Mitch Cronin Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Hmmmm.... I believe there may be more folks who suddenly want to hear some more... Funny how that happens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 care to give us a little hint? Like I said, Mitch, April 30 is AC's drop dead date. And I mean literally. That would be the day Farley starts the shutdown process. If I'm Trinity, i will pull out when there is NO time left to find another investor. It's going to be embarassing to Fane and Sachs et al, so they better be looking for an exit strategy. Trinity has carved their demand down to the point where current employees have no vested interest in supporting the unions (quite the opposite), and if the judge wants to go out on a limb to force the unions' hand, the employees won't mind either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 9, 2004 Author Share Posted March 9, 2004 All I can tell you Dagger, is that there are questions being asked by hardliners, that 2 days ago weren't being asked. There's only one way to get the answers and that's just a matter of time... enough time? I sure don't know. It's hard for me to know what kind of pressures the union will get or how they'll respond, since I'm already apparently thinking differently than the majority... I think we are toast if Trinity walks.. and I believe they will if things aren't right by them... Others either don't care, or don't believe at least one of the above. Who's right, I can't say... But I do know that a lot of talk changed recently. Questions are flowing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gone Flying Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Gee Dagger what rock have YOU been under? If you think Fane and Sachs are only gunning for the company and Trinity you missed the entire CAIL saturday serial; the caped cookie pusher ain't done 'til the pilot spills some blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickle Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Dagger I know that at some point in time everything has got to come together but do you really think that Farley would start and do the shutdown when we have come so far and we can actually see the finish line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Absolutely. Whether it's a bluff or not, only time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Keep in mind that the deal with GECAS requires an exit from CCAA by April 30. It may be that actions by Trinity and GECAS leave Farley with no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fly Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 With all due respect you talk as if you know everything about everything. Are you not the same person that was daring people to short AC stocks 2 years ago about 8 bucks a piece? A year later they were as low as 65 cents. If anyone took you up on the dare, they'd be rich. Things are negotiable, and parties involved will continue massaging the deadlines as long as there's money in it for them. For them it's just business, nothing personal, for employees, it's a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Nope, I have never advised anyone to short any stock, and frankly, why would anyone be advising AC shareholders to buy - even three years ago - when the business travel market was well into the worst freefall of all time? Remember the fall of Nortel? Going back further - the winter of 00-01 sounds about right - I might have said that AC stock seemed priced right for buying - and it was for a brief time, but then eroded. There isn't a stock picker who picks them all right all the time, not even Warren Buffett so mea culpa. But this dispute isn't about a stock price, it's about a strategic issue, and if you can't see how it is about to play out - with Li now ratcheting up the rhetoric to match the unions' bellicosity - well, nothing I can do to convince you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Lavoy Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 I agree, Farley may be left with no choice. I know this has been discussed before, but what would it really be like if AC shuts down? Could other carriers, passenger & cargo, expand fast enough to prevent a disruption of service on such a massive scale? Highly unlikely. And new carriers can't just appear the day after to magically take over. I think the implications of liquidation would be far more widespread than many would like to believe. IMHO, this country would come to a screeching halt. Scary times ahead indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 I dont; agree that the impact would be so devastating, but a summer shutdown would be a big hit on international tourism since foreign airlines aren't going to add a lot of capacity on short notice. Airport authorities would be hard hit, some more than others. Prices in the short term would track upwards - good for airlines, not so good for consumers. But the government shouldn't get involved, except, perhaps, to offer mediation, but certainly not to offer cash or to force the unions to submit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 "But the government shouldn't get involved, except, perhaps, to offer mediation, but certainly not to offer cash or to force the unions to submit. " What happened then, with the Canadian takeover? The government stepped in then to save 15,000 jobs, and more importantly some face with the voter base out west. Why would you assume that Paul Martin wouldn't step in to save 40,000 jobs and the inherant votes? They've wasted enough money on the gun registry($2B), as well as the current fiasco($250M approx), why SHOULDN'T they put another billion cdn or so in to save a national employer? As I posted before, the feeling I see is people in the company are tired of having a gun to their heads, tired of the rhetoric, and tired of not being given the proper information and respect from the Company. A deal is a deal, and it is time RM, CR, and Li stood by their words. So all power to the Unions for holding ground for the front line guy!!!!! Having said that, if RM, CR, and Li pull off what they are trying to accomplish, then they deserve a room down the hall from Martha. Just My Opinion, make of it what you will... Rgds... Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sam of Old Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Didn't Trinity just give AC employees an ultimatum, you accept new pension plans or we're history? Now they're back with modifications. The only cavaet that was included wrt pensions was an acceptance by all on the repayment schedule. They would have evaluated pensions as part of their initial analysis. I'm not sure what you are up to Dag but your tone and colors on this topic are changing. Whether you are right or wrong is not the issue, or maybe it is. As all gets clearer and closer to the end maybe you want to be the first to say "I told you so". What do you have to lose? You don't have to attach a face (not that I think you should here) to your opinions here but I know you do in your day job, E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsgas Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Life will go on with or without AC. Sorry to burst your bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 9, 2004 Author Share Posted March 9, 2004 What an intelligent way to further the conversation. Of course "life will go on" Mr. Deep Thought, but do you really think suddenly putting that many people out of work, and that many seats out of the skyways, and all the spin-off effects will have little impact on Canada's economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Victor Li was not party to the original "deal" and he, like Cerberus, set a restructured pension arrangement as a basis for his investment. Nothing, therefore, compels him to proceed with his investment, and unless you have another investor in the background who doesn't require this pension change. The fact is, the way this is being stage-managed, you won't have time to find one. To paraphrase Insp Harry Callaghan, "Do you feel lucky, Punk?" Or as Victor Li might be saying: "Make my day." As for federal intervention, I'm sure that's what the unions would like, but I can't see Paul Martin in his wildest political nightmares seeing this as politically advantageous, 40,000 jobs or not. For every job he saves, he will alienate 100 voters, especially in the West. You cannot compel others to invest. You can only invest government money. Ain't going to happen. The government would sooner tear up your labor agreements than invest in an airline. Both would instances of interference, but at least ripping up your labor agreements by imposing a DC plan on future employees would be a lot less dangerous politically. But I can't even see that happening. Let AC rise or fall on its merits, and if it falls, well, whatever entities replace it will be low cost, non-union, and full of young eager employees in the customer service positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 You'd first have to prove that I have a day job As for being right or wrong, I'm just another observor among many of corporate strategy in a hardball world. Yes, Li could just find himself an out tomorrow by saying that the non-union hires will get DC and that's enough, but that would be a big loss of face. And that should be an even greater concern for you considering how the Chinese abhor loss of face more than the average North American Caucasian. What I see is this: Li has carved the DC pension issue down to a proposal that current employees have a choice of DC or remaining in the current DB plan. Only new hires would be compelled to go DC. So, for AC employees, it will soon boil down to this Are you ready to give up your jobs, possibly your careers, possibly your current lifestyle, for the pension rights of the unborn at a company that will no longer be in existence? I know why the unions might be willing to sacrifice all 40,000 of you! They don't want to face the same issue at General Motors or the City of Toronto. So yes, they might sacrifice you. Is that acceptable to you? I would be happy to be wrong on this and have Li just accept the status quo for unionized employees. It's just that I don't think I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Does this help or hinder the organization drive to displace the IAM in ACTS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 9, 2004 Author Share Posted March 9, 2004 I'd guess it hinders it slightly, but I'm not sure... It's a distraction, and it seems many are fond of the IAM's tough guy stance... The current effort is to seek representation for ACM first... since it was not a problem at all getting the support of line maintenance folks... It's people in heavy, and mostly in YUL that have been hard to bring onside... Some of that has to do with access, but no doubt a lot of it has to do with their numbers there being the largest in the base, so whatever representation they have there feels like it IS their own... unlike other bases. So CAMA will soon be filing an application to represent those of us at ACM alone... at first... Thoughts and hopes are that those in ACTS would very soon jump aboard, should we be successful with ACM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leading Edge Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Deicer, I completely agree with you. Personally, I think that the air must be getting thin in Daggers office or something. We are on the doorstep of a spring election, with a big scandal in place. Do you really think that the Liberals will let AC go under and put 32000 people out of work? This is 100,000 plus votes. Don't forget the hit to the economy, I could go on, and on. LE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 You're in Cloud Cuckoo Land if you think the government is going to bail you out. Do you see the government rushing to end the CN Rail strike where extensive damage is being done to the economy? They will only intervene after a great deal of damage is done, and then only, as the French say, a contre coeur. Please, there is nothing carved in stone about a spring election, less so since the sponsorship scandal broke. If Paul Martin decides to wait a year, a lot of the damage from an AC failure can be made up by other carriers. They won't necessarily be hiring YOU, and foreign airlines won't be hiring many in Canada, but they will make up a portion of the job loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Having said that, if RM, CR, and Li pull off what they are trying to accomplish, then they deserve a room down the hall from Martha. I think if they pull this off you will secretly admire them for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lupin Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Ummm, Emotions run strong. No one working at AC wants to imagine AC shutting down.But like dagger,I don't beleive the feds would fund AC. I also don't beleive thay would let Air Canada liquidate and cease operating on april 30.It wouldn't make any sense and would have to big of an impact on the Canadian economy.I think you would probably see Air Canada funded for a short period of time to give time to other carriers to come in and fill the void left by the bankrupt national carrier.It would take close to a year to shut Air Canada down. Its not in the federal goverments'best interests to fund AC.With the election looming and the provinces knocking at the feds door for more money I doubt the Martin clan would ever let things go this far.I suppose an imposed settlement concerning the pension will be alot easier for them to deal with then to face a liquidation of AC.Lets not kid ourselves...If AC perishes it will be a political disaster!! Lupin AME yul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fly Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 That's just it. You weren't advising, you were daring them to short AC if they thought it was overvalued and it was going to indeed file for CCAA. I seem to remember some rather animated debates on this very forum about the issue. It turns out that they were right and you had no idea it was coming. Point being, they were probably biased against AC, just as you have always been for AC management, both doing some wishful thinking, and not expressing informed facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CB allquads Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 You may be correct Dagger but consider the following. Li hasn't stated in their new pension offer what happens to those who want to retire at age 55 instead of 60. The Union actuary says that by reverting to age 60 that cuts the pension deficit from 1.2B to 600 million. Thats another concession from the employees who gave up a lot to get age 55. Further complicating this is that I understand OSFI won't entertain 10 year funding for 600 million. So where does that leave us???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.