Jump to content

Air Canada's Calin Rovinescu


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest b52er

I find this comment that appears in the article rather baffling but not surprising. There's that "unprofitable" word yet again! This is a statement that individuals at other successful airlines in Canada already know, that being, that AC will do nothing more, if it emerges, than revert to the same tactics that has gotten themselves into this current crisis, that being, market share at any cost. Why doesn't AC just go away. Good luck to all in the next crisis, surely to occur!

The CCAA filing is the "cold shower of reality" that Rovinescu hopes will finally wash away the remainder of Air Canada's old image as a crown corporation with a duty to link virtually every Canadian — no matter how unprofitable that task — by air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest b52er

I find this author's statement found about 2/3 of the way through the article baffling but unfortunately true. AC will no doubt once again if it emerges, continue to jeopardize a few other healthy, money making airlines in Canada that can service Canadians far better than what they are accustomed to by linking Canadians, at any cost.

Just a question, if one of the other 3 airlines in Canada at this point in time fail, can a class action suit be brought against AC, its managers, and anyone else associated for intentionally operating below costs thereby costing other employees at successful airlines their livelyhoods, careers, pensions, earning abilities, intentionally placing downward pressure on the stock market, ect. If so.....count me and thousands others in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He's a shrewd businessman and a 100 per cent capitalist. Some people have a difficult time with that whole concept, but if I was trying to rebuild the airline, I would probably like him working for me." -- Gary Fane, CAW

You can't buy compliments like that.

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest b52er

For what....... operating an efficient, effective, prosperous, lean, money making airline, that gives the travelling public access to safe, reliable affordable airtravel throughout Canada?

Apparantely, based on the responses, I have hit a nerve, and perhaps there is some merit here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest b52er

And what exactly would the basis be? Running an effiecient, cost effective, prosperous, safe, reliable airline providing Canadians with service that they have come to expect finally? How about it Jetsgoers, Canjetters. Precedence may have already been set by recent Competition Tribunal rulings regarding cease and desist orders in the past. Any lurking lawyers would like to comment? Apparantely I have struck a nerve and perhaps there is some basis here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest b52er

I don't doubt that they have, however, I am refering more specifically to the employees of the airlines that would be negatively affected. They have proven that money can be made, and if their futures are jeopardized, what would stop them from attempting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest b52er

Not at all. The key is making a profit. Posting profits, reporting profits, (or break even) and continually posting profits, just like what is occuring now with the other airlines. Then.......that would be effective competition, which is healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's about the stupidest thing I've heard yet from you. You are saying that Westjet or Canjet or Jetsgo employees should be sheltered from competition. So what if Westjet has made money since its inception. Where does it say in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that they have a right to be assured a profit or protected against competition.

It was by offering lower costs - and hence lower fares - that they got established. Why shouldn't their markets be fair game if the competition is lawful?

Sauce for the gander, old boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would remind you as well that Canjet and Jetsgo are not reporting anything, profits or losses. It is speculation on your part that they are profitable. I know of few industry insiders who believe Jetsgo is profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First the competition rulings are a bunch of S... and is in place because the transport minister hates Robert Milton and Clive is a crybaby and it's ok for Westjet Jetsgo and canjet to have a seat sale and compete with AC but AC has a seat sale and it's called predatory to the market.Ya right b52er it's called low cost airlines way to get the market with help from the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Airmail

Dagger:

It's the Canadian way!

But just wait until AC comes out of CCAA with a competitive cost structure...WJ will be whining about something new then.

There's a big difference between being a winner and being a whiner. It seems as though some WJ boys and girls can't tell the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Airmail

Wizard: AC's Canadian competitors have relied on the government to protect them from AC for years -- instead of insisting on sound business plans, the government simply declares anything AC does to be either predatory or price-gouging.

The government also saddles AC with a whole host of obligations to make it less competitive.

But there's reason for hope. The clouds are parting and if the process succeeds in getting improving AC's cost structure then WJ, Canjet and Jetsgo will surely be whining about something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest b52er

Nothing except the Competition bureau. No problems here IF any airline can show profitability. IF a particular airline emerges from CCAA protection, and IF they further show losses, and for economic reasons, another airline that has been profitable, and that profitability disappears simply due to anothers predatory pricing below established costs, (and its not hard to figure out how much it costs for equivalent AC types to fly from point A to B) then absolutely, that airline should be held accountable for losses incurred by others. It's really quite simply dagger. And by the way, you hit the nail on the head yourself. "Lower costs - Lower fares". I don't see the problem. Could you elaborate on your attempt to describe logical reasoning for your illogical train of thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...