May 5, 2014, 8:21 pm
Last edit by: Arcanum
Flights operated by Air Canada rouge
NOTE: Rouge Wifi information can be found here
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-c...l#post28448087
Dates in brackets indicate planned start of rouge service (either as a new route or replacing mainline service). ML placed before a date indicates the date that service is reverting to mainline.
All Airbus A319/A321 service is in the new Premium Rouge configuration with 2x2J seats. All other routes are Boeing 767-300ER aircraft in a 24J/258Y layout.
Airport codes in blue indicate that these routes are Boeing 767-300ER aircraft for all services.
Airport codes in red indicate that these routes are split between Boeing 767-300ER and Airbus services.
Airport codes in black indicate that these routes are Airbus aircraft for all services.
Routes are organized based on the established rouge bases of YYZ, YUL, YYC, and YVR
*Seasonal Summer Service
YYZ
Canada
YQT YQY YXX YLW YYG (02MAY-OCT) YDF YQB YQM (01MAY19) YFC (01JUL19)
USA
MCO TPA LAS FLL HNL SRQ RSW SAN PHX MIA PSP (14DEC16)
Mexico
CUN PVR SJD
Caribbean
KIN NAS LIR GND MBJ AZS CCC CUR HUX PUJ POP SKB SJO SXM LRM HOG SNU UVF VRA BGI (07JAN) POS (21DEC16)
Europe
ATH BCN EDI VCE MAN LIS PRG BUD GLA LGW
Central and South America
LIM BOG PTY
YUL
USA
LAS MCO FLL PBI TPA MIA
Mexico
CUN MEX PVR (18NOV16)
Caribbean
ZSA CCC HOG PUJ SNU PLS POP PAP NAS (17JAN) PTP
Europe
FCO ATH BCN NCE VCE
Central and South America
SJO (22DEC16)
Africa
CMN
YYC
Canada
YHZ* YHM (2016)
USA
LAS PHX (winter only - PHX AC Express in summer)
YVR
USA
LAS HNL OGG PHX PSP KOA SAN (02JUN)
Mexico
CUN PVR
Asia
KIX
Europe
DUB LGA KEF
What to Do If Your Flight Has Been Rouged According to the AC Rep "Air Canada Altitude": call AC Reservations, cancel and get a refund.
Air Canada rouge, a leisure airline
Jun 26, 2014, 11:36 am
#3136
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Posts: 4,035
Well that and the massive taxes (USA & Canada) and AIFs. The base fares are frequently reasonable, but $120+ of tax/fees, regardless of fare, to fly to the US is brutal.
Jun 26, 2014, 6:41 pm
#3137
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Jun 27, 2014, 3:51 pm
#3139
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Programs: United MileagePlus Silver, Nexus, Global Entry
Posts: 8,798
- Airport rent to the feds (passed on as landing fees to the carriers)
- Nav Canada fees
- Fuel Taxes
- Fare taxes
- Security Fees
As a passenger, all those costs are passed on to you, resulting in higher airfares.
Jun 27, 2014, 5:10 pm
#3140
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Closer to YTZ
Programs: Fairmont Platinum | AC Gate Lice Status | VIPorter
Posts: 2,554
Cause crammed in like Sardines?? 
Air Canada sets single-day record of 138,000 passengers
Mr. Klaus Goersch reports
AIR CANADA ACHIEVES SINGLE DAY RECORD FOR CUSTOMERS CARRIED
Air Canada has achieved a single-day record for passengers carried with nearly 138,000 customers boarding its aircraft around the world.
"The peak summer season is under way and heading into the Canada Day weekend we expect to carry nearly 138,000 customers today. To put this in context, it is equivalent to transporting, in a single day, the population of an entire mid-size Canadian city such as Abbotsford, B.C., St. Catharines, Ont., or Levis, Que. We are very pleased that customers continue to choose and trust Air Canada for their holiday travel, and our top priority is to transport everyone safely," said Klaus Goersch, executive vice-president and chief operating officer at Air Canada."
© 2014 Canjex Publishing Ltd.
Mr. Klaus Goersch reports
AIR CANADA ACHIEVES SINGLE DAY RECORD FOR CUSTOMERS CARRIED
Air Canada has achieved a single-day record for passengers carried with nearly 138,000 customers boarding its aircraft around the world.
"The peak summer season is under way and heading into the Canada Day weekend we expect to carry nearly 138,000 customers today. To put this in context, it is equivalent to transporting, in a single day, the population of an entire mid-size Canadian city such as Abbotsford, B.C., St. Catharines, Ont., or Levis, Que. We are very pleased that customers continue to choose and trust Air Canada for their holiday travel, and our top priority is to transport everyone safely," said Klaus Goersch, executive vice-president and chief operating officer at Air Canada."
© 2014 Canjex Publishing Ltd.
Jun 27, 2014, 7:04 pm
#3141
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
No, they are expensive due to the costs of operating an aircraft from A to B being much higher in Canada than elsewhere.
- Airport rent to the feds (passed on as landing fees to the carriers)
- Nav Canada fees
- Fuel Taxes
- Fare taxes
- Security Fees
As a passenger, all those costs are passed on to you, resulting in higher airfares.
- Airport rent to the feds (passed on as landing fees to the carriers)
- Nav Canada fees
- Fuel Taxes
- Fare taxes
- Security Fees
As a passenger, all those costs are passed on to you, resulting in higher airfares.
How do you solve that? Any solution would be too radical for risk averse bureaucrats. Either fling the market wide open and hope a surge in capacity - caused by lower operating cost (lower barrier to entry) will put downward pressure on prices and force airlines to pass some savings to taxpayers. Or nationalize the airline and reinvest taxes in it to the benefit of the flying public (is - better products than Rouge - imagine the outrage if AC was still govt owned and launched Rouge). The first one would require open skies (too uncanadian), the second would require a step back into the 60s (too archaic).
Any other solutions? I can't think of many.
Jun 27, 2014, 8:32 pm
#3142
Suspended
Join Date: May 2014
Programs: AC,BA,CA,SPG,ICHG, HERTZ
Posts: 196
Jun 28, 2014, 8:14 am
#3143
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Programs: United MileagePlus Silver, Nexus, Global Entry
Posts: 8,798
Maybe not in Edmonton, but here in Vancouver millions of dollars are left on the table by Vancouverites who avoid YVR and fly out of SEA or BLI instead.
The subsidies that the US Government gives to carriers flying out of those airports are passed on to the flying public in the form of lover ticket prices. I'm sure the Canadian carriers would love to get some of those millions back.
The subsidies that the US Government gives to carriers flying out of those airports are passed on to the flying public in the form of lover ticket prices. I'm sure the Canadian carriers would love to get some of those millions back.
Jun 28, 2014, 11:50 am
#3144
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,357
Maybe not in Edmonton, but here in Vancouver millions of dollars are left on the table by Vancouverites who avoid YVR and fly out of SEA or BLI instead.
The subsidies that the US Government gives to carriers flying out of those airports are passed on to the flying public in the form of lover ticket prices. I'm sure the Canadian carriers would love to get some of those millions back.
The subsidies that the US Government gives to carriers flying out of those airports are passed on to the flying public in the form of lover ticket prices. I'm sure the Canadian carriers would love to get some of those millions back.
Jun 28, 2014, 1:28 pm
#3145
formerly with Air Canada
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: YYZ YUL
Posts: 423
Bit of a catch 22 now. Airlines know what you are willing to pay. The government knows that the airline knows that. As we're seeing with Rouge, airlines have zero incentive to pass any type of saving to customers. The government has figured that out and is reluctant to turn cash currently earmarked for tax into airline profit with no real benefit to taxpayers and flying public. So they keep the tax - everyone except airlines stand to lose if they don't.
How do you solve that? Any solution would be too radical for risk averse bureaucrats. Either fling the market wide open and hope a surge in capacity - caused by lower operating cost (lower barrier to entry) will put downward pressure on prices and force airlines to pass some savings to taxpayers. Or nationalize the airline and reinvest taxes in it to the benefit of the flying public (is - better products than Rouge - imagine the outrage if AC was still govt owned and launched Rouge). The first one would require open skies (too uncanadian), the second would require a step back into the 60s (too archaic).
Any other solutions? I can't think of many.
How do you solve that? Any solution would be too radical for risk averse bureaucrats. Either fling the market wide open and hope a surge in capacity - caused by lower operating cost (lower barrier to entry) will put downward pressure on prices and force airlines to pass some savings to taxpayers. Or nationalize the airline and reinvest taxes in it to the benefit of the flying public (is - better products than Rouge - imagine the outrage if AC was still govt owned and launched Rouge). The first one would require open skies (too uncanadian), the second would require a step back into the 60s (too archaic).
Any other solutions? I can't think of many.
Jun 28, 2014, 1:37 pm
#3146
formerly with Air Canada
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: YYZ YUL
Posts: 423
Ask any independent aviation expert in the world. The Canadian market is fully competitive offers low barriers to entry with the exception of YTZ (unlike LHR LGA DCA NRT). The industry in Canada is taxed to the hilt with the majority of the money going to general revenues and not invested back in the industry. Our airports operate under a unique not-for profit model which doesn't produce the most efficient or cost competitive facilities. Which particular routes would you like to see additional competition? Other than offering expanding rights to a few 6th freedom carriers I don't see any barriers for any carrier to start any new service to/from or within Canada. What policy change are you suggesting. Can you suggest a model currently in place that Canada should adopt?
Jun 28, 2014, 1:41 pm
#3147
formerly with Air Canada
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: YYZ YUL
Posts: 423
Never said the Canadian Gvt is "subsidizing" Rouge.
Just suggested that Canadians might be better off if we nationalized Air Canada. Why? Simple:
1. Can you imagine the public reaction if a government-owned airline unleashed AC Rouge on the flying public? Far more likely to result in change than the current set up.
2. There are all types of direct and indirect taxes imposed on AC. Your CEO indicated its to the tune of $700-$800m in 2012; you or the other Ben suggested that its close to $1bn. Unfortunate, but right now that cost is being passed on to pax and the Gvt has no motivation to put that money back in the airline. That would probably change if AC moved back into Gvt hands.
3. Given the remarkable level of public antipathy between labor and AC management over the past 2-3 years, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that labor conditions under public service employment would be better.
4. A government owned entity would have to have its MRO done exclusively in Canada = more high-skilled jobs. They would probably keep the entity within the airline. The high cost of doing that could be covered by the high taxes imposed on AC.
And so on.
As you've probably discerned, I'm a free marketer through and through. So why would I advocate nationalization? Well, its because Canada isn't a free market; its a controlled market. One that favors suppliers so much that the Gvt now has to apply band aid solutions because of supplier misbehavior (no fee bank accounts, investigations into wireless roaming charges, fourth wireless carrier policy). IMHO, Rouge is very much an airline version of similar misbehavior.
These Gvt policies appear to be aimed at bringing the Canadian market, as a whole, in line with the rest of the world. When the Gvt sets about seeking no bank fees, it doesn't seem to be moved by the fact that all banks charge the same fees, or that there are niche companies that already charge no fees. Its the same with Telecoms - there may be niche carriers charging very low fees, but they aren't 'national' enough. However, at the end of the day, the Gvt has determined that most Canadians are not as well served as they should be, based in part, on what similar products go for in other parts of the world.
All of which is to say that the value-proposition relative to other actors in the Canadian market is irrelevant when you're considering the state of the Canadian market relative to other markets in the developed world. The status quo is not working for Canadian consumers/taxpayers; we're overpaying for terrible products, regardless of who the supplier is. The options are fairly obvious - even the Competition Bureau supports the unilateral granting of cabotage rights to foreign airlines regardless of reciprocity. That's obviously not going to sit well. The other option is nationalization. There might be more appetite for this. So why not? I would love to see the voting public's reaction to comments about needing 'education' on degraded products that are being advertised as comfortable.
Just suggested that Canadians might be better off if we nationalized Air Canada. Why? Simple:
1. Can you imagine the public reaction if a government-owned airline unleashed AC Rouge on the flying public? Far more likely to result in change than the current set up.
2. There are all types of direct and indirect taxes imposed on AC. Your CEO indicated its to the tune of $700-$800m in 2012; you or the other Ben suggested that its close to $1bn. Unfortunate, but right now that cost is being passed on to pax and the Gvt has no motivation to put that money back in the airline. That would probably change if AC moved back into Gvt hands.
3. Given the remarkable level of public antipathy between labor and AC management over the past 2-3 years, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that labor conditions under public service employment would be better.
4. A government owned entity would have to have its MRO done exclusively in Canada = more high-skilled jobs. They would probably keep the entity within the airline. The high cost of doing that could be covered by the high taxes imposed on AC.
And so on.
As you've probably discerned, I'm a free marketer through and through. So why would I advocate nationalization? Well, its because Canada isn't a free market; its a controlled market. One that favors suppliers so much that the Gvt now has to apply band aid solutions because of supplier misbehavior (no fee bank accounts, investigations into wireless roaming charges, fourth wireless carrier policy). IMHO, Rouge is very much an airline version of similar misbehavior.
These Gvt policies appear to be aimed at bringing the Canadian market, as a whole, in line with the rest of the world. When the Gvt sets about seeking no bank fees, it doesn't seem to be moved by the fact that all banks charge the same fees, or that there are niche companies that already charge no fees. Its the same with Telecoms - there may be niche carriers charging very low fees, but they aren't 'national' enough. However, at the end of the day, the Gvt has determined that most Canadians are not as well served as they should be, based in part, on what similar products go for in other parts of the world.
All of which is to say that the value-proposition relative to other actors in the Canadian market is irrelevant when you're considering the state of the Canadian market relative to other markets in the developed world. The status quo is not working for Canadian consumers/taxpayers; we're overpaying for terrible products, regardless of who the supplier is. The options are fairly obvious - even the Competition Bureau supports the unilateral granting of cabotage rights to foreign airlines regardless of reciprocity. That's obviously not going to sit well. The other option is nationalization. There might be more appetite for this. So why not? I would love to see the voting public's reaction to comments about needing 'education' on degraded products that are being advertised as comfortable.
Last edited by Ben Smith; Jun 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm
Jun 28, 2014, 1:48 pm
#3148
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Programs: AC*SE
Posts: 1,924
Ask any independent aviation expert in the world. The Canadian market is fully competitive offers low barriers to entry with the exception of YTZ (unlike LHR LGA DCA NRT). The industry in Canada is taxed to the hilt with the majority of the money going to general revenues and not invested back in the industry. Our airports operate under a unique not-for profit model which doesn't produce the most efficient or cost competitive facilities. Which particular routes would you like to see additional competition? Other than offering expanding rights to a few 6th freedom carriers I don't see any barriers for any carrier to start any new service to/from or within Canada. What policy change are you suggesting. Can you suggest a model currently in place that Canada should adopt?
From what I understand certain tendency for some Canadian airport authorities (i.e. YVR and YWG I believe) to get into lines of business outside their core purpose of 'running an airport', do you think the growth of the authorities has a positive/negative impact on airline/airport costs?
As much as they are quasi non-profit, they seem to grow in a rather unchecked manner.
Jun 28, 2014, 1:53 pm
#3149
formerly with Air Canada
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: YYZ YUL
Posts: 423
Ben,
From what I understand certain tendency for some Canadian airport authorities (i.e. YVR and YWG I believe) to get into lines of business outside their core purpose of 'running an airport', do you think the growth of the authorities has a positive/negative impact on airline/airport costs?
As much as they are quasi non-profit, they seem to grow in a rather unchecked manner.
From what I understand certain tendency for some Canadian airport authorities (i.e. YVR and YWG I believe) to get into lines of business outside their core purpose of 'running an airport', do you think the growth of the authorities has a positive/negative impact on airline/airport costs?
As much as they are quasi non-profit, they seem to grow in a rather unchecked manner.
Jun 28, 2014, 2:05 pm
#3150
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Programs: AC*SE
Posts: 1,924
I've worked with some government owned airports that are just itching to get turned into authorities (seemingly mostly so they can slap a terminal improvement fee or something similar on tickets) and I've always wondered if it is more/less efficient from the airlines point of view.
Anyway, on with the rage over tiny seats and funny hats.