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: 1966
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: 35
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: 8089
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: 288
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: 199
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: 1966
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: 874
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: 199
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: 288
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: 1966
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: 831
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: 1966
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 3
Rank 3
Posts: 148
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: 788
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 3
Rank 3
Posts: 148
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: 606
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: 831
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: 3229
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 -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”