Air Canada anti competitive practices

[island boy]

As a long time observer, and seeing things from an outside perspective the cynic in me has always felt that the Air Canada business model is to anti-compete whenever possible. Rather than improve their product offering, they seem more content to lobby the government to restrict slot access to foreign airlines, or create aggressive schedules and pricing to push competitors into bankruptcy. Even though the Canadian government has long supported monopolies, and duopolies (dairy, telecoms, and others) I do believe AC have attracted the attention of the competition watchdog on a number of occasions.

Air Canada seems to have been caught napping when Westjet first came on the scene, and perhaps they didn't think it would have the legs. Maybe they misunderstood how much AC were disliked in the west?? In any event, as Westjet seemed to be building momentum, along came Zip flying the same aircraft type on similar routes in what would appear a blatant attempt to disrupt the plans of the competition. I don't see a problem with competing, and even in copying a model that isn't subject to a patent. But, in the power of hindsight - given Zip's short lifespan - was it really a product that Air Canada could offer profitably, and wanted to develop or was it just designed to potentially put Westjet out of business? If that was the real intention, then it obviously wasn't a success.

But what about Tango? As Canada3000 started to build out a domestic scheduled network, along came another subsidiary to target the same demographic and overlap many of the same routes. The result this time was quite different for C3, but the fate if Tango was similar to that of Zip. Short term (possibly to inflict pain on the competition?) and then gone again. I know that there were other reasons for the demise of C3, but was AC there to disrupt, and happily provide what might have proven to be the straw that broke the camels back? Yeah, I know Tango continued to live inside the mainline for years after.

The backstory of both of these ventures was to absorb some of the deemed to be excess tails from the merger with Canadian. This in itself is another instance of eliminating completion - buy them out, as they tried to do with Transat when they were taking significant market share away. In fairness, as the LCC market began to grow in this early 2000s era Air Canada wouldn't be alone in dabbling with sub brands - United Ted and Delta Song come to mind.

Is that the same story with Cargo? Let's absorb some Rouge tails? Obviously, cargo was doing quite well at the time, but there were many comparisons in the business case that referred directly to CargoJet. The pilots had to fly the boxes around for less, to make it viable to compete with them after all. Air Canada had years of experience in the industry, and had previously exited the space. Sure, times can change and a rethink can be in order but your intentions become questionable when you make direct references to a competitor versus just quoting market rates and your business case at your established costs.

AC have always been fiercely protective of their routes in the YYZ-YUL-YOW market. When Jetsgo came on the scene, the prices on this triangle dropped significantly. No problem with supply and demand affecting prices, but AC was always offering a different product with a far superior schedule. Did they need to drive their own yields down, to create a price war to speed the demise of the upstart? Again, I know Jetsgo had other reasons for going by the wayside, but once they were gone prices returned to historical norms. Am I a conspiracy theorist, or was this merely the effect a now tighter supply and demand?

Similar story at the Island. Feeling confident that they were the only game in town, Air Canada had reduced the schedule from the downtown port significantly. Enter porter, and all of a sudden AC wants to come back in a big way. When they get "only 30 slots" (5x what they had been using says Google) they cry foul that this isn't enough. Is tying your competitor up in legal action for occupying a market that you have previously abandoned what they teach in the school of good practices? Deluce saw an opportunity to occupy a space that other airlines were abandoning. The optics of begging to come back after the fact aren't good. If you liked it so much, why did you leave in the first place?

That brings us to today, and recent events. Is it a coincidence that as porter builds the network out of YYZ, AC abandons YYC and is doubling down in the east? Following Westjet's refocus on their home market, Air Canada had a near monopoly on several eastern routes and the Ontario, Quebec triangle. I'm sure they are having some pilot staffing issues - self inflicted wounds - but it that shortage just today's new backstory? Are they hoping not to be asleep at the switch with this new upstart the way they were with Westjet? I think porter is far more credible a threat than flair, lynx, or the others. I'm sure it hasn't escaped their attention.

I hope I'm wrong, and maybe only time will tell. I wish porter well, as they bring a new and refreshing product to the Canadian skies at a competitive price. They also seem to be projecting an ability to do this profitably, with well paid employees (pilots), and using planes which several on these forums have said is inferior to the mainline fins. Massive props would be due to AC if they decided to compete not merely on price, but also on product offering. They may wish to start by not expecting customers to sit in vomit, and offloading passengers who don't wish to leave their bags on the tarmac.

I also wish the AC pilot's well in their upcoming negotiations. I have never applied to Big Red for reasons beyond the salary. I doubt if they paid you North American industry standard that anything would change in that regard, but you deserve massive gains all around. Given my entire post reflects on shady practices by the corporation, I hope you don't fall for the tricks which are bound to come from the C-suite. It's all smoke and mirrors comrades.

[CaptDukeNukem]

As a long time observer, and seeing things from an outside perspective the cynic in me has always felt that the Air Canada business model is to anti-compete whenever possible. Rather than improve their product offering, they seem more content to lobby the government to restrict slot access to foreign airlines, or create aggressive schedules and pricing to push competitors into bankruptcy. Even though the Canadian government has long supported monopolies, and duopolies (dairy, telecoms, and others) I do believe AC have attracted the attention of the competition watchdog on a number of occasions.

Air Canada seems to have been caught napping when Westjet first came on the scene, and perhaps they didn't think it would have the legs. Maybe they misunderstood how much AC were disliked in the west?? In any event, as Westjet seemed to be building momentum, along came Zip flying the same aircraft type on similar routes in what would appear a blatant attempt to disrupt the plans of the competition. I don't see a problem with competing, and even in copying a model that isn't subject to a patent. But, in the power of hindsight - given Zip's short lifespan - was it really a product that Air Canada could offer profitably, and wanted to develop or was it just designed to potentially put Westjet out of business? If that was the real intention, then it obviously wasn't a success.

But what about Tango? As Canada3000 started to build out a domestic scheduled network, along came another subsidiary to target the same demographic and overlap many of the same routes. The result this time was quite different for C3, but the fate if Tango was similar to that of Zip. Short term (possibly to inflict pain on the competition?) and then gone again. I know that there were other reasons for the demise of C3, but was AC there to disrupt, and happily provide what might have proven to be the straw that broke the camels back? Yeah, I know Tango continued to live inside the mainline for years after.

The backstory of both of these ventures was to absorb some of the deemed to be excess tails from the merger with Canadian. This in itself is another instance of eliminating completion - buy them out, as they tried to do with Transat when they were taking significant market share away. In fairness, as the LCC market began to grow in this early 2000s era Air Canada wouldn't be alone in dabbling with sub brands - United Ted and Delta Song come to mind.

Is that the same story with Cargo? Let's absorb some Rouge tails? Obviously, cargo was doing quite well at the time, but there were many comparisons in the business case that referred directly to CargoJet. The pilots had to fly the boxes around for less, to make it viable to compete with them after all. Air Canada had years of experience in the industry, and had previously exited the space. Sure, times can change and a rethink can be in order but your intentions become questionable when you make direct references to a competitor versus just quoting market rates and your business case at your established costs.

AC have always been fiercely protective of their routes in the YYZ-YUL-YOW market. When Jetsgo came on the scene, the prices on this triangle dropped significantly. No problem with supply and demand affecting prices, but AC was always offering a different product with a far superior schedule. Did they need to drive their own yields down, to create a price war to speed the demise of the upstart? Again, I know Jetsgo had other reasons for going by the wayside, but once they were gone prices returned to historical norms. Am I a conspiracy theorist, or was this merely the effect a now tighter supply and demand?

Similar story at the Island. Feeling confident that they were the only game in town, Air Canada had reduced the schedule from the downtown port significantly. Enter porter, and all of a sudden AC wants to come back in a big way. When they get "only 30 slots" (5x what they had been using says Google) they cry foul that this isn't enough. Is tying your competitor up in legal action for occupying a market that you have previously abandoned what they teach in the school of good practices? Deluce saw an opportunity to occupy a space that other airlines were abandoning. The optics of begging to come back after the fact aren't good. If you liked it so much, why did you leave in the first place?

That brings us to today, and recent events. Is it a coincidence that as porter builds the network out of YYZ, AC abandons YYC and is doubling down in the east? Following Westjet's refocus on their home market, Air Canada had a near monopoly on several eastern routes and the Ontario, Quebec triangle. I'm sure they are having some pilot staffing issues - self inflicted wounds - but it that shortage just today's new backstory? Are they hoping not to be asleep at the switch with this new upstart the way they were with Westjet? I think porter is far more credible a threat than flair, lynx, or the others. I'm sure it hasn't escaped their attention.

I hope I'm wrong, and maybe only time will tell. I wish porter well, as they bring a new and refreshing product to the Canadian skies at a competitive price. They also seem to be projecting an ability to do this profitably, with well paid employees (pilots), and using planes which several on these forums have said is inferior to the mainline fins. Massive props would be due to AC if they decided to compete not merely on price, but also on product offering. They may wish to start by not expecting customers to sit in vomit, and offloading passengers who don't wish to leave their bags on the tarmac.

I also wish the AC pilot's well in their upcoming negotiations. I have never applied to Big Red for reasons beyond the salary. I doubt if they paid you North American industry standard that anything would change in that regard, but you deserve massive gains all around. Given my entire post reflects on shady practices by the corporation, I hope you don't fall for the tricks which are bound to come from the C-suite. It's all smoke and mirrors comrades.

Well written.

The deluce’s brand is very forward thinking. They have a knack for finding the precise moment to make a move, and it seems like not only from one generation. Their history is deep, from air ontario to C3000 to porter. That family is rooted deep in Canada’s aviation development.

I agree with you, porter is a much more serious threat to AC than flair or lynx or jetlines. The product offered is much different.

Competition drives the market, and in the end it’s good for everyone.

We have 17 tails on site, 83 more to go.

Edit: 17 E2s tails on site.

The Q4s obviously still running the original gambit.