YEGFlyer wrote:

yzfElite wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

Here's the calculus:

Option 1: Don't order new narrowbody capacity. Likely outcome - the ULCCs survive (just barely) and domestic yields are significantly weakened long term. AC makes incremental cuts to domestic market as they no longer capture the price-sensitive segment of the market (just a bit here and there). This results in weaker feed to international network. Bad outcome.

Option 2: Order new narrowbody capacity and deploy it. Likely outcome - domestic yields tank (worse than option 1) as AC engages in fare war to fill their new aircraft and maintain market share. BUT under this option there is a chance that one or more of the ULCCs do not survive, so there is a chance that a big chunk of competitive domestic capacity disappears - at that point, yields would significantly recover. Under this scenario, the domestic network strength is preserved over the long term. Feed to international network is maintained. Potential good outcome (or potential really bad outcome if AC miscalculates and starts to lose money significantly on domestic). Option 2 is higher risk, but higher reward.

They have dozens of recent deliveries and more options confirmed plus the 321 order coming in the near term so they've already taken your option 2. They are not even really competing with the ULCCs directly.

AC likes to say they are not competing with ULCCs directly but the yield pressure will flow through the system. They will feel some effect. The extent of the effect is not yet certain. With respect to their recent deliveries, I don't think they are back to pre-pandemic capacity levels right now. So my analysis is for ordering additional aircraft (or more generally for increasing narrowbody capacity).

They are well insulated and are trying to cushion themselves away more from the ULCC/airline domestic bloodbath

MIflyer12 wrote:

Acey wrote:

777luver wrote:

They need airplanes, the A320s that are still around aren’t that old and are paid off as far as I know. What is this a.net obsession with anything older than 10 years being “inefficient” or “ancient”? I don’t get it. Anyways AC clearly likes these airplanes and they are to be replaced by the A220s eventually but I believe some of the newer ones will stick around

To be fair, at 15% greater burn than a 7M8 and higher operating costs it's not unreasonable to call A320 inefficient in comparison, but like you say there are obviously other factors like the acquisition cost of new frames versus those already owned.

Forty is not an economic fleet size of a narrowbody type. AC should be looking at 80 or more to justify the separate pilot pool and other costs unique to MAXs.

AC doesn't operate in the United States. They only have 149 narrow bodies in the fleet when Rouge is included. There are many international carriers that have similar size narrow body fleets that are mixed.

In hindsight AC shouldn't have ordered the Max, but that is easy to say now. It made financial sense at the time of the order. And they placed an A220 order after the Max order making the mix fleet the way it is today.

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

In hindsight AC shouldn't have ordered the Max, but that is easy to say now.

This comment is in reference to the crashes and not the capabilities of the frame, right? Or you're saying the 137-seat 223 is a perfectly fine substitute for the 169 seats of 7M8?

I might be in the wrong place for this but all around the world airlines and airports are struggling with staffing and getting on time departures etc but on my travels this year Canada (and AC in particular) seem to have been really bad. Flights delayed by multiple hours multiple times, had flights cancelled twice without any remedy from AC (had to sort myself through Amex). Toronto and flying out to NB/NS seem to be the big issues here for me.

Over 1000GBP (~1600CAD) return YYZ-YFC, seems a lot but then do leave me hanging when it was cancelled seems pretty bad.

Is it truly worse in Canada (on air Canada) or am I just unlucky?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Is it truly worse in Canada (on air Canada) or am I just unlucky?

Both are true. The state of air travel is horrific in this country, but you're still relatively unlucky to have multiple legs cancelled on the same trip.

Acey wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Is it truly worse in Canada (on air Canada) or am I just unlucky?

Both are true. The state of air travel is horrific in this country, but you're still relatively unlucky to have multiple legs cancelled on the same trip.

...and the high costs to fly on traditional Jazz routes, particularly in the eastern half of the country

Acey wrote:

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

In hindsight AC shouldn't have ordered the Max, but that is easy to say now.

This comment is in reference to the crashes and not the capabilities of the frame, right? Or you're saying the 137-seat 223 is a perfectly fine substitute for the 169 seats of 7M8?

AC would likely have been better to order the NEO considering they have placed an order for the XLR and have a large fleet of A220's. There is also the legacy A32x fleet which is largely at Rouge but also still at mainline, and will be so for the foreseeable future.

Had there not been the grounding, and had AC gone ahead with the entirety of the 61 frame Max order, the fleet composition might have been quite different, with more Maxes and less A220's. Additionally, there might have been a follow up Max order, which seems quite unlikely at this stage, regardless of the 10 options they still have. However, that doesn't take into consideration that Boeing does not have a competitor to the XLR which would mean it likely would have be ordered regardless of how many Maxes AC might have taken.

There is lots of discussion about the financial benefits of single aircraft type related to pilot pool, maintenance cost, etc. Although no-one except AC could provide information on the cost savings from the Max order, it would seem that whatever they saved on the order, and whatever financial compensation AC received from Boeing, likely have been negated from the mixed fleet costs (as many have said). No one can say for sure, but the Max debacle has certainly seemed to shift AC's approach to aircraft ordering back to Airbus in terms of the narrow body fleet.

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Acey wrote:

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

In hindsight AC shouldn't have ordered the Max, but that is easy to say now.

This comment is in reference to the crashes and not the capabilities of the frame, right? Or you're saying the 137-seat 223 is a perfectly fine substitute for the 169 seats of 7M8?

AC would likely have been better to order the NEO considering they have placed an order for the XLR and have a large fleet of A220's. There is also the legacy A32x fleet which is largely at Rouge but also still at mainline, and will be so for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand the A320neo is smaller than the 7M8, and probably closer in size to the eventual A225 (which I expect AC to order). New A320neos would have certainly been densified with smaller labs/galleys and more seats than current A320ceos though.

I suspect part of the increased focus on A220 vs more Maxes is exactly because of increased competition in Canadian market. Right now the smaller A220 is a safer choice. In a few years when there is more clarity on how all the ULCCs in Canada will shake out things might be different. And since the Max seems to be the popular choice for Canadian ULCCs there might be some cheap used ones to snap up. While the Max makes ops more complicated it does provide AC with a lot of options in the future for new and secondhand purchases, as they will be operating all 3 major narrowbody families.

The XLRs are primarily for international use to replace 767. Obviously they will be used domestically/trans border but that is not their primary mission and why they were ordered.

People here think AC management has a more negative view of the Max then in reality. While the grounding was frustrating in terms of actual aircraft performance AC has been very pleased with the plane.

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

it would seem that whatever they saved on the order, and whatever financial compensation AC received from Boeing, likely have been negated from the mixed fleet costs (as many have said)

Is there any evidence for this claim?

Polot wrote:

On the other hand the A320neo is smaller than the 7M8, and probably closer in size to the eventual A225 (which I expect AC to order).

On the Q3 investor call, Amos Kazzaz CFO and EVP said that because they have the MAX8, the 225 is not of interest.
But of course things can change and we all know how closely AC holds their cards.

Acey wrote:

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

it would seem that whatever they saved on the order, and whatever financial compensation AC received from Boeing, likely have been negated from the mixed fleet costs (as many have said)

Is there any evidence for this claim?

None. All conjecture.

I’m surprised so many think the Max fleet at 40 is “too small” and inefficient. When we only have to look worldwide and see many airlines flying fleets profitably with less than 40. Look at Flair, are they efficient? How many 737s do they have? Look at Westjet, they were profitable almost from the start. Number of 737s? A lot less than 40. As noted by those that were there, Westjet flew many years profitably with less than 40 aircraft.

I suggest with Air Canada’s size and economies of scale not related to aircraft type, they can do it more than efficiently enough.

Don’t forget one of the main reasons why Air Canada selected the 737 over the A320neo to begin with. Boeing was able to deliver one more than two years ahead of Airbus. In fact, had they ordered the A320neo, they would have arrived just as Covid was starting.

The 737-8 has hit an interesting “sweet spot” with size, ETOPS/range and astounding fuel efficiency. I have heard nothing internally that indicates AC is not happy with the aircraft. The A220, 737, A321 is a very efficient range of aircraft. In my opinion, what replaces the few A320s at mainline will be an indication of where they want growth among the three. With the orders for more A220s and A321XLRs, that seems to be where the growth will be.

Yeah. EdmFlyBoi is making a strong argument that is based on zero fact and entirely unknown variables.

AC 7M8 acquisition cost = unknown
7M8 mtce cost = unknown
Additional fleet related cost related to the fact that neo could not be delivered in the same timeframe = unknown
Additional pilot cost for 7M8 = unknown

I've worked in aircraft maintenance for a while and other airport related jobs and have a reasonably educated perspective on some of these variables, well enough to the degree that I'm not going to claim that a + b + c is less than x + y + z when NONE of those variables are known.

Acey wrote:

AC 7M8 acquisition cost = unknown
7M8 mtce cost = unknown
Additional fleet related cost related to the fact that neo could not be delivered in the same timeframe = unknown
Additional pilot cost for 7M8 = unknown

+ savings on future aircraft purchases = unknown (AC can now play Boeing and Airbus off each other much harder for discounts)

Eventual domestic A321 replacement will be perfect example of that, 737-10 vs standard A321neo. Both viable options for AC.

Polot wrote:

Eventual domestic A321 replacement will be perfect example of that, 737-10 vs standard A321neo. Both viable options for AC.

And no doubt they'll get a very good idea of how the -10 performs, or any potential limitations of the frame, when they start coming online for WS.

I think one also needs to remember that the A220s predominately replaced E190 and A319 capacity where a Max8 is presumably too much plane. We still don't have YOW-YEG back in the offseason, so I'm all about the 220s which will hopefully bring back the routes that were predominately E190 before.

Acey wrote:

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

it would seem that whatever they saved on the order, and whatever financial compensation AC received from Boeing, likely have been negated from the mixed fleet costs (as many have said)

Is there any evidence for this claim?

If you read the post it was intended to imply the likelihood of this not the certainty - hence the comment that no one but AC can say for sure as to the financial implications of the Max grounding. The reduction in the order, and the follow up Airbus orders, would certainly suggest that the Max didn't end up being the best choice.

This forum is full of statements that postulate on reasons for many things based on assumptions made on an assessment of what a carrier does or doesn't do.

I have no idea if AC came out ahead financially on the Max deal, but their ordering behaviour since would suggest they didn't. AC runs a business and business decisions are usually based on profit and loss. There would be more Maxes if it was financially advantageous for AC to have ordered them.

But your are correct that there is no evidence on which make such a claim.

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Acey wrote:

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

it would seem that whatever they saved on the order, and whatever financial compensation AC received from Boeing, likely have been negated from the mixed fleet costs (as many have said)

Is there any evidence for this claim?

If you read the post it was intended to imply the likelihood of this not the certainty - hence the comment that no one but AC can say for sure as to the financial implications of the Max grounding. The reduction in the order, and the follow up Airbus orders, would certainly suggest that the Max didn't end up being the best choice.

This forum is full of statements that postulate on reasons for many things based on assumptions made on an assessment of what a carrier does or doesn't do.

I have no idea if AC came out ahead financially on the Max deal, but their ordering behaviour since would suggest they didn't. AC runs a business and business decisions are usually based on profit and loss. There would be more Maxes if it was financially advantageous for AC to have ordered them.

But your are correct that there is no evidence on which make such a claim.

I would say that AC did ok on the MAX deal not because of the airplane value, but because of the compensation and the fact that it was grounded for much of the worst of the pandemic at a time where they could retire a lot of frames and then had these brand new ones ready to go when things reopened. I'm sure it helped them weather the pandemic better than they would have otherwise.

Effective today, AC upgauged EZE back to the 77W. First flight arrived at EZE with 367 paxs, an 82% LF. Route is YYZ-GRU-EZE with 5th freedom rights between GRU and EZE.

CrewBunk wrote:

I’m surprised so many think the Max fleet at 40 is “too small” and inefficient. When we only have to look worldwide and see many airlines flying fleets profitably with less than 40. Look at Flair, are they efficient? How many 737s do they have? Look at Westjet, they were profitable almost from the start. Number of 737s? A lot less than 40. As noted by those that were there, Westjet flew many years profitably with less than 40 aircraft.

Your comparisons are poorly chosen. It's the fragmentation of the pilot pool and redundant part and scheduling costs that leave a fleet of less than ~80 narrowbodies sub-optimal. If it's just a small, single-type fleet (as with Flair today, and WestJet in the past), that's quite a different matter. What does AC get from those redundant costs? A few more seats per aircraft and very marginally lower CASM vs. an A320neo. If you're AA, DL or UA with 300 of each 737/A32X those duplicate costs round down close to zero.

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

The reduction in the order, and the follow up Airbus orders, would certainly suggest that the Max didn't end up being the best choice.

But AC has not ordered anything new in direct competition to the Max 8s. The A220s are much smaller (32 less seats) and the XLRs are for an entirely different mission (primarily TATL to replace lost 767 frames).

I suspect if they had selected the A320neo you wouldn’t see anymore than ~40 at the moment either. The larger domestic narrowbody market is not a priority at the moment with Canadian competition currently greater than ever and the company moving much more conservatively after Covid. They are clearly stretching out the use of their A320ceos to reduce CAPEX costs.

MIflyer12 wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

I’m surprised so many think the Max fleet at 40 is “too small” and inefficient. When we only have to look worldwide and see many airlines flying fleets profitably with less than 40. Look at Flair, are they efficient? How many 737s do they have? Look at Westjet, they were profitable almost from the start. Number of 737s? A lot less than 40. As noted by those that were there, Westjet flew many years profitably with less than 40 aircraft.

Your comparisons are poorly chosen. It's the fragmentation of the pilot pool and redundant part and scheduling costs that leave a fleet of less than ~80 narrowbodies sub-optimal. If it's just a small, single-type fleet (as with Flair today, and WestJet in the past), that's quite a different matter. What does AC get from those redundant costs? A few more seats per aircraft and very marginally lower CASM vs. an A320neo. If you're AA, DL or UA with 300 of each 737/A32X those duplicate costs round down close to zero.

Why 80? What is there about 80 aircraft that makes a number less, “sub-optimal”.

If an airline, any airline, has a fleet of 40 737s, then they have certain support staff and equipment to operate it. Most, like aircrew, are staffed on a per-aircraft basis, making the size of the fleet and crew requirements irrelevant to fleet size. Some equipment, is not type specific where AC’s “fleet within a fleet” is even more efficient.

But ….. if Flair can operate a fleet of 40 737s (if they last that long) efficiently, why does operating that exact same fleet within AC, with the exact same support equipment/staff, make it suddenly inefficient? I’m sure Air Canada (and Flair) would love the kind of numbers generated in the United States. But in a country the size of Canada, the economies of scale will never equal AA, DL or UA.

For years, Air Canada operated only 3 747s, (twice). Heck, for decades they operated only 8 A330s. Sometimes, right sizing the aircraft to the job is important. More important than keeping everything “the same” so as not to bother the Anal-Alices on Airliners.net.

I’m pretty sure Pan American’s unit costs with 50 747s were less than AC’s 3 747s. But it would be silly (and a competitive disaster) to just fly more DC-8s trying to keep a like fleet. Or, to bring the analogy to modern times ….. AC has less than 40 787s and less than 40 777s. Would it be better to retire one type, or right-size the aircraft to the job?

CrewBunk wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

I’m surprised so many think the Max fleet at 40 is “too small” and inefficient. When we only have to look worldwide and see many airlines flying fleets profitably with less than 40. Look at Flair, are they efficient? How many 737s do they have? Look at Westjet, they were profitable almost from the start. Number of 737s? A lot less than 40. As noted by those that were there, Westjet flew many years profitably with less than 40 aircraft.

Your comparisons are poorly chosen. It's the fragmentation of the pilot pool and redundant part and scheduling costs that leave a fleet of less than ~80 narrowbodies sub-optimal. If it's just a small, single-type fleet (as with Flair today, and WestJet in the past), that's quite a different matter. What does AC get from those redundant costs? A few more seats per aircraft and very marginally lower CASM vs. an A320neo. If you're AA, DL or UA with 300 of each 737/A32X those duplicate costs round down close to zero.

Why 80? What is there about 80 aircraft that makes a number less, “sub-optimal”.

If an airline, any airline, has a fleet of 40 737s, then they have certain support staff and equipment to operate it. Most, like aircrew, are staffed on a per-aircraft basis, making the size of the fleet and crew requirements irrelevant to fleet size. Some equipment, is not type specific where AC’s “fleet within a fleet” is even more efficient.

But ….. if Flair can operate a fleet of 40 737s (if they last that long) efficiently, why does operating that exact same fleet within AC, with the exact same support equipment/staff, make it suddenly inefficient? I’m sure Air Canada (and Flair) would love the kind of numbers generated in the United States. But in a country the size of Canada, the economies of scale will never equal AA, DL or UA.

For years, Air Canada operated only 3 747s, (twice). Heck, for decades they operated only 8 A330s. Sometimes, right sizing the aircraft to the job is important. More important than keeping everything “the same” so as not to bother the Anal-Alices on Airliners.net.

I’m pretty sure Pan American’s unit costs with 50 747s were less than AC’s 3 747s. But it would be silly (and a competitive disaster) to just fly more DC-8s trying to keep a like fleet. Or, to bring the analogy to modern times ….. AC has less than 40 787s and less than 40 777s. Would it be better to retire one type, or right-size the aircraft to the job?

I've always wondered about the people who say this, that AC or WS' fleets are too complex. For a market like Canada, AC needs the variety in the fleet that they have to serve a smaller market with a larger geographical area. Sure the costs are probably more but Canada is not a market where trying to keep fleets as uniform as possible is going to work well. Businesses have multiple different variables to consider, not only fleet complexity.

Polot wrote:

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

The reduction in the order, and the follow up Airbus orders, would certainly suggest that the Max didn't end up being the best choice.

But AC has not ordered anything new in direct competition to the Max 8s. The A220s are much smaller (32 less seats) and the XLRs are for an entirely different mission (primarily TATL to replace lost 767 frames).

I suspect if they had selected the A320neo you wouldn’t see anymore than ~40 at the moment either. The larger domestic narrowbody market is not a priority at the moment with Canadian competition currently greater than ever and the company moving much more conservatively after Covid. They are clearly stretching out the use of their A320ceos to reduce CAPEX costs.

But they have incrementally added newer CEO's to the Rouge fleet (3 further added this upcoming quarter). I am more than happy give that I have no idea as to the financial side of the equation, but AC has added used Airbus passenger aircraft consistently over the last few years while at the same time taken the opportunity to acquire white tail 767F's from Boeing. There were white tail Maxes (and I believe still maybe are unless all of the Maxes previously destined for China have been taken up). I am not suggesting that AC is unhappy with the Max - it is a great ride in J and it is a very fuel efficient aircraft. I just don't see them ordering 10 more. This is a bit like the argument where a poster was so certain that none of the parked A320's were coming back. Seems that 18 of them have come back and are some of the oldest flying. Two of the oldest A320's (both right around 30 years) have been fitted with 66 J seats to take over the Jetz flying from the A319's.

I recognise that there are valid arguments either way about which narrow body manufacturer AC will purchase from moving forward. They have 10 Max options and a further 15 A220 options. They also have 15 XLR purchase options that can likely be switched to another A32x aircraft. The Rouge A321 and A320 fleet have lots of life left in them and the mainline A321's are supposedly getting refurbished. The A320's seat count is 150 which is right in between the A220 and the Max. It certainly could be argued that the 15 additional A220's ordered could be considered A320 replacements. I really don't see that many further new aircraft orders in the next number of years as AC in inducting 59 new narrow bodies between now and 2027 and they already have inducted 71. That's a pretty significant CapEx for a carrier AC's size. I would think we will see a gradual addition of further used aircraft over the next number of years if the demand warrants it. It seems to be a strategy that works for them as they have followed in on an ongoing basis in the few years prior to COVID and during this fiscal year 9both narrow bodies and wide bodies).

The discussion about this is entertainment - this a forum which people follow because they are aviation enthusiasts. The discussion about what AC might do, and postulating which aircraft they may order, is part of the entertainment value.

Historically, Air Canada has operated used aircraft in the past. Certainly A320s/A321s/A330s currently, but also 747s, 767s, DC-8s, DC-9s, etc. in the past. I was never sure if they were “bargain hunting” or looking for quicker uplift than buying from the factory. Likely a combination of both.

The older A320s replacing the Jetz A319s though is for a reason. The original CP A320s could bulk load the main cargo holds, where the original AC ones could not. (Required when carrying teams, or going to remote stations). That is why when the A320 took over the Jetz operation from the 737s, 20 odd years ago, it was the original CP ships.

Today, going back to the A320, it will by necessity be among the oldest in the fleet.

I look with interest at the interior layout of the 737-8 at AC. A full 35% of the Economy cabin is designated as “preferred” seating. Maybe that is the future of Economy travel at AC, where for a modest price, one can get legroom similar to the DC-8, 30 years ago!

CrewBunk wrote:

I look with interest at the interior layout of the 737-8 at AC. A full 35% of the Economy cabin is designated as “preferred” seating. Maybe that is the future of Economy travel at AC, where for a modest price, one can get legroom similar to the DC-8, 30 years ago!

Do we know the actual seat pitch of those seats? The "our fleet" page is only stating 30" in the Y cabin. I haven't seen how those cabins look like, as the only AC 7M8 flight I was booked on was cancelled. And BTW, some of us don't have to pay extra for those seats.

CrewBunk wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

I’m surprised so many think the Max fleet at 40 is “too small” and inefficient. When we only have to look worldwide and see many airlines flying fleets profitably with less than 40. Look at Flair, are they efficient? How many 737s do they have? Look at Westjet, they were profitable almost from the start. Number of 737s? A lot less than 40. As noted by those that were there, Westjet flew many years profitably with less than 40 aircraft.

Your comparisons are poorly chosen. It's the fragmentation of the pilot pool and redundant part and scheduling costs that leave a fleet of less than ~80 narrowbodies sub-optimal. If it's just a small, single-type fleet (as with Flair today, and WestJet in the past), that's quite a different matter. What does AC get from those redundant costs? A few more seats per aircraft and very marginally lower CASM vs. an A320neo. If you're AA, DL or UA with 300 of each 737/A32X those duplicate costs round down close to zero.

Why 80? What is there about 80 aircraft that makes a number less, “sub-optimal”.

If an airline, any airline, has a fleet of 40 737s, then they have certain support staff and equipment to operate it. Most, like aircrew, are staffed on a per-aircraft basis, making the size of the fleet and crew requirements irrelevant to fleet size. Some equipment, is not type specific where AC’s “fleet within a fleet” is even more efficient.

But ….. if Flair can operate a fleet of 40 737s (if they last that long) efficiently, why does operating that exact same fleet within AC, with the exact same support equipment/staff, make it suddenly inefficient? I’m sure Air Canada (and Flair) would love the kind of numbers generated in the United States. But in a country the size of Canada, the economies of scale will never equal AA, DL or UA.

For years, Air Canada operated only 3 747s, (twice). Heck, for decades they operated only 8 A330s. Sometimes, right sizing the aircraft to the job is important. More important than keeping everything “the same” so as not to bother the Anal-Alices on Airliners.net.

I’m pretty sure Pan American’s unit costs with 50 747s were less than AC’s 3 747s. But it would be silly (and a competitive disaster) to just fly more DC-8s trying to keep a like fleet. Or, to bring the analogy to modern times ….. AC has less than 40 787s and less than 40 777s. Would it be better to retire one type, or right-size the aircraft to the job?

I agree completely. I would argue the AC 747s were meant more for cargo than pax. The combi’s flew to FRA and LHR, bot cargo heavy destinations, and if I remember correctly they had a capacity of 280 or so seats, same as the A330/A340s.

I think the smartest thing AC did recently was leading the additional A330s, a cheap, quick and flexible option to meet forecasted demand. And they did plan on 787-10s to replace the A333s, back when the original order was placed but decided to expand the A333 fleet.

Look at a destination like LAX, AC flies everything on that route, from the c-series to the 777 to match capacity to load factor.

KrisYYZ

WildcatYXU wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

I look with interest at the interior layout of the 737-8 at AC. A full 35% of the Economy cabin is designated as “preferred” seating. Maybe that is the future of Economy travel at AC, where for a modest price, one can get legroom similar to the DC-8, 30 years ago!

Do we know the actual seat pitch of those seats? The "our fleet" page is only stating 30" in the Y cabin. I haven't seen how those cabins look like, as the only AC 7M8 flight I was booked on was cancelled. And BTW, some of us don't have to pay extra for those seats.

The Pilot Operating Manual states that rows 1-4 (Domestic Business or International Premium Economy) is 38”. In the Economy cabin, row 12 is 36”, rows 13-18 are 34”, rows 19 and 20 are 38” and rows 21-37 are 30”. So, rows 12-20 are “preferred”, 21-36 are basic economy and row 37 is assigned last as a Flight Attendant crew rest area where possible.

I am not familiar with frequent flyer programs. I have never joined one. I am happy to hear some higher levels are rewarded with better seats.

CrewBunk wrote:

The Pilot Operating Manual states that rows 1-4 (Domestic Business or International Premium Economy) is 38”. In the Economy cabin, row 12 is 36”, rows 13-18 are 34”, rows 19 and 20 are 38” and rows 21-37 are 30”. So, rows 12-20 are “preferred”, 21-36 are basic economy and row 37 is assigned last as a Flight Attendant crew rest area where possible.

I am not familiar with frequent flyer programs. I have never joined one. I am happy to hear some higher levels are rewarded with better seats.

It is a combination of the market, fare brand and FF status. It starts with 50% discount for the preferred seat fee on Flex fares for the lowest tier and ends with free on any market/any fare brand for the highest tier. The 2 highest fare brands include preferred seating for anyone.
And yes, 34" is respectable.

Does anyone have any info on AC856 today?

It's operated by a B789 (C-FGDZ) from LHR - BOM.

Is this a charter of some kind?

AC856 from London to Mumbai https://fr24.com/ACA856/2e0be475

Many thanks.

AC856 operates daily YYZ-LHR-BOM. AC855 operates daily BOM-LHR-YYZ. AC holds fifth freedom rights between LHR and BOM.

They will operate across the winter. Basically holding the LHR slot until the fourth YYZ-LHR-YYZ starts in the spring.

CrewBunk wrote:

AC856 operates daily YYZ-LHR-BOM. AC855 operates daily BOM-LHR-YYZ.

They will operate across the winter. Basically holding the LHR slot until the fourth YYZ-LHR-YYZ starts in the spring.

Thanks for this - I had no idea. Everyday is a learning day!

YEGFlyer wrote:

"By 2027-2028, a huge amount of new aircraft will arrive. Yes, the new entrants are well funded, but they won't sustain more than one winter. ... Canada is a more mature market... you can't really grow each market like you can in Asia and Latin America. People already travel quite a lot. It's highly unsustainable and there will definitely be more consolidation in Canada." (https://simpleflying.com/air-canada-wes ... olidation/)

Not surprising that AC is saying this, but I don't really buy it. Domestic flying in Canada has long been expensive. It's not unreasonable at all to think that $200 round trips from Toronto to Vancouver or Halifax will stimulate greater demand than the $800 round trip fares that prevailed five years ago.

YYZLGA wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

"By 2027-2028, a huge amount of new aircraft will arrive. Yes, the new entrants are well funded, but they won't sustain more than one winter. ... Canada is a more mature market... you can't really grow each market like you can in Asia and Latin America. People already travel quite a lot. It's highly unsustainable and there will definitely be more consolidation in Canada." (https://simpleflying.com/air-canada-wes ... olidation/)

Not surprising that AC is saying this, but I don't really buy it. Domestic flying in Canada has long been expensive. It's not unreasonable at all to think that $200 round trips from Toronto to Vancouver or Halifax will stimulate greater demand than the $800 round trip fares that prevailed five years ago.

Exactly. But will impact AC yields - there's no way it cannot.

YYZLGA wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

"By 2027-2028, a huge amount of new aircraft will arrive. Yes, the new entrants are well funded, but they won't sustain more than one winter. ... Canada is a more mature market... you can't really grow each market like you can in Asia and Latin America. People already travel quite a lot. It's highly unsustainable and there will definitely be more consolidation in Canada." (https://simpleflying.com/air-canada-wes ... olidation/)

Not surprising that AC is saying this, but I don't really buy it. Domestic flying in Canada has long been expensive. It's not unreasonable at all to think that $200 round trips from Toronto to Vancouver or Halifax will stimulate greater demand than the $800 round trip fares that prevailed five years ago.

Unless you are talking about short notice flights, one could very easily book a YVR to YYZ flight for around $200-300 or less, and that was the case for years.

For example, right now, I can book YVR to YYZ from Feb 11 2023, return Feb 20 with Air Canada Economy Basic For $272. Flair for the same dates is is asking for $232. With Air Canada, I can bring one carry on, Flair charges extra.

ThePointblank wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

"By 2027-2028, a huge amount of new aircraft will arrive. Yes, the new entrants are well funded, but they won't sustain more than one winter. ... Canada is a more mature market... you can't really grow each market like you can in Asia and Latin America. People already travel quite a lot. It's highly unsustainable and there will definitely be more consolidation in Canada." (https://simpleflying.com/air-canada-wes ... olidation/)

Not surprising that AC is saying this, but I don't really buy it. Domestic flying in Canada has long been expensive. It's not unreasonable at all to think that $200 round trips from Toronto to Vancouver or Halifax will stimulate greater demand than the $800 round trip fares that prevailed five years ago.

Unless you are talking about short notice flights, one could very easily book a YVR to YYZ flight for around $200-300 or less, and that was the case for years.

For example, right now, I can book YVR to YYZ from Feb 11 2023, return Feb 20 with Air Canada Economy Basic For $272. Flair for the same dates is is asking for $232. With Air Canada, I can bring one carry on, Flair charges extra.

And yet on a regional flight of less than 500KM from YYZ on the same dates at the lowest fare, the cost is over $400. Regional competition is lacking on Eastern Canada flying.

yyztpa2 wrote:

And yet on a regional flight of less than 500KM from YYZ on the same dates at the lowest fare, the cost is over $400. Regional competition is lacking on Eastern Canada flying.

February 20, 2023 is a stat holiday in Ontario. Return the day before, or the day after and it would be about $120 cheaper.

But don’t forget, it is a totally deregulated market. If any other carrier wished to jump in on this supposed cash cow, they are more than welcome. Both Westjet and Porter have tried and were not successful.

ThePointblank wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

"By 2027-2028, a huge amount of new aircraft will arrive. Yes, the new entrants are well funded, but they won't sustain more than one winter. ... Canada is a more mature market... you can't really grow each market like you can in Asia and Latin America. People already travel quite a lot. It's highly unsustainable and there will definitely be more consolidation in Canada." (https://simpleflying.com/air-canada-wes ... olidation/)

Not surprising that AC is saying this, but I don't really buy it. Domestic flying in Canada has long been expensive. It's not unreasonable at all to think that $200 round trips from Toronto to Vancouver or Halifax will stimulate greater demand than the $800 round trip fares that prevailed five years ago.

Unless you are talking about short notice flights, one could very easily book a YVR to YYZ flight for around $200-300 or less, and that was the case for years.

For example, right now, I can book YVR to YYZ from Feb 11 2023, return Feb 20 with Air Canada Economy Basic For $272. Flair for the same dates is is asking for $232. With Air Canada, I can bring one carry on, Flair charges extra.

The fact that Air Canada is matching Flair's price (or close to it) is proof of the need for competition. YYZ-YVR was consistently in the $500-600 range prior to any of the ULCC's entry to market on both WS and AC.

YEGFlyer wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

Not surprising that AC is saying this, but I don't really buy it. Domestic flying in Canada has long been expensive. It's not unreasonable at all to think that $200 round trips from Toronto to Vancouver or Halifax will stimulate greater demand than the $800 round trip fares that prevailed five years ago.

Unless you are talking about short notice flights, one could very easily book a YVR to YYZ flight for around $200-300 or less, and that was the case for years.

For example, right now, I can book YVR to YYZ from Feb 11 2023, return Feb 20 with Air Canada Economy Basic For $272. Flair for the same dates is is asking for $232. With Air Canada, I can bring one carry on, Flair charges extra.

The fact that Air Canada is matching Flair's price (or close to it) is proof of the need for competition. YYZ-YVR was consistently in the $500-600 range prior to any of the ULCC's entry to market on both WS and AC.

The fares prior to the ULCC entrants starting up, were consistently in the $500-$600 range 3 months out?

Emirates and Air Canada activates codeshare partnership from today, 01NOV22.

777luver wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Unless you are talking about short notice flights, one could very easily book a YVR to YYZ flight for around $200-300 or less, and that was the case for years.

For example, right now, I can book YVR to YYZ from Feb 11 2023, return Feb 20 with Air Canada Economy Basic For $272. Flair for the same dates is is asking for $232. With Air Canada, I can bring one carry on, Flair charges extra.

The fact that Air Canada is matching Flair's price (or close to it) is proof of the need for competition. YYZ-YVR was consistently in the $500-600 range prior to any of the ULCC's entry to market on both WS and AC.

The fares prior to the ULCC entrants starting up, were consistently in the $500-$600 range 3 months out?

Yes, sometimes even worse than that. People don't realize how much AC has had to lower prices everywhere to keep up with Flair.

YEGFlyer wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

Not surprising that AC is saying this, but I don't really buy it. Domestic flying in Canada has long been expensive. It's not unreasonable at all to think that $200 round trips from Toronto to Vancouver or Halifax will stimulate greater demand than the $800 round trip fares that prevailed five years ago.

Unless you are talking about short notice flights, one could very easily book a YVR to YYZ flight for around $200-300 or less, and that was the case for years.

For example, right now, I can book YVR to YYZ from Feb 11 2023, return Feb 20 with Air Canada Economy Basic For $272. Flair for the same dates is is asking for $232. With Air Canada, I can bring one carry on, Flair charges extra.

The fact that Air Canada is matching Flair's price (or close to it) is proof of the need for competition. YYZ-YVR was consistently in the $500-600 range prior to any of the ULCC's entry to market on both WS and AC.

Exactly! That proves the point. I flew all the time and I never saw a YYZ-YVR flight in the $200 range before the arrival of the ULCCs. No question that it's impacted yields for AC, as you said. Obviously they're not losing business travelers to Flair, but at the lower end they clearly have had to cut fares significantly to be in the same ballpark. Leisure travelers might be willing to pay an extra $100 for the greater comfort and baggage allowance of AC, but probably not too much more than that.

Lamp1009 wrote:

777luver wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

The fact that Air Canada is matching Flair's price (or close to it) is proof of the need for competition. YYZ-YVR was consistently in the $500-600 range prior to any of the ULCC's entry to market on both WS and AC.

The fares prior to the ULCC entrants starting up, were consistently in the $500-$600 range 3 months out?

Yes, sometimes even worse than that. People don't realize how much AC has had to lower prices everywhere to keep up with Flair.

$600, $700, even $800 was not uncommon for YYZ-YVR booked reasonably long in advance. If you look at any of the domestic routes without ULCC presence today, you see fares in that same range.

Would be very interesting to know if YYZ-YVR is still in the top 10 most profitable routes in the world. Back in 2019 it was number 10.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/top-ai ... y-revenue/

Since J and PY prices remain quite high, it would be interesting to know how much filling the Y section of 10 airplanes a day (5 of which are wide bodies) has been impacted by the competition. The cheapest Y class fare in the spring is about $130 but that is on very select flights on AC. Most flights are priced at about $370 in basic.

AC seems to be price matching the competition on select flights on either times that are similar to their competition or lower demand departures (which could be argued is very intelligent yield management). In the absence of revenue and load data from these flights, it could be argued that AC isn't exactly losing sleep over the competition. It is great for the savvy and price inelastic travellers that there are really low fares compared to what there once was. But frequent fliers are not flying Lynx. And I would argue that the traveller that is choosing Lynx is not one AC cares that much about.

Should Lynx or Flair start running 10 departures a day with all seats prices at $125, then I would think AC starts to get concerned. And maybe it is not 10 but 5, but WS runs 5 and they are doing the same thing as AC which is price matching on certain departures and matching AC on the others at about $370.

I think AC and WS wait this one out. Blood is being spilled on certain flights at certain times, but AC (and WS) can likely lean on their premium cabins to maintain yield management on the route.

Like other posts, this is not based on yields or loads, but is speculation. And some degree of what seems likely based on the history of Canadian aviation casualties (of which there are many).

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Would be very interesting to know if YYZ-YVR is still in the top 10 most profitable routes in the world. Back in 2019 it was number 10.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/top-ai ... y-revenue/

Since J and PY prices remain quite high, it would be interesting to know how much filling the Y section of 10 airplanes a day (5 of which are wide bodies) has been impacted by the competition. The cheapest Y class fare in the spring is about $130 but that is on very select flights on AC. Most flights are priced at about $370 in basic.

AC seems to be price matching the competition on select flights on either times that are similar to their competition or lower demand departures (which could be argued is very intelligent yield management). In the absence of revenue and load data from these flights, it could be argued that AC isn't exactly losing sleep over the competition. It is great for the savvy and price inelastic travellers that there are really low fares compared to what there once was. But frequent fliers are not flying Lynx. And I would argue that the traveller that is choosing Lynx is not one AC cares that much about.

Should Lynx or Flair start running 10 departures a day with all seats prices at $125, then I would think AC starts to get concerned. And maybe it is not 10 but 5, but WS runs 5 and they are doing the same thing as AC which is price matching on certain departures and matching AC on the others at about $370.

I think AC and WS wait this one out. Blood is being spilled on certain flights at certain times, but AC (and WS) can likely lean on their premium cabins to maintain yield management on the route.

Like other posts, this is not based on yields or loads, but is speculation. And some degree of what seems likely based on the history of Canadian aviation casualties (of which there are many).

5x daily ULCC is not too far away. Flair is already at 3x daily on a lot of their routes for next summer.

YEGFlyer wrote:

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Would be very interesting to know if YYZ-YVR is still in the top 10 most profitable routes in the world. Back in 2019 it was number 10.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/top-ai ... y-revenue/

Since J and PY prices remain quite high, it would be interesting to know how much filling the Y section of 10 airplanes a day (5 of which are wide bodies) has been impacted by the competition. The cheapest Y class fare in the spring is about $130 but that is on very select flights on AC. Most flights are priced at about $370 in basic.

AC seems to be price matching the competition on select flights on either times that are similar to their competition or lower demand departures (which could be argued is very intelligent yield management). In the absence of revenue and load data from these flights, it could be argued that AC isn't exactly losing sleep over the competition. It is great for the savvy and price inelastic travellers that there are really low fares compared to what there once was. But frequent fliers are not flying Lynx. And I would argue that the traveller that is choosing Lynx is not one AC cares that much about.

Should Lynx or Flair start running 10 departures a day with all seats prices at $125, then I would think AC starts to get concerned. And maybe it is not 10 but 5, but WS runs 5 and they are doing the same thing as AC which is price matching on certain departures and matching AC on the others at about $370.

I think AC and WS wait this one out. Blood is being spilled on certain flights at certain times, but AC (and WS) can likely lean on their premium cabins to maintain yield management on the route.

Like other posts, this is not based on yields or loads, but is speculation. And some degree of what seems likely based on the history of Canadian aviation casualties (of which there are many).

5x daily ULCC is not too far away. Flair is already at 3x daily on a lot of their routes for next summer.

And yet both AC and WS are priced at $371 versus $195 with Flair.

I think all the posts above are basically correct. On the margins, it'll cut into AC and WS yields a bit, but they still have a lock on the profitable premium/business travellers. That should be enough to keep the routes highly profitable. Most of the passengers ULCCs are attracting aren't coming from other airlines--they're people who wouldn't have made the trip otherwise.

Acey wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

and if you actually look at route deployments for spring being as inaccurate as they are, they're very similar to last year with a couple flights operated by 321s, a widebody and then a 7M8 on the rest (YYC-YYZ).

I was talking about summer, though I think I said spring. If you actually look, it's 7M8 across the board with the typical heavies sprinkled in. Subject to change obviously and I didn't mean to imply it's set in stone. I've worked at airports long enough to not trust AC's timetable for next month, let alone 6 months from now.

They'll be 321s...

ACCS300 wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

ACCS300 wrote:

Good news!

A couple of notes, just flew Signature Class, ATH-YYZ and YYZ-YVR. The only thing I noticed that was still missing from the service was warm nuts in the little china bowl with the first drink rounds, we were still getting the same packets of almonds as Y. Also good to hear that the quantity and variety of movies is increasing, it used to be very extensive then was drastically cut back a couple of years ago, that coupled with a mostly unappealing and odd selection.

Also any improvement in the Y international meals is welcome, they've always been the smallest and worst of any major carrier for years IMO.

We used to get a nice course by course meal on domestic narrowbodies J class too, now it's all dropped at once in front you with only a chicken or veggie option (yuck). I hope the pre-2020 style of more options and courses returns.

On my recent J ( Signature ) leg YYZ-YVR early Oct, we got served course by course like the old days, only the nuts were missing, everything else was pre-covid, this was on a 787-9.

So signature class always had the 4 item menu for meals. (Beef, Chicken, Veggie and Fish). Nov 1st was the start of the return to towels etc. On my Max from YYZ-YYC they still offered the same gross maple chicken or gnocchi. The Bistro in Y was far better though, the options being of better quality than pre-covid. Their fruit and cheese plate has improved literally overnight!

Airlinerdude wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

Loads don't justify LAX, SFO or YWG as you've mentioned. LAX just switched back to the 900 after a summer with mainline. SFO hasn't been mainline in year and YWG they've been on and off with the 319 in the past.

Somewhat of a chicken before the egg scenario, no?

On both LAX and YWG you have a direct competitor operating a larger aircraft, (thus with a presumably lower seat mile cost) with more frequency. On top of that, as a consumer I’d much prefer a 737 series aircraft over a CR9 any day of the week.

So perhaps the current situation leads AC to not have the load factor to support it, but maybe running a 223 would change the economics of the situation enough to justify it?

YYC is not a priority for AC at this point. When they stopped paying for exclusive parking rights at Concourse C that was the sign that they're slowly giving up on YYC.

CFM565A1 wrote:

Airlinerdude wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

Loads don't justify LAX, SFO or YWG as you've mentioned. LAX just switched back to the 900 after a summer with mainline. SFO hasn't been mainline in year and YWG they've been on and off with the 319 in the past.

Somewhat of a chicken before the egg scenario, no?

On both LAX and YWG you have a direct competitor operating a larger aircraft, (thus with a presumably lower seat mile cost) with more frequency. On top of that, as a consumer I’d much prefer a 737 series aircraft over a CR9 any day of the week.

So perhaps the current situation leads AC to not have the load factor to support it, but maybe running a 223 would change the economics of the situation enough to justify it?

YYC is not a priority for AC at this point. When they stopped paying for exclusive parking rights at Concourse C that was the sign that they're slowly giving up on YYC.

YYC purchased all their gates back from all carriers. Giving up the parking exclusivity was not just an AC thing. But yes, AC as a whole has definitely signaled that the focus is in; YYZ, YVR and YUL and that YYC is not somewhere they are focusing on for re-building.