They changed the aircraft type.

Not a crisis, just a disappointment. As a solo traveler, I like the A330 and B767 for longer flights because there are only two seats on the outside. I can enjoy the window without feeling too boxed in. So Air Canada switched to the B787 for the YYZ-CPH route. Why do the airlines do that? (somewhat rhetorical, but if you have a good answer, I'm listening). Do you think they'll switch back if I ask nicely?

Okay, vent over. First World problems. I'm going on a fjord cruise!

Happens all the time. You can always ask if there's another flight that works for you. Of course, they'll switch and then that aircraft will change!

Happens a lot. The times you might have more recourse is if they switched from a mainline flight to a regional plane (at least in the USA). But as was said above, you can always call and see what they will do.

So Air Canada switched to the B787 for the YYZ-CPH route. Why do the airlines do that? (somewhat rhetorical, but if you have a good answer, I'm listening). !

767 first introduced in 1982. Maybe the AC fleet is aging.

767 holds about 200 passengers while the 787 holds about 250

I'm sure the 787 is less expensive to operate on a per passenger basis and fuel consumption basis

I'm sure others will have more interesting tidbits of information.

Oh, I'm okay with it. Actually, I just booked the ticket after weeks of waffling. There were less expensive options, but this itinerary had excellent flight and connection times, so I think it was worth the extra cost.

Air Canada was flying the Airbus on this route. I like that plane :) Now if they switched out the Beech 1900 on the connecting flight....

Airlines switch aircraft types for a bunch of reasons, including (but not limited to): Maintenance schedules, aircraft retirements (especially with older planes like the 767s), change in demand, desire to put a new "fancy" aircraft on a specific route, and other reasons.

It can be good and it can be bad. I once had a flight on AA switch from a busted 767-300 to a nicer 777-200...and the go back to the busted 767-300. Wasn't terribly happy when it switched back, but such is life sometimes.

My guess is that the CPH might not be the most profitable, so putting a more efficient 787 on the route helps them, and that's why they did it. That's just a guess.

Haven't tried it myself, but some say the 787 is more comfortable inside because the cabin altitude is supposed to be 6000' as opposed to 8000' on other aircraft.

Air Canada switched to the B787 for the YYZ-CPH route. Why do the airlines do that? (somewhat rhetorical, but if you have a good answer, I'm listening).

The 787 is a relatively new aircraft. I believe AC just began taking delivery a few months ago of the 787's they ordered. Now that they have them, they are integrating them into the fleet as they presumably expand their international presence and probably retire older aircraft.

It's all about matching the aircraft to the market. How many seats, how much cargo, and what the fuel/crew economics are for the specific city-pair involved.

Even though one aircraft might be more efficient overall, if it's carrying too many empty seats, it isn't the best fit for that route. The A380 might have great overall economics, but if you can't fit butts into all those seats, you have costs without revenue. Also, you have range issues -- for example, the MD-80 (and its variants) have shorter legs than a 737. A 777 out-ranges a 767.

All of this is related to a change that will affect all days on that route. As mentioned above, sometimes an airline will swap aircraft types to facilitate maintenance and/or fleet rotation. I was lucky enough to have that happen about 10 days ago...DL flew an A330 from SEA to DTW. Even without the full international service product, those flat beds were nice!

Another reason can be introduction of a new type of aircraft to an airline's fleet, or checkout of newly delivered aircraft on local routes before deploying them farther from home base to take care of any "bugs". Good example is United recently took delivery on their first 787-9s They were flown from IAH-LAX on a somewhat random schedule for crew and operational familiarization. Passengers expecting the usual 737 got a nice surprise. (After a few weeks UA started flying 789's on their new LAX-MEL route).

I know this isn't OP's situation, just another less-frequent reason for EQU change.

Another reason can be introduction of a new type of aircraft to an airline's fleet, or checkout of newly delivered aircraft on local routes before deploying them farther from home base to take care of any "bugs". Good example is United recently took delivery on their first 787-9s They were flown from IAH-LAX on a somewhat random schedule for crew and operational familiarization. Passengers expecting the usual 737 got a nice surprise. (After a few weeks UA started flying 789's on their new LAX-MEL route).

 

I know this isn't OP's situation, just another less-frequent reason for EQU change.

This is always interesting to see - an airline decide which routes to use the new a/c on first, locally, before moving abroad. I remember BA doing A380 flights to, I believe MAD and FRA (maybe). JAL was using the 787 on Tokyo to Osaka (or similar) before sending it to places like Boston and San Diego.

I remember BA doing A380 flights to, I believe MAD and FRA (maybe).

BA's 787s went to ARN for the corresponding trips.

At least you still had assigned seats. Went from an old MD80 to 737, no way to match seats up (3x2 to 3x3) and went to "open seating".

What a total mess, even with gate agents and flight attendants repeating "Open Seating, Sit where you want". People tired to sit in their ticketed seat, sat in exit row without meeting the requirements (had broken arm), arguments about family sitting near each other.

Handled very poorly...

I've also been seated on an RJ and we had to swap equipment to a bigger RJ (forgot the equipment type) but that time reprinted everyone's boarding pass but there were only 14 of us...

This is always interesting to see - an airline decide which routes to use the new a/c on first, locally, before moving abroad. I remember BA doing A380 flights to, I believe MAD and FRA (maybe). JAL was using the 787 on Tokyo to Osaka (or similar) before sending it to places like Boston and San Diego.

United did the same with their shinny new 787's. They were running domestically out of IAH to places like LAX (and I think I saw some IAH-DEN at first as well) to get everybody up to snuff on them before they put them on the long haul routes. There was talk they (787's) were all going to be "based" out of Houston for the major maintenance stuff. (I believe that they do this with their 747 fleet out of SFO). Of course the might have decided differently on this plan in the end.

OK, where shall I start? There are a multitude of reasons why. I worked for the airlines for many years, and for the Dutch civil aviation authority as well. It was not uncommon for the aircraft type to change several times in 24 hours.

-low/high demand on that route

-low/high demand on another route

-planned or unplanned maintenance, call-backs by the manufacturer

-another aircraft is delayed or broken, so they have to switch the whole fleet around to limit delays

-crew rotation issues

-original aircraft is stuck somewhere and cannot make it back in time (airport/runway closed, hurricane, strikes, etc)

-freight capacity

-load/balance issues (often freight related)

-new noise level requirements at some airports, banning certain aircraft types from landing/taking off, either indefinitely or only during certain hours.

-planned or unplanned closure of runways (only smaller a/c can land because the longest runway is closed due to winds, accident or maintenance)

-an aircraft has a technical problem with prohibits certain routings, but can still fly. Ridiculous as it sounds, I have experienced this a couple of times. For example: there is a problem with pilot assistance systems, so the pilot has to make a visual landing, and rules state he has to arrive in the daytime. The airline is only allowed to use the aircraft on routes where these conditions are met, so has to swap planes around. The same logic can apply for flights over water.

If too many toilets on the plane are broken, the airline will use it on very short hops, where people will not use the only working toilet too much (no working toilet on an a/c is a no-go item by the way :D)

-Not applicable in your case, but some really dodgy airlines are prohibited to land in certain countries because they are deemed unsafe. The EU has such a list. On this list are exceptions: "the whole fleet is banned to land in the EU, with the exception of 1 Boeing 767 with registration number so-and-so". If the list gets changed after you booked your flights, the airline has no other option than to change the plane.

I'm sure I have forgotten a few, but you get the drift....

Now if they switched out the Beech 1900 on the connecting flight....

Don't like the 1900?? You might be the only one on board so they should be able to get all your bags on. Plus you get a window seat and an isle seat at the same time !! :) Be prepared for a long walk at Pearson - it's almost far enough to take a cab. :D

Don't like the 1900?? You might be the only one on board so they should be able to get all your bags on. Plus you get a window seat and an isle seat at the same time !! :) Be prepared for a long walk at Pearson - it's almost far enough to take a cab. :D

Hey buddy across the lake!

The 1900 is fine - for an hour. I'm somewhat claustrophobic, that's all. And yes, I often have my face pressed against the window. I shouldn't say "often"; I haven't been on one in years. I get that closed-in feeling on RJ's as well, especially if I'm just connecting off a larger aircraft.