Passenger Rights

infiniteregulus · Post by **infiniteregulus** » Tue May 16, 2017 10:35 am

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-pass ... -1.3415794

Wonder how this will affect operating costs?...

Rupert_Pupkin · Post by **Rupert_Pupkin** » Tue May 16, 2017 11:39 am

infiniteregulus wrote:http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-pass ... -1.3415794

Wonder how this will affect operating costs?...

Hopefully the no bumping rule goes for Cons too

DrSpaceman · Post by **DrSpaceman** » Tue May 16, 2017 2:03 pm

I cannot believe how reactionary this administration has been. First the 2 person in cockpit rule, then the alcool incident and ensuing inquiry and now this?

Seems like all TC is good for now is weak PR following the story of the week...
Really disappointed in Garneau, expected more from an ex-astronaut.

aV1aTOr · Post by **aV1aTOr** » Tue May 16, 2017 4:09 pm

DrSpaceman wrote:I cannot believe how reactionary this administration has been. First the 2 person in cockpit rule, then the alcool incident and ensuing inquiry and now this?

Seems like all TC is good for now is weak PR following the story of the week...
Really disappointed in Garneau, expected more from an ex-astronaut.

Completely agree.

TheStig · Post by **TheStig** » Tue May 16, 2017 4:49 pm

DrSpaceman wrote:I cannot believe how reactionary this administration has been. First the 2 person in cockpit rule, then the alcool incident and ensuing inquiry and now this?

Seems like all TC is good for now is weak PR following the story of the week...
Really disappointed in Garneau, expected more from an ex-astronaut.

Lisa Raitt (Conservative) was at the helm for the 2 in the flight deck rule, which they had no trouble implementing over the course of a weekend. Flight Duty times on the other hand...speaking of which, for those here interested in improving aviation safety I've encourage you to visit this website, and sign the petition:

https://saferskies.ca/home

JohnnyHotRocks · Post by **JohnnyHotRocks** » Tue May 16, 2017 7:58 pm

http://www.cbaa-acaa.ca/CBAADocs/Safer% ... nsport.pdf

infiniteregulus · Post by **infiniteregulus** » Wed May 17, 2017 12:08 am

Haha ATAC, "safety is our primary concern" yet we're writing a letter to not increase safety with fatigue policy. ATAC is a joke...it's all about money.

NotDirty! · Post by **NotDirty!** » Wed May 17, 2017 8:14 am

infiniteregulus wrote:Haha ATAC, "safety is our primary concern" yet we're writing a letter to not increase safety with fatigue policy. ATAC is a joke...it's all about money.

Did you actually read their letter??? I thought it was actually quite well balanced (considering the source), and provided a legitimate argument that one size does not fit all when it comes to the aviation industry.

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Wed May 17, 2017 8:29 am

These rules are designed to manage fatigue on flights that can last 12 hours or more, but Transport Canada wants to impose the exact same rules on the fly-in fishing camp pilot.

Riiight, a 14 hour duty day on a busy 6 camp-change Saturday with unloading and loading at both ends is somehow less fatiguing than a 12 hour leg across the Pacific....

infiniteregulus · Post by **infiniteregulus** » Wed May 17, 2017 9:39 am

I don't see how one long-haul flight can be any more fatiguing than operating 10 legs in a day which is usually A LOT more work intensive, especially the smaller carriers with less automated machines and lenient CARS regs. I agree it shouldn't be a blanket policy, however, fatigue is fatigue is fatigue. Their "argument", when you read between the lines, is that it will cost them more as their crews will be less available to work per the new regs, regardless of safety, so they're obviously gonna defend it to the death. I just find their side hypocritical to be honest. Any sane person can conclude that the SAFER option is better rest requirements..rest requirements that THE ENTIRE REST OF THE PLANET follows hahaha.

lownslow · Post by **lownslow** » Wed May 17, 2017 4:21 pm

Can I waive my passenger rights and save like three bucks on my ticket?

Redneck_pilot86 · Post by **Redneck_pilot86** » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:34 pm

infiniteregulus wrote:I don't see how one long-haul flight can be any more fatiguing than operating 10 legs in a day which is usually A LOT more work intensive, especially the smaller carriers with less automated machines and lenient CARS regs. I agree it shouldn't be a blanket policy, however, fatigue is fatigue is fatigue. Their "argument", when you read between the lines, is that it will cost them more as their crews will be less available to work per the new regs, regardless of safety, so they're obviously gonna defend it to the death. I just find their side hypocritical to be honest. Any sane person can conclude that the SAFER option is better rest requirements..rest requirements that THE ENTIRE REST OF THE PLANET follows hahaha.

Can you see how 2 short flights, with 12 hours of sitting on the couch watching TV inbetween could be significantly less fatiguing?

sepia · Post by **sepia** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:08 am

Redneck_pilot86 wrote:
infiniteregulus wrote:I don't see how one long-haul flight can be any more fatiguing than operating 10 legs in a day which is usually A LOT more work intensive, especially the smaller carriers with less automated machines and lenient CARS regs. I agree it shouldn't be a blanket policy, however, fatigue is fatigue is fatigue. Their "argument", when you read between the lines, is that it will cost them more as their crews will be less available to work per the new regs, regardless of safety, so they're obviously gonna defend it to the death. I just find their side hypocritical to be honest. Any sane person can conclude that the SAFER option is better rest requirements..rest requirements that THE ENTIRE REST OF THE PLANET follows hahaha.
Can you see how 2 short flights, with 12 hours of sitting on the couch watching TV inbetween could be significantly less fatiguing?

Can you see how going back to your choice of recliners or beds in the temperature controlled bunk of a 777 and watching movies or sleeping for 1/2 of that 12hr flight, while having people bring you food and coffee is even less fatiguing?

I'm pretty sure anyone that's done both understands neither way escapes fatigue. Why on earth you'd argue to fatigue yourself is beyond me.

infiniteregulus · Post by **infiniteregulus** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:39 am

Work is work and that is fatiguing. You can lay in bed all day after waking up and doing nothing but stare at the ceiling, but eventually there's going to be a point in your supreme laziness where you can no longer remain awake (I can't say I've ever been THAT lazy). It's basic physiology. Humans eventually need rest, regardless of their activities. When you throw in more activities (work), more/sooner rest is required. So whether you're sitting in a cockpit chair or a 777 bunk, you're not fully rested. I can imagine that no captain is fully at ease when "resting" in the bunks with the responsibility on their shoulders. Or Medevac guys getting called at 11pm to work a shift, min rest, then back at it 1pm, etc.. They're clocks get COMPLETELY messed up with no regulatory provisions for time of day. I've been there and it completely destroys you. EVERY pilot needs rest protection, and the current rules are far too basic and archaic from instructor to pipeline to medevac to military to regional to mainline to astronaut pilots. I'm afraid ATAC has NO say in this whatsoever. Money and economics should never fully trump safety.
When are these new regs coming out anyway?

Passenger Rights

Passenger Rights

Re: Passenger Rights

Re: Passenger Rights

Re: Passenger Rights

Re: Passenger Rights

Re: Passenger Rights

Re: Passenger Rights

Re: Passenger Rights

Re: Passenger Rights

Re: Passenger Rights

Re: Passenger Rights

Re: Passenger Rights

Re: Passenger Rights

Re: Passenger Rights