Flight Attendants can compare their pay to Pilots pay: Only in Canada you say...?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Attendants can compare their pay to Pilots pay: Only in Canada you say...?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...RTGAM.20060126. wscoc0126/BNStory/National/
Flight Attendants will be able to compare thier jobs to that of Pilots for wage comparisons......
Doctors next??????
Only in Canada
Article...
Flight Attendants will be able to compare thier jobs to that of Pilots for wage comparisons......
Doctors next??????
Only in Canada
Article...
Globe and Mail Update
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Tuesday that Air Canada's flight attendants can compare their pay with that of pilots and ground crews to determine if they are being discriminated against because of gender.
The top court said it is fair to make the comparison, because the flight attendants, pilots and ground crews all work for the same organization in the same business.
Air Canada had argued that each of the groups is covered under a different collective agreement, so a comparison would not be valid. The top court rejected that view.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the flight attendants' case, saying merely that it is legitimate for the comparisons to be made.
Describing the issue as a ”preliminary but important question” in pay-equity cases, the court noted that ”assessing the relative skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions involved in the occupational group ... may or may not result in the conclusion that discrimination has taken place.”
But those comparisons should be made, the judges ruled, because the Air Canada employees are part of the same ”establishment,” even though they work under different collective agreements.
The court sent the case back to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to determine if Air Canada actually discriminated against the flight attendants by paying them less for work of equal value to that of the male-dominated pilots and ground crews.
Writing for the court, Mr. Justice Louis LeBel and Madam Justice Rosalie Abella criticized Air Canada for dragging the case out for 15 years, ”creating enormous expense for itself and the public, and intolerable delay in wage equity, should the flight attendants ultimately succeed.”
The case has been working its way through tribunals and appeal courts since 1991, when the Canadian Union of Public Employees first made a complaint to the human-rights commission on behalf of female flight attendants at Air Canada and now-defunct Canadian Airlines International.
The flight attendants said they were paid differently for work that was of equal value to that performed by the male-dominated mechanical crews and pilots.
The commission said the case was legitimate. A subsequent tribunal ruled, however, that the flight attendants could not compare their salaries to those of pilots and ground staff because the groups worked for different establishments governed by different collective agreements.
The Federal Court agreed with the tribunal, but the Federal Court of Appeal said the comparison was okay.
The Supreme Court has now agreed with the appeal court, coming down on the side of the flight attendants.
The ruling opens up the possibility of cross-comparisons of wages between other groups that are not in the same union.
Air Canada's approach, if it had been endorsed, would ”turn collective bargaining into a tool to consolidate discriminatory practices,” the justices said.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Tuesday that Air Canada's flight attendants can compare their pay with that of pilots and ground crews to determine if they are being discriminated against because of gender.
The top court said it is fair to make the comparison, because the flight attendants, pilots and ground crews all work for the same organization in the same business.
Air Canada had argued that each of the groups is covered under a different collective agreement, so a comparison would not be valid. The top court rejected that view.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the flight attendants' case, saying merely that it is legitimate for the comparisons to be made.
Describing the issue as a ”preliminary but important question” in pay-equity cases, the court noted that ”assessing the relative skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions involved in the occupational group ... may or may not result in the conclusion that discrimination has taken place.”
But those comparisons should be made, the judges ruled, because the Air Canada employees are part of the same ”establishment,” even though they work under different collective agreements.
The court sent the case back to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to determine if Air Canada actually discriminated against the flight attendants by paying them less for work of equal value to that of the male-dominated pilots and ground crews.
Writing for the court, Mr. Justice Louis LeBel and Madam Justice Rosalie Abella criticized Air Canada for dragging the case out for 15 years, ”creating enormous expense for itself and the public, and intolerable delay in wage equity, should the flight attendants ultimately succeed.”
The case has been working its way through tribunals and appeal courts since 1991, when the Canadian Union of Public Employees first made a complaint to the human-rights commission on behalf of female flight attendants at Air Canada and now-defunct Canadian Airlines International.
The flight attendants said they were paid differently for work that was of equal value to that performed by the male-dominated mechanical crews and pilots.
The commission said the case was legitimate. A subsequent tribunal ruled, however, that the flight attendants could not compare their salaries to those of pilots and ground staff because the groups worked for different establishments governed by different collective agreements.
The Federal Court agreed with the tribunal, but the Federal Court of Appeal said the comparison was okay.
The Supreme Court has now agreed with the appeal court, coming down on the side of the flight attendants.
The ruling opens up the possibility of cross-comparisons of wages between other groups that are not in the same union.
Air Canada's approach, if it had been endorsed, would ”turn collective bargaining into a tool to consolidate discriminatory practices,” the justices said.
Last edited by Sick Squid; 26th Jan 2006 at 22:47.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not suprised about Canada ('PC Capital of the world') but more closer to home........on a recent BA flight I was positioning on, the Captain was happy to tell us (the passengers) that the Purser was the most important person on the aircraft....er what???? And we wonder why its not the industry it used to be........
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: on my boat in the Caribbean
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you just love it when people jump to conclusions. The article only said that FA's had the right to make the comparison, it didn't say that the jobs were comparable and in fact stressed that this ruling in no way suggested that any comparison would result in FA's being paid the same.
In the UK CC salaries are fairly low due to an almost constant stream of applicants, I think that's called supply and demand. If the airlines couldn't recruit CC then the salaries would have to increase, no matter what the perception of what the job was worth.
In the UK CC salaries are fairly low due to an almost constant stream of applicants, I think that's called supply and demand. If the airlines couldn't recruit CC then the salaries would have to increase, no matter what the perception of what the job was worth.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: on my boat in the Caribbean
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming the F/A had the relevant qualifications and experience then he/she would do OK operating the aircraft. Most captains I know (and I was one~capt that is) probably couldn't do a F/A's job to save their lives: well, slight exageration there, let's just say most wouldn't want to. I doubt very much that even in Canada (I'm judging the place by previous remarks, I've never had the pleasure of going there, yet) would a court look at a pilot's job and an F/A's job and conclude they were worth the same money, mainly due to the cost of training pilots if nothing else.
Mind you, there's an interesting debate to be had about F/A's contribution to airline profits...they are one of the public faces of the airline and pax might well base their decision on whether or not to fly with an airline again on the cabin crew. I'm afraid it's just taken for granted that we can fly the things and anyway, as Joe/Jane public knows very well, it's all automatic anyway, just a matter of pushing buttons.
And before somebody jumps down my throat (well, they will anyway) I know and you know there's more to it than that (six monthly checks/medicals etc) BUT the travelling public couldn't care less about any of that.
Mind you, there's an interesting debate to be had about F/A's contribution to airline profits...they are one of the public faces of the airline and pax might well base their decision on whether or not to fly with an airline again on the cabin crew. I'm afraid it's just taken for granted that we can fly the things and anyway, as Joe/Jane public knows very well, it's all automatic anyway, just a matter of pushing buttons.
And before somebody jumps down my throat (well, they will anyway) I know and you know there's more to it than that (six monthly checks/medicals etc) BUT the travelling public couldn't care less about any of that.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: frozen place
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fudpucker,
I have flown most Airbus types,the ones you say are flown by pushing buttons.Well yes we now push buttons instead of manually pulling on a big yoke....so what?You still make decisions every day that affect the lives of thousands of people if you screw up.You make calls on a daily basis that can have disastrous consequences.
You say the public doesn't care? Have them ride with us in an A320 at night in a snowstorm,in moderate to severe turbulence to land on a short icy runway with a crosswind like we do regularly here in Canada and tell me we are just button pushers.
Contrary to what you say no FA could do that unless he-she has years of experience and training.We on the other hand could do their jobs even without training.....yeah you heard me right,I can operate a galley and make coffee without problems,I can push the PLAY button to start the safety demos,I can be nice and smiley,I can open the aircraft door and evacuate the aircraft.......and I dont need a course because we already solve most of their little problems when they arise because we know more about the aircraft,the mechanical problems,the weather,the regualtions etc....because as pilots we are paid not only to fly the aircraft but we need to know how to be MECHANICS,METEOROLOGISTS,ATC,RAMP CREW,FA'S,CREW SCHEDULING,DISPATCH ETC...ITS OUR JOB TO KNOW ALL THIS.
The FA knows sweet f...k all of all this stuff let alone flying the airplane.
As a captain you should smarten up and RESPECT YOUR PROFFESSION,YOUR CAREER.
I have flown most Airbus types,the ones you say are flown by pushing buttons.Well yes we now push buttons instead of manually pulling on a big yoke....so what?You still make decisions every day that affect the lives of thousands of people if you screw up.You make calls on a daily basis that can have disastrous consequences.
You say the public doesn't care? Have them ride with us in an A320 at night in a snowstorm,in moderate to severe turbulence to land on a short icy runway with a crosswind like we do regularly here in Canada and tell me we are just button pushers.
Contrary to what you say no FA could do that unless he-she has years of experience and training.We on the other hand could do their jobs even without training.....yeah you heard me right,I can operate a galley and make coffee without problems,I can push the PLAY button to start the safety demos,I can be nice and smiley,I can open the aircraft door and evacuate the aircraft.......and I dont need a course because we already solve most of their little problems when they arise because we know more about the aircraft,the mechanical problems,the weather,the regualtions etc....because as pilots we are paid not only to fly the aircraft but we need to know how to be MECHANICS,METEOROLOGISTS,ATC,RAMP CREW,FA'S,CREW SCHEDULING,DISPATCH ETC...ITS OUR JOB TO KNOW ALL THIS.
The FA knows sweet f...k all of all this stuff let alone flying the airplane.
As a captain you should smarten up and RESPECT YOUR PROFFESSION,YOUR CAREER.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: on my boat in the Caribbean
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was right, nobody does bother to read posts correctly. For example I don't think I mentioned Airbus, or any other type for that matter. Most pax are unsure of what aircraft type they're on anyway (unless it's a 747?
To the gentleman who thinks he has every qualification under the sun, my word sir, I'm impressed. I was merely a humble aircraft captain, it took all my time and intellectual ability to pass the ATPL exams, sim checks, fire fighting courses etc. I was proud of what I had achieved (as should everybody be who gets through all the training required to fly a commercial aircraft) but I didn't let it all go to my head. I had an appreciation of what aircraft despatchers did (a bit more to it than just delivering the loadsheet), I certainly knew what mechanics (on my side of the pond we call them engineers, shows a bit more respect, don't you think?) did, but in no way was I qualified to maintain the aircraft. My knowlege of first aid was about par with the CC, but in later years I developed a very unsteady hand so pouring tea/coffee would have been difficult. I don't suppose (make that know) that I would have looked good in a short(ish) skirt, but then I got hired for my qualifications and experience, not public relations skills.
As far as pushing buttons is concerned, if you look carefully you'll notice I was talking about public perceptions. Looking carefully means actually reading what was written, then thinking about it for a bit.
Of course, the aircraft couldn't fly without us, but I'm sorry to point out that it couldn't (legally) fly with pax on board without the CC. The aircraft wouldn't fly without engineers to carry out maintainance (and sign the relevant documents). The airline wouldn't exist if people didn't sell tickets or thought up clever advertising campaigns. None of this of course means that everybody connected with an airline should earn the same salary, but I'm afraid that we do get a bit precious about it all, don't we?
To the gentleman who thinks he has every qualification under the sun, my word sir, I'm impressed. I was merely a humble aircraft captain, it took all my time and intellectual ability to pass the ATPL exams, sim checks, fire fighting courses etc. I was proud of what I had achieved (as should everybody be who gets through all the training required to fly a commercial aircraft) but I didn't let it all go to my head. I had an appreciation of what aircraft despatchers did (a bit more to it than just delivering the loadsheet), I certainly knew what mechanics (on my side of the pond we call them engineers, shows a bit more respect, don't you think?) did, but in no way was I qualified to maintain the aircraft. My knowlege of first aid was about par with the CC, but in later years I developed a very unsteady hand so pouring tea/coffee would have been difficult. I don't suppose (make that know) that I would have looked good in a short(ish) skirt, but then I got hired for my qualifications and experience, not public relations skills.
As far as pushing buttons is concerned, if you look carefully you'll notice I was talking about public perceptions. Looking carefully means actually reading what was written, then thinking about it for a bit.
Of course, the aircraft couldn't fly without us, but I'm sorry to point out that it couldn't (legally) fly with pax on board without the CC. The aircraft wouldn't fly without engineers to carry out maintainance (and sign the relevant documents). The airline wouldn't exist if people didn't sell tickets or thought up clever advertising campaigns. None of this of course means that everybody connected with an airline should earn the same salary, but I'm afraid that we do get a bit precious about it all, don't we?
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The judgment could have wide implications for pay-equity cases at Crown corporations like Canada Post, in the federal public service, and in private companies - mainly in the transportation and communications fields - that fall under federal regulation.
Copyright © 2006 Canadian Press
Copyright © 2006 Canadian Press
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, in an attempt to keep this thread on track, perhaps you should consider Fudpuckers statements as irony. In other words, if some PPRuNer writes "as Joe/Jane public knows very well, it's all automatic anyway, just a matter of pushing buttons." what he means is "as Joe/Jane public knows very well, it's all automatic anyway, just a matter of pushing buttons." When Fudpucker writes "as Joe/Jane public knows very well, it's all automatic anyway, just a matter of pushing buttons." what he means is "Anyone who believes that is stupid. Anyone who believes that I believe that doesn't understand irony."
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London
Age: 59
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rigpiggy
Let's put the flight attendant through a 6week course on the a/c, and the captain thru the f/a's training and see whoo can do who's job
You should have gone a little further.
Most flight deck have spent years saving up tens of thousands of pounds to endure between 12 and 18 months of hell studying some while working a normal job and others full time.
Then put through gruelling exams and flight tests all of which cost thousands of pounds and can determine whether or not the £50,000-70,000 you've just spent was worthwhile.
Then after walking away whistling a joyful tune with a blue book in hand you then spend an indeterminate period of time applying to airlines begging to take you on so they can bend you over and enjoy watching you in pain.
Then on top of that if you dont get the job you watch as your hard earned skills set ebb away if you dont spend yet more thousands keeping them pin sharp.
Whoopee the day comes when you are taken on and you work as a team with the cabin crew. Then you realise that all the ****e you've been through in order to earn the same cash all you had to do was become a cabin crew member.
What does that mean.....well you dont find out that the colour of adrenalin is brown and found on the inside of your pants on occassion. You dont have to worry about simitus twice a year and that that little tiny blip on your ECG once or twice a year may well mean the end of your career. Etc etc etc.
Cabin crew have to keep the passengers happy.
Flightdeck have to keep the passengers happy and safe. ATC happy the company happy groundcrew happy the CAA happy Etc.
Now on the other hand i admire the cabin crew for what they do in terms of the fact that they are the face of the comapny and putting up with quite frankly some odious SLF and in this day and age ever increasingly violent passengers. But can they be equated in terms of qualifications, experience, daily challenges, split second decisions (life saving especially) and the threat to your job if things go wrong.
Did you note that one of the judges was a woman!
My post was not meant to disrespect the back end at all, I commuted across the country for a number of years, and helped out in the back during service on many occasions. Partly to stave off boredom, but also because we're supposed to be a family, as dysfunctional as we are. Many hands make for a light load. As you pointed out, the front end is ultimately responsible for everything. Justice has a section on pay equity, and you must compare Skills, Effort, Responsibility, and Work conditions.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-6/SOR-86-1082/
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-6/SOR-86-1082/
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: here
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparing the pilots' job witht the CC will take you nowhere. What you ultimately get is not what you deserve, is what you negotiate. The Canadian FA are using an interpretation to a law of their country. The law will say if they are right or wrong. If you think that as a pilot you deserve to be paid more, then negotiate a better pay. But if a F/O today earns as much as a CC, is it the CC's fault, or has the long line of junior pilots queing outside who are willing to fly for peanuts anything to do with it?
Now, flaps to 60, are you sure that this is what you meant? Are you really saying that CC are not involved in the safety of flight?
I don't think that belittling the importance of other parties to the safe operations of a flight you will achieve anything, other than giving the impression of not fully grasping what goes on outside the cockpit door.
edited for spelling
Cabin crew have to keep the passengers happy.
Flightdeck have to keep the passengers happy and safe
Flightdeck have to keep the passengers happy and safe
I don't think that belittling the importance of other parties to the safe operations of a flight you will achieve anything, other than giving the impression of not fully grasping what goes on outside the cockpit door.
edited for spelling
Last edited by captcat; 28th Jan 2006 at 20:08.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London
Age: 59
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
capcat
Your right im not but as FD we have to keep the pax safe all the time by our actions and expeience whereas CC at the same critical times as ourselves.
As i said in my post i have the highest regard for CC but i dont think that you can equate or renumeration just because we work in the same metal tube.
Your right im not but as FD we have to keep the pax safe all the time by our actions and expeience whereas CC at the same critical times as ourselves.
As i said in my post i have the highest regard for CC but i dont think that you can equate or renumeration just because we work in the same metal tube.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fudpucker
You're on the money here. I'm a frequent long haul business traveller from Oz to North America and Europe. In the past, I've paid top dollar for third rate service. I'm not now prepared to risk my hard earned spondulaks on an airline where the in flight service is variable, and likely to be delivered by cabin staff with attitude.
Mind you, there's an interesting debate to be had about F/A's contribution to airline profits...they are one of the public faces of the airline and pax might well base their decision on whether or not to fly with an airline again on the cabin crew.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Future
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder if it works in reverse?
Can the engineers now take the company to court because they had to go through a 4 year apprenticeship on cr@p pay, not earning as much as the flight attendants? DESRCRIMIATION I SAY! The pilots can take the company to court for putting them through medicals and simulators and not putting the flight attendants under the same scrutiny? DESCRIMINATION I SAY!
If they want the same pay and conditions, then it stands to reason that they must have the same prerequisites on joining. Minimum 2000hrs, and ATPL subjects passed as an absolute minimum. A 3 day course on grooming and deportment, and opening and closing a door doesnt cut it.
How does sexual descrimination cover the male flight attendants?
Its simple really, do your engineering apprenticeship, and get paid like an engineer. Do your ATPL, and get the minimum flying, and get paid like a pilot. Or, do your intensive 2 week initial entry course, and get paid like a flight attendant. Simple....
Can the engineers now take the company to court because they had to go through a 4 year apprenticeship on cr@p pay, not earning as much as the flight attendants? DESRCRIMIATION I SAY! The pilots can take the company to court for putting them through medicals and simulators and not putting the flight attendants under the same scrutiny? DESCRIMINATION I SAY!
If they want the same pay and conditions, then it stands to reason that they must have the same prerequisites on joining. Minimum 2000hrs, and ATPL subjects passed as an absolute minimum. A 3 day course on grooming and deportment, and opening and closing a door doesnt cut it.
How does sexual descrimination cover the male flight attendants?
Its simple really, do your engineering apprenticeship, and get paid like an engineer. Do your ATPL, and get the minimum flying, and get paid like a pilot. Or, do your intensive 2 week initial entry course, and get paid like a flight attendant. Simple....