PDA

View Full Version : YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 [100] 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

casper
Sep 22, 2016, 12:54 AM
Does anyone know how many flight attendants AC have on their CRA 700's? I would guess three but by law they only have to have 2 right? But my thinking has been with only 2 flight attendants it would be hard to manage Transport Canada's new regulation of having 2 people in the flight deck at all times.

They are 705 (being converted to 900). The 705 is actually a 900 that was decorated on paper.

When I have been on them it has been 2.

Gordon
Sep 22, 2016, 3:13 AM
It looks that the next terminal expansion the centralized option which adds gates to every pier there is a discussion guide linked to the latest Craig's corner on the Yvr blog.

whatnext
Sep 22, 2016, 6:41 AM
They are 705 (being converted to 900). The 705 is actually a 900 that was decorated on paper.

When I have been on them it has been 2.

Decorated on paper?

It is two, due first to regulations and also the fact they have a sizable J cabin would require it.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 22, 2016, 7:00 AM
It looks that the next terminal expansion the centralized option which adds gates to every pier there is a discussion guide linked to the latest Craig's corner on the Yvr blog.

The discussion paper is the link I pasted in my last post. Centralised option was definitely the option selected.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 22, 2016, 10:22 PM
https://www.biv.com/article/2016/9/august-was-busiest-ever-month-yvr-visualization/

Business in Vancouver has published an article about August 2016 numbers. Unfortunately it gives two different % increases. It says the increase was 9.8% then later in the article it says 9.1%.

I recall BIV posted an article about July numbers before the official numbers were released and the article said the increase was 9.8% only to be actually 11.0% once YVR posted their numbers. In addition the July figure in BIV was also lower than the YVR official count. Most likely the final figure was revised before YVR published their official stats.

In any event, I would expect August to be in the 10% range anyway.

osirisboy
Sep 22, 2016, 10:40 PM
https://www.biv.com/article/2016/9/august-was-busiest-ever-month-yvr-visualization/

Business in Vancouver has published an article about August 2016 numbers. Unfortunately it gives two different % increases. It says the increase was 9.8% then later in the article it says 9.1%.

I recall BIV posted an article about July numbers before the official numbers were released and the article said the increase was 9.8% only to be actually 11.0% once YVR posted their numbers. In addition the July figure in BIV was also lower than the YVR official count. Most likely the final figure was revised before YVR published their official stats.

In any event, I would expect August to be in the 10% range anyway.

Great thanks

I wonder where BIV get their numbers from?

LeftCoaster
Sep 22, 2016, 11:47 PM
Philippine Airlines: MNL increases from 7 weekly to 10 weekly with the re-introduction of twice weekly standalone YVR-MNL flights and an additional weekly YYZ-YVR-MNL flight. All services continue to be on 77Ws.


Thanks for posting this and the AC summary as well. According to the BIV article you quoted today the Phillippine Airlines 10PW frequency is going to continue into the summer in 2017, unlike 16' where it dropped off to daily again once the sun flying stopped. Havent heard anything official but 3 more 777s per week is a nice bump in capacity.

Numbers don't lie though, there are very few unserved YVR-USA markets left that are viable. Also, there are very few unserved domestic routes that would be big enough to have nonstop service.

Sure but that's straight O&D right? If AC is seriousl about turning YVR into a true second hub it needs to take a plunge on some of the thinner routes with hopes that it can funnel them to Asia/Europe on AC and other *A metal.

I was on a flight from KC to YYZ this week and I got stuck at check in for a while which gave me the opportunity to listen to where everyone else checking into the flight were going. On the little CRJ I was on nearly a dozen of them checked in to Delhi, and none of the groups were traveling together. If it weren't for transfer PAX like that I really dont think YYZ could support a daily to Kansas City or many of the other smaller US destinations they serve.



I have been made aware that between about 10:00 and 14:00 there will be no available international gates. So until an expansion is completed any further additions to International flights will have to be outside these hours. Still plenty of opportunities for late night flights to Asia and South Pacific.

Hmm puts a cap on Europe flying right? Is this including using the swing gates though? Could squeeze another 1-2 widebodies in there if needed.

Maybe we will be seeing some bigger birds from Lufthansa/KLM etc...

Johnny Aussie
Sep 23, 2016, 12:30 AM
Sure but that's straight O&D right? If AC is seriousl about turning YVR into a true second hub it needs to take a plunge on some of the thinner routes with hopes that it can funnel them to Asia/Europe on AC and other *A metal.

I was on a flight from KC to YYZ this week and I got stuck at check in for a while which gave me the opportunity to listen to where everyone else checking into the flight were going. On the little CRJ I was on nearly a dozen of them checked in to Delhi, and none of the groups were traveling together. If it weren't for transfer PAX like that I really dont think YYZ could support a daily to Kansas City or many of the other smaller US destinations they serve.

Hmm puts a cap on Europe flying right? Is this including using the swing gates though? Could squeeze another 1-2 widebodies in there if needed.

Maybe we will be seeing some bigger birds from Lufthansa/KLM etc...

If we have to bring this up again.... YYZ-Transborder is just a league of its own. Many routes can survive on O&D alone. But YYZ's AC hub is conducive to connections from many US markets to both Asia and Europe. YVR is limited to mainly Asian Destinations except for the most western cities to Europe. Hence why YVR - Europe on AC is limited to LHR (and DUB for summer seasonal) for now at least :)

Those secondary markets that some are so keen to connect to are just too small. To make any further AC - Transborder routes work would depend primarily on O&D and Asian traffic. Without decent O&D they just won't work. We've seen and discussed the numbers over an over. Other than BOS, IAD and MIA area that's about all folks. Just too much competition to Asia from DL, AA and UA from the fortress hubs in the USA. O&D is going to be king for future Transborder expansion on AC. Hence why DFW is starting up. You pretty much said it yourself here if MCI-YYZ probably wouldn't work on O&D alone how would a YVR-MCI route work?

As for Europe, any future growth will have to be later afternoon departures. That will be fine for some destinations but not all.

Hourglass
Sep 23, 2016, 1:03 AM
I have been made aware that between about 10:00 and 14:00 there will be no available international gates. So until an expansion is completed any further additions to International flights will have to be outside these hours. Still plenty of opportunities for late night flights to Asia and South Pacific.

It definitely is starting to show in terms of the passenger experience. On my last flight to HKG on CX's afternoon flight, security wasn't too bad, but the food court and many of the gate areas were jam packed.

trofirhen
Sep 23, 2016, 1:37 AM
If we have to bring this up again.... YYZ-Transborder is just a league of its own. Many routes can survive on O&D alone. But YYZ's AC hub is conducive to connections from many US markets to both Asia and Europe. YVR is limited to mainly Asian Destinations except for the most western cities to Europe. Hence why YVR - Europe on AC is limited to LHR (and DUB for summer seasonal) for now at least :)

Those secondary markets that some are so keen to connect to are just too small. To make any further AC - Transborder routes work would depend primarily on O&D and Asian traffic. Without decent O&D they just won't work. We've seen and discussed the numbers over an over. Other than BOS, IAD and MIA area that's about all folks. Just too much competition to Asia from DL, AA and UA from the fortress hubs in the USA. O&D is going to be king for future Transborder expansion on AC. Hence why DFW is starting up. You pretty much said it yourself here if MCI-YYZ probably wouldn't work on O&D alone how would a YVR-MCI route work?

As for Europe, any future growth will have to be later afternoon departures. That will be fine for some destinations but not all.
I think that your explanation illustrates why many see AC as favouring YYZ at the expense of YVR. It's a not only a combination of O&D/market size, but simple geography.
YYZ pokes down into the Midwest & Eastern USA, where most of the large cities are; Vancouver is good for the West Coast, which has big cities but fewer of them.
And which city, YYZ or YVR, is closer for conections to Europe. The answer is all too obvious. Hence the dominance of YYZ and the limitations for YVR, IMO

Gordon
Sep 23, 2016, 2:07 AM
could they not expand the Asian departure block by an hour and A half, because the airport is much quieter between 2PM & 4PM ? there is some gate capacity there.

How about using swing gates C\D 48 & 49?

nname
Sep 23, 2016, 2:30 AM
Now that gets me interested, so I track all the gate usage tomorrow from approx 10am to 2pm...

=> arrive at gate
<= depart from gate


Gate 48
=> 09:40 AC535 ORD
<= 10:40 AC208 YYC
=> 11:44 AC211 YYC
<= 13:00 AC132 YYZ
=> 14:20 AC563 SFO
<= 15:15 AC252 YEG

Gate 49
=> 10:07 AC551 LAX
<= 11:00 AC210 YYC
=> 11:50 AC64 ICN
<= 13:30 AC1136 YYZ
=> 15:34 AC219 YYC
<= 17:50 AC296 YWG

Gate 50
=> 10:07 WS1777 SFO
<= 12:15 WS712 YYZ
=> 12:45 AC26 PVG
<= 14:30 AC1108 YYZ

Gate 51
=> 08:58 AC1173 YYZ
<= 11:10 AC63 ICN
=> 11:43 AC1179 YYZ
<= 13:25 AC3 NRT

Gate 52
=> 09:55 AC105 YYZ
<= 12:10 AC29 PEK
=> 13:00 WS23 LGW
<= 18:10 WS22 LGW

Gate 53
=> 11:10 TS409 CDG
<= 13:25 TS544 LGW
=> 14:10 NZ24 AKL
<= 19:15 NZ23 AKL

Gate 54
=> 09:25 3U8579 SHE
<= 11:25 3U8580 SHE
=> 11:50 TS495 LGW
<= 16:30 TS372 AMS

Gate 55
=> 11:05 CZ329 CAN
<= 13:10 CZ330 CAN
=> 14:25 LH492 FRA
<= 16:20 LH493 FRA

Gate 58
=> 11:20 AC30 PEK
<= 13:20 AC7 HKG
=> 13:35 AC1941 DUB
<= 15:05 AC1940 DUB

Gate 64
=> 09:35 AC4 NRT
<= 11:25 AC25 PVG
=> 12:30 KE71 ICN
<= 14:20 KE72 ICN

Gate 65
=> 09:55 AC1952 KIX
<= 12:05 AC1951 KIX
=> 13:15 CX838 HKG
<= 14:45 CX837 HKG

Gate 66
=> 08:30 CA997 PEK
<= 10:40 CA998 PEK
=> 11:10 CA991 PEK
<= 13:50 CA992 PEK
=> 14:55 NH116 HND
<= 16:20 NH115 HND

Gate 67
=> 09:10 MU581 PVG
<= 13:20 MU582 PVG
=> 13:55 KL681 AMS
<= 15:45 KL682 AMS

Gate 70
=> 11:25 JL18 NRT
<= 14:15 JL17 NRT

Gate 71
=> 11:40 AF374 CDG
<= 14:00 AF479 CDG

Gate 73
=> 12:20 PR118 MNL
<= 13:50 PR118 YYZ

Gate 75
=> 11:35 AC855 LHR
<= ???

Gate 76
=> 13:00 UA5419 LAX
<= 13:40 UA5547 LAX
=> 15:15 AC1833 LAS
<= 17:45 AC1831 HNL

Gate 77
=> 12:00 UA1139 IAH
<= 13:00 UA595 SFO
=> 13:45 UA323 DEN
=> 15:10 UA381 DEN


They are indeed pretty full... but I'm sure couple of more flights can be squeezed in by moving things around... like, there should be some room in the E pier to put those United Express flights from gate 76, right? And AC seems to just park an aircraft at gate 75 for an entire day...

There seems to be a few more slots for 11am departure though...

EDIT: Forgot about Beijing Capital! They are also going to operate next summer on Fridays... Hmm, where can they squeeze another plane from 13:15 to 16:30....

Johnny Aussie
Sep 23, 2016, 3:07 AM
Now that gets me interested, so I track all the gate usage tomorrow from approx 10am to 2pm...

They are indeed pretty full... but I'm sure couple of more flights can be squeezed in by moving things around... like, there should be some room in the E pier to put those United Express flights from gate 76, right? And AC seems to just park an aircraft at gate 75 for an entire day...

There seems to be a few more slots for 11am departure though...

EDIT: Forgot about Beijing Capital! They are also going to operate next summer on Fridays... Hmm, where can they squeeze another plane from 13:15 to 16:30....

Love the work and love the effort! I love other avgeeks!

Who knows maybe there is more coming!?

Anyway, also have to base it on perfect ops too no buffer for even the slightest irrop sometimes.

Certainly indicates though if expansion doesn't come quickly there will be stagnant growth or will have to start doing bus loading ops like here in Melbourne.

Gordon
Sep 23, 2016, 3:18 AM
They could also have some of the D\E swing gates revert back to [I]nt's and push some transboarder traffic over to gates 90-92 which are basically un used.

nname
Sep 23, 2016, 3:26 AM
They would need to demolish gate 90-96 for the new gates behind US checkin area (and the F pier??), so they might need to start moving flights away rather than relying on those gates.

Similarly, gate 58 and 64 might need to be closed for D pier expansion...

I wonder which should be done first...

Johnny Aussie
Sep 23, 2016, 3:41 AM
They would need to demolish gate 90-96 for the new gates behind US checkin area (and the F pier??), so they might need to start moving flights away rather than relying on those gates.

Similarly, gate 58 and 64 might need to be closed for D pier expansion...

I wonder which should be done first...

I guess we should be finding out some definitive plans soon! Should be pretty exciting times ahead.

Gordon
Sep 23, 2016, 3:59 AM
There is still the 2ns phase of the west Chevron which can be added wiht those gates in use.

osirisboy
Sep 23, 2016, 4:18 AM
There is still the 2ns phase of the west Chevron which can be added wiht those gates in use.

I'm unfamiliar with this. What is this 2nd phase of the west chevron?

Gordon
Sep 23, 2016, 4:32 AM
the plans were to add 6 more gates at the end f the West Chevron?

Johnny Aussie
Sep 23, 2016, 4:34 AM
I'm unfamiliar with this. What is this 2nd phase of the west chevron?

An extension of the western end of D concourse.

The plan would be adding up to approx 8 gates to the west of gates 58 and 64.

osirisboy
Sep 23, 2016, 4:54 AM
An extension of the western end of D concourse.

The plan would be adding up to approx 8 gates to the west of gates 58 and 64.

Ah thank you (and Gordon) Wasn't aware of this. Whats the timeline for this? So that's seperate from the up coming expansion?

Johnny Aussie
Sep 23, 2016, 5:10 AM
Ah thank you (and Gordon) Wasn't aware of this. Whats the timeline for this? So that's seperate from the up coming expansion?

This will all be a part of the comprehensive expansion. It will be various / numerous projects announced all at once. Pretty much summed up in the document I linked a few days ago. Start at page 11.

http://www.yvr2037.ca/growth/documents/3855/download

mezzanine
Sep 23, 2016, 5:35 AM
If we have to bring this up again.... YYZ-Transborder is just a league of its own. Many routes can survive on O&D alone. But YYZ's AC hub is conducive to connections from many US markets to both Asia and Europe. YVR is limited to mainly Asian Destinations except for the most western cities to Europe. Hence why YVR - Europe on AC is limited to LHR (and DUB for summer seasonal) for now at least :)

Those secondary markets that some are so keen to connect to are just too small. To make any further AC - Transborder routes work would depend primarily on O&D and Asian traffic. Without decent O&D they just won't work. We've seen and discussed the numbers over an over. Other than BOS, IAD and MIA area that's about all folks. Just too much competition to Asia from DL, AA and UA from the fortress hubs in the USA. O&D is going to be king for future Transborder expansion on AC. Hence why DFW is starting up. You pretty much said it yourself here if MCI-YYZ probably wouldn't work on O&D alone how would a YVR-MCI route work?

As for Europe, any future growth will have to be later afternoon departures. That will be fine for some destinations but not all.


I understand that YYZ is the lynchpin for AC but I think you are underestimating the ability for YVR to replicate a similar hub as toronto.

YVR's niche against US fortress hubs is to provide a pleasant transfer experience compared to transferring in the USA. Comparison to transferring at LAX is a non-starter. SFO may come the closest to a smooth transfer on the west coast, but still IMO not as good as YVR. SEA has aspirations but will have to wait at least until their new expansion is built in a few years and face significant physical constraints by their airport footprint for further additions.

Asia-South America is supposed to be the key to a YVR hub, but I also see a niche in a North america/SE Asia-Australia-NZ-Asia. Why else would AC be upgrading to a 787-9 on its YVR-EWR flight? in the winter? with all the fifth freedom competition from PR and CX? IF YVR does add on SIN, BKK, MEL and even SGN, that will be a big pull from BOS, MIA and IAD for a 1 stop flight with a relatively pleasant transfer experience from the eastern US.

I also think you are overestimating YYZ's network/O+D power. YYZ/AC's strategy of drawing from smaller US airports has been exhausted IMO. It was a one time gimmie to get all the international flyers from largish metro areas with slow economies where US hubs pulled out. not flights (http://airlinegeeks.com/2016/08/06/abandoned-in-the-rust-belt-part-two/), but whole hubs (http://airlinegeeks.com/2016/08/18/abandoned-in-the-rust-belt-part-three/). I'm not sure why we need MCI, but I agree that YVR's niche is not getting another AC flight up here from smaller metros from the US midwest/midatlantic to complement YYZ's.

And I have to try to find the link but I read somewhere that most of the YYZ-CPH passengers are not from YYZ< but from other flights. No link, but i'll try to tumble across it..
----

of course there will be lots of news in 2017. I think SE asia will open up for YVR and MEL also looks realistic. YVR wouldn't have a western US rust belt to poach, and I agree with Johnny that AC's western US network to YVR is close to maximized but ABQ is surprisingly underserved for such a market. I also think YVR can reasonably get AC to fly to SLC (Business/ mormon missionary work to Aus/NZ/Asia). But I would be looking out for large eastern US centres, especially if we get more SE asia/Aus/China flights.

a few weeks ago I was thinking AUS (Austin) when I should have been thinking DFW! :)

trofirhen
Sep 23, 2016, 5:49 AM
Talking about Albuquerque, San Antonio TX seems very underserved. All Local US flights.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 23, 2016, 5:52 AM
Nope I don't think I'm underestimating YVR or overestimating YYZ.

But the raw numbers truly explain why YYZ is connected to so many US cities and YVR isn't. YVR pales in market size and as a business centre. There is no way YVR can replicate what YYZ has just not the numbers to support it. Not in my lifetime anyway. Pleasant transit experience or not... that really only has a limited pull. Never underestimate the power of the frequent flyer. Loyalty is very powerful. YVR's premium market is probably a lot bigger than some people think but not big enough to really have that punch needed. We won't be seeing AC flying to SLC, AUS, SAT or ABQ. There are probably reasons why they are "underserved." The numbers just don't add up... NPV = negative. BOS, IAD/DCA, MIA maybe... but very limited unserved markets that would be viable.

Anyway, I see myself as an optimist and as one of YVR's biggest supporters on here but I am also a realist and I can see limitations as to how far YVR can grow in certain regions.

I'm definitely done debating on this subject so I'll leave it to the rest of you to carry on.

Except.. I'm still waiting for those nonstop flights to Louisville, Tulsa and Des Moines!

mezzanine
Sep 23, 2016, 6:14 AM
To be clear, I would never expect YVR to match YYZ, but YVR has a lot of potential to further enhance its transborder and intl network.

like what this guy says: (http://www.sltrib.com/home/3701769-155/air-canada-returning-to-slc-offers)

(AC VP Kevin)Howlett said that in conversations with Utah leaders and people in the travel trade, they have expressed hopes that Air Canada may someday add non-stop service between Salt Lake City and Vancouver, Canada — where the airline has a hub for Asian and Australian flights.

No word on Des Moines, though... :cheers:

casper
Sep 23, 2016, 7:51 AM
Talking about Albuquerque, San Antonio TX seems very underserved. All Local US flights.

About a year ago I had some meetings in San Antonio. I happened to have already been in Vancouver so did Salt Lake city as a transfer point and on the return connecting in Seattle. It has lots of one stop options.

Albuquerque is a weird one. It has been many years since I have been there. Back when Northwest existed. Not certain what the business draw is. From a vacation perspective SantaFe is a key draw and a short drive away.

osirisboy
Sep 23, 2016, 3:55 PM
This will all be a part of the comprehensive expansion. It will be various / numerous projects announced all at once. Pretty much summed up in the document I linked a few days ago. Start at page 11.

http://www.yvr2037.ca/growth/documents/3855/download

When it was called "phase two" I thought it was part of an already existing plan. Thanks for clarification though

LeftCoaster
Sep 23, 2016, 6:27 PM
Anyway, I see myself as an optimist and as one of YVR's biggest supporters on here but I am also a realist and I can see limitations as to how far YVR can grow in certain regions.

I'm definitely done debating on this subject so I'll leave it to the rest of you to carry on.

Except.. I'm still waiting for those nonstop flights to Louisville, Tulsa and Des Moines!

I don't see this as a debate, just more of a discussion. This thread can get pretty quiet for days on end, and while I appreciate the tedium of saying the same thing over and over again I don't think that is necessarily what is happening here. No one here is disputing the O&D numbers or the retaliative strength of YVR's transborder draw, I think we're all clear on that.

What I will question is a simple NPV=negative calculation. There are so many assumptions that any financial pro forma is simply an estimate. my only issue with AC's level of Transborder is not that AC doesn't serve what NEEDS to be served, it's that they don't take risks to pull PAX who would otherwise connect in SFO or ORD. AC has shown a willingness to take a dive into weak markets at YYZ that they don't seem to show at YVR. It's not a big deal,but if they are actually serious on making YVR a western hub they might need to do a little more than dip their toes in the US market.

The way I see AC's view of North America is somewhat Like this:

http://i.imgur.com/uv7JNQc.png

The blue share represents where connections through YVR would be advantageous and the red shape represents YYZ with some overlap in the middle where flying time is quite similar. Though YYZ's shape is only slightly larger its worth noting it's about 70% of the US population Vs 30% for YVR. Obviously the red would stretch further west for flights with a more eastward trajectory and vice versa with the blue, but you get the gist of it.

So here's my point, if AC want's to fill its new longhauls to Delhi or wherever their next destination may be, they should be more aggressive in that blue box. BOS may be a strong O&D market, but we're not really going to pull anyone but the most price sensitive passengers for connections through YVR from that side of the continent, the routing just doesn't make sense. But cities in that blue shape we can be very competitive on, especially with AC's partner Air China offering stupid cheap fares to PEK.

I'm not going to throw out any specific cities, because I don't mean to bog it down into individual route analysis, I'm just pointing out what I think ACs strategy is with regards to hubs and why I don't think they are pushing hard enough to fill their planes with US PAX. Cities in the middle and east make no sense for YVR to chase outside of a pure O&D argument, but I have to think if AC really want's to commit to a YVR hub they need to take a plunge on some of the more strategical competitive western cities.

SFUVancouver
Sep 23, 2016, 6:57 PM
I don't see this as a debate, just more of a discussion. This thread can get pretty quiet for days on end, and while I appreciate the tedium of saying the same thing over and over again I don't think that is necessarily what is happening here. No one here is disputing the O&D numbers or the retaliative strength of YVR's transborder draw, I think we're all clear on that.

What I will question is a simple NPV=negative calculation. There are so many assumptions that any financial pro forma is simply an estimate. my only issue with AC's level of Transborder is not that AC doesn't serve what NEEDS to be served, it's that they don't take risks to pull PAX who would otherwise connect in SFO or ORD. AC has shown a willingness to take a dive into weak markets at YYZ that they don't seem to show at YVR. It's not a big deal,but if they are actually serious on making YVR a western hub they might need to do a little more than dip their toes in the US market.

The way I see AC's view of North America is somewhat Like this:

http://i.imgur.com/uv7JNQc.png

The blue share represents where connections through YVR would be advantageous and the red shape represents YYZ with some overlap in the middle where flying time is quite similar. Though YYZ's shape is only slightly larger its worth noting it's about 70% of the US population Vs 30% for YVR. Obviously the red would stretch further west for flights with a more eastward trajectory and vice versa with the blue, but you get the gist of it.

So here's my point, if AC want's to fill its new longhauls to Delhi or wherever their next destination may be, they should be more aggressive in that blue box. BOS may be a strong O&D market, but we're not really going to pull anyone but the most price sensitive passengers for connections through YVR from that side of the continent, the routing just doesn't make sense. But cities in that blue shape we can be very competitive on, especially with AC's partner Air China offering stupid cheap fares to PEK.

I'm not going to throw out any specific cities, because I don't mean to bog it down into individual route analysis, I'm just pointing out what I think ACs strategy is with regards to hubs and why I don't think they are pushing hard enough to fill their planes with US PAX. Cities in the middle and east make no sense for YVR to chase outside of a pure O&D argument, but I have to think if AC really want's to commit to a YVR hub they need to take a plunge on some of the more strategical competitive western cities.

Thanks for the great post. I agree that this is a discussion and not a debate. I, for one, am not trying to "win" anything by sharing some cities that I would like to see YVR pair with in the years ahead.

I agree that Air Canada should be more aggressive at connecting YVR to important US markets west of the Mississippi, and ideally a few long-thin routes to the remaining major eastern hubs, and I think that we'll see that when they begin taking delivery of their new narrow body fleet in the years ahead.

Air Canada's new B737Max-8s and CS-300s will give them a significantly lower CASM than their current fleet of Airbus narrow bodies (A319, A320, and A321) and Embraer E-190s. In particular, the Airbus fleet is pretty old with the average age of the A320s topping 23 years, and the A319s and A321s still pushing 18+ and 13+ years, respectively.

YVR will never be a hub on par with YYZ, that's just not going to happen, but it will be hard to recognize YVR in a couple of decade's time and that makes me pretty excited.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 23, 2016, 8:33 PM
When it was called "phase two" I thought it was part of an already existing plan. Thanks for clarification though

To be fair, there was always going to be a phase two for the international concourse expansion. I think the timing of it now just seems to coincide with the imminent announcement of the overall expansion plan as part of YVR2037.

Without a doubt though, the phase 2 extension of the D concourse will be one of the first projects if not the first project to get off the ground. As nname's comprehensive graphic illustrated my comment about gate availability during the peak hours between 1000 - 1400, this is now getting crucial to be able to continue the growth YVR is currently enjoying.

Planning large projects like this are always so difficult in forecasting the future needs... Overbuild and get blamed for unwarranted costs. Don't build enough and get blamed for a facility that can't cope. A lot of airports experience the latter. MEL is a classic case of its enormous success of growth only to find a facility that is so strained now they haven't been able to build enough quick enough. MEL has experienced double digit international growth for a couple of years now and the list of new / additional services is even longer than YVR's. We have been waiting for an "imminent" announcement to deal with the crush for over a year now knowing that even if announced tomorrow new facilities will be years away. So they have resorted to bussing passengers to remote stands all over the shop.

YVR is being led by a very competent leader with a fantastic team who really seem to have the right stuff to forge YVR into the future. He knows who his competitors are and is pursuing their next phase of expansion carefully but they know they need to move fast. YVR's list of new / additional international and transborder services that I have provided recently just indicates how much YVR has gained and is still to gain in the near future. They will have to move fast and I am confident they will.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 23, 2016, 11:56 PM
Looks like MU is back to double daily to PVG. The 3 weekly planned YVR-NKG-KMG appear to be gone and the flights now back at PVG. Not sure what happened there but in any event still an increase from last winter as only 10 flights per week last winter.

The three flights per week to KMG via PVG remain.

nname
Sep 24, 2016, 10:51 PM
does YVR-NKG ever scheduled, or just an application to CAAC?

I thought YVR-CGO-CTU is starting Nov, but still doesn't seems to be bookable now...

Saw someone airliners mention YVR-MAN on AC Rouge starting April.. wonder that's really happening or just an fantasy...

jacobparry
Sep 25, 2016, 12:29 AM
From the Canada-China joint statement on Friday following Li Keqiang's visit
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-09/24/c_135710458.htm

16. Agreeing to further enhance our bilateral air transport relationship through recent negotiations, which expanded the Canada-China air transport agreement. Both sides also agreed to meet again in 2017 to discuss a further expansion of air transport rights.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 25, 2016, 12:41 AM
does YVR-NKG ever scheduled, or just an application to CAAC?

I thought YVR-CGO-CTU is starting Nov, but still doesn't seems to be bookable now...

Saw someone airliners mention YVR-MAN on AC Rouge starting April.. wonder that's really happening or just an fantasy...

Chinese carriers are notorious for last minute adds. Doesn't give much for advance bookings but they eat the upfront losses as part of their subsidies.

The three flights per week to PVG were "removed" for the NKG flights but have been subsequently added back. See what happens.

As for rouge my source tells me (at least) one of the 763s coming online next year will be added to the YVR base.... still unconfirmed. MAN, GLA, NGO, CDG still possibilities.


From the Canada-China joint statement on Friday following Li Keqiang's visit
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-09/24/c_135710458.htm

16. Agreeing to further enhance our bilateral air transport relationship through recent negotiations, which expanded the Canada-China air transport agreement. Both sides also agreed to meet again in 2017 to discuss a further expansion of air transport rights.

Yes, but the pressure AC put on it was blocked by the Canadian side. I highly doubt AC will cease its opposition because China wants 100 flights per week.
Talks will definitely be ongoing but I wouldn't expect any movement without concessions being offered. AC still has plenty of unused slots.

YVR Bruce
Sep 25, 2016, 1:16 AM
I'm thinking some of any extra 2017 capacity would go on the DUB route. The Irish staff at my business - the ones that had to fly home via LHR/LGW - reported high fares or no seat availability on the nonstop.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 25, 2016, 1:35 AM
I'm thinking some of any extra 2017 capacity would go on the DUB route. The Irish staff at my business - the ones that had to fly home via LHR/LGW - reported high fares or no seat availability on the nonstop.

Correct. That is also a possibility. Quite a few options being assessed.

One frame could manage a few extra DUB plus another Euro route and / or NGO or CTS for example.

The good thing about even just one extra 763 based at YVR can potentially open up an additional 6-7 weekly flights. And each of the destinations mentioned can be reached return within 24 hours including block times. So one could imagine they could easily hit some additional routes targeted at leisure travelers like 3pw to CDG 3pw to NGO and another 1pw to DUB. Or even make KIX daily (+1pw ), 2 additional pw to DUB, 3pw to CDG and 1pw to GLA.

SFUVancouver
Sep 25, 2016, 2:15 AM
Are Rouge's "new" 767s transfers from mainline Air Canada, new leases, or purchases?

excel
Sep 25, 2016, 4:07 AM
Transfers from mainline.

jmt18325
Sep 25, 2016, 4:51 AM
Aren't some of them from other sources?

Orcair
Sep 25, 2016, 12:36 PM
Transfers from mainline.

Aren't some of them from other sources?

AFAIK, some have come from Hawaiian and Caribbean, alongside the mainline transfers - the Hawaiian ones had the 777-esque overhead bins from the start, although I don't know if Rouge retrofitted them to the old AC ones?

jmt18325
Sep 25, 2016, 4:47 PM
I've never been on a 777, but both of the Rouge 767s I was on (one with winglets, one without) had bins that went flush into the ceiling.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 25, 2016, 7:08 PM
YVR is being led by a very competent leader with a fantastic team who really seem to have the right stuff to forge YVR into the future. He knows who his competitors are and is pursuing their next phase of expansion carefully but they know they need to move fast. YVR's list of new / additional international and transborder services that I have provided recently just indicates how much YVR has gained and is still to gain in the near future. They will have to move fast and I am confident they will.

As I was saying...

http://www.aci-na.org/newsroom/press-releases/aci-na-honors-vancouver’s-richmond-visionary-leadership-award

excel
Sep 25, 2016, 7:38 PM
AFAIK, some have come from Hawaiian and Caribbean, alongside the mainline transfers - the Hawaiian ones had the 777-esque overhead bins from the start, although I don't know if Rouge retrofitted them to the old AC ones?

Thanks for the clarification.

trofirhen
Sep 25, 2016, 8:44 PM
As I was saying...

http://www.aci-na.org/newsroom/press-releases/aci-na-honors-vancouver’s-richmond-visionary-leadership-award
Thanks for that reinforcement, Johnny. Craig Richmond is our man. He will lead YVR forward with the best know-how in the industry. We can be confident with him at the helm.

LeftCoaster
Sep 26, 2016, 8:00 PM
Saw someone airliners mention YVR-MAN on AC Rouge starting April.. wonder that's really happening or just an fantasy...

Hmm interesting. As much as AC to MAN would be interesting, the route is already served by 3xPW Transat. Would be nice to see a new 763 open up a new route, but I'm just being picky :)


As for rouge my source tells me (at least) one of the 763s coming online next year will be added to the YVR base.... still unconfirmed. MAN, GLA, NGO, CDG still possibilities.


Sounds like anything that is currently a Transast route is in play! Has AC stated how many 763s they would like stationed at YVR?



Yes, but the pressure AC put on it was blocked by the Canadian side. I highly doubt AC will cease its opposition because China wants 100 flights per week.
Talks will definitely be ongoing but I wouldn't expect any movement without concessions being offered. AC still has plenty of unused slots.

You're quite likely right, I doubt AC would tone down the pressure, but the alternative is the Chinese could turn up the pressure. There are a lot of ways the Chinese government could put pressure on the feds to open up more routes, or ways they could offer more of a carrot as opposed to the stick.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 26, 2016, 8:44 PM
Hmm interesting. As much as AC to MAN would be interesting, the route is already served by 3xPW Transat. Would be nice to see a new 763 open up a new route, but I'm just being picky :)



Sounds like anything that is currently a Transast route is in play! Has AC stated how many 763s they would like stationed at YVR?



You're quite likely right, I doubt AC would tone down the pressure, but the alternative is the Chinese could turn up the pressure. There are a lot of ways the Chinese government could put pressure on the feds to open up more routes, or ways they could offer more of a carrot as opposed to the stick.

TS is only twice weekly to MAN and once weekly to GLA.

NGO is definitely in play and is a serious contender for new flights (well another long time abandoned route that will most likely be reinstated soon).

Apparently the Chinese were putting on a lot of pressure but got nowhere this time. Hmmmm.

LeftCoaster
Sep 26, 2016, 8:54 PM
TS is only twice weekly to MAN and once weekly to GLA.

Weird, their website shows bookings available for Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday next summer YVR-MAN direct aboard A330-200s.


NGO is definitely in play and is a serious contender for new flights (well another long time abandoned route that will most likely be reinstated soon).

Apparently the Chinese were putting on a lot pressure but got nowhere this time. Hmmmm.

NGO would be a great connection, not even LAX flies there as far as I can tell.

Will be interesting to see if the Chinese tactic changes. I doubt they would be pressing for another round of negotiations if they were going to go in with the same playbook. Given their geopolitical heft I'm sure they can pull some more strings they didn't first time around.

trofirhen
Sep 26, 2016, 9:18 PM
NGO would be a great connection, not even LAX flies there as far as I can tell.

Will be interesting to see if the Chinese tactic changes. I doubt they would be pressing for another round of negotiations if they were going to go in with the same playbook. Given their geopolitical heft I'm sure they can pull some more strings they didn't first time around.
Isn't NGO Nagoya, Japan?
If so, two questions please: Firstly, why would NGO be such a great connection; secondly how does the Chinese governement fit in here, if this is Japan? Thank you. :)

Johnny Aussie
Sep 26, 2016, 9:22 PM
Weird, their website shows bookings available for Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday next summer YVR-MAN direct aboard A330-200s.



NGO would be a great connection, not even LAX flies there as far as I can tell.

Will be interesting to see if the Chinese tactic changes. I doubt they would be pressing for another round of negotiations if they were going to go in with the same playbook. Given their geopolitical heft I'm sure they can pull some more strings they didn't first time around.

You are right! I forgot next summer one of the YYC-MAN flights will now originate in YVR. 3 weekly it is!

NGO was a decent route 5 x per week during the old CP days. It's on AC's rouge radar.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 26, 2016, 9:25 PM
Isn't NGO Nagoya, Japan?
If so, two questions please: Firstly, why would NGO be such a great connection; secondly how does the Chinese governement fit in here, if this is Japan? Thank you. :)

NGO was a decent route flown by CP back in the 90s... It's ripe for the picking again a la rouge.

Japan has outsourced its bilateral negotiations to China.

MalcolmTucker
Sep 26, 2016, 9:39 PM
NGO was a decent route flown by CP back in the 90s... It's ripe for the picking again a la rouge.

Japan has outsourced its bilateral negotiations to China.

Really that much of a cost savings vs. Kansai? Or is it that for some the different destination will be a draw, but the price sensitive any airport in Japan is fine?

Johnny Aussie
Sep 26, 2016, 10:30 PM
Really that much of a cost savings vs. Kansai? Or is it that for some the different destination will be a draw, but the price sensitive any airport in Japan is fine?

NGO is the third largest source of visitors to YVR (and Canada as a whole) after Tokyo and Osaka of course. FUK is #4 well ahead of #5 CTS. To put it in perspective both the NGO-YVR and FUK-YVR markets are much larger than the entire Japan-Edmonton market. And NGO-YVR is larger than KIX-YYC. My point is YVR-NGO is the next likely rouge destination to Japan from Canada given the aircraft capabilities and market size. Even 2 -3 per week would be good.

LeftCoaster
Sep 26, 2016, 10:42 PM
Isn't NGO Nagoya, Japan?
If so, two questions please: Firstly, why would NGO be such a great connection; secondly how does the Chinese governement fit in here, if this is Japan? Thank you. :)

Nagoya is a metro of 9.1 million residents with no direct service to mainland North America, how would that not be a great connection?

And like Johnny said bilateral services have been outsourced to China for cost savings purposes.

You are right! I forgot next summer one of the YYC-MAN flights will now originate in YVR. 3 weekly it is!

So is one of them a circuit? When I went back and looked it seems like there are 3 outbound per week but only 2 inbound. Knowing AT I'm guessing one route goes YVR-MAN-YYC-YVR-MAN?

Johnny Aussie
Sep 26, 2016, 11:03 PM
Nagoya is a metro of 9.1 million residents with no direct service to mainland North America, how would that not be a great connection?

And like Johnny said bilateral services have been outsourced to China for cost savings purposes.



So is one of them a circuit? When I went back and looked it seems like there are 3 outbound per week but only 2 inbound. Knowing AT I'm guessing one route goes YVR-MAN-YYC-YVR-MAN?

DL does actually fly NGO-DTW but that is only b/c of the auto industry.

And you are right again about TS. Perhaps they do position the second MAN-YYC to YVR as a domestic flight which they seem to be doing on a few now next summer. Would mean all pax get off in YYC and clear customs then reboard as domestic and hence why it doesn't show as direct to YVR. When I have the time and patience later I will investigate that.

I think Japan has only outsourced its bilateral negotiations to China for flights from Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku. Hokkaido still negotiates on its own so any flights to Sapporo would still have to be negotiated directly with Japan and Canada.

jmt18325
Sep 26, 2016, 11:07 PM
I'm confused as to why they would outsource to the country that isn't always their friend.

Hourglass
Sep 26, 2016, 11:26 PM
@ Johnny @LeftCoaster

Lol

LeftCoaster
Sep 26, 2016, 11:36 PM
I think Japan has only outsourced its bilateral negotiations to China for flights from Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku. Hokkaido still negotiates on its own so any flights to Sapporo would still have to be negotiated directly with Japan and Canada.

Ugh, so given the Chinese bilateral cap that means no new flights to Tokyo, Osaka or Nagoya until the number of flights are listed. How frustrating.

I guess that increases the odds of seeing a direct to CTS though, so that's a bit of a silver lining.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 27, 2016, 1:11 AM
Ugh, so given the Chinese bilateral cap that means no new flights to Tokyo, Osaka or Nagoya until the number of flights are listed. How frustrating.

I guess that increases the odds of seeing a direct to CTS though, so that's a bit of a silver lining.

Don't forget the cap hasn't been reached on the Canadian side. Unfortunately though that does mean the daily flights from YVR, YYZ and YYC to NRT and the daily YYZ-HND and the 6 weekly YVR-KIX now have to be included on the Canadian side. That still leaves about 7 unused frequencies. So I still see NGO in the picture! It just means any of the new flights won't be on JAL or ANA... although I would highly doubt we would see them on routes to KIX or NGO anyway even if there wasn't the cap being reached.

jmt18325
Sep 27, 2016, 1:35 AM
Can I find more information about this combining of caps somewhere? I've looked but I haven't found anything.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 27, 2016, 4:19 AM
Funny how we were JUST talking about this!

Effective 1 June 2017 Air Canada rouge will launch seasonal three weekly YVR - NGO.

AC1955 YVR 1245 - 1515+1 NGO 246 763
AC1956 NGO 1640 - 0955 YVR 357 763

excel
Sep 27, 2016, 4:38 AM
Wow awesome! AC has really stepped their Japan game out of YVR!

jmt18325
Sep 27, 2016, 4:45 AM
Air Canada is becoming a real powerhouse of an international airline.

Did you mean 2017 though?

Johnny Aussie
Sep 27, 2016, 5:10 AM
Air Canada is becoming a real powerhouse of an international airline.

Did you mean 2017 though?

I did! Thanks for the correction... Fixed!

Just remember everybody... You heard it here first!!

jmt18325
Sep 27, 2016, 6:13 AM
And only here so far. Looks like you got the jump on this one.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 27, 2016, 6:22 AM
And only here so far. Looks like you got the jump on this one.

Once in awhile I get to be first! It's been awhile... Last time was the second daily LHR on AC!

nname
Sep 27, 2016, 7:27 AM
Since YVR-NGO only runs for 3 days, would there be another new route and/or additional frequency for the other 4 days of that plane? :D

Johnny Aussie
Sep 27, 2016, 7:59 AM
Since YVR-NGO only runs for 3 days, would there be another new route and/or additional frequency for the other 4 days of that plane? :D

That still remains a mystery!! All will be revealed soon.

Hourglass
Sep 27, 2016, 9:43 AM
I did! Thanks for the correction... Fixed!

Just remember everybody... You heard it here first!!

Good to see AC continuing to expand. Haven't seen anything about this on the news yet though...? Inside info, Johnny?

Johnny Aussie
Sep 27, 2016, 9:58 AM
Good to see AC continuing to expand. Haven't seen anything about this on the news yet though...? Inside info, Johnny?

All will be revealed soon! :)

I would never publish anything that is not public in some form or another.

NewfBC
Sep 27, 2016, 12:47 PM
.... whoops

mezzanine
Sep 27, 2016, 2:00 PM
Great news about the NGO. I await the official announcement - even routesonline seems distracted with their chengdu conference.


I's still incredulous about Japan outsourcing bilateral negotiations to china. Why hand your geopolitical rival power over a major economic driver?

mezzanine
Sep 27, 2016, 2:10 PM
And I have to try to find the link but I read somewhere that most of the YYZ-CPH passengers are not from YYZ< but from other flights. No link, but i'll try to tumble across it..
----


Found the source. 90% of YYZ-CPH traffic is connecting traffic. (http://www.cacairports.ca/sites/default/files/CAC_CTA_Review_Submission.pdf) (Page 23). I'm not an insider, but this seems really small O+D and makes me think that YVR has less barriers to building a hub than people realise, if one is worried about O+D traffic.

YYZ is upping the aviation fuel tax in 2017 so I suspect it may slow AC's YYZ's growth, with hopefully more attention being shown to YVR.

jmt18325
Sep 27, 2016, 3:10 PM
It's doubtful that Air Canada will shift their strategy of Pearson being their mega hub. They work in very close partnership with the GTAA.

I mean, the entire idea of Pearson is to funnel almost all of Air Canada's connecting traffic. That's the strategy of both Air Canada and the GTAA.

mezzanine
Sep 27, 2016, 4:21 PM
It's doubtful that Air Canada will shift their strategy of Pearson being their mega hub. They work in very close partnership with the GTAA.

I mean, the entire idea of Pearson is to funnel almost all of Air Canada's connecting traffic. That's the strategy of both Air Canada and the GTAA.

I'm not saying YVR will supplant YYZ. The fact that the bulk of canada's and the USA's population is in the east will never make that happen. I'm saying that there is a viability for further new routes for AC out of YVR, more than one would expect wrt O+D traffic if you cultivate the network.

By the same token, Ontario's aviation fuel tax increase (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fuel-tax-hike-will-likely-push-airfares-higher-officials-say-1.2712843) won't make AC cut service at YYZ or not make it its premier hub, but may draw its attention to route developemnt at its other hubs, such as YVR.

CareerShow
Sep 27, 2016, 5:15 PM
Would anyone else think it feasible for AC to begin flying to Denver and Houston as other US destinations currently unserved?

trofirhen
Sep 27, 2016, 9:13 PM
Would anyone else think it feasible for AC to begin flying to Denver and Houston as other US destinations currently unserved?
As an outsider, I think it might be feasible for AC to serve Denver and Houston, provided there is enough yield. United (a *Alliance partner) already has nonstops to both.

twoNeurons
Sep 27, 2016, 10:15 PM
Just think... once Japan's new Chuo bullet train connects Nagoya and Tokyo (2027)... you may be able to get into Tokyo faster through Nagoya than flying to Narita.

Hop on a cheap Rouge flight to Nagoya, take the train from Nagoya airport to downtown (28 minutes) and then hop on the next train to Shinagawa station ( +40 minutes ).

The train from Narita takes 75 minutes to Shinagawa.

:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

CareerShow
Sep 27, 2016, 10:41 PM
Just think... once Japan's new Chuo bullet train connects Nagoya and Tokyo (2027)... you may be able to get into Tokyo faster through Nagoya than flying to Narita.

Hop on a cheap Rouge flight to Nagoya, take the train from Nagoya airport to downtown (28 minutes) and then hop on the next train to Shinagawa station ( +40 minutes ).

The train from Narita takes 75 minutes to Shinagawa.

:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:
Yes however this requires sitting on a Rouge jet for 9ish hours.... Bad seats, bad service, and overall fairly unprofessional.

Cage
Sep 27, 2016, 11:14 PM
Since YVR-NGO only runs for 3 days, would there be another new route and/or additional frequency for the other 4 days of that plane? :D

KIX and NGO are only 94 miles apart. Bigger question is how will YVR-NGO affect YVR-KIX.

My guess would be to have YVR-NGO at 4 weekly and KIX-NGO the other three weekly.

Cage
Sep 27, 2016, 11:27 PM
Would anyone else think it feasible for AC to begin flying to Denver and Houston as other US destinations currently unserved?

IAH has a unique history that prevents mainline from flying into the city. When AC restructured through bankruptcy court, the contract with the Teamsters union provided that AC would have incur a huge ground support penalty should mainline aircraft ever return to IAH. Therefore YYZ and YYC services are completed using CRA and E75 aircraft at regional. The bad news for YVR-IAH is that both regional aircraft do not have enough range for the route.

Denver is possible on either mainline or Express. A CRA first thing in the morning would do well for Asian connection bank. The only problem is that do feed the Asian connection bank requires at least 2 daily flights, otherwise its a long overnight connection (or a lot of sitting around time for the aircraft).

jmt18325
Sep 27, 2016, 11:49 PM
Yes however this requires sitting on a Rouge jet for 9ish hours.... Bad seats, bad service, and overall fairly unprofessional.


You're entitled to your opinion, but I sat on a Rouge flight from YYZ to ATH and back, and was pleasantly surprised with the comfort and the service. I'd do it again in a heart beat. My only complaint was the recline of the seats at only 3' - just means I need a better pillow.

nname
Sep 27, 2016, 11:55 PM
Yes however this requires sitting on a Rouge jet for 9ish hours.... Bad seats, bad service, and overall fairly unprofessional.

The service and comfort I got from Rouge was miles ahead of what I got from any US carrier for the past 10 or so years... well save for that DL flight to ATL about 8 years ago, but that might partially due to only having about 50 other passengers on that 757 flight :D

For some reason, I find the seat from my last UA flight more cramped than Rouge, even though the pitch is officially 1 inch larger (30in vs 29in).

trofirhen
Sep 28, 2016, 1:08 AM
I still cannot understand why there is only seasonal Rouge to San Diego. Surely there is a big enough market there for year-round service. Any explanations?

LeftCoaster
Sep 28, 2016, 3:54 AM
^^ 99% certain Air Canada has gone to daily CRJs on express. The route is no longer Rouge.

Don't forget the cap hasn't been reached on the Canadian side. Unfortunately though that does mean the daily flights from YVR, YYZ and YYC to NRT and the daily YYZ-HND and the 6 weekly YVR-KIX now have to be included on the Canadian side. That still leaves about 7 unused frequencies. So I still see NGO in the picture! It just means any of the new flights won't be on JAL or ANA... although I would highly doubt we would see them on routes to KIX or NGO anyway even if there wasn't the cap being reached.

Ahh I keep forgetting cap is 2 way. Including your NGO announcement I guess that leaves 4 flights to Japan and China now from Canada ;)

Still waiting on JAL to bump us up to a 789. Not sure if the route is doing that well but with the better economics of the 789 it shouldn't take much.

Funny how we were JUST talking about this!

Effective 1 June 2017 Air Canada rouge will launch seasonal three weekly YVR - NGO.

AC1955 YVR 1245 - 1515+1 NGO 246 763
AC1956 NGO 1640 - 0955 YVR 357 763

Fantastic news, well news for us. clearly you were toying with us the entire time.

Will be interesting to see how this effects KIX. I think the region is easily large enough to support 1 daily or more, so 5 or 6 to KIX and 3 to NGO doesn't necessarily seem like too much capacity to me. At this point AC seems to agree, but we'll see if their schedule changes at all in the coming months.


Denver is possible on either mainline or Express. A CRA first thing in the morning would do well for Asian connection bank. The only problem is that do feed the Asian connection bank requires at least 2 daily flights, otherwise its a long overnight connection (or a lot of sitting around time for the aircraft).

Well united already sends a flight early morning that ties well to the Asian bank, so maybe Air Canada would be smart to send an evening flight to get connecting PAX home.

nname
Sep 28, 2016, 4:34 AM
so you mean Japan+China combined to have 89 weeklies on both sides? Doesn't seems to add up on the Canadian side.

I remember reading the bilateral years ago for Japan/Canada that allows unlimited frequency and beyond right from Tokyo/Vancouver. I wonder what happened to that...

Either way, more frequency is more likely to approve if AC had used all of them up too, which... might happen before the next talk?

Johnny Aussie
Sep 28, 2016, 4:50 AM
^^ 99% certain Air Canada has gone to daily CRJs on express. The route is no longer Rouge.



Ahh I keep forgetting cap is 2 way. Including your NGO announcement I guess that leaves 4 flights to Japan and China now from Canada ;)

Still waiting on JAL to bump us up to a 789. Not sure if the route is doing that well but with the better economics of the 789 it shouldn't take much.



Fantastic news, well news for us. clearly you were toying with us the entire time.

Will be interesting to see how this effects KIX. I think the region is easily large enough to support 1 daily or more, so 5 or 6 to KIX and 3 to NGO doesn't necessarily seem like too much capacity to me. At this point AC seems to agree, but we'll see if their schedule changes at all in the coming months.



Well united already sends a flight early morning that ties well to the Asian bank, so maybe Air Canada would be smart to send an evening flight to get connecting PAX home.

To avoid any further confusion with multi-topic replies I'll reply in a bullet format.

1) I am 100% certain! Yes SAN will become daily Jazz CRA year round starting in December. It's still scheduled as Jazz next summer so assuming it has been permanently de-rouged. Wouldn't surprise me at all if this goes double daily Jazz or they add a daily flight to Fresno as well. Despite the quote from the classic Airplane! "Fresno!? Nobody goes to Fresno anymore!" I beg to differ.

2) I think the cap has now been reformulated due to the Japan/China tie up. Neither country thought it was fair that the cap would be based on combined country frequencies. Even though China negotiates on Japan's behalf the cap to China remains at 76 flights per week only. Japan remains open skies so that solves that conundrum.

3) ah yes JAL.... seems to be the ONLY route from YVR that hasn't seen a bump in capacity for years. Perhaps 2017 is the year to go 789?

4) My understanding is that KIX has performed very well for AC rouge. I don't think there is a plan to reduce frequencies. I am unaware anyway. The NGO flights are a pure gain to the region. Despite their close proximity, the entire Osaka, Kobe, Kyoto, Nagoya region is a very densely populated area of around 30 million people.

5) I think AC will leave DEN up to UA for now. Three daily in summer, twice daily in winter. Colorado Springs on the other hand..... as friends in Denver call it... the other airport just down the road. Very underserved airport, therefore, clearly in need of more flights!

Denscity
Sep 28, 2016, 4:52 AM
Gucci has now opened in the International Departures area.

nname
Sep 28, 2016, 4:58 AM
if Japan remains open skies, then Canada should have 41 weeklies left to China.. or its only one-sided :???:

CareerShow
Sep 28, 2016, 5:10 AM
Ive been on rouge a few times, once from Venice to Toronto, once to Palm Springs, and some people i know to Cuba from Toronto I believe. Each time consistent feedback has been bad service, unprofessional undertrained staff, and terrible seat pitch and width as well as legroom. I have found UA far more comfortable than rouge and would actually fly around Rouge.

CareerShow
Sep 28, 2016, 5:16 AM
Also anyone have any idea how JAL does with their very sparse seating on 787 aircraft. Only 165 on certain 789 and 195 on 789, some airlines jam as many seats onto narrow body aircraft. Can anyone comment on how much more comfortable, if indeed it is more comfortable, these aircraft are over other carriers?

excel
Sep 28, 2016, 5:37 AM
JAL's 787 is the only 787 I've been on so I can't compare it but I can say it sure was the most comfortable aircraft I have ever flown on. Great service as well. Food was above average but not great.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 28, 2016, 10:58 AM
Daily year-round 787-9 effective 8 June 2017

http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1064

Can't find any flight info yet... Will update when I can.

The NGO service is included in this announcement.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 28, 2016, 11:18 AM
Funny how we were JUST talking about this!

Effective 1 June 2017 Air Canada rouge will launch seasonal three weekly YVR - NGO.

AC1955 YVR 1245 - 1515+1 NGO 246 763
AC1956 NGO 1640 - 0955 YVR 357 763

Effective July 31 the route increases to 4 weekly

AC1955 YVR 1245 - 1515+1 NGO 1246 763
AC1956 NGO 1640 - 0955 YVR 2357 763

Orcair
Sep 28, 2016, 11:32 AM
Also anyone have any idea how JAL does with their very sparse seating on 787 aircraft. Only 165 on certain 789 and 195 on 789, some airlines jam as many seats onto narrow body aircraft. Can anyone comment on how much more comfortable, if indeed it is more comfortable, these aircraft are over other carriers?

Way more comfortable than AC in Y, but I like AC's pods better than the JL staggered J. But then again, having 8-abreast in Y on JAL vs. 9-abreast on every other carrier will do that - their seats are (iirc) an inch wider and have 34" seat pitch vs. 31" on AC.

Gordon
Sep 28, 2016, 12:25 PM
Nice to se air canada continuing to build their Vancouver Hub.
YVR an has always been a difficult route for some reason, both AC & alaska have tried it ub successfully over the years. yet Ws has had a fair bit of success with their Orange county route.

It would be great if West Jet would make its YVR SFO route year around?

Hourglass
Sep 28, 2016, 3:10 PM
Daily year-round 787-9 effective 8 June 2017

http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1064

Can't find any flight info yet... Will update when I can.

The NGO service is included in this announcement.

Wow, a bit surprised by daily TPE as I understand it'a a pretty low-yield route. Wonder if they'll codeshare with BR?

AC really growing YVR!

Jebby
Sep 28, 2016, 3:15 PM
Also anyone have any idea how JAL does with their very sparse seating on 787 aircraft. Only 165 on certain 789 and 195 on 789, some airlines jam as many seats onto narrow body aircraft. Can anyone comment on how much more comfortable, if indeed it is more comfortable, these aircraft are over other carriers?

Wow, I just looked it up and JAL has 161 or 186 seats on their 788s and 195 on their 789s. They actually have more seats on some of their 737-800s (165) than their least dense 788s!!

Compare that to AeroMexico which has 243 on their 788s and 263 on their 789s.

mezzanine
Sep 28, 2016, 3:16 PM
Wow! Good to see NGO, a little surprised to see TPE on AC. Didn't see that on the radar. EVA Air (BR) already has a daily red eye from YVR to arrive in TPE early in the AM. The service is really good and it arrives first thing in the AM in TPE to connect well to BR's network to SE asia. The 747 it flies is old, but serviceable and will be inevitably be replaced by something newer.

AC's service has a niche as I suspect AC wants to get NA transfer traffic to TPE/Taiwan, while BR is getting people going onwards to its SE asian network. BR already serves ORD, YYZ, IAH, the west coast, YYZ and NY, so it would be interesting to see what traffic AC gets.

I think it should do well as I was wondering why BR upped its service to SEA with a mid-day flight but not YVR and I suppose this is why. IF AC is mid-day it should get a lot of AC connecting traffic.

mezzanine
Sep 28, 2016, 3:30 PM
And is getting mainline versus rouge going to be a thing now?