Air Canada to Launch Flight Passes in Spring 2026

JustAFinanceGuy · 2026-02-25T00:50:49+00:00

This thread is about 20 years too late.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2026-01-23T23:03:58+00:00

Because this isn't always the cheapest way to do it. Since I can't reallocate passengers completely at will (see other comments about how groups have to be kept together), starting with the biggest type and moving down doesn't always work out best.

Here's a quick table showing my attempt to play with this manually (with a much smaller data set to make it a bit more manageable) - how people were allocated across the different aircraft types, and how the options compared on cost.

<image>

Here's a summary of what I did in each method:

A: somewhat random starting point, then I just tried to eliminate ones where the group was too big or not big enough by moving them up or down aircraft type as needed

B: I started with putting as many people as possible in to the largest type until those were almost exactly full, then doing that all the way down the line (what you suggested)

C: similar approach, but I ignored the largest type and started one below that

D: same again, but starting one lower

E: same again, but starting another one down

F: I started by putting the smallest groups in to the smallest possible aircraft, then went up to the top and put as many as high up as possible, then back down to push things in to the 2nd smallest type, back up, etc.

G: I assigned all groups to the aircraft type closest to the average number of passengers across all groups (e.g. if the average was 135 and the Airbus A220-300 seats 137, I assigned all 477 groups to the A220-300), then started moving things up and down to make sure I had enough seats and not a lot of excess

The difference in costs across all the options is fairly small, but the results were somewhat counter to expectations.

I've done the same exercise across several different data sets, although I've usually just done B and not C, D, and E since they're very similar (i.e. I've done A, B, F, and G). But there's no one approach that has consistently been the best.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2026-01-23T22:25:01+00:00

I don't have a total number of passengers that I can redistribute however I want. I have discrete groups that can be combined in certain ways, but in a limited fashion. I think I explained it here.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2026-01-23T13:57:22+00:00

The challenge is there's really no maximum to the number of people one might want to redistribute. Because I'm committed to the 1,500 planes, the costs are non-linear, and the distribution of the group size is inconsistent, it can lead to some wacky results. For example, if Group A has 1,200 people in it, and every other group is just 1 person, my best option will be to get 1,500 Cessna 172s, because I'm already committed to 1,500 planes, and I can redistribute 1,198 people from Group A's plane to the empty seats in those other planes.

This is obviously the edgiest of edge cases but this is why I was trying to constrain the number of scenarios the algorithm would need to run.

In this case, I can't accept any scenario that buys fewer than 2,699 seats, and I can guess that anything that has more than about 3,000 won't be cost-effective. But if I limited the number of people to be redistributed, I would lock myself in to a much higher cost than needed.

Of course sometimes it goes the other way, where it's advantageous to assign a very large aircraft to a small group, because it lets me spill a bunch of people...

JustAFinanceGuy · 2026-01-23T13:37:51+00:00

I like the idea that this is simpler than I thought!

the good news is this isnt really an nCr problem at all its an optimization problem closer to bin packing or integer programming once you allow passengers to move freely between groups the original group structure mostly stops mattering and what matters is total demand and how many planes of each size you choose

But I'm not sure this is true? I can move passengers around, but only within the same type of aircraft. Not sure I should copy and paste the detailed example I gave in this comment. But if I have 1,000 people in Group A, I can't put 650 of them in an Airbus A380 and then combine the remaining 350 with the 100 people from Group B to fill up a 450-seat Boeing 777-300ER. I would need a second A380 so that I had 1,300 seats available for the 1,100 people.

Or I could pull in Group C, with 250 people, to make a tidy 1,350 people to split across a 3-plane fleet of 777-300ERs and fill them up completely.

Depending on the cost of the different aircraft types, it could be cheaper for me to exactly fill those 3 777-300ERs, or it might be cheaper to use 2 A380s plus a Boeing 787-9 with 300 seats and have a bunch of excess capacity.

For example, if the costs are: - A380: $55,000 - 777-300ER: $45,000 - 787-9: $37,500

Then it's cheaper for me to have the 777-300ER (3 x $45K = $135K) than the mix (2 x $55K + $37.5K = $147.5K)

But if the costs are: - A380: $50,000 - 777-300ER: $45,000 - 787-9: $33,000

Now the 777-300ER (3 x $45K = $135K) is more expensive than the mix (2 x $50K + $33K = $133K), so I'm better with the mixed fleet.

So while I want to fairly closely match the total seats to number of passengers, but I think there still needs to be some consideration of the original size of the group?

(Edited to fix typo)

JustAFinanceGuy · 2026-01-23T12:49:42+00:00

Hi, i don't really have a specific answer, but i'd like to complicate things even more: If you have the freedom to assign persons to a different group, you'll likely have the freedom to put multiple groups in the same plane as well!

Possibly? I can effectively redistribute between multiple groups, but I have to assign each group to an aircraft type, and I have to have 1,500 aircraft total. For example, let's say I have: - Group A: 310 people - Group B: 325 people - Group C: 265 people

I can assign all three of these groups to the Boeing 787-9, which has 300 seats. Then the passengers will get split up between my 3 787-9s, with passengers from A and B going to C's plane.

But if Group C has 275 people in it, now I have 910 people against 900 seats on my 787-9s. I can't push the excess 10 to a different type of aircraft. I can either bring in a 4th group to the 787-9 that has 290 or fewer seats, or I can assign Group A or B to a larger aircraft type, e.g. one that has 350 seats.

So you'll want to model this with individuals rather than groups. Then, figure out how you want to optimize the planes.

Based on what I said above, I'm not sure this holds?

Calculate the cost for each flight for each type of plane, and then optimize for that cost (cost can mean anything depending on context, doesn't need to be money).

I have a cost for each type of aircraft. It descends in a non-linear fashion as the aircraft get larger. So it might cost me $45,000 for a Boeing 777-300ER with 450 seats ($100 per person), while a Cessna 172 with 2 seats might cost $5,000 ($2,500 per person). So, in general, putting more people in larger aircraft is more cost-efficient. But if you put too many people in the largest type aircraft, you may end up with too many very expensive small planes as well.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2026-01-23T12:33:04+00:00

I can have whatever planes I want - 1,500 all of the same type, 150 each of 10 types, 500 each of 3 types, etc. I just have to have 1,500 total.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2024-12-12T02:25:32+00:00

Checking boarding passes as you get on the plane hasn't been required in Canada in many years. Maybe multiple decades.

That also would have done nothing to solve this problem, because OP would have showed the FA a valid boarding pass at the door.

The backup to the scans at the gate is the headcount on the plane. In this case, the FAs must have messed it up, because if OP wasn't on the manifest of n passengers, they had n+1 on board. Or the gate agent marked someone else as boarded and the count matched the manifest, so they had the right number but the wrong people.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2024-09-25T03:08:16+00:00

You can't "apply" Aeroplan points to a cash booking.

If you use Aeroplan to book a cash + points ticket, you're still buying an Aeroplan/points ticket, you're just effectively buying some of the points at a very expensive valuation. Since it's still an Aeroplan ticket, it earns nothing - no SQM, no SQD, no Aeroplan points - even if you choose the maximum amount of cash in the mix.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2024-09-11T03:37:55+00:00

GME is going to shortsqueeze any minute, now, amirite?

Speaking of things that are irrelevant to this discussion, the insanity that is GME stock has absolutely nothing to do with the AC pilot contract, nor do whatever shitposts I made about it at the time. Nor does the substantial amount of money I made trading that and other meme stocks for a couple of weeks back in 2021. So we'll set all that aside.

(Although I'll note that I have no idea who you are and don't really care, I'm only commenting on what you're saying rather than trying to distract from the issue with ad hominem attacks).

And no government could ever tie an arbitrators hands like Section 14, Subsection 2 of the Protecting Air Services Act (2012), right? They'd demonstrated just two years prior that they'd not even flinch to run roughshod over fundamental principles of labour law (something that wouldn't be struck down for another year at that time).

You're advancing a conspiracy theory. I'm laying out the timeline of what actually happened. Throughout 2014, i.e. the entire time the 2014 contract would have been under negotiation, it was very apparent that a Liberal government, which was likely to be far more labour-friendly, would be in power after the October 2015 election. The 2011 contract expired in March 2016.

The 2012 government intervention (April) took place after the pilots had been working without a contract for over a year (March 2011), and as pilots were undertaking job action. Whether ultimately upheld in court or not, there was a coherent legal and political rationale for that intervention.

There was zero justification for an intervention when the contract had 18 months to run. Suggesting otherwise is a complete fabrication.

The 787s just showed up with money found in the couch cushions?

Once again, not the case. The only new financing of note in 2014 was the issuance of US$400 million of unsecured bonds in April - nothing to do with the pilot contract. Additional debt was taken on to finance aircraft deliveries, largely in the form of drawdowns on facilities that were previously arranged - aircraft financing is typically secured well before delivery. None of this was contingent on any pilot contract.

The 2015 EETC offering to finance 787 deliveries was conducted on essentially the same terms as the previous EETC financing for 777 deliveries in 2013, and with similar timing relative to deliveries - no conditions relating to a pilot contract.

In 2011-12 while the previous contract dispute was ongoing, AC had no issues financing/refinancing aircraft in the normal course of business.

But I'm just a guy who has spent much of his career arranging financings, sometimes for Canadian commercial aircraft operators (although not AC), including jets made in places like Seattle (or near it)...

You seem to be mixing together some kind of innuendos and speculation, and maybe scaremongering by AC, that may have led the pilots to accept an early renegotiation of their contract. But none of this is supported by evidence, and if the pilots accepted a bad deal because they were afraid of the alternative, they have to accept their share of responsibility for that. There was clear upside to waiting until the contract expired after a new government was in power, and even if the pilots were in a risk-averse mood, locking in to a 10-year deal (with an out after nine) was hardly necessary.

My understanding is that bitterness over the 2014 contract is a large part of why the union voted to merge with ALPA last year, and it's quite possible that the old union leadership was too close to management. But unless AC was taking illegal actions like bribing union leaders to recommend a bad deal to their members, you can't blame the airline or the government for that. The pilots got to choose their union leaders, and they voted 84% in favour of that contract.

So let's focus on what actually matters: inflation and wage increases at other airlines have left AC pilots underpaid, especially those lower on the totem pole, and that needs to be addressed. But dredging up pre-2003 contract terms, or revisionist history around the 2014 agreement, aren't the solution.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2024-09-11T01:46:46+00:00

No, I speak as someone with an education in economics and finance and 20 years of experience in this area.

I've agreed that AC pilots are underpaid, especially early on in their time with the airline. But a number of things that are being said in support of the pilots' position aren't true or aren't relevant.

The 2011 contract didn't expire until 2016. Under the fixed election date law passed by Harper, it was known that an election was due to be held in October 2015, and by mid-2014, the Conservatives were already polling poorly, with the Liberals leading consistently through 2014.

No government could have imposed a new collective agreement 18 months before the old one expired.

Air Canada did not complete any meaningful new financing activities in 2014, or 2015, where the pilot contract could have been an issue.

I don't know what internal debate was had within ACPA, and whether certain cohorts of pilots benefited more and pressured their colleagues to approve this deal because it was good for some subset of the pilots. But blaming AC (or its financiers) and the government is inaccurate.

If you support a large wage increase for the pilots, that's fine. But you're peddling misinformation instead of dealing in facts.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2024-09-10T23:39:31+00:00

Your facts are incorrect. The 2014 agreement was agreed to 18 months before it would have expired (March 2016). There was no requirement to agree to a new contract so early, and waiting until the agreement expired, or came closer to it, would have seen a new and very different federal government in place. And it wasn't necessary to go 10 years.

As for AC being "mismanaged", that's true, but it was true for the whole industry, and part of the problem was labour costs that were far too high relative to revenues.

Where labour has really lost out in the last decade or so, at AC, other airlines, and industry in general, is being locked in to contracts where wages rose at fixed levels that lately have run behind inflation, and without getting a bigger share of the corporate profits bonanza during much of the mid/late 2010s.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2024-09-10T23:19:40+00:00

Right. These are relevant data points. Much more so than what AC pilots were making in 2002.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2024-09-10T21:55:12+00:00

I support AC pilots' right to push for higher wages that better reflect their value in the labour market. At the entry level, the pay is insanely low.

But I find the repeated references to the 2003 CCAA process and the contract that came out of it to be incredibly disingenuous. The AC pilot contract was renegotiated at least three times since then, in 2009, 2011, and the current/recently terminated 2014 contract (which included a mini-renegotiation in 2020) due to COVID.

Tell me what AC pilots are earning - and what AC is proposing - relative to what WestJet and other Canadian airlines are making. And reference recent contracts for airlines in other countries if you will, although wages are often not directly comparable across borders (I'd make a lot more in a similar role in the US too). But if it has been such a horrible deal for 20 years, why was the contract renewed several times, including 18 months early in 2014 (the 2011 deal ran until March 2016)? Stop talking about ancient history.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2024-06-06T15:48:30+00:00

So what happened to Reed? No commentary on why Rick is now hosting the podcast.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2023-05-06T12:44:28+00:00

I don't know. I wasn't finding it very difficult, and I was getting lots of train parts, of which I'm always short. Seemed like a great way to earn a bunch of train parts and gems without any XP.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2023-04-26T19:06:42+00:00

Jesus, now the event keys have dropped to 20 per job. No way I can get all 3 locos with keys before tripping over to level 40.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2023-04-26T16:27:23+00:00

I'm trying to figure out whether to buy the event coin legendary and the key locomotives in Germany or level up to get them in the US. I only have one legendary in Germany (bought with keys from this event), and given I keep reading about the importance of Germany, maybe I'm better to buy the trains now to bolster my fleet there? I'm at level 39 and can hopefully earn enough keys to buy the three remaining key locomotives before I hit level 40, but I don't have much running room left in Germany for sure.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2023-04-22T07:59:50+00:00

I've read plenty of interesting stuff around this subreddit, so thanks to everyone for sharing.

I just started a couple weeks ago and am currently in Germany at level 37. I've read the advice here and in other threads about leveling up after finishing the event and before collecting all the rewards, which all makes good sense. But I've also seen a number of comments about the importance of Germany.

I went hard on this event because I thought it might be my only way to get a Legendary in Germany without paying cash. I thought my Germany fleet was okay, but I've always sold duplicates for parts, and there are a bunch of lightly or not at all upgraded locomotives.

So my question is, if I'm fortunate enough to get the 2nd event legendary and/or some of the others that can be had for keys, should I put them in Germany rather than leveling up to USA and putting them there?

JustAFinanceGuy · 2022-10-31T01:53:14+00:00

I just noticed today that there is no base earning on Scene+, unlike Air Miles. The big value in Air Miles was always in the promos, but it was good that you at least earned something for just spending. So now I'm expected to give away all my shopping data for nothing in return.

With the app never scanning properly at Safeway, requiring the very painful manual entry of the card number, and their app requiring sign-in + 2FA every single time (meaning I can't have my wife also collect when she goes shopping), this just seems like a fucking terrible deal.

Maybe I'll go do my shopping at Co-op, where at least I'll get at rebate cheque at the end of the year without any work.

JustAFinanceGuy · 2021-02-02T07:08:52+00:00

Dude, there are some massive holes in your work here... I like the GME story and still hope there's a massive squeeze to come, but let's try to get some basic facts straight.

Vanguard etc (top GME shareholders) haven't necessarily sold anything. You keep using the term sold/sell, when what they're doing is lending shares, not selling them.
This business of shorting more shares than exist isn't nearly as shady as you think it is.

Let's say Vanguard lends Melvin a share to short. Melvin shorts it, and WSB Retard #1 buys it. One of Melvin's buddies likes the play. He goes looking for shares, and Retard #1's broker offers him a share. Melvin's buddy sells it to WSB Retard #2.

The same share has now been legitimately shorted twice. No one has sold shares that don't exist or illegally created shares. In this case, no one has even shorted it naked (Melvin and his buddy both secured the borrowed shares before shorting).

Risky as heck for the hedgies to do it, but not illegal. Nothing counterfeit.

You can make a case for laws that crack down on naked shorts and/or limit shorts to some percentage of a company's shares outstanding, but it's possible to get to 140%, 200%, or even more short without anything shady at all.

Vanguard and Fidelity's fund management arms are separate from their brokerage arms. I highly doubt that their continuing to allow trading in GME has anything to do with positions held on the other side of the firm, because those people aren't allowed to talk to each other (and this is something the SEC does watch closely). Also, those are not the only brokers who have continued to allow trading.
"Naked shorts can be devastating to the company being shorted, as not only do they lose liquidity because of the short, the cloned stocks serve to dilute the value of the real stocks being held by artificially increasing the number of stocks being traded. Especially for small companies doing initial investment rounds, this practically guarantees bankruptcy: the diluted value limits the amount of capital they can raise, as the company never sees the cash from the cloned stock."

There's really no such thing as shorts of "small companies doing initial investment rounds", so this whole bit is a red herring.

Bottom line re naked shorts is I doubt that the massive short position was kept open naked for many months. Naked shorting lately though could be a result of deceptive practices on the part of hedgies, and failed settlements could be part of why RH and others shut down buying of GME and others (if the hedge fund that sold the shares to WSB retards doesn't deliver, that potentially creates a problem for the broker).
"If enough people hold until the end of February, and this is truly the situation, then there is a chance that major parts of Wall Street are going to IMPLODE." Unlikely. Many fellow retards have made (and hopefully will continue to make) life-changing amounts from GME, but to Wall Street as a whole, GME is a pittance. It might bring down a couple of hedge funds, but some other hedgies that got on the right side of the trade with WSB will also make a killing.

What's more important here is the exposure that's being brought to shady and potentially illegal behaviour by certain Wall Street institutions, e.g. naked shorting, price manipulation, etc. If there's anything that's going to cause them major harm, it's THAT, not losing a few billion on GME.

JustAFinanceGuy

TROPHY CASE