Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by j.k.

  1. Government and consumers are short sighted.
  2. It's not an Irish company though: Norwegian launched its long-haul operation in May 2013. The long-haul flights are operated by fully owned subsidiaries: Norway-based Norwegian Long Haul, Ireland-based Norwegian Air International, United Kingdom-based Norwegian Air UK, and Argentina-based Norwegian Air Argentina. Each airline with the exception of Norwegian Long Haul holds a unique air operator's certificate (AOC) but shares branding and commercial functions with the rest of the Group. Flags of Convenience is a scourge in shipping: encourages exploitation, decimates labour, avoids regulation, bypasses just taxation, unfairly tilts the playing field. I don't want that in my country or my profession. It may be good for some corporations, but it isn't good for people.
  3. I don't agree with selling out the future. Or grandfathered rates. Or B scales. But I really want talking about who chooses to work for them... rather the rubber stamp governments and agencies that allow them to run across inappropriate jurisdictions to the detriment of the larger industry, including labour.
  4. I'm not sure what you mean by that Malcolm. IMO it is wrong when a business gets itself setup in jurisdictions other than its own solely with the purpose to skirt rules, avoid taxes, take advantage of loopholes, etc. It's not good for the industry as a whole, and while it seems to offer an immediate benefit to consumers, and some spin off, it's typically short lived, and short sighted. The EU may be a common market, but I believe we should allow French airlines to fly here from France, British airlines from Britain, German airlines from Germany, and Norwegian Airlines from Norway. Shouldn't have to compete against cherry pickers.
  5. It's really a sham. Flag of convenience. Norway isn't even in the EU. Many of their crew are based in Asia and work under nonexistent labour laws. Completely leveraged and bleeding money business dumping lift.
  6. Perspective: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/sports/nfl-cheerleaders.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
  7. Absolutely and perhaps. This is a media report (which seeks to sensationalise) from CBC nonetheless, of a CUPE charge which is already worded and formed with the motivation to pressure the employer. I'm pretty sure we are at least two levels past what really happened and without any context. I'll wait to see the outcome before I judge it as systemic harassment. In fact I'd be surprised if this ever gets to tribunal. They'll make a deal and it will go away...
  8. IMO - this is what it's really about: The complaint alleges that the onboard service manager program “has resulted in pervasive, systemic harassment and discrimination” towards service directors and flight attendants, “which has created an unsafe work environment that has left the membership feeling threatened and intimidated.” I have heard so frequently about the dislike of these OBSM checks. I don't blame them, I don't like being checked either - line checks, SIM checks, LOSA observers, now random line flight line checks... but that's the business, and it's not a human rights issue. The other things mentioned are one offs from the past year and a half - boneheaded behaviour or jokes or comments - NOT SYSTEMIC HARASSMENT, and have been lumped in to be able to give the core complaint (OBSM checking) footing at that tribunal.
  9. Obviously making suggestive comments or rude actions or being creepy is inexcusable. But, there is nothing wrong with holding people to a reasonable grooming, appearance, and uniform standard..
  10. I've worked at a 9 different companies in aviation. Best one (by far) was the only one that was a union job.
  11. Alright. I'll go with that.
  12. I believe the 330s are from Air Berlin BTW...
  13. In that case you can count on it.
  14. Thanks for the reminder Kip. I'm out...
  15. You're confused MD2. Priests and Nobleman? You're thinking the first/second estate. You are looking to accuse and point fingers while not even understanding the language.
  16. Wow. You're really out to lunch on this and your continued ignorance on the term shows your interest in nitpicking at nothing over something that is not incorrect. This isn't synonymous to insulting a place or its people you seem determined to infer. In fact, the recently in-fashion "undeveloped/developing/developed" is now viewed as incorrect and was never an accurate replacement for the "first/second/third" which was a division based of geopolitical alliance. If you're going to get outraged, at least get it right Princess.
  17. I think we all know what it means. While slightly outdated, the term is still relevant and is not malicious. It's certainly not as outdated and much more relevant than your postmodern PC concepts.
  18. "You're cleared an approach" How low can you go? Whose responsibility is it? I understand how these guys made a mistake, but it's IFR 101.
  19. I think it gets lost a bit on pilots used to being "handled" into larger airports. Especially if they don't have a background flying in mountainous areas. But flying into secondary/smaller airports without a terminal environment it has to go back to IFR basics... "What's my minimum altitude here?" It's not just in Mexico or Brazil either that they will set you up like this... I remember years back I was on an airway at 10,000', part way along my route a YVR centre controller cleared me direct to destination through MORAs in the range of 15,600', 12,800', etc. while I was IMC on an airway at 10,000'... "Uhhh... no thanks..." Terrain is your responsibility unless you are being vectored... Even then...
  20. Nice try = you said: "a specified number of dreamliners were going to Rouge and were to be reconfigured for that purpose." That's incorrect and it's also inflammatory. Maybe you were trying to get a rise? "Someone told me"... okay... I don't know specifically which contract is which, but the whole fleet is getting WiFi, including the 787s, or it could be installation of interiors on new 787s, they don't come from Boeing with seats, or maybe the article isn't totally accurate and it's heavy maintenance, or new interiors for the current 330s which are getting the new J-pods and premium economy, or the 330s that are coming... But I'll tell you, it isn't 787s getting rouge interiors, so as I said "nice try", and I provided a reference.
  21. You clearly aren't. Could be interior installation on new 787s too. I don't know the exact details of the contract you're referring to, but it's definitely not rouge interiors for 787s. Nice try.
  22. Not exactly correct. The LCC is still limited to 20-25 WB jets (WJA) in the contract. After all 787 deliveries arrive and AC operates a minimum of 62 777/787 combined three LCC may start a WJA replacement and subject to conditions. LCC WJA may be replaced 1:1 for every Mainline 767/330 that is replaced with a newer WJA (less than 10,000 hour). The LCC WJA must be equivalent or smaller than the Mainline replacement and is limited to 767/330/787. or, if 787s are added in addition to the firm orders, options are exercised etc, 767s may be replaced at the LCC 1:1. AC is getting 6 new (used) 330s. If they are under 10k hours, where they go and how they use them is anyone's guess. But I suspect mainline replacements for the 767. I believe AC is far more likely to move toward NJA ETOPS - ie. 321neo LR at the LCC: They have the authority/ability to grow that fleet now from the last contract, it will allow the 767s - which were are all best 767s from mainline and some newer incremental aircraft from Hawaiian (ie. not in dire need of replacement) to deploy on further routes, plus airplanes are expensive, a 787 is really expensive. Having to buy 2 787s to get one to Rouge is even more expensive. 321s, while still expensive, are cheaper and they won't have to grow mainline to get them.
  23. WIFI installation I believe. AC cannot just "send" 787s to rouge.
  24. Bean/Realitychex : one hit wonder
  • Create New...