Seeker
-
Posts
8,332 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
196
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Seeker
-
-
12 hours ago, internet said:
Canada Jetlines postpones launch over financing challenges, lays off staff http://dlvr.it/RH8Nmp @GlobeBusiness
That's too bad. I was hoping they'd get up and running, last 6 months and then strand 10-15,000 passengers all around the continent before going bankrupt. A good opportunity to educate the public, the media and the investors lost.
I guess this means the investors have already been educated.
-
Always stop watching when they get fundamental facts wrong. At 2:10, start talking about bigger engines making the nose point up and about the MCAS being needed to counteract this. Wrong, or at best, a gross simplification. Yes, you could argue that the finer points are not needed for whatever the intended audience is. This may be true but if the finer points aren't being covered in this part of the video how do I know that the finer points in other parts of the discussion are also not being covered?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, rudder said:
AC now has the perfect arrangement with CHR/Jazz:
- Long term regional feed cost certainty.
- Willingness of CHR to put some of the Express fleet renewal debt on its own balance sheet.
- Labour stability until at least 2026 (and perhaps beyond).
- majority of Express operation at a full service CPA vendor (dispatch, crew scheduling, MTC, etc)
- transparency of CHR future plans due partial ownership and BOD representation
AC will no longer have to expend oversight resources on an underperforming Express vendor. This is the latest but perhaps not the last development on the AC Express front.
Some of these points that you describe as being the perfect arrangement were the exact points raised by Chorus back when back when AC decided to diversify its CPA structure in the first place. The impetus for that decision was the realization that job action by the Jazz pilots would cripple the network. I guess they feel that's no longer a threat, or at least, a smaller threat than continuing to use GGN.
-
29 minutes ago, deicer said:
Start with a small unmanned aircraft, gain experience, then scale up. Yes, it will start with cargo, but won't take long to transfer to pax when the savings are realised. Just ask elevator operators.
Again? Really? How many times do we need to discuss pilotless aircraft?
Look, I already gave you the answer. It is possible to have pilotless aircraft now but it isn't possible, nor will it likely ever be possible to simultaneously achieve the current levels of safety, reliability and cost without a human at the controls. You don't even need to be airborne - who will check the wings for contamination? Take the Westjet evacuation last week in Toronto - without a pilot who will call the evacuation?
-
Wolfhunter;
The question you have to ask yourself is this; "Can I outlast the companies that are doing the hiring?" Eventually it will get to the point at which companies will need to pay more but if you have to wait 30 years (or 20, or 10) is it worth waiting and what will you do while you're waiting? Of course if all pilots thought the same and acted together the day would come sooner but since there are always a few who act in self-interest, perhaps out of necessity, you may find the wait to be unacceptable.
Your point about veteran pilots refusing to accept lower wages is interesting. Veteran pilots, perhaps with the mortgage paid off and money in the bank, can afford to be altruistic but a young guy with loans to pay and no pay cheque in sight can't really be faulted for making the hard choice to accept a position with a training bond.
-
4 hours ago, J.O. said:
The “operations control” tag is a fairly broad brush. It can mean anything from the management team itself to their supporting processes like dispatch, weight and balance, flight planning and such. The devil is in the details which have not been shared publicly.
Yeah, that's kinda my point - none of those things are "pilot experience".
-
2 hours ago, Bobcaygeon said:
Who’s managing the operation control systems? Your personnel.
With most of the positions being thankless jobs with long hours and on call it’s tough to get people to come into the office, never mind stay there.
The industry turnover and opportunities hurt two fold. It’s hard to get people to stay long enough to be qualified in the positions and with the high turnover rates the job sucks more than ever because you keep on training staff to a level where you can relax and not micromanage and they leave and you start again.
These last few years have seen massive hiring, of pilots, by Air Canada and Westjet and a subsequent turnover at smaller companies. Is there also a large turnover in the backend operations staff? I don't know. The suggestion earlier was that perhaps the pilots were low-experience and, perhaps, that had something to do with the crash. While this may still turn out to be a factor the initial finding from Transport was that the operations control was deficient. I don't interpret this as being linked to pilot turnover. Maybe it is but I don't read it that way.
-
6 hours ago, blues deville said:
I hope I am wrong but when there is a lot of growth in this industry the more qualified sometimes move on and smaller outfits are left promoting whomever they have left into more responsible positions. Sometimes it works and sometimes not. With the current hiring at all majors and the planned expansions at each plus large waves of retirement, this might be the result for the little guys serving Canada’s north.
Well, you could be right but the article says this: "Transport Canada said it had identified deficiencies in the company's Operational Control System, which ensures that the company's everyday actions comply with safety requirements for things like dispatching personnel and aircraft. " so that doesn't sound like a personnel experience issue.
-
1 hour ago, Kasey said:
How about de-icing?
I know nothing about Westwind, or the ATR for that matter, and therefore can't comment on what deicing procedures might have been available or in use.
-
Not to jump the process but I'd be very surprised if icing didn't turn out to be a factor.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Super 80 said:
Boeing apparently made a very attractive offer to the last government that included 767 tankers (the variant operated by the Italians and Japanese) more or less for free out of desperation to get more examples into service for the sake of demonstration after a rough introduction.
Free? That's a good price!
-
OTTAWA — The Liberal government is intent on buying Super Hornet fighter jets, according to multiple sources.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet reportedly discussed the issue last week, and while no formal decision was taken, one top-level official said: “They have made up their minds and are working on the right narrative to support it.”
Rather than a full replacement of the air force’s aging CF-18 fighter fleet, it’s believed the purchase will be labelled an interim measure to fill what Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has warned is a pending “gap” in Canada’s military capabilities.
-
No cheap alternative says John Ivison:
"In September, the Australian Auditor-General put the acquisition cost of 24 Super Hornets at A$3.54-billion (C$3.67-billion) and the sustainment costs for 10 years at A$1.38-billion (C$1.43-billion.). If you double the sustainment costs for comparison purposes and divide by 24 planes, the cost is $272-million each for purchase and maintenance over a 20-year period.
We know what the government says are the equivalent costs for the F-35 because they have just been released. The government says it will spend $8.9-billion on acquisition and $7.3-billion on sustainment over 20 years on 65 aircraft – or $249-million each."
-
Interesting comment posted to this article:
on national post.com (italics and bold mine):
"The report validates much of the costing done by National Defence. The acquisition costs are identical at $8.9-billion. DND calculates sustainment costs will be $7.3-billion, while KPMG says $15.2-billion. On operating costs, DND estimates $9-billion, whereas the accountancy firm calculates $19.9-billion.
But the vast majority of those cost differences can be explained by the different time-scales used – DND’s costs are for a 20-year period, while KPMG fulfilled the mandate given it by the Auditor-General to give Canadians a full costing over the 42-year lifespan of the F-35s.
people need to understand that the acquisition costs of 8.9 billion is what we're REALLY talking about. the sustainment costs will be similar with ANY new fighter acquisition and the operating costs will be in the same ballpark too.
if you want to have a conversation about whether we SHOULD have advanced fighters, or which ones are the best fit for our requirements, go to it. i welcome that conversation, but the F35 program and it's proponents are being railroaded."
-
1
-
-
That's the option I was hoping for too.
-
Maybe climate change is happening and maybe it isn't, maybe humans are the reason and maybe we aren't. The prudent course of action is to act as though it is happening and as though we have the means to effect a positive change. I'm having trouble with the logic behind transferring trillions of dollars to the less-developed countries though, can anyone explain why this is necessary? If the plan was to set achievable goals that gradually decrease CO2 emissions while taxing inefficient energy use, I'd be all for it - as long as the tax money stayed in my country and was used to fund development of alternative energy sources and industries. If the plan involves sending a big cheque to some African dictator though I can't help but feel that it's not about climate change at all.
-
Western carbon dioxide emissions increase plant yields in the Third World. So why are they asking for reparations?
See?
Everything is more complicated than it seems.
-
Well, you might be closer but there's often no way of knowing that you aren't just caught in someone else's self-interested plan.
-
It's easy to brand the WOXOF types as paranoids, but doing just a little digging and a little researching unravels most of the propaganda we're being fed.
You can dig and research and replace one set of propaganda with another set but it doesn't mean you are any closer to the truth.
-
I prefer to engage the topic as I do flight safety work, on the basis of "what not who" and disengage if it becomes a personal matter in which feelings may be trod upon.
Don, an admirable goal but in this case I think it's far beyond reach; the "what" and the "who" are intermingled at a subatomic level. I don't have the time or the education to analyse the data myself and I don't trust any of the information available to me in the media; climate change is happening, or maybe it isn't, human are responsible, or maybe we aren't, cap and trade is a feasible solution, or maybe it isn't.
The stuff that drives me crazy is when I find out that ethanol consumes more energy to produce than it nets (after my government has mandated it's inclusion in gasoline as a way of reducing energy consumption), when I find out that environmental impact of collecting and recycling may be higher than impact of just landfilling or that buying locally may result in higher energy cost than buying from some far-away place, etc, etc, etc.
It's frustrating and more often than not I find myself unable to calculate the relative pros and cons of one choice vs another. What's missing for me is the foundation; reliable, complete information from a non-partisan source. Give me that and I'll be all over doing my part.
-
How 'bout today? Thanks for posting that Woxof. Interesting developments indeed.
I agree with him that any data specifically mentioned as having been "tricked" or suppressed, should now be examined.
It may be worth considering though, that we're zeroing in on some selected emails among thousands that were hacked, no doubt the vast majority of which we'd find uninteresting, between good scientists doing good science.
Hopefully, this will provide something of a springboard to get everything known and not known fully exposed for all to examine, then the wisest among us can decipher it all.
Mitch, I don't know if you can call it "good science" if it's based on flawed or cooked data. Although I draw no conclusion I find that the thing reeks - not a stretch at all to see the whole man-made-climate-change as a house of cards.
-
You may just want to re-examine why nobody chooses to respond rather than just assuming it is because your "evidence" is compelling people to remain silent.
Ahhh, now this is not fair on your part. I choose not to reply because, as Mitch says, I don't know enough to be able to speak from any authority and I don't have the time or inclination to roam the interweb looking for the facts. It has nothing to do with making any judgement on woxof's social skills. In fact, I think you have crossed your own line and that calling someone else socially inept is in itself socially inept. Furthermore it appears that you have done this as a back-handed way of stifling him - you may wish to examine your own motivation in posting this.
-
Here's an interesting read on our current financial crisis. Rather long but well worth reading and it does have a tie-in with global warming - should be a real hit with any fellow conspiracy theorists. The Great American Bubble Machine
Very entertaining writing style, here's the first paragraph:
"The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled-dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates."
737 Max Updates and Cancellations
in Airline Aviation Forum
Posted
Awesome. Help address public reluctance to fly on the airplane by hiding the fact that they're on the airplane they are trying to avoid. Wow. Can't see any problem with that!
This is the most idiotic idea ever. Can you imagine the fallout from the public learning, as they are sure to, that the company that deceived the FAA, all the 737 pilots and the entire world with the development/certification of the aircraft is now trying to hide the true identity of the aircraft by changing the name?