Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG  
User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

Here it is:

Zoom Airlines announces new service from Toronto and Montreal to Paris, France: New Scheduled Service To Paris Charles de Gaulle

OTTAWA/ - Zoom Airlines headquartered in Ottawa, announced today it will offer scheduled transatlantic flights to Paris, France from Toronto and Montreal beginning June 2004. Zoom Airlines will operate two flights a week from Toronto and Montreal to Paris Charles de Gaulle airport using its fleet of Boeing 767-300 aircraft with 268 seats. All flights will include full meal service and in-flight entertainment as well as a cabin configuration with increased seat pitch for economy passengers and a premium economy section with even greater pitch for a superior in-cabin experience.

Zoom Airlines CEO Kristopher Dolinki stated “there is tremendous opportunity for Zoom in this market. Our strategy of providing a scheduled service between Canada and the UK priced competitively with the charter carriers is being well received and we saw demand for providing a similar option to Paris. The choice of the Boeing 767, a modern wide bodied aircraft configured in a comfortable fashion for these long trans-Atlantic flights is also proving to be a strong selling feature.

Zoom Airlines’ scheduled service from Canada to the Paris commences in June 2004. Bookings can be made online at www.flyzoom.com or by phone at 1-866-fly-zoom (1-866-359-9666).

For further information contact: David Clements, Zoom Airlines, Director of Sales and Marketing 613-760-4759

Source: Zoom Airlines


...confirming what Aviationman announced a few weeks ago...



E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3671 times:

With a total pricing of $474.14 for a round-trip YUL-CDG with Zoom in July and August, TS will feel the heat!


E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently offlineHorus From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 5230 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3635 times:

Weren't Zoom Airline going to concentrate on developing the UK market first? Apparently there were/are going to make Glasgow their British hub. Have they changed their plans?



EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
User currently offlineMIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3609 times:

They've recently done a few charters to MCO. Would be nice if they came back at least 1 day a week like back when they started.

User currently offlineGmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2159 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3587 times:

This is going to have a big impact on some major carriers around town (yyz). I don't really care how good your product is, a seat is a seat to me personally and if I can fly half price over seas at what the "normal" cost of traveling over seas can be..... pardon the pun but "Zoom Me" there!!

Good to see that there is competition on this route, and it will be interesting to see how AC does react as well AF?

Grant



Drive it like you stole it!
User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4781 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3547 times:

Looks like a good business plan for Zoom and they sure picked the right aircraft. Hope to fly them some time this summer to LGW or CDG. The fares are almost half of what AC/AF are charging during that time.

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16281 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3437 times:

I still think the classiest way from YYZ to CDG is on AF.

This Zoom capacity also seems to be risky in terms of market flooding.

[Edited 2004-03-25 08:20:17]


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineCanadi>nBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 3376 times:

I agree, Air France is THE way to go to Paris. I've flown them 3 times in the past 4 years, and even in Tempo Class, the service is wonderful. Nice touches, such as the warm mini French stick bread served with dinner.
Their PTV product is getting better all the time. One thing though, AF's
Classe Affaires is wonderful, but the seats are somewhat tight. And THAT is the only complaint I have about Air France!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

To me, there will always be something about flying to a European (or other) country on the respective flag carrier. Whenever I step aboard AF, I'm much closer to Paris than by boarding AC.


User currently offlineCanadi>nBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 3335 times:

"using its fleet of Boeing 767-300 aircraft with 268 seats. All flights will include full meal service and in-flight entertainment as well as a cabin configuration with increased seat pitch for economy passengers and a premium economy section with even greater pitch for a superior in-cabin experience."

Okay, can someone explain to me how a B767-300 with seating for 268 pax offers INCREASED seat pitch in economy? For example, Canadi>n's B767-300 aircraft were configurated for 204 pax; 184 pax in economy and 20 in Empress Class. 64 extra seats may not seem much, but that's 9 rows of 2-3-2 + 1 additional seat. And let's face it, "full meal service"....anyone who has flown
sked economy or especially charters in the last 4 or 5 years knows how mediocre the quality and portions are.

How exactly does "Zoom" define superior in-cabin service?


User currently offlineGLAGAZ From UK - Scotland, joined Feb 2004, 1983 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 3279 times:

Don't know about GLA becoming a base, but there is certainly going to be a 763 based at GLA for the Summer and flights will continue via LGW in the Winter.

CDG will be a great route for ZOOM and i'm sure they will be expanding rapidly within the next decade.



Neutrality means that u don't really care cos the struggle goes on even when ur not there, blind and unaware
User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4781 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 3240 times:

Guys, no one is claiming that Zoom will be PrivatAir or anything like that. Has anyone here experienced their inflight service so that we can have an objective opinion? If their service is similar to what 2T used to offer I'd be perfectly happy. AF may be the classy way to fly, but who cares if Zoom is offering the flights for half price.

As for the seating arrangement, the aircraft into part of this site claims 269 pax is normal for a 763 two-class arrangement. I don't understand how this is possible considering I have felt squished on 763s with lower pax capacities. I wonder if the Zoom aircraft are configured without the centre bulkhead. Anyways, at least they aren't squising pax in 2-4-2 like some British charter carriers... Pissed



User currently offlineCanadi>nBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 3219 times:

"Guys, no one is claiming that Zoom will be PrivatAir or anything like that. Has anyone here experienced their inflight service so that we can have an objective opinion? If their service is similar to what 2T used to offer I'd be perfectly happy. AF may be the classy way to fly, but who cares if Zoom is offering the flights for half price."

Some of us have more discriminating taste than others, CPDC10-30.
A charter is a charter is a charter. Period. In my world, any company offering "superior" service had better bloody well live up to the claim, and surpass that claim. Although with their clientele base, I'm sure "superior" is further down the food chain.


User currently offlineCessnapimp From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1320 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 3207 times:


Hey Canadi>nBoy,

I think part of the answer is the fact that their premium economy seats have a smaller seat pitch than Canadian's upper class. Also, on their '67's there is no mid-galley. I'm sure that Canadian's economy class had better pitch than in Zoom's economy class. 268 is impressive but I think there's a few charters out there that can beat that. 330 is the most I've seen.

Greg

Hey 717... I can't believe you like cheese-eating-surrender monkey Air; they're the mirror image of AC in France, killing airlines at will while sucking its thumb with high overheads and a senior senior staff. The French probably say the same when they come over here. Flew on their 340's when they were 2 months old out of YMX in 93. I asked the F/A (old bitter frenchman) if I could see the cockpit, he told me to piss off (in french). These things linger on in one's mind.


User currently offlineCanadi>nBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 3181 times:

I apologize if my statement above was interpreted as a tad snooty, but after being in this industry for 18 years, and used to (for the past 7 years) sked travel worldwide with my firm - 60% of that travel being in J Class, I have become quite accustomed to that level of service....and before you reply, let me say that when you ride the front....it's VERY hard to go to the back of the bus again. I freely admit I have become quite spoiled by it all and have to remind myself frequently how fortunate I am. I paid my dues in the mid 80's when I started at WG. When I flew TS last May to LGW, I was simply aghast at the cabin and service (but kudos to the great cabin crew who did their very best with what limited resources they had to work with) as I hadn't stepped aboard a charter flight in literally 10 years, but I do understand that there is a demand/market for that "type" of travel. Your tastes, expectations and demands increase with time and age.

330 pax on a B767-300.......Good God.



User currently offlineCessnapimp From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1320 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

330 pax on a B767-300.......Good God

Yeah, but keep in mind Easyjet hasn't had a stab at it yet. I'm sure they can remove the overhead bins and nailgun a few more on the ceiling.  Smile


User currently offlineCanadi>nBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 3142 times:

You know, my biggest concern with high density seating on these charter and LCC carriers lies with effective emerg evacuation times. Never mind the fact that Easyjet has 2 extra overwing exits on their A319 aircraft, I still find these pax loads totally unnacceptable from a health and safety perspective. PLUS, in Canada, where M.O.T. wishes to lower the FA to Pax ratio (it was one in 40, now soon to be 1 in 50) this is truly pushing the limit, not so much with service on-board, but again with proper supervision of emerg procedures and
effective execution of said procedures.

I forget which British carrier it was, but a few years back, in Manchester, there was an emerg evac of the cabin while on the taxiway. Several pax died, not from smoke or fire, but from being literally trampled and smothered to death by the high number of pax in the cabin, many of whom were trying to exit the aircraft through the starboard overwing exit. pax later complained that the seating was so tight, they had no choice but to leap over seat tops and avoid the too narrow aisle, which was critically jammed with pax trying to evacuate.


I think of, for example, Skyservice A320's, with a pax load of 180, and I shudder. To hell with the costs, SAFETY should be the primary factor. Period.

Sooner or later, and I'm afraid it's going to be sooner, there is going to be another airline accident/disaster where more lives could have been spared had the cabin pax density been lower.


User currently offlineCessnapimp From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1320 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 3123 times:


Currently, it seems to be an acceptable price to pay for an industry that seems to be going the way of bargain stores. The 1 in 50 rule, what can I say, I really hope this doesn't happen but truth is, they'll save lotsa dough; it's win/win for them. Don't get me wrong: I think there are decent charters out there: TS and Zoom for example.


User currently offlineLymanm From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 3094 times:

Canadi>nBoy, your account of the MAN British Airtours 737 accident is a bit off the mark. Suffocation and smoke inhalation was the primary cause of death. Furthermore, the overwing exits were blocked, and people became uncouscious quite rapidly, contributing to the obstruction in the cabin. Overall an accident that should not have happened, and a call to have smoke hoods installed on board, more than anything.

http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-bakt28m.shtml



buhh bye
User currently offlineCanadi>nBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 3084 times:

Yes, TS is a well run and organised carrier, no doubt about it. Their cabins may be cramped, the service may be not sked, but as a charter, they're okay with me. TS crew members who I flew with, though, have expressed their extreme displeasure at the new "pay-for-service" on board certain sectors.
The pax are not happy at all with it, for the most part, and unfortunately, these FA's are on the front/firing line. Again, cost savings abound everywhere these days.

The 1 in 50 rule is atrocious. It may be a win/win situation for the co. from a cost savings perspective, but as I stated, it is a figurative time-bomb in terms of pax/crew safety.

As we all know, the civil aviation industry, like every other one, exists amidst cycles and trends. In terms of cycles, the current climate has got to be in my opinion (for several obvious reasons and variables) one of the lowest in decades.


User currently offlineCanadi>nBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 3080 times:

"I think of, for example, Skyservice A320's, with a pax load of 180, and I shudder. To hell with the costs, SAFETY should be the primary factor. Period."

I am not naive nor stupid to believe this will ever be the operating word for the real world of industry. Money talks.....everytime.


User currently offlineYOW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

Certain aircraft types in Canada are already permitted to use the 1 in 50 rule. These included the DH3, CRJ100/200 and ATR 42 (max pax capacity on this is 48 I believe). There are certain regulations which must be followed in order, most which deal with working equipment on board, for this exemption to be permitted. If an operationally required piece of eqipment is malfunctioning, then the aircraft is load restricted to the 1 in 40 rule.



User currently offlineCanadi>nBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 3065 times:

Lymann, thank you so much for the link to this disaster and for clarifying my
error in describing the factors involved.

"Furthermore, the overwing exits were blocked, and people became uncouscious quite rapidly, contributing to the obstruction in the cabin. Overall an accident that should not have happened."

Obstruction in the cabin......obstruction in the cabin, meaning, quite simply, too many pax, too many injured and dead, too many seats, too narrow aisle. I'd be curious to know the measurement of the unobstructed area at these emerg exits. When will carriers and tour operators learn......how many more dead pax will it take. Quite a few, I'm afraid. But that's okay, 12 dead.....
62 dead.....262 dead....there will always be more pax with cash and credit cards in hand lining up at ticket offices for future flights, and the tour operators, carriers and the respective governments will allow this appalling viscious and deadly cycle of overcrowded cabins to continue.



User currently offlineCanadi>nBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 3052 times:

"viscious"......quite difficult to present an argument or make a statement when your spelling is off the mark as well! LOL

User currently offlineCanadi>nBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 3016 times:

"Certain aircraft types in Canada are already permitted to use the 1 in 50 rule. These included the DH3, CRJ100/200 and ATR 42 (max pax capacity on this is 48 I believe). There are certain regulations which must be followed in order, most which deal with working equipment on board, for this exemption to be permitted. If an operationally required piece of eqipment is malfunctioning, then the aircraft is load restricted to the 1 in 40 rule."

The cause for concern here is not with working equipment on-board nor with the proficiency of the cabin crew in knowledge/training/operation of said equipment. The pax loads will remain the same as in the 1 in 40 rule, and most certainly some carriers will increase pax seating capacity in order to reach the ceiling of the 1 in 50 rule. How effective will a less numbered crew be in properly and effectively evacuating a cabin of more pax than they can handle. The answer is that this factor will impede an effective evacuation of the aircraft in question. Remember, every emergency is different, every emergency, whether it be at altitude or on the ground require split second.....split second reaction times to ward off critical consequences.



User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6193 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (10 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 2983 times:

"too narrow aisle..."

A 2 inch wider aisle is not going to make the slightest difference in an evacuation. If it did, everyone when flying single aisle aircraft would avoid the "too narrow aisle" 737 and 757 and only fly on the A320 family. And, horrors, the CRJ700 and 900 only have 16" aisles - "deathtraps".



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
25 Yow : Canadi>n Boy: All I was stating were the 1 in 50 aircraft types permitted to operate by Canadian airlines and the minimum standards needed in order fo
26 Canadi>nBoy : "too narrow aisle..." "A 2 inch wider aisle is not going to make the slightest difference in an evacuation." Wanna make a bet? Granted, not a hell of
27 Canadi>nBoy : "Canadi>n Boy: All I was stating were the 1 in 50 aircraft types permitted to operate by Canadian airlines and the minimum standards needed in order f
28 Planemaker : "Wanna make a bet? Granted, not a hell of a lot of difference, but you'd be surprised." Yes. What is the "surprise" difference with a passenger blocki
29 Canadi>nBoy : "Wanna make a bet? Granted, not a hell of a lot of difference, but you'd be surprised." "Yes. What is the "surprise" difference with a passenger block
30 Canadi>nBoy : One more for the list: Adequate crew rest period for all front end and cabin crews. I posted a long post on another thread in regards to adequate and
31 Canadi>nBoy : Improved cabin air recycling methods, equipment and stringent regulations. Mandatory 100% recycled cabin air for all carriers and equipment.
32 Planemaker : Canadi>anBoy: "My concern is too narrow aisles, period. Period. Got it? Good." A "standard adult male" IS "able to freely walk up and down with NO res
33 Planemaker : "You know, my biggest concern with high density seating on these charter and LCC carriers lies with effective emerg evacuation times. Never mind the f
34 ASTROJET707 : Yikes! Just skimmed the replies. What stands out is 268 PAX. Are passengers shrink wrapped and stacked to minimize seat pitch? ASTROJET707
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...
Au Revoir YYZ-UK / YYZ-YUL-CDG ZOOM/Intair Program posted Sun Feb 8 2004 17:09:29 by Aviationman
Zoom Airlines To YYZ-LGW 4AM Arrival! posted Wed May 5 2004 16:23:07 by Zoom767
Zoom Getting Closer To YUL-CDG! posted Sat Mar 13 2004 16:54:00 by Aviationman
Zoom Back On YYZ/YUL-CDG posted Wed Mar 3 2004 12:12:04 by Aviationman
Zoom Airlines Flight From YYZ-POS posted Wed Jun 7 2006 19:21:31 by BWIA330
Official: Zoom To Fly YUL-CDG 2 Weekly posted Mon Jan 26 2004 19:43:18 by FLYYUL
Zoom To Fly YUL-CDG This Summer posted Sat Jan 17 2004 02:32:11 by FLYYUL
YYZ-YUL....Where Is The LCC In Canada? posted Fri Feb 21 2003 18:18:02 by Gmonney
Zoom Airlines B752? posted Sat Aug 12 2006 22:39:48 by YULYMX
Zoom Airlines posted Thu Jun 22 2006 09:32:07 by BA84