I was looking at Air Canada's route maps in EnRoute magazine and it seems that Ac doesn't fly out to too many International Destinations like TK, BA, AF, KL, LH etc. I only saw most Asian destinations and TLV. The do not cover African continents or major Asian / Indian destinations such as BKK, TPE, SIN, BOM, DEL, AMS, DXB etc. Will AC ever fly into these destinations?
With the introduction of 787's what will the future destinations hold for AC?
Will all the 763's be transferred over to AC Rouge? If so where will they be flying the 30 something 763's? Would that take away most of AC's mainline routes?
How is AC doing financially and fleet wise compared to other airlines in the world?
Does AC have a bright future or the competition would kill it?
Rgds,
744

This summary of AC's presentation at their Investor Day event 2 months ago has a lot of information on recent developments and future plans.
http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/me...ns/documents/investor_day_2013.pdf

They reported their best 2nd quarter financial results in their history a few days ago.
http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=677

Thank you Viscount724. Just a side question? Do u think AC can ever get rid of the French?

Quoting 744 (Reply 2): Thank you Viscount724. Just a side question? Do u think AC can ever get rid of the French?

Won't ever happen, since AC is Canada's flag carrier and Canada is officially bilingual (English & French). AC is also headquartered at YUL in the French part of Canada. Under Canada's Official Languages Act, Air Canada is legally required to communicate and provide services in both official languages where there is significant demand in the minority language, and to be safe they "always" communicated in both English and French.

AC served BOM and SIN for many years. They dropped them about 10 years ago if I recall correctly, when they removed the 744 from their fleet. I can't quite understand why these routes were dropped, as they are heavy traffic destinations from Canada. The only thing I can surmise is that competitors offered a better product at lower cost.

-Al
YQBexYHZBGM

Quoting 744 (Reply 2): Do u think AC can ever get rid of the French?

Even on WS flights from YVR - LAX there still has to be French language information, so it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

As for AC expansion, I'd imagine there's some lobbying being done to try to stem the bleeding of pax going across the border for cheaper flights or cheaper connections via the US.

Sure, major Canadian airports allow US-bound connecting pax to avoid CBSA, but a more seamless connection experience means squat when a US connection is cheaper.

Quoting 744 (Reply 2): Thank you Viscount724. Just a side question? Do u think AC can ever get rid of the French?

Why would they? I must say I'm puzzled by your question and I don't quite understand it.

Quoting wpigott (Reply 3): Under Canada's Official Languages Act, Air Canada is legally required to communicate and provide services in both official languages where there is significant demand in the minority language,

Is this a general requirement for corporations in Canada or is AC singled out in some way?

Gemuser

Quoting 744 (Reply 2): Do u think AC can ever get rid of the French?

Legalities aside, flight announcements in both English and French are a simple matter of customer courtesy. A vast number of flight announcements on U.S. domestic flights these days are made in both English and Spanish, and on overseas flights I've encountered announcements on a single flight in as many as 5 different languages. This is especially easy with present technology, as the announcements can be pre-recorded, stored on tape or on diskette, and played over the public address or in-flight entertainment systems at appropriate times - so multilingual flight staff are not necessary for this customer-friendly (and safety-promoting) service. Do the announcements in French annoy you? Do they in any way detract from your flight experience as a passenger? Are you a Franco-phobe bigot? Do cabin announcements in Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, German, Italian, Portuguese, Turkish, Arabic, Hebrew, or Thai similarly annoy you? Your gratuitous dig at French language announcements on Canadian flights is - frankly - inexplicable. I shall be flying Southwest, Delta, US Airways, and United domestically within the U.S. during the next few weeks. I shall be very surprised if bilingual announcements in both English and Spanish are not made during those flights.

China Clipper 40

Quoting BD500 (Reply 6): Quoting 744 (Reply 2): Thank you Viscount724. Just a side question? Do u think AC can ever get rid of the French? Why would they? I must say I'm puzzled by your question and I don't quite understand it.

My thoughts too……why would they? I travel through YQM (Moncton, New Brunswick) often and there’s a very significant French speaking population here. They are of Acadian descent (think Louisiana “Cajun”) and it amazes me how bilingual this part of the county is. Walk through a mall or go into a store and the clerk switches effortlessly between English and French.

Apologies if this has been answered or discussed before, but is Air Canada Rouge also being considered as a thin-end of a wedge to lower the cost basis of international operations? Similar to the way that Tyrolean Airways replaced Austrian Airlines but now flies using their name?

In other words, establish a subsidiary with lower cost structures, cheaper and more flexible staff; then gradually replace all mainline AC international flying with Rouge, and one day re-brand Rouge as Air Canada mainline?

Quoting jamesontheroad (Reply 10): is Air Canada Rouge also being considered as a thin-end of a wedge to lower the cost basis of international operations? Similar to the way that Tyrolean Airways replaced Austrian Airlines but now flies using their name?

Right now, you should rather compare Rouge with Jetstar of Qantas.

Quoting jamesontheroad (Reply 10): In other words, establish a subsidiary with lower cost structures, cheaper and more flexible staff; then gradually replace all mainline AC international flying with Rouge, and one day re-brand Rouge as Air Canada mainline?

Their announced plans are to have a fleet of 20 B767-300ER in 2-3 years and I don't remember how many A319. So far Rouge is aimed at leisure destinations where RASM is low.

Quoting opethfan (Reply 5): Sure, major Canadian airports allow US-bound connecting pax to avoid CBSA, but a more seamless connection experience means squat when a US connection is cheaper.

Why would an American want to come to Canada when they could probably get a direct flight to wherever they want to go in the US or anybody for that matter?

Quoting gemuser (Reply 7): Is this a general requirement for corporations in Canada or is AC singled out in some way?

IIRC the Act that created TCA requires Air Canada to have both French and English spoken on their flights to and from Quebec but in the rest of the country they have to speak English and French for their onboard announcements and in the airport.

Quoting jamesontheroad (Reply 10): In other words, establish a subsidiary with lower cost structures, cheaper and more flexible staff; then gradually replace all mainline AC international flying with Rouge, and one day re-brand Rouge as Air Canada mainline?

No as there are no premium cabins on the AC Rouge planes and AC is very good with its Executive Class service for its business travellers. Also, Rouge was always meant to be a competitor to TS and other Holiday Charter airlines.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 12): Quoting opethfan (Reply 5): Sure, major Canadian airports allow US-bound connecting pax to avoid CBSA, but a more seamless connection experience means squat when a US connection is cheaper. Why would an American want to come to Canada when they could probably get a direct flight to wherever they want to go in the US or anybody for that matter?

I regularly deliberately schedule my trips to the US to connect through AC experience much better than UA.
(b) I can clear US immigration and customs before leaving Canada (in a predictable timescale) rather than at the destination which can be quick but can also be unbelievably (2 or more hours) slow (worse, it is unpredictable).
(c) to BOS from LHR, the best Star Alliance option is definitely LHR-YHZ-BOS (there being no non-stops)

... I also noted on my last flight to/from YVR that a lot of US and UK citizens were using YVR to/from PDX (PDX-YVR-LHR)

[Edited 2013-08-14 05:38:17]

Quoting ChinaClipper40 (Reply 8): Are you a Franco-phobe bigot?

Are you crazy? The hysteria in this thread when someone makes an off-hand comment about the silly bilingual policy is incredible. I love French, but I think a lot of non-Canadians find the language laws in Canada a bit strange, especially because the QC laws are so nuts.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 12): Why would an American want to come to Canada when they could probably get a direct flight to wherever they want to go in the US or anybody for that matter?

I'm not sure I understand your question. In my experience the AC product is fantastic (especially the French announcements!). For most Northeasterners, YYZ is right on the way to Asia, and YVR is no worse than SFO. YUL is only a slight western jog for TATL service. I'd rather connect in YYZ on AC to PEK (and now ICN!!!) than ORD.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 13): I regularly deliberately schedule my trips to the US to connect through AC experience much better than UA. (b) I can clear US immigration and customs before leaving Canada (in a predictable timescale) rather than at the destination which can be quick but can also be unbelievably (2 or more hours) slow (worse, it is unpredictable). (c) to BOS from LHR, the best Star Alliance option is definitely LHR-YHZ-BOS (there being no non-stops)

+1 to all above - but why do you prefer YHZ to YUL? Simply shorter flight times?

I suppose YHZ is better for New England - I think YUL is better for the "tri-state"

[Edited 2013-08-14 07:35:19]

Quoting spinzels (Reply 15): but why do you prefer YHZ to YUL? Simply shorter flight times?

I've gone through YHZ, YUL, YYZ, EWR and JFK between LHR and BOS (as well as non-stop). Any of the Canadian connection points beats EWR or JFK by a long way. Personally, I like YHZ because it is small, uncrowded at that time of day and geared up for the 25/30 pax transferring between LHR and BOS (the majority of the CRJ pax on that flight between YHZ and BOS come off the LHR flight) - as well as being a nice short TATL flight. However, YYZ or YUL are perfectly usable options.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 12): Why would an American want to come to Canada when they could probably get a direct flight to wherever they want to go in the US or anybody for that matter?

I use AC on all my flights to China/HK, and often to other destinations in Asia as well. I like their C product over my options on other carriers, mainly for the 1-2-1 configuration (all seats have aisle access). I've chosen them over a UA direct flight in the past, because the 2-4-2 configuration in UA C is not for me. For 14-hour flights, my onboard productivity and productivity is quite important.

Transferring through YYZ is fairly smooth and the AC lounges in YYZ are nice and well-stocked too. YYZ has GlobalEntry kiosks, so clearing US immigration in YYZ is easy also.

Quoting opethfan (Reply 5): Even on WS flights from YVR - LAX there still has to be French language information, so it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

But the big difference is AC is required by law to have French and English! This includes everything to do with AC including various operation manuals.

WJ does it more for the PR than the requirement.

Main difference is if AC and WJ both have a flight operating from YVR-LAX and a french speaking calls in sick for the flight, the WJ flight can depart. The AC flight has to wait until they have a french speaking FA, bit of an advantage for WJ.

It is an 19th century anachronism that French is a modern-day legal requirement, since virtually no one who flies on most of these routes speaks only French. The humorous irony is that they do announcements in a language that only the cabin crew understands. lol. On a flight from Toronto to Vancouver, you won't find a single French-only speaking passenger, yet all the announcements are doubled in French to comply with the law. If airports and airlines in Canada, especially Toronto, are to have announcements in two parallel languages, one of them needs to be Mandarin. There are zillions of Chinese residents who don't understand English very well. If we must have a bilingual federal policy, at least make it a policy that actually serves a purpose.

Quoting hmmmm... (Reply 19): It is an 19th century anachronism that French is a modern-day legal requirement, since virtually no one who flies on most of these routes speaks only French. The humorous irony is that they do announcements in a language that only the cabin crew understands. lol. On a flight from Toronto to Vancouver, you won't find a single French-only speaking passenger, yet all the announcements are doubled in French to comply with the law. If airports and airlines in Canada, especially Toronto, are to have announcements in two parallel languages, one of them needs to be Mandarin.

I have no idea why you think any of this is true.

Quoting hmmmm... (Reply 19): It is an 19th century anachronism that French is a modern-day legal requirement, since virtually no one who flies on most of these routes speaks only French. The humorous irony is that they do announcements in a language that only the cabin crew understands. lol. On a flight from Toronto to Vancouver, you won't find a single French-only speaking passenger, yet all the announcements are doubled in French to comply with the law. If airports and airlines in Canada, especially Toronto, are to have announcements in two parallel languages, one of them needs to be Mandarin. There are zillions of Chinese residents who don't understand English very well. If we must have a bilingual federal policy, at least make it a policy that actually serves a purpose.

Mandarin is not an official language of Canada. If you want to change that then you have to change the constitution and any Canadian over the age of 30 knows how easy that is.

Quoting sebring (Reply 20): I have no idea why you think any of this is true.

Agreed - more of an 18th Century anachronism   (Quebec Act et al.)

Quoting sebring (Reply 20): I have no idea why you think any of this is true

  

Seeing that he's from Calgary, it doesn't surprise me too much...

(FYI - I'm a Westerner living in Quebec).

Quoting 744 (Reply 2): Do u think AC can ever get rid of the French?

Quoting gemuser (Reply 7): Is this a general requirement for corporations in Canada or is AC singled out in some way?

Quoting brilondon (Reply 12): IIRC the Act that created TCA requires Air Canada to have both French and English spoken on their flights to and from Quebec but in the rest of the country they have to speak English and French for their onboard announcements and in the airport.

When Air Canada was privatised in the late 1980s, there were placed upon it, a set of condtions which governed its operations. It is called the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

The main intent of this Act, was to "protect" certain aspects of its operations for Canadians when Air Canada was a government owned airline. This included where it was headquartered (Quebec), the origins of new hire employees (hired by regional percentage of Canada) , the languages in which all documents were printed (everything, including technical manuals must be printed in both official languages of Canada). Etc. etc. etc. This is in addition to the examples noted above, like that there must be a bilingual F/A on virtually every flight.

It is the main reason Air Canada is run the way it is. And ... as you would surmise, it places Air Canada at a huge economic disadvantage over every other airline in Canada, or operating to Canada.

When Air Canada entered into CCAA (the similar Canadian version of US Chapter 11), one of the proposals was to abolish the ACPPA, and allow AC to compete on even terms with other airlines. The (French Canadian) Government's response was simply ... uhhh ... no.

So will they "Get Rid of the French"? Not in my lifetime!

I should also note, that not only is it hugely expensive, but ... Canadian law will not allow anyone to determine how expensive, as it is illegal to place a price on bilingualism in Canada. (I'm not kidding!)

Funny how the debate of Air Canada's future revolves around language. As if this is a really a factor in Air Canada's desire to become a premier global carrier. A significant part of Air Canada's clientele boards from Francophone parts of Canada - and numerous clients connect through YYZ, YVR and YYC which enhances the need for bilingual service.

Perhaps some see this as a huge cost, but nobody here really seems to understand this cost vs. the fuel cost of operating a daily flight to Hong Kong on a 777.

One potential market that I've always thought would be ideal for AC would be to establish a trans-Atlantic hub at Calgary aimed at the West Coast market. It lies at the perfect fulcrum of great circle routes between Western North America and Europe and is a significant O/D market of its own.

My thinking is that most cities in Europe are 9 to 11 hours flying time from Calgary enabling one aircraft to cover a single route. Cities further down the West Coast go well over 12 hours necessitating staggering of aircraft which is why you pretty much only have European hub carriers serving this market non-stop and at that very thinly.

West Coast cities are also highly fragmented travel markets with large cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles being served by multiple airports but offering non-stops to only the largest European cities. With traffic as it is in the Bay Area and LA I'm certain many travelers would prefer to depart from Burbank, Ontario, Orange County; San Jose or Oakland and be able to connect to 15-20 European cities, rather than drive to SFO or LAX and then transfer again somewhere in Europe. Other large cities like Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Honolulu and Phoenix have one or no flights to Europe. In addition you have some very attractive niche markets like Santa Barbara, Monterey and Palm Springs with highly wealthy populations largey living off of investment income who travel frequently to Europe and which could be served from Calgary by a RJ.

Unless you're traveling from SFO, LAX, SEA or YVR to the hub of one of the European airlines, the current situation means either:

Transfering in New York, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta or Washington which adds a lot of time to a trip due to the southernly, non great circle routing, and usually require a very early morning departure.

Transfering in Europe which usually means an early morming departure from Europe to make a connection aimed mostly at East Coast cities.

A hub in Calgary would enable the traveler to have a late afternoon departure from both Western North American and an ealry afternoon departure from Europe.

Quoting flyyul (Reply 25): Perhaps some see this as a huge cost, but nobody here really seems to understand this cost vs. the fuel cost of operating a daily flight to Hong Kong on a 777.

The fuel gets the plane from Toronto to Hong Kong. So that cost can not be deferred. The millions for French language announcements doesn't do anything to get the plane to Hong Kong, nor is it even a courtesy for the passengers since there is unlikely to be a single passenger aboard that flight that only speaks French and does not understand what is being announced. lol. It's all politics and nothing more. Expensive politics. Like I said before, how humorous and ironic it is that the cabin crew do all announcements, on every flight, in a language that most of the time nobody needs, and in fact, few if any understand but the very cabin crew speaking it. It's right out of Monty Python.

[Edited 2013-08-14 13:19:22]

Quoting brilondon (Reply 12): Why would an American want to come to Canada when they could probably get a direct flight to wherever they want to go in the US or anybody for that matter?

That is a puzzling question. Why not? On a few of my regular routes, flying Air Canada is not only more comfortable upfront, it is even the fastest option over connecting anywhere in the US!

Quoting hmmmm... (Reply 19): It is an 19th century anachronism that French is a modern-day legal requirement, since virtually no one who flies on most of these routes speaks only French.

If that's the threshold, I suppose French announcements should probably be eliminated between London and Paris airports, or Dutch between London and Amsterdam, or German between London and Frankfurt, or Japanese between London and Tokyo, or... oh why don't we make it easier and decide English is the only language anyone is allowed to speak?

Quoting flyyul (Reply 25): Funny how the debate of Air Canada's future revolves around language. As if this is a really a factor in Air Canada's desire to become a premier global carrier. A significant part of Air Canada's clientele boards from Francophone parts of Canada - and numerous clients connect through YYZ, YVR and YYC which enhances the need for bilingual service.

In fact I fly AC when I can and enjoy the flights, unfortunately they have long connection times when I fly and find that the US based carriers have faster overall flight times.

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 26): One potential market that I've always thought would be ideal for AC would be to establish a trans-Atlantic hub at Calgary aimed at the West Coast market.

I severely doubt AC would expand much at WS' home base. We know that the 787s will enable some new flights to Japan, but YVR already has more routes and is more attractive for flights to Hawaii, Asia, Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific coast.

International routes from YYC will expand, though.

Quoting 744 (Reply 2): Thank you Viscount724. Just a side question? Do u think AC can ever get rid of the French?

Just a side question. Do "you" think "you" could bother to spell out the word "you"?

LOL. AC dubs their safety video in French because it is required. This is similar to the new United and how it has its safety videos with Spanish subtitles on the top and English on the bottom. Plus many US airports (especially the South/North-east/West) have signs that are bi-lingual in Spanish. This also helps with United's HUGE Latin American network out of Houston and more or less out of San Francisco/Los Angeles/Chicago/Denver/Washington DC/Newark.

Airlines are to cater to the customer. United even has a video about this (including CSR's who speak Spanish/Portuguese):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnmo5rPwVKU

No it is not the same as with United with Spanish. Air Canada is required by the act that moved it from a crown corporation into a stand alone company, to have full bilingual services. At times people that want to cause a commotion have taken them to court for failure in some part of the act or another. I have been on flights when AC has had to fly an RJ from DCA to YYZ with two flight attendants if one is not bilingual. When the Captain makes an announcement in English, someone has to translate it into French and that is often a flight attendant. A French speaking Canadian, even if they speak and understand perfect English, has the right to service in French. They don't have to be from Quebec but can be from anywhere in Canada. They have the right to make a phone call and be serviced in French, check-in in French in Regina, and have a gate agent who speaks French available in Vancouver, etc. It is required of AC and not of any other carrier. They put Cantonese and Mandarin speakers on flights to Hong Kong and China out of service for customers. Language rights and keeping the head office in Montreal and a base at YUL is in the act.

And for the record calling Air Canada a flag carrier connotes a connection to the government which is of course not true for many many years. But the myth keeps being repeated.

Now maybe we can get back to the topic of the thread which is routes and changes to Air Canada in the future and not again another rehash of the French/English debate.

Quoting YQBexYHZbgm (Reply 4): AC served BOM and SIN for many years. They dropped them about 10 years ago if I recall correctly, when they removed the 744 from their fleet. I can't quite understand why these routes were dropped, as they are heavy traffic destinations from Canada

I disagree that BOM and SIN (especially SIN) are heavy traffic destinations from Canada. Most Canada-India traffic is to/from DEL and northern India where most Indian immigration to Canada has originated. And SIN is a very small market from Canada. When SQ operated YVR-ICN-SIN, by far the majority of their traffic was on the 5th freedom sector YVR-ICN, which is also why it was unprofitable due to all the low fares they had to offer to fill their flights.

When AC served BOM and SIN (routing was YYZ-LHR-BOM-SIN) most of the traffic beyond LHR was 5th freedom traffic to/from the UK. In fact BA complained strongly to the UK authorities that AC was carrying too much 5th freedom traffic. Many bilaterals restrict how much 5th freedom traffic can be carried to a certain percentage of the O&D traffic to/from the airline's home country.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34): When SQ operated YVR-ICN-SIN, by far the majority of their traffic was on the 5th freedom sector YVR-ICN, which is also why it was unprofitable due to all the low fares they had to offer to fill their flights.

Really? Where's the proof? We both know its your word against Intervistas. YVR-ICN-SIN failed because of that old 3 weekly policy that seems to be a favorite at Transport Canada. Or so claims the President of Intervistas. Given his client list (which includes AC), I'm inclined to believe he knows what he's talking about - I mean he's gone and put it on official record (with the government, no less).

That's not to say that I disagree with you on SIN, but lets avoid shaping facts to suit narratives.

Bit surprised by BKK on the other hand. Apparently 190,000 Canadians visited Thailand in 2011, and another 5,000 live there. That's double the number of Dutch folk that visited Canada in 2012. Must be all backpacker traffic using cheaper carriers for intra-Asia flights.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34): Most Canada-India traffic is to/from DEL and northern India where most Indian immigration to Canada has originated.

One would assume that BOM would attract more high yield corporate traffic, seeing that its the main commercial city in India.

North India is low-yield VFR traffic, and the AC brand in India is very weak (one could just as easily call it non-existent) compared to its direct competitors on India-Canada routes (9W, KL, BA, EK, QR, EY, AF, TK etc). All this talk of India - I'm not convinced. 9W's been in the YYZ market for a while, and it, too, will have 787s up its sleeve, not to mention a much stronger brand in India and a fairly strong brand among Indians here - especially the newer arrivals, who tend to travel back to India more often.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 33): And for the record calling Air Canada a flag carrier connotes a connection to the government which is of course not true for many many years. But the myth keeps being repeated.

What is the Canadian definition of a flag carrier? In many countries, it has long stopped being related to any government ties. Most US-based carriers are officially designated US flag carriers even though none of them are government owned, for example (US flag carrier is more or less equivalent to operating under a US-issued AOC).

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 35): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34): When SQ operated YVR-ICN-SIN, by far the majority of their traffic was on the 5th freedom sector YVR-ICN, which is also why it was unprofitable due to all the low fares they had to offer to fill their flights. Really? Where's the proof? We both know its your word against Intervistas. YVR-ICN-SIN failed because of that old 3 weekly policy

SQ of course wanted more frequent flights, but mainly so they could offer a more competitive 5th freedom product YVR-ICN. Whether 3 or 7 flights a week, YVR-SIN is still a very small O&D market.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 35): Bit surprised by BKK on the other hand. Apparently 190,000 Canadians visited Thailand in 2011,

Most Canadians visiting Thailand aren't only visiting Thailand but are also visiting one or more points in Asia, which makes direct flights to BKK very hard to make profitable. When CP served BKK as a tag-on from HKG, 90% of the passengers on the HKG-BKK-HKG legs were low-fare 5th freedom passengers to/from HKG. And many of the rather few Canadian passengers going all the way YVR-HKG-BKK were redeeming frequent flyer miles.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 35): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34): Most Canada-India traffic is to/from DEL and northern India where most Indian immigration to Canada has originated. One would assume that BOM would attract more high yield corporate traffic, seeing that its the main commercial city in India.

What's the source of the significant high-yield corporate traffic between Canada and India? Are there a lot of major Canadian companies with operations in India, or vice versa? I've never read much about such operations.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37): SQ of course wanted more frequent flights, but mainly so they could offer a more competitive 5th freedom product YVR-ICN. Whether 3 or 7 flights a week, YVR-SIN is still a very small O&D market.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34): When SQ operated YVR-ICN-SIN, by far the majority of their traffic was on the 5th freedom sector YVR-ICN, which is also why it was unprofitable due to all the low fares they had to offer to fill their flights.

Not disagreeing that SIN-Canada is a small market. Just disagreeing that it was unprofitable because of its reliance on 'low-yield' 5th freedom market. Intervistas says (and I'm inclined to agree) that it would still be on that one-stop run if it was allowed to fly it daily, which suggests that slot restrictions were just as important (if not more) than the yields they were able to command.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37): What's the source of the significant high-yield corporate traffic between Canada and India? Are there a lot of major Canadian companies with operations in India, or vice versa? I've never read much about such operations.

Not disagreeing.

Canadian companies were generally latecomers to the party, and consequently struggled to capture a share. Bombardier has done ok. Blackberry has been relying heavily on India. But for the most part, its been underwhelming, and given the mess India is in, I don't expect that to change. Aside from that, there was/is the curious hype about free trade negotiations with India, which also look like they're going to follow the Canada-EU and Canada-Trans Pacific negotiations on the long road to ...not a whole lot of substance or increase in trade.

In light of this. I find it odd that AC thinks it can make a go of India (as indicated in the Investor Presentation). Its going to be relying primarily on recent arrivals from India, who also have a high estimation of 9W, EK, EY, KL, AF by virtue of their stronger presence in India.

[Edited 2013-08-14 19:49:29]

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 36): What is the Canadian definition of a flag carrier? In many countries, it has long stopped being related to any government ties. Most US-based carriers are officially designated US flag carriers even though none of them are government owned, for example (US flag carrier is more or less equivalent to operating under a US-issued AOC).

The closest thing we ever had in the U.S. to a "Flag" carrier was Pan Am. Privately held. And, today, other "Flag" carriers are typically private (albeit previously government owned): examples include BA, AF, AC, JL, KL, etc.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 38): Not disagreeing that SIN-Canada is a small market. Just disagreeing that it was unprofitable because of its reliance on 'low-yield' 5th freedom market. Intervistas says (and I'm inclined to agree) that it would still be on that one-stop run if it was allowed to fly it daily, which suggests that slot restrictions were just as important (if not more) than the yields they were able to command.

With daily service SQ would be able to generate higher yields from the 5th freedom traffic where they'd be competing with daily KE service. Would also note that AC is only 4 x week YVR-ICN (and 3 x week YYZ-ICN with KE also daily).

The Canadian government's problem with SQ was the small size of the Canada-SIN market. In bilateral negotations, many countries consider that 5th freedom traffic (where rights are granted) should be a by-product, not the primary reason for the route's existence. The fact that SQ isn't serving Canada, although the current bilateral permits them to operate an unlimited number of flights without 5th freedom rights, is a good indication that the route is only viable with a high proportion of 5th freedom traffic.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 40): With daily service SQ would be able to generate higher yields from the 5th freedom traffic where they'd be competing with daily KE service. Would also note that AC is only 4 x week YVR-ICN (and 3 x week YYZ-ICN with KE also daily).

All of which is to say that SQ could probably make SIN-ICN-YVR work (albeit with one-stop), but AC probably can't do the same thing on the exact same route (or, for that matter, a variation of it), which is why AC and SIN are never going to happen.

Must admit I'm surprised by the low frequency to ICN. And, AC's footprint in Asia. Never realized they only flew to 5 Asian cities. That said, I expect them to make more inroads in Latin America than in Asia.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 16):

YHZ is a nice airport with pleasant, uncrowded facilities. Ground staff are generally friendly and helpful (although admittedly lacking in foreign language ability). The short TATL flights are a big advantage. There is a significant difference in one's level of fatigue after a five-hour eastbound overnight flight than after a seven-hour flight. Westbound, the stopover also provides an opportunity to stretch one's legs before the onward flight to US east coast destinations (BOS, EWR, JFK, LGA, PHL), DTW or ORD. I used to love the pre-9/11 YHZ-AGP nonstops with Canada 3000... 4.5 hour flight time, 5 hours gate to gate. The presence of FI at YHZ is a big advantage too -- the stopover at KEF makes flying to Eastern Europe or Scandinavia much easier to handle in terms of fatigue.

YHZ's immigration hall is uncrowded and far easier to deal with than YUL's. Same story with US border preclearance, it's far easier to deal with at YHZ. No ground traffic delays, either -- it's a straight shot from the ramp to the runway. Even weather delays are rare -- while the airport is subject to fog conditions, as is much of Nova Scotia, thunderstorms and other severe weather events are far less common than elsewhere.

I miss living there. *sigh*

-Al (YQBexYHZBGM)

I've always believed that YHZ has potential as a mini TATL hub with AC targetting the US Northeast.

Could be done with the 320 or 321 NEO.

I wonder for example if AC would have a sustainable business running 321NEOs from YHZ to EDI, GLA, DUB, KEF, LHR, CDG, MAD, BCN, FRA and MUC. None of those flights would be longer than 7 hours. I would think for example that instead of sending a widebody Rouge bird to GLA from YYZ, that the pax can simply fly to YHZ and fill up the daily 321NEO run.

Quoting ytz (Reply 43): Could be done with the 320 or 321 NEO

I doubt that would work. They already have a 767 heading for LHR and I don't see AC purchasing aircraft specifically for that type of flight. It would have to be on a 767 or 787 when they get them. I am sure they would have done that before. No other airline is flying international services to YHZ so what would make them do it now or in the future? They need to have a plane that would hold more people to make it pay plus the A320/321 that AC has don't have the legs for that length of flight.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 44): No other airline is flying international services to YHZ

What about Icelandair and Condor?

CP and KLM previously operated YHZ-AMS. Canada 3000 operated flights to various destinations in the UK and Spain, and if I recall correctly, France. Martinair also operated charters to Spain. Zoom operated flights to the UK.

Currently, Finnair does a tech stop at YHZ for flights between HEL and Florida, the Caribbean or Mexico. The flight is shown on the airport's arrival and departure boards, yet passengers are not allowed to board or disembark at YHZ in either direction, which is unfortunate.

While it's true that YHZ is a relatively small origin/destination market, it does make some sense as a minor transfer hub, although admitttedly less so than KEF. For example, passengers who really want to fly into LGA can't do so on a transatlantic nonstop. Voila, an easy transfer at YHZ makes an arrival at LGA possible. Same story with passengers who want to fly into PHL, BOS, or other destinations from European markets that don't have a nonstop flight.

-Al (YQBexYHZBGM)

[Edited 2013-08-16 18:32:40]

Quoting YQBexYHZbgm (Reply 4): AC served BOM and SIN for many years.

I don't recall AC ever operating to BOM (and I come from BOM originally)....AC used to operate to DEL in the 90s and then in the early 2000s......

Quoting YQBexYHZbgm (Reply 4): I can't quite understand why these routes were dropped, as they are heavy traffic destinations from Canada

I recall reading that AC decided it was more profitable to deploy their planes on Far East sectors, mainly to China and HK.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34): I disagree that BOM and SIN (especially SIN) are heavy traffic destinations from Canada. Most Canada-India traffic is to/from DEL and northern India where most Indian immigration to Canada has originated.

  

Quoting Gr8circle (Reply 47):

You're correct, as soon as I posted it, I realized that AC served DEL, not BOM.
Either way, in my opinion, dropping India wasn't the best choice, although it may be a case of high volume but low revenue when one considers Indo-Canadians returning to visit family, etc., rather than high-end business travelers.

-Al (YQBexYHZBGM)

Quoting ghYHZ (Reply 45): What about Icelandair and Condor?

I did not realize that Condor and Icelandair flew into YHZ, where does Condor fly to from YHZ, FRA?