Canadian Airport Thread II

[thenoflyzone]

In anticipation of the AC flight attendant strike, it seems TS and PD have removed the ability to purchase refundable tickets. I don't blame them. They don't want to fly half empty planes, if ever AC and the flight attendants agree to a deal at the last minute, which is mostly likely what will happen.

I did exactly that last summer, for my trip to Italy. Booked refundable tickets with TS, and then canceled. Twice.

[DavidK93]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Ha really. Where the Left most province meets the Right most province.
Hope is quite a bit more affordable than Metro Vancouver and even Chilliwack.

My grandfather lived in Hope and I used to go there on visits a lot, it’s a very underrated place IMO.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by DavidK93

My grandfather lived in Hope and I used to go there on visits a lot, it’s a very underrated place IMO.

Ya for sure very much a "drive through it all the time but usually don't stop" kind of city. Especially from the west with your gas tank still almost full.

[Dominion301]

AC will begin cancelling flights ahead of the expected FAs strike. Regional Jazz and PAL flights shouldn’t be affected.

[Dominion301]

4N are bringing back winter seasonal flights to YZF-YVR twice weekly: https://canadianaviationnews.ca/air-...d-yellowknife/

Was this last served pre-pandemic? Connections to/from YXY will also be available.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Dominion301

AC will begin cancelling flights ahead of the expected FAs strike. Regional Jazz and PAL flights shouldn’t be affected.

It’s a tone deaf of the Liberal government not to order a cooling off period that extends past Labour Day. There’s going to be thousands of Canadian families looking to get home in time for school who could now be stranded or severely inconvenienced.

[Dominion301]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It’s a tone deaf of the Liberal government not to order a cooling off period that extends past Labour Day. There’s going to be thousands of Canadian families looking to get home in time for school who could now be stranded or severely inconvenienced.

How would that be fair to the FAs and their constitutionally-protected right to strike? Why does an airline or any other large company for that matter need to bargain in good faith if they know the government will just illegally bail them out?

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by Dominion301

How would that be fair to the FAs and their constitutionally-protected right to strike? Why does an airline or any other large company for that matter need to bargain in good faith if they know the government will just illegally bail them out?

Like, they're going to get their pay raise either way, it's not the end of the world to make them wait a bit longer and get it settled later.

However, I've got a trip with AC booked for September 13th, it's probably better for me to let the strike happen as soon as possible and hope it's resolved by then, which I think it should be.

Government in Canada needs to get much more serious and start subsidizing air travel a lot more than they currently do more.


The PM talks a very big talk about making "One Canadian Economy" out of 13... well, making domestic air travel more accessible and affordable across the country could be a big part of that push.

I think Canada needs our own version of the Essential Air Service, and barriers to entry should be lower for international airlines wanting to crack into the Canadian market with international routes.

More than anything though, the government needs to focus on making domestic air travel more accessible and affordable. Canadian domestic airline prices are just outrageous compared to most other countries around the world.

[Taeolas]

While AC is a dominant airline in Canada, it doesn't have anywhere near a monopoly. As long as Westjet and Porter and other smaller airlines can fill in the gaps, the Feds aren't likely to be eager to step in, at least not to start. Let the corps work things out.

As is, the Flight Attendants seem to have a stronger grip on the messaging for their demands. Not being paid for time on the ground feels wrong to most people, so they have the popular support for now. I just hope this doesn't bite them in the end.

The obvious solution from the Airline perspective to me, would be to allocate an hour before/after flight (or whatever the numbers work out as) to be paid for; but decrease the hourly rate (or not increase it as much) so the attendants still get what the airline was going to accept in the end; but the hourly rate is smaller on paper. (Lots of devils in the details but that's the basic thoughts I have as an outsider)

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

I've hard flight attendants don't even start getting paid until like everyone is sitting down in their seats and the plane has begun to taxi or something like that?

Seems pretty absurd if they aren't paid for a pretty significant amount of time they spend on the plane in uniform greeting customers, setting things up, etc.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

I've hard flight attendants don't even start getting paid until like everyone is sitting down in their seats and the plane has begun to taxi or something like that?

Seems pretty absurd if they aren't paid for a pretty significant amount of time spend on the plane in uniform greeting customers, setting things up, etc.

Agreed. They are on the job therefore they should get compensated. This only seems right.

[Taeolas]

A "work to rule" process might have been effective. If they aren't paid until the cabin doors are closed, then for every flight they sit in their jump seats while passengers are boarding and refuse to do anything. No helping people get settled, no organizing the overhead bins, no serving coffee/wine to upper class, etc.... Once the doors are closed then they could start organizing the cabin and resolving any issues and such. That would delay departure, but that's not their fault that they're not on the clock yet.

Of course once the doors open at the other end, their job is done as well, so no helping with transfers or further cabin cleanup or anything else.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by Dominion301

How would that be fair to the FAs and their constitutionally-protected right to strike? Why does an airline or any other large company for that matter need to bargain in good faith if they know the government will just illegally bail them out?

The federal Labour minister has the right under the Canada Labour Code to be involved in labour disputes involving federally regulated industries. So, there's no such thing as "illegally" bailing out Air Canada.

[Sunnybrae]

It's interesting to see the reaction of the public to how flight attendants are paid. It's not uncommon in the industry. Westjet does the same. Wheels up to wheels down. Wasn't an issue in the last contract talks or the one before that. They agreed when they took the job and signed the contract. Why the pity party from the public? Oh yah, union spin. If that's what they want this time, fine, but this is not new. No one was ignorant about it when they were hired.

I know of truckers that get paid by the mile. Not for gassing up or loading and unloading or maintenance. They knew that when they took the job. Otherwise, don't take the job.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Sunnybrae

I know of truckers that get paid by the mile. Not for gassing up or loading and unloading or maintenance. They knew that when they took the job. Otherwise, don't take the job.

Fee for service physicians get paid piecemeal too. If it is a quiet day on your shift you won't make much money. Many of the things we do in the run of a day are gratis (charting, checking lab results, attending rounds etc).

Physicians however like to maintain the veneer of independent professionals and small business owners (which we are).

Flight attendants however are clearly employees. This is a slightly different thing.

[Sunnybrae]

For truck drivers I'm talking company drivers, not owner/operators so it is the same thing.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Dominion301

How would that be fair to the FAs and their constitutionally-protected right to strike? Why does an airline or any other large company for that matter need to bargain in good faith if they know the government will just illegally bail them out?

How does it impact their right to strike? Cooling off periods are used all the time.

[Dominion301]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

The federal Labour minister has the right under the Canada Labour Code to be involved in labour disputes involving federally regulated industries. So, there's no such thing as "illegally" bailing out Air Canada.

When I say "illegal", I'm referring back-to-work legislation, which the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. Forced cooling off periods are just stall tactics that are designed to favour a corporation. Those too very may well be unconstitutional but haven't yet been court challenged, ditto forced binding arbitration.

Originally Posted by whatnext

How does it impact their right to strike? Cooling off periods are used all the time.

A cooling off period delays their legal right to strike.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by Dominion301

When I say "illegal", I'm referring back-to-work legislation, which the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. Forced cooling off periods are just stall tactics that are designed to favour a corporation. Those too very may well be unconstitutional but haven't yet been court challenged, ditto forced binding arbitration.



A cooling off period delays their legal right to strike.

Do you have examples where back to work legislation has been found to be unconstitutional? Any examples I could find under federally regulated industries/employers through the Canada Labour Code have been upheld by the courts.

[Dominion301]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

Do you have examples where back to work legislation has been found to be unconstitutional? Any examples I could find under federally regulated industries/employers through the Canada Labour Code have been upheld by the courts.

Here's a couple: https://www.google.com/search?q=supr...client=gws-wiz

Federal example:

Bill C-89 (Canada Post):
The Supreme Court of Canada has previously ruled that back-to-work legislation, like Bill C-89, can be unconstitutional if it substantially interferes with the right to strike, which is considered a fundamental part of collective bargaining.

That'll be my last comment on this topic.