Serious question for Gilles
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 6:34 pm
Serious question for Gilles
If Transat...oh lets see how should I put it......plans to 'utilize' foreign crews......will you continue to publicly take up the foreign pilot fight?
Will we see you petition against your own company on Parliament hill?
Will you now include Air Transat as one of the culprits in your emails to Transport Canada, the media, politicians ect?
Will you still be paid office credit?
Will we see you petition against your own company on Parliament hill?
Will you now include Air Transat as one of the culprits in your emails to Transport Canada, the media, politicians ect?
Will you still be paid office credit?
Re: Serious question for Gilles
Assrope,
If Gilles keeps up the good fight, will you start helping him?
If Gilles keeps up the good fight, will you start helping him?
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2233
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
- Location: YUL
Re: Serious question for Gilles
This person is on my ignore list. He never writes anything constructive and is very liberal with the truth in everyone of his posts. He wouldn't help me save himself from drowning.......
Re: Serious question for Gilles
I kind of agree with Assrope on this one.
Stop and think about it for a minute and one could raise some questions on the matter....
For the past while everyone has been feeding Gilles (On AT's payroll) the internal processes used at SW/CJ to obtain approvals as well as ins and outs of establishing foreign crews. Every intracite detail regarding foreign pilot numbers, pay, taxes, home countries, companies supplying them, as well as hire dates and the various CARs/ HRDC regulations that have been examined.
As a stress test to see if it will continue to work in this manner, it has been pushed down the throats of politicians, unions, the press, various government departments and it still being permitted. One could say that this was a stress test to see if it was feasible and would be permitted to continue for the foreseeable future. Thus allowing it to become part of AT's latest business plan.
Or... AT may have been sitting on the sideline watching all this and liked the end result enough to deem it an acceptable risk to use foreign crews themselves as part of the business model going forward. Either way, at the very least I am willing to bet some people at AT are happy with the work already done for them on this and will seek advice for information on the matter.
Keep up the good fight.
Stop and think about it for a minute and one could raise some questions on the matter....
For the past while everyone has been feeding Gilles (On AT's payroll) the internal processes used at SW/CJ to obtain approvals as well as ins and outs of establishing foreign crews. Every intracite detail regarding foreign pilot numbers, pay, taxes, home countries, companies supplying them, as well as hire dates and the various CARs/ HRDC regulations that have been examined.
As a stress test to see if it will continue to work in this manner, it has been pushed down the throats of politicians, unions, the press, various government departments and it still being permitted. One could say that this was a stress test to see if it was feasible and would be permitted to continue for the foreseeable future. Thus allowing it to become part of AT's latest business plan.
Or... AT may have been sitting on the sideline watching all this and liked the end result enough to deem it an acceptable risk to use foreign crews themselves as part of the business model going forward. Either way, at the very least I am willing to bet some people at AT are happy with the work already done for them on this and will seek advice for information on the matter.
Keep up the good fight.
Re: Serious question for Gilles
I believe that regardless of the company using and abusing the system will be a target for Gilles. The fight is against the use of foreign pilots without proper reciprocity, plain and simple.
Problem is now the standard has been set along with the new costs for doing business. To compete gets harder and companies will feel that the only way to do it will be to employ the same techniques and business practices.
Problem is now the standard has been set along with the new costs for doing business. To compete gets harder and companies will feel that the only way to do it will be to employ the same techniques and business practices.
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2233
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
- Location: YUL
Re: Serious question for Gilles
You miss two important factors:Bigboi wrote:I kind of agree with Assrope on this one.
Stop and think about it for a minute and one could raise some questions on the matter....
For the past while everyone has been feeding Gilles (On AT's payroll) the internal processes used at SW/CJ to obtain approvals as well as ins and outs of establishing foreign crews. Every intracite detail regarding foreign pilot numbers, pay, taxes, home countries, companies supplying them, as well as hire dates and the various CARs/ HRDC regulations that have been examined.
As a stress test to see if it will continue to work in this manner, it has been pushed down the throats of politicians, unions, the press, various government departments and it still being permitted. One could say that this was a stress test to see if it was feasible and would be permitted to continue for the foreseeable future. Thus allowing it to become part of AT's latest business plan.
Or... AT may have been sitting on the sideline watching all this and liked the end result enough to deem it an acceptable risk to use foreign crews themselves as part of the business model going forward. Either way, at the very least I am willing to bet some people at AT are happy with the work already done for them on this and will seek advice for information on the matter.
Keep up the good fight.
I only became aware in November 2012 that the FLVC that are provided to the foreign pilots to fly Canadian registered aircraft under Part VII are not issued in conformity to the CARs and that this represents an indictable offence under the Aeronautics Act, not only to use such Certificates (the pilots), but to issue them (TC) and to allow ones' pilots to fly their aircraft while using them (the Airlines). Until last year, everyone could plead ignorance on that (I emphasize "plead") but no longer. I made a CAIRs complaint about the subject on November 21 2012 by email at CAIRS_NCR@tc.gc.ca and later wrote a complaint to the head of Transport Canada enforcement Jean-Francois Mathieu to advise him that I thought that foreign licensed pilots with FLVC were not allowed to fly revenue flights under Sub-Part VII according to CAR 705.106(1)(a).
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... it=mathieu
My CAIRS report was never acknowledged or given a file number and Mr Mathieu never replied to me even though I made both reports public right here on this forum. I have received confirmation from several TC inspectors, including an enforcement inspector who confirmed to me that I was correct. Some lawyers also validated my claims.
The reason TC will not take action on my claims right away is to give a chance to all foreign pilots presently in Canada on FLVC to leave the country by late May. By taking action, they would have been forced to ground the lot and been blamed for the consequences. They don't want to take the blame, so they will wait for the pilots to leave so that the Airlines will not have to suffer financial consequences of having 150 grounded foreign pilots overnight.
TC is now engaged in some fancy internal footwork to try to wiggle itself out of this jam without taking the blame.
In light of what I just wrote, do you honestly think that TC will issue a single FLVC to any foreign pilot next winter under the current legislation ? Don't hold your breath.
The only foreign pilots that I agreed with, and that is also the ALPA position, are pilots who come to Canada under a 1:1 reciprocal deal.
The present CARs do not allow any form of reciprocal agreement since they do not allow foreign licensed pilots to obtain FLVC. The only solution is to have the foreign pilot write the TC written exams and pass a twin-IFR-instrument test, like I did when I arrived in Canada with my FAA license.
On the European side, EASA, the European Aviation Agency, passed new legislation that came into effect on Sept 17 2012 that prohibits non-EU pilots form having their non-EU licence validated more than once, and only for 12 months. Such legislation also prevents any real reciprocal agreement. So Canadian pilots in Europe on reciprocal agreements can fly in Europe one time on a FLVC, for 12 months, and subsequently have to obtain a EU license.
Many big obstacles for foreign pilots next year, for Sunwing, Canjet or Transat...........
The beast is poisoned. It just hasn't dropped dead yet.
Gilles Hudicourt
Re: Serious question for Gilles
Bigboi wrote:I kind of agree with Assrope on this one.
Stop and think about it for a minute and one could raise some questions on the matter....
For the past while everyone has been feeding Gilles (On AT's payroll) the internal processes used at SW/CJ to obtain approvals as well as ins and outs of establishing foreign crews. Every intracite detail regarding foreign pilot numbers, pay, taxes, home countries, companies supplying them, as well as hire dates and the various CARs/ HRDC regulations that have been examined.
As a stress test to see if it will continue to work in this manner, it has been pushed down the throats of politicians, unions, the press, various government departments and it still being permitted. One could say that this was a stress test to see if it was feasible and would be permitted to continue for the foreseeable future. Thus allowing it to become part of AT's latest business plan.
Or... AT may have been sitting on the sideline watching all this and liked the end result enough to deem it an acceptable risk to use foreign crews themselves as part of the business model going forward. Either way, at the very least I am willing to bet some people at AT are happy with the work already done for them on this and will seek advice for information on the matter.
Keep up the good fight.
This just about sums it up bud. Transat saw the economical benefits and they had a bit of help from a person who was filtering the information on pay scales, contracts, agreements etc. over to them.
I don't think any of the TS pilots ever thought that brining 737's in house would mean bringing foreign pilots along too. Some were preoccupied with the grande scheme to eliminate SWG, CanJet and their foreign pilots.
This sort of reminds me of a fella who did the exact thing when SWG was a wee baby. He was working at SSV, and filtering all the SSV info to SWG. SWG hired him for a short while and once they got all their ducks in line they fired him.
Transat had to do what it had to do to survive, but as I said to Gilles all along, '' be careful, you are fighting something you won't beat and your desire to eliminate SWG isn't going to change a darn thing - Transat will mimic the ingenious foreign pilot programme''....and they have!
I'm not kidding myself, I committed to Rowe asking us to be patient, but they are not going to use me to see out the TS contract with any promises of false hope. Lucky for me I got my ducks lined up and will be changing my moniker to SWGGOOSE !
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 834
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm
Re: Serious question for Gilles
If you don't understand the difference between the hiring of foreign pilots and the use of wet leases, you should think about staying out of this conversation.
You may not appreciate that your ignorance is embarrassing and highly annoying.
There shouldn't be a single employable Canadian pilot voicing their agreement with any of this SWG / CJ bullsh*t.
Wake up! Start re-reading the good info Gilles has given you to read.
Hats off to Gilles.
Gino Under
You may not appreciate that your ignorance is embarrassing and highly annoying.
There shouldn't be a single employable Canadian pilot voicing their agreement with any of this SWG / CJ bullsh*t.
Wake up! Start re-reading the good info Gilles has given you to read.
Hats off to Gilles.
Gino Under

Re: Serious question for Gilles
Gino Under wrote:If you don't understand the difference between the hiring of foreign pilots and the use of wet leases, you should think about staying out of this conversation.
You may not appreciate that your ignorance is embarrassing and highly annoying.
There shouldn't be a single employable Canadian pilot voicing their agreement with any of this SWG / CJ bullsh*t.
Wake up! Start re-reading the good info Gilles has given you to read.
Hats off to Gilles.
Gino Under

- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Serious question for Gilles
Unfortunately you are dealing with people who do not have to justify anything they do because being in government they are above the law.
My CAIRS report was never acknowledged or given a file number and Mr Mathieu never replied to me even though I made both reports public right here on this forum. I have received confirmation from several TC inspectors, including an enforcement inspector who confirmed to me that I was correct.
Now if Mr. Mathiew were in management in the Hells Angles he could be held accountable as you could use the law to make him accountable.
The problem is almost unsolvable.
Study history and you will see that eventually these people get overthrown by the people.
Re: Serious question for Gilles
I'm one of the ignorant ones. I find this stuff somewhat complex as there is no foreign pilot 101 course out there.
What really makes things interesting (for me) is the fact that so many agree with Gilles but so few are willing to get on board.
It's like dealing with someone who's willing to work for free. Everyone keeps preaching that those jobs shouldn't be taken by those entering the industry yet they are. Now when it's time for those playing at the majors to do something at their end... they simply don't.
Aviation sure is a weird industry.
An interesting question was asked though which was not answered. Gilles, would you continue this if your own company started doing the same thing as SWG / CJ?
What really makes things interesting (for me) is the fact that so many agree with Gilles but so few are willing to get on board.
It's like dealing with someone who's willing to work for free. Everyone keeps preaching that those jobs shouldn't be taken by those entering the industry yet they are. Now when it's time for those playing at the majors to do something at their end... they simply don't.
Aviation sure is a weird industry.
An interesting question was asked though which was not answered. Gilles, would you continue this if your own company started doing the same thing as SWG / CJ?
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2233
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
- Location: YUL
Re: Serious question for Gilles
More than ever. Before, I was fighting for others. How do you think I will fight when my own job is at risk ?
Re: Serious question for Gilles
Gilles,
With regards to the issuance of the FLVC for the C registered aircraft, could this have been done in error due to the airline also operating foreign registered aircraft through an Article 83 Bis agreement or an ICAO Annex 6 arrangment? Not a wet lease, but a so called "dry lease" of a foreign registered aircraft. Is it possible that they were issued by TC under confusion generated by the process involving the issuance of an LF6 foreign leasing authorization and the transfer of oversight responsibilities between the two countries? A lot of functional areas (Flight Ops, Cabin Safety, Licensing, Maintenance, Certification) at TC from various levels (From a POI to higher ups at a National level) are often involved in its approval as well as communications with the foreign authorities.
The question is what will they do now that the precedent has been established. Due to this likely being their error and not wanting to admit fault, I wonder if they will go as far as amending the regs or issue something to cover their ass for what has already been done.
Any commitment from them that they will prevent them from being issued in the future or will they just create a loophole to permit it...
Based on past experiences, I have seen them act both ways when found to be in error.
With regards to the issuance of the FLVC for the C registered aircraft, could this have been done in error due to the airline also operating foreign registered aircraft through an Article 83 Bis agreement or an ICAO Annex 6 arrangment? Not a wet lease, but a so called "dry lease" of a foreign registered aircraft. Is it possible that they were issued by TC under confusion generated by the process involving the issuance of an LF6 foreign leasing authorization and the transfer of oversight responsibilities between the two countries? A lot of functional areas (Flight Ops, Cabin Safety, Licensing, Maintenance, Certification) at TC from various levels (From a POI to higher ups at a National level) are often involved in its approval as well as communications with the foreign authorities.
The question is what will they do now that the precedent has been established. Due to this likely being their error and not wanting to admit fault, I wonder if they will go as far as amending the regs or issue something to cover their ass for what has already been done.
Any commitment from them that they will prevent them from being issued in the future or will they just create a loophole to permit it...
Based on past experiences, I have seen them act both ways when found to be in error.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 372
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:27 pm
Re: Serious question for Gilles
I hate to admit it but A$$rope has a great question.
I'm kinda of getting sick of Gilles messages. What would you rather have? Sunwing hire all in-house, get all their own planes, have their costs sky rocket, have to do seasonal layoffs, or permanent layoffs or shut down and put hundreds of pilots out of work?? Hey, their business model is working and currently employees ALOT of Canadian pilots. This is better then NO Canadian pilots. I swear my local Canadian Tire brings in Mexicans to work; go after them! AT has joined Sunwings in the heat of h@ll, time to embrace it as your gem airline is as dirty as the one you have been fighting; shame on your bosses!!
I'm kinda of getting sick of Gilles messages. What would you rather have? Sunwing hire all in-house, get all their own planes, have their costs sky rocket, have to do seasonal layoffs, or permanent layoffs or shut down and put hundreds of pilots out of work?? Hey, their business model is working and currently employees ALOT of Canadian pilots. This is better then NO Canadian pilots. I swear my local Canadian Tire brings in Mexicans to work; go after them! AT has joined Sunwings in the heat of h@ll, time to embrace it as your gem airline is as dirty as the one you have been fighting; shame on your bosses!!
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2233
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
- Location: YUL
Re: Serious question for Gilles
This is exactly what a TC inspector wrote to me. In the past the FLVC were issued by Inspectors. When they gave the jobs to clerks, some of them issued FLVC in error to fly under Part VII. It only concerned a few pilots every year, no one noticed and the practice was perpetuated over 10 years or so but the Regulations were never changed.Bigboi wrote:Gilles,
With regards to the issuance of the FLVC for the C registered aircraft, could this have been done in error due to the airline also operating foreign registered aircraft through an Article 83 Bis agreement or an ICAO Annex 6 arrangment?
Now, things have changed. It was noticed. It is no longer just for a few pilots but for hundreds and the Regulations still do not allow it. So how does one fix it ?
I do not think that CARs can be changed overnight and I have read the manual that the Minister uses to grant exemptions.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... #appendixe
In this case, it's a no-go, the Minister can't go there.
Re: Serious question for Gilles
Agreed!tincanflyer wrote:I hate to admit it but A$$rope has a great question.
I'm kinda of getting sick of Gilles messages. What would you rather have? Sunwing hire all in-house, get all their own planes, have their costs sky rocket, have to do seasonal layoffs, or permanent layoffs or shut down and put hundreds of pilots out of work?? Hey, their business model is working and currently employees ALOT of Canadian pilots. This is better then NO Canadian pilots. I swear my local Canadian Tire brings in Mexicans to work; go after them! AT has joined Sunwings in the heat of h@ll, time to embrace it as your gem airline is as dirty as the one you have been fighting; shame on your bosses!!
TS took the module from SWG and CJ and they are applying it. Gilles my question is what will you all do now you know it's official TS is going with foreign pilots? Strike? I hope somehow you just accept it and move ahead with your flying because although we agree to disagree, you are a good guy and I don't think you should make it your own personal battle. Let your union handle it.
Check out this quote from TS:
The vacation company said that by 2015 the number of wide-body aircraft will be reduced to 16 from 21 aircraft with third-party carriers contracted if required during the high season.
Do they mean third party contracted on wide-body?
Read more: http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/transat-coul ... z2Piip6PQr
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2233
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
- Location: YUL
Re: Serious question for Gilles
I already replied to a charming Gentleman who goes by 24Left on this subject.YHZGOOSE wrote:Let your union handle it.
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... PA#p812895
Yes. And another article even specified that it would be foreign wet-leased contracted wide-body.YHZGOOSE wrote:Check out this quote from TS:The vacation company said that by 2015 the number of wide-body aircraft will be reduced to 16 from 21 aircraft with third-party carriers contracted if required during the high season.
Do they mean third party contracted on wide-body?
Read more: http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/transat-coul ... z2Piip6PQr
Re: Serious question for Gilles
Thanks for your response. We have a union too Gilles but the silence is deafening if you catch my drift. Perhaps guys from the other side are curious how you see it because the way things stand at CJ. I hope that things will be clearly laid out for your pilots.Gilles Hudicourt wrote:I already replied to a charming Gentleman who goes by 24Left on this subject.YHZGOOSE wrote:Let your union handle it.
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... PA#p812895
Yes. And another article even specified that it would be foreign wet-leased contracted wide-body.YHZGOOSE wrote:Check out this quote from TS:The vacation company said that by 2015 the number of wide-body aircraft will be reduced to 16 from 21 aircraft with third-party carriers contracted if required during the high season.
Do they mean third party contracted on wide-body?
Read more: http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/transat-coul ... z2Piip6PQr