Guest fly Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Agreed that Mr. Collenette sure made a mess of things, but since he did it equally to all airlines, if there's any apology or retribution, it should be for all airline employees. And that might be a bit hard since a number of them are still out of work many thanks to his highness's contribution. However, ponder this: -If a ship grounds while crossing a strait, is it the land's fault for coming up to it, or the captain's that steered it. Is the problem more from without, or from within? -Why is it that the Iraq war, which was stated as the chief reson for CCAA, had such catastrophic impact on a Canadian airline while other airlines in the Middle-East are flourishing and expanding. -What major changes in top executives and their policies have taken place since CCAA to change the direction of the company? -Why is it that while the hard-working employees are expected to sell their pensions short and have to get second jobs to put their kids through college, Mr. Milton and team are expected to pocket a handsome 20 million dollars, for forcing the same idea on the employees. What 'one word' would you choose to describe this process if it should come to pass? -While Some say live to fight another day, is there going to be another day for sure when these people can't even keep their promise for a few days? Does anyone know for sure that they won't come back asking for more concessions? Everyone wants to save their company, but before you know it, the company won't even resemble what it once was and not only does it go under at the end, but the standard has been lowered so much that this generation of staff won't see the same salaries and conditions again. I'm sure the unions will change their tune once they have a reliable person that keeps his word on the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 As an AC employee I agree that Milton , his ego and some shady dealings have gotten into us into a mess. But why does my measly little pension have to suffer , if Trinity wants to get everyone on line cut RM and CR's bonus to maybe 10% of what they are going to get,then talk to me about getting online with the pension's. Frosty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Could someone please explain to me how having the option to keep exactly the same pension as you have now means that your pension will suffer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 There is the infamous intimate dinner that RM had with DC prior to the takeover at Henri Berger's in Hull! Didn't hear what was said, but had talked with the Chef/Owner who told me that it had happened. Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 "Agreed that Mr. Collenette sure made a mess of things, but since he did it equally to all airlines, if there's any apology or retribution, it should be for all airline employees." Equally to all airlines? Which other airlines in Canada were told that if they didn't buy their financially ailing competition that they would lose a good portion of their overseas route structure, then when they did buy it, was not allowed to lay anyone off, raise fares to cover costs, or lower fares to compete with other carriers. They started out the merger process with their hands tied, and by the time 9/11 hit they were already in trouble, so bankruptcy protection, (which by the way is a global phenomenon for international carriers post 9/11, not just limited to Air Canada) was a distinct possibility until SARS hit, then it was unavoidable. "Why is it that the Iraq war, which was stated as the chief reson for CCAA, had such catastrophic impact on a Canadian airline while other airlines in the Middle-East are flourishing and expanding." You're kidding right? Have you filled up your car lately? And when is the last time you heard of Moslem terrorists targeting a Middle Eastern airliner? A large portion of Air Canada's market share is transborder. Of course they would be affected to a far greater degree than Middle Eastern carriers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 "Agreed that Mr. Collenette sure made a mess of things, but since he did it equally to all airlines, if there's any apology or retribution, it should be for all airline employees." Equally to all airlines? Which other airlines in Canada were told that if they didn't buy their financially ailing competition that they would lose a good portion of their overseas route structure, then when they did buy it, was not allowed to lay anyone off, raise fares to cover costs, or lower fares to compete with other carriers. They started out the merger process with their hands tied, and by the time 9/11 hit they were already in trouble, so bankruptcy protection, (which by the way is a global phenomenon for international carriers post 9/11, not just limited to Air Canada) was a distinct possibility until SARS hit, then it was unavoidable. "Why is it that the Iraq war, which was stated as the chief reson for CCAA, had such catastrophic impact on a Canadian airline while other airlines in the Middle-East are flourishing and expanding." You're kidding right? Have you filled up your car lately? And when is the last time you heard of Moslem terrorists targeting a Middle Eastern airliner? A large portion of Air Canada's market share is transborder. Of course they would be affected to a far greater degree than Middle Eastern carriers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 "Could someone please explain to me how having the option to keep exactly the same pension as you have now means that your pension will suffer?" What makes you think just because I have 20 years in that I get to keep the same pension, I fall just under the line so I would have to go into the DC. That is not the same as keeping what I have, so now I get the pleasure of trying to keep my pension building when the markets are tanking. Do I think that I could do as well as the guy that is managing an 8 billion dollar fund ? So maybe you can explain to me how I get to keep the same pension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 "Could someone please explain to me how having the option to keep exactly the same pension as you have now means that your pension will suffer?" What makes you think just because I have 20 years in that I get to keep the same pension, I fall just under the line so I would have to go into the DC. That is not the same as keeping what I have, so now I get the pleasure of trying to keep my pension building when the markets are tanking. Do I think that I could do as well as the guy that is managing an 8 billion dollar fund ? So maybe you can explain to me how I get to keep the same pension. Plus look at it this way I kept my end of the deal with AC I have made all my pension contributions for the last 20 years, can they say the same thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickle Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 AC was forced by government pressure to buy CAIL I guess we'll see when RM's book comes out. Somehow though, I do not believe that he will tell all given that he is still employed here and wants to stick around long enough to capture that 20M prize. My personal take is that AC was not forced by the government. In the original scenario, the government suspended the rules to allow ONEX to make a bid. This wasn't AC buying CAIL but ONEX buying up two airlines with the intent of merging them. I truly believe that it was the intent of the AC BOD to beat ONEX at all costs, which they did and look where we are now. They wanted to remain part of the STAR Alliance which now has it's two largest partners in bankruptcy. I'm sure that there were some discussions between Chretien's office and RM later in the game but being forced I have a hard time with. AC could have easily backed off the share battle and let ONEX take control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjaer Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 I think it will come down to you having no choice. If Li walks that is the end IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CleardecksforACTION! Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Frosty- It was my understanding and obviously inchmans' as well that the union employees at AC would be offered to choose between you current plan OR the DC plan as each individual desires.IE- No more age plus years of service formula. Each current employee picks which one they prefer. Only new hires would be enrolled into the DC plan. It hasn't been oficially offered only because the union heads are boycotting the meetings and AC management has been told to only bargain with the agents. Who is correct? I infer from your post that you feel they still want you to switch to the DB plan against your will. Comments? CDFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CB allquads Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 You have to carefully read Trinity's offer to see how your pension will be affected. Early retirement will be brought to "market norms". For the non-pilots, you can currently retire at age 55 with no age penalty, will now have to work to age 60 to get a full pension. That little kiss is worth 600M or half of the pension deficit.And as a little kicker OSFI won't approve 10 year funding for 600M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 24, 2004 Author Share Posted March 24, 2004 As you can see from Frosty's answer below Dave, he doesn't seem to know that the choice will be offered... It's frightening how much isn't known and how many hard lines are being drawn with so little knowledge! On another web site I've been asking exactly the question you just posed, and many seem convinced that the only choices will be to lose or lose more... They won't hear any talk of discussing it in order to learn more. The union leaders are convinced their hard nosed "NO WAY!" stance will win them big credits in days to come and those of us who are saying "Please talk" are quickly shouted down. Maybe They're right... but maybe not... Like I said earlier, I can't afford the stakes in this game and I'd rather not be gambling. If this IS a game... Victor Li is going to wind up as the most hated man at Air Canada for doing it to us (even more so that Milton) which can't spell good fortune... If not, we lose that way even more by continuing on the current path... I know there's no golden parachutes anywhere around here, but is there an old rotted canvas one somewhere I could use? This is getting to be too much for my tired old fanny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Forgive me if I am in error, but the last thing I heard was that Trinity offered to allow all current employees to stay on the DB plan if they wished. So there is no "line" to fall under. Only new employees would be forced to go on the DC plan (which is as good as they could do in virtually any new job nowadays). Given the choice, I would rather be in full control of my own money. In addition, with a DC plan, my wife will get full benefit if I die, not 50% as under the DB plan. AND... if the airline does eventually fail with a pension shortfall, there would be no reduction in benefits on the DC side of the plan. So, in fact, you have the option of the best of both worlds... your existing contributions will be kept in the DB plan and you have the option of staying in that plan or moving to a DC plan for the balance of your career. I just can't see the problem. Finally... the company has already agreed to fulfill the requirement of fully funding the current DB pension fund.... if we survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Your right, the latest that we haven't been allowed to vote on is that they would let us choose. Sounds all well and good , then they slip in the fact that all the pee on's now have to work till 60 yrs of age. This reduces the obligation from 1.2 billion down to 650 million. Now when you factor that the average life expectency of the IAM member after retiremnet is 28 months ......it paints a lovely picture doesn't it.The thing to remember is that offer up above was RM's olive branch not TTI's they still have the age plus service in their offer. So again the question has to be asked should RM be held accountable for telling the unions one thing and telling TTI another? Frosty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 If that is the current offer on the table, we would be fools not to take it. But is it the current offer? The only place I have seen it in writing is on this forum. According to TTI's website, they still refer to the "age + service = 60" formulae. And what about pushing back the retirement age to 60? Has that requirement been removed as well???? As some have said before, that alone removes approx. $600 million in shortfall. What's happening????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Mitch: The pension offer that has been made is still the same one that TTI stated with the age and service.....the let them choose idea is Milton's and hasn't been brought to the table yet ,as I understood it the choice at this time has only been offered to non-union employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Does that mean that if I work untill I'm 60, I'll live longer than if I retire at 55? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CB allquads Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Mitch - Under TTI's latest proposal all current employees will have a choice between the DB and DC. For those that stay, they have to know that early retirement changes from 55 to 60. thats a big penalty. Why does Li want this so bad?? It chops the deficit in half from 1.2B to 600M. I would call that a big concession. They don't seem to make it very clear in their proposal. I think everybody should know this before blaming the Unions for not letting them make a simple choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Chances are that you'll live longer if you retire at 55 , look at everyone that does get out of here , they look 10 years younger. But the tables are out there....and they do show that the average time is 28 months. Some beat the odds some don't. Frosty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CB allquads Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Even thought TTI is calling all the shots right now, bottom line is that AC is still the employer and AC is the one the contracts were signed with last summer, and it should be AC coming to the Unions with a proposal.The Unions are only refusing to meet TTI again, not the company. If you asked the company today if they are still prepared to honour their contracts they signed with Unions last summer, what would they say?? As of 2 weeks ago they were still saying yes.If they can't honour the contracts any more then they are going to have to go to Farley and tell him that.But AC remains silent. I think it is time for AC to show some leadership in this issue(and that doesn't mean putting out a survey) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 His Honour is scheduled to have a little chat with AC on the 29th....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Do you have a link for the "tables"? I ask because there was a similar rumour that went around for years about retiring pilots, but it was proven to be nothing more than an urban myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 As it stands now, every current employee WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A DC OR A DB PLAN. As far as the early retirement option at 55 is concerned, (which doesn't apply to all unions) we don't know if that is a factor or not. We won't know until the unions actually sit down at the table with Victor Li. It is still a negotaiation. I don't see the unions coming out and proposing to Victor Li that we will accept this. 1/ All current employees are able to choose between a DC and a DB plann. 2/ All future new hires go on the DC plan. 3/ Affected employees retain the early retirement feature in their contracts. If the unions were to propose this they would have the backing of virtually their entire membership. Why haven't they proposed this? I and others suggest that it is about ideology and protecting the DB plans of the workers at GM and in the public service. Buzz seems to be quite content to make sacrificial lambs of the airline workers to protect auto workers and others. There may be more to this than we know, but it is a game that's being played out with very little, or no, upside and a massive down side for the AC employee. Greg Robinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 And I would guess that it has not been put on the table for Unionized staff because the unions have told him to pissoff and refuse to have any discussions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.