Mitch Cronin Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Flaps matey... yessir, we've got way bigger problems... But that's gonna be a big one. The less big one's we have, the better the chances we might actually remain employed 'til voluntary retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Ok, that's silly... and sad. But typical of some segment of the travellers I guess... I know what you're saying.... There's not an airline on earth that hasn't once lost someone's bag, or had some kind of maintenance delay, or some other kind of inconvenience... yet a lot of those who first experience it will say they'll never fly on that airline again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 They always say "I'll never...." when they get back from their $199, 5 hour, check in 3 hours ahead, 26 inch pitch experiences as well. But the next year, they're back on the deep discount carriers when they could have a nice, comfy AC seat for 50 bucks more. People will spend a thousand bucks or more on a week's vacation and start and end it with torture over just a few dollars .... go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Man you are sharp! - its quick code alright -for typing with my thumbs! Cheers Chico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wser Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 LOL!!! I find it funny how "outsiders" will quickly decide to never fly an airline again without taking into consideration the reasons for the delay/cancellation. It makes perfect sense to me that someone would wish to never fly an airline again if their flight was delayed becuase of ATC, de-icing or god forbid even a snow storm. HAHA!!! It is a sad reality that an airline is not responsilbe for the weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted February 21, 2004 Author Share Posted February 21, 2004 And did I mention that a hot breakfast on Rapidair is worth more to the 8 a.m. business traveller than the chance to watch in-seat TV for 15 minutes, or that hourly flights on Rapidair are a God-send when you battle through Montreal traffic to get the airport, only to miss your flight by five minutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted February 21, 2004 Author Share Posted February 21, 2004 A lot of passengers don't take it into consideration. That's a fact of life. If they're going to be late because of central de-icing or unplowed runways, they still blame the airline. However, I do notice that a lot of people who claim they won't fly a particular airline again, do. In reality, manure happens to every airline, and sooner or later, you find a psychological rationale to fly that airline you said you would never tly again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted February 21, 2004 Author Share Posted February 21, 2004 It reminds me of a flight I had on Canadian in 1987. The crosswinds were brutal and the 737 was descending to YYZ like a bucking bronco, and the landing was a little like hitting the concrete instead of kissing it, but I was ever so grateful for that landing under the circumstances... Glass half full, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted February 21, 2004 Author Share Posted February 21, 2004 There are two sides of every court case and you've just accepted one side. It all depends on the letter of the accord. Like all legal agreements. If the GTAA is correct, AC will have to lick its wounds and adapt. If AC is right, then the GTAA has sold the same cow twice. It wouldn't be the first time in human history - in fact, as ALPA and ACPA will tell you, it wouldn't even be the first time in AC history. As for your market reference, this has nothing to do with market focus, but cost. By sharing gates, AC will be forced into a split operation of sorts, which will entail a cost. If AC is in the right, GTAA will either have to move WJ to Terminal 3, or it will have to compensate AC's additional costs. If AC is wrong, it will have to absorb the costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 I guess I inherited some "lousy passenger" from my dear old mother... every flight I've ever been on I'm grateful for the landing.... after rollout. While on short final I look outside and hope like heck the folks up front don't screw it up. Knowing they never do doesn't seem to matter at the time. Something about the mechanics of taking the beast from lots of knots in the silky smooth gasses to nothing at all on the tiny slip of concrete, ...and in someone elses hands, seems to make my adrenaline flow... I prefer to drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted February 21, 2004 Author Share Posted February 21, 2004 Mitch, it sounds like you drive the way they fly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 "you find a psychological rationale to fly that airline" read... "Cheap" Remember Nationair? Even when folks I knew well were warned not to fly with them, they would... I have a brother who flew with them against my warnings.... He, and zillions of others only care for the cost... they trust all is well . "or the feds wouldn't let'em fly" I was *almost* glad when they proved my point. (though of course, not at all, in reality) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 LOL.... maybe so... but when I'm in my own hands, I know I'm safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 These days their bar bill will usually be more than the air fare..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 These days the bar bill will usually be more than the air fare.....((d)(d) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SISU Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 How dare they not give AC the most desirable gates and what ever number they want!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eiskitteam Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Acutally I never said she wouldn't fly Westjet again. Just not out of Hamilton with a lean schedule. She's not an outsider at all, she's fully cognizant of the factors affecting airlines. Westjet's schedule out of Hamilton just didn't provide enough room for foobars. If they have a decent schedule out of Toronto she may try them again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flapsforty Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Mitch, As one of the few people who actually care about your airline and your job I salute you. But AC has got to focus getting it's house in order and figuring out what 'the plan' is and communicating it with the employees. You can block up all the gates you want and it still will not stop the competition from eroding AC's market share. The other 6 gates AC wants for exclusive use will be shared gates anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innuendo Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 I don't think the GTAA "gives" anybody anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Re CCAA not giving anyone, anything..... I agree but.... Re the gates at YYZ, under normal cirumstances the existing tenants are given the first crack at new gates etc. with new entries coming next. If AC did specify their desires to the GTAA prior to the WJ notice, then they should expect the GTAA to honor them. If AC did not specify what they wanted, after all the terminal did not pop up overnight like a mushroom, then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 The connent so far has been about the Westjet lawyer. Maybe some should also read the Air Canada side of things. Particularily the following. Search for the copies of the Memorandum of Understanding (page 36) and the Terminal Facilities allocation Program (page 39). Sergaent exhibits: http://www.stikeman.com/ac/uploads/exhibits%20segaert.PDF Through out the material you get the impression that no other airline was interested in going into T-New and that Air Canada was footing the bill for all of the development that was required by tenants. Now GTAA goes and gives the space to other tenants, after the work has been done and bills paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flapsforty Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Even if AC did that circumstances have changed. AC went throught a period where they were not paying their bills. They are also in CCAA and cannot make contracts until they come out. Don't you think the GTAA has a responsibilty to give the gates to a sure thing (WJ)rather than a maybe (AC)? Isn't that fiscally responsible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaEH Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Don't you think that if the GTAA did any wrongdoing contractually, the Judge would'veepped in and fixed it? I do, and the Judge hasn't. During the months of April and September, 2003, Air Canada maintained or increased capacity on Westjet routes. Yes, the increase was probably due to summer loads, but an increase nonetheless. In October, Air Canada decreased capacity on Westjet routes by 1.5%. This marks the first time in Westjet's history where Air Canada reduced capacity on any of its routes. November's capacity dropped 10%, December's 20%, and January's 10%. Based on those numbers, Air Canada has been decreasing capacity on Westjet routes. Bad news to some, good news to everyone hoping for a "healthier", more profit-focused Air Canada. Then I did some further reading and found this: With Air Canada's flight schedule that was presented to the GTAA in November 2003 some domestic flights would have had to operate out of T2 even without Westjet in TNew. The GTAA asked Air Canada to consider whether it could rearrange its schedule so as to be able to abandon its remaining domestic gates at T2 and to gate all its domestic flights at Tnew. Air Canada rejected this request because it wanted to retain some domestic use of T2 gates. Analysis (done by the GTAA) of the most recent Air Canada schedule submission on January 31, 2004, demonstrates that Westjet's operations from TNew will not result in any shortfall of check-in or baggage handling facilities for Air Canada domestic operations. The analysis further demonstrates that, with Westjet in Tnew, the number of Air Canada flights to be gated at T2 will be comparable to the number requiring such gating in the schedule submitted by Air Canada in November, 2003 for the same period. So you can throw your "split operation" arguement out the window, Air Canada can blame itself for not moving all domestic operations into TNew when they had the chance. In late December 2003, early January 2004, rumours began to circulate that Westjet was going to operate out of TNew (Clive had approached the GTAA early in December 2003). On January 12, 2004, Rovinescu called Turpin and asked him to confirm the rumours about Westjet moving into TNew. Turpin confirmed that the GTAA was in discussions. Later that day, Mr. Brewer wrote to Turpin incdicating that Air Canada had adjusted its schedule to allow the entire domestic operation to be gated at TNew. This letter ran contrary to all communications the GTAA had recieved up until that time from Air Canada regarding its summer 2004 schedule. On January 14, 2004, Westjet issued a press release announcing its relocation to TNew and commencement of service in the YYZ-YOW-YUL triangle. On January 14, 2004, the GTAA requested that Air Canada provide the revamped summer 2004 schedule referred to in Mr. Brewers January 12, 2004 letter. Air Canada responded, on January 21, 2004, with a copy of a single sample day (July 15, 2004) for that purported new schedule. The schedule showed a dramatic increase in operations, from the 309 domestic flight legs (arrival/departure) indicated in Air Canada's November, 2003 schedule for summer of 2004, to 360 daily domestic flight legs. With all that information I've provided, Air Canada will be "forced" to split its operation because of who - Westjet? That's a bunch of garbage. A beefed up schedule by Air Canada could be viewed as predatory, I don't buy that - it's irresponsible. Oh, and if you want to read up for yourself: http://www.stikeman.com/ac/uploads/GTAA%20Factum%20re%20ac.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 "LOL!!! I find it funny how "outsiders" will quickly decide to never fly an airline again without taking into consideration the reasons for the delay/cancellation". HMMMMMMMMMM I thought that you guys at WestJet called them guest's not outsiders. I wouldn't call a paying pax an outsider as like you say they the right to choose and she has exercised that right. All I can say is if you sling arrows all the time don't be surprised when a few come back at ya. Frosty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob Assaf Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 "They are also in CCAA and cannot make contracts until they come out." Really? They seem to have entered into contracts with most of their suppliers, entered into contracts to reduce leases on a/c and even entered into contracts to purchase new a/c. Please explain your reasoning again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.