And Another ‘737 Across The Pond!

ghYHZ · Fri May 06, 2016 9:26 am

Westjet begins daily ‘737 YYT-LGW service tomorrow (May 7) and that’s in addition to their DUB flight. Add in the Air Canada A319 to Heathrow and that gives St John’s, Newfoundland 3 daily transatlantic flights. Not bad for a city of 200,000.

L0VE2FLY · Fri May 06, 2016 9:34 am

Well done WS, can't wait for the US & EU LCCs to join the party!

TC957 · Fri May 06, 2016 11:04 am

Will LGW only see the same few 738's that are ETOPS equipped or could any of the whole fleet be used ?

a3xx900 · Fri May 06, 2016 11:38 am

What is the market for such legs?
I just checked the WS website and the fares were all round $800-900 return on several dates. AC fares being roughly the same from YYZ.

So, given the fact that most people will need to connect in YYT and pay an additional fare for that leg, why not take a legacy carrier direct from major hubs?

In a world where taking a flight is cheaper than the taxi ride to the airport, these fares seem expensive for a LCC like WS? Any thoughts?

Skisandy · Fri May 06, 2016 12:54 pm

Don't forget all the a.netters that prefer narrow body aircraft
on long flights to those obnoxiously roomy wide bodies.

There is a large market right there!

MIflyer12 · Fri May 06, 2016 12:57 pm

Quoting a3xx900 (Reply 3):
In a world where taking a flight is cheaper than the taxi ride to the airport, these fares seem expensive for a LCC like WS? Any thoughts?

The 'cheaper than a taxi ride' remark isn't true of TATL. It's just gratuitous here. WS' prices reflect the market, or, in the short term, as least WS' perception of the market.

YYT-Europe is certainly convenient for YYT destination/origin passengers vs. overflying/backflying via YHZ/YUL/YYZ.

a3xx900 · Fri May 06, 2016 1:15 pm

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 5):
The 'cheaper than a taxi ride' remark isn't true of TATL.

No of course not. But what I was trying to say is that in a world, where (continental) flights are often cheaper than 10 bucks (on FR for example), why would anyone fly on a LCC TATL, which offers the same fares as legacy carriers.
Same with EW for example on their new TATL routes.

[Edited 2016-05-06 06:15:44]

AussieItaliano · Fri May 06, 2016 1:19 pm

What I find quite interesting is that YYT can be considered a viable market for 3 Transatlantic flights, but it recently lost it's only direct flight to NYC.

I have to wonder what WS's intentions are here. It is more that they see the success of their YYT-DUB route and think that there is enough demand for 2 London flights or is it that they want to try to run AC out of the YYT transatlantic market? AC has been notorious for charging exorbitant prices on this route. I expect a bit of a blood-bath between the 2 carriers.

Personally, I love St. John's and Newfoundland and have been wanting to get back there for some time. Atlantic Canada is absolutely beautiful and the people are so nice. Perhaps I might be able to take advantage of the fact that there will now be competition on this route!

cedarjet · Fri May 06, 2016 1:21 pm

Wow, for a small and not very economically significant town, that's a lot of traffic. The Westjet flight to London alone will carry 10% of the population each way between now and the end of September (I am assuming this is not a year-round service); throw in AC and the WS to DUB and that's 30% of the town, each way. Does that kind of demand really exist?!

bmacleod · Fri May 06, 2016 1:27 pm

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Reply 1):
can't wait for the US & EU LCCs to join the party!

YYT likely may not have the population base needed for foreign carriers to enter that market. The above comment quoted a population of around 200,000 compared to 420,000 for YHZ.

Their economy has been on the decline since the collapse in oil prices so I can't see an opening right now for more carriers in YYT.

[Edited 2016-05-06 06:32:07]

ghYHZ · Fri May 06, 2016 2:01 pm

Around 8 or 9 years ago the UK charter airline Astraeus and later Monarch offered service to YDF on the west coast of Newfoundland. Deer Lake, with a population of only ten thousand had to be one of the smallest towns with transatlantic service (although it also served Corner Brook).

Service was mainly aimed at the Humber Valley Ski Resort (Marble Mountain) developed by British interests.

777ER · Fri May 06, 2016 2:05 pm

Quoting AussieItaliano (Reply 7):
What I find quite interesting is that YYT can be considered a viable market for 3 Transatlantic flights, but it recently lost it's only direct flight to NYC.

Your not really comparing apples with apples here. The NYC flight was most likely O/D traffic due to the lack of connecting services from other parts of Canada, where the TATL service will be supported by other WS traffic from other markets, ie YYZ-YYT-LGW

ScottB · Fri May 06, 2016 2:18 pm

Quoting AussieItaliano (Reply 7):
What I find quite interesting is that YYT can be considered a viable market for 3 Transatlantic flights, but it recently lost it's only direct flight to NYC.

Keep in mind that Newfoundland and Labrador has only been part of Canada since 1949; before that, it remained a colony of the United Kingdom. The province also has relatively strong ties to Ireland with 20% of its population identifying as having Irish ancestry. YYT transatlantic flights can also be bolstered by connecting traffic to fill the seats not sold to the local market.

stburke · Fri May 06, 2016 2:24 pm

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 4):
Don't forget all the a.netters that prefer narrow body aircraft
on long flights to those obnoxiously roomy wide bodies.

There is a large market right there!

Waiting for E190 E-2 to skip the pond. I'd be perfectly fine with that.

jimbo737 · Fri May 06, 2016 3:01 pm

I don't think anyone at WJHQ is even the slightest bit worried about whether or not the TATL from YYT or anywhere else for that matter, will have problems filling seats this summer.

This is the third season to DUB from YYT and the 2nd from YHZ to GLA. If there were a problem, they wouldn't resurrect it every spring and start the service earlier than the year before.

Saretsky has repeatedly said, most recently at the publicly webcast AGM this week, that if employees want a TATL seat this summer, they better book early. I've been often told that getting a stand-by seat on ANY of the TATL flights was near impossible last summer and will be the same this year.

SRQKEF · Fri May 06, 2016 3:18 pm

Quoting ghYHZ (Thread starter):

While impressive, KEF has over 20 North American destinations and serves a city of similar size!

Congratulations to Westjet and YYT!

Dufo · Fri May 06, 2016 4:15 pm

Quoting stburke (Reply 13):

Or even something smaller like original Bombardier CL600 or Gulfstream. Damn cigars!

ACDC8 · Fri May 06, 2016 4:37 pm

Quoting a3xx900 (Reply 3):
these fares seem expensive for a LCC like WS?

While WS is a low cost carrier, they are by no means a low fare carrier.

alyusuph · Fri May 06, 2016 4:45 pm

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 4):
Don't forget all the a.netters that prefer narrow body aircraft
on long flights to those obnoxiously roomy wide bodies.

I am one of them! I hate the long queues to check in and then to board, then to disembark.
When you combine all of that with security checks, it is just too much. The shortest and fastest queues are with 40 to 70
seater turboprops.

BoeingGuy · Fri May 06, 2016 7:03 pm

Quoting AussieItaliano (Reply 7):
What I find quite interesting is that YYT can be considered a viable market for 3 Transatlantic flights, but it recently lost it's only direct flight to NYC.

I assume it's not about YYT but it's about the 737 not having the range to go direct from YYZ and other larger markets.

Thenoflyzone · Fri May 06, 2016 7:04 pm

Quoting TC957 (Reply 2):

Will LGW only see the same few 738's that are ETOPS equipped or could any of the whole fleet be used ?

Probably only the same few aircraft. You need HF in order to fly into Shanwick's airspace and 8.33 kHz radio spacing in order to fly in Europe. The vast majority of WS's planes don't have one or the other of these features, as they are not needed in North America. HF comes in handy for flights to the Caribbean transiting WATRS New York Oceanic airspace, but apart from that, it is not really needed.

Plus, it's a waste of money for WS to certify all of its 737s or 738s to ETOPS 120 or 180 standard, again because these requirements aren't needed for 95% of their operations.

[Edited 2016-05-06 12:11:49]

rampbro · Fri May 06, 2016 9:11 pm

Quoting ghYHZ (Thread starter):
Not bad for a city of 200,000.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 8):
Wow, for a small and not very economically significant town, that's a lot of traffic.

Thanks, but St. John's is actually a city, a current provincial capital, and former national capital. It is a regional hub petroleum production and fisheries, and the seat of government for a province with significant territory and natural resources deposits.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 12):

Incorrect. From 1907 to 1933, Newfoundland was it's own country. This fact is not lost on Newfoundlanders, and many of us still consider ourselves to be Newfoundlanders first, and Canadians second.

I think one of the reasons that perhaps we see more connectivity into St. John's then one might expect area the historical and abiding characteristics of Newfoundlanders as people who will move afar for work (both blue and white collar) and in the particular case of St. John's, as a (small) group of people who are wordly and quite well educated, with a thirst for travel and the noteworthy ability to fit in in Toronto, Dublin or London. Yes I am obviously a townie for anyone in the know, but I stand by it.

Joost · Fri May 06, 2016 9:33 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 11):
where the TATL service will be supported by other WS traffic from other markets, ie YYZ-YYT-LGW

Connecting traffic at YYT will likely be close to zero. For YYZ-LGW, WS will sell their non-stop flight, the one-stop flight will only be used to fill empty seats but won't make a solid business case by any means. It's an O&D route, except maybe for YHZ originating pax.

lightsaber · Fri May 06, 2016 9:58 pm

Just wait for the A321LR and CS100 with centerline tank/MTOW increase. TATL narrowbody flights will increase.

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 4):
Don't forget all the a.netters that prefer narrow body aircraft
on long flights to those obnoxiously roomy wide bodies.

What is your point? Y on WJ is comfy. A widebody provides the same room for the same seat. What premium passengers want is a direct flight at the time of their choosing.

If these flights continue, albeit seasonally, that implies a profit.

Too many hubs are impacted, so to be avoided.

Lightsaber

A320FlyGuy · Fri May 06, 2016 10:40 pm

I would never fly WestJet on a transatlantic flight....the airfare may be $800-900 but you get more value with Air Canada....WestJet will nickle and dime you for drinks and food.....There are some things that Air Canada will always do better than WestJet and it would be mad to think that it would be a significantly better experience.

I imagine that I will get flamed for speaking ill of WestJet, but I have never had a flight where I got off the plane and thought "gee, that was a helluva lot better than Air Canada"....

When I flew YYZ-LHR back in February, I flew out on AC868.....the flight left right on time, the food and beverage service was top notch and we had an amazing crew that really went above and beyond. I can't imagine ever having a better flight on another carrier and WestJet would never be able to achieve that level of service and satisfaction.

seabosdca · Fri May 06, 2016 10:46 pm

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 4):
Don't forget all the a.netters that prefer narrow body aircraft on long flights to those obnoxiously roomy wide bodies.

The choice is between a narrowbody on a nonstop flight and a widebody as half of a connecting itinerary (which in YYT's case includes lots of backtracking). I'll take the shorter trip time even if (horrors) the ceiling is a foot lower.

nitepilot79 · Fri May 06, 2016 11:02 pm

Quoting a3xx900 (Reply 3):
I just checked the WS website and the fares were all round $800-900 return on several dates. AC fares being roughly the same from YYZ.

So, given the fact that most people will need to connect in YYT and pay an additional fare for that leg, why not take a legacy carrier direct from major hubs?

In a world where taking a flight is cheaper than the taxi ride to the airport, these fares seem expensive for a LCC like WS? Any thoughts?

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 17):
While WS is a low cost carrier, they are by no means a low fare carrier.

Just did a search, and this Turkish Airlines (United IAH-MIA-IAH) ticket (ADA-IST-IAH-MIA-IAH-IST-ADA) is the same price as a couple years ago when I actually made this trip. Just over 813 US Dollars round trip. Of course the ridiculous exchange rate (2.93), and TK being basically the pseudo 4th ME carrier, must have some influence. Even so, I think the WS TATL flights are overpriced. Imho.

L0VE2FLY · Sat May 07, 2016 12:18 am

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 9):
Quoting L0VE2FLY (Reply 1):
can't wait for the US & EU LCCs to join the party!
YYT likely may not have the population base needed for foreign carriers to enter that market. The above comment quoted a population of around 200,000 compared to 420,000 for YHZ.

Their economy has been on the decline since the collapse in oil prices so I can't see an opening right now for more carriers in YYT.

I wasn't talking about YYT specifically, I just like to see more LCCs enter the TATL market.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 23):
Just wait for the A321LR and CS100 with centerline tank/MTOW increase. TATL narrowbody flights will increase.

The A321LR indeed is a game changer, isn't the larger longer legged CS300 a better choice for TATL? Especially if a LR variant becomes available.

IPFreely · Sat May 07, 2016 12:22 am

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 4):

Don't forget all the a.netters that prefer narrow body aircraft
on long flights to those obnoxiously roomy wide bodies.

Yes but they need an all-business class configuration. Some of them are as much as 6'1" tall and are physically unable to distort their bodies enough to compress themselves into economy seating without suffering debilitating permanent injuries.

doug_or · Sat May 07, 2016 12:31 am

Quoting nitepilot79 (Reply 26):
Just did a search, and this Turkish Airlines (United IAH-MIA-IAH) ticket (ADA-IST-IAH-MIA-IAH-IST-ADA) is the same price as a couple years ago when I actually made this trip. Just over 813 US Dollars round trip. Of course the ridiculous exchange rate (2.93), and TK being basically the pseudo 4th ME carrier, must have some influence. Even so, I think the WS TATL flights are overpriced. Imho.

That would appear to be comparing apples to hand grenades.

Viscount724 · Sat May 07, 2016 1:42 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 11):
he NYC flight was most likely O/D traffic due to the lack of connecting services from other parts of Canada, where the TATL service will be supported by other WS traffic from other markets, ie YYZ-YYT-LGW

No need for WS to connect passengers YYZ-YYT-LGW since they operate a daily nonstop 763 YYZ-LGW.

Press release announcing this weekend's launch of the new LGW flights, all seasonal except YYZ and YYC.
http://westjet2.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1130

jimbo737 · Sat May 07, 2016 2:50 pm

Quoting alyusuph (Reply 18):

Air Canada is charging £1,234 from LHR to YYZ n/s tomorrow, (Sunday May 8th), taxes and fees included.

WestJet is charging £168.72 from LGW to YYZ n/s tomorrow, (Sunday May 8th), taxes and fees included.

To Vancouver, it's AC at £1,529 vs WS's £178.72

Toronto to LHR on AC tomorrow is $1,474. WS to LGW is $203.66.

So forgive me for disagreeing, but WS is very much a low fare carrier.

Eventually, AC will have no choice to match fares, as they have always done everywhere WS flies. Because fares are then equalized, the optics are that WS is not a low cost carrier.

bmacleod · Sat May 07, 2016 5:10 pm

Quoting jimbo737 (Reply 31):
Eventually, AC will have no choice to match fares, as they have always done everywhere WS flies. Because fares are then equalized, the optics are that WS is not a low cost carrier.

Already in progress - a few years ago they launched AC Rouge.

AC_B777 · Sat May 07, 2016 5:12 pm

Quoting jimbo737 (Reply 31):
So forgive me for disagreeing, but WS is very much a low fare carrier.

Might be on TATL routes, but domestically and trans border, I personally find AC to be the same fare, if not cheaper.
I'm an AC employee, but when I travel confirmed, I'll fly with whoever offers the lowest price and has the better schedule. A few years ago, I had to book a one way fare for me and my daughter from YYZ-YYT. WS price was $1485 while AC was just over $900, and that was without any AC employee discount. By the time I added my discount, it was even lower.
My wife and I are flying to TPA in July, at the time of booking, WS was around $1370 return, while AC was close to $1150 and offered and better schedule.
So even without any employee discount, my normal observation is that for the most part, AC has lower fares. So, I don't tend to agree with your statement that WS is a low fare carrier.

777ER · Sat May 07, 2016 6:25 pm

Quoting A320FlyGuy (Reply 24):
I would never fly WestJet

The only time I'll be flying WS is to get on the B736 and the B73G which still manages to avoid me or as part of a QF codeshare

jimbo737 · Sat May 07, 2016 7:22 pm

And those low fares on AC are probably the reason why they reported the lowest verifiable profit margin of any airline in Canada, the US or Mexico last quarter,. And that's after a $500,000,000 cut in fuel expense compared to 2 years earlier!

If Rouge is so successful, why does AC continue to publish such anemic results compared to everyone else?

AC_B777 · Sat May 07, 2016 7:35 pm

Quoting jimbo737 (Reply 35):
And those low fares on AC are probably the reason why they reported the lowest verifiable profit margin of any airline in Canada, the US or Mexico last quarter,

Maybe so, but don't forget, WS also reported a very low profit for Q1 as well. Not sure if it's the worst in their history or not, but not good for them either way. The economy in Canada is experiencing a big downturn, especially in oil, so that in itself is playing a role, especially for Alberta based WS.
In the meantime, here in YYT, AC has added flights and increased capacity, while WS has decreased both flights and capacity. Not sure if it's the same in other parts of the country. I have also heard that WS has parked planes because of the downturn...could be that's why they had 12 available a/c to fly to YMM to help with the evacuation due to the wildfires.

jimbo737 · Sat May 07, 2016 9:29 pm

Where do you dream this stuff up?

WS's profit margin in the first quarter was 11.45% compared to AC's 1.56%. WJ's margin was almost exactly at industry average, which is not bad when the 800lb gorilla in the room is thrashing around in the marketplace causing all kinds of collateral damage.

Did you hear Alaska's comments in their quarterly call a few weeks ago on matching demand and supply?

"Sometimes this means getting out of routes that don't meet return targets, like LA to Vancouver"

Think about that for a second. According to Form 41 filings, Alaska's loads on YVR-LAX last summer were over 90%, Their system break-even load was 68.2% and they made nearly 21% margins and the route "didn't meet return targets" and they cancelled it??!!

With those sort of economics, do you really think AC made money on that route either? And maybe, just maybe, it's that sort of thing, multiplied over all kinds of routes, that are causing such anemic results at AC compared to the rest of the industry? Maybe getting rid of those doggy routes and not focus on chasing lowest yield market share might actually improve overall results?

After paying off the banks, WS made $118,110,000 on $1.031b in revenues. AC made just $52,000,000 on $3.343b in revenues. That's three times the revenues to produce less than half the profit.

WS paid $39.5m in income taxes in the quarter. Air Canada paid $0 income taxes. That is correct. $0 taxes.

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/investor/documents/2016_FSN_q1.pdf Page 2.

It's hard to park aircraft when management guidance just last week said 2nd quarter capacity growth would be around 7%.

Did you know that the first week's Canada to London outbound capacity generated the same asm's as 484 Vancouver to Calgary one way trips?

Ask any WJ'r and they'll tell you you'd have better luck winning this week's Loto than scoring a standby seat to DUB, GLA or LGW anytime soon.

Whiteguy · Sat May 07, 2016 9:38 pm

Quoting AC_B777 (Reply 36):

Maybe so, but don't forget, WS also reported a very low profit for Q1 as well. Not sure if it's the worst in their history or not, but not good for them either way. The economy in Canada is experiencing a big downturn, especially in oil, so that in itself is playing a role, especially for Alberta based WS.

It was actually second highest first quarter ever......

Quoting AC_B777 (Reply 36):
In the meantime, here in YYT, AC has added flights and increased capacity, while WS has decreased both flights and capacity. Not sure if it's the same in other parts of the country. I have also heard that WS has parked planes because of the downturn...could be that's why they had 12 available a/c to fly to YMM to help with the evacuation due to the wildfires.

So far 1 aircraft has been returned to lessor and 2 more are scheduled to go, some new orders have been deferred, no aircraft have been parked. Most of the aircraft operating for the evacuations are also operating regularly scheduled flights through the day. A lot of flights were already planned to operate under the Suncor contract WS has.

Quoting TC957 (Reply 2):

Will LGW only see the same few 738's that are ETOPS equipped or could any of the whole fleet be used ?

Only the B73W are being used and configured for use across to Europe, up to 8 aircraft are configured this year. No 800s are being used...

czbbflier · Sat May 07, 2016 10:47 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 30):
No need for WS to connect passengers YYT-LGW since they operate a daily nonstop 763 LGW.

WS24 actually operates as a one-stop: YYT-LGW, so this flight is not entirely dependent on YYT traffic.

A quick Kayak search shows fares ex YYT. Not bad for a "cheaper" Westjet fare.

It just seems to me this is more a 1-stop LGW flight, than a non-stop YYT-LGW flight with Quoting a3xx900 (Reply 3):
So, given the fact that most people will need to connect in YYT and pay an additional fare for that leg, why not take a legacy carrier direct from major hubs?
As many WS passengers are devoutly brand loyal- many cannot even say the words "Air Canada" without retching up their breakfast.

If this is the way for them to make it work, then Westjetters will take the extra hop and cut out the loathsome
Additionally, it might actually be the "Westjetter's" (Non-Air-Canada-ers) way of flying from YYZ, dealing with the crowds, the changing planes etc.

It's a win-win-win for them, and it's a win for WS.

And congratulations to WS, by the way! A major landmark, so to speak.

Edited for grammar.

[Edited 2016-05-07 15:48:31]

lightsaber · Sat May 07, 2016 10:59 pm

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Reply 27):
isn't the larger longer legged CS300 a better choice for TATL? Especially if a LR variant becomes available.

Both have options, but the CS100 will benefit more from the centerline tank.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 34):
The only time I'll be flying WS

Why? My experiences with them have been excellent.
I'm curious why you wouldn't fly them if they had the better schedule. For example, the non-stop for TATL?

I really dislike connections when traveling with kids... That I'll pay extra to avoid. So if WJ has the non-stop, why wouldn't you fly them (excluding 736 flights)?

Quoting jimbo737 (Reply 37):
WS's profit margin in the first quarter was 11.45% compared to AC's 1.56%. WJ's margin was almost exactly at industry average, which is not bad when the 800lb gorilla in the room is thrashing around in the marketplace causing all kinds of collateral damage.

WJ is one airline that will benefit from the MAX range. If there is a -7.5MAX with 4,000nm+ range, I fully expect WJ to open a number of routes with the plane.

Lightsaber

AC_B777 · Sat May 07, 2016 11:06 pm

Quoting jimbo737 (Reply 37):
Where do you dream this stuff up?

Who says I'm dreaming anything up?? You should calm down a little...how's the blood pressure?
AS on the YVR-LAX route...good for them. I really couldn't be bothered by AS!
As for AC, when we try and pull out of an unprofitable route, the public backlash is far reaching. And heaven forbid, the CBC report the truth and not try and smear things! Do you even get CDN news in the U.S??
You're missing my original point. You said WS was a "low fare" carrier, which they most certainly are not! Low cost, maybe, but low fare NO!!
I just checked various WS flights from various origins to various destinations (in Canada and USA) and various dates and cross referenced them with AC with the EXACT same search. 99% of the time, AC was CHEAPER!!! On ONE flight, AC and WS has the exact same price! Not one WS flight was cheaper than AC's.
WS is as much a low fare airline as EK is bush pilot operation.
And, as WS decide to continue taking on new a/c type and other adventures, the low cost example will eventually go out the door. Just look at how close they came to some employee groups forming unions. It's only a matter of time before that happens.
I personally know a few WS employees, and while they say it's still a good company to work for, it ain't all roses!
As for capacity, I can only speak of what I see locally, and that is cuts in flights and capacity. As for AC, they have only increased here in YYT. But again, I can only say what I see locally.

Quoting Whiteguy (Reply 38):
So far 1 aircraft has been returned to lessor and 2 more are scheduled to go, some new orders have been deferred

I'd say that's pretty substantial considering they have seen non stop growth for the past 20 years.

Whiteguy · Sat May 07, 2016 11:23 pm

Quoting AC_B777 (Reply 41):
Quoting Whiteguy (Reply 38):
So far 1 aircraft has been returned to lessor and 2 more are scheduled to go, some new orders have been deferred

I'd say that's pretty substantial considering they have seen non stop growth for the past 20 years.

Would you?

Growth hasn't stopped, with these 3 aircraft leaving they will be replaced by 3 new B738s this year, along with the addition of 2 B763s and about a dozen Q400s....

Last year 10 700s left the fleet and 16 800s were added....

adamh8297 · Sat May 07, 2016 11:52 pm

Lot of squawking about narrowbodies across the pond but the longest routes out of YYT are to CUN and MBJ though the former may be on a wide-body (Air Transat).

Quoting ScottB (Reply 12):
YYT transatlantic flights can also be bolstered by connecting traffic to fill the seats not sold to the local market.

Surprised WS (using Encore) hasn't considered YYT-JFK/EWR/BOS

ERJ135 · Sun May 08, 2016 1:04 am

So a quick Question a little off topic, with this connection would it now be possible to fly regular passenger flights on the B737 around the world?
I know you can get from Asia to Australia, then Fiji, Hawaii and from there obviously make your way to YTT and LGW. I'm fairly sure From there you should be able to get to say Denpasar.
Perhaps this would be an interesting exercise in Av Hobby.

nitepilot79 · Sun May 08, 2016 2:12 am

Quoting doug_or (Reply 29):
Quoting nitepilot79 (Reply 26):
Just did a search, and this Turkish Airlines (United IAH-MIA-IAH) ticket (ADA-IST-IAH-MIA-IAH-IST-ADA) is the same price as a couple years ago when I actually made this trip. Just over 813 US Dollars round trip. Of course the ridiculous exchange rate (2.93), and TK being basically the pseudo 4th ME carrier, must have some influence. Even so, I think the WS TATL flights are overpriced. Imho.

That would appear to be comparing apples to hand grenades.

I think this:

Quoting nitepilot79 (Reply 26):
Of course the ridiculous exchange rate (2.93), and TK being basically the pseudo 4th ME carrier, must have some influence. Even so, I think the WS TATL flights are overpriced. Imho.

in a round-about way, anyway, implies that...

Thenoflyzone · Sun May 08, 2016 3:41 am

Quoting adamh8297 (Reply 43):
Surprised WS (using Encore) hasn't considered YYT-JFK/EWR/BOS

The Q400 isn't the right aircraft, at least not to NY.

YYT is isolated and prone to bad weather. Flying 1000nm from EWR to YYT, and then having to divert is not something you want to do in a Q400.

777ER · Sun May 08, 2016 5:22 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 40):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 34):
The only time I'll be flying WS

Why? My experiences with them have been excellent.
I'm curious why you wouldn't fly them if they had the better schedule. For example, the non-stop for TATL?

I really dislike connections when traveling with kids... That I'll pay extra to avoid. So if WJ has the non-stop, why wouldn't you fly them (excluding 736 flights)?

If they were flying a route I was wanting to fly on then yes I would consider them but at this stage I don't plan on flying anywhere that WS serves (only to fly on the B736/B73G). I also prefer to fly on alliance members that earn status points. I'm now QF FF and WS only earn FF points. If I'm not concerned about needing enoug status points then I'll happily look a other options

Caryjack · Sun May 08, 2016 5:39 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 23):
What premium passengers want is a direct flight at the time of their choosing.

The term direct flight comes up sometimes when, I believe, non-stop should be used. As I understand it, a direct flight will go from A to C but stop at B for fuel or passengers. Traveling from A to B and B to C is nonstop while A to C is direct.

http://www.smartertravel.com/travel-...stop-direct-flights.html?id=336285

From the link:

"A nonstop flight does as its name suggests: flies from one airport to another without stopping. A direct flight, on the other hand, makes stops along the way. Often, passengers traveling on direct flights make a stop at a midpoint airport and remain seated on the plane while some passengers exit and others board."

I understand that direct flights retain the same flight number.
Thanks,

Cary

jimbo737 · Sun May 08, 2016 3:32 pm

Quoting Whiteguy (Reply 42):
grenades.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that from YYT, served only by AC's highest cost mainline product and Jazz that AC "always has the lowest fares"? All that talk about a better product yet AC has to resort to discounting the product below WS to fill it?

According to each airlines audited numbers, on average, it cost WS 32% less to move one seat one mile last quarter than AC.

So what you are inferring is that the much lower cost carrier, WS, is also the premium carrier in market? That might help explain why WS's margins were nearly 10x better than AC's margins last quarter.

Maybe YYT is one of the markets where AC is losing all a lot of money as it produces the worst margins of any airline traded airline in the US, Mexico and Canada.

High costs and low fares never make for a good business plan

Fuel costs have nearly doubled since the low in January. As Delta's CEO explained, there will be many markets that positively contributed to AC's stellar 1.56% profit margin last quarter that will be doing the opposite now. Delta has far more leeway given they, like WS, are starting with overall margins that are infinitely higher than AC's near break-even performance.

And what happens when AC has to actually start paying its share of Canadian income taxes? They paid no corporate taxes in the last three years.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net