tcook052

It's isn't AC's duty to offer blocked middle seats onboard flights on an open ended basis as it's not a federal aviation regulation, only a recommendation. The expectation that AC should continue to shoulder the costs of operating more flights with lighter loads isn't reasonable to me however I know many others may not agree.

ridefar

I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote... but at the same time it is AC's responsibility as it is any other business that is currently operating. I don't think they bear any unusual responsibility or unique to them, but they certainly should bear the same level of responsibility as a restaurant or a gym. At the very minimum there is a level of social responsibility -- even ignoring the financial repercussions (nobody would fly if they took no care around Covid) they can't or shouldn't just say (as have some gyms and restaurants) we are open at full capacity and tough if you don't like it. At issue is whether the level of social distancing that AC is providing is adequate. It didn't meet the minimum with seat blocking, and certainly doesn't now. So is AC living up to the same level of social responsibility, and whatever legal responsibility they may have, with the new policy? And if the perception is that they are not, then this will backfire because you are right, the vast majority of flying is probably voluntary, and people will not voluntarily take the (perceived) risk.

There is another alternative: charge 50% more for each seat. And further, the fact that it isn't a regulation is no great surprise given the current minister's desire to serve only one constituent: AC. Not the public.

VoodooYYC

I think that if the choice came down to enhanced social distancing on airplanes, with a 50% reduction in capacity correlating to a 50% increase in the cost of seats versus the model that AC is pursuing, the flying public would overwhelming vote for the current model, with the resultant cheaper airfares. I think the problem is that some people want AC to be held to the 50% capacity (which is provincially regulated through the health system, hence why AC is exempt) but at the same time are totally unwilling to pay for that massive cut in capacity. The $250 Standard fare from YYZ-YVR is far more important to the vast majority of travellers.

expert7700

If AC doesn't guarantee an open middle, should the Cleancare+ sanitizing liquid be applied directly to your seatmate? If so, at general boarding or in the air when they lean against you and fall asleep?

The planes flying YVR-YYZ were not limited to 50% capacity
J being flown to 100%
Y being "sold" to ~67% (no middles), so max 32% of Y blocked
Y later unblocking at gate to clear as many as 25 oversell/standby pax (reported on FT moving same household groups to use the blocked middles)

Thus I'd say they block around 25% on mainline and perhaps 35-40% on 2-across seating like Q400.

What is the net healthcare cost to the government if cases come about after recent air travel? versus 30 or so unsellable YVR-YYZ middles @ $250 is $7500.

Look at the Canadian government notifications of Covid cases on/following recent flights. AC still seems to be the carrier with the majority of issues. Selling middle seats adds 8 additional people at higher risk (since they warn affected row +/- 3 rows).

I kind of like what Italy is doing: government gave carriers a choice: no use of any overhead bins (to minimize touch points, crowding in aisles finding space), OR do middle seat blocking.
​​​​​

YVRtoYYZ

How many people touch the overhead bin on a flight vs how many handlers are going to touch your bag from check-in to retrieval? Very generally speaking, the bins get touched twice: 1 x departure by a FA and 1 x arrival by a passenger whereas your bag will be handled more than that irrespective of LD-bin or bulk loading.

expert7700

FYI, I wouldn't be caught dead flying without a carry-on. Lowering the amount of "non-distanced" time that everyone passes by already seated passengers can be done by selling less seats, disallowing or limiting cabin bags, or modifying boarding orders/increasing time allocated to boarding.

Just as lowering FA interaction time can be accomplished by not offering full beverage service.... Or not selling J passengers spiced rum for $$.

canadiancow

I think the virtual queues are an interesting addition.

"We’re introducing virtual queues for customer care needs. By scanning a QR code at the entrance of a queue, you will then receive a virtual ticket to your phone, followed by a notification when it is your turn to proceed to the counter."

I wonder if it handles priority pax.

secretalcoholic

CleanCare+ initially sounded like some paid optional add-on that a customer can buy if they wanted cleaner seats.

CanadaDH

I would say they are meeting the standard, because passengers are required to wear a mask while on the aircraft. My local grocery store doesn't force people to wear a mask (although I wish they would, and would give them my business exclusively if they did), but they have more space than an aircraft, and can limit the people in the store to maintain distancing. Air Canada can't maintain the 2 metre distance between people from different households in their seating, but the wearing of masks I suppose is meant to make up for that space deficiency. The recommendations being fed to us in the news, is to wear a mask when you can't maintain a safe distance, and the airlines are doing that, sort of. Where they fall short, is during the time passengers remove masks to eat or drink.

ridefar

I think that is likely correct. I just wish there was some evidence, or medical studies, to support this approach. Specifically with respect to air travel. And while you are totally right that this is the recommended approach, it doesn't mean the risk is now zero or close to. It just means that it is substantially less than without a mask. Again, some actual data or evidence specific to airplanes sure would be useful.

tcook052

Yes, but nowhere beyond your four walls is the risk zero so why expect it on aircraft?

CZAMFlyer

Why are we debating this development? If sitting shoulder-to-shoulder beside strangers for the duration of a flight is above your comfort level - do not fly. There was no surprise from the very beginning of this pandemic that airlines would return to full-capacity seating prior to an effective vaccine being available and administered to the population. We're about to reach that date, and it's understandable that some passengers will feel more comfortable than others about the reduced separation. Flying remains optional and the airlines have no ability (nor obligation) to ensure you or your planemates don't bring along a case of the 'vid to the flight levels. Those asking for medical studies and research may not understand that a) thousands of such studies are ongoing and b) there is still so much the medical community doesn't understand about covid and its transmission.

ridefar

That is a straw man. My expectation is obviously not zero but it should be lower than a Miami beach or Texas bar. Masks alone reduce risk of transmission by 75% to 95%. There are lots of things I can do out of my house where I have no close contact and therefore zero or infinitesimal risk. Airlines are not meeting any reasonable definition of distancing with no seat blocking. In the absence of evidence this is relatively safe it doesn�t seem like a good idea.

ridefar

You have cut to the heart of social responsibility. If everybody was capable of accurately (or close to) assessing risk, and the risk was *only to themselves* your proposed approach would be fine. But it isn't. Their willingness to take a risk endangers others (potentially). At root, that is why some relatively risky behaviours are not optional and why we don't allow people to make their own determination. Certainly you should allow people to opt for less risk. But allowing them to opt for more is not possible (above a certain threshold) which is why we have public health rules. So we are having the debate because what the reasonable threshold is is up for debate/discussion. And, I would add, prima facie airlines do not appear to be meeting the threshold that most every other business in the country is required to meet. And they have no scientific evidence that an airplane is an environment which would sufficiently reduce risk that they should be exempt from the rules that others have to abide by. In fact the currently available evidence would be that this is not safe, and not a good idea. And finally, if studies are ongoing, we should wait for those studies no validate safety, not assume it is safe (when similar situations are not). Because... Florida. Texas. Arizona. Etc.

jlisi984

Still getting this terrible "eco" hand sanitizer in the kit... It's awful. Don't like it one bit.