AC "code"

[Guest abc]

Could someone "in the know" explain this, please?

Here are a few examples, likely they will, but I hope they don't "stir the pot."

1)For Star Alliance, sometimes AC flies Toronto to Frankfurt. At other times Lufthansa flies YYZ-FRA on aircraft with over 110 seats. Does this not violate ACPA scope?

IMHO, all flying done by AC should be piloted by AC pilots. All AC airplanes should be handled by AC agents and fixed by AC AMEs. I just don't get the "code share" concept.

2)If the first example is too vague, consider Jazz. Is the 110 seat scope an "ownership" issue, "route" issue, or "code share" issue?

Examples

a)Would Jazz be allowed to operate regional routes such as YYZ-YUL with 120 seat airplanes if it were only 49% owned by AC? b)Would Jazz be allowed to operate "additional" YYZ-YUL flights? ie. suppose AC currently operates 12 per day. Could AC continue to operate 12 per day and contract out another 4 to Jazz on a plane certified with more than 110 seats?

c)Instead of operating a new flight number AC8901 from Hamilton to Calgary, would Jazz be "allowed" to operate QK8901 in a 747? Again, I am not trying to "stir the pot" I just want to learn about "code share."

And lastly, freight. Does freight fall under AC code? Would AC be allowed to contract Fedex to fly freight from Vancouver to Hong Kong? Or could AC contract Jazz to do the same (provided Jazz didn't operate aircraft with more than 50 or 55 or 70 or 110 seats? or passengers?? certifiable seats???)

This whole scope, code share, ownership thing is a bit confusing. Someone to shed a bit of light would be appreciated.

[pictues]

YYZ-FRA with Lufthansa is not an Air Canada plane just has Air CAnada's flight number on it, some AC flights have LH flight numbers. Actually Air Canada AME's do the turn around for Lufthansa's flights in Canada.

[Guest Mike Sowsun]

I am no expert, but here is my take on it......(Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)............

Code Share agreements are business arrangements which are negotiated, or entered into, to benefit two or more airlines who fly (or would like to fly) similar routes or provide access for their passengers on other routes. Or in the case of "Feeder Airlines", they are negotiated to provide a service or other benefit to both companies involved.

International and Domestic Code Shares are often treated differently, and defined differently. This is further complicated by International Bi-Lateral agreements between Governments (not Airlines) which negotiate landing rights and over flight rights.

Scope is just one of many possible conditions negotiated into a code share agreement

Code Share and Scope are usually also negotiated into the Pilots' contracts.

Scope and Code Share have nothing to do with percentage of ownership.

In the case of JAZZ and Air Canada, a scope clause has been defined in the ACPA contract and is therefore a condition of code share. Percentage of ownership doesn't change a thing. Except that an independent JAZZ would have the choice to re-negotiate or possibly terminate the code share agreements and go it alone. Scope would always apply if there was still a code share.

I believe that this is something that Air Atlantic wrestled with for many years. At one point Air Atlantic wanted to hire Canadian Airlines Pilots on contract to fly an extra BAE146 so that they could get around the scope clause condition of the code share.

Not long ago Air Canada considered using A320's on Trans Atlantic routes. This was apparently rejected by the Star Alliance code share agreements. Wide Body Only, was the reason I heard.

West Jet and Air Canada could negotiate a code share where WJ does all domestic flying and feeds all International pax to Air Canada. Only problem is that ACPA has code share covered in the contract and they would have to agree to it. If ACPA could be convinced they might stipulate a "scope" of say 120 or 140 seat aircraft.

I don't know if it makes any sense, but does that make it any clearer?

[Guest ABC]

Thank you for your response.

It is a bit like the AC/Bombardier export financing issue. If AC really wanted RJs, it could acquire them thru a US-based leasing company and take advantage of export financing rates.

I would expect that IF AC wanted to contract out flying to Jazz or Westjet or Skyservice or British Airways, it probably could.

For example, Jazz might start an independent wholly owned subsidiary called Canadian Airlines International. Jazz might operate a Dash 8 from Kelowna to Vancouver as AC1234 (AC code). But the Jazz subsidiary, CAI, might fly an A330 from Vancouver to Hawaii, CA123, which is not AC code.

I don't expect Jazz pilots would operate the flight. Perhaps CAI would just be the name of a virtual travel company that charter flights from Skyservice.

Like I said earlier, the concept of scope and code share is difficult to understand. They seem quite easy to circumvent if there was economic motivation.

Thanks, though, for trying to clear it up.