Guest dirtyredhat Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Airline considers Toronto route cuts Toronto and Ottawa — Air Canada is contemplating a major reduction in service out of its Toronto hub after the World Health Organization recommended on Wednesday that passengers avoid the city because of SARS. Sources say the airline is considering the possibility of routing flights around Toronto, which is becoming a less attractive place to change planes for international passengers. This could see European passengers changing planes in secondary hubs such as Montreal or Halifax. Air Canada's market managers were told on Wednesday to consult with sales managers about how to cut capacity in response to the SARS warning, according to sources. The capacity reduction and schedule changes could be announced next week. Air Canada spokeswoman Laura Cooke said the airline is monitoring the situation very closely and will take action as warranted. Travel agents in other parts of the country say they have noticed a drop in bookings to Canada's largest city. "Anything touching Hong Kong, Beijing and Toronto is non-existent since this SARS thing came out," said Peter Husar, the owner of Sinclair Travel in Vancouver. He said customers flying to Europe from Vancouver are looking for routings that don't require them to change planes in Toronto. The severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak is impairing Air Canada's efforts to right itself. The airline filed for bankruptcy protection on April 1. The outbreak is also putting more pressure on Ottawa to come up with an air carrier relief package. Sources say federal cabinet ministers will be meeting next week to consider the elements of a possible aid plan. "We're starting to say to everybody: 'Look, you guys, this is fiddling while Rome is burning,' " said Cliff Mackay, president of the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC), which represents Canadian air carriers. "We're very concerned about the summer season, which is by far the most lucrative for the industry . . . and the news we had out of the WHO yesterday has not added any positives to it at all; if anything it's made it even more difficult." As The Globe and Mail has already reported, Ottawa is considering a moratorium on federal airport rents — which cost about $250-million last year — and air security charges, which are expected to top $400-million in 2003. Transport Minister David Collenette and Finance Minister John Manley are still at odds over the need for air industry relief and the two men are expected to try to work out their differences privately before a cabinet committee or full cabinet make any decisions. Sources say Ottawa is also considering lowering cross-border and international security charges in the same way it cut domestic security fees in February and is mulling over relief for Nav Canada — the country's air navigation agency — which is facing a shortfall in cash to cover expenses in the wake of Air Canada's filing for bankruptcy protection. Sources said Ottawa could agree to spare it some, or all, of the federal tax payable on a U.S. lease transaction through what's called a remission order. Air Canada has already announced capacity cuts of 15 per cent from its April and May schedules in response to SARS and the war in Iraq. Don Johnson, president of the Air Canada Pilots Association, said the union agreed on Wednesday to reduced hours and lower pay for the month of May. He said the company told the union it needed to cut the equivalent of 140 pilot jobs from its May schedule because SARS is frightening people from the skies — especially on long-haul routes. Mr. Johnson said the airline is reducing its flying on large aircraft. "We got a call from the company late [Wednesday] afternoon saying they'd cut a bunch of flying out and wanting us to agree to lessening the blocks . . . of flying the pilot does." Mr. Johnson said the union agreed to help the company for the month of May. Pilots will get paid for 70 hours of work, instead of the usual 72. ATAC vice-president Warren Everson said SARS is taking a "very serious" toll on Canada's airlines. While the most serious impact will be on Toronto, Mr. Everson said SARS fears will affect travel to other parts of Canada as well. "The closer you are to Toronto, the less likely you are to think of it as some sort of pariah city, but the further away you get, the more easy it is to lump all Ontario into Toronto and then all of Canada into Toronto," Mr. Everson said. Michel Leblanc, the president of Montreal-based Jetsgo Corp., said he has noticed a drop in bookings on his short-haul routes, especially Toronto-Montreal and Toronto-Ottawa. "We've heard some very precise comments from business travellers avoiding Toronto," Mr. Leblanc said. The Air Transport Association, which represents U.S. carriers, said SARS is having a major impact on overseas travel. The ATA said passenger traffic across to Pacific destinations for the week ended April 20 was down 39.6 per cent from the same period last year. Transatlantic travel was down 25.8 per cent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JW Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 >>instead of the usual 72<< Error! Misrepresentation of the situation and not a "fact". The "usual" is actually a work sharing agreement currently in place. There is NOTHING usual about 72 hours, nor win the current situation. First, be advised, for none airborne employees or readers of this forum, that the number of hours is for pay calculation only and not an indication of the actual number of hours on duty at work. With NO consideration at all for total time away from home per month, the monthly on duty time is still approximately 2/3's to double the pay flying time as quoted. Back to the "usual" comment. The work sharing agreement has been in place for many months, and was extended recently. That agreement did allow Air Canada to drop our pay down to as low as that PLUS a flex factor that will allow blocks to be built to as low as 65 hours. NOW, the MAX block month for May will be 70 hours with a flex to allow blocks to be built as LOW AS 63 hours. ...imo! JW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tri-spool Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Right on JW, In fact I believe the MMG is 78 hours, vs what AC pilots are currently being blocked and payed for. That in effect means a reduction of salary of 8-10%. Ouch! Cheers! I sure wish the media would get their !@#$ together! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JW Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Oopzzz! No edit facility on this board! Regarding duty time v flying time, I meant 1.67 x , to 2 x, of flying time. People that wish to twist the actual time at work for spin will use the flying time. That is the actual time that the doors are closed and engines running. Obviously there are things to be done before the aircraft moves, after it stops, and in between flights! Plus, the flex time we were utilizing not so long ago as a contractual let to Air Canada allowed us to fly 85 hour months to save Air Canada from having to hire pilots. The flexibility that has been offered from 85 hours down to close to 60 hours for pay purposes appears to have been disregarded by bashers of the AC unions - ACPA included. The FACTS are that we have a number of Letters of Understanding regarding contractual lets in place that have allowed a great deal of wiggle room for the company already, including under-hiring when times were good, and maintaining crews for the past while. I took a slight bit of flak last week when I posted that we should be concerned about SARS, but not to become hysterical. I believe that we have seen the results of the hysteria now, and YYZ, and the economy of Canada will suffer for that. My gut feeling is that we are missing something in this picture. Why is there such a hysterical reaction? What happened to the Norwalk virus? What are your chances of being shot in a US city? What are your odds of being killed in a car accident? Seven people were killed in a shopping mall blowing up yesterday! All random. Seven months and there are about 3,000 cases of SARS worldwide. If you look at historical data about ARSS, influenza and pneumonia related deaths in nursing homes - even of closures of nursing homes during cold and flu season - you will see that there is nothing new about a high mortality rate in the elderly or people with other morbidity. There is a lack of perspective here, fostered once again by a sensationalizing press. The W.H.O has gone the way of the U.N in institionalizing a blunder, then refusing to reconsider due to hubris. I am far more concerned about West Nile virus - but then, that is a problem of the USA, too. Does anyone remember the Dengue Fever outbreaks in Maui over the past two winters? ...imo! JW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JW Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Aaannd, one more thing about diseases and politics... We hear about AIDS in Africa. We don't hear much about the incredible rate of AIDS in the Caribbean do we? ...imo! JW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Jim, It surprised me that the WHO put Toronto on a travel advisory. But then, I'm not an expert in communicable diseases nor am I closely familiar with the situation in that city. However, from my layman's understanding of how a virus such as SARS works, I believe that some of your comments and analogies do not reflect the reality nor the necessary level of concern. For a start, people need to stop comparing the risk of catching SARS with the risk associated with other ways of dying, particularly other non-communicable diseases. Making a comparison like that hides one of main problems with any communicable disease: it spreads! Death by gunshot in Miami is a fixed risk; it does not change. Your risk of dying in a car accident does not affect your neighbour's chance of dying in a crash. Pneumonia is not a communicable disease; it doesn't jump from ward to ward in a hospital, infecting health care workers and other patients. Communicable diseases of this sort can increase geometrically. In a few months, you may only have a few thousand cases. A few months later, you may have tens of thousands. A year later, many millions of people can be affected. Long before that point is reached, you have lost all hope of CONTAINMENT of the disease. If you can stop the spread early, and confine the cases, you have a good chance of stopping the spread. If you don't, the virus multiplies in the population at an overwhelming rate. The horses are out of the barn then, and you cannot put them back. But why be so picky about stopping this particular virus? What's so nasty about SARS? A couple of things, at least. One obviously is that there is no cure. But perhaps the more critical issue is that this particular virus belongs to a family that is highly mutagenic: it alters its genetic form rapidly. It replicates itself about every 20 minutes in the human body; the virus you receive may not be the virus you transmit. Even now we are seeing symptoms of the disease change; we are seeing an increasing death rate; we are seeing otherwise healthy, young people perish from the disease. These can be (but aren't necessarily caused by) mutations of the virus attacking in different ways. The risk is that at some point the virus mutates into a disease that doesn't just kill 5-7% of its victims, but kills at a far higher rate. My overall point is that the disease is a concern because of its POTENTIAL for disaster, not because of the limited number of cases that have died so far. AIDS, for all its deadliness, is not an easily communicable disease. SARS is highly communicable AND mutagenic. That is a combination with potentially grave results. I think we as pilots can draw parallels on containment of the SARS risk to our own profession. For example, what are the chances that you will have an engine failure of a transport category jet aircraft at a critical moment during take-off? The statistical risk is microscopic, yet we train repeatedly for it. That's because if you don't handle it right, the potential for a subsequent disaster is great. Likewise with the SARS situation. AT THE MOMENT, the risk is small. But if they don't handle it right, the POTENTIAL for disaster rises quickly. Best wishes, neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Jim, It surprised me that the WHO put Toronto on a travel advisory. But then, I'm not an expert in communicable diseases nor am I closely familiar with the situation in that city. However, from my layman's understanding of how a virus such as SARS works, I believe that some of your comments and analogies do not reflect the reality nor the necessary level of concern. For a start, people need to stop comparing the risk of catching SARS with the risk associated with other ways of dying, particularly other non-communicable diseases. Making a comparison like that hides one of main problems with any communicable disease: it spreads! Death by gunshot in Miami is a fixed risk; it does not change. Your risk of dying in a car accident does not affect your neighbour's chance of dying in a crash. Pneumonia is not a communicable disease; it doesn't jump from ward to ward in a hospital, infecting health care workers and other patients. Communicable diseases of this sort can increase geometrically. In a few months, you may only have a few thousand cases. A few months later, you may have tens of thousands. A year later, many millions of people can be affected. Long before that point is reached, you have lost all hope of CONTAINMENT of the disease. If you can stop the spread early, and confine the cases, you have a good chance of stopping the spread. If you don't, the virus multiplies in the population at an overwhelming rate. The horses are out of the barn then, and you cannot put them back. But why be so picky about stopping this particular virus? What's so nasty about SARS? A couple of things, at least. One obviously is that there is no cure. But perhaps the more critical issue is that this particular virus belongs to a family that is highly mutagenic: it alters its genetic form rapidly. It replicates itself about every 20 minutes in the human body; the virus you receive may not be the virus you transmit. Even now we are seeing symptoms of the disease change; we are seeing an increasing death rate; we are seeing otherwise healthy, young people perish from the disease. These can be (but aren't necessarily caused by) mutations of the virus attacking in different ways. The risk is that at some point the virus mutates into a disease that doesn't just kill 5-7% of its victims, but kills at a far higher rate. My overall point is that the disease is a concern because of its POTENTIAL for disaster, not because of the limited number of cases that have died so far. AIDS, for all its deadliness, is not an easily communicable disease. SARS is highly communicable AND mutagenic. That is a combination with potentially grave results. I think we as pilots can draw parallels on containment of the SARS risk to our own profession. For example, what are the chances that you will have an engine failure of a transport category jet aircraft at a critical moment during take-off? The statistical risk is microscopic, yet we train repeatedly for it. That's because if you don't handle it right, the potential for a subsequent disaster is great. Likewise with the SARS situation. AT THE MOMENT, the risk is small. But if they don't handle it right, the POTENTIAL for disaster rises quickly. Best wishes, neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 SARS is not highly pathogenic. If so, all or most of the people exposed to it in the community here - in the religious community, in the Highland funeral home, in the Go train - would be sick. The SARS case who drove to Montreal and attended a financial seminar with 400 people would have infected dozens, if not hundreds of people (none were infected). The nurse who rode the Go train - no infections. The 1918 flu pandemic was highly pathogenic. Twenty-two million deaths in just two years. And with a 1.5% mortality rate, actual infection numbers had to be stratospheric. The 16 SARS fatalities had an average age of 74. Most cases were traced a long time ago to instances of considerable exposure - the SARS index case who brought the disease from Asia, family members who ministered to the SARS index case, doctors who ministered to the SARS index case, an elderly patient at Scarborough Grace Hospital who was lying for four hours beside the SARS index patient, the wife of that elderly patient who picked up the disease from her husband after he was discharged from hopital, nurses and other doctors who treated SARS patients. Only a handful of cases were traceable to transmission outside the health care system. The initial index case was mistaken for a TB patient. Had the Chinese not covered up SARS for four months, we would have had a much better sense of what to expect. If a new index patient gets off a plane from Asia, it is inconceivable that it would result in 16 deaths or the quarantine of 7000 people. I don't want to minimize the danger. SARS may be here to stay and we will certainly have to devote more money for resources both at our airports/borders and in our hospitals to ensure than outbreaks in North America are well contained. I am far more troubled by the SARS situation in China and fear it will work its way through underdeveloped countries with fearful consequences. Here, however, I am more afraid of West Nile because that illness can literally bite me while I sit on my deck and it has a comparable mortality rate. Deet and long sleeves are no absolute guaranteed. SARS, I can avoid by being prudent, even wearing a mask if I had to. I wash my hands often. What can I do about West Nile beyond holing up in my house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 For the facts, one should visit http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/sars-sras/prof_e.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 If your understanding is that SARS has little ability to cause disease (pathogenic), then your understanding is different than mine. There are published occurences that indicate the virus is highly communicable, and that of those infected a high number come down with it. (Hong Kong) And I'd like to repeat, one of the great risks associated with the virus is its ability to mutate. Once the virus is in the population, the mutations increase geometrically along with its spread. A little while down the road, you could have something that is more lethal than what we sre currently experiencing in Canada. There is some evidence that this has already happened in Hong Kong, although the authorities there are not sure at this point. The initial deaths in Hong Kong were also elderly and compromised by other health issues. Then young and otherwise healthy people started dying. Do not discount this virus's ability to kill. West Nile is a nasty bug, too, but as far as I know, the virus has one vector: the bite of an infected mosquito. At this point, the authorities do not seem to have a handle on all the ways SARS can be transmitted, however it would appear that those ways are far more ubiquitous than infected mosquitos. How many times are you bitten by a mosquito in a year? How many times do you put your hand on a door knob? I don't know if the YYZ travel advisory was an over-reaction, because I have no qualifications to judge the matter. But I do believe that caution is advisable. And I also believe that many people are assessing the risk associated with SARS by comparing it to other risks which do not share similarities with this disease. I don't think that's going to help anyone. The Globe & Mail editorial said yesterday that while they thought the WHO advisory was unnecessary, they recognized that being in denial (or even sounding like we're in denial) about this disease only makes matters worse. I agree. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Continuous Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 >> What can I do about West Nile beyond holing up in my house? << Next time into a Canadian Tire store, ask for the Winnipeg strength, deep woods OFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.