Mcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 961 times:
Breaking news from the Globe and Mail:
POSTED AT 10:22 AM EST Wednesday, November 07
Canada 3000 proposal rejected
By RICHARD BLOOM and KEITH McARTHUR
Globe and Mail Update
The Canadian Industrial Relations Board rejected an application Wednesday morning from Canada 3000 Inc. to shut down its Royal Aviation subsidiary.
The decision means Canada 3000's board of directors may now hold a vote to file for bankruptcy protection, a move Canada 3000 president Angus Kinnear warned the CIRB about Tuesday night.
Mr. Kinnear said that unless it can shut down Royal, an airline it acquired earlier this year, Canada 3000 will be out of cash to finance its operations by Friday.
Canada 3000 also asked the Toronto Stock Exchange Tuesday to suspend trading in its shares so it can openly discuss its dire financial position. The airline said it was down to less than $1.5-million in cash on Sunday and is losing about $700,000 a day.
Captaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 58 Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 870 times:
WOW, I was just on my way to the CIRB to see the meeting, and turned on the radio which gave me the result. This is unreal to be honest. At the same time, crew sched was calling me to let me know of my flights coming up!!!
I hope things work out for all parties involved.
"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
Palebird From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 78 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 848 times:
C3 did not get a loan from the government. They got loan guarantees from the government. In other words the government will co-sign for $75 million on C3's behalf. This is nothing but an excuse to dump Royal as it was an extremely poor investment for C3. You can look at that development and apply it to AC and Canadian. Except AC is not allowed to dump Canadian. Politics run far too deep.But it is really starting to make me sick when Collonette will let C3 do whatever it has to while the Liberal government sits on its hands and continually moves the fence with regards to AC. If AC is a "private company",like C3 then why does it HAVE to be based in Montreal? Why does it HAVE to be bilingual? Why are there no loan guarantees for AC?Why, why, why? The list goes on. It blatantly proves that our so called democratic society is far from that.Our PM and co. do as their party interest's see fit.
Crj 900 From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 584 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 820 times:
AMEN Palebird.....the government is a joke when it comes to this whole handling of the airline industry situation. I work for ACR and I for one agree 100% with what you said. IF we are a private company as claimed, then why does our head office have to be in Montreal? As for the "language" police they can can go get stuffed. I'm personally fed up with giving in to the minority of this country especially as I am sure there are more Asians in Canada now than French or there will be soon( sorry guys enuf is enuf,,,,btw I have lots of French friends so don't even go there).The whole Air Canada Act is a joke. It's a complete double standard when it comes to AC and Collenette made this whole fricken mess and he better clean it up and quit waiting for someone to come along and do his dirty work for him. Time to get rid of those idiots in Ottawa and the biggest idiot of them all in Montreal. Rumour has it he's going to BA anyways, god help them if it's true.
Johnnie From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 798 times:
While I am truly sorry to hear of C3's financial dilemna, from the employees perspective, this fair and justified ruling against C3 will mean that should C3 commit to massive layoffs, as indeed Angus has stated, then they will be done the only way which will be fair and partial to ALL C3 employees (including Royal Aviation):
Seniority and date of hire.
I'm confused by C3's statement? Angus stated the only way to save his carrier was for the 1,400 layoffs.
(originally slated for the Royal employees). So, even with the courts fair ruling, why cannot C3 go ahead with the layoffs? Something does not make sense here.
Slawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 781 times:
Johnie: Because if C3 was permitted to shut royal down it would mean that they can fire the FA's and Pilots who are trained on ROYAL airplanes. But now that thye have to lay off from the bottom of the full list, it will take longer because people higher up wlill have to be trained on new equipment....it is a lame excuse but seems to be the one they are sticking with.
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
Planeawesome From Canada, joined Sep 2000, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 760 times:
Could somebody please tell me what is wrong with having the Air Canada head office in Montreal.
The vast majority of Air Canada's operations are focused on the over congested Pearson hub in any event. Those of us who don't live in Toronto-land have to make ridiculous connections there as a routine matter, not out of choice.
I'd support a law against routings like Ottawa-Toronto-Heathrow or Montreal-Toronto-Rome any day.....
Please save your prejudiced ravings for your like-minded moronic friends and save me the grief of reading this nonsense.
Palebird From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 78 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 745 times:
The problem with having the head office in Montreal is the fact that Quebec is the most expensive and difficult province in Canada to do business from. Period. I lived in Quebec for 7 years. Beautiful place and, for the most part, great people. But the politics are ridiculous.The complaint that AC HAS to be located in Montreal is the fact that if AC wants to turn a profit it has to make smart business decisions. And a smart business decision would be to move to a friendlier business climate than Quebec. But that is not allowed by the Feds. Now how does that work? AC is no longer a crown corp so the feds should not be telling them how to run their business. But seems someone forgot to tell the feds that. Same with bilinguism and so on.
Planeawesome From Canada, joined Sep 2000, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 747 times:
Since when is Montreal the most expensive place to do business in.
The last time I did a commercial leasing analysis I found that Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa etc. were all substancially higher than in Montreal (Toronto was 50% more).
Wages in my business are 10 to 25% higher in Ottawa/Toronto than they are in Montreal.
Corporate income tax rates are higher in Ontario than in Quebec (13.5 vs. 9.0) and on and on.
Where do you get your your information from ???
I generally go to the trouble to do the factual research before I make inflammatory statements.
On the other issue, what is wrong with making the effort to effectively communicate with 25% of your clients in their preferred lanquage ?? Isn't that a smart business move ?
Crj-900 From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 726 times:
While I agree with your opinion that AC must remaining bilingual (every national service should be, after all we have two official languages).
--If you have a problem with the French version of your safety briefing…then take off your headset! I cannot begin to under stand what kind of problems you people are experiencing because 25% of the people in the country speak French. Deal with it, ya cry babies.--
I don’t agree with one of your other points. What aircraft do you recommend for the Ottawa-Heathrow flight. An A319? I think sometimes people have to put up with connection, simply because they make more sense then a direct flight. I can assure you if an Ottawa-Heathrow or Montreal-Rome flight was justified they would do it. If Air Canada is no longer a crown-corp why should they be legislated to provide mid-sized cities with direct service, when it is not justified? As for the latter, shouldn’t the lower load flights operate out of the hub?
Mcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 715 times:
Planeawesome wrote: "I'd support a law against routings like Ottawa-Toronto-Heathrow or Montreal-Toronto-Rome any day"
Routings are for the market to decide, not politicians. If politicians had a say, we'd have a whole flurry of unsustainable new routes in the weeks leading up to an election call, none of which would last longer than six months.