Air Canada expanding its service to Copenhagen
May 4, 2015, 2:10 pm
#16
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: ZRH
Programs: AC SE 100K
Posts: 925
Now we just need AC to add a reasonable number of codeshares to other destinations in Europe and beyond with SAS from CPH (and Swiss from ZRH/GVA). Don't know why they have this seeming obsession with funneling everyone through FRA and MUC (OK - maybe it's the profit sharing agreement with LH and UA).
It is however great to get the AC YYZ CPH frequency higher.
May 4, 2015, 3:04 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,802
CPH not the dominant SK hub any more, hasn't been for a while. From wiki....
SAS flights from ARN: Aalborg, Alicante, Amsterdam, Ankara (begins 30 June 2015), Athens, Barcelona, Bergen, Berlin–Tegel, Billund, Birmingham, Brussels, Budapest, Chicago–O'Hare, Copenhagen, Dublin, Düsseldorf, Edinburgh, Faro, Frankfurt, Geneva, Hamburg, Helsinki, Hong Kong (begins 10 September 2015),[33] London–Heathrow, Málaga, Manchester, Milan-Linate, Milan-Malpensa, Moscow–Sheremetyevo , Munich, Newark, Nice, Oslo–Gardermoen, Oulu, Palma de Mallorca, Paris–Charles de Gaulle, Prague, Riga, Rome–Fiumicino, Saint Petersburg, Stavanger, Tampere, Thessaloniki, Tromsř, Trondheim, Turku, Vaasa, Vilnius, Zürich
Seasonal: Bastia, Biarritz, Bodř, Bologna, Bristol, Cagliari, Chania, Dubrovnik, Gazipaşa, Innsbruck, Malta, Naples, Olbia, Palermo, Pisa, Pristina, Pula,, Sarajevo, Split, Tel Aviv–Ben Gurion, Venice–Marco Polo
SAS flights from CPH: Aalborg, Aarhus, Aberdeen, Ĺlesund, Alicante, Amsterdam, Ankara (begins 6 June 2015), Athens, Barcelona, Beijing-Capital, Bergen, Berlin-Tegel, Billund, Birmingham, Bologna, Bremen, Brussels, Bucharest-Otopeni, Budapest, Chicago-O'Hare, Dublin, Düsseldorf, Edinburgh, Frankfurt, Gdańsk, Geneva, Gothenburg-Landvetter, Hamburg, Hanover, Helsinki, Linköping, London-Heathrow, Luxembourg, Málaga, Manchester, Milan-Linate, Milan-Malpensa, Moscow-Sheremetyevo, Munich, Newark, Newcastle, Nice, Oslo-Gardermoen, Palanga, Palma de Mallorca, Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Poznań, Prague, Pristina, Rome-Fiumicino, Saint Petersburg, San Francisco, Shanghai-Pudong, Stavanger, Stockholm-Arlanda, Stuttgart, Tel Aviv-Ben Gurion, Tokyo-Narita, Trondheim, Venice, Vilnius, Warsaw-Chopin, Washington-Dulles, Wrocław, Zürich
Seasonal: Bastia, Biarritz, Cagliari, Chania, Dubrovnik, Faro, Gazipaşa, Ivalo, Kiruna, Montpellier, Naples, Kittilä, Palermo, Pisa, Pristina, Pula, Salzburg, Split, Thessaloniki
May 5, 2015, 6:34 am
#19
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM, Asia Miles, SPG Gold (life), HH Gold, Golden Circle Jade
Posts: 1,068
Not convinced. CPH appears to be the SK main hub, not ARN. Plus, ARN is further away. Most of Scandinavia is well served from CPH.
Anyway, looking at my patterns and final destinations, I have travelled to CPH once, BGO twice, OSL twice and GOT twice. Never to ARN... At least as a final destination. I once connected, going I think from OSL (but maybe GOT) to CDG.
(Apart from our last trip to BGO, this was all before AC started CPH though.)
Anyway, looking at my patterns and final destinations, I have travelled to CPH once, BGO twice, OSL twice and GOT twice. Never to ARN... At least as a final destination. I once connected, going I think from OSL (but maybe GOT) to CDG.
(Apart from our last trip to BGO, this was all before AC started CPH though.)
May 5, 2015, 6:51 am
#20
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: YQT
Programs: AC, US, AA, UA, BA, QF, DL...
Posts: 463
I wish I understood AC's decision to focus solely on serving the Nordics via CPH (this isn't new, it's been true for 40 years). At a minimum, they should be adding ARN rather than increasing capacity at CPH.
ARN (and OSL for that matter) is almost as big as CPH, and Sweden is both much bigger, and far more important as a trading/tourism country for Canada, than Denmark is.
I get that CPH is a slightly better Star Alliance connecting airport, but it's a marginal advantage, given the increase in European service across the board.
ARN (and OSL for that matter) is almost as big as CPH, and Sweden is both much bigger, and far more important as a trading/tourism country for Canada, than Denmark is.
I get that CPH is a slightly better Star Alliance connecting airport, but it's a marginal advantage, given the increase in European service across the board.
On a semi-related note, why is SAS not part of the trans-Atlantic JV with AC/UA/LH/etc.?
May 5, 2015, 6:57 am
#21
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: YQT
Programs: AC, US, AA, UA, BA, QF, DL...
Posts: 463
LOL +1 on this - We're not even talking the same thing. ARN and such are like an hour flying from CPH. GIG -> LIM is serious distance. GIG flights would not negatively impact LIM flights under any circumstances... They're so far apart! Thats like saying adding a flight to IST is going to Impact Dublin. Not likely.
It is interesting to note though that AC seems to be boosting a lot of its Euro destinations this fall. AMS got another run, CPH just got another run, Rome is going to run for 2 extra months 3 days from YYZ and 2 days from YUL instead of 3X to Milan.
It will be most interesting to see what AC itself has to say about its strategy tomorrow.
It is interesting to note though that AC seems to be boosting a lot of its Euro destinations this fall. AMS got another run, CPH just got another run, Rome is going to run for 2 extra months 3 days from YYZ and 2 days from YUL instead of 3X to Milan.
It will be most interesting to see what AC itself has to say about its strategy tomorrow.
May 5, 2015, 7:21 am
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K MM
Posts: 23,297
May 5, 2015, 8:02 am
#24
Flying Blue Director
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CDG/AMS
Posts: 1,864
From what I've read, much of the recent profitability of North American airlines is due to capacity restraint during the (slow) economic recovery. With all this addition/expansion of service by AC, is anyone else worried they haven't learned their lesson and will be back in trouble when the next downturn hits?
), but I would certainly hope those same people are able to objectively look at the industry and our rising place in it. Using the American carriers as examples of capacity reduction isn't a great benchmark as the markets, assets, etc. are different. We're also keenly aware of the cyclic nature of this industry and do have many plans in place in case of an industry downturn which would allow us to weather the storm, such as swing capacity and cheap or paid-off aircraft.
Hopefully that gives a little insight into why we are doing what we're doing!
May 5, 2015, 3:22 pm
#26
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,314
May 5, 2015, 3:30 pm
#27
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: *G^2, Bonvoyed, NEXUS
Posts: 3,511
May 5, 2015, 3:58 pm
#28
Join Date: Sep 2013
Programs: AC SE100K, AA EXP, SPG Plt, HH Dmnd
Posts: 1,507
May 5, 2015, 6:29 pm
#29
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE,MM
Posts: 363
It's a good question, one many analysts ask us. Without getting into a debate on the merits of our expansion plans, if you like I can shed some light on this. The truth is we were underperforming in comparison to the American carriers. They had six legacy carriers and merged to create three of the largest in the world, while we were stagnant at 56-58 widebodies for much of the last decade. Our schedule, network, natural geographic position (e.g. flying from a US city to Asia usually requires one to fly over YYZ or YVR anyway, and if you're making a connection YYZ/YVR are much more pleasant airports through which to connect than JFK or ORD or SFO), etc., all lends credence to our growth plans - which you can see is targeting international (vs regional) expansion and more sixth freedom traffic. Over the past five or six years, our new routes have seen roughly a 90% success (vs 50% about a decade ago), and many (such as CPH) are seeing added capacity YoY. There are certainly those that love to deride us (and the Leafs...after all, it is the national pastime in Canada ), but I would certainly hope those same people are able to objectively look at the industry and our rising place in it.
Using the American carriers as examples of capacity reduction isn't a great benchmark as the markets, assets, etc. are different. We're also keenly aware of the cyclic nature of this industry and do have many plans in place in case of an industry downturn which would allow us to weather the storm, such as swing capacity and cheap or paid-off aircraft.
Hopefully that gives a little insight into why we are doing what we're doing!
), but I would certainly hope those same people are able to objectively look at the industry and our rising place in it. Using the American carriers as examples of capacity reduction isn't a great benchmark as the markets, assets, etc. are different. We're also keenly aware of the cyclic nature of this industry and do have many plans in place in case of an industry downturn which would allow us to weather the storm, such as swing capacity and cheap or paid-off aircraft.
Hopefully that gives a little insight into why we are doing what we're doing!
I'm interested in your reference to the analyst community. What kind of specifics/details do you give them re your expansion plans and contingency arrangements?
May 5, 2015, 7:37 pm
#30
Flying Blue Director
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CDG/AMS
Posts: 1,864
I can't speak to that directly, but I would invite you to listen to our analyst calls/webcasts when we announce our quarterly results. You can find the link here: https://www.aircanada.com/en/about/investor/