 Bombardier cutting 5,000 jobs, selling Q Series aircraft Bombardier has announced measures that will translate to 5,000 job losses, more than half of them in Canada, over the next 12 to 18 months.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Bombardier said the jobs will be eliminated over the next 12 to 18 months and will save the company about $250 million a year by 2021. The Montreal-based company has nearly 70,000 employees worldwide.
The job cuts will come mostly from the company's engineering and management ranks.
Bombardier disclosed the cuts as part of its third-quarter earnings report. The company said profits rose 48% compared to a year earlier, and for next year, it expects growth of 10% in revenue growth and 20% in profit growth.
The company is also selling some units it described as "non-core."
Bombardier will sell its Q Series turbo-prop aircraft program and its de Havilland trademark to Longview Aviation Capital Corp. for $300 million.
De Havilland is one of the oldest brands in commercial aviation. Its founder Sir Geoffrey de Havilland built his first airplane -- which crashed -- in 1909, just six years after the Wright Brothers' first flight at Kitty Hawk, according to the de Havilland Museum.
The plane was rebuilt and de Havilland flew it successfully the following year. He went on to provide planes to the British during World War I, and formed an aircraft company bearing his name in 1920. Bombardier bought the company's Canadian unit, and the name, in 1992.
Bombardier is also selling a unit that provides flight and technical training for business aircraft to Canadian manufacturer CAE for $800 million.
Net proceeds from the two sales are expected to bring in about $900 million.
"With our heavy investment cycle now completed, we continue to make solid progress executing our turnaround plan," said CEO Alain Bellemare. "With today's announcements we have set in motion the next round of actions necessary to unleash the full potential of the Bombardier portfolio."
Maybe this is a good move. I suppose we'll see.
Government has some 'splaining to do, Lucy, given that preventing job losses at Bombardier is one of the main reasons given by them every time they bail that company out at least every two or three years.
Very few countries have a viable Aerospace industry. We are far from the only country who has to support ours.
Government has some 'splaining to do, Lucy, given that preventing job losses at Bombardier is one of the main reasons given by them every time they bail that company out at least every two or three years.
Very few countries have a viable Aerospace industry. We are far from the only country who has to support ours.
Agreed. It's the one subsidy I encourage Canada to support because once that expertise is lost you can't get it back.
Best industry possible apparently to privatize the profits and socialize the losses. I like the part where Joe Q. "Dimwit" Public gets all riled up at having to pay the salary of teachers or nurses but stays happy as a clam when the executives at places like Bombardier still get their massive yearly bonuses (out of the taxpayer money their company is given to keep operating) at the same time those very same executives have run the place into the ground, with the upcoming laid-off employees going to end up on employment insurance. Ain't life grand for all those hard-working job "creators" who get to be part of the ruling class, n'est pas?
I'm not privy to Bombardier's books. But I do know they have to compete against companies that enjoy a lot of government subsidies from their respective countries.
So I'm assuming it would be very difficult to survive in that environment without some subsidies here. It's tough to fault the company or our government for that.
You have a subsidized one, or you buy from a subsidized one, those are the options.
Best industry possible apparently to privatize the profits and socialize the losses. I like the part where Joe Q. "Dimwit" Public gets all riled up at having to pay the salary of teachers or nurses but stays happy as a clam when the executives at places like Bombardier still get their massive yearly bonuses (out of the taxpayer money their company is given to keep operating) at the same time those very same executives have run the place into the ground, with the upcoming laid-off employees going to end up on employment insurance. Ain't life grand for all those hard-working job "creators" who get to be part of the ruling class, n'est pas?
I'm not privy to Bombardier's books. But I do know they have to compete against companies that enjoy a lot of government subsidies from their respective countries.
So I'm assuming it would be very difficult to survive in that environment without some subsidies here. It's tough to fault the company or our government for that.
Why is it so tough to fault the company here? Those other subsidized companies are not laying off 5000 people are they?
Best industry possible apparently to privatize the profits and socialize the losses. I like the part where Joe Q. "Dimwit" Public gets all riled up at having to pay the salary of teachers or nurses but stays happy as a clam when the executives at places like Bombardier still get their massive yearly bonuses (out of the taxpayer money their company is given to keep operating) at the same time those very same executives have run the place into the ground, with the upcoming laid-off employees going to end up on employment insurance. Ain't life grand for all those hard-working job "creators" who get to be part of the ruling class, n'est pas?
If not aerospace, then oil & gas, banking or farming, all of which are subsidized in one way or another. Whether it's incentives and royalty rebates for oil and gas producers, out and out bank bailouts, or the huge agribusiness subsidies in the U.S., it's not like Bombardier or the aerospace industry are outliers in Canada, or even in the Western world.
Best industry possible apparently to privatize the profits and socialize the losses. I like the part where Joe Q. "Dimwit" Public gets all riled up at having to pay the salary of teachers or nurses but stays happy as a clam when the executives at places like Bombardier still get their massive yearly bonuses (out of the taxpayer money their company is given to keep operating) at the same time those very same executives have run the place into the ground, with the upcoming laid-off employees going to end up on employment insurance. Ain't life grand for all those hard-working job "creators" who get to be part of the ruling class, n'est pas?
I'm not privy to Bombardier's books. But I do know they have to compete against companies that enjoy a lot of government subsidies from their respective countries.
So I'm assuming it would be very difficult to survive in that environment without some subsidies here. It's tough to fault the company or our government for that.
Whyy should we care if they survive, since they apparently can�t even employ people without taxpayer support? Why not just let them fail? Is bombardier a business or just a government make work program?