TUI style

[tbaylx]

Not quite but nice try
I’ll work with your numbers to keep it simple.
Flair has 25 aircraft but need 27 for the busy season, the still have 25 aircraft and artificially bring the fleet up to 27
Slow season Flair has 25 aircraft but only need 23 so they send 2 over, same amount of crew required year round.
You are 2 aircraft short for the busy times and that is the crew that should be hired and working year round, this only benefits the company by not carrying extra crew during the offseason. Every other airline except Sunwing has the burden of carrying extra crew and aircraft for the slow period and only a company shill doesn’t see that

Clearly a troll but I will answer anyway.

Using your numbers - you have 25 aircraft but for the busy summer season you could utilize 27 aircraft. However, carrying those 2 additional aircraft in the other 8 months makes it a unprofitable so you don't make that investment. But if you are able to cost share and utilize with a partner you can gain that additional business. You increase your fleet by the 2 aircraft for the 4 busy months, cover off the other 4 months and send them to Oz for the last 4 months. You also hire and crew for those two extra aircraft above what you would otherwise carry and, at the same time, provide an opportunity for crews to operate and enjoy foreign operations. No one is being forced and it is voluntary.

Works for everyone.

People will be forced from the bottom up if there aren't enough volunteers. Just like it happened at Sunwing.

Guess you didn't get a copy of the LOU that specifically prevents that. If you don't know, then don't speculate.

We have over 5 pilots bidding for every spot available, it will go very senior. If a pilot doesn't want to go then they don't have to.

[Tbayer2021]

Clearly a troll but I will answer anyway.

Using your numbers - you have 25 aircraft but for the busy summer season you could utilize 27 aircraft. However, carrying those 2 additional aircraft in the other 8 months makes it a unprofitable so you don't make that investment. But if you are able to cost share and utilize with a partner you can gain that additional business. You increase your fleet by the 2 aircraft for the 4 busy months, cover off the other 4 months and send them to Oz for the last 4 months. You also hire and crew for those two extra aircraft above what you would otherwise carry and, at the same time, provide an opportunity for crews to operate and enjoy foreign operations. No one is being forced and it is voluntary.

Works for everyone.

People will be forced from the bottom up if there aren't enough volunteers. Just like it happened at Sunwing.

Guess you didn't get a copy of the LOU that specifically prevents that. If you don't know, then don't speculate.

We have over 5 pilots bidding for every spot available, it will go very senior. If a pilot doesn't want to go then they don't have to.

Yeah because airlines tend to stick to the contract when their backs are against the wall.

[flyingjerry]

Flawed logic. If we only needed 23 aircraft in the slow season then we wouldn't carry 27 aircraft year round, we'd likely keep it at 25 and try and increase utilization a bit. Of course, we're going to be able to avoid the burden of extra costs in the low season, that's the whole point. The whole concept of why a ULCC can offer cheaper fares and still make money is their costs are lower than everyone else's. The whole idea that something that benefits the Company is somehow bad is perplexing. Why wouldn't a Flair pilot want to see their company compete and succeed? It's not affecting their T&C's and to the contrary offers a voluntary option to spend winters in Australia with a decent extra monthly perdiem and paid for housing.

To use your logic - only someone with no business sense doesn't see that.

Are you able to speak to an overview of the details in the LOU? Very interested. Currently a pilot thinking about the next steps, I've lived in Australia before, so this is very attractive for me.

[tbaylx]

Flawed logic. If we only needed 23 aircraft in the slow season then we wouldn't carry 27 aircraft year round, we'd likely keep it at 25 and try and increase utilization a bit. Of course, we're going to be able to avoid the burden of extra costs in the low season, that's the whole point. The whole concept of why a ULCC can offer cheaper fares and still make money is their costs are lower than everyone else's. The whole idea that something that benefits the Company is somehow bad is perplexing. Why wouldn't a Flair pilot want to see their company compete and succeed? It's not affecting their T&C's and to the contrary offers a voluntary option to spend winters in Australia with a decent extra monthly perdiem and paid for housing.

To use your logic - only someone with no business sense doesn't see that.

Are you able to speak to an overview of the details in the LOU? Very interested. Currently a pilot thinking about the next steps, I've lived in Australia before, so this is very attractive for me.

Sure, its pretty straight forward.

Up to a 5 month deployment Nov-April
Based in Gold Coast (YBCG/OOL)
Housing is provided (final details on what housing looks like is being negotiated - likely single or double bedroom apartment style)
Transportation is provided - likely rental cars
Monthly Per Diem of $3500 AUD per month (~$3000 CAD/Month)
All other terms in accordance with the CBA (ie monthly schedule bidding, GDO's, credit hours etc)
Pilots will be entitled to hold awarded vacation while deployed.

[flyingpilot]

Do you have any idea on the number of pilots that would be sent over to Australia each year? and do you think junior pilots would get a chance at going over there? Can you bring family with you?
Thanks

[tbaylx]

Do you have any idea on the number of pilots that would be sent over to Australia each year? and do you think junior pilots would get a chance at going over there? Can you bring family with you?
Thanks

This year junior pilots won't have a chance. We'll be sending approximately 30 odd piltos for two aircraft and over 150 piltos have expressed interest. Experience with Sunwing operations suggests that in future deployments it will go more junior, however it may remain senior if piltos find it desirable.

Piltos are welcome to bring their families and we're exploring the opportunity for families to fly over for free on the positioning flights.

[flyingpilot]

And when would you think hiring would begin/resume for Calgary base?

[tbaylx]

And when would you think hiring would begin/resume for Calgary base?

Hard to tell. We're likely going to run a course here for Sept, but i'm not sure if there will be YYC positions as of yet.

[flyingpilot]

Is commuting actually possible given that flying consists of primarily one day turns, and reserve?

[tbaylx]

Is commuting actually possible given that flying consists of primarily one day turns, and reserve?

Our 100% out and backs are beginning to morph into a mix of multi-day pairings and one-day pairings, particularly in the winter with overnights in CUN, LAS and Florida

Commuting has been a challenge, but should be getting a bit easier with more multi-day pariings introduced into the system. The challenge of commuting on reserve for the newer pilots will continue for a while, however.

[flyingjerry]

Sure, its pretty straight forward.

Up to a 5 month deployment Nov-April
Based in Gold Coast (YBCG/OOL)
Housing is provided (final details on what housing looks like is being negotiated - likely single or double bedroom apartment style)
Transportation is provided - likely rental cars
Monthly Per Diem of $3500 AUD per month (~$3000 CAD/Month)
All other terms in accordance with the CBA (ie monthly schedule bidding, GDO's, credit hours etc)
Pilots will be entitled to hold awarded vacation while deployed.

I lived just south of Coolangatta, it is a fantastic part of Australia, maybe the best!

Let's get this straight, you can leave Canada during the coldest months to enjoy Australian Summer, have housing, a rental car, a reasonable stipend, and potentially even use vacation to spend a few weeks of that time in Thailand. What a dream.

For anyone lucky enough to do this, most states in Australia include liability insurance with motorcycle registration so it's essentially free to ride a bike down there.

[cdnavater]

This is a fairly simple concept. 2 a/c and crew go to OZ for months during their busy season and the same occurs in reverse. It actually allows both airlines to carry slightly more aircraft (and therefore crew) then they would otherwise as the business would not permit them to carry that level of service over 12 months. In other words, with a recipricol agreement where the two airlines essentially 'share' two aircraft they can shift those aircraft for 4 months each year.

In this situation each airline has more pilots than they would otherwise (so Cdnaviator - more captains by logic) all while offering an excellent opportunity to those crew interested to experience and work in another part of the world.

Not quite but nice try
I’ll work with your numbers to keep it simple.
Flair has 25 aircraft but need 27 for the busy season, the still have 25 aircraft and artificially bring the fleet up to 27
Slow season Flair has 25 aircraft but only need 23 so they send 2 over, same amount of crew required year round.
You are 2 aircraft short for the busy times and that is the crew that should be hired and working year round, this only benefits the company by not carrying extra crew during the offseason. Every other airline except Sunwing has the burden of carrying extra crew and aircraft for the slow period and only a company shill doesn’t see that

Flawed logic. If we only needed 23 aircraft in the slow season then we wouldn't carry 27 aircraft year round, we'd likely keep it at 25 and try and increase utilization a bit. Of course, we're going to be able to avoid the burden of extra costs in the low season, that's the whole point. The whole concept of why a ULCC can offer cheaper fares and still make money is their costs are lower than everyone else's. The whole idea that something that benefits the Company is somehow bad is perplexing. Why wouldn't a Flair pilot want to see their company compete and succeed? It's not affecting their T&C's and to the contrary offers a voluntary option to spend winters in Australia with a decent extra monthly perdiem and paid for housing.

To use your logic - only someone with no business sense doesn't see that.

Thanks for proving my point, pilots should be avoiding things that undercut other pilots but so far the support is company management and company pilots.
Your cost advantage will disadvantage other pilots trying to negotiate, remember when WJ started Swoop, of course you do!

[tbaylx]

Not quite but nice try
I’ll work with your numbers to keep it simple.
Flair has 25 aircraft but need 27 for the busy season, the still have 25 aircraft and artificially bring the fleet up to 27
Slow season Flair has 25 aircraft but only need 23 so they send 2 over, same amount of crew required year round.
You are 2 aircraft short for the busy times and that is the crew that should be hired and working year round, this only benefits the company by not carrying extra crew during the offseason. Every other airline except Sunwing has the burden of carrying extra crew and aircraft for the slow period and only a company shill doesn’t see that

Flawed logic. If we only needed 23 aircraft in the slow season then we wouldn't carry 27 aircraft year round, we'd likely keep it at 25 and try and increase utilization a bit. Of course, we're going to be able to avoid the burden of extra costs in the low season, that's the whole point. The whole concept of why a ULCC can offer cheaper fares and still make money is their costs are lower than everyone else's. The whole idea that something that benefits the Company is somehow bad is perplexing. Why wouldn't a Flair pilot want to see their company compete and succeed? It's not affecting their T&C's and to the contrary offers a voluntary option to spend winters in Australia with a decent extra monthly perdiem and paid for housing.

To use your logic - only someone with no business sense doesn't see that.

Thanks for proving my point, pilots should be avoiding things that undercut other pilots but so far the support is company management and company pilots.
Your cost advantage will disadvantage other pilots trying to negotiate, remember when WJ started Swoop, of course you do!

Flair's cost advantage will absolutely disadvantage companies that aren't able to compete. That's the idea. How that translates between pilots and those companies is up to their negotiating teams. You can't be seriously suggesting that a company should try and increase their costs to match the competition in order to make it "fair" for the employee groups?

The cost advantage comes through business practices (such as deployments) and It won't be at the expense of pilot compensation however, unlike Swoop.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

You are 2 aircraft short for the busy times and that is the crew that should be hired and working year round, this only benefits the company by not carrying extra crew during the offseason. Every other airline except Sunwing has the burden of carrying extra crew and aircraft for the slow period and only a company shill doesn’t see that.

For what it's worth, I don't work for Flair and have no vested interest in the company, but think about this:

Does the Alaskan crab boat captain keep his entire crew hired year-round, or does he lay them off during the slow season?
Does the golf course superintendent keep an entire grounds crew on staff all year, or do some get let go in the winter?
Does Canada Post employ as many mail carriers as theoretically possible, or do they bring on extra manpower during the busy holiday season?
Does the roofing or concrete company keep their guys employed 365 days per year, or does the company flex their workforce depending on the season?

If Flair were laying off Canadians or bringing in TFW's, I might see your point, but that is not the case. Flair is a business, not a charity. It has no altruistic obligation to hire and keep on payroll any more employees than it deems necessary to maintain the operation. Crying foul that they aren't hiring more people to pilot half-empty planes during a slow season is poor business practice. Flair's goal is not to be a benevolent benefactor to provide as many jobs as theoretically possible. It will do what is in its own best interests to survive. And that is good business.

[cdnavater]

Flawed logic. If we only needed 23 aircraft in the slow season then we wouldn't carry 27 aircraft year round, we'd likely keep it at 25 and try and increase utilization a bit. Of course, we're going to be able to avoid the burden of extra costs in the low season, that's the whole point. The whole concept of why a ULCC can offer cheaper fares and still make money is their costs are lower than everyone else's. The whole idea that something that benefits the Company is somehow bad is perplexing. Why wouldn't a Flair pilot want to see their company compete and succeed? It's not affecting their T&C's and to the contrary offers a voluntary option to spend winters in Australia with a decent extra monthly perdiem and paid for housing.

To use your logic - only someone with no business sense doesn't see that.

Thanks for proving my point, pilots should be avoiding things that undercut other pilots but so far the support is company management and company pilots.
Your cost advantage will disadvantage other pilots trying to negotiate, remember when WJ started Swoop, of course you do!

Flair's cost advantage will absolutely disadvantage companies that aren't able to compete. That's the idea. How that translates between pilots and those companies is up to their negotiating teams. You can't be seriously suggesting that a company should try and increase their costs to match the competition in order to make it "fair" for the employee groups?

The cost advantage comes through business practices (such as deployments) and It won't be at the expense of pilot compensation however, unlike Swoop.

Like I said, management or company shills and no I’m not suggesting Flair doesn’t try to keep costs down I’m saying pilots should make them PAY for their efforts.
By the way, when companies reduce their costs you end up with Jazz type long term contracts and then you’re on the receiving end of the insults, but no one ever remembers how we got there!
I’m done with this conversation , I’m really trying to not get super insulting, suffice to say I’m not surprised you support this, you are not a pilot friendly pilot, you have not done anything good for the profession for a few years now, take care!

[cdnavater]

You are 2 aircraft short for the busy times and that is the crew that should be hired and working year round, this only benefits the company by not carrying extra crew during the offseason. Every other airline except Sunwing has the burden of carrying extra crew and aircraft for the slow period and only a company shill doesn’t see that.

For what it's worth, I don't work for Flair and have no vested interest in the company, but think about this:

Does the Alaskan crab boat captain keep his entire crew hired year-round, or does he lay them off during the slow season?
Does the golf course superintendent keep an entire grounds crew on staff all year, or do some get let go in the winter?
Does Canada Post employ as many mail carriers as theoretically possible, or do they bring on extra manpower during the busy holiday season?
Does the roofing or concrete company keep their guys employed 365 days per year, or does the company flex their workforce depending on the season?

If Flair were laying off Canadians or bringing in TFW's, I might see your point, but that is not the case. Flair is a business, not a charity. It has no altruistic obligation to hire and keep on payroll any more employees than it deems necessary to maintain the operation. Crying foul that they aren't hiring more people to pilot half-empty planes during a slow season is poor business practice. Flair's goal is not to be a benevolent benefactor to provide as many jobs as theoretically possible. It will do what is in its own best interests to survive. And that is good business.

Non of those mentioned have the costs associated with retraining pilots who were laid off besides in this market, they would find themselves with many not returning.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

You are 2 aircraft short for the busy times and that is the crew that should be hired and working year round, this only benefits the company by not carrying extra crew during the offseason. Every other airline except Sunwing has the burden of carrying extra crew and aircraft for the slow period and only a company shill doesn’t see that.

For what it's worth, I don't work for Flair and have no vested interest in the company, but think about this:

Does the Alaskan crab boat captain keep his entire crew hired year-round, or does he lay them off during the slow season?
Does the golf course superintendent keep an entire grounds crew on staff all year, or do some get let go in the winter?
Does Canada Post employ as many mail carriers as theoretically possible, or do they bring on extra manpower during the busy holiday season?
Does the roofing or concrete company keep their guys employed 365 days per year, or does the company flex their workforce depending on the season?

If Flair were laying off Canadians or bringing in TFW's, I might see your point, but that is not the case. Flair is a business, not a charity. It has no altruistic obligation to hire and keep on payroll any more employees than it deems necessary to maintain the operation. Crying foul that they aren't hiring more people to pilot half-empty planes during a slow season is poor business practice. Flair's goal is not to be a benevolent benefactor to provide as many jobs as theoretically possible. It will do what is in its own best interests to survive. And that is good business.

Non of those mentioned have the costs associated with retraining pilots who were laid off besides in this market, they would find themselves with many not returning.

My post was in direct response to yours stating that Flair should employ more pilots year-round as opposed to keeping fewer on staff due to having a seasonal-nature to their operation. Lots of businesses are seasonal in nature and flex their employee ranks accordingly. A seasonal airline is no different.

I'm simply pointing out that Flair can do whatever it wants crewing-wise to ensure its operational viability. Because you think Flair should hire more pilots when they aren't necessarily needed operationally is both wishful thinking and bad business practice. The name of the game business-wise is to run as lean as possible, not run fat with pilots sitting around getting paid during the slow season.

When I was at Sunwing during the summer of the MAX grounding (already a slow season), I was getting a full block to sit at home on reserve and fly maybe once per month. Did I like it? Sure. But, I did wonder every day why the company was paying me 80 hours when I maybe flew 10 hours per month.

You may not like it, but as I said, this is a business and not a charity work program to get as many pilots jobs as possible.

[cdnavater]

For what it's worth, I don't work for Flair and have no vested interest in the company, but think about this:

Does the Alaskan crab boat captain keep his entire crew hired year-round, or does he lay them off during the slow season?
Does the golf course superintendent keep an entire grounds crew on staff all year, or do some get let go in the winter?
Does Canada Post employ as many mail carriers as theoretically possible, or do they bring on extra manpower during the busy holiday season?
Does the roofing or concrete company keep their guys employed 365 days per year, or does the company flex their workforce depending on the season?

If Flair were laying off Canadians or bringing in TFW's, I might see your point, but that is not the case. Flair is a business, not a charity. It has no altruistic obligation to hire and keep on payroll any more employees than it deems necessary to maintain the operation. Crying foul that they aren't hiring more people to pilot half-empty planes during a slow season is poor business practice. Flair's goal is not to be a benevolent benefactor to provide as many jobs as theoretically possible. It will do what is in its own best interests to survive. And that is good business.

Non of those mentioned have the costs associated with retraining pilots who were laid off besides in this market, they would find themselves with many not returning.

My post was in direct response to yours stating that Flair should employ more pilots year-round as opposed to keeping fewer on staff due to having a seasonal-nature to their operation. Lots of businesses are seasonal in nature and flex their employee ranks accordingly. A seasonal airline is no different.

I'm simply pointing out that Flair can do whatever it wants crewing-wise to ensure its operational viability. Because you think Flair should hire more pilots when they aren't necessarily needed operationally is both wishful thinking and bad business practice. The name of the game business-wise is to run as lean as possible, not run fat with pilots sitting around getting paid during the slow season.

When I was at Sunwing during the summer of the MAX grounding (already a slow season), I was getting a full block to sit at home on reserve and fly maybe once per month. Did I like it? Sure. But, I did wonder every day why the company was paying me 80 hours when I maybe flew 10 hours per month.

You may not like it, but as I said, this is a business and not a charity work program to get as many pilots jobs as possible.

You guys keep making my point for me!
An airline can staff how ever it wants, most airlines will carry enough staff to cover the busy season, you know, make hay when the sun shines!
They also won’t lay off pilots during slow times unless they are predicting the slow times to be extended into their normally busy time, why, because most pilots unless they are seasonal and like that, won’t come back unless there are no other options. This costs a lot of money not to mention, they have to ramp up three months before the busy season.
What Flair is doing is brining in 2 extra aircraft and crew to cover the sunshine days and send 2 aircraft to cover the glooming days here, great for the company but if you think Flair would just simply not capture the flying of the 2 extra aircraft so they don’t have to carry the extra crew, well, don’t know what to tell you, they would be the only ones.
My point is THIS, this is not good for pilots, only benefits the company in the grand scheme of things.
What if, EVERY airline in Canada did this, on a grand scale between all carriers combined. Let’s say 10% of their fleet were sent overseas during the off season here and in return increased with wet lease 10% from their slow season? How many jobs is that?
You analogy and comparisons are not even remotely the same, they don’t have the same burden of retraining to ramp back up, just recall the laid off employees and hire for those that found full time.
Furthermore, Sunwing kept you employed during the Max grounding because Boeing was supplementing your wages and even if they weren’t, no one knew how long it would last initially so of course they would hang onto you.
Again, everybody supports this if every airline in Canada were to do this, or just the scummy ones?

[ant_321]

Non of those mentioned have the costs associated with retraining pilots who were laid off besides in this market, they would find themselves with many not returning.

My post was in direct response to yours stating that Flair should employ more pilots year-round as opposed to keeping fewer on staff due to having a seasonal-nature to their operation. Lots of businesses are seasonal in nature and flex their employee ranks accordingly. A seasonal airline is no different.

I'm simply pointing out that Flair can do whatever it wants crewing-wise to ensure its operational viability. Because you think Flair should hire more pilots when they aren't necessarily needed operationally is both wishful thinking and bad business practice. The name of the game business-wise is to run as lean as possible, not run fat with pilots sitting around getting paid during the slow season.

When I was at Sunwing during the summer of the MAX grounding (already a slow season), I was getting a full block to sit at home on reserve and fly maybe once per month. Did I like it? Sure. But, I did wonder every day why the company was paying me 80 hours when I maybe flew 10 hours per month.

You may not like it, but as I said, this is a business and not a charity work program to get as many pilots jobs as possible.

You guys keep making my point for me!
An airline can staff how ever it wants, most airlines will carry enough staff to cover the busy season, you know, make hay when the sun shines!
They also won’t lay off pilots during slow times unless they are predicting the slow times to be extended into their normally busy time, why, because most pilots unless they are seasonal and like that, won’t come back unless there are no other options. This costs a lot of money not to mention, they have to ramp up three months before the busy season.
What Flair is doing is brining in 2 extra aircraft and crew to cover the sunshine days and send 2 aircraft to cover the glooming days here, great for the company but if you think Flair would just simply not capture the flying of the 2 extra aircraft so they don’t have to carry the extra crew, well, don’t know what to tell you, they would be the only ones.
My point is THIS, this is not good for pilots, only benefits the company in the grand scheme of things.
What if, EVERY airline in Canada did this, on a grand scale between all carriers combined. Let’s say 10% of their fleet were sent overseas during the off season here and in return increased with wet lease 10% from their slow season? How many jobs is that?
You analogy and comparisons are not even remotely the same, they don’t have the same burden of retraining to ramp back up, just recall the laid off employees and hire for those that found full time.
Furthermore, Sunwing kept you employed during the Max grounding because Boeing was supplementing your wages and even if they weren’t, no one knew how long it would last initially so of course they would hang onto you.
Again, everybody supports this if every airline in Canada were to do this, or just the scummy ones?

I would. I would love to spend my summers outside of Canada until I retire.

[cdnavater]

My post was in direct response to yours stating that Flair should employ more pilots year-round as opposed to keeping fewer on staff due to having a seasonal-nature to their operation. Lots of businesses are seasonal in nature and flex their employee ranks accordingly. A seasonal airline is no different.

I'm simply pointing out that Flair can do whatever it wants crewing-wise to ensure its operational viability. Because you think Flair should hire more pilots when they aren't necessarily needed operationally is both wishful thinking and bad business practice. The name of the game business-wise is to run as lean as possible, not run fat with pilots sitting around getting paid during the slow season.

When I was at Sunwing during the summer of the MAX grounding (already a slow season), I was getting a full block to sit at home on reserve and fly maybe once per month. Did I like it? Sure. But, I did wonder every day why the company was paying me 80 hours when I maybe flew 10 hours per month.

You may not like it, but as I said, this is a business and not a charity work program to get as many pilots jobs as possible.

You guys keep making my point for me!
An airline can staff how ever it wants, most airlines will carry enough staff to cover the busy season, you know, make hay when the sun shines!
They also won’t lay off pilots during slow times unless they are predicting the slow times to be extended into their normally busy time, why, because most pilots unless they are seasonal and like that, won’t come back unless there are no other options. This costs a lot of money not to mention, they have to ramp up three months before the busy season.
What Flair is doing is brining in 2 extra aircraft and crew to cover the sunshine days and send 2 aircraft to cover the glooming days here, great for the company but if you think Flair would just simply not capture the flying of the 2 extra aircraft so they don’t have to carry the extra crew, well, don’t know what to tell you, they would be the only ones.
My point is THIS, this is not good for pilots, only benefits the company in the grand scheme of things.
What if, EVERY airline in Canada did this, on a grand scale between all carriers combined. Let’s say 10% of their fleet were sent overseas during the off season here and in return increased with wet lease 10% from their slow season? How many jobs is that?
You analogy and comparisons are not even remotely the same, they don’t have the same burden of retraining to ramp back up, just recall the laid off employees and hire for those that found full time.
Furthermore, Sunwing kept you employed during the Max grounding because Boeing was supplementing your wages and even if they weren’t, no one knew how long it would last initially so of course they would hang onto you.
Again, everybody supports this if every airline in Canada were to do this, or just the scummy ones?

I would. I would love to spend my summers outside of Canada until I retire.

So, for selfish reasons, you’re ok with less Pilot jobs, got it!
It NEVER stops at 2, it’s the gateway drug for airline CEOs, once they get that hit, they see how far they can push it, I get why tbaylx supports it, I don’t get why line pilots support it other than for their own self fulfillment!

[tbaylx]

You guys keep making my point for me!
An airline can staff how ever it wants, most airlines will carry enough staff to cover the busy season, you know, make hay when the sun shines!
They also won’t lay off pilots during slow times unless they are predicting the slow times to be extended into their normally busy time, why, because most pilots unless they are seasonal and like that, won’t come back unless there are no other options. This costs a lot of money not to mention, they have to ramp up three months before the busy season.
What Flair is doing is brining in 2 extra aircraft and crew to cover the sunshine days and send 2 aircraft to cover the glooming days here, great for the company but if you think Flair would just simply not capture the flying of the 2 extra aircraft so they don’t have to carry the extra crew, well, don’t know what to tell you, they would be the only ones.
My point is THIS, this is not good for pilots, only benefits the company in the grand scheme of things.
What if, EVERY airline in Canada did this, on a grand scale between all carriers combined. Let’s say 10% of their fleet were sent overseas during the off season here and in return increased with wet lease 10% from their slow season? How many jobs is that?
You analogy and comparisons are not even remotely the same, they don’t have the same burden of retraining to ramp back up, just recall the laid off employees and hire for those that found full time.
Furthermore, Sunwing kept you employed during the Max grounding because Boeing was supplementing your wages and even if they weren’t, no one knew how long it would last initially so of course they would hang onto you.
Again, everybody supports this if every airline in Canada were to do this, or just the scummy ones?

I would. I would love to spend my summers outside of Canada until I retire.

So, for selfish reasons, you’re ok with less Pilot jobs, got it!
It NEVER stops at 2, it’s the gateway drug for airline CEOs, once they get that hit, they see how far they can push it, I get why tbaylx supports it, I don’t get why line pilots support it other than for their own self fulfillment!

Because clearly only you see it for the industry destroying evil that it is and the others are pilot-hating Company shills.

[cdnavater]

I would. I would love to spend my summers outside of Canada until I retire.

So, for selfish reasons, you’re ok with less Pilot jobs, got it!
It NEVER stops at 2, it’s the gateway drug for airline CEOs, once they get that hit, they see how far they can push it, I get why tbaylx supports it, I don’t get why line pilots support it other than for their own self fulfillment!

Because clearly only you see it for the industry destroying evil that it is and the others are pilot-hating Company shills.

There is no other way to see it, you don’t see it because your lack of morals and character. You only choose selfish options, you would never put the good of the pilots ahead of your ambitions.
Take this exactly as it’s meant, you would make a great airline CEO, they are in their nature apathetic.
Your BS about Flair not carrying the extra aircraft to capture the high market is just that BS. The company would grow to their market share, Flair is choosing the cheaper option, which I get but that doesn’t make it good for the industry.
They clearly need two more for next winter, I guess though a person can read between the lines, Flair 50 is dead, it’s Flair 23/27. You hit your market cap, otherwise the extra two aircraft would be coming anyway, your pilots will eventually see it for what it is.
AC is going to wipe out your pilot roster by this time next year anyway, so, there’s that.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

You guys keep making my point for me!

By saying that, you're making my point for me. When you're the only one arguing against the masses, it might be time to look in the mirror and think "Am I out of touch?"

7wdexc.jpg (95.92 KiB) Viewed 3623 times

[cdnavater]

You guys keep making my point for me!

By saying that, you're making my point for me. When you're the only one arguing against the masses, it might be time to look in the mirror and think "Am I out of touch?"
7wdexc.jpg

Not sure that’s how it works besides, I’m not the only one coming out against it, it’s the rebuttal seems to reinforce my point, which is, it is good for the company not the pilots, simple really.

[TC.Enforcement]

This is a fairly simple concept. 2 a/c and crew go to OZ for months during their busy season and the same occurs in reverse. It actually allows both airlines to carry slightly more aircraft (and therefore crew) than they would otherwise as the business would not permit them to carry that level of service over 12 months.

I have to ask. It seems contradictory to say the business can’t support the level of service for 2 additional aircraft over 12 months, but yet Flair wants to grow to over 50 A/C total? Can you please explain.