That makes sense. They get their funding through fees charged to airlines based on the number of flights. They must be feeling a bit of financial pain just now.

Official press release with list of airports here:

https://www.navcanada.ca/EN/media/Pages/NR-25-2020.aspx

This measure follows in the footsteps of the FAA, which did the same thing last week, but at close to 100 control towers across the US.

https://www.faa.gov/coronavirus/regu...updates/#tctha

Here is a list of the US airports affected. Some are decently busy towers, like SJC or PSP. However the list is compiled mostly of regional airports.

https://www.faa.gov/coronavirus/regu...tment_list.pdf

To be clear, NavCan wont be saving a penny with these measures, as all ATC and FSS staff at the units affected will still get payed. This was done with the safety of employees in mind. It was done in order to implement an efficient "crew" system, and it also reduces the chances of a full unit closure, in the event of an employee getting COVID.

At the Area control centers and larger towers, a "crew" system was put in place in order to minimize interaction between teams. At these smaller affected units, there is not enough staff to put in place enough "crews" to minimize interaction. Therefore cutting midnight shifts helps in that regard. As the press release says,

I find it hilarious too.

https://simpleflying.com/emirates-a380-is-over/

The writing has been on the wall for the 747 and A380 for the last 5 years at least.

The era of mega-large aircraft just didn't pan out once more efficient, smaller aircraft made hub bypass a reasonable possibility for the majority of transit.

Unless there was a reason for using the A380 - congested airports with not much potential for expansion such as London Heathrow - running a smaller airplane more often makes more sense. The smaller airplane with increased frequency is less financially risky so if passenger loads decline, you can cut service and use the aircraft elsewhere.

The curious thing will be to see if the 777X does well, or flops. It too is quite large, but has better economics than the A380/747. However, it might be a niche aircraft as it still faces the same problem as above.

I'll be curious about how long the A380 stays in service. The problem with niche aircraft is that once they start being removed en masse, the support network for parts breaks down quickly. So, the most pessimistic view is 15 years, but I'm hard pressed to see a lifespan beyond 25 years.

The 747 has the advantage of being a cargo aircraft, so they'll be flying for decades beyond. Heck, there's still DC-10s flying with cargo airlines.

Great piece of engineering that was a commercial failure because Airbus business strategists misread the market.

AC extended a ton of Transborder suspensions and some full season suspensions including:

YYC-BOS
YVR-BOS
YVR-ANC
YUL-BNA
YYZ-SAV
YYZ-PDX
YYZ-PVD
YYZ-IND

Suspended until September:
YYC-LAX
YYC-IAH
YHZ-BOS
YUL-PHL
YUL-PHX
YOW-DCA
YVR-SNA
YYZ-MSP
YYZ-PHX

https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/...vel.html#/na-4

YYC is having no luck with either Canadian carrier in regards to US/International ops. Crazy to see AA having more Transborder flights out of YYC then AC & WS combined.

Add the two new A220 routes to the list:
YYZ-SJC
YUL-SEA

It was still there a week ago, now reservation seems to be closed.

YVR-LIH also seems to be permanently cancelled. I guess all the routes that are not listed in the page are cancelled?

YVR-SNA is still going ahead for September start... for now. But I also cannot find it in S21 schedule.

Also, no YYC-BOS in next summer schedule either, and the second daily YVR-EWR and ANC.

Seems like AC will reassign new flight numbers for some flights on May 1, 2021. All flights with multiple dailies will be grouped with continuous flight numbers. And seems like YVR/YYC transborders will all uses 5xx numbers, and YYZ/YUL transborders will be 7xx.

WS loaded a revised June schedule and most of the international/US ops is now suspended until July 5. However, a few routes appear to be resuming June 26? All of them are only open in full fare reservation so this could have been in error?

These are the routes scheduled that I’ve found so far:
YYC-LAX
YYC-ATL
YVR-LAX
YYZ-CUN
YYZ-LGA
YYZ-MCO

I'm guessing it will be back once the 7M8 is retuned to service. Just like YYZ-SNN keeps getting pushed.

As I'm sure you know the S21 schedule is a carbon copy and will most likely be aded in much later. I remember YUL-RDU wasn't loaded into the S20 schedule until December 2019 even though it started June 2019.

This will be interesting and probably be very hard to do.
Doesn't YYZ-ORD/BOS take up already 500-530 and YYZ/YUL-LGA 700-749?
Routes like YUL/YYZ-DEN, YYC-PHX are numbered 10xx.

7M8 - is that the disguised name they're giving to the 737 Max 8 now??? :rolleyes:

"a rose by any other name is still a rose"...............

Or, in this case, "a rotten fetid corpse by any other name is still a rotten fetid corpse'

All I know is that if this plane does return to service, I will wait for at least five years of unblemished service before I will voluntarily board this particular piece of equipment.

That’s the IATA code for the max 8. Always has been.

Besides, you have it backwards. The disguise would be if they changed the code to 738.

WestJet's Revised June Schedule:
https://blog.westjet.com/westjet-upd...h-july-4-2020/

Since last night, YYZ-MCO/CUN have been removed. The others are still open for full fare reservation from June 26.

It's not a carbon copy. They had made tons of changes mainly to reassign route numbers and remove the E90 and some 767s.

Just looked closer, at schedule, the 500/700 separation is not entirely true.

For instance, here are the new transborder mainline flight numbers:

516-519 YVR/HNL
532-533 YVR/BOS
534-537 YVR/OGG
538-539 YVR/ANC
540-543 YYZ/SEA
548-549 YVR/EWR
550-561 YVR/LAX
562-569 YVR/SFO
570-573 YYC/LAX
584-585 YYC/EWR

700-729 YYZ/LGA
738-747 YYZ/SFO
758-763 YUL/SFO
774-779 YUL/LAX
784-795 YYZ/LAX

1038-1041 YYZ/DEN
1072-1075 YUL/DEN

All other routes either does not run in summer, or converted to express or Rouge, or no longer in schedule.

The same renumbering applies to all routes except long-hual international (ie. LHR and CDG flights are still all over the places), and flights between YVR/YYZ/YUL.

Interesting to see all the shuffles going around, not just with AC/WS but also European carriers.

BA was initially planning on resuming YVR, YYC, YYZ and YUL in June. That's now down to only YYZ and YUL. Daily B788 to both. Let's see if that will change. Most likely.

AF is currently 3x weekly to YUL. They are planning on increasing it to 5x weekly from June 1 and daily from June 15.

LH hasn't updated their June schedules yet. They only served YUL in April, No Canadian destinations in May, so let's see what they do in June.

On the Canadian front, TS has extended their suspension to June 30, Sunwing to June 25. Porter still holding steady with June 29.

I guess thats the end of mainline to ORD and BOS from YYZ now that the E90s are gone.

Both routes becomes express E75:

7602-7619 YYZ/ORD
7672-7685 YYZ/BOS

Hopefully, this focuses AC more at home. It's always been BS how cheaply they sell seats Europe and Asia to Americans.

6th freedom routes is the reason why AC is as successful as it is today.

Selling a YVR-LHR or YUL-TLV at 700$ CND will not go very far.

Selling a LAX-YVR-TPE or EWR-YUL-TLV at 600USD now we're talking.

AC basically admitted they're trying to skim off markets that the US major carriers have de-hubbed and don't focus on. If you have to connect anyway, why not connect through Canada at a discount fare.

So, a lot of Midwesterners and whatnot use Toronto and Montreal, since they'd be connecting somewhere in the US anyway. I'd imagine that Vancouver does something similar for the upper Western states as well.

I can't imagine that anymore than a trickle connect from major US hubs through Canada as they're so competitive, price-wise.

I would be curious about where the pain-in-the-butt factor crosses over with the cheap factor in flying. I'd be loath to add hours of flying to a intercontinental flight unless there was a pretty massive discount involved.

AC was undercutting US carriers to Europe and Asia. United apparently wasn't pleased.

Transiting AC's hubs had other benefits as well, besides price. On your way back form Asia or Europe, customs was a breeze compared to transiting the big US hub. Also, no need to collect bags. After customs, you simply walk straight back into the departure area for your onward flight. US pre-clearance is an added bonus, as you land in the US as domestic flight, so you simply walk out of the aircraft onto the street. Make's a huge difference.