karan69 wrote:

Any idea why they pulled out the Bom-yyz flight from S19 schedule, despite announcing a frequency increase from 3 to 4 weekly services?

Karan

Per the analyst conference call for the Q3 results, it is a seasonal suspension because it was not meeting expectations during that period of time and the a/c was reassigned to YVR.

B748eye wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Frankly, anything else would be a major embarrassment considering Air Canada is basically operating a monopoly the way the government protects the air routes.

This guy ......

Back in this neat space called reality, WS are deferring MAX8s bc they can't deploy them profitably. US3 are slashing USA<>CAN routes/frequencies every quarter

No doubt, due to the Cdn gov't again ...... "protecting the air routes"

This reminds me of situations where we take pity on those who are uninformed making normative statements.

Little does he/she understand that the depreciated Canadian $ is an economic headwind for the US3, hence why they cut capacity to Canada.

Little does he/she understand that WS is western based, which has been hit hard by the recent oil crash. Air Canada on the other hand, has a stronger presence in Eastern Canada, which has performed better in recent years. AC’s surge in markets such as YUL is a great example of their strong performance.

Only the ignorant would resort to reasonings such as “government control”

My sense is that AC is increasingly better managed and has become more efficient than ever. They got out of heavy maintenance, achieved labour peace, automated many tasks, modernized the fleet, whacked back Westjet and so on. As an old timer the transformation from what AC was back in the twentieth century is simply amazing (for the better) to witness.

As far as the Emirates issue goes not too many Canadians would go to bat for them these days for a host of reasons, myself included.

aviationaware wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

AC's domestic market share is around 45%. Westjet's is around 25%. As a comparison, the Lufthansa group's domestic market share in Germany is 87%.

Comparing the domestic markets of Canada and Germany is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Lufthansa's main competitor on domestic routes is the railway, which is not included in your number. Of course there are plenty of people travelling Vancouver to Toronto by train in Canada, right?

Also, why are you so hung up on the domestic market? Domestic did not even contribute a third to Air Canada's revenue last year.

B748eye wrote:

No doubt, due to the Cdn gov't again ...... "protecting the air routes"

Air Canada is the only legacy airline that's virtually unscathed by the ME3 competition, because there is no competition for Air Canada. They can't fly even daily to a single destination in Canada. How silly is this? Just another example of Ottawa's blatant regulatory protectionism. Thank god Trump at least broke that on some fronts last month with USMCA. The Canadian consumers are paying the price for this corporate welfare queen aka Air Canada.

Emoji with a violin playing!

Spare us with your innuendos and false statements. US3 has every right to fly anywhere in a Canada as they please. However, the strong US$ which has been surging due to rising US interest rates, is it making it harder to achieve profitability when converting CAD$ to USD$. If you can’t understand that, then your extremely gullible and partial to trump’s false rhetoric.

BTW, what did trump achieve?? 0,6% more acces (up from the previous 3%) access to the dairy markets? (Full disclosure I support free trade for dipairy, and disagree with supply management). Smoke and mirrors...it’s simply NAFTA 2.0

longhauler wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

They aren't adding new international routes anywhere really, they simply don't have any more aircraft to do so. Expansion will be contingent on acquisition of more aircraft and YYZ expanding.

It almost appears that the GTAA is doing the same thing. Yes, things are tight at YYZ, but it's not like no one knew this was going to happen. By slowing the expansion, then they are a better fit during the down cycle. Unlike, say YYC, with a huge new terminal ... and no customers. Or like Westjet with forays into the unknown, just time time for the next recession.

That's a very good point about the GTAA. They're moving away from their previous approach, where each expansion was in the multi-billion-dollar range, and moving toward greater flexibility with the ability to add a half-dozen gates at a time. We saw that recently with the new transborder gates in the renovated "tin terminal" area. They're in touch with the airlines and are going to keep expansion closely tied to the airlines' capacity increases. They never again want to get into the situation where they have 50% excess capacity that takes years to work through, and the highest landing fees in the world that come with it. The last thing they'd want to have happen is to have a $2 billion new pier opening in two years, right after AC just cut 10% of its flights due to a recession.

[photoid][/photoid]

SuperTwin wrote:

karan69 wrote:

Any idea why they pulled out the Bom-yyz flight from S19 schedule, despite announcing a frequency increase from 3 to 4 weekly services?

Karan

Per the analyst conference call for the Q3 results, it is a seasonal suspension because it was not meeting expectations during that period of time and the a/c was reassigned to YVR.

Many thanks for the reply, was looking forward to flying them In May, unfortunately wont happen now,
I as especially curious as they had announced am increase in frequency few weeks ago

Regards/

Karan

Don't think I've ever agreed with aviationaware on anything but he's not wrong here. The Government's own review of the Canadian Transportation Act echoes his views:

"Since 2006, Canada’s balanced approach to determining the national interest seems to have emphasized Air Canada’s well-being as the starting point; from there, any relaxation of policy to allow foreign airlines added access has apparently been measured against its potentially negative impact on Air Canada’s existing, and potential, routes.

This contrasts with the international air policies of most of Canada’s peers, where, consumer interests have been given a more prominent role in determining the shape of aviation pol­icy, and of the national interest. Canadian consumers and the local economy are the ones bearing the cost of the current approach."

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ctareview2014/CTAR_Vol2_EN.pdf

Don't need a degree in rocket science to figure out how easy it is to make money when your competitors can be locked out for threatening your profit margin.

Safe to say, then, that AC made good money over the busiest travel quarter of the year, partly due to Government policy being skewed in its favour - more protection and less stringent pilot fatigue safety regulations than the Australia, EU and the US. Amazing.

As for the ME3 issue, always chuckle when the same folk who spredicted QF's demise because of Australia's more competitive policy, think they they still have any credibility on the issue. How's QF doing these days? I hear their product is superior to AC's across the board. Must be the lack of regulatory capture in Australia.

ElPistolero wrote:

How's QF doing these days? I hear their product is superior to AC's across the board.

Their longhaul J class seats certainly aren't.

Trip wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

How's QF doing these days? I hear their product is superior to AC's across the board.

Their longhaul J class seats certainly aren't.

And yet the same rankings that AC likes quoting to pat itself on the back have somehow decided that QF business is the 6th best in the world while AC doesn't even make the top 20.

Maybe the rankings aren't credible. AC seems to think they are:

https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2018-07 ... wards-2018

Same for Y. Which is what the vast majority of consumers experience. Imagine how much money QF would be making if they had AC levels of protection? How much money would AC make if they had QF levels of competition?

These AC results, in isolation, mean as much as a Canadian telecom company's profits mean for their ability to compete outside Canada (i.e. not a lot - Bell ain't exactly Vodafone, eh?)

ElPistolero wrote:

And yet the same rankings that AC likes quoting to pat itself on the back have somehow decided that QF business is the 6th best in the world while AC doesn't even make the top 20. )

I can only speak to my own experience, but QF business class on its ancient 744 with middle seats doesn't even begin to compete with AC's product which is 100% aisle access across the longhaul fleet. I have never seen that on a Qantas aircraft although I haven't flown their 787 yet.

Some might prefer other aspects of the QF product. To each their own, but QF's very outdated longhaul J seats don't make for a better product "across the board".

Trip wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

And yet the same rankings that AC likes quoting to pat itself on the back have somehow decided that QF business is the 6th best in the world while AC doesn't even make the top 20. )

I can only speak to my own experience, but QF business class on its ancient 744 with middle seats doesn't even begin to compete with AC's product which is 100% aisle access across the longhaul fleet. I have never seen that on a Qantas aircraft although I haven't flown their 787 yet.

Some might prefer other aspects of the QF product. To each their own, but QF's very outdated longhaul J seats don't make for a better product "across the board".

Ok, lets turn that into "more or less" across the board. I suspect cabin cleanliness factors in too. What would AC's profit margins look like if it invested as much as QF (or LH for that matter) on keeping its planes clean?

We ought to distinguish between airlines that cab both provide a high level of service and maintain profitability in a relatively competitive market, and those that can only attain profitability by cutting service standards in a relatively protected market. A lot more difficult to achieve the former than the latter.

ElPistolero wrote:

Trip wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Some airlines can provide a certain standard of service and still make a decent profit. Others make money by cutting service standards.

Or by stuffing people who pay longhaul J class fares into middle seats between 2 strangers.

Trip wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Trip wrote:

Or by stuffing people who pay longhaul J class fares into middle seats between 2 strangers.

Somehow I doubt QF's profits are down to filling middle J seats on 9 aircraft that will be gone in a couple of years. But ok.

QF somehow gets more people to part with their money than AC. Larger premium cabins - even F cabins. AC doesn't seem to be as successful with premium pax, eh? Some of the AC 77Ws have as few J seats as QF 333s. What gives? I'm sure AC would prefer more premium pax - it works pretty well for LH and the like.

ElPistolero wrote:

Trip wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Or by stuffing people who pay longhaul J class fares into middle seats between 2 strangers.

Somehow I doubt QF's profits are down to filling middle J seats on 9 aircraft that will be gone in a couple of years. But ok.

QF somehow gets more people to part with their money than AC. Larger premium cabins - even F cabins. AC doesn't seem to be as successful with premium pax, eh? Some of the AC 77Ws have as few J seats as QF 333s. What gives? I'm sure AC would prefer more premium pax - it works pretty well for LH and the like.

I'm not interested in a debate on why different airlines carry different numbers of premium pax. I was merely addressing your assertion that QF's product was better than AC's "across the board". Like many J fliers I care primarily about how much space I get, and whether I have direct aisle access. Although I like QF their longhaul J product is vastly inferior to AC's as far as I'm concerned. If you enjoy cramped, high density J configurations you'll probably prefer LH or BA or indeed QF. Again, to each their own.

Trip wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Trip wrote:

Or by stuffing people who pay longhaul J class fares into middle seats between 2 strangers.

I'm not interested in a debate on why different airlines carry different numbers of premium pax. I was merely addressing your assertion that QF's product was better than AC's "across the board". Like many J fliers I care primarily about how much space I get, and whether I have direct aisle access. Although I like QF their longhaul J product is vastly inferior to AC's as far as I'm concerned. If you enjoy cramped, high density J configurations you'll probably prefer LH or BA or indeed QF. Again, to each their own.

Then what was the point of your previous quote (also posted above)? I seem to be under the impression that it has something to do with revenue generation and profitability. Was it a post meant to convey no thought?

ElPistolero wrote:

Was it a post meant to convey no thought?

It was meant to convey the thought that I find AC's J cabin layout to be more pleasant to travel in than QF's, and to convey my opinion that QF's product is thus not better than AC's across the board as you claim (or claimed before you revised it). This is my last post on the topic.

Trip wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Was it a post meant to convey no thought?

It was meant to convey the thought that I find AC's J cabin layout to be more pleasant to travel in than QF's, and to convey my opinion that QF's product is thus not better than AC's across the board as you claim (or claimed before you revised it). This is my last post on the topic.

And you did that in your first post. Rendering your second post ...pointless at best?

As for QF being superior to AC across the board, that is the conclusion drawn by the very same folk AC considers credible enough to quote. QF is no 11 in the world according to them. AC is...30?

That AC has managed to turn a large profit with a relatively inferior overall product in a relatively more protected market isn't really noteworthy. It would be shocking if they managed anything else.

I challenge anyone to name a market other than the UAE/Qatar where AC is "protected"that actually warrants more service.

As for the product debate, look at the markets, AC continues to win best airline in North America, their home market, year after year. Their Premium cabin is quite strong by world standards, and their Y is certainly no worse than other supposed premium carriers, I just came off a TATL trip, Swiss A333 Y across, AC 77W Y back, and I can tell you AC was miles better, better legroom, service was comperable, slightly more on Swiss, much faster on AC, so, pick your poison.

You want to talk cabin sizes, AC is generally right around the average when it comes to Premium Cabin sizes, 40 for the 77W, which is in line with many carriers around the world, 30 for the 789/A333 (A333 new config will be 32). They have a relatively premium heavy 77L for longer routes, which is comperable to the QF 789, and they have Higher density 77Ws, and relatively high density 788s to serve lower premium markets. Nose to tail IFE in all mainline aircraft, cabins being refitted across the board, I fail to see how they are all that different from anyone else.

ElPistolero wrote:

Don't think I've ever agreed with aviationaware on anything but he's not wrong here. The Government's own review of the Canadian Transportation Act echoes his views:

"Since 2006, Canada’s balanced approach to determining the national interest seems to have emphasized Air Canada’s well-being as the starting point; from there, any relaxation of policy to allow foreign airlines added access has apparently been measured against its potentially negative impact on Air Canada’s existing, and potential, routes.

This contrasts with the international air policies of most of Canada’s peers, where, consumer interests have been given a more prominent role in determining the shape of aviation pol­icy, and of the national interest. Canadian consumers and the local economy are the ones bearing the cost of the current approach."

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ctareview2014/CTAR_Vol2_EN.pdf

Don't need a degree in rocket science to figure out how easy it is to make money when your competitors can be locked out for threatening your profit margin.

Safe to say, then, that AC made good money over the busiest travel quarter of the year, partly due to Government policy being skewed in its favour - more protection and less stringent pilot fatigue safety regulations than the Australia, EU and the US. Amazing.

As for the ME3 issue, always chuckle when the same folk who spredicted QF's demise because of Australia's more competitive policy, think they they still have any credibility on the issue. How's QF doing these days? I hear their product is superior to AC's across the board. Must be the lack of regulatory capture in Australia.

Fake news.

The quote you provide is not from the "government's own review". Rather, it's a quote from a CAPA submission to the review.

An actual quote from the actual review is the following:

According to Transport Canada, only 3 percent of existing international traffic falls under agreements that pose practical constraints on carriers’ business plans. Much of that business is with the increasingly important global hubs of Turkey, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. Canada also does not have fully open agreements with important trade partners, such as China, India, and Mexico (though the limits on the agreements may not pose practical constraints on carriers’ current business plans). Agreements are likely to limit traffic either because the Government Canada has determined that there are risks due to safety, security or unfair competition, or Canada has proposed a more liberal air services agreement, but the offer has been declined by the other country.

Canada has resisted increasing access to fast growing competitors in Turkey and the Gulf on the basis of a lack of demand for direct travel. However, Canada has pursued open agreements in other equivalently-sized markets when Canadian carriers have expressed commercial interests. In the former cases, Canada responded to market growth by granting increased access in increments of 1 or 2 weekly flights at a time. Some industry observers believe such moves may have been calculated to make expansion into the market more awkward and costly.

So rather than the government's review agreeing with you it merely acknowledges that "some industry observers" agree with you. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your position.

edmountain wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Don't think I've ever agreed with aviationaware on anything but he's not wrong here. The Government's own review of the Canadian Transportation Act echoes his views:

"Since 2006, Canada’s balanced approach to determining the national interest seems to have emphasized Air Canada’s well-being as the starting point; from there, any relaxation of policy to allow foreign airlines added access has apparently been measured against its potentially negative impact on Air Canada’s existing, and potential, routes.

This contrasts with the international air policies of most of Canada’s peers, where, consumer interests have been given a more prominent role in determining the shape of aviation pol­icy, and of the national interest. Canadian consumers and the local economy are the ones bearing the cost of the current approach."

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ctareview2014/CTAR_Vol2_EN.pdf

Don't need a degree in rocket science to figure out how easy it is to make money when your competitors can be locked out for threatening your profit margin.

Safe to say, then, that AC made good money over the busiest travel quarter of the year, partly due to Government policy being skewed in its favour - more protection and less stringent pilot fatigue safety regulations than the Australia, EU and the US. Amazing.

As for the ME3 issue, always chuckle when the same folk who spredicted QF's demise because of Australia's more competitive policy, think they they still have any credibility on the issue. How's QF doing these days? I hear their product is superior to AC's across the board. Must be the lack of regulatory capture in Australia.

Fake news.

The quote you provide is not from the "government's own review". Rather, it's a quote from a CAPA submission to the review.

An actual quote from the actual review is the following:

According to Transport Canada, only 3 percent of existing international traffic falls under agreements that pose practical constraints on carriers’ business plans. Much of that business is with the increasingly important global hubs of Turkey, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. Canada also does not have fully open agreements with important trade partners, such as China, India, and Mexico (though the limits on the agreements may not pose practical constraints on carriers’ current business plans). Agreements are likely to limit traffic either because the Government Canada has determined that there are risks due to safety, security or unfair competition, or Canada has proposed a more liberal air services agreement, but the offer has been declined by the other country.

Canada has resisted increasing access to fast growing competitors in Turkey and the Gulf on the basis of a lack of demand for direct travel. However, Canada has pursued open agreements in other equivalently-sized markets when Canadian carriers have expressed commercial interests. In the former cases, Canada responded to market growth by granting increased access in increments of 1 or 2 weekly flights at a time. Some industry observers believe such moves may have been calculated to make expansion into the market more awkward and costly.

So rather than the government's review agreeing with you it merely acknowledges that "some industry observers" agree with you. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your position.

The loudmouth won’t concede anything. Don’t waste your time.

You can’t compare 2 different airlines in 2 different countries (with their own challenges and nuances) like for like. I know the poster probably won’t be able to wrap their head around that either.

*BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND*

Will be interesting to watch the short haul network be refined and expanded over the next 2-3 yrs with the additional 737-8s (and maybe the trade-up of 11x -9s to the -10s) and the delivery of the A220s.

It interests me because I see the further expansion of the shorthaul network as the impetus for a new round of longhaul route launches. Ones which would depend heavily on connection traffic to open otherwise non-viable routes.

Done wisely, this should push the corporate strategy of driving international connection traffic over AC hubs forward and further push-up top line improvements.

whywhyzee wrote:

I challenge anyone to name a market other than the UAE/Qatar where AC is "protected"that actually warrants more service..

You'll have to explain what you mean first. It's obvious that a market can be fully served and protected at the same time. Those are not mutually exclusive conditions. Witness telecoms/dairy/banking in Canada.

Also, what role (if any) does consumer preference play in this. Is a market fully/adequately/whatever served if a product is available, even if that product isn't what a consumer is looking for? Or does that only apply when the consumer gets what he wants?

Any airline can make money when a government forces a certain chunk of the population to fly them by restricting competitors capacity.

whywhyzee wrote:

As for the product debate, look at the markets, AC continues to win best airline in North America, their home market, year after year. Their Premium cabin is quite strong by world standards, and their Y is certainly no worse than other supposed premium carriers, I just came off a TATL trip, Swiss A333 Y across, AC 77W Y back, and I can tell you AC was miles better, better legroom, service was comperable, slightly more on Swiss, much faster on AC, so, pick your poison.

You want to talk cabin sizes, AC is generally right around the average when it comes to Premium Cabin sizes, 40 for the 77W, which is in line with many carriers around the world, 30 for the 789/A333 (A333 new config will be 32). They have a relatively premium heavy 77L for longer routes, which is comperable to the QF 789, and they have Higher density 77Ws, and relatively high density 788s to serve lower premium markets. Nose to tail IFE in all mainline aircraft, cabins being refitted across the board, I fail to see how they are all that different from anyone else.

And yet the same folk who ranked AC the best in North America, rank AC 30th in the world to LX's 12th. First time I've heard anyone claim a 3-4-3 77W with 31" pitch has more legroom/is more comfortable than a 2-4-2 330 with a 31" pitch, but okay.

I agree that AC has been "favoured" by Federal government policies in Canada for like-forever. It was spawned as a state owned enterprise. There is a lot of historical baggage but on the other hand I'm impressed at how they've evolved creatively in an increasingly competitive and open civil aviation global context. They are holding their own and I'd say even gaining ground. I'm not sure how "more competition" could be implemented in Canada other than the aforementioned extra daily flight or two for south Asian VFR traffic via Dubai/Doha. In the meantime AC is competing with many other world class airlines decently well.

edmountain wrote:

Fake news.

The quote you provide is not from the "government's own review". Rather, it's a quote from a CAPA submission to the review.

An actual quote from the actual review is the following:

According to Transport Canada, only 3 percent of existing international traffic falls under agreements that pose practical constraints on carriers’ business plans. Much of that business is with the increasingly important global hubs of Turkey, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. Canada also does not have fully open agreements with important trade partners, such as China, India, and Mexico (though the limits on the agreements may not pose practical constraints on carriers’ current business plans). Agreements are likely to limit traffic either because the Government Canada has determined that there are risks due to safety, security or unfair competition, or Canada has proposed a more liberal air services agreement, but the offer has been declined by the other country.

Canada has resisted increasing access to fast growing competitors in Turkey and the Gulf on the basis of a lack of demand for direct travel. However, Canada has pursued open agreements in other equivalently-sized markets when Canadian carriers have expressed commercial interests. In the former cases, Canada responded to market growth by granting increased access in increments of 1 or 2 weekly flights at a time. Some industry observers believe such moves may have been calculated to make expansion into the market more awkward and costly.

So rather than the government's review agreeing with you it merely acknowledges that "some industry observers" agree with you. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your position.

The report has endorsed it by including it ad verbatim as the basis for his recommendations in the report (volume 1), but I see your point and it's fair. So let's focus on the reports own words:

"The world is moving towards an open market for air services. Canada’s approach has outlived its usefulness and now renders our air services less competitive, less trade-friendly, and more costly than those of our global competitors.
...
Maintaining the status quo presents the risk of continued decline in market share and a weakened economy, due to the higher costs of air travel that follow from a lack of competition"

And then there's the recommendations:

* a minimum allowance of seven ights per week (7/7 daily service) for each of the air carriers designated by all new and existing air services agreements with any safe and secure partner; 

* all subsequent increases in air access in increments of at least seven ights per week, per designated air carrier; 

* consider agreements that incorporate automatic planned increases in capacity to allow for stimulation of demand, with established timelines for moving towards “open skies;”

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ctareview2014/CTAR_Vol1_EN.pdf

Recommendation 1 and 2, as I'm sure you'll have noticed, directly address the issue raised by "some industry observers" (less than daily frequencies). Evidently the Government's own review shares/endorses those views to the extent that it uses them as the basis for its recommendation.

Not exactly fake news, is it? Certainly not compared to AC's glitzy webpage on what Australian policies have done to QF. Pity they took it down.

SuperTwin wrote:

edmountain wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Don't think I've ever agreed with aviationaware on anything but he's not wrong here. The Government's own review of the Canadian Transportation Act echoes his views:

"Since 2006, Canada’s balanced approach to determining the national interest seems to have emphasized Air Canada’s well-being as the starting point; from there, any relaxation of policy to allow foreign airlines added access has apparently been measured against its potentially negative impact on Air Canada’s existing, and potential, routes.

This contrasts with the international air policies of most of Canada’s peers, where, consumer interests have been given a more prominent role in determining the shape of aviation pol­icy, and of the national interest. Canadian consumers and the local economy are the ones bearing the cost of the current approach."

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ctareview2014/CTAR_Vol2_EN.pdf

Don't need a degree in rocket science to figure out how easy it is to make money when your competitors can be locked out for threatening your profit margin.

Safe to say, then, that AC made good money over the busiest travel quarter of the year, partly due to Government policy being skewed in its favour - more protection and less stringent pilot fatigue safety regulations than the Australia, EU and the US. Amazing.

As for the ME3 issue, always chuckle when the same folk who spredicted QF's demise because of Australia's more competitive policy, think they they still have any credibility on the issue. How's QF doing these days? I hear their product is superior to AC's across the board. Must be the lack of regulatory capture in Australia.

Fake news.

The quote you provide is not from the "government's own review". Rather, it's a quote from a CAPA submission to the review.

An actual quote from the actual review is the following:

According to Transport Canada, only 3 percent of existing international traffic falls under agreements that pose practical constraints on carriers’ business plans. Much of that business is with the increasingly important global hubs of Turkey, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. Canada also does not have fully open agreements with important trade partners, such as China, India, and Mexico (though the limits on the agreements may not pose practical constraints on carriers’ current business plans). Agreements are likely to limit traffic either because the Government Canada has determined that there are risks due to safety, security or unfair competition, or Canada has proposed a more liberal air services agreement, but the offer has been declined by the other country.

Canada has resisted increasing access to fast growing competitors in Turkey and the Gulf on the basis of a lack of demand for direct travel. However, Canada has pursued open agreements in other equivalently-sized markets when Canadian carriers have expressed commercial interests. In the former cases, Canada responded to market growth by granting increased access in increments of 1 or 2 weekly flights at a time. Some industry observers believe such moves may have been calculated to make expansion into the market more awkward and costly.

So rather than the government's review agreeing with you it merely acknowledges that "some industry observers" agree with you. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your position.

The loudmouth won’t concede anything. Don’t waste your time.

You can’t compare 2 different airlines in 2 different countries (with their own challenges and nuances) like for like. I know the poster probably won’t be able to wrap their head around that either.

*BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND*

Will be interesting to watch the short haul network be refined and expanded over the next 2-3 yrs with the additional 737-8s (and maybe the trade-up of 11x -9s to the -10s) and the delivery of the A220s.

It interests me because I see the further expansion of the shorthaul network as the impetus for a new round of longhaul route launches. Ones which would depend heavily on connection traffic to open otherwise non-viable routes.

Done wisely, this should push the corporate strategy of driving international connection traffic over AC hubs forward and further push-up top line improvements.

My point wasn't to start a QF v AC debate (although I stumbled into it in a fit of absent-mindedness). It's simpler than that:

- AC operates in a relatively more protected market - and with more advantageous rules in some cases (pilot fatigue comes to mind), than most other developed economy markets, which undoubtedly boosts its financial performance more than it would if it were subject to the same conditions as the rest of them.

- the credibility of certain posters on the competitiveness of the Canadian market is undermined by their apparent misreading (I'm being generous) of how Australia's more liberal policies would turn QF into a basket case.

- As such, these numbers don't mean much. Any airline should be able to make good money in these conditions. It's would be nice if they pulled a DL and invested some of those profits in improving the Y product too - what with Y pax accounting for the bulk of their customers.

cf105arrow wrote:

cf105arrow wrote:

WildcatYXU wrote:

To all of those who try to deny AC is not monopoly position: Try to book an YXU - YVR RT flight in J 2 weeks out: You'll get to roughly to 4500 CAD. Where else you can charge that for a 2200 sm flight?

https://www.expedia.ca/Flights-Search?f ... tinlap%3AY

Went on expedia and got multiple routing via ac and westjet starting at $761 (Westjet) and $771 (AC)

OK in J it is expensive but because Westjet doesn't offer it!

Yup, which is why you can enjoy 37 minutes of J on YUL-YOW for over $500 one-way. Monopoly pricing.

When WS or PD show up to a monopoly, the prices in the expensive fare buckets plummet and traffic soars. Take YFC-YYJ for example.

ElPistolero wrote:

Trip wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

How's QF doing these days? I hear their product is superior to AC's across the board.

Their longhaul J class seats certainly aren't.

And yet the same rankings that AC likes quoting to pat itself on the back have somehow decided that QF business is the 6th best in the world while AC doesn't even make the top 20.

Maybe the rankings aren't credible. AC seems to think they are:

https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2018-07 ... wards-2018

Same for Y. Which is what the vast majority of consumers experience. Imagine how much money QF would be making if they had AC levels of protection? How much money would AC make if they had QF levels of competition?

These AC results, in isolation, mean as much as a Canadian telecom company's profits mean for their ability to compete outside Canada (i.e. not a lot - Bell ain't exactly Vodafone, eh?)

Fair enough but in AC’s defence, how much glycol and winter weather does QF our I/deal with each year compared with AC? The answer is not much.

Sorry above should have said YFC-YYZ...dang autocorrect!

Samrnpage wrote:

You have to remember the population of Canada is less than half of the UKs. Its a tiny population for such a big country so there isnt a massive need for more airlines.

Unless the UK’s population has suddenly exploded to 75 million, Canada has had more than half the UK’s population for quite a while. Indeed though that we also have more than 40 times the land mass of other UK’s tiny mass.

longhauler wrote:

I think a lot of people on this site would be surprised to note that there are a few who will use any subject to segue to their own intended focus. Take a thread about meals or baggage and make it into a thread about governmental restrictions on Emirati carriers. Sometimes it is kind of funny to watch.

I usually find it best to chuckle to myself ... "oh, it's him again, under another name" ... roll my eyes, shake my head and walk away.

you nailed that one right on the the money

it didn't take long for the "usuals" under various accounts to turn the message string into a soapbox for their usual prattling and gurgling

i can't imagine what they hope to gain by page long messages citing dubious sources. do they actually think anyone other than an airline fan reads these messages? and even an airline fan doesn't care

CrewBunk wrote:

longhauler wrote:

I think a lot of people on this site would be surprised to note that there are a few who will use any subject to segue to their own intended focus. Take a thread about meals or baggage and make it into a thread about governmental restrictions on Emirati carriers. Sometimes it is kind of funny to watch.

I usually find it best to chuckle to myself ... "oh, it's him again, under another name" ... roll my eyes, shake my head and walk away.

you nailed that one right on the the money

it didn't take long for the "usuals" under various accounts to turn the message string into a soapbox for their usual prattling and gurgling

i can't imagine what they hope to gain by page long messages citing dubious sources. do they actually think anyone other than an airline fan reads these messages? and even an airline fan doesn't care

Oh, you know, just trying to inject some objectivity into a thread about profitability. Doesn't take much to be profitable in a relatively protected market.

And while I admit the QF thing probably derailed it a bit, I'm not the only one who's guilty of doing that. Remember this?

"Rovinescu pointed to a common comparison case for Canada in the sphere of international affairs: Australia. He noted that Australia’s decision to over-pursue air travel agreements left Qantas, its domestic carrier, severely limited in its ability to compete internationally with airlines such as Emirates, resulting in the airline losing many international destinations outside of the Asia-Pacific region.

“Now, there is a choice for Australian customers (travelling abroad), as long as their choice is Dubai,” Rovinescu said."

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/busin ... story.html

Not sure how credible some folk's judgment on competition is when they believe things like that. Who cares? I don't know. How many views does this thread have? There's your answer.

longhauler wrote:

mdavies06 wrote:

Can we stop discussing about Germany and the UAE in this thread? This thread should be about the Q3 results.

I think a lot of people on this site would be surprised to note that there are a few who will use any subject to segue to their own intended focus. Take a thread about meals or baggage and make it into a thread about governmental restrictions on Emirati carriers. Sometimes it is kind of funny to watch.

Also, by using multiple accounts they can pretend to argue with themselves. "Gee, I hadn't thought about that. That's a good point".

I suspect they are using this site to try out their arguments first, just in case there are points or counterpoints they hadn't considered. Then, they go out into the real world and lobby as they intended. Or ... do these gentlemen, with their several accounts really think that Justin looks as this website and will change governmental policy based on their rants.

I usually find it best to chuckle to myself ... "oh, it's him again, under another name" ... roll my eyes, shake my head and walk away.

You are both absolutely right. These never-ending segues into ME3 discussions are tiresome. Some of these airline "philosophers" seem to think that AC's main market is Canada-India via the Middle East. Oh, and that old tired nugget...:"AC operates in a protected market b/c precious Emirates or Qatar is not allowed open skies into Canada". Give it a rest......