AC has stranded us in Athens … advice?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

If you have a ticket just look at the fare breakdown, it will show everything.

Those are the fees charged to you as a passenger, not charged to us as the airline which is what he was referring to.

YYC bills WestJet about $4,800 just to park that Rome 787 at the gate, for example. Another $125 just to use the jet bridge - make that $250 because we use both bridges. Another $250 just to land the plane in Calgary to begin with. Passengers pay $35 for the airport improvement fee, but that's only 2/3 of the total fee... WestJet pays the other $15 even if that seat goes out empty. You have to pay air traffic control for them to provide the service of not crashing our planes together, it's not a complementary service. That fee is based on the weight aircraft and the length of time the aircraft is airborne in Canadian airspace, so obviously Rome is a big one by both of those metrics. Customs fees, fuel fees, catering fees, security fees... you get the idea.

The fuel itself would be somewhere between $40-50k for that trip.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

The reason why you're saying yes/no is possibly because you're netting a few things together. I'm saying that if it's expanded, it might give more insight into why it seems a little odd and weird where maybe it naturally feels like is or isn't an issue depending on how it's viewed. I'm just saying it exists and should be addressed appropriately. I'm not trying to shoot down your comments, I'm trying to give you the tools and insight to understand it, so you can navigate it better.

Process wise, you need:
- Legal literacy
- Financial literacy
- Mediation skills
- Communication skills
- Industry expertise or ability to navigate it
- Understanding of regional/global operations and how decisions will affect those
- Canadian specific experience
- Consulting level knowledge of other similar scenarios, potentially data on similar companies/competitors and/or how to navigate it/when to copy and when to diverge
- Project management to deal with multiple groups pulling info, communicating with groups, researching
- and the list goes on...

You're also right about the panel, but often times, my understanding is that the panel is not just to address independence risks, it's also to address the issue that finding someone will all of the above skillsets is really damn hard.

I deal with HR but I am also an auditor so I deal with the legal and the segregation of duties/independence threats etc. While rushing to get a deal done, I also don't really think the concerns about conflict of interest or independence threats are as concerning as you're making it out to be. You could have a few junior or middle level staff crush this stuff out within a few hours to ensure there's no concern. You could also monitor the way they behave and cross reference it to how someone may behave or approach the situation (ie: if a competitor was in the same situation) to quickly figure out if there's a concern they aren't fighting hard enough for your side vs the other side. It's a negotiation so it's a push a pull. Neither side is supposed to have a resounding win. It's obvious something is wrong if one side just rolls over, but in a negotiation one side also has to choose where they win and where they lose for the best final option for their side (ie: compromise/come to an agreement).

You're right that there are potential holes, but you'd easily notice if those holes are actually affecting the outcome in a serious manner long before the other remaining and more complex processes are complete. It's something that everyone in the hotel "enjoying room service" could have probably gone through and sorted out many times over, because it doesn't take long to do.

Metaphorically, as key and important as conflict of interest and independence threats are, it's about as complex to address as making sure the wheels/tires on a rental car are good to go and not flat/damaged prior to driving off. Even if something wasn't immediately apparent on the walk around, you'd quickly start to notice something isn't right the moment you start driving.

Just out of curiosity do you a lot of experience with collective bargaining and the mediation process? Not trying to come off as a dick here but a lot of what you’re saying while hypothetically not incorrect are not how things generally play out nor are they practical expectations in my experience.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Dion

West Jet flight attendants contract is up in December. I suspect they will be watching closely with what happens with Air Canada.

Thanks for the heads up. Was going to book direct from YYC to TYO for January.

Now i'll prob take the cheaper one through Vancouver with ANA.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Everybody is just ignoring the law or order to go back to work anyhow.

Yeah, we actually have an enormous problem with regulators failing to/ not actually being able to enforce penalties/ regulations on private companies.

CN- constantly gets away with #### it should not.
TC- Them too.
AC- yep.

Some of our biggest corporations, majority of which are formerly public corps and benefit(ted) massively from tax dollars, incentives, and being provided free infrastructure...

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Just out of curiosity do you a lot of experience with collective bargaining and the mediation process? Not trying to come off as a dick here but a lot of what you’re saying while hypothetically not incorrect are not how things generally play out nor are they practical expectations in my experience.

Not a lot, no. I've seen behind the curtain and actively helped those who were actively at the table, but not a primary or full access to all of what was going on. But I'm also not trying to push the discussion in that direction of discussing actual collective and mediating processes. I'm just saying what technically the rules of the game are and give insight from a different angle.

I'm not disregarding what you've gone through and have done/experienced. That's your expertise, I don't know it like you do and I'm leaving that alone. I am pointing out that for certain hypothetical scenarios where the rule is here vs the situation is there, is it so far away from what is supposed to happen that a foul needs to be called? Or is it a situation where the result is still close to where it's supposed to be, and thus "OK". I'm also saying that conflict of interest and independence are things that should be able to be addressed relatively little time comparatively to the rest of the whole situation. It's not supposed to be something that should take a ridiculous amount of time with insane barriers to figure out.

When I re-read your post, it doesn't seem like we're completely conflicting... more like same ish page, different paragraph?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Yeah, we actually have an enormous problem with regulators failing to/ not actually being able to enforce penalties/ regulations on private companies.

CN- constantly gets away with #### it should not.
TC- Them too.
AC- yep.

Some of our biggest corporations, majority of which are formerly public corps and benefit(ted) massively from tax dollars, incentives, and being provided free infrastructure...

Forgot Imperial.

[Ryan Coke]

For anyone trying to avoid labour disruptions, keep in mind the timelines….the WJ FAs contract expires at the end of the year, but they can’t strike as of that date. There is a timeline that has to be met of conciliation/mediation, cooling off, then strike vote, then actual strike notice. And of course a group would want to threaten to strike at a critical time, in order to give their group maximum leverage. AC FAs wanted it to be in the summer.

For WJ FAs, the earliest they could possibly walk off would be late February to March, and they would probably aim to be eligible maybe March break or closer to summer. They wouldn’t be walking off in December (still have a contract) or January (not yet eligible). My guess would be March at the earliest, could be later.

[btimbit]

Exactly. For example the Air Canada flight attendants deal was over at the end of March and the strike just happened now

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Not a lot, no. I've seen behind the curtain and actively helped those who were actively at the table, but not a primary or full access to all of what was going on. But I'm also not trying to push the discussion in that direction of discussing actual collective and mediating processes. I'm just saying what technically the rules of the game are and give insight from a different angle.

I'm not disregarding what you've gone through and have done/experienced. That's your expertise, I don't know it like you do and I'm leaving that alone. I am pointing out that for certain hypothetical scenarios where the rule is here vs the situation is there, is it so far away from what is supposed to happen that a foul needs to be called? Or is it a situation where the result is still close to where it's supposed to be, and thus "OK". I'm also saying that conflict of interest and independence are things that should be able to be addressed relatively little time comparatively to the rest of the whole situation. It's not supposed to be something that should take a ridiculous amount of time with insane barriers to figure out.

I’m going to go with yes, it should be called out as foul. But to be fair it’s not necessarily foul due to any intentional malice on your part.

When I re-read your post, it doesn't seem like we're completely conflicting... more like same ish page, different paragraph?

Our viewpoints are very conflicting, again though not necessarily out of intentional malice or belligerence on your part. Your position is basically taking a perfect or utopian application of the rules and assuming that it will always yield the right outcome. My position is that laws don’t always work as intended and are often shrouded in legislation that does not actually allow for the intended/implied outcome.

I’ll put it into a context for you that I think will best illustrate what I’m saying: The law says an employer cannot interfere with or influence employees trying to organize a union in their workplace. As someone with an HR background, when a company becomes aware of such activities does the HR handbook say to hold a meeting informing all management to not interfere or influence employees and those employees are left to make their decision without ever hearing anything from their employer on the matter, or is there maybe a different kind of meeting that is held?

You know as well as I do what happens in those situations despite there being “laws” that state certain practices are forbidden while those same laws paint a picture of the perfect outcome. That’s why I’m suggesting your expectations in the case of a mediator appointment or how to challenge said appointments are overly optimistic at best and not really based in reality. Again, not necessarily due to you trying to be intentionally misleading in the matter(which I hope is not the case) but rather due to inexperience in how these laws actually apply themselves in the real world.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

For anyone trying to avoid labour disruptions, keep in mind the timelines….the WJ FAs contract expires at the end of the year, but they can’t strike as of that date. There is a timeline that has to be met of conciliation/mediation, cooling off, then strike vote, then actual strike notice. And of course a group would want to threaten to strike at a critical time, in order to give their group maximum leverage. AC FAs wanted it to be in the summer.

For WJ FAs, the earliest they could possibly walk off would be late February to March, and they would probably aim to be eligible maybe March break or closer to summer. They wouldn’t be walking off in December (still have a contract) or January (not yet eligible). My guess would be March at the earliest, could be later.

Oh yeah, I realize that. I’m actually looking to travel in that time period. After dealing with the AC mess, I’m of a mind that it any of your unions don’t have a contract when I want to travel, I’m avoiding your airline. Which probably means I’ll be back with Air Canada even after what they put me through.

Maybe I’ll just take a road trip instead. lol

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Acey

Those are the fees charged to you as a passenger, not charged to us as the airline which is what he was referring to.

YYC bills WestJet about $4,800 just to park that Rome 787 at the gate, for example. Another $125 just to use the jet bridge - make that $250 because we use both bridges. Another $250 just to land the plane in Calgary to begin with. Passengers pay $35 for the airport improvement fee, but that's only 2/3 of the total fee... WestJet pays the other $15 even if that seat goes out empty. You have to pay air traffic control for them to provide the service of not crashing our planes together, it's not a complementary service. That fee is based on the weight aircraft and the length of time the aircraft is airborne in Canadian airspace, so obviously Rome is a big one by both of those metrics. Customs fees, fuel fees, catering fees, security fees... you get the idea.

The fuel itself would be somewhere between $40-50k for that trip.

Do you know much about why these costs are the way they are and are they justifiable? Like presumably the air traffic control costs are to cover the pay of those people, opex on the tower and some maintenance over time etc.

Wouldn’t a US airport have the same or similar cost structure to operate and maintain? Are the taxes that much cheaper and why?

Is YYC just gouging?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Do you know much about why these costs are the way they are and are they justifiable?

To some degree. YYC is privately run and has to pay abusrd rent fees to the government, so are forced to pass on that cost to travelers else they'd be bankrupt. The US sees airports as a public necessity as opposed to a source of federal revneue, so they are not operated this way.

This article says it well:

Within Canada’s “National Airport System'', most airports are managed by non-profit airport authorities, who are responsible for paying rents to the Canadian government. These rents, which cumulatively reached $419 million in 2022-2023, have increased over 40% within ten years. However, the majority of these lease collections are not reinvested into airports, with only around 9% of airport revenues being allocated towards federal airport development through the Capital Assistance Program (ACAP).

tldr: YYC is getting scammed by the government, so YYC is forced to scam you

[Strange Brew]

So federal government profits off of airports. Which in theory should benefit the taxpayer (to the detriment of the traveler). Doesn’t really feel like the Canadian taxpayer is living large.

[btimbit]

CUPE sues government to block 'unconstitutional' power used to end flight attendant strike

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...tendant-strike

[Buff]

Originally Posted by btimbit

CUPE sues government to block 'unconstitutional' power used to end flight attendant strike

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...tendant-strike

Wait... Oversimplification but... they were told they can't strike but continued to strike and got a deal that probably favors them more than their employer so now their suing the government for telling them they can't do something that they did anyway.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Buff

Wait... Oversimplification but... they were told they can't strike but continued to strike and got a deal that probably favors them more than their employer so now their suing the government for telling them they can't do something that they did anyway.

Considering this tactic has been used by the government several times in recent history, my guess is this is to set some sort of precedent and make that power unconstitutional or take it off the table.

The government really should not be forcing employees of private/non-government companies back to work.

[Weitz]

What’s the thoughts on the deal? Two guys on my team at work, partners, are flight attendants for Air Canada and both are very unhappy with the deal and think it will be rejected by about 70%. Very unhappy with the union.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Weitz

What’s the thoughts on the deal? Two guys on my team at work, partners, are flight attendants for Air Canada and both are very unhappy with the deal and think it will be rejected by about 70%. Very unhappy with the union.

What are your thoughts on the deal?

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by Weitz

What’s the thoughts on the deal? Two guys on my team at work, partners, are flight attendants for Air Canada and both are very unhappy with the deal and think it will be rejected by about 70%. Very unhappy with the union.

So if the union rejects the deal will they be back on strike?

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m going to go with yes, it should be called out as foul. But to be fair it’s not necessarily foul due to any intentional malice on your part.



Our viewpoints are very conflicting, again though not necessarily out of intentional malice or belligerence on your part. Your position is basically taking a perfect or utopian application of the rules and assuming that it will always yield the right outcome. My position is that laws don’t always work as intended and are often shrouded in legislation that does not actually allow for the intended/implied outcome.

I’ll put it into a context for you that I think will best illustrate what I’m saying: The law says an employer cannot interfere with or influence employees trying to organize a union in their workplace. As someone with an HR background, when a company becomes aware of such activities does the HR handbook say to hold a meeting informing all management to not interfere or influence employees and those employees are left to make their decision without ever hearing anything from their employer on the matter, or is there maybe a different kind of meeting that is held?

You know as well as I do what happens in those situations despite there being “laws” that state certain practices are forbidden while those same laws paint a picture of the perfect outcome. That’s why I’m suggesting your expectations in the case of a mediator appointment or how to challenge said appointments are overly optimistic at best and not really based in reality. Again, not necessarily due to you trying to be intentionally misleading in the matter(which I hope is not the case) but rather due to inexperience in how these laws actually apply themselves in the real world.

That's not what I was trying to say. But I'm just going to bow out because my attempts to help are just derailing things instead.