e190s
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
Flap_Operator
- Rank 3
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:01 pm
Re: e190s
It doesnt matter if the 737 has less range, they didn't use the E190 for south america anyways...so the airplane that will replace it if any needs to be similar to the E190.... Like the C-Series...737 or Neo,,, but i still stick to my original opinion, they wont be replacedMarinth wrote:AC currently does a lot of the South America routes with the 320 if I'm not mistaken. Can the 737 do this? If it is more range limited than the 320, that could be another reason to go 320neo.
Re: e190s
Then you believe Air Canada plans on violating the new current contract (ASM ratio) by a very very large margin.Flap_Operator wrote:, but i still stick to my original opinion, they wont be replaced
This isn't the wild west.
Re: e190s
Nope. Currently only the A319 does YYZ-CCS (Caracas Venezuela). The A320 doesn't have the legs. All other South America is done with the B767 or B777.Marinth wrote:AC currently does a lot of the South America routes with the 320 if I'm not mistaken. Can the 737 do this? If it is more range limited than the 320, that could be another reason to go 320neo.
Re: e190s
As already mentioned, Air Canada has already stated they are looking to move to a single narrowbody type in their fleet. While the C-Series may prove to be too small to be the single narrowbody type, Air Canada will entertain offers from all three airframers as it increases their leverage. They will pick the option which will be most profitable, which includes a number of factors: maintenance/parts costs, specific fuel consumption, range capability, training, purchase/finance cost, seating capacity and the flexibility required to operate both the current narrowbody route structure and to future destinations.Flap_Operator wrote:It doesnt matter if the 737 has less range, they didn't use the E190 for south america anyways...so the airplane that will replace it if any needs to be similar to the E190.... Like the C-Series...737 or Neo,,, but i still stick to my original opinion, they wont be replacedMarinth wrote:AC currently does a lot of the South America routes with the 320 if I'm not mistaken. Can the 737 do this? If it is more range limited than the 320, that could be another reason to go 320neo.
As the contract stands the E190's can't be moved to a Tier 2 as the scope limit is 75 seats.
Re: e190s
Competition Bureau gives green light to Air Canada, United joint venture
Scott Deveau | Oct 24, 2012 10:17 AM ET | Last Updated: Oct 24, 2012 10:37 AM ET
More from Scott Deveau | @scottdeveau
The Competition Bureau said Wednesday it had reached an agreement with Air Canada and United Continental Holdings Inc. on how they could proceed with their controversial U.S. transborder joint venture.
The bureau said the agreement would “protect and preserve competition” on the 14 key, high demand routes between Canada and the U.S. that, in part, led to the bureau challenging the partnership in June 2011.
On those routes, the carriers will be prohibited from coordinating prices, the number of seats available at each price, pooling revenue or costs, or otherwise sharing commercially sensitive information, the bureau said.
The contentious routes include flights from Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa and Vancouver to several U.S. destinations, including Houston, Chicago, Washington, and others.
The carriers will, however, be able proceed with their joint venture, which would, in effect, merge their flight operations, on other routes between the two countries, the bureau said.
Air Canada already has a similar arrangement in place with Lufthansa and United across the Atlantic, its so-called A++ joint venture. British Airways, Iberia, and American Airlines also struck a similiar arrangement on those routes.
“The consent agreement the bureau reached with Air Canada and United Continental will ensure that passengers do not face higher prices and less choice on high-demand routes between Canada and the U.S. resulting from the airlines’ proposed joint venture and coordination agreements,” said John Pecman, the interim commissioner at the bureau.
Originally, the bureau had identified 19 routes between Canada and the U.S. that it felt the joint venture between the carriers would substantially reduce competition on, including 10 it said the venture would create a monopoly on. The move to block the joint venture was supported by submissions from other carriers, including WestJet Airlines Ltd.
The bureau argued there was insufficient competition on those routes as well as sizeable barriers to entry, which, among other things, would result in higher fares for consumers if the tie-up between Air Canada and United Continental were to proceed.
But Air Canada argued such joint ventures were actually pro-competitive because it allowed the airlines to make those routes more viable by reducing excess capacity on them.
Calin Rovinescu, Air Canada chief executive, also argued it was the only way forward for legacy carriers in the face of foreign-ownership restrictions that limit consolidation of airlines across borders.
“Following a thorough review of further information and analysis regarding the impact of the joint venture and coordination agreements on the 19 routes, the bureau determined that competition on five of the routes originally identified is unlikely to be substantially harmed as a result of the airlines’ coordination and, as a result, the consent agreement only applies to the 14 remaining routes,” the bureau said in a statement.
The bureau said it would implement an independent monitor to ensure Air Canada and United Continental comply with the terms of the agreement, and added that as the market evolves, the agreement provides that specific prohibitions can be suspended or reinstated as appropriate.
Scott Deveau | Oct 24, 2012 10:17 AM ET | Last Updated: Oct 24, 2012 10:37 AM ET
More from Scott Deveau | @scottdeveau
The Competition Bureau said Wednesday it had reached an agreement with Air Canada and United Continental Holdings Inc. on how they could proceed with their controversial U.S. transborder joint venture.
The bureau said the agreement would “protect and preserve competition” on the 14 key, high demand routes between Canada and the U.S. that, in part, led to the bureau challenging the partnership in June 2011.
On those routes, the carriers will be prohibited from coordinating prices, the number of seats available at each price, pooling revenue or costs, or otherwise sharing commercially sensitive information, the bureau said.
The contentious routes include flights from Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa and Vancouver to several U.S. destinations, including Houston, Chicago, Washington, and others.
The carriers will, however, be able proceed with their joint venture, which would, in effect, merge their flight operations, on other routes between the two countries, the bureau said.
Air Canada already has a similar arrangement in place with Lufthansa and United across the Atlantic, its so-called A++ joint venture. British Airways, Iberia, and American Airlines also struck a similiar arrangement on those routes.
“The consent agreement the bureau reached with Air Canada and United Continental will ensure that passengers do not face higher prices and less choice on high-demand routes between Canada and the U.S. resulting from the airlines’ proposed joint venture and coordination agreements,” said John Pecman, the interim commissioner at the bureau.
Originally, the bureau had identified 19 routes between Canada and the U.S. that it felt the joint venture between the carriers would substantially reduce competition on, including 10 it said the venture would create a monopoly on. The move to block the joint venture was supported by submissions from other carriers, including WestJet Airlines Ltd.
The bureau argued there was insufficient competition on those routes as well as sizeable barriers to entry, which, among other things, would result in higher fares for consumers if the tie-up between Air Canada and United Continental were to proceed.
But Air Canada argued such joint ventures were actually pro-competitive because it allowed the airlines to make those routes more viable by reducing excess capacity on them.
Calin Rovinescu, Air Canada chief executive, also argued it was the only way forward for legacy carriers in the face of foreign-ownership restrictions that limit consolidation of airlines across borders.
“Following a thorough review of further information and analysis regarding the impact of the joint venture and coordination agreements on the 19 routes, the bureau determined that competition on five of the routes originally identified is unlikely to be substantially harmed as a result of the airlines’ coordination and, as a result, the consent agreement only applies to the 14 remaining routes,” the bureau said in a statement.
The bureau said it would implement an independent monitor to ensure Air Canada and United Continental comply with the terms of the agreement, and added that as the market evolves, the agreement provides that specific prohibitions can be suspended or reinstated as appropriate.
-
Norwegianwood
- Rank 4
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:16 pm
Re: e190s
Methinks the goalposts have just been moved....................... 
Re: e190s
whipline wrote:FYI 737NG flies higher and further then the 320 on less fuel. Lower Maint and servicing costs. 320 more roomier/comfortable inside. Performance wise NG kills it.
NG versus the 320?
What are the metrics of the Max versus NEO?
Re: e190s
Yes it is. One of the goals attained during bargaining in exchange for ACPA allowing multiple CPA carriers.Fanblade wrote:Read your contract. JV is covered.Norwegianwood wrote:Methinks the goalposts have just been moved.......................
