Talk:Air Canada/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

777 Delivery Schedule

33 is Air Canada's Boeing customer code.

Fin #	Registration	MSN	Equipment	Remarks
701	C-FIUA	35239	777-233LR	On Order - Delivery June 07
702	C-FIUF	35243	777-233LR	On Order - Delivery July 07
703	C-FIUJ	35244	777-233LR	On Order - Delivery Nov 07
704	C-F...	3....	777-233LR	On Order - Delivery Jan 08
705	C-F...	3....	777-233LR	On Order - Delivery Feb 08
706	C-F...	3...	777-233LR	On Order - Delivery Feb 08
?	C-....	3....	777-233F	On Order - Delivery Jan 09
?	C-....	3....	777-233F	On Order - Delivery Mar 09
731	C-FITL	35256	777-333ER	On Order - Delivery Mar 07
732	C-FITU	35254	777-333ER	On Order - Delivery Apr 07
733	C-FITW	35928	777-333ER	On Order - Delivery May 07
734	C-FIUL	35255	777-333ER	On Order - Delivery Jun 07
735	C-FIUR	35242	777-333ER	On Order - Delivery Jul 07
736	C-....	3....	777-333ER	On Order - Delivery Mar 08

--Phoenix2 21:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A340-500s

Why are the air canada A340-500s in desprate need of replacement (according to the article). Also the -300s are 12 yrs old but most 767s are way older! Why are the a340s being replaced first/now? Greenboxed 16:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The 767's are getting XM'd, so from the public's eye they're brand new. The 345's are darn new, have to check what you're talking about it's some of the 343's that need to go, and will go first. The 777 has better range, will have better passenger comfort because of the PTV's and XM interior, better fuel economy/mx costs because of two engines instead of four. Air Canada is leaning toward an all Airbus/Embraer narrowbody fleet and all Boeing widebodies. Phoenix2

Ok thanks for clearing that up! So do you know what Air Canada is going to do with the 300s? Sell? Put on new routes? Upgrade? Greenboxed 01:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

At this time, it's looking like sell. Rumour has it Swiss is interested in a few of the better 343's...they aren't in hot demand right now. Phoenix2 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

They dont own anything at this point right now anyway. It has been my understanding that 98% of the fleet is on lease. --74.104.48.172 15:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

98% on lease? Really? Does anybody else know anything about this? Greenboxed 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. PhoenixTwo 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol...i was like wtf? didnt think so.... Greenboxed 23:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hubs/Focus Cities

We need to figure out what this airlines' hubs are and what it considers secondary hubs. Halifax, and Heathrow have been floating in and out, among others. PhoenixTwo 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The hubs are correct. As you say, Halifax and London Heathrow have been floating in and out as Focus cities - I've not been successful searching for information on AC focus cities. There have been a lot of contributions made recently by persons unknown - and to the extent of my knowledge the contributions have been accurate - they seem to be trying hard to do good quality work. I'm new to editing myself and know how problematic and daunting it is at the beginning. I wish that they would created an account so that it would be easy to start a dialog. If, they read the discussion page, I hope that they would take my advice (hint hint open an account). Regards,--Rosetown 00:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Heathrow not yet a focus city

Based on our own definition of a focus city:
a focus city is a location that is not a hub, but from which the airline has flights to at least several destinations other than its hubs.
Heathrow has flights to (struck are hubs) YVR, YEG, YYC, YYZ, YUL, YOW and YHZ (soon YYT as well) are served. This leaves only three current non-hub cities, all of which are served by only one daily 763 (YEG upgrades to daily April 1)...not really a focus city yet. One can appreciate how difficult is to obtain slots into Heathrow, AC got their YEG slot from UA. PhoenixTwo 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Using the focus definition it appears that London Heathrow just barely qualifies as a focus city - normally, I would consider this to be dubious, but with the large number of passengers delivered to Heathrow daily from various points in Canada, it could be reasonably argued that it is a focus city. However, this close definition could open a pandora's box, when it comes to considering other served cities. Other opinions welcome --Rosetown 04:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm an idiot - perhaps too much wine - the pandora's box comment made by me is stupid, either cities qualify as focus cities or not according to the definition. --Rosetown 04:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wiktionary for definition of several: Consisting of a number more than two, but not very many, three to seven. [1] So, if a focus city has at least several destinations then by that logic, any city that has service to three or more cities, to other than hub cities, is a focus city.--Rosetown 05:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if one looks at the destinations served from Heathrow by AC, then it may look like a focus city. But then, I argue that it is not for the fact that focus cities usually serve as mini-hubs; they are not as big as hub airports, but they still function as small hubs for the airlines. This thus lets passengers of that airline connect thru the focus city from point A to point B. Thus, to take Northwest Airlines' Indianapolis focus city as an example, one can fly from New York-La Guardia to Las Vegas, connecting to Indianapolis. IND thus functions as a mini-hub in a hub-and-spoke design. However, Heathrow is not like that for Air Canada. Passengers do not fly from Edmonton to Ottawa connecting in Heathrow. Heathrow is not a mini-hub in Air Canada's hub-and-spoke design. Besides, if one looks at the flights from the non-hub Canadian cities, the flights originate from the Canadian cities, it is YEG-LHR-YEG, not LHR-YEG-LHR. Based on these arguments, I say that LHR is not a focus city for Air Canada. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 15:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point you make about using the airport to connect to other destinations. I think that, as well as the total number of destinations other than hubs, should be the determining factor. PhoenixTwo 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've argued both sides of the coin, but, nonetheless, agree that a focus city should have a number of connection cities, other than hubs, and that Heathrow does not qualify.--Rosetown 05:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Partners

Exploits Valley Air Service (dead link) is listed as a partner. I never heard of them and Exploits looks like vandalism - I don't know if Valley Air Service is a 3rd tier carrier associated with Air Canada or not - google-ing yields nothing. Regards --Rosetown 01:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Their website is http://www.evasair.com/about.php, I'm not sure about the 3rd tier part though. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You, Trevor!! The website for evasair shows the headquarters in Gander Nfld. I checked ACs downloadable timetable and it showed flights from Gander to St. Johns Nfld using Beech 1900 equipment as Star Alliance codeshare as opposed to 3rd tier. I knew this was dubious, so I went to the Air Canada website and proceeded to book a flight between the above mentioned city pair, and by asking for seat selection, and right clicking on BEH as a link - voila, it displayed EVAS as a 3rd tier carrier.

The long and the short of it - EVAS is a 3rd tier carrier operating on a codeshare with Air Canada between Gander and St. Johns. The mystery is the weird company name (Exploits Valley Air Services). To that I cannot find any reference. Anyhow, they, describe themselves as EVAS, as does Air Canada, so I'm inclined to change Exploits Valley Air Service to EVAS with the external link you so kindly provided. Whew!!! --Rosetown 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Exploits valley is an area of NFLD, see http://www.exploitsvalley.nf.ca/region.asp. Ther is no WP article, but the area is served by Exploits Valley (Botwood) Airport. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Live and Learn!!! Do you have any objection to my proposed change? --Rosetown 03:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed Gallery Section

I removed the gallery section simply because I did not believe it had any meaning. Other airline pages do not have a 'gallery' section, and the pictures have little affect on the article. Feel free to revert it if you see fit. Qaanaaq 06:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

I'm very confused. What constitutes a redirect? What's wrong with using a pipe? A recurring example is Halifax International Airport. For example, an editor uses a pipe Halifax Stanfield International Airport and it is promptly reverted and cited as a redirect. It directs to Halifax International Airport. In my mind, this is not a redirect. If one redirects to a page, the redirected page tells you that this is a redirect. If one can't use a pipe then what is its purpose? See Wikipedia:Piped link--Rosetown 05:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I was over-generalizing in my edit summaries. Still, my point in reverting the piped link is that it seems that the purpose of piping the link with [[Halifax International Airport|Halifax Stanfield International Airport]] is simply to avoid a redirect. But since the article is not yet renamed to Halifax Stanfield International Airport then I see no need to pipe the link. According to Wikipedia:Piped link, it seems at least from what I understand that this is not one of the more approved uses of the piped link. If the article is renamed as Halifax Stanfield International Airport then change the link, in the meantime, if there is no consensus, then leave the link as it is. No need for a pipe. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations, I'm not prepared to continue the discussion regarding redirects/piped links because, after reading, I've not yet absorbed the complexities involved. Further, to the specific Halifax International Airport issue, I've just completed reading the discussion page and until they resolve their differences, I'm inclined to leave this alone.

In particular see: Talk:Halifax International Airport#New Airport Name? and Talk:Halifax International Airport#Requested move--Rosetown 05:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

photo Boeing 777-300ER

I removed a photo from the fleet section that had been lifted from airliners.net with the copyright notice stripped from the photo. I don't know how to delete the image itself. see[[2]]. He claims the photo was taken by him but the copyright notice stripped from the photo was Royal S. King Airliners.net--Rosetown 18:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll make sure that gets onto IFD, it's clearly from A.net. -Phoenix 07:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Project xm extreme makeover

It's evident that Project XM is causing difficulties keeping the fleet tables current. Additionally, it's obvious that Air Canada's target dates for new interiors on all aircraft will not be met. Currently, the best performance that AC has had in any give month, is 7 aircraft conversions. It's not possible for them to complete the remaining aircraft by the July, 2007 target.

Problems:

1) The target dates for conversion simply are impossible to meet - I believe they should be removed.

2) Keeping the tables current are a problem, as aircraft conversions are completed.

3) Editors, who don't post to or read the discussion page are constantly editing the tables in

ways that make it difficult to maintain the table.

I'm looking for suggestions on how to handle this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rosetown (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Some of my comments above are premature. The fleet tables appear to be maintainable, and I don't want to discourage other editors. I'm guilty of thinking out loud (20 lashes).

No A330s have been refurbished, although they were scheduled for refurbishment in February 2007. I did read somewhere recently, that AC intended to re-activate 2 parked 767s, and as new Embraer 190s are delivered (2 per month), along with 777 deliveries, it's possible that more than 7 aircraft per month can be refurbished. --Rosetown 22:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Are any of the A340s getting new interiors? Greenboxed 15:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Modernisation & Onboard Sections

I have slightly reorganised these sections to make them more readable. Each cabin class in the Onboard section has been separated between Project XM and Non-Project XM cabins. Hopefully this will clear up any problems with the different interiors which are installed on differenet aircraft. Any comments appreciated. Genius12 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Great job with doing that!!! Greenboxed 20:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you for that much needed overhaul of the Onboard section - also your contributions to the fleet tables are great - a major effort on your part and much appreciated--Rosetown 22:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)