Donating Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Lakelad last won the day on June 18

Lakelad had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

46 Excellent

1 Follower

About Lakelad

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,690 profile views
  1. Will Boeing Give a Damn?

    'How Airbus landed Bombardier’s C Series'
  2. Will Boeing Give a Damn?

    . Bombardier's surrender of C Series an act of desperation Wed Oct 18, 2017 - The Globe and Mail By Konrad Yakabuski The only surprise about Bombardier's move to surrender control of the C Series to one or the other member of the planet's big-airplane duopoly is that it took this long. During this nearly two-decade-long saga, the odds were always stacked against Bombardier. Its decision to try to take on Airbus and Boeing on their own turf – the 100-plus seat jet category – always contained an element of sheer recklessness. Betting the house on a product that sought to eat into the market share of its rich and ruthless rivals was not the kind of provocation Bombardier could ever afford to make on its own. That is now painfully clear as Canada's national aerospace champion hands the C Series controls to Airbus for not even so much as a symbolic $1. Sure, it's fine to celebrate Bombardier's innovative spirit and sheer bloody-mindedness in pursuing the C Series dream. And from an engineering perspective, the C Series is a truly beautiful machine. But its move to cede control of the C Series now for zero cash seems like an act of desperation. Airbus's undertaking to keep the C Series program and the current jobs associated with it based in Quebec is, like most such agreements, unenforceable. If C Series sales fail to take off, or a downturn hits the entire aerospace sector, as it surely will at some point, guess which jobs will go first? That it has come to this is hardly a shocker to industry experts. Many believe Bombardier was never on solid enough ground to make this plane a commercial success. The company first conceded that in 2000. That's when, under CEO Bob Brown, it first abandoned plans to enter the 100-plus-seat market with a plane, then dubbed the BRJ-X, that it had introduced at Britain's Farnborough Air Show in 1998. It took a second go at Airbus and Boeing a few years later by restarting the program – with a new name, the C Series – and hiring former Boeing executive Gary Scott to pilot the design and commercialization. It bet on Airbus and Boeing being too busy focusing on bigger planes to even notice. It was dead wrong. While Boeing and Airbus did opt to simply overhaul their respective families of single-aisle jets with new engines, rather than design entirely new plans like Bombardier, they were not about to cede the lower end of the market to this Canadian upstart. Especially when Bombardier, which had never fully recovered from the post-2001 downturn of the airline industry, looked as vulnerable as it did. Bombardier put the C Series program on hold again in 2006. But Laurent Beaudoin, scion of the Bombardier-Beaudoin family that controls the company, could never give up the dream. Within a year, the C Series was back on the agenda and governments in Canada and Britain stepped up with cash. Only company insiders know how seriously Mr. Beaudoin or his successor as chief executive officer, son Pierre Beaudoin, pursued a partnership with Boeing or Airbus back then. But it's clear now that such a move would have been much smarter than trying to go it alone. By developing a new plane in partnership with either of its bigger rivals, Bombardier may have been able to negotiate from a stronger position. By the time it tried to lure Airbus into a deal in 2015, it was no longer in a position to call the shots. As for Bombardier's vaunted research and development division, the biggest in Corporate Canada, much uncertainty remains. What's left to develop after the C Series? Will Airbus give Bombardier the green light to proceed with the design of an even bigger version of the C Series? Or will it protect the market for its own A320neo, the closest plane to the C Series in the Airbus family of jets? If there is any consolation for Canadians in this deal it is that Boeing appears to have been hoisted with its own petard. After Bombardier's 2015 flirtation with Airbus, Boeing may have undertaken its trade complaint against the C Series in the expectation that some kind of tie up between Bombardier and Boeing's European nemesis was inevitable. Ironically, a partnership between Bombardier and Boeing arguably made more sense, since Boeing's 737 MAX (its closest rival to the C Series) has had limited success compared to the runaway success of A320neo. By launching its trade case, Boeing ended up driving Bombardier into Airbus's arms. And this time, Bombardier was in an even weaker negotiating position than in 2015. With Airbus now in control, not only has Boeing failed to neutralize its Canadian upstart. It risks seeing Airbus control an even bigger share of the 100- to 150-seat plane market. Somebody's dream is coming true. Just not Bombardier's. .
  3. Will Boeing Give a Damn?

    . Bombardier jet giveaway hands Donald Trump another victory Airbus deal virtually guarantees that the U.S will get the lion's share of any new C Series jobs created. Tues Oct 17, 2017 - Toronto Star By Thomas Walkom - National Affairs Columnist Score another win for Donald Trump’s high-handed version of protectionism. Monday’s decision by Montreal-based Bombardier to give away control over its much-vaunted C Series jet virtually guarantees that the U.S. will get the lion’s share of any new jobs created. It also threatens to saddle taxpayers in Quebec and the rest of Canada with a good chunk of the $6 billion debt Bombardier incurred developing the jet. How did Canada’s most important state-subsidized, high-tech company get into this mess? The long answer is complicated and involves corporate incompetence as well as the geopolitics of the global aerospace industry. The short answer is the election of America First advocate Trump as U.S. president. The latest chapter of this ongoing saga began in April when American aerospace giant Boeing formally complained to the U.S. Commerce Department about Bombardier’s proposed sale of 125 C Series jets to Delta Air Lines. Charging that the project had been improperly subsidized by the Canadian and Quebec governments, Boeing asked that an 80 per cent tariff be slapped on any C Series plane entering the U.S. The Trump administration was more than agreeable. It imposed a preliminary tariff of 300 per cent, thereby making the Canadian-manufactured jet virtually unsalable in the lucrative U.S. market. That posed a real problem. Bombardier’s solution was quite simple. It was to move production of planes intended for the U.S. market to a plant in Alabama. That non-union plant is owned by the European aerospace giant Airbus. For Airbus, the arrangement is sweet. In return for letting Bombardier use its Alabama plant, it gets just over 50 per cent of the C Series project for free. It doesn’t have to pony up a cent. Nor does it have to absorb any of Bombardier’s sizable $8.7 billion debt, much of which was incurred developing the C Series. For Bombardier too, this is a good deal. By moving assembly from Canada to the U.S., it avoids the 300 per cent tariff and keeps the Delta sale alive. As well, it gets to locate its American production in a so-called right-to-work state that promises cheap wages and is vehemently anti-union. While it no longer controls the C Series, Bombardier does get to keep a 31 per cent stake in the project for at least 7.5 years. And it can take advantage of Airbus’ global reach to market the jet. I am not sure that this is such a good deal for Quebec. Its 49.5 per cent stake in the project, for which it paid $1.25 billion, has been whittled down to just over 19 per cent. Ottawa has sunk less into Bombardier. Its latest contribution to the C Series bailout was a $372.5 million loan — which it might get back. Bombardier has repaid roughly one half of the $1.3 billion in federal loans it and its predecessor companies were given between 1996 and 2008. But the Airbus deal effectively marks another failure in Canada’s long-running efforts to nurture a homegrown aerospace industry. It seems we are not big enough to go it alone. Economic benefits? The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which represents Bombardier’s Montreal plant, says it is pleased that the roughly 2,000 people working on the C Series there are to keep their jobs. But the question of where new jobs might go remains unresolved. Certainly, Alabama will get any new jobs involved in the manufacture of jets for the U.S. market. State Governor Kay Ivey has already issued a press release welcoming them. But where will the project’s new owner, Airbus, locate production for other markets? It could choose Bombardier’s unionized plant in Montreal and win the eternal gratitude of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Or it could choose its cheaper, non-union plant in Alabama and score points with protectionist Trump who, whether you like him or not, is still the most powerful man in the world. .
  4. Will Boeing Give a Damn?

    . Airbus takes Bombardier to the cleaners with C Series deal Mon Oct 17, 2017 - The Globe and Mail Eric Reguly - European Bureau Chief LONDON - You've got to hand it to the brilliant, Machiavellian minds at Airbus. In one fell swoop, like an eagle swooping down on a dove, Airbus Group SE has seized the world's most technologically advanced small passenger jet, the Bombardier C Series, for nothing – as in zero, zilch, nada – even though Bombardier Inc., with a little help from its government friends, had sunk about $6-billion (U.S.) into developing the product. In doing so, Airbus has neutered a potentially strong competitor and dealt a blow to arch-rival Boeing Co., which has no plane that can compete with the C Series. It gets better. Bombardier, not Airbus, is still on the hook for as much as $700-million in funding for the C Series over the next three years. Airbus doesn't even have to assume any of Bombardier's debt, which has climbed in recent years to almost $9-billion (Canadian), nearly double its market value. For Airbus, the deal is money for nothing, C Series for free. And by the way, Airbus, which is 11 per cent owned by the French government and touted as a European corporate champion, had the sweet joy of exposing U.S. President Donald Trump as a true chump. When the U.S. administration slapped preliminary import tariffs of 300 per cent on the C Series a couple of weeks ago, the plane was effectively shut out of the world's biggest commercial jet market. Facing catastrophic losses on the slow-selling C Series, poor, hapless Bombardier had no negotiating power. Airbus could write the deal it wanted. And yet you could argue that Bombardier made the best of an impossible situation and that the Airbus deal actually presents good prospects for Bombardier, for Quebec and for Canada. The C Series is to be owned 50.01 per cent by Airbus, 31 per cent by Bombardier and 19 per cent by the Quebec government, which in 2016 sunk $1-billion (U.S.) into the project after it was overwhelmed by delays and cost overruns. The optimistic case says it's better for Bombardier and Quebec to own almost half of a plane that stands a good chance of selling, now that Airbus's formidable global marketing, financing and servicing power is behind it, than 100 per cent of a plane that that was stuck in the hangar. In theory, the C Series could sell a few thousand jets over its life span – the order tally so far is only 350 – allowing Bombardier and Quebec to recoup their investment, perhaps even earn a return on that investment. The pessimistic case says that Bombardier and the taxpayers of Canada and Quebec, who have propped up Bombardier in general and the C Series in particular for years, got taken to the cleaners. This case is more compelling. Remember, the C Series is to become an Airbus product owned by a European company with zero allegiance to Bombardier or Canada, even though it will be happy to take Bombardier's $700-milllion to cover the C Series' losses for the next two years. Might the Canadian or Quebec taxpayer be forced to cover some of these losses? That scenario cannot be ruled out, all in the name of protecting manufacturing jobs in Quebec. Which leads us to Alabama, of all places. Airbus recently opened a plant in the state to assemble the company's workhorse A320 jet for the North American market. Airbus intends to add a C Series assembly line in Alabama to serve the plane's U.S. customers and circumvent the Commerce Department's murderous tariffs. (Though Boeing, which called for the tariffs, is bound to use every one of its conniving ways to ensure any non-U.S. parts do not enter the country duty-free.) There is a reason that Airbus chose Alabama for its assembly plant; it's a cheap place to do business, where "right to work" laws discourage unions. You can bet that if Airbus finds it less expensive to pump out the C Series in Alabama than Quebec, it will do everything in its power to transfer production to Alabama, unless, of course, Quebec fights back. And how would it do that? By offering to subsidize production north of the border to keep Bombardier's Quebec jobs from vanishing into the night. Bombardier is Quebec's, and Canada's, premier engineering and technology company. Quebec won't let those jobs go easily. Two years ago, Bombardier and Airbus spent months negotiating a deal that reportedly would have seen Airbus finance the remaining development costs of the C Series in exchange for a controlling stake in the project. Note the date: It was a year before anyone could imagine that Donald Trump and his "America First" agenda could take over the White House. (The deal went nowhere.) At the time, Bombardier had some negotiating power. But as soon as the C Series got slammed with the tariffs, it was game over and Airbus was able to negotiate a sweet deal that will see Bombardier – and perhaps the Canadian and Quebec taxpayers – still write the cheques for a product over which it has lost control. Airbus was brilliant. It owns the finest piece of Canadian aerospace technology on the market, and it got Bombardier to subsidize the deal. .
  5. Will Boeing Give a Damn?

    'Bombardier said to seek investors for aerospace business, mull asset sale'
  6. . 'Diversity is our strength' You tell him Justin and if he doesn't like it ask him 'what's he gonna do about it?' Trump administration cites Edmonton attack in call for immigration changes Mon Oct 9, 2017 - The Globe and Mail by Adrian Morrow WASHINGTON - The Trump administration wants to change the immigration rules that allowed a man accused of perpetrating a terrorist attack in Edmonton last month to evade a U.S. deportation order years ago and come to Canada. The White House also wants to tighten security along the U.S. border with Canada as part of a plan to toughen immigration controls across the country. One administration official cited the case of Abdulahi Hasan Sharif, 30, Sunday evening as President Donald Trump sent Congress a set of border-security and immigration changes he wants passed. Mr. Sharif was arrested in San Diego in July of 2011 and ordered deported to Somalia by a judge later that year. He was then released, failed to report for his deportation and could not be located by U.S. authorities after January, 2012. U.S. authorities have said that Mr. Sharif had no known criminal history at the time. Mr. Sharif subsequently arrived in Canada and received refugee status. He now stands accused of stabbing a police officer outside a football game at Commonwealth Stadium on Sept. 30 and running down pedestrians in a truck during a later chase. The administration official said Sunday that Mr. Sharif was released in 2011 because authorities were having trouble deporting him, as Somalia at the time was not repatriating its citizens. The official said the administration wants to "address" this problem. In his message to Congress, Mr. Trump called for new rules that would "end the practice of catch-and-release" and give Immigration and Customs Enforcement more power to keep prospective deportees in custody until they are removed from the country. Part of the problem, the President wrote, was a 2001 Supreme Court decision that prevents authorities from detaining people for more than 180 days if there is no imminent prospect for their deportation. Mr. Trump also called on Congress to "improve infrastructure and security on the northern border." He did not detail what exact improvements he wanted to see. Officials also said the U.S. must work to secure both "northern and southern borders." The references to border security with Canada are unusual. While Mr. Trump has long highlighted what he believes are border problems, he has tended to focus solely on his country's frontier with Mexico. These provisions were just two of many demands outlined by the White House Sunday. They also include building Mr. Trump's long-promised wall on the U.S. border with Mexico, cracking down on "sanctuary cities" that refuse to help round up undocumented immigrants and dealing with undocumented immigrants who arrived as children. .
  7. lol, ok 'If the 'end of oil' is upon us, why's demand for crude rising at near-record pace?'
  8. Trump Wins

    . Democrats prepare for 2020 with risky strategy: left-wing extremism The left assumes Americans outside college dorms and urban centres are ready for the radical policy shift they’re proposing. That's a big gamble Mon Sep 18, 2017 - National Post Kelly McParland Two important events occurred recently that didn’t involve the size of a hurricane or the riveting horror of the Donald Trump presidency. Well, maybe a bit of the Trump horror but not entirely. The first involved Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont who presented himself as a Democrat just long enough to help derail Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House. Still battering away on the left edge of the “progressive” movement, Sanders unveiled a bill last week that would provide “medicare for all.” By expanding the health-care system that now serves over-65s to include all Americans, the proposal would effectively introduce universal health care to the U.S. The second was approval by the California legislature on Saturday of a bill to move its presidential primary to March, making it one of the first in the country, with the potential to overwhelm other primaries and radically alter the nominee-selection process. By allocating the state’s massive horde of delegates at the very beginning of the process, it could effectively ensure that whoever wins in California becomes the Democrats’ presidential frontrunner. That both developments came while Donald Trump has yet to finish his first year as president is significant. So energized are Democrats by the chaos of the Trump White House that they are already eagerly preparing to mount a challenge in 2020. While reflecting their glee over Republicans’ misery, Democrat plans also underline a gaping flaw in their strategizing. So far, most of the advance manoeuvring has been among the populist, Sandernista wing of the party, which is convinced the antidote to right-wing extremists is left-wing extremists. Free tuition, free health care, liberalized borders … anything Bernie wants, Americans should get. If the more moderate wing of the party is wary of pushing too far too fast, well, that’s just another reason to purge the party of corrupt, Wall Street-friendly Clintonites and all they stand for. The divide is serious, and potentially debilitating. While establishment Democrats may worry about straying too far out of the mainstream, leftists counter that they’re the only ones offering concrete policy alternatives, and that just hating Trump—the one thing that unites all Democrats—won’t be enough to ensure victory in 2020. Most of the most-touted names for the 2020 nomination—senators Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris—threw their support behind the Sanders initiative. Harris has been particularly lionized of late: as a senator from California she could get an enormous head start should Californians move up their primary and opt for the home-state favourite. Harris ticks several key boxes for “progressives” obsessed with identity politics: a non-white woman, daughter of an Indian mother and Jamaican-American father, she counts as both the first Indian woman and second black woman elected to the Senate. She also has a string of other gender-based firsts to her credit, and has been a fierce critic of Trump. Yet, as easy a target as Trump may appear, few thought he’d ever get to the White House in the first place. And one big reason for his triumph was the monumental disaster that was the Clinton campaign, over which the finger-pointing has yet to abate. Clinton did nothing to soothe feelings with her newly-released account, What Happened, which, as CNN noted, “oozes with her contempt for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.” To her accusation that he caused “lasting damage” to her White House crusade, Sanders responded with his own put-down: “Secretary Clinton ran against the most unpopular candidate in the history of this country and she lost and she was upset about it and I understand that.” If she didn’t catch the note of condescension she wasn’t paying attention. “Elizabeth Warren will be 71 in 2020, and to see her more is to like her less,” it notes. “Bernie Sanders will be 79. Cory Booker is a show horse who isn’t that beloved in his home state.” .
  9. . Probably a few cons left behind... WestJet reports highest load factor in 21-year history Airline increases traffic by 10.6 per cent and flies an all-time monthly record of 2.3 million guests Tue Sept. 12, 2017 - CNW WestJet today announced August 2017 traffic results with a load factor of 90.6 per cent, an increase of 4.1 percentage points year over year. Revenue passenger miles (RPMs), or traffic, increased 10.6 per cent year over year, and capacity, measured in available seat miles (ASMs), grew 5.6 per cent over the same period. The airline flew an all-time monthly record of 2.3 million guests in August, a year-over-year increase of 13.8 per cent or approximately 288,000 additional guests. "We are extremely pleased with our double-digit traffic growth, as we reported our highest ever load factor of 90.6 per cent, flew the most monthly number of guests in our twenty-one year history and set a new single day record on August 8th by flying 81,423 guests," said WestJet President and CEO Gregg Saretsky. "My sincere thanks go out to our over 13,000 WestJetters for continuing to deliver our award-winning brand of friendly caring service over this record breaking summer season. August 2017 traffic results Aug 2017 Aug 2016 Change Load factor 90.6% 86.5% 4.1 pts ASMs (billions) 2.794 2.646 5.6% RPMs (billions) 2.531 2.289 10.6% YTD 2017 YTD 2016 Change Load factor 84.3% 82.6% 1.7 pts ASMs (billions) 20.851 19.682 5.9% RPMs (billions) 17.575 16.265 8.1% .
  10. WestJet to launch ULCC???

    Some additional info from a G & M report:
  11. . Ontario to create cannabis control board, open up to 60 storefronts, sources say Illegal pot shops in Ontario to be shut down over next 12 months Thu Sep 07, 2017 - CBC News By Hannah Thibedeau, Mike Crawley The Ontario government will announce Friday that it will create a cannabis control board and open up to 60 storefronts to manage the sale and distribution of marijuana in the province, CBC News has learned. The plans include restricting marijuana sales to those 19 and older, a year above the minimum age recommended by the federal government's cannabis task force report in December. The 30 to 60 stores selling marijuana to the public will not be housed inside existing LCBO stores as Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne had previously suggested. Illegal pot shops in Ontario would be shut down over the next 12 months. In April, legislation was introduced in the House of Commons to legalize and regulate the sale and distribution of marijuana on or before July 1, 2018. Many of the decisions about how the drug will be sold and taxed are being left to the provinces. At a premiers meeting in Edmonton in July, the premiers announced they would ask the federal government to postpone legalization if issues related to road safety, taxation, training for distributors and public education are not addressed. The premiers said they would report back on progress by Nov. 1 and would seek such an extension if the federal timetable was deemed "unrealistic." "The starting point is, have we met the public safety concerns, are we sure we have the provisions in place to protect youth, do we understand what the highway traffic implications are?" Wynne said at the time. "It's those issues that we have to resolve because we have to keep people safe." Shortly after the premiers' announcement, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government intends to stick to the July 2018 deadline. .
  12. . Turbulent times: Drones edging out helicopter film pilots, videographers Drones cheaper, can go places, get shots helicopters can't, but there's a place for both in the film biz Mon Sep 04, 2017 - CBC News By Haydn Watters Transport Canada thought he couldn't do it. But Jim Filippone was eager to fly a helicopter through downtown Vancouver, squeezing between all of the soaring glass towers on Georgia Street. After all, the film needed it. He got the OK after plotting it out with his safety co-ordinator (and wife) Wendy, pledging to fly with two engines and stick to the yellow line in the middle of the road. Filippone hovered his helicopter just above the street lamps, zooming up and down the road until the cameras got what they needed. He did it again for the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie The 6th Day, this time at night with no light. Filippone's precision made him the go-to pilot for these low-level helicopter shots. But drones, which can get the same shot at a sliver of the price, have forced the Filippones out of business after more than 30 years and 13,800 hours in the air. "We'd call up people, production managers, and we would say, 'Oh hey do you have any aerials on the show?' ... every time they say yes, we would have a job. They would hire us. But it's, 'Oh yeah, we have an aerial but we're using a drone,'" he said. The couple worked on the X-Men movies, Tron: Legacy and the old CBC show Danger Bay, among many others. "We've gone into retirement because of this," Filippone said about the drones bumping out his work. 'Tipping point' for drones The drone has stolen gigs and taken a hit on Canada's small but mighty pool of film pilots and aerial videographers. It can squeeze into tight spaces and get shots the helicopter can't — quicker, without much setup, and clad with high-quality cameras. There's also less at stake if something goes wrong. Helicopter crashes have killed more than 30 people on film and TV sets since 1980, according to But the biggest drone draw may be the price point. Drones are substantially cheaper to fly for film — even when decked out with fancy equipment. The cheaper price has won Chris Bacik a bunch of film jobs — he has flown his drones for Hollywood movies and hit TV shows like Orphan Black and The Handmaid's Tale. "We've definitely come across a couple of helicopter operators that aren't as friendly to us because they realize yes, we're here to stay and we are affecting the way they do business." .
  13. OMG NO FOOD (⸮)

    . Air Transat defends actions at stranded passenger inquiry Flight and ground crews describe confusion, frustration of July 31 Thu Aug 31, 2017 - CBC News Air Transat says it was focused on avoiding logistical and financial challenges the night passengers aboard two of its flights ended up stranded on the tarmac of the Ottawa International Airport for hours. The inquiry into the passengers' ordeal began Wednesday morning and is being overseen by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA). It was announced shortly after two Air Transat flights from Brussels and Rome were diverted from Montreal to Ottawa on July 31 because of poor weather. After landing, passengers were kept aboard the planes for up to six hours, in some cases without air conditioning, food or water. Some resorted to calling 911. 'No intention to remain in Ottawa' Air Transat flight safety director Matthew Jackson testified Thursday he was working in the airline's operations centre that night when "all hell broke loose." The airline was focused on getting passengers on the planes to their final destination, he said, not on finding a gate to get off the plane, which would have necessitated a crew change and kept the plane from continuing onwards. It would have been a logistical and financial challenge — but not an impossibility — to stop in Ottawa, he said, adding that it would have taken hours to arrange hotels, and that they kept being told they'd get fuel in 15 to 30 minutes. 'I'm not deplaning on a runway for fun' If passengers would have gotten out on the taxiway or runway, it would have been classified as an emergency and the airport would have shut down, Jackson said. "The only way I'm going to let 360 people out on a runway is if … I have a fire onboard the aircraft or a bomb threat," he said. "I'm not deplaning on a runway for fun." He didn't receive any request for water or snacks for those planes, he added, saying their policy is to keep the doors closed unless something is coming in and out. Crew disputes allegations The pilot and flight director of flight TS507 from Rome both said they didn't consider deplaning or requesting more food since they were repeatedly told they were 30 minutes away from refuelling. Pilot Yves Saint-Laurent, who lives in Ottawa, said he would have tried to get passengers off the plane if he knew delays would be more than 90 minutes. He said he thought waiting for fuel was a lesser evil, as it could have taken five to six hours for everyone to get off the plane, get onto buses and get through customs. Besides, Saint-Laurent said, no passengers asked him to get off. Flight director Julie Clermont said the same thing. TS507 eventually spent five hours on the Ottawa airport's tarmac, with passengers telling the hearing there was no air conditioning on board and people were throwing up from the heat and anxiety. Saint-Laurent said the air conditioning was working for all but a minute or two when they were on the ground. He was surprised to see the media attention the next day, since most of the passengers thanked him as they left the plane in Montreal. Clermont also said it wasn't too warm and noted the washrooms were always working. Brussels pilot, flight director also testify The inquiry also heard Thursday from both the pilot and flight director of flight TS157 from Brussels, which was stuck on the Ottawa airport tarmac for roughly six hours — even longer than the Rome flight. Pilot Denis Lussier said TS157 was short on fuel when it landed, and he told the airline's ground contractor, First Air Operations, that he was concerned about running out of fuel and losing power. Like the Rome flight, Lussier said he was also told fuel was half an hour away. Eventually, the power did shut off, taking the air conditioning with it. Lussier said a passenger called 911, although the caller said he wanted to continue on to Montreal rather than disembarking in Ottawa. In fact, said Lussier, he got the sense most passengers wanted to remain on the aircraft. About three hours after requesting fuel, it finally arrived, Lussier said. Both Lussier and flight director Igor Mazalica said they would have done things differently if they had been given a more accurate estimate as to how long it would take to get fuel. "If it was a different situation where I could deplane, and I could deal with lack of snacks or anything like that, then I would've made that call," Mazalica said. "I also believe we did everything that we could with the resources on board ... for the comfort of the passengers." Ground crew wasn't asked for supplies On Day 1 of the hearing, the Ottawa International Airport Authority said many of the issues that caused problems July 31 were the responsibility of the airline and its ground contractors, neither of which asked the authority for help. Carol Clark from First Air Operations said Thursday there were "irregular operations" on July 31, but staffing levels were more suitable for a normal day. She said First Air Operations weren't asked for food or water for those two Air Transat planes. "From what I can tell, we were assuming there was enough water on the airplane. If not, water would have been granted," she said. Clark said ground crews couldn't service the planes, first because they were on the taxiway and later because they'd been moved far away from their equipment for refuelling. The fuel company kept telling them they would soon get fuel, Clark said, calling the situation a "creeping delay." Treatment was 'deplorable' On the first day of the inquiry, flyers testified that Air Transat's handling of the situation was "deplorable" and that they were treated like "luggage." The CTA does not have the power to change government policy, but public consultations on the broader question of air passengers' rights are expected once Bill C-49, otherwise known as the Transportation Modernization Act, is passed. This hearing focuses on whether or not Air Transat followed its "tariff," or agreement with passengers, which is supposed to allow them to get off planes that have spent 90 minutes on the ground. Clermont, TS507's flight director, said she wasn't aware of the tariff. Saint-Laurent, the pilot, said it wasn't included in his training. The agency can order Air Transat to compensate passengers for out-of-pocket expenses and take other corrective measures. Air Transat has already offered to give each passenger aboard the Brussels flight $400 after the air conditioning malfunctioned. 'Domino effect' Christophe Hennebelle, Air Transat's vice-president of human resource and corporate affairs, told reporters that the "unprecedented" events of July 31 were the result of a cascading "domino effect" of miscommunication. "I think what needs to be achieved in the future is better information sharing between all the actors, so that the captains have the appropriate information that allows them to make the right call," Hennebelle said. Air Transat currently has no plan to extend compensation to the Rome flight's passengers, Hennebelle added. .
  14. OMG NO FOOD (⸮)

    . Air Transat passengers describe 'deplorable' treatment at first day of inquiry Ottawa International Airport Authority says it's not responsible for issues of July 31 Wed Aug 30, 2017 - CBC News By Andrew Foote Passengers stuck for hours aboard two Air Transat flights stranded on the tarmac at the Ottawa International Airport last month testified at a public hearing Wednesday that their treatment was "deplorable." The hearing into the ordeal, which is being conducted by the Canadian Transportation Agency, began Wednesday morning in Ottawa. The flights, from Brussels and Rome to Montreal, were diverted to Ottawa on July 31 due to poor weather. After landing, passengers were kept aboard the planes for up to six hours without air conditioning, food or water. The situation became so dire some passengers called 911 to report an emergency. Marie-Hélène Tremblay, a passenger on flight TS507 from Rome, told the quasi-judicial panel she saw flight attendants get off the plane and take selfies while passengers sweltered in the cabin for five hours. She said what little food was available on the plane was offered to "club class" passengers, who pay extra to carry on extra bags and receive "personalized service," according to Air Transat's website. Other passengers on the flight from Rome said they were told they couldn't leave the plane because customs agents wouldn't allow it, and that no portable staircases were available anyway. "I felt like we were luggage," said Alan Abraham. "They didn't care what condition we got there in." Both Tremblay and Abraham told the inquiry that airlines need better communication and emergency food and water stocks during to deal with such emergencies. They also want financial compensation for what happened to them. Air Transat has offered to give each passenger aboard the Brussels flight $400 because the air conditioning malfunctioned, in what the company called "a gesture of good faith." Airport authority passes blame Since the passengers' ordeal, the airline and airport have squabbled over who was to blame. Ottawa International Airport Authority CEO Mark Laroche told the inquiry Tuesday afternoon that Air Transat was being misleading when it blamed the airport for not bringing stairs and fuel to the planes. Laroche said those responsibilities are part of the agreement between the airline and its ground contractors, and that the airport doesn't have staff trained to fulfill them. "The airport authority is not in charge of many of the problems at the heart of this inquiry," he said. 'Deplaning the passengers from flight TS157 from Brussels, authority witnesses said, would have been reasonable, and they could have processed its passengers through customs in 60 to 90 minutes.' .
  15. . Air Canada Centre to be renamed Scotiabank Arena Bank to pay $800 million over 20 years. Tues Aug. 29, 2017 - Toronto Star By Morgan Campbell - Staff Reporter The Air Canada Centre — home of the Maple Leafs and the Raptors is getting a new name. MLSE announced Tuesday that their Bay St. arena will be named the Scotiabank Arena under a rights agreement finalized this week. The name change takes effect in July 2018, and ends a naming rights deal with Air Canada that had lasted since the building opened in 1999. Reports say the bank will pay a total of $800 million over the course of the 20-year deal. 'As part of the transfer of naming rights, MLSE and the airline have reached a deal that will see Air Canada stay on as the official airline of both the Leafs and Raptors.' .