767333ER wrote:

VonRichtofen wrote:

I wonder what's going to happen to YYC-NRT once the 763's are gone?

I imagine they’d most likely use the 788 again or if not maybe the 789, but oddly enough it’s currently scheduled through the summer as a 763 for now even though it usually has switched to 788 for the summer.

That's what I'm hoping for. I'd hate for the route to disappear with the retirement of the 763.

longhauler wrote:

I pulled out of couple of today's flight plans just to confirm to myself that the burns really are similar. While it is hard to compare flights as the two do not fly parallel flights, I found two with a similar flight time.

YYC-YYZ
7M8
169 passengers
Flying time 3:03
Flight fuel, 6300 kgs.

YYZ-YXE
E190
97 passengers
Flying time 3:14
Flight fuel, 6700 kgs.

Impressive!

Impressive indeed. Would you happen to have a similar comparison between the 7M8 and the 321 on the YYC-YYZ route?

VonRichtofen wrote:

767333ER wrote:

VonRichtofen wrote:

I wonder what's going to happen to YYC-NRT once the 763's are gone?

I imagine they’d most likely use the 788 again or if not maybe the 789, but oddly enough it’s currently scheduled through the summer as a 763 for now even though it usually has switched to 788 for the summer.

That's what I'm hoping for. I'd hate for the route to disappear with the retirement of the 763.

It won’t. Likely a 788 route after the mainline 763s arena gone.

I don’t know if I saw it on this site, or on another forum that following this summer, the route will no longer exist. Dummy bookings confirm that for at least W18/19, there are no flights. Could be that without the 767, the rouge isn’t sustainable, or they have decided to allocate resources elsewhere.

EDIT: I should have added, I was talking about YYC-NRT

whywhyzee wrote:

I don’t know if I saw it on this site, or on another forum that following this summer, the route will no longer exist. Dummy bookings confirm that for at least W18/19, there are no flights. Could be that without the 767, the rouge isn’t sustainable, or they have decided to allocate resources elsewhere.

EDIT: I should have added, I was talking about YYC-NRT

Sounds like the route is reverting back to being seasonal. If it was going to be cut outright, it would seem pretty pointless to operate it this summer. I can see that making sense with YYC now having year-round service to PEK. YYC-NRT has probably lost a lot of NRT-China connection traffic as a result.

I am curious if AC will take up its 787 options. I would have thought the 787-10 would make a great 333 replacement. But instead they ordered more 333s. I am wondering if they will let those options lapse. That seems surprising given that they probably got a great deal for those options.

Also, curious to see what they do with Rouge's 767 fleet. I would think we'll see some kind of replacement plan emerge over the next few years. I used to think 300 seater 788s a la Norwegian made a lot of sense. But the 797 is just too perfect for Rouge. It would allow AC to effectively restrict widebody flights to just YVR, YYC, YYZ and YUL, while moving all TATL, most Sun service, a good chunk of LATAM and maybe even some TPAC to Rouge or some Rouge like config at mainline.

ytz wrote:

I am curious if AC will take up its 787 options. I would have thought the 787-10 would make a great 333 replacement. But instead they ordered more 333s. I am wondering if they will let those options lapse. That seems surprising given that they probably got a great deal for those options.

Also, curious to see what they do with Rouge's 767 fleet. I would think we'll see some kind of replacement plan emerge over the next few years. I used to think 300 seater 788s a la Norwegian made a lot of sense. But the 797 is just too perfect for Rouge. It would allow AC to effectively restrict widebody flights to just YVR, YYC, YYZ and YUL, while moving all TATL, most Sun service, a good chunk of LATAM and maybe even some TPAC to Rouge or some Rouge like config at mainline.

It seems highly likely that they will eventually exercise those options, and likely have the ability to delay their expiration date. The 787-10 makes a lot of sense for YYZ, it can handle most of the network, and will help with congestion problems. The only question is that of how flexible it is, and how they want to integrate it vs a larger type to eventually replace the triples. Going with something like A350-1000 effectively eliminates the need for a 787-10 sized platform, which then gives them the advantage of having 2 very large fleet types (789 and A35J) which helps in cases of tail swaps and general cohesiveness in the fleet.

As for the 797, I agree it makes total sense for Rouge, however, it is too far out. They need to be ordering an initial 767 replacement essentially now given the age of some of those 767s. Also, I really don't see much more Rouge long haul expansion, just reviewing AC's numbers last year, J class ridership was up over 7 percent, with revenues from J increasing even more. They just appointed a new manager of airport experience, opened a brand new exclusive J lounge at YYZ that sits above their normal maple leaf lounges, and are adding the new J seats to the A330 which also comes with a slightly higher seat count. If anything, they will continue with Rouge in its current role as a tourist bomber and focus on growing their J product to entice premium international travellers.

I highly doubt the 797 is ready for service before the 767s need to be replaced. I wouldnt be surprised tosee a mix of cheap 2nd hand A330ceos and maybe some older 788s from mainline. I know they've said that they are interested in keeping capital costs lower with all of the recent output on a/c. But maybe they exercise options and do lease-backs they seem pretty fond of that.

I've been wondering about the 787 options too. You would think that a 787-10 would be a killer app on TATL flights and free up other a/c for additional expansion.

Dominion301 wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

I don’t know if I saw it on this site, or on another forum that following this summer, the route will no longer exist. Dummy bookings confirm that for at least W18/19, there are no flights. Could be that without the 767, the rouge isn’t sustainable, or they have decided to allocate resources elsewhere.

EDIT: I should have added, I was talking about YYC-NRT

Sounds like the route is reverting back to being seasonal. If it was going to be cut outright, it would seem pretty pointless to operate it this summer. I can see that making sense with YYC now having year-round service to PEK. YYC-NRT has probably lost a lot of NRT-China connection traffic as a result.

Outbound connections on YYC-NRT are typically to Southeast Asia and more specifically the Philippines. Not much connecting on to China. AC themselves have long considered YYC-PEK as well. Traffic on NRT hasn't really suffered since HU launched in 2016, otherwise wouldn't the route have been cut back this past winter too? I just don't think AC wanted to commit a 787 to the route year-round when they could use them on routes in the winter with heavier traffic perhaps?

There are eight 77W and two 77L with leases expiring in the 2019 to 2021 time frame. The 787-10 could replace these aircraft on some Vancouver transpacific routes and numerous transatlantic routes from all bases with improved economics. Air Canada has been very pleased with the 787 performance.

tofur wrote:

There are eight 77W and two 77L with leases expiring in the 2019 to 2021 time frame. The 787-10 could replace these aircraft on some Vancouver transpacific routes and numerous transatlantic routes from all bases with improved economics. Air Canada has been very pleased with the 787 performance.

I think it's a likely scenario that they all get a lease extension, especially given the market conditions, with an excess of available widebody capacity, they stand to sign a more favourable lease, not to mention they still need that large capacity. The 77L is a niche, but it is pretty useful on YYZ-BOM/HKG, as well as YYZ-YVR-SYD. The 77W is a mainstay for high capacity YYZ routes, and unless they can add frequency, which is difficult, they won't benefit from the added economics of the 787-10 simply due to lost revenue potential.

whywhyzee wrote:

Also, I really don't see much more Rouge long haul expansion, just reviewing AC's numbers last year, J class ridership was up over 7 percent, with revenues from J increasing even more. They just appointed a new manager of airport experience, opened a brand new exclusive J lounge at YYZ that sits above their normal maple leaf lounges, and are adding the new J seats to the A330 which also comes with a slightly higher seat count. If anything, they will continue with Rouge in its current role as a tourist bomber and focus on growing their J product to entice premium international travellers.

Personally, I am waiting for the announcement where they simply fold Rouge back into AC and rougify more of the mainline. It totally makes sense to me from a business perspective. Make all of Economy the current Rouge product. Sell Premium Economy as what would be full service Economy from the 90s. And then add in business with the big differentiator being lie-flats for J class. All three classes on routes where justified. Y/Y+ on routes elsewhere, including inside North America.

Under that scenario, there's no cap of Rouge aircraft. Now, you concentrate all your narrowbodies at YVR, YYC, YYZ and YUL. And then you add a lot of 797 TATL servicing YOW, YHZ and YWG directly, and main hubs to second tier cities in Europe, all with 2-class Y/Y+.

whywhyzee wrote:

tofur wrote:

There are eight 77W and two 77L with leases expiring in the 2019 to 2021 time frame. The 787-10 could replace these aircraft on some Vancouver transpacific routes and numerous transatlantic routes from all bases with improved economics. Air Canada has been very pleased with the 787 performance.

I think it's a likely scenario that they all get a lease extension, especially given the market conditions, with an excess of available widebody capacity, they stand to sign a more favourable lease, not to mention they still need that large capacity. The 77L is a niche, but it is pretty useful on YYZ-BOM/HKG, as well as YYZ-YVR-SYD. The 77W is a mainstay for high capacity YYZ routes, and unless they can add frequency, which is difficult, they won't benefit from the added economics of the 787-10 simply due to lost revenue potential.

I envision an Airbus deal in the future comprising of A350's and A321's.

ytz wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

Also, I really don't see much more Rouge long haul expansion, just reviewing AC's numbers last year, J class ridership was up over 7 percent, with revenues from J increasing even more. They just appointed a new manager of airport experience, opened a brand new exclusive J lounge at YYZ that sits above their normal maple leaf lounges, and are adding the new J seats to the A330 which also comes with a slightly higher seat count. If anything, they will continue with Rouge in its current role as a tourist bomber and focus on growing their J product to entice premium international travellers.

Personally, I am waiting for the announcement where they simply fold Rouge back into AC and rougify more of the mainline. It totally makes sense to me from a business perspective. Make all of Economy the current Rouge product. Sell Premium Economy as what would be full service Economy from the 90s. And then add in business with the big differentiator being lie-flats for J class. All three classes on routes where justified. Y/Y+ on routes elsewhere, including inside North America.

Under that scenario, there's no cap of Rouge aircraft. Now, you concentrate all your narrowbodies at YVR, YYC, YYZ and YUL. And then you add a lot of 797 TATL servicing YOW, YHZ and YWG directly, and main hubs to second tier cities in Europe, all with 2-class Y/Y+.

and what about markets like Asia & Australia? You would put a rouge product on a 16hr flight?

AC + RV strikes a nice balance in the network. Why would you sell pods & waste all that real estate going to the Caribbean when you can fit more traditional J seats? That goes against a simple business principle whereby MC>MR, in this case.

1900Driver wrote:

ytz wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

Also, I really don't see much more Rouge long haul expansion, just reviewing AC's numbers last year, J class ridership was up over 7 percent, with revenues from J increasing even more. They just appointed a new manager of airport experience, opened a brand new exclusive J lounge at YYZ that sits above their normal maple leaf lounges, and are adding the new J seats to the A330 which also comes with a slightly higher seat count. If anything, they will continue with Rouge in its current role as a tourist bomber and focus on growing their J product to entice premium international travellers.

Personally, I am waiting for the announcement where they simply fold Rouge back into AC and rougify more of the mainline. It totally makes sense to me from a business perspective. Make all of Economy the current Rouge product. Sell Premium Economy as what would be full service Economy from the 90s. And then add in business with the big differentiator being lie-flats for J class. All three classes on routes where justified. Y/Y+ on routes elsewhere, including inside North America.

Under that scenario, there's no cap of Rouge aircraft. Now, you concentrate all your narrowbodies at YVR, YYC, YYZ and YUL. And then you add a lot of 797 TATL servicing YOW, YHZ and YWG directly, and main hubs to second tier cities in Europe, all with 2-class Y/Y+.

and what about markets like Asia & Australia? You would put a rouge product on a 16hr flight?

AC + RV strikes a nice balance in the network. Why would you sell pods & waste all that real estate going to the Caribbean when you can fit more traditional J seats? That goes against a simple business principle whereby MC>MR, in this case.

Agreed. Not to mention, the lower costs of the RV flight crew. That’s the whole reason for the cap in fleet size in the first place. I don’t see AC getting rid of RV anytime soon. It’s valuable for competing cost-effectively on lower-yield routes.

aerolimani wrote:

1900Driver wrote:

ytz wrote:

Personally, I am waiting for the announcement where they simply fold Rouge back into AC and rougify more of the mainline. It totally makes sense to me from a business perspective. Make all of Economy the current Rouge product. Sell Premium Economy as what would be full service Economy from the 90s. And then add in business with the big differentiator being lie-flats for J class. All three classes on routes where justified. Y/Y+ on routes elsewhere, including inside North America.

Under that scenario, there's no cap of Rouge aircraft. Now, you concentrate all your narrowbodies at YVR, YYC, YYZ and YUL. And then you add a lot of 797 TATL servicing YOW, YHZ and YWG directly, and main hubs to second tier cities in Europe, all with 2-class Y/Y+.

and what about markets like Asia & Australia? You would put a rouge product on a 16hr flight?

AC + RV strikes a nice balance in the network. Why would you sell pods & waste all that real estate going to the Caribbean when you can fit more traditional J seats? That goes against a simple business principle whereby MC>MR, in this case.

Agreed. Not to mention, the lower costs of the RV flight crew. That’s the whole reason for the cap in fleet size in the first place. I don’t see AC getting rid of RV anytime soon. It’s valuable for competing cost-effectively on lower-yield routes.

The only real savings with flight crew are with the FAs. Pilots are paid the same regardless of position, to a certain point. RV crews actually have a higher min pay per month. Overall pilot pay is where the savings are in the contract.

The ability to to put an aircraft with a lot more seats in a lower yield route is what makes it profitable

9252fly wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

tofur wrote:

There are eight 77W and two 77L with leases expiring in the 2019 to 2021 time frame. The 787-10 could replace these aircraft on some Vancouver transpacific routes and numerous transatlantic routes from all bases with improved economics. Air Canada has been very pleased with the 787 performance.

I think it's a likely scenario that they all get a lease extension, especially given the market conditions, with an excess of available widebody capacity, they stand to sign a more favourable lease, not to mention they still need that large capacity. The 77L is a niche, but it is pretty useful on YYZ-BOM/HKG, as well as YYZ-YVR-SYD. The 77W is a mainstay for high capacity YYZ routes, and unless they can add frequency, which is difficult, they won't benefit from the added economics of the 787-10 simply due to lost revenue potential.

I envision an Airbus deal in the future comprising of A350's and A321's.

That would be a dream come true!

Dominion301 wrote:

Sounds like the route is reverting back to being seasonal. If it was going to be cut outright, it would seem pretty pointless to operate it this summer. I can see that making sense with YYC now having year-round service to PEK. YYC-NRT has probably lost a lot of NRT-China connection traffic as a result.

Why would it be pointless to operate it this summer? They still have 767s, and they are probably making decent money on the route in summer, so it would be pointless to can it now.

The reason most routes get canned in october is because winter season is when yields suffer the most. Makes perfect sense to end a route at the start of the winter season.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

Sounds like the route is reverting back to being seasonal. If it was going to be cut outright, it would seem pretty pointless to operate it this summer. I can see that making sense with YYC now having year-round service to PEK. YYC-NRT has probably lost a lot of NRT-China connection traffic as a result.

Why would it be pointless to operate it this summer? They still have 767s, and they are probably making decent money on the route in summer, so it would be pointless to can it now.

The reason most routes get canned in october is because winter season is when yields suffer the most. Makes perfect sense to end a route at the start of the winter season.

Reread my post. I said it would be pointless to operate YYC-NRT this summer if the route were being cancelled outright as that would indicate AC are losing money year-round on the route. Evidently the route is reverting back to being seasonal only since it is not canned for this summer.

Leeham ( https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/16/air-c ... d-for-nma/ ) reports AC CEO's enthusiastic remarks about a potential future role for Boeing NMA in AC's fleet:

“There is a need for that size of aircraft that might be able to fill some number of seats that is smaller than the [Boeing] 787 and larger than a narrow-body, that you might be able to take to a secondary airport. When you look at the range capability it is significant for us.”

In the context of Air Canada’s strategy to take some traffic out of the USA and connect via its international hubs, an aircraft of the NMA size could work for the Canadian carrier, says Ravinescu.

“That size of aircraft could fill in well with some of the cities that have the aspirations to connect international flights without connecting to a hub.”

Nice to see AC finding potential uses for the NMA.