Guest Dash eight Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 For A C and A C Jazz to park a total of 40 aircraft and to think that flight crews will be exempt from layoffs is rediculous. I dont beleive that AC can justify paying the crews for 40 aircraft while they sit at home do you...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dash eight Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Well said...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Hi dozerboy, Not to put too fine a point on it, I wouldn't assume (at this point) that pilots will be retrained in order of seniority. If I'm not mistaken, our employer's financial situation is such that any additional cost burden may be rejected by the CCAA process. Obviously, retraining is a financial burden. How the fleet reduction and retraining issue will be addressed is all speculation at this point; therefore, we can't assume that it will be handled as per our current contract language. If the consequence of having to retrain hundreds of pilots is corporate insolvency, how will our union address the matter? One would assume that our union would choose solvency. Or if for some reason they refused that choice, then one would expect the court to impose it. Strictly my interpretatioin of the situation... neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 I supose, if the Judge rules that the Labor agreement between AC and ACPA as it pertains to seniority rites must be honoured and if the grounded is thought to be of a short duration, then AC might save money by simply paying the crews to stay home at their min guaranteed rate of pay vs paying the training costs associated with senior crews bumping those junior. Guess time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 supose, if the Judge rules that the Labor agreement between AC and ACPA as it pertains to seniority rights must be honoured and if the grounded is thought to be of a short duration, then AC might save money by simply paying the crews to stay home at their min guaranteed rate of pay vs paying the training costs associated with senior crews bumping those junior. Guess time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 I supose, if the Judge rules that the Labor agreement between AC and ACPA as it pertains to seniority rights must be honoured and if the grounding is planned to be of a short duration, then AC might save money by simply paying the crews to stay home at their min guaranteed rate of pay vs paying the training costs associated with senior crews bumping those junior. Guess time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dick Dastardly Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 I fail to understand why that is well said. ACPA is the only union that has proposed wage cuts so far. We are working a flex and workshare program that provides a great deal of flexibility to the company. You don't lay off for the sake of laying off. You lay off to save money. I have yet to see anyone prove that laying off pilots would save the company more money than our current initiatives. It is important to keep in mind that laying off pilots cannot be undone overnight. When business conditions improve, the company would be in a far better position if they could increase capacity by increasing the number of hours flown rather than recalling and retraining everyone they layed off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 No problem, Mr. F. These are difficult times for every AC employee, and emotions are bound to run high. Many of us have never been through something like this before, and perhaps the process isn't well-understood. As difficult as it is to contemplate, I think that employees should just assume that every aspect of their former contractual relationships with the employer, that affects our employer's financial situation, is now going to be re-examined and possibly changed. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sustainable Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 DD (That's not a bra size is it?) How was the Kennedian Reunion. I couldn't go as I had to work and it was at the other end of the country. Sus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozerboy Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 RR, How will you feel if the company decides to lay-off all 767 cruisers who are not NOT on flay pay? Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozerboy Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Just curious, what do you do in this industry and for whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 It was packed Friday night, 2500-3000 people was the number mentioned and Sat. aft was almost as busy. Apparantly the dance Sat evening was a huge success also. CA, Class of 80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dick Dastardly Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 I don't know. I didn't go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsgas Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 You ASSUME that all things will remain the same forever. AC unions will be protected and life will be grand. Now wake up and smell the coffee the world airline industry is in turmoil. To the pilots that were bragging last year about being so much more productive versus the US air carriers,with the CAD rising by 12% so far this year ,enjoy your 12% pay raise vs the US carriers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 I won't like any of the results of this process. Who will? What's to like about having your terms of employment changed for the worse? But whether or not I like the results has nothing to do with what's going to happen. The possibility exists that I could lose my job; disliking that outcome isn't going to change its likelihood. There are great forces at work around AC's CCAA filing; greater forces than a contractual agreement between labor and management. To a large degree, you, I and our fellow employees are just along for the ride now. Our opportunity to negotiate a more favorable outcome disappeared two months ago. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Dear Gurk When I, as an AC pilot start flying for a much reduced salary in a couple of months I suppose you'll consider me a prostitute. I admire the guys that do whatever it takes to build a career in this industry when times are tough. Right now there are more pilots than there are jobs. It's a buyers market. You take the job with Jetsgo to feed your family or you leave the industry. In a few years things will turn around and Leblanc is going to have to pay his pilots more in order to hang on to them. Right now they have no where else to go. So hats off to those young, and some not so young guys who hang in there in the tough times to stay in the profession. The guys that tough it out with Jetsgo or any of the other lower paying flying jobs, are the ones who do it because they love to fly and chose flying for more than the amount of money they can make. Greg Robinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsgas Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Good for you Greg,its always refreshing to read an intelligent open mined opinion. As far at Gurk,just picture driving your car this summer in any large Canadian city,and while stopped at a traffic light your are approached by a Squeegee Kid dressed in a AC or Jazz pilot uniform . Well these unfortunate lads may have there pride unlike the Jetsgo pilots flying from coast to coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Very well put Greg. (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dash eight Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 If mainline parks 40 aircraft. Dump 40 aircrafts worth of flightcrews. Why keep paying flight crews to sit at home when there is no aircraft for them to fly? The company is bleeding to death and can hardly support paying a full wage to pilots that dont fly...rediciulous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Hi Gurk To be up front I am too senior to be effected by any change in RJ flying. The RJ flying is a different situation than is Jetsgo, WJ or HMY. The RJ flying is flying that is being done for one company. To the discredit of all of us we have not been able to get our act together and resolve the issue ourselves. Having said that we have to deal with the situation as it now stands. There is no question that mainline pilots and JAZZ pilots are going to compete for any increase in RJ flying. ALPA is charged with representing the best interests of JAZZ pilots and ACPA will represent what is in the best interests of mainline pilots. I have no idea how it will play out in the end, but if any new RJ's wind up wearing a JAZZ paint job I certainly wouldn't hold it against anybody at JAZZ. It isn't personal. Look, everyone is just trying to keep the mortgage paid and food on the table at a time when there are more pilots than jobs, and with the situation having massively deteriorated. What I would really like to see out of this, is minimum disruption for the maximum number of people whatever those numbers might turn out to be. Greg Robinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dick Dastardly Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you? The net costs to the company are the same since each pilot is flying less and subsequently being paid less. The only thing that laying off en-masse accomplishes is that it increases the flying hours and thus salaries to the remaining pilots. This is a 60 to 90 day initiative that will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary. I don't know if you are a Dash Eight admirer or a pilot but if it’s the latter you should understand the issues surrounding currency, re-training and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 As I said earlier, it's just the law of supply and demand. It costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time for someone to be in line for a flt deck job at any airline. Over time as the remuneration decreases there will be fewer and fewer people willing to jump through all the hoops just to have a shot at a job in the pointy end. At that point, with fewer new pilots coming into the profession, and with the huge number of retirements coming up, there will be a severe shortage of pilots and those with 25 years left will do very well. In the meantime I refuse to condemn anyone who is doing whatever it takes to get their hours up and keep body and soul together. Things are at an all time low right now. We just have to work our way through it and eventually things will recover. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.