Where Could Air Canada Stock Be in 5 Years?
Written by Andrew Button at The Motley Fool Canada
Air Canada (TSX:AC) stock has been taking a beating in recent years. In 2020, in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the stock fell all the way from $54 to $12, as the travel restrictions in that period caused the company's revenue to decline 80%. The company's stock later rallied when the first COVID vaccine was announced, but subsequently gave up the gains for reasons that are less clear.
Today, Air Canada is in a much better place than it was in 2020. It's profitable. It has repaid much of its debt. Its revenue has recovered to its pre-COVID level and then some. Nevertheless, at around $19, AC stock is still nowhere near its pre-COVID stock price. What's going on here?
There are a few lingering issues for Air Canada that have investors worrying about the stock, even though the underlying company is in a much better place than it was before the crash. The question is, why the apparent discrepancy? In this article, I will explore the reasons why Air Canada stock is still at a relatively low level and why I think it will be at a higher one in five years' time.
One reason why some investors are concerned about Air Canada is because of the large amounts of capital expenditures (CAPEX) the company is undertaking in the next three years. CAPEX refers to spending on fixed assets like property, plant and equipment. In the case of an airline, it mainly refers to spending on new aircraft.
Air Canada expects $3.4 billion in CAPEX in 2025, $4.3 billion in 2026, and $4.9 billion in 2027. After 2027, the CAPEX spend is expected to decline.
The amounts of CAPEX above are fairly large. Notably, they exceed the company's past amounts of free cash flow, seeming to imply that Air Canada will be cash flow negative in the years ahead.
Is this CAPEX such a big risk for Air Canada?
In my opinion, no. Airplanes tend to be in service for decades, meaning that a lot of CAPEX now does not mean a lot of CAPEX in the future. Also, Air Canada's revenue has far surpassed levels seen in past years, so unprecedented CAPEX does not necessarily mean chronic cash burn. Overall, I don't think Air Canada's CAPEX is going to ruin the company.
Another reason why people are concerned about Air Canada is because of Donald Trump's trade wars. Earlier this year, Trump slapped a 25% tariff on Canada, ostensibly to counter the flow of fentanyl into the United States. In response, many Canadians pledged to cancel vacations to the United States. Later, data collection firms reported that Canada-U.S. air travel did decline — one story claimed by as much as 70%. Air Canada said that it saw an impact but denied that its U.S. travel hours went down by 70%.
Again, this strikes me as not that big of a risk. Canadians are most likely replacing U.S. travel with inter-provincial travel and overseas travel. Air Canada's most recent earnings release confirms this: revenue was stable year-over-year, and free cash flow was positive. On the whole, Air Canada looks like a bargain at 8.8 times earnings and 1.6 times operating cash flow. I think it will be worth more in five years' time than it is today.
The post Where Could Air Canada Stock Be in 5 Years? appeared first on The Motley Fool Canada.
More reading
Made in Canada: 5 Homegrown Stocks Ready for the 'Buy Local' Revolution [PREMIUM PICKS]
Market Volatility Toolkit
Best Canadian Stocks to Buy in 2025
Beginner Investors: 4 Top Canadian Stocks to Buy for 2025
5 Years From Now, You'll Probably Wish You Grabbed These Stocks
Subscribe to Motley Fool Canada on YouTube
Fool contributor Andrew Button has positions in Air Canada. The Motley Fool recommends Air Canada. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
16 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Grim Reality of the Conflict in Iran
A damaged residential building in Tehran, Iran, on June 13, 2025. Credit - Middle East Images—AFP/Getty In the early hours of Friday morning, Israel launched a sweeping military campaign against Iran. The ongoing operation, which was reportedly planned to unfold over several days, is targeting a list of nuclear and military facilities, as well as senior regime officials, that grows longer by the hour. Iran has thus far retaliated with drones and a substantial missile barrage that could see Israel expand its targeting further still. In a region that has seen endless bloodshed since Hamas's October 2023 attacks, the grim reality is that things may get much worse before they get even worse. Under the Islamic Republic that took power in 1979, enmity toward Israel has been a core ideological tenet of Iranian foreign policy and a key driver in its regional policy. Over decades, their rivalry played out mainly through indirect actions by Iran and by covert operations from Israel. That dynamic changed last year. In April and again in October, the two sides engaged in direct hostilities, with Iran twice launching massive missile salvoes largely repelled by Israeli and allied air defenses. After the second strike, which came shortly after Israel severely degraded the upper ranks of Hizbollah in Lebanon—the most powerful of Iran's proxies—Israel targeted Iranian air defences and missile production facilities, facing little resistance or response. But while Iran's regional power projection was diminishing and its arsenal of missiles and drones twice proved largely ineffective, a third concern—a nuclear threat which Israel considered existential—was still growing. Tehran had been steadily expanding the scale and scope of its nuclear activity ever since President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal during his first term; President Joe Biden's Administration sought and failed to revive it. In March, Trump announced that he had reached out to Iran's leadership to negotiate a new deal, and his administration conducted five rounds of talks in Muscat and Rome in attempts to reach one. For Iran, which sought sanctions relief for its embattled economy, the success of negotiations with the U.S. hinged on concessions it has long opposed: Dismantling its nuclear program altogether or even ceasing the domestic enrichment of uranium. For Israel, eliminating, rather than merely restricting, the production of fissile material that could be used to fuel a weapon has been paramount. For President Trump, the prospect of a military strike by Israel seems a means of strengthening Washington's hand in a diplomatic agreement in which he still remains interested. But at the moment, the question may be less a matter of whether diplomacy can succeed than how grievously the situation could escalate. The worst-case scenarios are dire: A cycle of Israeli and Iranian counterstrikes that draw in the U.S., Iran's non-state allies, and regional states, cause grievous harm to civilians on all sides, and inject profound uncertainty into global markets. Over time, Iran's regime could attempt to reconstitute its nuclear activity from the rubble, only with an explicit aim of fashioning a weapon in the shortest possible time as a means of deterrence in the future. Another disastrous scenario is that the regime in Tehran falls and there is a protracted war for power and chaos or an even harder line regime armed with nuclear weapons. Is there a path out of this deepening crisis? Perhaps, though not a particularly promising one. Trump's stated objective—even as the fire is exchanged in two directions—remains a deal with Iran, and Tehran could offer concessions on the stipulation that it also involve an immediate cessation of hostilities with Israel. Were Iran to concede on its red lines in an effort to stave off greater destruction, perhaps Trump would be keen enough to avert a widening conflagration to also press Israel into ending the escalation cycle as well. Iran's government has previously demonstrated that when facing particularly inauspicious circumstances, especially those that might threaten the very foundations of the regime itself, it can make concessions necessary for its survival. But facing perhaps the gravest crisis it has faced since the eight-year-long war with Iraq in the 1980s, it may end up doubling down to the detriment of its people and the region. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's the Best Way to Invest $100,000 Right Now?
There's no perfect way to put a sum of cash to work. The right strategy depends on how involved you want to be with your portfolio, and your risk tolerance level. There are some good rules you can use to help get you started. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › As always, The Motley Fool cannot and does not provide personalized investing or financial advice. This information is for informational and educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional financial advice. Always seek the guidance of a qualified financial advisor for any questions regarding your personal financial situation. If you'd like to submit your question for feedback, you can do so here. ** If you have a lump sum of cash to invest, and your debts are all under control, what should you do? This is a question that a Reddit (NYSE: RDDT) user recently posted, and it's a very good one to look at more closely. If you had $100k, zero debt, how would you invest your money?by u/cinnamonbon12 in DaveRamsey What I'm about to share isn't personal financial advice. I would need to be familiar with all aspects of your financial situation to make any customized suggestions. But I'm happy to offer some general steps you can take that will point you in the right direction. The first suggestion I'd make is to answer two "test" questions that can give you a solid outline for your investment strategy. The first is asking just how active an investor you want to be. There are three basic levels: "I want to put money in an investment(s) and not have to check on it or worry about it." "I don't mind doing a bit of investment maintenance, but don't have the time, knowledge, or desire to own individual stocks." "I'm well-versed in the stock market (or plan to get there before investing real money) and would love to construct a portfolio of individual stocks." If you are in the first group, it's probably best to look into a robo-advisor. This is a type of investing service where you deposit money, and the platform will construct an age-appropriate portfolio of investment funds. It's the best way to truly put your investments on autopilot. If you're in the second group, definitely read on, but you'll be focusing on index fund investments, not individual stocks. There are hundreds of great index funds to choose from, and a well-constructed portfolio of passive index funds can be a great way to build wealth over time. Finally, if you're in the third group, you've definitely come to the right website. While I can't possibly thoroughly discuss constructing a stock portfolio in a 600-word article, I'd encourage you to check out our list of some of the best stocks to buy, and to browse some of the other great content around Second, you need to determine your ideal asset allocation, unless you plan to use the robo-advisor route. Of course, there's no perfect rule for everyone. One popular guideline is known as the Rule of 110, and it's rather straightforward. Simply subtract your age from 110 to determine the percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks, with the remainder in fixed income assets like bonds and CDs. For example, I'm 43 years old, so this rule says that I should have about 67% of my money in stocks (or stock-based funds), with the rest in fixed income. The idea here is that when you're young and have time to ride out the ups and downs of the stock market, more of your money should be there. But as you get older and preserving your capital becomes more of a priority, you should gradually shift money into "safer" assets like bonds. Of course, you can customize this based on your own risk tolerance and investment goals. For example, if you are planning to retire early, it might be a good idea to err on the side of a higher fixed income allocation. If I were starting from scratch (at age 43) with $100,000 to invest, I'd put about two-thirds of the money in a portfolio of top-quality stocks and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). A basic S&P 500 index fund like the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT: VOO) makes a great portfolio "backbone," and I'd add some top stocks to the mix. For fixed income, I generally use bond ETFs and CDs for my own portfolio. Buying individual bonds is a clunky process, and there's really no reason to do that instead of using an ETF like the Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (NASDAQ: BND). Of course, it shouldn't really matter to you exactly what I'd invest $100,000 in -- that is, unless you're a 43-year-old father of two with 15 years of experience analyzing stocks. Having said that, the point is that by applying the results of the two questions presented earlier, you can help set yourself on the right path to build wealth while simultaneously preserving capital over a long-term investment strategy. Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $368,190!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $37,294!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $653,702!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Matt Frankel has positions in Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Vanguard S&P 500 ETF and Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. What's the Best Way to Invest $100,000 Right Now? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
