http://finance.yahoo.com/news/air-ca...-launch-competitive-161300709.html

More Rouge domestic service.

Interesting move. When I saw the title I thought they were offering flights to exotic destinations from YXX and YHM, but I like the idea of national services to smaller communities.

Interesting ..

I grew in Hamilton (YHM) and remember the glory days of Nordair to PIT and other places during the 1970's -- great airline!

Also, Westjet had super service to various Canadian cities, such as YOW. Put my mum and sister on them several times

I have always believed that there was an untapped market for passengers from the south Golden Horseshoe and Niagara peninsular and west to London who despise YYZ and the traffic hassles getting there,

Those poor cities. Competitive fares are a joke, what they meant was "How bout we give you less comfort for the same price?"

I find this such an interesting move from AC rouge as far at the YHM service goes. Is there that much demand on the YHM to YYC Route
WestJet already flies twice daily now we have a 3rd flight. I also don't see it as an attempt to kick WS out of YHM as WS has a pretty significant
presence at YHM with a decent summer and winter schedule.

I feel like YHM to LAS or YHM to YVR would have made more sense.

Of well still good news.

Clearly AC is going after WS here. The latter carrier is firmly established in both Hamilton and Abbotsford and has developed a loyal following. AC mainline has come and gone from YXX a couple of times, and perhaps now have the cost structure in Rouge to make it work.
There are a million people in the Lower Mainland who find it as easy (and cheaper) to get to YXX than YVR, and I suspect the number is similar when comparing YHM and YYZ.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 5): AC mainline has come and gone from YXX a couple of times

Just once, with the E190. Jazz had flown there longer.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 5): There are a million people in the Lower Mainland who find it as easy (and cheaper) to get to YXX than YVR, and I suspect the number is similar when comparing YHM and YYZ.

On the surface it looks more like a "Ryanair" type experiment ... going to adjacent airports for cheaper operating costs. But I think it may be more what you suggest. Tapping into a different Customer base that is closer to both YXX and YHM.

Quoting Lostsound (Reply 3): "How bout we give you less comfort for the same price?"

Today, not only are fares easily compared across the board, but on-board product as well is easily compared. For that reason, any airline starting a new product or a new route better "have it right", otherwise it becomes a very costly experiment and people simply wont fly with you.

Going into it's third year of advance bookings (and 30 months of service), Rouge is a huge success. I guess the "experts" on here are wrong. The A319 operation is hovering around 80% load factors and the B767 operation in the mid 90s. When load factors get that high, it is an indication that demand is not being satisfied.

So, clearly Customers are getting what they want, for the price they are willing to pay!

May be somebody wants to make sure the the new start-ups in Canada will no find markets to serve. Just a thought!

Quoting steelhead (Reply 7): May be somebody wants to make sure the the new start-ups in Canada will no find markets to serve. Just a thought!

Good point!

I love competition.

From the article:

"Air Canada rouge will operate both routes with Boeing A319 aircraft with 136 seats offering two comfort choices"

Quoting longhauler (Reply 6): Going into it's third year of advance bookings (and 30 months of service), Rouge is a huge success. I guess the "experts" on here are wrong. The A319 operation is hovering around 80% load factors and the B767 operation in the mid 90s. When load factors get that high, it is an indication that demand is not being satisfied. So, clearly Customers are getting what they want, for the price they are willing to pay!

People aren't seeking Rouge out to fly with them. These numbers would be more impressive if AC had given Rouge it's own website and own unique destination points but all Rouge has done is take over current AC routes. If you book to any of Air Canada's destinations that Rouge serves, you're forced to fly on them. It's not Rouge that's getting 80 and 90 percent load factors, it's Air Canada..

Quoting Lostsound (Reply 10): If you book to any of Air Canada's destinations that Rouge serves, you're forced to fly on them. It's not Rouge that's getting 80 and 90 percent load factors, it's Air Canada..

No one "forces" anyone to fly anywhere. Rouge flights are very clearly marked on Air Canada's website, as are flights operated by Jazz, Lufthansa or United, etc.

By my best guess, about 35% of Rouge A319 flights are Air Canada Vacation flights, the rest are purchased online by passengers looking to fly from A to B. Remember, Air Canada Vacations is a tour package company that sells entire vacations. There have been instances in the past where ACV flew passengers on Sunwing or Canjet!! Now they fly Rouge or mainline.

Very few Rouge B767 flights are sold by ACV. When a passenger wishes to fly to EDI, VCE, etc, they look online at aircanada.ca. Rouge is one of the options, or connections via FRA (for example). Again, it is clearly marked.

In every case, the fare is what the market will bear. If a passenger in YYZ wished to fly to CUN, (for example), he would simply look online ... and see the options. Rouge, Westjet, Sunwing, Canjet, etc. For years AC flew mainline aircraft at a very big economic disadvantage. It is very hard to make money with a 120 seat A319 when your competition is flying a 189 seat B737-800 for the same fare.

If for one brief second, passengers chose by comfort, and were willing to pay for it ... then more comfortable aircraft would be offered, at a premium price reflecting higher costs. But they didn't, so that product is not offered.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 5): Clearly AC is going after WS here.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 6): On the surface it looks more like a "Ryanair" type experiment ... going to adjacent airports for cheaper operating costs.

I think it's more a case of Rouge needing somewhere to fly their fleet of 319's to seasonally in the lean summer months (lean in a sense of fewer sun routes to the Caribbean etc).

Most of Rouge's competitors (Sunwing, Canjet, Air Transat) greatly reduce their fleets in the summer months, but Rouge is not following that route of leasing out their 319's in the summer, so they are deploying them on low-margin or experimental routes in the slower summer months. Since the Canadian market is relatively mature, Rouge has no choice but to try those few remaining WS segments that AC does not yet fly, such as YHM-YYC.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 12): Most of Rouge's competitors (Sunwing, Canjet, Air Transat) greatly reduce their fleets in the summer months, but Rouge is not following that route of leasing out their 319's in the summer, so they are deploying them on low-margin or experimental routes in the slower summer months.

It also explains why mainline is currently flying routes previously flown by Rouge ... like CZM and SAN, during the "busy season". Moving capacity back and forth between them as the market shifts.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 13): It also explains why mainline is currently flying routes previously flown by Rouge ... like CZM and SAN, during the "busy season". Moving capacity back and forth between them as the market shifts.

And also BGI which went from a Rouge 319 to a mainline 77L!

It makes sense from a cost and seasonal yield standpoint to shift back & forth between Rouge and mainline, but it will confuse the customer.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 14): And also BGI which went from a Rouge 319 to a mainline 77L!

Yes, but that was for an entirely different reason that I'd rather not go into here. You will notice that this route remains at mainline to a B767-300 then an A319 during the summer season.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 14): It makes sense from a cost and seasonal yield standpoint to shift back & forth between Rouge and mainline, but it will confuse the customer.

I agree. While other than IFE, I don't see a lot of difference between mainline and Rouge. I had heard that the forward 12/18 J/Y seats of the Rouge A319s are being refitted with (12) dedicated J seats like the B767, I haven't seen it actioned yet. Maybe that will be done during the slow summer season. To me, that would be the most concern with regard to "confusion" between mainline and rouge.

Great idea! Transcontinental flight between two smaller airports, outside two huge cities. Less traffic, both vehicular and people, in and around the airport and should be cheaper. Nice

Nobody else notice the article stating the equipment as being a "Boeing A319" ???

Yep, back in reply 9.

Quoting Noise (Reply 8): competition

"competition"....i just did the air quotes in front of PC screen. Pretty sad when an international airline starts scraping the bottom of the barrel markets to take a stab at other players in the industry.

Quoting Beatyair (Reply 16): Transcontinental flight between two smaller airports, outside two huge cities.

The flights are YYC-YHM and YXX-YYZ NOT YHM-YXX.

This is such a bad idea. There will be a backlash when the (idiot) customers showing up for these flights expecting Air Canada end up getting rouged. This is definitely starting to remind me of zip.

Quoting chrisp390 (Reply 17): Nobody else notice the article stating the equipment as being a "Boeing A319" ???

It's not even an "article"--it's a press release that AC paid for, which is even sadder.

Quoting rampbro (Reply 19): Pretty sad when an international airline starts scraping the bottom of the barrel markets to take a stab at other players in the industry.

You mean like Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific and Lufthansa, etc etc etc?

Quoting rampbro (Reply 19): "competition"....i just did the air quotes in front of PC screen.

Competition is just that. If an airline, or any company for that matter, does not meet expectations of its Customers, then it does not succeed. If the product is not what the Customer expects, or if pricing is not in line with what the Customer wishes to pay, then that company leaves itself open to "competition".

Quoting rampbro (Reply 19): This is definitely starting to remind me of zip.

You were what ... nine ... when Zip shut down? You really remember all that much?

Something you likely don't remember, is that Zip could not be booked through Air Canada. The words "Air Canada" did not appear anywhere on the aircraft, in literature or in advertising. It had it's own website, it's own OC, it's own staff. If a passenger booked a flight on Zip and expected Air Canada, then he would have had to have done a lot of corporate digging to figure it out.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 21): Competition is just that. If an airline, or any company for that matter, does not meet expectations of its Customers, then it does not succeed. If the product is not what the Customer expects, or if pricing is not in line with what the Customer wishes to pay, then that company leaves itself open to "competition".

It is also true that in a weakly competitive environment, inferior service, marginal value and failing to meet customer expectations can still succeed.

Yes, consumers are getting what they in general want by voting for marginally lower price for significantly poorer value but that doesn't negate the fact that Rouge is a pox on the airline passenger.

Quoting rampbro (Reply 19): This is such a bad idea. There will be a backlash when the (idiot) customers showing up for these flights expecting Air Canada end up getting rouged.

Idiot customers, indeed. However, as I understand it, the term "getting rouged" came about when Rouge was first introduced. People had existing tickets booked on AC mainline, but in the time between booking and flying, the flight was changed to Rouge. That I can understand legitimately complaining about.

However, if by now, someone doesn't know what Rouge is, and doesn't bother to research it, then they are idiots. Thankfully, even when the idiots get on twitter, the world is starting to pay far less attention to them.

Quoting robsaw (Reply 22): Yes, consumers are getting what they in general want by voting for marginally lower price for significantly poorer value but that doesn't negate the fact that Rouge is a pox on the airline passenger.

I have always said it is the passenger that sets service levels at an airline, not the airline. Every airline that has attempted to offer "a little above" average service or amenities, has never been able to garner "a little above" the average fare. Look at failed projects American's MRTC, or Midwest Express Airlines.

Or even look at AC's standard equipped A319s. 14J 106Y, comfortable, AVOD, etc. They were competing against 189 seat B737-800s of Canjet and Sunwing to southern vacation destinations. AC was not able to charge any more than the competition. If people had been willing to pay a little more for that more comfortable aircraft, then Rouge likely would not exist. The Customer chose the service levels.

It is the same thing with the 10 abreast B777s at AC. That started from the YUL-CDG route. Using 9 abreast B77Ws, AC was not able to charge more than the competition .... AF with 10 abreast B77Ws, TS with 9 abreast A330s and SS with 582 seat B744s. Had the passenger been willing to pay more for a more comfortable aircraft, then likely the whole concept of the 10 abreast B777 would not exist.

The big problem here, is that the average user of this website sees the value of paying a little more for more service, but sadly, the average Customer does not. That is why I always say to people when they choose one airline over another, make sure it is known why!

JALs 8 abreast B787s for example. If JAL knew you chose them specifically for that reason, then that configuration will remain. But ... I have a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Lable bet that in 5 years, those aircraft will be 9 abreast in Y.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 24): Or even look at AC's standard equipped A319s. 14J 106Y, comfortable, AVOD, etc. They were competing against 189 seat B737-800s of Canjet and Sunwing to southern vacation destinations. AC was not able to charge any more than the competition.

I always wanted to ask how much lower is a 319's trip cost compared to a 320 and 738. The airliners.net general opinion is the the 319 and 73G are a dying breed because their trip costs are not sufficiently lower compared to the larger versions resulting in much higher CASM.
So the question is: A Rouge A319 carries 76% of the passengers compared a C6, TS or WG 738 would carry. Is the 319's trip cost 24% lower compared to the 738?

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 25): So the question is: A Rouge A319 carries 76% of the passengers compared a C6, TS or WG 738 would carry. Is the 319's trip cost 24% lower compared to the 738?

Looking at fuel burns alone, I would guess it is in that area. But, you'd have to be privy to some pretty sensitive information to be certain.

I wonder if this is a signal that AC may come to YKF with Rouge?

Quoting fly_yhm (Reply 4): I find this such an interesting move from AC rouge as far at the YHM service goes. Is there that much demand on the YHM to YYC Route

You have to consider that YHM isn't merely an option to people in Hamilton. Its a better option for people in Cambridge, KW, Brantford, Niagara, London and even cross-border, as compares to YYZ.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 25): So the question is: A Rouge A319 carries 76% of the passengers compared a C6, TS or WG 738 would carry. Is the 319's trip cost 24% lower compared to the 738?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 26): Looking at fuel burns alone, I would guess it is in that area. But, you'd have to be privy to some pretty sensitive information to be certain.

The problem is that you have to consider that you still have 2 pilots that are theoretically making the same money. Further, under Canadian law, isn't it 1 FA per 40 instead of 50? You aren't really saving money on crew, in that case.

Now it's 1 FA per 50. It used to be 40 a decade ago.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 11): Quoting Lostsound (Reply 10): If you book to any of Air Canada's destinations that Rouge serves, you're forced to fly on them. It's not Rouge that's getting 80 and 90 percent load factors, it's Air Canada..

You are never forced to fly with anybody. If you want to, you could fly from YVR to YYZ. What AC is doing with their Rouge service is filling a need in the Canadian market for a lower priced option from AC and WS.

Quoting aerolimani (Reply 23): However, as I understand it, the term "getting rouged" came about when Rouge was first introduced. People had existing tickets booked on AC mainline, but in the time between booking and flying, the flight was changed to Rouge. That I can understand legitimately complaining about.

The term rouged or getting rouged is from the CFL (Canadian football). A single point awarded when a team kicks the ball out of its opponent's end zone, or when a kicked ball becomes dead within the non-kicking team's end zone.

Quoting Noise (Reply 28): Now it's 1 FA per 50. It used to be 40 a decade ago.

It was 1 FA per 40 as recently as last summer. The change happened in Fall of 2014.

On the face of it, pleased to see more capacity being added in Canada. God knows we need it, if only to undo the negative effects of AC's 'disciplined approach to capacity management' (or somesuch), for which the AC CEO has patted himself on the back enough over the past couple of years.

I once said it was a good thing there was a limit on Rouge aircraft. numbers. I was wrong. I want this expansion to continue. I want more Rouge everywhere - domestically, internationally, wherever. My reasons are simple: only a capacity increase will help the airfares go down sufficiently to the point at which they will reflect the quality of the product, and not the undersupplied nature of the market. Never been a fan of the Rouge product at mainline prices, but a Rouge product at EU LCC prices would be rather nice.

Quoting Lostsound (Reply 10): People aren't seeking Rouge out to fly with them.

By the looks of it, 8% of the Canadian market was simply sitting at home twiddling its thumbs for the past 3-4 years due to lack of availability. Hardly a surprise they're snatching at any seat that comes there way, no matter how poor the product is relative to the price.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 21): Competition is just that. If an airline, or any company for that matter, does not meet expectations of its Customers, then it does not succeed. If the product is not what the Customer expects, or if pricing is not in line with what the Customer wishes to pay, then that company leaves itself open to "competition".

The Canadian markets competitiveness is evident in the endless commentary it has generated over the past 4-5 years on how high airfares are relative to, well, just about every country that is as rich as us. Pricing does not have to be in line with what the customer wishes to pay if there is an undersupplied market where the customer is willing to endure anything to get from point A to B (assuming, of course, that the entire point of his flying is not to experience the product, but simply to get where one has to).

Quoting longhauler (Reply 24): I have always said it is the passenger that sets service levels at an airline, not the airline.

And you can say it till the end of days, but it won't be any less incorrect then than it is now. There is, indeed, a demand-side aspect to it, but there is also a supply-side aspect to it. Lets put it this way: at any given price, some airlines can provide better products that other airlines.

The real question is: What type of service would a Rouge fare buy you on a similar flight (length, duration, aircraft type) in, say, OECD nations. I think you'll find a wide range of service levels, with Rouge sitting right at the bottom in the value-for-money category. Can you think of as many products that cost as much for as little?

Simply put, its a bit disingenuous to point the finger at the demand side when the supply side, in this case, has not been performing at the same standard as its global peers for several years now.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 24): If people had been willing to pay a little more for that more comfortable aircraft, then Rouge likely would not exist. The Customer chose the service levels.

"A little more"? How much more? 5%? 10%? 20%?

What is this entire preferred seating scheme about, where they've reduced legroom on domestic aircraft in a bid to generate more revenue. Are we to surmise that passengers weren't paying enough for the legroom until last year? Or that it was simply a revenue generation exercise?

After all, in 2013, we heard this: "In conclusion, 2013 was a year of substantial achievement in which we produced record results and moved beyond simply managing some key challenges to actually establishing a foundation for sustainably strong results. This made it truly a watershed year in our ongoing transformation."

And then they rolled out the new configurations. Passengers not paying enough? Or opportunity for new revenue grab by turning the screw on Y pax? If you look at the bigger picture, AC's Y product is deteriorating faster than AI's 787s.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 29): Quoting aerolimani (Reply 23): However, as I understand it, the term "getting rouged" came about when Rouge was first introduced. People had existing tickets booked on AC mainline, but in the time between booking and flying, the flight was changed to Rouge. That I can understand legitimately complaining about. The term rouged or getting rouged is from the CFL (Canadian football). A single point awarded when a team kicks the ball out of its opponent's end zone, or when a kicked ball becomes dead within the non-kicking team's end zone.

Nice try, but you know the term "getting rouged" has nothing whatsoever to do with the CFL single point scoring method besides a similar part name. At best, in the CFL, they would state "scored a rouge" or got a rouge", which is a positive; certainly not "getting rouged", which is a statement more akin to getting a disease.

As others have stated, the competitive landscape in the airline industry is hardly conducive to generating service for value but is down to almost a pure commodity equation where price is by far the dominant factor in choice - unfortunately.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27): You have to consider that YHM isn't merely an option to people in Hamilton. Its a better option for people in Cambridge, KW, Brantford, Niagara, London and even cross-border, as compares to YYZ.

Drive from London to YHM and then fly Rouge? Hell no. Fly from YXU and connect at YYZ is a much better option.

driving to YHM from YXU to head out to YYC versus flying YXU to YYZ to YYC wouldn't be too bad.
Its a 120 minute drive to YHM from downtown London versus
a 35 minute flight (based off most recent flight) follow up by moving through the busy congested YYZ by the time you deplane then
move through the terminals then re board your probably looking at a good hour.

Boarding at YHM is a breeze, so really for the previous poster to suggest someone might want to drive
to YHM from YXU isn't that unreasonable IMHO.

Cheers

It's a shorter drive than 120 minutes and some may indeed prefer it over changing planes. However, I personally dislike driving on the 401 and 403 with severely underposted speed limits and drivers behaving not really well (and I'm probably not the only one). Changing planes domestic/domestic at YYZ is easy and I've done it many times with flights booked with minimum allowable connection time. Not to mention that there are 10 daily flight pairs between YXU and YYZ and 8 between YYZ and YYC (plus possible connections). So there is a much better chance to get there in case of IROPS compared to the one daily YHM-YYC.

Quoting Lostsound (Reply 3): Those poor cities. Competitive fares are a joke, what they meant was "How bout we give you less comfort for the same price?"

The push back is coming, a very good friend of mine (best man at his wedding) is the travel manager for one of Canada's largest companies, over dinner a couple of weeks ago we were discussing travel plans (he is an airline nut) and I pointed out that he could fly on Rouge.

The rant he went on was something I really didn't expect, it seems that on routes were AC has been replaced by Rouge they are (the company he works for not Rouge) experiencing a very high sick call rate and with some of their senior people a complete refusal to step foot on a Rouge flight. They are now in talks with Westjet to contract with them on Rouge routes.

Quoting Noise (Reply 28): Now it's 1 FA per 50. It used to be 40 a decade ago.

Quoting Airontario (Reply 30): It was 1 FA per 40 as recently as last summer. The change happened in Fall of 2014.

Air Canada won that argument?

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 33): Drive from London to YHM and then fly Rouge? Hell no. Fly from YXU and connect at YYZ is a much better option.

People generally prefer non-stop flights, and the realities of regional flights means that AC can probably charge a more competitive fare out of YHM on a non-stop.

People are already using YKF as an alternate to YXU.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 35): It's a shorter drive than 120 minutes and some may indeed prefer it over changing planes.

Quoting fly_yhm (Reply 34): Its a 120 minute drive to YHM from downtown London versus

Its way shorter than 120 minutes. More like an hour and 20 minutes, and probably less than that. Its about 120 km from Western University to YHM.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 35): So there is a much better chance to get there in case of IROPS compared to the one daily YHM-YYC.

Except that an airline is generally going to protect a destination with one flight a day.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 35): However, I personally dislike driving on the 401 and 403 with severely underposted speed limits and drivers behaving not really well (and I'm probably not the only one).

Yes, the fact that those roads don't have 120-130 posted is pretty criminal, given the high quality, but its not like anyone drives 100 and I don't think the drivers are poor or anything.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37): Air Canada won that argument?

The first "win" was Sunwing, using a fake evacuation to prove to TC that it was safe. It took four tries to evacuate the B737 in required time ... and the fourth was only possible if briefings were eliminated. (Briefings are required).

Westjet was next due to competitive pressure.

Air Canada followed last fall. It really only affected the E190 and the A320, now with 2 and 3 F/As respectively. Some A321 flights fly with 4 F/As, about half fly with 5. One additional F/A is added on shorter routes with extra service requirements.

I just read the article and saw on the third paragraph that they will operate the Boeing A319 on these flights!

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 31): On the face of it, pleased to see more capacity being added in Canada. God knows we need it

What more capacity are you talking about. All of the Rouge 319s are transferred from AC mainline. These new Rouge 319 routes were flying AC mainline routes in summer 2014. Capacity is not increasing.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 31): My reasons are simple: only a capacity increase will help the airfares go down sufficiently to the point at which they will reflect the quality of the product, and not the undersupplied nature of the market.

I don't want airfares to go down, if it means airlines cant earn investment grade returns, which WS earns, and soon AC will start earning. That will stabilize the market and ensure long term growth.

[Edited 2015-02-08 09:23:53]

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 40):

Capacity = more seats. I seem to be under the impression that Rouge 319s have more seats than they did when they were flying mainline. Keep adding more seats and sooner or later you're going to run out of consumers at a specific price point - which will likely result in lower fares. Aside from that, does this announcement not indicate more AC capacity at the airports in question?

As for lower prices, they are good because flying becomes more affordable and more people fly (generally considered a good thing for the economy writ large).

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 41): Capacity = more seats. I seem to be under the impression that Rouge 319s have more seats than they did when they were flying mainline.

Ya, 20 extra seats on 20 319s. 400 seats in the entire Canadian market....big deal. That's nothing...that's not even a rounding error. That's equivalent to WS adding 2 new 738 and a DH4.....its completely un-newsworthy from a capacity increase perspective.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 41): As for lower prices, they are good because flying becomes more affordable and more people fly

Not if it results in losses for the airlines involved.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 41): Aside from that, does this announcement not indicate more AC capacity at the airports in question?

Off set by a loss of mainline 319 capacity at other airports. its about a wash.

So, I still cant see the increase in market capacity that youre congratulating.

[Edited 2015-02-08 12:38:07]

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 42): Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 41): Capacity = more seats. I seem to be under the impression that Rouge 319s have more seats than they did when they were flying mainline. Ya, 20 extra seats on 20 319s. 400 seats in the entire Canadian market....big deal. That's nothing...that's not even a rounding error. That's equivalent to WS adding 2 new 738 and a DH4.....its completely un-newsworthy from a capacity increase perspective.

On an annual basis, considering that each aircraft probably operates at least 4 sectors per day, that's still close to 600,000 additional seats.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 42): Ya, 20 extra seats on 20 319s. 400 seats in the entire Canadian market....big deal. That's nothing...that's not even a rounding error. That's equivalent to WS adding 2 new 738 and a DH4.....its completely un-newsworthy from a capacity increase perspective.

Newsworthy or not, AC's increased capacity by 8.4% over the past year. After a few years of listening to AC congratulating itself for its 'disciplined approach to capacity management', its refreshing.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 42): Not if it results in losses for the airlines involved.

Irrelevant. The onus is not on the economy/consumer to keep the airline profitable.