LockheedElectra

Completely agree, I generally don't have a hard time getting a reasonable airfare out of YYZ. This year, I would say that about 50% of my YYZ-US travel is on carriers other than AC, which means that they are competing effectively. I still prefer AC, but several of my destinations are not served direct by AC so the convenience factor of a direct flight diminishes. What I would hope WN would bring if they fly out of YYZ (and given the market size I can't see them coming to Canada without flying from YYZ) is alternatives to routes to hub airports they serve such as PHX and LAS that have either been rouged (with no change in price), or have limited direct service. If they can join US in having reasonable last minute airfares, that would be a big bonus as well.

allbrosca

YHM and YXX about to get a lot busier? Seem like they could fit the Southwest model.

98103

+1

garydpdx

My eight ORD-YUL flights in the past year have been 1 AA, 1 AC and 6 UA (the 1 AA and 3 UA's were using last minute weekend specials announced late Monday, Tuesday morning or even appearing as late as Thursday). The AC ticket was on a seat sale and had I missed it, I could have gotten a cheaper ticket on UA a couple of days later.

I have been sending people (from Montreal startups that I work with) to Asia on UA connecting out via IAD and back via IAD, ORD or EWR, for less than AC via YYZ. What I discovered is that people habitually go straight to AC's web site rather than (e.g.) Google Flights, which opened their eyes to alternatives. (In the process, there was some language confusion on Dulles versus Dallas, their being less experience fliers, etc.)

Having been on PVG-YYZ once, I figure that AC is making enough on that route to not battle very hard for connecting traffic from other cities.

garydpdx

WN tends (along with other LCC's) to put a cap upon Y fares on routes where they compete with the Big 3.

mre5765

WN is not Allegiant, Spirit or Frontier. The staff are quite nice. Snacks are still served on board. Free bags. Carry on allowance is a 24 inch bag. It is a nice airline.

There is IFE via wifi. Satellite is streamed on board. WN is byod. Which is perfectly adequate for short haul.

I too flew several WN segments last summer and fall when UA pricing was out of whack. It was no worse that a UA economy plus seat, which I see 50 percent of the time anyway. And while WN's lack of preassigned seats is not liked by some, if one checks in early enough a middle seat is avoidable, and families are guaranteed to have at least one parent with the kids.

Crampedin13A

YHM seems to be a hard sell. Shame because it is really easy to get to if you have your own car and aren't coming into/from Toronto proper.

ensco

WN does not "serve" Toronto via BUF. Nobody "serves" YYZ pax in any meaningful sense of the word via BUF.

YYZ has 34M pax a year, BUF has 2M, of which maybe half, ie 1M, are Canadian.

Only maybe about half of those BUF pax are being dragged from the GTA (the rest live in St Catherines, Ft Erie, Niagara Falls, Welland, the western suburbs of Hamilton, or somewhere else closer to BUF than YYZ).

BUF serves something like 1.5% of the GTA market. It is a very niche market, mostly large families or other highly price-sensitive segments. That's it.

yulred

Don't think anybody's missed anything. You're comparing a company that struggled with logistics and stocking to an airline that's probably got a lower CASM than Rouge, and a product that, well...doesn't take much to match or outdo Rouge, does it?

Unlike Target, no one expects WN to provide US prices. Target didn't have that benefit. Even the cost structures argument doesnt stand up to scrutiny; all they need to do is charge marginally less than Rouge, and they've got a shot.

Sean Peever

I feel the same way when people say bellingham serves YVR.

garydpdx

I have US-based colleagues who will avoid Big 3 and take a good LCC (Southwest, Virgin America, JetBlue, Alaska) whenever possible on domestic trips. Internationally, they will take a non-US partner of UA, AA or DL while collecting points via their alliance; I know one United/Star Gold and another who is AA Gold (their first status level), who almost never fly the domestic metal.

Also, LCC's are not immune to meltdowns, as JetBlue and Southwest (at MDW) had this past winter during the so-called Polar Vortex, not unlike what happened at YYZ.

winnipegrev

Target's initial problem may have been stock/logistics, but anyone who has been in a Target store recently knows that's not why it isn't succeeding. Target prices are consistently higher than Wal-Mart's/Superstore's/No Frills/take your pick of others. People are willing to put up with bare shelves once in a while if it gets them cheaper prices.

Do you expect AC/WS to just cede market share to WN or engage in a price war? With Rouge's CASM, who do you think would pull out first? You talk about it not taking much to outdo Rouge... hard product wise you are correct. Unfortunately very few customers care about the hard product, and what you have left is price. Rouge is very capable of competing on price when they need to.

Look at Virgin America's brief YYZ service, or why no other airline can compete against AC YYZ-LAX/SFO. Canadians are fiercely loyal to both lower prices and Aeroplan. With Rouge's CASM likely being close/lower than WN's I don't see how WN success is possible.

Against mainline AC to the US, business routes are essentially all that is left standing. I don't see the cattle-call, low frequencies due to 737s vs. E90/75s and lack of AVOD being hard selling points. If WN's cost structure allows for decently cheaper fares than AC perhaps it would work - but with Canadian operational costs I doubt that is possible.

But maybe I'm wrong and WN would be a blow away success.

yulred

I don't expect anything. I don't think anybody does. I m as happy to see WN enter as I am to see AA start new flights or JetNaked enter the market.

Given that WN is based in the US and probably has lower CASM by default, I don't think its doomed to failure. Rouge allows AC to compete more than it otherwise would have, but its not yet clear that it can undercut WN without taking a big hit.

All I care about is the impact on prices. If they go down, I m happy - don't care who's winning or losing. The longer they're all in the market, the better. Let 'em keep each other honest.

FlyerAl

WN has evolved from a lower cost carrier to a regular airline sans premium cabin. They've implemented the same changes as other majors by gutting their FF pogram, crammed more seats, raised fares to the point where they're no longer a price leader, and raised employee wages. The only exception being they don't charge any fees for changes or checked baggage. They could enter Canada without having to undercut anyone but still manage to succeed by marketing those 2 advantages. Why fly crappy Rouge when you only get 50% miles, have to pay for your bags, seats, snacks, changes, when you can fly WN and get those same things for free?

I would disagree with the argument that existing service to BUF is not serving the YYZ market. Maybe not for business travellers / OPMers, but at least half of the 5 million annual passengers using BUF are Canadian travellers - and that's not counting the growth at IAG with Spirit and Allegiant. There's no reason for WN to serve YHM or even YYZ when they already attract those customers at BUF.

bdlman

I would think its western canada they would be looking at. Vanouver, Calgary or Edmonton.

They serve Toronto via BUF and could serve Montreal to Florida via Plattsburgh NY or Burlington VT if they wanted too. Plus theres tons of service from toronto and montreal to florida already. I would think this is looking at western canada where southwest is also much larger. Maybe even mainly LAS, PHX, and Cali into western canada that narrow a focus i could see being ideal.