Facts about Air Canada flight attendants
Oct 17, 2011, 8:43 pm
#181
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
I think I have read enough.
There is no right or wrong in this -this argument will never have a solid conclusion.
But somehow the following we know as a fact:
1. Air Canada is a really poorly managed company (even as the only Canadian airlines that serve international destinations, they are still not making profit and other airlines (like Cathay Pacific) are able to take advantage).
2. The Government of Canada is also stupid - failed to help Air Canada when AC needs the most.
A disaster is not resulted by one single incident. It is a combination of several things together.
So as a passengers, who cares how much a FA make? What we want is decent service, and a smile
There is no right or wrong in this -this argument will never have a solid conclusion.
But somehow the following we know as a fact:
1. Air Canada is a really poorly managed company (even as the only Canadian airlines that serve international destinations, they are still not making profit and other airlines (like Cathay Pacific) are able to take advantage).
2. The Government of Canada is also stupid - failed to help Air Canada when AC needs the most.
A disaster is not resulted by one single incident. It is a combination of several things together.
So as a passengers, who cares how much a FA make? What we want is decent service, and a smile
Oct 17, 2011, 8:48 pm
#182
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Programs: Hyatt Diamond, Fairmont Platinum, Aeroplan Diamond, HHonors Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 18,686
I think I have read enough.
There is no right or wrong in this -this argument will never have a solid conclusion.
But somehow the following we know as a fact:
1. Air Canada is a really poorly managed company (even as the only Canadian airlines that serve international destinations, they are still not making profit and other airlines (like Cathay Pacific) are able to take advantage).
2. The Government of Canada is also stupid - failed to help Air Canada when AC needs the most.
A disaster is not resulted by one single incident. It is a combination of several things together.
So as a passengers, who cares how much a FA make? What we want is decent service, and a smile
There is no right or wrong in this -this argument will never have a solid conclusion.
But somehow the following we know as a fact:
1. Air Canada is a really poorly managed company (even as the only Canadian airlines that serve international destinations, they are still not making profit and other airlines (like Cathay Pacific) are able to take advantage).
2. The Government of Canada is also stupid - failed to help Air Canada when AC needs the most.
A disaster is not resulted by one single incident. It is a combination of several things together.
So as a passengers, who cares how much a FA make? What we want is decent service, and a smile
an aside.. how would the Government of Canada help AC out more?
And when did AC needed the help the most?
Oct 17, 2011, 9:02 pm
#183
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 33
Sorry I disappeared. I got called away to more pressing issues.
Right inside the original post is the claim:
That is quite simply not true. The number ($9502) may be, but "allowances" are not pay. They are reimbursements for out of pocket expenses incurred in conjuction with their employment. If AC wants to consider those allowances "pay" then they likely have a serious problem with Revenue Canada for not collecting the income taxes due on that "pay."
(If it was true that "allowances" are "pay" then it's likely that I and many other FT posters have been under reporting our "income" by thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.)
As well, under the "Hours Worked" section they go to great lengths to describe how FAs are paid during their paid working hours, yet there is no mention of the fact that they are required to work a lot of unpaid hours.
These unpaid hours are not time spent waiting for a plane to come in, or sitting in hotel room somewhere, but rather time where the employees are required to work, but are in fact not paid. A prime example is during the boarding phase of the flight where FAs are seating passengers, handing out newspapers, serving pre-flight drinks, and generally readying the plane and passengers for departure.
If you think these unpaid hours should not be included in the effective rate of pay calculations, then I presume you also agree that flight attendents should be allowed to show up for the flight any time before the cabin door is closed, as they are not getting paid for that time.
Calling reimbursements "pay" and not including the unpaid hours are to me both dishonest. The unpaid hours issue may be a "lie of ommision" but it's a lie nonetheless.
Right inside the original post is the claim:
That is quite simply not true. The number ($9502) may be, but "allowances" are not pay. They are reimbursements for out of pocket expenses incurred in conjuction with their employment. If AC wants to consider those allowances "pay" then they likely have a serious problem with Revenue Canada for not collecting the income taxes due on that "pay."
(If it was true that "allowances" are "pay" then it's likely that I and many other FT posters have been under reporting our "income" by thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.)
As well, under the "Hours Worked" section they go to great lengths to describe how FAs are paid during their paid working hours, yet there is no mention of the fact that they are required to work a lot of unpaid hours.
These unpaid hours are not time spent waiting for a plane to come in, or sitting in hotel room somewhere, but rather time where the employees are required to work, but are in fact not paid. A prime example is during the boarding phase of the flight where FAs are seating passengers, handing out newspapers, serving pre-flight drinks, and generally readying the plane and passengers for departure.
If you think these unpaid hours should not be included in the effective rate of pay calculations, then I presume you also agree that flight attendents should be allowed to show up for the flight any time before the cabin door is closed, as they are not getting paid for that time.
Calling reimbursements "pay" and not including the unpaid hours are to me both dishonest. The unpaid hours issue may be a "lie of ommision" but it's a lie nonetheless.
Last edited by turnfreak; Oct 17, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Oct 17, 2011, 9:07 pm
#184
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Vancouver BC
Programs: Aéroplan, Hilton, Marriott, Priority Club, Starwood Preferred Guest
Posts: 2
Corporate communication that although partly factual, clearly does not give the full picture. It does create a starting point for an informed discussion, however. Personally, I do not feel that it is appropriate to bargain their case in FlyerTalk, the proper venue is the bargaining table. Although most FAs are too professional to air dirty laundry with customers, those who have friends in AC employ are aware that the number of crew who are senior enough to hold overseas flying is limited to the top third. What these figures do not tell you is that to earn the average wage, most do extra flying, because since the 17% give-backs in bankruptcy, they cannot make ends meet JUST flying 80 hours a month. For the reserves, it is far worse.
Oct 17, 2011, 11:04 pm
#185
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,449
Generally exec bod have a formal termination procedure..
But often removed means resigned.. so a conscious exec bod member would tune in to see if they lost confidence with their membership, and resign if they feel its best for the membership..
Sort of like coaches of NHL teams who step down.. headlines read, "Fired", when push came to shove, the ownership of professional sports teams ask the coaches to step down, and they did so voluntarily.. before the formal termination process kicks in.. but, many newspapers continue to consider the coach "Fired"..
But often removed means resigned.. so a conscious exec bod member would tune in to see if they lost confidence with their membership, and resign if they feel its best for the membership..
Sort of like coaches of NHL teams who step down.. headlines read, "Fired", when push came to shove, the ownership of professional sports teams ask the coaches to step down, and they did so voluntarily.. before the formal termination process kicks in.. but, many newspapers continue to consider the coach "Fired"..
Oct 17, 2011, 11:20 pm
#186
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,655
I'm always amazed how our sales people complain that the car allowance is too low, but when they are moved to management complain that they are not earning as much anymore because of less driving.
The unpaid hours issue is very real but a bit of a red herring. It appears to be one of those very bizarre practices that is standard in the airline industry, but it does create serious inequities - FA's who successfully bid for long hauls get their hours quickly, whereas the (usually junior) ones on short haul routes end up with a ton of "unpaid" time. Reality is that the industry could (and maybe should) move to paying based on hours at work, but then the hourly rate would decrease commensurately - it is just a matter of how you divide the compensation pie. Proposing such a change would undoubtedly create civil war in the union rank and file, which is likely why no one has touched it.
Oct 17, 2011, 11:23 pm
#187
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,655
Oct 18, 2011, 1:16 am
#188
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
2. In the past, the Government resisted Victor Li from acquiring AC.
3. Government of Canada does not encourage AC to purchase from home (EMJ v. CRJ)
4. AC relied heavily on *A partner support (For example, UA leased 3 A330s to AC).
Oct 18, 2011, 6:23 am
#190
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: YYZ
Programs: A3&O6 Gold,IC AMB & HH Diamond
Posts: 14,132
Oct 18, 2011, 7:27 am
#191
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PHL, NYC, DC
Posts: 9,708
Once again, that was how I interpret it............ But I find that very strange as well.......
I believe Asian carriers, does it a little differently............. if I recall they work on rotating rosters and not by seniority bidding........
But lets put it this way, our hours of work (regardless of what industry we are in) has increased...... think about wearing PJs or in the shower typing you your BlackBerries
Oct 18, 2011, 10:43 am
#192
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,573
It depends where and how the delay occurs.
If the plane departs the gate and is then stuck on the tarmac, then they likely would be getting paid.
But the much more frequent occurance of a flight delayed at the gate results in additional unpaid time. And I've had my fair share of 2 and 3 and 4 hour delays at the gate. (See: Show me the button! for an extended description of an extended delay (of about 4½ hours.))
Unlike people whining about how they don't get paid for their commute, or they are away from home, we're talking about actual, real work, that they are not paid for because the cabin door is not closed.
As for cancellations, don't know.
(If you are concerned about the veracity of the claim, I refer you to the original post, where, though not explicity stated, is clearly implied:
If the plane departs the gate and is then stuck on the tarmac, then they likely would be getting paid.
But the much more frequent occurance of a flight delayed at the gate results in additional unpaid time. And I've had my fair share of 2 and 3 and 4 hour delays at the gate. (See: Show me the button! for an extended description of an extended delay (of about 4½ hours.))
Unlike people whining about how they don't get paid for their commute, or they are away from home, we're talking about actual, real work, that they are not paid for because the cabin door is not closed.
As for cancellations, don't know.
(If you are concerned about the veracity of the claim, I refer you to the original post, where, though not explicity stated, is clearly implied:
Oct 18, 2011, 11:09 am
#193
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
The unpaid hours issue is very real but a bit of a red herring. It appears to be one of those very bizarre practices that is standard in the airline industry, but it does create serious inequities - FA's who successfully bid for long hauls get their hours quickly, whereas the (usually junior) ones on short haul routes end up with a ton of "unpaid" time. Reality is that the industry could (and maybe should) move to paying based on hours at work, but then the hourly rate would decrease commensurately - it is just a matter of how you divide the compensation pie. Proposing such a change would undoubtedly create civil war in the union rank and file, which is likely why no one has touched it.
The problem with the claims in the original post are that they triy to make the case that people are only working 65, 75, or 80 hours per month (or whatever the number is) when in fact they are working many more hours, which in turn dilutes their per hour rate.
Oct 18, 2011, 11:10 am
#194
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
Oct 18, 2011, 12:06 pm
#195
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: CHI
Programs: UA 1K, MR Titanium, IHG Gold, National Exec
Posts: 3,841
Can't really compare AC with CX, considering Canada isn't in a strategic connection location like HKG and has ridiculously cumbersome and bureaucratic immigration procedures. HKG and SIN are tiny places and CX/SQ have 100% widebody fleets. CX's existing HKG-YVR-JFK flight is one of the few routings stopping through Canada to a 3rd country but it could be much better with better transit procedures/facilities.