And so it begins...

[digits_]

I gotta say digits, the basis of much of your argument has socialism laced throughout. The server at Denny's makes 40k a year, why should a pilot feel more entitled to a higher income? What about a pharmacist? Or a structural engineer? Everyone wakes up to the same alarm clock right? Of course this conversation is entirely naive, but it's the message I'm getting from you; pilots are overpaid for what they do, why should the government protect their incomes?

If you want to put a label on it, sure, put the "socialism" label on it. What party is leading the federal government? What party does the prime minister belong to? Would they prefer a more socialism style approach to the crisis?

Note that you are hinting that socialism is bad because you want a bigger handout than the people on a lower salary. There is a wiff of hypocrisy in there

The median family income has no relevance whatsoever on the value in government protection of a vital industry that the economy (and the government actually, see repatriation flights a month ago for reference) depends on heavily, especially when that same government has helped paralyze the industry through policy (border closures, travel restrictions).

Of course it does.

Let's put some numbers on it. CEWS pays around 44k max per year. If this is 30% of your wage, as one pilot said, that means the government should add 102k to get back to the 146k salary. With that 102k, the government could also decide to bump up the EI from 30k to 40k for 10 other employees. Chances are, people will spent pretty much everything they get from EI in order to try to get some of their pre-covid lifestyle back. A pilot getting 146k instead of 44k will maybe spend 80k-100k a year and save the rest for a rainy day? More money will flow back to the economy by bumping up lower pay scales and bailing out smaller businesses that way.

If an airline has too much staff in certain functions (like pilots for example), they are very financially motivated to adjust staffing levels to reflect demand. In fact the airlines are doing this very thing, right now.

Yes, they are. And the laid off pilots are demanding the government bails out the airline so they can maintain 100% of their salary.

Making arguments based on "pilots are overpaid, so tax money should be spent elsewhere" is actually nonsensical. Imagine if politicians let the airline industry collapse, and their response to voters was "do you know what a 777 captain makes in a year? Alot."

"Dear Canadians, we managed to create 1000 jobs in your local community to better take care of the elderly and to prepare our biolabs to find vaccins faster in case this Covid virus ever makes you sick again. We provided financial aid to farmers and toile paper manufacturers. Unfortunately, this mean we were unable to aid our airline partners. Not to worry, we have opened our borders to allow British Airways and United Airlines to operate our Canadian flights at no extra cost. In an effeort to save as many jobs as possible, all ground personnel will keep their jobs. We sympathize with the pilots and we'll extend their EI eligible period while they look for other job opportunities".

You think anyone outside of aviation would object?

There is also a difference between saving an airline, and saving airline pilot pay.

I’m sorry, what’s the point of your argument? Saving an airline has nothing to do with saving an airline pilots pay? Pilots are on the CEWS .. any business showing a reduction of 15% revenue because of covid-19 is eligible. Saving an airline is about preserving an industry and service that’s utilized by 80-85% of Canadians.

Nothing wrong with putting pilots on CEWS. I was replying to the pilot saying that 30% of his salary -I assume the CEWS portion- is not enough and that the economy would be better off if the government bails out his company so he can get his 100% salary.

The economy needs airline transportation, it doesn't care about the pilot salaries.

If Air Canada went bust tomorrow and the government bails out/reorganizes debt and starts a new company to provide the required transportation capacity (eg 50% of normal), maintaining the industry average pay scale, you'd find at least 50% of the pilots willing to come back for that rate. You would then effectively be paying 50% at year 1 wages, instead of 50% of the highest seniority wages if they were to completely bail out the companies.

Would that suck for the senior pilots? Of course! But money will be limited at some point. Fixes like these are relatively easy to do without much backlash.

If there would be more competition, you'd lose the pilots again of course, but those are worries for later, when the economy is doing well again.

All Canadian’s are free to make their choice of career .. again I’m not sure what your argument is here? If your not satisfied with your current level of compensation then move on to a different career. You can’t tell someone to reduce their compensation so others can be brought to the same level. (Unless your Liberal/NDP lol)

Again, *I* am not saying that. I'm merely saying I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happens. The government decides where the bailout money goes to. Who runs the government? You gave the answer in the quote above.

FYI - Politicians listen to the people that grease the palm. They pay lip service to the rest.

Yup, However, this time the politicians are handing out the money, they are not receiving money. That means they can try to please their voters.

[Localizer]

If you want to put a label on it, sure, put the "socialism" label on it. What party is leading the federal government? What party does the prime minister belong to?

Ah .. Liberals vs Socialism .. normally I'd give the socialist award to the NDP, but the Liberals have definitely been leaning towards a "Nanny State".

Note that you are hinting that socialism is bad because you want a bigger handout than the people on a lower salary. There is a wiff of hypocrisy in there

My gut says his argument is that he pays more into the system as a higher income earner, so he should get more out of it based on his contributions. Not really the intent of the system.

Let's put some numbers on it. CEWS pays around 44k max per year. If this is 30% of your wage, as one pilot said, that means the government should add 102k to get back to the 146k salary. With that 102k, the government could also decide to bump up the EI from 30k to 40k for 10 other employees. Chances are, people will spent pretty much everything they get from EI in order to try to get some of their pre-covid lifestyle back. A pilot getting 146k instead of 44k will maybe spend 80k-100k a year and save the rest for a rainy day? More money will flow back to the economy by bumping up lower pay scales and bailing out smaller businesses that way.

Instead of numbers, let's get the facts right first. CEWS has a shelf life of June 6/2020 with a possible extension to Sept 30/2020. The government will not support this program for a full year, it's too costly to continue for any real length of time. Which means everyone will eventually switch to the CERB program and it has no announced end date yet. The interesting thing about CERB is that it pays out less than Employment Insurance would be paying a moderate income earner .. $37/wk ($150/month). Max you can earn on EI is about $537/wk.

"Dear Canadians, we managed to create 1000 jobs in your local community to better take care of the elderly and to prepare our biolabs to find vaccins faster in case this Covid virus ever makes you sick again. We provided financial aid to farmers and toile paper manufacturers. Unfortunately, this mean we were unable to aid our airline partners. Not to worry, we have opened our borders to allow British Airways and United Airlines to operate our Canadian flights at no extra cost. In an effeort to save as many jobs as possible, all ground personnel will keep their jobs. We sympathize with the pilots and we'll extend their EI eligible period while they look for other job opportunities".

That's funny .. "In an effort to save as many jobs as possible" .. irony.

If Air Canada went bust tomorrow and the government bails out/reorganizes debt and starts a new company to provide the required transportation capacity (eg 50% of normal), maintaining the industry average pay scale, you'd find at least 50% of the pilots willing to come back for that rate. You would then effectively be paying 50% at year 1 wages, instead of 50% of the highest seniority wages if they were to completely bail out the companies.

So the Canadian government would let a company that they founded go bankrupt, and then spend more tax payer money to reopen another airline? Just so you're aware the government of Canada started Trans-Canada Airlines in 1936 as a Crown Corporation, it was renamed Air Canada in 1965.

Who runs the government?

A guy willing to throw around bag loads of "tax payer" money. For what its worth .. pilots are tax payers as well.

Yup, However, this time the politicians are handing out the money, they are not receiving money. That means they can try to please their voters.

I'm sorry, you missed my point .. yes politicians are handing out the money .. but its the party donors and lobbyists that fill the politicians bank account with cash that really make the decisions. Unless you think politicians are wholesome and well intentioned people? I've never seen a politician leave politics broke! lol.

Two words: Trust Fund

[digits_]

If Air Canada went bust tomorrow and the government bails out/reorganizes debt and starts a new company to provide the required transportation capacity (eg 50% of normal), maintaining the industry average pay scale, you'd find at least 50% of the pilots willing to come back for that rate. You would then effectively be paying 50% at year 1 wages, instead of 50% of the highest seniority wages if they were to completely bail out the companies.

So the Canadian government would let a company that they founded go bankrupt, and then spend more tax payer money to reopen another airline? Just so you're aware the government of Canada started Trans-Canada Airlines in 1936 as a Crown Corporation, it was renamed Air Canada in 1965.

I admit I am not familiar with the details of how Air Canda came to be, but why not? Happens all the time in private corporations. Company goes broke, same but different company rises from the ashes.

[aV1aTOr]

"Dear Canadians, we managed to create 1000 jobs in your local community to better take care of the elderly and to prepare our biolabs to find vaccins faster in case this Covid virus ever makes you sick again. We provided financial aid to farmers and toile paper manufacturers. Unfortunately, this mean we were unable to aid our airline partners. Not to worry, we have opened our borders to allow British Airways and United Airlines to operate our Canadian flights at no extra cost. In an effeort to save as many jobs as possible, all ground personnel will keep their jobs. We sympathize with the pilots and we'll extend their EI eligible period while they look for other job opportunities".

You think anyone outside of aviation would object?

What a laughable suggestion, that United or BA or any other foreign carrier gives a rip about service to Canadian communities beyond YYZ-YVR or the golden triangle. Not only that, but at no added cost?? Enforced by who? The government? I guess they could discount the inflated fares forced by foreign carriers without competition on trunk routes and pay them to operate to Fredericton and Prince Rupert using tax dollars to do so. That would save using tax dollars to support the struggling Canadian airlines instead. Wait....

You do realize Air Canada is forced to serve many communities in Canada even they wouldn't serve if they didn't have to. It's called the Air Canada Public Participation Act and it stems from deregulation, look it up. This service goes *poof* the moment Canada accepts cabotage and were AC to fail.

Your logic reminds me of a suggestion mailed into a Richmond newspaper by a citizen frustrated by airplane noise years ago. He proposed moving the entire YVR operation to YXX, and turning YVR's terminals into a big mall. That way all the aerospace employees based there could keep their jobs, albeit now instead of an aircraft mechanic or airside firefighter, they can work at J Crew. A job is a job, right?

No one is advocating that the government use tax dollars to keep all pre-pandemic staff employed at 100% salary to sit at home. Layoffs are most likely an unpleasant reality for many employees, far beyond airlines. Businesses far and wide will need to shrink. But to imply that the government watch a vital industry collapse and stick it's hands in it's pockets and say, "don't worry, foreign airlines will pick up the pieces" is ridiculous.

By the way, you suggest Canadian airline pilots are overpaid? Do some research on what our American peers make to fly the same airplanes. We do our work for a sizable discount up here, not to mention currency valuation or far kinder tax environments in the US.

[Dash.Trash]

"Dear Canadians, we managed to create 1000 jobs in your local community to better take care of the elderly and to prepare our biolabs to find vaccins faster in case this Covid virus ever makes you sick again. We provided financial aid to farmers and toile paper manufacturers. Unfortunately, this mean we were unable to aid our airline partners. Not to worry, we have opened our borders to allow British Airways and United Airlines to operate our Canadian flights at no extra cost. In an effeort to save as many jobs as possible, all ground personnel will keep their jobs. We sympathize with the pilots and we'll extend their EI eligible period while they look for other job opportunities".

You think anyone outside of aviation would object?

What a laughable suggestion, that United or BA or any other foreign carrier gives a rip about service to Canadian communities beyond YYZ-YVR or the golden triangle. Not only that, but at no added cost?? Enforced by who? The government? I guess they could discount the inflated fares forced by foreign carriers without competition on trunk routes and pay them to operate to Fredericton and Prince Rupert using tax dollars to do so. That would save using tax dollars to support the struggling Canadian airlines instead. Wait....

You do realize Air Canada is forced to serve many communities in Canada even they wouldn't serve if they didn't have to. It's called the Air Canada Public Participation Act and it stems from deregulation, look it up. This service goes *poof* the moment Canada accepts cabotage and were AC to fail.

Your logic reminds me of a suggestion mailed into a Richmond newspaper by a citizen frustrated by airplane noise years ago. He proposed moving the entire YVR operation to YXX, and turning YVR's terminals into a big mall. That way all the aerospace employees based there could keep their jobs, albeit now instead of an aircraft mechanic or airside firefighter, they can work at J Crew. A job is a job, right?

No one is advocating that the government use tax dollars to keep all pre-pandemic staff employed at 100% salary to sit at home. Layoffs are most likely an unpleasant reality for many employees, far beyond airlines. Businesses far and wide will need to shrink. But to imply that the government watch a vital industry collapse and stick it's hands in it's pockets and say, "don't worry, foreign airlines will pick up the pieces" is ridiculous.

By the way, you suggest Canadian airline pilots are overpaid? Do some research on what our American peers make to fly the same airplanes. We do our work for a sizable discount up here, not to mention currency valuation or far kinder tax environments in the US.

+1000

[TheStig]

Air Canada is in as good of financial shape to weather this storm as it's ever been and is sitting on the same sized pile of cash that Delta is. Due to the grounding of the MAX last year most of the narrow body fleet are operating on short term leases or are owned.

[goldeneagle]

Do you mean that US carriers will fill the void of defunct Canadian carriers? Two problems with that scenario, it’s called cabotage,

Cabotage laws are not going anywhere any time soon. They exist in most countries around the world, and are deeply rooted in history lessons as to why they exist, and why they are not going away any time soon.

Especially in Canada, just not going to happen here. We have numerous carriers that can deal with domestic travel, some may go bust in this downturn, not all will go bust. If we see them going by the wayside, then there's going to be fire sale priced airframes available for those still standing, and if energy continues at ultra low pricing, even some of the older gas guzzlers will look appealing to a startup.

Dont forget how WJ got started, half a dozen of the old 732 with fresh paint. it was cheaper to build the initial route structure pouring gas into old airframes than paying interest on new airframes. In case you haven't noticed, there is a huge drop in demand right now, and if Boeing does succeed in getting the Max back in the air, then we will see a crapload of -400 series 737 on the surplus market. Legacy carriers in a huge financial shithole due to the current downturn, everything will be ripe for an up and coming new kid to eat the WJ lunch, and and take a huge snack from AC at the same time.

It's been done before, and the result we call WestJet today, a few other attempts failed. Personally, I do expect to see a new kid rise out of the covid-19 ashes over the next year or two, and that new kid is going to give the legacy folks huge headaches. time will tell.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The standard CEO playbook

Capitalization of profits, Socialization of losses

[Launchpad1]

Your logic reminds me of a suggestion mailed into a Richmond newspaper by a citizen frustrated by airplane noise years ago. He proposed moving the entire YVR operation to YXX, and turning YVR's terminals into a big mall. That way all the aerospace employees based there could keep their jobs, albeit now instead of an aircraft mechanic or airside firefighter, they can work at J Crew. A job is a job, right?

Ha is that actually a bad idea though? It has some merits to it.

Much cheaper accomodation for the people who work at the airport for one. Might even cut down on the commute for alot of people.

[aV1aTOr]

Your logic reminds me of a suggestion mailed into a Richmond newspaper by a citizen frustrated by airplane noise years ago. He proposed moving the entire YVR operation to YXX, and turning YVR's terminals into a big mall. That way all the aerospace employees based there could keep their jobs, albeit now instead of an aircraft mechanic or airside firefighter, they can work at J Crew. A job is a job, right?

Ha is that actually a bad idea though? It has some merits to it.

Much cheaper accomodation for the people who work at the airport for one. Might even cut down on the commute for alot of people.

What about the commute for the tens of thousands of travelers every day? It's not just about the employees. The population is centered very close to YVR.

Take a look at the footprint of YVR vs YXX. Terminal buildings, parking facilities, cargo sorting, aircraft maintenance hangars, fuel storage, deice facilities, multiple runways/taxiways/aprons, airspace structures, the list goes on. You cannot simply cut and paste.

[Old fella]

Do you mean that US carriers will fill the void of defunct Canadian carriers? Two problems with that scenario, it’s called cabotage,

Cabotage laws are not going anywhere any time soon. They exist in most countries around the world, and are deeply rooted in history lessons as to why they exist, and why they are not going away any time soon.

Especially in Canada, just not going to happen here. We have numerous carriers that can deal with domestic travel, some may go bust in this downturn, not all will go bust. If we see them going by the wayside, then there's going to be fire sale priced airframes available for those still standing, and if energy continues at ultra low pricing, even some of the older gas guzzlers will look appealing to a startup.

Dont forget how WJ got started, half a dozen of the old 732 with fresh paint. it was cheaper to build the initial route structure pouring gas into old airframes than paying interest on new airframes. In case you haven't noticed, there is a huge drop in demand right now, and if Boeing does succeed in getting the Max back in the air, then we will see a crapload of -400 series 737 on the surplus market. Legacy carriers in a huge financial shithole due to the current downturn, everything will be ripe for an up and coming new kid to eat the WJ lunch, and and take a huge snack from AC at the same time.

It's been done before, and the result we call WestJet today, a few other attempts failed. Personally, I do expect to see a new kid rise out of the covid-19 ashes over the next year or two, and that new kid is going to give the legacy folks huge headaches. time will tell.

Canada Jetlines resurrection , ya figure.

[Launchpad1]

What about the commute for the tens of thousands of travelers every day? It's not just about the employees. The population is centered very close to YVR.

Take a look at the footprint of YVR vs YXX. Terminal buildings, parking facilities, cargo sorting, aircraft maintenance hangars, fuel storage, deice facilities, multiple runways/taxiways/aprons, airspace structures, the list goes on. You cannot simply cut and paste.

It's about a 35 minute drive for the majority of the population to yxx, that's not exactly a big distance. Of course you'd have to do things gradually but it isn't a bad idea. There would probably be a big benefit to the immediate region around yxx and using the current area of yvr airport for new homes or businesses would possibly boost that area too.

[7ECA]

It's about a 35 minute drive for the majority of the population to yxx, that's not exactly a big distance. Of course you'd have to do things gradually but it isn't a bad idea. There would probably be a big benefit to the immediate region around yxx and using the current area of yvr airport for new homes or businesses would possibly boost that area too.

Good luck with that driving time, it's about that from Surrey; if you're over the Port Mann it turns into a longer drive. Throw in an accident and all bets are off.

YXX isn't set up to handle the traffic YVR does, nor are the facilities in place to handle anything YVR does. As for redeveloping YVR, I'm sure it's a real estate/developers wet dream come true - but airports are rarely built on prime real estate, actually they're usually built on the cheapest/crappiest land around, swampy, boggy farm land. Sea Island is a glorified silt pile, trying to build up the place with high density residential is going to cost a tonne of money in land prep - and the first real earthquake will have it all either underwater or sinking rapidly...

And how about land remediation? There's been an airport at Sea Island since around 1929, so I'm sure it'll be a real job to clean the place up prior to redevelopment. Maybe they can ask the folks involved with Blatchford Field how easy that is.

[Launchpad1]

And how about land remediation? There's been an airport at Sea Island since around 1929, so I'm sure it'll be a real job to clean the place up prior to redevelopment. Maybe they can ask the folks involved with Blatchford Field how easy that is.

Good point.

[ayseven]

XX is too far. I used to drive there in the 90's, and it took 1.5 hours from Broadway and Granville, more with accidents. It'll never happen.

[CPT.HarshColdReality]

where was YXX supposed to be?

[mmm..bacon]

^^That's what they said about CYEG and City Centre, and look what happened there!

Given the current economic climate, debt levels, construction costs, etc..not to mention the relative size of CYVR and CYXX, it ain't gonna happen..

[goldeneagle]

where was YXX supposed to be?

Probably the same place it's always been.

[TheStig]

I always thought of YVR as one of the better located airports with water on one end and a boggy river delta making up most of the surrounding landmass to the east. With the continued population growth in the valley YXX could become a useful low cost secondary airport for LCC travel akin to London Gatwick. Although with the US customs and agriculture fees that are applied to air travel the economics might not be feasible when completing with KBLI on transboarder markets.