virtual air canada

[Brian Kozushka 1148282]

hello everyone, does anyone know if virtual air canada is in operation? past the test ,submitted application have not heard anything. Sent E-mails to just about everyone on their contact list, still nothing.If anyone knows anything could you let me know if they are still operational. thanks everyone

[Darren Currie 1044920]

I don't even know anymore. I have heard they have lost many applications and things like that and personally think along with some other people in here that they are dying a slow, painful, death.

 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong

[Jody Turner 1018734]

The members are what is holding VAC up, me thinks. Behind the scenes, it's nearly dead as far as I know.

[Alistair Thomson]

The members are what is holding VAC up, me thinks. Behind the scenes, it's nearly dead as far as I know.

Therefore, it's dead. Despite website hypes to the contrary, members do NOT a VA make! Sad, but true. It's about technology, and its implementation, and its support. As far as I can tell, all virtual flying organisations exist because of the efforts, and the commitment, and the financial input, of a few individuals. Really. You can count them on the fingers of one hand - and, in some cases, on the fingers of one finger.

 

You can have a gazillion members, but if your key leaders/system providors lose the place, or lose interest, then it's goodbye. It might take a while before the horrible truth dawns on members - like a chicken which keeps running round the yard even after its head is chopped off - but once the chopper has descended, you can kiss goodbye to the facilities you once enjoyed.

 

Someone once said that almost everyone on this planet is just one paycheck away from bankruptcy. Here in virtual flying land, that translates to: you are only one BoG meltdown away from oblivion.

 

And in an effort to forestall the usual flames, let me make it clear that I'm NOT for one second suggesting that VATSIM is in that situation! At the moment. So it isn't happening in VATSIM.

 

COULD it happen in VATSIM? You bet. See above.

 

There is simply no robustness built in to our hobby. Basically, AFAIK, we, as users, are parasites. We are of course symbiotic, because the system needs us to make meaning out of the tech systems put in place by our providors, and that is why they worked so hard to set up these systems in the first place.

 

But they ultimately hold our virtual future in their hands, and if they decide that they just do not want to do that any more, then th=th=th=that's all, folks. (Looney Tunes reference there, for any youngsters reading this. I can whistle the tune too, if that adds pathos)

 

But I'm not complaining! Without these committed individuals, I just could not fly virtually. Neither could you. Unless YOU decide to set up a virtual flying system to mediate against that problem.

 

But then, YOU would be the guy up there without whom… etc. etc.

[Luke Kolin]

Therefore, it's dead. Despite website hypes to the contrary, members do NOT a VA make! Sad, but true. It's about technology, and its implementation, and its support. As far as I can tell, all virtual flying organisations exist because of the efforts, and the commitment, and the financial input, of a few individuals. Really. You can count them on the fingers of one hand - and, in some cases, on the fingers of one finger.

 

I disagree.

 

You're certainly right that in every virtual organization, there's a tremendous pyramid-shaped distribution of members in terms of energy and resources that they put into the organization. For every 100 casual members there may be one, two or at best three that put in dozens of hours a week, or who have a specialized skill. However, I don't believe that in the case of a crisis, one would not have new people step up and take charge if they felt the organization needed it.

 

Yes, Virtual Airlines and networks depend on technology. Ultimately, we're engaged in a technical simulation. But the sole purpose of technology is to provide useful features and benefits to our members, to enhance and encourage their enjoyment of our hobby. We shouldn't lose sight of that goal, and I don't. When I first got involved with Delta Virtual in mid-2001 as a temporarily unemployed software developer, I set out with the goal of providing it with the best technology of any Virtual Airline not for its own sake (although keeping my skills sharp and my mind occupied was a valuable side benefit) but also to give our members the best features possible. At first it was just a roster that was automated and a forum with single sign on (this was 2001, remember). But over the years it progressed to include live ACARS, FlightAware integration, US 1km weather radar, runway plotting, etc.

 

I mention this because I think technology and members become a virtuous cycle. Great technology breeds great features. That brings lots of new members, which brings organizational continuity as mature, motivated people are attracted and retained by an organization they perceive invests in itself. And they are the people who step up when a particular generation moves on.

 

You can have a gazillion members, but if your key leaders/system providors lose the place, or lose interest, then it's goodbye. It might take a while before the horrible truth dawns on members - like a chicken which keeps running round the yard even after its head is chopped off - but once the chopper has descended, you can kiss goodbye to the facilities you once enjoyed.

 

There are enough virtual airlines out there who have gone through successive generations of leadership to suggest that this is not the case. The best example that comes to mind is AvA when Bill Hennessey decided to move on in 2003 or so. He'd started the airline two years prior, and announced that because of changing personal and professional interests, he was moving on and the VA was shutting down. The response from the membership was quite strong and emphatic, and a new generation of leaders volunteered to take what Bill had started and run with it. No one raises an eyebrow now when the folks at AvA shuffle the ranks a bit as people's commitment or ability to contribute changes; they recognize that it's a successful enterprise that renews from within.

 

Where I think some organizations fall down (and I think this is the error VAC has made) is that they don't plan for the day when the founding generation moves on. You end up with a situation like what they have (running on autopilot) or something like simairline.net, which was fundamentally dependent on a single individual and is now closing because Aaron doesn't want to do it anymore. I don't think either case, however, is a situation where the membership is incapable of taking over. Instead, it's a situation where Founders aren't willing to release their progeny. I think that's why you'll find that the most successful organizations don't have the notion of a "Founder" or an "owner" - they are essentially mutual cooperatives where recent active membership is a proxy for ownership, and that ownership remains constantly in slow flux.

 

Someone once said that almost everyone on this planet is just one paycheck away from bankruptcy. Here in virtual flying land, that translates to: you are only one BoG meltdown away from oblivion.

 

In both situations you mention, for a successful individual or organization it's far more the result of a failure to plan than an inevitability. When I created my first VA web site, I had been unemployed for two months (and ineligible for UI) with a newborn daughter. I worried about many things, but money wasn't one of them. Looking back, it was one of the most enjoyable and free times of my life. SATCO, just a few weeks later, had a BoG meltdown that created VATSIM. And while that organization in the formal and legal sense didn't survive, certainly one could argue that VATSIM is essentially the organization that once was SATCO, slightly altered but without a gap.

 

But they ultimately hold our virtual future in their hands, and if they decide that they just do not want to do that any more, then th=th=th=that's all, folks.

 

That is only if we as a membership allow things to end. That presupposes a p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive attitude where life is something that happens to us, instead of us being active in our own fates. Given what I've seen of my fellow man, that is a pretty accurate presupposition. And the crux of my disagreement is that given p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ionate members, loss of leadership is not the end of the world, provided the leadership are actually leaders (most self-labeled leaders are not) and are willing to gracefully relinquish control.

 

Neither could you. Unless YOU decide to set up a virtual flying system to mediate against that problem. But then, YOU would be the guy up there without whom… etc. etc.

 

It's not as hard as you think. I used to think FSD was hard until one day I woke up and realized I had written a better FSD. I used to think voice and the VVL was hard until last weekend, when I had my "Dr. Watson, come here" moment and did asynchronous voice recording and playback in C#. The technology isn't rocket science if you're not intimidated by it and are determined. Out of 15,000 members, we have enough technical savvy in the house that we can do it. Raising $5,000 a year isn't terribly hard.

 

To be honest, a collapse of VATSIM wouldn't be the end of the world. Sure, the network might be down for 60-90 days. But it might force some technological progress that an installed base doesn't allow. It might force the abandonment of politics and personality quarrels that are an unnecessary luxury when stuff that each party cares about isn't available. It might provide a broader donor base that isn't dependent on a small group of people financially. It might create a dynamic, rather than static, ownership and management structure.

 

Schumpeter was right.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Alistair Thomson]

Schumpeter was right

Well of course he was, since he produced two opposing theories. In the early days of virtual flying, the entrepeneurs like you and Ross and many others had your say and did your bit, and that had an effect. Schumpeter's early theories aligned with that. But now we are corporate, in various forms, including but not limited to VATSIM, which fits his later theories. So now, you and Ross and others still have your say, but the corporate machine rolls on oblivious.

 

Maybe that's a bit "robust" but that's how it seems, from looking at the debates in various threads.

 

And I do know about the birth of VATSIM and the rebirth of IVAO and the impending death of VAC and many other VAs. And I see Schumpeter's later philosophies at work there. If you can point at a group of VAC members who will ride up in white steeds to grasp control of the VAC castle, then I'm wrong. And so is Schumpeter Mark II.

[Marc Wheeler]

Not sure if VAC is dead or not.

 

There are still pilots flying under VAC, but the web site hasn't been updated in a long time as there is still news items from 2008-2009.

 

If it is in fact dead, it is a shame as it is probably one of the longest running Canadian VAs.

[Matthew Spencer]

Not rocket science here...

No pulse... dead...

Look the website's even blue-ish! (Couldn't resist)

[Aharon Dayan]

Brian Kozushka,

 

If you really want Air Canada Virtual airline, I do not know any other VAs with Air Canada name BUT if you are looking for a Canadian based airline with 1,000 routes, a huge fleet of jets and props, twice a week events, extremely reliable FSCARS system, gorgeous livery, with four main hubs: CYYZ, CYUL, CYHZ, and CYVR and has been in business for FOURTEEN years, check out http://www.canadianva.com.

 

I wish you best of luck in your search for a new VA and hope you will find one that makes you happy.

 

Regards,

 

Aharon

[Daniel Gustin 940540]

Gentlemen,

 

I cannot help but resist to bring my two cents in. VAC is certainly in a position where nothing can really be done. Their whole system is built on automation. I recently had a senior staff member come and look at joining my VA as a staff because he could not stand what was going on over there.

 

The community part of it is almost gone. Newbies go to that site and are turned on by the Top 10 Virtual Airline logo on the right, the thousands of members. Whereas, I go there, I see the last Sat. Scramble was 2008, the website has its info at the bottom indicating 1998-2008. On top of that, there are NO Vice Presidents and only senior staff.

 

From a management POV, is dead. All the senior management are doing is paying for the website hosting to and maintaining the positions to satisfy their ego's. Although it may seem harsh, can anyone think of a better reason as to why that VA is still open??

 

I have seen a substantial decay in my own VA ever since I have been occupied with school. I believe it is a matter of life and sometimes people can't dedicate 2 years straight to maintaining something like a VA. I however, have plans to re-energize vPorter over the summer break to hopefully get that community spirit back.

 

Just my 0.02 and perspective.

[Luke Kolin]

but the corporate machine rolls on oblivious.

 

I don't think that's a bit "robust" at all. I think you're absolutely right. And having been responsible for some of the corporatism at Delta Virtual, I do understand a fair bit of it. As your investment within an organization increases, you become more conservative and risk-averse because the scale of your potential losses is increasing. That's a naturally human reaction - we're a lot more risk-inclined in our twenties when we're young and broke than 25 years later. The challenge is retaining an open mind as one gets larger and recognize that while the scope of one's losses grows with success, I think the scale of future opportunities increases as well. There are a lot of things that become possible with 2,000 members that weren't realistic with 200 (and that's also true for 20,000 versus 2,000).

 

Douglas Adams once wrote that anything new that came along before you were about six years of age is pretty much unquestioningly accepted as the way the world has always worked. Things invented after you reach that age are tremendous, wonderful things that you can be fascinated with for the rest of your life. Things that enter your life after age 35 or so are dangerous and viewed with suspicion, if not hostility. I don't think he's completely correct on that last age, but he's got a point. The number of older people truly accepting new technologies or practices is much lower than those in their 20s.

 

I think organizations go through similar life cycles, and it's a challenge with groups with a large percentage of leaders who see what they have as a gain to be protected, rather than a base to grow from.

 

And I see Schumpeter's later philosophies at work there. If you can point at a group of VAC members who will ride up in white steeds to grasp control of the VAC castle, then I'm wrong. And so is Schumpeter Mark II.

 

I think VAC is the counter-example to AvA, and you're right - I don't think there's going to be a group to "save" it, because that opportunity existed three or so years ago. By now the people who would have led such a group are probably discouraged and long moved on.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Aggrey Ellis 964561]

I left 3 years ago and have never looked back. My advice: Stay Away. If you really want to fly in Canada join Porter, Virtual Westjet, the vCAF or the canadian virual.

[Michael Avila 1077868]

While still on the roster, I see the airline has a great forum community but little communication. I've found another Canadian VA to fly for now that has a very laid back and fun environment.