Welcome to the WestJet News and Discussion thread - 2023 edition. Please continue your discussion and to post your news here.

Link to previous thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1468539

WS is pretty pathetic with the on time flights. The so called "global hub is a joke.

ET1EDM wrote:

WS is pretty pathetic with the on time flights. The so called "global hub is a joke.

But still 5% better than the other guys.

Based on their 787 bookings and loads that people have brought up here they seem to be doing pretty well with those flights but just my opinion.

IceCream wrote:

Based on their 787 bookings and loads that people have brought up here they seem to be doing pretty well with those flights but just my opinion.

The flights are full and I don't doubt WestJet's abilities to fill a B-787.

It is the yield part that concerns me. They acknowledge struggling to make $ with the airplane - when this past summer everyone else on the North Atlantic was flying full airplanes and making money.

Hopefully they are taking away lessons from their YYZ 787 foray, plus the B-737 YYZ and YHZ operations, which are not coming back.

WS7M8 wrote:

IceCream wrote:

Based on their 787 bookings and loads that people have brought up here they seem to be doing pretty well with those flights but just my opinion.

The flights are full and I don't doubt WestJet's abilities to fill a B-787.

It is the yield part that concerns me. They acknowledge struggling to make $ with the airplane - when this past summer everyone else on the North Atlantic was flying full airplanes and making money.

Hopefully they are taking away lessons from their YYZ 787 foray, plus the B-737 YYZ and YHZ operations, which are not coming back.

Do you have any sources about their struggle to make a profit with the 787s? I'm not doubting you at all, they're chasing after the lowest yielding TATL traffic after all, but just for my own reading and curiosity

I wasn’t sure on which thread this should be posted, PD, WS or AC, but something curious popped up.

I was using Travelocity to look at schedules to try out PD, as I’ve never flown on an E2-195. Using “Premium Economy” as a filter, PD’s two flights were displayed. Great fare, $476. My intent was to return on AC, also Premium Economy to compare.

But, I noticed that the premium cabin on Westjet’s 737 is sold as Premium Economy, not as Business. Is this new? A response to PD, or has it always been that way? Does it also mean that as the 787 no longer flies between YYZ and YVR, that Westjet no longer offers “Business” on the route?

For the record, while I often use third party websites to look at schedules, I only book directly with the airline. One thing is for sure, for the Premium Economy passenger, there are a lot of options. $476 on PD. $901 - $2344 on AC. $949 - $1076 on WS.

The 737 product has been branded as simply "Premium" class since it was introduced...perhaps the Expedia algorithm is picking up on the word Premium -- it's never been branded as either Business or Premium Economy. The lie-flat 787 product is branded as Business Class however. I am guessing domestic 787 ops will be very constrained going forward given the growing TATL/TPAC network out of YYC and the currently relatively small fleet size.

CrewBunk wrote:

I wasn’t sure on which thread this should be posted, PD, WS or AC, but something curious popped up.

I was using Travelocity to look at schedules to try out PD, as I’ve never flown on an E2-195. Using “Premium Economy” as a filter, PD’s two flights were displayed. Great fare, $476. My intent was to return on AC, also Premium Economy to compare.

But, I noticed that the premium cabin on Westjet’s 737 is sold as Premium Economy, not as Business. Is this new? A response to PD, or has it always been that way? Does it also mean that as the 787 no longer flies between YYZ and YVR, that Westjet no longer offers “Business” on the route?

For the record, while I often use third party websites to look at schedules, I only book directly with the airline. One thing is for sure, for the Premium Economy passenger, there are a lot of options. $476 on PD. $901 - $2344 on AC. $949 - $1076 on WS.

On google flights and expedia I've seen WS' premium class marked as premium economy for as long as I can remember. Probably because WS doesn't call it business so maybe the premium wording makes the sites think it's premium economy?

https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/ne ... 100809168/

"Four hours waiting. And waited. And waited some more. “We were sitting there for four hours in total,” King said. “Then someone came on the PA and said, ‘This flight to Orlando is overbooked by 42 seats. We’re asking for volunteers to give up their seats, and we will compensate you well.’”

Does anyone think it's kind of crazy to have 42 people bumped off a flight on a 737? Seems like a smaller plane was switched in but that's still pretty bad. There was also a police presence.
"King said the only explanation for the police presence at their plane’s gate was because “they knew things were going to be bad. When they called for the Dixon: party of four, seven officers appeared … almost as an intimidation tactic.” "

IceCream wrote:

https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/news/zero-compassion-for-us-cape-breton-woman-angry-airline-bumped-family-from-planned-florida-vacation-100809168/

"Four hours waiting. And waited. And waited some more. “We were sitting there for four hours in total,” King said. “Then someone came on the PA and said, ‘This flight to Orlando is overbooked by 42 seats. We’re asking for volunteers to give up their seats, and we will compensate you well.’”

Does anyone think it's kind of crazy to have 42 people bumped off a flight on a 737? Seems like a smaller plane was switched in but that's still pretty bad. There was also a police presence.
"King said the only explanation for the police presence at their plane’s gate was because “they knew things were going to be bad. When they called for the Dixon: party of four, seven officers appeared … almost as an intimidation tactic.” "

Was supposed to be an -800 but got downgauged to a -700 because of the weather irrops.

Try telling 42 people they aren't going to Orlando for Christmas and tell me how that works out, espcially with the recent abuse front line employees are getting. Don't really blame the contractors for calling the police.

ac190 wrote:

IceCream wrote:

https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/news/zero-compassion-for-us-cape-breton-woman-angry-airline-bumped-family-from-planned-florida-vacation-100809168/

"Four hours waiting. And waited. And waited some more. “We were sitting there for four hours in total,” King said. “Then someone came on the PA and said, ‘This flight to Orlando is overbooked by 42 seats. We’re asking for volunteers to give up their seats, and we will compensate you well.’”

Does anyone think it's kind of crazy to have 42 people bumped off a flight on a 737? Seems like a smaller plane was switched in but that's still pretty bad. There was also a police presence.
"King said the only explanation for the police presence at their plane’s gate was because “they knew things were going to be bad. When they called for the Dixon: party of four, seven officers appeared … almost as an intimidation tactic.” "

Was supposed to be an -800 but got downgauged to a -700 because of the weather irrops.

Try telling 42 people they aren't going to Orlando for Christmas and tell me how that works out, espcially with the recent abuse front line employees are getting. Don't really blame the contractors for calling the police.

Yeah that's a good point, some of these stories are probably dramatized a bit. It really sucks from the passenger POV but these sort of things happen in the airline industry.

I'm a tad annoyed with the article website now, because while this article alludes to the plane switch in, another article on the same website talking about the police made it sound like WS intentionally overbooked by 42 seats, which is why I thought it was crazy. Anyways

At the same time dramatized stories are fun to read...

CrewBunk wrote:

...
But, I noticed that the premium cabin on Westjet’s 737 is sold as Premium Economy, not as Business. Is this new? A response to PD, or has it always been that way? Does it also mean that as the 787 no longer flies between YYZ and YVR, that Westjet no longer offers “Business” on the route?
...

That dates back to when they were doing a Euro-style business class seat. On the 737 you did not know if you would get a "real" business class seat or a "euro" style seat. During the COVID slowdown they managed to get all the aircraft upgraded. They continued to use the same fare code.

My guess is the booking engines were never updated to reflect that the it is now closer to a Canadian Business or US First class product. WestJet has always used the term "Premium" to market the product.

casperCA wrote:

WestJet has always used the term "Premium" to market the product.

Looking at the description, it looks like a domestic Business Class product. While I’ve flown Business on Westjet’s 787, (LGW-YYZ), I’ve never tried the domestic product. So I’m killing two birds with one stone ….. YYZ-YVR on PD, Porter Reserve, having lunch with my son at the airport, then returning on Westjet, YVR-YYZ in Premium.

The funniest thing is the reaction of my partner. “Let me get this straight, you’re paying an airline to fly to YVR, have lunch, then paying another airline to bring you home?” “And you can fly Business on AC for free”. He didn’t understand when I said I’ve already flown J on AC in every thing they have at least a dozen times each, I’ve never flown on these two airlines.

And, there’s a whole website I frequent that would understand completely. He just walked away muttering to himself.

I’ve flown AC North American narrow body J and WS North American 737 Premium multiple times in 2022 and they are essentially equivalent. What you miss with WS is access to the MLL although you have lounge options on WS if you have the right credit card and/or status.

Widebody J on AC or WS pretty similar as well. Widebody Premium/Y+/W similar too but I think WS is better but AC obviously has many more destinations so they may be your only choice.

New flight from Winnipeg to LAX will cost Manitoba up to $4.8m in subsidy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba ... -1.6699688

It, like many others, seems better suited for a WS regional jet of some variety... which of course will not happen.

LAXintl wrote:

New flight from Winnipeg to LAX will cost Manitoba up to $4.8m in subsidy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba ... -1.6699688

I would suspect that Westjet had the upper hand in negotaitions with the Manitoba government. I wonder what provincial budget it falls under and is it a better investment than improving healthcare, schools etc.?
I'm surprised that Flair wasn't all over this subsidy.

Skywatcher wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

New flight from Winnipeg to LAX will cost Manitoba up to $4.8m in subsidy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba ... -1.6699688

I would suspect that Westjet had the upper hand in negotaitions with the Manitoba government. I wonder what provincial budget it falls under and is it a better investment than improving healthcare, schools etc.?
I'm surprised that Flair wasn't all over this subsidy.

I believe in the article it alludes to the money coming from funds specifically meant for the transportation sector. And they're reviewing the deal every 6 months.

What purpose does it serve to WS to run YYCLHR and YYCLGW daily? Do they have some sort of commitment to Easyjet Worldwide? Is this purely for overall YYC-LON market share/Would they run double daily LHR if they could?

Speedalive wrote:

What purpose does it serve to WS to run YYCLHR and YYCLGW daily? Do they have some sort of commitment to Easyjet Worldwide? Is this purely for overall YYC-LON market share/Would they run double daily LHR if they could?

Considering how difficult it is to obtain LHR slots. I wager yes they would run double daily LHR if they had the slots.

IceCream wrote:

WS7M8 wrote:

IceCream wrote:

Based on their 787 bookings and loads that people have brought up here they seem to be doing pretty well with those flights but just my opinion.

The flights are full and I don't doubt WestJet's abilities to fill a B-787.

It is the yield part that concerns me. They acknowledge struggling to make $ with the airplane - when this past summer everyone else on the North Atlantic was flying full airplanes and making money.

Hopefully they are taking away lessons from their YYZ 787 foray, plus the B-737 YYZ and YHZ operations, which are not coming back.

Do you have any sources about their struggle to make a profit with the 787s? I'm not doubting you at all, they're chasing after the lowest yielding TATL traffic after all, but just for my own reading and curiosity

I think Westjet is the source here, they cancelled the last 3 787's and are reorganizing their business. If it was a massive profit center they would have left the last 3 coming.

ddp wrote:

IceCream wrote:

WS7M8 wrote:

The flights are full and I don't doubt WestJet's abilities to fill a B-787.

It is the yield part that concerns me. They acknowledge struggling to make $ with the airplane - when this past summer everyone else on the North Atlantic was flying full airplanes and making money.

Hopefully they are taking away lessons from their YYZ 787 foray, plus the B-737 YYZ and YHZ operations, which are not coming back.

Do you have any sources about their struggle to make a profit with the 787s? I'm not doubting you at all, they're chasing after the lowest yielding TATL traffic after all, but just for my own reading and curiosity

I think Westjet is the source here, they cancelled the last 3 787's and are reorganizing their business. If it was a massive profit center they would have left the last 3 coming.

That's a good point, I guess they think they can make it work by consolidating the current 7 at YYC?

CrewBunk wrote:

casperCA wrote:

WestJet has always used the term "Premium" to market the product.

The funniest thing is the reaction of my partner. “Let me get this straight, you’re paying an airline to fly to YVR, have lunch, then paying another airline to bring you home?” “And you can fly Business on AC for free”.

The only thing you get for free from AC is a hard time

cirrusdragoon wrote:

Speedalive wrote:

What purpose does it serve to WS to run YYCLHR and YYCLGW daily? Do they have some sort of commitment to Easyjet Worldwide? Is this purely for overall YYC-LON market share/Would they run double daily LHR if they could?

Considering how difficult it is to obtain LHR slots. I wager yes they would run double daily LHR if they had the slots.

And yet they didn't even try for additional LHR slots for S23. They only requested enough for 1 daily roundtrip. So it seems like they had always intended to run daily YYC-LHR/LGW anyways.

hollywoodcory wrote:

cirrusdragoon wrote:

Speedalive wrote:

What purpose does it serve to WS to run YYCLHR and YYCLGW daily? Do they have some sort of commitment to Easyjet Worldwide? Is this purely for overall YYC-LON market share/Would they run double daily LHR if they could?

Considering how difficult it is to obtain LHR slots. I wager yes they would run double daily LHR if they had the slots.

And yet they didn't even try for additional LHR slots for S23. They only requested enough for 1 daily roundtrip. So it seems like they had always intended to run daily YYC-LHR/LGW anyways.

I'm sure there are a sizeable amount of people who are fine with flying into LGW. And LON in general is a very large market anyways regardless of airport.

Both flights are full on the days they both operate. We'll see if that remains the case once both ramp up to double daily, but up to this point there's no reason to question why they're operating to both LGW and LHR.

Acey wrote:

Both flights are full on the days they both operate. We'll see if that remains the case once both ramp up to double daily, but up to this point there's no reason to question why they're operating to both LGW and LHR.

Exactly. Each airport offers a different catchment and benefit. It is the same reason Jetblue operates to both LGW and LHR from Boston.

Does the MAX have the range for YYC-KEF?

BML87 wrote:

Does the MAX have the range for YYC-KEF?

Yes. For perspective.. The 737 MAX is proving to be key to Icelandair’s strategy of connecting North America to Europe via its hub at Keflavík International Airport. The aircraft’s range of up to 4,405 miles (6,510km) means that from Iceland, the 737 MAX is able to comfortably reach destinations on both sides of the Atlantic. At 3,622 miles (5,830 kilometers), the airline's service to Seattle is currently one of the longest 737 MAX flights in the world. Other routes currently operated by Icelandair’s 737 MAX aircraft include Chicago, Newark, Copenhagen, and London Heathrow.

Acey wrote:

Both flights are full on the days they both operate. We'll see if that remains the case once both ramp up to double daily, but up to this point there's no reason to question why they're operating to both LGW and LHR.

High LF’s do not equate to profitability as you should know. I imagine the LON market one of their highest yielding transatlantic routes, so why dilute it? The local market is only so big. Perhaps it’s a lower cost way to compete with AC on YYC-LON market share (vs increasing LHR) or they really just needed somewhere to put the plane while negotiating for ideal slots to places like AMS and ICN? The 320 seat LOPA is a blessing for this YYC-centric strategy that will largely depend on lower yielding connecting traffic.

Speedalive wrote:

Acey wrote:

Both flights are full on the days they both operate. We'll see if that remains the case once both ramp up to double daily, but up to this point there's no reason to question why they're operating to both LGW and LHR.

High LF’s do not equate to profitability as you should know.

I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they know more about operating an airline than you do.

The question was why they're operating to both. Answer: the demand is there, and their LHR slots are limited... period.

I spoke nothing of profitability. The concern in the back half of your post is covered by my "up to this point" caveat.

Acey wrote:

Speedalive wrote:

Acey wrote:

Both flights are full on the days they both operate. We'll see if that remains the case once both ramp up to double daily, but up to this point there's no reason to question why they're operating to both LGW and LHR.

High LF’s do not equate to profitability as you should know.

I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they know more about operating an airline than you do.

The question was why they're operating to both. Answer: the demand is there, and their LHR slots are limited... period.

I spoke nothing of profitability. The concern in the back half of your post is covered by my "up to this point" caveat.

Nowhere did I assert I know more about running an airline than Westjet. No need to be rude. If you don’t know the answer, that’s ok. From my previous experience in network planning, there’s often a series of factors that go into any route decision, not just “the demand is there”. I’m curious about the big picture. I have no doubt they’ll fill the seats if the price is right.

We shall see what the S24 looks like..

Speedalive wrote:

Acey wrote:

Both flights are full on the days they both operate. We'll see if that remains the case once both ramp up to double daily, but up to this point there's no reason to question why they're operating to both LGW and LHR.

High LF’s do not equate to profitability as you should know. I imagine the LON market one of their highest yielding transatlantic routes, so why dilute it? The local market is only so big. Perhaps it’s a lower cost way to compete with AC on YYC-LON market share (vs increasing LHR) or they really just needed somewhere to put the plane while negotiating for ideal slots to places like AMS and ICN? The 320 seat LOPA is a blessing for this YYC-centric strategy that will largely depend on lower yielding connecting traffic.

I don't think they're diluting LON that much. There used to be daily AC, daily BA and daily WS to LON a few years ago. Before that TS also served YYC-LGW and AC used to have a second daily YYC-LHR. So it's not really overcapacity if you compare it to past summers.

I'm assuming they're cutting back costs as much as they can (ie basing them all in YYC) to make their lower fares more sustainable and profitable. Based on what WS has said in the past, and the fact that they're doubling down on this strategy, makes me think they can make this work. After all, it's only 7 planes and not the next EK.

God forbid the capacity increase is related to their incessant claims to make YYC a global hub, as opposed to an internal desire to drive down their own revenues...

cirrusdragoon wrote:

Acey wrote:

Both flights are full on the days they both operate. We'll see if that remains the case once both ramp up to double daily, but up to this point there's no reason to question why they're operating to both LGW and LHR.

Exactly. Each airport offers a different catchment and benefit. It is the same reason Jetblue operates to both LGW and LHR from Boston.

Yeah I wonder why B6 operates to both LGW and LHR daily from JFK and BOS.

Taking random fares on WS over the next few months, I see LGW is often higher than LHR. An interesting turn. Either there is higher demand for LGW or WS is trying to edge AC out of the LHR market. Nice to see WS is aggressive.

But twice daily to London from one’s main hub is not excessive. In Summer, AC flies twice daily to LHR from both YVR and YUL, and four times daily from YYZ.

CrewBunk wrote:

But twice daily to London from one’s main hub is not excessive. In Summer, AC flies twice daily to LHR from both YVR and YUL, and four times daily from YYZ.

WS has also cut YVR-LGW. This is not to say that anyone who flew YVR-LGW will now one-stop it through YYC given the multitude of options for nonstop on YVR-London, but WS' total Western Canada to London seats for S23 are not a massive hike from S22.

Acey wrote:

God forbid the capacity increase is related to their incessant claims to make YYC a global hub, as opposed to an internal desire to drive down their own revenues...

YYC a global HUB is an illusion that the Calgary boosters never stop trying to convince the planet is hilarious! YYC will never be a global HUB - just a WS Hub in a sliver of North America located in a city that is running 35% empty towers gutted through the pandemic and demise of dirty tar sand oil. Some people shilling constantly talk about YYC and WS when the sun has set on the airline and city. Vancouver is the only true connecting hub in Western Canada period.

ET1EDM wrote:

Acey wrote:

God forbid the capacity increase is related to their incessant claims to make YYC a global hub, as opposed to an internal desire to drive down their own revenues...

YYC a global HUB is an illusion that the Calgary boosters never stop trying to convince the planet is hilarious! YYC will never be a global HUB - just a WS Hub in a sliver of North America located in a city that is running 35% empty towers gutted through the pandemic and demise of dirty tar sand oil. Some people shilling constantly talk about YYC and WS when the sun has set on the airline and city. Vancouver is the only true connecting hub in Western Canada period.

Someone's really bitter...at the end of the day YYC has flights on WS to LGW/LHR/BCN/FCO/DUB/CDG/EDI/NRT. That's a fact. There's no firm rigid definition of what is or isn't a global hub. But the fact is also that WS has a sizeable North American hub at YYC and also a significant amount of US connections through YYC towards a number of destinations in Europe, which is their current strategy.

Like it or not YYC is a significant North American transfer point with 50%+ of all passengers being connecting ones. And WS is doubling down on this strategy and retreating elsewhere after a full strategic review for a reason...unlike you airlines make decisions based on facts, numbers and economics, not feelings. It's totally fine to critique or doubt any airline's actions or strategy, but it's just weird and disturbing to take economic company decisions so personally.

Yes they would. However it's important to add for the education of non-Canadian a-netters that Alberta hates eastern Canada. The fact they are determined to have a sovereignty of their own, as demonstrated by your Premier plus the comments of Westjet's CEO a few months ago of getting back to its roots, are clearly the reason for the reallocation of all the 787s to YYC, the removal of TATL services from YYZ, and a lowering of services to YOW and YUL, which are probably a reflection of the west's inability to speak French in those markets. Have you also noticed that AC has suspended flights from Saskatchewan to YYC and from YYC to Victoria? Also that YYC was the last service announcement from Porter? WS is losing its lustre and after having been around for 20-25 years, I suspect it's future is precarious. I feel that Westjet might as well re-brand as "Air Calgary" for the way it's going.

How is connecting from International-Domestic/US in YYC?

crosscheckyyz wrote:

How is connecting from International-Domestic/US in YYC?

Not horrific these days, but I still recommend against transiting YYC if other financially equivalent options are available that don't extend a trip too much.

Acey wrote:

crosscheckyyz wrote:

How is connecting from International-Domestic/US in YYC?

Not horrific these days, but I still recommend against transiting YYC if other financially equivalent options are available that don't extend a trip too much.

Is there a bypass or is it leave the customs area and go upstairs back through security?

crosscheckyyz wrote:

Is there a bypass or is it leave the customs area and go upstairs back through security?

There is no sterile transit, no. You have to re-clear.

Acey wrote:

crosscheckyyz wrote:

Is there a bypass or is it leave the customs area and go upstairs back through security?

There is no sterile transit, no. You have to re-clear.

Are they going to fix that? As it stands it puts YYC (and Westjet) at a big disadvantage compared to YVR, YYZ or YUL.

Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought that was the original intent when YYC was expanded.

CrewBunk wrote:

Acey wrote:

crosscheckyyz wrote:

Is there a bypass or is it leave the customs area and go upstairs back through security?

There is no sterile transit, no. You have to re-clear.

Are they going to fix that? As it stands it puts YYC (and Westjet) at a big disadvantage compared to YVR, YYZ or YUL.

Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought that was the original intent when YYC was expanded.

It would be really stupid if they don't fix it. I vaguely recall Acey mentioning that YYC has no immediate plans to bring it back a few months ago?

CrewBunk wrote:

Acey wrote:

crosscheckyyz wrote:

Is there a bypass or is it leave the customs area and go upstairs back through security?

There is no sterile transit, no. You have to re-clear.

Are they going to fix that? As it stands it puts YYC (and Westjet) at a big disadvantage compared to YVR, YYZ or YUL.

Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought that was the original intent when YYC was expanded.

Correct, the YYC expansion is convoluted and inefficient for the sole purpose of sterile transit. During covid they decided they didn't need it, and loved the operational flexibility of being able to depart domestic from all the international gates and even the previously transborder-only gates. There were pretty much zero transborder flights and Concourse A was totally shut down.

It massively simplified the operation for all carriers, mostly WestJet, by minimizing the number of aircraft movements required. What was previously 4 full swing gates became 20.

Now, in the "global hub" era, (calm down, YEG folk) there is significant utility for sterile transit. I imagine it wouldn't take longer than a week to reconfigure everything for it. WestJet does not currently have the manpower to move enough airplanes at the rate required for sterile transit, however.

crosscheckyyz wrote:

How is connecting from International-Domestic/US in YYC?

Connecting through Calgary YYC was fine in 2017 for me,when I the flew with WestJet from Edmonton YEG to YYC connecting onwards Beijing China (PEK) on Hainan Airlines operated by the Boeing 787.

On the way back from China connected through YYC too on the back home to YEG.

I have no problem going through YYC agian, in my future travels/trips.

Seems like the planned YVR-YYF launch is being cancelled, it's no longer bookable.