Sugg #735

[Guest V1]

I agree with Inchman below that a day or even two a month extra, a reduction in pay would be easy for most of us absorb and in my view probably even well supported by employees with just a bit leadership from the top.

I discuss this situation with others the common view (right or wrong) is whats the point with all of the rest of the money wasted around here. I guess the view is it would not make any difference in the outcome of events.

How do you get the Pilots on board, just show us that you are serious and prepared to really make some changes yourselves.

The most glaring example to me is the 41NoB Captains on an equipment like the 767YYZ.

RG gets asked obout it at the roadshow and he says no changes are planned. Well, hells bells. The Checkers spout off in flight planning about low stick times , why are the stick times so low, cause AC has 41 guys all making well over 250K on one equipment doing administrative tasks.

So ACPA finds out what management really needs and its cash ,15% ++, how creative.

Why doesnt Mangement say we need to better schedule check rides, replace flight mangagers with civilian administraters and stop making unnecessary manual revisions so that you can make major reductions to the Standards group and then reverse the latest standards reorg.there.

When 20% of the Captains representing 35% of the salaries are required for management something is rotten.

Are things bad? one would never know by the way this department is run. Give us some actions to believe in.

- Work for amendments to sick rules

such as a requirement to make-up lost flying due to "short-term sickness"

- do 2 leg rapidair line checks

- end AQP

-stop buying simulators/toys.

What the heck is saved with a daylight visual anyway.

-end IPFs and lofts, why train to prepare for training. Do required PPCs and re-train failures as required.

-Eliminate/sell-off excess sims, .

-replace flight managers with Admin people

-end "projects"

-require all but skelton management to fly DMM, reduce admin duties accordingly.

-Insist on better runway assignment in YZ.

-create ONE rover crew to park aircraft at arrival time under the control of Flight DX(armed if necessary).

Then ask for 15% from pilots.

Be creative lead and don't be greedy. Ask from us what you are prepared to do yourself. Our futures depend on it.

Do it today.

IMHO

[Guest Labtec]

V1 you have hit the nail on the head. When this company gets its ducks in a row and gets rid of these 250k/yr nine-to-fivers I'll jump on board. We must tighten up operational inefficencies and then look at pay cuts. Have you seen the flight ops memo board? The "manager's" have cut back on our allotment of wings and caps. This is what passes for an executive decision. This should have been done 10 years ago. I am glad it was done and the small things do count. I just hope RG has the courage to thin the ranks of the bloated flight ops bureaucracy; this will take courage. 41 767 management Captains! Wow. That is some huge coin. The flight manager job must go. This position has a fully qualified Captain largely doing clerical work for 200++K/year. At Skyservice this job is done by the lovely Sonja C for 50k/year.

I was flying with a guy the other day and he mentioned a conversation he had with one of our manager's about the number of instructor pilots on salary. These guys earn up to 2k/mnth above their DMM at 1/2 day 1/2 night the kicker is they only work 15 days. You have a line guy flying 14-18 days for DMM and an instructor pilot making 2k/mnth more to do a sim session! They get more to do less! Why aren't instructor pilots working 20 days a month for the extra money? You earn more you work more. It just doesn't make sense that you would get paid more to do less than a line guy putting in 78+hours a month doing 12 hour duty days actually earning the company a dollar. A sim session usually runs 6hours by the time you're out the door that's one credit day for the instructor pilot. The guys I fly with work 14-18 10-12 hour duty days. That's a helluva lot more than the instructor pilot who earns 2K/mnth more to work his block.

If the company is serious about getting things on track these issues will get solved. I implore RG et al to publicize the actions taken and in so doing get the troops on side.

Labtec

[MURRAY]

V1:
Explain to me why some T2 ACA types decline the offer of the south parallel on initial contact from arrival. Shouldn't everybody accept it regardless of workload? Might want to have management look into that before you have them "insist" a little too vehemently.

[Guest V1]

I would never decline it although some may due to the rather distracting and therefore compromising need to re-plan/program/brief/and explain to the controller the loss of route/clearance congruity .

The fact that upon acceptance of a close in runway change , in YZ, one is flying without a clearance while the arrival guy figures out that the route is suddenly different from the earlier route. Often these controllers never do figure out that part. The YZ area is chaotic enough. I just happen not to give a &%$@! about your silly little empire, so I dont mind but many would.

Thats the only reason I can think of why some might decline. but is that what you really wanted to know?

[Guest Flex]

In the 41 NoB, 2 are code 146 (LoA unpaid) and 18 code 184 (GDIPP).

The biggest saving IMO could be done by regainning control of the operations at the main hub.(apron control in YZ C+D taxiways multiple apron exit, better use of 24R+L, better control on deicing decision ect)
And no I am not a manager.

[MURRAY]

So what you're saying is that two years ago, when arrival initially assigned the runway, that was okay. Now if arrival offers a preferred runway (at the same distance from threshold as before)it creates "distracting and compromising needs"? Furthermore, if you would never decline, why would anybody from ACA if it's to their benefit? Why don't you try offering another (read: more believable) reason.

[Guest V1]

yep

[Guest neo]

"When this company gets its ducks in a row and gets rid of these 250k/yr nine-to-fivers I'll jump on board."

Intransigence like this will only work against the majority of Air Canada pilots. We simply have too much to lose. And who are we kidding, anyway? Like we're in control? Like we'll have some say in operational matters, once push comes to shove?

So you've drawn your line in the sand: get rid of the dead weight, or.... what? You'll refuse to negotiate changes and let the enterprise go bankrupt? That's the only lever you have, so that must be what you're saying. Well, there's three possibilites for an individual speaking as you do. Let's have a look at those scenarios...

One possibility is that he or she is highly idealistic, and willing to sacrifice their employment and income just to make a point, a point that not everyone agrees on anyway. This may or may not be admirable, but it certainly does not describe the average Air Canada pilot.

The second possibility is that this is the usual lockerroon talk that one always hears when employees polarize their position against management. It's union hall, three-beer-in-the-belly bravado. It sounds tough, makes you points in the crewroom, and never amounts to anything. Why? Because pilots simply have too much to lose. We don't toil away in a job paying $12.75 per hour, we make good coin and have families that count on that good coin. You can say what you like in the crewroom, you can say what you like on the line, but when it comes down to the privacy of a voting booth, pilots will vote what's best for themselves and their families.

The third possibility is that you can say something like the quote above because you have some independent source of income; that you're willing to sacrifice your employment (and by extension the employment of many) because it won't have a devastating effect on you. I make no comment on that scenario, other than to say that I don't believe it is the position the majority of Air Canada pilots are in.

So three possibilities: two of which suggest that your comments are unlikely to reflect what the majority of Air Canada pilots need. The other possibility may reflect what some Air Canada pilots say, but will not reflect what the majority will do in the end.

Intransigence is for when you actually have leverage from your inflexible negotiating position. The majority of Air Canada pilots do not have that. Common sense tells you that in a situation like that, talking and negotiating are the preferable routes to go.

Stubbornness and inflexibility at this point can only make the situation worse.

Richard Roskell

[Guest neo]

"When this company gets its ducks in a row and gets rid of these 250k/yr nine-to-fivers I'll jump on board."

Intransigence like this will only work against the majority of Air Canada pilots. We simply have too much to lose. And who are we kidding, anyway? Like we're in control? Like we'll have some say in operational matters, once push comes to shove?

So you've drawn your line in the sand: get rid of the dead weight, or.... what? You'll refuse to negotiate changes and let the enterprise go bankrupt? That's the only lever you have, so that must be what you're saying. Well, there's three possibilites for an individual speaking as you do. Let's have a look at those scenarios...

One possibility is that he or she is highly idealistic, and willing to sacrifice their employment and income just to make a point, a point that not everyone agrees on anyway. This may or may not be admirable, but it certainly does not describe the average Air Canada pilot.

The second possibility is that this is the usual lockerroon talk that one always hears when employees polarize their position against management. It's union hall, three-beer-in-the-belly bravado. It sounds tough, makes you points in the crewroom, and never amounts to anything. Why? Because pilots simply have too much to lose. We don't toil away in a job paying $12.75 per hour, we make good coin and have families that count on that good coin. You can say what you like in the crewroom, you can say what you like on the line, but when it comes down to the privacy of a voting booth, pilots will vote what's best for themselves and their families.

The third possibility is that you can say something like the quote above because you have some independent source of income; that you're willing to sacrifice your employment (and by extension the employment of many) because it won't have a devastating effect on you. I make no comment on that scenario, other than to say that I don't believe it is the position the majority of Air Canada pilots are in.

So three possibilities: two of which suggest that your comments are unlikely to reflect what the majority of Air Canada pilots need. The other possibility may reflect what some Air Canada pilots say, but will not reflect what the majority will do in the end.

Intransigence is for when you actually have leverage from your inflexible negotiating position. The majority of Air Canada pilots do not have that. Common sense tells you that in a situation like that, talking and negotiating are the preferable routes to go.

Stubbornness and inflexibility at this point can only make the situation worse.

Richard Roskell

[Guest Labtec]

Richard I am not a flag waving trade unionist as you imply. However, I do believe that we owe the profession we represent some respect. We are stewards in this regard and if we simply roll over and allow our working conditions and remuneration to be ruined we only hurt ourselves. The average new hire Air Canada pilot (when we were hiring) is 35 he/she has 10 years of experience and a university education. They also have expensive technical training in order to qualify them to do the job. A university degree, when I went to school, ran about 16k for four years (its much more now). A Basic Commercial licence runs about 30k. The guy with 10 years experience probably had at least 3 or four type ratings each of which run about 20k. To walk into the door at AC the average pilot has about $106,000 worth of education and training. Air Canada then spends another 25-30k putting you through their course. When all is said and done that's $136,000 of education and training invested in one person. (The guys coming from the military, particularly off of the fighters are probably worth 1-2 million depending on their fighter weapons training) I would submit that that guy is worth more than the 60k/year Jetsgo is currently paying.

I understand your concern bankruptcy is scary, losing your job is scary but at what price do you want to keep that job? I would much rather be laid off with something good to come back to than have my profession ruined by degree until its not worth having and I am too old to do anything else.

If you get laid off you won't die. In 1992 many guys did very well in other pursuits. Some very talented individuals came back millionaires! The fact is they came back to a good job because the group held the line.

I would rather see the company tighten up the glaring and easily fixable operational inefficiencies before I give up my hard fought salary. If we get things in line and I am swayed into believing in management by their actions not their words I will do what is necessary.

This argument put forward by RG et al that the pilots are the leaders and the pilots must take the first hit is specious in my view. The pilots are paid a below average industry wage for the work we do. Compare our flightdecks to the world average and you will find that we are near the bottom. I ran into a TACA crew in YYZ and the Captain there earns 105K/year U.S. Tax free to fly the 320. That's the equivalent of 157,000 Canadian dollars tax free and he lives in Costa Rica for heaven's sake. There isn't a 320 Captain at AC that makes that kind of money and we are a 1st world country, a G7 nation.

You can give away the farm but I would submit you are doing so out of fear and considered decisions ought not to be made under those circumstances. You owe that much to your profession and yourself.

Lawyers and Doctors never talk the way you do. I think I have spoken about this before a provincial government cut the legal aid certificate rate for family law cases and the profession closed ranks and said they weren't going to do the work anymore. They don't run around and let members of their profession drive the viability of the profession into the dirt. The government said over and over there is no money. They held out, the rate was raised to a proper level and now they are back doing the work. The profession doesn't panic when the government says they have no money and can't pay they simply say fine this is what it costs if you can't pay we won't play.

Airline pilots need to do the same thing. You have guys worth $136,000 a good chunk, about $46,000, of which they funded themselves to acquire the skills and education to do the job that is worth more than 60k/year in my view. Maybe you disagree?

Lets deal with some of those things that we have mentioned to tighten up our operational efficiency and then and only then should we look at pay cuts to sustain the operation. Pay skilled labour a skilled wage and pay unskileed labour an unskilled wage and tighten up all of these obvious inefficiencies and I am confident that we will come out of this. If not a good chunk of us will be given an opportunity to go and do other things. Change isn't a bad thing you may find yourself doing all kinds of ineresting things.

Labtec

[Guest Labtec]

Richard I am not a flag waving trade unionist as you imply. However, I do believe that we owe the profession we represent some respect. We are stewards in this regard and if we simply roll over and allow our working conditions and remuneration to be ruined we only hurt ourselves. The average new hire Air Canada pilot (when we were hiring) is 35 he/she has 10 years of experience and a university education. They also have expensive technical training in order to qualify them to do the job. A university degree, when I went to school, ran about 16k for four years (its much more now). A Basic Commercial licence runs about 30k. The guy with 10 years experience probably had at least 3 or four type ratings each of which run about 20k. To walk into the door at AC the average pilot has about $106,000 worth of education and training. Air Canada then spends another 25-30k putting you through their course. When all is said and done that's $136,000 of education and training invested in one person. (The guys coming from the military, particularly off of the fighters are probably worth 1-2 million depending on their fighter weapons training) I would submit that that guy is worth more than the 60k/year Jetsgo is currently paying.

I understand your concern bankruptcy is scary, losing your job is scary but at what price do you want to keep that job? I would much rather be laid off with something good to come back to than have my profession ruined by degree until its not worth having and I am too old to do anything else.

If you get laid off you won't die. In 1992 many guys did very well in other pursuits. Some very talented individuals came back millionaires! The fact is they came back to a good job because the group held the line.

I would rather see the company tighten up the glaring and easily fixable operational inefficiencies before I give up my hard fought salary. If we get things in line and I am swayed into believing in management by their actions not their words I will do what is necessary.

This argument put forward by RG et al that the pilots are the leaders and the pilots must take the first hit is specious in my view. The pilots are paid a below average industry wage for the work we do. Compare our flightdecks to the world average and you will find that we are near the bottom. I ran into a TACA crew in YYZ and the Captain there earns 105K/year U.S. Tax free to fly the 320. That's the equivalent of 157,000 Canadian dollars tax free and he lives in Costa Rica for heaven's sake. There isn't a 320 Captain at AC that makes that kind of money and we are a 1st world country, a G7 nation.

You can give away the farm but I would submit you are doing so out of fear and considered decisions ought not to be made under those circumstances. You owe that much to your profession and yourself.

Lawyers and Doctors never talk the way you do. I think I have spoken about this before a provincial government cut the legal aid certificate rate for family law cases and the profession closed ranks and said they weren't going to do the work anymore. They don't run around and let members of their profession drive the viability of the profession into the dirt. The government said over and over there is no money. They held out, the rate was raised to a proper level and now they are back doing the work. The profession doesn't panic when the government says they have no money and can't pay they simply say fine this is what it costs if you can't pay we won't play.

Airline pilots need to do the same thing. You have guys worth $136,000 a good chunk, about $46,000, of which they funded themselves to acquire the skills and education to do the job that is worth more than 60k/year in my view. Maybe you disagree?

Lets deal with some of those things that we have mentioned to tighten up our operational efficiency and then and only then should we look at pay cuts to sustain the operation. Pay skilled labour a skilled wage and pay unskileed labour an unskilled wage and tighten up all of these obvious inefficiencies and I am confident that we will come out of this. If not a good chunk of us will be given an opportunity to go and do other things. Change isn't a bad thing you may find yourself doing all kinds of ineresting things.

Labtec

[cp fa]

Good day Vee Won,

I agree with you that management ranks within flight operations could be made more efficient. I would however, like to address a couple of your remarks.

"41 NoB Captains on an equipment like the 767YYZ"

This does not reflect the number of management pilots on the 767 in YYZ.

"Work for amendments to sick rules
such as a requirement to make-up lost flying due to "short-term sickness"

Check pilots use sick time as would any other pilot. Not sure if you are suggesting a contractual change here.

"do 2 leg rapidair line checks "

Transport Canada will not approve doing a rapid air line check on a pilot who normally flys overseas. (Pilots must be checked on the routes they fly) To assign pilots to a rapidair for the purpose of a RLC would also require a contractual change.

"stop buying simulators/toys"

I believe that all of the simulators have been sold. Nothing is saved with a daylight visual, the PPCs are run at night.

"end AQP"

The money for this project has already been spent. It will eliminate many of the IPFs and PPCs (as you suggest) by increasing the matrix to 8 months from 6. Also, it allows us to address failures on the spot, instead of going to the rather large expense of re-training and re-scheduling.

"Eliminate/sell-off excess sims"

I believe the sims have been sold. I am not sure whether Air Canada has this type of control any longer.

"replace flight managers with Admin people"

This quite frankly is a daft idea. We cannot have Captains approaching "admin people" with personal and more often than not professional issues and expect to get the support they require. This would, (in my view), be a mistake.

"end 'projects'"

I agree.

I would have suggested having R/Ps check themselves. Transport will not approve. I would have suggested dropping the requirement for a RLC every year. Transport will not approve. I would have suggested jump seat line checks. This is not as cost effective as you might think as it creates the requirement for CCPs to do competency flying. (A mixture of both is being considered.) Personally, I would eliminate scheduled line checks altogether, and just have 2 or 3 CCPs doing line checks at random.

My point.....virtually every comment you bring up, (some of them good), has already been considered by management. I think we will see further changes in the checking department as the benefits of AQP come into play on all equipment types, and, we get further co-operation from transport.

I also agree that some displays of cost effectiveness from management would inspire a pay cut.

These comments are solely my own opinion, as I understand the situation at the moment. I would be pleased to discuss them with you in person over a pint at my local pub.

cheers,

Dave Thomson

[Guest V1]

Thanks for the feedback, you make many good points. These things were just off the top of my head. I guess my main point is I'd sure love to see a plan that our group could buy into/even rally around. A little more inspired than what we have heard so far. The airline needs cash and could get it with a little inspired leadership.
We should not discount inspiration. WJers sure ain't out there for the money. They are following a creative exciting leader.

With a bit of that there could be a deal without it... well who knows.

[Guest Bulkwheat]

RR,
I agree with your position.
Well said!

[bluemic]

Well I started out responding to cpfa's comment (jeez Jennifer, all of a sudden your voice got really deep), but that comment seems to have been deleted. In any event here's my response.

Dave,

Over on the AC forum I've catalogued a whole bunch of items (that others have brought up). But since it appears to be a subject on this board, here are just two of those items.

There is no reason why r/p's can't check themselves. In the CP days the s/o's did exactly that (and I'd be surprised if AC didn't do the same), so it's not like it would come as a bolt out of the "blue" to Transport. At least to any there that are blessed with a silver thread or two. AC has only to demonstrate both the precedent and that it can be done.

We also both know that checkers CAN do two pilots at the same time during annual route checks. From the jump seat. And if you designate the line-check pairings for bidding, you eliminate paying the displacements. Competency? Combine the checkers with the trainers, then the CCPs get their competency when they do line training. And then you need less check-and-trainers.

Those are just two of the suggestions that are listed on the other board. I'll not inundate you with the others, but these two are more closely aligned with V1's thread. Like all suggestions, they are not perfect, but both would add to the bottom line.

At least that's the way WE always did it...and it worked.

Now where's that pub of yours...

Mic

[Guest neo]

Hope you repost your comments, Dave. I thought they sounded very sensible.

neo

[inchman]

Another learned poster has already responded to some of your points but the post has disappeared for some reason.

Lack of access to management was one of the precipipatory issues in the last industrial action, so admin people just don't cut it.

And some projects save millions of dollars... for example TMM, spearheaded by a management pilot.

One of the advantages of having a management pilot in the position they are in is that they are not afraid to take chances. If they get fired, they get to return to the best job in the world. Many non-pilot administrators spend too much time worried about what their boss is thinking.

From what I've seen almost everyone in management is focused on saving as much money as they can and cutting back on unnecessary activities. Sometimes that even involves spending a bit to save a lot (or a lot to save a lot more).

[Guest V1]

On a sidebar, away from this thread on the TMM subject. I wonder about the savings from TMM, in theory sure but in practice?.

Shave off 8 or 10 mins enroute at great expense and then just lose it due to runway assigment or non-continous taxi clearences or lack of ground crew/gate agent or the new TMM EET is not recoverable and the connections get missed anyway.
Yes, the TMM helps mitigate the other delays that occur independently and inspite of TMM but the idea is to make the connection and we often miss them anyway after spending the money.
I am often asked to fly TMM and I am already aware, often hours earlier, that the connection is already lost and since the program has no facility for crew input the risk analyisis (if that is the word I am looking for) is incomplete.

[Guest 6to8mos]

see buy the dept

[Guest Fly Safe]

V1:

Standby for new improved TMM II to be in place by the middle of April.

This will deal with many of the issues you are highlighting. New tools will be available to all operational departments to see which flights are the TMM flights and when and how much the connections will cost if they are missed.

The new TMM will be a real-time cost, regularly updated analysis of actual connection costs, using conservative values, so that these can be balanced against fuel speed up costs. As in the current TMM process flights will be sped up only if the costs warrant. The new TMM will also slow down flights that are arriving way to early - a flight 20 minutes early causes an equal amount of problem for the ramp as does a late flight. Also flights that are on time that have high potential connection jeopardy costs will be "insured" to allow speed ups if they are late.

This new system will also be dynamic and look at every flight over two hours rather than relying on the old system of 30 flights from a historic list.

Standby for new ATIS message.

Richard

[DEFCON]

"TMM will also slow down flights that are arriving way to early"

The greatest cost to the company is an ac's airborne time. Get the friggin things out of the sky! Ramp should be able to provide a service to the airline and its pax, not the other way around. Until this company gets its head out of...oh forget it that'll never happen.

It's a damn good thing the military doesn't run its flight ops the way AC does!

[Guest Fly Safe]

Defcon:

With due respect, your clear understanding of TMM concepts and operating appears to be minimal. The concept of slowing aircraft down refers to planning at a lower Cost Index. Cost Index is a ratio of fuel burn costs to aircraft hourly operating costs and therefore when you use a lower cost index the net operating cost is reduced.

In the case of early flights there is only limited ability to slow down with respect to time, but the lower cost index generates excellent fuel burn reductions that are proportionately higher than the reduction in flight time.

This is further added too by the fact that the operating costs for crews is "sked or better" so in the case of an early arrival the crew cost is the same.

The TMM concept of balancing fuel/operating costs and misconnect costs is well understood and generates significant net revenue gains for airlines. AC is not the only carrier that uses this concept.

Perhaps a small amount of knowledegeable research of all the facts would be prudent before launching a response.

Richard

[inchman]

Everything has a balance.

At CP, you had trainer-checkers, at AC we have LITCs and checkers. It would be necessary to do a detailed analysis, but I would guess that the two systems have about the same costs, with the exception of the displacement portion of it, which has a very high cost.

My personal pet cost savings idea is to treat a displacement like a cancelled flight... the displaced pilot has the option of going on pay protection or doing make-up of his own choosing.

Bottom line... even a 20% savings from 3% of the workforce (check pilots) would not come close to 1% savings from the other 97%.

But every little bit helps... and the check pilots recently gave up their administration day each month (it takes much longer than that to set up line checks and prepare for sims) to save about $1.5 million per year.

[DEFCON]

I stand by my position. With all due respect, programs that keep ac in the air are inefficient, period! People seem to love to complicate everything simple to the point that there's no hope of ever making money.

[Guest Fly Safe]

Defcon:

I agree fully with the concept of operating at the lowest net operating cost. The key is net operating cost.

Your position is based on inadequate understanding of the true means to operate aircraft efficiently using cost index. One only needs explore a few good Boeing or Airbus documents as well as any good FMS manufacturer's operating manual and this would become clear.

Using the logic you have put forward, we should operate very aircraft at max forward speed to make up lost time due to headwinds. I would suggest you so some reflection on this concept. TMM carefully examines the Cost index required to make the most economical decision. In the case of a headwind there are many cases where five minutes of speed up could cost you over $5,000 fuel. In that case you could cut your nose of to spite your face. Similar concepts apply when slowing down, but require understanding of Cost Index, and the relationship to tailwinds.

However, your postion appears to be fixed and I have no desire to spend further time having a dialogue with someone whose mind appears closed.

Perhaps in time you will gain an understanding for the principles of operating jet aircraft most efficiently.

Richard