Updated logo and 767 preview

[brooks]

I think the big thing to remember is a brand new 787 maybe up to 20% more efficient than the 767 but when they are all owned by the bank and cost a premium to operate there isn't much of an advantage. Especially when fuel prices are very low. I've heard through the vine that there may be more 767's coming from LAN as they are replacing theirs with 787s. When fuel prices spike in a couple years hopefully we can see the 787 deliver date.

[TheStig]

I think the big thing to remember is a brand new 787 maybe up to 20% more efficient than the 767 but when they are all owned by the bank and cost a premium to operate there isn't much of an advantage. Especially when fuel prices are very low. I've heard through the vine that there may be more 767's coming from LAN as they are replacing theirs with 787s. When fuel prices spike in a couple years hopefully we can see the 787 deliver date.

However, on the flip side, there is nothing more expensive than a cheap airplane...

[Realitychex]

There are massive holes and extremely large assumptions made in your needlessly long ramblings. I don't have a horse in this race, I just am amused by the hyperbole. Perhaps my favourite tidbit is this:

Demand is going to shift to LGW as a result of the pricing differential, at all fare levels, and ultimately, fares to LHR are going to implode, neutering a very key source of Air Canada's profitability during the critical 3Q.

Yes, Heathrow will become cheap-as-chips to fly to. Well, maybe not.

The comparison to 1996 is asinine. There was a unique moment in aviation history where WestJet was able to exploit the turmoil of the Canadian/AC merger and founded an upstart company with a different approach - and found great success doing so. Fast forward 20 years and WestJet doesn't resemble its former self whatsoever, nor does Air Canada. For history to repeat itself, the environment has to have at least SOME factors in common with what allowed those events to occur previously. Timing was on your side in 1996. It is not now. You may have London "in your sights" but you're bringing a knife to a gun fight. Wishful thinking is not analysis.

Do I wish ill on the B767 venture? Not at all. But it's hardly a slam-dunk, in fact will be a very hard nut to crack. If you only dip your toes in the water you'll probably get them bitten off. If you go more all-in there's massive financial exposure - at a time when the home base economy is imploding, which is spreading elsewhere in Canada. Neither scenario gives a high probability of success. I don't care either way, but that's MY dispassionate opinion.

Comparing the Allies situation in Sept 1940 to the spring of 1944, nearly 4 years later, would be asinine too. That tends to happen when historical timelines are conveniently forgotten.

WJ launched on Feb 29 1996. CP had an aggressive and intimidating big brother in Dallas at the time. CP imploded in late 1999. The AC/CP merger occurred beginning in early 2000, nearly four years after WJ's launch.

WJ was highly profitable before, during and after the AC/CP merger. In airline terms , 4 weeks is a very long time indeed. Let's not get into revisionist history here.

I would suggest you do some homework on the concept of stage length adjusted casm. You might be surprised how far apart the two airlines remain on a fully allocated basis, Sure, WJ's ASL has grown from about 400 miles at launch to 881 miles in the most recent quarter, but then again, Air Canada's has ballooned from about 1,000 miles in 1996 to 1,634 miles today. Note that AC decided to calculate their ASL using industry standard methodology in 1Q 2014 to explain why it's rasm was dropping, though it also explained why casm was dropping too. Did you see how their ASL jumped about 35% in the space of a quarter?

If you think AC's unit costs, or WJ's for that matter, are the same, whether they operate a 425 mile flight between YYC and YVR, a 2,600 mile YVR-HNL flight or a 4,372 mile sector from YYC to LHR, you are dreaming.

Nobody outside the head shed knows precisely what those unit costs are, but we do know AC's fully allocated costs were 13.63 cents in Q3 2015 on an average 1,634 mile asl, with dirt cheap fuel and the airline operating it's capacity flat out. It doesn't get much more efficient than that. Given those costs and the utilization achieved during the period, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone they made good money in the quarter. Newsflash: Toys R Us makes a boatload of cash in their 4th quarter too, but, alas, the "Holiday Season" only comes once a year.

WJ operated with a casm of 12.83 cents on an 881 mile asl in 3Q. Their casm over AC's average 1,634 mile sector, which is basically YYC-YYZ, would be down to around 10.75 cents a mile. As stage length increase, unit costs will drop, but the curve tends to flatten out as distances get longer.

There's your real casm delta and if you plotted that delta on a graph, and compared the two, the delta between the two lines on the graph would be pretty consistent on all stage lengths, outside ultra short haul and ultra long haul flying. WJ's 767 fleet asl will hover around 4,000 miles. That isn't ultra long haul. DFW-SYD at 8,600 miles is ultra long haul.

Needless to say, WJ's fully allocated casm will be significantly below the competition's fully allocated casm, which is all that matters.

For virtually all passengers, an airline seat is a commodity. There is little to physically differentiate the two. When that is the case, the lowest cost producer controls pricing and all the higher cost operator can do is match the pricing with its higher costs and keep its fingers crossed that the lower revenues as a result of lower fares exceed fully allocated costs in order for the service to remain viable. And make no mistake about it, fares, and ultimately yields are going to tumble, just as they have anywhere WJ has gone.

As has been the case over the past 20 years, the yield decline will not be limited to the immediate market, ie Canada to London. The same thing will occur as what occurred when WJ launched one flight a day from Hamilton to Moncton, the most central airport in the Maritimes, with a very modest connecting network. WJ had 10 tails at the time, compared to about 140 today.

Fares were promptly matched in Moncton on Moncton to Toronto and the rest of the network, but the incumbents tried to hold higher fares in Charlottetown, Halifax, St John and Fredericton. Savvy travelers found ways to get to Moncton and take advantage of the cheap fares. Within a few weeks, the incumbents had to match the fares from all locations in the Maritimes. Maritime profitability, which had been contributing to underwrite the profitability mess in Western Canada, went "poof".

Fast forward nearly 20 years, with far more transparent pricing and consumers on both sides of the pond having infinitely better internet tools to figure out how to fly cheaper, and it just isn't going take too long for the traveling public to grind down their cost of travel by one method or another, and won't just be the Clampetts / Von Clampetts on their once in a decade trip to and from Europe.

A lot of business people who keep an eye on budgets are going to have a tough time buying into the sort of pricing the high cost operators have on fares to and from London to Canada. That impact won't be seen until about 21 days prior to WJ launching it's first TATL flight. Business guys rarely plan business trips anymore than 21 days in advance.....an usually it's a lot tighter window than that.

The current delta between WJ's premium cabin and AC's for a typical 5 day turnaround trip next summer is about $500. It's closer to $2,500 in J. That's a big nut for Poindexter in accounting to sign off on. The first budgets that get gutted in corporate America when times are tough are travel budgets. If a corporation can continue to send its employee to the UK three times a year instead of twice a year to do sales calls because budgets have been tightened, I think you know what's going to happen. The message fromabove will be: Off you go, but at the cheaper fares, thank you very much.

Sure, the incumbent will eventually match those fares, but what does that do to profitability, because costs never fall as far or as fast as revenues in the airline business.

An when London fares fall to the point where it is cheaper to fly to London and then take a connecting flight to Amsterdam, Paris, Copenhagen, Rome, Venice, Munich, Frankfurt and elsewhere, how long is it before the "Moncton" scenario occurs? And what does that do TATL profitability, which, lest anyone forget, contributed a little under 30% of the total revenues generated last 3Q?

As departure dates get closer, and we're about 150 days out now, the ability for the incumbents to raise pricing is going to be severely limited.

An airline seat is a commodity, just like a liter of gas or a pound of bananas.

It's why Esso, Shell and Petro Canada's gas price at the intersection down the block are identical, regardless of their respective operating costs. One can be pretty sure each of those three gas retailers have a different fully allocated cost to produce and sell a liter of gas at the pump, but they are all getting the same price from consumer. The producer with the lowest costs makes more than the high cost guy. With any luck the cost to produce and the sell the liter of gas stays below the selling price achieved. If it doesn't, things get messy quickly.

When AC TATL flights are already running 90% full in 3Q, it's not as if there's room to sell many more seats on any individual flights. 90% l/f's over the summer means flights are basically sold out on all but a couple of less desirable days a week. The concept of losing a little on every seat but making it up on volume is business plan that has yet to reward any investors in any business I'm familiar with. It failed miserably for all Canadian carriers who generally ran with the concept over the past 20 years, large and small.

The casm delta between AC and WJ is not the 39.6% WJ expected to achieve in the 1995 business plan, which ended up more like 32% once all the ducks had settled, but it remains well above 20% when AC is operating at it's most efficient point of the year, 3Q, and quite a bit more more in the 4th and 1st quarters when AC's utilization shrinks, the maintenance work is done and casm balloons.

A quote in the original WJ business plan, which came from an academic paper written circa 1994 says it all: "How would you, dear reader, like to compete in a commodity-type business with someone whose costs are 30% below yours"?

Another interesting quote that should be paid attention to came from a Societe General research document of roughly the same era: "U.S. academic research has shown that it only takes one small operation with a few percent of the market to destroy a high fare structure on a given route".

That is precisely what happened on every single route a lower cost operator has launched on planet earth over the past 20 years or more. Witness what happened in the Canada to NYC market a few years ago when WJ returned in 2012, and the difference in pricing from YYZ to BOS pre and post Encore's entry to the market next spring.

To believe that such a scenario will not repeat itself on the Canada to UK market next summer, is, in my modest opinion, the definition of hubris. And to think WJ will have a problem filling 3 daily 767's to London at the busiest time of the year, with a price stimulated market with 140 tails feeding their London flying, together with codeshare feed from AA and DL, is a pretty pessimistic outlook.

It is not a difficult stretch to categorize this latest chapter of WJ's growth as the most serious strategic threat to Air Canada's profitability since WJ launched Toronto / central Canada in a serious manner in 2002.

Just because management hasn't alerted the strategic situation to cheerleader analyst communtiy, most of whom couldn't analyze their way out of a wet paper bag, doesn't in any way negate the seriousness of the situation.

It's a big deal. A very big deal.

I'm all ears if naysayers can lay out a compelling scenario, based on some sort of verifiable evidence that presents an argument countering these ideas that makes sense.

Saying "it won't happen, because" isn't much of an argument. However, it is pretty typical of the arguments I've seen over the past 20 years explaining why everything WJ did had no impact at all on the incumbent operators as one by one they all went CCAA / near CCAA and/or banco, all the while claiming nothing WJ had done in the market place had anything to do with it.

Yea....right.

[TheStig]

Same rah rah kool aid as the previous 2 posts.

Westjetters thrive on this David vs. Goliath theme fighting Air Canada, but just consider that in this market we're talking about British Airways, United, Delta, American, Luthansa, KLM, Alitialia, Iberia, Aer Lingus, Virgin Atlantic, TAP, LOT, and SAS. I'm sure WJ will make some money and look to continue expansion, but this isn't a game changer.

I do enjoy reading your posts to the extent that nobody at a 'Legacy Airline' wants to get caught with their head in the sand (again). However, I believe what we're talking about here is really WJ vs Transat. If anyone is poised to disrupt international air travel in a meaningful way it's going to be Norwegian Air Shuttle, Ryanair, Turkish or the ME3.

Have you compared the economics of the B767 vs B737? It's worth mentioning that a B767 will burn more fuel per ASM on 4000nm trip than a B737 will burn on a 1500nm stage length. Obviously there are lots of other costs included in total trip cost and of coarse if both aircraft are full and RASM is above CASM the larger airplane will generate higher profits. However, the overseas operation will drive WJ's CASM up, not down.

Something worth pointing out, since you've asked for proof is that if you compare the figures between 2014 and 2015, to the end of 3Q, both WJ have AC have obviously benefited from falling fuel costs, but WJ's CASM fell by 7% and AC's dropped by 10%. Also, AC's 10% growth (ASM's)was matched perfectly by a 10% RASM increase, while WJ's 6% ASM growth resulted in a 4% RASM increase.

Air Canada has certainly benefited from Westjets' competition, the tough domestic competition seems to have turned AC into a much more competive business internationally. I recently read an article which cited Japanese travellers preference for their flag carriers (ANA&JAL) that ultimately lead to both carriers becoming internationally uncompetitive as both carriers failed to innovate.

The failure to timely bring the 767's into service (after giving rouge a 3 year head start in the first place), abandoning the Port system, the distraction of unionization, passive threats from the CEO, a contract that left a lot of pilots underwhelmed, launching a regional airline, the inability to develope a strong east coast market share (while watching Porter do so). All of it combined just seems to show that Westjet has lost its momentum.

[fish4life]

I think the biggest risk to both AC and WJ right now isn't each other is the Canadian housing market. If prices drop 20% and now suddenly people have to start paying off / can't dip into their home equity line of credits anymore both airlines are going to be hurting big time.

[brooks]

TheStig wrote: However, I believe what we're talking about here is really WJ vs Transat.

[complexintentions]

Realitychex,

If you think your analysis is any more accurate, or less speculative, than the professionals you disparage, you might be the one who needs to look up the definition of "hubris". Your rambling dissertations are barely coherent.

I'm quite aware of WS's history, I had a front row seat to its inception in 1996. There is nothing revisionist in my statement that it's creation benefitted heavily from an exploitation of factors at the time that simply do not exist now. I do give full credit for the fact that the company's founders were able to take advantage of the airline environment of the day. But to suggest that circumstances are similar today is, once again - asinine. Or if you prefer a gentler way of expressing it - not credible.

If anyone is poised to disrupt international air travel in a meaningful way it's going to be Norwegian Air Shuttle, Ryanair, Turkish or the ME3.

Bingo. Your earnest breakdown of casm can also be applied to carriers from whom you so far have been protected from. As TheStig pointed out, you seem intent on portraying a WS vs AC fight. But while you're longwindedly trying to show how your costs are lower, there are others coming up fast in your rear view mirror. The government cannot protect the Canadian market forever, and deals like the TPP foreshadow the way forward. If you want to be an international player (please, don't pull out the "we're international, we fly to the Bahamas schtick), you have to think globally, not nationally.

I think the biggest risk to both AC and WJ right now isn't each other is the Canadian housing market. If prices drop 20% and now suddenly people have to start paying off / can't dip into their home equity line of credits anymore both airlines are going to be hurting big time.

Bingo x2.

As I stated, the timing of the widebody venture is coming at a point when the Canadian economy is in big trouble. Perhaps your time would be better spent analyzing the impact of prolonged low oil prices on the economy as a whole vs. the benefit of lower fuel prices for one small sector of the economy.

Main takeaway? The situation is far more complex than your neat rationalizations, and the outcome not as assured as you seem to think.

[monkey]

I'm all for competition but Canada's airlines should be protected from state run airlines like middle east 3.

Thoughts on purchasing WJ stock at its current level?

[altiplano]

Where you been bean? Not getting much traction on the grown up forum so over here preaching how smart you are to the junior class?! LOL...

It's a wide world out there - maybe out of the fishbowl and into the fryer?

Will westjet see some success in this venture? Probably but many challenges aswell - it certainly won't be some kind of cakewalk, game-changer as you suggest - westjet is bringing nothing that hasn't already been done by the legacies/lccs/charters that already fill the NAT tracks every day and night. Air Canada is only a small sliver of what westjet will be contending with.

Also... Maybe you'll be surprised to learn that - while someone may be open to driving an hour from Moncton to save 50 bucks - losing an extra day of travel each way on vacation, while dragging yourself, let alone kids and luggage through an extra airport just to make a Ryanair flight and end up at a secondary airport outside a city that could have been flown direct to has very limited appeal for most sane, savvy travelers - particularly when it's just to save a couple hundred, and in fact probably less when accounting for paying for checked bags on both airlines, food, maybe even an overnight in London on the way home depending on flight timing...

I wonder how the recoveries are going to work out when the first desert dog diverts or breaks down? Guess you guys have it all figured though. Good luck!

[loopa]

Where you been bean? Not getting much traction on the grown up forum so over here preaching how smart you are to the junior class?! LOL...

It's a wide world out there - maybe out of the fishbowl and into the fryer?

Will westjet see some success in this venture? Probably but many challenges aswell - it certainly won't be some kind of cakewalk, game-changer as you suggest - westjet is bringing nothing that hasn't already been done by the legacies/lccs/charters that already fill the NAT tracks every day and night. Air Canada is only a small sliver of what westjet will be contending with.

Also... Maybe you'll be surprised to learn that - while someone may be open to driving an hour from Moncton to save 50 bucks - losing an extra day of travel each way on vacation, while dragging yourself, let alone kids and luggage through an extra airport just to make a Ryanair flight and end up at a secondary airport outside a city that could have been flown direct to has very limited appeal for most sane, savvy travelers - particularly when it's just to save a couple hundred, and in fact probably less when accounting for paying for checked bags on both airlines, food, maybe even an overnight in London on the way home depending on flight timing...

I wonder how the recoveries are going to work out when the first desert dog diverts or breaks down? Guess you guys have it all figured though. Good luck!

Great post!

[Realitychex]

Have you compared the economics of the B767 vs B737? It's worth mentioning that a B767 will burn more fuel per ASM on 4000nm trip than a B737 will burn on a 1500nm stage length. Obviously there are lots of other costs included in total trip cost and of coarse if both aircraft are full and RASM is above CASM the larger airplane will generate higher profits. However, the overseas operation will drive WJ's CASM up, not down.

If fuel were the only metric being discussed, you'd have a good point.

I would expect to see the cost per asm for fuel on a 4,400 mile 767 sector to be about 9% higher than on a 737-700 operating a 1,675 mile sector. However, there are lots of costs that are leveraged way, way down as stage lengths increase. It's the same forces at play that make 737 or A320 flying far cheaper per asm than regional flying with EMB's or Q400's.

As you probably know, Jazz generated 5.496b asm's in 2014 at a cost of $1.528b or a casm of 27.8 cents a mile. Last I checked, Jazz's asl was around 425 miles and Jazz/Chorus was considered a "low cost operator", even with unit costs 10 cents a seat mile higher than than AC's reported consolidated number.

So....AC's short haul flying cost 27.8 cents a mile but when the balance of the network was added into the equation, which raised the asl from Jazz's 425 miles to 1,600 miles, overall unit costs fell almost in half? Yet you claim long haul flying is MORE expensive than short haul flying? If that were the case, surely AC mainline's unit costs would be higher, not lower than their regional carriers?

The following is a good overview on the topic.

https://books.google.com/books?id=gObTB ... th&f=false

If you can find any academic research that supports your theory that longer stage lengths result in higher unit costs, I'd be interested in reading it. I suspect the powers that be at Cathay would be fascinated by it too. Perhaps they should get into short haul flying to drive unit costs down?

To generate the same ASM's as a YYC-LGW sector, WJ has to operate 5 YYC-YYZ sectors and incur the costs associated with selling, filling, handling and disgorging 544 or so passengers on five flights vs about 210 on a single 767 flight. There are a myriad of cycle driven expenses that add up, not to mention various other charges.

a small example, (and remember, the airline business is full of small examples, which collectively, add up to a big nut): to sell the aforementioned 544 seats on those five sectors to YYZ incurs 544 booking fees from Sabre vs 210 on the 767 sector. At $2.50 a sector, the CRS expense per asm declines 61% on the long haul sector. There are a ton of examples along these lines.

When it is all said and done, long haul unit costs will drive system unit costs down, Encore's growth will cause unit costs to increase as will full implementation of Plus. And on the revenue side of the equation, long haul yields will be lower than short haul + there's all that belly capacity available that will be sold off. That's going to drive down incumbents cargo revenue too. There's another owch. By definition, cargo is nothing more than a commodity. My 767 container is no different than your 767 container.

Something worth pointing out, since you've asked for proof is that if you compare the figures between 2014 and 2015, to the end of 3Q, both WJ have AC have obviously benefited from falling fuel costs, but WJ's CASM fell by 7% and AC's dropped by 10%. Also, AC's 10% growth (ASM's)was matched perfectly by a 10% RASM increase, while WJ's 6% ASM growth resulted in a 4% RASM increase.

WJ's asl shrunk 3.2% from 910 miles to 881 miles in that period. AC's asl grew 3.7% from 1,576 miles to 1,634 miles What did you expect to happen? Again, read the link I provided on the relationship between asl and unit costs.

I have no idea where you came up with those rasm numbers. AC's RASM was 17.83 cents in 3Q 2014 and dropped to 17.09 cents in 3Q 2015, a decline of 4.1%. WJ's RASM was 15.54 cents in 3Q 2014 and dropped to 15.14 cents in 3Q 2015, a decline of 2.6%. You might want to open up Excel, take a look at the 3Q releases to get the data and divide company's total revenues by the asm's generated in the quarter to see this for yourself, instead of relying on what you've heard elsewhere.

The failure to timely bring the 767's into service (after giving rouge a 3 year head start in the first place), abandoning the Port system, the distraction of unionization, passive threats from the CEO, a contract that left a lot of pilots underwhelmed, launching a regional airline, the inability to develope a strong east coast market share (while watching Porter do so). All of it combined just seems to show that Westjet has lost its momentum.

Let's just say that there were those of us who figured out back in mid August that WJ was not going to have the 767's ETOPS certified in time for the Hawaii ops. WJ have brought in substitute capacity for a month or so to deal with it, just as they did with the Thomas Cook 757's over the past few years and are running the 767's on routes that don't require ETOPS. Given the Board did not see it necessary to request management issue a press release discussing the matter, the financial consequences must not be material to the quarterly earnings. From what I've heard, and judging by GS's comments in the 3Q conference call transcripts I skimmed on the matter, Boeing has egg on their face over this and I would think they will be doing all they can to fix the issue and maintain a good relationship. They know WJ is a prospective 787 customer.

I'm not sure how launching a regional airline and growing it to 30 tails in 3 years thus far or expanding into Europe over the past couple of summers is evidence of a loss of momentum. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see WJ add about 20 Q400 tails to the order within the next 18 months.

WJ has never done anything to chase instant gratification or to pump the stock price in all the years I've followed the company. They tend to build upon sound foundations and are highly risk adverse. I don't see anything remarkably different going on there today. I'm on record as being a bit of a skeptic when it came to Plus, but my personal experience is that on the routes I frequent, it is not as easy as I would have predicted to get a Plus seat.

Conversely, I see all kinds of things going on elsewhere that may make sense tactically in the short run, but strategically, in the long run, are likely to cause no end of problems down the road.

When executive compensation is driven by EBITDAR, it should come as no surprise that the executive group will do everything in its power to grow, grow grow. It's a sure fire way of driving EBITDAR. No other airline I'm familiar with places as much evidence on near meaningless EBITDAR metrics than AC. This is evidenced quarter after quarter as AC trots out more references to EBITDAR in its press releases than all the other publicly traded airlines in North America combined.

Here's the rub. Growing an airline is relatively easy. However, anyone who's been around the industry for a while knows that it's highly cyclical. It's not always sunshine and lollipops. There are some of us that have noted the tide changing in the US, especially as one by one, growth happy airlines are starting to report that yields are noticeably declining in order to fill the aircraft.

When the cycle ends, the current one of which is being underwritten by cheap fuel, there are going to be a number of high cost airlines caught in a very ugly scenario.

A number of airlines are going to be stuck with too many airplanes, too many people and too much infrastructure. Some will have locked in long term labor agreements that were sold on the basis off growth, growth, growth. It will boil down to costs that are way out of control compared to more nimble competitors.

Ex fuel, airline costs rise year after year as labor becomes more expensive, aircraft age and everyday inflation impacts all other costs. As everyone at a legacy airline knows, shrinking an airline is an extremely difficult, morale destroying and ultimately expensive task.

At the same time, yields, which took forever to increase, will have fallen as airlines try to fill airplanes and maintain market share to disguise and deny the damage as best as possible. They will try to sell high loads to the investment community as evidence of "all is well", even though yields and overall revenue is dropping. Cutting fares is easy, raising them back up is murder. It takes a lot of time to reducate discount happy consumers to new pricing realities. It never occurs overnight. People get used to $400 all in fares to Hawaii. They don't like $700 fares to Hawaii. Ripoff!

I had a discussion the other day about the yield erosion that is occurring. There was abject denial that Europe flying could possibly suffer from people discovering it was cheaper to fly AC or WJ to LGW and then to the rest of the continent by using any one of numerous intra Europe airlines operating from LGW, rather than simply going n/s from Canada. No way. It couldn't happen.

Later in the conversation, the fellow told me he was taking his family to Hawaii in March. He priced out an itinerary that included n/s YVR-KOA and it was north of $4k for his family. He then priced Rouge to HNL and then Hawaiian for inter-island flying. Same dates. N/S to KOA, $4,000+. Rouge to HNL then HA to KOA, $2,400. Guess which one he booked?

I pointed out that what he described is precisely the scenario he said would never occur in Europe via LGW. I think he gets it now.

So: high costs and low yields. We've all seen this movie countless times over the past 20+ years. The ending never changes.

Enjoy the ride.

[mikeecho]

Where you been bean? Not getting much traction on the grown up forum so over here preaching how smart you are to the junior class?! LOL...

In fairness, that forum has been beyond readable for the last year unless you like hearing old timers chime in on politics and terrorism.

[aerobod]

767 #2 (tail 670 / C-GOGN) has just taxied out for positioning in Toronto, as it enters into service.

[J31]

She did not get far. What happened?

[altiplano]

Where you been bean? Not getting much traction on the grown up forum so over here preaching how smart you are to the junior class?! LOL...

In fairness, that forum has been beyond readable for the last year unless you like hearing old timers chime in on politics and terrorism.

Yeah some guys are pretty passionate about those topics over there...

Most of them don't buy into the sermons Bean/Realitychex shills out either.

[mikeecho]

Where you been bean? Not getting much traction on the grown up forum so over here preaching how smart you are to the junior class?! LOL...

In fairness, that forum has been beyond readable for the last year unless you like hearing old timers chime in on politics and terrorism.

Yeah some guys are pretty passionate about those topics over there...

Most of them don't buy into the sermons Bean/Realitychex shills out either.

Most of those guys never started a successful airline(s) and have a knowledge of the industry that barely stretches outside the flight deck door.

[CAL]

Hi guys not sure if this is the best thread to post this....
need to do a yyz-london (airports) trip in July with the family and trying to decided on which carrier to use.
on my specific dates there isnt much difference in the fares between the three Canadian carriers that serve that route
dont cross the pond much and have a child along for the journey just wondering what 'features' the 767 will have ie wifi/food/seats etc. not that food makes much of a difference normally buy stuff in the airport....
thanks in advance

[J31]

Hi guys not sure if this is the best thread to post this....
need to do a yyz-london (airports) trip in July with the family and trying to decided on which carrier to use.
on my specific dates there isnt much difference in the fares between the three Canadian carriers that serve that route
dont cross the pond much and have a child along for the journey just wondering what 'features' the 767 will have ie wifi/food/seats etc. not that food makes much of a difference normally buy stuff in the airport....
thanks in advance

The 76 should have wifi and depending on the fare package, meals for purchase or complimentary.

https://www.westjet.com/guest/en/travel ... tion.shtml

Two class seating, economy or Plus. Plus are larger seats with a choice of isle or window.

Have fun in the UK!

[CAL]

Cheers J31!will have a look at the link

[leftoftrack]

Is WS subbing a 800 for the 67?