ffsim

I addressed this earlier (post 1210). You missed the point of my comment.

exbayern

No, I didn't miss the point, but you appear to be missing our point.

I have said as well that I will avoid CDG-YUL on AC. But that also gives me far fewer options now to fly AC, and if the other poster only used AC to get to YUL (and not connect further) then they have even fewer choices.

I don't think that it's fair to bash him because he happens to live in a country where there is little service from AC, and thus few choices if he wants to continue to fly AC.

It's hardly the same thing as a Canadian AC flyer saying that they will never fly AC again due to this aircraft, especially if they are using AC to fly to a variety of locations within and outside of Canada.

The Lev

Looking on Seatguru, airlines with 9-abreast 787 seating have seat widths that vary from 16.8" to 17.5". It will be interesting to see what AC chooses.

The major difference is likely to be that with 3-3-3 you'll be comfortable if the middle seat is vacant but the sides will now become very tight since they'll get filled first.

Tractor Boy

Given that AC is currently flying with a load factor around 85% there aren't many empty seats. Unless AC decides to go with a generous seat pitch in Y (most unlikely given their current management) the 787s are going to be uncomfortable aircraft in Y with narrow seats and narrow aisles as on the 777HDs.

We can but hope the 787s have a better washroom/pax ratio than on the 777HDs.

exbayern

I've seen many parents with lap children begging for an empty seat CDG-YUL, LHR-YVR etc in past. Those routes were pretty full in peak season.

Imagine with travelling with a lap child on these planes (or worse, YVR-HKG!)

Stranger

AC has introduced third class. By popular demand.

Why are we surprised?

ffsim

I'm not bashing anyone. My very first comment on this was questioning the decision to write off an entire airline because of 5 aircraft in a fleet. That's all. Everyone's justifications for flying or not flying AC, including yours, are perfectly valid. I'm not disputing any of that whatsoever.

Still, it makes no sense to me that a person needing to go from YUL to YYZ would write off AC because of a poor CDG-YUL experience. You can replace YUL and YYZ with any other city and AC with any other airline and my opinion still stands. That's all I'm saying.

exbayern

Again, you don't seem to understand why the posters based in France are so concerned about this aircraft (which is echoed by virtually all the AC staff I know on the ground in France)

It isn't just about the in air experience. It's the ground situation which is negatively impacting both the YUL and the YYZ flights.

It's the queues which stretch much further due to more people. It's the extra time required in the queue. It's the lounge with zero seats available, no coffee, no milk in the machine, no sandwiches despite the best efforts of the staff. It's the priority boarding queue which an hour before flight time stretches back 3 gates from 41. It's the fact that if one chooses not to stand in that queue that one may well not be able to bring a compliant carry on on board. Over and over and over again the refrain is 'there are just TOO MANY PEOPLE'

It's about ALL of that, not just the seat, and it's impacting ALL the AC flights from CDG.

ffsim

Again, I get that. You don't need to fly AC out of CDG if it's that bad. You shouldn't, I agree.

But what does that have to do with flying AC for other destinations? Nothing. I wouldn't write off an entire airline because of one aircraft servicing one station. Clear enough?

exbayern

What if that poster only flies AC on the CDG-YUL route? Lots of people in France tend to take their holidays in Quebec, if they do venture outside of France. It's an extremely popular holiday or short break destination, just as many have business between the two places.

I'm not saying that I won't ever fly AC again; I will.

But for a French based flyer, flying CDG-YUL as their only AC route (or perhaps a few routes beyond that), I can absolutely understand why they wouldn't fly AC again unless the 777HD moves somewhere else.

That is especially so as when I said many times here, Air Transat has a comparable or better product, at a lower cost, with a much higher brand presence and reputation in the French marketplace.

Jasper2009

Fully agree. The problems of the 777HD go far beyond the less than impressive Y experience. Even flying PE or J on the 777HD is far from a seamless experience.

If I were based in CDG I´d certainly re-consider my flying patterns and possibly ditch AC. As I mostly fly out of FRA/LHR I´ll wait a little longer to see what direction AC is taking, but I´m not too optimistic about the future right now.

ffsim

We're on the same page here. I absolutely totally 100% agree that if the AC experience is horrible on the only segment that one would ever fly AC, one should fly another airline. For sure.

exbayern

OK, good. So, next question on the topic....

Will AC change the 777HD routings if they see a drop off in traffic? (Then again, I don't think that the drop off will be much if it is mostly Canadian flyers going TO Paris and not the other way around, especially in light of this discussion)

On my most recent flight the SD was asking everyone if they had flown 777HD 'on the outbound' but when she came to me asked if I had flown it before. It seemed that the vast majority were Canadians flying home, not French flying over, and even fewer than in past on my flights. Purely anecdotal of course.

yqtyyz

Hopefully then they can convert the HD into a less dense config.

I don't know how difficult or "easy" changing up a cabin can be, but if there are too many empty seats, they'll have to, I would think.

The Lev

If they see a significant drop in traffic it will make the beast unprofitable and the route presumably eventually will be downgauged (and hence upgraded).