WestJet started out as a scrappy 3 aircraft airline flying to a few cities in Western Canada. Its formula was simple. Fly a low cost airline that would bring travel to the masses at prices people could afford. It has grown into a well respected airline, especially in Canada. Their model was based on the very successful Southwest Airlines. With the addition of full business class, I wonder whether WestJet has lost its way. I think the creation of Swoop would not have been necessary if WestJet had stayed true to its original business model. I wonder whether recent quarterly loss is a sign that they may be headed in the wrong direction. I love WestJet and I hope they don’t screw things up.

Yes, they were an awesome airline. They cared and wanted your business and did little things that showed that. Flights where fun, because of the flight crews- westjetter. Now, they seam to be just another airline. Clive take it back. Westjet can be special again.

Lost it’s way? Nah, I don’t think we can view it that way.

Things change, whether by choice or by external forces. The original model worked well at the time, but nearly all the LCC airlines have evolved. This includes the following examples:

- Ryanair: was flying solely to secondary airports but has since moved into primary airports in many cases
- Southwest: stayed out of major airports in places like NYC for a number of years, instead choosing to fly into ISP. This has now changed.
- Virgin Blue: started out as a pure LCC but then added premium economy (euro-business style), operating as a hybrid, new world carrier as they called it. The next steps they took to rebrand into Virgin Australia and go full-service have had questionable results though.

What happens is that most airlines see revenue and yield pressures in a purely leisure market segment, which then mean they go chasing the higher returns of business travelers. The only way to achieve that is to find ways to enhance the product, which is what tends to occur.

Aviation isn’t about standing still. There’s always something new added to the market and carriers have to evolve to stay relevant. So in Westjet’s case, it makes sense that what they started as would change over time to find new opportunities and growth.

To me the problem was allowing the previous guy to run the airline. He was known for his mishandling of Canadian Airlines and working with Alaska during their trouble periods.

Clive Beddoe warned against the 767 overseas ops back when they first announced it and it seems ever since that expansion and the 787 thing, it’s done more bad than good.

WestJet is certainly morphing into Canadian Airlines v2.0, whether that's losing their way or not remains to be seen.

WestJet, keep in mind, is also operating in a very protected market that they just happen to have access to. Their desire to seek higher profits by capturing more of the business market seems natural, so there are relatively few competitors to them an AC. Have a look at AC and WS pricing any day - you'll see them move up and down with each other, and always be near identical. If WestJet is different, it's because they discovered they didn't have to try as hard.

IMHO, WestJet made the only choices available to generate any further significant growth. The status quo was not going to provide any further significant growth but it certainly does entail greater business risks.

WestJet stagnated. Big time. They’re doing what they have to, look for more revenue.

They’ll be fine, but it ain’t what it used to be. AC is eating their lunch. Clive is gonzo. Unions won’t accept his old ways which worked but the employees realize they were duped

They didn't lose their way, they found a new way. One that suits them better, makes more profit, etc. They're not an LCC anymore, they're a respectable full-service airline. They're growing towards a SkyTeam membership with joint ventures with Delta, AeroMexico and Air France-KLM.

Swoop basically is for them what Transavia is for Air France-KLM, a low-cost daughter airline. If it works in Europe, why wouldn't it work in Canada?

PatrickZ80 wrote:

They didn't lose their way, they found a new way. One that suits them better, makes more profit, etc. They're not an LCC anymore, they're a respectable full-service airline. They're growing towards a SkyTeam membership with joint ventures with Delta, AeroMexico and Air France-KLM.

Swoop basically is for them what Transavia is for Air France-KLM, a low-cost daughter airline. If it works in Europe, why wouldn't it work in Canada?

As in locos are not respectable? KISS
One thing easyJet, Ryanair and Southwest do is keep things simple. The fact that WS is such a complex model it needs it’s own simplified loco tells you all you need to know. What’s their USP against Mapleflot? Er I mean Air Canada.....

sixtyseven wrote:

Clive is gonzo. Unions won’t accept his old ways which worked but the employees realize they were duped

I wonder if the changes at westjet would have occured had Clive still been there? It certainly veers away from his plan, which was consistently successful. Would he have approved of second and third tier commuters, dedicated premium cabins, offshoot ULCC, wide body international operations? I know Herb Kelleher would not!

But the comment about employees being duped is interesting.

I have noticed on here that whenever anyone on this site knocks westjet, the response from the westjet employees always mentions Air Canada. "Ya but, ya but, Air Canada did this ..... " It's like Air Canada never leaves their sights. I know by comparison, the average Air Canada employee never thinks twice about westjet. But clearly that is what westjet's employees have been told ... Air Canada is their aim, Air Canada is their target.

By doing that, they don't see, (or don't care) that they are experiencing substandard wages and working conditions in exhange for "winning". Well they aren't "winning". Most now see that and they want proper remuneration. Rah Rah Rah and KoolAid don't work any more. I am amazed at the dozens of pilots that quit westjet every month to join Air Canada.

But, one can always see the tripe they have been fed, as they repeat it here .... ever hoping it might actually be true!

longhauler wrote:

I have noticed on here that whenever anyone on this site knocks westjet, the response from the westjet employees always mentions Air Canada. "Ya but, ya but, Air Canada did this ..... " It's like Air Canada never leaves their sights. I know by comparison, the average Air Canada employee never thinks twice about westjet. But clearly that is what westjet's employees have been told ... Air Canada is their aim, Air Canada is their target.

I think one further substantial mental adjustment for Westjet employees will be directly related to what you just said, but in view of intercontinental ops. WS will soon learn the challenge of being up against scores of international carriers all playing the same game and vying for the same passengers, which is very unlike their familiar stomping grounds (insulated domestic and Canada-skewed transborder market). Taking aim only at Air Canada will be a gross misstep. I think their LGW ops were a sobering dose of reality and there will be plenty more to come. Not to say that this first step wasn’t successful, but I get the sense that it was far from a slam dunk. Incremental revenue for WS will be much harder fought for!

longhauler wrote:

sixtyseven wrote:

Clive is gonzo. Unions won’t accept his old ways which worked but the employees realize they were duped

I wonder if the changes at westjet would have occured had Clive still been there? It certainly veers away from his plan, which was consistently successful. Would he have approved of second and third tier commuters, dedicated premium cabins, offshoot ULCC, wide body international operations? I know Herb Kelleher would not!

But the comment about employees being duped is interesting.

I have noticed on here that whenever anyone on this site knocks westjet, the response from the westjet employees always mentions Air Canada. "Ya but, ya but, Air Canada did this ..... " It's like Air Canada never leaves their sights. I know by comparison, the average Air Canada employee never thinks twice about westjet. But clearly that is what westjet's employees have been told ... Air Canada is their aim, Air Canada is their target.

By doing that, they don't see, (or don't care) that they are experiencing substandard wages and working conditions in exhange for "winning". Well they aren't "winning". Most now see that and they want proper remuneration. Rah Rah Rah and KoolAid don't work any more. I am amazed at the dozens of pilots that quit westjet every month to join Air Canada.

But, one can always see the tripe they have been fed, as they repeat it here .... ever hoping it might actually be true!

The collective rah rah went on more way longer than it should have. But I can see why it did. This is my pilots take as it’s my only reference. Culture there is actually brainwashing. Hard to turn your back on the cheerleader when things are really moving along. Quick promotions great stock price. Then things slowly change. That left seat takes 12 years to get instead of 5. The stock starts sagging and that’s your retirement, of which you’re putting vast sums of your pay cheque into. You start to think a bit but not out loud as that’s not what you were told since you were hired. You’re part of the “team”.

Then the stock retreats a bit. And that evil empire across the street really starts turning it around and you hear some guys are getting the 320 left seat in 2 years. So you start to think and talk about it. Then you think who else in North America is stagnant like us? Hmmm. The evil empire isn’t stagnant and whoa. They’ve got a pension and my peer there is putting twice as much money into his jeans than me. You you start to talk. Voice a bit more raised.

Then the Big Cheeses (I think that’s what they’re actually called. Embarrassing nonsense) start getting a bit heavy handed with the anti union talk. And the sheen starts wearing off the “team”. And all along that evil air Canada who has been your target is quite honestly kicking your ass in every respect in terms of employee satisfaction. And now you start to get pissed off. And the big cheeses react the wrong way and say stuff it to the union thing. And now you realize the Big Cheeses stink.

And the collective coin drops.

Gotta hand it to them tho. Their brainwashing effectively delayed unions for probably five years. They bought themselves five years due to “culture”. But they didn’t do anything with those five years to delay it any further so when the light went on, it went on full bright. And Saretsky got his ass kicked out the door and the next guy has got his hands full.

I hope they get an amazing contract.

LGW / Europe flights have consistently had higher than average l/f’s than the network average since day one. Had loads been lower, the massive asm/rpm’s being generated would have lowered their overall l/f numbers. It would have been obvious it was a bust had those airplanes been empty.

People forget that from W1999 through S2016, there was no competition at all for a Cdn domiciled network airline to London. Unless you were in a major market that Transat operated, your choice was AC or AC.

Clive still very much runs the strategic show. If he doesn’t agree with what management wants, it’s not going to happen.

How interesting it is that an airline that apparently pays no attention to WJ has hired 4 senior ex WJ people to fill some very key roles. Two are very competent. The other two I’m sure WS is quite content to see at AC.

The only lunch AC are eating is their own. Their results pale in comparison to their US network brethren on an annual basis as a result of flooding the market with capacity to keep EBITDAR high, which is how their Exec are bonused, (thus the reason EBITDAR is mentioned 20x + in their earnings releases, 5x as many as all the other North American airlines combined). Their pilot contracts are based in growth, growth, growth. When it stops, labor peace is over.

When does reality come home to roost? A few years of organic inflation combined with even a modest spike in oil prices will do it. The US majors are already feeling the pain of $70 oil vs $50 oil. Another $10 will make life very interesting.

Given the enormous seasonal capacity swing between summer and winter, (>3x that of the US carriers), it’s pretty obvious where the problem lies. Too many airplanes / too much capacity being carried and supported for 8 months a year. When management figures that out, and deals with it by getting rid of about 60 tails, (which, not coincidentally, is roughly the size of Rouge, who chase the lowest yielding capacity), I think AC will truly have the potential to be on par with its peers.

I find it amazing that obituaries are being written for WS after one quarterly loss in umpteen years as a result of 30 days + of pummeled sales due to potential labor action, together with start up costs associated with the implementation of projects that cost a lot of money to get going, yet currently generate not a penny of revenue.

Those that lead the peanut section claiming WJ shouldn't be delving into WB l/h expansion not coincidentally happen to be the beneficiaries of having a dominant position in this space and rely upon those premium revenues and $4500 one way fares for a lie flat seat across the pond to underwrite their entire business.

I’d be pretty vocal if I were in that predicament too, esp with 20 787’s with J class, operated with a much lower overall consolidated cost base and with sizable Cdn and US feed available was set to appear in the marketplace over the next 4 years, esp head to head with a much older fleet of 767’s.

Yes, WS, accesses US feed to help fill it’s trans oceanic flights, just like AC does. I’m very familiar with one particular route that always has a number of US domiciled through passengers / sports teams flying to LGW.

Take 2Q revenues, divide by 90, then apply the following formula and you’ll get an idea of what happened in 2Q. They’ll be some hangover into Q3 as well, though no where near as much as 2Q.

50x+(.8*30x)+(.9*10x)=R, where R = quarterly revenue and x = daily revenue.

At least 40 days of revenue during the period were severely impacted by the dispute. You can imagine what that does to the bottom line in a business where AC, who were the beneficiary of the largesse, barely made 5% margins.

Fixed costs, variable revenues. The bain of the airline business.

Have WS lost their way? I don't think so. They're just dealing with the pains of growing into adulthood (i.e. into a legacy, aka CP2.0 that's now 22 and no longer a rebellious teenager).

@jimbo: There's no doubt LGW has been a success based on demand. The 2016 launch was just poorly executed (i.e. overly ambitious with virtually no slack built in). I agree though that Clive still wields a lot of power at WS. He still chairs (i.e. strongly influences) the board of course. I also agree AC tout EBITDAR more then anyone else and usually bury net income.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Swoop basically is for them what Transavia is for Air France-KLM, a low-cost daughter airline.

And what Song used to be for Delta.

Some say that WestJet is the Canadian version of Southwest. True, that was how WestJet started. They started as a Low Cost Carrier with a fleet of three B737-200s, the exact same way Southwest started. But I wouldn't call WestJet the Southwest of Canada anymore when I compare these two airlines now.
Here are the differences.
1. Southwest decided to stick only to one aircraft type, the Boeing 737. Westjet fles also the Q400, the 767 and they will soon fly the 787.
2. Westjet files to Europe. Southwest doesn't.
3. As stated above, WestJet has now an ultra low cost airline associated to it: Swoop. Southwest doesn't and I doubt they ever will.
4. WestJet has a Business Class cabin on its long haul aircraft. Southwest dosen't have Business Class service.

I have flown WestJet about a year ago from LGA to YYZ roundtrip. Very nice trip. I liked them a lot, I was completely satisfied with them. Nice crews, clean aircraft, nice greeting employees on the ground. I found them to be a good well respected airline. I would consider flying with them again if I go back to Canada.

One thing that is a huge head scratcher is this coming winter is WS' capacity cuts to Florida, from all points east of YYZ. Is that WS losing their way (i.e. obsessing over eliminating Flair vs focussing on strengthening the weakest parts of their network...which they're actually weakening)?

IndianicWorld wrote:

Lost it’s way? Nah, I don’t think we can view it that way.

Things change, whether by choice or by external forces. The original model worked well at the time, but nearly all the LCC airlines have evolved. This includes the following examples:

- Ryanair: was flying solely to secondary airports but has since moved into primary airports in many cases
- Southwest: stayed out of major airports in places like NYC for a number of years, instead choosing to fly into ISP. This has now changed.
- Virgin Blue: started out as a pure LCC but then added premium economy (euro-business style), operating as a hybrid, new world carrier as they called it. The next steps they took to rebrand into Virgin Australia and go full-service have had questionable results though.

What happens is that most airlines see revenue and yield pressures in a purely leisure market segment, which then mean they go chasing the higher returns of business travelers. The only way to achieve that is to find ways to enhance the product, which is what tends to occur.

Aviation isn’t about standing still. There’s always something new added to the market and carriers have to evolve to stay relevant. So in Westjet’s case, it makes sense that what they started as would change over time to find new opportunities and growth.

This is exactly right. You could say the same about JetBlue too. The enterprise has to evolve, or die.

WS has not lost its way, but it has been widely acknowledged, that they are facing some cost pressure and challenges due to the rapid growth, and added complexity to the business. Since 2016 there has been the introduction of the 767, the start of Swoop, 737 Max introduction, Plus introduction, WestJet Link, increase in international flying, fare bundles, 787-9 and a whole bunch of other initiatives. All of that stuff has put pressure on the organization in terms of employee engagement and investment. What is very telling is ROIC (return on investment capital) is well below the industry standard during the last three years. If anything you will see a lot more focus and discipline around cost and a return to a more agile approach to business. If a route underperforms it will be yanked. If an onboard product sucks and is not selling, it will be yanked. If a supplier underperforms they are gone. It is fair to say the kool-aid culture is gone and is being replaced with a more disciplined approach to business. The current leadership team is very different from just a few short years ago.

Ah the Virgin Australia of Canada or soon to be

I don't understand why so many AC employees seem to think Clive has somehow gone, when he is still chairman of the board and has an office at WJ HQ.

downdata wrote:

Ah the Virgin Australia of Canada or soon to be

Well, VA is kinda sorta making money in spite of crappy leadership and the Qantas double pincher from above and below (and no formal JV with Delta), so how bad can it be?

YYZatcboy wrote:

I don't understand why so many AC employees seem to think Clive has somehow gone, when he is still chairman of the board and has an office at WJ HQ.

I think they mean he’s gone as in, “lost his marbles”.

EChid wrote:

downdata wrote:

Ah the Virgin Australia of Canada or soon to be

Well, VA is kinda sorta making money in spite of crappy leadership and the Qantas double pincher from above and below (and no formal JV with Delta), so how bad can it be?

Eh you are forgetting Tiger is part of VA (that is also loss making). And VA has been a cash sink since 2013.

downdata wrote:

EChid wrote:

downdata wrote:

Ah the Virgin Australia of Canada or soon to be

Well, VA is kinda sorta making money in spite of crappy leadership and the Qantas double pincher from above and below (and no formal JV with Delta), so how bad can it be?

Eh you are forgetting Tiger is part of VA (that is also loss making). And VA has been a cash sink since 2013.

I haven't forgotten. Thus the ''kinda sorta'' bit, I believe they managed a profit recently due to their domestic operations. And in spite of their international operations and Tigerair.

This is a weird one. DL fly boys are all drooling that WS is going to be setting up hubs at their airports lol

It appears that the business community too, is curious about westjet's direction ....

https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/0 ... edive.html

You can't pay me enough to use Westjet. The only time I use them is for charters to take me to work up north that companies feel they need to use. The lack of business class and the smarmy flight attendants makes me dislike this outfit. Maybe I will use them someday if there is business class on their new Dreamliners. The updated paint job is extremely lame, colours are so dated and who came up with "spirit of Canada"? Very original...

freddie4u2 wrote:

You can't pay me enough to use Westjet. The only time I use them is for charters to take me to work up north that companies feel they need to use. The lack of business class and the smarmy flight attendants makes me dislike this outfit. Maybe I will use them someday if there is business class on their new Dreamliners. The updated paint job is extremely lame, colours are so dated and who came up with "spirit of Canada"? Very original...

Your comments don't really contribute to this discussion, but the answer does. The direction WS is taking is their continuance down the path towards becoming a full-service carrier. The people, like you, who remember (and dislike) the old Westjet, and who dislike the lack of a proper business class, are exactly who they are trying to woo. It remains to be seen whether they are successful in this, or not. Personally, I think it's a good direction to go, because where else is there room for growth?

New premium seats on the new 737MAX's, and updating all the older fleet in 2019. https://www.westjet.com/en-ca/travel-in ... ecomfortV1

A business class on the 787's with lie-flat pods, and a premium economy section in a 2-3-2 configuration. https://787.westjet.com/ (skip the video, and scroll down the page for photos)

The colour scheme is pretty baked-in, I'm afraid, short of a very drastic makeover, but the new interiors are looking more refined with almost no teal at all.

What I think is telling is people that I know and know of that are pilots commuting between home and base who would ideally and typically use Air Canada as one might expect, but usually these days end up on WestJet as their flights are almost never full unlike most Air Canada's flights being oversold on the same route at the same times of day!

I’m not sure how you could argue that they haven’t lost their way. They have. They’re morphing into a full service airline. The old way whether right or wrong isn’t good enough for those steering the company. Isn’t that pretty good evidence to say they’ve lost their way? I suppose the success of the new way will determine things.

Management has decided to go play with the big boys which means huge capital costs. Labour issues. Growing pains. All of those things. To be successful they need their work force to back it. Their workforce is NOT a happy one. Management has to turn the page on the folksy BS. The new company won’t be like that. So they have to treat their people accordingly, can’t look back and forwards at the same time or the staff will call BS.

You can’t transform while fighting your people. Look at AC. The first thing they did was get labour on side. Hard to argue with their progress.

If the pilots get a lousy contract in this upcoming arbitration, look out. It will be a disaster over there.

longhauler wrote:

It appears that the business community too, is curious about westjet's direction ....

https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/0 ... edive.html

In WS’ defence, this is a fluff piece with many inaccuracies and clearly written by an AC fanboy.

Dominion301 wrote:

longhauler wrote:

It appears that the business community too, is curious about westjet's direction ....

https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/0 ... edive.html

In WS’ defence, this is a fluff piece with many inaccuracies and clearly written by an AC fanboy.

An AC fanboy at the Toronto Star? That’s hilarious.

Dominion301 wrote:

In WS’ defence, this is a fluff piece with many inaccuracies and clearly written by an AC fanboy.

That really is the only defence ... to hope it is inaccurate and a large Canadian business publication has decided to write a puff piece. But that is normally the drill around this site. It something published flatters your favourite airline then it is "solid journalism" if not, then it's fluff and inaccurate.

While this business editor's opinions are just that, the citing of numbers tell more of the whole tale. Things like the productivity of employees and share value changes are in the public domain. And it backs what a lot of people on this site have been saying for the past year.

I doubt it is written by an "AC fanboy" though. (Do they even exist in Canada's print media?) While I only saw a couple of irrelevant inaccuracies, they would have been corrected by anyone knowing the business, including an AC Fanboy. This just looks like someone quoting the numbers presented and restating murmers on Bay Street.

I should have mentioned as part of the “fanboy” comment, that I too am usually an AC fanboy vs WS, but I found this one over the top, in same way media bash AC for no reason whereas WS can do no wrong.

As for a glaring inaccuracy, it says WS’ expenses in 2017 went past the 4 billion mark on a “revenue base” of “just 3.9 billion”. If that were the case, how could WS have possibly earned 284 million in net income? That’s completely inaccurate as WS’ revenues last year were over 4.5 billion...found with a basic internet search.

Yes, I noticed he used revenue from passenger operations instead of total revenue as well.

Frankly, I am just amazed there is an anti-westjet article written at all. Normally, they are the darlings of the media.

But, this business editor echoes what we have all been saying on here. They are getting further and further from their core operations which were consistantly profitable into an area of unknown. I am sure they'll pull it off, but ... things will get worse before they get better. Being a multidimensional airline is very expensive and there is risk involved.

767333ER wrote:

What I think is telling is people that I know and know of that are pilots commuting between home and base who would ideally and typically use Air Canada as one might expect, but usually these days end up on WestJet as their flights are almost never full unlike most Air Canada's flights being oversold on the same route at the same times of day!

A huge contributing factor to that is WestJet does not oversell their cabins at all, so the likelihood of every single seat being filled is exceptionally low taking into account misconnects, no-shows, changes and cancellations. I can tell you, actually having access to load factor information on both carriers that they generally perform pretty similarly on competing routes. I can't honestly say I have seen much difference between the two in terms of average loads, one might be full one day, the other might be full the next. WestJet also tends to use larger equipment on non-trunk routes, places like Victoria for example see a lot of jet service where as AC is almost entirely Q400s. Of course, place each like Quebec are the opposite, but that adds to the point that each have their stronger regions, but in general are competitive.

whywhyzee wrote:

767333ER wrote:

What I think is telling is people that I know and know of that are pilots commuting between home and base who would ideally and typically use Air Canada as one might expect, but usually these days end up on WestJet as their flights are almost never full unlike most Air Canada's flights being oversold on the same route at the same times of day!

A huge contributing factor to that is WestJet does not oversell their cabins at all, so the likelihood of every single seat being filled is exceptionally low taking into account misconnects, no-shows, changes and cancellations. I can tell you, actually having access to load factor information on both carriers that they generally perform pretty similarly on competing routes. I can't honestly say I have seen much difference between the two in terms of average loads, one might be full one day, the other might be full the next. WestJet also tends to use larger equipment on non-trunk routes, places like Victoria for example see a lot of jet service where as AC is almost entirely Q400s. Of course, place each like Quebec are the opposite, but that adds to the point that each have their stronger regions, but in general are competitive.

With all due respect, nice try, but I know people with access to the load information as their getting to work and getting home every week depends on it and they paint a very different picture. The route that comes to mind for me is between YYC and YVR for example. AC runs anything from A319 to A321 on that route and WS runs anything from 736 to 738 and the WS flights are almost always more empty than just no-shows and missed connections. There’s very little way of denying that their load factors are lower, at least on the routes I’m familiar with.

767333ER wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

767333ER wrote:

What I think is telling is people that I know and know of that are pilots commuting between home and base who would ideally and typically use Air Canada as one might expect, but usually these days end up on WestJet as their flights are almost never full unlike most Air Canada's flights being oversold on the same route at the same times of day!

A huge contributing factor to that is WestJet does not oversell their cabins at all, so the likelihood of every single seat being filled is exceptionally low taking into account misconnects, no-shows, changes and cancellations. I can tell you, actually having access to load factor information on both carriers that they generally perform pretty similarly on competing routes. I can't honestly say I have seen much difference between the two in terms of average loads, one might be full one day, the other might be full the next. WestJet also tends to use larger equipment on non-trunk routes, places like Victoria for example see a lot of jet service where as AC is almost entirely Q400s. Of course, place each like Quebec are the opposite, but that adds to the point that each have their stronger regions, but in general are competitive.

With all due respect, nice try, but I know people with access to the load information as their getting to work and getting home every week depends on it and they paint a very different picture. The route that comes to mind for me is between YYC and YVR for example. AC runs anything from A319 to A321 on that route and WS runs anything from 736 to 738 and the WS flights are almost always more empty than just no-shows and missed connections. There’s very little way of denying that their load factors are lower, at least on the routes I’m familiar with.

Commuting AC pilots love WestJet. Can always get on. Especially between yyz/yvr, yyz/yyc, ywg/yyz, yul/yvr.

Always a seat. And they’ve always treated us kindly.

longhauler wrote:

It appears that the business community too, is curious about westjet's direction ....

https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/0 ... edive.html

And WestJet's direct response to the article:

https://blog.westjet.com/wardair-was-wonderful-but-its-2018-mr-olive/

CFM565A1 wrote:

To me the problem was allowing the previous guy to run the airline. He was known for his mishandling of Canadian Airlines and working with Alaska during their trouble periods.

Clive Beddoe warned against the 767 overseas ops back when they first announced it and it seems ever since that expansion and the 787 thing, it’s done more bad than good.

Not sure how you could blame Gregg Saretsky deserves for "mishandling" of Canadian Airlines. He wasn't running the company. When Canadian was taken over by Air Canada, Gregg Saretsky was 39 years old. He left after 12 years at the company, VP of Marketing as his final position.

drgmobile wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

To me the problem was allowing the previous guy to run the airline. He was known for his mishandling of Canadian Airlines and working with Alaska during their trouble periods.

Clive Beddoe warned against the 767 overseas ops back when they first announced it and it seems ever since that expansion and the 787 thing, it’s done more bad than good.

Not sure how you could blame Gregg Saretsky deserves for "mishandling" of Canadian Airlines. He wasn't running the company. When Canadian was taken over by Air Canada, Gregg Saretsky was 39 years old. He left after 12 years at the company, VP of Marketing as his final position.

Ask any of the employees at the time (like longhauler). The company required many bailout discussions... it was the areas he worked in that contributed to their downfall at the time. As I always say, it’s not the must the managing general who’s to blame but it’s the lieutenants around him that share in the responsibility. It’s almost to easy to show the similarities between CDN and WS.

sixtyseven wrote:

767333ER wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

A huge contributing factor to that is WestJet does not oversell their cabins at all, so the likelihood of every single seat being filled is exceptionally low taking into account misconnects, no-shows, changes and cancellations. I can tell you, actually having access to load factor information on both carriers that they generally perform pretty similarly on competing routes. I can't honestly say I have seen much difference between the two in terms of average loads, one might be full one day, the other might be full the next. WestJet also tends to use larger equipment on non-trunk routes, places like Victoria for example see a lot of jet service where as AC is almost entirely Q400s. Of course, place each like Quebec are the opposite, but that adds to the point that each have their stronger regions, but in general are competitive.

With all due respect, nice try, but I know people with access to the load information as their getting to work and getting home every week depends on it and they paint a very different picture. The route that comes to mind for me is between YYC and YVR for example. AC runs anything from A319 to A321 on that route and WS runs anything from 736 to 738 and the WS flights are almost always more empty than just no-shows and missed connections. There’s very little way of denying that their load factors are lower, at least on the routes I’m familiar with.

Commuting AC pilots love WestJet. Can always get on. Especially between yyz/yvr, yyz/yyc, ywg/yyz, yul/yvr.

Always a seat. And they’ve always treated us kindly.

Excactly right!

CFM565A1 wrote:

Ask any of the employees at the time (like longhauler). The company required many bailout discussions... it was the areas he worked in that contributed to their downfall at the time. As I always say, it’s not the must the managing general who’s to blame but it’s the lieutenants around him that share in the responsibility. It’s almost too easy to show the similarities between CDN and WS.

I have never considered that Gregg Saretsky was in any way responsible for the downfall of Canadian Airlines. In fact, the management team at the end, headed by Kevin Benson, was first rate. However, they were handed the helm of the Titanic about 20 seconds before it hit the iceberg.

Yet, looking from an internal front row seat, Saretsky should have been aware of the downfalls and failures of trying to resurrect another Canadian Airlines.

longhauler wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

Ask any of the employees at the time (like longhauler). The company required many bailout discussions... it was the areas he worked in that contributed to their downfall at the time. As I always say, it’s not the must the managing general who’s to blame but it’s the lieutenants around him that share in the responsibility. It’s almost too easy to show the similarities between CDN and WS.

I have never considered that Gregg Saretsky was in any way responsible for the downfall of Canadian Airlines. In fact, the management team at the end, headed by Kevin Benson, was first rate. However, they were handed the helm of the Titanic about 20 seconds before it hit the iceberg.

Yet, looking from an internal front row seat, Saretsky should have been aware of the downfalls and failures of trying to resurrect another Canadian Airlines.

Yes and that was my poor wording, I was referring to your experience with management in a whole...

From reading other aviation forums it appears that Saretsky played a large part in the poisoning of labour relations at WestJet. One has to wonder what sort of position they would be in if they had sent him much sooner?

Westjet's new 787 business class is beautiful....yet on the flipside, they charge for meals on long-haul in Y. Fly 10 hours YVR to LGW and a meal with wine and snacks will put you back $30. So, are they a full service business class airline or an LCC? If someone was dropped from another planet and had to guess I could see their confusion.

alan3 wrote:

Westjet's new 787 business class is beautiful....yet on the flipside, they charge for meals on long-haul in Y. Fly 10 hours YVR to LGW and a meal with wine and snacks will put you back $30. So, are they a full service business class airline or an LCC? If someone was dropped from another planet and had to guess I could see their confusion.

I too find this confusing. I'm wondering if they might change to meals included after they move to the 787's. But, what to do in the transition period? In any case, their transatlantic flights are not priced like an LCC, unless you happen to catch a good sale.

While it's a bit nitpicky, the meals thing is a good example of a lack of clear direction, IMHO.

aerolimani wrote:

alan3 wrote:

Westjet's new 787 business class is beautiful....yet on the flipside, they charge for meals on long-haul in Y. Fly 10 hours YVR to LGW and a meal with wine and snacks will put you back $30. So, are they a full service business class airline or an LCC? If someone was dropped from another planet and had to guess I could see their confusion.

I too find this confusing. I'm wondering if they might change to meals included after they move to the 787's. But, what to do in the transition period? In any case, their transatlantic flights are not priced like an LCC, unless you happen to catch a good sale.

While it's a bit nitpicky, the meals thing is a good example of a lack of clear direction, IMHO.

But the expectation of free meals is tied to the traditions of legacy airlines, not the reality of the marketplace. WS is introducing a new product in order to appeal to a certain flyer that they couldn't before...not necessarily to upgrade their services globally. J flyers are sensitive to hard and soft product, so they align it with AC. Y flyers are price sensitive, so they align it to their LCC standards. Customers won't be disappointed because that's what WS offered already. AFAIK, Y customers are free to opt for PE if they want free meals and more space on their flights.

aerolimani wrote:

alan3 wrote:

Westjet's new 787 business class is beautiful....yet on the flipside, they charge for meals on long-haul in Y. Fly 10 hours YVR to LGW and a meal with wine and snacks will put you back $30. So, are they a full service business class airline or an LCC? If someone was dropped from another planet and had to guess I could see their confusion.

I too find this confusing. I'm wondering if they might change to meals included after they move to the 787's. But, what to do in the transition period? In any case, their transatlantic flights are not priced like an LCC, unless you happen to catch a good sale.

While it's a bit nitpicky, the meals thing is a good example of a lack of clear direction, IMHO.

It's yet to be seen if that will continue with the introduction of the 787. If I had to guess, I would speculate that meals will be included in Your fares on 787 flights, and likely all internationals beyond North America for consisistency sake.