Air Canada safety culture sincerely worries me
May 6, 2018, 9:58 am
#16
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,232
Once the NTSB report has been and issued (along with any other similar reports from the Canadian TSB), Air Canada will have a golden opportunity to begin restoring confidence among some of its clients. I would be disappointed if the Chief Pilot (at least) didn't speak about exactly what Air Canada was going to do to address any concerns raised by this, and other, 'incidents'.
Time will tell if this opportunity is either embraced or squandered.
Time will tell if this opportunity is either embraced or squandered.
May 6, 2018, 10:09 am
#17
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
As far as safety, United has its problem. Despite being responsible for the safety of its passengers, one of them was dragged off the aircraft all injured recently by security guards that airline called in. Even today, there is some story about a "out of control" stewardess. Sept, 20 there some near miss with a glider on a YVR-ORD flight. In February, they had an engine cover fall off one of their aircraft. In April there was some type of emergency landing at Dover airbase.
Being on the outside it is hard to tell how much of this stuff is safety protocols and culture and how much of it is luck. Either way I would be happier if the people involved could openly discuss it and improve the process without concern for what the public reads into it.
Being on the outside it is hard to tell how much of this stuff is safety protocols and culture and how much of it is luck. Either way I would be happier if the people involved could openly discuss it and improve the process without concern for what the public reads into it.
What fascinates me the most here is that these AC pilots tend to have significantly more time in type and flying time than many pilots, say at US regional carriers and yet this incident still happened. I remember reading a section in the NTSB article whereby AC once required pilots to land at one three major airports (for testing reasons) because it was more challenging and then even that restriction was removed.
May 6, 2018, 10:20 am
#18
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
That doesn't mean that all airlines have equal safety records though. There is still risk that can be mitigated in an airline by a good safety /fatigue management program.
May 6, 2018, 10:20 am
#19
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,271
As the buying public has demanded lower and lower prices and LCCs and now even ULCCs (Ultral Low Cost Carriers) have risen to meet that demand, mainline carriers have found themselves between a rock and a hard place. As anyone who even understands 'Business 101' should know, the equation between income, cost and profit must balance.
If the consumer demands lower seat prices, either costs must be cut or profit must be cut. Since any company is in business to make profits and you take away their ability to increase price, you can expect them to cut costs before cutting profit.
If blame is to be attached to potential safety issues, then the blame must be attached to the buying public. A sensible person would say, 'I want as low a price as possible, but not at the cost of sacrificing safety'. Instead, the public says, 'You want $100 more to fly me transatlantic, nope, I'll fly with the LCCs.' The public ignores everything in favour of price alone. The people get what the people deserve.
Unless and until the public wakes up to this reality, air travel will continue on it's downward path.
If the consumer demands lower seat prices, either costs must be cut or profit must be cut. Since any company is in business to make profits and you take away their ability to increase price, you can expect them to cut costs before cutting profit.
If blame is to be attached to potential safety issues, then the blame must be attached to the buying public. A sensible person would say, 'I want as low a price as possible, but not at the cost of sacrificing safety'. Instead, the public says, 'You want $100 more to fly me transatlantic, nope, I'll fly with the LCCs.' The public ignores everything in favour of price alone. The people get what the people deserve.
Unless and until the public wakes up to this reality, air travel will continue on it's downward path.
May 6, 2018, 10:25 am
#20
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
As the buying public has demanded lower and lower prices and LCCs and now even ULCCs (Ultral Low Cost Carriers) have risen to meet that demand, mainline carriers have found themselves between a rock and a hard place. As anyone who even understands 'Business 101' should know, the equation between income, cost and profit must balance.
If the consumer demands lower seat prices, either costs must be cut or profit must be cut. Since any company is in business to make profits and you take away their ability to increase price, you can expect them to cut costs before cutting profit.
If blame is to be attached to potential safety issues, then the blame must be attached to the buying public. A sensible person would say, 'I want as low a price as possible, but not at the cost of sacrificing safety'. Instead, the public says, 'You want $100 more to fly me transatlantic, nope, I'll fly with the LCCs.' The public ignores everything in favour of price alone. The people get what the people deserve.
Unless and until the public wakes up to this reality, air travel will continue on it's downward path.
If the consumer demands lower seat prices, either costs must be cut or profit must be cut. Since any company is in business to make profits and you take away their ability to increase price, you can expect them to cut costs before cutting profit.
If blame is to be attached to potential safety issues, then the blame must be attached to the buying public. A sensible person would say, 'I want as low a price as possible, but not at the cost of sacrificing safety'. Instead, the public says, 'You want $100 more to fly me transatlantic, nope, I'll fly with the LCCs.' The public ignores everything in favour of price alone. The people get what the people deserve.
Unless and until the public wakes up to this reality, air travel will continue on it's downward path.
Quite frankly if regional carriers don't have issues at SFO then I would suspect there is more to the story here with respect to Air Canada here. I don't expect a mainline flag carrier, despite the demands by customers to fly for cheaper and cheaper yearly, to be having these issues.
I also don't need to remind people there is about half of the aircraft that isn't that price conscious. There is a solid 1/4 of real estate on certain aircraft whereby flights into and out of SFO are high yield high margin customers - although that is a bit beside the point.
May 6, 2018, 10:32 am
#21
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: YYG
Programs: airlines and hotels and rental cars - oh my!
Posts: 2,997
I would take these interview summaries with a grain of salt. They exercise is intended to be retrospective and it should cause staff to second-guess what happened in the past to find ways of improving going forward. I suspect if the same things were done at united your would have similar results. It is also an airline with a pretty big mix of older and newer aircraft some from multiple mergers. AC has its A320 legacy fleet, United has its 757 fleet.
As far as safety, United has its problem. Despite being responsible for the safety of its passengers, one of them was dragged off the aircraft all injured recently by security guards that airline called in. Even today, there is some story about a "out of control" stewardess. Sept, 20 there some near miss with a glider on a YVR-ORD flight. In February, they had an engine cover fall off one of their aircraft. In April there was some type of emergency landing at Dover airbase.
Being on the outside it is hard to tell how much of this stuff is safety protocols and culture and how much of it is luck. Either way I would be happier if the people involved could openly discuss it and improve the process without concern for what the public reads into it.
As far as safety, United has its problem. Despite being responsible for the safety of its passengers, one of them was dragged off the aircraft all injured recently by security guards that airline called in. Even today, there is some story about a "out of control" stewardess. Sept, 20 there some near miss with a glider on a YVR-ORD flight. In February, they had an engine cover fall off one of their aircraft. In April there was some type of emergency landing at Dover airbase.
Being on the outside it is hard to tell how much of this stuff is safety protocols and culture and how much of it is luck. Either way I would be happier if the people involved could openly discuss it and improve the process without concern for what the public reads into it.
Given that AC is having such incidents repeatedly while other airlines are not clearly says there's a problem. Perhaps AC's emphasis on cost-cutting has gone too far. Hopefully the TSB will reset its priorities before people are killed. Clearly, that change won't come from within the airline. Calin's bonus is too important.
May 6, 2018, 10:50 am
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,655
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/25/p...ing/index.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/united-air...ry?id=29237744
May 6, 2018, 10:55 am
#23
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,232
Seems United management might disagree with you...
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/25/p...ing/index.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/united-air...ry?id=29237744
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/25/p...ing/index.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/united-air...ry?id=29237744
May 6, 2018, 10:58 am
#24
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
"He was aware of the SFO event. It happened while he was on vacation. He saw an incident reported by flight dispatch on Sunday evening about a go-around and that the pilots had lined up with the wrong runway. Then, he saw an email from the A320 chief pilot, he thought, on Sunday night stating that the crew needed to be held out of service while they investigated it. On Monday, he started becoming aware of reports on the news about the event.
He first thought it was a go-around and that it had lined up on the wrong runway which he felt was a concern but the gravity of the concern was not known until Monday when he got to work. He also was becoming aware of increasing seriousness of the event when he saw the email from the chief pilot that the crew needed to be held out of service.
Later Monday he heard from colleagues, and in the media, that there was more to it than first suspected Monday afternoon, the chief pilot debriefed him on the crew interview."
(bolding is mine above)
Above taken from: -Interview from "Captain Musselman was represented by Ms. Louise Hélene Senecal – Litigation Counsel Air Canada Airlines
He is the senior director of fleet and standards which was also known as the chief pilot. He has been in his current position for 3 years in the upcoming September (2017)."
While the above quote only references the SFO incident, it doesn't appear to me that there has been strong notices sent by the executive pilots who oversee their linemen. As per The Lev, United seems to have caught onto an issue only to step in and ream hell against their pilots (hyperbole). AC doesn't appear to be on top of their game, again, these are simply allegations based on my perusal of the NTSB report from the SFO incident and I could very well be wrong.
May 6, 2018, 12:24 pm
#25
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
We need to make a distinction between the TSB and TC (Transport Canada). TC is the regulator, the TSB's mandate is to advance safety through conducting investigations of occurances. The role of the TSB is not to assign blame. TSB mandate: Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Mandate
I've been more involved in the rail side, their incident reports are always interesting to read. As an aside, they have asked for CVR and in-cab video in locomotives for years.
Air investigation reports: Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation reports
Rail investigation reports: Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Rail reports
I've been more involved in the rail side, their incident reports are always interesting to read. As an aside, they have asked for CVR and in-cab video in locomotives for years.
Air investigation reports: Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation reports
Rail investigation reports: Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Rail reports
May 6, 2018, 12:33 pm
#26
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
As the buying public has demanded lower and lower prices and LCCs and now even ULCCs (Ultral Low Cost Carriers) have risen to meet that demand, mainline carriers have found themselves between a rock and a hard place. As anyone who even understands 'Business 101' should know, the equation between income, cost and profit must balance.
If the consumer demands lower seat prices, either costs must be cut or profit must be cut. Since any company is in business to make profits and you take away their ability to increase price, you can expect them to cut costs before cutting profit.
If blame is to be attached to potential safety issues, then the blame must be attached to the buying public. A sensible person would say, 'I want as low a price as possible, but not at the cost of sacrificing safety'. Instead, the public says, 'You want $100 more to fly me transatlantic, nope, I'll fly with the LCCs.' The public ignores everything in favour of price alone. The people get what the people deserve.
Unless and until the public wakes up to this reality, air travel will continue on it's downward path.
If the consumer demands lower seat prices, either costs must be cut or profit must be cut. Since any company is in business to make profits and you take away their ability to increase price, you can expect them to cut costs before cutting profit.
If blame is to be attached to potential safety issues, then the blame must be attached to the buying public. A sensible person would say, 'I want as low a price as possible, but not at the cost of sacrificing safety'. Instead, the public says, 'You want $100 more to fly me transatlantic, nope, I'll fly with the LCCs.' The public ignores everything in favour of price alone. The people get what the people deserve.
Unless and until the public wakes up to this reality, air travel will continue on it's downward path.
It's a moot point anyway. AC has been declaring record profits recently, and there seems to be a fair bit of regulatory capture going on in Canada (see the graph on crew duty hours versus time of day - even the likes of India are more serious about this stuff).
AC's already benefitting from weaker crew fatigue regulation than most countries. Pinning the blame on consumers is very silly in this context. At some point, it's inevitably going to be less about consumer cheapness and more about feckless corporate greed.
May 6, 2018, 12:39 pm
#27
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
Canada has one of the most lax laws in place governing pilot fatigue.This video referenced AC SFO's incident but it can be said it's pervasive on all of Air Canada operations.
This bit was taken from the NTSB article and it pertains directly to Air Canada staffing levels.
==
When asked if Air Canada had learned anything from the Transport Canada working group on fatigue, he responded that they had modified their shift pairings to consider circadian shift and accommodate sleep wake cycles. They have since started having less than 18 hours of rest or more than 30 hours of rest. They have done studies on the YYZ to Narita flights. They have considered the augmentation. If over 9 hours there will be 3 pilots, if over 14 hours of duty or if the flight is to land after 3am there may be 4 pilots. Going to Narita, for the 8 months of peak season, they staff 4 pilots both ways. For the rest of the year they staff 3 pilots on the way there and 4 on the way back. They collected data after this change and received less fatigue reports on that line. --
This bit was taken from the NTSB article and it pertains directly to Air Canada staffing levels.
==
When asked if Air Canada had learned anything from the Transport Canada working group on fatigue, he responded that they had modified their shift pairings to consider circadian shift and accommodate sleep wake cycles. They have since started having less than 18 hours of rest or more than 30 hours of rest. They have done studies on the YYZ to Narita flights. They have considered the augmentation. If over 9 hours there will be 3 pilots, if over 14 hours of duty or if the flight is to land after 3am there may be 4 pilots. Going to Narita, for the 8 months of peak season, they staff 4 pilots both ways. For the rest of the year they staff 3 pilots on the way there and 4 on the way back. They collected data after this change and received less fatigue reports on that line. --
May 6, 2018, 1:07 pm
#28
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
May 6, 2018, 1:52 pm
#29
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: YYG
Programs: airlines and hotels and rental cars - oh my!
Posts: 2,997
We need to make a distinction between the TSB and TC (Transport Canada). TC is the regulator, the TSB's mandate is to advance safety through conducting investigations of occurances. The role of the TSB is not to assign blame. TSB mandate: Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Mandate
I've been more involved in the rail side, their incident reports are always interesting to read. As an aside, they have asked for CVR and in-cab video in locomotives for years.
Air investigation reports: Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation reports
Rail investigation reports: Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Rail reports
I've been more involved in the rail side, their incident reports are always interesting to read. As an aside, they have asked for CVR and in-cab video in locomotives for years.
Air investigation reports: Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation reports
Rail investigation reports: Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Rail reports
May 6, 2018, 1:54 pm
#30
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: YYG
Programs: airlines and hotels and rental cars - oh my!
Posts: 2,997
Seems United management might disagree with you...
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/25/p...ing/index.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/united-air...ry?id=29237744
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/25/p...ing/index.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/united-air...ry?id=29237744
The only thing AC only seems to recognize or do anything about is enhancing executive bonuses.