CloudsBelow

Imagine how EK's A380 lessors are feeling ... those frames will be desert bound in the not too distant future. Must be nervous times.

AC, not unlike most carriers, could fill A380 capacity with reasonable yield on select routes for short windows each year. It's the other routes and "non peak" times that sinks the A380 business case for AC

jbb

^ Agree, although I have a soft, nostalgic spot for the DC-10's and flying those on CP as a kid across the pacific. Something about its unique frame with the embedded third engine in the tail.

That said, there are some fantastic looking narrow-bodies out there including the new Mitsubishi MRJ.

Sorry, off topic.

WildcatYXU

You may laugh as much as you want, but it's a pretty ********* laugh. The A 380 in 3-5-3 config still offers an inch wider seat than the 777 in 3-4-3 config. Fanboyism at it's worst.

Jagboi

Agreed. I'm torn on my favourite seat on the 744, it's either 1A in the nose, or 64A on the upper deck on British Airways. There is lots of space upstairs in a 2-2 configuration, but the curve of the fuselage allows forward vision in 1A. Decisions, decisions.

Ben Lipsey

This is a good question. The 787 was practically made for us, given our geography and structure, but the 380 is something else entirely. Like many others have said it's great for high volume, hub-to-hub routes but in NA frequency is king. We offer four daily flights YYZLHR because the market has said that is what they value (NYCLON is another good example of frequency vs density).

If you look at North America, there is no singular hub that has emerged with the same strength as LHR or CDG or AMS or FRA or ZRH or HKG or DXB - these are countries with one major hub, whereas the expansive geography of North America has led to YVR/YYZ/YUL and SEA/SFO/DEN/SLC/DFW/MSP/ORD/ATL/JFK/EWR. The 380 isn't a great fit for the NA-based airlines because of the dispersed market and their traffic patterns: as others have mentioned, those carriers that fly the 380 generally have a international transit-oriented hub (see above) vs an O&D market, whereas in NA it's generally transit to smaller airports on smaller aircraft, so the economics just don't fit.

superangrypenguin

At least you have a favorite seat. I never get to be on this wonderful bird anymore as AC doesn't fly it (and I fly exclusively AC). But tomorrow, i'll be as giddy as ever being on the 747 on BR. SUPER excited

Jagboi

Try and get upstairs if you can, it's a different feeling up there. Almost like being on a private plane. Certainly a unique experience. Perhaps you need to fly other airlines to get more 744 exposure!

The days of the "queen of the skies" are numbered, so get it while you can. I missed Concorde, I was going to make sure I didn't miss the 747 as well.

superangrypenguin

Oh yes. I'll be up top on the upper deck. SUPER stoked. 747 on United is, well, nothing to write home about. But 747 on BR = excited!!

pitz

And just how would the 'market' tell you that? With an overwhelming majority of air travel being discretionary, and leisure in nature these days, it would seem that economics trump pretty much everything in terms of market demand. Most leisure non-schedule sensitive travellers, ie: most Air Canada customers, could care less about having 1 departure per day versus 5 on such a route. The world wouldn't end either if YVR/YYC-YYZ was knocked down to 5X daily on widebodies instead of the current, what, 15X daily on the 320s.

If the A380 could deliver YYZ-LHR at a meaningfully lower all-in unit cost, then it would be successful. But the A380 itself isn't a remarkably efficient aircraft (per seat burn is similar to that of the 777 and 787) and obviously, utilizing an A380 efficiently would be highly problematic with such a small fleet and its sheer enormity of capacity that cannot be adjusted easily for seasonality.

superangrypenguin

Really? AC has enough info to know how best to "tune" the Altitude program. You really don't think AC knows that we want schedule over pricing? I would suspect YYZ to LHR routes to be predominantly business travelers.

TravellingBeard

Well, I can't disagree (hence my use of flying whale) I definitely have a soft spot for 747's as well...and like superangrypenguin, also flying one in a few weeks...I'm excited about that. I always feel giddy as a kid when riding the upper deck.

winnipegrev

What is?

pitz

AC fails to capture a meaningful premium $$$-wise for schedule over the foreign carriers that run less frequency. BA is 2X daily on YYZ-LHR. AC is 4X daily. Ticket prices are similar. And business travel isn't all that common anymore -- an overwhelming amount of the growth has been in the leisure segment. That's why we're seeing shrinking of the J/C cabins in every subsequent iteration of AC cabin configurations (not that business travellers always purchase J, but its a decent overall proxy of such!).

If you've been on an AC (or WS) aircraft recently, versus remembering being on such 20 years ago, the difference in the make-up of the clientele is quite dramatic. And if you look at WS's growth, they've done it heavily catering to the leisure segment as not until recently have they had great frequency in the major markets. And just look at how well AC is doing with Rouge -- again, catering to market demand for cheap seats and literally nothing else. Give it another 5 years, and an economic downturn, and I bet that Rouge's seating density in Y becomes the standard for mainline service as that's what the market wants.

superangrypenguin

I respectfully will say it's just an opinion. You and I will never know details that AC possesses especially with respect to personal/business travel. I know of many senior managers who fly J on this route on AC...maybe this is what clouds my judgement? They pick AC because of schedule and its J product

Dorian

I would figure a 747-8I would be a more logical choice, would it not?