(Aired on May 28, 2010)
Having cancelled the Edmonton run, it's hard to imagine that Westjet will be increasing service out of Kamloops again any time soon. A spokesman for the company said the passenger numbers just weren't there for the Edmonton route, and the seasonal Vancouver flight wasn't doing well either before it ended.
Airport Society John O'Fee mentioned in passing that it would have been nice if the airline would have given the city a fighting chance instead of cancelling the run just a few weeks after it first took off. O'Fee is not in a position to raise a stink about it, but really, that deserves more attention. The airline said with pre-bookings happening since December, it had plenty of time to gauge customer interest. But the initial decision to start the flight in the spring and summer was probably flawed. Enough people who want to travel to Edmonton will decide to drive in the nice weather. It's the winter when the roads are treacherous that people would more likely make the decision to fly. Now, they won't get a chance.
And while some people may book as far in advance as December for flights in May, that's not nearly the entire market. There are a lot who wait for the smokin' deals that come from those rare seat sales. That's when the bookings start to pile up.
I'm not saying I can read the market better than Westjet, but what I am saying is that it's clear that there is little margin for failure in this industry right now. Westjet needs something as close to certain as it can get. Sometimes you need to spend money to make money, but Westjet likely can't afford the first part of that equation. And that's why I wouldn't expect a whole lot of expanded service in the near future.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Privacy or Protection?
(Aired on May 27, 2010)
There is a fine line somewhere that says "here’s the line over which you don’t cross, and here’s what’s acceptable." We waver around that line continually when it comes to privacy. What’s private, what’s not, and when is it reasonable to assume that the public good is more important than the rights of the individual.
We’re facing that scenario right now when it comes to the fight against crime, particularly against gangs and drugs. The Court of Appeal recently ruled that a program designed to shut down grow ops was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That program would allow Fire Inspectors to trace power spikes and then enter homes without warrants to try and find grow ops.
It seems pretty draconian at first glance. That’s unfair, the civil libertarians cry. But on the other side of the coin, grow ops are causing increasing problems. They’re becoming more sophisticated, they lead to many people getting involved in criminal activity, either to reap the profits of the sales, or getting hooked on these illicit drugs. They allow gangs to flourish, and they cause untold amounts of physical damage to homes, not to mention the theft of hydro, threat of fires from poorly set up systems, and the list goes on. So whose rights are more important? The individual who gets searched, or the rights of the many who suffer at the hands of the drug dealers and the gangs? It’s not an easy question to resolve, and the Courts wrestle with a tough decision.
If I had my way, I’d vote in favour of protecting the many at the expense of the few. I’m all for the greater good. But protecting the greater good can also open the door to things we might not find as favorable. How much power do you put in the hands of Big Brother? The program at issue here has resulted in a dramatic increase in marijuana grow-ops. So it seems like the right thing to do. But what the Courts have to wrestle with, and here’s the crunch, is how many other doors does that open. And those other doors may lead us to such destruction of our rights that we would find repugnant.
There is a fine line somewhere that says "here’s the line over which you don’t cross, and here’s what’s acceptable." We waver around that line continually when it comes to privacy. What’s private, what’s not, and when is it reasonable to assume that the public good is more important than the rights of the individual.
We’re facing that scenario right now when it comes to the fight against crime, particularly against gangs and drugs. The Court of Appeal recently ruled that a program designed to shut down grow ops was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That program would allow Fire Inspectors to trace power spikes and then enter homes without warrants to try and find grow ops.
It seems pretty draconian at first glance. That’s unfair, the civil libertarians cry. But on the other side of the coin, grow ops are causing increasing problems. They’re becoming more sophisticated, they lead to many people getting involved in criminal activity, either to reap the profits of the sales, or getting hooked on these illicit drugs. They allow gangs to flourish, and they cause untold amounts of physical damage to homes, not to mention the theft of hydro, threat of fires from poorly set up systems, and the list goes on. So whose rights are more important? The individual who gets searched, or the rights of the many who suffer at the hands of the drug dealers and the gangs? It’s not an easy question to resolve, and the Courts wrestle with a tough decision.
If I had my way, I’d vote in favour of protecting the many at the expense of the few. I’m all for the greater good. But protecting the greater good can also open the door to things we might not find as favorable. How much power do you put in the hands of Big Brother? The program at issue here has resulted in a dramatic increase in marijuana grow-ops. So it seems like the right thing to do. But what the Courts have to wrestle with, and here’s the crunch, is how many other doors does that open. And those other doors may lead us to such destruction of our rights that we would find repugnant.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
BP Turning into the Big Bad Wolf
(Aired on May 26, 2010)
Between right now and the time I finish this editorial, 7 barrels of oil will have flowed from the Deepwater Horizon spill into the Gulf of Mexico. And that's if you use numbers provided by British Petroleum. If you use numbers being put forward by other experts, the spill is increasing by 20-times that rate. That means during the duration of this editorial, 140 barrels of oil will have spilled.
Today, BP started pouring heavy mud into the wellhead to see if it can stem the flow. That would be followed by concrete, and then supposedly we'd never hear of that well again. It is becoming more and more unbelievable that safeguards weren't in place to prevent the environmental catastrophe that continues to unfold. As I mentioned shortly after the well explosion happened, the installation of a $500,000 acoustic switch likely would have prevented this spill.
But then again, the lack of regard for anything but pure profit seems to be what BP is all about. Five years ago, BP was sued when some of its employees died in a refinery explosion in Texas. It was alleged that the company was housing employees in structures that were vulnerable to explosion during the workday. As a lawyer was researching the suit, he found an internal BP memo that crassly plugged the employees lives into a cost benefit framework. In other words, each lost life was assigned a dollar value and measured against the cost of protecting that life by upgrading the structure. The memo used the Three Little Pigs as a metaphor - in other words, what would it cost to build a straw house, a wood house, or a brick house?
In the end, the memo concluded that fully protecting its employees lives was not worth the lost profits the company would incur. BP fundamentally reneged on its responsibility to protect its employees, and now it has done the same for protecting the environment.
Having said that, there's another 140 barrels of oil down the drain.
Between right now and the time I finish this editorial, 7 barrels of oil will have flowed from the Deepwater Horizon spill into the Gulf of Mexico. And that's if you use numbers provided by British Petroleum. If you use numbers being put forward by other experts, the spill is increasing by 20-times that rate. That means during the duration of this editorial, 140 barrels of oil will have spilled.
Today, BP started pouring heavy mud into the wellhead to see if it can stem the flow. That would be followed by concrete, and then supposedly we'd never hear of that well again. It is becoming more and more unbelievable that safeguards weren't in place to prevent the environmental catastrophe that continues to unfold. As I mentioned shortly after the well explosion happened, the installation of a $500,000 acoustic switch likely would have prevented this spill.
But then again, the lack of regard for anything but pure profit seems to be what BP is all about. Five years ago, BP was sued when some of its employees died in a refinery explosion in Texas. It was alleged that the company was housing employees in structures that were vulnerable to explosion during the workday. As a lawyer was researching the suit, he found an internal BP memo that crassly plugged the employees lives into a cost benefit framework. In other words, each lost life was assigned a dollar value and measured against the cost of protecting that life by upgrading the structure. The memo used the Three Little Pigs as a metaphor - in other words, what would it cost to build a straw house, a wood house, or a brick house?
In the end, the memo concluded that fully protecting its employees lives was not worth the lost profits the company would incur. BP fundamentally reneged on its responsibility to protect its employees, and now it has done the same for protecting the environment.
Having said that, there's another 140 barrels of oil down the drain.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Coke Toll Revenue Could Be Helping BC Right Now
(Aired on May 25, 2010)
Driving home from the coast yesterday, I couldn't help but reflect on the vast increase in traffic on the Coquihalla Highway. I've driven the highway extensively the past three years, at all times of day, in all seasons of the year. The volume of traffic is up substantially. Heavy truck traffic has really climbed. In fact yesterday, it was as busy between Kamloops and Hope as it was between Hope and Vancouver.
While I was driving, I wondered how many lives we could have saved in B.C. hospitals, or how many kids we could have given a proper education to, if we had not removed the tolls on the Coquihalla Highway a couple of years back. In retrospect, it was one of the stupidest moves ever by a government bent on trying to get votes for re-election. The money lost from the tolls on the highway, millions and millions every year, was lost because the government decided votes were more important than using the money for the good of the province. What if we had taken that money and used it to provide services in our hospitals, or kept more teachers on the job. Wouldn't that have been a great thing?
I know it's just another form of taxation, but it's no different than the tax on booze or cigarettes or gas, or any of the other hidden taxes we have to pay. But I would certainly rather pay the toll and have health services than not. The other side of the coin, of course, is that many of these taxes simply go into general revenue, and I'm not in favour of that. I prefer taxes go to specific items, like that transit tax on the Lower Mainland.
The government has put itself into such a hole economically, and much of it they've dug themselves with poor planning, and politically expedient moves like the removal of the toll on the Coke. They really could do a lot better.
Driving home from the coast yesterday, I couldn't help but reflect on the vast increase in traffic on the Coquihalla Highway. I've driven the highway extensively the past three years, at all times of day, in all seasons of the year. The volume of traffic is up substantially. Heavy truck traffic has really climbed. In fact yesterday, it was as busy between Kamloops and Hope as it was between Hope and Vancouver.
While I was driving, I wondered how many lives we could have saved in B.C. hospitals, or how many kids we could have given a proper education to, if we had not removed the tolls on the Coquihalla Highway a couple of years back. In retrospect, it was one of the stupidest moves ever by a government bent on trying to get votes for re-election. The money lost from the tolls on the highway, millions and millions every year, was lost because the government decided votes were more important than using the money for the good of the province. What if we had taken that money and used it to provide services in our hospitals, or kept more teachers on the job. Wouldn't that have been a great thing?
I know it's just another form of taxation, but it's no different than the tax on booze or cigarettes or gas, or any of the other hidden taxes we have to pay. But I would certainly rather pay the toll and have health services than not. The other side of the coin, of course, is that many of these taxes simply go into general revenue, and I'm not in favour of that. I prefer taxes go to specific items, like that transit tax on the Lower Mainland.
The government has put itself into such a hole economically, and much of it they've dug themselves with poor planning, and politically expedient moves like the removal of the toll on the Coke. They really could do a lot better.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
A Penny Saved... Ain't Worth It
(Aired on May 21, 2010)
Above my desk sits a rather large coffee mug. Said mug is about 7/8s filled with change. Not the good kind of change, mind you. The kind of change that might as well not exist. If my mug was in fact filled with a tasty beverage and not change, the pennies would constitute the mocha and the silver change would constitute the delicious whipped cream on top.
The fact is, I haven't made a concerted effort to pay with something using pennies in years. I only collect them, I never divest myself of them. If by some chance I happen to have one in my pocket and I'm paying for something with change, I may have one penny less. But usually I don't have pennies on me - I put them in my mug you see - and it's more pennies I get back.
My penny collection has convinced me that it's finally time the penny be taken out of production. Here are some numbers to consider, care of the CBC. Depending on whom you believe, it costs somewhere between 0.8 and five cents to produce one penny. In 2007, a survey conducted by the Canadian Mint found that 63% of retailers were in favour of ridding the economy of the one-cent coin. It seems crazy to think that there would be no way to pay for the smallest measure of currency, but there's nothing you can buy for less than a nickel anymore. And if there is, it's a case of the exception proving the rule.
There are enough pennies in circulation already, so you wouldn't necessarily need to adjust pricing up front. It could be phased out over time so we can all get used to it.
That's my thought. And I won't charge you a penny for it.
Above my desk sits a rather large coffee mug. Said mug is about 7/8s filled with change. Not the good kind of change, mind you. The kind of change that might as well not exist. If my mug was in fact filled with a tasty beverage and not change, the pennies would constitute the mocha and the silver change would constitute the delicious whipped cream on top.
The fact is, I haven't made a concerted effort to pay with something using pennies in years. I only collect them, I never divest myself of them. If by some chance I happen to have one in my pocket and I'm paying for something with change, I may have one penny less. But usually I don't have pennies on me - I put them in my mug you see - and it's more pennies I get back.
My penny collection has convinced me that it's finally time the penny be taken out of production. Here are some numbers to consider, care of the CBC. Depending on whom you believe, it costs somewhere between 0.8 and five cents to produce one penny. In 2007, a survey conducted by the Canadian Mint found that 63% of retailers were in favour of ridding the economy of the one-cent coin. It seems crazy to think that there would be no way to pay for the smallest measure of currency, but there's nothing you can buy for less than a nickel anymore. And if there is, it's a case of the exception proving the rule.
There are enough pennies in circulation already, so you wouldn't necessarily need to adjust pricing up front. It could be phased out over time so we can all get used to it.
That's my thought. And I won't charge you a penny for it.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Don't Cut Too Many School District Managers
(Aired on May 20, 2010)
Kamloops School District is finalizing its staff cuts for the fall, and so far, seem to have a pretty good handle on what needs to be done to make ends meet without hurting the product in the classroom. There will be some teacher cuts, but that's not unexpected in the face of declining enrollment. Some support staff will also be axed. Seven principals' jobs will go, again because some schools won't be operating and others face reduced levels of staffing. And in an effort to ensure that the critics are silenced, there's also a restructuring at the top. Some senior administrative positions will be going, and job functions will change.
Perception is important, I suppose, and it must appear that the District is cutting top management as well as teachers in the classroom. All well and good, but I would caution that senior cuts need to be limited, or the long term result will be even more chaos and disruption than we have now. It's fine to keep teachers in the classroom, and provide the best service to students. That's what education is about. But without the planners and the senior people to look ahead and make decisions for the future, you have to have the senior administrators too. And to cut one or two positions at a senior level, where you only have a handful of people in total is a much more significant cut than cutting 30 teaching positions out of hundreds within the district.
If you have no managers, you have anarchy and chaos. Teachers can't and won't do the planning for the future. Neither will support staff or Parents Advisory Groups. You need the administrators to keep things running. No principals, no direction. No senior administrators, no future.
I'm impressed with how the District has handled a pretty dismal situation. But let's remember that if you take the Superintendent, give him more direct responsibility for individual areas of the administration, as Terry Sullivan is taking on, you take away some of his ability to function. And to curtail the ability of the top administer to administrate is a recipe for disaster.
Kamloops School District is finalizing its staff cuts for the fall, and so far, seem to have a pretty good handle on what needs to be done to make ends meet without hurting the product in the classroom. There will be some teacher cuts, but that's not unexpected in the face of declining enrollment. Some support staff will also be axed. Seven principals' jobs will go, again because some schools won't be operating and others face reduced levels of staffing. And in an effort to ensure that the critics are silenced, there's also a restructuring at the top. Some senior administrative positions will be going, and job functions will change.
Perception is important, I suppose, and it must appear that the District is cutting top management as well as teachers in the classroom. All well and good, but I would caution that senior cuts need to be limited, or the long term result will be even more chaos and disruption than we have now. It's fine to keep teachers in the classroom, and provide the best service to students. That's what education is about. But without the planners and the senior people to look ahead and make decisions for the future, you have to have the senior administrators too. And to cut one or two positions at a senior level, where you only have a handful of people in total is a much more significant cut than cutting 30 teaching positions out of hundreds within the district.
If you have no managers, you have anarchy and chaos. Teachers can't and won't do the planning for the future. Neither will support staff or Parents Advisory Groups. You need the administrators to keep things running. No principals, no direction. No senior administrators, no future.
I'm impressed with how the District has handled a pretty dismal situation. But let's remember that if you take the Superintendent, give him more direct responsibility for individual areas of the administration, as Terry Sullivan is taking on, you take away some of his ability to function. And to curtail the ability of the top administer to administrate is a recipe for disaster.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Circumstances Surrounding Giles' Death Shouldn't Tarnish His Life
(Aired on May 19, 2010)
It may seem odd to you that we are devoting time to reporting on a man's suicide today. It may seem just as odd that RCMP held a special news conference this morning to address a man's suicide. Gord Giles took his own life last week, a tragedy that has shocked and saddened the entire community. I can completely see why the public would feel that the police news conference this morning was inappropriate, and would find the media's coverage the same. But in fact, the response is the right thing to do.
Police have a general policy against reporting suicides and the same holds true for those of us in the news media. It's an incredibly sensitive subject and one that is extremely difficult for a family to deal with - even without publicity.
However, circumstances like those that surround Giles' death dictate that it can't be kept quiet. RCMP had no choice but to talk about the investigation into Giles' activities and the resulting admission of guilt. The question surrounding the man's death would then become unavoidable. This morning's news conference dealt with the entire sad situation respectfully and with dignity. It also did not shy away from the wrongdoing that preceded. Inspector Yves Lacasse and Mayor Peter Milobar should receive a great deal of credit for that.
It also must be said that Gord's family wanted the press conference to happen, and participated in it. They had heard some of the nasty rumours that had started making the rounds and they wisely determined that putting those rumours to rest was the right thing to do. They will deal with the pain of the public scrutiny today but won't have to endure outrageous rumours ever again.
The rest of us should not let tragic end of Gord's life affect the way we remember him. Though he did make a mistake, he was a proud and good man, and worked harder than most of us to make Kamloops a community to be proud of.
It may seem odd to you that we are devoting time to reporting on a man's suicide today. It may seem just as odd that RCMP held a special news conference this morning to address a man's suicide. Gord Giles took his own life last week, a tragedy that has shocked and saddened the entire community. I can completely see why the public would feel that the police news conference this morning was inappropriate, and would find the media's coverage the same. But in fact, the response is the right thing to do.
Police have a general policy against reporting suicides and the same holds true for those of us in the news media. It's an incredibly sensitive subject and one that is extremely difficult for a family to deal with - even without publicity.
However, circumstances like those that surround Giles' death dictate that it can't be kept quiet. RCMP had no choice but to talk about the investigation into Giles' activities and the resulting admission of guilt. The question surrounding the man's death would then become unavoidable. This morning's news conference dealt with the entire sad situation respectfully and with dignity. It also did not shy away from the wrongdoing that preceded. Inspector Yves Lacasse and Mayor Peter Milobar should receive a great deal of credit for that.
It also must be said that Gord's family wanted the press conference to happen, and participated in it. They had heard some of the nasty rumours that had started making the rounds and they wisely determined that putting those rumours to rest was the right thing to do. They will deal with the pain of the public scrutiny today but won't have to endure outrageous rumours ever again.
The rest of us should not let tragic end of Gord's life affect the way we remember him. Though he did make a mistake, he was a proud and good man, and worked harder than most of us to make Kamloops a community to be proud of.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
