AC ship C-FMWY on final approach at LHR – photo by Johannes Pape
Before heading out to Vancouver to catch the Olympics I sat down to contemplate Air Canada’s decision to splash out significant cash to be in the Olympic advertising picture. If reports are to be believed, Air Canada paid anywhere between 15 and 30 million dollars (US) for the privilege of being an “Official Supporter” of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.
My question is why? Let’s be honest, the Air Canada balance sheet does not exactly show a lot of wiggle room for costly ego projects. Is it just a case of private enterprise trying to capitalize on patriotic fervor? Future arrangements would suggest that this might be the case; British Airways has locked up similar rights to London 2012 and Aeroflot has locked up Sochi 2014. However, lessons – as the old adage goes – are best learned from the past, not the future. Let’s not forget that Ansett Australia, Canadian and Pan Am all held similar designations for Olympic Games past (Sydney, Calgary and Sarajevo respectively) and none of them are still alive and kicking to talk about the value of those investments.
I’m not saying that the money AC sunk into the games was not worthwhile I’m saying they (and others in the future) should augment their approach – they should attain these designations at the alliance level, not the airline level. I doubt the Vancouver Olympic Committee would have had too much issue with making the Star Alliance (rather than Air Canada) an official supporter. After all they would still get their money, likely even more than AC ultimately forked over. Were such an arrangement made, I’m sure the stakeholders within the Star Alliance would have been able to come to an agreement determining how much each member carrier should contribute – even allowing uninterested members to opt out.
Consider the medal count against the countries of origin of Star Alliance carriers:
| Country | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total | Star Carriers | ||
| 1 |  |
USA | 9 | 15 | 13 | 37 | US Airways, Continental, United |
| 2 |  |
Germany | 10 | 13 | 7 | 30 | Lufthansa |
| 3 |  |
Canada | 14 | 7 | 5 | 26 | Air Canada |
| 4 |  |
Norway | 9 | 8 | 6 | 23 | SAS |
| 5 |  |
Austria | 4 | 6 | 7 | 17 | Austrian |
| 7 |  |
Korea | 6 | 6 | 4 | 16 | Asiana |
| 8 |  |
China | 5 | 2 | 4 | 11 | Shanghai Airlines |
| 8 |  |
Sweden | 5 | 2 | 6 | 13 | SAS |
| 11 |  |
Switzerland | 6 | 0 | 3 | 9 | Swiss |
To me the above table screams lost opportunity. Air Canada would still have received enough coverage at home to keep WestJet at bay and it would have further benefited from revenue sharing arrangements with a number of its partners – all of whom would also have been able to exploit patriotism in their back yards.
I understand how complex it would have been to facilitate an arrangement such as the one I have described, but I really do feel it would have been a worthwhile exercise. Besides, the top dog at AC is a former lawyer and an expert in such matters and might have been able to handle the legalese himself, saving a few more bucks.
