I don't see the case for the 318, at this stage. Unless Airbus really gives the store away, I don't think that the unit operating costs for the 318 will be able to match the RJ variant.

However, that is a combination of issues of power plant (that will still have to be examined) and crew compensation (that may be forced onto ACPA).

Let's hope the 744s stay...

As for the CRJs, I am really not that fond of them unless if they pop in J seating. Otherwise, everything will turn into Zip.

'smaller fleet' like the 747-400 ?

What's bigger? A3XX?

smaller fleet equals number of aircraft in fleet 744-400 = 7

Msn,
I do believe money talks as you said..

I think Airbus is very much entrenched in Air Canada. Airline is already operating A319, A320, A321, A343, and A333s. A345s and A346s will be coming into the fleet as well. I do see AC being a very good candidate for an airline going to an all airbus fleet, if Airbus can develop a replacement for the B767-300ERs.

I think Boeing's problem with the B717-200 is, it is a plane which came from the MD. (The MD95)

There is bad blood between the Boeing and MD workers like AC and CP..
And the B717-200 competing with the B737-600 directly also does not help.

Also depends on, how much power LH will have in the order as it is a joint STAR order and LH will likely be the airline ordering the most jets. I am sure Airbus will be trying to scure customers for the lessor who have ordered the A318s. So it is also very likely. But I suspect, it could go either way to Boeing or Airbus or even bombardier...

I wonder if they are only looking at the B747-400s = 3/4

The B747-400Combis being kept separate...

Very valid point.. Considering that the A318 is a heavier aircraft than the RJ varient... Going back to New aircraft... New contract...

Better for the airline when it comes to negotiations as the A318 wages will likely be derived from A319s and the A320s...

Thanks for the comments regarding the A318s.

This is an interesting discussion.

yyz-flyer: do you have any clue what you're talking about? Do you know what fuel economy is? Second, the 747s are not exactly efficient anymore, especially the combis.

Yes I know what fuel economy is. Every 747 takes a lot of fuel but if the airline gets enough pax (and cargo in terms of combis) they can afford to operate the planes.

It's not that simple... you need to learn about yields too.

When and if I become an AC employee I will learn about that, now as one of the pax I dont need to know that quite yet.

Here's an example of how yields work.

Suppose you have 400 people who want to go to LHR. 200 of them are willing to pay anything up to $1000 for their ticket. The other 200 will only pay up to $500 for their ticket; they will stay home if the prices are any higher. If AC offered seats at $500 each, all 400 people would buy them. AC would almost fill a 747 and they would get 400 x $500 = $200000 in revenue. But if they flew a 767 and offered seats at $1000 each, they would still get 200 x $1000 = $200000 in revenue and almost fill the 767. The 767 is much cheaper to operate, so AC would be better off with this option.

It gets very complicated because there are dozens of different fares offered on every flight (N,L,Q, etc., and each class sometimes has several different prices) and several different types of planes that can be used between YYZ and LHR (747, 340, 330, 767).

[This message has been edited by StuMcIlwain (edited 04-01-2003).]

This is one of the keys in the restructuring of the pilots contract. Getting paid for what they fly and not an inflated A321 rate for all the small bus family.

To me one of the things the new AC is going to have to look at is frequency. In the past they tried to increase the number of frequencies to certain destinations to attract the "business person". As a result we saw smaller planes leaving every hour or so. They are going to have to look using larger planes less frequently with higher loads. Sure fuel is a major factor, along with wages but don't forget landing fees, ground handling on more planes etc, etc. For example maybe they should look at dropping some of the A320 flights from/to YYZ/YVR and replace two A320 flights with one B767. Fewer seats but also lower cost per mile when all is said and done.

The main advantage of the CRJ's has been that they can serve offer a cost effective jet service on routes that fall between a DH8-3 and an A319/A320. In the US they have been used effectively by the feeder airlines. Not sure where a 90 seat CRJ would fit in AC's picture, do they have enough routes that are too big for a 50 seat CRJ but too small for an A319? The A319's they already have are new airplanes so are they looking at getting rid of them already?

The B747-Combos are only effective on routes with good passenger loads and lots and lots of cargo. AC has managed to screw up their cargo business just as effectively as their passenger business. It amazes me to see people like KLM increasing their cargo lift to YYZ and JFK when AC has such a hard time in the cargo business. AC's new cargo handling facility in YYZ is empty and has been since the moved there.