equipment bid

[tonysoprano]

It would be interesting to know the outcome if CAI had actually gone CCAA and used a temporary lower cost structure against AC to re-organize. A similar situation is Hawaiian and Aloha. The two carriers had their problems and one would drastically hurt the other while in Chapter 11; it was cyclical. The last was Hawaiian who went Chapter 11, reorganized and look where Aloha is now.

I know the fight of AC vs CAI will never die but CAI never did restructure because of the arranged marriage, and we never did get to see what ‘could’ have happened to AC had it gone that route.

Two carriers in Canada had their problems because this country cannot sustain two similar airlines (routes, equipment, size etc.) going head to head. In late 1999, CAI's CEO admitted "there was no more cash". The governement of the day, with it's power, imposed a "merger". What actually happened was R. Milton set up a "many numbers" company to sustain CAI and continue paying the bills untill the "merger" was realized. CCAA was not an option because CAI had received cash injections prior to all this and the government realized it was not sutainable therefore only a "merger" could take place to save jobs and achieve political tranquility. One company had to go. Four billion dollars in debt from CAI were added to AC's two billion, 9/11, SARS etc. put us on a sure path to CCAA. A merger of CAI with a LCC, ie WJ, probably would not have worked at that time, maybe now (?). You're wrong, the fight will die. Most of the retirements are coming from the CP side. At some point (soon) they'll all be gone. OAC pilots will eventually rack this one up as the price we pay to be in Canada.

BigB.
You can press whatever button you want. It won't change history. Agree to disagree. Yes. That's what's saved us all this time.

[Disco Stu]

My guess on Bid 08-02 is that it will be out within 2 months and will show a significant reduction, and by that I mean SURPLUS.

Only 38 vacancies on this bid, and my understanding of it is that it didn't reflect the 4 additional 767-200s being sent to the desert. Those 4 airplanes alone will eliminate the 38 vacancies.

Rumour has it (I know, if you haven't heard a rumour by morning, start one) that there was a management meeting in YYZ last week regarding some deep cuts. Look for additional fins being parked and more routes to be trimmed or eliminated. As many analysts have said, there is NO plan for how to operate a profitable airline at $140 a barrel oil.

I am just hoping that 400 guys below me will be enough to avoid a layoff. Time to get the ol' logbook and resume updated.

Of course, this is all my uneducated opinion that I have put together on rumour and innuendo.

[Hadji Ramjet]

Four billion dollars in debt from CAI were added to AC's two billion

Air Canada's pre-merger on-balance-sheet debt was $3.3 billion. CAIL's on-balance-sheet debt was $700 million. (from AC & CAIL annual reports).

[tonysoprano]

Really? How bout AC 1.8 bill, CAI 4Bill?. Nice Try Hadgi whatever. With your figures, you wouldn't have gone tits up. Strange how that works. Here we go again, yet another version. I've got much, much better things to do. Have fun guys.

[BigB]

Good stuff Tony. Nice to see we're making progress on this "agree/disagree" thing. Everyone has their one version. Oh....BTW, almost forgot. I'm going to have to hit that button again:

1)You went tits up.

Would you mind posting, or providing a link to the formal filings for this "tits up/CCAA/Bankruptcy" (whatever you want to call it) that supposedly happened.

[tonysoprano]

Story Tools: E-MAIL | PRINT | Text Size: S M L XL | REPORT TYPO | SEND YOUR FEEDBACK
Benson resigns as head of Canadian Airlines
Last Updated: Saturday, November 11, 2000 | 12:02 AM ET
CBC News
Kevin Benson has quit as president of Canadian Airlines on the same day the airline reported another staggering loss.
The resignation of Benson, who had been president of the struggling airline since 1995, was widely expected. He will stay on as a director of the company as former Air Canada executive Paul Brotto takes over the leadership reins beginning Wednesday.

"I am very proud to have been president for the past four years," Benson said Tuesday, adding he feels confident handing the leadership of the airline over to Brotto.

The resignation comes as Canadian revealed it sustained a $223.3-million net loss for 1999, its last year as an independent company. That's up from the $137.6 million net loss of 1998.

"We are disappointed with the results of 1999, but they reinforce the need for fundamental change in the airline industry in Canada," Benson said.

Despite the net loss, revenue for the year did improve by $91.7 million to nearly $3.3 billion.

Air Canada took over cash-strapped Canadian in early January after the federal government approved its $92-million takeover of the airline. Canadian is struggling under $3.5 billion of debt, and is currently negotiating with its creditors to restructure the debt. Brotto says he's confident the restructuring can be completed by May.

Funny, that debt was never refinanced by Canadian but by AC during CCAA. No, you never "officially" whent tits up because J. Chretien by way of Collenette by way of R. Milton saved you the paperwork. Milton started a numbered company in late '99 early 2000 (sorry for the lack of detailed memory) and paid your bills untill a full and proper BUYOUT was made soon after. Now I'm realy upset cause I didn't want to go this far. I'm outta here. And this time I mean it. Oh yah, sorry, the debt you brought over was 3.5 bil, not 4 bill as I stated.

[rudder]

Isn't it ironic that the pilots that will be exposed to furlough if the downturn is severe enough couldn't care less about the inane blue/red debate?

[Jaques Strappe]

Isn't it ironic that the pilots that will be exposed to furlough if the downturn is severe enough couldn't care less about the inane blue/red debate?

Perhaps they should be. If the outcome of CAIL had been allowed to run its' natural course without Air Canada being strong armed into taking it over, these pilots who "couldn't care less about the blue/red debate", may not be looking at a possible furlough.

This is not an effort to start a debate but people should "care" and do their research to find out why things are the way they are. Not caring, or not giving a shit, is one of the biggest problems this industry faces. The next big debate is the retirement at 60 rule. I don't care what other countries are doing. When I signed on at Air Canada, it was with the understanding that I would be retiring at 60 and making way for a new generation. These selfish minority bastards who want to change all that for their own personal gain will send more new hires to the streets, yet most show little to no interest in the debate.

Start taking an interest boys and girls!

[Dockjock]

The delay of the 787 will be somewhat offset by compensation from boeing in the form of money or other interim aircraft. Instead of slashing capacity and retreating, airlines should use the oil environment as a bludgeon on politician's heads to eliminate the ridiculous airport rents and punitive taxes that handicap the industry in Canada.

[WJ700]

Just running off like that? What about the negotiations that went on in 1998 where AC was trying to pay far more for the Asia/South Pacific flying and related heavy equipment?? Poke...Poke...

Story Tools: E-MAIL | PRINT | Text Size: S M L XL | REPORT TYPO | SEND YOUR FEEDBACK
Benson resigns as head of Canadian Airlines
Last Updated: Saturday, November 11, 2000 | 12:02 AM ET
CBC News
Kevin Benson has quit as president of Canadian Airlines on the same day the airline reported another staggering loss.
The resignation of Benson, who had been president of the struggling airline since 1995, was widely expected. He will stay on as a director of the company as former Air Canada executive Paul Brotto takes over the leadership reins beginning Wednesday.

"I am very proud to have been president for the past four years," Benson said Tuesday, adding he feels confident handing the leadership of the airline over to Brotto.

The resignation comes as Canadian revealed it sustained a $223.3-million net loss for 1999, its last year as an independent company. That's up from the $137.6 million net loss of 1998.

"We are disappointed with the results of 1999, but they reinforce the need for fundamental change in the airline industry in Canada," Benson said.

Despite the net loss, revenue for the year did improve by $91.7 million to nearly $3.3 billion.

Air Canada took over cash-strapped Canadian in early January after the federal government approved its $92-million takeover of the airline. Canadian is struggling under $3.5 billion of debt, and is currently negotiating with its creditors to restructure the debt. Brotto says he's confident the restructuring can be completed by May.

Funny, that debt was never refinanced by Canadian but by AC during CCAA. No, you never "officially" whent tits up because J. Chretien by way of Collenette by way of R. Milton saved you the paperwork. Milton started a numbered company in late '99 early 2000 (sorry for the lack of detailed memory) and paid your bills untill a full and proper BUYOUT was made soon after. Now I'm realy upset cause I didn't want to go this far. I'm outta here. And this time I mean it. Oh yah, sorry, the debt you brought over was 3.5 bil, not 4 bill as I stated.

[BigB]

Alright Tony, we'll try this again. Since you could not provide any "official filings":

No, you never "officially" whent tits up because J. Chretien by way of Collenette by way of R. Milton saved you the paperwork.

would you mind posting the "unofficial filings".

I think both you, and I (and in all probability most all who have been following this thread) know where I'm going with this. You've been proven to spread false facts. Feel free to prove me wrong. I think I've been fairly reasonable in offering you a respectable out, and a way to stop this debate without too many egos being hurt/tarnished. However, you seem determined to persist. It's up to you....balls in your court. BTW, I think we're on page 2 by now.

Jaques,

Reasonable and insightful post (notwithstanding the well worded and innuendo laced first paragraph).

[Rockie]

The next big debate is the retirement at 60 rule. I don't care what other countries are doing. When I signed on at Air Canada, it was with the understanding that I would be retiring at 60 and making way for a new generation. These selfish minority bastards who want to change all that for their own personal gain will send more new hires to the streets, yet most show little to no interest in the debate.

Start taking an interest boys and girls!

You knew what the pay was too Jaques, does that mean you won't accept any increase in your salary? Things change, age sixty came in at a time when the average newhire was 25. The average new hire is now 35. It's very noble sounding that all you guys will give up your high paying job at sixty to make way for the "new generation", but it is utter bullshit and you know it. There are few creatures on earth more hard nosed about seniority rights than pilots, and you will give nothing up for someone junior to you and you know that too. You simply want to retire with a full pension at 60 with no one older than you on the seniority list, and that's fair. Just please don't try and cloak it in some altruistic BS. The selfish minority bastards as you call them are no more selfish than you are.

[tonysoprano]

BigB.
If living in denial helps you get through your days, that's ok. When AC took over your company, you were out of money. Call it tits up, bankrupt, cash strapped, failure.... whatever you want. You were done! No more handouts from Ottawa. Just American, Onex and AC ready to pick up the pieces. Like it or not, you are HERE! Your "official" and "unofficial" filings crap is grasping at straws. Kevin Beson told the country in late '99 he had no more money. Oh but you don't remember that. AC kept your career going. Could have been Onex or American. It wasn't. Bottom line, someone had to rescue you. Of course none of this really matters anymore. The only thing that really matters is how we deal with our employer. Oh BTW, you're welcome big guy.

[circlingfor69]

Rockie,

I must say that I agree with JS on the age 60 issue. Regardless of what the average age of new hires is today THEY ALL KNEW what they were signing up for when they got to AC. If your'e 35 and concerned that your pension may not be everything you want when you retire then you shouldn't have applied at AC. There are other options. Whatever the case may be you were well aware that the retirement age at AC is 60. It is ridiculous and hypocritical to now turn around and say its somehow unfair. This issue when you boil it down is nothing but pure greed from 45 pilots who see how sweet it is at the top and want to milk it for another 5 years. When I got on at AC I knew what the rules were. It makes me sick when I hear people like you bitching that their rights are somehow being violated by a rule which you yourself were fully aware of before you came here. Did someone put a gun to you're head and tell you that you have to work for AC. NO!!! So dont f&#k this up for THE VAST MAJORITY of us who accept age 60 as the retirement age. An age that is mutually agreed upon by the company and the pilot group!

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

You knew what the pay was too Jacques, does that mean you won't accept any increase in your salary?

Huh? I don't follow? Everyone expects salary increases when hired. No one expected age 60 to change when hired.


It's very noble sounding that all you guys will give up your high paying job at sixty to make way for the "new generation", but it is utter bullshit and you know it. There are few creatures on earth more hard nosed about seniority rights than pilots, and you will give nothing up for someone junior to you and you know that too.

That's the way you think? No wonder we are where we are. Don't lump everyone into your opinion of human nature. Some people, I hope most, shun their self centered tendency's when they know it will harm others.

Did your Kindergarten teacher write " doesn't play well with others?"

Let me put this very simply. The collective pie will not get any bigger if pilots stay past 60 (assuming full seniority rights stay intact.) The only thing that will happen is that the pie will be divided differently than originally intended. You might have no problem taking what contractually belongs to someone else, but I do. Apparently so does Jacques.

I have a problem with both being taken from, and taking from others. That is also human nature.

I do disagree with Jacques on one point. What will be the next big fight. The fight as to IF people will stay beyond 60 is done. It will have to wind itself through appeal courts but it is none the less done. They will be able to stay beyond 60 once the average of the retirement age of legacy carriers is greater than 60.

That fight is done save appeals. The next fight will be what do we do with them once they stay beyond 60. It is not age discrimination to ensure the collective pie is divided as originally intended. In fact it is the unions responsibility to ensure equitable distribution. When the union acts in this regard, that will be when the fur really starts to fly.

IMO

.

[Rockie]

Here's that altruism again. If you really want to make room for the newcomers then you will still be free to retire at sixty if you wish. But that's not what it's about is it? You want to retire at sixty with no one older than you on the seniority list. And why is that? It's because you don't want someone staying past when you want to retire and maybe taking a seat in a higher paying airplane that you could have if they left at sixty too. Nothing wrong with that, just don't pretend your being selfless for those following you.

I really don't know if I want to go at sixty or not. But the fact is over sixty is coming and we are wasting precious time and resources trying to stop that which cannot be stopped. Instead we should be doing what they have done in the States and ensuring that everyone currently working there will not have their current expectations unduly eroded.

This crap about knowing what the conditions were when you were hired is just that...crap. The same principle applies to salary, working conditions, flight and duty times etc. Do you really expect someone to not take the job because of the current mandatory retirement age? The only constant in the world is change, better to make sure the change happens with the least damage to those already on the property than futilely trying to prevent it. It's a waste of time.

[circlingfor69]

Rockie,

Retiring at age 60 with no one older than me has nothing to do with it. The entire idea is that when I am 59 I will be able to enjoy my seniority number without the need to fly to 64 to enjoy that same seniority. The point is the vast majority of us do not want to fly to 65 but we do want to enjoy those last 5 golden years at the peak of our seniority.

To make the arguement that we wouldn't be complaining if this was about getting a pay increase is absolutely incoherent. Ofcourse no one would be adverse to a pay increase because this is something that 3500 pilots at AC would agree with. Conversely, the age 60 issue is simply a small group of whiny pilots that knew they couldn't get the AC pilots or managment on their side so they call it a 'Human rights violation' instead. How can something be a human rights violation if everyone single pilot in the company enters this agreement willingly at the start of their career?

And lastly, if this is something that bothers you so much then you should have never taken this job. To the vast majority of AC pilots the age 60 retiring age is a perk of the job. If you don't agree then go work somewhere else buddy. I really don't care why you weren't hired until you were 35. Its none of my business or concern. There are plenty of other airlines in the world that you can fly past 60 at. And who says you can't fly at AC until you're 60, then collect your pension and fly somewhere else as well.

Whatever you do I don't care, just stop attacking a perfectly legal and mutually beneficial retirement age that has been around for decades just because you feel some personal right to a career longer than the one you will presently have.

[yycflyguy]

Yup, union solidarity has been fractured into many small "special interest" groups. It is quite apparent to me that we are collectively headed for massive discontent in 09. How is our negots committee supposed to represent a collective voice to management when sentiment towards each other holds such disdain. Find some common ground, swallow some pride and move forward.

[tailgunner]

Ah the age 60 debate....
It all boils down to greed.
When thoe pilots who brought the arguement of human rights to the tribunal, they were all past the age of 50...Isn't it interesting that for the preceeding 30 years they had no issue with others' human rights being violated as long as they kept retiring in front of them. Once it was their turn to hang 'em up, all of a sudden there are human rights everywhere! How hypocritical. If age 60 is a violation, or age discrimination then surely 70 is as well. How do you argue that Rockie? If you truely believe in 65, then by reason you must support 70.
If we are forced to work to 65 so Rockie can have a bigger pension, the cost will be huge. Compounding interest alone makes Rockie's aims quite costly for everyone. Everyone will be sitting an extra 5 years in their present position until it all filters out. Rockie may be an EMJ FO 5 years longer than he planned. How's that for a return on investment?

[Four1oh]

the babyboomers get what the babyboomers want. yay for them!

[Rockie]

Rockie,

Retiring at age 60 with no one older than me has nothing to do with it. The entire idea is that when I am 59 I will be able to enjoy my seniority number without the need to fly to 64 to enjoy that same seniority. The point is the vast majority of us do not want to fly to 65 but we do want to enjoy those last 5 golden years at the peak of our seniority.

Your first sentence is entirely contradicted by the rest of this paragraph and is indicative of how much thought you guys are putting into this. I am not advocating one age or the other, I am saying over 60 is coming whether you like it or not. You cannot change it. Now what are you going to do about it? You can continue doing what you're doing which is burying your head in the sand and fighting a war you cannot win, or you can have a negotiated surrender. That means instead of futilely trying to stop what you cannot stop, you ensure that when it's implemented your rights are protected. But that means acknowledging the inevitable which the Air Canada pilot group refuses to do. We'll all lose because of it.

[Lost in Saigon]

Whatever you do I don't care, just stop attacking a perfectly legal and mutually beneficial retirement age that has been around for decades just because you feel some personal right to a career longer than the one you will presently have.

But you see that is the problem. I predict that very soon the CHRT will decide that it is age discrimination to force an airline pilot in Canada to retire at age 60. The minute they do, Air Canada's retirement policy will become ILLEGAL.

We won't have to wait for the world's "Legacy" carriers' retirement age to average 65. The retirement age of so called "Legacy" carriers from India, Pakistan, France, Uzbekistan, or where ever, should not have any bearing on the human rights of a Canadian living and working in Canada. That is one area where the tribunal erred.

ACPA is barking up the wrong tree trying to preserve age 60. They need to be actively negotiating to preserve to right of any pilot to retire at age 60, while allowing any pilot to work past age 60 only if he so desires.

The path they are taking could backfire and end up with us all being forced to work until 65. No one wants that. What we need is the freedom to choose when the right time to retire is for each individual pilot.

It would love to see the results if a proper poll were taken which asked a simple question like:

Are you in favour of allowing some pilots to work past 60 providing all pilots who want to retire at age 60 may do so without any penalty? Yes? or No?

I think that the numbers of Yes votes would surprise you. That is the question ACPA should have asked their members. That is the avenue ACPA should be actively pursuing.

But in reality it doesn’t matter what the opinion polls say.

IT WILL BE DECIDED BY THE CANDIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL.

[Rockie]

Hallelujah...someone else gets it.

The problem with us as a pilot group is we can't see past our own selfish little faces. We think tactically by reacting to an immediate situation rather than strategically. We are so busy calling the over sixty crowd selfish minority bastards that we can't recognize them for the harbingers of the future that they really are. Staking our retirement future on one poorly worded opinion poll is foolishly short-sighted, especially when the respondents are notorious "me first" thinkers.

[circlingfor69]

Rockie,

Harbingers of our future hey? I think what you are failing to see is that if the age 65 retirement age ever goes through the company will have to make it work for them. Currently a pilot who retires early is given a penalty every year he/she retires early. Are you so niave to think that the company wouldn't start applying this rule to pilots who retire "early" at sixty? If you think that this will end up in a win-win, somehow protecting a pilots right to a full pension at 60 with the option to go to sixty-five you are dreaming.

I also find in humorous that all of a sudden this issue is one of being on the bargaining forfront of an issue that is coming in wether we like it or not. This after you have consistently mentioned the newhire avergage age is mid-thirties. And that these pilots will not retire with the same pension as those hired in their 20's. So which is it? I always find that the pro 65'ers seem to play this card when all the really desire is a larger pension than the one the will currently receive!

I have said this before, GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What gives you the right to userp the desires of the majority of pilots, as well as the company, who feel that age 60 is not only fair but a perk of this job!! Do you honestly think that you and the other handfull of pilots somehow know whats better for me and 97% of the other AC pilots? You are not only naive but arrogant as well.

[Rockie]

Stop, take a deep breath, and listen. It will not be me, the company or anyone else within Air Canada who imposes over sixty. It will be forced on us by the human rights tribunal and when that happens you can be prepared for it or not. Pounding the table and raging isn't preparing for it. This is preparing for it:

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/2007%20AL ... elease.pdf

As a pilot group we can try and control the outcome as best we can like the Americans have done or get run over. Your choice.