Two Canadian Airlines Using Temporary Foreign Pilots

[FA@AC]

Does CUPE have wet-lease language? Does CUPE have scope language?

A little late to complain after the horse has left the barn.

No language on either that I'm aware of. I don't consider raising concerns about it to be a waste of time despite this. I think it's likely that CUPE will be offered some sort of deal to mitigate the effects of the wet lease on its members.

[dagger]

No language on either that I'm aware of. I don't consider raising concerns about it to be a waste of time despite this. I think it's likely that CUPE will be offered some sort of deal to mitigate the effects of the wet lease on its members.

What affects are those? No one is being laid off? Employment was spooled up to staff two 787s that are not being delivered according to schedule. But no one is being furloughed.

[dagger]

I think CUPE's posturing too, looking for a similar deal that, from what I hear, the pilot group got. That would be to bid on the wet leased flights and be displaced with pay if your seniority allows you to hold it. And they really have to put up some kind of fight so it doesn't look like they agree with the outsourcing, whether it's for a day or a year.

AC can't lay off at mainline if it's hiring at rouge, and/or without offering us jobs at rouge first, so they're a bit stuck there. We're being offered additional unpaid leaves instead of laying people off, but the pilots' solution would be better for all as we're already overstaffed. Unpaid leaves are the same as people taking a voluntary layoff, really, it just satisfies the no layoff clause.

rouge is growing and hiring while we're stagnant due to the late arrivals of the 787 and the quicker pace with which the rouge aircraft and routes are leaving mainline. Not using the wet lease to fly for rouge instead of mainline until the 787's arrive was the kicker, I think. It wasn't explained to us very clearly why, given that a wet lease needed to occur, the 767s that are going to rouge couldn't be kept at mainline and the wet lease applied to rouge flying instead.

That's because the rouge 767s are allocated to routes, people have bought the product, many have been allocated seats, some have bought the premium product and those planes will be flying full. It's the middle of the summer, there aren't a lot of idle fins sitting around and the routes handled by the wet lease are, with the exception of Madrid, in the offseason. In July, to be charitable, the SA routes are strictly VFR, not leisure, not business, and rather serve, how can I put it delicately, an ethnic clientele.

Rouge 767-300s have 18 premium seats and 246 Y seats. Euroatlantic's planes have either a 16/234 configuration, or an all-Y 300 seats. The only config listed with more than one fin is the all-Y 300-seaters. If AC is getting two 300-seaters, how in the name of the baby Jesus do they handle premium customers on rouge routes - refund their money? Not good enough for some might need a big seat and would have flown with someone else had they been offered only a 30 in pitch in Y.

The rouge and Euroatlantic planes have other different specs. The rouge planes are set up for wireless streaming of IFE. The Euroatlantic planes presumably are not. Given the issues regarding rouge and customer expectations, you wouldn't want to start bumping passengers off full rouge flights because the aircraft has a smaller capacity. I'd guess that the routes selected for Euroatlantic aircraft won't be full anyway. The rouge aircraft have power ports, the Euroatlantic aircraft do not.

The rouge 767-300s have a significantly greater fuel capacity, so range fully loaded may also be an issue, ergo the fact the only transatlantic route the EA planes will fly is MAD, a shorter route than say, Venice. It may be that the EA 767s have a lower MTOW.

Given a bad make-do situation, the airline probably will offend fewer customers by putting the two EA 767s on destinations like Bogota and Lima in off-season. CUPE doesn't seem to be disadvantaged here, and I don't know why they had to be consulted before AC would even know whether they had a firm deal with EA.

And for God's sake, it's for 5 weeks, hopefully not more.

Just blame Mitsubishi and move on.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/boeing-787-dreamliner-in-another-safety-scare/story-e6frfq80-1226852506892

[FA@AC]

What affects are those? No one is being laid off? Employment was spooled up to staff two 787s that are not being delivered according to schedule. But no one is being furloughed.

There are several effects. I'm not saying that any of them are major, but they're the sorts of things that I think any union would want to have addressed. Many FAs have looked forward to operating to MAD during its short season. They now won't be able to and are frustrated that foreigners are being brought in to operate the flights instead. Same for those who would normally hold routes like LIM and BOG only during the summer months when many of the senior FAs who normally operate them are on vacation. It all trickles down and will result in less desirable flying for many. There's a financial hit where lucrative trips are fewer, and for those who commute due to the base closures who'll have higher costs due to having to operate less "productive" flying. Many who can't see past their own noses are livid about the speed at which routes are being transferred to Rouge, and for them the loss of 3 additional routes for the summer season is causing conniptions. CUPE has to answer to them. Again, I accept that there was probably no alternative to the wet lease, but AC would be in for far less criticism for the move if it had bothered to consult CUPE in an effort to work something else out. Nobody should be surprised that CUPE is now sounding off.

It's neither here nor there, but I don't believe that employment was ever spooled up to staff the 787. The last hiring at mainline that I can remember was over a year ago. We have been overstaffed of mainline FAs since last summer, and since the 787 deliveries are 1 for 1 replacements of 767s I think that will remain the case for a while yet.

[Fido]

and here I thought that Air Canada employees were beyond the hissy fits of yesteryear

[FA@AC]

and here I thought that Air Canada employees were beyond the hissy fits of yesteryear

LOL. We were getting there until Rouge came along. The outrage of having our DB pensions, our salaries and our working conditions fully protected, and in some cases considerably improved thanks to AC's ability to lower costs elsewhere with the LCC-ish thing at Rouge has been too much for many. (I'm just speaking for FAs here).

[dagger]

There are several effects. I'm not saying that any of them are major, but they're the sorts of things that I think any union would want to have addressed. Many FAs have looked forward to operating to MAD during its short season. They now won't be able to and are frustrated that foreigners are being brought in to operate the flights instead. Same for those who would normally hold routes like LIM and BOG only during the summer months when many of the senior FAs who normally operate them are on vacation. It all trickles down and will result in less desirable flying for many. There's a financial hit where lucrative trips are fewer, and for those who commute due to the base closures who'll have higher costs due to having to operate less "productive" flying. Many who can't see past their own noses are livid about the speed at which routes are being transferred to Rouge, and for them the loss of 3 additional routes for the summer season is causing conniptions. CUPE has to answer to them. Again, I accept that there was probably no alternative to the wet lease, but AC would be in for far less criticism for the move if it had bothered to consult CUPE in an effort to work something else out. Nobody should be surprised that CUPE is now sounding off.

It's neither here nor there, but I don't believe that employment was ever spooled up to staff the 787. The last hiring at mainline that I can remember was over a year ago. We have been overstaffed of mainline FAs since last summer, and since the 787 deliveries and 1 for 1 replacements of 767s I think that will remain the case for a while yet.

Irregardless, no one is being furloughed, right.

And new mainline routes have been added in the system this year, increasing choice for those with seniority to hold them, right? Milan? Istanbul goes daily?

I understand the concept of precedent, but I wouldn't be able to win an arbitration on this being a precedent, since the intent wasn't there to change established practice. This is a force majeure situation, right?

Air Canada couldn't consult with the union in advance of signing a wet lease with an operator, right? (And I'm not even sure AC is paying for the wet lease - I would assume Boeing has to either pay or provide other compensation, and may have negotiated on behalf of the affected airlines)

Air Canada probably isn't the only airline scrambling to replace delayed 787 deliveries, right? (I mean, 47 or so Dreamliners were affected by the Mitsubishi fiasco, including these two fins).

The projected wet lease is from July 1 to August 6, so basically five weeks, right?

I am not saying the union doesn't have a duty to ensure the application of its CA. I do say the union running to the media and crying like outraged virgins about "the Foreigners are coming, the Foreigners are coming" is a little pathetic.

For once, could CUPE be adult about things, keep minor matters in house, pursued by the proper channels, instead of trying to equate this to the Sunwing-type of planned, season-long use of cheap foreign pilots. Maybe if you want a deal like ACPA got - I ll take your word that there is one - it should have acted like ACPA did and handle such an unusual and very short term matter with understanding for the difficult nature of the situation.

[FA@AC]

Irregardless, no one is being furloughed, right.

And new mainline routes have been added in the system this year, increasing choice for those with seniority to hold them, right? Milan? Istanbul goes daily?

I understand the concept of precedent, but I wouldn't be able to win an arbitration on this being a precedent, since the intent wasn't there to change established practice. This is a force majeure situation, right?

Air Canada couldn't consult with the union in advance of signing a wet lease with an operator, right? (And I'm not even sure AC is paying for the wet lease - I would assume Boeing has to either pay or provide other compensation, and may have negotiated on behalf of the affected airlines)

Air Canada probably isn't the only airline scrambling to replace delayed 787 deliveries, right? (I mean, 47 or so Dreamliners were affected by the Mitsubishi fiasco, including these two fins).

The projected wet lease is from July 1 to August 6, so basically five weeks, right?

I am not saying the union doesn't have a duty to ensure the application of its CA. I do say the union running to the media and crying like outraged virgins about "the Foreigners are coming, the Foreigners are coming" is a little pathetic.

For once, could CUPE be adult about things, keep minor matters in house, pursued by the proper channels, instead of trying to equate this to the Sunwing-type of planned, season-long use of cheap foreign pilots. Maybe if you want a deal like ACPA got - I ll take your word that there is one - it should have acted like ACPA did and handle such an unusual and very short term matter with understanding for the difficult nature of the situation.

Furloughs, none at least for now.

Mainline routes have been added, but more have been removed for the summer season (DUB, BCN, YUL-FCO, and now LIM, MAD and BOG for a period) than have been added. In my estimation there'll be less choice of flying for Jul and Aug than in previous seasons, but I haven't taken a close enough look at the schedule to say for sure.

This does qualify as a force majeure in my view, yes.

Not sure I agree that AC couldn't have consulted CUPE before signing a deal. I'm not suggesting that CuPE should have been offered veto power over it or any such thing. I very much doubt that CUPE would have provided any input worth AC's consideration, but had AC been willing to give CUPE the chance to offer alternative suggestions rather than informing it of the arrangement after the fact the temperature would probably be lower than it now is.

Much havoc with several airlines due to late deliveries and other problems with the Dreamliner. I think Norwegian was particularly hard hit at one stage, and I'm glad we weren't flying 20 of them when the things were grounded. None of that means that AC couldn't have handled this better from the employee relations perspective.

5 weeks, with a possible extension until the end of Aug. I agree that it's hardly a big deal and that there was probably no alternative, but a lot of CUPE's membership feels otherwise.

I didn't post any details of what deal ACPA has. I don't know if ACPA has a deal or if it has language in its CA to cover this sort of thing.

If I ran our union, I'd have been in favour in handling things more or less as you suggest CUPE should have, but I'll never run our union. I was a rep years ago, but I got tired of hearing speeches about how we should adopt resolutions that nuclear bombs should be dropped on Washington DC and that sort of thing. After one meeting too many like that I let them know that I was resigning forthwith and permanently. A significant chunk of CUPE's membership is in hysterics about the wet lease, though, and are convinced that there's no difference between this situation and that of the temporary foreign worker program that is getting negative publicity now. I imagine that CUPE is concerned about losing our dues if they don't fight this loudly.

[moeman]

Rouge 767-300s have 18 premium seats and 246 Y seats. Euroatlantic's planes have either a 16/234 configuration, or an all-Y 300 seats. The only config listed with more than one fin is the all-Y 300-seaters. If AC is getting two 300-seaters, how in the name of the baby Jesus do they handle premium customers on rouge routes - refund their money? Not good enough for some might need a big seat and would have flown with someone else had they been offered only a 30 in pitch in Y.

The rouge and Euroatlantic planes have other different specs. The rouge planes are set up for wireless streaming of IFE. The Euroatlantic planes presumably are not. Given the issues regarding rouge and customer expectations, you wouldn't want to start bumping passengers off full rouge flights because the aircraft has a smaller capacity. I'd guess that the routes selected for Euroatlantic aircraft won't be full anyway. The rouge aircraft have power ports, the Euroatlantic aircraft do not.

The rouge 767-300s have a significantly greater fuel capacity, so range fully loaded may also be an issue, ergo the fact the only transatlantic route the EA planes will fly is MAD, a shorter route than say, Venice. It may be that the EA 767s have a lower MTOW.

Given a bad make-do situation, the airline probably will offend fewer customers by putting the two EA 767s on destinations like Bogota and Lima in off-season. CUPE doesn't seem to be disadvantaged here, and I don't know why they had to be consulted before AC would even know whether they had a firm deal with EA.

And for God's sake, it's for 5 weeks, hopefully not more.

Just blame Mitsubishi and move on.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/boeing-787-dreamliner-in-another-safety-scare/story-e6frfq80-1226852506892

Thanks for the info. FWIW, you're preaching to the choir here. You asked "Maybe a CUPE member can answer this?..." ;-). Not arguing for CUPE, just telling you what I've heard from some of the masses.

[dagger]

My beef with CUPE goes all the way back to my union roots, and to watching CALFAA members kill each other. I acknowledge that the membership profile of a flight attendant group takes in a broader spectrum of backgrounds than the other bargaining units except maybe Unifor (CAW), but that doesn't excuse the behaviour over the years of both the AC Component leadership and CUPE National. Whereas Unifor's national leadership has always helped put some ballast and savvy in their AC leadership, CUPE seems to believe if it caters to the crazies with lots of loud pronouncements, that it can control them. It would be nice - but wholly out of character - if a strong leader arose who was not only outwardly strong but inwardly strong as well, saving the hysterics for situations that really count. Unfortunately, CUPE always seems to overestimate its strength, a function of going one to one with government in most of its bargaining units and expecting the employer to cave because the average citizen doesn't have the stomach for a three week garbage strike. This is a union that basically brought Sid Ryan from central casting to be a caricature of the displaced Scottish socialist fire-breather.

[moeman]

My beef with CUPE goes all the way back to my union roots, and to watching CALFAA members kill each other. I acknowledge that the membership profile of a flight attendant group takes in a broader spectrum of backgrounds than the other bargaining units except maybe Unifor (CAW), but that doesn't excuse the behaviour over the years of both the AC Component leadership and CUPE National. Whereas Unifor's national leadership has always helped put some ballast and savvy in their AC leadership, CUPE seems to believe if it caters to the crazies with lots of loud pronouncements, that it can control them. It would be nice - but wholly out of character - if a strong leader arose who was not only outwardly strong but inwardly strong as well, saving the hysterics for situations that really count. Unfortunately, CUPE always seems to overestimate its strength, a function of going one to one with government in most of its bargaining units and expecting the employer to cave because the average citizen doesn't have the stomach for a three week garbage strike. This is a union that basically brought Sid Ryan from central casting to be a caricature of the displaced Scottish socialist fire-breather.

Don't forget that our Component is run by flight attendant volunteers, not professionals. I appreciate the work they do as it's thankless (I've been there and quit in much the same manner as FA@AC), but you get what you pay for.

[FA@AC]

CUPE has taken some dumb positions over the years, but my view is that on the whole they have done as well for their members as any of the other unions at AC has. They did, for e.g., and despite the wishes of a substantial part of the membership, take a more moderate approach during the last negotiations than ACPA did, and it ended up serving us well.

CUPE has identified a couple of areas in our CA that the planned wet lease may violate. It will likely use those alleged violations as a reason for seeking reasonable mitigation of some sort for its members who'll be affected by the contracting out of some of our summer flying. Not an unreasonable approach in my opinion, and one that Boeing or Mitsubishi could help pay for--or perhaps could have helped to pay for if CUPE had been involved in talks before the wet lease deal was signed.

[Homerun]

FA@AC, I'm not sure I agree with you that CUPE has served the FAs well. You had 2 TA's voted down in the last round to ACPA's 1. However, the most glaring failure is the lack of any language to operate Rouge. There seems to be a common understanding in FA land that AC is in the midst of an expansion. This understanding does not reconcile with the facts. AC is increasing ASM's by densing up the seating and depending on the aircraft this may trigger 1 or 2 extra FA's. However, if you look at AC's financials, the longterm fleet plan shows essentially the same number of aircraft in 2017 as there were in 2013, but 50 or roughly 25% of them will be at Rouge. With CUPE having no claim to operate the Rouge flights out of the AC bargaining unit, there will be a huge surplus of FA's unless there is a massive increase in retirements.

How does that serve the mainline FA's well?

[moeman]

CUPE represents the rouge fa's. Mainline fa's can bump to rouge with no loss of salary if mainline lays off. This is protection that CUPE was able to have incorporated.

It's my understanding that although rouge will have many aircraft, they are all being replaced by 787 and 777, so there will be a net increase in jobs. Also, many of the 787 flights will require two Pursers which are the higher paid positions, thus more Purser upgrades will be required.

[dagger]

CUPE represents the rouge fa's. Mainline fa's can bump to rouge with no loss of salary if mainline lays off. This is protection that CUPE was able to have incorporated.

It's my understanding that although rouge will have many aircraft, they are all being replaced by 787 and 777, so there will be a net increase in jobs. Also, many of the 787 flights will require two Pursers which are the higher paid positions, thus more Purser upgrades will be required.

On a side note, I checked out the crew quarters on the 787. Very impressive. Pilots no longer have to take up a J pod, and the bunks for the FAs are nice , too, so hopefully some on a long trip will take a sleep break rather than gab in the galley.

[Homerun]

Moeman, I wasn't aware mainline FA's could bump to Rouge in the event of layoffs and maintain their pay.

Only the 767's are being replaced on a one for one.

With the loss of EMB's and 319's without replacement at mainline, the total combined fin count of mainline and Rouge has no growth through the end of 2017. 25% of the combined fleet will be operated at Rouge.

[better4me]

On a side note, I checked out the crew quarters on the 787. Very impressive. Pilots no longer have to take up a J pod, and the bunks for the FAs are nice , too, so hopefully some on a long trip will take a sleep break rather than gab in the galley.

Does the ACPA CA provide for 788 Jpod requirement, and if so will ACPA agree to a let such that all 788 flights go out with 20 revenue J seats?

My understanding was that ACPA CA included requirement for J-pod on the 788.

[moeman]

What is rouge's fleet breakdown expected to be when at their full size of 50 aircraft?

[inchman]

Does the ACPA CA provide for 788 Jpod requirement, and if so will ACPA agree to a let such that all 788 flights go out with 20 revenue J seats?

My understanding was that ACPA CA included requirement for J-pod on the 788.

The pod is still required. There is a seat in the bunk area, but it is pretty small... just big enough to sit for a while if you're not sleeping. The bunks are what I would call "crawl in's". If one wanted to sit and relax for more than a few minutes, the J pod would be the right choice and the best place to rest if you can't sleep for whatever reason... circadian or otherwise. The bottom line is that the pilot should return to the flight deck in the best rested condition possible and the pod is sometimes the best solution for that.

[FA@AC]

Only the 767's are being replaced on a one for one.

With the loss of EMB's and 319's without replacement at mainline, the total combined fin count of mainline and Rouge has no growth through the end of 2017. 25% of the combined fleet will be operated at Rouge.

I'd have preferred something where FAs could move to Rouge if they wanted to over the current CA that allows us to bump there only in the event of mainline layoffs. On the other hand, we cannot be forced to Rouge and I believe that ACPA members can be.

There will definitely be little growth in the ranks of mainline FAs at least for the near future, but I don't expect things to stagnate entirely. The 787s will replace the 767s, the 737s will replace some of the current narrow-bodied fleet, and I think the plan is to retain about half of the E-190s while replacing the rest of them with something or other as a stop gap until the 737 deliveries begin. (Any news on that, by the way?)

Current fleet plans assume that AC will continue to operate Rouge as a separate carrier. Given recent reaction to Rouge's deployment in several markets I'm not convinced that AC will be able to expand it to its planned size without significant changes. If both the unions and AC were to adopt a very enlightened view, we might see some contractual tweaks over the next couple of years. More flexibility would work well for everyone.

[Lakelad]

.

Excerpt from today's release of federal government's 'Overhauling the Temporary Foreign Worker Program'


Foreign Pilots in Canada

In recent years, concerns have been raised that some airlines are excluding Canadian pilots from seasonal
jobs by requiring job applicants to already be trained on specific types of planes (type rating) before they are
hired, which is counter to general industry standards of airlines paying for and ensuring pilots obtain their
training on the specific airline’s planes after they have been hired.

The Government of Canada consulted widely on this issue, and most stakeholders agreed that seasonal
variations in fleet capacity should not stop airlines from training pilots for specific aircraft.

It was noted that many airlines successfully contract flight time, pilot training and other training elements, such as
flight simulator time, with other airlines or with aircraft manufacturers in order to meet their training
requirements.

There was a consensus that there is no shortage of Canadian commercial pilots who could be
trained to fly specific types of aircraft.

Based on stakeholder consultations, the following changes are being made for airlines requesting foreign
pilots through the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) process.

Effective July 1, 2014, airlines must:

• meet the minimum advertising requirements for high-wage occupations; and
› specify the following criteria in their job postings:
› no more than a maximum of 4,000 flight hours for a First Officer and 5,000 hours for a Captain
as required experience;
› possess a valid commercial pilots’ licence;
› require English and/or French language proficiency;
› include industry standard medical testing requirements for commercial flight;
› state both the legal and common names of the airline operating in Canada;

• not include as an essential or asset requirement the necessity of holding a type rating for a
specific type of aircraft.

However, requiring applicants to have experience flying equipment that is similar in
configuration and complexity to the airline’s fleet is considered acceptable;

• indicate when training bonds will be applied and they must cover a minimum of two years employment;

• negotiate a transition plan with ESDC documenting the airline’s future efforts and commitment to
decrease the reliance on foreign pilots while increasing its complement of Canadian/permanent resident
pilots.

The transition plan will be reviewed by ESDC for progress and can affect the outcome of future LMIA
applications; and

• submit LMIA applications a minimum of three months before the first day of work to ensure Program
officers can thoroughly review the application.

Any exception to this timeline must be requested prior to the LMIA being submitted.

.

[QFE]

" Require English and/or French proficiency."

Is this a misprint?

[Lakelad]

.

Air force hiring foreign pilots to fly front-line jets

Royal Canadian Air Force cites a “labour shortage” for why it has hired former military pilots from overseas to fly transport jets and patrol aircraft.

Mon Jun 23, 2014 - Toronto Star
Bruce Campion-Smith - Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA—Canada’s air force has been hiring foreign pilots to fly its front-line transport aircraft, maritime patrol planes and fighter jets, citing an inability to recruit Canadians to fill seats in the military cockpits.

As debate rages about temporary foreign workers allowed into Canada to fill jobs in sectors like the service industry, it turns out that the Canadian Armed Forces has also gone abroad to fill its own labour needs.

Citing a “labour shortage,” the military has been recruiting pilots from foreign countries — notably the French and British air forces — to work in Canada and train Canadian pilots but also fly on operational missions around the globe.

The foreign fliers are being pressed to fly many of the aircraft in the air force fleet, including the CP-140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft, the C-130 Hercules and CC-177 Globemaster transport jets.

The transport pilots are being hired for “pilot training as well as global strategic and tactical air transport.”

The labour market opinions that were prepared by the Defence Department in order to proceed with the foreign hires outline the needs of the air force.

A Royal Air Force pilot from the United Kingdom with experience in anti-submarine warfare and long-range sovereignty patrol missions was sought to fly the CP-140 Aurora.

“With minimal training he will be employed as a CP 140 Aurora aircraft commander where his experience will be used to help train new RCAF long range patrol crews,” read the labour market opinion.

Another RAF pilot with experience on the CC-177 Globemaster — a transport aircraft also flown by Canada’s military — was brought onboard as an instructor.

A pilot from the Hungarian Air Force was hired as an instructor to train student pilots in the Canadian Air Force.

Other pilots experienced in air-to-air refuelling operations were sought from the Royal Air Force to fly the CC-150 Polaris jet, which is used as both a transport and a refueller.

In each case, the air force says it was forced to go abroad to hire personnel to fill a position it was “unable to fill through normal recruiting and training.”

However, the military says it is trying to recruit Canadians to serve as pilots.

“Canadians are regularly recruited as Pilots and will continue to be recruited and trained through the (Canadian Armed Forces) well established Officer and Pilot training programs,” reads one labour market opinion.

The air force has hired 24 former foreign military pilots since 2012, including 19 from the United Kingdom, two from Hungary, and one each from Germany, France and South Africa, said Maj. James Simiana.

'The air force says it takes about seven years — and $2.6 million — to train a pilot to fly the CF-18 fighter jet.'

.

[conehead]

This is just unbelievable. Can this "government" sink any lower? There must be a shortage of young Canadians that would give their left nut for a chance to be a pilot in the RCAF... I think not. Disgusting.

[Guest]

Rich, do you know if there is still no choice in rotary/fixed wing for recruits?

When I attended the Sault back in the mid 90's, we had a couple of recruiting visits per year. In the end I think 5 went into the CF, 4 rotary, and 1 transport (Direct Entry Officer Program) . As I recall, there were several more who would have attempted the applicant process if they knew the odds of flying fixed wing was higher.

Could the CF make applying more appealing somehow, or is that 'non-choice' a philosophical part of the process?