Pilots blast Air Canada CEO's 'poison' comments

MONTREAL, Aug 3 (Reuters) - Air Canada's (Toronto:AC.TO - news) pilots union blasted the airline's tough-talking chief executive on Thursday, saying his recent criticism of union leaders is ``poisoning'' the bargaining process and setting the stage for a
crippling strike in the middle of the busy summer season.

Nevertheless, Don Johnson, acting head of the Air Canada Pilots Association, said the union is committed to a mediation process put in motion by the federal
government to try to end the dispute between the 2,200 pilots and the airline over over wages, pensions and working conditions. Mediation is set to start August 7
with the help of special conciliator named by the government.

``We call on all our pilots to remain calm in the face of this abuse directed at them by the company'', Johnson said in a release.

The union was referring to comments made by Milton during a press conference on Wednesday. Milton called the union head ``irresponsible'' for turning down the
company's latest contract offer, which he called ``the biggest offer ever made in Canadian labour history.''

Contract talks between Air Canada, the country's dominant airline, and its pilots broke off on July 14. The pilots have been without a collective agreement since
April 1, and they gave a strong strike mandate to their union representative on June 26. Both parties have pledged to continue normal operations and neither a strike
nor lockout is planned during the mediation process.

Robert Milton's style is too confrontational. During negotiations, he should remain in the background and let professional HR people handle the day to day talks. The board should get a grip on him and give him specific direction to get on with merger and keep a low profile with the union. He still has a lot to learn about labour relations.

Link to the news article.
http://home-news.excite.ca/news/cp/0...st-air?where=0

On an almost-related note, I heard Mr. Milton on the radio, probably yesterday morning. I guess he was explaining all the things they're doing to improve the situation, and was also quite open in admitting that things _are_ going wrong. This sounded like a good attitude to take, contrite yet positive.

Then he ruined at the end by saying something to the effect of, "bashing Air Canada, which has become almost a national pastime". Maybe he meant well, but in that one last phrase, unable to avoid getting a dig in, he undid most of the good done my admitting mistakes and promising to fix them.

andrew

[Memo to R. Milton: It is recommended that you remove foot from mouth before shooting same.]

What is even more sad is that he retained GPC, a communications firm several months ago at a huge cost to handle all his communications. He would still be the voice, but they would carefully script what he says. Not sure if his foot in mouth syndrome is a result of his personality or their innefectiveness? I don't think I would ever hire them based on this performance.

Well I guess they're not M. Chretien's PR people after all (Mac Penney [sp?] who used to be the PC person on Studio 2's Fourth Reading was with GPC as I recall).

But it's the same problem, he has to be willing to stick to the script. I guess Mike Harris does the same thing, in his case it's usually attributed to his old inner circle all moving on, and the new folks not having the history to be able/willing to stand up to him.

If the boss won't listen when his advisors say, "look, your blanking blank comments are blanking the blankety-blank message and you're blanking yourself deeper into the blank: stick to the script for the next month and you'll see much more public and government support", then either they're the wrong advisors (and if they won't say it, they're definitely the wrong advisors) and should be replaced, or he is.

andrew

With reporters goading Milton on, he is still bound to say anything even innocuous that will be reported out of context, and in a way to inflame readers or those the quote is passed onto in a second hand fashion.

All he said when asked about the pilots was that he felt AC's current offer was more than generous and was not going to change just because a good profit had been achieved this quarter. [After 15-years of mostly losses...] What's inflamatory about that? The pilots themselves have said money isn't the real issue: they want to control AC's development of new routes and subsidiaries by not having a two tiered wage scale. Such wage scales are now a norm in the airline business if an established carrier is to compete effectively with new-starts, and not have to continuously face charges of unfair competition when it tries to compete with the likes of a WestJet that has none of the restrictive union agreements and overheads that an AC has.

Yes, the man still has problems communicating or controlling his statements, but it is not as bad as the press makes it out to be, or passes his words on to others and to us in print. My rule with the media is you can never win. If they are out to get you, they will get you and what you say makes little difference. They are the ones weilding the editing pencil (cursor, cut and paste function...) I wonder what newspaper could operate each day without having a single typo or mis-reported story? How many times have you read or heard a reporter say something you know is just plain incorrect? Are they ever corrected or repremanded for sloppy research or reporting? Very seldom. But if AC loses a bag, watch out!

Milton is quite correct to note that as a national institution, it is open season on AC. Few companies could face such scrutiny on their day-to-day operations without turning up similar horror stories. Now that Jane Stewart is soon to be moved from HRC, the media only have Robert Milton to focus on!

Shareholder : The media still have Jean Chretien to have a field day with him.... I agree that Robert Milton has become "la bete
noire" of the new airline industry re-structuring. People need symbolic scapegoats to slaughter at the altar of public opinion. That is the negative part of the change management process that angst is focused on either specific people or certain aspects of the industry. You have to admit that occasionaly Robert Milton makes a good target with his particular style of communication. However, I think that he is doing a good job of spearheading the merger; a merger that has aspects that are far beyond the planners anticipations...a merger that is implemented without halting operations. I think that this merger will be one for the text books or at least a case study. Voila my five cents. !

I've had passengers actually sympathize with me about the bad press. In a lot of places, it is a lot worse than others. Rumour has it AC no longer advertises with the "news"papers in NB because the press was extremely inaccurate.

Today is aparently day 179. We considered putting a calendar on our desk and marking off the days. From this side of the desk, I cannot wait to get this integration over with.

Oh, and that's another thing. I really wish we would all stop calling it an integration...it is an aquisition. AC bailed CP. And AC employees are not going to get anything out of it we wouldn't have gotten from Onyx.

One final word for the day, the pilots are not just negotiating for money. The money they were offered is supposedly very generous, but there are other issues. Like AC's proposal that there be 3-ACs and that they can pay them based on the competition's salaries. I say if we support the pilots, they will fight the battle for us.

------------------
Not official...just personal opinion.

Shareholder,

I think that the media take every opportunity to embarrass or otherwise make people look foolish. When I hear/read someone say something stupid, my first thought is always, "what question might they be answering that would make this seeme less stupid or self-serving?". It usually works.

For instance, in a feature on supposedly rude cell-phone users, the reporter said with an incredulous tone that "39% actually said they'd answer their phones in a public restroom!!!!". Sounds excessive, but if the question was would you _ever_ answer the phone in a restroom, I'm surprised only 39% said yes (I might, if the person were important enough to me, and if only to say I've landed safely and I'll call back).

Our experience with the Perfect Airline article in the Globe is another example, we obviously came off to many people as a bunch of whiners wanting to be pampered at any cost.

The difference with the quote that I mentioned, is that he wasn't answering the question, "do you think bashing Air Canada has become a national sport?" [I'd say yes] but rather he seemed to throw it in a comment meant to sound contrite. And he's enough of a target that he will have to learn better.

On the subject of the media, I have a favourite quote that I trot out regularly. I heard it on CBC Radio's _Ideas_ several years ago, it was someone doing the Massey Lectures thing. He asked the audience, "How many of you have seen a story in the mainstream media (TV, daily papers) about a subject on which you are expert or very knowledgeable? [lots of hands] Now how many of you felt the story made one or more significant errors? [still lots of hands, audience laughing] Now if you know the mainstream media can't accurately report on a subject you know about, why would you blindly trust them on a subject about which you know nothing?" I really want to track down the exact quote, but it is so true.

andrew

I recognize there is more on the table than the money vis a vis the pilots. But I also know that if AC is to strategically respond to competition and preserve its domestic market share, it needs more flexiblity than union agreements may permit. These are complex matters, no doubt, and any comments I or anyone else makes cannot reflect all the intricacies involved. If this was an attempt to break the union, I might think otherwise, but a separate wage scale for crews on a low-cost subsidiary, as well as on regional feeders, has to be recognized as the only way to cut operating costs to anywhere near those of the non-union charters and new start-ups.

If working the "AC Light" carrier -- or one of the regionals -- has a lower pay scale, it should be part of the process of pursuing a career within the company. (Entry level, but progressive training to move up to the mainline AC fleet.) As long as the benefit package remains the same as in the main contract, and seniority can be accommodated, if someone wants to take the job at the lower wage scale, why should the unions force AC into a higher-cost operation for this subsidiary? How do they suggest AC compete, or should it abandon the field and rely on international expansion to fuel its growth?

Granted, we don't know exactly what is on the table from either side, and particularly form the pilots. My perception is that they have become the luddites of the union movement, much like the typographers who were decimated by remaining intransigetnt and refusing to accept technological change when it came to the newspaper industry. Pilots have stood in the way of many of UA's and AA's moves to strengthen their competitive positions in the U.S., and now appear to be taking the same position up here.

I'd like to hear from a pilot, so we can better understand the issues from their side, and know exactly what the issues are. Do they just not trust management? (They certainly were strongly behind Milton during the Onex battles.) Won't everyone benefit from a competitive AC: What is not made on the salary charts can be augmented by rising share values and dividends, which are taxed at a lower rate too.

So much for my morning rant!

By the way, U.S. networks have been reporting UA's pilots, also negotiating a new contract, have been refusing to work overtime, leading to the cancellation of hundreds of flights over the past several days. Is this part of the STAR pilot's Alliance?

[This message has been edited by Shareholder (edited 08-06-2000).]