Leaderboard


Popular Content

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

  1. 8 points
    The initial actions for a power loss/engine failure in the Tutor is "Zoom, idle, air start". We were always taught that if this happened on take off and if the engine did not stabilize/re-light before the apex of the zoom manoeuvre, EJECT, EJECT, EJECT. There was no consideration given to landing straight ahead unless there was sufficient runway remaining, and it was specifically emphasized that NO consideration should be given to where the jet would end up after it was jettisoned. That would just eat up time you didn't have. It has been proven time and again that the odds of surviving a low-altitude & nose-low ejection is very slim. Ejection seats are certainly life savers, but they aren't miracle workers. Even a 0/0 seat can't overcome downwards inertia + the acceleration of gravity at low level. As I posted elsewhere, my heart goes out to the Snowbirds and their families. What a shitty thing to happen to a superb group of people trying to do a nice thing for our country.
  2. 7 points
    In the past two weeks, as a full revenue passenger, I flew on both Air Canada and WestJet. Both provided quality service. We are very lucky to have two such great airlines here in Canada. I used their APPs. to keep track of my flights and booked online. Just too darn easy.
  3. 7 points
    When compared to wearing blackface and dancing like an ape, or standing under a terrorist flag while mourning one of the most ruthless terrorists of the decade..... I pick cheating at golf; I'd even accept driving a golf cart above the posted limit to see how far you can get through the sand traps. People are now blaming Trump for the fact that a rogue terrorist nation shot down a civilian airliner. And don't be fooled, Iran denied this for 3 days yet knew full well what happened minutes after the missile launch, so don't even try to snow the Snow Queen. Now lets try something closer to home that may be analogous: The Toronto Police Service decides that they won't arrest pistol packing gangbangers because it might anger their gang colleagues. None the less, one of the gang members shoots at police officers during his arrest for drug trafficing and is killed in the engagement. His death results in gang members shooting up the streets of Toronto and killing numerous innocent bystanders..... If I were to suggest that it was the Police Service's fault for trying to arrest him in the first place, how would that play with the citizens of Toronto? Democratic and Liberal hypocrisy, supported by a mindlessly partisan media is fascinating to watch, especially for veterans..... all of these ideas stand as A-OK with them as long as you don't make the OK sign with your thumb and index finger. I will now predict that Bernie will be the nominee, he will maintain the charted course of madness to Crazy Island, the Democrats will lose in Nov and Liberal minded folks will be astounded by the result... as well they should; my neighbour has a blind goat that could beat Bernie in the primaries. I bet Crazy Island has an active volcano and Democrats are selling guided tour passes.....
  4. 7 points
    Thanks...it will be a frosty day in Hell if I am ever told to Not wear a Poppy. Really unfortunate that most Canadians have never had a tour of the battlefields of Europe and seen the rows and rows of men who gave their all in the name of freedom. What was most impressive was the young age that so many were when they met their demise..... FOREVER grateful for those that gave me this life I enjoy... PS...The creeps, and there will be some again this year, that steal the donation boxes should be forced to spend a day looking at actual photos of the horror that so many endured...... for all of us.
  5. 7 points
    The world is gone to hell. Exactly .000002% of the population identifies as neither male or female. What are we doing catering to an extremely small subset of people? Anybody who can't deal with a greeting of "hello ladies and gentlemen" shouldn't be allowed out in public let alone on an aircraft.
  6. 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
  7. 6 points
    I’m not defending Trump or his policies, but at least the Potus has open access by the press...he may answer, he may ignore them, he may tell the to F off, but at least he has the guts to be in front of journalists and take unscripted, unfiltered questions. Our guy??? Not a F@$*ing chance!
  8. 6 points
    Maybe I'm in a sour mood.. Nurses deserve credit, 100%. But so too do the doctors and janitors at hospitals; firefighters, police officers, and paramedics attending emergencies; customer service agents at grocery stores, liquor stores, gas stations; flight crews; and anyone else who has to be "exposed" to the general public. These aren't heroes these are people doing their jobs because they have to while some people don't. Nurses deserve a lot of credit I just don't want to diminish the contributions of a lot of other people in society right now.
  9. 6 points
    Dr. Fauci has unblemished integrity and remains the only trustworthy source for information regarding this virus and its behaviour. He states that testing and contact-tracing are the only ways to open any economy safely. Being a flight-data specialist I would fully agree with such a statement - you can't conduct as safe an operation as possible if you don't know what your aircraft are doing on a flight-by-flight basis, period. Where/when the rubber meets the road, it is data, not opinions that keep people safe in high-risk enterprises. Given strict adherence to CDC guidelines, if the present U.S. administration permits the country see them, the economy can probably be safely opened slightly earlier but that is a political-economic question, not a health question. There are almost certainly correct answers for both questions even when posed at the same time. Deft governance, honesty such as that exhibited by British Columbia's Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonny Henry for example, and empathy accompanied by meaningful financial support for those who are rapidly loosing their livelihoods or professions is required. The Covid-19 virus is not under control in the United States. The border should not be opened until it is, designated essential travel excepted. Great progress has been made in the U.S. and we all know that opening too soon and believing its all over will simply return us to February or March.
  10. 6 points
    I had the opportunity to fly in the A220 twice last week. What an outstanding aircraft. I was in business class but took the opportunity to go back and sit for a moment in economy. It’s going to be a very popular A/C for AC. Easily more comfortable than either the 737 or A320. I have some observations made from the trips. Pros Very comfortable J class seats. Large 18 inch displays using the latest Panasonic x3 system. World class leading High Definition IFE Each seat has its own single 110ac plug, 2 USB charging ports, and two headphone inputs so two people can watch the same movie together. Each seat has a little seat bed nook to hold a water bottle/ phone. J class reclines, has a deployable calf rest as well as a pull-down foot rest. The J Cabin is separated from PY by a hard divider, which allows the last row of J class to fully recline, without feeling guilty reclining into the economy row behind you. The forward lav is large and tall, as big or bigger than the 777. No problem for 6’3 to stand straight up. Lots of room in the forward galley to stand straight up, not do the Embrajer/737 hunch over. Very cool, sophisticated F/D with all the toys a pilot could want. Dual heads Up displays, joysticks that move together and thrust levers that move, two very big Boeing vs Airbus complaints. Trackball Drag and drop navigating as well as normal FMS navigation. The flight deck is large for this size of aircraft, allowing straight up standing by the door, and sufficient space behind each pilot for their overnight roller bags. I had been worried that an airplane with this kind of mission endurance would get a regional E190-sized Flight Deck. I was wrong. Being able to stand up and stretch without opening the door is a huge plus. Very large windows Very Large Max type overhead bins, though larger on the right side than the left, which allow roller bags to be placed on their sides allowing probably at least 4 bags per bin. All seats in economy are 18.5 inch wide and are larger than normal AC economy, and the middle seat gets an entire extra 1/2 inch of width (19 inches). Finally a reward for middle seat users. Easily the biggest economy seats in NA. (Edited as I was able to look up the actually numbers - very roomy seats) Cons For an airplane which is so quiet on the outside, it is surprisingly noisy on the inside. It seemed to be fan and duct noise, not parasitic drag noise. This could be definitely fine tuned in production numbers further down the line. Definitely not 330/777 quiet in the cabin. Perhaps a Q400 ANR system could be installed. Though not outrageously loud, it was more than expected from an aircraft this age/size. Noisy brakes, but this could be that they are brand new. On both flights, smooth air, two different fins, a very subtle, continuous vibration (buffet)is felt. It doesn’t seem to be engine related as there is no change with thrust settings. I wondered if there is simply some gear doors which need adjustment, or is it a sonic buffet happening somewhere on the airframe, which could be changed with Vortex generating devices. At the L1door opening (and I assume the others as well), there are two door latching hooks sticking a full inch up out of the floor you walk over at the threshold. Though painted hazard yellow, they are a tripping hazard, and I’m kind of amazed it made it into production. For having such a huge lavatory, the sink is surprisingly grey-hound-bus small. It’s hard to get your hands under the taps, measuring only about 10x8 inches. It is hard to get your hands out of the sink cupped with water if you wish to wash your face as the tap is in the way. Im not a fan of the glare shield mounted radio control panels. When ATC instructions are given with frequency changes, there may be some hand collisions as right seat reaches for left RCP and left seat reaches for auto pilot functions. Romances are born this way. Overall, I think this is going to be THE MOST popular NB aircraft in Air Canada history. It seems to be a winner from what I got on two four hour flights. I agree that it is a shame to relinquish identifying the Canadian ingenuity that went into it, but I have no doubt that with Airbus now in charge, they can continue to improve small irritants to this excellent product. BTW, this is coming from someone who was a sceptic, based on disappointment of Bombardier aircraft in the past (dash-8 and RJs). I wasn’t expecting to be this enamoured with it, but am willing to admit Bombardier knocked this out of the park. Well done.
  11. 6 points
    No this is not aviation but since we’re talking a lot about the effects of COVID-19 on our lives, I thought it worth sharing. In these days of lockdown, there are plenty of examples of artists who are getting together to record music from a distance and some of them are really well done. I’ve been seeking them out and came across this one which was actually done a few months ago. It includes Robbie Robertson for some Canadian content. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
  12. 6 points
    Yeah, I agree, it's a stupid article - everyone knows that when the "climate change" really kicks in there will massive starvation and therefore average passenger weights will fall and average TOW will be less than before CC and the effect of the higher temperatures will be mitigated!
  13. 6 points
    To validate that - I can attest that when the front wheel of your pickup truck detaches from the wheel hub, you will be able to see the wheel accelerate past you on it's path into the brush.
  14. 6 points
    Who cares how Southwest feels. They got what they demanded, they get what they deserve.
  15. 6 points
    It is a nice irony that it was the Left Wing that got hit.
  16. 6 points
    They've picked the first crew already!
  17. 5 points
    Now we all have to quit quoting him so we never have to see a post from him.
  18. 5 points
    What a stupid article. Right now the "best" of the two is whichever of them is actually flying where you want (or need) to go. In six months, the whole calculation will change - in which way it will change is anybody's guess but one thing is for sure, the information in this article will be hopelessly out-of-date.
  19. 5 points
    For Air Canada Today NO..... YES.... Called AC Res yesterday...was on hold 43 minutes.....Explained my problem to agent .........within 5 minutes I had two .pdf files in my email advising me that my credit card had been fully refunded for; (A) The flight (B) The seat selection The young fellow was just exceptional...Sent an email to Res Supervisor advising the agents name/time/date and a few details concerning the exceptional service.
  20. 5 points
    I wonder if we could do a straight across swap with Mexico. Trudeau for Obrador. We can throw in a second round cabinet pick and Mexico can keep the 787. If necessary, (and it probably would be), we could sweeten the offer. Here's hopin'.
  21. 5 points
    Recently did a round trip on WestJet down to Florida and back…. YYZ – Florida -YYZ I was going to do a normal review but thought better of it but would like to relate to you why the title of this thread is what you see. Coming back from Florida I was given an “A” seat and the lady in the “C” seat was an amiable person but then in bounced a young lady, I would guess her age at about 23-27 and she took the “B” seat…..and she just loved her iPad and iPhone. As we started to taxi out the FAs asked everyone to remove any headsets as they wished to commence the Safety Briefing, and at that time “B” seat decided to do a FaceTime call with her father. So there she was giggling and guffawing with her Dad as the FAs did their job. My patience waned and after about 15 seconds I took the iPad, looked at Dad and stated that the Cabin Crew were doing a passenger safety briefing and Jennifer should be listening and if there was time, she could call him back…..FaceTime closed. Yes, the young lady was PO’d and just stared at me until the briefing ended. I then grabbed one of the emergency cards and asked her……Where are the emergency exits? (((We were 2 rows away))) Puzzled and confused looks, How many emergency exits are there?….. eyes darting around and no answer….where are the life jackets ? This time she actually answered and pointed at the overheads and said “I think, in there ? ”. By this time she had calmed down and I took the “fatherly approach “ and pointed out all the features on the card and tried to impress her that the information, both from the crew and on the card could possibly save her life in the event we actually had an emergency… She mellowed and was actually civil by the time we had the Cat III approach into YYZ. There you go …..Old Man Yelling At Clouds.
  22. 5 points
    There's a pettiness in our politics that leaves us with a 24 Sussex Drive that is empty and should be either renovated or replaced, old jets when new ones would, in the long run be cheaper to operate or maintain, etc. Why not just get a bipartisan committee together and settle these issues. It's not terribly difficult. They can solicit expert opinions, and move all these files forward. We're not talking billions of dollars here. For an economy Canada's size, coming up with a nice but not extravagant residence for the PM can't be hard. And just replace those old challengers with new jets with longer range so the A310s don't have to fly politicians around except for the largest state visits abroad.
  23. 5 points
    That's not where I would like to see our Prime Minister.
  24. 5 points
    Some very smart people are finally pushing back, Ben Shapiro and Dr Jordan Peterson to name two. The Left Wing nut-jobs are doing all they can to squash free speech, ANTIFA being at the far end. If you are not familiar with these two gentleman, they both have a lot of YouTube content. Time to push back for the sake of the next generation, these aren't just angry old white guys Dagger. Ben Shapiro is early 30's, there are people with common sense, but they are getting afraid to speak out. Time to tell them to go sc@ew themselves!
  25. 5 points
    Yea, what Seeker said. Some humility on your part would definitely be a good thing. I see from your profile that you have been around this board since 2004 so maybe you just missed the previous explanations. Jack is a highly regarded and much beloved Ex Air Atlantic, and LTDed WestJet pilot who suffered a serious stroke a few years ago while on a pairing. Not using the spacebar is the least of Gentleman Jack's concerns.
  26. 5 points
    14,000 Words Of "Blame The Pilots" That Whitewash Boeing Of 737 MAX Failure The New York Times Magazine just published a 14,000 words piece about the Boeing 737 MAX accidents. It is headlined: What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 Max? But the piece does not really say what brought the Boeing 737 MAX down. It does not explain the basic engineering errors Boeing made. It does not explain its lack of safety analysis. It does not mention the irresponsible delegation of certification authority from the Federal Aviation Administration to Boeing. There is no mention of the corporate greed that is the root cause of those failures. Instead the piece is full of slandering accusations against the foreign pilots of the two 737 MAX planes that crashed. It bashes the airlines and the safety authorities of Indonesia and Ethiopia. It only mildly criticizes Boeing for designing the MCAS system that brought the planes down. The author of the piece, William Langewiesche, was a professional pilot before he turned to journalism. But there is so much slander in the text that it might as well have been written by Boeing's public relations department. The piece is also riddled with technical mistakes. We will pick on the most obvious ones below. The following is thus a bit technical and maybe too boring for our regular readers. Langewiesche describes the 737 MAX trim system and its failure mode: That’s a runaway trim. Such failures are easily countered by the pilot — first by using the control column to give opposing elevator, then by flipping a couple of switches to shut off the electrics before reverting to a perfectly capable parallel system of manual trim. But it seemed that for some reason, the Lion Air crew might not have resorted to the simple solution. Wrong: The manual trim system does not work at all when the stabilizer is widely out of trim (i.e. after MCAS intervened) and/or if the plane is flying faster than usual. That is why the European regulator EASA sees it as a major concern and wants it fixed. Langewiesche knows this. He later writes of one of the accidents: The speed, meanwhile, was producing such large aerodynamic forces on the tail that the manual trim wheel lacked the mechanical power to overcome them, and the trim was essentially locked into the position where the MCAS had left it Is that a 'perfectly capable system'? Of the crashed Lion Air flight 610 Langewiesche writes: At 6:31 a.m., 11 minutes into the flight, Suneja got on the radio for the first time. He did not know their altitude, he told the controller, because all their altitude indicators were showing different values. This is unlikely and has never been explained. Wrong. The value given by an Angle of Attack sensor is also used in calculating the speed and attitude of a plane. If one of the two AoA sensors fails the instruments on the side that with the failed AoA sensor will show different values than those on the other side of the cockpit. Langewiesche knows this. Further down in his piece he writes: That story actually starts three days before the accident, when the same airplane — under different flight numbers and Lion Air crews — experienced errors in airspeed and altitude indications on the captain’s (left side) flight display that weren’t properly addressed. Those indications are driven by a combination of sensors on the surface of the airplane. Is that 'unlikely' and unexplained? This is an unfounded claim: Boeing believed the system to be so innocuous, even if it malfunctioned, that the company did not inform pilots of its existence or include a description of it in the airplane’s flight manuals. Wrong. Boeing sold the new plane with the dubious claim that it handled no differently than its predecessor. It left MCAS out of the manual because it did not want to add to training requirements for the pilots which would have contradicted its marketing claim. Furthermore Boeing did not do any additional safety evaluation when it later increased the effect of the system. Another wrong part: A set of independent duplicate sensors drive the co-pilot’s (right side) display. A third standby system provides additional independent backup and allows for intuitive troubleshooting when any one of the three systems fails: If two indications agree and the third one does not, the odd one out is obviously the one to ignore. This sort of arrangement helps to explain why flying a Boeing is not normally an intellectual challenge. Furthermore, the airplane provides an alert when airspeed or altitude indications disagree. There is no general third standby system on a Boeing 737. There is a set of standby instruments for altitude and airspeed. But these give uncorrected values that differ from the ones shown on the two flight control displays. Those values are calculated by two flight computers and each takes the value of only one pitot (speed) tube and one AoA sensor into account. If an AoA sensor fails the instruments on one side show wrong values. The instruments on the other side will show different but hopefully correct values. The standby instruments will show different, uncorrected values than both of the calculated ones. Langewiesche describes an earlier Lion Air flight that also experienced an MCAS failure but was by chance saved: Immediately after liftoff, the captain’s airspeed indication failed, airspeed-disagreement and altitude-disagreement warnings appeared on his flight display and his stick shaker began to rattle the controls in warning of an imminent stall. The Bali captain was enough of an airman to realize that he was dealing with an information failure only — not an actual stall. No direct mention has been made of this, but he must have immediately identified the replacement angle-of-attack vane on his side as the likely culprit. Wrong. How would the pilot know that? The pilot noticed intermittet automatic down trim. That failure mode was not in the flight manuals and pilot had no way to attribute it to an AoA sensor. The claim is also contradicted by the pilot's maintenance log entry of which Langewiesche writes: After pulling up to the gate in Jakarta, the Bali captain informed a company mechanic about “the aircraft problem” and in the maintenance log noted only three anomalies — the captain’s airspeed and altitude indication errors and the illumination of a warning light related to a system known as Feel Differential Pressure. That was it. Apparently the captain noted nothing about the failure of the newly installed angle-of-attack sensor, or the activation of the stick shaker, or the runaway trim, or the current position of the trim cutout switches. If true, it was hard to conclude anything other than that this was severe and grotesque negligence. The captain noted nothing about the AoA sensor because he did not know that it failed. The captain did mention a trim problem but he had not experienced a runaway trim. A classic runaway trim is continuous. An MCAS intervention like the one the captain experienced stops after 9 seconds. But the pilots on that flight did not even know that MCAS existed. The captain reported all the basic symptoms he experienced during that flight. A runaway was not one of them. Langewiesche fails to mention, probably intentionally, the captain's additional entry in the maintenance log. The captain wrote: "Airspeed unreliable and ALT disagree shown after takeoff, STS also running to the wrong direction ...". STS, the Speed Trim System, moves the stabilizer trim. It does that all the time but discontinuously during every normal flight. The pilot correctly described the symptoms of the incident as he perceived them. Those were not the symptoms of a continuously runaway stabilizer. But the pilot knew, and documented, that he experienced an intermittet trim problem. It was the mechanic's responsibility to analyze the underlying error and to correct the system which is exactly what he did. The author's "blame the pilots" attitude is well expressed in this paragraph: Critics have since loudly blamed it for the difficulty in countering the MCAS when the system receives false indications of a stall. But the truth is that the MCAS is easy to counter — just flip the famous switches to kill it. Furthermore, when you have a maintenance log that shows the replacement of an angle-of-attack sensor two days before and then you have an associated stick shaker rattling away while the other stick shaker remains quiet, you do not need an idiot light to tell you what is going on. At any rate, the recognition of an angle-of-attack disagreement — however pilots do or do not come to it — has no bearing on this accident, so we will move on. An AoA sensor failure and a following MCAS incident will cause all of the following: an unexpected autopilot shutdown, an airspeed warning, an altitude disagree warning, a stall warning and, after MCAS intervenes, also an over-speed warning. The control column rattles, a loud clacker goes off, several lights blink or go red, several flight instruments suddenly show crazy values. All this in a critical flight phase immediately after the start when the workload is already high. It is this multitude of warnings, which each can have multiple causes, that startle a pilot and make it impossible to diagnose and correct within the 10 seconds that MCAS runs. To claim that "MCAS is easy to counter" is a gross misjudgment of a pilot's workload in such a critical situation. After blaming the pilots Langewiesche bashes the foreign air safety regulators which are now investigating the MAX accidents: According to sources familiar with both investigations, Boeing and the N.T.S.B. have been largely excluded and denied access to such basic evidence as the complete flight-data recordings and the audio from the cockpit. ... It is a forlorn hope, but you might wish that investigators like those in Indonesia and Ethiopia would someday have the self-confidence to pursue full and transparent investigations and release all the raw data associated with the accidents. I am not aware of an accident in the U.S. where the FAA investigators released "complete flight-data recordings and the audio from the cockpit" to foreign entities that were suspected to have caused the incident. Nor will the FAA "release all the raw data" associated with an accident. Certainly not before an investigation is finished. Boeing screwed up by designing and installing a faulty system that was unsafe. It did not even tell the pilots that MCAS existed. It still insists that the system's failure should not be trained in simulator type training. Boeing's failure and the FAA's negligence, not the pilots, caused two major accidents. Nearly a year after the first incident Boeing has still not presented a solution that the FAA would accept. Meanwhile more safety critical issues on the 737 MAX were found for which Boeing has still not provided any acceptable solution. But to Langewiesche this is anyway all irrelevant. He closes his piece out with more "blame the pilots" whitewash of "poor Boeing": The 737 Max remains grounded under impossibly close scrutiny, and any suggestion that this might be an overreaction, or that ulterior motives might be at play, or that the Indonesian and Ethiopian investigations might be inadequate, is dismissed summarily. To top it off, while the technical fixes to the MCAS have been accomplished, other barely related imperfections have been discovered and added to the airplane’s woes. All signs are that the reintroduction of the 737 Max will be exceedingly difficult because of political and bureaucratic obstacles that are formidable and widespread. Who in a position of authority will say to the public that the airplane is safe? I would if I were in such a position. What we had in the two downed airplanes was a textbook failure of airmanship. In broad daylight, these pilots couldn’t decipher a variant of a simple runaway trim, and they ended up flying too fast at low altitude, neglecting to throttle back and leading their passengers over an aerodynamic edge into oblivion. They were the deciding factor here — not the MCAS, not the Max. One wonders how much Boeing paid the author to assemble his screed. --- Previous Moon of Alabama posts on Boeing 737 MAX issues: Boeing, The FAA, And Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed - March 12 2019 Flawed Safety Analysis, Failed Oversight - Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed - March 17 2019 Regulators Knew Of 737 MAX Trim Problems - Certification Demanded Training That Boeing Failed To Deliver - March 29 2019 Ethiopian Airline Crash - Boeing Advice To 737 MAX Pilots Was Flawed - April 9 2019 Boeing 737 MAX Crash Reveals Severe Problem With Older Boeing 737 NGs - May 25 2019 Boeing's Software Fix For The 737 MAX Problem Overwhelms The Plane's Computer - June 27 2019 EASA Tells Boeing To Fix 5 Major 737 MAX Issues - July 7 2019 The New Delay Of Boeing's 737 MAX Return Will Not Be The Last One - July 15 2019 737 MAX Rudder Control Does Not Meet Safety Guidelines - It Was Still Certified - July 28 2019 737 MAX - Boeing Insults International Safety Regulators As New Problems Cause Longer Grounding - September 3 2019 Boeing Foresees Return Of The 737 MAX In November - But Not Everywhere - September 12 2019 Posted by b on September 18, 2019 at 16:41 UTC | Permalink
  27. 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.)
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 5 points
  32. 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$...
  33. 4 points
    There’s a reason they’ve lost respect around the world and it’s got nothing to do with where they park their bombers.
  34. 4 points
    Well I guess I'm in the minority so far because I did see snippets of truth and reality in the video. Well I can understand that many are upset with the Federal government actions concerning the economy and perhaps their slow response to the medical problem, the question has to be asked.................if you were King how would you have handled the start of the medical issue, followed by the economic problem? Based on the fact that "someone has to eventually pay for the financial assistance to everyone...how would you handle it?? Would you just forget about all the companies, small businesses, and all the other parts of our society and just let Canada slide into a depression and then work our way out?? How would you manage that ??? I can understand why most of Western Canada dislikes the PM...he didn't come from the west but he is the Prime Minister and he has flaws but the question is still there....what would you have done or who do you think, out of our elected officials, could have come up with a better plan and what would that plan be? The cliche....hindsight is 20-20. Venting is good for the soul but to criticize and condemn without putting forth what can be considered as a better solution does nothing to soften the medical and economic blow we are "all" part of... Perhaps there are parts of the video that have religious undertones but there was much just "food for thought" and I enjoyed that...in particular the fact that life was/is just too much rush-rush and the pollution??? Well satellite photos show the good old blue marble is taking a long awaited breather from pollution and that should be a good thing for all of us.. Not sure if you are leaning toward a supreme being here or not but if that was your intent, your remarks would be more applicable to the great Chinese Famine in which it is estimated that 15 million died or the Holocaust which is estimated to have 6 million lives lost. I am sure that those that "believe" .can reconcile what is, and has, happened and their concern is embodied in their beliefs. What has been done is done and we all have to roll with it.........unless someone has a much, much better plan.....Happy Easter.... with or without your complete family. MODERATOR...........As you can see this thread has nothing to do with airlines, airplanes, etc. so if you feel it should be moved, ...feel free. My intent was just to show that, via video, there is always a snippet of silver lining in most tragedies... DKP
  35. 4 points
    Yes, Zaphod was a character in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Congrats on knowing/finding the reference to Rich, J.O. and Marshall but you guys still haven't got the significance to the reference. It's just something that occurred to me and, obviously, not some earth-shattering revelation but calling Trump "Zaphod" works on many levels. - Zaphod was the President of the Galaxy and Trump is the President of the USA - that's one. - Zaphod was described in the book as being "hedonistic and irresponsible, narcissistic almost to the point of solipsism, and often extremely insensitive to the feelings of those around him." I would say that's a fair description of Trump as well - that's two. - Zaphod is boorish, immature, impulsive and prone to temper tantrums - that's three. - Zaphod was briefly the President of the Galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge.) This refers to the idea that the President of the USA (which changes every 4 or 8 years) is relatively insignificant to the "real" control which is held by the military-industrial complex - that's four. Anyway, I've never heard anyone else call Trump "Zaphod" so maybe it's just me that sees the similarities but I thought it was funny.
  36. 4 points
    After reading this thread my thoughts went back 20 years to a recorded telephone message, from Robert Milton, to all employees explaining the Canadian Merger. His explanation to employees was the Feds have made it clear we have no choice. Routes threatened etc. That would have been Jan 2000. Next came 911. Then SARS. Then Bankruptcy. Although I didn’t post at the time I remember being glued to posters like Don Hudson and Daggar. I was just new with AC and the stress was high. Two messages. 1) To those who are vulnerable right now. This will pass. AC pilots will do what it takes to keep furlough to a minimum in the mean time. Only listen now to people who you know have a good idea of what they are talking about. Forget the masses. 2) Dagger you must be old. . Actually about 20 years late but thank you.
  37. 4 points
  38. 4 points
    She asked him, 'How much are you selling the eggs for?' The old seller replied, '$.25 an egg, Madam.' She said to him, 'I will take 6 eggs for $1.25 or I will leave.' The old seller replied, 'Come take them at the price you want. Maybe, this is a good beginning because I have not been able to sell even a single egg today.' She took the eggs and walked away feeling she has won. She got into her fancy car and went to a posh restaurant with her friend. There, she and her friend, ordered whatever they liked. They ate a little and left a lot of what they ordered. Then she went to pay the bill. The bill cost her $45.00 She gave $50.00 and asked the owner of the restaurant to keep the change. This incident might have seemed quite normal to the owner but, very painful to the poor egg seller. The point is, Why do we always show we have the power when we buy from the needy ones? And why do we get generous to those who do not even need our generosity? I once read somewhere: 'My father used to buy simple goods from poor people at high prices, even though he did not need them. Sometimes he even used to pay extra for them. I got concerned by this act and asked him why does he do so? Then my father replied, "It is a charity wrapped with dignity, my child”
  39. 4 points
    I had to go out and buy a service animal to allay my stress.
  40. 4 points
    Whew!!! Thank god garneau got involved.....Air Canada would have never known there was a problem ...... I’m sure the co. would have let this continue for years......thanks Captain Obvious .... btw has the governments fixed the Phoenix pay system yet??? It’s only been 5 years...
  41. 4 points
    I have seen a long in the tooth Boeing 727 refit with modern avionics and systems simply because the aircraft was still viable and the modifications were cheaper than buing a new aircraft, spares, training etc. etc. Canada manufactures some of the best Business aircraft on the market. I have see many delivered to different governments around the world. I personally think the executive fleet should represent the best Canada has to offer. Perhaps a Global 7000 or the like. Long range, large aircraft, Canadian Made. The Challenger is still a good aircraft but to represent Canada is something cutting edge would be better.
  42. 4 points
    Maybe we should start announcements with the hip,trendy and culturally acceptable...... YO YO....... ‘SUP BITCHES Or how about.... LADIES, GENTLEMEN, AND THOSE NOT SURE....
  43. 4 points
    This is way more fun than airline flying!
  44. 4 points
    If WOW goes belly up does it become MOM ?
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 4 points
    Making America Late Again? (I know, I know....) Vs
  48. 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
  49. 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.
  50. 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.