global happy traveller

add a little more fun to it

MBR - BTH DH4
BTH - LVG CR7
LVG -OFC 789
OFC - BTH CR9

LVG and DNR are all part of YTO

codfather

I don't think we will see much change. AC will likely create a few incentives to keep frequent flyers loyal to them, but I would say that is pretty much it!

Adam Smith

According to Wikipedia, YDQ only had service from Central Mountain Air, to Prince George, before this COVID-19 mess, with WS scheduled to start service to YYC later this month.

So let's say WS does start up their service whenever this settles down, YDQ is better off than they were before. AC decided to pull out of YXH (leaving it to WS) and YQF (now left with no service) before coronavirus started to cause issues to the network. ZBF only has service from AC (YUL). On the other hand, YYT, YYJ, YXE, can't see any way that those don't continue to get service from both AC and WS. At less frequency, perhaps, but if YYC-YYZ, YUL-YVR, etc also have reduced frequency, we're all suffering, so where's the need for interline? Even if it serves customers better, where's the rationale for AC or WS to do it? They’re in business to make money, not provide the best possible experience for their customers.

By the way, even if they interline, no guarantee that any reasonable fares get filed. Google Flights sometimes shows me itineraries mixed on UA and AA, for example, with absolutely atrocious pricing. They're better routes than either of the airlines offers me on their own, but there aren't any decent fares filed, so the price ends up being ridiculously high. So that interline agreement wouldn't do me any good, unless I really felt like paying 3-4x the price of a less convenient routing all on one carrier. If AC and WS interline, there’s no guarantee you’ll be able to take YXH on to a YYC-Europe trip (or whatever other route you might have envisaged) without it costing a fortune.

Presumably you're thinking about "unit costs" in terms of CASM, but CASM isn’t always the right metric, and the rouge 763s’ CASM may not be as good as you think it is.

1. The pilots at rouge now make the same as mainline, if I recall correctly, meaning the only absolute cost advantage is a small difference in FA wages, with some per-seat cost savings achieved with the denser layout
2. The rouge 763s have no J cabin, making them a poor choice for many long-haul routes where the J cabin is an important source of profitability
3. 763s' low CASM is partly due to the low capital costs associated with the plane, either because they were acquired used, or because they were acquired long ago. However, the capital costs are sunk, and if demand is low and something has to be parked, the focus will be more on incremental costs such as fuel burn. The 763s are the least fuel-efficient widebodies in the fleet, meaning the incremental cost to operate them is actually high
4. The 763s have been terrible on maintenance and reliability for the past three years, which does have a meaningful cost, including potentially compensating or at least accommodating passengers when their flights are delayed due to these mechanical issues

Low CASM is only good if you get the plane full or close to full. For example, the A380 has great CASM numbers, yet has been a commercial flop in large part because airlines struggled to fill it. If demand is down substantially, it's going to be hard to fill planes. The bigger the plane, the harder it is to deploy it on a route where it can be filled.

This isn't rocket science, nor is it anything new. Old gas guzzlers are the first thing to get parked when things go south. And for planes that were near the scrap heap anyway, they may well head directly there rather than get placed in to storage.

Remember, AC was already planning to retire two rouge 763s this year, and four more that are getting pretty close.


Flying a lot of empty seats is expensive. AC’s (and the rest of the industry’s) profitability in recent years has been built on high load factors. Going back to mid-2000s load factors in the 60s or 70s might make sense for a short time (maybe a few months), but not for long, even if fuel prices stay low.



Overcapacity can’t be cured overnight.

• Airlines’ ability to cut staff may be limited by union contracts and/or commitments made to governments for financial support during this mess.
• Their desire to do so may also be tempered depending on how they see the recovery going. If they anticipate a relatively quick one, they may want to over overstaffed rather than have to get rid of a bunch of employees then go hunting to replace them in 6, 12, or 18 months.
• As for aircraft, they can reduce incremental costs by parking old planes, but unless they have upcoming lease expiries that they can hand back, aircraft rent and interest expense are largely fixed, along with a whole bunch or other corporate costs.
• Reducing service may also require giving up slots or gates that may be difficult to re-acquire down the road and/or paying termination fees to get out of those contracts.

(A lot more could be done on those fronts in insolvency, but I don’t see AC going down that route)

It all comes down to how severe and prolonged the downturn will be. You seem to be predicting some doomsday scenario where demand is down – what, 50-80%? – for a very long time. I just don’t see it (for once, skybluesea and I seem to agree ). The industry is in for an awful few months, and it will take some time beyond that to recover, but I don’t see people being afraid to fly the way you seem to. COVID-19 has become a global phenomenon with widespread community spread, unlike Ebola or SARS where it was nearly all people who had been to particular areas. So I don’t see people as being all that scared to travel, and I think a lot of people are going to want to get away after being stuck at home for so long.

Airlines will want to get people back in the habit of flying and benefit from economies of scale, so they’re not going to go get rid of all their capacity and will try to make it attractive to fly.

AC pays the same income tax on a seat selection fee as it does on a base fare or on YQ. There’s no tax incentive for them towards one or the other.

The flying public has shown itself to be incredibly price-sensitive, which is why the industry has spent the last 10-15 years unbundling. The fees have been source of grief for years, just like reduced seat pitch and other service reductions, yet people continue to fly. Spirit is extremely profitable despite treating their customers like crap and having awful ancillary fees, just like Ryanair and easyJet. AC didn’t come up with most of these things and it’s far from alone.

Why would a recession change any that? If anything, it should exacerbate the trend so that the airlines can lure people in with low advertised fares before hitting them with the upsell later in the process.

I have no view on TPE in and of itself. I mentioned it only because it appears to be a low-yielding route for AC relative to others in Asia, based on the fares generally available to the public. If you’re right, then surely yields will improve and they will continue to serve it. But the point wasn’t about TPE specifically, it was about routes with marginal profitability (and limited service) being discontinued. Maybe TPE stays and they stop their half-assed attempts to do sun destinations from YYC (e.g. why waste time on one seasonal, poorly timed YYC-PHX when WS flies year-round and like 3x/day at peak times?). I don't know. Whatever the marginal routes are, those will be the ones to go first.

It means whatever gets them the most votes

They may decide that allowing Canadians to continue to access cheap holidays to sun destinations is vital to our mental health and their re-elections.

yulred

I think pax are going to be more sensitive to personal space - a lot more disinclined than before to rub shoulders with their neighbours or have knees jammed into their backs/jam their knees into somebody else’s back. I also think they’re going to notice cleanliness more - everything’s a germ vector these days.

Combine that with a drop-off in demand (aka more availability of discounted seats on other airlines) and you create a situation where pax previously focused on price might start noticing the small margins - the too close for comfort and the cleanliness aspects of AC Y travel for example. The acute competitive pressure this brings, may motivate some rapid incremental improvements in catering, IFE etc - something to offset the mental discomfort of sardine can HD configs.

I guess my point is that this episode has injected two new variables - personal space and a huge appetite for sanitization/cleanliness - that airlines like AC haven’t factored into customer experience in a while.

Bohemian1

Maybe AC will start handing out face masks and sanitizer wipes as part of their boarding process. Or sell them like they do with earbuds in Y.

Might make the punters a little happier being packed in the back.

lsquare

I agree with you. MU's lounge in PVG also have something similar where noodles are made when ordered.

I flew a bunch of different airlines recently and some already have faucets that automatically turn on when my hands are placed near the sensors. Not all aircrafts have it. CX888 from HKG-YVR didn't have it. I think all aircrafts should have it going forward.

24left

Here's some advice: I've used a paper towel to press down the water faucet thingie on some older AC 32x birds. Low tech solution but really, not that hard to do and you don't have to touch.

Reminder to all: once you wash your hands, do not touch the lav door handles. Use a paper towel because we know no one cleans those and some people may still not was their hands..... even if they are wearing a mask.

lsquare

That's what I've always done even pre-COVID19. I don't think they cleaned aircrafts the way that they do now. I was called a germophobe then. I didn't cared then and I don't care now.

yyztozag

I’ve always done the same. Knowing how many people brush their teeth on board and how many of those have poor hygiene, I’ve always been worried about touching someone’s saliva. Or worse.

lsquare

If I'm going to brush my teeth, then I'm going to do it before I board the plane. I know my mouth won't be clean after having a meal onboard, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. It's probably less harmful than dealing with a lavatory that's been used many times during a flight.

yyztozag

I usually do too... if push comes to shove I use bottled water. I really hope that nobody uses potable water to rinse their mouth (especially now and post-COVID-19).

lsquare

Absolutely. I've never had an issue getting water from a flight attendant. It's usually not a problem if you're doing transcon or even an intercontinental flight. If you generally take care of your oral health and see a dentist every couple of month, then it's probably a non-issue. I'm getting closer to 40 and I've never had a cavity in my life.

24left

LOL, but I was thinking about it after I read this column and thinking about the subject of this thread and especially the OP and first couple of posts.




QUOTES:

"Air travel and the passenger experience has already changed beyond measure as the result of COVID-19 and the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that causes it. But when passengers begin to travel again, how will the soft product on board — the parts of the passenger experience not bolted down to the cabin, in essence — change?

Travelers are already wearing airline eye shades as makeshift face masks as authorities encourage (and in some cases require) mouths and noses to be covered in close situations where physical distancing is not possible.

Given that wearing a mask — whether reusable cloth or disposable — seems likely to be a prerequisite for being allowed into an airport, are actual airline-branded facemasks going to be the new airline pajamas? Will the hot towel service be replaced by a flight attendant clad in branded PPE walking down the aisle with a tub of Clorox wipes? Is PPE the new IFE?"

Some interesting points in the full article (e.g. as it relates to J vs Y pax)

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2020/0...he-new-normal/

yyztozag

Watch the Naomi Campbell video where she cleans every surface of the seat. I have seen tons of people who clean to that degree. I’ve been disinfecting every seat that I sit in for a very long time (except for short-haul economy, where there is little need to touch anything). I seriously doubt that any carrier or airport will require masks, but airlines will for sure provide disinfectant wipes and hand sanitizer, at least in premium cabin amenity kits. People won’t continue with these precautions after they are vaccinated for COVID-19. They’ll just learn a lesson about cleanliness and hygiene, if nothing else they’ll clean surfaces they touch as a reassurance.

24left

There are a number of very interesting columns out there covering the topic of how flying is different today and what the writers and some aviation industry people thing it will be like going forward. Some of the changes have already started, like wearing masks. But it is not being done with any conformity or consistency across airlines, which I think is wrong.

I am sure a few people on this forum are still flying and some have reported their experiences. Others may go back to flying AC as soon as someone deems it safe, but in reality, while domestic and TB flights have their own limitations right now, flying as we knew it will not be the same for a long time and may never be the same as what was. No one knows yet which countries will re-open for passengers and what the restrictions might be.

And everyone has their own view of what it may be in the short term, say now until Jan 1 2021, the mid term, 2021-2022 and then further out.

Industry and aviation experts - and even airlines and manufacturers, all have their own versions of the future. There is also some disagreement over who will return to flying first - business travellers or leisure pax, as well as what airlines may try to do to incentivize.

I think AC will do whatever it can to conserve the cash it has. I may be wrong, but I don't see AC moving quickly on returning to some semblance of service that we all used to have.

I know some who will not pay AC the prices they have charged for Business or PE only to be served a wrap and coleslaw and packaged almonds plus a bottle of water, for long TPAC flights. I can't imagine what it might be like in Y where there is nothing. And of course, no one knows if any food services will be open post-security and not everyone can afford $5 for a 500ml bottle of water, let alone food and drinks for a family.

As for the small items like pillow and blankets, other airlines I've flown have always provided all of these items in sealed packages that includes the blanket and pillow. AC only provides the blanket in the package but the less than hygienic uncovered pillow, is just placed on the seat, touched by the groomers wearing gloves who might have been cleaning lavs and so on.

I think AC will continue to offer minimalism because it can and it assumes people who need to fly will put up with it.

But then knowing AC does not provide these items, will some pax bring their own? Some of us have our brightly-colored AirCanadaCamping inflatables. I've seen many people bring their own pillows. Will AC deny boarding to those who bring their own since AC may no longer offer these items?

Will AC now offer disinfectant wipes to all pax - an amusing point knowing that AC grooming was never a real focus - see Dirty aircraft and https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-...ght-ac-80.html

Are AC FAs, who will likely be wearing masks and gloves for a long time, going get upset if pax don't know all the rules or are struggling to manage the new world of flying with all the limitations?

My point is that there are a lot of short-term and then long-term changes that will affect how we fly and clearly we don't know what AC will be doing once flying resumes.
.