dagger Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Is it a curse? Actually, I am amending this message. It seems as is the GTAA is responsible for the fuel system at YYZ. So could someone explain why it wouldn't work after the intense cold of Sunday night? Is this something that will reoccur every time Toronto has a very cold night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest long keel Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Maybe they can keep their trucks in the million dollar GTAA infield hanger. No else can afford it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFL Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 1. That was not intense cold. YYC, YEG, YQR, YXE. YQT, MSP etc. have no problem with much colder temperatures. 2. Maybe they should have had C. Parish and her tribe of Mississaugans stand outside their homes and mouth off some anti-american bigotry. That would have warmed up the whole GTAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 1. That was not intense cold. YYC, YEG, YQR, YXE. YQT, MSP etc. have no problem with much colder temperatures. 2. Maybe they should have had C. Parish and her tribe of Mississaugans stand outside their homes and mouth off some anti-american bigotry. That would have warmed up the whole GTAA. 1. True, but the GTAA has an expensive fuelling system... I'm told every other major airport does it differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFL Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Everything about the GTAA is expensive! It is the price of being different but not better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newgirl Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 In YQR we do not have under ground fueling. The Esso/Shell fuel truck arrives and fuels the aircraft. Even in -38 with a wind chill of -55 weather we have not had problems fueling or the aircraft departing on schedule. This is a good example of why the rest of Canada is laughing at YYZ. Sorry but its the truth. Maybe you shouldn't look down your nose at the smaller bases but learn from them . We have the know how to get a flight out on time when the weather is -40. So start to learn from us and not belittle us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 1. True, but the GTAA has an expensive fuelling system... I'm told every other major airport does it differently. YYC and YEG also have an underground hydraunt system. The only problems are if you get good moisture followed by a freeze and the fueling company allowed water to collect in the pits. OR. As happened in YEG about 15 years ago ...due to the extreme cold a fueller shattered the collar trying to put the hose on and there was a 'lake of fuel' covering the north end of the airport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatSlave Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 41 below in YZF today. Trucked fuel. No problems.(At least not with the fuel truck, we won't get into my airline's issues ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newgirl Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 GreatSlave Aw you got me beat , its only -25 with a wind chill of -39.. Enjoy your stories , please keep them coming. Merry Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatSlave Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Right back at you newgirl. I have always enjoyed your well thought out views on life and this goofy industry that we're in. I wish a very fine Christmas for you and your family. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Dagger: Just a question for you ....was this freeze out at the Turpin Mahal or was it at one of the older terminals? Frosty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted December 23, 2004 Author Share Posted December 23, 2004 Dagger: Just a question for you ....was this freeze out at the Turpin Mahal or was it at one of the older terminals? Frosty It certainly affected AC, and possibly other airlines. But I can't say which terminal or terminals. But since the GTAA is an equal opportunity screwup, I offer this latest tidbit from Flyer Talk Seems the lines at T3 stretched outside yesterday, according to news stories last night on TV and radio stations [shades of the SOUTHWEST terminal at LAX]. And at T2 were not that much better. Apparently, security screeners didn't like their Christmas Bonuses they got [$200 versus the $400 the GTAA staff got] so decided to book off sick or work to rule. Ergo, backups that were even worse than normal. Hmmmm, didn't know federal employees even got Christmas bonuses. Still, they should ask AC employees what their Christmas bonus this year was: another hamburger coupon? And speaking of asses, is it true ACPA has screwed up again and caused AC to drop plans to add three of the eight widebodies that were planned? Boys on furlough must be drinking double eggnog over that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kilo Mike Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 And speaking of asses, is it true ACPA has screwed up again and caused AC to drop plans to add three of the eight widebodies that were planned? Boys on furlough must be drinking double eggnog over that one. Nope. Just another attempt by management to deflect a boner on their part. The boyz on furlough will be back just as soon as a few folks in the office figure out that they have to start doing their job now. Dangling carrots in a classic bait and switch doesn't wash anymore... We had 55 folks showing back off the last bid ..... < quick look around > ... Last I checked , they still weren't here ... Hmmmm. For the management folks that watch and read.... If you want them, you know what you have to do. I wonder how the Christmas sched is going to fair ???? Hmmmm. Time to find a bunker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 06L06R Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 And how many trucks would it take to fuel the 500 - 600 departures a day a YYZ, sorry but I don't think that is a well thought out response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted December 23, 2004 Author Share Posted December 23, 2004 And speaking of asses, is it true ACPA has screwed up again and caused AC to drop plans to add three of the eight widebodies that were planned? Boys on furlough must be drinking double eggnog over that one. Nope. Just another attempt by management to deflect a boner on their part. The boyz on furlough will be back just as soon as a few folks in the office figure out that they have to start doing their job now. Dangling carrots in a classic bait and switch doesn't wash anymore... We had 55 folks showing back off the last bid ..... < quick look around > ... Last I checked , they still weren't here ... Hmmmm. For the management folks that watch and read.... If you want them, you know what you have to do. I wonder how the Christmas sched is going to fair ???? Hmmmm. Time to find a bunker. Classic union malarky. You thought you didn't have to do anything to get those three widebodies into action, figured the company had no choice, refused to cooperate assuming the planes would come anyway, and voila, the company simoply declined to take on those planes. So sit in your A320 when you could have been in a widebody. the company has thankfully found some discipline and isn't going to cave to your union's blackmailing. Once again, from FlyerTalk: ACPA has refused to fly 767's(fins 658 thru 661) AC wants to use on the YYZ-NRT run, because, get this.....the upper bunks are 2" shorter than allowed per their collective agreement and they want compensation which AC has refused because the bunk is as installed by the manufacturer and this exempts them from the collective agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Dagger: two in. shorter could be a real problem for tall folks depending upon what the actual measurement is. Any idea of what the dims. are for the bunks in question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homerun Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 The bunk issue is not about 2". Believe it if you want. The extra 3 widebodies were not to be operated by AC. They were to be wetleased. AC would not commit to anything regarding recall of layoffs thus making any idea of wetleasing a non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Classic union malarky. You thought you didn't have to do anything to get those three widebodies into action, figured the company had no choice, refused to cooperate assuming the planes would come anyway, and voila, the company simoply declined to take on those planes. So sit in your A320 when you could have been in a widebody. the company has thankfully found some discipline and isn't going to cave to your union's blackmailing. You usual measured response - NOT! AC is no longer in CCAA, and has us locked into a contract until 2009 without even COLA adjustments. But a contract is a contract, and we will abide by it. The Company needs to live within the language contained therein as well. Changes will have to be negotiated, not demanded. I think the deal fell apart for other reasons, not the quid pro quo ACPA was looking for on yet another let. If the business case was that thin, best we not go there, eh? I completely support the unions stand on this one. Don't believe everything you're told on the inside, Dagger, you risk inhaling the smoke they're blowing... Merry Ho Ho buzz edited for grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimer V Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Buzz,right on Dagger should really get a real job,, Have you ever noticed his posts,management can do no wrong,its getting really borrrinngggggggg He still thinks union's are the ememy. Don't waste your time replying to his posts,he'll just turn it around like the spin master he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kilo Mike Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Classic union malarky. You thought you didn't have to do anything to get those three widebodies into action? No. I figured we had better follow the most flexible legacy contract in existance as that is what is legally expected from the two parties that signed it. So sit in your A320 when you could have been in a widebody. the company has thankfully found some discipline and isn't going to cave to your union's blackmailing. Classic bait and switch Dagger. Common . You can do better than that. You realize that it can be easily said that the pilots aren't going to allow their furloughed members to be utilized as company blackmail fodder. You're really mis-reading the mood of the pilots if you think that was the case. Once again, from FlyerTalk: .. Sheesh man. Is this where you are getting you pilot inside info? ACPA has refused blah blah installed by the manufacturer and this exempts them from the collective agreement. I have to ask. Since when does the manufacturer have overriding powers to exempt legally binding collective agreements? I'll say it again for the powers that be that use this board as a gauge of pilot mood. You guys know what was discussed and what is required. Figure it out and get the cahones to read a contract and manage. This oh so predictable tack of blaming ACPA for your own shortcomings is getting extremely old and very transparent. You have the most flexible legacy carrier contract in the world , and yet you still can't figure out how to get aircraft that fit. Using bunk's that were designed for asian carriers and their median physical dimensions is the biggest farce yet. ( I guess Dagger that it would be OK if AC kept the seating pitch for the PAX that these a/c have as it's only a couple of inches eh? I mean what's a couple of inches amoung friends ) ps.... if you think it was just a matter of the bunks being 2" too short, then you may want to re-evaluate your pilot insider sources Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.