Dirty Deal. WJ little tricks...

RVSM · Post by **RVSM** » Sun May 01, 2005 10:44 am

Oh my, look how horribley hard done by AC is!

After 50+ years of shameless government protection from competition, and being privatized with a fleet of mostly paid-for airplanes, very little debt, cash from the sale of stock to the public (which should have gone back to the taxpayer), they got their heads kicked in after only 15 years.

Ah, but AC was ham-stung by the government when they bought out CAIL. Wasn't that Milty I saw on TV with Mr. Slaphead promising this and promising that? No service cuts to small centres, no lay-offs, etc. etc. Imagine, being out-smarted by David Collenette! ROTFL

Some years are then spent selling and leasing back everything that isn't nailed down. Airplanes, buildings, spare parts, you name it. A virtual airline, if you will. Sooner or later, ya run outta stuff to haul to the pawn shop.

There then follows a CCAA filing where evreyone feels the pain. Shareholders, wiped out. LAAs, NavCanada, suppliers take a haircut (and the buzz cut was definatley back in style) Bond holders decimated. Imagine poor old ma and pa with thier $200k in retirement funds in AC bonds. Think they are eating fillet mignon, today, or Alpo?

There's some history for ya.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Sun May 01, 2005 5:26 pm

Your version of history is pretty distorted; gee I wonder how much crying you WJ folks are going to do when the playing field finally gets leveled. But lets not confuse your Kool-Aid with the facts..

RVSM · Post by **RVSM** » Sun May 01, 2005 5:32 pm

Rebel wrote:Your version of history is pretty distorted; gee I wonder how much crying you WJ folks are going to do when the playing field finally gets leveled. But lets not confuse your Kool-Aid with the facts..

If you dispute the facts, then state your case. Making moronic, no-mind, standard AC remarks about Kool-aid doesn't make your arguement. Otherwise you sound like Blastor.

Ruminate on the implications of that.

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Sun May 01, 2005 9:32 pm

I'd like to know what AC knows about 'level playing fields'

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Mon May 02, 2005 3:53 am

RVSM

You wouldn’t acknowledge the facts even if you tripped over them as you are so emotionally twisted you are not even worth replying to..

Somehow you remind me of the typical Quebec separatist as you live in your own little emotional world ignorant of reality.

Canus Chinookus

You know better then that or at least I gave you more credit then that....

RVSM · Post by **RVSM** » Mon May 02, 2005 6:27 am

Rebel wrote:RVSM

You wouldn’t acknowledge the facts even if you tripped over them as you are so emotionally twisted you are not even worth replying to..

Somehow you remind me of the typical Quebec separatist as you live in your own little emotional world ignorant of reality.

Canus Chinookus

You know better then that or at least I gave you more credit then that....

Everything you have said means nothing without stating what facts you have to back them up.

It's you who sounds like a zealot now, pal.

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Mon May 02, 2005 8:39 am

RVSM wrote:
Everything you have said means nothing without stating what facts you have to back them up.

It's you who sounds like a zealot now, pal.

You've hardly stated any "facts" yourself, stuff like "50 years of shameless government protection from competition" is your own opinion of a different time when ALL airlines were more heavily-regulated, and completely irrelevant to companies like WJ who weren't even a glimmer in Clive's eye. I'm not even sure what your point is, whatever your version of the past is, it doesn't change the FACT that AC still operates under a different set of rules than the rest of the industry. Or is there a WestJet Act that I don't know about?

But setting aside differences abou the past, let's cut to the present...welcome to what for WJ is new territory, stringing together unprofitable quarters, watching AC order new a/c...it kind of renders the past irrelevant....ROTFL

RVSM · Post by **RVSM** » Mon May 02, 2005 9:13 am

complexintentions wrote:
RVSM wrote:
Everything you have said means nothing without stating what facts you have to back them up.

It's you who sounds like a zealot now, pal.
You've hardly stated any "facts" yourself, stuff like "50 years of shameless government protection from competition" is your own opinion of a different time when ALL airlines were more heavily-regulated, and completely irrelevant to companies like WJ who weren't even a glimmer in Clive's eye. I'm not even sure what your point is, whatever your version of the past is, it doesn't change the FACT that AC still operates under a different set of rules than the rest of the industry. Or is there a WestJet Act that I don't know about?

But setting aside differences abou the past, let's cut to the present...welcome to what for WJ is new territory, stringing together unprofitable quarters, watching AC order new a/c...it kind of renders the past irrelevant....ROTFL

That 50 years of being protected from competition is not irrelevent. Had AC been forced to compete domestically, I believe they would have disappeared years ago. It was those years that put AC in the position it was in when it was privatized, and gave it the opportunity to underprice it's competition (CP/CAI/WD) for years.

Now, after the quid pro quo of a paid fleet at privatization, IPO monies being returned to AC as cash-flow, perpetual debt facilities that it could never have accessed had it not been a crown corp, AC wants to reneg on it's end of the deal. That being the Air Canada Act.

Now you want to turn back the clock on the Air Canada Act. Fine with me. As long as you could turn back the clock on all the subsidies AC recieved in exchange for the AC act.

The AC act is a red herring IMO. If you could move your head office, would you? How much do you think it would save? The old saw about not being able to pull out of markets is bogus as well. AC is free to move into and out of markets as it wishes. Abbotsford is an example.

This is not new territory for me. I have watched AC order new aircraft and take on gobs of new debt before. If you wanted to impress me, it isn't going to happen. Everyone AC has dealt with pre CCAA has been hammered, $8 billion in debt has been written off, and now suddenly AC is a success story?

Dream on.

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Mon May 02, 2005 5:17 pm

Actually, my whole point is, you CAN'T turn back the clock. You can rant and rave about how unfair it was back in the day when big bad ol' AC was the only real game in town, boo hoo, but it won't rewrite history. They aren't the only game now, are they? I say what you WISH had happened IS irrelevant compared to what actually has happened. AC didn't disappear years ago. Sorry.

You seem quite bitter towards Big Red...was WJ your second choice as an employer and the profit-share-lessness is starting to eat at you or what? I mean, I'm pretty confident AC ain't about to give back all those supposed concessions that have you so twisted, so why not try and live with the new reality?

I still stand by the fact that AC has to operate under conditions not imposed on any other carrier. Heck, I'd chortle with glee if WestJet was forced to only hire bilingual employees...good luck with THAT in the cultural wasteland of YYC...but seriously, they DON'T have to, and that's also my point...they choose to when they service Quebec, but that's not the same thing, is it!

Only time will tell how sucessful either airline is. I would submit that one has been around for 50 years, and the other for what, 8? Oh right, AC has only existed but for the grace of the taxpayer, blah blah blah...*yawn*

Fer shure, one is today profitable, and the other...not...

RVSM · Post by **RVSM** » Mon May 02, 2005 6:58 pm

complexintentions wrote:Actually, my whole point is, you CAN'T turn back the clock. You can rant and rave about how unfair it was back in the day when big bad ol' AC was the only real game in town, boo hoo, but it won't rewrite history. They aren't the only game now, are they? I say what you WISH had happened IS irrelevant compared to what actually has happened. AC didn't disappear years ago. Sorry.

You seem quite bitter towards Big Red...was WJ your second choice as an employer and the profit-share-lessness is starting to eat at you or what? I mean, I'm pretty confident AC ain't about to give back all those supposed concessions that have you so twisted, so why not try and live with the new reality?

I still stand by the fact that AC has to operate under conditions not imposed on any other carrier. Heck, I'd chortle with glee if WestJet was forced to only hire bilingual employees...good luck with THAT in the cultural wasteland of YYC...but seriously, they DON'T have to, and that's also my point...they choose to when they service Quebec, but that's not the same thing, is it!

Only time will tell how sucessful either airline is. I would submit that one has been around for 50 years, and the other for what, 8? Oh right, AC has only existed but for the grace of the taxpayer, blah blah blah...*yawn*

Fer shure, one is today profitable, and the other...not...

My point exactly. AC won't give back the gravy they garnered over the decades as a ward of the state. Therefore, welching on the conditions imposed as an minor offset to all that government largesse just isn't on. Nor should it be.

Good to see that the blastor brigade (including you) never fails to revert to the "you couldn't get hired at AC" howl. Perhaps you are right, cuz having never applied, there is no way to know. I will say this. I would not give up the thrill of being with a winner of a company since the day it started flying. That would mean not having had the stock-based compensation either, and I ain't down with that. One gets used to a lifestyle, doesn't one?

As for the old red herring about only hiring bilingual emplyees, please, gimme a break. The AC pilots I know couldn't string a sentence together in French on a bet. You gonna try and tell me that every agent, rampy, pilot and F/A hired at AC has to speak French? Puh-leeze.

As I told your fearless leader further up the thread, I will be quite content without profit share. When I was getting $20K+ some years in PS, it was a nice treat. When the effects of Jetsgo fade, the checks will be back. Think you'll ever get one?

Trickkles · Post by **Trickkles** » Mon May 02, 2005 11:29 pm

Read Air Monopoly (written last year by a reporter) and you will get the unbiased version of the government interference that Air Canada has had to put up with.

My person favorite:
Collenette's secretary commuted from Ottawa to Montreal on Air Canada. Air Canada had a Airbus on the flight with first class. Because the loads were light, they downgraded the flight to a RJ with no first class. Collenette's secretary complained and Collenette ordered Air Canada to put the Airbus back on the route stating that the Ottawa-Montreal route wasn't being serviced properly. Air Canada was forced to eat the loss.

Comparing Air Canada to Westjet is like comparing Americans to Canadians. They have different mandates, different history, and different outlooks. Do I want to be an American? Never - I am proud to be a Canadian.

So why do we compare Air Canada to Westjet and vice versa? They are BOTH successful companies. Success is not measured in dollars and sense. Air Canada has a very, very good reputation worldwide. They were pioneers in the aviation world when even before the founders of Westjet were born. Air Canada has been such an icon that when we were all little we all dreamed of being in the cockpit of an Air Canada machine.

Westjet, had succeeded where others like Royal, C3, Canadian, and of late Jetsgo have failed.

So in conclusion, when we start bragging about profit share, profitable quarters, and making wild statements based on personal opinions we are thinking rather quite small. Look at the big picture rather than at your paycheque!!!

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Tue May 03, 2005 4:14 am

World report bilingualism a must for airline

Financial Post

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

The federal government isn't budging on a commitment to hold Air Canada to its official languages obligations, despite protests from the airline that the requirements put it at a competitive disadvantage. Jean Lapierre, the Transport Minister, said yesterday Ottawa will amend legislation to ensure Air Canada's new corporate structure, devised during its recent bankruptcy protection, continues to meet language requirements that have been law since the airline was privatized in the late 1980s. Other Canadian air carriers, including rival WestJet Airlines Ltd., do not have the same obligations. In addition to providing services in both official languages, the amended legislation will require the airline's parent, ACE Aviation Holdings Inc., to maintain its head office in Montreal. It will also place official languages requirements on new subsidiaries. While Air Canada had promised to continue providing services in both French and English, the carrier had nevertheless asked Ottawa for a "level playing field" that did not see Air Canada targeted with specific legislation.

© National Post 2005

DA900 · Post by **DA900** » Tue May 03, 2005 9:24 am

RVSM while your arguments are intriguing you don't have to Quote every previous thread. We are able to follow along with interest.

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Tue May 03, 2005 12:19 pm

Hi Rebel,
Maybe this has something to do with it:

Some airline industry players in Quebec said yesterday they found Air Canada's clamouring for a level playing field ironic because a special deal the carrier struck with the government of Quebec props up its near-monopoly in that province.

"There's no level playing field in Quebec," said John McKenna, president of a trade group representing Quebec carriers. "This carrier is getting millions to provide a service into a region and the others get nothing."

Schlem · Post by **Schlem** » Tue May 03, 2005 12:59 pm

If the feds can still put a stranglehold on AC over the language issue then one can only assume that the feds had more to do with AC's recent revival then we all know... and probably ever will.

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Tue May 03, 2005 1:00 pm

Rebel wrote:Canus Chinookus

You know better then that or at least I gave you more credit then that....

now what is that supposed to mean?

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Tue May 03, 2005 3:44 pm

Official Languages Obligations Now Apply to Subs. Yesterday, Transport Minister Lapierre announced that the Government of Canada will amend The Air Canada Public Participation Act to ensure the official language obligations of Air Canada will apply to ACE and all of its subsidiaries. Minister Lapierre acknowledged Air Canada and its employees’ efforts in successfully restructuring the airline but added that “it is imperative that the important obligations set out in the Air Canada Public Participation Act continue to be respected.” Air Canada has always maintained that its customers are entitled to service in the language of their choice – as it is just good customer service, but has registered concerns that the obligations imposed on Air Canada are more onerous than those imposed on other federally regulated institutions as well as competing airlines.

When WJ has to comply with the “ WJ Public Participation Act” then we’ll talk about a level playing field.

RVSM · Post by **RVSM** » Tue May 03, 2005 4:47 pm

"WJ Public Participation Act"? Why not.

Right after the federal government gives WJ a fleet of taxpayer funded airplanes, pushed out of taxpayer funded hangers with taxpayer funded tractors. Oh, and half a billion dollars in taxpayer funded cash-flow.

Throw in 5 decades of quiet enjoyment on every domestic route worth flying, and I believe we have our level playing field.

RVSM · Post by **RVSM** » Tue May 03, 2005 4:54 pm

Schlem,

Blastor and his minions whine about how they have to live with the AC act, as though the feds had never done a thing for them. They never mention the back-room deals made on AC's behalf. Things like having the repayment schedule for the pension extend to 10 years, twice the time that other Canadian corporations have. Being special isn't all bad, is it?

They also had the competition act changed. That became public after the CCAA exit.

There may be more. We'll just have to wait and see.

Trickkles · Post by **Trickkles** » Tue May 03, 2005 7:40 pm

[quote="RVSM"]"WJ Public Participation Act"? Why not.

pushed out of taxpayer funded hangers

And who provided WJ with funds for their hangar???? It wasn't federal but it was DEFINATELY government.

RVSM · Post by **RVSM** » Tue May 03, 2005 9:21 pm

Don't you mean OUR hanger? Some slips would make Freud blush, wouldn't they?

Which government? Inquiring minds want to know.

EI-EIO · Post by **EI-EIO** » Wed May 04, 2005 12:07 pm

Well, if the subsidy is the issue maybe AC should be offered a chance to "buyout" the PPA. No way it happens unless Harper PM though, and let's face it that's a grim prospect.

Flightlevels · Post by **Flightlevels** » Wed May 04, 2005 2:09 pm

Trickkles wrote:
RVSM wrote:"WJ Public Participation Act"? Why not.

pushed out of taxpayer funded hangers

And who provided WJ with funds for their hangar???? It wasn't federal but it was DEFINATELY government.

I know that out east Ken Rowe(Canjet) got the hangar subsidized through the provincial and federal governments, both kicked into it.

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Wed May 04, 2005 5:58 pm

BWAHAHAHAHA!

All this talk about the "backroom deals" made and how AC has gotten all these breaks...like anyone on here is even remotely highly placed enough to have the figures on how much toilet paper is ordered to stock the lavs, let alone be privy to that sort of info...and I include myself as one of the lowly pawns...god any Oliver Stone fans here or what...

The debating flexibility of some participants is amazing. When Air Canada is given preferential treatment that benefits it, a howl of self-righteous protest goes up amongst the WJ faithful. ("Dear GOD! A formerly government-run company at times in it's 50-year history received government subsidies! SHOCKING!!)

But when it's on the other end of the stick aka the Air Canada Act, why, that's nothing, and besides, if some of the conditions that make AC "different" actually hurt the company (and only someone woefully ignorant of business thinks that things like mandatory bilingualism aren't expensive), why, heck, Air Canada deserves it!!

Have I got the argument straight?!

hehehe

At least I'M honest about my biases...and amused at WJ's Q1 results...oh surrrre the cheques will be back, real soon...just like the market conditions in the late 90's that created them....hmmm...nah, don't think so.

double-j · Post by **double-j** » Wed May 04, 2005 8:56 pm

jj