Air Canada calls out CBC on biased reporting

[runaway]

https://www.facebook.com/aircanada/

Very interesting indeed!

[vanishing point]

For the non-FB users:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/09/16/air-canada-attacks-cbc-bias-after-reporter-calls-its-response-bulls-t_a_23211654/

[Boney]

Thanks for the link.

I've been on AA with their zone boarding, based on your ticket price, where the less you pay the higher the zone number. They are very good at denying boarding to those that try to jump the line. The ones with the lower zone numbers board first and get at the overhead bins for their bags.

At wja, we tried that and went back to plus and emergency rows first, then free for all. Those that board last will have trouble finding overhead bins free. It appears to work well and boarding is done within the allotted time but do have to deal with bags that can't fit. There is always the announcement that guests can check their bags free of charge on full flights. Personally, I hate this as it encourages many to not check their bags, paying the fee, arriving at the gate to check it in gratis. They should charge at the gate to avoid this, but it's above my pay grade.

Cheers. 

[Zan Vetter]

The point is CBC wasn't interested in the explanation. 

[boestar]

Several years ago I flew on a Thomas Cook 757 from LGW to YYZ.  in LGW they placed us all in a predeparture lounge where they checked out ID and everything on entry.  we were lined up in this lounge based on our rows.  When the plane was ready to board we all just walked on and ended up in the right place,  it was the fastest boarding I have ever seen.  However it is the only time I have ever seen it done this way.

 

[gator]

Canadians can't even listen to simple instructions on boarding... when zone 2 is called 3 and 4 line up and the zone 2 people have to "butt in" while the zone people crowd the entry to the line. Making rules more complex will only make it worse.

I used to think that loading the back windows, then the middle windows, back aisles, front windows, middle aisles, front aisles would work the best because aisle people wouldn't have to stand up to allow the windows to board. The problem is in trying to allow groups/families to board together.... more from a technology perspective.

The reason why the Southwest system works is because people load the window seats first by default.

The bottom line is that inefficient boarding is caused more by people carrying all of their crap on board with them than any procedure.

[st27]

Another problem arises when you have two/three classes of pax..by boarding back to front... you have pax that will jam their bags in the J class cabin leaving no room for preferred pax carry ons [when they arr] unless you have a flt atten. acting as baggage cop.

[boestar]

I watched a video on a boarding process that is supposed to be the more efficient but it is confusing.  Boarding was done by every three rows, windows inward.  They boarded a single aisle aircraft in 8 minutes or something like that.  I cannot find the video.

 

[Kip Powick]

2 hours ago, boestar said:

I watched a video on a boarding process that is supposed to be the more efficient but it is confusing.  Boarding was done by every three rows, windows inward.  They boarded a single aisle aircraft in 8 minutes or something like that.  I cannot find the video.

 

Similar to what you posted......

 

 

 

[DEFCON]

Good video demonstration.

Can gate designs be reconsidered to facilitate boarding of most if not all types through more than one door?

[Zan Vetter]

Guys the point isn't what's the best solution, obviously there are competing opinions as no two airlines are exactly the same, and all develop their boarding methods according to fairly intense scrutiny. 

The point is CBC had a story idea, "Air Canada uses 'the worst' boarding method," contacted AC for comment, got a very in-depth explanation about the why's and wherefore's of their method, INCLUDING acknowledgement that there exist likely 'faster' methods, and yet decided to ignore the explanation and roll their original idea, 'Air Canada sucks'. Like the friggin glorified blog they are, grappling for page views. What a waste.

[Guest]

Here is an boarding announcement that could speed things up.

We are now boarding Zone X, if you attempt to board in this zone and are not entitled to do so, we will remove you from the flight. Your carry on items must be stowed in the overhead bin directly above your seat or under the seat in front of you, if you attempt to put your carryon baggage in another location, you will be removed from the flight along with your baggage.  

[J.O.]

1 hour ago, DEFCON said:

Good video demonstration.

Can gate designs be reconsidered to facilitate boarding of most if not all types through more than one door?

A certain operator tried the double bridge thing in Calgary, but a couple of damaged wings wiped out any efficiency they'd been able to achieve using them.

[Zan Vetter]

Probably also bears mentioning that in the Vox video, the difference between the worst and best methods was 10 minutes. So unless an airline is contemplating using completely unassigned seating a la Southwest, (which no major airline would ever, ever consider for the reasons already listed in depth) then you're looking at savings on the order of 5 minutes per turn. Is that going to add up to enough to enable an extra section in the schedule, thereby increasing utilization, thereby increasing profitability? If no, there's no benefit. But it makes for a great rage-click opportunity for CBC. 

[PAHTDC]

I noted the source for the comparison graph in the Vox video was "MythBusters Trial" so I would not put much (any?) value on the comparative numbers in it.

On the otherhand, the simulations/visualizations are interesting and the discussion above brings out points I hadn't thought about before.

Here's the link to the original source story the CBC provided to AC . 

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/25/5647696/the-way-we-board-airplanes-makes-absolutely-no-sense

Some more simulations in there, and a reference to a 'Steffen method' (a further staggered variant of outside-in) that has been publish in Journal of Air Transport Management (useful if interested in background on formal research in area)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.5211v1.pdf

 

[DEFCON]

Thanks JO, I wasn't aware.

[boestar]

This is the method I was talking about.

 

 

[j.k.]

All these perfect boarding scenarios are BS.

There's always someone not at the gate or confused or in the bathroom or trying to change their seat assignment or not having ID ready or in tree wrong line or in the wrong seat or with too many bags or too big bags or wanting to come up and talk to their friend in row 12 after they got to the back in row 28 or can't find a spot for their bags in the front or or or...

These tests are best case scenario and unrealistic. They have everyone ready, with minimal bags, with no issues... 

Anyway - 

VanZetter is right - 

This isn't about AC's boarding system, which I have used hundreds of times as a passenger and seems fine to me.

This is about a news organization seeking to create content with the purpose of portraying an organisation poorly - whether accurate or not. 

[moeman]

On 9/18/2017 at 4:30 PM, J.O. said:

A certain operator tried the double bridge thing in Calgary, but a couple of damaged wings wiped out any efficiency they'd been able to achieve using them.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=ebda9121-047d-48cd-9383-626f362341fc

[boestar]

How soon we forget.  back in the era of the 707 and DC8, two bridge was the norm at places like JFK.  The practice was abandoned for some reason.  I suspect because it took up too much space around the terminal as more and more aircraft started taking to the sky.

 

[AMEfirst]

On 2017-09-18 at 6:31 PM, Zan Vetter said:

Guys the point isn't what's the best solution, obviously there are competing opinions as no two airlines are exactly the same, and all develop their boarding methods according to fairly intense scrutiny. 

The point is CBC had a story idea, "Air Canada uses 'the worst' boarding method," contacted AC for comment, got a very in-depth explanation about the why's and wherefore's of their method, INCLUDING acknowledgement that there exist likely 'faster' methods, and yet decided to ignore the explanation and roll their original idea, 'Air Canada sucks'. Like the friggin glorified blog they are, grappling for page views. What a waste.

Keep trying Zan Vetter

THE POINT HERE IS CBC BIAS AGAINST AIR CANADA NOT HOW TO BOARD PAX!

[Seeker]

12 minutes ago, AMEfirst said:

Keep trying Zan Vetter

THE POINT HERE IS CBC BIAS AGAINST AIR CANADA NOT HOW TO BOARD PAX!

Yeah, some people seem to missing the point of the thread.  CBC has an agenda that is anti-Air Canada as proved by their email error.

[boestar]

Why is everyone so surprised.  If AC crashed on 24:L and Westjet crashed on 24R at the same time AC would get all the press.  WestJet would be a footnote.  It has been that way for DECADES.  AC is the whipping boy that can do no good and WJ is the golden child that can do no wrong.

Maybe AC should start making cute videos of all the good and charitable stuff it does that no one acknowledges but that AC was doing when WJ was someones wet dream.

 

[j.k.]

42 minutes ago, AMEfirst said:

Keep trying Zan Vetter

THE POINT HERE IS CBC BIAS AGAINST AIR CANADA NOT HOW TO BOARD PAX!

That's what he said.

[Maverick]

8 hours ago, boestar said:

Why is everyone so surprised.  If AC crashed on 24:L and Westjet crashed on 24R at the same time AC would get all the press.  WestJet would be a footnote.  It has been that way for DECADES.  AC is the whipping boy that can do no good and WJ is the golden child that can do no wrong.

Maybe AC should start making cute videos of all the good and charitable stuff it does that no one acknowledges but that AC was doing when WJ was someones wet dream.

 

You need to eat a snickers!