Mitch Cronin Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Back in June of 2001 I sent an e-mail to Mr. Milton... I never got a response. I had heard, and I've since heard, folks here say that they've always recieved responses to their e-mails to him, so I thought I must have been in one of my "off" writing days... Sometimes I write crap, I know that. But... I just had a look and it's not that bad, and it highlights one of the chief reasons (imo) that AC is doing so poorly at present. That being management's near total abandonment of all things Blue, regardless of value. Anyway, just for fun, here's what I wrote... you tell me, was it crap that deserved no response? Hello Mr. Milton, I'm an aircraft mechanic employed by you. I'd like to start off by stating that, although I share the frustration of my fellow ex-CDN employees at the lengthy and complicated process of this merger, I am happy to be working for Air Canada. 16 years ago I was offered a job at AC and I turned it down because I thought I wanted to work on smaller aircraft... After experiencing some frustration at the inability to find any smaller outfits in need of mechanics I ended up accepting a job at Wardair and you know the story from there. Now to the point of my message: Since the beginning of this merger, it has been obvious to some of us that there are many inefficiencies within the machinery at Air Canada that are costing us, in both time and money. I'm not prepared to itemize any at the moment, but I feel we ought to have some kind of suggestion program in place to help to identify and correct some sources of wasted money and/or inefficient practices. I'm aware of the need to adopt a common method where there were differences between the red and the blue way of doing things; and I'm likewise aware, that in almost all cases, the AC way has been (or very soon will be) the chosen method. I understand that this is happening in part, because it was red who took over blue, and in part because there are fewer of us to train/adapt to the different methods. Unfortunately, in so doing, there are many very cost efficient methods and practices that are being tossed aside. We had, until the time of the merger, a program in place where a suggestion that would save money was evaluated for it's ability to cut costs and if it was deemed legitimate, it was then implemented. (I think it was called "Awards Plus"?) The person(s) responsible for the suggestion were then awarded with some percentage of the projected savings. (actually, I believe the award was in points of some kind toward a purchase at one of several retail stores) The results of that program, coupled with many years of all of CAIL's employees being acutely aware of the need to cut costs, provided some very certain benefits. Since Air Canada is definitely not swimming in cash, do you think there is a chance such a program could be adopted now? I doubt this is the first time you've heard of it, but perhaps in your obvious concerns for the bigger picture, you may have lost sight of the effect of multiplying nickels and dimes...so to speak? Sincerely, Mitch Cronin YYZ AE1 mcronin@sympatico.ca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimer V Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Air Canada had the same program, i believe if a suggestion was accepted the employee recieved 10% of the saving.It was ended for some reason.Who know's anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Hi Mitch, I sure wouldn't take it personally that you didn't get a reply. I consider it a minor miracle that _anyone_ gets a reply from our CEO via email. And I'm sure there will be messages such as yours that fall through the cracks. I know a lot of people in the past have heard back promptly from Mr. Milton, even recently during this crisis; but I'm sure there must be times when his agenda simply precludes answering. It's also possible that since you sent your email to him, Mr. Milton has consciously decided to make himself more accessible to the employees. (I'm just speculating, of course.) I wouldn't take your lack of a response as a rejection of either your writing or your idea. Why not try sending another message and see what happens? Come what may, you'll always have us to bounce your ideas off! neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idle Thrust Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 I cannot remember the "party line" reason for the termination of the Air Canada suggestion program but it was sad to see it go, such things being the mark of a truly progressive company. Some cynics had it that there were two possible reasons: 1. Pilots had an unfair advantage since any fuel-saving suggestions had an inordinately large dollar saving factor. And we could not tolerate that! 2. Too many suggestions just pointed out things that management should have already thought of. Whatever the reason, it's too bad we don't have such a system in place now (assuming someone would listen) - there's a lot of talent around which could save some of RM's 650M demand. IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sustainable Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 As I remember the Canadian program, the vast majority of cost savings ideas came from the AME's. I think there were two reasons for this the first being that the maintenance dept. managers took a keen interest in the advocacy part of the equation and the other being that people who fidget with things all day long develop a natural tendency to look for a easier, simpler, more convenient or economical way of performing tasks. I avidly read the solutions generated by the department and as Mitch states, there was tonnes of cash and time saved by the suggestions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted April 8, 2003 Author Share Posted April 8, 2003 Well, thanks Neo... It wasn't so much the lack of a response that I wanted to point to, as it was the lack of any apparent concern for the points I mentioned. And perhaps the lack of response demonstrates that to some degree? It also could simply be that he doesn't see a mechanic as being someone worth responding to? But no worries, I didn't take it nearly as personally as I do our present situation! I've watched as AC has wasted away bags of money by trashing better, more efficient, more cost effective methods than are in place. As have we all. And no one in management that I've seen, has shown any interest in changing anything. Those who once did have had their knuckles rapped and now they're silent too. The management that allowed that to happen is responsible for the mess we're in. The management at AC -- from Robert Milton on down to anyone who either allowed or insisted on abandoning better ideas without so much as a look! -- needs some serious routing because they've failed miserably in protecting the best interests of their/our company. It appears that in many cases they allowed their ego's to heavily influence their decisions. As a result, many cost saving advantages have been lost... How much money has been wasted by that alone is anyone's guess, but it ain't small potatoes. And now an awful lot of people are receiving lay-off notices because whoever was minding the store was too arrogant to pay attention. While all these calls for unionized employees to "take a haircut" are heard, I want you all to hear that - A : Many of us are not overpaid, and B : A lot of us have tried very hard to correct things, to reduce waste, to improve efficiency, only to be stonewalled by some level of management saying "That's not how we do things at Air Canada". I've heard a lot about how great Robert Milton's ideas are... Maybe he's a champ, or maybe he's a chump, whichever the case, his team has failed miserably, now he'd better take some heat for being the coach and find some fixes that involve his team. <cya>all of the above is just my opinion.</cya> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipped Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Thanks Mitch. I have been trying to say the same things for years now. Keep digging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orange Gloves Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 (assuming someone would listen) Hello IT, glad to see you’re still around here. I think you hit the nail on the head. There are literally hundreds of “little things” that, on there own, look insignificant but if adopted as an SOP over time would yield significant savings. Or, at very least deliver better customer service. One simple example, this one makes me nuts. A320’s consistently have load plans issued with the P (priority) bags and the CNX (connection) bags planned in different holds. If this load plan is followed, more of something (time, staff, equipment) is required. This becomes a “real” issue at the arrival station when the flight is late. If the P and CNX bags were side by side in a hold, they could be off the A/C and on the roll within 5 minutes of wheel stop. Accomplished by only 2 staff (nonstandard staffing but it often happens), 1 container loader and 1 baggage tractor. If these containers are in different holds, to obtain this same level of performance, 4 staff, 2 container loaders and 2 baggage tractors are required. Not everyone is comfortable with changing the load (non-SOP) and rarely is there the luxury of time to phone the Load Agent (SOP) on every change needed. Now imagine what happens on a 767 or an A340 or a 747. The problem is not the load card in my hand; I now only treat it as an inventory of what to expect. It’s trying to get the “profile” of the “automated” load plan changed. This is only very simple example of many, yet try and get a change implemented. Perhaps there is now a sense of urgency in saving money and a culture of “listening” to those who do the job can grow. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.