Originally Posted by
martyYOW
or even Porter (which to be honest may be the biggest beneficiary of Rouge if this happens).
What could possibly lead you to this assumption??
Originally Posted by
martyYOW
There are good examples of this already - Porter, JetBlue, Virgin Amercia. These carriers all have the potential to pick up passengers who don't want to be crammed into a 29" seat pitch.
Again, What odd airlines to pick. A tiny regional airline and 2 airlines that don't even serve Canada. Strange
Originally Posted by
N830MH
Right! Give it chance.
Did they tried PHX-YUL?
Funny you meniton YULPHX. AC tried the route w/ mainline A319. It failed. As in they cancelled it. Like they cancelled the 2nd daily YYZPHX. Announcement today says Rouge YYZPHX will be up to 4*daily. Gives a clear indication of the seat mile cost chasm between mainline A319/20 and Rouge A319
Originally Posted by
Tractor Boy
The initial claim that Rogue was only for leisure routes has been proven by these West coast announcements to be disingenuous (anyone surprised?).
Can you provide the passenger breakdown for Vancouver-California? Just because we're surprised, doesn't mean we know the real market.
ps - The word "leisure" is misleading. If you fly lowest economy fare on "business", it's no different to AC from the retired couple beside you flying to a N Californian wine tour.
If you think a lot of LAT and Z/J fares were filling AC's seats in a market that's been Rouged, ask yourself, Why would AC risk losing that high yielding passenger?
Further, If you think a high yielding passenger ex SFO/LAX has the time/inclination to fly to Asia/Australia thru YVR and AC is going to "lose all that lucrative business too", You're nuts