Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

Could AC Buy Transat? 16May19 Update: AC enters into agreement to buy Transat

Could AC Buy Transat? 16May19 Update: AC enters into agreement to buy Transat

Old Jun 5, 19, 6:58 pm
  #181  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Elite/Ambassador. NEXUS, National
Posts: 2,516
Originally Posted by theOtherHolmes View Post
So im looking at a round trip flight for three on Air Transat for next Feb for $1800 all in. Air Canada Rouge equivalent is like $3000 to $4000.

Should I buy Air Transat ticket now?? They are non-refundable.
Not without also buying insurance. If they are on the auction block, no telling what will happen by travel date.
RangerNS is offline  
Old Jun 5, 19, 9:53 pm
  #182  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,177
https://atwonline.com/airlines/devel...id-air-transat

One condition of Group Mach’s offer is that the Quebec government provide about C$120 million in financing for the proposed acquisition.

In its response, Air Canada said the airline “has all necessary funding to complete the transaction and therefore it is not subject to financing conditions and does not require government or taxpayer assistance.”
YYC009 likes this.
tracon is online now  
Old Jun 5, 19, 11:20 pm
  #183  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Programs: Aeroplan
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by expert7700 View Post
no way the deal would close by Feb 2020 so you wouldn't get AQM/AQD/MLL/signature suite access So if $1800 was a deal,it'll still get you travel to your destination on an uncomfortable plane without lie flat seats one way or another
for three people at $4000 on AC you’re also getting an uncomfortable ride with minimal AQM and no lie flat seat
colombianbrew is offline  
Old Jun 6, 19, 8:18 am
  #184  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by colombianbrew View Post


for three people at $4000 on AC you’re also getting an uncomfortable ride with minimal AQM and no lie flat seat
but much higher chance of airline still in existence
gilboman is offline  
Old Jun 6, 19, 8:48 am
  #185  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Elite/Ambassador. NEXUS, National
Posts: 2,516
Originally Posted by tracon View Post
https://atwonline.com/airlines/devel...id-air-transat

One condition of Group Mach’s offer is that the Quebec government provide about C$120 million in financing for the proposed acquisition.

In its response, Air Canada said the airline “has all necessary funding to complete the transaction and therefore it is not subject to financing conditions and does not require government or taxpayer assistance.”
Jebus. I'll buy Air Transat if the Government of Quebec pays me to do so.
m.y, ridefar, WildcatYXU and 1 others like this.
RangerNS is offline  
Old Jun 13, 19, 1:00 pm
  #186  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend and Moderator: Air Canada Aeroplan & Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Posts: 48,641
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tra...date-1.5173967

Transat still negotiating takeover with Air Canada, as rival bidder says counteroffer is coming
tcook052 is offline  
Old Jun 13, 19, 2:13 pm
  #187  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Programs: Altitude 50K
Posts: 1,439
How the hell could the Provincial Government provide lending like this - to one potential bidder?
YVR72 is offline  
Old Jun 13, 19, 2:36 pm
  #188  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend and Moderator: Air Canada Aeroplan & Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Posts: 48,641
Originally Posted by YVR72 View Post
How the hell could the Provincial Government provide lending like this - to one potential bidder?
The article does say:

"trying to convince the Quebec government to finance nearly one-quarter of the purchase"

not that the provincial government has agreed to provide nearly one-quarter of the purchase.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Jun 13, 19, 4:48 pm
  #189  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Programs: *A Gold, SkyMiles,
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by YVR72 View Post
How the hell could the Provincial Government provide lending like this - to one potential bidder?
Typically it is done to protect employment, prestige companies, anchor entities and future tax revenues. Each province has its own strategy. For example Saskatchewan has tried to attract high end R&D focused enterprises with its reduced corporate tax rate; a 6% refundable investment tax credit on capital purchases, and a refundable 10% tax credit for scientific research and development expenditures. Quebec tends to stakeholder investments which allow for more say over the investment. In this case, the arguments being made to support the Quebec investment are probably going to fall flat because;
- The argument of protecting tax revenues by keeping the Air Transat head office in Quebec can't be used because AC's head office is in Quebec.
- If AC is to be believed, the jobs in Quebec and Canada will be protected just as well.
- AC has an important local presence.
- AC isn't a foreign entity, but an existing contributor to local communities and the tax base.
If anything, the Quebec investment would probably be safer if used to support Air Canada, which is sort of what is done now because of the investments of the Quebec pension plan.
YVR72 likes this.
Transpacificflyer is offline  
Old Jun 14, 19, 1:34 pm
  #190  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend and Moderator: Air Canada Aeroplan & Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Posts: 48,641
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/quebec-d...nada-1.1273545

Quebec developer makes formal offer to Transat, outbids Air Canada
tcook052 is offline  
Old Jun 14, 19, 5:59 pm
  #191  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE 1MM, Marriott Ambassador
Posts: 3,048
Originally Posted by YVR72 View Post
How the hell could the Provincial Government provide lending like this - to one potential bidder?
If I was Quebecois I would submit a bid (or a press release saying I was going to) subject to 100% provincial funding. Because why the heck not? The more I ask for, the less likely they will be to let me fail. See "Bombardier" in the encyclopedia of corporate handouts, volume 312, French language version.
WildcatYXU, RangerNS and mellon like this.
ridefar is offline  
Old Jun 14, 19, 7:46 pm
  #192  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Programs: *A Gold, SkyMiles,
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by ridefar View Post
If I was Quebecois I would submit a bid (or a press release saying I was going to) subject to 100% provincial funding. Because why the heck not? The more I ask for, the less likely they will be to let me fail. See "Bombardier" in the encyclopedia of corporate handouts, volume 312, French language version.
The Bombardier case is not comparable to Air Transat. Bombardier is vital for national security and Canada's core technological capabilities. Keep in mind that the full name is Bombardier Aerospace and it employs thousands of highly skilled aviation personnel and has 3500 aerospace employees in Toronto, or 16% of the aerospace employment in Toronto. it also has 300+ suppliers in Ontario alone. This is significantly more important than the Air Transat presence, and contributes much more to the Ontario tax base than Air Transat. Canada cannot afford to lose a company that holds so much intellectual capital and is essential to the defense of the nation. Air Transat has some aircraft and a pool of pilots and mechanics who can easily be retained/absorbed at other airline companies in Canada, all of whom are facing a skilled labour shortage. The loss of Bombardier would be one of lost jobs forever.

I deeply resent the fact that Airbus and especially Boeing and Embraer with their countries tacit support ,did their utmost to destroy Bombardier, a competitor. It was the Avro Arrow all over again, and too many Canadians were oblivious to this assault on economic independence. The loss of Air Transat will not hurt Canada's interests in the same manner, although the country would need to replace the airlift capacity for national security reasons.

Whether it is the Quebec alternative or Air Canada who wins the purchase, it is a win for Canadians since the airline will remain in Canada.
arf04 and jasdou like this.
Transpacificflyer is offline  
Old Jun 15, 19, 7:08 am
  #193  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE 1MM, Marriott Ambassador
Posts: 3,048
Originally Posted by Transpacificflyer View Post
The Bombardier case is not comparable to Air Transat. Bombardier is vital for national security and Canada's core technological capabilities. Keep in mind that the full name is Bombardier Aerospace and it employs thousands of highly skilled aviation personnel and has 3500 aerospace employees in Toronto, or 16% of the aerospace employment in Toronto. it also has 300+ suppliers in Ontario alone. This is significantly more important than the Air Transat presence, and contributes much more to the Ontario tax base than Air Transat. Canada cannot afford to lose a company that holds so much intellectual capital and is essential to the defense of the nation. Air Transat has some aircraft and a pool of pilots and mechanics who can easily be retained/absorbed at other airline companies in Canada, all of whom are facing a skilled labour shortage. The loss of Bombardier would be one of lost jobs forever.

I deeply resent the fact that Airbus and especially Boeing and Embraer with their countries tacit support ,did their utmost to destroy Bombardier, a competitor. It was the Avro Arrow all over again, and too many Canadians were oblivious to this assault on economic independence. The loss of Air Transat will not hurt Canada's interests in the same manner, although the country would need to replace the airlift capacity for national security reasons.

Whether it is the Quebec alternative or Air Canada who wins the purchase, it is a win for Canadians since the airline will remain in Canada.
OMG. The post was mostly a joke.

Canada cannot maintain its own national security, and therefore Bombardier cannot be vital to it. And having worked with them, even if we could, we would be screwed if we were dependent on them. They are just not very competent. "Essential to the defence of the nation?" Give me a break. Seriously. I value the intellectual capital they have. I value the high paying jobs, expertise, etc. The overall contribution to the economy. But defence of the nation? When was the last time Canada had to defend itself from the air? With a Bombardier product or product including Bombardier parts? And in what way is having a *civilian* aircraft manufacturer critical to economic independence? First, we are not economically independent of anybody. No nation is these days. Second, there are what, a dozen countries that have their own aircraft manufacturers thee days (whatever their own would mean in given global supply chains -- see previous comment about nobody being economically independent). So the other 230 countries on the planet are not economically independent? I don't think one can even parse that in a coherent manner in todays global political and economically interdependent reality. And finally your argument could be used to do all kinds of ridiculous things (including building a ton of refineries and pipelines in the name of strategic independence).

Anyway, you seem to be defending the Quebec government investing in BBD, but not TS. OK. Here is something to think about: maybe if BBD was actually forced to compete for the last 3 decades, instead of tottering along rather wretchedly from one handout to another, they would have actually become a competitive company? Not much incentive to compete successfully when you don't need to compete successfully is there? And finally, even if you don't think that is the case, Airbus buys the C-Series. What is the first and biggest thing they do? Reduce costs (some 20%???). Hammer (negotiate) with suppliers. Make the plane cheaper to make it more competitive. And if BBD and its handouts couldn't or wouldn't do that (the former, I suspect) then it doesn't matter how critical they are to our national defence (snort) they were never going to be successful.

Back to my original point: I am literally just as deserving as anybody else of a handout to buy TS. Why not? I promise I will keep all the jobs I keep where they are now.

I have also worked with TS, for what it is worth. And they are at least as competent as BBD in my limited experience. And neither one is remotely close to what I would call industry leaders or excelling relative to their peers. In other words, not somebody I would invest $500m of my own money in. But hey, if PQ is handing it out, why not? No downside.
mellon likes this.
ridefar is offline  
Old Jun 15, 19, 9:39 am
  #194  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Programs: *A Gold, SkyMiles,
Posts: 2,577
You dismiss my position as a joke, yet you do not offer anything substantive to counter my statement. My view is derived from the people who have expertise in Canada's national security and having seen first hand the impact of the purchase of key Canadian industries by foreign entities. You have the ignorant view that national security only involves armaments: It goes far beyond this to issues such as strategic airlift support capability, opportunities for training and innovation and R&D. Fortunately, Canada still has people who place the national interest ahead of personal profit and who understand the dangers of relying on foreign suppliers. Perhaps self sufficiency and not sending our natural resources outside the country, and then purchasing back the higher value finished goods does not concern you, but it does for those Canadians who value our economic independence.

My position is not expressing support for the Quebec investment in Air Transat one way or the other. Whether Air Canada or another Canadian/Quebec based entity purchases Air Transat is a win for Canada and for Quebec. You make the false assumption that a financial subsidy from a provincial government is "worse" than if there isn't one. Perhaps you should have a discussion with the folks who specialize in the tax treatment of M&As. There are a number of methods used to obtain the value of a company that can deliver more benefit to a company than a direct financial investment from a government. Depreciation of assets, assumption of tax credits or business losses that can be applied against profits to reduce taxes payable are all important tools factored into a purchase. The classic example of this in Canada was back in the early 2000's with the reverse takeovers of Canada's R&D companies by companies from the Alberta oil patch. They purchased the companies for the tax losses and R&D credits and (legally) avoided paying taxes. Companies do not necessarily purchase assets for the assets.

You seem to have a very discernible dislike of Quebec and have allowed the prejudice to colour your comment. The fact of the matter is that ALL provincial governments act to protect industries they deem vital for their economy. Whether it be Alberta purchasing railway oil tanker capacity or Saskatchewan subsidizing R&D companies or Ontario pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into its distressed manufacturing sector, there is a calculated decision made to support jobs and long term tax revenues.
.
arf04 likes this.
Transpacificflyer is offline  
Old Jun 15, 19, 12:06 pm
  #195  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE 1MM, Marriott Ambassador
Posts: 3,048
Originally Posted by Transpacificflyer View Post
You dismiss my position as a joke, yet you do not offer anything substantive to counter my statement. My view is derived from the people who have expertise in Canada's national security and having seen first hand the impact of the purchase of key Canadian industries by foreign entities. You have the ignorant view that national security only involves armaments: It goes far beyond this to issues such as strategic airlift support capability, opportunities for training and innovation and R&D. Fortunately, Canada still has people who place the national interest ahead of personal profit and who understand the dangers of relying on foreign suppliers. Perhaps self sufficiency and not sending our natural resources outside the country, and then purchasing back the higher value finished goods does not concern you, but it does for those Canadians who value our economic independence.

My position is not expressing support for the Quebec investment in Air Transat one way or the other. Whether Air Canada or another Canadian/Quebec based entity purchases Air Transat is a win for Canada and for Quebec. You make the false assumption that a financial subsidy from a provincial government is "worse" than if there isn't one. Perhaps you should have a discussion with the folks who specialize in the tax treatment of M&As. There are a number of methods used to obtain the value of a company that can deliver more benefit to a company than a direct financial investment from a government. Depreciation of assets, assumption of tax credits or business losses that can be applied against profits to reduce taxes payable are all important tools factored into a purchase. The classic example of this in Canada was back in the early 2000's with the reverse takeovers of Canada's R&D companies by companies from the Alberta oil patch. They purchased the companies for the tax losses and R&D credits and (legally) avoided paying taxes. Companies do not necessarily purchase assets for the assets.

You seem to have a very discernible dislike of Quebec and have allowed the prejudice to colour your comment. The fact of the matter is that ALL provincial governments act to protect industries they deem vital for their economy. Whether it be Alberta purchasing railway oil tanker capacity or Saskatchewan subsidizing R&D companies or Ontario pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into its distressed manufacturing sector, there is a calculated decision made to support jobs and long term tax revenues.
.
I actually don't take it as a joke at all. My OP on the subject was mostly a joke. That was what I was referring to. And I don't have a position on the TS one way or the other either, I just thought it was ludicrous/ballsy for somebody that knows nothing about airlines to "outbid" AC by putting forth a bid with other people's money when in this case, the other people hadn't even agreed to lend them the money (or give, or subsidize, or whatever, doesn't matter for my point).

As to the rest of this nonsense. The only meaningful national security Canada has in on the ocean or electronically/on the internet. But we are utterly dependent on our allies, lets not kid ourselves. We woefully underspend on national defence, and where we do spend the investments don't look very wise (reference current CF replacement fiasco and ship building fiasco and helicopter recplacement fiasco etc). So that is one substantive counter (actually 2 or 3 but whatever). Another substantive counter is that it is simply impossible for a nation of Canada's size to not rely on foreign suppliers. Heck even the US can't pull it off (reference rare earths and where the various carbon bits of the 787 are made as two examples). Keeping the bozos at BBD has *nothing* to do with national security. If it did, a large group of walruses would be able to successfully invade Canada.

Finally, I have nothing against Qubec at all. Lovely province. I just think that regularly subsidizing business is not a way to build competitive business. You can put lipstick on the pig by calling it in the national interest, or glam it up however you like, but it doesn't produce competitive industry. It certainly hasn't in BBD's case. And just for reference, I no more approve of Alberta buying rail capacity to ship oil than I do of Quebec investing in BBD. I would also love to see BBD succeed as a Canadian company. But they do seem to pretty consistently f it up (except for the business jet division, which they are selling ... so they can take the money and subsidize all the other bits that don't???). Their rail car division is a mess, and their commercial aviation division is a mess. Billions of dollars invested generated a return of $1. Business geniuses they are not.
mellon likes this.
ridefar is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread