Originally Posted by
CloudsBelow
Edmontonians can bullsh!t their friends and I'll bullsh!t mine, but let's not bullsh!t each other. AC does not cut profitable flying (or forecasted profitable flying), so let's park that nonsense.
Well, if you think about it, AC reducing service on this route might actually be a good thing. Its abrupt departure paved the way both for KL's entry and FI's expansion. More service is a good thing, no matter which way you look at it - and there has been an expansion in international flights.
FWIW, AC may not cut profitable flying, but its threshold for what constitutes profitable flying is, by the looks of it, a lot higher than it is for other carriers. Its never been a particularly well-run company (Carriers all around the world would give an arm and a leg for the kind of protection and government guarantees AC receives).
The cost cutting exercise has is primarily focused on degrading the product, primarily in Y. That makes it an easy target for carriers like KL and FI, which, judging by their respective J products, aren't as dependent on high yield premium traffic as AC is. AC's J product may be far superior to those carriers (albeit not superior enough to earn the premium AC wants to charge for it), but its Y product, on a value for money basis ...probably not.