mrlupin

Donating Member
  • Content count

    1,423
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

mrlupin last won the day on September 6 2016

mrlupin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

112 Excellent

1 Follower

About mrlupin

  • Rank
    5

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,265 profile views
  1. A loan or investment is also not considered a subsidy... Corporate welfare no doubt but that term applies very well to the oil industry, ship building industry ,automakers etc . Quote from: https://globalnews.ca/news/3773916/bombardier-boeing-subsidies/ "Bombardier will have to repay the $372.5 million in financial help recently pledged by Ottawa. And Quebec’s $1 billion contribution was in exchange for a 49.5 per cent equity stake in the CSeries program, which you might call “an investment,” said Mitchell."
  2. Just like the oil industry subsidies and tax breaks right Fido? (in the neighborhood of 3 .3 billion/year in 2016). The corporate welfare is not just at Bombardier... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/15/climate-change-canada-fossil-fuel-subsidies-carbon-trudeau
  3. Monarch (UK) grounded

    Just have a look at the YUL deicing center.... Transat has had so many planes parked there over the last few weeks that you wonder what's going on with that company.
  4. Will Boeing Give a Damn?

    Another idea that was heard on the radio... Delta can circumvent the entire duties by adding an intermediary. Ie an international leaser takes the order and leases the airplanes to Delta for equivalent costs. The duties would not apply since no American company purchased the aircraft. It doesn't solve all the problems but it is a temp solution.
  5. Will Boeing Give a Damn?

    Think big.... bigger... Instead of investigating the B737 order, think a counter duty of 220% on Boeing products... The Canadian carriers would then be forced to put pressure on Boeing to drop the complaint. It would of course be disastrous for Air Canada and Westjet.
  6. I wonder if they chose the LEAP or the PW engine...? I couldn't find it in the article.
  7. Not much info has been circulated about the epaulets. It hasn't been communicated yet but from what I have seen and what I understand, just by looking at the uniform, a flight crew will be able to tell if he is talking to a structures technician, a M license tech or a E license tech. Also, the bars would in effect reflect rank and classification within the group. I am unsure what the end goal is for the classification (ie number of bars) but I suspect it has something to do with changing the image of the technician and creating a certain pride within that employee group. The present classification goes from 1-5 and is mostly related to pay echelon. However, the fifth level, is one that when it was created, the intent was that a technician had to demonstrate a superior level of knowledge in policy, procedures, ethics and professionalism. An evaluation is done every year to maintain that classification. I do not believe the roll out of that fifth echelon met all the objectives but it is there none the less. From what I understood an level 5 technician would have 5 bars. (as seen in the picture posted earlier) What will it mean to flight crew at the end of the day? There will no possibility of mistaking ramp services personnel with maintenance. One will likely be able to distinguish cabin maintenance personnel from aircraft maintenance personnel. As for the amount of bars, it's likely to be more of a status symbol for the AME than an identifier for flight crew.
  8. Would all this be for a new coat of paint? You would think they are unveiling a system to get passengers to outer space with this veil of secrecy. I wonder what the objectives of the marketing department are when they do events like this...
  9. I'd guess the engine cowls will be black...
  10. K.O. for P.M.

    On topic if anyone is interested... Jan 20: Kevin O'Leary, Kellie Leitch, test out Donald Trump-style tactics in Canada http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/current_20170120_23288.mp3
  11. Hi Malcolm, Like all other aircraft, if you add fuel you carry less "payload".
  12. Good question Fido, To get 4000 mile range, Airbus adds up to three aux fuel tanks in the aft cargo and that is for their NEO. The older aircraft in the AC fleet only have the one ( I don't know about to the new rouge A321 in the fleet I'd have to verify). I don't know how much range they gain from the extra tanks with the older engine?
  13. I was told it was a matter of 10-11 million $$ per machine. Airbus did not match or even come close to Boeing prices.
  14. Moon, you're trowing in where a company chooses to start up, where R&D is going to be carried out, texting while driving (which has no relation to taxes) and then you add smoking and taxation of tobacco products in response to my taxing carbon post. It's a little bit daunting to respond to such a post... You're all over the place yet you barely touch the subject of taxation of carbon or fossil fuel energy products. The tobacco issue is a complex one (much like carbon emissions) and no single element can explain the whole phenomenon... Yet taxing will make it costlier to smoke, that in turn is likely to reduce the amount of new smokers (ie kids) and or reduce the amount of current smokers. Many factors are involved and the solution to such a problem probably involves many actions. If the subject interests you look up the rates of smoking and have a look at what was done... I'm sure it's multi factorial. For the R&D money obtained from taxation, it can go to Canadian universities. The government taxes... it can also decide where the funds go... I'm not interested in explaining texting and driving... there is much irrationality around. Reading your post, it's as if you're advocating not using logic because you perceive logic isn't used in a non related example... Enjoy the holidays! Éric
  15. Wikipedia states (and links to a MIT study from 2013) that in the US, 53000 deaths per year are due to vehicle emissions. Logic would be to reduce those... No? If we tax carbon, making it more costly to pollute and then we redirect funds from a bad industry to newer tech and universities, why would this be a bad thing? Conservative logic tells as that when we tax businesses, we reduce and hinder growth (in the economy). Taxing gas, carbon or nitrogen oxides is just a way to reduce vehicle emissions. If the proceeds of the tax are reinvested in R&D in Canada, then why not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas