J.O.

So now you’re asking a front line crew to interpret which regulations apply and which ones don’t? Obviously you’ve never been in management because that kind of thinking can be your worst nightmare. Airlines pay their people to follow the rules to the greatest possible extent. Deviating from regs should only take place when there are other, more critical implications. An example would be landing below weather limits because you have doubts about the airworthiness of the aircraft. A crying 3 year old refusing to wear a mask is nowhere close to enough to being justification, especially when the aircraft is still on the ground. Neither is keeping a self-serving parent quiet just because he happens to have some media connections. There’s also nothing good that can come from trying to overrule a crew decision in the heat of the moment once it’s been made. Want your people to stop making decisions? The easiest way possible is to throw them under the bus for doing exactly what they’ve been trained to do.

The 3 year old was having a meltdown over wearing a mask. The crew was following the regulation, and given the company’s reCent zero tolerance statements, one can hardly blame them. Would you be so inclined to throw mud at the crew and the company if the kid was refusing to wear a seatbelt? Both are required by regulation, whether or not you, I, or the man on the moon like it. I also don’t get anyone who takes two kids under 4 on a domestic red eye flight. Passes or not, that’s asking for trouble. I suspect your actual beef is with mandatory mask rules. May as well get used to it, that isn’t changing any time soon.

Don't those privileges expire on the day of your demise?

WestJet is insisting the mask compliance issue was with the 3 year old, not the 19 month old. Other passengers are corroborating that.

They have a 50% stake in a hotel property in PVR. Far as I know that’s it at the moment.

Do you wear a seatbelt? Same thing. The crew didn’t make the rule but they’re required to comply with it.

Pavement strength would definitely be an issue at Boundary Bay.

I didn't know "surpassingly" was a word!

There is no scenario for managing this situation that doesn’t lead to economic hardship. Opening things up causes massive strain on health care systems and as more people get sick, the desire to travel and intermingle with our fellow citizens will wane anyways. Maintaining a tighter rein on things keeps more people alive but still causes economic hardship. If you were deciding, would you want to be considered responsible for more deaths, or fewer? Ask Trump how that’s going. Whether he’s truly responsible for it or not is irrelevant, the captain carries the can for the success or failure of the mission. He’s the Francesco Schettino of coronavirus leadership.

The availability of pre-departure COVID tests would be the first hurdle to the AC proposal. Here in BC, a person still needs one or more symptoms to get a test.

No they don’t. The actions already taken were necessary - and they hurt, no question. Even if they opened up travel restrictions completely, people are not going to engage in discretionary travel until there’s a treatment or a vaccine. That has nothing to do with government actions - past or future.

Nothing the government does at this point is going to change the lack of demand - certainly not overnight. And as far as the effect their restrictions have had on the industry, yes it's very tough but I'll take our results over the disaster we're seeing south of the border right now. If I have a choice between paying more out of pocket or paying with thousands more lives and decimating our healthcare system, that's an easy one.

I’m going to assume that spin wasn’t in the plan!

Before anyone rushes to blame this on greedy airlines putting money ahead of safety, ask yourself this. If Boeing had called Flight Ops management and told them the MAX flight control system contained a single point of failure that could cause an unrecoverable loss of control, do you believe they'd have signed off on that?

They're not at the end, where there is a teardrop for turnarounds (by the green star in the image). I know this because after the backup maneuver, they taxi straight ahead to the ramp. They landed on RWY 01 and they're at the second turnoff for the terminal (the red star in the image). The runway length is about 5300 ft, meaning it is a pretty impressive stopping distance. I landed on that runway once in a 320 and touched down at the first piano keys. With medium autobrake, we were not able to make that turnoff.

I suspect the boys in the hangar would prefer they taxi to the end and turn around instead.

It's difficult to control the extras on the departures side, but it's the fifteen family members crowding the arrivals hall waiting for granny that I find frustrating. You see it all the time in the international side of YVR.

They found a different way to pass the time.

F35 vs. McLaren Speedtail

Our neighbour asked about masks at the local Costco store today. They were told it would be based on provincial guidelines only, they will not mandate it in Canada otherwise. That said, when I went a week ago, probably 75% of the folks in the store were wearing a mask.

That hysteria isn't limited to YYC. The TP and tissues section in our local Costco was almost empty last night and people were scrambling to stock up. Crazy!

The best news for Boeing these days is the Covid-19 virus. The effect of this bug on the industry is going to make the MAX issues look like a picnic.

Good luck buying N95s these days. I spoke with a rep from 3M the other day and they are under strict instructions to ration them. Global demand today is twice the manufacturing output and they haven’t even declared a pandemic - yet.

Anyone who's been to the campus knows that bridge.