Originally Posted by
Admiral Ackbar
We really are not that far apart and I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you and others here say (this is why this will blow over), it really was the tone in which it was said that struck a nerve. He was even previously warned by Legault's cabinet to be careful that day so not like AC PR did not have time to prepare a much better sound bite to a question they knew would be asked. It came across as "I live in Westmount and never leave, I don't get this French thing here in Montreal". Yes, Montreal caters to 'world-class' workers in global industries that do not need to learn french but they ones that stay here seem to appreciate that the french language does give Montreal a je-ne-sais-quoi that is different than the anglo cities on the continent. It is this nuance that he singularly failed to provide for in his tone deaf answer.
"I don't feel comfortable expressing myself in public in French" would have been the best answer to give, the radical PQ nutjobs would have still screeched about it but the broader francophone population (especially in Montreal) would not have reacted as strongly than in this case.
As I said, I was intimately involved in the asinine language battles of the 70s (fédéraliste vs séparatiste), it impacted my life in very personal and negative ways (my father killed himself in 1978 burned out by the politics when I was 8 years old) so I am very aware of the real costs of these populist battles, unlike a lot of the media commenters that have no skin in the game except keeping their names in the news. No one wins from these battles but people in positions of leadership such as the CEO of a bilingual nations airline should have more common sense expected from them than this person.
I apologize wholeheartedly if I touched a raw nerve , and offer my sincere commiseration. As the handle suggests, I have a much closer relationship with Montreal and Quebec than I let on, so I’m familiar with the nuance - and agree wholeheartedly about the je-ne-sais-quoi ethos of that city. (FWIW, I am bilingual in Canadian terms, and quadrilingual in universal terms.)
Its true that he could have said he wasn’t comfortable expressing himself in French, but I would counsel against that if he doesn’t know any French (which i suspect is the case). There were gaffes to be sure, but again, I think it was unfair to pose those questions to him at a scrum about an aviation event. I may be wrong, but I think it’s fair to say that nobody would go after the non-QC based CEO of X bank or Y telco if they came to Montreal and gave a speech in English. Which suggests to me that he was being targeted. Makes it that much more challenging to navigate these kinds of minefields.
I’m reluctant to get into the broader political debate on the issue, but I equally feel that he’s become a scapegoat in a confrontation that he never sought a role in, which is fundamentally unfair.
Originally Posted by
Stranger
There is reason, but then there is emotions.
Same thing perhaps if it were the reverse? Or not?
Anyway, I am starting to think perhaps it was unwise for AC to pick someone who was not bilingual.
But what I definitely know is that I did not like that they appointed a bean counter as their head guy. A lawyer was bad enough, but now an accountant... But of course as we know in this part of the world engineers are supposed to be whores. :-(
It depends on what the role of the CEO is. If you want them running the business, get the candidate best suited for the job. If you want them to be the public face of the organization - the one you expect to navigate the political minefields of the day (and let’s be clear - there are many, many PR minefields these days, not just language-related ones) appoint the best candidate for that.
Investors currently seem to be focusing on the former more than the latter so, short of nationalizing the airline, the likelihood of bilingualism being a requirement is pretty low.