AC Long-haul Fleet Deployment
Jul 27, 2022, 8:06 pm
#31
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: YYZ / LHR
Programs: AC SE100k
Posts: 262
International business travel is still way down while international leisure travel has exploded. AC needs to fly enough flights into LHR to keep their slots*, but without business travel, demand is likely down overall, so it makes sense that they are using smaller aircraft for LHR. Also, I don't think the airlines expected that leisure travel would rebound as quickly as it has.
Jul 28, 2022, 4:07 am
#32
Join Date: Mar 2016
Programs: AC SE
Posts: 1,505
That may be part of it. Also holidays in most US states are coming to a close and, even here in Canada, the busiest of the busy season is winding down. So hopefully things are beginning to normalize a little.
Jul 28, 2022, 8:03 am
#33
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AC SE100K 1MM, FB Platinum, Bonvoy Platinum Elite, IHG Gold Elite, Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,604
Why? AC maintained a fleet of only 8 333s for nearly 20 years before expanding it, and for over a decade after they ditched the last of the A340s. The 788 has more economies of scale with the 789 than the 333 had with anything else during that decade, so the incremental cost of having it has not necessarily been outrageous.
The 788 may have not been exactly what AC expected from a performance perspective, whether in absolute terms or compared to the 789, but that doesn't mean they regret ordering it.
They've frequently used the 788 to open up new routes and see how demand shakes out, in addition to filling in spots in the schedule where the 788 is a better fit than a larger or smaller aircraft, whether that be on a TATL route for a short period of time, doing some of the TCONs, etc.
The 788 may have not been exactly what AC expected from a performance perspective, whether in absolute terms or compared to the 789, but that doesn't mean they regret ordering it.
They've frequently used the 788 to open up new routes and see how demand shakes out, in addition to filling in spots in the schedule where the 788 is a better fit than a larger or smaller aircraft, whether that be on a TATL route for a short period of time, doing some of the TCONs, etc.
I said in retrospect, not at the time they were ordered. The greater number of sales of the 789 over the 788 reflects its better performance and the small incremental cost of flying it. Yes the 788 didn't meet expectations - there are likely a fair number of carriers who, if they were ordering today, would not order the 788. The only two carriers that have recently placed significant 788 orders (more than 1 frame) after bringing the 789 in to service (American and EL AL). There are only 24 788 orders since 2018 which really reflects the advantage the 789 has over its smaller sibling.
Jul 28, 2022, 8:36 am
#34
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE MM, FB Plat, WS Plat, BA Silver, DL GM, Marriott Plat, Hilton Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 16,775
The 789 is also a better performer than the 788's (especially the early ones). The incremental cost associated with the flying the 789 isn't that great compared to the 788, and it has a greater number of seats (obviously) that make it a better generator of revenue than the 788. Even if those seats remain empty, it doesn't cost that much more to fly a 789, and now AC is in a situation where it can likely fill the seats on the routes (the 789 also hauls more cargo). Boeing has gone on to try and make the present 788 more like the 789 and 78J in terms of how it is built.
I said in retrospect, not at the time they were ordered. The greater number of sales of the 789 over the 788 reflects its better performance and the small incremental cost of flying it. Yes the 788 didn't meet expectations - there are likely a fair number of carriers who, if they were ordering today, would not order the 788. The only two carriers that have recently placed significant 788 orders (more than 1 frame) after bringing the 789 in to service (American and EL AL). There are only 24 788 orders since 2018 which really reflects the advantage the 789 has over its smaller sibling.
I said in retrospect, not at the time they were ordered. The greater number of sales of the 789 over the 788 reflects its better performance and the small incremental cost of flying it. Yes the 788 didn't meet expectations - there are likely a fair number of carriers who, if they were ordering today, would not order the 788. The only two carriers that have recently placed significant 788 orders (more than 1 frame) after bringing the 789 in to service (American and EL AL). There are only 24 788 orders since 2018 which really reflects the advantage the 789 has over its smaller sibling.
But the incremental cost to operate a 789 over a 788 is not zero. If there are routes that have demand to fill a 788 but not a 789, flying a 788 will be more profitable on a per-segment basis.
Then it becomes a question of whether the overhead costs of maintaining a separate fleet outweigh the savings that can be achieved on individual segments. Because AC operates a sizeable fleet of 789s, the marginal cost of the 788 sub-fleet is likely low, and there may have been limited economies of scale in buying more 789s.
Nothing you've said suggests that the 788 doesn't have a niche within the portfolio where it's not the more profitable alternative.
Jul 28, 2022, 9:48 am
#35
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AC SE100K 1MM, FB Platinum, Bonvoy Platinum Elite, IHG Gold Elite, Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,604
Jul 28, 2022, 10:00 am
#36
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE MM, FB Plat, WS Plat, BA Silver, DL GM, Marriott Plat, Hilton Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 16,775
No, they don't. They only suggest that the 789 is the generally superior aircraft for most missions, not that the 788 has no place in a fleet, or that an airline that ordered 788s wishes it had 789s instead.
Jul 28, 2022, 1:03 pm
#37
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: YOW
Programs: AC SE, FOTSG Platinum
Posts: 5,728