Leaderboard

  1. Wolfhunter

    Wolfhunter

    Donating Member


    • Points

      130

    • Content Count

      1,549


  2. Jaydee

    Jaydee

    Donating Member


    • Points

      130

    • Content Count

      5,195


  3. boestar

    boestar

    Donating Member


    • Points

      111

    • Content Count

      6,547


  4. Kip Powick

    Kip Powick

    Donating Member


    • Points

      100

    • Content Count

      10,733



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/02/2018 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    Hey Kip, it's been a while. This is going to be a bit of a threadjack but what the hell. It's always amusing for me to read people's take on this stuff and their perception of history, and Johnny's is not even close. I can answer this one definitively for you. When WestJet started, grooming was part of the flight attendant job description. Full stop. There was no pilot or "voluntary" grooming it was just the flight attendants. There certainly was no culture of "we are all equal" in fact back then the pilots were all considered management. None of the original flight attendants, with the exception of the inflight managers had any airline experience. Actually very few people outside of the flight ops and tech ops groups had any airline experience and so the pilots were expected to lead. We didn't wear leather jackets to dress down, we wore them because we were trying to differentiate ourselves from the competition. Plus they are just cool. There was no "social experiment." The culture at the beginning was simply a culture of survival although having fun was also a big part of it. Everyone was prepared to do whatever was necessary to get the airline up and running and keep it aloft. There was a common goal and everyone was pulling in the same direction, a very rare occurrence in aviation and probably in most any business but it was immensely satisfying. Back then 6 legs a day was common, we often did more and our long haul flight was YEG - YVR at 1:20. I hated that one. All the rest were 60 minutes or less and it was 25 minute turns all day, if we were on time. It was awesome! But it became apparent to me very early on that the flight attendants were really challenged by the short sectors and short turns. They were rarely off their feet and never even had a chance to eat their lunch or get off the aircraft just to use a real toilet. They were part of my team and if I could help them in any way I would, so I did. It never occurred to me that grooming was beneath me or that I was demeaning my profession. Hell, when I was flying corporate I had to wash the damn dishes after the flight! If me donating 5 minutes of my time to help groom the cabin meant that a flight attendant could go up to the terminal and use the washroom, or sit down and eat a sandwich or just go stand on the bridge to get some un-recycled air or if it might get us out on time, why wouldn't I? It was immediately obvious how much they appreciated the help so it just became routine for me. I never told the FOs I flew with that they should help but they started to anyway and, well, here we are today. So I guess I will take the blame for starting pilot grooming at WestJet. Pilots don't want to groom any more. Cleaning up a 120 seat aircraft after a 60 minute flight is one thing, cleaning up a 170 seat aircraft after a 5 hour flight is something else again and I get that so maybe it's time for a change. One of the arguments trotted out though is that pilots need to spend their time focusing on "safety related" duties, not grooming. That would be hysterically funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Somehow we managed to complete all our safety related duties and help the FAs when we were doing our 25 minute turns and back then we had to do our own weight and balance and performance calculations, on paper no less! All that is spoon fed to us now and our turns are usually 60 minutes. Mind you, back then safety related duties did not include sitting in the flight deck for 20 minutes, feet up, sipping a coffee and staring at a phone. That seems to be priority one for a lot of individuals these days. So there you go Kip. Like many things, pilot grooming at WestJet is an evolutionary thing that has now become a financial issue. Grooming was just one of the things our illustrious union was supposed to take care of but our boys got thoroughly schooled at the negotiating table. That's another story entirely. DR
  2. 6 points
    They've picked the first crew already!
  3. 5 points
    Who really cares what anyone from Westjet thinks about Air Canada or what anyone at Air Canada thinks about Westjet. At the end of the day, is your life so shallow that your identity rests solely on who your employer is? I have been in this business for 31 years and I have yet to see any difference between a CAIL, AC, AT, WJ etc employee. It seems we all just want a decent way to earn a living, spend time with family and friends and fly our airplanes (the last time I looked both Westjet and Air Canada’s airplanes had two engines, a tail, two wings and went to some pretty decent places.)
  4. 5 points
    I was sitting in my car at Walmart the other day, watching this woman, who apparently forgot where she parked. She kept putting her remote in the air and every time she squeezed it …I honked my horn.
  5. 5 points
    As a manager new to WestJet working in airports, I met more pilots in my first week through grooming aircraft than I did in a decade of working at CP and AC where we were encouraged to keep to ourselves and in some cases catch the other guy doing things wrong (ie. Project Hawkeye, etc...). In the following years, those "grooming" relationships evolved personally and professionally. It opened the door for many of my new pilot friends to pop by my office and give me a heads up about things or pass along a nice compliment. It also helped me get some things done that required buy in from flight ops thanks to our relationships. None of us were being paid to do the grooming. All of us were "over qualified," "over educated" and deep enough into our careers to think we were too important to be grooming an aircraft, and yet as I look back on my time at WestJet, it was one of the most important and meaningful parts of my time there.
  6. 5 points
    Sully never saw himself as special or as a hero. He was called upon to exercise the very best of his profession and everyone lived. That's as far as he would recognize his contribution. His next most important contribution was his and his crews' presentations to the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security of the U.S. Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation, just under six years later on April 28, 2015 http://www.sullysullenberger.com/my-testimony-today-before-the-senate-subcommittee-on-aviation-operations-safety-and-security/ Under USAirways' "restructuring", he retired about a $40,000/year pension, stating: STATEMENT OF CHESLEY B. “SULLY” SULLENBERGER III Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation April 28, 2015 Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, Chair Ayotte, Ranking Member Cantwell, and other members of the committee. It is my great honor to appear today before the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security. I have dedicated my entire adult life to aviation safety. I have served as a pilot for more than 40 years, logging more than 20,000 hours of flight experience. In fact, just last month marked the 48th anniversary of my first flying lesson. I have served as an airline check airman (flight instructor) and accident investigator, and continue to serve as an aviation safety expert. And on January 15, 2009, I was the Captain on US Airways Flight 1549, which has been called the “Miracle on the Hudson.” On that flight, multiple bird strikes caused both engines to fail and, in concert with my crew, including of course our First Officer Jeffrey Skiles, I conducted an emergency landing on the Hudson River saving the lives of all 155 people aboard. And Jeff is with us today in the hearing room. Jeff, I could not have had a better colleague that day or since. I saw the birds just 100 seconds after takeoff, about two seconds before we hit them. We were traveling at 316 feet per second, and there was not enough time or distance to maneuver a jet airliner away from them. When they struck and damaged both engines, we had just 208 seconds to do something we had never trained for, and get it right the first time. The fact that we landed a commercial airliner on the Hudson River with no engines and no fatalities was not a miracle, however. It was the result of teamwork, skill, in-depth knowledge, and the kind of judgment that comes only from experience. As a result of all of this, I deeply understand what is at stake in questions of aviation safety; and I am uniquely qualified to talk about what works, what doesn’t, and why it is so important that we get these rules right. The traveling public, whose lives we literally hold in our hands, deserves and expects nothing less. I appear before you today knowing that the airline industry has their lobbyists and trade associations, but the traveling public does not. I consider it my professional responsibility and my personal duty to be an advocate for the safety of all air travelers. And as you consider the FAA Reauthorization Bill, I want to say it is critical that you maintain the requirement that newly hired commercial pilots—at both major and regional airlines—have an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate and a minimum of 1,500 hours of flight experience, as Congress has mandated in Public Law. Public safety absolutely demands it. There are some who seek to roll back this requirement. They want to weaken it by allowing more credits for some non-flying activities or hours spent in flight school simulation to be counted as a substitute for real-world experience. They also claim that this safety standard is causing a pilot shortage among regional carriers and restricting flights to smaller cities. They could not be more wrong. There are no shortcuts to experience. There is no shortcut to safety. The standards are the standards because they are necessary. There are some in the industry who look upon safety improvements as a burden and a cost when they should be looking at them as the only way to keep their promise to do the very best they can to keep their passengers safe. As airline professionals, aviation regulators, and legislators, we must have the integrity and courage to reject the merely expedient and the barely adequate as not good enough. We must not allow profit motives to undermine our clear obligation to do what is right to ensure public safety. And I assure you that public safety demands that every newly hired pilot have a minimum of 1,500 hours of flying experience before they are entrusted with protecting the lives of the traveling public. I have seen first-hand the real costs—the human costs—of having inadequate levels of safety. These are costs that no family should ever have to bear. And no one knows this better than the families here with us today. These are some of the families of the victims of Continental Connection/Colgan Air Flight 3407, a regional flight from Newark, NJ, which crashed on approach to Buffalo, NY, on February 12, 2009, killing all 49 people onboard and one person on the ground. It was a terrible tragedy that resulted from the performance of the crew and safety deficiencies. But even more concerning, the federal investigation into this crash revealed that these safety deficiencies reflected a systemic problem among some regional carriers that lacked the robust safety systems of major airlines. This investigation confirmed what many of us know: that we have a two-class system in the airline industry. Major airlines reflect the gold-standard in best practices, training, and safety management programs while some regional airlines, in a race to the bottom that they seem to be winning, take shortcuts to save money wherever they can, often potentially negatively impacting safety. Early this year, my wife, Lorrie, and I visited the site of the crash in Buffalo and met with the families of the victims, many of whom—in the wake of these findings, went to Capitol Hill, to advocate for improved safety measures. Knocking on doors at major federal agencies and meeting with hundreds of people, including President Obama, their goal was to strengthen safety rules on behalf of all members of the traveling public because they didn’t want anyone else to ever again pay the terrible price they did for lapses in regional airline safety. Against insurmountable odds, they succeeded—inspiring an overwhelming number of the 111th Congress to pass the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010. Every member of the flying public owes them a debt of gratitude. We also owe you, the members of Congress, our thanks for getting this right. One of the most important elements of this Act was the establishment of the 1,500-hour standard for airline pilots. Yet just two years since this safety standard went into effect, airline lobbyists are trying to weaken the provision because they consider it a burden or cost. With the immediacy of that 2009 tragedy having passed, they also are appealing to new members of Congress and staffers who may not remember the Buffalo crash. Putting self-interest over public safety, they are trying to gain your support in rolling back the essential progress that has been made for airline safety. Some lobbyists would like you to significantly roll back the 1,500-hour minimum. Short of that, they want the FAA to allow simulator and academic training hours to count toward meeting the 1,500-hour minimum. They see this as an easier, more convenient, less expensive path to getting young pilots into regional airline cockpits. But there are no shortcuts to experience. There is no shortcut to safety. The standards are the standards because they are necessary. Throughout the entire 112-year history of powered flight, one thing has been true. The most important safety device in any airliner is a well-trained, experienced pilot. That is even more true today, especially as we transition from my generation of pilots to the next. We must make sure that each generation of pilots has the same well learned, deeply internalized fundamental flying skills, the in-depth knowledge, experience, and judgment. And that is why pilot preparation, qualifications, screening, training—and experience—are so important. On behalf of traveling Americans, I want to thank you for the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010. You got it right, and I urge you and all members of this committee to continue to uphold these essential safety standards now and reject the claims of those who would urge you to put profits over the safety of the American people. We must all behave as if the victims of the Continental Connection/Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash are watching and judging our integrity and courage this very moment—as their families are. I now want to more specifically address the arguments that some have made for undercutting these essential safety regulations—and why each one is wrong, dead wrong. First, lobbyists are seeking to roll back the experience requirement that Congress wisely mandated in 2010 to protect the safety of the traveling public. This is preposterous. Let me tell you why we cannot have pilots with less than the required experience flying passengers. Pilots with less than the required experience may only have seen one cycle of the seasons of the year as a pilot —one season of thunderstorms, one winter of ice and snow. He or she may never have had a plane de-iced before, may never have landed with a gusty crosswind exceeding 30 knots, and may never have had to land on a rainy night when the glare off a wet surface makes it difficult to tell exactly where you are. And if they received all their flight training in a warm dry climate, they may never even have flown in a cloud before! I would not want my family members in a plane operated by someone with as little experience as that, and I don’t think you would either. Some of these lobbyists go on to say there is nothing magical about the 1,500-hour standard because, to earn the hours, pilots waste their time, merely drag banners by the beach. This is a catchy sound bite but it is a big lie. In the whole country, perhaps a few hundred pilots fly banners; it is a miniscule percentage of the commercial aviation industry. There are, and always have been, good and valuable pathways to develop the experience required to fly a commercial airliner under a variety of conditions, such as flight instruction, charter and cargo operation, and corporate flying. Those who argue to reduce the flight hours required of newly hired pilots also imply that First Officers do not need to have the same level of competence as the Captain. But it has been 80 years since the airline industry has had apprentices in the right seat of airliners. For all that time, we have had qualified pilots in both seats, and we absolutely must continue to do so. The safety systems that the industry has developed and implemented over the last twenty years are based on the assumption of two fully trained, capable and experienced pilots in the cockpit, with each pilot able to be the absolute master of the aircraft in every possible situation at every moment. The value of these practices cannot be questioned. The last fatal accident of a U. S. carrier fully adopting these practices was in November 2001. We have had fourteen years of perfect safety from major carriers employing two fully trained and most importantly, experienced, pilots. The intent of the 2010 safety language was to raise the level of safety in the regional airline industry by requiring the adoption of proven safety systems. Raising the basic requirement for pilot experience was central to this effort. I can tell you that US Airways Flight 1549 would have had a very different ending had my First Officer Jeff Skiles been a less experienced pilot. Like me, Jeff had more than 20,000 hours of flying experience when we lost the engines on that flight. His extensive experience is what enabled him to intuitively know what he needed to do in that emergency, when the work load and time pressure were so extreme that we did not have time to talk about what had just happened and what we needed to do about it, or for me to direct his every action. If he were a relatively inexperienced pilot, we could not have had the same outcome and people likely would have died. Experience is what made the difference between death for some and life for all. Recent events have also made tragically clear why it is so important that newly hired pilots have a minimum of 1,500 hours of flying experience. The First Officer on the Germanwings flight that crashed in the Alps last month had only about 600 hours of flying time. Under existing standards, he would not have qualified as an Air Carrier pilot in the United States and would not have been in a position to accomplish his dark and heinous act. By requiring more experience there is an opportunity to evaluate a prospective candidate over time and in many cases among several employers. The point is this: Any reduction in today’s standard reduces the time a pilot can be observed as a competent, reliable, and trustworthy person before being entrusted with the controls of a commercial airliner full of passengers. With a 1,500-hour standard, employers are able to know more about new pilots, able to have more people screening and observing them over a longer period of time, and able to make a more informed decision about whether they have proven themselves worthy of the public’s trust. When I served as a check airman (an instructor responsible for evaluating pilots) sometimes their performance would be just at the threshold of acceptable. In those cases, I would ask myself this question: When he or she is in the 14th hour of his or her duty day, flying at night in bad weather into an airport he or she has never seen before, would I want my family on that airplane? If the answer was yes, then he or she met the standard. If the answer was no, he or she did not. Those are the kinds of judgments that can only be made when there is adequate time to observe someone in an operational environment. And that is the kind of judgment that Congress made in mandating the ATP with 1500 hours. A second tactic lobbyists are using to try to weaken the standard is by suggesting that more non-flying training count toward the 1,500 hours in place of actual flying experience. Here’s what’s wrong with this line of thinking: Training experiences are highly scripted, highly supervised, and sterile environments where you know what is coming. Real world experiences are not. They are messy and ambiguous and you don’t have anyone holding your hand every step of the way. To propose that training situations are a substitute for real world experience is like saying that studying driving in a classroom is the same as having driven on a busy highway in inclement weather. There is just no substitute for real world experience. Third, lobbyists who want to weaken today’s safety standards say that they are creating a pilot shortage because regional carriers cannot find enough qualified applicants. They also say that the 1,500-hour requirement is threatening air service to small communities and imposing an economic hardship. The implication is that you should reduce the safety requirement so that they can hire less qualified applicants. This flies in the face of logic. Would we allow some airlines to buy jet fuel that is below specification because it was too inconvenient or costly to buy jet fuel that fully met all the critical safety standards? Would we allow some airlines to underinsure because they didn’t want to pay so much for insurance? If there were not enough doctors to serve rural areas, would we advocate a two-year medical degree? Why would we ever allow less qualified pilots to serve small communities? Are the lives of those from rural areas worth less than passengers in large cities? People traveling to small communities deserve to be no less safe than people traveling to large cities. They must not be forced to entrust their lives to less experienced pilots, or airlines that make smaller investments in training or safety management programs than those serving metropolitan areas. What is really going on is this: There is not a pilot shortage, but there is a shortage of pilots willing to enter, or continue employment in, the airline industry under the current economic model. The standard for entry to the airline cockpit is rightly a high bar and requires significant personal and financial investment to achieve the standards necessary to serve and protect the safety of the traveling public. Currently the rewards of an airline career don’t match the investment required. This in turn makes other careers—in and outside of aviation—more attractive, exacerbating airline pilot recruitment. Worse yet, this untenable economic model turns away the best and brightest at the door when they are first considering a career in aviation. Like doctors, pilots make a significant financial investment in their education and training, in some cases upwards of $200,000; and like doctors, they should see a career path worthy of that investment. Doctors, however, only hold one life in their hands at any given moment. As the tragedy of the Germanwings accident shows, pilots hold the responsibility for many more. Passengers entrust their lives to pilots. Why would they not expect the same training and professional experience from their pilot as they would from their surgeon? The First Officer of the ill-fated Continental Connection/Colgan Air Flight 3407 earned $16,400 a year before taxes, clearly an unbelievably low salary for someone who literally holds the lives of their passengers in their hands. Traditionally an airline career has attracted applicants with experience well in excess of even today’s minimum required hours. In fact, pilots applying for a job with a commercial airline would typically have had several thousand hours of flight experience. Only recently have some regional carriers lowered their experience requirements to meet the dictates of an unsustainable economic model. As Gordon Bethune, former CEO of Continental Airlines said, “You can make a pizza so cheap, nobody will eat it. You can make an airline so cheap, nobody will fly it.” Since the regional airline industry has insisted on trying to use this broken economic model, they have created their own problems. We must not lower the required standards to enable them to continue to do so. It is not in anyone’s best interest—not regional airlines, not major airlines, and certainly not the traveling public—to have the aviation industry lower commonsense safety requirements to meet an unsupportable business model. Regional carriers often compete on the basis of cost to be the affiliate of major airlines. Let me tell you what that means to you as a passenger: It means you are flying on the lowest bidder. Would you want your surgeon to be the lowest bidder? But there is no shortcut to safety. That is what FAA minimums have been designed to ensure. And since many operators have lowered their standards to the FAA minimum, we must make sure that those minimum standards are genuinely adequate to protect our passengers. Quality vs. quantity is a false dichotomy. When it comes to airline safety, we need not and must not choose between quality and quantity, because we can and must have both. There are existing methods for pilots to get the requisite experience. There always have been. And since the 1,500-hour standard has been put in effect, flight schools, regional airlines and major airlines have been working together to create a true career path that benefits the industry and most importantly, the traveling public. This is being accomplished by creating partnerships between aviation training academies and regional carriers such as the career program at the aptly named ATP Flight School where a beginning pilot is interviewed and provisionally hired by a regional carrier early in their career. Once an airline makes an offer of employment the pilot continues on at the flight school as a flight instructor building time and experience while training the next generation of pilots to enter the field. The regional carrier even contributes financially to the pilot’s education, and most importantly, the prospective airline pilot can be observed, evaluated, and nurtured while they attain the required flight time necessary for a restricted ATP. The second piece of the pathway is Flow Through agreements between regional carriers and major airlines allowing pilots from the regional to matriculate upwards to a major airline cockpit. Today a person considering a career in aviation can see a defined path forward worthy of the necessary personal and financial investment. The industry has created these healthy pathways—not in spite of the 1,500-hour standard–but because of it. It allows airlines the time to make good judgments regarding the skills and temperament of a pilot that are good for both pilots’ career and for the safety of the traveling public. Finally, as aviation has become safer, some people seem to think that being a pilot has become an easier job, requiring less skill, knowledge, training, experience, and judgment. Nothing could be further from the truth. In spite of how commonplace air travel is today, we must never forget that what we are actually doing is pushing a tube filled with people through the upper atmosphere, seven or eight miles above the earth, traveling at 80% of the speed of sound, in a hostile environment with outside air pressure one-quarter that on the ground, and outside temperatures to 70 degrees below zero; and we must return it safely to the surface every time. Professional pilots make it look easy but it’s not. It’s hard. If it were easy, anyone, everyone could do it. And that is just not the case. It takes deeply internalized well-learned fundamental skills, in-depth knowledge, and the kind of judgment that comes only from experience. When pilots enter this noble profession that I consider a calling, they make a tacit promise to all their future passengers that they will keep them safe. And every airline executive, every aviation regulator, every legislator who oversees aviation should feel the same obligation and keep that same promise. Honoring that promise requires us to acknowledge that there are no shortcuts to experience. There is no shortcut to safety. The standards are the standards because they are necessary. And, the traveling public deserves and expects one level of safety: not one level for major airlines, and another for regional airlines. I urge you to stand with me in showing the right judgment by upholding the 1,500-hour standard for the safety of all Americans. Thank you.
  7. 5 points
    teal...........
  8. 5 points
    What? Nobody to buy a pizza? Seriously though... That's what travel insurance and self sufficiency is for... Go book a room! Feed your children! Take a taxi! Oooooh... fending for yourself in this world... The horror. If you can afford a week or two vacation for your family you can pay a couple hundred bucks for a last minute hotel booking for the night to look after your family and then sort it out with the airline or the insurance when you get home... Those people will absolutely fly Westjet again if they are the cheapest option by 2$...
  9. 4 points
    ... and there it is. The first slam at a group of hard working people who are just like the rest of us. They go to work each day and do their best to serve the customers. We should be better than this. Like it or not, we're all small puppets in someone else's sideshow. IMHO we should try to remember that and keep it civil.
  10. 4 points
    If WOW goes belly up does it become MOM ?
  11. 4 points
    VS; Yes, I call it internet social media hyperventilation. It is inappropriate to hearken to millions of shrill, largely anonymous voices who conflate opinion with facts, in the face of what is already known; it is even worse to do so when nothing is known yet as is occurring in the present case.
  12. 4 points
    Agreed. The scale of abuse and harassment in the workplace is almost too large to define, which is why cases like this are so often met with disbelief and reframing as entirely part of some other agenda. IMO, there is importance here that affects nearly everyone, whether employed or not, regardless of gender, race, age or creed. The common root is the misuse of power and abject entitlement to abuse someone who is vulnerable. Whether that abuse is sexual harassment, isolating someone so their concerns are not taken seriously, racial profiling, you name it - it's wrong and inflicts, sometimes life long or life ending harm. It gets further complicated when someone who has a secondary agenda also happens to have a valid point. It is all too easy to see the agenda and dismiss everything. That has been the path of least resistance for too long. Perhaps times are changing. Let's hope. Vs
  13. 4 points
    And just to clarify my post for those that don't follow the rise and branding of "Air Italy"... Meridiana, a fledgling charter carrier was infused by dollars and aircraft from Qatar Airways who officially hold a 49% stake, but I think we all know really run the show at the rebranded "Air Italy" Qatar Airways is the wholly government owned and controlled flag carrier of Qatar, where homosexuality is punishable with sentences which have included prison and lashings.
  14. 4 points
    I don't think the chock is necessary...
  15. 4 points
    An Old Pilot's Reflections Pilots are people who drive airplanes for other people who can't fly. Passengers are people who say they fly, but really just ride. Fighter Pilots are steely eyed, weapons systems managers who kill bad people and break things. However, they can also be very charming and personable. The average fighter pilot, despite sometimes having a swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring. (However, these feelings don't involve anyone else.) Flying is a hard way to earn an easy living. Both optimists and pessimists contribute to society. The optimist invents the airplane; the pessimist invents the parachute. Death is just nature's way of telling you to watch your airspeed. As a pilot only two bad things can happen to you (and one of them will): a. One day you will walk out to the aircraft, knowing it is your last flight. b. One day you will walk out to the aircraft, not knowing it is your last flight. There are rules and there are laws: The rules are made by men who think that they know how to fly your airplane better than you. The laws (of physics) were ordained by God. You can and sometimes should suspend the rules, but you can never suspend the laws. About Rules: a. The rules are a good place to hide if you don't have a better idea and the talent to execute it. b. If you deviate from a rule, it must be a flawless performance (e.g., if you fly under a bridge, don't hit the bridge.) Before each flight, make sure that your bladder is empty and your fuel tanks are full. He who demands everything that his aircraft can give him is a pilot; he who demands one iota more is a fool. There are certain aircraft sounds that can only be heard at night and over the ocean. Most of them are scary. The aircraft limits are only there in case there is another flight by that particular aircraft. If subsequent flights do not appear likely, there are no limits. In the Alaskan bush I'd rather have a two-hour bladder and three hours of gas than vice versa. An old pilot is one who can remember when flying was dangerous and sex was safe. Airlines have really changed; now a flight attendant can get a pilot pregnant. I've flown in both pilot seats. Can someone tell me why the other seat is always occupied by an idiot? And my favorite; You have to make up your mind about growing up and becoming a pilot, because you can't do both.
  16. 4 points
    Better trained ground handlers
  17. 4 points
    Making America Late Again? (I know, I know....) Vs
  18. 4 points
    The first step in all of this (which has yet to happen) is acknowledging that intake is a function of national policy and belongs to the citizens…. I have long advocated (on this forum) for caution, and by that I mean being mindful of long range national demographic projections and avoiding demographic concentrations that tend to isolate or ghettoize population segments. I think the reasons are obvious so I won’t belabour them. If they are not obvious think Toronto. If you are going to ignore all that, then open up your wallet and be willing to pay heavy for integration. You might consider all this to be moot at this point but it’s not too late for new years resolutions and doing things right in the future. The next step is integration because it follows immediately on the heels of deciding to flirt with your national carrying capacity. This needs to be a conscious decision and not one to be undertaken lightly. Those still screaming racist at this point will not want to pay their future bills so be ready to say no or tell them the cost flat out and then make em pay. Keep in mind this is hugely expensive and covers a lot of cultural ground…. it has been done poorly to date IMO and it needs to change because it makes many of the issues circular. Here’s an example of what I mean: many single mothers from the Horn of Africa have low status in their own country (below that of their sons). As a result, they find it difficult to maintain control of their teenage sons who are ripe pickings for street gangs and radicalization within the demographic concentration we allowed to fester in poverty and unemployment. I guess I could go on at length but I now see that this could get long winded, to take stock of the primary issues, I see massive intake (sufficient to affect longterm national demographics), localizing (or ghettoizing) that population, poverty, unemployment, lack of language training and lack of job training as the immediate threat. There are lots of other things at play here but that’s the flavour of a few cross cultural things to be avoided. This avoidance COMES AT GREAT COST and that seems to be lost on the very people who thought it was a great idea in the first place. In short, if you want to take in mass migrants you pay to play.... that's the first thing. After that: 1.Get an immediate handle on the numbers game and don’t exceed your capacity to integrate. Institute an immediate ban on sanctuary cities and start enforcing federal law 2.Avoid ghettoizing. Your acceptance in the country is contingent on living where we tell you… take it or leave it. 3.Open your wallet and pay for correcting all of those things in the third paragraph and do it with a smile. You wanted it now pay for it. Thats the language, job training etc. start that now. If you are not prepared to do that you will fail 4. Enhance intake screening procedures, Europe did this poorly. Don’t expect people to leave old grudges behind them, you likely wouldn’t either 5. Beef up all of your security and monitoring agencies big time, pay with a smile because you need it 6. Establish joint intelligence, information, and monitoring systems with allies. This is huge and remains a problem in Europe. Open your wallet and get er done. 7. Avoid knee jerk reactions like mandatory “correct thinking” classes, this is liberal values at their worst.... you will make a bad situation worse. Try this in Canada; mandatory religious training for all children @ 10 hrs per week and see how it works for you. In short don’t make things worse 8. Accept the fact that migrants came to your country for a better way of life. Accept the fact that your government welcomed them. Accept the fact that they need massive amounts of assistance (that’s money) to get there, resolve to give it to them or prepare to pay in other ways, or get a new government 9. Start helping refugees where they live in an effort to curtail (at least some) of the flow. 10. Spend the money to fix our refugee claims backlog and do it now (right now...like today). You should know your status within days, not multiples of years 11. Get a grip on the "safe third country agreement" and choke it. The current situation is both ridiculous and unsustainable.... it would stop WIE DEFCON - I will be quite busy for the next 10 days or so and mostly away…. that’s the best I can do on short notice. Cheers
  19. 4 points
    No, Malcolm. That's not how it works. The fares are almost always loss leaders. It's the ancillary revenue that's everything. Allegiant has been probably the most profitable airline in the US for years and they did it flying gas-guzzling MD-80's. I know lots of people that flew BLI-LAS for less than $20 each way. Of course they got their AC or WJ buddy's that were flying standby to take their bags but that's another story. They gamed the system and that's fine. My old physiotherapist is Irish and she always talked about taking Ryanair from Dublin to Faro for pocket change with her friends and buying underwear and soap when they got there. I'd like to think you're just trolling but I see you really haven't grasped how the landscape has changed and that's okay. You're retired and it's to be expected I suppose.
  20. 4 points
    I think we should stop labelling people. I know some lazy, self-centered, entitled a**holes from every generation. As well as good, kind, generous, hard-working ones. And it’s always been that way.
  21. 3 points
    I’m always amused how turbulence is blamed for injuries when in reality not wearing a seatbelt is really the culprit. In another article on this incident I read that most of the injured were in “first class” and I wonder how many people buckle up when fully reclined.
  22. 3 points
    How did they find a Japanese hotel room with enough extra space to add a simulator?
  23. 3 points
    Oh, did they order pizza? My mistake, it wasn't reported in the story... Facts? Weather is certainly a fact. Time on aircraft, and being restricted from getting off is reported in the story. Is it fake news? No air conditioning, again reported in the story by eye witnesses, and evidenced by heat stroke in an FA taken to hospital. Was that fake news too? As you say, APUs are pretty effective at cooling the cabin, so didn't sound like they turned it on, was it broken? Maybe... but if that's the case why are you leaving 100 or 150 people on your aircraft for hours during a heat wave? My comment stands... What's the Captain doing here? People should no be restricted to remaining on a hot aircraft for that length of time. It's our responsibility to hold boarding, or deplane the aircraft when it subjects passengers to dangerous conditions like this. Is that chucking **bleep**?
  24. 3 points
    Fun to fly but that approach and landing wasn’t airshow worthy. Boeing doesn’t need anymore help with aircraft sales. 1. Overshot the turn to final. 2. Touched down hard off the the centerline 3. Excessive braking only to power up again exiting. Other than that it was perfect.
  25. 3 points
    A teenager gets a bass guitar and a month of lessons for his birthday After he comes home from his first lesson, his mother asks: “What did you learn in your first lesson?” “I learned all the notes on the E string!” The next week he comes home and mom asks: “What did you learn this week?” “I learned all the notes on the A string!”> After the third week the son returns home rather late and his mother asks again: “What did you learn this week?” “I couldn’t make it, I had a gig”
  26. 3 points
    Fear is a great short-term motivator, but long-term it creates resentment, dissension, and complacency.
  27. 3 points
    Further to the above, when you engage in patently false claims to support a false narrative even your supporters are inclined to see through it because the lie needs to be expanded every time it's challenged. Not only that, you need to either ignore or downplay actual events that clearly run contrary to the stated position and at some point, as was the case in the gun control debate, your over played hand is on full display. Since most people don't get to see this stuff first hand, a little research is required. Have a look at the persecution of Christians (across the board) and tell me why it is so grossly under reported and ignored. Initial reports from Sri Lanka all referred to the victims as "worshippers" until they were called on it. They couldn't even say the word Christian. Yes, people actually noticed that. In the meantime though, here is an example of the dangers inherent with false claims to support false narratives, you never know when that traitorous Easter Bunny will see through your position and start the next question with "wait a minute now": When the Easter Bunny doesn't believe you it's a potential problem, especially in an election year. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeau-plays-politics-on-terrorism-again
  28. 3 points
    It's statements like that which cause reasonable people's eyes to glaze over. Do you really think anyone believes that any Conservative government anywhere is actually dedicated to making the population dumber or that it deliberately manipulates the eduction system to achieve that end? If the road is in poor condition in my riding (Liberal BTW) am I then to conclude that Liberals want more accidents and fatalities on the highway? No one really believes that sheer is a white suprematist regardless of how many times JT screams it. They don't believe he is a Nazi either and making those statements only minimizes the evil effects those ideologies have perpetrated and insults the intelligence of reasonable people. Moving forward, Liberals and Democrats had better start thinking about how reasonable people view their antics.... time is short. As a former Liberal, I see it as over the top, self destructive and thus, bordering on idiotic. At a minimum, it is a huge insult and disservice to anyone who has ever been victimized by white suprematist or Nazi atrocities. Minimizing these things in a flippant manner for obvious and craven political ends will serve them poorly in the long run IMO. Where have reasonable, moderate, compassionate Liberals gone? Find me one and I'll vote for it. If the only reason your cabinet is 50% women is because it's 2015 then STOP. If the best people available are all women and 100% of the cabinet are women as a result, you will get no argument from me.
  29. 3 points
    This is what I've been trying to say. This statement is right out of the Max and NG flight crew training manuals "Excessive air loads on the stabilizer may require effort by both pilots to correct the mis-trim. In extreme cases it may be necessary to aerodynamically relieve the air loads to allow manual trimming. Accelerate or decelerate towards the in-trim speed while attempting to trim manually." Several years ago on the NG there was a requirement to trim the stabilizer full nose down prior to deicing to ensure the fluid was drained. In order to accomplish this the electric trim was used to its limit - which is not full nose down - the cutout switches were then moved to cutout and the remaining trim travel was done manually. From that experience I can tell you that holding a mis-trimmed elevator control back while trying to lean forward and operate a very stubborn crank would be no easy task! It is possible they were not successful trimming manually and flipped the switches back on. According to what we've been reading opposite trim inputs with the thumb switches should revers the MCAS inputs. Perhaps they ran out of time? MCAS, or any other runaway trim condition needs an immediate response or the possibility exists of it becoming unrecoverable IMHO
  30. 3 points
  31. 3 points
  32. 3 points
    Hi Vs, all valid points & questions. The AMM shows that there are indexing pins for the -400 installation and I have to believe that the same applies to all Boeings, as would the testing processes after installation. Interestingly, the test involves moving the vane to the -20 & 20 degree position to measure electrical output, so the I believe the max readings are +/-20deg and that's where JT610's left sensor was reading ...
  33. 3 points
    If trimming with the pickle switches stops/helps/impedes the problem why all the focus on trying to find the appropriate checklist (Lionair) With proper training and experience I think most pilots would lean toward a stabilizer problem. No question that having multiple systems barking at you can muddy your focus, but you still have ground speed/power settings/artificial horizon, and in both of these incidents a visual horizon. There is a faulty system on the Boeing that needs a remedy, but the larger issue appears to be basic piloting ability. Systems do fail, we've all been grilled in the sim - fly the airplane first.
  34. 3 points
    Another lighter moment, taking a poke at a fave...
  35. 3 points
    27 February – TS 108 YUL-ADZ Online check-in was no problem but the UL airport could use a clear and concise sign near the AT check-in area that states where PERSONS WHO HAVE UTILIZED ONLINE CHECK-IN NEED TO GO TO CHECK BAGGAGE. Two of the persons I talked to kept trying to get me to check back in at a kiosk even though I showed them I had already done an online check in. I finally found the correct area. A simple sign would certainly help The flight down was extremely enjoyable, great cabin crew who interacted with the pax in a very amiable way. Pre- departure PA from pilots was much too fast and hard to understand. Pre-landing PA merely stated an ETA, no temp or “out the window you can see” info. Was a very nice clear day, very light winds, and the main area of the small island is easily view-able when lined up for landing on the NE runway… 14 March –TS 109 ADZ –YUL Air Transat sends update text messages as the date your flight approaches. AT states that online check-in is available. It also states that two hard copies of your boarding pass should be printed out. I was fortunate that I knew the admin persons in the Dive Shop and managed to Air-Print from my IOS and get two hard copies. Checked in at the airport and it was quite obvious that there was absolutely no advantage to doing and online check-in because the airport staff do not have the technology that is available in other places. I handed in one of my boarding passes and Passport…….waited…..waited….and got back the normal thin cardboard boarding pass that was IDENTICAL to my printed out boarding pass. Again at the gate it was obvious that the technology was not yet in place as the agents could not read an IOS with the encrypted boarding pass installed…they wanted the newly issued paper pass. Once again, outstanding service from the cabin crew….appreciated by all Pre-departure PA from the cockpit was very informative and even advised the pax why we stopped taxiing and that we would have to wait for an aircraft to land prior to being able to move onto the runway. Pre-arrival PA was very good….only forgot to mention the local time and that there was a one hour time change between ADZ and YUL (Canada was now on DL Savings Time). THEY ARE STILL OUT THERE Below you will find a pic of lady waiting at the boarding gate for the flight from ADZ to YUL. There are always people who want to get on-board first and I don’t know why when pax are supposed to be boarded by assigned seat rows….(perhaps they want to get the choice of overhead bins ), anyhow…as I sat there I noticed her bag had a “Carry On Baggage” tag. After thinking about it…I finally went up to the lady and explained that the bag was much too big for Carry-On baggage..(I estimated 3 feet x 2 feet x 1 foot). She was adamant that the bag was going on as Carry On baggage.. I certainly wasn’t going to argue with her, I merely pointed out that it probably wouldn’t be allowed and I wished her luck. Well we started boarding and she was about number 5 through the gate and I was about number 15-20. Shortly after we started down the ramp to the tarmac..(air-stairs boarding), the line halted then moved again slowly past the Francophone lady shouting at the Avianca agent about her bag going up the air-stairs to the cabin. (Broken English with a touch of French and Spanish) As I looked back I saw the agent dragging her bag to the starboard side of the aircraft and heading for the belt that went into the aft cargo hold….. I guess some people just don’t get it.
  36. 3 points
    Hopefully the FAA & TC, (and that should include the NTSB and the TSB), know something if this is a consideration? A ban, if any, should be based upon data from the Ethiopian accident, period. If there is nothing new to say regarding the Ethiopian accident and the reasons are understood, then a grounding is unnecessary.
  37. 3 points
    I’ve got a pain in my ass.....will he apologize for that?
  38. 3 points
    Kind of an odd set of questions but if you’ve read any of the details on her case starting with the alleged event in 2010, you would know she has been fighting for her day in court for quite some time. Westjet and their legal team have wanted this to go away but she hasn’t given up. As the father and husband of women who have both been sexually harassed in the workplace, yes I do have an interest in the outcome of Lewis’s story. My wife was an assistant buyer with company headquartered in Toronto and it was her first job after university. Immediately after the incident she walked into the HR office and resigned. They quickly scrambled and moved her to a different department. The person involved was never questioned about any of it and nothing was ever done. In my daughter’s case she just quit. Hard to fight/stay when it was the owner of the company. Also her first job out of university and she had no choice but to leave. I hope ILB that nothing like Lewis’s case ever happens to anyone you know or care about. It can be devastating and totally destroy you.
  39. 3 points
    If I may........so poignant and relevant Listen to the words................(music at 0+22) This is the song that should have got the Grammy ...IMO
  40. 3 points
    From an outdoorsman point of view.....not the best name for an airline.
  41. 3 points
    A week before my daughter got married, she sent me a T-Shirt. This is a screen shot of what it said when it was new.....It's kind of worn and ratty now but I'm not getting rid of it.
  42. 3 points
    The Premier of Quebec wants to reduce the number of immigrants it takes in from 50,000 to 40,000. He also wants to keep the current level of immigration funding and wants $300 million in compensation for those illegal border crossers. No feigned outrage there at all from JT. By way of comparison, Lisa Macleod is branded "un Canadian" by virtue of the fact she wants Ottawa to pay their share of the migrant bill ($200 million).... that JT (almost) single handedly created. I almost don't have to look at the facts anymore, if a Liberal is outraged, there is a strong element of hypocrisy at work even as they scream "hypocritical racist" in my face.
  43. 3 points
    Odd thing to say having not set foot on the aircraft. I'll reserve my judgement until I actually fly on it.
  44. 3 points
    I read that the folks in Gander and Moncton sent 32 pizzas to the New York Centre as well.
  45. 3 points
    The requirement to comply with the regulation doesn’t begin at boarding. Anyone representing the airline has a responsibility to intervene if a passenger appears to be intoxicated. Most airlines don’t emphasize that enough in training with their ground staff.
  46. 3 points
    precicely. Because Boeing doesnt want to do a clean slate redesign of the aircraft to implement the needed improvements. They keep putting makeup on a pig.
  47. 3 points
    Some truth there for sure. I was never a big fan of GS and I do like what I'm hearing from Ed Sims. He seems to acknowledge a lot of the issues that seem to have been ignored. I hope the pilots and company are somewhat unhappy with their contract and then I'll know it's a fair one. I'm more optimistic about WJ than I have been in a while!
  48. 3 points
    One interesting thing about China is that they will provide whatever level of quality your company is willing to pay for. The reason why Chinese products have a reputation for poor quality is simply because the contracting company is willing to pay for, and accept, lower quality and not because they are incapable of producing higher quality. Apple products are made in China and are generally considered to be high quality. This is because Apple pays for high quality. Dollar store electronics are also made in China and are low quality - not because they couldn't be made better but because the dollar stores aren't willing to pay for better.
  49. 3 points
  50. 3 points
    My brother was the Canadian President for Aerospatiale and had a bid in for a replacement helo....and as a result I got a few flights in the AS 365 Dauphin while he was trying to get the CDN Government to buy it. Grudgingly I must admit it was easy to fly, especially with the CC like any jet fighter....They did not get the nod..... He was seconded back to the USA to work the USA Aerospatiale. Back in the old days I did two trips while in Cold Lake with a twin Huey and discovered that Alberta wasn't big enough for me to hover in one spot...