The WestJet Thread - 2021

qf789 · Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:29 pm

Welcome to the WestJet Thread - 2021. Please continue to add your comments below

Link to last thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1427977

Dominion301 · Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:18 am

I have a question to kick off the 2021 WS thread. Did the above wing layoffs at all stations except for YYZ, YYC, YVR & YEG go ahead as planned in (November?) 2020?

hollywoodcory · Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:50 am

I think so. I know ATS took over below the wing for WestJet at YYC.

9252fly · Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:40 pm

hollywoodcory wrote:
I think so. I know ATS took over below the wing for WestJet at YYC.

I was under the impression they would keep below the wing services with their own employees in YYC ? To the best of my knowledge below the wing has always been contracted out in YVR YEG and YYZ.

CFWAD · Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:58 pm

At it's peak, all domestic airports were above-wing WS employees while YYC, YMM and YYZ were below-wing WS TAC.

I don't believe any non-domestic bases were ever in-house, although there was talk many moons ago about turning LAS into WS above-wing.

tacobell101 · Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:44 am

I believe most of the bases in BC went to Menzies, I know YYJ starts in late January, same with YCD and YQQ

9252fly · Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:15 am

So to summarize, all below the wing will be contracted out and above the wing will only remain in YVR YEG YYC and YYZ?

Whiteguy · Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:38 am

Looks like YYC-HNL is switching to a B73W starting Jan 10th.

cirrusdragoon · Sun Jan 03, 2021 9:06 am

Whiteguy wrote:
Looks like YYC-HNL is switching to a B73W starting Jan 10th.

I wonder how much of a seat capacity reduction it will require to allow for it? I wonder when Canada’s transport authority will clear the 7M8 back. Huff puff..

Whiteguy · Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:21 pm

cirrusdragoon wrote:
Whiteguy wrote:
Looks like YYC-HNL is switching to a B73W starting Jan 10th.

I wonder how much of a seat capacity reduction it will require to allow for it? I wonder when Canada’s transport authority will clear the 7M8 back. Huff puff..

It gets reduced to about 110 seats, I don’t think loads are anywhere near that so won’t be an issue. I think the MAX restriction will be lifted in the next week or 2 but doubt you’ll see it on Hawaii this season. The plan is Jan 21st to start operating and probably on trans con routes where there are multiple flights. This will enable pax to change their flights if they don’t want to fly the MAX. I’m guessing it’ll be a higher percentage changing for the first couple months and then it’ll drop off. Once it drops the MAX will start operating different routes, maybe the direct Hawaii’s.

Thenoflyzone · Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:03 pm

it's not wise to utilise any MAX on a ETOPS 180 mission to Hawaii this close to recertification. All the issues with the long term storage of these birds needs to be ironed out first.

Let the frames fly close to land for a few months. Once everything is copacetic, then commence crossing an ocean.

hollywoodcory · Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:08 pm

The MAX won't fly to Hawaii until next winter. If YYC-HNL is an issue, I can see it just being dropped again and focusing on YYC-OGG.

A few days ago Ed Sims mentioned in an interview he's optimistic about the future and says the airline will take delivery off all 4 787s planned in 2021, meaning they'll have 10 by the end of the year.
https://calgarysun.com/business/local-b ... y-in-2021/

They may not get heavy use outside of YYZ-YYC/YVR runs or to LGW/CDG at least not this year. Maybe they'll fly to heavy leisure destinations through the summer like the CUN/PVR runs starting this month.

cirrusdragoon · Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:23 pm

Whiteguy wrote:
cirrusdragoon wrote:
Whiteguy wrote:
Looks like YYC-HNL is switching to a B73W starting Jan 10th.

I wonder how much of a seat capacity reduction it will require to allow for it? I wonder when Canada’s transport authority will clear the 7M8 back. Huff puff..

It gets reduced to about 110 seats, I don’t think loads are anywhere near that so won’t be an issue. I think the MAX restriction will be lifted in the next week or 2 but doubt you’ll see it on Hawaii this season. The plan is Jan 21st to start operating and probably on trans con routes where there are multiple flights. This will enable pax to change their flights if they don’t want to fly the MAX. I’m guessing it’ll be a higher percentage changing for the first couple months and then it’ll drop off. Once it drops the MAX will start operating different routes, maybe the direct Hawaii’s.

Thank you for that update.

hollywoodcory · Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:22 am

Aside from 3 flights this month, it looks like LGW has now been completely cancelled until late March from both YYC and YYZ.

Also VRA, SXM, NAS, TPA that had previously survived the February cuts have now been removed in Feb.

dr1980 · Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:54 pm

Four WestJet 767’s are headed to Amazon

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mobile/westj ... -1.5253953

hollywoodcory · Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:59 pm

dr1980 wrote:
Four WestJet 767’s are headed to Amazon

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mobile/westj ... -1.5253953

This already happened 4 months ago, not sure why the media is reporting now.

hollywoodcory · Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:09 pm

WestJet is providing clearer and better details then the government themselves on the new testing requirements
https://www.westjet.com/en-ca/travel-in ... nada-entry

They also have a list of facilities that do testing in Mexico, Jamaica, Costa Rica, Barbados and the Dominican Republic.
https://www.westjet.com/assets/wj-web/d ... mation.pdf

777luver · Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:23 pm

Airlines slamming Ottawa for a lack of consultation and clarity..doubt it'll change anything though

https://canadianaviationnews.wordpress. ... -19-tests/

Aresxerexade · Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:51 pm

There is a new aggressive variant of virus originating in South Africa where researchers are now doubting the current vaccines might not be effective against. The only way to stop transmissions of new mutations is if people stop going on holidays. The government is right. Why are so many humans so selfish that they do not see that the primary focus now is to get the virus under control / have wider vaccine distribution? Greed , humans are greedy selfish fools.

Canada should have had this pre entry testing requirement ages ago like some other countries like Italy. USA airlines have also reportedly approached US Vice President Mike Pence backing a proposal to implement pre-departure testing for all international arrivals.

777luver · Tue Jan 05, 2021 8:54 pm

Aresxerexade wrote:
There is a new aggressive variant of virus originating in South Africa where researchers are now doubting the current vaccines might not be effective against. The only way to stop transmissions of new mutations is if people stop going on holidays. The government is right. Why are so many humans so selfish that they do not see that the primary focus now is to get the virus under control / have wider vaccine distribution? Greed , humans are greedy selfish fools.

Canada should have had this pre entry testing requirement ages ago like some other countries like Italy. USA airlines have also reportedly approached US Vice President Mike Pence backing a proposal to implement pre-departure testing for all international arrivals.

As for the US airlines backing that proposal, its nice when they've received their 2nd round of federal aid money and they have the resources to do that meanwhile our airlines are bleeding left and right with zero aid in sight despite the govt saying it was on its way, not once not twice but three times now and it has yet to arrive. 10 months in. So yes when you have more money sitting in your pockets from the govt of course you would back up a proposal like that, especially when you have a second round of BILLIONS in aid.

Cardude100000 · Tue Jan 05, 2021 9:05 pm

Aresxerexade wrote:
There is a new aggressive variant of virus originating in South Africa where researchers are now doubting the current vaccines might not be effective against. The only way to stop transmissions of new mutations is if people stop going on holidays. The government is right. Why are so many humans so selfish that they do not see that the primary focus now is to get the virus under control / have wider vaccine distribution? Greed , humans are greedy selfish fools.

Canada should have had this pre entry testing requirement ages ago like some other countries like Italy. USA airlines have also reportedly approached US Vice President Mike Pence backing a proposal to implement pre-departure testing for all international arrivals.

Do you have any resources to back up the claim that current vaccines are less effective on this new variant?

There is no evidence proving the new variant is more deadly and most viruses when mutating become more viral and come with milder illnesses than the previous strain as stated in this article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-heal ... ss-lethal/

777luver · Tue Jan 05, 2021 9:31 pm

Cardude100000 wrote:
Aresxerexade wrote:
There is a new aggressive variant of virus originating in South Africa where researchers are now doubting the current vaccines might not be effective against. The only way to stop transmissions of new mutations is if people stop going on holidays. The government is right. Why are so many humans so selfish that they do not see that the primary focus now is to get the virus under control / have wider vaccine distribution? Greed , humans are greedy selfish fools.

Canada should have had this pre entry testing requirement ages ago like some other countries like Italy. USA airlines have also reportedly approached US Vice President Mike Pence backing a proposal to implement pre-departure testing for all international arrivals.

Do you have any resources to back up the claim that current vaccines are less effective on this new variant?

There is no evidence proving the new variant is more deadly and most viruses when mutating become more viral and come with milder illnesses than the previous strain as stated in this article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-heal ... ss-lethal/

Thanks for asking that question. Its all fear mongering and panic inducing headlines by the media, fear sells. Tha ks for the common sense post

Aresxerexade · Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:39 pm

Cardude100000 wrote:
Aresxerexade wrote:
There is a new aggressive variant of virus originating in South Africa where researchers are now doubting the current vaccines might not be effective against. The only way to stop transmissions of new mutations is if people stop going on holidays. The government is right. Why are so many humans so selfish that they do not see that the primary focus now is to get the virus under control / have wider vaccine distribution? Greed , humans are greedy selfish fools.

Canada should have had this pre entry testing requirement ages ago like some other countries like Italy. USA airlines have also reportedly approached US Vice President Mike Pence backing a proposal to implement pre-departure testing for all international arrivals.

Do you have any resources to back up the claim that current vaccines are less effective on this new variant?

There is no evidence proving the new variant is more deadly and most viruses when mutating become more viral and come with milder illnesses than the previous strain as stated in this article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-heal ... ss-lethal/

I never stated more deadly , I stated aggressive in transmission. It is common knowledge, if you follow current events , read the news . However here I will do your work for you.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55534727

And perhaps you can ask the researchers in South Africa if they have completed their analysis yet on that question you have. They are the ones who raised the concern , a valid one. It is a scientifically valid question, could this new strain pose a threat to the new vaccines?

Dr. John Bell of Oxford Universitysaid Sunday the variant identified in South Africa was worrisome in this regard, however.

“They both have multiple, different mutations in them, so they’re not a single mutation,” he told Times Radio. “And the mutations associated with the South African form are really pretty substantial changes in the structure of the (virus’ spike) protein.”

In any regard, the true caveat here is controlling the rate of spread of the virus around the world as well as containing any new variants and preventing them from spreading around the world. Good science. If you do not control the rate of spread well then your rate of infection will most certainly go up and what do you think that affects? Mortality rate amongst the most vulnerable.

What is not scientifically sound is when , the voice of industry greed , in a country like Canada where the virus is still raging along, begins crying foul on scientific measures , attempting to diminish the severity of a situation , calling it “sensationalism” in order to serve their own greedy needs. It is called having open media, knowledge is power not censorship. Chinais a professional with censoring concerns to their people, the West should not follow suit . Denial of facts is such a dangerous tool and you do not need a news source to back that statement up!

cirrusdragoon · Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:05 pm

Aresxerexade wrote:
Cardude100000 wrote:
Aresxerexade wrote:
There is a new aggressive variant of virus originating in South Africa where researchers are now doubting the current vaccines might not be effective against. The only way to stop transmissions of new mutations is if people stop going on holidays. The government is right. Why are so many humans so selfish that they do not see that the primary focus now is to get the virus under control / have wider vaccine distribution? Greed , humans are greedy selfish fools.

Canada should have had this pre entry testing requirement ages ago like some other countries like Italy. USA airlines have also reportedly approached US Vice President Mike Pence backing a proposal to implement pre-departure testing for all international arrivals.

Do you have any resources to back up the claim that current vaccines are less effective on this new variant?

There is no evidence proving the new variant is more deadly and most viruses when mutating become more viral and come with milder illnesses than the previous strain as stated in this article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-heal ... ss-lethal/

I never stated more deadly , I stated aggressive in transmission. It is common knowledge, if you follow current events , read the news . However here I will do your work for you.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55534727

And perhaps you can ask the researchers in South Africa if they have completed their analysis yet on that question you have. They are the ones who raised the concern , a valid one. It is a scientifically valid question, could this new strain pose a threat to the new vaccines?

Dr. John Bell of Oxford Universitysaid Sunday the variant identified in South Africa was worrisome in this regard, however.

“They both have multiple, different mutations in them, so they’re not a single mutation,” he told Times Radio. “And the mutations associated with the South African form are really pretty substantial changes in the structure of the (virus’ spike) protein.”

In any regard, the true caveat here is controlling the rate of spread of the virus around the world as well as containing any new variants and preventing them from spreading around the world. Good science. If you do not control the rate of spread well then your rate of infection will most certainly go up and what do you think that affects? Mortality rate amongst the most vulnerable.

What is not scientifically sound is when , the voice of industry greed , in a country like Canada where the virus is still raging along, begins crying foul on scientific measures , attempting to diminish the severity of a situation , calling it “sensationalism” in order to serve their own greedy needs. It is called having open media, knowledge is power not censorship. Chinais a professional with censoring concerns to their people, the West should not follow suit . Denial of facts is such a dangerous tool and you do not need a news source to back that statement up!

Well put. If i can add, I find it ridiculous Canada’s politicians are setting a poor example for their own civilians by they themselves travelling. What a slap in the face to their own medical community. What a poor society of gluttony...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... vel-advice

MIflyer12 · Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:10 am

777luver wrote:
Airlines slamming Ottawa for a lack of consultation and clarity..doubt it'll change anything though

https://canadianaviationnews.wordpress. ... -19-tests/

Complaints about lack of clarity from the people responsible for fare rules and contracts of carriage. That's rich.

Consultations? How many world-class epidemiologists do WS and AC have on staff? They can't even be trusted with banal paperwork.

aerolimani · Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:29 am

Aresxerexade wrote:
Cardude100000 wrote:
Aresxerexade wrote:
There is a new aggressive variant of virus originating in South Africa where researchers are now doubting the current vaccines might not be effective against. The only way to stop transmissions of new mutations is if people stop going on holidays. The government is right. Why are so many humans so selfish that they do not see that the primary focus now is to get the virus under control / have wider vaccine distribution? Greed , humans are greedy selfish fools.

Canada should have had this pre entry testing requirement ages ago like some other countries like Italy. USA airlines have also reportedly approached US Vice President Mike Pence backing a proposal to implement pre-departure testing for all international arrivals.

Do you have any resources to back up the claim that current vaccines are less effective on this new variant?

There is no evidence proving the new variant is more deadly and most viruses when mutating become more viral and come with milder illnesses than the previous strain as stated in this article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-heal ... ss-lethal/

I never stated more deadly , I stated aggressive in transmission. It is common knowledge, if you follow current events , read the news . However here I will do your work for you.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55534727

And perhaps you can ask the researchers in South Africa if they have completed their analysis yet on that question you have. They are the ones who raised the concern , a valid one. It is a scientifically valid question, could this new strain pose a threat to the new vaccines?

Dr. John Bell of Oxford Universitysaid Sunday the variant identified in South Africa was worrisome in this regard, however.

“They both have multiple, different mutations in them, so they’re not a single mutation,” he told Times Radio. “And the mutations associated with the South African form are really pretty substantial changes in the structure of the (virus’ spike) protein.”

In any regard, the true caveat here is controlling the rate of spread of the virus around the world as well as containing any new variants and preventing them from spreading around the world. Good science. If you do not control the rate of spread well then your rate of infection will most certainly go up and what do you think that affects? Mortality rate amongst the most vulnerable.

What is not scientifically sound is when , the voice of industry greed , in a country like Canada where the virus is still raging along, begins crying foul on scientific measures , attempting to diminish the severity of a situation , calling it “sensationalism” in order to serve their own greedy needs. It is called having open media, knowledge is power not censorship. Chinais a professional with censoring concerns to their people, the West should not follow suit . Denial of facts is such a dangerous tool and you do not need a news source to back that statement up!

I'm not going to say we should all be rushing out to travel here, there, and everywhere. However, I feel the level of panic should match the severity of the problem. I originally read a very alarmist BBC article which said vaccines may not be effective against the South new African variant. However, what they should have said is that they may not be as effective. Also, vaccine manufacturers have stated that adjustments can be made to accommodate new variants within four to six weeks. So, let's not go into full panic mode.

https://www.livescience.com/south-afric ... cines.html

Airlinerdude · Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:40 am

Aresxerexade wrote:
There is a new aggressive variant of virus originating in South Africa where researchers are now doubting the current vaccines might not be effective against. The only way to stop transmissions of new mutations is if people stop going on holidays. The government is right. Why are so many humans so selfish that they do not see that the primary focus now is to get the virus under control / have wider vaccine distribution? Greed , humans are greedy selfish fools.

Canada should have had this pre entry testing requirement ages ago like some other countries like Italy. USA airlines have also reportedly approached US Vice President Mike Pence backing a proposal to implement pre-departure testing for all international arrivals.

In a perfect world we could have told the entire world to stay home for two or three weeks and eradicated the virus too. Unfortunately the reality is that we have to manage a trade-off between economics and peoples' health and welfare. I'm not personally in favour of destroying an entire industry when there are perfectly adequate ways of managing potential exposure and/or transmission.

Unfortunately, what we have seen is that the Canadian government has not realized that there are perfectly adequate ways of managing potential exposure/transmission, and would rather penalize the industry instead of finding a happy medium. What I have noticed empirically from passenger loads data is that wherever efforts have been made to lessen the inconvenience to travel, passengers demand will be higher. While that might seem logical, it doesn't appear that the Canadian government has made any attempts over the last 10-months to make travel any more convenient. Instead, they'd rather further implement ridiculous measures that make travel less convenient to starve the airlines even further of much needed revenue.

Even a 5-day quarantine with a covid-test on the 5th day, à la Germany/UK, seemed a much more sensible approach to reducing the burden of international travel, while still making health/safety of Canadians the primary focus, than the current 14-day quarantine. Such a system (even if the consumer incurred an additional minor cost to have the test) would have likely spurred some much needed passenger growth for the airlines, while still remaining equally as safe as the current measures.

777luver · Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:21 am

Airlinerdude wrote:
Aresxerexade wrote:
There is a new aggressive variant of virus originating in South Africa where researchers are now doubting the current vaccines might not be effective against. The only way to stop transmissions of new mutations is if people stop going on holidays. The government is right. Why are so many humans so selfish that they do not see that the primary focus now is to get the virus under control / have wider vaccine distribution? Greed , humans are greedy selfish fools.

Canada should have had this pre entry testing requirement ages ago like some other countries like Italy. USA airlines have also reportedly approached US Vice President Mike Pence backing a proposal to implement pre-departure testing for all international arrivals.

In a perfect world we could have told the entire world to stay home for two or three weeks and eradicated the virus too. Unfortunately the reality is that we have to manage a trade-off between economics and peoples' health and welfare. I'm not personally in favour of destroying an entire industry when there are perfectly adequate ways of managing potential exposure and/or transmission.

Unfortunately, what we have seen is that the Canadian government has not realized that there are perfectly adequate ways of managing potential exposure/transmission, and would rather penalize the industry instead of finding a happy medium. What I have noticed empirically from passenger loads data is that wherever efforts have been made to lessen the inconvenience to travel, passengers demand will be higher. While that might seem logical, it doesn't appear that the Canadian government has made any attempts over the last 10-months to make travel any more convenient. Instead, they'd rather further implement ridiculous measures that make travel less convenient to starve the airlines even further of much needed revenue.

Even a 5-day quarantine with a covid-test on the 5th day, à la Germany/UK, seemed a much more sensible approach to reducing the burden of international travel, while still making health/safety of Canadians the primary focus, than the current 14-day quarantine. Such a system (even if the consumer incurred an additional minor cost to have the test) would have likely spurred some much needed passenger growth for the airlines, while still remaining equally as safe as the current measures.

I wholeheartedly agree with that you said. Its as if they are trying to kill the industry because they might as well do that with what they are doing right now. Going on 11 months and still no federal aid tells all

777luver · Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:22 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
777luver wrote:
Airlines slamming Ottawa for a lack of consultation and clarity..doubt it'll change anything though

https://canadianaviationnews.wordpress. ... -19-tests/

Complaints about lack of clarity from the people responsible for fare rules and contracts of carriage. That's rich.

Consultations? How many world-class epidemiologists do WS and AC have on staff? They can't even be trusted with banal paperwork.

Thats not the point I am making, nice try. What paperwork are you even talking about?

hongkongflyer · Wed Jan 06, 2021 3:34 am

hollywoodcory wrote:
dr1980 wrote:
Four WestJet 767’s are headed to Amazon

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mobile/westj ... -1.5253953

This already happened 4 months ago, not sure why the media is reporting now.

probably the transaction confirmed today with all the conditions fulfilled

ramprat320 · Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:18 am

Aresxerexade wrote:
There is a new aggressive variant of virus originating in South Africa where researchers are now doubting the current vaccines might not be effective against. The only way to stop transmissions of new mutations is if people stop going on holidays. The government is right. Why are so many humans so selfish that they do not see that the primary focus now is to get the virus under control / have wider vaccine distribution? Greed , humans are greedy selfish fools.

Canada should have had this pre entry testing requirement ages ago like some other countries like Italy. USA airlines have also reportedly approached US Vice President Mike Pence backing a proposal to implement pre-departure testing for all international arrivals.

Yes Canada should have had a COVID test requirement for entry months ago. However it should have gone hand in hand with a COVID test on arrival (or a day or two later whatever it be) thereby eliminating the need for 14 day quarantine. Instead Canada seems to all of a sudden be rushing this new requirement into effect without having planned or thought through a whole myriad of consequences.

hollywoodcory · Wed Jan 06, 2021 3:50 pm

Looks like a few routes are being cut mid-January:

YVR-PHX/PSP/LAX/CUN/PVR (Only Hawaii appears to have survived)
YEG-PHX/CUN/PVR

Frequency was also reduced on a few routes too:
YYC-PHX/PSP
YYZ-POP/PUJ/FLL

I'm guessing the February update will be similar, with further reductions.

hollywoodcory · Wed Jan 06, 2021 3:54 pm

WS posted a MAX update with a possible Jan. 21 return to service with 3 weekly flights on YYC-YYZ , which has enough daily flights to allow guests to be rebooked if they aren't comfortable.
https://www.westjet.com/en-ca/about-us/maxinfo

Whiteguy · Thu Jan 07, 2021 5:44 pm

The MAX will be operating Fri/Sun/Mon in February, WS658 and 665 on the return.

hollywoodcory · Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:59 pm

https://blog.westjet.com/westjet-announ ... and-march/

Can’t say I’m surprised.

Based on the destinations listed as suspended in the story it sounds like they're only operating the following international routes in February/March:

YYC-PHX/PSP/LAX/OGG/HNL/CUN/PVR/SJD/LIR
YYZ-MCO/RSW/FLL/MBJ/KIN/POP/PUJ/LIR/CUN

They haven't loaded an updated schedule yet, so there could be more cuts. Curious if CUN/PVR are even keeping the 789 at this point.

cirrusdragoon · Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:02 am

A class-action lawsuit against WestJet Airlines has been given the go ahead by British Columbia’s Supreme Court.

I wonder why , corporations seem like they can get away with breaching ethics and contracts. If anything this will serve as educational in how they govern their future business affairs , there are consequences.

The court decision went into detail about WestJet’s baggage fees, noting that “from October 2014 to March 2016, WestJet’s domestic tariff contained conflicting provisions with respect to the price of the first checked bag on a domestic WestJet flight.”

Whiteguy · Sat Jan 09, 2021 4:32 am

hollywoodcory wrote:
https://blog.westjet.com/westjet-announces-network-and-workforce-reductions-for-february-and-march/

Can’t say I’m surprised.

Based on the destinations listed as suspended in the story it sounds like they're only operating the following international routes in February/March:

YYC-PHX/PSP/LAX/OGG/HNL/CUN/PVR/SJD/LIR
YYZ-MCO/RSW/FLL/MBJ/KIN/POP/PUJ/LIR/CUN

They haven't loaded an updated schedule yet, so there could be more cuts. Curious if CUN/PVR are even keeping the 789 at this point.

So far the 787 is operating CUN, PVR, and OGG next month, plus domestic YYZ and YVR routes.

HNL is operating with the B73W once a week.

The schedule will be updated this weekend.

wjv04 · Sat Jan 09, 2021 7:25 am

cirrusdragoon wrote:
A class-action lawsuit against WestJet Airlines has been given the go ahead by British Columbia’s Supreme Court.

there are consequences. ”

Provided the lawsuit is won in court.

This is the least of WJs problems at the moment. Considering todays other news.

hollywoodcory · Sat Jan 09, 2021 7:27 pm

Whiteguy wrote:
hollywoodcory wrote:
https://blog.westjet.com/westjet-announces-network-and-workforce-reductions-for-february-and-march/

Can’t say I’m surprised.

Based on the destinations listed as suspended in the story it sounds like they're only operating the following international routes in February/March:

YYC-PHX/PSP/LAX/OGG/HNL/CUN/PVR/SJD/LIR
YYZ-MCO/RSW/FLL/MBJ/KIN/POP/PUJ/LIR/CUN

They haven't loaded an updated schedule yet, so there could be more cuts. Curious if CUN/PVR are even keeping the 789 at this point.

So far the 787 is operating CUN, PVR, and OGG next month, plus domestic YYZ and YVR routes.

HNL is operating with the B73W once a week.

The schedule will be updated this weekend.

I see they filed an updated schedule in the OAG last night but it only seems they’ve removed the routes their suspending. Otherwise most of it is still pre-COVID that is unless the likes of YYC-LAX are planned 2x daily lol.

I see the Max got loaded though.

hollywoodcory · Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:49 am

February modified schedule has been filed in the OAG tonight.

Here are the planned international/US routes:

YYC-LAX
YYC-PSP
YYC-PHX
YYC-OGG
YYC-HNL
YYC-CUN (787 now only scheduled on Saturday)
YYC-PVR
YYC-SJD
YYC-LIR
YYZ-CUN
YYZ-MBJ
YYZ-KIN
YYZ-FLL
YYZ-RSW
YYZ-MCO
YYZ-LIR
YVR-OGG
YVR-KOA
YVR-HNL

Virtually every route has been reduced in frequency compared to January, many down to just once a week. 787 still planned on YYC-CUN/PVR and OGG along with YYZ-YYC/YVR turns.

A few don’t seem to be operating Feb 6, while YYZ-PUJ/POP are only scheduled Feb 6?

WestJet will get a monopoly on Hawaii as Air Canada appears to have completely bailed until late February.

hollywoodcory · Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:25 pm

WestJet will operate the first commercial MAX flight in Canada in nearly 2 years tomorrow flying YYC-YVR-YYC.

Here is the planned schedule:
WS115 YYC 07:50 - 08:32 YVR
WS122 YVR 12:00 - 14:21 YYC

Starting Friday, it will fly three times per week between YYC-YYZ. Excited to see this aircraft in the skies again.

777luver · Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:38 pm

If this isn't a slap in the face to the major carriers I don't know what is

https://canadianaviationnews.wordpress. ... mmunities/

yzfElite · Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:18 pm

777luver wrote:
If this isn't a slap in the face to the major carriers I don't know what is

https://canadianaviationnews.wordpress. ... mmunities/

Very similar to what has already gone to other smaller carriers who provide essential services to remote communities (e.g. Canadian North, Air Tindi, etc already received funding). This funding wouldn't get AC and WS through a day.

777luver · Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:02 pm

yzfElite wrote:
777luver wrote:
If this isn't a slap in the face to the major carriers I don't know what is

https://canadianaviationnews.wordpress. ... mmunities/

Very similar to what has already gone to other smaller carriers who provide essential services to remote communities (e.g. Canadian North, Air Tindi, etc already received funding). This funding wouldn't get AC and WS through a day.

That is very true, just a little disappointing to see but understandably it is a lifeline for many northern communities. It's how they get food, healthcare etc

Skywatcher · Fri Jan 22, 2021 12:49 am

I think this should be entirely funded by the Ontario government if at all. The local stuff should be provincial and the national/international stuff should be Federal.
I wonder which routes are being subsidized?

If this was a Quebec deal with $11 million of Federal funding there would be the usual finger pointing in the GTA based English Canadian media. Since it's Ontario not a word.

Now that "Quebec based" Bombardier (as was always highlighted-even though half their employees were in Ontario) isn't getting a dime I've been wondering how the media would react on the issue of government corporate subsidies.

I noticed that GM and Ford recently obtained hundreds of millions of taxpayer support in Oshawa/Oakville without a peep.

I hate hypocrisy.

yzfElite · Fri Jan 22, 2021 3:05 pm

Skywatcher wrote:
I think this should be entirely funded by the Ontario government if at all. The local stuff should be provincial and the national/international stuff should be Federal.
I wonder which routes are being subsidized?

If this was a Quebec deal with $11 million of Federal funding there would be the usual finger pointing in the GTA based English Canadian media. Since it's Ontario not a word.

Now that "Quebec based" Bombardier (as was always highlighted-even though half their employees were in Ontario) isn't getting a dime I've been wondering how the media would react on the issue of government corporate subsidies.

I noticed that GM and Ford recently obtained hundreds of millions of taxpayer support in Oshawa/Oakville without a peep.

I hate hypocrisy.

Ontario would love that if it was applied universally. The reality though is that for ex Nunavut or Newfoundland and Labrador doesn't have the capacity to cover their Covid expenses like ON can. It would mean that ON would be better off overall with federal revenues from ON not being applied all over the country outside ON, but not realistic. Realistically, if ON paid its own way, others would get federal assistance and ON wouldn't.

To stay on thread, I think the reason WS wouldn't get this type of assistance is that they've taken the decision to close smaller and more remote stations rather than to try and continue service and seek subsidization. Arguably, most of their smaller stations have either other service, roads or both, so certainly a different situation.

Skywatcher · Fri Jan 22, 2021 6:06 pm

yzfElite wrote:
Skywatcher wrote:
I think this should be entirely funded by the Ontario government if at all. The local stuff should be provincial and the national/international stuff should be Federal.
I wonder which routes are being subsidized?

If this was a Quebec deal with $11 million of Federal funding there would be the usual finger pointing in the GTA based English Canadian media. Since it's Ontario not a word.

Now that "Quebec based" Bombardier (as was always highlighted-even though half their employees were in Ontario) isn't getting a dime I've been wondering how the media would react on the issue of government corporate subsidies.

I noticed that GM and Ford recently obtained hundreds of millions of taxpayer support in Oshawa/Oakville without a peep.

I hate hypocrisy.

Ontario would love that if it was applied universally. The reality though is that for ex Nunavut or Newfoundland and Labrador doesn't have the capacity to cover their Covid expenses like ON can. It would mean that ON would be better off overall with federal revenues from ON not being applied all over the country outside ON, but not realistic. Realistically, if ON paid its own way, others would get federal assistance and ON wouldn't.

To stay on thread, I think the reason WS wouldn't get this type of assistance is that they've taken the decision to close smaller and more remote stations rather than to try and continue service and seek subsidization. Arguably, most of their smaller stations have either other service, roads or both, so certainly a different situation.

I apologize for delving into the Canadian regionalism rabbit hole. I simply wonder why this program isn't available in other provinces since it has a significant Federal funding component.

ExMilitaryEng · Sat Jan 23, 2021 1:02 am

Skywatcher wrote:
I simply wonder why this program isn't available in other provinces since it has a significant Federal funding component.

Agree 100%

Dominion301 · Sun Jan 24, 2021 9:39 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
Skywatcher wrote:
I simply wonder why this program isn't available in other provinces since it has a significant Federal funding component.

Agree 100%

A quick google search would reveal it is available to all, but it’s up to each p/t to apply to it.

Skywatcher wrote:
yzfElite wrote:
Skywatcher wrote:
I think this should be entirely funded by the Ontario government if at all. The local stuff should be provincial and the national/international stuff should be Federal.
I wonder which routes are being subsidized?

If this was a Quebec deal with $11 million of Federal funding there would be the usual finger pointing in the GTA based English Canadian media. Since it's Ontario not a word.

Now that "Quebec based" Bombardier (as was always highlighted-even though half their employees were in Ontario) isn't getting a dime I've been wondering how the media would react on the issue of government corporate subsidies.

I noticed that GM and Ford recently obtained hundreds of millions of taxpayer support in Oshawa/Oakville without a peep.

I hate hypocrisy.

Ontario would love that if it was applied universally. The reality though is that for ex Nunavut or Newfoundland and Labrador doesn't have the capacity to cover their Covid expenses like ON can. It would mean that ON would be better off overall with federal revenues from ON not being applied all over the country outside ON, but not realistic. Realistically, if ON paid its own way, others would get federal assistance and ON wouldn't.

To stay on thread, I think the reason WS wouldn't get this type of assistance is that they've taken the decision to close smaller and more remote stations rather than to try and continue service and seek subsidization. Arguably, most of their smaller stations have either other service, roads or both, so certainly a different situation.

I apologize for delving into the Canadian regionalism rabbit hole. I simply wonder why this program isn't available in other provinces since it has a significant Federal funding component.

This isn’t a regional, Ontario-only program. It’s a national $75M-$174M contribution program with publicly available information, that was set up last summer to ensure essential air service is maintained to remote communities. Contribution $ were already previously announced for the territories. This Ontario agreement is the latest. I’m sure the other provinces will follow suit. However, the onus is on each province/territory to apply to a federal contribution program. You can’t blame the feds if a province chooses not to apply to it.

Keep in mind, the Ontario contribution is for the airports themselves that are owned & operated by the provincial government. The federal $ will flow to the airlines themselves.

Background info, including the full list of airports by p/t that are defined as remote: https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-cana ... ities.html

777luver wrote:
If this isn't a slap in the face to the major carriers I don't know what is

https://canadianaviationnews.wordpress. ... mmunities/

If one of the majors want to serve the likes of YEV (there’s nothing stopping them from doing so) they’d receive subsidies too under this program. In fact, if Quebec reaches an agreement, AC will probably get a bit as they still serve their formerly year-round Iles-de-la-Madeleine/YGR station on a summer seasonal basis.

yzfElite · Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:09 pm

Dominion301 wrote:

If one of the majors want to serve the likes of YEV (there’s nothing stopping them from doing so) they’d receive subsidies too under this program. In fact, if Quebec reaches an agreement, AC will probably get a bit as they still serve their formerly year-round Iles-de-la-Madeleine/YGR station on a summer seasonal basis.

Not to mention their staff would get the opportunity to feast on some of the delicious food in the cafe at the YEV airport! Best pea soup west of the island of Newfoundland

Reality is there is a need for support for all of the industry big, small and companies intertwined with the industry.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net