E-HANDLE Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Airmail, From what I have seen the government has not gone out of it's way to protect WestJet from AC. No cease and desist orders, just one Competition Tribunal case that took literally years be heard, and whose results have effectivly been stifled by Air Canada's CCAA filing. The obligations that you claim make AC less competitive are largely those that were made by RM at the time of the CAI merger, and are now expired. As for the cost stucture improvemnts, while I'm sure there will be some, I'm not sure that they will be enough to allow AC to continue with it's present business model, which appears to be the same old "market share is king" paradigm. By Miltons own admission, AC has blown through $375 million in cash in a month, while not paying a/c leases, Nav Canada, airport fees, debtholders etc. When AC emerges from CCAA, it's going to have to decide what part of the airline business it's going to excell in, and IMO, that can't be all parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jackofalltrades Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 You mean, more efficient, highly competitive, 11 billion dollar in debt(assuming they renagotiated some leases), half their present size (with proportionately less frequency) disgruntled aging employees (ALPA vs ACPA, CUPE vs TEAMSTERS..and my favourite AIR CANADA vs CANADIAN) lean mean fighting machine?? If this is who I have to compete against, show me where to sign up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Well, let's see what obligations we're talking about: - The Official Languages Act which the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Official Languages estimates costs Air Canada $100 million per year in direct costs (not to mention indirect costs which are likely several times that). (Just look at the AC and WJ website where every AC page must be translated in both official language while only the booking page on WJ website is en francais). - Heavy Maintenance Bases in YYZ, YUL, YWG and YVR regardless of (in)efficiencies. - Service to small communities effectively enshrined in the Canadian Transportation Act due to onerous exit provisions targeted at AC given the route network AC was required to maintain pre-privatization None of these were agreed to by Milton or his predecessors but imposed by the government upon privatization. If these government-imposed obligations don't truly make AC less competitive and are in place for good reason then why does the government not impose them as a condition of license on any carrier operating in Canada? - Why must AC be a tool for economic development and job creation in YVR/YWG/YUL/YYZ? - Why must AC be the sole bilingual presence in places like Prince George, Penticton or Sydney, NS? - Why is AC forced to insert paid advertising in the minority language press (which gouges AC because they know that the law forces them to insert the ads) in places like YVR, YQR, YYZ, YEG, YYT, YYJ, and YYC where the number of unilingual Francophones is far outnumbered by the number of unilingual Chinese, Punjabi, Italian, Greek, Portuguese speaking Canadians? AC lost $428 million last year and compliance with the Official Languages Act alone cost it $100 million -- so exactly where do you get off saying that government-imposed obligations don't make AC less competitive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 The people of Air Canada will prove you wrong and when we do, we'll have real some fun doing it! Watch out because the new Air Canada is coming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest b52er Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 The investors did not have to invest when AC was privatized. They and they alone, accepted the terms. If you disagreed with the terms, then you should not have invested. Period. Yes.......its that simple. Now quite your whining! Next....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest b52er Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Well......lets see......the government set out obligations prior to privatization.....then......they offered a piece of Air Canada to investors.......then.......investors jumped at the opportunity.........then, employees present and future.......CHOSE to accept the terms by staying or applying with AC.......then.......things were good........then......things went all haywire.......then.......employees chose to stay...........so...........live with your own choices......its that simple. Don't attempt to make something that really is that simple into something that is more complex, that gets too sickening after a while, and far hard to stomach. Move on if ya don't like your terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Once again Airmail has the goods on the truth and b52er responds like the CEO of Westjet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 If these obligations are acceptable in a supposedly free market environment then you will no doubt agree that they should apply to all. As for moving on, what makes you think that the government won't simply impose those obligations on whatever form AC takes in the future? Already, the Commissioner of Official Languages is already saying that she will insist that any regional carrier affiliated with AC (she's moved from "owned" to "affiliated" will be subject to the Official Languages Act). That doesn't just mean serving your francophone customers a &-UP en francais, it means a whole lot of things ranging from translating computer software (or rejecting English only versions) to advertising in minority language publications (ie. your neighbourhood French-language newspaper in Toronto that no one reads but exists because of federal government and AC advertising revenues). So if these obligations are so acceptable, why not voluntarily subject yourself to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jackofalltrades Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 For some reason I don't seem to be shaking? Maybe from the current AC seat sale on right now. "Air Canada, flying to a place near you for a cost that even we or our creditors ever dreamed of!", or maybe its the thought that AC employees would have to become at least 4 times more productive to compete. Right now I'm picturing an ex senior skipper driving to the airport from there cottage in the muskoka's for the 15th time that month to do an ottawa turn dreaming of the pension he used to have. Now I'm really laughing!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 If these obligations are acceptable in a supposedly free market environment then you will no doubt agree that they should apply to all. As for moving on, what makes you think that the government won't simply impose those obligations on whatever form AC takes in the future? Already, the Commissioner of Official Languages is saying that she will insist that any regional carrier affiliated with AC (she's moved from "owned" to "affiliated") will be subject to the Official Languages Act. That doesn't just mean serving your francophone customers a 7-UP en francais, it means a whole lot of things ranging from translating computer software (or rejecting English only versions) to advertising in minority language publications (ie. your neighbourhood French-language newspaper in Toronto that no one reads but exists because of federal government and AC advertising revenues). So if these obligations are so acceptable, why not voluntarily subject yourself to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Keep laughing. We'll see who laughs last! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-HANDLE Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Okay, fair enough. The official languages restrictions placed on AC are out of date and should be dropped. Heavy maintenance has to be completed somewhere, YVR and YYZ make sense, so does YWG as the facilities (hanger and staff) are already there. Where would you move them to? The obligation to serve all the communities AC servrd before the merger came off earlier this year, I believe. Yet AC continues to fly to Abbotsford, where, through my sources and my own observations, they have very poor loads. The no-layoff provisions of the merger are also expired, yet AC gave no-layoff clauses in collective agreements, as recently as a few months ago. If they were forced to do this by the government, I'm unaware of it. As for the rest of the discussion, your claim that the federal government is protecting WJ is left unadressed. Why not release the Competition Tribunals findings? If they show that AC's practices are legal, why supress it? If the finding is that AC's actions were illegal, then that would certainly have an impact on the AC business plan post CCAA. While this legal process has carried on over the years, I am unaware of the feds forcing AC to pull any punches in competing with WJ. They never stopped Zip from selling seats between YYC and YWG for $37. I still don't see how you can burn through $375 million in cash in one month, not including the cost of the unpaid obligations I mentioned, and come out of CCAA with essentially the same business plan and succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozerboy Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 YOUR NICKNAME IS EXACTLY RIGHT...EXCEPT TAKE AWAY THE "ALLTRADES" PART AND YOU ARE LEFT WITH JACK OFF...AND BY THE WAY IT IS "THEIR" NOT "THERE", YOU UNEDUCATED MORON!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 I don't know where you think AC has burned $375 million in a month. My reading of Milton's letter simply says that AC is currently being protected under CCAA from having to pay certain financial obligations and that was clearly not sustainable therefore everyone has to participate in reducing AC's cost structure. As for the service to small communities, those are enshrined in the CTA through the community exit provisions in place and have nothing to do with the agreement signed by AC after it acquired CP. Furthermore, when AC signed on the dotted line with the government following its acquisition of CP, AC thought that was the end of the government imposed conditions -- little did they know that the government would promptly renege on the deal and impose new conditions on AC including a provision under the Competition Act which has now been judged by the courts to be "unconstitutional". As for protecting WJ, I never said the government was protecting WJ -- I simply said that the government has protected carriers with poor business plans from competing against AC -- I didn't say WJ had a poor business plan. Finally, the decision of the Competition Tribunal is still pending and, as far as I know, the judge in the case has already said that he would release it when he deemed it appropriate. I don't think that is a reflection of the contents of the decision but rather a reflection of the judge's respect for a court order staying any and all proceedings involving AC while it is under CCAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest b52er Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 No, I don't agree that they should apply to all. We did not have to agree to them, nor should we. If you want things changed, then lobby for change or shift your focus. Meanwhile, compete with the deck you have, because, once again, you signed on......not me. If you can't compete and at least break even, then lobby for change. In the meantime, you can't sell seats below what it costs to produce. If you can't make it until the change occurs.....then sorry too bad, someone else will and you're welcome to apply there. You are not special nor am I. If the Unions do not like what they are offered by AC and Its obligations, then shut the doors. The government will have to "force" the next carrier to oblige. And using force is a lot different than signing on the dotted line in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Right so it's ok for you to whine and complain about competing against AC when AC has one hand tied behind its back! You can keep on saying that AC should not compete unless and until it becomes "profitable" notwithstanding the tremendous costs imposed by the government which are not imposed on you but that sounds like a whole load of bull to me. So is this really "competition"? How could Coke compete with Pepsi if Pepsi was obliged to buy ads in obscure newspapers and television stations for millions of dollars a year when Coke can do whatever it wants? It's easy for you and your ilk to whine and complain and berate AC and its employees and also make statements about not allowing AC to compete unless it meets your conditions first but that is simply an all too convenient excuse for you to avoid real competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 I agree with you Dozerboy but the best way for us to prove jack-offs like Jack-of wrong is by kicking their a$$e$ in the marketplace and hurting them where it hurts the most -- in the pocketbook. The future will be clearer soon and we will have to come together against those who wished us ill. But I assure you - revenge will be sweet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Virtual Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Perhaps they're just coming to get their own/old customers back from airlines that had taken them away ....and, hence, jeopardizing 'their' existence. From the way this forum is starting to 'heat' up... it seems that maybe there's a concern that AC has a new business plan after all. If they didn't think so....then, I guess they wouldn't have to worry, would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipped Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 SORRY...wizzard...e-handle is more historically correct. Are you a newbie to the industry? AC is the airline that has historically been protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ECB Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 My guess is that Jackofalltrades is one of the ex-C3/Royal/Triton/Nationair/Astoria/Vistajet/ICN/or 9a guys enjoying his revenge right now. What goes around comes around. A lot of the WS guys worked at airlnes deliberatly forced under by AC (or precieved to be), hence the occasional gloating. Problem is its a cycle of failure that can come back to bite anyone who loses focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Perhaps many of those customers were Canadian supporters, and just because AC took over the employees and planes there was no quarantee the passengers would be part of the package. As for this forum heating up, there is ONE 'WJ?' poster taking shots at AC, hardly a gang war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Virtual Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 I'm afraid that WJ 'took' a few from them, too...otherwise Canadian would still be giving them a run for their $. Also, I was counting Canadian employees as an essential part of the AC group (albeit merged) that wanted their old customers back ... since this is where they are working now. You know...follow Canadian - we're still here ....just located here (AC) now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest b52er Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 If you want "your passengers" back, then treat them like "guests". (little smiley thing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jackofalltrades Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 I guess I won't have to worry about you Dozer, I hear the teachers federations is very strong!! Hopefully they won't ask for a %10 pay reduction. Airmail, this isn't about you, its about AC. There is a difference. "I agree with you Dozerboy but the best way for us to prove jack-offs like Jack-of wrong is by kicking their a$$e$ in the marketplace and hurting them where it hurts the most -- in the pocketbook." Once again I'm laughing. Look at your seat sale on right now, lasting all summer long. For example, YYZ to LAX for just over $200 return. Based on a 320 going one way direct, that equals just over $3000 dollars an hr to operate. Do you think an AC 320 runs for that price? Is this how you are going to kick my A**? If so then please keep kicking!! The AC yard sale is almost out of garbage to sell, then what? You think GE and CIBC believe in AC? No, they believe in themselves!! Can you honestly say that all the unions will line up to be 4 times more productive? Do you think all the bond holders are going to want AC to stay in business instead of cutting their losses? I'm afraid the only A** your kicking is Rita McNeils,the mic is in her hand and the stage is that way! ECB, and BINGO was his name -O-!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozerboy Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 Teacher's Federations? Ya lost me on that one Jackoff. Enjoy your little world lad, it is about to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.