Homerun -productivity numbers..

[buzz]

Still can't add to the string, sorry Homerun.

A comment on your fleet numbers: if they came from ACPA's submission to Mort then they include those famous "firm orders" that never have or will see the apron.

The CAIL group always submitted airframes on the property, not fairytales, and when calculating employees, used bums in seats, not bid awards and QPOS.

[Guest Bat]

Buzz, Buzz, Buzz..

"Bums in seats" interesting choice of words. Also interesting is the resultant loss of progression in a growing company trying to cope with training backlog vs a "FAT on bums" shop whose realistic progression would have been regression or stagnation.

Have a look at EAB-35 and Bid 00-01. CDN had 171 more bums than seats while AC was 58 short. Thank your lucky stars nobody stopped the music at this point.

Rather than use your smoke and mirrors ASM approach, how about some straight math. Using the Pilot's per Aircraft requirement from 00-01 and your fleet numbers, we see that you had 859 seats for 1258 bums. Use the average pilot's per aircraft between EAB-35 & 00-01 if you like: 997 seats, short 261 bumrests.

How's is it that you require more bums/bird than another? Without exception, CAIL showed more PPA than AC in all seats on all aircraft. Please no ASM fantasy lecture.

Don't stay up too late!

B

[Guest Goldberg]

well said.........

isn't it strange how quiet those CDN boosters are when the FACTS are presented...... let's face facts.......CDN went t.u. because they were fat, fat, fat......... end of story...... but let's blame A.C. for their demise..........

sad thing is....... we are stuck with their cancer, and it looks to be fatal........

[Guest Bat]

Goldberg:

When Fantasy collides with Reality, the result is not pretty.

B

[Guest Starman]

CDN had better aircraft utilization, hence more pilots per aircraft.

CDN had an overall lower cost structure. There are many written references to it from reputable sources, some quoted on posts today.

However, CDN's yield was lower than AC and the yield generated was not sufficient to sustain profitability.

AC's management, on the other hand, blew the available synergy of the merger in not proceeding with the best practices of both companies going forward. For example, CDN had flight attendant preferential bidding, and AC had "staff to load". Combine the two and you'd have much more productivity from the F/A's, and you wouldn't have them using the cost saving numbers from preferential bidding in todays TA.

[dragon]

Starman,

Not that any of this matters, but; 720 days ago, you are RM. WRT

"Combine the two and you'd have much more productivity from the F/A's, and you wouldn't have them using the cost saving numbers from preferential bidding in todays TA."

I am listening...

[Guest Marion Vanderlubbe]

I don't have access to your bid information, but I do know that the bids you refer to were produced under the auspices of Air Canada. One could argue that given the changes in fleet structure Air Canada was undergoing, there may well be a bias toward one group at the expense of the other.One could also argue that you were bidding on airplanes that didn't exist then, now or at any time. Maybe somebody could produce a comparison of the last bids put out by the independant companies. Failing that, I think i will stick to the analysis provided by an impartial and independant third party.

[Guest Starman]

I'm not sure I understand your question, but three months ago I predicted that the flight attendant group would use cost savings in transitioning from line bidding to preferential bidding in accounting for their contribution to a restructuring arrangement. Competent management would have analysed each sector of each company during the merger in order to proceed with the best practices of both in trying to reduce costs and maximize revenue after the merger. Air Canada management simply increased CDN's cost structure to match AC and they are now trying to reduce costs through the CCAA process. I'm not saying that CCAA would not have been necessary anyway, but the flight attendant situation is a good example of where pro-active management would have been preferable for every stakeholder of AC.

The flight attendant TA shows a pay reduction of only 3.5% because they are using the 10% improvement in productivity available through preferential bidding as part of their contribution to cost savings. This means that every flight attendant hired since the merger was only hired because of the inefficiency of line bidding. Now they're being laid off, and CUPE takes credit for the cost saving. Give me a break!

[Homerun]

As I stated in my post , the fleet numbers are ALPA's. I used those numbers because the same tired line always gets trotted out, and you didn't let me down. Wouldn't want to go confusing anyone with the facts now!

[Homerun]

Starman please read my post. I'm not disputing that Canadian had a lower casm than AC, that's a fact. It is however also a fact that Canadian's total costs were higher than it's revenues. You can talk about yield all you want, but the fact is CAI's network was too big, hence its coststohigh and it lost money. The pilot costs are only a very small part of the casm equation. I've proven to you that CAI had almost 3 pilots more per aircraft than AC. That' about 20% more per plane. AC had many more widebodies so that stat is even worse than it appears. AC was averaging 10.8 hours per day for the fleet. So unless CAI averaged over 13 hours per day ( highly unlikely given that over 50% of the fleet was 737 doing primarily shorthaul), than AC pilot contract was more efficient. If you can find Canadians average aircraft utilization from an old annual report and prove me wrong, then Iwill be the first to admit it.