Air Canada Lay Off thread
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore
Air Canada Lay Off thread
I've removed this thread. Got a complaint about the language. Thread gone.
-
Vickers vanguard
- Rank 7
- Posts: 533
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:04 pm
- Location: YUL
-
tincanflyer
- Rank 5
- Posts: 372
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:27 pm
-
tellyourkidstogetarealjob
- Rank 5
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:11 am
- Location: Cascadia
Globalisation...
Is everybody is buying the cheapest airline ticket when they go on vacation?? Maybe that's why they are trying to reduce salary and condition to keep jobs here instead of sending overhaul work in others country...Because fuel and parts are rising could be an other reason...
Maybe because they couldn't manage a 2 man rush on a 3 hole shithouse.. 
If you have ever been in an Air Canada overhaul hangar and seen the amount of waste and dogf*cking that goes on you would understand.
AC maintenance management would have a hard time with my first statement because for the 2 man rush they would need a lead hand, a team leader, and a management team to oversee it.. Not very efficient..
I've been given shit by AC people, when my previous employer rented their hangar, for doing a job that they determined I couldn't do on my own. Obviously I could because I did..
They need to learn to work if they want to be competitive and stay in business.. If not they will lose all outside contracts and AC itself will contract out all their heavy maintenance..
If you have ever been in an Air Canada overhaul hangar and seen the amount of waste and dogf*cking that goes on you would understand.
AC maintenance management would have a hard time with my first statement because for the 2 man rush they would need a lead hand, a team leader, and a management team to oversee it.. Not very efficient..
I've been given shit by AC people, when my previous employer rented their hangar, for doing a job that they determined I couldn't do on my own. Obviously I could because I did..
They need to learn to work if they want to be competitive and stay in business.. If not they will lose all outside contracts and AC itself will contract out all their heavy maintenance..
-
KISS_MY_TCAS
- Rank 5
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:31 am
- Location: ask your mom, she knows!
The original thread got dumped because some jack*ss decided to join in and swear profusely. Some people applaud that the tread is gone, but thread or not the original idea stands. To summarize the original thread:
1. Oh noes! 700 laid off from the red team in YVR, wages are gonna take a dump nationwide!!
2. No they won't, nobody wants to hire ex-AC techs, they are blackballed coast to coast due to their heavy union mentality, it is notorious throughout Canada, bring on the eager apprentices to keep productivity up.
3. You and you and you are bad, us AC guys are good, trust me. Can I have a job?
4. Some guy calls everyone some pretty ugly words, thread gets dumped.
So there we have it. 700 guys laid off which nobody in the industry wishes upon anyone AC or not, then a fair dialogue opens up and gets trashed by some sailor-mouther n00b. After the fact it has also come to light Cascade has been shipping in filipinos to fill seats while the AC guys live on pogie. Who is truly the enemy?
1. Oh noes! 700 laid off from the red team in YVR, wages are gonna take a dump nationwide!!
2. No they won't, nobody wants to hire ex-AC techs, they are blackballed coast to coast due to their heavy union mentality, it is notorious throughout Canada, bring on the eager apprentices to keep productivity up.
3. You and you and you are bad, us AC guys are good, trust me. Can I have a job?
4. Some guy calls everyone some pretty ugly words, thread gets dumped.
So there we have it. 700 guys laid off which nobody in the industry wishes upon anyone AC or not, then a fair dialogue opens up and gets trashed by some sailor-mouther n00b. After the fact it has also come to light Cascade has been shipping in filipinos to fill seats while the AC guys live on pogie. Who is truly the enemy?
-
electraguy
- Rank 4
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:33 pm
AC
Well I can understand why AC is having a tough time, they don;t give a rats behind about the customer, the union mindset is killing AC as fast as the UAW is killing the auto industry. I feel for these guys but honestly, they will be in for a shock out there if they think other companys operate that way. I personally avoid AC if I can, pretty much a WJ guy here!
Son, Your gonna have to make your mind up about growing up and becoming a pilot.. You can't do both!!
Re: AC
First of all, if there were no unions, Air Canada would have us working for nothing. No, they would have us PAY to work there. And just how is the UAW killing the auto industry???electraguy wrote: the union mindset is killing AC as fast as the UAW is killing the auto industry.
Here's and article from globeinvestor.com which is interesting. Basically it says that productivity in Canada is decreasing.
I have read similar articles that say that North America's future is not in manufacturing. With regard to the UAW it is simply not sustainable for auto makers to pay a high school graduate $30/hr plus benefits etc to put a bolt in a hole for 8 hours a day, for 40 years.
The future apparently lies with technology, engineering R&D, medical R&D, resources and services. It seems that unions are pricing themselves out of business.
News from The Globe and Mail
Standard-of-living gap with U.S. closing
HEATHER SCOFFIELD
00:00 EDT Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The standard-of-living gap between Canada and the United States has gradually shrunk over the past decade, a new analysis by Statistics Canada shows.
"We are slightly improving," Statscan analyst Jean-Pierre Maynard concludes.
In 2005, Canada's economic output per person -- the main measure for standard of living -- was 84.3 per cent of the American equivalent. That's up from a low point of 81 per cent in 1998, and a bit higher than the 12-year average of 83.2 per cent.
The main reason is that Canadian employers have been on a hiring binge, and more Canadians than ever are working. Unemployment levels are at 30-year lows, while the proportion of the population that is employed are at all-time highs. And that has increased the country's economic output substantially.
In the 1990s, Canada was far behind the United States in the proportion of its population that was hard at work, the study shows. By 2005, however, Canada was almost on par with the United States.
"We're doing well on employment. We've had these favourable shocks," agrees Andrew Sharpe, who heads the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, based in Ottawa. He pointed to rising commodity prices and rising terms of trade that have boosted corporate profits immensely over the past few years, leading to prolonged job creation.
"But it's not going to last indefinitely," he added. "There's a sustainability issue."
Eventually, commodity prices will stop rising, the unemployment rate will stop falling, employment levels will max out, and Canada won't be able to count on labour to continue improving its standard of living, he said.
That's where productivity comes in. Especially as Canada's population ages, the economy will become increasingly dependent on productivity improvements to increase its standard of living and keep up with the United States, economists say.
The study shows that the productivity problem is bigger than ever. By Statscan's measure, productivity in Canada was 94.1 per cent of that of the United States in 2000, but had dropped to 89 per cent in 2005. While the study does not include more recent data, other Statscan reports show Canada's productivity has been slowly eroding since that time.
The Statscan data sound buoyant compared with other estimates of productivity. Many economists argue that Canada is only about 75 per cent as productive as the United States. But the trend is equally disturbing, regardless of the methodologies used. The gap between Canada and the United States is widening quickly.
"Labour productivity growth is much higher in the United States than Canada since 2000. . . . We're losing ground in terms of productivity. But . . . it's more than compensated [for] by the number of people who are working," Mr. Maynard said.
The conclusions don't sit well with Jim Milway, executive director for the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity in Toronto.
While Canada's standard-of-living gap with the United States may be shrinking slightly in percentage terms, he says, in dollar terms it is growing. In 1995, income per capita was $8,100 lower in Canada compared with the United States, while in 2005 the gap was $9,200, he said.
He agrees that the jobs boom and the low unemployment rate make Canadians feel rich.
"There are certainly more jobs going around," he said. "One of the reasons we don't feel this prosperity gap is because we're all working harder."
But it's dangerous for Canada to rely on labour rather than productivity as a source of prosperity, he argues.
"It's not a great badge of honour to say we're getting our economy going by brute force," he said.
© The Globe and Mail
I have read similar articles that say that North America's future is not in manufacturing. With regard to the UAW it is simply not sustainable for auto makers to pay a high school graduate $30/hr plus benefits etc to put a bolt in a hole for 8 hours a day, for 40 years.
The future apparently lies with technology, engineering R&D, medical R&D, resources and services. It seems that unions are pricing themselves out of business.
News from The Globe and Mail
Standard-of-living gap with U.S. closing
HEATHER SCOFFIELD
00:00 EDT Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The standard-of-living gap between Canada and the United States has gradually shrunk over the past decade, a new analysis by Statistics Canada shows.
"We are slightly improving," Statscan analyst Jean-Pierre Maynard concludes.
In 2005, Canada's economic output per person -- the main measure for standard of living -- was 84.3 per cent of the American equivalent. That's up from a low point of 81 per cent in 1998, and a bit higher than the 12-year average of 83.2 per cent.
The main reason is that Canadian employers have been on a hiring binge, and more Canadians than ever are working. Unemployment levels are at 30-year lows, while the proportion of the population that is employed are at all-time highs. And that has increased the country's economic output substantially.
In the 1990s, Canada was far behind the United States in the proportion of its population that was hard at work, the study shows. By 2005, however, Canada was almost on par with the United States.
"We're doing well on employment. We've had these favourable shocks," agrees Andrew Sharpe, who heads the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, based in Ottawa. He pointed to rising commodity prices and rising terms of trade that have boosted corporate profits immensely over the past few years, leading to prolonged job creation.
"But it's not going to last indefinitely," he added. "There's a sustainability issue."
Eventually, commodity prices will stop rising, the unemployment rate will stop falling, employment levels will max out, and Canada won't be able to count on labour to continue improving its standard of living, he said.
That's where productivity comes in. Especially as Canada's population ages, the economy will become increasingly dependent on productivity improvements to increase its standard of living and keep up with the United States, economists say.
The study shows that the productivity problem is bigger than ever. By Statscan's measure, productivity in Canada was 94.1 per cent of that of the United States in 2000, but had dropped to 89 per cent in 2005. While the study does not include more recent data, other Statscan reports show Canada's productivity has been slowly eroding since that time.
The Statscan data sound buoyant compared with other estimates of productivity. Many economists argue that Canada is only about 75 per cent as productive as the United States. But the trend is equally disturbing, regardless of the methodologies used. The gap between Canada and the United States is widening quickly.
"Labour productivity growth is much higher in the United States than Canada since 2000. . . . We're losing ground in terms of productivity. But . . . it's more than compensated [for] by the number of people who are working," Mr. Maynard said.
The conclusions don't sit well with Jim Milway, executive director for the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity in Toronto.
While Canada's standard-of-living gap with the United States may be shrinking slightly in percentage terms, he says, in dollar terms it is growing. In 1995, income per capita was $8,100 lower in Canada compared with the United States, while in 2005 the gap was $9,200, he said.
He agrees that the jobs boom and the low unemployment rate make Canadians feel rich.
"There are certainly more jobs going around," he said. "One of the reasons we don't feel this prosperity gap is because we're all working harder."
But it's dangerous for Canada to rely on labour rather than productivity as a source of prosperity, he argues.
"It's not a great badge of honour to say we're getting our economy going by brute force," he said.
© The Globe and Mail
[quote="gli77"]With regard to the UAW it is simply not sustainable for auto makers to pay a high school graduate $30/hr plus benefits etc to put a bolt in a hole for 8 hours a day, for 40 years.
Then why is it that Honda and Toyota pay their employees exactly the same wages as "the big three", and have no unions? And make huge profits? I'll tell ya why, it's because they manufacture quality products instead of crap. Wage structure has nothing to do with it.
Then why is it that Honda and Toyota pay their employees exactly the same wages as "the big three", and have no unions? And make huge profits? I'll tell ya why, it's because they manufacture quality products instead of crap. Wage structure has nothing to do with it.
Conehead,
Quality of product is obviously a great part of the big three's problems. But another problem is the amount they are faced in pensions. Honda and Toyota have not been established in North America as long as the big three, therefore do not yet have the pension burdens equivalent to the big 3.
Do you really think it is a coincidence that GM, Ford & Chrysler all started producing poor quality products, with very little innovations and standard features, around the same time? Or is it because the baby boom generation that started from 1948 has reached the retirement age and therefore a tremendous amount of funds that could have gone to R&D have gone to pensions instead. If the unions keep hammering away at them there will be little remaining. I believe Ford posted a $12 billion loss in a single quarter recently. That's huge!
So you are not correct in saying wage structure has nothing to do with it. It still comes down to the fact that the total cost of a manufacturing employee in North America is increasing in difficulty to sustain versus the output.
Unless the consumer is willing to pay more for the product then the unions footing is becoming weaker with each passing year.
Quality of product is obviously a great part of the big three's problems. But another problem is the amount they are faced in pensions. Honda and Toyota have not been established in North America as long as the big three, therefore do not yet have the pension burdens equivalent to the big 3.
Do you really think it is a coincidence that GM, Ford & Chrysler all started producing poor quality products, with very little innovations and standard features, around the same time? Or is it because the baby boom generation that started from 1948 has reached the retirement age and therefore a tremendous amount of funds that could have gone to R&D have gone to pensions instead. If the unions keep hammering away at them there will be little remaining. I believe Ford posted a $12 billion loss in a single quarter recently. That's huge!
So you are not correct in saying wage structure has nothing to do with it. It still comes down to the fact that the total cost of a manufacturing employee in North America is increasing in difficulty to sustain versus the output.
Unless the consumer is willing to pay more for the product then the unions footing is becoming weaker with each passing year.
I disagree. If the business plan is sound, the company will be profitable.gli77 wrote:So you are not correct in saying wage structure has nothing to do with it. It still comes down to the fact that the total cost of a manufacturing employee in North America is increasing in difficulty to sustain versus the output..
Honda and Toyota both have "defined benefit" pension plans. If they were not sustainable, they would not have them.
yes conehead you are correct that a sound business plan usually leads to a sound company. Apple, Southwest and Westjet for example.
The problems with the big 3 seem to be numerous and have come together in the last decade and will continue to. In response to the poster that said that the UAW is killing the auto industry, I take that to mean that the unions do not appear to take into consideration the dire straights the big 3 are in. In 1960 it was a sound life plan to enter an auto plant, as an assembly worker, for employment and expect to remain there for life with a good wage. Today I think someone would be very foolish to enter an auto plant with the idea that it is sustainable employment.
"Honda and Toyota both have "defined benefit" pension plans. If they were not sustainable, they would not have them."
The same could have been said in 1970 of GM, Ford, United Airlines etc etc. It has now come time for the pension plans to pay out and all of these companies are stretched thin because of it. As I said before Honda and Toyota do not have the lifelong employees that are reaching retirement yet, and GM, Ford and Chrysler do. I am not saying it is the sole cause of their problems but it is a big factor. The auto industry in Canada is not sustainable in the present form and I think it will show through in the next 20 years.
The problems with the big 3 seem to be numerous and have come together in the last decade and will continue to. In response to the poster that said that the UAW is killing the auto industry, I take that to mean that the unions do not appear to take into consideration the dire straights the big 3 are in. In 1960 it was a sound life plan to enter an auto plant, as an assembly worker, for employment and expect to remain there for life with a good wage. Today I think someone would be very foolish to enter an auto plant with the idea that it is sustainable employment.
"Honda and Toyota both have "defined benefit" pension plans. If they were not sustainable, they would not have them."
The same could have been said in 1970 of GM, Ford, United Airlines etc etc. It has now come time for the pension plans to pay out and all of these companies are stretched thin because of it. As I said before Honda and Toyota do not have the lifelong employees that are reaching retirement yet, and GM, Ford and Chrysler do. I am not saying it is the sole cause of their problems but it is a big factor. The auto industry in Canada is not sustainable in the present form and I think it will show through in the next 20 years.
