parnel

Quote by Guava:
The point is anybody on a board of director must have expertise and experiences that are pertinent to the company

wrong again bozo---BOD are governance related not ops related;and that takes on a whole different meaning which you could not begin to understand apparantly.

As for your other comment---Mange le merde,SVP.

YOWkid

Actually, you are both right. The point of BOD is to be able to give good guidance and oversee and ensure well-running of the company.

To have good governance, you need people on the BOD who know what they are doing and what they are talking about. Otherwise, their advice is meaningless.

Abby

Thank you, Guava!

I don't want anyone to think I am picking on Pierre Marc Johnson unfairly. What the author was saying, or what I believe he was saying, is that Air Canada's Board is still composed of more of a politically chosen group of people rather than a business-smart group or airline-smart group, and that they should really look at getting some turnover and making sure the new members are going to help the company succeed. It is a private corporation, not a Crown corp, and perhaps its Board composition should have been modified to show this change, also.

I guess my feeling is that the Board needs to be re-evaluated, and I do think they should have some responsibility.

Guava

You don't need to thank me. We are all entitled to each of our opinions and when I read yours, as a Quebecer, I didn't feel in any way offended by your comments. In fact, it puzzled me how can someone found a mere fact to be in any way an excuse to launch a personal attack... Just ignore it like you did, we all get used to it even though this person tells me to "go eat ****s" in public, just go to show you the standard of the person we are dealing with, unworthy of our time.

And now that you have explained your comment further, it makes even more sense now because regardless of the merits of the board of director during the last decade, a growing company must question all the time whether having the same helmsman all the time would hinder the interests of the company in the long run or not. To make a comparison, there is a reason why in some political systems, like the U.S. where Presidents cannot be elected more than 2 terms for various reasons such as potential corruption. Although in private sectors, it's quite different in the sense that it's not uncommon to see CEOs or directors there for more than decades but these are usually people who are recognized as stars of the industry or very respected experts of their fields. Air Canada's management, especially, over the last few years are nothing close to that. So I think it's definitely valid for anyone to question, based on the lukewarm if not downright bad performances of the recent year, whether the system and its people are indeed outdates or too bureaucratic. Even Greenspan these days gets quite a bit of negative criticisms as well even though he was widely regarded as the 'most powerful person' in the world just a few years ago when the U.S. economy was great.

It only further emphasizes that when people who are really at fault, they always have excuses. They can deny everything but it wouldn't help, wouldn't it? But Earth is round, what you give is what you'll get. I hope the new flag carrier for Canada will be an airline that we can be proud of.

why fly

unless the bondholders put AC under i think we are stuck with more years of a bad airline
TO Bad Canadain did'nt buy AC.

exAC

In the end the CP board was more politically connected than the AC board. That was one reason why the Feds did what ever they could to rescue the CP crew and shareholders.

why fly

Who did the Feds "RESCUE" CP from? ONEX? What could ONEX do, bankrupt the company?
No today we wish the Feds had let ONEX buy AC, the outcome could not have be worse than the mess AC put us in.

why fly

AC management bought CP to keep their jobs!

exAC

They tried to rescuse them from the dung heap.
The feds also tried to provide a process so that their friend at Onex could buy CP and AC and then go to bed with AA.

why fly

Well its looks a lot better than what we have today. OH AA isnt chapter 11 [yet ]
I guess I'm still bitter looking at what AC did to ruin CP. AC has never understood the ASIA market.. YIKE remember when they flew to SIN.
PS I met the govt agent from SIN who just laughed at how AC conducted [bungled]the negotiations for landing rights..

parnel

Quote by guava:
You don't need to thank me. We are all entitled to each of our opinions and when I read yours, as a Quebecer, I didn't feel in any way offended by your comments. In fact, it puzzled me how can someone found a mere fact to be in any way an excuse to launch a personal attack... Just ignore it like you did, we all get used to it even though this person tells me to "go eat ****s" in public, just go to show you the standard of the person we are dealing with, unworthy of our time


And as a unionized flunky of AC what do you know about corporate governance--you are an idiot way out of your league here. I too am a Quebecer---so again--mange le merde,SVP.
I brought some facts to my argument;you brought no logic;just an assinine response that one would expect from a union flunky.Are you a steward or a Business Agent?

parnel

Taking Guava in context here----he has been looking for a way to flame me since I wrote an opinion against gay and lesbian marriages on an omni thread.He read it as a homophobic rant,which was a completely wrong reading of the post, and has been looking for a fight since then.I am neither anti gay nor homophobic to be absolutely clear.Nor am I gay.Right wing and anti union yes!!
So come on Guava, let's go and get it over with. I love playing rough with turkeys like you.

parnel

Quote by Abby:
I don't want anyone to think I am picking on Pierre Marc Johnson unfairly. What the author was saying, or what I believe he was saying, is that Air Canada's Board is still composed of more of a politically chosen group of people rather than a business-smart group or airline-smart group, and that they should really look at getting some turnover and making sure the new members are going to help the company succeed. It is a private corporation, not a Crown corp, and perhaps its Board composition should have been modified to show this change, also

With this explanation I owe you an apology;BTW I only suggested the possibility of bigotry--did not actually mean to accuse, but let's face it there is a lot of anti Quebec fervour in the west.
As for Pierre Marc--being at the level of government that he was brought him a lot of knowledge about regulated industries which the airlines are.I would think his qualifications there warrant his place on the board.
I'm not saying the board does not need a shakeup but there needs to be a clearly defined reason to move someone off the board.Change for the sake of change is not change.

B767

What about the airline deregulation thing that occurred a few years back? It's Buzz and his buddies that are screaming for re regulation. That want a return to the oligopolies so their members can be guaranteed the wages he feels they deserve at the expense of the travelling public.

The present board has proven that it can't do the job so it is hardly change fort changes sake.

parnel

My point is valid;change for change sake is not change--deregulation was only partial; they are still controlled by the minister of transport and his whims,if not in law certainly in fact and we would not be in this fiasco if it wasn't for government meddling. Listen I'm no fan of Johnson but he was singled out by ABBY and I continue to use his name along those lines.Show me a board of any large corporation that has people from its industry in the majority of board positions. Outside director means outside of the business. Trying to get someone who completely understands the business almost means getting a competitor on the board.Its not as easy as everyone thinks to get independent board mebers who understand the business.Besides business is business and management brings their business model to the board for approval and the board also has an audit committee that often uses outside independent auditors to back up and review their opinions to the board at large.
Take a look at the boards of big banks and you won't see many bankers on those boards.