanation:? This item involves the elimination of the paid move, which you may be entitled to in conjunction with the awarding of a promotional bulletin.

???????????????????????

???????????????????????

ITEM M37:

(Open)


Modify Article 20.01 to include Cargo Communication Operator (CCO).




Explanation:??????????? See M68


ITEM M38:

(Open)


Modify Article 20.01 to exclude Lead Customer Service Agent ? Weight & Balance, and Customer Service Agent ? Weight & Balance, to read as follows:



??????????????????????? Cargo Rating Unit Specialist

??????????????????????? Lead Customer Service Agent ? Airports

??????????????????????? Customer Service Agent ? Airports

??????????????????????? Lead Customer Service Agent ? Cargo

??????????????????????? Lead Customer Service Agent ? Baggage

??????????????????????? Lead Customer Service Agent

??????????????????????? Customer Service Agent

??????????? ??????????? Modify Article 20.01.02 as follows:

??????????? ?All Customer Service Agents as mentioned above will be required to wear the standard Air Canada dress uniform??






Explanation: This will remove the uniform allotment from the leads and the agents in weight and balance office.





??????????????????????? ?/3



Page 3





ITEM M40:

(Open)

???????????
Discuss the business opportunities and organisational options being considered by Air Canada Technical Services (ACTS).




???????????

Explanation: This item is designed to discuss the company?s plans to spin off ACTS into a separate entity.



ITEM M41:

(Open)


Discuss the Air Canada Technical Services (ACTS) plan to create a distinct customer focussed business that will provide superior, profitable and competitive training products and services to Air Canada and other industries.




Explanation:? To negotiate a mechanism that will facilitate the transition of the current Air Canada training staff to TRACOR.



ITEM M42:

(Open)
Discuss the impact of CIRB decision 147 and the terms and conditions of the employee groups affected by the decision.






Explanation:? This item is to deal with inclusion of the former Addendum group at CAIL and AC look-alike into our C/A.



ITEM M43:

(Open)
Discuss options related to ground handling cost improvements.






???????????????????????

Explanation:? Refer to M73.





Additional Management Items Tabled March 10, 2003:



?

ITEM M45:

? ?????????
Amend Article 3 to include the force majeure in the event of circumstances that are beyond the control of the Company.




???????????

Explanation: This proposal would give the Company increased ability to effectively place people on off duty status rather than relying on the normal lay off procedure.



ITEM M46:

??? ???????
Discuss a reduction to the overall wage package including the elimination of any scheduled increases for the life of the collective agreement.




Explanation: This item would provide for the elimination of previously negotiated wage uplifts (2.5% annually) over the next two years, as well as a general wage reduction, the amount of which would be dependent on savings achieved in other areas.



ITEM M47:

??? ???????
Discuss a profit/gain-sharing program for all employees covered by the Collective Agreement.




Explanation: To replace some of the losses we would suffer under the previous item, the Company is proposing a system of profit sharing should that situation ever become a reality.

?















??????????????????????? ?/4



Page 4





ITEM M48:

???????????
Amend Articles 5.01, 7.01, 9.01 and 10.01.01 to reflect rates of pay based on an hourly worked versus a weekly paid basis and amend relevant articles and memorandums as required.




Explanation: Our current agreement provides for a system of pay that remains the same regardless of the type of shift pattern (5x2, 6x3, 4x4 etc.) you may work. This proposal would see those people on a non-5x2 shift pattern receive pay for only 1947 hours annually as opposed to the current 2080 hours.? Your paycheque will reflect actual hours worked as opposed to the standard 80 hours pay we currently enjoy.? As well all shift patterns would see a removal of the paid lunch period that is you would only get paid for 7.5 hours of work per 8 hour day.



ITEM M49:

???
Delete Articles 5.10, 7.06 and 9.06. (Longevity pay).


???????????????????????

??????????? Explanation: Your current longevity pay of up to 20 cents per hour would be removed.



ITEM M50:


Eliminate green circle pay protection provided for in LOU # 7 and 14.


???????????????????????

Explanation: As a result of past agreements, numerous members who have seen their classifications/categories eliminated or their stations closed have been entitled to wage protection (green circling).? This proposal would see these protections eliminated.



ITEM M51:

?????????????????????
Discuss the wage uplifts referred to in the Memorandum of Agreement dated November 23, 1999.




Explanation: This round of bargaining has involved the merging of the Addendum group from the former CAIL into our collective agreement.? These individuals have not received the wage uplifts that were agreed to in our agreement of November 23, 1999 with Air Canada.? The Company is suggesting an elimination or delay on payment of back pay for these individuals.





ITEM M52:






Delete the reference to ?Irregular Shift? and the special $1.47 per hour midnight shift premiums as referred to in Articles 5.08, 5.09, 7.04, 7.05, 9.04 and 9.05 and amend shift premiums to hours worked.






Explanation: This proposal would see the elimination of the $1.47 midnight shift premium as well as the irregular shift premium.? The remaining midnight and afternoon premiums would only be paid for hours worked during fixed hours. Eligibility for these premiums currently is based on starting and quitting times and applies to the whole shift.



ITEM M53:


Amend Articles 4.04.01, 4.04.02, 6.04.01.02.01 and 8.04.02 to reflect ratios of sixteen (16) to one (1) and twenty (20) to one (1).






Explanation:??? The current ratios of twelve (12) and sixteen (16) to one (1) leads to working members in all branches would be modified resulting in a reduction of lead positions.



















??????????????????????? ??????????? ?/5



Page 5





ITEM M54:


Amend shift-scheduling language to remove operational restrictions and enhance cost savings to the Company.




Explanation: This proposal would see complete ownership of the non-traditional shift patterns (6x3 and 4x4) revert to the Company.? They would be able to implement these shift patterns to meet their operational requirement.? Currently, ownership resides with the Union.? As well only 30% of the shifts would be deemed as permanent, with the remaining 70% being considered as a relief pool, this would allow the company to change your schedule at will.



ITEM M55

ITEM M55:

???
Delete Article 10.01.04.02 in order to remove the overtime meal allowance.



Explanation: This would see the current practice of providing an overtime meal allowance cease.



ITEM M56:


Amend the collective agreement to reflect an overtime maximum of time and one half, in order to remove all production/operational overtime paid at double time.?




Explanation:? The current practice of paying double time for overtime calls on second and subsequent RDO s and after shift would cease under this proposal



ITEM M57:

???
Amend the Collective Agreement to reflect straight time for all travel and training.




Explanation: This would see the payment at straight time for overtime that involves either travel or training.



ITEM M58:

???
Amend Article 10.02.06 to reflect a minimum recall credit of four and one half (4.5) hours and normal overtime rates for time worked over three (3) hours.


???????????????????????

Explanation: Our current agreement provides for a minimum six (6) hour payment for a recall, with twelve hours paid if the overtime requirement exceeds four hours.



ITEM M59:


Amend Article 10.02.11 to reflect a mandatory time bank of plus two hundred (200) hours and minus sixty (60) hours, and allow the Company to determine when the time bank may be utilized without a clear-out option.




Explanation: This proposal would see all overtime payments being assigned to your time bank up to 200 hours.? The Company would then be able to assign time off at their discretion to use up these hours.? This would include the assignment of time off that could result in up to a negative of 60 hours. There would be no payment of overtime until your bank exceeds the 200-hour cap and no cash out provision.

?

ITEM M60:
Amend Article 12 to reflect nine (9) Statutory Holidays.


???????????????????????

Explanation: ??????????? This would see a reduction of two (2) statutory holidays from our current eleven (11). As well it would eliminate the floating statutory holiday provided for those on non-standard shift types.



ITEM M61:


Discuss Vacation allotments provided for in Article 13.01.






Explanation: The Company has advised that they are seeking an across the board reduction in vacation allotment of one (1) week. They also want to introduce a vacation system for new employees that would provide for longer progressions and fewer holidays.





??????????????????????? ?/6

Page 6





ITEM M62:


Amend Article 13.06 to allow the Company to alter established vacation periods in order to meet operational requirements.


??????????????????????? ???????????

Explanation:??????????? Our current agreement requires mutual agreement between the employee and Company to change holiday selections. This proposal gives the Company the right to unilaterally change holidays to meet operation requirements.



ITEM M63:


Amend Articles 16.14.02, 16.20.01 and 16.20.02 in order to eliminate Company paid transfer expenses.




???????????????????????

Explanation: The aforementioned articles provide for paid moves when work is moved from one location to another or in situations when surpluses occur at one location at the same time shortages of manpower exist at another location.? This proposal would eliminate these paid moves.



ITEM M64:

???
Amend Article 20.10.01 and .02 to reflect severance pay for termination after a layoff only and align the allotments with the Canada Labour Code.


???????????????????????

Explanation: Article 20.10.01 and .02 currently provide for severance pay beyond that provided for by the Canada Labour Code. This proposal would see it reduced to levels provided for in the Code and be payable only after periods of layoff of seven (7) years.? That is the point when your recall and seniority rights are lost.



ITEM M65:


Discuss Articles 20.07, 20.20, 20.21 and Letters of Understanding No. 7 and No.10.


???????????????????????

Explanation: This proposal would see the elimination of all the job security provisions provided for in our subcontract, technological change and station closure clauses.



ITEM M66:

???
Discuss Letter of Understanding No. 1 ? Group Insurance to reduce the cost associated with Group Insurance Plans.




????????

?????????? Explanation: The Company would like to discuss the possibility of introducing a cafeteria-style benefit plan as well as the introduction of either premiums or cost sharing arrangements. Our current plan is 100% Company paid and covers each member equally.



ITEM M67:


Discuss the pension plan.


??????????????????????? ???????????

Explanation: This item involves a review of the benefit levels of the current pension plans.? The Company also wants to discuss the possible introduction of a defined contribution as opposed our defined benefit plan for new employees.



ITEM M68:

??? ???????
Discuss Workwear/Uniforms.




Explanation:? This proposal would seen the elimination of the current dry cleaning allowance for those members wearing uniforms and a reduction/elimination in the current uniform credits for all members.















??????????????????????? ??????????? ?/7



Page 7





ITEM M69:

???????????
Discuss withdrawal of all outstanding CAIL and various other grievances and appeals (excluding discipline) to arbitration.




Explanation: The Company is proposing that all outstanding grievances filed under the former CAIL agreement as well as selected grievances filed under our current agreement would be withdrawn.? These would include grievances scheduled for arbitration dealing with issues such as staffing of Victoria and London Ont.



ITEM M70:


Amend the collective agreement to include part-time/casual employees in ACTS.




???????????????????????

Explanation: The Company would like to introduce Part time and casual (on call) employees into ACTS.? Which categories may be involved remains to be determined.





ITEM M71:

???
Amend the Lead Licensed Aircraft Technician ratio to 12 to 1 and 16 to 1.???


???????????????????????

Explanation: Ratios of 8 to 1 and 10 to 1 have recently been agreed to. This would see a return to those ratios currently provided for in the collective agreement.





ITEM M72:


Eliminate endorsement premium as provided for in Article 4.04.03.


???????????????????????

Explanation: The current agreement provides payment of thirty (30) dollars per month for each endorsement after your initial one. This proposal would eliminate this payment.



ITEM M73:


Discuss the business opportunities and organizational options being considered by Air Canada Ground Handling Services as a standalone subsidiary.


???????????

Explanation: The Company advised their intent to withdraw their proposal regarding the merging of Category 33 and the Cabin Service Attendant group. Their original proposal to introduce part time employees in Category 33 remains.? The cabin grooming work currently done by a combination of these groups would be sub-contracted out.

??????????? This proposal includes expansion of the use of part time in the station attendant group as well as the elimination of the application of the windows.

??????????? The subcontracting of the work performed by our Central Baggage Office in also contained in this proposal.

??????????? The Company is looking for significant wage reductions (35%) in the Airport group. They advised us that numerous stations would be closed if cost savings were not achieved.??



ITEM M74:

???
Discuss the business opportunities and organizational options being considered by Air Canada Cargo as a standalone subsidiary.




Explanation: This proposal would see the effective separation of the ramp from cargo for the purpose of transfers and bumping. This would affect the Station Attendant and Customer Service Agent groups who no longer would be able to bump from one branch to another to retain employment.

[Guest]

If you honestly think that the feds would let AC go under, I have some swamp land for you that is for sale. The doom and gloom attitude is not realistic.
Regardless of if the worlds most efficiant airline were to suddenly try to fill AC's over seas slots to pick up the slack, it would still take months to accomplish, and at present there is no company in Canada to take up the slack. the loss in business for all industries in this country would be staggering, the feds would never allow it, it would be political suicide.
While I fully expect the feds to help out if it gets to that critical point, I do hope restrictions are put in place, mainly reduce staff levels to ratios that at a minimum where they were prior th the AC CAIL merger,cutting down on the size of management, while I am willing to give up some things in my contract, I am not willing to give up my base pay scale, I am not the highest paid maintenance worker in this country, I am at about par, I will not accept a level below par, mind you this is a maintenance view point, I do not have a clue to what the average is for pilots, FA's, sales agents etc, etc.