RangerNS

I'm not much on government being insurance for the dumb, for example: compensating individuals (or businesses) for flooding when they willingly build in a flood plain and then don't buy commercial insurance.

But small businesses (and large businesses) having trouble over the next few months is not that.

Certainly you have the choice of not doing business with companies who would treat you like cattle, regardless of them working off a government windfall. Small does not mean good, and worthy of funding, any more then big means bad and not worthy.

I can't say that I'd prefer AC get a billion dollars than the known racists running a 20 seat restaurant getting $2k (its too much for me to consider right now), but I'd not be going to the known racists for lunch either way.

Stranger

They nickel and dime by popular demand. Trust me, airlines would very much prefer to offer only prices with everything included. But next comes a competitor which "unbundle" and lower their fares by a couple of bucks. Then lowest price search engines identify the competitor and people jump at it, not realizing that in reality they end up paying more.

Anyway, this is here to stay, forget it or buy fares which include the extra stuff.

Adam Smith

I'm waiting for AC, WS, and TS to put together a proposal for their bailout like what Airlines for America has done. They may be cutthroat competitors the rest of the time, but I'm sure that this is something they can all agree on

Front-line agents often have no idea about this kind of thing and are a notably unreliable source.

drvannostren

Fair enough.

I agree, but I can't see them just bringing it back, especially not now. Without covid, I could see them just dropping it, or at BEST saying like "hey folks we've made all these 'improvements' to the program, including adding a 2nd stopover!" But with how broke these guys are likely to be...I can't really see it.

YEG USER

Further to what was posted by canadiancow this post from January referenced a blog/article where Mark Nasr of Air Canada confirmed that the ability to have a 2nd stopover is supposed to be coming back:

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/31955677-post1649.html

Whether it will or not, only time will tell, but it seems that as of a few months ago bringing this feature back was certainly the plan...

canadiancow

Thanks for digging that up. I had no idea where I even read/heard it.

Needless to say, there seems to be a lot of fear-mongering in direct contradiction to things that have been stated in announcements and by VPs.

canopus27

Unless, of course, they work at the airport - in which case, I work at the airport/for the airline. You're wrong.

KenHamer

Corporate socialism.

Fiordland

The alternative would be WestJet, Air Canada, AirTransat, Porter, Sungwing all shutting down.

When all this gets resolve we have startup fly by night operators pop up with a couple of old aircraft that are not very reliable I don't want to fly on JetsGo 2.0 or Flair.

Best think is the government have a frank talk with WestJet and Air Canada and takes an equity position that is slowly exists from over the following year as it is able to pay back the investment.

Adam Smith

I would much prefer the government lend them money, with interest charged, and be in a better position to recoup money if things don't work out. They can take warrants if they want some equity upside. This was the model for many of the bailouts during the financial crisis.

Stranger

Govt could take an equity position. Then possibly resell eventually, hopefully after the stock goes back up. :-)

Bottom line, support should only come after current shareholders lose their shirt.

KenHamer

Oh, I am all for socialism, both corporate in cases like this as well as social.

But the next time an Air Canada exec whines about taxes or landing fees or airport rent or anything else they get punched in the head until they can no longer stand.

However I agree with Mr. Smith... a combination of loans and/or equity is likely the better route.

Adam Smith

I don't think you understand the structure I described. By lending the money, the government remains in a better position to recover at least some of its investment if things don't go well for the airline. Warrants are like an option, they're a right to buy stock at a certain price. If the price goes up, you make money on the warrant.

If you make a straight equity investment, you have the potential to make money if the share price goes up, but also bear a lot of risk to the downside if the company does poorly.

What I've proposed is, from the government's perspective, the best of both worlds.

skybluesea

delete

Adam Smith

It doesn't have anything to do with a potential bailout.