|
Originally Posted by Fiordland
(Post 31287775)
Better solution would be to follow the lead of TAP Air Portugal. Take some of the A321 LR configure them with proper international business class. TAP is doing it between Portugal and Brazil. AC can do it between Ottawa and Europe.
AC getting some delivery slots for the A321 LR with its Air Transit purchase. |
Originally Posted by EdmFlyBoi
(Post 31294988)
Totally agree. A fleet of A321XLR configured like TAP, JetBlue, or Aer Lingus with lie flat up front would be a great ride to Europe from any of Ottawa, Halifax, St. John’s, or even Quebec City, and could open up even more routes to secondary cities in Europe from Toronto and Montreal that can’t fill an A330 or 788. Here’s hoping. I think one of the bigger issues for the YOW-LHR route is the business traffic. While you would have a fair number of bureaucrats going back and forth, the route falls just short of the timeframe that would allow for J seats. |
Originally Posted by jcamp028
(Post 31295644)
A Quebec City to Paris route a couple times a week might be interesting.
I think one of the bigger issues for the YOW-LHR route is the business traffic. While you would have a fair number of bureaucrats going back and forth, the route falls just short of the timeframe that would allow for J seats. |
Originally Posted by EdmFlyBoi
(Post 31296179)
Narrowbody lieflat J seems to be the way many airlines are configuring their narrowbodies for long haul, even for flights of 5-6 hours. You have to think if the economics work for JetBlue they could work for AC. I think the bigger issue is consistency. Right now, for an intercontinental flight, you have Premium Economy or Signature Class. The latter requires every seat to have aisle access. I just don't see a way AC could effectively add seats with all-aisle access to a narrow-body without taking up way too much space. And since a 2-2 configuration could only be sold as PY, as evidenced by the SQ birds, there's no point in them wasting the space on lie-flats if they can only command PY prices. Believe me, I'd love for my favorite route (YYZ-SFO) to have lie-flats on every flight, but I just can't see it happening. |
Any guess as to what will become of the Hawaii roues this winter if the Max8 is still out come December?
|
Originally Posted by canadiancow
(Post 31297240)
I wasn't aware B6 flew to Europe :p
I think the bigger issue is consistency. Right now, for an intercontinental flight, you have Premium Economy or Signature Class. The latter requires every seat to have aisle access. I just don't see a way AC could effectively add seats with all-aisle access to a narrow-body without taking up way too much space. And since a 2-2 configuration could only be sold as PY, as evidenced by the SQ birds, there's no point in them wasting the space on lie-flats if they can only command PY prices. Believe me, I'd love for my favorite route (YYZ-SFO) to have lie-flats on every flight, but I just can't see it happening. https://onemileatatime.com/tap-a321lr-porto-newark/ |
Originally Posted by jnswinnipeg
(Post 31297461)
Any guess as to what will become of the Hawaii roues this winter if the Max8 is still out come December?
|
Originally Posted by canadiancow
(Post 31297240)
I wasn't aware B6 flew to Europe :p
I think the bigger issue is consistency. Right now, for an intercontinental flight, you have Premium Economy or Signature Class. The latter requires every seat to have aisle access. I just don't see a way AC could effectively add seats with all-aisle access to a narrow-body without taking up way too much space. And since a 2-2 configuration could only be sold as PY, as evidenced by the SQ birds, there's no point in them wasting the space on lie-flats if they can only command PY prices. Believe me, I'd love for my favorite route (YYZ-SFO) to have lie-flats on every flight, but I just can't see it happening. https://onemileatatime.com/the-futur...usiness-class/ You can also install the present reverse herringbone on a narrow body as evidenced by what American has done with the transcontinental A321's. And JetBlue will be flying to Europe in the near future. |
Originally Posted by EdmFlyBoi
(Post 31298007)
How about this from Thomson Aero:
https://onemileatatime.com/the-futur...usiness-class/ You can also install the present reverse herringbone on a narrow body as evidenced by what American has done with the transcontinental A321's. I have yet to see a lie-flat business class product installed in narrow-bodies with aisle access from every seat, which is AC's requirement for selling it as J instead of PY. |
Originally Posted by canadiancow
(Post 31298213)
That's sold as first class, since it takes up so much space. Their business class is 2-2 lie-flat.
I have yet to see a lie-flat business class product installed in narrow-bodies with aisle access from every seat, which is AC's requirement for selling it as J instead of PY. |
Originally Posted by EdmFlyBoi
(Post 31299433)
Splitting hairs - if AC wants to market narrow body Signature Service they very much could install all aisle access lie flat seats in a narrow body aircraft. Based on the plans of other carriers, it seems like this can work economically on the routes where it would be considered.
But remember, on the overseas routes where they were using the max, they did not go that route. They seemed happy only to offer PY. True that these were mainly relatively low yield primarily leisure routes. Same would probably work for Quebec city to France. The routes currently operated by mainline 763 where J makes sense are the YOW to Europe ones. I note that YYZ-MXP which until recently (at least late May) saw the 763 now sees a 788. Anyway, if indeed getting 321XLRs which would allow for opening new routes, and dedicating these planes to thee routes (in contrast with what they do with the max) and if reasonably J-heavy routes can be identified then and only then setting up lie-flat J seats in a narrowbody might make sense. |
would Air Canada be allowed to "extend" the 767 beyond its D check, because of the MAX issue. Is that something Transport Canada can allow?
I assume some of the 767 get parked because they are hitting D checks? |
Originally Posted by mellon
(Post 31299981)
would Air Canada be allowed to "extend" the 767 beyond its D check, because of the MAX issue. Is that something Transport Canada can allow?
I assume some of the 767 get parked because they are hitting D checks? |
Originally Posted by mellon
(Post 31299981)
would Air Canada be allowed to "extend" the 767 beyond its D check, because of the MAX issue. Is that something Transport Canada can allow?
I assume some of the 767 get parked because they are hitting D checks? |
Originally Posted by mellon
(Post 31299981)
would Air Canada be allowed to "extend" the 767 beyond its D check, because of the MAX issue. Is that something Transport Canada can allow?
I assume some of the 767 get parked because they are hitting D checks? I found it inteterestig to learn, however that ACs Dash8 planes were hitting a different limitation--structural lifetime limit on total # of flights. Since there was not easy access to replacement aircraft, the cycle count was raised by regulators (doubled IIRC). It was a multi year process and required among other things at least one aircraft to be destructively tested for metal wear and fatigue. Then an upgrade/rework/inspection needed carried out on the other planes. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:08 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.