Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Is ACPA going to go after Canjet, Transat, Sunwing and Westjet as well for competeing against Air Canada Vacations?tjtailwind wrote:It may not be in direct competition with Air Canada, but it sure is in direct competition with Air Canada Vacations...
I guess there'll be no excuse for hiring foreign pilots now. They better be giving SS pilots direct entry positions or I'm gona be angry, and you won't like me when I'm angryBlack Cat wrote:Hey Sask. You might want to add sunwing to your hit list too as signature vacation also used skyservice planes and pilots.
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/09/2 ... ml?ref=rss
at any rate, good luck to the SS ppl.
You won't...unless they get 767s as well, because the 75 ain't (heavy, that is...)ywg9 wrote:I cant wait to hear Jazz 8998 HEAVY lol it will be a shocker the first time
I know weight wise the 757 isn't a heavy, but I thought it was designated a heavy for some reason? I honestly can't remember ...You won't...unless they get 767s as well, because the 75 ain't (heavy, that is...)
Yes still in that class with the winglets.flyinhigh wrote:You are right, the 57 use to be designated a heavy due to the wake vortex, however now that they have the winglets I don't know if it is in this class.
True for whoever follows them but not when they're taking off behind a heavy, so they don't use the suffix on the R/T.Pourdu_fun wrote:Yes still in that class with the winglets.flyinhigh wrote:You are right, the 57 use to be designated a heavy due to the wake vortex, however now that they have the winglets I don't know if it is in this class.
Pourdu
That's not accurate. You do not need 6 months on type to hold ACA. You need an AME M2 and a TC approved '57 type course. Type courses for heavies are typically 6-7 weeks, so all the Jazz AME's who require the course will have it in time for the proposed flying season. Of course the Skyservice guys would no doubt be valuable assets to Jazz regardless of this... especially the first year or two.airmech07 wrote:Look on the bright side some Skyservice mechanics will be lucky, as they will be getting jobs from this. Jazz mechanics will not be endorsed in time for this because they need 6 months on type experience (courses start in July). This deal could save the airline industry in toronto. with the integration on 757 and q400 there will be a demand in workload...To the pilots..at least you have something to throw into your collective agreement...this 757 will give you guys more leverage with the company...too bad us mechanics got nothing..
Inverted2 wrote:Is ACPA going to go after Canjet, Transat, Sunwing and Westjet as well for competeing against Air Canada Vacations?tjtailwind wrote:It may not be in direct competition with Air Canada, but it sure is in direct competition with Air Canada Vacations...
Our revenue comes from a CONTRACT with Air Canada .. which means we provide a service and get paid for it. Thats the extent of it ...Last time I looked Canjet, Transat, Sunwing and Westjet didn't get 99% of their revenue from Air Canada....
Yabbut this is completely separate flying from Air Canada. Jazz has every right to seek a more diverse revenue from different customers. Ever hear of the old saying: "Don't put all your eggs in one basket?" If Jazz was required to get 99% of it's revenue from Air Canada, then Jazz would be an owned entity of Air Canada. Just sayin'bcflyer wrote:Inverted2 wrote:Is ACPA going to go after Canjet, Transat, Sunwing and Westjet as well for competeing against Air Canada Vacations?tjtailwind wrote:It may not be in direct competition with Air Canada, but it sure is in direct competition with Air Canada Vacations...
Last time I looked Canjet, Transat, Sunwing and Westjet didn't get 99% of their revenue from Air Canada....
Well I think company B may get mad if Company A were to get some nice new shiney hammers that were nicer than company B's.mattedfred wrote: company A is under contract to company B to shingle roofs for a percentage of company B's new houses
company A used to be a wholly owned subsidiary of company B but it is now completely independent and has been doing some adhoc roofing jobs
company A derives 98% of its revenue from it's contract with company B and wishes to diversify and expand
company A is approached by company C who has been working with company D to build houses. company C is no longer interested in maintaining a business relationship with company D due to their debt load.
company A consults with its legal department to determine whether they could do business with company C while adhering to the contract it has with company B. legal says it can.
company C petitions company D into receivership
company A signs an agreement to roof houses for company C
would company B care that company A was roofing houses for company C if this was the construction industry and the agreement between company A and B allowed it?
one would think that all they would care about is whether they living up to the agreement
|
Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!
We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal
behavior is apparent.
All rights reserved.
