ALW

I think it would depend entirely on the route and the current situation (I know that's a non-answer). I mean, AC and UA both fly LAX-YVR, they're not really in competition with each other so much as sharing the route. Presumably they might come to terms, perhaps AC would add one JFK-LAX while UA dropped one, for whatever reason.

andrew

FlyerAl

Not much, really. After pulling out of YHM and YXU, they currently fly the following routes:

YYZ-PIT
YYZ-PHL
YYZ-CLT
YYZ-BWI
YYZ-IND

YOW-PIT
YOW-PHL

YUL-PIT
YUL-PHL

I guess one could do YYZ-PIT-YOW, YYZ-PIT-YUL, YYZ-PIT-YUL, etc. (I would probably do it so I could take advantage of my upgrade privileges )

But rumour has it (well, this was a pre 9/11 rumour) that US might be expanding to YVR late next year.

Shareholder

Latest rumour out of Collenette's office, according to the NATIONAL POSTm is that
AC should be limited to flying from/to one city in each province! Well, let's see: there goes Victoria, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Ottawa, Quebec City, Fredericton... Are they using the minister's staff to test Health Canada's new marijuana crop?

Interesting chart attached to the article, in which Collenette also dumps on the Milton proposal. The chart shows the number of passengers travelling on AC between the top 20 city pairs in Canada. Shows how small the numbers really are.

YYZ-YUL 1,290,000 passengers
YVR-YYZ 946,000
YOW-YYZ 731,000
YVR-YYC 590,000
YYC-YYZ 572,000
YWG-YYZ 382,000
YHZ-YYZ 341,000
YEG-YVR 332,000
YEG-YYZ 312,000
YEG-YYC 311,000
YUL-YVR 236,000
YWG-YYC 194,000
YVR-YWG 193,000
YOW-YVR 177,000
YTB-YYZ 174,000 [YTB=ThunderBay]
YYT-YYZ 139,000
YOW-YYC 132,000

airbus320

The minister has nixed this proposal too fast. Poor Milton has such poor credibility these days that any idea forwarded is shot down. His idea has as much merit as the make-it-up-as-you-go policy of the present minister. I say explore the idea; see if US carriers are interested. See if the US govt is receptive to talk.

MoreMiles

I agree... among all US carriers, they have the most interest in Canadian market.

You are missing a few small cities that they serve as well... such as YXU (London Ontario). In fact, they serve more Canadian cities than Canada3000 (before bankruptcy) or WestJet. Look at their route map:

http://www.nwa.com/travel/images/us.jpg

With Alaska Mileage Plan, you can collect, earn status and redeem NW, CO, and AA flights... Hmm, the market will definitely be different.

airbus320

Add YWG-MSP to that NW list.

megamiles

w.r.t YEGGuy's post, AC already does market third country flights - i.e. LGA-YYZ-LHR and vice-versa. Also stuff like NYC-YVR-NRT. That is unaffected by this proposal. I've taken LHR-YYZ-LGA 3 times this year, and it's cheaper than LHR-YYZ (half-price Y2 fare offered on the LHR-NYC flight, but not offered on LHR-YYZ)

duxfan

CO flights credited to AS mileage plan do not count towards status, but AS flights credited to CO onepass do count towards status. NW flights count, but at a different level from AS flights. You need only 15,000 miles to make MVP status if all the flying is on AS, but 25000 if combined with other carriers.

I dropped Mileage Plan for OnePass when AS became a partner. Unless your flying is primarily in the northwest, you'd be better off as a OnePass or WorldPerks member...

StuMcIlwain

Oh, I can just see it now: flying YOW-YEG in three legs (YOW-YYZ and YYC-YEG on some regional carrier, and YYZ-YYC on AC). That idea is too stupid to have come even from the minister's office. It must be a National Post idea.

This whole idea of breaking up AC's routes is ridiculous. I keep hearing Collenette saying that the public wants this to reduce AC's marketshare. Well, I am a member of the public and I want to fly the on the same airline from the start of my journey to the end, regardless of where I am going. Despite what airlines claim, connecting between carriers is never seemless and will be the first place problems arise during irregular operations.

chezmoiYTO

The last thing this country needs is another foreign (particularly American) company in any industry. What we need is a way to make more compition for all, not just by chopping AC. Another idea would be to force Aeroplan to partner with more FF programmes. AC would not have to code-share, but if Aeroplan were parters with say BA, KL, DL, CX... there would be more incentive for Canadians to travel other carriers and foriegners to travel AC. The other Star members of course would hate this, but if imposed by the Fed.Gov., AC's hands would be tide and Star could not block it.

MoreMiles

What's the point... they will give non-Q miles like they did for CanJet. People will not any status benefit and will never get through phone line to book rewards.

By the way, the plan annouced by Advantex few days ago to expand its program is really skeptical. You get 1 mile for $5 at futureshop... what do you other stores will offer? Of course the same mileage level...

1 mile= 2 cents. 2 cents for $5 spent is a 0.4% back! Now with that level of reward, you need to spend $125,000 (enough to buy a house) to get a domestic reward.

Aeroplan is getting less attractive by the day.

duxfan

Hey, I'll keep your comment in mind next time I'm drinking Labatt Blue, while investing online at TD Waterhouse, using Corel software, wearing a Roots sweatshirt, and listening to BareNaked Ladies.

The sooner we all realize that the North American market will embrace a quality product, regardless of the country of origin, the stronger we'll all be. Protectionist policies promoted by Ottawa have not prevented stronger competitors from entering the Canadian market. It only made it more expensive for Canadian consumers.

AC*SE

Um, you'd better have a Molson. Labatt is owned by Interbrew.

airbus320

Milton's proposal for open skies is evoking some response.
Here is the editorial from today's Winnipeg Free Press

Prime Minister Jean Chrtien should eagerly welcome Air Canada's request to turn the United States and Canada into a single, competitive air transport market. He should sideline Transport Minister David Collenette, who is obstructing opening of the skies, and give the file to a minister who might press it forward, to the benefit of Canadian travellers and shippers.

Air Canada president and chief executive officer Robert Milton outlined his proposal in a letter to Mr. Collenette and U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. He asked the two governments to remove restrictions written into the 1995 open-skies treaty so as to allow Air Canada to carry passengers between U.S. destinations and allow U.S. carriers to do the same in Canada. Mr. Milton urged Mr. Collenette not to impose new regulatory curbs on Air Canada but rely on competitive pressure to ensure efficient air service for Canadians.

Mr. Collenette's duties predispose him to keep the Canadian travel market as distinct as possible from that of the United States. Mr. Milton's larger view sees how Canadian travellers might benefit from more airlines and Air Canada might benefit from serving more travellers.

A traveller from Winnipeg heading for Halifax must change planes somewhere, but whether the change is done in Toronto, Chicago, Minneapolis, Detroit, Boston or Atlanta makes little difference to the traveller. An airline with a hub in Boston might be able to offer better service to Atlantic Canada than is now provided by Air Canada. If Air Canada could at the same time win even a tiny corner of the U.S. domestic market that can be served through a Toronto hub or a Calgary hub, then the company could gain by the exchange at the same time as Canadian travellers gain.
Mr. Collenette immediately dismissed Mr. Milton's idea on the grounds that the U.S. administration is not interested. Besides, he said, the giant U.S. carriers will not provide service in Moose Jaw, Chicoutimi or Prince George but only in major markets such as Toronto. The U.S. industry will certainly not be interested in the Canadian market if Mr. Collenette starts by telling them they have to provide service in Moose Jaw, but if a Canadian minister invites them to provide service wherever they see a way to make a profit, the proposition will be more appealing and the results could be startlingly good for Canadian air service.

Mr. Milton's idea would need a lot of thought and a long negotiation and should probably be carried out in stages, as he proposes, to allow carriers to adjust to the evolving rules. It offers a path toward more competition and better service at the best possible price. Mr. Collenette's policy offers more regulation and increasingly inefficient service dictated by political lobbying and not by supply and demand. Mr. Chrtien should recognize the merit of Mr. Milton's idea and invite the Bush administration to join in carrying it out.

CPYVR

Perhaps there is some interest in the US to this proposal.

Here's the Globe story.

Eric Reguly has his say too.
AirCollenette

[This message has been edited by CPYVR (edited 12-08-2001).]