Guest rattler Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Robert, why would a new company take on any of the AirCanada aircraft? It is a buyers market at this time (aircraft that is) and I would imagine that any new startup would be able to do better than taking on some of the AC fleet. Who knows they might indeed want to keep with fewer types along with fewer destinations. By the by the work situation in YWG is looking better than before because of: CALGARY, Alberta, June 17, 2009 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Airline's engine maintenance, repair and overhaul work to be done in Winnipeg WestJet today announced it has signed an exclusive 12-year OnPoint* solution agreement valued at more than $850 million (USD) over the life of the contract with GE Aviation for the maintenance, repair and overhaul of its fleet of CFM56-7(+) engines that power 79 Boeing Next-Generation 737 aircraft. Regarding their heavy maintenance, isn't this done in BC? My question remains regarding the ratio of Maintenance employees to aircraft though. Is AC's higher or the same as Westjet's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Robert, why would a new company take on any of the AirCanada aircraft? It is a buyers market at this time (aircraft that is) and I would imagine that any new startup would be able to do better than taking on some of the AC fleet. Who knows they might indeed want to keep with fewer types along with fewer destinations. By the by the work situation in YWG is looking better than before because of: Regarding their heavy maintenance, isn't this done in BC? My question remains regarding the ratio of Maintenance employees to aircraft though. Is AC's higher or the same as Westjet's? I think Westjet does their heavy in a number of places, but I think Maverick is better suited to andswerthat question than I am. As to the ratio, I can not answer, and depending on the station it may vary, here in YOW, we have 1 person per overnight and day shift is only 3 people and aft including doing some of the overnighters is around 4, it is quite lean. If this new entity is to fly intercon, would it not make sense to grab 777's that are very young and other types you may get from the lessor at a great rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireFox Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Evidently a last/best company offer is going to be voted on July 14th. http://www.iamaw1763.ca/?page_id=351 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 I think Westjet does their heavy in a number of places, but I think Maverick is better suited to andswerthat question than I am. As to the ratio, I can not answer, and depending on the station it may vary, here in YOW, we have 1 person per overnight and day shift is only 3 people and aft including doing some of the overnighters is around 4, it is quite lean. If this new entity is to fly intercon, would it not make sense to grab 777's that are very young and other types you may get from the lessor at a great rate. Re the 777s I guess it would if the baggage that would be attached is worth it (labour costs etc) In any event Good Luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spreadsheet Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 As a taxpayer, I will certainly be asked to contribute. The feds are already promising loans. I have a quarter million Aeroplan miles which isn't much, but it means I do have a tangential stake. I know people at the airline, and don't wish for them to lose their jobs based on emotion rather than reason. And I don't want to see Canada deprived of a scheduled intercontinental airline, especially at this terrible economic juncture, so as a patriot I have a stake. Air Canada plays a larger social role in this country - it doesn't exist to give Mitch a job or you a pension. Those are happy byproducts of its raison d'etre, which is to fly people and cargo to/from and within Canada. Hey Dagger, if your interests are so altruistic why the great disdain for WestJet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Re the 777s I guess it would if the baggage that would be attached is worth it (labour costs etc) In any event Good Luck. I am not sure in regards to your reference of labour costs. the 777's are new so maintenance cost are not that great and on an operational side, they are cheaper to operate than the 340 or the 747. If you are referring to airport worker costs, as a new company, it will be up to it to set labour rates regardless of fleet types. If i missed something, please let me know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 .... on an operational side, they are cheaper to operate than the 340 or the 747. .... The trip cost of a 773 is 20% higher than an A343 There are only 22% more seats in a 773 than an A343, so the airline has to fill all of the extra seats to be able to get any advantage. Something that AC has had a tough time doing is filling all of those extra seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA@AC Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Do you really believe that your paycheque is 100% guaranteed for the next 21 months as long as you say yes? Of course not, but the odds of having any AC paycheque would diminish with a NO vote. It appears almost to be lost on some that we're on the verge of bankruptcy and that if we reach a CCAA filing we won't emerge from it with pay or conditions anything near what we have now, and that we might not emerge at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 The trip cost of a 773 is 20% higher than an A343 There are only 22% more seats in a 773 than an A343, so the airline has to fill all of the extra seats to be able to get any advantage. Something that AC has had a tough time doing is filling all of those extra seats. I don't have the numbers but a 773 can carry a massive amount of cargo on a 7000 NM sector whereas the 343 could barely carry itself. It's also a lot faster is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 The trip cost of a 773 is 20% higher than an A343 There are only 22% more seats in a 773 than an A343, so the airline has to fill all of the extra seats to be able to get any advantage. Something that AC has had a tough time doing is filling all of those extra seats. Could you supply the performace chart on this. I would understand if the GE's burned 20% more fuel per engine, but when using only 2 as compared to 4, you have a savings. And to add to Maverick's post, the 340-300 was very weight restricted where as the 777 i believe can be loaded to the hilt and still go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Fido, I think your numbers are suspect. Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 From Mrlupin Congratulations Westjet!! And the slow decline of AC continues...... No, we don't need any sort of vision or business plan.... we just need to "Hunker Down" right Dagger? Sorry... don't want to hijack the thread.... From Dagger Well you did hijack it so I will make it brief: Most frequent flyers are happy with the moves Calin is making on the customer side. So I guess there is a vision and a plan. And he certainly has said he doesn't intend to downsize, which seems to represent a concept in his mind of what the airline can achieve. The airline always a business plan, but you seem to want a miracle plan - MiracleGRO - that somehow enables AC to accomplish in a down market what no other international airline is accomplishing right now, and you want it done without outsourcing your job, cutting your salary or benefits - in fact, many AMEs want a raise - and you want a whole new management, plus... plus... plus... This is why AC is going out of business. Too many complaints, too many different directions among the unions or among subgroups of unions (like the IAM, AVEOS vs ACM), everybody working at cross-purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Could you supply the performace chart on this. I would understand if the GE's burned 20% more fuel per engine, but when using only 2 as compared to 4, you have a savings. And to add to Maverick's post, the 340-300 was very weight restricted where as the 777 i believe can be loaded to the hilt and still go. My understanding is that the trip cost of a 773 is similar to that of a 343 - up to 12 percent less on a seat-mile basis. So that if AC is filling the first 280 -290 seats and getting a bit of cargo, it's even with the 343, and on those flights with higher passenger or cargo loads, it comes out ahead. Now in this economic environment, the numbers for both aircraft are skewed because there is less premium revenue and fare and cargo yields are depressed. It would probably be true that you would have to look at individual route performance and also unscheduled maintenance down time (and non-warranty maintenance expense with the 343) to reach any conclusions. And to further complicate matters, the 343 never got the new Executive First product so it may be a bit easier to "hold the line" on front cabin revenues with the 773. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Dagger, I'm not that hard to convince... If layoffs are the answer.... execute them... If outsourcing heavy maintenance is the answer.... do it If outsourcing ramp services would reduce your cost in that area by a significant margin, then do it. AC is full of sacred cows that cannot be touched.... Find a way to reduce costs, if that is the answer... QUOTE Short of getting out of international operations, the only business plan I can imagine in the current economic context is to hunker down until the economy recovers and business travel revives. How about cost reductions,improved efficiency, allow leave of absences etc.... If you can't find areas needing improvement outside of new routes,winter capacity reduction, supplier hair cuts and employee wages, then you aren't looking hard enough. Your front line employees know what the problems are, they also know the solutions.... how about hearing them out instead of unilateral, top down management? Hunker down needs to involve more then wait for better times.... Why not use today and tomorrow to improve things? If I lose my job due to the "hunkering down", then so be it... That part doesn't worry me... I don't know if you missed this post but I am not looking for a miracle solution... I just want AC to succeed. I think that in order for it to succeed, it needs to improve the way it does things. I find it hypocritical to think that 21 months of status quo will change AC's fate. AC will not find miracle routes that yield riches beyond belief... it needs to become more efficient at running it's existing routes. It needs to figure out how to mobilize and empower it's employees, it needs to get it's costs in line with industry standards. No more sacred cows.... Paying AVEOS double the market rates for heavy maintenance while telling employees that they don't have money, doesn't seem coherent.... And that is just the tip of the iceberg.... Why not go for productivity improvements in the collective agreements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 From Mrlupin From Dagger From Dagger: You also talk about a vision and a plan. Calin was the most outspoken advocate of Victor Li. What did Li stand for? As best we know, Li wanted AC as a crown jewel, which means he wasn't dedicated like Cerberus to breaking off the non-airline assets. Yes, maybe he would have spun off part of AP, to fund fleet modernization, etc. But as best we know, Li had the aviation bug. He was also an advocate of pension reform and viewed the conversion of the DB plans into a DC plan as critical. Many AC employees are expressing the view that trying to protect the DB plans sucks the life out of the company, and prevents them from pursuing better wages and benefits - i.e. the pension plan, at least as it impacts current employees, holds back the company and employees. Calin left shortly after Victor Li withdrew his bid. IIRC, he left before the alternative package of Cerberus/creditors emerged. But Calin, because of his negotiating posture, tends to be linked to Milton and the Cerberus outcome. And of course, Milton et al have asked Calin to go in and make things work. And I'd agree that if Calin had stayed in 2004, he wouldn't have been a softer negotiator in the final labor agreements preceding CCAA. That being said, he has returned to the picture with a plan not to significantly downsize the airline, which is good for the job security of all of you - right down through the ranks of Mainline, Jazz and AVEOS. He is making good with the public, and winning back the confidence and support of frequent flyers and travel agents. If you prefer the unknown, or high risk outcomes like liquidation, then CCAA is a worthy gamble. If you prefer some certainty and stability - at least for most employees - for 21 months, then CCAA is a terrible risk. The agreements being voted on require AC to raise $600 million in new cash. From the forecasts I have heard, providing AC manages its money carefully, that would allow it to maintain a cash balance over $1.2 billion even if the recession lasts another 2-3 years. It's a decent sized cushion and would also improve AC's ability to line up more credit as credit markets continue to ease. One good sign: GECAS is apparently part of the lending group. A few months ago, GECAS was not lending to any airline. And feds - seemingly the largest single lender - aren't going to charge junk bond rates either. I think it's a better deal than many of you give it credit, at least in terms of perpetuating AC and giving it a chance to look in depth at the productivity issues we'd both like to address. I have no answers for the period beyond 21 months. I can't tell you if Swine Flu is the 1918-19 flu redux - it does seem to target younger people which is very worrying because that was the killer aspect of the Spanish Flu. I can't tell you if the economy is going to take 12, 21, or 48 months to show a return to ROBUST growth. I know if I were in your shoes, I might quit today if I could find a better job right away. But I wouldn't want to hit the street simultaneously with thousands of others boasting similar qualifications, because job prospects are severely constrained. Even someone who says "I'm ready to do something entirely different; I'll give up being a pilot or AME" - has to consider what opportunities are out there that would preserve their lifestyle. Sure, you might set up a new business out of basement or garage - except that tens of thousands of people are doing the same in this recession, and most are failures. You have to have a really good, really unique idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Ahh, Dagger, you're back. No desire to expand on your Frank Lorenzo thoughts? I've been patiently waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.