Accommodations for Westjet new hirers during training

[mattedfred]

didn't bullshit answer the phone?

seriously though, not all unions are created equal. perhaps your experience has been different than mine.

[Four1oh]

you're absolutely right that they're not all created equal, yet in the 4 I've been in, and only of them were as a pilot, the message has been all the same. Management is out to @#$! us over so let's @#$! them first!

[Machiavelli]

Assume WestJet started to provide hotels for those newhires starting groundschool. In the interest of "fairness" WestJet-style, would all new-hires living in Calgary be given a cheque for, let's say $5000 to equate the value of hotel rooms provided for their classmates that don't live in Calgary? Is this what Air Canada does?

[Intentional Left Bank]

I didn't live in Calgary when I got hired. My sponsors, none of whom support company-funded accommodations, volunteered to put me up, and I took them up on the offer. I was very grateful, and unable to pay back, decided to pass the favour on. My wife and I now open our doors on a regular basis to folks who come to Calgary for training, gratis. A few guys I know here have put up a dozen or more pilots during initial training. Its a different way of doing things, sure, but under some circumstances this policy can arguably build morale. It made me realize it was a different place, in a very good way.

[tonysoprano]

Assume WestJet started to provide hotels for those newhires starting groundschool. In the interest of "fairness" WestJet-style, would all new-hires living in Calgary be given a cheque for, let's say $5000 to equate the value of hotel rooms provided for their classmates that don't live in Calgary? Is this what Air Canada does?

Those hired at AC have the option of going home or using the hotel if they live in yyz. I believe they are reimbursed a small travel expense. On my course I recall one yyz guy who used the hotel. He said it made it easier to study, more quiet, close to the training center and gave him a chance to get to know his course mates.

[Flying Nutcracker]

Can someone tell me the complications of having multiple bases versus a one base multiple ports when it comes to the strategic deployment plan (winter/summer) and the seasonal changes in schedule and crew compliment requirements?

Also, what happens to a base when there is a reduction in flying out of that certain base based on operational changes to the strategic plan of deployment in situations such as the economic downturn we're seeing these days?

Given a seniority based basing, is it better for the employees to actually have multiple bases or to have ports, when it comes to the logistics of shutting down a base?

Just some questions that popped into my head reading through some of these posts...

[Rotten Apple #1]

Flying Nutbreaker,

Hope this answers some of your questions:

With an established base, the company must try to 'force' flying into the base regardless of actual seasonal demand. In order to keep the hours 'fair' between bases, pairings are constructed on a less than efficient basis. It can be no other way.

Under the 'ports' system that surely WestJet, warts and beauty spots and all is a pioneer, pairings can be generated on an 'as required', read 'efficient' manner.

i.e. if we have charters out of YLW to PVR in the winter, let's make a single day pairing out of that, for YLW 'port pilots'. Else, the port pilots fly out of YYC. What makes the most sense from a corporate, making money, point of view versus a "what's in my immediate self interest point of view?"

Seniority is not a consideration at WestJet, other than for upgrades and layoffs. I'll leave others to respond to that.

Ports are the best that "The Almighty Horton" could envision when he created the Earth in WestJet's eyes. I like the system because it appeals to the efficiency expert in me (Should there exist such a creature).

[Flying Nutcracker]

Thanx, JD!

My point of asking was to maybe shed some light on just those points, that easily get forgotten when the perspective is from bottom to top.

But there are naturally different opinions about this, as has been proven on this board...

It just seems that there are more problems with several bases, rather than the flexibility of the port-system...

[Rotten Apple #1]

To add to the above: I worked at three outfits prior to WJ that had more than one base. Without skipping a beat, it was inevitable that pilots at one base would accuse pilots at the other (others) of 'stealing' their flying. "Those Halifax bastards are getting our Boston layovers (or Charlottetown, etc)", or, "Why do we have to do the YUL redeyes, when the flying starts out of YVR?". Shit like that.

It's almost inevitable with people. As soon as you divide them up, they're looking at the other group (blacks, hiphoppers, small penis guys, Battlestar Galactica fans) as if they were out to ruin their lives.

I think that WJ decision makers would have to have an incredibly strong financial argument (more than the ones that pilots present here) before they agreed to bases. Once you agree to bases, there is absolutely no going back.

I agreed to work at WJ with no promise of ports and no promise of bases, and I still chose to live off-base. I'm happy with my life and work. My one vote says let management, via "The Almighty Horton", keep doing what makes sense economically and culturally and corporately, and I'll agree to making sure the guests get to their destination in one piece (more or less).

I think that if we got bases I'd be looking sideways at some guy, let's call him 'Naked Dave', if he were getting OGG layovers (in his speedo) because he was YVR based, and I wasn't getting any and I was (let's say) YYC based. And I'd probably be counting the number of pairings out of each base that went to Hawaii and then calculating statistics to prove that I was getting screwed (or not getting 'screwed' as the case may be) because 'Naked Dave' is getting, unfairly, pairings that I was entitled to. Note the intentional use of the word 'entitled'.

I'm just a line driver. So are most of the guys that post on here. Perhaps WJ people with perspectives different from ours and perhaps more global, have a clearer view of what's best for us all at WJ.

[Four1oh]

Looks like a nail on the head there, Johnny.