I don't recall seeing an announcement of this rather significant strategic cancellation, but Air Canada has quietly withdrawn from Gatwick.

Routings from Canada to Gatwick are mostly via DUB and are not remotely price competitive with even their LHR n/s service.

It would appear Air Canada was unable to make their "low cost" Rouge service viable in that market.

They opened up a number of new long haul Rouge routes this summer. In light of BA entering the market and Primera starting out of STN, my guess would be they hedged their bets and elected to use the equipment elsewhere. Losing 1 flight on YYZ-LON is a rain drop in the ocean in any case.

whywhyzee wrote:

They opened up a number of new long haul Rouge routes this summer. In light of BA entering the market and Primera starting out of STN, my guess would be they hedged their bets and elected to use the equipment elsewhere. Losing 1 flight on YYZ-LON is a rain drop in the ocean in any case.

Tactically, I'd agree, but strategically, its a white flag.

They were shoved out of the market by lower cost competition. Rarely has AC ever raised the white flag, esp vs WS, regardless of the cost of fighting a battle, and especially one as strategically vital as on the TATL to their largest international destination.

Then again, with oil doing what it's doing, a lot of routes that looked like genius moves with $40 oil are going to look pretty awful with $74 oil, up 14% over the past 2 weeks.

WS will have converted it's gas guzzling 767 fleet to 787's roughly by this time next year. I'm not sure Rouge will have done the same by then.

But then again, according to AC, Rouge planes are cheap, as are the crews, so, logically, wouldn't low cost Rouge flying stay and expensive mainline flying disappear as overall unit costs start to sky rocket with higher fuel prices?

I think it came down to using limited resources in the most profitable way. Rouge is limited to 25 767s and Air Canada saw more opportunity in the recent additions of Porto, Zagreb and Bucharest than maintaining competing services at 2 London airports. It’s very unlikely they’d make a profit with BA, WestJet and Norwegian on the route.

jimbo737 wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

They opened up a number of new long haul Rouge routes this summer. In light of BA entering the market and Primera starting out of STN, my guess would be they hedged their bets and elected to use the equipment elsewhere. Losing 1 flight on YYZ-LON is a rain drop in the ocean in any case.

Tactically, I'd agree, but strategically, its a white flag.

They were shoved out of the market by lower cost competition. Rarely has AC ever raised the white flag, esp vs WS, regardless of the cost of fighting a battle, and especially one as strategically vital as on the TATL to their largest international destination.

Then again, with oil doing what it's doing, a lot of routes that looked like genius moves with $40 oil are going to look pretty awful with $74 oil, up 14% over the past 2 weeks.

WS will have converted it's gas guzzling 767 fleet to 787's roughly by this time next year. I'm not sure Rouge will have done the same by then.

But then again, according to AC, Rouge planes are cheap, as are the crews, so, logically, wouldn't low cost Rouge flying stay and expensive mainline flying disappear as overall unit costs start to sky rocket with higher fuel prices?

The WestJet conversion to 787 might actually help Rouge. It shifts WS' focus from competing with Rouge to competing with mainline. Its a completely different market space, which will free up some wiggle room in the lower cost segment. WestJet will also be retiring their 767s soon due to scheduled heavy maintenance checks they don't wish to do (read: pay for), though of course, this is subject to change.

Thomaas wrote:

I think it came down to using limited resources in the most profitable way. Rouge is limited to 25 767s and Air Canada saw more opportunity in the recent additions of Porto, Zagreb and Bucharest than maintaining competing services at 2 London airports. It’s very unlikely they’d make a profit with BA, WestJet and Norwegian on the route.

Norwegian doesn't serve the route. YYZ-LON breakdown is as follows:

YYZ-LHR 4x daily on AC
YYZ-LHR 2x daily on BA

YYZ-LGW daily on WestJet
YYZ-LGW daily + on TS
YYZ-LGW 3x weekly on BA

YYZ-STN 5x weekly on Primera

PF is 3x weekly STN-YYZ, but plans to go 5x weekly from 24 August.

Rouge/Gatwick was very popular, with high load factors, but there were a few issues ....

One is that the bottom feeder yields on the route were abysmal. Not only were they less than a third of LHR but also they could get twice the yield by sending the 767 to other European destinations with far greater margins than others are willing to accept.

Another is route confusion. They try to not have Rouge/Mainline fly to the same place as the products are quite different. With all the warnings in the world, when passenger flies YYZ-LHR then LGW-YYZ, it gets hard to explain the lack of IFE screens and free liquor, etc.

It's hardly a "white flag" to WS. In fact, I bet AC hardly even notices WS any more ... I think its more walking away from the route muttering, "Why bother? If the competition wants to chase after yield like that ... go for it".

The Rouge product is horrific so I can see why they try to keep them segregated. One YYZ-PHX trip on Rouge was enough for me and I will never fly it again.

CS500 wrote:

The Rouge product is horrific so I can see why they try to keep them segregated. One YYZ-PHX trip on Rouge was enough for me and I will never fly it again.

So will you take WS? Their product is equally horrific! Who serves potato chips and beef jerky at 6:30am

CFM565A1 wrote:

CS500 wrote:

The Rouge product is horrific so I can see why they try to keep them segregated. One YYZ-PHX trip on Rouge was enough for me and I will never fly it again.

So will you take WS? Their product is equally horrific! Who serves potato chips and beef jerky at 6:30am

Wesjet provides me with enough legroom so that I can sit without my knees touching the seat in front of me. Rouge does not accomplish this.

bTW, the staff was all great at Rouge, it is entirely the on-board hard product which is the problem. 29" pitch with 1990s era seats is not a winning combo...

CS500 wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

CS500 wrote:

The Rouge product is horrific so I can see why they try to keep them segregated. One YYZ-PHX trip on Rouge was enough for me and I will never fly it again.

So will you take WS? Their product is equally horrific! Who serves potato chips and beef jerky at 6:30am

Wesjet provides me with enough legroom so that I can sit without my knees touching the seat in front of me. Rouge does not accomplish this.

bTW, the staff was all great at Rouge, it is entirely the on-board hard product which is the problem. 29" pitch with 1990s era seats is not a winning combo...

Well the 767s have 30” pitch, 1 inch less than WestJet so really not a whole lot of difference there, no knees touching the seat in front for me. The A321s and A319s have 29” which has my knees touching the seat in front, but to make up for it the seats are more comfortable than the 767. Keep in mind I am 6’ tall too. The seats are all relatively new slimmer seats, something that was not available in the 90s.

WestJet on the other hand is nice if you get a 737-8, but otherwise is pretty sad becuase they offer just about nothing for food options and their IFE is decades behind if it’s the old system and still at most on par if it’s the newer one. If you are lucky to get on the 737-8 or refitted 737-800 once here are enough of them or if you end up on the 767 you get some decent meal choices, otherwise you’re out of luck if you want much choice.

CS500 wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

CS500 wrote:

The Rouge product is horrific so I can see why they try to keep them segregated. One YYZ-PHX trip on Rouge was enough for me and I will never fly it again.

So will you take WS? Their product is equally horrific! Who serves potato chips and beef jerky at 6:30am

Wesjet provides me with enough legroom so that I can sit without my knees touching the seat in front of me. Rouge does not accomplish this.

bTW, the staff was all great at Rouge, it is entirely the on-board hard product which is the problem. 29" pitch with 1990s era seats is not a winning combo...

Any WS flight I've had the unfortunate luck of going on, my knees have touched the seat ahead and their under-seat room is far worse for carry-ons... Rouge seats are not 90s era btw, I suggest you go look at the swamp coloured ones on the photo section of this website, they are much fatter. If anything Rouge seats give me a sore back if I'm on them too long (in fact a mainline 777 shares the same seats just with a different fabric pattern and a different back because of the IFE).

So I was on a A319, and it had very non-slimline seats at 29" pitch and it was horrendous, absolutely horrendous. This was the only plane where I cant sit without my knees touching in front (I am 6'2"), even with nothing in the seat back pocket. WS product is far, far superior (as is regular AC).

[twoid][/twoid]

I mentioned this in a seperate thread about this the other week. A member of staff I dealt with through my work at Gatwick, confirmed the route had been dropped in favour of Reykjavik (her words not mine). Gatwick has ample capacity from YYZ as it is, as others have already demonstrated in this thread.

Cheers

Ben

CrawleyBen wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

I mentioned this in a seperate thread about this the other week. A member of staff I dealt with through my work at Gatwick, confirmed the route had been dropped in favour of Reykjavik (her words not mine). Gatwick has ample capacity from YYZ as it is, as others have already demonstrated in this thread.

Cheers

Ben

KEF is mainline, however, the flights both share a roughly common departure time (22:15/22:30) so it could be the gate at YYZ they were after.

CS500 wrote:

The Rouge product is horrific so I can see why they try to keep them segregated. One YYZ-PHX trip on Rouge was enough for me and I will never fly it again.

Everyone says that .... some mean it, some don't. Bottom line is that the level of service offered on Rouge is targeted at the passenger travelling. That is why the LCCs are among the most profitable in North America. It is also why you see things like AUA and ANU are mainline but other Caribbean destinations are not.

Rouge has consistent 90s load factors and an 80% repeat rate.

From reasonably extensive personal experience, I have no problems with Rouge, long or short haul. It`s a seat, reasonably comfortable, reasonable service. It isn't going to win any awards, but that isn't what it is supposed to do. Going in with the expectation of it being anything other than a utilitarian way to get around is a recipe for disappointment.

Flew GLA-YYZ and back with them, legroom was fine but it’s only three weekly high season and was only 2/3 full. IFE was u/s on the way back but I tend to read.

Agree it’s sub par to have both mainline and Rogue to London, they end up cannibalsing their own yields. BA dropping 777 capacity into the LGW will surely have killed yields for WS too.
For me, the major issue is that YYZ T1 intl longhaul is now surely at terminal capcity and feels very claustrophobic for a new build.

whywhyzee wrote:

The WestJet conversion to 787 might actually help Rouge. It shifts WS' focus from competing with Rouge to competing with mainline. Its a completely different market space, which will free up some wiggle room in the lower cost segment.

Unless WS wants to start offering free first checked bag, free alcohol, and free meals, I don't see how a WS 787 shifts the competitive focus towards mainline AC. Other than being a newer plane, what's the improvement? I think a Rouge 767 will remain competitive with a WS 787. If anything, people might prefer the 2-3-2 layout of a Rouge 767 versus the 3-3-3 of a WS 787, not to mention the free bag and meals.

One thing that might pull me towards a WS widebody flight, and away from a Rouge one, would be the service. I haven't yet flown on a WS 767, but it wouldn't be hard to beat the Rouge service I've experienced. Last month, I flew ATH - YUL on Rouge. I've never seen more poorly groomed attendants. I felt like I was being served by grumpy teenagers. I didn't observe a single smile. The way they addressed passengers was terrible. No pleasantries like "would you prefer pasta or chicken?" Instead, the attendant looked past me, over my head (at the sidewall?), and muttered only "pasta or chicken."

aerolimani wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

The WestJet conversion to 787 might actually help Rouge. It shifts WS' focus from competing with Rouge to competing with mainline. Its a completely different market space, which will free up some wiggle room in the lower cost segment.

Unless WS wants to start offering free first checked bag, free alcohol, and free meals, I don't see how a WS 787 shifts the competitive focus towards mainline AC. Other than being a newer plane, what's the improvement

Ummm, did you not watch the WS 787 unveiling?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSQn4QK8QDY&t=3s

skipness1E wrote:

Flew GLA-YYZ and back with them, legroom was fine but it’s only three weekly high season and was only 2/3 full. IFE was u/s on the way back but I tend to read.

Agree it’s sub par to have both mainline and Rogue to London, they end up cannibalsing their own yields. BA dropping 777 capacity into the LGW will surely have killed yields for WS too.
For me, the major issue is that YYZ T1 intl longhaul is now surely at terminal capcity and feels very claustrophobic for a new build.

As an a-side, some of the loads on BA's YYZ service in to LGW have been pretty poor from what I've seen (53 pax being an example on one day that I looked whilst at work) don't think I've seen any paticuarly heavy loads on the service in all honesty

Cheers

Ben

CFM565A1 wrote:

So will you take WS? Their product is equally horrific! Who serves potato chips and beef jerky at 6:30am

Probably the same people who fly Rouge.

CFM565A1 wrote:

Any WS flight I've had the unfortunate luck of going on, my knees have touched the seat ahead and their under-seat room is far worse for carry-ons.

Huh? I'm 6'3" and the only 737 seats my knees touch the back on the seat on are the few birds left with the old grey interior. The 700/800s that have the newer interior, I have well over an inch to two inches of space between my knees and the seat in front of me, depending if I'm sitting in the rear of the aircraft or closer to the front (I'm not talking about Plus). As for Rouge, the 767s are fine but the A319/A321s are brutal outside of Premium, even for a short 2.5 flight down to LAS.

longhauler wrote:

Rouge/Gatwick was very popular, with high load factors, but there were a few issues ....

One is that the bottom feeder yields on the route were abysmal. Not only were they less than a third of LHR but also they could get twice the yield by sending the 767 to other European destinations with far greater margins than others are willing to accept.

Another is route confusion. They try to not have Rouge/Mainline fly to the same place as the products are quite different. With all the warnings in the world, when passenger flies YYZ-LHR then LGW-YYZ, it gets hard to explain the lack of IFE screens and free liquor, etc.

It's hardly a "white flag" to WS. In fact, I bet AC hardly even notices WS any more ... I think its more walking away from the route muttering, "Why bother? If the competition wants to chase after yield like that ... go for it".

Kind of like Kamloops - Toronto, Nanaimo - Toronto or Victoria to Montreal, eh? Can you think of any market in the US over 2000 miles with a population under 250,000 that over flies a hub to operate to another hub? Boise - ATL n/s? Medford - Atlanta n/s? Not a chance. Everything through SEA or SLC. Is it any wonder Delta's margins blow away AC's?

So Gatwick was canibalizing LHR? Funny, given the vehement opinions to the contrary when the route was launched a few years ago.

Yields were half of LHR?

Comparing Y fares for YYZ-LHR vs YYZ-LGW (July 4-9, July 7-14 and July 19-Aug 2) and LGW fares are 94.3% of LHR fares, (and LGW is a lower cost airport than LHR).

Comparing PY fares on the same route, same days and WS is achieving about a 40% premium over AC PY to LHR.

WJ currently does not have J class, but that will change this time next year.

You can bet your next mortgage payment that AC continues to pay very, very close attention to everything WJ does. Were that not the case, AC wouldn't have bothered relaunching for the 3rd or 4th time over the past 22 years, YEG-YLW and YEG-YYJ at a time when oil is heading towards $80......

If AC paid no attention to WJ, they wouldn't have continued to sell YYZ-LGW in March, even though the decision to cancel the route was implemented in Feb, in order to hold the slot to ensure it didn't go to WJ instead during S18. AC was very worried about WJ going to double dailies YYZ-LGW, or perhaps using Max 8's elsewhere from the east. That will change in S19. I can't imagine the slot committee at LGW were impressed with that stunt and will take that into consideration when S19 slots are doled out in the months to come.

jimbo737 wrote:

I don't recall seeing an announcement of this rather significant strategic cancellation, but Air Canada has quietly withdrawn from Gatwick.

Routings from Canada to Gatwick are mostly via DUB and are not remotely price competitive with even their LHR n/s service.

It would appear Air Canada was unable to make their "low cost" Rouge service viable in that market.

I'm very curious. What do you make of WestJet's inability to succeed on major markets such as Montreal-Fort Lauderdale (one of the countries large city-pairs), Montreal-Vancouver (winter seasonal suspension) and Ottawa-Edmonton. What about WestJet's withdrawal of Toronto-Sudbury or Montreal-Boston which the much proclaimed WestJet encore.

I think you should also consider that Air Canada doubled down on Heathrow from Vancouver (2x 787-9 vs. 1 777), instead of flying complementary Vancouver-Gatwick (3/week).

flyyul wrote:

jimbo737 wrote:

I don't recall seeing an announcement of this rather significant strategic cancellation, but Air Canada has quietly withdrawn from Gatwick.

Routings from Canada to Gatwick are mostly via DUB and are not remotely price competitive with even their LHR n/s service.

It would appear Air Canada was unable to make their "low cost" Rouge service viable in that market.

I'm very curious. What do you make of WestJet's inability to succeed on major markets such as Montreal-Fort Lauderdale (one of the countries large city-pairs), Montreal-Vancouver (winter seasonal suspension) and Ottawa-Edmonton. What about WestJet's withdrawal of Toronto-Sudbury or Montreal-Boston which the much proclaimed WestJet encore.

I think you should also consider that Air Canada doubled down on Heathrow from Vancouver (2x 787-9 vs. 1 777), instead of flying complementary Vancouver-Gatwick (3/week).

WestJet operates YEG-YOW year round.

aerolimani wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

The WestJet conversion to 787 might actually help Rouge. It shifts WS' focus from competing with Rouge to competing with mainline. Its a completely different market space, which will free up some wiggle room in the lower cost segment.

Unless WS wants to start offering free first checked bag, free alcohol, and free meals, I don't see how a WS 787 shifts the competitive focus towards mainline AC. Other than being a newer plane, what's the improvement? I think a Rouge 767 will remain competitive with a WS 787. If anything, people might prefer the 2-3-2 layout of a Rouge 767 versus the 3-3-3 of a WS 787, not to mention the free bag and meals.

One thing that might pull me towards a WS widebody flight, and away from a Rouge one, would be the service. I haven't yet flown on a WS 767, but it wouldn't be hard to beat the Rouge service I've experienced. Last month, I flew ATH - YUL on Rouge. I've never seen more poorly groomed attendants. I felt like I was being served by grumpy teenagers. I didn't observe a single smile. The way they addressed passengers was terrible. No pleasantries like "would you prefer pasta or chicken?" Instead, the attendant looked past me, over my head (at the sidewall?), and muttered only "pasta or chicken."

The WS 787s will at least have seatback TVs.

ACDC8 wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

The WestJet conversion to 787 might actually help Rouge. It shifts WS' focus from competing with Rouge to competing with mainline. Its a completely different market space, which will free up some wiggle room in the lower cost segment.

Unless WS wants to start offering free first checked bag, free alcohol, and free meals, I don't see how a WS 787 shifts the competitive focus towards mainline AC. Other than being a newer plane, what's the improvement

Ummm, did you not watch the WS 787 unveiling?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSQn4QK8QDY&t=3s

Yes, the business class is competing with mainline, as Rouge only has premium economy. But, the majority of passengers buying tickets will be in the back, where it's 3-3-3, no free food, no free alcohol, and no free checked bag. Thus, I think sitting in the back is more in line with Rouge, versus mainline AC.

BML87 wrote:

The WS 787s will at least have seatback TVs.

Personally, I consider that a detractor. I can't stand it when the person behind me starts jabbing at the screen like it's a whack-a-mole game. People seem to have the feeling that if they poke at the screen harder, it will respond faster.

CS500 wrote:

The Rouge product is horrific so I can see why they try to keep them segregated. One YYZ-PHX trip on Rouge was enough for me and I will never fly it again.

Same here, I flew Rouge from Las Vegas to Calgary once on a 319, NEVER again!

I was forced to fly a rouge A319 from YYC-YHZ for a military contract and my knees were inside the person in front of me. I ended up standing in the back galley for the whole 5 hour flight.

“I was forced to fly Rouge”
“Never again!”

If that were the case, loads would be abysmal. Rouge planes are full. I was on one this weekend. Yes, the seats are closer together, and no seat back IFE. That is what the market wants. People don’t want to pay top dollar to secondary markets.

Air Canada is not forcing you to do anything. They understand a market can only produce certain yields, and offers a product people are willing to pay for.

People say they prefer to fly Westjet. Go ahead. Westjet is also feeling the pinch, and started Swoop. If you believe that airline is only going to stick airports like Abbotsford, you are sorely mistaken. Eventually, you will find them flying to destinations currently served by Rouge.

This is where the market is going. We can complain about it, but people just don’t care. They want the cheapest ticket possible.

ac7e7 wrote:

“I was forced to fly Rouge”
“Never again!”

In my case I was because it was a military contract and it included an overseas deployment. If I booked myself on a different airline for the YYC-YHZ segment I would have lost the rest of the PNR including the international flights. So yes I was forced to fly Rouge if I wanted to do my deployment. It was abysmal, and I promptly informed my unit that if I was booked on Rouge again I would cancel any military contract that I had been booked for. I found it to be inhuman, but at 195cm I recognize that my experience is unlike other peoples experience, and what is intolerable to me may be perfectly fine for others. Them running out of food was a whole other story and I felt bad for the crew since 2/3 of the plane were pretty upset about no food for 5 hours over lunch/dinner time. The aft FA's were gracious about letting me share their space during the flight which I appreciated, and we had a great chat about the airline industry, so I will give them props for that.

ac7e7 wrote:

“I was forced to fly Rouge”
“Never again!”

If that were the case, loads would be abysmal. Rouge planes are full. I was on one this weekend. Yes, the seats are closer together, and no seat back IFE. That is what the market wants. People don’t want to pay top dollar to secondary markets.

Air Canada is not forcing you to do anything. They understand a market can only produce certain yields, and offers a product people are willing to pay for.

People say they prefer to fly Westjet. Go ahead. Westjet is also feeling the pinch, and started Swoop. If you believe that airline is only going to stick airports like Abbotsford, you are sorely mistaken. Eventually, you will find them flying to destinations currently served by Rouge.

This is where the market is going. We can complain about it, but people just don’t care. They want the cheapest ticket possible.

I flew EDI - YYZ with AC Rouge and thought they were fine. Rather be in a 2-3-2 767 layout than BA's crammed 787s or updated 777s.

YYZatcboy wrote:

ac7e7 wrote:

“I was forced to fly Rouge”
“Never again!”

In my case I was because it was a military contract and it included an overseas deployment. If I booked myself on a different airline for the YYC-YHZ segment I would have lost the rest of the PNR including the international flights. So yes I was forced to fly Rouge if I wanted to do my deployment. It was abysmal, and I promptly informed my unit that if I was booked on Rouge again I would cancel any military contract that I had been booked for. I found it to be inhuman, but at 195cm I recognize that my experience is unlike other peoples experience, and what is intolerable to me may be perfectly fine for others. Them running out of food was a whole other story and I felt bad for the crew since 2/3 of the plane were pretty upset about no food for 5 hours over lunch/dinner time. The aft FA's were gracious about letting me share their space during the flight which I appreciated, and we had a great chat about the airline industry, so I will give them props for that.

I agree if you are a very tall person, the seats would be tight. I also prefer mainline aircraft vs Rouge. Unfortunately, the market is only willing to pay a maximum fare to certain destinations. In order for the airline to make money, they need to increase the number of seats, and reduce weight.

Why would Westjet continue to fly the same route and accept lower yields than Rouge? I believe it is only a matter of time before Swoop takes over similar routes as Rouge from Westjet.

BML87 wrote:

flyyul wrote:

jimbo737 wrote:

I don't recall seeing an announcement of this rather significant strategic cancellation, but Air Canada has quietly withdrawn from Gatwick.

Routings from Canada to Gatwick are mostly via DUB and are not remotely price competitive with even their LHR n/s service.

It would appear Air Canada was unable to make their "low cost" Rouge service viable in that market.

I'm very curious. What do you make of WestJet's inability to succeed on major markets such as Montreal-Fort Lauderdale (one of the countries large city-pairs), Montreal-Vancouver (winter seasonal suspension) and Ottawa-Edmonton. What about WestJet's withdrawal of Toronto-Sudbury or Montreal-Boston which the much proclaimed WestJet encore.

I think you should also consider that Air Canada doubled down on Heathrow from Vancouver (2x 787-9 vs. 1 777), instead of flying complementary Vancouver-Gatwick (3/week).

WestJet operates YEG-YOW year round.

Not anymore - check westjet.com to see for yourself.

aerolimani wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

The WestJet conversion to 787 might actually help Rouge. It shifts WS' focus from competing with Rouge to competing with mainline. Its a completely different market space, which will free up some wiggle room in the lower cost segment.

Unless WS wants to start offering free first checked bag, free alcohol, and free meals, I don't see how a WS 787 shifts the competitive focus towards mainline AC. Other than being a newer plane, what's the improvement? I think a Rouge 767 will remain competitive with a WS 787. If anything, people might prefer the 2-3-2 layout of a Rouge 767 versus the 3-3-3 of a WS 787, not to mention the free bag and meals.

One thing that might pull me towards a WS widebody flight, and away from a Rouge one, would be the service. I haven't yet flown on a WS 767, but it wouldn't be hard to beat the Rouge service I've experienced. Last month, I flew ATH - YUL on Rouge. I've never seen more poorly groomed attendants. I felt like I was being served by grumpy teenagers. I didn't observe a single smile. The way they addressed passengers was terrible. No pleasantries like "would you prefer pasta or chicken?" Instead, the attendant looked past me, over my head (at the sidewall?), and muttered only "pasta or chicken."

..Cannot really comment on Rouge service standards (never flown them) but I believe the 787 (even at 9-across) is HUGELY more comfortable than a 767... quieter, smoother, more spacious... there's no comparison really. At least, that is the way I feel. I am happy to pay more to fly on a 787 vs a 767 - any day.

Flew Rouge a few weeks back YYC-YHZ...paid a nominal fee for the exit row and was very comfortable.

oldannyboy wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

The WestJet conversion to 787 might actually help Rouge. It shifts WS' focus from competing with Rouge to competing with mainline. Its a completely different market space, which will free up some wiggle room in the lower cost segment.

Unless WS wants to start offering free first checked bag, free alcohol, and free meals, I don't see how a WS 787 shifts the competitive focus towards mainline AC. Other than being a newer plane, what's the improvement? I think a Rouge 767 will remain competitive with a WS 787. If anything, people might prefer the 2-3-2 layout of a Rouge 767 versus the 3-3-3 of a WS 787, not to mention the free bag and meals.

One thing that might pull me towards a WS widebody flight, and away from a Rouge one, would be the service. I haven't yet flown on a WS 767, but it wouldn't be hard to beat the Rouge service I've experienced. Last month, I flew ATH - YUL on Rouge. I've never seen more poorly groomed attendants. I felt like I was being served by grumpy teenagers. I didn't observe a single smile. The way they addressed passengers was terrible. No pleasantries like "would you prefer pasta or chicken?" Instead, the attendant looked past me, over my head (at the sidewall?), and muttered only "pasta or chicken."

..Cannot really comment on Rouge service standards (never flown them) but I believe the 787 (even at 9-across) is HUGELY more comfortable than a 767... quieter, smoother, more spacious... there's no comparison really. At least, that is the way I feel. I am happy to pay more to fly on a 787 vs a 767 - any day.

But it’s not... the 787 wasn’t designed with 9 across in mind... the extra seat just causes them to all be narrow and tighter than the 767. I’d much rather the 767 because you don’t have any prisoner seats. Not sure what’s “smoother” about the 787 either so I’ll throw that out. Quieter maybe be but 2 issues with that. First, the electric demand pumps start screeching every time they encounter turbulence and the flight controls require ore authority then they go into their standby mode where the moan at a lower pitch. Second, too quiet isn’t always good, some white noise is good to block out conversations and snoring.

oldannyboy wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

The WestJet conversion to 787 might actually help Rouge. It shifts WS' focus from competing with Rouge to competing with mainline. Its a completely different market space, which will free up some wiggle room in the lower cost segment.

Unless WS wants to start offering free first checked bag, free alcohol, and free meals, I don't see how a WS 787 shifts the competitive focus towards mainline AC. Other than being a newer plane, what's the improvement? I think a Rouge 767 will remain competitive with a WS 787. If anything, people might prefer the 2-3-2 layout of a Rouge 767 versus the 3-3-3 of a WS 787, not to mention the free bag and meals.

One thing that might pull me towards a WS widebody flight, and away from a Rouge one, would be the service. I haven't yet flown on a WS 767, but it wouldn't be hard to beat the Rouge service I've experienced. Last month, I flew ATH - YUL on Rouge. I've never seen more poorly groomed attendants. I felt like I was being served by grumpy teenagers. I didn't observe a single smile. The way they addressed passengers was terrible. No pleasantries like "would you prefer pasta or chicken?" Instead, the attendant looked past me, over my head (at the sidewall?), and muttered only "pasta or chicken."

..Cannot really comment on Rouge service standards (never flown them) but I believe the 787 (even at 9-across) is HUGELY more comfortable than a 767... quieter, smoother, more spacious... there's no comparison really. At least, that is the way I feel. I am happy to pay more to fly on a 787 vs a 767 - any day.

Never flown on a BA 787-8 I see. Rouge 763 was FAR more comfortable, and I do mean by some considerable way.

If I recall correctly, AC also had the same deal last year, out of YVR, with both a Rouge flight to LGW, and the mothership to LHR. And then cancelled the LGW service.

skipness1E wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

Unless WS wants to start offering free first checked bag, free alcohol, and free meals, I don't see how a WS 787 shifts the competitive focus towards mainline AC. Other than being a newer plane, what's the improvement? I think a Rouge 767 will remain competitive with a WS 787. If anything, people might prefer the 2-3-2 layout of a Rouge 767 versus the 3-3-3 of a WS 787, not to mention the free bag and meals.

One thing that might pull me towards a WS widebody flight, and away from a Rouge one, would be the service. I haven't yet flown on a WS 767, but it wouldn't be hard to beat the Rouge service I've experienced. Last month, I flew ATH - YUL on Rouge. I've never seen more poorly groomed attendants. I felt like I was being served by grumpy teenagers. I didn't observe a single smile. The way they addressed passengers was terrible. No pleasantries like "would you prefer pasta or chicken?" Instead, the attendant looked past me, over my head (at the sidewall?), and muttered only "pasta or chicken."

..Cannot really comment on Rouge service standards (never flown them) but I believe the 787 (even at 9-across) is HUGELY more comfortable than a 767... quieter, smoother, more spacious... there's no comparison really. At least, that is the way I feel. I am happy to pay more to fly on a 787 vs a 767 - any day.

Never flown on a BA 787-8 I see. Rouge 763 was FAR more comfortable, and I do mean by some considerable way.

Probably because AC has gone with the 3-3-3 seating on the 787, with narrower seats, like most carriers. The more comfortable 2-4-2(8 across) instead of the 3-3-3(9 across) was Boeing's recommended seating. But only NH and JL have gone with it.

flyyul wrote:

BML87 wrote:

flyyul wrote:

I'm very curious. What do you make of WestJet's inability to succeed on major markets such as Montreal-Fort Lauderdale (one of the countries large city-pairs), Montreal-Vancouver (winter seasonal suspension) and Ottawa-Edmonton. What about WestJet's withdrawal of Toronto-Sudbury or Montreal-Boston which the much proclaimed WestJet encore.

I think you should also consider that Air Canada doubled down on Heathrow from Vancouver (2x 787-9 vs. 1 777), instead of flying complementary Vancouver-Gatwick (3/week).

WestJet operates YEG-YOW year round.

Not anymore - check westjet.com to see for yourself.

They're website shows the nonstop operating in the summer and winter...

Freshside3 wrote:

If I recall correctly, AC also had the same deal last year, out of YVR, with both a Rouge flight to LGW, and the mothership to LHR. And then cancelled the LGW service.

LGW-YVR operated summer 2017

BML87 wrote:

flyyul wrote:

jimbo737 wrote:

I don't recall seeing an announcement of this rather significant strategic cancellation, but Air Canada has quietly withdrawn from Gatwick.

Routings from Canada to Gatwick are mostly via DUB and are not remotely price competitive with even their LHR n/s service.

It would appear Air Canada was unable to make their "low cost" Rouge service viable in that market.

I'm very curious. What do you make of WestJet's inability to succeed on major markets such as Montreal-Fort Lauderdale (one of the countries large city-pairs), Montreal-Vancouver (winter seasonal suspension) and Ottawa-Edmonton. What about WestJet's withdrawal of Toronto-Sudbury or Montreal-Boston which the much proclaimed WestJet encore.

I think you should also consider that Air Canada doubled down on Heathrow from Vancouver (2x 787-9 vs. 1 777), instead of flying complementary Vancouver-Gatwick (3/week).

WestJet operates YEG-YOW year round.

That was a reinstatement for last winter. Here’s hoping it sticks year-round for good. Ditto for YOW-YVR with WS upping it to 2x daily this summer. It hasn’t been year-round for several years now, but hopefully that changes this coming winter...if it does happen, it’ll be part of WS’ winter schedule announcements as it’s currently not loaded...insane eh that WS doesn’t yet fly the 3rd largest YVR trans on route year-round eh!

flyyul wrote:

jimbo737 wrote:

I don't recall seeing an announcement of this rather significant strategic cancellation, but Air Canada has quietly withdrawn from Gatwick.

Routings from Canada to Gatwick are mostly via DUB and are not remotely price competitive with even their LHR n/s service.

It would appear Air Canada was unable to make their "low cost" Rouge service viable in that market.

I'm very curious. What do you make of WestJet's inability to succeed on major markets such as M
ontreal-Fort Lauderdale (one of the countries large city-pairs), Montreal-Vancouver (winter seasonal suspension) and Ottawa-Edmonton. What about WestJet's withdrawal of Toronto-Sudbury or Montreal-Boston which the much proclaimed WestJet encore.

I think you should also consider that Air Canada doubled down on Heathrow from Vancouver (2x 787-9 vs. 1 777), instead of flying complementary Vancouver-Gatwick (3/week).

Is there a lower yielding transborder market than Quebec to FLL?

AC has so much excess capacity in the winter, they are running 767’s on a 1,384 mile sector, flooding the market with hyper low yield seats. It’s also a huge burn route for loyalty redemption, adding to its woes.

You’d be very hard pressed to see any of the considerably more profitable US carriers running WB capacity on 3 hour notoriously low yield domestic sectors to Florida, but that helps to explain why AC’s winter margins remain at the rock bottom of the pack.

If you build your church for Easter Sunday, which, in airline context in Canada, is June 1 to Sept 10th, and then a total of about 8 weeks out of the balance of the year, you’ll end up with way too much capacity and doing goofy things to try and utilize excess capacity that should have been made into beer cans 3 years ago the rest of the year.

If WJ can’t make that work even with -800’s and their casm, you can be sure it’s a red ink bath for everyone else.

It’s a good example of how route planning works when one airline assesses profitability using EBIT, and the other, where EBITDAR is the benchmark. Convincing the BoD to bonus on EBITDAR doesn’t hurt either.

When you remove depreciation, amortization and rentals from the equation, everything looks profitable, even with “free airplanes”. News flash: there’s no such thing as “free airplanes”.

Checking US DoT data in 2017 loads on YUL-FLL were as follows:

Rouge: 85.8%
Sunwing: 82.2%
Transat: 83.3%
WestJet: 82.5%

WestJet's overall trans border loads averaged 84.8% in 2017, compared to 84.5% at Rouge, 79.1% at Transat and 74.9% at Sunwing.

You can imagine just how poor the yields are on YUL-FLL when WJ walked from the market with loads that are within a couple points of their system average trans border loads.

jimbo737 wrote:

flyyul wrote:

jimbo737 wrote:

I don't recall seeing an announcement of this rather significant strategic cancellation, but Air Canada has quietly withdrawn from Gatwick.

Routings from Canada to Gatwick are mostly via DUB and are not remotely price competitive with even their LHR n/s service.

It would appear Air Canada was unable to make their "low cost" Rouge service viable in that market.

I'm very curious. What do you make of WestJet's inability to succeed on major markets such as M
ontreal-Fort Lauderdale (one of the countries large city-pairs), Montreal-Vancouver (winter seasonal suspension) and Ottawa-Edmonton. What about WestJet's withdrawal of Toronto-Sudbury or Montreal-Boston which the much proclaimed WestJet encore.

I think you should also consider that Air Canada doubled down on Heathrow from Vancouver (2x 787-9 vs. 1 777), instead of flying complementary Vancouver-Gatwick (3/week).

Is there a lower yielding transborder market than Quebec to FLL?

AC has so much excess capacity in the winter, they are running 767’s on a 1,384 mile sector, flooding the market with hyper low yield seats. It’s also a huge burn route for loyalty redemption, adding to its woes.

You’d be very hard pressed to see any of the considerably more profitable US carriers running WB capacity on 3 hour notoriously low yield domestic sectors to Florida, but that helps to explain why AC’s winter margins remain at the rock bottom of the pack.

If you build your church for Easter Sunday, which, in airline context in Canada, is June 1 to Sept 10th, and then a total of about 8 weeks out of the balance of the year, you’ll end up with way too much capacity and doing goofy things to try and utilize excess capacity that should have been made into beer cans 3 years ago the rest of the year.

If WJ can’t make that work even with -800’s and their casm, you can be sure it’s a red ink bath for everyone else.

It’s a good example of how route planning works when one airline assesses profitability using EBIT, and the other, where EBITDAR is the benchmark. Convincing the BoD to bonus on EBITDAR doesn’t hurt either.

When you remove depreciation, amortization and rentals from the equation, everything looks profitable, even with “free airplanes”. News flash: there’s no such thing as “free airplanes”.

Smoke and mirrors! You’re making a lot of assumptions based on figures you don’t have. You should consider that AC & TS have much stronger brand power than ws in Quebec. Rouge can achieve economies of scale with larger aircraft & lower cost with an identical product.

As for the topic in question, AC simply doubled down on heathrow. TS was more of a threat into LGW than ws with a product that’s far more competitive. Ws is now running the worst product into LGW!

This discussion should have included TS all along. It seems all too clear that AC is focussing on heathrow & providing an all mainline product to the LON market.

( jimbo you contradict yourself. First you trash ac for sending rouge to FLL & now doing the same for restoring the mainline product into LON.)

jimbo737 wrote:

Checking US DoT data in 2017 loads on YUL-FLL were as follows:

Rouge: 85.8%
Sunwing: 82.2%
Transat: 83.3%
WestJet: 82.5%

WestJet's overall trans border loads averaged 84.8% in 2017, compared to 84.5% at Rouge, 79.1% at Transat and 74.9% at Sunwing.

You can imagine just how poor the yields are on YUL-FLL when WJ walked from the market with loads that are within a couple points of their system average trans border loads.

AC is a much stronger brand in Quebec, the 763 achieves greater CASM than a ws738, AC has frequency, etc...

What do you think will happen to yyc-las now that Frontier is coming?

jimbo737 wrote:

flyyul wrote:

jimbo737 wrote:

I don't recall seeing an announcement of this rather significant strategic cancellation, but Air Canada has quietly withdrawn from Gatwick.

Routings from Canada to Gatwick are mostly via DUB and are not remotely price competitive with even their LHR n/s service.

It would appear Air Canada was unable to make their "low cost" Rouge service viable in that market.

I'm very curious. What do you make of WestJet's inability to succeed on major markets such as M
ontreal-Fort Lauderdale (one of the countries large city-pairs), Montreal-Vancouver (winter seasonal suspension) and Ottawa-Edmonton. What about WestJet's withdrawal of Toronto-Sudbury or Montreal-Boston which the much proclaimed WestJet encore.

I think you should also consider that Air Canada doubled down on Heathrow from Vancouver (2x 787-9 vs. 1 777), instead of flying complementary Vancouver-Gatwick (3/week).

Is there a lower yielding transborder market than Quebec to FLL?

AC has so much excess capacity in the winter, they are running 767’s on a 1,384 mile sector, flooding the market with hyper low yield seats. It’s also a huge burn route for loyalty redemption, adding to its woes.

You’d be very hard pressed to see any of the considerably more profitable US carriers running WB capacity on 3 hour notoriously low yield domestic sectors to Florida, but that helps to explain why AC’s winter margins remain at the rock bottom of the pack.

If you build your church for Easter Sunday, which, in airline context in Canada, is June 1 to Sept 10th, and then a total of about 8 weeks out of the balance of the year, you’ll end up with way too much capacity and doing goofy things to try and utilize excess capacity that should have been made into beer cans 3 years ago the rest of the year.

If WJ can’t make that work even with -800’s and their casm, you can be sure it’s a red ink bath for everyone else.

It’s a good example of how route planning works when one airline assesses profitability using EBIT, and the other, where EBITDAR is the benchmark. Convincing the BoD to bonus on EBITDAR doesn’t hurt either.

When you remove depreciation, amortization and rentals from the equation, everything looks profitable, even with “free airplanes”. News flash: there’s no such thing as “free airplanes”.

I can assure you, with a significant degree of certainty, that AC’a planners are of a quality that you couldn’t with. And I also give you all assurances that YUL-FLL is a tremendously profitable operation and an Air Canada fortress. In fact I’ll also bet you that this is way more profitable operation than AC’s competition services from secondary points in Canada to Vegas and Phoenix

jimbo737 wrote:

flyyul wrote:

jimbo737 wrote:

I don't recall seeing an announcement of this rather significant strategic cancellation, but Air Canada has quietly withdrawn from Gatwick.

Routings from Canada to Gatwick are mostly via DUB and are not remotely price competitive with even their LHR n/s service.

It would appear Air Canada was unable to make their "low cost" Rouge service viable in that market.

I'm very curious. What do you make of WestJet's inability to succeed on major markets such as M
ontreal-Fort Lauderdale (one of the countries large city-pairs), Montreal-Vancouver (winter seasonal suspension) and Ottawa-Edmonton. What about WestJet's withdrawal of Toronto-Sudbury or Montreal-Boston which the much proclaimed WestJet encore.

I think you should also consider that Air Canada doubled down on Heathrow from Vancouver (2x 787-9 vs. 1 777), instead of flying complementary Vancouver-Gatwick (3/week).

Is there a lower yielding transborder market than Quebec to FLL?

AC has so much excess capacity in the winter, they are running 767’s on a 1,384 mile sector, flooding the market with hyper low yield seats. It’s also a huge burn route for loyalty redemption, adding to its woes.

You’d be very hard pressed to see any of the considerably more profitable US carriers running WB capacity on 3 hour notoriously low yield domestic sectors to Florida, but that helps to explain why AC’s winter margins remain at the rock bottom of the pack.

If you build your church for Easter Sunday, which, in airline context in Canada, is June 1 to Sept 10th, and then a total of about 8 weeks out of the balance of the year, you’ll end up with way too much capacity and doing goofy things to try and utilize excess capacity that should have been made into beer cans 3 years ago the rest of the year.

If WJ can’t make that work even with -800’s and their casm, you can be sure it’s a red ink bath for everyone else.

It’s a good example of how route planning works when one airline assesses profitability using EBIT, and the other, where EBITDAR is the benchmark. Convincing the BoD to bonus on EBITDAR doesn’t hurt either.

When you remove depreciation, amortization and rentals from the equation, everything looks profitable, even with “free airplanes”. News flash: there’s no such thing as “free airplanes”.

Sending a 282 seat depreciated airplane is a sure way of turning a profit on a route with lots of volume and low yield. AC realized that they could not increase yields by shrinking aircraft size to leisure destinations so they doubled-down and created Rouge. I highly doubt that on a route that sees up to 5 daily 767s in high season is anything but profitable for AC.