Kip Powick Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Re your posts which seem to be echoing one sentiment, "Full Pay To The Last Day". Does this mean that you are against any employee financial concessions no matter what, as long as you get "full pay" up to the day they lock up the hangers?? Just curious..... Anyhow, with respect to employee financial concessions that may be required,I have put you in the group I have designated as "undecided" :> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lupin Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Personaly I dont think concessions are a way to go... as an aircraft mechanic I have worked hard throughout my career and i dont always feel that we mechanics get the proper respect and compensation for what we do.We certify the airplane as fit for flight on a daily basis and I don't feel that is reflected in my pay check. I am not asking for more. But I certainly don't want less.If the company can come up with something a little more profound then "we need to save money" I will hear them out.I beleive in leadership through example.Mr. Milton actually impresses me in many ways but he keeps comparing us to westjet.I don'd mind the comparison,but if you want to play that game maybe he can volunter for mr beddoes salary.If he wants to go discount carrier style,lets go full out... but not just on the back of the employees.Its foolish to think paycuts alone will save air canada. I called my financial advisor a few weeks ago to ask him what i should do with my shares of Air Canada(purshased through the esop) and after looking up air canada's profile on his computer.. ..cashflow ,debt,assets etc ,he told me that on paper as far as he could tell Air Canada was already a bankrupt company.He recommended i dump half my air canada shares...the war will no doubt drive them lower.No one is recommending to buy air canada shares.Onex even delayed their purshase of aeroplan (probably because the company isn't very secure)Now Tech ops is for sale and it seems we will be left with nothing left to sell after it goes!!! Maybe its a doom and gloom view but I can't understand after all the great stuff management told us about westjet(they even showed us a projected growt chart for WJ About how in 2005 they would have over 50% of the domestic market).How we will emerge out of this hole that has been dug for the last 10 years.I saw it comming three years ago.... shurely I'm not the only one??But someone just has to give me a reasonable explanation as to how we will emerge out of this a great company,somewhere you can be proud to work.... and i will consider giving back. I will get to vote on this agreement...only one vote, but I just won't vote blindly Lupin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Kip, We in maintenance are a little flustered at the moment,with the new company agenda, it seems as if they expect us to give up the entire farm, while we all know that we are going to have to give up something, it seems as though maintenance has been singled out. What is ironic, is that maintenance is one of the few departments that has posted a profit over that past years with the third party work we do. If you look atthe maintenance salaries, we are not the highest paid in this country, we are at about par, so this leaves a great number of us wondering why we in maintenance are being targeted the way the company is. I have stated that I am willingto give up some things, i.e longevity pay which if you included all employees in tech ops, that works out to well in excess of a million dollars, also my license premium, again a savings of close to a million dollars, I am also willing to forego this years pay raise, which if all of tech ops is included there is an 11 million dollar savings, but to take away our shifts, overtime pay, vacation, sick leave, etc etc is is ridiculous, yes this company needs to reorganize, but don't bite the hand that is feeding you!I think that at present, there are aprox 10000 peopel too many at AC, reduce the numbers, make what you have profitable and then look at possibly expanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 According to the ROB magazine's CEO compensation survey, Mr Beddoe took home three times what Mr Milton took home last year. I'm sure Milton won't have a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Maintenance? You think they have singled out maintenance? Ramp maybe? Hate to be a coach cleaner, maybe. But maintenance?!? It seems as if they are asking from every group. They also seem to be offering profit sharing, something I note most IAM posts here gloss over. It is moving towards the Westjet model of risk/reward. That would be especially useful to maintenance if it is spun off because maintenance - i.e. ACTS - would presumably have the kind of partners that would go out there and make it a better run business. Has maintenance posted a profit? This is a new one on me. People keep claiming how their part of Air Canada has been profitable, and if that were true, Air Canada would be rolling in clover. I believe third party maintenance may be profitable, but from what people tell me ACTS as a whole is not profitable because of how it has costed its work for Air Canada. The only parts of Air Canada that might be profitable on a standalone basis are Aeroplan and Cargo. Even Cargo would have to demonstrate to me that they are profitable on a proper cost allocation basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I disagree......$650 million would make quite a difference.....! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickle Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Its foolish to think paycuts alone will save air canada. I don't believe I've heard from Milton that it is just paycuts that are going to save the ocompany. My take is that this is only a small component of it. We are parking aircraft, getting rid of redundant flying, renogiating leases on everything we have, putting in flying that makes sense (ie. YUL-BEY). We cannot just cut because our fixed costs are too high and a great portion of them cannot be removed. The reallocation of resources to where they make the "biggest bang for your buck" is what I feel they are trying to do. Unforetuneatley, there is going to be some salary adjustments. These will touch every employee group in the airline. I don't believe that any one group is being singled out over others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Dagger, I have not seen the figures for the past year, but during the ACTS roll down, Dave Ramage and Robin Wohnsingl both stated that ACTS was turning a profit for the past few years. FYI,a bit of a side note, AC announce that Line Maintenance will not be part of ACTS,it will infact remain with the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Lupin, you are absolutely correct. If there is one group that is grossly underpaid in the airline it is the engineers. When your skill and salary are compared to the rampies and the F/A's it is a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Lupin, you are absolutely correct. If there is one group that is grossly underpaid in the airline it is the engineers. When your skill and salary are compared to the rampies and the F/A's it is a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I havde it on good authority that ACTS is not profitable overall. It is profitable on third party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 that does not make sense at all, where else at present is ACTS supposed to make a profit, we do not send a bill to Air Canada for the work performed on their aircraft, yet!Third party is our only source of revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Since ACTS became a subsidiary, it does charge AC for the work it does. It also retains all of its expense on its own books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fax Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 In order to provide an accurate account of profitability, the question should be...does ACTS charge Air Canada the "going rate" for services performed. A company that wholly owns a subsidiary like ACTS, can make it look however they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickle Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Air Canada has a reputation as a solid performer in the third party maintenance work. I have my doubts that if you included all of the fixed overhead costs that would have to be attributed to them that they would be profitable. Now if you could only turn out our airplanes on time from heavy checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Negative Sir, We are just now developing a process on billing, I am involved with it and we are in the infancy stage as to how and what to charge, we just ran a test cycle two weeks ago to see the manhours used.It will be awhile before full billing begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 "Now if you could only turn out our airplanes on time from heavy checks." On time isn't hard to do.... On time AND serviceable, now that's something else :S Greetings from YUL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idle Thrust Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Finally someone (Robert) has spoken the unspeakable - there are too many employees! Who ever heard of merging two large companies with parallel structures both on the line and in the offices with no layoffs? This is without even considering the fact that one party was already overstaffed. RM dug this hole himself although someone may have forced the shovel into his hands. In good times one could hope to grow into new business but present circumstances prohibit that - the staff has to be sized to the work. IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Since you day there is no process for billing out AC expenses, then how can you possibly say ACTS is profitable overall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 "A company that wholly owns a subsidiary like ACTS, can make it look however they want." Just like the loses at JAZZ... sorry couldn't resist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 This is turning into a he said she said argument, as stated by the Pres of ACTS, we have been profitable for the past few years, I assume that they would have to take into account the rates they charge third party work and apply it to AC, if it is profitable for the third party, why would it not be profitable for work from AC. FYI, about the billing aspect, this was e-mailed to me about an hour ago from a manager! -As directed by Robert Milton, Line and Cabin mtce will now be staying with Air Canada (the airline) -ACTS (hvy mtce, shops, emc) will continue to move towards operating as a separate business. -Bill Zoeller will become the Chief Operating Officer of ACTS -Robin Wohnsigl will head the operations group (inc. L/mtce) for AC -At this time, structure of Ops will stay the same -Rob Reid (VP SOC) will be acting as President and CEO of ACTS -The position of Pres. and CEO of ACTS TBD. -Regional mtce will be with ACTS This decision was made by AC corporate with some of the reasons highlighted as: -Difficulties from a financial perspective. -Concerns for control of operations, to keep it within AC. Dave Ramage encouraged everyone to be 'as transparent as possible' during this transition, and to continue to work together. Please pass this on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jet Dude Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 "Since you day there is no process for billing out AC expenses, then how can you possibly say ACTS is profitable overall?" How can you possibly say it is not, ACTS is making a profit on the contracts that they do bill to, imagine whe AC begins being billed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Once and for all, I have been told that ACTS is not being marketed as profitable. Enough of this bullcrap that it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 So basically the guy who has been telling you ACTS is profitable has been ousted. TURFED. And that's the spin that was put on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 P.S they don't apply any rates to AC until nowe. That's been the problem - that's why Wohnsigl got tossed. AC maintenance doesn't recover its costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.