Is Rouge the only airline in the world that has a seat 51F on a 767? Does any other 767 even have a row 51 much less a row with one seat at the back?

I can't find a pic of it on the internet, but here is the seatguru seat map.

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_Canada/Air_Canada_Rouge_Boeing_767-300ER_new.php

There is a whole Row 51DEF on the planes. On the older seat maps 51DE were not shown because they were never sold to (I believe) keep the plane at 280 seats for 7 FAs, but the newer seat maps show it now that issue has been sorted out.

https://beta.aircanada.com/content/dam/ ... uge-01.jpg

Okay thanks for that info! Sure looked strange to me.

If you start the Y section numbering at a high enough point, why stop at 51?

https://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/fl ... 0J214Y.pdf

briguychau wrote:

There is a whole Row 51DEF on the planes. On the older seat maps 51DE were not shown because they were never sold to (I believe) keep the plane at 280 seats for 7 FAs,

https://beta.aircanada.com/content/dam/ ... uge-01.jpg

I'm used to the US rule of 1 FA for every 50 seats. Is this a difference between US and Canadian regs, or a feature of the FA contract with Rouge?

ceb20816 wrote:

briguychau wrote:

There is a whole Row 51DEF on the planes. On the older seat maps 51DE were not shown because they were never sold to (I believe) keep the plane at 280 seats for 7 FAs,

https://beta.aircanada.com/content/dam/ ... uge-01.jpg

I'm used to the US rule of 1 FA for every 50 seats. Is this a difference between US and Canadian regs, or a feature of the FA contract with Rouge?

I believe that until recently, Canadian rules require 1 FA per 40 seats, but it has been changed to 1 per 50.

the only thing unique to Rouge is how bad they suck...worst airline I have ever been on and now I completely avoid AC for this reason...

^^^^^
Hahaha. Great comment.

ceb20816 wrote:

I'm used to the US rule of 1 FA for every 50 seats. Is this a difference between US and Canadian regs, or a feature of the FA contract with Rouge?

Until 2015, the Canadian Aviation Regulations required at least one flight attendant for every 40 seats, with the exception of 50-seat aircraft which only required one (and IMO that was a nod to the local manufacturer of 50-seat jets). Now Canadian airlines can staff at the 50:1 ratio as long as they meet certain additional safety requirements.

For narrow body aircraft, Canadian Air Regs allow 1 Flight Attendant per 50 passenger seats.

For wide-body (two-aisle) aircraft, CARs allow 1 Flight Attendant per 40 passengers, subject to a minimum compliment with regard to aircraft type.

However, Rouge is allowed a "let" from Transport Canada which allows a minimum of 6 Flight Attendants on the 767 regardless of number of seats/passengers.

vegas005 wrote:

the only thing unique to Rouge is how bad they suck...worst airline I have ever been on and now I completely avoid AC for this reason...

Ditto!
This is exactly what I predicted would happen.
AC has been doing well because people were not familiar with rouge and they ingeniously omitt mentioning rouge anywhere in the ticket. Nevertheless now people have become familiarize with the product and avoid AC altogether.

Yes they're staying away in droves. GMAFB

Why doesn't Rouge go 8 across? 2-4-2? Heck a few airlines have stuffed sardine class like this already.

VCEflyboy wrote:

vegas005 wrote:

the only thing unique to Rouge is how bad they suck...worst airline I have ever been on and now I completely avoid AC for this reason...

Ditto!
This is exactly what I predicted would happen.
AC has been doing well because people were not familiar with rouge and they ingeniously omitt mentioning rouge anywhere in the ticket. Nevertheless now people have become familiarize with the product and avoid AC altogether.

Nothing was hidden or omitted, it is clearly stated when booking who is operating the flight!

Ummm, it's pretty damn clear on aircanada.com on a route being Rogue and that it differs - If a TA or consolidator can't explain that - then they should bloody well evaluate their business.

This flight is operated by Air Canada Rouge. You'll want to learn more (site link) about Air Canada Rouge's in-flight services and amenities, as these differ from those of Air Canada.

Actual website screen shot: http://imgur.com/a/U5LVm

Whiteguy wrote:

Nothing was hidden or omitted, it is clearly stated when booking who is operating the flight!

Actually, something was hidden. Two items. The seats that were apparently sourced from "Discomfort 'R Us" and the crazy seat pitch. That said, for a 4 hour flight to the Caribbean even regular Rouge 763 seats are survivable.
However, I wish Rouge narrowbodies would have some "normal" Rouge Plus seats. Otherwise I'll have to look elsewhere when traveling to a destination served by a 319 or a 321.

passengers are not avoiding Air Canada in droves over Rouge, just because you sixtyseven say they are doesn't mean its true.

pictues1981 wrote:

passengers are not avoiding Air Canada in droves over Rouge, just because you sixtyseven say they are doesn't mean its true.

I think he was being sarcastic.....

AC is running 80-90% load factors, no one has stopped flying yet......

VCEflyboy wrote:

ditto!
This is exactly what I predicted would happen.
AC has been doing well because people were not familiar with rouge and they ingeniously omitt mentioning rouge anywhere in the ticket. Nevertheless now people have become familiarize with the product and avoid AC altogether.

LF for AC mainline and Rouge for Q3 2016 was 85.5% scource: http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1076
does not look at empty planes at all ...

(just as a comparison: LH (mainline) had in the same time (Q3) 84.3% and their EW 85.1% loadfactor)

Spirit fills planes also...doesn't mean they don't suck too.

vegas005 wrote:

the only thing unique to Rouge is how bad they suck...worst airline I have ever been on and now I completely avoid AC for this reason...

I would agree the narrow-bodies are a terrible experience, but IMO the 767 product is not bad given the price and often means you can fly direct.

vegas005 wrote:

Spirit fills planes also...doesn't mean they don't suck too.

and FR (Ryanair) had a LF of 94% in 12/2016. see: https://investor.ryanair.com/traffic/

and a lot of people seem to be fine with the price/space/comfort/add-on-fees conditions.

and now back to the toppic

Sorry to continue this terrible tangent, but I feel I must weigh in. I've flown a number of sectors on Rouge, YVR-HNL and back multiple times, YVR-OGG, HNL-YYZ (which is their second longest route iirc),and LAX-YYC (on the A319, all the rest 763). Honestly, the seat cushions are the best I've ever experienced, and the pitch really isn't that bad. I had no problems whatsoever. Compared to the competing products, such as a 757 from the likes of UA (great to look at, really terrible inside), and its really evident that they aren't that bad. I don't get the negative attention they get. Rouge has opened up a lot of routes that were previously not feasible, and allow for travel at reasonable prices. Money talks, not everyone cares about a fancy J seat or a glass of Dom pre-departure. I'm as guilty as the next guy who oozes with envy when they board a flight and walk past the F and J cabins on my way to the back, but in reality, I think id rather save money and spend it elsewhere. Rouge allows for more people to make that choice, which a lot of people really appreciate.

VCEflyboy wrote:

vegas005 wrote:

the only thing unique to Rouge is how bad they suck...worst airline I have ever been on and now I completely avoid AC for this reason...

Ditto!
This is exactly what I predicted would happen.
AC has been doing well because people were not familiar with rouge and they ingeniously omitt mentioning rouge anywhere in the ticket. Nevertheless now people have become familiarize with the product and avoid AC altogether.

Don't even bother wIth this one. He is so out of touch with reality that most users simply ignore.