Originally Posted by flybit

Rouge is subject to market forces in Canada and therefore will be very expensive vs flying in USA as an example.

Reality is anyone flying an AC 777HD should be warned when booking about horrid seats/lack of washrooms, and no space in bins for y customers before they purchase. Lets hope Transport Canada forces the issue.

Originally Posted by willflyforfood

can anyone argue against the point made that the budget brands in a hotel chain are categorically designed to offer travelers a "budget" price hotel stay? A one-off comparison of a single evening notwithstanding, a night's stay at a Ritz-Carlton will always cost more than a night's stay at that chain's "budget" or "downscale" roof.

More to the point, Ben(s), is that the comments you are hearing is that you've created a budget model for you without the convenient by-product of creating a budget model for PAX. I applaud your attempts to try and bring AC out of the red, but don't try and convince pax that it's a good deal to book ROUGE for the same price as what the former mainline version of that flight once cost.

However, if you were to offer a genuine stand-alone LCC, with it's own booking engine, infrastructure, etc..., then the comparison would be valid. Oh wait, that wouldn't work as it wouldn't pencil... So, we are left with the very unsatisfying hybrid model. And it is very unsatisfying because the move to Rouge has upside on only one side of the equation.

And for the record, I have just booked 2 returns on EVA for March 2015 in J at $5150 vs $7243 for AC. I know about the pros and cons of this decision, but frankly, I'm happier to see EVA get my 10K than AC, and I'll still collect my QM. I don't even pay for my own tickets, but after getting hosed on a flight pass that went ROGUE, it feels good to let my money talk instead of just whining.

However, I do appreciate the BENS standing on the firing line.

Originally Posted by yyzprincess

It was no surprise to me & I am sure to others that "core Business" route where AC had to compete with likes of Porter & WestJet would go Tango.

To me that was good business plan as there are companies which require their employees to book their business travel in lowest fare available in the market. I see going Tango to compete with Porter & WestJet for Business Travel a sound Business decision.

The different with the above business plan & Rouge is, AC has marketed Rouge as a leisure product to compete with likes of Air Transat & Sunflight.
In midstream have now introduced Rouge on Business Route.
I do not care how AC Spins it. No way is YVR-LAX/SFO leisure market.

I see Rouging YVR-LAX/SFO , YYC-LAX/SFO a slippery slope.
I will not be surprise if YYZ-LGA goes Rouge.
Or in Summer YYZ-LHR going Rouge to compete Summer charters.

Originally Posted by yyj9

Really appreciate the input from the Bens, it has changed the tone of the forum to one I enjoy reading and participating in again.
I'd like to +1 the same day standby for some routes, like YYJYVR. Absolutely kills me to sit in YVR for an hour or 2 extra before a 15 minute flight, while the plane leave half full. Particularly painful after a trip home from Europe or India.

Originally Posted by winnipegrev

I heard unofficially that the 20 E90s leaving the fleet as part of the 737 deal are being replaced in the near term with leased 320s/321s, any details on when/if this will happen? Would they get the XM interior to avoid a 763 amigos-situation (you must have lots of Airbus seats sitting around after all the Rouge conversions...)?

Also wondering about near term YWG expansion plans. WS serves many sun destinations nonstop from YWG (PSP, MCO, LAS, PHX, PVR, SJD, CUN, MBJ) while AC just ended 1/3 sun destinations (PUJ) last year. Any chance of us being able to expect fewer YYZ transfers when we head south now that you have Rouge? Connecting using AC mainline instead of WS nonstop was competitive for me before, but to now connect in YYZ/YVR/YYC just to hop on a Rouge plane... not so much.

Originally Posted by OttawaMark

So really there is no benefit to the typical leisure traveler to chose Rouge over, well, any other carrier. Prices are no lower than anyone else and the travel experience is certainly no better than anyone else.

Rouge seems to exist only as a tool for AC profitability and not as a true low cost alternative for the leisure traveler. You are simply offering mainline prices while giving far less comfort than mainline travellers receive. Why would I ever choose Rouge?

Originally Posted by Ben Lipsey

Well, to your point about hotel comparisons, it's important to note that a Ritz-Carlton will never compete with a budget hotel; they are two separate entities, and are priced to what the market will bear. We take the same approach with rouge - it was never meant to be a low fare carrier (key difference between low fare and low cost, BTW), but rather, as Ben mentioned, one that would allow use to compete in markets where the mainline product was not financially sustainable.

Originally Posted by Ben Smith

When you refer to the 77X do you mean the next generation 777s or something else?

Originally Posted by Sopwith

Thanks for this, much appreciated. I agree with your point: E35 is perhaps better than nothing. My point, however, is that it is no longer better enough to keep me loyal to AC, especially with the cost of Flex to get 100% AQMs. Hence your first sentence. I'm thinking this is not what was intended?

Originally Posted by moorw003

You have to ask the question why your main competitor is making "significant inroads". I'd wager a major part of this is the fact the fares you offer that are there to compete directly with WJ domestically, offer no tangible benefit to your altitude programme. Therefore as a consumer, you can't use that to weigh up pros and cons.

The problem with tango @ 25% is you stop people using altitude as a benefit to fly with you. This is even more true when going to America, where UA offer 50%, often for less $.

It doesn't mean they won't fly with you of course; your tango fares are competitive. But tango to the masses is a no bells and whistle service that makes altitude redundant. WestJet probably provide that sector better than AC. I think AC knows this and that's where Rouge was born. When I flew Rouge, I got off the plane thinking "this is WestJet with AC's name on it". That's not an insult btw.

As stated by many others, the difference between Tango and Flex for people only interested in miles is too off putting and as good as any other reason to not worry about it at all. Perhaps rather than reducing flex fares, which would be uneconomical, or increase mileage accrual above the paltry and uncompetitive 25%, there could be room for a special, lower add-on, where people may a fee above the Tango fare that will give them 100% miles for the journey?

Originally Posted by Sopwith

+1.

Most of my flying is domestic, and mostly YVR-YYZ/YOW/YUL. This takes about 9 trips to make E35, and at a typical upcharge of ~$100 EW from Tango to Flex it will cost me >$1500 to maintain my E35 status. It's not worth it given the benefits these days, especially considering the difficulty in scoring an upgrade on these routes.

Originally Posted by rehoult

The way it's loaded, only J fare is allowing it. If you try a booking using lowest business on AC.com it'll show them all blocked. Select flexible business and they all open up.

If it's supposed to be all paid business fares and not just J someone should go fix that.

Originally Posted by CloudsBelow

This has been pointed out 700 times on the board but some still know better. Amazing that some of these frequent travellers well versed in business can weigh in on what AC is doing wrong while not understanding basic LCC/market fundamentals until an airline EVP is patient enough to settle the the matter.

You're already working overtime here with all this other stuff ... I was just curious on the MTOW increase for 77W. With single source engines, I can't find the new MTOW (though I've heard references to a new higher MTOW on the 777HD). I thought all 77Ws were, and remain, 775,000lb. Just wonder what yours are now and how you got them there. Again, no worries if you don't have time to get to this ... Just was curious

Originally Posted by Ben Smith

We're planning on keeping some 767s at mainline thru the end of the decade