BAD NEWS

[CanadaEH]

Ignorance on the conditions of your security pass is not a legal option.Take up your argument with security it's not my idea..

You're so fucking stupid its actually quite sad. Non-"working" employees have been grooming aircraft for 10+ years and its completely legitimate. If it weren't Transport Canada would've been all over us in the first week of operation. Guess what, 10 years later and we're still doing the same thing; contrary to your own pathetic opinion.

Unfortunately low cost does dilute safety regardless of your opinion.

Air Canada has had plenty of safety incidents so by your logic legacy carriers are unsafe too. If WS was such a safety concern we'd be in the papers as much as Jetsgo was.

[Four1oh]

Too bad kid. You would have looked real good in that 777. But I guess that writing was on the wall too. Oh jeeze, there's that size thing again. Sorry.

Fortunately for me, I don't suffer from 'small dick syndrome' nor do I suffer 'short man syndrome', or hair loss. Lucky me, eh? Even if WJ bought 777's I wouldn't be in the mob rush to get into that plane either.

[tonysoprano]

You lucky guy.

[complexintentions]

Fortunately for me, I don't suffer from 'small dick syndrome' nor do I suffer 'short man syndrome', or hair loss. Lucky me, eh? Even if WJ bought 777's I wouldn't be in the mob rush to get into that plane either.

Yep, uh huh, sure, sounds like it, guess that's why you're in the Air Canada forum arguing with Tony about Air Canada's financial results, which by any yardstick are remarkable...no, they didn't make money but they are rapidly redefining a company several orders of magnitude older and larger than WestJet, which I submit is far more difficult than starting from scratch and being in the right place at the right time. Why is it you love to compare WestJet's profit with AC's losses, yet get all pissy when other not-so-flattering comparisons are made to things like history and fleet composition? ie as in, compared to Air Canada WestJet has very little of either. Seems a bit immature to me, which quite frankly would seem to sum up much of WestJet's vaunted "corporate culture".

As far as being "fucking stupid", to use CanadaEh's elegant phrase, I flew the 737 and now fly the 777 and to NOT choose the latter if you could really WOULD make someone fit that description...maybe wait until the big Boeings actually show up before you make your decision. If you feel the need to interpret that as some sort of "my airplane is larger than yours thing", it isn't and I can't help you...it simply is such a technically superior a/c I don't even know where to begin and your statement made me embarassed enough for you to motivate me to post.

Having said that, with many excellent colleagues at WestJet I know that the posters here do not really represent the mainstream, thank god...just curious, are the WJ fan boyz here pilots or other staff? Or even employees of WestJet? Just curious.

[Red1]

Boys and girls play nice.

The funny thing is that both carriers need each other . Right now in Canada we have a nice duopoly going on, with both companies being able to profit (well hopefully AC will make money). It keeps everything honest, and the prices low enough that the consumer will travel, but high enough where both carriers should be able to make money. Nobody want to see the return of the Jets Go day's or further back to the Canadian days, where nobody makes money. Remember we are all pilots here just doing a job, it doesn't really matter if you play for the Red team or the Teal team or what size your aircraft is. We all transport people from A to B as safely and efficiently as we can.

Making comments about safety etc.. is completely uncalled for and totally lacking in professionalism

[Huge Hammer]

Having said that, with many excellent colleagues at WestJet I know that the posters here do not really represent the mainstream, thank god...just curious, are the WJ fan boyz here pilots or other staff? Or even employees of WestJet? Just curious.

Pot this is kettle...kettle I'd like you to meet pot...

[Four1oh]

Complex. I think you need to read my post in context with tony's. I was merely pointing out that tony's little shot about how big his airplane was doesn't bother me in the least. I can't believe I have to explain myself on that one.

[Machiavelli]

What Red1 said. Market stimulation and fair prices. Give everybody a nice safe flight and don't gouge 'em for it. Maybe we can leave the "I know more than you"'s to the trolls and get to the more important stuff like if I want to jumpseat on Air Canada can I get some extra request sheets from anybody just in case the Captain isn't carrying any?

P.S. Sorry to the Air Canada pilots for the fee for jumpseating with us. It's an internal fairness thing. Everybody pays.

[Rebel]

Ignorance on the conditions of your security pass is not a legal option.Take up your argument with security it's not my idea..

You're so fucking stupid its actually quite sad. Non-"working" employees have been grooming aircraft for 10+ years and its completely legitimate. If it weren't Transport Canada would've been all over us in the first week of operation. Guess what, 10 years later and we're still doing the same thing; contrary to your own pathetic opinion.


My my such an emotional response. We have been told that our security clearance is only valid when we are on duty. For your information CATSA controls security not TC. Perhaps WJ has a let from CATSA to allow off duty employees to work airside grooming aircraft. It would be interesting to find out, you know in the interests of a level playing field..

[Machiavelli]

Troll.

[Four1oh]

Welcome back Rebel you putz.

[Jaques Strappe]

How does this thing work at Westjet where "off duty" people are grooming airplanes? Surely people are not coming to work on days off to clean airplanes because they have nothing better to do.

I thought the crew simply did a tidy up during the turn. What exactly is the procedure?

Cheers

[Huge Hammer]

I thought the crew simply did a tidy up during the turn. What exactly is the procedure?

The procedure is that along with the crew any WS employees who are travelling stand-by or non-rev on business helps out with the groom after the flight (the exception being a RON plane).

Usually takes about 10 minutes at the max.

[Jaques Strappe]

So if they have already been screened and are onboard, It is really no different than than any pax crossing the seatbelts on his seat and bringing his garbage to the front as he de-planes. I can't see CATSA having an issue with that.

It's not like they have "off duty" employees doing cabin security searches. I can see CATSA and Homeland Security having an issue with that.

[Four1oh]

Bingo! Jaques, you're exactly right.

[Jaques Strappe]

The Apples and Oranges argument is accurate to a degree. The cultures at these airlines are entirely different. There are pros and cons to both but in the instance of this example of grooming, I will illustrate a difference in culture.

An Air Canada flight arrives at the gate late, the agent wants to board as quickly as possible to maintain the sked and offset any possible downline disruptions as a result of leaving late. Four cabin crew members and possibly a pilot will stand in the galley and talk while waiting for groomers. If the groomers are late, too bad, it is the companies fault, they should hire more groomers. Grooming an airplane is not my job.

A Westjet flight arrives at the gate next door in the same predicament. Who do you think leaves on sked?

I realize that I am going to get bashed by the AC crowd here but I put this out as a thought provoker. The mentalities at these companies are completely different. I am not going to say one is better than the other, just different. I can certainly appreciate the culture ( in general ) at Westjet and think AC could learn a thing or two. Westjet could do the same.

Tony, I am not writing off AC but if the people who make up the company are not willing to change with the industry, then we risk becoming something called a dinosaur. Perhaps if Air Canada employees were given some ownership in the airline and a seat on the board like at Westjet, things would be different? That is just one example of learning from our competitor.

In the end, we are all playing the same game and the ultimate goal should be to make this game more fun and rewarding for all of its' players.

[tonysoprano]

JS.
Ownership wouldn't change the attitudes of some of our employees. We shouldn't underestimate the negative effects that both CCAA and the merger have had on the AC employee morale. We also shouldn't underestimate the negative morale tacticts being produced from the top down. For all the critism I have stated toward Clive B. there is one thing I'll give him. He has always managed to keep things positive with his employees. We call it brainwashing, but what ever you call it, it works. On the other hand Robert has been anti employee from day one. I doubt very much we will change the attitudes at AC in the near future. Still, I don't think that will make us a dinosaur. We have been awarded for our innovation, for what it's worth. On the topic of grooming, I doubt our pilots and f/a's can do a good job of grooming. An airplane should be free of garbage and gum etc. Not just crossing seat belts and kicking the rubbish under the seats. JS, maybe you should consider a change in employer. It sounds like you will not find in AC what you are looking for. Just putting things in perspective, that's all.

[grammar boy]

Unfortunately low cost does dilute safety regardless of your opinion. The WJ YOW incident was a perfect example of that, of course you can be in denial all you want.

Rebel: Can you remind me of the reason the FO's at AC have to hop up and do a pre-takeoff contamination inspection of the wings every single time after you have deiced? Didn't AC have a similar incident? I'm fuzzy on the details, as I have been a little too busy to frequent the forums lately and keep up with the news, so please correct me if I am mistaken.

If you are referring to the YOW incident where the aircraft was deiced, told they were clean, no falling precip and appeared clean from the flight deck windows, then departed without being completely clean, I fail to see how that can be blamed on purely being a Low Cost carrier. Regardless, it has been noted, and procedures have been created to reduce the chance of a reoccurance.

Let's not play the "incidents" game, as I'm sure there are lots on both sides that have nothing to do with what the average cost per seat mile is on the carrier.

Cheers.

[tonysoprano]

If you are referring to the YOW incident where the aircraft was deiced, told they were clean, no falling precip and appeared clean from the flight deck windows, then departed without being completely clean, I fail to see how that can be blamed on purely being a Low Cost carrier. Regardless, it has been noted, and procedures have been created to reduce the chance of a reoccurance

grammar boy.
I totally agree. Low cost or not, incidents do occur. On the other hand, what happened to AC was a well publicized lesson to be learned, not only by AC but other operators too. Which begs the question, why didn't other operators, including WJ, adopt the same policy AC did of post deice checks? Had they done so, the YOW incident could have been a non event. We're supposed to learn from each other's mistakes, right? I have not read the whole story on the YOW thing but it sounds like the BOS AC incident could have been a similar lesson to be learned and avoided.

[Jaques Strappe]

Tony

We can do several things, we can dwell on the merger and CCAA and reamain pissed off, we can hate Robert Milton all we want. Milton will not be around forever and the merger along with CCAA can be put behind us. If we so choose. So, going forward I see two choices. Change the way we think, or remain in the present resentful state.

You say I should consider a change in employer because you doubt the attitudes of employees will change, yet you deny that Air Canada in its' present form, is a dinosaur. Not sure I understand that. We can sit here and blame it all on whatever we want........merger, CCAA, management, government, employees, unions...the list goes on. Or we can attempt to move forward.

I guess thinking outside the box and possibly seeing how others create success warrants looking for another employer at Air Canada.

What a pity.

[Rebel]

grammar boy

Glad you see you back from your hibiscus. You missed a thread on the WJ forum on the YOW incident of which I was referring. Your recounting indicates another occurrence.

"derk99
Rank 0

Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 7
Location: yow Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:59 am Post subject: heads are rolling in yow

Now before all you westjeters jump all over me i am just passing on some info and in no way are trying to start problems.Anyways the manager for your ground handling company has been fired and 2 supervisors may also be let go as soon and the investigation is complete.Sometime in mid january they deiced only half of a aircraft and it departed without incident but the managers did not want westjet to find out what happened for obvious reasons but a disgruntled employee called westjet and gave them the info and the flight and the date and they sent investigators to yow to find out what happened.The deicing truck and crew deicing the starboard side left the flight to fill up the deicing truck because it ran out of glycol but they did not tell the crew deicing the port side that they had not completed the deicing so after they were complete they dispatched the aircraft, it was not until they came back to complete the deicing did they tell anyone that they did not deice the starboard side.When the managers found out they called the crews in and told them to keep quiet and no one would find out but someone did.So all you westjet pilots please have a look at your wings after deicing has been completed it only takes a few seconds but no one wants to see anything happen that may cause a problem."

AC did have a similar incident in BOS which explains the extra precautions we take on de-icing operations. However no matter what spin is put on it the Captain is ultimately responsible for the de-icing of his/her aircraft. As far as I know both incidents involved hiring outside companies at the cheapest rate. It appears you get what you pay for..

So I’m afraid there's a growing consensus that low cost does dilute safety. It might work outside of aviation but it’s deadly in our profession..

Cheers

[tonysoprano]

JS.
You're right, we should move forward. The point I was trying to make is it won't be easy. With time and new leadership, it will be possible. I just get the feeling you want to become a whole new company, the likes of WJ (Lord forbid ), with the flick of a switch. As you say, it's time to put the past behind and RM will move on. These things take time. The bigger the company and the longer the history, the more time it takes for change. AC has unions which are resistant to change. We won't do this overnight, perhaps we never will. If AC proves to be a money maker, that will help. The emphasis is on time and faith. If you accept that, you accept being part of the team. If not, time to look elsewhere to be happy. I'm in the same boat as you. But I have faith in where we're going. If in the end I'm wrong, so be it. I don't accept the wright-off that the competition has proclaimed on AC. Neither do I accept the panic the likes of you envoke on this great company of ours. Take the good with the good, the bad with the bad and enjoy what you do. Don't get wrapped up in the ridiculous economics of the "new world". Enjoy those long layovers in LGA and look forward to those long layovers in Europe in the not so distant future. You surely don't need me to tell you that.

[2low]

[Huge Hammer]

Ownership wouldn't change the attitudes of some of our employees. We shouldn't underestimate the negative effects that both CCAA and the merger have had on the AC employee morale. We also shouldn't underestimate the negative morale tacticts being produced from the top down. For all the critism I have stated toward Clive B. there is one thing I'll give him. He has always managed to keep things positive with his employees. We call it brainwashing, but what ever you call it, it works. On the other hand Robert has been anti employee from day one. I doubt very much we will change the attitudes at AC in the near future. Still, I don't think that will make us a dinosaur. We have been awarded for our innovation, for what it's worth. On the topic of grooming, I doubt our pilots and f/a's can do a good job of grooming. An airplane should be free of garbage and gum etc. Not just crossing seat belts and kicking the rubbish under the seats. JS, maybe you should consider a change in employer. It sounds like you will not find in AC what you are looking for. Just putting things in perspective, that's all.

Anthony I am not sure that you get what is going on outside of your view.

Your comment about "we call it brainwashing but whatever you call it, it works" is telling. It is not a matter of calling "it" anything. It is about creating an environment where everyone is on the same team and wants the same results. Common goal - when the company prospers - everyone prospers.

That being said it is not for everyone, does not make it any less wrong or right, just different.

I think you missed the point of an AC crew helping out on the groom. If, in the scenario suggested the AC crew of 4 tiedied up for 5 minutes while waiting would it not make the groomers job go fatser when they go there? I think that was the point that was being made. FWIW at WS we don't "kick the rubbish under the seats" when we groom on turns. I am sure the AC rew could do a reasonable job at it.

If however you feel a 767 skipper finds it too difficult a task to cross some seat belts and pick up a bit of garbage and "coukd not do a good job grooming"...well than who am I to argue. I guesss it is a good thing pay is based on aircraft size and not degree of difficulty in work

Again, different strokes for different folks.

[tonysoprano]

If however you feel a 767 skipper finds it too difficult a task to cross some seat belts and pick up a bit of garbage and "coukd not do a good job grooming"...well than who am I to argue. I guesss it is a good thing pay is based on aircraft size and not degree of difficulty in work

Your statement says it all. You just have no idea and probably never will. Here's a reality check for ya to groom an airplane somewhat larger than a 737 : some 220 seat belts to cross, several garbage bins to be emptied and eight lavs to clean, pick up the garbage, remove all the blankets and pillows, replace them with new ones, then start the preflight cockpit prep for an overseas flight!! And typically with less than an hour to go before pushback. Then go flying for the next ten hours overnight. The scenario brought up earlier suggests the crew accomplish this before the groomers get there. Only JS or a WJ pilot is capable of this I guess. Yep, there's that size thing again. You can keep your "ownership". When was the last time you flew a 767? Let's move on to another topic, shall we? Apples and oranges.