For my ongoing YYC-YVR example, it is a $100 Tango to Flex price differential. Or a more than 50% increase in price ($180-190 Tango to $280-290 Flex).

Call me cynical, but I don't expect the "buy up" to be at a discount - judging by the premium AC charges on most routes between Tango and Flex, this is likely a way for AC to extract an even bigger premium from people who don't want the lowest possible fare.

My point was, it may be at a (small) discount if you compare the fare that include extras with the lowest fare plus the extra fees that need to be added to the lowest fare, ending up with the same overall package.

But no doubt, AC expects to make some money on this...

All of a sudden, some of the Flex Flight Pass Pricing for some of the impacted routes is becoming way more attractive... until of course these get adjusted upward

Dammit don't give them ideas.

:p

CBC picking up on some of these issues
 

Logical, but is it practical? The domestic flights have a lane for 1-2 and another for 3-5 and it is a tight fit at many gates. Would another lane be added for the "untouchables"? On international, perhaps the no frills customers would be called to board at the end of 5, but I would still anticipate arguments and delays. I do not share your view on the ease of enforcement.

I really am expecting a year or more of negativity and discontent as people purchase the low fare but do not comprehend what it means and we are treated to negative stories in the media, and the sometimes entertaining hissy fits at the gate. There are not enough gate agents to enforce the rules now, how then would they enforce additional draconian rules?

Anyway, we'll see soon enough, but I predict the flights to offer People of Walmart style confrontations will be Rapidair YYZ-YUL, mainland China and India. I'll revisit the topic in a year after the system wide change. :D

And to my surprise CBC allows commenting on this article. Most of the comments are against CBC's anti AC propaganda.

Actually I did not read the article as particularly anti-AC. Anti-stripped down fares, perhaps, but arguably rightly so.

Plus, I don't really think airlines like the idea all that much, more that they feel they have no choice but bite the bullet.

Ultimately these fares are there by popular demand. :(

As the article points out, probably misguided. But whose fault?

I was referring to the CBC's anti AC propaganda in general. I agree that this specific article isn't directly pointing towards AC.


Well, obviously airlines want everyone to pay full fare J and F, they could do that if they keep the capacity to what they had in the 60s and 70s. The real pressure IMO comes from shareholders. To satisfy shareholders airlines have to increase profits by expanding their customer base, Rouge and all those LCCs under their parent companies are examples.

I think one problem AC isn't handling well is market segregation. Some people still think flying is a luxury, and these people will go to CBC. At the same time, there are people who would like to pay a premium for a luxury (or at least reasonable) flying experience, these people will come here and complain about pickles, cheap wines, salad, chocolate cakes, etc. Air travel market is now segregated, but AC still wants a one size fits all solution. To make more people fly, AC lowers the price by costs cutting, however this costs cutting is company wide and negatively affects the company's culture. With all the downgrading in service and Altitude benefits cut we have seen enough frequent J flyers leaving AC. At the same time, AC markets itself with those fancy PY and J seats pictures luring people to think that AC is a luxury airlines. For non frequent flyers, once they find out the bad attitude from staff and the fact that they have to pay extra for pretty much everything other than the seat, no wondering they rant.

What AC should do IMO is to do what SQ and CX did, create a separate entity that is truely low cost, with different brands, and market them accordingly.

I'm still showing Flex option on concur... now wondering if it is truly "flex"?

See below...

I wonder at what point classic aeroplan rewards would start booking into ULC instead of Tango.

If you click fare rules, it will display the actual fare basis and you can toggle between tango, flex and other classes. Just look for the last two letters of the fare basis (TG or FL) as validation

They don't book into Tango :confused:

I mentioned earlier in this thread that Flex is Flex and Tango is Tango.

But if you are presented with just a fare class, you will need to look at the basis codes to distinguish. :)

Fare Basis Codes

EF = Business Flexible
EL = Business Lowest
PF = Premium Economy Flexible
PL = Premium Economy Lowest
LT = Latitude
FL = Flex
TG = Tango