|
Originally Posted by SensFan
(Post 21525348)
I have a friend who had something similar to happen to him last year. He sent a few e-mails back and forth to A3 but they credited him based on their rules based on when the flight was flown and didn't care that the fare class had been T+ in his case when he booked.
I guess you could try getting AC to move your flight to a Flex class but I wouldn't be surprised if they balked at this. |
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.666 Mobile Safari/534.8+)
Keep in mind that while Air Canada is obsessing about costs most other businesses are looking for ways to increase their costs. Recent changes in AC's fare structure will make it easier for them to spend more on travel. |
Can't eUp on AC.com: Pre-9/24 Flex NOT automatically rebooked to new Flex class
Just called AC and inquired why on my eUP page my formerly Flex fare is no longer eligible for eUp. Contrary to what AC stated my S fare was not rematched to a new post 9/24 Flex fare so I could do eUp online. Agent said I'd have to call in or wait 'til I'm in my eUp window (T-6) to see the fare class changes. If not I'll have to call in for a manual override for eUp.
The agent was not helpful nor willing to change my booking class over the phone to make it a new Flex fare. This is a royal pain since I'm traveling overseas and don't have the luxury of using free VOIP via wifi to make a call without incurring hefty roaming charges. Has anyone experienced eUp issues based on their formerly Flex fare not adjusted on AC.com and could not eUp online? GT |
Originally Posted by WildcatYXU
(Post 21524088)
Several posters here wrote that AC can easily afford losing customers (even high yield customers such as Dorian and his coworkers), since they are flying with record high load factors and therefore there is an under-supply of airline seats. But is it really so? If anything, we can see that AC is doing a terrific job optimizing equipment size. We can see 321's (or even 320's) in place of 767's, 319's or 190's in place of 320's and so on. So what really happened? Did the number of passengers grow significanly or did the number of available seats drop?
AC's Load Factors are also up. Not sure what route you're suggesting they're subbing 320 for 767 but, as a whole, AC has more seats to fill now than they've ever had AC is filling 90% of their seats. That's too high ... Sounds dumb but it's true. This is a reason they can start pulling back like they are. Canada is price sensitive, Load factors are through the roof. Perfect host for implemeting these new initiatives. |
Originally Posted by CloudsBelow
(Post 21526452)
AC's ASMs are up (Available seat miles). Approx 3% increase.
AC's Load Factors are also up. Not sure what route you're suggesting they're subbing 320 for 767 but, as a whole, AC has more seats to fill now than they've ever had AC is filling 90% of their seats. That's too high ... Sounds dumb but it's true. This is a reason they can start pulling back like they are. Canada is price sensitive, Load factors are through the roof. Perfect host for implemeting these new initiatives. |
Originally Posted by CloudsBelow
(Post 21526452)
AC's ASMs are up (Available seat miles). Approx 3% increase.
AC's Load Factors are also up. Not sure what route you're suggesting they're subbing 320 for 767 but, as a whole, AC has more seats to fill now than they've ever had AC is filling 90% of their seats. That's too high ... Sounds dumb but it's true. This is a reason they can start pulling back like they are. Canada is price sensitive, Load factors are through the roof. Perfect host for implemeting these new initiatives. |
Originally Posted by Clipper801
(Post 21528280)
A half full 767 vs. a full A320 ............. yes, the load factors are up!
capacity. |
Originally Posted by IluvSQ
(Post 21528387)
Not quite - that 767 is now flying somewhere where it is also at 90%+
capacity. |
Originally Posted by Clipper801
(Post 21528437)
or simply sitting on the parking apron at YYZ.
|
Originally Posted by gtpdiddy
(Post 21526365)
Just called AC and inquired why on my eUP page my formerly Flex fare is no longer eligible for eUp. Contrary to what AC stated my S fare was not rematched to a new post 9/24 Flex fare so I could do eUp online. Agent said I'd have to call in or wait 'til I'm in my eUp window (T-6) to see the fare class changes. If not I'll have to call in for a manual override for eUp.
The agent was not helpful nor willing to change my booking class over the phone to make it a new Flex fare. This is a royal pain since I'm traveling overseas and don't have the luxury of using free VOIP via wifi to make a call without incurring hefty roaming charges. Has anyone experienced eUp issues based on their formerly Flex fare not adjusted on AC.com and could not eUp online? GT |
Originally Posted by gtpdiddy
(Post 21526365)
Has anyone experienced eUp issues based on their formerly Flex fare not adjusted on AC.com and could not eUp online?
GT |
Originally Posted by margarita girl
(Post 21529339)
My GF spent an hour on the phone with 2 agents to get her Oct 10 ticket changed from Tango back to Flex, but she got it done.
I have LH flight number on non-AC ticket, won't even try until check-in opens. |
Originally Posted by TelFunku
(Post 21529638)
That's for AC flight numbers on 014 stock?
I have LH flight number on non-AC ticket, won't even try until check-in opens. I went thru this last time when K class changed. |
Originally Posted by TelFunku
(Post 21529638)
That's for AC flight numbers on 014 stock?
I have LH flight number on non-AC ticket, won't even try until check-in opens. I would like to know if one single person has had their tickets automatically rebooked. :rolleyes: |
Two of my flights are showing "Tango Q" YYZ-GCM
Thought Q is a flex fare .... Original booking was into Flex (S) fare |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:29 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.