codfather

I was just thinking about this the other day, and I decided to pop this question to the FT community also for some general discussion. American Airlines has a phenomenal lie-flat product on the A321T for flights between LAX-JFK, etc. I think it would be amazing if AC placed lie-flat seats on some of the 737 MAX (when they are returned to service), and also on the A321. Flights between YYT-LHR, YHZ-LHR, YEG-YYZ, etc would be much more bearable with a nice bed to sleep on.

I know many of these routes already use widebody aircraft, but it would still be nice to have this product on some of the narrowbodies!

Adam Smith

Nope. AC only has lie-flats on widebodies. With AC's smaller fleet and route network, likely not enough places where this would work to justify a small sub-fleet.

smallmj

If they did it, it would only be on the MAX. They've got the range advantage over the 321CEO. The 321's will likely all end up at Rouge once all of the MAX's arrive.

I don't see them doing it though. Having two subfleets of MAX's to keep track of would probably lower fleet utilization.

codfather

That is what I was thinking...

Although, in saying that, the MAX was being deployed to more and more small European cities! Perhaps a sub fleet of MAX aircraft specifically used for transcontinental service and select TATL routes could work in the future. The issue I see (as you noted) is the smaller fleet and route network that AC has compared to AA as an example.

songsc

skybluesea

delete

5mm

FlyerTalker70

You should be happy your 737s/A320s in J don't have a blocked middle seat like they do in Europe:



That being said, I suspect the amount of space a proper lie flat J cabin would make it quite difficult for AC to justify. Consider AA's A321T, a modified version of the A321 designed to handle it's 4 cabin layout (10F, 20J, 35 PY and 31 Y). Their J and F cabins are all lie flats. Contrast that with AC's A321 which features 16 J seats and 169 Y seats. You've got nearly half as many passengers on the AA flight as you do the AC. Keep in mind AC is often the sole domestic airline for many routes in Canada (i.e. YYZ > HNL, YUL > YWG to name but a few) and it's no wonder that they need to have seating capacity to ensure they can transport the people who will take that route. It's also difficult to make that argument for domestic service where you're looking at flights that are a couple of hours in length. How could you possibly get sleep on such a flight. By the time your meal is doled out you're already half way through the flight!

Simply put, if AC thought there was a market to introduce Executive Domestic service they would've done it already:



Safe Travels,

James

CZAMFlyer

I don't believe anybody was making that argument though. Such service would be intended for the longer signature routes as mentioned above. Think YYZ-YVR, YVR-YUL or YYZ-SFO/LAX: 4-5 hours or more in length.
Understand that such a product is already available on the widebody aircraft that ply those routes, and that converting a percentage of your narrowbodies for a lie-flat cabin might not be ideal for overall fleet utilization.

canopus27

There are two separate questions; (a) whether AC would see enough demand & value to put lie flat seats in a narrow body, and (b) whether AC's lie flats would physically fit in a narrow body. I'm ignoring the (admittedly important) first question, and decided to test the second.

(Puts on math geek hat)

The 777 has 4 lie flats across + 2 aisles. It has an internal cabin width of 586cm
The 767 has 3 lie flats across + 2 aisles. It has an internal cabin width of 472cm.

Thus, the width of an AC lie flat is 114cm, and the aisle is 65cm.
Which means two lie flats + one aisle == 293 cm. This is the minimum width that would be required.

The 737 internal cabin width is 354cm, and the Airbus 220 (nee cSeries) cabin width is 328 cm.

Thus, AC could comfortably fit two lie flats across into the width of the 737, and even in the 220. They even have enough space to adjust the angle some; they reduced the angle to fit 4 lie flats across into the 787 (width only 549cm) at the expense of increased overall length - thus they could, if they chose to, increase the angle in the 737 and reduce the length consumed.

Bottom line - two lie flats across would absolutely physically fit in both a 737 and a 220 ... so the only question is whether or not AC sees a business value in doing so.

codfather

I would love to see all AC narrowbodies have lie-flat J class seats (not including the CRJ, E-Jets, etc). Sacrificing a few economy seats to provide a better business product sure would be nice, but we know it will not likely happen if the demand does not exist for it.

nexusCFX

It would certainly make my life easier flying YYZ<->SFO because right now I only have two times to choose from each way out of four or five flights a day if I want a pod. Don't see it happening though.

eigenvector

On top of that AC is now introducing more narrowbody international flights, or at least was until the 737MAX was grounded.

I think some fliers have interpreted AC's previous fleet plan of 100% lie-flat J internationally (the only long-standing exception to this being YYT-LHR) as a deliberate product choice, versus a reality of aircraft range and availability. AC has long recognized that some long-haul markets don't necessarily support premium traffic that is willing to pay for lie-flat J, hence the selective deployment of Rouge 767s. The introduction to the mainline fleet of narrowbody aircraft that can fly the shorter TATL & South American routes will only result in less lie-flat J seats internationally.

Transpacificflyer

There is market demand. However, there is no market force because there is limited competition. On US TransContinental and Hawaii , multiple carriers offer lie flats in an attempt to distinguish their product. Air Canada doesn't have to offer lie flats since there are no other carriers doing so.

5mm

Would you be willing to pay for it? I'm guessing 99% of pax would not.