Goldmember

Wow! I'm really enjoying all this hearsay and conjecture over who does what to whom. Please, keep it coming. Anyone know that guy, who's cousin's, friend's, sister dated a gate agent? Should be some great information there.

First, Milton is not responsible for 9/11, SARS, OPEC or other spontaneous outbreaks of terrorism in Bali, Spain and Eastern Europe. He was responsible for the AC/CAIL integration, the introduction of Tango and related fares, the competitive re-alignment of AC.com to include one-way faring, and yes, all of the tough decisions that had to be made on manpower, cutbacks, restructuring, CCAA and future financial partners. Some of the decisions to these issues have come across better than others, but the fact remains that he has made the decisions and stuck with them. He certainly does not need to be lectured on business acumen by a number of arm-chair CEO's. I'm not defending nor condoning all of the decisions that were made, simply stating that there was a lot of influences (internal and external) that shaped the current landscape. Decisions (tough ones) have been made, and I for one, accepted them for what they sometimes were....strong medicine

Second, Unions were also not responsible for the outside forces listed above with Mr. Milton. They are partly responsible for some of the mis-trust and some times bad sentiment between themselves and Mgmt (which may I say, is often overplayed in the media, and this forum). They are also partly responsible for some of the inflexibility in work rules that have dogged many of the decisions that had to be made. They are responsible for performing their duties in a professional manner, to which I believe they perform admirably, especially given the circumstances under which they operate. They are responsible for acting as the face of the company to the customer, and while that face is not necessarily as youthful or exuberant as the face at the other end of the terminal, it is a face of committment and experience. I would gladly take this face under any circumstance.

Finally, Mgmt. Again, not directly responsible for the aforementioned outside forces that have shaped the industry. Equally responsible (along with Unions) for any mis-trust, bad sentiment and stiff work rules. Please remember that it takes two to Tango...and that it also took two to make Tango operate every day. Mgmt is reponsible for realignment of the business to meet the needs of the customer and to remain competitve against its low-cost and traditional rivals. To this end, I believe they have done an excellent job. Restructuring their fares, yield mgmt practices, business rules, routes and incentives is not always a simple task. While some of these decisions often conflict with their unionized colleagues (read: check in kiosks), they are still made with the consumer in mind. This often maligned group is equally committed and dedicated to a new future for AC.

Please note that I am not making excuses for any group or individual. I am only asking for a degree of objectivity in the comments about who bears the ultimate responsibility for decisions and outcomes of AC.

acysb87

[QUOTE=the happy booker]I don't think that you need to apologize. As for rude, you can't beat Parnel when he's into his socialist-bashing, and bashing of anyone who doesn't agree that AC is purer than water passed three times through a filtration system...I really think that a draino-enema would do alot to improve his temperament, if not his language...

parnel may be tough with his words and an AC apologist(self described ).I believe in debating the issue and your comments to improving his temperament will not do that.

parnel

At the end of the day restructuring was going to happen to AC due to the vast changes in the economic landscape of the airline industry. It happened in the railway industry where formerly regulated industries suddenly had to play by the rules of an open marketplace.
Milton has made some mistakes but overall he has driven the restructuring and recosting of the business fairly positively and with results that are starting to show.AC is not the same airline it once and will not be again. Milton has risen to the occasion,so to speak.

parnel

[QUOTE=acysb87]
Thanks ACSBY87....people like that usually self destruct in short order and playing/jousting with that ignorance is a waste of time. Its ignore time.

neale

After reading this artice in the star:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968350116467

i found some facts of mine to be wrong, though still standing by my opinion that RM his done little to help employee moral. However, lately RM has been more involved in AC and the restructuring process, showing that he has potential to turn around the airline, and is trying to instill the confidence in his employees once again. To that i say lets just see where this goes, and hopefully the skys will be filled with a healthy AC for years to come.

Ken hAAmer

However management, and RM as the face of that management, is directly responsible for so many of the policies that have alienated their customers.

parnel

And of course CCAA has nothing to do with management policies made during the period of trustee ship Its called cash flow!!

robsawatsky

I'd think the policy decisions made well before CCAA filing are part of the equation here. And what do you mean by "trustee ship"? The executive and board still make all operational decisions with respect to AC. The court and monitor are not in a position of trusteeship over AC, yet.

parnel

I believe the courts do have a say as do the bankers who provided the interim financing. Not sure of the procedure but there is some control over the company by the courts.

exAC

The Monitor (Ernst and Young) oversees everything.

Business trips need Branch Head (VP) approval and are regularily turned down. All material purchases are reviewed by the monitor and must receive their approval. Any change to contracts or policy must be vetted by the monitor.

Getting anything done at Air Canada has been very slow for the last 14 months.

robsawatsky

I think you mean "capital" purchases or does the monitor actually sign-off on every purchase order?. But my point was that "monitor" and "trustee" are very different. A trustee comes in to oversee a company once it has fallen into full-blown bankruptcy, and is typically a prelude to liquidation; the board and executive are effectively out at this point. Here the Executive and Board are still running the company but under the eye of the Monitor as to any significant decisions.

None of this however addresses the real issue, which is that policy decisions made by the Executive and Board prior to CCAA have contributed to their current situation.

Ken hAAmer

On the other hand they were responsible to anticipate and prepare for such eventualities, even if they didn't know specifically what the eventualities would be. That's why they get the big bucks.

It would appear that they neither anticipated or prepared for anything other than business as usual. Something that a McDonald's fry cook could just as easily not anticipated or prepared for.

Sebring

If I ever meet the McDonald's fry cook who could have predicted that an unknown disease called SARS would leap out of Asia and establish itself in one city outside of Asia - which just happened to be AC's world hub - and in the process destroy most overseas and US travel to Canada for almost a year, well, I want to make that fry cook prime minister.

Listen, Milton has responsibility for the merger. I think AC should have let CP die. And when Milton completed the deal, he did a poor job of managing the service issues. Not that the unions didn't hold a gun to his head, demanding big cash bonuses (extortion money) for integrating the work force. Fact is, the feds made it impossible for AC to do what it has now done under CCAA - open up labor agreements to make them more productive and to cut tens of thousands of jobs. If memory serves AC had about 46,000 jobs in 2000. Now it has about 28,000, I think. That's revolutionary. But it wasn't going to happen without a crisis because first the feds and then some of the unions (read CAW) had no layoff clause that could only be broken under threat of liquidation. So the truth about Milton probably resides somewhere between "it's all his fault" and "none of it is his fault".

What I do know is that AC has gone from a laggard into the forefront of online booking. That's taking out thousands of CAW jobs at an accelerated rate. Ditto with Kiosks. AC's fare structure, if not its cost structure, is now very much like the low cost carriers in both dollar terms and in how fares are priced and booked. There are a lot of good values out there and I am enjoying them.

Moreover, AC can't be such a bad airline because the public hasn't abandoned it despite all of the dire predictions and media bashing. Look at WJ's May numbers out today. A big load factor drop attributed to chasing higher yield. In other words, WJ gambled that travellers would abandon AC during the latest crisis, pay more to fly WJ, and it didn't happen.

Since the Onex bid, I can't think of a single quarter in which AC has been operating under normal business conditions. The merger was followed by the economic meltdown and then September 11. Things were still in recovery mode in the summer of 2002 - with everybody edgy about flying - when the buildup for the Iraq war began, to be followed by SARS. All the while, WJ and SG are growing like weeds.

We may get a truer test of what AC can do when it emerges from CCAA. If the intl travel market doesn't get beaten down by more terrorist trouble - a big if - and the stronger economic period we appear to be entering is a good solid one, it will constitute "a normal market". Business travel may not be as robust as it was in the late 1990s, but I would expect in a normal market that it will be stronger than it was the past couple of years.

At that point, I'll be looking for three things in particular from AC

1. A commitment to regain the confidence of employees with the quid pro quo emphasis on good service.
2. A commitment to the customers in the form of a major investment in the product, including cabin interiors, maybe inflight TV in economy, etc. I want to see the A340-500 product go across the international widebody fleet
3. A further round of intercontinental expansion beyond what has already been announced for 04.

I'd also like to see a bold, positive TV image campaign and perhaps a new livery. I don't expect all of these intiatives to be completed in the next 12 months, but I'd like to see action initiated in all of these areas by late 2005.

parnel

Good post Sebring and you hit the economic timing dead on. No one here seems ready to acknowledge that many other main line airline companies,UA,US AIR,AA,some europena airlines,etc. have suffered similar fates.

Nuitari

You should see what is happenning at other airlines before wanting the 345 being accross the fleet. SQ wants to switch them to 777-200LR.