Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5616401/

Topic: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: runway23
Posted 2012-11-21 03:01:58 and read 13234 times.

Flight schedule has been loaded (prematurely?) on Nice Airport's website.

Appears that the flight would operate as AC 810/811 with a 767, 08:15 AM arrival into NCE. Departing back to YUL at 09:45

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: edina
Posted 2012-11-21 04:33:23 and read 13042 times.

Back to the future for AC....they used to fly YUL-LHR-NCE 3xweekly on a Tristar 500 during the late 80's...I took the LHR-NCE flight several times.

[Edited 2012-11-21 04:34:19]

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: RP TPA
Posted 2012-11-21 07:02:16 and read 12735 times.

Nothing on the Air Canada website (yet). I wonder when it will (might?) start? And will it be mainline, or part of the new "low cost" division?

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: yegbey01
Posted 2012-11-21 07:07:32 and read 12721 times.

Could this be on the yet to be named airline?

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: clydenairways
Posted 2012-11-21 07:08:52 and read 12711 times.

Do Air Transat operate that route ? I'd say all Air Transat TATL routes would be a target for this new low cost division.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: thenoflyzone
Posted 2012-11-21 08:08:26 and read 12556 times.

Quoting RP TPA (Reply 2):
And will it be mainline, or part of the new "low cost" division?

Most definately low-cost. I expect routes to ATH, BCN and MAD to get transfered to the LCC division as well.

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 4):
Do Air Transat operate that route ? I'd say all Air Transat TATL routes would be a target for this new low cost division.

Yes, TS does operate YUL-NCE. And yes, the whole point of AC's new International LCC strategy is to eat away at the monopoly that TS enjoys on a lot of European markets.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2012-11-21 08:21:52]

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: mah4546
Posted 2012-11-21 09:29:36 and read 12313 times.

Where? I've tried their schedule search function, and nothing shows.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: Jean Leloup
Posted 2012-11-21 09:56:12 and read 12225 times.

I'm pretty excited about this, if substantiated. I'm a lot more into the NCE area than I am in CDG, and have been wanting to take the wife for a while - but didn't want to take TS. The question, of course, is how the standard of service on the AC LCC will compare with TS. If it turns out to be the same then I guess I will have no reason to be excited!

JL

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-11-21 12:22:57 and read 11659 times.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 7):
The question, of course, is how the standard of service on the AC LCC will compare with TS.

The main reason for Air Canada to even consider a LCC is that time and time again, passengers have selected an airline with a cheap seat, not a comfortable seat. And with the LCC, one will get just that .... a cheap seat. In fact, Transat's entire existence is testimony to that choice.

The initial plans for the LCC include a 132 seat version of the A319 all Y, and 24/223 seat version of the B767-300 C/Y. If the LCC does fly YUL-CDG it will be with a B767-300, and that seat chart is on seat guru now.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-11-21 16:43:12 and read 9882 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 8):
If the LCC does fly YUL-CDG it will be with a B767-300, and that seat chart is on seat guru now.

That seat plan is already in use on the Hawaiian routes from the left coast. Not new at all, in fact these may be the first to leave the fleet once the 787's start to arrive.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: 9252fly
Posted 2012-11-21 17:49:36 and read 9563 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 9):
Not new at all, in fact these may be the first to leave the fleet once the 787's start to arrive.

Possibly, my guess is they are the first to go to the LCC. Expect more B763's to get reconfigured to the higher density layout as the B787's start to arrive. I'm still questing the decision to use the A319 in the LCC fleet as I would have thought the A320 would have been the ideal choice with more seats to spread the costs?

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: aamd11
Posted 2012-11-21 18:06:00 and read 9493 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 8):
The initial plans for the LCC include a 132 seat version of the A319 all Y, and 24/223 seat version of the B767-300 C/Y. If the LCC does fly YUL-CDG it will be with a B767-300, and that seat chart is on seat guru now.

If they want to compete with TS, they could squeeze an extra seat per row into their 767s (2-4-2 configuration, it's been done before). That'd help get their CASM a little lower, and would allow them to compete with TS on a comfort level, too.  

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-11-21 19:35:31 and read 9077 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 9):
Not new at all, in fact these may be the first to leave the fleet once the 787's start to arrive.

I didn't say they were new. I said they will be used at the LCC, in answer to someone's query about proposed comfort. And those three B767s will be going to the LCC when it starts, well before the arrival of the B787. Much like the proposed 132 seat all Y A319s for the LCC are already flying at AC in that configuration.

Quoting aamd11 (Reply 11):
If they want to compete with TS, they could squeeze an extra seat per row into their 767s (2-4-2 configuration, it's been done before). That'd help get their CASM a little lower, and would allow them to compete with TS on a comfort level, too.

The wet-leased Sunwing B767s that flew in Canada last summer were 2-4-2, and there were more than a couple comments about the comfort level! In my opinion, I could see the A330s leaving the mainline fleet with the arrival of the B787s, and those would likely be converted to a 3-3-3 configuration.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 10):
I'm still questing the decision to use the A319 in the LCC fleet as I would have thought the A320 would have been the ideal choice with more seats to spread the costs?

I agree, but the A320 is pretty range limited for quite of few of the proposed LCC routes, namely the outer Caribbean.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: thenoflyzone
Posted 2012-11-22 04:47:33 and read 7841 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 12):
I agree, but the A320 is pretty range limited for quite of few of the proposed LCC routes, namely the outer Caribbean.

Surely cant be that bad can it? YYZ-BGI, one of AC's longest Caribbean runs, if not the longest, is 3900 km. Considering AC uses their A320's on YUL-YYZ (clocking 3600 km), is an extra 20 minutes of flight that much of an issue?

Thenoflyzone

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-11-22 06:17:18 and read 7696 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 12):
I agree, but the A320 is pretty range limited for quite of few of the proposed LCC routes, namely the outer Caribbean.

Is the 320s range limitation an inherent feature of the aircraft, or due to the weight of the J-class product, which wont be on the LCC aircraft.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-11-22 07:03:54 and read 7626 times.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 13):
Surely cant be that bad can it? YYZ-BGI, one of AC's longest Caribbean runs, if not the longest, is 3900 km. Considering AC uses their A320's on YUL-YYZ (clocking 3600 km), is an extra 20 minutes of flight that much of an issue?

It's actually pretty tight. Of the three, the A319, A320 and A321, the A320 has the shortest range. (At AC). But there are a few other factors to consider:

Unlike North America, Caribbean operations are rarely close to great circle distance. Where YYZ-SFO would have a flight plan only 50 or 60 nms above great circle distance, it is not uncommon for YYZ-BGI to be 200 to 300 nms over great circle distance. The routing over JFK for the oceanic entry is a dog leg, then airways must be followed all the way to destination. Even Piarco airspace around ANU and south is not radar controlled, delays are common, and extra fuel must be carried.

Also, unlike North America, an alternate must be carried all the time ... and they usually are not that close. It's not like carrying an OAK alternate for SFO, or YYJ for YVR.

Presently, YYZ-ANU is the longest Caribbean flight currently scheduled for the A320. And, as I visit ANU a lot, I notice that occasionally the ANU-YYZ leg is load restricted.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 14):
Is the 320s range limitation an inherent feature of the aircraft, or due to the weight of the J-class product, which wont be on the LCC aircraft.

I would guess its a wash. The last all Y A320 I flew were the Tango ones. I think they held 156 all Y, compared to 132 J/Y (at the time), and the OEWs were about the same. The payload weight with the full Y cabin was of course about 3000Kgs heavier. And 3000 kgs, equates to over an hour fuel not carried.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: thenoflyzone
Posted 2012-11-23 07:30:37 and read 6833 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 15):
Of the three, the A319, A320 and A321, the A320 has the shortest range. (At AC)

There are 6 A320's, (MSN 1719 and up, the ones with CFM56-5B4 engines) that are only 10 or so years old. Surely these A320 have a slightly better range (+200nm more or less) than the A321s.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2012-11-23 07:43:38]

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-11-23 08:58:03 and read 6696 times.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 16):
There are 6 A320's, (MSN 1719 and up, the ones with CFM56-5B4 engines) that are only 10 or so years old. Surely these A320 have a slightly better range (+200nm more or less) than the A321s.

That is right, FINs 235-240 have the -5B engines, where 201-234 have the -5A engines. However the issue is MTOW, and that is not related to engine installed. FINs 201-212 have a MTOW of 75500Kgs and 213-240 have a MTOW of 77000 Kgs. And, for the record, FINs 213-217 are the over-water equipped A320s ... they have the same MTOW as the -5B aircraft at 77000Kgs.

The only time the -5B engine will give a higher MTOW (still capped at 77000 kgs though) is under high density altitude conditions, as that engine runs cooler, and can maintain higher thrust under hotter and higher conditions.

Out of interest, I ran the numbers at BGI, 30C, calm winds, 29.92 inHg, and the MTOW was the same for both the -5A and -5B equipped A320s at 77000 kgs. But ... at MEX, MTOW for the -5A was 66400 kgs, and 75200 for the -5B! So for Caribbean ops, I don't see the A320 working well.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: 9252fly
Posted 2012-11-23 11:11:46 and read 6525 times.

Longhauler, Just curious, what do you know about the B738 capabilities and do you have an opinion as to whether it is a more suitable narrow-body aircraft for the LCC? The reason I ask you is that I had someone suggest that as an example, it's cheaper to run 2 high density B738's than a B763 on a route such as YYC - CUN. Is the B738 that efficient? I do understand that AC needs an aircraft type for the LCC and it might as well use the A319's, considering they are owned or on some sort of lease commitment.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-11-23 12:14:23 and read 6427 times.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 13):
Surely cant be that bad can it? YYZ-BGI, one of AC's longest Caribbean runs, if not the longest, is 3900 km. Considering AC uses their A320's on YUL-YYZ (clocking 3600 km), is an extra 20 minutes of flight that much of an issue?

The flight from YUL-YYZ is not quite as far as you are quoting. I am hoping that you meant YVR-YYZ. If not, that YUL-YYZ had quite a holding pattern and track to fly that route.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-11-23 14:18:07 and read 6275 times.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 18):
Longhauler, Just curious, what do you know about the B738 capabilities and do you have an opinion as to whether it is a more suitable narrow-body aircraft for the LCC?

I recall reading once that the B737-800 is within 2% of the seat mile cost of the A320 NEO! And that is the NG, not the MAX. That would make it a pretty efficient aircraft, but ... I have yet to find that reference again. The fact that LCCs seem to be split between the Boeing and the Airbus product make me think they are pretty close as far as cost and capability.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 18):
The reason I ask you is that I had someone suggest that as an example, it's cheaper to run 2 high density B738's than a B763 on a route such as YYC - CUN.

That's a tough one to gauge, as two B737-800s hold about 350 passengers against the 280 or so for a high density B767-300. But it comes down to other factors. For example, YYC-CUN, say flown by WS ... it is far more efficient for them to fly two B737-800s than wet lease a B767-300. But on just a seat mile cost, a metric I do keep hearing a lot is that the seat mile cost of the A321 is the best of any aircraft in AC's fleet for a trans-con flight. Even better seat mile cost than a B767-300, or B777-300!

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: thenoflyzone
Posted 2012-11-24 09:56:57 and read 5835 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 19):
The flight from YUL-YYZ is not quite as far as you are quoting. I am hoping that you meant YVR-YYZ. If not, that YUL-YYZ had quite a holding pattern and track to fly that route.

meant YUL-YVR, something got lost in the translation once i edited the post. Happens quite often on A.net.

Thenoflyzone

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: ANM604
Posted 2012-11-24 12:52:50 and read 5685 times.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 5):
And yes, the whole point of AC's new International LCC strategy is to eat away at the monopoly that TS enjoys on a lot of European markets.

To a point yes, however the main strategy is to use the LCC to make money on routes that are currently either losing money, or are struggling to post consistent results. Lower costs, more seats, all while maintaining a decent yield is what AC expects from the LCC. This will also allow AC to open some new routes, which you should see announced in the coming months.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 8):
The main reason for Air Canada to even consider a LCC is that time and time again, passengers have selected an airline with a cheap seat, not a comfortable seat. And with the LCC, one will get just that .... a cheap seat. In fact, Transat's entire existence is testimony to that choice.

Absolutely. Just wait until the new layout for the two new 77W's is released.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: 9252fly
Posted 2012-11-24 17:58:03 and read 5511 times.

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 22):
To a point yes, however the main strategy is to use the LCC to make money on routes that are currently either losing money, or are struggling to post consistent results

I completely agree with your view. Expect all Caribbean routes, leisure routes to the USA as well as Central America to go LCC with both the A319 and B763 high density aircraft. Europe as already discussed with the B763. Markets that have good yield will continue to see mainline service.

[quote=ANM604,reply=22]Absolutely. Just wait until the new layout for the two new 77W's is released[/quote

Speculation or just teasing? Okay, I'll play along. How about 9 or 10 abreast in economy and 9 or 8 in economy plus with additional pitch with a reduction in executive seats?]

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2012-11-24 18:13:26 and read 5495 times.

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 22):
Absolutely. Just wait until the new layout for the two new 77W's is released.

Shudder!! If I'm flying Y to NZL/Oz these days, I go AC because the 77L is 9 abreast, rather than NZ's 10 abreast on the 77W, even though I've been flying NZ for 54 years - first flight was on the Coral Route on a Solent - not even going to compare that (bunks, armchairs, chef on board!)

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-11-24 20:08:16 and read 5524 times.

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 22):
Absolutely. Just wait until the new layout for the two new 77W's is released.

I am curious as well. But, as the B777 can not go to the LCC, it will be in mainline AC. So, I do wonder if AC is indeed going to join the 10 abreast club.

As more airlines make this switch, I think it is inevitable. I remember a few decades ago, Swissair was the last hold-out, maintaining 8 abreast in the DC-10s and 9 abreast in the B747-200s. Alas, when the MD-11s, and B747-300s arrived, they were 9 and 10 abreast respectively, and Swissair joined the rest!

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: FlyCaledonian
Posted 2012-11-25 02:39:35 and read 5368 times.

Any names for this proposed LCC? I'll probably get flamed, but what about Canadian?

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-11-25 07:27:28 and read 5320 times.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 26):
Any names for this proposed LCC? I'll probably get flamed, but what about Canadian?

Apparently, it is to be called Rouge

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2012-11-25 07:40:36 and read 5262 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 27):
Apparently, it is to be called Rouge

And if it ever flies turboprops, they'll be called moulins rouges.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-11-25 08:10:22 and read 5206 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 28):

Ar ar ar ... I was thinking more along the line of Lipstick on a Pig.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: zbbylw
Posted 2012-11-25 08:36:49 and read 5172 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 29):
Ar ar ar ... I was thinking more along the line of Lipstick on a Pig.

Going with "Rouge" doesn't seem the best choice to me. Perhaps if it's Red/Rouge it just seems too effective of a way to alienate customers out side of "La Belle Province" otherwise. Surely management has to be smarter than that...

It would be best choosing something that works well in both Languages. "Red" sounds like crap personally..

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-11-25 15:59:35 and read 4936 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 25):
I remember a few decades ago, Swissair was the last hold-out, maintaining 8 abreast in the DC-10s and 9 abreast in the B747-200s. Alas, when the MD-11s, and B747-300s arrived, they were 9 and 10 abreast respectively, and Swissair joined the rest!

Not quite. Swissair was the last or one of the last to go from 8- to 9-abreast on DC-10s, and from 9- to 10-abreast on 747s, but it happened in March 1984, 7 years before the MD-11 arrived. The change was made in conjunction with introduction of business class which was 7-abreast (2-3-2) on DC-10s and 8-abreast (2-4-2) on 747s.

Details from the January 14, 1984 issue of Flight International:
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPD...%27&scrollbar=0&page=1&view=FitH,0

Swissair tried to resist the trend to business class products as long as possible but eventually had to follow. They previously advertised their 8- and 9-abreast DC-10 and 747 Y class products and high standards of service as being a cheaper alternative to business class. I recall one Swissair ad reading "Swissair offers more class, not more classes".

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: ANM604
Posted 2012-11-29 22:24:36 and read 4256 times.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 23):
Expect all Caribbean routes, leisure routes to the USA as well as Central America to go LCC

Not all Caribbean routes will go, there are several that are strong markets. Maybe some CA markets, but for now the focus is on Europe and some "sun" destinations.

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 23):
Speculation or just teasing?

Haha, it'll be out before long; they are due either 2Q or 3Q 2013.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 25):
I am curious as well. But, as the B777 can not go to the LCC, it will be in mainline AC. So, I do wonder if AC is indeed going to join the 10 abreast club.

Correct, no 777's for the LCC. I think many will be surprised by AC's choice in layout, but then it goes back to what you've said before. Price, price, price, that's what 90% care about.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 24):
Shudder!! If I'm flying Y to NZL/Oz these days, I go AC because the 77L is 9 abreast

I would expect the 77L will not change in the near future.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-11-30 08:57:53 and read 4103 times.

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 32):
I would expect the 77L will not change in the near future.

That was my guess. The new 77Ws and the existing ones will be 10 abreast, and (for the near future) the 77Ls will remain at 9 abreast. It is inevitable, the average passenger doesn't know one airline's Y seat size over another, and the one's that do know (like us) will not pay a premium for that increase in comfort.

I would also guess, (I have no idea, pilots are the last to know), that the 10 abreast layout will coincide with the introduction of a premium economy product.

I personally don't like this trend, but then I didn't like it when the B747 went from 9 abreast to 10 abreast either!

With AC's load factors consistently in the mid 80s, its not like there will be a difficulty in filling the increase in capacity. Much like the extra 4 seats in the E190.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: polaris
Posted 2012-11-30 13:37:12 and read 3992 times.

If the flight numbers are listed as AC 810/811 to Nice, then that is incorrect. These flight numbers are assigned to Toronto - Istanbul. Info on the Nice Airport website might truly be premature.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-11-30 13:55:44 and read 3954 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 33):
I personally don't like this trend, but then I didn't like it when the B747 went from 9 abreast to 10 abreast either!

From 9 to 10 on the 747 was still comparable to other types. On the 777 it's too cramped in my experience but I've never had a problem with 10 abreast on the 747, although 9 was of course nicer.

Many business travellers fly Y class these days and they are aware of such differences, and could well switch to carriers with more comfortable seating configurations. And even if AC does introduce a premium Y product, many companies won't cover the additional fare which is often quite a bit.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: ANM604
Posted 2012-12-01 16:47:28 and read 3663 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 33):
I would also guess, (I have no idea, pilots are the last to know), that the 10 abreast layout will coincide with the introduction of a premium economy product.

That would be a good guess  
Quoting longhauler (Reply 33):
With AC's load factors consistently in the mid 80s, its not like there will be a difficulty in filling the increase in capacity. Much like the extra 4 seats in the E190.

That's the logic behind it. The 77W's are almost to 'J' heavy for most routes, so why not remove some of those and replace them with a Y+ product that will likely do very well.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: MarcoPoloWorld
Posted 2012-12-01 18:11:31 and read 3602 times.

Seems like this thread quickly became about issues and places different than those of the original subject....

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2012-12-02 04:53:10 and read 3434 times.

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 36):

That's the logic behind it. The 77W's are almost to 'J' heavy for most routes, so why not remove some of those and replace them with a Y+ product that will likely do very well.

U.S. carrier style Y+ or real Y+ ?

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: ANM604
Posted 2012-12-02 13:31:10 and read 3286 times.

Quoting MarcoPoloWorld (Reply 37):
Seems like this thread quickly became about issues and places different than those of the original subject....

Mostly because AC hasn't announced anything to NCE...

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 38):
U.S. carrier style Y+ or real Y+ ?

You'll have to wait a couple months and decide for yourself  

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: yyz717
Posted 2012-12-02 14:21:23 and read 3244 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 35):
From 9 to 10 on the 747 was still comparable to other types. On the 777 it's too cramped in my experience but I've never had a problem with 10 abreast on the 747, although 9 was of course nicer.

Seat pitch is as important as seat width for comfort. I don't suppose AC will increase seat pitch to compensate for the 10-abreast? I presume not. I'm 6-2 190#, so knee space is needed more than hip space.

According to boeing.com, the interior cabin width of the 747 is 20ft, the 777 is 19ft 3 in -- or 9 inches narrower. The 747 is not pleasant in 3-4-3 -- the 777 will feet narrower and more cramped.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2012-12-02 14:49:54 and read 3205 times.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 40):
According to boeing.com, the interior cabin width of the 747 is 20ft, the 777 is 19ft 3 in -- or 9 inches narrower. The 747 is not pleasant in 3-4-3 -- the 777 will feet narrower and more cramped.

I agree, but it appears to be the trend. More and more airlines are switching to 10 abreast, and while the percentage is still small, the percentage of new build B777s being built with 10 abreast is disproportionately high. Much as we hate it, it is going to happen.

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: yyz717
Posted 2012-12-02 14:53:53 and read 3200 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 41):
I agree, but it appears to be the trend. More and more airlines are switching to 10 abreast, and while the percentage is still small, the percentage of new build B777s being built with 10 abreast is disproportionately high. Much as we hate it, it is going to happen.

Oh I agree, it is the trend. Doesn't mean we can't complain about it.  

Topic: RE: Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?
Username: FreshSide3
Posted 2012-12-03 08:21:24 and read 2987 times.

Quoting runway23 (Thread starter):
Flight schedule has been loaded (prematurely?) on Nice Airport's website.

Reminds me of the time when the ATH airport website showed YVR-ATH on Air Transat. People got excited, then it was pulled from the site in about two weeks.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/