http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/s ... -1.3923781
I don't know why this is still going on, If I was Westjet, Air Canada, Air Transat, and one competitor was allowed to bypass training costs by hiring temporary pilots from overseas I would be screaming at Ottawa. Sure at times in many industries getting skilled labour can be an issue and I do see the need for such a program, but I don't know why they don't band together to squash this.
Not sure the exact costs to put an FO through a B737 course, but I would ball park it at around 30K for an initial so each pilot they import gives Sunwing an advantage over their competition.
[quote]
[url=https://www.facebook.com/gilles.hudicourt?fref=nf]Gilles Hudicourt[/url]Yesterday at 8:18amIt was recently revealed in the press that Sunwing has 350 Canadian pilots and has 60 Temporary Foreign Worker pilots.
Yet the Canadian Aviation register shows 37 Canadian registered aircraft for Sunwing. In the past, Sunwing had on its rosters about 12 pilots per aircraft during the winter season, meaning it would need about 444 pilots to operate those 37 aircraft. There are 34 pilots missing.
I will make an ATIP to Service Canada to find out exactly how many TFW pilots Sunwing requested LMIAs for in 2016 for this winter's flying. In addition to those 37 aircraft, I found on the Canadian Transportation Agency's Website that Sunwing asked to wet-lease 2 B737s from Thomson Airlines. Typically, Wet-lease come with about 14 pilots each, so that would account for another 28 foreign pilots flying in Canada on behalf of Sunwing.[/quote]
So if Gilles is correct that mean Sunwing has 94 TFW pilots so they are saving 2.82 million in training using 30K as a figure.
As for the drunk in YYC and Marc Garneau comments perhaps he should walk out the door of Parliment take a right and head over to the Supreme court and ask them what they think about random drug and alcohol screening test before he tries to make politics out of this. Someone please shoot him back into low earth orbit.
Pilots union wants Transport Canada more involved in checking foreign pilots
-
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:34 pm
Random sampling has always been a fact of life south of 49 even for foreign carriers. In Canada it was deemed a violation of human rights, rightly or wrongly that's Canada. I know several companies who, with pressure from clients, have instituted random testing, which could likely be contested under Canadian law but like training bonds pilots at that level don't have the will or the means to challenge it. Ironically any who is not affected (meaning the vast majority) could really give a fuck and in fact would support it so it just might filter out the "bad eggs" not to be confused with a "bad person" 8) .
The furor over this from press which leads to a minister making stupid press releases is about lay people not knowing what the fuck is really going on. [b]The system worked[/b]. The F/O intervened and along with the purser reported it and actually called the police to remove the captain from the seat. He was first noticed by the check in staff because of a noticeable difficulty in walking and once in the flight deck could hardly hang up his jacket. The only big question from all concerned, How the fuck did he get past security!!!!! It was obvious he was impaired and how drunk does one need to be to pass out as soon as he sits down.
If security can't catch a stumbling drunk, in uniform, how do you think they would do in weeding out terrorists. One only thing you count on, I'll bet no one made it through security with a 120ml tube of tooth paste. Smoke screens are good to deflect the real issue here but they can't draw attention to our passenger "feel good" smoke and mirrors.
Like it's always been -- Blame the fucking pilot -- lmfaoooooooo but their first line of defense has failed once again. Oh ya another one, guns in luggage. It's common south of 49 and even some airports have separate check in lines for those who are carrying. So now someone drops the ball and either it went undetected in baggage screening, oh really, obviously the of screening all bags is bullshit, or the most scary scenario is that the master minds of security never saw this one coming. ---- Damn!!!!
Welcome to 2017!!!!!!!
The furor over this from press which leads to a minister making stupid press releases is about lay people not knowing what the fuck is really going on. [b]The system worked[/b]. The F/O intervened and along with the purser reported it and actually called the police to remove the captain from the seat. He was first noticed by the check in staff because of a noticeable difficulty in walking and once in the flight deck could hardly hang up his jacket. The only big question from all concerned, How the fuck did he get past security!!!!! It was obvious he was impaired and how drunk does one need to be to pass out as soon as he sits down.
If security can't catch a stumbling drunk, in uniform, how do you think they would do in weeding out terrorists. One only thing you count on, I'll bet no one made it through security with a 120ml tube of tooth paste. Smoke screens are good to deflect the real issue here but they can't draw attention to our passenger "feel good" smoke and mirrors.
Like it's always been -- Blame the fucking pilot -- lmfaoooooooo but their first line of defense has failed once again. Oh ya another one, guns in luggage. It's common south of 49 and even some airports have separate check in lines for those who are carrying. So now someone drops the ball and either it went undetected in baggage screening, oh really, obviously the of screening all bags is bullshit, or the most scary scenario is that the master minds of security never saw this one coming. ---- Damn!!!!
Welcome to 2017!!!!!!!
-
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:34 pm
[quote]Could have been drinking in the lounge after security.[/quote]
He had already called in to say he would be 30 min late. That's why he did the solo run to the flight deck. The rest of the crew was on time and doing their checks. The F/O was actually on the phone with dispatch when he stumbled in. I still have my little birdies -- LMFAOoooooooo
He had already called in to say he would be 30 min late. That's why he did the solo run to the flight deck. The rest of the crew was on time and doing their checks. The F/O was actually on the phone with dispatch when he stumbled in. I still have my little birdies -- LMFAOoooooooo
-
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 3:29 pm
Assumptions.
There is an assumption that pilots don't drink
There is an assumption that foreign pilots are less qualified than Canadian pilots
Both wrong
There is an assumption that because one foreign pilot got caught drinking before flying
that it is somehow related to his foreign qualifications.
Wrong again.
There is an assumption that random drug and alcohol testing is not necessary.
Wrong, they can start with the Judiciary, I remember flying one judge around who I used to have to sit at
the same dinner table and watch him get smashed on red wine.
Absolute trust, gives absolute power and NO ONE deserves an assumption of absolute trust
which is why Canada fails its population in not having random testing for anyone in a position of trust
where lives depend on them NOT being under the influence.
That's where the nonsense of reasonable and probable grounds fails the public interest.
There is an assumption that pilots don't drink
There is an assumption that foreign pilots are less qualified than Canadian pilots
Both wrong
There is an assumption that because one foreign pilot got caught drinking before flying
that it is somehow related to his foreign qualifications.
Wrong again.
There is an assumption that random drug and alcohol testing is not necessary.
Wrong, they can start with the Judiciary, I remember flying one judge around who I used to have to sit at
the same dinner table and watch him get smashed on red wine.
Absolute trust, gives absolute power and NO ONE deserves an assumption of absolute trust
which is why Canada fails its population in not having random testing for anyone in a position of trust
where lives depend on them NOT being under the influence.
That's where the nonsense of reasonable and probable grounds fails the public interest.
-
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:34 pm
I'm not sure how pilots can "legally" drink on short layovers since most companies have 12 hours bottle/throttle in the com. No one can police what goes on behind closed doors but usually solo drinkers have a much deeper issue. The old statement "I didn't know he drank until I saw him sober one day" has too much truth to it.
-
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]The old statement "I didn't know he drank until I saw him sober one day" has too much truth to it[/quote]
Yes, it's amazing that no one involved has ever
met a functioning alcoholic. Many years ago, I
remember spending one evening at a bar, after
drinking 30 beers or so, a friend of mine jumped
on his motorcycle and off he went. There was no
way in hell I could keep up with him.
He was a better rider, legally drunk, than I was sober.
Another kid I knew, met him again years later, it
was if he was a different person. He'd been stoned
for all the years that I'd known him before.
Yes, it's amazing that no one involved has ever
met a functioning alcoholic. Many years ago, I
remember spending one evening at a bar, after
drinking 30 beers or so, a friend of mine jumped
on his motorcycle and off he went. There was no
way in hell I could keep up with him.
He was a better rider, legally drunk, than I was sober.
Another kid I knew, met him again years later, it
was if he was a different person. He'd been stoned
for all the years that I'd known him before.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 5 Replies
- 2753 Views
-
Last post by vanNostrum
-
- 1 Replies
- 1882 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
-
- 1 Replies
- 1020 Views
-
Last post by Colonel