Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Canada Boeing 777s, Good Move?  
User currently offlineJake3204 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11638 times:

Personally, I think that AC adding 777s to there fleet was kind of a dumb move. Sure they will have the lie-flat seats in first class and personal T.V.'s in every seat but still, they were doing fine without them. The A340 is doing fine. Getting on a plane is just going from point A to point B.

65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7538 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11648 times:

The A340's are not doing fine they were not meeting the target needs for Air Canada. Thats why the got rid of them, not for some flashy interior upgrade.


"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11611 times:

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
The A340's are not doing fine they were not meeting the target needs for Air Canada. Thats why the got rid of them, not for some flashy interior upgrade.

A340s were doing the job fine and I agree with Jake3204 that it makes little sense from fleet point of view to replace them by 777. Should have waited and get XWB.

However AC seems to got a steal deal from Boeing and this taxpayer sponsored export agency who financed the deal (don't remember their name).


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11581 times:

Apparently they were having some teething problems with the A340. One way or another, fuel costs are a huge concern for any airline, and the A340 just cant match the 777 for fuel efficiency. Look at all those airlines lining up to get the 787... alot of those airlines have decent aircraft, but the cost of procuring new aircraft is out weighed by fuel savings.

User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12104 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11543 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Jake3204 (Thread starter):
I think that AC adding 777s to there fleet was kind of a dumb move.

Why was it a dumb move? The A340s are some of the worst modern aircraft for fuel. The B777s are one of the best modern aircraft thats currently flys. The B777 has been voted many times previously for having the best aircraft cabin and Boeing was the first airline (and I think still the only airline builder) to be given an award for its signature product which is also now standard on all B737NGs. Those two facts are perfect reasons for why AC made the best choice and ordered B777s

Quoting Jake3204 (Thread starter):
Sure they will have the lie-flat seats in first class and personal T.V.'s in every seat but still, they were doing fine without them

Todays passengers are not like yesterdays passengers. Todays passengers are demanding PTVs and business class and first class passengers are demanding bigger and better products, so airlines are now giving them what they want to keep them as loyal customers. NZ is a fine example of this. Before NZ spent billions on new aircraft and new cabins, NZ were loosing customers by the truck loads each year to competitiors like EK, SQ, QF, CX etc. Now NZ is winning back those customers by the truck loads each year. SQ has event admitted that NZs IFE and cabin products are BETTER then theirs. NZ choose VSs products and won the licence and now AC is going down the same path. The extra weight on those A340s would have made them even more unworthy to keep due to the more fuel usuage

Quoting Jake3204 (Thread starter):
Getting on a plane is just going from point A to point B.

For us passengers it might be the plan, but for the airlines like AC they need to make a nice profit yet at the same time keep us customers flying with them.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25154 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11493 times:

Don't forget that AC has been achieving record load factors almost every month for the past couple of years and several airports to be served by the 777s, for example LHR and NRT, are so congested that it's very difficult to obtain slots to add additional flights. Having 63 more seats to sell on each 773 vs. a 343 is thus an excellent way to increase capacity and generate additional revenue without having to operate another flight, even if they could obtain the slots. And one more flight would probably add too much capacity. And in important high-yield business travel markets that the 777s are going to serve, the additional 12 business class seats (42 vs 30 on the 343) and with a much improved flat-bed product will generate additional high-yield revenue and further improve profitability. The 777 is also faster than the A340. On long sectors like YVR-HKG or YYZ-NRT it probably means a difference of at least 30 minutes vs. an A340.

Following related quote from AC's CEO's message to shareholders in the current AC annual report:

New widebody fleet

Beginning in March, we will begin replacing our 10 A340-300s and some of our oldest Boeing 767s with a combination of Boeing 777-300ER and 777-200LR twin-engine aircraft. The 777s have a lower cost per available seat-mile than both of our four-engine A340 models – up to 26 per cent lower – and can fly further with a full payload. Two engines versus four mean better fuel efficiency and less maintenance expense. When substituting a 349-seat 777-300ER for an A340-300 we gain 63 seats and several tonnes of freight capacity. Our 777s will have the same Executive First suite with a lie-flat bed being installed throughout the widebody fleet. Every passenger in the economy cabin will have the same personal in-seat video system being installed fleet-wide – and we intend to charge for premium content. The 777-300ER is destined for our busiest, most profitable markets like London, Frankfurt and Tokyo where we can sell the extra seats and cargo space and charge top dollar for the suites. The 270-seat 777-200LR will take over very long distance routes like Toronto-Hong Kong and do it at a 12 per cent lower seat-mile cost. And the best is yet to come: the Boeing 787s being delivered from 2010 on will be 30 per cent more cost-effective to operate than the 218-seat 767s they replace.


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11325 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 4):
The A340s are some of the worst modern aircraft for fuel.

The A340 is, despite all of the nonsense that you get to read on this website, an extremely fuel efficient aircraft. The B777 just happens to be even more efficient.

Was it a good move for AC? Seems it was (or at least they're very convinced that it was) - they'll have had a very hard look at the financials. For me personally, but that's just my very own opinion, it moves AC very far down on my list of airlines I'd select for longhauls.

[Edited 2007-04-01 11:00:30]


Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11308 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):
Don't forget that AC has been achieving record load factors almost every month for the past couple of years and several airports to be served by the 777s, for example LHR and NRT, are so congested that it's very difficult to obtain slots to add additional flights. Having 63 more seats to sell on each 773 vs. a 343 is thus an excellent way to increase capacity and generate additional revenue without having to operate another flight, even if they could obtain the slots.

Don't forget that Air Canada also had ordered the A340-600 ( and still listed) on the Airbus orders sheet.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):
Beginning in March, we will begin replacing our 10 A340-300s and some of our oldest Boeing 767s with a combination of Boeing 777-300ER and 777-200LR twin-engine aircraft. The 777s have a lower cost per available seat-mile than both of our four-engine A340 models -- up to 26 per cent lower -- and can fly further with a full payload.

This statement was rather silly. Why did he compare the A343E with the B77W. We all know that the A343E competes directly with the B772ER, while the B77W competes directly with the A346.

Had he done so his figures would have been completely different.

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
The A340 is, despite all of the nonsense that you get to read on this website, an extremely fuel efficient aircraft. The B777 just happens to be even more efficient.

Exactly Leskova.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlinePEET7G From Hungary, joined Jan 2007, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11272 times:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
The A340 is, despite all of the nonsense that you get to read on this website, an extremely fuel efficient aircraft. The B777 just happens to be even more efficient.

I agree, so I don't get all this nonsense of fuel efficient or not remarks... Yes the 777 is more fuel efficient than the 340NGs ,but there are far more cost savings in operating a well maintained ETOPS certified 2 engined plane than a 4 engined one. And let's not talk about the 777 outperforming the 340NGs in just about every data. Boeing made a good bet with going for the 2 engines concept and they clearly won, now hopefully Airbus learned it's part and come back on the back of it's own 2 engined families of airplanes. Everyone deal with it! Boeing has the upper hand and will do so for some time, but don't write down Airbus either, they will come back and we will see the cycle of aviation continue... this is life and all you cheerleaders deal with it. Air Canada made a good decision with going for the 777s, they should have done so in the first place. Fleet commonality has proven to be such a minor issue, that with such operating efficiency gains it is not even an argument point. AC longhaul operations will do best with the Boeing products and the shorthaul operations will make use of the A32S (and RJ aircrafts).

And before anyone comes up with Lufthansa making money with it's A340s, yes I know, but also consider that they went with large numbers of the type and that as Leskova said the A340 is not exactly an inefficient plane either, it is just that the 777 is even more efficient and LH would perhaps have made even more money if they went with them in the first place... LH is an efficient company in it's self, hell they are not even rushing to get rid of their 733s, 744s, etc.

The only issue that I see with AC is the out-phasing of the A330s that are also perfectly efficient planes and a 777/330 combo is a proven mix for airlines.



Peet7G
User currently offlineAccargo From Canada, joined Sep 2004, 610 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11092 times:

Quoting Jake3204 (Thread starter):
Personally, I think that AC adding 777s to there fleet was kind of a dumb move. Sure they will have the lie-flat seats in first class and personal T.V.'s in every seat but still, they were doing fine without them. The A340 is doing fine. Getting on a plane is just going from point A to point B.

First off, AC does not have first class. The lie flats are for business class. Second, AC may have been doing fine with the 340's but will do even better with the 777. As already explained it will add more pax revenue when operating into slot controlled airports without the need to add additional frequencies. It will allow AC to operate routes without the need to weight restrict which is a current problem with the 340's on certain routes. It can take more freight meaning more revenue.
There are a whole multitude of issues about getting from Point A to Point B that you really should research.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11058 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 2):
Should have waited and get XWB.

There was no XWB when the order was placed. Airbus could only offer the 'old' A350. AC has a lot of 767s and the 787 will make the perfect replacement. Boeing likely offered an incredibly good price to AC on the aircraft.

[Edited 2007-04-01 14:18:03]

User currently offlineSAOAP From Brazil, joined Mar 2005, 170 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10996 times:

The A340 is as many around here stated, fuel efficient (not like the T7, but still...). But, the A340 (mainly the -300 series) is a handicapped aircraft: it has serious payload problems on selected routes (most notably on flights longer than 8 hours).

Take a GRU-ZRH for instance. This route used to be served by SR/LX's MD-11 and is now being served by the 343. While the 343 might be 'newer' than a MD-11, the route costs/revenue are about the same if I'm not mistaken. How?! Isn't the 343 supposed to be more fuel-efficient?? Yes, the 343 is indeed more fuel efficient, but, as I stated, it's handicapped: during our hot summer days the 343 has payload problems and cargo is left behind (there have been passenger restrictions too). This means considerably less revenue. The MD-11 never had such problems (if it did, on a much smaller scale). Consequently you have the 343's lower costs, but also lower revenue during a considerable part of the year. The MD-11 on the other hand had higher costs, but was also able to generate more revenue (pax, but mainly cargo).

Note: pax/cargo revenue can be increased considerably by correct steering and aggressive sales tactics.



"When it's dark enough, you can see the stars" - Charles A. Beard
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8339 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10538 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yes, with all the flights to LHR from all of Canada, YES it is. Tokyo and FRA are two important destinations for AC and the 777 bring in more gravy. Also Vancouver to Sydney would have been unthinkable with no 772LR.

User currently offlineSwissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10410 times:

Good move or not can not be answered today as AC has no "real" data to compare.......

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):
Don't forget that AC has been achieving record load factors almost every month for the past couple of years and several airports to be served by the 777s, for example LHR and NRT, are so congested that it's very difficult to obtain slots to add additional flights. Having 63 more seats to sell on each 773 vs. a 343 is thus an excellent way to increase capacity and generate additional revenue without having to operate another flight, even if they could obtain the slots.

In general I agree, however even a load factor of 90% (340) does not mean having 63 "extra" seats (T7) you actually will fill these seats or you will keep the 90% load factor......

The T7 is for sure not the "only & holly" answer for an airline to be more efficient and as ACCargo said there is more to it buying a particular aircraft then "just fuel, pax comfort".....

Quoting SAOAP (Reply 11):
Take a GRU-ZRH for instance.

The MD11 is an good example, it did not work for many airlines and for some the 11 did very well but even SR had its issue with "left behind" cargo because of the routing or problems in the beginning......

Time will tell and lets see how AC is doing in the next little while with their new metal  Smile


Cheers,


User currently offlineCruiser From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1001 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10071 times:

I have also heard rumours that during bankruptcy, AC managed to refinance the A340s, and as a result, they will be making money when they sell them. So, they are selling the airplanes for more than they are worth, buying new ones which will help their bottom line, and thrilling the spotters...what could be better????

James



Leahy on Per Seat Costs: "Have you seen the B-2 fly-by at almost US$1bn a copy? It has only 2 seats!"
User currently offlineUAL747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 580 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10070 times:

Come on folks pull your heads out of the sand. Air Canada ordered the 777's and 787's on April 25th, 2005. Airbus hadn't even firmed up A350MK1 and the A350-1000WXB (here we are in April 2007 and the airlines still don't have the numbers on that plane) didn't exist. Couple this with the early experiences of other carriers with the A340-600 and I'd think you'd have to agree that it was a great move by Milton and Air Canada

UAL747-600


User currently offlineAA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3433 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9676 times:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
Was it a good move for AC? Seems it was (or at least they're very convinced that it was) - they'll have had a very hard look at the financials. For me personally, but that's just my very own opinion, it moves AC very far down on my list of airlines I'd select for longhauls.

So let me understand this, you are not flying AC because they are upgrading their fleet to more modern and efficient planes and are also upgrading their cabin service and improving premium offerings??

If that is not your reason for not flying them then please tell me what is!!
You states that their fleet upgrade has "moves(d) AC very far down on my(your) list..."
To me that just demonstrates a narrow-minded, eurocentric view- if they don' fly Airbus', I am not going!!!

Totally Tropical
AA1818



“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9450 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 7):
This statement was rather silly. Why did he compare the A343E with the B77W. We all know that the A343E competes directly with the B772ER, while the B77W competes directly with the A346.

Uh, no... yours is.

Read what's actually written, instead of what you want to see-- he said the aircraft are were replaced by those models, which is a fact; at no point did he state or even insinuate that they were designed to compete directly.

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 16):
You states that their fleet upgrade has "moves(d) AC very far down on my(your) list..."
To me that just demonstrates a narrow-minded, eurocentric view- if they don' fly Airbus', I am not going!!!

'Eh, I can feel what he's saying. I would've avoided AC in the past, as I do LH, for the lack of twinjets on the majority of their primary routes.

The justification, you ask? I simply would prefer to spend money patronizing a carrier that most closely suits my desires than one which does not, and unlike many, fleet type is for me an essential component.


User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9378 times:

Quoting UAL747-600 (Reply 15):
Come on folks pull your heads out of the sand. Air Canada ordered the 777's and 787's on April 25th, 2005. Airbus hadn't even firmed up A350MK1 and the A350-1000WXB (here we are in April 2007 and the airlines still don't have the numbers on that plane) didn't exist. Couple this with the early experiences of other carriers with the A340-600 and I'd think you'd have to agree that it was a great move by Milton and Air Canada

UAL747-600

That point bears repeating over and over again. In desiring to renew its ENTIRE widebody fleet over the next decade, AC wanted to go all Boeing or all Airbus, and probably with the same engine maker (which has happened). But in negotiations, the only firm plane Airbus had was the A340-600 which AC didn't think was that bad for the price, but it raised the issue of what replaces 40-odd 767-300s. Since the 350 was just a paper plane, and had neither been firmed up or launched, and was right at the top end of the size range AC was willing to contemplate to replace a 220-seat 763, the table tilted heavily in Boeing's favor. I believe AC would have split the order between Airbus and Boeing (A346/787) had Boeing not made a fantastic overall offer because it apparently believed that getting AC away from Airbus would make a very strong statement to other airlines. AC not being American or European didn't have any political pressure to choose A over B or B over A, and it was already flying equipment from both manufacturers so it wasn't in anyone's pocket. The deal AC got from B includes not only price breaks but a variety of sweeters and rich performance guarantees which I am to believe extend to maintenance costs as well as operating costs/fuel consumption.


User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2130 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9329 times:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
For me personally, but that's just my very own opinion, it moves AC very far down on my list of airlines I'd select for longhauls.

If you are as fickle as not selecting an airline based upon which brand of plane they fly, you are not the type of customer that AC, or any other airline, really wants. Both the 777 and the 340 are excellent planes on which to fly...it's splitting some pretty fine hairs when you deconstruct the experiences between the two. Is this petulence because AC selected the 'wrong' manufacturer?

Quoting WINGS (Reply 7):
Why did he compare the A343E with the B77W.

Because the 343 is what AC currently flies. They don't have a 346, so those comparison numbers are irrelevant. He's not comparing costs between aircraft in the same class - he's comparing 'costs we pay now' now vs 'costs we'll pay with this new type' on given routes.

Quoting Swissy (Reply 13):
In general I agree, however even a load factor of 90% (340) does not mean having 63 "extra" seats (T7) you actually will fill these seats or you will keep the 90% load factor......

I'm pretty certain the fleet planners see numbers that make financial sense. Hint: the routes on which the 777 will be introduced likely enjoy more than 90% load factor; if not, a few empty economy seats will cause little lost sleep at an airline, but a dozen more (filled) executive seats makes a great deal of difference. The extra cargo earns the airline a nice sum as well, regardless of how many people are above.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3704 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9217 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 19):
If you are as fickle as not selecting an airline based upon which brand of plane they fly, you are not the type of customer that AC, or any other airline, really wants.

I don't think that statement is necessarily true. Continental loves taking my money, as well as Delta, and I fly them because they are Boeing airlines, and they have good service. I use UA a lot for long-haul, but when I book them I schedule 737's, 757's or RJ's on the domestic legs. I am a Boeing guy, and I prefer Boeing airlines. I will ride on the Bus if I have to, but it's not my preferred method of travel.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineManu From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 406 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9217 times:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
For me personally, but that's just my very own opinion, it moves AC very far down on my list of airlines I'd select for longhauls

I am the target for these new aircraft. I frequently fly other carriers when doing long haul and only take AC for North American flights. I recently flew LAX-AKL on NZ and was very impressed by the brand new 777-200ER on that route. I have been on board a LHR-YYZ route serviced by the A340-300 and if I had to pick an aircraft for interior and comfort I would select the 777 over the 340.

I am usually pretty "vanilla" as a Canadian consumer. What I like usually is what the mainstream likes, for the most part. So I would say their selection for equipment is a good one based on a consumer's point of view, never mind the benefits of fuel and 2 less engines to maintain.


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9126 times:

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 16):
So let me understand this, you are not flying AC because they are upgrading their fleet to more modern and efficient planes and are also upgrading their cabin service and improving premium offerings??

To play devil's advocate:

1) I've heard the 340 is quieter inside- Could that be the reason?

2) Also - the 777 has 3-3-3 or 2-5-2 seating in many (most?) economy configurations, but is the 340 is 2-4-2? (Is that correct? I have never flown on a 340.)

3) Or is he more comfortable with 4 engines on long haul?

4) Or is it nationalistic loyaty (for which I don't BLAME him; I have some of that, too)

However, from an economic standpoint, Air Canada has stated their reasons, and made their decision.

We can speculate, opine, and cheerlead all we want, but "money talks," Air Canada did their homework, and made their choice based on facts:

More fuel efficiant
cheaper maintenance
more pax and freight capacity
Less range restriction

In the highly competitive world of aviation, and with fuel prices at record highs, perhaps "doing just fine" is not good enough. Many here simply can't accept that the 340 is not the A/C they wish it was, from an economic standpoint.

I'm very happy to see A/C's in-flight product improving, by the way. About time.

Quoting PEET7G (Reply 8):
And before anyone comes up with Lufthansa making money with it's A340s, yes I know

I believe there is also the issue of Lufthasa being the German national airline, and Airbus being at least half a German company. It would be a PR nightmare for both if LH did not fly a lot of AIrbus equipment. That's one of the reasons why they will fly the 747-8 AND the 380, in my opinion. I wonder if Lufthansa sometimes gets amazing deals from Airbus because Airbus NEEDS it's metal in LH colors.

Quoting PEET7G (Reply 8):
The only issue that I see with AC is the out-phasing of the A330s that are also perfectly efficient planes and a 777/330 combo is a proven mix for airlines.

I agree. These two A/C serve different missions and are quite compatable within the same airline with routes of different length and demand. The 330 is a great success story. Perhaps Air Canada is anticipating the 787, which will replace the 330?



I come in peace
User currently offlineBOE773 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9088 times:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
For me personally, but that's just my very own opinion, it moves AC very far down on my list of airlines I'd select for longhauls.

Would you please be more specific for your reason.
This sounds like sour grapes to me.

AC's triple 7s will make me want to fly Air Canada
even more as this will be the best product in the sky to LHR bar none.


User currently offlineKearney From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9062 times:

Air Canada did not need the 777, I have heard this might be part of their plan for 2009. With no money in the bank they can offer lower wage to ACGHS and knock off a few managers. Then come 2009 ACGHS will be no more. Its one idea I have heard from some guys in the airline industry.

25 Threepoint : Fair enough. I too have my preferences, and I suppose I underestimate the degree to which many people will extend their loyalty towards a particular
26 Threepoint : Questions: AC has announced the initial route for the 777's. How many new airplanes are required to service these routes at the planned frequencies? I
27 AirTran737 : Completely agree with you, and that's why I said that if I have to ride the Bus I will. I am just like everyone, I want to get there as quickly and c
28 Brons2 : Because they bought Boeings? Oh brother.
29 Multimark : These kind of statements are just ridiculous. In peak season this holds true, in the off-peak I'm not sure about filling all those seats. I'd be surp
30 Sebring : I think you have been told rubbish. I don't see the 777s impact 2009 labor negotiations considering that the planes are financed, and they are replac
31 MD-90 : Or perhaps he prefers the quieter cabin and 8-abreast seating? Airlines seek one kind of passenger only: Those whose checks don't bounce.
32 Brons2 : Are these early model 343s? ie, not the 343-E? Maybe that's why AC wanted to replace them.
33 Cityguy : Lets see....you dont want to fly a brand new airliner with state of the art everything.....and the reason is...???? I am not a fan of Airbus, but ya
34 KC135TopBoom : The A-340-300s AC flies cannot do the job they need them to do. The B-777-300ERs can, and use less fuel at the same time. Why wait for the A-350XWB?
35 Post contains images MattRB : Have to agree with Sebring on this. Sounds like sabre rattling and people spoiling for a fight come 2009 (which I don't want to see). AC needed the 7
36 Accargo : Newsflash. Don't believe everything the shop committee and the 2009 committee tell you, they have their own agenda and it may not include your best i
37 BoomBoom : Who pays for airline tickets with a check? If you don't use a credit card, you're likely to be suspected of being a terrorist.
38 Post contains images Sebring : Now there's a first! A union committee spreading misinformation.
39 Post contains images MattRB : Don't believe everything you're told/read. Investigate for yourself.
40 FlyDreamliner : Well, yes A340 is a fuel efficient aircraft, but at this point, there are only 2 aircraft in its class, A340 and 777, and it is the less fuel efficie
41 ACDC8 : All the A340's I have been (AC and LH) have had that seating arrangement. As much as I am looking forward to trying this aircraft out for the first t
42 Sebring : I would say, as my final word on this thread as it will just go on and on over ground already covered a hundred times, is that AC is thrilled with its
43 Post contains images CFTOA : This thread is pretty stupid. I really do not like taking sides on neither Airbus or Boeing, as I respect both of them as aircraft manufacturers. Air
44 Sebring : Not I. Would you rather have 2-4-2 and 31 inch pitch or 3-3-3 and 32 inch pitch with a wider seat and the latest AVOD system. I have sat in the AC 77
45 ACDC8 : I would rather have the 2-4-2 seating simply for the reason that I like to have my window seat and it's a pain to have to ask 2 other people (instead
46 AC7E7 : I think you people are crazy. This is not a video game, or a fantasy airline. This is an airline trying to make money. It chose the 777 over the A340
47 777ER : Now that is childish, but hey its your wish
48 Jutes85 : HAHA, don't tell the members of this forum, they'll tear your heart out and eat it raw.
49 CFTOA : Yeah, it's unfortunate. I laughed when I seen that people are still posting in this thread. It is very childish. It is like saying I don't like LH be
50 Post contains images Leskova : I was going to say that I was amazed at the reactions my comments brought up - but that would be a lie... after all, I dared to state that I don't pre
51 Post contains images Jycarlisle : Any move towards a 777 is a good move, but that is just my humble childish opinion.
52 Post contains images CFTOA : The T7 is a marvellous piece of flight equipment Well, I am looking at this from the airlines perspective. They are out there to make money, they are
53 FlyDreamliner : I think the whole basis of the thread starter's argument is a bit odd.... the A340s work just fine, why replace them? They are not the most modern air
54 Leskova : Whether the B777 will remains to be seen - though it is very likely... and seeing that you write that you are looking at this from the airline's pers
55 Kearney : Hey, this did not come from the union... but the idea works right, even if it does not apply to this situation. If an airline buys lots of planes and
56 CFTOA : Alright sorry.I guess I did miss you saying that. My apologies. Cheers.
57 Threepoint : I appreciate your point and would like to stress that the interior comfort of a 343, 77W or any other aircraft type is a decision borne by the operat
58 Post contains images Atmx2000 : AC and AI both made deals for 787s and 777s at about the same time in 2005. They were both very good deals for the respective airlines, given that th
59 Leskova : Welcome to my world... there's a quite noticeable difference between the two... that's after having flown on both either on flights directly followin
60 MattRB : It would work if Montie wasn't proclaiming record loads month after month. If Air Canada isn't making money with record loads, that's managements pro
61 Post contains images WestJetYQQ : That's all I can say about that!
62 Post contains images BMIFlyer : Yes Not It isn't, they are getting old and deen replacing. Lee
63 Hoppe777 : Wow great posts guys ! all the questions i was to ask have been answered. No doubt you can see which my favourite is. Hoppe777
64 Jake3204 : Uh no, AC first class is called Executive class and they don't even have a business class.
65 YYZYHZ : Ummm actually, Executive/Executive First is Business Class.....Air Canada dumped their First Class a long time ago..... and to further comment on the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Canada Flight #415 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 04:58:31 by Pilotatheart
Air Canada Seats posted Thu Feb 8 2007 21:29:10 by BowflexBrennan
Air Canada A Bad Airline? posted Fri Feb 2 2007 10:44:05 by Raffik
Damn Air Canada posted Thu Feb 1 2007 00:27:48 by BowflexBrennan
Some Questions About Air Canada posted Tue Jan 30 2007 01:47:06 by PHLstudent
Air Canada A333 Or Lufthansa A346? posted Fri Jan 26 2007 17:33:07 by Airplanetire
Few Questions About Travelling With Air Canada... posted Sat Jan 6 2007 00:27:30 by Gilesdavies
Air Canada Plane's posted Wed Dec 27 2006 19:30:03 by BowflexBrennan
Air Canada Or Westjet? posted Sun Oct 29 2006 01:33:13 by BowflexBrennan
How Is Air Canada To Asia? posted Mon Jul 24 2006 09:15:57 by FlyingNanook
Air Canada YYZ-PVG Delay! Should I Be Compensated? posted Sat Feb 11 2012 11:53:11 by samguan
Should I Fly Air Canada W/Body From YVR To YYZ? posted Sun Jan 22 2012 12:09:05 by ou319
Air Canada Aeroplan - 2013 Top Tier Changes posted Thu Dec 22 2011 16:43:26 by Airstud
How To Find The Cheapest Air Canada Fares? posted Fri Nov 25 2011 03:33:15 by Airstud
Air Canada Baggage Policies posted Thu Nov 24 2011 22:29:03 by alsberg
Air Canada Revised Baggage Policy To The USA posted Thu Sep 1 2011 20:52:42 by AirCanada787
United 747 And Air Canada A330 - Study In Contrast posted Wed Jul 27 2011 10:51:13 by packer97006