Guest GDR Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 Clip from article in today's G&M >>A Texas investment company is positioning itself to become one of Air Canada's largest shareholders later this year, when the airline plans to emerge from bankruptcy protection. Texas Pacific Group, which was a major investor in Continental Airlines Inc. and American West following their restructurings, recently hired a Toronto lawyer to revive its previous attempt to acquire a major stake in Air Canada. Last summer, sources said, Air Canada's board of directors rejected an offer by Texas Pacific to buy a stake in the airline. "It's Texas Pacific's belief that Air Canada is a great franchise," said Texas Pacific spokesman Owen Blicksilver. "The firm thinks management has done a good job in a tough environment. That said, no decision has been made on an investment. There's a lot of work that needs to be done and significant concessions would need to be made to make an investment viable." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 However, looks like the gov't may not facilitate such an investment. Quel suprise.... G & M: 'Mr. Collenette also suggested he is not prepared to increase foreign investment limits placed on the airline, which could lead to non-Canadian ownership of Air Canada or other airlines.' (Currently at 25%) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 It could be done through a combination of voting and non-voting shares, or in combination with a Canadian partner, just as AMR wanted to control AC and food Gerry Schwartz as a partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 Lots of major votes for Milton out there -- normally from those who actually have studied the situation. Unfortunately, it's the buffoons like those in YOW that make the newspapers in this country! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 I would also point out that the minister said the government would not do anything "at this time". No smart politician paints himself into a corner, and Collenette is a smart politician if nothing else (He certainly is a bad transport minister). Imagine if foreign money was the only cash around to save Air Canada. Imagine an 11th hour scenario where 40,000 jobs are on the line, the unions have been dragged kicking and screaming to the party. Liquidation is imminent if the feds don't lift the limit. Quebec's re-elected Parti Quebecois government is reminding its voters how many times the feds lined up to help Canadian Airlines in one way or another but now that 10,000 Quebec jobs are on the line.... You get the picture. Still, i don't think it will be necessary to change the limit. If it is raised, it should be done at a time when there is no gun to the head. I'd like to think that the public interest shown by Texas Pacific will cause others to take a look at the opportunity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 I think that this is the same company that Hollis Harris was a part of when they and AC brought Continental out of Chap 11. As I recall, at that time it was called Texas Partners. Harris brought Milton to AC and they obviously worked well together. Things are starting to look a little brighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shibui Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 Had the idea that perhaps we could just give Air Canada to the Americans by way of an apology for the egregious, emetic behaviour of the Ottawa goon-squad towards such a principalled and courageous nation. Anyone else thinking of emigrating? It'd be nice to be able to look people in the eye again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 I'm still single with an American passport...anyone interested? My price has come down in light of recent events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 Yep, it looks like Bonderman and Coulter. They were generally beneficial owners of CO. They are hardly Frank Lorenzo types. But as the article says, any investment is contingent on those concessions. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030403/wl_canada_nm/canada_airlines_airtexaspacific_col_2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 How do you feel about Utah and Mormon's? Wait, let me check with the wife first, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozerboy Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 You know Beth, I have always loved you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Continuous Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 >> I think that this is the same company that Hollis Harris was a part of when they and AC brought Continental out of Chap 11. As I recall, at that time it was called Texas Partners. Harris brought Milton to AC and they obviously worked well together. << Good and if it is, I hope that they make it a condition on investing in the "New" Air Canada that Collenette keeps his nose out of it unless he wants it broken. You can bet that Collenette is pacing back and forth in his office with the door closed wondering how he is going to make it look like he's acting in the public's best interest now ... especially if Air Canada gets back on it's feet stronger than ever and he didn't have a thing to do with it. Why doesn't Collenette just concentrate on paving the runways, sort of speak by reducing the security tax and regulatory red tape and leave business to the private sector!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest terrier Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 They weren't prepared to do it for Worldways or C3 either. Not sure why to help AC should be a precedent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 Worldways? Wow, you've been carrying that chip on your shoulder around for an awfully long time haven't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest terrier Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 Just stating some examples. Worldways was nothing special to me just a company that didn't get government aid nor was allowed more than 25% foreign ownership. As was C3 when it started up. So once again I ask why complain when the same rules are applied to AC? You really do think its a special case don't you? Strikes me you have the chip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 "Strikes me you have the chip." I'm not the one gloating over the misfortune of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 As I posted somewhere else today, I believe Air Canada should be subject to the same rules as all other airlines: no special treatment, even if it means the liquidation of the company. But no special treatment also means no special disabilities: No Air Canada Participation Act (with its mandated maintenance bases and headquarters in Montreal, no special French language requirements not expected of other carriers) and no special competition rules for Air Canada. Whatever competition rules apply to all carriers should apply to Air Canada. In other words, no special treatment, good OR bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 3, 2003 Share Posted April 3, 2003 Dagger, is easing the foreign ownership rules considered special treatment??? I beleive this law aaplies to all airlines and therefore would it not be considered equal for all if ownership laws were eased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest terrier Posted April 4, 2003 Share Posted April 4, 2003 My point exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted April 4, 2003 Share Posted April 4, 2003 You're entitled to your opinion. You're also more than welcome to leave any time you like if you cannot accept that the position of the Canadian government (if not the skill with which it has been presented) broadly reflects the opinion of the majority of Canadians. Out here in the big, bad rest of the world it is not Canada's behavior that is viewed as egregious or emetic I can assure you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.