global happy traveller

Montreal's mayor and opposition leader are urging Air Canada to reverse a decision to relocate 140 jobs to Toronto from the carrier's base in Montreal.

Mayor Gerald Tremblay has written to Air Canada president Calin Rovinescu, saying it's vital for the city to keep as many jobs as possible in the current fragile economic climate.

He also said in the letter made public Thursday that the erosion of the airline's head office in Montreal jeopardizes not only employment but the city's competitive thrust.

"Montreal occupies an enviable place in the world in the aerospace sector, which is a key factor for its economic development," Tremblay wrote.

"The transfer of strategic functions from Air Canada's head office to other Canadian cities can only be detrimental to the positioning of Montreal and its competitiveness."

The jobs involve scheduling pilots and flight attendants.

The airline has said moving the functions to its new operational control centre in Toronto during the next two years will improve customer service because it will be easier and more efficient to have the people in one place.

There are now about 250 people at the facility in Toronto, where Air Canada has its main national and international hub.

Louise Harel, opposition leader at Montreal city hall, said she will present a motion at Monday's council meeting to demand the airline reverse its decision.

Harel says she is worried the Air Canada headquarters in Montreal will turn into an empty shell.

She also invited the federal MPs for the Montreal region to exert pressure on Air Canada.

Eve Peclet, a Quebec NDP MP, urged the federal government in November to keep the jobs in Montreal, saying moving them to Ontario could make it difficult for French-speaking Air Canada employees.

The Canadian Auto Workers union called on the airline last October to give up its plans, arguing it didn't give any reasonable reason for moving the jobs.

Source: http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityne...obs-to-toronto

speaker

Where was that argument of "efficiency" when they outsourced some of the frontline-customer call centre functions to India??

One would think that having staff posted at strategic locations in Canada (or abroad) might actually enhance efficiency (outage at the call centre, natural disasters, labour issues... etc). During the floods in Brisbane last February (which flooded the DJ/VA facility), Virgin Australia routed their calls to their Fiji call centre... in terms of airline operations, it doesn't hurt to have a backup.

Is there really a synergy from having a cube farm with 140 schedulers side-by-side instead of spread out in various locations ??... there might be a case for COST SAVINGS, but please AC, don't insult everyone by saying that this is NOT cost-driven! The move might be in attempts to "flush out", high-seniority employees who will not move, for cheaper newhires in YYZ.

I'm equally unimpressed (though not shocked) by the CAW argument that "no reasonable reasons" were provided by AC... Why are those positions in YUL some sort of an untouchable 'sacred cow' ? And regardless of any reasons provided you can bet that CAW would've opposed it no matter what. After all, surely they can't renege on their pledge of allegiance to the ultra-senior employees at YUL HQ!

InTheAirGuy

What century is this guy in? He should have sent a tweet!

Montreal has a competitive thrust? ...., I always thought that was the bar scene!

californiadreamin'

Businesses transfer jobs all the time...

"Direct Energy announced this week it was shifting its corporate headquarters from Toronto to Texas, and taking 500 jobs..."

http://www.thestar.com/business/arti...ers-leave-town

will5404

They'd likely save more money if they gave them all laptops and let them work from home.

Ancien Maestro

How much does AC save by transferring jobs from Montreal to Toronto?

A factor could be AC trying to minimize francophone lawsuits?

My vote is to see AC try and keep the jobs in Montreal..

canforce

My vote would be to allow an independant company to do what it wants with its employees. The next step would be removing legislation that makes AC keep their HQ in Montreal, and allow them to move it to Toronto if they wish.

Part of AC's troubles are their own doing, no doubt in my mind, but we make it so hard for businesses to succeed in Canada, no wonder they are under strain. Let them do what THEY think is best for their business and investors, not what WE think is best for them.

But, it is a two way sword. Remind them that when things do go bad, THEY made the choices and must deal with the consequences.

tcook052

How would moving admin. staffers accomplish that exactly?

Seems politics has reared it's predictable head in this matter:

Eve Peclet, a Quebec NDP MP, urged the federal government in November to keep the jobs in Montreal, saying moving them to Ontario could make it difficult for French-speaking Air Canada employees.

http://www.thestar.com/business/arti...obs-to-toronto

And at the risk of stirring up the endless language debate seems curious to me having been raised in a generation that was encouraged to learn French to increase our career prospects that learning English is apparently not even seen as an option for those staffers who are unilingually French.

sharkshooter

Who do they think they are?

AA_EXP09

They should keep the jobs in YUL.

hearna

Ah yes? Why? Should they also keep the mechanics in YWG? Or perhalps they can do what they please...

On another interesting but unrelated point, I heard they where shutting down the coast guard post in YQB, moving it to Ontario/Nova Scotia. Of course this whiped up fury in the media, quoting ''how will the french speaking population of Quebec be served''. Again, as long as they can offer the same level of service, who gives a damn where they are based?

I did find the whole ''demand'' part quiet funny; I wonder if I ''demand'' a 100%increase in my salary how far that will get me!

yulred

Bit late for that.

I agree in principle with the general thrust of what you say. However, ACs relationship with the govt (and the regulation the govt enforces) is complicated.

While its true that few other airlines carry the burdens AC does , especially in the developed world, it is equally true that no airline benefits as much from government intervention and protectionism as AC. Whether its bailouts, restricting competition, or providing protection from unions, AC has benefitted considerably. In many other developed countries, it would have gone the way of the dodo.

Small price to pay, for the government backing it receives. That's why you don't see more than token resistance from Calin, the odd anti-tax sound bite notwithstanding. Frankly even those pleas ring hollow. Low taxes will bring JetBlue and Southwest, and that's less palatable to AC than the taxes it pays (and the subsequent protection it gets).

JTXC

I agree. I sometimes wonder if AC's problems stem in part from having to maintain what are in effect three hubs: YUL, YYZ, and YVR. For a country with the population of Canada, two hubs would surely seem enough. While I know there is a romantic attachment to YUL, it really would be better if AC focused on YYZ and YVR. Maybe leave YUL-CDG as a long haul route, but otherwise all TATL and flights to the US Midwest and West passengers go through YYZ.

Stranger

But then by the same token, government should not get involved as strikebreakers either, right?

JTXC

I think given that AC is the only national airline, the government was right to intervene with the FAs, and would be also with the pilots (although I really did not like how Rait handled things). Back in 1998 when the pilots went on strike there was another national carrier. I am not counting WestJet here, since they (as yet) do not have national coverage comparable to AC, although that certainly will change in a few years.

There was no need for the government to intervene with the airport staff, since the management could reasonably cope (in fact, things ran much better so I was told; passengers certainly were happier). The same with Canada Post. The government should have left that strike carry on.