5T and 7F?

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

Post Reply
Message
Author
A V I A T O
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:07 pm

5T and 7F?

#1 Post by A V I A T O » Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:31 am

Its been a couple of years since ive seen posted ads for either of these companies looking for flight crews.

Any idea as to if they will start hiring again due to retirements, attrition, new work or all of the above? Or are there still too many furloughed crews to get back before the need for new hires arises.

During my days in exile in YFB 5T and 7F looked like a great gig to aim for. Though that was during an era of favorable economic conditions.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
brooks
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:33 pm

Re: 5T and 7F?

#2 Post by brooks » Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:35 pm

Last I heard from a friend at CDN was that he could barely hold his Dash8 Capt spot. I think with the New Leaf flying things are holding steady but they do have some guys on voluntary LOA.
---------- ADS -----------

dhc#
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 253
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 7:38 am

Re: 5T and 7F?

#3 Post by dhc# » Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:16 pm

Both airlines are ramping up service and going back to their old "MANO A MANO" battle for passengers in the arctic, once their code share is done in May. Should be interesting.

From the 7F website, part of the 7F's president's message.

"We introduced a fourth Boeing 737-400 to our fleet plus newer, quieter, more comfortable and more fuel-efficient ATR 42-500s. The ATR 42-500 offers many improvements in performance and passenger comfort including high powered engines, a newly designed cabin, and increased cruise speed. With the introduction of the 500 series, some ATR 42-300s are being upgraded to full freighter aircraft, offering increased capacity and flexibility for our cargo customers.

From December 2016, our passenger service schedules in the East are being adjusted to accommodate the newer higher capacity ATR42-500 aircraft. Two stations in the Baffin region, Pangnirtung and Clyde River, will continue to be served by the ATR 42-300s for both passenger and cargo services, as the ATR42-500 is unable to operate at these locations due to the short runways.

In the Western Arctic, the ATR42-500s will start daily service to Inuvik and Norman Wells from Edmonton and Yellowknife commencing May 2017. Service to Cambridge Bay will transfer from being a codeshare service to being operated by our own ATR42-500 aircraft. Our Yellowknife-Rankin Inlet-Iqaluit service will operate on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday using regional jets operated by our partner, Summit Air."

And regarding 5T's post code share schedule plan.

http://www.canadiannorth.com/post-codeshare
---------- ADS -----------

Donald
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1981
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: 5T and 7F?

#4 Post by Donald » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:52 pm

What isn't mentioned, is that the ATR42-500's they begged the government to buy them (sorry loan them the money to buy), aren't possible to combi.

In other words, major mistake.
---------- ADS -----------

dhc#
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 253
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 7:38 am

Re: 5T and 7F?

#5 Post by dhc# » Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:45 am

Article below suggests that this...

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/a ... ian_north/

Was caused by this...

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/a ... ummit_air/

Never a dull moment in the airline soap opera up north.
---------- ADS -----------

pelmet
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2797
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 5T and 7F?

#6 Post by pelmet » Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:00 am

Donald wrote:What isn't mentioned, is that the ATR42-500's they begged the government to buy them (sorry loan them the money to buy), aren't possible to combi.

In other words, major mistake.
How come the ATR's are not allowed to be converted into combi's?
---------- ADS -----------

spruceair
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:16 pm

Re: 5T and 7F?

#7 Post by spruceair » Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:53 am

pelmet wrote:
Donald wrote:What isn't mentioned, is that the ATR42-500's they begged the government to buy them (sorry loan them the money to buy), aren't possible to combi.

In other words, major mistake.
How come the ATR's are not allowed to be converted into combi's?
Maybe no STC exists yet? Thats my guess..
---------- ADS -----------

godsrcrazy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:12 pm

Re: 5T and 7F?

#8 Post by godsrcrazy » Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:54 am

I don't believe the old ATR's were combi certified when they bought them.They did the design applied for and acquired there own STC. Don't count out the 500's not getting an STC. Staying that i don't believe there is a gravel certification for a 737-400 is there ?
---------- ADS -----------

Minimums
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:08 pm

Re: 5T and 7F?

#9 Post by Minimums » Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:11 am

godsrcrazy wrote:Staying that i don't believe there is a gravel certification for a 737-400 is there ?
No, there is not, nor will there ever be in the future (From a guy who knows a guy, who's spoke with someone loosely related to a Boeing engineer). Lack of demand/cost benefit/risk analysis, etc.

Either Pull a joe and keep the old 200's in the air until no more parts exist, find another platform (146's?), or stick with prop's. Seems like 7F is going with the latter.
---------- ADS -----------

plhought
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Calgary

Re: 5T and 7F?

#10 Post by plhought » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:28 am

I think the communities and airlines should be lobbying government and paving these gravel surfaces. It's evident that the -200s cant last forever, and despite growing interest in a gravel equipped 146/Avro RJ - it will never beat a 737-200.

Alaska had a big push a decade ago to really improve it's airports as a result of Alaska Airlines retiring it's -200s. I'm surprised we haven't seen the same here.

Compare our facilities in the north to similar sparsely-populated regions in Norway and Greenland...

As for 5T and 7F - the cycle continues. Back to the old days of neck-and-neck competition. A good and bad thing I suppose.
---------- ADS -----------

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: 5T and 7F?

#11 Post by fish4life » Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:33 am

The communities that aren't paved don't have big enough populations to justify a jet. Also paving runways in the arctic is more detrimental most of the time the gravel runways were actually nicer and much less slippery. Rankin always ends up slippery limiting the ability of the jet service in there as it is whereas a gravel runway wouldn't have these problems. Building paved runways on permafrost requires putting styrofoam underneath the pavement so the runway doesn't melt underneath and sink into the abyss but the downside is a runway that is constantly frost covered and slick, you can't even apply chemical to help because it's too damn cold as well.
---------- ADS -----------

Kosiw
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 593
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:12 pm

Re: 5T and 7F?

#12 Post by Kosiw » Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:06 pm

Wasn't YRT paved when it became an FOL for the CF 18s ?

How about first expanding the ramps at some northern airports...things can get tight when everyone is waiting to park at the fuel cabinets and/or having overlapping sked times...

And regarding paved arctic runways, look at Thule Greenland....they paint it white every summer, as a means of keeping the asphalt from getting hot in the 24 hr summer daylight and melting the permafrost underneath.

Combi vs straight freighter ops up north....there are both positives and negative arguments for both.

Even the ATR 72 is becoming popular as a straight freighter as Summit Air now has at least one SF and Air Inuit along with Bombardier is developing their own STC for a big cargo door on Dash 8 300s for SF ops...the days of the B737 200 up north will probably end sooner rather than later....especially if the price of fuel goes back up.
---------- ADS -----------
Gravity always wins

Minimums
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:08 pm

Re: 5T and 7F?

#13 Post by Minimums » Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:51 pm

plhought wrote: It's evident that the -200s cant last forever, and despite growing interest in a gravel equipped 146/Avro RJ - it will never beat a 737-200.
They can't last forever? Surely enough old airframes out there between 5T and 7F that they can keep them going for a while longer. Joe has been doing it successfully for years. Don't forget les Nolinor..



And for the little bit of reading I've done, aren't the larger 146's have the same payload and ranges as the 200's, in a newer airframe, approaching at slower speeds? Seems like an obvious solution if you've gotta have a jet....or sit in the back of a prop job for hours on end...
---------- ADS -----------

dhc#
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 253
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 7:38 am

Re: 5T and 7F?

#14 Post by dhc# » Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:21 pm

Anyone know how many dash 8s 5T plans to add to their fleet for their new post code share schedule ?

Pre code share they had 4 operating, currently only showing 2 in the fleet.
---------- ADS -----------

pelmet
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2797
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 5T and 7F?

#15 Post by pelmet » Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:59 pm

Kosiw wrote:How about first expanding the ramps at some northern airports...things can get tight when everyone is waiting to park at the fuel cabinets and/or having overlapping sked times...
Kosiw wrote:
How about first expanding the ramps at some northern airports...things can get tight when everyone is waiting to park at the fuel cabinets and/or having overlapping sked times...
Talk about good timing for your opinion.....

"Date: 2017-01-25 Time: 15:15:00 UTC
C-GKLB, un ATR-42-300 exploité par First Air, effectuait le vol FAB7820 selon les règles de vol aux instruments depuis Iqaluit, NU (CYFB) à destination de Pond Inlet, NU (CYIO) avec seulement 2 pilotes à bord. Alors qu’il se stationnait à CYIO à l’aide d’un signaleur aux aires, le déperditeur de potentiel du bout de l’aile droite a percuté le déperditeur de potentiel du bout de l’aile droite de CFTIR, un ATR-42-500 également exploité par First Air, qui était déjà stationné et immobile. Il n’y a eu aucun dommage structurel et les 2 appareils ont quitté CYIO en vertu de la liste d'équipement minimal (MEL)."


Direct google translation into english with no corrections....

"C-GKLB, an ATR-42-300 operated by First Air, flew instrument flight rules FAB7820 from Iqaluit, NU (CYFB) to Pond Inlet, NU (CYIO) with only 2 pilots on board. While stationing at CYIO with a signaler at the areas, the potential stripper at the end of the right wing struck the potential stripper at the tip of the right wing of CFTIR, An ATR-42-500 also operated by First Air, which was already stationary and stationary. There was no structural damage and both aircraft left CYIO under the Minimum Equipment List (MEL)."


As much as I like the talk about strippers, I think this means that the aircraft hit each other.
---------- ADS -----------

Meatinaseat
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:12 am

Re: 5T and 7F?

#16 Post by Meatinaseat » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:03 am

The ramp area at YIO is fairly huge compared to most though...
---------- ADS -----------

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: 5T and 7F?

#17 Post by fish4life » Sun Feb 19, 2017 3:56 pm

Meatinaseat wrote:The ramp area at YIO is fairly huge compared to most though...

It is tight when trying to get 2 ATR's beside each other at the fuel pumps though
---------- ADS -----------

BaffinBushPilot57
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:02 pm

Re: 5T and 7F?

#18 Post by BaffinBushPilot57 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:23 pm

[quote]Direct google translation into english with no corrections....
pelmet wrote:
"C-GKLB, an ATR-42-300 operated by First Air, flew instrument flight rules FAB7820 from Iqaluit, NU (CYFB) to Pond Inlet, NU (CYIO) with only 2 pilots on board. While stationing at CYIO with a signaler at the areas, the potential stripper at the end of the right wing struck the potential stripper at the tip of the right wing of CFTIR, An ATR-42-500 also operated by First Air, which was already stationary and stationary. There was no structural damage and both aircraft left CYIO under the Minimum Equipment List (MEL)."

As much as I like the talk about strippers, I think this means that the aircraft hit each other./quote]

Perhaps google needs to take one of those French courses so as to give a credible translation and not cloud the facts.


017-02-03
Narrative:
TSB Report #A17A0005: A First Air ATR-42-300 (C-GKLB/FAB7820) was on an IFR flight from Iqaluit (CYFB), NU, to Pond Inlet (CYIO), NU, with only two pilots on board. While it was parking at CYIO with the help of an aircraft marshaller, the static wick at the end of the right wing struck the static wick at the end of the right wing of a First Air ATR 42-500 (C-FTIR), which was already parked and stationary. There was no structural damage and the two aircraft left CYIO in accordance with the minimum equipment list (MEL).

Like two cats passing in a narrow hallway and their whiskers touching each other, there was no physical contact here. Mind you, too damn close regardless!

JS
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
complexintentions
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1754
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: 5T and 7F?

#19 Post by complexintentions » Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:41 pm

I agree the translation was confusing. I did some flying up north and I can attest there are definitely not many potential strippers up there. :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.

pelmet
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2797
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 5T and 7F?

#20 Post by pelmet » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:30 pm

BaffinBushPilot57 wrote:
Direct google translation into english with no corrections....
pelmet wrote:
"C-GKLB, an ATR-42-300 operated by First Air, flew instrument flight rules FAB7820 from Iqaluit, NU (CYFB) to Pond Inlet, NU (CYIO) with only 2 pilots on board. While stationing at CYIO with a signaler at the areas, the potential stripper at the end of the right wing struck the potential stripper at the tip of the right wing of CFTIR, An ATR-42-500 also operated by First Air, which was already stationary and stationary. There was no structural damage and both aircraft left CYIO under the Minimum Equipment List (MEL)."

As much as I like the talk about strippers, I think this means that the aircraft hit each other./quote]

Perhaps google needs to take one of those French courses so as to give a credible translation and not cloud the facts.


017-02-03
Narrative:
TSB Report #A17A0005: A First Air ATR-42-300 (C-GKLB/FAB7820) was on an IFR flight from Iqaluit (CYFB), NU, to Pond Inlet (CYIO), NU, with only two pilots on board. While it was parking at CYIO with the help of an aircraft marshaller, the static wick at the end of the right wing struck the static wick at the end of the right wing of a First Air ATR 42-500 (C-FTIR), which was already parked and stationary. There was no structural damage and the two aircraft left CYIO in accordance with the minimum equipment list (MEL).

Like two cats passing in a narrow hallway and their whiskers touching each other, there was no physical contact here. Mind you, too damn close regardless!

JS
OK...I suppose that the static wick perhaps has something to do with electric potential. Perhaps mounted on a metal strip.

Just shows how talking to someone in a language that they only half understand can get you in trouble. Imagine you are in the terminal talking to the linguistically challenged captain of this flight and he says that hr has a very keen F/O, who happens to be a particularly beautiful young lady, that would really like some detailed information about potential stripping. She walks up a few minutes later and your very first question... :orcass: ....gets you a sexual harassment suit.
---------- ADS -----------

Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”