Talk:Air Canada/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  777 Delivery Schedule 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See Wiktionary for definition of several: Consisting of a number more than two, but not very many, three to seven.   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hubs/Focus Cities 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See Wiktionary for definition of several: Consisting of a number more than two, but not very many, three to seven.   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Heathrow not yet a focus city

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Gallery Section 

message: 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[]. 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)
replies: text: I'll make sure that gets onto IFD, it's clearly from A.net. -Phoenix 07:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: photo Boeing 777-300ER 

message: 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)
replies: text: Are any of the A340s getting new interiors? Greenboxed 15:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project xm extreme makeover

message: 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)
replies: text: *Great job with doing that!!! Greenboxed 20:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)
thread_title: Modernisation & Onboard Sections