Air Canada Rouge, Is it really that bad?

[boone2]

I was booked on AC rouge from BCN to YYZ for work last year and based on the reviews I was dreading it. It actually wasn't as bad as I thought it would be but I was lucky in that I had an empty seat next to me and I could stretch out. This year I was booked for another contract on Alitalia to ATH changing in Rome. I actually asked to change to Rouge with a direct flight rather than doing that combination, I hate FCO it's a zoo. I hope I don't regret it[emoji16]

 

Terry

[calliopecruiser]

The challenge is that people want the lowest possible fare and expect business class/first class service and amenities. Alas, these do not co-exist.

 

We get what we pay for on Rouge. Just like many other airlines of the same ilk.

 

Research has shown that when it comes to airfares price is king. People may moan and grown about cold coffee or young, inexperienced service crew but they still will gravitate to lowest fare.

 

 

But Rouge isn't a low cost airline, and Rouge seats are no cheaper than on Air Canada mainline. I'd feel much different about it if it were a lower priced ticket.

[em-sk]

But Rouge isn't a low cost airline, and Rouge seats are no cheaper than on Air Canada mainline. I'd feel much different about it if it were a lower priced ticket.

 

Look at the routes that they operate Rogue on. All the European destinations are ones that Air Canada pulled out of years earlier because it was not viable with a normal aircraft. Lisbon, Athens, Spain, Amsterdam are places that Air Canada has struggled to serve with their standard aircraft.

 

The routes to the US and South are destinations mostly targeting discounted tour packages. Las Vegas is not an expensive destination. California is probably the exception.

[calliopecruiser]

Look at the routes that they operate Rogue on. All the European destinations are ones that Air Canada pulled out of years earlier because it was not viable with a normal aircraft. Lisbon, Athens, Spain, Amsterdam are places that Air Canada has struggled to serve with their standard aircraft.

 

The routes to the US and South are destinations mostly targeting discounted tour packages. Las Vegas is not an expensive destination. California is probably the exception.

 

The routes in Canada and US may be "tourist" destinations for some, but they were all flown with mainline AC flights for many travelers who weren't in discounted tourist packages. I know, because I was one of them who used to or wanted to fly AC to Vancouver, Phoenix, San Diego, and Las Vegas. And I know that I paid (or would have paid) the same price for mainline AC as they wanted to charge me for Rouge. I've flown to Las Vegas for a week every year for a dozen years. I used to fly AC all the time, but two years ago switched to West Jet because I refuse to pay the same price for lesser comfort and service on Rouge. I used to fly annually to Orlando on business, and likewise had to change my regular carrier to avoid the lousy value of Rouge.

[iancal]

We have only had one Rouge flight. I saw no difference from any other AC flight that we have been on (economy).

 

In the past I have been a very frequent AC customer. I fail to see the benefit or marketing strategy of Rouge. But, it is certainly better managed than that awful Tango fiasco from 8 or 10 years ago.

 

We recently flew from Sydney-Honolulu on Jetstar, a Qantas low cost sub. We flew for $625. AUD each, net of all fees. It was a code share with Qantas. We could have booked the same flight, same time, same seats with Qantas and paid $200. more if we had not know about the Jetstar connection.

Edited May 16, 2015 by iancal

[LiftLockCouple]

I have mentioned this previously but will do so again. I flew Rouge at the end of August as the second leg of an open Jaw route, YYZ - LHR , DUB - YYZ. It was on one ticket so no discernible price difference. I had to change plans at the last minute and rebook a week earlier than originally planned to depart Dublin. The available seats " forced" me into the Plus cabin. Both legs were flown on 767's. I have previously flown a significant number of legs with AC on every one of their aircraft types from the B1900 to the 777-300 LR ( including the HD version ). There most certainly is a difference in comfort and service between AC mainline and Rouge. Even in Rouge Plus where the seats are very comfortable, the IPad entertainment system is a PIA. I attempted to watch a movie and hold the IPad upright the whole time. The economy cabin was packed to the gills and the passengers are required to have their own IPads ( app loaded ) or rent them to get the available entertainment. The same " hold your own" approach would also apply in a much smaller space than what I had. I have also flown AC mainline to San Diego and Florida which are now served by Rouge. Given the option I would switch to WestJet to every destination where the two airlines compete. And I am not a great WJ fan. I agree with Calliopecruiser, Rouge operates like a discount carrier but doesn't charge like one. Worse, anyone flying Air Canada for the first time and finds themselves on a Rouge flight will tar the entire airline with the " crappy" brush because of the name association, unless of course, they understand what they are buying.

[em-sk]

I have mentioned this previously but will do so again. I flew Rouge at the end of August as the second leg of an open Jaw route, YYZ - LHR , DUB - YYZ. It was on one ticket so no discernible price difference. I had to change plans at the last minute and rebook a week earlier than originally planned to depart Dublin. The available seats " forced" me into the Plus cabin. Both legs were flown on 767's. I have previously flown a significant number of legs with AC on every one of their aircraft types from the B1900 to the 777-300 LR ( including the HD version ). There most certainly is a difference in comfort and service between AC mainline and Rouge. Even in Rouge Plus where the seats are very comfortable, the IPad entertainment system is a PIA. I attempted to watch a movie and hold the IPad upright the whole time. The economy cabin was packed to the gills and the passengers are required to have their own IPads ( app loaded ) or rent them to get the available entertainment. The same " hold your own" approach would also apply in a much smaller space than what I had. I have also flown AC mainline to San Diego and Florida which are now served by Rouge. Given the option I would switch to WestJet to every destination where the two airlines compete. And I am not a great WJ fan. I agree with Calliopecruiser, Rouge operates like a discount carrier but doesn't charge like one. Worse, anyone flying Air Canada for the first time and finds themselves on a Rouge flight will tar the entire airline with the " crappy" brush because of the name association, unless of course, they understand what they are buying.

 

When I have been on Rogue in business class (A319) the iPad they hand out have a cover that lets you skip them into a slot in the top of the seat in front of you that holds it in place.

 

The bad news is that WestJet is not installing seat back televisions on their new aircraft. They are also switching to the steaming video entertainment system just like Rouge. You just don't know if you flight will have in flight TV or not until you are on the aircraft.

 

I have not been in Rogue Plus on the 767. My understanding was they were operating this with seats similar to domestic business class or the old loungers that use to be on the aircraft.

 

Personally I have a strong preference for the in-seat on-demand entertainment system that Air Canada has on their main aircraft. The iPad is a step backwards to those digi players they use to handout to passangers in International Business and First Class on Air Canada and Canadian 10-15 years ago.

 

I also find Vancouver-Vegas on Rogue always have the price of say Vancouver-Saskatoon.

Edited May 17, 2015 by em-sk

[xlxo]

This was on the news tonight....

http://globalnews.ca/news/2007249/air-canada-to-begin-tagging-carry-on-luggage-at-pearson-airport/

[gubby]

I did a little cheer when I saw that clip. I get so annoyed when people carry on large pieces of luggage, bags, purses etc., then take a long time trying to fit them into the overhead bins. It would be great if AC finds they are able to leave on time with this enforcing of their own rules and other airlines decide to follow suit.

[ptrpanpens]

This was on the news tonight....

http://globalnews.ca/news/2007249/air-canada-to-begin-tagging-carry-on-luggage-at-pearson-airport/

 

Woo hoo! I noticed they are already stricter with this than other airlines. Others have the baggage thing to measure luggage and dont use it. Except for Air France flying back from Paris they were also strict.

[iancal]

AC is not doing this for passenger safety, comfort, etc.

 

They are doing it to increase revenue from checking bags. We fly often. The carry that we take on a BA flight for example, meets the BA rules and weighs under 23Kg, their restriction for carry on. Ours each weight about 11. This is all we travel with.

 

Other airlines we fly on, same planes, have the same dimensional restrictions but limit weight to 7KG and enforce it religiously. Why....because bag revenue is a great bottom line booster.

[calliopecruiser]

AC is not doing this for passenger safety, comfort, etc.

 

They are doing it to increase revenue from checking bags. We fly often. The carry that we take on a BA flight for example, meets the BA rules and weighs under 23Kg, their restriction for carry on. Ours each weight about 11. This is all we travel with.

 

Other airlines we fly on, same planes, have the same dimensional restrictions but limit weight to 7KG and enforce it religiously. Why....because bag revenue is a great bottom line booster.

 

Regardless of the reason, it's going to improve passenger comfort, and the time it takes to load and unload passengers. I will be very happy to fly with tighter carry-on restrictions and less rush, confusion, complaints, and body-checking while people stow their carry-ons. I think charging for checked bags was a mistake because it encouraged more and larger carry on baggage - I'd have rather they just increased the ticket price by $25 and be done with it. I've been happier paying to check my bags and not be a part of that ridiculous circus, and I'll be happier still if the circus becomes smaller and better controlled.

Edited May 21, 2015 by calliopecruiser
grammar

[iancal]

We do carry on, but not to save money.

 

As a frequent business traveller I quickly learned that the bag you take with you arrives when you do. Even if it has that priority sticker on it. No fun when you have to attend a business meeting and you bag has been lost.

 

Twice in our recent travels we have been thankful for carry on. Once in a storm in Dulles we flew in from Puerto Rico and were told that our connection had been cancelled until the next day. Having carryon allowed us to hop on a westbound flight an hour or so later....and to finally reach home on a third flight but on the same day. Last fall was the same. Late arrival in London with five or six hours to wait for a rescheduled flight to Vienna. Because we had carry on we were on our way within an hour and a half.

 

Had we had checked bags both times, these options would not have been possible. So now we travel with regulation size carry on-for one week or for three months. It has made our travel so easy.

 

Our impression is that delay boarding is caused by unorganized people or by the airline permitting oversized bags or too many bags. We get to our seat, place the bag quickly in the overhead, and sit down. No fussing about or getting up constantly to get something out of the bag.

Edited May 22, 2015 by iancal

[Globaliser]

Had we had checked bags both times, these options would not have been possible. So now we travel with regulation size carry on-for one week or for three months. It has made our travel so easy.

 

Our impression is that delay boarding is caused by unorganized people or by the airline permitting oversized bags or too many bags. We get to our seat, place the bag quickly in the overhead, and sit down. No fussing about or getting up constantly to get something out of the bag.

There are a couple of problems with this.

 

The first is that there is no single thing as "regulation size". Different airlines have different rules.

 

The other is that there are many flights on which there is simply insufficient onboard space for everyone to bring on their cabin baggage allowance. That causes delays, because people are wandering up and down the aircraft vainly looking for a space somewhere, anywhere, into which their bag can be stowed. Eventually, time has to be taken up with taking cabin baggage off the aircraft and loading into the hold (a process which can also go wrong).

 

The concept of "get to our seat, place the bag quickly in the overhead, and sit down" is fine for the first people to board the aircraft, and not always so good for everyone else. It's not always their fault.

[iancal]

Agree, we find size to be comparable on many airlines but weight no so much. We are about 11K max. Some of the budget airlines enforce a 7Kg rule. Others have the rule, but don't seem to care or enforce it.

 

We find that one of the biggest problems in boarding is reading comprehension. Some people either do not read their boarding pass or if they do they do not seem to remember it. Countless times we see the dear in the headlight look of someone who cannot seem to find their seat...even with boarding pass in hand.

Edited May 22, 2015 by iancal

[ptrpanpens]

There are so many people I see who bring on two carry ons, obviously one is much bigger than a personal item, to escape paying the baggage fees. I cannot tell you the things I have seen people try to take as a carry on. :eek:

 

Actually the Air Canada flight that I took a couple of weeks ago boarded from the back, not unusual for airlines in economy, but the difference was that they obviously did NOT allow people boarding first to drop off their carry ons in seats more forward in the cabin. This was effective in making sure the people who boarded later and sat in the more forward cabins would have space for their carry ons. I was surprised to see plenty of room for my carry on when I boarded in group four.

 

However, most airlines post their carry on rules and do not enforce them which leads to many inconsiderate people who take way too much luggage on the plane taking up overhead space in the forward cabins so those who board later have no room. If airlines would strictly enforce the size of the carry ons and the size of a reasonable personal item, this could be alleviated, at least IMO. So kudos to Air Canada, and hoping they actually strictly follow their own rules.

[calliopecruiser]

 

The concept of "get to our seat, place the bag quickly in the overhead, and sit down" is fine for the first people to board the aircraft, and not always so good for everyone else. It's not always their fault.

 

Exactly.....and that rush to board is one of the things that I hate, and one of the reasons I prefer to check my bag and now longer carry anything on board other than my purse-sized backpack that can fit under the sear in front of me. I'm a frequent traveler (though not a business road warrior) and have had delayed baggage twice in over 30 years of air travel.

 

Given the number of bags handled daily, the actual rate of lost or delayed luggage is tiny. We face greater risks every day, yet somehow people think this is a big risk that they must avoid at all costs.

[em-sk]

The IATA has a standard. However the airlines don't appear to be unified behind it.

 

IATA standards are: 55cm x 35cm x 20cm

https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/ops-infra/baggage/Documents/cabin-bag-flyer.pdf

 

Air Canada is doing 55 cm x 40 cm x 23 cm, so they are being more flexible than industry standards. Fro the second item it is more restrictive 16 cm x 33 cm x 43 cm

 

http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/airport/baggage/carry-on.html

Edited May 22, 2015 by em-sk

[iancal]

We started packing light for all of our trips in order to satisfy the carry on regulation. It was hard a first. Now we not only find it liberating but it has enabled us to avoid what otherwise would have been some connection issues simply because we did not have bags in the hold.

 

Has nothing to do with cost or whether the airline could misplace our bags. Just our experience with 5 months of travel out of the past 10 months which included 11 flights on a combo of majors and discounts. Going again in August and will continue to do exactly the same wherever possible.

Edited May 23, 2015 by iancal

[gubby]

We do the same and like you, find it so much easier. You can wash lightweight clothing in bathroom sinks, find a laundry that will do your clothing while you sightsee, match up colours, lots of tips. This is the way we now travel and have been gone for almost 6 weeks with just a carryon each. It becomes easier all the time. You learn to wear the heaviest and bulkiest items on the plane, but nothing is TOO heavy or bulky. Layering is the key, so this plan works whatever the season.

Edited May 23, 2015 by gubby

[iancal]

When we are shopping or considering buying an article of clothing our thoughts always go to how will it travel, is it good for layering, etc. We attend alternate dining venues on formal nights. Light shoes, two pairs each including the ones on our feet!

 

DW was unsure at first, now she is a major fan and always looking for ways to take less.

Edited May 24, 2015 by iancal

[calliopecruiser]

I read this in a "letter to the editor" today and I think it's a great idea......Airlines should be charging for any carry-on that does not fit under the seat in front of the passenger. Improve everyone's experience on board and charge those who want to get in and out of the airports faster (or those who don't trust the airlines to do their job of delivering baggage). Carry ons that would incur the fee would still be limited by size, because they would still have to fit in the overhead bins.

 

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. Charge $25 to carry on a 21" bag.

[xlxo]

On Allegiant.... it's $10 to $75 for a carry-on.

https://www.allegiantair.com/popup/optional-services-fees

[iancal]

Given the choice of paying $25 for a carry on or $25. to check the same back.....we would always go with the carry on. The luggage fee is not the issue for us.

[em-sk]

Given the choice of paying $25 for a carry on or $25. to check the same back.....we would always go with the carry on. The luggage fee is not the issue for us.

 

I don't believe Air Canada is charging for carry-on. They are just starting to police the carry-on rules they have for some time. They do charge for domestic or US checked bags.

 

On a side note, I agree I would rather pay $25 for carry on over checked. It saves you 20 minutes after landing.