Travel during the continuing PANDEMIC

[st27]

I realize the rules are to discourage travel but:

Quote

As Canada's airlines suspend flights to Mexico and the Caribbean, U.S. carriers including Delta Air Lines and American Airlines say they have no plans to stop offering service to sun destinations, raising questions about both the business fallout for domestic airlines and the measure's effectiveness for slowing the spread of COVID-19.

The testing mandate caused an immediate drop in flight bookings, airlines said, leading to additional layoffs. With the latest restrictions, experts say they expect further layoffs, along with potential bankruptcies, if government aid for the sector doesn't materialize.

The suspensions of flights to sun destinations will cost Air Canada, the country's largest carrier, around $200 million in lost revenue between now and April 30, industry analyst John Gradek said.

The flights that Canadian airlines continue to offer include trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific routes along which carriers transport cargo, a business that has become increasingly important to airlines' bottom lines as revenue from passenger sales dries up.

U.S. airlines such as Delta and American have received tens of billions of dollars in federal aid since the start of the pandemic. The government stimulus passed by the U.S. Congress in March 2020 included US$25 billion in payroll support for the industry, US$25 billion in loans for passenger airlines and more than US$10 billion in grants and loans for cargo airlines and aviation contractors.

 

I certainly hope the government will finally step up to the plate with support for the industry, or the us airlines will be all we have.

btw...AC will be laying off another 1000 f/as....I hope the link will be made that this is a result of the new restrictions.

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/u-s-airlines-offer-flights-to-sun-destinations-while-canadian-planes-sit-idle-1.5291025

[Guest1]

23 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

I'm not sure where you're getting that. There was, I believe, a shared belief in Oct./Nov. that the introduction of one or more vaccines was imminent and that we were close to turning the corner. Air Canada recalled cabin crew and we began to contemplate a return to a semblance of normalcy by early summer. The vaccines arrived....in many countries... and is being distributed. 

There was a surge at the end of December but that had been previously experienced with few Chicken Little squacks and the numbers indicate another levelling.

All that I know is that "our country 'tis of thee" failed to anticipate and act and is well behind the curve.

Florida is leading the way...right after West Virginia!!....in distributing and administering the vaccine.

I am on the appointment list and confirmed my eligibility. I am reasonably confident I will have both shots by the end of March. I would like to come home occasionally but I will forego the pleasure....and risk.

Things may change but one should plan based upon the known facts; contingency planning based upon the unknown is akin to pulling out the old "eight ball".....or visiting a seer.

rather than relying on a shared belief (by whom), I would suggest a crystal ball might be more useful when trying to outguess the pandemic and the various restrictions around the world. 

[FA@AC]

48 minutes ago, st27 said:

btw...AC will be laying off another 1000 f/as....I hope the link will be made that this is a result of the new restrictions.

Where did you hear of additional layoffs?  Not that it would be a surprise, but I’m not aware of any announcement having been made..

[st27]

Was relayed from a friend who just completed a flight. His info is usually accurate.

[boestar]

Here in Ontario they have ben reporting the numbers, which are trending lower, but are adding the fine print that this number includes "catch up" number from previous days.  This artificially inflates our daily numbers, again, which are trending ever lower.

The Governments Response...

Lets INCREASE restrictions.. 

Only the government can take something thats working and make it worse.

 

[J.O.]

1 hour ago, boestar said:

Here in Ontario they have ben reporting the numbers, which are trending lower, but are adding the fine print that this number includes "catch up" number from previous days.  This artificially inflates our daily numbers, again, which are trending ever lower.

The Governments Response...

Lets INCREASE restrictions.. 

Only the government can take something thats working and make it worse.

 

History is on their side. Last winter when the first cautions about the risks of travel were made public, many people saw it as "China's problem" and travelled anyways. We all know how that turned out vis-a-vis the 1st wave.

[Super 80]

I'm a little suspicious of the numbers because I suspect somebody who has been flouting the rules probably won't get tested even if they're sick.

[Guest1]

Search and menus

• Search and menus

1. Home
2.  
3. Decisions and determinations

Order No. 2021-A-2

February 1, 2021

 

APPLICATION by Air Canada also carrying on business as Air Canada Rouge and as Air Canada Cargo (Air Canada) and WestJet to extend Order No. 2020-A-185 to temporarily exempt domestic licence holders from the advance notice requirements of section 64 of Canada Transportation Act, SC 1996, c 10 (CTA).

 

Case number: 

21-00484

21-00731

 

BACKGROUND

On March 18, 2020, Air Canada applied to the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) for a temporary exemption from the provisions of section 64 of the CTA to permit it to suspend the operation of air services between points in Canada, as it considered necessary, without having to provide the normal 120 days of notice and engage in the consultations required by the CTA and the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58 (ATR).

By Order No. 2020-A-36, dated March 25, 2020 (Order), the Agency exempted all air carriers who hold a domestic licence from the provisions of section 64 of the CTA until June 30, 2020, on the condition that once the exemption ended, air carriers who had taken advantage of it to temporarily reduce or suspend services on certain routes immediately resume those services and follow all of the requirements of section 64 of the CTA if they wished to reduce or eliminate any services on a permanent basis.

On June 19, 2020, the Agency, by Order No. 2020-A-105, extended the period of the temporary exemption to October 15, 2020, and also permitted any carrier that, during the period Order No. 2020-A-105 was in effect, provided notice and engaged in discussions for a period of at least 60 days in a manner consistent with section 64 of the CTA and section 14 of the ATR to permanently discontinue or reduce service without the need to first resume that service or engage in further notice or consultation activities.

On October 15, 2020, the Agency, in Decision No. LET-A-66-2020, extended the period of the temporary exemption until March 31, 2021, and also permitted any carrier, during the period Order No. 2020-A-185 was in effect, to comply with paragraph 14(1)(b) of the ATR by publishing notices of suspension or discontinuance on its website and by establishing a dedicated webpage for this purpose that was easily accessible from its homepage. The Agency published the reasons for this Decision on November 20, 2020, in Order No. 2020‑A-185.

On January 13, 2021, WestJet requested that the Agency grant a further extension until August 31, 2021, or such longer period as the Agency may consider appropriate.

On January 20, 2021, Air Canada requested that the Agency grant a further extension until June 30, 2021, or such longer period as the Agency may consider appropriate, and that it also shorten the notice period to 15 days.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

Section 64 of the CTA requires, in part, that a licensee not implement a proposal to discontinue a domestic service referred to in subsection 64(1) of the CTA until the expiry of 120 days, or any shorter notice period that the Agency may specify by order, and that the licensee provide elected officials of the relevant municipal or local government with an opportunity to meet with the licensee to discuss the impacts of the proposed reduction or discontinuation of service.

Subsection 14(1) of the ATR provides that, for the purposes of subsection 64(1) of the CTA, a licensee proposing to discontinue or to reduce the frequency of a domestic service shall give notice of the proposal to the Agency, the Minister of Transport and the minister responsible for transportation in the province or territory where the area to be affected is located. Additionally, the licensee is required to advise holders of domestic licences operating in the area to be affected by the proposal and the persons resident therein, by publishing a notice in newspapers with the largest circulation in that area in each official language.

Pursuant to subsection 80(1) of the CTA, the Agency may, by order, on such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate, exempt a person from the application of section 64 of the CTA and section 14 of the ATR, where the Agency is of the opinion that

1. the person has substantially complied with the provision;
2. an action taken by the person is as effective as actual compliance with the provision; or
3. compliance with the provision by the person is unnecessary, undesirable or impractical.

SUBMISSION BY WESTJET

In support of its request for a further extension, WestJet indicates that since the Agency issued Decision No. LET‑A‑66-2020, it has suffered an additional drop in the demand for its services and its traffic and a corresponding decline in revenues as a result of the identification of new variants of COVID-19, increasing COVID-19 restrictions within provinces, territories, and municipalities; extended Canadian border restrictions; additional emergency orders under the Quarantine Act, SC 2005, c 20; and the announcement that passengers will be required to provide documentation of a negative COVID-19 test result prior to boarding a flight to Canada.

WestJet further states that it does not expect demand to resume for its suspended services by March 31, 2021, and that while it does not intend to permanently abandon any routes or airports, under the existing timeline requirements established by the Agency in Decision No. LET-A-66-2020, WestJet would have no choice but to provide notices of permanent suspension by January 30, 2021, which could create confusion and concern for its many stakeholders and may even hinder WestJet's return to those markets.

SUBMISSION BY AIR CANADA

Air Canada contends that it will not be in a position to re-establish its services under the terms of Decision No. LET‑A‑66-2020, as it is not in a position to operate routes that are not financially viable. Air Canada states that the persistent and prolonged effects of the pandemic, along with extended and new government measures and the public's perception of travel during the pandemic, have severely impacted demand for its services and have impacted its liquidity.

Air Canada also requests that the 60-day notification period in effect under Decision No. LET-A-66-2020 be further reduced to 15 days, as the current environment has profoundly changed all network planning and booking patterns.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to have major implications for the Canadian aviation industry. The negative impacts on domestic air carriers' passenger volumes and revenues and the challenges of managing their networks in the face of such declines and unpredictability make it impractical to require domestic air carriers to be subject to the full requirements of section 64 of the CTA and section 14 of the ATR.

In light of these circumstances, pursuant to section 80 of the CTA, the Agency finds it appropriate to provide a further exemption until August 31, 2021.

While the Agency recognizes that in the circumstances, there is some justification for further shortening the mandatory notice period for permanent service discontinuations or reductions, as Air Canada has sought, air carriers' challenges must be weighed against those faced by northern and remote communities, for whom air services often have particular significance. The Agency, therefore, finds it reasonable to shorten the notice period to 30 days rather than the 15 days requested by Air Canada.

CONCLUSION

The Agency extends the period of temporary exemption from the provisions of section 64 of the CTA and section 14 of the ATR for all carriers that hold a domestic licence, pursuant to section 80 of the CTA. Accordingly, air services may be or remain suspended without carriers having to provide the normal 120 days of notice or engage in the consultations, as required by those sections.

During the period this Order is in effect, a carrier:

• may permanently discontinue or reduce service without the need to first resume that service or engage in any further notice or consultation activities so long as it has provided notice for a period of at least 30 days in a manner consistent with section 64 of the CTA and section 14 of the ATR; and
• can comply with paragraph 14(1)(b) of the ATR by:

            a. publishing any notices of suspension, reduction or discontinuance on its website; andestablishing a dedicated webpage for this purpose that is easily accessible from its homepage.

            b. The exemptions and conditions contained in this Order will remain in effect until August 31, 2021.

Should there be no material change in the circumstances that gave rise to this Order as its end date approaches, the Agency will, on application, consider granting a further extension of this Order.

 

Member(s)

Scott Streiner

Elizabeth C. Barker

[boestar]

19 hours ago, Super 80 said:

I'm a little suspicious of the numbers because I suspect somebody who has been flouting the rules probably won't get tested even if they're sick.

In all honesty the reported Case numbers mean nothing on their own.  if you test 10 people and have 5 positive then you have 5 cases.  Without knowing the number of test 5 cases sounds pretty good.  problem is that its a 50% positivity rate.  Positivity rate is a number that many news organizations and the government do not give readily.  The reason for this is that it has never gone over 4.5% in Ontario.

For the last week or so they have been touting issues with the system tracking the data and the reported number include "catch up data" which means the daily case count is inflated with number from tests taken days ago.  again a number without context.  Without the catch up numbers added in Ontario is trending quickly downward.

The Downward Trend means that Fords Lockdown was a success and is working.  The problem is they have introduced further restrictions that are unnecessary which we will not see data from until late next week.

International Travel and related contact cases account for less than 2.5% of ALL cases of covid to date.  The focus on Travel is to point the finger at someone else because we couldnt possible be mismanaging this thing (<Sarcasm).  This is just to appease the public.  The travel restrictions will have little effect on case numbers but will kill a significant number of airline jobs, if not airlines.

 

[conehead]

23 minutes ago, boestar said:

 Positivity rate is a number that many news organizations and the government do not give readily.  The reason for this is that it has never gone over 4.5% in Ontario.

 

 

Not so. I see the positivity rates posted, they are not hidden. And at one point, it was over 20% in Brampton.

[boestar]

6 hours ago, conehead said:

Not so. I see the positivity rates posted, they are not hidden. And at one point, it was over 20% in Brampton.

Maybe in Brampton alone which I do not doubt but Ontario overall has been at or under 4% all along.  Its a big province.

Toronto, Peel and York are the areas that bring the numbers up.

Watch the news.  They rarely state the rate numbers just caases.  Yes the number is out there but they are pounding us with the larger number to be really scary.

 

[Kip Powick]

09 January 2021....

With over 39,100 tests completed the positivity rate for the province sits at 9.7 per cent. 

03 February 2021....

Ontario's network of labs completed 52,418 tests for the virus and recorded a test positivity rate of 3.3 per cent. The positivity rate has been trending downward in the weeks following a provincewide lockdown order that began on Dec. 26. 

[IFG]

2 hours ago, boestar said:

Maybe in Brampton alone which I do not doubt but Ontario overall has been at or under 4% all along.  Its a big province.

Toronto, Peel and York are the areas that bring the numbers up.

Watch the news.  They rarely state the rate numbers just caases.  Yes the number is out there but they are pounding us with the larger number to be really scary.

????? - Cheers, IFG

[Guest1]

4 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

09 January 2021....

With over 39,100 tests completed the positivity rate for the province sits at 9.7 per cent. 

03 February 2021....

Ontario's network of labs completed 52,418 tests for the virus and recorded a test positivity rate of 3.3 per cent. The positivity rate has been trending downward in the weeks following a provincewide lockdown order that began on Dec. 26. 

Perhaps but it is the positivity in the major centers of population that remains and should be the concern as without barriers to intra provincial travel the contagion could spread to the smaller communities.

[UpperDeck]

1 hour ago, Kip Powick said:

09 January 2021....

With over 39,100 tests completed the positivity rate for the province sits at 9.7 per cent. 

03 February 2021....

Ontario's network of labs completed 52,418 tests for the virus and recorded a test positivity rate of 3.3 per cent. The positivity rate has been trending downward in the weeks following a provincewide lockdown order that began on Dec. 26. 

It's all driving me crazy!!

Could we please start with the assumption that MOST are driven by the instinct for self-preservation. You don't WANT to get infected and die.

Each of us....most of us....have the ability to take steps to mitigate our risk.

The percentage of the population who cannot due to physical or mental frailty require the assistance of government.

A recent assessment established that the majority of air travellers today are well-educated; older; and, above the norm in household income.

They do NOT need the government's help.

So....are "we" trying to protect the traveller or the persons with whom the traveller comes into contact upon returning home?

Presumably....the "others". Who are they and why were they unable to protect themselves? Didn't they want to wear a mask or maintain social distance?

I believe we ought to be encouraged to take responsibility for our own actions.

Note....how much do ankle bracelets cost for monitoring purposes?

[Kip Powick]

38 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

 

Note....how much do ankle bracelets cost for monitoring purposes?

Depends....

Approximately ...... $540/month ($450 per month if on legal aid). Paid for by the wearer. Prices vary according to Province

[Guest1]

1 hour ago, UpperDeck said:

It's all driving me crazy!!

Could we please start with the assumption that MOST are driven by the instinct for self-preservation. You don't WANT to get infected and die.

Each of us....most of us....have the ability to take steps to mitigate our risk.

 

It seems that a lot but not most are not driven by the instinct for self-preservation but rather by their belief that they are somehow special and immune.  So those misguided folks become infected and then spread the virus to the rest of us, unless somehow prevented from doing so or made to observe basic precautions.  You only have to take a look at the increase in infection / deaths of those under 50 to confirm that

Quote

What is already known about this topic?

Early in the pandemic, COVID-19 incidence was highest among older adults.

What is added by this report?

During June–August 2020, COVID-19 incidence was highest in persons aged 20–29 years, who accounted for >20% of all confirmed cases. Younger adults likely contribute to community transmission of COVID-19. Across the southern United States in June 2020, increases in percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among adults aged 20–39 years preceded increases among those aged ≥60 years by 4–15 days.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Strict adherence to community mitigation strategies and personal preventive behaviors by younger adults is needed to help reduce infection and subsequent transmission to persons at higher risk for severe illness.

Changing Age Distribution of the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, May–August 2020 | MMWR (cdc.gov)

[st27]

Quote

Paid for by the wearer. Prices vary according to Province

Don’t want to ask how you know that, Kip

[UpperDeck]

3 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

It seems that a lot but not most are not driven by the instinct for self-preservation but rather by their belief that they are somehow special and immune.  So those misguided folks become infected and then spread the virus to the rest of us, unless somehow prevented from doing so or made to observe basic precautions.  You only have to take a look at the increase in infection / deaths of those under 50 to confirm that

Changing Age Distribution of the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, May–August 2020 | MMWR (cdc.gov)

You miss...or choose to ignore...my point.

First of all....most current air travellers are smarter than the average bear so as a group...they pose less risk. But there always a few that walk amongst us and you can protect yourself against them if so motivated by adhering to the clean; mask; distance protocol. Do that in your own best interests!! Don't rely upon others to " save" you.

When I approach an intersection in my vehicle....I always assume the other guy is going to screw up. Same when boating.

My wife and I go for a walk. We wear our masks. When someone approaches us on the sidewalk...we move off!! Overkill? Maybe but we are doing that which we mutually believe will mitigate our risk.

If the government persists in this hotel quarantine madness..I'll remain in Florida...to lessen my risk. And damn...I'll have to get someone 

[UpperDeck]

to go to our property and empty our fridge of the persishables we bought in anticipation of quarantine.

[boestar]

16 hours ago, IFG said:

????? - Cheers, IFG

No source given but does this include a correction for the "make up" numbers over the last several weeks?  The reported daily numbers from Toronto included number from previous days which skews the outcome.  Something to do with a software issue or some excuse.

 

[UpperDeck]

One or more of you can help me with numbers and percentages:

The GTAA reports in 2020 total transborder/int'll arriving and departing pax was 208,000. Assume 50% arriving= 104,000 or 8600 per month or 289 per day. That number is lower in 2021.

If 2.7% of travellers ... that's ALL travellers but let's just blame int'll/transborder....are infected that equals 8 people arriving in Toronto on average per day with Covid. BUT...that was before pre-arrival PCR testing.

Ontario is now reporting about 1700 cases per day but just assume over the month of January there were 2000 averaged per day. If 2.7% of all cases in Ontario were attributed to travellers that would be approximately 50 pax per day. Since we "know" 8 of those came from outside Canada then 42 were domestic travellers.

Houston....we have a problem!

NEXT....if there ARE an average of some 300 arrivals/day the proposed hotel quarantine rules would require 1000 rooms. Hey! If I'm paying $2000. I want my OWN room. I'm not sharing with my significant other!!

At 200 rooms per facility...that requires 5 hotels to sign on to "the plan". Are there that many "No tell motels" near the airport? Lol

 

 

 

[Guest1]

Police Remove Mask Refuser From Lufthansa A330 In Frankfurt

• byTom Boon  Police Remove Mask Refuser From Lufthansa A330 In Frankfurt - Simple Flying
• February 4, 2021
• 9 shares
  9

   

   
• 3 minute read

[Guest1]

Canada Will Use 'Security Companies' To Ensure Travellers Follow Quarantine Rules (msn.com)

[Airband]

5 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

Are there that many "No tell motels" near the airport?

Sounds like a party