J.O. Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 That's because they are happy, and motivated. Air Canada Maintenance used to be like that too. Deferrals now run until expiry date. Who cares? There's no motivation to bust our asses fixing snags, when Management treats us like crap...The day that I allow my displeasure with management to affect my professionalism is the day I will hand in my resignation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13820 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 The day that I allow my displeasure with management to affect my professionalism is the day I will hand in my resignation. :Clap-Hands: :Clap-Hands: Thank you.I wish more people would adopt that attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 That's because they are happy, and motivated. Air Canada Maintenance used to be like that too. Deferrals now run until expiry date. Who cares? There's no motivation to bust our asses fixing snags, when Management treats us like crap...And that is exactly the attitude that is going to put your company under! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 And that is exactly the attitude that is going to put your company under!I agree but with a caveat. Managements role is to guide, lead AND motivate. Some part of the equation is obviously missing at AC? We are very lucky at WJ, management is, by and large approachable with a non-punitive, non-aggressive leadership style. It works and we are motivated. It's not all smiles and sunshine but it's still the best place I've seen in aviation. We also cross-trade like crazy which makes our mechs and coneheads pretty interchangeable in most routine situations. We are very efficient and do other roles besides maintenance, some stores functions, our own pushbacks, marshalling for maintenance, bridging etc. It's kind of like the pilots grooming between flights, we do it if we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digger Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 That's because they are happy, and motivated. Air Canada Maintenance used to be like that too. Deferrals now run until expiry date. Who cares? There's no motivation to bust our asses fixing snags, when Management treats us like crap...First: Put other foot in mouth!Second: Speak for yourself. While there may certainly be an element of that, I don't believe that you speak for most. The biggest reason we have for not clearing deviations is parts or a lack of them. It has been an ongoing issue for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 What's the pension creep like?Did you want to compare the pension creep for an employer who makes contributions to solve it's pension shortfall problem or do would you rather compare it to AC which only funds the current part of it's pensions? AC employees put in a percentage of wages and the company puts in approx 10% of wages at the moment (according to the last financial listing the current portion of the pension obligation as 49M on 499M of salary)Since this quantifies the current pension costs and that in CAW documentation I read that during negotiations with CAW, AC had indicated that it would not have the funds to fund the pension deficit at the end of 2013, why would you count that part? In accounting, you can classify something as an asset, when you know that you will benefit from it and when you can accurately evaluate it's value. Neither can be said of the AC pension plan. So it wouldn't qualify as an asset. lol If employees had to use accounting rules, they would provision an account for bad debts on the AC pension plan as the amount it will pay out is uncertain and it isn't likely to pay out the full amount.Going back to my comparison, the wage gap is 15%, if you subtract the amount they pay for pension, the difference is 5% if the competitors have no DC plan. If they have one, you can add the employers portion to the 5% to get the wage disparity.Did I miss something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinnaker Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I agree but with a caveat. Managements role is to guide, lead AND motivate. Some part of the equation is obviously missing at AC? We are very lucky at WJ, management is, by and large approachable with a non-punitive, non-aggressive leadership style. It works and we are motivated. It's not all smiles and sunshine but it's still the best place I've seen in aviation. We also cross-trade like crazy which makes our mechs and coneheads pretty interchangeable in most routine situations. We are very efficient and do other roles besides maintenance, some stores functions, our own pushbacks, marshalling for maintenance, bridging etc. It's kind of like the pilots grooming between flights, we do it if we can.Hey... maybe one day you'll even help groom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homerun Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Did you want to compare the pension creep for an employer who makes contributions to solve it's pension shortfall problem or do would you rather compare it to AC which only funds the current part of it's pensions? AC employees put in a percentage of wages and the company puts in approx 10% of wages at the moment (according to the last financial listing the current portion of the pension obligation as 49M on 499M of salary)Since this quantifies the current pension costs and that in CAW documentation I read that during negotiations with CAW, AC had indicated that it would not have the funds to fund the pension deficit at the end of 2013, why would you count that part? In accounting, you can classify something as an asset, when you know that you will benefit from it and when you can accurately evaluate it's value. Neither can be said of the AC pension plan. So it wouldn't qualify as an asset. lol If employees had to use accounting rules, they would provision an account for bad debts on the AC pension plan as the amount it will pay out is uncertain and it isn't likely to pay out the full amount.Going back to my comparison, the wage gap is 15%, if you subtract the amount they pay for pension, the difference is 5% if the competitors have no DC plan. If they have one, you can add the employers portion to the 5% to get the wage disparity.Did I miss something?Yes, the AC pensions are very close to being fully funded on a going concern basis. It's only if they close the doors tomorrow that there is a deficit. So if AC stays in business, it's very likely employees will get their expected pensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Yes, the AC pensions are very close to being fully funded on a going concern basis. It's only if they close the doors tomorrow that there is a deficit. So if AC stays in business, it's very likely employees will get their expected pensions.Where do you get that information? Here is some info on a valuation of the various DB plans in Canada made by Tower Watson.The report is for the third quarter of 2011. pension watch PDFThe pension funds not being very transparent, it is hard to get a reliable assessment of their solvency. The long term bond Canadian rate has been falling these last few months so the solvency of all funds would actually be deteriorating at the moment. As far as I understand it, the only way to make up the deficit in solvency is for any of the following event to happen:1) the markets to rebound and make up the funding shortfall2) The bank of Canada increases it's overnight lending rate3) AC would have to become immensely profitable and pay the shortfall4) the government antes up to pay for the shortfall5) the government changes the rules on actuary calculations to permit the use of lower class debt to calculate plan funding(not really a fix but it would make the plan look more solvent)On a macro perspective with the world economy on the verge of a recession, government around the world printing money (adding more debt to solve a debt crisis), US unemployment at high levels (U-6 at 16%) and Europe in shambles, 1,2 and 3 are unlikely. With the fact that Canadians elected an anti labor party, 4 is unlikely. Option 5 depends on what the government wants to do. If it is happy about kicking the can down the road, that might be palatable but if it wants concrete solutions, it doesn't address the real problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homerun Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Where do you get that information? Here is some info on a valuation of the various DB plans in Canada made by Tower Watson.The report is for the third quarter of 2011. pension watch PDFThe pension funds not being very transparent, it is hard to get a reliable assessment of their solvency. The long term bond Canadian rate has been falling these last few months so the solvency of all funds would actually be deteriorating at the moment. As far as I understand it, the only way to make up the deficit in solvency is for any of the following event to happen:1) the markets to rebound and make up the funding shortfall2) The bank of Canada increases it's overnight lending rate3) AC would have to become immensely profitable and pay the shortfall4) the government antes up to pay for the shortfall5) the government changes the rules on actuary calculations to permit the use of lower class debt to calculate plan funding(not really a fix but it would make the plan look more solvent)On a macro perspective with the world economy on the verge of a recession, government around the world printing money (adding more debt to solve a debt crisis), US unemployment at high levels (U-6 at 16%) and Europe in shambles, 1,2 and 3 are unlikely. With the fact that Canadians elected an anti labor party, 4 is unlikely. Option 5 depends on what the government wants to do. If it is happy about kicking the can down the road, that might be palatable but if it wants concrete solutions, it doesn't address the real problem.The information is readily available and is published in AC's financial statements. All of the points you make are only applicable to the solvency deficit calculation. There are 2 tests forthe pension, the solvency in case of the company going out of business and a going concern basis. Going concern assumes the company stays in business. In that case the pension is very close to fully funded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 The information is readily available and is published in AC's financial statements. All of the points you make are only applicable to the solvency deficit calculation. There are 2 tests forthe pension, the solvency in case of the company going out of business and a going concern basis. Going concern assumes the company stays in business. In that case the pension is very close to fully funded.Homerun,I didn't find the "going concern" valuation in the latest financials. Every search I did came up short. I just noticed that the portion that the corporation will need to pay is growing. (which is logical with the long bond at 2.68%)As far as a going concern valuation is concerned, one needs to have the hypothesis used for calculating such a valuation. If one were to use 10% as a going forward rate of return, I am almost sure you would not be able to calculate a shortfall. I am curious as to the variance between the rate used and what is obtainable on the market.Éric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I'll ask the question again.If they convert all the employees to a DC plan, and pay out what everyone is owed, how much is left over at this point for them to grab? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I'll ask the question again.If they convert all the employees to a DC plan, and pay out what everyone is owed, how much is left over at this point for them to grab? At this point, if they did that, they would be short approx 3.5 billion dollars. What you are asking is akin to winding up the plan and turning it into an annuity. They do not have sufficient funds to do that. Even if they got everything that GE, Cerberus and the investors took, they would fall short for a 100% pension plan wind up.Under no circumstances do they have access to the money in the plan. That is my understanding. If it is over-funded, they can take a contribution holiday but I haven't read anywhere where they can take money from the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digger Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I'll ask the question again.If they convert all the employees to a DC plan, and pay out what everyone is owed, how much is left over at this point for them to grab? There would be nothing left for them to grab. For the plan members on the other hand??One would have to wait for an up to date actuarial report. If we all convert to a DC plan I assume that you are assuming that AC is in effect winding down the DB plan. As of Jan 2011 we were in the neighbourhood of being 20ish percent underfunded. With the downward pressure on bonds in the last half of this year and a rather stagnant equity market, I would assume that the plan has lost some ground since then. If I understand correctly in talking to our pension rep in the last year and a half or so, the plans investment managers have undertaken an investment strategy meant to obviously enhance returns but to also limit the downside when things are not going so good. How well they have done remains to be seen, but as in my previous post I am betting that 30% +or- would be a reasonable assumption.Now having said that and I may be wrong, your entitlement in the event of a winding down of the plan as it currently stands depends ( IAM's plan) on whether or not you are original AC or ex CAI. For all plus those who have not reached a milestone you get at least 100% of your contributions + interest(first in the pecking order). There is plenty left in the plan for that to happen. The shortfall would occur for accrued benefits above and beyond that. After that if you are original AC and have reached a pension milestone then if there is a 30% shortfall you take a 30% haircut of your accumulated pension. If you are ex CAI there is another pecking order in which some will get 100% of their pension, while those further on down the pecking order will or would take far more than a 30% haircut depending on how fast those above you deplete the plan. There is some legal precedence at the provincial level that if applied to the CAI portion of the plan would see the ex CAI people mirror that of the OAC plan.I don't know if it would be reasonable to assume or not that if AC were in fact able to "negotiate" a DC for all employees going forward that they might be able to at least top up the DB fund a little bit(dreaming I suppose). After all they will save 100's of millions going forward. If the OFSI winds it down in 2014, good luck with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I see that CP Rail went out and borrowed over a half-billion dollars this week because they had a pension shortfall, and they wanted to top it up. This is a DB plan, and the company obviously wants it to survive. They recognize their responsibilities, and are taking action.Why doesn't Air Canada do the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebean Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I see that CP Rail went out and borrowed over a half-billion dollars this week because they had a pension shortfall, and they wanted to top it up. This is a DB plan, and the company obviously wants it to survive. They recognize their responsibilities, and are taking action.Why doesn't Air Canada do the same thing?CP Rail doesn't have to worry too much about a LCR (low cost railway) setting up shop in their back yard anytime soon.Bankers figured this out long ago too. Their money is pretty safe in the railways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireFox Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 CP Rail doesn't have to worry too much about a LCR (low cost railway) setting up shop in their back yard anytime soon.Bankers figured this out long ago too. Their money is pretty safe in the railways. Still...it's a contractual obligation on the company's (AC) part.Seems to me they should live up to it, anything else would be...well...slimy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireFox Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 You may want to review the following document that states what AC's obligations are.Canada GazetteNo thanks Malcolm, I've got a CHRISTmas Festival to go to in downtown Van.Give me the gist of it if you may... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.