"Boy, am | glad Jetsgo is gone. Now | don't have to deal with their terrible service."

Mi EDITORIAL

Jetsgo’s Fall Raises Questions

STEPHANIE WILSON
MANAGING EDITOR

The slogan for jetsgone.net is sim-
ple and to the point: “Pay a little. Fly
nowhere.” When the discount airline
Jetsgo abruptly filed for bankruptcy
protection at midnight EST on
Friday, March 11, an estimated
17,000 passengers were indeed left
with nowhere to fly - at least with
Jetsgo.

' The politics of Jetsgo’s proverbial
fall from grace are starting to get
interesting, if not disturbing. When
Jetsgo continued to book flights up to
an hour before the company filed for
bankruptcy protection, federal
Transportation Minister, Jean
Lapiene told reporters in Ottawa
that, “at least they won’t be stranded
anywhere because the reality is that
by midnight, it was out,” according to
a CTV report. On March 16, the
Globe and Mail reported that Jetsgo
CEO Michel Leblanc had known on
Wednesday, March 9 that the compa-
ny would inevitably have to be shut
down and that pilots were told to fly
a group of planes to Quebec City on

Thursday, March 10 under the pre-
tense of examining “air worthiness.”

_Federal Finance Minister, Ralph,

Goodale eliminated the position of
Air Tr avel Complaints
Commissioner from the 2005 budget
that was unveiled on February 23.
Ottawa has made it clear that it will
not provide any compensation to
Jetsgo ticket holders. Transportation
minister, Jean Lapierre told reporters
in Ottawa that, “there’s not a taxpay-
ers’ cent that is going to get involved
in this.”

Now allegations have surfaced that
Jean Lapierre called Air Canada
CEO, Robert Milton only hours
before Jetsgo declared bankruptcy to
discuss Jetsgo’s collapse, according to
the the Toronto Star. The Toronto Star
article states, “the transport minister
says the call was part of a contin-
gency plan to help Jetsgo passen-
gers.” If Jean Lapierre really-did not
know that Jetsgo was shutting down,
why would he call Robert Milton
before Jetsgo cancelled its flights?

With the demise of two airlines in
five years - Canada 3000 in 2001 and
Jetsgo in 2005 - many Canadians are
asking the federal government to cre-
ate a fund to provide reimbursement
to those who hold tickets for a bank-

rupt airline. This isn’t a new idea:
TICO, the Travel Industry Council
of Ontario, operates a compensation
fund under Ontario’s Travel Industry
Act to assist people who booked tick-
ets through a registered travel agent.
A federal compensation program
might be a quick short-term solution,
but it doesn’t seek to answer any
questions about the Ministry of
Transportation’s involvement in this
case.

It is also ridiculous that Ottawa is
playing the ‘we can’t interfere with
the markets’ card when they've spent
so much time keeping Air Canada
alive. A free market approach to air-
line operations in Canada should not
mean that one airline is allewed to
operate in a protected bubble.

Jetsgo’s business plan may have
been unsustainable, but with so many
messy allegations surfacing,
Canadians deserve to know what
happened and why so many were left
with worthless tickets. A federal com-
pensation program is not the solu-
tion, Instead, Canadians should be
asking for answers that will hopefully
prevent another fallout in Canadian
skies.

Pay A Little. Fly Nowhere.

11
MARCH 23, 2005

Letter to the Editor

On Sex

By PETER BAGNALL
CONTRIBUTOR

In the last issue of Over The Edge,
I found that there was a distinct and
disconcerting similarity between three
articles; the article promoting the
vibrator as ‘the greatest invention of
all time,’ the commentary that illus-
trated how ‘Contraceptives ... Top
Campus Drug Plans,’ and the piece on
‘Becoming Orgasmic.’ Each of these
articles seemingly builds on the pre-
supposition that sex is only for fun. I
feel that it is important to challenge
this assumption with a diametrically
Opposed viewpoint that many may
find wildly conservative and counter-

cultural, but I see as being logical and

even liberating! Though I won’t argue
with the fact that sex is fun, I strongly
disagree that the purpose of sex is only
pleasure; instead, I think that pleasure
should be a most welcome byproduct
of the sexual act which is meant to be
both unitive and procreative.
DISCLAIMER: Since one can
never know for certain the reasons
why a person does what they do, there
is a profound difference between judg-
ing an action and judging a person
who does that action. I hope the read-
er will understand that this article is

not intended to offend or attack per-

sons of a particular lifestyle, but rather
to convey my beliefs about the objec-
tive sexual act.

Noting that sex is necessary for the
continuation of our species, we can
compare it with two other appetitive
(and intrinsically desirable) acts which
are also necessary for our survival:
sleeping and eating. Surely it is plea-
surable to get to sleep; however, plea-
sure is not the reason we sleep.
Indeed, the purpose of sleep is to
allow the body time to rest and recu-
perate. Similarly, the natural purpose
of eating is nourishment. We all

“1 may not agree with what y

defend to the death your rig

acknowledge that a tasty meal can be
quite satisfying; however, we say that a
person who eats for the mere pleasure
of eating and then induces vomiting to
avoid its natural effects has an eating
disorder, On the other hand, people
who eat good food at the proper times
for the purpose of nourishment are
healthy: individuals. This analogy
extends to sex, which has natural ends
of bonds (the unitive aspect) and
babies (the procreative function), and
it follows that these should be the pri-
mary ends of sex.

Of course, the view that sex should
always be procreative leads to logical
conclusions against artificial birth con-
trol, homosexual sex, masturbation,
and oral sex (when practiced in isola-
tion from intercourse). Indeed, if the
telos of a sexual act is only unitive,
then the act is not giving to others in
the community (or is not at least trying
to give the gift of a child) but is a sort
‘of “dual selfishness’; an act only for the
pleasurable benefit of the two people
involved. Meanwhile, sex which is
solely procreative defies the personal-
istic norm which states that ‘a person
must never be used as the means to an
end.’ Sex which is neither a procre-
ative or unitive act (prostitution, mas-
turbation, ‘sex for fun’) is clearly the
height of hedonistic self interest.

Some readers may offer the con-
tention that this view of sex simply
isn’t realistic. I agree. It ig emphati-
cally idealistic. I also believe, however,
that in all things we should strive for
the ideal.

In trying to reach this ideal, I
believe we will see that sex, when prac-
ticed for the right reasons and at the
right time, is a beautiful—even vener-
able—joining together of two individ-
uals with a common purpose for their
own good and the good of all society.

ou have to say, but 1 will

to say hte”
- Voltaire

The opinions expressed in the editorials or letters to the editor that are sub-
mitted to Over the Edge are not the opinions of Over the Edge or UNBC. The
views expressed in a letter are the views of the authors, and do not reflect the

views of Over the Edge.

Over the Edge welcomes your submissions to our opinions section. Due to
the high volume of letters we receive, we would appreciate it if letters were
kept to 500 words or less. To submit a letter to the editor, e-mail over-the-

edge@unbc.ca

ij 4m %

-ZAGA’

Parkwood Place, Prince George