Happy or not, it's the way it is, and not just in Canada. as nname said, United does the same thing, and so do most carriers across the globe.

You pay cheaper if you're connecting than if you're non stop. It's not something AC invented.

I don't work for any airline. I work for a private company that handles all the ATC across the country.

?

YUL and YYC aren't in the same boat at all.

Off the top of my head, here are the number of non stop destinations served (pre-COVID) by airport.

YYZ ~ 180
YUL ~155
YVR ~120
YYC ~ 80 i think.

That's debatable and a matter of opinion, really. Both airlines are on par in Y if you ask me.

Both airlines have very good service, and when it comes to seats, when comparing their newest aircraft:

TK B789 Y class - 30 in pitch, 17 in width
AC B789 Y class - varies between 30 and 34 in pitch, 17 in width

In terms of J class, AC mainline outranks TK on what they offer on their B77W and A333, which until recently is what they used on their services to Canada. So if anything, it's TK that is playing catchup to AC in J class.

Need I remind you that TK, EK, EY and QR have all received additional rights into Canada recently. None of them chose to launch YYC or YOW or YEG. QR increased YUL, EK/EY increased YYZ, and it's only TK that will be launching YVR, which is not a secondary airport by any means.

I don't deny that AC lobbies hard against these airlines getting more access to Canada, but the fact that they are getting it shows me the government isn't totally biased on this issue.

Looks like you live in Ottawa and are pissed by the air service you have. Truth is, the reasons for that are numerous, and blaming it all on AC and the protection it gets from the Federal government isn't accurate. Canada has an open skies agreement with Europe, and yet you don't see airlines like FI, BA, AF or KL rushing to serve YOW. Even Wow Air, a ULCC, chose to launch YUL and YYZ, and not YOW. Why is that?

It sucks, but we are a vast country, with very little population, so it's only normal that YYZ, YVR, YUL and YYC will get 90% of air service in this country, and the rest is and will always be just peanuts. I don't want to sound mean, but If you don't like it, there is only one thing you can do. Move to one of those 4 cities. That's the harsh reality.

Name me one airline that would pull out of YYZ if EK went daily on DXB-YYZ. And if they did, then their business case wasn't based on o/d traffic after all....

Thanks for the data. I was referring to the number of destinations gained. Not so much the total. AC's strategy has definitely benefited some hubs more than others.

Except that TK flies a lot more 77W and they are a vastly better than the product on virtually every JV across the Atlantic.

Nothing speaks to the elitist viewpoint of aviation fanboys than the view that those of us who sit in the back of the bus should be entirely discounted in policy decisions. And people wonder why there's anger at bailouts....

We really should look at limiting the deductibility of travel expenses from taxes. I think a lot of frequent flyer elitists would change their tone mighty quick if 80% of their time was spent in the back of the bus as opposed to just the ramp to status.

And? All of that specifically benefits me as a consumer. Increases competition and keeps the TATL JVs honest.

When AC makes "an offer they can't refuse" that is monopolistic anti-consumer nonsense that deserves to be called out. Lest we forget, AC offered to drop the lobbying in return for a 50/50 profit sharing JV. On EK metal. You call that "lobbying hard". I call that extortion. Which ultimately results in people like me paying more.

Because Ottawa is a lower yielding town. Simple as that. Your point here only bolsters my argument. We've given the TATL JVs open skies despite the fact that they haven't done much to expand the number of Canadian cities served. But yet, we expect, other carriers to expand the list of cities before achieving minimum viability in one city (which really is daily service these days).

This isn't just about TK or the ME3 (which I don't really fly). There's also airlines like SQ. Why aren't they serving Canada? Oh that's right, we won't give them enough slots for daily until AC decides they are going to serve SIN with a daily....

I am fine with that reality. I want to dispense with the fiction that this is somehow in our national interest and my interest as a consumer. And I get particularly pissed when it's my tax dollars used to bail out these companies in a manner which only enables gouging my wallet further....

If people really want cheaper fares and better access to there cities they should be fighting to reduce taxes and regulations, not for airlines.

Ontario under the previous provincial Liberals added a jet fuel tax, added HST to domestic flights (We never paid PST on domestic flights), carbon tax (which overall is a good thing but makes it more expensive).

Get rid of GST to the USA, the only country we charge that too that isn't domestic.

But cities like Quebec City, Ottawa, Edmonton and Victoria will always struggle, government towns, smaller private businesses (although Ottawa is changing), and close to massive hubs.

I recognize this. Which is why I really want VIA's HFR built. The only way to keep airlines at YOW and YQB honest is to substantially increase accessibility to YUL. This might tempt airlines to actually offer direct service as a differentiator. Keeps prices honest too.

I think the same effect would happen at YEG if there was solid rail service between Edmonton and YYC.

Even by that metric, your statement wasn't accurate. YYZ and especially YUL have gained far more destinations in the last 10 years than both YVR and YYC.


SQ can fly unlimited passenger and cargo flights to Canada as much as it pleases. The reason they don't speaks to the profitability of such a venture. SQ was only able to make flights to Canada work using fifth freedom pickup rights at an enroute stop that actually had business to Canada, which was ICN.

https://www.flightglobal.com/canada-.../77488.article

I understand, but it's not like our government has a choice. And to be fair, they will not simply bail out AC. They will bail out WS and others as well.

The thing is YEG and YOW were on the verge of getting more transatlantic air service. YEG had FRA on the way with DE, while YOW had LH coming. Even though the latter was a metal swap to an existing destination, it would have been YOW's first European flag carrier since KL left in 1996, mot to mention AC's upgauging of LHR from the 763 to 330 (originally planned as a 788).

On top of that, WS were awarded (according to LGW's summer 2020 slot allocation) 3x weekly to launch YOW-LGW, but that was quashed due to the continual grounding of the MAX.

Every study that has been done by Via or the government has stated HSR will cost more than flying, even with a big operations subsidy and capital costs paid for by the government.

If you made Montreal more accessible, chances are flights, especially leisure ones would go down. There is a reason KLM/Air France runs a bus to Montreal from Ottawa. It's easy. If it was another 100 Km away they would probably just launch a flight.

HSR would be great. It won't make things cheaper.

HFR. Not HSR. It's not high speed. It's a regular rail service on a dedicated passenger corridor allowing higher frequency (hourly service) at higher average operating speeds (more running at 110 mph). And it's already in "pre-procurement" for what its worth:

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger...al-to-project/

And the government's new infrastructure bank chief citied it as an example of projects that are important to national competitiveness.

I've discussed this on the Ottawa forum's YOW thread. If HFR and Montreal's REM Dorval extension happen, it would take about 1.5 - 2 hrs by train to get from downtown Ottawa to the check-in counters at YUL. Compare that to a 40 min transit ride or a 25 min cab ride from downtown Ottawa to YOW. Costs are expected to be reasonable because it's not high speed rail. With more seats to fill, costs could be lower than VIA fare today. This creates a scenario of a 1-1.5 hr maximum time penalty for using YUL.

It's very possible in that scenario that AFKL could replace the bus service with rail integration, depending on how costs and integration works out. The train would actually be faster, more frequent and more comfortable. It is also likely that YUL would draw more leisure traffic from YOW. There's plenty of people who drive to YUL today to catch a flight. Along with traffic to airlines/alliances that don't have feeder service out of YOW. That is what will help keep airlines at YOW honest. And this is what will encourage differentiation and yield boosting with more direct service.

I highly doubt those are substantially threatened by rail. But rail will keep the pressure on prices for those services, which benefits consumers.

The other two TATL JVs and the non-aligned carriers will now have a more competitive way of accessing Ottawa's market. Something they lacked before, not having an alliance partner for YOW-YUL. That should help pricing ex-YOW to a lot of Europe and Asia.

I don't care what colour the metal is on the outside. Same JV. Which means that there's no material benefit to my wallet.

AC has already moved a few Rouge routes over to mainline for this summer:

YYZ-ATH - 788
YUL-ATH - 788
YYZ-LIS - 333
YYZ-BCN - 788
YUL-BCN - 788

I found the Rouge 767s more comfortable than the mainline 788s. So kinda sad to see Rouge long haul replaced with mainline. On the other hand, not much difference in hard product on the narrowbodies between mainline and Rouge so really what's the point of keeping the brand around?

YUL-LIS on 333 as well

Maybe I'm looking into it too much, but here is the route number assignment:

AC 804 YUL-ATH
AC 810 YUL-LIS (replaces additional service for CDG)
AC 812 YYZ-LIS (replaces additional service for CDG)
AC 820 YYZ-ATH (replaces YYZ-SNN)
AC 826 YYZ-BCN (replaces YYZ-WAW, was planned to be used again for YUL-TLS)
AC 830 YUL-BCN

Since the phase out of Rouge long-haul is permanent, maybe this indicates something about the routes they replaces?

The only unused 800-series flight numbers after this are AC852 and 866, both are last used for LHR flights. Of course there are AC838 that's recently removed, and AC896 that is still in the schedule.

I'm pretty sure that they just assigned anything at the moment.

I was also under the impression that AC830/831 are retired numbers and were not to be used again.

YUL-TLS still showing 826/827 when it is due to launch in October.

If rouge doesn't go back to long haul flights what will AC re-number their TATL flights when there is nothing left in the 800s?

CMN is not in Europe could easily be given a AC70-79 range number.

There won't be nearly enough 800s number for sure if all Rouge Europe routes are converted to mainline. However, from the AC Q1 earning call, the plan seems to convert a few key leisure markets to mainline, while the rest of the Rouge long-haul network will not be coming back after the 767 are retired (exact timing not decided yet).

Maybe the rest of the network will be covered by Transat?


AC830/831 was last used for YUL-GVA, before they combined it with the YYZ route.

AFAIK, AC do not retire flight numbers.

I think that's certainly a minority opinion, at least the mainline 787s have IFE which matters more to me on long-haul.

I thought the pitch was tighter on Rouge, but I fit unusually well in airline seats. I think Rouge has something like 29-30" pitch, whereas mainline has 31-34" pitch.

Rouge has a different contract with their flight attendants and higher density for leisure flying. Since AC has bought Air Transat, maybe they're moving their leisure flyers there. By ditching Rouge, AC no longer 'sullies' mainline by having that association in the average customer's mind. I bet Air Transat's pilots and flight attendants are paid less too.

The average flyer doesn't associate Swoop with Westjet. By divorcing Air Canada's leisure travelers by routing them on Air Transat, Air Canada can better position itself as a premium airline in marketing terms.

I could see the leisure market becoming Sunwing, Swoop and Air Transat.
The 'premium' mainline carriers would be Westjet and Air Canada.

I think this COVID thing just greatly accelerated that process.

Maybe they'll just shift the leisure summer flyers to Air Transat unless the destination in question has heavy premium demand. In that case, I could see AC mainline taking on the flight.

You can address IFE by using your own mobile device. My iPad has a bigger screen that most Y IFE systems anyway. But you can't make the seat bigger or your legs shorter.

That 31"-34" tagline is misleading. Most of the seats are 31". They include the preferred economy seats in that count. There are the 34" seats. So 1" more pitch on mainline. But less width compared to a 767. If you're with a total stranger beside you, enjoy the awkward shoulder rubs.

Agreed that this is probably the direction things are going. And moving all their discount business to Air Transat will let them offer an even worse product (TS is one of the few out there that does 9-abreast on an A330).

Typical of business in Canada. Just like the telcos and their flanker brands. The illusion of competition with no substantial discounts (measured by global standards).

I remember reading somewhere that on the 50th anniversary of TCA 831, they'd changed YUL-GVA flight to 834 in respect to the lives lost on the TCA crash.