Boeing , Boeings , gone. [Archive]

meaw

19th Jun 2005, 05:10

Unfortunately it's true,

The vote was NO by a slim margin. Those who voted No were sending a message to management about the seniority issue with the ex CP problem.......many original AC pilots don't know what to do anymore to get justice and there was a large movement to vote NO . Some others voted NO because they are tired of giving concessions.

What kills me is that over a 1000 guys didn't vote ....had they voted I'm sure it would have passed.Everybody here takes things for granted and sit on their a....s and never get involved and now 1200 guys out of 3100 voted NO and again we get scrwed ....except this time we do it to ourselves.We are pathetic as a group and all you guys who didn't vote suck big time

I sure hope you NO guys get your message across....since everything else failed why not shoot ourselves in the foot,maybe that will help us get our seniority back....NOT.

This is incredible...either the company screws us or a judge or Canadian and now.......ourselves.

Lost in Saigon

19th Jun 2005, 05:46

It was voted down simply because it was a bad deal. NOTHING ELSE

When Air Canada orders a new aircraft type, the pilots and the company sit down and discuss what the new pay structure will be. If they can't agree then it goes to arbitration to set the new payscale.

THEY DON"T DISCUSS CONCESSIONS!!!!!!

Especially when so many concessions had already been given and no other employee group was asked for more concessions.

If Air Canada can't find a way to operate these aircraft within the current slashed contract (with the lowest payrates and poorest working conditions of any major carrier) then they don't deserve to be in business.

The pilots simply had enough of concessions. They decided to stop "Giving it up" like cheap whores.

Just because your pimp offers to buy you a new dress, there is no reason bend over and take it up the ass.

Rollingthunder

19th Jun 2005, 06:53

Yup, too bad. However AC will make up required additional aircraft numbers with other aircraft. A 767-300 arrived in YVR earlier this week and was parked outside the south hangar. P4 registration. Now gone, so probably in the YYZ paint hangar.

click

19th Jun 2005, 07:28

How much were ya asking for ?? And was it really that bad that you said no ?
I fail to see how the operational costs of two lower than average paid guys in the cockpit cancels a multibillon dollar deal.:*

Tony Clifton

19th Jun 2005, 09:39

Excellent!

Lost in Saigon hit the nail on the head. NO MORE CONCESSIONS!

Why were 320 overtime rates negotiated into the deal?
Why are the 787's cancelled? Their rates weren't even in the deal? And there's still 5 years before they show up.
Bunks, no J-class seat, 1050 hours a year, MORE pilots into the B-scale Position Group?
What was in it for us? Where is our "cost neutral" benefit?

There is a contract that AC INSISTED be signed until 2009 for "stability"; it contains processes for dealing with these exact situations. So follow it. End of story.

Its called called "negotiating" for a reason.
AND, there is an arbitration process that they could still follow when the negotiating stops.
AC management has chosen not to follow this path. So be it.

Why should we bend over and take it again?

If it came down to the pilots being the make-or-break cost of these new planes, I think its best we didn't get them because we definately couldn't afford them. Especially in a world of $58 a barrel oil.
Shame the proposed 30% operating cost savings weren't enough to keep the pilots concessions down.

I didn't see the F/A's renegotiating their contract. Hmm; I think there's how many? 14+ of them going for a ride in these new toys too. Why not take them for 1/5th the $ they needed from the pilots and leave the poor RP to STILL make less than most of them!!!

I'm glad this was voted down. Hope the stock tanks (and stays down) on Monday and Uncle Miltys 30+mill in stock options go with it.

How long do we have to be lead by this incompetent managment team anyway? Doesn't a company usually get rid of the guys who lead them into bankruptcy after its over?

I'm glad the pilots are starting to grow some testes and speak with one voice against the raping.

And don't think the OAC Keller movement had much sway here. We're not so stupid as to think killing the Boeings will take Keller down.
This was a BAD offer, and we'd rather take our chances with arbitration.

I think this is purely AC taking it to the next level of pressure.
If they really want to expand overseas they can't just very well pick up a copy of Trade-a-Plane and find 777's or 340's can they?

No more concessions.

Tony.
:ok:

Tan

19th Jun 2005, 10:42

No one ever said that pilots were the sharpest knifes in the drawer. This issue has its roots in the original seniority merger, greed does have its price..

STC

19th Jun 2005, 13:28

with the lowest payrates and poorest working conditions of any major carrier

Can anyone supply some information to support this statement? I really doubt it’s true.

This is just another chapter in the life of a corporate leech. Isn't this the same Air Canada that just emerged from bankruptcy, leaving several creditors out to dry to the tune of about $13 billion? To put that into perspective, if the debt was divided evenly among all Canadians (not just creditors) that’s about $430 per person. So a family of 4 would represent about $1700.

Remember how Air Canada got into that predicament? By selling seats for less than they were worth. Not because they were being undercut by competition. Because they pay top dollar for arguably the least efficient workforce in the industry.

So…you guys are sick of concessions? Well, Canadians (many of which are now poorer because of your bankruptcy) are quite sick of Air Canada and the concessions we have made to keep you afloat. Its amazing to me how the same management team can emerge unscathed from bankruptcy and start buying brand new airplanes to compete against the very operators who were responsible enough to run their companies efficiently while providing employees a reasonable wage.

For now, just suck it up and hope to hell you don’t find yourselves a few billion in the hole any time soon. The creditors probably won’t be quite so understanding next time.

brucelee

19th Jun 2005, 13:43

Gentlemen. Ac is not dead. The issue of seniority will be resolved. The word GROWTH is still being thrown around and at the end of the day, as always, life goes on. Here's the statement from flt ops management:

Dear Colleagues…

By now you are no doubt aware that the Tentative Agreement concerning
the introduction of the B777 and B787 aircraft has been rejected. A
majority of the pilot group has spoken and we respect and abide by your
decision.

While I know this outcome is disappointing to many of us, we have had to
notify Boeing of our intention to cancel the order. To offer background,
Boeing required a 200 million dollar deposit which becomes nonrefundable
on June 19th. Obviously, without an agreement in place, we could not
risk the deposit money and therefore the reason for the cancellation.

Moving ahead, we will continue striving to enhance our company which is
once again growing and profitable. We will, however, have to do it
differently. Today, the used aircraft market, especially for
wide-bodies is extremely tight, but hopefully, over the course of the
next year we will be able to find used A340, A330, and 767 aircraft
which will enable us to achieve the growth that was otherwise
planned for 2006 with 777 deliveries. While, clearly, we don't feel that
this is as attractive economically, especially with today's high fuel
prices, we will work our way through it. Key for us,
will be the longer term issue of replacing our 767 aircraft, but for
now, we'll just leave that for another day.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank ACPA's leadership for
their efforts to secure an agreement which would have allowed the order
to go forward. Through the ratification process, many pilots expressed
their support for Air Canada acquiring these aircraft, but also conveyed
concerns over pilot seniority issues which have been the subject of
considerable negotiations, arbitration and Canada Industrial Relations
Board (CIRB) deliberation. There are clearly seniority issues to be
resolved to the satisfaction of our entire pilot group and we will
continue to support ACPA as they strive to achieve that outcome.

It is our hope that, in time, we will find ways to bring new aircraft
into the fleet in a manner that is beneficial to both the pilots and the
company.

Rob

hibypassratio

19th Jun 2005, 15:49

As I posted just now on the Avcanada website. And no, I'm not an AC jockey:

I too call BS. If so much of the future plans of AC depend on these new machines, and they are that much more fuel efficient than current equipment, it seems to me that it's management who is cutting off their nose to spite their face. We don't even know what specifically the company was asking for that the pilots didn't like. We have all heard rumours that it wasn't pay, or not all pay, but working conditions. The first 787 wasn't supposed to be delivered until 2010 and the current agreement goes until 2009. It seems to me you have a little time to revisit the issue. Yes, the first 777's are coming later this year. Keep negotiating.

This is a move by Milton to try and force the pilot's to be desparate and make them look bad. From my point of view, it seems the opposite has happened. Good on ACPA!

brucelee

19th Jun 2005, 16:00

This vote was not so much an issue of working conditions as it was a seniority issue. The NO vote sent a strong message to the CIRB and to management and also to our very own union. FIX the problem so we can live with the merger. AC will not sink because of this issue, it will continue to grow simply because the market is good right now. Wether or not AC will fly 777/787 or used something or other, our seats will be filled and yes . life goes on. If the seniority issue does not get resolved (which I doubt) many pilots will have to bite the bullet.

Grubby

19th Jun 2005, 16:44

brucelee, you are pushing YOUR agenda, not the bulk of the pilots who voted against a bad deal. The wages weren't so much of a problem as the chipping away at the contract with more concessions, directed solely at the pilot group.

If AC wants to cut more costs, then get after the f/as, and other groups. The pilot concessions in CCAA are more or less permanent. Other groups have snapped back and hired while pilots are still on furlough, or long term LOA. There isn't much sense in hurrying back, and hopefully the people that apply to AC will have a very serious look at working conditions and pay that are not better than the Third World. Even the CARs allow working in conditions that don't exist in the Third World.

brucelee

19th Jun 2005, 16:59

Grubby.

If you're not an AC pilot, I can understand your lack of knowledge of the facts. If you are an AC person, we have more problems than I thought we had. I'm not pushing any agenda. Just stating the facts. Had it not been for a lobsided seniority decision on the part of the CIRB, we would have 777 a/c flying the maple leaf next year. You are right, the pilot group did give up more than anyone else. We were even willing to live with that. But the seniority issue is no where near being resolved and as a result over 1100 pilots vs. 900 or so made their decision. BTW, all furloughs have been recalled just in case you missed it.

Lost in Saigon

19th Jun 2005, 17:17

I am an Air Canada Pilot. The few OAC pilots who voted no because of seniority issues probably offset the brainwashed pilots who always vote the way the MEC tells them to.

"Sending a message" to Air Canada about seniority issues will have absolutely no effect. The seniority issue is still before the courts and that is where the final decisions will be made......

brucelee

19th Jun 2005, 18:01

Attempt after attempt (I've lost count) with the CIRB has failed to provide justice. I can tell you that a large number of original AC pilots have lost so much seniority, they feel they have been raped. The numbers don't lie. No other group has suffered the losses the OAC pilots have and I guess enough is enough. The original CP pilots did the same thing when the Mitchnik award came out. They fought back and successfully overturned Mitchnik and achieved an award which will affect all OAC for the rest of their careers. There has got to be a middle of the road settlement. That's what we agreed upon before the CIRB a few years ago. Sending a message will, if nothing else, prove that in the future, any vote will have the seniority cloud over it. This vote was probably not that important to the company to begin with. They are making money now with the egsisting equipment and will continue to do so in the future. Maybe the next vote will be more important. Make no mistake, there is strength in numbers.

Grubby

19th Jun 2005, 18:32

brucelee, yes I am AC. Semanitics I guess, pilots are still not back at AC for various reasons, be it LOA, resignation, etc. The point is that most other groups we back at full strength, or hardly furloughed at all even with that condition as a major part of their concession packages.

We have a contract. We have a collective agreement to which AC was party that should be honoured. Is AC ever going to plan with that as the working document, or are we going to be asked for concessions forever? Is there any honour in AC management, or does 'a new relationship with ACPA' mean that they just want the pilots to do the company bidding all the time?

You may be pushing the seniority issue as your main reason for the no vote, but you can bet that a straw poll of the pilot group would not agree with you. The seniority issue is your agenda. Sad but true man, it is your deal, although as oac, I tend to sympathize I do not agree with your premise.

You are a condescending prick btw!

brucelee

19th Jun 2005, 19:12

Sorry folks, I'll have to continue this one via PM.

Tan

19th Jun 2005, 19:56

Grubby

I am a 32 year OAC Captain and I have to disagree with your ascertainment that seniority had nothing to do with it. For sure it wasn’t the whole story but it sure played a part in this vote outcome.

What a surprise that the new AC wasn’t bluffing. What did everyone think would happen on a no vote? Hey it’s a new world out there since the LCC’s came on the scene.

I wish it wasn’t so but that’s not reality is it?

Grubby

19th Jun 2005, 22:26

Tan, hmmmmm, let me read back to my old posts. Nope, nope. wow, where did I say, or you infer I had asserted "that seniority had nothing to do with it" ? Your second sentence covers it fairly well, and I agree "For sure it wasn’t the whole story but it sure played a part in this vote outcome."

It is hard to explain all the "stuff" that has happened in the past prior CCAA, during, and since. Prior to CCAA was the merger, and all sorts of concessions, contract manipulation during that period also. An irritation was definately the merger, and seniority issues. The general feeling that I have gathered, and quoting someone else " we have become PWA, CP and CAIL". I could not agree more. CCAA was as inevitable for us upon the declaration of that merger as it was for CAIL on taking Wardair. We just bought their problems, their debt, and a snotty attitude of entitlement, in SOME, actually a lot of their people. That is part of the problem, but it is not the issue that has decided the NO vote.

I do not believe that the vote spit down red/blue lines. I don't believe that the OAC group should have hijacked (oops) the seniority issue agenda for that vote either. I am not alone in this thinking, and many, probably most of the old Red types are more in line with my thinking that yours, in my recent experience. They all can't be lying to me.

brucelee

19th Jun 2005, 22:45

Rob Reid DFO, seems have understood what most of us are trying to say. Once AGAIN, here is an excerpt of his message:

"Through the ratification process, many pilots expressed
their support for Air Canada acquiring these aircraft, but also conveyed
concerns over pilot seniority issues which have been the subject of
considerable negotiations, arbitration and Canada Industrial Relations
Board (CIRB) deliberation. There are clearly seniority issues to be
resolved to the satisfaction of our entire pilot group and we will
continue to support ACPA as they strive to achieve that outcome".

Hey Grub, do YOU get the drift? I would of liked to retire on a tripple 7 just as much as you. Thanks to a great wine and cheese party, the CIRB and the OCP, none of us ever will.

Tan

19th Jun 2005, 23:49

Grubby

Well gee that’s not what my F/O’s are telling me, as for me at my level it has no effect at all. Please explain the F/O high book off rate, which is pretty dumb on the part of the F/O’s in my opinion. Fix the problem from within without damaging your livelihood is the only sensible solution...

The grievances of the present and past should have had no bearing on the vote at all but unfortunately that’s not what happened. The apathy vote IMHO is just as guilty as those who voted no.

The biggest surprise for me was how many of the pilot group missed the big picture as the vote was supposes to be about “fleet renewal” which would have secured our future. Our growth and prosperity lies in the international market place and for that to happen we need fuel efficient long range aircraft. Period.

Is another vote possible very shortly, I would hope so or our future has just taken a turn down south?

brucelee

20th Jun 2005, 00:36

Those of us affected by the merger all have our stories to tell. At one point, I was down half my salary ( a loss of approx $60,000/yr),regaining only slightly some of it recently. It will be at least a couple of years more before I come close to it again. Those who have not been affected by the merger this bad will of course look at it differently. The selfishness is obvious and I guess normal to some extent. Voting NO was not an easy thing to do. The prosperity of the company should always come first. But how much more should I give? Who's looking after my prosperity? Somehow I think the company will do quite well with or without new airplanes. But somehow I don't think I'll ever regain my 500+ seniority numbers. If I were flying a widebody, I probably wouldn't be waisting my time on this forum right now, right?

Grubby

20th Jun 2005, 02:49

Well boilz and goilz, let's agree to disagree. There were a number of agendas out there that lead to the NO vote. I did not say that seniority was to be discounted as one of them, but my experience has been different that yours, obviously, in my conversations.

RR can post whatever he wants, and if you have any question about where some of the issue arise, I suggest that is probably where you should look. Take a look at his share distribution and his net worth over the past few months! You think he has the pilot interests in mind? NO. My opinion, I think he is from the Dark Side. I've talked with him a few times in the past 28 years or so.

molly molly

20th Jun 2005, 09:32

When you still owe 6 billion, Pension fund still underfunded by 1.5 billion, still have yet to post a profit, what do you expect. When you pay Cabin Crew and baggage handlers more than pilots why do they continue to blame the pilot group....

Tan

20th Jun 2005, 10:01

I find it unbelievable how many in the pilot group still don’t get it. The reality is that AC cannot produce a profit on its domestic side with out being supplemented by its profitable international side. One of the major reasons that our international side is still profitable is thanks to the US government’s home security which has hamstrung its own airlines.

The AC management team unlike many in the pilot ranks was smart enough to avail themselves of this opportunity or at least they tried and would have been hugely successful except for those without vision in the pilot group.

Grubby

20th Jun 2005, 14:01

Tan:

This is not a one sided issue, with good guys and bad guys, black and white issues (red/blue?).

I do not believe that the pilots are without vision. Like pilots anywhere ACPA members wanted new aircraft, more routes, growth, expansion, movement - but not at all costs. The message from Milton was to accept his terms, or else. The pilots took "or else".

The erosion of the contract has been continuous. Milton's own book gives insights into his thinking about the future of AC, and his feeling about pilots.

Milton threaten the pilots, plain and simple. Milton, the schoolyard bully, put the threat out there that unless the pilots signed on to the deal, he would pack up his bat and ball and go home. The pilots really had no choice either, to continue being beaten daily by the bully or finally take the presented opening and say "no". He got called on that last threat, and Milton had backed himself into a corner of his own creation. So he had no choice. The order was cancelled - at least as far as we know today.

IS that good management? Wouldn't a good manager leave a back door?

Milton asked for a lot, in the end too much from ONE (that is very important) employee group. Milton would be the hero if he had succeeded, and certainly that would NOT have been the end of the demands upon the pilots. Milton has made it clear that as far as he is concerned, it is war on the pilot group. That is his interpretation of the "new way of doing business", while speaking out of the other side of his face to the press about wanting a lovey-dovey relationship with the unions - and even despite putting Brewer in as a new front line general with a new propaganda campaign.

As it stands now, Milton is a bit of a lame duck. At the very least, he has lost some face in his necessary face-saving cancellation of the Boeing order. The necessary message to management has been sent. No more concesssions, and if that has not been heard, we are doomed into CCAA again.

Was this Boeing deal planned to fail? We'll see I guess.

edit -- PS - the seniority statements by AC to the press, and by the OAC group are self-serving.

AC is deflecting blame from a their incompetence, and a lousy offer onto the division within the pilot group.

The OAC pilots are attempting to put their agenda on the table, having failed at all other turns. I believe, as original AC (not part of OAC group) that the process has been skewed and biased within the CIRB and not living up to their own preachings BUT hijacking the ratification vote and the PR is very desperate and not a good move.

The press in interpreting the "no" vote with seniority as the primary reason. That is not accurate, and has reflected badly on ACPA much to AC's pleasure. --end edit

bcflyer

20th Jun 2005, 17:56

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not fully up to speed on the seniority issue at AC, but as I understand it, the decision will be made by the CIRB and not the company? If thats correct and the company has no say in what happens to the seniority list then what benefit was there in voting no? Can AC go to the CIRB to get things done more quickly? Of course if the no vote was based on a lousy deal then that I can understand. I'm not trying to get anyones back up, I'm just trying to be more informed on whats going on.

brucelee

20th Jun 2005, 20:51

bcflyer.
In my view, there isn't much the company can do because they decided to stay out of it from the beginning and let the two unions (acpa/alpa) try to work it out. When the unions couldn't work it out, it whent to arbitration. It didn't have to. The company could have fixed the problem right from the start. CIRB arbitration has not worked either (unless you are an ex CP). Having said that, there are those who believe the company can still influence the board and come up with a more fair seniority list. The NO vote I think was more directed at everyone,ie AC,CIRB,ALPA. The OAC have got nowhere with arbitration and only if you lost as much seniority as some have would you get a real sense of the problem. As for the agreement itself, it was not that great either. So as has been said already, many agendas for the NO vote. Those who enter AC now will not be influenced too much by all this except to hear the "whining" of us OAC pilots.
Still the best job around.

bcflyer

20th Jun 2005, 21:13

Brucelee, thanks for clarifying that for me. Glad to hear it shouldn't affect the newhires coming online too much.

brucelee

20th Jun 2005, 21:18

The hiring will not be affected. AC is hiring because pilots are retiring AND we are buying more planes. Those planes will be used and probably not tripple 7s. However, some are saying that the deal with Boeing could get reignited under a different offer to the pilot group. The circus continues. Stay tuned.

Dockjock

20th Jun 2005, 23:13

What a mess. From one standpoint, I'm very happy that the pilots have refused to agree to further concessions. I would rather there be a few good jobs, as opposed to many bad ones, but hey I've always leaned a bit to the right.
From another, I cannot believe that there is a small group that has hijacked this deal because of the seniority issue. Now a huge step forward in cost, efficiency, and worldwide notability for Air Canada has gone off a cliff. Way to go to the small batch of bad apples that have ruined this deal for something that wasn't even being negotiated.

brucelee

21st Jun 2005, 00:38

If there's one thing OAC pilots are trying to do it's putting a stop to the degradation of our profession. I cannot think of any other pilot group in this country who has had the cahonies to stand up to management for a better contract and seniority. If we succeed, any future AC pilot (not to mention our profession in general) will benefit. Dockjock, if you get hired at AC, are you going to be any worse off retiring on an A340 instead of a 777? The type of airplane ain't what counts. The contract and seniority is the heart and soul of how you live from now until well beyond retirement. When you do retire at AC, remember who fought for your rights and pension. Remember us "bad apples". Man, don't get me going.

Lost in Saigon

21st Jun 2005, 00:54

"I cannot believe that there is a small group that has hijacked this deal because of the seniority issue"

You are right in not believing it. I am not an "Original Air Canada Pilot" (Or ex-CP) . I was hired after the merge.

As I understand it, there was a letter signed by 3 OAC guys urging other OAC to vote no to send a message that they are not happy with the way the seniority issues are being handled.

At first I thought they were complete idiots for thinking that this would have any benefit to their cause because the issue will be decided in the courts and nobody can influence the court decisions.

But now I think these guys are a lot smarter than I thought.
They could probably see the No voting coming and thought what a good way to get a little publicity.

Now Boeing, Air Canada, and even ACPA itself are promoting this outright lie so that they don't look ridiculous to the rest of the world. It is a very easy way to save face when a multi-billion dollar deal is canceled because of incompetence in Air Canada management.

They all seem to have their own agenda and it is has nothing to do with the truth.

c150driver

21st Jun 2005, 01:31

Dockjock, if you get hired at AC, are you going to be any worse off retiring on an A340 instead of a 777?

unfortunately, neither, if AC goes bankrupt again....

I think you guys might have shot yourselves in the foot...we will have to see how it turns out I guess.

Dockjock

21st Jun 2005, 01:38

brucelee, trust me when I say I have a hell of a lot of respect for ACPA's vote on this deal. Like I said, I'm happy that you've all stood up to be counted. Its more than can be said for most pilots.

There have been 2 very large lapses of common sense here though. The first one is management in even allowing this, or requiring this to go to the voting stage. They've got the brand new contract in their hands, how much more "cost certainty" can you get? Break out the ol' calculator, and bam that's what the new toys are gonna cost. But no, they wanted more and let the door open a tiny crack for the small faction of disgruntled folks to barge in. Huge mistake. Huge gamble, they lost and I hope it is as embarrassing for them as it would seem to me. Coulda been a sign here, here, and here deal, doneski thank you very much the 777's get here next summer, management and ACPA both look good. But no.

The 2nd one is the so-called "OAC" group. I don't know how large this is, or if it even exists as Lost in Saigon wrote. Who knows. The point is, the margin was very very close and even if a tiny number of pilots voted no purely because of the seniority issue, it changed the course of the company's future success with a single stroke. Shame this wasn't even an issue up for discussion, and by many accounts this was the single reason for these folks turning the vote down.

In any case, it seems that expansion will continue unabated, just not with 777's. Of course I see it doesn't matter which type I fly if I get hired there. Just like anyone, flying the 777 or 787 would have been great, new technology. But let's be honest, I pole around in a B1900D right now so an EMB175 might just as well be a 777 for all I care. I want a good job when I get there, not 90 hrs a month for $40K a year and missing my entire life back here with my family.
I know it will all work itself out, with older aircraft, or a reversal on this one. Who knows, Boeing was beaten handily at Paris, and Airbus has just announced a price increase...maybe there are more than a couple interested parties in getting a new deal done? ;)

brucelee

21st Jun 2005, 02:23

The OAC group is made up of approx. 1200 pilots. It does egsist and is not to be underestimated. Within this group you will find largely a mix of A320, CRJ Capts and F/Os as well as the widebody RPs. All original AC, all people who have lost up to several hundred seniority numbers and all the hardship that goes along with that. That may not mean much to you unless you work here. To top it all off the 320 guys took an extra 5% cut on top of the 15% handed to everyone. Why? Who knows? Look, I could go on forever on why this group is pissed off. It's not just seniority, but that's the big part. I'm willing to bet that if any one of you do-gooders was one those guys, you'd be pissed off too. AC management is good at making us look bad. Don't be surprized to see tripple 7s at AC next year.

slowstream

21st Jun 2005, 04:24

Brucelee and many others,

Thanks for the insights you have provided, I admit I have been operating on limited information that seeps out to the general population and these sites. Like so much else in life this is certainly not a one or two sided argument and I have learnt a good deal from the comments here. It would be nice to see our profession upgraded and to stop some of the blame always falling to our group. I wish you guys all the best and hopefully if I get in the door I can say "Thanks"

Good Luck!

brucelee

21st Jun 2005, 12:01

Slowstream
Thanks for your support. Some of us have been put in a situation we would much rather not be in. AC is a great company and a great job. Over the years, our union(s) have worked hard to give us the lifestyle we enjoy today. Unfortunately, for various reasons, those benefits could slowly slip away if we sat on our hands. We all have worked hard to get where we are. Unfortunately, there will always be a battle to fight. That's life. But as I've said many times before, it's still the best gig around and I wouldn't trade it for anything else.

hibypassratio

21st Jun 2005, 15:32

It's funny because I've not been a pro-union guy most of my life until I began flying. Kudos to ACPA for not taking it. A couple of points occur to me as read this string and others on Avcanada:

1. Whay the hell did AC buy CP outright anyway? Wait until they are bankrupt and buy the pieces you want. You buy a company in financial trouble and inherit the trouble. You also create a problem in the unions on seniority issues. Buy the equipment and routes you want, and hire experienced people but without seniority issues. This wasn't the only thing that pushed AC into bankruptcy protection, but it was definetly a prime causal factor.

2. AC just signed a deal with the pilots good through 2009. Honor the deal. Their own deal they negotiated isn't good enough? Even without the seniority issue I'm not surprised at a no vote. Youe beat someone long enough, don't be surprised if they start fighting back.

3. I would think that in the long run in would be to AC management's benefit to help push along a settlement of seniority issues in the pilot group, or any group. I think perhaps there is such a strong dislike among key management figures for the pilots that they like the irony of problems in the pilot group. However it is a long term thorn in the side of AC. Take a leadership role and make a statement and get involved in helping find labour peace. It is to the benefit of AC as a whole.

I think AC is making some good moves right now. The growth of the maintenannce division, etc. The order of new Boeing seemed very forward thinking. AC management set up the scenario that allowed for the possibility of a no vote. This is their screw up.

This is merely the point of view of an interested observer, not an AC driver.

brucelee

21st Jun 2005, 16:15

hybypass.
I'll try and answer some of your questions as best I can. I'm not an expert and my memory might not be all that great but I'll try.
On question1: There are many speculations on why AC bought CP but it is widely believed that the Liberals had much to do with it. A political stunt is usually difficult to defeat. Add to this, R. Milton's greed and the rest is history. I'm fine with all that but the seniority issue should have been dealt with internally, the way it's been done in the US(TWA,American) and decisively with no further ability for review. This issue has now been dragging on for five years and it ain't over yet.
Question 2: If I'm not mistaken, any new equipment brought in to the company has to be renegotiated. The salary as a whole is up for review in 2009 but all other factors are negotiated at the time the equipment is on paper.
Question 3: AC management under RM has followed the philosiphy of divide and conquer. Split the group any way you can, weaken them. Read his book, you will get the impression this guy does not like pilots or unions. He should be running a low cost carrier.

hibypassratio

21st Jun 2005, 17:42

Thanks BL. Keep up the battle. Anybody on the outside slagging you guys doesn't realize that you are trying to make it better for current and future Ac drivers and set an example for the rest of the industry in Canada.

Tan

21st Jun 2005, 19:59

Brilliant move on the part of the pilots the rumor has it the AC 777 slots have already been filled by other carriers.

This vote was about the future and is just an another example of pilots thinking their the experts on big business and the big picture, what a hoot that is.

Jun. 21, 2005

RICK WESTHEAD
BUSINESS REPORTER

Air Canada shouldn't expect to find bargains on second-hand planes after the union representing mainline Air Canada pilots voted to quash the carrier's plans to buy new state-of-the-art jets, airline analysts and consultants say.

Demand for widebody jets, typically used to fly routes from North America to Asia and other far-flung destinations, has never been stronger.

With jet manufacturers such as Boeing Co. and Airbus SA still several years away from delivering new models, airlines are gobbling up most of the fuel-efficient second-hand planes they can find.

"The market for passenger aircraft continues to strengthen," Morgan Stanley airline analyst Douglas Runte wrote Sunday in a report to clients. "There are almost no widebody aircraft such as the 767, 777 or A330 available."

In fact, of the 600 Boeing 767-300ER jets produced by the manufacturer, just four were "parked" and available for purchase on the second-hand market in March, Runte wrote. Boeing's 777 model and Airbus' A330 and A340 models are in similarly scant supply.

"Prices are rising and availability is tight," said David Treitel, an executive with New York airline consulting firm SH&E. "There's no easy solution for Air Canada here."

However, Air Canada spokesperson Laura Cooke said the airline remains confident on meeting its target of acquiring three widebody planes next year. Last year, Air Canada acquired six such second-hand planes, and the number available could rise dramatically if any carriers filed for bankruptcy or bankruptcy protection.

Air Canada had originally placed orders worth $6.1 billion (U.S.) for 18 Boeing 777s and 14 of the Chicago-based company's new 787, also known as the Dreamliner for such things as its spacious interior and large passenger windows. Air Canada also acquired the option to purchase 18 additional 777s and 46 more 787s.

Air Canada didn't reveal the cost for each airplane, but Boeing's 777-300ER has a list price of as much as $245.5 million. The 787 sells for $120 million.

Even with the steep price tags, Air Canada hoped the new planes would pare fuel costs by about $300 million within five years. Now, however, the company faces paying relatively steep prices for second-hand jets.

Treitel, whose company has been hired by airlines to buy used planes, said he recently considered a purchase for a group of used 767 jets that were built in the early 1990s and selling for at least $28 million apiece.

Even after the purchase, an airline would face the added cost of refitting the plane to adapt its avionics equipment and conform to the carrier's seating configurations. That alone could add another $15 million to the price, Treitel said.

In a memo to employees announcing the collapse of the Boeing deal, Air Canada executive vice-president Rob Reid noted that "the used aircraft market, especially for wide-bodies is extremely tight, but hopefully, over the course of the next year we will be able to find used A340, A330 and 767 aircraft, which will enable us to achieve the growth that was otherwise planned for 2006 with 777 deliveries.

"While, clearly, we don't feel that this is as attractive economically, especially with today's high fuel prices, we will work our way through it," Reid wrote. "Key for us will be the longer-term issue of replacing our 767 aircraft, but for now, we'll just leave that for another day."

Kent Wilson, president of the Air Canada Pilots Association, confirmed yesterday that the union's members voted 1,140 to 961 to scuttle the purchase, at least partly because of widespread rancour over how pilot seniority lists were merged when Air Canada bought Canadian International Airlines Ltd. five years ago.

Grubby

22nd Jun 2005, 02:38

Dockjock, Spanish "H" is a "J", cajones, maybe or just emotional backlash? The message was "honor the GD contract that you signed with us".

Brucelee, talking with 320 types, the paycut is much higher than you indicate on that type. Whatever the pain, it was not equitable across the pilot board, and absolutely not across the employee spectrum. Ask the Buzz Hargrove to finance the 777 lets! I wonder what Buzz might say? DUH.

Tan, have you closely read the press releases? Why not post some more of the press today. Post the information that Airbus is raising their rates, and that Boeing is in a flap about this, particularly after a less than stellar showing at the Paris Airshow. Did you let it be known that Air Canada and Boeing are still talking, and that AC has "advised Boeing of our intention to cancel". Can you show a company press release that actually says the order is outright cancelled? It may exist, but I haven't seen it.

There are political factions in ACPA that want the seniority issue to remain alive. OAC lobby is one Probably there are OCP that do for some reason too. Will management say that they have screwed this up? Why not point the finger at the pilots? They are greedy buggers that don't want new airplanes, don't want more flying jobs, don't want more movement, working condition or base choices.......it is the pilots fault. Redrum, redrum....

Honor the Contract. Tell Robert. Thanks.

hibypassratio

22nd Jun 2005, 04:58

A poster on another site refers to a poll done by ACPA after the vote regarding the reason for the NO vote. Only 13% voted NO because of seniority issues! The majority of no voters did so because they thought it was a bad deal for the pilots in both pay and working conditions. AC didn't go to other groups of workers and insist that they take another hit, only the pilots.

Some reports indicating that 10% of pilots are now making less than some FA's? I hope that is low seniority pilots vs high seniority FA's.

Tan

22nd Jun 2005, 09:50

Grubby

You seem to have a selective reading problem;

Air Canada News:

Air Canada cancels Boeing order following pilot rejection of tentative agreement. On Saturday, Air Canada announced it was cancelling the Boeing wide-body order of 777s and 787s following our pilots’ rejection of the tentative agreement on contractual terms concerning the introduction of the new aircraft. ACPA leadership had recommended ratification of the tentative agreement which had been negotiated with the assistance of Mediator Mr. M.G. Mitchnik. The order is subject to cancellation without penalty. "We are naturally disappointed at having to cancel the wide-body aircraft order but these aircraft can only be brought into our fleet on a pre-determined economic basis. Despite best efforts on the part of ACPA, the agreement has been rejected,” said Montie Brewer. “Following a successful restructuring, Air Canada has been transformed into a viable carrier. We cannot lose sight of the effort it took to get to where the airline is today and while the cancellation of this aircraft order will be disappointing to our employee group at large, including many of our pilots, it is the right decision given the circumstances. The cancellation of the order is not material to our business plan over the next few years.”
Montie has recorded a special employee message. To hear his comments about the Boeing order cancellation, call the infoLine or read it online on Aeronet or www.achorizons.ca.

brucelee

22nd Jun 2005, 11:31

Just as a point of interest here is a review of comments from some very important people.
From our MEC Chair:
I, along with the rest of the MEC, acknowledge that a significant factor was the long standing and still unresolved pilot seniority integration dispute."

".Captains Rob Reid and Michael Downey have also acknowledged the seniority dispute as being a significant reason for opposition to the deal."

"We have all known that the seniority integration dispute has been a divisive issue among the pilots for several years, but this is the first occasion where it has directly affected our ability to conduct the important business we have with the Company. Also obvious now, is the fact that it has directly affected how the Company manages its operations."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is clear that its failure [the TA] was mostly due to the unfair seniority list we have been suffering under for two years."

ACPA Merger Committee

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There are clearly seniority issues to be resolved."

Rob Reid
Air Canada
Chief Operating Officer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There are internal issues that Air Canada needs to deal with at this point.""

Todd Blecher
Boeing spokesman

Dockjock

23rd Jun 2005, 19:29

Not sure what would have changed from April, but I suppose this no longer applies.
"Our analysis of these aircraft pointed to overwhelmingly attractive economics. We have estimated the fuel burn and maintenance cost savings along on the B787 to be approximately 30% versus the B767s they will replace." -Robert Milton

brucelee

24th Jun 2005, 02:23

Nothing has changed. Those new airplanes are more economical no doubt. There is also more passenger appeal. Really too bad this whent the way it did. Some are saying we're still talking to Boeing. Who knows.

McDoo the Irish Navigator

24th Jun 2005, 21:25

I just wanted to point out that PPRUNE requests posters not repost articles available elsewhere on the internet.
A link to said article should suffice, the premise being that we all all reasonably (computer & otherwise) literate and able to follow the link.
Otherwise I am impressed with the gentlemanly way that this thread has progressed.

My glass seems to be empty......maybe I should bring the bottle to my desk.....

Aloyious H. McDoo

Grubby

25th Jun 2005, 03:36

Tan, brucelee, etc.

Quoting your friend RR writing today

"3. Several of our pilots have communicated to their co-workers and called for action to slow down the Company's operations. As you are aware, such action would be illegal, and so is the call for it. We are all professionals and I know that the vast majority of you do not condone or support this activity. Wherever such activity happens by a few, we all suffer the consequences – Company, pilots, and fellow employees alike. We cannot allow a situation to continue where a group of pilots promotes and encourages unlawful action to further their personal agendas. Therefore, we have filed an application with the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) to order these people to stop any such activity.

This may look like a strong reaction. But keep in mind, permitting this type of illegal activity has negative consequences for all of us. In addition, the use of illegal means to further personal goals is disrespectful to all of you professionals who play by the rules. Our application with the CIRB ensures that your interests receive the proper consideration in the lawful venues.

Our focus in applying to the CIRB is to stop the illegal activity. We are not interested in retribution or revenge, but we need to stop the illegal activities from interfering with our operations.

4. We have also made the point to the CIRB that the vote was influenced by the seniority issue. If the CIRB feels it appropriate, it could return the mediator’s report to ACPA for their consideration and a possible re-vote, absent the seniority interference, thereby ensuring that the issue can be dealt with on its’ own merits. Whether or not this occurs is obviously up to the CIRB.

We have come through too much together to let this set us back. I know that in the current situation, emotions may run high and viewpoints are sometimes disputed. Remember, we may all have different opinions, but we are united in one goal: making our airline a success. On that front, we are doing well. We are on a roll, our bookings are good, the operation is running reasonably well and things are looking up. "

What is RR saying? Why, your Pyrrhic victory is illegal in AC's eyes. You can not turn down AC management!

Why the HELL did you think that AC was willing to acknowledge the seniority issue as the reason for the TA failure? Because it is now NOT their fault as management and it is NOT the subject of the TA itself. And everyone follows along thinking, yeah, ok I voted on the TA but if this can be twisted into a seniority issue, I'll go along with that.

By allowing the inertia of public, pilot and press thinking to be influenced by the idea that seniority was the issue, without any actual proof of numbers, AC has now taken this fight to the CIRB as an illegal vote. We can not vote on a Tentative Agreement to our collective bargaining agreement unless it what AC wants.

Should this pass the CIRB, we are neutered as a group. We might as welll bend over. The only thing that might save our fat asses is if AC has to prove their allegation before the CIRB. If you can prove that seniority was the issue, then maybe you can help AC out in this matter.

Twits! ****, there needs to be a good old ass whupping, and I think AC might be about to deliver that to ACPA. Milton will win, and he will beat the crap of anyone that stands in his way.

Tan

25th Jun 2005, 10:09

"Air Canada asked the Canada Industrial Relations Board late yesterday to order a new vote on a proposed labour contract rejected last week by unionized pilots"

Hopefully now that the pilots are educated on the subject we will perhaps see a different result or at least one where all the pilots have voted. If the pilots again vote no so be it.

Professional pilots do not advocate job related slowdowns those that do in IMHO should be fired, period..

Grubby

My background is all AC I do not belong to the OAC group per sec nor do I support any part of their campaign nor do I support any part of the AC/CP campaign although I think the latter should quit if they hate AC so much. But for lack of a better description of my background I say OAC when I should just say AC.

You may not like RM but he's probably the smartest airline CEO out there right now.

Grubby

25th Jun 2005, 13:39

Tan, same here, AC for many years, nor do I belong to the OAC, nor pasted an OAC sticker on my bag, nor participated in any emailings.

Yet we seem to have a squabble about the vote, you and me, and what the real meaning of that vote was about.

It appears very obvious now, to me at least, that AC management manipulated this NO vote into something other than what it really was, for their benefit, in this AC move to the CIRB.

There NEVER was an overall majority no vote based on the seniority issue, I maintain. There was a small group of the OAC political movement that were vocal about their interest.

AC took that into a press release, which they craftily asked ACPA to vette. AC can now say that ACPA and AC management were on the same page about the no vote, when AC comes before the CIRB.

ACPA has already agreed to the validation of the seniority issue by vetting the AC management press release and agreeing to the content. ACPA is now trapped, they have spoken for the entire pilot group.

Surely it is most unusual for AC to offer up a press release to ACPA prior to AC releasing anything. Was there no suspicion that there may be ulterior motives?

AC is saying to the CIRB that pilots, some or just the people that voted no to the Tentative Agreement, are declaring an illegal strike by conselling the no vote, and that the people did vote no did so on an issue not included in the TA. The result should be nullified. Should AC win, we now move to arbitration. The arbitrator may just impose the TA upon the pilots.

AC obviously wants the 777/787s and from this standpoint it looks like they probably have not cancelled the order. Otherwise, what is the point of going to the CIRB.

On the other issues covered by the AC memo ie work to rule?? what the hell, maybe I am out to lunch, but this is entirely news to me, just as the seniority issue was the reason for the no vote. It seems to me that there are some extremely dangerous political games being played on both sides, by AC management and political factions within ACPA.

So back to our previous apparent disagreement. You say that seniority was the issue, and I have always maintained it was not.

I now believe that it is clear that the order was never really dead. AC management found a convenient weapon that could deflect critism from them, onto the pilots. They wanted ACPA to agree to the memo about the seniority issue before releasing it. The press jumped on that.

Many original AC pilots sympathize with the sentiment, and probably went along with that idea. I don't believe that there is proof that seniority really was the issue, and the only thing would be for AC to produce emails prior to the NO result to support the seniority claim.

The last week has be allowed to keep the seniority in the press, and to allow ACPA to dig a deeper hole for themselves by directing the discussion toward seniority. There were a couple of articles in the National Post and Globe & Mail, at least on this topic.

AC now takes the seniority issue to the CIRB to crush the pilots into submission once again, as was previous done when it looked like with our last (non-CCAA) collective agreement by removing our right to withdraw our services.

Should AC be successful, will have essentially hamstrung ACPA. They will achieved the TA or better, put ACPA into disarray thanks to the OAC group and ACPAs leanings toward the OAC cause, made the pilots look like idiots to the general public and seriously diminished effective tools that ACPA has for saying NO to AC management demands.

Seniority was not the issue. AC manipulated that into one. My opinion is that this is just one more giant step down the slippery slope that of the declining relationship that AC is constanting touting of needing repair. This is not the way to move forward to a better way of doing business. It is an attempt to beat the pilots into line by whatever means necessary. You will comply....or else.