seeker

Donating Member
  • Content Count

    5,903
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    141

seeker last won the day on April 23

seeker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

933 Excellent

2 Followers

About seeker

  • Rank
    This Guy says:

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Somewhere; (only the shadow knows)

Recent Profile Visitors

5,013 profile views
  1. This reminds of an article I read a few years ago which assessed the effectiveness of the multiples of "I'm going to walk/run/bike/skateboard" across Canada to raise money for my pet charity that are done each summer. The conclusion was that, aside for a few notable exceptions such as Terry Fox, most people would have been better off to simply get a part-time job and donate the earnings from that if they really want to help their charity. Many start but few finish and after expenses and accounting for the lost wages from the job you quit or take leave from - it's just not cost-effective. From the article: She's a commercial pilot at home, but recently decided to fly solo around the world in a year-long campaign to empower women. "I just want girls, not just in India but around the world, to know that if you can dream it, you can do it," said Pandit. A cynic might say she's "empowering women to know that if they can think of something pointless to do, they can do it." Yeah, I know there's lots of reasons why she might be doing it that are completely unrelated to "empowering women." That might just be the reason she gives to lend credibility to her desire to get out and see the world or maybe she hopes to leverage the trip into a gig doing TedTalks or maybe write a book. IDK, just thinking out loud and, for the record, this has nothing to do with her being a women as I also think it would be pointless for a man to make the same trip.
  2. seeker

    Westjet

    Well, that's not really what I'm saying. Haha. Just replying to MD2's comment about everything AC is bad. AC was poorly run and hobbled with all sorts of impediments and, let's be honest, much of Westjet's success was due to those factors. Not all of course, hardworking, energetic employees who went above and beyond was certainly key to WS's success too but as we've seen over the last few years the situation has reversed to some degree. I don't wish anything negative for Westjet - there's certainly room for both companies. What's that saying; the best system of government is a benevolent King, the worst system of government is an evil King. Well, Westjet just got taken over by a King so the question is; what kind of King is he?
  3. seeker

    Westjet

    Wouldn't bank too much on the "far better labour relations" - lots of discontent amongst the pilots based on my random discussions with Westjet pilots and the huge number of them that have applied, and been hired, by AC. As for the rest of it; the "far lower" costs have become "little bit lower costs, the "stronger presence in the leisure market" has become "slightly stronger presence in the leisure market", "lots of room to grow" must be balanced against the stronger entrenched competitors and "knowing how to make money", well, not nearly as much and as easy as before. Many, many ways this could go badly. As the reports suggest, it's likely that some of the costs associated with the buyout will be downloaded to WS and if Onex cancels or reduces the profit-sharing or if the last vestiges of the "Owner" culture disappear the ability to make money could disappear too. I have many friends at WS and I hope this goes well for them but on the whole I think this is a negative for the employees.
  4. I bet if you do a search on the interwebs you'll be able to find that exact thing (although I'm not going to be the one to check). Rule 34.
  5. Are you saying that a woman is not capable of being a janitor? I hope not because a woman can do anything a man can do you know!
  6. I remember riding in the back of a Westjet flight and the PA included something along the lines of; "Welcome onboard our newest 737 MAX" Heavy emphasis on the "Max". I'll bet that changes to "welcome onboard Westjet flight xxx" to avoid having a stampede of guests heading for the door.
  7. I'd bet dollars to burritos that it's simply designed to spook Boeing into giving a larger compensation cheque. Seems pretty transparent as Southwest would have to swallow some substantial costs to add a different airframe and Boeing knows it. I say, call their bluff, since Southwest is the reason that the world has been saddled with that piece of junk anyway.
  8. I've said it before - if Southwest's Flight Ops management had stood up to the beancounters back when they were deciding on the how the aircraft should be configured based on the next quarter's numbers everyone would have been better off.
  9. Yes, some posts are biased according to the beliefs of the poster and some linked articles are biased too but I was responding specifically to the bit - " Perhaps then every one would understand how they are being manipulated by the few to gain control." I don't feel like anyone is manipulating me to gain control (here on the forum) so maybe that means I'm the one doing the manipulating - although that doesn't feel right either.
  10. Do you mean "here" like here on the forum or "here" like here in Canada?
  11. Yes, seemed like it could have been a good article based on the "claimed" expertise of the writer in both aviation and software design. Unfortunately the error in assessing the effect of moving the thrust line casts doubt on the validity of anything else he wrote. There is a possibility that the new engine could have been canted upward slightly which would have changed the thrust line but I have not seen anything about this while I have seen expert commentary on the effect of the larger cowls at higher AoAs so that's the likely impetus for the MCAS.
  12. Too bad future employees won't be on the DB plan. Well, pilots anyway, can't remember what's happening with the other groups.
  13. OK, a little confusing when you said "close the loophole, just don't tax it." They are closing the loophole - by taxing those that do it as a business. This seems to be the course of action that will have the least effect on those that are not doing it as a business. A typical government move would have been to say you are limited to only a certain number of trades per month or per year - this could have severely constrained the average person. It's surprisingly sophisticated for the criteria to include number of trades, investment knowledge of the investor and time spent researching the trades (although I don't know exactly what this means or how it's measured).