I commend your spirit of fairness. How long do you think it will take you to write in to AC? We should try to rectify this injustice right away, though as I've been saying, I don't think they will change anything, but if they do, it may be we can name a sub-forum after you!! :D

Believe me, I understand your point. I just don't agree with it and don't think it's logical. If I'm flying YYZ-SYD and my upgrade is granted at YYZ, then there's one less seat in the J cabin for the entire flight. For all intents and purposes, it's no different than if I had bought that J seat outright. Why would someone have the right to take it away from me during a stopover? It doesn't make any sense.

For whatever reason (aircraft utilization, marketing advantage etc), AC has chosen to sell AC 33 as YYZ-SYD (one segment despite the YVR stop), and it follows that the YYZ upgrade window opens at T-7.

Now if you really want to advocate for fairness, there are more things to be considered than the upgrade window. As now noted in this thread, YYZ-SYD pax get YYZ-SYD miles, NOT YYZ-YVR-SYD. So in the interests of "fairness", equalizing upgrade windows should change that as well. And there has already been mention of free meals for thru pax - so presumably all cnx pax need free domestic meals irrespective of origin.

AC's IT capabilities have never been particularly admired on FT - just imagine their trying to match all this. Ain't going to happen!

Trust me when I say, YVR station, YVR Concierges & their SE's have scream It is not fair. It is not fair for years. Screams have fallen on deaf ears.
Unless you own 80% of AC stock, you may as well get off your soap box.

Have you heard a phrase life is not fair. Well this is one of those examples.

He can change. Just has to call his Broker tomorrow morning & buy 80% of AC Stock. :p

The only valid reason is marketing advantage, and it really is false advertising. I recall these old people from North Carolina who were completely confused coming back from SYD and being completely befuddled that they had to leave the plane, grab their bags, go through customs, check bags in again and reboard. They were fully aware of the "stop" but they thought they'd stay on board sleeping while passengers got on/off. It really is false advertising but AC apparently thinks it's a big marketing advantage.

I agree with you on the logistics of the YVR stop on AC 34. You only have one BP, there is no precise direction about what to do, and of course no gate info on the BP (same gate as arrival, just now C51 instead of D51). The SYD agents have always said something at check-in, but the arrival announcements are usually generic and not specific to thru pax.

Marketing of Direct flight is industry wide.
Actually it was the US Carriers who start this "false advertising" when Hub and Poke system was put in place.
UA 839 is marketed as LAX- MEL.
Not only it stops in SYD, there is aircraft change & Paxs have to go through security.
Or winner was when UA 863 originated in NYC. Not only one had to change aircraft, one had to go from Domestic to International by Shuttle bus pre the bridge in SFO.
During winter, many misconnections to UA 863 SFO-SYD, imaging the old folks reaction having just arrived on UA 863 & to be told UA 863 just left for SYD . :D
UA 839 originated in ORD.
Both UA 863 & UA 839 no longer originate in NYC & ORD.

Too many misconnections:D

With AC 34 , the argument can be made YVR is first point of entry in Canada .

Which kinda makes sense. So what's the argument for AC 33? ;)

loooooooooooool. this is the funniest non-Tedgrrrrrrr started thread in a long time.

looool that's awesome. I never knew about all these US flights. I'm a youngin' ;)

AC 34 Canada point of Entry & I recall hearing 777L does not have the range to Fly SYD-YYZ non stop. I maybe wrong.


It does make sense. There are no non-stops from North American East Coast to SYD. Even QF markets or I do not know if it still does, SYD-JFK via LAX.

On the topic of "direct" vs "non-stop" flights, I was booking a mileage jog on UA, and on the return segment, I could have spent an extra $10-$15, and done three legs instead of two. Rather than PBI-IAH-SFO, it would have been something like PBI-EWR-IAH-SFO. PBI is in Florida, and PBI-IAH-SFO is roughly a straight line. PBI-EWR-IAH-SFO adds a huge distance. It's like 2500 miles compared to 4000.

But as I was looking it up on ITA, I noticed something. All three flights were one flight number. That would have been really disappointing to book that agony for 1500 miles, and end up with less than had I done the two segment :p

What happens in IRROPS if you end up on the same flight number, when you had originally booked different flight numbers? Would you have to fight for mileage?

I call 1K desk & ask for ORC. 100% success.

Aeroplan used to give ORC not anymore.

Don't waste money on a more expensive fare class, the best way to improve your odds is to book a connection and for example do YYZ-YUL-LHR. The generally accepted upgrade priority at the airport is Status, miles already flown, fare class and then check-in time. You're better to be a E-50 in YUL having started in YYZ than an E-50 competing with all the CX passengers in YYZ.