Canada Likely To Aid Bombardier

KarelXWB · Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:03 pm

It seems Bombardier will get more aid from Canada.

Quote:
Canada will likely offer up to $1 billion in aid to ailing plane maker Bombardier Inc (BBDb.TO), according to senior government sources, though some in the ruling Liberal Party want to see the company make tough concessions around control.

The federal government is under enormous pressure from the province of Quebec, which last year invested $1 billion in the firm's CSeries passenger jet for a nearly 50 percent stake in the project.

Source
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bombardier-canada-idUSKCN0VS2QO

diverted · Sat Feb 20, 2016 4:35 pm

No thanks....BBD has had enough taxpayer help. Kick the family out, fix the share situation, and maybe we can talk about some aid. Personally, as far as I'm concerned, let em die. They should have seen the writing on the walls with the CRJs and Dashes years ago, and yet they let Embraer and ATR eat their lunch. Not my problem they can't manage their business.
It would suck for all the employees, but I didn't see the government stepping in to help the Aveos employees, or bail out Canada 3000, etc. Let Bombardier die if that's the path its on, someone will pick up the scraps and hopefully make something work.

BBD is in a world of hurt right now, between the Lear 85 debacle, the impending death of the CRJ and Q400, the streetcars it can't seem to get right for the TTC, etc.

Make the family invest every one of their own dollars into the company before the feds will even pick up the phone IMHO

LPSHobby · Sat Feb 20, 2016 4:49 pm

I know C-Series isn´t sellling so well, beides the recent Air Canada order, but are the executive aircraft and train businesses so bad?

Skywatcher · Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:25 pm

As much as I hate to support a loan (likely repayable) the precedent was set with the $15 billion Ontario car industry bailout a few years back. Hell-$3 billion of that ended up not being repaid and propped up the CAW pension plans.
At least this plan would help both Ontario and Quebec unlike the auto bailout.

I would insist on eliminating the dual share structure though.

scbriml · Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:14 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
Canada will likely offer up to $1 billion in aid to ailing plane maker Bombardier Inc (BBDb.TO)

It's going to take a lot more than $1 billion to sort out BBD's issues.

saloman · Sun Feb 21, 2016 1:29 am

Well this western Canadian can think of a lot of struggling companies that employ a heck of a lot more Canadians than Bombardier and won't see a red cent from this Government.

This strikes me as bad policy and bad economics, but probably good politics for the Liberal Party electoral coalition.

Beatyair · Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:41 am

If they do, I hope it is in the form of the RCAF buying 15 CSeries as Aurora replacement. And or choosing the Rafale as the fighter replacement and have Bombardier build them. Other then that, not really.

Skydrol · Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:54 am

Quoting saloman (Reply 5):
This strikes me as bad policy and bad economics, but probably good politics for the Liberal Party electoral coalition.

Liberal Party province of Quebec appeasement.

LD4

EnviroTO · Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:28 am

Quoting saloman (Reply 5):
Well this western Canadian can think of a lot of struggling companies that employ a heck of a lot more Canadians than Bombardier and won't see a red cent from this Government.

If a company that is the country's largest R&D contributor, and employs 20,000 plus goes under, there will be a lot more than just direct employees impacted. All the expenses of Bombardier are another company or employee's revenue. Also, it is hard to imagine the possibility of another Canadian aerospace and transportation company growing up to take its place. New Flyer and Viking Aircraft merge to supply the world with metro equipment and aircraft? Maybe. But more likely Canada would just be out of the business for the most part.

ytz · Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:19 am

Having the Feds intervene sets terrible precedent. Especially while the Prairies are pissed that nobody is bailing out the oil sands. Why can't Québec just put forward a larger bail out package?

saloman · Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:20 am

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 8):
If a company that is the country's largest R&D contributor, and employs 20,000 plus goes under, there will be a lot more than just direct employees impacted. All the expenses of Bombardier are another company or employee's revenue. Also, it is hard to imagine the possibility of another Canadian aerospace and transportation company growing up to take its place. New Flyer and Viking Aircraft merge to supply the world with metro equipment and aircraft? Maybe. But more likely Canada would just be out of the business for the most part.

All I'm saying in my above post is that Bombardier is far from the only Canadian company that plays an important role in our economy and is going through tough times. The O&G sector here in Alberta has seen somewhere around 65,000 jobs lost in the last year, and as you said, their expenses are the revenues of a whole swath of companies that support that sector. Why pick out one company from one sector for special treatment? Politicians will use terms like "strategic sector" to justify this bail-out, but folks like Skydrol and myself would use another term.

In the end I fail to see the difference between the aerospace/transportation sector, auto, O&G, telecom, or the multitude of other sectors that provide great jobs and contribute to Canada's competitiveness. They are all certainly nice to have, but IMO none are any more or less of national interest than the others.

ytz · Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:26 am

Quoting saloman (Reply 10):

This viewpoint will always have us way too dependent on resource extraction. At what point will Canadians accept that high tech jobs often do take government investment and nurturing. Does anyone think that Silicon Valley is pure dumb luck for the Americans?

ytz · Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:29 am

Quoting saloman (Reply 10):
They are all certainly nice to have, but IMO none are any more or less of national interest than the others.

Those other sectors are not subject to massive swings in demand. Imagine a more resource dependent economy. Like Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Would you want Canada to be like that?

[Edited 2016-02-20 22:30:21]

yoni · Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:56 am

Quoting saloman (Reply 10):

Why should it be ? Many suppliers are not from Quebec and more than 6000 employees are located in Ontario.

This obsession with Quebec is nonsense and beyond reason. BBD is a critical player for the Canadian economy as whole, not only for Quebec.

peanuts · Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:59 am

The US' economy is so versatile and adaptive. Airplane makers have folded, but the intellectual capital have most likely flowed into existing plane builders in the US.

Canada? Ouch. You have only 35 million people. Incredibly talented ones. I just don't think they can afford the brain drain.

I'd keep it alive.

Obviously things have to change, dramatically. This family needs to think of the greater good, not just take the money. Voting share reduced.

In light of the WTO, aren't there competitive issues though? Could other plane builders throw a fit?

[Edited 2016-02-20 23:12:47]

threepoint · Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:14 am

1. I oppose a BBD bailout, for a host of reasons. What has the company received: something like 51 government loans/bailouts in the past 50 years?

2. Gotta admire the legions of conservative, free market adherents in places like Alberta & Saskatchewan who rail against such displays of corporate welfare, yet are the first in line to say "hey, what about me?" at faint whiff of taxpayer-funded packages.

yoni · Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:20 am

BBD is a wonderful Canadian success story with unique expertise which helped Canada to be a major player in transportation ,especially in aerospace. I see no problem with this aid as long as the federal government links it to strict conditions including management and family ownership. The Bombardier family should take a back seat once and for all.

I am always surprised to see the low level of support many Canadians have in terms of government assistance to leading Canadian companies when Americans and Europeans have no shame in subsidizing their industries with full support of their respective population.

If BBD disappears, the entire aerospace industry in Canada will disappear as well. Of course, its competitors would be very glad...but we will also lose key expertise and our rank as major player in this industry.

saloman · Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:30 am

Quoting ytz (Reply 11):
This viewpoint will always have us way too dependent on resource extraction. At what point will Canadians accept that high tech jobs often do take government investment and nurturing. Does anyone think that Silicon Valley is pure dumb luck for the Americans?

I agree that economic diversification is a good thing, but pumping a $1 billion into one company is a pretty poor way of doing it. I spent a part of my career in government and have seen first hand the way terms like "diversification" and "value-added" and "high tech" are so often used to justify what is no more than corporate welfare. If the government were to truly care about diversification they would provide some sort of industry wide tech fund that all existing or new entrants could access - not a bail-out to one entrenched player.

Quoting ytz (Reply 12):
Those other sectors are not subject to massive swings in demand. Imagine a more resource dependent economy. Like Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Would you want Canada to be like that?

The implication of this would be that the government should subsidize any sector that is not subject to swings in demand. I think BBDs recent performance shows that they too are susceptible to demand swings. My point is that all of those sectors create high paying, high skilled jobs that in many cases involve R&D spending and other positive spinoffs. The implication that Bombardier is more important than every other company or sector to me is bogus, and one that I would suggest loses credibility with Canadians the further away you get from Quebec.

The irony of all those petro-states you mention is that those Governments actually provides significant subsidies to the oil industry.

For what it's worth, Alberta has actually reduced its dependence of the Oil Sector since 1985 from 36% to 25% of GDP. This is in no small part because a lot of the knowledge, skills, and technology from that sector is transferable. Times are tough here in Calgary, but not a single oil company has asked for a government bailout, and talk of the Feds giving BBD $1 billion - especially after giving the middle finger to pipelines - is met with a legitimate concern from a lot of people.

threepoint · Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:35 am

Quoting yoni (Reply 16):
The Bombardier family should take a back seat once and for all.

You mean the Beaudoin family I presume.

Quoting yoni (Reply 16):
If BBD disappears, the entire aerospace industry in Canada will disappear as well.

"Entire aerospace industry"?!? Perhaps Canada would lose its only largish aircraft manufacturer, but several hundred thriving aerospace companies and subsidiaries will remain. Many Canadian businesses manufacture engines, landing gear, structural components, avionics, simulators, software etc for a large number of global civil, military and general aviation companies, and in some cases, producing entire airplanes (Viking).
Let's not forget all the aerospace items we build that remain on the ground at airports and other facilities, and don't we have the capacity to design and build space shuttle arms?

Maybe take 5 minutes to skim the following directory for edification purposes: http://aiac.ca/member-directory/

saloman · Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:42 am

Quoting threepoint (Reply 15):
2. Gotta admire the legions of conservative, free market adherents in places like Alberta & Saskatchewan who rail against such displays of corporate welfare, yet are the first in line to say "hey, what about me?" at faint whiff of taxpayer-funded packages.

These types of debates around here have little to do with free market economics, and everything to do with independence and self-reliance. But I will point out that neither province or companies within them have asked for bail-outs. Alberta is working with the Feds to fast-track infrastructure spending and Saskatchewan actually wants federal support for a program that will employ laid-off workers to clean up old abandoned well sites. But at the same time, Albertans voted in the NDP so suffice it say we have no aversion to spending other people's money!

They also have asked for Federal support of a large national project that would create jobs at absolutely no cost to the taxpayer, but were told that the Government would be a "referee" instead of a supporter. I only mention this because many western Canadians view these two issues together - a government that won't even support a single pipeline project but will hand a single company $1 billion because it's performing poorly.

[Edited 2016-02-20 23:45:11]

[Edited 2016-02-21 00:01:11]

yoni · Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:09 am

Quoting threepoint (Reply 18):

Thanks for the Beaudoin family

Of course, all suppliers won't disappear. But many won't be able to survive without the big contracts from BBD. If BBD disappears, the cluster effect will be substantially reduced with diminished collaboration between companies, especially on innovation and R&D.

Should we just give up on being a major aircraft manufacturer for the likes of Embraer, ATR or Sukhoi and be happy with what left ?

BTW, Canadarm2 was built thanks to federal aid and that's a good thing.

chrcaremanav · Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:16 am

Hi! That help from the Government are only to help Bombardier now, not the future, if They can not turn things around, It can become as dire as to file for bankruptcy. They are cutting 7000 jobs Internationally. Very very tough time for Bombardier, The Rail section of the industry, there are a lot of rumors what will happen to it. Take good care!

Faro · Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:11 am

Canada is and will remain kinder and gentler than its southern neighbour, that is part of its identity, part of its heritage.

And kinder and gentler means giving people a chance, bearing in mind compassion when dealing with the rigours of responsibility. By all means rationalise BBD, change its shareholder structure, implement reforms, reform management. But give it a chance, nurture it, there is so much riding on its ultimate success. It's the Canadian way and it's something to be proud of.

Faro

[Edited 2016-02-21 03:16:38]

Redd · Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:04 pm

Quoting saloman (Reply 5):
Canadian can think of a lot of struggling companies that employ a heck of a lot more Canadians than Bombardier and won't see a red cent from this Government.

No you can't. If Bombardier goes bust so will another few dozen companies that supply and service them. The ripple effect would be huge.

That being said, I don't support the bail out as it's a private company and needs to trim some fat to survive.

Quoting ytz (Reply 9):
Especially while the Prairies are pissed that nobody is bailing out the oil sands.

The oil sands were a stupid idea to begin and the current outcome was foreseen with anyone that'd had a half a brain and wasn't blinded by greed. The only money that the government should give to the prairies should be to clean up the mess left by the oil industry, that should create some long lasting jobs.

JoeCanuck · Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:53 pm

Quoting Redd (Reply 23):
The oil sands were a stupid idea to begin and the current outcome was foreseen with anyone that'd had a half a brain and wasn't blinded by greed. The only money that the government should give to the prairies should be to clean up the mess left by the oil industry, that should create some long lasting jobs.

There wasn't a lot of complaining about the tens of billions of dollars that Alberta sent east. The west also employed tens of thousands of Easterners, when there were no jobs out there, and those workers paid taxes and took more billions back east in wages.

I know...you'd much rather burn super clean and ethical Saudi oil than that dirty stuff from the west....though you'll keep the money Alberta has been sending over, right?

Faro · Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:11 pm

Quoting ytz (Reply 9):
Having the Feds intervene sets terrible precedent. Especially while the Prairies are pissed that nobody is bailing out the oil sands. Why can't Québec just put forward a larger bail out package?

Fully agree, the province should bear the lion's share of the bail out. On the other hand, bailing out one company is more practicable than bailing out an industry the size of the oil sands...oil is ubiquitous.

Faro

Skydrol · Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:37 pm

Quoting chrcaremanav (Reply 21):
Hi! That help from the Government are only to help Bombardier now, not the future, if They can not turn things around, It can become as dire as to file for bankruptcy.

So if it doesn't work out after the 33rd time, do you give up on the 34th... or 35th or 36th???

Quoting faro (Reply 22):
Canada is and will remain kinder and gentler than its southern neighbour, that is part of its identity, part of its heritage.

Canada is bankrupt, and the new government is spending money they haven't even borrowed yet.

Quoting ytz (Reply 9):
Having the Feds intervene sets terrible precedent. Especially while the Prairies are pissed that nobody is bailing out the oil sands. Why can't Québec just put forward a larger bail out package?

What's the difference? Quebec will just have their hand out for federal transfer payments, like always. Only this time around, Alberta cannot bail out Quebec (or any other province), like they did in the past.

LD4

Skywatcher · Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:25 pm

The regionalism in Canada is nasty and the oil industry has only aggravated it. Now that Alberta isn't booming for a few years due to high oil prices they are back down to the level eastern Canada has been at for decades. Welcome to the club.

Whiteguy · Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:35 pm

Quoting Redd (Reply 23):
The oil sands were a stupid idea to begin and the current outcome was foreseen with anyone that'd had a half a brain and wasn't blinded by greed. The only money that the government should give to the prairies should be to clean up the mess left by the oil industry, that should create some long lasting jobs.

The most amazingly uneducated post I've ever read on here!!!!

threepoint · Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:53 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 24):
I know...you'd much rather burn super clean and ethical Saudi oil than that dirty stuff from the west....though you'll keep the money Alberta has been sending over, right?

Wait, Alberta has sent transfer payments to Poland?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 24):
There wasn't a lot of complaining about the tens of billions of dollars that Alberta sent east. The west also employed tens of thousands of Easterners, when there were no jobs out there, and those workers paid taxes and took more billions back east in wages.

Those of us not tone-deaf to public sentiment have been bombarded by mass public and private opposition to the societal and environmental costs of developing the oil sands as quickly and as widely as has been done the past decade or so. The business case was and remains dependent upon the uncontrollable actions of others (OPEC) and very much tied to a boom & bust cycle (read: neither stable nor sustainable). The amount of sheer waste and excess - of which I'm sure you have seen in your line of work - are only now being brought down to more manageable levels. During the wild west years, there were widespread complaints about the methods of extraction, levels of pollution, effects on housing prices, and reckless personal and government spending. Many of these complaints came from surprising places, including from within the borders of Alberta.

It will be interesting to see if western resentment towards Quebec changes as the current oil situation progresses. The Liberal government is no doubt weighing the need to aid the Quebec aerospace industry while mindful of the me-too effect the west will demand. The prairie provinces have yet to sufficiently diversify their economies from the energy sector and would do well to spawn a few firms to supply manufacturers like Bombardier. The chances of securing federal aid increase exponentially if it's a national benefit rather than a regional one.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 26):
Canada is bankrupt, and the new government is spending money they haven't even borrowed yet.

This is a very popular statement and one unburdened with any shred of truth.

EnviroTO · Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:02 pm

Quoting saloman (Reply 10):
All I'm saying in my above post is that Bombardier is far from the only Canadian company that plays an important role in our economy and is going through tough times. The O&G sector here in Alberta has seen somewhere around 65,000 jobs lost in the last year, and as you said, their expenses are the revenues of a whole swath of companies that support that sector. Why pick out one company from one sector for special treatment?

Do you think the companies with the resource rights in Saskatchewan and Alberta want a bailout where the government takes partial ownership? I doubt it. The assets in the ground are still there for when the price for them is right. Production was scaled down because it is advantageous to those companies to reduce immediate costs and wait for market change. As soon as the cost of resources goes up the resource sector will recover again. The same can't be said for Bombardier. When Bombardier is gone Canada looses the ability to produce what Bombardier produces. It won't just start back up after it is gone because market conditions change.

Bailing out non-renewable resource extraction to allow them to sell resources at a price below market doesn't make sense. Canada needs a diversified economy and some sectors need risky R&D to remain relevant. The high dollar shuttered many businesses, and others closed due to global consolidation. We need to better manage our economy and ensure our economy is not dependent on the global market conditions in one sector.

brilondon · Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:41 pm

I don't think that a bailout will be sufficient for bomber. They will burn through that cash quite quickly. A loan would be better or just a general purchase of the company.

planemaker · Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:52 pm

Quoting threepoint (Reply 18):
You mean the Beaudoin family I presume.

It is both clans... and as someone pointed out, they should lose control before any additional public money is poured into the company.

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 30):
As soon as the cost of resources goes up the resource sector will recover again.

The price will not go up enough for the tar sands sector to recover.

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 30):
The same can't be said for Bombardier.

More fundamentally, it shouldn't even be an issue.

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 30):
When Bombardier is gone Canada looses the ability to produce what Bombardier produces.

Sweden, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Indonesia, Northern Ireland, UK, etc., all shut down their loss making regional aircraft programs that were dependent on government subsidies.

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 30):
Bailing out non-renewable resource extraction to allow them to sell resources at a price below market doesn't make sense.

Equally, bailing out BBD to allow them to sell aircraft at a price below market doesn't make sense.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 31):
I don't think that a bailout will be sufficient for bomber.

BBD is following SOPs... they will go back for more money.

yyz717 · Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:33 pm

Quoting ytz (Reply 9):
Having the Feds intervene sets terrible precedent. Especially while the Prairies are pissed that nobody is bailing out the oil sands. Why can't Québec just put forward a larger bail out package?

Good suggestion but Quebec is already heavily subsidized by the ROC via massive equalization payments. Hence, any subsidy by the government of Quebec is ultimately funded by the ROC anyway. It's just like the generous daycare program that Quebec offers: a heavily government-funded program funded (again, heavily) by so-called "have" provinces (BC, AB, SK) who don't even offer a similar program for their own residents. It makes you think that "have not" provinces should not be allowed to invest in (i.e. bail out) individual companies (that is, with other provinces' money).

Skywatcher · Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:10 pm

A few more points;

The high oil prices that benefited AB,SK and NF also inflated the Cdn.$ which massacred eastern Canadian manufacturing industries.

Now that the dollar has plummeted so much of the capacity is gone forever that the east isn't getting the benefit that would normally accrue.

The maritime provinces receive far higher per capita equalization payments than Quebec or Ontario do. I suspect that these payments will be reduced substantially as the "have" provinces drop to "have not" status. This will be interesting to watch as the scenario unfolds.

As far as the potential BBD loan goes-it would be a fraction of the tax deferrals that the oil industry receives each year.

Finally, I'm afraid that the oilsands were way overdone and that it is likely that billions of writeoffs are coming in the next few years. Hell-the oil sector will likely eliminate their tax payments to the point where loss making BBD is already. Again-join the club.

saloman · Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:35 pm

Quoting Redd (Reply 23):
No you can't. If Bombardier goes bust so will another few dozen companies that supply and service them. The ripple effect would be huge.

That being said, I don't support the bail out as it's a private company and needs to trim some fat to survive.

Sure I can. And if Suncor, Husky, Imperial, etc go bust you don't think there are a few dozen companies that supply and service them who would also go bust? You don't think that ripple effect would be huge? No difference except for the politics around them.

Quoting Redd (Reply 23):
The oil sands were a stupid idea to begin and the current outcome was foreseen with anyone that'd had a half a brain and wasn't blinded by greed. The only money that the government should give to the prairies should be to clean up the mess left by the oil industry, that should create some long lasting jobs.

This too silly to even respond to directly. The folks who have been around Alberta for decades aren't surprised because this type of thing seems to happen about every ten year. In fact, the big players are looking to capitalize on this and come out of it even stronger. The time to buy is when there's blood in the streets. Lots of fat to be trimmed and Alberta's economy will be better for it in the long term.

I'd also encourage you to educate yourself on this "mess" you speak of. By law, oil sands operators have to reclaim all the land they disturb. I've seen first hand reclaimed land in various stages and its impressive to see. Not only that, but 80% of the oil up north can only be reach by in-situ drilling, which leaves the land around it nearly completely undisturbed. Can't the same of the legacy of most other heavy industries anywhere in the world.

planemaker · Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:28 am

Quoting saloman (Reply 35):
No difference except for the politics around them.

It has everything to do with politics.

Quoting saloman (Reply 35):
The folks who have been around Alberta for decades aren't surprised because this type of thing seems to happen about every ten year.

This time, the scenario going forward is very different. The old conventional thinking doesn't apply.

Quoting saloman (Reply 35):
By law, oil sands operators have to reclaim all the land they disturb.

Correct, however there is no effective time line and the amount of land thus far reclaimed or under reclamation is minimal.

Redd · Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:28 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 24):
There wasn't a lot of complaining about the tens of billions of dollars that Alberta sent east. The west also employed tens of thousands of Easterners, when there were no jobs out there, and those workers paid taxes and took more billions back east in wages.

I know...you'd much rather burn super clean and ethical Saudi oil than that dirty stuff from the west....though you'll keep the money Alberta has been sending over, right?

I was complaining from the beginning of the project. 3 things had been known from the start that had proved themselves true, number 1 is that the project was unsustainable especially in low oil price times, 2 it will create an unsustainable economic bubble the likes of which Canada had never seen ( just look at the drop of real estate values in Alberta), 3 irreversible environmental damage.

About the Saudi's, well I'd rather our country invest in Tesla like projects, but yes I'd rather let the Saudis F'up their deserts and send us oil. Everyone has a role and Canada's is not as an oil producer.

Quoting Whiteguy (Reply 28):
The most amazingly uneducated post I've ever read on here!!!!

I'm sure it was.

voodoo · Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:29 pm

Quoting Beatyair (Reply 6):

If they do, I hope it is in the form of the RCAF buying 15 CSeries as Aurora replacement. And or choosing the Rafale as the fighter replacement and have Bombardier build them. Other then that, not really.

Ah the dream returns...!

neromancer · Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:46 pm

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 34):
The maritime provinces receive far higher per capita equalization payments than Quebec or Ontario do. I suspect that these payments will be reduced substantially as the "have" provinces drop to "have not" status. This will be interesting to watch as the scenario unfolds.

Well Ontario only a few years ago became a "have not" province. And this year will likely return to a "have" province. Historically Ontario has by far been the largest overall contributor to equalization. Though over the last 10 to 20 years Alberta was the largest on a per-captia basis. People seem to forget or not realize that the population of metro Toronto (GTA) is ~1.5 times larger than the entire population of Alberta. For some reason people in Canada do have a little issue with perspective.

Also people confuse equalization. The government doesn't take money from provinces and give it to others. The Federal government has a fund. This fund goes to provinces classified as "have not" based on a formula. Have provinces simply don't get anything from this fund.

heathrow · Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:12 pm

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 7):
Liberal Party province of Quebec appeasement.

Subtle. I hope some day you may see the practicality behind certain political moves vs. writing them off instantly as "Québec appeasement".

ec99 · Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:03 pm

From an outsiders prospective, it seems like BBD needs something similar to what the automakers got. The US government (in conjunction with the Canadian government) wanted to bail out GM and Chryslers to save hundreds of thousands of jobs. But they did not want to provide a huge payout to the stockholders. They were able to accomplish this and in the end most investors came away with pennies on the dollar while GM and Chrysler and a good percentage of the jobs were saved.

If BBD is to be bailed out (and that is a decision for the government of Quebec and Canada), I think a similar blueprint should be followed. BBD needs to meet with the government and agree to enter bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, the current owners would give up control of the company. In exchange, the government would agree to a large loan when the company comes out of bankruptcy. This is a controversial approach but it seems far more palatable then yet another bailout while allowing the same families to maintain control.

spacecookie · Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:21 pm

I don't see where is the business in the small plane market.
The crj1000 is not old
Embraer is an well established manufacturer

UA buy a bunch of 737-7 this days for a good price for sure
Airbus can sale a lot of A319 *like thy are doing now for volotea

On this days using the main brands is a guarantee for having pilots with capabilities to fly other planes.
Maintance is easier.

That's why I don't see how they will get the money of this investment back....

AirbusCanada · Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:29 pm

Quoting saloman (Reply 17):
If the government were to truly care about diversification they would provide some sort of industry wide tech fund that all existing or new entrants could access - not a bail-out to one entrenched player.

Quoting ec99 (Reply 41):
f BBD is to be bailed out (and that is a decision for the government of Quebec and Canada), I think a similar blueprint should be followed. BBD needs to meet with the government and agree to enter bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, the current owners would give up control of the company. In exchange, the government would agree to a large loan when the company comes out of bankruptcy. This is a controversial approach but it seems far more palatable then yet another bailout while allowing the same families to maintain control.

This is all great, but this needs to be done outside the Bankruptcy court.
NO one is going to hand over a deposit check for their soon to be built Global Express/Cseries if Bombardier is operating under Bankruptcy protection.

threepoint · Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:19 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 32):
Quoting threepoint (Reply 18):
You mean the Beaudoin family I presume.

It is both clans... and as someone pointed out, they should lose control before any additional public money is poured into the company.

Sure, there is one owner named Bombardier, but his shares are minimal compared to the Beaudoins: http://www.bombardier.com/en/governa...ors/directors-share-ownership.html

I'm frankly very surprised that Sheila Fraser is an owner and yet the company is in the state it is. She was an outstanding Auditor General for ten years.

Flighty · Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:50 pm

Quoting diverted (Reply 1):
Kick the family out, fix the share situation, and maybe we can talk about some aid. Personally, as far as I'm concerned, let em die. They should have seen the writing on the walls with the CRJs and Dashes years ago, and yet they let Embraer and ATR eat their lunch. Not my problem they can't manage their business.

How about take the GM model, which was somewhat "successful" here, although it didn't repay the US Treasury bailout (unlike the banks, which did).

1. Appoint a government conservator who wields 100% authority over corporate activity
2. Conservator clears the CEO office and Board of Directors and appoints successors. ALL shareholders released of their obligations and wished much better luck in the future
3. Transformation team divests product lines that don't have a future
4. Offer and enhance what world class products BBD does have
5. IPO

Skydrol · Tue Feb 23, 2016 12:24 am

Quoting heathrow (Reply 40):
Subtle. I hope some day you may see the practicality behind certain political moves vs. writing them off instantly as "Québec appeasement".

No subtlety required. You had to live through it in the 1970s and 1980s during the era of the first Trudeau, to understand. And the continuation during the 1990s under PM Cretien, yet another PM from Quebec.

How quickly the Canadair subsidization legacy is forgotten, when it repeats itself under the Bombardier name.

LD4

Skywatcher · Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:28 am

Great idea-let's rehash the 50 year old national energy plan. While we're at it are we supposed to believe that Alberta has suffered so badly as a result (highest income levels in Canada/no provincial sales tax/lowest income and corporate taxes in Canada etc.)?

Sounds like a true blue wild rose party separatist "we have the most but we're still pissed and want more".

planemaker · Tue Feb 23, 2016 2:09 am

Quoting spacecookie (Reply 42):
That's why I don't see how they will get the money of this investment back....

They never will.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 44):
Sure, there is one owner named Bombardier, but his shares are minimal compared to the Beaudoins:

There are several Bombardiers who are shareholders. You only listed the one that is on the Board of Directors.

YVRLTN · Tue Feb 23, 2016 2:39 am

Quoting spacecookie (Reply 42):
The crj1000 is not old

It's not, but it was basically obsolete when it eventually flew and it has been left behind by the 190/195, never mind the E2.

Quoting spacecookie (Reply 42):
UA buy a bunch of 737-7 this days for a good price for sure

They just did - for the second time in a month. Seems Boeing are making real slim pickings this time around though, but its worth it if they get some WB's.

IMO what BBD needs is some bridging loan to help them compete with Embraer & ATR again. I think the CS will eventually be OK once they get it in service, but they need to reinvent the rest of the line up.

They need to NEO the CRJ, whether it be with the Passport, PW17/900G or whatever. However inferior the frame may be comfort wise for pax, it has been very successful and with new engines it should still be competitive.

They also need to find a way to offer the Q400 with the PW127F. Basically the same wing took the PW123 before, so I dont see why not. Playing around with galleys and slimline seats is not going to cut it.

Its no good just paying off the debts caused by the CS, LJ85 and the new Globals if future revenue streams are not assured, otherwise you are never going to see any return on the investment.

Quoting voodoo (Reply 38):
Ah the dream returns.

Looks great

Need a few 300's too for Polaris replacement, will look sharp in the blue & white.

Quoting saloman (Reply 35):
And if Suncor, Husky, Imperial, etc go bust you don't think there are a few dozen companies that supply and service them who would also go bust? You don't think that ripple effect would be huge? No difference except for the politics around them.

Already happened, loads of companies have half empty offices. If you have a resource, it makes sense to use it, but there has always been a clear need for diversification in AB. Now the focus is doing it in a cleaner more environmentally friendly way, at which point it no longer makes sense to use it in the current market. But it will rebound and the status quo will probably be returned in time for the next generation.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net