Rovinescu Retiring in February


Recommended Posts

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/air-canada-ceo-calin-rovinescu-to-retire-in-february-1.1509127

12m ago

 

Air Canada CEO Calin Rovinescu to retire in February

BNN Bloomberg

  •  
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
 
Calin Rovinescu

Air Canada president and CEO Calin Rovinescu arrives for the airline's annual meeting Monday, April 30, 2018 in Montreal. , THE CANADIAN PRESS/Paul Chiasson

Air Canada (AC:CT)

15.52 0.24 (1.52%)
 
As of: 10/16/20 7:50:59 am
REAL-TIME QUOTE. Prices update every five seconds for TSX-listed stocks
8. Jun17. Aug12. Oct10152025
Friday, May 1, 13:00
 Close: AC:CT: 18.87
Chart Type - 6month
 
 
See Full Stock Page »
 

Air Canada president and CEO Calin Rovinescu is retiring in February and will be succeeded by deputy CEO and chief financial officer Michael Rousseau, the company announced Friday.

"I have enjoyed a unique and very special relationship with Air Canada and our outstanding people for over three decades, on the front lines of many of the company's defining moments,” Rovinescu said in a release.

"While COVID-19 has decimated the global airline industry, fortunately we entered the pandemic much healthier than almost any other airline in the world as a result of our strong balance sheet, track record and engaged workforce.”

Rovinescu has been at the helm of the country’s largest air carrier since 2009. Prior to his role as CEO, he served as executive vice-president of corporate development and strategy from 2000-04. He also held the position of chief restructuring officer during the airline’s restructuring in 2003-04.

He previously served as chair of the Star Alliance Chief Executive Board and as chair of the International Air Transport Association’s board of governors. Rovinescu is a current board member of BCE Inc., BNN Bloomberg’s parent company.

Rovinescu said he is “delighted” Air Canada’s board of directors endorsed Rousseau as his successor. Rousseau has served as the company’s deputy CEO since 2018 and as executive vice-president and CFO since 2007.

Prior to joining Air Canada, Rousseau was president of Hudson’s Bay Company. He graduated from York University's Schulich School of Business and was named Canada's CFO of the year in 2017.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/calin-rovinescu-to-retire-as-president-and-ceo-of-air-canada-early-next-year-811456029.html
 

He recently turned 65 so I am not surprised. Originally, the closing of the TRZ deal was going to be his swan song. So, timing has not changed.

Also not surprised that Rousseau will succeed him. That has been in the cards for a while.

AC is entering a very challenging few years. CCAA still not out of the question. Whoever is running the ship is facing several years of significant challenges, not the least of which is determining whether YOW wants to have airports and airplanes around in the future.

 

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

which is determining whether YOW wants to have airports and airplanes around in the future.

Took this old grey matter a few moments to realize that you meant, "Disneyland North",  not the Ottawa International Airport.

ScreenShot001.jpg.4b49b9d9abd653982fb823aa2d9e57cd.jpg

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If AC is bleeding so badly why did MOA #2 increase the pilot MPG and the Flate Pay pilots go back to their original MPG? I know of a # of pilots from Rouge cpat to flat pay FOs that received a pleasant surprise. It doesn't really speak to undo hardship. Has anyone at Rouge flown since March? I know none of my friends have. Mainline pilots repo'd their planes to the desert.

WJ's MOA #2 stayed the same MPG as MOA #1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bobcaygeon said:

If AC is bleeding so badly why did MOA #2 increase the pilot MPG and the Flate Pay pilots go back to their original MPG? I know of a # of pilots from Rouge cpat to flat pay FOs that received a pleasant surprise. It doesn't really speak to undo hardship. Has anyone at Rouge flown since March? I know none of my friends have. Mainline pilots repo'd their planes to the desert.

WJ's MOA #2 stayed the same MPG as MOA #1.

Extending MOA #1 was not an option. That was a knee jerk response to the immediate  dramatic demand destruction of COVID. The alternative to MOA #2 was for AC to run a full reduction bid based on expected summer 2021 flying levels rather than expected summer 2022 flying levels. Huge expense. Huge disruption. Likely over 12 months to implement training plan just to reverse it for 2022.

AC is a big airline with multiple equipment types. Just look at how UA/DL/AA are managing pilot surpluses and that is a more representative comparison.

AC still has the cheapest WB FO’s on the planet courtesy of the flat pay system and hiring demographics. And the second last AC bid means there are lots of them with the WB RP positions removed. AC also received significant damage payments from Boeing related to the MAX grounding. That significantly offset the payroll expense of those MAX pilots that have not flown since March 2019.

Some Rouge NB Positions were restored in the last AC bid. They will be flying.

No doubt that AC will be revisiting the ‘plan’ in January. MOA #2 expires in March. If significant changes are required, AC will have the opportunity to come up with a new plan. But if the TRZ transaction is consummated, there will be many more layers of complication beyond what was considered for MOA #2.

Nothing is carved in stone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The general public doesn't really care how the widebody wages compare to the rest of the world. ACPA lobbying for industry specific tax dollars while also leveraging for increased wages isn't cool and is greasy.  For many on Flat pay it's a valid concern to pay bills. For anyone in the left seat is doing just fine financially compared the rest of working public affected by COVID. 

IMHO

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Bobcaygeon said:

The general public doesn't really care how the widebody wages compare to the rest of the world. ACPA lobbying for industry specific tax dollars while also leveraging for increased wages isn't cool and is greasy.  For many on Flat pay it's a valid concern to pay bills. For anyone in the left seat is doing just fine financially compared the rest of working public affected by COVID. 

IMHO

How are they leveraging for increased wages?  Reducing hours is a layoff mitigation measure.  The alternative would be to be like CUPE who ate their young. This would likely result in the order of 2000 layoffs instead of 600.  The amount of training resulting from a layoff of this magnitude would likely take 2-3 years to complete and cost AC much more than a higher minimum monthly guarantee is costing.  Then when things start to pick up again, you get to do a lot of this training over again as postions are re-instated plus train and requalify the 2000 pilots that were layed off.
 

Bottom line is that the government is preventing airlines from operating their business so the airlines should be offered compensation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Homerun.....requiring that inbound pax quarantine is not a measure directed at airlines. What other countries mandate for the presumed protection of their citizenry is not the responsibility of our government. In short, airlines are obviously impacted by Covid but I don't think our government is " at fault" nor do I believe Canadian taxpayers should subsidize/compensate airlines.

Consider by way of comparison the government mandate that first closed bars and restaurants and then restricted operations to 30% of capacity. Should you not advocate that those operators be compensated for losses which are directly attributable to government actions?

Air Canada continues to operate flights to the US without restriction. The loads are light not because of government restrictions; people don't want to travel!!

Why should taxpayers subsidize operations that don't have consumer support?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

The loads are light not because of government restrictions; people don't want to travel!!

Government restrictions have a lot to do with the light loads.  Many people do want to travel but are put off by the requirement to quarantine for 14 days upon return.  There are foreign tourists who would like to visit Canada who cannot because of the closure of our borders.  I'm not necessarily arguing against current government travel restrictions, but I don't think there's any question that they're having an effect on loads.  

Edited by FA@AC
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, FA@AC said:

Government restrictions have a lot to do with the light loads.  Many people do want to travel but are put off by the requirement to quarantine for 14 days upon return.  There are foreign tourists who would like to visit Canada who cannot because of the closure of our borders.  I'm not necessarily arguing against current government travel restrictions, but I don't think there's any question that they're having an effect on loads.  

Quarantining is a required consequence of potentially being contaminated. It is not targeted at inbound travellers per se but certainly applies to those travellers.

I am outbound next week. I am watching loads and note that for eg, RSW is oversold and FLL flights almost full out of YUL. I conclude that those travellers, like me, consider being homebound for 2 weeks in the winter is not much of a burden if lying on sun-washed beaches is the reward.

My point was simply that whatever Covid rrstrictions exist, they are not, in general terms, directed at airlines per se as compared to mandates that compel closure of bars and restaurants.

By fair comparison....did Canada, for eg., tell Westjet or Air Canada or....that every other seat must be vacant and every pax wear face masks? Had it done so, I agree that loss of revenue would be obviously correlated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

Quarantining is a required consequence of potentially being contaminated. It is not targeted at inbound travellers per se but certainly applies to those travellers.

I am outbound next week. I am watching loads and note that for eg, RSW is oversold and FLL flights almost full out of YUL. I conclude that those travellers, like me, consider being homebound for 2 weeks in the winter is not much of a burden if lying on sun-washed beaches is the reward.

My point was simply that whatever Covid rrstrictions exist, they are not, in general terms, directed at airlines per se as compared to mandates that compel closure of bars and restaurants.

By fair comparison....did Canada, for eg., tell Westjet or Air Canada or....that every other seat must be vacant and every pax wear face masks? Had it done so, I agree that loss of revenue would be obviously correlated.

How many of those travellers won't be returning any time soon and hope that the 2 week quarantine will be gone when they return next spring? I would hazard a guess that it's quite a few.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moeman said:

How many of those travellers won't be returning any time soon and hope that the 2 week quarantine will be gone when they return next spring? I would hazard a guess that it's quite a few.

You are a very smart cookie! Yup....that is definitely a factor in my calculations. I plan to return mid-Dec.; quarantine and HOPE I can drive back down in Jan. with my truck and my " necessaries". Honestly....we're going " bare bones" for the first six weeks with plans to buy some essentials and do without others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add that as said by Mo32....we acknowledge our good fortune in that quarantine for us is not particularly burdensome so a very small price to pay for the pleasure of sunshine....and cheap beer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2020 at 10:35 PM, Tango Foxtrot said:

If you travel to a Covid hot spot needlessly,  please do stay there until it is over.

Why do so many feel that way?   We have nurses crossing the border daily, sanitation folks, truckers, business folks, etc not to mention aircrew, and despite their lack of quarantining I've yet to see, in 7 months, any outbreak linked to their daily travels back and forth.  I would also wager that most of the folks doing that snowbird thing will be more scrupulous upon their return in their anti COVID practices than the people staying here.

Edited by Specs
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely agree. My company's work makes cross-border travel a necessity. While I haven't engaged in any of it myself, my colleagues report seeing a high degree of compliance by our aviation colleagues and clients south of the border.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2020 at 10:35 PM, Tango Foxtrot said:

I guess Sunshine and cheap beer is more important than vulnerable people's lives to some of us.

If you travel to a Covid hot spot needlessly,  please do stay there until it is over. ??

Forgive me but I think your comment and the approval of followers is misplaced to say the least. The presumptions preceding judgment are somewhat overwhelming.

Here in Canada, my wife and I live in a sparsely populated area on a farm property. No one has been inside our house....friend or otherwise....since March. We wear masks whenever in a public setting and have since inception.

My wife has worked throughout as cabin crew and has a routine that is strictly followed. She is my "risk factor" and we work together to mitigate that risk.

We are fortunate enough to have a motor yacht berthed in Florida. That boat is in a marina and whilst on the boat...we are alone. Off the boat ( infrequently), we follow the same safety protocol as when at home.

My wife will continue to work and will continue to be my greatest risk factor. Unlike her, when I return to Canada I will quarantine for 14 days and before departure, our freezer and pantry will be adequately stocked.

 "Hot Spot"? Do you have ANY idea what you're writing about? We don't frequent bars. You? We don't go to restaurants. You? We don't visit theatres, art galleries, concerts etc etc....You? At a guess, I feel reasonably confident that you pose a far greater threat to " the vulnerable" than do I.

Enjoy yourself!!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, J.O. said:

Absolutely agree. My company's work makes cross-border travel a necessity. While I haven't engaged in any of it myself, my colleagues report seeing a high degree of compliance by our aviation colleagues and clients south of the border.

I’m just returning from my fifth trip down here since this all started and mask compliance is very good most everywhere with the slight exception of the work site... Grocery stores, restaurants and the airport are all almost 100%. 

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.