 |
     |
|
|
The part I truly dislike about this is that Bob Milton appears like a saver: Air Canada, CAW cut a deal. Whatever. I recently had someone tell me that there are people who like upheaval so much (they were raised in that environment and expect it) that they foment it out of stability just for the "rush" as it were. Hmmm.
In Air Canada's hometown, The Gazette remains cautious in its reporting: Their future is still up in the air (note: subscription required).
Schulich school economist, Fred Lazar, rises to Air Canada's defence in an essay published in the G&M. His point, in my skim, is that AC needs better policy and fewer tax burdens to lighten its load a little. A bailout isn't necessary, but in the Canadian scheme of things, Air Canada is (Take the load off Air Canada). He makes an argument; I'm not sure I can agree except that a bailout should be out of the question. Whether Air Canada is an essential element of the Canadian economy, that many airports and centres rely on it, is, I think, a spurious conclusion based only on the historical foundation of Air Canada's existence. That is, as a counter-factual: what if Air Canada never existed? Would something not have filled that essential economic void? Probably. So, then, why would the void not be filled if Air Canada were to stop existing?
There's an interesting Chinese aphorism that goes like this: Want to know how big a hole you'll leave when you go? See how big a hole your finger leaves when you pull it out of a cup of tea. [I'm sure it's more eloquent in the original. ;-)]
Posted by Grayson at May 21, 2004 07:12 AM