Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

CRA re-config and re-designation - details and progress

CRA re-config and re-designation - details and progress

    Hide Wikipost
Old Aug 26, 19, 9:11 am   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: Adam Smith
Wiki Link
All new CR9s have delivered and the existing CRAs have been re-configured and re-certified as CR9s

New-build CR9s are:
  • C-FJZD
  • C-FJZL
  • C-GJZS
  • C-GJZT
  • C-GJZV
Print Wikipost

Old Jun 14, 16, 11:51 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE100K, WS Gold, BA Silver, Marriott/Accor Platinum, Hilton/Radisson/NH Gold
Posts: 6,005
CRA re-config and re-designation - details and progress

As someone who's stuck on CRAs far more than he would like, I'm interested in AC's recent announcement that not only is it adding more CRAs to the fleet (first announced last fall), it will also be re-designating the planes as CRJ-900s and re-configuring the cabin (see here).

I thought it would be useful to have a thread to discuss this as well as update progress as the changes are made to the existing fleet.

We haven't seen anything from AC on what the new layout - 12J, 20 Y+, 44Y - will look like. It seems to be the same as DL's CR9s (DL's seatmap here, SeatGuru's here).

Does anyone have any info on what AC's new layout will look like? If matching DL's, it will eliminate the current 1A being next to the front lav, which is definitely a good thing. Also, more closet space, potentially? Given the woeful lack of overhead bin capacity on that plane, and AC's refusal to do a proper gate check, that would be very welcome.

Any info on timing on the re-config? Will this be rolled out in pretty short order or will we go through a lengthy conversion process with uncertainty as to what layout you'll ultimately end up flying?

It's interesting to me to see more J seats being added when AC's recent trend has been to rip them out. It also means that the 76-seat CR9s will have only 2 fewer J seats than the 183-seat 321s.
Adam Smith is offline  
Old Jun 15, 16, 2:24 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: YXE
Posts: 2,933
Suspect there's an alterior motive here to eventually push another few rows as soon as they can do the paperwork with the union. 76 seats in a "CRJ-900" is on the low side.

I'd imagine the reconfiguration will be along those lines; minimizing the time it would take to pull a row of J to reconfigure to 2 extra rows of Y for an 81 seat (9J/72Y) configuration and even a 6J/77Y config unless the economy miraculously picks up.

Hence, no closet expansion. Slaveship conditions in the back. Gotta have continuity of product after all! Surprised AC is doing seat-back IFE though. Isn't that going the way of the dodo (gogo) bird?
pitz is offline  
Old Jun 15, 16, 6:52 am
  #3  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE100K, WS Gold, BA Silver, Marriott/Accor Platinum, Hilton/Radisson/NH Gold
Posts: 6,005
Originally Posted by pitz View Post
Suspect there's an alterior motive here to eventually push another few rows as soon as they can do the paperwork with the union. 76 seats in a "CRJ-900" is on the low side.

I'd imagine the reconfiguration will be along those lines; minimizing the time it would take to pull a row of J to reconfigure to 2 extra rows of Y for an 81 seat (9J/72Y) configuration and even a 6J/77Y config unless the economy miraculously picks up.

Hence, no closet expansion. Slaveship conditions in the back. Gotta have continuity of product after all! Surprised AC is doing seat-back IFE though. Isn't that going the way of the dodo (gogo) bird?
Why would they reconfigure the cabin once now, then do it again in short order?

As for 76 seats being "low", how do you see that? It's the same as DL's layout. AA has three layouts, two of which have 76 seats (12J/64Y like AC and DL, 9J/67Y and 9J/70Y). The 76-seat layout, if it mimics DL's, would leave 31" seat pitch in Y and 34" in preferred seats, which is in line with the E75/90 fleet and in the ballpark with the 320 family.

Yes, European operators with their fake J products cram more seats in, but I don't think they're a particularly relevant comparison given that key difference.

As for reducing J, why would they add two more seats only to take them right back out again? Makes no sense to me.
Adam Smith is offline  
Old Jun 15, 16, 7:12 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: YYC
Programs: UA 1K, AC E35, Starwood Platinum, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 1,887
I don't have any info beyond what's been published and posted in the earlier thread, but a few comments based on some comments from the earlier threads:
- The article mentions that the new CRA's will join the fleet in "early 2017", and that the reconfig of the existing ones would be completed by "end of 2017". My guess is that they'll want to minimize the amount of time when they have different configurations flying, so I don't think they'd start modifying the existing planes earlier than the timeline for getting the new ones (being early 2017). So it sounds like we'll see the changes throughout 2017 based on the published dates.
- A reliable source had posted in the earlier thread saying (see post #5 from here) that there would be additional closet space added. Given that it'll go to 12 seats (4 rows of 3) and they're adding closet space, it sounds like a pretty safe bet that the setup will be similar to DL's with 4 rows aligned across, and the solo seat by the lav will be going away.

Now if only they could get those planes off 4+ hour routes like YYC-IAH and keep them on shorter routes that they're better suited for, all would be good!
gcashin is offline  
Old Jun 15, 16, 12:53 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: YXE
Posts: 2,933
Originally Posted by adam.smith View Post
Why would they reconfigure the cabin once now, then do it again in short order?

As for reducing J, why would they add two more seats only to take them right back out again? Makes no sense to me.
The 76 seat configuration wasn't a technical or space limitation of the CRJ-900 (re-branded as a CRJ-705), but rather, was a limitation of the CBA they had signed with the ACPA at the time.

Once that clause is gone, the planes get reconfigured. And conditions are very favourable for a renegotiation of that clause. Hence my conjecture that the major reconfiguration would be done in such a way that a subsequent reconfiguration would merely be a quick hangar visit rather than a major reconfiguration and re-wiring event.
pitz is offline  
Old Jun 15, 16, 1:34 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE100K, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 4,033
Originally Posted by pitz View Post
The 76 seat configuration wasn't a technical or space limitation of the CRJ-900 (re-branded as a CRJ-705), but rather, was a limitation of the CBA they had signed with the ACPA at the time.

Once that clause is gone, the planes get reconfigured. And conditions are very favourable for a renegotiation of that clause. Hence my conjecture that the major reconfiguration would be done in such a way that a subsequent reconfiguration would merely be a quick hangar visit rather than a major reconfiguration and re-wiring event.
But both the ACPA and the Jazz CPA have both been redone within the last year. There is no suggestion that I'm aware of for either contract to be revisited at this point.
rehoult is offline  
Old Jun 15, 16, 2:10 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: YXE
Posts: 2,933
Originally Posted by rehoult View Post
But both the ACPA and the Jazz CPA have both been redone within the last year. There is no suggestion that I'm aware of for either contract to be revisited at this point.
Why would they go through the trouble of re-branding the 705's as 900's if not for eventually putting in more seats?

We FT'ers know that the CRA is one of the last bastions of sane seating pitch throughout the entire AC domestic fleet. It only makes sense that its AC management's eventual goal to improve the economics of the fleet. This is pretty low hanging fruit, IMHO.
pitz is offline  
Old Jun 15, 16, 3:27 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE100K, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 4,033
All of AC's recent changes have been toward monetizing their fleet, not just increasing density. If it was only density that mattered, E+, PE and the 77HD J replacements never would have happened.

This fleet change is occurring because their metrics show they can reliably sell 20 E+ and 12 J seats per flight. Tighter Y will be the by-product, and increased RASM will be the result.
rehoult is offline  
Old Jun 15, 16, 4:32 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: YYJ
Programs: AC E50K (*G), NEXUS
Posts: 497
It appears that the current CRAs are getting a bit of a cabin refresh as the seats were reupholstered with dark blue leather- similar to the Q400- on a flight a couple of weeks ago. Much softer the previous dreary grey leather and makes the cabin feel brighter.
marke190 is offline  
Old Jun 15, 16, 4:41 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Programs: AC E50K (*G), Westjet Gold
Posts: 765
Originally Posted by rehoult View Post
All of AC's recent changes have been toward monetizing their fleet, not just increasing density. If it was only density that mattered, E+, PE and the 77HD J replacements never would have happened.

This fleet change is occurring because their metrics show they can reliably sell 20 E+ and 12 J seats per flight. Tighter Y will be the by-product, and increased RASM will be the result.
The 12 J seats seems like a lot to me. I can't imagine YXE-YVR, YWG-YYC, YVR-YYC, and those kinds of CRA routes are selling much J.

Keeping the IFE makes me think they're looking at keeping these planes on the longer routes (ie. YYC-IAH). On these routes, the J product isn't all that competitive...I mean, a 4 hour flight and no hot meal?
nave888 is offline  
Old Jun 15, 16, 4:57 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: YYZ/SFO
Programs: AC*SE100K, SPG Platinum, HHonors Silver, Le Club Accor Silver, Avis First, NEXUS
Posts: 2,649
Originally Posted by nave888 View Post
On these routes, the J product isn't all that competitive...I mean, a 4 hour flight and no hot meal?
If they remove the current 1A, they could shift down the closet and increase galley space, possibly adding an oven.
D582 is offline  
Old Jun 15, 16, 5:40 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by D582 View Post
If they remove the current 1A, they could shift down the closet and increase galley space, possibly adding an oven.
All of which is going to be done, save the increased galley space.
AC681 is offline  
Old Jun 15, 16, 6:53 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Toronto, ON
Programs: AC*A
Posts: 4,801
Originally Posted by pitz View Post
Why would they go through the trouble of re-branding the 705's as 900's if not for eventually putting in more seats?
The 705s are certified to 75 seats, which is how they are currently configured. Now that they are going to 76 seats they have to recertify them as 900s.

Originally Posted by pitz View Post
The 76 seat configuration wasn't a technical or space limitation of the CRJ-900 (re-branded as a CRJ-705), but rather, was a limitation of the CBA they had signed with the ACPA at the time.

Once that clause is gone, the planes get reconfigured. And conditions are very favourable for a renegotiation of that clause.
Again, they aren't 76 seats yet. The planes are being reconfigured to 76 seats, and as already mentioned the clause in the CBA is already gone with the ratification of the ACPA agreement months ago.
ChrisA330 is offline  
Old Jun 16, 16, 8:23 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE100K, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 4,033
Originally Posted by nave888 View Post
The 12 J seats seems like a lot to me. I can't imagine YXE-YVR, YWG-YYC, YVR-YYC, and those kinds of CRA routes are selling much J.

Keeping the IFE makes me think they're looking at keeping these planes on the longer routes (ie. YYC-IAH). On these routes, the J product isn't all that competitive...I mean, a 4 hour flight and no hot meal?
They get a fair amount of TB work, so I think this may be more J seats for connecting passengers. AC has stated that increase US origin passengers (especially in J) is a major priority, and this should assist in offering a better product for those people.
rehoult is offline  
Old Jun 16, 16, 10:27 am
  #15  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE MM, SD Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 12,920
Originally Posted by nave888 View Post
Keeping the IFE makes me think they're looking at keeping these planes on the longer routes (ie. YYC-IAH). On these routes, the J product isn't all that competitive...I mean, a 4 hour flight and no hot meal?
I wonder if ovens might be part of the refresh as they did with the 190's???
The Lev is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread