Moon The Loon Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Sorry, but no. C3 was a very poorly run business with no cash reserves, no line of credit, no assets. They relied this month's revenues to pay last month's bills. In the months following 9-11, C3's reservations dropped by more than half. Then, after Lecky made his "we'll be out of cash by Christmas" plea, the remaining passengers bailed in droves. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homerun Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 If anyone drove C3 under it was Westjet. They took a lot of what was once C3's domestic customer base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 I don't think so. There was a very productive symbiotic relationship in progress between WJ and C3. If anyone suffered as a result of the demise of C3, it may very well have been WJ. Take it apart and look at it: C3 pax connect how once in Canada? WJ was the only complimentary carrier of substance. Funny how history gets distorted in such short order... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 I Agree, but fortunately there's good folks like you around to keep it straight. Good on ya mate. (y) Cheers, (d) Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DaveCarter Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Folks, I never said Tango was the CAUSE of C3 going under, I said they gave a push to a company that had walked ITSELF to the brink. C3 was what it was. Canada has a history of bailing out airlines. The only reason why the government did not bail out C3, is that even with a bailout, it could not compete with Air Canadas Tango product, hence, the bailout would be a waste. That is how Tango had a hand, and the only way it had a hand. No more, no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I think the governments reluctance for the "loan guarantee" (there was never any talk of bail out) was because of C3's failure to follow the business plan promised to the recent investors and simple lack of trust in C3 hi level management to follow through on any subsequent business plan promises. Even after the IPO, the owners continued their cash withdrawals from the company by way of the millions of shares they had acquired pre IPO. The exception to this was one substantial Montreal owner (from a recently purchased airline) who was barred from selling any of the shares received for that airline for a period of time. When it was discovered in the following months that this part of the "deal" wasn't being followed, i.e. massive trading by a third party in Switzerland, that new "owner" was fired from the BoD. Then things really started going in the toilet between the two original principles. At least that's the story as we understood it post-shutdown. Since folklore is continuing to focus on the Tango factor, I personally don't think it would have made much difference. Tango could never match the cost factor of the combined C3/Royal/CanJet creation. C3's money was and would continue to be made offshore for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.