Westjet Weather Limits

[IFG]

• "I am likely revealing my age here, but what does "PC" stand for?"

Hi, Vsplat - Pretty sure I've got you beat in the age department, but yep - Political Correctness. It's alleged ad nauseum in social/political discussions, & I only mention it tangentially here. Many people claim to abhor it, but then when their own ox is gored .... FWIW, I'm ambivalent - uncomfortable whenever questions and discussion are suppressed, but also when irresponsible or damaging commentary is enabled under a rubric of freedom of speech (as I think you may be here? tho' unnecessarily IMHO). Apologies for a delay in reply, technological difficulties on the road ... IAC, starting with your final paragraph and going from there:

• ".... Quite frankly, I don't know what ultimate outcome is hoped for in this effort.  There seems to be a customer service goal but the method seems to be to undermine the flight deck's right to make safe decisions.  Should there be feedback to the pilots that they should have pressed past their comfort zone and landed?  I sure hope not. "

I hope that's just a rhetorical question, V'. If it's actually necessary to state it for you: Of course not, & I don't think I've made any such suggestion (I don't beat my wife either, just in case you ever "hope" that was not the case :P). I believe the OP posed a question about Wxx & company limitations, nothing more. Some of the replies were a bit inflammatory, but some did offer up some info or civil comments. IAC, it ought to be possible to have an interesting, possibly informative discussion when two Pilots/crews take different actions under similar circumstances; it need not, and absolutely should not be accusatory or derogatory in any way. 

BTW, is there anything wrong with a "customer service goal"? The job is to safely get everybody (&/or everything) to destination as promptly as possible. Once safety is satisfactorily secured (first thing), all that remains is pretty much a customer service goal, and its accomplishment is what underwrites all else, including said safe operation.

• ".... While pilots routinely face irritating judgements and summations from people whose understanding of our work is only Google-deep ('Hey, planes fly themselves, don't they"), to hear this kind of thing coming from someone who affiliates themselves with the piloting trade is a much deeper insult.  "

Absolutely, IF I'd actually made any "irritating judgements and summations"

• ".... I think we all know that the majority of aircraft accidents and incidents occur in full compliance of regulation and company policies such as SOPs.  I would argue that the essence of command  ...."

Interesting comment about the "majority of accidents". Your envelope encompassing "full compliance ..." may be rather broad (or maybe a lot of SOP need revision ), but that's a rabbit trail. Of course rigid adherence to rules is not an impregnable shield; general airmanship and judgement are pivotal - which is precisely why discussing another's judgements that one doesn't immediately understand can be constructive without being in any way presumptive. But anyway, that misses the context of some of what I said. The context for observing that Skippers should be fully able to operate the aircraft was commenting about self-imposed arbitrary limitations, not specific in flight decisions, and certainly NOT foreclosing on whatever options might be required in individual circumstances.

So I guess a question could be: Are civil discussions about different ways of doing things, procedures, limitations, policies preferences etc, off-limits (...i.e. politically incorrect)?

I've come to accord your views great respect, Vsplat, I'm a bit nonplussed. I do hope your discomfort arises from a huge misconstruction of what's been said here?

Cheers, IFG :b

[Vsplat]

IFG, thanks for clarifying the terms used.  My comments were not driven by any of your posts, but really the origin of the thread and the repeated demand for an explanation of the flight deck decisions of the day.

If you found it difficult to link my comments and yours, that's understandable.  I wasn't trying to forge any links.  I thought your comments were a broader discussion of the issue, fair enough, we do that on this forum all the time. Sorry if you felt splashed.  Not my intent.

The specific agenda in this case bothers me because of the degree of what looks like armchair QB of a specific flight on a specific day.  That was one passenger.  Imagine if every passenger on a wide body that missed at a destination decided it was appropriate to approach the station manager and feed back into flight ops.  It would be a dog's breakfast, a major distraction in an industry where distraction is frequently associated with accidents.  It bugs me to see that wedge driven in a place like this.  But that is just my opinion, in a place all about opinions. So it goes.

I hope this helps.

Vs

[blues deville]

On June 22, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Vsplat said:

 Imagine if every passenger on a wide body that missed at a destination decided it was appropriate to approach the station manager and feed back into flight ops.  It would be a dog's breakfast, a major distraction in an industry where distraction is frequently associated with accidents.  It bugs me to see that wedge driven in a place like this.  

Having been in this business for nearly 40 years and recently added my 25,000th hour to my armchair, I like to think I know who to ask when I need some answers. My first job interview in this industry was with Delta's YUL station manager when I was looking for a summer job. As those muggy Montreal months went by and if there were any events, delays etc, Bob was there to answer any and all questions from his passengers. (Not guests. Passengers. When we invite guests to our home they don't pay for a thing)

Delta's airline policies and the customer service training I received are something I have carried with me throughout my career. I think I still know all of the Delta station (IATA) codes. And it has come full circle. My current airline's FOM was based on Delta's, the result of a flight ops audit. Most people don't know this but Delta's first 767 was paid for by the employees. They've had some rough times since then but they are now setting the trend again. The Cseries is another good example.

And another minor point, YYG is probably the smallest station in the WS network. The gal who checked our bags was also at the gate. There was even a possibility I was related to the station mgr.  (PEI population = Kingston, ON) I just needed to hear an explanation that made some sense. No dog's breakfast. And not the one I got the day of the delay or the next morning from YYC's 1-800 customer service staff.

And finally the reason for opening this thread again.....

It has taken WS over two weeks to respond (email, no phone call) to my complaint. Just a poorly written and edited stock response. And the reason for the delay is yet another version of their story. Perhaps this excuse was meant for someone waiting to depart LGW.

Thanks for reaching out to us. 

We’re sorry to hear about how your recent flights with us went. It’s never our intention to delay or inconvenience any of our guests. We realize their time is valuable and encountering such flight interruptions can be quite an inconvenience. We understand the importance of getting our guests to their destination on-time and it’s disappointing this did not happen in your case.  

Reviewing your flight, I see the reason for the cancelled flight was due to weather at the destination station causing a back-up of flights. Air Traffic Control advised us they’d be unable to accommodate our flight. 

As a gesture of goodwill, we’d be happy to set up a $100 WestJet Travel Bank for each of you.

[DEFCON]

Well, that's capitalism for you ...

[Newman]

On June 30, 2016 at 7:33 PM, blues deville said:

Not guests. Passengers. When we invite guests to our home they don't pay for a thing

I recently spent 2 weeks at a Marriott.  They considered me a guest, yet I still had to pay the $3000 bill.  Same at The Keg where I was required to pay for my meal despite numerous references to me being their guest.  I used to work in hospitality and know how this stuff works so it sounds like I'm going to have to get a hold of the GM at both places and have them shake the tree at corporate until I get some answers.

[Guest]

I guess they have yet to update it to include "a person who pays an airline for a narrow seat" 

Full Definition of guest 

1. 1a :  a person entertained in one's houseb :  a person to whom hospitality is extendedc :  a person who pays for the services of an establishment (as a hotel or restaurant)

2. 2:  an organism (as an insect) sharing the dwelling of another; especially :  inquiline

3. 3:  a substance that is incorporated in a host substance

4. 4:  a usually prominent person not a regular member of a cast or organization who appears in a program or performance

[blues deville]

1 hour ago, Newman said:

I recently spent 2 weeks at a Marriott.  They considered me a guest, yet I still had to pay the $3000 bill.  Same at The Keg where I was required to pay for my meal despite numerous references to me being their guest.  I used to work in hospitality and know how this stuff works so it sounds like I'm going to have to get a hold of the GM at both places and have them shake the tree at corporate until I get some answers.

At any time did your Marriott or Keg location ever get airborne?

Westjet has now provided me with three different reasons for our delayed flight. The tree will continue to shake until I get a proper response. 

[Zan Vetter]

 

[thor]

Blues- Maybe when one gets a bee in their bonnet its best just to take the bonnet off and let the bee fly away.

[blues deville]

4 hours ago, thor said:

Blues- Maybe when one gets a bee in their bonnet its best just to take the bonnet off and let the bee fly away.

Good cartoon. My kids really enjoyed that show. 

 

Attacking the messenger may prove to be psychologically satisfying but it does nothing to deal with issue under discussion. In fact, one need not like or admire the messenger in order to act sensibly regarding the message that was delivered. The messenger is completely peripheral to the veracity and acuteness of the message itself.

 

[anonymous]

Having watched this topic for too many days (21 apparently) I have these pointless comments

• WJ doesn't owe anyone a detailed explanation, maybe some compensation
• anytime a pilot quotes their years of service and flying hours I know that they don't really have a point
• when someone with detailed knowledge of how the industry works makes it a calling to determine why a specific flight was cancelled/delayed because they were personally inconvenienced and then tries to make it a pubic issue shows a distinct lack of class and huge sense of entitlement
• the initial query was totally legitimate...but the continued search for the "truth" is pointless and demonstrates more about the poster than WJ's service

[blues deville]

1 hour ago, anonymous said:

Having watched this topic for too many days (21 apparently) I have these pointless comments

• WJ doesn't owe anyone a detailed explanation, maybe some compensation
• anytime a pilot quotes their years of service and flying hours I know that they don't really have a point
• when someone with detailed knowledge of how the industry works makes it a calling to determine why a specific flight was cancelled/delayed because they were personally inconvenienced and then tries to make it a pubic issue shows a distinct lack of class and huge sense of entitlement
• the initial query was totally legitimate...but the continued search for the "truth" is pointless and demonstrates more about the poster than WJ's service

Wow. Where do I start? You nailed it. Pointless is correct.

I have a suggestion for you. Stop tuning in. Or if you have some info to add as per the initial post, speak up. 

[mo32a]

[blues deville]

mo32a....just stating some facts and looking for a satisfactory answer as a customer. So I will tell you this in the nicest way possible, if this thread is of little or no interest to you (just a wild guess) I suggest you avoid tuning in.

However, if you want to add something such as your cartoon, there's another extensive thread about Westjet's expert handling at LGW which should have been put to bed awhile ago.

bd

[Fido]

MO's cartoon very aptly described this whole thread.

[blues deville]

35 minutes ago, Fido said:

MO's cartoon very aptly described this whole thread.

But you've tuned in and added to it.

Interesting.

[QFE]

I'm interested in the three different answers from WestJet.

[Fido]

7 hours ago, blues deville said:

But you've tuned in and added to it.

Interesting.

There is a comedy to following the tale.

[blues deville]

5 hours ago, QFE said:

I'm interested in the three different answers from WestJet.

Answer 1) WS YYG Agent over PA and to me personally: "our aircraft has diverted to Stephenville due to visibility".

CYYG 122200Z 12018G23 15SM OVC006 12/11 A2947 RMK SF8 SLP982 DENSITY ALT 300FT

Windy? Yes, however after the diversion it subsided. By 830pm, standing on the sidewalk lined up for taxis, it was light winds only. But after refuelling in YJT, I'm sure their 737-800 would now be even heavier (fuel for YJT-YYG-YYZ plus alternate) than it was on its first inbound attempt. 

Answer 2) WS Station Manager K. Mahon to me personally: "the captain said when they were over Summerside, they could see fog at Charottetown". (See screen shot of FlightTracker) A few moments later in the departure lounge, the WS station mgr, found us and advised WS OCC in Calgary told her "the Captain did not feel comfortable with the wind and wet runway condition" 

Answer 3) Via email from WS Customer Service. 

Reviewing your flight, I see the reason for the cancelled flight was due to weather at the destination station causing a back-up of flights. Air Traffic Control advised us they’d be unable to accommodate our flight. 

As a gesture of goodwill, we’d be happy to set up a $100 WestJet Travel Bank for each of you.

 

All 3 reasons for the delay/cancellation do involve weather (their story) so it avoids any compensation from WS for hotels, etc.

Note: I have a filed email from another previous delayed WS YYG-YYZ flight in 2011. The reason was a WX radar fault and TRW's in the YYZ forecast but of course it was a clear and honest explanation. If fact, the Captain came into the departure lounge to make a PA to all the passengers waiting. Flight was delayed about 9 hours waiting for the parts to be delivered on a second WS YYZ-YYG flight. The emailed letter regarding the delay signed by Gregg S. advised us we would recieve two 20% discounts for our next WS flight. 

After this recent delayed and cancelled flight, they have so far given us a discount on our next Westjet flight. Plus a third explanation for our delay. 

 

[blues deville]

45 minutes ago, Fido said:

There is a comedy to following the tale.

Not a comedy nor a tale. But glad to hear this thread has entertained you. 

I've avoided using Westjet for 5 years prior to this flight in June. I'm going to try and extend that personal record. 

[CanadaEH]

Maybe you should call Gabor Lukacs to advocate for you. 

[blues deville]

3 hours ago, CanadaEH said:

Maybe you should call Gabor Lukacs to advocate for you. 

Perhaps I should. Not getting any useful information from the travel wizards on this site. Just a lot of smart a$$ posts.

Lukacs is a very bright fellow who studied at Dalhousie. My cousin who flew AC (YYG-YHZ-YYZ) the same day/same time we were trying to fly Westjet got his PH.D. (Chemistry) at the same school in Halifax. When I said goodbye to him at the gate, I somehow knew we had made a mistake in our travel plans. 

[QFE]

I love the #3 answer.

Give them $100 and blame ATC!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, QFE said:

I love the #3 answer.

Give them $100 and blame ATC!

A guest can be fed . S.... , a paying customer on the other hand can and does expect accurate information.  

[DEFCON]

Am I missing something?

As I understand the original question, all Blues ever wanted was a reasonable, if not completely truthful explanation for being put out in circumstances that would make any technically competent professional wonder.

I did not see what has become a 'quest' as an attempt to judge the Captain's decision, although that's where the crowd seems to want to funnel the debate?

I think WJ's evasive responses make it quite obvious that an 'unusual' situation led to the flight's cancelation.

Now, I don't believe the specifics of the Captain's decision are a matter that should be subject to public review, but I do feel that had WJ been more upfront and honest, at least once they became aware that Blues was an industry insider, a potentially damning situation could have been avoided.

Just a suggestion, but once WJ's PR department recognized Blues as an insider, they could, probably should have referred his query to Flight Ops where an appropriate response might have been fashioned & forwarded?

Regardless of the host, when a carrier knowingly feeds an airline pilot the standard bs they pass onto the uninformed in response to a formal complaint, I think they are insulting the intelligence of the recipient and begging for a PR problem.