Sunday, 29 May 2016

It’s easy to appear progressive when you’re competing with the contents of your own ass

Rona Ambrose: and the “new” face of the conservative party 

The 2016 conservative party convention is currently going on in Vancouver, and from the half assed monikers being coined (call Kevin O’leary “Canada’s Donald trump” again I dare you) to Rona Ambrose making one of the more unintelligible insults i’ve ever heard - all in all it has been a doozy. Ms. Ambrose Implying, in a rant that single handedly set her gender back a couple years, made some comments about the current PM, and prior conservatives PMs. She said that Justin Trudeau was who Canadian’s thought of as the first female PM, pointing out this was ironic as the conservatives were the real feminists. Well lets see what her evidence is.

Rona bragged about the Conservative party fielding the first female interim PM, and the first female Acting PM... in 1958.

Wait a second, first interim PM... 1958?

We’ll get to that, but first, I must point out how ridiculous it is to brag about the first acting PM who most will know was Progressive Conservative Kim Campbell.

(How could you loose with political cartoons like this)
Most know the name, and anyone familiar to Canadian politics  knows the tragedy Kim Campbell. A promising rising star in the party, a conservative from the west coast, a true blue feminist and activist - these were all the qualities of someone with a long tenure in Federal politics. Except, in the stunning defeat of Brian Mulroney following a disastrous campaign, the sitting PM lost his own seat. Thrown for a loop, the PCs elected Kim Campbell their party leader and therefore PM of Canada as they still held government (although not a majority). Now while seemingly progressive, this was one of the most lame duck attempts at perseveration through the tokenization of Ms. Campbell’s role as a female. The progressive conservatives (who by the way are not the same as the current conservative party, but more on that shortly) hung Ms. Campbell out to dry - its no secret. To brag about electing Kim Campbell is just plain stupid, it shows the conservatives have no idea how the tale of Ms. Campbell plays in the media. Well i’ll give you a hint, the PCs electing a token female leader, knowing a losing vote of non confidence is imminent, then bragging about it plays pretty poorly. Good thing there isn’t a stone pyramid on hill or else it would have been an even messier ordeal, either way though, Kim Campbell was a sacrifice to the gods of politics and there’s not really much debate over that.

Now, during Rona’s set (i’m using stand up terminology as her speech was laughable) she also riffed about the conservatives having the first female acting Prime Minister of Canada. Huh? Didn’t they already mention Kim ?
(Ms. Fairclough being shown a table by PM Diefenbaker)
Enter Ellen Fairclough. Now the only news article one can find referring to Ms. Fairclough as PM was one that came out after Ms. Ambrose gave her speech. However, Ellen Fairclough was the first female MP, a very accomplished  parliamentarian and she is well deserving of respect. Why then did Ms. Ambrose laude arguably her least shining contribution, after all Ellen Faircloguh was PM for a grand total of 24 hours. Not only that but if you look at how her own government treated her, it wasn’t stellar. For instance, lauded as a cabinet minster, Ms. Fairclough was the Canadian Secretary of State- a position that prior to the repatriation of the Canadian constitution was the office that controlled communication between the Government and the British crown. Now although we still technically needed royal ascent directly from the queen at this time, by no means was this office a particularly important one. Precedent had been long set that it would be highly unorthodox for the UK to oppose a Canadian law, and after the statue of westminster in 1931 this became entirely non salient. The office also acted as a dumping ground for portfolio’s that didn’t have a ministership. Pretty prestigious eh? This did not deter the tenacious Fairclough as she continued to fight in the commons for equal pay for women in the workforce. Wanting, to make it clear the conservatives at the time supported women, this is when they allowed Ms.Faircloguh to sit as PM… for 24 hours… probably on a slow Tuesday when nothing was going on (I made that last bit up). Knowing her skills as an accountant (her pre-political profession) and with her “tenure” as leader behind her, the conservatives gave her the ministership of Citizenship and Immigration for one term, followed by appointing her Postmaster General till the culmination of her political career. To say that the PCs at the time treated our first female MP unfairly is a bit of an understatement. Much like Ms. Campbell 20 years later, although she was a talented accountant, a tenacious politician and a pioneering feminist, she did not have her party to thank

(Former Canadian Alliance leader - and fan of showing up
to press conferences on jet skis - Stockwell Day)
As we’ve entered the subject of party, this brings me to one of my other points of contention. The MP’s Ms. Ambrose referred to were not members of the Conservative party of Canada. They were Progressive Conservatives. While many in the modern Canadian Conservative party would like you to think this, it is not the case. While many of the roots of Canadian conservatism come from original Conservative party of Canada, this is not where the modern party stems from. First the conservatives had to go through their progressive period. Admittedly the name change came in 1942, but this was more cosmetic than anything else. As the PCs developed and began to elect governments started with John Diefenbaker. Difenbaker held on till 1963 giving the new PCs a serious branding. When pushed by domestic and international new neoliberal sentiments the party began to move right. Joe Clark followed by Brian Mulroney are the successive examples of this move right. New neoliberal tenants like economic liberalization, free trade, and privatization became the rhetoric de jour. After the defeat of the last PC government with the fall of Kim Campbell as mentioned above, the PC party was in a interesting spot. A new party had formed on the right, the Canadian Alliance, and as opposed to being interested in the neoliberal policies of free market and economic liberalization, they were more focused on hardline conservative views such a marriage equality, drug prohibition  and the likes. Faced with increasingly poorer election results by splitting the conservative base, the parties needed a new plan. What they decided to do was merge and amalgamate the conservative support in Canada. What happened when the Conservative party of Canada formed in 2003? Well they had already shifted right on economic policy with the neoliberal rhetoric, and now the merger with the neoconservative Canadian Alliance they had to shift right on social policy as well. All one has to do is look back upon the policy (and embarrassing gaffs) of Stockwell day, former Canadian Alliance leader to get an idea of where the conservatives were planning to go. Day a proponent of “traditional” marriage, young earth creationism, and direct democracy for almost every political decision, brought with him this level of hardline social conservatism.

So why is this all relevant to Ms. Ambrose speech ? Well She seems to think that Kim Campbell and Ellen Fairclough were members of her party. As I've outlined the shifts in social policy from when Ms. Campbell was the PC PM, and the even more extreme shifts from the ideology of Ellen Fairclough’s conservatives, it seems obvious that neither of these politicians take their social policy cues from neoconservative sources.  This is why its odd to take credit for them as conservatives Ms. Ambrose. They never joined your party, and frankly once the party that was created showed it was willing to incorporate neoconservative Canaidan Alliance policy (e.g their stalwart opposition to same sex marriage until last week) its a bit presumptuous to assume. If we ignore this however and pretend that todays Conservative party is the same as all the conservative parties before it, the parties themselves didn’t really treat either politician very well. Both were only given the highest office when it was certain they would not hold it, among the other reasons i already detailed.

I will (but likely not) write another article going in to greater depth of what I think the problems were with this convention, but for now, Ms. Ambrose, stop trying to be the new progressive voice of your party if your only going to pick examples that contradict your statements. Oh and if you are going to act like a feminist don’t insult a man by saying he is really a woman. By using being a woman as an insult you imply that you think men are better. As I said in the title, its easy to look progressive when your comparing yourself to the contents of your own ass, Ms. Ambrose, pull your head out of there, before you suffocate.

Thursday, 26 May 2016

Kevin Vickers - Canadian Badass

How one man dealt with two very different, but altogether similar events...

This article will probably be about as much of a fluff piece as I hope to ever write. Sometimes though, I do feel the need to pour out some unadulterated praise on an individual, and today is one of those days. 

Kevin Vickers whose name deservedly may ring a bell for events I will go into later in this post, has made the news again. During a ceremony meant to commemorate the Irish soldiers aligned with Britain during the 1916 republican uprising in Ireland, a protester started shouting about the insult this ceremony caused him. Although this piece is fluff I will make a political digression briefly. 

As someone of very direct Irish descent, the events of 1916 are very familiar to me. In short, groups of Irishmen across the country, unable to tolerate the cruel conditions Ireland faced under British colonial rule, rose up in a series of coordinated actions across the country. The most famous of these being the storming and capture of the post office in Dublin. This is where the first Irish free state was declared. Suffering a fairly embarrassing loss the British responded with very heavy handed tactics burning much of the city, and destroying much of the rest with artillery fire. In the fighting that ensued both sides suffered egregious causalities. The British with far superior troops many of who were Irishmen themselves, eventually won out however, captured the main collaborators of the rebellion, and promptly executed them. The military rule under the cruel Blank and Tans (named for the appearance of their improvised uniforms) is still a tragic part of Irish history, many still consider a salient issue some hundred years later. 

Image result for peace lines
(The Protestant side of a very "peaceful" wall)
With all this being said, and my obvious disdain and anger over the treatment “my people”, the progress that has been made in the last few decades is massive and far more important. There are no longer Letter bombings in London like my parents grew up with, there hasn’t been a subway attack since about the time my brother left the UK. The IRA is largely a memory, or at least any group with a name that has the capacity the IRA of The Troubles had. The reason for all of this progress, is each side recognizing the pain and suffering of the other. This is why memorializing the soldiers loyal to the Crown who died in 1916 is just as important as recognizing those who fought for Irish freedom. It moves both sides forward, and might be a step in taking down the “Peace Lines” or massive walls reminiscent of the Gaza strip that still loom over parts of Northern Ireland (a move currently planned for 2023). 

This is why it makes me boil with anger when I see someone who thinks they are making a difference by standing up and shouting loudly at a solemn memorial that is genuinely moving the issue forward. The loudest voices, at least in my experience, are rarely the ones speaking rationally. This is a great example of an narcissistic nobody who decides they want all eyes on them, because they have the answers.

Enter Kevin Vickers, who without hesitation, broke rank the second this baseless “protestor” started ranting, grabbing him firmly and thoroughly removing him from the area.  A man who is not even in his own country (though to be fair as ambassador he does have diplomatic immunity), unarmed, and furthermore looking a little worse for wear than last time he was in the news, beat on duty Irish police officers to bring the man down. Good craic as they say. Seriously for a moment, I have to praise Mr.Vickers, and for his quick response in shutting down this protestor, and here’s why:
 In recent years it has become increasingly acceptable for protesters to hijack other political forums for their own gain. This has the tendency to give movements that otherwise would have to work long and hard to convince people to be active their causes, a jumpstart as it were in popularity. It also tends to cause more copycat hijackings. 

Image result for bernie sanders blm seattle
("Peaceful" BLM Protestors)
Case in point the Black Lives Matter movement. I’m not going to weigh in on their overall points because I don’t really feel I add an important narrative there. However I will speak out about their - and anyone else who uses the tactic of hijacking other legitimate political events in a politico-terroristic way. One of the first times this caught my attention was the BLM protestors who took over a Bernie Sanders rally in Seattle. This really should have been the pinnacle in showing the irony of the movement vs it’s tactics, as Mr.Sanders was pretty active it some legitimate grassroots civil uprising. Unlike Bernie and Mr.King, the BLM protestors instead of organizing a mass march to derail his speech, stormed the podium and took the mic.

Image result for blm depaul
(Rational politcal debate
 from a BLM member)
Image result for blm depaul
(More of the same)

Fast forward to a few days ago at DePaul University and BLM protesters storm a talk by Dangerous Faggot (not being homophobic, that’s his chosen moniker) Milo Yiannopoulos. This time shutting down an event organized by campus republicans by chanting Bernie sanders name among other tactics which went as far as threatening to attack the speakers. Quite a fast change of heart it seems. The tactics used by the BLM group are those of those of the irrational “loud voices” I mentioned earlier. Rather than develop a grassroots following, or legitimize their discourse, they choose instead to get their own faces in front of the media, by hijacking the events of others, who have put in the time and work. It works, because the media is already at these events, and people who are not directly involved with the issue find it easy to join the cause when they see the events online and in the media. This does not make for a legitimate political movement, you can scream as much as you want, act violently and attract attention in the name of activism but this is still aggressive, violent action, and is equivalent, in my opinion to political terrorism.

Unfortunately for the campus republicans, and the speakers themselves who shelled out money for rather lack lustre private security (after the campus accused them of creating a danger, there wasn’t someone with the gusto of Kevin Vickers to shut down the political hijacking. 

Some may say being i’m hyperbolic when I say this is political terrorism. Well, the very reason people like Mr. Vickers take this sort of thing seriously, has to do with how Mr. Vickers first gained international fame.

A single minded individual, with ties to a wider movement, frustrated with their governments actions, stormed a political venue to gain international attention in front  of the media they knew would be there. The problem was this was a man connected with ISIS and he was so frustrated he brought a rifle with him and ended the life of several much better men. This was an act of political terrorism and I don’t think it is remotely on par with the actions of BLM protestors. I hasten to even draw the comparison for fear I might insult the memory of those who lost loved ones, but I also think it needs to be done. 

It takes one person to cause such a tragedy, and when you have a movement that justifies such violent irrational tactics, and becomes widespread to quickly, it will inevitably create outliers, who take the violence one step further. We have come very close (feel free to point out examples if it has happened) to seeing BLM protestors become violent, and I don’t think its s stretch to say that within any movement justifying such aggressive, violent tactics there will develop outliers who wish to take it further. 

This is why we need more people willing to act quickly, and shut down these acts of political terrorism. Because every time they work, it encourages more to try their chance. Political discourse, and proper decorum should rule politics. Separating those who wish to argue rationally, from those who want to yell loudly is key for democracy to function. Letting political hijackings occur isn't ok, and its a pretty slippery slope from there, to the sort of horrific action that can be caused by one person who takes it to far. 

In any case, what today has taught me is that in cases of extreme, and minor political terrorism, Canada (and now Ireland too) can count on Kevin Vickers to do the right thing.

Wednesday, 25 May 2016

The Big Problem with High Driving

One way Ottawa will likely screw up Marijuana legislation

I’m taking a pretty safe bet here, but i’m going to make the prediction that when Ottawa  releases its long awaited marijuana legislation not all parts of it will be perfect. I’m sure your saying to yourself, “Wow he’s really going out on a limb here.” I know, generating controversy all over town. To make things more interesting though, I have a more precise prediction. Ottawa will likely make a total mess of the legislation concerned with marijuana-impaired  driving, why? Because they have no idea what they’re doing. Frankly, no one really does. 
(An illustration of Canada's police competency re: marijuana)

Firstly I want to talk about the tests that are currently on the market. Well, “tests” might be a bit strong as there’s basically one that seems to be employed in the handful of European countries and Australia that do roadside drug testing. The test is about as blunt as can be. You basically lick what looks like a home pregnancy test and in 3-5 minutes the  registers whether there is any trace of a range of sbutatcnes. This costs about $1.5 million dollars a year in Australia, which adjusted for Canada’s population and currency means a similar effort would cost Canada $2.17 million. This doesn’t sound like that much money on a whole, but the problem is in the amount of drugs these test can register in ones system. By all accounts the tests can find traces in people who have used a drug in the past two weeks. Even for those who haven't used drugs, this probably seems blunt.

(A Dutch traffic jam - the new reality
in Canada if alcohol were treated the same as pot)

If we applied this sort of a test to alcohol and any Canadian who had drank a beer in the last two weeks was an “impaired” driver, well Toronto might start to look a bit more like Amsterdam than anyone could have predicted.

Some closing thoughts on this oral testing before I move on to the next part of this argument, courtesy of Australian national university visiting fellow and health&justice expert David McDonald 
"Our system breaches human rights and is a gross waste of public funds," he said. "It's an infringement of our rights ... because, unlike roadside breath testing, there is no body of scientific evidence that shows this roadside oral fluid testing actually improves road safety”

This moves us on nicely to the next problem with testing:

Its really, really, hard to figure out how much marijuana effects a persons driving. 

Now the obvious statement at this point is, if you feel high, or impaired from any substance you shouldn’t drive. Hopefully this post will date itself in a few years once self driving Ubers rule society - but until then I want to make it clear that in no way do I condone driving under the influence of any substance that may impair a person in any facet. With that being said I can move on. 

As early as 1995 studies were presented that showed the component functions needed to drive (tracking, motor coordination, divided attention, and visual function) were impaired by marijuana. This isn’t surprising, but the fact is these studies merely measured the component parts of driving, not the act itself. When tested on simulators in various studies, high drivers preformed certain tasks worse, like weaving within their own lanes, but overall, drove slower than controls, overestimated their own impairment, and didn’t weave into other lanes or speed like more traditionally impaired drivers were prone too. Furthermore, in a 2013 study researchers found that in several areas where medical marijuana laws were instituted  traffic fatalities actually fell, specifically evening accidents, and drunk-driving accidents.

What this seems to suggest is that as well as being next to impossible to reasonably determine if someone is currently high, high drivers may not pose nearly the same danger as their alcohol consuming compatriots, and further than that, people that  drink alcohol and driven might opt to smoke marijuana instead reducing the overall traffic fatalities during peak periods. 
Setting no legal limit for marijuana impairment is obviously not an option, and that’s not what i’m arguing for. Considering the above argument however, combined with the fact that there is no evidence to suggest marijuana legalization increases consumption rates, here’s what I think: be prudent. Wait a little. Part of the reason there’s no good answer is because due to the ongoing war on drugs it’s pretty hard to study the effects of illegal drugs en masse. 

Since the preliminary research suggests that testing for high driving is at best blunt, and at worst a complete violation of civil liberty, that high drivers may not be as dangerous as some would believe, an that there won’t be a boom in either marijuana users, or traffic fatalities, why wouldn’t one wait? In my opinion, Ottawa should pass the bare minimum legislation, reaffirming/making it illegal to drive while impaired by marijuana, and leave the police with the same powers they currently have - to preform roadside assessments of a drivers impairment. Once we have some data and statistics to work with, as well as reports from police actually dealing with this issue, we can begin to generate some forward thinking legislation. 

However, if we rush things, as Ottawa likely will, what could be Canada’s first opportunity in some time to gain prominence as a progressive power on the world stage, could end up looking like a stoned boondoggle. At least that's the bet i'm hedging.

Tuesday, 24 May 2016

Gendered insults #cuntfuse me

#mansplaining vs #cuntfusing

I came across a slew of tweets yesterday between a video game developer i’m not very fond of, and a twitter user concerned with internet related Social Justice Work. They were engaged in a interesting a totally respectful discussion over the usage of insults that imply characteristics about an entire gender. I've included a couple of snippets in this post (see below).

(A totally respectful internet discussion)
Now, this is a tricky area, because while I don’t agree fully with either side, both make some interesting points(not really). My biggest fear in writing on this subject is that some pithy turn of phrase I write in this post, is later used by some Tumblr blogger, or worse an “r/TheRedPill user to further their cause. I'm feeling brave though, so lets sally forth.

When it comes to censoring language I have a pretty simple take. 


There is never a good reason. One of the most powerful tools we have as a species is communication. To restrict our ability to do so is an attack on human advancement. While we as a society do deem certain words offensive or “hate speech”, its almost always in cases when the word itself is inherently abusive to only one group. 
(More polite online debate)
Saying you were “jewed” out of change when buying an item in a corner store is certainly offensive. The word does not describe the action occurring, and being shortchanged in a store is not something unique or ubiquitous to Jewish shopkeepers (outside of stereotypes) so it describes the action inaccurately. To call this “hate speech” in the legal sense, or argue that anyone who uses the term should be censored or face penalties, is simply misguided. Hate speech, at least by Canadian law is inciting hate against a specific group, or using speech to advocate genocide against a specific group. 

So what’s the point, well as much as I don’t care for the term “mansplaining” or the term “cuntfusing” (one of these two words my spellcheck won’t acknowledge, guess which…) I also don’t think anyone should be restricted from saying them. I believe that the use of language that, while not hate speech in a legal sense, but that still uses stereotypes, or attributes the behaviour of an individual to the entire group said individual belongs too should be controlled using… The Invisible Hand of the (language) Market. “Cato, this isn’t economics, you can’t just throw in Adam Smith references”

Yes I can.
(An unedited Adam Smith portrait)

 It’s not because of the “gay agenda” or some legal restriction that the word “fag” fell out of favour on school yards during my youth. It was because there weren’t very many people who didn’t have a gay friend or two. It would have been pretty hard while in conversation with a group of people to drop the word “fag” casually without getting chewed out. This wasn’t because everyone was concerned with the jail time faced by someone insulting “the gays” (as my folks still call them…) it was because the market wouldn’t allow for it. 

Now let’s apply this to our current subject. Ending the #mansplanning vs #cuntifusing debate, is as simple as not doing business (as it were) with people who use these kind of stupid gendered insults. From a legal point of view, neither side is doing wrong. Anyone who is trying to debate there should be legal repercussions towards either party in this typed tirade (or any similar virtual dust-up) is misguided, and is embargoed from discussion of the subject with me. This also goes for any party who thinks this debate is one sided. I’ll put that to bed pretty quickly. Both sides are equally as wrong. Firstly to even have this debate puts down people who like arguing on the internet but are not bi-gendered. That alone must piss off a good 85% of internet SJW's. 

To move on however, if you justify the female side of this debate with the logic that women are currently oppressed by men, have been historically and therefore they are justified in pointing out male privilege, I must disagree. If what were truly fighting for is equality, (and if we can all agree anyone who said “cuntfusing” in a political venue would likely be recalled, where as using the term “mansplaining” is tolerated) then those who use language that plays on stereotypes or colloquial assumptions should not be tolerated. In the case of Australian senator Kathy Gallagher and Communications Minister Smith Fifield, the Minister was doing what all politicians do, avoiding questions, changing subjects, and framing the questions to follow by explaining his narrative - or exactly what every politician ever does. To accuse the minister of doing this because of their gender is sexist. If the senator had said your “Politician-splaining” that would have been way different, but while still playing a stereotype. At least as the senator is also a politician its an equal opportunity insult. However she did not. 

As male identifying person, I am insulted that someone would assume I would talk down to women because of my chosen gender. I am offended that they would assume I think women are stupid. For all they know, in this day and age I could have been a woman. Actually, that’s a good piece of food for thought to end on. Can people who currently identify as male, but were once female identifying “mansplain”? What if they were born in a man’s body but have completed their transition and in every sense (including gentially) and are “out” as their preferred gender of female. They once, at the very least played the role of a guy, can they “mansplain” thanks to the insight their former genitals had? That’s the problem in this day and age. The sheer amour of variety in gender, sexuality and the like, make using gendered or sexuality based insults not only offensive, but probably quite inaccurate. This is why, in my opinion at least, no one who enters this debate has the answer, there’s to many variables and really, it’s not the kind of problem that has a simple answer. Wait did I just enter…

Sunday, 22 May 2016

Why Bombardier turning a profit makes for a bad business model

Profit ? Who needs it

I once heard an article the radio that struck me. It stated very matter of factly way that no national aircraft manufacturer made a profit. I sort of chuckled and wondered what convoluted numbers the had used to demonstrate this. Once the article was over and they had presented their evidence I realized this was not the case. in almost all examples aircraft companies were not making money. Well that’s not totally true, on paper they appeared to generate profit. Behind closed doors however there was a complex system that artificially generated said profits. This was as simple as government subsidies when it started in the 60’s, but throughout the neoliberal privatization of the 80’s and 90’s it evolved into a system of soft power bargaining between the state manufacturing aircraft and the state buying it where treaties, trade, aid etc. all became bargaining chips in an aircraft sale. One common method used by Brazil’s government was to offer low interest loans to purchasers to in order finance the aircraft they were buying, giving them 10 years to repay. 
Image result for confused accountant
(Brazil's frustrated chief accountant)

This was essentially Brazil paying for the aircraft themselves, but not actually having the money from it, where the only profit generated was the interest on the loan’s principal. 

After Brazil privatized its aerospace industry thankfully for their primary manufacturer, Embraer, they had flooded the market enough that there was legitimate demand to not only purchase aircraft, but to pay for them as well. Don't be fooled though, any purchaser would likely still receive incentives from the questionably ethical Brazilian government. 

Thank goodness we live in a better country where we wouldn’t do such things! Free market all the way! Yay Canada! Wait... what’s this, Embraer is filling grievances against Canada with the World Trade Organization. Maybe that’s because of the literal billions that the Quebec and federal governments have pumped into Bombardier. Or maybe its the fact that in its heavily publicized initial commercial sale to Delta airlines, Bombardier is letting its C-series jets go at a 60-70% discount, meaning an approximately 4million dollar loss per an aircraft. This is an important sale for Bombardier though, to compete with the likes of Boeing and Airbus, you have to play the game, and these two giants have been heavily subsidized for years by their respective governments. Not only that but in what analysts suspect is a move to keep bombardier out of the market Boeing has offered its competing narrow body airliner at a 73% discount to United airlines. Meaning the 80million dollar aircraft (similar in price to the c-series) sells for about 22million. 

Why is this just so terrible? Well call me old fashioned but I believe free market capitalism drives innovation. When the purchaser of your product is more interested in the discounts, aid, or other kickbacks that they or their country might receive from buying one product over another, they start to completely ignore the most important part of the sale. The quality of the product. I know it sounds crazy but maybe a company who business model is to hold you hostage at 30,000ft then sell you overpriced refreshments doesn’t care that much about the consumer. When Delta buys Bombardier over Boeing, it doesn’t lose chunks of its market because they’re “Boeing” fanboys, the type of aircraft a person flys on has little to do with their favourite manufacturer and a lot to do with price. This is what allows the airline to skimp on quality and focus on price. All you need to do to prove this is look at the other side of the industry. Ethhiad airlines, are one of the world’s most luxurious carriers, who are known for flying wealthy middle eastern sheiks across the globe. Since cost isn’t an issue, and their clients wouldn’t tolerate anything less than quality they focus on the experience their flights provide. They buy the biggest planes, the quietest planes, ones that can fit an “apartment” which includes two double wide seats, a private shower, and a queen size bed in a separate room for sleeping. Over on this side of the pond however, because the consumer is only concerned with price, that’s all the airline, and therefore the airplane manufacturers  are concerned with. Not developing the best planes, not the most comfortable planes, they’re not trying to push any element of that forward. Rather they seek to deliver the cheapest to buy, cheapest to run aircraft. This focus on only one factor means the design process is set up to fail. You can’t innovate if your hands are tied at all times to the almighty dollar. Things that are not always profitable, are a good idea sometimes. Seat-belts have always lost car companies money since they were added. Most people would say they’re probably a good idea however. Many of the safety features we take for granted were initially costly and never turn a profit. Engineers in the modern aerospace industry can’t take the risk on developing something that won’t make money, and when you think about it this is singular minded design process becomes quite dangerous as a result. The industry should be innovating in all areas of the design process but instead, unless its a feature that cuts costs, it likely won’t be developed. 

Our last hope is that the government might stick up for whats right, with all these subsidies surely  they must be guiding the company to develop technologies that are good for all Canadians. Ones that can make our future brighter. However, as I already mentioned since aerospace companies has been largely privatized, this isn't the case. The Canadian government, although funding most of the Bombardier’s activities has little to no say in what they develop. 

Look, I don’t disagree with crown corporations, we need public utilities and so forth in the hands of the people for their protection from profiteers. However, I also am a big fan of private corporations. What i’m not a fan of, is whatever the hell Bombardier is! A private company that makes no profit ? A crown corporation that doesn’t benefit Canadians
Image result for bombardier delta loss
(Bombardier CEO explaining why
giving away planes makes sense)
Sadly, this won’t change anytime soon. Canada, Brazil, The USA, England, France (as well as a few other smaller states) all heavily subsidize their aerospace industries. No one country can stop, unless they wish to fail, or they convince the rest to do so as well. Big votes come from the regions where these planes are made too, when Learjet (Bombardiers private jet line) collapsed, the residents of… Wichita, were up in arms as many would lose their livelihoods. No politicians hands are tied more than when votes are concerned, thats a well known fact.

So to sum up. Consumers demanding cheap flights makes the almighty dollar key - aircraft manufactures develop cheap planes - airlines want even cheaper planes - government can’t let industry fail as they built it up, and votes are on the line - government subsidizes sales to get a foot in the door - aircraft (artificially cheaper than they should be) drive down ticket prices on airlines who purchased them - people demand cheaper fights - (switch which aircraft manufacturer you buy from and repeat the process) 

Governments, either stop subsidizing these terrible, unprofitable companies, or demand they innovate across the board, not solely in areas that save money. I don’t disagree with public, or private corporations in theory. However I do disagree with the messed up hybrid model that aerospace companies employ. Oh, and we as the consumer have to start demanding something other than low cost from the airlines we use. I know you don’t want to pay more, but you are flying after all, shell out a few more bucks and relish in what would have been considered a miracle for 99% of human history.