internet

I don’t think the Rapidair is going anywhere… Just $20B of our tax dollars

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2021/07/07/via-rails-new-plan-is-bold-but-can-be-even-better.html

“The VIA plan predicts travel times between Ottawa and Toronto would be lowered from the present 4 hours, 30 minutes to 3 hours, 15 minutes, although in recent times VIA has offered trips of 4 hours. There is also some clarification needed on the trip time between Montreal and Toronto as those trains would stop in Ottawa, adding another hour and a quarter, making the entire trip about 4 hours and 30 minutes.”

On 6/17/2021 at 7:59 PM, seeker said:

I'll never see it.  Wouldn't work it and wouldn't ride in the back as a passenger on an airline that operates that way.  The airline is willing to give away safety and redundancy to save money - hard to spin that a as good deal for the passengers.

 

100% agree. 

On 6/7/2021 at 11:12 AM, Airband said:

Is Air Rage Caused by Class Warfare?

A post-pandemic problem on flights isn’t about alcohol or shrinking legroom.

June 7, 2021 - Bloomberg News
By Stephen Mihm

Since the beginning of the year, the Federal Aviation Administration has reported a sharp uptick in the number of passengers behaving badly. In a typical year, the Federal Aviation Administration logs between 100 and 200 incidents. In the first three months of 2021, it reported a whopping 1300, despite the fact that the number of passengers was still well below normal levels.

It’s difficult to account for this recent uptick, but it’s hard to dispute that air rage has become a growing problem over the past few decades. The usual explanations – shrinking legroom, alcohol, and flight delays – have merit. But these are arguably overshadowed by a decades-long trend: the transformation of air travel from an elite prerogative to a service that divides passengers into haves and have nots.

This wasn’t a problem in the early years of aviation – and not necessarily because wealthy passengers were better behaved. Look carefully at the interior of the Pan Am Clipper, which crossed the oceans in the late 1930s. They featured comfortable beds, luxurious fittings, and delicious dinners served on china. These flying palaces gave passengers a remarkable amount of room to sit, lounge, walk and mingle. They weren’t claustrophobic in the least.

Most important of all, perhaps, was the fact that they weren’t stratified by class: Everyone enjoyed the same luxuries. There was no distinction between first class, business class and coach. Every passenger belonged to the elite.

The idea of different classes of passengers was born in the postwar era, but at first, this didn’t mean putting people into seats of different sizes and comfort levels. Instead, “coach class” in these years simply meant a ticket on a plane that made more stops. All passengers on these planes sat in precisely the same seats and enjoyed the same amenities and legroom as passengers on non-stop flights. It simply took longer to get to your destination.

The problem of air rage arguably traces its origins to a momentous shift in travel unleashed in 1952. That year, the Civil Aeronautics Board in the U.S. and its global counterpart, the International Air Transport Association, began permitting flights that charged passengers different fares on the same flight. In 1955, planes began flying with different “classes” of seats. While first-class seats continued to enjoy amenities, coach-class seats began their long slide into discomfort, losing legroom with every passing decade.

Not coincidentally, it was precisely in these years that you can find the first expressions of concern over unruly passenger behavior. Conventional wisdom held that alcohol was to blame. Senator Strom Thurmond became the public face of reform, introducing legislation banning airlines from serving booze. He argued that children should not be corrupted by “flying saloons.”

The Civil Aeronautics Board disagreed. It reviewed all the cases of alcohol-fueled bad behavior, concluding that none imperiled other passengers, much less planes. Thurmond’s legislation went nowhere, though airlines adopted a “voluntary” pledge to make sure that passengers weren’t served more than two drinks each. In the end, the push to ban alcohol died out by the 1960s.

In the 1970s, high fuel prices accelerated the inequalities that increasingly defined air travel. As airlines struggled to make money, they crammed in ever more coach seats into the same space, while cutting amenities for coach-class passengers. Yet air travel remained highly regulated; individual carriers had little leeway in setting fares. But in 1978, President Jimmy Carter unleashed the power of the free market on air travel, deregulating the industry.

Airlines responded by creating ever more extreme distinctions between different classes of passengers. Passengers willing to withstand ever-shrinking levels of legroom and bare-bones service could now fly far more cheaply, if uncomfortably, sitting at the back of planes while their well-heeled counterparts enjoyed free drinks and plenty of room at the front. It was during this era that air rage suddenly became increasingly common.

An academic study of air rage incidents published in 2016 shed some light on the issue. It found that the presence of a first-class section made it 3.84 times more likely that someone in economy class would act out. This rage-inducing effect was equivalent to delaying a plane by 9 hours and 29 minutes. Likewise, making economy-class passengers board from the front of the plane – where they get to see the comfort enjoyed by first-class or business-class passengers – had a similar, if lesser effect.

Understood this way, the growing reports of air rage that appeared in the 1980s and 1990s weren’t a function of the fact that economy-class passengers found themselves crammed in ever-smaller seats, but that the inequality in seating arrangements grew, often dramatically, during these years. The bargain-basement seats grew ever narrower, while the business-class seats gained amenities.  

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this: narrower, more cramped seats are cheaper, enabling more people to travel. If they want the legroom, they can pay extra for it. But as this study makes clear, such rational thinking may not prevail when passengers find themselves parked on a runway in cramped, uncomfortable seats while they watch well-heeled customers relax, surrounded by creature comforts. That’s particularly the case when alcohol gets added to the mix, loosening people’s inhibitions.

Airlines have responded in predictable fashion, attacking the symptoms of the problem. They’ve trained flight attendants to disarm belligerent passengers and handcuff them. They’ve cut back on alcohol as well. But at the same time, the distance between the most comfortable and least comfortable on planes has only increased. It’s also gotten more stratified, with intermediate seating classes that, perversely, may foster more resentment.

There’s no obvious solution to this. Abolishing luxury seating isn’t particularly practical. But at the very least, the FAA may want to consider defining a reasonable lower bound to the distance between rows and the width of seats. Legislation passed by Congress in 2018 enjoins the FAA to do precisely that. But so far it hasn’t set these standards and shows no sign of doing so.

Which means that for now, air rage is likely to remain an issue for the simple reason that contemporary air travel hammers home the fact that social inequality is, quite literally, a pain in the butt.

This is a ridiculous notion masked in the modern day society’s new found fad “inequality”.

In my opinion you’re over thinking this. The province was (is) still in a wave three mess. The Premier needed to distract the populous and threw them a bone. There is zero chance all travellers were quarantining (my guess is the actual compliance was 50% if that).  This is all theatrics.

3 hours ago, Kargokings said:

 

The very broad statement that WestJet has cut airfares in 1/2 and has increased the flying population by 50%.    Not so except perhaps on some very limited city pairs and I am not ever sure about that.  The statement was correct for the first several years but again on some limited city pairs (due to WestJet's very limited schedule in the early days.

Air transportation in Canada - Statistics & Facts | Statista

If it wasn’t WestJet, it would have been someone else. The “good old days” pre low cost carriers was never going to sustain itself.  

WestJet continues to isolate themselves in a hub city that - due to a number of factors - will continue to be a city in decline.  There is a reason AC left town and is fine with WS having what’s left.

Ridiculous nonsense. Could be worse.  Just see Canada’s worst Authority in YWG. They raised the AIF 50%.  Guess someone needs to pay the debt on that ugly terminal they built. 

This thread ... Let’s be rational for a moment.  I’m required to wear a mask - except if I’m eating or drinking. Ok. So we establish that I’m not required to have them on at all times.  And since I’m free to eat or drink at anytime during the flight, comparing masks to seatbelts is not relevant to the argument.

So now we have established that a mask is not absolute.  Save the Transport Canada rule argument as it’s not valid.

Many on here are siding with the crew and the airline - fine. I wasn’t there. Nor were you. So he said / she said. I’ve seen video with kids wearing a mask so I will side with the family.

My problem is the bully tactics displayed by WestJet. Yes. Bully tactics. The crew did not act rationally. The crew clearly did not deescalate - call the cops as that always helps deescalating things.  In my opinion they knew these were pass travellers and quickly got aggressive: since pass travellers apparently as shown to me in the comments above must take any nonsense given to them with a smile and rank just below the baggage.  WestJet culture now is clear to me the company doesn’t give a care about pass travellers: see below) 

Then the company went out of its way to tell the press these were pass travellers and then the next day informing the press their “privileges” had been revoked. Two news cycles good job.

The company failed. The crew failed. The pass traveller thing is to distract from the main issue of how poorly WJ handled all this.

That is my issue. 
 

Homer: remember when I got caught stealing watches from Sears?  Well that’s nothing because you have a gambling problems.  And remember when I let that lunatic in the house because he was dressed as Santa, well you have a gambling problem.

Industry people rally around the company; stick it to the pass traveller the thread cries out.  Stop being distracted by that for a minute.

WJ uses the fact they were travelling as pass holders as a cover and excuse for the lousy handling of the situation.  Blame the traveller. Blame the person who gave them the pass.  

Then publicly announces that they are cancelling the passes - we will show them the mighty company says.

(I don’t know who is running the company now - or the communication strategy - maybe it’s not great because they are “working at home” and all the Netflix is distracting them - but the attitude about Covid is way way over the top - see the tweet announcing zero tolerance.)  

It’s all a distraction.  Read what the non-industry people are saying. It’s a bad read for WestJet. But you’d never know on here.

And now the world gets to hear the story:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54096061

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/westjet-mask-row-scli-intl/index.html

The company failed. They over reacted. Covered themselves and look bad for it.

But they were pass travellers so it’s fine.

50 minutes ago, Marshall said:

None of the press stories (quoting other passengers) claim that WestJet did not treat the 4 with anything other than respect.  

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5716636

We each have our own definition of “respect”.

Oh. So because they were on passes it gives the Airline an out to treat them like complete crap.

Pass travellers have a responsibility to act reasonably - but they certainly do not give up the right to being treated with courtesy and respect.

WestJet PR made it a central issue that they were on passes. Now you're excusing WJ.

If they were flying upfront - how do you react then?  Still zero sympathy?

And what about all the other precious guests who were getting mad at the crew - then all ended up spending the night in YYC.  Going to blame this family for that too?

On what planet can you rationalize any of this?

WestJet was quick to point out they were travelling on passes - giving them more wiggle room to excuse the company’s horrible handling of the situation.  Just a miserable attempt at distraction.

Calgary Herald story has more details

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/abuse-harassment-and-outright-disrespect-family-forced-off-westjet-flight-for-not-masking-their-19-month-old/wcm/de764b1b-29d6-4c04-a663-06714258283f/

Good job WJ. Handled flawlessly. 

The company sitting on hundred of dollars of money it refuses to refund is doing a bang up job being irrational - threatening customers with bans - over a policy requiring masks that I don’t have to wear if I am drinking or eating.

More rational thinking.  Return to the gate over a mask....

Lucky Toronto 

Calgary next?  Then what - the entire network?

On 5/20/2020 at 7:45 PM, internet said:

Airport authorities spend money with such disregard to any rational frugal thought. And why should they - Just jack the AIF.  Non profit - get bent. Spend at Will and chase the revenue later. 

shocking 

Winnipeg airport improvement fee notching up Sept. 1 

06/1/2020 7:46 AM

Winnipeg Airports Authority will be increasing its Airport Improvement Fee by Sept. 1 to offset the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The fee, applied to commercial airline passengers departing the Richardson International Airport, will increase from $25 to $38 per passenger, according to the airport authority.

The Winnipeg Airports Authority cited the economic consequences of the pandemic, noting that air traffic in April alone fell in excess of 95 per cent, and that it is expected to take several years to return to normal air traffic volumes.

The airport improvement fees are dedicated towards capital needed to maintain critical infrastructure for the benefit of the community, and does not cover airport operating costs, the airport authority said.

Airport authorities spend money with such disregard to any rational frugal thought. And why should they - Just jack the AIF.  Non profit - get bent. Spend at Will and chase the revenue later. 

People are fearful sheep soaking up internet nonsense.

Get what you pay for.  Swoop won’t be around forever as people realize what a crappy product it is and with any sort of planning you can pay almost the same on AC/WS.  Plus I wonder if Onex will keep it once Flairs dies.

The only “value“ is Swoop flying non-stop in markets the big two don’t.  But everyone I talked to said their Swoop flights were delayed (I’ve done one and it was 2.5 hrs late). So what do you really save?

Canada Jetlines postpones launch over financing challenges, lays off staff http://dlvr.it/RH8Nmp @GlobeBusiness

On 10/18/2019 at 11:46 AM, dagger said:

With US tariffs going on imports of Airbus aircraft - A319 and larger - I wonder if that would induce a US carrier to take some of those Canadian-destined MAX fins in exchange for some NEOs. Just a wild idea. I assume US carriers aren't thrilled over having to pay more for Airbus planes and likely expect Airbus to make good somehow.

I’m sure AC wouldn’t be opposed to returning to Airbus NB. CR is going to up Boeing’s #*% on this fiasco and will be coming home with some free shiny new 787s and suitcases of money. 

The whole 40 year operational cost thing is a political and media fabrication of a non-story.

Rounding to the nearest $5Billion just proves no one has any friggin' idea - it's all guesses.

We need to have fighter jets - anyone disagree? There are bad guys out there and sometimes we need to shove a 2000lbs firecracker up their...

We will need to pay for gas, maintenance, pilots, support no matter what we choose.

This is going to be another expensive disaster like Jean's helicopters from '93. (Which STILL haven't been replaced)

It will cost us a billion dollars and we will have nothing to show for it but a fleet of F18s that are a decade older - Seaking style.

Just buy the damn plane and move on....