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. :-(

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 (f�d�raliste vs s�paratiste), 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.

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.

I'd have no problem if it were the reverse, provided the person was the most qualified, competent pick.

That said, I do agree with your comments on lawyers and accountants ... as CEOs, legal beagles and bean counters have ruined more businesses than all other backgrounds combined.

I didn't say I was surprised someone named Rousseau didn't speak French. My wife's maiden name is of French origin, but neither she nor any of her relatives several generations back speaks any French, and there are a bunch of people like that out in western Canada. But AC is a corporation headquartered in Quebec that has had a bunch of executives with francophone (or bilingual) backgrounds. In that context, my assumption was that a guy named Rousseau who's running the company probably had some French in his background and would speak both languages.

I am very sorry about your loss. That is a very tough thing to deal with as a child (or at any age). Having lived through the separatist business as well as growing up in the 1970s and 1980s my sense is that anyone who leads a big company or has a public role in Quebec needs to be finely attuned to the hyper sensitive nature of language politics in the province. The AC CEO clearly was not, and whether or not the strong reaction against his behaviour is justified or not it is a good leader's job to understand the nuances. He did not and that reflects badly upon him and the company.

I would not have problems either way. As I said, there is reason. But my point was, would that be the consensus, or would there be many people reacting emotionally?

Because they would be able to better respond to trap questions by troll reporters?

Quebec nationalists who care enough about such things to use it as a basis for choosing which airline to use already have a Quebec "national" airline that gets their business.

Being the public face is an intrinsic part of the job. One cannot separate the two.

But anyway, the question they asked him was clearly rhetorical. Did not really call for an answer. He fell for it... Instead of giving them a smile and going on with his life.

Thats fair, although my (weak) counter would be that hes good enough at this public stuff 95% of the time - just not when he�s dragged into issues like this, which, fortunately are few and far between.

Anyway, never thought I�d be defending an AC CEO � ever, but given the public abuse heaped on the guy - literally being told to resign over this - I think it�s gotten a little too personal and unfair.

Normal (re)programming will resume shortly.

A winter holiday at ORD? ? You are a hearty group of travelers

Good catch ! I meant MCO !

I'll go back and edit !

Nationalism equals inferiority complex, often a strong one. Whether French, American, Chinese, Brazilian, Flemish, whatever, a huge emotional issue. Unmotivated provocation by a businss won't do anyone any good. You cannot look at emotions from a rational perspective.

There is a difference between the CEO and COO. The CEO is by the nature of the role a forward external facing role. He should be effective at representing the organization enterally. If not, then perhaps he should be the COO or one of the other executive that are internally facing.

I would not say that Montrealers are a major customer base for AC. Most of their traffi is YYZ/YVR based and they heavily depends on international connecting traffic. AC could care less what Quebecers/Montrealers think of the CEO not speaking French.

Are they now going to fly with WestJet which is YYC based and basically anglophone. Typical Quebecers....creating a language issue when there isnt one. Since when do CEO of private companies need to be bilingual??