yulred

There's your answer. Airline operating costs in Canada are so high that some (and I should stress, some) airlines are wary of entering. That's normal, is it not?

Granted, their are airlines with lower cost bases that do want to enter, and I think its a terrible idea to stop them from doing so.

On a separate note, JFK is a premium heavy airport. Its bound to be more attractive than Canada. Everyone I know who's earning more than $200,000 has long left the country. And to be fair, if they can afford to live in the likes of London or LA or NYC or HKG or SIN, why shouldn't they?

They should. But if the benefits of the high airfares are eaten up with unnecessary costs, why bother? I don't know anything about the Brazil-Canada pax market, though I do understand it is freight heavy (and profitable in this regards), in which case NYC stopover might just make sense.

What I find particularly amazing about Rouge is that in this day and age, we can see such a severe regression in quality, despite a capacity increase and no sign yet of an impact on the price. I always thought the situation was odd. Now it just seems dire (the value-for-money aspect, anyway). I rarely get to book tickets more than 2-3 weeks out - the vagaries of being employed. If we are to believe some of the claims being made in this thread, I would be SOL if I try to book a Rouge route 2-3 weeks out, simply because everyone else will be sold out. The thought of paying $500 for a 3-4 hour jaunt on that ... wow.

AA_EXP09

Also, more Brazilians want to visit the USA than Canada due to the longer validity of the visa, and, to quote the Mexican ambassador to Canada, 'the Canadians require 10x more information than the Americans'.
(changing this for both nations would be helpful-please delete this part if necessary.)

sp4294

^ Well written, but I sure hope that wasn't on company time!
That's more work than anyone should ever need to do on this subject.
Common sense.

Mauricio23

Hear, hear! I suspect that the vast majority of the negativity that Ben & Ben have faced would fade away if Air Canada stopped insulting the intelligence of its customers. I understand that they cannot acknowledge the issue in the precise way I am presenting it here; however, I trust that they have heard it loud and clear, and I look forward to a different tone in both marketing and communication with frequent flyers going forward. In the meantime, both have my sincere appreciation for their stepping onto the line of fire and genuinely engaging with us.

bingocallerb22

Be careful, going back to lurking sure sounds like a threat that you are taking your ball and going home. Surely when you changed policy to being an active presence you realized there is a free for all here - indeed you stated you saw the negativity was already manifested and you had already recoiled from it.

Add me to the list of folks who appreciate you new engagement – well done! To hear answers is great. I read your answer and think, ''boy, that makes sense”. Then I read the rebuttal and say “boy, that makes sense”. I don't call it negativity. So refreshing to be able to assess both sides of a debate. I feel fairly confident I can assess who has the most valid argument, if well made.

Also, another point. Seems there is some criticism of non (no longer) AC flyers posting. This is FT, all who wish can comment. Indeed, nice to hear from people with other airline experiences for comparison or even to hear what people who have sworn off AC have to say.

Third point related to the above. I think it is pretty obvious that a p#ssed off client is more vocal than a happy one – and some can hold a grudge and exhibit their annoyance over and over again. More annoyed clients = more negative posts. Hence the AC forum has shifted to more negativity. That is why many successful companies try to keep unhappy clients calmed. I suggest your engagement here may well be calming some of your unhappy clients.

Ben Lipsey

I apologise if that sounded like a threat, that was not my intention. I simply meant that I am here to contribute and not merely lurk, but resent the suggestion that by engaging in discussions on here means I'm not listening. Of course I am, and of course I encourage varied and intellectual discourse by those who wish to contribute. What gets me is when people start flinging mud at everything an AC rep says, because I don't see how that contributes to a fruitful discussion - such as that we are purposely lying to or 'hoodwinking' our customers (note: no we're not) - sounds just a tad hyperbolic, no? As you say, it's always helpful for the community to see both sides - and I won't lie, yulred does raise some good points (I don't necessarily agree with them but I can understand why he/she is saying them and I respect his/her opinion).

Someone said recently (forgive me, I don't remember if it was on here or not) that the relationship an airline has with its clientele is unlike that of most other companies; it is not often a person spends the amount of money or time on one product or service as he or she does on an airplane, so the relationship is far more emotional than transactional. I think this shines through on here, and I can completely and totally understand and respect that. It's why some feel the airline is 'out to get them,' for example, when we are forced to reduce some benefits, as opposed to making a business decision.

I just want to reiterate that I very much appreciate the experience and opinions of everyone on here. You are our most engaged customers, and many of you are our most valuable flyers; indeed, you keep me and my colleagues employed. If I can help or clarify something, I am happy to, but it's not always easy for me to sit back and read insults being hurled at my company or colleagues. This is a new experience for me, so I'm sure in time I'll learn to ignore it!

sp4294

^ Wholeheartedly agree! Ben, I would also suggest that your engagement on the forum is invaluable and goes a long way to assuaging animosity.

^ again! It's all good fun (although some here seem to take things a little too seriously sometimes) and not generally life threatening I mean who wants to read nothing, but one viewpoint? Is that what FT is all about? Not IMO - although I suspect some people here feel better if they only hear an echo.

FT is comprised of a diverse group of FFers and all should be heard - especially those with a complaint. If we didn't find travel on AC generally worthwhile in most respects, we wouldn't be here (although lately, that decision has become more difficult to rationalize for some of us).

I would echo the sentiment to Ben to stay engaged - it's very worthwhile for all of us here.

tcook052

A gentle reminder that this thread isn't about the AC forum, it's about Air Canada rouge so let's please go back to focusing on that topic.

Thank you.

tcook052
Air Canada Forum Moderator

CloudsBelow

You have ZERO reason to apologize to anyone around here for anything.
We’ve listened to all these insightful posters blah, blah, blah from their 1998 business textbooks and Google searches dismissing the “AC Apologists” for 200 pages. 200 freaking pages of, You know, “ Rouge would never start” ...... "Rouge will never last” ... Rouge would never succeed ... Rouge is wrong for Canadian travellers ... Brand is everything and Rouge was going to contaminate the AC Brand .... NO business can succeed with a weak or mis-aligned Brand ..... Rouge is a PR nightmare ........ Rob Lowe made fun of Rouge hats ....... Jann Arden hammered Rouge ..... Baggage handlers throwing bags 30 feet .... Skytrax reviews will doom Rouge ... Transat was going to eat their lunch .....

They gave many business lectures along the way but don’t seem to be around so much when the Rouge+AC returns keep coming in showing the forum lectures and business advice they were quick to provide had all the value of a screen door in a submarine.

sp4294

Rouge certainly seems to be the best new airline product for AC, that no one here (debating it) is actually flying.

winnipegrev

LOL ^

It may be a smart financial move for AC overall but it'll have to be made pretty convenient for me to be convinced to board one of their A319s.

CloudsBelow

The debates have never been about the quality of Rouge offering vs Mainline AC. Much like we're not going to spend time debating whether winters are colder in Winnipeg or Windsor. It has always been about the business impacts of AC initiatives.
Let's not get into some revisionist history now ... Read the thread.
People have run their mouths for months (years) about Rouge and those who "knew better" have decided to run for the hills rather than man-up, stick around and admit they might not know as much about the business as they thought.

As a Canadian (and shareholder) I'm happy to see AC doing well and hope the front line staff are being rewarded accordingly as, no doubt, the Execs will be well compensated this year. ........ Sure some Union leaders are licking their lips counting down the days until contracts are open for negotiation again. But, let's enjoy this while it lasts

Neil791

So I've just returned home after experiencing Rouge for the first (and hopefully the last) time!!
Let me first say I did not have high expectations of what was to come before embarking on the first flight, and unfortunately there was absolutely nothing about either the outbound or inbound flights which changed my opinion/perception.

The infamous 29" pitch has been long discussed so I wont go into that other than to say anyone 6' and higher is going to suffer as I did with the only real hope being that you get an aisle seat so you can stretch a little during less busy periods in the aisle; and on the 319 you can raise the armrest for a little more wiggle room.

The crew on both flights seemed to more resemble the cast of 'Who's Line is it Anyway' than a professional in flight crew; goofy hats and cardigans not withstanding. On the outbound flight, the sole male FA thought it was a good idea to chew gum whilst on duty and making no effort to hide this. Follow this up with his response to the request made by my wife for some napkins when he returned, and he blatantly said he wasn't coming back....so where the hell was he going?!? Add the fact that the supposed bilingual crew could barely make the French announcements and it was really a comedy of errors all around!
On the return leg, the male FA seemed to think it was OK to have the top button of his shirt undone with an open collar and a sloppy necktie and cardigan in a shambles. I'm not the fashion police, but when I see someone who's meant to be responsible for the safety of the plane acting and presenting themselves like they just rolled out of bed and into their uniform it doesn't say much for professionalism!!

What makes me shake my head in disgust the most however is to see how AC is flogging these flights under the price point of the mainline carrier. The 'Premium Rouge' is really a joke and resembles nothing of any business class I've ever seen so how do they justify offering LMU for $400 each way from YYZ-LAS for a few inches of legroom and a blocked middle seat?!?

I've flown many LCC's in various parts of the world and the one thing they all have in common are typically, limited to no legroom, no IFE, no free checked bags, etc so if Rouge follows the same pattern why is it not being referred to and priced in accordance with what it truly is?!?

All I know for sure is i'd rather walk than fly on one of those sardine tins again and so long as AC continues to have their collective head up their backside I wont be padding their bottom line

rankourabu

a) Why do they need to justify this? If they find some sucker to pay $400 for this, good for AC. They are in the business of sucking the most money from the customer as possible, AC has been gouging customers for years, why should it change now? Good on them for being creative from a purely capitalistic point of view.

b) in the words of our own AC rep: "If fares are high it's because people are flying"

Until people stop flying rouge, why would they price it for the crap it is?

Neil791

from a purely capitalistic point of view, they're succeeding without challenge no doubt about it. that said, the 'pie in the sky' justification for why rates are high is like saying Rob Ford is only a part time crack head/alcoholic/general jackass! in other words, you can try to sell a load of BS to the blind, but it doesn't take much to see the truth!

I can say I will never fly rouge again which shouldn't be too difficult given my contributing to Rovinescu's pension has diminished significantly over the last few years and this pitiful excuse for a product goes a long way to justify avoiding the entire company!