Shareholder

Who's offended? We have come to expect misstatements from AC officials to obfuscate or redirect the conversation away from the question at hand. Like when co-pays to international upgrades for all elites but SEs were introduced and it was justified with the claim that all the US programs have such a charge...which was not true because they only had such a charge for mileage upgrades [to equalize the base fare for eligibility in much the way AC has limited upgrading from Flex fares] and not for their elite SWU upgrades, the equivalent of AC's elite upgrade program. But no offence taken.

However, as a shareholder of both AC and AE (er AIMIA), I am fascinated to learn that it was the generosity of the FF program that bankrupted the old AC, and tightening up and removing the majority of benefits we used to receive has been the pathway to profitability and a sextupling of the share price! Who'd have thought?

But why quibble? Still waiting for those answers related to the MM program and particularly the justification for excluding all CP flights [We lost the data] and those taken on AC metal during the first several years of Aeroplan [There was no elite program until 1989]. I suspect the answers will also be along the lines that it would increase the numbers significantly (and push a lot of 1MMs to the 2MM and possibly 3MM tier) and thus undermine the overall "profitability" of the company. Or maybe AC execs just want to punish those who flew their old competitor as a simple act of vengeance?

How can I not like what I am not hearing? You presume too much of me. I am merely asking a company I own part of to state yes or no, not reveal commercially sensitive numbers. In fact, with regards to the AC-AE contract, it appears as if I should raise the same questions with that company because what I read between the lines is that AIMIA is getting a rotten deal from AC and UA and other STAR partners are getting much better deals. And Canadians are getting gouged by both companies...which I suppose benefits me as a shareholder...so I should just shut up and be happy!

Tax Dude

Same for me. I'm a heavy user of the flight pass product so most of my flights are on AC. In 4 of the past 5 years I'm pretty sure I had over 100k miles on AC metal.

Mauricio23

Well, yes. And if I pay for J I also have the ability to secure a pod. I guess the point I am trying to make is that AC all too often introduces changes that leave customers with a bad taste. Some of these are partially rectified (like the refunds for rouged routes), but it would be better if the consequences were thought through in advance. If the timeline for the rolling out of expanded eligibility is indeed short, it should be accompanied by an offer to refund preferred seat fees to elites that have paid for them in advance.

FlyerTalker683455

With 500 million Apple iOS devices not happy to run Flash, I wonder why your IT and marketing team still insists on Flash applications?

Ben Lipsey

Our existing web platform was built before the Apple ecosystem really took off. Our new platform, set to launch next year, will offer many improvements.

FlyerGoldII

First Issue:

See post #162 of TSA precheck thread.

This is the quote:


I believe the AC instructions defining NEXUS number are mistranslated and it intends to refer to the "nine digits that precede the SC ###" (and not "nine digits followed by SC ###" which I think the translator believes is the same thing, but English speakers do not). Just the nine digits is what I input, and it works on OLCI. (If input at the time of buying a ticket, it has interfered with OLCI so I don't input any of that stuff until OLCI.)[/QUOTE]

There are a few issues with regards to the e-ticket/web site (for US destinations) seen on the AC web site. One is the above. This is the definition of the "nexus" number (see above)- is it different in English versus French? The correct definition is the "9 digit" number, and nothing else - is that not correct?


Second Issue:

Then it has the slot for passport number. So far, so good.

Then it has the optional for the known traveler number (which is equivalent to the 9 digit pass id of the nexus card, and some may use the term synonymously with the "nexus") number. So far, so good.


Right now, one can (as a legacy for before AC joined the TSA Pre-check program) see the entry slot for either the passport number or the nexus number.

If you look at the US airlines' web sites' passengers e-ticket page (for tickets to Canada), there is a requirement to fill out the passport number and optionally fill out a known (or frequent) traveler number (eg Nexus, GE, Sentri).

I submit that having a slot for a nexus number and also an optional known traveler is redundant and unnecessary.

I submit that there is a possible second reason to delete the "nexus" number slot. At least from personal experience, although most FTers may disagree with me, the one and only time I inserted the "nexus" number with on-line check-in (and not the passport number), and then I scanned the passport at the US preclearance GE machine/kiosk, I was castigated by the US agent.

He stated that one has to fill out the passport number and NOT the nexus number with online check-in (he stated, perhaps erroneously, that the nexus number and the passport number were not connected); so when I spoke to the US agent, he had to swipe my passport into his machine, as if I had never checked in at the GE machine?

ABG

yes - because you will never get these answers in a public internet forum

WR Cage

Thanks Ben & Ben for listening to and responding to my YYC musings.

Agreed that feeding UA at their hubs is a bad idea. But I respectfully submit that there might be good opportunities where AC could either capture O&D traffic or have traffic feed through YYC to other domestic Canada and International points.

Current YYC-DEN all UA operation is as follows:
6am CRJ service
8am 320/737
11am CR7
2:30pm CR7
6:30pm CR7

The 6am and 6:30pm services do not connect efficiently to UA's network (specifically majority of 6am connections in DEN are doubled up by the 8am). The 6am is however applicable to O&D traffic as it allows for near full day in DEN.

Under a combined AC and UA schedule, my proposal would be:
6:30am AC CRA service
8:00am UA mainline
11:00am UA express
2:30pm UA express
6:30pm AC CRA.

The 6:30am AC CRA service could be run up to YVR to connect with the TransPac services (from DEN there is only one daily n/s to Pacific). The inbound aircraft from YVR could be turned onto mid day service to YYC that would connect to AC service LHR and FRA as well as western Canada domestic services.

The 6:30pm service could RON in DEN and then do early am service back to CYYC. My Denver office people lose more than half day of work because the first UA service DEN-YYC is 8am, and earlier flight would be attractive as it would permit at least 1/2 of work in the afternoon (currently these passengers fly up the night before). This first flight of the day could connect to AC services to YEG, YMM, YXE, YVR, YQR).

Th UA flights would continue to collect the DEN connection traffic.

I currently take the UA 8am service because the 6am flight is just too early in the morning to make it worth while. The first flight of the day used to be at 6:45am and this time was perfect for me. Hence my reasoning for a 6:30am AC service to handle the DEN bound flyers.

YYC-NRT has exceeded my expectations. My 2010 expectations were that LH YYC-FRA service would stick around longer than YYC-NRT service, but proven wrong on that front.

To bad about the E75 range restriction on IAH run.

WR Cage

Here is a recent sucess for the AC team.

Have to take course in DCA in July. Only flight that gets me back to YYC is AC7359 to AC141. Also to maintain policy compliance with Travel policy had to utilize Corporate Travel Agency.

With the AC PNR hand I went looking for Preferred Seat opportunities on AC141. Was very surprised to learn that I can now do seat selection through Manage my booking function. Also a big thumbs up to the AC web designers for including a pop up box that my Preferred seat selection fees were applicable to the whole trip. I went back to seat selection and chose Preferred seats for AC7359.

Finally and a big plus, I was able to pay for the Preferred Seats with my personal credit card. Company Travel policy does not allow me to book Preferred Seats on the company dime.

Overall excellent web experience that exceeded my expectations.

gbeaumont

To be clear, i envision an East West Rapidair flight pass to allow for either intra-east Rapidair or intra-west Rapidair - allow the user to fly either within one triangle or the other

bizorbetter

my apologies as i am just trying to get caught up on this thread BUT REALLY? You don't understand 'small amounts of money' when your company has cut to the bone in every single area possible......even removed the ability for your front line employees to satisfy customer issues (waiving fees etc etc ,i could go on for a few pages).....you talk about a false economy and small amounts of money?
I find this statement highly hypocritical.

On the plus side i will give you FULL credit for engaging with this board, long overdue but very professional move IMO.

Good luck to AC, maybe i will be back on a loyalty basis someday, but not until i see how this all plays out.

jbb

I think this issue was raised before, but I don't think there was an answer: Why is it that "Singapore" is not listed as a country of residence when booking flights on AC.com. I have tried to book SIN-Canada return flights (originating in SIN) and if I choose "Other" as country of residence, it won't let me book. It only allows me to book if I choose "Canada" as my country of residence. Is there some bizarre legal reason that AC cannot sell SIN-origin flights to Singaporean residents, or is this just a website oversight?

FlyerTalker683455

When booking international flex to Bangkok (usually Q or H class) Ac always books the cheapest v fare.

(To AC's credit they stopped booking the non q mile W fares probably because there were tons of very unhappy campers.)

However even the V fare automatically assigns middle seats in the very back of the cabin and gate staff is not authorize to assign exit rows.

It's just really quite rude to be given the lowest available fare when booking Flex. At least match the quality of the fare code on the connectors.

You were talking about nickling and diming above... Here we go.

Mauricio23

+10. Being lectured about false economies by AC is more than a bit rich...

Ben Smith

I'm not on here to lecture, abuse or insult our customers. In my opinion you're taking the above line out of context. Please re-read the post I was replying to. I was not making a general statement to FT at large. We are focussed on offering as many choices to the travelling public as possible. Starting with bare bones basic lowest price competitive seats all the way up to best-in-class next generation Business Class seats with fully flexible and refundable fares plus everything in between. The different fare brands and products we have on offer enable our customers to select what best fit their individual needs and budget. We continue to focus on expanding the ability to mix and match our products to enable individuals to maximize their utility. Many companies, travel management services and individuals solely select by lowest fare and do not assign any value to any of the other benefits and attributes we uniquely provide. If on an apples to apples basis we are not competitive we will suffer the consequences but in order to run a sustainable business we require a higher yield if we're investing in a superior schedule, premium onboard products, priority and premium ground products plus the cost of running a frequent flyer program. In some cases we are being evaluated and compared to a competitor that is not competitive on some or all of these items and it is in these instances that I find it hard to comprehend some of the buying decisions that are made. We respect the opinions of our customers and are keenly aware if we don't earn your long-term loyalty and satisfaction we will not be successful. We are a public company that needs to make a profit and we do not take your business for granted. We have decided to re-engage at the request of many FT members to better explain our products and services, hear your comments and suggestions and do our best to address your issues.