drgmobile wrote:

dr1980 wrote:

But won’t PAL have to grow by the crews to operate these aircraft? I’m making an assumption that they would since these are new aircraft and not a reassignment of existing aircraft. So my question was if someone has to grow by more crews why not the existing airline? What can PAL do to attract the additional crews that Jazz can’t?

Whether the pilots already exist or PAL would have to hire them, I am inferring that PAL is having an easier time finding/retaining pilots than Chorus is. In and of itself, that is fascinating given that Chorus provides a pathway to employment at AC.

Alternatively a cynic might suggest this could be about sending a message to Chorus or its pilots that "We have options." Wouldn't be the first time that AC has moved to add regional flying with another carrier in addition to Jazz.

Supposedly this move breaks the CPA contract which guaranteed exclusivity until 2025 and there could be legal action taken.

drgmobile wrote:

dr1980 wrote:

But won’t PAL have to grow by the crews to operate these aircraft? I’m making an assumption that they would since these are new aircraft and not a reassignment of existing aircraft. So my question was if someone has to grow by more crews why not the existing airline? What can PAL do to attract the additional crews that Jazz can’t?

Whether the pilots already exist or PAL would have to hire them, I am inferring that PAL is having an easier time finding/retaining pilots than Chorus is. In and of itself, that is fascinating given that Chorus provides a pathway to employment at AC.

Alternatively a cynic might suggest this could be about sending a message to Chorus or its pilots that "We have options." Wouldn't be the first time that AC has moved to add regional flying with another carrier in addition to Jazz.

it wouldn't make any sense that PAL would be paying much higher rates than Chorus would it? Although I had heard the pathway from Jazz to AC mainline ad been temporarily suspended due to regional shortages. True?

Speedalive wrote:

drgmobile wrote:

dr1980 wrote:

But won’t PAL have to grow by the crews to operate these aircraft? I’m making an assumption that they would since these are new aircraft and not a reassignment of existing aircraft. So my question was if someone has to grow by more crews why not the existing airline? What can PAL do to attract the additional crews that Jazz can’t?

Whether the pilots already exist or PAL would have to hire them, I am inferring that PAL is having an easier time finding/retaining pilots than Chorus is. In and of itself, that is fascinating given that Chorus provides a pathway to employment at AC.

Alternatively a cynic might suggest this could be about sending a message to Chorus or its pilots that "We have options." Wouldn't be the first time that AC has moved to add regional flying with another carrier in addition to Jazz.

Supposedly this move breaks the CPA contract which guaranteed exclusivity until 2025 and there could be legal action taken.

Could be, but how wise is it to bite the hand that feeds. Jazz without AC is Bankrupt instantly. Their fate is controlled entirely by Air Canada.

drgmobile wrote:

Alternatively a cynic might suggest this could be about sending a message to Chorus or its pilots that "We have options." Wouldn't be the first time that AC has moved to add regional flying with another carrier in addition to Jazz.

Air Canada owns 9.9% of Chorus and maintains a position on their board. They have somewhat of a vested interest in the success of Chorus.

Coupled with the fact that almost all of the transborder CR9 flying from the West is set to disappear this winter, it looks to me more like Jazz/Chorus can’t meet their flying obligations.

Flow from Jazz to Air Canada was also stopped recently to stem the loss of pilots from Jazz.

This deal with PAL is probably an attempt by Air Canada to just fill the void of capacity that Jazz can’t operate.

Speedalive wrote:

drgmobile wrote:

dr1980 wrote:

But won’t PAL have to grow by the crews to operate these aircraft? I’m making an assumption that they would since these are new aircraft and not a reassignment of existing aircraft. So my question was if someone has to grow by more crews why not the existing airline? What can PAL do to attract the additional crews that Jazz can’t?

Whether the pilots already exist or PAL would have to hire them, I am inferring that PAL is having an easier time finding/retaining pilots than Chorus is. In and of itself, that is fascinating given that Chorus provides a pathway to employment at AC.

Alternatively a cynic might suggest this could be about sending a message to Chorus or its pilots that "We have options." Wouldn't be the first time that AC has moved to add regional flying with another carrier in addition to Jazz.

Supposedly this move breaks the CPA contract which guaranteed exclusivity until 2025 and there could be legal action taken.

Jazz is in no position to take legal action against AC since they cannot fulfill their CPA obligations for a lack of pilots.

Airlinerdude wrote:

drgmobile wrote:

Alternatively a cynic might suggest this could be about sending a message to Chorus or its pilots that "We have options." Wouldn't be the first time that AC has moved to add regional flying with another carrier in addition to Jazz.

Air Canada owns 9.9% of Chorus and maintains a position on their board. They have somewhat of a vested interest in the success of Chorus.

Coupled with the fact that almost all of the transborder CR9 flying from the West is set to disappear this winter, it looks to me more like Jazz/Chorus can’t meet their flying obligations.

Flow from Jazz to Air Canada was also stopped recently to stem the loss of pilots from Jazz.

This deal with PAL is probably an attempt by Air Canada to just fill the void of capacity that Jazz can’t operate.

Again, that goes back to the question: why would PAL be able to find pilots that Jazz can't?

multimark wrote:

Again, that goes back to the question: why would PAL be able to find pilots that Jazz can't?

Compensation being equal, my guess would be the quality of life / cost of living by not having to move to a Jazz pilot base in YUL/YYZ/YVR (YYC I imagine must be shrinking).

Since Jazz/Air Canada have stopped the flow agreement, there really is no benefit to starting with Jazz. If you can save a few dollars living in YHZ or YYT getting the same experience for the couple of years you’re flying at the regionals, why not just go with PAL?

The same reason WestJet’s old port system used to be very attractive.

Airlinerdude wrote:

multimark wrote:

Again, that goes back to the question: why would PAL be able to find pilots that Jazz can't?

Compensation being equal, my guess would be the quality of life / cost of living by not having to move to a Jazz pilot base in YUL/YYZ/YVR (YYC I imagine must be shrinking).

Since Jazz/Air Canada have stopped the flow agreement, there really is no benefit to starting with Jazz. If you can save a few dollars living in YHZ or YYT getting the same experience for the couple of years you’re flying at the regionals, why not just go with PAL?

The same reason WestJet’s old port system used to be very attractive.

If AC is going to use PAL to fly intra-maratime routes, or at least sectors from the Maratimes, they'll be able attract pilots that didn't want to relocate to YYZ/YUL. It'll be local pilots flying local routes, effectively be opening a new base for AC with no cost.

Anyone know why Star Alliance partner United Airlines is no longer handling Air Canada at CLE. AC has contracted with Swissport, moved from a UA gate (C20) to a common use gate (A1) and baggage carousel (#3) and will apparently have no onsite baggage services at CLE; those were formerly handled by UA. Ticket counter space remains next to UA. AC finally is ramping back up to 3 daily flights to/from YYZ tomorrow, a first post-pandemic. Has this happened at other small stations?

Possibly money saving endeavor?

CLEguy wrote:

Anyone know why Star Alliance partner United Airlines is no longer handling Air Canada at CLE. AC has contracted with Swissport, moved from a UA gate (C20) to a common use gate (A1) and baggage carousel (#3) and will apparently have no onsite baggage services at CLE; those were formerly handled by UA. Ticket counter space remains next to UA. AC finally is ramping back up to 3 daily flights to/from YYZ tomorrow, a first post-pandemic. Has this happened at other small stations?

Yes. Happened at PIT a year ago.

Airlinerdude wrote:

multimark wrote:

Again, that goes back to the question: why would PAL be able to find pilots that Jazz can't?

Compensation being equal, my guess would be the quality of life / cost of living by not having to move to a Jazz pilot base in YUL/YYZ/YVR (YYC I imagine must be shrinking).

Since Jazz/Air Canada have stopped the flow agreement, there really is no benefit to starting with Jazz. If you can save a few dollars living in YHZ or YYT getting the same experience for the couple of years you’re flying at the regionals, why not just go with PAL?

The same reason WestJet’s old port system used to be very attractive.

I can see the validity of that but by the same token couldn’t Jazz recruit pilots from YVR/YUL/YYZ who would rather be based in Halifax?

multimark wrote:

Airlinerdude wrote:

multimark wrote:

Again, that goes back to the question: why would PAL be able to find pilots that Jazz can't?

Compensation being equal, my guess would be the quality of life / cost of living by not having to move to a Jazz pilot base in YUL/YYZ/YVR (YYC I imagine must be shrinking).

Since Jazz/Air Canada have stopped the flow agreement, there really is no benefit to starting with Jazz. If you can save a few dollars living in YHZ or YYT getting the same experience for the couple of years you’re flying at the regionals, why not just go with PAL?

The same reason WestJet’s old port system used to be very attractive.

I can see the validity of that but by the same token couldn’t Jazz recruit pilots from YVR/YUL/YYZ who would rather be based in Halifax?

There are many pilots out there who just would prefer not to work with Jazz for what ever reason, why is that seemingly so hard to accept? There are many reasons that pilots will choose to work where they do, quality of life, cost of living, corporate culture, scheduling, opportunities to move to PAL's other divisions, stability (aka not all of PALs flying is reliant on AC for success). These are just a handful of reasons that PAL can be an attractive place for pilots to work at.

Flaps wrote:

CLEguy wrote:

Anyone know why Star Alliance partner United Airlines is no longer handling Air Canada at CLE. AC has contracted with Swissport, moved from a UA gate (C20) to a common use gate (A1) and baggage carousel (#3) and will apparently have no onsite baggage services at CLE; those were formerly handled by UA. Ticket counter space remains next to UA. AC finally is ramping back up to 3 daily flights to/from YYZ tomorrow, a first post-pandemic. Has this happened at other small stations?

Yes. Happened at PIT a year ago.

That's quite interesting. Are UA and AC becoming less friendly or something? Like CLEguy, I'm curious why the changes at CLE and PIT.

AC for the first time are partnering with Swissport to open a new lounge at YTZ: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/n ... 49591.html

Y'all breaking down ground handling at a small station like it's some greater indication of the UA/AC relationship when it's almost surely just cost. Contract probably ended, and Swissport underbid UA.

Acey wrote:

Y'all breaking down ground handling at a small station like it's some greater indication of the UA/AC relationship when it's almost surely just cost. Contract probably ended, and Swissport underbid UA.

Exactly. In this instance, United is simply a contractor and Air Canada went for a more suitable deal. There are many US stations where United does not handle Air Canada. Even DEN!

I note the same thing happens in Canada where Air Canada is not United’s handling agent.

Same with LAX, a reasonably large station with widebodies. it's ATS handling Air Canada despite their less than stellar reputation in Canada... they're the sole reason WS at YYC is an abomination for example.

Almost 10 years ago at YEG, AC was considering handing over QK to ATS while mainline stayed with their own people who make nearly twice as much in some instances.

Cost.

Acey wrote:

Same with LAX, a reasonably large station with widebodies. it's ATS handling Air Canada despite their less than stellar reputation in Canada... they're the sole reason WS at YYC is an abomination for example.

Almost 10 years ago at YEG, AC was considering handing over QK to ATS while mainline stayed with their own people who make nearly twice as much in some instances.

Cost.

Is ATS the reason that waiting for baggage from WS flights at YYC or YEG so time consuming? I waited 2.3 hours in Edmonton in April and 0.9 hours in Calgary in March for my bag; the priority tag meant nothing.

Do AC and QK handle their own baggage at YEG?

9252fly wrote:

Speedalive wrote:

drgmobile wrote:

Whether the pilots already exist or PAL would have to hire them, I am inferring that PAL is having an easier time finding/retaining pilots than Chorus is. In and of itself, that is fascinating given that Chorus provides a pathway to employment at AC.

Alternatively a cynic might suggest this could be about sending a message to Chorus or its pilots that "We have options." Wouldn't be the first time that AC has moved to add regional flying with another carrier in addition to Jazz.

Supposedly this move breaks the CPA contract which guaranteed exclusivity until 2025 and there could be legal action taken.

Jazz is in no position to take legal action against AC since they cannot fulfill their CPA obligations for a lack of pilots.

I said nothing at all about legal action.

multimark wrote:

Airlinerdude wrote:

multimark wrote:

Again, that goes back to the question: why would PAL be able to find pilots that Jazz can't?

Compensation being equal, my guess would be the quality of life / cost of living by not having to move to a Jazz pilot base in YUL/YYZ/YVR (YYC I imagine must be shrinking).

Since Jazz/Air Canada have stopped the flow agreement, there really is no benefit to starting with Jazz. If you can save a few dollars living in YHZ or YYT getting the same experience for the couple of years you’re flying at the regionals, why not just go with PAL?

The same reason WestJet’s old port system used to be very attractive.

I can see the validity of that but by the same token couldn’t Jazz recruit pilots from YVR/YUL/YYZ who would rather be based in Halifax?

There are enough pilots at Jazz that commute from YHZ/YQM/YYT/etc. that would likely transfer in to a hypothetical YHZ base, that Jazz would be in the same problem they're already in trying to hire in YYZ/YUL/YVR.

gte439u wrote:

Acey wrote:

Same with LAX, a reasonably large station with widebodies. it's ATS handling Air Canada despite their less than stellar reputation in Canada... they're the sole reason WS at YYC is an abomination for example.

Almost 10 years ago at YEG, AC was considering handing over QK to ATS while mainline stayed with their own people who make nearly twice as much in some instances.

Cost.

Is ATS the reason that waiting for baggage from WS flights at YYC or YEG so time consuming? I waited 2.3 hours in Edmonton in April and 0.9 hours in Calgary in March for my bag; the priority tag meant nothing.

Do AC and QK handle their own baggage at YEG?

I've long since left YEG so I can't speak to exactly what's going on there, but any incompetence at YYC for WS can be entirely attributed to the revolving door that is ATS. Smashing up planes, parking them on the wrong line nearly obliterating bridges with the wing tips, bags flying out of carts all over the apron, lav trucks dumping under the plane, 25% of them calling in sick to watch hockey, anything you can think of... ATS in Calgary has done it over the last year.

Acey wrote:

Same with LAX, a reasonably large station with widebodies. it's ATS handling Air Canada despite their less than stellar reputation in Canada... they're the sole reason WS at YYC is an abomination for example.

Almost 10 years ago at YEG, AC was considering handing over QK to ATS while mainline stayed with their own people who make nearly twice as much in some instances.

Cost.

The contracting out of Jazz is a threat every contract year with the IAM negotiations…

AC aircraft changes for SYD:

77L to operate all services.

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230601-acnw23syd

kriskim wrote:

AC aircraft changes for SYD:

77L to operate all services.

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230601-acnw23syd

How many frames needed to do this? Three?

Second time in a week that IT issues have caused delays and cancellations at AC:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-ca ... -1.6861923

ThePointblank wrote:

Second time in a week that IT issues have caused delays and cancellations at AC:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-ca ... -1.6861923

I'm scheduled to fly AC tomorrow and just received 2 emails telling me about possible IT delays for tomorrow. I haven't flown AC often but there's been an issue every time

yzfElite wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

AC have released their winter sun schedule: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/a ... 16247.html

New routes: YYZ-MTY, YYZ-FDF, YUL-SJD & YUL-LRM

Frequency increases on various existing sun routes out of YHZ, YQB, YUL, YOW, YYZ & YEG.

They leave out the reductions, my YYZ-AUA direct flight on Nov 9th is no more, got the notification last night Looks like vacation will be one day shorter.

Yeah that’s true. However, there is a place that will tell you that (albeit this update is just transborder): https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230530-acnw23us

That’s the winter transborder changes. Lots of frequency reductions. The business routes are largely a continuation of the summer schedule or typical seasonal reductions. The sun route reductions are the intriguing ones.

There are some increases in there too, primarily in YVR based on a quick scan of the list.

ThePointblank wrote:

Second time in a week that IT issues have caused delays and cancellations at AC:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-ca ... -1.6861923

Change fees are waived so I'm spending another day in Los Angeles.... hopefully my flight tomorrow isn't scrubbed.

Acey wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Second time in a week that IT issues have caused delays and cancellations at AC:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-ca ... -1.6861923

Change fees are waived so I'm spending another day in Los Angeles.... hopefully my flight tomorrow isn't scrubbed.

The second most punchable face in Canada is on the case!

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/air-can ... -1.6425294

The vitriol towards Gábor Lukács on this thread is wild. Air Canada messed up big time, not once but twice in a week, for something that is wholly within their control. It's a good thing there are passenger advocates, because consumers are significantly less powerful than the airlines, and we know that Canadian passenger protection regulations are far weaker than European ones.

ST165 wrote:

The vitriol towards Gábor Lukács on this thread is wild. Air Canada messed up big time, not once but twice in a week, for something that is wholly within their control. It's a good thing there are passenger advocates, because consumers are significantly less powerful than the airlines, and we know that Canadian passenger protection regulations are far weaker than European ones.

This just in!

Lawyer is doing lawyer things.

wjv04 wrote:

ST165 wrote:

The vitriol towards Gábor Lukács on this thread is wild. Air Canada messed up big time, not once but twice in a week, for something that is wholly within their control. It's a good thing there are passenger advocates, because consumers are significantly less powerful than the airlines, and we know that Canadian passenger protection regulations are far weaker than European ones.

This just in!

Lawyer is doing lawyer things.

This just in! He’s not a lawyer.

He’s a mathematician.

IceCream wrote:

wjv04 wrote:

Acey wrote:

Change fees are waived so I'm spending another day in Los Angeles.... hopefully my flight tomorrow isn't scrubbed.

The second most punchable face in Canada is on the case!

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/air-can ... -1.6425294

Not him again
I'm so sick of seeing him everywhere! His advice isn't even good

I usually agree Mr Lukacs is known for his bizarre statements but ac I notorious for claiming that everything from maintenance to crew is out of their control
The federal minister of transport has already warned ac to live up to commitments to pax as third or first party It is completely within their control

ST165 wrote:

The vitriol towards Gábor Lukács on this thread is wild. Air Canada messed up big time, not once but twice in a week, for something that is wholly within their control. It's a good thing there are passenger advocates, because consumers are significantly less powerful than the airlines, and we know that Canadian passenger protection regulations are far weaker than European ones.

Still don't understand why AC had to migrate to a new system at the start of the busy summer schedule. This is the kind of stuff you do in November, or beginning February, in low season.

Looking at the transborder changes -- a lot of that is (presumably) being driven by the continuing problems at Jazz. There are equivalent cuts to the domestic Jazz network in many places.

ST165 wrote:

The vitriol towards Gábor Lukács on this thread is wild. Air Canada messed up big time, not once but twice in a week, for something that is wholly within their control. It's a good thing there are passenger advocates, because consumers are significantly less powerful than the airlines, and we know that Canadian passenger protection regulations are far weaker than European ones.

Gabor is a bottom feeder with an axe to grind against all airlines since Delta and Northwest were not able to rebook him to his satisfaction over a decade ago, not to mention he is a hypocrite since he is (or was) paid by Flair to be a "consultant". I do not agree with his tactics or his obvious obliviousness to how the airline industry actually functions. I do however believe that airlines should and need to be held to their tariffs, which is much different then the level of customer service people get.

Your assessment that the IT failure is wholly in AC's control is debatable. If AC IT infrastructure failed (i.e. AC's own server or ISP failed them) then absolutely go to town, however airlines are not software companies and rely on 3rd party vendors to supply the software. If something on the 3rd party end failed and caused AC's systems to loose connections then, AC shouldn't be at fault. Just my nickel's worth.

dmanonice wrote:

ST165 wrote:

The vitriol towards Gábor Lukács on this thread is wild. Air Canada messed up big time, not once but twice in a week, for something that is wholly within their control. It's a good thing there are passenger advocates, because consumers are significantly less powerful than the airlines, and we know that Canadian passenger protection regulations are far weaker than European ones.

Gabor is a bottom feeder with an axe to grind against all airlines since Delta and Northwest were not able to rebook him to his satisfaction over a decade ago, not to mention he is a hypocrite since he is (or was) paid by Flair to be a "consultant". I do not agree with his tactics or his obvious obliviousness to how the airline industry actually functions. I do however believe that airlines should and need to be held to their tariffs, which is much different then the level of customer service people get.

Your assessment that the IT failure is wholly in AC's control is debatable. If AC IT infrastructure failed (i.e. AC's own server or ISP failed them) then absolutely go to town, however airlines are not software companies and rely on 3rd party vendors to supply the software. If something on the 3rd party end failed and caused AC's systems to loose connections then, AC shouldn't be at fault. Just my nickel's worth.

So who exactly should travellers hold responsible in this scenario? I have entered into a contract with AC when I purchased my ticket and they are not living up to the contract due to something that is within their control or the control of those vendors they have selected and contracted with. Ultimately AC is responsible to the consumer, but they are free to recoup costs from their vendors subject to their contracts with them. If their vendors are not performing adequately then AC has the option to discontinue their use and make use of alternate vendors.

YYZ77L wrote:

dmanonice wrote:

ST165 wrote:

The vitriol towards Gábor Lukács on this thread is wild. Air Canada messed up big time, not once but twice in a week, for something that is wholly within their control. It's a good thing there are passenger advocates, because consumers are significantly less powerful than the airlines, and we know that Canadian passenger protection regulations are far weaker than European ones.

Gabor is a bottom feeder with an axe to grind against all airlines since Delta and Northwest were not able to rebook him to his satisfaction over a decade ago, not to mention he is a hypocrite since he is (or was) paid by Flair to be a "consultant". I do not agree with his tactics or his obvious obliviousness to how the airline industry actually functions. I do however believe that airlines should and need to be held to their tariffs, which is much different then the level of customer service people get.

Your assessment that the IT failure is wholly in AC's control is debatable. If AC IT infrastructure failed (i.e. AC's own server or ISP failed them) then absolutely go to town, however airlines are not software companies and rely on 3rd party vendors to supply the software. If something on the 3rd party end failed and caused AC's systems to loose connections then, AC shouldn't be at fault. Just my nickel's worth.

So who exactly should travellers hold responsible in this scenario? I have entered into a contract with AC when I purchased my ticket and they are not living up to the contract due to something that is within their control or the control of those vendors they have selected and contracted with. Ultimately AC is responsible to the consumer, but they are free to recoup costs from their vendors subject to their contracts with them. If their vendors are not performing adequately then AC has the option to discontinue their use and make use of alternate vendors.

I see your point from a passenger perspective that it is all Air Canada, and I suppose as a passenger AC would be to blame and there is probably case law that supports that.

My personal opinion is that I don't think it's right that an airline can be held responsible for something that is outside of it's core business. I would agree that a vendor providing fuel, ground handling or passenger service, catering & maintenance would be 100% in the airlines control and they will get no sympathy from me when those fail.

However customs/immigration, Air Traffic Control are considered outside of the control of the airline, these are technically vendors (usually government required vendors) and are forgivable and I see 3rd party software (when it's a failure on the provider's end) to fall into that category as well. I guess having worked at an airline for 14 years I understand the intricacies of how many moving pieces are required to make every flight run (as are many of you on this forum) it rubs me the wrong way when airlines are bashed for things that ultimately they have little to no control over. Anyway since I seem to be in the minority on this one I will leave it at that.

dmanonice wrote:

YYZ77L wrote:

dmanonice wrote:

Gabor is a bottom feeder with an axe to grind against all airlines since Delta and Northwest were not able to rebook him to his satisfaction over a decade ago, not to mention he is a hypocrite since he is (or was) paid by Flair to be a "consultant". I do not agree with his tactics or his obvious obliviousness to how the airline industry actually functions. I do however believe that airlines should and need to be held to their tariffs, which is much different then the level of customer service people get.

Your assessment that the IT failure is wholly in AC's control is debatable. If AC IT infrastructure failed (i.e. AC's own server or ISP failed them) then absolutely go to town, however airlines are not software companies and rely on 3rd party vendors to supply the software. If something on the 3rd party end failed and caused AC's systems to loose connections then, AC shouldn't be at fault. Just my nickel's worth.

So who exactly should travellers hold responsible in this scenario? I have entered into a contract with AC when I purchased my ticket and they are not living up to the contract due to something that is within their control or the control of those vendors they have selected and contracted with. Ultimately AC is responsible to the consumer, but they are free to recoup costs from their vendors subject to their contracts with them. If their vendors are not performing adequately then AC has the option to discontinue their use and make use of alternate vendors.

I see your point from a passenger perspective that it is all Air Canada, and I suppose as a passenger AC would be to blame and there is probably case law that supports that.

My personal opinion is that I don't think it's right that an airline can be held responsible for something that is outside of it's core business. I would agree that a vendor providing fuel, ground handling or passenger service, catering & maintenance would be 100% in the airlines control and they will get no sympathy from me when those fail.

However customs/immigration, Air Traffic Control are considered outside of the control of the airline, these are technically vendors (usually government required vendors) and are forgivable and I see 3rd party software (when it's a failure on the provider's end) to fall into that category as well. I guess having worked at an airline for 14 years I understand the intricacies of how many moving pieces are required to make every flight run (as are many of you on this forum) it rubs me the wrong way when airlines are bashed for things that ultimately they have little to no control over. Anyway since I seem to be in the minority on this one I will leave it at that.

There are a couple of things at play here: 1) The source of a problem, and 2) the way in which the carrier handles the problem. Far too often it seems that the carrier will use the blame of an external actor as the (1) source of the problem as an excuse for (2) how it handles it.

I think this is the crux of the issue federal politicians have taken with the carriers over the past year. Weather happens, for example, but it's predictable and the sky shouldn't fall vis a vis the ability of customers to have their issues addressed every time it does. When AC switched over to a new reservations system a few years ago it was a total mess. I remember having to travel to the airport as the only way to reach a human being. I'm fortunate enough to live 20 minutes away from an airport. Some people have to drive hours. People only have so much patience for stuff like that.

dmanonice wrote:

YYZ77L wrote:

dmanonice wrote:

Gabor is a bottom feeder with an axe to grind against all airlines since Delta and Northwest were not able to rebook him to his satisfaction over a decade ago, not to mention he is a hypocrite since he is (or was) paid by Flair to be a "consultant". I do not agree with his tactics or his obvious obliviousness to how the airline industry actually functions. I do however believe that airlines should and need to be held to their tariffs, which is much different then the level of customer service people get.

Your assessment that the IT failure is wholly in AC's control is debatable. If AC IT infrastructure failed (i.e. AC's own server or ISP failed them) then absolutely go to town, however airlines are not software companies and rely on 3rd party vendors to supply the software. If something on the 3rd party end failed and caused AC's systems to loose connections then, AC shouldn't be at fault. Just my nickel's worth.

So who exactly should travellers hold responsible in this scenario? I have entered into a contract with AC when I purchased my ticket and they are not living up to the contract due to something that is within their control or the control of those vendors they have selected and contracted with. Ultimately AC is responsible to the consumer, but they are free to recoup costs from their vendors subject to their contracts with them. If their vendors are not performing adequately then AC has the option to discontinue their use and make use of alternate vendors.

I see your point from a passenger perspective that it is all Air Canada, and I suppose as a passenger AC would be to blame and there is probably case law that supports that.

My personal opinion is that I don't think it's right that an airline can be held responsible for something that is outside of it's core business. I would agree that a vendor providing fuel, ground handling or passenger service, catering & maintenance would be 100% in the airlines control and they will get no sympathy from me when those fail.

However customs/immigration, Air Traffic Control are considered outside of the control of the airline, these are technically vendors (usually government required vendors) and are forgivable and I see 3rd party software (when it's a failure on the provider's end) to fall into that category as well. I guess having worked at an airline for 14 years I understand the intricacies of how many moving pieces are required to make every flight run (as are many of you on this forum) it rubs me the wrong way when airlines are bashed for things that ultimately they have little to no control over. Anyway since I seem to be in the minority on this one I will leave it at that.

Putting aside ATC, customs, etc. (definitely outside control of the airline), a business is its vendors. If software fails, that is on the company providing it, but is it not on the airline to not have a viable back-up system or contingency plan?

In my world, where we deal with external administrators, external accountants, external custodians, we are responsible in the eyes of our clients, as well as regulators. We are responsible for oversight and for having proper contingencies in place. Can I go sue a vendor for failure-to-deliver? Absolutely. But that doesn't absolve our firm of anything. Particularly in the eyes of regulators, they see a critical failure and there first question is "what is your contingency for a failure like this?". BCP planning is Business 101, and no airline needs to be told that either.

Would a seasonal Yhz-Cdg make sense next Summer, now that WS dropped theirs?.....

FabienA380 wrote:

Would a seasonal Yhz-Cdg make sense next Summer, now that WS dropped theirs?.....

YHZ-DUB would likely happen before that, and then again AC has shown limited interest in serving TATL markets from non-hubs.

CDG would likely get a YVR flight back, 3rd daily YUL, 2nd daily YYZ and finally a seasonal YQB before YHZ.

Does the current Air Canada pilot contract allow for AC/Jazz to order the E175-E2 at some point in the future as a possible replacement for the CR9s and E175s in years to come? I know the U.S. airline's scope clause does not allow it as the E2 version is too heavy.

As Westjet, Flair and others go at each other domestically and into the US, what do you think AC is planning to do in the next 2 years that is innovative? The A321XLRs are still ways away from really doing much on the international scene. Will AC lease some more A330s in the short term to continue the expansion? The gap in the Rouge 767 network is still evident. Will AC do anything to try and recapture that market? Can they get anymore 787s sooner than the A321s?

I've listened to several podcasts that have said AC is punching above its weight on the international front. How are they going to continue going forward?

The announced but not announced 787 order is still untold.

Lot's and lots of speculating to be done....

idjim319 wrote:

As Westjet, Flair and others go at each other domestically and into the US, what do you think AC is planning to do in the next 2 years that is innovative? The A321XLRs are still ways away from really doing much on the international scene. Will AC lease some more A330s in the short term to continue the expansion? The gap in the Rouge 767 network is still evident. Will AC do anything to try and recapture that market? Can they get anymore 787s sooner than the A321s?

I've listened to several podcasts that have said AC is punching above its weight on the international front. How are they going to continue going forward?

The announced but not announced 787 order is still untold.

Lot's and lots of speculating to be done....

How are they punching above their weight with approximately 83 widebody aircraft for international operations and yes they could order at least 20 more

idjim319 wrote:

As Westjet, Flair and others go at each other domestically and into the US, what do you think AC is planning to do in the next 2 years that is innovative? The A321XLRs are still ways away from really doing much on the international scene. Will AC lease some more A330s in the short term to continue the expansion? The gap in the Rouge 767 network is still evident. Will AC do anything to try and recapture that market? Can they get anymore 787s sooner than the A321s?

I've listened to several podcasts that have said AC is punching above its weight on the international front. How are they going to continue going forward?

The announced but not announced 787 order is still untold.

Lot's and lots of speculating to be done....

AC has a pretty good hold on international flying out of Canada. The 787 order will likely happen, but apart from the 2 further frames coming, the wait is long and Boeing continues to struggle to get its act together. Unless AC took some NTU frames, it seems unlikely that additional 787's join anytime soon.

There are smaller markets in Europe they could serve but they don't have the aircraft to do it. It's what the XLR's are for (as you pointed out) so it would seem these markets wait until they arrive.

India service is a challenge because of Russian airspace being closed. They are serving DEL from YYZ and YUL, but BOM is via LHR. With the strategic relationship with EK and FZ, and with the DXB service from all three hubs (YUL on EK), AC is serving the Indian subcontinent (and large parts of Africa) through this partnership. I would argue this was quite innovative as a way of turning a large competitor into a partner. AC has arguably the greatest reach it has ever had with this partnership.

Africa is largely covered either via *A partners or with EK/FZ. There are some routes in Africa that could be added directly from YYZ or YUL (French North Africa), but there likely isn't aircraft available.

Chinese flying has not returned and it seems unclear when this occurs. They have *A partners in Japan, TPE, BKK, and ICN (for now depending on the merger of KE and OZ). Hopefully the TPE service resumes at some point, although the codeshare on BR does exist out of both YYZ and YVR.

Oceania flying has largely returned with the exception of MEL, but again AC has a codeshare partner to get passengers there (and to PER) via SYD or BNE.

AC serves the South American routes where there is demand - not sure if the LIM cut is demand related or fleet related (or both), but AC would likely serve it if it made money. This route may be just worthwhile for cargo, which AC can now do quite well unlike prior to the cargo only fleet.

AC has work to do on its service offerings. The catering has been poor and there is always the service inconsistency that plagues North American carriers (and many non-Asian ones).

AC also needs to get back to being profitable. The 1st quarter of 2023 was definitely reflective of an improvement. But they need to demonstrate an ability to make a fair bit of money, especially in the 3rd quarter when summer travel is at its peak, as this will provide the foundation for route expansion when the XLR's arrive. 2nd quarter results will likely bring a sense of what the 3rd quarter will be like.

So innovation is there. Just not in the form of an expansion of the route network on AC metal (or carbon fibre).