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
Jan 4, 2015, 10:50 pm
#4336
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The World
Programs: WS Platinum, Marriott Titanium, DL Gold, UA Silver
Posts: 1,478
AC sure seems to be alienating a lot of those 4,000 with Rouge, and a lot are voting with their wallet. But, yes, the infrequent travelers and one-vacation-per-year fliers probably won't walk away from AC because of nasty seat pitches -- and increased capacities resulting from Rouge are still being filled up with those folks. Tickets are being purchased, but many frequent and business customers are walking away.
So, in the long term, will that make Rouge a success?
Or will alienating a good number of previously loyal, bread-and-butter frequent/business customers end up hurting mainline AC (i.e. not just Rouge). I have my opinion, you have yours.
Jan 4, 2015, 11:49 pm
#4337
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: WS Nothing, AC Something, AS Gold. Too big for 737Max washrooms
Posts: 893
I agree with yyckerr. I’m of the opinion that Rouge is here to stay and will even expand operations but without the people who are complaining about it here on FT. The people who spend enough time on planes to spend the additional time on FT know that it doesn’t have to be this way and also know that there are options.
The once a year vacation flyer typically sees Rouge as the new normal and is more focused on a low ticket price and the vacation than how things might otherwise be. After the furor over people being rouged, AC have won the PR war with those crazy hats and IMHO a less than completely honest ad campaign
I’ve decided Rouge is not for me so I’ll not be flying them again. I’ve also decided there are better ways to spent travel dollars than AC mainline. Other people are going to fly Rouge, complain its "a bit of a squeeze" then forget about it and fly them again the next year if the ticket is the cheapest.
It’s how Chrysler sell cars and McDonalds sell whatever it is they sell.
The once a year vacation flyer typically sees Rouge as the new normal and is more focused on a low ticket price and the vacation than how things might otherwise be. After the furor over people being rouged, AC have won the PR war with those crazy hats and IMHO a less than completely honest ad campaign
I’ve decided Rouge is not for me so I’ll not be flying them again. I’ve also decided there are better ways to spent travel dollars than AC mainline. Other people are going to fly Rouge, complain its "a bit of a squeeze" then forget about it and fly them again the next year if the ticket is the cheapest.
It’s how Chrysler sell cars and McDonalds sell whatever it is they sell.
Last edited by Frequentlander; Jan 4, 2015 at 11:53 pm Reason: syntax
Jan 5, 2015, 3:38 am
#4338
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 394
I agree -- in fact, if it WERE price, it wouldn't tick me off so much. Tell people it's a budget airline and offer it at a budget price, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. (i.e. don't sell me the product at the same price and try to tell me it's an equivalent product and I should be thrilled to partake of that inferior product for that price.)
Jan 5, 2015, 3:47 am
#4339
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: YVR/HKG/SIN
Programs: ACSE*2MM,CX Diamond, BA Gold, OW Emerald,Fairmont Platinum, SPG Platnium Lifetime,
Posts: 208
I flew Rouge once from CUN and NEVER again!...unless there is no other way to get there....even then I would reconsider.
Jan 5, 2015, 10:21 am
#4340
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 5,813
Perhaps true. Like SuperAngryPenguin said, time will tell if Rouge - in its current form - is truly a success for Air Canada. The short term results sometimes brought up here are nothing more than, well, short term results.
So, in the long term, will that make Rouge a success?
So, in the long term, will that make Rouge a success?
Can any of the prognosticators share what Rouge's goals were? That will surely help us understand the reasoning behind the time frames, the predictions, and the confidence assuring the rest of us Rouge cannot possibly be labelled a success at this point.
No way, too soon.
TS sure would label Rouge a success. WS would likely label Rouge a success. The people employed by Rouge would label it a success. The passengers flying to destinations long not served by AC might label it a success. Alaskan airlines might label Rouge a success. The ULCC struggling to get traction/financing in this market might label Rouge a success. AC's shareholders would definitely label it a success
But not here. Come back in 2020 to get the final FT verdict ( Jan 5, 2020 verdict is subject to further delays, of course)
Jan 5, 2015, 11:18 am
#4341
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 187
Chiropractors across the country are calling it a success.
Jan 5, 2015, 2:46 pm
#4343
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: YLW
Programs: AC- SE100 1MM, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum, National Executive, Nexus/GE
Posts: 4,319
Almost 300 pages of debates about Rouge's success and projected ETA of its doom. I see we're now up to 5 years out before the clouds will part and a decision will come down from above whether Rouge can finally be labelled a "success".
Can any of the prognosticators share what Rouge's goals were? That will surely help us understand the reasoning behind the time frames, the predictions, and the confidence assuring the rest of us Rouge cannot possibly be labelled a success at this point.
No way, too soon.
TS sure would label Rouge a success. WS would likely label Rouge a success. The people employed by Rouge would label it a success. The passengers flying to destinations long not served by AC might label it a success. Alaskan airlines might label Rouge a success. The ULCC struggling to get traction/financing in this market might label Rouge a success. AC's shareholders would definitely label it a success
But not here. Come back in 2020 to get the final FT verdict ( Jan 5, 2020 verdict is subject to further delays, of course)
Can any of the prognosticators share what Rouge's goals were? That will surely help us understand the reasoning behind the time frames, the predictions, and the confidence assuring the rest of us Rouge cannot possibly be labelled a success at this point.
No way, too soon.
TS sure would label Rouge a success. WS would likely label Rouge a success. The people employed by Rouge would label it a success. The passengers flying to destinations long not served by AC might label it a success. Alaskan airlines might label Rouge a success. The ULCC struggling to get traction/financing in this market might label Rouge a success. AC's shareholders would definitely label it a success
But not here. Come back in 2020 to get the final FT verdict ( Jan 5, 2020 verdict is subject to further delays, of course)
...just for the record, I am not a fan as I hate it when companies play these smoke & mirror games
Success can be measured and celebrated in so many ways and it can of course be customized for almost any situation with the right witchery! I think IMHO we saw as F/F the failures of ZIP and Tango and see the many similarities except for the branding and look which is better with Rouge, and they did spend some money on the product.
Time will tell of course, as already stated is there enough annual and seldom travelers to fill the seats, if so it will survive and be a success. If more and more people walk away and the planes fly empty, is it because of the lack of demand for the product or the lack of demand for the route. AGAIN will the route or the brand be the problem?
We will see as time moves on
Last edited by HerpaYvr; Jan 5, 2015 at 11:49 pm
Jan 5, 2015, 11:02 pm
#4344
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 291
In my circle of infrequent traveller friends rouge is well known to be something to avoid. It's what Air Trashcan used to be. Everyone used to talk about how bad Air Trashcan was but they've improved and now rouge is the new trashcan. It's the never fly or only once kind of an airline. So yeah I'm sure that will work out well.
Jan 6, 2015, 5:44 am
#4345
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: YVR
Programs: AC*SE MM, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 4,604
In my circle of infrequent traveller friends rouge is well known to be something to avoid. It's what Air Trashcan used to be. Everyone used to talk about how bad Air Trashcan was but they've improved and now rouge is the new trashcan. It's the never fly or only once kind of an airline. So yeah I'm sure that will work out well.
Jan 6, 2015, 6:43 am
#4346
Join Date: May 2014
Programs: AC Elite 50K
Posts: 367
In my circle of infrequent traveller friends rouge is well known to be something to avoid. It's what Air Trashcan used to be. Everyone used to talk about how bad Air Trashcan was but they've improved and now rouge is the new trashcan. It's the never fly or only once kind of an airline. So yeah I'm sure that will work out well.
Jan 6, 2015, 8:32 am
#4347
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 277
I flew Rouge twice in J (the new "Y"), but would not even consider flying in Y. And yes, I would pay more to fly another airline with reasonable seat pitch. I went to Europe a year ago and checked cheap flights on Finnair and found the seat pitch was 28"!!! This, on a 5 hour flight is torture. Instead, flew Iceland Air and had a wonderful flight (albeit with the big boss in y).
The moral of the story, is that MANY people will do similar rather than fly Rouge. So much for the new business model.
The moral of the story, is that MANY people will do similar rather than fly Rouge. So much for the new business model.
Jan 6, 2015, 9:16 am
#4348
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The World
Programs: WS Platinum, Marriott Titanium, DL Gold, UA Silver
Posts: 1,478
It's low-end discount carrier comfort, but at real airline prices.
On cross-border routes, in my experience, Rouge typically prices out the same as or higher than WS, DL, AS and even UA.
If someone is choosing Rouge based on lowest price . . . they must be doing something very, very wrong.
Jan 6, 2015, 10:48 am
#4349
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: sqrt(-united states of apologist)
Programs: *$ Green
Posts: 5,403
But again, Rouge is not cheap.
It's low-end discount carrier comfort, but at real airline prices.
On cross-border routes, in my experience, Rouge typically prices out the same as or higher than WS, DL, AS and even UA.
If someone is choosing Rouge based on lowest price . . . they must be doing something very, very wrong.
It's low-end discount carrier comfort, but at real airline prices.
On cross-border routes, in my experience, Rouge typically prices out the same as or higher than WS, DL, AS and even UA.
If someone is choosing Rouge based on lowest price . . . they must be doing something very, very wrong.
I have friends that would not even take a $200 rebate to route YUL-JFK-CDG instead of YUL-CDG. Now, I know I would not take that routing either, but coming from people nickle and diming air travel, it's pretty telling what the value of direct flights can have.
So I think the value maximizing equation is a lot more complex than just price, but there must be a sweet spot where direct trumps cost savings for the average consumer.
So, if (again, just for example) YUL-CDG direct on rouge is $100 more expensive, people will still buy it instead of routing through an airport even if it is very close, and because of that, rouge becomes the cheapest most "valuable" alternative.
I recently found a routing for a friend, for the same price as her direct routing, but going through YYZ (from YUL), and getting PY instead of Y, and they refused because "wtv, it's not direct on the days I prefer".
The normal consumer and the FF consumer operate on such different standards that unless FTers put themselves in the mind of normal "uninformed" plebs, they will never understand why rouge is here, nor why it is successful.
Jan 6, 2015, 11:12 am
#4350
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The World
Programs: WS Platinum, Marriott Titanium, DL Gold, UA Silver
Posts: 1,478
Totally agree!
I'm happy connecting -- "direct" doesn't always mean best flight option for me, particularly if it involves a choice of Rouge vs legroom.
But I'm surprised at how many people I've talked with - mostly infrequent travellers - who'd never even consider doing it. They'd only consider non-stops as 'valid' options.
Even so, I've found that Rouge never beats WS on price on their three non-stop routes ex YYC: LAX, PHX and LAS. Prices are often identical, and - if there's s difference - WS will be slightly cheaper. (And they have more legroom.)
I'm happy connecting -- "direct" doesn't always mean best flight option for me, particularly if it involves a choice of Rouge vs legroom.
But I'm surprised at how many people I've talked with - mostly infrequent travellers - who'd never even consider doing it. They'd only consider non-stops as 'valid' options.
Even so, I've found that Rouge never beats WS on price on their three non-stop routes ex YYC: LAX, PHX and LAS. Prices are often identical, and - if there's s difference - WS will be slightly cheaper. (And they have more legroom.)