Eskzoo From Canada, joined Jan 2008, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3707 times:
The Jazz cuts are just follow up to the transborder cuts as they now have less flights to feed from the secondary and tertiary markets... as for closing Hamilton makes sense but could leave a couple slots for someone else to consider following WestJet into the Hamilton to... routing.
Hamilton could fit into the Porter idea giving those Toronto residents who live in the suburbs and beyond and beyond another option beyond trying to get downtown on a weekday. Who knows... especially once they roll out Chicago, Phila, D.C. and those other US markets.
Time to get rid of some 50 seat CRJ's maybe - wonder if BBD would do a trade in deal for the home team involving Q400's.
Quoting Fly_yhm (Reply 4): YHM-YOW and YUL have always been diffucult routes to run. Who knows maybe Westjet will return to these routes.
If AC cant do it profitably on Dash 8's, I dont see how WS can with 737's.
Do Jazz do any charter work other than for AC? Newly acquired DH3 FRUZ seems to fly some freight charters into YVR. Would there be any restrictions on expanding non AC work, such as the YVR - QCI fishing charters?
CGOJZ From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3535 times:
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 5): Do Jazz do any charter work other than for AC? Newly acquired DH3 FRUZ seems to fly some freight charters into YVR. Would there be any restrictions on expanding non AC work, such as the YVR - QCI fishing charters?
Three DHC-8's are dedicated to charter operations including C-FRUZ, which is based in YYC. It operates pax flights in/out of YVR regularly on behalf of Suncor Energy. There is no restriction on expansion of charter operations, in fact this area has grown by over 200% in 2008. The second charter DHC-8-300 C-FSOU currently based in YUL will move to YYC shortly.
Drgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3040 times:
The service cuts are PART of Air Canada's capacity cuts, NOT in addition to.
AC is responsible for setting Jazz's role within the AC network so when AC said it was cutting 7% of capacity overall, this included capacity that would come from both the mainline carrier and Jazz. As a separate, publicly held company, Jazz had to publicly state just what the impact from AC's cuts are on its operation. In this case they represent 5% of Jazz's capacity.
The 270 job cuts should BE IN ADDITION TO AC's 2000 cuts. AC has no control over Jazz's employment level, just over the amount of capacity operated by Jazz in accordance with their capacity agreement.
Robsawatsky From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2934 times:
Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 9): AC is responsible for setting Jazz's role within the AC network
Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 9): AC has no control over Jazz's employment level, just over the amount of capacity operated by Jazz in accordance with their capacity agreement.
Quite correct. Under the CPA Jazz operates flights but AC markets them (excluding Jazz charters). There is a huge financial inter-relationship between AC and Jazz despite that fact that AC/ACE has no remaining interest in Jazz the corporation. AC employees still provide many services to Jazz.
You can read (and attempt to decipher the relationship) as explained in their last Annual Report here:
9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2608 times:
Quoting RickYHM (Reply 12): According to Jazz staff at YHM the load average was 75%.
75% is okay,it's the RASM that was the final nail in the coffin. YXX was another example of reasonable load factor but poor yeild. JV could likely make a good go of it if Porter decides not to waste there money on the effort. YHM had been on the chopping block for a long time and it was always a matter of when not if they were going to withdraw from the market.
In regards to the reductions at Jazz,if nothing else they reduction in flying of 5-6% will not necessarily be a bad thing as no aircraft are planned to be withdrawn from the fleet which should allow for additional line maintainence between flights and the ability to recover from irregular operations more swiftly.
F9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4947 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2341 times:
Sorry to hear about the layoffs. I love AC Jazz. From the crews I have met, they are some really nice people. I hope they find their way through these tough times, and come out stronger. I am saddened to hear my Canadian neighbors are feeling the pinch too. I guess I should head up north, and invest a few hundred on a vacation?
CGOJZ From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2198 times:
Quoting Avt007 (Reply 15): You can tell these aircraft as they do not have "Air Canada" on them, just "Jazz". Otherwise the paint scheme is identical. And yes, they are used for AC flights when not doing charters.
To be clear on the second point - they are non CPA aircraft, outside of the scope of the agreement, so they are not part of the 133 machines assigned to AC flying.
Either aircraft may only be used to cover for irregular operations preventing a significant delay or cancellation - so they are not part of the scheduled fleet when not flying charters - just when required, and no CPA aircraft are available.
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2014 times:
I answered with what I had heard, but when I go looking for a definitive answer, it's harder to find. Jazz's financial reports refer to the charter aircraft as being "dedicated" to charter use. It also says CPA aircraft may be used for charters provided Jazz pays AC a charter fee for the use of the aircraft. So it goes one way for sure, but perhaps not the other.