Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
No More Pets For AC  
User currently offlineBoeingluvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4491 times:

Heard this morning on the radio that AC is no longer allowing pets checked in. They will have to go cargo. Not only no pets in cabin but now none checked. Looks like more business for WS. Most domestic routes people would rather fly the low cost carrier as paying for cargo can get rather pricey for pets!

75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeingluvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4394 times:

I'm actually referring to checking pets under the A/C. AC banned pets in cabin some time ago. Now they are ridding checked in pets as well.

User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4363 times:

If you move from Toronto to London, and assuming that all airlines do the same, how the pets would come along ??
Swimming ??
I am sure that if they do not retract, ten-thousands pet owner will not fly anymore with the already struggling AC, with or without their pets. A typical AC performance, i.e. act first, think later , precisely the cause of their woes.

aminobwana


User currently offlineBoeingluvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4352 times:

Well more business for WJ domestically, and more for BA INTL from major hubs.

User currently offlineAY104 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 505 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4348 times:

Wish I had kept the newspaper where I saw the article. It stated that this is for domestic only. Reason given was that the flights are so busy, they need all the space in the hold for baggage. It's fine by me. For the airlines to have to handle pets is just a pain in the butt. The amount of fuss and special handling, basically dedicating an agent from the ramp to come up to the counter and retrieve the dog and kennel. Then the animal has to wait in the baggage makeup area until loaded, with noisy equipment and aircraft, in a chaotic environment. Must be traumatic for the animals, regardless of whether they are tranquilized. At certain times of the year in hotter climates, eg Phoenix, checking in pets to and from those cities is prohibited because of the excessive heat. The airlines have been catering to travelers way to much for way too long, with accepting pets unaccompanied minors being another issue which I don't even want to get into here.

Quoting Boeingluvr (Thread starter):
Most domestic routes people would rather fly the low cost carrier as paying for cargo can get rather pricey for pets!

As a matter of fact, the last few times I have traveled, I have managed to get a lower fare on AC than on Westjet. For my upcoming trip to Montreal (from YVR), the lowest published fare for Air Canada and Westjet was $333.00 one way. I knew AC would eventually have some kind of a special offer, and I waited and got it for $249.00 one way. Meanwhile, Westjet was holding steady at $333.00. I have found this to be the norm. If Westjet wishes to continue accepting pets, they are most welcome to do so with my blessing.

Cheers,
AY104



The only thing a customer should expect for his/her loyalty is good service
User currently offlineBoeingluvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4323 times:

That's fine but when it calls for a cargo fee of $200.00 plus to ship the pet you're talking about saving $150.00 difference, once you pay $50.00 for the kennel with WS. So then you're still saving money with WS.

User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5003 posts, RR: 43
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4287 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 3):
I am sure that if they do not retract, ten-thousands pet owner will not fly anymore with the already struggling AC, with or without their pets. A typical AC performance, i.e. act first, think later , precisely the cause of their woes.

That is actually quite funny ... as AC is hardly "struggling".

"act first, think later" ????

Since when is making money a "woe"?



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineAY104 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 505 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4263 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 3):
I am sure that if they do not retract, ten-thousands pet owner will not fly anymore with the already struggling AC, with or without their pets. A typical AC performance, i.e. act first, think later , precisely the cause of their woes.

As far as I am concerned, and probably also tens of thousands others, this is a good move by AC and a darned good reason to avoid Westjet and travel more on AC. I don't think that there is any reason for any airline to take on the added responsibility of having to transport pets. Period. Either in the cabin or in the cargo hold. These days it is tricky enough just to get the volume of travelers to their destinations, without having the added burden of caring for pets as well. I elaborated on this is my Reply 5 in this thread.

Cheers,
AY104



The only thing a customer should expect for his/her loyalty is good service
User currently offlineBoeingluvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4234 times:

One good reason for them is added revenue. I can see your reasons for not agreeing with high flight loads and such but I think for an airline it's better(since most of them still do this) to accept the increasde revenue of taking pets in the cargo hold as apposed to just saying no. Someone's gotta do it and with WS being the only carrier to do this now in domestic Canada then I can't see them stopping soon.

As far as the struggling remarks go I think that with AC charging for everything and the share price jumping up and down, as well as the recent bankruptcy protection they filed for kinda makes the public eye feel that they are struglling. Also was AC bought out a large portion by Deutche Bank who in fact is Germany so how Canada is Air Canada now? Just a couple of thoughts on the matter.


User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5003 posts, RR: 43
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4218 times:

This is AC's official announcement:

Change of policy on carriage of pets. To effectively handle the high volume of baggage loads and meet the needs of the vast majority of our passengers, effective July 15, 2007 pets will no longer be accepted as checked baggage on domestic flights, and, pending CTA approval, on international and transborder flights. Bookings already made will be honoured. It's important to note that accommodating oxygen circulation requirements for animals carried as checked baggage restricts the amount of luggage that can ultimately be carried on a flight, which can inconvenience other passengers when baggage needs to be offloaded.
Note: Customers wishing to transport pets have the option to do so through Air Canada Cargo, where the Cargo team has a specialized "live animal travel" program and is able to plan the best flights for pets to travel on. Further information can be found at http://www.aircanada.com/cargo/en/services/ac_live.html



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineRobsawatsky From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4192 times:

Both Westjet and AC have had complete Pet embargoes in the past, although it sounds like this may be longer term for AC this time. If you are hoping Westjet, note the following:

"For safety reasons, WestJet cannot accept pets in checked luggage on domestic and transborder flights during portions of the Holiday season. Prior to December 11 there will be no restrictions. From December 11 – 14 and January 7 - 10 the cap for the SSR code AVIH (checked kennels) will be two per flight with none accepted in cargo. A full embargo will be in place on all flights from December 15 - January 6. No checked kennels will be accepted during these times with none accepted in cargo.

WestJet is unable to accept animals in checked baggage on flights to Phoenix, Palm Springs and Hawaii at any time of the year.

WestJet is unable to accept animals in checked baggage from May 1 to September 30 of each year to or from certain American destinations, again due to the possibility of extreme temperatures."


User currently offlineBoeingluvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4189 times:

Possibly that. It seems that the other dates are due to high flight loads and if u look will probably re-occur every year. Many sold out flights I'd imagine during this time so they need to regulate space very carefully.

User currently offlineAC_B777 From Canada, joined Aug 2000, 809 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4059 times:

I agree with AC on this. Too many people travelling without pets end up having their baggage bumped off flights due to animals in the cargo holds.
I am not against pets on flights, but there should at least be some restrictions for a pax travelling with a pet that the rest of their baggage travel on a space available rule.
Case in point, I was working in baggage assembly during the Christmas 2005 rush. We had an oversold A321 flight to YYZ with 9 containers of baggage planned and priority cargo and baggage planned for the bulkhold. I get a call from the ticket counter that a huge dog and kennel were on the way out. When it came through oversized baggage, I saw the total weight was 170lbs. The kennel took up about half a baggage cart. I called the load office to inform them of the large dog and its weight. The agent told me that due to its size, we were probably going to have to bump all cargo and baggage for the bulkhold for ventilation and a/c loading restrictions.
The kennel was so big that it did'nt fit in through the bulkhold door. The ramp guys had to put it through the rear main cargo door.
We ended up having to bump all the priority cargo and about 30-40 pieces of baggage due to this one dog. The pax travelling with the dog got their luggage at their destination, but many did'nt which ended up cost AC a nice dollar.
Now for you who think that AC is wrong, I wonder if you would be alright if your baggage was bumped of a flight due to a pet/pets travelling in the cargo hold. I would imagine you would be the first to bitch and complain.



In life, some days you are the bug..... some days you are the windshield!
User currently offlineAY104 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 505 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4025 times:

Quoting AC_B777 (Reply 12):
I agree with AC on this.

Thank You!
AY104



The only thing a customer should expect for his/her loyalty is good service
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3998 times:

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 11):

That's correct. The winter restrictions are put in place every year.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2244 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3966 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):
I am sure that if they do not retract, ten-thousands pet owner will not fly anymore with the already struggling AC, with or without their pets. A typical AC performance, i.e. act first, think later , precisely the cause of their woes.

AC-B777 is correct. The restrictions on liquids etc. has really increased checked bags.

As far as the quote. Firstly, there aren't "tens- thousands owner(sic)" who fly with their pets on Air Canada. Secondly, the airline is accepting liability for a live animal. If the cage comes appart (some are rickety) and the animal gets loose on the tarmac there is chaos and many delayed flights. The live animal cargo is much more reliable and better off for the animal. They send multi-million dollar race horses this way. I saw some offloaded at Air Canada cargo at YYZ on Thursday. Thirdly, how do you define struggling?

I was on a flight last year where an animal in the hold was in some sort of distress. I think it turned out to be just the stress of it all as it was its first flight so the animal appeared to be ok when we landed in YYZ. However the flight was delayed because the ramp personnel took the time and care to have the passenger come and check her pet. Altogether about 20 minutes. Good service and probably the right thing to do, however a packed plane was held up costing a lot of money.


User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2147 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3913 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):
already struggling AC

Learn first, type later. AC is not by any means struggling, unless you mean: "struggling to keep up with demand".

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):
A typical AC performance, i.e. act first, think later , precisely the cause of their woes

Trust me, anything AC does now is a result of a lot of careful thought, planning and research. Not much done lightly these days.

Quoting AC_B777 (Reply 12):
I wonder if you would be alright if your baggage was bumped of a flight due to a pet/pets travelling in the cargo hold. I would imagine you would be the first to bitch

Clever, but how do you know the large dog was female? Thanks, I'm playing here all week...



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):
already struggling AC

Ummm struggling how? A little thinking before typing goes a long way.

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):
If you move from Toronto to London, and assuming that all airlines do the same, how the pets would come along ??
Swimming ??

FedEx, UPS, DHL and other specialist cargo companies.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineAussiestu From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 780 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3878 times:

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 3):
and more for BA INTL from major hubs.

I dont think BA accepts animals at all now. Someone may be able to confirm


User currently offlineWestJetYQQ From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2987 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3876 times:

Quoting Boeingluvr (Thread starter):
Looks like more business for WS.

Alright! Always good to see AC making a stupid mistake.  flamed 

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 3):
WJ

*WS  Wink

Cheers
Carson



Will You Try to Change Things? Use the Power that you have, the Power of a Million new Ideas.
User currently offlineBoeingluvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3774 times:

Haha I'm not too sure with the BA thing. Have to double check. I'm sure I've seen it before. Anyways regardless. Like I said people say AC is struggling or not doing well. Think back to the bankruptcy protection days and the Deutch Bank buyout thing and that's what people think of. I think a lot of people just resent AC a little because they charge for everything and customer service is... well let's face it... It could use some vast improvements! Sarcasm and rudeness shoudln't be accompanied with paying a full confirmed fare in any circumstance. Also as far as delays and cancellatinos are concerned with AC I believe they leave you int he words of many passangers "high and dry" no matter the delay you get no compensation and are put stand by on the next flight. No reconfimations. This is what I have been told!

User currently offlineLostturttle From Bermuda, joined Dec 2006, 140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3761 times:

Quoting Aussiestu (Reply 18):
I dont think BA accepts animals at all now. Someone may be able to confirm

Last year a next door neighbor wanted to bring two dwarf rabbits back home to Bermuda from the UK.....She found out the hard way that the policy had changed

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/pet/public/en_us

"When you want to transport your pet, you can rest assured that we will take the very best care of them. Pets must be booked to travel with British Airways World Cargo, and they will be carried in the aircraft hold."

She told me it would cost almost $900 for two bunnies worth about $50. The rabbits stayed in the UK!

Quoting AC_B777 (Reply 12):
I agree with AC on this. Too many people travelling without pets end up having their baggage bumped off flights due to animals in the cargo holds.
I am not against pets on flights, but there should at least be some restrictions for a pax travelling with a pet that the rest of their baggage travel on a space available rule.

Great post , and so true. Though sometimes I still miss seeing those two little dogs in the carry on poking their heads out......


User currently offlineAccargo From Canada, joined Sep 2004, 610 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3749 times:

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 20):
Haha I'm not too sure with the BA thing. Have to double check. I'm sure I've seen it before. Anyways regardless. Like I said people say AC is struggling or not doing well. Think back to the bankruptcy protection days and the Deutch Bank buyout thing and that's what people think of. I think a lot of people just resent AC a little because they charge for everything and customer service is... well let's face it... It could use some vast improvements! Sarcasm and rudeness shoudln't be accompanied with paying a full confirmed fare in any circumstance. Also as far as delays and cancellatinos are concerned with AC I believe they leave you int he words of many passangers "high and dry" no matter the delay you get no compensation and are put stand by on the next flight. No reconfimations. This is what I have been told!

Your profile says you are a "pilot in training". If you ever hope to make it a career you might want to learn not to bite the hand that may feed you. Or are you limiting yourself to working for WS? Either way, make sure you let whomever interviews you know your feelings about AC. WS will love you for it and AC will know not to hire someone that doesn't have a clue.


Please disregard, I just had a look at some of your other pearls of wisdom.

[Edited 2007-06-24 03:34:22]

User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3744 times:

Quoting YOWza (Reply 17):
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):
already struggling AC

Ummm struggling how? A little thinking before typing goes a long way.

Have you seen their balance sheet ?? But let skip this
Have you seen the passsenger comments ?? You can see one in Reply


Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 2):
If you move from Toronto to London, and assuming that all airlines do the same, how the pets would come along ??
Swimming ??

FedEx, UPS, DHL and other specialist cargo companies

So, if you are going from lets say Albuquerque -Memphis -London-Plymouth (plus at least one other courier transhipment, aside to costing many hundred of dolllars, will probably not even be available, as the pet would need to be left in his cage for probably 72 hours and differently from checked passenger luggage, the owner will not have access to several transhipments points, neither to the shippimg and reception stations

Inside US-Canada, courier can transport pets as long as a 24 hour (?) delivery can be guaranteed!

Speaking of your unnecessary remark regarding thinking...

But I agree with other more courteous A-netters that airlines could and should refuse to carry pets if circumstances merit so, if overcrowding and similar. if I want that the pets fly with me, I must accept certain restriction regarding the selection of flights. But simplistic solutions as refusing alltogether to do it are not only inadequate, but can result in huge losses, if the Toronto Star get wind of it !! Again, think of this...

aminobwana

aminobwana


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25323 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3730 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AY104 (Reply 4):
The airlines have been catering to travelers way to much for way too long,

You're saying that the airlines should not cater to travellers?

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 15):
If the cage comes appart (some are rickety) and the animal gets loose on the tarmac there is chaos and many delayed flights.

I'v flown my dogs all over the world - the latest being LAX-AKL - and the instructions about proper cages are exact and have to be met. If the cage is "rickety" why did the airline accept it?

It isn't cheap to fly animals - the "fare" for my two LAX-AKL was more for each than an economy class pax each - and the restrictions are arduous, but I accept them

I know the dogs cannot fly in certain temperatures or certain conditions, and I also know this creates a problem - and more money for the airlines - if they don't fly, for whatever reason.

I've had at least one case when I had to buy a whole new ticket, with no refund of my original ticket, because the dogs couldn't fly - a grumpy official somewhere decided it is "too close" to a prohibited temperature.

Mostly, the airlines have done a great job with my animals, perhaps better than some human passengers, but the airlines have done quite well - financially - out of me, too.

mariner



aeternum nauta
25 Lostturttle : My understanding of this new policy is that your pet will NOT fly on the same flight with you. It will go on a Cargo Filght. (Domestic travel) "With a
26 Boeingluvr : Quoting Accargo From Canada, joined Sep 2004, 530 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted Sat Jun 23 2007 19:31:33 your local time (2 hours 58 minutes 44 secs a
27 Jwenting : They'd need to be quarantined anyway for quite a long time entering the UK so sending them some other way doesn't matter. You can't pick them up on a
28 Sebring : When your baggage handlers have twice as many kennels to load, and turnaround times are being compromised, and fluffy escapes from its cage and its o
29 Boeingluvr : I agree. That's the problem with Airlines these days. Always looking out for themselves and not their passengers. That's exactly what I talk about whe
30 Mariner : I'd love to know how "fluffy" escaped. Every time my dogs have flown, the cages have been rigorously inspected, more than once, and on international,
31 VonRichtofen : AC is no longer allowing pets to make sure they can better serve their other customers who are the vast majority versus passengers with pets. Why can
32 AY104 : I'll quote my own text once again, since I am the "dude" who doesn't seem to wake up. What I get, is that they can no longer afford to offer the serv
33 Mariner : For several reasons: (i) How is someone to get a search and rescue dog to Yukon or Northwest Territory in the winter? Maybe there's a cargo flight le
34 MEACEDAR : Yeah, I have noticed too. I checked out Westjet's flight from MCO-YUL via YYZ roundtrip and it was around $600.00. Then I saw a price that I thought
35 Boeingluvr : You can't tell me that this has nothing to do with money. Everything airlines do does. Say a bag is left behind because of a kennel. For AC that's 100
36 FraT : Mariner, who said, that pets will end up on a cargo flight? Better where is it written? The point is, that the handling is done by AC cargo and it's n
37 Mariner : I understand that. However, in post #9 it gives the clear impression that they will be Cargo: If that is not the case - if my dogs can travel on the
38 FraT : But Cargo doesn't mean that it's a pure cargo flight. There is cargo carried on nearly all passenger flights.
39 Mariner : I understand that. It doesn't change the clear impression that the dogs (in my case) are treated and transported as cargo - and thus may be on any ca
40 AC_B777 : I'm not too sure you know what customer service is? So the 30-40 bags we bumped off a Christmas time flight to handle one pax dog was customer servic
41 Post contains images Srbmod : There are airlines in the US that have never allowed pets as checked baggage or cargo and only allow a small number of pets in the cabin. I too have s
42 Post contains links Accargo : There is so much misinformation being posted here by folks that are just out to bash AC it is not even funny anymore. Here is the process for transpor
43 LongHauler : Thank you ACCargo for a well written explanation. Once again the introduction of fact will destroy a good argument. I notice this a lot. In fact, AC h
44 Post contains links Lostturttle : Thanks for the correction Accargo. I for one agree with the new policy Still though you will get those pax who will show up just in time for a flight
45 Pnwtraveler : I couldn't find a reference to it but last year there was a story that was covered by a lot of media about a prize winning poodle I believe, who got l
46 YYCowboy : What planet are you from? All this leads me to a sad story awhile ago. A passanger was transporting a "prized Rotweiller" for YYZ to YYC on Jetsgo. U
47 Boeingluvr : Quoting "AC_B777 From Canada, joined Aug 2000, 601 posts, RR: 5 Reply 40, posted Sun Jun 24 2007 05:08:28 your local time (5 hours 32 minutes 12 secs
48 Boeingluvr : Qutoing accargo "You might want to check out with your beloved WS because they make the same stupid mistake. At certain times of the year they have an
49 Sebring : If they have an embargo, it's hard to see how they can accommodate all of those people who will say, "Oh nevermind..." Conversely, if all the pet own
50 Threepoint : Nonsense. Rudeness and sarcasm is almost always in direct response to a passenger's attitude. The times one encounters an airline employee acting ver
51 YYZYHZ : Um Boeingluvr.... I'm sorry I'm laughing hysterically at your rants disguised as posts! Charging for everything? Ummm sorry why do you think that dome
52 9252fly : ...Boeingluvr Most people on this site try not to make an ass of themselves,you on the other hand have excelled at it!
53 Boeingluvr : Haha looks like I found the AC employees as well as fans on this site. You know what you can call me an ass or an idiot but the fact of the matter is.
54 Accargo : Okay hot shot. If you know so much, how many 50kg dogs can a 320 take on a 5 hour flight? The mere fact that you seem to think that 1 knl displaces 4
55 Post contains links ACDC8 : Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 53): Everyone on here it's a matter of opinion. Then keep it in the appropriate forum. Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 53): If sma
56 Accargo : What acft are you endorsed on? Where was your license issued? Care to share some weight and balance numbers with us? Your a fraud. If you were actuall
57 Viscount724 : There are 2 carriers to the Yukon, AC and Air North, and the latter operates 737s vs. AC's CRJs. To the Northwest Territories, there are 3 scheduled
58 Boeingluvr : "Quoting"accargo. Okay hot shot. If you know so much, how many 50kg dogs can a 320 take on a 5 hour flight? The mere fact that you seem to think that
59 Sebring : AC's 320s are containerized, and accargo works for AC Cargo and has more knowledge in his pinky than you have in your brain.
60 Boeingluvr : First off issued in Europe, second off closest to 737's? Well I've flown a lot of jumps and oh yea teh Ng flightn sim but meh whatever right? I'm just
61 YYZYHZ : If you were as knowledgeable as you claim, you'd know that AC has since launched it's refurbishment programme, including PTV's in every seat. Funny on
62 Boeingluvr : First off ACcargo... I'm going to say I appologize. This arguementative additude is not really my personality. Apon thinking about my words yes they a
63 Boeingluvr : "quotingSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 975 posts, RR: 5 Reply 59, posted Sun Jun 24 2007 16:58:56 your local time (1 hour 4 minutes 29 secs ago
64 AC_B777 : First Boeingluvr, maybe you should learn how to spell and use proper grammar, then maybe people will take you more seriously. Secondly, I am not a Loa
65 AC_B777 : Point proven! You know very little about AC and our a/c and operation. ALL A320/A321 aircraft flying for AC are containerized. The only narrowbody Ai
66 Threepoint : But, sir, in your case, you have stated many times that you 'know' your points are correct because some buddies 'told you so'. I'm an AC fan. I don't
67 Mariner : If you are saying that it is okay because they can fly other airlines, then yes, that is true. But what happens if the other airlines adopt a similar
68 Boeingluvr : That's okay guys. Sorry bout the grammer and misspelling if it bothers you that much. And no you right i do not pay much attention to AC. Also... some
69 Post contains images Accargo : You just continue to spout out rubbish. I don't think there are too many AC employee's that hate WS. We may have had issues with some of the things a
70 YOWza : hahaha. So you're doing you're finishing your training and doing your conversion in 18 months? Interesting. YOWza
71 Boeingluvr : Okay guys here's how it works. First off a pilot sponsorship in Europe... First off I am doing my training there so there is no need to do a conversio
72 Post contains images Accargo : I've heard all about the "sponsorship" program at AC. It's funny how your story has changed since your first post. 6 months into a sponsorship program
73 Salomon : Our piloting school was selected for that Jazz scholarship and 4 of the graduating students went for further tests in Toronto. Not sure what happened
74 Boeingluvr : That actually was a lot of my debate before deciding. A lot of good friends said bush flying was the most fun they ever had and airline flying was bor
75 LTBEWR : I suspect that AC, like many airlines, feel that in terms of income and profits, the risks, the capacity issues, smaller aircraft, a shift of more bag
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Alitalia: No More Skirts For Its F/A (funny) posted Fri Nov 10 2006 11:27:17 by Wingedarrow
No More Funding For Scottish Long Haul Flights posted Sun Sep 10 2006 21:42:58 by Humberside
No More Elko For Casino Express posted Sat Dec 3 2005 18:50:23 by FlyingTexan
No More Names For Mexicana Planes? posted Tue Apr 19 2005 14:29:14 by Udo
Priceline In The UK - No More Bidding For Flights posted Tue Mar 8 2005 14:59:22 by Rwylie77
No More 757's For Am? posted Wed Jan 26 2005 04:36:12 by Jpintoa
No More B-757 For Am posted Thu Jan 6 2005 01:16:53 by Jpintoa
No More Timetables For Southwest Airlines posted Sat Jun 26 2004 04:48:30 by ScottysAir
No More MD11s For China Airlines posted Thu Aug 1 2002 20:05:55 by Airmale
No More Boeings For Tap? posted Fri Apr 12 2002 00:31:41 by American 767