AVEOS closes the doors

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: AVEOS closes the doors

Post by Rockie »

BverLuver wrote:I thought EVERYTHING negative in this world was a direct result of a Canadian Conservative Government?
You might have thought that but I never did. If you want to discuss something you're going to have to start making some sense.

Hey wait a minute, are you Hedley posting on yet another login name?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: AVEOS closes the doors

Post by Colonel Sanders »

So you think that only one person disagrees with your bombastic view of the world?

Question (which you probably won't answer): Have you ever been in the employ of a private sector company? (AC obviously doesn't count, since the gov't and it's employees both act as if it is still a crown corporation, like the CBC).

Or, have you spent your entire life in the employ of the gov't?

Just wondering.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: AVEOS closes the doors

Post by CID »

Do you even know what a scope clause is?
Yes I do. Anyone who knows anything about airlines knows what a scope clause is. Anyone who knows anything about union contracts knows what a scope clause is. Anyone who actually asks that question has likely only recently learned what a scope clause is.

You look at a scope clause as job protection but airlines see it as another obstruction to flexibility. I can certainly see why they would rather not have one.

Air Canada fairly recently joined a couple of other airlines in the world who have actually forced an aircraft maker to conjure up a special model number for an airplane to embed their scope clause. The CRJ-705 is just a 900 limited to 70 passengers.

Same reason the CRJ-44 was invented. The airlines that operated them had to spend a lot of time, effort and money to "un-44" their aircraft as the scope clause crept up to 50.

I find it amazing that unions have that much clout. All the way to the type certificate of an airplane to impose an artificial passenger limit.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”