TA REJECTED

[yyz monkey]

The government had to lock out Emirates to avoid them obliterating your international traffic.

Have to correct you on this one - the government said no to Emirates because there isn't enough O&D traffic between Canada and the UAE to justify the operations they wanted to put in place, not to protect Air Canada - that's just Emirates spin.

[Doug Moore]

So when you knock some costs off the crew, the ground handlers, gate agents and fire some useless managers, it adds up to savings. Considering the margins are razor thin and you have little control over things like fuel costs, navigation, aircraft leases and interest payments, those savings start to look pretty attractive.

Yep, the Suits are always about "savings" and this is where "savings" can take you: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flying-cheaper/

The aviation industry is just another business to run for the Suits. But airlines, as a business model, are unique because of their potential to bring harm to its customers. The uniqueness is "safety" and safety costs money. In my view, the only time a Suit will pay anything other than lip service to the costs of safety will be when he/she finds herself sitting white-knuckled on board an aircraft, with the cabin full of smoke and looking out the window at an engine on fire. That tends to focus one's attention but at that point in time, "savings" will be the last thing on his/her mind. Unfortunately, then it's too late - and those "savings" might turn out to be not very attractive at all.

[CanadianEh]

So when you knock some costs off the crew, the ground handlers, gate agents and fire some useless managers, it adds up to savings. Considering the margins are razor thin and you have little control over things like fuel costs, navigation, aircraft leases and interest payments, those savings start to look pretty attractive.

Yep, the Suits are always about "savings" and this is where "savings" can take you: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flying-cheaper/

The aviation industry is just another business to run for the Suits. But airlines, as a business model, are unique because of their potential to bring harm to its customers. The uniqueness is "safety" and safety costs money. In my view, the only time a Suit will pay anything other than lip service to the costs of safety will be when he/she finds herself sitting white-knuckled on board an aircraft, with the cabin full of smoke and looking out the window at an engine on fire. That tends to focus one's attention but at that point in time, "savings" will be the last thing on his/her mind. Unfortunately, then it's too late - and those "savings" might turn out to be not very attractive at all.

+1. Something definitely needed to be said about the safety aspect of the business. The airline business is one of the few businesses where you can't cut corners without the potential of lost lives.

[Mig29]

Thanks for that updated video on "flying cheapER" Doug.

Here's another one that has been brought up on another forum here, and is worth a look. Don't judge this video because it's not made by CNN or BBC please....


http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes ... 01849.html

[CanadaEH]

So when you knock some costs off the crew, the ground handlers, gate agents and fire some useless managers, it adds up to savings. Considering the margins are razor thin and you have little control over things like fuel costs, navigation, aircraft leases and interest payments, those savings start to look pretty attractive.

Yep, the Suits are always about "savings" and this is where "savings" can take you: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flying-cheaper/

The aviation industry is just another business to run for the Suits. But airlines, as a business model, are unique because of their potential to bring harm to its customers. The uniqueness is "safety" and safety costs money. In my view, the only time a Suit will pay anything other than lip service to the costs of safety will be when he/she finds herself sitting white-knuckled on board an aircraft, with the cabin full of smoke and looking out the window at an engine on fire. That tends to focus one's attention but at that point in time, "savings" will be the last thing on his/her mind. Unfortunately, then it's too late - and those "savings" might turn out to be not very attractive at all.

+1. Something definitely needed to be said about the safety aspect of the business. The airline business is one of the few businesses where you can't cut corners without the potential of lost lives.

There are plenty of industries where you could kill people by cutting corners on safety. Our industry is one where they are much more publicized, more dramatic/sensationalistic, and more expensive. This could be my opinion but I don't think Airlines in Canada cut corners around safety (with the exception being Jetsgo). We have a good reputation and I hope it stays that way.

[bcflyer]

[There are plenty of industries where you could kill people by cutting corners on safety. Our industry is one where they are much more publicized, more dramatic/sensationalistic, and more expensive. This could be my opinion but I don't think Airlines in Canada cut corners around safety (with the exception being Jetsgo). We have a good reputation and I hope it stays that way.

I assume you have some actual facts to back up your comment about the safety cutting at Jetsgo?

[CD]

Quite a bit of discussion in this article:

Jetsgo problems ignored - Jun 16 2006

[duranium]

[There are plenty of industries where you could kill people by cutting corners on safety. Our industry is one where they are much more publicized, more dramatic/sensationalistic, and more expensive. This could be my opinion but I don't think Airlines in Canada cut corners around safety (with the exception being Jetsgo). We have a good reputation and I hope it stays that way.

I assume you have some actual facts to back up your comment about the safety cutting at Jetsgo?

How about fuel starvation upon landing in T/O and having to be towed off the runway, that in a CAFB day

How about losing the ability to fly above 28,000 feet in their two last months of existence

How about landing on the grass in YYC, taking off again and landing, the crew then walking away as nothing had happened

Any closer corner cutting than that and they would have put Walter Kiam of the Remington Company to shame.

[bcflyer]

The loss of RVSM was related to the retraction of documents that Transport had already approved in the past and additional requirements that were added after the fact (Testing was required of the pilots... I've flown RVSM at several other airlines and not once have I EVER been required to right at test about RVSM)

The incident in YYC was a low visibility accident that had absolutely nothing to do with cutting corners on safety. (the captain was a very experienced pilot) Shortly after that a 737 went off the side of the runway in YEG but hardly made the news. There are several other airlines that have had "issues" with low vis, (wingtip strike) and contaminated runways (off the end or side)

I seem to recall a certain low cost carrier that was about to be shut down for maintence issues in the past yet nobody seems to slam them for shoddy maintence...

Was Jetsgo perfect? Absolutely not, but it was nowhere near as unsafe as some would have you believe.

[CanadaEH]

bcflyer,

I remember that Jetsgo had a significantly higher rate of reportable incidents compared to Air Canada, WestJet, Transat, etc. All airlines have issues but Jetsgo was significantly higher. I also remember that TC was about to ground Jetsgo for its safety except it opted to file for bankruptcy instead.

A quick search and I came up with these links:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/144218
http://www.thespec.com/print/article/6852
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fer=canada
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... n/1996411/
http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports ... itude.html

Nobody slams WestJet because it doesn't have shoddy maintenance.

[Rockie]

Jetsgo was a smoking crater in search of a place to happen that kept the TC officials that would have to explain it awake every night in a cold sweat. But ML is nothing if not politically connected, which kept TC (who is already loathe to shut down companies) from pulling the plug. Revoking their RVSM certification was an act of desperation on their part I think to hopefully push them over the edge financially before they augered one in. If Jetsgo did ETOPS they might have pulled that too.

[bcflyer]

Nobody slams WestJet because it doesn't have shoddy maintenance.

From the Transport Canada Web site.

No. 143/96
For release September 17, 1996
TRANSPORT CANADA ISSUES NOTICE
OF SUSPENSION TO WESTJET AIRLINES

OTTAWA - Transport Canada today gave WestJet Airlines a formal notice of suspension of its operating certificate. The action means the company's operating certificate will be suspended if it does not address deficiencies within 15 days.

A scheduled audit of WestJet is currently under way, with the company's full cooperation. As a result of preliminary findings, WestJet has voluntarily ceased operations of its four aircraft.

"Safety is Transport Canada's first priority," said Transport Minister David Anderson. "We are acting today out of an abundance of caution."

The two requirements that must be met by WestJet within 15 days are:
1. The company must appoint a qualified individual to be responsible for aircraft maintenance.
2. The company must implement an aircraft maintenance system that meets Transport Canada requirements.

"Canadians expect all airlines to meet the highest safety standards, and our job is to ensure they do," said Mr. Anderson.

Transport Canada conducts onsite surveillance for up to six months after startup of a new airline, and conducts an audit at the end of the six-month period. WestJet received an operating certificate from the department in March 1996. The audit began September 9, 1996.

Passengers who have made travel arrangements with WestJet are advised to contact the carrier directly.


Looks like they actually did have some maintence issues......

As for everyone else slamming Jetsgo, how many of you actually FLEW there? Hands up please, I'd really like to know how many of you had FIRST HAND experience..

[TheSuit]

Yep, the Suits are always about "savings" and this is where "savings" can take you

I've seen this program twice already, and have to roll my eyes at the mention of it. I don't understand why this comes up every time pilot pay comes up, I've never said pilots should be paid below the poverty line at $16K - everything always has to be to the extreme with you guys. I'm saying adjust the pay band so you don't have people making $30K and people making $227K. Medical residents work far more than pilots (or CEOs for that matter) and make about $40K per year and are in their late 20's and early 30's, so I don't see much of an arguement for pushing first year FO pay beyond that. Once you start getting way up over $100K though, you lose me. The job simply isn't different enough between junior FO and senior CA to warrant a 600% disparity. Once you throw in all the other benefits of being senior like pref bidding for schedules, the disparity is just obscene.

As far as safety goes, increased wages have to be offset with productivity gains. Because pilot work cannot be automated or made much more efficient, productivity means pilots working harder and longer, which reduces safety. To some degree this applies to other jobs but it's easier to make them more efficient with better tools and whatnot. But besides all that, if the overall labor cost becomes too high, there's less money available for maintenance, safety programs, etc. You can't just keep increasing costs.

If you want me to admit AC pilots should be paid more than $16K per annum, you got me. Should they be paid more than $225K? Sorry, no. If the airline is printing money and they can afford it, great. If not, tough luck. It's nice getting paid alot of money for a job you love to do; that's the dream. But airline employees having to face some economic realities doesn't make me lose alot of sleep.

Since the other extreme pointed to is SW, you should research their productivity per employee and their salaries, then get back to me. Combine that with the fact that their business makes money and is simpler to run, you're not gonna be at SW levels any time soon.

[yycguy]

Medical residents work far more than pilots (or CEOs for that matter) and make about $40K per year and are in their late 20's and early 30's, so I don't see much of an arguement for pushing first year FO pay beyond that. Once you start getting way up over $100K though, you lose me. The job simply isn't different enough between junior FO and senior CA to warrant a 600% disparity. Once you throw in all the other benefits of being senior like pref bidding for schedules, the disparity is just obscene.

O.K. I'll give you the fact that the disparity is obscene. But your analogy to Medical residents has to be a joke, right?

First of all, Air Canada doesn't hire "resident" pilots. A Medical resident does not have a license to practice medicine unsupervised, and only has book knowledge with zero experience to back it up. If Air Canada starts hiring pilots who only have finished their groundschool and haven't been released yet to solo an airplane than sure you can compare their pay. Air Canada hires fully licensed and experienced ATPL pilots. Just like a hospital hiring a fully licensed board certified surgeon.

If you want to narrow the disparity then the place to start should be by raising the starting pay.

[Doug Moore]

Yep, the Suits are always about "savings" and this is where "savings" can take you

I've seen this program twice already, and have to roll my eyes at the mention of it. I don't understand why this comes up every time pilot pay comes up, I've never said pilots should be paid below the poverty line at $16K - everything always has to be to the extreme with you guys. I'm saying adjust the pay band so you don't have people making $30K and people making $227K. Medical residents work far more than pilots (or CEOs for that matter) and make about $40K per year and are in their late 20's and early 30's, so I don't see much of an arguement for pushing first year FO pay beyond that. Once you start getting way up over $100K though, you lose me. The job simply isn't different enough between junior FO and senior CA to warrant a 600% disparity. Once you throw in all the other benefits of being senior like pref bidding for schedules, the disparity is just obscene.

As far as safety goes, increased wages have to be offset with productivity gains. Because pilot work cannot be automated or made much more efficient, productivity means pilots working harder and longer, which reduces safety. To some degree this applies to other jobs but it's easier to make them more efficient with better tools and whatnot. But besides all that, if the overall labor cost becomes too high, there's less money available for maintenance, safety programs, etc. You can't just keep increasing costs.

If you want me to admit AC pilots should be paid more than $16K per annum, you got me. Should they be paid more than $225K? Sorry, no. If the airline is printing money and they can afford it, great. If not, tough luck. It's nice getting paid alot of money for a job you love to do; that's the dream. But airline employees having to face some economic realities doesn't make me lose alot of sleep.

Since the other extreme pointed to is SW, you should research their productivity per employee and their salaries, then get back to me. Combine that with the fact that their business makes money and is simpler to run, you're not gonna be at SW levels any time soon.

Sorry Suit, you must have watched a different program; the program I linked had nothing to do with pilot wages (which are a favored red herring by airline Suits). The program I linked was about unintended consequences stemming from airline Suits trying to save money by outsourcing aircraft maintenance. I made the comment that “the aviation industry is just another business to run for the Suits. But airlines, as a business model, are unique because of their potential to bring harm to its customers. The uniqueness is "safety" and safety costs money. In my view, the only time a Suit will pay anything other than lip service to the costs of safety will be …”.

And here you go off on a tangent about pilot wages. I recall previously asking you what your profession was, you never responded although I do recall you saying in another thread that you are an office minion who doesn’t work for AC. So I have no idea who you are or from what background you base your comments. I suspect, and this is only a gut feel, that your knowledge of an airline operation is that of an outsider. You might be a young guy or an old guy (I suspect younger) that might have some experience or a lot of experience (I suspect less than more) in the business management of a company making widgets. But airlines? I suspect that your knowledge and working experience in airline operations is minimal to non-existent. Which is to say you are providing opinion about pilots and airlines based on feeling and not knowledge. Correct me if I’m wrong.

The context (and cost) of safety at a widget factory has totally different implications than those found in the operation of an airline. One of the problems that our industry faces is that even our own Suits don’t always fully comprehend this fact. In our industry, you will not find an airline, or airplane manufacturer or aircraft maintenance facility that won’t loudly and publicly proclaim that safety is their number one priority. They have to say that or they’re toast. They will promise that no expense is spared when it comes to safety but that is outright deception because if an expense can be avoided, it will be avoided even if it means taking a chance with safety - as was clearly evidenced by the story on Boeing, linked above by Mig29.

You can pontificate in business school platitudes about cost control, productivity and efficiencies – and I acknowledge that they do have their place in the operation of every business. But not every business is the same and some MBA Suit sitting behind a mahogany bomber at an airline HQ, who doesn’t know the difference between a flap and an aileron can only pay lip service, when it comes to safety, in his quest for cost control, productivity and efficiencies – the areas of his presumed expertise (at least when it comes to building widgets).

In any event, if you want to refer to “economic realities” and focus on pilot wages, then focus on the fact that pilot wages constitute about 3% of the total cost of an airline ticket. It’s that other 97% cost structure that bears closer scrutiny. Let’s start with that place up there in the stratosphere where million dollar bonuses and multi-hundred thousand dollar “credited service” pensions (indexed of course) are the norm, no matter the job performance.

[TheSuit]

Sorry Suit, you must have watched a different program; the program I linked had nothing to do with pilot wages

That's an oops on my part forsure, didn't open the link - it looked similar to another that I have seen on Colgan and I assumed we were still on the wage topic.

You might be a young guy or an old guy (I suspect younger) that might have some experience or a lot of experience (I suspect less than more) in the business management of a company making widgets. But airlines? I suspect that your knowledge and working experience in airline operations is minimal to non-existent.

I've done both (and construction and healthcare). I think most people in aviation have never done anything else and grossly over estimate the difference in all aspects (although, yes, there definately is a difference). If you've ever seen those lawyer placements for bad heart medicine or chinese baby milk you know what I mean. Many businesses have risk, they are just different in the number, type and scale of the risks.

They will promise that no expense is spared when it comes to safety but that is outright deception because if an expense can be avoided, it will be avoided even if it means taking a chance with safety - as was clearly evidenced by the story on Boeing, linked above by Mig29.

This is true of any for-profit business. Making Aspirin, operating aircraft, manufacturing aircraft, constructing nuclear reactors, operating oil rigs. They all have inherent safety risks which cost money to mitigate. But really, I'm not argueing that any "suits" should be placing significant risk to people to make a buck. If they can't make money safely, don't operate. If airlines can't stay afloat by operating within the rules or without unnecessarily risking my life, shut them down or roll them back into the government. I'm not defending some managers decisions to cut corners, I just think you're blanket generalization is BS.

then focus on the fact that pilot wages constitute about 3% of the total cost of an airline ticket.

Yep, you're right. I'm not picking on pilots exclusively - they have a role in it along with everyone else - this forum just happens to be dominated by them.

[TheSuit]

You guys win. Last post, these arguements are no fun anymore.

[FADEC]

Someone said something about Pilot wages and productivity. "Formula Pay" is based on productivity, A 777 Pilot moves about five times as many people and at least five times as much freight faster than a EMB 175 Pilot; the Captain doesn't get five times the pay, but they do get more based on producing more revenue for the company. The other aspect of this is liability. That 777 is worth roughly 280 million at list price with the interior, galleys, and entertainment system. This price pales beside the potential liability of those 349 passengers. The 777 Captain is managing a much larger liability on behalf of AC than the EMB Captain; thus the higher pay. One other point; pilots today are demonstrably doing a better job of safety than their predecessors; what is that worth? They are certainly making less money than some years ago.

There are many ways of determining pay, but it could be said that a worker is worth exactly what they can negotiate; Major League ball players, or clerks at Zellers. Generally, those wages rise where there are fewer people that can do the job. Years ago, an Airline Captain was asked why he made more money than the US President; "he can't fly jet airplanes" was the reply. (The President has since had a few raises)

CEO's compensation has risen much faster than any other group; Is it justified by their demonstrated skills?

[accumulous]

CEO's compensation has risen much faster than any other group; Is it justified by their demonstrated skills?

Yes. They've obviously outsmarted 3000 Pilots.

[Realitychex]

No. 143/96
For release September 17, 1996
TRANSPORT CANADA ISSUES NOTICE
OF SUSPENSION TO WESTJET AIRLINES

OTTAWA - Transport Canada today gave WestJet Airlines a formal notice of suspension of its operating certificate. The action means the company's operating certificate will be suspended if it does not address deficiencies within 15 days.
---------------------------------------------
The total fine TC was able to conjure up over that particular event, was $2,300, with no single fine more than $250. Most of them were $50 fines for various minor issues. Go ahead. Look it up. It's a matter of public record. At any given time, any one of the 4 aircraft WJ operated at the time could have been flown legally by Canadian Airlines.

And how did one of WJ's competitors know enough about what was going on in order to call and offer "assistance" within 15 minutes of WJ making the decision to voluntarily cancel flights, a decision made at about 12:55am around the circular small boardroom table, (formally the Time Air boardroom table), at McTavish Place?

And why were TC's inspectors so inexperienced that the largest fleet type they had ever worked on up to that point were King Air's?

And who was the guy that anonomously warned CB in the parking lot at Esso Avitat in YYC a few weeks prior to the debacle that TC had a mandate to shut WJ down?

In other words, there is way more to that story than you'll ever begin to know.

And for the record, even with the shutdown, WJ made a higher profit in it's first year of operations than Jetsgo ever did.