Air Canada Strike -Does Mark Carney have "power"?

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

The law gives the govt the power to end a strike and the govt ended it.

That's what AC was counting on and that's why the negotiations went on (unproductively) for 5 months. Collusion might be the wrong word  here (even though I'd use it) but both AC and the government knew the planned  outcome.

 

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

The union broke the law.  Duhhh

Cool., suddenly  you stand opposed to people who ignore the law... pretty selective with that I'd say.

Here's the thing though, in the face of a "real strike" AC cut a deal within hours.  If it hadn't been for the expectation of government intervention the strike wouldn't have happened. Duhhh

12 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Wasn't aware that plane had to be moving.  End of the day it's not important to me,

It would be if you were a new hire or had low seniority...

That was the point of all this. The real issue (I think) was people at the bottom end of the pay scale (AC its absolutely horrid in this department).

In some cases a maximum crew day (14 hours), short hops and bottom of the pay list would net you about $6.50 an hour for the whole day.

AC publishes top tier salary levels to the public for a reason.

As an aside, there's a long history with airline unions  throwing new hires under the bus for the benefit of higher seniority members, some have even agreed to A scale and B scale deals based on date of hire (DOH). It explains why people stay with the company, they eventually become seniority prisoners and new hires "pay their dues" to get there ... it's also why mobility within the industry is a career killer.

Since seniority rules your life,  age at joining can be a career killer too regardless of experience. In the initial stages of the pilot shortage that was a huge issue and most people couldn't understand why highly experienced expat and retired military  pilots were driving dump trucks.

There's a point to all of the above ( at least for me)... It was nice to see the union and membership standing up for new hires and lower seniority members because usually they get bludgeoned with impunity.

In addition, it exposed the company's bad faith negotiations since March and the fact that they knew damn well  the government would step in. The threat of a real strike is the only thing that works with them and in the absence of ignoring the back to work order, a real strike was never in the cards... and everyone knew it,

Depending on your perspective that could be good or bad, but let's not pretend it wasn't a huge issue here. People who blame the government for this have a point, none of this would have happened without them.

Edited August 20, 2025 by Venandi

[LinkSoul60]

9 hours ago, Aristides said:

It won't hurt them on a domestic level because all carriers will be subject to the same rule. It might hurt them against international competitors if it adds costs their competition doesn't have. 

I was jokingly referring to AC stock....which is down again today.  New wage scales go to the bottom line but we can assume those will be made up through increased fares over time....like everything else when companies pay employees more.

[LinkSoul60]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

It would be if you were a new hire or had low seniority...

I'm neither, hence this not being important to me....

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

That was the point of all this. The real issue (I think) was people at the bottom end of the pay scale (AC its absolutely horrid in this department).

I'm not knowledgable as to what the bottom end pay scale is with AC in comparison to others in same industry but I'll assume they're somewhat competitive or they wouldn't be able to attract or keep new hires?

 

I have no skin in this game and trying to view objectively.  I have a hard time blaming the government though....the company and union stated they were at an impasse and a continued distruption of a service that is essential to our economy benefitted nobody.  I find it telling that with the help of an arbitrator this was resolved in a typical days work of 9 hours. The company or union or both were posturing for what appears to be a relatively minor sticking point of 50% of wages for minimum 60 minutes....albeit not for that bottom end tenured employee.   If it took the government to get them there and not continue to disrupt peoples and businesses lives, pocketbooks and bottom lines then kudos to them.  My 2 cents....

 

[Shady]

On 8/19/2025 at 8:25 AM, ExFlyer said:

The threat worked..... the union caved.

Strike over.

Yes when you take people’s rights away they usually have little recourse.  Congratulations.

On 8/19/2025 at 9:47 AM, LinkSoul60 said:

Damn liberal government....

 

CUPE, which represents more than 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants, said that after nine hours of talks with the assistance of the chief mediator appointed by the federal government, the deal struck will be presented to its membership, who will have an opportunity to ratify it.

 

Yes when you take people’s rights away, their options become limited.  Congratulations.  

[LinkSoul60]

3 minutes ago, Shady said:

Yes when you take people’s rights away they usually have little recourse.  Congratulations.

Yes when you take people’s rights away, their options become limited.  Congratulations.  

Arbitration is not taking peoples rights away.  

How can you argue the end result after only 9 hours of negotiation with that arbitrator?

[ExFlyer]

15 minutes ago, Shady said:

Yes when you take people’s rights away they usually have little recourse.  Congratulations.

Yes when you take people’s rights away, their options become limited.  Congratulations.  

What rights did they take away?  What options were limited?

The had a mediator and with arbitration, they came to an agreement.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

What rights did they take away?  What options were limited?

The had a mediator and with arbitration, they came to an agreement.

There was no arbitration. I don't think you understand what the word means. 

A mediator can be helpful but it's not the same as arbitration at all. 

Arbitration removed the right of negotiation.  binding arbitration is where a third party looks at the situation and imposes what THEY believe to be a 'fair' or reasonable settlement, and the union doesn't get a say in the out come.  They just have to live with it. 

So it removes the right to bargain. Now, there's some question as to how strong the "right" to bargain is and whether it's really a right or not, there's been SC rulings both ways. But without a doubt arbitration is a violation of the bargaining process.  Sometimes that's necessary and legitimate but that would be something to look at on a case by case basis. Obviously the unions feel it was inappropriate here. 

 

[Aristides]

Binding arbitration doesn't actually remove the right to bargain. Both sides bargain before an arbitrator who then decides what is fair. It does remove the right to strike or lockout.

Mediators are just there to help the process along, not impose a settlement.

Edited August 20, 2025 by Aristides

[blackbird]

7 hours ago, Venandi said:

That's what AC was counting on and that's why the negotiations went on (unproductively) for 5 months. Collusion might be the wrong word  here (even though I'd use it) but both AC and the government knew the planned  outcome.

That's the system we have.  What have the Liberals done about the AC employees not being paid for the time they worked.  They could have done something about it long ago.  They had the past ten years to do something.

I don't believe in a right to strike in essential services.  Air Canada is an essential service that affects millions of people.  It is ridiculous to think a strike is ok in that situation.  The only alternative I know of is binding arbitration.  If you have another alternative, tell us what it is.  The only authority that can make the laws is the government.  They are the ones responsible.

Also, the constitution needs to be changed.  The Supreme Court needs to be changed because they are out of touch with reality.  That can only be done by Constitutional change.

Edited August 20, 2025 by blackbird

[ExFlyer]

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There was no arbitration. I don't think you understand what the word means. 

A mediator can be helpful but it's not the same as arbitration at all. 

Arbitration removed the right of negotiation.  binding arbitration is where a third party looks at the situation and imposes what THEY believe to be a 'fair' or reasonable settlement, and the union doesn't get a say in the out come.  They just have to live with it. 

So it removes the right to bargain. Now, there's some question as to how strong the "right" to bargain is and whether it's really a right or not, there's been SC rulings both ways. But without a doubt arbitration is a violation of the bargaining process.  Sometimes that's necessary and legitimate but that would be something to look at on a case by case basis. Obviously the unions feel it was inappropriate here. 

 

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) where a neutral third party, the arbitrator, helps resolve a dispute.

Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) where a neutral third party helps two or more individuals or groups reach a mutually agreeable solution to a conflict.

Same same

[herbie]

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

If an airline is an essential service, so are its flight attendants. A minimum number depending on the number of passengers and exits are required by law for safety reasons. 

IF
Is the functional word. Was not declared so and it isn't. If the strike affected all (both) airlines it could be ruled so. Then only if a Court ruled passenger travel was essential.
Which would be hard after letting buses go their way  and turning trains travel to shit.

Face it, one day they'll jam you in like a subway. no stewards you fight for a seat. There will be coin locks on the overhead bins maybe even strap seats like some military C130.
Press the button for a Qtip, swab and insert into machine before te door opens to let you through the main gate.

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

The law gives the govt the power to end a strike and the govt ended it.  The union broke the law.  Duhhh

So did I for 50 years whenever I fired up a joint. And for the last 20 they had enough common sense not to enforce that law either. Specially when there were mere HOURS of defiance. You'll have to pray for Divine Retribution if you insist someone need be punished.

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, herbie said:

IF
Is the functional word. Was not declared so and it isn't. If the strike affected all (both) airlines it could be ruled so. Then only if a Court ruled passenger travel was essential.
Which would be hard after letting buses go their way  and turning trains travel to shit.

Face it, one day they'll jam you in like a subway. no stewards you fight for a seat. There will be coin locks on the overhead bins maybe even strap seats like some military C130.
Press the button for a Qtip, swab and insert into machine before te door opens to let you through the main gate.

So did I for 50 years whenever I fired up a joint. And for the last 20 they had enough common sense not to enforce that law either. Specially when there were mere HOURS of defiance. You'll have to pray for Divine Retribution if you insist someone need be punished.

Flight attendants are required by the feds to make sure safety regulations are followed and to get you out of the aircraft if something goes wrong. That won't change. 

Passenger aviation is essential in a country the size of Canada with its relatively small population.

[herbie]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Passenger aviation is essential in a country the size of Canada with its relatively small population.

So fly WestJet. If WestJet's on strike fly Air Canada. And there's others too. It would be a different story if there weren't alternatives.

Quote

in a country the size of Canada with its relatively small population.

and there all almost along one straight narrow E-W line... that's why we get dinged so much. Sad fact. Another reason to get people to move out of that belt into the rest of Canada.

And I truly wish things woon't deteriorate like I described, but sadly we have to work to prevent that. I look at the difference in air travel just in my lifetime. From luxury adventure to ordeal.

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, herbie said:

So fly WestJet. If WestJet's on strike fly Air Canada. And there's others too. It would be a different story if there weren't alternatives.

and there all almost along one straight narrow E-W line... that's why we get dinged so much. Sad fact. Another reason to get people to move out of that belt into the rest of Canada.

And I truly wish things woon't deteriorate like I described, but sadly we have to work to prevent that. I look at the difference in air travel just in my lifetime. From luxury adventure to ordeal.

In the early seventies you could buy a new B747 for less than $30 million and the Canadian dollar was at par. Now a B777-300 averages $375 million with the CAD at less than 75 cents.  Fuel was 17 cents a gallon instead or 90 cents a litre yet fares haven't gone up nearly as much. Those savings have to come from somewhere.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Flight attendants are required by the feds to make sure safety regulations are followed and to get you out of the aircraft if something goes wrong. That won't change. 

Passenger aviation is essential in a country the size of Canada with its relatively small population.

The AC strike has screwed up travel plans, cost thousands of dollars in some cases, and had bad affects on many people.  They were not able to find an alternate airline as you claimed.  So it is an essential service to countless people.  AC strikes should be illegal.

[herbie]

Oh rest assured they'll continue to find ways to nickel and dime us. Fuel charges that take ages to be removed when prices go down baggage charges etc.

If our cities were spread out like the USA, different story. More feeder airlines, competition etc.
Used to like flying to Vanc on Central Mtn Air, little Beechcraft. 5 mins more airtime w props but landed at old airport. No lineups, pilot emptied the baggage. $99 vs $199-$299 at the time.
Also remember bizarre PWA jets flew Vanc to Prince George then hoppedd back to Quesnel 100 miles, then Williams Lake 100 miles... geez barely got altitude could see the treetops.

 

[herbie]

And we all had plenty of warning about a more than likely strike too. So excuse mt lack of sympathy for those who didn't prepare for the possibility.
I stand with the workers, not Joe Blow's inconvenience a strike causes.

Tough titty if you have to shop or fly somewhere else for a while.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Binding arbitration doesn't actually remove the right to bargain. Both sides bargain before an arbitrator who then decides what is fair. It does remove the right to strike or lockout.

 

You literally just described someone not being able to bargain. 

An arbitrator listens to the arguments but does not bargain. They may ask questions or get input but their decision is final and no further discussion happens and both sides must accept it. 

Bargaining is where both sides negotiate and neither side is required to accept anything, so they attempt to come to some agreement that's mutually accepted. 

Binding Arbitration absolutely removes the right to bargain. That's the point of it. Bargaining stops and a settlement is imposed. It's more similar to a  court case or tribunal hearing than it is a negotiation.

18 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Mediators are just there to help the process along, not impose a settlement.

For sure. In many cases they just suggest "well, if it WAS to go to arbitration i'm not sure you'd get THAT' to both sides  And i'm sure there was a lot of that in this case.  But they facilitate negotiation and that's very different than binding arbitration. 

[ExFlyer]

36 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh rest assured they'll continue to find ways to nickel and dime us. Fuel charges that take ages to be removed when prices go down baggage charges etc.

If our cities were spread out like the USA, different story. More feeder airlines, competition etc.
Used to like flying to Vanc on Central Mtn Air, little Beechcraft. 5 mins more airtime w props but landed at old airport. No lineups, pilot emptied the baggage. $99 vs $199-$299 at the time.
Also remember bizarre PWA jets flew Vanc to Prince George then hoppedd back to Quesnel 100 miles, then Williams Lake 100 miles... geez barely got altitude could see the treetops.

 

Lets not forget the cost of operations has a lot to do with the increase in airfare. Be it wages, airport fees, maintenance, parts and service, yes, even fuel all cost and as the user, we pay to cover those costs.

Yeah well, I flew central mountain air yvr to yqq regularly as well. It does not even fly there anymore. It ain't cheap anymore. One way yvr to Prince George is now$275 (for economy) and then baggage fees (first bag at check in is $50 LOL) and seat selection added on.  Oh and not reundable either. 

And as for Pacific Western...they ain't in business anymore cause they could not compete in prices.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) where a neutral third party, the arbitrator, helps resolve a dispute.

well first off that's pretty much what i said   and that's true in a general sense but in labour disputes arbitrators judgements are 'binding'.  Which means both sides are bound to the decision. 

 

"Binding arbitration is a process in which a neutral third party, called an arbitrator, is used to resolve disputes between two or more parties.

The arbitrator will listen to both sides of the dispute, review any relevant evidence, and make a final and binding decision on the matter. The decision made by the arbitrator is legally binding, meaning that it is enforceable in a court of law, and the parties are bound to comply with the decision.

Binding Arbitration: Definition, Process & Legal Support | LegalMatch

Quote

Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) where a neutral third party helps two or more individuals or groups reach a mutually agreeable solution to a conflict.

That is true.  Or more accurately TRIES to help. They listen and inject a neutral opinion to try to bring sides together 

 

Quote

Same same

ROFLMAO!!!! NO it is NOT!! It's not even close!  

The first is essentially a judge who will listen to both parties and then inflict a biding decision that they must listen to by law 

The second is a neutral third person who facilitates negotiation between the parties and tries to assist them to come to a negotiated settlement.  

They're not close to the same.  They are as different as having a lawyer come up with a contract and a judge ruling in a court of law. 

[herbie]

I know some of our regulars were hoping the govt would go all Ronnie Reagan and FIRE the stewards.
Regardless of the fact you can't FIRE someone else's workers and the fact you can't fire your own workers for striking. Ya know, the ones always griping that that is democracy....

[ExFlyer]

41 minutes ago, herbie said:

I know some of our regulars were hoping the govt would go all Ronnie Reagan and FIRE the stewards.
Regardless of the fact you can't FIRE someone else's workers and the fact you can't fire your own workers for striking. Ya know, the ones always griping that that is democracy....

You mean the flight attendants???

I think 99% of the people were on the flight attendant side of the dispute. Wanting them to be paid for the work they do prior to door closing.

[ExFlyer]

47 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

well first off that's pretty much what i said....

You never have anything to say worth reading.  HA HA HA

 

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

The AC strike has screwed up travel plans, cost thousands of dollars in some cases, and had bad affects on many people.  They were not able to find an alternate airline as you claimed.  So it is an essential service to countless people.  AC strikes should be illegal.

I never claimed they could find alternative flights, that never would have been possible. If they did manage to find an alternative they could bill Air Canada for it but that's all.

26 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You mean the flight attendants???

I think 99% of the people were on the flight attendant side of the dispute. Wanting them to be paid for the work they do prior to door closing.

Looks like they will get half pay for one hour before departure, which seems in line with the latest US contracts.

 

Edited August 20, 2025 by Aristides

[ExFlyer]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 

Looks like they will get half pay for one hour before departure, which seems in line with the latest US contracts.

 

There has to be more details. They should get paid even if the flights are delayed or cancelled.

I have sat at airports and the flight was delayed 4 hours...I got a meal voucher but the attendants just sat there.

I had flights cancelled at the airport and the attendants had to go back home...no pay.  

Both situation the attendants should get something. Pilots are on salary and get paid , fly or not. Attendants should too. (pilots and attendants are also regulated on the amount of hours they can work each month).