Did Encore MEC insist on no back flow?

Discuss topics relating to Westjet.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
Biff
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:36 pm

Did Encore MEC insist on no back flow?

Post by Biff »

As mentioned in another post, there is a pretty strong rumour that it was the Encore MEC who rejected the bump and flush language in the failed LOU.

If this is true, the Encore pilots should be asking their MEC why the MEC insisted on this. If the flow down ability had been in the failed LOU, it would have passed.
---------- ADS -----------
 
JBI
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1064
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYC / LGA

Re: Did Encore MEC insist on no back flow?

Post by JBI »

Not true.

In past posts I've written pretty extensively about why the company had concerns about 'bumping' with the terms of the Mainline contract. Please reach out directly if you have questions or don't understand.

I really like all the mainline pilots I know. I literally have dozens of amazing friends that fly for mainline. I have the utmost respect for the hard work and dedication you guys/gals have worked through and the extreme challenges you have faced. I am a complete supporter. So with that positive and continued positive response to you guys, please take this as an extremely friendly plea - take a step back from all the rumours and gossip! While this particular rumour may deserve some clarification, some of the rumours that I hear from guys are so far fetched I can't figure out how educated and well trained professionals can actually think there's any truth to them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Biff
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:36 pm

Re: Did Encore MEC insist on no back flow?

Post by Biff »

JBI

This particular rumour started from one of our captains who claimed to hear it directly from our CEO. The captain is well respected with no reason to make it up.

If it’s not true the westjet/encore MECs should set us straight in writing. As it is now, if one believes this rumour, it would appear that the Encore MEC is indeed looking after its own pilots at the expense of Mainline pilots. Exactly what would be expected in any certified organization but not exactly aligned with the spirit of this LOU.

Again, please contact your MEC and get them to clarify this rumour before it runs away on us.
---------- ADS -----------
 
JBI
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1064
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYC / LGA

Re: Did Encore MEC insist on no back flow?

Post by JBI »

pm sent
---------- ADS -----------
 
lostaviator
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: Did Encore MEC insist on no back flow?

Post by lostaviator »

There’s always some truth to these rumours (minus the Dreamliner not fitting into the hanger rumour).

So where’s the truth in this one, or what did this get spun from?

The company is obviously concerned about the cost of training in the event of pilots “flowing back”, so fix that for them: Trade in your regional pilot incentive program.
---------- ADS -----------
 
JBI
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1064
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYC / LGA

Re: Did Encore MEC insist on no back flow?

Post by JBI »

lostaviator wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:46 pm There’s always some truth to these rumours (minus the Dreamliner not fitting into the hanger rumour).

So where’s the truth in this one, or what did this get spun from?

The company is obviously concerned about the cost of training in the event of pilots “flowing back”, so fix that for them: Trade in your regional pilot incentive program.
I once had a mainline Captain tell me that the dreamliner wasn't going to fit in the new hangar with such conviction that you would have thought Moses himself had come down from Mount Sinai with the hangar's blue prints showing him how poorly it had been designed.

Not really sure how/why/where this new rumour got spun. Trying to guess if someone heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another who's been messing around doesn't really help the situation.

With regard to what the company is concerned about, while I have no doubt costs play part of a role, I would argue that that's pretty minor compared to violating the CA. Please have a read through the linked thread viewtopic.php?f=36&t=131944&p=1077633#p1077633 (sorry, yes it's long).
---------- ADS -----------
 
DropTanks
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:56 am

Re: Did Encore MEC insist on no back flow?

Post by DropTanks »

.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by DropTanks on Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
aerobod
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:35 pm

Re: Did Encore MEC insist on no back flow?

Post by aerobod »

DropTanks wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:52 am The rumour was that the Dreamliner was supposed to fit in there with 1 or 2 737’s at the same time and that they screwed up so it can only fit 1 Dreamliner alone. We’ll never know but it sure sounds like another “flawless execution” from the head shed.
Not sure why these stupid rumours start. The real-estate guys had it spec'd for either the 787-9 or two 737 MAX9s (they were envisaged at the time, but that would still apply to the MAX10s that the order was later switched to), not both at the same time. The existing hangars in Calgary would not be able to take 2 MAX10s at the same time. Fitting in an extra 737 MAX7 in addition, is perhaps possible, but the main aim of the new hangar was to handle the larger aircraft in the fleet. Other hangar configs were discussed that would have been larger, but there is a severe limitation of size due to the sight-lines from the tower blocking the taxiway view, basically limiting the height and depth of the hangar to what has been built. Nothing screwed up in the size of the hangar that was built, plenty of detailed analysis went into it's design.

I'm not sure why many pilots think they know everything and everyone else is stupid, that very much falls into the same thinking of the president of a neighbouring county of ours :).

Another thing to bear in mind is that without a "headshed" there wouldn't be any jobs or income for any employees, there are good managers and bad managers everywhere, just the same that there are good pilots and bad pilots, too. Just because you don't understand why a decision was made doesn't mean that it wasn't the right decision.
---------- ADS -----------
 
fishface
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:20 pm

Re: Did Encore MEC insist on no back flow?

Post by fishface »

Hangar fits a 787 and at least 1 737... seen it myself
---------- ADS -----------
 
moe
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:20 pm

Re: Did Encore MEC insist on no back flow?

Post by moe »

You SEEN it?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DropTanks
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:56 am

Re: Did Encore MEC insist on no back flow?

Post by DropTanks »

.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “WestJet”