until ONXpress takes over, and that's been delayed until Sept 2025.
October 4th 2025 is the new tentative date the guys over there have been told. Though rumor has it Alstom may be in the picture for much much longer than that... there are rumors that OnExpress has
failed entirely. No idea how valid those are but evidently most of the upper management at Onxpress has jumped ship.
It doesn't need to be a major change though. The changes can be implemented incrementally as additional crews finish training. It would be weird to leave newly-trained crews sitting idle just to save some paperwork.
From what I have heard, Alstom walked away from managing the crewing operation fairly quickly once Onxpress had feet on the ground. There have been questions about whether there are enough crews for current operations. There may be trainees in progress right now, but I wonder if hiring anf training has happened at the necessary pace over 2024 to ramp up as required to meet the expansion schedule. If Onxpress's ability to hire is now postponed until late 2025, is there now a gap in that training throughput ? As a spectator I'm just avoiding any assumptions that the crews are available for any service upgrade.
- Paul
There won't be(or barely) any new crews for a while, Alstom more or less stopped training months ago prior to ONX intended takeover. Basically no engr and only a handful of cndrs training atm as Willy noted.
Yes. Alstom had already been trying to restrict vacations (an earned benefit, and totally predictable) just to keep up. Reportedly Onxpress was not willing to assume the entire workforce, and looking to impose further restrictions.
They're also letting the people they f***ed over last year bid for their vacation. The 2/3rds of the workforce that didnt get any in the vacation year (which strangely runs from May to April) is being allowed to bid for vacation time between Jan and Apr 2025. Onxpress originally had a vacation blackout period from Jan to Apr to help with the transition by having all hands on deck, but now that Alstom is continuing on that won't be needed.
I don't doubt that we are headed in that direction. The issue is, Onxpress will want it on day one whereas the union will have a number of reservations, and likely want a number of rules or regulatory changes to make it work.... plus protection of jobs and transition accommodations. Maybe signalling or procedures need to be modified, and validated carefully.
I'm a bit jaded but, it's not the first time a management team might think they were ready to proceed with a big change while people are pointing out the many ducks that need to be coaxed into a row first. My inclination is, we may not be ready to get there.... and the new management may need to experience a year or two of the current regime before they jump too fast or too far.
If the new operator thought they could make this magnitude of change by just waving a big wand and jumping in at the deep end..... and relied on immediate labour savings to price their bid.....they may have miscalculated imho.
- Paul
No doubt. The union will argue "safety" as the main reason for having 2 crew members at the front of every train. I think it's silly that we have 2 crew members at the front of every UP express train. Those trains are no bigger than the trains you see in the U.K.. A country that has had 1 crew member at the front of every train for over a century with no issues at all surrounding safety. If it wasn't for our outdated signal system, the UP express trains could easily be operated by a single crew member.
Onxpress wasn't even pushing for a crew reductions so the union never had to make any
arguments in that regard. That said, there is no doubt that Union would certainly fight for a continuation of the existing creing requirements and the currently collective agreement specifically spells out the crewing requirements which prohibits the company from modifying it without coming to an agreement with the Union. Cost savings would have come from their attempt to build a new collective agreement from scratch which would have gotten rid of various existing clauses that are quite lucrative for the work force. For example Engineers working on the spareboard must cover the first avaliable vacancies be it for either an Engineer or Conductor position. However if they are covering for a Conductor position they will still get paid their Engineer rate regardless. Alstom seems to like the added flexibility this gives them but Onxpress was purposing to completely separate the Engineer and Conductor positions so that one can only ever be called for the position they are qualified for.
Just so we're clear. I'm not suggesting that by upgrading the signal system will lead to crew members being fired/ laid off. My thinking is that by shrinking crew sizes down, MX can better manage the staff they currently have to run more trains. It would simply be a matter of moving staff around. No one's getting let go.
The first position that will be removed is the CSA. Automated announcements, changes to the role of Station Attendants(now positioned on platforms), automated ramp testing, etc, etc. The writing is on the wall which is why a lot of CSA who were previously 'lifers' decided to pursue moving up to the headend when the company gave them a second chance.
The only thing i can think off for Lifestyle... freight lifestyle is 24/7 on call
Interestingly enough, Onxpress wanted to get rid of the separate morning and afternoon boards and wanted to go with a 24hr spareboard as well. Although it was going to be structured in a way where everyone should get called more or less at around the same general time each day. People would initially bid for their 'spot' on the board. I.e 1st up, 2nd up, 3rd up and so on, and that is the position you hold every day, every week, rather than having a rotating spareboard position. Additionally everyone on the board would be used every single day. Those who didn't get a call to work on a train would be called to fill a 'spare' post. No more extra days off, staying at home on the spareboard when they don't need you. From what I understand this was an idea they hijacked from the TTC.
personally I think the better move is to go for VIA, pay is similar to a Class 1, but the benefits and pension are way better and you aren't putting your career in a hard reset.
VIA was definitely the palce to go, but the new rest rules have made it somewhat less desirable by changing how many jobs are structured and resulting in crews to spending more time away from home which is problematic for those with families.
www.thepublicrecord.ca
