Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quote: His plan? Create one or more new low-cost carriers, complete with lower wages and benefits for employees, to handle Air Canada’s less profitable routes. |
Quote: That winning formula includes a single type of aircraft (to save on training and maintenance costs), no connecting flights (which cause expensive delays when planes have to wait for passengers) and an all-economy-class configuration (which maximizes passenger numbers). |
Quoting pnd100 (Thread starter): It is the country’s biggest and most dysfunctional airline, at war with its unions, losing money and protected by Ottawa. There may be only one way out. |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3): To say that AC is "protected by Ottawa" I think is entirely misleading. Burdened by Ottawa would be more accurate. |
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 1): |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3): Allow AC to function just like any other Canadian corporation and I think you would see immediate positive returns in the many tens of millions. |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3): Executive compensation and retention bonuses have to be looked at closely. Won't save a huge ton of $$$ but the symbolism is important. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 4): Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3): To say that AC is "protected by Ottawa" I think is entirely misleading. Burdened by Ottawa would be more accurate. Agreed, had Lisa Raitt stayed out of this then the management and union would have gone to arbitration and an agreement would have been reached. She has also set a precedent for any large union in Canada like the CAW. |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3): - need to have at least one bilingual FA on every flight: if one not available, flight is held until one found or cancelled, at considerable cost. This works both ways: need for a French-speaking FA or need for an English-speaking FA. - need to have ALL documentation in both languages: hell, at all Airbus plants, Hamburg, Toulouse, Getafe, the working language is English, plain and simple. Sometimes life is tough. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 6): While I understand the governments' desire to keep things running, I did not agree with the manner in which they seemed to "artificially" prevent a disruption. There are issues that need to be worked out. AC's situation is not unique in he industry. The question is how do you move an airline from one era to another in a way that is fair to all concerned? |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 7): 1) Open up current bilaterals allowing for expansion by current carriers to other points in Canada with the preference going to Star Alliance carriers. This will in the short term look bad for AC but in the long run Canadians will benefit from greater competition & connectivity. Also as the lower yielding traffic flocks to these carriers it leaves higher yielding passengers for AC, etc. The Middle East carriers can absorb this traffic because their cost structures are radically different |
Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 8): Does anyone know how much this really costs? I can't imagine it being too problematic, as the headquarters in Montreal, so you should be able to find enough people to keep documents in two languages. The bilingual crew issue is possibly a concern, but how much French would an English-speaking flight attendant need to know to be considered bilingual? |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9): You need to be able to sell EVERYONE on the concept that if the enterprise as a whole fails, everyone loses. If the enterprise as a whole succeeds, everyone wins. I think WS are miles ahead in this area. |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9): With the exception of a few ME areas, Canada is essentially an open skies jurisdiction already. |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9): The fed standard for being bilingual, which AC has to adhere to, is that you must be able to hold a reasonable conversation at length, and be able to read/write clearly in French (or English, for that matter). The standard actually is pretty high. I only just pass. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 4): Agreed, had Lisa Raitt stayed out of this then the management and union would have gone to arbitration and an agreement would have been reached. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 6): While I understand the governments' desire to keep things running, I did not agree with the manner in which they seemed to "artificially" prevent a disruption. There are issues that need to be worked out. AC's situation is not unique in he industry. The question is how do you move an airline from one era to another in a way that is fair to all concerned? |
Quoting czbbflier (Reply 12): By definition, arbitration is not an agreement. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 10): 1) As a current carrier to YYZ & YUL, Air France decides it wishes to start flights to YVR using it's own metal, it does not require government clearance? What about equipment? Is it allowed to say upguage YYZ from A343 / B744 to A380 as it chooses? |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 10): 2) As an airline that does not serve Canada, could TG commence flights here without a problem? |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 10): 3) Which airlines / regions fall into the blackout category? I assume those from the UAE & Qatar (what about Kuwait / Bahrain / Saudi Arabia?) & I think SQ also? |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 10): By the way, what ever happened to ET serving Canada? |
Quoting czbbflier (Reply 12): It makes me angry to know that Canada, with its amazing aviation heritage has seen its diverse traditions and history, with the series of amalgamations that have brought such venerable names as Canadian Airways, Pacific Western, Nordair, Quebecair, Canadian Pacific, Wardair, and EPA- as well as the flying heritage of TCA itself- to name a few, have been amalgamated under this dysfunctional and f*cked up company. |
Quoting czbbflier (Reply 12): "Management gets the union it deserves." It was management's unilateral decision to stop paying into the pension plans, it was management's unilateral decision to plough the cost-savings extorted out the company's employees to hire Celine Dion and rebrand the company. Breach of trust causes deep, deep faults. Time for business schools to teach 'How not to run a business" and use Air Canada as the shining example. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 13): However If a LEGAL work stoppage is such as risk to the economy of Canada then AC is everyone in Canada's problem and should be re-nationalized. |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 14): Some SE Asia jurisdictions are not within the scope of Open Skies 9yet) and I believe Thailand may be one of them. Therefor some type of bilateral would need to be agreed upon, or jump right into Open Skies. Problem is, from the Canadian p.o.v., not a big market, therefore no perceived need to get moving on this file. |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 14): I think EY/EH/QR have access with capacity restrictions, no knowledge of the others. There was an agreement with Singapore until a few years ago, they wanted unrestricted access with 5th freedom SIN-ICN-YVR/YYZ. When they didn't get it, agreement was cancelled.I think there is still finger pointing going on. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 16): Amazing. The refrain I often hear is that allowing this would cause AC to "lose" traffic. |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 17): I agree with your argument overall, but in the SQ case, there is minimal traffic SIN-Canada. One reason AC stopped its' service YYZ-LHR-BOM-SIN a long time ago. What they were/are after is unlimited ICN-Canada rights, as Korea is going through tremendous growth. Open Skies should really only relate to the O&D countries, not something in the middle. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 16): Excellent quote. "The best union is none at all." Not because the union itself is a bad thing but rather if you truly cared about your business, you invest in your workers. Unions exist to protect workers from management who at one point did not care about the well being of their staff. This is foolish from a corporate management point of view. WS was cited as an example in the airline industry of a company who has stakeholders. I'm sure no company is perfect but having worked for many of Canada's largest corporations I can tell you the most profitable companies are the ones who follow this type of mutual benefit model. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 18): 1) if indeed they were after ICN & the South Korean authorities were okay with that, what harm could it have done? People flying ex Canada to ICN would have now had a choice between KE (SkyTeam) & SQ/AC (Star Alliance). Shouldn't the granting of rights to any of the Star Alliance carriers help rather than hinder AC? |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 18): 2) In the case of EK / EY / QR, they wish to be granted access nonstop to their hubs unlike SQ through ICN. We all know that these pax are connectors but how are they different than BA / LH / KL? I agree that O&D to Europe is far greater but we must acknowledge that many Canadian pax on European carriers are also connectors. Maybe half. |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 14): Quoting pnd100 (Reply 10): 1) As a current carrier to YYZ & YUL, Air France decides it wishes to start flights to YVR using it's own metal, it does not require government clearance? What about equipment? Is it allowed to say upguage YYZ from A343 / B744 to A380 as it chooses? I believe that is the case. |
Quoting longhauler (Reply 21): It seems Canada's public has figured out where the problem lies in Air Canada ... and it sure isn't the employees! |
Quoting juantrippe82 (Reply 23): Agreed, I've got a reservation for LGA in June and I'm wondering if I should switch |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 24): "Air Canada came to us during the ... global (economic) crisis, and asked specifically for government assistance in a number of areas because of the dangers shutting down the airline would represent to the Canadian economy," Harper said. "I'll be darned if we will now sit by and let the airline shut itself down. |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3): To say that AC is "protected by Ottawa" I think is entirely misleading. Burdened by Ottawa would be more accurate. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 7): 3) AC will be a three tier airline, the mainline will fly to the highest profile routes with an all widebody fleet of 787s & 777s. The second tier will be Canada's Jetstar flying a mixed fleet to lower yielding routes & sun destinations. The third part would be funded by the government to provide connections to remote communities. |
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 5): A union approved set up to approve unaffordable salaries? |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 6): how did you arrive at the figure of 64%? |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 6): Most point to executive compensation as some magic cure. I agree that the symbolism matters more than the actual dollars. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 7): if there was other sources of revenue I think that would have been tapped already. |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9): total costs to AC of ACPPA is on the order of $200M/yr. |
Quoting czbbflier (Reply 12): We can only be in the present and we can only 'move forward'. How convenient. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 16): I love AC but I love Canada more, I'm more interested in what is best for the country as opposed to what is best for the airline. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 16): My advice to AC is to not worry about EK because there is no need to compete with them. Let them take the low yielding masses to secondary destinations. |
Quoting longhauler (Reply 21): and it sure isn't the employees! |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 24): It allows both sides invoved to avoid the reality of the situation - namely that things cannot continue as they are. |
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 28): Does Canada win when cheaper fares are available on foreign airlines at the expense of thousands of tax-paying employees and hundred of tax-paying vendors losing their income because Air Canada has to curtail or end its operations due to the competition from Gulf carriers? |
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 25): We saw the failure of Jetsgo and sched service of Canjet but with the operation of a/c like the MD-80 and constant maintenance issues not to mention the cheap prices, was it inevitable? |
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 29): Jetsgo failed because it expanded too fast. Arguably, it had a shot at success when it operated a small fleet of MD-80's. The rapid addition of 18 F100's threw too much capacity into the market. Allegiant is a successful M80-based carrier which proves it can be done. Canjet failed at operating a sked network because it's focus was in the Maritimes which is overwhelmingly low yield. Canjet ignores the higher yield YYZ-YOW/YUL and YYZ-West Canada markets (yes, I know they operated a token YYZ-YYC daily but that was just a one daily). That both Jetsgo and Canjet operated "classic" fleets was NOT a factor in their demise, IMO. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 16): Excellent quote. "The best union is none at all." Not because the union itself is a bad thing but rather if you truly cared about your business, you invest in your workers. Unions exist to protect workers from management who at one point did not care about the well being of their staff. This is foolish from a corporate management point of view. WS was cited as an example in the airline industry of a company who has stakeholders. I'm sure no company is perfect but having worked for many of Canada's largest corporations I can tell you the most profitable companies are the ones who follow this type of mutual benefit model. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 6): AC can actually benefit with EK / QR / EY because those airlines will take away the low yielding VFR traffic allowing AC to concentrate on higher returns. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 7): 1) Open up current bilaterals allowing for expansion by current carriers to other points in Canada with the preference going to Star Alliance carriers. |
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 27): Where does domestic fit into this outside the WB transcons? Is that included in second tier operations or what should happen to that? |
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 25): Who wants to start up an airline these days? Could we see a Virgin Canada? I could really only see Branson wanting to further multiply his world monopoly as he has with his media virgin spinoffs! |
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 28): Doesn't binding arbitration force both sides to recognize that reality can no longer be avoided? Either reach an agreement that both sides can live with, or run the risk of swallowing a very bitter but unavoidable one. |
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 28): Does Canada win when cheaper fares are available on foreign airlines at the expense of thousands of tax-paying employees and hundred of tax-paying vendors losing their income because Air Canada has to curtail or end its operations due to the competition from Gulf carriers? I don't pretend to have the answer, but I think it is certainly worth asking. |
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 28): In the future, AC may retain more premium customers by offering non-stop flights beyond the Middle East when the 787s join the fleet, but just how many destinations in the Far East and South Asia can support non-stop service from YYZ? Beyond a few new non-stop flights, AC has a very difficult problem on its hands, in that it isn't even its own product that is the biggest issue, but that of its partners. In its current operations, it hands off most of its connecting passengers to LH in FRA, but neither the airport nor its largest tenant offer a product that is on par with Air Canada or the Gulf carriers, and there is nothing AC can do about that, short of trying to funnel as much traffic as possible through ZRH where Swiss has a much better product than its parent, but a smaller network. |
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 28): I like Air Canada, I think their upfront product is the best of any North American carrier bar none and better than some European stalwarts such as LH, but I think they have a lot to fear from the Gulf carriers. |
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 29): If I can save $500 flying EK to India (vs AC/LH), then I can spend the extra saved $500 on other goods and services here at home, something I can't do when I have to pay AC $500 more. |
Quoting robsaw (Reply 31): A completely fanciful view of the benevolence of unions. Unions leaders like corporate executives are all too frequently concerned about their own short-term enrichment at the cost of the union members/shareholders. |
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 28): EY literally takes care of its passengers door-to-door (an often underrated convenience in my book), and when it comes to anything other than a short connection, DOH's Premium Terminal beats any Star hub, especially FRA. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35): AC probably could code share or attempt JV with EK |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 36): It may surprise you - and many other A.netters - that AC already has an interline agreement with EK. As well as GF & QR. |
Quoting longhauler (Reply 19): |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 24): "Air Canada came to us during the ... global (economic) crisis, and asked specifically for government assistance in a number of areas because of the dangers shutting down the airline would represent to the Canadian economy," Harper said. "I'll be darned if we will now sit by and let the airline shut itself down. http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=6282149 I think that can put to rest the idea that AC will be affected in the same way as any other private company in Canada. It won't. And frankly, that statement is the crux of the problem. It allows both sides invoved to avoid the reality of the situation - namely that things cannot continue as they are. |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 24): Rob Howard, Member, Provincial Lead of the Air Access file, Legislative Assembly of British Columbia was at the Senate Committee on Transportation and Communications three weeks ago. His words are interesting, not least because they are not neccessarily consistent with some of the things posted on this page. They also hammer home the cost of Canada's relatively backward Aviation policy. |
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 27): Im interested in this one and the "Jetstar" idea. Where does domestic fit into this outside the WB transcons? Is that included in second tier operations or what should happen to that? |
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 28): I can't speak for most Canadian airports, but YYZ and YUL are very far from the shopping center with planes that LHR has become. While they don't need to copy LHR, they could get closer to that model. They don't seem to have a lot of in-terminal advertising either. DFW charges *every* vehicle pulling up to a terminal, even if it is only to drop off or pick up passengers. There are ways to raise additional revenue without impacting the carriers. |
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 28): It's not convenient, it's capitalism, whether we like it or not. Customers and shareholders will not accept higher prices and lower profits to correct the mistakes of the past and compensate employees who may have been screwed in earlier rounds. |
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 28): In the future, AC may retain more premium customers by offering non-stop flights beyond the Middle East when the 787s join the fleet, but just how many destinations in the Far East and South Asia can support non-stop service from YYZ? |
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 29): Yes, Canada (and Canadians) DO win HUGELY when we can purchase goods & services cheaper from abroad. Trade enriches a nation; trade sanctions impoverish it. If I can save $500 flying EK to India (vs AC/LH), then I can spend the extra saved $500 on other goods and services here at home, something I can't do when I have to pay AC $500 more. |
Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 32): LOL! Do you seriously think that EK/EY will fly aircraft to Canada just to capture low yielding traffic. They will siphon off as much premium traffic as they can. Its silly to think otherwise. |
Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 32): So from one form of protection to another. I would guess that steering a bilateral towards one alliance over another would be deemed illegal. |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 34): As sick as I am of EK (an airline I have flown once 7 years ago and will never fly again), I don't think AC has the 'right' to carry Canadians anywhere in the world. So what if they can't fly to the ME or Sourth Asia? At the end of the day, is this about the airline? Or the consumer? There is a tendency in Canada to make this about the airline. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35): - In the long term the presence of EK will decrease competition as the Euro carriers will reduce and eliminate services especially to cities like YYC and YUL and the YOW/YEF Europe will lose their profitability pissing off those residents whom hate having to transit YYZ to cross the pond. In Australia the options to Europe are much less available than in the 90's as you just have QF, BA, and VS as direct service. The market is mostly, EK, EY, QR, and Asian carriers are the Europe options. Also EK down here is basically ripping off SQ's model and they are a second comer to it. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35): Quoting robsaw (Reply 31): A completely fanciful view of the benevolence of unions. Unions leaders like corporate executives are all too frequently concerned about their own short-term enrichment at the cost of the union members/shareholders. That's the problem with modern capitalism. Right or left no one seems to care about long term sustainability. When unions actually mattered (when more employees were union than not, now its like 8%), companies cared about long term performance and not just quarter to quarter results. |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 36): Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35): AC probably could code share or attempt JV with EK It may surprise you - and many other A.netters - that AC already has an interline agreement with EK. As well as GF & QR. http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/before/eticket/index.html There was a lot of media noise recently when WS inked a similar agreement. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35): Not giving EK rights is not because of AC stiff arming the government to deny them rights, AC probably could code share or attempt JV with EK to a mutual benefit if they wanted to (however EK doesn't really partner up all that much). |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35): - 3x Weekly is a standard and EK deemed themselves special and wanted daily or nothing when offered 6x weekly EY came in and took 3 slots and EK |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35): - Canada's aviation policy is based on a point to point model and the government deems that preferable and if you can prove a market for O&D you get more rights, we want Indian carriers but they are a mess. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35): - In the long term the presence of EK will decrease competition as the Euro carriers will reduce and eliminate services especially to cities like YYC and YUL and the YYZ to cross the pond. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35): - Canada has nothing to gain from whatever access it would have serving just the UAE |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35): In Australia the options to Europe are much less available than in the 90's as you just have QF, BA, and VS as direct service. The market is mostly, EK, EY, QR, and Asian carriers are the Europe options. Also EK down here is basically ripping off SQ's model and they are a second comer to it. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 37): It doesn't, I really don't think there is a lot of issues between EK and AC, there are issues with the Canadian government and the UAE acting on behalf of EK. |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39): 3x weekly is an archaic rule that needs to be fixed. This isn't the 1970s with 707s doing around the world trips that makes 3x weekly feasible. Note what Rob Howard said about SQ. 3 weekly does not make sense - its like keeping a hotel open for 3 nights a week. That airlines are willing to put themselves through this just goes to show how underserved they think Canada is. They're obviously seeing some potential that AC isn't willing to acknowledge, or else AC would be growing. |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39): I sense a contradiction in that. If rights are based on O&D, then EU airline operating a daily frequency to Canada prior to Canada-EU Open skies would have proved O&D. Correct? |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39): Incorrect. And this seems to be a recurring problem, so I will highlight it - AIR Canada has nothing to gain. Canada has plenty to gain. Why would I say that? Well, less than two years after that self-righteous indignation about the UAE not being a worthy ally, among a wide array of insults, John Baird decided to go back to fix relations. |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39): The spat allegedly began when AC wanted 50% of profits on the route without investing a dime in it. That's an odd stance to have (If its true). For any airline. AC does not, in fact, have a god given right to earn half of every dollar spent on travel out of Canada. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 40): Most routes that run daily or more are and yes as the demand goes up more rights are given. There is no issue with giving more rights to CX because they have the demand. Yes there is demand for EK in Canada and I personally think they should get dailty right to YYZ and two other cities. They declined something very similar to that IIRC. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 40): Canadians are not going to Dubai when getting on EK, they are going to Africa or South Asia. As of right not the government see the demand for Dubai as not sufficient to increase the loads. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 40): The biggest issue I have with all of this and Canada isn't blameless is the fact that EK (who is a private company) is so political and when they don't get what they want then the government of the UAE threatens to punish other Canadian interests there whom having nothing to do with this issue. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 40): There are better opportunities elsewhere. |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39): I daresay more jobs would be created than lost. AC's all but killed the aviation support industry with its nickel and diming. |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39): 3x weekly is an archaic rule that needs to be fixed |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39): How, then, would EK's entry have any impact. Does anybody seriously believe that Canadians are going to fly to Europe via DXB? |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39): Canada has plenty to gain. |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 39): Suffice it to say that despite everything that AC has had going in its favor, it has somehow managed to end up in a dire financial state not once, but twice, in three years |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 40): I could go on about this but its for Non-Av, but I don't see spats like this with Canada and the US |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 41): I don't disagree, but you're dancing around the issue. If AF/KL/LX/OS/LH etc have proven O&D traffic between Canada and their countries, then EKs entry is irrelevant. Why should anybody in Canada be concerned about the connecting traffic that these airlines are carrying? I should note that you explicitly made this claim (as have many many others) |
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 41): Is everybody boarding a KL flight in YYC going to AMS? If so, what damage is EK going to do to that route? If not, doesn't it boil down simply to the market making its choices? Which airline a passenger chooses to get to his destination should be irrelevant to the government. As things stand, it is not. |
Quoting pnd100 (Reply 42): I'm curious what steps you would take to restore AC to good shape. Let us assume for a moment that you had government & union clearance to make the necessary changes, what would you do as head of AC? |
Quoting ANM604 (Reply 43): Here we go again, blaming AC for "killing the aviation support industry". Really? Care to explain how? I hate to break it to you, but ALL airlines are constantly trying to cut costs, and if said service is costing them to much, they are more then entitled to go elsewhere. WS does the exact same thing, except to a larger extent. They know companies like Swissport etc want their business, and they drive them to rock bottom prices. EK will go with whatever company is the cheapest, which means paying their workers minimum wage (which is far less then AC rampee's make). How exactly does that benefit the airline industry? |
Quoting ANM604 (Reply 43): Read again, they were offered 6 slots, but threw a hissy fit. They have no one to blame but themselves for not scooping up the 6 slots, saying thank you, we'll be back in 3 years with proof we can at least support daily flights to YYZ. |
Quoting ANM604 (Reply 43): They most certainly would to save money. There are people everyday who will fly CAN-USA-EUR if it means they save $100 on flights. |
Quoting ANM604 (Reply 43): No, in fact we don't have much to gain from the UAE, as has been pointed out. We don't need them. |
Quoting ANM604 (Reply 43): It's not great, but not as horrific as the media likes to portray it. They are sitting on a decent pile of cash, and while they have some upcoming liabilities, they should be fine. They have posted operating profits consistently. |
Quoting ANM604 (Reply 43): Another big threat to AC is the huge taxes/fees it pays to Gov, whether it is from the ACCPA, or increased airport/nav can/fuel taxes. |
Quoting ANM604 (Reply 43): They need to dump the inefficient Jazz contract and break it into smaller pieces, or not at all. |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 44): I have said that I support them getting more access but not unlimited access. which I see as a perfectly acceptable compromise. |
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 47): It's Robert Milton, actually. Not Larry (or Curly or Moe). But I agree that ACE has stripped AC of financial resources and capabilities that leave it extremely exposed. Nothing to do with running an airline, only about lining people's pockets. One thing about investing is you have to assume risk |
Quoting ANM604 (Reply 43): They most certainly would to save money. There are people everyday who will fly CAN-USA-EUR if it means they save $100 on flights. |