BOH

I think some rational thinking is needed on the pax preference of the fleet type.

Does it really make any difference to 90% of travellers whether they are on a 767, 330, 340, 777 or 787?. Isn't it about how each carrier actually fits out their fleet and provides the service that is the memorable factor and therefore differentiator?

If AC equipped their existing 333 / 343 fleet with proper J lie-flats and Y IFE, is this not more important that whether if it is a 777 or 330?. I wonder if the BS about getting rid of the Airbuses and supposed 777 superiority would subside then.

I've been on an Emirates 777 in Y and thought it was appalling at 10 abreast. But I don't think badly of the 777, I think badly of Emirates. BA's 777's in Y has 9 abreast - does that mean the 777 is better or worse than the 330?. No, it is merely a positive for BA compared to Emirates.

It is well known the 330 / 340 cabin is considerably quieter than the 777 - now there is a real technical differentiator between the a/c. I flew to YYZ about 2 years ago outbound on an AC343 and inbound on a BA777. The difference in cabin noise was very noticable, easily in favour of the 343.

So if AC expanded their fleet with some 332's, more 34X series and fitted better J seats and refitted the 763's to the 764 interior standard would both pax and pilots be happy?

parnel

The fact remains that 777 and 787's are much more cost efficient for AC to operate. and its got nothing to with pax preferences as you said because the comfort level does not change. A ten percent operating advantage over the life of the aircraft is a lot of money and the pilots will pay for their indiscretion because if AC has to go back to AB they will negotiate accordingly during the next round of bargaining for a CLA to recuperate those costs.

Shareholder

I raised that one here about 12 hours ago. You've been so fixated on trying to figure out how ACE could fire all its unionized staff and start over again with a non-union shop. Or run the airline as a foreign-based subsidiary. Now that those pipe dreams have been bashed to shreds, you're finally cluing into the more immediate implications of it all...

As for picking up more Airbuses, I am sure SQ would be more than happy to dump their 345s and take the Boeings instead.

But this issue goes back to a bone of contention RM has had with his long haul pilots for years, and he spends several pages in his book on the matter of what he sees as featherbedding [pages 122 to 124]. He has been very critical of the work-hours situation and the 8-hour limitation, suggesting that in fact the whole matter of relief crew is more dangerous than having a single pilot crew fly the entire flight. The cost of maintaining extra crew, loss of revenue front cabin seats, and other factors affect the profitability of AC's best-performing routes. [And it is RM who raised the issue of $250K a year senior pilots, which is the grade and seniority we're dealing with here.] While the new Boeings may offer better tech specs, as long as the work rules and crew costs also don't present such economies, AC will rely on more leased B763s and under performing Airbuses.

Q Shoe Guy

I raised this one on page two !

Shareholder

With all the good stuff that's been posted here about Emirates and how they should be allowed to fly to/from Canada to skim the cream off AC's prime transAt routes, can we actually believe you on this, or are you pulling another fast one on us susceptible Colonials?

BOH

Now that is a generalization (BTW how did your efforts to get me banned work out for you )

I'm not aware of the A32X series underperforming with AC or any other airline.

The A33X series has also not underperformed in service with any airline, particularly the RR Trent powered version.

The 345's have despatch reliability issues but then so did the 777's at EIS. As did the 744, MD11 and 737NG in the late 1990's. All a/c seem to have teething troubles.

There is an A345 issue agreed. Where else does the AB's underperform in AC's fleet?

Q Shoe Guy

This post is not written by me but I thought it was very well thought out and deserves a read here. My apologies to Sebring if you should find this un-acceptable, (if you do) please PM me and I will delete it and offer a link instead.




I've read through this lengthy thread and realize that no one here knows what really happened with the AC vote.

Everybody thinks it was the pay rate. If you look at other bulletin boards where pilots are discussion the issue, there is general agreement that the pay rate was not an issue. It was acceptable.

Three things happened here.

Two third of the union membership didn't vote.

The one third that voted voted mainly No for one of two reasons.

Some voted No because the agreement gave the company more flying time (up to 90 hours a month) for a three year period to accommodate training for the introduction of an all-Boeing widebody fleet. These are entirely different birds than the 767s and the Airbus widebodies. Some pilots felt this was an additional concession squeezed out of them on top of what they have already given during the bankruptcy restructuring.

Others voted No out of spite. These are primarily pilots who lost considerable seniority position when Air Canada and Canadian Air Lines were merged in 2000. They have been fighting a long, bitter battle through the courts and before Canada's labor board


to try to get this redressed, to no avail. The union is split about one-third former CP pilots, two-thirds former AC pilots and the CP pilots being an older group, did disproportionately well in the eyes of the AC group. The AC militants want to try to force AC management's hand to intervene on their behalf. AC management will not do so, and with good reason.

In my view, AC management knew their was a risk this wouldn't pass, but since Milton really wanted Boeing aircraft, they gave it the old college try. Going back to Airbus is an option, because if pay is not the issue, AC can order the 346 or 350 if it wants, and training will not be nearly the issue since the 346 is common to the 343 and 345 and has great similarities to the 319/320/321 which AC has in large numbers.

I don't think Boeing is totally out of luck. There is a new MEC chairman at the AC union, he took office after this agreement was negotiated. If he and Milton have a tete a tete on how to repackage the deal - perhaps addressing the training issue differently - and then the new chair gets out and pushes the agreement hard and pushes for greater voter participation, then perhaps it can still go forward. In the worst case scenario, AC might have to wait until 2007 for first deliveries of the 777, but can pick up used planes for next year. While the used market is tight, we are talking about planes that will be available in 2006, and that gives AC time to work with lessors to line up two aircraft. That's all AC was to get from Boeing for the 2006 summer schedule.

A note on AC's fleet. The oldest 340 is nine years old. Most are not even that old. The oldest 330 is five or six years old. While AC has some very old 762s, and some aging 763s, it also has a fair number of newer 763s, some just a few years old. It can mine the used market for newer 763s to replace the older ones, and it wouldn't have to face a fleet replacement for any widebody type until 2015.

A final thought. Between now and 2015, there will be terrorist attacks, pandemics and recessions. Airlines will cancel orders. Leasing companies will get back planes. The price of crude may well fall, too. (History teaches that when everybody supports one particular forecast, the opposite often occurs). If AC is financially sound in the interim, it can be in a position to add newer planes as they become available or even snag brand new ones off the line at a discount.

BOH

You could always have a look at the EK seat-map . Should I explain how you can do this?

Q Shoe Guy

I believe the both of you(SH and BOH) have made your points..........back to the topic shall we?

negotiator

That's the problem, AC demanding training configurations out side of the box and Pilot's not recognizing senority along with the fact that this 'issue' was never resolved during conventional bargaining!

As I've said before on this thread, the solution rests with the ACPA and the AC exective to work out a deal.

It's more serious then doing the old 'college try'!

It 's about the jobs and the future of the organization.


Cheers

blue2002

Actually, I could have sworn that before you were trying to convince us it was fully AC's problem, not even ACPA's. (see http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...0#post4206630)... but I guess you are reforming as the weekend nears its end.

Speaking of spelling.... Please check your signature.

Simon

How does the union seniority thing have anything to do with AC executive?

It is an internal matter in the union, and with the courts/CIRB.

parnel

[QUOTE=Shareholder]Well I always go for the most cost effective route to saving money......unfortunately we live in a socialist country and you are even more aware of that than I since you live off that system

If you think long enough about a problem there is a solution and I don't think a major international ailrine should be held hostage by a bunch of prima doinnas and the thugs that represent them.

And he is right..the BS I've seen on longhauls to places like DEL with "rest" pilots is sick. They sit and watch movies or flirt with som FA but almost never sleep. The rules for pilots were designed many years ago when flying was a talent and real work and not the "taxi driver" job it now is due to automation.

As for missing the point of it all...not quite;my focus was on punishing the pilots for their stupidity.

Altaflyer

[QUOTE=parnel]

The rules for pilots were designed many years ago when flying was a talent and real work and not the "taxi driver" job it now is due to automation.

[QUOTE]

I vote that you go find a couple or even three Toronto cabbies, toss them and you aboard a A330 and we'll see how it goes? What do you think?

You have a deeply ingrained resentment towards anyone that makes their living as an employee and most particularily if they belong to a union - you know that it is not possible for our system to function if ALL people were entrepreneurs. Also, it appears that anyone who is not an entrepreneur has no skills whatsoever in your world view. Pretty high and mighty of you.

Crampedin13A

[QUOTE=Altaflyer]Better bring a box of air fresheners to hang around the cockpit as well.