j.k.

Members
  • Content Count

    336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by j.k.

  1. 2 hours ago, seeker said:

    I'm not completely convinced it's actually over.  Maybe, but I wouldn't be the least surprised to see the EU regulator suddenly and inexplicably decide to approve after all.

    Seems suspicious to me - a joint news release from AC and AT "cancelling" the deal before hearing from the regulator.  Why take a fall when you can let the regulator wear it.  Furthermore, AT is now on the ropes and desperate for a deal - any deal - to stay alive.  Why would they voluntarily give up on the AC deal if there was any hope at all and, not having heard from the regulator means there still is some hope.

     

     

    I think the EU anti-trust regulator was quoted in reports that they wouldn't approve the transaction based on the concessions Air Canada offered. 

    AT didn't have a choice regarding volunteering to give it up, the arrangement expired allowing either party to terminate the deal unilaterally, but by phrasing it that way it at least allows AT to not look as desperate, even though 3 weeks ago the Transat CEO stated they may not survive without the deal.

    You may be right, once the government gets its thumbs in the pie we may see more to this, but I doubt it. I think this signals a break down between AC and the Feds and they are putting it behind them and moving to a new strategy forward.

    I think Quebecor backed with financing from the government of Quebec and special support conditions from the Feds is the likely next move here.

  2. It always makes me shake my head "the most complaints of any foreign airline in the US" - Air Canada (and it's regional CPA airlines) by far operates more flights to/from US airports than any other foreign carrier. It's not even close.

    More flights, more complaints. Fewer flights, fewer complaints... honestly I'm starting to believe fewer Canadians on your flights, fewer complaints... 

  3. 20 hours ago, FA@AC said:

    The issue from my perspective is whether an individual has the right to board an aircraft while Covid positive thus putting other travellers and crew at risk.

    If anybody wants to try that one on in court I'll watch with interest.

    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.

     

  4. 10 hours ago, Rich Pulman said:

    Does anyone else get tired of people talking about their “rights”? It’s almost like they’re not aware of how those “rights” were promulgated. Our society gives you your “rights” and our society can amend and/or suspend your “rights”. During this unprecedented time, society has cordially requested that you limit your “right” to travel in order to protect your fellow citizens. Would martial law be preferable?

    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.

  5. 3 hours ago, dagger said:

    There are two reasons I wouldn't do that. Rapid tests still have a high false negative rate, so you'd be releasing people into the population prematurely who might have been infected but are not yet generating enough of the virus for a rapid test to catch. A day or two later, that might not be the case. The PCR test is a lot more sensitive but it's not an instant test, it requires lab processing. Secondly, the last thing you want is a crowded hall of hundreds of passengers waiting for test results, because even rapid tests take 15-60 minutes to process. Talk about a super spreader event.

    As for travel, I'm sorry to disagree with Upper Deck's comment above, but what happened in the first wave of the pandemic when some provinces had more meaningful lockdowns doesn't apply to the current situation with the looming presence of a more readily transmissible variant. The fact is, most Canadians now are masking indoors at stores, doing restaurant pickup, etc. The most reckless behaviour by Canadians is probably by those running around maskless at resorts like Cancun or in Florida. Last night's New Year's celebration in Tampa is a prime example - mostly maskless people, no social distancing, a virus super spreader event. And it happened on a day when Florida set a record for new cases - over 17,000. Many of the people who are doing vacation travel, particularly to hot spots, may well feel invulnerable or that the rules they are told to follow don't apply to them.

    What we learned from tourism in the first wave, whether it was people who massed in Austrian ski resorts or tourists who flocked to Spain in the summer, is that these people provided a conduit for the virus to spread widely throughout Europe. That's all been tracked by testing. Also, this new variant from the UK is showing up in more young people - with symptoms - and portends a worse outcome for under-50s than the standard variant, which will also help spread it to over-50s. 

    I have no idea why we would encourage people by lowering barriers to go to vacation hot spots where they behave in ways they wouldn't or couldn't here in Canada at a time when the number of cases here is threatening to explode and overwhelm the healthcare system in several provinces.

    https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2021/01/01/tampa-bay-had-crowded-new-years-eve-parties-on-same-day-florida-broke-coronavirus-record/

     

    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. 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.

     

  7. 3 hours ago, FA@AC said:

    I guess you aren't familiar with the concept of superspreader events.

    Ignore people like Mr "Sky" and we end up with more of our population on ventilators.

    Are you saying this instance is a superspreader event?

    You don't know that.

    In fact that's hyperbole and as you say only a concept.  A small fraction of a percent of people are Covid infected. The risk from this one attention seeking individual is still statistically minimal. So much as that is not worth society's attention.

    Take away the guys notoriety and you take away his power. 

    Shake your head, keep calm, carry on... everybody does their best.

  8. Everyone likes to get their panties in a knot when they see something unfair. 

    I suggest that everyone just needs to do their best and accept that there are some people out there with exemptions, valid or not, there are some people out there that flaunt their behaviour, and that's just the way it is. 

    Shake your head, keep calm, carry on... in the scope of things, this behaviour from a handful of individuals doesn't change anything. If we ignore people like this guy they would cease to exist.

    Really, more rules and requirements are not what we need in our society, we need leadership and unity to pull us together on a path for success. Fines and threats only create push back from what we are trying to achieve.

  9. 8 hours ago, J.O. said:

    Most drugs are designed to reduce symptoms such as pain, tremors etc. They usually do so by "deadening" something the body does naturally. This is why many drugs have side effects - they are doing something the body doesn't want to do naturally.

    Vaccines are designed to cause the body to have an immune response to an unwanted infection without an actual infection - in a sense, getting the body to do more of what it already does.

    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
  10. On 12/3/2020 at 4:14 PM, J.O. said:

    Drugs and vaccines aren't really the same thing, though. 

    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.

  11. 2 hours ago, Turbofan said:

    Please excuse my ignorance but I can’t figure out if your post is meant to be real or sarcasm.

    Is there actually truth to this?

     

    LOL... Throwing saving Quebec Bombardier jobs sure makes it sound plausible...

    I don't have a stake in the success of Porter, the opposite really, but I don't like nimbys who would have airlines shuttered and runways bulldozed beaking off on an aviation forum... I would like to see max power run ups off of Mr. Iler's deck.

  12. Breaking News:

    Details are emerging that Porter Airlines is in negotiations to relaunch their previously scuttled Airbus A220 order, previously Bombardier C-Series.

    Reports are that the Trudeau Liberals, as a condition of the yet to be announced Regional Airline Bailout package, will impose the amendments on the tripartite agreement to permit the Mirabel built jet's operation at the downtown airport, ensure the continued viability of air service to smaller communities, and promote jobs in Quebec.

  13. 18 minutes ago, Tango Foxtrot said:

    1.13 million deaths worldwide so far. Who cares. People are losing their jobs.  F ing governments.

    You forgot your sarcasm emoji I think.

    That's a narrow view of the cost, dying with sars cov2 does not equate to sars cov2 being cause of death.

    People are not being treated or diagnosed for other ailments - and dying, mental health is strained beyond breaking for some, family's and children's security and futures are being reduced to shambles... yet excess deaths in world populations is in line with historic averages. The pandemic is over despite hyped numbers and media.

    So now we're into the self induced costs. How far are we going to go? When will we get the real numbers?

  14. 10 hours ago, Turbofan said:

    And as bad as that number is.  It is not the number to be watching for.  That number will increase in perpetuity.  It is a rear view mirror number.  The evolution of the Spanish flu still circulates to this day.  If we applied the same methodology to it, it has killed over a billion.

    For various reasons, some known and unknown to our medical professionals, pandemics/epidemics tend to become less lethal as time goes by.  They usually mutate for one, becoming more contagious but less virulent.  Immunity slowly rises making it harder for the virus to spread.  I will stop there because I’m not a professional in the medical field. But historically this is the path they take.  SARS, H1N1, MERS, Swine.  They all still circulate.  They all still kill people every year.  It’s just that the numbers of deaths associated has shrunk.  The medical community hopes Covid will follow the normal path.  The problem is they don’t know it will.  And if it does? When.
     

    The point being, if you want to see in front of you, the windshield is the direction to look.  As we move into the second wave look for dropping ICU/death numbers and increasing Covid cases. This is an indication that the virus is progressing as expected. A good thing in an awful situation.
     

    Here is a simple google search.  Drop in any country you want.  Take a look at some of the countries hardest hit last spring.  Look what is happening to their cases vs death.  They almost all have cases vs death now starting to move in the opposite direction of each other.  Cases up, but deaths flattening.

    Since this pandemic will flow at different rates throughout the planet.  You will also probably be able to find countries that had almost no outbreak last spring.  Some of them will have cases and death rates rapidly increasing, as this fall is really their first exposure to Covid.

     

    Covid death versus cases.
     



     

    I don't think you understood the distinction I was making.

  15. 5 hours ago, Turbofan said:

    Yesterday was the outside date Transat has published on their website.  What’s up?  Nothing so far from AC or Transat.

    Or have I missed something?  Likely?

    Without any announcement I think it means they are negotiating. 

    I suspect the original deal is gone in Air Canada's eyes and Transat is arguing it can continue extension.