Bombardier is a joke

[JerrySeinfeld]

Holy shit.

Has anyone seen these make-me-puke Bombardier commercials where the Canadian is travelling in distant lands like Europe ("that's my train") or Africa ("that's my plane")?

Now we all know that Candians have a nauseating and overbearing national pride abroad - reminiscant of Americans circa 1981 - complete with flags on backpacks and ...er...how does the joke go? "How do you know when a Candian is in the lounge in your European hotel? He'll tell you"

Anyway - it is painfully apparent that Bombardier is trying to caqsh in on this shamelessness of Candians by trynig to make us all feel good about the fact that billinos of our tax dollars have been poured into that miserable company.

Is this the worst example of "rubbing our faces in it"? Is anybody impressed by this shamelessness?

There is my rant. Contribute at will....

[Mad_Michael]

Scary part is that Bombardier was voted the 'most respected' company in Quebec by Quebecers.

Seems odd for a company that hasn't turned an honest profit in over two decades.

Bombardier is the 'poster boy' for corporate subsidies in Canada.

[M.Dancer]

Bombardier Aerospace reported full-year earnings before financing income, financing expense and income taxes (EBIT) of $322 million, up from $266 million the year. Net orders totalled 363 aircraft, up from 302 the year before. During the year, 326 aircraft were delivered, compared with 337 the year before

http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/288525231600452.php

Bullish on Boambardier

[August1991]

I'm no fan of government subsidies to private companies (and I hate to think what Syncrude has received over the years) but this thread seems inappropriate now.

Given security measures in public airports, small private planes will only become more popular in the future.

Bombardier delivered 69 Learjets, Challengers and other private planes in the quarter, a 6.2 percent increase. The business-jet division finished the year with a record 274 orders as rising corporate profits boosted demand for aircraft.

Bombardier's Learjet line of products, which are assembled in Wichita, have been popular, Bombardier Aerospace president Pierre Beaudoin said in a conference call with analysts and reporters Wednesday.

"The volume has grown," Beaudoin said.

Demand for the new Learjet 60XR, announced last year, is also very strong, he said.

"Learjet is like everybody else in the industry," Beaudoin said. "Business aircraft is benefiting from a strong market."

Link

I didn't see the ads but Bombardier shareholders should wonder why it spends money on such things. I figure management knows that it can cadge benefits from the federal government somehow, and a good public profile helps.

IOW, it never fails to amaze me how some English-Canadians always find a way to get some Quebec-bashing into any debate.

Why not bash the federal government for its "industrial policy"?

[M.Dancer]

I didn't see the ads but Bombardier shareholders should wonder why it spends money on such things. I figure management knows that it can cadge benefits from the federal government somehow, and a good public profile helps.

They spend the money to incrase awareness amongst shareholders, retail and institutional. The same reason why Archer Danial adverstise in the US

[August1991]

They spend the money to incrase awareness amongst shareholders, retail and institutional. The same reason why Archer Danial adverstise in the US.

That works both ways. As they say, never buy a share whose CEO has a bigger public profile than the company itself.

Depends on the business but there are probably better ways to achieve investor profile than mass TV ads.

But I dunno.

BTW, Archer-Daniels is also a company dependent on government "relations".

[geoffrey]

I'm no fan of government subsidies to private companies (and I hate to think what Syncrude has received over the years) but this thread seems inappropriate now.

Can you imagine the commerical with the Canadian pointing at the oil tanker going by...

"That's my oil!! That's my oil!! It's Syncrude!"

[M.Dancer]

I'm no fan of government subsidies to private companies (and I hate to think what Syncrude has received over the years) but this thread seems inappropriate now.

Can you imagine the commerical with the Canadian pointing at the oil tanker going by...

"That's my oil!! That's my oil!! It's Syncrude!"

been there, done it, filled up at petro canada.....

[geoffrey]

been there, done it, filled up at petro canada.....

I'm still protesting PetroCan's creation. When governments go out of their way, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, all just to screw Alberta, I must permenantly protest.

Even if the company is held privately now (the government still holds the largest share).

[Wilber]

Bombardier Aerospace reported full-year earnings before financing income, financing expense and income taxes (EBIT) of $322 million, up from $266 million the year. Net orders totalled 363 aircraft, up from 302 the year before. During the year, 326 aircraft were delivered, compared with 337 the year before

http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/288525231600452.php

Bullish on Boambardier

You buy their stock then. I lost a fair chunk of change on it. Told my advisor that I wasn't interested in investing in any more companies that required government largess to stay in business.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I didn't see the ads but Bombardier shareholders should wonder why it spends money on such things. I figure management knows that it can cadge benefits from the federal government somehow, and a good public profile helps.

They spend the money to incrase awareness amongst shareholders, retail and institutional. The same reason why Archer Danial adverstise in the US

That's BS.

Way back in biz school i was forced to read an Harvard Biz report on how 'image" advertising is a complete waste of money - no measurable benefit.

Plus - this ISN't a quebec-bashing thread, August. Nowhere in my opening post did I mention quebec. You're right. It's a government subsidy-bashing thread. And ALSO Canadian pride bashing thread because I wouldn't be surprised to actually SEE Canadians doing such absurd egoistic things abroad. Trust me -I've seen close fascimiles.

[M.Dancer]

That's BS.

Way back in biz school i was forced to read an Harvard Biz report on how 'image" advertising is a complete waste of money - no measurable benefit.

Ummm..yeah...sure you did. That report must explain why companies who never publicize themselves have the same awareness levels amongst the public as companies who publicize themselves constantly.

[stignasty]

Holy shit.

Has anyone seen these make-me-puke Bombardier commercials where the Canadian is travelling in distant lands like Europe ("that's my train") or Africa ("that's my plane")?

I probably wouldn't have a problem with the commercials if they didn't portray Canadians as morons. The guy who jumps out of the vehicle to see "his" plane and nearly become a lion's dinner comes to mind.

[Wilber]

I probably wouldn't have a problem with the commercials if they didn't portray Canadians as morons. The guy who jumps out of the vehicle to see "his" plane and nearly become a lion's dinner comes to mind.

Agreed, if you just look at them as commercials, they suck.

[Hydraboss]

I wonder how much of my tax money it cost to produce those commercials? Oh well, if they were too expensive, the feds will just give Bomb another billion or two in tax money and some more loan guarantees.

[geoffrey]

Bombardier... despite being the 'success' of Quebec... rates pretty poorly on credit... BB Neg on DBRS on their new €800mil floating/€300mil 8%/€800mil 7.5% notes. That's only a billion and a half in debt, approx. for a company that's revenues are many billion a year. Their interest expense on the entire offering is only about $200 million a year. Hmm. And they have government backing. Hmm.

Obviously management at Bombardier needs a good looking at, are they all political hacks with Ottawa connections, or are they actually qualified leaders? This is the problem with companies that rely on bailouts, in bring in executives they look at political connections before a track record of success. Beadouin is qualified IMO, but he's overly vested in the industry and the company. He was controller at Bombardier at 25 years old, President by 28. That's pretty remarkable, but sometimes you need a changing of the guard, especially when a company has been a poor performer.

Sources:

http://www.dbrs.com/

[guyser]

I wonder how much of my tax money it cost to produce those commercials? Oh well, if they were too expensive, the feds will just give Bomb another billion or two in tax money and some more loan guarantees.

Oil and gas subsidies are non-existent?

[Michael Bluth]

I wonder how much of my tax money it cost to produce those commercials? Oh well, if they were too expensive, the feds will just give Bomb another billion or two in tax money and some more loan guarantees.

Oil and gas subsidies are non-existent?

Yet again missing the point. How big a precentage of their revenues is subsidies, compared to Bombardier's?

The ads are embarrasing on a number of levels. Do Shell/Esso/Petrocan need to advertise to get people coming to their gas stations? Absolutely. They oprerate in a competitive mass market.

Does Bombardier need to advertise on Canadian television to get Canadians to buy their trains/planes/street cars? Absolutely not. Their market is incredibly segmented and building brand awareness isn't a cost effective use of Government money.

That incredibly small percentage of the Canadian population actively involved in the purchase of trains/planes/street cars are well aware of Bombardier.

[M.Dancer]

Does Bombardier need to advertise on Canadian television to get Canadians to buy their trains/planes/street cars? Absolutely not. Their market is incredibly segmented and building brand awareness isn't a cost effective use of Government money.

That incredibly small percentage of the Canadian population actively involved in the purchase of trains/planes/street cars are well aware of Bombardier.

But a very large chunk of Canadians own Bomabrdier....like BCE they are very widely held

[Michael Bluth]

But a very large chunk of Canadians own Bomabrdier....like BCE they are very widely held

So the Government takes taxpayers by Canadians as a whole to subsidize the holdings of a 'very large chunk of Canadians? How is that fair?

[M.Dancer]

Well, there is one thing missing here.....the dollar value of the sunsidies...and whether the subsidies are repayable or not.......

......please continue

[guyser]

Yet again missing the point. How big a precentage of their revenues is subsidies, compared to Bombardier's?

Yet again? Oh my. So now the parameters are the rev percentage?

The ads are embarrasing on a number of levels. Do Shell/Esso/Petrocan need to advertise to get people coming to their gas stations? Absolutely. They oprerate in a competitive mass market.

As opposed to Bombardier? Besides, they are ads....why get so upset about them. They want to move product.

Does Bombardier need to advertise on Canadian television to get Canadians to buy their trains/planes/street cars? Absolutely not. Their market is incredibly segmented and building brand awareness isn't a cost effective use of Government money.

They dont need to advertise on CDN tv? Why not ? They want to move product.

That incredibly small percentage of the Canadian population actively involved in the purchase of trains/planes/street cars are well aware of Bombardier.

Uh huh......and I see I am supposed to miss the point am I ? And dont they s make and sell more things?

[Michael Bluth]

Well, there is one thing missing here.....the dollar value of the sunsidies...and whether the subsidies are repayable or not.......

......please continue

As of May 2005 Bombardier had received $1.1 Billion in "repayable contributions" from 1982 to 2005. Less than 5% of the money "invested" in these programs had been recouped. Here's a link from Andrew Coyne.

Anything else you need?

[guyser]

As of May 2005 Bombardier had received $1.1 Billion in "repayable contributions" from 1982 to 2005. Less than 5% of the money "invested" in these programs had been recouped. Here's a Anything else you need?

No kidding , that is disturbing . Hard to believe it compares , and rather pales the oil and gas subsidy (which by the way I support-it was the hypocrisy I wasnt enamored with)

Well...until you look at it , $1.1B from 82 to '05. As opposed to $1.4B every year to oil and gas.

And I once again reiterate, it is not the subsidy but the hypocrisy.

[Michael Bluth]

No kidding , that is disturbing . Hard to believe it compares , and rather pales the oil and gas subsidy (which by the way I support-it was the hypocrisy I wasnt enamored with)

Well...until you look at it , $1.1B from 82 to '05. As opposed to $1.4B every year to oil and gas.

And I once again reiterate, it is not the subsidy but the hypocrisy.

$1.1 Billion to one company supported with evidence. The evidence makes it easy to invesitgate and decide for your self. You were provided with the name of the Government agency that provided these subsidies.

A mythical $1.4 Billion that only exists because you say so. What exactly is "Oil and Gas"? Where does this $1.4 Billion figure come from?

Hypocrisy how?