j.k.

74 years old and you don't know better. And there isn't even a carry on baggage fee...

I've noticed an significant uptick of passenger problems on my flights. Looking back over the last three months it works out to 1 in 5 flights there has been a passenger disturbance, all mask related disturbances to varying degrees up to requiring police at the gate on arrival. People have to know that causing a disturbance on an airplane never goes well, indeed I know a few of those that chose to mouth off were planning on connecting to other flights... and well that didn't happen for them after their behaviour... Nobody likes the masks, but everyone knows - right or wrong - there's a rule, it's not the airline's rule or the crew's rule, it just is what it is so just pull it over your nose and let's all carry on. I don't get why that's so hard for some people.

I'm no Porter or Deluce fan.... but I say let jets fly from YTZ and lift the curfew. The airport has been there longer than anyone at CommunityAir has been alive. Go away NIMBYs.

It isn't about traveling with Covid. It's about traveling with a test report. A report that the government has such little faith in apparently as they are still requiring 2 weeks quarantine on the other end.

Feel free to address me directly Rich. Your reply reads a little passive aggressive there. Why don't you tell me how my right to enter my country was promulgated then. I am suggesting that returning to your home is a right that cannot be suspended so easily. They aren't suspending access through land borders. Suspending a right detailed in the charter required an explicit declaration by a parliament or legislature in this country under the notwithstanding clause. Has that happened? No. So absent that, it's an arbitrary suspension of rights without debate or transparency by our elected representatives. Martial law? Get real... that though would also require some debate in parliament at least.

What's your suggestion then. Canadians have a constitutional right to exit and enter this country. You can't prevent them from coming home. That's their right. Your likelihood of missing an infected arrival on a false negative in rapid tests are slim, especially when you do follow up testing and robust contact tracing. The risk is minimal and better than what we've been doing for the past 10 months, and it doesn't deny people their rights. Even if you support remote testing, understand that you are certain to be stripping healthy Canadians of their right to enter their own country as false positives on PCR tests can be very high. Depending on the population false positives can be well over 50%.

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. I agree. It's your charter right to enter Canada as a Canadian. Inhibiting air travel isn't any different than banning entry to Canadians abroad with covid and it's a violation of your rights. They can't stop you at a land border, but they are testing that they can at a foreign airport terminal. Why not testing on arrival? Build it into the cost of tickets, just like AIFs.

As I said, I see what you're trying to say, but your interpretation is narrow and incorrect. You are limiting your interpretation of drug to include only chemical drugs. The Food and Drugs Act and its Regulations categorize vaccines as biologic drugs. Biologic drugs differ from chemical drugs because they come from living organisms, which means they are more variable than chemical drugs. Therefore, biologic drugs require more regulatory oversight than chemical drugs, as well as special expertise and procedures for their: manufacture control regulation

I see what you're saying I think, but vaccines are drugs. They obviously differ in their makeup from chemical drugs, but as they are designed to achieve a response in the body they are a drug by general definitions and are classified so by the FDA and other regulators.

Hajdu's not worried, she just flies around in government jets. Hypocrite.

Not...

And a 777 has a lower CASM than a DH8-300... doesn't matter if the route can't fill enough seats. Operating cost overall is higher.

There aren't any flight attendants either... all layed off. But most of the pilots haven't been trained away yet.

Ignorant.

I think comparing the model T to an airliner is the wrong analogy. That's like a Wright Flyer... Maybe something like a 1960 Buick Riviera... or any Detroit automobile from that era would be a more parallel comparison... There are a lot of 40-60 year old cars still on the road. Big steel bumpers and lots of metal... I'd rather take a hit it one of those than a 2019 Kia with an airbag.

I see the 350-1000 being the eventual replacement for 777s...

Japan or Germany.

I don't have a number, but I guarantee that is not even remotely correct.