Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 148 of 148

Thread: Premier Prentice to sell Air Alberta fleet

  1. #101

    Default

    Given that none of them stood up & said anything about the abuses they had to have seen occur, I'm not feeling particularly charitable towards the pilots & support staff. They should have said something sooner if they didn't want to lose their jobs.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Given that none of them stood up & said anything about the abuses they had to have seen occur, I'm not feeling particularly charitable towards the pilots & support staff. They should have said something sooner if they didn't want to lose their jobs.
    Considering they don't lift off without approved manifests and requisitions just how were they supposed to know what was an abuse when all the approvals were in hand? Super natural powers?

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  3. #103

    Default

    ^Being a whistleblower is a double edged sword. Remember the reaction of Hancock when Lukaszuk had that $20,000 cell phone bill. Hancock was more worried about who leaked the story than the bill. I think he was throwing about 'punished to the full extent of the law' speeches. Moral of that story should have been 'don't shoot the messenger' but Hancock wanted to go for the jugular. Lukaszuk is also planning on writing a book on Redford's reign of terror. Maybe that might throw some light on why nobody spoke up.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...tics-1.2771917

    Although I think the book will be more a of a 'It's not my fault I'm not in cabinet no more"
    Last edited by Gemini; 19-09-2014 at 02:43 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    Considering they don't lift off without approved manifests and requisitions just how were they supposed to know what was an abuse when all the approvals were in hand? Super natural powers?

    In my highly biased personal opinion

    "I was just following orders" is a pathetic excuse.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    Considering they don't lift off without approved manifests and requisitions just how were they supposed to know what was an abuse when all the approvals were in hand? Super natural powers?

    In my highly biased personal opinion

    "I was just following orders" is a pathetic excuse.
    Didn't answer the question

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  6. #106

    Default

    "Oh hey, another manifest with surprise last minute cancellations from everyone except Premier Redford & her daughter. Again. Welp, let's roll"

    Please.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    Considering they don't lift off without approved manifests and requisitions just how were they supposed to know what was an abuse when all the approvals were in hand? Super natural powers?

    In my highly biased personal opinion

    "I was just following orders" is a pathetic excuse.
    Didn't answer the question

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    This ain't sending people to the gas chamber, smuggling drugs or bags of cash.

    Flight approved from appropriate department (s) with appropriate signatures
    Cleared/Confirmed by the ATS office
    Aircraft and weather are safe
    Passengers per manifest or less (more is a flight safety/weight balance and authorization issue.) and flight crew are not passengers baby sitters.

    Take off as scheduled....just like a private charter, actually more paperwork.

    So tell me how
    - Flight crew
    - Maintenance staff
    would have any idea there was a problem.

    Paper work is clean and flight safety is covered.

    Guess noodle you need to spread the blame.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  8. #108

    Default

    Well you have the inner circle, administrative staff booking the planes, the data entry staff entering these manifests on the computer, mechanics working in the hangars then the pilots. The way Redford rolled I think if she could not have pin pointed the whistleblower she would have just fired the lot of them. Sacrificed the whole lot so she could fly with her chosen few.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  9. #109

    Default

    They weren't smuggling drugs, no, but they were carrying contraband.

    Contraband kiddos!

    Redford's daughter. Tommy L's daughter. They were carrying people they were not authorized to, in a manner that contravened the government's own policies on the use of the planes.

    Either the pilots & ground crew are ignorant of their actual mandate & responsibility or they're complicit in the coverup.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  10. #110
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    If what I read on an aviation forum is true this is very unfortunate.

    If true...apparently the 27 employees found out they were losing their jobs through the media and as of the post made yesterday have yet to be informed officially.

    If true....Nice

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    if true it may or may not be "nice" but it certainly isn't unusual in either the public or the private sector...

    as for these 27, i doubt very much it would have been possible to assemble all of them in one place at one time to inform officially before they're hearing it in the media so the courtesy extended to those finding out first becomes insulting to those finding out after the fact (and probably after the media hear about it from the first or their families).

    as for the terms, i would assume they are either provincial or contract employees and in either case would be entitled to predetermined termination settlements or terms if not alternative employment.

    as for the numbers, how many times have entire plants or corporations found out in the media that their jobs were now no longer, often with no prior notice or inclination whatsoever (per united states steel in the very recent past)? and how many lost not only jobs but pensions as well?

    as for the real surprise or lack thereof, i can't imagine this potential eventuality isn't something that would have been considered as a very real possibility for quite some time now - it's not as if it would have come out of the blue for anyone paying attention to what's going on around them.
    Last edited by kcantor; 19-09-2014 at 03:28 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    Considering they don't lift off without approved manifests and requisitions just how were they supposed to know what was an abuse when all the approvals were in hand? Super natural powers?

    In my highly biased personal opinion

    "I was just following orders" is a pathetic excuse.
    Didn't answer the question

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    This ain't sending people to the gas chamber, smuggling drugs or bags of cash.

    Flight approved from appropriate department (s) with appropriate signatures
    Cleared/Confirmed by the ATS office
    Aircraft and weather are safe
    Passengers per manifest or less (more is a flight safety/weight balance and authorization issue.) and flight crew are not passengers baby sitters.

    Take off as scheduled....just like a private charter, actually more paperwork.

    So tell me how
    - Flight crew
    - Maintenance staff
    would have any idea there was a problem.

    Paper work is clean and flight safety is covered.

    Guess noodle you need to spread the blame.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    I can see were noodle is coming from. If 2 government planes are in the same hangar being prepared to take off in 20 minutes and going to Calgary. Let's say both of them hold 12 passengers. One plane takes off with Redford and two of her aides. The other takes off two minutes later with 7 MLA's. The administrative staff that arranged these flights would know there was only a need for one plane as they were both going in the same direction. The mechanics (if they were in the hangar) would know, the pilots would know. Now, if I was in any one of those positions and knew the planes were being misused would I be the one to whistle blow. I honestly don't know. Maybe all the people involved did not want to risk losing their jobs or jobs of others. Maybe they took the stance that it was none of their business and they were just doing their jobs. Nobody is wrong saying something should have been done sooner but it would be a difficult thing to do if your job was on the line.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  12. #112

    Default

    If done appropriately, there'd be no repraisal.

    https://yourvoiceprotected.ca/for-em...eeking-advice/

    The Act gives employees in the Alberta public sector a clear process for voicing concerns about significant and serious wrongdoing, and provides protection from reprisal.
    As an employee in any of these public entities, you are protected by the Act if you disclose an allegation of wrongdoing or suffer a reprisal, or threat of a reprisal, stemming from a disclosure of wrongdoing. The Act also protects employees who seek advice from either the Public Interest Commissioner or a public entity’s Designated Officer.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  13. #113
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    Considering they don't lift off without approved manifests and requisitions just how were they supposed to know what was an abuse when all the approvals were in hand? Super natural powers?

    In my highly biased personal opinion

    "I was just following orders" is a pathetic excuse.
    Didn't answer the question

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    This ain't sending people to the gas chamber, smuggling drugs or bags of cash.

    Flight approved from appropriate department (s) with appropriate signatures
    Cleared/Confirmed by the ATS office
    Aircraft and weather are safe
    Passengers per manifest or less (more is a flight safety/weight balance and authorization issue.) and flight crew are not passengers baby sitters.

    Take off as scheduled....just like a private charter, actually more paperwork.

    So tell me how
    - Flight crew
    - Maintenance staff
    would have any idea there was a problem.

    Paper work is clean and flight safety is covered.

    Guess noodle you need to spread the blame.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    I can see were noodle is coming from. If 2 government planes are in the same hangar being prepared to take off in 20 minutes and going to Calgary. Let's say both of them hold 12 passengers. One plane takes off with Redford and two of her aides. The other takes off two minutes later with 7 MLA's. The administrative staff that arranged these flights would know there was only a need for one plane as they were both going in the same direction. The mechanics (if they were in the hangar) would know, the pilots would know. Now, if I was in any one of those positions and knew the planes were being misused would I be the one to whistle blow. I honestly don't know. Maybe all the people involved did not want to risk losing their jobs or jobs of others. Maybe they took the stance that it was none of their business and they were just doing their jobs. Nobody is wrong saying something should have been done sooner but it would be a difficult thing to do if your job was on the line.
    hindsight by those not involved - a wonderful thing.

    it's just that even if all of the above conjecture was true, the mechanics in the hangar wouldn't know that one of the planes wouldn't be picking up 10 firefighters in calgary and taking them to medicine hat while all of the passengers on the two departing planes wouldn't be coming back together on the other...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  14. #114

    Default

    Either the pilots & ground crew are ignorant of their actual mandate
    They operated exactly by their mandate
    First and foremost flight safety
    Second written authorization

    If it had been a private charter it would have been the same

    If a flight is approved typically the flight crew etc is not given the rational simply the instruction in terms of take off time, destination, return time.

    Gemini

    As I said above:
    If a flight is approved typically the flight crew etc is not given the rational simply the instruction in terms of take off time, destination, return time.

    Aircrew can refuse flights based on safety...period, doesn't matter who the employer is (even the military in non combat).

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    If what I read on an aviation forum is true this is very unfortunate.

    If true...apparently the 27 employees found out they were losing their jobs through the media and as of the post made yesterday have yet to be informed officially.

    If true....Nice

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    if true it may or may not be "nice" but it certainly isn't unusual in either the public or the private sector...

    as for these 27, i doubt very much it would have been possible to assemble all of them in one place at one time to inform officially before they're hearing it in the media so the courtesy extended to those finding out first becomes insulting to those finding out after the fact (and probably after the media hear about it from the first or their families).

    as for the terms, i would assume they are either provincial or contract employees and in either case would be entitled to predetermined termination settlements or terms if not alternative employment.

    as for the numbers, how many times have entire plants or corporations found out in the media that their jobs were now no longer, often with no prior notice or inclination whatsoever (per united states steel in the very recent past)? and how many lost not only jobs but pensions as well?

    as for the real surprise or lack thereof, i can't imagine this potential eventuality isn't something that would have been considered as a very real possibility for quite some time now - it's not as if it would have come out of the blue for anyone paying attention to what's going on around them.
    Greater question is...
    Is it fair?
    Is it right?

    If it was any government sector I can just imagine the screaming that would be going on.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  16. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    [as for these 27, i doubt very much it would have been possible to assemble all of them in one place at one time to inform officially before they're hearing it in the media so the courtesy extended to those finding out first becomes insulting to those finding out after the fact (and probably after the media hear about it from the first or their families).
    I expect a lot of them work at the same location, how hard would it have been to call a staff meeting, and phone the odd individual who wasn't there? I don't think this showed much respect for these workers, and it would be the same if they were in the private sector. It should have been done better, but so be it I guess. I hope someone come's in and buys the whole thing as a package, but perhaps that's too hopeful, as probably want to put their stamp on the acquired assets.

  17. #117

    Default

    Y'know, if it was one flight, or even 5, I might buy the "paperwork OK, safety OK, let's roll." excuse, but this was 50+ times.

    FIFTY TIMES the manifest was doctored so Redford could fly alone. In a plane that seats about the same as a full size van, the pilot never noticed that there wasn't anyone back there except the Premier & thought it suspicious? The ground crew didn't notice only one person got off or on?

    Gadzooks.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  18. #118

    Default

    ^noodle, its not their job to comment on what their employers are doing, its their job to fly the planes, that's hard enough. We have an AG to look for fiscal abuses. And heck, for all we know, maybe one of them did whistleblow (blowing up their own job in the process) - the rumours about abuses must have started somewhere.

  19. #119

    Default

    I disagree. As a public servant in a government job it behooves you to keep an eye on your job duties & approach them with a critical eye, as they are in the public interest.

    The government clearly agrees with me, since we've got whistleblower legislation that applies to public sector employees. If everyone's supposed to keep their eyes down on their own paper, why create the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act? Why set up the office of the Public Interest Commissioner?

    The MLAs aren't their employers. The Premier isn't their employer. They worked for the people of Alberta & that is who their responsibility & fealty should have been to.
    Last edited by noodle; 19-09-2014 at 04:08 PM.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^noodle, its not their job to comment on what their employers are doing, its their job to fly the planes, that's hard enough. We have an AG to look for fiscal abuses. And heck, for all we know, maybe one of them did whistleblow (blowing up their own job in the process)?
    correct moa

    In addition I just got off the phone from a friend in the Private Charter sector.

    I will assume due to nature of private discussions (policy and other with government) that the Alberta Government would be the same.

    Matter of fact I would be surprised if they are not.

    Flight crew must sign legal, enforceable non disclosure agreements.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  21. #121
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I disagree. As a public servant in a government job it behooves you to keep an eye on your job duties & approach them with a critical eye, as they are in the public interest.

    The government clearly agrees with me, since we've got whistleblower legislation that applies to public sector employees. If everyone's supposed to keep their eyes down on their own paper, why create the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act? Why set up the office of the Public Interest Commissioner?

    The MLAs aren't their employers. The Premier isn't their employer. They worked for the people of Alberta & that is who their responsibility & fealty should have been to.
    i would go a half step - or even a full step - further... while i agree with you, that agreement isn't restricted to public servants in a government job. i think it behooves all of us to keep a critical eye on things and not "just" our own specific job duties whether those things are related to our own employment or not (i.e. they may be related to the public sector or other firms in the private sector or even volunteer or community organizations). at the end of the day it comes down to be a good citizen in the broad context of things wherein we can all make positive contributions towards achieving better/more appropriate actions and outcomes.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  22. #122
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^noodle, its not their job to comment on what their employers are doing, its their job to fly the planes, that's hard enough. We have an AG to look for fiscal abuses. And heck, for all we know, maybe one of them did whistleblow (blowing up their own job in the process)?
    correct moa

    In addition I just got off the phone from a friend in the Private Charter sector.

    I will assume due to nature of private discussions (policy and other with government) that the Alberta Government would be the same.

    Matter of fact I would be surprised if they are not.

    Flight crew must sign legal, enforceable non disclosure agreements.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    even "legal, enforceable non disclosure agreements" contain exclusion provisions both within and without the agreements themselves.

    in this case, i think there would be a considerable difference between disclosing something to the press and disclosing something to the auditor general or to the attorney general or to the rcmp with or without relying on or complying with formal whistle blower legislation and the additional protections and exemptions that would grant.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  23. #123
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I disagree. As a public servant in a government job it behooves you to keep an eye on your job duties & approach them with a critical eye, as they are in the public interest.

    The government clearly agrees with me, since we've got whistleblower legislation that applies to public sector employees. If everyone's supposed to keep their eyes down on their own paper, why create the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act? Why set up the office of the Public Interest Commissioner?

    The MLAs aren't their employers. The Premier isn't their employer. They worked for the people of Alberta & that is who their responsibility & fealty should have been to.
    Well then. They should be terminated WITH cause if all of the above were true and given absolutely nothing on the way out. Matter of fact: the offending individuals should be prosecuted.

    Am I wrong?

  24. #124
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I disagree. As a public servant in a government job it behooves you to keep an eye on your job duties & approach them with a critical eye, as they are in the public interest.

    The government clearly agrees with me, since we've got whistleblower legislation that applies to public sector employees. If everyone's supposed to keep their eyes down on their own paper, why create the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act? Why set up the office of the Public Interest Commissioner?

    The MLAs aren't their employers. The Premier isn't their employer. They worked for the people of Alberta & that is who their responsibility & fealty should have been to.
    Well then. They should be terminated WITH cause if all of the above were true and given absolutely nothing on the way out. Matter of fact: the offending individuals should be prosecuted.

    Am I wrong?
    i think you would be wrong.

    just because some of the individuals may have been able to blow the whistle and may have been protected had they chosen to, i don't believe there is anything under their terms of employment or under the law that would have obligated them to do so or made them culpable for not doing so.

    and if i missed an intended sarcasm emoticon in your post, please ignore my response...

    besides, if there are any issues here - including the optics - they really don't reside with the mechanics and the pilots...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  25. #125
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I disagree. As a public servant in a government job it behooves you to keep an eye on your job duties & approach them with a critical eye, as they are in the public interest.

    The government clearly agrees with me, since we've got whistleblower legislation that applies to public sector employees. If everyone's supposed to keep their eyes down on their own paper, why create the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act? Why set up the office of the Public Interest Commissioner?

    The MLAs aren't their employers. The Premier isn't their employer. They worked for the people of Alberta & that is who their responsibility & fealty should have been to.
    Well then. They should be terminated WITH cause if all of the above were true and given absolutely nothing on the way out. Matter of fact: the offending individuals should be prosecuted.

    Am I wrong?
    and if i missed an intended sarcasm emoticon in your post, please ignore my response...

    besides, if there are any issues here - including the optics - they really don't reside with the mechanics and the pilots...
    Yes. Thank you. Getting a little ridiculous.
    Last edited by Adam; 19-09-2014 at 06:23 PM.

  26. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    If what I read on an aviation forum is true this is very unfortunate.

    If true...apparently the 27 employees found out they were losing their jobs through the media and as of the post made yesterday have yet to be informed officially.

    If true....Nice

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Crappy way to find out you're put of a job. Sometimes it appears that the Tories can't get anything right.

    However, how much money are we saving by not having these 27 on the payroll any longer? Add that to the cost of the planes (fuel, maintenance, etc). hangar rental, and all the rest. Cut back on trips that can be accomplished by other means and it'll cover a nice chunk of commercial and charter costs.

  27. #127
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Below that old white mountain, just a little southeast of Nome
    Posts
    636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post

    just because some of the individuals may have been able to blow the whistle and may have been protected had they chosen to, i don't believe there is anything under their terms of employment or under the law that would have obligated them to do so or made them culpable for not doing so.
    (I am not saying they were) but if the acts in question were determined to be of a criminal nature (i.e. fraud, felony) then those with knowledge of such acts would be compelled under the law to report those to the appropriate authorities or be subject to prosecution themselves if they did not do so.

  28. #128
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post

    just because some of the individuals may have been able to blow the whistle and may have been protected had they chosen to, i don't believe there is anything under their terms of employment or under the law that would have obligated them to do so or made them culpable for not doing so.
    (I am not saying they were) but if the acts in question were determined to be of a criminal nature (i.e. fraud, felony) then those with knowledge of such acts would be compelled under the law to report those to the appropriate authorities or be subject to prosecution themselves if they did not do so.
    oh for crying out loud... we're talking about airplane mechanics and pilots doing their jobs here, not getaway drivers at a bank heist. and the behavior we're talking about was clearly inappropriate but not even the solicitor general considered it "of a criminal nature".
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  29. #129

    Default

    ^its like blaming the janitor for the Enron failing (not that there's anything wrong with being a janitor or a pilot/mechanic).

  30. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    However, how much money are we saving by not having these 27 on the payroll any longer? Add that to the cost of the planes (fuel, maintenance, etc). hangar rental, and all the rest. Cut back on trips that can be accomplished by other means and it'll cover a nice chunk of commercial and charter costs.
    Well we won't be able to figure it out as we do not know the commitments on severances, payouts etc. or have the numbers, but we can guess some of the parameters of how it will turn out.

    - 27 employees, the maintenance and flight staff are all top of their field and very long term employees. I would think it is likely the administration and support staff are also senior.

    So I think it is safe to assume those severance costs will be very significant.

    - The aircraft
    i) Beech King Air 100, likely 20 years old or more (more likely more IIRC)
    ii) Beech King Air 200s, likely 10-15 years old
    iii)Beech King Air 300, most likely less than 10 years old
    iv)Dehaviland Dash 8 original non stretch series, educated guess of over 20 years old
    all in passenger configuration, not executive

    Well maintained, reasonable times on airframes and engines is my bet.

    You can look up market values on the net, but...

    In recent history Government owned aircraft have not done well in the open market as evidenced by the RCMP Avanti and the Federal Govermnet Challengers...all of which were finally let go well under market value

    You can confirm that on the net as well.

    I would expect major losses vs on the books values (millions?)

    - Then the equipment sold most likely at auction

    - Lastly the cost of the, what I have been told, 10 year lease on the building at EIA signed I believe last year.

    New/Newer building set up for the Provincial Government, around 1 year into a 10 year lease.

    I would think those costs will not be cheap (millions?)

    Seems to me this will be a comparatively expensive shut down and even if there is no air travel at all allowed (not likely) it will very possibly be a few years before saving cover the costs of the shut down.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  31. #131

    Default

    ^typically severance costs are three weeks of salary for each year worked, it's a one off cost though. The sale proceeds from the assets will likely fully offset it, so there shouldn't be much if any cash cost. Likely the lease can be sublet to a charter company or similar (keep in mind the Province has said they will tender for a charter provider so the winner might be able to make good use of it, or include as part of the tender deal).

    If I was one of more senior staff, I'd look at geting together with other staff and perhaps starting a new charter company with that severance (talk to private equity, a bank, or similar), buy those planes and take on the lease and the better employees to service government and private sector, there's a great opportunity here, especially given the relationships they must have built up over the years.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-09-2014 at 09:23 AM.

  32. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^typically severance costs are three weeks of salary for each year worked, it's a one off cost though. The sale proceeds from the assets will likely fully offset it, so there shouldn't be much if any cash cost. Likely the lease can be sublet to a charter company or similar (keep in mind the Province has said they will tender for a charter provider so the winner might be able to make good use of it, or include as part of the tender deal).

    If I was one of more senior staff, I'd look at geting together with other staff and perhaps starting a new charter company with that severance (talk to private equity, a bank, or similar), buy those planes and take on the lease and the better employees to service government and private sector, there's a great opportunity here, especially given the relationships they must have built up over the years.
    Well we see how the dollars are gonna flow 2 very different ways that for sure.

    But to the real point, the section I have highlighted.

    An air charter company is not a corner store or restaurant and the Transport Canada licenses and requirements require an easy year prior to even thinking about buying an aircraft and cost a fortune.

    As a fast example you need
    - Operating Certificate, which requires an AMO (Aircraft maintenace organization license), SMS and other prerequisites.

    Each of those requires custom operations manual policies, procedures and ends up with several manuals you must create and have approved before getting each accepted.

    So if everything goes well and you have a few hundred grand up front you can get your "paperwork" in place in 12 to 18 months.

    Then go ahead with getting a location, aircraft, pilots, maintenance and administration staff.

    Know a number of people that have looked into or done the process and it is time consuming and expensive...before the hardware.

    So if the staff had a year or so of notice it may have been an option, not now.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  33. #133
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Second, we need to look at why we're sending so many high priced employees to the far reaches in the first place. With video conferencing we can probably cut a sizeable percentage of the travel right out of the equation.

    Just because it's been done this way in the past doesn't mean we're required to continue to do so in the future. Let's keep the high priced taken in the office where they can do their work instead of sending them hither and yon. You can have a face to face meeting with a laptop on either end. Presentations are almost as easy.
    This. Except for engineers and technicians who actually need to physically sample, inspect or modify things, nobody should need to leave the office to do their work.

  34. #134

    Default

    Well, it does happen all the time, people find out they are losing their jobs for whatever reason. It would be nice though if the powers that be showed a bit of courtesy and let them know in an appropriate manner. I should imagine the administrative staff may find work in another government department Hopefully the pilots, mechanics find work soon. One door closes another one opens.
    Maybe as a last gesture they should do a fly by of Redford's house and water bomb it with an added touch of Tory blue dye in the water.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  35. #135
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Below that old white mountain, just a little southeast of Nome
    Posts
    636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edTel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post

    just because some of the individuals may have been able to blow the whistle and may have been protected had they chosen to, i don't believe there is anything under their terms of employment or under the law that would have obligated them to do so or made them culpable for not doing so.
    (I am not saying they were) but if the acts in question were determined to be of a criminal nature (i.e. fraud, felony) then those with knowledge of such acts would be compelled under the law to report those to the appropriate authorities or be subject to prosecution themselves if they did not do so.
    oh for crying out loud... we're talking about airplane mechanics and pilots doing their jobs here, not getaway drivers at a bank heist. and the behavior we're talking about was clearly inappropriate but not even the solicitor general considered it "of a criminal nature".
    Sorry I wasn't referring to the pilots and mechanics....that's what I get for coming into the thread halfway and not reading the first half. I was more referring to the finance people or whomever knew what was going on, knew it was wrong, and did nothing about it. The SG may not consider it of a criminal nature but in my mind I could see this falling into the category of theft or at least fraud (what Redford did anyway having the manifests altered).

  36. #136
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edTel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post

    just because some of the individuals may have been able to blow the whistle and may have been protected had they chosen to, i don't believe there is anything under their terms of employment or under the law that would have obligated them to do so or made them culpable for not doing so.
    (I am not saying they were) but if the acts in question were determined to be of a criminal nature (i.e. fraud, felony) then those with knowledge of such acts would be compelled under the law to report those to the appropriate authorities or be subject to prosecution themselves if they did not do so.
    oh for crying out loud... we're talking about airplane mechanics and pilots doing their jobs here, not getaway drivers at a bank heist. and the behavior we're talking about was clearly inappropriate but not even the solicitor general considered it "of a criminal nature".
    Sorry I wasn't referring to the pilots and mechanics....that's what I get for coming into the thread halfway and not reading the first half. I was more referring to the finance people or whomever knew what was going on, knew it was wrong, and did nothing about it. The SG may not consider it of a criminal nature but in my mind I could see this falling into the category of theft or at least fraud (what Redford did anyway having the manifests altered).
    been there, done that...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  37. #137
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    Whoa great surprise (not), the government could have kept the fleet and pilots working and received more money for a sale than what they did get.

    Bidder says PC government rejected $15M offer for province's aircraft fleet
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...349/story.html

  38. #138

    Default

    Typical Provincial P.C's. About as much use as a plastic barbeque grill. R. Soles.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  39. #139
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,327

    Default

    Wtf? People should be held responsible for stupid decisions like this so they think twice before screwing taxpayers over. So frustrating.

  40. #140

    Default

    ^that's why people take government jobs, your income hits a celing very quickly, but at least you know you won't be held responsible for your screw ups. I've actually seen a government union use their clout to reinstate someone who was totally incompetent because of seniority.

  41. #141
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    Lets sell off the provincially owned plane fleet, boy that is a smart decision. Or was it?
    These costs would be higher if panel members each drove their own vehicles, and triple or four times the cost if members travelled by plane - Timothy Wilson - AB Health Press Secretary
    https://globalnews.ca/news/3800722/%...-is-justified/

  42. #142
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,019

    Default

    Who takes a cab from Calgary to medicine hat?? WTH..
    What does the greyhound bus cost?

  43. #143

    Default

    ^Ha, I just had the same thought. They could have rented a car or hoped on a Greyhound - that's insane, who in their right minds takes a taxi from Calgary to Medicine Hat?

  44. #144

    Default

    Probably the best thing those civil servants could have done is wait for a cattle truck going to Brooks and hitched a ride with the steers in the back. They would have blended in nicely.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  45. #145
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Probably the best thing those civil servants could have done is wait for a cattle truck going to Brooks and hitched a ride with the steers in the back. They would have blended in nicely.
    LOL, yes they would. Red Arrow would have been way cheaper than a cab, we pay for!

  46. #146
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    A plane full of MLAs is more efficient than a car or bus (or a taxi), they should have kept the planes but use them appropriately, Edmonton/Calgary for the large one, but it flies only when full not when only the premier wants to fly.

  47. #147
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,420

    Default

    The planes were for other government employees as well, not just for MLAs or the premier.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  48. #148
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    Unfortunately Redford would have her aids book a flight with her to fill the plane, then cancel at the last minute so she would fly alone or with one other.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •