exbayern

As was mine

yyznomad

wahwah... ok i lied.. i skimmed.. now i read it... touche

canopus27

Do we have any confirmation about this yet, or is your statement just based on a pessimistic sense of gloom based on recent AC behavior?

(Don't get me wrong, I have the same pessimistic prediction about it ... just wondering if there's any chance at all that I'm wrong, or if the bad news has now been confirmed).

Symmetre

Yes, YVR-YYZ will continue to operate as the eastbound continuation of the HKG-YVR flight ... and vice-versa on the westbound trip.

Tractor Boy

According to a post (earlier in this thread I think) Ben Smith has confirmed that AC will utilise 9-across seating on the 787s - necessitating the same extremely narrow 17" seat as on the 777HDs. Depressing to say the least.

While it is reasonably feasible to avoid the 777HDs, avoiding 787s will be near impossible for those flying AC internationally.

gglave

Just fly another airline. If you're a mid-tier bottom feeder AC wants you to do this anyway.

Biggest concern is the whole industry seems to be going to sardine class, so in a decade or so this response won't wont - But for now it does.

grenouille

I have just completed a CDG-YUL round trip in the worst seat ever: AC 777-300ER eco.
Never again, so no chance I will fly AC again!

ffsim

There's lots of discussion about how bad the Y seat is on the 77P, but you're going to write off a whole airline because of one aircraft type? And there will only be 5 in the whole fleet, too...

gglave

s/he lives in France... Not like they're going to be flying an AC 319 any time soon.

ffsim

I understand that. But s/he said "no chance I will fly AC again" not "no chance I will fly AC between YUL/CDG again." There's a difference. Writing off a whole airline because of one particular aircraft type is silly.

I'm sure none of us would be flying anywhere if we boycotted every airline on which we had a lousy flight or didn't like the aircraft.

exbayern

And the ground experience at CDG has become just awful. I posted quite a bit about it upthread because I was concerned that AC already had limited space there. Just imagine what it will be like in peak season

(And I too am not going to be flying AC from CDG to YUL anymore if I can help it; like grenouille there are better options for us now to consider, especially when connecting onwards to North/Central America) There are only two choices from CDG on AC, not the dozens many of you have when your location lists YYZ or YUL, for instance. We could of course fly LH to MUC and then connect to AC to YYZ, but oh wait, that too is a 777HD. If we are going to fly AC, and avoid the 777HD, we have fewer options and possibly more competition on the non-777HD routes.

It's interesting now to have 3 French based flyers make similar comments re the CDG flights about the 777HD experience (air and ground)

gcashin

The reality is that it's exactly how a lot of infrequent travelers (or people who don't travel on AC frequently) make their decisions. They may have one flight on a cramped aircraft and feel this is representative of the airline, and try to avoid that airline in the future.

I've heard similiar things before from friends who are infrequent travellers:
" I flew Transat (or another similiar airline) to Europe and found their seats really cramped; I'm never flying with them again"
"I got stuck on a middle seat on WS and found their seats really narrow; I'm going to avoid travelling with them again"

The vast majority of travellers don't know that the 77P is so cramped and believe it's representative of the Air Canada fleet. Unfortunately I think there are going to be a lot of people who book Y on a 77P without knowing how cramped it is, and make a decision to avoid AC based on the experience. It's one of the reasons service consistency is so important in service industries, and I think having wildly inconsistent products is going to hurt AC.

I think OP's viewpoint on the 77P is more representative of the typical traveller on one of those planes than the average AC FT member.

Stranger

For my upcoming trip to Paris, I am looking at YYC-YYZ-CDG. Or if I am able to go a couple of days earlier I'll fly YYC-YUL-BRU and spend the weekend with relatives before going to Paris.

Advantage of Latitude pass is that you can hold confirmed upgrades for alternate plans.

exbayern

When I have time to do odd routings, I am doing that. For instance, I try and book long layovers in MUC, and then use other *A options to avoid the MUC-YYZ HD (both of which are evil - transferring at YYZ, AND flying the HD) That gives me more options.

I have some upcoming longhaul on LH - yes, it may still be a gamble with old/new C, but I like T1 at CDG, and I still rate LH old C above AC new 777HD J.

I may also have to end up in YYC more frequently (not a hardship as I have some of my personal life there) in order to avoid LHR-YVR on 777HD ie route via YYC sometimes.

We still have options, just not as many anymore. And I'll miss YUL as a transfer point.

Stranger

I don't think the MUC thing is there to stay, just seasonal? Does not work well for us anyway.

Between YYC and Europe, best is avoiding a connection in North American. So FRA would be best, avoiding the LHR circus. Also, renting a car in Germany, one usually ends up with a better car for less money. However FRA is quite difficult to upgrade. This might change for the better now that they are going to a 773 though.

My last trip to BRU, we ended up going through LHR, spending the night there.