Get ready for the bailout - Air Transat merger with Air Canada cancelled

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You haven’t proven anyone wrong on anything. You just have your entrenched opinions reinforced by YOUR personal feelings about the industry clouding everything you see or hear. Just because you have something to say on the matter doesn’t make anything settled.

Did you seriously just make the statement that Air Canada hasn’t taken a single penny from the government of Canada? Now who is delusional. Just because the amount of money doesn’t cross your personal threshold of what a “big check” is for a private enterprise to receive from the government is irrelevant.

Defending Air Canada’s shitty business and industry is just betraying your complete lack of understanding of economics and market economies. No matter how much you trot out the “but but but the rules” line. Educate yourself.

Air Canada is the welfare job. Not necessarily the jobs they employ ( I’ll leave that open ended considering how the company manages its affairs ).

No Canada’s existing carriers are not important, and no corporation should have a legislated guaranteed future, and no they should not have have access to taxpayer subsidized funding to that end. Not Air Canada. Not West Jet. Not Transat. Not bombardier. Not any private enterprise in this country.

I’m sure this doesn’t extend much beyond trying to ensure your inflated industry pensions are solvent for decades to come at the expense of everyone else in this country.

Mic drop

[Misterman]

I think the most important issue that Maxx is glossing over, is that AC was a dogshit airline(their financials withstanding) before covid, and remains a dogshit airline amid covid.

I've done some pain in the ass airport transfers just to avoid the pain in the ass of flying with those cocksuckers.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You don’t fly much, do you?

The airline industry, when you look at all the ancillaries attached, is one of the largest sources of GDP in the country. Without flights, there are no hotel bookings, no taxi fares, no people eating in restaurants, or spending money on tourism, no car rentals, etc. And the tertiary effects of that, such as the restaurant workers, the hotel housekeeping staff, the airport security workers, the airport restaurant owners, the ramp guys and fuellers, hell even the guy washing the cars for enterprise rental all get shit canned because the airline industry isn’t moving people.

But I guess (according to you) allllll of those companies have unsustainable business models, right?

They are important, but let's hypothetically delete WestJet and AC from the world, today. Pretend they both simultaneously went bankrupt and ceased all flights.
A competitor will come in and start delivering the flights that have demand within 3 months and all those tertiary etc economic spin-offs will still occur.
Commercial flight will happen in Canada regardless of what company provides the service and regardless of whether the Canadian government continues to help the company with "Canada" in their name while obstructing the company with "West" in their name.

You're correct that air travel is an important economic contributor but if you think air travel will stop or get cut in half if one of "our" major airlines perishes, then you're very wrong.

[ExtraSlow]

But guise it's our national airline.

[Maxx Mazda]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They are important, but let's hypothetically delete WestJet and AC from the world, today. Pretend they both simultaneously went bankrupt and ceased all flights.
A competitor will come in and start delivering the flights that have demand within 3 months and all those tertiary etc economic spin-offs will still occur.
Commercial flight will happen in Canada regardless of what company provides the service and regardless of whether the Canadian government continues to help the company with "Canada" in their name while obstructing the company with "West" in their name.

You're correct that air travel is an important economic contributor but if you think air travel will stop or get cut in half if one of "our" major airlines perishes, then you're very wrong.

A competitor will only surface if there is a profit to be made, so that argument really doesn't hold water. Right now, there is no profit to be made as long as the government restrictions on travel remain in place.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A competitor will only surface if there is a profit to be made, so that argument really doesn't hold water. Right now, there is no profit to be made as long as the government restrictions on travel remain in place.

That's true. Has the government only provided financial assistance to airlines during the CoVid pandemic and never before?

[ExtraSlow]

What's the best way for government to subsidize air travel. Because that seems to be the core question half of you guys are really asking.

Maybe:
- make consumer spending on Air travel tax deductible?
- no carbon tax on jet fuel
- no airport fees, by heavily subsidizing airports
- free aircraft for unprofitable routes?

Lots of ways to skin that cat, let's brainstorm.

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What's the best way for government to subsidize air travel. Because that seems to be the core question half of you guys are really asking.

Maybe:
- make consumer spending on Air travel tax deductible?
- no carbon tax on jet fuel
- no airport fees, by heavily subsidizing airports
- free aircraft for unprofitable routes?

Lots of ways to skin that cat, let's brainstorm.

Step 1. Don’t.

Air travel isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. Government shouldn’t subsidize the privileged.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What's the best way for government to subsidize air travel. Because that seems to be the core question half of you guys are really asking.

Maybe:
- make consumer spending on Air travel tax deductible?
- no carbon tax on jet fuel
- no airport fees, by heavily subsidizing airports
- free aircraft for unprofitable routes?

Lots of ways to skin that cat, let's brainstorm.

I can play this.
I want AIF's to die because I don't trust where they're going, they never end and I don't believe there is value in an airport that's 45 min away from its city being a masterpiece of architectural design.
I also want fuel surcharges to die for similar reasons. They don't seem to follow the fuel pricing market. They are (seemingly) just a high, static charge based on 2008 fuel extremes.

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can play this.
I wasn't AIF's to die because I don't trust where they're going, they never end and I don't believe there is value in an airport that's 45 min away from its city being a masterpiece of architectural design.
I also want fuel surcharges to die for similar reasons. They don't seem to follow the fuel pricing market. They are (seemingly) just a high, static charge based on 2008 fuel extremes.

Maybe make fuel surcharges tax deductible? Removing them entirely seems like the wrong way to help airlines.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay now I've got it. A $0.25/km payment to airlines for each seat (empty or full) flown to airports that are either remote, or east of Winnipeg.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Maybe make fuel surcharges tax deductible? Removing them entirely seems like the wrong way to help airlines.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay now I've got it. A $0.25/km payment to airlines for each seat (empty or full) flown to airports that are either remote, or east of Winnipeg.

I want them to have a few structure that is even partially representative their costs. When a flight from Calgary to Victoria is near (or greater than) the cost of a flight from Calgary to Halifax, I get suspicious.

[suntan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I want them to have a few structure that is even partially representative their costs. When a flight from Calgary to Victoria is near (or greater than) the cost of a flight from Calgary to Halifax, I get suspicious.

An airline's cost is like 90% fixed. Only way to get substantially cheaper costs is to have massive traffic on a route.

AC pays great, why not when the gov't bails you out every few years.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What's the best way for government to subsidize air travel. Because that seems to be the core question half of you guys are really asking.

Maybe:
- make consumer spending on Air travel tax deductible?
- no carbon tax on jet fuel
- no airport fees, by heavily subsidizing airports
- free aircraft for unprofitable routes?

Lots of ways to skin that cat, let's brainstorm.

The best move the government can make for Canadians, is to r move the open skies restrictions, and allow cabotage between major cities.

[ExtraSlow]

Cabotage, names for James Cabot, right?

[Maxx Mazda]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I want them to have a few structure that is even partially representative their costs. When a flight from Calgary to Victoria is near (or greater than) the cost of a flight from Calgary to Halifax, I get suspicious.

Like I stated in a previous post, in some cases the airline itself is keeping less than half the fare charged to you. It’s all government taxes, fees, surcharges, etc.

The actual “cost” of a flight isn’t totally dependant on the geographical distance. Yes, a longer flight will burn more fuel, but a place like Victoria to use your example, is a relatively small market. But to fly there, the airline still needs to hire ground staff, gate agents, fuellers, catering companies, etc. It’s the same number of gate agents or ramp guys working a flight whether it’s got 8 passengers or 80. So, for a smaller market like that, the cost is the same, but if the city pair is low yield for passenger numbers, the costs just get averaged out over fewer seats - hence the airfare is more expensive, albeit not by much (when looking at actual FARE only.) Add in YYJ’s abhorrent AIF’s, etc and you end up with a much more expensive ticket.

[killramos]

Air Canada sure has it rough, paying operating expenses and taxes and stuff. That doesn’t sound fair.

We should get the government to pay for that or something.

[Maxx Mazda]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can play this.
I want AIF's to die because I don't trust where they're going, they never end and I don't believe there is value in an airport that's 45 min away from its city being a masterpiece of architectural design.
I also want fuel surcharges to die for similar reasons. They don't seem to follow the fuel pricing market. They are (seemingly) just a high, static charge based on 2008 fuel extremes.

This 10,000%

This country needs to stop trying to operate airports as a business, and instead treat them as a piece of infrastructure. YYC is the worst offender in the entire country by a lot. Only in business to placate the shareholders.

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Only in business to placate the shareholders.

The TRAVESTY

[suntan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Like I stated in a previous post, in some cases the airline itself is keeping less than half the fare charged to you. It’s all government taxes, fees, surcharges, etc.

The actual “cost” of a flight isn’t totally dependant on the geographical distance. Yes, a longer flight will burn more fuel, but a place like Victoria to use your example, is a relatively small market. But to fly there, the airline still needs to hire ground staff, gate agents, fuellers, catering companies, etc. It’s the same number of gate agents or ramp guys working a flight whether it’s got 8 passengers or 80. So, for a smaller market like that, the cost is the same, but if the city pair is low yield for passenger numbers, the costs just get averaged out over fewer seats - hence the airfare is more expensive, albeit not by much (when looking at actual FARE only.) Add in YYJ’s abhorrent AIF’s, etc and you end up with a much more expensive ticket.

You literally have no idea why airlines charge what they charge.

Before you write yet more next to useless analysis, because your paragraph is somewhere between utterly and totally wrong, I used to work at an airline doing among other things cost analysis.

[Maxx Mazda]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Air Canada sure has it rough, paying operating expenses and taxes and stuff. That doesn’t sound fair.

We should get the government to pay for that or something.

Huh? Of course they’re paying operating expenses. That’s what they’re in business for.

Basically, how a business works, is it will provide a good or service, cover their expenses for providing said good or service, and hopefully there is a portion of that money left over, which is known as “profit.”

Maybe someone else can distill it down a little better...

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You literally have no idea why airlines charge what they charge.

Before you write yet more next to useless analysis, because your paragraph is somewhere between utterly and totally wrong, I used to work at an airline doing among other things cost analysis.

Would love to hear your analysis.