DEFCON Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 "The irony of this is that everyone says we have to reduce our numbers when Robert Milton specifically came out and said he didn't want to do that. He wants to EXPAND the airline by making the existing staff more efficient." RM has said a lot of things that are now proven to be contrary to reality. He's the Captain and has steered the ship to its present point in space. He's done some good things for sure however, he's also the one that's approved the labour contracts now considered to be "the problem". Perhaps "the problem" starts with RM's visions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lupin Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Do you really think the westjet model will break?? They have a good business plan,public support,a low cost structure.Everything seems to be going decently well at Westjet.The only thing I can think of that could hinder their growt might be unionisation.Even Westjet is not immune to unions.For the time being the wages are reasonable,there is a great profit sharing plan and the company is making good profits so employees are probably happy.The chances of getting a union in there are slim.Specially if the employees are treated fairly.No real need for a union. But as the company grows it will encounter more growing pains and probably will become unionised at some point.(southwest,westjet's model is unionised) As for the guys at jetsgo.... well they really are taking the industry back by paying their own training up front like that.They deserve to lose every single cent of their money if jetsgo goes bellyup!!! lupin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Hmmmm, now there's a thought. If everyone agrees we have too many people in the people per plane ratio, and RM prefers to grow us into efficiency, wouldn't that mean he oughta be buying a whole pack of new airplanes? And we all know that can't happen, so what's he on about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfhunter Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Ooooch!… Maybe some of them got caught in the no jet, no EFIS, no FMS barrier many seem so fond of. I say hats off to them and best of luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Mitch I can't believe any union would negotiate any change to any collective agreement without first demanding amongst other things, a change in leadership from the top down. To not do so much like a gov bailout, would be akin to throwing good money after bad. I believe RM may to some degree be a victim of the Canadian experience. However, the management group that he alone is responsible for has failed the corp in a miserable fashion. They have failed at that which is an essential component of their job description. That is, to manage! Over the years AC has cultured a management group that if disected would demonstrate strict adherence to the "Peter Principal". Things are so bad at AC that I almost believe it would take the second coming of JC to sort it all out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kevbert Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Regulating isn't the solution. Unfortunately what we are seeing is a shift in the marketplace where pilots are going to be paid what the marketplace is willing to pay. My wife is a CA (chartered accountant). She has a four year undergraduate degree, a master's degree (two more years), and wrote the UFE - an exam with a 40-50% failure rate. She articled for three years where including her overtime she in effect earned less than minimum wage. During the month of December this past year she got one day off and has already worked enough overtime this year to earn another week of holidays. Her job, like a pilot, requires a lot of training. She has to take the equivalent of one university level course a year and must remain current on all accounting and tax issues. With the changes in the security laws if she signs a set of financial statements which are false or the company goes under, she could go to prison, nothing to say less of the pensions and pay that people would lose. She job, like that of a pilot, has a lot of responsibility attached to it. She definitely makes less than a pilot and sure as hell works a lot more. But she is paid what the market is willing to pay. She also decided that she wanted to become an accountant. There is no body saying "you can't become an accountant" but there are natural barriers to becoming one. If you don't like all the schooling, overtime, and stress, then do something else. Pilots are going to have to do the same thing - if you want to work hard and get paid what the market will eventually determine it is worth (and I think it is going to be equivalent to any other professional), then go for it. If not, then people will drop out and the workforce will balance itself out. Unfortunately what this means to the pilot community is the years of being able to drive up salaries have ended - the market is finally dictating what a pilot is worth. Like or it, it's the way it is going to be. Regulations aren't going to solve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 My understanding Mitch is that there are so many power by the hour airplanes out there that you could start up a whole new airline for next to nothing. I have no idea if that is in the back of Milton's mind or not but if he wants to grow the airline there is plenty of cheap metal available. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lupin Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 re Defcon just playing devils advocate here... but wouldn't we have the same reaction (leader must go)if any other ceo would have come up during the boom (95-99)years and asked us for pay cuts or concessions of any sort?? It certainly would not have been seen as visionary or innovative!!We would have striked for such demands!!Lets be realistic... if the treat of bankrupcy wasn't there none of the unions would be considering giving back one cent!!! Although I don't agree with all the decision being taken at AC,I think Milton is actually bringing us in the right direction.What are we acusing him of?Mismanagement?All the airlines of america are struggling or declaring chap11....we seem to be in a somewhat better shape and he is trying to get us back on track.Lets give RM some credit for outperforming most us airlines in the last few painful years. Everyone will take a hit....either its a layoff,paycuts,change to the work conditions evryone will have to do his part.And in saying that....I would have way more respect for milton if HE took a large paycut to show us we are all in this together!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Yikes, where on earth would he find bums to fill that metal? Not here any time soon I think. That can't be the plan. At least not the near term plan. .... Is there any plan I wonder? As they might say in NASCAR, Trouble! Robert Milton got into the wall coming off turn 3 and he's struggling to gather it up... the caution is out... can't see yet how bad he's damaged it... That could spell the end of his day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Labtec Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Flaps: I have colleagues at your company and I am well aware of exactly what you make. Your company model is predicated upon growth. No Growth=No profit share. Do you fundamentally believe in the foundation of the capitalist model? In order for it to work you need perpetual growth. That just isn't realistic. It works for a time and then you can't grow any more. On a personal note I do feel like you have betrayed the profession by working for what you do. It may be OK for you and you may be happy but I look at the broader profession and our collective responsibility to it. Lawyers do this and so do Doctors; they have associations that like the CBA and the CMA that lobby on their behalf. Pilots are basically a bunch of whores willing to justify their crappy working conditions, crappy pay, unsafe aircraft, flying fatigued etc...to get "the time." It hasn't changed from the days I flew in the Arctic. There is always someone who will fly for less, fly overloaded, fly to below minimums. The low wages at Jetsgo and WJ are just another expression of that "Can do" attitude that unscrupulous employers thrive upon. This attitude is endemic in this industry. Why? Because of the perceived prestige of sitting in the left seat of a big jet, the awe and wonder flight engenders in those that are driven to become pilots at any cost, and the perception that this is an exciting profession and that if you just hang in their your ship will roll in. When I did the hiring at a former company I elected to offer employment to a pilot that came highly recommended. We worked on average about 12 days per thirty. The company had a profit sharing plan, full medical and dental coverage, 3 weeks vacation to start, and a very attractive compensation package. The guy turned me down. Why? Because he wanted to fly a bigger plane! He elected to take a job where he would earn a wage that was 25% of what we offered! Typical pilot. He's still in the business. He has never made any money. He's 31 and he can't afford to buy his own home. He has been flying for 9 years! What lawyer or doctor practices for 9 years and can't afford to buy a house to live in? You are "PO'd" well so am I and a lot of others that think like me. A great profession that has a rich history is being destroyed by the very people that should be hell bent on protecting its lifestyle, remuneration and working conditions. Maybe I am a dinosaur, but when I look at the money, the education, the training, the experience that I required to be in a position to be hired by AC I believe that it is worth more than the embarassing remuneration the lo-coster's work for in Canada. A YYZ city worker driving a garbabe truck makes more than a CanJet or WJ F/O!!! If you think that's ok I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I value my skills and the work that I do. I just happen to think that those skills and that work are worth more than you do. Maybe they are not. Maybe the garbage truck driver should continue to make more than you do. Who knows? LABTEC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Labtec Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Flaps: I have colleagues at your company and I am well aware of exactly what you make. Your company model is predicated upon growth. No Growth=No profit share. Do you fundamentally believe in the foundation of the capitalist model? In order for it to work you need perpetual growth. That just isn't realistic. It works for a time and then you can't grow any more. On a personal note I do feel like you have betrayed the profession by working for what you do. It may be OK for you and you may be happy but I look at the broader profession and our collective responsibility to it. Lawyers do this and so do Doctors; they have associations that like the CBA and the CMA that lobby on their behalf. Pilots are basically a bunch of whores willing to justify their crappy working conditions, crappy pay, unsafe aircraft, flying fatigued etc...to get "the time." It hasn't changed from the days I flew in the Arctic. There is always someone who will fly for less, fly overloaded, fly to below minimums. The low wages at Jetsgo and WJ are just another expression of that "Can do" attitude that unscrupulous employers thrive upon. This attitude is endemic in this industry. Why? Because of the perceived prestige of sitting in the left seat of a big jet, the awe and wonder flight engenders in those that are driven to become pilots at any cost, and the perception that this is an exciting profession and that if you just hang in their your ship will roll in. When I did the hiring at a former company I elected to offer employment to a pilot that came highly recommended. We worked on average about 12 days per thirty. The company had a profit sharing plan, full medical and dental coverage, 3 weeks vacation to start, and a very attractive compensation package. The guy turned me down. Why? Because he wanted to fly a bigger plane! He elected to take a job where he would earn a wage that was 25% of what we offered! Typical pilot. He's still in the business. He has never made any money. He's 31 and he can't afford to buy his own home. He has been flying for 9 years! What lawyer or doctor practices for 9 years and can't afford to buy a house to live in? You are "PO'd" well so am I and a lot of others that think like me. A great profession that has a rich history is being destroyed by the very people that should be hell bent on protecting its lifestyle, remuneration and working conditions. Maybe I am a dinosaur, but when I look at the money, the education, the training, the experience that I required to be in a position to be hired by AC I believe that it is worth more than the embarassing remuneration the lo-coster's work for in Canada. A YYZ city worker driving a garbabe truck makes more than a CanJet or WJ F/O!!! If you think that's ok I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I value my skills and the work that I do. I just happen to think that those skills and that work are worth more than you do. Maybe they are not. Maybe the garbage truck driver should continue to make more than you do. Who knows? LABTEC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Check out the airlines quarterly performance over the last ten years and then look at the rise in employee wages, benefits and working conditions etc. What you'll note is while the corp languished the employee recieved an ever larger piece of a shrinking pie. Now what kind of business operates like that? Not that it's a business but, the gov is the only entity that comes to my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 WJ is growing at a rapid rate and they seem to be able to keep filling their airplanes. If Milton wanted to grow ZIP I suppose that if it works for WJ it should work for ZIP. It sounds ok in theory, but in practice, who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest terrier Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I am not that little and I don't think I'm bothersome. Don't kick me away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Now Mitch, you usually seem to be a level headed guy but... Two posts above, you say that even if RM got the efficiencies he needs, he wouldn't have the metal to move. Then, when GDR says the metal is available cheap, you ask where the bums will come from. It seems like you're ignoring the obvious on purpose or you have a very short memory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 You do what you need to do and we'll do what we need to do. Geyd ouda heah, pooch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest terrier Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I must fly a different Air Canada to you, I get lousy service and cramped seating on their overseas flights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 >> he's also the one that's approved the labour contracts now considered to be "the problem". Perhaps "the problem" starts with RM's visions! My memory may be failing me here, but it seems to me that RM only agreed to the last couple of contracts under pretty severe pressure. Two contracts ago, he pushed back a little too hard, as I recall. During the last negots our customers were flocking to the competition during probably the busiest summer of our history. I don't think he had much choice but to settle where we were. And all he did was accept the arbitrator's recommendations. At the time he saw the threat of WJ, thus ZIP rules, but it might have been a bit much to have expected him to forsee Sept 11, the stock market plummet AND the Gulf War. How far is "vision" supposed to see? And who might have had more... the terrorist leader of the Taliban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Hi Inchman, If Robert Milton is serious about turning us around the way he has stated, what has stopped him from cutting his salary substantially, perhaps completely, for an extended period? You must hear, as I do, that employees across the board are looking to Robert for a sign. What is stopping him today? On another note, what is your opinion, with respect to our middle management numbers, the project pilots, the structure, the affectivity and productivity of that structure and some of the holy cows and small empires being protected that we employees here so much about? Finally, who should lead this initiative in your opinion, CEO or employee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 You're really hanging me out here, Dragon. I'm one of only about 3 people on the board who use identifiable handles. But I think it's important to talk about it. I'm not sure why RM has not initiated a salary cut for himself. I agree that it would be a poignant gesture... although I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. Just speculating here but maybe it's because he's not asking for money from the employees... if we can do it with efficiencies, then we don't have to take a pay cut. I admit it would be difficult to meet the need with efficiencies alone, but if the unions come up with a plan that would meet the need, he has indicated that that would be fine and he would find the flying to do to keep us all busy. (He did say this before the war and sars, though.) I have been a regular line guy, a project pilot, a check pilot and a lower-middle manager. In my experience, using pilots for many of these jobs is quite valuable. Many project pilots more than pay for their salary by saving money and time by bringing their experience to the job. In addition, pilots (both project and management) don't (often) come out with unworkable solutions or procedures, requiring a return to the drawing board, or lack of completion by the line staff. I don't think IFS has had the same success by having to hire management people from outside the rank and file. How could someone create policy if they haven't ever done the the job? But the IFS contract discourages line people from effectively entering management positions. I think the Flight Ops way is much better. We often hear about empire building, but, frankly, I don't often see many good examples provided by people other than swipes made with little or no research. I'm not saying that there isn't waste, though, and I expect the cuts to middle management that has occurred over the past couple of years to continue. There has also been a reduction in the number of pilots being used in management positions over the past couple of years. In many cases project pilots bring experience from other fields that makes them more valuable than simply "a guy off the line". Take, for example, the case of a project pilot who brings computer skills to the job (I don't know who that would be!). A programmer/pilot's knowledge of flight ops issues from licencing to the contract would allow them to write programs with only minor consultation with end users. When an IBM person starts a project it usually results in many hours of consulting and meetings with end users. This eats up hundreds of man hours even before a solution can even be documented. And they still might get it wrong... believe me. By using someone who knows both businesses, the proper solution is delivered faster and with less waste. This applies in more areas than computers, too. Sorta like a doctor who's also an engineer being able to design an artificial heart. As far as initiative goes, I think we're all adults, we all know there's a problem and we should all take the initiative. If you have teenage kids and you were to lose your job tomorrow, would you expect them to wait for you to set a visible example before they curtailed their spending or offered ways to save money around the house? Or would you expect them to know it is in their best interest to take the measures necessary to protect the homefront? One more thing... we, the employees, have the greatest potential loss here. RM has more financial means than most of us and will probably have a new job within a few months if the company doesn't survive (although I honestly believe he really wants it to survive). Most of us can't say the same. So, we better start doing something about protecting it. Our future is shrinking at the rate of 2 million bucks a day and we're waiting for someone else with less stake to make a move... something wrong with that strategy, IMO. If you've made it this far, thanks for reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Hey we know the guys like you who got in on the ground floor are doing well - how about the new guys?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Geminoid Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 "I don't think IFS has had the same success by having to hire management people from outside the rank and file. How could someone create policy if they haven't ever done the the job? But the IFS contract discourages line people from effectively entering management positions." IFS didn't "have" to hire management outside the company....they chose to. Many qualified, interested people were ignored and overlooked in the interests of "fresh blood." I think the resulting distrust and lack of respect for IFS management speaks for their decision. And...look at the high turnover rate in IFS management (YYZ anyway.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I read to the end, with interest, Hangin you out? Yes, in retrospect I suppose I did. I thought about that after I clicked on the send icon and I would have accepted if you had decided to decline. However, you are well placed within AC, You are a stand up guy and well respected. I was interested in your perspective. So, to the pay cut [RMs]. As with you, it is of little consequence to me as well. I feel strongly however that such a gesture would be perceived as a positive for a few reasons. I believe this would send an unmistakable message to an employee group where many feel betrayed. It would signal a genuine feeling of urgency to many employees and most of all, it would show an example, either rightly or wrongly, that many, many employees are saying they would respond to, IMO. Project pilots. I would have to agree with your synopsis. As you state, the rhetoric flies furious lately and I do not wish to add uninformed drivel. However, though I believe what you say to be correct, Flight Ops speaking, I am in majority company I believe when I say that I do not believe AC Flt Ops is running anywhere near as lean as Captain G alluded. Though I believe that the pilots, with contractual restraints contribute to that in many ways, I cannot believe that the manpower within our management structure is commensurate with either fleet, size or circumstance unique to Air Canada. You were at the meeting, you could feel the disappointment when claims were made about the efficiencies of AC FLT OPS. Let me stress once again, I am not saying that RG’s claim is inaccurate, though personally, I strongly believe it is. If it is correct, you would think it an easy misunderstanding to illuminate and clarity. Our current challenge would attract a great amount of credibility should this question have a more clear and concise transparency for all pilots to examine,. Again, IMO. As to my last question, ” Finally, who should lead this initiative in your opinion, CEO or employee?” Yes, your response is a true story. I suppose the real trick however, is to find a way for all of us to see the same target at the same time and so far, I do not get the feeling we all are. I hope too that we do soon. Cheers d Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I read to the end, with interest, Hangin you out? Yes, in retrospect I suppose I did. I thought about that after I clicked on the send icon and I would have accepted if you had decided to decline. However, you are well placed within AC, You are a stand up guy and well respected. I was interested in your perspective. So, to the pay cut [RM's]. As with you, it is of little consequence to me as well. I feel strongly however that such a gesture would be perceived as a positive for a few reasons. I believe this would send an unmistakable message to an employee group where many feel betrayed. It would signal a genuine feeling of urgency to many employees and most of all, it would show an example, either rightly or wrongly, that many, many employees are saying they would respond to, IMO. Project pilots. I would have to agree with your synopsis. As you state, the rhetoric flies furious lately and I do not wish to add uninformed drivel. However, though I believe what you say to be correct, Flight Ops speaking, I am in majority company I believe when I say that I do not believe AC Flt Ops is running anywhere near as lean as Captain G alluded. Though I believe that the pilots, with contractual restraints contribute to that in many ways, I cannot believe that the manpower within our management structure is commensurate with either fleet, size or circumstance unique to Air Canada. You were at the meeting, you could feel the disappointment when claims were made about the efficiencies of AC FLT OPS. Let me stress once again, I am not saying that RG’s claim is inaccurate, though personally, I strongly believe it is. If it is correct, you would think it an easy misunderstanding to illuminate and clarify. Our current challenge would attract a much great credibility should this question have a more clear and concise transparency for all pilots to examine,. Again, IMO. As to my last question, ” Finally, who should lead this initiative in your opinion, CEO or employee?” Yes, your response is a true story. I suppose the real trick however, is to find a way for all of us to see the same target at the same time and so far, I do not get the feeling we all are. I hope too that we do soon. Cheers comrade dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lupin Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I understand what you are saying but why were you saying we need to get rid of milton?? The raises we got in all those years were given to us because that is what the market was paying at the time!!Air Canada did not have much choice but to give us what we wanted! So why is it that Milton must go??I would just like to see your reasoning behind your request. Lupin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.