$10.00 ?

Ryan Coke · Post by **Ryan Coke** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:08 pm

Of course, what you seem to be saying, is that no where does it say it is prohibited either, correct?

double-j · Post by **double-j** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:01 pm

Whoa...big surprise there. It appears that WJ DOES comply with the CARs. regulations after all. Dispite all the jabs and inuendoes from a certain someone?

jj

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 3:20 am

Ryan Coke wrote:Of course, what you seem to be saying, is that no where does it say it is prohibited either, correct?

I'm told the revised CARS version is either going to correct this oversight or throw the doors wide open as no one understands the 'intend' of the current CARS and is willing to admit it. However CATSA has the last word if you can find anyone in Ottawa with enough balls to make a decision. ..Oh did I mention that Homeland Security has an interest in this as TC jumps on command.

Cat must be laughing his head off at this one it seems something's never change..

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 3:42 am

jazzy-j wrote:Whoa...big surprise there. It appears that WJ DOES comply with the CARs. regulations after all. Dispite all the jabs and inuendoes from a certain someone?

jj

The expert that I had contact with, said in his opinion neither WJ or JAZZ were in compliance with the current CARS and that is why ACPA filed an complaint. There are under the table deals going on and there shouldn't be.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:43 am

Rebel

I looked at the document in the ACPA website, here is a portion of the CAR they refer too. I have highlighted the ambiguous parts.

(3) No person shall be admitted to the flight deck of an aeroplane other than
(amended 2002/03/21; previous version)

(a) a flight crew member;

(b) a crew member performing their duties;

(c) an inspector referred to in subsection (1);

(d) in accordance with the procedures specified in the company operations manual,
(i) an employee of the air operator who is not a crew member performing their duties, and
(ii) a pilot, flight engineer or flight attendant employed by a wholly owned subsidiary or a code share partner of the air operator; and

(e) a person who has expertise related to the aeroplane, its equipment or its crew members and who is required to be in the flight deck to provide a service to the air operator.

(4) The air operator shall verify
(amended 2002/03/21; previous version)

(a) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (3)(d) or (e), the identity of the person by means of a personal photo identification issued by the air operator, its wholly owned subsidiary, its code share partner or a foreign government or a restricted area pass as defined in the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, and

(b) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (3)(d), the fact that

(i) the person is currently employed by the air operator, or by a wholly owned subsidiary or code share partner of the air operator; and

(ii) no seat is available for the person in the passenger compartment.

(5) No person referred to in paragraph (3)(d), except an employee of the air operator who is undergoing the aircraft cockpit familiarization required for the performance of their duties, shall be admitted to the flight deck if a seat is available in the passenger compartment.
(amended 2002/03/21; no previous version)
ACPA Jumpseat memo.......
As you can see above, it is quite clear who can actually ride in your flightdeck. It is also important to note, that only employees who are "performing a duty" for the company as specified in your FOM, can ride the Flightdeck; ie contract instructors completeing their annual FAM flights.............

See, I read it differently. an employee of the air operator who is not a crew member performing their duties is just that. Not a crew member and a contract instructor is not even an employee of Air Canada he/she is a contractor and doesn't even hold an MOT pass. So I think someone has their wires crossed which is why AC is following the road less travelled.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 6:38 am

Jaques Strappe wrote:Rebel

So I think someone has their wires crossed which is why AC is following the road less travelled.

Perhaps the less traveled road is the prudent choice in this case. I can foresee the problem with Home Security if you flight plan a point to point Canadian flight with an U.S. alternate and then 'whatever' causes you to land at the alternate. Are you even legal to flight plan a U.S. alternate with an employee on the flight deck? We've suddenly got into lawyer territory.

On a stretch you could make the same argument again point to point Canadian but operational considerations cause you to operate in U.S. air space. This happens quite a bit. Homeland doesn’t have a sense of humor..

Machiavelli · Post by **Machiavelli** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:15 pm

Rebel (without a clue), take the safest route and stay at home under the covers. If no one moves, no one gets hurt right?

How about admitting that you were wrong again, big boy?

Then, take your holier-than-thou Air Canada "pilot experience" attitude and shove it right up your ass with a red-hot poker. You embarass yourself and all those that might actually work for ACE. Your heightened sense of superiority suggests insecuritites elsewhere...

For all to see, witness Rebel, the problem with ACE. Must be management.

"One feels like crawling on all fours after reading your work." Voltaire to Rousseau but equally applicable to Rebel.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:02 pm

Machiavelli

Hmm the intelligent experienced pilots know what I’m talking about and the inexperienced stupid ones, well you should look in the mirror..

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 4:02 pm

How about admitting that you were wrong again, big boy?

He has a point, Rebel. There's no shame in admiting that you learned something about Westjet or one of Westjet's policies. Are you man enough to do that or are you going to continue being the arrogant "experienced" pilot you claim to be?

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 4:58 pm

CanadaEH wrote:
He has a point, Rebel. There's no shame in admiting that you learned something about Westjet or one of Westjet's policies. Are you man enough to do that or are you going to continue being the arrogant "experienced" pilot you claim to be?

CanadaEH

Please tell me what I’ve learned about WJ? My ACPA experts have told me in their opinion WJ is in violation of the current jump seat CARS and TC has a fix in the works. This is one that I hope WJ wins as the consequences could affect all of us. Homeland security and how they view the problem could be problematic as they wag the dog.. End of story..

The rest of your remarks well I just consider the source...

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 5:32 pm

Please tell me what I’ve learned about WJ? My ACPA experts have told me in their opinion WJ is in violation of the current jump seat CARS and TC has a fix in the works. This is one that I hope WJ wins as the consequences could affect all of us. Homeland security and how they view the problem could be problematic as they wag the dog.. End of story..

The rest of your remarks well I just consider the source...

What you've learned is that Westjet is following an approved jumpseat policy. You thought we were violating CARS where we were not. Telling me that there is a "fix" or to "watch out" is nothing more than a hollow threat. You were wrong, and you still fail to admit that.

Flapsforty · Post by **Flapsforty** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:59 pm

Rebel,

You should not concern yourself regarding WJ policy. If we are doing something wrong the good people at TC will correct our ways. If ACPA chooses a different path, so be it. I could care less what your jumpseat policy is because I don't have to live with it. You really shouldn't care about ours, because you don't have to live with it.

Cheers.

B612 · Post by **B612** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:14 pm

A legal opinion is exactly that, you guys don't need to be rude to Rebel for telling what he's heard and thinks. Nobody is proven right or wrong here yet, and I agree with Rebel that I hope the WJ jumpseat policy becomes standard. What is currently occuring has no bearing on what the law actually says, only on how it is interpreted (there is a BIG difference). That is why lawyers are disliked, normal people don't understand legalese, and pilots definately can't.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:35 pm

On aslightly different topic, why is it that WJ refuses to enter the reciprical jumpseat agreement with AC. Do you have one with other airlines? It would sure help the commuters at both companies as well as gain greater appreciation between the two. Only my opinion.

ivanhoe · Post by **ivanhoe** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:57 pm

TS

We did for a short while. It was so good that AC pilots were riding in our J/S rather than using their own airline passes because it was free. I had many AC pilots riding up front that summer.
I honestly can't remember what put the kibosh on the agreement. Maybe something to do with 911?
By the way , what leads you to accusing WestJet of refusing to enter an agreement?

Flapsforty · Post by **Flapsforty** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:00 pm

As I understand it WJ was riding around for free on AC and the AC guys were being charged buddy pass rates, 25.00 at the time, thus endeth the agreement. Something about the computers at AC not being able to match that fares structure??? I remember I tried to get a Jazz guy on in YVR and the CSA made me tell him to book in in the STBY travel line a pay his 25.00.

Cheers

sober up! · Post by **sober up!** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:23 pm

Jump seat agreements between pilot groups should have nothing to do with standby charges! ACPA and the PACT pilot group just need to hash something out!

I know both sides are busy but pilots helping fellow pilots with commuting etc. would be nice! Someone from either assoiciation should just pick up the phone!

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:06 pm

Jump seat agreements between pilot groups should have nothing to do with standby charges! ACPA and the PACT pilot group just need to hash something out!

I know both sides are busy but pilots helping fellow pilots with commuting etc. would be nice! Someone from either assoiciation should just pick up the phone!

Why should AC pilots get free flights on my airline (and vise versa)?

sober up! · Post by **sober up!** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:40 pm

Jump seat agreements are common place in the U.S. and Europe and its just a way for pilots to help other pilots! All company politics aside!

Just a suggestion as working togeather makes the whole industry better!

Flapsforty · Post by **Flapsforty** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:52 pm

Unfortunatly there is this equality thing going at WJ and I suspect the PACT committee doesn't want the pilots to have anything more than they get. I suspect, and only suspect because I really don't know for sure if that is the real reason. The CSA's probably complained and figured they should get jumpseats too.

Cheers

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:03 am

Ivanhoe.

"By the way , what leads you to accusing WestJet of refusing to enter an agreement?"

If my memory serves me correct, we were emailed a memorandum from ACPA saying "WJ has refused to continue to paricipate..."
We have these agreements with dozens of other airlines, no fees, no fuss. Just a way for pilots to help each other. Don't take it the wrong way. Maybe your people have a good reason for ending it. I don't know.
And by the way, to the best of my knowledge, reciprocal j/s agreements do not have charges. In most cases, all you need is proper ID and at AC the captain carries appropriate passes he fills out. Most of the time the pilot travelling gets a business class seat. Pretty good deal. So I don't know why WJ would charge $25 when everyone else is free.

Ryan Coke · Post by **Ryan Coke** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:25 am

I know we didn't have that at Jazz. In fact, even when paying we had problems sitting in the AC jump.

Lots of fuss when dealing with AC/ACPA.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:53 am

Rye. For that matter, it goes both ways. AC pilots are quite often refused the j/s at Jazz. It's all part of our happy, disfunctional family ties. But that's a whole other thread which doesn't even belong here. I know that if WJ became part of the reciprical agreement, I would sure make use of it and be very thankful.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:02 am

Air Canada offers its' jumpseats free of charge, unless you work for AC or Jazz.

Thanks to the socialist views of this country an Air Jamaica pilot can ride for free while a 20 year captain with the airline has to pay. Why? because it would be unfair to the other employee groups.

I jumpseated around the world with FedEx for free but had to pay on my own airline out of Newark to Halifax. The DFO actually contacted the flight and had me removed from the flightdeck and write myself a ticket, at which point I was welcome to ride flt deck or sit in the back.

It is not so much a problem with ACPA but rather every other employee group goes ape if pilots are seen as getting better treatment. Last I checked it was a friggin airline!

At one point we had so much interference from management about who could sit in the jumpseat that we had a pilot make an appointment to meet with Hollis Harris. He arrived at his office first thing in the morning with a coffee and paper. When Hollis brought him in to his office, the guy sat down, opened the paper and started drinking his coffee. He looked over at Hollis and said " you go about your work and pretend I am not here. I am just catching a ride in your office." Brilliant!!!

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:00 am

No disrespect to you pilots out there but why should you be the only group to get special jumpseat privilages, espcially on other airlines? If I were flying YVR-YYC on Westjet and the plane was full, I'd assume that as an employee I'd be able to sit jump if the captain was ok with it. I'd be very angry if I was told "no" because an Air Canada pilot was sitting there..... for FREE.