Guest lancaster Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id=0B53DD65-2BB0-425C-BE2F-8D7AEB9A8783 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 lancaster, keep having your fun, you only come across as that "human excrement" that another poster discussed. Amazing how you take a line out of context and make it the title of your post. woof, woof, you can change your name but the message still has the same odour of DOG turd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Lancaster... What was there...two lines about the pension issue ???..... yet you seem to take delight in "headlining" Pension Shortfall won't be funded". Yes I know , "don't shoot the messenger" but you must lead a wonderful life when it "appears" that you take delight in dredging up anything, and everything that would be demoralizing to the employees of AC. Hint: Why not put up a posting with "More AC Info" as the headline. As an bystander, I think your anti AC attitude is prevalant throught all your posts concerning the problems this company has...Give it a rest. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lancaster Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Boring headlines don't catch readers attention. Besides, on the issues of pensions, it is a major concern and very obviously, an issue in restructuring that all involved should be very concerned with. So what exactly is wrong with headlining the very issues that the ACPA should, and must be concerned with during this process? After all, the article was fairly devoid of information, however, the writer did include a subtle point regarding pensions, and that is what most fail to read into statements from corporations when they have decisions to make based on corporate comments. You have to be able to read the fine print, in other words, those "two lines about the pension issue" are to most, insignificant, but really, are the main cause of concern for ACPA right now and in the whole process of restructuring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydee Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 The worst part of that article was the heading " Air Canada's CEO confident he'll be kept on by new owners after restructuring " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I agree, boring subject lines don't show much creativity. On the other hand, yours shows a lot of creativity; so much so that the subject line bears no resemblance to what was said in the article. The article does NOT say that the pension shortfall won't be funded. The article simply states that the new equity investor will not fund the pension shortfall. And who in their right mind would expect them to? The current pension fund shortfall WILL be addressed in some way, it simply won't be by Mr. Li or by Cerberus. Your subject line is wrong and your analysis is wrong. The little bit of creativity you show doesn't nearly make up for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I don;t want to minimize the importance of pensions to the people due them. I do believe, however, that this issue is going to play out as did the labor and lease renegotiations. No one who has the ability to influence the issue has an incentive to allow AC to die. 1. Management. Would you want to be out there job hunting with a liquidation on your resume? Especially one that came about over a pension deficit. 2. Unions and employees: Who loses most if AC fails? Are pensioners better off or worse off? 3. Government. You're Paul Martin. Do you really want an AC failure and loss of 25,000 jobs plus crises at NavCan and the airports resulting from that failure as the first thing on your resume as prime minister? Of course not. In today's Globe, the pension superintendant said he's amenable to an extension to make up the deficit. In today's Star, it says AC has some labor support already for an extension. So there will be more negotiations, some armtwisting, threats and name-calling. In the end, maybe AC has to pledge a bit more cash - or an asset in lieu of cash - and the unions have to agree to a 10-year extension. The company has asked for as much as 13 but when its lawyer said in court monday that it needs the current five years "at least doubled" I took that as a pretty firm indication that 10 would do it. So to me, in the big picture of things, this isn't even a bump in the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I like your assessment. I wonder how much of the blame Paul Martin would shoulder though.... I think he could fairly easily shrug his shoulders and point to Collenette ...and be seen as being right to do so. As for name calling... lot's of that left to do! I understand our dear CEO thinks his job is safe with either of the two potential saviours. That could lead to some interestingly inventive language! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sam of Old Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 The real issue facing AC (read it a couple of times now in mutiple articles) is that federal pension law stipulates that they (like all under-funded pension plans) must cover the deficit over a five year period. AC is hoping to get government (act of legislation) to change that rule so they can cover the shortfall over the next ten year period. In principle, it appears that they have the support of labour. Acheiving this goal will aid in any recovery efforts, of course. Also, I'm betting that AC is counting on a market upswing to aid in covering that deficit; any delay helps in that area also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 It's not so much a matter of blame. Sure, you could blame Chretien and Collenette, but it's how it looks on you as you head into an April election. What if NavCda is looking for a bailout because it loses all of that AC revenue? The overcapacity factor we probably have right now nevertheless is vital to NavCda whose revenues depend on quantity of flights, not volume of passengers carried. The GTAA would have a hard time coping with the loss of AC. So I don't think Martin has any desire to deal with a crisis that can be readily avoided, no matter who would get the blame. The guy wants to cruise to a large majority in April. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I agree with some of your analysis, but I don't agree that the pension issue isn't even a bump in the road. I think it's a serious problem, perhaps one of the most serious faced in the whole reorganization. To this point, all the different players in the reorganization... creditors, employees, management, equity investors... have been able to forge agreements based on their own negotiations alone. The pension issue falls into a different category, because no matter what the respective parties may agree to themselves, the pension has statutory requirements which it must, by law, adhere to. This means that, even if employees and company were to wholeheartedly agree to, say, a 10 year refunding period, only the government may change the law to permit that. And of course, to change the law in that way has far-reaching implications for all pension plans in this country, not just Air Canada's. I definitely don't say it can't be sorted out, just that it's not an issue that can be dismissed as easily as some might hope. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lupin Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 When is a fresh start justified?I see all these airline restructuring and making efforts to be more cost efficient.They cut and cut and drive employee moral down. While I understand hard decisions have to be made,I have to wonder what kind of culture will exist at a company where all these cuts have been made.The layoffs are going deep,the employees left to run this "restructured airline" will all be the senior people ,leaving a quite bitter and somewhat unflexible work force. Dagger speaks of 25000 job cuts,well wouldn't most of those jobs be created as new positions from whoever starts up and fills the void.Sometimes its better to start off with new people,new ideas then to hang on to something that isn't working.Throughout history Air Canada has made very little profit (specially compared to the losses) When will it be time to turn the page and start fresh? I work for AC in maintenance and love my job there but have to wonder if we will be back in same position in a few years from now.Aviation seems to be cyclical with this being the low point.Are we to expect the company to be in the same position in a few years from now? Getting concessions from the unions is a great way to get savings.Its even better under ccaa when they have to negotiate with a gun to their heads. As soon as the company turns a profit,you will be seing the unions back at the table looking for their share of the wealth.starting the conflict all over again. Lupin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 First of all, the airlines hiring aren't even paying as much as AC is paying after the concessions. Foreign airlines would soak up some of the transborder and international flying so you can't assume a one for one job replacement, not even close. Most airlines are non-union and have even more flexible work rules than AC's unions have with the concessions. So no, I don't think a failure is a painfree option by a long shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 "most airlines"? hmmm... I wonder... From conversations I've had with folks in our line of work from Australia, Asia, and Europe, they seem to have a much better deal than we have here. Shift premiums that make for a great number of volunteers for night shifts... holidays that make ours look like nothing... Various little tidbits to make the job worth far more... Even in the US at least the pay is better than ours. AC has got to be among the worst airlines in the world for maintenance folk at the moment.... but we're working on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I was actually referring to domestic airlines. They would be the ones hiring in Canada. Jetsgo would expand. What are their salaries or work rules like. Care to take a guess? Moreover, there is no telling whether they would want to hire older Air Canada employees, or start with younger people and a clean slate. That would certainly be my choice if I owned a growing airline. I certainly wouldn't hire a 50-year-old baggage handler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lupin Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 re pain free option I'm not talking about a pain free option.I am just thinking of a profitable airline.I know not everybody would get a job if AC would shut down.But the new companies that would emerge would certainly be better positioned against the reality of todays markets. Air Canada,like every other large corporation has so many self imposed rules (operating precedures etc),that if everybody follows the rules,the airline will not be able to operate. That to me is a fundemental problem with AC,they write their operations 'manual like a lawyers book to protect themselves of any liability (which is a common practice in any company)but the result is that it takes away most of their flexibility.Combine that with a tense and bitter workforce and you have a recipe for a goverment like operation. Anyone in maintenance that has taken the time to research tocm quickly realises this. I just think that air canada needs alot more then labour concessions and a restructured debt.I hope an overhaul of the way they operate and do business is in the upcoming future.If it isn't,I beleive will will find ourselves in a similar situation in a few years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innuendo Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 "3. Government. You're Paul Martin. Do you really want an AC failure and loss of 25,000 jobs plus crises at NavCan and the airports resulting from that failure as the first thing on your resume as prime minister? Of course not." Particularly if you are considering an election in the new year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckedy Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 and just exactly what do you care about what ACPA is to do with the pension issues? Does this concern you at all? Give your head a shake loser and find something more productive to do with your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.