Air Canada asks Ottawa for 200 Million.....

[tonysoprano]

aroundthewing.
Yes. Got more details on it this morning. Sorry rampies.

[rudder]

This time around AC is holding it's own, operational wise, thanks in great part to labour concessions. In this case it's all due to pension underfunding due to market devaluation and company underfunding, not to mention bad hedging.

Are you kidding? Do you even have a clue as to the rate of unit revenue decline that is present in Q1 and Q2? The cash burn rate at AC is huge and they are simply praying that the unit revenue decline reverses itself.....and soon.

Yep, that's a plan

[tonysoprano]

rudder.
I was going to put the emphasis on operational wise but I didn't think I had to. Obviously you proved me wrong.

[rudder]

rudder.
I was going to put the emphasis on operational wise but I didn't think I had to. Obviously you proved me wrong.

Agreed.

But what is the value of solid operational performance on a financially fragile ship? It is of no benefit for the patient to look good and still die of a fatal condition, albeit one that is treatable.

Last time, senior management openly embraced CCAA. Hell, they spent 18 months in it! This time, CCAA is the bogeyman. Would appear that last time they believed that despite surrendering the company to the court they were still in control. This time around, they (ACE, et al) know that they will not be in control of anything.

Who would control the fate of AC in the next CCAA?

1. The Creditors

2. The Court

3. The New Money

4. Labour

[tonysoprano]

CCAA is something nobody wants, including management, because this time around the word liquidation comes into play. All I said was that in every other recession, there were different factors but labour costs were always at the top. This time around we hear terms like foreign exchange losses, fuel hedging losses and pension fund debt. All the company is trying to do is buy itself time until the economy turns around because they know that in good economic times, the company makes money and will pay back most if not all its debt. The question for AC management is, how or what do we do to avoid heavy losses in times of economic downturns? That's not the union's problem. That's a management problem. I suspect the company, if it survives, will see many significant changes. But not for sometime. For now, they have bigger fish to fry.

[2R]

Liquidation might be the best option for the taxpayers.
As it would be the quickest and cleanest way of getting rid of all the deadwood ,and deadwood practices.

[c170b53]

How about getting rid of our dead wood practices now? Can't tell you the number of things that are plain stupid. As an example, mechanics used to guide aircraft in, when asked last year if we could resume that task should ground handling be busy elsewhere. The reply from the desk jockey was that we were not qualified. I'm sure they carried on talking to us hoping to boost moral but few were listening after that comment.

[tonysoprano]

...better still, why don't we let a machine guide an aircraft in just like it's done in Europe. How many jobs would that eliminate? Right.

[torx]

How about getting rid of our dead wood practices now? Can't tell you the number of things that are plain stupid. As an example, mechanics used to guide aircraft in, when asked last year if we could resume that task should ground handling be busy elsewhere. The reply from the desk jockey was that we were not qualified. I'm sure they carried on talking to us hoping to boost moral but few were listening after that comment.

Amazingly I agree with you on that. However, I recall a few years ago of a mech. working in the lav stall of a 767. A rampie/groomer helped to hold the bifold door open while the mech was checking for a clog or something. The mech. stepped back from the lav, and told the rampie/groomer to get lost, because he was not a mech. Sweet isn't it!!

[tonysoprano]

Liquidation might be the best option for the taxpayers.
As it would be the quickest and cleanest way of getting rid of all the deadwood ,and deadwood practices.

The quickest, true. But just a few things to consider.
-26,000 jobs at AC gone
-hundreds, maybe thousands of jobs at CARA gone
-job losses at NavCanada
-job losses at Hotels, restaurants, taxi and limo companies, travel agencies, fuel services companies, deice companies, airport administration and maintenance jobs- gone. You, yes you 2R will probably pay more taxes to support all the EI benefits for all those people on top of the already heavy burden of EI produced by other industries.
Now let's bring in the replacement company. Let's see there's um, oh um, no, no. Well look, I'm sure someone will start a new company that can take over the routes and services. It might take a while, well maybe a long time, but heck, let's keep in mind what's best for the taxpayers.

[rightseatwonder]

...better still, why don't we let a machine guide an aircraft in just like it's done in Europe. How many jobs would that eliminate? Right.

do you not use the VGDS at AC?

[tonysoprano]

Yes, but we still require a lead initially. I guess they don't trust the machine.

[c170b53]

Back to Pensions; two comments to support my previous delusional ideas;

Pension and Benefits Agreement


Air Canada, ACTS LP and ACTS Aero entered into a Pension and Benefits Agreement effective as of October 16, 2007 (“Pension and Benefits Agreement”), relating to pension and benefits arrangements pertaining to non-unionized and unionized employees of Air Canada who were previously assigned to ACTS LP pursuant to general services agreements between Air Canada and ACTS LP. On October 16, 2007, non-unionized employees of Air Canada who were previously assigned to the ACTS LP operation became employees of ACTS Aero. New defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans as well as other employee and retiree benefit arrangements (including health, life and disability) are to be established by ACTS Aero (the “ACTS Benefit Arrangements”). Upon receipt of regulatory approval where required and based upon valuations of the relevant pension and benefit arrangements of Air Canada (the “Air Canada Benefit Arrangements”) as at October 16, 2007, the assets and obligations under the Air Canada Benefit Arrangements pertaining to the transferring non-unionized employees will be transferred to ACTS Aero or the ACTS Benefit Arrangements, as applicable. Any solvency deficiency in the defined benefit pension plans as at October 16, 2007 related to transferring non-unionized employees will be funded by Air Canada through quarterly payments to ACTS Aero until 2014. The accounting liability as at October 16, 2007 in respect of retiree and disability benefits related to transferring non-unionized employees will be funded by Air Canada through quarterly payments to ACTS Aero until 2012. Until such future time as the assets and obligations under the Air Canada Benefit Arrangements pertaining to non-unionized employees may be transferred to ACTS Aero, the current service pension cost and the current service and interest costs for other employee benefits will be expensed by Air Canada with a full offset recorded as an amount charged to affiliates (ACTS Aero).


In addition, the Pension and Benefits Agreement contemplates similar asset and liability transfer and compensation arrangements in respect of unionized employees, which arrangements would take effect at such future time as those unionized employees may be transferred from Air Canada to ACTS Aero. However, the solvency deficiencies in respect of transferring unionized employees for which the future quarterly compensation payments would be made are determined as at October 16, 2007, subject to certain adjustments, and the discount rate used to compute the accounting liability for the unionized employees’ retiree and disability benefits is fixed as at October 16, 2007. The compensation payments in respect of these solvency deficiencies and accounting liabilities would be made quarterly during the five years beginning after the unionized employees are transferred to ACTS Aero, but only if such a transfer occurs. Until such future time as the assets and obligations under the Air Canada Benefit Arrangements pertaining to unionized employees may be transferred to ACTS Aero, the current service pension cost and the current service and interest costs for other employee benefits in respect of Air Canada employees providing services to ACTS Aero are charged to ACTS Aero.

The Pension and Benefits Agreement also required that Air Canada provide letters of credit to ACTS Aero on October 16, 2007, to secure the above-described payment obligations in respect of the solvency deficiencies of the defined benefit pension plans and accounting liabilities for other retiree and disability benefit arrangements. The letters of credit total $101 million, subject to adjustment once the exact amounts of the relevant solvency deficiencies and accounting liabilities as at October 16, 2007 are determined by actuarial valuations. The face amount of the letter of credit in respect of the unionized solvency deficiency is also adjusted annually to recognize past service costs paid by Air Canada to the plan in respect of unionized employees assigned to ACTS Aero. The face amounts of the letters of credit decrease as the related quarterly funding payments described above are made. ACTS Aero may call the letters of credit in whole or in part, in the event of a default as defined in the Pension and Benefits Agreement. Collateral equal to the amount of the letters of credit was paid in cash with the asset recorded in deposits and other assets.

The new agreement wants to throw employees onto the above bus which apparently has no wheels. (In default of its loan payments)

And finally from a Pilot whom I think feels like some of us about the agreement;

Thanks to NAME ******...

Check point # 2
We need to take a stand
by ******* » Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:00 am

*******,

Thanks for your ethical actions. You have done a great service to all.

Some comments on all I have read and then my conclusions.

Number one.... I do not trust anything the company is saying to us. For starters, look who are involved. CR is the one who tried to take apart our pensions last time and gave away our scope to jazz. RM created ACE which was a brilliant wealth creator, at our expense. These are both brilliant men and are not to be underestimated. I am worried ACE now sees another way to capitalize on ACs weakness and so is now doing the final end run on us and is trying to get the slots as collateral so it can start a new airline when AC collapses (I am sure they have already planned the date that such events will happen, or at the very least have a contingency plan that reads as such that is very much able to be implemented.). CR has been sent in by ACE to enable ACE’s strategy IMO. Remember these are the people who used the assets of AC to fund their incredible get rich schemes, all on AC's shoulders. How can we trust that now magically their interests are in favour of AC being a successful airline, when AC's failure could benefit them more? As mentioned above, if they believed in us would they would invest in us, instead of loaning us money! BIG difference. They have the inside scoop and they won't invest.... hmmmmm There is an old adage - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me! We need to take a stand and force them to take an interest or walk away and let someone else manage the company. We need an agreement that has only one path, the success of AC as it’s only objective. What we don’t need to do is enable a plan that allows them the option to finally dissolve AC as their most beneficial financial strategy. We need to be convinced they have AC’s interest as their number one goal. I remain to be convinced at this point.

Number two.... The most powerful thing that differentiates our pension plans from the rest of the world is the fact our pensions ARE a deemed trust and shortfalls come before ANY other obligations in the event of a bankruptcy. The pension MOU clearly changes that. The agreement goes out of its way to clearly state that pension shortfalls are no longer considered a deemed trust and further that the shortfall becomes ranked as an UNSECURED creditor. Later in the agreement, in a sly bit of back referencing, it is confirmed that in the event of bankruptcy or CCCA filing, that the provision of this agreement that makes our pension shortfall an unsecured creditor claim will survive all agreements no matter what. If I was the company I would not wait one minute to file for CCCA once we ratified the MOU as in one fell swoop they only have to pay cents on the dollar to eliminate the pension shortfall, and then we are left standing there with dumb looks on our faces holding 15% of worthless shares!!! Our pension plan is why I am at AC, period. The Pension MOU must be renegotiated to ensure our pension shortfall remains a deemed trust. Again, we need to make management motivated to have AC succeed, not fail.

Point three... Where is the AC business plan that shows success? As Paul has pointed out, all attempts at getting concessions from aeroplan and jazz and real investment from ACE have been ignored. The solution is not eliminating our pension shortfall (that will take care of itself anyway as the markets recover over time) The solution is a viable business plan that puts AC first, not last!

Point four… The company is in a liquidity crisis of the company’s own making, especially due to the ACE distribution and over generous agreements with jazz and aeroplan. I agree that we need to ensure the government and others, including the public, understand that the Pension plan is not the source of the problem. The world financial melt down created a TEMPORARY shortfall crisis that we all agreed could be fixed by a special let on contributions until the company got back on its feet. All of a sudden the let on pension shortfall contributions has morphed into an attack on our pension plans, a dramatic transfer of risk from the company to us in the event of a CCCA filing or bankruptcy. We need to get back to the original objective and not let this process be high jacked by hidden agendas…. We need to restrict the LOU to what is only necessary, a let on past service contributions to allow the company breathing room… period! The artificial time-lines and undue pressure, secrecy and drama of the company negots strategy were designed to fool us into to signing much much more than is necessary. Shame on them. Shame on us if we sign!

Point five... The TA is totally inadequate. Why, because the company used the artificial environment they created to run out of time to deal with issues. We need to push back hard and say to the company there is a LOT more to discuss (even in a cost neutral negotiation) and we will be heard… At the very least scope and grievance issues need to be added. And on the topic of scope, we need to trim jazz’s sails big time. It is time to take back our flying. I don’t care if jazz ends up with surplus planes… It is our work and we need it back.

Point six... We must insist that the company remove all me too clauses as a condition of us signing. If it means they have to go back to the other unions, so be it... I don't care that it is inconvenient for the company to do so. We must stand up to the company and say NO, loudly and mean it. Further we should negotiate an early negotiation date and specify no me too provisions will be applicable to any future negots with ACPA.

Point seven... As**** proposed, all these issues need to be put forward to the public and government officials in a clear communication strategy so they understand what is happening. The company cannot be allowed to use the government agencies to pressure us into making secret deals. The public and hence the government need to see that we are not being greedy, but rather we have the security and survival of our national airline as our prime motivation. I am not convinced the current management and stakeholders do. They have a plan, but like last time they are keeping it close to their chest, and I am afraid of it. Everything I see and the lack of a business plan and the lack of a willingness to discuss the business of being a successful airline with its number one stakeholder, the pilots, concerns me greatly.

My bottom line: We need to say NO to this agreement and send our negots team back to do three things: Retain the deemed trust status of our pension deficit; include scope and grievances to the TA; and force the company to disclose and commit to a business plan that involves real changes to the agreements with stakeholders such as jazz and aeroplan and ACE. We can't let Farley or anyone else dictate time lines or pressure us. We need to stand tall and in public draw the line in the sand. We did not agree to arbitration and lets not be bullied into thinking that we have to. We are always saying we are the leaders in this company and it is time we demonstrate that to everyone and lead.

And if in the end the company files, then better today with our pension and pension shortfalls still considered a deemed trust and with what few remaining assets the company has intact. And in that case hopefully ACE and others will be removed from control and we can find leadership that has the future of AC as it's first priority. If CR and ACE really do have AC's future as their goal, then they will not file, they will renegotiate. So do you take the risk of letting them have this agreement to file with at their pleasure (as I am personally convinced they will do before the 21 months is up), or do you test their intent and challenge them now and create an agreement that will motivate them to ensure AC's success. I say the risk of not saying NO now is too great.

IMO

NAME WITHHELD

Well everyone has to make up their own mind here. Safe to say we are all being forced to be part time lawyers and accountants since the last filing.

[northernpilot]

No way should gov't be involved in this anymore. get rid of the air canada act, and get rid of any gov't assistance.

When you say "anymore" what exactly do you mean? Are you referring to the non stop government interference with a private company since the late eighties?

Yes

I hope you are not one of those who is convinced that Air Canada has been getting assistance of any kind from the government.

No, I'm not one of those.

If you want to discuss how Air Canada is used as a government tool used to grease politicians pockets in aircraft purchases or to fatten the coffers of Liberal supporters like Onex, then fine. Plenty of facts there.

No doubt.

As for pension funding, did you know that the government will not allow a company to invest for a rainy day in the pension fund? If Air Canada had tried to increase its' pension investment to cover a market meltdown like the one we are in now, it would have been taxed accordingly, just as any individual would who tries to put more than their maximum allowable annual contribution into an RRSP.

Right, and maybe the reason regulation should be reformed to allow for them to sock some away for the inevitable downturn in the markets. Expecting investment growth to cover pension requirements doesn't seem like a sound investment philosophy to me.

and, FWIW, I hope all the GM and Chrysler workers in Ontario thank me(well, canadians in general) for paying my taxes to fund their pension....I don't get a pension....and now my taxes are going towards funding someone else's fat pension.

You really should do your homework a little before making blanket comments like this.

Please explain. My tax dollars are paying for GM pensions. In don't think there's much doubt of that. If there is, I'm all ears.

[2R]

One could make the argument that the Liquidation sale began with the two billion dollar asset raid and giveaway.
Sorry if you missed out on the great giveaway.Shame that those who put in sweat equity to help create one of the safest and most respected airlines in the world will never benefit from the two billion dollar asset stripping.

One could also make the argument that these corporate raiders are not mere capitalists ,but enemies of the state out to destroy western stock markets and western capitalism.Worse than terrorists,their corporate theft has done more damage to our happiness than any terrorist attack .

[Brick Head]

c170b53

Wow,

Is the first letter accurate for facts. That is not a challenge, just asking specifically about the Oct. 16 2007 date. Is this statement correct? If someone transfers to Aveos tomorrow, AC is only responsible for the deficit as of Oct 16 2007? Any excess deficit beyond that date is the responsibility of Aveos even though the transfer takes place tomorrow? Did I read that correctly?

Yes I do realize Aveos missed a debt payment in January. That Aveos is itself is presently restructuring. That restructuring is touch and go according to the recent audit. I realize ACE hived out ACTS, gave it a lucrative contract with AC and then sold 73% to KKR and Sageview at an inflated price. Almost totally leveraged. Today Aveos is not profitable even with the lucrative contract. Aveos is on the verge of failing. AC can't afford the high priced heavy maintenance costs nor afford to buy Aveos back with all its debt.

But hey ACE shareholders made north of 700m on the sale.

Sorry man I just shake my head at the mess these guys have made. And now it appears quite obvious that the gov'ts intervention is for their own agenda. That being simply, AC keeps moving people. The path of least resistance, or shall I say the easiest manipulation, to that goal, is through you and I. That is their planed route.

As for the letter from a pilot. Point 2 is not accurate. It has been dealt with internally.

Good luck

Take a look at the lobbying. The unions can hardly get any ear time and when they do it is almost never with the right people. Check out April 28, 2009. If you don't recognize Ted Menzies google it. You'll see what I mean.

In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
781997-15009-5
View communication entries


2008-12-31 to present



Communications Log - Search Results

To view a Communications Log entry, click on the meeting date.

To sort the search results, select the sorting type and click View.

Return to Public Registry

Activity Description


Designated Public Office Holders

2009-05-20
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-108677


Ben Hamilton
Director, Issues Management



2009-05-12
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-108676


John Baird
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

2009-05-12
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-108675


Rob Wright
Deputy Minister


2009-04-30
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-104374


Stockwell Day
Minister of International Trade







2009-04-28
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-104354


John Baird
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

Jim Flaherty
Minister of Finance

Ted Menzies
MP







2009-04-28
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-104335


Christian Paradis
Minister of Public Works and Government Services







2009-04-22
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-104334


Louis Ranger
Deputy Minister







2009-04-20
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-104324


Kevin Lynch
Clerk of the Privy Council & Secretary to the Cabinet







2009-04-20
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-104322


Derek Vanstone
Chief of Staff







2009-04-13
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-104317


Ben Hamilton
Director, Issues Management







2009-04-06
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-104306


John Baird
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities







2009-04-06
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-104315


Louis Ranger
Deputy Minister







2009-03-24
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-99544


John Baird
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities







2009-03-20
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-99542


Louis Ranger
Deputy Minister







2009-03-20
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-101380


Kristine Burr
Assistant Deputy Minister







2009-03-11
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-101347


Peter Van Loan
Minister of Public Safety Canada







2009-03-11
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-101335


Derek Vanstone
Chief of Staff

Dan Mader
Senior Policy Advisor

Chris Froggatt
Chief of Staff







2009-03-10
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-99707


Rob Wright
Deputy Minister







2009-03-06
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-99539


Jim Flaherty
Minister of Finance







2009-02-23
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-98042


JOHN BAIRD
MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE & COMMUNITIES







2009-02-16
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-99537


Louis Ranger
Deputy Minister







2009-02-13
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-98254


Dan Mader
Director of Policy







2009-02-06
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-98043


DAN MADER
SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR







2009-02-05
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-98041


JOHN BAIRD
MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE & COMMUNITIES







2009-01-21
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-93810


John Baird
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities







2009-01-08
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-93806


John Baird
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities







2008-12-15
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-90175


Derek Vanstone
Chief of Staff







2008-12-15
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-90171


Mark Cameron
Senior Policy Advisor and Director of Strategic Initiatives







2008-12-15
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-90174


Chris Froggatt
Chief of Staff







2008-12-12
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-92989


Andrew House
Director of Policy







2008-12-09
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-90160


Rob Wright
Deputy Minister of Finance







2008-12-09
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-90167


John Baird
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities







2008-11-27
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-87415


Tony Clement
Minister of Industry







2008-11-12
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-87434


John Baird
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities







2008-11-11
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-87394


John Baird
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

Louis Ranger
Deputy Minister







2008-09-25
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-88217


Marc Gregoire
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety & Security







2008-07-24
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-77536


Joel Bernard
Senior Policy Advisor







2008-07-21
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-77535


Kristine Burr
ADM







2008-07-21
In-house Corporation: Air Canada
Responsible Officer: Montie Brewer
Communication number:15009-77533


Andrea Kent
Senior Policy Advisor

[roger.roger]

2R wrote:
Liquidation might be the best option for the taxpayers.
As it would be the quickest and cleanest way of getting rid of all the deadwood ,and deadwood practices.

The quickest, true. But just a few things to consider.
-26,000 jobs at AC gone
-hundreds, maybe thousands of jobs at CARA gone
-job losses at NavCanada
-job losses at Hotels, restaurants, taxi and limo companies, travel agencies, fuel services companies, deice companies, airport administration and maintenance jobs- gone. You, yes you 2R will probably pay more taxes to support all the EI benefits for all those people on top of the already heavy burden of EI produced by other industries.
Now let's bring in the replacement company. Let's see there's um, oh um, no, no. Well look, I'm sure someone will start a new company that can take over the routes and services. It might take a while, well maybe a long time, but heck, let's keep in mind what's best for the taxpayers.

Liquidation might be the best option for the taxpayers.
As it would be the quickest and cleanest way of getting rid of all the deadwood ,and deadwood practices.

LOL.....but your a private company and the gov't shouldn't @#$! with how you operate.

I just hope you've never made fun of anyone who bought a PPC/lived with their parents/or whined about the ontario gov't supplementing the cost of flight training through their college systems...........because your about to cost me a whole lot more

[roger.roger]

Now let's bring in the replacement company. Let's see there's um, oh um, no, no. Well look, I'm sure someone will start a new company that can take over the routes and services. It might take a while, well maybe a long time, but heck, let's keep in mind what's best for the taxpayers.

WS hiring what remains of AC (limited widebody fleet) for CPA till they get up to speed..............LOL you to could be an owner

where does A/C fly that no one else flys?

I guess those J class tickets might just be available

[c170b53]

BH I think that broke is broke, regardless of the language for anyone in the pension plan there's no protection, the new agreement is just another illusion. But that's just my take on it, I'm hoping as usual that I'm wrong.

[tonysoprano]

roger.
keep dreaming.

[teacher]

I love how mainline employees like to blame the CPA with Jazz for mainline's problems. The LAST thing you guys should be worried about is Jazz. Jazz works to support mainline and feed it with passengers as well as fly routes that are NOT profitable for mainline to fly. It's simple, if AC could make money on it they would be flying it. This is seen by the many routes that get "taken back" by mainline when the loads improve. It's all good to "take back your flying" but to do it at a loss is just stupid. Unless you wanna take another pay cut to make those smaller routes profitable.

You guys are funny, scope has nothing to do with the health of AC and everything to do with protectionism and ego.

From experience I can tell you that the majority of Jazz front line employees would love to have it go back to the way it was with the regionals flying the routes they want, selling their own tickets and allowing passengers to have the ability to purchase tickets that carry through and connect to other locations with AC. The CPA may be constant income for Jazz but it also severely limits the company to "feeding" mainline. This is very apparent with the countless money making routes that were dumped or not explored because they "didn't or don’t feed the hubs".

The income trust does pay out a large dividend and many analysts agree that it is too high and should be scaled back so Jazz can use that money for capital expenditures and in my opinion perhaps pass on the reduction in costs to AC. The truth is if the CPA was losing AC money they wouldn't have it. Jazz is an intrigal part of the AC system and even though I don't have the inside information to back up my claim I'm sure that if scraping or limiting the CPA was gonna save mainline it would have been done.

[rudder]

Given that over 80% of the Jazz CPA 'profits' are handed out to the trust unit holders and not reinvested in Jazz, I am certain that the Jazz employees could care less if the CPA margin was reduced significantly.

[Brick Head]

Given that over 80% of the Jazz CPA 'profits' are handed out to the trust unit holders and not reinvested in Jazz, I am certain that the Jazz employees could care less if the CPA margin was reduced significantly.

Exactly.

Teacher,

If it were only the Jazz CPA. Unfortunately us being pilots and all. We just focus on what we know. The whole business plan was to hive off Jazz, Aeroplan and ACTS. Set them up with very lucrative contracts. Then sell them at inflated prices due to those contracts. Most of the sales proceeds (that above the freeze value of these units set in CCAA) went to ACE shareholders.

c170b53,

Broke. Yup that sums it up. Did you get a look at the "draft pension review" letter that the gov't initially demanded as a condition of the loan to AC. It has now been removed from the TA due back lash. Go find it. The gov't has played their hand. Read the scope and direction of the letter. The gov't doesn't think you deserve a pension if the competition doesn't have one. It was why I posted the above lobbying and why I pointed out April 28/09.

They just don't want to insight anything before we sign.

[teacher]

I know "Brick Head".

It's sad that Corporate Canada and those abroad made loads of money at our (and especially AC mianline's) expense however it doesn't change the fact that although a good deal for Jazz, the CPA is not what is broken at AC. I agree that mainline pays a lot for our service and that the dividend should be reduced and the savings passed on to AC. I'm well aware of how this little money laundering schem works, it's sad really I can only hope that one day we'll be run like an airline and not an excercise in accounting.

[Brick Head]

Teacher,

I have said over and over again this is not Jazz's fault. It was the architects fault. Yes I agree though too many Ac pilots only focus on the Jazz CPA.

The guys I feel the worst for are the guys at Aveos. At least Jazz and Aeroplan are successful under the present arrangement. AC employees at least have the fact that they are employees of the core business. The 10,000 plus ACTS employees got transfered to an abysmal failure.

By the way our advisor's are firm on their belief that AC's chances of avoiding CCAA part 2 are slim to none. * This is based on their assertion that AC needs whole sale restructuring to survive, but getting everyone to the table, and coming to agreement outside of CCAA, is historically unlikely given the amount of stakeholders.

The likely outcome of this pension moratorium is therefor likely only time. Time to try and pound providers. If that doesn't work. Time to prepare for CCAA.

*One Cavet to the above. That assessment was made on AC employees taking cost neutral collective agreements. I suspect that is not really going to be the case moving forward WRT pension.