Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bombardier to Cut 7,500 More Jobs Through 2018, Most in Rail

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 110 posts

Re: Bombardier to Cut 7,500 More Jobs Through 2018, Most in Rail

#41

Post by zorked »

bogomipz wrote: post #39
gok wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 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.

>", but facing lots of competition from Airbus and Embraer, which also receive government support." Do you mean Canadian government support? Not US?

Presumably 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-idUSL2N18D...

Re: Bombardier to Cut 7,500 More Jobs Through 2018, Most in Rail

#42

Post by daok »

gaur wrote: post #33

There 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?

It 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.

Re: Bombardier to Cut 7,500 More Jobs Through 2018, Most in Rail

#43

Post by danso »

gaur wrote: post #33

There 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?

Depending on the company, it's often a lagging indicator for larger weaknesses in the economy or industry.

Re: Bombardier to Cut 7,500 More Jobs Through 2018, Most in Rail

#45

Post by Malician »

dsjoerg wrote: post #13
douche wrote: post #4

Bombardier 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.

Visible to who? I only know of them because I ride in subway cars they made. http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-service... Nobody rides ATVs, snowmobiles and jetskis. Everyone rides the subway.

Depends where you live. I don't ride the subway; they're impractical where I live. ATVs or snowmobiles are necessary for reaching many areas of my state not covered by the road system.

Re: Bombardier to Cut 7,500 More Jobs Through 2018, Most in Rail

#46

Post by tormeh »

gok wrote: post #32
mabbo wrote: post #2

> 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…

I 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.

I 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.

Re: Bombardier to Cut 7,500 More Jobs Through 2018, Most in Rail

#47

Post by DominikR »

arethuza wrote: post #17
cjdkcnsnd wrote: post #9

And 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.

I 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…

When orders from customers are drying up then you've got to cut jobs while trying to keep the best talent, what else are you going to do?

It's irrational for a corporation, not matter how large it is, to keep all it's employees hoping that it will have such a great impact on the overall economy that it will create demand again.

Companies are always much weaker than global and national economic trends, they have to be reactive. If they are not they usually go out of business which is even worse than cutting some jobs.

Re: Bombardier to Cut 7,500 More Jobs Through 2018, Most in Rail

#48

Post by DominikR »

coredog64 wrote: post #23
arethuza wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 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…

Many industries have well defined boom-bust cycles that have little to do with consumer demand. I was at Boeing when their bust was happening during an overall economic boom, so it's even possible for that cycle to be out of sync with the greater economy.

Did their bust occur due to insufficient demand for their products at the time? (or at least projected future demand) It would surprise me if that wasn't the case.

Insufficient demand can happen for many reasons, some of them can be caused by poor decisions within the company, some of them can be caused by the overall economy.

Re: Bombardier to Cut 7,500 More Jobs Through 2018, Most in Rail

#49

Post by Symbiote »

67726e wrote: post #28
douche wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never ridden in a Bombardier subway car. I have driven a Bombardier snowmobile.

Similarly, been on boats with Evinrude / Bombardier outboard. Never seen a Bombardier subway car.

Here's a list, which is probably incomplete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bombardier_Transporta...

They have a factory in Derby, UK, so Britain has loads of Bombardier trains.

Flicking through, other places are Shanghai, Delhi, Sweden, Kuala Lumpur, Vancouver, Detroit, Beijing, Seoul, Austraia, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Norway, Italy, France, Adelaide, ...

There isn't much branding on most trains. Sometimes a tiny plaque in the corner somewhere.

Re: Bombardier to Cut 7,500 More Jobs Through 2018, Most in Rail

#50

Post by Declanomous »

arethuza wrote: post #22
Declanomous wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, working at a company where independent thought is career limit is soul crushing.

Actually 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.

That's understandable. There probably isn't much they can do in that situation, it's a textbook prisoners dilemma.

I'm not sure what your experience was like, but I'd rather be told the truth than lied to. I understand that the directors of a company are people too, and they want to be seen as good people. In the long run, I respect people who told me a difficult truth much more than I respect the people who made it seem as if they were forced in to a particular course of action by forces beyond their control.

I suspect the willingness of upper management to explain the need for layoffs as "surprising", or beyond their control, is as much about thinking of themselves as good people. I'm sure they are fully aware they are compensated for their ability to direct the strategy of a company, and the people they are laying off generally had the least ability to change the direction of the company to prevent layoffs. If they were being fully truthful, the management structure should oftentimes be reducing their compensation first and laying themselves off.

That being said, I understand how ridiculous that expectation is. I just think it's insulting to everyone involved when a company fires the people least responsible for the current predicament, and lies while doing it. I'd respect a manager more who told me it was me or them, and they made the best decision for themselves.

Post reply on HN