May 1 startup day Air Georgian

[BingBong]

Was taxiing past one of the scab RJs yesterday...he was headed south on the field at an ALARMING RATE! slow the f@*$ down boys...your not in a 1900 anymore.

[flying4dollars]

I was taxiing in Edmonton once behind an Air Canada A320 and he was taxiing quite fast. I was going 20kts and he pulled away quite quickly, so I can only imagine how fast he was going. Not sure what their sop says about taxi speed, but unless you know, you probably shouldn't judge. Wouldn't be the first aircraft or airline that has taxiid noticeably fast. Of course, because it's a 'scab', they must all taxi excessively fast right? Does one person displaying poor airmanship at a particular airline reflect the entire group? Sure hope you don't say yes lol.

Geeze guys, you only know what you see on the surface. You don't know who, what, why or how. Throwing out insults and judgement doesn't make anyone a better person.

[ZBBYLW]

Flying 4 dollars,

On the bus, in order not to ride the brakes (which is especially bad on carbon brakes) we let it accelerate to 30 kts before slowing back down. On some weights (and a YEG-YYZ with a decent load would fit that bill) if the taxi way is smooth it will settle to just below 30 kts so you don't have to slow down and ride on out around 27-28 kts. All part of the SOPs ..

On a similar note I have not seen the georgian RJs taxi around yet, but sky regional seems at times to have a SOP of to not slow down below 30 kts.. I DH'ed with them out of YUL and when taxiing down for 24L I thought we were going to hit V1 on the taxi!

[BTyyj]

It is sad. From what I hear it's a real s*%@ show over at GGN right now. Interesting to see how it all plays out. If pilots said no to this crap it would stop tomorrow. Of course that won't happen.

Unfortunately, low-time pilots don't really have much leverage given their supply is so much greater than demand.

I guess economics 101 wasn't an overly subscribed class for many on these forums.

[flying4dollars]

Flying 4 dollars,

On the bus, in order not to ride the brakes (which is especially bad on carbon brakes) we let it accelerate to 30 kts before slowing back down. On some weights (and a YEG-YYZ with a decent load would fit that bill) if the taxi way is smooth it will settle to just below 30 kts so you don't have to slow down and ride on out around 27-28 kts. All part of the SOPs ..

On a similar note I have not seen the georgian RJs taxi around yet, but sky regional seems at times to have a SOP of to not slow down below 30 kts.. I DH'ed with them out of YUL and when taxiing down for 24L I thought we were going to hit V1 on the taxi!

Thanks for that zbbylw. Wouldn't it require more brake energy though to slow the aircraft down from 30kts than say slowing from 20? Or would that require riding the brakes? Guess unlike a turbo prop you can't slightly engage the reversers eh? Lol

[ZBBYLW]

Hey flying 4 dollars,

I found you and article that better articulates the differences in carbon and steel brakes that I would... here is a portion of the article:

Because the wear mechanisms are different between carbon and steel brakes, different taxi braking techniques are recommended for carbon brakes in order to maximize brake life.

Steel brake wear is directly proportional to the kinetic energy absorbed by the brakes. Maximum steel brake life can be achieved during taxi by using a large number of small, light brake applications, allowing some time for brake cooling between applications. High airplane gross weights and high brake application speeds tend to reduce steel brake life because they require the brakes to absorb a large amount of kinetic energy.

Carbon brake wear is primarily dependent on the total number of brake applications — one firm brake application causes less wear than several light applications. Maximum carbon brake life can be achieved during taxi by using a small number of long, moderately firm brake applications instead of numerous light brake applications. This can be achieved by allowing taxi speed to increase from below target speed to above target speed, then using a single firm brake application to reduce speed below the target and repeating if required, rather than maintaining a constant taxi speed using numerous brake applications. Carbon brake wear is much less sensitive to airplane weight and speed than steel brake wear.

These recommendations are intended as general taxi guidelines only. Safety and passenger comfort should remain the primary considerations.

Here is the full link:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... _05_1.html

As for reversers no we don't use reverse for taxi, main reason being FOD... In fact on what I fly we generally (safety aside) will not use anything more than reverse idle (reverse out, but no thrust above idle) below 70kts. Cheers!

[HiLo]

What kind of snacks are they serving in the back?

A little foil bag of 'sit down and shut up'

(to any uppity passengers who want to complain about service)

So basically the same truck that loads the snacks on Air Canada can make a stop at Georgian. Efficient. I like it.

Efficiency...the whole problem with our industry.

To management: I understand you are under pressure to cut costs. The problem with airlines, is if you cut off the wing to save some weight, the thing won't last too long in the air. Think of pilots the way you think of airframes (this is assuming you don't cut corners on maintenance): you get what you pay for. I think Colgan learned (or didn't learn) that.

[bob99]

Give them a couple months and the delays will be resolved I'm sure. I also don't see how it will "fail epically" either. They're doing it cheaper and that's all people want, cheap. They will succeed until someone can do it cheaper. Sad? Yes.

Couple months? Not likely. They've been operating the 1900s for what, 10-15 years? And those flights normally carry heavy delays, open flying, and cancellations due to no pilots. That place is a mess, to put it nicely.

[BingBong]

Well...day two into bottom feeding and an engine failure is in the books. I hope they didn't
Skimp on V1 cuts in sim. It's only a 100....can't push it too hard just cause your 3+ hours late.
What a joke.

And flying 4 dollars...that RJ had to be doing at least 50 or more.

[flying4dollars]

Well...day two into bottom feeding and an engine failure is in the books. I hope they didn't
Skimp on V1 cuts in sim. It's only a 100....can't push it too hard just cause your 3+ hours late.
What a joke.

And flying 4 dollars...that RJ had to be doing at least 50 or more.

50? Ya, I doubt that. Do you have proof or are you just trying to stir the pot here?

Ps, the engine failure was not a Georgian tail or a Georgian crew. Now you're just digging. Try again.

[Mig29]

Give them a couple months and the delays will be resolved I'm sure. I also don't see how it will "fail epically" either. They're doing it cheaper and that's all people want, cheap. They will succeed until someone can do it cheaper. Sad? Yes.

Couple months? Not likely. They've been operating the 1900s for what, 10-15 years? And those flights normally carry heavy delays, open flying, and cancellations due to no pilots. That place is a mess, to put it nicely.

Yup.

GGN need a complete overhaul of their management. They company has a great partner (AC), good if not very good pilots, but they can't keep going like this forever. The workload is too much for people there to keep flying there safely for ever. But the guys flying there can't expect to just sit back and expect the problem to fix it self. They are also unfortunately part of this problem and must take partial responsibility. Get a good leader and get a new union, that will protect their interest but also work with a new management in making GGN a better place to work for.

[BingBong]

Well...day two into bottom feeding and an engine failure is in the books. I hope they didn't
Skimp on V1 cuts in sim. It's only a 100....can't push it too hard just cause your 3+ hours late.
What a joke.

And flying 4 dollars...that RJ had to be doing at least 50 or more.

50? Ya, I doubt that. Do you have proof or are you just trying to stir the pot here?

Ps, the engine failure was not a Georgian tail or a Georgian crew. Now you're just digging. Try again.

I know what I heard and saw. Give it a day or so for the CADOR to be listed.
And from the sounds of your tone, are you yourself a ggn "pilot"

[rudder]

0% OTP.

No aircraft towing infrastructure at major hub (witness the CRJ's taxiing at near take-off speeds).

Subcontracted type training (including Skyregional pilots acting as CRJ instructors at CAE on their days off. Don't the CARs define what 'off duty' actually means?)

Shortage of internal line indoctrination resources.

ACARS equipped aircraft with no ACARS subscription.

This is a 704 operator not a 705 operator.

[Splash]

[/quote]
Yup.

GGN need a complete overhaul of their management. They company has a great partner (AC), good if not very good pilots, but they can't keep going like this forever. The workload is too much for people there to keep flying there safely for ever. But the guys flying there can't expect to just sit back and expect the problem to fix it self. They are also unfortunately part of this problem and must take partial responsibility. Get a good leader and get a new union, that will protect their interest but also work with a new management in making GGN a better place to work for.[/quote]

That's a good summary of CCN's issues. I see it personally on a regular basis and feel sorry for their pilots. AC is seems determined at all costs to build them up to a point of critical mass where they will be able to take on a significant amount of the CPA flying come 2020.

[flying4dollars]

Well...day two into bottom feeding and an engine failure is in the books. I hope they didn't
Skimp on V1 cuts in sim. It's only a 100....can't push it too hard just cause your 3+ hours late.
What a joke.

And flying 4 dollars...that RJ had to be doing at least 50 or more.

50? Ya, I doubt that. Do you have proof or are you just trying to stir the pot here?

Ps, the engine failure was not a Georgian tail or a Georgian crew. Now you're just digging. Try again.

I know what I heard and saw. Give it a day or so for the CADOR to be listed.
And from the sounds of your tone, are you yourself a ggn "pilot"

It was an Air Canada express flight, but not operated by GGN or Jazz. You can read the cador when it comes out.

And does it matter if I am or am not a Georgian pilot? I am a pilot. I'm not here to judge you or any other pilot group. Fair enough?

[Duffman]

This looks like the only cadors for GGN so far

An Air Georgian Bombardier CL600 2B19 (GGN7051) from Windsor, ON (CYQG) to Toronto, ON (CYYZ) landed runway 23 and was extremely slow to exit at runway 33L while an Air Canada Embraer E190 (ACA1115) from Toronto, ON (CYYZ) to Regina, SK (CYQR) was in position waiting to depart. As a result, a Westjet Boeing 737 700 (WJA656) from Calgary, AB (CYYC) to Toronto, ON (CYYZ) was instructed to go around due ACA1115 still on the runway.

[Inverted2]

flying4dollars: If it wasn't GGN or Jazz then who was it? I heard from at least 4 different people including a GGN pilot that it was in fact a Georgian RJ.

[Koalemos]

But the guys flying there can't expect to just sit back and expect the problem to fix it self. They are also unfortunately part of this problem and must take partial responsibility. Get a good leader and get a new union, that will protect their interest but also work with a new management in making GGN a better place to work for.

The following was told to me directly by a pilot there I trust to be accurate. The pilots voted DOWN the 705 RJ flying. The Union President and Management then said "ok, it's out of the contract and we will renegotiate as an LOU". Some other changes were made, and the contract passed. The same day the contract was published the LOU appeared, unchanged. When pressed, the Prez said that he had the power to do so without consultation. The pilots asked about disbanding/changing the union and were basically told it couldn't be down because (insert legal mumbo jumbo here).

I agree with Mig29, however from the info I have gotten from the pilots I highly doubt this will ever happen. Out of all the pilots, there's a small group who have been there a while have simply given up (from pushing for change and nothing happening) or just want to hold to what they have. Another group isn't there long enough to care, they just get time and get out. And the greenhorns are too scared management will sink any chance of them moving up to mainline. All the while management feed them lines like "you have to pay your dues in the industry" or "you don't know how good you have it here".

Basically it sounds like a mess over there. Hopefully for the GGN pilots sake, the CRJ ops somehow force things to get better (I'm not holding my breath).

[rooster]

I believe it was regional one operating the GGN / AC flight.

[ZBBYLW]

Since when does R1 fly for AC? I thought R1 helped GGN get their sh!t in order and used their OC but was GGN not supposed to operate all these flights? What a joke. Although I would imagine the R1 pay is better than the GGN guys.. How many airplanes/crew does GGN have to operate?

[Duffman]

This just seems so shady to me. Air Canada sells old RJ's for cheap to Avmax, which is or was the parent company of Regional 1. Air Canada then leases those same old RJ's and awards the flying to Air Georgian, who prior to that merged with Regional 1 making Avmax Georgian's parent company also.

Does Calin Rovinescu's brother in law run Avmax or something?

[teacher]

Regardless of who was flying these 100s are beat up. Jazz maintenance was happy to see them go. Beat up airplanes require money to keep flying. Hopefully the rate GGN is charging AC is enough to keep these old birds in good shape.

[rudder]

Latest update:

Still near 0% OTP.

Line indoctrination pilots contracted from the US are a no show.

Pilots doing manual W&B calculations at departure time.

AC using Jazz to cover some of the flying.

[AllClutch]

Came to say that if you look at flightaware it shows Jazz flying some of the ggn routes now.
Tis' but growing pains.

[Duffman]

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/GGN7340

8 hours late