yulred

Ah Canada, getting the airline it deserves. A little more competition right about now wouldn't hurt I don't think. I mean, 3-4-3 with 31" seat pitch doesn't sound nearly as appealing as 3-4-3 with 33-34" pitch...

PLeblond

Thanks for the info.

I heard something about wifi to your iPad as inflight entertainment for the Hawaii 777. Just looked up the seat map. Wow. still 2-5-2. More pitch less width. No power ports (not than Empower car type plugs were the bomb, but still better than nothing). J went from 2-2-2 to 2-3-2.

I love the concept of updating TO the old international J loungers. Only US legacy carriers could update to a standard more than 10 years old....

Bonaventure

I certainly hope so. This is the only reason I stick with AC.

mkjr

Yes. AC is stupid but not so stupid they would look at CX J and put in LX J from the sardine cans versus the 787 j. It will be 787 j and another type of HD Y. Sure, not the Shiity HD y of the 5 777s but a new, equally shiiiity y.. Prove me wrong AC

1353513636

I think if AA tried MRTC today they would have extremely different results than back then, given how the airline industry seems to have a widespread adoption of such tight Y seating that larger individuals may have trouble fitting in the seat. In the 2000s, people had a mainline amount of legroom, and didn't see a need to pay for more. Now, we have widespread LCC-esque legroom, and many people who don't fly on LCCs don't for a reason. I often see people in (I'm a UA flyer primarily, BG4 is for non-elites only) boarding group 4 in the E+ middles on United, so people really do pay for better seats.

That said, I actually like what American did with their 77W's, with a reasonable 3-3-3 offering available for a reasonable buy-up, a little something passed to oneworld elites for getting it free and ensuring the long-term viability of airlines as I'd imagine many larger individuals who are constantly subject to the sardine can of the AC 777HD would try to change profession, and 3-4-3 sardine can configuration so that those who will take a sardine can to save a few bucks can get what they want. But I don't think this will see widespread adoption because airlines know that the future is 3-4-3 with <30" pitch in Y and see no reason to offer any more than that. And these days, we are paying mainline prices (or even more than mainline prices) to sit in planes that have LCC-type seats.

sp4294

AC knows PE is where it is at these days, just like HD Y. Businesses aren't paying for J anymore like they used to to. Luckily, I can avoid HD Y and I really see the move to a reverse herringbone J as a good thing comfort wise (compared to the 77HD offering) since these are great seats on CX and BR (and DL A330s). Despite a loyal following here, the AC pods have been past their prime a while. I do pity people counting on upgrades though as the AC J cabin shrinks. Better get used to PE.

Jasper2009

Yes, Ben Smith has confirmed the re-configured 77W/77L will get the pods.

PLeblond

I agree there may be a niche market for more room and persons willing to pay for it, but its a small market and people aren't rushing to it. . But yes, soon, everyone will be 10 across on 777s.

My only disagreement (maybe too strong a word) is when you say 'we paying mainline prices'. Fare prices, in real dollars, has gone down 50% over the last 30 years (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...oticed/273506/) LCCs have forced prices down and the gap between mainline and LCC both in terms of prices and product is shrinking. Consumer cost of flying is down across the board and fuel prices and labour prices have increased. There was a time not that long ago when flying was for the privileged, today it is very accessible. Those who remember buying airline tickets 30 years ago probably remember paying a lot more than today in numerical dollars. Imagine if you factor for inflation.

yulred

I hear this argument often, but I don't necessarily buy it. It may be true in the US context, or even the European context, but as many here have long held, Canada is 'special'.

1. Airfares have gone down? Well, so have operating costs. And so have labor costs. The Rouge FA job is little more than a McDonalds job - although it should be noted that unlike AC Rouge, McDonalds actually pays for its employees' training. And then there's technological innovation - think its fair to say that a 77W costs much less to operate than a 747-100.

2. Flying more accessible? In the US, sure. But then again, on a per capita basis, the average Canadian flies only 40% of what the average American flies. Flying has become more accessible in some countries and not as much in others.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edito..._to_earth.html

3. LCCs have forced prices down? Yes they have. Granted the article you posted attributes the drop in prices to intense competition. Is there intense competition in the US? Undoubtedly. Is there intense competition in Canada? Legitimate question. This report from the Competition Bureau might provide a clue:

"While Canada has to date insisted on reciprocity as a condition of opening the Canadian airline market to foreign competition, the public interest in airline competition goes beyond the interests of existing domestic market participants to include the economy generally and important industries, such as tourism. The Bureau recognizes that there is an important policy question of whether rights of establishment or cabotage should be granted only on a reciprocal basis. Based on competition grounds, a strong case exists supporting the implementation of such measures unilaterally."

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/e...eng/02555.html

Intense competition in Canada? The Competition Bureau is advocating allowing cabotage unilaterally to increase competition. That doesn't suggest to me that they think the market is already intensely competitive. In fact, they're arguing the opposite.

4. The argument about providing a Rouge product at 'mainline prices' remains valid regardless of how much prices have fallen between 1984 and 2014. How much do you think your computer - with its current specifications (hard drive and processing power) - would have cost in 1984? How much does it cost today? More to the point, should the cost of this computer in 1984 be even a remote consideration when you go out to buy a computer today?

These comparisons strike me as odd because they are, frankly, irrelevant. If someone tries to sell you a netbook for a MacBook pro-price, would you be wrong to call them out for it? Or would you take your own proposed approach, and note that a netbook today costs a lot less than what it would have cost in 1984, so a MacBook price for it is really quite a good deal.

In sum, yes, airfares have gone down, but no that does not mean that anyone is wrong in pointing out that a substandard product is a substandard product, acknowledging, of course, that the standard I refer to is a 'developed world' standard.

The reality is that AC is effectively selling a netbook for a MacBook Pro price. I don't think there is anything wrong with people calling it out. Its one thing charging Ryanair prices for Ryanair service. Its quite another charging mainline prices for a Ryanair service (which, frankly, wouldn't fly in the rest of the first world). That, I think, is the point being made here.

3Cforme

Without wanting to stray too far from the topic of the AC 777 reconfig, your mistake is thinking that U.S. carriers will wish to fly international business configs US48-Hawaii. Apart from routes (that can be counted on the fingers of one hand) where a carrier uses a widebody because they need the range, overwhelmingly flights to Hawaii are configured with domestic first seating. Among U.S. carriers, widebodies with domestic F seating are a rare breed - 16 767-300s with Delta (to be retired within a few years), and a few 777s with United. AA/US has none. Yet each has a fleet of more than 700 mainline aircraft.

Tangoer

It's been obviously so, for years, that AC wanted to become E/paid E+ airline.

Take your Executive Class brandy snifters elsewhere, down with the bourgeois!!

This is Kanada's Ryanair.

PLeblond

You are correct. I mistook the 2-5-2 config for a 10 abreast. I remove UA for my example of the dozen or so airlines currently flying 10 abreast 777s.

Getting back on topic, ACs move towards 10 abreast 777s is just following along with where the industry as a whole is going towards that configuration. Judging by load factors, most flyers don't care....

PLeblond

Not wanting to get too far off topic, but your points could be valid on Domestic routes, but AC competes with US carriers on TB routes, European carriers and US carriers on TATL routes, Asian Carriers and US carriers for TPAC routes, and of course Middle East carriers on everything in the middle. I would call that competition.
I remember how much is used to cost to fly to Europe in the early 90s and to FLA and LA in the 80s. Am I wrong to say fares are lower?

yulred

I will avoid the discussion on competition to avoid going too far off track. My views on this are well known. I will simply limit myself to saying that while there is some competition, it is nowhere near the same level as the level of competition seen in the rest of the developed, particularly on international flights, due in no small part to government protectionism.

There are many 3-4-3 products out there with 31" seat pitch. How many of them cost as much as AC does for flights of a similar length? Point being - the actual configuration is pointless if considered in isolation. It can only be judged according to the price it is being sold at. 3-4-3 31" for $500 TATL r/t is excellent. At $1500, not so much.

You are not wrong to say prices are lower now than they were then. This is true. They are. However, this fact remains utterly irrelevant in the current argument of "poor product at mainline prices". Judging the product v price against product v price 30 years ago is an exercise in futility - unless, of course, you factor in the price of a computer 30 years ago when you buy one today.

PLeblond

Just looked up fares for YUL-CDG (a route where AC uses the 'dreaded 77HD'. In August (high volume travel both in France and Canada) TS: $975 AF $1100 (old 747 - 10 abreast 32" pitch x 17" width, No PE, No lie flat) AC AC $1180.

The computer analogy is interesting, except the the cost of planes hasn't dropped anywhere nearthat much in the same time period.

Anywhooo.. I understand you hate the 10 across and consider it an inferior product and feel you're getting screwed. Nothing I can say will make you change your mind, so I'll stop. I give up.