Jump to content

Calin


QFE

Recommended Posts

Meh he was on The Exchange with Amanda Lange last night. Topics covered;

2 brushes with bankruptcy, and now you're here, "how did you do it?"

Rouge- is it hurting your brand? (Marriott hotel analogy...different products for different markets).

Pension- wow you have a surplus now (yep)

Labour relations- pilots 10 yr deal (culture change...etc)

New lower-cost entrants?- Jetlines et al

Existing competition- usual suspects

Expansion- "international powerhouse"

Overall a good performance, but basically the same information and interview that he's been giving for nearly 2 years.

One thing that strikes me, as good of a CEO as Rovinescu has been (probably AC's best ever) is his extremely guarded nature. I would compare him to Gary Bettman in that regard as both are public figures who seem well aware that a lot of people dislike them. Probably because so much of their success as managers has come from attacking labour. Anyway just my impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many teams would have folded without the salary cap that Bettman fought so hard for? My guess is four minimum and as many as eight. I'm no big fan of Gary's style and his insistence on putting teams in non-hockey markets, but that's a lot of player jobs that he's hepled to create.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The teams and you say would have folded weren't helped by the salary cap, which is actually called the Payroll Range clause and includes a spending floor as well. The CAD strengthened, and they got a US TV deal which I'd argue is Bettmans legacy along with the outdoor games. Also, rather than folding they did move several teams. And the teams that are still in trouble are Bettmans expansion teams...so he doesn't really get to take credit for saving them. Sorry to hijack, Bettman has been a good commissioner, my observation was that Rovinescu reminds me of him in his public speaking style; guarded, somewhat combative, at times defensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CR will talk about growth and 'transformation' but the harsh reality is that it has not manifested itself on the bottom line to the degree that AC can place itself in the same cash flow category as the other North American legacy carriers. With depressed fuel prices these are the best of times (although the currency exchange deficit impacts AC more than US based carriers).

CEO's appear on business talk shows for just one reason - to influence investor activity (read: increase share price).

My guess is that the forecast will be rosy and that increased profits are guaranteed. AC is investing heavily on the strategy that growth will cure the earnings malaise that has affected it for years. What the investment community is looking for is a more consistent and predictable bottom line at AC.

Either way, it is certain that CR can take credit for avoiding CCAAv2.0 for AC. However, I suspect that he would prefer to define the legacy of his tenure as not about the past but instead about but the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where the intrepid, crack, publicly funded CBC research team came up with the "$531m profit" figure in 2014.

According to the PWC audited financial statements, AC's 2014 net profit was $105m.

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/in...014_FSN_q4.pdf

Hi, 'bean - your link doesn't seem to work. IAC, perhaps the following ("profit" is maybe here more of a layman's word, open to a little interpretation):

Air Canada Reports Record Full Year 2014 Results

Highest Annual Adjusted Net Income in Air Canada's 77-year History

Adjusted net income of $531 million or $1.81 per diluted share in 2014 versus adjusted net income of $340 million or $1.20 per diluted share in 2013, an increase of $191 million or 56.2 per cent or $0.61 per diluted share ....

[later, slightly smaller print:] .... The airline reported net income of $105 million or $0.34 per diluted share in 2014 compared to net income of $10 million or $0.02 per diluted share in 2013 ....

Cheers, IFG :b:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bean, I thought you said you ignore non cash foreign exchange markdowns? You know AC's net includes that adjustment.

I ignore them, as well as other "below the line" numbers, EXCEPT interest payments when calculating casm and rasm, and ultimately the operating margin, but they all have to be included somewhere on the P & L.

"Adjusted numbers" are only relevant if every other business "adjusts" it's numbers identically, regardless of whether the "adjustment" is positive or negative.

They don't.

The "adjusted" gas mileage on my F350 pick up is 30mph, but I adjust it so it only takes into account mileage when I'm traveling down hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bean, if you ignore the non cash markdowns, then why keep pushing that theme? Here and on Flyertalk. You know darn well that AC had a $307 million non cash FX adjustment in 2014 related to its large foreign denominated debt. Does WJA have a large foreign denominated debt? If no, then it is in fact a fair comparison to use AC's adjusted numbers.

If the CAD dollar bounces back this year, next year AC will have a large adjustment the other way increasing its net profit. I'm sure you will be here telling us that this is not really a profit, that FX adjustments don't pay the bills, etc etc. And you will be correct, but lets be consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "adjusted" gas mileage on my F350 pick up is 30mph, but I adjust it so it only takes into account mileage when I'm traveling down hill.

You should take that truck in to the shop - "down hill" gas mileage on an F350 should be at least 40MPG and you can do even better if you fill the box with a yard of crushed rock!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...