Agreed 100% with the above. Intra-Europe bookings are still not allowed on the website which is royal P-I-A and the false availability issue is annoying to members as well as the call centre agents at AP. That has to be addressed asap.

The major AC issue for me right now is that I'm very concerned about the appearance of the aircraft of late. The Dash's are dirty and rundown, some of the E90 interiors are shabby and parts are actually missing in the washrooms, the 767s/330s/320s/319s all have non-functioning washrooms on a semi-regular basis as well as duct tape and masking tape holding things together in the cabin and the washrooms.

I know that flying safe is the key but with these aircraft staying in the fleets for years more, cabin maintenance needs to be addressed regularly.

Has anyone else noticed this of late?

T+ nearly doubled from a year ago and has been further enhanced with a doubling and tripling of change fees.

Tend to agree with zorn. Consistence is the key for busy people who plan their travel well ahead. I was flying with AC for almost 15 years, always been a big fan and supporter... until they started introducing changes without announcing or announcing on a short term when I couldn't adjust my travel plans to satisfy their changing requirements. Then I learned how little they cared about my inconvenience and dissatisfaction. This is what I'd call being inconsistent and what caused my loyalty to move away from AC. Hope they will improve in the future.

As a frequent flyer (not as frequent as many of you guys!) my personal perception of AC is that the consistency is degradation of FF benefits and a general disregard for FF as customers that one might assume are somewhat important to the company.

It's also hard to separate the perception of AC and the perception of AE. Though I intellectually understand they are legally separate entities, the reality is that much of my brand perception of one is greatly influenced by the other. It's really hard I think, to have a strong airline without also having a strong FF program.

As an actual airline though. objectively I'll have to say that AC is adequate. It gets me from A to B, mostly on time, mostly in airplanes that have a pleasing interior with decent creature comforts such as individual IFE and food that tastes OK. Compared to other airlines in North America and perhaps even some in Europe, AC can hold its own. Compared to Middle Eastern airlines auch as Qatar, Etihad etc and Asian airlines it's a different story. But it's also a different game in those geographies so I can overlook certain AC deficiencies.

For my brand perception of AC to increase, I would want to see a better, more caring attitude towards FF. Part of this is enabling front-line staff to use their own discretion in dealing with the one-off issues that come with frequent flying. I would also want to see a stabilization of benefits and get a sense that they won't be further enhanced. Thirdly I would like to see many Aeroplan issues fixed. For example, the $30 booking fee should go away particularly since so many routes can't be booked online. I would also like to see a stop to the scam charges, or at least an acknowledgement of what they truly are instead of the subterfuge that AC / AE actively engage in. This gets back to a more caring attitude towards FF and pax in general - not all of us are stupid.

So did latitude. When Z is now often cheaper than latitude. These are price changes, not changes in the fare structure.

My own opinion tends to reflect what others have said already, but, if I may be permitted to put it in my own words:

I have had relatively decent in-flight experiences with AC; acceptable to good in Y, good to excellent in J. Interactions with AC ground staff at the airport(even excepting the incident linked to in my signature) have been less satisfactory.

The three major problems as I see them:

1) Mis-alignment of incentives between the staff and management. We may make snide remarks about WJ, but the employees there seem to have a much clearer interest in the promoting the company and ensuring its fiscal health.

2) Mis-alignment of incentives between AC and AE. As the two companies are now legally separate, their interests are starting to diverge, to the detriment of the overall customer experience.

3) Uncertainty about market positioning. Who does AC see its peers as? The in-flight experience may be somewhat better than the US legacy carriers (although, IMO, not enough to justify the price premium and loyalty progam differences (Tango in particular)). It does not, however, compare to the Asian or Gulf carriers such as SQ, NH, OZ, EK, EY, etc. (even in Y), so its boasts about "Best International Airline in North America" ring a bit hollow to those of us who have flown these airlines.

As to how AC can improve: the old clich� "Under-promise and over-deliver" is probably a good place to start.

TB-ES

There will be considerable bias on this forum as it is predominantly those with top tier status. As much as there are (legitimate) complaints about AC, the customer experience for TT members is substantially better than that of the non-status PAX.

So it should, shouldn't it?

and fare equivalent to AC Z is frequently less expensive at other airlines than AC on the same route.

AC is insulting its passengers by setting fare at significantly higher than its competitors on the same route.

Discount business class: YYZ-HKG (All-in)
CX $6,300
UA $6,200
LX $6,200
TK $5,900
BR $4,000

AC? $7,150!

AC - give me a good reason why I should fly you?

Because it's nonstop? (OK, so perhaps so is CX? But they are the foreign guy. Won't get MM status on CX if you live in canada.)

Any 180 slanted sliding seats don't count as J for me. It eliminates BR unfortunately. But yea, the differences are insulting. If Ac had reasonable Z dates I wouldn't book T + most of the time.

I guess it's easy to obtain 15-20% off vouchers from AC so it makes the z fare a bit more close to the competition.

The new J seat on BR ex-YYZ is lie flat. Take a look at this presentation:

http://royallaurel.evaair.com/en/

http://www.evaair.com/html/b2c/engli...urel_Class.htm

It looks very nice but it will not be until middle of next year before it becomes full *A member for points accrual.

It requires connection at TPE but it's sterile airside, nothing like via the U.S.A. It also does not have daily flight at the moment.

AC's Executive First seat is nearly six years old and wear and tear are evident in my recent travels. There are better design now.

I personally don't care about AC MM.

I pay to fly in business class, not looking for upgrade on a Tango Plus ticket. When it's free, take whatever is provided and not be a "choosy beggar".

CX does not have free upgrade. That may be one of the reason why they are able to preserve the quality of that premium cabin.

While AC boasts itself as the best North American airlines by Skytrax, the same organization also rated CX as #4 best and TK #9 best in the world.

CX is voted the best transpacific airline and its $700 cheaper than the 3-star rated AC. How did AC justified the premium? CX is non-stop too. Additionally, CX will throw in a pair of HKG-PVG, or HKG-TPE, or HKG-PEK in business class for free when you book YYZ-HKG in business.

If the price is comparable, I'd gladly fly AC. The other airlines require an intermediary connection and are not as convenient, but this is reflected in the cheaper price ($1,200 cheaper on TK but gets full *A Status Miles and COS and $3,100 cheaper on BR but no daily flight and no *A Status Miles). Both AC and CX are direct non-stop service. One is rated better than the other. I find it difficult to justify the large premium (>10%) demanded by AC since I am not looking to play Aerolotto.

While I agree with TBES's insightful observations, I'd suggest a few different issues that are more marketing related.

The first big problem Air Canada has is the huge gulf between the expectations they have created and what they deliver. It's true that WestJet, for example, delivers far less than Air Canada. The difference is that WestJet never promised (or appeared to promise) anything more than they delivered. Air Canada on the other hand, through frequent flyer programs, partnerships, or even direct advertising often implies something more than they are prepared or able to deliver. If you look at all the complaints in this forum you'll see that most of them revolve around a customer feeling that they didn't get what they expected from the airline. And just saying "welll, if you read the fine print..." is not an acceptable response.

Secondly is Air Canada's attitude towards those who feel they have a complaint. They make it difficult to actually progress a complaint (for many years you could only send a complaint by postal mail or fax - not sure what the options are now), they are slow to respond, the response if and when it comes is often "it's not our fault" (with an implied "so piss off"), and if the finally do acknowledge their responsibility for a problem the response if often seen as an insult (i.e. 5% off the base fare (only) on your next ticket, Several years ago British Airways revealed that they had a staff of hundreds to deal with hundreds of thousands of complaints every year, and they saw every one of those complaints as an opportunity to improve their service. In response to the same query Air Canada's response was along the lines of "none of your damn business" -- though they did aggree to at least acknowledge receipt of complaints with 7 days.

Finally, that which zorn already noted briefly -- consistency. It's often been stated that Air Canada is consistently inconsistent. That's as true today as it ever was. Over my many years flying Air Canada the service ranged from satisfactory to very good, and occaisionally exceptional. They problem was/is that sometimes, infrequenly but still all too often, the service was stunningly bad. And that was as a Super Elite. (And my first Air Canada trip as a lowly Elite yesterday didn't inspire any confidence.) That inconsistency, in performance, in enforcement of rules and standard, and in response to problems also contribute to #1 above - the difference between expectations and reality.

Recently someone started a thread called something like "Great day on Air Canada" describing a day where they didn't encounter any serious problems, and the airline also did a small favour for them. But that's not a great day to me -- that's what everyday should be.

When a business doing what it is supposed to do is considered newsworthy, you know there must be problems.

Wow. Ok should have checked first. I have no issue transiting in TPE.