More Lost Revenue....

[cp fa]

Jenn - I agree with you 100%. Fran and I shop locally as much as possible. Our priority is not "cheap" - buying "cheap" ignores both the true costs of production, and the needed "return" beyond the notion of "profit" - paying appropriately is part of the infrastructure of "community" -and community isn't necessarily only a physical place.

Don't get me wrong Don, I love a good deal as much as the next girl, and I won't put up with poor customer service from a business I'm trying to support, but we live in one of the poorest counties in the province, and I can't turn a blind eye to that just to save a buck. I consider myself extremely fortunate to even be in a position to be able to choose how I spend my money, and I don't take that for granted.

Internet, sorry to say, but you strike me as the kind of guy who's going to end up dying alone in a house full of crap you got a good deal on.

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

[Don Hudson]

Thanks Jenn.

Re, "Internet, sorry to say, but you strike me as the kind of guy who's going to end up dying alone in a house full of crap you got a good deal on."

That's the way those posts struck me as well...sounds like a pretty angry and bitter guy.

[thor]

It's why successful restaurants stay open and the crappy ones close. Money talks. If local guy's business fails, it's not my problem. I don't care. Compete or get lost. I don't owe anyone anything. And the 4.5 million Canadians who flew out of US border airports last year don't owe anyone anything either. You want my money - earn it.

It seems that WestJet does earn somebody's money with a June '12 load factor of 79% vs June '11 of 75.7%, an ASM increase of 2.3 % and an RSM Increase of 6.7%.!

[MD2]

Interesting discussion and intriguing contributions all around. Internet, you bring good points, especially the story of our tax system, but I think what everyone is trying to explain is that the Canadian airline industry as a whole is at a disadvantage in comparison to US counterparts and also in comparison with other transport systems, and they want the Canadian government to level the playing field by lowering the taxes to the US levels. I agree with Bean that numbers don't lie and in fact this old problem has become worse with the rise of the Canadian dollar.

Perhaps this is one area that all airlines in Canada can cooperate to educate the government on this issue and have them lower the taxes and airport fees. The root cause in the government's reluctance to lower taxes, or in general all businesses to lower their prices to respond to the rise of Canadian dollar against US, is that they do not expect it to endure. As for government transportation taxes and fees, one way to deal with this would be to fix it to USD (as is the case with most aircraft leases)....

[internet]

Angry, bitter, dying alone, realist... whatever.

Seeker says, "you still haven't answered the question; how do you, or anyone else, expect that they can somehow step outside their local/national economy and get a free pass from the end result of what you propose?"

And then makes my whole point for me:

"Look, I'm not completely altruistic. I have bought stuff in Alberta to avoid the tax too. I won't buy something from a small business at any price. For example my Optometrist, while being very friendly and professionally skilled, charges absolutely outrageous prices for glasses. I buy elsewhere and don't feel guilty at all but if the prices were closer I'd buy from her because I want her to have the money to buy tickets from Air Canada at some time in the future."

So my answer to your question is this: Your expectation of armageddon and my expectation of the system working as it should causes us to disagree. But I'm right, and you're full of hyperbole. You argue that if I buy tires, vacation in, or fly via the US, I'm killing health care and destroying the Universe. I argue that if enough people see enough money going somewhere else, the US, the next province, the guy's shop across the street, the system forces a reaction to get my $$$ back. That's what's going to happen here.

Why do you think Canadian retailers now have Black Friday sales? hmmmm...

[MD2]

... You argue that if I buy tires, vacation in, or fly via the US, I'm killing health care and destroying the Universe. I argue that if enough people see enough money going somewhere else, the US, the next province, the guy's shop across the street, the system forces a reaction to get my $$$ back. That's what's going to happen here...

In effect, this is what people here are trying to do: to raise enough awareness with government officials and consumers alike, so that government levied taxes and charges are lowered to similar levels in the U.S, thereby affording airlines in Canada a level playing field, nothing more, hopefully nothing (much) less (to put it in a Canadian way!!).

[DEFCON]

Maybe I'm missing something, but don't we carry vacationers abroad to spend their money on non-Canadian entertainment? So, if I own a winter based business and air carriers are taking everyone they can south; how is that okay?

I've got to believe that it's competition, and only competition that'll make our governments respond to this issue, but it won't be until the decline in traffic starts to have a measurable impact on their take?

[J.O.]

Brought to you by the Tides Foundation.

nuff said.

Why not challenge the message instead of dismissing it because of the messenger?

[13820]

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

George Bernard Shaw

Going back and trying to watch it again, here are a few gems before the 2:00 min mark:

-I spent ten years travelling the world tracking where our stuff comes from.

-You cannot run a linear system, on a finite planet, indefinately.

-My friends tell me I should use a tank to symbolize the government and that is true in many countries and increasingly in our own.

I did not need to watch any more.

Why not challenge the message instead of dismissing it because of the messenger?

If you buy into this political ideal, your mind already is made up. Nothing I say will change it. There are a few of you on this board that think in this way and I just accept that, read your views and move on.

It's like listening to the PSAC ads on the radio decrying the evil "for profit US style health care" corporations. The quality of the health care cannot be compared (and may be better) but it is all about the non union health care worker not getting thier fair share. Should it not be about the patient? Not where the profit is going? Why should there even be a profit?

I am not going to debate the message, and I will dismiss it due to the messenger.

If you want to see a different take on the Tides Foundation and a different take on these type of "public service announcements" google "Vivian Krause" check out where some of this funding comes from and what the objectives truely are.

[MD2]

Maybe I'm missing something, but don't we carry vacationers abroad to spend their money on non-Canadian entertainment? So, if I own a winter based business and air carriers are taking everyone they can south; how is that okay?

I've got to believe that it's competition, and only competition that'll make our governments respond to this issue, but it won't be until the decline in traffic starts to have a measurable impact on their take?

I think the point that somewhat convolutes this issue is that it has to do with traveling and takes the consumers somewhere else, that is beside the point. It's not about going abroad and spending money there, it's more about how and with which airline they get there in the first place. Let's assume it was a different kind of business, a fast food restaurant, and half of them had to pay higher taxes and fees, clearly it would affect them negatively.

The challenge in understanding this issue is the fact that it involves airlines from other countries, but the main issue is that due to tax policies some companies - namely airlines in Canada as opposed to U.S ones - are at a disadvantage, meaning their cost is already higher before they start. It's like you start a race and your competitors are already a third of the way ahead, therefore you have to run much faster to catch-up, not to mention pass them.

To make matters worse, this is also true in general for airlines in Canada as opposed to other means of travel, meaning things having to do with flying are taxed higher. In a competitive environment, like a race, it's only fair for all to start at the same point and then you're right, let competition sort out the rest.

[J.O.]

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

George Bernard Shaw

Going back and trying to watch it again, here are a few gems before the 2:00 min mark:

-I spent ten years travelling the world tracking where our stuff comes from.

-You cannot run a linear system, on a finite planet, indefinately.

-My friends tell me I should use a tank to symbolize the government and that is true in many countries and increasingly in our own.

I did not need to watch any more.

Why not challenge the message instead of dismissing it because of the messenger?

If you buy into this political ideal, your mind already is made up. Nothing I say will change it. There are a few of you on this board that think in this way and I just accept that, read your views and move on.

It's like listening to the PSAC ads on the radio decrying the evil "for profit US style health care" corporations. The quality of the health care cannot be compared (and may be better) but it is all about the non union health care worker not getting thier fair share. Should it not be about the patient? Not where the profit is going? Why should there even be a profit?

I am not going to debate the message, and I will dismiss it due to the messenger.

If you want to see a different take on the Tides Foundation and a different take on these type of "public service announcements" google "Vivian Krause" check out where some of this funding comes from and what the objectives truely are.

Here's a quote I like:

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion.”

Harlan Ellison

I don't recall saying that I bought into her political ideal, nor did I say that I agreed with it. For what it's worth, I'm not a big fan or her style either. I found the tank reference little more than pandering. But how can I have an informed opinion if I simply dismiss someone's point of view because I don't like their style? There's been some style used in this thread that has ruffled feathers but that hasn't stopped the discussion. I would suggest that the best debate comes from passionate discussion.

Regardless of her style, some of what she says is thought provoking. She challenges our carefree approach to daily life and asks us to think about our impact on the world around us. If it's too difficult to contemplate how we're affecting the planet, surely it's not too much to ask what our lifestyle is leaving behind for our grandchildren. I am not willing to accept that we are stuck with what we have.

It is a fact that some of the resources we rely upon come from a finite supply and when they run out, we will have a problem. Beyond lumber and food stocks, there are few natural resources that can be replenished, and the ones that can require an effort. If we refuse to consider that reality, we take the risk of running headlong into a brick wall when the escape road is well in sight. There are alternatives to tapping out our finite resources. Many of them, like precious minerals, can be recovered and recycled. But those that can't (oil) will require reasonable alternatives.

The best innovation comes in response to a problem. The problem has to be recognized for that innovation to happen. Stifling differing opinions (like our current leadership is doing) has never led to innovation. It leaves us without a complete picture, and ill equipped to act.

[DEFCON]

MD2

“It's not about going abroad and spending money there, it's more about how and with which airline they get there in the first place.”

Why isn’t the ‘big picture’ worth considering? It really isn’t appropriate to consider the interests of one industry in isolation, is it?

“Let's assume it was a different kind of business, a fast food restaurant, and half of them had to pay higher taxes and fees, clearly it would affect them negatively.”

By, ‘half of them’, I presume you mean; the passenger? If that’s the case and you agree that the vast majority of Canadians live along the US/Canada border and have access to an American airport; then a percentage equal to the relative number of Canadian travelers could with the right motivation, join the exodus? I think the number of travelers able to exercise the US departure option could be closer to something like 80%?

“The challenge in understanding this issue is the fact that it involves airlines from other countries, but the main issue is that due to tax policies some companies - namely airlines in Canada as opposed to U.S ones - are at a disadvantage, meaning their cost is already higher before they start. It's like you start a race and your competitors are already a third of the way ahead, therefore you have to run much faster to catch-up, not to mention pass them.”

Management claims, pilot remuneration is directly related to their ability to profit. Let’s suppose ET was coming to Canada with their 777’s and a Canadian 777 carrier was competing directly. ET is paying their 777 Capt’s 10K per month versus something like 23K here? Isn’t this but one example amongst a hundred others in which the Canadian industry is at a competitive disadvantage?

[MD2]

DEFCON,

By half, I meant half of the airlines, meaning the ones in Canada as opposed to U.S ones are worse off due to higher taxes and fees north of the border, so that is partly why their cost is higher. We may be able to consider the whole big picture, but to keep it simple we are talking about how airlines fare in Canada. Let's not forget that they are also worse off than trains and buses since they have to pay higher fees and taxes, that is the whole point: what the government can do to create a "level playing field", that is all.

I assume by ET you mean EK as in Emirates airlines, I assure you many times over that their 777 captains make a lot more than what you said and rightfully so. The difference again, dare I say is in the taxes my friend, not to mention a black fluid that comes out of the ground apparently for much less over there. Whatever any management claims, the informed ones know that pilot cost has gone done significantly over the several decades and overall, it is not as big a factor in the grand scheme of things as they make it...

[MD2]

Here's a quote I like:

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion.”

Harlan Ellison...

I know this is not from you, and I do get your point, but respectfully I have to disagree with statements like these since they are subjective; after all, who is to decide what is or is not "informed"? It's like saying you are entitled to have your own belief as long as it is "good" or "informed", slippery slope my friend, slippery slope! Of course, if that is really your opinion, informed or otherwise, I'm happy to accept and respect it as that, but cannot agree with it!!

[J.O.]

I know what you're saying, but in this specific case, dismissing what someone has to say on a particular subject because you don't like their politics or their manner of speaking, leaves your opinion open to being considered as "uninformed".

[13820]

I would argue that I am not "uninformed" on this subject.

Because I choose to not believe the pap that this video pukes out, makes me uninformed in you opinion, is your perogative.

I did not dismiss the video because I did not like their manner of speaking.

I dismissed the video because I see it as intentionally misleading and one sided.

"Stifling differing opinions (like our current leadership is doing)."

LMAO

Did you write the video?

Thank you J.O. for the replies. I will crawl back into my lurking position and not bother you anymore.

[boestar]

Last week I went on a 3 day Motorcycle trip to the (Evil) United States. Before I went I needed to replace the rear tire on my bike. tires are not cheap. I could have purchased the new tire online for significantly less than I paid for it but I would have had to add shipping, Brokerage fees (UPS SUCKS BTW) and HST. Which does in fact bring the prices overall closer to what I did pay. But in talking to my Motorcycle Shop owner (small shop, honest guy, great service) I decided to buy from him. Our discussion was around the fact that the online retailers will sell at or near their cost for tires and make their money on the shipping. They also do not have to install the tires so their only real overhead is warehousing. He WILL NOT install tires that he did not sell and this is becoming very common these days. He absolutely cannot remain in business selling tires with little or no markup on them. I understand that fully and will support my local shop in this regard. The problem is the distribution of the tires in Canada. Parts Canada is the sole exclusive distributor in Canada for most Motorcycle and Recreational equipment parts and they place their 20% markup on those parts first. THIS is the harm being done to the local economies and is what stifles the little guy in the competition. Because he cannot buy direct from the manufacturer or 1st level supplier he must charge more to the end customer. there are too many links in the chain and many of those links are unnecessary. I spent more than I budgeted but got what I wanted installed and balanced.

On another note. I paid $17.05 today to fill the bike. when I was in Ohio I had to shoe horn fuel into the tank to get even close to $10 and that $10 carried me almost 25% further that the Canadian Fuel counterpart. So who is getting screwed?

[DEFCON]

MD2

I agree with most of what you said, but in today's so-called 'global' economy, I just don't believe that much anything can be examined in isolation?

By ET, I meant Ethiopian, and they are paying 10K per month for 777 Captains. I just posted an ad for same on this Board.

As it is, pilots have created their own troubles over the last 25 years or so and continue to do so? A high number of these expat jobs are being filled by retiring North American pilots who with their retirement benefits, if there are any, see the personal benefit to continue flying and take the extra cash regardless of what that may mean to the bottom line of the guy serving out the first part of his career back at home.

[conehead]

On another note. I paid $17.05 today to fill the bike. when I was in Ohio I had to shoe horn fuel into the tank to get even close to $10 and that $10 carried me almost 25% further that the Canadian Fuel counterpart. So who is getting screwed?

I don't get that part... Are you saying the American fuel packs more energy than the Canadian counterpart? Because Obama recently signed a Bill allowing up to 15% ethanol content in their gas, which will lower your fuel economy... It's actually a ripoff. They should charge a lower price for fuel containing ethanol.

[MD2]

DEFCON, thanks for the explanation, good points.

[boestar]

Conehead:

The formulation of fuel in Canada and in the US is different. It takes a chemical cocktail to actually get ethanol to mix with refined gasoline and not precipitate out. Also the chemicals used in the replacement of Lead are different as well. As a result of this the same Octane rated fuel in the US contains more energy than the Canadian Counterpart. this has been the case for many years. Fuel injected cars do not see the difference as clearly as Carbureated models or Carbureated Bikes. I am lucky to see 220 Km before hitting reserve on my tank. On the US trip I was seeing upwards of 250 and I ran the last tank to the end and was just shy of 300 when I filled it up. Yes it is a big difference for sure but the evidence is quantifiable. My issue is that I paid twice the amount to fill the damn thing when I got home.

[conehead]

Conehead:

The formulation of fuel in Canada and in the US is different. It takes a chemical cocktail to actually get ethanol to mix with refined gasoline and not precipitate out. Also the chemicals used in the replacement of Lead are different as well. As a result of this the same Octane rated fuel in the US contains more energy than the Canadian Counterpart. this has been the case for many years. Fuel injected cars do not see the difference as clearly as Carbureated models or Carbureated Bikes. I am lucky to see 220 Km before hitting reserve on my tank. On the US trip I was seeing upwards of 250 and I ran the last tank to the end and was just shy of 300 when I filled it up. Yes it is a big difference for sure but the evidence is quantifiable. My issue is that I paid twice the amount to fill the damn thing when I got home.

I was not aware of this. Thanks, I learned something today.

[Mitch Cronin]

Ok, I know I'm late, but.... did anyone else hear the lyrics to "Money" in this thread? ....."Don't give me that do goody-good bull **bleep**" .... "I'm alright Jack, keep your hands offa my stack"... Alright, sorry.... I'm just thinkin' how cool it is to hear how clearly that song is a reflection of some people's reality...

I'll go away now.... carry on....

[boestar]

Malcolm:

There are many different formulations of Gasoline to reach the "Top Tier" Like oil the additive packages can differ significantly to reach the same result.

As a note the US gas gave me around 285 Km or something like that. I filled my tank from near empty this morning for almost $18 at 205Km So the US gas gave me an 80 Km advantage over around 15 litres of fuel. There is no other explanation for it with all things being equal. in fact I am carrying less weight on the bike now because I am not carrying luggage so by that alone I should see better fuel economy.

[Seeker]

boestar; I'm having a hard time accepting/understanding how you could get 39% better fuel economy using US gasoline. I'll have to do some research to see if I can find a technical explanation and/or corroberation for this because it doesn't make sense to me. You say that this is not noticed by fuel-injected vehicles but surely if there was a 39% advantage for carb vehicles this would be noticed and exploited, right?