Air Canada Seeks $220 Million in Lawsuit against WestJet

Blastor · Post by **Blastor** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:18 pm

YEG? I would have thought YUL!

Maybe we’re crossed path a few times. I go there on occasion

I'm with your

competitor after-all. Cheers

Swamp Donkey · Post by **Swamp Donkey** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:08 pm

CanadaEH,

I heard the load factors in YYZ were down due to the fact that the public has to get used to a new schedule for connecting etc.. Apparently the loads have been increasing over the last two months. Correct?

Swamp Donkey · Post by **Swamp Donkey** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:09 pm

duplicate

Swamp Donkey · Post by **Swamp Donkey** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:12 pm

duplicate

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:37 pm

You just don't get it do you. Mr. Hill was a part of WJ senior management when he and other senior management types stole information that was the property of AC. That makes WJ responsible and accountable. Its going to be interesting when WJ tries to explain to the court why they did it. Telling funny jokes and rolling toilet paper down the aisles is not going to cut it with the court.

I do but apparently you don't. Mark Hill has admitted to viewing Air Canada's website, but he denies that the information was used to the benefit of Westjet. Westjet also denies that they didn't use the information. These statements have yet to be proven in the court. The "other senior executives" you speak of are fictional. Don Bell was named as being involved, but that has yet to be proven in the court. Clive was said to have been involved but Air Canada had no idea how. (note: key phrase in this paragraph is <i>yet to be proven in a court</i>)

I can only hope that the rest of WJ employees have more common sense then you and are ashamed at the conduct of WJ senior management. I know I would be but we at AC know the difference between right and wrong... It's little wonder that AC employees are considering a class action suit against WJ. It appears that you have no responsibility or accountability and prefer to bury your head in the sand.

Why are you assuming things of me when you have absolutely no idea what my position on this whole lawsuit is? I think what Mark Hill did was wrong. I think what he did was irresponsible. What he did was unethical. Having said all of that, there was no crime committed. Both lawsuits (WJ vs. AC and AC vs. WJ) are civil lawsuits and the RCMP have decided against pursuing criminal charges. The employees of Air Canada can file a class action lawsuit all they want - the courts will never allow it. I am not burying my head in the sand, in fact I'm trying to bring some logical points to this topic but apparently you don't want to hear it.

Oh and the courts will decide if there were any criminal acts committed, not you or Clive but the courts.

Wrong again. These lawsuits are a civil matter, therefore criminal courts are not involved. Air Canada is sueing for DAMAGES not a crime.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:07 pm

Canada,

If you think Hill got the brainstorm to access AC's web site, and then have the WJ IT guys write a program to automatically do it a quarter of a million times, and indemnify the guy who supplied the password, without the knowledge and go ahead from the other senior executives, you are taking bad drugs.

AC may or may not ever come up with evidence to legally link Bedoe and the others to this caper, but any reasonable person would believe they were involved up to their necks.

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:15 am

AC may or may not ever come up with evidence to legally link Bedoe and the others to this caper, but any reasonable person would believe they were involved up to their necks.

Any reasonable person would assume the executives are innocent until proven guilty. That's not to say you (??) or anybody else can hope that they are guilty without any proof. I don't read between the lines as much as some people do, but I have yet to read anything concrete that says Clive did this, or Tim knew that..

The courts will sort out this mess and bring to light the involvement of whoever knew what, said what, and did what.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:10 pm

Unfortunately, believing that Bedoe, and probably all their senior executives were in on this caper is the best scenario for WJ. Think about what it means if Bedoe truly had no insight into what was going on with the activities of Hill and the others. If he didn't know what was going on, it speaks volumes about is leadership, control of the company, and the functionality of the management group. If something of this magnitude can go on for almost a year behind the back of the chief executive, this company has much bigger problems than an AC lawsuit!

I don't have much respect for what WJ did in stealing info from AC, however, I do respect their success to date. Success that is only possible with a strong management group and capable CEO who knows about and influences every significant activity and decision occuring in the company. Bedoe has been running a "tight ship" since day one. Now they, and you, would have us beleive that for the past year there has been a gapping hole of corporate corruption in the hull and the captain new nothing about it? Give me a break. I have to much respect for what he has accomplished with this airline to believe his head has been up his ass for the last year.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:12 pm

Blaster

It matter little who you fly for as the moral of the story is to get as much Airbus/Boeing time as you can get as the middle east is going to be hiring big time. As you well know Canadian pilots have an excellent reputation for being excellent pilots where ever they go. I think that's due to the water that goes into the making of the beer, whatever..

Wilbur

Well said common sense rules..

CanadaEH

I have to admire your spunk you stand up for what you believe in..

Panama Jack · Post by **Panama Jack** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:01 pm

Rebel wrote:It matter little who you fly for as the moral of the story is to get as much Airbus/Boeing time as you can get as the middle east is going to be hiring big time. As you well know Canadian pilots have an excellent reputation for being excellent pilots where ever they go. .

Is that what the Canadian pro-pilot's job hopes have become???

Used to be that the objective was to get on at Air Canada or Canadian Airlines. Now we have people going into aviation because "wow, they're hiring outside of Canada!!!"

I think that is a pretty sad testimonial to the state of the Canadian airline industry. It seems like a third worldish state of mind, not unlike the ones I see in Latin America "if I get these qualifications, I can immigrate to the United States!!!"

Interestingly, I hear a number of pilots in the middle east also complaining due to the rapidly erroding conditions there (surprise, surprise-- managements are taking an interest in low-cost models)-- and keep in mind that problems are inherently easier to deal with on one's home turf.

So Canadian's are becoming to aviation what the Filipinos already are to the merchant marine. Not sure if this is something to be proud of.

Overall, pretty sad.

LT · Post by LT » Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:11 pm

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:21 pm

Panama Jack

I couldn't agree more aviation has become a mess..

Schlem · Post by **Schlem** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:14 pm

Panama Jack wrote:Wow, $220 Mil is a lot of money. I wonder how Air Canada came to calculate this amount??? Is this the amount that they actually feel they lost in profit due to Westjet's actions???

Must be...

Seems like AC knowinglly watched WJ access the website and knowingly watched WJ take money out of AC's pockets while knowingly planning to use this in a lawsuit many months down the road and knowingly did nothing to stop it and the financial bleeding AC was suffering because of it and knowingly did it all to sling mud at WJ and to turn the public against WJ prior to AC coming out of creditor protection.

If it was hurting AC so much why did they let it continue for so long? We learn 3 things...

AC brass are first, incredibley stupid to allow the user name and password of a former exec who went to the competiton to remian accesssible after he left and second, incredibley stupid for allowing WJ to access their information on an ongoing basis of a year while it hurt AC's own bottom line...

or third, cunning enough to plan this from the begining as a setup to trap WJ?

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 3:51 am

Schlem

If your scenario has any merit the management of WJ must be incredibility stupid to fall for such a trap...But then again why would any responsible upstanding corporation citizen feel the need to break into their competitions confidential website.

Schlem · Post by **Schlem** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 10:31 am

Rebel wrote:Schlem

If your scenario has any merit the management of WJ must be incredibility stupid to fall for such a trap...But then again why would any responsible upstanding corporation citizen feel the need to break into their competitions confidential website.

Possibley... either very stupid or else they knew they weren't performing a criminal act in the first place that would put them at serious risk... only time will tell.

A "break in" is illegal... it seems, so far, that WJ did nothing illegal so they just took advantage of AC's own blunder in leaving Hill's access to the site open after he left to their biggest competitor.

The drama continues.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 12:43 pm

Schlem

You really don't know the difference between right and wrong do you?

How sad for you..

Schlem · Post by **Schlem** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:59 pm

Rebel wrote:Schlem

You really don't know the difference between right and wrong do you?

How sad for you..

You're talking about ethical right and wrong, not legal right and wrong my friend.

Honestly Rebel... do you for one second think that top WJ brass would put their company and it's employees at such a risk by snooping on AC via it's website if they knew that the possible legal and financial repercussions could damage them to the level many of you think they will be damaged?

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:08 am

Schlem

There're one and the same you should know that..

W5 · Post by W5 » Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:03 pm

Rebel,

OK, I am really bored today. NO, they are not the same. And if we are to understand ethical wrong and legal wrong as unethical and illegal, the following definitions apply according to the Oxford dictionary....... (everybody can leave now

):

illegal: not legal; contrary to law.
law:(1) body of enacted or customary rules recognized by a community as binding,

unethical:not ethical, esp. unscrupulous in business or professional conduct.
ethic:(1)relating to morals, treating of moral questions; morally correct, honourable
unscrupulous: not having scruples, shameless, unprincipled

Definitions of scruples and scrupulous are too long to reproduce.

Principled: a) based on or having (esp. praiseworthy) principles of behaviour.

Although we can argue until the cows come home about the definitions of
"Principle",which is also too long; but where you DO have a point.

Sheesh, and there goes my motto: "When morals go down, morale goes up"