LittleYHZ

Not anywhere near as many as they have coming.

Air Canada has 11 planes coming in 2016 and they're not going to sit around and do nothing. 2 777s and 9 7879s. DBX and DEL are going to run on the 3 7879s they're getting next year...

Adding JNB and NBO in 2016 wouldn't be a problem. There will be at minimum 5 new destinations or routes pop up. Because thats how many you can run with 11 aircraft. Factor in that most routes start 3/4 times a week and boom could be as many as 10 new routes. And they're typically announced 12 months out.

I am sure there will be some surprises nobody saw coming. Jan-March is a weak time to start routes to most places. It would be a good time to start to Australia and South Africa.

Badenoch

Having done JFK-JNB three times in the last three years the prospect of YYZ-JNB creates a personal dilemma. It means having to decide on the convenience of leaving from Toronto and a 15-16 hour flight in a pod with typical AC food and service versus SAA business class with a nicer lie flat bed, better food and most excellent South African wines and port.

PLeblond

Still 21 old, less efficient 767s current in the fleet.

You gotta figure they will be replacing a bunch of routes with 787s. Making them suddenly cheaper to operate at current yield, all while offering additional seats at little or no additional cost.

Sebring

Australia will require a new bilateral.

New Zealand is a growth market, and AC has bilateral authority to serve AKL any time, and would code share with Air New Zealand.

On another board, there is a view from veteran pilots that Toronto-Vancouver-Mumbai is on the front burner in the planning department, and will furnish such a surprise (to us outside the airline). Vancouver-Mumbai is actually a shorter distance than Toronto-Mumbai (by 80 nautical miles).

There is at least one more China route coming because of the agreement with Air China - the latter probably does YUL-PEk, codeshared by AC, while AC launches a route to Guangzhou or from Calgary to China, codeshared by Air China.

CloudsBelow

Interesting.

I'd be surprised w/ a YVRBOM routing but vet pilots surely know more. Also don't see any additional YYC-Asia lift on AC.

OTOH, an additional YVR-China announcement and YULPEK seem like gimmies at this point

why fly

Well AC matched the sale. Or did AC start the sale.? Last week AC was the low priced option $3300 in business class to JNB and KLM was much higher.

why fly

At $50 fuel i am not sure how inefficient 767's really are.
someone posted the cost of an OLD 320 vs new 320n and at $50 oil it made very little sense to buy a new 320n.

However that being said AC has got new 787 on order and they cant cancel.
perhaps just not exercise options on any more.
SO if AC can find customers willing to fly Rouge the economics have just improved at $50 fuel vs more efficient planes. I suspect in part due to the very low value of 767's

PLeblond

Indeed. Economies in terms are fuel are lower, but they are still present. Also, the 767s are getting really old so maintenance must be an issue too. As you say, they have to take them so they'll be on the books.

I do believe that most of next years' 787 will be replacing existing routes.

The Lev

AC claimed that the 788's CASM is 29% below their 763's with 191 seats. Assuming this is correct, it likely means the CASM on the 788 is actually higher than the rouge 763 with 280 seats.

winnipegrev

If fuel were higher I'd agree 787s should be replacing routes... but 763s are quite economical with oil at current prices. Seems like now is the time for trying out some new long haul routes with 787s.

The lease rates of 787s are pretty scary, I imagine AC's financing terms aren't too different (except they'll own the planes in 10 years or whatever it is), but leasing is about $1M USD/month. A 763, particularly AC's vintage ones, are around $200,000.

$800,000 pays for a lot of fuel and maintenance... it may not be a slam-dunk replacing 211 seats with a 251 seat 788 if the capacity isn't truly needed.

But my understanding is that you're right about maintenance and overall reliability on the 763s is deteriorating.

PLeblond

From: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...orming-405814/

"After taking delivery of its first two General Electric GEnx-1B-powered 787-8s earlier this year, chief executive Calin Rovinescu told analysts that he expects the aircraft to yield 29% lower unit seat-mile cost than the 191-seat 767-300s that are being replaced. In a second-quarter earnings call, Rovinescu cited the example of the Toronto-Tel Aviv route, on which a 251-seat 787-8 can carry 31% more passengers and more than triple the cargo while burning 3% less fuel per trip than the 767."

I read that a fully loaded 787 uses 3% less fuel than a fully loaded 767 on this route. One can assume that even with 191 passengers and ⅓ the cargo it would require even less fuel for that flight.

Technically, they could sell those 60 seats at deep deep discounts and still make more money than operating a 767.

CloudsBelow

Agreed.
Carriers who came in late to the 787 game - after frame price increases, long after deep discounts from B were common - I would imagine the oil plunge has actually turned their expected benefit upside down. The long owned 767/330 might actually generate more profit on a per seat basis than the shiny 787, all costs/revenue considered.
Wonder if a prolonged oil softness might lead to new aircraft deferrals? ... Time for AC to dust off their 747s and L1011s ...

zoobtoob

AC doesn't actually have planes that they could use sitting in the desert... right?

Eternity000

I'm recall reading that they have three 747s in storage.

Now how much it would cost to bring them back to useable condition...

rankourabu

They could slap ~600 seats in them (its been done) and call it HD, present it as an enhancement, and would make the refurb money back in no time