No Bailout for Bombardier

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by rookiepilot »

About time.......................

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal ... -1.5453012

The government has already invested a lot of money in Bombardier," Premier François Legault said Wednesday, when asked, for the second straight day, whether a bailout was in the cards.

One day earlier, his economy minister, Pierre Fitzgibbon, offered the company some tough-love advice.

He told reporters in Quebec City that Bombardier's current debt is unsustainable and the company will likely have to sell off at least two units in order to have a future.



The Parti Québécois has gone so far as to say it won't back any financial aid to the company as long as it remains under the leadership of CEO Alain Bellemare.

"We don't have any confidence in Bombardier's management," the party's interim leader, Pascal Bérubé, said last month.


Gee, and everyone said this guy was the man........
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
cjp
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:16 am

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by cjp »

About time they finally crossed their arms and drew a line in the sand.

This news of BBD potentially selling the jets is such an unbelievable disappointment and a real kick in the teeth to Canadian aviation.

Canadian innovation: We build everything for a dollar and sell it for 50 cents, eh!
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
TurkeyFarmYQX
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:38 am

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by TurkeyFarmYQX »

It's too bad Longview couldn't just take over the A220 project like they did the Q400. I'm sure a monkey on a unicycle has better business sense than BBD upper management.
---------- ADS -----------
  

iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7969
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by iflyforpie »

This is how it’s supposed to work.

A company becomes unprofitable or insolvent, the creditors and shareholders take the hit on the risk they assumed, and the investors pick up the pieces at pennies on the dollar and start again.

It seems that in recent years the “too big to fail” narrative has gone too far. The public coffers being opened with no accountability or return on investment.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?

User avatar
cjp
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:16 am

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by cjp »

https://www.fliegerfaust.com/bombardier ... 6.amp.html

SCOOP: Bombardier NOT Selling Its Business Jet Division... ?

So confusing. What a bloody mess.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Capt. Underpants
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by Capt. Underpants »

Keeping the business jet division and dumping the rest makes the most sense from a profit potential perspective. The C series and light rail system divisions have always been a drag on the bottom line.
---------- ADS -----------
  

montado
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by montado »

Not a fan of bail outs. But the cost to the taxpayers if bombardier goes down the drain won’t be cheap.

Let’s say you give a billion dollars to a company with 40k employees, that’s 25k per employee. Now if these are good paying jobs, you will basically get all your money back in a year of income tax. So this is a great investment if the company can turn itself around. The other option is have everyone lose their job and you will spend more than a billion on social programs to support the 40k people.

So the question is are we better bailing out and keeping the jobs, or do you think if bombardier goes under another company will step in and give these people jobs. The sad reality is these jobs won’t be replaced with the same types of jobs, most of these people will need to go back and get an education and start over. It’s not like if bombardier fails the world needs another company to build planes and trains and the world wants this company to be in Canada. So I’m really divided on the bailouts, but you can only do this so many times before you have to give up on it I guess. Sucks to lose those jobs if we let them sink!
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by rookiepilot »

montado wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:30 pm
Not a fan of bail outs. But the cost to the taxpayers if bombardier goes down the drain won’t be cheap.

Let’s say you give a billion dollars to a company with 40k employees, that’s 25k per employee. Now if these are good paying jobs, you will basically get all your money back in a year of income tax. So this is a great investment if the company can turn itself around. The other option is have everyone lose their job and you will spend more than a billion on social programs to support the 40k people.

So the question is are we better bailing out and keeping the jobs, or do you think if bombardier goes under another company will step in and give these people jobs. The sad reality is these jobs won’t be replaced with the same types of jobs, most of these people will need to go back and get an education and start over. It’s not like if bombardier fails the world needs another company to build planes and trains and the world wants this company to be in Canada. So I’m really divided on the bailouts, but you can only do this so many times before you have to give up on it I guess. Sucks to lose those jobs if we let them sink!

This is what every politician says, to justify giving $$$$.... to their (Quebec) friends. "We are standing up for jobs".

Bullshit. Pure Bullshit. You're buying votes and taking care of your political friends.

They are not going to turn themselves around. They don't care about turning themselves around. The management is incompetent and corrupt, if they weren't, private capital would be throwing money at them these days.

I say, take all of Bombardier's assets, sell them off, pay off the taxpayer as best you can, and give the type certificates to Viking Air in BC, -- or another successful company that actually knows how to run a business.

But they aren't in Quebec. So let's be honest and tell it like it is.
---------- ADS -----------
  

sanjet
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 870
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:54 am

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by sanjet »

Could just be a game of poker. Bombardier might go under bankruptcy protection and get the bailout afterward calling the gov't bluff.
Its all about optics on both sides folks.
---------- ADS -----------
  

montado
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by montado »

rookiepilot wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:09 pm
montado wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:30 pm
Not a fan of bail outs. But the cost to the taxpayers if bombardier goes down the drain won’t be cheap.

Let’s say you give a billion dollars to a company with 40k employees, that’s 25k per employee. Now if these are good paying jobs, you will basically get all your money back in a year of income tax. So this is a great investment if the company can turn itself around. The other option is have everyone lose their job and you will spend more than a billion on social programs to support the 40k people.

So the question is are we better bailing out and keeping the jobs, or do you think if bombardier goes under another company will step in and give these people jobs. The sad reality is these jobs won’t be replaced with the same types of jobs, most of these people will need to go back and get an education and start over. It’s not like if bombardier fails the world needs another company to build planes and trains and the world wants this company to be in Canada. So I’m really divided on the bailouts, but you can only do this so many times before you have to give up on it I guess. Sucks to lose those jobs if we let them sink!

This is what every politician says, to justify giving $$$$.... to their (Quebec) friends. "We are standing up for jobs".

Bullshit. Pure Bullshit. You're buying votes and taking care of your political friends.

They are not going to turn themselves around. They don't care about turning themselves around. The management is incompetent and corrupt, if they weren't, private capital would be throwing money at them these days.

I say, take all of Bombardier's assets, sell them off, pay off the taxpayer as best you can, and give the type certificates to Viking Air in BC, -- or another successful company that actually knows how to run a business.

But they aren't in Quebec. So let's be honest and tell it like it is.
So what’s the cost to the taxpayer if every employee goes on ei until they get another job?

Did a quick google search, 70k employees. So let’s say the entire company and all it’s divisions fold. The maximum EI you Could receive is over 500 per week, but let’s just say we are doing an average guess and the average is 450 a week per employee. In one year the taxpayers will pay 1.6 billion in ei claims from these employees alone.

How long will it take to find 70k jobs for these people? What void will they fill?

This is not some government BS, this is just simple math. I agree bail out after bail out gets ridiculous but we don’t really have a better plan. When a company is large the impact is huge and we can’t just find all 70k employees a new job in 3 months. Maybe 20 percent will be employed in 3 months. Some will choose to go back to school, some will collect social assistance in some form or another for more than a year.

It’s easy for you to say just let them fail. But are you ready to pay 70k people your tax dollars while they don’t work? That’s plan B. :rolleyes:

So not only our tax dollars paying for their EI, we also just lost 70k employees who were contributing to the pool of ei. The economic impact is not something to so simply say, @#$! it let them fail because it’s the right thing to do. I agree letting business fail is the right thing to do from a simple capitalist standpoint. Problem is these business become so large and so beneficial to our economy it’s a tough pill to swallow if they fail. So on principle alone I agree, let them fail... but for the sake of I don’t want to sink the ship (the ship being every Canadian, and our economy) I think options need to be entertained!
---------- ADS -----------
  

Capt. Underpants
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by Capt. Underpants »

montado wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:26 am
So what’s the cost to the taxpayer if every employee goes on ei until they get another job?

Did a quick google search, 70k employees. So let’s say the entire company and all it’s divisions fold. The maximum EI you Could receive is over 500 per week, but let’s just say we are doing an average guess and the average is 450 a week per employee. In one year the taxpayers will pay 1.6 billion in ei claims from these employees alone.

How long will it take to find 70k jobs for these people? What void will they fill?

This is not some government BS, this is just simple math. I agree bail out after bail out gets ridiculous but we don’t really have a better plan. When a company is large the impact is huge and we can’t just find all 70k employees a new job in 3 months. Maybe 20 percent will be employed in 3 months. Some will choose to go back to school, some will collect social assistance in some form or another for more than a year.

It’s easy for you to say just let them fail. But are you ready to pay 70k people your tax dollars while they don’t work? That’s plan B. :rolleyes:

So not only our tax dollars paying for their EI, we also just lost 70k employees who were contributing to the pool of ei. The economic impact is not something to so simply say, @#$! it let them fail because it’s the right thing to do. I agree letting business fail is the right thing to do from a simple capitalist standpoint. Problem is these business become so large and so beneficial to our economy it’s a tough pill to swallow if they fail. So on principle alone I agree, let them fail... but for the sake of I don’t want to sink the ship (the ship being every Canadian, and our economy) I think options need to be entertained!
Well said, but FWIW, he doesn't care about financial logic. He simple dislikes Quebec and used this as a way to get a jab in.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by rookiepilot »

Capt. Underpants wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:53 pm
montado wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:26 am
So what’s the cost to the taxpayer if every employee goes on ei until they get another job?

Did a quick google search, 70k employees. So let’s say the entire company and all it’s divisions fold. The maximum EI you Could receive is over 500 per week, but let’s just say we are doing an average guess and the average is 450 a week per employee. In one year the taxpayers will pay 1.6 billion in ei claims from these employees alone.

How long will it take to find 70k jobs for these people? What void will they fill?

This is not some government BS, this is just simple math. I agree bail out after bail out gets ridiculous but we don’t really have a better plan. When a company is large the impact is huge and we can’t just find all 70k employees a new job in 3 months. Maybe 20 percent will be employed in 3 months. Some will choose to go back to school, some will collect social assistance in some form or another for more than a year.

It’s easy for you to say just let them fail. But are you ready to pay 70k people your tax dollars while they don’t work? That’s plan B. :rolleyes:

So not only our tax dollars paying for their EI, we also just lost 70k employees who were contributing to the pool of ei. The economic impact is not something to so simply say, @#$! it let them fail because it’s the right thing to do. I agree letting business fail is the right thing to do from a simple capitalist standpoint. Problem is these business become so large and so beneficial to our economy it’s a tough pill to swallow if they fail. So on principle alone I agree, let them fail... but for the sake of I don’t want to sink the ship (the ship being every Canadian, and our economy) I think options need to be entertained!
Well said, but FWIW, he doesn't care about financial logic. He simple dislikes Quebec and used this as a way to get a jab in.
Wrong. I dislike perpetual bailouts.
---------- ADS -----------
  

av8ts
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by av8ts »

montado wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:26 am
rookiepilot wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:09 pm
montado wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:30 pm
Not a fan of bail outs. But the cost to the taxpayers if bombardier goes down the drain won’t be cheap.

Let’s say you give a billion dollars to a company with 40k employees, that’s 25k per employee. Now if these are good paying jobs, you will basically get all your money back in a year of income tax. So this is a great investment if the company can turn itself around. The other option is have everyone lose their job and you will spend more than a billion on social programs to support the 40k people.

So the question is are we better bailing out and keeping the jobs, or do you think if bombardier goes under another company will step in and give these people jobs. The sad reality is these jobs won’t be replaced with the same types of jobs, most of these people will need to go back and get an education and start over. It’s not like if bombardier fails the world needs another company to build planes and trains and the world wants this company to be in Canada. So I’m really divided on the bailouts, but you can only do this so many times before you have to give up on it I guess. Sucks to lose those jobs if we let them sink!

This is what every politician says, to justify giving $$$$.... to their (Quebec) friends. "We are standing up for jobs".

Bullshit. Pure Bullshit. You're buying votes and taking care of your political friends.

They are not going to turn themselves around. They don't care about turning themselves around. The management is incompetent and corrupt, if they weren't, private capital would be throwing money at them these days.

I say, take all of Bombardier's assets, sell them off, pay off the taxpayer as best you can, and give the type certificates to Viking Air in BC, -- or another successful company that actually knows how to run a business.

But they aren't in Quebec. So let's be honest and tell it like it is.
So what’s the cost to the taxpayer if every employee goes on ei until they get another job?

Did a quick google search, 70k employees. So let’s say the entire company and all it’s divisions fold. The maximum EI you Could receive is over 500 per week, but let’s just say we are doing an average guess and the average is 450 a week per employee. In one year the taxpayers will pay 1.6 billion in ei claims from these employees alone.

How long will it take to find 70k jobs for these people? What void will they fill?

This is not some government BS, this is just simple math. I agree bail out after bail out gets ridiculous but we don’t really have a better plan. When a company is large the impact is huge and we can’t just find all 70k employees a new job in 3 months. Maybe 20 percent will be employed in 3 months. Some will choose to go back to school, some will collect social assistance in some form or another for more than a year.

It’s easy for you to say just let them fail. But are you ready to pay 70k people your tax dollars while they don’t work? That’s plan B. :rolleyes:

So not only our tax dollars paying for their EI, we also just lost 70k employees who were contributing to the pool of ei. The economic impact is not something to so simply say, @#$! it let them fail because it’s the right thing to do. I agree letting business fail is the right thing to do from a simple capitalist standpoint. Problem is these business become so large and so beneficial to our economy it’s a tough pill to swallow if they fail. So on principle alone I agree, let them fail... but for the sake of I don’t want to sink the ship (the ship being every Canadian, and our economy) I think options need to be entertained!
Less than half those employees are in Canada. As a Canadian taxpayer I’m ok with turning off the money tap
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by rookiepilot »

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/a-story-of- ... sc=kOSzORm


It's a story of corporate arrogance, greed and mismanagement by a family company that has multiple voting shares and doesn’t have to answer to an independent board or to the common shareholders.
The thing that has really killed them, and which I think when the company fails will be seen as the deathblow, is this decision to compete against Boeing and Airbus by creating the CSeries of jets. They bet the whole company on it and failed.
I can’t imagine either the Canadian or the Quebec government coming up with more money in these circumstances. Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s very hard for me to see the taxpayers putting up with more money going down the sinkhole.”

THIS -- is well said.
---------- ADS -----------
  

tsgarp
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:18 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by tsgarp »

Buy it and move the HQ to Alberta...
---------- ADS -----------
  

Braun
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 777
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:32 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by Braun »

tsgarp wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:26 pm
Buy it and move the HQ to Alberta...
Mature
---------- ADS -----------
  

tsgarp
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:18 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by tsgarp »

Braun wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:00 am
[quote=tsgarp post_id=<a href="tel:1104222">1104222</a> time=<a href="tel:1581135982">1581135982</a> user_id=1113]
Buy it and move the HQ to Alberta...
Mature
[/quote]

Well, we all want Alberta to diversify their economy so they can stop producing filthy fossil fuels, why not send them some manufacturing jobs? The feds can buy Bombardier, just like they bought that pipeline, and move it to Fort Make Money. Everybody is happy; the Quebec based mafia-bureaucratic complex gets a huge pay out, the good old boys in Alberta get their sleds and ATVs built in province, and Albertans can find work other than fossil fuels so Greta is happy. Everybody wins!

You’d be happier where they run .......
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
'97 Tercel
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 529
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by '97 Tercel »

tsgarp wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:26 pm
Buy it and move the HQ to Alberta...
haha no doubt
---------- ADS -----------
  

av8ts
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by av8ts »

tsgarp wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:11 am
Braun wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:00 am
[quote=tsgarp post_id=<a href="tel:1104222">1104222</a> time=<a href="tel:1581135982">1581135982</a> user_id=1113]
Buy it and move the HQ to Alberta...
Mature
Well, we all want Alberta to diversify their economy so they can stop producing filthy fossil fuels, why not send them some manufacturing jobs? The feds can buy Bombardier, just like they bought that pipeline, and move it to Fort Make Money. Everybody is happy; the Quebec based mafia-bureaucratic complex gets a huge pay out, the good old boys in Alberta get their sleds and ATVs built in province, and Albertans can find work other than fossil fuels so Greta is happy. Everybody wins!

You’d be happier where they run .......
[/quote]

They don’t build sleds and ATVs. That’s a different company
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Bede
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3164
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by Bede »

montado wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:30 pm
Not a fan of bail outs. But the cost to the taxpayers if bombardier goes down the drain won’t be cheap.

Let’s say you give a billion dollars to a company with 40k employees, that’s 25k per employee. Now if these are good paying jobs, you will basically get all your money back in a year of income tax. So this is a great investment if the company can turn itself around. The other option is have everyone lose their job and you will spend more than a billion on social programs to support the 40k people.

So the question is are we better bailing out and keeping the jobs, or do you think if bombardier goes under another company will step in and give these people jobs. The sad reality is these jobs won’t be replaced with the same types of jobs, most of these people will need to go back and get an education and start over. It’s not like if bombardier fails the world needs another company to build planes and trains and the world wants this company to be in Canada. So I’m really divided on the bailouts, but you can only do this so many times before you have to give up on it I guess. Sucks to lose those jobs if we let them sink!
If only economics were that simple. What makes you think that if the federal government gives them $1B they won't be back in a year asking for another $1B? Isn't this what has happened with BBD time and time again? What makes you think that these employees will sit on EI? Why won't they get other jobs with stronger companies?

This is the way capitalism works. Weak companies go under while stronger one's rise, hiring employees. Eventually, the tables turn and someone else becomes the stronger company.
---------- ADS -----------
  

montado
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by montado »

Bede wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:53 am
montado wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:30 pm
Not a fan of bail outs. But the cost to the taxpayers if bombardier goes down the drain won’t be cheap.

Let’s say you give a billion dollars to a company with 40k employees, that’s 25k per employee. Now if these are good paying jobs, you will basically get all your money back in a year of income tax. So this is a great investment if the company can turn itself around. The other option is have everyone lose their job and you will spend more than a billion on social programs to support the 40k people.

So the question is are we better bailing out and keeping the jobs, or do you think if bombardier goes under another company will step in and give these people jobs. The sad reality is these jobs won’t be replaced with the same types of jobs, most of these people will need to go back and get an education and start over. It’s not like if bombardier fails the world needs another company to build planes and trains and the world wants this company to be in Canada. So I’m really divided on the bailouts, but you can only do this so many times before you have to give up on it I guess. Sucks to lose those jobs if we let them sink!
If only economics were that simple. What makes you think that if the federal government gives them $1B they won't be back in a year asking for another $1B? Isn't this what has happened with BBD time and time again? What makes you think that these employees will sit on EI? Why won't they get other jobs with stronger companies?

This is the way capitalism works. Weak companies go under while stronger one's rise, hiring employees. Eventually, the tables turn and someone else becomes the stronger company.
Edit: a word

Bombardier has not been given a billion dollars every year, so this is what makes me think they won’t receive a billion dollars every year. Bombardier employees have paid more in income taxes than the company has received in bailouts, so this may be better than the outcome of having many people collecting ei.

Why do I think these people will sit on ei? Because you can’t replace thousands of good paying jobs over night. If bombardier fails, Canada is not likely to have a new aerospace company pop up. More than likely these jobs, and this market share will be passed on to bigger companies like Boeing and Airbus. So say bye bye to the jobs, the odds of a company starting from zero that competes with Boeing and Airbus takes decades. This is why I know many people would lose their jobs and need to re educate, or move to be able to continue in their careers.

You are not wrong in that this is how capitalism works, but it’s not over night. Let’s say air Canada was to fail, no bail out. You instantly have 40k jobs lost. Who’s going to pick up the pieces? Where are these people going to work? What’s the loss in tax revenue? What’s the impact on the economy? I don’t know why any tax payer would be salty about a bailout. All you are doing is buying time, and maybe the company can turn around. From the tax payers perspective it’s 6 to one half dozen to the other... either you pay for the bail out or you pay for the economic impact of the loss of jobs... the question is what’s cheaper, and I would argue it’s cheaper for the tax payer to bail out companies most of the time.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by montado on Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by rookiepilot »

Why, to take the flip side, would I as a (theoretical) investor / founder in Canada, watching developments, want to start / expand / invest in any competitive aerospace enterprise, knowing Bombardier will get another bailout?

Why, in an atmosphere with unlimited investment capital, none has found its way to Bombardier?

Interesting to consider, why exactly why so much investment capital -- and high value jobs -- flee Canada for other locales where one isn't competing with the government.

Private capital would rather risk its money on money losing enterprises like Uber, WeWork, cannibus, space companies, and a hundred other things, for this reason. They don't want to partner with the Quebec government.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
telex
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by telex »

Bombardier employees have paid more in income taxes than the company has received in bailouts,
Can this be substantiated in any way?
---------- ADS -----------
  

montado
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by montado »

telex wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:29 am
Bombardier employees have paid more in income taxes than the company has received in bailouts,
Can this be substantiated in any way?
Well let's say the average salary at bombardier is 60k I don't know how many Canadian employees they have but they have about 70k world wide. So easily over 1 billion a year is paid in income tax from this company alone. I'm sure someone could give so more solid figures. 70 thousand people paying about 15k a year in tax.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: No Bailout for Bombardier

Post by rookiepilot »

---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”