Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Jetsgo's Michel Leblanc Says No To Former Staff  
User currently offlineLayitontheline From Canada, joined Jan 2002, 85 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1813 times:

http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1022104960432&call_page=TS_Business&call_pageid=968350072197&call_pagepath=Business/News

The reason will be announced at the grand opening why he prefers non-experienced F/A's. Good luck to everyone with there future endeavours.

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDash8King From Canada, joined Nov 2001, 2742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1779 times:

I didn't know you needed a college degree to be an F/A I thought you just had to go to a F/A school?

User currently offlineSlawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1762 times:

He didnt call back any of the senior FA's because they were all pro union, if the were brought back they would work less for more money, and would unionize right away, not a way to run a low cost airline....good for him!


"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1739 times:

I agree with Slawko.

Michel Leblanc is the boss.....he can hire who he wants. If he feels that the pro-union FA's were a detriment to cost efficiency, then he should exclude him. More power to him.

Not just Canadian MD-80's......but NON-UNION Canadian MD-80's. I'm salivating!

 Laugh out loud






Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1717 times:

Don't you mean MD aparatuses 83's Neil? C'mon, get with it man!!!

ML isn't doing anything illegal here, he is the boss, but it does leave a bad feeling when he does that by excluding former staff who worked hard at his airline, and up until very recently, were a part of the plan. There was a pot of money for him if he were to hire former airline staff, but I guess the bean counters weighed the pros and cons and decided it would be cheaper to have brand new workers.

However, there's a problem that I can see. He is only hiring bilingual, college grad f/a's though. Hmmmm, when you ask for too much, you'll end up paying for it! These seem to be highly qualified people for being f/a's. Why does he want so many requirements? Don't you think they will be demanding more very soon? If you want more, you have to pay more, that's all there is to it.



"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineMcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1716 times:

By starting fresh, he manages to avoid a problem that has plagued other low-cost carriers using mainline people. He gets to create an entirely new corporate culture, without inheriting workplace politics and other cumbersome baggage from Royal or C3.

I suspect Air Canada has the same thing in mind with its efforts to start Zip with brand-new front-line staff.



User currently offlineMcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1661 times:

Is that the best they can come up with? That sort of inflammatory approach will get them precisely nowhere.

Quite frankly, I don't see the value in ex-employees trying to go to war with Michel Leblanc. Life's too short to spend it trying to spite people. Better to go about looking for a better place to work, get on with life and put Leblanc and the bitterness they went through with Royal out of mind.



User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1650 times:

I think you have to be careful when reading that post by Slawko, and not generalize by thinking that is the common viewpoint of former Royal employees. I also think that what is posted on the former Royal employees website should remain there. This is not the place to be sharing that sort of message.


"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlinePlaneawesome From Canada, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

Smart, highly qualified people can make more money by helping to create a successful airline that will offer them equity incentives.

More opportuntities and advancement in a growing airline are also incentives to "smart" people.

Unions have become an anachronism and drain energy from an organization. They tend to drop standards and incentive to a lower common denominator.

It's not hard to see what makes more sense to me.

Southwest,Westjet = no union = growth,vitality & profit.
Air Canada = union = strikes,debt ridden & losses.

What would you do ?


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1634 times:

Planeawesome, I pretty much second everything you said, but one side note, and its a bit ironic, Southwest is indeed unionised. In fact its one of the most heavily unionised airlines in the US. What Southwest has that doesn't exist at most other unionised (or non-unionised) carriers, is a corporate culture, that from day one, stressed true teamwork and common goals, no matter what position you held or hold.

Duane



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1632 times:

Planeawesome, it's not as simple as that. In simplistic terms, yes, the points you make are all valid, but this industry is not simple, and neither are the people who are at the head of the companies.

Westjet for instance has profit sharing, and many incentives in order to motivate its employees. Hey, give me that environment any day and no union. Will Jetsgo be the same way? For instance, pilots paid $30,000 as a training bond. From what I hear (which is hardly nothing), pilots wont get any form of profit sharing, or any other incentives. Rather, they'll be "remembered" for giving the $30,000 to the company. And I did see what pilots will be making at the company, and it's really low.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what ML has to officially say about Jetsgo, and what sort of contracts the employees have to look forward to.



"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineLasbagman From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 367 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1610 times:

The Union Issue :
I guess it all depends on where you are and what kind of job you hold.

In the State of Nevada, this is a right to work state or I should say the right to fire state.
Working at a company in a "at will " state without a Union means:
you can be treated without dignity and respect, Favoritism rules, no seniority.
begging for pay raises and the right to fired for no reason any time.
At GlobeGround North America we are represented by IAMAW LL 744
and have a good first contract.
Our Competitor is Non Union, Pays less plays favortism and has a high turnover
of staff and god help you if you complain.

LASBAGMAN
Live Better work Union
IAMAW LL 744


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1589 times:

Generally I agree with Planeawesome.

Unions are by-and-large bad for business with too much focus on work rules, resistance to innovation, work sharing, and pay increases ties to productivity increases.






Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1569 times:

I guess the bottom line in my opinion, and from a worker's standpoint, if the employees are treated with respect and have some sort of power to communicate their issues and are also compensated fairly, then a union is a bad idea. Unfortunately, not many managers will recognize this, and as such, employee morale sinks.

ML has proven that he doesn't care about his staff all that much. They are mere tools for generating revenue. When C3 was trying to get rid of Royal, he publicly said what a great bunch of workers, they deserve better, and that he wants them and his Royal back, and he'll pay for it. That didn't work. Then he came along and said he's going to start Royal2, he's working with the union, wants the former Royal staff back. Well, looks like he had his eyes on some fund in Quebec which he would have access to if he hired them. That didn't work, so all of a sudden, these people who he wanted so badly, now he doesn't want.

I'm not in the least surprised, however. I would work for him again, but it wouldn't be my first choice either.




"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineFallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1565 times:

Although Westjet is NOT unionised there is a "union" of the emloyees. It looks out for the empoyees, while not being a true union.


Mark McWhirter...Contrails Photography
User currently offlineLasbagman From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 367 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1557 times:

YYZ717

Southwest Airlines customer Service Agents are IAMAW Union Members

Lasbagman


User currently offlineMcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1556 times:

A lot depends on the quality of both management and the union leadership, and the workplace culture.

Two friends of mine work in unionised workplaces. One, who works for the provincial government, is very happy. She works in a small department with a friendly atmosphere, where everyone knows everyone else. The other, who works for Canada Post, is miserable, but stays there because it pays his mortgage. People treat each other like dirt, and nobody seems interested in making it a friendlier place to work: his nickname for it is 'Club Grumble'.

In the end, it depends on how people treat people. A workplace where people are appreciated for what they do and where boorishness and office politics aren't tolerated is going to be a good place to work, union or no union. If people aren't appreciated while the boors and the office politicians are allowed to run rampant, it's going to be a rotten place to work, union or no union.

All too often, these 'people' issues get overlooked. But it's probably no coincidence that the three North American airlines that have paid attention to these issues in recent years -- Southwest, Westjet and Continental -- were the ones with the longest stretches of profitability.


User currently offlineSlawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1538 times:

Hey Nuno, it was CUPE who posted that BS on a public forum, if they wanted to keep it to their members then they should have done it the proper way through their own website, or through their own publications, they chose how they wanted to express themselves..so let everyone see them for who they are....as for your other comments, you didnt sound so pro union when the issue came up long before this article in the star did...


"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

Slawko, I don't think you understand my point. I am not pro union, and I'm not anti-union. There's a time and a place for unions. However, the former Royal website is not a public website, you need to have a membership to access it and also, it's only accessible to former Royal employees. So that changes everything.




"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineSlawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1519 times:

No it doesnt, it is accessible to ALL Former employees, that includes Unionized FA's and groundstaff, as well as NON union management, NON union Pilots, NON Union Admin staff, as such it becomes public, CUPE has no right to determine what goes on in a public forum with all MSN forums are. If they have a problem with me posting it here then they should think twice about where they post their BS next time....if it was meant for CUPE's members only then they should have distributed the information through the proper means...


"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 20, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1505 times:

Slawko, once again, you don't understand what I'm saying. We both agree that former Royal staff only go there, and you need to be a member. I never said only unionized workers go there. If CUPE wants to post there, let them. They are trying to reach their members. I'll be honest, I didn't like that message, but hey, it's their perogative.

But you still took a message from a private, former Royal employee site and it should have stayed there.




"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineCO/ba From United States of America, joined May 2001, 399 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1495 times:

I am still undecided on the union issue however, unions are not always as bad as they seem. Southwest is union and they are profitable. So why not hire former employees. If it is a good place to work employees will not want to unionize. Look at CO. Ground staff is not union and neither are Delta F/A's. Though a non-union work force is always preferable I think this is very unfair. This is not a company I would support.



User currently offlinePlaneawesome From Canada, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1457 times:

I think there is a misunderstanding of what a $30,000 training "bond" means.

A bond is usually a form of insurance, like when bail is required for releasing somebody charged with a crime from jail.
It is often used in situations where a bid and/or performance bond is necessary for a construction project.

Such bonds typically don't require anybody to plunk down the cash. You pay a fee (usually a small % of the face value) to the bond issuing firm (insurance company etc.) for the duration of the bond. You must have a good credit rating to pull it off however.

It's like borrowing the money for a specific time period for a fee. Once the conditions of the bond are satisfied, the fees are stopped.

Why should the company pay for a pilots training anyway ?

Is it not the pilot who retains the skills and type ratings to use where-ever he/she wishes ?

Most pilots are not exactly on welfare.



User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 23, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1446 times:

I know how a bond works, but how it was described by one of the former pilots who did not accept, they told him he needed $30,000 to pay to the company, there was no contract detailing what he can expect from that $30,000, other than that he would be "remembered" in the future. Would you give a company that money without having any sort of contract that says exactly what you get out of that money? I know I wouldn't. It tells me that it's a good way to own your pilots, because who's going to leave the airline if they paid all that money to get the job in the first place? They'll take all the shit they get, because it cost them a lot of money.

Regarding pilots not exactly being on welfare, you are telling me that pilots should pay for their type specific training at an airline? They already pay for their training here in Canada, and that costs roughly $40,000. Every time they are trainined on a specific aircraft, be it an Airbus, or an MD 83, or anything like that, it costs from what I hear around $45,000 US. Of course that varies. You think pilots should pay for that?

Let's take a typical pilot, gets their commercial license for about $40,000. Then they fly in the bush. They pay for the training on a small aircraft there. Let's assume that's $10,000. Then they go on to Air Georgian, fly Beech 1900's and have to pay let's say $30,000. Then they go on to SSV, fly A320's, pay $40,000 to train on the A320. Then finally they get to Air Canada. They pay another $40,000 to train on the RJ or whatever they go on. You add up the costs right there.

How much does this "not exactly on welfare" pilot earn in the meantime? In the bush, he might make $20,000 per year if he's VERY lucky. At Air Georgian, he'll make about $25,000 as an f/o, $45,000 or so as a captain. At SSV, he'll start making probably $40,000 per year. Finally when he gets to Air Canada, he'll make $43,000 for 2 years, and only AFTER ALL THAT will he end up making really good money. So they should still pay for their training???????




"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlinePlaneawesome From Canada, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Obviously, I'm not a pilot. I had no idea that type certification was that expensive.
If your figures are accurate I stand corrected.

If I was a young pilot I would consider joining the armed forces.


25 Post contains images Captaingomes : Oh ok, then I can forgive you Right now I am a student pilot as well as in university. I am in both places, because I want to be, and hence have no pr
26 Vref : OK. Just to clear up this 30K thing. If you want to fly for them (and they call you of course) then you give them a cheque for 30K. The money is held
27 Captaingomes : Vref, thanks for clearing that up. I knew there had to be more to it than I understood. But essentially, the company owns you now, because it will be
28 Planeawesome : I've been in business for 20 years and I've never heard of such a thing. Is it an equity investment ? Is your future salary topped up as a form of rep
29 Captaingomes : See what I mean planeawesome? It just doesn't add up. The pilots who were called back (down the list, and only those they wanted) had been at Royal fo
30 Vref : There are two real reasons for the 30K thing. 1. The way the industry is right know he can get away with it. 2. It will keep pilots around for at leas
31 Palebird : Training bonds such as these are ridiculous. And if people are desparate enough to enter into them then they are in a very poor position indeed. Give
32 Post contains images SafeFlyer : I don't know why but JetsGo makes me think of Nationair and Mr. Leblanc, Obadia. You just don't give 30000$ to such a guy. Remember, he sold Royal for
33 Slawko : Safeflyer, he sold royal for 84 million, and C3 did not have a problem with paying that much when they had 8 months to look at the books. One of the b
34 Captaingomes : Too bad for monsier Leblanc, Royal was purchased with $84 million in C3 stock. Unless he sold a fair chunk in the interim, he lost all that money. I'm
35 Post contains links Slawko : http://www.jetsgo.ca Thanks to nuno for finding that one first..
36 Post contains images Captaingomes : Ok, and thanks to Devon for finding that for me! Notice that http://www.jetsgo.ca http://www.jetsgo.com and http://www.jetsgo.net all work. But Slawko
37 Post contains links Captaingomes : http://www.jetsgo.ca http://www.jetsgo.com http://www.jetsgo.net
38 Fallingeese : Those didn't work in the last two days, they must have just been put up. I think this gives an indication of what's Jetsgo will look like.
39 Cpt Underpants : Don't know if this is 100% correct, but my understanding is that Michel LeBlanc came away with very little from the sale of Royal. Apparently part of
40 Noise : Hi guys, there was a very good article on JetsGo in Montreal's La Presse french language newspaper this morning, it stated that in the future, Michel
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Midwest BOD Says NO To Airtran! posted Fri Apr 13 2007 14:20:55 by N917ME
FCC Says 'No' To Cell Phones On Planes posted Tue Apr 3 2007 22:30:20 by Positiverate
EU Says No To Ryanair-Aer Lingus Take-Over posted Fri Mar 30 2007 17:50:28 by Beaucaire
Boeing Says No To Southwest! posted Tue Nov 28 2006 05:57:44 by Bringiton
FAA Says No To JAT For U.S And Canada Flights. posted Tue Apr 25 2006 16:59:16 by Wolsingerjet
America West Says NO To Fargo posted Thu Oct 13 2005 04:33:01 by Azstar
Venezuelan Govt Says NO To AA Flights SJU-Porlamar posted Tue Jun 21 2005 15:47:14 by Luisde8cd
Canada Says No To Universal posted Fri Dec 3 2004 14:40:33 by LatinAviation
CO Says No To GNV posted Thu Jan 15 2004 15:00:34 by FlyPNS1
Usxp Says No To NAA posted Mon Nov 24 2003 22:13:43 by LatinAviation