Air Canada's COVID-19 actions

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, seeker said:

I'm not sure that your link to an Army Cargo Specialist applies to Air Canada's cargo flights.  And by "not sure", I actually mean I'm 100% sure that it does not apply since the job requirements for the Army include: operate and maintain all types and sizes of winches, cranes and forklifts, create load plans for air shipment and ocean liner vessels, operate ocean liner vessel equipment.

Never said it did apply, just showing how the 2 are quite different with the Load Master being the "top gun".  I know when PWA carried out their Herc operations, the "Load Master" was as described.   I suspect the term used in the news story covers neither fish or fowl so to speak.

 

[Fido]

5 hours ago, AIP said:

Wouldn't surprise me to see a few all freighters in the future,

It would shock me

[Seeker]

26 minutes ago, Marshall said:

Never said it did apply, just showing how the 2 are quite different with the Load Master being the "top gun".  I know when PWA carried out their Herc operations, the "Load Master" was as described.   I suspect the term used in the news story covers neither fish or fowl so to speak.

 

Listen, you're the guy who said; "Back in the day, the term was "Load Master". "  My point is that the person doing this function for AC isn't a loadmaster and doesn't have to be a loadmaster since the parameters of the job are completely different.

Yeah, I know, back if the Herc days it was a loadmaster.  Well, this ain't a Herc and the operation doesn't require a loadmaster.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, seeker said:

Listen, you're the guy who said; "Back in the day, the term was "Load Master". "  My point is that the person doing this function for AC isn't a loadmaster and doesn't have to be a loadmaster since the parameters of the job are completely different.

Yeah, I know, back if the Herc days it was a loadmaster.  Well, this ain't a Herc and the operation doesn't require a loadmaster.

Why not?  Is AC only operating the flights into their normal bases or ?  The advantage of a "Load Master" was apparent when charter operations took the aircraft to unfamiliar locations when the qualifications of the loading staff were not exactly stellar or indeed known.  But I will defer to your no doubt extensive Operational Cargo experience.  Cheers

[Seeker]

22 minutes ago, Marshall said:

Why not?  Is AC only operating the flights into their normal bases or ?  The advantage of a "Load Master" was apparent when charter operations took the aircraft to unfamiliar locations when the qualifications of the loading staff were not exactly stellar or indeed known.  But I will defer to your no doubt extensive Operational Cargo experience.  Cheers

Please, there's no need to be insulting.  I think, in general terms, a "loadmaster" would be required to handle the loading of random ad hoc loads - one day it's a bunch of odd boxes and the next day it's a jeep, drill rod or an APC.  This is not the reality of "airline" cargo and boxes of known weight.  Sure, a loadmaster would be able to handle whatever comes but it's like saying we need a Phd in Math to handle the task of adding the day's sales accounting - overkill.

Another source says the "cargo specialists" are specially trained AMEs - seems like an acceptable solution.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, seeker said:

Please, there's no need to be insulting.  I think, in general terms, a "loadmaster" would be required to handle the loading of random ad hoc loads - one day it's a bunch of odd boxes and the next day it's a jeep, drill rod or an APC.  This is not the reality of "airline" cargo and boxes of known weight.  Sure, a loadmaster would be able to handle whatever comes but it's like saying we need a Phd in Math to handle the task of adding the day's sales accounting - overkill.

Was not meaning to be insulting, just meaning to be right back at you  

Quote

yeah, I know, back if the Herc days it was a loadmaster.  Well, this ain't a Herc and the operation doesn't require a loadmaster.

Cheers 

[UpperDeck]

Boy....an interesting and potentially informative discussion on this forum can quickly go astray.

Dagger asked as to the requirement of an FA on aircraft converted for freight carriage in the pax cabin. As I am certain he knew, certain aviation authorities require FA's.....not other airline personnel....to monitor the freight in the pax compartment. Singapore Airlines is an example.

It was of interest therefore to read  Seeker's post that AC had installed fire suppression systems in converted aircraft. When did AC do that?

And then we deteriorated to a dispute about " loadmasters".....terminology that applies equally to civilian as to military aircraft. Whoever might be so categorized, it requires training, understanding and experience since it necessarily requires appreciation of the size, weight and nature of the cargo loaded including pax and impact on cog etc etc. I think you guys ( Marshall and Seeker) were on the same page ( a rose by any other name) but those damn egos intruded!

Let's not denigrate the role by saying you don't need a PhD in math!! That is a slippery slope....a slippery slope indeed!

[Seeker]

11 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

Let's not denigrate the role by saying you don't need a PhD in math!! That is a slippery slope....a slippery slope indeed!

You see, this is the problem - not actually reading what was written.  I said requiring a "Loadmaster" for AC's cargo flights would be like saying we need a Phd in Math to handle the task of adding the day's sales accounting.  This is not a statement about loadmasters.  I'm saying that having a loadmaster would be gross overkill akin to having a PhD in Math for some minor accounting task.

And, if you think Marshall and I are on the "same page" you, perhaps,  haven't read the posts above either.

Let's recap;

I said AC is doing some flights with Cargo Specialists to monitor main deck cargo.

Marshall said, back in the day the term was "Loadmaster".

I said, yeah, I'm familiar with the term but this is actually a completely different job.

Marshall posts a bunch of detail on what loadmasters and cargo handling supervisors do along with job listings for each including military positions. 

(This is were the thread gets derailed - we had already determined that the job at AC was not a loadmaster and didn't have anywhere close to the same responsibilities so posting about loadmasters is pointless.)

I posted - OK, but none of that (job requirements for loadmasters) has anything to do with the job at AC.

Marshall posted - Yeah, I know, just posting that Loadmasters are the "top guns".

Me - Yes, loadmasters are the top but this job does not require a loadmaster.

Marshall - Maybe it does, charters, unfamiliar airports, untrained staff etc and then the insult  "I will defer to your no doubt extensive Operational Cargo experience."

So, I don't think ego is the problem.  It's a small point but I was just trying to get Marshall to accept that AC isn't using loadmasters and that they are not required.  Once again I got sucked in to a pointless circular argument.  You would think I'd learned my lesson from one of the other dozen times I got pulled in, apparently not - my apologies to those forced to read it (and this attempt at explaining it).

 

[UpperDeck]

Seeker...

 

But!.....But!......I concede; you did not denigrate a "loadmaster" and you did simply say that in your opinion, a "loadmaster" was not required. Basically, a monkey with glasses a pencil and calculator would suffice. ( Ok...you didn't say that either!!)

You did say that fire suppression systems had been installed. I think. If so, when did AC do that?

[Seeker]

23 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

 

You did say that fire suppression systems had been installed. I think. If so, when did AC do that?

You're right, I did say that.  Turns out that may have been an error.  The information I have access to now says extra fire extinguishers and spill containment kits in the cabin, no DG allowed on main deck, and AMEs trained for monitoring of the cargo for fire, spill, security.

[dagger]

19 hours ago, Fido said:

It would shock me

Indeed, the economics for the Canadian market have always been daunting. Even for US passenger carriers. Too much one-way traffic, and too few months when rates are high enough. UPS and FedEx have steady two-way supply chain and express traffic, which consolidates at their US hubs. I can't envision FedEx deconstructing Memphis to create sub-national hubs which could support large volumes of direct to North America traffic, not when the passenger airlines will some day return to normal levels of service and siphon off lots of the business.

 

Some day, I suspect some of AC's older 777-300ERs - the oldest is about 12 years - will be converted into freighters, but likely because AC sold them off to lessors looking to put them through the IAI freighter conversion program. Save for express companies and a couple of US and European all cargo carriers, a freighter only makes sense if it original delivered cost has been fully amortized, because then you have to add the conversion cost, which, I assume, is going to run you into low to mid eight figures. And if AC moves on to other aircraft like the A350, or simply moves away from that class of aircraft and tops out with a 787-10/330neo, then it won't keep a rogue fleet of 777 freighters.

[rudder]

15 minutes ago, dagger said:

 And if AC moves on to other aircraft like the A350, or simply moves away from that class of aircraft and tops out with a 787-10/330neo, then it won't keep a rogue fleet of 777 freighters.

Ultra large/high density aircraft were a function of record passenger traffic demand.

Lots of airline CEO’s trying to determine if 300+ seat aircraft will have a role in the next few years.

[moeman]

17 minutes ago, rudder said:

Ultra large/high density aircraft were a function of record passenger traffic demand.

Lots of airline CEO’s trying to determine if 300+ seat aircraft will have a role in the next few years.

Not a coincidence then that they are taking the seats out of the 777-P, or the high density versions. Perhaps they will reconfigure them to match the others in the fleet when they're done.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, seeker said:

You're right, I did say that.  Turns out that may have been an error.  The information I have access to now says extra fire extinguishers and spill containment kits in the cabin, no DG allowed on main deck, and AMEs trained for monitoring of the cargo for fire, spill, security.

Well thought out procedures of course as expected of AirCanada.  Will a trained AME be onboard the flights?  

[Seeker]

1 minute ago, Marshall said:

Will a trained AME be onboard the flights?  

These are the "cargo specialists" mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, seeker said:

These are the "cargo specialists" mentioned earlier in the thread.

Thank you.  I learn more, I see there are several categories under the IAMAW AC contract that require being an AME, which is the one that will be travelling with the aircraft or is this a new category?  Thanks

[Geminoid]

3 hours ago, moeman said:

Not a coincidence then that they are taking the seats out of the 777-P, or the high density versions. Perhaps they will reconfigure them to match the others in the fleet when they're done.

Please, please let that be true.  Those 398Y seats are ridiculously close together for anyone over 5'6".  

[FA@AC]

11 minutes ago, Geminoid said:

Please, please let that be true.  Those 398Y seats are ridiculously close together for anyone over 5'6".  

I might become true if/when more of the travelling public are willing to pay fares that would cover the airline's cost of providing extra space.

Until then those who are willing to pony up can buy the seats with extra legroom or travel in PY or J.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, FA@AC said:

I might become true if/when more of the travelling public are willing to pay fares that would cover the airline's cost of providing extra space.

Until then those who are willing to pony up can buy the seats with extra legroom or travel in PY or J.

Likely no more that former airline employees when paying a reduced rate.  Standing by for PY or J has not been an option for a few years and will be less in future.  

[FA@AC]

42 minutes ago, Marshall said:

Likely no more that former airline employees when paying a reduced rate.  Standing by for PY or J has not been an option for a few years and will be less in future.  

Retirees have, in my view, been dealt a lousy hand with the awarding of higher priority passes to active employees, but airlines aren't going to configure their cabins to suit pass travellers--retired or active.

I'm not so sure that standing by for PY or J will become more difficult in the immediate future since I think that demand will be slow to recover.

[Guest]

I have a cruise booked next year from FLL to YVR and I hope it will happen., So far, ignoring the virus, the only down side is the air travel to FLL.  I look forward to perhaps seeing "real Econony:" class coming back as I will  be booking a full fare, not any airline discount. 

[FA@AC]

11 minutes ago, Marshall said:

I have a cruise booked next year from FLL to YVR and I hope it will happen., So far, ignoring the virus, the only down side is the air travel to FLL.  I look forward to perhaps seeing "real Econony:" class coming back as I will  be booking a full fare, not any airline discount. 

As someone who is happy enough on Ryanair for flights of up to 3 hours or so, I'd say that air travel is nowhere near the ordeal that drama queens like to make it.  Especially not for what one pays.  As as insider I'm sure you know to take care of seat selection in advance, to familiarize yourself with baggage policies and not to try to take everything you have ever owned on board with you and expect someone else both to find space and to lift it for you, perhaps to bring a book or an alternate form of IFE just in case, and to bring something on board to eat or be prepared to purchase what ends up being available on board if you're peckish.  I find that buying something stiff from the beverage cart helps to pass the time pleasantly enough.

Of course all of the above is decent advice for air travel as we know it today.  We probably all shudder to think of what changes might come down the pipe by the time we emerge from the current round of financial hardship.  Eek.

Here's hoping that the virus has gone away or that there's an effective vaccine around in time for your trip next year.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, FA@AC said:

As someone who is happy enough on Ryanair for flights of up to 3 hours or so, I'd say that air travel is nowhere near the ordeal that drama queens like to make it.  Especially not for what one pays.  As as insider I'm sure you know to take care of seat selection in advance, to familiarize yourself with baggage policies and not to try to take everything you have ever owned on board with you and expect someone else both to find space and to lift it for you, perhaps to bring a book or an alternate form of IFE just in case, and to bring something on board to eat or be prepared to purchase what ends up being available on board if you're peckish.  I find that buying something stiff from the beverage cart helps to pass the time pleasantly enough.

Of course all of the above is decent advice for air travel as we know it today.  We probably all shudder to think of what changes might come down the pipe by the time we emerge from the current round of financial hardship.  Eek.

Here's hoping that the virus has gone away or that there's an effective vaccine around in time for your trip next year.

Well when you are 80 and the flight will be for several hours, comfort is best. It used to be one of the best parts was the flight, not so now.  Thanks for the good thoughts but at 10,000.00 plus for the trip, we may just book a fancy meal every night for the 15days and save some $$$$.  

[FA@AC]

6 minutes ago, Marshall said:

It used to be one of the best parts was the flight, not so now.  

That is true, but when the flight was one of the best parts travel was mainly for the well-heeled.  I find it mostly to be a bargain today even if one pays extra for an airline's version of preferred seats.  At least today there are options.  One can fly cheaply without frills or purchase all of the stuff that used to be included in all fares and still pay less in real terms than it used to cost.

[Innuendo]

Quote

Retirees have, in my view, been dealt a lousy hand with the awarding of higher priority passes to active employees,

As a retiree it has been a long time since we successfully used a pass on other than a short high frequency route where we can afford to miss a couple of departures.

We buy seats the same as every one else off the street these days, with who ever has the price and conditions that suit us best. Our passes have really lost their value.

When the company  sweetened  collective agreement offers with  higher priority passes it did not cost them much. 

I certainly realize that passes were always considered a privilege, (and a generous one at that), but there were also many who stayed on to earn their 25 year pass which has lost a lot of its usefulness these days.