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

nname
Sep 28, 2016, 3:47 PM
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!

I bet 2017 will be the last year we see BR's 747 flying as passenger variant.

If they codeshare with AC, they can finally replace them with 777 without an overall loss of capacity.

CareerShow
Sep 28, 2016, 5:39 PM
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.


Or AC with 250 on 788 and 300 basically on the 789

Cage
Sep 28, 2016, 5:57 PM
I bet 2017 will be the last year we see BR's 747 flying as passenger variant.

If they codeshare with AC, they can finally replace them with 777 without an overall loss of capacity.


The BR 744s are slated for retirement by March 2017.

The 744 retirement creates a problem for BR on YVR-TPE. The 77W is meant to replace the 744, but the configuration of the 77W is too premium cabin heavy for the route. The BR 744 configuration is comparable to the AC 777HD and 789. My guess is that BR will put a 77W onto YVR-TPE but will be spilling a lot of traffic and yield over to AC. It would not surprise me if AC takes over the route unless yield performance improves for BR (either that or BR introduces a High Density configuration for their 77Ws.

For comparison, AC 77W have 400 seats while BR 77W has 330. Only 25 of the 70 seat difference is due to AC having 10 across while BR has 9 across. The majority of the difference is due to configuration of the premium cabins.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 28, 2016, 6:10 PM
YVR's press release about TPE and NGO

http://www.yvr.ca/en/media/news-releases/air-canada-introduces-nonstop-service-to-nagoya-and-taipei

So with this latest announcement Air Canada at YVR has either added or announced these 9 new international routes this year:

BNE, DUB, DEL, TPE, NGO, ORD, SAN, SJC and DFW.

Nice to see AC's "2018 Network Opportunities" map slowly becoming a reality.... refer to page 8.

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media/presentations/documents/ben_smith_las_vegas_aug312015.pdf

go_leafs_go02
Sep 28, 2016, 6:14 PM
Yes however this requires sitting on a Rouge jet for 9ish hours.... Bad seats, bad service, and overall fairly unprofessional.

Avoid Rouge like the plague. They fly Abbotsford to Toronto on Rouge and that's 4.5 hours and unbearable. They shave 2 inches off every row to cram 2 more rows in the plane.

CareerShow
Sep 28, 2016, 6:24 PM
YVR's press release about TPE and NGO

http://www.yvr.ca/en/media/news-releases/air-canada-introduces-nonstop-service-to-nagoya-and-taipei

So with this latest announcement Air Canada at YVR has either added or announced these 9 new international routes this year:

BNE, DUB, DEL, TPE, NGO, ORD, SAN, SJC and DFW.

Nice to see AC's "2018 Network Opportunities" map slowly becoming a reality.... refer to page 8.

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media/presentations/documents/ben_smith_las_vegas_aug312015.pdf
You can basically add Cancun to that list no?
Also would Guangzhou or Auckland be the next two likely destinations for AC?

Johnny Aussie
Sep 28, 2016, 6:26 PM
You can basically add Cancun to that list no?

CUN has really been an on again off again destination for years actually as with most of the Mexico destinations.

Cage
Sep 28, 2016, 6:29 PM
I trust the announcements by AC this year have satisfied even the most hardened "No love from AC" town criers.


Finally we are over 10,000 posts so I welcome the opportunity for one final post before this thread is locked.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm111/rollo_tomassi7/ibtl.gif

Johnny Aussie
Sep 28, 2016, 6:31 PM
The BR 744s are slated for retirement by March 2017.

The 744 retirement creates a problem for BR on YVR-TPE. The 77W is meant to replace the 744, but the configuration of the 77W is too premium cabin heavy for the route. The BR 744 configuration is comparable to the AC 777HD and 789. My guess is that BR will put a 77W onto YVR-TPE but will be spilling a lot of traffic and yield over to AC. It would not surprise me if AC takes over the route unless yield performance improves for BR (either that or BR introduces a High Density configuration for their 77Ws.

For comparison, AC 77W have 400 seats while BR 77W has 330. Only 25 of the 70 seat difference is due to AC having 10 across while BR has 9 across. The majority of the difference is due to configuration of the premium cabins.

The BR 77W has only 3 more J seats than the BR 744 and the same number of prem economy seats. Also, their 77Ws have the new J class so would be a service improvement. Of course where they would lose is the loss of 40 Y seats.
So although the 77W is much more premium heavy it actually adds just a negligible amount of premium seats.
But definitely a HD 77W would be more suitable for YVR.
If they co-operate properly, AC could easily absorb the loss of economy seats and grow the route overall.
I just cannot see BR pull out of YVR... they have been wanting to go daily on YVR for years but, like China, are capped in frequencies due to CI utilising the balance even if just for a few weeks during peak periods.
Speaking of CI, they too will eventually have to replace the 744 on the YVR-TPE route which is tipped to go A350 soon.

Edit: ooooh crosses posts... Snuck this in after you Cage!

nname
Sep 28, 2016, 6:39 PM
All the new 77W BR gets from now on will be 10 across "HD" variant.

trofirhen
Sep 28, 2016, 6:58 PM
Can't wait for Melbourne, Singapore, and Bangkok to be added to the YVR roster, even if it takes until 2018 !! :)

excel
Sep 28, 2016, 7:30 PM
Great news about TPE and NGO!


Nice to see AC's "2018 Network Opportunities" map slowly becoming a reality.... refer to page 8.

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media/presentations/documents/ben_smith_las_vegas_aug312015.pdf

The 2018 map doesn't even include YVR-DEL. We will take that as a bonus!:D

red-paladin
Sep 28, 2016, 8:13 PM
http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-to-nagoya-japan-taipei-taiwan-flights

twoNeurons
Sep 28, 2016, 8:44 PM
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.

KIX is a MUCH more desirable destination than NGO for a few reasons. For one, it serves a much larger area (Osaka, Kobe, Kyoto, Nara).

KIX is also Japan's largest LCC hub, with Terminal 2 being 100% LCC (http://www.kansai-airport.or.jp/t2/en/). JetStar and Peach have plenty of cheap flights out of the airport to domestic and international locations.

Kyoto & Kobe are also much more popular O&D destinations.

NGO, I believe, is an attempt to capture all North American from that area of Japan. Also, it's a manufacturing hub so there may be potential for business travel (but it's Rouge). That being said, most Japanese business pax would probably prefer to transfer in NRT over YVR to whatever city they're going to, as they could have a better chance of staying on JAL or ANA for their journey... so Rouge service is likely a test to see if they can attract budget minded travellers and O&D traffic. I suppose there are likely connections YVR has in the US (especially lately) that NRT doesn't have, like some of the smaller US airports in California.

Either way, I think it's a great win for YVR and really speaks volumes about the success of the YVR-KIX route that they added YVR-NGO so quickly. My guess is that the Japanese are getting used to LCCs so Rouge isn't put in as bad a light as we like to give it.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 28, 2016, 8:56 PM
KIX is a MUCH more desirable destination than NGO for a few reasons. For one, it serves a much larger area (Osaka, Kobe, Kyoto, Nara).

KIX is also Japan's largest LCC hub, with Terminal 2 being 100% LCC (http://www.kansai-airport.or.jp/t2/en/). JetStar and Peach have plenty of cheap flights out of the airport to domestic and international locations.

Kyoto & Kobe are also much more popular O&D destinations.

NGO, I believe, is an attempt to capture all North American from that area of Japan. Also, it's a manufacturing hub so there may be potential for business travel (but it's Rouge). That being said, most Japanese business pax would probably prefer to transfer in NRT over YVR to whatever city they're going to, as they could have a better chance of staying on JAL or ANA for their journey... so Rouge service is likely a test to see if they can attract budget minded travellers and O&D traffic. I suppose there are likely connections YVR has in the US (especially lately) that NRT doesn't have, like some of the smaller US airports in California.

Either way, I think it's a great win for YVR and really speaks volumes about the success of the YVR-KIX route that they added YVR-NGO so quickly. My guess is that the Japanese are getting used to LCCs so Rouge isn't put in as bad a light as we like to give it.

These flights are more aimed at Japanese originating passengers. Nagoya metro is over 9 million plus the catchment area stretches eastward towards Tokyo as well. I'm not saying AC is not also looking at North American originating passengers but definitely more aimed at Japanese travellers. Plus NGO-YVR will be only the second North American route from NGO. And as an entire region as it is so densely populated and so close together its 30 million+ population makes this move quite logical. Tourism Vancouver and BC must be delighted with this addition.

But you are right, KIX has been performing very well. Certainly not ruling out making YVR-KIX daily, but perhaps after this move they will leave KIX at 6 weekly for now.

Perhaps we may even see CTS or FUK added one day as well. NGO-YVR is larger than FUK-YVR and much larger than CTS-YVR.

SFUVancouver
Sep 28, 2016, 10:26 PM
Great news about Nagoya and Taipei for Air Canada.

vanlaw
Sep 28, 2016, 10:52 PM
Although all of the recent new route announcements have almost come to be expected, looking back a couple of years it is astonishing how much of a game changer the 787 really is, and will only get better with the A350 starting to steadily roll out now.

whatnext
Sep 28, 2016, 11:54 PM
KIX is a MUCH more desirable destination than NGO for a few reasons. For one, it serves a much larger area (Osaka, Kobe, Kyoto, Nara).

KIX is also Japan's largest LCC hub, with Terminal 2 being 100% LCC (http://www.kansai-airport.or.jp/t2/en/). JetStar and Peach have plenty of cheap flights out of the airport to domestic and international locations.

Kyoto & Kobe are also much more popular O&D destinations.

NGO, I believe, is an attempt to capture all North American from that area of Japan. Also, it's a manufacturing hub so there may be potential for business travel (but it's Rouge). That being said, most Japanese business pax would probably prefer to transfer in NRT over YVR to whatever city they're going to, as they could have a better chance of staying on JAL or ANA for their journey... so Rouge service is likely a test to see if they can attract budget minded travellers and O&D traffic. I suppose there are likely connections YVR has in the US (especially lately) that NRT doesn't have, like some of the smaller US airports in California.

Either way, I think it's a great win for YVR and really speaks volumes about the success of the YVR-KIX route that they added YVR-NGO so quickly. My guess is that the Japanese are getting used to LCCs so Rouge isn't put in as bad a light as we like to give it.

Adding KIX and NGO back into the sked basically takes AC back to where they were before the 2008 financial crisis.

mezzanine
Sep 29, 2016, 12:45 AM
KIX is a MUCH more desirable destination than NGO for a few reasons. For one, it serves a much larger area (Osaka, Kobe, Kyoto, Nara).

KIX is also Japan's largest LCC hub, with Terminal 2 being 100% LCC (http://www.kansai-airport.or.jp/t2/en/). JetStar and Peach have plenty of cheap flights out of the airport to domestic and international locations.

Kyoto & Kobe are also much more popular O&D destinations.

NGO, I believe, is an attempt to capture all North American from that area of Japan. Also, it's a manufacturing hub so there may be potential for business travel (but it's Rouge). That being said, most Japanese business pax would probably prefer to transfer in NRT over YVR to whatever city they're going to, as they could have a better chance of staying on JAL or ANA for their journey... so Rouge service is likely a test to see if they can attract budget minded travellers and O&D traffic. I suppose there are likely connections YVR has in the US (especially lately) that NRT doesn't have, like some of the smaller US airports in California.

Either way, I think it's a great win for YVR and really speaks volumes about the success of the YVR-KIX route that they added YVR-NGO so quickly. My guess is that the Japanese are getting used to LCCs so Rouge isn't put in as bad a light as we like to give it.

LOL about japan and LCCs, but I think you are right. Rouge is better than your average Asian LCC at that.

Still, it seems a shame that YVR-KIX is still rouge'd. One would think it would attract more higher yield traffic, year-round.

SFUVancouver
Sep 29, 2016, 12:47 AM
Although all of the recent new route announcements have almost come to be expected, looking back a couple of years it is astonishing how much of a game changer the 787 really is, and will only get better with the A350 starting to steadily roll out now.

Agreed. We've entered the age of next gen aircraft and the rise of "long-thin" route operating economics. I expect that as the order backlog for the B787 and A350 is worked through and the aircraft enter service, we're going to continue seeing new long-thin routes opening up the world over. Per Wikipedia, in other words take this with a grain of salt, Boeing has delivered 455 aircraft of its 1,161 order book for all models of the 787. Airbus is just getting rolling and has delivered 36 aircraft of its 810 order book for all models of the A350. Combined, there are still 1,480 next gen B787 and A350 currently on order and awaiting delivery, not to mention orders for 306 777X aircraft and 186 A330neo aircraft, to round out the re-engined/improved aerodynamics wide-bodies.

Equally so, I expect that we will see significant new continental and transatlantic route proving when airlines get their hands on the re-engined/improved aerodynamics narrow-body B737Max and A320neo families and wholly-new next-gen CSeries. Add to that the step-wise improvement of the re-engined/improved aerodynamics Embraer E-2 series regional jets and the introduction of the Mitsubishi Regional Jet and I expect that we will see new route proving at the feeder route/regional carrier segment of the market.

It's an exciting time! We're also witnessing the twilight years of wide-body stalwarts: the 747, and to the lesser degree the 767. Already the DC-10 and, I believe the MD-11, have ceased passenger operations. The 757 is on its way out, even with no direct one-for-one replacement in sight. Late model A321s and, to a lesser degree B739s, are the interim replacement for aging 757s and I expect that the A321neo and the B739Max-9 (and possibly -10, if that happens) will step in and take over the remaining high-volume trans-continental 757 sectors and select transatlantic sectors where possible. Low-cycle B767s and A330s and maybe some early production B788 and A358s will take over the balance of high load factor/premium rich long-haul transatlantic 757 sectors, though both would likely be "too much airplane" for replacing 757 sectors

osirisboy
Sep 29, 2016, 1:08 AM
But they are still building the 747-8 so they will be around for a long time

zahav
Sep 29, 2016, 4:50 AM
Echoing everyone else, this is great news, YVR is having a banner year! Just an observation (not to incite east vs. west rivalry or anything...) but it should be noted that on Air Canada's official news releases, they had a dedicated news release for Toronto, and a dedicated news release for Montreal, but not for Vancouver. YYZ, YUL, and YVR each added two new destinations, but we didn't get our own release. Vancouver's two new destinations were announced in the general article "Air Canada Circles the World adding Six New Destinations to its Expanding International Network" but both Toronto and Montreal were mentioned here, as well as in their own news releases. See link below:

http://aircanada.mediaroom.com

nname
Sep 29, 2016, 5:10 AM
more coming? :D

or maybe they're just waiting for the approval for TPE route. The Toronto news release only talk about mainline Bombay route and not the rouge route to Berlin.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 29, 2016, 7:36 AM
more coming? :D

Wouldn't that be exciting!

One thing for sure is now we know at least one of the five additional rouge 763s will be based at YVR next summer.

The DUB flights are operated by YYZ based planes.

KIX utilises one daily 763. On it's "day off" (Wednesday's) it heads down to PVR and back and RONs overnight in YVR before heading back to KIX on Thursdays.

One rotates daily through LAS and either HNL/OGG.

The third one will now operate the NGO flights 3 days per week in June and July and 4 days per week in August and September. So there are at least 3 flights per week capacity still available on that plane on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. So where will Air Canada send them?

All will revealed soon I'm sure.

nname
Sep 29, 2016, 8:22 AM
Well, the 4 new rouge routes announced yesterday happened to add up to exactly 14 weekly. It feel suspicious that AC just implemented a complicated rotation that move the Rouge 767 around 3 bases to squeeze 4 routes out of only 2 planes.

I'm actually more curious about the departure and arrival time for the TPE flight. Unlike most 787 flight out of Vancouver, the flight requires probably 27-28hr blocks, and so the arrival time back at YVR will be a few hours after the departure of next day's flight (thus requires 2 planes). Since the route is "optimized for connectivity at AC's Canadian hub" and I don't see them compete red-eye flights with BR and CI, most likely the time would be similar to other TPAC flights... I'm guessing a 11:00am departure and 2:30pm arrival? So what would the plane do for the other 20-21 hours? More 787 to YYZ? 787 to YUL? New trans-con route? New ULH route?? Rotate with BNE flight??

If YVR does indeed gets one more plane, then they going to find somewhere to assign that new plane to during winter too... I smell new sun destination(s) :D

Johnny Aussie
Sep 29, 2016, 9:41 AM
Well, the 4 new rouge routes announced yesterday happened to add up to exactly 14 weekly. It feel suspicious that AC just implemented a complicated rotation that move the Rouge 767 around 3 bases to squeeze 4 routes out of only 2 planes.

I'm actually more curious about the departure and arrival time for the TPE flight. Unlike most 787 flight out of Vancouver, the flight requires probably 27-28hr blocks, and so the arrival time back at YVR will be a few hours after the departure of next day's flight (thus requires 2 planes). Since the route is "optimized for connectivity at AC's Canadian hub" and I don't see them compete red-eye flights with BR and CI, most likely the time would be similar to other TPAC flights... I'm guessing a 11:00am departure and 2:30pm arrival? So what would the plane do for the other 20-21 hours? More 787 to YYZ? 787 to YUL? New trans-con route? New ULH route?? Rotate with BNE flight??

If YVR does indeed gets one more plane, then they going to find somewhere to assign that new plane to during winter too... I smell new sun destination(s) :D

The new NGO flight would be based in YVR only. The flight timings have it leaving to NGO and returning back to YVR arriving the next day. Whereas the DUB flights I mentioned are definitely rotated through YYZ. Perhaps they do a CUN flight similar to the PVR flight in the summer or maybe a KOA flight. Probably too big a plane to do a once weekly to MCO in the summer.
The only other thing AC could do is send the aircraft domestically to probably either YYZ or YUL only to return either later the same day or early the next morning. I'm not sure AC would want to do that though. So that leaves me back to my original query about probably 3 weekly international flight frequencies. I'm tipping CDG, MAN, GLA. The available days outbound Wed, Fri, Sun wouldn't really work for additional flights to DUB.

The other thing is AC can move aircraft between bases between summer and winter.

nname
Sep 29, 2016, 4:11 PM
Now AC got the government approval, should start selling tickets soon

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/294-a-2016

vanlaw
Sep 29, 2016, 5:58 PM
Now AC got the government approval, should start selling tickets soon

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/294-a-2016

Interesting. They also issued approval yesterday for ANA to operate non-scheduled charter service to Canada. Anyone have any ideas what may be in the pipeline?

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/293-a-2016

nname
Sep 29, 2016, 6:32 PM
Could be anywhere, like this for this year:

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/268304/ana-schedules-canadian-charter-flights-sepoct-2016/

ANA and JAL both do these one-off charters all over the world.

LeftCoaster
Sep 29, 2016, 7:31 PM
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!

According to a quick dummy booking, DEN appears to be only 12x PW (missing the second flight on days 2 and 6).

And the second flight appears to be early afternoon so works for the early T-Pac bank but not the evening.

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!

With BR and CIs 747s retiring there will be some capacity unserved on this route. I think AC will do just fine on this route and was really expecting this one given the bilateral constraints.

I trust the announcements by AC this year have satisfied even the most hardened "No love from AC" town criers.


Finally we are over 10,000 posts so I welcome the opportunity for one final post before this thread is locked.



Don't think there is much serious no love from AC in Vancouver these days, hasn't been for some time. I think the only thing you still see is exploration of how AC can feed the generous allotment of new intl routes from further south, predominantly the US.

There's no longer a 10,000 post limit to threads since SSP migrated onto the new servers a little while ago.

My guess is that the Japanese are getting used to LCCs so Rouge isn't put in as bad a light as we like to give it.

Helps that average height and weight of Japanese people makes smaller legroom and seats not much of an issue.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 29, 2016, 7:58 PM
Now AC got the government approval, should start selling tickets soon

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/294-a-2016

Yes. So hopefully the mystery of the flight times will be solved shortly.

Then we can speculate what they will do with the plane in between TPE flights.

Most likely with the NGO flights being added as well YVR will definitely now be at capacity for the international wing between 1000-1400. Some creative gate juggling perhaps!

red-paladin
Sep 29, 2016, 8:31 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/yvr-operators-guilty-of-unfair-practices-says-competition-bureau-1.3784274

mezzanine
Sep 30, 2016, 1:21 AM
^wow, i'm glad craig richmond is fighting the competition board. the 2 catering companies seem to be both unionized (one company just averted a strike this summer) and likely provide more protections and benefits to its workers than a system with no regulations.

"Vancouver Airport Authority decided not to permit additional in-flight caterers at YVR at this time for the purpose of maintaining healthy competition between the two full service caterers currently operating at the airport," said Craig Richmond, VAA President and CEO.

"We are committed to providing economic benefits to our communities, and one way we do this is by attracting and retaining long-haul carriers whose needs are met through the range of quality options provided to airlines and passengers by the in-flight caterers currently operating at the airport," he said.

casper
Oct 1, 2016, 1:22 AM
^wow, i'm glad craig richmond is fighting the competition board. the 2 catering companies seem to be both unionized (one company just averted a strike this summer) and likely provide more protections and benefits to its workers than a system with no regulations.

I agree with the competition board. The airport has no business deciding who is permitted to work out of a public facility. It can set standards of services but at the end of the day it needs to get out of the way and let the market decide who the best catering outfit is.

mezzanine
Oct 1, 2016, 2:36 AM
I agree with the competition board. The airport has no business deciding who is permitted to work out of a public facility. It can set standards of services but at the end of the day it needs to get out of the way and let the market decide who the best catering outfit is.

But YVRAA isn't run like a typical public company - its board has to generate revenue to be self-sustaining and further fund capital improvements. It has an interest to maximize profits for YVR, which may go against opening up catering.

Reading other news sources YVR is more opaque on its reasons. Would it reduce company concession fees it receives? Would off-site kitchens worsen traffic on sea island?. Maybe I was naive to think that it was to help kitchen staff but i was surprised to see YVR want to maintain the duopoly after the strike threat in august.

Vagabond
Oct 1, 2016, 5:25 AM
While I'm digging all the new AC flights ex-YVR, I'm sort of hoping that WS shows Vancouver some love in 2017 also. It would be great to see more WS cross-border routes, even just for the summer (selfishly, I'm hoping for a return of YVR-ORD).

Cage
Oct 1, 2016, 4:04 PM
I agree with the competition board. The airport has no business deciding who is permitted to work out of a public facility. It can set standards of services but at the end of the day it needs to get out of the way and let the market decide who the best catering outfit is.

I am sceptical about the competition board's position. I have a strong feeling that some key elements are being left out. These key elements would likely defend the VAA position through regulatory processes or pose increase costs to the airport.

The following is pure speculation, let's say the new entrant wants to complete food preparation at an off site location. Then drive the commissary items to a screening location for the pertinent authorities to inspect. The standard approach is for the airport to require caterers to have preparation on airport property as this is the method that best suits airport regulations. This "innovative" solution would increase costs for the airport (adjustments to Regulations, additional inspectors to the offsite location) and decrease revenues (less rent revenue). In this speculative instance, the competition board is going after the airport to break up the vertical integration of regulator and landlord in hopes that splitting the two roles would improve competition.

Cage
Oct 1, 2016, 4:14 PM
There's no longer a 10,000 post limit to threads since SSP migrated onto the new servers a little while ago.

Thanks for the inside baseball update.

So who should we be welcoming as our new data centre overlords? Just wondering as AWS appears to be taking over the cloud computing world. At some point there will be limited data centre competition (AWS and either Azure or Akamai). Kind of like the current situation at YVR for catering services as described above. There is your reference to keep this post on topic. :notacrook:

Klazu
Oct 1, 2016, 10:12 PM
Living high above Metrotown there is a splendid view of planes approaching YVR. One plane that always catches my attention is of course BA's A380 which is just noticeably so much bigger than any other plane.

Here are few zoomed-in shots of A380 landing on YVR as seen from our balcony. The airport is 13 kilometers from us and all the approaches are like a silent movie. Only sometimes can we hear planes taking off from YVR if they the wind is from west and planes are departing west, but that's only very occasionally. Still interesting that the noise can travel so far. :)

http://vuosiamaailmalla.fi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/a380_laskeutuu1.jpg

http://vuosiamaailmalla.fi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/a380_laskeutuu2.jpg

http://vuosiamaailmalla.fi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/a380_laskeutuu3.jpg

http://vuosiamaailmalla.fi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/a380_laskeutuu4.jpg

Johnny Aussie
Oct 1, 2016, 11:52 PM
^^
Excellent photos! That view is amazing!

Hope I get the same view when I stay at the Hilton @ Metrotown between Xmas and New Years!! Hoping for a clear day not sure if it's high enough though

Couldn't help but notice that Omni Air 767 in the last shot... Westjet still having issues... What an f'ing disaster!

Klazu
Oct 2, 2016, 12:24 AM
Thanks! Unfortunately the Hilton is too short to see planes landing, but you should still see them in mid-air. Just keep in mind that these photos are waaaay zoomed in and with naked eye things don't look nearly as prominent. :)

I actually took these photos already on May 31st and only got around posting them now. So this is actually the very first time BA's A380 touched down on YVR! Been seeing this repeat many times since then, but yeah, I think Westjet might be fine by now. :)

CareerShow
Oct 2, 2016, 12:34 AM
^^
Excellent photos! That view is amazing!

Hope I get the same view when I stay at the Hilton @ Metrotown between Xmas and New Years!! Hoping for a clear day ������������ not sure if it's high enough though ������������

Couldn't help but notice that Omni Air 767 in the last shot... Westjet still having issues... What an f'ing disaster!

Mr. Saretsky has claimed them to be a big success! Only 5% were cancelled or something haha

Johnny Aussie
Oct 2, 2016, 12:50 AM
Thanks! Unfortunately the Hilton is too short to see planes landing, but you should still see them in mid-air. Just keep in mind that these photos are waaaay zoomed in and with naked eye things don't look nearly as prominent. :)

I actually took these photos already on May 31st and only got around posting them now. So this is actually the very first time BA's A380 touched down on YVR! Been seeing this repeat many times since then, but yeah, I think Westjet might be fine by now. :)

Ahhhhhh OK then! For some reason I thought they were the last flights of the year!!

Hot Rod
Oct 2, 2016, 12:49 PM
Excellent news re: YVR-TPE, NGO, and the other recent announcements from Air Canada. It really does appear that AC is moving fast to strengthen its Vancouver Hub and the airport itself is positioning itself as THE #1 Connection city between NA and Asia.

I know this may take some time; but I LONG for the day when the existing routes mature into mainline (if they aren't) and daily (or more frequencies) and new 'thin' routes are announced such as: YVR-Kaohsiung (OMG, what a get that would be), YVR-Kolkutta, and the 2nd tier China cities become non-stops (YVR-CKG, YVR-CTU, YVR-Hangzhou, YVR-KMG).

I also am looking forward to the expansion of the terminals. I think the current plan is sufficient to get YVR comfortably into the 25-30M pax per year range. But I honestly think that even after this expansion that YVR likely will need to explore a new master plan that should include a new, dedicated transborder terminal with ATS connecting it airside to the current International and Domestic terminals and redesign of the roadway (and new Skytrain station). The new transborder terminal could be the same design as what was pitched currently just moved further to the E in order to create proper ramp space from the current expansion.

I also hope the new cross-taxiway is built and hope that it is double wide (two planes can cross at once - yes, I know, dreaming but still).

Hot Rod
Oct 2, 2016, 2:27 PM
One thing's definitely for sure, it was very smart of YVR to implement the 15% reduction on fees for new routes/expansion. Volume increases revenue overall and allows the airport to create its own economy.

connect2source
Oct 2, 2016, 2:36 PM
Great photos Klaus!! Flew BA 85 on the A380 last Monday, we conducted the same approach but it was dark given our 1.5 hr delay at Heathrow due to jetty problems. Fun to see you capture our approach all over again! thanks!!

Johnny Aussie
Oct 4, 2016, 1:47 AM
Absolutely stellar results across the board!

I've highlighted International as well and truly smashing through double digit growth.

http://www.yvr.ca/-/media/yvr/documents/facts-sheets/traffic-update_august-2016.pdf?la=en

Overall up 9.5% up 201,400 to 2,327,155

Domestic up 6.5% up 70,100 to 1,145,541

Transborder up 7.4% up 38,600 to 563,856

Asia Pacific up 15.1% up 48,200 to 367,530
Europe up 17.6% up 32,700 to 218,882
Misc Int'l up 60.1% up 11,800 to 31,346

Ttl Int'l up 12.5% up 131,300 to 1,181,614

Int'l / Domestic split 50.8% / 49.2% so a majority of pax international again.

YTD is up 8.7% up 1,208,000 to 15,072,313.

Cargo also showed a decent bump in August up 8.8% still down 2.4% on the year though.

Even the little old South Terminal saw a huge 29.6% increase in August.

excel
Oct 4, 2016, 1:58 AM
Great numbers. Nice to see cargo having a slight bump in the right direction.

SFUVancouver
Oct 4, 2016, 7:12 AM
Those are absolutely huge numbers. Fantastic. Thank you for the update.

Good to see cargo rebound a bit, even if it's down year over year.

Johnny Aussie
Oct 4, 2016, 7:24 AM
Next summer AC rouge will increase DUB from 3 to 4 flights per week.

AC1941 DUB 0950 - 1115 YVR 1246 763
AC1940 YVR 1510 - 0820+1 DUB 1357 763

Why is this significant??

This also confirms that there will be yet another 763 rouge based at YVR next summer as these flights will now rotate through YVR. Last summer these flights operated by rotating YYZ-DUB-YVR-DUB-YYZ. Next summer these flights will just be YVR-DUB-YVR.

So now we have:

1 operating LAS and HNL/OGG daily
1 operating KIX 6 weekly and 1 PVR overnight and return
1 operating 4 weekly NGO
1 operating 4 weekly DUB

Soooooooooo now this adds to even more speculation as to what they will do with the 6 remaining frequencies.

I'm gonna tip 3 weekly CDG and 3 weekly MAN.

nname
Oct 4, 2016, 7:44 AM
Are you sure NGO and DUB are different planes? Based on the schedule, seems like they are doing YVR-DUB-YVR-NGO-YVR rotation, for the month of June and July at least. So there may not be a new plane until around August.

AC1940 YVR1510 - 0820+1DUB 763 1357
AC1941 DUB0950 - 1115YVR 763 1246

AC1955 YVR1245 – 1515+1NGO 763 246
AC1956 NGO1640 – 0955YVR 763 357

Johnny Aussie
Oct 4, 2016, 8:04 AM
Are you sure NGO and DUB are different planes? Based on the schedule, seems like they are doing YVR-DUB-YVR-NGO-YVR rotation, for the month of June and July at least. So there may not be a new plane until around August.

AC1940 YVR1510 - 0820+1DUB 763 1357
AC1941 DUB0950 - 1115YVR 763 1246

AC1955 YVR1245 – 1515+1NGO 763 246
AC1956 NGO1640 – 0955YVR 763 357

Yes, I definitely thought that... But then I looked into it a bit deeper... because they both operate on Mondays starting July 31 I am tipping there are two separate planes. I doubt AC would start a summer service as late as the first week of August. Plus DUB starts earlier (only a week mind you) and the scheds don't synch for the first couple of weeks. Also, I can't imagine they would have a rouge 763 sit on the ground for over 5 hours in the middle of the day.

I'm pretty sure there is more to come... But I guess we will see! It's an interesting puzzle that is piecing together.

Johnny Aussie
Oct 4, 2016, 3:25 PM
Saw the sched on flyertalk. No flight numbers given.

AC TPE 1600 - 1130 YVR 789 D
AC YVR 1115 - 1420+1 TPE 789 D

So now we can speculate what they'll do with the a/c as this route requires two 789s. Probably another transcon to YYZ or maybe YUL.

nname
Oct 4, 2016, 4:02 PM
Rotate with YVR-NRT probably

AC3 YVR1340 - 1525+1NRT 789 D
AC4 NRT1700 - 0935YVR 789 D


And, seems like TS had removed YVR-FCO from schedule for next summer...

LeftCoaster
Oct 4, 2016, 6:58 PM
And, seems like TS had removed YVR-FCO from schedule for next summer...

I saw that, kind of a bummer. I'm surprised there wasn't the load for a low yield 1PW flight to Rome, seemed like a npretty viable route. Maybe TS just found a more lucrative route for the flight.

Would like to see that extra rouge plane pick that frequency up. 3x to FCO and 3x to CDG would be amazing!

Johnny Aussie
Oct 4, 2016, 6:58 PM
Rotate with YVR-NRT probably

AC3 YVR1340 - 1525+1NRT 789 D
AC4 NRT1700 - 0935YVR 789 D


And, seems like TS had removed YVR-FCO from schedule for next summer...

That works! I didn't realise NRT was downgauging to a 789 next summer but this ties in. All other international routes same equipment as last summer so far except the second LHR looks like it's a 789 instead of a 788.

Yeah just checked Transat.. All flights to FCO now via YYZ or YUL next summer. I think that was Transat's second attempt at FCO probably won't try again for awhile.

trofirhen
Oct 4, 2016, 7:11 PM
I saw that, kind of a bummer. I'm surprised there wasn't the load for a low yield 1PW flight to Rome, seemed like a npretty viable route. Maybe TS just found a more lucrative route for the flight.

Would like to see that extra rouge plane pick that frequency up. 3x to FCO and 3x to CDG would be amazing!
Interesting, because in a confidential "route demand" graph I received some years back, Paris was at the top, followed by Melbourne, Rome, and DBX, all at about the same level.
And with the large Italian population in Vancouver, I thought it might be viable, though I guess it's a "family" and "tourist" route, and has scant potential for business class yield.

LeftCoaster
Oct 4, 2016, 7:35 PM
That's the surprise though, Transat doesn't rely on business class. It's a low yield model, which leaves me scratching my head as to why a 1 per week low yield route didn't work.

Must have found a better utilization for the aircraft.

nname
Oct 4, 2016, 7:38 PM
Maybe the issue is the 1 per week part...

If I'm on vacation, I don't want to limit the length to either 7 or 14 days...

Johnny Aussie
Oct 4, 2016, 7:40 PM
That's my surprise though, Transat doesn't rely on business class. It's a low yield model, which leaves me scratching my head as to why a 1 per week low yield route didn't work.

But that's probably it. You've answered your question....

1) Once per week flights struggle by just their nature. Doesn't make trips flexible. Minimum stay one week and then trips by the week. One, two , three.... So even though it's a leisure route. So many one stop options available between YVR and FCO.

2) low yield model meaning b/e LF so much higher. So TS would have really had to fill those seats. Even a LF around 80% would struggle on a longer thinner route like YVR-FCO. Perhaps the loads were there but I actually thought the viability of this route would have been a struggle.

Johnny Aussie
Oct 4, 2016, 7:41 PM
Maybe the issue is the 1 per week part...

If I'm on vacation, I don't want to limit the length to either 7 or 14 days...

And Snap!

LeftCoaster
Oct 4, 2016, 8:11 PM
Fair, certainly a counter intuitive rational at first but does seem somewhat logical on a second look.

Almost seems like this could be a successful Rouge route then, if it goes 3xPW and benefits from ACs strong feeder network into YVR.

Any idea what happens to the A330 Transat was using on this frequency? Could they run it somewhere else or will we see an existing Transat location given another frequency?

Cage
Oct 4, 2016, 8:16 PM
Groupe TransAt has sold off their French and Italian tour operations to another firm. If the YVR-FCO route was dependent upon package tour operations in order to be successful (or even break even), losing the Italian connection to hotel and tour discounts could make the flight portion unprofitable.

Johnny Aussie
Oct 4, 2016, 10:30 PM
Groupe TransAt has sold off their French and Italian tour operations to another firm. If the YVR-FCO route was dependent upon package tour operations in order to be successful (or even break even), losing the Italian connection to hotel and tour discounts could make the flight portion unprofitable.

That would certainly do it.

Rouge is certainly going head to head with some Transat routes in Europe.

Nothing from YVR has been announced yet......

nname
Oct 4, 2016, 10:30 PM
Seems like TS is cutting alot of routes out of YVR (or western Canada in general)

CDG seems to be down to 1 weekly, and AMS is down to 2 weekly.

YYC-CDG, on the other hand, is down to 1 flight for the entire season :sly:

LeftCoaster
Oct 4, 2016, 10:43 PM
That's 4 flights per week, almost an entire plane. I wonder if they pulled one plane out of rotation at YVR and sent it to YYZ/YUL.

That would almost be good news as it would not signal individual route weakness but an equipment re-allocation.

twoNeurons
Oct 5, 2016, 12:18 AM
Interesting, because in a confidential "route demand" graph I received some years back, Paris was at the top, followed by Melbourne, Rome, and DBX, all at about the same level.
And with the large Italian population in Vancouver, I thought it might be viable, though I guess it's a "family" and "tourist" route, and has scant potential for business class yield.

The large population of Italians in Vancouver have been here long enough so that they pretty much consider Vancouver home.

Interestingly, though... there is a considerable emigration from Italy. We're seeing newer and younger Italian speaking people coming into Vancouver because of the long protracted economic issues in Italy.

Italy is also a gateway country for many nations, for example, in Africa. Many of them immigrate to Italy, work to get EU citizenship and ditch Italy (usually for UK, but sometimes they'll come to NA if they have connections here). It's easier to move from Italy to other places in the EU (obviously) and it's easier to move to Canada/USA from Italy than from places like Ghana, Nigeria, etc.

Johnny Aussie
Oct 5, 2016, 12:39 AM
Seems like TS is cutting alot of routes out of YVR (or western Canada in general)

CDG seems to be down to 1 weekly, and AMS is down to 2 weekly.

YYC-CDG, on the other hand, is down to 1 flight for the entire season :sly:

Yup... CDG down to one weekly but AMS still at three weekly? 2 nonstop and 1 one stop via YYC.

YYC-CDG appears to be gone altogether - it was only once weekly anyway

So YVR looks like they are losing 2 weekly direct Europe flights (2 to CDG and 1 to FCO but gaining +1 to MAN)... Makes you wonder if they know something!

casper
Oct 5, 2016, 12:53 AM
Yup... CDG down to one weekly but AMS still at three weekly? 2 nonstop and 1 one stop via YYC.

YYC-CDG appears to be gone altogether - it was only once weekly anyway

So YVR looks like they are losing 2 weekly direct Europe flights (2 to CDG and 1 to FCO but gaining +1 to MAN)... Makes you wonder if they know something!

I thought Transat was adding a domestic flight to feed flights out of Toronto and Montreal. If that is the case it may be more a strategy to use the 737 domestically and operate a hub operation. Until now Transat has mostly been a point to point airline.

Johnny Aussie
Oct 5, 2016, 12:58 AM
I thought Transat was adding a domestic flight to feed flights out of Toronto and Montreal. If that is the case it may be more a strategy to use the 737 domestically and operate a hub operation. Until now Transat has mostly been a point to point airline.

That's exactly what they are doing:

1) adding a daily 738 nonstop YVR - YYZ departing at 11:10am
2) adding twice weekly 738 nonstop YVR - YUL

Last summer they had three weekly YVR-YYZ only (2 nonstop and 1 via YYC)

So from a seats/capacity POV TS will actually have more seats from YVR next summer just a shift from International direct to Domestic to International connections. Will see how successful they are!

Orcair
Oct 5, 2016, 1:07 AM
That's exactly what they are doing:

1) adding a daily 738 nonstop YVR - YYZ departing at 11:10am
2) adding twice weekly 738 nonstop YVR - YUL

Last summer they had three weekly YVR-YYZ only (2 nonstop and 1 via YYC)

So from a seats/capacity POV TS will actually have more seats from YVR next summer just a shift from International direct to Domestic to International connections. Will see how successful they are!

Damn. I was hoping they would put the 313 on the YUL route, so I could finally catch it! Oh well.

Johnny Aussie
Oct 5, 2016, 1:13 AM
Damn. I was hoping they would put the 313 on the YUL route, so I could finally catch it! Oh well.

Well a lot of the YUL flying next summer will be on 313s vs the 332s/333s so you have a chance if you head to Europe from there.

Orcair
Oct 5, 2016, 1:28 AM
Well a lot of the YUL flying next summer will be on 313s vs the 332s/333s so you have a chance if you head to Europe from there.

That's reassuring! Thanks for letting me know :)

SFUVancouver
Oct 5, 2016, 4:54 AM
It's a bit off topic, and definitely a humble brag, but I had a pretty cool day and got to spend some time in and around this beauty down in Quito, Ecuador.

http://i.imgur.com/jXrBc7C.jpg

teriyaki
Oct 5, 2016, 5:28 AM
But that's probably it. You've answered your question....

1) Once per week flights struggle by just their nature. Doesn't make trips flexible. Minimum stay one week and then trips by the week. One, two , three.... So even though it's a leisure route. So many one stop options available between YVR and FCO.

2) low yield model meaning b/e LF so much higher. So TS would have really had to fill those seats. Even a LF around 80% would struggle on a longer thinner route like YVR-FCO. Perhaps the loads were there but I actually thought the viability of this route would have been a struggle.

Once per week definitely limits your target audience. I'd go to fathom that route needs to be minimum 3x/week to be a viable option. So many people have jobs that just don't allow you to take either a 7day/14day straight vacation, and even if it did maybe not starting on the one day the flight runs.

trofirhen
Oct 5, 2016, 5:34 AM
The large population of Italians in Vancouver have been here long enough so that they pretty much consider Vancouver home.

Interestingly, though... there is a considerable emigration from Italy. We're seeing newer and younger Italian speaking people coming into Vancouver because of the long protracted economic issues in Italy.

Italy is also a gateway country for many nations, for example, in Africa. Many of them immigrate to Italy, work to get EU citizenship and ditch Italy (usually for UK, but sometimes they'll come to NA if they have connections here). It's easier to move from Italy to other places in the EU (obviously) and it's easier to move to Canada/USA from Italy than from places like Ghana, Nigeria, etc.
Is there not, in that case, some justification for a YVR - FCO route?

mezzanine
Oct 5, 2016, 3:07 PM
some news about iran requestng talks wrt direct flights to iran from canada.

YYZ will likely be first if flights are ever started. interestingly, from LAX it's closer to transfer in YVR than YYZ.

Tehran submitted a “formal” request to Canada to sign an “air transport agreement in place,” according to a source familiar with the matter, who is not authorized to speak publicly. Such an agreement would establish air links between Iran and Canada.

Specifically, Iran wants the aircraft Iranian airlines can land in Canada and that Canadian commercial aircraft can do the same in Iran. Canada has “agreements on air transport” with 101 countries in the world. Iran, meanwhile, has signed more than thirty.

‘Formal request’ was submitted to Canada this year by the Organization of Iranian civil aviation, but no response has yet been given by Ottawa, according to the CBC has learned. The Canadian Foreign Ministry, which handles such requests, refused to confirm or deny the information.



http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/national/2016/02/25/001-iran-canada-avion-bombardier-liaison.shtml

http://www.aviationgazette.com/direct-flights-from-iran-to-canada/

Cage
Oct 5, 2016, 4:03 PM
Is there not, in that case, some justification for a YVR - FCO route?

While there may be a business case for YVR-FCO summer seasonal service, the big challenge is that YYZ-FCO is a mainline flight. As of today, AC has not comingled international out stations between mainline and rouge.

mezzanine
Oct 5, 2016, 5:31 PM
While there may be a business case for YVR-FCO summer seasonal service, the big challenge is that YYZ-FCO is a mainline flight. As of today, AC has not comingled international out stations between mainline and rouge.

When LAX/SFO was rouge'd out of YVR, wasn't YYZ still mainline?

LeftCoaster
Oct 5, 2016, 5:59 PM
some news about iran requestng talks wrt direct flights to iran from canada.

YYZ will likely be first if flights are ever started. interestingly, from LAX it's closer to transfer in YVR than YYZ.




http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/national/2016/02/25/001-iran-canada-avion-bombardier-liaison.shtml

http://www.aviationgazette.com/direct-flights-from-iran-to-canada/

There's been a bit of chatter on this over at A.net

I noted this a while back that with the Persian diaspora in Vancouver quite large this seemed like a strong possible flight. It certainly helps that the diaspora here is predominantly quite wealthy and educated. Seems logical to start with YYZ then move pretty quickly to YVR.

LAX could support its own multiple daily flights I'm sure, but if Canada can beat the US to opening bilateral restrictions we may be able to snag some early traffic from LA to help start the route.

A little info about the Persian diaspora in Canada, the community is nearly as large in Vancouver as it is in Toronto, despite the GTA being over twice the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Canadians

LeftCoaster
Oct 5, 2016, 6:00 PM
I thought Transat was adding a domestic flight to feed flights out of Toronto and Montreal. If that is the case it may be more a strategy to use the 737 domestically and operate a hub operation. Until now Transat has mostly been a point to point airline.

Hmm, seems like a bit of an opening to Rouge then. I doubt anyone in Vancouver is very loyal to Transat, so adding an additional connection through YUL or YYZ would turn a lot off if they are able to get a cheap alternative on rouge... and get those sweet aeroplan points too!

trofirhen
Oct 5, 2016, 6:04 PM
There's been a bit of chatter on this over at A.net

I noted this a while back that with the Persian diaspora in Vancouver quite large this seemed like a strong possible flight. It certainly helps that the diaspora here is predominantly quite wealthy and educated. Seems logical to start with YYZ then move pretty quickly to YVR.

LAX could support its own multiple daily flights I'm sure, but if Canada can beat the US to opening bilateral restrictions we may be able to snag some early traffic from LA to help start the route.
If Iran Air does come to Canada, I guess it's natural that YYZ be first. But with that part of the world descending into instability - now Iran, recently Turkey, is it really feasible?
I think it makes a lot of sense, too, but maybe getting Qatar Airlines or such may be a more real option. Again, this is based on the bad political news from that region.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 5, 2016, 6:24 PM
Iran like Turkey wants to displace the Mid-East 3, which is much easier when you have domestic O&D to anchor the strategy.

A daily turn at an airport of their choice can't hurt.

Gordon
Oct 6, 2016, 4:09 AM
Does anyone know if thereis any West jet encore expansion planned?

mezzanine
Oct 6, 2016, 6:01 AM
YVR-WAW? Picked up on talk on the YEG thread and found this:


LOT Polish Airlines is in expansion mode and Canada is in line for more service.
On his first visit to this country since taking office in January, new LOT CEO Rafal Milczarski told PressToday that Canada is a special market for the airline due both to the strong Polish community here and the fact the airline’s first transatlantic flight landed in Toronto (in 1972), even before the US.

......

Toronto is one of three North American gateways for LOT in North America, including New York-JFK and Chicago. Plans have already been announced for the airline to return to Newark on April 28, 2017, and today, the airline said it will also commence four-times weekly service to Los Angeles starting in April, 2017. LOT’s strategic plan includes doubling capacity by 2020, by which time Milczarski speculated that Western Canada (believed to be Vancouver) is “likely” to have a LOT flight.



http://www.travelpress.com/lot-boost-toronto-service/#.V_Xmj_ArKUk

Scuttlebutt on the report's part IMO, but LOT/WAW has popped onto the radar for YVR.

nname
Oct 6, 2016, 6:54 AM
Yup... CDG down to one weekly but AMS still at three weekly? 2 nonstop and 1 one stop via YYC.

YYC-CDG appears to be gone altogether - it was only once weekly anyway

So YVR looks like they are losing 2 weekly direct Europe flights (2 to CDG and 1 to FCO but gaining +1 to MAN)... Makes you wonder if they know something!

Now YVR-MAN is also down to only 1 weekly; YYC-MAN is gone altogether.

Johnny Aussie
Oct 6, 2016, 8:32 AM
Now YVR-MAN is also down to only 1 weekly; YYC-MAN is gone altogether.

Transat slashes and burns its Western Canada ops!

CDG and MAN ripe for the pickings!

trofirhen
Oct 6, 2016, 9:27 AM
Transat slashes and burns its Western Canada ops!

CDG and MAN ripe for the pickings!
On Rouge, no doubt. Summer only. >>> Another question please: if LOT Polish Airlines is considering Vancouver, wouldn't it be logical that another airline also might be?
There are a lot of Italians in Vancouver. But I don't imagine we could ever dreamof ALITALIA to FCO. "You have to go through Toronto, nya nya nya!"

SpongeG
Oct 6, 2016, 11:32 AM
I like the big vifeo screens they have added ro the terminal, I have seen the one in the domestic post security and domestic check in areas, they add a lot of movement and action to otherwise previously dead walls

twoNeurons
Oct 6, 2016, 8:52 PM
On Rouge, no doubt. Summer only. >>> Another question please: if LOT Polish Airlines is considering Vancouver, wouldn't it be logical that another airline also might be?
There are a lot of Italians in Vancouver. But I don't imagine we could ever dreamof ALITALIA to FCO. "You have to go through Toronto, nya nya nya!"

There's an Italian population in Vancouver, but it's old. Many of them brought their whole family over already and have little reason to go back for visits.

Toronto, I believe, has a more "Italian" feeling to its Italian community.

trofirhen
Oct 7, 2016, 1:38 AM
There's an Italian population in Vancouver, but it's old. Many of them brought their whole family over already and have little reason to go back for visits.

Toronto, I believe, has a more "Italian" feeling to its Italian community.
The toronto Italian community is bigger, for sure. And yes, their pasta is fresher.

ACT7
Oct 7, 2016, 4:00 AM
There's been a bit of chatter on this over at A.net

I noted this a while back that with the Persian diaspora in Vancouver quite large this seemed like a strong possible flight. It certainly helps that the diaspora here is predominantly quite wealthy and educated. Seems logical to start with YYZ then move pretty quickly to YVR.

LAX could support its own multiple daily flights I'm sure, but if Canada can beat the US to opening bilateral restrictions we may be able to snag some early traffic from LA to help start the route.

A little info about the Persian diaspora in Canada, the community is nearly as large in Vancouver as it is in Toronto, despite the GTA being over twice the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Canadians
The Iranian population in the GTA is closer to 80K based on the 2011 census - which probably puts it at closer to 90K now.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMA&Code1=535&Data=Count&SearchText=toronto&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=Ethnic%20origin&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1

Vancouver's is closer to 40K in 2011, which probably puts is closer to 50K today.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMA&Code1=933&Data=Count&SearchText=vancouver&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=Ethnic%20origin&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1

So, YYZ is probably the most likely first choice as you mentioned, but a second destination is a very unlikely scenario. Interestingly, Air Canada is also seeking flights to IKA so it remains to be seen if AC and Iran Air form a JV with one code-sharing. It seems unlikely that both airlines would be using their own metal between Canada and Iran.

Just my two cents...

trofirhen
Oct 7, 2016, 5:25 AM
I still think Turkish to Istanbul would have been YVR's best bet for an Eastern European destination, but this is pretty much ruled out now due to Turkish cutbacks due to regional instability.
Too damn bad. I guess we'll have to do all our Eastern Europe / Middle East transferring at the the European Big 4 (LHR, CDG, AMS, and FRA > and we're lucky to have those).

LeftCoaster
Oct 7, 2016, 6:52 PM
According to some schmo on A.net the Turkish foreign minister gave a talk in Montreal a couple days ago indicating they are still interested in YVR.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1344157

I believe the minister would have been there for the aviation climate change agreement just signed.

The Turkish issue is a bit of a double edged sword. On one had traffic into IST and Turkey has fallen off a cliff. On the other hand Turkish has an obscene oversupply of planes now so if there is a route that has any traffic on it that was unserved (YVR) it may be worth launching to keep the planes from turning to rust.

trofirhen
Oct 7, 2016, 9:46 PM
According to some schmo on A.net the Turkish foreign minister gave a talk in Montreal a couple days ago indicating they are still interested in YVR.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1344157

I believe the minister would have been there for the aviation climate change agreement just signed.

The Turkish issue is a bit of a double edged sword. On one had traffic into IST and Turkey has fallen off a cliff. On the other hand Turkish has an obscene oversupply of planes now so if there is a route that has any traffic on it that was unserved (YVR) it may be worth launching to keep the planes from turning to rust.
Thank you, yes. It's post # 13. He says "I wonder how Ottawa will react this time?" People will accuse me of paranoia, but I'll bet Ottawa will say no to IST-YVR.
They want to route most things through YYZ, and to a lesser extent YUL.
This will be rather an "acid test" of The Ministry of Transport's willingness to open up YVR more.

Johnny Aussie
Oct 7, 2016, 10:29 PM
According to some schmo on A.net the Turkish foreign minister gave a talk in Montreal a couple days ago indicating they are still interested in YVR.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1344157

I believe the minister would have been there for the aviation climate change agreement just signed.

The Turkish issue is a bit of a double edged sword. On one had traffic into IST and Turkey has fallen off a cliff. On the other hand Turkish has an obscene oversupply of planes now so if there is a route that has any traffic on it that was unserved (YVR) it may be worth launching to keep the planes from turning to rust.

Yes, I saw that comment.

People forget, and yes we have brought this up many times before.

Transport Canada (Government of Canada) tends to grant access based on O&D and not based on transfer traffic to a particular country.

If you all recall, and I'm too lazy to dig it up again, somebody posted the market size of YVR-IST in comparison to other North American markets. The local O&D was tiny. However, the potential for transit passengers was much larger of course. Same argument against EK and EY. The local market from YVR-DXB or YVR-AUH is minute. But, like IST, the amount of potential transit traffic is so much larger. That's the crux of the Government's approach. Like it or lump it... that's their model.

So to summarise, Transport Canada would be unlikely to grant further access to Turkish despite the lobbying of various groups (eg Turkish Airlines and local Turkish community groups). Unless someone can prove the YVR-IST market is large enough to support a direct service based on the local market only..... Even though they are a Star Alliance member, Air Canada may also lobby against further access as it may (will) hurt their business model. It has nothing to do with favouring YYZ or YUL, this has more to do with Air Canada... their global hub just happens to be at YYZ.

zahav
Oct 8, 2016, 7:24 AM
Transat slashes and burns its Western Canada ops!

CDG and MAN ripe for the pickings!

I just checked and YVR-MAN is 3 weekly now. I think Air Transat is just loading flights still so can't jump the gun on routes just yet I guess,

Hourglass
Oct 8, 2016, 8:12 AM
Yes, I saw that comment.

People forget, and yes we have brought this up many times before.

Transport Canada (Government of Canada) tends to grant access based on O&D and not based on transfer traffic to a particular country.

If you all recall, and I'm too lazy to dig it up again, somebody posted the market size of YVR-IST in comparison to other North American markets. The local O&D was tiny. However, the potential for transit passengers was much larger of course. Same argument against EK and EY. The local market from YVR-DXB or YVR-AUH is minute. But, like IST, the amount of potential transit traffic is so much larger. That's the crux of the Government's approach. Like it or lump it... that's their model.

So to summarise, Transport Canada would be unlikely to grant further access to Turkish despite the lobbying of various groups (eg Turkish Airlines and local Turkish community groups). Unless someone can prove the YVR-IST market is large enough to support a direct service based on the local market only..... Even though they are a Star Alliance member, Air Canada may also lobby against further access as it may (will) hurt their business model. It has nothing to do with favouring YYZ or YUL, this has more to do with Air Canada... their global hub just happens to be at YYZ.

And of course due to population density in the eastern US, there are probably way more opportunities for AC to collect transfer passengers through YYZ than YVR who want to fly east.

I heard a rumor that AC was considering launching flights to FRA on their own metal. If that's true, I could definitely see them opposing YVR-IST given Frankfurt's current role as a connecting hub.

trofirhen
Oct 8, 2016, 9:27 AM
Yes, I saw that comment.

People forget, and yes we have brought this up many times before.

Transport Canada (Government of Canada) tends to grant access based on O&D and not based on transfer traffic to a particular country.

If you all recall, and I'm too lazy to dig it up again, somebody posted the market size of YVR-IST in comparison to other North American markets. The local O&D was tiny. However, the potential for transit passengers was much larger of course. Same argument against EK and EY. The local market from YVR-DXB or YVR-AUH is minute. But, like IST, the amount of potential transit traffic is so much larger. That's the crux of the Government's approach. Like it or lump it... that's their model.

So to summarise, Transport Canada would be unlikely to grant further access to Turkish despite the lobbying of various groups (eg Turkish Airlines and local Turkish community groups). Unless someone can prove the YVR-IST market is large enough to support a direct service based on the local market only..... Even though they are a Star Alliance member, Air Canada may also lobby against further access as it may (will) hurt their business model. It has nothing to do with favouring YYZ or YUL, this has more to do with Air Canada... their global hub just happens to be at YYZ.
Thanks, Johnny. But an example I donot quite understand, in keeping with what you said about O/D being tiny:
at Seattle, EK flies to DBX TWICE A DAY. Surely that is mostly connecting traffic. So how come Seattle (a bit bigger, a bit $$$$er than Vancouver I admit)
can support 2 flights per day to the Middle East?
And Vancouver, not at all?
There is a huge contrast and discrepency somewhere. Could you venture an explanation? EK flies to other US cities, too, and Seattle doesn't have to change at JFK or ORD.
Mathematically, what is happening? / Thanks again :)

Johnny Aussie
Oct 8, 2016, 11:43 AM
I just checked and YVR-MAN is 3 weekly now. I think Air Transat is just loading flights still so can't jump the gun on routes just yet I guess,

You are right and all nonstop now so that is an increase. The slash and burn not so bad afterall. Will see what happens in the coming weeks.

And of course due to population density in the eastern US, there are probably way more opportunities for AC to collect transfer passengers through YYZ than YVR who want to fly east.

I heard a rumor that AC was considering launching flights to FRA on their own metal. If that's true, I could definitely see them opposing YVR-IST given Frankfurt's current role as a connecting hub.

Yes, FRA has been on AC's radar for awhile and still on that investor day map!

Thanks, Johnny. But an example I donot quite understand, in keeping with what you said about O/D being tiny:
at Seattle, EK flies to DBX TWICE A DAY. Surely that is mostly connecting traffic. So how come Seattle (a bit bigger, a bit $$$$er than Vancouver I admit)
can support 2 flights per day to the Middle East?
And Vancouver, not at all?
There is a huge contrast and discrepency somewhere. Could you venture an explanation? EK flies to other US cities, too, and Seattle doesn't have to change at JFK or ORD.
Mathematically, what is happening? / Thanks again :)

I have explained this numerous times... Here it is again... Transport Canada allocates capacity based on O&D. YVR-IST, YVR-DXB, YVR-AUH have very small O&D. Therefore no flights. It's irrelevant to Transport Canada how many pax would be transiting.
SEA-DXB no restrictions based on O&D, hence flights full of transiting pax.