Bombardier chairman wants his pay brought back to 2015 levels -

Bombardier chairman wants his pay brought back to 2015 levels

There was an uproar over a nearly 50 per cent increase in compensation to Pierre Beaudoin and five top executives

Bombardier CEO Alain Bellemare, left to right, former CEO and executive chairman Pierre Beaudoin and President of Bombardier Commercial Aircraft Mike Arcamone stand in front of a CS300 before it's first test flight in Mirabel, Que., on Friday, February 27, 2015. (Ryan Remiorz/CP)

Bombardier CEO Alain Bellemare, left to right, former CEO and executive chairman Pierre Beaudoin and President of Bombardier Commercial Aircraft Mike Arcamone stand in front of a CS300 before its first test flight in Mirabel, Que., on Friday, February 27, 2015. (Ryan Remiorz/CP)

MONTREAL – A public uproar over a hefty increase in compensation to senior executives at Bombardier prompted the company’s chairman to ask his board of directors late Friday to scale back his pay to 2015 levels.

The flap over a nearly 50 per cent increase in compensation to Pierre Beaudoin and five top executives was becoming a distraction to the work done by employees at the transportation giant, the chairman said in a brief statement.

“I take this step to put the focus back on what matters — the transformation of Bombardier into the most competitive plane and train manufacturer in the world,” the Bombardier chairman said in the statement.

A Bombardier spokesman said the reduction in Beaudoin’s compensation would amount to US$1.4 million. He would not comment on whether the company’s senior executives would follow Beaudoin’s example and agree to reduce their compensation.

MORE: Compensation for Bombardier senior execs jumps nearly 50 per cent

The statement came hours after a number of Quebec cabinet ministers called for Bombardier to review its compensation policy in light of the fact it is getting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

Total compensation for the Montreal-based manufacturer’s top five executives and Beaudoin was US$32.6 million in 2016, up from US$21.9 million the year before.

The Quebec government gave Bombardier (TSX:BBD.B) roughly US$1 billion in 2016 while the federal government recently announced a $372.5-million loan package for the firm’s CSeries and Global 7000 aircraft programs.

Provincial Economy Minister Dominique Anglade said earlier Friday that the decision to award hefty executive pay increases outraged Quebecers.

“The decision that (Bombardier) took shocked the population — and with reason,” she said in calling for Bombardier to reconsider the pay increases.

MORE: Government to provide Bombardier with $372 million in loans

The province’s finance minister Carlos Leitao added his voice to the call for Bombardier to change course on its executive pay policy.

Beaudoin’s statement acknowledged the public outcry.

“The trust and confidence of our people and our governments are extremely important to the company, and to me,” the statement said.

In its regulatory filing, Bombardier attributed the higher compensation to a number of factors, including achieving profit and cash flow targets, securing CSeries orders and completing the first flight of the Global 7000 business jet.

However, Claude Beland, former head of the Desjardins Group as well as a shareholder rights association, told The Canadian Press in an interview that Bombardier’s executive compensation is “excessive” and “indecent.”

He called on Bombardier shareholders to show up to the company’s annual meeting on May 11 and oppose the executive pay decision in person.

Filed under:

Bombardier chairman wants his pay brought back to 2015 levels

  1. Few things illustrate the dearth of intellect and leadership that infests Ottawa as the ongoing Bombardier scandal.
    We’re our national leadership of even average intelligence, they’d have demanded and received substantial concessions from Bombardier’s executive class. Loans would have been back stopped with share transfers, where the federal government holds blocks of shares in arm’s length trusts until the loans are repaid. These same loans and grants should have been coupled to massive pay cuts among the top executives, until such time as the loans are paid back.
    Again, this ain’t motherf—in’ rocket science. If a guy and his crew, all pulling down multi-million dollar salaries, come a beggin’, hat in hand, the first condition you impose on the loan is a pay cut. When you go to a bank, one of the first things they look at is shareholder draws, and if a business is struggling, they won’t extend your credit if the shareholders aren’t willing to put some more of their own skin in the game.
    I’d have made the discussion real simple. Bring me a list of the directors who have signed up to work for peanuts until the ship gets turned around, along with the titles to their primary residences, and we’ll talk. If they don’t like that deal, go see Boeing.

    • Well that takes care of YOUR weekend.

      Something new to whine about

      • So you like the whole open chequebook policy, do you? Just shows how dumb you are. F—in’ idiots in Ottawa can’t negotiate a deal that any high school drop-out would have hammered out? Pathetic.
        I got no problem with loaning Bombardier the money, but if you can’t sit them down when they’re begging for money, and negotiate terms that are designed to ensure due diligence towards the success of the company and repayment of the loan, you need to be shot with a ball of your own s–t.
        This is the kind of decision that $4k/mo assistant bank managers make every Tuesday.

        • Shows how little you know about Canadian policy on aerospace…..and global salaries.

          Now go watch TV and stop bothering the rest of us.

          • That it’s aerospace and/or global salaries do not matter one whit.
            Bombardier came begging, hat in hand. That fact is not in dispute. Nor is it disputable that the people at the top of the Bombardier food chain are all major shareholders.
            Given that, it is thus indisputable that the Ottawa crew that did the deal with Bombardier and failed to extract substantial concessions were idiots of the highest degree.
            Again, a loan in exchange for shares held as security, and pay reductions of the major executive shareholders down into the low six figure range, would have been merely prudent.
            That the Ottawa brain trust failed on those two fronts is ample cause to pray for an asteroid. Just a small one really. About the size of a Buick. A 71 Buick, mind you, but a Buick nonetheless, to come hurtling in over the Laurentian shield……
            They are stupid. And, they are evil. Kill. Them. All.

        • Yes Bill I’m afraid it does matter.

          Look if you want to have more money, then get a better education.

          But don’t spend your life attacking other people.

          You’re going to end up one of those old men slurping coffee in Timmies and muttering to yourself…..before you go out to pick up pop bottles..

          • Girlie, their titles and positions are wholly immaterial. The only fact that mattered was they wanted financing to assist their struggling company.
            The terms I described are no different than what any private financier might extract were Bombardier to seek venture capital via other avenues. When you go hat in hand begging for money, your title and position are less important than your game plan and your willingness to knuckle down and strive for success.
            By not taking securities and extracting strict conditions, the feds merely guaranteed Bombardier will be back looking for more money down the road.
            The conversation should have been simple and straight forward. The shareholding executives should have been required to surrender their shares to a federally held trust account. On top of that, the titles to their personal properties, up to 50% of the loan value would have been transferred to the same trust. And finally, the executives backing the loan would had their pay trimmed back to low six figures for the duration of the loan.
            That’s called “putting skin in the game.” Banks impose those kinds of terms all the time, as do venture capitalists.
            It is simply mind bogglingly ridiculous that Ottawa did not impose any kind of terms, let alone something resembling what I have just described.
            As for the rest, I’ve made a solid six figure income for over a decade now, on a high school education. I also routinely interact with people with advanced degrees, and I long ago ceased to be astounded at the lack of general knowledge among people supposedly better educated than myself. All the formal education in the world ain’t worth a pinch o’ coon shit if you never pick up a gawdamn book. 90% of the “edjacated” folk I know never read anything more challenging than People magazine.
            I attack the federal government because it is wasteful and corrupt. In the words of a justice of an American circuit court “I hate the federal government. It is a vile and despicable agency.”

          • Girlie?? How old ARE you??

            They aren’t begging Bill. You are.

            6 figures? That’s it?

            The guy who turned down the raise is a billionaire.

            A country can only be run by a govt Bill. Anyone who thinks differently has ‘coon shit’ for brains.

    • Emily- He didn’t turn down the raise. He chose to make a course correction after the people, who are actually on the hook for the loan his company practically begged for, realized they’d been had.
      The question we must ask of the billionaire, and of the club of retards that has been “lending” Bombardier so many billions over the years, is why are we doing this when all the money keeps getting siphoned off into the pockets of the corporation’s executives?
      Besides, if the guy’s a billionaire, why isn’t he bucking up? Why aren’t the major executives of Bombardier reaching in to their own pockets to buy back a few hundred million in Bombardier shares from the company in order to raise funding? If they who are of intimate knowledge with the company and the industry aren’t willing to risk their own money on their own company, why would we?
      We’ve been played for fools, and the idiots in Ottawa were willing dupes.

      • It’s all PR Bill and it’s for people like you who are into frothing.

        However, it got you safely through the weekend and that’s what counts

        Now go have your coffee.