InsideFlyer.com [English] United States InsideFlyer.uk [English] United Kingdom InsideFlyer.de [German] Germany InsideFlyer.no [Norwegian] Norway InsideFlyer.se [Swedish] Sweden InsideFlyer.dk [Danish] Denmark InsideFlyer.nl [Dutch] Benelux
Discussion in 'Air Canada | Aeroplan' started by mtlfire, Feb 4, 2013.
| Print Topic
If Aveos and AC were separate companies, how the hell is AC responsible for what Aveos does/did? Is AC supposed to force Aveos to keep the maintenance center open? Completely asinine.
I would almost guarantee their appeal will be successful. They are not required to keep anything open at any cost and that is the crux of their argument. All laws have their limitations. That plant was unproductive and went bankrupt.
Without having read the law, I wouldn't make any bets yet. After all I do live in the province where by law the writing on outdoor signs has to have the French writing at least twice as big as the English writing
I don't think that's the issue here. AC, according to my understanding of the lawsuit, is mandated by a 1988 federal law (privatization of AC) to have heavy maintenance performed in Canada. Aveos was split out of AC at some point and then eventually shut down. I don't think the judge is arguing that AC needs to use Aveos for maintenance, just that they are violating the law by not having heavy maintenance performed in Canada.
Interestingly, the Canadian Federal government's justice department apparently disagreed in an opinion.
Bit more details here:
Right on. The law doesn't specify they could not divest the business and thus cannot be held responsible for its demise. They continue to have heavy maintenance done in Winnipeg.
They do not ! In fact you can watch the tumbleweeds roll through the hangers on warm day.... !
Why do they employ so many people in YWG then? Are you sure they didn't farm that out also to someone else in the PEG?
They still have a large downtown building where all the accounting is done, perhaps a call centre in there too ? Milchap would know for sure . Boeing has a big plant, also a few other aerospace companies there.
And that is nothing like the hangers in YVR which are also vacant and they are trying to flog !
I never like to debate things that I haven't read, I had the law in french but here's a link to the 1998 text in English (I shrunk the text size of course ).
It has been modified a few times over the years, but largely to reword it order to ensure the bilingual requirements were maintained following AC's exit from bankruptcy and create of a new structure of holdings. The goal was to ensure that the new divisions held by AC also had to be bilingual but otherwise it did not modify the substance of the original act.
The specific points in questions are in article 6:
Then, on what basis is AC going to appeal the ruling?
I'm a lot more versed in provincial than federal law at that, but still not a lawyer at that. I'm still trying to pull up the full text of the decision on azimut as I imagine that their appeal will largely use the same arguements but claim that the judge erred somewhere legally in his decision. I read the text as an obligation of result and not an obligation of attempt (Not sure my french english translation on those terms is correct). Typically there are only two ways to get out of an obligation of result, one is that the party holding the obligation is of bad faith and prevents the obligation from happening.
My guess is that their arguement will center more along the lines of there are no companies offering heavy maintenance in Montreal, otherwise they would use them, and that they should not be held responsible for Aveos a seperate entity, for shutting down. And that given that there is no other option other than to start their own maintenance center, that this wasn't the intent of the law.
I'll post the link once the decision pops up in .pdf.
Air Canada should be appealing to the Quebec court of appeals. One judge will hear the basic arguments in the coming months and decide if there is enough merit for the appeal to be heard by the 3 judges of the Quebec court.
*Edit* Here's the decision, you'll have to google translate this one: http://www.jugements.qc.ca/php/deci...08648FAF68212E55C9E4E0A04B5A6CB4DE0ACB9069B33
I read quick in french, so essentially some quick points:
There's nothing in Winnipeg either. From 388 employees to 5 that simply maintain the buildings. AC argued that in this sense they maintain work centers, just no work is done there, they are required to maintain them... not actually use them, or use other ones.
A bunch of objections that Quebec shouldn't be considered an interested party as they have no stake in it (shot down).
Some interesting comments about Air Canada's expert witnesses excluding some key elements that affected their credibility. They excluded information that would have not favored their position and did not present a clear and transparent case based on all the facts.
Their main argument is that the law does not require them to maintain work centers, but that the law requires them to include those requirements in their constitution. And it is, just not respected.
They also claim that since 1988 air craft maintenance has changed, and that many overhaul tasks are now done during light maintenance.
Interesting read all in all.
As I thought, I thought I had read somewhere that AC still owns the hangers and had been renting them to AVEOS. The hangers/downtown offices in YWG were part of a political give back after the central government threw big aerospace contracts at PQ almost devastating the Manitoba aerospace industry(or something like that).
<shaking my head at Quebec Courts>