Guest George Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Do you know what the Feds asked for from C3 before Federal loan guarantees would be granted??? It wasn't pretty. I hope some xC3ers on the bulletin board who were directly involved can tell you specifically. If you are thinking that Collenette is going to allow you to keep your base pay then you can sell yourself the swampland. PS its not the satffing levels that are killing AC. Read a few of Dagger's posts about airline economics 101. If you cut back, your costs might increase...but don't you worry about that little bubble of your's breaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Do you know what the Feds asked for from C3 before Federal loan guarantees would be granted??? It wasn't pretty. I hope some xC3ers on the bulletin board who were directly involved can tell you specifically. If you are thinking that Collenette is going to allow you to keep your base pay then you can sell yourself the swampland. The doom and gloom attitude is not realistic. I think you're the one with the reality problem. PS: its not the staffing levels that are killing AC. Read a few of Dagger's posts about airline economics 101. If you cut back, your costs might increase...but don't you worry about that little bubble of your's breaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I rest my case. I won't argue with you one bit on your points, Robert. I'm not familiar with the specific issues you spoke of, but I'm convinced you believe they're true as you stated. But it doesn't make a bit of difference. If you want to make management change how they do things, the only reliable way is to change how we, the rank and file, do things ourselves. You want to take control? You want to FORCE management into following your will? Then show the shareholders and the creditors that you're willing to work under a business model that will make them money and secure their loans. Do that, and the shareholders and creditors will snap the whip on management in ways that you and I can only dream about. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 "PS: its not the staffing levels that are killing AC. Read a few of Dagger's posts about airline economics 101. If you cut back, your costs might increase...but don't you worry about that little bubble of your's breaking." With all due respect, I don't believe this is or was the intention of Dagger's post and with no intention to frag him, he's not IMO the absolute authority on the proper way to run an airline. 1. Keep the operation at todays rpms etc. 2. Layoff 20% of the employees. 3. The remaining people pick up the slack. 4. No increases in remuneration. Bingo, the company is 20% more efficient! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 neo, I cannot believe I am jumping in here as this topic has been beat to death, more than a few times already. However, and generally speaking; There are many examples of failure where companies have found themselves in an environment akin to the one Air Canada finds themselves in. Airline specific, I will comment on three, Eastern, Canadian and Canada 3000. Though slightly different, and to the best of my knowledge, each of these had two common denominators. 1. Unions that could not get onto the same page. 2. Leaders, Management and Union, who could not and did not, lead. As well, there are two examples I will mention where the opposite outcome prevailed, one an Airline. 1. Chrysler. Tough, tough unions, and a leader. And WHAT a leader too. 2. Continental. Tough, tough unions, and a leader. And WHAT a leader too. I respectfully disagree with some of what you have offered. As rhetorical and as cliché as it is, the smart money says that this boat either floats or sinks,… together. Again, I could quote you many stemming battles of history. When you read about these battles, not many were won by a fraction of the group pushing out on its own. Rather, the successful battles were planned and executed by men who commanded the respect of their armies, either brave men or tough unions. The most decorated leaders of history have generally lead by example. dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 NEO, I am willing to fore go a few items in my contract, i.e my 20 cent an hour longevity pay, I never quite understood that one any way, i am willing to fore go some of my license premium, even my 2.5% I am due this year, i can lose what I have yet to receive, but this time around, management needs to take a very very serious hit, these million dollar perks,bonuses etc etc, needs to be addressed. Robert Milton once said we were like his children, well dad, show me how it is done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Who made Dagger the authority on restructuring??? If the feds were to let AC go under, there would be 40000 AC employees, 15000 employees from companies who make their living off the airline out of work over night.Then there is the companies who supply these other small companies, they will have cut backs, then there is the businesses who depend on AC to get them to their clients outside of this country, then there is the loss in revenues from people coming here to do business or visit, then there is the massive loss in taxes for the governments, then there is the THOUSANDS of people who DAILEY fly over seas, then what about the excess that you would now have in customs people, this is AC not C3, no slight intended to the former C3 people, it has been tough on you.The feds also once said that AC was an essential service, this is when CAIL was still in existance, are they going to let an essential service go, I highly doubt it. Regardless of what you may think, the feds must accept a large part of this mess, as they are one of the main factors and contributors to AC problems. As to my base salary, only a collective agreement or a judge (and that is only in case of bankruptcy protection) can change that, Collenidiot has no say in that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 What million dollar perks and bonuses have been handed out at AC???? You're frothing at the mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Continuous Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 >> We just had the flight attendants attend a three day session to train them how to serve! This included many junior flight attendants that will never be able to hold overseas flying anyway. No matter how this is explained to me, I can not understand the rationale for that expedenditure << Exactly ... and the reason that it defies logic is because it is a politically mandated decision, which affects someone's empire, irrespective of whether it makes smart business sense. Someone can say " See I addressed that upper person's concerns who can promote my aspirations. " It is that kind of thinking and position justifying that AC's corporate culture reeks of and why the employees are fed up with this kind of illogical b*******, which in it's self promotes an " I don't give a s*** anymore " attitude. I have seen it during my 25 years at AC, and is " in my opinion " the greatest morale destroyer of it's employees. AC needs to embrace a corporate culture which EMPOWERS it's employees to act in the company's best interest, thus creating an incentive to invest in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 stock options, bonuses, pos J travel for personal trips, etc etc etc, it all ads up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I see. So you're willing to make a small change as long as management takes a "very, very serious hit". Right... that'll fly. And round, and round, and round it goes. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Dragondude, Those are good arguments and I don't disagree with them. But they're not the only arguments nor are they necessarily the way to deal with fundamental change. Please remember, the leaders of Chrysler and Continental, as fine as they were, did not bring about a revolution in thinking within their organizations. They certainly grappled with some major difficulties, but in the end their organizations worked, thought and produced in the same way they did before, just more profitably. And because they did not change those fundamental things, the inevitable happened: a few years down the road and they're back in the soup. Air Canada is faced with a different situation. For us, the _industry_ has changed, the _market_ has changed, the world in which we operate has changed. It's not just a question of producing our mini-van at a lower cost. We have to re-invent the wheel AND the way we produce it. When you read about history, it's inevitably about the generals because in war they become the focus. But what history also teaches is that small groups of people operating independently in a focused way and at the right moment in time can achieve remarkable things. And speaking of generals, smart ones empower smaller groups under their command with enough autonomy to act independently when doing so will further the overall objective. No general can know everything that's going on, all the time. Good generals recognize that limitation and minimize its impact while at the same time improving the effectiveness of the entire organization. The bottom line is that it may be a tiny group of soldiers acting independently which turns the tide and wins the war. But of course, it's the general who is congratulated and adored for the victory. If Air Canada's employees would prefer to be told what they're going to do, about what we're going to have to give up or do better to succeed, I have no doubt that we'll get it. Personally, I would prefer to have more say in how things turn out. The way to do that is to make the necessary changes ourselves, and force others to comply with our vision. Air Canada's employees know that our company must alter course, that it must find a new way to do business. We absolutely, positively, 100% cannot do that by staying the same and expecting others in our organization to change. Do we for one moment, in our wildest dreams, think that we can force management to change while employees carry on with our current mindset? No. The only power we have over any of that is to change ourselves, the way we think, and the way we do things. As I said to another poster below, would you like to force change on our management? Would you like to be the force that drives the enterprise and truly brings about a new way to do business? Then here's how you do it: you present the shareholders and creditors with a new business plan endorsed by the employees that will generate profit and secure their loans. Do that, and the people who pull the strings of management will bring them right into line. Best wishes, neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Dragondude, Those are good arguments and I don't disagree with them. But they're not the only arguments nor are they necessarily the way to deal with fundamental change. Please remember, the leaders of Chrysler and Continental, as fine as they were, did not bring about a revolution in thinking within their organizations. They certainly grappled with some major difficulties, but in the end their organizations worked, thought and produced in the same way they did before, just more profitably. And because they did not change those fundamental things, the inevitable happened: a few years down the road and they're back in the soup. Air Canada is faced with a different situation. For us, the _industry_ has changed, the _market_ has changed, the world in which we operate has changed. It's not just a question of producing our mini-van at a lower cost. We have to re-invent the wheel AND the way we produce it. When you read about history, it's inevitably about the generals because in war they become the focus. But what history also teaches is that small groups of people operating independently in a focused way and at the right moment in time can achieve remarkable things. And speaking of generals, smart ones empower smaller groups under their command with enough autonomy to act independently when doing so will further the overall objective. No general can know everything that's going on, all the time. Good generals recognize that limitation and minimize its impact while at the same time improving the effectiveness of the entire organization. The bottom line is that it may be a tiny group of soldiers acting independently which turns the tide and wins the war. But of course, it's the general who is congratulated and adored for the victory. If Air Canada's employees would prefer to be told what they're going to do, about what we're going to have to give up or do better to succeed, I have no doubt that we'll get it. Personally, I would prefer to have more say in how things turn out. The way to do that is to make the necessary changes ourselves, and force others to comply with our vision. Air Canada's employees know that our company must alter course, that it must find a new way to do business. We absolutely, positively, 100% cannot do that by staying the same and expecting others in our organization to change. Do we for one moment, in our wildest dreams, think that we can force management to change while employees carry on with our current mindset? No. The only power we have over any of that is to change ourselves, the way we think, and the way we do things. As I said to another poster below, would you like to force change on our management? Would you like to be the force that drives the enterprise and truly brings about a new way to do business? Then here's how you do it: you present the shareholders and creditors with a new business plan endorsed by the employees that will generate profit and secure their loans. Do that, and the people who pull the strings of management will bring them right into line. Best wishes, neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest QFE Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Air Canada Jazz spent 15 MILLON DOLLARS in 2002 for French lessons that very few F/As were interested in. We could cut our losses by 17% immediatly by dropping these courses. If the feds want french they can pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest blizzard Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Starting Sept 2001, management took a one year pay cut. 3.5% for most, up to 10% for executive management. The idea of this was to show that we will cut first, and then hopefully the unions will join in on the cuts. What happened? The unions held firm and laughed at management. We already took our cut, now it's your turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre Garneau Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 A while back, perhaps during the Onex 'thing', one prominent Liberal (emphatically) said that "there will be nine moons in the sky before Air Canada would be allowed to go out of business." That should be of some comfort, until you read that the Hubble telescope is discovering at least as many moons on a daily basis. That said ,it would be interesting to find out what our next PM's take is on all this. Should Canada have a National carrier? Would re-regulation be in the best interest of the industry in the long term? Is Paul 'Canada Steamship Lines' Martin available for comment? Best regards, PG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I just heard the feds are going to announce a $650,000,000.00 expenditure today. There intention is to bring french to the west. In the meantime Princess M Hospital is going to see 4400 fewer cancer patients this year due to a 20 million dollar budget shortfall. In the meantime the feds plan to bring in another 300,000 immigrants this year to support their re-election bid. Who's going to pay for their health care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 B.S! Yes management to a 3.5 cut, but that has since been returned and then some! I used to be in the management ranks but opted to return to the union ranks.The problem of 26 VP's and the multitude of middle and upper middle management still exists. As I stated, the pyramid is inverted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I should also mention, that there is a huge difference between a 3.5% wage cut and a 35% wage cut they are asking from us.Get real! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest blizzard Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Yeah, well you probably make 35% more than I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 excellent idea. all employees should match the sacrifice that managment initiated. 3 1/2 percent in exchange for service charges on pass travel for myself and my family - for one year. excellent idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 are you a grown up blizzard? yes please get real blizzard. 35% more? also, who's responsibility is it, the choices you have made in life and the remuneration commensurate with those decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 we do not live in russia,... yet. also, who's responsibility is it, the choices you have made in life and the remuneration commensurate with those decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Blizzard, as an AME I make about 67000 per annum, not a huge amount, considering the training, education, and working conditions I must endure, also not to mention the lives that I am responsible for every time I release an aircraft, the only other people who would pay a higher price because of a serious error are the good folks in the flight deck.If you are not happy with my wage, do what is required to make my or any other person of higher renumeration wage. FYI, I feel I am still under paid, but then again don't we all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest blizzard Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Yeah, well I make $53K to authorize you to go beyond the published OEM limits. That means my ass is more on the line than yours if I screw up. You can just say you did what I told you to. I did 4 years of university to get where I am. Of training, education and working conditions, probably the only one you have more difficult than me is working conditions. Of course I don't have the luxury of watching the clock for coffee break and lunch time. I guess you don't make 35% more than me, but it's still 14K plus overtime more. Do you think you have more responsibility than I do for releasing a safe aircraft? Or should our remuneration be comparable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.