Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Canada Reaches Deal With Unions Over New A/c  
User currently offlineCanadaEH From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 1341 posts, RR: 4
Posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4868 times:

TORONTO (CP) - Pilots for Air Canada and its Jazz regional subsidiary have tentatively agreed to a deal that defines who flies the airline's new smaller jets that are seen as key to the company's post-restructuring business plan.

Two unions representing pilots at the main carrier and at the subsidiary have been negotiating since January on which union's members would fly the new regional jets, since it would mean more work for one union or the other.

Late Thursday, the company issued a statement saying that the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) and the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) had reached a tentative settlement over the issue.

Air Canada (TSX:AC) said it hoped members of both unions would ratify the agreement by March 19. It said details of the agreement won't be released until the deal is ratified.

The potentially bitter turf war over who would fly the new, small jets were seen as key to the insolvent airline's survival plan.

Settlement of the dispute was a condition of Air Canada's deal with Hong Kong-based businessman Victor Li, who has agreed to put $650 million into the insolvent airline in exchange for voting control of the company.

The battle between the two unions erupted last summer, threatening Air Canada's overall restructuring plan, since each group was claiming to have the right to fly the new planes.

Air Canada entered bankruptcy protection last April, struggling with about $10 billion in debt and long-term leases and a $1.5-billion pension deficit.

In December, Air Canada announced it had signed a $3.6-billion deal to buy 90 regional jets, manufacturing of which was split between Montreal-based Bombardier and Brazil's Embraer with a possibility for 15 additional aircraft.

Jazz pilots represented by the Airline Pilots Association had sought work with the new, small jets - each with 50 to 93 seats - which will be deployed in Canada and on Canada-U.S. routes. But they're meant partly to displace larger jets flown by members of the Air Canada Pilots Association.

The ALPA had argued that Air Canada could save $100 million a year with the planes used strictly by Jazz pilots. The ACPA had countered that on a cost-per-hour basis, its pilots were cheaper than the

rival Jazz pilots.

But neither union liked the idea of the company being able to pit the unions against each other in a battle work flying the new jets.


While no official announcement has been made as to which group gets which aircraft, word in another forum has:

15 crj 200's to Jazz
15 crj705's to Jazz
45 emb 190's to ACPA
14 emb 170/175's to ACPA

CRJ100's at ACPA transfer to Jazz when emb 190's arrive.
ASM ratio of 12 Jazz/100 ACPA remains the same
Jazz capped at 50 crj100/200 aircraft
Future orders to be decided by Teplisky and and that process to be started soon.

ACPA has deal over the bunk issue for the 340-500. They will be installing legal bunk in the rear at first c check 19 months from now. Until then no ULH ops. Pay with regard to 340-500's to be decided by Teplitsky in arbitration.



EH.
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4810 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4811 times:

Huh? When was there a go-ahead with the A340-500s? Last I heard it wasn't happening http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1424645/

User currently offlineRP TPA From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4692 times:

CanadaEH...

That breakdown at the end of your post doesnt jive with the number and breakdown of aircraft AC ordered this past December. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt they order 15 CL65's and 30 705,s from Bombardier, and 45 E-190's from Embraer? I didnt know they ordered the 170/175's. They do have options for 45 additional planes from each manufacturer, but I'm sure those wont be converted to firm orders anytime in the near future.


User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4648 times:

I'm also confused about the EMB 170/5's. But the basic final result, if true, is not a big surprise, and seems logical.

Now about the crew bunks ... no ultra long haul flights for 19 months. Hmmm, wonder if AC will actually go ahead with the aircraft? Hmmmmm, probably not.



"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineCanadaEH From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 1341 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4630 times:

RP_TPA: I'm just copy/pasting what was shared in another forum.

CaptainGomes: Perhaps Air Canada will take delivery of these aircraft but not use them on ultra long-haul routes until the crew bunks are installed? All of the above post is hearsay until I hear something solid.



EH.
User currently offlineCessnapimp From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1320 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4601 times:

I am confused as well about the 175... and the 340-500's; what.. they're gettin' it now? Cloudy thing now is it. That virgin deal seems more realistic. Or how 'bout this: Virgin gets the 345's which AC swaps for the 343's. Follow me? No? Me neither...

In all of this, I hope that everyone at Jazz gets the chance to come back asap. It's been a very tough couple of years for these guys and I wish them and their families a g*dd*m brake for once.


User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4638 posts, RR: 36
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4562 times:

We need a Clarica insurance advisor in this thread...


Word
User currently offlineLymanm From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1140 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4514 times:

I'm surprised how little concrete info is out there, even a day and a half after the agreement was announced. Usually, someone squeals! It must be harsh news, considering how hush hush insiders have been.


buhh bye
User currently offlineWhiteguy From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 838 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4369 times:

CanadaEH

Where did you get your info from? Nothing will be released until Mar 19th. AC never ordered EMB 170/175 aircraft and the A345 are not coming, that deal with the pilots fell through. The reason had nothing to do with the crew bunks it was the duty days and the extra hours per month the company wanted the pilots to work without overtime pay.


User currently offlineCessnapimp From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1320 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4305 times:

Apparently that deal is going ahead now. The 345 will be taken, but no ULH until satisfactory bunks are installed during the plane's first C check in a year and a half from now... this is all word of mouth (or word of post if you will). Like they say, believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see...

[Edited 2004-03-06 22:24:35]

User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4810 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4239 times:

Hmm, I understand it is just word of mouth, 'Pimp, but it just doesn't make any sense at all. Why would AC take up the 345s and operate them for a year and a half on routes that much cheaper aircraft (767-300 or 747-400) could operate much more economically? Or do we have another "Airbus scandal" on our hands here lol?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

User currently offlineCessnapimp From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1320 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4214 times:

As it was said on another forum, the 345's would be used on routes that are already a stretch for AC's 343's aka: BEY, DEL, and NRT. These routes periodically have weight restrictions/ tech stops with the present apparatuses (the 343's, not Mad Dogs). That would not be the case with the 500. The 345 could operate at full capacity ans that would free up a few 343 for other routes as well.

Apparently (that word again...), since the news came "out", the April pilot layoffs have been suspended.

[Edited 2004-03-06 23:53:16]

User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11154 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4115 times:

Cessnapimp,

AC doesn't have permission from the Canadian government to fly to BEY and they likely won't get it........

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineAirbusfanYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2002, 1436 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4101 times:

Well I have from two excellent sources this morning, that the two 345s are arriving in May and June of this year and the 346s will be taken up 2005.
Deal could still hit a snag, but hopefully not.

Cheers,
Kaz



t.dot photography
User currently offlineCanadaEH From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 1341 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4088 times:

Whiteguy, don't shoot the messenger..  Smile

I read this in another forum so I thought I'd pass along the "news".



EH.
User currently offlineFLYACYYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4016 times:

I've read the document, and subject to ratification, somehow the A345's became part of Regional Jet negotiations package. Subject to ratification, the A345's will become part of the AC fleet, and although the company was hoping for a maximum duty day of 19:45 for "ultra long-haul" flying, they agreed to a 19:00 cap.

Everybody is a little confused about the crew rest/bunk issue. The existing A343's have a dual lie flat bunks behind the cockpit in a module. It's not very clear what type of other rest accomodations would be required or more suitable for the A345's. For all practical purposes it is a flat bed--showers and saunas perhaps??

Final delivery is pending as the aircraft a ready to go. Ratification of the agreement in March, so I would wager April/May.

Yahoo!



Above and Beyond
User currently offlineWhiteguy From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 838 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3979 times:

I only shoot deer, so your safe CanadaEH. Sure glad AC can be the launch customer for the new 280 seat A345 regional jet.



User currently offlineCessnapimp From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1320 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3937 times:

LOL Whiteguy,

Rumour has it they're going to Jazz in exchange for the 705's. Hush Hush...

Sorry BA, I meant PEK, not BEY...


User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4810 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3922 times:

As it was said on another forum, the 345's would be used on routes that are already a stretch for AC's 343's aka: BEY, DEL, and NRT

1. BEY, if it is approved or not should not be a stretch at all for the A340-300 or even the 767-300ER from anywhere in the east.

2. Is it really going to be that much better operating costs for an A345 than a 744 to justify the increased costs of introducing a new type of airframe to the fleet? It just doesn't make sense to me. No other airlines are using the A340-500 for anything but ULH flights because it is a very, very heavy aircraft (compared to the seating capacity). The numbers don't lie:

Basic Operating Empty Weights:

747-400: 180,985 kg
A340-500: 170,400 kg

Those had better be high-yielding pax or else it is a very uneconomical proposition considering the 747-400 would be seating at least 120 more pax.


The only reason I can see for AC to get the A340-500 is if they have plans to ditch the 74Es and replace them with A340-600s and either cut down their freight operations to Europe or use another dedicated freighter aircraft type.
If there is any kind of Airbus that AC should be considering right now for route expansion or replacement it is the A330-200.

(edited for typos)

[Edited 2004-03-07 06:57:56]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Canada Reaches Agreement With IAM posted Sun May 16 2004 08:22:56 by B747-437B
Air Canada Reaches Agreement With Union On ZIP posted Thu Sep 12 2002 15:38:34 by Dash8King
Air Canada Eyes India With New Planes posted Fri Sep 22 2006 00:26:38 by MSYYZ
Air Canada A330 Finally With Full New Colours! posted Sat Nov 26 2005 23:54:24 by Captaingomes
Air Canada Reaches Pension Agreement With O S F I posted Sun May 16 2004 08:26:54 by B747-437B
Pilots Union Reaches Deal With Mesaba posted Sun Oct 29 2006 02:27:25 by KarlB737
Air NZ Reaches Agreement With Long Haul Cabin Crew posted Mon Jul 25 2005 07:09:21 by 777ER
Comair Reaches Deal With FAs posted Mon Mar 21 2005 20:47:57 by DeltaFFinDFW
United Reaches Deal With Flight Attendants posted Sun Jan 9 2005 04:48:34 by NWAFA
UAL Reaches Deal With Mechanics Union posted Sat Jan 8 2005 00:00:42 by NWAFA