9 ms·
Bombardier to Cut 7,500 More Jobs Through 2018, Most in Rail
- mabbo 10y ago> Chief Executive Officer Alain Bellemare said he did not expect the job cuts, which include 1,500 workers in Quebec and 500 in the rest of Canada, would affect the company's talks with the federal government over a $1 billion investment in its CSeries jet program. "Hey Federal Government, we'd like you to help us out to the tune of a billion dollars, because we're such a big important employer here in Canada... also, we're going to slowly stop being such a big employer"
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dan1234 10y agoThey just secured a £1bn UK contract in August[0], must be their favourite number. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-37031833 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-37031833
- mast 10y agoOh, I think they're still going to be a big employer, just not in Canada: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/bombardier-still-aims-to-outsource-jobs-as-it-seeks-bailout-from-ottawa/article29307944/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/bombardier... The layoffs mentioned here seem to be more related to the rail division than to aircraft manufacturing. The rail division which appears to have a lot of problems. http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/bombardiers-thunder-bay-plant-hit-with-supply-chain-woes http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/bombar... http://spacing.ca/toronto/2016/05/03/bombardiers-mexico-problem/ http://spacing.ca/toronto/2016/05/03/bombardiers-mexico-prob...
- gok 10y agoI don't think this is inconsistent at all. They're laying off mostly people in their rail division, which is based in Germany and doing poorly. They're asking for some government support for the aerospace group, which is based in Canada and doing ok, but facing lots of competition from Airbus and Embraer, which also receive government support.
- bogomipz 10y ago>", but facing lots of competition from Airbus and Embraer, which also receive government support." Do you mean Canadian government support? Not US?
- cheriot 10y agoAirbus is European and Embraer is Brazilian. Airbus even lost a WTO case over illegal subsidies.
- bogomipz 10y agoSure, I was just curious if someone US money was funneling to the EU in some circuitous fashion. Airbus is France and German y correct?
- zorked 10y agoPresumably from European governments in the case of Airbus and from the Brazilian government in the case of Embraer. In the late 1990's Embraer and Bombardier sued each other in the WTO which found both governments guilty of subsidies. Embraer is preparing to sue Bombardier/Canada again: http://www.reuters.com/article/embraer-bombardier-idUSL2N18D1JR?type=companyNews http://www.reuters.com/article/embraer-bombardier-idUSL2N18D...
- tormeh 10y agoI wonder why governments subsidize production of commercial airliners so much. There are no network effects or lock-in, so there is nothing to milk after you've gotten big, just more need for subsidies. And jet fighters etc. are usually made by different manufacturers altogether, except for military freighters.
- geff82 10y agoHope I can still buy my later bizjet there :D
- douche 10y agoBombardier is a weird company. It's one of those huge conglomerations that is in multiple lines of business, like some of the Japanese consortiums. This article mentions their aerospace and rail lines, which I wasn't even aware of; their more visible business, as far as I know, is in ATVs, snowmobiles, and jetskis.
- maxerickson 10y agoThe sport vehicles division was spun out into an independent company that doesn't really use the Bombardier brand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Recreational_Products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Recreational_Produc...
- cybrjoe 10y agoThey also make karting and small aircraft engines under their Rotax brand.
- dingaling 10y agoThe snowmobiles et al aren't part of Bombardier-proper any more, that part of the business was sold-off back in 2003 to focus on the 'core' of transportation systems. They're made by BRP now ( Bombardier Recreational Products, technically, though they can't use the name ) who seem to be doing fine. Bombardier is a running joke in Northern Ireland, where they bought Short Brothers[0] and shut-down a promising and well-advanced airliner project only to recognise that there was a market niche and launched the CRJ hastily streched from their Challenger business jet. And then a few years later, after selling over 1000 of them, discovered they owed per-hull royalties to Bill Lear ( of Learjet ) who held the rights to the original business jet design... Every few years they lay-off hundreds of Belfast workers, then receive a big order and hastily recruit agency-supplied contractors who have no idea how to assemble an aeroplane. Guess what.. by the time they're up to speed, it's time for another lay-off because business is soft again. [0] the industry-preferred partner for Shorts was Fokker, but uk.gov was interfering and preferred Bombardier
- sandworm101 10y agoAnd didn't they drop the bombardier name in favour of something more appealing to the US ATV/snowmachine market? Aren't they called BRP now?
- enjoyitasus 10y agoCan't say no one saw this coming. They continue to build products not on time and not on budget.
- JoelBennett 10y agoIt seems like they've been having financial difficulties for the last 10-20 years. It's almost like they are the Radio Shack of trains/plains/snowmobiles.
- enjoyitasus 10y agoHaving said that, I do hope they pull through. There was a time when someone wanted to purchase their bus/train division. Not sure why they decided not to divest, might have been able to keep those jobs while improving procuct line-up and market reach.
- peterb 10y agoThey have horrible management, which is where the "layoffs" should happen. They have great engineers, skilled craftsmen, workers, etc., but the upper ranks and board of directors are full of patronage and incest.
- mmastrac 10y agoI think a more appropriate final word here would be "nepotism".
- AtheistOfFail 10y agoYou're right, the company is full of nepotism and incest.
- omouse 10y agoBut since they're a Canadian company and we protect our own, they continue to win contracts because we're too conservative and risk-averse to allow new companies to be formed and let Bombardier lay people off. It's finally happening and I'm glad. It sucks that 7500 people are losing their jobs but they have valuable skills that will be more useful at Bombardier's existing competitors and future, not yet created competitors. Here's hoping some more competition happens in the Canadian business world because it's woefully uncompetitive and tends towards oligopolies and monopolies.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cjdkcnsnd 10y agoAnd in a few years expect to read "Bombardier to Cut 7,500 Additional Jobs Through 2023." Such is life in a demand-limited economy, where the more companies cut jobs and pay, the more their profitability and the larger economy suffers, and the more they further cut jobs.
- arethuza 10y agoI remember the team I was in at the time being told in 2008 by a senior executive of the large industrial company I was at that the prevailing management consulting view on how to survive a recession was to "cut quickly and cut deep". He then went on to explain that the management team were surprised at how quickly orders from customers were drying up. Pointing out that if everyone was cutting quickly and deeply then it's hardly surprising that demand dries up seemed a potential career limiting move so I kept quiet.
- Declanomous 10y agoIn my experience, working at a company where independent thought is career limit is soul crushing.
- arethuza 10y agoActually it was a very good place to work - lots of extremely smart people, which is probably why I remember the apparent failure (or unwillingness) to make that inference.
- michaelcampbell 10y agoI initially thought that the number of bombardier jobs (as in, the guy who drops bombs from a plane) was being reduced by 7500. I was shocked there were that many.
- lefstathiou 10y agoThere is a lot of value and scale at Bombardier. What is likely to happen is some private equity firm will form a syndicate and purchase the company - cut it into pieces, slash management, remove the fat etc. It will be a 3-5 year process. Worth highlighting I am not saying this with disdain for the private equity industry. One of its intanigble benefits is that it serves as an agent of dramatic change for companies and industries - change that cannot spontaneously occur for public or government owned institutions (e.g. the post office). Will be interesting to see how this plays out long term...
- ConfuciusSay02 10y agoThat won't happen, because the Quebec government will not allow it.
- omouse 10y agoBecause canadians are risk-averse. Hence why only the banks have been continuing to make money; they even invest in each other to keep the risk-averse cycle going.
- ConfuciusSay02 10y agoIt's also due to, in the case of the Quebec government, nationalistic sentiment. It's a difficult balance to strike - keeping and supporting high tech manufacturing, while trying to remain competitive. I think at the moment, the government intervention (blocking suitors and direct investment) is in fact doing more harm than good, but perhaps they know better - I have no knowledge of how competitive the C-Series really is or not.
- dpc59 10y agoThe liberal party of Québec isn't very nationalistic, it's mostly that they have very deep ties to the Beaudoin family that has inherited Bombardier from their parents without having the competency to manage it. And our government is in the hand of corporations since we still have colonial institutions, so they spend our tax dollars on free loans that will never be paid back.
- gaur 10y agoThere are hundreds of millions of people in North America. Why do people act like gaining or losing a couple thousand jobs is some kind of earth-shaking development? I get that losing jobs sucks for the people involved, but sometimes I even see US jobs reports delivered as breaking news in national newspapers. Why?
- asimuvPR 10y agoFiring people has an exponential effect.
- gaur 10y agoWhatever that means.
- paulddraper 10y agoI believe it has a long-reaching effect, but not "exponential", at least not along any axis I know of. Does firing 1000 people have a more than 2x effect than firing 500? Unless by exponential, you just mean "a lot".
- daok 10y agoIt is because people feel close of these kind of news because it can happen to them. People do not like negative situation that they can visualize easily themselves into it. Losing a job is something that can happen to everyone, has a big impact. That is why it's in the news.
- mtgx 10y agoTime to invest in hyperloop technology? With robotized cars and cheaper and cheaper air travel, rails are becoming a thing of the past.
- jandrese 10y agoKind of like saying "lets divest from Ford/GM/Toyota/etc... because Moller promised that the Skycar will be ready in 3 years".
- gnipgnip 10y agoIn the US, passenger rail has always been neglected. This is not uniformly the case around the world.
- coredog64 10y agoPassenger rail is subsidized where it does the most good (mainly the Northeast US) and ignored where it won't. Rail traffic from CA (or WA or OR) to the east has to deal with this insignificant barrier also known as the Rocky mountain range. Passes through the Rockies are frequently as high as 4000 feet and feature exciting twists and turns. It isn't impassible to rail, but it doesn't lend itself to the type of high speed rail that can compete with air travel.
- cstavish 10y agoIn 2014, while in college, I did a co-op rotation at the Bombardier Transportation facility in Pittsburgh, PA. The rail division may be based in Germany, but there's a sizable rail engineering contingent in Pittsburgh. I worked with a lot of good people and engineers there--I hope they do alright. Even in 2014 there was grumbling by the engineers about upper management, and I remember attending an "all-hands" meeting where a visiting executive talked of belt-tightening. In a fairly tone-deaf delivery, he spoke of limiting his own business-class international travel.
- tormeh 10y ago>In a fairly tone-deaf delivery, he spoke of limiting his own business-class international travel. I am reliably informed that business travel sucks donkey ass, (almost) regardless of class. It's tone deaf because travel has positive connotations to most people, not because he's out of touch with reality. To a business traveler, economy class is adding insult to injury.
- gaius 10y agoYes and no. I remember back in the day an exec taking a Concorde flight from NYC to London to tell us that if we could all manage to save $5/day, there would be no layoffs... Yeah, he was wrong about that, but he would have gotten loads of airmiles...
- totalZero 10y agoI am reliably informed (by Kayak) that the cheapest direct flight from JFK to Heathrow, one week from today, costs $901 in economy class on British Airways, while the cheapest business class ticket costs $5451 on Virgin Atlantic. The saying "A fool and his money are soon parted" extends to corporations, too.
- Frogolocalypse 10y agoI'm the same with my interactions with Bombardier. Every time I've come into contact with them in business, or through networking functions, I've noticed what a good group of people they've been.
- omouse 10y agoBombardier should probably be split up into multiple smaller companies and taken off the public's $$$. I've paid taxes and I'm pretty sure most of my tax dollars are just getting thrown at Bombardier.
- based2 10y agohttp://www.reuters.com/article/uk-france-alstom-idUKKCN11K1WB http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-france-alstom-idUKKCN11K1W...
- gnipgnip 10y agoI'm surprised they couldn't find a buyer over in India (and still keep the engineers on board).
- noisy_boy 10y agoConsidering the significant push for high-speed train infrastructure in India (and the fact that train is the main mode of long distance travel for a majority of Indians), I'm also surprised that didn't focus more on India (or maybe they did and it didn't pan out, I don't know).