CTA launches formal probe into Flair

[SPR]

1. F8 currently leases only 5 of their aircraft from 777 Partners.

2. 777 occupies 3 of the 12 available seats on the Board (7 vacant).

3. F8 is not yet required to repay 777.

4. F8 is in fact Canadian owned.

5. 18 month delay request is to shift debt and wait for a more favourable market environment to launch the IPO.

6. Thats why the 'large swath' of Canada's aviation sector (2 companies with their own skeletons) are in opposition to the extension and are fuelling the media and daytime TV watchers who post here.

I've found seven aircraft that are leased from 777 Partners and are currently in operation, which is half of their current fleet, and the percentage will only grow as more are delivered.

https://financialpost.com/transportatio ... 1650579196

According to Stephen Jones, Flair's CEO, as of yesterday, they will only now be increasing the board from five to nine seats; I don't know where you got twelve. He also said "It’s a priority for us to repay the debt", which doesn't necessarily contradict the claim that "F8 is not yet required to repay 777", but it sure comes close to saying that they're going to be required to repay 777.

Why would Flair feel the need to make all those changes if they're of the opinion that they were actually compliant the whole time? If they've come up with this plan in six weeks, why do they need an exemption for another 18 months?

[C-GGGQ]

1. F8 currently leases only 5 of their aircraft from 777 Partners.

2. 777 occupies 3 of the 12 available seats on the Board (7 vacant).

3. F8 is not yet required to repay 777.

4. F8 is in fact Canadian owned.

5. 18 month delay request is to shift debt and wait for a more favourable market environment to launch the IPO.

6. Thats why the 'large swath' of Canada's aviation sector (2 companies with their own skeletons) are in opposition to the extension and are fuelling the media and daytime TV watchers who post here.

I've found seven aircraft that are leased from 777 Partners and are currently in operation, which is half of their current fleet, and the percentage will only grow as more are delivered.

https://financialpost.com/transportatio ... 1650579196

According to Stephen Jones, Flair's CEO, as of yesterday, they will only now be increasing the board from five to nine seats; I don't know where you got twelve. He also said "It’s a priority for us to repay the debt", which doesn't necessarily contradict the claim that "F8 is not yet required to repay 777", but it sure comes close to saying that they're going to be required to repay 777.

Why would Flair feel the need to make all those changes if they're of the opinion that they were actually compliant the whole time? If they've come up with this plan in six weeks, why do they need an exemption for another 18 months?

How many aircraft they lease from whom is irrelevant. It’s a red herring. The 18 months they clearly said in the article is to have time to refinance loans so that they don’t owe 777 as much.

[fish4life]

Of course their priority is to repay the 777 debt because it’s at 18%, they are paying off their credit card.

[co-joe]

4. Whataboutism. With that said, Onex is headquartered in Toronto with a CEO who was born in Manitoba and lives in Toronto.

Whataboutism would be if I suggested that Westjet broke the law by purchasing customers with Swoop with the sole purpose of driving Flair out of business, which is against the law, so it should be ok for Flair to break the CTA laws. In fact I compared Westjets US ownership and control in force to Flairs alleged US ownership and control in force. A direct comparison not whataboutism at all.

[co-joe]

Case number:
20-03714

On December 10, 2019, in Letter Decision No. LET-A-99-2019 (Determination), the Canadian Transportation Agency determined that WestJet and Swoop Inc. will remain Canadian, as defined in subsection 55(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended (CTA), following the execution of the proposed acquisition of WestJet Airlines Ltd. by an affiliate of Onex. The Agency’s determination was on the condition that Onex amend its by-laws no later than June 1, 2020, to ensure that the quorum rules for any board of directors’ meeting require a majority of directors voting on or signing a written resolution in respect of any matters pertaining to or affecting WestJet Airlines Ltd., WestJet, and Swoop Inc. be Canadian, and provided that, in all other respects, the proposed transaction is executed as filed, in all material respects.

On March 26, 2020, Onex informed the Agency that Onex’s next meeting of shareholders was duly scheduled to take place on May 14, 2020; however, as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the meeting has been rescheduled and is expected to occur in July 2020.

Onex states that its board of directors approved and adopted a by-law that satisfies the Agency’s condition on December 19, 2019, and that the by-law will remain in effect at all times until the shareholders’ meeting, at which time it will be ratified. Following the shareholders’ meeting, Onex will provide the Agency with notification of the ratification.
CONCLUSION

The Agency is satisfied that the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a change in the facts or circumstances pertaining to the Determination that has arisen subsequent to its issuance. The Agency, pursuant to section 32 of the CTA, therefore extends the deadline for Onex to comply with the condition until August 30, 2020.

So according to this, Westjet and Onex did not in fact meet the CTA control in force rules and low and behold, THEY WERE GIVEN TIME TO MAKE CHANGES TO THEIR GOVERNANCE TO COMPLY. Wow, Imaging that.

Its almost as if the CTA is there to work with air carriers, not just put them out of business.

[nynybear]

The board is being restructured to 9 seats. It used to be 12 and 7 were vacant. Now there will be 7 Canadians and 2 Americans on it.

As I eluded to before, anybody cheer leading for the demise of an airline (other than their own) in Canada is clearly compromised and a waste of time to engage with.

1. F8 currently leases only 5 of their aircraft from 777 Partners.

2. 777 occupies 3 of the 12 available seats on the Board (7 vacant).

3. F8 is not yet required to repay 777.

4. F8 is in fact Canadian owned.

5. 18 month delay request is to shift debt and wait for a more favourable market environment to launch the IPO.

6. Thats why the 'large swath' of Canada's aviation sector (2 companies with their own skeletons) are in opposition to the extension and are fuelling the media and daytime TV watchers who post here.

I've found seven aircraft that are leased from 777 Partners and are currently in operation, which is half of their current fleet, and the percentage will only grow as more are delivered.

https://financialpost.com/transportatio ... 1650579196

According to Stephen Jones, Flair's CEO, as of yesterday, they will only now be increasing the board from five to nine seats; I don't know where you got twelve. He also said "It’s a priority for us to repay the debt", which doesn't necessarily contradict the claim that "F8 is not yet required to repay 777", but it sure comes close to saying that they're going to be required to repay 777.

Why would Flair feel the need to make all those changes if they're of the opinion that they were actually compliant the whole time? If they've come up with this plan in six weeks, why do they need an exemption for another 18 months?

[SPR]

The board is being restructured to 9 seats. It used to be 12 and 7 were vacant. Now there will be 7 Canadians and 2 Americans on it.

I guess I need to put the quote right in front of your face, since you didn't bother reading the article: "Jones announced that the company had already ratified a new shareholders’ agreement that will see the airline’s board of directors reconstituted and increased from five directors to nine, of which only two will be non-Canadian." You're making up that there are currently twelve seats and seven are vacant.

[goingmissed]

4. Whataboutism. With that said, Onex is headquartered in Toronto with a CEO who was born in Manitoba and lives in Toronto.

Whataboutism would be if I suggested that Westjet broke the law by purchasing customers with Swoop with the sole purpose of driving Flair out of business, which is against the law, so it should be ok for Flair to break the CTA laws. In fact I compared Westjets US ownership and control in force to Flairs alleged US ownership and control in force. A direct comparison not whataboutism at all.

Either the CTA is wrong and Flair is Canadian, OR the CTA is right, but they should give Flair a break because of your allegations against other companies not under investigation.

[co-joe]

Either the CTA is wrong and Flair is Canadian, OR the CTA is right, but they should give Flair a break because of your allegations against other companies not under investigation.

As I showed in my last post, the CTA gave Westjet a break and time to correct their violation of the rules, so tell me why shouldn't they do the same for Flair?

[fish4life]

Either the CTA is wrong and Flair is Canadian, OR the CTA is right, but they should give Flair a break because of your allegations against other companies not under investigation.

As I showed in my last post, the CTA gave Westjet a break and time to correct their violation of the rules, so tell me why shouldn't they do the same for Flair?

Westjet wasn’t given a break they weren’t allowed to complete the purchase until they could prove Canadian control and ownership. That’s how it’s supposed to work, you prove you are in compliance then you will be granted the ability to own / operate.

[co-joe]

Westjet wasn’t given a break they weren’t allowed to complete the purchase until they could prove Canadian control and ownership. That’s how it’s supposed to work, you prove you are in compliance then you will be granted the ability to own / operate.

Is that what CTA Case number:20-03714 says to you? When I read it, I see that Westjet and Onex knowingly thwarted CTA rules, were caught and were forced to change how their non Canadian board members veto powers were allowed. And the most relevant part is they were allowed reasonable time to make the changes.

[Fanblade]

Westjet wasn’t given a break they weren’t allowed to complete the purchase until they could prove Canadian control and ownership. That’s how it’s supposed to work, you prove you are in compliance then you will be granted the ability to own / operate.

Is that what CTA Case number:20-03714 says to you? When I read it, I see that Westjet and Onex knowingly thwarted CTA rules, were caught and were forced to change how their non Canadian board members veto powers were allowed. And the most relevant part is they were allowed reasonable time to make the changes.

Co-Joe.

On Onex’s initial application, the CTA deemed the structure not Canadian enough. The purchase was delayed until Onex met CTA guidelines.

Westjet never operated in non compliance with Canadian ownership rules. That is completely misleading to suggest.

[nynybear]

Well you're slowly getting there my friend. Yes there were vacant seats on The Board. 7 to be precise. The Board will now seat 9 people and the number of vacant seats will be filled by Canadians bringing the total occupied seats to 9, thus filling the new restructured Board. Try not to sum up all your info and research from the media and 1 quote interpreted by yourself.

The board is being restructured to 9 seats. It used to be 12 and 7 were vacant. Now there will be 7 Canadians and 2 Americans on it.

I guess I need to put the quote right in front of your face, since you didn't bother reading the article: "Jones announced that the company had already ratified a new shareholders’ agreement that will see the airline’s board of directors reconstituted and increased from five directors to nine, of which only two will be non-Canadian." You're making up that there are currently twelve seats and seven are vacant.

[8895]

From the very reliable source of Wikipedia on Canada jetlines entry on the website:

“In June 2016 the airline announced that it had asked the Canadian government to relax its legal requirement for Canadian airlines to have no more than 25% foreign ownership, allowing Canada Jetlines to seek foreign investment up to the level of 49% ownership.[8] On November 3, 2016, Transport Minister Marc Garneau approved Jetlines' request for exemption from the current foreign ownership rules, which allowed the airline to access necessary capital in order to begin operations.[9] The airline has one ownership member from Europe and a board made up of industry members from Europe and the United States.”

If I’m interpreting that right, isn’t there already precedent in favour of flair?

[C-GGGQ]

From the very reliable source of Wikipedia on Canada jetlines entry on the website:

“In June 2016 the airline announced that it had asked the Canadian government to relax its legal requirement for Canadian airlines to have no more than 25% foreign ownership, allowing Canada Jetlines to seek foreign investment up to the level of 49% ownership.[8] On November 3, 2016, Transport Minister Marc Garneau approved Jetlines' request for exemption from the current foreign ownership rules, which allowed the airline to access necessary capital in order to begin operations.[9] The airline has one ownership member from Europe and a board made up of industry members from Europe and the United States.”

If I’m interpreting that right, isn’t there already precedent in favour of flair?

One the one hand there is a big difference in jumping from 25% owned to still minority 49% owned vs going from 49 to say 60. Now its no longer a Canadian company.

This is not something as I take it Flair is asking for. Their ownership is fine. Its “control” that they are under scrutiny for which comes down to number of board seats (since rectified) and now they’re looking at if the structure of the loans give 777 “undue control” this is what Flair is asking for leniency on. Either they will find that 777 doesn’t have defacto control through their loans. Or they give Flair the opportunity to refinance which is why Flair asked for the 18 months.

[SPR]

From the very reliable source of Wikipedia on Canada jetlines entry on the website:

“In June 2016 the airline announced that it had asked the Canadian government to relax its legal requirement for Canadian airlines to have no more than 25% foreign ownership, allowing Canada Jetlines to seek foreign investment up to the level of 49% ownership.[8] On November 3, 2016, Transport Minister Marc Garneau approved Jetlines' request for exemption from the current foreign ownership rules, which allowed the airline to access necessary capital in order to begin operations.[9] The airline has one ownership member from Europe and a board made up of industry members from Europe and the United States.”

If I’m interpreting that right, isn’t there already precedent in favour of flair?

Flair already has this ownership structure. 777 Partners owns 24.9%, Prescott owns 58%, and other unnamed parties own the rest. Non-Canadians can own up to 49% of Flair, so long as no individual person or corporation owns more than 25%. The issue wasn't the shareholder percentages, the issue was that 777 has 3/5 board seats, almost all of Flair's debt, and half of their leases, so even if they didn't own any of the company they still control it.

[Tbayer2021]

From the very reliable source of Wikipedia on Canada jetlines entry on the website:

“In June 2016 the airline announced that it had asked the Canadian government to relax its legal requirement for Canadian airlines to have no more than 25% foreign ownership, allowing Canada Jetlines to seek foreign investment up to the level of 49% ownership.[8] On November 3, 2016, Transport Minister Marc Garneau approved Jetlines' request for exemption from the current foreign ownership rules, which allowed the airline to access necessary capital in order to begin operations.[9] The airline has one ownership member from Europe and a board made up of industry members from Europe and the United States.”

If I’m interpreting that right, isn’t there already precedent in favour of flair?

Flair already has this ownership structure. 777 Partners owns 24.9%, Prescott owns 58%, and other unnamed parties own the rest. Non-Canadians can own up to 49% of Flair, so long as no individual person or corporation owns more than 25%. The issue wasn't the shareholder percentages, the issue was that 777 has 3/5 board seats, almost all of Flair's debt, and half of their leases, so even if they didn't own any of the company they still control it.

You can tell pilots aren't as smart as they think they are when they can't even differentiate shareholder structure and control in fact.

[8895]

From the very reliable source of Wikipedia on Canada jetlines entry on the website:

“In June 2016 the airline announced that it had asked the Canadian government to relax its legal requirement for Canadian airlines to have no more than 25% foreign ownership, allowing Canada Jetlines to seek foreign investment up to the level of 49% ownership.[8] On November 3, 2016, Transport Minister Marc Garneau approved Jetlines' request for exemption from the current foreign ownership rules, which allowed the airline to access necessary capital in order to begin operations.[9] The airline has one ownership member from Europe and a board made up of industry members from Europe and the United States.”

If I’m interpreting that right, isn’t there already precedent in favour of flair?

Flair already has this ownership structure. 777 Partners owns 24.9%, Prescott owns 58%, and other unnamed parties own the rest. Non-Canadians can own up to 49% of Flair, so long as no individual person or corporation owns more than 25%. The issue wasn't the shareholder percentages, the issue was that 777 has 3/5 board seats, almost all of Flair's debt, and half of their leases, so even if they didn't own any of the company they still control it.

You can tell pilots aren't as smart as they think they are when they can't even differentiate shareholder structure and control in fact.

You can also tell some other pilots are sad and lonely. The last 2 responses were relevant/helpful, yours was useless, so maybe you shouldn’t speak if that’s all you’re capable of.

[Tbayer2021]

Flair already has this ownership structure. 777 Partners owns 24.9%, Prescott owns 58%, and other unnamed parties own the rest. Non-Canadians can own up to 49% of Flair, so long as no individual person or corporation owns more than 25%. The issue wasn't the shareholder percentages, the issue was that 777 has 3/5 board seats, almost all of Flair's debt, and half of their leases, so even if they didn't own any of the company they still control it.

You can tell pilots aren't as smart as they think they are when they can't even differentiate shareholder structure and control in fact.

You can also tell some other pilots are sad and lonely. The last 2 responses were relevant/helpful, yours was useless, so maybe you shouldn’t speak if that’s all you’re capable of.

Feel free to call me anything you want. Still doesn't take away from the fact that you lack very basic reading comprehension. The very first article on this matter literally talked about the problem being de facto control, and not who owned what percentage.

[8895]

You can tell pilots aren't as smart as they think they are when they can't even differentiate shareholder structure and control in fact.

You can also tell some other pilots are sad and lonely. The last 2 responses were relevant/helpful, yours was useless, so maybe you shouldn’t speak if that’s all you’re capable of.

Feel free to call me anything you want. Still doesn't take away from the fact that you lack very basic reading comprehension. The very first article on this matter literally talked about the problem being de facto control, and not who owned what percentage.

Despite the 2 responses that followed the quote, I’m well aware of the issue at hand. My reasoning for adding it to the discussion was more so to point out that exemptions HAVE been granted in the past, and maybe that could come into play on how this unfolds. Great job jumping to conclusions though kiddo.

[Tbayer2021]

So you understood the point was irrelevant and still decided to bring it up? Solid Logic! Keep calling me names when your intelligence is questioned, it's really a great look on you.

[8895]

So you understood the point was irrelevant and still decided to bring it up? Solid Logic! Keep calling me names when your intelligence is questioned, it's really a great look on you.

Judging from that response it looks like you’re the one lacking basic reading comprehension. Maybe consider your own intelligence… yikes.

You made the initial rude comment acting like a child, I’d say that’s a great look on you kiddo. No wonder pilots can’t unify and work towards a better wawcon up here when there’s people like you. Have fun derailing more threads.

[nynybear]

Engaging in intelligence battles with a keyboard isn't a good look. Why do you seem to be taking such a personal stake on the Flair/CTA subject?

So you understood the point was irrelevant and still decided to bring it up? Solid Logic! Keep calling me names when your intelligence is questioned, it's really a great look on you.

Judging from that response it looks like you’re the one lacking basic reading comprehension. Maybe consider your own intelligence… yikes.

You made the initial rude comment acting like a child, I’d say that’s a great look on you kiddo. No wonder pilots can’t unify and work towards a better wawcon up here when there’s people like you. Have fun derailing more threads.

[Tbayer2021]

So you understood the point was irrelevant and still decided to bring it up? Solid Logic! Keep calling me names when your intelligence is questioned, it's really a great look on you.

Judging from that response it looks like you’re the one lacking basic reading comprehension. Maybe consider your own intelligence… yikes.

You made the initial rude comment acting like a child, I’d say that’s a great look on you kiddo. No wonder pilots can’t unify and work towards a better wawcon up here when there’s people like you. Have fun derailing more threads.

"No, you!"

You just keep hitting them out of the park, don't ya?

[Flairpilot]

..