Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Westjet LGW Issues

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, moeman said:

Been to T3 lately? Also a dump. I felt like I was walking through Walmart when I ventured through recently.

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

True.  It was nasty the last time I passed through, and it has probably gotten worse since Sunwing moved there.  There's talk, apparently, of using the old infield terminal as overflow gates for T3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, moeman said:

Been to T3 lately? Also a dump. I felt like I was walking through Walmart when I ventured through recently.

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

Your comparison is curious to me. 

Places like Manila's Ninoy Aquino Int'l are a dump (runways, terminal, etc) but I don't think any Canadian airport falls into this category. There's currently a lot of construction going on at YYZ's T3 and several carriers have recently moved over from T1 increasing some of the line ups but it's still a good facility compared to many other places in the world. And the Walmart (Toronto suburbs) that we occasionally use is always well stocked, spotless and clean.

LGW (as are many facilities in the UK) seems to be a never ending evolution in construction and walking maze for humans. I've never seen anywhere else where engineers have figured out how to connect hallways, gates and buildings the way the Brits have done at some of their airports. And if you've ever had crew/passenger bus ride around the bowels of LHR, you have to wonder who sat down with pencil and paper at a drafting table thinking it was a good plan. 

The reports regarding WS recent issues at LGW sounds like this project has not been well planned. Not sure who they hired for ground handling at Gatwick but you generally get what you pay for in these contract situations. Add this with older aircraft which tend to go U/S and you've got yourself a real PR nightmare. Hope they get it sorted out soon. 

Edited by blues deville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, blues deville said:

There's currently a lot of construction going on at YYZ's T3 and several carriers have recently moved over from T1 increasing some of the line ups but it's still a good facility compared to many other places in the world. And the Walmart (Toronto suburbs) that we occasionally use is always well stocked, spotless and clean.

 

Is it better than some in the world? Absolutely. I stand by my statement, though. T3 is an embarrassment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is WestJet using Aviator or Menzies at LGW?

I understand WestJet has a HNL based employee who manages the Hawaiian stations, I am assuming this is not the case for LGW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, moeman said:

Is it better than some in the world? Absolutely. I stand by my statement, though. T3 is an embarrassment.  

if you want to see embarrassing and close by check out ORD. Now that's a dump. :) 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blues deville said:

if you want to see embarrassing and close by check out ORD. Now that's a dump. :) 

 

 

As far as I am concerned "brightwork and polish" is not important, what is important is does the operational side work well. Remember your AIF does not go to the operational side, it instead pays for a lot of glitter that feels good but does nothing to improve the overall operation of the terminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blues deville said:

if you want to see embarrassing and close by check out ORD. Now that's a dump. :) 

 

 

No, LGA is a dump!  Good news, they've already started demo.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Malcolm said:

As far as I am concerned "brightwork and polish" is not important, what is important is does the operational side work well. Remember your AIF does not go to the operational side, it instead pays for a lot of glitter that feels good but does nothing to improve the overall operation of the terminal.

I don't think that is correct, the AIF goes to all capital projects including runways and taxiways, gate improvements etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, seeker said:

No, LGA is a dump!  Good news, they've already started demo.

 

 

Unless they run off the vagrants from the new terminal it's all for naught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mo32a said:

I don't think that is correct, the AIF goes to all capital projects including runways and taxiways, gate improvements etc.

My understanding is that the majority goes to terminal improvements (costmetic, art work, etc) but I could be wrong. Here is a goto that talks about YVR

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/05/01/YVR-Improvement-Fee/

"We never asked for aquariums or shopping centres at YVR," Cran said, referring to the costly airport infrastructure that included paying the Vancouver Aquarium over $321,000 in 2010 for "aquarium maintenance and servicing."

Here is what YYC says about it's AIFs  From page 17 of their report. http://www.yyc.com/Portals/0/CALGARY AIRPORT AUTJORITY/YYC Annual Report 2014.pdf

Airport Improvement Fees 

The Authority derives revenue from the Airport Improvement Fee (the "AIF"), which is collected by air carriers pursuant to an agreement among various airports in Canada, The Air Transport Association of Canada and air carriers serving Canadian airports 
that are signatories to the agreement (the "AF Agreement") Pursuant to the AIF Agreement, signatory airlines receive a 4% (2013 — 5%) collection tee. AIF revenue is used to fund the costs ot new airport infrastructure and costs of major improvements to existing facilities at Calgary International and Springbank Airports, as well as related financing costs, debt repayment and the collection tee retained by the signatory airlines. The AIF as at December 31, 2014 was $30 (2013 - $30) for each originating passenger departing Calgary International Airport 

And YYZ

AIF revenue, which excludes the administration fee collected by the air carriers for the administration of the AIF, increased from $304.3 million in 2012 to $314.1 million in 2013. This increase reflects higher passenger activity during 2013. The increase in AIF revenue is slightly below that of total passenger growth, however, as connecting passengers, who pay a lower AIF of $4.00, grew at a faster rate than originating passengers, who pay a $25.00 AIF. Under the AIF agreements with each of the air carriers, the GTAA has committed to using the AIF revenues primarily for capital programs, including associated debt service. Historically, the GTAA has used AIF revenues to fund debt service. Since the beginning of 2012, however, the GTAA has used a portion of AIF revenues to directly fund capital projects. Recognizing that payment of debt service or capital expenditures and receipt of AIF revenues may not occur in the same period, AIF revenue earned and collected but not used in a given period is retained in the AIF Reserve Fund for future debt service payments or capital expenditures. In 2013, $314.1 million of AIF revenue was earned and deposited to the AIF Reserve Fund and $309.1 million was used for debt service or capital projects. This compares to $304.3 million earned and deposited to the AIF Reserve Fund, and $304.7 million used during 2012.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The debt service issue is the reason the AIF is effectively unregulated. The Mulroney government intended to regulate the fees at privatized airports. When Chretien was elected they rewrote the Conservative's airport privatization policy from scratch and decided that if the fees were regulated that the government would have to provide loan guarantees to the airports because they potentially wouldn't have the means to raise revenue to meet their debt service obligations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Super 80 said:

The debt service issue is the reason the AIF is effectively unregulated. The Mulroney government intended to regulate the fees at privatized airports. When Chretien was elected they rewrote the Conservative's airport privatization policy from scratch and decided that if the fees were regulated that the government would have to provide loan guarantees to the airports because they potentially wouldn't have the means to raise revenue to meet their debt service obligations.

I do wonder how much of the debt is / has been caused by cosmetic work at the airports.  Art Gallery's , aquariums, expensive stone work etc etc etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The airports should have saved the money they were collecting and funded their respective renewal projects from cash reserves instead of using debt financing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WS 3 Historical On-time Performance Ratings

Route:   Toronto to London
Date Range:   April 1, 2016 to May 31, 2016
Flight:   (WS) WestJet 3
 
Departure Airport:   (YYZ) Pearson International Airport
Departure City   Toronto, ON, CA
 
Arrival Airport:   (LGW) London Gatwick Airport
Arrival City:   London, EN, GB

WS 3 On-time Performance Rating Details

Overall Rating
 
flight_rating_large_star_00.gif 
0 of 5 
Very Poor
On-time: 
Avg. Delay:
22% 
50 min
FlightStats Rating is a merit measurement considering both on-time performance and delay severity. The score, 0, shows that this flight has on-time performance characteristics better than 0% of all other flights in the FlightStats database.

On-time Performance
 
flight_rating_large_star_00.gif 
0 of 5 
Very Poor
On-time: 22%
This flight has an on-time performance of 22%. Statistically, when taking into consideration sample size, standard deviation, and mean, this flight is on-time more often than 0% of other flights.

Delay Performance
 
flight_rating_large_star_00.gif 
0 of 5 
Very Poor
Avg. Delay: 50 min
This flight has an average delay of 50 minutes with a standard deviation of 49.47 minutes. Statistically, when taking into consideration sample size, standard deviation, and mean, this flight has delay performance characteristics better than 0% of other flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appears that WestJet once again has an 767 shortage. I wonder what caused this one? Lack of crews or a sick aircraft?

Decision No. 182-A-2016

 
 
June 9, 2016

APPLICATION by WestJet, on behalf of itself and Omni Air International, Inc. also carrying on business as Omni Air Express (Omni Air), pursuant to section 60 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c.10, as amended (CTA), and section 8.2 of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended (ATR).

Case Number: 
16-02910

APPLICATION

WestJet, on behalf of itself and Omni Air, has applied to the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) for an approval to permit WestJet to provide its scheduled international service between Canada and the United Kingdom using one Boeing 767-300 aircraft with flight crew provided by Omni Air, beginning on June 5 to June 18, 2016.

As the application was filed less than 45 days before the first planned flight, as required by subsection 8.2(2) of the ATR, an exemption from the application of this provision is necessary. The Agency finds that compliance with subsection 8.2(2) of the ATR is impractical in this case. Accordingly, the Agency, pursuant to paragraph 80(l)(c) of the CTA, exempts WestJet from the application of subsection 8.2(2) of the ATR.

WestJet is licensed to operate a scheduled international service in accordance with the Agreement on Air Transport between Canada and the European Community and its Member States, signed on December 18, 2009.

Omni Air holds a valid Canadian Foreign Air Operators Certificate.

POLICY

When assessing wet-lease applications where Canadian carriers propose to enter into wet-lease arrangements of more than 30 days with foreign carriers to provide international passenger services, the Agency must apply a direction issued by the Minister of Transport on June 24, 2014 entitled Ministerial Direction for International Service – Canada's Policy for Wet-Leasing (2014 Wet-Lease Policy).

In Decision No. 130-A-2016, the Agency approved the use by WestJet of one aircraft with flight crew provided by Omni Air for a period of 30 days, until June 4, 2016. The current application is for a renewed approval for a period of an additional 14 days; therefore, the 2014 Wet-Lease Policy applies.

ISSUE

Is the Agency satisfied that the application of WestJet and Omni Air meets the requirements of section 8.2 of the ATR and the criteria of the 2014 Wet-Lease Policy, specifically the 20 percent cap?

Pursuant to the 2014 Wet-Lease Policy, for wet-leases of more than 30 days, a number of aircraft equal to 20 percent of the number of Canadian-registered aircraft on the lessee's air operator certificate (AOC) may be wet leased from foreign lessors. The Agency notes that at the time of application, i.e., June 3, 2016, WestJet had 118 aircraft on its AOC. Therefore, this application meets the 20 percent cap requirement of the 2014 Wet-Lease Policy.

The Agency has considered the application and the material in support and is satisfied that it meets the remaining requirements of section 8.2 of the ATR. The Agency is also satisfied that the application satisfies the criteria of the 2014 Wet-Lease Policy.

Accordingly, the Agency, pursuant to paragraph 60(1)(b) of the CTA and section 8.2 of the ATR, approves the use by WestJet of one aircraft with flight crew provided by Omni Air, and the provision by Omni Air of such aircraft and flight crew to WestJet, to permit WestJet to provide its scheduled international service on licensed routes between Canada and the United Kingdom using one aircraft with flight crew provided by Omni Air, beginning on June 5 to June 18, 2016.

This approval is subject to the following conditions:

  1. WestJet shall continue to hold the valid licence authority.
  2. Commercial control of the flights shall be maintained by WestJet. Omni Air shall maintain operational control of the flights and shall receive payment based on the rental of aircraft and crew and not on the basis of the volume of traffic carried or other revenue-sharing formula.
  3. WestJet and Omni Air shall continue to comply with the insurance requirements set out in subsections 8.2(4), 8.2(5) and 8.2(6) of the ATR.
  4. WestJet shall continue to comply with the public disclosure requirements set out in section 8.5 of the ATR.
  5. WestJet and Omni Air shall advise the Agency in advance of any changes to the information provided in support of the application.

This Decision takes effect on June 3, 2016, the date on which it was communicated verbally to WestJet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, better4me said:
5 hours ago, better4me said:

Is Westjet is also chartering euro Atlantic 772?

This would make 6 aircraft to support a 3 airplane fleet.

image.png

Is Westjet is also chartering euro Atlantic 772?

This would make 6 aircraft to support a 3 airplane fleet.

image.png

Since they don't service Lisbon I suspect it might be an error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 WS 767 aircraft.

Omni 767 is no longer available as a backup although it's back later this month for 10 days.

The Euro Atlantic 777 was chartered to operate LGW-YYZ for one flight only. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, CanadaEH said:

4 WS 767 aircraft.

Omni 767 is no longer available as a backup although it's back later this month for 10 days.

The Euro Atlantic 777 was chartered to operate LGW-YYZ for one flight only. 

Would it not have needed CTA approval for a Wetlease? Re Omni the latest CTA approval was for June 5 to June 18, 2016, do you mean that will be extended? I hope the WestJet 767 problems are not similar to Canada's used submarine issues. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not any better today for the flagship YYC-LGW flights either. In fact of the 6 flights LGW-YYC I looked at, the average delay was 3 hours.

To bad the puppy dog media in YYC wouldn't bother to pick up on that story.

 

12 Jun London (LGW) Calgary (YYC) B763 (C-FOGJ) - 12:15 PM 4:31 PM 9:40 PM
 
Delayed 1:14 AM  
   
  12 Jun London (LGW) Calgary (YYC) B763 (C-FOGJ) - 9:55 AM - 7:20 PM
 
Unknown  
   
  10 Jun London (LGW) Calgary (YYC) B763 (C-FWAD) 8:49 11:50 AM 12:31 PM 9:15 PM
 
Landed 9:20 PM  
   
  09 Jun London (LGW) Calgary (YYC) B763 (C-GOGN) 8:58 9:55 AM 4:35 PM 7:20 PM
 
Landed 1:33 AM  
   
  08 Jun London (LGW) Calgary (YYC) B763 (C-GOGN) 9:35 11:50 AM 2:16 PM 9:15 PM
 
Landed 11:51 PM  
   
  07 Jun London (LGW) Calgary (YYC) B763 (C-GOGN) 8:54 12:15 PM 3:36 PM 9:40 PM
 
Landed 12:30 AM  
   
  07 Jun London (LGW) Calgary (YYC) B763 (C-GOGN) - 9:55 AM - 7:20 PM
 
Unknown  
   
  05 Jun London (LGW) Calgary (YYC) - 8:32 9:55 AM 1:02 PM 7:20 PM
 
Landed 9:35 PM  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the delays etc. I still wish them the best luck in this new destination but their performance so far will only drive those who try them to the other carriers. I guess then they will change from being "late" guests to "ontime" passengers. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this