Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/11/2012 in all areas

  1. Did you ever take a university course on mob psychology ???......democracy doesn't exist when the loudest person gets the soap box.
    3 points
  2. The likes of the CAW and CUPE opposed Li because they weren't prepared to face the Gov't and the auto manufacturers in contract negotiations after agreeing to a defined contribution plan for the future employees at AC. The Li family has a history of investing in companies in order to grow them, (look at Husky Oil), whereas Cerberous has a history of shrinking a company to make it viable, at least for the short term, while extracting a great deal of the value of the company for themselves We didn't look at the history then but maybe we should now..
    2 points
  3. Victor Li was willing to invest his families considerable assets to build a new stronger Air Canada.This is a family dynasty known for holding their companies forever and developing them. RM and CR delivered the Li family on a silver platter. Unlocking shareholder value was a neutron bomb "plan B" and not the door management wanted to go through. The unions obstinance and lack of foresight forced it's poor members into a deal with the devil. I honestly believe that it was at that point RM said "shag it" , might as well get what I can out of this train to disaster and leave Dodge. Speculation of course , but I think that if every AC employee then had even an inkling of where they and the company would be now , which was pretty obvious if you took the time to look at what was behind door B , there would have been very different choices made. I know...woulda , shoulda , coulda , but maybe there is something to be learned that can be taken forward now.
    2 points
  4. Yeh , the forum where retirees are banned...funny eh, you're working one day, ...retired the next and banned from knowing what's going on in your peer group.
    1 point
  5. Hi, Mav' - Nobody suggested that folks ever "lost" in your ESOP. The point under discussion was the question of whether "contributing 10% of salary to WS stock which the company then matches ends up netting out a better return over the years than contributing to a DB pension?". I won't advocate one way or the other, but that sort of stuff simply confuses the choice. Even if you could control for all the variables involved, since a DB plan has a decent, fair retirement for ALL members ( and usually their spouses as well), in good times and bad, as one of its objectives, (thereby ensuring "winners" and "losers" within DB plans, if one must measure individually), it will be bound to "lose" to DC-ers who are LUCKY enough to retire at a fortuitous time, and generally "win" against those who are not (generally, because times may be bad enough that almost everybody "loses"). WRT the specific comparative asset, the crux of the issue is where you are on retirement day and thereafter, when the acquisition phase (the easy straightforward part) is complete. With the mostly up-down-sideways performance and modest yields of WJA in the last few years, there would be a fair amount of hope involved (justified, one further hopes) in relying on that to provide retirement income for the next 20-30 years, which is what you'd be contemplating if you retire with a big sack of it, unless you're starting with a big enough chunk to just keep on whittling it down. BTW, it's particularly pernicious when these retirement-planning options get framed in phony-macho terms of "control" and "discipline" and "responsibility" etc., the implication always that the other view is for spineless wimps. What sounds so strong and self-reliant is all-too-often not founded on a solid consideration of the economics, and other ramifications of retirement. Of course, DB plans do have huge problems right now, which may be insurmountable without some adjustments. But that's a whole other discussion. In this little corner, those problems are well-known (if little understood. ) Cheers, IFG
    1 point
  6. Eric, the US carriers other than AA are doing ok nowadays despite the growth of the LCCs down there. Most industry watchers attribute that to the fact that they were able to dump their pension obligations during bankruptcy. AC has a pension problem too. Fortunately for us, the law in our country probably wouldn't allow AC to terminate our plans in CCAA, but something needs to give nonetheless. Victor Li wanted our unions to acknowledge that, but they'd hear nothing of it. I don't find it "revisionist" to imagine that we'd have a far stronger airline now if our unions had been realistic about the unsustainability of our pension plans 10 years ago and had allowed a transition to DC plans for new hires back then.
    1 point
  7. This means "he wasn't really rested but met the legal minimum legal requirements".
    1 point
  8. Intelligent rational analysis is usually lacking during times like this while the most insightful and brilliant people are always drowned out.
    1 point
  9. It's only "ignorant hysteria" if you disagree with it!
    1 point
  10. Actually a smart thing to do......you need to stop the ignorant hysteria.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...