Guest b52er Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 I guess all the other airlines in Canada now get to subsidize AC on their AIF fees due to airports, potential Nav Canada Fee Increases due their non-payment, yet still using the service, Landing fees ect. They should be cut off the service until they pay up to prevent the rest from having to cover for them. SHEEZ!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kevbert Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 All that is happening is AC is returning the favour to those bloated, inefficient organizations that have gouged AC for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 That's a bit of a stretch! How exactly are other airlines subsidizing AC when their rates and charges have not increased by one cent since the CCAA filing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 It won't be long before the discount crowd is looking back at the "good old days" - when AC was a slow lumbering giant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest b52er Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 At once again, the expense and subsidization from others!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest b52er Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Isn't AC still utilizing the services of Nav Canada? Isn't AC still collecting AIF (and not turning it over to the appropriate facilities (as they apparantly did not do in the past)? Isn't AC still using the airports throughout the country? Others are paying the services, and on time, therefore, a type of subsidization for AC.......again. If the others did not pay their bills, then the service would not be in place as nobody would be paying to cover their staffing levels, and facilities. When will Canada and Canadians ever stop paying for AC? C3 didn't get a chance to use the facilities for free, why should AC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest b52er Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 "Should Nav Canada be unsuccessful in collecting these amounts, they will . . . be recovered in future customer service charges," chief financial officer William Fenton said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Well C3 was in debt up to $240 million when they went under, who were the crditors for al that money??? If AC were to liquidate, wait to see how big your AIFs and Nav Can fees get! Why don't you ask Uncle Clive to file WJ into CCAA, then you can do it for free? You're a clown, maybe we should call you Bozo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dockjock Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Restructuring doesn't mean they don't have to pay any bills, it means the trustee decides which bills get paid and how much. Creditors are probably still getting some of their money- the protection just staves the wolves off from stopping operations outright. Gawd, its not a free ride now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Philip Aubin Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Under CCAA, any existing debts at the time of filing are frozen and the creditors lumped into several classes. While companies are ordered to continue to provide services to Air Canada while it is in CCAA, I also believe that Air Canada must pay for those ongoing services (but not the prior debts). Like many companies planning on entering into CCAA, it sounds like Air Canada may have saved cash by causing airports and Nav Canada to incur unsecured debt by not paying their fees for the past month or so. I believe that it is this amount that the airports are complaining about. If anyone has better info on the CCAA process and knows that I am wrong about this, please correct me. Philip Aubin AC Pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Seems to me that the GTAA owes AC a big chunk of money after yesterdays "No Deicing Fluid" fiasco. Anyone know if this may be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest b52er Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 The same level of services will not be required without AC, therefore perhaps less fees charged to others. Perhaps a good thing? And what's with the handle "George"? Now that's Bozo..ish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mars Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 That's funny, I thought that Air Canada was the model for bloated, inefficient organizations. No wait, it was taxes and fees, competition (how dare they!), the economy, war, SARs, etc. to blame for Air Canada's current situation. For an airline that some like to call Canada's 'national' or 'flag' carrier, the constant "it's not our fault" theme for the failure sure sounds more like the 'sue them all' mentality prevalent south of the border where no one is responsible for one's actions any more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictues Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 As ngeorge said b52er you are a clown, when AC emerges from CCAA they will be more competitive and will be aying ALL their bills the same as Westjet and others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Hi mars There is no doubt that AC has been hit hard by all the things that you mentioned. In the end however what really did us in was West Jet. West Jet came in as a new entrant with a good business plan, kept their costs down, got good people and sold their product well. My hat is off to the WJ folks and now AC is restructuring itself to deal with this new reality of a different type of competition than we have ever had to face before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Hi Greg, That's a lot of praise for West Jet. Perhaps we should also put the person(s) who signed the F/A contract (mere weeks before asking for concessions) on a pedestal as well. Following on your logic it would be like saying Southwest and JetBlue are the cause for US Air, UAL, AA, Delta and NorthWest all being in tough shape. Not your usual logical posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Hi John >>Following on your logic it would be like saying Southwest and JetBlue are the cause for US Air, UAL, AA, Delta and NorthWest all being in tough shape.<< I would say that is probably true. When there is new competition that comes in and is able to sell seats at half, or less of what you were charging, you have to adapt. It changed the model. The full service carriers watched as bit by bit these new entrants syphoned off their customers. It required a major adjustment. The full service carriers had to lower their prices, which reduced revenues to the point that the costs far exceeded the revenue. This left the full service carriers scrambling to reduce costs. Most airline costs such as fuel and fees are the same for all. The to a large extent only leaves employee costs as something that can be adjusted to bring our costs in line with those of the low cost carriers. Sure there are others but that is the largest. Fortunately for us at AC we have a few advantages. We have a large international prescence and a strong reputation in that market. (Let's hope SARS goes away.) We also have AEROPLAN, 3rd party maintenance etc which brings ion revenue. We do a lot of thing very well. In the end though the majors are going to have to compete domestically, and probably internationally eventually with the the low cost carriers. It's the new reality, and the Pamela Sachs of this world would be doing us all a service if she and others like her could get their heads around this fact. Greg Robinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arctic Ace Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 "Isn't AC still collecting AIF (and not turning it over to the appropriate facilities (as they apparantly did not do in the past)?" Unless the feds have been charging AC interest on the outstanding AIF owing, I tend to see the "deferral" of payment of the AIF prior to the CCAA filing as an interest free loan or "bailout" of sorts. Funny no-one jumped on this sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 I think that if you check out the story, the company simply signed a contract that was recommended by the mediator. If they had offered anything less after agreeing to mediation there would have been a huge uproar and they would have had a work action, for sure, at a time when we obviously could least afford it. One other advantage was that everyone would be "giving" from a position of being in a contract. Think about it... if CUPE had been asked for 22% from their last contract position, it would be from a position of 2 1/2 % less (plus whatever working conditions were improved) than they were after the contract had been signed. So, by signing a contract with them, Milton actually reduced their pain. In addition, it was imperative that they get the two flight attendant locals on one contract and flying together as the extended delay was costing a fortune. We were calling out reserves to work flights on which there were perfectly capable deadheading F/As on some flights but from the opposite colour pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Actually, the airports and NavCda only lose on fees not paid prior to the filing. Fees going forward are paid. But think of this as a heads up. I said over and over again that if Air Canada disappears, there will be short-term hardship for everyone else. Westjet passengers may have to pay a $100 Nav fee, and think how destimulative to travel and profits that would be. Airports will go bankrupt. Sure they will operate, but they might also boost their AIFs as part of their own restructurings. That will be destimulative. Over time, some AC services will be replaced, but since WJ and others are arguing that AC has too much capacity, not all of that capacity will be replaced, so not all of the fee revenues will be made up for by growth of alternate airlines to AC. Fees will remain inordinately high. The reality is that a restructured AC which focusses on more international growth might actually be better for keeping fees as low as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 The fact is that this action by Air Canada has actually been a cold shower for the airport monopolies. For the first time, some of them are admitting that they will have to slow down expansion and other capital spending projects. THIS IS A VICTORY FOR ALL AIRLINES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leftbase Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 AGREED! _Anything_ that allows power to be taken away from the *&^&$# Airport Authorities and lessen their ability to bleed their users for their own egos, is a huge victory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest b52er Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Taking power away from the Airports monopolies, is always beneficial, however, to continue to use the facilities, regardless of who you are or what industry, is taking advantage of a situation, (if in fact, they are still not paying their bills....who knows) is morally wrong and the others paying their fees have every right to withhold payment as well. Perhaps that would further increase pressure on the authorities to reduce levels of service to further make it equitable to those who are paying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest b52er Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Good Point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 taking advantage of a situation....is morally wrong !!!!!! Do you really want to start discussing morality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.