Recommended Posts

MD2 said "FAIR" "DISADVANTAGED" "TILT THE PLAYING FIELD"

Let's dispatch with terms like this... there isn't such a thing as fair in this country when one corporation is disadvantaged by a whole pile of ridiculous rules as to how and where it conducts it's business while others are totally exempt. Meanwhile one carrier is essentially given an airport, another abuses TFW & FLVC laws, and another, between corporate espionage cases, is essentially gifted highly coveted slots into one of the busiest airports in the US.

That said, the best thing that could happen for AC, it's employees, and Canadians is for AC to walk away from the Air Transat deal. 

Let AT get itself out of this mess first, and when the economy has recovered maybe take another look at the acquisition... buying a moth balled airline with no revenue, no bookings, and an unlikely future at a time when cash preservation and survival of your own airline should be driving your decisions is ridiculous.

And 1+1 does not equal 2.X in this deal, more like 1+1=1.5 at most.

Not to mention that the 1.5 total would have been 6 months ago, currently 1 is only about .25, and the other is 0 (ZERO)... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Turbofan said:

But the underlying message I am hearing from you is that you would prefer to see the consequences of this crisis on Tansat employees, transferred to junior AC employees rather than have Transat fail.

Is that what you are saying?

 

No, but I'd like to see as many Air Transat jobs as possible saved and for those who lose jobs there to have recall rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, j.k. said:

That sounds great, but how does it happen? In practice it will happen by displacing other people out of their jobs.

We don't know whether AC will choose to proceed with the acquisition, extricate itself somehow or be persuaded to proceed as part of a bailout of both carriers.  We don't know what AC's plans for TS will be if the takeover happens.  Until we find out we can only speculate, but I don't think that TS employees displacing AC employees is a given.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Turbofan said:

Is that what you are saying?

I could be wrong but I don't think that is what he is saying..

If AC and AT merge, junior employees of both companies will be furloughed and that is just a cold hard fact but the upside is that not ALL AT employees have to start all over looking for jobs if AT is allowed merge.... vs..... fail.

Obviously AC would not merge with AT because  of good will, in order to save jobs...there has to be some gravy for AC with the merger, and yes, junior employees will bear the brunt of any merger....ask me...I have been through two. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Geminoid said:

Isn't it more likely that Transat would be merged or integrated into the Rouge operation?

Unless of course that WestJet is looking to take them?  But I guess MD2 may be closer to that action. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Kip Powick said:

I could be wrong but I don't think that is what he is saying..

If AC and AT merge, junior employees of both companies will be furloughed and that is just a cold hard fact but the upside is that not ALL AT employees have to start all over looking for jobs if AT is allowed merge.... vs..... fail.

Obviously AC would not merge with AT because  of good will, in order to save jobs...there has to be some gravy for AC with the merger, and yes, junior employees will bear the brunt of any merger....ask me...I have been through two. 

Again,

 

AC will only employ the amount of employees it needs.  Currently there are way too many employees.  
 

I didn’t realize there was such a pervasive belief that junior people should be sacrificed to protect the senior from starting over.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Turbofan said:

I didn’t realize there was such a pervasive belief that junior people should be sacrificed to protect the senior from starting over.

 

With respect... you have never been through a merger have you ?? In ANY industry merger seniority is the only thing that counts until,I in some cases, the issue goes to arbitration...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was once a great airline called Canada 3000, well liked and I believe profitable in all its quarters except the last one. Unlike some airlines that know how to operate in perpetual losses and bail-outs, it simply didn't know how. In the aftermath of 911, in mounting losses and a tight credit market, it needed the government to "co-sign" its 75 million loan. The Liberal government wanted such intrusive controls that Canada 3000 decided it wasn't worth it to continue. It ceased operations.

That gave Transat a much needed lifeline engulfed with mounting pressures of the Azure Glider. Seven years later it got another lifeline when Skyservice failed.  The people involved got up and carried on elsewhere. Life went on. It simply is not the burden of other airlines to "save" those jobs; neither is it the burden of governments. That burden solely rests with Transat. It is also the burden of Transat to keep itself financially viable to complete its proposed sale. And it is the burden of Air Canada to do its due diligence and determine whether or not it makes economical sense for it to continue with the deal under the recommendations of the Competition Bureau. After all, it entered the deal months ago for its own economical and operational benefit, not to "save" Transat jobs; that likely has not changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Turbofan said:

 

I didn’t realize there was such a pervasive belief that junior people should be sacrificed to protect the senior from starting over.

 

That isn't my position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MD2 said:

I doubt that Air Canada entered the deal months ago in order to "save" Transat jobs, it was for its economical and operational benefit and that likely has not changed.

No one is saying that is why AC went after TS.....much of discussion on this page  has to do with the fact that should a merger take place, seniority rules and all junior employees should know that cold hard fact..

No one on this forum knows if a merger will take place or not. No problem speculating but what will happen ....will happen.

Just because the Competition Board has issue a statement does not ascertain the future of AT,  Negotiations  that might be going on are beyond anyone's pay grade here on this forum and no matter what department says what, the final outcome will not be realized until the FEDS say publicly, or behind the scenes to both parties, what is going to happen.

The airline industry is a volatile playing field and Nation Air, Royal, Wardair, Canada 3000, Roots, Canadian Airlines,  and others have all found that out and life moved on and it will when a resolution with TS is chiseled  into an official tablet. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kip Powick said:

With respect... you have never been through a merger have you ?? In ANY industry merger seniority is the only thing that counts until,I in some cases, the issue goes to arbitration...

Yes I have been through a merger.  Yes I know what seniority is and the value of it.  I am fully aware of how arbitration’s work.  

I have also worked for a company that failed.  Actually that has happened to me twice.
 

The comment placed a page earlier was not what happens if the merger goes ahead.  That is obvious. I’m not sure why you have gone in that direction with your comments.
 

The comment that started this discussion was one lamenting that the merger should move ahead so that those at Transat don’t have to start over?  

My point was that today’s  reality is that protecting one group will come at the expense of another.

So let’s assume you are king for a day.  You decide if the merger stops or proceeds.  Someone either senior or junior is going to get the pointy end of your choice.

Would you move forward with the merger simply on the grounds it saves Transat employees from starting over? 


 

 



 


 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FA@AC said:

That isn't my position.

Thanks FA@AC.  I wasn’t trying to pick on your comments by the way.  They were actually very empathetic which I respect very much.

My point was simply that we are beyond a point where it all works out in the wash.  We are at a point where people will get hurt.

Support for one group will come at the expense of another.  By expressing concern for one group we are by default expressing a lack of concern for another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What many here seem to be forgetting is that the ONLY reason why Rouge was brought in was to drive AT to the ground.  In fact, when you read the competition bureau’s report, most of the instances where there is duplication of routes is where Rouge introduced service specifically to give AT a ride for their money.

When someone mentions Transat getting “lifelines”, they seem to forget how many lifelines AC has been given over their existence, all but to end up starting a leisure carrier whose sole purpose was to kill the competition.  Amusingly, after about 6 years of Rouge operation and Transat losing money because of Rouge’s aggressive program, AC, for whatever reasons, finally realizes that the Transat brand is worth acquiring, because if they don’t someone out west might be interested.

Now, because of this pandemic, which affects everyone, but especially this business, there might be a chance that the deal falls through and that, what seemed like a chance for Transat to carry on doing business in whatever shape or form AC would have decided after trying to get rid of us for so long, ends up being the end of it all for us at AT.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gumbi I wish you and your colleagues the best.

I have no issue with Transat getting a lifeline.  Actually I have no issue with a merger either.  I believe Transat will be here 2 years from now.  Either merged or separate.  I actually believe the current situation makes the merger more likely. 

  I was simply pointing out that we are well beyond a point of win win for employee groups. Something no one thought about 4 weeks ago. Someone is going to get hurt.  Throwing support behind one group, even though it is not stated, implies a lack of support or sympathy for the other.

My intention is only to shed light on that fact.  Support for one group implies lack of support for another.  Much like you probably interpreted my comments as a lack of support for you.

All the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Turbofan said:

Would you move forward with the merger simply on the grounds it saves Transat employees from starting over? 

I think I have been very clear on my position.  Myself, and everyone else would not move forward with any merger, including TS just to save jobs.

If I was "King" I would move forward with "the merger" only if there was an economical, and more importantly a financial advantage for me to do so. .

There are only three scenarios that will fall out of the present situation......

A...... AC merges with TS and junior bodies will loose jobs...no question ( same outcome if TS merges with someone else)

B...... There is no merger by TS with anyone, and TS is dissolved and and all employees loose their jobs

C.......Fed or Prov Govt does something to bail out TS and they have another run at being a full service,.profitable  airline.

I am totally impartial in this discussion, have no skin in the game .................. just trying to throw some reality into the mix...?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kip Powick said:

I think I have been very clear on my position.  Myself, and everyone else would not move forward with any merger, including TS just to save jobs.

 

 

Kip,

Previous page.

Air Transat was in trouble before the pandemic.  Unless they have a Plan B that we haven't heard about I hope for the sake of jobs there that the acquisition proceeds.

The poster has now clarified their comment.  They were not suggesting to sacrifice junior AC employees.

Discussion closed

I jumped on this for one reason.  Support for one group will be interpreted as a lack of support for the other.  Even though the lack of support is not stated it will be taken as implied.  Even in the above situation which I believe was well meaning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The COVID economy is starting to look like 9-11 and 2008 stacked on top of one another. US carriers already telling staff that they will be smaller going forward.

Add a merger on top of the that? Good luck.

AC operates in the same global market as the US carriers. It is not somehow immune or reading magic tea leaves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Marshall said:

Unless of course that WestJet is looking to take them?  But I guess MD2 may be closer to that action. 

There’s not a snowballs chance in hell that that is even on the radar as a 100-1 maybe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.