Noise wrote:

When will the A321XLR routes be announced?

Likely not until they have an actual ballpark of when they'll be getting the aircraft...

Acey wrote:

lostsound wrote:

Air Canada has made fleet contrary decisions before like the MAX8 (and at the time MAX9s) without them effectively replacing much of anything so far

Aside from their extended vacation, has MAX not been a reasonably effective 320 replacement? Far more capable and ~17% less burn?

Internally, I’ve heard no complaints about the aircraft. (Other than the 18 month grounding, )

It is however a very versatile aircraft, much more so than AC’s A320s. The long range, ETOPS capability and astounding economics allowed it to open new routes, as well as maintain marginal routes. Frankly, I’m surprised they haven’t ordered more.

CrewBunk wrote:

Acey wrote:

lostsound wrote:

Air Canada has made fleet contrary decisions before like the MAX8 (and at the time MAX9s) without them effectively replacing much of anything so far

Aside from their extended vacation, has MAX not been a reasonably effective 320 replacement? Far more capable and ~17% less burn?

Internally, I’ve heard no complaints about the aircraft. (Other than the 18 month grounding, )

It is however a very versatile aircraft, much more so than AC’s A320s. The long range, ETOPS capability and astounding economics allowed it to open new routes, as well as maintain marginal routes. Frankly, I’m surprised they haven’t ordered more.

From an operational standpoint, I know one concern was bulk loading vs can loading - AC will throw 10 bodies at a MAX in YYC to unload bags in the same time it takes 4 guys to do a 321. Problem solved.

Team Teal at YYC is struggling for manpower and are getting wrecked on 7M8 turn times as a result.

With AC not having an issue with obtaining second hand aircraft would they maybe be interested in picking up some of the 319s NK is offloading for rouge perhaps?

CrewBunk wrote:

Acey wrote:

lostsound wrote:

Air Canada has made fleet contrary decisions before like the MAX8 (and at the time MAX9s) without them effectively replacing much of anything so far

Aside from their extended vacation, has MAX not been a reasonably effective 320 replacement? Far more capable and ~17% less burn?

Internally, I’ve heard no complaints about the aircraft. (Other than the 18 month grounding, )

It is however a very versatile aircraft, much more so than AC’s A320s. The long range, ETOPS capability and astounding economics allowed it to open new routes, as well as maintain marginal routes. Frankly, I’m surprised they haven’t ordered more.

Any FAs I know hate it. From the girt bar to the aft lavs it’s not a great working environment. Front end crews don’t really like it if come a more advanced aircraft like the widebodies and Airbus fleet.

I can certainly say the FAs hate the Max. As stated, from the LAVS, horrible galleys, it's a tetris game in the Forward galley to remove trolleys. if it's a full flight no seat to sit but at the Jumpseat all the while, lines to the lavatory are never ending, so nice to be sitting on a break and have that Lav Door open........ you can all use your imagination...... from a passenger point of view rhe seats are bullet proof. On a 5+ hour flight your arse is numb. One thing that it has going for it.... the over head bins. That's about it ha

lostsound wrote:

Lamp1009 wrote:

Thomaas wrote:

You’re forgetting that AC just ordered brand new 777Fs, so it’s unlikely they would retire the aircraft type and keep a separate pilot group for a few cargo frames. AC also owns all of its 77Ls and their after market value is questionable at best.

They currently need the 77Ls quite badly, and long term, introducing an a350 to service 5 routes makes little sense. Maybe if in 10 years they see the value proposition of an A350-1000 or future variant, but it’s worth noting that ac’s potential for use (in all cabins) has been and continues to grow. I personally foresee 787-10s and 777-9s when the time comes.

Air Canada has made fleet contrary decisions before like the MAX8 (and at the time MAX9s) without them effectively replacing much of anything so far, and then the 321LR (and acquisition of A321CEOs) further doubling down on a multi-manufacturer midsize narrow-body fleet. I wouldn’t count on anything before a for certain at the time being. I think this will inevitably be best price and delivery schedule when the time comes, but I think we all agree that time isn’t really anytime soon.

I'll agree that the narrow body side is a mess, no doubt about that, but at the same time, Canada is massive, and AC has to serve an insane transborder market that demands frequency from cities that can't necessarily support typical sized planes. AC needs flexibility on the narrow body side, which is why they seem to have the most efficient small narrow body (Cseries/A220), the most efficient standard sized plane for an insanely good price and lead time (MAX 8), and the longest range narrow body available right now (A321XLR).

Long distance, things are far simpler (for the most part, granted you have your trunk routes which demand wide bodies and work as excellent repositioning flights). Almost all the international flights leave from 3 hubs, and the market demands for each route grow steadily, but are pretty stagnant. The A330 replacement I would argue is the more complicated question for AC: Go with the A330neo and save on pilots, or go with the 787-10 and increase commonality and capacity. With the 777 replacement with the A350, you'd be adding a fleet type and down-gaguing, something I don't think management is interested in long term.

Acey wrote:

Noise wrote:

When will the A321XLR routes be announced?

Likely not until they have an actual ballpark of when they'll be getting the aircraft...

Q1 of 2024, right?

Noise wrote:

Acey wrote:

Noise wrote:

When will the A321XLR routes be announced?

Likely not until they have an actual ballpark of when they'll be getting the aircraft...

Q1 of 2024, right?

I can't imagine it doesn't slide to mid-2024, so you could maybe expect some insight late this year.

crosscheckyyz wrote:

With AC not having an issue with obtaining second hand aircraft would they maybe be interested in picking up some of the 319s NK is offloading for rouge perhaps?

If they were to pick up additional used aircraft it is unlikely to be A319s, especially with the A223s on order. Also NK’s A319s are IAE while AC uses CFM, and many will be nearing 20 years old when retired. With all the new Canadian competition AC is being very measured when it comes to narrow body growth at the moment. You just really have the A223s coming in (A321XLR will have heavy international focus).

Whiteguy wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

Acey wrote:

Aside from their extended vacation, has MAX not been a reasonably effective 320 replacement? Far more capable and ~17% less burn?

Internally, I’ve heard no complaints about the aircraft. (Other than the 18 month grounding, )

It is however a very versatile aircraft, much more so than AC’s A320s. The long range, ETOPS capability and astounding economics allowed it to open new routes, as well as maintain marginal routes. Frankly, I’m surprised they haven’t ordered more.

Any FAs I know hate it. From the girt bar to the aft lavs it’s not a great working environment. Front end crews don’t really like it if come a more advanced aircraft like the widebodies and Airbus fleet.

Unfortunately new Airbuses are unlikely to be much better on the FA front. Small tight galleys to squeeze in seats is here to stay.

Polot wrote:

Unfortunately new Airbuses are unlikely to be much better on the FA front. Small tight galleys to squeeze in seats is here to stay.

When I said there were no complaints, I certainly wasn’t referring to Flight Attendants. Looking over the last 35 years of airline flying, I recall that the F/As complained about every new aircraft introduction we made. But … I do acknowledge that the shape of the 737 forward fuselage to a narrower cabin does make a small forward galley. It’s tough for them to serve a three course business class meal to 16 passengers from that tight galley.

With regard to bulk baggage loading, it wasn’t a surprise and Air Canada would have been aware when ordering the aircraft. I see that using cans for baggage is a much more efficient use of man power, as the cans can be Tetris loaded before the aircraft even arrives. But there are logistics issues using cans too. Probably why some airlines order Airbus narrow bodies with bulk only loading.

AC have cut the second daily seasonal YVR-LHR for S23 and then done a shuffle of some sort with OS and AA:

https://www.acl-uk.org/wp-content/uploa ... e-Swap.jpg

https://www.acl-uk.org/wp-content/uploa ... -to-OS.jpg

I'm having trouble figuring it out, but it looks like OS is 'borrowing' AC's 4th western LHR slot this summer and AC & AA swapped slot times?

On a separate note, are the pair of mainline 319s going to soldier on for a while yet?

Dominion301 wrote:

AC have cut the second daily seasonal YVR-LHR for S23 and then done a shuffle of some sort with OS and AA:

https://www.acl-uk.org/wp-content/uploa ... e-Swap.jpg

https://www.acl-uk.org/wp-content/uploa ... -to-OS.jpg

I'm having trouble figuring it out, but it looks like OS is 'borrowing' AC's 4th western LHR slot this summer and AC & AA swapped slot times?

On a separate note, are the pair of mainline 319s going to soldier on for a while yet?

Surprising to see that YUL-LHR is double-daily next summer while the second daily YVR flight gets cut. I assume that the yields to YVR are much higher, and with WS’ departure it should push more people onto the AC flight as opposed to the new BA LGW flight. The old daytime YYZ-LHR now departs at 20:45 returning YYZ to 4 dailies to LHR.

Thomaas wrote:

Surprising to see that YUL-LHR is double-daily next summer while the second daily YVR flight gets cut. I assume that the yields to YVR are much higher, and with WS’ departure it should push more people onto the AC flight as opposed to the new BA LGW flight. The old daytime YYZ-LHR now departs at 20:45 returning YYZ to 4 dailies to LHR.

When are the additional 789 frames entering the fleet? If they have swapped the slot for the summer, then I suspect that they probably did not have the aircraft and probably making decent for leasing the slot to another airline.

Given recent events I'm surprised they didn't snag the YYC slot for this purpose and continue with YVR at double daily, especially with the aforementioned exit of WS from YVR-LGW and them now going 640 daily seats to London from YYC.

I, too, am suprised to the see the second YVR-LHR gone.

AC is still bringing minor adjustments to the schedule for S23. I noticed that YUL-GVA is now a 333 (a 789 was planned for S23). Same with YYZ-MUC (333 and not 789 as planned).

Acey wrote:

Given recent events I'm surprised they didn't snag the YYC slot for this purpose and continue with YVR at double daily, especially with the aforementioned exit of WS from YVR-LGW and them now going 640 daily seats to London from YYC.

AC might as well get the O&D traffic from both YVR and YYC and then sell low-fare YVR-YYC-LHR tickets to fill the rest of the cabin from Calgary. This move will likely strengthen that flight, which apparently used to be the highest yielding TATL crossing in the network. How well it is doing these days with the slow draw down of the YYC hub and all the extra capacity from WS is anyone’s guess.

I think guage is going to win out long term. Is frequency better, yes absolutely, but Canada physically cannot produce enough pilots to fly those frequencies. New commercial pilot numbers in Canada have been decimated since 2019, and there were already too few to begin with. Only way to fly more pax with less crews is to fly bigger planes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews ... cline/amp/

whywhyzee wrote:

I think guage is going to win out long term. Is frequency better, yes absolutely, but Canada physically cannot produce enough pilots to fly those frequencies. New commercial pilot numbers in Canada have been decimated since 2019, and there were already too few to begin with. Only way to fly more pax with less crews is to fly bigger planes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews ... cline/amp/

Yes, there is a pilot shortage in this country, but AC will never have to look too hard to find qualified pilots. It's other carriers and mostly the regionals that will bear the brunt of the consequences.

Meanwhile, in the US, they're saying pilot supply will outpace demand. In my opinion, pilot WAWCONs are a major reason for the discrepancy in supply/demand between Canadian pilots and American pilots.

https://simpleflying.com/united-states- ... an-demand/

Thenoflyzone wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

I think guage is going to win out long term. Is frequency better, yes absolutely, but Canada physically cannot produce enough pilots to fly those frequencies. New commercial pilot numbers in Canada have been decimated since 2019, and there were already too few to begin with. Only way to fly more pax with less crews is to fly bigger planes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews ... cline/amp/

Yes, there is a pilot shortage in this country, but AC will never have to look too hard to find qualified pilots. It's other carriers and mostly the regionals that will bear the brunt of the consequences.

Meanwhile, in the US, they're saying pilot supply will outpace demand. In my opinion, pilot WAWCONs are a major reason for the discrepancy in supply/demand between Canadian pilots and American pilots.

https://simpleflying.com/united-states- ... an-demand/

I think you are right, but it's already getting bad, even for AC. It's also not necessarily a question of how to source FOs, it's how to source captains. Can't make a captain overnight, there's no real solution there other than time. If it were me, I would have that at the top of my list of considerations when planning the future direction of the company.

matt wrote:

I, too, am suprised to the see the second YVR-LHR gone.

AC is still bringing minor adjustments to the schedule for S23. I noticed that YUL-GVA is now a 333 (a 789 was planned for S23). Same with YYZ-MUC (333 and not 789 as planned).

I believe there is only 1 seat difference in capacity between the A333 and B789, and LH operates MUC-YYZ with a A359 during the summer. They probably need the B789s legs on Asian flights.

I just saw on AC's fleet page that there are 3 configs for the A333s, the 787 type cabin, the XM cabin and one without J, just PY. Is the third config, the one without J the former SQ A333s?

KrisYYZ

krisyyz wrote:

matt wrote:

I, too, am suprised to the see the second YVR-LHR gone.

AC is still bringing minor adjustments to the schedule for S23. I noticed that YUL-GVA is now a 333 (a 789 was planned for S23). Same with YYZ-MUC (333 and not 789 as planned).

I believe there is only 1 seat difference in capacity between the A333 and B789, and LH operates MUC-YYZ with a A359 during the summer. They probably need the B789s legs on Asian flights.

I just saw on AC's fleet page that there are 3 configs for the A333s, the 787 type cabin, the XM cabin and one without J, just PY. Is the third config, the one without J the former SQ A333s?

KrisYYZ

Yes, it's the same config we saw when the MAX was grounded and the retrofit was postponed in 2019. If my memory serves me, it will do less premium routes, like BOG etc, and domestic fillers.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

I think guage is going to win out long term. Is frequency better, yes absolutely, but Canada physically cannot produce enough pilots to fly those frequencies. New commercial pilot numbers in Canada have been decimated since 2019, and there were already too few to begin with. Only way to fly more pax with less crews is to fly bigger planes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews ... cline/amp/

Yes, there is a pilot shortage in this country, but AC will never have to look too hard to find qualified pilots. It's other carriers and mostly the regionals that will bear the brunt of the consequences.

Meanwhile, in the US, they're saying pilot supply will outpace demand. In my opinion, pilot WAWCONs are a major reason for the discrepancy in supply/demand between Canadian pilots and American pilots.

https://simpleflying.com/united-states- ... an-demand/

Pilot shortages at Jazz are bad and getting worse. Jazz flies a lot of AC passengers and is very important in feeding the hubs for international connections. Jazz pilot staffing needs to stabilize in order for AC to grow more aggressively.

doogan wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

I think guage is going to win out long term. Is frequency better, yes absolutely, but Canada physically cannot produce enough pilots to fly those frequencies. New commercial pilot numbers in Canada have been decimated since 2019, and there were already too few to begin with. Only way to fly more pax with less crews is to fly bigger planes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews ... cline/amp/

Yes, there is a pilot shortage in this country, but AC will never have to look too hard to find qualified pilots. It's other carriers and mostly the regionals that will bear the brunt of the consequences.

Meanwhile, in the US, they're saying pilot supply will outpace demand. In my opinion, pilot WAWCONs are a major reason for the discrepancy in supply/demand between Canadian pilots and American pilots.

https://simpleflying.com/united-states- ... an-demand/

Pilot shortages at Jazz are bad and getting worse. Jazz flies a lot of AC passengers and is very important in feeding the hubs for international connections. Jazz pilot staffing needs to stabilize in order for AC to grow more aggressively.

Many markets are dependent on Jazz and the pilot shortage has seen severe capacity cuts and much higher fares on near term departures for those limited seats

Lamp1009 wrote:

lostsound wrote:

Lamp1009 wrote:

They currently need the 77Ls quite badly, and long term, introducing an a350 to service 5 routes makes little sense. Maybe if in 10 years they see the value proposition of an A350-1000 or future variant, but it’s worth noting that ac’s potential for use (in all cabins) has been and continues to grow. I personally foresee 787-10s and 777-9s when the time comes.

Air Canada has made fleet contrary decisions before like the MAX8 (and at the time MAX9s) without them effectively replacing much of anything so far, and then the 321LR (and acquisition of A321CEOs) further doubling down on a multi-manufacturer midsize narrow-body fleet. I wouldn’t count on anything before a for certain at the time being. I think this will inevitably be best price and delivery schedule when the time comes, but I think we all agree that time isn’t really anytime soon.

I'll agree that the narrow body side is a mess, no doubt about that, but at the same time, Canada is massive, and AC has to serve an insane transborder market that demands frequency from cities that can't necessarily support typical sized planes. AC needs flexibility on the narrow body side, which is why they seem to have the most efficient small narrow body (Cseries/A220), the most efficient standard sized plane for an insanely good price and lead time (MAX 8), and the longest range narrow body available right now (A321XLR).

Long distance, things are far simpler (for the most part, granted you have your trunk routes which demand wide bodies and work as excellent repositioning flights). Almost all the international flights leave from 3 hubs, and the market demands for each route grow steadily, but are pretty stagnant. The A330 replacement I would argue is the more complicated question for AC: Go with the A330neo and save on pilots, or go with the 787-10 and increase commonality and capacity. With the 777 replacement with the A350, you'd be adding a fleet type and down-gaguing, something I don't think management is interested in long term.

I'm not sure I understand why you think the narrow body fleet is a "mess". AC has reasonable sized A223, Max 8, and A32X fleets, with more A223 and A32X on their way. You made the point about having the most efficient aircraft for the mission which is absolutely correct. It could be argued (as you have) that the combination of the A220, Max 8, and XLR makes for a tremendously efficient and flexible narrow body fleet. The transition has been slow because of the Max groundings, and there may have been more Maxes in the fleet without the grounding, but AC would have likely selected the XLR anyway as Boeing does not have an aircraft to the meet that need.

The CapEx associated with replacing the A32X CEO fleet is large, and with the last few years post COVID, it is not surprising that the replacement rate is slower with the CEO's flying to the absolute end of their operating life. Rouge also has an A321 fleet that isn't especially old, so there is no reason to replace them with anything at present (especially since 2/3 of the cabins have been refurbished). While I don't think AC will order further Maxes (despite 10 options) there will be a need to replace the older Rouge aircraft at some point. Any of the existing narrow body aircraft on the market could do this, and with AC already having A220, Max, and A32X aircraft in the fleet, it could go to either OEM.

The wide body fleet makeup is really no simpler than the narrow body fleet with both Boeing and Airbus aircraft. Again, AC has a flexible fleet, and they have continued to manage the CapEx with the addition of used A333's. The 787 has become the long haul workhorse (much like the 767 used to be) but has allowed for an expansion of long haul routes the 767 could never fly. The A333's are tending to fly transatlantic where the cost of operation isn't massively different than the 787 (there are lots of posts about this). With the A333 refurbishment, they will be in the fleet for a while (with the oldest frames likely flying longer than 30 years). The 777 fleet also has a long way to go before replacement. There will likely be incremental additions if demand picks up, but there are also 30 XLR's with lie flat J coming, which will probably take over some of the A333 flying, which in turn will allow the 787's to move to where they excel, long distance flying to Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East, as well as transatlantic from YVR (and the 2 transatlantic routes from YYC).

Fleet wise it could be argued that AC is very well positioned based on their present fleet despite the Max grounding and the cancellation of some of that order.

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Lamp1009 wrote:

lostsound wrote:

Air Canada has made fleet contrary decisions before like the MAX8 (and at the time MAX9s) without them effectively replacing much of anything so far, and then the 321LR (and acquisition of A321CEOs) further doubling down on a multi-manufacturer midsize narrow-body fleet. I wouldn’t count on anything before a for certain at the time being. I think this will inevitably be best price and delivery schedule when the time comes, but I think we all agree that time isn’t really anytime soon.

I'll agree that the narrow body side is a mess, no doubt about that, but at the same time, Canada is massive, and AC has to serve an insane transborder market that demands frequency from cities that can't necessarily support typical sized planes. AC needs flexibility on the narrow body side, which is why they seem to have the most efficient small narrow body (Cseries/A220), the most efficient standard sized plane for an insanely good price and lead time (MAX 8), and the longest range narrow body available right now (A321XLR).

Long distance, things are far simpler (for the most part, granted you have your trunk routes which demand wide bodies and work as excellent repositioning flights). Almost all the international flights leave from 3 hubs, and the market demands for each route grow steadily, but are pretty stagnant. The A330 replacement I would argue is the more complicated question for AC: Go with the A330neo and save on pilots, or go with the 787-10 and increase commonality and capacity. With the 777 replacement with the A350, you'd be adding a fleet type and down-gaguing, something I don't think management is interested in long term.

I'm not sure I understand why you think the narrow body fleet is a "mess". AC has reasonable sized A223, Max 8, and A32X fleets, with more A223 and A32X on their way. You made the point about having the most efficient aircraft for the mission which is absolutely correct. It could be argued (as you have) that the combination of the A220, Max 8, and XLR makes for a tremendously efficient and flexible narrow body fleet. The transition has been slow because of the Max groundings, and there may have been more Maxes in the fleet without the grounding, but AC would have likely selected the XLR anyway as Boeing does not have an aircraft to the meet that need.

The CapEx associated with replacing the A32X CEO fleet is large, and with the last few years post COVID, it is not surprising that the replacement rate is slower with the CEO's flying to the absolute end of their operating life. Rouge also has an A321 fleet that isn't especially old, so there is no reason to replace them with anything at present (especially since 2/3 of the cabins have been refurbished). While I don't think AC will order further Maxes (despite 10 options) there will be a need to replace the older Rouge aircraft at some point. Any of the existing narrow body aircraft on the market could do this, and with AC already having A220, Max, and A32X aircraft in the fleet, it could go to either OEM.

The wide body fleet makeup is really no simpler than the narrow body fleet with both Boeing and Airbus aircraft. Again, AC has a flexible fleet, and they have continued to manage the CapEx with the addition of used A333's. The 787 has become the long haul workhorse (much like the 767 used to be) but has allowed for an expansion of long haul routes the 767 could never fly. The A333's are tending to fly transatlantic where the cost of operation isn't massively different than the 787 (there are lots of posts about this). With the A333 refurbishment, they will be in the fleet for a while (with the oldest frames likely flying longer than 30 years). The 777 fleet also has a long way to go before replacement. There will likely be incremental additions if demand picks up, but there are also 30 XLR's with lie flat J coming, which will probably take over some of the A333 flying, which in turn will allow the 787's to move to where they excel, long distance flying to Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East, as well as transatlantic from YVR (and the 2 transatlantic routes from YYC).

Fleet wise it could be argued that AC is very well positioned based on their present fleet despite the Max grounding and the cancellation of some of that order.

AC’s narrow body fleet also sets them perfectly for the future. They now can easily play Boeing and Airbus off each other in the future for new orders, and have full flexibility when it comes to used narrow bodies- they can easily incorporate used planes in the fleet no matter if they are MAXs, Neos, or A220s. They have the infrastructure in place to support all.

One of the big reasons AC went with the Max in the first place was Airbus was taking them for granted and offering terrible pricing and delivery for the Neo vs what Boeing was offering with the Max. This is also why a certain international air group that exclusively operates the A320 family ordered Maxes, and why some shifting around of Neo orders with that group after Max LOI announced involved cancellation of existing order and new order of same amount (aka a new contract that happened to bit more favorable to airline compared to old).

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Lamp1009 wrote:

lostsound wrote:

Air Canada has made fleet contrary decisions before like the MAX8 (and at the time MAX9s) without them effectively replacing much of anything so far, and then the 321LR (and acquisition of A321CEOs) further doubling down on a multi-manufacturer midsize narrow-body fleet. I wouldn’t count on anything before a for certain at the time being. I think this will inevitably be best price and delivery schedule when the time comes, but I think we all agree that time isn’t really anytime soon.

I'll agree that the narrow body side is a mess, no doubt about that, but at the same time, Canada is massive, and AC has to serve an insane transborder market that demands frequency from cities that can't necessarily support typical sized planes. AC needs flexibility on the narrow body side, which is why they seem to have the most efficient small narrow body (Cseries/A220), the most efficient standard sized plane for an insanely good price and lead time (MAX 8), and the longest range narrow body available right now (A321XLR).

Long distance, things are far simpler (for the most part, granted you have your trunk routes which demand wide bodies and work as excellent repositioning flights). Almost all the international flights leave from 3 hubs, and the market demands for each route grow steadily, but are pretty stagnant. The A330 replacement I would argue is the more complicated question for AC: Go with the A330neo and save on pilots, or go with the 787-10 and increase commonality and capacity. With the 777 replacement with the A350, you'd be adding a fleet type and down-gaguing, something I don't think management is interested in long term.

I'm not sure I understand why you think the narrow body fleet is a "mess". AC has reasonable sized A223, Max 8, and A32X fleets, with more A223 and A32X on their way. You made the point about having the most efficient aircraft for the mission which is absolutely correct. It could be argued (as you have) that the combination of the A220, Max 8, and XLR makes for a tremendously efficient and flexible narrow body fleet. The transition has been slow because of the Max groundings, and there may have been more Maxes in the fleet without the grounding, but AC would have likely selected the XLR anyway as Boeing does not have an aircraft to the meet that need.

By "mess" I mean that the airline exists with one type of aircraft from each of the big 4 manufacturers (if we include the ERJ but that's ACexpress so meh) in the narrow body jet segment, instead of trying to streamline everything to 2 (Say the A220 and A32X family?) Sure, there are fuel advantages, but now you have 3-4 pilot pools and 3-4 types with very different parts and supply chains spread across 4 major hubs. For AC, it might make sense, but it definitely does not align with conventional wisdom, especially these days. It's also a much more difficult system to staff and maintain, but the benefits likely outweigh the challenges and risks of a diverse fleet.

In terms of the fleet today, it's definitely a mess, but that's largely because it's transitionary.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but I think it's safe to say AC should have ordered the A320neo instead of the Max.

Max grounding aside, it would have made more sense, simply due to their recent XLR order and the additional A330s in the fleet (320/330 commonality).

And as icing on the cake for us aviation enthusiasts, it would have given Canadian airlines a bit of fleet diversity. I mean, WestJet, Swoop, Flair, Sunwing, Lynx, Air Inuit, Canadian North, Air North, are all 737 operators, or as I like to call it, 1960s technology operators. Now add AC. Kind of boring, really.

It would have been nice to have 50-100 A320neos flying around in Canada. At least we have TS with a solid A321neo fleet, and soon AC will have a few as well.

Lamp1009 wrote:

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Lamp1009 wrote:

I'll agree that the narrow body side is a mess, no doubt about that, but at the same time, Canada is massive, and AC has to serve an insane transborder market that demands frequency from cities that can't necessarily support typical sized planes. AC needs flexibility on the narrow body side, which is why they seem to have the most efficient small narrow body (Cseries/A220), the most efficient standard sized plane for an insanely good price and lead time (MAX 8), and the longest range narrow body available right now (A321XLR).

Long distance, things are far simpler (for the most part, granted you have your trunk routes which demand wide bodies and work as excellent repositioning flights). Almost all the international flights leave from 3 hubs, and the market demands for each route grow steadily, but are pretty stagnant. The A330 replacement I would argue is the more complicated question for AC: Go with the A330neo and save on pilots, or go with the 787-10 and increase commonality and capacity. With the 777 replacement with the A350, you'd be adding a fleet type and down-gaguing, something I don't think management is interested in long term.

I'm not sure I understand why you think the narrow body fleet is a "mess". AC has reasonable sized A223, Max 8, and A32X fleets, with more A223 and A32X on their way. You made the point about having the most efficient aircraft for the mission which is absolutely correct. It could be argued (as you have) that the combination of the A220, Max 8, and XLR makes for a tremendously efficient and flexible narrow body fleet. The transition has been slow because of the Max groundings, and there may have been more Maxes in the fleet without the grounding, but AC would have likely selected the XLR anyway as Boeing does not have an aircraft to the meet that need.

By "mess" I mean that the airline exists with one type of aircraft from each of the big 4 manufacturers (if we include the ERJ but that's ACexpress so meh) in the narrow body jet segment, instead of trying to streamline everything to 2 (Say the A220 and A32X family?) Sure, there are fuel advantages, but now you have 3-4 pilot pools and 3-4 types with very different parts and supply chains spread across 4 major hubs. For AC, it might make sense, but it definitely does not align with conventional wisdom, especially these days. It's also a much more difficult system to staff and maintain, but the benefits likely outweigh the challenges and risks of a diverse fleet.

In terms of the fleet today, it's definitely a mess, but that's largely because it's transitionary.

Except Jazz will always have a separate pilot pool from Mainline. The CR9/E75 argument is a separate one as the CR9 is no longer produced and the E2 models don't meet scope clauses. Both the E75 and CR9 fleet have lots of years of flying left. It is a big jump from 76 seats to 137 seats (A220). I guess the A221 could replace the E75/CR9 but that's 109 seats if Delta's configuration is used as a comparison. There are still routes presently being flown by Express which likely wouldn't work with a mainline aircraft.

AC is going to have 60 A220's (and probably more) so that is a large pilot pool. Rouge and mainline aircraft are flown by the same pilot pool so that is also a large fleet (especially when the XLR's join). 40 Maxes aren't that small a number so another reasonable size pilot pool. There seems to be a lot made about fleet commonality, and maybe in hindsight AC may have ordered the NEO instead, but there is nothing to suggest the Max isn't performing well for AC (just like the many other carriers that have ordered it, and continue to order it). Keep in mind that Boeing bought 25 E90's as part of the Max deal (not likely something that Airbus would have done).

The idea of fleet commonality is a bit overblown I think (unless you are WN). WS has Max 7's on order because the 8 is too big for some routes (and it could be argued that the 7 is also). AC has generally made aircraft decisions based on keeping the 2 OEM's on their toes. Suspect this will continue as long as the present management team runs the airline.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Hindsight is always 20/20, but I think it's safe to say AC should have ordered the A320neo instead of the Max.

Max grounding aside, it would have made more sense, simply due to their recent XLR order and the additional A330s in the fleet (320/330 commonality).

And as icing on the cake for us aviation enthusiasts, it would have given Canadian airlines a bit of fleet diversity. I mean, WestJet, Swoop, Flair, Sunwing, Lynx, Air Inuit, Canadian North, Air North, are all 737 operators, or as I like to call it, 1960s technology operators. Now add AC. Kind of boring, really.

It would have been nice to have 50-100 A320neos flying around in Canada. At least we have TS with a solid A321neo fleet, and soon AC will have a few as well.

Does AC have an MFF pool for airbus aircraft? I didn't think A32X pilots flew A330's at AC (even though they could with less training).

Between the A220's, CEO's, Maxes, and XLR's, AC is going to have a pretty varied fleet from a spotting perspective .

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Lamp1009 wrote:

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

I'm not sure I understand why you think the narrow body fleet is a "mess". AC has reasonable sized A223, Max 8, and A32X fleets, with more A223 and A32X on their way. You made the point about having the most efficient aircraft for the mission which is absolutely correct. It could be argued (as you have) that the combination of the A220, Max 8, and XLR makes for a tremendously efficient and flexible narrow body fleet. The transition has been slow because of the Max groundings, and there may have been more Maxes in the fleet without the grounding, but AC would have likely selected the XLR anyway as Boeing does not have an aircraft to the meet that need.

By "mess" I mean that the airline exists with one type of aircraft from each of the big 4 manufacturers (if we include the ERJ but that's ACexpress so meh) in the narrow body jet segment, instead of trying to streamline everything to 2 (Say the A220 and A32X family?) Sure, there are fuel advantages, but now you have 3-4 pilot pools and 3-4 types with very different parts and supply chains spread across 4 major hubs. For AC, it might make sense, but it definitely does not align with conventional wisdom, especially these days. It's also a much more difficult system to staff and maintain, but the benefits likely outweigh the challenges and risks of a diverse fleet.

In terms of the fleet today, it's definitely a mess, but that's largely because it's transitionary.

Except Jazz will always have a separate pilot pool from Mainline. The CR9/E75 argument is a separate one as the CR9 is no longer produced and the E2 models don't meet scope clauses. Both the E75 and CR9 fleet have lots of years of flying left. It is a big jump from 76 seats to 137 seats (A220). I guess the A221 could replace the E75/CR9 but that's 109 seats if Delta's configuration is used as a comparison. There are still routes presently being flown by Express which likely wouldn't work with a mainline aircraft.

AC is going to have 60 A220's (and probably more) so that is a large pilot pool. Rouge and mainline aircraft are flown by the same pilot pool so that is also a large fleet (especially when the XLR's join). 40 Maxes aren't that small a number so another reasonable size pilot pool. There seems to be a lot made about fleet commonality, and maybe in hindsight AC may have ordered the NEO instead, but there is nothing to suggest the Max isn't performing well for AC (just like the many other carriers that have ordered it, and continue to order it). Keep in mind that Boeing bought 25 E90's as part of the Max deal (not likely something that Airbus would have done).

The idea of fleet commonality is a bit overblown I think (unless you are WN). WS has Max 7's on order because the 8 is too big for some routes (and it could be argued that the 7 is also). AC has generally made aircraft decisions based on keeping the 2 OEM's on their toes. Suspect this will continue as long as the present management team runs the airline.

WS doesn’t have max 7’s on order, those got converted to Max 8’s

Aresxerexade wrote:

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Lamp1009 wrote:

By "mess" I mean that the airline exists with one type of aircraft from each of the big 4 manufacturers (if we include the ERJ but that's ACexpress so meh) in the narrow body jet segment, instead of trying to streamline everything to 2 (Say the A220 and A32X family?) Sure, there are fuel advantages, but now you have 3-4 pilot pools and 3-4 types with very different parts and supply chains spread across 4 major hubs. For AC, it might make sense, but it definitely does not align with conventional wisdom, especially these days. It's also a much more difficult system to staff and maintain, but the benefits likely outweigh the challenges and risks of a diverse fleet.

In terms of the fleet today, it's definitely a mess, but that's largely because it's transitionary.

Except Jazz will always have a separate pilot pool from Mainline. The CR9/E75 argument is a separate one as the CR9 is no longer produced and the E2 models don't meet scope clauses. Both the E75 and CR9 fleet have lots of years of flying left. It is a big jump from 76 seats to 137 seats (A220). I guess the A221 could replace the E75/CR9 but that's 109 seats if Delta's configuration is used as a comparison. There are still routes presently being flown by Express which likely wouldn't work with a mainline aircraft.

AC is going to have 60 A220's (and probably more) so that is a large pilot pool. Rouge and mainline aircraft are flown by the same pilot pool so that is also a large fleet (especially when the XLR's join). 40 Maxes aren't that small a number so another reasonable size pilot pool. There seems to be a lot made about fleet commonality, and maybe in hindsight AC may have ordered the NEO instead, but there is nothing to suggest the Max isn't performing well for AC (just like the many other carriers that have ordered it, and continue to order it). Keep in mind that Boeing bought 25 E90's as part of the Max deal (not likely something that Airbus would have done).

The idea of fleet commonality is a bit overblown I think (unless you are WN). WS has Max 7's on order because the 8 is too big for some routes (and it could be argued that the 7 is also). AC has generally made aircraft decisions based on keeping the 2 OEM's on their toes. Suspect this will continue as long as the present management team runs the airline.

WS doesn’t have max 7’s on order, those got converted to Max 8’s

Did WS convert or reduce its order for 54 and 22 options on the 737-Max 10? A WS Wiki editor has not redacted the Wiki site and it still shows 22 orders for the Max 7 and 54 orders for the 737-Max 10.

ET1EDM wrote:

Aresxerexade wrote:

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Except Jazz will always have a separate pilot pool from Mainline. The CR9/E75 argument is a separate one as the CR9 is no longer produced and the E2 models don't meet scope clauses. Both the E75 and CR9 fleet have lots of years of flying left. It is a big jump from 76 seats to 137 seats (A220). I guess the A221 could replace the E75/CR9 but that's 109 seats if Delta's configuration is used as a comparison. There are still routes presently being flown by Express which likely wouldn't work with a mainline aircraft.

AC is going to have 60 A220's (and probably more) so that is a large pilot pool. Rouge and mainline aircraft are flown by the same pilot pool so that is also a large fleet (especially when the XLR's join). 40 Maxes aren't that small a number so another reasonable size pilot pool. There seems to be a lot made about fleet commonality, and maybe in hindsight AC may have ordered the NEO instead, but there is nothing to suggest the Max isn't performing well for AC (just like the many other carriers that have ordered it, and continue to order it). Keep in mind that Boeing bought 25 E90's as part of the Max deal (not likely something that Airbus would have done).

The idea of fleet commonality is a bit overblown I think (unless you are WN). WS has Max 7's on order because the 8 is too big for some routes (and it could be argued that the 7 is also). AC has generally made aircraft decisions based on keeping the 2 OEM's on their toes. Suspect this will continue as long as the present management team runs the airline.

WS doesn’t have max 7’s on order, those got converted to Max 8’s

Did WS convert or reduce its order for 54 and 22 options on the 737-Max 10? A WS Wiki editor has not redacted the Wiki site and it still shows 22 orders for the Max 7 and 54 orders for the 737-Max 10.

Wiki is hardly a trustworthy source haha

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Hindsight is always 20/20, but I think it's safe to say AC should have ordered the A320neo instead of the Max.

Max grounding aside, it would have made more sense, simply due to their recent XLR order and the additional A330s in the fleet (320/330 commonality).

And as icing on the cake for us aviation enthusiasts, it would have given Canadian airlines a bit of fleet diversity. I mean, WestJet, Swoop, Flair, Sunwing, Lynx, Air Inuit, Canadian North, Air North, are all 737 operators, or as I like to call it, 1960s technology operators. Now add AC. Kind of boring, really.

It would have been nice to have 50-100 A320neos flying around in Canada. At least we have TS with a solid A321neo fleet, and soon AC will have a few as well.

Does AC have an MFF pool for airbus aircraft? I didn't think A32X pilots flew A330's at AC (even though they could with less training).

Between the A220's, CEO's, Maxes, and XLR's, AC is going to have a pretty varied fleet from a spotting perspective .

No. A32X and A330 pilots are completely separate.

There is no guarantee that A330 pilots would come from A32X(neo or otherwise) fleet. It’s all based on seniority. A A220 pilot can jumped directly to it. Or a 787 or 777 pilot (think things like FO to Captain). To ensure uniform training standards it’s unlikely A32X pilots at AC faced significantly lower training times when switching to A330. Not everything works like the OEM advertises, especially when you have mixed fleets (which AC has long had- they have never been a solely A32X/A330 operator). Often time the easiest thing to do is just have one training program where you just assume the pilot has no experience with a similar jet.

ET1EDM wrote:

Did WS convert or reduce its order for 54 and 22 options on the 737-Max 10? A WS Wiki editor has not redacted the Wiki site and it still shows 22 orders for the Max 7 and 54 orders for the 737-Max 10.

Just a note: Boeing is struggling to certify both Max7 and Max10. WS strongly believe that they will be able to fill both the Max10 and the max8. But in the interim, with both Max8 and Max9 flying may be WS could fly some Max9 on the interim.

AC Cargo is adding flights to Liege, Belgium (2x weekly, eventually 3x weekly) starting in February and Basel, Switzerland (2x weekly) starting in April, from Toronto using their 767F fleet:

https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/f ... r-flights/

The Basel flight is routed YYZ-YHZ-BSL.

The report also indicates that AC Cargo will have a fleet of a dozen freighters by the end of 2024; 10 767F's and 2 777F's.

Also related is an interview with the now former head of AC Cargo, Jason Berry:

https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/a ... er-frenzy/

Basically, Air Canada see the dedicated freighter fleet as a replacement for the lost capacity of belly cargo since 2019, as a way to service freight-heavy routes that may not make sense to send a widebody, or even passenger planes (Guadalajara is mentioned as an example) and as a way to balance seasonality on some routes.

The article also notes that AC will deploy the 777F's to Vancouver to serve Asia-Pacific routes, while the 767F's serve Latin America, Europe, and the US.

Air Canada and Singapore Airlines will be expanding their codeshare partnership from the 2nd of February

- AC will place their codeshare on SQ’s SIN-YVR route
- SQ will place their codeshare on select AC domestic routes ex-YVR

Expected to be effective 02FEB

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230130-acsq

Air Canada once again delaying the start of YYZ-BRU, revised now to Aug 1st.

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230202-acbru

C-FITL, the line 77W retirement from covid, will be returning to the fleet. Imported back to Canada on January 31st.

Are there any updates on the 777 that was in YHM? Saw it around a week ago still sitting on the ramp.

With AF's YOW-CDG announcement today, they managed to get in a jab clearly directed at AC, lol:

"We are proud to be the only airline flying non-stop from Ottawa to Europe," declared Jean-Eudes de La Bretèche, General Manager of Air France KLM Canada, "and are delighted about the new tourism, cultural and business opportunities this service between the two capitals will generate. This now brings to five the Canadian destinations Air France serves."

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/a ... 51818.html

Dominion301 wrote:

With AF's YOW-CDG announcement today, they managed to get in a jab clearly directed at AC, lol:

"We are proud to be the only airline flying non-stop from Ottawa to Europe," declared Jean-Eudes de La Bretèche, General Manager of Air France KLM Canada, "and are delighted about the new tourism, cultural and business opportunities this service between the two capitals will generate. This now brings to five the Canadian destinations Air France serves."

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/a ... 51818.html

What's so funny? Ottawa is not an Air Canada hub nor will it ever be. Smart move for Air France, strong network at CDG to make this viable. You just sound so bitter about AC's business strategy...

flyyul wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

With AF's YOW-CDG announcement today, they managed to get in a jab clearly directed at AC, lol:

"We are proud to be the only airline flying non-stop from Ottawa to Europe," declared Jean-Eudes de La Bretèche, General Manager of Air France KLM Canada, "and are delighted about the new tourism, cultural and business opportunities this service between the two capitals will generate. This now brings to five the Canadian destinations Air France serves."

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/a ... 51818.html

What's so funny? Ottawa is not an Air Canada hub nor will it ever be. Smart move for Air France, strong network at CDG to make this viable. You just sound so bitter about AC's business strategy...

Not at all. I'm realistic with where Ottawa lies in the AC pecking order...even if it's frustrating. I'm also aware that a certain future AC aircraft type is better suited for said marketplace and others of a similar dynamic.

Dominion301 wrote:

With AF's YOW-CDG announcement today, they managed to get in a jab clearly directed at AC, lol:

"We are proud to be the only airline flying non-stop from Ottawa to Europe," declared Jean-Eudes de La Bretèche, General Manager of Air France KLM Canada, "and are delighted about the new tourism, cultural and business opportunities this service between the two capitals will generate. This now brings to five the Canadian destinations Air France serves."

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/a ... 51818.html

Great news for YOW. It is a tad disappointing that AFKL is the first mover on the market, but as flyyul mentioned, AC's focus is on rebuilding and strengthening the core YYZ/YUL/YVR hubs and until that's done, we likely won't see a transatlantic addition from YOW on AC metal. Even if they had the aircraft for YOW-LHR, they couldn't start it because of the slot situation. Can't see AC being willing to give up a frequency to YUL or YYZ to relaunch YOW. Perhaps LH, will "restart" YOW-FRA for an A++ competitive response. AFKL have certainly made some impressive gains in the Canadian market.

Dominion301 wrote:

flyyul wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

With AF's YOW-CDG announcement today, they managed to get in a jab clearly directed at AC, lol:



https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/a ... 51818.html

What's so funny? Ottawa is not an Air Canada hub nor will it ever be. Smart move for Air France, strong network at CDG to make this viable. You just sound so bitter about AC's business strategy...

Not at all. I'm realistic with where Ottawa lies in the AC pecking order...even if it's frustrating. I'm also aware that a certain future AC aircraft type is better suited for said marketplace and others of a similar dynamic.

One would think that AC can walk and chew gum at the same time…yes their business strategy is hub centric, but with travel back with a vengeance, one would think that YOW could get some international routes back, particularly for the summer months.

SheddingVortex wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

flyyul wrote:

What's so funny? Ottawa is not an Air Canada hub nor will it ever be. Smart move for Air France, strong network at CDG to make this viable. You just sound so bitter about AC's business strategy...

Not at all. I'm realistic with where Ottawa lies in the AC pecking order...even if it's frustrating. I'm also aware that a certain future AC aircraft type is better suited for said marketplace and others of a similar dynamic.

One would think that AC can walk and chew gum at the same time…yes their business strategy is hub centric, but with travel back with a vengeance, one would think that YOW could get some international routes back, particularly for the summer months.

Does Air France walk and chew gum as well? Do they operate Toulouse-New York/Atlanta/Detroit/Los Angeles or Lyon-New York/Atlanta? A quick scan of their schedule shows no long-haul outside of Paris the last time I checked.

flyyul wrote:

SheddingVortex wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

Not at all. I'm realistic with where Ottawa lies in the AC pecking order...even if it's frustrating. I'm also aware that a certain future AC aircraft type is better suited for said marketplace and others of a similar dynamic.

One would think that AC can walk and chew gum at the same time…yes their business strategy is hub centric, but with travel back with a vengeance, one would think that YOW could get some international routes back, particularly for the summer months.

Does Air France walk and chew gum as well? Do they operate Toulouse-New York/Atlanta/Detroit/Los Angeles or Lyon-New York/Atlanta? A quick scan of their schedule shows no long-haul outside of Paris the last time I checked.

1) France is a unipolar country— all roads literally lead to Paris. Canada is a multi polar / multiple country. Air travel flows have similar structures.
2) Broader point is that YOW had international flights before the pandemic, and with travel returning in a big way, one would have expected some of that to return, not just focus on the big hubs. Yes some of the justification might be govt traffic (which might not be back?) but there is high tech and business in Ottawa. Plus you have tourism in both directions in the summer

Speedalive wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

With AF's YOW-CDG announcement today, they managed to get in a jab clearly directed at AC, lol:

"We are proud to be the only airline flying non-stop from Ottawa to Europe," declared Jean-Eudes de La Bretèche, General Manager of Air France KLM Canada, "and are delighted about the new tourism, cultural and business opportunities this service between the two capitals will generate. This now brings to five the Canadian destinations Air France serves."

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/a ... 51818.html

Great news for YOW. It is a tad disappointing that AFKL is the first mover on the market, but as flyyul mentioned, AC's focus is on rebuilding and strengthening the core YYZ/YUL/YVR hubs and until that's done, we likely won't see a transatlantic addition from YOW on AC metal. Even if they had the aircraft for YOW-LHR, they couldn't start it because of the slot situation. Can't see AC being willing to give up a frequency to YUL or YYZ to relaunch YOW. Perhaps LH, will "restart" YOW-FRA for an A++ competitive response. AFKL have certainly made some impressive gains in the Canadian market.

Lufthansa won’t be adding Ottawa YOW anytime soon, as currently their Montreal YUL - Frankfurt FRA route is downgraded to (summer seasonal) since the Covid19 pandemic. And with Air Canada operating YUL - FRA year round.

Air France will be the (only foreign airline) for the time being on YOW- Europe nonstop. Eventually they’ll get competition on it by Air Canada at some point.

SheddingVortex wrote:

flyyul wrote:

SheddingVortex wrote:

One would think that AC can walk and chew gum at the same time…yes their business strategy is hub centric, but with travel back with a vengeance, one would think that YOW could get some international routes back, particularly for the summer months.

Does Air France walk and chew gum as well? Do they operate Toulouse-New York/Atlanta/Detroit/Los Angeles or Lyon-New York/Atlanta? A quick scan of their schedule shows no long-haul outside of Paris the last time I checked.

1) France is a unipolar country— all roads literally lead to Paris. Canada is a multi polar / multiple country. Air travel flows have similar structures.
2) Broader point is that YOW had international flights before the pandemic, and with travel returning in a big way, one would have expected some of that to return, not just focus on the big hubs. Yes some of the justification might be govt traffic (which might not be back?) but there is high tech and business in Ottawa. Plus you have tourism in both directions in the summer

Having dumped the 767 fleet (that was primarily operating at Rouge) AC is currently restricted when it comes to international capacity compared to pre-Covid. Until they start getting XLRs in they don’t have much wiggle room to be launching intercontinental flights from nonhubs.

Polot wrote:

SheddingVortex wrote:

flyyul wrote:

Does Air France walk and chew gum as well? Do they operate Toulouse-New York/Atlanta/Detroit/Los Angeles or Lyon-New York/Atlanta? A quick scan of their schedule shows no long-haul outside of Paris the last time I checked.

1) France is a unipolar country— all roads literally lead to Paris. Canada is a multi polar / multiple country. Air travel flows have similar structures.
2) Broader point is that YOW had international flights before the pandemic, and with travel returning in a big way, one would have expected some of that to return, not just focus on the big hubs. Yes some of the justification might be govt traffic (which might not be back?) but there is high tech and business in Ottawa. Plus you have tourism in both directions in the summer

Having dumped the 767 fleet (that was primarily operating at Rouge) AC is currently restricted when it comes to international capacity compared to pre-Covid. Until they start getting XLRs in they don’t have much wiggle room to be launching intercontinental flights from nonhubs.

Bingo. And this restricted capacity is helping to make flights be fuller than they ever were before Covid, especially combined with demand that hasn’t gone down and some flights internationally not being operated every day