The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

[Mitch Cronin]

<begin rant>

I'm tired of seeing this debate about who woulda, shoulda, coulda, between OAC folk and EX folk... So here's that, in the world according to Mitch:

Now that I've seen a good bunch of the mismanagement at both CDN and AC, and worked with both companies enough to have a good idea... I can say with absolute certainty that if Canadian Airlines and Air Canada had started out even, from a starting gate of sorts, with the same cash, and the same rules, Canadian would have cleaned AC's clock in a heart beat! But that didn't happen. ...

CAIL got a big head start on the road to bankruptcy, and what happened is we got where we are because Collenette forced a marriage. He told Milton that if the marriage didn't happen AC would suffer... Milton knew... he knew with certainty.... that to turn it down would not bode well at all for AC....

Posted here by a man in the know:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Letter from Air Canada:

November 1, 1999

Dear Minister Collenette:

Stuff It.

Signed,

Robert Milton

-------------

Response from Government of Canada:

Dear Mr. Milton:

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of yesterday's date regarding the government's recently announced process to allow for a "private sector solution" to the current crisis facing Canada's airline industry. Through the lifting of sec. 47 of the Competition Act, the Minister of Industry and I signalled our desire to see both Air Canada and Canadian arrive at a negotiated solution to the chronic financial difficulties facing one or both airlines. I have also outlined the government's 5 principles on how this "private sector solution" is to be achieved.

I am disappointed in your response but fully understand Air Canada's prerogative as a private sector corporation to make its own decision in this matter.

Sincerely,

David Collenette

P.S. I wish to inform you that in an entirely unrelated decision, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I today have named Canadian Airlines as the designated Canadian carrier under the respective bilateral air agreements with the following countries: the UK, France and Germany. I also regret to inform you that Air Canada's designation to serve Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Republic of Korea and Osaka, Japan as the second designated Canadian carrier under the various bilateral air agreements is hereby revoked under Canada's International Air Policy. Furthermore, also in an unrelated decision, please be advised that the slots allocated to the Government of Canada under the 1995 Canada-U.S. Open Skies Agreement at New York's Laguardia Airport, Washington's Ronald Reagan National Airport and Chicago's O'Hare airport are hereby allocated to Canadian Airlines. Finally, I also wish to take this opportunity to inform you that the scheduled designations for the Caribbean will be re-openned for carrier selection effective the upcoming 1999/2000 IATA Winter Season. As all of these designations and slots constitute the property of the Government of Canada, I regret that Air Canada does not have any recourse for court action or appeal. I wish you all the best in your future endeavours.

DC

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-==-=-=-=-=

Even then, considering a CAIL failure, the result would be to spread those assets and routes among AC's competitors.... AC was not in tip top shape, being already several billion in debt. A very healthy C3, WJ, Transat, and Skyservice, all recently strengthened and enhanced by the sharing of that wealth, and without CAIL as a further hindrance to their collective successes... could very possibly have been fatal for AC.

So the truth is that we all landed in this bog because both companies were failures to some extent.

Now here we are... you and me.... us and them... Does any of that past really matter at this point? Does the issue of who gained and who lost mean something in that light? How about in the light of the unemployment lines? I know, that line's getting old.... but only because this suffering has dragged on so long... we've been in CCAA for about 13 and a half months now... long enough for some of us to have figured out that it's going to take a unified effort to climb out of this hole for real.

ACPA vs ALPA... OAC vs. OCP.... CUPE this vs. CUPE that... IAM vs CAMA... UAW vs The Company.... etc... This is nuts!

We've really got to get our stuff together or we're all toast! None of us OAC or OCP folks, sittin' on our high horses, are gonna look too damned proud when the rockers are sold out from under us! ...and our seniority number drops to zilch!

It's like the whole damn forest is burning while a bunch of us are busy arguing over who deserves the credit for pouring water on a patch of grass!

Can we possibly at least agree to put all the detailed contentious stuff aside while we concentrate on the bigger battle? Hmm?

OAC Pilots currently kickin' up a fuss... I really think you need to give some more thought to what you might achieve at this point.... Put it on record if you need to, that the only reason you're not "shutting it all down" right now, is because you're smart enough to see that would kill any reason to hope for better things. Reserve the right to object later... somehow... if you need to... It's not just you guys either... I just resigned my post as editor of a newsletter for CAMA because of a similar sentiment among some OAC members of that crowd... (in our case, they evidently feel the OCP crowd is hijacking that whole effort, so they didn't need to be hearing my words! I'm apparently too obviously, originaly blue.)

Division runs rampant. For Pete sakes folks, take off the blinders, please.

How can this be said without sounding artificial because it's so cliche....? I don't know any better way... "Divided we fall"! That's all that can be said I think.

<end rant>

Cheers,

Mitch

[buzz]

From the heart and dead on the mark Mitch.

Soup for you...

buzz

[Gumbi]

You're right Mitch, such a waste of energy going on!!!!!