A letter from 10 concerned YYZ Pilots
Thread Starter
A letter from 10 concerned YYZ Pilots
Good Morning All:
I received this from a friend of mine who lives in YYZ.
It is an interesting read and deserves a serious discussion other than labelling it as "wet".
Ask yourself this if the negotiating team resigns who is willing to step up into the void? Would you be willing to do the "donkey work" of negotiating? A professional negotiator always comes into discussion but who will lead them? Who will take the time to tell them the difference between pilots working conditions as to a construction worker?
If you do decide to strike how much money have you put aside as you might have one to three months without income? Are you 100% committed to the support of a strike?
If you are going to vote for a strike, remember this it is analogous to giving the military release of non-conventional weapons as you only do it once and in the end the survivors will envy the dead.
This e-mail summarizes the discussions of 10 pilots who are all Toronto
based with just under 5 to 33 years of service and are EMJ F/O's up to B777
Captains and each supports the tentative agreement. A couple have done union
work in the past, most have not, and one was in management for a period of
time. The only common denominator of the group (other than flying for Air
Canada) is golf and the occasional beer.
Regrettably we must issue this e-mail anonymously. One pilot in this group
has already been the subject of harassing phone calls from a person (or
persons) who will not identify themselves and the rest do not want that to
happen to them or their families.
Each has identified different things they would have like to have seen (for
example, a return to full pay for a sick day) but on balance believe this is
a good deal with considerably more money up front than all were expecting.
The discussion in this open e-mail will cover what appears to be the most
controversial issues (pension and LCC) and then discuss what could happen if
we turn this TA down.
Business is fundamentally simple. Your revenues must exceed your expenses or
you go out of business. To grow your business your revenues must
consistently exceed your expenses to allow you to secure the loans needed to
make new capital purchases or arrange long term leases (like new airplanes).
Air Canada has not consistently done that and despite what many think it is
not a strong company. Most profit recently has been the result of gains on
foreign exchange which works when the value Canadian dollar against other
currencies is increasing. Not so good when the opposite is happening.
Hence, Air Canada needs to secure reliable revenues and one path they have
chosen is an LCC. If any are in doubt of the revenue LCC's can generate look
no further than the current issue of Airline Business. WestJet is number 9
on the list and woe betide us if they move into the overseas leisure market.
Read that article (it can be found on line) and it will become clear that if
the LCC is successful it will result in a number of jobs that all pay more
than any other LCC in Canada pays.
Air Canada needs that revenue stream to be able to afford the 787's on
order. Without the revenue AC will not be able to obtain the necessary
financing at a reasonable interest rate to get them and Boeing certainly
will not have trouble placing those aircraft with another airline.
One pilot has spoken to a friend at Sunwing who has said if we don't want to
do this LCC, he knows a lot of guys that will.
Pension changes are always difficult but clearly there are problems with
Defined Benefit pensions across the world. Despite the fact that the defined
benefit system is superior there are two questions that must be answered:
First, will Air Canada survive in its present form without a change to that
liability? Possibly not. Second, what form of pension is best for new
pilots in this environment? Likely the Defined Contribution. This type of
pension will allow them a flexibility and mobility that those enrolled in
the defined benefit plan do not have.
Consider what may have happened when Air Canada was in CCAA. Many pilots,
particularly ones with considerable command time may have chosen (like a
number of pilots did) to move off-shore to other jobs but felt they were
tied to Air Canada by the pension. The ones who did not investigate the
possibilities will first cite family reasons for not leaving, but second,
pension.
Rather than traditional dogma the question that must be answered is 'what is
the best choice for the new pilots to Air Canada?'
One last point. Many are under the misconception that new pilots are
required to enter the pension to fund the retired pilots. This is not the
case with a funded pension and this TA takes steps and provides a formula to
ensure an ongoing pension. Consider the former Canadian Pilots pension.
Nobody has been enrolled in that pension since before the merger but it is
ongoing.
What will happen if we turn down this TA?
Nobody can accurately answer this question but the ongoing disintegration of
the MEC will likely cause a number of ACPA volunteers directly involved in
the support of negotiations to resign and then we are really moving into the
unknown.
The current tentative agreement will disappear and negotiations will start
anew and likely with considerable acrimony.
At some point Government agencies will become involved and we could very
quickly lose control of our negotiation process. If anyone thinks this is
unlikely just look at some of the attacks on labour currently underway all
across North America (and Europe for that matter).
Additionally, this TA has much improved Scope language that was likely only
possible because of the LCC agreement. If we refuse to accept LCC Air Canada
will probably start it up anyway using former SkyService pilots and likely
poach pilots from Sunwing and CanJet. They will probably be happy to come to
the Air Canada LCC at those pay rates.
Nevertheless, no pilot at Air Canada will have access to those jobs and the proposed
scope language will disappear. The long-term ramifications of that occurring
are frightening.
Finally, the 'no' side of this argument has not identified themselves, as
far as anyone knows does not have any way of influencing the current
negotiating committee and have not given any indication of what their plan
is to secure an agreement better than this one -- something Air Canada will
fight tooth and nail.
We are in the business of risk management. In this environment of $100-plus
oil the risk in turning down this agreement is way too high.
Sincerely
Ten concerned pilots
I received this from a friend of mine who lives in YYZ.
It is an interesting read and deserves a serious discussion other than labelling it as "wet".
Ask yourself this if the negotiating team resigns who is willing to step up into the void? Would you be willing to do the "donkey work" of negotiating? A professional negotiator always comes into discussion but who will lead them? Who will take the time to tell them the difference between pilots working conditions as to a construction worker?
If you do decide to strike how much money have you put aside as you might have one to three months without income? Are you 100% committed to the support of a strike?
If you are going to vote for a strike, remember this it is analogous to giving the military release of non-conventional weapons as you only do it once and in the end the survivors will envy the dead.
Their Letter
This e-mail summarizes the discussions of 10 pilots who are all Toronto
based with just under 5 to 33 years of service and are EMJ F/O's up to B777
Captains and each supports the tentative agreement. A couple have done union
work in the past, most have not, and one was in management for a period of
time. The only common denominator of the group (other than flying for Air
Canada) is golf and the occasional beer.
Regrettably we must issue this e-mail anonymously. One pilot in this group
has already been the subject of harassing phone calls from a person (or
persons) who will not identify themselves and the rest do not want that to
happen to them or their families.
Each has identified different things they would have like to have seen (for
example, a return to full pay for a sick day) but on balance believe this is
a good deal with considerably more money up front than all were expecting.
The discussion in this open e-mail will cover what appears to be the most
controversial issues (pension and LCC) and then discuss what could happen if
we turn this TA down.
Business is fundamentally simple. Your revenues must exceed your expenses or
you go out of business. To grow your business your revenues must
consistently exceed your expenses to allow you to secure the loans needed to
make new capital purchases or arrange long term leases (like new airplanes).
Air Canada has not consistently done that and despite what many think it is
not a strong company. Most profit recently has been the result of gains on
foreign exchange which works when the value Canadian dollar against other
currencies is increasing. Not so good when the opposite is happening.
Hence, Air Canada needs to secure reliable revenues and one path they have
chosen is an LCC. If any are in doubt of the revenue LCC's can generate look
no further than the current issue of Airline Business. WestJet is number 9
on the list and woe betide us if they move into the overseas leisure market.
Read that article (it can be found on line) and it will become clear that if
the LCC is successful it will result in a number of jobs that all pay more
than any other LCC in Canada pays.
Air Canada needs that revenue stream to be able to afford the 787's on
order. Without the revenue AC will not be able to obtain the necessary
financing at a reasonable interest rate to get them and Boeing certainly
will not have trouble placing those aircraft with another airline.
One pilot has spoken to a friend at Sunwing who has said if we don't want to
do this LCC, he knows a lot of guys that will.
Pension changes are always difficult but clearly there are problems with
Defined Benefit pensions across the world. Despite the fact that the defined
benefit system is superior there are two questions that must be answered:
First, will Air Canada survive in its present form without a change to that
liability? Possibly not. Second, what form of pension is best for new
pilots in this environment? Likely the Defined Contribution. This type of
pension will allow them a flexibility and mobility that those enrolled in
the defined benefit plan do not have.
Consider what may have happened when Air Canada was in CCAA. Many pilots,
particularly ones with considerable command time may have chosen (like a
number of pilots did) to move off-shore to other jobs but felt they were
tied to Air Canada by the pension. The ones who did not investigate the
possibilities will first cite family reasons for not leaving, but second,
pension.
Rather than traditional dogma the question that must be answered is 'what is
the best choice for the new pilots to Air Canada?'
One last point. Many are under the misconception that new pilots are
required to enter the pension to fund the retired pilots. This is not the
case with a funded pension and this TA takes steps and provides a formula to
ensure an ongoing pension. Consider the former Canadian Pilots pension.
Nobody has been enrolled in that pension since before the merger but it is
ongoing.
What will happen if we turn down this TA?
Nobody can accurately answer this question but the ongoing disintegration of
the MEC will likely cause a number of ACPA volunteers directly involved in
the support of negotiations to resign and then we are really moving into the
unknown.
The current tentative agreement will disappear and negotiations will start
anew and likely with considerable acrimony.
At some point Government agencies will become involved and we could very
quickly lose control of our negotiation process. If anyone thinks this is
unlikely just look at some of the attacks on labour currently underway all
across North America (and Europe for that matter).
Additionally, this TA has much improved Scope language that was likely only
possible because of the LCC agreement. If we refuse to accept LCC Air Canada
will probably start it up anyway using former SkyService pilots and likely
poach pilots from Sunwing and CanJet. They will probably be happy to come to
the Air Canada LCC at those pay rates.
Nevertheless, no pilot at Air Canada will have access to those jobs and the proposed
scope language will disappear. The long-term ramifications of that occurring
are frightening.
Finally, the 'no' side of this argument has not identified themselves, as
far as anyone knows does not have any way of influencing the current
negotiating committee and have not given any indication of what their plan
is to secure an agreement better than this one -- something Air Canada will
fight tooth and nail.
We are in the business of risk management. In this environment of $100-plus
oil the risk in turning down this agreement is way too high.
Sincerely
Ten concerned pilots
I always love the "**** the new guy" contract. I've got mine, so **** the new guy. He hasn't even started here yet.
"I worked for 20,000 a year when I started in '77. That's a lot of money for a 20 year old guy." Of course, the fact that there has been a bit of inflation since then and the new guy doesn't start at 20 anymore, it's more like 33 and he has a house, a wife and kids doesn't mean anything to those who have had it so good for so long. Yes, I have sat beside more than one guy who has voiced that opinion without thinking about the second half of that equation. The "I did it so everyone else has to as well" thought process.
I don't work for Big Red, and I don't know what all lies in your TA so my comment here is non-specific, it is just that I have worked under the "**** the new guy" contract enough times in life to know that when a union starts accepting deals to protect the senior members money at the expense of those not yet hired that the industry as a whole suffers. So, please, just think about what you are doing before you sign the contract... and I hope that you get a very good contract. It helps us all if you do.
"I worked for 20,000 a year when I started in '77. That's a lot of money for a 20 year old guy." Of course, the fact that there has been a bit of inflation since then and the new guy doesn't start at 20 anymore, it's more like 33 and he has a house, a wife and kids doesn't mean anything to those who have had it so good for so long. Yes, I have sat beside more than one guy who has voiced that opinion without thinking about the second half of that equation. The "I did it so everyone else has to as well" thought process.
I don't work for Big Red, and I don't know what all lies in your TA so my comment here is non-specific, it is just that I have worked under the "**** the new guy" contract enough times in life to know that when a union starts accepting deals to protect the senior members money at the expense of those not yet hired that the industry as a whole suffers. So, please, just think about what you are doing before you sign the contract... and I hope that you get a very good contract. It helps us all if you do.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what happened to "Walk the Line in 09?"
I can see and understand both sides of this arguement but for me , what pushes me to "labours" side is the raping of AC's assets. One could argue , that is water under the bridge but CR's latest compensation proves that it continues to go on.
I remember when WestJet was having problems with Jetsgo and we were unprofitable. Clive rescinded his salary to a buck. THAT'S leadership and something the troops don't forget.
Good luck with your fight. We (Canadian pilot's) will all benefit or hurt from what transpires in the coming months.
I can see and understand both sides of this arguement but for me , what pushes me to "labours" side is the raping of AC's assets. One could argue , that is water under the bridge but CR's latest compensation proves that it continues to go on.
I remember when WestJet was having problems with Jetsgo and we were unprofitable. Clive rescinded his salary to a buck. THAT'S leadership and something the troops don't forget.
Good luck with your fight. We (Canadian pilot's) will all benefit or hurt from what transpires in the coming months.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: dunno
Age: 52
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These guys are ready to accept a "divide and conquer" contract which will be used to further destroy their WAWCON at a later date. To think that LCC is the only way to make money, you are wrong! Look at the # from Cathay, Singapore and Emirates(tomorrow). There are things to be fixed at AC (and as mentioned above, if the execs would show leadership I am sure the workforce would follow) but that TA seems plain wrong.
AC never managed to make money with 80% of domestic traffic, why would they make money as a LCC? If you still require 3 (yes, three!) person to guide a plane on stand you obviously never gonna make money (where I work, we park the 777 with no-one's help, just AGNIS).
As for the DC pension, its fine BUT all execs have to drop too...
AC never managed to make money with 80% of domestic traffic, why would they make money as a LCC? If you still require 3 (yes, three!) person to guide a plane on stand you obviously never gonna make money (where I work, we park the 777 with no-one's help, just AGNIS).
As for the DC pension, its fine BUT all execs have to drop too...
Thread Starter
Good Afternoon All:
I passed this thread on to some active and retired pilots for their take on this.
I received this from a retired gentleman who distinguished himself in the union of the day C.A.L.P.A.
He has been retired for twelve years but has some interesting insight to this problem.
I think that the points raised by the "Group of Ten" fall squarely into the
"between a rock and a hard place" that pilot groups are so often forced
into. All of the Air Canada pilot's benefits are a result of much hard
bargaining over the years when previous generations of pilot negotiators
were faced with similar scenarios and chose to maintain course and not be
diverted by management entreaties to play ball with us or you will be
responsible for your own demise. Divisionalization of an airline is one of
the most effective corporate tools that can be brought into play in order to
lower pilot benefits. In the long term it never works. It creates a B
scale, ruins pilot solidarity eventually setting one group against the
other, leads to whip-sawing and eventually lower benefits. That's the plan.
One only needs to look at what happened as a result of the Air Canada pilots
dropping common employer status with a wholly owned subsidiary airline, a
common seniority list and allowing the Jazz pilots to be on their own. Now
they're flying 757's. Far better for the pilots to insist that although
they are not totally against some changes they must not join the spiral to
the bottom.
Pilot salaries and benefits are not the break point for corporate success.
I can't remember the exact percentage of total operating cost they represent
but it is a comparatively small number. Normally it is poor corporate
planning and decisions made regarding equipment purchases, hedging of fuel,
route selections and executive salaries and bonus payments that cause
airlines to falter or fail.
My advice to the pilots would be to forget about the money (or filthy lucre)
that has been offered and prepare to settle for something slightly less.
Don't sweat the small stuff like sick pay. Don't be cowed by corporate
threats. Stay with well established principles that have served so well in
the past such as "never give up benefits" they are much more difficult to
get back than money. With regard to the pension, it is interesting to
follow the logic that a defined contribution plan is better than a defined
benefit plan just in case you go out of business, or don't like the company
and decide to leave and go to brand X or even change your line of work. This
is a brand new way of thinking for this old grey head but in today's volatile
pilot labour market could be a point worth considering. Would have to look
at the numbers. It sure doesn't help morale though to have a large group of
itinerant pilots who will be less loyal to other members of the pilot group
and vulnerable to whip-sawing. It also releases the company of any acts of
conscience or loyalty to employees when considering lay-offs.
I passed this thread on to some active and retired pilots for their take on this.
I received this from a retired gentleman who distinguished himself in the union of the day C.A.L.P.A.
He has been retired for twelve years but has some interesting insight to this problem.
I think that the points raised by the "Group of Ten" fall squarely into the
"between a rock and a hard place" that pilot groups are so often forced
into. All of the Air Canada pilot's benefits are a result of much hard
bargaining over the years when previous generations of pilot negotiators
were faced with similar scenarios and chose to maintain course and not be
diverted by management entreaties to play ball with us or you will be
responsible for your own demise. Divisionalization of an airline is one of
the most effective corporate tools that can be brought into play in order to
lower pilot benefits. In the long term it never works. It creates a B
scale, ruins pilot solidarity eventually setting one group against the
other, leads to whip-sawing and eventually lower benefits. That's the plan.
One only needs to look at what happened as a result of the Air Canada pilots
dropping common employer status with a wholly owned subsidiary airline, a
common seniority list and allowing the Jazz pilots to be on their own. Now
they're flying 757's. Far better for the pilots to insist that although
they are not totally against some changes they must not join the spiral to
the bottom.
Pilot salaries and benefits are not the break point for corporate success.
I can't remember the exact percentage of total operating cost they represent
but it is a comparatively small number. Normally it is poor corporate
planning and decisions made regarding equipment purchases, hedging of fuel,
route selections and executive salaries and bonus payments that cause
airlines to falter or fail.
My advice to the pilots would be to forget about the money (or filthy lucre)
that has been offered and prepare to settle for something slightly less.
Don't sweat the small stuff like sick pay. Don't be cowed by corporate
threats. Stay with well established principles that have served so well in
the past such as "never give up benefits" they are much more difficult to
get back than money. With regard to the pension, it is interesting to
follow the logic that a defined contribution plan is better than a defined
benefit plan just in case you go out of business, or don't like the company
and decide to leave and go to brand X or even change your line of work. This
is a brand new way of thinking for this old grey head but in today's volatile
pilot labour market could be a point worth considering. Would have to look
at the numbers. It sure doesn't help morale though to have a large group of
itinerant pilots who will be less loyal to other members of the pilot group
and vulnerable to whip-sawing. It also releases the company of any acts of
conscience or loyalty to employees when considering lay-offs.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These "airlines within an airline" NEVER work! Can anybody name one that did?
Delta tried Song. United tried Shuttle and Ted. All failed and cost millions of dollars.
This is an assault on pilot compensation. Period.
Delta tried Song. United tried Shuttle and Ted. All failed and cost millions of dollars.
This is an assault on pilot compensation. Period.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Here
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Propaganda Game
For those that are considering this agreement, take a look at the Cathay Pacific Airways game.
If you vote in lower conditions for new joiners i.e. pensions, pay, benefits, new airline (our ASL), etc. you have sealed your own fate. Those that remain on the higher scale will never see another pay rise or an increase in your conditions/benefits ever.
The higher paid pilots at CX have not received a pay rise since B scale was voted in (they received a 10% for voting in B scale) in 1993 (18 years ago).
I can go on and on but take a good look at CX’s game book.
Be very careful of “I’m on the boat, pull up the ladder” attitude.
I do believe that AC has a higher cost base than West Jet only because AC is paying their baggage handlers, ticketing staff, etc. twice of their West Jet counterparts. It seems the pilots are being asked to take the hit for management woes.
Learn from the mistakes of others as you will never live long enough to make them all yourself.
Seems your management propaganda has begun (Ten Concerned Pilots). The sky is falling. Wait until management releases your salaries to the public to get the public on their side.
If Management can dispose of the pension plan, pay, benefits, etc, watch what their bonuses will be? The sky is certainly not falling but if you believe their propaganda, you could certainly believe it is.
Of all the things that happened in the past WRT Air Canada Pilots (contracts), I have never seen any of the Air Canada Pilots use a public forum to vent their concerns about their contracts. They have always seemed to keep it in-house. Now ask yourself, why would someone post a letter from “Ten Concerned Pilot” on a public forum?
Maybe in should read “Ten Concerned Managers”
Go Canucks, in every sense of the word.
If you vote in lower conditions for new joiners i.e. pensions, pay, benefits, new airline (our ASL), etc. you have sealed your own fate. Those that remain on the higher scale will never see another pay rise or an increase in your conditions/benefits ever.
The higher paid pilots at CX have not received a pay rise since B scale was voted in (they received a 10% for voting in B scale) in 1993 (18 years ago).
I can go on and on but take a good look at CX’s game book.
Be very careful of “I’m on the boat, pull up the ladder” attitude.
I do believe that AC has a higher cost base than West Jet only because AC is paying their baggage handlers, ticketing staff, etc. twice of their West Jet counterparts. It seems the pilots are being asked to take the hit for management woes.
Learn from the mistakes of others as you will never live long enough to make them all yourself.
Seems your management propaganda has begun (Ten Concerned Pilots). The sky is falling. Wait until management releases your salaries to the public to get the public on their side.
If Management can dispose of the pension plan, pay, benefits, etc, watch what their bonuses will be? The sky is certainly not falling but if you believe their propaganda, you could certainly believe it is.
Of all the things that happened in the past WRT Air Canada Pilots (contracts), I have never seen any of the Air Canada Pilots use a public forum to vent their concerns about their contracts. They have always seemed to keep it in-house. Now ask yourself, why would someone post a letter from “Ten Concerned Pilot” on a public forum?
Maybe in should read “Ten Concerned Managers”
Go Canucks, in every sense of the word.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BC
Age: 41
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Air Canada needs that revenue stream to be able to afford the 787's on
order. Without the revenue AC will not be able to obtain the necessary
financing at a reasonable interest rate to get them and Boeing certainly
will not have trouble placing those aircraft with another airline."
Isn't this the same argument that United gave to it's Pilots in order to get them to release scope for the regional airlines? Now the regionals do 51% of their domestic flying and they park B737 and replace them by adding 70 seaters for the regionals at much lower pay scales. You may be grandfathered into the A pay scale but it doesn't matter if you have no seat to fly in because it was sent to the airplane graveyard or worse yet to the LCC!
order. Without the revenue AC will not be able to obtain the necessary
financing at a reasonable interest rate to get them and Boeing certainly
will not have trouble placing those aircraft with another airline."
Isn't this the same argument that United gave to it's Pilots in order to get them to release scope for the regional airlines? Now the regionals do 51% of their domestic flying and they park B737 and replace them by adding 70 seaters for the regionals at much lower pay scales. You may be grandfathered into the A pay scale but it doesn't matter if you have no seat to fly in because it was sent to the airplane graveyard or worse yet to the LCC!
Smell a rat?
Sounds like some rewarmed junior B school boiler plate stuff. I doubt any pilot wrote that but some management hack maybe.
I think AC pilots are between a rock and a hard place. AC has a unbroken history of managerial incompetence but it does face a difficult position. Simply put they are the wrong structure for the non regulated market and this is exacerbated by Canada being a thin market.
The airline within an airline concept has never worked in North America at least and has failed in other places as well. Why this recycled failure keeps coming back is curious. For a starter they are breaking a cardinal rule which is use a single class of aircraft. If they are going to rely on AC for management and ground support there is no saving there so how are they going to beat a focused operation like westjet?
A two tier pay scale is the thin edge of the wedge and will quickly become a cap on senior pay. Not right away but in time it will.
Trying to compete on short haul domestic and long haul international with the same corporate structure is doomed to failure. Internationally you have to compete with Emirates, Jet, Cathay etc who are geared to one market, long haul and they can focus the equipment and service on that route. (Jet does fly domestic but I'll bet they will split off) Domestically you have to fight Westjet and the newcomers and focus on quick turnarounds, simple service and low cost. It worked when you had a protected market but that is slowly unravelling.
Maintaining an integrated pilot list with a progression of types in incredibly expensive. Think how much money AC must spend in retraining pilots as they bid up the list compared to what West Jet or SWA spends. That is a lot of money. To a lesser degree you face the same problems throughout the company. Keeping ground staff trained and current on multiple types, spares inventories, even marketing costs.Are you selling $5000 RT's to Hong Kong or $250 Mtl-Toronto's.
You can make money being a MacDonalds or a white linen dining place, but I have yet to see any business do both under one roof.
The only bit of that email I agree with is the need to make money consistently and AC has never done that. That is not the pilots fault, but it is something they have to live with.
Long term I suspect AC will be broken in two, a short haul and a long haul company each with its own distinct operating costs.
20driver
I think AC pilots are between a rock and a hard place. AC has a unbroken history of managerial incompetence but it does face a difficult position. Simply put they are the wrong structure for the non regulated market and this is exacerbated by Canada being a thin market.
The airline within an airline concept has never worked in North America at least and has failed in other places as well. Why this recycled failure keeps coming back is curious. For a starter they are breaking a cardinal rule which is use a single class of aircraft. If they are going to rely on AC for management and ground support there is no saving there so how are they going to beat a focused operation like westjet?
A two tier pay scale is the thin edge of the wedge and will quickly become a cap on senior pay. Not right away but in time it will.
Trying to compete on short haul domestic and long haul international with the same corporate structure is doomed to failure. Internationally you have to compete with Emirates, Jet, Cathay etc who are geared to one market, long haul and they can focus the equipment and service on that route. (Jet does fly domestic but I'll bet they will split off) Domestically you have to fight Westjet and the newcomers and focus on quick turnarounds, simple service and low cost. It worked when you had a protected market but that is slowly unravelling.
Maintaining an integrated pilot list with a progression of types in incredibly expensive. Think how much money AC must spend in retraining pilots as they bid up the list compared to what West Jet or SWA spends. That is a lot of money. To a lesser degree you face the same problems throughout the company. Keeping ground staff trained and current on multiple types, spares inventories, even marketing costs.Are you selling $5000 RT's to Hong Kong or $250 Mtl-Toronto's.
You can make money being a MacDonalds or a white linen dining place, but I have yet to see any business do both under one roof.
The only bit of that email I agree with is the need to make money consistently and AC has never done that. That is not the pilots fault, but it is something they have to live with.
Long term I suspect AC will be broken in two, a short haul and a long haul company each with its own distinct operating costs.
20driver
