WestJet London Problems in the News

[blues deville]

8 hours ago, Maverick said:

Spares haven't been the problem for the most part. It's the part that fails every 10 years that's been on the airplane for 15 that has. 

What kinds of parts are you referring to? Avionics, engines, flight control system....?

[AIP]

15 hours ago, Maverick said:

Spares haven't been the problem for the most part. It's the part that fails every 10 years that's been on the airplane for 15 that has. 

That's not what Gregg said.

[Maverick]

What did Gregg say?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Maverick said:

What did Gregg say?

According the CBC he said:

Quote

"The 767s have been giving us lots of grief, lots of mechanical problems," said Saretsky in the video.

"We're finding that when things break, because some of the parts are so old, we don't have them in store. And then we're doing a global search through the AOG desk to find them and then it's taking two or three days to get these things. We don't want to keep them in stock because they break once every 20 years."

 

[Guest]

• http://vacations.aircanada.com/en/vacation_packages/destinations/United-Kingdom/London?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DP2 Intl July 13 EN&utm_content=DP2 Intl July 13 EN+Version+B+CID_ffcbd43cf3db6108f95841fbf6e0763a&utm_source=Campaign Monitor

•  

[moeman]

http://www.westjet.com/guest/en/deals/offers/london-gatwick.shtml?mrd=0&j_cid=email:ss-wj:london-sale-2016--yyc:primary:20160719

[Guest]

Despite everything, evidently the route is profitable and no flight cancellations in July. Guess the rental aircraft are not too expensive and are more reliable than the WestJet 767s.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-business/westjet-ceo-says-london-route-profitable-despite-snags

WestJet Airlines Ltd.’s new overseas route to London will be profitable in its first year of operation in spite of recent problems with reliability and on-time performance, CEO Gregg Saretsky said Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters at the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region conference in Calgary, Saretsky said bookings on the route — WestJet’s first overseas offering on wide-body Boeing 767 jets — have been strong in the two and a half months since its launch.

“We’re actually ahead of where we expected to be. The flights have been very, very well subscribed,” he said.

Saretsky acknowledged that mechanical difficulties with the 767s created challenges in the early days of the route, including flight cancellations and several delays in the month of June. But he said the problems — which resulted in multiple negative reviews for WestJet on online travel forums such as TripAdvisor and Skytrax — have been largely taken care of

“We haven’t had a single flight cancellation in the month of July. We’ve had 19 days of perfect operation with great on-time performance. I think those early day hiccups are behind us,” Saretsky said.

Saretsky said the difficulties WestJet has encountered with the 767s — which previously belonged to Australia’s Qantas Airways Ltd. and are between 23 and 25 years old — are unrelated to the age of the aircraft, saying instead there was insufficient time between when manufacturer Boeing refurbished the used planes and when WestJet put them into service.

“We were relying on the vendor who performed all the maintenance work to make sure that there were no snags,” he said. “And what we found is like any aircraft — even the new ones that we fly — when they come out of maintenance, there’s always little snags.”

All passengers who were affected by cancellations were rescheduled and given refunds, Saretsky said, adding that the 10 cancelled flights amount to less than two per cent of the flights his Calgary-based airline has flown to and from London-Gatwick as of Tuesday.

“Has it been exactly as we would have hoped? No. I would like to have no cancellations,” he said. “But the reality is, like our cars, these planes are mechanical and they will occasionally have a light that comes on. When you have a check engine light in your car come on, you keep driving. But when one comes on in an airplane, you stop.”

[Maverick]

As I alluded to earlier, there has been a pretty strong effort from Tech-ops to sort these aircraft out. It hasn't been easy but I don't believe that Omni has been used in the last month and I am watching this pretty closely. Gregg is certainly right when he mentions the loads, the aircraft are hammered!

A standby nightmare.

[rudder]

When are the 787's arriving? Or perhaps the A330NEO would be a better choice.

[Maverick]

33 minutes ago, rudder said:

When are the 787's arriving? Or perhaps the A330NEO would be a better choice.

WestJet used to be quite a loose lipped ship but not so much anymore. They are coming but those cards are being held close to the chest. 

I would suspect though that there will be some announcement fairly soon...

[acsidestick]

On July 11, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Malcolm said:

This is the direct Saretsky quote,

"The 767s have been giving us lots of grief, lots of mechanical problems," said Saretsky in the video.

"We're finding that when things break, because some of the parts are so old, we don't have them in store. And then we're doing a global search through the AOG desk to find them and then it's taking two or three days to get these things. We don't want to keep them in stock because they break once every 20 years."

Saretsky told the truth and the Public Relations/Media department had a full vapour lock for his forthrightness and have now released a new version full of spin.  

Greg, you can't tell the public that these are old junk that were parked in the desert because they were about to be turned into razor blades.

Either they are old junk which should have been destroyed, or WestJet did terrible due diligence and thought they could get away with flying junk at cut rates to get a foot in a market.  It worked once before.  That was then, this is now and there is a big difference.

Youve got to pay to play, but nothing motivates a workforce like anticipating NEW shiny toys.  Consider the innuendo and intrigue posted by some here.  "(We're gonna)-(standby forbig announcement)-(very soon)-(Dreamliner) (-330Neo)etc.

We can go back many years since people started posting about "the big announcement".  When it finally came, it was for four beat up 767-300s worth less than 7 million apiece,  Junk.

WestJets total commitments for wide bodies so far is less than 28 million dollars.  The planes everyone keeps throwing out there list for more than 200 million apiece.  It's quite a leap to go from 28 million to a billion to replace four planes, let alone the 6-10 billion dollar announcements that don't cost anything to create rumours with, if you don't actually order any aircraft.

Since these rumours began 7 years ago, AC has brought on 25 777s and 37 787s (plus 15 options).  They just don't make a big deal over it every time they manage to deliver a load of passengers.

Best advise I ever received when I entered this career was " Always go to the Company that's GOT the airplane you want to fly, DONT GO to the one whose "getting" the airplane because they are ALL GETTING the airplane.  It's the only way they can get employees to stay in this ridiculous carreer choice"  

Youll notice there is very little posted ever by AC employees about shiny rumoured Unicorn aircraft because we either already have it, or if it makes sense to have it, then we get it.  There is no hot mess anticipation for years so employees will drop rumours on social media to pump stock.

Consider this, in an article last winter, Saretsky said nothing is off the table, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, or South Pacific or something to that effect (I don't feel like finding the quote).

That flippant attitude is what has lead to the " We didn't know what we didn't know lame excuse generator we're seeing now.  You don't "just go" to Asia, or the South Pacific.

Consider Australia, for instance, that one route from YVR to SYD requires 2 full time 233Million dollar airplanes ( list ).  The investment in that ONE route is a half a billion dollars.  WJ currently serves up to 14 cities a day with one aircraft, but are now haphazardly throwing out names of cities require 2 aircraft per one city per day.  It's all those two aircraft will ever do.  There is a huge difference, and as they are learning, and have now freely admitted, the schedule for those four airplanes was too ambitious, even if the airplane had have been new.

Now bringing Brisbane online, there is a reason why even Qantas doesn't attempt to "flood" markets.  Each one has the ability to ruin an otherwise profitable Company.  Many big announcements AC makes ( and if your keeping track, there have been many since November 2014), require 2 aircraft for one city pair.  That is real commitment to a cause, not low hanging fruit.

Good luck Gregg, and thank you for telling the truth, don't let PR make you a liar.

Quote

 

 

[Maverick]

I suspect that when WJ does it it will be done like every other thing it's done. Methodically.

Probably a bit more lead time to ensure no repeat of the LGW experience.

There are lots of A330's, 772's coming off 10 year leases that could be purchased for such ventures. 

Again, I have no inside intel but there are rumblings. 

The bottom line is that we are still very profitable and I would doubt we've lost a single nickel on LGW.

I guess we'll see next Tuesday just how well things went.

 

[acsidestick]

Maverick, "Methodically" is not what comes to mind where the purchase of the 767s is concerned.  Announcements of the announcement gets old.

i sincerely hope Tuesday goes well.  With the return and non replacement of some fins, and shifting flying out east "shrinking to profit" is a viable means to weather the Alberta Recessive Implosion.  We've been through it as well.  So long as your not the one "shrunk".  This current goat show may be the impetus to finally force the BOD to make "the" announcement.

But there it is again.  You just added 777-200LR to the list.  I can only assume you meant LR because a straight -200 would once again be getting someone else's old junk.  Triples have to go along way to make money, like renting an 18 wheeler when all you need was the 10 foot Uhaul.  That 200 has a very specific mission, perhaps more so than almost any other airliner.  Even AC hasn't quite figured out what to properly do with them yet.  Just to throw out a type name like vomit from a controller magazine shotgun shows the rumours are flying fast and furious.

Remember though, each 777 is 300 to 450 people EVERY flight.  Fill them always, or lose your shirt quickly.

[Boney]

WJA has been filling the 767, so what would change if they indeed go the 777 route? Maybe, have more plus seats, 2x2x2, thus keeping the number closer to the 300 mark. The 777 would have a longer range than the 767 thus getting further into Europe from western Canada vs going through CYYZ. Greg said in the last conference call that WJA could acquire 2 777 for the price of 1 787. Even with the increase cost of fuel burn on the 777 vs the 787, the casm could be offset by the increased seating on the 777 vs the 787.

Like many of you, that's management call, as the majority of us just point which ever bird we are charged with.

Cheers.

[ckl]

Apparently pointed the wrong direction. 

Incident: Westjet B763 at London on Jul 5th 2016, right is where the thumb is left

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Jul 15th 2016 20:21Z, last updated Friday, Jul 15th 2016 20:21Z

A Westjet Boeing 767-300, registration C-FOGJ performing flight WS-23 from London Gatwick,EN (UK) to Vancouver,BC (Canada) with 268 people, was instructed to turn right to a heading of 090 after departure from runway 26L. However, the aircraft turned left, air traffic control issued vectors to avoid a traffic conflict. The aircraft continued to Vancouver for a safe landing.

The Canadian TSB rated the occurrence a reportable incident involving a risk of collision.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/WJA23/history/20160705/1155Z/EGKK/CYVR
 

[Boney]

There is pointing literally and there is pointing figuratively. Lol

[acsidestick]

Bonney, WJ hasn't been filling the 767, they've been filling someone else's 767.

You now say Gregg is talking about 777s.  Should we do a search and figure out how many different planes Gregg has mentioned, while not putting in an order for one?

You need to quit listening to what he says so much and do your own research.  The 767s you already have come complete with a range of 5900NM to 6300NM.  They already can go anywhere in Europe from CYVR. ANYWHERE.

YVR-LHR 4075NM

YVR-FCO (Rome) 4873NM

YVR-ATH (Athens) 5305

YVR-IEV (Kiev) 4690

YVR-TLV (Tel Aviv) Yup, now we're skipping over Europe entirely 5805NM

How Far East does your Europe go?

You've decided to bring up CASM, when you have big planes, every seat has to do its part.  You don't take out 15 seat and replace with six (legroom plus width) unless you charge enough to cover the difference.  If you charge enough to cover the difference, you're now charging what the competion is, and the point is moot.  The customers know what the competion is offering and it isn't just a bigger seat.

i wasn't going to bring this up, but here goes, to illustrate the point.  

I recently flew one of the first 777-300er flights in YEG during the YMM forest fire crisis.  It was a 450 seat aircraft with the new " Dream" interior.  All 40-50 AC staff came to see the aircraft that were on shift, as a 777 in YEG is not something they'd seen before.  A few of our employees were let down into the bridge by WJ agents who were standing with their face up to the glass in the terminal.  One employee said they wanted to know if that was a 767-400, as it looked bigger than a normal 767.  After a chuckle, a manager said to go get them and give them a tour.  We did, and watched as they came aboard and turned right to enter, not realizing there was a left, to go have a look.    That they were blown away would be an understatement.  One apparently commented that though J class was amazing, it wasn't as many seats as they thought it would have.  They were then told to turn around and look at the front, which they hadn't realized was even there.  Then they saw the "other" main J class Cabin.  After touring the aircraft, the bunks, the galleys, the 11 lavs, and of course fully reclining the pods while looking at the 24 inch TVs with state of the art graphics and video, one commented, "That isn't what we are told Business Class is".  

A simple case of you don't know what you don't know.  This has been demonstrated by Management who flippantly talk about " we'll just go overseas now", like it's going to North Bay.  As methodical as Maverick seems to think they are, they shown to be anything but in this endeavour.

 

[Boney]

I heard what Greg's response was to one of the analyst question to why not the 787. 

Wja performance is improving with the WB from a turbulent start. Hopefully it will continue. 

The choice of airplanes in the future is best left to those above my pay grade. I do have an opinion but in the end I just drive them. 

Cheers 

[DEFCON]

There was some discussion earlier in which it was suggested that two aircraft were sufficient to service a long haul route. Unless something has changed and new builds like the 787 don't ever breakdown unexpectedly, the two aircraft model flies in the face of Boeing's past advice, which recommended three aircraft as the minimum necessary to ensure the 'reliably' of a long haul service.

For example, when Canadian set out to purchase two 744's, they were more than a little shocked when Boeing advised they'd need three of the expensive type at a minimum if they hoped to achieve the objective set out in their business plan.

[Super 80]

9 hours ago, rudder said:

When are the 787's arriving? Or perhaps the A330NEO would be a better choice.

I can't see WS springing for the 787, they're just too expensive and they don't need the legs.

[Super 80]

6 hours ago, acsidestick said:

But there it is again.  You just added 777-200LR to the list.  I can only assume you meant LR because a straight -200 would once again be getting someone else's old junk. 

Huh?

Boeing delivered the (ostensibly) final 777-200ER orders just about three years ago. The newest 777-200ERs that are available are 2005 tails originally delivered to EVA.

[acsidestick]

I made the assumption that Boney meant 200 LR instead of ER as the ER is a plane no one wants.  It requires 11100 feet at Sea Level MTOW and all else standard.  Bad altimeter, too hot or especially leaving YYC, you may not be going with your Boeing.  

The same numbers for the -200, -200LR, and -300 ER are 8000,9200,10000.  Quite a difference, especially if you want to use it in a city like Calgary.  Yes, I know the new runway is long, but at 30 degrees it still might not work.

[Maverick]

11 hours ago, acsidestick said:

I made the assumption that Boney meant 200 LR instead of ER as the ER is a plane no one wants.  It requires 11100 feet at Sea Level MTOW and all else standard.  Bad altimeter, too hot or especially leaving YYC, you may not be going with your Boeing.  

The same numbers for the -200, -200LR, and -300 ER are 8000,9200,10000.  Quite a difference, especially if you want to use it in a city like Calgary.  Yes, I know the new runway is long, but at 30 degrees it still might not work.

No one said 200LR, that airframe, if production numbers mean anything, is a mutt. I was thinking of the plethora of 777ER's that would do pretty much anything wanted with the possible exception of a MTOW ex YYC. I don't foresee many routes that would require that, do you? 

There's a lot going on in the background. It would be unwise to think otherwise. 

[acsidestick]

We do at or near maximum Take Off Weight almost every flight.  What isn't fuel gets taken up by cargo.  The 777 is a hauler.  If you don't plan on filling it up every time,everyday your going to get soaked.

I'm not sure you get just how big the 777 is.  A 737-700NG has about 1600cubic feet of cargo space to work with.  The 777 has 7640CF and carries 44 LD3 cans.  For perspective, that means it can carry a 70000kg 737-700NG at MTOW in its belly.  There is a reason freighters aren't selling anymore, and it's because of the amount of cargo these airplanes carry.

Buying a plane you can't or don't know how to fill up would be a poor investment.  I don't think WJ would be interested in a plane that can't fly out of its main base to wherever they wish to go.  Even YVR is too short to make good use of a 200ER.

If WestJet is only looking for a 11 hour airplane, they already have it, or a 333 is the better choice.

Interesting that you refer to the 200 LR as a mutt.  The worlds longest range aircraft.  It's quite a feeling going to Australia and holding Melbourne as an alternate, as well as all the fuel you need to traverse the ITCZ with no worries about 100-600 NM Enroute diversions.   

 

[Super 80]

Both the 777-200LR and A340-500 are orphans, they were built for a UULH mission that doesn't exist and can't perform the only one that might someday. (SYD-LHR)