I can't help but think that WestJet is competing against itself with Swoop on some routes. Looking at YYZ-YHZ pricing and WestJet ends up being around the same price once Swoop carry on charges are factored in on most days booking in advance. Surely this is not sustainable for WS? Wouldn't it make more sense to have WO on some routes and WS on others, rather than competing against one another? Perhaps this has something to do with WS retreat back to the west? Maybe WO will be taking over a lot of former WS routes?

The first officer on WS729 YYZ-YVR had a medical issue last night and the flight diverted to Calgary, then cancelled. A deadheading captain came up to assist with landing, and the FO was taken to hospital. This will presumably be the overblown headline of a news article in the coming days.

1050flyer wrote:

I can't help but think that WestJet is competing against itself with Swoop on some routes. Looking at YYZ-YHZ pricing and WestJet ends up being around the same price once Swoop carry on charges are factored in on most days booking in advance. Surely this is not sustainable for WS? Wouldn't it make more sense to have WO on some routes and WS on others, rather than competing against one another? Perhaps this has something to do with WS retreat back to the west? Maybe WO will be taking over a lot of former WS routes?

What is odd is WS does not codeshare/interline on Swoop flights. Air Canada does it with Rouge.

Even worse Swoop operates no interlining at all. This makes it a crappy option from smaller centers. If you happen to be going where Swoop is on the day Swoop is flying the route then it works, otherwise you are back on WestJet or Air Canada. Swoop only makes sense out of larger centers or sun destinations. Not surprising they started to operate flights out of YYZ.

casperCA wrote:

What is odd is WS does not codeshare/interline on Swoop flights. Air Canada does it with Rouge.

This is a feature, not a bug, as they say.

Swoop is an entirely separate airline - different staff, different management structure, different fleet. They will likely take the Sunwing fleet.

Bonus: If I book WestJet PY, I get WestJet PY. I don't get "Swooped". Many a traveller in the east have booked AC on a nice aircraft only to discover it was replaced with an A319 Rouge aircraft.

YYCFlier wrote:

casperCA wrote:

What is odd is WS does not codeshare/interline on Swoop flights. Air Canada does it with Rouge.

This is a feature, not a bug, as they say.

Swoop is an entirely separate airline - different staff, different management structure, different fleet. They will likely take the Sunwing fleet.

Bonus: If I book WestJet PY, I get WestJet PY. I don't get "Swooped". Many a traveller in the east have booked AC on a nice aircraft only to discover it was replaced with an A319 Rouge aircraft.

This can be a double edged sword. An buddy of mine was booked on Swoop, YHM-YHZ. 12 hours before the flight, it was cancelled. When he asked if he could fly on WS out of YYZ he was told no ….. it’s a different company.

If a Rouge flight is canceled or delayed, they can fly on Air Canada as an alternative. Or, if a Rouge flight has issues, quite often Air Canada will substitute/rescue the passengers with a mainline operation, often operating at the same time with a different flight number.

The only time the opposite happens if during schedule change time if Rouge takes over a route and a Mainline, or Express route becomes a Rouge route. Passengers are offered a full refund if they desire.

Personally, I don’t see the issue with Rouge. It’s not an LCC, it’s a leisure airline. Coffee/tea, soft drinks, juice, water are all free as are snacks like cookies in the morning or pretzels during the day. Entertainment is streamed to your device with power ports at every seat. Great BOB is offered up to J class meals. Seats are an inch wider than a 737, leg room is an inch shorter.

CrewBunk wrote:

This can be a double edged sword. An buddy of mine was booked on Swoop, YHM-YHZ. 12 hours before the flight, it was cancelled. When he asked if he could fly on WS out of YYZ he was told no ….. it’s a different company.

If a Rouge flight is canceled or delayed, they can fly on Air Canada as an alternative. Or, if a Rouge flight has issues, quite often Air Canada will substitute/rescue the passengers with a mainline operation, often operating at the same time with a different flight number.

The only time the opposite happens if during schedule change time if Rouge takes over a route and a Mainline, or Express route becomes a Rouge route. Passengers are offered a full refund if they desire.

Personally, I don’t see the issue with Rouge. It’s not an LCC, it’s a leisure airline. Coffee/tea, soft drinks, juice, water are all free as are snacks like cookies in the morning or pretzels during the day. Entertainment is streamed to your device with power ports at every seat. Great BOB is offered up to J class meals. Seats are an inch wider than a 737, leg room is an inch shorter.

Certainly negates WO’s alleged “advantage” over the ULCCs on the IRROPs recovery front. Had lots of WS hacks on the ULCC threads claiming that WS would come to WO’s rescue during IRROPs. Wonder what’s driving WS’s decisions here? Is the Competition Bureau predatory pricing investigation putting pressure on them to make sure the two entities are seen as distinct? The more attention I pay to WS, the odder it’s behaviour seems.

As for Rouge, not sure where you’re going with this “leisure, not ULCC”. Anybody who’s had to endure those 29” pitch seats on a 3 hour + flight knows what type of carrier Rouge is. Trying to rebrand it as being more than what is risks taking us into a world in which Canada Jetlines qualifies as a full service simply because it offers free non alcoholic drinks, streaming IFE AND a choice of complimentary sweet or salty snack on 1.5h + flights. If you find anyone who believes Rouge isn’t an LCC (or Jetlines is an FSC), send them my way; I have a bridge to sell them.

Might be academic anyhow. I expect Rouge will soon start on board announcements about Skytrax naming it the best low cost airline in Canada (apparently the only award AC received this year). Won’t be able to spin that into “leisure”, since TS took that title.

Rouge was formed to compete with Transat, Sunwing, etc on leisure routes. Other than the abysmal leg room (on all carriers) the on board service is actually pretty good. Much like European “charter” airlines, like Edelweiss or Condor.

This is very different from the likes of Flair or Lynx, who weren’t even a concept yet, aiming at a different passenger. Although, ultimately all airlines will morph into the same ULCC as passengers continue to choose by fare.

I don’t know where Swoop sits though. Is it more like Flair or like Rouge?

I didn’t get to ask my friend, as his Swoop flight on Monday cancelled, rebooked Tuesday, that cancelled. He was offered Thursday, but while deciding, that cancelled. Finally booked on Friday to return on his original flight ….. on Friday. Giving him about 45 minutes in Halifax! He was not allowed to extend his return as he booked a non-refundable fare. He was not allowed a refund as he bought a “return” and they gave him a “return”. If Rouge tried that it would be all over Facebook.

CrewBunk wrote:

Rouge was formed to compete with Transat, Sunwing, etc on leisure routes. Other than the abysmal leg room (on all carriers) the on board service is actually pretty good. Much like European “charter” airlines, like Edelweiss or Condor.

This is very different from the likes of Flair or Lynx, who weren’t even a concept yet, aiming at a different passenger. Although, ultimately all airlines will morph into the same ULCC as passengers continue to choose by fare.

I don’t know where Swoop sits though. Is it more like Flair or like Rouge?

I didn’t get to ask my friend, as his Swoop flight on Monday cancelled, rebooked Tuesday, that cancelled. He was offered Thursday, but while deciding, that cancelled. Finally booked on Friday to return on his original flight ….. on Friday. Giving him about 45 minutes in Halifax! He was not allowed to extend his return as he booked a non-refundable fare. He was not allowed a refund as he bought a “return” and they gave him a “return”. If Rouge tried that it would be all over Facebook.

F8, Lynx and Swoop may not have existed then, but FR etc did. The ULCC concept was well known at the time. Rouge 767s were offering the same 30” pitch that DY (a self-declared ULCC) offered on its LH products. Granted AC 787s used on ULH routes also have a fairly large number of seats at 30” pitch (are there any/many other airlines with 30”pitch on 12h+ flights?), as do the 7M8s, so the difference between Canadian “mainline Y” and “leisure” and ULCC is an exercise in splitting hairs.

In that context, it’s not clear what “on board service” constitutes anymore. A free coke? Polite/relaxed crew? Streaming IFE? Those seem to be the norm across all carriers these days, even F8 has a streaming IFE deal with Super Channel. F8, Rouge, Jetlines, Lynx, WO - they’re all the same, with some splotches of lipstick here and there. WS and AC “mainline” aren’t that different either.

As for your friend’s troubles, didn’t the CTA just implement a new rule regarding 48 hour plus delays (refund or rebook on another airline)? Notwithstanding CTA’s penchant for including A380 sized loopholes, he might have a solid case here. If he gets through to the WS call center.

Let me try a different tack.

If each airline weren’t giving the customer what the customer wanted, they wouldn’t still be here. I am old enough to remember when Transat was new. Using 225 seat 757s and 10 abreast L1011s competing against the polar opposite, Wardair, I didn’t like their odds. Yet … who is here, and who isn’t?

Rouge’s load factors and repeat rates are impressive, and noteworthy. I mentioned them only as true to airliners.net form, they are maligned, but as I recently flew on them, YYZ-PHX-YYZ, I honestly didn’t find it that bad. Customer expectations were met.

Same with Flair, et al. Customer expectations met. As I visit Arizona a lot, if Flair ever did start YYZ-TUS, I’d give them a try, but I certainly wouldn’t expect the same experience as Rouge.

But, as I continually say, the on board experience, is not everything the customer expects. For example, I recently flew on Emirates from YYZ to BOM. I think their product is fine. Convenient schedules, a seamless transfer through DXB, and quick flight to BOM. That was my expectation, that is what I got. My on board experience, (I was flying J)? YYZ-DXB, was fine, DXB-BOM was horrendous. Did I care? No. They gave me what I wanted, a safe, trouble free trip to India.

Same thing with Flair, Westjet, Rouge, Air Canada. We will know in 12 months how successful they are. If Flair lasts the winter, (and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t), I give them better than even odds at long term survival. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the on board experience.

CrewBunk wrote:

Let me try a different tack.

If each airline weren’t giving the customer what the customer wanted, they wouldn’t still be here. I am old enough to remember when Transat was new. Using 225 seat 757s and 10 abreast L1011s competing against the polar opposite, Wardair, I didn’t like their odds. Yet … who is here, and who isn’t?

Rouge’s load factors and repeat rates are impressive, and noteworthy. I mentioned them only as true to airliners.net form, they are maligned, but as I recently flew on them, YYZ-PHX-YYZ, I honestly didn’t find it that bad. Customer expectations were met.

Same with Flair, et al. Customer expectations met. As I visit Arizona a lot, if Flair ever did start YYZ-TUS, I’d give them a try, but I certainly wouldn’t expect the same experience as Rouge.

But, as I continually say, the on board experience, is not everything the customer expects. For example, I recently flew on Emirates from YYZ to BOM. I think their product is fine. Convenient schedules, a seamless transfer through DXB, and quick flight to BOM. That was my expectation, that is what I got. My on board experience, (I was flying J)? YYZ-DXB, was fine, DXB-BOM was horrendous. Did I care? No. They gave me what I wanted, a safe, trouble free trip to India.

Same thing with Flair, Westjet, Rouge, Air Canada. We will know in 12 months how successful they are. If Flair lasts the winter, (and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t), I give them better than even odds at long term survival. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the on board experience.

I think what you’re getting at is value-for-money, and I don’t necessarily disagree. Rouge wasn’t maligned exclusively because of its ULCC configuration; it was criticized for charging mainline prices for that ULCC product. If Rouge had started with $99 or $139 fares, fares (as opposed to $350 o/w transcon), commensurate with its low cost product, the initial response would have been more balanced, if not positive.

Perhaps that’s changing now with the ULCCs putting downward pressure on prices. If Rouge starts charging LCC ballpark figures, I think we can agree that a lot of the noise around it will disappear. However that requires acknowledging that it is ultimately a LCC/ULCC product.

WS Y is an interesting comparator in this context. It’s basically identical to Rouge Y, yet it’s keeled over in the east, allegedly due to ULCCs popping up in its backyard. That suggests that there’s more at play than just “what the customer wants”. Their product was, at least in theory, “what the customer” wanted, until it wasn’t (competitors/ viable substitutes/ injection of capacity). At which point, we have to ask ourselves: did customers actually want what WS was selling, or were they just stuck with it until now?

I think we need to be wary of drawing conclusions about customer preference a based on free market principles, in low competition / protected markets. Cost became king in Canadian aviation because of the dire value for money offered by Y products. I think we all know people who think nothing of leasing a BMW or buying the latest iPhone, who would baulk at the prospect of paying $30 more for a ticket. Why? The value simply isn’t there. That’s a supply side issue. Ask WS.

One thing that does pop up here is the concept of “Rouge fares” vs. “Mainline fares”. I think that’s where the confusion starts.

Rouge started when it was apparent Air Canada could not compete in some markets using Air Canada aircraft. I remember when on the 320, flying a 120 seat A319 YYZ-VRA. We parked beside a 189 seat 737 of Sunwing. There is no way AC could charge more than Sunwing, so who’s making money and who isn’t? Enter Rouge.

Rouge flew routes that were unprofitable for AC, but with Rouge aircraft became profitable. Much like the 217 seat AC 767 vs. the Rouge 280 seat 767. There were no “Rouge fares” and no “AC fares” just THE fare. The most the route could generate when sold by AC.

It was policy at AC that AC and Rouge would not fly the same route at the same time. (Other than when the 737 was grounded and AC was doing their level best just to get people where they wanted to go).

So …. you mention WestJet and what their game plan might be. Good question. As I see both WS and WO flying the same route at the same time. I find it an excellent yield exercise that WS is charging AC fares and WO is charging Flair fares. I also note that some AC flights when queried far enough in advance charge Flair fares ….. but they go pretty quickly.

CrewBunk wrote:

One thing that does pop up here is the concept of “Rouge fares” vs. “Mainline fares”. I think that’s where the confusion starts.

Rouge started when it was apparent Air Canada could not compete in some markets using Air Canada aircraft. I remember when on the 320, flying a 120 seat A319 YYZ-VRA. We parked beside a 189 seat 737 of Sunwing. There is no way AC could charge more than Sunwing, so who’s making money and who isn’t? Enter Rouge.

Rouge flew routes that were unprofitable for AC, but with Rouge aircraft became profitable. Much like the 217 seat AC 767 vs. the Rouge 280 seat 767. There were no “Rouge fares” and no “AC fares” just THE fare. The most the route could generate when sold by AC.

It was policy at AC that AC and Rouge would not fly the same route at the same time. (Other than when the 737 was grounded and AC was doing their level best just to get people where they wanted to go).

There’s really no confusion here; the criticism of Rouge is heavily driven by the fact that it’s a lower quality product at the same price. Start selling Kia’s at Lexus prices and you’ll get the same type of noise. People don’t dislike it because of the configuration; they dislike it because it makes them feel stupid for paying too much for a low quality product.

As value-for-money goes, we’d be hard pressed to find a worse product than Rouge when it was rolled out. I admittedly have no idea what they charge now since i don’t consider them an option.

CrewBunk wrote:

So …. you mention WestJet and what their game plan might be. Good question. As I see both WS and WO flying the same route at the same time. I find it an excellent yield exercise that WS is charging AC fares and WO is charging Flair fares. I also note that some AC flights when queried far enough in advance charge Flair fares ….. but they go pretty quickly.

It looks like a bid to create a separate entity to undercut ULCCs so that the “below operational cost” or whatever criteria Competition Bureau uses, doesn’t use WS’s relatively higher costs as the baseline. That gives WO more room to undercut the ULCCs, using WS money.

But that’s beside the point. WS is allegedly coming under pressure from the ULCCs, which suggests that whatever we thought the market “wanted” pre-pandemic, wasn’t actually what the market “wanted”. It was just a manifestation of a lack of choice, and when that choice actually materialized, WS went from being a national carrier to Canada’s “best regional carrier”.

Ergo, let’s avoid using free market principles to make assumptions about customer choices in low competition markets.

ElPistolero wrote:

There’s really no confusion here; the criticism of Rouge is heavily driven by the fact that it’s a lower quality product at the same price. Start selling Kia’s at Lexus prices and you’ll get the same type of noise. People don’t dislike it because of the configuration; they dislike it because it makes them feel stupid for paying too much for a low quality product.

No, they paid the same for a market Air Canada, using Air Canada aircraft really should not have been flying in the first place. I suppose they dislike no longer getting the free ride and ended up with the same conditions as the competition.

It’s much like the 10 abreast 777. It started at AC when AC could not charge more than the competition on the YUL-CDG route. AC using a 9 abreast 777, AF using a 10 abreast 777 and TS using a 9 abreast A330. (Not to mention Corse-Air using a 517 seat 747-400!) Yet everyone complained when AC was merely matching the competition.

I’d say your arguments had merit except Rouge was and is successful everywhere they put it. I grudgingly admit Network Planning got it right. If it weren’t what the customer wanted, it would have ended years ago. Remember, every North American airline that attempted to offer more than the competition for a slightly higher fare failed. Not some, not most, every airline.

CrewBunk wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

There’s really no confusion here; the criticism of Rouge is heavily driven by the fact that it’s a lower quality product at the same price. Start selling Kia’s at Lexus prices and you’ll get the same type of noise. People don’t dislike it because of the configuration; they dislike it because it makes them feel stupid for paying too much for a low quality product.

No, they paid the same for a market Air Canada, using Air Canada aircraft really should not have been flying in the first place. I suppose they dislike no longer getting the free ride and ended up with the same conditions as the competition.

It’s much like the 10 abreast 777. It started at AC when AC could not charge more than the competition on the YUL-CDG route. AC using a 9 abreast 777, AF using a 10 abreast 777 and TS using a 9 abreast A330. (Not to mention Corse-Air using a 517 seat 747-400!) Yet everyone complained when AC was merely matching the competition.

I’d say your arguments had merit except Rouge was and is successful everywhere they put it. I grudgingly admit Network Planning got it right. If it weren’t what the customer wanted, it would have ended years ago. Remember, every North American airline that attempted to offer more than the competition for a slightly higher fare failed. Not some, not most, every airline.

I’m mindful about staying on topic, but again, we need to draw a distinction between the market “wanting” something, and the market putting up with it because of extraneous factors (lack of competition/competitors lack of capacity and so on). That people need to get to where they need to get to does not amount to an endorsement of the airline they use.

WS has learnt that the hard way in the east. It was, presumably profitable there at some point (or so we were told), but tweaking the market seems to have changed that. My expectation is that Rouge prices will start reflecting the quality of the product on routes that ULCCs are competing on. That was evidently a problem for WS, which in its current configuration is virtually identical to Rouge, as much as some want to compare its domestic Y offering to AC.

Which means that the heady days of 2015-2019, with high price/ULCC product combination driven “record profits” might be a little harder to replicate for AC, especially on the Rouge front. WS’ retreat to regional carrier status seems to be the first sign of that.

ElPistolero wrote:

Start selling Kia’s at Lexus prices and you’ll get the same type of noise.

Using your example, it would be like two car rental companies working side by side, one renting Kias the other Lexuses. (Lexi?).

Eventually, the market dictated they must charge the same. The Lexus company soon realized they were getting nothing in return over the Kia company. So they replaced the Lexus cars with Kias. They still charged the same, which was the price set by the market and charged by the competition.

Would (should) people complain?

CrewBunk wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Start selling Kia’s at Lexus prices and you’ll get the same type of noise.

Using your example, it would be like two car rental companies working side by side, one renting Kias the other Lexuses. (Lexi?).

Eventually, the market dictated they must charge the same. The Lexus company soon realized they were getting nothing in return over the Kia company. So they replaced the Lexus cars with Kias. They still charged the same, which was the price set by the market and charged by the competition.

Would (should) people complain?

The premise of the question doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It seems to be based on the assumption that that suppliers can adjust supply at will. The moment supply constraints enter the picture (lack of capacity, barriers to entry - based on government intervention or otherwise), the assumptions underlying the question undermine it.

Put another way, if rental company X has 100 Kia’s and rental company Y has 100 Lexuses, and 250 people are looking for cars, those cars will be rented at what the market can bear, not their cost to the rental company. I think it’s fair to acknowledge the long-standing a.net wisdom that the pre-pandemic Canadian aviation market was priced to “what the market can bear”, so this strikes me as the more appropriate corollary. Consequently, it ceases to be a case of renting Lexuses at Kia prices (or obtaining the same X% profit margin that the Kia does).

Rather it becomes a case of maximizing profits because market conditions dictate that it can rent Kias more profitably than a Lexus at the “what the market can bear” ‘Lexus’ price. That is to say: it’s more profitable selling a $1 product at $100 than it is selling a $2 product at $100, rather than a question of whether $100 is profitable or not.

That’s not driven by consumer choice; it’s driven by a mismanaged market. After all, if people need something (e.g. get from point A to point B), and there’s structurally limited ways of doing that, the link between the cost of providing a service, and what it sells for becomes more and more tenuous. Think price gouging.

In that sense, the premise of the question doesn’t hold up. In essence, the question becomes: is it reasonable for someone renting a Kia at “what the market can bear” Lexus prices to complain about it? Well, yes, and there’s no shortage of very public complaints about Canadian airfares writ large. I can produce newspaper articles of all sorts, but the more telling twist in the tale is that it’s gained enough political traction to force a change to foreign ownership laws - the ones that have resulted in this wave of ULCCs was driven by that. If the market was functioning properly, there’d be no impetus or desire to do that.

We’re now seeing a potential shift from that with the ULCC led changes on the supply side, which might rectify the situation - i.e. expose the Kias for what they’re really worth. In fact, it seems that they’re already doing that in the case of WS, which got used to charging near Lexus prices for its Kia’s, and is now trying to reinvent because other renters are renting out Kia’s at Kia prices. I expect AC/Rouge is feeling the effects on the margins too, but WS is bearing the brunt a little more right now because the ULCCs are targeting it more directly - likely because of its overpriced ‘Kia’ level product.

ElPistolero wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Start selling Kia’s at Lexus prices and you’ll get the same type of noise.

Using your example, it would be like two car rental companies working side by side, one renting Kias the other Lexuses. (Lexi?).

Eventually, the market dictated they must charge the same. The Lexus company soon realized they were getting nothing in return over the Kia company. So they replaced the Lexus cars with Kias. They still charged the same, which was the price set by the market and charged by the competition.

Would (should) people complain?

The premise of the question doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It seems to be based on the assumption that that suppliers can adjust supply at will. The moment supply constraints enter the picture (lack of capacity, barriers to entry - based on government intervention or otherwise), the assumptions underlying the question undermine it.

Put another way, if rental company X has 100 Kia’s and rental company Y has 100 Lexuses, and 250 people are looking for cars, those cars will be rented at what the market can bear, not their cost to the rental company. I think it’s fair to acknowledge the long-standing a.net wisdom that the pre-pandemic Canadian aviation market was priced to “what the market can bear”, so this strikes me as the more appropriate corollary. Consequently, it ceases to be a case of renting Lexuses at Kia prices (or obtaining the same X% profit margin that the Kia does).

Rather it becomes a case of maximizing profits because market conditions dictate that it can rent Kias more profitably than a Lexus at the “what the market can bear” ‘Lexus’ price. That is to say: it’s more profitable selling a $1 product at $100 than it is selling a $2 product at $100, rather than a question of whether $100 is profitable or not.

That’s not driven by consumer choice; it’s driven by a mismanaged market. After all, if people need something (e.g. get from point A to point B), and there’s structurally limited ways of doing that, the link between the cost of providing a service, and what it sells for becomes more and more tenuous. Think price gouging.

In that sense, the premise of the question doesn’t hold up. In essence, the question becomes: is it reasonable for someone renting a Kia at “what the market can bear” Lexus prices to complain about it? Well, yes, and there’s no shortage of very public complaints about Canadian airfares writ large. I can produce newspaper articles of all sorts, but the more telling twist in the tale is that it’s gained enough political traction to force a change to foreign ownership laws - the ones that have resulted in this wave of ULCCs was driven by that. If the market was functioning properly, there’d be no impetus or desire to do that.

We’re now seeing a potential shift from that with the ULCC led changes on the supply side, which might rectify the situation - i.e. expose the Kias for what they’re really worth. In fact, it seems that they’re already doing that in the case of WS, which got used to charging near Lexus prices for its Kia’s, and is now trying to reinvent because other renters are renting out Kia’s at Kia prices. I expect AC/Rouge is feeling the effects on the margins too, but WS is bearing the brunt a little more right now because the ULCCs are targeting it more directly - likely because of its overpriced ‘Kia’ level product.

While I agree with you, the competition bureau unfortunately does not seem to target this form of "perfect" competition. "Good enough" seems to be good enough for Canada.

YEGFlyer wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

Using your example, it would be like two car rental companies working side by side, one renting Kias the other Lexuses. (Lexi?).

Eventually, the market dictated they must charge the same. The Lexus company soon realized they were getting nothing in return over the Kia company. So they replaced the Lexus cars with Kias. They still charged the same, which was the price set by the market and charged by the competition.

Would (should) people complain?

The premise of the question doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It seems to be based on the assumption that that suppliers can adjust supply at will. The moment supply constraints enter the picture (lack of capacity, barriers to entry - based on government intervention or otherwise), the assumptions underlying the question undermine it.

Put another way, if rental company X has 100 Kia’s and rental company Y has 100 Lexuses, and 250 people are looking for cars, those cars will be rented at what the market can bear, not their cost to the rental company. I think it’s fair to acknowledge the long-standing a.net wisdom that the pre-pandemic Canadian aviation market was priced to “what the market can bear”, so this strikes me as the more appropriate corollary. Consequently, it ceases to be a case of renting Lexuses at Kia prices (or obtaining the same X% profit margin that the Kia does).

Rather it becomes a case of maximizing profits because market conditions dictate that it can rent Kias more profitably than a Lexus at the “what the market can bear” ‘Lexus’ price. That is to say: it’s more profitable selling a $1 product at $100 than it is selling a $2 product at $100, rather than a question of whether $100 is profitable or not.

That’s not driven by consumer choice; it’s driven by a mismanaged market. After all, if people need something (e.g. get from point A to point B), and there’s structurally limited ways of doing that, the link between the cost of providing a service, and what it sells for becomes more and more tenuous. Think price gouging.

In that sense, the premise of the question doesn’t hold up. In essence, the question becomes: is it reasonable for someone renting a Kia at “what the market can bear” Lexus prices to complain about it? Well, yes, and there’s no shortage of very public complaints about Canadian airfares writ large. I can produce newspaper articles of all sorts, but the more telling twist in the tale is that it’s gained enough political traction to force a change to foreign ownership laws - the ones that have resulted in this wave of ULCCs was driven by that. If the market was functioning properly, there’d be no impetus or desire to do that.

We’re now seeing a potential shift from that with the ULCC led changes on the supply side, which might rectify the situation - i.e. expose the Kias for what they’re really worth. In fact, it seems that they’re already doing that in the case of WS, which got used to charging near Lexus prices for its Kia’s, and is now trying to reinvent because other renters are renting out Kia’s at Kia prices. I expect AC/Rouge is feeling the effects on the margins too, but WS is bearing the brunt a little more right now because the ULCCs are targeting it more directly - likely because of its overpriced ‘Kia’ level product.

While I agree with you, the competition bureau unfortunately does not seem to target this form of "perfect" competition. "Good enough" seems to be good enough for Canada.

Two angles to this:

- On the operational side, it’s not clear what the Competition Bureau is up to. The investigations take far too long to make a difference, and it’s never clear why there’s a delay. Laziness? Extraneous influence/pressure? Stakeholder pressure? Could be any of those. Take the investigation into WS predatory pricing. Yes, it’s true that WS engaged in questionable tactics by using the WO/WS distinction to shuffle around the implicated WO individuals into WS to get them out of the investigation - to the extent that the courts had to get involved to get those former WO officials to hearings, which probably added to the delay, but we’re now 3-4 years in without… well, anything.

- On the policy side though, the Competition Bureau appears to be more competent. They’ve come out publicly in favour of changing ownership laws, and even explicitly supported unilateral cabotage, so I don’t think it’s fair to say they’re only aiming for “good enough”.

https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic ... ction3_c_1

It’s hard to say how far their input went towards liberalizing foreign ownership, but the almost immediate effect that change seems to have had on the duopoly - to the extent that we’re now in a world of questioning whether one still exists following WS retreat, suggests that they were right about the low competition nature of the market in the first place (i.e. - this isn’t a competence problem).

Transport Canada, on the other hand, seems to operate on the premise that airlines need to be protected from their customers.

CrewBunk wrote:

So …. you mention WestJet and what their game plan might be. Good question. As I see both WS and WO flying the same route at the same time. I find it an excellent yield exercise that WS is charging AC fares and WO is charging Flair fares. I also note that some AC flights when queried far enough in advance charge Flair fares ….. but they go pretty quickly.

This is a very good point. I think it's a great strategy that allows them to keep market share and make some money in markets that are more ULCC oriented. Even with WS' retreat in the east we are seeing WO take over routes like YHZ-YOW and YYZ-YYG rather than completely cutting them, which seems to indicate that WO is a better fit for those markets. After all, if WO wasn't at least somewhat successful we wouldn't be seeing it expand more.

IceCream wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

So …. you mention WestJet and what their game plan might be. Good question. As I see both WS and WO flying the same route at the same time. I find it an excellent yield exercise that WS is charging AC fares and WO is charging Flair fares. I also note that some AC flights when queried far enough in advance charge Flair fares ….. but they go pretty quickly.

This is a very good point. I think it's a great strategy that allows them to keep market share and make some money in markets that are more ULCC oriented. Even with WS' retreat in the east we are seeing WO take over routes like YHZ-YOW and YYZ-YYG rather than completely cutting them, which seems to indicate that WO is a better fit for those markets. After all, if WO wasn't at least somewhat successful we wouldn't be seeing it expand more.

My key issue with all of this is without interline capability all of the ULCC airlines are not very useful for business travel out of smaller markets. There existence undermine the service the network providers are offering.

A market like YYJ is a good example. On Swoop I can fly from Victoria to Edmonton or Toronto. That is it. Nothing beyond Edmonton or Toronto. It is just not possible. I can't even do that on every business day.

Out of Saskatoon I have more choice Edmonton, Toronto or Winnipeg. But not every day.

WestJet network is compromised by having fewer direct flight. Fewer flight through the day.

I am all for Transport Canada getting doing more to force all of these airline to meet their commitments to passengers. If a flight is going to be delayed by more than a certain number of hours, the airline should be required to rebook on the next available flight even if it is not theirs. None of this we only fly that route three times a week so comeback in two days especially if a sister company is heading out that afternoon.

ElPistolero wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Start selling Kia’s at Lexus prices and you’ll get the same type of noise.

Using your example, it would be like two car rental companies working side by side, one renting Kias the other Lexuses. (Lexi?).

Eventually, the market dictated they must charge the same. The Lexus company soon realized they were getting nothing in return over the Kia company. So they replaced the Lexus cars with Kias. They still charged the same, which was the price set by the market and charged by the competition.

Would (should) people complain?

The premise of the question doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It seems to be based on the assumption that that suppliers can adjust supply at will. The moment supply constraints enter the picture (lack of capacity, barriers to entry - based on government intervention or otherwise), the assumptions underlying the question undermine it.

Put another way, if rental company X has 100 Kia’s and rental company Y has 100 Lexuses, and 250 people are looking for cars, those cars will be rented at what the market can bear, not their cost to the rental company. I think it’s fair to acknowledge the long-standing a.net wisdom that the pre-pandemic Canadian aviation market was priced to “what the market can bear”, so this strikes me as the more appropriate corollary. Consequently, it ceases to be a case of renting Lexuses at Kia prices (or obtaining the same X% profit margin that the Kia does).

Rather it becomes a case of maximizing profits because market conditions dictate that it can rent Kias more profitably than a Lexus at the “what the market can bear” ‘Lexus’ price. That is to say: it’s more profitable selling a $1 product at $100 than it is selling a $2 product at $100, rather than a question of whether $100 is profitable or not.

That’s not driven by consumer choice; it’s driven by a mismanaged market. After all, if people need something (e.g. get from point A to point B), and there’s structurally limited ways of doing that, the link between the cost of providing a service, and what it sells for becomes more and more tenuous. Think price gouging.

In that sense, the premise of the question doesn’t hold up. In essence, the question becomes: is it reasonable for someone renting a Kia at “what the market can bear” Lexus prices to complain about it? Well, yes, and there’s no shortage of very public complaints about Canadian airfares writ large. I can produce newspaper articles of all sorts, but the more telling twist in the tale is that it’s gained enough political traction to force a change to foreign ownership laws - the ones that have resulted in this wave of ULCCs was driven by that. If the market was functioning properly, there’d be no impetus or desire to do that.

We’re now seeing a potential shift from that with the ULCC led changes on the supply side, which might rectify the situation - i.e. expose the Kias for what they’re really worth. In fact, it seems that they’re already doing that in the case of WS, which got used to charging near Lexus prices for its Kia’s, and is now trying to reinvent because other renters are renting out Kia’s at Kia prices. I expect AC/Rouge is feeling the effects on the margins too, but WS is bearing the brunt a little more right now because the ULCCs are targeting it more directly - likely because of its overpriced ‘Kia’ level product.

If we want to use car rental companies. Avis and Budget are sister companies. If I show up at the airport counter and there is no Avis car, the associate looks in his drawer, find an equivalent vehicle form Budget and say " I am going to have to cancel your Avis booking and redo it on budget, sorry this is going to take a minute, we will obviously honor the price and terms. The associate then types, prints, types, apologizes for the delay again. I sign and drive off.

Same thing happens between Hertz and Dollar or Thrifty don't have car.

Hotels do the same thing. If I show up at a hotel, the room is broken, they are overbooked. They book me into another hotel. They don't tell me come back in two days.

casperCA wrote:

IceCream wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

So …. you mention WestJet and what their game plan might be. Good question. As I see both WS and WO flying the same route at the same time. I find it an excellent yield exercise that WS is charging AC fares and WO is charging Flair fares. I also note that some AC flights when queried far enough in advance charge Flair fares ….. but they go pretty quickly.

This is a very good point. I think it's a great strategy that allows them to keep market share and make some money in markets that are more ULCC oriented. Even with WS' retreat in the east we are seeing WO take over routes like YHZ-YOW and YYZ-YYG rather than completely cutting them, which seems to indicate that WO is a better fit for those markets. After all, if WO wasn't at least somewhat successful we wouldn't be seeing it expand more.

My key issue with all of this is without interline capability all of the ULCC airlines are not very useful for business travel out of smaller markets. There existence undermine the service the network providers are offering.

A market like YYJ is a good example. On Swoop I can fly from Victoria to Edmonton or Toronto. That is it. Nothing beyond Edmonton or Toronto. It is just not possible. I can't even do that on every business day.

Out of Saskatoon I have more choice Edmonton, Toronto or Winnipeg. But not every day.

WestJet network is compromised by having fewer direct flight. Fewer flight through the day.

I am all for Transport Canada getting doing more to force all of these airline to meet their commitments to passengers. If a flight is going to be delayed by more than a certain number of hours, the airline should be required to rebook on the next available flight even if it is not theirs. None of this we only fly that route three times a week so comeback in two days especially if a sister company is heading out that afternoon.

You can do a self connection, though. Google has started selling self connections or two separate tickets booked together. Some euro airports offer separate insurance you can purchase in the event of a missed self connection. It is just more unbundling, pay for only what you need. I think YEG could start offering a self connection insurance package since it has become a bit of a ULCC mecca.

YEGFlyer wrote:

casperCA wrote:

IceCream wrote:

This is a very good point. I think it's a great strategy that allows them to keep market share and make some money in markets that are more ULCC oriented. Even with WS' retreat in the east we are seeing WO take over routes like YHZ-YOW and YYZ-YYG rather than completely cutting them, which seems to indicate that WO is a better fit for those markets. After all, if WO wasn't at least somewhat successful we wouldn't be seeing it expand more.

My key issue with all of this is without interline capability all of the ULCC airlines are not very useful for business travel out of smaller markets. There existence undermine the service the network providers are offering.

A market like YYJ is a good example. On Swoop I can fly from Victoria to Edmonton or Toronto. That is it. Nothing beyond Edmonton or Toronto. It is just not possible. I can't even do that on every business day.

Out of Saskatoon I have more choice Edmonton, Toronto or Winnipeg. But not every day.

WestJet network is compromised by having fewer direct flight. Fewer flight through the day.

I am all for Transport Canada getting doing more to force all of these airline to meet their commitments to passengers. If a flight is going to be delayed by more than a certain number of hours, the airline should be required to rebook on the next available flight even if it is not theirs. None of this we only fly that route three times a week so comeback in two days especially if a sister company is heading out that afternoon.

You can do a self connection, though. Google has started selling self connections or two separate tickets booked together. Some euro airports offer separate insurance you can purchase in the event of a missed self connection. It is just more unbundling, pay for only what you need. I think YEG could start offering a self connection insurance package since it has become a bit of a ULCC mecca.

Self connections with checked baggage.

Third party insurance to deal with airlines that have crappy reputations for on time performance. What insurance company in their right mind wants to get into that type of business.

Industry gets the regulator it deserves. Should be a surprise to no one that Europe has some of the most demanding airline consumer protection regulations given how prominent ULCC are there.

casperCA wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

casperCA wrote:

My key issue with all of this is without interline capability all of the ULCC airlines are not very useful for business travel out of smaller markets. There existence undermine the service the network providers are offering.

A market like YYJ is a good example. On Swoop I can fly from Victoria to Edmonton or Toronto. That is it. Nothing beyond Edmonton or Toronto. It is just not possible. I can't even do that on every business day.

Out of Saskatoon I have more choice Edmonton, Toronto or Winnipeg. But not every day.

WestJet network is compromised by having fewer direct flight. Fewer flight through the day.

I am all for Transport Canada getting doing more to force all of these airline to meet their commitments to passengers. If a flight is going to be delayed by more than a certain number of hours, the airline should be required to rebook on the next available flight even if it is not theirs. None of this we only fly that route three times a week so comeback in two days especially if a sister company is heading out that afternoon.

You can do a self connection, though. Google has started selling self connections or two separate tickets booked together. Some euro airports offer separate insurance you can purchase in the event of a missed self connection. It is just more unbundling, pay for only what you need. I think YEG could start offering a self connection insurance package since it has become a bit of a ULCC mecca.

Self connections with checked baggage.

Third party insurance to deal with airlines that have crappy reputations for on time performance. What insurance company in their right mind wants to get into that type of business.

Industry gets the regulator it deserves. Should be a surprise to no one that Europe has some of the most demanding airline consumer protection regulations given how prominent ULCC are there.

There’s a couple of issues with this logic:

- Notwithstanding that ULCCs cater to a different market altogether, this notion of ULCCs pushing network carriers out of YYJ doesn’t pass the sniff test. If demand for onward connections exists, supply will follow. We may see some capacity downguages or frequency reductions (unlikely, but possible), but if there’s enough onward connecting pax in YYJ, the network carriers will stay put.

- A YYJ-er who needs to connect onward might not benefit from ULCC prices, and might even have to pay a higher fare on AC or WS due to a lower number of point-to-point pax subsidizing them, but thats a fairer outcome than stopping YYJ-ers from benefitting from ULCC fares to YEG in order to make them subsidize connecting pax. In effect, it’s the market setting the price. Granted, I don’t expect prices to change - WS retreat to the west will probably count for something here.

- I wholeheartedly agree with your criticism of the APPRs. We should’ve just copied and pasted the EU rules in the first place. But we didn’t, which points to structural flaws that go well beyond ULCCs. Namely, that these APPRs are aimed at making sure airlines remain profitable, no matter what the consequences for the consumer. That was one of the explicitly stated goals of these APPRs. It never occurred to those behind it that if an airline is incapable of delivering the service it’s selling on a regular enough basis - to the extent that it makes compensation a bankruptcy concern - it probably shouldn’t be allowed to operate (let alone remain profitable). This two day before rebooking on another carrier nonsense probably has its roots in that. The general mantra in Canada seems to be along the lines of “consumers exist to keep airlines afloat” rather than the “airlines exist to serve consumers” mindset everywhere else. The incumbents have played a critical role in fostering that mindset in Canada, and the ULCCs are taking full advantage.

CrewBunk wrote:

This can be a double edged sword. An buddy of mine was booked on Swoop, YHM-YHZ. 12 hours before the flight, it was cancelled. When he asked if he could fly on WS out of YYZ he was told no ….. it’s a different company.

This is still a feature not a bug.

If you book WO, then you get what you paid for. The last thing I want as a WS flier is for you to bump me or mess with standby because you booked WO and WS has to bail it out. Sorry, that's what you get for paying $49 one way.

ElPistolero wrote:

WS Y is an interesting comparator in this context. It’s basically identical to Rouge Y.

Only if AC mainline is "basically identical to Rouge Y". WS is not Rouge Y. The pitch is 31" over 29" and it has preferred seats (34" - and I'm talking in Y not PY) you can buy that are more comfortable with mainline crews. Yeah yeah WS doesn't have an IFE, many times the IFE breaks, you can't rely on it anyway. Most fliers bring their own entertainment. I use the IFE as a flight cam.

WO is a true ULCC. Rouge is just something clever someone at AC invented to try to save on labour costs and shafting the consumer and the airline workers.

YYCFlier wrote:

Only if AC mainline is "basically identical to Rouge Y". WS is not Rouge Y. The pitch is 31" over 29" and it has preferred seats (34" - and I'm talking in Y not PY) you can buy that are more comfortable with mainline crews. Yeah yeah WS doesn't have an IFE, many times the IFE breaks, you can't rely on it anyway. Most fliers bring their own entertainment. I use the IFE as a flight cam.

No arguments from me. I’m a fully paid up member of the “AC has already rouged mainline Y”. The 7M8s and 220s (and even some 787 seats) are already 30” (for WO/WS mainline/AC/F8/probably Lynx)and I expect the 32X fleet will be 29” like Jetlines and Rouge whenever they update the cabin.

But anyway, pointing out that the customers main point of contact - the seat they spend their flight in - is now indistinguishable between ULCCs and “mainline” prompts all kinds of protests. Apparent a tiny pack of salty sawdust (pretzels?) and a free half can of coke are sufficient to convince pax that they should part with a lot more money for that. Oh, and of course the BoB offering. Can’t forget that, because it really shows the difference between ULCCs and FSCs, notwithstanding that BoBs are, in and of themselves, a classic LCC trait.

YYCFlier wrote:

WO is a true ULCC. Rouge is just something clever someone at AC invented to try to save on labour costs and shafting the consumer and the airline workers.

Curious how AC is shafting the Air Canada employed Rouge pilots, the Air Canada employed Rouge flight attendants, the Air Canada employed airport staff that board/load Rouge flight, the Air Canada employed dispatchers who make the plans, etc.

casperCA wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

casperCA wrote:

My key issue with all of this is without interline capability all of the ULCC airlines are not very useful for business travel out of smaller markets. There existence undermine the service the network providers are offering.

A market like YYJ is a good example. On Swoop I can fly from Victoria to Edmonton or Toronto. That is it. Nothing beyond Edmonton or Toronto. It is just not possible. I can't even do that on every business day.

Out of Saskatoon I have more choice Edmonton, Toronto or Winnipeg. But not every day.

WestJet network is compromised by having fewer direct flight. Fewer flight through the day.

I am all for Transport Canada getting doing more to force all of these airline to meet their commitments to passengers. If a flight is going to be delayed by more than a certain number of hours, the airline should be required to rebook on the next available flight even if it is not theirs. None of this we only fly that route three times a week so comeback in two days especially if a sister company is heading out that afternoon.

You can do a self connection, though. Google has started selling self connections or two separate tickets booked together. Some euro airports offer separate insurance you can purchase in the event of a missed self connection. It is just more unbundling, pay for only what you need. I think YEG could start offering a self connection insurance package since it has become a bit of a ULCC mecca.

Self connections with checked baggage.

Third party insurance to deal with airlines that have crappy reputations for on time performance. What insurance company in their right mind wants to get into that type of business.

Industry gets the regulator it deserves. Should be a surprise to no one that Europe has some of the most demanding airline consumer protection regulations given how prominent ULCC are there.

The product is already offered, so there must be an insurance company out of its right mind...

https://media.kiwi.com/kiwi-com-to-powe ... t-service/

Andrea Tucci, Vice President of SEA Milan Airports, said, “SEA Group, in 2012, was a pioneer in the creation and development of the self-connect concept with the ViaMilano brand. We believe that it is one of the essential travel modalities on which the industry is orienting itself and that it is already considered as a valid and often economical alternative to the more traditional offer of itineraries in connection proposed by carriers.”

“The service designed by Kiwi.com is easy, comfortable and seamless for the self-connecting passengers. Kiwi.com also provides passengers with a paid insurance service that protects them against flight changes or cancellations caused by the carrier. The collaboration with Kiwi.com exploits the potential offered by the advantageous geographical position of Malpensa, a crossroads, in the pre-pandemic period, for approximately 195 routes served by over 82 airlines. Passengers in transit at Malpensa will also be able to pleasantly enrich their travel experience thanks to the wide range of shopping and food services available at the airport.“

YEGFlyer wrote:

casperCA wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

You can do a self connection, though. Google has started selling self connections or two separate tickets booked together. Some euro airports offer separate insurance you can purchase in the event of a missed self connection. It is just more unbundling, pay for only what you need. I think YEG could start offering a self connection insurance package since it has become a bit of a ULCC mecca.

Self connections with checked baggage.

Third party insurance to deal with airlines that have crappy reputations for on time performance. What insurance company in their right mind wants to get into that type of business.

Industry gets the regulator it deserves. Should be a surprise to no one that Europe has some of the most demanding airline consumer protection regulations given how prominent ULCC are there.

The product is already offered, so there must be an insurance company out of its right mind...

https://media.kiwi.com/kiwi-com-to-powe ... t-service/

Andrea Tucci, Vice President of SEA Milan Airports, said, “SEA Group, in 2012, was a pioneer in the creation and development of the self-connect concept with the ViaMilano brand. We believe that it is one of the essential travel modalities on which the industry is orienting itself and that it is already considered as a valid and often economical alternative to the more traditional offer of itineraries in connection proposed by carriers.”

“The service designed by Kiwi.com is easy, comfortable and seamless for the self-connecting passengers. Kiwi.com also provides passengers with a paid insurance service that protects them against flight changes or cancellations caused by the carrier. The collaboration with Kiwi.com exploits the potential offered by the advantageous geographical position of Malpensa, a crossroads, in the pre-pandemic period, for approximately 195 routes served by over 82 airlines. Passengers in transit at Malpensa will also be able to pleasantly enrich their travel experience thanks to the wide range of shopping and food services available at the airport.“

Interesting I tried a dummy booking from Victoria to Montreal. A route I do every few months. kiwi.com puts me on WestJet going out and Flair return. With some weird fine print.....

For the connection in Edmonton on Flair it says:

"The layover time is long enough for the transfer. This unique itinerary cannot be found elsewhere.
The connection in Edmonton YEG (CA) is not provided by the airlines. You’ll need to leave the visa-free transit zone and enter Canada to check in for your next flight — passing through security and a visa check at immigration."

What? I have to go through customs and security to connect from Montreal to Vancouver in Edmonton on Flair?
That gives me a lot of confidence these guys are on the balls.

"When you’re searching for flights, we might offer you special itineraries labeled as No-checked-bag itineraries. As their name implies, these itineraries don’t include checked baggage by default. We strongly recommend you don’t add it on your own. Otherwise, you might have issues during your trip. Please note that your Kiwi.com Guarantee won’t apply if you add checked baggage to this type of itinerary."

Ok, no checked baggage. But there an option for $129 I select to include carry on baggage for all my flights. However when I look at the total at the side it says its $100 and a service fee of $48.22 and $2.83 in taxes and airport fees. There service fee drops to $18, taxes stay the same. Total looks correct so maybe the math being weird is not a big issue.

They must be serious about the no-checked baggage they say it in about four different places.

"If you booked a hidden city itinerary, you can only bring a personal item with you. Larger pieces of baggage, including cabin baggage, musical, sports, or baby equipment, might get checked in at the gate, and would end up in the official final destination instead of the layover stop (“hidden city”) where you would get off."

I don't fully agree that hidden city should be a problem. However this is the first seller of airline tickers I have seen that openly offers hidden city. Interesting.

"Also, if you plan to travel with a wheelchair or a stroller, please choose an itinerary with a longer layover time. Carriers usually put these items into the cargo hold and you might need more time to wait for them."

Interesting

The last thing that is weird is on the site it talks about the "kiwi.com Guarantee". The fine print says it only apply if you select the option at time of booking. If the dummy flair booking it was not offered. Not clear how that work? Maybe it is included or maybe not.

From the terms it sounds like if there is an IROP they will process the refund from the airline that canceled rebook you onto a new flight. If it is cheaper they keep the difference if it is more expensive then you as the passenger pay the difference. Maybe I am reading it incorrectly but that is what the terms of service sound like.

If the airline reroutes you for any reason without their prior permission then the terms of service are out the window and your on your own.

Wow....

ElPistolero wrote:

casperCA wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

You can do a self connection, though. Google has started selling self connections or two separate tickets booked together. Some euro airports offer separate insurance you can purchase in the event of a missed self connection. It is just more unbundling, pay for only what you need. I think YEG could start offering a self connection insurance package since it has become a bit of a ULCC mecca.

Self connections with checked baggage.

Third party insurance to deal with airlines that have crappy reputations for on time performance. What insurance company in their right mind wants to get into that type of business.

Industry gets the regulator it deserves. Should be a surprise to no one that Europe has some of the most demanding airline consumer protection regulations given how prominent ULCC are there.

There’s a couple of issues with this logic:

- Notwithstanding that ULCCs cater to a different market altogether, this notion of ULCCs pushing network carriers out of YYJ doesn’t pass the sniff test. If demand for onward connections exists, supply will follow. We may see some capacity downguages or frequency reductions (unlikely, but possible), but if there’s enough onward connecting pax in YYJ, the network carriers will stay put.

- A YYJ-er who needs to connect onward might not benefit from ULCC prices, and might even have to pay a higher fare on AC or WS due to a lower number of point-to-point pax subsidizing them, but thats a fairer outcome than stopping YYJ-ers from benefitting from ULCC fares to YEG in order to make them subsidize connecting pax. In effect, it’s the market setting the price. Granted, I don’t expect prices to change - WS retreat to the west will probably count for something here.

- I wholeheartedly agree with your criticism of the APPRs. We should’ve just copied and pasted the EU rules in the first place. But we didn’t, which points to structural flaws that go well beyond ULCCs. Namely, that these APPRs are aimed at making sure airlines remain profitable, no matter what the consequences for the consumer. That was one of the explicitly stated goals of these APPRs. It never occurred to those behind it that if an airline is incapable of delivering the service it’s selling on a regular enough basis - to the extent that it makes compensation a bankruptcy concern - it probably shouldn’t be allowed to operate (let alone remain profitable). This two day before rebooking on another carrier nonsense probably has its roots in that. The general mantra in Canada seems to be along the lines of “consumers exist to keep airlines afloat” rather than the “airlines exist to serve consumers” mindset everywhere else. The incumbents have played a critical role in fostering that mindset in Canada, and the ULCCs are taking full advantage.

From an economic perspective for places like Victoria, Saskatoon and Regina to be successful business centers they need good network airline coverage. It is about creating jobs in those regions and ensuring they have successful business. Network airlines are good, these ULCC are useless in that regard.

I think it comes down to entire connecting airports being eliminated. From Saskatoon WestJet use to offer Edmonton as an airport where you could make connects. Not any more. Tomorrow out of Saskatoon WestJet is not operating a Toronto flight, but Swoop is. If you traveling for business, to a point in Ontario of east your left with only one option.

From YYJ, the option of connecting in Toronto onto WestJet is now gone. That not only includes WestJet but their international codeshare and interline partners in Toronto. Even at that Swoop can only justify flying to Toronto from YYJ three days a week. If they had onward connections they might have managed to get that up to 6 or daily.

As far as subsidies go it has always been the business travelers who book last minute paying the premium and a few buying business class. The cheap tickets usually get booked ahead of time. At the end of the day the ULCC is not offering substantial saving to most passengers.

Saskatoon is ridiculously underserved for people trying to go east, and I fear with WS's "focus on the west," it's only going to get worse. My last overseas trip a few months ago, there was ~one~ flight a day YXE<>YYZ. I know someone who recently drove 4 hours to an alternate airport to travel to New Brunswick (pre-Fiona) simply because they couldn't get there from YXE. And going across the border with the much-ballyhooed-Delta partnership? Well, I've yet to see a YXE-YYC-MSP/DTW/ATL--final destination ticket for sale when I've gone looking for my travel to eastern US cities well-served by Delta. It's all through YYZ, which would be fine if there was more than ~one~ flight a day and reasonable connection times.

Canada has so few population centres that it might be expensive to get from A to B (long distance, low volume, etc) but it should be reasonably efficient. I shouldn't be thinking "well, if I miss my connection at the country's principle hub to the most economically important city - pop >200K - in the ~1200 km between Winnipeg and Edmonton, I'll be waiting for at least 24 hours before there's even another flight, seats available or not."

Oh, but at least with the WS "focus on the west" this holiday season we can take the direct LAS-YXE that arrives at something like 1am on Wednesdays or whatever it is....

Reliable, 2x/day EAS service from a small city in Iowa to ORD spoiled me. Americans don't know how good they have it in some places.

alo2yyz wrote:

Saskatoon is ridiculously underserved for people trying to go east, and I fear with WS's "focus on the west," it's only going to get worse. My last overseas trip a few months ago, there was ~one~ flight a day YXE<>YYZ. I know someone who recently drove 4 hours to an alternate airport to travel to New Brunswick (pre-Fiona) simply because they couldn't get there from YXE. And going across the border with the much-ballyhooed-Delta partnership? Well, I've yet to see a YXE-YYC-MSP/DTW/ATL--final destination ticket for sale when I've gone looking for my travel to eastern US cities well-served by Delta. It's all through YYZ, which would be fine if there was more than ~one~ flight a day and reasonable connection times.

Canada has so few population centres that it might be expensive to get from A to B (long distance, low volume, etc) but it should be reasonably efficient. I shouldn't be thinking "well, if I miss my connection at the country's principle hub to the most economically important city - pop >200K - in the ~1200 km between Winnipeg and Edmonton, I'll be waiting for at least 24 hours before there's even another flight, seats available or not."

Oh, but at least with the WS "focus on the west" this holiday season we can take the direct LAS-YXE that arrives at something like 1am on Wednesdays or whatever it is....

Reliable, 2x/day EAS service from a small city in Iowa to ORD spoiled me. Americans don't know how good they have it in some places.

Absolutely, an airport like YXE was better off pre-covid with predominately network airlines than it is with WestJet rebranding some of their aircraft as SWOOP and not offering network services. This is one of these markets where WestJet is the dominate carrier.

casperCA wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

casperCA wrote:

Self connections with checked baggage.

Third party insurance to deal with airlines that have crappy reputations for on time performance. What insurance company in their right mind wants to get into that type of business.

Industry gets the regulator it deserves. Should be a surprise to no one that Europe has some of the most demanding airline consumer protection regulations given how prominent ULCC are there.

The product is already offered, so there must be an insurance company out of its right mind...

https://media.kiwi.com/kiwi-com-to-powe ... t-service/

Andrea Tucci, Vice President of SEA Milan Airports, said, “SEA Group, in 2012, was a pioneer in the creation and development of the self-connect concept with the ViaMilano brand. We believe that it is one of the essential travel modalities on which the industry is orienting itself and that it is already considered as a valid and often economical alternative to the more traditional offer of itineraries in connection proposed by carriers.”

“The service designed by Kiwi.com is easy, comfortable and seamless for the self-connecting passengers. Kiwi.com also provides passengers with a paid insurance service that protects them against flight changes or cancellations caused by the carrier. The collaboration with Kiwi.com exploits the potential offered by the advantageous geographical position of Malpensa, a crossroads, in the pre-pandemic period, for approximately 195 routes served by over 82 airlines. Passengers in transit at Malpensa will also be able to pleasantly enrich their travel experience thanks to the wide range of shopping and food services available at the airport.“

Interesting I tried a dummy booking from Victoria to Montreal. A route I do every few months. kiwi.com puts me on WestJet going out and Flair return. With some weird fine print.....

For the connection in Edmonton on Flair it says:

"The layover time is long enough for the transfer. This unique itinerary cannot be found elsewhere.
The connection in Edmonton YEG (CA) is not provided by the airlines. You’ll need to leave the visa-free transit zone and enter Canada to check in for your next flight — passing through security and a visa check at immigration."

What? I have to go through customs and security to connect from Montreal to Vancouver in Edmonton on Flair?
That gives me a lot of confidence these guys are on the balls.

"When you’re searching for flights, we might offer you special itineraries labeled as No-checked-bag itineraries. As their name implies, these itineraries don’t include checked baggage by default. We strongly recommend you don’t add it on your own. Otherwise, you might have issues during your trip. Please note that your Kiwi.com Guarantee won’t apply if you add checked baggage to this type of itinerary."

Ok, no checked baggage. But there an option for $129 I select to include carry on baggage for all my flights. However when I look at the total at the side it says its $100 and a service fee of $48.22 and $2.83 in taxes and airport fees. There service fee drops to $18, taxes stay the same. Total looks correct so maybe the math being weird is not a big issue.

They must be serious about the no-checked baggage they say it in about four different places.

"If you booked a hidden city itinerary, you can only bring a personal item with you. Larger pieces of baggage, including cabin baggage, musical, sports, or baby equipment, might get checked in at the gate, and would end up in the official final destination instead of the layover stop (“hidden city”) where you would get off."

I don't fully agree that hidden city should be a problem. However this is the first seller of airline tickers I have seen that openly offers hidden city. Interesting.

"Also, if you plan to travel with a wheelchair or a stroller, please choose an itinerary with a longer layover time. Carriers usually put these items into the cargo hold and you might need more time to wait for them."

Interesting

The last thing that is weird is on the site it talks about the "kiwi.com Guarantee". The fine print says it only apply if you select the option at time of booking. If the dummy flair booking it was not offered. Not clear how that work? Maybe it is included or maybe not.

From the terms it sounds like if there is an IROP they will process the refund from the airline that canceled rebook you onto a new flight. If it is cheaper they keep the difference if it is more expensive then you as the passenger pay the difference. Maybe I am reading it incorrectly but that is what the terms of service sound like.

If the airline reroutes you for any reason without their prior permission then the terms of service are out the window and your on your own.

Wow....

Kiwi's implementation of this concept may not be exactly what you're looking for but my point is that the concept already exists. I think as ULCCs grow, there would be a market for this. Heck, even if this cost a couple hundred dollars on top of the ULCC fare, it would probably still be cheaper than a regularly priced AC or WS ticket from a secondary city airport in Canada.

ac190 wrote:

Curious how AC is shafting the Air Canada employed Rouge pilots, the Air Canada employed Rouge flight attendants, the Air Canada employed airport staff that board/load Rouge flight, the Air Canada employed dispatchers who make the plans, etc.

If you want to chat more than this response we should move it over to the AC topic, but do Rouge pilots and Rouge flight attendants get the same salary grid and benefits and pension that mainline staff do? No? So, Air Canada has lowered costs for this business unit, but consumers pay the exact same fare, so revenue is the same. End result, higher profits. The AC staff are shafted because they should be mainline employees. Rouge is all about cost reduction.

alo2yyz wrote:

Saskatoon is ridiculously underserved for people trying to go east, and I fear with WS's "focus on the west," it's only going to get worse.

WS will probably serve YXE more with east-west routes than it has in the past. The biggest issue YXE has is that it lacks a US Carrier flying into a hub. AC routes the entire universe via YYZ, and WS's integration with DL is laughable so you can't easily route via YYC. I feel for business travelers like yourself, that is super frustrating. Ironically, if not for the Delta "partnership" DL might fly a CR9 into YXE to MSP.

If I am going to the US, I always, always, always clear in YYC. Once you get to a US airport, you are a domestic passenger and all is well.

YYCFlier wrote:

ac190 wrote:

Curious how AC is shafting the Air Canada employed Rouge pilots, the Air Canada employed Rouge flight attendants, the Air Canada employed airport staff that board/load Rouge flight, the Air Canada employed dispatchers who make the plans, etc.

If you want to chat more than this response we should move it over to the AC topic, but do Rouge pilots and Rouge flight attendants get the same salary grid and benefits and pension that mainline staff do? No? So, Air Canada has lowered costs for this business unit, but consumers pay the exact same fare, so revenue is the same. End result, higher profits. The AC staff are shafted because they should be mainline employees. Rouge is all about cost reduction.

I opted out of this discussion as when talking about Rouge, it is a huge thread drift. Maybe even start a separate thread, as it would be an interesting discussion.

As it stands, it appears there are a lot of misconceptions about Rouge wrt pay and working conditions. I’ll give you a hint, Rouge A319 pilots (we call it 319 even though they fly all three) make more and have better working conditions than AC 320 pilots. (Again we call it 320 even though it’s all three).

Everyone is talking about buissiness, and they are spot in, but it's not just buissiness travelers who need more than mass tourism destinations. Immigrants, people with family and friends in smaller citites, and those interested in travel all need network carrier access. I only fly an average 12 trips a year, but in the last 10 years I have only flown one trip on a route serviced by an ULCC.

casperCA wrote:

From an economic perspective for places like Victoria, Saskatoon and Regina to be successful business centers they need good network airline coverage. It is about creating jobs in those regions and ensuring they have successful business. Network airlines are good, these ULCC are useless in that regard.

I think it comes down to entire connecting airports being eliminated. From Saskatoon WestJet use to offer Edmonton as an airport where you could make connects. Not any more. Tomorrow out of Saskatoon WestJet is not operating a Toronto flight, but Swoop is. If you traveling for business, to a point in Ontario of east your left with only one option.

From YYJ, the option of connecting in Toronto onto WestJet is now gone. That not only includes WestJet but their international codeshare and interline partners in Toronto. Even at that Swoop can only justify flying to Toronto from YYJ three days a week. If they had onward connections they might have managed to get that up to 6 or daily.

As far as subsidies go it has always been the business travelers who book last minute paying the premium and a few buying business class. The cheap tickets usually get booked ahead of time. At the end of the day the ULCC is not offering substantial saving to most passengers.

Won’t belabour the point, but there’s a lot of contradictions in there:

- if these ULCCs aren’t providing substantial savings, that suggests airfares are around the same as they were without the ULCCs. Network carriers should - at least in theory - be fine with that, not leaving. If they’re leaving despite that, that suggests the market is no longer what it was - at least on the business side subsidizing these Y fares.

- if there are substantial savings to be had, that has its own economic benefits. After all, low airfares = more disposable income = more jobs (locals saving money, visitors arriving with more disposable money).

- if J/business passengers are already subsidizing lower fare passengers on network carriers, why wouldn’t they be willing to part with a little more to retain these critical services? At which point, businesses are forced to confront how much these services are actually worth to them. That is, quite literally, the market at work. I don’t think AC or WS are going to cut profitable routes; if business travellers feel the fare is worth it, you’re golden.

This is all obviously something WS/WO have taken into account. If they’re putting WO on routes, it’s probably a reflection of the kind of passengers they attract. I see AC connecting some (all?) of these cities to their hubs on a daily basis, so maybe that’s a clue - that business / J pax overwhelmingly prefer them? It’s not hard to see why - WS positioned itself as a slightly cheaper spillover carrier since it’s inception, and now there’s much cheaper spillover carriers competing for that traffic.

In that sense, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to blame ULCCs for WS’ route cuts. WS did that to themselves by spending the pre-pandemic decade congratulating themselves for being such a great carrier, and dithering instead of being innovative. For example, biz pax like FFPs. WS started talking about joining a global FFP 15 years ago. Yet here we are. Can’t blame ULCCs for that.

Aliqiout wrote:

Everyone is talking about buissiness, and they are spot in, but it's not just buissiness travelers who need more than mass tourism destinations. Immigrants, people with family and friends in smaller citites, and those interested in travel all need network carrier access. I only fly an average 12 trips a year, but in the last 10 years I have only flown one trip on a route serviced by an ULCC.

To be fair, ULCCs haven't really been significant in Canada for the vast majority of the past 10 years. Even today, they are small with most carriers operating under 20 aircraft each. In next few years there will be a significant growth in ULCC service based on the sheer quantity of aircraft they have on order.

YYCFlier wrote:

alo2yyz wrote:

Saskatoon is ridiculously underserved for people trying to go east, and I fear with WS's "focus on the west," it's only going to get worse.

WS will probably serve YXE more with east-west routes than it has in the past. The biggest issue YXE has is that it lacks a US Carrier flying into a hub. AC routes the entire universe via YYZ, and WS's integration with DL is laughable so you can't easily route via YYC. I feel for business travelers like yourself, that is super frustrating. Ironically, if not for the Delta "partnership" DL might fly a CR9 into YXE to MSP.

If I am going to the US, I always, always, always clear in YYC. Once you get to a US airport, you are a domestic passenger and all is well.

WS going back 20 years, had morning flights out of Saskatoon, Regina into Winnipeg. That was part of a bank that had onward flights to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, London etc. They would do the reverse. A hub bank with only 3-4 aircraft but it worked. They slowly replaced that Winnipeg bank with direct flights to Toronto. That worked.

I agree Delta would likely still be in Saskatoon if not for the deal with WS. Delta and before that NorthWest had always had two daily MSP flights. Everything from small regional jet to the 757. The 757 or A320 were common on those routes for one to two months a year when it was hunting season.

casperCA wrote:

YYCFlier wrote:

alo2yyz wrote:

Saskatoon is ridiculously underserved for people trying to go east, and I fear with WS's "focus on the west," it's only going to get worse.

WS will probably serve YXE more with east-west routes than it has in the past. The biggest issue YXE has is that it lacks a US Carrier flying into a hub. AC routes the entire universe via YYZ, and WS's integration with DL is laughable so you can't easily route via YYC. I feel for business travelers like yourself, that is super frustrating. Ironically, if not for the Delta "partnership" DL might fly a CR9 into YXE to MSP.

If I am going to the US, I always, always, always clear in YYC. Once you get to a US airport, you are a domestic passenger and all is well.

WS going back 20 years, had morning flights out of Saskatoon, Regina into Winnipeg. That was part of a bank that had onward flights to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, London etc. They would do the reverse. A hub bank with only 3-4 aircraft but it worked. They slowly replaced that Winnipeg bank with direct flights to Toronto. That worked.

I agree Delta would likely still be in Saskatoon if not for the deal with WS. Delta and before that NorthWest had always had two daily MSP flights. Everything from small regional jet to the 757. The 757 or A320 were common on those routes for one to two months a year when it was hunting season.

IIRC the official line was that YXE<>MSP was a COVID-induced route 'suspension.' Frankly, I think it's pathetic that DL connections across YYC aren't more readily available, given the number of YXE<>YYC flights there usually are.

alo2yyz wrote:

casperCA wrote:

YYCFlier wrote:

WS will probably serve YXE more with east-west routes than it has in the past. The biggest issue YXE has is that it lacks a US Carrier flying into a hub. AC routes the entire universe via YYZ, and WS's integration with DL is laughable so you can't easily route via YYC. I feel for business travelers like yourself, that is super frustrating. Ironically, if not for the Delta "partnership" DL might fly a CR9 into YXE to MSP.

If I am going to the US, I always, always, always clear in YYC. Once you get to a US airport, you are a domestic passenger and all is well.

WS going back 20 years, had morning flights out of Saskatoon, Regina into Winnipeg. That was part of a bank that had onward flights to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, London etc. They would do the reverse. A hub bank with only 3-4 aircraft but it worked. They slowly replaced that Winnipeg bank with direct flights to Toronto. That worked.

I agree Delta would likely still be in Saskatoon if not for the deal with WS. Delta and before that NorthWest had always had two daily MSP flights. Everything from small regional jet to the 757. The 757 or A320 were common on those routes for one to two months a year when it was hunting season.

IIRC the official line was that YXE<>MSP was a COVID-induced route 'suspension.' Frankly, I think it's pathetic that DL connections across YYC aren't more readily available, given the number of YXE<>YYC flights there usually are.

Agreed. Connecting in YYC sometimes works if your heading to Vegas, LA or San Francisco. However when I was in Saskatoon it was commonly New York, Knoxville, San Antonio, Chicago and Miami. Many of these places your look at a three flights to reach with the Delta/WestJet network. I don't think we are going to see any of these ULCC service these routes.

YEGFlyer wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

Everyone is talking about buissiness, and they are spot in, but it's not just buissiness travelers who need more than mass tourism destinations. Immigrants, people with family and friends in smaller citites, and those interested in travel all need network carrier access. I only fly an average 12 trips a year, but in the last 10 years I have only flown one trip on a route serviced by an ULCC.

To be fair, ULCCs haven't really been significant in Canada for the vast majority of the past 10 years. Even today, they are small with most carriers operating under 20 aircraft each. In next few years there will be a significant growth in ULCC service based on the sheer quantity of aircraft they have on order.

I don't disagree with you, but what does that have to donwith what I said?

Aliqiout wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

Everyone is talking about buissiness, and they are spot in, but it's not just buissiness travelers who need more than mass tourism destinations. Immigrants, people with family and friends in smaller citites, and those interested in travel all need network carrier access. I only fly an average 12 trips a year, but in the last 10 years I have only flown one trip on a route serviced by an ULCC.

To be fair, ULCCs haven't really been significant in Canada for the vast majority of the past 10 years. Even today, they are small with most carriers operating under 20 aircraft each. In next few years there will be a significant growth in ULCC service based on the sheer quantity of aircraft they have on order.

I don't disagree with you, but what does that have to donwith what I said?

Just that in the next 10, I suspect they will be on those routes you fly. The past 10 are not a good indicator, given that ULCCs didn't really exist, don't really exist today at any large scale (yet).

YEGFlyer wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

To be fair, ULCCs haven't really been significant in Canada for the vast majority of the past 10 years. Even today, they are small with most carriers operating under 20 aircraft each. In next few years there will be a significant growth in ULCC service based on the sheer quantity of aircraft they have on order.

I don't disagree with you, but what does that have to donwith what I said?

Just that in the next 10, I suspect they will be on those routes you fly. The past 10 are not a good indicator, given that ULCCs didn't really exist, don't really exist today at any large scale (yet).

No, they won't. I can count on one hand the number of trips I have taken that have non-stop service on any carrier. Who is going to fly YQY-INV, YYC-FNC, FAI-ELP YQY-YXY?

Aliqiout wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

I don't disagree with you, but what does that have to donwith what I said?

Just that in the next 10, I suspect they will be on those routes you fly. The past 10 are not a good indicator, given that ULCCs didn't really exist, don't really exist today at any large scale (yet).

No, they won't. I can count on one hand the number of trips I have taken that have non-stop service on any carrier. Who is going to fly YQY-INV, YYC-FNC, FAI-ELP YQY-YXY?

Put it this way, YEG-BNA was pretty out of the question until Flair came along.

Westjet’s board of directors executed an agreement today with Boeing to purchase 42 737-10 aircraft with options for 22 more . The 42 will be delivered over the course of seven years through to 2028.
Video to the announcement

The full press release

I wonder if they converted their 737-7’s to -10’s?

Nice! Best looking narrow body in production imo

That's a good sized order. When I first saw it, I thought it said 787-10 and I was like "finally some real competition for AC on long-haul". Alas not to be - Yet.