Clipper801

Absolutely nothing wrong.

However, there must first be such a product available for sale and the price must be competitive.

On shorter trips, I happily pay for Preferred Seat. On longer trips, I shop for the best J fare. AC seems always to lose out on the latter.

Clipper801

At the right price, AC will sell those J seats.

Symmetre

Nothing wrong with that approach at all. I did note, I have no problem with Ryanair either.

The problem I have with AC is they put out a cheap product that gets even cheaper by the day, all the while crowing about how they're the best and they're the top airline in North America ... etc etc etc.

Meanwhile, you can frequently buy a better product on other carriers for less money. United has cramped seating in the back of its long-haul jets too. But they're almost always quite a bit cheaper than AC.

If AC wants to be the next Ryanair, then that's fine - it's a viable business strategy. Just stop lying and charging premium rates for what stopped being a premium product long, long ago.

Wpgjetse

Flew WestJet last night. I will be sad once the 737 start arriving. I will miss the larger cabin of the 320's. I know it's a pipe dream, but maybe AC will re-think their 737 order.

m.y

Not disagreeing with you, but if AC is able to fill those seats at inflated prices, why would they drop prices.

Jasper2009

Are you sure that the original plan was to have a 2-3-2 config in Y on the 787?

I thought the original plan was to have a 2-4-2 config (same as on the 330/340). The first 787 delivered to NH indeed had that config, but most/all subsequent deliveries had the 3-3-3 config which unfortunately now has become the standard.

robsaw

Exactly. And, that is the crux of the problem with the airline industry in Canada (and a lot of the rest of the world too).
a) Lack of domestic competition that provides choices in service, comfort and price.
b) IF there is a price differential the market (i.e. the typical passenger) is so price sensitive that differentiators in service/comfort are not considered and therefore provide no basis for competition based on (a).

m.y

and c) investors who always demand more profit, how do airline management accomplish that? Lowering costs either to attract more customers if they lower the price, or increase margins if they maintain the price. "Innovations" to keep cost low includes unbundling of services (bag fees), stuff more people in planes, outsourcing flying to subsidiaries with lower labour cost (rouge), other cuts to services (ffp devaluation). Once one airline go down this road, other airlines will follow as it is hard to resist the temptations (removing free checked bags will add X dollars to profit, analysts will like it!)

Jasper2009

I agree with all of that - except for the "FFP devalution" part.

Yes, providing certain benefits costs money, but most benefits aren't "free givaways", they're incentives to fly AC instead of a cheaper / more convenient competitor and/or an incentive to purchase a higher fare.

If you want pax to pay a 80%-100% premium on Flex fares vs. Tango, you need to offer something in return. The main incentive is the ability to upgrade, but that only works as long as FFers have sufficient upgrade instruments to upgrade. Personally, while I can see the reason behind previous years' devaluations (as much as I hated them as a customer), I have a hard time seeing how this year's devaluation of e-upgrades had a positive impact on AC's bottom line.

m.y

I was more thinking devaluations like decreased earning rate, increased redemption requirements, fuel surcharge, eupgrade add-ons, elimination of 35K from Gold...

I would imagine most people who buy Flex fares are those traveling on company's dime dictated by travel policy. E-upgrade is just a nice side benefit that has no influence on their travel decision.

Diabeetus

Have any of the 777's started retrofits yet?

The Lev

Jasper2009 you are correct - the 787 was originally designed as a "comfortable" 8-abreast in Y, then oil went over $100 a barrel and someone got the bright idea that 9-across would still fit and voila comfort goes out the window.

The A350 started life as 8-abreast (same tube as A330) and was roundly discounted by the airline industry, so Airbus went back to the drawing board and came back with a clean-sheet design for 9-abreast. Fortunately for travelers, the A350 design isn't quite wide enough to go 10-abreast, so people will find the Y experience on the 350 superior to the 787.

lcohen999

I hope you are right and a re-think is in order.



I have flown 5 times across the pacific this year. For the first time since I have started heavy flying, I have taken different routes to get there, less AC metal and separate tickets too, less AC money.

I would be very happy to go back to my old patterns if they can find a better happy medium than the 2015 program

24left

Who thought this image/chart was a good idea for anyone looking to understand the different configs available?

Do not provide a snark reply. I actually had someone ask me the question and this person does understand the difference between aircraft cabin layouts as shown on the AC fleet pages versus the seat maps shown when looking to book a ticket.

bocastephen

I would guess the E-190 specific routes like YYZ/SEA (and I think YYZ/PDX) would be gone or reduced to one daily A319R flight.