Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Canada To Start YUL-NCE?  
User currently offlinerunway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2194 posts, RR: 35
Posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 13154 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

43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineedina From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 745 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12962 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]


Worked on - Caravelle Mercure A300 A320 F27 SD3-60 BAe146 747-100/200/400 DC10-30 767 777 737-400 757 A319 A321
User currently offlineRP TPA From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12655 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?

User currently offlineyegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1726 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12641 times:

Could this be on the yet to be named airline?

User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12631 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.

User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2494 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12476 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]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32789 posts, RR: 72
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12233 times:

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


a.
User currently offlineJean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12145 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



Next flight.... who knows.
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4992 posts, RR: 42
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11579 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.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9802 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.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9483 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?


User currently offlineaamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1059 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9413 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.  


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4992 posts, RR: 42
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8997 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.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2494 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7761 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



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days ago) and read 7616 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.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4992 posts, RR: 42
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7546 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.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2494 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6753 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]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4992 posts, RR: 42
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6616 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.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6445 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.

User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6347 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.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4992 posts, RR: 42
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6195 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!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2494 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 20 hours ago) and read 5755 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



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineANM604 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 17 hours ago) and read 5605 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.


User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 5431 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?]


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3006 posts, RR: 27
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 5415 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!)



Empty vessels make the most noise.
25 longhauler : 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
26 FlyCaledonian : Any names for this proposed LCC? I'll probably get flamed, but what about Canadian?
27 longhauler : Apparently, it is to be called Rouge
28 Kaiarahi : And if it ever flies turboprops, they'll be called moulins rouges.
29 longhauler : Ar ar ar ... I was thinking more along the line of Lipstick on a Pig.
30 zbbylw : 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
31 Post contains links Viscount724 : 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
32 ANM604 : 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"
33 longhauler : 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 inevitab
34 polaris : 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 N
35 Viscount724 : 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 abreas
36 Post contains images ANM604 : That would be a good guess 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
37 MarcoPoloWorld : Seems like this thread quickly became about issues and places different than those of the original subject....
38 Kaiarahi : U.S. carrier style Y+ or real Y+ ?
39 Post contains images ANM604 : Mostly because AC hasn't announced anything to NCE... You'll have to wait a couple months and decide for yourself
40 yyz717 : 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'
41 longhauler : 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
42 Post contains images yyz717 : Oh I agree, it is the trend. Doesn't mean we can't complain about it.
43 FreshSide3 : 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
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 To Start LIS Service posted Mon Jun 27 2005 08:23:45 by RicardoFG
Air Canada To Start YVR-Vietnam posted Wed Dec 1 2004 01:49:48 by JeffLAS
Air Canada To Start Operations To Peru posted Wed Aug 11 2004 01:58:49 by Swissgabe
Air Canada To Start Daily Copenhagen posted Tue Feb 25 2003 00:37:03 by Dripstick
Air Canada To Start Service To MAD And AMS posted Thu Dec 13 2001 20:09:50 by Chrisa330
Air Canada To Start 6 New U.S. Routes posted Thu Apr 26 2001 22:40:59 by Boeing757/767
Air Canada To Begin E175 On YUL-LGA On Aug 1 posted Fri Jun 10 2005 09:06:58 by BigPhilNYC
Air Canada To Grow 17% At YUL posted Wed Jun 4 2003 01:45:52 by FLYYUL
Air France To Start Kuala Lumpur Route posted Mon Oct 15 2012 18:20:37 by HB-IWC
Sun Air International To Start IAH - VCT Service posted Fri Aug 31 2012 17:30:57 by 96texan