sram

Can someone explain what will be offered in terms of AC "mile accumulation" on CX? as per the PR, will i get AQD/AQM's on code share flights operated by CX? for example, HKG- KUL?

On the topic of HX, I flew HX this summer in J (HKG - BKK). The J product does not compare to CX or SQ, TG, etc.. Its a marginal product, but is very good value. I paid $300 RT (HKG - BKK)... same that I would have paid on CX or TG in Y; At that price, its very good value.

YOWgary

Apologies if I've missed this answer, but I haven't been able to find anything online yet:

I'm sitting on ~15,000 Asia Miles that I haven't been able to use. Am I reading this correctly that I'll soon be able to redeem them for a Y award on AC metal?

tcook052

The press release cow shared in post #50 of this thread seems to indicate Asia miles may only be redeemed on these specific codeshare routes and not any AC flight:

When travelling on these services, members of Air Canada's loyalty program, Aeroplan, and Cathay Pacific's travel and lifestyle rewards program, Asia Miles, will be eligible to earn and redeem miles on the above mentioned codeshare routes

YOWgary

In other words, probably YVR or YYZ direct to almost anywhere in Canada, but nobody's seen an official answer yet?

skybluesea

How about a different interpretation of what is contained in this press release that deals with:

"This agreement with Cathay Pacific will offer Air Canada customers more travel options and reciprocal mileage accrual and redemption benefits when travelling to many important destinations in Southeast Asia," said Calin Rovinescu, President and Chief Executive Officer of Air Canada. "It is a strategic cooperation of mutual benefit and underscores our commitment to offer our customers the very highest quality and service connecting Canada and the world. We look forward to introducing Air Canada codeshare service on Cathay Pacific's flights and welcoming Cathay Pacific's customers on our flights beginning in the New Year."

Yes, "mutual benefit" is to prevent AC facing competition from CX and other Asian carriers on major domestic routes, as Canadians truly deserve access to world-class domestic services that would put to shame the nonsense duopoly we have now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duopoly

And AC focus on high quality of service on international routes is understandable, because this is where customers face many alternatives - but in the absence of access to domestic markets, then poor suckers who live in Sydney, N.S., subject of another thread at present, no such luck.

And my post will get some FT nationalist respond that NO foreign carrier will fly Halifax-Sydney, so we must have domestic owned operators.

What poppycock - EU has plenty of airlines from other parts of EU flying within national boundaries - in Italy where I spend great deal of time, best service available from Rome within Italy is by RyanAir from Ciampino airport, barely 20 minutes from center of town. Yes, Ryanair service levels are low, but getting to/from Ciampino is quick by comparison to Fiumicino, and flight from Rome anywhere in Italy is less than an hour so is it such a burden to fly in cramped quarters, when Ryanair airfares are routinely substantially cheaper and time much faster than taking subsidized fast rail in Italy.

And somebody should really ask the question is how does this help competition in Canada - it doesn't, and where is Competition Bureau to start addressing these anti-competitive arrangements. But of course, if such deals are prohibited, than Canadians might to feel the burn about what they are really missing and call for real change - not this band-aid for real competition in the domestic market.

YOWgary

Do you really see Cathay running 777s HKG-YVR-YEG, or HKG-YYZ-YHZ?

At some point, HKG-YYC will become worthwhile for somebody, and maybe YUL-HKG will as well, but in the meantime, it's not like Cathay were suddenly about to start competing on domestic segments.

Shareholder

And the population of Europe is what? Maybe 7-8x that of Canada. And the land mass covered less than half that of our sprawling country with much greater distances to be covered. Market size tends to dictate the economic viability of various sectors. In a country of 35 million, a duopoly seems to be the maximum level of economic viability for the airline industry wherein consumers are served with extensive routes and companies (and their shareholders) can make a reasonable profit while paying employees a living/middle class wage. (And beyond duopoly, there's a pretty strong regional in PD.) In the US, with 10x our population, there are four major airlines and four mini-majors. Divide their market by our market by number of carriers/population and we would not even support one airline!

And there is certainly no duopoly on competition beyond Canada where dozens of airlines compete with AC.

Talk of competition is a fallacy if it only creates a situation where no business can make a profit from its operations. That's what capitalism is all about: making money, and in doing so employing your residents, creating wealth and paying taxes on that wealth.

gabdusch

Looks like more codeshare options now offered on AC.com, including the TPAC segment...I don't recall seeing this option before.



No wording on AQM or AQD accumulation on the purchase page.

cooleddie

Isn't this just interlining not codeshare

moorw003

I work as a greeter for new international students at MUN, and met student this morning off AC698, who'd flown in from Hong Kong.

He was very jet-lagged and I asked him "did you fly Air Canada from Hong Kong". He replied "I said I had jet-lag, not cerebral dystrophy. Cathay Pacific to Toronto"

Haven't stopped laughing all morning. What a beautiful put down!

gabdusch

Yes, you're right that's not a code share, sorry. But I don't recall seeing the long haul YYZ-HKG for sale on an anther carrier than AC on AC.com before the announcement.

skybluesea

First, EU pop at least 15x that of Canada, and what has that to do with a route RyanAir flies between regional cities in Italy, that are smaller than some mid-size Canadian cities.

This leads to more important question - please provide evidence/link that market size dictates viability in airline sector - according to AirBus about 850 commercial airlines in the world (PM and I can send you their forecasting video), and according to eminent Dr. Michael Porter @ Harvard, airlines do NOT require scale to be profitable (PM for this video too). And what should we make of U.S. comparison - can send you excellent read on the lack of airline competition in the U.S. fully enabled by the U.S. Dep't of Justice and hands-off approach to serving the public interest. U.S. mega-hubs and regions are dominated by a few carriers, nicely carving up the country into mini-fiefdoms. Practices elsewhere do not signal effective competition, they simply reflect the problem of domestic political influence to avoid non-domestic competitors - sound familiar here.

But if I read carefully between the lines, despite your moniker, Shareholder, your views are evidently anti-capital. Protecting firms from competition does NOT translate into living wages - as such firms could easily pocket the excess profits to Shareholders, but your quaint view that Canadians benefit from reducing competition for domestic champions is the real fallacy that you speak of.

Fine, and I accept you have different view about how to achieve effective airline service levels within Canada - but I might ask, do you or anyone in your family drive an imported car?

So it would appear OK from your argument that perfectly legitimate for AC & WestJet to fly imported aircraft, buy imported parts, etc, but NOT for the capital for which acquired these aircraft in the first place to come from elsewhere. Why? do Canadians investors need to be protected from capital inflows from outside the country? Sounds rather "Soviet" - although we all know how that failure cost millions of lives at hands of brutal dictators on the way to the nirvana of socialism.

But I must say I completely reject your inward and non-realistic view of Canada's economy - why? because Canada is a trading nation, with 2/3 related to import/exports, and we would be frozen in the dark if we widely applied your thinking across the economic landscape.

http://www.investorsfriend.com/canad...s-and-exports/

And I repeat, why should CX be prevented from operating YYZ-YVR, enroute to HKG (which in technical terms would be called an 8th freedom), where Canada, the U.S. and Hong Kong have agreed to permit CX 5th freedom OPS on the JFK-YVR-HKG route.

And to the Post that says CX wouldn't fly YYZ-YVR route - how do you know?

Let the market decide, and if CX shareholders take a bath if it doesn't work, that means all the travelers who used this service will have received a subsidy from foreign owners along the way.

and Shareholder, good luck with your 19th century notions about how the 21st century economy works - just look at the supposed backlash at recent globalization trends - if politicians are really serious about turning this back - well you had better start saving your pennies for next Christmas, as the cost of that HD TV your craving is going to quadruple if it must be made in Canada.

YOWgary

None of us know, it just doesn't seem terribly reasonable, for a couple of reasons.

Cathay currently sends five planes a day to Canada, 4/5 of which depart again just about as fast as it's possible to turn a 777 around.

CX824 - arrives YYZ 1355, departs 1555
CX826 - arrives YYZ 2025, departs 0145

CX856 - arrives YVR 0755, departs 0925
CX837 - arrives YVR 1315, departs 1445
CX888 - arrives YVR 2125, departs 2250 for JFK
- return JFK-YVR-HKG departs YVR 0205

I feel like everyone here is familiar with the idea that an airliner only makes money when it's in the air, but let's say for the sake of this little thought experiment that YVR-YYZ is somehow more profitable, per unit of time, than YVR-HKG or YYZ-HKG, since that's the only reason Cathay would have to pull them away from what they're already doing.

So, to free up aircraft for a YYZ-YVR leg, you'd have to decide that this was more profitable than having the same aircraft return to Hong Kong. Since CX have been gradually adding more segments to Canada, with prices that are consistently equal or higher to AC's, it seems reasonable to assume that CX are getting what they want out of these flights already.

But let's say you do it anyway, and throw your existing return legs to Hong Kong out the window, because you really, really want that sweet, sweet Canadian-domestic money. For the sake of argument, we'll assume the return flights to Hong Kong just sort of work themselves out, and CX doesn't give up any carrying capacity. That's nonsense, but let's set it aside for the moment anyway.

CX824 could do a YYZ-YVR leg departing around 1600, arriving Vancouver 1800, and leave for HKG around 2000, but that would land in HKG just after midnight. We'll call this one a "maybe".

CX826 could do a YYZ-YVR leg departing around 2300, but that would put it in Vancouver at almost exactly the time as CX889. So, either you have two 777s leaving together at two in the morning, or you leave one overnight for several hours for a first-thing-in-the-morning departure. Seems unlikely.

CX856 could do a YVR-YYZ leg departing around 0930. If it did YVR-YYZ return, it'd be back in Vancouver around 10PM, in time for a midnight departure to HKG, or, heck, another red-eye to Toronto, so we'll call this a "maybe".

CX837 could do a YVR-YYZ leg departing around 1500, landing in Toronto 22:30. If you do a return to Vancouver, again, you're competing against yourself with 889, but if you go onwards from Toronto, you've got the same problem with 827. Seems unlikely

CX888 is already occupied doing the YVR-JFK-YVR round-trip. This route has been running long enough that it's reasonable to assume CX are getting what they want out of it, whether that's profit, or connection capacity, or whatever. Calling this one "highly unlikely".

So, we're looking at one or two YVR-YYZ leg, max, and two or three for YYZ-YVR.

Cathay's A350 seat 38/28/214 in J/PY/Y, total of 280 bums in seats. New plane, so we'll assume that seating configuration stays for the foreseeable future.

Their 777 are currently 40/32/268 and 6/53/34/182, soon going up to 40/32/294 and 6/53/34/195, respectively. I think you'd have a very hard time selling more than a few F seats per week on that route, but regardless, you're talking about 300-350 seats per flight, where AC and WS are running over 5,000 seats a day, combined.

So, you tell me: given the limitations laid out above, and trends that suggest Cathay are already doing well enough on their HKG-Canada routes to want to add more flights, what is their potential win scenario for entering the Canadian domestic market?

skybluesea

Here is perfect example of trying to project the current situation, but completely failing to account for fundamental policy change that would permit such an operation in the first place.

I accept YOWgary provides ONE plausible scenario, but I might observe that for any sake of validity of opinion posited, such a scenario would typically be prefaced with ALL OTHER THINGS REMAINING EQUAL (a notorious term used by the likes of me when doing forecasts for clients).

And one scenario involves removal of ownership limits, as I have repeatedly advocated in various Threads, thus another plausible scenario where CX/SWIRE & their part Chinese ownership BUY a majority stake in the long-ago privatized AC, so joint AC/CX schedules get re-aligned to facilitate through services.

Alternatively, AC with its deep Canadian investor pockets (FT sarcasm emoji doesn't do justice here) buys major stake in CX, and re-aligns schedules accordingly.

I can think of multiple scenarios, should Parliament see its way to STOP protecting AC from what foreign owners might do.

btw...these same ownership restrictions elsewhere prevent AC Shareholders from investing in more profitable aviation markets elsewhere.

in the end, reminds me of long-ago professor who related codeshares to dates, while ownership to marriage - dates come and go, and marriages tend bit last longer often because of the kids.

If this deal is so good for both CX/AC, why NOT allow meaningful marriage?

Shareholder

That backlash against globalization is counter to your argument. People seem to want their own companies creating jobs for people in their country, not foreigners taking their jobs and denying elements of national sovereignty. There is a place for global scale -- like the TV set you talk about, or Apple assembling most of its products in China, while employing thousands in a sector more appropriate to a post-industrial society like ours, their stores for sales and service -- but not when it is used to obliterate local businesses that still respond to the needs of local communities. If EK isn't an example of globalization in the service sector, I don't know what is. There are only a couple of viable routes that any foreign airline would want to fly, to skim cream from domestic airlines. And it appears that PD is doing that quite well for those in the regions it flies. No need for a CX or AA|UA|DL or EK to fly YYZ-YOW-YUL. Nor can either CX or EK justify running their 777s and A380s between YYZ-YVR when they can be more profitably assigned on their current turnarounds. Deploying separate fleets of smaller planes would be a further mis-allocation of high value personnel and equipment.

That the EU is twice as large as I characterized it only proves my point that there is a much larger market that can be serviced more efficiently than it the case here in Canada. Planes that fly between two cities in the early morning can service two more midday and two more in the evening as distances are shorter between most city pairs in these densely population countries. In Canada, such high utilization is limited to eastern and western triangles, beyond that distances are too far and populations to sparse to provide operating efficiencies required. As it is WS has expanded through its Envoy fleets into AC's regional secondary and tertiary markets, providing competition within a limited market size. And in the key central/eastern Canada market add PD to AC and WS.