[QUOTE=aerobod;35750662]The A220 can’t operate out of YTZ without a 400m runway extension, it is not just a refusal to allow jet operations, so no suitable secondary Toronto airport is viable for jet operations, other than YYZ.

The only major changes for WS YYZ operations in comparing pre and post COVID operations is the removal of all the high-frequency triangle and LGA flights (16 LGA slots are still owned by WS but operated as a codeshare by Endeavor/Delta) which accounted for about 20 departures a day, European flights and the Q400 feeder routes that had low load factors. Most of the other destinations stay the same. Once WG is fully integrated next year, expect YYZ departures on WS metal to increase quite a bit as the WG fleet is absorbed.

Basically WS has cut the loss making eastern routes which were too business traveller focused and is bringing back in more leisure orientated routes that are profitable. They don’t have to go head-to-head with AC on YYZ to close-in Europe destinations such as EDI and DUB, as AC is making money on widebody operations due to business travellers, but WS can operate the same routes with a 737-8 that isn’t business traveller focused and burn $50 less fuel per seat per direction than with a 787-9, so they don’t need to undercut on price, just match AC at a leisure traveller ticket price and make profit on lower operating costs than needing higher business traveller revenue.

In terms of focusing on profitability of routes out of YYZ as opposed to matching business traveller friendly frequency and product, WS is taking a leaf out of the Ryanair playbook. Business travellers on Ryanair account for about 20% of pax, but they offer nothing other than the ability to book a specific economy class seat on a 189 (soon to be 199) seat 737-8. They just carry business travellers because the price, time and destination match to that of the other passengers that they carry to ensure a profitable route. Ryanair are also the masters of entering and leaving markets quickly and repeatedly, if the route isn’t working at any point in time, drop it. They are also the most profitable and largest European airline now. WS is returning to this route profitability approach, which is still embedded in it’s DNA from founding in 1996.[
/QUOTE]

Sure, WS may have an lower cost per seat mile through its choice of aircraft, but then you turn around and say that WS doesn't have to undercut AC on price. So then why is anyone flying WS on routes where AC is an option? WestJet's FFP is useless, AC's is the top FFP in Canada with plenty of earn and burn options across the globe. So if WS isn't undercutting AC massively on price--and you're claiming they shouldn't have to--then if all else is equal, AC is by far the smarter choice for a traveler on the same or similar routings.

Your point about Ryanair is a valid one--except that Ryanair has never attempted to go against British Airways at Heathrow. WS has attempted to go up against AC at the latter's most important hub. Ryanair has never been interested in LHR because of the higher costs, congestion, delays and longer turnaround times--the exact issues that incessantly plague Pearson. So if Ryanair is the model, what's WestJet not understanding/comprehending? I'm reminded of Lee Iacocca's jibe at one of his competitors: "Even when we showed them how, they didn't get the message." Your observation abour FR actually makes the point I'm been driving at for awhile now--WS should be at YHM, not Pearson.