I admire the sentiment of the author in soliciting (free) (and) critical feedback on the Rouge product. In the suggested template of things to feed back on, the seat comfort is conspicuously absent! I assume this is as Rouge know the pitch and width in coach (in particular) is poor AND they're not going to do anything about it.
The reality (and hard dollar facts) are a mainline 767 seats and a rouge 767 are 24/187 = 211 vs 24/36/219 = 279 or 32% more seats on rouge, On a A319, 14/106 = 120 vs 12/8/116 = 136 or 13% more on rouge, and on a A321 14/169 = 183 vs 16/21/163 = 200 or 9% more on rouge. Neatly, only the 767 needs one more crew member and so the sums for AC clearly add up. Add the other ingredient of lower cabin crew costs (lower wages and T&Cs) AND then assuming the occupancy is as high as mainline AC then the company are real winners. I accept that this not a match for match comparison on the 767 where Premium Rouge seats are not pods.
I had to add I have never used rouge and actually steer clear. I have flown to europe twice hubbing via london that take a direct flight with Rouge - bloody minded, probably! Its also puzzling how a route from Vancouver (say to Dublin) is Rouge but is mainline from Toronto.
In terms of un-rouging, I think Bernuda was first where the governement objected to the service to Bermuda being downgraded. Dublin has gone back mainline (and put onto a A330) which I suspect is to match Aer Lingus.
I know from friends who work in AC that the company thrilled with Rouge - it's a shame the customers don't always see it the same way