China_CAAC's Merged Threads

[RidersRule]

My previous post that I delayed just related to not banning anyone from the sumpseat, but I decided I didn’t want to wade into that mud hole...staying out of conversations that lead to the swamp so to speak

So I’m not sure how it relates to your point.

[aerobod]

Westjet 737 fleet Oct 18 2017:
737-600 (13)
737-700 (56)
737-800 (49) includes 800MAX

Total 118
--------------------------------------
Westjet 737 fleet May 14 2018:
737-600 (13)
737-700 (54)
737-800 (54) includes 800MAX

Total 121
-------------------------------------
Westjet 737 fleet Oct 10 2018:
737-600 (13)
737-700 (54)
737-800 (51) includes 800MAX

Total 118
------------------------------------
Swoop 737 fleet Oct 10 2018:
737-800NG (5)
All year 2015 build.

------------------------------------
Oct 2017 to Oct 2018 Westjet took delivery of (6) 737-800MAX and (2) 737-800 NG

Source http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/C ... c&m=%7c%7c

An additional 2 MAX 8s were received in Sep 2017. While the 8 MAX 8s and 2 -800s were received, 7 -700s leased from BOC came up to lease end, 5 were extended to allow the -800s to be transferred to the Swoop fleet and not shrink the mainline fleet, only 2 of the -700s (tails 255 & 260) were given back at lease end.

There are quite a few more -700s and -800s for lease expiry in 2019 (6) and 2020 (5). With 6 MAX deliveries in 2019 to offset lease returns, the mainline fleet can be kept constant or slowly growing while Swoop takes aircraft from the mainline fleet by using lease extensions on the aircraft that are coming to lease end.

[Diadem]

Losing money on every flight is not the way to fight a competitor.

I flew with a guy the other day that was making the same argument and ranting against Swoop. I mentioned how the entire Canadian industry was bleeding during the fight against Jetsgo and just lowering ticket prices is not the way to compete. His response : Whats a Jetsgo?

When NewLeaf/Flair announced that they were going to start service to Mesa, WestJet started service to Mesa despite already operating to Phoenix, for the same price as NewLeaf was going to charge; the latter cancelled the route before it started. WestJet has enough brand loyalty and connections to make running a new competitor out of town viable, and they have the financial clout to survive a bit of a battle. If WestJet wanted to, they could match Flair's prices on the routes on which both operate and force the latter out of business, potentially without losing money considering their connections and loyalty.
Instead, management decided to set up a direct competitor, with no connections or loyalty program, and replace WestJet service with Swoop on several routes. It's hard to see how Swoop could do much besides exist in parallel to Flair, which will push fares down far more and affect WestJet's financial stability in the long run far more than simply going head-to-head using their traditional product.

[Blue42]

Factually incorrect. This was the lie told to the staff at WJ by management. The newest -800's in the fleet were sent to Swoop, not one lease return went there.

You need to read my comment again, as you obviously didn’t understand it the first time. I didn’t say the lease returns went to Swoop, they were retained in the fleet to free up aircraft and a consistent set of -800s were sent to Swoop.

Right you are. Shouldn't post when tired.

However, the management did tell the pilots that the lease returns would be going to Swoop, not that they would be staying in the WJ fleet to allow the transfer of owned aircraft to swoop.

Management never specifically said which tails would be going to Swoop! They said exactly what he explained, leased aircraft would be retained to start up and expand Swoop. They never said the leased aircraft would be the ones going to Swoop.

[aerobod]

Losing money on every flight is not the way to fight a competitor.

I flew with a guy the other day that was making the same argument and ranting against Swoop. I mentioned how the entire Canadian industry was bleeding during the fight against Jetsgo and just lowering ticket prices is not the way to compete. His response : Whats a Jetsgo?

When NewLeaf/Flair announced that they were going to start service to Mesa, WestJet started service to Mesa despite already operating to Phoenix, for the same price as NewLeaf was going to charge; the latter cancelled the route before it started. WestJet has enough brand loyalty and connections to make running a new competitor out of town viable, and they have the financial clout to survive a bit of a battle. If WestJet wanted to, they could match Flair's prices on the routes on which both operate and force the latter out of business, potentially without losing money considering their connections and loyalty.
Instead, management decided to set up a direct competitor, with no connections or loyalty program, and replace WestJet service with Swoop on several routes. It's hard to see how Swoop could do much besides exist in parallel to Flair, which will push fares down far more and affect WestJet's financial stability in the long run far more than simply going head-to-head using their traditional product.

When a competitor is small and unstable in the market, using the approach WestJet did with Mesa against NewLeaf will work quite quickly. Now Flair has some momentum and a lower cost base (NewLeaf had the problem of Flair markup when they bought lift from them). With David Tait now in charge at Flair and his broad experience in the industry, the airline with the lower cost will win, in this case that is not WestJet mainline.

[Mach1]

It was certainly an option a couple of years ago to use -700s when Swoop was first discussed and was seen as the least disruptive path, but it obviously was not workable, as one of the basic ULCC principles is maximum seat capacity for an aircraft with a given range that meets the mission needs, the -800 is far more efficient in this respect at 189 seats and the economics are well known from Ryanair operations. The issue with the -800s is that a lot of the early ones had significant configuration variability from a systems and ETOPS perspective, the later ones before MAX delivery are much better in that respect, another important factor in ULCC service. The decision on which aircraft was made in a very pragmatic manner.

There was a time when our management would have told us that straight up before it happened. There was communication of both good and bad news. The company stopped talking with the employees and started talking to the employees, thus removing the cornerstone of culture (hint: the culture was not built on grooming the aircraft for free) and they got a union because of that fact. Thank you for your explanation, it's the first one I've heard that took time to discuss some of the reasons why things were done the way they were done.

Also from an accounting perspective, Swoop costs are very tightly monitored and any mainline service provided to Swoop has to be logged under Swoop accounting codes. Before I retired from WestJet IT we had to justify and identify WestJet IT services provided to Swoop at full economic cost, Swoop IT then had to determine whether WestJet or external providers would be more cost efficient to meet their targets. They are very tightly controlled to hit the 7c CAD ex-fuel CASM that has been publically discussed with analysts. Although they are not a separate public company, they are treated effectively as separate from a budget, profit and management perspective, much more than Encore is.

This is good information. Voids are often filled with rumour and fear.

Management never specifically said which tails would be going to Swoop! They said exactly what he explained, leased aircraft would be retained to start up and expand Swoop. They never said the leased aircraft would be the ones going to Swoop.

I was in the room when our management specifically told us the Swoop tails would be the lease returns. Several times, in fact, when they were questioned on the matter.

[aerobod]

It was certainly an option a couple of years ago to use -700s when Swoop was first discussed and was seen as the least disruptive path, but it obviously was not workable, as one of the basic ULCC principles is maximum seat capacity for an aircraft with a given range that meets the mission needs, the -800 is far more efficient in this respect at 189 seats and the economics are well known from Ryanair operations. The issue with the -800s is that a lot of the early ones had significant configuration variability from a systems and ETOPS perspective, the later ones before MAX delivery are much better in that respect, another important factor in ULCC service. The decision on which aircraft was made in a very pragmatic manner.

There was a time when our management would have told us that straight up before it happened. There was communication of both good and bad news. The company stopped talking with the employees and started talking to the employees, thus removing the cornerstone of culture (hint: the culture was not built on grooming the aircraft for free) and they got a union because of that fact. Thank you for your explanation, it's the first one I've heard that took time to discuss some of the reasons why things were done the way they were done.

Also from an accounting perspective, Swoop costs are very tightly monitored and any mainline service provided to Swoop has to be logged under Swoop accounting codes. Before I retired from WestJet IT we had to justify and identify WestJet IT services provided to Swoop at full economic cost, Swoop IT then had to determine whether WestJet or external providers would be more cost efficient to meet their targets. They are very tightly controlled to hit the 7c CAD ex-fuel CASM that has been publically discussed with analysts. Although they are not a separate public company, they are treated effectively as separate from a budget, profit and management perspective, much more than Encore is.

This is good information. Voids are often filled with rumour and fear.

Management never specifically said which tails would be going to Swoop! They said exactly what he explained, leased aircraft would be retained to start up and expand Swoop. They never said the leased aircraft would be the ones going to Swoop.

I was in the room when our management specifically told us the Swoop tails would be the lease returns. Several times, in fact, when they were questioned on the matter.

Telling everyone sensitive business material ahead of time became problematic about 5 years ago, with several leaks from different groups (especially middle management and pilot groups). These leaks had the potential to cause the company to be in breach of trading laws if they had spread too far and caused the stock price to change. From a risk assessment, a lot of the information released to a wide employee group in the past was often insider information, but most employees receiving that info were not controlled as insiders (appropriate and specific NDAs and trading restrictions, amongst other things). Over the past number of years anyone receiving sensitive business info has so on a need to know basis and under a signed NDA for that particular project to avoid the risk situation the company had previously been placed in. Any detailed knowledge on Swoop, 787, new loyalty initiatives and other recent projects were controlled in this way, with the majority of employees learning about the project at the same time a press release went out.

From the perspective of using lease returns directly into Swoop, this was definitely a possibility early on, but the economics of the -700 could not hit the business case requirements and there weren't enough -800 lease returns soon enough to meet the business case timelines. The details had to change a lot to make the project viable, after the initial socialisation of the project with key groups early on.

[jjj]

So one man's JS ban is righteous and the other is not? You are a true defender of the faith eyebrow.

Have a nice day.

JJJ

No no, not at all, in fact I have come around to you and your rubber gloved colleagues hard won and lengthy arguments on right and wrong.

Pilots who do anything that lowers the standards, should in any way be punished against grievances of the common good.

So bearing that wonderful realization (thanks again!) I have started a list of things I consider detrimental to our profession and will ban all violators from my cockpit.

First and foremost will be airline pilots who have demeaned the profession by donning rubber to pick up trash in front of passengers and also taking away our brother and sister aircraft cleaner jobs ( stay strong comrades, I got your back)

Of course I can't say that I speak for the entire industry like WestJet pilots do, as to what is right and wrong but maybe together we can make a difference.

Hopefully in the future negotiations these violators will be able to act as professional pilots and give the cleaning jobs back to our comrades who have suffered so. They will then be welcomed back into the JS with open arms and rousing songs of kumbaya.

Next I'm working on pilots who offered to work for free or pay for their type ratings.

One step at a time my comrades.

So WestJet and Jetsgo types are out for reasons stated above.

The Swoop guys who wear gloves and undercut us all for the worst WAWCON in the industry are in.

Your position is clearly hypocritical.

FWIW - I don’t groom in front of guests.

Cheers.

JJJ

[Schooner69A]

"First and foremost will be airline pilots who have demeaned the profession by donning rubber to pick up trash in front of passengers..."


I once worked with a pilot who had joined BOAC after the war. Said that back then, not only did Captains NOT ride in the same conveyance as the rest of the crew, they did not stay in the same HOTEL as the rest of the crew.


And here I thought prima donnas were restricted to opera...

[countdown]

Losing money on every flight is not the way to fight a competitor.

I flew with a guy the other day that was making the same argument and ranting against Swoop. I mentioned how the entire Canadian industry was bleeding during the fight against Jetsgo and just lowering ticket prices is not the way to compete. His response : Whats a Jetsgo?

When NewLeaf/Flair announced that they were going to start service to Mesa, WestJet started service to Mesa despite already operating to Phoenix, for the same price as NewLeaf was going to charge; the latter cancelled the route before it started. WestJet has enough brand loyalty and connections to make running a new competitor out of town viable, and they have the financial clout to survive a bit of a battle. If WestJet wanted to, they could match Flair's prices on the routes on which both operate and force the latter out of business, potentially without losing money considering their connections and loyalty.
Instead, management decided to set up a direct competitor, with no connections or loyalty program, and replace WestJet service with Swoop on several routes. It's hard to see how Swoop could do much besides exist in parallel to Flair, which will push fares down far more and affect WestJet's financial stability in the long run far more than simply going head-to-head using their traditional product.

A battle vs a war. Jetsgo was war, if the ULCC are able to get a good foot hold WestJet and Aircanada will be in for another war - everybody loses.

I'm not a supporter of how the whole Swoop thing has gone down, but I do think it's a good business strategy.

To be clear, because I know someone will flip out, starting up an ULCC is a good strategy, not exactly the way it was done regarding WestJet pilots.

[CaptainHaddock]

You need to read my comment again, as you obviously didn’t understand it the first time. I didn’t say the lease returns went to Swoop, they were retained in the fleet to free up aircraft and a consistent set of -800s were sent to Swoop.

Right you are. Shouldn't post when tired.

However, the management did tell the pilots that the lease returns would be going to Swoop, not that they would be staying in the WJ fleet to allow the transfer of owned aircraft to swoop.

Management never specifically said which tails would be going to Swoop! They said exactly what he explained, leased aircraft
would be retained to start up and expand Swoop. They never said the leased aircraft would be the ones going to Swoop.

This is a pet peeve of mine. WestJet management certainly implied that they were just using 737 lease returns for Swoop, the could have just been straight forward and said to the pilots they are taking 10 (or more) 2-21/2 year old 800’s fully owned by Westjet.This is exactly what they told investors on the annual call, but not their own employees with clear transparency. This policy has been followed out ever since, which has lead to even greater discord with other employee groups. Swoop is touting a 95% load factor, but with super cheap tickets-flying full and cheap has been done before. Slim margins while decreasing the engagement and competitive advantage we had at mainline by actively circumventing ALL your employees trying to get those pennies.
The argument that they want to ‘keep competitors guessing’ is foolish when you are just alienating your employees (formerly known as owners) and degrading the efficiency and buy in for your prime product and revenue generator (WestJet Airline).
For many of the defenders of Westjet’s current trajectory I just point the spotlight on employee certification drives, continuous change of EVP’s, low share value. I am a ‘Westjetter’ and REALLY hope they can get their sh!@ together, it’s super frustrating to keep positive and engaged on the line when you have little faith in the management. They lie, spin the truth, and pit groups against each other-these aren’t winning traits.

Peace out

[Dream]

Just a quick question, is it mandatory for the flight crew to groom aircraft at every turn? Or do they do it to just to help out the cabin
Crew? Is it an understanding that they ‘must’ as in written in their ops manual?
I wouldn ‘t think crossing seatbelts and chatting with the cabin crew wouldn’t be that much of a torture that people keep alluding to.
As long as it doesn’t infringe on your flying duties and allows you to get your coffee or sandwich for the next flight.
Just my 2 cents

[munzil]

Just a quick question, is it mandatory for the flight crew to groom aircraft at every turn? Or do they do it to just to help out the cabin
Crew? Is it an understanding that they ‘must’ as in written in their ops manual?
I wouldn ‘t think crossing seatbelts and chatting with the cabin crew wouldn’t be that much of a torture that people keep alluding to.
As long as it doesn’t infringe on your flying duties and allows you to get your coffee or sandwich for the next flight.
Just my 2 cents

Good question, if the are just helping out that is fairly normal. Can someone from WestJet answer this question?

[countdown]

Flight deck duty's take priority, but you are expected to help out, fact is there is pretty much always time to help. Over the last year or so it has gotten easier - on the majority of turns you just go through and gather up garbage and fold the seat belts - a third party groomer does everything else.

If I was told tomorrow it's no longer required I wouldn't be disappointed, but it's really not a big deal. That said, we used to be expected to keep the floor clean on most turns and were not provided with adequate equipment - that sucked.

[J Roc]

Yes, it is mandatory but not mandated through our COM/FOM. It's a company policy that applies to all Westjet employees, from CSA traveling on standby to an executive on business travel, not just operating crew - "Assume you'll groom" is WJ's fluffy mantra.

That being said, operating crew are never expected to put grooming before operational responsibilities or safety related tasks. Typically, pilots start grooming after the walk around has been completed and flight plan/wx/notams have been reviewed.

Regarding time for food or coffee? - Most pilots check-in with their crew to confirm whether or not they require time for food or coffee. When turn times are tight and the crew have coffee requests, usually one person (usually a pilot) will make a coffee run. Failing that, or if people need more time to grab food, then we take a delay to assure everyone is properly fed and fit for duty. And yes, I've done this in the past. Management may call regarding a delay, but if you support your decision with vaild reasoning, stating safety and fitness for duty, than they're usually pretty supportive.

Hope that answers your question.

[munzil]

Why would you guys join a company that orders you to clean an aircraft?

I get that for smaller aircraft and operators, we've all done that, but a career job?

We all have our own morals over what we accept and will sacrifice, but isn't this a slippery slope?

Though he comes across a little toxic, i gotta say I side with eyebrow on this one.

I guess we are all somewhat responsible for the state of the industry.

[jjj]

Check your procedures gentleman. The only time a pilot at WS is required to groom is when they are travelling under the employee standby promise which is the umbrella for the "assume you'll groom."

NOWHERE in our COM / FOM etc does it require any grooming. It is also why our MEC has expected exactly 0 negotiating capitol on the matter for the first CBA. It does not exist as a condition duty nor will it exist in the CBA.

There is an expectation for pilots to groom whilst on duty from the back end and the odd other employee travelling for whatever reason. Some of us are changing that. I've had CEOs and chief pilots on many occasions as I frequently operate PSP and I do not put on gloves in front of guests. I do my flight duties and I stand politely at the front and say goodbye to guests. When all of the above is done - I'm not above pitching in and helping a bit. There are many a Dash driver or Southwest pilot that does the same.

There is also an expectation that pilots help the FAs in the morning with security checks. Again - some of us are changing that expectation one flight at a time. I'm also the guy that ropes in a few FOs to stay in the flight deck while said procedures are happening in back.

Cheers.

JJJ
Detriment to aviation for 27 years

[.80@410]

Check your procedures gentleman. The only time a pilot at WS is required to groom is when they are travelling under the employee standby promise which is the umbrella for the "assume you'll groom."

NOWHERE in our COM / FOM etc does it require any grooming. It is also why our MEC has expected exactly 0 negotiating capitol on the matter for the first CBA. It does not exist as a condition duty nor will it exist in the CBA.

There is an expectation for pilots to groom whilst on duty from the back end and the odd other employee travelling for whatever reason. Some of us are changing that. I've had CEOs and chief pilots on many occasions as I frequently operate PSP and I do not put on gloves in front of guests. I do my flight duties and I stand politely at the front and say goodbye to guests. When all of the above is done - I'm not above pitching in and helping a bit. There are many a Dash driver or Southwest pilot that does the same.

There is also an expectation that pilots help the FAs in the morning with security checks. Again - some of us are changing that expectation one flight at a time. I'm also the guy that ropes in a few FOs to stay in the flight deck while said procedures are happening in back.

Cheers.

JJJ
Detriment to aviation for 27 years

What he said ^

After saying goodbye , reviewing paperwork and notams, and walk around etc .. IF there is anything left we can CHOOSE to help . Period. End of story.

[J Roc]

Hahaha..."detriment to aviation for 27 years". That gave me a good gut chuckle...

You're 100% right. Nowhere in the COM/FOM does it state a requirement to groom, however, it is one of those "see Westnet for details" kinda things. A "global" company policy that applies to all Westjetters. Grey and vaugue, and another reason our MEC decided not to take an official position on our grooming policy, not yet anyways - our ALPA legal council feared it would be viewed as an illigeal work stoppage.

I agree with your sentiment tough - nothing is beneath my station in life. I'm more than happy to chip-in after all my assigned duties have been completed.

[J Roc]

.