The end?

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
User avatar
Panama Jack
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3261
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
Location: Back here

The end?

Post by Panama Jack »

Well, at least now that Collenette is out of office, new concern about the value of the Canada's air transport system has returned:
Can WestJet fill in for Air Canada?: Ottawa wants to know
National Post
(Fri 19 Mar 2004 - Page: FP1 - Financial Post) Byline: Paul Vieira, with files from Ian Jack


Federal Transport officials, worried about a potential unravelling of Air Canada's restructuring, recently contacted WestJet Airlines Ltd. to determine how much of a void it can fill should the country's dominant carrier fail, sources say.

The move is an attempt by Transport Canada to develop a contingency if the insolvent carrier collapses due to the pension impasse between Trinity Time Investments Ltd. and Air Canada unions.

The developments come as Trinity issued a warning on Wednesday that it is reviewing its offer and is prepared to walk away from its $650-million investment because the unions' refuse to allow employees a choice between participation in a defined benefit or defined contribution plan.

The unions, which vow to protect their defined benefit plan, showed no signs yesterday of budging.

"What has Trinity got to lose by trying to squeeze more from those who can least afford it," said Pamela Sachs, head of Air Canada's unit of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents flight attendants.

The fear, she said, is that Trinity will want more after squeezing concessions on the pension front.

"They will try to come back and take four or five more kicks at the can after that."

Last year, the unions agreed to $1.1-billion in wage and job concessions in return for a promise from airline management that their pension benefits would remain intact.

Meanwhile, the deep impasse between Trinity and Air Canada unions has Transport Canada officials scrambling. Sources indicate Transport officials contacted WestJet to see how much of a void it could fill in the event Air Canada collapsed.

"There have been some rather direct conversations," said one source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Calls to WestJet chief executive Clive Beddoe were not returned.

One industry insider, however, said it is unlikely a carrier such as WestJet could fill the void immediately because it would not have enough aircraft at its disposal. It would also have to hire a number of people for each new plane it adds.

One scenario that may evolve, the insider said, is Transport Canada permitting WestJet to "wet lease."

This would see the low-cost airline use a U.S. carrier's planes and crews to fly to certain domestic destinations, even though the flights would operate under WestJet's banner. Such a scenario could be allowed for a certain time period.

A Transport Canada spokesman declined comment on whether the government has specifically approached WestJet about what it could do in the event of an Air Canada collapse. But Brian McGregor said government officials are in regular contact with all Canadian airlines.

"We're very much aware of WestJet's abilities and capacities. But our focus as a department right now is to make sure there is a private-sector solution looked at here," he said.

Meanwhile, Trinity's review of its offer for 35% of Air Canada is likely to take weeks, a source close to the restructuring said. Trinity is concerned its offer is no longer economically viable because the defined-benefit program has to be maintained as is.

The unions have refused a Trinity proposal that unionized employees be offered a choice in opting for either the defined-benefit, which guarantees a certain payout upon retirement, and a defined-contribution scheme, whose payouts depend on accumulated contributions and investment returns.

Under the contribution plan, the planholder is responsible for investment decisions and returns, as opposed to the company.

Air Canada has a $1.3-billion pension shortfall because the returns from the stock markets have failed to meet required payouts to retirees under the defined-benefit scheme.
Seen some comparisons of Air Canada with Sabena and Swissair, both of which folded over similar issues recently.

Is it the end of the legacy carriers? Down south, American Airlines has major problems, United is in Chapter 11, Continental owns nothing (everything sold and leased back) and is deeply in debt, and none of these majors are posting any profits.

This is not just a Canadian phenonemon, rather, it is a problem affecting most of the world's air carriers. Whatever the future of these legacy carriers will be, I can only see it adversely affecting our career standards as a whole.
---------- ADS -----------
 
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan
User avatar
cyyz
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4150
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:05 am
Location: Toronto

Post by cyyz »

http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/040319/cfc32dd ... c57_1.html

"On February 25, 2004, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) decided to seek leave to appeal the Ontario court's decision to grant Air Canada exclusive use of the 14 gates in Terminal 1 (New) at Pearson Airport. Today, Justice Abella, Justice Blair and Justice Aitken of the Court of Appeal for Ontario denied the GTAA's appeal"

Well, when AC is doing back door deals to get themselves exclusive use of YYZ terminal 1, and the GTAA and WestJet denounce this idea and the court enforces it. You know something is wrong..

"Federal Transport officials, worried about a potential unravelling of Air Canada's restructuring, recently contacted WestJet Airlines Ltd. to determine how much of a void it can fill should the country's dominant carrier fail, sources say. "

You know what I would tell TC, "fark off/you." Propping up AC and then comming to ask how WestJet can "fill the void."..
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
gelbisch
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1095
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Guelph, ON

Post by gelbisch »

i think that's all posturing and strong-arming anyway. perhaps i'm way out in left field, but it'd be interesting to watch canadian carriers collectively TRY to fill in for a.c. internationally. in terms of capacity and experience, can it be done?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
cyyz
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4150
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:05 am
Location: Toronto

Post by cyyz »

gelbisch wrote:i think that's all posturing and strong-arming anyway. perhaps i'm way out in left field, but it'd be interesting to watch canadian carriers collectively TRY to fill in for a.c. internationally. in terms of capacity and experience, can it be done?
Not likely. Great growth. As long as TC doesn't allow foreign carriers in.. Excellent growth..
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Panama Jack
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3261
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
Location: Back here

Post by Panama Jack »

Is there even a need for a flag international carrier these days?
---------- ADS -----------
 
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan
wallypilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:59 pm
Location: The Best Coast

Post by wallypilot »

IMHO, I think there is no need for a Flag Carrier, even internationally, these days. At least, that is, with the current market characteristics. It is supposed to be a somewhat competetive marketplace now, the whole point being that the government should not have to prop up the one "Flag" Carrier. If AC falls apart, the market should be allowed to fill the void under the current market structure. We may have a year or 2 of underserved international routes, but I think others would fill in. WJ would be eager to expand it's north american route structure, and I think carriers like HMY and Skyservice might be interested in augmenting their international operations to Europe, Asia, etc.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Panama Jack
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3261
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
Location: Back here

Post by Panama Jack »

Interesting thoughts Wally.

I was thinking along the lines of the big alliances-- namely Star Alliance, OneWorld and Sky Team. Their respective members come under different brand names, however, they seem to operate as one from a passenger reservations aspect. With their hubs elsewhere, but good connections nonetheless, a traveller is not inconvenienced all that much, if at all.

Of course, for seemless travel from towns that are not called "Vancouver," "Montreal," or "Toronto," there could be a bit more inconvenience since the existing carriers today (like WestJet, JetsGo, Canjet) don't interline baggage with others. So I think that the frequent business traveller may be a little more inconvenienced, but then again, these are also changes forced by raw capitalism and consumer demand.
---------- ADS -----------
 
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan
duplicate2
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:54 am
Location: Limbo

Post by duplicate2 »

As for expansion of current domestic carriers to take over international routes, acquiring the aircraft with the required range and capacity might prove to be difficult in the current environment of aircraft financing. Even Westjet and Jetsgo don't have the cash reserves to buy that amount of equipment. Also, they may be hesitant to leap into international routes just as a public service, it would have to be "smart growth" and so only the most profitable routes would be served first.

In the case of international carriers filling the demand for overseas routes, one big disadvantage would be in tickets had to be purchased in foreign currency.

[edited because of posting problems]
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Panama Jack
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3261
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
Location: Back here

Post by Panama Jack »

duplicate2 wrote:In the case of international carriers filling the demand for overseas routes, one big disadvantage would be in tickets had to be purchased in foreign currency

Huh????
---------- ADS -----------
 
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan
duplicate2
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:54 am
Location: Limbo

Post by duplicate2 »

Panama Jack wrote:
duplicate2 wrote:In the case of international carriers filling the demand for overseas routes, one big disadvantage would be in tickets had to be purchased in foreign currency

Huh????
Sorry, should be "...IF tickets had to be..."

I'm just refering to being at the mercy of fluctuating exchange rates, plus the loss customers would take in exchange service charges. Or do foreign carriers sell tickets in Canada in CAN$? I've never bought a ticket on a non-Canadian carrier.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Panama Jack
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3261
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
Location: Back here

Post by Panama Jack »

Or do foreign carriers sell tickets in Canada in CAN$?
Yes.
---------- ADS -----------
 
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan
duplicate2
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:54 am
Location: Limbo

Post by duplicate2 »

umm...okay...ah...disregard.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
cyyz
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4150
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:05 am
Location: Toronto

Post by cyyz »

The only problem with the foreign carriers is that you'll need their license for the respective airline, and probably their native tongue and citizenship.. If we keep it home grown it provides work for Canadians.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Panama Jack
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3261
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
Location: Back here

Post by Panama Jack »

Valid point CYYZ.

However, it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Case in point, Cathay Pacific Airways (crew bases in LAX, Vancouver, Frankfurt, and London). The big issue is cabotage and collective agreements with these carriers. For example, even many of the US flag airlines have foreign flight attendants who only fly to/from the United States and are based overseas. American Airlines, Northwest Airlines, and United Airlines immediately come to mind. Even the Spanish airline Iberia has a crew base in Miami, Florida-- Spanish nationals as pilots, US citizens or green card holders as Flight Attendants. There are also a couple of US cargo airlines that fly in the Caribbean and South America, to and from Miami. Some have pilot bases in Venezuela.

However, yes, overall, probably a negative aspect for Canadian pilots.
---------- ADS -----------
 
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”