CloudsBelow

Yeah, I mean whoever signed off on that does not know the market like we do here on FT. What were they thinking!?
If they could go back, I'm sure they would have gone with an all-J config on these things. It's obvious!!
They'll learn

TemboOne

Just for the record, only the most recent five 77Ws are the problem ones.
The full 77W list is below. If you need to check prior to booking on AC.com the problem fins #743-747 have a premium economy section and have ten-across (3-4-3) seating in economy.

By contrast fins 731-742 have 3-3-3 seating in Y and do not have any PE seating.

Initially when AC was publicising the five new 777s they were being advertised separately as "77H" but are now lumped into the 77W grouping.

You really have to research travel plans to avoid them - and metal substitution always remains a potential headache.

Air Canada Boeing 777 Fleet
701 C-FIUA 233LR 77L C42 plus Y228
702 C-FIUF 233LR 77L C42 plus Y228
703 C-FIUJ 233LR 77L C42 plus Y228
704 C-FIVK 233LR 77L C42 plus Y228
705 C-FNND 233LR 77L C42 plus Y228
706 C-FNNH 233LR 77L C42 plus Y228
731 C-FITL 333ER 77W C42 plus Y307
732 C-FITU 333ER 77W C42 plus Y307
733 C-FITW 333ER 77W C42 plus Y307
734 C-FIUL 333ER 77W C42 plus Y307
735 C-FIUR 333ER 77W C42 plus Y307
736 C-FIUV 333ER 77W C42 plus Y307
737 C-FIUW 333ER 77W C42 plus Y307
738 C-FIVM 333ER 77W C42 plus Y307
739 C-FRAM 333ER 77W C42 plus Y307
740 C-FIVQ 333ER 77W C42 plus Y307
741 C-FIVR 333ER 77W C42 plus Y307
742 C-FIVS 333ER 77W C42 plus Y307
743 C-FIVW 333ER 77H C36 plus W24 plus Y398
744 C-FIVX 333ER 77H C36 plus W24 plus Y398
745 C-FNNQ 333ER 77H C36 plus W24 plus Y398
746 C-FNNU 333ER 77H C36 plus W24 plus Y398
747 C-FNNW 333ER 77H C36 plus W24 plus Y398

zkzkz

I wouldn't blame the rampies or the union for this. The union's just doing their job representing their members and the rampies were doing their best to meet the priorities they were given which was presumably "push back on time or else".

I would blame the operations management. What should have happened is the rampies should have carried the bags one by one and been paid overtime for it. If the plane pushed back an hour late then management should have looked into why it took so long and cost so much and found a solution.

Instead I bet there was an operations manager yelling at them after some previous flight was delayed that they would be punished if another flight was late because of them.

Dorian

....sure, or just lazy.

CloudsBelow

Do you have any factual basis for this theory you seem intent on putting forth? Anything at all?
LOL .... Pilots would know.
Why would Boeing absorb cost fitting up a plane that is in such high demand as the 300ER?

fin 645

You can bet that was exactly what was happening. AC has long operated on the "management by yelling" principle. Avoiding taking blame for a delay is the name of the game, and it leads to many of the irritants mentioned on FT - and this carry-on problem is the latest.

seanthepilot

All 3 are to blame. So, heads need to roll at all three levels

This is the typical "non productive solution" that the Unions take. It just perpetuates the "Us and Them" thinking, and makes real solutions difficult. (I know having been in a union environment for 20 years.)

Indeed the pressure comes from above. No doubt about it.

Bingo! We have a winner! The heat from above just breeds an attitude that leads to minimum effort strategies.... LAZY. No doubt about it.
This isn't the problem, but a symptom of the problem. Highlights AC problems big time!

Dorian

7 AC staff. I don't have invoices, yet.

IIRC the financing they did on them proved the low cost.

WR Cage

WRT the likely longterm effects of the 20ft bag toss competition by AC ramp workers; its likely that GTAA will have to install the "kiddie" slide that will allow bags to be expedited to the cargo hold. The hook that AC can use to force GTAA hand is the Air.Canada.Long‐Term.Aeronautical.Fees.Agreement.(the "AC LTA) hat includes a host of performance measures for ground handling service providers at T1. The AC LTA is discussed in the GTAA Management Discussion and Analysis for 2013 on pages 17-20.

Quote from the above MD&A regarding groundhandling service level standards:
AC LTA termination clauses include a provision for AC to terminate if GTAA fails to deliver draft airport development plan and fails to implement improvements to common use equipment, details in the quote:If AC requires bag slides at each gate as an efficiency improvement, the GTAA must provide them. One of the key goals of the AC LTA is to improve the efficiency of T1 gates and common use facilities such that pier G is not required for the next 5 years. Additionally T1 must be ready to take over traffic from T3 as T3 nears gate capacity. The T3 satellite terminal is being refurbished and readied for use by WS as the home for Encore plus 5 gates for WS domestic operations. It is hoped this will provide for more capacity at T3 such that Infield terminal does not have to be reactivated. Also the draft Airport Development plan will disclose whether the infield terminal gets attached to T3 or T1. The previous ADP had the infield terminal gates being associated with T3 activities.

SEMM

Interesting read...but the two "ramp rats" are surely in the soup line as the union can't defend the "un-defendable"...didn't you all know, Management is ALWAYS right no matter what.

tcook052

Indeed. $715 million is what AC has reported offering EETC's for the 5 Boeing 777HD's according to the note on page 8 of this report dated 12th Feb, 2014. "Favorable terms" is the term used in acquiring these aircraft.

SEMM

$125 million each is one hell of a discount, and I am sure they leveraged the further delay of the B-788 again after dangling the carrot for the B-738 MAX order as well. They played this one out very well to their advantage.^

Tangoer

The solution will be to outsource the work to the lowest bidder who pays slave wages or maybe use the Con's foreign worker program to bring in slaves, at least the company could mark up their housing allowance fee.
Let's see what the banker running the show says. Gee.

hazcaddy

Why would they go to the trouble of installing slides (which can still damage gate-checked stuff) when all over the terminals area there are mobile "belt carts" used to load/unload luggage into planes that don't use the igloo container system. Just aim one of them up to the upper ramp rat and have the lower one take the luggage off.

CloudsBelow

I don't get it? 7 AC staff told you the price paid was due to 788 delay? What people? Lounge agents? Concierge?
There was no questioning the favourable pricing. Linking the price w/ 788 delay was questioned as was the notion Boeing were eating the fit-up costs of the HD.
Is that reported in the MDA linked as well?