AC's EMB order

[Spinnaker]

I was reading CBC's website and it mentioned the order change for RJ's by AC; that they bought 15 more EMB's. Are those going to mainline AC and Jazz is left with 30 CRJ's? I thought it was suppose to be an even split.

Another note, it's an obvious well deserved slap toward Canada's silly export financing rules too. Why ever would Ottawa want to support a Canadian made aircraft in our own country when we can support Brazil instead?

[Guest long keel]

The purchase has less to do with the financing than the actual aircraft.

The EMB has a much nicer product. Bigger cabin, better range, common cockpit 76- up to 110 seats. If the Bombardier product was better than EMB, they would have likely got the entire order.

Remember, AC also said no to Boeing, and Airbus with the EMB order.

[Guest directlaw]

I walked through the demo aircraft from Bombardier and Emb when they were in YUL. No comparison. What I don't understand is why AC bought the 705.

The mediated agreement did split the 30 705's AC said they wanted to order. 15 705's to Jazz (already ordered) and 15 emb 175's to AC.

Just to confuse the issue there were an additional 15 undisclosed aircraft that are part of the agreement. Placement of those aircraft will be decided by Teplitsky when and if they are ordered.

My intuition tells me that the pay dispute over the emb 175 that has recently come up is somehow interconnected with those yet to be announced aircraft. AC's MO as of late is to make an unrealistic demand. Then they agree to back off the demand if they can bring something else in the back door.

I think those undisclosed aircraft are more 705's and AC knows if they go to arbitration they will likely get divided again. I think we are seeing the first stage of trying to get them all to Jazz.

Just pure speculation on my part though.

[.70 mach]

"The purchase has less to do with the financing than the actual aircraft."

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the order for the Embraer's is just the result from what Teplitsky arbitrated last year. Mainline getting 45 EMB 190's and 15 EMB 170/175's along with Jazz getting 15 CRJ 705's and 15 CRJ 200's along with the transfer of 25 CRJ 100's. Nothing new here.

"If the Bombardier product was better than EMB, they would have likely got the entire order."

The CRJ product fits the niche markets well that it serves, places like PHL EWR ATL STL. And just like those routes the EMB/ CRJ 705 will do the same for a bit longer stage length flights like DFW IAH MSY. But why does a corporation need to have two different types of aircraft in the same seating configuration? Well the answer is because that what was arbitrated. Maybe if both unions could have put their heads together during those Global Solution talks last year better solutions would have come out. Speaking of Global Solution I think the Jazz group is still waiting for the phone to ring .

[Guest directlaw]

" Speaking of Global Solution I think the Jazz group is still waiting for the phone to ring."

Don't hold your breath.

All legal avenues run out later this month to overturn the Keller seniority award. Barring a miracle it looks like the 8:1 ratio for the bottom third of the list is permanent.

The majority of AC pilots are not in any mood to give up anything. One number. One aircraft. Nothing. Any aircraft that go elswhere......any number lost....will disproportionately hurt those that have been hurt the most by the Keller award.

I am and always have been a proponent of a single list but I do not believe it will be likely for a very long time.

[dagger]

"The purchase has less to do with the financing than the actual aircraft."

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the order for the Embraer's is just the result from what Teplitsky arbitrated last year. Mainline getting 45 EMB 190's and 15 EMB 170/175's along with Jazz getting 15 CRJ 705's and 15 CRJ 200's along with the transfer of 25 CRJ 100's. Nothing new here.

"If the Bombardier product was better than EMB, they would have likely got the entire order."

The CRJ product fits the niche markets well that it serves, places like PHL EWR ATL STL. And just like those routes the EMB/ CRJ 705 will do the same for a bit longer stage length flights like DFW IAH MSY. But why does a corporation need to have two different types of aircraft in the same seating configuration? Well the answer is because that what was arbitrated. Maybe if both unions could have put their heads together during those Global Solution talks last year better solutions would have come out. Speaking of Global Solution I think the Jazz group is still waiting for the phone to ring .

I'm not going to challenge the idea that labor issues didn't drive the decision to a degree, but as a non-pilot, I do challenge the idea that the EMB/CRJ are interchangeable. The CRJ-705 is a stretch of a true regional jet and despite some improvements - raised windows, an inch more headroom, and very generous pitch - it does not match the comforts of a bigger jet. It is no A319, and all you have to do is ask passengers who have flown in a variety of these aircraft whether a CRJ of any size is a comfortable option for a three-hour flight. It is not nearly as good as a 319 or 320, particularly when you talk about tall or wide people.

The EMB is not marketed by Embraer as a regional jet, but as a bridge between regional and full size narrowbodies. The tube is significantly higher and wider than an ERJ/CRJ. Customers who have sat in the two aircraft types express a clear preference for the EMB. And the type of flying it does will more be more of the type - linking major cities - that AC mainline does now.

[Spinnaker]

The purchase has less to do with the financing than the actual aircraft.

The EMB has a much nicer product.  Bigger cabin, better range, common cockpit 76- up to 110 seats.  If the Bombardier product was better than EMB, they would have likely got the entire order.

Remember, AC also said no to Boeing, and Airbus with the EMB order.

I agree and think the Embraer looks like a much product. I just question the thinking of Ottawa to not offer the same financing rates and help Bombardier when such a large order was coming from AC. The government has aided AC's competition for years on the same aircraft and I've never thought that was right.

Perhaps this could have tipped the scales slightly for the Canadian Aircraft maker when AC was making the deal.

On the other hand it could also cause a mile long 'government bail out' thread too.

[.70 mach]

"The majority of AC pilots are not in any mood to give up anything. One number. One aircraft. Nothing. Any aircraft that go elswhere......any number lost....will disproportionately hurt those that have been hurt the most by the Keller award."

Our union members have been telling the Jazz pilots for a long time that ACPA as a group walked away? But the reason we don't know. Did the Jazz group play hardball and try to negotiate for greater leverage than what they really had ? I have a mainline connection that had told me they were looking for some kind of ratio, but my reply was, that's the first I heard of anything like that. It was more like a bottom of the list deal with protection fences.

Would the junior ACPA members not want to have more bodies behind them? And can both sides really see what the company is doing with the EMB 170/175 trying to get them at the Jazz pay rates.

[Guest directlaw]

My limited understanding is that Jazz would only agree to BOTL/BOTL if scope was changed to encompass more aircraft at Jazz. ACPA would not agree to loose access to those Jobs.

They have done an awfully good job of keeping the specifics quiet haven't they?

[ChicoChico]

Who wants the deal between ACPA and Jazz more? Who needs it more? The answer to these 2 questions should direct that party to act accordingly.

[Jumpy]

It amazes me that after 10 years plus of fighting and bickering between the two sides that some agreement hasn't yet been reached. Both sides have had many chances to come to terms with a common list but couldn't see that it actually came to fruition. The EMB/RJ issue highlights the fact that the "company" can continue to play one side against the other. There will always be a winner and a loser as long as the two groups are seperate. Everyone always talks about the bar being lowered in aviation today when talking about the LCC's, but have both sides actually looked at how much they have lost by being a divided group.

[Guest ikfu]

GS. It is not going to happen.

ACPA published an explanation. That was re-posted here a number of times in the past.

The bottomline deal breaker was that ALPA insisted that ALPA represent the combined group without a vote. ALPA was busy cutting ACPA's throat behind the scenes concurrent with attempting to negotiate a GS. ALPA appeared to have the upper hand, the knives came out again.

WHOGAS anway, the issue is D-E-A-D. That is an ex-parrot. Let's move on.

Likely ALPA would win the representational day anyway with the ex-CDN group and Jazz voting for it, but to actually insist that there be no vote???!!!

[Buzz2]

Do you really think the labour laws in Canada would allow that? come on give your head a shake, that would not be a deal breaker!

[Guest ikfu]

Do you really think the labour laws in Canada would allow that? come on give your head a shake, that would not be a deal breaker!

Ees dead i tell you.

"...

This resolution was to encompass several main areas:

* seniority and jet allocation, including job protections

* union structure

* contractual issues

* representation

All of these issues are complex in and of themselves. It was anticipated

that Mediator Martin Teplitsky would assist the parties through some areas

that proved to be stumbling blocks, once the major work had been completed.

It was our understanding that the mediator's help would be used to resolve

issues dealing with the contract and Company, as well as assist in

representational matters that required liaison with the CIRB.

The talks have been on hold since the beginning of April. There are several

reasons for the holding pattern - an inability to reach conceptual agreement

on jet allocations and job protections, as well as ALPA's insistence on

their being the bargaining agent representing the combined pilot group.

..."

No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!

'Ello, Mister Polly Parrot! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show...(owner hits the cage)

There, he moved!

[Guest directlaw]

LOL

[Guest neo]

The GS may well be dead or dormant, however I'm just wondering where in that announcement one would learn that there was to be no vote on representation?

And if one thinks about it, how would you ever be able to switch union representation with no vote? It requires a vote to certify a union in the first place. It requires a vote to decertify a union. It requires a vote to recertify other union representation.

A 'back room' deal between unions on who was to do the representation will cut nothing with the CIRB. The laws of Canada state certain things about what must happen with union certification, and you don't get to circumvent them regardless of what the parties concerned decide upon themselves.

At least, that's my understanding. If I'm mistaken could someone please explain how this switch of union representation would work?

Thanks, neo

[Seeker]

I think you're right Neo. The Jazz guys would certainly hope that ALPA become the bargaining agent for the entire group and no doubt would work toward that end but to say that was the deal breaker doesn't seem like it could be correct.

[Guest directlaw]

"an inability to reach conceptual agreement on jet allocations and job protections, as well as ALPA's insistence on their being the bargaining agent representing the combined pilot group. "

I read that there were two problems.

Any settlement on GS would have had to go to the ACPA membership for approval. If within that settlement agreement there was a clause that stated ALPA would be the bargaining agent is that not a certification vote? Yes other issues are tied to it. And I must say I really don't like take it or leave it package deals, but never the less would this suffice as a certification vote?

[Seeker]

I read that there were two problems.

Any settlement on GS would have had to go to the ACPA membership for approval. If within that settlement agreement there was a clause that stated ALPA would be the bargaining agent is that not a certification vote? Yes other issues are tied to it. And I must say I really don't like take it or leave it package deals, but never the less would this suffice as a certification vote?

I'm no expert but I expect the CIRB would require a specific vote over the question of representation.

[Guest neo]

I too would expect decertification to require a formal vote on that matter alone held under the auspices of the CIRB. I could be wrong, but a decertification that's tied in a vote to other issues is not the way's it's done. That's my understanding, anyway.

But the issue of who the bargaining agent was to be would seem to be something of a red herring anyway. I would expect the whole scenario revolved on something more democratically primitive: such as which groups of pilots would subsequently wield the most power within whatever union represented us.

Everyone knows of the bitter blood between the regional pilots and the original mainline pilots at AC. Everyone knows of the bitter blood between the original AC pilots and the original CP pilots. It doesn't take a genius to see that the OAC would expect the regional pilots and OCP pilots to aline their interests, perhaps to the detriment of the OAC. When you combine that expectation with the results of the Keller Award, which puts a hugely disproportionate number of OAC at the bottom of the seniority list, well...

...the obvious result could be a loss of junior equipment at the mainline to the regional. It would hardly affect the OCP at all, and would benefit the regional pilots mightily.

Just my musings, though.

[Guest directlaw]

Everyone knows of the bitter blood between the regional pilots and the original mainline pilots at AC. Everyone knows of the bitter blood between the original AC pilots and the original CP pilots. It doesn't take a genius to see that the OAC would expect the regional pilots and OCP pilots to aline their interests, perhaps to the detriment of the OAC. When you combine that expectation with the results of the Keller Award, which puts a hugely disproportionate number of OAC at the bottom of the seniority list, well...

...the obvious result could be a loss of junior equipment at the mainline to the regional. It would hardly affect the OCP at all, and would benefit the regional pilots mightily.

Right on the money Mr. Neo

[Seeker]

Right on the money Mr. Neo

Hold on a second.....Yes, one possibility is that the regional pilots might benefit (mightily, as Neo puts it) at the AC pilot's expense. A more likely senario is that we would all benefit. The regional guys would get access to those small jets and the AC guys would benefit from no longer having to fight the costly rear guard action. Surely those lawyers both sides have paid for many times over could come up with language to protect the junior AC guys until retirements and attrition open spots on the Airbus fleet.

Look, it's a given truth that we would be better off as one group than as two. The problem, for both sides, is that there has been so much backroom dealing and trickery that neither side will trust the other enough to move forward.

[Guest neo]

Like directlaw I've been a proponent of one list for a long time, and I believe that we've all suffered for not having it. But it would always have taken people with a firm commitment to long-range planning to have pulled it off, because there would always have been near term losses. In short, it would have taken a lot of political will and guts all 'round.

This would have been difficult, but not impossible, five years ago. Unfortunately, the last few years has seen the entire Air Canada landscape bulldozed by seniority arbitrations and CCAA. There is no OAC pilot who hasn't taken a big hit in wages and benefits. There are precious few OAC pilots who haven't suffered a seniority setback, and the bottom third of the OAC have been, in a word, screwed. You'd have to show OAC pilots one enormous upside right now to convince anyone that the chance of another near-term loss is even remotely worth it. Yet any hypothetical upside (from joint negotiating strength) would have to be weighed against the political reality in our proposed union. And a reasonable projection of that political reality shows a big vulnerability for, once again, the OAC pilots.

I could easily be wrong, but my view is that the failure of the GS had less to do with which union would represent the pilots, and a lot to do with who would wield the power within the union.

Best to all,

neo