What it means to me is... when the quarantine is lifted, other airlines that are currently providing actual service and F&B will be more likely to start or increase service to Canada, thus forcing AC's hand. Right now AC management knows they can get away with providing nearly nothing because there are very limited options to fly on other carriers (WS also has no lounge access and barebones F&B on board).

I don't understand why restaurants can serve alcoholic beverages and coke but airline's can't?

It's not that they can't, it's that they don't want to.

CP24 is reporting that AC will stop their seat-distancing policy as of July 1. Has that been confirmed by AC? On the AC site it still says “To better protect customers and employees on board, we’re blocking the adjacent seat in Economy Class until July 31, 2020.”

Edit: I noticed that on another page AC says “Blocking adjacent seats in Economy Class to encourage on-board distancing will continue until June 30, 2020.” So you might have booked thinking you’d be in a socially-distanced cabin, but now find yourself shoulder-to-shoulder with others.

Seats for early July were never blocked on seat maps, just June.
This is my domestic flight, which is mostly empty. I sure hope those people in 13 and 15 actually chose to sit together and werent assigned those seats by AC.

I've just received feedback from AC that they still start enhancing their on board services with modifications starting July. Another Flyertalker also received a similar comment from a SD as well. No details but we shall see!

Yep, seat-distancing until July 31 was just another "goodwill policy" that was retroactively rescinded. WS is doing the same.

Wow, if I bought a July ticket based on an advertised seat distancing policy thru 7/31 I'd be livid and insist on a refund. Not only that, I'd vocally complain that they backtracked to July 1st on social media and to the press

AC should be ashamed. There is no excuse or medical advance causing them to end distancing early--just a clear cash grab for more profit. If flights are near full they could just add more. Thousands of flight crew are laid off and dozens of aircraft are idle

If you believe AC, they are losing approximately $18m a day. Given that, this isn't going to produce "more profits" just lower losses (assuming they actually can sell the seats and this isn't self defeating).

If you want their excuse, it is that it is IATA's recommendation to not block seats. (WS also cited IATA, I believe.) Which is a little rich, because IATA is just a bunch of airlines that are probably sick of losing money and worried about bankruptcy, so of course they are going to recommend something that lets them make more/lose less. Having said that, while there may be no medical advance, nor is there any evidence or studies on distancing in an airplane. While it may seem intuitive that we should distance on an airplane the way we would in a social environment on the ground, there is no evidence to support that belief (one way or the other, that I am aware of). Meaning it might be the right thing to do, or it just might be the case that all that filtered air and mask wearing is sufficient. I know I would feel a lot more sympathetic to their airlines if they actually had evidence for their practices. As it is, it is very difficult to construe this as anything but financial motivated.

Edit: it is worth pointing out that even without selling the middle seat, you would not be sufficiently socially distant if you have any empty seat in the middle. That is, for most airlines in Y, less than 24", not 72". Which makes me think that there is a lot of perception and not a lot of evidence based reality affecting pax's judgement about what is currently acceptable. Which is fine. But we should acknowledge it for what it is. I personally think this is going to be largely self defeating for the airlines, but that is just my opinion.

Since they won't even provide refunds for flights they've cancelled, good luck with that.

They get right on that after refunding all the money for cancelled flights

Were they ever ashamed of having the worst OTP in the world?
Were they ever ashamed of having the dirtiest planes?

I suspect that the 31 July end date is in error as the 30 June end date is what was listed on the 'CleanCare+' press release back in early May whereas the 'Ready For Takeoff' wasn't launched until a few weeks later. Regardless it's an oversight that could've been easily avoided and a problem of AC's own making. One would think however that after the announcement in recent days that the airline would correct the date on its webpages so there was uniformity.

The COVID discussion is so fragmented that pieces of this announcement belong in various threads. AC announced a number of changes to their 'bio-safety measures':

• Flexible options for full economy flights to replace seat blocking
• Additional touchless options including bag drop and virtual queuing
• Improvements to meals (also mentioned here: AC International J Service Experience During Covid

https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2020...nboard-Flights

Isn't the overriding point that in vast, vast majority of cases, the decision to fly under Covid is voluntary, and the potential for exposure is part of the inherent risk in that decision? I think AC has done an acceptable job to this point, make easier by the fact that almost no one was travelling. But, now that summer is in swing, and parents are going to murder their children if they are stuck in the house with them for one more day, leisure travel is going to spike, and planes are going to get fuller. My question is, why is it AC's responsibility to provide social distancing? It's a private business, and not vital local infrastructure like public transit that people depend on to go to work on an ongoing basis (I look forward to the comments about how consultants just HAVE to be there in person to do their job, and it is the responsibility of the airlines to transport them there in a Covid bubble that meets their requirements).

I think AC is doing an acceptable job of informing travellers to the risks, and giving them information about upcoming trips and options should they choose not to travel (and no, not an invitation to relitigate the credits v refunds case yet again). In the end, it's a question of personal responsibility. It isn't AC's job to ensure you don't get Covid, it's their job to take reasonable sanitization and other mitigation measures. You are the person choosing whether you and your family travel by air.

Well said. Not only is it our choice to fly, but it is also our responsibility to keep ourselves safe while traveling. It’s not AC’s responsibility to wipe down our entire seat when we go to the lavatory during the flight, it’s our responsibility to keep our space clean. It’s our responsibility to eat with a fork and knife, not our hands. Flight attendants aren’t our nannies and butlers now that ensure that WE are being responsible. Most of the safety precautions involve us doing something, and I think that AC have done more than enough on their part to help us stay safe.