Problem with Air Canada lately

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by flameswin

White people problems.

Proportionally speaking, white aren't the ones who fly the most.

[Thor]

Its amazing how in north america the average worker has been convinced that unions are bad, and that the way to go is a non union workforce.

Very sad, even with the stupid unions we all hate, the few who still exist are being utterly slapped around in the media in order to put the last nail in the coffin.

So sad, lots of smart people do not realize how important they are to a middle class worker.

[sa226]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The pilots are crying because Air Canada is trying to become competitive by launching a discount airline that can compete with other carriers and by eliminating gold-plated pensions for new hires.

This is just another union stunt by a group too stupid to realize they risk driving their employer right out of business.

Please educate yourself before you make completely baseless statements such as this.

[Ace]

I'd say you have zero worries given the route in question is Calgary to Vancouver. At the slightest hint of trouble you can switch flights, or walk down the hall and book westjet. There are so many flights you should easily have a fail safe...

[bizaro86]

I was flying back from Europe with Air Canada yesterday, and the flight was 8 hours delayed due to a pilot shortage. Air Canada is saying weather was a factor so they don't have to pay out the EU compensation. But we did get a $50 coupon to book something else.

[GirlySports]

Aren't most of the problems in the East? Toronto and Montreal?

Calgary is insignificant in this battle and it's for the better.

[lazypucker]

Myself and my family will be flying mid-May to China using Air Canada, hopefully whatever disputes they have will be taken care of by then, but I won't count on it...

[saskflames69]

What ever happened to Canadian Airlines? I know they were purchased by Air Canada but did they ever have issues like this? We still have Canadian Airlines luggage tags from 1997 on our old suitcases. I'm saying this because my grandparents used them when they went to Australia and besides Air Canada, Canadian Airlines seems to be the only major airline in Canada that flew to non-North American international locations (excluding vacation airlines like Air Transat)

[Maritime Q-Scout]

This is a very complicated issue, anyone that thinks the problems are because of the unions, or Air Canada just doesn't understand the complexity of the situation.

Union Side:

Imagine you're working in the job you currently have, you're trained in it, you're one of the absolute best, but there's no where else you can go to work. If you were to take a similar job it would be a downgrade in terms of the type of job you're doing, it would be a downgrade in terms of pay, it would be a downgrade in terms of benefits (as you'd be with a new company), it would be a downgrade based on seniority, and you may have to uproot your family and move either across the country or to a new country altogether.

Now imagine you were hired in the 1990 on a contract and you were told in 7 years you'd renegotiate your contract. In 1997 you renegotiate your contract to something a bit better, good for you. Now in 7 years you'll have to renegotiate again, hoping to increase your rate of pay to meet inflation, new challenges etc. Come 2004, there's a problem, your company isn't profitable anymore, and is struggling. The company says "listen guys, can we keep the same old 1997 contract for now while we re-structure?" You say "yep, I understand, I won't negotiate a new contract this time we'll just keep the same one so you can turn it around." Seems reasonable.

Now it's 2011, time to negotiate a new contract, something you haven't done in 14 years. Your company says "things still aren't good, we can't offer you anything new." You say "but you restructured, and the management team is getting bonuses, surely you can at least talk to us." You company says no, so you threaten to strike, where the federal government says "strike, not on my watch!" So you're stuck without a new contract at the 1997 pay rate, and no reasonable ability to leave, or attempt to negotiate. You have no real options. How would that make you feel? Would you be mad? Would you be upset? Now imagine the general public hates you because you want to be paid at a 2011 standard not a 1997 one.

Airline Side:

You run a company that has been around since the mid-1930's. You grew during the dawn of your company's age, and became one of the top companies in the world in your industry. You service a multitude of customers from the casual customer who needs you once in a blue moon, to the avid user that uses you daily. You offer an assortment of services based on the needs of your customers and the industry.

Then in the mid-1990s you had a few new competitors come onto the market, competitors that are backed my money from other industries. They're in your industry for prestige over profit. They offer services beyond what you can offer and break even, yet you have to compete with them. While this is going on internationally, domestically you have a new competitor that started up about the same time that's focusing only on the discount services you offer.

So now you have to offer the high end to compete with the international playboys, and the low cost domestic competition.

Now combine having to handle both of these situations, and be obligated by the government to provide your services to clients where you don't make a profit. You have to service these areas.

Talk about stress, what are you going to do? Now in the middle of all of this, you have your employees wanting new contracts and renegotiate their pay & benefits because they've been stuck at rates from 15 years ago.

Who the heck would want these jobs? In order to attract the people who might be able to solve these problems for you, you have to pay them a high salary as they'd work for other companies in other industries. Yeah, you employees are stuck with you, but your management is liquid.

Sweet Moses, that's a complex situation. Now everyone hates your company as there are other options internationally, different and other options domestically that cater to a niche and your assets are fixed to not be able to cater to either niche, you have to compete with both.

What do you do? How do you make this competitive?



Let's not forget that the public policy of your country wants you to keep operating but doesn't want to fund you to do it. They legislate services you have to provide, regardless of ability to provide it.


At the end of the day, this is such a complicated problem. One that I really don't know how to solve.

[Ryan Coke]

While I might make a few adjustments, that was a very good overview of the complexity of the issues.

Generally speaking, I don't like unions, Air Canada (the corporation), the baggage handlers, or ACPA (the pilot union)....and yet I find myself kind of feeling sympathy for all of them, and none of them. The whole thing is a mess.

While there can be sense of entitlement with too many of the employees, when the company and government treat them so disrespectfully it isn't any kind of surprise what kind of blowback that causes.

[CaptainCrunch]

Maritime's post is an excellent view point of both sides and a reason why there has to be serious discussions of Air Canada dying or surviving on their own with no further bailouts.

There's no doubt that the company is incompetantly run with a terrible executive team that continues to pay themselves gross and disgusting bonuses. I think I posted a comparible between WJ and AC executives pay and bonuses in this thread or another one. For a company that bleeds money, its not only bad optics to bonus yourself but bad business.

On the other side, the Union and its membership are trying to kill the golden goose, especially with their actions. The customers that have been chased away with the wildcat strike earlier and the sick ins are not going to return. People are willing to give up a lot of things if they get screwed over, and bigger seats and movie selections mean very little when your flight is delayed or canceled.

There is a huge amount of anger between both sides of this issue, and its to the point where its not solvable.

I think that the day and age of a government supported national carrier is dead and un-neccessary. We complained bitterly about the Saudi Carriers having an unfair advantage due to their government subsidization, yet we're really doing the same thing with AC.

Its getting to the point where AC has to stand on its own two feet or die trying.

[Resolute 14]

Good summary, Q-scout, but one thing caught my eye: On the union side, you apparently have no other options for employment. On the managemant side, your problem is too many competitors. So the key point is whether AC's salaries are inline with the industry today, regardless of where they were at in 1997. Of course, this goes for both pilots and management.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Good summary, Q-scout, but one thing caught my eye: On the union side, you apparently have no other options for employment. On the managemant side, your problem is too many competitors. So the key point is whether AC's salaries are inline with the industry today, regardless of where they were at in 1997. Of course, this goes for both pilots and management.

I believe high level corporate management is fairly transferable, be it from an airline to retail to telecommunication company.

I don't think of airline pilot as a liquid occupation.

I could be mistaken, I don't mean that to be a bias, just kind of how the world is, but again I'm open to me being mistaken.

[Flames in 07]

I think they have a new variation on calling in sick.

Tonight leaving vegas the pilot called the lady running the gate, 10 minutes before boarding that it was too hot, so they needed to remove 30 passengers, and replace the weight with fuel. So the clerks at the gate went through trying to find 30 passengers. They only got about 8, in large part because they had no idea when they could fly them back.

They then picked out the other 22 passengers and started to make plans to send them back to a hotel. After finishing up that process the pilot called the gate again to say they are trying to get everyone on this flight so they are waiting for the sun to go down and cool the temperature down.

In the end they waited about 2 hours, run a bunch of staff and passengers around then decided to take off.

Meanwhile not a single flight in the terminal outside of the AC flight was delayed.

[The Goon]

That's bizarre - you should check in with the media to see if that is happening elsewhere.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I think they have a new variation on calling in sick.

Tonight leaving vegas the pilot called the lady running the gate, 10 minutes before boarding that it was too hot, so they needed to remove 30 passengers, and replace the weight with fuel. So the clerks at the gate went through trying to find 30 passengers. They only got about 8, in large part because they had no idea when they could fly them back.

They then picked out the other 22 passengers and started to make plans to send them back to a hotel. After finishing up that process the pilot called the gate again to say they are trying to get everyone on this flight so they are waiting for the sun to go down and cool the temperature down.

In the end they waited about 2 hours, run a bunch of staff and passengers around then decided to take off.

Meanwhile not a single flight in the terminal outside of the AC flight was delayed.

The bolded part does not make sense, if it was a density altitude issue preventing them from departing safely they would not remove weight (pax) and then add weight (fuel) to take off. They would have just removed passengers and been done with it.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The pilots are crying because Air Canada is trying to become competitive by launching a discount airline that can compete with other carriers and by eliminating gold-plated pensions for new hires.

This is just another union stunt by a group too stupid to realize they risk driving their employer right out of business.

I was affected by the "sick day" a few weeks ago and was pretty annoyed at the whole thing at the time. Its an incredibly stupid way to go about dealing with bargaining issues by punishing the consumer. In the grand scheme of things, I lost about 12 hours of time on my flight back - oh well life goes on.

There's a lot more to the story then pilots crying because of a discount airline. Sure they're asking for a few gold ticket items but who doesn't when bargaining? There are major issues of under staffing and over flying pilots within the airline and there has been for years. I don't know about you but I don't really want my pilot at the point of exhaustion when I'm 35000 feet above the ground.

Hard to take a side either way but when it comes to numbers and flight time how can you not side with the person most responsible for your safety up in the air?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

The bolded part does not make sense, if it was a density altitude issue preventing them from departing safely they would not remove weight (pax) and then add weight (fuel) to take off. They would have just removed passengers and been done with it.

well its what we were told. They needed more fuel so they needed to remove other weight.

[Ryan Coke]

It sounds like a combination of things. The high temps in Vegas can cause takeoff weight limitations. If for some reason (winds, weather at destination) they need more fuel, then that is where it they have to reduce weight somewhere else. Usually that somewhere else would be baggage....most people would rather get home even if there bags didn't.

Either way, I doubt this was any sort of job action.