Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 228

Thread: Bombardier Bail Out

  1. #101

    Default Bombardier, Inc.: Should You Buy the Bailout Hype?

    Bombardier, Inc. (TSX:BBD.B) is up 90% since hitting its January low, and investors are wondering if the rebound can continue.

    Let’s take a look at the current situation to try to see why the stock has picked up some momentum.

    Bailout boost

    Bombardier’s cash flow troubles are well known. The beleaguered CSeries program is more than two years behind schedule and at least $2 billion over budget.

    That has led to a nasty cash burn because the company doesn’t get paid for its CSeries orders until the customers take delivery.
    Source
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  2. #102
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    Bump:

    http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/23...ation-payments

    Bombardier has been going to the trough one too many times. Imagine what would happen in a TPP world? Imagine how much more complicated this would be.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  3. #103
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    How would you address Quebec's poor economic performance, Jaybee? You can't deny that they are well behind where they should be in terms of productivity and entrepreneurship given their population, infrastructure, natural resources, and location.

    I'm suggesting that we tie conditions to transfers that require them to lessen regulations that impede business, and reform provincial policy to move toward a surplus. How is that unfair? Every other province does these things on their own. Why should Quebec be continuously bailed out because it chooses to shoot itself in the foot?

  4. #104
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Riverdale
    Posts
    274

    Default

    You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of how productivity is measured and in fact how equalization works.

    Please have a read: http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/04...isconceptions/

    Some highlights include the fact that PEI, NB and MB receive more equalization per capita than QC. The second least amount of any province in confederation.

  5. #105
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Riverdale
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ How is exposing the truth whining? Since 1960 Alberta has given billion$ to Quebec in equalization payments. You want to talk about whining? How about Quebec post secondary students demanding they should get free education? And now a corrupt aerospace industry wants billion$ more. Everything in Quebec is corrupt, from their politicians to some of their mafia run construction companies. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
    Alberta does not transfer a dime to Quebec

    Quebec can give away education for free and it will not affect their eligibility for transfer payments in any way.

  6. #106
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marty View Post
    Alberta does not transfer a dime to Quebec
    You're right. It's gets funneled through the bureaucrats in Ottawa first and from there it goes to Quebec.

  7. #107
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Riverdale
    Posts
    274

    Default

    ^ Yes at the exact same rate as every other Canadian and business including Quebecers and Quebec businesses. Also at no cost to the provincial government of Alberta as so many armchair transfer payment experts like to be believe.

  8. #108

    Default



    Quebec proves that not all is equal in Canada's equalization payment program
    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/17...ayment-program

    Marty, the difference came from somewhere. Guess where? Please fill in the blanks A _ _ _ _ _ A
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 23-03-2016 at 01:29 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  9. #109
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    Alberta this year will continue to contribute to the program despite our soured economy. Quebec will receive about $10B this year from the equalization program. While I'm not an expert I have a solid understanding how the equalization program works:

    https://business.ualberta.ca/Centres...pril2final.pdf

    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/12/2...ation-payments
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  10. #110
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,670

    Default

    Thanks for that PRT, sometimes people need a shiny bar graph instead of words.

  11. #111
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marty View Post
    Alberta does not transfer a dime to Quebec
    You're right. It's gets funneled through the bureaucrats in Ottawa first and from there it goes to Quebec.
    It part and parcel means the same thing.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  12. #112
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Riverdale
    Posts
    274

    Default

    ^^^^ Difference comes from CANADA, not Alberta any more than anywhere else. I'm not really interested in debating the merits of the program but there is a ton of misinformation being thrown around this thread.

  13. #113

    Default

    You are splitting hairs, that is all.

    Question: Where did CANADA get the money?
    Answer: Alberta

    One is contributing to the pool called Canada. The government of Canada looks great by distributing monies to the have not provinces. Quebec as a net recipient is taking from the pool and using that money to provide benefits to their citizens for political gain.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 23-03-2016 at 02:13 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marty View Post
    ^^^^ Difference comes from CANADA, not Alberta any more than anywhere else. I'm not really interested in debating the merits of the program but there is a ton of misinformation being thrown around this thread.
    It comes from Canada, except not from Quebec, Manitoba, PEI, New Brunswick, & Nova Scotia, as they all get back all they contribute & more.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  15. #115
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marty View Post
    You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of how productivity is measured and in fact how equalization works.

    Please have a read: http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/04...isconceptions/

    Some highlights include the fact that PEI, NB and MB receive more equalization per capita than QC. The second least amount of any province in confederation.
    When did I ever suggest that equalization is sent directly from provinces to Quebec? I'm well aware of how it works. I've pointed out the flaw in that idea in numerous other threads on this site.

    I'm suggesting a fundamental change in the system that would tie any transfer payment under the equalization formula to any province to mandatory policy reform.

    The premise for this being:

    A) Provinces receive equalization to account for lower taxation capacity

    B) Provincial policy directly impacts economic development and thus the tax base in the long term

    C) Some provinces (read: Quebec) have provincial policies that directly stifle economic development

    D) Therefore, a fair requirement for funding that accounts for low taxation capacity is the implementation of policies that will grow the economy and expand the tax base.

    What exactly is the problem you see with this? Do you disagree that equalization is based on taxation capacity? Do you disagree that provincial policy influences said taxation capacity? Do you disagree that Quebec has policies that stifle economic development? These are all facts.

    Please also enlighten me on "how productivity is measured". Or is that just another unsubstantiated remark?
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 23-03-2016 at 02:18 PM.

  16. #116
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I'm not informed on this issue. Exactly which policies in Quebec so strongly impact economic growth as to affect their tax base?

  17. #117
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Riverdale
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Like I said, I'm really not interested in having the debate of its merits, just clearing the air on some facts and common misconceptions. I have not offered my opinion and I won't be engaging in an internet forum rage fest about it. I'll leave you guys to that.

  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    How would you address Quebec's poor economic performance, Jaybee?

    ...
    I would address it in a thread about it.

    Let's make Edmonton better.

  19. #119
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    Most people here in this thread are informed on how the equalization program works. Edmonton PRT in #113 summed it up best.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  20. #120
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marty View Post
    Like I said, I'm really not interested in having the debate of its merits, just clearing the air on some facts and common misconceptions. I have not offered my opinion and I won't be engaging in an internet forum rage fest about it. I'll leave you guys to that.
    Beats trying to defend the indefensible.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  21. #121
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Riverdale
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Most people here in this thread are informed on how the equalization program works. Edmonton PRT in #113 summed it up best.
    Keep telling yourself that. We all know that Quebec gets more than it's taxpayers contribute. Has anyone ever had any misconceptions about that? If you are truly interested in how it works and how it affects or doesn't affect the rest of the country. I would suggest that you at least take a read of the summary I posted a link to. It's quite a few more words than post 113 but if you're as interested as you claim that you are, please have a look.

  22. #122
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marty View Post
    ^^^^ Difference comes from CANADA, not Alberta any more than anywhere else. I'm not really interested in debating the merits of the program but there is a ton of misinformation being thrown around this thread.
    Likely because there are no merits to the program.

  23. #123
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Like I said, I'm really not interested in having the debate of its merits, just clearing the air on some facts and common misconceptions. I have not offered my opinion and I won't be engaging in an internet forum rage fest about it. I'll leave you guys to that.
    You didn't address any facts or misconceptions in what I posted. You responded with a completely unrelated statement suggesting that I didn't understand "how productivity is measured" or how equalization works.

    But I guess its fine to drop in and misdirect the argument, then take your ball and go home when called out on it.

    I'm not informed on this issue. Exactly which policies in Quebec so strongly impact economic growth as to affect their tax base?
    - Unpredictable regulatory system prevents investment (particularly with regard to natural resource exploitation which is opened up and closed down based on political whims)

    - Language laws stifle entrepreneurship by adding additional costs and alienating investors

    - Tax rates on businesses are unpredictable and overbearing

    - Diamond plated social system and retirement perks create incentive to leave labour force

    - Ongoing corruption issues stifle investment

    - Concerns about endlessly inflating public debt to fund social programs stifle investment

    - Noncompetitive procurement practices rife with Quebec favouratism prevent firms from expanding into the province

    So in short: protectionism, unpredictability, taxes, public debt, and social policies create a stagnant and unattractive economy.

    http://www.conferenceboard.ca/econom...oad_ahead.aspx

    http://www.macleans.ca/economy/busin...ess-is-closed/

  24. #124

    Default

    It's not "Alberta" that gets a raw deal from equalizations, it's "Albertans". Every taxpayer in Alberta gets the shaft from equalization, technically not the province directly.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  25. #125
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Riverdale
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    It's not "Alberta" that gets a raw deal from equalizations, it's "Albertans". Every taxpayer in Alberta gets the shaft from equalization, technically not the province directly.
    I thought everyone in this thread understood how equalization worked?

    Albertans get the same deal from equalization as all other Canadians. The exact same shaft, no matter where you live. Alberta gets a raw deal from it because no money flows back to the provincial coffers as a result of the program.

  26. #126

    Default

    We do, you don't.

    Let me explain it to you so you understand.

    It is sort of like a household.

    Person "A" bring home $1,500 each week and person "B" brings in $400.

    Person "B" could do more but why bother, they get enough food and the rent is paid.

    What upsets person "A" is when person "B" demands a new car from the household finances.


    Equalization is fair if at some point, person "B" makes the effort to get a better job and work harder when Person "A" loses their job and income BUT it is not fair if person "B" never will.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 23-03-2016 at 03:38 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  27. #127
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The raw deal is that Albertans implement policies for economic growth and actively strive to improve their tax base. Whereas Quebec gets away with protectionism, corruption, infinite public debt, and anti-productivity social policies that cause economic stagnation.

    If a province is going to receive equalization, they should be forced to implement policies that transition them away from the need for equalization. That way only provinces that actually need help for circumstances outside of their control will receive it.

    Just like the World Bank and IMF require countries to open themselves up to trade and promote SMEs in return for aid.

  28. #128

    Default

    @ marty

    I did read through the link you posted. I think it actually confirms what most posters in this thread are trying to tell you. It is what the chart in post #108 says. (for your reference there are quite a few other threads on this topic on c2e, for example this and this. n the latter, I tried to break down the equalization formula in post #20).

    Why Quebec continually falls short of other provinces in its fiscal capacity and so it remains a receiver of the equalization payments?

  29. #129

    Default

    ^^ Exactly, we'd all be getting the "exact same shaft" if there wasn't such a blatant discrepancy between provincial government policies. But that's not the case whatsoever.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  30. #130
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Riverdale
    Posts
    274

    Default

    @PRT

    lol I hope you're not married....

    The equalization program can only make payments to the ten provinces and it is funded by all Canadian taxpayers equally (federal taxes do not vary by province). Therefore if anyone gets screwed by it, it has to be one of potential recipients no? Unless it's just your view that all taxes are a screwing, I don't understand how you find your position defensible.
    Last edited by marty; 23-03-2016 at 03:50 PM. Reason: Directed at PRT

  31. #131
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Riverdale
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    @ marty

    Why Quebec continually falls short of other provinces in its fiscal capacity and so it remains a receiver of the equalization payments?
    I haven't sought to answer this question but appreciate you asking it and I'm sure others will chime in. Like I said, I wasn't trying to wade into the debate, only setting the facts of how the program works out there. I have spoken with countless people about this topic who don't have the basic understanding of where the money even comes from or how it's disbursed but they have a very strong opinion about the merits of it.

  32. #132

    Default

    Can someone explain this to Marty in even simpler terms?

    Maybe another picture will help, less words




    Note Alberta is $92 million, not BILLIONS.


    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  33. #133
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I think you're missing the point, Marty.

    If all provinces had a strong economy, there would be no equalization. All provinces would receive (theoretically) equal transfer payments based on population.

    This should be the goal. Equalization should not be the "norm". It should be an emergency fix with the understanding that everything that can be done is being done to improve the economy so it isn't needed any more.

    The Quebec situation makes all taxpayers get a raw deal (including productive taxpaying residents of Quebec who pay for their government's incompetence!). Quebec is making zero serious effort to transition itself away from needing equalization payments. It is continuing its ridiculous language regulations, high corporate taxes, and constant debt loading. Corruption remains a serious issue. Protectionism is rife in public contracts.

    That is why people are upset about Quebec. Sure, the discussion gets derailed into an incorrect assault on equalization as a whole, but the underlying issue is that Quebec is abusing the program.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 23-03-2016 at 03:52 PM.

  34. #134
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Riverdale
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Jaerdo. No, I'm not missing the point. I haven't made a single comment on anything that you have just wrote to me yet again. I get why you are upset about it but I have had conversations with people think that Alberta is LITERALLY writing a cheque to Quebec every year and it drives me nuts. Have an opinion but please let it be informed. Yours seems to be but certain others on here keep posting the same BS that's just not true of the way it works. I apologize if I offended you.

    @PRT get a life. For the tenth time today, I know that Quebec gets a ton of the money. For the love God, just read what I had posted originally. Why do you keep telling me what everyone already knows?

  35. #135
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marty View Post
    Therefore if anyone gets screwed by it, it has to be one of potential recipients no?
    Annnnd.... this is where I exit stage left.

  36. #136
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,699

    Default

    Like my uncle in Ontario tells me "you guys out west should just be happy you get to be part of Canada"

  37. #137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marty View Post
    Alberta does not transfer a dime to Quebec
    Quote Originally Posted by marty View Post
    ^ Yes at the exact same rate as every other Canadian and business including Quebecers and Quebec businesses. Also at no cost to the provincial government of Alberta as so many armchair transfer payment experts like to be believe.
    These are the statements you make that drive level headed people nuts.

    Alberta's wealth does get transferred to Quebec. Just because it goes through Ottawa does not change the fact. To split hairs like you do is like saying that you don't talk with someone on the phone; you talk into the receiver, it is transmitted electrically and reconverted to a speaker at the other end.

    The more money that is transferred away from the province for the benefit of another, reduces the benefits to the payer. This is why Quebec can offer low cost tuition or low cost daycare and keep the population employed in government services or supported industries. For example, daycare in Hull is one fifth the cost as it is in Ottawa a kilometer away. If Quebec did not receive the transfers net benefit and had to increase daycare and tuition several fold, there would be riots in the streets and the Liberal parties in Quebec, both federal and provincial would not get elected.

    Meanwhile, Alberta taxpayers get less benefits from every dollar they contribute.

    You cannot dispute that what you posted is twisted and fundamentally wrong.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  38. #138
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    $200B into this program since 1960 is a lot of money and now Alberta tax payers are bailing out Bombardier. Whats worse is that our Valley line will be the recipient of Bombardier lrt cars. If we ever get them, without a lawsuit of some kind in its wake.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  39. #139
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Like my uncle in Ontario tells me "you guys out west should just be happy you get to be part of Canada"
    What a crock of sh.t. Alberta is Canada, that's why Alberta has been carrying the economy of the nation for the last decade. Why do you think so many asylum seekers come to Edmonton over anywhere else in Canada? These people are well coached in the lay of the land before they come to this country. Their destination sure isn't Timmins Ontario for F sake. Pardon my French. And now Albertan's get to bail out another Quebec business.
    Last edited by envaneo; 23-03-2016 at 10:08 PM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  40. #140
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Riverdale
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marty View Post
    Alberta does not transfer a dime to Quebec
    Quote Originally Posted by marty View Post
    ^ Yes at the exact same rate as every other Canadian and business including Quebecers and Quebec businesses. Also at no cost to the provincial government of Alberta as so many armchair transfer payment experts like to be believe.
    These are the statements you make that drive level headed people nuts.

    Alberta's wealth does get transferred to Quebec. Just because it goes through Ottawa does not change the fact. To split hairs like you do is like saying that you don't talk with someone on the phone; you talk into the receiver, it is transmitted electrically and reconverted to a speaker at the other end.

    The more money that is transferred away from the province for the benefit of another, reduces the benefits to the payer. This is why Quebec can offer low cost tuition or low cost daycare and keep the population employed in government services or supported industries. For example, daycare in Hull is one fifth the cost as it is in Ottawa a kilometer away. If Quebec did not receive the transfers net benefit and had to increase daycare and tuition several fold, there would be riots in the streets and the Liberal parties in Quebec, both federal and provincial would not get elected.

    Meanwhile, Alberta taxpayers get less benefits from every dollar they contribute.

    You cannot dispute that what you posted is twisted and fundamentally wrong.
    What I said remains true and if you are too daft to understand, that's truly unfortunate.

    Albertans do not transfer money to the Province of Quebec at a rate higher than anyone else in Canada including Quebecers. There is no special levy in place for Albertans. Alberta has had the benefit (you make it sound like a curse) of being a very prosperous place with prosperous businesses for many years. Yes, that means that Alberta taxpayers pay more tax (in total, not at a different rate) to the Federal government which in turn funds the equalization program (among many other things that are of no direct benefit to Albertans) which has you bent right out of shape.

    For the eleventh time, I am not saying that this is fair or that it's good or anything else about it. It's simply a statement of fact. A fact that completely escapes you presumably because of your blind rage about the people and province of Quebec. It's how it works. Sorry that that facts might undermind your narrative but if you can't formulate a sensible argument in light of facts I'm not sure why anyone should listen to you.


    re: Your tuition/daycare nonsense, see point 6 in the article that is apparently too long for you to actually read. Overspending is not actually part of the equalization formula so try again. Low productivity (Jaerdo hit this point well) is a concern however. There are plenty of sensible arguments out there for changing the program but unfortunately since you can't grasp the basics, you'll never get there.

  41. #141

    Default

    Who the heck is talking about tax rates.

    You miss the point again.

    People who sit and wait in a welfare state do not pay taxes.
    If a hard working Albertain who makes $120,000 per year and pays 30% in taxes, they contribute $36,000 and may get $18,000 in benefits and services. Meanwhile a Quebecer who only makes $30,000 a year and pays 30% or $9,000 but gets $18,000 in benefits and services is not fair if it becomes systemic.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  42. #142

    Default

    ^ Using real numbers, for 2014 federal tax (Basic Tax Credit: $11,138 x 0.15 = $1,671):

    Quebec Average Salary = $44,200
    QC Avg Federal Tax Paid = ($44,200 x 0.15) - $1,679 = $4,951

    Alberta Average Salary = $59,800
    AB Avg Federal Tax Paid = ($43,561 x 0.15) + ($16,239 x 0.22) - $1,679 = $8,428

    Average AB is 170% of average QC federal tax contribution.

    Now if we only look at Quebec and Alberta (ignoring the RoC), the population of Quebec is roughly twice as high as Alberta. So if we take 2 Quebecers and 1 Albertan, their total tax contribution pool would be $18,330, and their benefits would theoretically amount to $6,110 each.

    Quebec ROI = 123%
    Alberta ROI = 72%


    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...labr79-eng.htm
    http://taxtips.ca/priortaxrates/tax-...014/canada.htm

  43. #143

    Default

    Thanks for the figures bolo.

    To be cynical, the Quebec Average Salary you posted is likely a federal or provincial or Bombardier employee whose salary is paid for vis–à–vis Alberta equalization payments.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  44. #144
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,138

    Default

    Headline in today's National post "That's really just an extra BONUS that would be HELPFUL but is clearly NOT required" Rob Dewar vice-president C-Series program.
    Can't find it online maybe someone else can.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  45. #145
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Riverdale
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Here's some more fuel for your fire:

    Federal Support to Provinces and Territories
    http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp

    Highlights include (2016-2017):
    - Average per capita allocation for Canada $1,961
    - Alberta per capita allocation $1,366
    - Quebec per capita allocation $2,571
    - BC per capita allocation $1,366 (WHAT!? I thought only Albertans paid for Quebec!?)

    And again PRT, there's no such thing as an Alberta equalization payment at least not in the way that you keep bringing up. Equalization is something that Alberta receives though rarely, if ever.

    To be cynical, the Quebec Average Salary you posted is likely a federal or provincial or Bombardier employee whose salary is paid for vis–à–vis Alberta equalization payments.

  46. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marty View Post
    Here's some more fuel for your fire:

    Federal Support to Provinces and Territories
    http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp

    Highlights include (2016-2017):
    - Average per capita allocation for Canada $1,961
    - Alberta per capita allocation $1,366
    - Quebec per capita allocation $2,571
    - BC per capita allocation $1,366 (WHAT!? I thought only Albertans paid for Quebec!?)

    And again PRT, there's no such thing as an Alberta equalization payment at least not in the way that you keep bringing up. Equalization is something that Alberta receives though rarely, if ever.

    To be cynical, the Quebec Average Salary you posted is likely a federal or provincial or Bombardier employee whose salary is paid for vis–à–vis Alberta equalization payments.
    Not to be picky but those 2016/2017 numbers are gross of all programming

    Provinces receiving gross equalization dollars (figures in millions of dollars) inc some dollars from past equalization programming per note (4) in the charts.

    NL...477 PEI...294 NS...1,465 NB...1,465

    Que...7,160

    Ont..."0" Sask...226 Alta..."0" BC..."0"

    The Territories receive no "Equalization payments based on the information you (marty) provided
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 24-03-2016 at 02:42 PM.

  47. #147

    Default

    Justin Trudeau calls Bombardier CSeries jet ‘an exceptional airplane’ as government weighs aid
    Trudeau says aircraft shows off Canada’s innovation and manufacturing skills to the world as feds decide whether to offer as much as $1 billion (U.S.) to the company to help it sell the aircraft.


    By: Alexandra Posadzki The Canadian Press, Published on Thu Mar 24 2016
    The federal government is still carefully reviewing Bombardier’s request for $1B (U.S.), Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday as he extolled the virtues of the company’s CSeries plane despite lagging sales.
    Source
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  48. #148
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870
    Last edited by envaneo; 25-03-2016 at 02:13 AM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  49. #149

    Default

    ^ No, that is the CSeries. It comes in two sizes, CS100 (108 seats with business and economy) and CS300 (130 seats). Most customers have purchased the CS300.

    It's expected that if they don't ground out financially that they'll also add a CS500 (150 seats) which is basically the size of the basic Boeing and Airbus single aisle products. Both larger companies have made it clear they don't want to see a CS500, but that's because more customers are interested in it.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  50. #150
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    The article states that "Bombardier has booked orders and commitments for 603 C Series aircraft, which include firm orders for 243." Why do they need the bailout again?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  51. #151

    Default

    ^ because they don't get paid until they deliver.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  52. #152
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    ^ Of course. So then its a loan against those orders which will be returned back to the Feds when Bombardier get (wishful thinking) paid for delivery of said aircraft. Most businesses have a line of credit for such things. The company I work for instance, when I picked up my book yesterday at Audrey's. Steve has a line of credit to help manage his store. Standard business practice. Oh wait now, this is Quebec.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  53. #153

    Default

    And interest rates on loans are very low these days.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  54. #154
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    Doh. I'm in the wrong Province. Where else can I get free money? Money for nothing and the chicks are free.

    If I didn't love Edmonton so much, Quebec would be my next destination. Note too Asylum seekers: Go to Quebec, Free money.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  55. #155
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,670

    Default

    Twenty years ago, they even gave you a bus ticket!

  56. #156

    Default

    I just put this together to show the empty market niche Bombardier has targeted.



    Adapted from

    Basically Embraer at the bottom end.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  57. #157

    Default

    As the CS is a financial bust (even though the Quebec government alone has invested more than Bombardiar is currently worth), there are some rumours the Federal government could bail it out by asking it to build the new fighter jet (either the Rafale or Gripen):

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...mbardier-needs

    I can't imagine a worse idea, than handing this rich family fiefdom another project to screw up, especially if other canadian aerospace companies that don't receive bailouts aren't provided an opportunity to compete for that military contract.

  58. #158

    Default

    ^ unless we give it to the Irvings!
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  59. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    I just put this together to show the empty market niche Bombardier has targeted.



    Adapted from

    Basically Embraer at the bottom end.
    I've kept up on my reading over the years and particularly on the airlines and their route consolidation, passenger load vs frequency demands and how the aircraft manufacturers have reacted in how and what they build for the market.

    So based on that reading and a few years involved in aviation IMO

    100-150 passenger jet airlines are a very small market that is tough to be profitable in for both the airlines and the manufacturers.

    Pretty much short haul and with the frequency needs more (operationally and capitally) economically served with the currently in production Turbo Prop designs (where Bombardier is a dominant player) with minimal impact on speed (due to short distances).

    It is also (for the passenger) a very price sensitive market, fly or drive is the choice with the distances generically involved

    These are the very factors that drove Westjet to choose the Bombardier Dash series Turboprops for their new/young short haul service airline.

    So as I see it...Bombardier has created a Jet for a market that doesn't really (or only comparitively minimally) exist and competes with their already market leading Turbo Props...I do not understand where their head is at.

    For far less dollars invested in their turbo prop line would have garnered greater benefits.

    So now they are backed into a financial corner needing government assistance...I'm shocked (lol).

    If they had taken the time to develop a rear ramp for the Dash series they could have competed (and likely won due to Canadian content/employment benefit/exceptional track record of their Turbo Prop designs) the contract for the new search and rescue aircraft the Canadian military desperately needs and made money doing it.

    With commercial spin off for cargo operators in remote areas (Canada's north, Africa and S/E Asia.)

    So here we sit with what might be a great design, but limited market, needing a massive dose of dollars based on, what seems to me, a series of poorly thought out decisions.

    Political bombshell for sure, but from a business point of view there is a pretty clear decision.

    BTW...IIRC, Bombardier's market leading Turbo Prop designs are all carry overs or redevelopments/evolutions of Dehavilland designs...is there a trend here? (lol)

    IMO

    T
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 27-03-2016 at 03:15 PM.

  60. #160

    Default

    ^ Agree on the turboprops, the Q400 is great and I'd love to see a Q500 one day.

    Re: 100-150 seats, the theory is that the regional jet market kept seeing "size creep" due to economics and pilot union dynamics, thus that much of the world's rj fleets would upsize.

    Pretty sure their deal with P&W for the new engine put them in that slot as well, while Mitsubishi nabbed the smaller slot.

    I do think the market turns up for it, but right now, 2 years late and still unproven in service, everybody is holding off in the entire seat class. What I think they're waiting for is proof. No other new-engine platform has sold half as many as the CSeries within the size range. Not Boeing, not Airbus, not Embraer.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  61. #161

    Unhappy There aren't enough pilots to fly the CS

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    100-150 passenger jet airlines are a very small market that is tough to be profitable in for both the airlines and the manufacturers
    It used to be a decent size market, but each generation of aircraft has upsized. Now Boeing is selling small 737-700s (direct competitor of CS, albeit an older generation engine but airlines don't seem to care), at crazy low prices, like the 40 they just sold United. The other pressure point that is pushing sizes up, is the looming pilot shortage, again, something Bombardiar should have known about:

    http://www.fool.ca/2016/03/14/bombar...y-the-cseries/

    If they were serious about expanding into larger jets, they had to go all in with a proper 737 / 320 sized hull diameter. No matter how great the technology, these planes are going to feel small, basically stuck in between a 737 and a regional jet. It's a compromised design from the outset that fits what is becoming a very limited niche market. Why would an airline intentionally choose 5 seats across instead of six, for no cheaper? Answer, they aren't [image below, not hot linked due to size, cabin comparison of Embraer regional jet e195, CS 300, and 320 Airbus]

    https://theflyingengineer.files.word...cs100_3001.jpg

    That's a lot less free space above your head compared to a 320 or 737. Basically, it's a cramped regional jet design made wider.
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-03-2016 at 06:49 PM.

  62. #162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    pilot union dynamics
    There have been a couple article links on the forum that have pointed out the pilot shortage hitting, this magnifies the CS's market issue.

    There is a critical issue facing all airlines right now and it is a lack of pilots in general and specifically pilots with enough "flight hours" to qualify to jet aircraft. This, as I have said many times in previous years, is only going to get worse as the "boomers" retire and age out. Add in the call for increased hours to be "pilot in command" across the board and it is becoming a crisis.

    To maintain capacity airlines will be driven to larger aircraft on longer distance routes (domestic and international) and Turbo Props at the smaller end.

    No other new-engine platform has sold half as many as the CSeries within the size range. Not Boeing, not Airbus, not Embraer.
    Basically I see it as the big manufacturers filling the "profitable" markets and essentially leaving rest to the little guys.

    T

  63. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    pilot union dynamics
    There have been a couple article links on the forum that have pointed out the pilot shortage hitting, this magnifies the CS's market issue.

    There is a critical issue facing all airlines right now and it is a lack of pilots in general and specifically pilots with enough "flight hours" to qualify to jet aircraft. This, as I have said many times in previous years, is only going to get worse as the "boomers" retire and age out. Add in the call for increased hours to be "pilot in command" across the board and it is becoming a crisis.

    To maintain capacity airlines will be driven to larger aircraft on longer distance routes (domestic and international) and Turbo Props at the smaller end.
    Exactly, but recall, the CSeries is 'larger' than the regional jet fleets. It wouldn't be the CSeries that loses pilots first, but the CRJs, the Embraers, the Mitsubishis, the Sukhois etc. But not only the natural economics point to the niche, but the union scope clauses are also more lenient on the 100-150 zone.

    It's the CSeries advantage, not disadvantage.


    No other new-engine platform has sold half as many as the CSeries within the size range. Not Boeing, not Airbus, not Embraer.
    Basically I see it as the big manufacturers filling the "profitable" markets and essentially leaving rest to the little guys.

    T
    For sure there's more profit in the larger bodies, but it took Boeing and Airbus a lot more subsidies to get started there, let's be honest.

    But every fuselage width has a sort of 'economic sweet spot'. What that chart I posted didn't show was that literally all the smaller aircraft have four seats across (in economy) while all the larger aircraft have 6 across. The CSeries is reviving the five-across concept that the Fokker, Douglas, and B717 had. Due to simple engineering basics, I fully expect five-across to be the most efficient for 2-class seat counts right from 110 to true 160 seat aircraft (i.e., CS500, even against the A320 NEO or B737 800 MAX).

    Not as profitable as a 777, but a suddenly massive market, with theoretically the best aircraft available, which should be competitive for decades.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  64. #164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Exactly, but recall, the CSeries is 'larger' than the regional jet fleets. It wouldn't be the CSeries that loses pilots first, but the CRJs, the Embraers, the Mitsubishis, the Sukhois etc. But not only the natural economics point to the niche, but the union scope clauses are also more lenient on the 100-150 zone.

    It's the CSeries advantage, not disadvantage.
    What you're missing is that from all information, I can access, that is not what's happening. High time Turbo prop pilots/smaller jet pilots are moving to the larger aircraft (after training and conversion), as it takes far less hours to qualify to the Turbo props new hires are going there. This leaves the gap (see Republic airline thread on C2E) between Turbo Prop and the Bigger stuff, the CS market.

    As the heavies (6 seats across) are the priority the gap will continue.

    Add in that Turbo Props already service the size market well by providing higher frequency with smaller aircraft.

    Cost/benefit is accepted (by the aviation trade magazine) puts concentration (sorry interrupted) on the bottom and the top to fill flight positions...something about that whole profitability thing.

    For sure there's more profit in the larger bodies, but it took Boeing and Airbus a lot more subsidies to get started there, let's be honest.

    But every fuselage width has a sort of 'economic sweet spot'. What that chart I posted didn't show was that literally all the smaller aircraft have four seats across (in economy) while all the larger aircraft have 6 across. The CSeries is reviving the five-across concept that the Fokker, Douglas, and B717 had. Due to simple engineering basics, I fully expect five-across to be the most efficient for 2-class seat counts right from 110 to true 160 seat aircraft (i.e., CS500, even against the A320 NEO or B737 800 MAX).

    Not as profitable as a 777, but a suddenly massive market, with theoretically the best aircraft available, which should be competitive for decades.
    Two things with the above...

    1) Please substantiate what subsidies Boeing has received. Airbus yes but Boeing?

    2) If the market is this sector is such a sweet spot...why have all the manufactures (per your chart) including the Chinese avoided the market?
    Aerospace is a tough gig and if the market was there they would be on it.

    IMO

    T
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 28-03-2016 at 12:05 PM.

  65. #165

    Default

    ^Bombardier got trumped by the e jets of Embraer, which introduced under wing engines to regional jets, and upsized the capacity. Those jets have been very successful with 4 across seating. I don't like them (had the misfortune of flying 4 hours in one to Houston), as they are way more crampt than a 737 / 320, but they have proven economical and popular with airlines, these planes do what small 737's used to do (about 120 passageners - e.g. 737-200), at a fraction of cost.

    The CS was I think a reaction to that, trying to "jump" up again, also introducing some 787 features. But the enormous cost to develop a plane with all the technology they loaded in, was a step to far, especially when they start eating into Boeing and Airbus territory. Although this article is a little old, its a nice look at some of the economics around regional jets versus turbo props, and the pressures Bombardier was under:

    http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2013/03/...-game-changer/

    Embraer chose to answer with an entirely new design: the E-Jets whose success would eventually spur the CSeries. The E-170 was built to compete with the CRJ700 and the E-175 was built to compete with the CRJ-900. They featured under-wing engines and wider fuselage then their competition. The E-170/175 first entered service respectively in 2004 with LOT and 2005 with Air Canada. With this success under its belt, Embraer leaped frog Bombardier with the stretched, new-winged, and larger engine E-190 and E-195, in essence creating a new class of aircraft. The E-190 and E-195 featured seating up to 114 and 122 passengers respectively. Jet Blue took delivery of its first E-190 in 2004 while FlyBe began the E-195 operations shortly after. The E-190, in particular, has emerged as the most popular of the E-Jets. The upsized E-Jets upstaged their secondary downsized competitors the Airbus A318, Boeing 737-600, and Boeing 717 (MD-95). These aircraft weren’t very successful and have basically been discontinued. Combined, the E-Jets as of December 2012 have 908 deliveries and 1093 firm orders with the bulk of the market concentrated in the larger E-190/195s. Clearly Embraer had the edge and near monopoly, particularly in the larger class RJs. With momentum shifting to its formidable competitor to the South, Bombardier needed to not only respond, but had to respond big with a game changing design.
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-03-2016 at 03:04 PM.

  66. #166

    Default

    ^ Do you enjoy talking about things you know nothing?

    IDGI

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Exactly, but recall, the CSeries is 'larger' than the regional jet fleets. It wouldn't be the CSeries that loses pilots first, but the CRJs, the Embraers, the Mitsubishis, the Sukhois etc. But not only the natural economics point to the niche, but the union scope clauses are also more lenient on the 100-150 zone.

    It's the CSeries advantage, not disadvantage.
    What you're missing is that from all information, I can access, that is not what's happening. High time Turbo prop pilots/smaller jet pilots are moving to the larger aircraft (after training and conversion), as it takes far less hours to qualify to the Turbo props new hires are going there. This leaves the gap (see Republic airline thread on C2E) between Turbo Prop and the Bigger stuff, the CS market.

    As the heavies (6 seats across) are the priority the gap will continue.

    Add in that Turbo Props already service the size market well by providing higher frequency with smaller aircraft.

    Cost/benefit is accepted (by the aviation trade magazine) puts concentration (sorry interrupted) on the bottom and the top to fill flight positions...something about that whole profitability thing.
    2 things:

    1.
    Again, the CSeries is in the "larger" category, both economically and in scope clauses. It's just as likely to pirate pilots from the regional jet world as the A320s and 737s.

    2.
    Again, the market clearly prefers the CSeries in the 100-150 segment, even over MAX and NEO, but the program is 2 years late and still unproven. 2 years late, 2 years without sales (exceping AC, which was as much court-related) not uncoincidental. Obviously the market is waiting to see what is on the table, and the 600 total commitments is nothing at all to sneeze at anyway.

    My bet, if you're on, is that if the aircraft (crucially including the new-tech engine) succeeds in service, that firm sales will pass 1,000 within 6 years of now (one year for "proving" in revenue service, 5 for firming up sales.)

    If they build the CS500, it should be significantly higher.

    Take it or leave it.

    For sure there's more profit in the larger bodies, but it took Boeing and Airbus a lot more subsidies to get started there, let's be honest.

    But every fuselage width has a sort of 'economic sweet spot'. What that chart I posted didn't show was that literally all the smaller aircraft have four seats across (in economy) while all the larger aircraft have 6 across. The CSeries is reviving the five-across concept that the Fokker, Douglas, and B717 had. Due to simple engineering basics, I fully expect five-across to be the most efficient for 2-class seat counts right from 110 to true 160 seat aircraft (i.e., CS500, even against the A320 NEO or B737 800 MAX).

    Not as profitable as a 777, but a suddenly massive market, with theoretically the best aircraft available, which should be competitive for decades.
    Two things with the above...

    1) Please substantiate what subsidies Boeing has received. Airbus yes but Boeing?

    2) If the market is this sector is such a sweet spot...why have all the manufactures (per your chart) including the Chinese avoided the market?
    Aerospace is a tough gig and if the market was there they would be on it.

    IMO

    T
    1. You are asking me to tell a Boeing guy that the over-inflated military contracts are a form of subsidy. I could, but I don't think I'll get anywhere with you. (ha ha.) I do believe it though.

    2. Five abreast was a very real thing until Boeing took-over Douglas. Fokker and BAe didn't react quickly enough to the CRJ revolution, Dornier bit off more than it could chew, Kawasaki's "customers" told them flat-out they wanted to see the CSeries first. I see a market, I see a lot of action to serve it.

    But you know:
    • This airframe's promise is already the lowest seat-cost and highest comfort of any narrowbody even envisioned.
    • Stretches (such as the CS500) are always the most efficient members of their families.
    • The demand for true 150 seaters is immense.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    ^ Do you enjoy talking about things you know nothing?
    I thought you were one of the ones complaining about tone of conversation...and you start with this? hmmmmmmmmmmm

    1. You are asking me to tell a Boeing guy that the over-inflated military contracts are a form of subsidy. I could, but I don't think I'll get anywhere with you. (ha ha.) I do believe it though.
    Boeing created the B-9 (?) bomber in the early 30s, private venture
    most modern of the time led to... their 247 airliner in the early 30s as high risk private venture
    (Dominated the airline market till the DC3)

    Boeing did the B-17 as high risk private venture in the mid 30s won the contract.
    (led to the Being 307 pressurized airliner pre war)

    They created the B29, again private captial, and won the contract. One of the most advanced bombers of WW2.
    (led to the 377 Stratocruiser double deck airliner of the 40s-50s and the KC-97 tanker and while both developed from the B-29 both were private venture)

    Created the KC-135, again high risk private venture won the contract and then created the 707 series from the technology, also private venture.

    747 was all private venture after discussions with Pan Am and very high risk.

    We could throw in the B-47 and B-52 from the days when the manufacturer funded to the prototype level and had to win the competition.

    That's just off the cuff... BTW winning a highly profitable contract (military/civilian) is much different that a subsidy if you're investing your own money to do it.

    Now compare that to Bombardier's business track record

    2. Five abreast was a very real thing until Boeing took-over Douglas. Fokker and BAe didn't react quickly enough to the CRJ revolution, Dornier bit off more than it could chew, Kawasaki's "customers" told them flat-out they wanted to see the CSeries first. I see a market, I see a lot of action to serve it.

    But you know:
    • This airframe's promise is already the lowest seat-cost and highest comfort of any narrowbody even envisioned.
    • Stretches (such as the CS500) are always the most efficient members of their families.
    • The demand for true 150 seaters is immense.
    Yes I've read the propaganda...100-150 is small, 600 potential orders is small.

    I have nothing against the design...but the business side and the public dollars I do.

    The pilot shortage is and will continue to push fewer larger aircraft running to maintain the passenger capacity with fewer flights...on the jet side
    More Turbo props up to about the Q400 capacity to act as feeders which can use lower time PICs and flight crews.

    IMO and that of many others in the profession

    BTW...,I'm out, got enough nasty conversations in the real world don't need to play with them here.

    T
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 29-03-2016 at 08:44 AM.

  68. #168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    ^ Do you enjoy talking about things you know nothing?
    I thought you were one of the ones complaining about tone of conversation...and you start with this? hmmmmmmmmmmm
    I'm not sure if this changes how you look at anything, Tom, but I was referring to moahunter, not you. The "^" character is intended to mean it is in reply to the message immediately preceding.

    (And if anyone asks me, I'll maintain my posture towards moahunter is pretty benign compared to his perennial "concern trolling" on nearly every issue. including this one.)

    1. You are asking me to tell a Boeing guy that the over-inflated military contracts are a form of subsidy. I could, but I don't think I'll get anywhere with you. (ha ha.) I do believe it though.
    Boeing created the B-9 (?) bomber in the early 30s, private venture
    most modern of the time led to... their 247 airliner in the early 30s as high risk private venture
    (Dominated the airline market till the DC3)

    Boeing did the B-17 as high risk private venture in the mid 30s won the contract.
    (led to the Being 307 pressurized airliner pre war)

    They created the B29, again private captial, and won the contract. One of the most advanced bombers of WW2.
    (led to the 377 Stratocruiser double deck airliner of the 40s-50s and the KC-97 tanker and while both developed from the B-29 both were private venture)

    Created the KC-135, again high risk private venture won the contract and then created the 707 series from the technology, also private venture.

    747 was all private venture after discussions with Pan Am and very high risk.

    We could throw in the B-47 and B-52 from the days when the manufacturer funded to the prototype level and had to win the competition.

    That's just off the cuff... BTW winning a highly profitable contract (military/civilian) is much different that a subsidy if you're investing your own money to do it.

    Now compare that to Bombardier's business track record
    Like I said...


    2. Five abreast was a very real thing until Boeing took-over Douglas. Fokker and BAe didn't react quickly enough to the CRJ revolution, Dornier bit off more than it could chew, Kawasaki's "customers" told them flat-out they wanted to see the CSeries first. I see a market, I see a lot of action to serve it.

    But you know:
    • This airframe's promise is already the lowest seat-cost and highest comfort of any narrowbody even envisioned.
    • Stretches (such as the CS500) are always the most efficient members of their families.
    • The demand for true 150 seaters is immense.
    Yes I've read the propaganda...100-150 is small, 600 potential orders is small.

    I have nothing against the design...but the business side and the public dollars I do.

    The pilot shortage is and will continue to push fewer larger aircraft running to maintain the passenger capacity with fewer flights...on the jet side
    More Turbo props up to about the Q400 capacity to act as feeders which can use lower time PICs and flight crews.

    IMO and that of many others in the profession
    The profession(s) of marketing, finance, and economics, which is what I'm talking about?

    Or the essentially unrelated profession of aviation?

    BTW...,I'm out, got enough nasty conversations in the real world don't need to play with them here.

    T

    I'd be very unhappy if that were due to a miscommunication. Certainly "nasty" towards you is not my intent, Tom.

    (But if you're talking about my dismissal of moahunter, well, unless moahunter takes the first step...)
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  69. #169

    Default Ottawa spends nearly $500,000 on Bombardier report

    Lots of fees being wracked up here by our "transparent" government:

    Documents obtained by The Canadian Press show Industry Canada paid Deloitte to prepare a financial and market assessment of the transportation company and prospects for the aircraft.

    The cost of the original contract was $464,430 including taxes before it was increased by $35,000 and the deadline extended.

    Details about the objective and tasks of the report were blanked out and the government has declined to provide the final report ordered last August by the previous Conservative government.

    The Liberals later reportedly hired Morgan Stanley to help advise it on the funding request made in December by Bombardier.

    A spokesman for Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains said the government hasn’t yet made a final decision on Bombardier’s request.
    http://www.thestar.com/business/2016...er-report.html

    No wonder Bay street loves Liberal governments, its a ticket to charge. No matter how much analysis and how many studies they do they (it will be interesting to see if any are released), this will still be a political, not a business, decision.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-04-2016 at 09:50 AM.

  70. #170

    Default

    ^ oh yeah, let's just blindly throw money around instead.

    Absolutely nothing wrong with planning and awareness for decision making.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  71. #171

    Default

    A debate about Government investment? Absolutely. But let’s stick to the facts.

    April 12, 2016 Montréal
    Bombardier Inc.
    Opinion Letter by:
    Sylvain Lévesque, Ph.D.
    Vice President, Corporate Strategy
    Bombardier Inc.

    If you want to spark an animated discussion around Canadian dinner tables these days, all you have to do is raise the topic of government investment in Bombardier. Few subjects are more polarizing than government funding for private enterprise. That’s because most people fall squarely on one side or the other of the ideological divide on this issue.

    As a member of Bombardier’s leadership team, I am completely at ease with this debate. In truth, I encourage it. The only caveat? Let’s stick to the facts.

    Bombardier, like many technology and aerospace companies in Canada, has benefited from government investment; and we are grateful for the support. It has helped Bombardier become one of the world’s largest train and airplane manufacturers. Many Canadians share my pride in knowing that our sons, daughters and neighbours build the products that connect the world in commerce and make global travel more efficient.

    Unfortunately, when the debate turns to the numbers (How much has already been invested in Bombardier and what has been returned to taxpayers?) too much misinformation has been injected into the conversation. So, let’s set the record straight.

    Following the acquisitions of Canadair (1986) and de Havilland (1992), Bombardier received a total investment of $586 million, excluding the C Series, from the federal, Quebec and Ontario governments. This investment supported the development of innovative new aircraft, mainly the CRJ regional jets, Global Express business jet, and the Q400 turboprop aircraft. Thanks to the success of these programs, Bombardier has returned $733 million or 125% of the original investment to its government investors. This number will continue to grow as Bombardier delivers additional aircraft into service in the coming years.

    We anticipate a similar repayment profile on the $467 million the governments have invested in the C Series, with payments beginning later this year when the aircraft enters into service.

    The wisdom of additional C Series investment is currently the subject of much heated debate. An important yet often overlooked aspect of this debate is the more than $16 billion of tax payments generated since the initial Canadair investment. This includes corporate, property, dividend, and employee taxes.

    Combining the direct program repayments and taxes paid, Bombardier has been the source of almost $17 billion in government revenue, a very favorable return for the total $1 billion combined investments including the C Series. The return is even greater when you include the billions of dollars of taxes paid by the thousands of Canadian suppliers who support our activities.

    Another fact often lost in the debate is that 93 percent of Bombardier’s consolidated revenue, and therefore its government tax payments, are generated outside of Canada. In other words, Bombardier injects significant foreign dollars into the Canadian economy, which creates jobs and helps to fund government-spending programs.

    Again, we welcome debate on future government investment. When having this debate, however, let’s be honest about the economic impact of past investments on the Canadian economy. In this case, the facts speak for themselves. Over the past three decades, Bombardier has proven to be a sound partner for governments and taxpayers alike.
    Source
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  72. #172

    Default

    Seems there is an impasse. The dollar amount is agreed, but the Liberals won't invest with the same private family having all the power:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle29643628/

  73. #173

    Default

    I don't think you are supposed to post whole articles on the forum.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  74. #174
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Seems there is an impasse. The dollar amount is agreed, but the Liberals won't invest with the same private family having all the power:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle29643628/
    That's because JT spent his wad on LAV's for the Saudi's and I wonder how many of those LAV's will end up in the hands of the terrorists
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  75. #175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I don't think you are supposed to post whole articles on the forum.
    Only refers to advertising driven media.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Seems there is an impasse. The dollar amount is agreed, but the Liberals won't invest with the same private family having all the power:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle29643628/
    That's because JT spent his wad on LAV's for the Saudi's and I wonder how many of those LAV's will end up in the hands of the terrorists
    The LAV sale is worth 15 billion, no subsidies required. It's interesting the Liberals are using some top quality professional firms to analyze this, first Deloitte, now Osler with the negotiations. I guess if you are going to invest a billion, that is prudent.

  77. #177
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    I never said anything about subsidies. How many years is this contract for? Can't remember. Thanks.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  78. #178
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Seems there is an impasse. The dollar amount is agreed, but the Liberals won't invest with the same private family having all the power:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle29643628/
    I hope that the Feds stick to their guns. Public money should not be "invested" in to a family controlled business, no matter how strategically important that business might be. It's time for Bombardier to become a truly public company, if it wants public investment. If the family refuses to give up control, then they can go out of business and be left with nothing.

  79. #179
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,670

    Default

    Bail out time again!


    Federal government to give $372.5M in loans to Bombardier

    The federal government says it will provide $372.5 million in interest-free loans to Bombardier, a move that elicited criticism even though it is far less than the transportation giant originally sought more than a year ago.

    The money will be handed out in instalments over four years, the government said.

    Most of the loans would go to the Global 7000 business aircraft program, which is scheduled to go into commercial service next year. The remaining third would go to the CSeries passenger jet, which was mired in delays and cost overruns prior to entering commercial service last year.

    Several federal cabinet ministers made the announcement Tuesday evening at a Bombardier facility in Montreal.

    "The CSeries is an extraordinary plane," Transport Minister Marc Garneau told a news conference.

    "It started out on a piece of paper and then became the best plane in the world in its class. This is something we should all be proud about."

    Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains said the money will preserve thousands of high-paying technology jobs in Ontario, where the Global will be assembled, and Quebec, where it will be completed and where the CSeries is built.

    "The investment I'm announcing today is the right solution for the time and in terms of innovation, jobs and long-term competitiveness for the company," he said.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...feds-1.3971263

  80. #180
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    As much as I despise Bombardier and agree with Marcel's post above, this is not a bail out. I don't like it but its an interest free loan to keep some jobs in Canada.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  81. #181

    Default

    In the news today

    The government of Brazil on Wednesday launched a formal complaint against Canada over aerospace sector subsides, just a day after the Canadian government said it would make interest-free loans of $372.5 million to Bombardier.
    For every action, there is a reaction. I recall a few years back that Canada was upset with Brazil bailing out Embraer. Also http://business.financialpost.com/ne...s-embraer-exec

    Four cases were brought to the World Trade Organization[1] (WTO): source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombar...controversyWTO Dispute DS46: Brazil — Export Financing Programme for Aircraft (Complainant: Canada), 19 June 1996[2]
    WTO Dispute DS70: Canada — Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft (Complainant: Brazil), 10 March 1997[3]
    WTO Dispute DS71: Canada — Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft (Complainant: Brazil), 10 March 1997[4]
    WTO Dispute DS222: Canada — Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft (Complainant: Brazil), 22 January 2001[5]
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  82. #182
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    Even the Bombardier's contract with our Valley line lrt cars is a separate issue, I wonder how this will play out in light of the news above. I don't think it has any bearing but I'm looking over my shoulder on this one.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  83. #183

    Default

    Amazing that a company with so much business needs to beg for money.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  84. #184

    Default

    ^Yup. Alberta service companies that have invested heavily in new technology to more environmentally and efficiently extract oil have gone out of business with no government loans to bail them out, while this Quebec company owned by a private 1% family that manufactures aircraft that burn carbon in the atmosphere is getting a bail out. Go figure.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-02-2017 at 10:13 AM.

  85. #185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    As much as I despise Bombardier and agree with Marcel's post above, this is not a bail out. I don't like it but its an interest free loan to keep some jobs in Quebec.
    FTFY...which on paper I have no issues with if all provinces were treated equally. But its not, and that's another discussion.

  86. #186
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,284

    Default

    Pretty much all of the major planemakers are subsidized or supported by their local governments in one way or another, whether that be Bombardier, Aerobus, Boeing, Embraer, or the various Russian and Chinese ones. So I'm not opposed to some support, in principle. But like I said previously, any support should be conditional on the company's share structure being changed so that it's truly a publicly owned company with professional and independent management, and not under the control of the founding family. If they want to keep running it in to the ground, then they can do that with their own money, not mine.

  87. #187
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,317

    Default

    ^ Agreed. Any government money going to a company needs to be in the form of a loan against collateral or the sale of voting shares at market value.

  88. #188
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,699

    Default

    They announced 90 million to create jobs in Haiti the same day. And the beat goes on. Giveaways daily. Wouldn't we be better off to keep our tax and resource dollars here in Alberta rather than give it to Ottawa, Ontario and receive little of it back. There is talk of the EU breaking apart. Maybe we should be next.

  89. #189

    Default

    I'd rather Quebeccers employed than on welfare for double the cost and no chance of repayment.

    Seriously, who in their right mind wouldn't?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  90. #190
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,870

    Default

    I'm on board with that Jaybee

  91. #191

    Default

    Well Embraer is challenging this at the WTO, so the cost of this bail is going to go up and up (lots of legal, and probably some international penalties), which will also damage other businesses doing business in Brazil. Various economic studies have shown government bail outs are very rarely efficient at saving jobs, they just postpone the inevitable. What galls the most in this case, is its a private family, a very rich family, who is getting most of the benefit of this interest free loan. The government should have insisted they give up control so that a professional management could take over, before handing out our tax dollars.

    But the complaint deals a blow to trade ties between the two countries, whose economic relations were distorted for years by wrangling over this industry. Canada’s Bombardier Inc. and Brazil’s Embraer SA are direct competitors in the global aerospace market.

    “We are probably going back to a situation that is lose-lose for everybody,” said Henrique Rzezinski, a former vice-president of external relations for Embraer who led the firm through its last round of international trade disputes. “This is a big step back no matter who wins … [we had] a level playing field on financial conditions and on no subsidies – we made competition dependent only on price, delivery and quality.”
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle33962839/
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-02-2017 at 11:08 AM.

  92. #192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    I'd rather Quebeccers employed than on welfare for double the cost and no chance of repayment.

    Seriously, who in their right mind wouldn't?
    The lessor of two evils...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  93. #193

    Default

    ^ if that's supposed to be a pun ("lessor" instead of "lesser"), I'm not getting it.

    But if it's just a typo, yeah, exactly, and exactly like any other industry.

    We "subsidise" every industry to a point, but the only one we're not allowed to talk about is oil.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  94. #194

    Default Bombardiar Exec's get 50% pay increase

    Seems the Federal governments bail out money went to great use:

    http://business.financialpost.com/ne...government-aid

    MONTREAL — Bombardier’s senior executives saw their compensation rise by nearly 50 per cent last year at a time when it laid off thousands of workers, sought government aid and saw the first CSeries passenger jet take flight.

    Total compensation for the Montreal-based company’s top five executives and board chairman Pierre Beaudoin was US$32.6 million in 2016, up from US$21.9 million the year before, according to a proxy circular ahead of its May 11 annual meeting.

    CEO Alain Bellemare received US$9.5 million, up from US$6.4 million in 2015, including US$5.2 million in share and option-based awards and a US$1 million salary.

  95. #195

    Default

    Bombardier has become a national embarrassment, and they made a fool of Trudeau with the "investment" (bailout) money. Trudeau would be wise to immediately and publicly cancel that investment, and take the opportunity to tell Bombardier to take a very long and hard look at their future in its current trajectory.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  96. #196

    Default

    ^I bet investors wish they could have made money on stock options for the plummeting stock. Maybe the exec's were given Put options which incentivized them to reduce the companies value? What a pigs trough the company is (I'm starting to regret not applying for a job there).

  97. #197

    Default

    We don't agree on much but we sure can agree on this one.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  98. #198
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,512

    Default

    Absolutely. I have to think that the feeling is shared across the land, and even in QC.
    Pride in a national product that can compete on the world stage is great, but only if it's done without govt welfare.

  99. #199

    Default

    I wish it only looked like welfare. Publicly-subsidized niche firms like transportation, aviation, aerospace, etc. are common. In this case, it looks like the federal government gave money to a firm that publicly put it into executive pockets, which looks far far worse.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  100. #200
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,965

    Default

    http://business.financialpost.com/ne...government-aid

    What BS this is, Trudy helping the middle class..;(

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •