Air Canada maintenance... what they aren't telling us before we board

Aveos Fleet Performance Inc., the heavy maintenance company in charge of Air Canada's fleet maintenance, recently filed for bankruptcy in Canada.  That is tragic because it puts a lot of highly skilled people out of work.  The company claims the reason behind it's bankruptcy in Canada is due to the fact that Air Canada kept rescheduling major maintenance work on it's fleet causing the maintenance company to go into the red. 

The issue that has been swept under the carpet by the media is the question of what kind of major maintenance Air Canada kept rescheduling.  If you keep rescheduling maintenance, eventually it will cause a major safety concern.  I, for one, would not like to be concerned about maintenance at 30,000 to 45,000 feet.  I would also like to know how long Air Canada has been deferring work that is required on their fleet.  If an airline does not get the heavy maintenance work done, it can result in catastrophic failure of safety and control systems possibly leading to a fatal accident.  For the record, Air Canada has an extremely good safety record - it's last fatal accident was in June of 1983.  That said, if you skimp on the maintenance, a serious accident such as Alaska Airlines Flight 261 in 2000 which involved insufficient lubrication of flight control systems sent the plane spiralling into the Pacific ocean killing all on board.  I am not saying that will happen to Air Canada or any other Canadian airline for that matter, but flight 261 is a good example of how something as simple as insufficient lubrication of nuts, screws and assemblies will lead to a plane going down.  Upkeep of control systems are considered heavy maintenance because you have to disassemble large parts of the aircraft in order to get to the parts.

I feel the media should ask the question regarding possible maintenance lapses and the increased likelihood of a critical incident occurring because of it.

Notes about the author of this post:

• I do not work for an aviation maintenance company or airline in any capacity
• I do not work for any aviation regulator  ie  Transport Canada, FAA etc.
• I am not part of an aerospace union
• I am not part of any trade organization
• I am not part of any media organization
• I study aviation accidents, safety and performance issues as a hobby

Popcorn Served by the bucket-load, dripping in butter, popcorn was once seen as little more than junk food for peckish cinemagoers. But lately the snack has undergone a radical makeover, forging a name for itself as the low-calorie alternative to crisps for weight-conscious office workers

Served by the bucket-load, dripping in butter, popcorn was once seen as little more than junk food for peckish cinemagoers.
But lately the snack has undergone a radical makeover, forging a name for itself as the low-calorie alternative to crisps for weight-conscious office workers.
And now scientists have discovered that popcorn is not only good for the waist – it’s brimming with more antioxidants than your average serving of fruit and vegetables.
New research has revealed that popcorn is made up of just 4% water so the antioxidants are less diluted than in fruit and vegetables, which can be made up of up to 90% water.
The study found that one serving of popcorn contains up to 300mg of antioxidants - known as polyphenols – nearly double the 160mg found in a serving of fruit.
The researchers also found the crunchy hulls of popcorn (those bits that have an annoying habit of sticking in your throat) have the highest concentration of antioxidants and fibre.
Researcher Jo Vinson said: “Those hulls deserve more respect. They are nutritional gold nuggets.”
Describing popcorn as “the perfect snack food”, he added: “It's the only snack that is 100 per cent unprocessed whole grain.

“All other grains are processed and diluted with other ingredients, and although cereals are called 'whole grain', this simply means that over 51% of the weight of the product is whole grain.

“One serving of popcorn will provide more than 70% of the daily intake of whole grain.
“The average person only gets about half a serving of whole grains a day, and popcorn could fill that gap in a very pleasant way.”
He added: “Air-popped popcorn has the lowest number of calories while microwave popcorn has twice as many calories as air-popped."
The findings were revealed by scientists from the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Diego.
But the researchers warned that popcorn should be seen as a supplement to your five-a-day, not an alternative, as it doesn’t contain the vital vitamins and nutrients found in fruit and vegetables.

Swedish Parliament voted in favour of the government's proposal that Sweden shall adhere to the Convention on Cluster Munitions," parliament

Swedish lawmakers voted Thursday in favour of ratifying a treaty that bans the use of cluster bombs, the UN Convention on Cluster Munitions.

"Parliament voted in favour of the government's proposal that Sweden shall adhere to the Convention on Cluster Munitions," parliament said in a statement.

Sweden signed the treaty in November 2008, several months after the convention was adopted at a conference in Dublin earlier in the year.

Sweden's initial delay in signing up to the treaty prompted criticism from peace advocates, who accused that the government of Fredrik Reinfeldt of foot dragging on an important disarmament matter.

Some 109 countries have signed the convention, which entered into force in 2010, and which requires signatories to stop the use, production and transfer of the deadly weapons.

Cluster munitions split open before impact and scatter multiple – often hundreds – of submunitions, or bomblets, usually the size of a tennis ball, over a wide area.

Many of them fail to explode and can lie hidden for years, killing and maiming civilians, including children, in explosions, even decades after the conflict is over.

China, Israel, Russia and the United States are among countries that have not signed the convention.

Those powers are thought to hoard and manufacture the bulk of the munitions, although the data is secret.

Air Canada pilots challenge back-to-work law : Law breaches charter rights, pilots say

Air Canada pilots are challenging the federal government's back-to-work legislation, asking Ontario's Superior Court to rule that the law breaches their charter rights.
A court filing by the pilots union says the legislation, which forces them to fly, conflicts with their legal obligations under the Canadian Aviation Regulations. The regulations prohibit pilots from flying if they have any reason to believe they are unfit to properly perform their duties.
"A right to strike is a necessary incident for employees to meaningfully exercise their freedom to associate in the workplace including their right to collective bargaining," the pilots' application said.
"The right to strike may only be restricted in the case of essential services where a work stoppage endangers the life, personal safety or health of the population. The right to strike is also an essential means by which employees convey information and raise awareness of the various issues in dispute between the parties. The impugned provisions limit both the liberty and 'security of the person' of pilots in a manner inconsistent with the principles of fundamental justice."
Labour Minister Lisa Raitt introduced the legislation March 12. It passed through the House of Commons and Senate and became law on March 14.
Raitt also referred the matter to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, asking it to evaluate what a work stoppage would mean to Canadians' health and safety. Referring an issue to the CIRB bars the union and the airline from any work stoppage while the board investigates.
The pilots' application to the court says union members "have been under a significant amount of stress" due to the dispute and "Parliament’s removal of their only means of engaging in meaningful collective bargaining." But the back-to-work legislation means they can be prosecuted for refusing work if they feel unfit, the application says.
Raitt said Tuesday in Sudbury, Ont., that both parties can continue bargaining as they wait for an arbitrator to be assigned to conduct final offer selection, under which the sides submit offers and the arbitrator chooses between the two. She said the pilots were in talks for 18 months and had an agreement the union's members wouldn't ratify.
"The problem is at some point, and it would be this point, the Canadian public interest does come into play," Raitt said.
"I understand what is being said with respect to collective bargaining rights, and I understand that there's going to be challenges to it. And that's all appropriate, and that's going to happen. But as far as we're concerned, Air Canada is flying, there are no work stoppages, and the Canadian public interest has been satisfied."

Public servants advised against legislation

The government also used back-to-work legislation during Air Canada's contract dispute with customer service and sales staff last June.
A secret report obtained by The Canadian Press under federal Access to Information laws shows an appeal last summer from federal bureaucrats to use back-to-work legislation only as a last resort appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development advised the governing Conservatives to use the powerful legal measure sparingly after the airline's customer-service and sales staff walked out last June.
In it, senior officials urged the Tories to save the back-to-work law for emergencies.
The bureaucrats were not convinced the walkout by customer-service agents constituted anything more than a nuisance to air travellers.
The Conservatives threatened back-to-work legislation to end labour unrest between Air Canada and unions representing customer-service agents and flight attendants.

Air Canada said Monday it could be forced to cancel flights and strand thousands of passengers if the maintenance company that obtained creditor protection Monday is unable to complete repairs to several planes.

MONTREAL - Air Canada said Monday it could be forced to cancel flights and strand thousands of passengers if the maintenance company that obtained creditor protection Monday is unable to complete repairs to several planes.
Despite saying earlier in the day it won't be affected by the closure, the airline's lawyers argued in vain Monday for a Quebec Superior Court judge to order Aveos Fleet Performance to not lay off more workers and meet its obligations to complete the repairs.

 

Three widebody planes and several narrowbody aircraft are sitting in Aveos facilities across the country, some missing landing gear.
Air Canada lawyer Louis Belanger said the next 24 to 48 hours will be crucial in determining if the aircraft repairs can be completed on schedule. He said nearly 3,000 passengers daily could be affected if the planes aren't promptly returned to service.
Despite what it argued in court, Air Canada (TSX:AC.B) said in a news release that its fleet's maintenance and repair activities are done in-house and won't be affected by the plant closures.
"The airline's line maintenance has always been performed directly by Air Canada, at the airline's own facilities by Air Canada's 2,300 maintenance employees," the airline said in a statement.
"The airline typically performs its line maintenance activities overnight or between flights, as necessary."
Montreal-based Aveos said it has permanently shut its airframe repair business. The move will affect about 1,800 of the company's 2,600 employees.
The remaining employees repairing engines and components such as landing gear have not been let go but it wasn't immediately clear when they will be called back to work.
Aveos said it will be able to restart operations if it can secure liquidity and develop a restructuring plan.
"This was an extremely difficult decision, one we made only after lengthy and careful consideration of all other options. We deeply regret the job losses and the impact this decision has on our employees in Canada," stated Aveos CEO Joe Kolshak.
Justice Mark Schrager denied an Air Canada request that would have forced Aveos to maintain operations and employment to complete the contracted repairs.
"Accommodation, if there is any between Aveos and Air Canada, is going to be made in a boardroom, not a courtroom," he said before granting creditor protection Monday.
The airline was forced to cancel several flights over the weekend because it said several pilots called in sick, there was heavy fog and a fire closed a runway at Toronto's Pearson Airport.
The head of the pilots association denied it led a co-ordinated protest to have pilots book off sick. But Capt. Paul Strachan said the stress of the labour dispute has had a clear effect on some workers.
The Canadian Industrial Relations Board will determine the merits of Air Canada's complaint that the pilots called in sick as a protest and that the action constituted an illegal strike after hearing from the two sides next week.
Aveos shut down three main plants in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Montreal, as well as other facilities in Edmonton, Calgary, Trenton and Mississauga, Ont. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers maintains Air Canada caused the problems at Aveos by sending its heavy aircraft maintenance business to other providers.
It said the layoff of Aveos workers is a violation of the Air Canada Public Participation Act and it wants the federal government to intervene and save their jobs.
"We want the federal government to intervene, otherwise a viable industry and its highly skilled workers will vanish forever," said Dave Ritchie, Canadian General Vice President of the IAMAW.
The union contends the government and Canada Industrial Relations Board should have done more to ensure Aveos was financially viable before approving the transfer of workers from Air Canada.
Aveos argues Air Canada is responsible for $10 million in severance payments owed to laid off airframe workers.
Some of those employees protested outside an Air Canada office in Montreal on Monday morning, blocking access to the building near Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport.
A few kilometres away, another group of laid-off workers protested outside an Aveos building. A similar protest took place in Vancouver.
Union spokesman Marcel St-Jean said if Air Canada was still sending its planes to Aveos for maintenance, the company might not be in the position it is in right now.
St-Jean said that Air Canada called the company on Friday to say they weren't sending anymore planes.
"We've been told by Aveos that Air Canada owes them more than $54 million and they are not paying their bills," said St-Jean, president of the Montreal Local of the IAMAW.
In its court filing, Aveos said it has been hurt by "uncertain work volume" across all its business lines from its main customer Air Canada and high labour costs.
"Since the beginning of 2012, Air Canada has reduced, deferred and cancelled maintenance work with Aveos which has resulted in $16 million lost revenue in less than two calendar months," said the its court petition.
"While Aveos remained ready, willing and able to perform such work, the loss of such work has been devastating to Aveos' financial position."
Aveos said it was owed $60 million, mostly from Air Canada. As of January, its liabilities exceeded the book value of its assets by $165 million.
The company said it lost nearly $49 million before taxes in the fourth quarter and $9.5 million in the first nine months of last year.
Aveos was once Air Canada's technical services division but was later spun off as a separate company.
Chris Murray of PI Financial said he doesn't foresee any major impact to Air Canada's finances in the near team because of the Aveos shutdown.
"Line maintenance is provided internally by Air Canada and therefore should not present any operational issues," he wrote in a report.
Air Canada says it has a contingency plan involving other companies if Aveos is unable to ensure the work can be done. Air Canada is Aveos' largest customer, providing about 90 per cent of its maintenance overhaul work. Its exclusive airframe contract expires in June 2013, while engine work is guaranteed until 2018.

The top judges in British Columbia’s three courts are openly criticizing the province’s latest efforts at judicial reform.

Judicial Independence

(And What Everyone Should Know About It)
15 March 2012

Introduction

The provincial government’s "Justice Reform Initiative" presents an opportunity to provide information to the public about the courts and the role of the judiciary in our system of government.

Our system of government is divided into three branches: the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. Each has separate and independent areas of power and responsibility. In its simplest form, the legislative branch creates the law, the executive branch enforces the law, and the judicial branch interprets and applies the law in individual cases.

Through a long history, a balance has been struck among these three branches of government, keeping each branch from gaining too much power or having too much influence over the others.

Every resident of Canada remains subject to the application of the law. No person nor government is beyond its reach. This principle is often called the "rule of law" and is important in a democratic system of government. A former Secretary General of the United Nations has defined the rule of law as follows:

It refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.1

1 U.N. Security Council, The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies: Report of the Secretary-General. (S/2004/616). 23 August 2004. Online: http://www.unrol.org/files/2004%20report.pdf.

This principle has a long history, but the independence of the judges, who are tasked with interpreting and applying the law in individual cases, is an important part.

What is Judicial Independence and Why is it Important?

The term "judicial independence" is often talked about when discussing the justice system, but is not always well-understood. The purpose of these comments is to help the public understand what judicial independence is and why it is important.

A famous English judge said that "Justice must be rooted in confidence." He was referring to the confidence litigants and the public must have that judicial decision-makers are impartial. Those who come before the courts must be certain that decisions made by those courts are not subject to outside influence. Judicial independence means that judges are not subject to pressure and influence, and are free to make impartial decisions based solely on fact and law. Judicial independence is often misunderstood as something that is for the benefit of the judge. It is not. It is the public’s guarantee that a judge will be impartial. The principle has been expressed this way:

In the final analysis we value and stress judicial independence for what it assures to the public, not for what it grants to judges themselves. Ultimately, the sole purpose of the concept is to ensure that every citizen who comes before the court will have [their] case heard by a judge who is free of governmental or private pressures that may impinge upon the ability of that judge to render a fair and unbiased decision in accordance with the law.2

2 Garry D. Watson, "The Judge and Court Administration" in The Canadian Judiciary (Toronto: Osgoode, 1976) at 183 quoted in British Columbia, Commission of Inquiry Pursuant to Order-in-Council #1885, July 5, 1979, Report of the Honourable Mr. Justice P.D. Seaton, Commissioner (October 23, 1979) at 11 ["Seaton Report"].

3 Seaton Report at 60.

It has been suggested that judges may use independence as a "shield" against scrutiny. This is a mistaken view.

Judges have a responsibility to protect their independence and impartiality. They do so not out of self-interest, but as an obligation they owe to the public who have entrusted them with decision-making power, and to whom they are ultimately accountable to maintain the public’s confidence. One judge expressed it this way:

It is the judge [...] who is primarily responsible for the maintenance of [their] independence and the independence of the judiciary generally. The Chief Judge and others with administrative duties must act as a buffer between the executive and individual judges. All judges, especially those with administrative duties, must be vigilant to preserve their independence and the independence of their court. They must keep the Ministry, just as they must keep all others, at arm’s length.3

To preserve judicial independence, the Constitution of Canada requires three things:

1. Security of tenure: Once appointed, a judge is entitled to serve on the bench until the age of retirement, unless, for Superior Court judges, both houses of Parliament agree that he or she should be removed from office, or for Provincial Court judges, a tribunal established under the Provincial Court Act has ordered that he or she should be removed from office.

2. Financial security: Judges are paid sufficiently and in a manner so they are not dependent on or subject to pressure from other institutions.

3. Administrative independence: Courts must be able to decide how to manage the litigation process and the cases judges will hear.

It is easy to see how the first two aspects are important to ensure judges are free from government or private pressures affecting their impartiality. The third aspect, administrative independence, is more complex.

The court as a whole must remain separate from other branches of government to prevent any suggestion of improper influence. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated the aspects of administrative independence necessary to maintain a constitutionally-sound separation between the judiciary and other branches of government. They include:

1. the assignment of judges to hear particular cases;

2. the scheduling of court sittings;

3. the control of court lists for cases to be heard;

4. the allocation of courtrooms; and

5. the direction of registry and court staff in carrying out these functions.

It is important to understand why these functions must remain within judicial control. First, the public could not have confidence in the independence and impartiality of the courts if others, outside the judicial branch, could control or manipulate proceedings by interfering in any of these functions. A judge cannot be independent if the necessary support staff is unavailable, or is subject to the control of and accountable to others.

All recognize there is a requirement for accountability for the allocation and disposition of the resources, human and otherwise, necessary to the proper functioning of the courts. There is bound to be continuing tension between the uncertain and varying demands for the resources, and the constraints on those who must budget for the supply of those resources. But if there is a business case to be made for cost savings, that case must be made within the confines of what is permitted by the Constitution.

Reforms also need to be examined in context. For example, it has been suggested that "overbooking" (the setting of more than one case before the same judge on the same day) is inefficient and costly, because one or more counsel and parties who attend on the appointed day will have their cases adjourned. That can be one result of overbooking. But this view overlooks the fact that overbooking often leads to more effective utilization of judicial and other court resources, taking into account the number of cases that normally settle on the eve of trial or do not proceed for other reasons.

By long history, our court proceedings are based on an adversarial system. The parties present their opposing positions, witnesses are called and cross-examined. The judge sits as a neutral decision-maker. It is not a perfect system, and it continues to evolve, but in its essential form, and particularly in the area of criminal law, it is a system that has worked well for centuries.

In the adversarial system, the preparation and presentation of cases is left primarily in the hands of the lawyers representing the adverse parties. The courts exercise some measure of control over this, but they must respect the accused’s constitutional rights, as well as the professional obligations of the lawyers to their respective clients.

The adversarial system is one feature of the legal system that makes it an uneasy fit with the application of business analysis and systems management designed for a business or government enterprise. The judiciary of each Court has drawn upon such analysis to develop projects and systems to better serve the public in a manner that also recognizes the constitutional structures and rights that underpin the legal system.

There are many other factors which require consideration when seeking to improve the justice system. No one can predict with confidence the number of cases coming into the system at any given time, and no one can predict their complexity or the time they will require to be heard and resolved. Predetermined limits on human resources by those outside the judicial system are likely to give rise to serious problems. Flexibility is necessary if changing demands for judicial and court resources are to be met.

Other Types of Independence

It is important to distinguish between judicial independence and the sort of independence that characterizes the role of other members of our legal system. Police, prosecutors and defence counsel all have to make important decisions in the detection, prosecution and defence of persons alleged to have committed crimes.

There is a critical distinction between the police and Crown prosecutors on the one hand, and the judiciary on the other. The police and prosecutors are in the employ and within the authority of the executive branch of government. Although required to exercise their duties impartially and independently, at the end of the day they are agents of the Crown.

Judges by contrast are not subject to the direction or control of the executive branch of government.

There are sound reasons for this. Government, in its many manifestations, is frequently a party to court proceedings in an adversarial role. For example, the state is behind every criminal prosecution. Government agencies are frequently either parties to court proceedings, or are subject to having their decisions reviewed in the courts. Courts are called upon to decide disputes between our Aboriginal peoples, and various levels of government, or government agencies. Courts also have to rule on the validity of legislation, as to whether it is within the powers given to the Legislature or Parliament by the Constitution, and whether it conforms to the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So while police and prosecutors must be independent within their proper spheres, theirs is an independence of a different nature or quality than judicial independence. While police and prosecutors must be objective, they are ultimately part of and answerable to the executive branch of government. Judges are not, and their independence safeguards their impartiality.

Conclusion

The judiciary is always open to discussing ways to improve the administration of justice. Indeed, all levels of court have engaged in extensive discussions with government officials over the past several years with a view to achieving that end. In being open to discussion, however, the judiciary will remain steadfast in protecting the essential elements of judicial independence, as the precursor and guardian of judicial impartiality.

Chief Justice Lance Finch Chief Justice Robert Bauman Chief Judge Thomas Crabtree

Chief Justice of British Columbia Chief Justice Chief Judge

Supreme Court of British Columbia Provincial Court of British Columbia

Four-in-five respondents call for an independent investigation to find out who was behind the misleading robocalls made in the 2011 federal ballot.

-

Most Canadians Think Robocalls Were Used Broadly in Last Election

Four-in-five respondents call for an independent investigation to find out who was behind the misleading robocalls made in the 2011 federal ballot.

Many Canadians are following stories related to the telephone calls with pre-recorded messages made during the last federal election, and a large proportion believe this method was used widely in the last campaign, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative sample of 1,001 Canadian adults, half of respondents (50%) say they have followed stories related to robocalls made during the last federal election campaign “very closely” or “moderately closely.”
Elections Canada is currently investigating telephone calls with pre-recorded messages made at or near the City of Guelph, Ontario, that may have prevented Canadians from voting in the federal election of May 2011.
Less than one-in-five Canadians (18%) believe the robocalls are “definitely” or “probably” an isolated incident limited to Guelph. Conversely, almost two thirds of Canadians (64%) think the Guelph occurrence is “probably” or “definitely” one of many that took place in the last federal campaign.
A large proportion of Canadians who voted for the Green Party (80%), the New Democratic Party (78%), the Liberal Party (77%) and the Bloc Québécois (also 77%) believe that the robocalls extend beyond Guelph, along with 47 per cent of Conservative Party voters.
Canadians were asked which of the five major federal parties are likely to provide false and misleading information to voters through telephone calls with pre-recorded messages during a political campaign. Only a third of respondents in Canada think the Green Party (32%) and the New Democratic Party (NDP) (33%) are “very likely” or “moderately likely” to rely on this tactic. In Quebec, 32 per cent of respondents think the Bloc Québécois is likely to use robocalls with misleading information.
A majority of Canadians believe the Liberal Party (55%) and the Conservative Party (63%) are likely to provide false and misleading information to voters through telephone calls with pre-recorded messages during a political campaign. In fact, two-in-five Canadians (39%) think the Tories are “very likely” to rely on this tactic.
Half of Canadians (50%)—including 61 per cent of Quebecers—believe that every riding that was the subject of misleading robocalls should have a by-election as soon as possible, and four-in-five respondents (81%) want to hold an independent investigation to find out exactly who was behind any misleading robocalls that may have been made in the May 2011 federal election.
Respondents are divided on the effect robocalls may have had on the last federal ballot, with 44 per cent agreeing that the misleading messages definitely changed the outcome of the May 2011 federal election, and 36 per cent disagreeing with that assessment.
At least three-in-five Canadians who voted for any of the four parties currently in opposition in the House of Commons want to hold by-elections in the ridings that were the subject of misleading robocalls, but only 31 per cent of Tory voters concur. Most opposition voters also believe that the robocalls definitely changed the outcome of the last federal ballot, a view shared by just 17 per cent of Conservative voters.
Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)