WestJet to launch ultra-low-cost carrier 'Swoop’
Apr 21, 2017, 2:02 pm
#46
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Erstwhile Accidental AC E35K
Posts: 2,916
The point is that we need regulation to protect some consumers from the others who obsess over cheap flights and thereby indirectly inflict discomfort and inconvenience on the rest of us. There is a limit as to what we should have to endure. We have reached that point and then some.
Apr 21, 2017, 3:21 pm
#47
Join Date: Mar 2005
Programs: fwp blood diamond, dykwia uranium
Posts: 7,251
The point is that we need regulation to protect some consumers from the others who obsess over cheap flights and thereby indirectly inflict discomfort and inconvenience on the rest of us. There is a limit as to what we should have to endure. We have reached that point and then some.
...
That is our “revealed preference” — what economists call “the things people actually do, rather than what they say.” Customers prefer ultra-cheap air travel. The best way to make the tickets cheaper is to put more people in an airplane.
But that’s because there’s no point in shopping. The major airlines are all terrible.
Okay, but major airlines and startups have experimented with better service — more legroom and wider seats, more amenities. This meant carrying fewer passengers. It turned out people wouldn’t consistently pay those higher prices; despite heavily advertising their better amenities, the airlines in question generally ended up going out of business, or switching to the “cattle class” service we all know and hate.
The market has spoken pretty loudly; it’s just that we don’t like what it’s saying.
That is our “revealed preference” — what economists call “the things people actually do, rather than what they say.” Customers prefer ultra-cheap air travel. The best way to make the tickets cheaper is to put more people in an airplane.
But that’s because there’s no point in shopping. The major airlines are all terrible.
Okay, but major airlines and startups have experimented with better service — more legroom and wider seats, more amenities. This meant carrying fewer passengers. It turned out people wouldn’t consistently pay those higher prices; despite heavily advertising their better amenities, the airlines in question generally ended up going out of business, or switching to the “cattle class” service we all know and hate.
The market has spoken pretty loudly; it’s just that we don’t like what it’s saying.
Apr 21, 2017, 4:08 pm
#49
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: YVR TLS
Programs: Air France Flying Blue, Altitude SE-100k, AAdvantage, United Mileage Plus, WS rewards, BonVoy Titan
Posts: 912
Apr 21, 2017, 4:37 pm
#50
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Erstwhile Accidental AC E35K
Posts: 2,916
That is our “revealed preference” — what economists call “the things people actually do, rather than what they say.” Customers prefer ultra-cheap air travel. The best way to make the tickets cheaper is to put more people in an airplane.
But that’s because there’s no point in shopping. The major airlines are all terrible.
Okay, but major airlines and startups have experimented with better service — more legroom and wider seats, more amenities. This meant carrying fewer passengers. It turned out people wouldn’t consistently pay those higher prices; despite heavily advertising their better amenities, the airlines in question generally ended up going out of business, or switching to the “cattle class” service we all know and hate.
The market has spoken pretty loudly; it’s just that we don’t like what it’s saying.
But that’s because there’s no point in shopping. The major airlines are all terrible.
Okay, but major airlines and startups have experimented with better service — more legroom and wider seats, more amenities. This meant carrying fewer passengers. It turned out people wouldn’t consistently pay those higher prices; despite heavily advertising their better amenities, the airlines in question generally ended up going out of business, or switching to the “cattle class” service we all know and hate.
The market has spoken pretty loudly; it’s just that we don’t like what it’s saying.
Apr 21, 2017, 10:47 pm
#51
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,001
If you can afford better than the above, you can afford a couple extra inches of legroom, a free beverage and the choice of salty or sweet.
Apr 22, 2017, 5:32 am
#52
Join Date: Mar 2005
Programs: fwp blood diamond, dykwia uranium
Posts: 7,251
btw i facetiously totally did not get a ticket from a pig on a segway for daring ride a bicycle in vancouver without a helmet today. right up there with australia.
People shouldn't be allowed to travel on LCC if their vehicle isn't second hand, their hotel has more than three stars, their cup of coffee costs more than $2, their restaurant meals are served at a table, their phone has a data plan.
If you can afford better than the above, you can afford a couple extra inches of legroom, a free beverage and the choice of salty or sweet.
If you can afford better than the above, you can afford a couple extra inches of legroom, a free beverage and the choice of salty or sweet.
but woah woah woah is what you proposed within regulation?
very important, at least in canada. we need regulation to tell us to wear seatbelts
Apr 22, 2017, 11:18 am
#53
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Aeroplan, Mileage Plus, WestJet Gold, AMEX Plat
Posts: 2,026
What may happen is WestJet becomes more like Air Canada with regular business class seats in the new fleet as it comes online. A Rouge like service gets introduced to some of the low yield destinations. Air Canada had Tango and that other one with the colourful 737s. Once all the ULCC go out of business WestJet will merge the operation back into mainline. Perhaps it will live on a special kind of discount ticket (e.g. a blue tango).
I think what we witnessed with Royal, Canada 3000, Harmony, JetsGo, CanJet and the others is if they try to play on the major trunk and business routes the two incumbent airlines will slaughter them. So they play in the tourist market. The difference is when it was Canadian and Air Canada, they did not care that much about the tourist market. That has all changed. WestJet is big in that market and Air Canada now has rouge.
These start-ups will get slaughtered. A few press releases is a cheaper way of killing them off before they start.
Apr 22, 2017, 11:40 am
#54
Join Date: Mar 2005
Programs: fwp blood diamond, dykwia uranium
Posts: 7,251
what i don't get is why ulcc isn't going the eu ulcc ruote and flying out of general aviation airports (eg in calgary: springbank, or edmonton: yxd [assuming those runways are long enough for a 737? or possibility they can be expanded paid for by the airline?], even make people drive and go to yqf..i'd do it if parking were cheap..i have to pay $850 out of pocket to fly yeg to northern ontario for a personal matter next week....i can go london to mauritius for less) or periphery airports (yxx) or stupid white elephants caused solely by government incompetence (ymx) or even border airports using _th freedom (buf, bli). by flying out of yeg or yvr (or soon yyc), you're just enabling the problem that is causing the niche for ulcc in the first place (ie $70 fare, $60 in aif, 20 in navcan, 10 in catsa, 10 in misc taxes). therefore the entire proposition of ulcc in canada is self defeating. it's a facade.
being canada is canada there is probably some stupid regulation or "market" force that makes such unfeasible (cough catsa cough transport canada saying the fence around the aerodrome is 3 inches too short cough the current structure of airports that inherently de-incentivize innovation and competition cough springbank is managed by yyc cough they're so incompetent and entrenched they don't see the opportunity in a lcc startup there in entrepreneurial alberta cough there's probably some rule that forbids an airline building its own exclusive terminal for its operations at zero cost to the airport authority or taxpayers). you look at iah and all of the initial (1990s) and current (c north, b north) expansion and renovation--even the skytrain--that was financed fully by continental/(now)united. no aif, no cost to taxpayers (city of houston runs iah)
it is obvious ws is attacking competition. not that there is anything wrong with that, apart from the fact government is enabling the duopoly.
can somebody explain to me the merit of not having 100 per cent foreign investment in an firm in an industry like this? if they fail so what, not 'our' money? is it that government is afraid they may succeed? i'm not trying to be snide, i sincerely do not get this protectionism. with that stupid laptop ban and ek's 10% cut in flying to the usa, there is even more of an opportunity for canada, and a tons of jobs to be created. not to mention the benefit to consumers
being canada is canada there is probably some stupid regulation or "market" force that makes such unfeasible (cough catsa cough transport canada saying the fence around the aerodrome is 3 inches too short cough the current structure of airports that inherently de-incentivize innovation and competition cough springbank is managed by yyc cough they're so incompetent and entrenched they don't see the opportunity in a lcc startup there in entrepreneurial alberta cough there's probably some rule that forbids an airline building its own exclusive terminal for its operations at zero cost to the airport authority or taxpayers). you look at iah and all of the initial (1990s) and current (c north, b north) expansion and renovation--even the skytrain--that was financed fully by continental/(now)united. no aif, no cost to taxpayers (city of houston runs iah)
it is obvious ws is attacking competition. not that there is anything wrong with that, apart from the fact government is enabling the duopoly.
can somebody explain to me the merit of not having 100 per cent foreign investment in an firm in an industry like this? if they fail so what, not 'our' money? is it that government is afraid they may succeed? i'm not trying to be snide, i sincerely do not get this protectionism. with that stupid laptop ban and ek's 10% cut in flying to the usa, there is even more of an opportunity for canada, and a tons of jobs to be created. not to mention the benefit to consumers
Last edited by cur; Apr 22, 2017 at 11:57 am
Apr 22, 2017, 1:17 pm
#55
Join Date: Jan 2007
Programs: No single airline or hotel chain is of much use to me anymore.
Posts: 3,279
YXD was closed a few years ago to build a low-income housing project. There is a new airport west of Edmonton called Parkland but they're already insolvent.
Apr 22, 2017, 1:37 pm
#56
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: WS Nothing, AC Something, AS Gold. Too big for 737Max washrooms
Posts: 893
what i don't get is why ulcc isn't going the eu ulcc ruote and flying out of general aviation airports (eg in calgary: springbank, or edmonton: yxd [assuming those runways are long enough for a 737? or possibility they can be expanded paid for by the airline?], even make people drive and go to yqf..i'd do it if parking were cheap..i have to pay $850 out of pocket to fly yeg to northern ontario for a personal matter next week....i can go london to mauritius for less) or periphery airports (yxx) or stupid white elephants caused solely by government incompetence (ymx) or even border airports using _th freedom (buf, bli). by flying out of yeg or yvr (or soon yyc), you're just enabling the problem that is causing the niche for ulcc in the first place (ie $70 fare, $60 in aif, 20 in navcan, 10 in catsa, 10 in misc taxes). therefore the entire proposition of ulcc in canada is self defeating. it's a facade.
being canada is canada there is probably some stupid regulation or "market" force that makes such unfeasible (cough catsa cough transport canada saying the fence around the aerodrome is 3 inches too short cough the current structure of airports that inherently de-incentivize innovation and competition cough springbank is managed by yyc cough they're so incompetent and entrenched they don't see the opportunity in a lcc startup there in entrepreneurial alberta cough there's probably some rule that forbids an airline building its own exclusive terminal for its operations at zero cost to the airport authority or taxpayers). you look at iah and all of the initial (1990s) and current (c north, b north) expansion and renovation--even the skytrain--that was financed fully by continental/(now)united. no aif, no cost to taxpayers (city of houston runs iah)
it is obvious ws is attacking competition. not that there is anything wrong with that, apart from the fact government is enabling the duopoly.
can somebody explain to me the merit of not having 100 per cent foreign investment in an firm in an industry like this? if they fail so what, not 'our' money? is it that government is afraid they may succeed? i'm not trying to be snide, i sincerely do not get this protectionism. with that stupid laptop ban and ek's 10% cut in flying to the usa, there is even more of an opportunity for canada, and a tons of jobs to be created. not to mention the benefit to consumers
being canada is canada there is probably some stupid regulation or "market" force that makes such unfeasible (cough catsa cough transport canada saying the fence around the aerodrome is 3 inches too short cough the current structure of airports that inherently de-incentivize innovation and competition cough springbank is managed by yyc cough they're so incompetent and entrenched they don't see the opportunity in a lcc startup there in entrepreneurial alberta cough there's probably some rule that forbids an airline building its own exclusive terminal for its operations at zero cost to the airport authority or taxpayers). you look at iah and all of the initial (1990s) and current (c north, b north) expansion and renovation--even the skytrain--that was financed fully by continental/(now)united. no aif, no cost to taxpayers (city of houston runs iah)
it is obvious ws is attacking competition. not that there is anything wrong with that, apart from the fact government is enabling the duopoly.
can somebody explain to me the merit of not having 100 per cent foreign investment in an firm in an industry like this? if they fail so what, not 'our' money? is it that government is afraid they may succeed? i'm not trying to be snide, i sincerely do not get this protectionism. with that stupid laptop ban and ek's 10% cut in flying to the usa, there is even more of an opportunity for canada, and a tons of jobs to be created. not to mention the benefit to consumers
Apr 22, 2017, 2:11 pm
#57
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canada
Programs: Star Alliance G*, Marriott Bonvoy Titanium,
Posts: 3,585
its a bluff
Who is WS trying to bluff? Not the investors. They get it. Perhaps the pilots union. Also, the FAs.
Apr 22, 2017, 4:43 pm
#58
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: YYC, Canada
Programs: AC 35k
Posts: 1,898
I second this one and can add more details.....to begin with, WS already operates like a ULCC carrier. Designating a few 737-800's does nothing to lower their operating costs (which are already much lower than AC).
Who is WS trying to bluff? Not the investors. They get it. Perhaps the pilots union. Also, the FAs.
Who is WS trying to bluff? Not the investors. They get it. Perhaps the pilots union. Also, the FAs.
1) Cram way more seats in the same aircraft and lower seat pitch to 29".
2) Hire staff at lower wages (typically younger folks in their 20s) than mainline.
You do that, suddenly some marginal routes become profitable.
Apr 22, 2017, 5:57 pm
#59
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: WS Nothing, AC Something, AS Gold. Too big for 737Max washrooms
Posts: 893
Not necessarily. The aircraft is the same to operate, but they make money the same way rouge does:
1) Cram way more seats in the same aircraft and lower seat pitch to 29".
2) Hire staff at lower wages (typically younger folks in their 20s) than mainline.
You do that, suddenly some marginal routes become profitable.
1) Cram way more seats in the same aircraft and lower seat pitch to 29".
2) Hire staff at lower wages (typically younger folks in their 20s) than mainline.
You do that, suddenly some marginal routes become profitable.
Apr 22, 2017, 11:02 pm
#60
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Aeroplan, Mileage Plus, WestJet Gold, AMEX Plat
Posts: 2,026
what i don't get is why ulcc isn't going the eu ulcc ruote and flying out of general aviation airports (eg in calgary: springbank, or edmonton: yxd [assuming those runways are long enough for a 737? or possibility they can be expanded paid for by the airline?],....
can somebody explain to me the merit of not having 100 per cent foreign investment in an firm in an industry like this? if they fail so what, not 'our' money? is it that government is afraid they may succeed? i'm not trying to be snide, i sincerely do not get this protectionism. with that stupid laptop ban and ek's 10% cut in flying to the usa, there is even more of an opportunity for canada, and a tons of jobs to be created. not to mention the benefit to consumers
can somebody explain to me the merit of not having 100 per cent foreign investment in an firm in an industry like this? if they fail so what, not 'our' money? is it that government is afraid they may succeed? i'm not trying to be snide, i sincerely do not get this protectionism. with that stupid laptop ban and ek's 10% cut in flying to the usa, there is even more of an opportunity for canada, and a tons of jobs to be created. not to mention the benefit to consumers
I was told long ago that the limits on foreign ownership were tied up in international treaties. Canada and US sign an open skies deal it is for Canadian and US controlled airlines not foreign controlled airlines. Not certain how true that still is today.