UpperDeck

I was looking at the figures but Boestar did the work and I was saved the trouble.

Seriously....I'm wondering how we collectively can most strongly make a statement that is heard.

I flew Delta the other day from YYZ to PBI. I never came within 6 ft. of anyone and everyone was wearing a mask.

On board...middle seats blocked and the computer assigns seats to maintain separation. There was no one in front or behind us.

As of tomorrow....anyone entering the US must have a negative test. Canada already has that requirement.

So why are "they" trying to kill the airline industry with repeated comments about mandatory 14 day quarantines in an airport hotel? This irresponsible and uninformed commentary has to be stopped!!

And there is the NDP leader urging a complete travel ban on non-essential travellers. Sir....does the Charter mean ANYTHING to you?

By the way....I wonder how many appreciate that CITIZENS have a Charter right of entry; not "landed immigrants"?

Well, guys.....I repeat my comment about cavalier responses to warning sensors. I acknowledge readily that lack of use can result in "issues"....but they remain issues.

My wife was driving to work the other day when a number of warning lights came on including "check engine". I was reminded of a "Big Bang" episode when Sheldon got upset because Penny attached no significance to an engine warning light.....just before the car died.

I asked my wife to pull off the road and check oil. She did....ok. I called "resource" and was told okay to drive to work but.....Then time permitting, ran diagnostics. Defective sender rear wheel. Point is...there is a purpose for the existence of the senders and warning lights and they must be respected.

But the point is....you are trying to assure the public that an aircraft type is safe. It presumably has been gone over with a fine tooth comb.

Warning lights are not supposed to activate in the absence of a fault. If there is no fault, there is an electrical issue including the possibility of a defective sender.

Swap out the sensor/sender and all is well? Why did that sensor fail? 

To say; "All is well" is, in my opinion, too simple and cavalier a response.

Speaking of which...and it has nothing to do with "Covid mitigation measures"..... 

I was just told a story of an FA at AC who radioed the Capt at the initiation of takeoff out of LHR to abort. He went wayyyyyyy out on a limb because of a pax's insistence that she had a bag tag on her ticket that was not hers. The pax explained that when she and two companions were checking in, two men with an elderly lady approached and asked that they keep an eye on their grandmother who didn't have any experience in retrieving baggage. The agent assumed the elderly lady was with the pax and put her baggage tag on the ticket of the pax. On board and upon realizing that, the pax notified the FA. And...most importantly....the FA had the gumption to respond.

The flight was parked away from the terminal in a position of safety and all baggage offloaded. The elderly woman was NOT on the plane.

The common folk will never know what was in "her" bag.

And so I asked; " What recognition was given to that FA for his/her courage?" and was dismayed to hear..."None!"

Just another day in the life, I guess.

1 hour ago, Turbofan said:

Looks like Canada may be next

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canadians-who-travel-outside-canada-could-be-stranded-abroad-trudeau-warns

Canadians who travel outside Canada could be stranded abroad, Trudeau warns

“We could be bringing in new measures that significantly impede your ability to return to Canada at any given moment without warning.”

 

Well, Mr. Prime Minister....the best way to curtail the recent surge in theft is to cut off the left..no...right hand of the offender. And tear down the houses of the immediate and related families. That will stop the buggers!!

Lord...protect me from substitute teachers and their mentors!

13 hours ago, boestar said:

No one "Failed" to provide a service.  The government placed a restriction on Travel which caused the airlines to cancel the flights.  To an airline that is an UNCONTROLABLE cancellation caused by the government.  The ultimate responsibility lies with the government NOT the airline.

The policies are spelled out in the Tariffs as to the differences in types of cancellations and the responsibility of both parties.

The government Paid thousands of people CERB payments that they were not entitled to why not reimburse travellers or provide the support necessary to enable refunds.

 

Boestar....

Your position is that flights are cancelled not as a business decision per se but rather by reason of restrictions imposed by the government and for that reason, the airline that didn't operate a flight should be able to offer a credit rather than cash refund. Have I correctly summarized your position?

I suggest that the restrictions imposed by Canada are not unduly onerous; quarantine of arriving pax and, recently, negative Covid tests.

These restrictions are imposed upon the pax and not the airline. I suggested that if it is the pax that cancels...because they don't want to quarantine or pay for a test.....they bear the consequence.

The reluctance of pax to actually book a flight is an entirely different issue. The airlines are responsible for flight management and decisions on when and where to offer flights. Once they make a decision to fly from x to b on a particular date and offer seats for sale, they are obliged to operate. If they choose not to operate because not enough seats were sold, the absolute LEAST they can do is refund the money.

To say that the money has already been spent and isn't available for refund is to support the argument that airline operations are an elaborate Ponzi scheme.

I note that in assessing whether to "plan" our travel now, we look first at loads generally and if light one way but good the other, we assume the flight will operate. If both legs are empty....we look for an alternative assuming that flight will be cancelled.

I suggest again that the decision to cancel is a business decision and one of the relevant factors should be the loss of booked revenue.....the refund of fares paid.

Compare airline operations with restaurants. The immediate impact of government restrictions on restaurants is indisputable....and yet, no offer of assistance is forthcoming notwithstanding the absence of any evidence of correlation between the restrictions imposed and the reduction in virus transmission. If Canada was to mandate " no fly"....THEN the airlines would have a stronger argument for financial relief.....notwithstanding the denial of same to restaurants.

52 minutes ago, J.O. said:

My company enquired into this. The USA's PCR test exemption will only be applicable to operating crew.

Thank you, J.O. 

When I contacted Public Health about abbreviating the quarantine period by leaving Canada, it was suggested I report my intent to CBSA upon arrival. I did so and was told; " Tell Public Health".

No one said it would be easy!!

12 hours ago, Malcolm said:

UpperDeck: on the personal side, I imagine the new 72 hour Rule etc in the US is somewhat screwing up your cross border tips   or have you got it aced?

Aced? Lol 

We just came north a few days ago though I wish it hadn't been necessary. We learned of the CDC Order the night before departure. I got the PCR...$199. ...in 24 hours and had to explain to the gate agent where the type of test taken was indicated and the result. On arrival, perusal by the CBSA can best be described as perfunctory...and brief!

I would never do it but it would be a simple task to change the date on the test result and no one would be the wiser.

After clearing into Canada, there was a lady there offering free tests to arriving pax. I was compelled to ask whether departing pax could also be tested free. You know the answer.

And now I'm in quarantine BUT....we hope to return to the US on the 24th before the new US rules kick in.

My quarantine ends when I leave.

Employees in YYZ can get a free PCR test but unfortunately, that only benefits people who live there since you'd need to get it done two days before sched departure.

As an aside...the CDC Order exempts airline crew. I wrote to ask whether that was limited to operating crew or included commuters. No response so called number provided. No connection (error). I'm hoping that the exemption will be similar to Canada.

9 hours ago, FA@AC said:

Quite the stalemate.  The government insists on customers being given refunds for cancelled flights before government support will be offered.  Airlines (AC anyway) say that they cannot provide refunds without government support.  Government insists that airlines guarantee service to certain cities.  Airlines cannot service certain cities because government travel restrictions make serving them unviable.

I wonder if the new Transport Minister has the mandate the alter the government's position in order to move things along......or if Michel when he takes over will adopt a position any different from Calin's.

I cannot understand how anyone can even attempt to justify a refusal to refund monies paid when the service provider fails to provide the service. Pay for a garage door...in advance...and the supplier says; " Sorry. No doors". And then says; "I'll give you a credit for the same door which will be available next month but it may cost more." To suggest that the taxpayer should refund the money is ludicrous.

Sorry.....I bail out and I understand you keeping my money if the flight operates. You allow me to change flight dates and waive change fees? Thank you....good marketing. Failure to refund when the airline cancels the flight? Shame!

5 hours ago, boestar said:

Well I retain the right under authorization of the MTO to DENY you a Drivers License because you fail to meet the criteria set out by the MTO.  If it were a RIGHT I would not have that ability.

 

Boestar....respectfully....you are debating a point without full appreciation of the various " shades of grey" which are important to us whose lives revolve around that appreciation. Again...I say that without any desire to be see  as denigrating your position.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is irrelevant to a discussion of the " right to drive". Yes...driving means mobility but " mobility rights" doesn't refer to driving.

Many people conflate the words " privilge" and "license".

We read of " revoking driving privileges" and take that to mean that driving is a " privilege". This is language as communication; not as an art. 

What I intended to convey is an understanding that there is import to specific words; "licence"; "right"; "privilege".

At law....there is a very real and substantive difference between these terms.

I have a friend who was once the head of vehicle and driver licensing for Ontario. I was his " best man" and we stay in touch. I mentioned this discussion to him and he said; "Who cares!?"

I have to agree. There are a LOT more important issues for us to dicuss.

Malcolm....you still up? Not much interested in Wash vs Phil so....

The Quarantine Act is long-standing federal legislation. The Lt.Gov. in Council promulgates regulations under the Act and there have been a number of revisions since last Spring.

Certain persons are, pursuant to reg., exempt from the Quarantine provisions. Excluded persons include, for eg., health care providers and persons engaged in essential business.

I have not yet accessed the Reg regarding PCR testing but I wonder.....if a person engaged in essential business is exempt, who is going to make the decision that he/she does NOT require a negative test? I assume that on check-in, one would produce the required test result if not exempt. But why would AC accept responsibility for determining the validity of a claim for exemption?

I also wonder who is to bear the expense when John Doe gets the requisite test but his flight is cancelled. He got the test 72 hours before his scheduled flight but his flight was pushed back a day. Now what? He can't get a test before the re-scheduled flight and his original test is now no good.

Do you not think there are going to be problems with this ill-advised and ill-considered requirement?

It is not enough for someone to say; " Well....you were advised not to travel!!"

Malcolm....YOU....of All people! I'm shocked; shocked I say.

I am absolutely confidant that you looked up the meaning of the word "privilege" but selectively chose a website that is tailored to "persuading" the general public as to the importance of adhering to laws.

"Membership has its privileges". No member of the public has a right to enter the University Club. That privilege is restricted to members.

I don't really care, to be honest but it IS Sunday. The right to operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway is conferred by license. If one fulfills the conditions required for such licence, that person has a right to the license. By definition....that is NOT a privilege.

One can consider the phrase "privilege by birth" to better appreciate the difference between license and privilege. Or, if so compelled, sympathize with the BLM "movement" and acknowledge "white privilege".

Hey!! There's a game on. Au revoir!

42 minutes ago, boestar said:

Yes.  It is a privilege granted by the province which can be revoked at any time for cause.  It is not a right.

 

Boestar...I'm not trying to "one up" but a "privilege" is something enjoyed by an individual or group denied to others.

The ability to operate a motorized vehicle on public roadways is enabled by licence.

There are limited grounds upon which a licence can be rescinded or denied. In the absence of proof otherwise, a person is ENTITLED ( has a right) to insist upon issuance and that right will be enforced.

Malcolm....if you're still there. You might find this of interest. There is an FLL flight to Toronto via YUL on Tuesday, Jan.12th. There are no flights operating FLL to YYZ . There is an MCO to YYZ on Jan.13th.

If I can get a PCR on Sunday and get the results within 48 hours, I can get on the FLL flight but I'd rather not go through YUL.

Presuming availability on the MCO non-stop, my test would be no good. For that flight, I have to get the test on Monday.

Flip a coin!

The loads are now changing so who knows whether one or the other might cancel or which will fill.

You're right, of course. The higher the barrier the greater the likelihood of people forgoing air travel.

But to what benefit....and at what expense?

Malcolm....actually, while my insurance  coverage does have to be extended if I remain in the US, my next trip is required due to "financial interests" that necessitate my return mid-month January. I can't fulfill my obligations from here.

I haven't been in public ( including outdoor areas) without a mask and don't think I've come within 15 feet of another person since arrival at my residence before Xmas.

Obviously....I'll be paying that $190.

17 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

UpperDeck: not sure how you can claim that your wintering in the south fits into essential travel.

 

Because it's "absolutely necessary"..  to me! And usually, "extremely important".

Both subjective terms, Malcolm.

Besides....I pose no threats to Canadians when I leave Canada. It's the return that is problematic and "essential".....the government requires certain things of me that I cannot fulfill from afar.

Damn!! One more comment. This is an airline forum, right? One populated by airline employees and families active and retired?

Just exactly WHAT do you consider "necessary travel"? I have difficulty imagining why anyone would be compelled to go from "A" to "B" excluding emergency medical care.

Business? How essential is it that you meet in person?

If no one travels....no airlines...no jobs.

Look at the board. Flight after flight cancelled. Not enough pax. SLOA's every month and more "furloughs" in the pipeline.

Many of you must not be flying given your comments. I presume you are not socializing and limit your excursions to the grocery store. You're doing everything you can to protect yourself.

So why are you so adamant that others must toe the line you drew in that sand?

I spend my winters in the south and have done so for more than 30 years. I consider my travel "necessary" and I also believe I am safer here than I would be in Ontario.....at least right now!!

I suspect that the general "flavour" of this thread will prevail and that many potential "vacationers" will alter their plans and stay home rather than scramble to get acceptable tests. And more flights will be cancelled. And resorts will offer tests as part of the package.

By the way....early December, we went and got a PCR at the local Ontario public health facility. It took 4 days to get the EXPEDITED result!! 4 days from testing!! For our own reasons, we didn't want to board an aircraft to Florida until we had a negative test so had to keep revising our plans, waiting for those results.

And yet our government has the gall to insist upon quicker results from countries all over the world.

Sheesh!

50 minutes ago, FA@AC said:

For the most part I'm comfortable working given all of the precautions that are in place.  Like most of us I have worked flights that turned out to have had Covid positive people on them, and given current infection rates I'm sure that I have worked plenty of them in addition to those of which I have been notified.

So far so good, but I still welcome a measure that might catch some Covid cases and exclude the travellers before they have the chance to board an aircraft.  I acknowledge that this isn't really the intent of the legislation and that the legislation's purpose is, supposedly, to keep Covid cases from being imported to Canada, but if my workplace becomes safer as a byproduct I'll take it.

If your argument is that people who have Covid have the right to leave isolation and board an aircraft--and this because they're Canadian and are thus entitled to enter Canada-- I don't think you'll have many people agreeing with you.  Nonetheless, litigate away if you wish.

FA....last word because I suspect we are passing in the night, so to speak. I have never suggested....nor would I...that persons should board an aircraft knowing or with reason to believe they are infected.

I pay for insurance to ensure that I am treated here in the US if ( God fobid) I am infected. I would never attempt to board an aircraft to return home.

What I said was that under current Regulations, a resident Canadian infected and with symptoms can enter Canada. Present yourself at the border and you must be admitted. However, regardless of the consent and participation of the airlines, a Canadian resident cannot board an aircraft bound for Canada without first obtaining a negative Covid test. False positive...no symptoms? Too bad. Get a lab that does 25 revs and you may get a negative result but be positive!!

Let me be clear....I fully support quarantine/isolation and I have fulfilled my obligations more than once. I complained in fact that monitoring compliance was wholly inadequate. Most recently, monitoring consisted of sending me a daily email.

I think everyone should take a deep breath. Driving is a "privilege". Really? I have access to a private jet and don't need to fly commercial. Am I less of a risk to others when I quarantine?

There must be a balance. You start by locking each and every individual in a closed cell and then begin with the exercise of reason to inch open the doors. Or....you have complete liberty and then impose restrictions to mitigate risk based upon results.

Many posters don't appear to appreciate that the greatest risk to their health is presented by their family members and close friends. I'm ballparking that somewhere around 80% of all infections derive from household gatherings.

You want to stop the spread? Prohibit family gatherings and limit households to 4 people. Would you think that reasonable? Obviously it won't happen but it would be more effective than requiring a negative PCR of Canadian residents travelling into the country by air!!

Finally (phew!)...which PCR test are we requiring? Is it 40 cycles or 25?

Don't know the difference? You should.

2 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.

Come on, Fa!! I said that airlines have the right to dictate terms of carriage but if government seeks to do so, it must comply with legislative obligations.

There is very little evidence...very little....that being on an aircraft with an asymptomatic pax poses a significant risk of infection to other pax. You know that, I am sure. I am presuming the wearing of a mask by all.

If you are sincerely concerned about the risks of infection....stay away from crew members. They are exempt from the regs but are in and out of provinces and countries and wandering the aisles of aircraft. Not concerned?

14 hours ago, FA@AC said:

Someone with Covid symptoms or who is Covid positive is admissible to Canada, but they aren't admissible to an aircraft.  They should be in isolation.  If the test requirement keeps Covid positive folks out of my workplace that's a good thing.  That, however, is clearly not the objective of the requirement or it would have been imposed for travel on domestic flights too.  I'd support expansion of the YYC project in order to get rid of the 14 day quarantine requirement for travellers.

Air Canada could impose conditions of carriage to protect its employees and pax.....but it did not.

The issue is whether the government has the authority to inhibit entry to Canadian residents by fiat.

Have to laugh...in the US an application to quash would be before the Court by now! 

I wanted to add that Charter rights CAN be abridged and there exists a process for legislating such infringements.

The government...a minority government... cannot be permitted to do so by regulation.

Where the he** (heck)....are the Conservatives??

Rich....that is a very slippery slope indeed! Almost every action can be justified by " the greater good". It is in fact the fight to respect the rights of the few that best protects the many.

Dagger has posted photos of revellers ignoring Covid rules. Similar photos circulated last Spring. Dagger has also referenced the variant. A similar variant was recognized months ago....one that seemed to more readily infect the young; more easily transmitted but less severe.

What did Canada do since last March to protect the population? Take a moment and think of that "stay at home" dictate. You're 60 years plus. You live in a townhome. It is winter. What the hell do you do? Stare at the electric fireplace reading a book day after day? Bundle up and brave the ice to walk the dog?

Not all Canadian travellers are partying in Cancun!! Most are continuing to eke out an existence in  warmer climes for their physical and mental health.

Many insurers offer 33 day coverage with multiple visits permitted...but you must come home for at least a day.

Remarkably ( tongue-in-cheek) a PCR test for travellers costs $190 per test at Shoppers and $190 per test in Florida.

And...is a negative test an assurance of anything? No!!

Please be mindful that under current regs to the Quarantine Act, a Canadian resident with Covid symptoms is admissible to Canada. So...shift the burden to carriers such as AC and tell them...you can't transport ANYONE who is not exempt and who does not have a negative PCR.

This is simply wrong and, in my opinion, legally indefensible.

9 hours ago, dagger said:

It's not about air travel per se - it's about travel period. It's about people going to Mexico or other hot spots where there is lots of partying and little masking. People are going to, say, Cancun, to escape the restrictions and weather and party on like its pre-Covid. They are going to dance indoors, hook up, and generally behave like idiots. A few days ago, La Presse had a reporter go to Mexico on an Air Canada flight - it was full - from Montreal. I doubt many people got sick on the flight, or the return flight, but the reporter followed Quebecers around at that Mexican resort, interviewed quite a few of them, and there is little doubt that when one is in a beach resort, yukking it up with strangers, without masks or distancing, the virus is going to have a field day. The purpose of the PCR test, which will cost up to C$199 and add inconvenience, as well as the threat of being grounded in Mexico or elsewhere for several additional days (at one's own expense) until they get a negative test (again at their own expense), is to DISCOURAGE NON-ESSENTIAL TRAVEL. It's not about the flight. There's a reason Air Canada shares briefly tanked at the opening of the market today. It will lose more business because of this test, not because of anything to do with the safety of flights. That's why the government isn't expanding the Calgary trial yet - just doing rapid tests with a shortened quarantine is meant to encourage non-essential travel, and in a few months time, as more and more people are being vaccinated, that will become a desirable objective. Right now, with cases/hospitalizations/deaths soaring, it is not.

Dagger....and I respectfully suggest...you're wrong. The issue is not with travel per se. It is with compliance with quarantine rules upon re-entry to Canada. Cut to the chase....where is the evidence that Air Canada pax who are Cdn citizens are importing the virus? It is my understanding that there is no cogent evidence. However....news reports of 1300 flights carrying Covix + pax is VERY persuasive politically; something must be done!!

My home is in a small County that had very few Covid cases. A large company initiated a large construction project. A number of trades came in on travel cards. What a surprise!! Within a matter of weeks, we had over 40 cases. So....7 months....12 cases. Less than one month....40. Blame that on people returning home from Cancun?

Repeatedly, we heard about the latest variant and countries began closing their borders....including Canada. The concern of course was with the import of a more contagious version.

And what did we learn within a matter of days? Cases in Canada and in the US with this variant and NO HISTORY OF TRAVEL!! ( or travel-related contacts).

So....here we are. I'm in Florida....as isolated as one can be. I MUST return home every 30 days for health coverage and when I do so....I quarantine for 14 days.

There are MORE cases in Ontario right now per capita than where I hang my hat in Florida. But...I have to go home and in the process, unnecessarily expose myself.

And now "my" government in its infinite wisdom demands that I break my "isolation" here and attend a health care facility to get a meaningless test at my expense ( and enhanced risk)...to come home....and quarantine.

I suggest that any barrier to my ability to return to MY home is a breach of my constitutional right as a citizen.

And I'll contribute to that lawsuit.

Canada wants to inhibit the ability of non-residents to enter Canada....have at it BUT don't try to stop a Canadian resident from coming home!!

Absolutely right, Malcolm. This is all a charade....not the virus but governmental efforts to be seen as doing something.

Forum after forum reveal multiple posts blaming the spread of the virus on....anything; everything....without any evidence of cause and effect.

Easy bait is air travel. We all KNOW that airline passengers are the conduit by which the virus is spread. Politicians cannot help themselves. They are compelled to respond to these unsupported but fervently held beliefs.

Of course, that's why FA's are falling like flies.

What??!! They aren't? Shush!