Jump to content

Canada isn't ruling out taking a stake in Canadian airlines: Leblanc


Jaydee
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am not as concerned about the spread of the virus from the UK as I am concerned about other spread.  We have lots of lots of hot spots in Canada (as shown in this thread Virus Alerts from Airline Travel - Airline Aviation Forum - The Airline Website

 ) but we seem to be overly concerned with the UK etc.   Go figure.  

  • Members
  •  1,180
  • 10,877 posts
  • Gender:Male

More than 30 COVID-19 flights leading up to holidays

BY CITYNEWS STAFF

Posted Dec 27, 2020 4:49 pm MST

 
YYC-Calgary-International-Airport-e1585332345676.jpg
(PHOTO: Crystal Laderas - 660 NEWS)
 
 

CALGARY (CityNews) – In the week leading up to the holidays, Calgary’s airport saw 31 flights impacted by COVID-19 at its airport.

Between December 18 and 23, 22 domestic flights through Calgary identified COVID-19-positive passengers.

There were 57 total domestic flights affected in that same timeframe, and several Edmonton flights were impacted.

The city fared better on international flights, with only nine of the routes that flagged cases of COVID-19 making their way through Calgary.

A complete list of affected Calgary flights between December 18 to 23 is below.

Any passengers on these flights are advised to self-monitor for symptoms.

For cases flying into the city, YYC spokesperson Reid Fiest has said that if the airport becomes aware of cases of COVID-19, they have stringent measures put in place in order to keep passengers safe.

In November, the YYC airport was the hub for about 280,000 flights in total.

 

DOMESTIC

December 18

WS3171 Calgary to Comox (rows 1-5)

WS3139 Calgary to Fort McMurray (rows 4-10)

AC151 Toronto to Calgary (rows 12-18)

 

December 19

WS675 Toronto to Calgary (rows 19-25)

WS325 Calgary to Kelowna (rows 7-13)

WS3189 Calgary to Grande Prairie (rows 13-19)

AC8476 Grande Prairie to Calgary (rows unknown)

AC150 Calgary to Toronto (rows unknown)

AC214 Vancouver to Calgary (rows 12-16)

AC146 Calgary to Toronto (rows 37-43)

 

December 20

WS253 Calgary to Kelowna (rows 2-8)

WS3109 Calgary to Nanaimo (rows 15-19)

 

December 21

WS652 Calgary to Toronto (rows 1-7)

AC8408 Kelowna to Calgary (rows 1-4)

AC150 Calgary to Toronto (rows 12-15)

 

December 22

WS153 Calgary to Edmonton (rows 10-16)

AC8372 Fort McMurray to Calgary (rows 5-11)

AC318 Calgary to Montreal (rows 1-3)

 

December 23

WS232 Calgary to Halifax (rows 1-5)

AC8374 Fort McMurray to Calgary (rows 13-19)

AC146 Calgary to Toronto (rows 19-25)

AC136 Calgary to Toronto (rows 1-6)

 

INTERNATIONAL

December 18

WS2247 Puerto Vallarta to Calgary (rows 11-17)

UA5388 Denver to Calgary (5-11)

KL677 Amsterdam to Calgary (rows 31-37)

AA3839 Dallas to Calgary (rows 5-11)

 

December 19

WS2313 Cancun to Calgary (rows 1-7, 14-20)

WS2311 Cancun to Calgary (24-29)

WS2289 Los Cabos to Calgary (rows 10-21)

 

December 20

WS2247 Puerto Vallarta to Calgary (rows 13-19)

 

December 22

WS2313 Cancun to Calgary (rows 10-16)

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Impacted" - what the hell does that even mean?

You know what would be great? Reporting on the fact that COVID positive cases have been traced to travel on flights. The flights they were on were not "impacted". I have only heard of 1 case of transmission onboard. Anyone I speak to thinks these reports are flights where COVID has spread. Very very very misleading. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah the reporting is very misleading.

What is really happening is that asymptomatic people are getting on planes and flying to a destination.

There are ZERO reports of Asymptomatic people travelling on Busses, Trains, Cars or any other mode of transportation.

Sure there may be an international issue with air travel but the transmission does not take place on the aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CanadaEH said:

"Impacted" - what the hell does that even mean?

You know what would be great? Reporting on the fact that COVID positive cases have been traced to travel on flights. The flights they were on were not "impacted". I have only heard of 1 case of transmission onboard. Anyone I speak to thinks these reports are flights where COVID has spread. Very very very misleading. 

Write a letter to the news source with your complaint but I bet the reporting will not change. Sadly the travelling public is likely paying attention to the stories as written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also no way to say conclusively if some of these people had Covid on the aircraft. Initially contact tracing was going back as much as two weeks.  If an individual tested positive and had flown within the last two weeks the flight was flagged.  Leaving an abundant amount of time to contract Covid after leaving the airport.

This was done even though the dormant period before symptoms is on average 4-5 days.

More recently contact tracing has reduced back to 6-8 days depending on where you live.  It is better but still leaves a window to contract Covid in Canada after leaving the airport.

From a personal experience.  I was recently held out of service due to possible Covid exposure.  I had sat next to an individual 8 days earlier on a DH who tested positive 6 days after the flight.  Did they really have Covid when they were next to me?  No one knows.  The flight was however flagged and I was told to quarantine for 6 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Quote

'Those marvelling over Air Canada’s inability to do the right thing during this spiralling crisis are forgetting that our flag carrier, which was built with public money, has long had a malfunctioning moral compass.'

A moral compass will never guide Air Canada’s direction, pandemic or not

Fri Jan 08, 2021 - The Globe and Mail
Rita Trichur

Canadians have become inured to bad behaviour by airlines over the years.

So news that Air Canada hired social-media influencers to encourage Canadians to ignore government health advice and take dream vacations during a worsening global pandemic should surprise no one – least of all our elected officials.

“What’s more relaxing than the perfect balance of mountains, ocean and sunshine?” wrote an Instagrammer who is known as JennExplores in a post promoting her so-called safe travels in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, with Air Canada Vacations and Iberostar Hotels and Resorts.

That’s quite a flight of fancy. But did Ottawa really expect Canada’s largest airline to prioritize public health over its own profitability as COVID-19 case counts soar and new variants of the deadly disease rattle the world?

Puh-leeze. That’s just bad for business – especially now that Air Canada is aiming to expand its share of the leisure travel market through its proposed $180-million purchase of rival Air Transat.

Those marvelling over Air Canada’s inability to do the right thing during this spiralling crisis are forgetting that our flag carrier, which was built with public money, has long had a malfunctioning moral compass.

For decades, Canadians have been held captive by lousy service and high prices on domestic routes. There are countless horror stories of hapless passengers, including children, being bumped from oversold flights or being mistreated by employees when they request service in French. But those are the perks of being the coddled incumbent in a federally protected industry.

Air Canada’s contempt for consumers has also been evident throughout this pandemic. It has rankled customers with its refund policies for cancelled flights, compromised passenger safety by resuming the sale of middle and adjacent seats on planes and, most recently, opposed a new rule requiring air travellers to show proof of a negative COVID-19 test before boarding international flights to Canada.

Even Americans have grumbled about Air Canada during the pandemic. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Air Travel Consumer Report said Air Canada racked up the most complaints of any foreign airline this past May.

But why should Air Canada fear any damage to its brand when it knows darn well that it has the upper hand with consumers, especially in its home market?

Behold the self-serving statements from its executives during this crisis. Back in July, when the country’s top doctors were warning of an impending second wave of infections, Air Canada’s president and chief executive officer Calin Rovinescu was railing against government-imposed travel bans. “Other parts of the world have also had a more rational, I would say, science-based approach to opening markets,” he said at the time.

During the previous month, he called Canada’s mandatory 14-day quarantine for travellers “a total cold shower on building any kind of aviation business.” (Funny, that’s how many consumers feel about foreign investment rules that shield our airline industry from vigorous competition.)

Perhaps the icing on the cake, however, is that Air Canada and its smaller rivals want a taxpayer-funded bailout (on top of previous wage subsidies), but are pushing Ottawa to drop its demand that airlines refund customers’ money for cancelled flights during the pandemic to be eligible for such financial relief.

Although it’s refreshing to see our federal officials put their foot down on that bailout condition, they bear some blame for Air Canada’s gauche tactics – including the hiring of social-media influencers to promote travel despite the pandemic’s rising death toll.

For starters, Ottawa waited too long to prevent vacationers from exploiting a federal sick leave benefit that was intended for people who quarantined after essential travel abroad. Similarly, the government was too slow to introduce mandatory COVID-19 testing for international travellers – even though the travel industry began dangling incentives months ago to entice winter travel.

Perhaps worst of all, numerous federal and provincial politicians had no compunction taking international vacations during the recent Christmas break – even as they told ordinary folks to stay at home.

One senior public servant at the Public Health Agency of Canada – who is responsible for border and travel health, no less – even accepted an all-expenses-paid holiday to Jamaica courtesy of Air Canada Vacations in November. “Thank you, Air Canada Vacations. We are beside ourselves,” Dominique Baker gushed in a video.

So why wouldn’t Air Canada hire social-media influencers to promote leisure travel this winter?

No one is denying that our airlines are being walloped by this pandemic, and common sense dictates the federal government would never let our flag carrier fail. (Remember when Ottawa provided badly needed relief so the airline could tackle its previous pension deficit?)

But if Air Canada is pushing the envelope during this crisis – and perhaps giving us a preview of what’s to come if cabinet approves its takeover of Air Transat – it’s because Ottawa has a long history of mollycoddling the airline industry to the detriment of consumers.

Our legislators should know by now that if they give Air Canada an inch, it will surely take a mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a pretty nasty opinion piece...

Lots of subjects mixed up in there. Social media influencers, moral compass, public health vs profitability, Air Canada Transat purchase, public money built flag carrier, lousy service and high prices, passenger horror stories, oversold flights, contempt for consumers, plane seating density, most complaints of any foreign airline and tax payer funded bailout. It's as if the journalist just vomited everything that irked him.

It's a easy to single out AC the way the reporter did but what he is saying applies to most companies.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always makes me shake my head "the most complaints of any foreign airline in the US" - Air Canada (and it's regional CPA airlines) by far operates more flights to/from US airports than any other foreign carrier. It's not even close.

More flights, more complaints. Fewer flights, fewer complaints... honestly I'm starting to believe fewer Canadians on your flights, fewer complaints... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rita Trichur is an "opinion writer" who uses her platform to write how she feels about a particular subject.  She isn't a journalist in the truest form- she knows a little bit about everything (I'm not disputing her general intelligence here) but instead of researching and giving the facts, she has gone all "Karen" and basically written a Facebook or Twitter post in one of the national papers about how she feels.

If you think it's crazy and absurd that AC has hired "influencers" to promote travel, so be it.  But post that crap on Twitter or FB or whatever.  I'm tired of people (including opinion writers and "journalists") who think they know everything about the airlines spewing crap all the time because they have a personal vendetta or can't be bothered to actually research what they are writing.

She may be "award winning", but she hasn't got much integrity as a professional journalist (IMO). But I guess you can't display integrity in the office awards cabinet, nor does it help sell the G&M to the AC haters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rosa joins Rita...

‘Our airlines clearly just don’t care about public health’: Experts say airlines shouldn’t be allowed to promote flying while the government begs people to stay home

Quote

“The big crime here is not actually transmission between people on the airplane, the big crime is picking up COVID ... and bringing it and delivering it somewhere else,” he said. “COVID cannot swim, walk or fly on its own. So how did it get to every corner of the earth?”

“Healthcare is a right. Life is a right. Travel is not a right,”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Airband said:

Rosa joins Rita...

‘Our airlines clearly just don’t care about public health’: Experts say airlines shouldn’t be allowed to promote flying while the government begs people to stay home

“Healthcare is a right. Life is a right. Travel is not a right,”

The real problem is Jobs and not just airline jobs.  Think about all the marginal workers (low salary that is) who are unemployed with no resources to support them.

Waiters (male and female), hair dressers, barbers, workers at arenas,  fitness gym employees, hotel employees, owners / workers of small businesses that have been closed due to the pandemic and the list is endless. Is there a solution? It appears not until either the pandemic is over or there comes a decision that a certain death rate is acceptable and does less harm to the countries than the closures. 

New study: Lockdown harms 10 times greater than benefits

 

  • Calgary Sun
  • 10 Jan 2021
  • ANTHONY FUREY afurey@postmedia.com @anthonyfurey
img?regionKey=DJ6WAvBdbGAtalCzQ%2f4e3g%3d%3d  

Dr. Ari Joffe is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases at the Stollery Children's Hospital in Edmonton and a clinical professor in the Department of Pediatrics at University of Alberta. He has written a paper titled COVID19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink that finds the harms of lockdowns are 10 times greater than their benefits.

The below Q&A is a condensed version of an exchange between Joffe and Furey:

You were a strong proponent of lockdowns initially but have since changed your mind. Why is that?

First, initial data falsely suggested that the infection fatality rate was up to 2%-3%, that over 80% of the population would be infected, and modelling suggested repeated lockdowns would be necessary. But emerging data showed that the median infection fatality rate is 0.23%, that the median infection fatality rate in people under 70 years old is 0.05%, and that the high-risk group is older people especially those with severe co-morbidities. In addition, it is likely that in most situations only 20%40% of the population would be infected before ongoing transmission is limited (i.e., herd immunity).

A formal cost-benefit analysis of different responses to the pandemic was not done by government or public health experts. Initially, I simply assumed that lockdowns to suppress the pandemic were the best approach. But policy decisions on public health should require a cost-benefit analysis. Since lockdowns are a public health intervention, aiming to improve the population's well-being, we must consider both benefits of lockdowns, and costs of lockdowns on the population's well-being. Once I became more informed, I realized that lockdowns cause far more harm than they prevent.

There has never been a full cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns done in Canada. What did you find when you did yours?

In the cost-benefit analysis I consider the benefits of lockdowns in preventing deaths from COVID-19, and the costs of lockdowns in terms of the effects of the recession, loneliness, and unemployment on population well-being and mortality. I did not consider all of the other so-called `collateral damage' of lockdowns mentioned above. It turned out that the costs of lockdowns are at least 10 times higher than the benefits. That is, lockdowns cause far more harm to population well-being than COVID-19 can. It is important to note that I support a focused protection approach, where we aim to protect those truly at highrisk of COVID-19 mortality, including older people, especially those with severe co-morbidities and those in nursing homes and hospitals.

You studied the role modelling played in shaping public opinion. Can you break that down for us?

I think that the initial modelling and forecasting were inaccurate. This led to a contagion of fear and policies across the world. Popular media focused on absolute numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths independent of context. There has been a sheer one-sided focus on preventing infection numbers.

I found out that in Canada in 2018 there were over 23,000 deaths per month and over 775 deaths per day. In the world in 2019 there were over 58 million deaths and about 160,000 deaths per day. This means that on Nov. 21 this year, COVID-19 accounted for 5.23% of deaths in Canada (2.42% in Alberta), and 3.06% of global deaths. Each day in non-pandemic years over 21,000 people die from tobacco use, 3,600 from pneumonia and diarrhea in children under five years old, and 4,110 from tuberculosis. We need to consider the tragic COVID19 numbers in context.

Canada has already been going down the lockdown path for many months. What should be done now? How do we change course?

I believe that we need to take an “effortful pause” and reconsider the information available to us. We need to calibrate our response to the true risk, make rational cost-benefit analyses of the tradeoffs, and end the lockdown group think. Some considerations I have suggested elsewhere include the following:

■ We need to better educate ourselves on the risks and tradeoffs involved, and alleviate unreasonable fear with accurate information. We need to focus on cost-benefit analysis — repeated or prolonged lockdowns cannot be based on COVID-19 numbers alone.

■ We should focus on protecting people at high risk: people hospitalized or in nursing homes (e.g., universal masking in hospitals reduced transmission markedly), in crowded conditions (e.g., homeless shelters, prisons, large gatherings), and 70 years and older (especially with severe comorbidities) — don't lock down everyone, regardless of their individual risk.

■ We need to keep schools open because children have very low morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, and (especially those 10 years and younger) are less likely to be infected by, and have a low likelihood to be the source of transmission of, SARS-COV-2.

■ We should increase health-care surge capacity if forecasting, accurately calibrated repeatedly to realtime data (up to now, forecasting, even short-term, has repeatedly failed), suggests it is needed. With universal masking in hospitals, asymptomatic health care workers should be allowed to continue to work, even if infected, thus preserving the health-care workforce.

“Since lockdowns are a public health intervention, aiming to improve the population's well-being, we must consider both benefits of lockdowns, and costs of lockdowns on the population's well-being. Once I became more informed, I realized that lockdowns cause far more harm than they prevent.”

New study: Lockdown harms 10 times greater than benefits
Calgary Sun10 Jan 2021ANTHONY FUREY afurey@postmedia.com @anthonyfurey

Dr. Ari Joffe is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases at the Stollery Children's Hospital in Edmonton and a clinical professor in the Department of Pediatrics at University of Alberta. He has written a paper titled COVID19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink that finds the harms of lockdowns are 10 times greater than their benefits.

The below Q&A is a condensed version of an exchange between Joffe and Furey:

You were a strong proponent of lockdowns initially but have since changed your mind. Why is that?

First, initial data falsely suggested that the infection fatality rate was up to 2%-3%, that over 80% of the population would be infected, and modelling suggested repeated lockdowns would be necessary. But emerging data showed that the median infection fatality rate is 0.23%, that the median infection fatality rate in people under 70 years old is 0.05%, and that the high-risk group is older people especially those with severe co-morbidities. In addition, it is likely that in most situations only 20%40% of the population would be infected before ongoing transmission is limited (i.e., herd immunity).

A formal cost-benefit analysis of different responses to the pandemic was not done by government or public health experts. Initially, I simply assumed that lockdowns to suppress the pandemic were the best approach. But policy decisions on public health should require a cost-benefit analysis. Since lockdowns are a public health intervention, aiming to improve the population's well-being, we must consider both benefits of lockdowns, and costs of lockdowns on the population's well-being. Once I became more informed, I realized that lockdowns cause far more harm than they prevent.

There has never been a full cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns done in Canada. What did you find when you did yours?

In the cost-benefit analysis I consider the benefits of lockdowns in preventing deaths from COVID-19, and the costs of lockdowns in terms of the effects of the recession, loneliness, and unemployment on population well-being and mortality. I did not consider all of the other so-called `collateral damage' of lockdowns mentioned above. It turned out that the costs of lockdowns are at least 10 times higher than the benefits. That is, lockdowns cause far more harm to population well-being than COVID-19 can. It is important to note that I support a focused protection approach, where we aim to protect those truly at highrisk of COVID-19 mortality, including older people, especially those with severe co-morbidities and those in nursing homes and hospitals.

You studied the role modelling played in shaping public opinion. Can you break that down for us?

I think that the initial modelling and forecasting were inaccurate. This led to a contagion of fear and policies across the world. Popular media focused on absolute numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths independent of context. There has been a sheer one-sided focus on preventing infection numbers.

I found out that in Canada in 2018 there were over 23,000 deaths per month and over 775 deaths per day. In the world in 2019 there were over 58 million deaths and about 160,000 deaths per day. This means that on Nov. 21 this year, COVID-19 accounted for 5.23% of deaths in Canada (2.42% in Alberta), and 3.06% of global deaths. Each day in non-pandemic years over 21,000 people die from tobacco use, 3,600 from pneumonia and diarrhea in children under five years old, and 4,110 from tuberculosis. We need to consider the tragic COVID19 numbers in context.

Canada has already been going down the lockdown path for many months. What should be done now? How do we change course?

I believe that we need to take an “effortful pause” and reconsider the information available to us. We need to calibrate our response to the true risk, make rational cost-benefit analyses of the tradeoffs, and end the lockdown group think. Some considerations I have suggested elsewhere include the following:

■ We need to better educate ourselves on the risks and tradeoffs involved, and alleviate unreasonable fear with accurate information. We need to focus on cost-benefit analysis — repeated or prolonged lockdowns cannot be based on COVID-19 numbers alone.

■ We should focus on protecting people at high risk: people hospitalized or in nursing homes (e.g., universal masking in hospitals reduced transmission markedly), in crowded conditions (e.g., homeless shelters, prisons, large gatherings), and 70 years and older (especially with severe comorbidities) — don't lock down everyone, regardless of their individual risk.

■ We need to keep schools open because children have very low morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, and (especially those 10 years and younger) are less likely to be infected by, and have a low likelihood to be the source of transmission of, SARS-COV-2.

■ We should increase health-care surge capacity if forecasting, accurately calibrated repeatedly to realtime data (up to now, forecasting, even short-term, has repeatedly failed), suggests it is needed. With universal masking in hospitals, asymptomatic health care workers should be allowed to continue to work, even if infected, thus preserving the health-care workforce.

“Since lockdowns are a public health intervention, aiming to improve the population's well-being, we must consider both benefits of lockdowns, and costs of lockdowns on the population's well-being. Once I became more informed, I realized that lockdowns cause far more harm than they prevent.”

Dr. Ari Joffe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Canada dithers ,  south of us:

Delta Air Lines Receives $3bn In Additional Government Support

Delta Air Lines and the United States Department of the Treasury have reached an agreement for additional funding.…

Southwest To Receive Over $1.7bn In Government Support

Southwest Airlines will receive over $1.7 billion thanks to the latest extension of industry payroll support. The airline…
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Down to reality, Joe Public who only used the airlines for their vacations, really does not care if they exist or not. Those who live north of the 60th 

and rely upon airservices to provide emergency and supply transportation do care, so I suspect the Feds will look after the North South Services and provide some interprovincial subsidies. As far as long haul (transborder,interprovincial,  international etc except for cargo) that will be allowed to wither on the vine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...