ManchesterMAN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9879 times:
I'm trying to book a flight to Toronto in February from the UK (LON or MAN) and was amazed at how expensive it is compared with flights to US cities.
Given that Feb is a slack time of year I was expecting some good deals but the best I could find was £320 with United, while direct Air Canada wanted £360 of my money. I could actually fly with AC to washington via Toronto for £330 so I'm a bit confused!
Anyway, my question is why is it so expensive to fly to Toronto when I can fly to the likes of Washington, New York, Chicago and Boston (all similar distances) for around £200? Is it something to do with higher airport charges in Canada or some other reason?
Angelairways From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9804 times:
and also because on the US routes like JFK there are 4 competing carriers: BA, Virgin, United, and American. On the YYZ route there is just BA and AC, and therefore they can afford higher fares because they have agreed 50/50 capacity sharing and there is less scope for competition.
Olympus69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9701 times:
Just for fun I checked fares on Expedia.ca. I did it for a return flight from Toronto to London (LHR) arbitrarily using Feb 3 as my departure date, returning on Feb 24. The lowest fare I came up with was C$645 with BMI (code sharing with Air Canada). This included all fees and taxes. I think it works out to about £290. Air Canada's fare was $6 more on the same flights. Starting from London I couldn't even find any fares as low as those you quoted.
You'd get better deals with charter flights, but I don't think there are any in February.
ManchesterMAN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9496 times:
Thanks for the replies - I will hold fire before booking. Thought about the charter carriers then thought again . Are the likes of Air Transat as bad as their UK counterparts for long haul i.e. cramped?
Cessnapimp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9429 times:
I don't think that TS is as cramped as Air2000. TS offers a very nice product which I find is on the "upper" scale of charters. Mind you, it's still a charter, so the "usual rules" still apply. And you stand a chance to fly on 1011-5. The product is good, interiors usually well groomed and the cabin staff very professional and willing, from my experience.
Captaink From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9348 times:
We do the ground handling for TS here in Grenada.. I must say i am impressed with it as a charter airline. They are pretty organized. Their aircrafts are configured and looks quite like a typical airline config. THe upper/premium cabin isnt too bad either.
What I must say is most suprising is how well their old L1011 are kept. The interior is spanking..
I don't think you would be too dissappointed with TS.. Go for it.. As Cessnapimp said, it is still a charter.
SafeFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9229 times:
I can only second what Cessnapimp and Captaink said, Air Transat is a very professional charter airline with a product closer to a major scheduled carrier such as AC than many of their charter competitors. The L1011-500 are extremely well-preserved and the A/C are always sparkling clean. Great crews too. Definitely a good choice If you don't mind having a little less space though I don't think they're as bad as their UK counterparts like Cessnapimp said. But still, like everybody else said, it's a charter so you have to pay for seat selection for instance, something that would be free on AC, don't know for BA.