Tractor Boy

I'm not talking A vs B. The 787 is a good fit for AC.

However current management is obsessed with the 777 and taking huge risks adding too much capacity with an aircraft that does not fit many AC routes. More A330s and A330neos would be a much better fit for AC's route network rather than adding more and more 777s.

DL's purchase last week of A330neos for TATL and North Asia routes would be a much smarter approach.

PLeblond

I would say anybody following DL's fleet strategy needs to get their head checked, but that's just my opinion.

The A330neo has capacity of up to 252 to 310 people. That's sounds an awful lot like 777 numbers. I don't see how buying those would be more interesting than their current 777s.

Current numbers on the 787-9 are actually better than originally planned, so I believe its size and performance are ideal for AC. The AC wide-body fleet will look like 25 777s (12 77W, 7 777P and 6 772) and 37 787s (15 788 and 22 789). This seems very well balanced to me.

Also, re: the A330neo, Delta is the first confirmed order 25 units, the current list of 121 commitments, none have actually been logged into the order book (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...tments-406091/) It appears airlines aren't clamouring for A330neos.

1011TriStar

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...hp?id=00011278

TravellingBeard

Well, when you put it like that, it does look odd. I go back on my original sentiment. I'd definitely prefer the 747-8

PLeblond

Wow. Its even uglier in baby blue.... You might want to post a warning for graphic content under the link.


OK. I'm kidding... a little.

shore9

It's interesting that AC is focused on providing frequency's. When is the last time that YVR - LHR was operated with a 2nd daily flight?

At one point a few years ago they were doing 3 X daily 763's, now it's been down to a 77W for the past couple of years.

I'm only complaining as I would like to see this slave ship gone from this route.

Jagboi

BA does every summer!

theseatbelt

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present............ the behemoth, the beast......

The A380 "HD" with 853 seats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

drvannostren

I had no idea LH 380 had 98 J that's crazy!

I also didn't think AC had 4 YYZ-LHR dailies in the low season, I thought it was 2 or 3 at most. That's a LOT of LHR flights from Canada just on AC alone, I guess traffic demands it and I've always wanted to go to London, but it seems cost prohibitive to me when I look at it vs other destinations.

That said I think the novelty of a 380 might work, Eliminate the 18:20 LHR and 20:30 LHR and go with a 19:15 departure, still gets you to LHR by 7:30, early enough to a 9:00 meeting, while still leaving the whole day for people to connect into YYZ from all points in Canada/USA.

That said, beyond this one route, I'm not sure they could use it on many more routes.

Haha, the A380 HD...brilliant! 100 flight attendants necessary!

CloudsBelow

AC ordering the A380 is one small notch less realistic then them ordering B748, and one small notch more realistic then them ordering the Concorde.

moorw003

Very different markets though. Toronto London has a huge amount of business pax, leisure travellers and connections, Vancouver London doesn't have the business yield or the connections.

Also of importance is the slot allocation at Heathrow. To give Vancouver another one you'd have to take away from someone else. Toronto it can be argued needs the capacity of its 4. YYT, YHZ, YUL, YOW, YYC shouldn't lose their spots.

Maybe in the long run with the 77w being reconfigured to have 50 more seats, the 789's offering 100 more seats than the old 767's, you could see the same capacity offered on 3 rather than 4 flight operations. But then you'd also have to have a business case for offering more capacity at YVR, over say YEG.

And whilst talking about the "slave ship", of course the business bit is being ripped out for presumably 28 787 style pods. The reconfigured 777's will be exactly the same except the business section will be bigger. So every 777 in 2016 will be a slave ship if that's what you want to call it.

Wpgjetse

Please no. The 747 is old. The 747-8 has basically becoming a cargo plane. We already have a downgrade from the A320 to 737, if AC orders A380 or 747-8, lets hope for the A380. We don't need another 1960 designed plane with updates.

industry_killer

The entire debate of 748s or 380s for AC is already stupid enough, but to say the 748 would be a bad choice because it was designed in the 1960s is just as silly.

HerpaYvr

I remember as a small child in the early 1970"s behind the YUL check in counter, on the wall there was a massive picture of a concord with classic AC colours.

Some times senior management get caught up in the latest "shinny Objects" and want to be part of the click of "we have one too". this is too expensive to do now!

Unless AC through Rouge wants to dominate a particular high density, low frequency route using a A380. There is no need for this type of aircraft for a company like AC.

During the past year AC has been doing a lot of tweaking reducing frequency and increasing aircraft size on many routes. Squeezing as much as they can from each aircraft, AC is making money for its shareholders

PLeblond

Here the issue: An international departure requires one to get to the airport 90 minutes before departure. 19:15 means arriving at YYZ at 17:45. I haven"t seen Toronto traffic in a while (luckily) but what time would one have to leave the office to make that flight?

The 20:30 departure is ideal for those travellers, and they tend to pay J or flexible Y.

The 18:20 departure can collect people from all over, who already blew off most of the day to get to LHR.

Frequency trumps volume in NA.