coastgirl

Thanks for the info and insight. Still hoping our original itinerary will remain intact (because nonstop to your destination is always best!), but under the circumstances I wouldn't hate the AF route from YUL. Under different circumstances I'd probably enjoy making my way from London, but we only have so much time, and already have specific plans for France, not the UK! And I did purchase cancellation/interruption insurance, so that may help if need be.

cgyroof

Last summer my wife and kids were rebooked YHZ-YUL-CDG. We originally booked the tickets through expedia and it was quite the pain getting those seats rebooked properly. When trying to online checkin at t-24, Expedia lost the YUL-CDG portion and required 4 hours on the phone to get corrected. The seats finally showed up via email upon landing at YUL. Going forward I will make a concerted effort to only book directly with Westjet. I went with expedia because this was a Triangle vacation YYC-YHZ (stop)- CDG (stop)- YYC and expedia saved thousands on Premium Economy seats compared to direct booking.

If you have a car rental on the CDG end, remember that Air France lands at CDG Terminal 2, whereas WestJet lands at CDG Terminal 1.

coastgirl

Thanks for your experience, very useful to me. I did book directly with Westjet, so hopefully things will be more direct--but any change between airlines can be complicated! I'm sorry for the mess you experienced. That would suck.

We aren't renting a car on arrival, not til we leave Paris, so not a big deal. (Trying to book off-airport, actually.)

Were you satisfied overall with the new itinerary? I have to work the day we leave so was counting on not having to be to the airport until the evening--and I don't want to miss a day in Paris either!

cgyroof

I believe my wife left Halifax at 1715 (instead of 2300 on the direct flight), had a 5 hour layover in YUL and landed at CDG about 2 hours later than the original YHZ-CDG flight. When rebooking the YHZ-CDG flight thorough expedia, the agent was looking at AF flights via YUL and YYZ. There was an earlier connection at YUL, and due to flight delays from Halifax, they did hold the Air France Plane in YUL for those connecting to the earlier flight; however my wife was on the later flight out of YUL.

FlyerJ

Posted today:

The full post is here, along with a list of impacted flights and routes:

https://t.co/1kR5WShUss?amp=1

tracon

I'm not a fine of this line.
Kind of true, but the airspace magically opens up whenever a test flight or positioning flight needs to happen.

robsaw

That was the language used by the Minister of Transport, and re-used by AC and Westjet, so I fail to see any issue with the phrase.

I also fail to see anything magical in a non-operational exception to the order.

jkordyback

You gotta figure that airlines like WS and AC with a higher than average 737 MAX exposure are now looking seriously at Plan B. Whatever that might be.

OttawaMark

I'm not sure. What is Plan B? Neither WS nor AC can simply go to Airbus and get A32X aircraft in sufficient numbers to replace delivered/ordered MAX in the short term.

YYCguy

Indeed. WS would have to negotiate aircraft purchases and delivery and recruit and train flight and cabin crew. A huge expense and time frame needed!

YXUFlyboy

There is nothing either airline can do they're not already doing - except WS could try to lease more NG aircraft. AC is managing with Rouge, A333 orders and keeping 763/320/E190s as long as possible.

FlyerJ

AC is also using Omni Air International to operate some of their flights right now ... operating some of their flights to Hawaii and PHX (and possibly other destinations).

jkordyback

I agree that their options are limited since they would be in queue for new 787-800’s or leasing from other airlines. Obviously they've already thought of that.

However, come March they will be 1 year into this mess. The question will be, will the MAX ever be re-certified? It's a rotten position to be in.

FlyerJ

I think it will be recertified ... it’s going to be the most scrutinized aircraft that’s ever flown once they get out of this mess. The MAX will have undergone way, way more detailed scrutiny (rightly so) than the A320 or the 787 or any other aircraft out there.

IMHO, I think that means it’ll also be the safest.

All of the headlines that pop up now screaming “another MAX problem found!” are getting a bit silly. They’re finding worthwhile fixes and updates, but are into such minutiae that I assume every Airbus and Embraer out there has similar warts (just never discovered, because they’ve never been scrutinized so closely.). I expect the next chaos headline will be something like “Another flaw! Regulators discover that MAX is constructed of metal, which is heavier than air and therefore at risk of crashing if all flight systems fail!”

The reason that recertification is taking so long right now is (1) politics — no politician wants to step up to defend an aircraft, the company that made mistakes making it, or a borderline corrupt initial certification process - and (2) as Ed Sims mentioned in an article, the fact that social media use is driving so many people to be so strongly engaged in the issue (and have strong opinions, regardless of knowledge level). If Twitter was around during previous aircraft groundings, they would have dragged on too. And more aircraft types would likely have been grounded over the years after design flaw accidents

Error 601

I was told back in September that WestJet could obtain used 737s if necessary and even with the MAX fiasco 737-600s and 737-700s are still being sold for scrap.