Updated logo and 767 preview

[Squid]

Thinking transat will be the one feeling the pinch first.
Last I checked - there isn't much support for many share prices these days in any industry.
Gotta give em a chance to grow the business. Pretty stable successful growth so far - no argument there.

[Realitychex]

WJ add a couple of used 767's and some believe that they will meaningfully impact the transatlantic marketplace? Priceless. Talk about hubris.

Take a look at airline share prices and you will see where the bets for success are being placed and where they are not.

Recall that in 1996, no one figured WJ, with a handful of 25 year old 737's and a very modest schedule, would impact the western Canadian marketplace either.

Lo and behold, a certain Montreal based airline operating margins in Western Canada dropped from +7% to -23%, according to documents management presented to their own Board of Directors in 1998.

History often has a nasty habit of repeating itself....

[brooks]

AC can add all the capacity they want and try to flood the market. When oil spikes back up watch the revenue tank and CASM sky rocket. WJ's costs are rising but nowhere near AC levels. AC can have fuel efficient 787 but if you don't own them that makes it hard to raise revenue. WJ bought 4 767s for a super cheap in exchange (we presume) for 787 orders and when they come online you can bet WJ will target more AC destinations. I call that eating someone's lunch or at least casually snacking on it. As for Transat the only low cost to them is renting Enerjet to do their work I don't know if they pose a problem really for AC or WJ.

[plhought]

...WJ bought 4 767s for a super cheap in exchange (we presume) for 787 orders...

The 767's arn't 'bought' - they are leased - and it wasn't "super cheap". Take a look at the plate in the cockpit next time. Do I think Boeing is courting them for 787 orders though? Of course...but WJ isn't going to bite for quite a while - provided everything goes good.

People are forgetting at WJ that the '67 project is really an experiment. Nothing is set in stone. Don't fall for what the koolaid-rah-rah are telling you. At the moment this isn't a concerted effort to go toe-to-toe with AC on international markets. That simply isn't possible (as mentioned) with a few 767s. It really is a gauged experimental expansion abroad to get all the metrics and costs in order/accounted for for a possible permanent expansion.

Don't forget the ribbin' the "westjetters" will get abroad -


(replace Easyjet with WJ for a laugh)

[aerobod]

The 767's arn't 'bought' - they are leased

Don't forget the ribbin' the "westjetters" will get abroad

Initially the plan was to lease them, but as Gregg announced in the Q2 analysts call, they are now being purchased.

We are counting on the "ribbin'", we never take ourselves seriously.

[brooks]

plhought You should get your facts straight before blabbing on. I could care less about your easyjet video. Last I checked they fly an Airbus 320 for cheap around Europe. Woopee.

Fact the 767 were bought for a good reason and if you believe it is an experiment or proving to justify going down the wide body road you've been drinking too much KoolAid. AC went into our market and we needed to fire back and we couldn't keep leasing Thomas Cook.

[rudder]

AC went into our market and we needed to fire back and we couldn't keep leasing Thomas Cook.

Wow. Our market?

AC has a history that dates back to the 1930's. Calling anything "our market" represents a little bit of selective and very short term analysis.

I applaud WJ and the evolution of their product and their company. But the suggestion by one poster that a WJ presence on the North Atlantic - the largest international aviation market on the planet - would be a 'game changer' was farcical.

Just keep doing what you do and be humble, unlike some of your cheerleaders that are trying to pump up a depressed stock price.

[brooks]

Maybe not "our market" if that hurts your feelings but it was a market that only we were serving until AC decided to put a 67 on it. 90 seat 700s was not really a solution to the problem.

[Realitychex]

AC went into our market and we needed to fire back and we couldn't keep leasing Thomas Cook.

Wow. Our market?

AC has a history that dates back to the 1930's. Calling anything "our market" represents a little bit of selective and very short term analysis.

I applaud WJ and the evolution of their product and their company. But the suggestion by one poster that a WJ presence on the North Atlantic - the largest international aviation market on the planet - would be a 'game changer' was farcical.

Just keep doing what you do and be humble, unlike some of your cheerleaders that are trying to pump up a depressed stock price.

In 1996, no one thought one flight a day from Calgary to Vancouver, or from Edmonton to Winnipeg would result in the implosion of yields in Western Canada, and the first of many near death experiences for the incumbent carriers, but it most certainly did.

Even in pre-internet days, customers became very savvy and found all kinds of fare work arounds that ultimately resulted in fares falling on both routes WJ operated and those they didn't on a n/s basis. For example, the incumbents found it impossible to hold high fares on YYC-YWG when YEG-YWG walk up was going for $99. YYC -YWG was the higher yield market, but it too collapsed.

No one figured WJ operating east of Thunder Bay would amount to much, but it did, big time. Same with WJ going trans-border or into Mexico and the Caribbean.

WJ isn't going to "game change" the North Atlantic market as a whole in the summer of 2016, but you can be certain it's going to dramatically change the profitability of the incumbent airlines operating between Canada and Europe.

It's a market that pales in comparison to any other long haul market and it is squarely in WJ's gunsights. Compare TATL traffic to any other international traffic from North America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx7_yzypm5w

Customers traveling to and from Canada are going to very quickly figure out work arounds to avoid the incumbents high fares to and from Canada. The cheap fare mindset is utterly embedded in Brits and Europeans mindset. It isn't going away any time soon.

Why pay AC $1,235 for n/s YYZ-AMS on a 2 week trip beginning peak July 20th, when you can fly Rouge or WJ to LGW and connect to AMS on British Airways for $122? That's a $214 saving per person. That's a pretty big nut for a family of four on their summer vacay.

What's the solution to stop the leakage? Cut YYZ-AMS non stop fares. See how it works? Now take every other market in Europe and do the same. Any guesses on what happens to AC's 17% 3Q 2015 operating margin in Q3 2016 when TATL low end fares are cut 10 to 15% and premium fares by 25 to 30% to "remain competitive"? It isn't going to be pretty and I'll bet it could end up looking a lot like what happened to the incumbents profitability decline in the Western Canadian market when the same thing occurred beginning on Feb 29th, 1996.

As noted in a previous post, in spite of vehement claims to the contrary, a very significant cost gap continues to exist between WJ and AC. Costs are all costs, not just DoC's. In a commodity business, I'll bet on the guy with the lowest consolidated, fully allocated costs every time.

Don't be side tracked by the entry level fares. They are red herrings. Those fares are the least painful for incumbents to match.

It's the higher yielding, last minute fares that are going to profusely tumble, as has been the case everywhere WJ has gone. That's where the big hurt is going to come. It's way too early to see what's happening on summer TATL now, but by early March 2016, the incumbents sphincters are going to start to tighten and by late April, alarm bells are going to start ringing.

The non Star US mega carriers, both of which are roughly 4 times the size of Air Canada, are not happy with Air Canada doing an "Emirates" on them and poaching US originating passengers to Europe over AC hubs. It would appear their response is to have engaged WJ as a proxy in a fairly obvious attempt to discipline this sort of activity.

WJ has the cheapest fares from countless US destinations to Europe next summer, destinations that require code share flights on US iron. SLC to London? The cheapest is WJ, far and away. Same on MSP-London. PIT- London and many, many more, all requiring codeshare from either AA or DL. Will many take up the offers? No. But that's not the point. It's the message that's important, and given the pricing, the message is squarely aimed at the groinal area and is as follows: "You continue with this concept and this is only the beginning".

For neophytes, this kind of signalling is common in the industry. Longtimers will recall Canadian generating a fare code in the mid 90's that began "FUAC".

WJ has never done anything to satisfy short term urges or to pump the stock. It's not in their DNA, and won't be for as least as long as CB is on the Board.

So enjoy dream land my friend and keep lapping up the sunshine that is being pumped.

Even assuming cheap fuel continues next summer, and let's be clear, it is cheap fuel that is causing the windfall profits at airlines that were barely able to break-even with $100 per bbl oil, not any particular genius of airline management, the changes that are going to occur on the Canada to Europe TATL market next summer are going to be huge.

[complexintentions]

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.

[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!