North American
#41
On Reserve
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Hello Fish,
As a matter of fact, I do believe if the WJPA exec. voted it down, the flying would not have happened. In my experience, just because a group is unionized doesn't mean that a company will always follow the terms of a contract. By and large I believe that in this day and age, a company will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders, even if it means it is in contravention of a CBA. In Westjet's case, its mantra is " Keep the employees happy, then the guest will be happy. And if the guest is happy, then the shareholder is happy". So the shareholder is still rewarded, but by a happy and engaged pilot group. I know I know, very Koolaidish of us, but our model is based on WN, so what do you expect?
When our contract negotiations were going down in '09, it was not a happy time in Westjet land. Interestingly enough though, the company went back to the drawing board when it was obvious that the pilot group was dis-satisfied with Agreement #1 and were going to vote it down, and terms of the agreement were changed to satisfy the pilot group. Because of things like this, we are willing to give our executive the benefit of the doubt when they say "Trust us". I know I know. A pilot group that trusts management. Perish the thought!! And remember our management and BOD isn't just Saretsky. Our chairman and founder still has huge sway (think Herb), as is shown when an EVP and Pres./CEO made hasty departures in the last little while.
As I stated, we shall see what transpires in the future. I hope I am right. I am not trying to change your mind about union versus non-union. Just giving you some info about where the WS pilots are coming from. I am certainly not anti-union. As a matter of fact, I was an ALPA due paying member at my last gig (Calm Air). In the end, I believe that a company gets the union that it deserves.
P.S. to everyone else; Sorry for the thread drift from NAA to subject matter about a Canadian carrier that most people on here know nothing about, and probably don't care to.
As a matter of fact, I do believe if the WJPA exec. voted it down, the flying would not have happened. In my experience, just because a group is unionized doesn't mean that a company will always follow the terms of a contract. By and large I believe that in this day and age, a company will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders, even if it means it is in contravention of a CBA. In Westjet's case, its mantra is " Keep the employees happy, then the guest will be happy. And if the guest is happy, then the shareholder is happy". So the shareholder is still rewarded, but by a happy and engaged pilot group. I know I know, very Koolaidish of us, but our model is based on WN, so what do you expect?
When our contract negotiations were going down in '09, it was not a happy time in Westjet land. Interestingly enough though, the company went back to the drawing board when it was obvious that the pilot group was dis-satisfied with Agreement #1 and were going to vote it down, and terms of the agreement were changed to satisfy the pilot group. Because of things like this, we are willing to give our executive the benefit of the doubt when they say "Trust us". I know I know. A pilot group that trusts management. Perish the thought!! And remember our management and BOD isn't just Saretsky. Our chairman and founder still has huge sway (think Herb), as is shown when an EVP and Pres./CEO made hasty departures in the last little while.
As I stated, we shall see what transpires in the future. I hope I am right. I am not trying to change your mind about union versus non-union. Just giving you some info about where the WS pilots are coming from. I am certainly not anti-union. As a matter of fact, I was an ALPA due paying member at my last gig (Calm Air). In the end, I believe that a company gets the union that it deserves.
P.S. to everyone else; Sorry for the thread drift from NAA to subject matter about a Canadian carrier that most people on here know nothing about, and probably don't care to.
Last edited by WJA Pilot; 01-03-2011 at 09:01 PM.
#42
Line Holder
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,553
Likes: 26
From: B777/CA retired
If you are going to operate a seasonal route then it makes no sense to add a new aircraft type and crew for 11 weeks. The 737-700 probably will not make YEG or YYC to Hawaii with reserves. You can't fuel stop on the tracks. Wet leases are a fact of life, SWA did it out of PHX with ATA.
Which brings us to why on Earth Boeing never updated the 757. There is nothing else that can haul 200 people for 7 plus hours as cheaply. The 767 cost per seat mile is far above the 757. The only replacement for a 757 is another 757.
Which brings us to why on Earth Boeing never updated the 757. There is nothing else that can haul 200 people for 7 plus hours as cheaply. The 767 cost per seat mile is far above the 757. The only replacement for a 757 is another 757.
#44
Banned
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 0
Not just looking, done deal. Both the World and NAA airplanes are being based in Tampa to get them out of high cost/slot controlled airports like ATL and JFK.
#45
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
For several months we have been reviewing options for combining the location where World
Airways and North American Airlines base aircraft domestically. Historically, World has brought
aircraft to Atlanta and North American to JFK. However, since our departure from consistent JFKbased
flight operations, we have looked for ways to effectively deal with the operational
constraints and financial challenges present with flight operations in the New York area. The
landing fees and aircraft parking charges are among the highest in the country and the airfield
congestion at JFK and the surrounding airports is consistently rated the worst in the world. The
FAA has made it clear that there will be future programs put into place, such as slot controls,
which will restrict unscheduled operations in/out of JFK as scheduled carriers’ requirements
expand. This is simply a situation that cannot be ignored as we look to grow our companies into
the future.
To address these issues, we began to look at multiple airports within the United States (including
Atlanta) with the goal of not only reducing our operating cost, but increasing the operational
effectiveness between business units. Airport facilities and support, capacity, reduction or
elimination of aircraft landing/parking fees, ability of supplemental on-airport aircraft maintenance
support, state and local government incentives, employment and employee standard of living
were just a few of the many criteria used for consideration.
In July, we announced that Tampa International Airport was a finalist that had met all of our initial
criteria and at that time launched a team to begin further negotiations with the airport, the State of
Florida, and local city and county authorities. We also completed an additional review of all of the
other cities that had submitted proposals. Negotiations with all parties have been successfully
concluded this week and we will begin the process of moving the domestically based aircraft of
both World Airways and North American Airlines to Tampa, Florida. Each airline will continue to
operate as a separate and distinct operation, with each utilizing the Tampa base for its own
maintenance needs as required.
The airport will now begin the renovation of the space that the airlines will occupy and, if all
remains on schedule, this move will take place beginning in the second quarter of 2011. Over the
next few weeks, difficult logistical and personnel decisions will continue to be made. We
recognize that these decisions will have an impact on a number of our dedicated employees who
have been integral to the success of each organization. As these plans are finalized, we will
communicate in greater detail the effect this decision will have on both our JFK and ATL line
operations personnel.
Airways and North American Airlines base aircraft domestically. Historically, World has brought
aircraft to Atlanta and North American to JFK. However, since our departure from consistent JFKbased
flight operations, we have looked for ways to effectively deal with the operational
constraints and financial challenges present with flight operations in the New York area. The
landing fees and aircraft parking charges are among the highest in the country and the airfield
congestion at JFK and the surrounding airports is consistently rated the worst in the world. The
FAA has made it clear that there will be future programs put into place, such as slot controls,
which will restrict unscheduled operations in/out of JFK as scheduled carriers’ requirements
expand. This is simply a situation that cannot be ignored as we look to grow our companies into
the future.
To address these issues, we began to look at multiple airports within the United States (including
Atlanta) with the goal of not only reducing our operating cost, but increasing the operational
effectiveness between business units. Airport facilities and support, capacity, reduction or
elimination of aircraft landing/parking fees, ability of supplemental on-airport aircraft maintenance
support, state and local government incentives, employment and employee standard of living
were just a few of the many criteria used for consideration.
In July, we announced that Tampa International Airport was a finalist that had met all of our initial
criteria and at that time launched a team to begin further negotiations with the airport, the State of
Florida, and local city and county authorities. We also completed an additional review of all of the
other cities that had submitted proposals. Negotiations with all parties have been successfully
concluded this week and we will begin the process of moving the domestically based aircraft of
both World Airways and North American Airlines to Tampa, Florida. Each airline will continue to
operate as a separate and distinct operation, with each utilizing the Tampa base for its own
maintenance needs as required.
The airport will now begin the renovation of the space that the airlines will occupy and, if all
remains on schedule, this move will take place beginning in the second quarter of 2011. Over the
next few weeks, difficult logistical and personnel decisions will continue to be made. We
recognize that these decisions will have an impact on a number of our dedicated employees who
have been integral to the success of each organization. As these plans are finalized, we will
communicate in greater detail the effect this decision will have on both our JFK and ATL line
operations personnel.
#47
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
We lost a 757 to USAirways, we are supposed to lose a 767 at the end of May but rumors are we have worked out an agreement to keep it. They are still looking for 75 freighters. We have 3 pilots leaving in Feb for other jobs, SWA, Atlas and something else. The company is not going to replace them.
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 693
Likes: 0
From: A-320 FO
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



