Gino Under wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:33 am
There would be no staff travel, Period.
There would be no interline travel, Period.
No “freebies “!!! Period.
Why? Because that’s where we are. I’d pinch every penny, not once but twice.
I’d also place the airline into hibernation with the exception of about 5-10% of the operation.
But, let's be honest. I'm no more capable of running an airline than I might like to imagine.
Gino
Good luck getting anyone to apply to be a flight attendant for $30,000 a year.
Standby travel is worth gold to airline executives as a way to help keep actual compensation low.
Good thing you don't run AC or any airline. Sounds like it would be a major failure.
Gino Under wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:33 am
There would be no staff travel, Period.
There would be no interline travel, Period.
No “freebies “!!! Period.
Why? Because that’s where we are. I’d pinch every penny, not once but twice.
I’d also place the airline into hibernation with the exception of about 5-10% of the operation.
But, let's be honest. I'm no more capable of running an airline than I might like to imagine.
Gino
Good luck getting anyone to apply to be a flight attendant for $30,000 a year.
Standby travel is worth gold to airline executives as a way to help keep actual compensation low.
Good thing you don't run AC or any airline. Sounds like it would be a major failure.
Yeah and why does he think that staff travel costs the airline anything? The plane is going from A to B regardless, who cares if there’s people sitting in the otherwise empty seats?
Somebody bust out their calculator and figure out the fuel burn for 4 extra people...
TheStig wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:01 am
For those who are unfamiliar Jetz aircraft are A319's configured for charters (the Canadian NHL teams and Blue Jays). Obviously they aren't being flown right now and this is an interesting, and fairly low risk test. The loads are going to be light regardless, why not maximize yield?
I flew on a Jetz flight once. Over to Milwaukee when I went to Oshkosh one year for fun. I had checked the loads a few days before using my friends AC travel login password on the AC travel site(So handy over the years for planning commuting and vacations). Anyways, what seemed like a wide open flight suddenly was not when I checked again and saw that it had suddenly gone down to only 50 seats on the aircraft which I assumed was an aircraft substitution to a CRJ. But it was an airbus. Then I got on and I realized it was a Jetz aircraft.
I had a nice seat but there was club seating behind me. I thought I might try the empty backward seat for takeoff and landing but the cabin crew said it was not allowed. Seemed to me it would be safer if there was a sudden deceleration in an accident.
Does anyone pay tax on their ‘passes’ these days?
I’ve had that “what’s an empty seat worth once the main entry door is closed” discussion lots over the years.
If it’s taxed it’s worth something of value.
No staff or interline traveller “needs” to travel. If there is, (like bereavement) there’s a remedy for that.
Deadhead or positioning not the same.
Desperate times. Desperate measures.
BTW, I’m sure if I ran an airline I’d have run it into the ground years ago.
Gino
---------- ADS -----------
"I'll tell you what's wrong with society. No one drinks from the skulls of their enemies!"
Gino Under wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:34 pm
Does anyone pay tax on their ‘passes’ these days?
I’ve had that “what’s an empty seat worth once the main entry door is closed” discussion lots over the years.
If it’s taxed it’s worth something of value.
No staff or interline traveller “needs” to travel. If there is, (like bereavement) there’s a remedy for that.
Deadhead or positioning not the same.
Desperate times. Desperate measures.
BTW, I’m sure if I ran an airline I’d have run it into the ground years ago.
altiplano wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:43 pm
The flip side of if an empty seat has value and flies empty it's a deductible loss. CRA doesn't want to open that up.
That is not a valid argument. Paid parking lots around the country have vacant places all the time and yet, parking provided by your employer is a taxable benefit and an empty parking space is not a deductible loss.
altiplano wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:43 pm
The flip side of if an empty seat has value and flies empty it's a deductible loss. CRA doesn't want to open that up.
That is not a valid argument. Paid parking lots around the country have vacant places all the time and yet, parking provided by your employer is a taxable benefit and an empty parking space is not a deductible loss.
It is a valid argument because it is the way it is.
Empty parking lots with spots for sale don't get to claim a loss.
Vacant hotel rooms, unoccupied rental properties, unrented cars, none of them get to claim a loss.
The feds have tried to put it as a taxable benefit, but they can't rectify the flip side of it. They can't have it both ways.
altiplano wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:43 pm
The flip side of if an empty seat has value and flies empty it's a deductible loss. CRA doesn't want to open that up.
That is not a valid argument. Paid parking lots around the country have vacant places all the time and yet, parking provided by your employer is a taxable benefit and an empty parking space is not a deductible loss.
It is a valid argument because it is the way it is.
Empty parking lots with spots for sale don't get to claim a loss.
Vacant hotel rooms, unoccupied rental properties, unrented cars, none of them get to claim a loss.
The feds have tried to put it as a taxable benefit, but they can't rectify the flip side of it. They can't have it both ways.
Sure, my argument is that free or reduced cost travel should most definitely be a taxable benefit if parking is. Your argument is that CRA doesn’t want to open up the “flip” side, which doesn’t actually exist.
That is not a valid argument. Paid parking lots around the country have vacant places all the time and yet, parking provided by your employer is a taxable benefit and an empty parking space is not a deductible loss.
It is a valid argument because it is the way it is.
Empty parking lots with spots for sale don't get to claim a loss.
Vacant hotel rooms, unoccupied rental properties, unrented cars, none of them get to claim a loss.
The feds have tried to put it as a taxable benefit, but they can't rectify the flip side of it. They can't have it both ways.
Sure, my argument is that free or reduced cost travel should most definitely be a taxable benefit if parking is. Your argument is that CRA doesn’t want to open up the “flip” side, which doesn’t actually exist.
My argument does exist because that's the way it is... But here's another angle on it...
Scramble parking for employees isn't a taxable benefit.
Parking on employer owned land isn't a taxable benefit.
Employee discounts at retail stores and staff meals at restaurants aren't taxable benefits either.
If employee travel was confirmed I might agree, but I've been left at the gate, had to change or cancel my plans, go back to the hotel, buy a confirmed last minute ticket, etc. etc...
I guess it's the typical Canadian attitude though. "I don't have that so it's not fair, they should be taxed." Lots of resentment for what other people have out there ..
Parking lots???
Put an average 10 nonrevs on any flight. That’s weight. Therefore a sip more of fuel over the limited number of flights currently operating while losing $2 billion per quarter is still an expense. Dealing with your booking is an expense. Checking through security, an expense, dealing with a CSR at the gate, and during your flight, what about the packet of dry snacks, that coffee, they’re all expenses that add up and the airline is losing billions per quarter and this discussion is now about parking lots?? Seriously?
I have to wonder if the cabin groomers know which unused seat they don’t need to clean after a flight or series of flights? Any lack of efficiency is an expense when it’s not respected.
Nonrevs are an expense not needed at present.
You have to get right down in the weeds and pinch the pennies. Desperate times. Desperate measures folks. $2 billion per quarter.
How about no one should be paying tax on any pandemic relief (CEWS and EI) related to all this industry devastation? Paying tax on a taxpayer relief program just seems nuts to me. But, there you go.
There are mechanisms in place to claim losses (for both a parking operation and an airline) but my point is that it is not based on individual seats or parking being empty. It is based on net operating losses, on a yearly basis. Having empty seats may lead to NOL, however, you if at the end of a year and airline made more than it spent, it can’t claim losses, regardless of how many seats flew empty. Same for a parking operations.
Free/reduced cost parking is however a taxable benefit for an employee. Free/reduced cost flights are by the same logic taxable benefits. In fact, there is a very informative website that defines different types of taxable benefits here: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency ... 063_132847
There is a section on aircraft and parking. Both are taxable benefits (and for parking, even an employer-owned parking is considered taxable benefit).
You may disagree (and I am not particularly fond of these rules) but it is the law.
AuxBatOn wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:41 am
There are mechanisms in place to claim losses (for both a parking operation and an airline) but my point is that it is not based on individual seats or parking being empty. It is based on net operating losses, on a yearly basis. Having empty seats may lead to NOL, however, you if at the end of a year and airline made more than it spent, it can’t claim losses, regardless of how many seats flew empty. Same for a parking operations.
Free/reduced cost parking is however a taxable benefit for an employee. Free/reduced cost flights are by the same logic taxable benefits. In fact, there is a very informative website that defines different types of taxable benefits here: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency ... 063_132847
There is a section on aircraft and parking. Both are taxable benefits (and for parking, even an employer-owned parking is considered taxable benefit).
You may disagree (and I am not particularly fond of these rules) but it is the law.
You're ignoring or not understanding the difference though. It either has value or it doesn't, CRA can't have it both ways.
Also, as I said employee parking is not always a taxable benefit, again "scramble parking" or parking on employer property. Also apparently CBSA at YYZ... but that's another story.
Gino Under wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:12 am
Parking lots???
Put an average 10 nonrevs on any flight. That’s weight. Therefore a sip more of fuel over the limited number of flights currently operating while losing $2 billion per quarter is still an expense. Dealing with your booking is an expense. Checking through security, an expense, dealing with a CSR at the gate, and during your flight, what about the packet of dry snacks, that coffee, they’re all expenses that add up and the airline is losing billions per quarter and this discussion is now about parking lots?? Seriously?
I have to wonder if the cabin groomers know which unused seat they don’t need to clean after a flight or series of flights? Any lack of efficiency is an expense when it’s not respected.
Nonrevs are an expense not needed at present.
You have to get right down in the weeds and pinch the pennies. Desperate times. Desperate measures folks. $2 billion per quarter.
How about no one should be paying tax on any pandemic relief (CEWS and EI) related to all this industry devastation? Paying tax on a taxpayer relief program just seems nuts to me. But, there you go.
Gino, Ret.
There is nowhere near 10 cons average per flight. The cost of non-rev travel is a rounding error, not even, nobody deals with your booking, it's all automated, you still pay the AIFs and security fees, and the airline keeps a portion of that for collecting it... on top of that there is a direct benefit to the airline in keeping it's people happy. Besides, pretty much only non-revs today are commuters... that benefits the airline also because people need to get to work.
altiplano wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 7:14 am
You're ignoring or not understanding the difference though. It either has value or it doesn't, CRA can't have it both ways.
Also, as I said employee parking is not always a taxable benefit, again "scramble parking" or parking on employer property. Also apparently CBSA at YYZ... but that's another story.
I fully understand and per my last post, I explained how that value is assesses for a taxable benefit vs assessing a net operating loss.
As far as parking goes, employer-owned parking lots are indeed taxable benefits (“Employer-provided parking is usually a taxable benefit for an employee, whether or not the employer owns the lot.”) Also, I would go read the definition of scramble parking on the link I sent you. If the employer provides enough parking on a daily basis, it is no scramble parking, even if there is no assigned parking spots (“If you provide enough parking spaces for all employees who want parking, but do not assign the parking spaces to individual employees, this is not scramble parking. You must add the benefit to the employee’s remuneration.“). If 20 people physically go to work per day and all 20 want parking spots, if there are 20 or more spots available, it is not scramble parking.
Maybe that has changed re-taxable for employer owned spaces, or maybe there is more to it.
But as I mentioned regarding scramble parking - not taxable, certainly there are not always adequate seats, when choosing to fly on passes, I can't go prime time, and the employer does not reimburse me for expenses incurred when I don't get one.
Also, I don't think I'm explaining well what I mean on the loss on an empty seat, I'm not referring to end of year profit/loss, but the ability to take a write down on the lost potential. Perhaps someone else can explain it to you better, I'm not an accountant. Another parallel may be if I'm a landlord I can write off a lost rent for a skipped/failed payment, but I can not write off a month my property was vacant.
TheStig wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:01 am
For those who are unfamiliar Jetz aircraft are A319's configured for charters (the Canadian NHL teams and Blue Jays). Obviously they aren't being flown right now and this is an interesting, and fairly low risk test. The loads are going to be light regardless, why not maximize yield?
I flew on a Jetz flight once. Over to Milwaukee when I went to Oshkosh one year for fun. I had checked the loads a few days before using my friends AC travel login password on the AC travel site(So handy over the years for planning commuting and vacations). Anyways, what seemed like a wide open flight suddenly was not when I checked again and saw that it had suddenly gone down to only 50 seats on the aircraft which I assumed was an aircraft substitution to a CRJ. But it was an airbus. Then I got on and I realized it was a Jetz aircraft.
I had a nice seat but there was club seating behind me. I thought I might try the empty backward seat for takeoff and landing but the cabin crew said it was not allowed. Seemed to me it would be safer if there was a sudden deceleration in an accident.
Interesting , I don't that there are any restrictions on using the rear facing seats and I believe that AC is marketing the club seats as a feature for families. On the sports charters those seats are usually occupied by the card sharks.
Players tend to be creatures of habit and don't tend to change seats, the FA's who fly with teams all season quickly learn to cater to the food, snack, drink, blanket, etc. tendencies of each occupant. I was always incredibly impressed with every aspect of the charters. In an industry that's increasingly turned into a big cattle-drive it was great to see such a service oriented product delivered.
TheStig wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:01 am
For those who are unfamiliar Jetz aircraft are A319's configured for charters (the Canadian NHL teams and Blue Jays). Obviously they aren't being flown right now and this is an interesting, and fairly low risk test. The loads are going to be light regardless, why not maximize yield?
I flew on a Jetz flight once. Over to Milwaukee when I went to Oshkosh one year for fun. I had checked the loads a few days before using my friends AC travel login password on the AC travel site(So handy over the years for planning commuting and vacations). Anyways, what seemed like a wide open flight suddenly was not when I checked again and saw that it had suddenly gone down to only 50 seats on the aircraft which I assumed was an aircraft substitution to a CRJ. But it was an airbus. Then I got on and I realized it was a Jetz aircraft.
I had a nice seat but there was club seating behind me. I thought I might try the empty backward seat for takeoff and landing but the cabin crew said it was not allowed. Seemed to me it would be safer if there was a sudden deceleration in an accident.
Interesting , I don't that there are any restrictions on using the rear facing seats and I believe that AC is marketing the club seats as a feature for families. On the sports charters those seats are usually occupied by the card sharks.
Players tend to be creatures of habit and don't tend to change seats, the FA's who fly with teams all season quickly learn to cater to the food, snack, drink, blanket, etc. tendencies of each occupant. I was always incredibly impressed with every aspect of the charters. In an industry that's increasingly turned into a big cattle-drive it was great to see such a service oriented product delivered.
Interesting for sure. Are those sports team trips assigned by seniority bids per trip or are crews assigned on a yearly basis. I would imagine there is a specific code of conduct like not looking for autographs, picture taking etc.
Old fella wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:43 pm
Interesting for sure. Are those sports team trips assigned by seniority bids per trip or are crews assigned on a yearly basis. I would imagine there is a specific code of conduct like not looking for autographs, picture taking etc.
Yes the Charters are normally part of the monthly pairings, in playoffs the pairings are constructed later and placed into open time and covered by Reserves or picked up by Block holders. Some pairings are better than others, some don't involve flying the teams at all and are just repositioning the airplanes before jumping on a deadhead home. 48 Hour Nashville layovers go pretty senior. Some pilots love the Charter flights and others can't stand them. Things aren't as straight forward as sched flying and most of the flights are post-game and involve landing at 2-3am. There is a code of conduct, it's all pretty obvious stuff like you mentioned, but like everything, has had to be written down for a reason.
