Looks as if Edmonton (YEG) will be losing their LHR connection for 3 months: http://edmonton.cityandpress.com/node/6909079
With LHR freaquencies so hard to come by, and YEG being without question the smallest AC connection to LHR is this prudent use of such? Additionally rumors circulate from time to time about DL giving SLC an LHR frequency, what does this say about such viability?

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Thread starter): With LHR freaquencies so hard to come by, and YEG being without question the smallest AC connection to LHR is this prudent use of such? Additionally rumors circulate from time to time about DL giving SLC an LHR frequency, what does this say about such viability?

No that's St Johns which is already a seasonal A319 operation afer being de-coupled from LGR-YHZ. It says that they're going to operate it during times they can make it work. It is in now way linked to SLC as Air Canada are legacy slot holders with a large portfolio, Delta would have to shell out for SLC and justify a return on such a substantial investment.

btw why do I keep reading LHR-YEG dates from 2006 when it was flown in the 80s and 90s on the L1011-500 B762 as AC853 LHR-YEG-YVR? I assume it was suspended at some point?

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 1): Delta would have to shell out for SLC and justify a return on such a substantial investment.

The joint venture with VS could produce such a slot, granted DL doesn't have the LHR rights that AC traditionally has had. But a similar part of the North American continent where the likes of YYC, DEN and PHX or even LAS are thought of as more viable for use of an LHR frequency.

YYC will be going to a 77W for the summer to LHR. YEG and SLC are often viewed as the step-sisters in the greater region.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 2): The joint venture with VS could produce such a slot,

What Virgin route would you suggest needs dropping in favour of Utah? I mean they could, but it's not likely. The domestic operation is proving it's mettle, albeit at a loss, Asian departures are late at night and the US flights are focussed heavily on good point to point options, something SLC isn't. Ba rae launching AUS as the secondary markets look tempting with the primary markets covered. I am not sure Delta has it's primary hubs anywhere near covered from LHR. Some of the existing ATL, MSP and DTW slots are distinctly sub par.

The main article linked through the TO's link says that the YEG-LHR service will be suspended from 8 January to 28 March and that it will be reinstated on the first day of the Summer Season, 29 March. This suggests that AC will make this service a "summer-only" service. I think this is likely because of the LHR slot situation.

First Winter Season LHR Slots are entirely separate from Summer Season Slots. So grandfather rights to a Summer Season Slot Pair has no relationship to the rights to a similar Winter Season Slot Pair.

Second the EU use-it-or-loose-it rule decrees a slot will be confiscated if it is not used on at least 80 per cent of possible occasions in any one season.

Thirdly Angela Mah of AC is reported by the Edmonton newspaper to have said:


“As a result, Air Canada has taken a commercial decision to not operate the Edmonton-London flights between January 8 (and) March 28, 2014. The non-stop flights re-start March 29 with (five) weekly flights ramping up to daily on May 1 for the summer season.”


By discontinuing the YEG-LHR service from 8 January AC will have operated the slots for 10.5 of the season's 22 weeks, significantly less than 80 per cent of the time. So unless AC are going to spring a surprise and announce a new flight to operate for between 7 and 11.5 weeks or is going to lend the slots for a similar short period to a Star partner this looks like the end of the road for their winter flights between YEG and LHR. It seems most likely that these slots will be sold or long-term leased rather than retained for use in the Winter 2014-15 Season.

By "ramping up to daily" from 1 May AC will satisfy the EU 80 per cent rule for the Summer Season on this route.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 1): btw why do I keep reading LHR-YEG dates from 2006 when it was flown in the 80s and 90s on the L1011-500 B762 as AC853 LHR-YEG-YVR? I assume it was suspended at some point?

And in the 1960s and 70s on DC-8s. AC also often used 747s on YYC-YEG-LHR during the peak season. YEG-LHR was dropped for some years before AC reinstaed service a few years ago.

In reference to what AC is doing with the slot, it is being used for AC861 LHR-YHZ to operate daily. For the first half of the winter season this alternates days with the YEG flight.

[Edited 2013-10-11 00:08:12]

This really sucks. I have family in YEG and I hate connecting through YYZ when flying from Europe. Usually I fly CPH-YYZ-YEG but the YYZ-YEG connection is a tough and tiring one. Can't wait until Iceland Air starts their CPH-KEF-YEG route. Will be using that rather than AC

It's sad a bit, I remember when YEG really had more flights. There was the charter flight YEG-WAW with LO. That was good. They built up the airport, made it kind of nice looking and yet, the international connections are worse now than they were some 15-20 years ago. A step back I think, IMHO.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Thread starter): and YEG being without question the smallest AC connection to LHR is this prudent use of such? Additionally rumors circulate from time to time about DL giving SLC an LHR frequency, what does this say about such viability?

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 1): No that's St Johns which is already a seasonal A319 operation afer being de-coupled from LGR-YHZ

The reason for this is that the weather is not the best for drawing holiday passengers and that time of years sees more of a southbound flow to traffic rather than eastbound to Europe. Yes, there is the petroleum industry but the majority of the business offices are located in Calgary. Edmonton is not a nice place in January or February and once you get through March it is really quite nice.

Quoting milan320 (Reply 7): This really sucks. I have family in YEG and I hate connecting through YYZ when flying from Europe. Usually I fly CPH-YYZ-YEG but the YYZ-YEG connection is a tough and tiring one. Can't wait until Iceland Air starts their CPH-KEF-YEG route. Will be using that rather than AC

Honestly, how many times were you planning in flying to YEG within that 3 months? Airline do this all the time. Why operate a flight that is losing money when they can make a profit else where.

Quoting milan320 (Reply 7): This really sucks. I have family in YEG and I hate connecting through YYZ when flying from Europe.

There's no need to connect in YYZ. Much easier (and several hundred miles shorter) to connect in YYC, with only a 30 minute flight to YEG. AC operates LHR-YYC and FRA-YYC, also BA LHR-YYC and KL AMS-YYC.

I knew that this was inevitable; YYC is undergoing a major expansion, AC is up-gauging summer YYC flights from the winter A333 to a B77W, KL is up-gauging 3 of the weekly flights from A333 to B772, and BA is looking at changing the 763 currently on the YYC-LHR route to a 787.

It's all a matter of supply and demand. The business isn't there ... the flight is canceled.

The real question should be what has happened to Edmonton business and desireability as a destination ... and why is YYC more profitable, and a better use of resources?

Quoting milan320 (Reply 7): This really sucks. I have family in YEG and I hate connecting through YYZ when flying from Europe. Usually I fly CPH-YYZ-YEG but the YYZ-YEG connection is a tough and tiring one. Can't wait until Iceland Air starts their CPH-KEF-YEG route. Will be using that rather than AC

Not sure where the problem lies. You could always connect through YYC, YUL or even YOW.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10): There's no need to connect in YYZ. Much easier (and several hundred miles shorter) to connect in YYC, with only a 30 minute flight to YEG. AC operates LHR-YYC and FRA-YYC, also BA LHR-YYC and KL AMS-YYC.

Much of what this all comes down to is how often does one want a connecting flight at a mega-hub? When is an airlines desire to offer a service from a metro-area they dominate? Numbers don't always dictate where an airline will fly point to point across an international border. I don't have any immediate relaible data for YEG, but the Brookings report many of you enjoy hyperlinking: http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/aviation is in front of me and looking at SLC there is 32,824 passengers per year that O&D alone could support (compare this to just over 20,000 for CDG which DL presently operates). At present ATL supports over 77,000 connecting SLC passengers per year, followed by LAX with 71,000 and ORD with 57,000. So it brings one to ask when does DL ask how much spilage to UA, AA & foreign flag carriers (not affiliated with SkyTeam) do they risk losing without offering additional service to Europe or Asia from an important market threshold like SLC?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 12): t's all a matter of supply and demand. The business isn't there ... the flight is canceled. The real question should be what has happened to Edmonton business and desireability as a destination ... and why is YYC more profitable, and a better use of resources?

AC is blaming YEG airport's support for Icelandair's new service and the their negative remarks about the inconvenience of connecting at LHR compared to KEF for their temporary suspension of YEG-LHR service between early January and late March. AC's letter to the YEG CEO at the bottom of following article.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...+after+Edmonton/9074487/story.html

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 15): AC is blaming YEG airport's support for Icelandair's new service and the their negative remarks about the inconvenience of connecting at LHR compared to KEF for their temporary suspension of YEG-LHR service between early January and late March. AC's letter to the YEG CEO at the bottom of following article. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin....html

Did he call Smisek at UA before writing the letter... j/k

I always have a good time in Edmonton and hope to be back next spring. Good luck YEG. With oil and gas booming it shouldn't become a ghost town by any means.

When I first saw this thread title, I thought of jokingly posting that AC was cancelling it because of EK/ME3. It was all in jest at the time - alluding to that oft-repeated Canadian insistence on a.net that YEG-LHR and FRA would suffer from expanded ME3 access, which we were all led to believe was, in some way, unacceptable. Then I read the letter from AC justifying cutting it by pointing its finger at a second-tier seasonal carrier from Iceland. Now its just another borderline farcical outcome of our allegedly "sound" aviation policy.

It amuses me no end that the same people who extolled the virtues of having international flights from a wide range of Canadian cities are now suddenly in agreement with me, of all people. I once said these routes should exist according to their merit, and was damn near accused of high treason for saying it. Now I find posts like this:

Quoting whiteguy (Reply 9): Honestly, how many times were you planning in flying to YEG within that 3 months? Airline do this all the time. Why operate a flight that is losing money when they can make a profit else where.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 12): It's all a matter of supply and demand. The business isn't there ... the flight is canceled.

Suffice it to say, I agree. If the route isn't viable, drop it. Just think its a tad bit disingenuous to argue one day that competitors should be kept out to "protect" these routes and, after securing protection, drop the route and shrug it off as unviable.

After all, I can't be the only one who's noticed that the consumer has come out worse off. Initially, the spin was that consumers in Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver would lose a little choice, but this would be offset by the benefits of international service to cities like YEG. Now we've got a situation where the consumers in Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver have lost their little bit of choice (for X months), but it is not, in fact, going to be offset by benefits to Edmonton (for X months). A lose-lose all around. The only one who's come out a winner here is AC, who've managed to use the route to block competition, and then dropped it when it's no longer in their interest.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 15): AC is blaming YEG airport's support for Icelandair's new service and the their negative remarks about the inconvenience of connecting at LHR compared to KEF for their temporary suspension of YEG-LHR service between early January and late March. AC's letter to the YEG CEO at the bottom of following article.

I am quite enjoying AC's approach. YEG has the nerve to court another international carrier? AC will show them by, wait for it, depriving Edmontonians of international service in winter, before Icelandair even begins flying to YEG.

That is, apparently, what our protectionist aviation policy wanted to achieve. At least that is what I am led to conclude by the newfound pragmatism among the same crowd who once stood for international links for second tier Canadian cities, but who now agree with AC. Perhaps we will see more of this pragmatism the next time we discuss the merits of protecting some of these routes.

[Edited 2013-10-23 20:54:58]

[Edited 2013-10-23 21:00:09]

[Edited 2013-10-23 21:00:37]

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 17): Suffice it to say, I agree. If the route isn't viable, drop it. Just think its a tad bit disingenuous to argue one day that competitors should be kept out to "protect" these routes and, after securing protection, drop the route and shrug it off as unviable.

I am a bit curious how you feel Canadian carriers were able to "block" and "protect" the route, when any carrier with rights into Canada had the opportunity to fly to YEG. ... ANY carrier! (EY and EK included)

Do you really think, with a so called monopoly, AC would have dropped the route if it were viable? Other than Icelandair, you don't see any other carrier clamouring for rights into YEG. Even established international carriers flying into Canada, like AF, KL, LH, BA, JL, CX, etc. don't want YEG, so who was "blocked"?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 17): I am quite enjoying AC's approach. YEG has the nerve to court another international carrier? AC will show them by, wait for it, depriving Edmontonians of international service in winter, before Icelandair even begins flying to YEG.

More likely, AC is getting tired of International carriers getting "freebies", when they have been serving these cities for decades! Don't forget ... Emirates, Etihad, Egyptair, Aeroflot, PAL, et al ... all got free landing rights at YYZ for 2, 3 and 5 years (depending on the carrier), while AC was still paying the highest landing fees on the earth.

AC is set up to keep these quasi-governmental bodies in business. With the recent deal/arrangement with the GTAA, and the pull out from YEG, it sounds like AC has had enough.

I have issues with both sides Milley should been better with his wordage on "Vanstone wrote: “We were specifically very disappointed with your comments reported in the Edmonton Journal, which promoted the Icelandair service at the expense of Air Canada’s LHR (Heathrow) service .... Frankly, we expect more from our partners.”

Air Canada released a brief statement Wednesday, responding to a request for comment.

“Reykjavik (KEF) is a hub airport that competes directly with London Heathrow for connecting traffic to many of the same points in Europe which is a factor in the Edmonton-London route’s year-round route performance,” said an email from Air Canada spokeswoman Angela Mah." ....

“Your recent announcement that Icelandair, with some financial and other support from YEG, will be commencing service between YEG and Reykjavik Airport (KEF) gave us cause to revisit our YEG international operations,” wrote Derek Vanstone, Air Canada’s vice-president of corporate strategy for industry and government affairs. YEG is the industry code for Edmonton International Airport.
Air Canada is merely using "bully" sales tactics. As they were provided similar marketing and sales promotions and incentives when they entered the YEG market. I think they are using a shortage of aircraft due to Rouge to bully airports like YEG.

I'm with Air Canada that the team at EIA needs to ensure they market their route continually, and when a competitors route is launched you need to carefully state that people now have other options to travel to Europe (or where ever). Milley should have just kept LHR out of the picture.


Also it wasn't very professional for EIA to leak this. How is that going to reflect on them in future dealings? I would suggest poorly.




http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...+after+Edmonton/9074487/story.html

I would expect to see an uptick in WS out of YEG, purely because of the atrocious optics for AC in this situation.

Quoting rampbro (Reply 20): I would expect to see an uptick in WS out of YEG, purely because of the atrocious optics for AC in this situation.

Not likely, I wouldn't hold your breath. What would WS add out of YEG, another YVR flight or YMM? AC is doing exactly what WS has done in the past when the pulled out of Thompson or Brandon previously, the YYZ-LAX route, LGA?

AC is a business, I remember the uproar by the city when AC pulled the YEG leg off the YYC-LHR flight. How dare AC do that. Then when they return to YEG and increase service what does YEG do, they make a nice deal by bringing Iceland Air in and spit in the eye of AC by promoting it. I say YEG got what it deserves, and if Iceland Air doesn't make money on this venture they'll pull out to.

AC is a business, and I have no issue with them pulling the Winter schedule for 2-3 months. AC entered the YEG market to stop another carrier from serving the route in 2006 (BA). AC doesn't want any "leakage" from the YEG market as there is demand from this market for a reasonable amount of traffic from this area. There is a lot of cargo and oil service business between Edmonton - Northern Europe and the Middle East.

My issue with EIA/YEG is there whining about AC pulling the route. This is business. FI entered the market because they felt it was underserved to Europe and there was money to be made. Let competition run its course.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 17): Then I read the letter from AC justifying cutting it by pointing its finger at a second-tier seasonal carrier from Iceland.

Icelandair''s YEG service is not seasonal. It was when first announced but a couple of weeks ago they announced that it would now operate year-round and start 3 weeks earlier than originally planned.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...Canadian+cities/9052527/story.html

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 17): YEG has the nerve to court another international carrier?

It's fine to attract additional carriers but you don't bad-mouth your major customer that's been serviing your airport since it opened 53 years ago (and serving Edmonton for almost 75 years).

Quoting YYCSpotter (Reply 11): I knew that this was inevitable; YYC is undergoing a major expansion, AC is up-gauging summer YYC flights from the winter A333 to a B77W, KL is up-gauging 3 of the weekly flights from A333 to B772, and BA is looking at changing the 763 currently on the YYC-LHR route to a 787.

I wonder if BA would consider adding a YEG tag section to their YYC operation a profitable venture for them ?

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 24): I wonder if BA would consider adding a YEG tag section to their YYC operation a profitable venture for them ?

That type of very shorthaul widebody tag-on operation is very uneconomic. And why would they want to do that when they can fill their LHR-YYC flights? It would also mean operating the 30 minute YYC-YEG sector with many empty seats.

BA has a codeshare agreement with WestJet. That's by far the best way to serve that type of market if you can't justify nonstop service yourself.

BA did operate LHR-YEG very briefly when they first started service to western Canada in the late 1970s or early '80s, initially using the L-1011-500. YEG or YYC were intermediate stops on most flights to YVR. They dropped both the YEG and YYC stops after a year or less and retained only LHR-YVR nonstop.

I have issues with both sides of this discussion:

ERAA. First of all, how did this document get to the Edmonton Journal? If someone at ERAA leaked it (and assuming this battle isn't a lot more serious than what it appears to be), then someone at ERAA should be fired for leaking it. Secondly, yes the LHR route should not have been specifically mentioned in conjunction with the FI announcement (even though KEF is far easier connection than LHR); and, third, make a similar offer to AC as what has been offered to FI re: incentives, if this hasn't been done already.

AC. Same question as with ERAA: How did this document get to the Edmonton Journal? If it was leaked by someone at AC, then the same fate should await them as with at ERAA. I don't understand how AC can be upset about supposed competition coming into the market? AC set up this route to prevent BA from starting YEG and YYC at the same time. AC has also been actively involved in keeping Emirates and Martinair (now part of KLM) out of YEG and other markets. Although not as prevalent as in years past, AC's own website will often show fares to LHR and other places that are lower by driving/connecting in YYC and connecting in other cities vs. taking the AC898 to LHR. How did AC react in recent years when YYC announced that BA and KLM were coming to YYC? Did they pull flights in reality, or in threat, when YYC announced additional options to get to Europe and beyond (in direct competition with AC)? NO!! If anything, they lowered prices and increased the size of aircraft! Using my own recent experience as an example, I booked a YEG-CDG return trip. AC's website offered no option to use ACA898, but offered many connections through YYZ and YUL, along with many double connections such as through YYC and FRA. My travel agent found an option using AC898 to LHR then connecting to AF - at the same price as AC's website options, and taking a minimum 3 hours less to get there! I can somewhat understand the desire to "keep it on AC/Star Alliance metal," but AC competes against it's own flight AC898 to some degree! Finally, when AC announced this reduction, they said it was due to a lack of yields....then they came out and said it was that they were upset with ERAA - get your story straight AC!

In conclusion, there is blame on both sides. I don't really see AC and FI as being much of competitors on this route. FI will mainly compete against the likes of Air Transat, Condor, Thomas Cook - the traffic that drives to YYC for the discounted flights to Europe. Most of AC898's passengers are either destined to the UK, or are connecting to flights beyond Europe to countries such as India. People wanting to get to those places will still take AC, as will most of the cargo business. We also can't underestimate the strength and appeal of Aeroplan. I think AC and ERAA should "kiss and make up," and people from Edmonton should continue to support both flights. Fly Edmonton First!

Quoting longhauler (Reply 18): I am a bit curious how you feel Canadian carriers were able to "block" and "protect" the route, when any carrier with rights into Canada had the opportunity to fly to YEG. ... ANY carrier! (EY and EK included)

 

You'd be better off asking someone at AC than asking me. Somewhere over the past 3 years, an increase of competition in Toronto began to mean that flights like Ottawa-FRA, Edmonton-LHR and Halifax-LHR would suddenly become unviable (Calin Rovinescu calls it diminished service from "secondary hubs"). I failed to see the connection then. I fail to see the connection now. But for whatever reason, AC itself claims (on its website) that Ottawa-FRA would fall prey to increased EK access. One a.netter referred to it as "cross-subsidization" - which suggests that these secondary hub - international routes were being subsidized by other more profitable routes (hence the protection of those routes). Makes sense, sort of. Until, of course, AC goes and drops one of these secondary hub ->international route regardless, which makes one wonder why its being protected on the other route; after all, the only real losers are consumers in the two cities.

FWIW, blocking airlines from operating to other airports with the aim of "protecting" other routes constitutes protectionism as well.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 18): More likely, AC is getting tired of International carriers getting "freebies", when they have been serving these cities for decades

Does AC engage in price-discrimination? Does it offer different prices to different markets depending on the conditions in those markets? Does it charge a premium for direct flights? If the answers to any of those questions is yes, then one can only wonder why AC is so offended by airports treating AC the way AC treats Canadian passengers. I don't have much sympathy here - not while AC charges me 20-30% more than it charges the American guy sitting next to me on a Toronto-LHR flight just because he got on in EWR and I boarded in Ottawa.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 18): Don't forget ... Emirates, Etihad, Egyptair, Aeroflot, PAL, et al ... all got free landing rights at AC was still paying the highest landing fees on the earth.

I didn't forget that because I didn't know that, but lets apply some of the logic that Canadian a.netters apply when I and others complain about the lack of choice in Canada. If Toronto is ripping AC off, maybe AC should move hubs to an airport that can offer a better deal. Don't want to do it because its not viable? Too bad, but the "choice" is there. Toronto has a captive market in AC, just as AC once had captive markets all over southern Ontario (before PD came along, anyway). What was AC charging back then?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 18): AC is set up to keep these quasi-governmental bodies in business. With the recent deal/arrangement with the GTAA, and the pull out from YEG, it sounds like AC has had enough.

Interesting. AC itself is treated like a quasi-governmental body - with the Government jumping to its defence on everything from labour matters to competition. To be clear, I'm not moved by the fact that AC has pulled out of Edmonton ( I could care less). What strikes me as odd is the defeaning silence of the crowd that harps on about how important it is for second tier cities to have international links. Now that that whole narrative is no longer in AC's interests, they've gone suspiciously silent.

Quoting flyb (Reply 22): My issue with EIA/YEG is there whining about AC pulling the route.

Looks rather like AC started the whining by sending that letter.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23): Icelandair''s YEG service is not seasonal.

My bad. I just associate them with seasonal flights to Toronto and Halifax. In any event, I m impressed by FI. They've managed to get AC to reduce its service without even starting service.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23): It's fine to attract additional carriers but you don't bad-mouth your major customer that's been serviing your airport since it opened 53 years ago (and serving Edmonton for almost 75 years).

Sounded more like he badmouthed LHR than he did AC. And I would attribute that more to trying to make Edmonton look good relative to Calgary - perhaps even keep some of the BA/KL crowd in Edmonton, than outright animosity towards AC.

Either way, if they're so angry about how damaging the airport's words are, why are they restarting service in summer, when FI will actually be on the route? Lets call it for what it is. The route doesn't make money in those months. AC's dropped it. Now they're trying to bully the airport (as one poster above so succinctly put it) for more concesssions. Nothing wrong with that. There is, however, a more civilized, less antagonistic way to go about it.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25): BA has a codeshare agreement with WestJet. That's by far the best way to serve that type of market if you can't justify nonstop service yourself.

Its a shame they don't use it. Anytime I try to book Ottawa-LHR on BA, they try to route me through ORD on AA. In fact, that's the only option I've seen on their website.

[Edited 2013-10-24 17:16:39]

Iceland is as good a connecting location as anywhere else...and strictly from a flight time point of view, probably better than some. The mega hubs are going to become less desirable stops the bigger they get and with the increase of hub busting aircraft in airline fleets.

I haven't been through LHR in years but of the more than dozen flights connecting through there, I never had a pleasant experience.

If you're connecting to Europe, Iceland will probably do for most major destinations, but if you wish to continue on to Asia, LHR, FRA, AMS or CDG will probably be your choice.

That being said, if an airline can only afford to have one flight out of Alberta, it seems it will probably choose YYC over YEG.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 27): I don't have much sympathy here - not while AC charges me 20-30% more than it charges the American guy sitting next to me on a Toronto-LHR flight just because he got on in EWR and I boarded in Ottawa.

All carriers do that. A connecting service is a less-attractive product than a nonstop. Why should you charge less than passengers are willing to pay? And offering low fares for connecting routings to/from the U.S. helps fill empty seats and maximize revenues, which helps keep fares down overall.

I fly KLM frequently and their fares from GVA with a connectioln at AMS are almost always lower than if I originated in AMS. I've known people who live in AMS and will sometimes take the train to BRU and originate their trip on KL there with a connection at AMS to save far more than the train fare to BRU. Most passengers, especially those on business, don't have that kind of time to waste and are willing to pay a premium for nonstop service.

The same applies for LX/LH/BA/EK etc. Sometimes LX's connecting fares via ZRH are about 50% lower than for travel originating ZRH. You charge what the market will bear. Obviously you're not going to offer those fares if O&D demand from your hub is high enough to fill the flights.

I've seen EK ads in GVA newspapers quoting their lowest fares to a variety of destinations. It's not unusual for DXB to be higher than some points beyond involving a connection. From GVA to DXB they're the only nonstop service, but to almost all their other destinations they're competing with many other carriers via their own hubs.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 27): Sounded more like he badmouthed LHR than he did AC.

When the only current nonstop service to Europe is AC to LHR it amounts to about the same thing.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 29): All carriers do that. A connecting service is a less-attractive product than a nonstop

Ottawa-Toronto-LHR is not a non-stop. It costs a damn sight more than Newark-Toronto-LHR.

And yes, I understand the economics behind charging a premium for direct flights.

I am not surprised by this . The loads for YEG-LHR are horrible and somewhat better LHR-YEG. This route seems to be a summer route, heavy loads during that time.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 29): When the only current nonstop service to Europe is AC to LHR it amounts to about the same thing.

Finally got a chance to re-read what he said:

"The other thing is that going through Heathrow can be a bit of a challenge for people if they’re connecting on to go somewhere else, whereas Reykjavik will be a really friendly airport for them to be able to go through.”

I don't think anyone who has connected through LHR would disagree with the assessment that it "can be a bit of a challenge". I suppose one could choose to be offended by this statement, but I'm not convinced that the motivation was to antagonize AC. Frankly, I don't find the statement offensive. How much connecting traffic does AC carry through LHR that can realistically go through KEF? I seem to be under the impression that the CDG/MUC/FRA/BCN/ATH/ZRH etc folk are already routed through Montreal and Toronto, rather than through LHR.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 30): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 29): All carriers do that. A connecting service is a less-attractive product than a nonstop Ottawa-Toronto-LHR is not a non-stop. It costs a damn sight more than Newark-Toronto-LHR. And yes, I understand the economics behind charging a premium for direct flights.

Sorry, I overlooked that you started in YOW. However, even with a connection at YYZ there's still the issue of having much less competition from YOW than AC has from EWR where they're competing with almost all major transatlantic carriers with nonstop service to dozens of cities in Europe.

Why does AC obsess over LHR so much anyway? Is it because of the O/D traffic? Because as a Onewold hub, it isn't the best option for onward connections anyway. Perhaps AC or LH should think about serving FRA instead, or another *A hub such as CPH, BRU, ZRH or MUC.

And as usual, the issue comes from ridiculous taxes and fees in Canada. Never mind that it seems to make Canada significantly less competitive in many industries, including aviation.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 33): Sorry, I overlooked that you started in YOW. However, even with a connection at YYZ there's still the issue of having much less competition from YOW than AC has from EWR where they're competing with almost all major transatlantic carriers with nonstop service to dozens of cities in Europe.

  I figured as much. That said, my statement stands. AC has a captive market in Ottawa and Toronto Pearson has a captive market in AC. Toronto Pearson does, however, have to compete with other airports to get airlines other than AC to operate there, so it (apparently) provides incentives, just as AC does to US customers (in the form of lower prices).

This is standard business practice. AC does it with Americans vis-à-vis Canadians, so what is it fed up with?

All makes for terrific entertainment - wonder if Edmonton has any means to retaliate with.

Quoting opethfan (Reply 34): Why does AC obsess over LHR so much anyway? Is it because of the O/D traffic? Because as a Onewold hub, it isn't the best option for onward connections anyway.

London is a huge O&D market with a lot of premium class business traffic that generates higher yields than most other airports in Europe where lower yield connecting traffic is a much higher percentage of the total.

And with LHR operating at about 99% of capacity, it's difficult to add additional flights since slots are so limited. That limits competition, so with demand increasing year by year but almost no ability to add more flights, it's easier to charge higher fares than at airports where there's plenty of capacity for new carriers to start service or existing carriers to increase frequencies.

CO paid $209 million for 4 pairs of LHR slots in 2008 (2 from GB Airways, 1 from AF, 1 from AZ) in order to move their 4 daily LGW flights to LHR once the new US-EU Open Skies agreement finally permited more than 2 U.S. carriers at LHR. Good indication how valuable access to LHR is.

[Edited 2013-10-24 20:03:10]

Quoting opethfan (Reply 34): Perhaps AC or LH should think about serving FRA instead

AC does have non-stop service to FRA from YUL, YOW, YYZ and YYC, plus codeshare with LH from YVR.

Quoting opethfan (Reply 34): Perhaps AC or LH should think about serving FRA instead, or another

Canada to London via Germany is a long way round for a short cut, it would make more sense to fly AC from another Canadian point to get to London without having to fly over it twice.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 38): Canada to London via Germany is a long way round for a short cut, it would make more sense to fly AC from another Canadian point to get to London without having to fly over it twice.

Depends where you're coming from. For YEG for instance, it's 265 mi longer to go to LHR via YYZ than via FRA (though connecting via YYC is over 400 mi shorter than that).

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 38):

Of course, but connecting in Canada requires passing CBSA and therefore security at your first Canadian port of call, which is kind of a drag. FRA also has many more *A connections than LHR.

Quoting opethfan (Reply 40): Quoting skipness1E (Reply 38): Of course, but connecting in Canada requires passing CBSA and therefore security at your first Canadian port of call, which is kind of a drag. FRA also has many more *A connections than LHR.

Connecting at FRA also gives you the option of arriving at LCY which is far more convenient than LHR.

Not sure what to think of this.

"Letter to Edmonton airport official shows Air Canada’s ‘arrogant attitude’"

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Lette...rogant+attitude/9080038/story.html

I flew from Boston to Heathrow on Air Canada last week, just so I could check a bunch of new stuff off...77W, A333, etc. I took the 77W from Toronto to London (C-FIUL), and then the 333 from London to Montreal (the Star Alliance one). When I was checking in at LHR for the flight home, the guy at the counter said they were going to a 'high-density' 777 next year. What does this mean? Higher density ones than they have now?

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 43):

The high density (3 class) 777s are being introduced on select routes (currently YUL-CDG, YVR-HKG and YVR-LHR) and are 10 abreast in Y with Y+ also available. I don't know if they'll be used on YYZ-LHR, as AC are also competing with BA flying a 787 on the same route.

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 43): When I was checking in at LHR for the flight home, the guy at the counter said they were going to a 'high-density' 777 next year. What does this mean? Higher density ones than they have now?

There will be five such high-density 777 aircraft in AC fleet. Check the configuration below by selecting the "Three cabin configuration".

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/77W.html

The comments by AC's Derek Vanstone about the EIA are very unprofessional. The EIA is within its rights to market YEG to any carrier it wishes and to offer incentives; if that conflicts with AC, then so be it. Whether AC can compete against FI is up to AC; blaming the EIA is misplaced. A few weekly 752 rotations will hardly flood the YEG market. The AC comments smack of arrogance and sour grapes.

This issue reminds me of the recent decision by WN to prepare for int'l flights out of HOU airport, which was met with howls of protest by UA who said they may have to cut back their own intl service out of IAH as a result. IOW, an entrenched carrier thinking it "owns" a market and simply not wanting competition from a new entrant. It does not read well, whether in Houston or Edmonton.

In summer 2014, YEGgers will benefit from TA competition for the first time in years and there many even be reverse connecting traffic from YYC (gasp!) onto the FI flights.

Congrats to Edmonton. As for AC, they could compete more effectively against FI by lowering their costs -- one way would be to terminate Derek Vanstone for his inappropriate and insulting comments, and let his salary costs fall to the bottom line...

Air Canada should hire new letter writers. First the "dog letter" and now this. Some in Edmonton are very anti Air Canada and this won't help that. I know from flying on them that most frontline staff don't act like spoiled 5 yr olds but a person wonders how soon this attitude will filter down.

As far EIA I don't think they're inept as some would like to think. I think the whole Edmonton airport authority is a bit arrogant and somewhat crooked but not inept.

I honestly think that AC should issue an open letter to the citizens of Edmonton and say that AC is committed to providing service to the Edmonton region. All it takes is a one pager in the Edmonton Journal and another in the Edmonton Sun.

I mean let's get real here. Aside from the YEG-LHR flight, AC offers a number of destinations across Canada (outside of the main hubs). But no one can dispute the fact that AC's service from YEG has been stagnant over the past 10 or 15 years. In the meantime, WS has grown leaps and bounds and so has United.

I understand AC's strategy to build a hub in YYC. But the reality is that YEG market is larger than YOW and YHZ, yet they get much better than YEG - and it is hard to believe that AC can't even make PHX or LAS work from YEG. I just think that AC's old story that they can't make money in the Edmonton market is a huge joke.

Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 48): I understand AC's strategy to build a hub in YYC. But the reality is that YEG market is larger than YOW and YHZ, yet they get much better than YEG - and it is hard to believe that AC can't even make PHX or LAS work from YEG. I just think that AC's old story that they can't make money in the Edmonton market is a huge joke.

If AC don't want the pax or the coin, so be it. WS have proven they're more than willing to serve the market, even if it isn't TATL service.

And as PHX will likely be a Oneworld hub in the near future, WS' closeness with AA will probably result in a year-round service, although I don't see anyone except AC serving LHR, unless BA can be convinced to, but the YYC and YVR routes are probably enough for them.

DL starting SLC would certainly be a welcome addition, though.