Guest Jiminy Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Air Canada to exploit niche overseas markets, considers Tehran and Beirut Canadian Press Tuesday, November 09, 2004 NEW YORK (CP) - Air Canada is looking to expand its international operations with flights to "niche markets" such as Tehran and Beirut, the airline's chairman and CEO told financial analysts Tuesday. "There are a lot of Iranians in the U.S. and Canada, there are a lot of Lebanese in North America," Robert Milton told an investor conference. "We intend to go, just like Lufthansa does, just like KLM does, just like Air France does. We're not talking about doing anything radical, but very different for a North American carrier." Air Canada emerged from creditor protection earlier this year after 18 months. The airline cut roughly $2 billion in annual operating costs as part of its renewal that saw Air Canada become a leaner and more efficient operation. Milton said the cost reductions have opened up new possibilities for the airline to return to destinations that would have been unprofitable before the restructuring. The airline chief pointed to the resumption of flights between Toronto and Rome next summer as an example. Air Canada said last month it expects to report quarterly operating income of $235 million, up from $17 million a year ago. However, this number excludes reorganization and restructuring costs, which Milton has said represent a "significant amount." Air Canada still faces challenges as the price of oil flirts with record highs. The airline has said each sustained $1 US increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the airline $30 million Cdn in annual fuel expenses. ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. (TSX:ACE.B TSX:ACE.RV), Air Canada's holding company created as part of the restructuring, is scheduled to release its quarterly financial statements by Nov. 15. The airline's class-B shares were up 89 cents at $24.85 on the Toronto stock market, while the restricted voting shares were up 81 cents at $24.81. © The Canadian Press 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 I have heard about 40 new destinations Air Canada is supposed to be starting, but only about a dozen international aircraft the airline is supposed to be acquiring in the short to mid term. I wonder if this Beirut and Tehran stuff is just a smoke screen for the destinations the carrier intends to launch. I don't even think we have a bilateral with Iran, so how imminent can that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest directlaw Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 I don't know much about bilateral agreements but I do know Mr. Milton wants ACPA to allow a wet lease operation of widebody aircraft for " trial routes". Not a lot of info out there but it looks like they want to farm out the "trail" flying. Kind of like the AC cargo. And I was hoping our relationship with him might improve now that the stress and pressures of CCAA are behind us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 I have heard about 40 new destinations Air Canada is supposed to be starting, but only about a dozen international aircraft the airline is supposed to be acquiring in the short to mid term. I wonder if this Beirut and Tehran stuff is just a smoke screen for the destinations the carrier intends to launch. I don't even think we have a bilateral with Iran, so how imminent can that be? Quite right, nothing in place for Iran but that can change overnight. Perhaps talks are ongoing at this moment. Bilateral Air Agreements Additional information http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/middle_east/i...elations-en.asp Canadian-Iranian diplomatic relations date from 1955, with a Canadian diplomatic mission being established in Tehran in 1959. The mission was raised to Embassy status in 1961. In January 1980, the Canadian Embassy in Tehran was closed. Between 1980 and 1988, Canada and Iran did not maintain normal diplomatic relations, although relations were not formally severed. In 1988, Canada and Iran agreed to resume normal diplomatic relations. Since 1996, Canadian political relations with Iran have been governed by the policy of controlled engagement. Our approach is regularly reviewed and the policy of controlled engagement is modified in light of these reviews. Most recently, Canada's approach to Iran was altered to lift the bar on Ministerial visits. The revision has brought our policy in line with that of other western countries, except the USA. The policy revision does not reflect any diminution in our concern about Iranian government opposition to the Middle East peace process, its support of terrorism, its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, or its human rights record. For this reason, other aspects of controlled engagement remain in effect, including restrictions on certain types of agreements, on the opening of consulates, and on the exportation of strategic or sensitive dual-use technology. The October 2001 visit to Tehran by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, the first visit by a Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs since 1991, imparted a positive momentum to bilateral relations. Consultations continue on how to deepen bilateral political, commercial and cultural relations. Canada has also co-sponsored a UN Resolution implementing the Iranian President's call for a Dialogue of Civilizations. Canada does not have any bilateral CIDA programming in Iran. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADE RELATIONS WITH CANADA The Canada-Iran commercial relationship is healthy. Iran is frequently Canada's largest export market in the North Africa-Middle East region, with two-way trade in excess of $700 million in 2000. Wheat comprises more than two thirds of our exports to Iran (or roughly $500 million), making Iran one of Canada's largest export markets for wheat globally. The Iranians welcome Canadian commercial interest in Iran (including in the important oil, gas and mining sectors) and would like to see more Iranian exports to Canada. There is a significant Iranian community in Canada, numbering about 250,000. The community has acted as a bridge for commercial relations between our countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 I don't know much about bilateral agreements but I do know Mr. Milton wants ACPA to allow a wet lease operation of widebody aircraft for " trial routes". Not a lot of info out there but it looks like they want to farm out the "trail" flying. Kind of like the AC cargo. And I was hoping our relationship with him might improve now that the stress and pressures of CCAA are behind us. Well, if the cargo experiment leads to permanent ACPA freighter flying, maybe you should consider more trials as a means of proving the worth of potential ventures. That way you will create a lot more widebody flying by allowing the company to make a number of low-risk forays to assess the size and yield potential of new ventures. It's not cheap to start some of these more esoteric routes. If you put the right limitations on a trial, the worst case scenario is that it doesn't work and is dropped and no union members are laid off as a consequence. After all, a flight to Tehran is not like flying a 767-200 to Munich with a large German star alliance partner sharing the risk. Maybe one should ask whether ACPA has learned anything from CCAA about building value in the form of durable profitability of the kind that can sustain high wages and good benefits. Hey, you can always end up like the 60 year old captain at UA watching his pension go into the crapper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Good advice. ACPA right now is like a dog that has been teased for years. Every foray by the company to see what is possible is met with an explosion of emotion and accusation. I honestly don't know what the union thinks is supposed to happen. The company is off the critical list, but not out of ICU. Of course the senior management will try to save money where they can, put pressure where they can, see what it possible today. If they don't, they will be fired and replaced with someone who will do these things, because the shareholders and Board would demand no less. Think of it this way. How many ACPA members hold stock or mutual funds, of any colour? Do you like it when your stocks sink? No. You want better performance or you dump the stock. Well, guess what. At the other end of the equation, you are putting pressure on someone else's Board to go to THEIR unions and get blood from stone. This is normal, even healthy. ACPA doesn't have to say yes to anything, but if there is a lesson here it should be to not take this stuff personally, but respond firmly with with a well supported position, so the next level up has something to show for their efforts. Yes, it has been stressful. Improvement will take more than just one side easing up. Both sides need to know what is process and what is abuse, and stop blowing a gasket when the expected happens. In my opinion Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest directlaw Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Dagger, "Well, if the cargo experiment leads to permanent ACPA freighter flying, maybe you should consider more trials as a means of proving the worth of potential ventures." There is the problem. Will it lead to more flying. Trust. Will the cargo flying really come back or have we been set up.....again. After all I have seen from Mr. Milton I would be very surprised if that flying actually comes back to ACPA. Now you suggest we do more of the same before we even see how the first experiment turns out. Don't think so. By the way the embraer aircraft this summer rumor is also true. Problem though. Milton doesn't want to pay according to the contract of June 2003. Ya know where he promised the 76 - 110 seat aircraft to ACPA. There is a pay scale attached to that agreement. Nothing has changed. Every time ACPA turns around Milton wants to violate our contract. Business as usual. What makes you believe that Milton will not continue on the same route and tell us to get stuffed at the end of the trials. At the moment no aircraft are coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Dagger, "Well, if the cargo experiment leads to permanent ACPA freighter flying, maybe you should consider more trials as a means of proving the worth of potential ventures." There is the problem. Will it lead to more flying. Trust. Will the cargo flying really come back or have we been set up.....again. For what it's worth, our VP Cargo, Claude Morin said in the recent roll-down session that AC is actively looking for freighters at this time. He mentioned that they are working on the costing of converting some of the parked 767's to freighters. CA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest directlaw Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Cargo agent, That is excellant.....if it is true and if those aircraft will be operated by ACPA. This is just an example of how Milton operates. This letter is a little over a year old and in the ACPA contract. June 17, 2003 Captain Rainer Bauer MEC Chair Air Canada Pilots Association 5915 Airport Road, Suite 510 Mississauga, Ontario L4V 1T1 Dear Rainer: Re: Allocation of Aircraft between 76 and 110 Seats This is to confirm that, as a result of the pay rates agreed by the parties under Letter of Understanding 57, all aircraft with a maximum certified seating capacity between 76 and 110 seats (to be acquired or leased by Air Canada or any of its Affiliates) will, under the terms of the modified April 2, 2000 Collective Agreement be flown exclusively by pilots on the Air Canada Pilots' System Seniority List, at the mainline, in accordance with the ACPA collective agreement. The pay rates applicable for flying these aircraft will be those found in Letter of Understanding 57 of the ACPA/Air Canada collective agreement. In the event that a conflict is found to exist pursuant to the dispute resolution mechanism before Arbitrator Teplitsky, Air Canada will maintain the position before Arbitrator Teplitsky that the right to fly the jets between 76 and 110 seats is vested solely with ACPA at the mainline and these aircraft must be flown by pilots on the Air Canada Pilots' System Seniority List. The above is conditional upon ratification of the modified ACPA/Air Canada collective agreement by ACPA membership by June 30, 2003. Yours truly, Robert A. Milton President and Chief Executive Officer 6 months after writing this he tried initially to give the EMB 190's to Jazz. 15 months after writing this he is trying to throw out the pay scale for 76 - 110 seat aircraft. ACPA has to be very careful. What happens in two years if Milton tells ACPA that AC Cargo was only a moderate success. He says that he will not give it back to ACPA because of this. If he is forced to give it back to ACPA he will shut it down. ACPA grieves it of course but the arbitrator in the case doesn't want to shut down a 2 year going concern. You don't think this is likely? My experience with Milton tells me it is most probable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Cargo agent, That is excellant.....if it is true and if those aircraft will be operated by ACPA. This is just an example of how Milton operates. This letter is a little over a year old and in the ACPA contract. June 17, 2003 Captain Rainer Bauer MEC Chair Air Canada Pilots Association 5915 Airport Road, Suite 510 Mississauga, Ontario L4V 1T1 Dear Rainer: Re: Allocation of Aircraft between 76 and 110 Seats This is to confirm that, as a result of the pay rates agreed by the parties under Letter of Understanding 57, all aircraft with a maximum certified seating capacity between 76 and 110 seats (to be acquired or leased by Air Canada or any of its Affiliates) will, under the terms of the modified April 2, 2000 Collective Agreement be flown exclusively by pilots on the Air Canada Pilots' System Seniority List, at the mainline, in accordance with the ACPA collective agreement. The pay rates applicable for flying these aircraft will be those found in Letter of Understanding 57 of the ACPA/Air Canada collective agreement. In the event that a conflict is found to exist pursuant to the dispute resolution mechanism before Arbitrator Teplitsky, Air Canada will maintain the position before Arbitrator Teplitsky that the right to fly the jets between 76 and 110 seats is vested solely with ACPA at the mainline and these aircraft must be flown by pilots on the Air Canada Pilots' System Seniority List. The above is conditional upon ratification of the modified ACPA/Air Canada collective agreement by ACPA membership by June 30, 2003. Yours truly, Robert A. Milton President and Chief Executive Officer 6 months after writing this he tried initially to give the EMB 190's to Jazz. 15 months after writing this he is trying to throw out the pay scale for 76 - 110 seat aircraft. ACPA has to be very careful. What happens in two years if Milton tells ACPA that AC Cargo was only a moderate success. He says that he will not give it back to ACPA because of this. If he is forced to give it back to ACPA he will shut it down. ACPA grieves it of course but the arbitrator in the case doesn't want to shut down a 2 year going concern. You don't think this is likely? My experience with Milton tells me it is most probable. Thank you for posting a letter, but how about every letter pertaining to the issue. You have presented no evidence that Milton wants to scrap a pre-agreed pay scale as it pertains to the 190. Are you thinking, perhaps, of the 175 which is an aircraft that straddles the 76-seat line and which the company could legitimately offer to Jazz? Is it indeed possible that the company is acting within its rights with the 175, and that you are distorting the company's position. Let's see all the correspondence, not just a selective leak job. I suspect the issue is not as cut and dried as you make it out. It sounds as if the company wants to see which bargaining unit can most cost effectively operate the 175, and then and only then will it decide the seating config. But I have no information in that regard because nobody in management has selectively leaked the relevant correspondence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dork Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Without that letter...the contract was in trouble. Now if there is a bait and switch going on with it, I fear it does not bode well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest directlaw Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Dagger, All I have is an explanation of what is happening from ACPA. That correspondence I will not post. The setting of the 76 - 110 seat range was deliberate and based on maximum certified seating capacity. It was intended to capture all aircraft including the CRJ 900/705 and emb 170/175/190. A seat range was used rather than specific aircraft because as we know manufactures have as of late been renaming hulls in an attempt to help airlines get around scope clauses. The emb 175 falls within the seat range....end of story. "all aircraft with a maximum certified seating capacity between 76 and 110 seats " All aircraft dagger. Mr. Milton wrote this not ACPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictues Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 will then MIlton may be negotiating pay rates for the EMB 175. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest directlaw Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 He already has negotiated a pay rate for the EMB 175. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Dagger, All I have is an explanation of what is happening from ACPA. That correspondence I will not post. The setting of the 76 - 110 seat range was deliberate and based on maximum certified seating capacity. It was intended to capture all aircraft including the CRJ 900/705 and emb 170/175/190. A seat range was used rather than specific aircraft because as we know manufactures have as of late been renaming hulls in an attempt to help airlines get around scope clauses. The emb 175 falls within the seat range....end of story. "all aircraft with a maximum certified seating capacity between 76 and 110 seats " All aircraft dagger. Mr. Milton wrote this not ACPA But the EMB 170 does not clearly fall into that area. I'm even dubious of the 175, but let's let Teplitsky settle that if necessary. Right now, a large number of 170s may be available, at a discount, because of renunciations by US carriers. It may well be that the economics have shifted in favor of the 170 and that Milton has asked you to make a compelling case for the 175. In any case, I would like to hear the particulars of the issue - not just selective ACPA dribbles of info. The company called for full disclosure on all negotiating issues, and of course the unions freaked. God forbid the company might look reasonable and the unions not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest directlaw Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 "But the EMB 170 does not clearly fall into that area." Huh? Emb 170 MCSC 78 Emb 175 MCSC 86 Emb 190 MCSC 106 This is black and white Dagger. You know it. You just love to argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 I have heard about 40 new destinations Air Canada is supposed to be starting, but only about a dozen international aircraft the airline is supposed to be acquiring in the short to mid term. What "international aircraft" have you heard about, Dagger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kilo Mike Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Don't forget about the training costs that are saved with common cockpit layouts. The Jazz folks get the Bombardier product and the mainline the Embraer. That was at least the idea.... Heck !! The contacts were all hashed out ...Twice !!!, .... So why the sudden change of heart? I thought these supposed "new" aircraft are available for a relative bargin ?? I read that to mean cheaper than what we had figured on spending....Don't you? With all do respect Dagger, and I do mean that, what's the point of signing anything with the company if it doesn't mean squat when the first bump in the road shows up? We hashed out a pay rate and settlement with an arbitrator that met the companies and creditors demands for a certain hull size, thus enabling them to choose whatever aircraft that would be in vogue in the future. The surprise kick in the slats comes when it's the actual time to buy....Ooops... panic !!! Let's get someone to figure it out for us !!! Heaven forbid we actually follow what we signed and agree'd to not even 6 months ago so as to enable us to implement our CCAA exit business plan. Last I checked, things were more dire back then . I throw it out that there is more here than just the need to get some yet to be determined number of 170/175's. Maybe the plan calls for the Bombardier 705 orders to be snuffed since they don't have penalty clauses with them? The idea then is to let Jazz fly the 170/175's....and maybe the 190's ??? Couldn't get it done with the Arbitrator before, so let's try it again ?? Maybe leverage the seniority bun fight into the mix to see if the comapny can get a few more pounds of meat outta the pilot group? Who knows eh? Bottom line Dagger is that my stomach for more concessions is zip...nadda ...bupkiss. Even more so that we haven't even let the ink dry from the second kick at our contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 ... what's the point of signing anything with the company if it doesn't mean squat when the first bump in the road shows up? .... Heaven forbid we actually follow what we signed and agree'd to not even 6 months ago so as to enable us to implement our CCAA exit business plan. .... And the Plan did not have any new wide bodies for new International destinations in it either. But, I guess that is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 "But the EMB 170 does not clearly fall into that area." Huh? Emb 170 MCSC 78 Emb 175 MCSC 86 Emb 190 MCSC 106 This is black and white Dagger. You know it. You just love to argue. Did you pull those numbers out of your rear end? Show me an airline flying the 170 with 78 seats USAirways has 72 seats, all economy, 32 inch pitch. Maybe "Midget Air" flies a 170 with 78 seats. And the 190 with 106 seats? Who are you trying to con? Even JetBlue isn't only going with 100 seats. The fact ACPA has some theoretical seating numbers doesn't hold squat in the real world. I say let Teplitsky have at it. And I have no particular pro-Jazz sentiment. I just tire of hearing the same-old same-old from ACPA. Selective leaking to prop up a tired and backward looking leadership. Job #1 for all parties should be to put forward an Air Canada that is so successful financially that NO LCC can even beat you and NO INTERNATIONAL LCC can ever preclude your growth. Yet every time somebody puts forward a low-risk idea to generate some new coin, ACPA is there to point fingers at past sins. I'm sure the airline is not blameless, but don't you really think the parties have to meet half way for a change. If AC is willing to take a limited financial risk to start something new, shouldn't ACPA help - under very strict conditions - to see if it works? Then it becomes the proverbial win-win. More ACPA flying, more AC profit. Longer term, more AC profit means wage restoration and enhancement, pension security (see "United") and opportunities to do new things. I can remember in 1998 during the strike when some pilots picketing at YYZ complained to a friend of mine about how Milton and Lamar Durrett were American carpetbaggers. They were just in it for the short term and then they would be moving on to bigger at better, "while the Air Canada pilots had invested their careers at AC..." How wrong they were. Six years later, Milton is still here. He's a Canadian citizen. And in terms of ideas to make AC more profitable on a sustainable basis, the big bold strategies are coming out of his team , not out of ACPA. ACPA, to judge from what is being posted here, is standing firmly against any meaningful collaboration (that isn't foisted on it at gunpoint with Justice Winkler and Farley in the background). Milton could have taken bigger and better jobs, but from what I can see, he wants to lay down a fortress Air Canada that can withstand any conceivable competitive challenge. That's why he's still here. Now, you say, we're just standing up for our members and our rights. I say, why not stand up for your own self interest, which I describe as follows: Expansion, increased profitability, more widebody flying. Achieving those three goals would lift all boats. It would mean recall of all laid off pilots. it would move pilots from right seats to left seats, from small jets to larger jets, and give you a compelling case for increased compensation when the time comes. Too bad ACPA didn't lift a finger to save Victor Li's investment, because I think he'd be hellbent on expansion. Cerberus is going to be a lot more conservative, and Milton is going to have to sell the board with strong, even compelling arguments. You should be there helping making those arguments to the board, not making it harder to make the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 What "international aircraft" have you heard about, Dagger? More of what AC already has, all used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest directlaw Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Fido, Are you suggesting that every time ACE changes its business plan ( like every third day) they have a right to change the collective agreement? Mr. Milton is all about shareholder value. He already has cheap emb pilots but if he can get them cheaper he will add even more value. Once that pay scale is set he will look for other ways to increase shareholder value. And again he will be back with more demands. This is a never ending saga. Unfortunate, but I guess the two sides are diametrically opposed and it will probably not change. At least not until we get a CEO who sees value in loyal hardworking employees. Loyalty is two way street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 ACPA has to be very careful. What happens in two years if Milton tells ACPA that AC Cargo was only a moderate success. He says that he will not give it back to ACPA because of this. If he is forced to give it back to ACPA he will shut it down. ACPA grieves it of course but the arbitrator in the case doesn't want to shut down a 2 year going concern. Why should Air Canada be compelled to give ACPA freighter flying if it doesn't make financial sense? The purpose of the cargo trial is to take a low-risk foray into freighter flying which can then be assessed as to whether it can make money as an ACPA operation. You take the costs and revenues of the trial and then substitute ACPA costs. It may be that it won't make money as an ACPA venture and that the project will have to be shut down for that reason. Arbitrators tend to operate within the parametres of the rule of law, and if AC doesn't have a solid legal argument over why this trial should become permanent, it won't win an arbitration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Fido, Are you suggesting that every time ACE changes its business plan ( like every third day) they have a right to change the collective agreement? Mr. Milton is all about shareholder value. He already has cheap emb pilots but if he can get them cheaper he will add even more value. Once that pay scale is set he will look for other ways to increase shareholder value. And again he will be back with more demands. This is a never ending saga. Unfortunate, but I guess the two sides are diametrically opposed and it will probably not change. At least not until we get a CEO who sees value in loyal hardworking employees. Loyalty is two way street. Yes, loyalty is a two-way street, and while management may have sins to atone for, I bet ACPA has a few, too. Time, maybe, to try a few joint ventures to see how they work. The obligation to establish trust goes both ways. By the way, I remember when a year ago everything ACPA didn't like in labor was Calin Rovinescu's fault. Now, it seems, it's all Milton's fault. If Milton leaves tomorrow, it will probably be Paul Brotto's fault, or maybe the window washer at T-1 is to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Fido, Are you suggesting that every time ACE changes its business plan ( like every third day) they have a right to change the collective agreement? Mr. Milton is all about shareholder value. He already has cheap emb pilots but if he can get them cheaper he will add even more value. Once that pay scale is set he will look for other ways to increase shareholder value. And again he will be back with more demands. This is a never ending saga. Unfortunate, but I guess the two sides are diametrically opposed and it will probably not change. Loyalty is two way street. Yes, shareholder value. If you had been more concerned about shareholder value, you wouldn't have had to take a wage cut. You just don't seem to get it, do you? "At least not until we get a CEO who sees value in loyal hardworking employees." In other words, you're waiting for a pliant, subserviant bureaucrat who will roll over and not care about the bottom line. That man has left the building a long time ago, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.