Originally Posted by
ridefar
At issue is whether the level of social distancing that AC is providing is adequate. It didn't meet the minimum with seat blocking, and certainly doesn't now. So is AC living up to the same level of social responsibility, and whatever legal responsibility they may have, with the new policy? And if the perception is that they are not, then this will backfire because you are right, the vast majority of flying is probably voluntary, and people will not voluntarily take the (perceived) risk.
There is another alternative: charge 50% more for each seat. And further, the fact that it isn't a regulation is no great surprise given the current minister's desire to serve only one constituent: AC. Not the public.
I think that if the choice came down to enhanced social distancing on airplanes, with a 50% reduction in capacity correlating to a 50% increase in the cost of seats versus the model that AC is pursuing, the flying public would overwhelming vote for the current model, with the resultant cheaper airfares. I think the problem is that some people want AC to be held to the 50% capacity (which is provincially regulated through the health system, hence why AC is exempt) but at the same time are totally unwilling to pay for that massive cut in capacity. The $250 Standard fare from YYZ-YVR is far more important to the vast majority of travellers.