Gumbi Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 I have to admit I'm far from being a financial whiz... Therefore I'll ask those of you who might have an idea, what does this means, especially from Transat's point of view, why would they be holding back all that cash? Me thinks something big coming, but since I might be biased, I'll leave it to you, armchair specialist... http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive...4/11/c1826.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 I'm no financier either but that looks to be more of a peeing competition to me. I'm not really biased at all although the grapevine says something big is afoot vis-a-vis WJ and AT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 I have to admit I'm far from being a financial whiz... Therefore I'll ask those of you who might have an idea, what does this means, especially from Transat's point of view, why would they be holding back all that cash? Me thinks something big coming, but since I might be biased, I'll leave it to you, armchair specialist... http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive...4/11/c1826.html I don't think the money is being "held back" for any other purpose than investing in upgrading the product, paying cash for some aircraft and having a decent cushion against the unexpected. AC certainly plans international growth, but probably not in the kinds of markets where AT is established. I see no agenda to acquire another company if that's what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Would a merger make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Would a merger make sense? Maybe not a merger, but some kind of cross ownership, one buying into the other, or vice-versa. AT is unionized, WJ is not, and both brands speak to different clientele. If the two companies eliminated the overlap in their mandates - WJ doing everything narrowbody, AT doing everything widebody and international - I suspect it would be a good deal, prticularly for AT. They could codeshare, and co-brand. It would certainly ensure that WJ wouldn't risk losing AT's chartering, and it might open up more opportunities in the West for AT international ops. Now, how that impact other airlines is hard to say. If someone isn't travelling on AC internationally, but on AT, and if they have to travel to an AT gateway to get that intl flight, they may well be on WJ or SG already. I'm not sure which charter carriers do the most intl flying out West. Probably Skyservice and the British charterers... There would probably be an incentive to try to oust those operators from markets in Alberta and BC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.