24left

Does AC have any videos of this kind of work?

EK 380 3C-Check video - front page FT. Very cool

http://www.flyertalk.com/story/watch...nspection.html

Bonaventure

I really don't see why anyone is complaining AC services some planes outside Canada. So what? It's their fiduciary duty. It's also their fiduciary duty to strong arm, lie, cheat, bribe, and do whatever else is necessary to preserve their virtual monopoly in Canada, not for the benefit of Canadians (ideally they want the exact opposite), but for their shareholders. There's nothing wrong with that. There is, however, something wrong with a government that acquiesces to this state of affairs assuming it is suboptimal for All Canadians.

rehoult

What about it? I sit on a couple boards and we honestly pursue the course of action that is best for the company. That's our job; literally, we have a legal obligation to act in the best interest of the company.

It's not our job to pursue the course of action that is best for the 'taxpayer', that's the government's job. We argue for what benefits us, our competitors do the same, other impacted parties do the same, eventually the government decides where the balance should lie and we then deal with the result. How is any of this dishonest?

yulred

One can pursue the course of action that is best for the company without engaging in outright dishonesty. Do you or the companies you work in demand protection for your company to protect Canadian jobs, and then ship those Canadian jobs overseas once you secured the protection on the grounds that you were saving Canadian jobs (which was evidently not the case)? It just makes a mockery of the plight of those who do face outsourcing. 'Dishonest' is a mild characterization - many would call this type of opportunism a symptom of far worse traits. In AC's case, there are many a recent thread that suggest it is institutional.

I don't think it's the governments role to figure out when boards or executives or companies are being dishonest. We would need a very large government (full of inquisitors, no doubt) to do that, which wouldn't be in anyone's interest. I simply don't buy the notion that companies are entitled to be dishonest, nor do I believe that it is acceptable on the grounds that the government exists to police them. Of course, if we're going that route, why not do it properly: nationalize. That ll keep companies in check.

mkjr

i don't think you are using the term fiduciary in this corporate context correctly by making reference to AC itself owing the same, but i do agree with you.

i don't subscribe to the south park "Dey turk err jurbs,"....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobacks

why fly

my point exactly, In Canada AC would SAVE money on wages! Singapore is NOT a low wage country.

PLeblond

So you're suggesting they are flying to Singapore to pay more?

yulred

Not to nitpick, but it is also their fiduciary duty, not to mention their general obligation to whichever communities they belong to, to not break the law. Lying, cheating and bribery typically amount to breaking the law. I don't think any Canadian court will buy into the premise that there is 'nothing wrong' with bribery, lying or cheating. Quite the contrary, I expect. It's why we have organizations like the Competition Bureau, which once found AC guilty of predatory pricing. I'm not too keen on expanding government just because companies have a fiduciary duty to cheat, lie or bribe. But to each, their own.

why fly

Or it was just Air Canada inability to manage a repair facility efficiently?

Its not just wages that make a place efficient.

Wpgjetse

It's my understanding for moving the maintenance was not hourly wage cost, buy mostly productivity(extra labour cost/aircraft downtime)cost. Productivity was very low in YVR and YUL, which caused huge hidden costs. Planes maintenance was taken longer than normal, plus planes were returning late. AC lossed most of its contract work because of this. The union instead of trying to fix problem, protected the bad apples, causing everyone to loss their jobs.

durberville

In 2013, Canada also ratified and implemented the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention by legislating the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act (amendment to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act), which has create an extra-jurisdictional regime for bribery.

I can bet you AC doesn't bribe

kevy_boy

Maybe AC does not want to be a company that has expertise to manage a maintenance facility and wanted to concentrate on their core business.

Many companies perform the same evaluation for IT services. They don't want to invest to become proficient at managing IT services so they outsource to people that do.

ridefar

And how well does that work out for AC IT?

Answer, in the opinion of a lot of people here: not well at all.

Same answer applies to a lot of people that outsource IT, IMO.

Back on topic: I don't really care where the maintenance is done as long as it is done well. AC has a pretty great record for safety, and I wouldn't want to see that compromised. Note that I am not commenting one way or the other on whether outsourcing to Singapore does that. I have no idea and no data and no intuition. I am just saying as a customer I don't really have a dog in the hunt except as far as safety goes.

kevy_boy

Although it may not be the best, it may be better than if they did it themselves

PLeblond

You're right. They are utterly useless at everything they do. They should just cease all operations immediately and reimburse all customers double whatever they are currently holding in ticket value. Assets should be donated to non profit organizations, all current employees should be jailed and executives immediately taken out back and shot.

Yes, this is meant to be read with extreme sarcasm. Hopefully its fallacy will make certain people realize their previous statements are equally as ludicrous.