pitz

Tons of good people in Montreal, and many more who would gladly move there given the opportunity. Canada has extreme IT unemployment/unemployment with large numbers of computer science and various other engineering-degree qualified individuals not even able to get into proper profession-related employment. The key is paying people appropriately in IT. A lot of the problem is that employers think that IT is some low-level job like a janitor. AC pays senior pilots $200k+/year for positions that require arguably quite a bit less training than the sort of IT people who are needed in the AC organization.

Start offering pilot-like compensation to IT people (including flight benefits) and quite frankly, AC would be have to beat the applicants away. But as long as they think that IT is a $60-$80k/year ghetto, like many companies in Montreal think it needs to be, then of course there's going to be recruitment trouble of quality people.

Outsourcing and getting rid of an IT department is a slap in the face to quality talent who generally would want nothing to do with such. Nobody wants to say that they work for IBM and their managers are constantly looking to replace them with people from abroad. non-pilot technical professionals want to be part of the AC family (its one of the most iconic brand names in all of Canadian business), but on competitive and reasonable terms.

Fiordland

I thought CGI was the big enterprise IT consulting and services firm in Montreal. They could always give them a kick at the can instead of IBM.

Before Sabre, WestJet ran on a different platform that was intended for low cost airlines. Can't remember the name, but I though it was a product from EDS. EDS become HP Enterprise which now I believe is DXC.

I think Air Canada has lots of choices beyond IBM.

InTheAirGuy

I think the CEO and senior management surrounding him don't really have a deep understanding of IT issues, the challenges they are up against, how the US3 and other carriers have transformative, flexible IT platforms. I suspect they view IT as a necessary evil to evolve, rather than a fundamental infrastructure that is as equally important an investment as new aircraft.

This won't change, until we see massive turnover in Board members and a CEO transition to a new, younger, IT aware generation.

Given that, any new reservation system is doomed to fail, and IBM will continue to be the lead partner.

Symmetre

which supports what I've been saying for years. This airline will not even begin climbing out of the abyss until Calin and his monkeys are gone.

CloudsBelow

You airline experts used to lecture the FT gang that Calin et al didn't understand the airline business in Canada. Calin et al didn't understand that Rouge would flop and would fall on its face. They didn't understand the options Canadian flyers had. They didn't comprehend the purchase drivers of Canadian flyers. They didn't understand the long term pitfalls of these short-sighted business decisions ..... but you guys did.

Let's just hope your your IT expertise hits a little closer to the mark than your business, product and price point failures.

Stranger

While I am inclined to agree about a lack of deep understanding, it looks to me like they have figured out that they are behind other players. Otherwise they would not have planned to spend an extra $200 million on IT over the next three years.

I also would expect they'll get closer to Amadeus.

Whether the new IT person will be up to the task is of course another issue. Based on what one reads here, most potentially more suitable candidates for the job would have declined.

RangerNS

As now a full time "consultant" and long time IT employee, it isn't clear to me that you can just blanket throw IBM under the bus.

There is a finite budget, and a list of desires. If the priority desires are stupid and there isn't enough budget even to do them right, it doesn't matter if its IBM, or internal, or CGI, or Tata.

rehoult

AC actually has a very large presence in Toronto. It's really a split HQ situation with some teams at the YUL office (on airport grounds) and others at the YYZ office (downtown, on Queen St). The YTZ-YUL flight is the inter-office mail system. Many execs split their weeks between offices.

Of the teams that I've dealt with, corporate strategy, commercial operations and sales are based in YYZ, while revenue management and route planning (and I think legal) are based in YUL. The YYZ group are who IT really needs to be with.

D582

AFAIK, AC's ticketing fulfilment platform is Amadeus. I believe RESIII has leveraged some Amadeus-developed modules as well, so AC has always had some relationship there.

Any failures would be likely stem from not managing the conversion project properly. Although IBM provides a heap of services to AC, one of their main activities is hosting, supporting, and maintaining RESIII. If AC moves to Amadeus (which is seemingly the most logical choice), all of those activities move to Amadeus.

WS used Open Skies which was a product developed by HP and sold to a company called Navitaire, which was started by Accenture. Ironically, Navitaire is now owned by Amadeus as well.

canadiancow

The big problem is that you need to stop calling all this "IT".

I worked in IT once.

Now I work at companies in the engineering division, which is very separate from IT.

flybit

UA just downgraded to the 350-900 from the 350-1000, and that a simple swap for either then 777-200 that UA has, ( not 10 across) or the 787-9.

UA must be using the 777-300 they bought to replace the 747 routes.

flybit

FYI, UA has a seat sale on hnl in business class for $1350cnd yyz-hnl. and this is often on sale.

ridefar

That isn’t actually how it works. There is a budget. IBM often commits that budget will decline year over year. There is maintenance (steady state operations). That consumes the majority of the budget. Everything not steady state is a project or change order. Which cost extra. And are not cheap. And are delivered by personnel with various levels of qualifications. But often low. (Do some reading on people management in IBM outsourcing.) and oh year IBM’s goal is to do it with IBM products wherever possible (they don’t have to be best just meet minimum spec). And IBM does not hav the same interests as the client. And on and on and on. I know lots of folks will disagree with me but no company that is serious about doing IT and using it for competitive advantage is going to outsource and I have never seen IBM make a customer happy and be cost effective both. In fact outsourcing in general has numerous spectacular failures and precious few successes. So why do it? Because costs go down and C level bonuses go up as a result. But make no mistake it is short term thinking. Not quite quarterly short term but close.

RangerNS

I'm not disagreeing, but obviously the devil is in the details. IBM might well state a minimum "keep the lights on" cost which AC agrees to. If that doesn't include upgrades, it doesn't include upgrades. Whose fault is that? IBM might have proposed two prices "keep the lights on" and "+20% for reasonable and prudent upgrades, up to X hours". AC might have just kept the lights on. Whose fault is that?

AC could well buy a pool of hours for unspecified upgrades and negotiate a good rate. Or negotiate long in advance for upgrade projects on a fixed price, fixed scope project. IBM may or may not respond or try to play that game. Or be embedded enough, SME enough that their not-lowest price bid is still the best bid.

If AC has let IBM take over so much - and agreed to exclusive contracts - then that is on AC.

AC is apparently now recognizing that things need a bigger budget. That might go to permanent staff, that might go to IBM for upgrades, it might go to someone else for upgrades.