Guest Nova Zemlya Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 1. There is a serious problem when the airline lays off 385 of its regional flight attendants and only 300 of its mainline pilots. 2. Giving out million-dollar golden handshakes to 250 early retirees in the middle of a bankruptcy proceeding. Not only is this a breathtaking dip into company finances, it just goes to show that the managment at the mothercorp has a tin ear for economic reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 1. Please provide sound economic reason why there should be any correlation between numbers of regional flight attendants laid off and numbers of mainline pilots laid off. 2. Please provide figures as to the actual amount of the early retirement packages to the pilots, as well as the dollar amounts of savings to the training department that will be incurred by having these pilots leave early. While you're at it, perhaps you could calculate how much of the 16% paycut the pilots are taking is going to pay for the early retirement packages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starman Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 It's you that has a problem with economic reality. The cost of retaining these pilots with the resultant cascading downtraining costs throughout the system is greater than the cost of providing an early retirement incentive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 This is in response to your post below, which is basically the same as what you have just posted again this morning. Perhaps in order to further the debate, you could answer my response instead of just posting the same thing over again. "First of all, the term "million dollar handshakes" gives the impression that these early retirement incentives, which are to offset the cost of training guys who are close to retiring anyway, are going to turn the guys who are getting them into instant millionaires. If you know something about the actual amount they are to receive that the rest of us don't, perhaps you could provide a source. Secondly, while the pilot group negotiated 250 of these packages, the flight attendants also negotiated retirement packages - 2500 of them. I use the term "negotiated" because they were not just handed to the members. They were part of a concessionary package that included wage and contractual cuts deep enough to pay for them out of the members pockets. And since you are comparing layoff numbers in terms of percentages, let's also compare wage cuts. The mainline pilots were asked to give up 15%. They will be taking at least that, and that doesn't include any of the other contractual concessions, nor does it take into account the pay cuts due to being bumped to smaller equipment. So, what percentage did your union give up?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 No kidding! NZ, your targets are much to big and much to ovbvious. Now, back to those 'economic reasons' and those figures if you would.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nail Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Good Mornin cp fa, Your right on the package thing. All "the math" of negot's had to add up. There is cost in the packages, even spartan ones. There is also a "savings". (eg: the 747 guys) The net does come out of the paycut taken by the troops. I'm guessing about 1% of the paycut goes to this. (And/or productivity gains,etc) I guess that NZ has always had trouble with math... Nail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 My understanding is that ACPA was given an amount of money that they had to save, and in the end they looked at what the priorities were in terms of pensions, job losses, etc., and then met those goals by coming up with the percentage wage cuts required to meet them. That's why the exact percentage has not yet been announced. That's probably also why the final percentage will most likely end up being more than the 15% the company asked for in the first place. Those early retirement packages did not come out of the company's coffers, they are coming out of the members pockets. I would like that to be made perfectly clear before it ends up on the front page of the Toronto Star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Touchdown Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 If the flight attendants need to start giving out change for those meals that people buy in-flight then NZ better sharpen up his/her pencil. Mrs. T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Hi cpfa, You make a good point here that I think needs to be stressed when discussing what differant unions gave up. It looks like the company gave each union a dollar figure and certain conditions to meet. Each union came back with it's own version to meet those conditions and dollar figures. What you seem to be saying is that ACPA choose a 16% wage cut in order to ensure the packages for those senior pilot's thus lowering the number of junior pilot layoff's. Each union did the same kind of thing. The ACPA wage cut, can't be compared to the CAW wage cut which can't be compared to the CUPE wage cut which can't be compared to the IAM wage cut. It's all about comparing apples and oranges at this point. Each union had it's priorities and negotiated a deal to meet those priorities. IMO CA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 TA details [Pilots at least] notwithstanding, very accurately stated CA [and cpfa], thank you. ZM, are you paying attention? dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ACguy Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 You astonish me with your comparisons. As has been mentioined in most responses; What does ACPA have to do with the Teamsters at JAZZ? They are two completely different airlines with different management. If you have trouble with the layoffs, I suggest you ask your local representative in the Teamsters to explain why specifically you needed to layoff that number. If our membership ratifies the TA then the cost savings are realized for the company and they can move forward to the creditors. They are only interested in the bottom line in concessions, the method is irrelavent. Times are tuff for all of us, however, it is clear your bitterness is not going to aid the process of healing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Gee, I must be losing it. I forgot to ask for a training cost analysis and comparison for laying off 385 regional flight attendants, versus laying off 300 mainline pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Gee, I must be losing it. I forgot to ask for a training cost analysis and comparison for laying off 385 regional flight attendants, versus laying off 300 mainline pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CJ Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 What do FA lay offs have to do with pilot layoffs? The comparison should be how many Regional Pilots have been laid off vs. mainline. BTW can anyone tell me what those numbers are. Have packages been offered to Senior regional pilots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maranatha Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 NZ, you obviously have an axe to grind, and if you are a mainline employee, I would strongly suggest that you refrain from the provocative posts. Who said anything about "million-dollar golden handshakes?" FYI there are about 80 747-400 captains, tops, who will be affected by the retirement of the -400. Many of them are junior earning minimum guarantee, and it would be in their economic interest to accept a downgrade to the 340, rather than taking a "golden handshake." I myself am within 4 years of retirement and no one has offered me any golden handshake. So before you go running off at the mouth with your provocations, get your facts straight...and be careful what you wish for...if AC fails, Jazz is gone too, and I suspect that's where you work. Cordially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alldatjazz Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 CJ; I think the JAZZ pilot lay-offs number about 140 but these were determined before April 1st. I think the first ones join the EI line on July 1st. Incidently, there are also about 100 JAZZ pilots on LOA right now. No packages for senior JAZZ pilots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 You've lost it Franxis... Take a break, take some holidays, take Susan away for some holidays... You need to chill, you've lost it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Jennifer; 1: He cannot, he's looped! 2: He cannot, he's been listening to exagerations and rumour and he's worrying too much and making the exagerations worse himself. ...and 3.... As you well know from past personal experience.... Sometimes ya just gotta roll with the punches and help pick up the pieces as you go... Hope all is well in your household. Tell your love god that there are several species of small furry animals gathered together to make sure his machines are looked after properly. (but don't tell dragon, they're his machines too and he might get jealous) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 I think that Air Canada's going to have a problem in the future, but it's got nothing to do with who gets paid what and who stays. It's the new strategy that they're hatching, about getting smaller aircraft. I'm concerned that we'll be flying tubes around. Air Canada does have its core customer, and they're used to the full service airline, and they are accepting to pay a (slight) premium for this. With a bare bones operation, I think that there's a risk that they'll want to go where they don't have to sit with their heads cocked to one side for the duration of a flight, and their had baggage out of reach in the rear hold. This is US Air's gameplan, and some have suggested that they'll get clobbered, route by route, by the low-cost airlines because of this. On any of these sectors that Air Canada plans on operating, WJ could show up with its "wide body" 737's and wipe out AC on that route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peanuts Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 True AC does have it's core passengers. However there are not enough of them to fill a big bus. I believe they should put wide bodies on the peak hours of the day, so we can fill up these planes. The hours in between can be done by a smaller bus. This way the core passengers still get their wide bodied airplanes. That is just my thought. Not that Milton cares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hawkeye Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 ((( "Air Canada does have its core customer, and they're used to the full service airline, and they are accepting to pay a (slight) premium for this."))) Customers are used to the full service airline? Two years ago maybe. I had a friend travel on AC recently from coast to coast(YVR-YYT)and never seen a meal except for the usual peanuts, chips, candy bars and your favorite drink! No breakfast out of YVR, no lunch (with any substance)during the flight and no dinner served out of YYZ except for the junk food mentioned above. AC has a long way to go to win back the confidence of our "core customers" as you say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 I was noticing that on Rapidair, the flights are still relatively popular. They do still give out snacks and drinks, and they still give you earphones. Now on the same sectors on Tango, (where they nickel and dime you to death) the load factors have been averaging below 50%. That tells me that the core (the ones who travel due to obligation and who pay the premium/full fare) is still out there, as opposed to the tourist market, travelling on cut rate fares, and who have decided to stay home, and not travel on Tango. I did notice that they do put wide bodies on Rapidair when it counts. However, the return flight is not necessarily as full. If they keep the bus, or get the A318, that should continue to satisfy the core. But if they start deploying those narrow tubes, it may make the core reconsider its loyalty. Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 "No breakfast out of YVR, no lunch (with any substance)during the flight and no dinner served out of YYZ except for the junk food mentioned above. " Your're making my argument. With service like that, it's probably better to choose WJ. I'll point out that on Tango, you have to buy that junk food. Where has it got them? Load factors below 50%. On some flights, I've seen it at 20%. The Tango clientele has deserted it. The core is still out there on the mainline, although I won't say that it's at the same levels as before. Running smaller airplanes is the answer. But I think that it's a mistake to assume that the customer will accept wholesale replacement of narrowbody aircraft with types with commuter diameter fuselages. Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Terrier Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 The "full service" bit makes me laugh and laugh. Now British Airways for a comparable price does give you full serive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hawkeye Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 Terrier, I am not sure if you think it was my post claiming AC had "Full Service" but I was merely responding to Googles who made that claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.