Airliners.net

It will be interesting to see where this goes from here. The federal government has already shown they are willing to legislate them back to work. Perhaps they will try a CHAOS campaign.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ct-for-second-time/article2196189/

From AC's website:

http://www.aircanada.com/en/news/trav_adv/labour_updates.html

I've been a devoted WS customer for as long as I have been flying, but I decided last week that I would take my first AC flight (out of pure scheduling convenience) next week...on October 15th.   

They better be legislated back to work or they've lost by business forever. This is getting annoying. A friend of mine is an f/a with AC and she has always spoken highly about the terms of her contract, this leads me to believe that CUPE is being just slightly overzealous...

Anyone know when was the last Air Canada FA strike?

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 2): I've been a devoted WS customer for as long as I have been flying, but I decided last week that I would take my first AC flight (out of pure scheduling convenience) next week...on October 15th. They better be legislated back to work or they've lost by business forever. This is getting annoying. A friend of mine is an f/a with AC and she has always spoken highly about the terms of her contract, this leads me to believe that CUPE is being just slightly overzealous...

Frankly you are just being a bit overzealous yourself and show no respect for what employees are trying to negotiate.. which is based solely on their retirement and pensions so they can enjoy their retirement, it isn't about how much they get paid per flight hour, or per diems, bidding rights or seniority.. it's about retirement! Maybe you shud get the facts and stand behind them on their plight for a fair pension settlement.. but then again you may make a 6 figure income on wall street and dont give a rats a-s....

As a union member I stand behind them all the way! And , no, I am not with CUPE or an AC employee ....

[Edited 2011-10-09 19:14:26]

Quoting ykaops (Reply 3):

I guess you missed the part where I said a good friend of mine is one of those AC union members and has never complained ONCE about ANY of the terms of her contract. I don't "make a 6 figure income on wall street", but I speak to the facts and opinions that have been presented to me.

Oh, and by the way, pension is only one of *several* issues being negotiated at present. Please do some more reading into the topic before flaming me.

Air Canada is in a tough position... and the Union is not going to back down from this one. I absolutely cant stand unions, I say this because they have lost their main focus, its become a game of greed now if anything. But for pensions, I am on their side. If you work for the company and put in your time there and were entitled for it during your work-term than you deserve it.

Companies should take care of their employees, whether you are retired or active.

Quoting ykaops (Reply 3): Frankly you are just being a bit overzealous yourself and show no respect for what employees are trying to negotiate.. which is based solely on their retirement and pensions so they can enjoy their retirement, it isn't about how much they get paid per flight hour, or per diems, bidding rights or seniority.. it's about retirement!

I wonder if those who moan about the "older" F/A's working the aisles realize that a decent retirement package is an incentive to get them out of the aisles and replaced by new hires.

I know several F/A's who had mapped out retirement plans that were totally shot out of the water when UA ditched the pensions during bankruptcy and many of these folks are flying way past their intended & expected retirement dates out of financial necessity. According to what I've read, it hit F/As in their 50's & 60's the hardest as they have little time to grow a 401k fund to make up the shortfall.

But, silly me, I've read in these forums that F/As are simply overpaid automatons undeserving of union protection of any sort, much less a retirement package.  

Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the last two contracts been accepted by the unions during negotiations, but then rejected by the FAs themselves in votes? So this really has nothing to with any 'union greed' from the upper echelons of the unions. It's the FAs not accepting the new contract, though this vote was closer to being accepted than the last (35% for now vs. 12% for in August), so maybe next time it'll go through   

Quoting YXD172 (Reply 7): Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the last two contracts been accepted by the unions during negotiations, but then rejected by the FAs themselves in votes?

That is my understanding as well. The membership is rejecting the agreements.

I was not surprised to wake up this morning and see that the government is prepared to introduce back to work legislation:
http://www.vancouversun.com/business...a+work+stoppage/5527610/story.html

Quoting YXD172 (Reply 7): Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the last two contracts been accepted by the unions during negotiations, but then rejected by the FAs themselves in votes? So this really has nothing to with any 'union greed' from the upper echelons of the unions

But we don't know what the Union is telling the membership ... even though the Union accepted AC's contract they still could be using that and telling the membership that this is all AC is willing to offer it and persuading the membership not to accept it.

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 9): But we don't know what the Union is telling the membership ... even though the Union accepted AC's contract they still could be using that and telling the membership that this is all AC is willing to offer it and persuading the membership not to accept it.

That would be bargaining in bad faith. When a tentative agreement is signed, all members of the union and management negotiating committees are bound by it, and bound to promote it. If a union doesn't agree with the offer, it can put it to a vote, but then that is not an agreement.

Right now, the union is at the point where it is dangerously exposed. The slowest point of the travel calendar is about to begin, and Air Canada might welcome a chance to lock out the flight attendants. The union needs the back to work legislation more than the company.

Quoting sebring (Reply 10): Right now, the union is at the point where it is dangerously exposed. The slowest point of the travel calendar is about to begin, and Air Canada might welcome a chance to lock out the flight attendants. The union needs the back to work legislation more than the company.

Putting all other considerations aside this might be ACs best strategy, but there is no way they will do this after the Feds have basically said any work stoppage will harm the economy and thus they will intervene. Given the industry, it is not a wise idea to annoy the government.

My impression is that the Feds will introduce back-to-work legislation at a pay scale slightly lower than ACs last offer to incentivize a(nother) negotiated settlement.

Quoting sebring (Reply 10): That would be bargaining in bad faith. When a tentative agreement is signed, all members of the union and management negotiating committees are bound by it, and bound to promote it. If a union doesn't agree with the offer, it can put it to a vote, but then that is not an agreement.

Yes I do know how it works, but it happens more often than one thinks. I'm not suggesting that CUPE is in-fact doing this, but if they were it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 12): Yes I do know how it works, but it happens more often than one thinks. I'm not suggesting that CUPE is in-fact doing this, but if they were it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Agreed. I've heard many stories from my professors of unions muddying up the offers a bit when presenting them to the voting union members. Pretty greasy tactic but CUPE is definitely not above it.

Quoting sebring (Reply 10): Right now, the union is at the point where it is dangerously exposed. The slowest point of the travel calendar is about to begin, and Air Canada might welcome a chance to lock out the flight attendants. The union needs the back to work legislation more than the company.

   Even though I have an upcoming AC flight that would screw me over pretty well if it were delayed or cancelled, I would not blame AC for a second. Both parties would be significantly hurt, but the F/As have a lot more to lose than an organization who the government backs entirely. The real winners in this situation will be the Jazz F/As who fill in and get that sweet, sweet strikebreaker pay. But I can almost guarantee that there will be legislation, so I'm not sweating too badly over it.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 13): But I can almost guarantee that there will be legislation, so I'm not sweating too badly over it.

For back to work legislation, the workers must be on strike. The government can not table this until a strike starts, so it really is a matter of how fast our government can work.

I am guessing three days on strike before the legislation can be enacted.

Quoting q120 (Reply 5): I absolutely cant stand unions, I say this because they have lost their main focus, its become a game of greed

Those darn greedy workers. If only they would focus less on their pensions and keeping up with inflation and more on lining the pockets of executives-like the corporations do.  

Quoting delta2ual (Reply 15): Those darn greedy workers. If only they would focus less on their pensions and keeping up with inflation and more on lining the pockets of executives-like the corporations do.

Not to mention the managers and upper management of AC gave themselves $39M in bonuses last year ... ON TOP of their salaries!

Quoting longhauler (Reply 16): Not to mention the managers and upper management of AC gave themselves $39M in bonuses last year ... ON TOP of their salaries!

Looks like they took a page out of Qantas' book (62% pay raise for top 8 executives), and that isn't even bonuses!

We should just get rid of the unions and implement profit-sharing a la "I'm a WestJet owner"  

There are rarely profits to share at AC.

[Edited 2011-10-11 11:12:52]

I head the government backup plan is to actually let EK start doing all the flying for AC, international, transborder, and domestic...  

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17): We should just get rid of the unions and implement profit-sharing a la "I'm a WestJet owner"

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 18): There are rarely profits to share at AC.

There actually is profit sharing at AC, however ... creative accounting has lead to union grievances. In other words, the profits made since the last contract the F/As signed, still has not paid them a profit sharing cheque.

And ... this offer of a contract "wiped the slate clean" of all outstanding grievances, including the unpaid profit sharing cheques!

Labour Minister says this dispute is going to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. No strike can occur while the board deliberates.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 20): There actually is profit sharing at AC, however ... creative accounting has lead to union grievances. In other words, the profits made since the last contract the F/As signed, still has not paid them a profit sharing cheque. And ... this offer of a contract "wiped the slate clean" of all outstanding grievances, including the unpaid profit sharing cheques!

My minimal law education tells me that this is less of a grievance and more of cause for legal action. It's unfortunate that AC abuses such a great idea with tricky accounting. Under the right circumstances (and management) profit-sharing has shown to be an extremely effective tool.

Quoting saloman (Reply 21): Labour Minister says this dispute is going to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. No strike can occur while the board deliberates.

The article can be found here for those that are interested.

What specifically is the "creative accounting" that "hides" profits. Is AC not a public company that must follow the same disclosure rules as all other large corporations?
Is it possible that they are in fact losing money most quarters, year after year instead?

I've looked at investing in AC. I have a finance background. The numbers are absolutely horrible.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 14): The real winners in this situation will be the Jazz F/As who fill in and get that sweet, sweet strikebreaker pay.

LOL.. Jazz F/A's are not qualified on any of the AC mainline aircraft types, nor would they entertain such an idea...

Where did you come up with this ludicrous idea that QK members would cross picket lines to work mainline flights... hell QK barely has enough F/A's to work their own route plans.

Quoting ykaops (Reply 24): Quoting longhauler (Reply 14): The real winners in this situation will be the Jazz F/As who fill in and get that sweet, sweet strikebreaker pay. LOL.. Jazz F/A's are not qualified on any of the AC mainline aircraft types, nor would they entertain such an idea... Where did you come up with this ludicrous idea that QK members would cross picket lines to work mainline flights... hell QK barely has enough F/A's to work their own route plans.

That certainly wasn't my quote.
How'd you do that?

Quoting q120 (Reply 5): Oh, and by the way, pension is only one of *several* issues being negotiated at present. Please do some more reading into the topic before flaming me.

Pensions were the hold out on rejecting the last round, everything else was acceptable... Yes, I have my facts straight, and yes, I also was on parliament hill protesting with the AC F/A's... I know there were more things negotiated, however maybe you should understand the difference between a defined benifit and defined contribution pension plan .. know the difference then understand why they are rejecting the contract... that is the MAJOR and ONLY thing not agreed to !

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 23): What specifically is the "creative accounting" that "hides" profits.

I won't "specifically" answer that, however "generally" AC has (publicly) made a profit since the last contract was signed. And AC has yet to pay a profit sharing cheque.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 22): Under the right circumstances (and management) profit-sharing has shown to be an extremely effective tool.

I agree. And the success of most major corporations what practise this seems to bear that too.

Quoting ykaops (Reply 24):

All of QK's F/As only have training on aircraft that have less than 75 seats? I'm not being sarcastic, I just seriously doubt this.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 25): That certainly wasn't my quote. How'd you do that?

Good question   Might have been a glitch with the site.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 27): AC has (publicly) made a profit since the last contract was signed. And AC has yet to pay a profit sharing cheque

Maybe there is a stipulation in the contract that states a given profit level must be achieved in order for profit-sharing to be applied?

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 22): Quoting saloman (Reply 21): Labour Minister says this dispute is going to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. No strike can occur while the board deliberates. The article can be found here for those that are interested.

*sigh* IMHO, all of this government interference is getting in the way of the negotiation process. All of the negotiations seem to have occurred under the duress of a threatened back-to-work legislation.

Doesn't the governments threat of back-to-work legislation to the union also negate the threat of a lock-out by Air Canada (in the future)? In reality, would that ever happen, though?

If of this government talk and threats of back-to-work to protect the 'fragile Canadian Economy', shouldn't we re-regulate the airline industry to protect the economy? If Air Canada is sooooo vital to the country, should the government take control of it again?   

Quoting canadianpylon (Reply 29): If of this government talk and threats of back-to-work to protect the 'fragile Canadian Economy', shouldn't we re-regulate the airline industry to protect the economy? If Air Canada is sooooo vital to the country, should the government take control of it again?

I find the whole thing bizarre! The Air Canada Act only adds to the murkiness of AC role in the aviation market. For a company that has been privatized since 1989,you would never know it based on recent events.

Quoting canadianpylon (Reply 29): If of this government talk and threats of back-to-work to protect the 'fragile Canadian Economy', shouldn't we re-regulate the airline industry to protect the economy? If Air Canada is sooooo vital to the country, should the government take control of it again?

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/employment_standards/regulated.shtml

Airlines are a federally regulated industry in Canada.

For numerous more obvious reasons, transportation has always been a more sensitive industry for government, and there has always been compelling national interest associated with it. It certainly doesn't require nationalizing airlines to assert this fact. Besides the disruption of vacationers I think there is a strong argument that the economy relies on a smooth flow of goods and people, and for a country of our size airlines play a crucial role in that.

I quite frankly think unions in Canada have overplayed their hands this year, and done their cause serious harm. The days of defined benefits should be over and the wider public is beginning to accept that. Add that to the (in my opinion inaccurate) public perception of AC flight attendants who are now threading to strike and it only gets worse.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 13): Agreed. I've heard many stories from my professors of unions muddying up the offers a bit when presenting them to the voting union members. Pretty greasy tactic but CUPE is definitely not above it.

I've been in 2 Unions that have done this in the past (actually, the only 2 Unions I've been in) and I know of one more that also has practiced it. I don't know anything about CUPE and I wasn't suggesting that they did practice it, but was merely entertaining the possibility.

Regardless, It'll be very interesting how this plays out.

Quoting ykaops (Reply 26): That certainly wasn't my quote. How'd you do that?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 25): That certainly wasn't my quote.

Bug in the system...
If you highlight some text from person A's post, but use the "Quote Selected Text" button from someone else's post (say person B), then it attributes the A's quote to B.
I haven't (intentionally) done it, but, it has been used to great effect in various A vs B posts for example.   

Quoting saloman (Reply 31): Airlines are a federally regulated industry in Canada.

Federally Regulation and National Crown Corporations (Nationalization) are two separate things.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 30): I find the whole thing bizarre! The Air Canada Act only adds to the murkiness of AC role in the aviation market. For a company that has been privatized since 1989,you would never know it based on recent events.

That is my whole point. The Feds and Air Canada are behaving like they ARE a Crown Corporation. Ottawa pulled the back-to-work legislation maneuver with Canada Post, a nationally regulated, nationalized Crown Corporation, with the same excuse ('To protect Canada's Fragile Economy).

Quoting saloman (Reply 31): I think there is a strong argument that the economy relies on a smooth flow of goods and people, and for a country of our size airlines play a crucial role in that.

IMHO, more so than many countries in the world. If Ottawa is saying that Air Canada is that critical to the function of the country, as a whole, then it should be a protected federal asset (like Canada Post). Otherwise, they should let the wheels of free-market enterprise turn, and stay the heck out of it.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 28): All of QK's F/As only have training on aircraft that have less than 75 seats? I'm not being sarcastic, I just seriously doubt this.

QK FA's are only certified on Dash 8's, CRJ 100/200 and 705's. Most of the YYZ and YUL FA's are qualified on the 757, and some YYZ FA's are qualified on the Q400.

Air Canada has none of these aircraft. No way would QK train their FA's to fly on any AC aircraft, and no way would QK FA's do anything to sabotage the AC FA's right to a fair contract.

I'll ask this question again since I can't seem to google anything on AC strikes but does anyone know when AC FA's last went on strike?

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 36): I'll ask this question again since I can't seem to google anything on AC strikes but does anyone know when AC FA's last went on strike?

1996 I believe.

In response to the "generally profitable" comment above, AC's financial results since 2008 have been;

2008 loss 9.14/share
2009 loss 0.09/share
2010 profit 1.08/share
2011 (est.) loss 0.47/share

No dividend returned to shareholders in any of those years.

Share price plunged from around $19.00 per share in 2007 to $1.40 per share now (92.6% loss).

How do you get profit sharing out of this mess? Why should shareholders loose 92.6% of their investment and employees get extra?

I do however agree that management doesn't deserve any bonuses either.

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 38): In response to the "generally profitable" comment above, AC's financial results since 2008 have been;

I never said Air Canada was "generally profitable", in fact it is not ... by design. That was in answer to your "specifically" how has there been creative accounting. It would be imprudent to answer that, so I just said instead of "specifically", lets not go into the "loss" years, but "generally" lets just talk about the actual profit years. In either, a profit sharing cheque was not issued.

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 38): Why should shareholders loose 92.6% of their investment and employees get extra?

It depends on where you invested. Let's not forget, that in the last 4 years, $2.5B (yes with a B) was "extracted" from Air Canada, and not returned to the investors or the airline for that matter. It was however given to (ACE) investors outside of Air Canada, the majority out of the country too. Apparently this was legal!

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 38): I do however agree that management doesn't deserve any bonuses either.

Surprisingly enough, I think that good work does deserve a bonus. But ... for both management and employees, not just management ... and for GOOD work, you yourself even pointed out Air Canada's less than stellar stock worth, yet still deserved a bonus!

Quoting q120 (Reply 5): Companies should take care of their employees, whether you are retired or active.

Thing is they often don't and for the few companies that do its a constant struggle between doing what is morally right and making more $$, especially for those that are publicly traded.

Unions exist in the first place because companies did not take care of their employees and give them things like living wages, paid overtime, sick days, vacation time, safety standards.

With that labour laws came into effect to make certain things law in the workplace, if unions were abolished I reckon with the huge corporate influence that is had on the political process today that these labour laws would be stripped away very gradually for a lot of people not to notice.

Quoting q120 (Reply 5): I am on their side. If you work for the company and put in your time there and were entitled for it during your work-term than you deserve it.

Pensions at least non-contributory ones are already a thing of the past at a lot of companies. My generation is going to be among the first that will have to basically self-finance their retirement from when you enter the workforce.

Quoting q120 (Reply 5): I absolutely cant stand unions, I say this because they have lost their main focus, its become a game of greed now if anything.

You are right in some cases but when management is taking bonuses when an airline like AC is losing money or at the best breaking even then I don't blame a union be it AC, QF for playing hardball especially if being asked for concessions. Set an example to your workers and take the cuts first even if its only symbolic.

lso for an airline I think unions or at least some very serious regulation should be mandatory. Pilots need a certain level of rest that should be mandated and should not waiver and the same applies to F/A's. If this means flying costs more then so be it because I would rather get to my destination safely than having a tired pilot cause a crash due to a simple mistake.

I don't have a lot of time to comment on it now as I have to run, but last night a armed man showed up at the home of Air Canada's COO and made a threat to a security guard according to news reports. During labour disputes Air Canada has a policy in place that it provides security to its top executives.

News story here:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...20111013/air-canada-gunman-111013/

[Edited 2011-10-13 11:16:35]

Quoting AirCanada787 (Reply 42):

WOW! This is just an unfortunate story. Thank you for posting.

This feud is getting ridiculous and should have never gotten to this point. I was listening to Newstalk 1010 (Toronto) this morning and they had an AC f/a call in who said she only voted in favour of the contract the second time around because she "was in fear of the government".

Just ratify the deal on the table already. If you're going to be so distraught over it, then quit and go work for WS or PD, I know for a fact the latter is hiring at the moment. It should never go so far that a man is threatened at his family home where his children reside.

Kudos to AC for their security policy. This story could have been much worse if it weren't for that hired guard.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 43): Quoting AirCanada787 (Reply 42): WOW! This is just an unfortunate story. Thank you for posting. Kudos to AC for their security policy. This story could have been much worse if it weren't for that hired guard.

Unfortunately, this isn't uncommon when you are involved in militant workers and unions. My dad was parachuted in to run a plant in another city that had the worst productivity, highest absentee rate, and yet highest average pay in the company. The General Manager was fired. My dad had to stay in a different hotel a long way from the plant and drive a different rental car every week. There were on site security guards to protect management. Yet cars were damaged, threats left on windshields, phone calls to homes etc. All because the company wanted to add productivity bonuses instead of yet another pay raise.

Hopefully cooler heads prevail and a deal is worked out soon.

Quoting canadianpylon (Reply 29): All of QK's F/As only have training on aircraft that have less than 75 seats? I'm not being sarcastic, I just seriously doubt this.

No, there are a number that are qualified on the B757, and more being trained now.

Remember QK ops the B757 for Thomas Cook  

Interesting twist on this story from the Labour Minister, Lisa Raitt. Seems she recently accepted a freeebie upgrade to J from Y YYZ-YOW (what is a fed minister doing travelling Y anyway? I have no problem with ministers going J). The upgrade was offered by none other than Duncan Dee, who is the person leading the AC negotiating team, if I understand things correctly. Stupid cow !   

My Dad (he was management) drove a truck during the Pratt & Whitney Canada strike in the seventies. The union goons tried to run him off a bridge and kill him. Every morning when he went to work the goons threw tacks on the road to puncture tires and intimidate anybody trying to go to work and earn a living. They also burned down a warehouse and were "forgiven" as part of the settlement.
People wonder why union propoganda doesn't work so well anymore. I don't.

Going back to the topic of bargaining in bad faith. AC is accusing CUPE of such ...

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-65990-4-.htm#65990

Air Canada trudges on. Strike averted.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/can...ke-grounded-for-now-131772588.html

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 49): Air Canada trudges on. Strike averted.

At least until the Canada Industrial Relations Board comes up with a ruling on finding FA's essential services or not.