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] 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143

CareerShow
Sep 3, 2017, 5:08 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/transport-canada-two-flight-crew-cockpit-1.4164592

Semi related, what do people think of Canada removing the 2 person flight deck rule. Seems like there is no reason not to keep it, as I find the excuse the "safety of the cabin" with regards to decreased flight attendants not a valid one. The US has the rule in place and have used it successfully for over 16 years now.

casper
Sep 3, 2017, 9:23 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/transport-canada-two-flight-crew-cockpit-1.4164592

Semi related, what do people think of Canada removing the 2 person flight deck rule. Seems like there is no reason not to keep it, as I find the excuse the "safety of the cabin" with regards to decreased flight attendants not a valid one. The US has the rule in place and have used it successfully for over 16 years now.

The real questions, if with the US having the rule for 16 years (in a market 10 times Canada), has this rule saved any lives? If it has then it is useful, if it has had no impact then it is a silly rule.

thenoflyzone
Sep 4, 2017, 10:51 AM
US should be included with International when comparing, that's just dumb

I left transborder numbers out since trofirhen was under the impression that YVR-Asia was the main reason for YVR being in second spot in the country.

The numbers i posted clearly illustrate that isn't the case.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 5, 2017, 10:51 AM
The recent additions announced have been loaded.

EUROPE

Both LHR flights will be operated by 789s. The daily 854 77W is therefore being replaced by a 789.

FRA, CDG and ZRH will be operated by 788s.

LGW on rouge is gone.

DUB looks like it will remain at 3 weekly rouge.

ASIA/PACIFIC

MEL 3 weekly 789s now showing.

PVG upgauged to a 77W.

All other routes status quo at the moment.

With these additions next summer.... between AC and other airlines

YVR-London will be served by 34 weekly nonstop flights
YVR-CDG will have 12 weekly nonstops
YVR-ZRH will have 7 weekly nonstops
YVR-Australia/NZ will have 27 weekly nonstops

SFUVancouver
Sep 5, 2017, 2:48 PM
Thanks for consolidating the updates, Johnny.

Very impressed by Air Canada's commitment to growing YVR. The 788s and 789s are really getting put to good use. I can't wait for the Cseries to join the fleet and help open up additional transborder routes. Having flown the CS300 this summer, it's an absolutely fantastic aircraft and miles ahead of the Embrarers from a passenger's perspective.

s211
Sep 5, 2017, 3:50 PM
Nothing against Zurich whatsoever, but I do wonder at the longevity of that flight.

Yes, I've made (circuitous, thanks Air Canada) connections through there before, but only because there weren't direct options for YVR-CDG before.

nname
Sep 5, 2017, 7:13 PM
Both LHR flights will be operated by 789s. The daily 854 77W is therefore being replaced by a 789.

FRA, CDG and ZRH will be operated by 788s.

LGW on rouge is gone.

Wonder what would be the time for the second LHR flight...

Currently YVR is 1 to 2 gates short:

9:10am - MU581 arrives YVR, unload passengers at gate
~10:30am - gate is needed, MU moves to remote stand (1 gate short)
10:55am - CZ378 arrives at YVR, without gate (2 gates short)
12:25pm - MU582 departs from remote stand (1 gates short)
1:30pm - CZ378 departs from remote stand

Between 10:55am and 12:25pm, the airport is 2 gates short under normal condition.

With AC to ZRH/CDG arrives 10:50am and departs 12:55pm or 1:25pm, that would make it 3 gates short.

If second daily to LHR departs around the same time, then it would be 4 gates short!

Cancelling LGW does not really help, as the departure is later in the afternoon...

Johnny Aussie
Sep 5, 2017, 8:27 PM
Wonder what would be the time for the second LHR flight...

AC896 will depart at 2110 pretty much the same as summer 2016.

YVR will have to do what MEL is doing more of... bussing passengers to their planes.

Just flew from MEL to Singapore and Hanoi for an extended weekend... 5 A380s leaving within an hour of each other.. among others of course... The terminal felt at capacity even at 10pm with all our late night departures to Asia. Sounds like YVR heading along that path with a very busy late night with the additional Asian / Australia flights leaving around midnight.

mezzanine
Sep 5, 2017, 11:17 PM
interjet to start flights to cancun and MEX this fall.

http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2017/09/interjet-to-launch-vancouver-cancun-flights-in-october/

Interjet has announced the startup on October 26 of direct flights to Vancouver from Cancun and Mexico City. Vancouver will be Interjet’s third destination in the country of the maple leaf, which the low-cost carrier intends to continue conquering throughout 2018.

Starting this week, tickets are available for sale with an affordable introduction fee starting at $194 USD departing from Mexico City and $203 USD departing from Cancun for a one-way trip with taxes included.


http://www.theyucatantimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Interjet.jpg

Johnny Aussie
Sep 6, 2017, 1:19 AM
Damn! Beat me to it.

I bet Interjet announces both MEX-YYZ and MEX-YVR at the same time effective early 2017.

interjet to start flights to cancun and MEX this fall.

OK - so I called it a bit later than first predicted :haha:

Interjet had also publicly stated YVR would be started in 2017 earlier this year as well.

Flights will operate CUN-YVR-MEX and MEX-YVR-CUN so a total of 8 flights per week.

YVR-CUN is getting crowded with Air Canada, Air Transat, Sunwing, Westjet and now Interjet on the route.

And not so long ago YVR-MEX was just one daily on AC now it will be 28 weekly with AC, AM, CZ and now 4O

Hourglass
Sep 6, 2017, 4:27 AM
AC896 will depart at 2110 pretty much the same as summer 2016.

YVR will have to do what MEL is doing more of... bussing passengers to their planes.

Just flew from MEL to Singapore and Hanoi for an extended weekend... 5 A380s leaving within an hour of each other.. among others of course... The terminal felt at capacity even at 10pm with all our late night departures to Asia. Sounds like YVR heading along that path with a very busy late night with the additional Asian / Australia flights leaving around midnight.

MEL terminal 2 seems to be bursting at the seams in the evening. I was on the CX night flight to HKG recently and the gate area was so crowded we couldn't even move. Thankfully, don't think YVR is quite there yet.

Klazu
Sep 6, 2017, 4:40 AM
MEL terminal 2 seems to be bursting at the seams in the evening. I was on the CX night flight to HKG recently and the gate area was so crowded we couldn't even move. Thankfully, don't think YVR is quite there yet.

Ugh, sounds awful. No wonder MEL has such a low score in Skytrax customer reviews and I am sure the missing rail link doesn't help either.

excel
Sep 6, 2017, 4:48 AM
Great news about InterJet.

stiffdeadman
Sep 6, 2017, 4:50 AM
OK - so I called it a bit later than first predicted :haha:

Interjet had also publicly stated YVR would be started in 2017 earlier this year as well.

Flights will operate CUN-YVR-MEX and MEX-YVR-CUN so a total of 8 flights per week.

YVR-CUN is getting crowded with Air Canada, Air Transat, Sunwing, Westjet and now Interjet on the route.

And not so long ago YVR-MEX was just one daily on AC now it will be 28 weekly with AC, AM, CZ and now 4O

interesting that they went with cancun with all the competition. they could have gone with puerto vallarta, mazatlan or cabo san lucas all which are closer to YVR and have less competition. wonder if volaris will start up guadalajara in the near future?

nname
Sep 6, 2017, 6:42 AM
Mexican low-cost carrier InterJet in the 4th quarter continues Canadian service expansion, which sees the airline launching service to Vancouver on 26OCT17. The airline will operate 4 weekly flights each on Cancun – Vancouver and Mexico City – Vancouver routing.

The following schedule is effective from 05NOV17, reflecting the end of daylight savings time.

Cancun – Vancouver
4O2860 CUN1600 – 2015YVR 320 x236
4O2861 YVR0550 – 1505CUN 320 x236

Mexico City – Vancouver
4O2850 MEX0035 – 0450YVR 320 x236
4O2851 YVR2130 – 0515+1MEX 320 x236
http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/274644/interjet-plans-vancouver-launch-in-late-oct-2017/


Ugh.. this arrival and departure time...

trofirhen
Sep 6, 2017, 8:17 AM
interesting that they went with cancun with all the competition. they could have gone with puerto vallarta, mazatlan or cabo san lucas all which are closer to YVR and have less competition. wonder if volaris will start up guadalajara in the near future?

My thoughts exactly. What you envision would seem more logical, and probably more profitable, too.

moosejaw
Sep 6, 2017, 12:50 PM
My thoughts exactly. What you envision would seem more logical, and probably more profitable, too.

I would agree the airline the routes might be more profitable but i guarantee that people flock to cancun like people flock to vegas and Mexico is promoting this. This is why CUN is Mexico's second largest airport and Cancun has the most hotel rooms of any resort town down there. Cancun was built as a resort town and easily hosts as many tourists as Cabo, Mazatlan, and Puerto Vallarta combined.

LeftCoaster
Sep 6, 2017, 11:33 PM
LGW on rouge is gone.

PVG upgauged to a 77W.

Thanks for the synopsis, lots of changes in the last week!

Strange LGW has been removed in the booking calendar because I just checked and it's still bookable on the AC website. I wonder why they would leave it as bookable, seems like that would only cause headaches as they try to provide alternate travel accommodations.

Also wasn't PVG already 77W? That's what I was showing in my chart.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 6, 2017, 11:47 PM
Thanks for the synopsis, lots of changes in the last week!

Strange LGW has been removed in the booking calendar because I just checked and it's still bookable on the AC website. I wonder why they would leave it as bookable, seems like that would only cause headaches as they try to provide alternate travel accommodations.

Also wasn't PVG already 77W? That's what I was showing in my chart.

Booking systems sometimes lag a few days. I assume they are not worried if a few people book for next June or July already.

PVG was downgauged to a 789 this summer...

trofirhen
Sep 6, 2017, 11:56 PM
I would agree the airline the routes might be more profitable but i guarantee that people flock to cancun like people flock to vegas and Mexico is promoting this. This is why CUN is Mexico's second largest airport and Cancun has the most hotel rooms of any resort town down there. Cancun was built as a resort town and easily hosts as many tourists as Cabo, Mazatlan, and Puerto Vallarta combined.

Like, wow!! * I wonder what the next market down the notch would be. And where would Guadalajara fit in? It seems Seattle has had Guadalajara on Volaris for some time, but no Mexico City route in the past: Aeromexico is starting up SEA-MEX on Nov 1; quite a bit later than YVR, but the marketability of GDL is evident here. BTW, PDX already has both.

moosejaw
Sep 7, 2017, 1:10 AM
Like, wow!! * I wonder what the next market down the notch would be. And where would Guadalajara fit in? It seems Seattle has had Guadalajara on Volaris for some time, but no Mexico City route in the past: Aeromexico is starting up SEA-MEX on Nov 1; quite a bit later than YVR, but the marketability of GDL is evident here. BTW, PDX already has both.

Another thing going for Cancun is its pretty much cartel free which you cannot say for any of those cities on the mexican west coast. Not so long ago there was a travel advisory for Jalisco and Sinaloa. In fact a lot fo those citites have lost ground to cancun during Spring Break. I dont know why Canadians are so gung ho about visiting the mexican rivera. Its just not safe anymore.

Also Cancun is very American, pretty much every restaurant we have in the states is in Cancun. Mexicans even enjoy going to Chili's. Would be pretty cool if they had a white spot down there. I actually wish there was a white spot in Miami! But we do have an Earls in fact very soon there will be two!

jmt18325
Sep 7, 2017, 1:54 AM
Puerto Vallarta is just as safe, if not safer, than Cancun.

Alpine
Sep 7, 2017, 4:03 AM
YVR-CDG is now 9x weekly between June and October (AF379 year round, AC806/807 seasonal); but due to the way the departures are structured, flights to Paris only leave four days a week (AF reduces to 3x weekly from October until April 30, 2018, then 4x weekly through the peak season). By sheer numbers, there are a lot of flights to Paris, but I'd be willing to give up the volume in exchange for daily flights. Since CDG is a Skyteam airport with relatively few *A connections (unlike say, Frankfurt), AC can't leverage AF's network, and as a whole I don't think this will improve connections to MENASA and other regions underserved by YVR. The cheap Chinese airlines aren't much good either because such destinations are mostly situated too far away to make it economical to connect through China, Hong Kong or Taiwan (with a couple of exceptions like DEL). Unless AC and AF develop some kind of interline deal like AC did with Emirates, allowing for fares where you fly YVR-LHR on AC, then transfer to a connecting EK flight to Dubai. I don't see that happening since EK like the rest of the ME3 is not in any alliance while AF is part of the rival Skyteam. I think AF could crush BA and LH on YVR-MENASA fares, and MU/CA on YVR-India fares, if they expanded to daily.

Year round to MEL was an unexpected and pleasant surprise, I'm sure all the Aussies working up in Whistler will be over the moon.

I wonder how long it'll be before we see all of the main Vancouver-China services (AC29/30, CA992/991, AC25/26, MU582/581, MU598/597, CZ330/329) upgauge to 77W. I remember, not even that long ago when most of AC's TPAC routes from YVR were old 763s or 333s; the YVR-SYD flight even had a stopover in HNL to refuel because Canada to Australia is just barely outside of the range of a 767 (~12,500 km, the 767-300ER can only crack 11,000)! While CA and MU both flew A330s to YVR. How times have changed. Maybe China Southern will start using A380s on the YVR-CAN route. I doubt it though, since it's a very premium heavy aircraft (BA had to get rid of its 5x weekly additional summer flights in order to balance out the glut of pointy-end seats resulting from using an A380 on the YVR route).

I'll be honest, I don't know much about Zurich or even Switzerland in particular. I haven't see ZRH grabbing headlines as an emerging global hub like Dubai, Doha, Istanbul or even Guangzhou are, though that may just be due to my own ignorance. Here's what I know about Switzerland:


Speeding fines are proportional to the offender's income
It's where corrupt European bankers and FIFA/IOC executives stash their cash (or, at least, used to, before the U.S. started cracking down on tax evasion through Swiss banks back in 2013)
There's an unhealthy obsession with direct democracy: due to popular referendums, women didn't get the right to vote until 1990, and there's been ban on constructing new mosques in the country since 2009.
Switzerland was also the first country to pilot a UBI program, only to shut it down...after it was rejected in a referendum.
A lot of supercars have Swiss license plates, registered in Geneva or Zurich.
The typical stuff about chocolate, watches, ski resorts, cheeses, the stuff everyone knows.


Why ZRH? Is Zurich becoming a growing hub, like Newark? I know that AC operated non-revenue YVR-ZRH and YVR-GVA flights on the day after the 2010 Closing Ceremonies, to ferry IOC officials back to Switzerland.

officedweller
Sep 7, 2017, 10:07 PM
City of Richmond fighting against proposed third runway for Vancouver International Airport
By Paula Baker
Online Journalist Global News
...
One of the City’s main concern is the Airport Authority’s decision to go ahead with its application to Transport Canada without any previous public consultation with the residents and property owners that would be impacted by the new plans.

In an attempt to decrease noise from the planes, the City requested the proposed Close-In south Parallel Runway be used for landings only (except under limited circumstances). The Airport Authority rejected this request which, the City says, leaves open the possibility for the runway to be used for regular takeoffs.

The City says this decision would also limit building height in parts of Richmond’s City Centre, which goes against existing local and regional plans for the area.
...

http://globalnews.ca/news/3726066/city-of-richmond-fighting-against-proposed-third-runway-for-vancouver-international-airport/

trofirhen
Sep 7, 2017, 10:58 PM
I think AF could crush BA and LH on YVR-MENASA fares, and MU/CA on YVR-India fares, if they expanded to daily.

Year round to MEL was an unexpected and pleasant surprise, I'm sure all the Aussies working up in Whistler will be over the moon.

>>>>>>>>>I was pretty thrilled about getting Melbourne 4x a week, too. We now cover the Eastern part of Australia; the three major cities.:tup:<<<<<

Why ZRH? Is Zurich becoming a growing hub, like Newark? I know that AC operated non-revenue YVR-ZRH and YVR-GVA flights on the day after the 2010 Closing Ceremonies, to ferry IOC officials back to Switzerland.

Here's a Wikipedia look at Zurich airport of you're interested.
I suggest click directly on number 4 in the headings. Airlines & Destinations
Well connected city for sure.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich_Airport :)

LeftCoaster
Sep 7, 2017, 11:39 PM
Booking systems sometimes lag a few days. I assume they are not worried if a few people book for next June or July already.

PVG was downgauged to a 789 this summer...

Right you are, it's not bookable any longer.

I guess I've been showing PVG wrong all along. Good sign that it has been boosted though.

I think AF could crush BA and LH on YVR-MENASA fares, and MU/CA on YVR-India fares, if they expanded to daily.

I wonder how long it'll be before we see all of the main Vancouver-China services (AC29/30, CA992/991, AC25/26, MU582/581, MU598/597, CZ330/329) upgauge to 77W.

I bet AF goes summer daily soon, once they receive more of their 787-9s. They have 2 in service with 14 more to come and it is the perfect aircraft for YVR-CDG, as it has the same seeatcount as their current 772 but less premium heavy.

- AC to Beijing is already daily 77HD.
- AC to Shanghai is going daily 77W next summer (not this summer as I thought).
- MU is still predominantly 332 but has been running some 77W since early August as well as some 333. Lots of room for growth if they go all 77W.
- CA I believe splits their service with one daily 77HD and one daily 332 which carries through the winter.
- CZ used to run pure 77Ws but with the MEX add on and the extra 3 flights PW they went back to mostly 788. I bet they will grow into the MEX service and we'll see a lot more of the 77W going forward.

Hopefully upgauges will continue to satisfy China growth for the next 2 years or so until either WJ opens up some China routes or the bilateral is expanded. I wonder if China will trade prime slots to Canadian airlines in exchange for a relaxation on the bilateral frequencies?

Chikinlittle
Sep 8, 2017, 2:37 AM
http://globalnews.ca/news/3726066/city-of-richmond-fighting-against-proposed-third-runway-for-vancouver-international-airport/

I'm still not fully understanding the rationale to support a third parallel runway. LHR has two parallel runways and accommodates 75 million passengers and 475,000 aircraft movements. YVR has two parallel runways and sees 22 million passengers and 280,000 aircraft movements.

And there is/was a third (crosswind) runway at YVR that has been essentially de-commissioned... why? Especially if it could accommodate a significant quantity of the smaller regional aircraft movements?

Chikinlittle
Sep 8, 2017, 2:39 AM
I'm still not fully understanding the rationale to support a third parallel runway. LHR has two parallel runways and accommodates 75 million passengers and 475,000 aircraft movements. YVR has two parallel runways and sees 22 million passengers and 280,000 aircraft movements.

And there is/was a third (crosswind) runway at YVR that has been essentially de-commissioned... why? Especially if it could accommodate a significant quantity of the smaller regional aircraft movements?

Further to that, LGW has been dubbed the busiest runway in the world... it sees 280,000 aircraft movements per year... ...

excel
Sep 8, 2017, 5:05 AM
And there is/was a third (crosswind) runway at YVR that has been essentially de-commissioned... why? Especially if it could accommodate a significant quantity of the smaller regional aircraft movements?

It is not de-commissioned. They only use it during significant crosswinds. They cannot use it while the parallel runways are in use because of conflicting arrival/departure and missed approach flight paths. As well as being a logistical nightmare for the tower and ground controllers.

Nick
Sep 8, 2017, 5:18 AM
LHR and LGW are severely slot restricted and have next to no corporate aircraft using them. A good operational day at Heathrow is when the departure delays equal the arrival delays. LGW happens to have a 2nd runway that they don't use unless there are issues with Rwy 08R/26L. Just because a couple airports in the UK do it doesn't mean it's orderly or expeditious and we should mimic it.

YVR has no option closer than YXX for an ad-hoc corporate jet or charter bigger than a citation. If slots fill up, they would have to extend a runway at Boundary Bay or Pitt Meadows to move all corporate away from YVR. From my perch in YYC, we frequently get ground delay programs to YVR when it's anything other than fully open parallel runway ops. Prior to our parallel runway opening in YYC, we had delay programs daily. Aircraft had to reserve arrival times between 14 and 7 days in advance because we couldn't accommodate the demand.

With the way that "Close-In south Parallel Runway" is shown on the pictures, it would be used for landings mostly only. At airports with close parallels like that, aircraft usually land the outer runway and depart the inner runway because the runway crosses are more safe for ground controllers. It's easier to stop a departing aircraft from taking off than overshooting an arriving aircraft if a crossing plane is slow to cross. But if they are keeping any south terminal infrastructure or corporate operations on the south side of the airport as they currently are, you can be prevented by bureaucracy to not allow the south field departure go off the safest runway for them. All major airports have weird bureaucratic rules that we have to follow so maybe YVRAA is getting ahead of them. Why pigeon-hole yourself for something 20 years in the future?

In terms of using Rwy 12/30. It adds a large amount of complexity that is not worth the risks for a tiny amount of capacity improvement. The appetite for crossing runway ops at major airports is diminishing fast. At YYC, if we can use the parallel runways, we use them exclusively. The little runways are for operational requirements only. Our motto at Nav Canada mentions safe, orderly, and expeditious movement of aircraft, in that order It's less safe, a lot less orderly, and only a little bit more expeditious overall.

Anyways, that's my rambling for the night

trofirhen
Sep 8, 2017, 6:08 AM
Craig Richmond has repeatedly said recently that a third runway is not in the cards for YVR at the moment. I think LHR manages because it's got mostly big overseas planes.

Hourglass
Sep 8, 2017, 6:22 AM
I'm still not fully understanding the rationale to support a third parallel runway. LHR has two parallel runways and accommodates 75 million passengers and 475,000 aircraft movements. YVR has two parallel runways and sees 22 million passengers and 280,000 aircraft movements.

And there is/was a third (crosswind) runway at YVR that has been essentially de-commissioned... why? Especially if it could accommodate a significant quantity of the smaller regional aircraft movements?

If you look at the fine print, YVR is saying they need the additional capacity within the next 30 years. Taking an average of 2.5% annual growth for the next 30 years means the current 280,000 movements per year will increase to 573,000 aircraft movements per year by 2047. Unless there's a complete change in the way we fly, that means a new runway will be required before then.

The other thing is, it takes time to plan and build a new runway. At Brisbane Airport, it took 8 years because of tricky soil conditions. I don't recall exactly how long it took to build the parallel runway at YVR, but I'm pretty sure it was at least 2-3 years. If you don't plan for it now, it's a lot harder in the future when things are built up around the airport. You cite Heathrow as an example. There's actually desperate need for new runway capacity in Southeast England since Heathrow is at 99% capacity. Yet it's difficult to talk about a 3rd runway because it will require relocation of communities, and have a significant impact on transport infrastructure such as the M25.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 8, 2017, 6:40 AM
Per airlineroute.net tweet

Effective 13 June 2018 YVR-KEF increases to 4 weekly from 3 weekly.

Another little boost to YVR-Europe next summer.

FI696 YVR 1545 - 0600+1 KEF 1345 752
FI697 KEF 1715 - 1750 YVR 2357 752

twoNeurons
Sep 8, 2017, 4:28 PM
Regarding LGW... Gatwick may make do with 2 runways... but remember it's not the only game in town. There are 3 other fairly major airports in the area that can take traffic. In addition, LGW ( as was mentioned ) likely handles more passenger load in the form of larger planes. YVR is pretty much the only game in town and has to handle ALL future traffic. YXX is pretty far away and YDT doesn't look set for growth ( though I'd love to see it become a limited LCC airport, tbh ).

In short, comparing YVR to LGW is apples and oranges.

LeftCoaster
Sep 8, 2017, 7:46 PM
I also don't think we should be holding ourselves up to LHR and LGW as examples of what to follow. The survive in spite of their runway constraints because of the massive draw of London. If YVR had the same constraints of the London airports people would simply transit elsewhere.

LeftCoaster
Sep 8, 2017, 9:05 PM
So I did a bit more analysis and though the Paris and Zurich additions are big the London 'increase' is actually only a 1.1% increase in seats per week. The loss of 3xLGW on Rouge and downgauge of the first daily LHR flight to a 789 effectively negate the second daily 789.

Still would much rather have double daily LHR on 789 than 10x on a 77HD and Gatwick on Rouge though!

Also Airlineroute noted on his twitter than DEL is going year round as well, though no further info. Could be wrong, but he is pretty well informed and usually corrects his mistakes;
https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status/903303425164795904

Canadian74
Sep 8, 2017, 9:58 PM
Also Airlineroute noted on his twitter than DEL is going year round as well, though no further info. Could be wrong, but he is pretty well informed and usually corrects his mistakes;
https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status/903303425164795904

Air Canada mentioned this too during the event, but no timeline was given

Johnny Aussie
Sep 8, 2017, 10:57 PM
So I did a bit more analysis and though the Paris and Zurich additions are big the London 'increase' is actually only a 1.1% increase in seats per week. The loss of 3xLGW on Rouge and downgauge of the first daily LHR flight to a 789 effectively negate the second daily 789.

Still would much rather have double daily LHR on 789 than 10x on a 77HD and Gatwick on Rouge though!

Also Airlineroute noted on his twitter than DEL is going year round as well, though no further info. Could be wrong, but he is pretty well informed and usually corrects his mistakes;
https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status/903303425164795904

Comparing YVR-LON over the last two years on AC:

Summer 2016 - 1 daily 77W 1 daily 788
Summer 2017 - 1 daily 77W 3 weekly 763 rouge
Summer 2018 - 2 daily 789

Basically in 2017 the daily 788 was moved to FRA and they added the 3 weekly rouge to LGW.

So just comparing 2016 to 2018 YVR - Europe has gone from just 17 weekly flights to two destinations to 31 weekly flights to five destinations.

I always saw AC favouring YYC for Europe flights but that certainly isn't the case anymore. In fact next summer each of their 3 daily overseas flights (including NRT) is being down gauged. A lot of capacity being stripped away in YVR's favour for Western Canada ops. Same with TS at YYC... down to just 4 weekly... 3 to LGW and 1 to AMS which originates in YVR as well. YVR has maintained its TS Europe schedule and all flights now nonstop except for one of the three weekly AMS flights that goes via YYC. Their experiments with FCO, BCN and ATH just wouldn't work... their 332s just too large for just once weekly flights.

Assuming 2018 schedules to LGW stay the same next summer there will still be 13 weekly flights to LGW. Perhaps the rouge experiment on YVR-LGW was a failure. In any event I agree with you.... 2 daily LHR on mainline is much better for YVR.

WS and TS can duke out the lower yielding LGW traffic. I wonder if Westjet will boost YVR-LGW to daily.

jmt18325
Sep 9, 2017, 1:52 AM
LGW on rouge is gone.


Strange that it doesn't seem to have gone back to YYZ.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 9, 2017, 2:01 AM
Strange that it doesn't seem to have gone back to YYZ.

Perhaps 4x week is a good balance for YYZ-LGW... enough to remain a thorn in the side of TS and WS without bleeding with a daily flight. :shrug:

nname
Sep 9, 2017, 7:07 AM
Phillippine Airlines to convert MNL-YVR-YYZ into non-stop MNL-YYZ. Seems like the overall MNL-YVR service will reduce from 8-10x weekly to 7x weekly

Effective Dec 17

PR126 MNL1620 – 1200YVR x357 (.. continue to JFK)
PR116 MNL2115 – 1655YVR 3
PR116 MNL2145 – 1725YVR 5
PR116 MNL2200 – 1740YVR 7

PR117 YVR0010 – 0545+1MNL 46
PR117 YVR0025 – 0600+1MNL 1
PR127 YVR0410 – 0945+1MNL x146 (.. from JFK)

thenoflyzone
Sep 9, 2017, 12:44 PM
Taking an average of 2.5% annual growth for the next 30 years means the current 280,000 movements per year will increase to 573,000 aircraft movements per year by 2047.

That's a very optimistic projection. The reality is, in the last decade or two, aircraft movements haven't increased in a linear equation compared to passenger numbers. That trend will likely continue, as more Q100/300s are replaced by Q400s, and CRJ1/2s are replaced with CRJ7, CRJ9s and even CSeries. More long haul airlines will densify their aircraft as well. With all of these realities in mind, I would be surprised if YVR sees anything close to 570,000 movements in less than 50 years time.

Now, I am not saying YVR needs or doesn't need a third runway in the next 20, 30 years. Comparing every parallel runway airport to LHR is not accurate either. Just because LHR is stuck with 2 runways and is dealing with all the challenges that comes with that doesn't mean YVR should do the same.

The reality is, LHR is at peak capacity from 6am to 11h30pm. That is not the case at YVR. There are times during the day when there are little to no movements at the airport, and there are times where demand exceeds capacity. It's in this context that a third runway might be helpful.

The appetite for crossing runway ops at major airports is diminishing fast.

Exactly. Here at YUL, you can kiss goodbye to 10-28. It's pretty much a taxiway now. Not a NavCan decision, but an ADM one.

thenoflyzone
Sep 9, 2017, 12:59 PM
Phillippine Airlines to convert MNL-YVR-YYZ into non-stop MNL-YYZ.

That is one long VFR route. 13,230 km.

Interesting to see if it lasts, and if JFK is next.

thenoflyzone
Sep 9, 2017, 1:14 PM
Strange that it doesn't seem to have gone back to YYZ.

Perhaps 4x week is a good balance for YYZ-LGW... enough to remain a thorn in the side of TS and WS without bleeding with a daily flight. :shrug:

I suspect it has something to do with a new European route announcement at YUL this month.

casper
Sep 9, 2017, 2:11 PM
Phillippine Airlines to convert MNL-YVR-YYZ into non-stop MNL-YYZ. Seems like the overall MNL-YVR service will reduce from 8-10x weekly to 7x weekly

Effective Dec 17

PR126 MNL1620 – 1200YVR x357 (.. continue to JFK)
PR116 MNL2115 – 1655YVR 3
PR116 MNL2145 – 1725YVR 5
PR116 MNL2200 – 1740YVR 7

PR117 YVR0010 – 0545+1MNL 46
PR117 YVR0025 – 0600+1MNL 1
PR127 YVR0410 – 0945+1MNL x146 (.. from JFK)

What would be nice is if they added a tag-on flight to MIA.

They could not sell tickets between YVR-YYZ. They can on the JFK flight and would be able to on the MIA flight.

thenoflyzone
Sep 9, 2017, 2:58 PM
What would be nice is if they added a tag-on flight to MIA.

They could not sell tickets between YVR-YYZ. They can on the JFK flight and would be able to on the MIA flight.

They can operate 2 MNL-Canada-U.S routes, with a max of 4 weekly flights each, max 50% of aircraft seats sold between Canada-U.S.

So theoretically, yes, they can launch MNL-YVR-MIA, max 4 weekly.

However, YVR-MIA is nowhere near as large as YVR-NYC. Meaning the plane will be full of florida-MNL traffic. Very low yielding.

casper
Sep 9, 2017, 9:34 PM
They can operate 2 MNL-Canada-U.S routes, with a max of 4 weekly flights each, max 50% of aircraft seats sold between Canada-U.S.

So theoretically, yes, they can launch MNL-YVR-MIA, max 4 weekly.

However, YVR-MIA is nowhere near as large as YVR-NYC. Meaning the plane will be full of florida-MNL traffic. Very low yielding.

I would not be surprised if they can pick up some corporate contracts from the cruse ship industry given the number of workers who rotate onto the ships out of the Philippines. However probably all economy and looking for the best price possible.

thenoflyzone
Sep 10, 2017, 3:34 PM
I would not be surprised if they can pick up some corporate contracts from the cruse ship industry given the number of workers who rotate onto the ships out of the Philippines. However probably all economy and looking for the best price possible.

Manila is Miami's largest market in East Asia. It certainly is a possibility.

I personally think MIA will get a non-stop to NRT by a Japanese carrier in the next year or two, before any MNL-YVR-MIA service.

At some point, PAL will operate MNL-JFK non stop, when they get enough A359s. I wouldn't be surprised to see their YVR-JFK tag disappear as well.

trofirhen
Sep 10, 2017, 4:59 PM
Manila is Miami's largest market in East Asia. It certainly is a possibility.

I personally think MIA will get a non-stop to NRT by a Japanese carrier in the next year or two, before any MNL-YVR-MIA service.

At some point, PAL will operate MNL-JFK non stop, when they get enough A359s. I wouldn't be surprised to see their YVR-JFK tag disappear as well.

Too bad the possibility of YVR losing its "North American Landing Pad" position with ultra-long flights, despite the new super long range jets. Will YYZ ever get Australia and NZ nonstop, too?

thenoflyzone
Sep 11, 2017, 12:37 PM
Will YYZ ever get Australia and NZ nonstop, too?

YYZ-SYD is still almost 2,000 km longer than MNL-JFK.
It is 1,000 km longer than the upcoming PER-LHR, which is still doubtful as being a profitable route.
....
So no.

trofirhen
Sep 11, 2017, 3:08 PM
YYZ-SYD is still almost 2,000 km longer than MNL-JFK.
It is 1,000 km longer than the upcoming PER-LHR, which is still doubtful as being a profitable route.
....
So no.

:) What a relief!!! Thanks. Nice to know we have some routes exclusive to YVR.

nname
Sep 11, 2017, 4:24 PM
YYZ-SYD is still almost 2,000 km longer than MNL-JFK.
It is 1,000 km longer than the upcoming PER-LHR, which is still doubtful as being a profitable route.
....
So no.

Unless AC/QF order A350ULR, I don't think YYZ-SYD is even possible...

whatnext
Sep 11, 2017, 5:28 PM
Anyone know what's going on at the overflow lot that YVR installed in a panic after Macarthur Glen opened, and then was barely used? It's all being dug up.

nname
Sep 11, 2017, 6:45 PM
Flair Airlines (formerly NewLeaf) announces 4x weekly YVR-YEG starting Dec 15.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3734355/flair-airlines-expands-to-toronto-vancouver-and-kelowna-names-edmonton-main-transfer-hub/

nname
Sep 11, 2017, 7:36 PM
http://www.aviationpros.com/press_release/12366802/flair-airlines-announces-expansion

If I understand this correctly, there will be 2 routes between Kelowna and Toronto, with one of them stop in Vancouver:

4x weekly YLW-YVR-YEG-YYZ
3x weekly YLW-YEG-YYZ

casper
Sep 12, 2017, 12:43 AM
http://www.aviationpros.com/press_release/12366802/flair-airlines-announces-expansion

If I understand this correctly, there will be 2 routes between Kelowna and Toronto, with one of them stop in Vancouver:

4x weekly YLW-YVR-YEG-YYZ
3x weekly YLW-YEG-YYZ

Makes sense, Flair is based out of Kelowna. The Kelowna to Vancouver segment is probably to position the aircraft and crew.

Reminds me of the old days when I lived in Saskatoon. WestJet back then had a daily flight: YXU-YWG-YXE-YYC-YVR-YXS. Sometimes I would to the flight as YXE-YXE other times as YXE-YVR and others times as YXE-YWG or YXE-YYC. The joys of milk runs.

nname
Sep 12, 2017, 1:47 AM
http://www.aviationpros.com/press_release/12366802/flair-airlines-announces-expansion

If I understand this correctly, there will be 2 routes between Kelowna and Toronto, with one of them stop in Vancouver:

4x weekly YLW-YVR-YEG-YYZ
3x weekly YLW-YEG-YYZ

Schedule:

F8310 YLW 1330 - 1411 YVR 1500 - 1729 YEG 1815 - 2353 YYZ x246
F8311 YYZ 0730 - 0934 YEG 1030 - 1102 YVR 1150 - 1233 YLW x246

F8840 YVR 1420 - 1649 YEG 2
F8841 YEG 1250 - 1322 YVR 2


Interestingly enough, their YYZ-YEG-YLW route will also be using the F8310/311 number...


Makes sense, Flair is based out of Kelowna. The Kelowna to Vancouver segment is probably to position the aircraft and crew.

Based on the schedule above, seems like the aircraft will be based at YYZ and YEG... as it would spend only 57min at their YLW home

Klazu
Sep 12, 2017, 1:47 AM
Anyone know what's going on at the overflow lot that YVR installed in a panic after Macarthur Glen opened, and then was barely used? It's all being dug up.

I was also wondering the same while visiting YVR yesterday. Lots of action on the site right now. Perhaps building the office park is getting started? I never saw any cars on those parking lots, so they were a waste of money. Anything going up there will be an improvement.

Klazu
Sep 12, 2017, 1:54 AM
Going back to the 4th runway...

How is building the new runway to the south being the cheaper option that building the foreshore runway? They will have to demolish the whole south terminal and all buildings around it vs. fill in the shallow bay and pave it over. I don't get it. :shrug:

I have also wondered how would the new north-south taxiway be implemented? They would have to place both the road and Canada Line underground to accommodate for planes moving across. Strange that such wasn't considered when Canada Line was built not-so-long-ago. Another lack of foresight that is so common in Metro Vancouver. :???:

Considering how much Richmond benefits from YVR being on their soil, one would think they understand the benefits of letting the airport grow. Building generic condos is just temporary income for the city vs. a global hub.

http://images.dailyhive.com/20160908182436/vancouver-international-airport-runway-taxiway.jpg

osirisboy
Sep 12, 2017, 2:04 AM
Canada line did take the north south taxiway into account. That's why that section is not elevated

Klazu
Sep 12, 2017, 2:11 AM
True, but just how much easier it would have been for them to put the small stretch underground when building it vs. now that the train runs every 7 minutes. I am sure it will be 5x more expensive now.

nname
Sep 12, 2017, 2:15 AM
True, but just how much easier it would have been for them to put the small stretch underground when building it vs. now that the train runs every 7 minutes. I am sure it will be 5x more expensive now.

The plan is to elevate the taxiway...

Klazu
Sep 12, 2017, 2:26 AM
Oh wow. How gentle the incline needs to be for planes be able to cross over?

Spork
Sep 12, 2017, 5:01 AM
Oh wow. How gentle the incline needs to be for planes be able to cross over?

Looks like 3% grade at worst, 1.5% is probably desired.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/25001/what-is-the-maximum-slope-for-taxiing-aircraft

jollyburger
Sep 12, 2017, 8:18 AM
Going back to the 4th runway...

How is building the new runway to the south being the cheaper option that building the foreshore runway? They will have to demolish the whole south terminal and all buildings around it vs. fill in the shallow bay and pave it over. I don't get it. :shrug:

In 2007:

Foreshore Runway $1.2 billion dollars
South Parallel: $300 million

https://www.straight.com/article-110575/yvr

Marshal
Sep 12, 2017, 8:42 AM
Going back to the 4th runway...

How is building the new runway to the south being the cheaper option that building the foreshore runway? They will have to demolish the whole south terminal and all buildings around it vs. fill in the shallow bay and pave it over. I don't get it. :shrug:

I have also wondered how would the new north-south taxiway be implemented? They would have to place both the road and Canada Line underground to accommodate for planes moving across. Strange that such wasn't considered when Canada Line was built not-so-long-ago. Another lack of foresight that is so common in Metro Vancouver. :???:

Considering how much Richmond benefits from YVR being on their soil, one would think they understand the benefits of letting the airport grow. Building generic condos is just temporary income for the city vs. a global hub.

http://images.dailyhive.com/20160908182436/vancouver-international-airport-runway-taxiway.jpg

A few things:
The photo you show is not for what you are talking about. It illustrates the Foreshore runway (to be built over completely unstable delta mudflats - it costs more than most think to make a runway on typical ground due to the weight of planes and the forces of acceleration/deceleration and the stopping of such a large mass with downward momentum); but the south parallel in this photo is not a major runway but a parallel replacement for the current cross wind runway. The photo must be old or they are thinking differently than a few years ago (which I doubt, given the way operations are developing.)

And . . . it is not a lack of forsight by Metro to have not put the Canada Line in a trench there. Its hard-nosed reality: who would responsibly spend millions to accomodate a possible development 20-30 or even 40 years down the road. Especially one that was a proposal not 100% committed to. And lastly, blaming Metro is curious, since they have little to do with it. The planning of the airport leg of Canada Line would have been driven by the airport authority. If you need to blame, target the right guy; although, as I said, no authority would have spent the money gambling on a future scenario.

Lastly, Richmond is like any jurisdiction, and rightly so - their job is to maximize things according to their own plans. Richmond (and yes, like so many they have a stupid group running the municipal gov't) knows all too well the economic and other benefits it gets from 'its' airport. They have done a lot of things over the years to prove it. They also know it will grow regardless (no-one dreams anymore of a 2nd major airport in the valley), so they need to serve their citizens and try to be a source of pressure within the process. It's like New West. They apply pressure against road enlargement, and they know its going to come anyway, but in doing so they get the most they can while it is planned, figured out, and implemented.

Damn, almost forgot: tearing down all those cheap buildings in the south area would not be much of a cost item compared to others . . . might even be seen as an opportunity to modernize a number of functions.

jollyburger
Sep 12, 2017, 9:08 AM
Looks like 3% grade at worst, 1.5% is probably desired.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/25001/what-is-the-maximum-slope-for-taxiing-aircraft

Diagrams had it 0.93 to 1.12

http://i.imgur.com/hMNjwg2.jpg

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=87953&page=379

I don't think building a bridge is that vastly more expensive versus trying to tunnel 12 lanes of traffic/Canada Line for 1-2KM including the disruption during construction to bury all those roads.

Engineering for tunnels under the Calgary airport runways (might not be as over engineered for a taxiway):

The six-lane tunnel under the runway is 620 metres long. Also, two taxiway underpasses are 32 metres wide by 61 metres long and 13 metres wide by 166 metres long.
Determining structural design loads for the tunnel and underpasses was a challenge since this information is not part of Canadian codes and standards, and few structures are exposed to such high loads. The use of complex finite element analysis models allowed for the design of reinforced concrete structures that will support the worst case static and dynamic loading scenarios, including the Airbus A380’s 600 tonne loading. More than 85,000 cubic metres of concrete and 16,000 tonnes of reinforcing steel were used to build the structures.

http://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/features/award-of-excellence-calgary-international-airport-runway-and-tunnel/

thenoflyzone
Sep 12, 2017, 3:13 PM
Going back to the 4th runway...

How is building the new runway to the south being the cheaper option that building the foreshore runway? They will have to demolish the whole south terminal and all buildings around it vs. fill in the shallow bay and pave it over. I don't get it. :shrug:


Probably because building a man made island and putting a runway on it costs much more than demolishing some buildings and paving over it.

twoNeurons
Sep 12, 2017, 5:54 PM
Oh wow. How gentle the incline needs to be for planes be able to cross over?

Whatever it is... it was taken into account when they built the Canada Line and specifically planned to accommodate this runway. IOW, not a problem.

excel
Sep 12, 2017, 7:29 PM
Jetlines back in the news.

New ultra-low-cost airline Canada Jetlines to fly out of Hamilton

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/7550371-new-ultra-low-cost-airline-canada-jetlines-to-fly-out-of-hamilton/

Johnny Aussie
Sep 13, 2017, 1:18 PM
Yet another bump to YVR-Europe next summer.

YVR-DUB increasing from 3 to 5 weekly.

https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2017-09-13-Air-Canada-Deepens-Embrace-of-the-Emerald-Isle-with-Expanded-Non-Stop-Services-to-Ireland-from-Toronto-and-Montreal

jmt18325
Sep 13, 2017, 4:35 PM
That's a lot of new service to Ireland.

thenoflyzone
Sep 13, 2017, 6:26 PM
That's a lot of new service to Ireland.

Technically, YYZ-DUB is a reduction in service, as the route will go daily A333 next summer, down from 11x weekly 767 this summer.

As for YVR-DUB, the route was supposed to be 4x weekly this summer, but plans got shelved. Let's see if the increase for 5x weekly will remain for next summer.

YUL-DUB and YYZ-SNN are excellent routes for the 737-8.

CareerShow
Sep 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Yet another bump to YVR-Europe next summer.

YVR-DUB increasing from 3 to 5 weekly.

https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2017-09-13-Air-Canada-Deepens-Embrace-of-the-Emerald-Isle-with-Expanded-Non-Stop-Services-to-Ireland-from-Toronto-and-Montreal

Is YVR switching to mainline as well? That would be a much appreciated upgrade in service.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 13, 2017, 8:38 PM
As for YVR-DUB, the route was supposed to be 4x weekly this summer, but plans got shelved. Let's see if the increase for 5x weekly will remain for next year.

Technically the 4th weekly was just a filing and not an announced 4 weekly. They switched the operating base which was going to be through YYZ but then ended up sharing with NGO while YVR-LGW rotated through YYZ.

This 5 weekly is actually announced. And the route is doing well. Obviously well enough to increase the route 67%.

This solves the mystery of the missing LGW capacity.

Is YVR switching to mainline as well? That would be a much appreciated upgrade in service.

Nope it's sticking to rouge. It's a good fit for low yielding and more VFR.

LeftCoaster
Sep 13, 2017, 9:57 PM
They can operate 2 MNL-Canada-U.S routes, with a max of 4 weekly flights each, max 50% of aircraft seats sold between Canada-U.S.

So theoretically, yes, they can launch MNL-YVR-MIA, max 4 weekly.

However, YVR-MIA is nowhere near as large as YVR-NYC. Meaning the plane will be full of florida-MNL traffic. Very low yielding.

Sure but from what I've heard the YVR-NYC business PR manages to pick up is not the high yielding stuff either. Not surprising since One World customers will take CX, Skyteam will take Delta and Star Alliance will take Air Canada. PR is left with the scraps and their ticket prices (especially J) reflect that.

With that said I don't think they will go to MIA either. I think they will either do:

MNL-YVR-ORD
or
MNL-YVR-IAH

Technically the 4th weekly was just a filing and not an announced 4 weekly. They switched the operating base which was going to be through YYZ but then ended up sharing with NGO while YVR-LGW rotated through YYZ.

This 5 weekly is actually announced. And the route is doing well. Obviously well enough to increase the route 67%.

This solves the mystery of the missing LGW capacity.

So 3xPW LGW replaced with 2xPW DUB. Does this mean there is a missing cycle or is it just how the timing worked out with the YYZ shuffle the plane used to do?

Either way great news, hopefully in a few years the route is strong enough to go daily.

red-paladin
Sep 14, 2017, 12:29 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/seattle-vancouver-seaplane-1.4288823

Not YVR related, but the Harbour airport this time. Seems like the best thread to put it in though.

Millennium2002
Sep 14, 2017, 6:43 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/seattle-vancouver-seaplane-1.4288823

Not YVR related, but the Harbour airport this time. Seems like the best thread to put it in though.

Interesting... that would be really cool IMO... but is there space for a pre-clearance facility at the Convention Centre seaplane terminal? I don't recall any special provisions being made for such... I wonder how they're going to solve that.

casper
Sep 14, 2017, 6:47 AM
Interesting... that would be really cool IMO... but is there space for a pre-clearance facility at the Convention Centre seaplane terminal? I don't recall any special provisions being made for such... I wonder how they're going to solve that.

Sea planes operate between downtown Victoria and Seattle. I have never done that trip, but I don't think they do pre-clearance.

The Victoria airport also does not do pre-clearance. The ferries from Victoria to the US do pre-clearance. The Vancouver cruise ship terminal also has US pre-clearance for the ships heading to Alaska.

trofirhen
Sep 14, 2017, 6:50 AM
TWOV Transit Without Visa

Back in 2013 and 2014, this was one hot topic at YVR (and YYZ, also). It also seemed imminent at that time.
*
What has happened since then? Has TWOV been cancelled, postponed, or is it in effect yet?
I have heard nothing about it for so long that I am wondering if it has been shelved indefinitely or what.
Or am I mistaken, and is it in effect? Anybody knowledgeable on this who can provide an answer, could I ask your support?
This is a major step for YVR - and YYZ - and I'd like to know where we are at with it. Thank you very much.

casper
Sep 14, 2017, 2:30 PM
TWOV Transit Without Visa

Back in 2013 and 2014, this was one hot topic at YVR (and YYZ, also). It also seemed imminent at that time.
*
What has happened since then? Has TWOV been cancelled, postponed, or is it in effect yet?
I have heard nothing about it for so long that I am wondering if it has been shelved indefinitely or what.
Or am I mistaken, and is it in effect? Anybody knowledgeable on this who can provide an answer, could I ask your support?
This is a major step for YVR - and YYZ - and I'd like to know where we are at with it. Thank you very much.

Here is the details:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/twov/travellers.asp

trofirhen
Sep 14, 2017, 3:01 PM
Here is the details:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/twov/travellers.asp

Thank you, Casper:) From the link given, can I assume that TWOV is in effect right now? Looks that way. Out of curiosity, is there a TWOV waiting area at YVR, or is it the whole terminal?

YYCguys
Sep 14, 2017, 6:09 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/seattle-vancouver-seaplane-1.4288823

Not YVR related, but the Harbour airport this time. Seems like the best thread to put it in though.

I'm personally very excited if this gets approval! It would be a hoot to fly harbour to harbour as I love float planes!

LeftCoaster
Sep 14, 2017, 6:21 PM
Posted this in the Canada section, but probably of relevance here too:
Looks like ACs expansion will continue:

Air Canada, pilots reach deal for more aircraft in low-cost Rouge unit
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/air-canada-pilots-reach-deal-for-more-aircrafts-in-low-cost-rouge-unit/article36249609/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

The expansion is only for the narrow body fleet , so this likely means the 737 MAX set to replace the 320 fleet will now mean a portion of the 320 fleet is moved to rouge rather than retired. Big news for YYZ and YUL as that is where the 320/319 Rouge fleet is based as if I recall correctly they shut down their YVR base.

Hopefully some news about widebody expansion for Rouge as well, since the narrowbody range makes any interesting routes less likely.

This may allow for some sun flying destinations from YVR, I'd love to see something in Central America, Costa Rica or Guatemala perhaps. Maybe even open up an AC route to Miami or the Caribbean.

The other way this could benefit YVR is if some YYZ/YUL to Europe flying gets replaced by narrowbodies, freeing up some 767s for YVR. Doubtful but it could happen though as it would require the MAX not the A320 fleet. I believe Glasgow, Edinburgh, Bogota, Manchester and Gatwick are all 767 routes and could be within the range of a 737MAX.

All in all this is likely going to benefit the eastern airports more though, as they are the current rouge narrowbody bases and have more destinations within 320 range.

thenoflyzone
Sep 14, 2017, 7:22 PM
TWOV Transit Without Visa

Back in 2013 and 2014, this was one hot topic at YVR (and YYZ, also). It also seemed imminent at that time.
*
What has happened since then? Has TWOV been cancelled, postponed, or is it in effect yet?
I have heard nothing about it for so long that I am wondering if it has been shelved indefinitely or what.
Or am I mistaken, and is it in effect? Anybody knowledgeable on this who can provide an answer, could I ask your support?
This is a major step for YVR - and YYZ - and I'd like to know where we are at with it. Thank you very much.

Cage and me were talking about this on the YYC page. Yes, it is in use at YVR, YYZ(T1) and YYC.

YUL doesn't participate because it's international wing isn't sterile. It is connected with the domestic jetty. A question of aircraft flexibility (less towing) and utilizing international gates for domestic departures or vice versa.

Now that Asia ops at YUL are growing, they might decide to sterilize the international jetty and join the program. We will see what they do.

Johnny Aussie
Sep 15, 2017, 6:43 AM
So 3xPW LGW replaced with 2xPW DUB. Does this mean there is a missing cycle or is it just how the timing worked out with the YYZ shuffle the plane used to do?

Either way great news, hopefully in a few years the route is strong enough to go daily.

Looking at the latest Rouge developments...

Last summer as I mentioned LGW was rotated through YYZ.

Then...
One YVR based 763 did the daily KIX flight.
One YVR based 763 did both NGO and DUB (NGO days 1,2,4,6 and DUB days 3,5,7)
And One YVR based 763 rotated on a daily basis through LAS and HNL/OGG.

Based on that... in order for them to increase DUB to 5pw.... It would appear they are bringing in a 4th 763....

One to do daily KIX
One to go the daily LAS/HNL or OGG combo
One to do 4 weekly NGO (plus 3 a week to ???)
One to do 5 weekly DUB (plus 2 a week to ???)

.... there are technically 5 weekly rotations unaccounted for at this time for next summer unless something gets cut.... but I really don't see that happening. Perhaps MAN/GLA and/or another Japanese city or maybe increase NGO. Who knows!

thenoflyzone
Sep 15, 2017, 1:44 PM
^

A lot of possibilities.

PVR can get Rouged, MCO can go year round. More UK service is also feasible.

A lot of mainline 767s on YYZ-YVR. With their number dwindling in the coming months, Maybe some of those will be replaced by Rouge 767s? YVR-YUL?

trofirhen
Sep 15, 2017, 3:51 PM
Does AC giving up LGW mean that there will be no service there, or will WJ still serve it?

Too bad that, unlike Seattle, we can't get Norwegian >>> to LGW and maybe summer seasonal to BCN.

The problem would be to leverage around the fact that Norway is not in the EU,
even though they have offices in Dublin. Be great to have them here. $$$$ great value.

thenoflyzone
Sep 15, 2017, 6:04 PM
Does AC giving up LGW mean that there will be no service there, or will WJ still serve it?

Too bad that, unlike Seattle, we can't get Norwegian >>> to LGW and maybe summer seasonal to BCN.

The problem would be to leverage around the fact that Norway is not in the EU,
even though they have offices in Dublin. Be great to have them here. $$$$ great value.

Just because AC is discontining LGW doesn't mean WS will do the same.

As for Norwegian, there are some issues they need to resolve before they can even think about serving Canada.

The U.S-EU open skies bilateral includes Iceland and Norway. That is not the case with the Canada-EU openskies agreement. Meaning if Norwegian Long Haul starts flights to Canada, it would need to abide by the rules set forth in the Canada-Norway bilateral. Problem is, they are not even listed as a carrier in the Canada-Norway bilateral. Only AC and SAS are approved carriers. So the bilateral agreement would need to be amended. Another possible option is to transfer a B787 to their Irish division, Norwegian Air International (NAI) or their UK division, Norwegian Air UK. That way, they could serve Canada under the Canada-EU open skies agreement.

All of this is trivial, as I'm not sure Norwegian is making any money on their transatlantic venture.

LeftCoaster
Sep 15, 2017, 8:33 PM
Does AC giving up LGW mean that there will be no service there, or will WJ still serve it?

YVR-LGW is essentially double daily in the summer with Transat flying a 332 daily and Westjet's 6x 763 service. Combined with AC and BA's service that's 5 daily flights including a 380... More than enough options to London.

I'd much rather see Norwegian fly an unserved route than enter the YVR-LON bloodbath.

LeftCoaster
Sep 15, 2017, 8:40 PM
.... there are technically 5 weekly rotations unaccounted for at this time for next summer unless something gets cut.... but I really don't see that happening. Perhaps MAN/GLA and/or another Japanese city or maybe increase NGO. Who knows!

Aha! That's exactly what I was hoping.

I doubt AC sends a YUL or YYZ route as a Rouge, those flights are just way too business heavy.

I could see something down south, but it would be a tough time to send it down there. Fingers crossed for a new European destination or maybe Sapporo.

Here are the Euro destinations Rouge flies to from YYZ not currently served by YVR:

Athens
Barcelona
Berlin
Budapest
Edinburgh
Glasgow
Lisbon
Manchester
Prague
Reykjavik
Venice
Warsaw

Outside of the British Isles destinations, most probably wouldn't work, but I could see some possibility of a 3x service to Berlin or Barcelona.

trofirhen
Sep 15, 2017, 10:58 PM
YVR-LGW is essentially double daily in the summer with Transat flying a 332 daily and Westjet's 6x 763 service. Combined with AC and BA's service that's 5 daily flights including a 380... More than enough options to London.

I'd much rather see Norwegian fly an unserved route than enter the YVR-LON bloodbath.

You're totally right about the London "bloodbath." Maybe Norwegian could get summer seasonal to Barcelona,
apparently the most underserved YVR-Europe route. ... Though Iberia (BA) would probably get it, as part of BA. ... Except if Brexit goes through .....:uhh:

Johnny Aussie
Sep 15, 2017, 11:41 PM
Aha! That's exactly what I was hoping.

I doubt AC sends a YUL or YYZ route as a Rouge, those flights are just way too business heavy.

I could see something down south, but it would be a tough time to send it down there. Fingers crossed for a new European destination or maybe Sapporo.

Outside of the British Isles destinations, most probably wouldn't work, but I could see some possibility of a 3x service to Berlin or Barcelona.

So far, for summer 2018, all the new AC routes / route enhancements have been to Europe or Australia. So far, there have been no announcements for YVR-Asia.

I know FUK and CTS are on the radar and those would be ideal rouge routes.

I'd go for 2 weekly CTS (or FUK), 2 weekly MAN and 1 weekly GLA.

thenoflyzone
Sep 16, 2017, 1:38 AM
So far, for summer 2018, all the new AC routes / route enhancements have been to Europe or Australia. So far, there have been no announcements for YVR-Asia.

Probably to do with the fact that yields are trash to Asia.

nname
Sep 16, 2017, 2:24 AM
Probably to do with the fact that yields are trash to Asia.

Not for Japan/Korea flights or any flights between late-June to early-Sept and December though. Some fares are still in around $1500 to $1800 in the middle of peak season, while you can get the same ticket off-season for slightly more than $500...

LeftCoaster
Sep 18, 2017, 9:15 PM
So far, for summer 2018, all the new AC routes / route enhancements have been to Europe or Australia. So far, there have been no announcements for YVR-Asia.

I know FUK and CTS are on the radar and those would be ideal rouge routes.

I'd go for 2 weekly CTS (or FUK), 2 weekly MAN and 1 weekly GLA.

Would rouge ever do a 1 weekly? As far as I can tell they don't have any singles in their long haul network.

As far as Japan goes I wonder if there would be any market for a CTS winter run. AC has stressed their need to activate their fleet in the winter months and the skiing in Hokiado is supposed to be an untapped gem. Might be a good market in the PNW with a bunch of retired boomer former ski bums looking to check things off their bucket list.

I hope given ACs winter fleet utilization issues we see some Latin America growth. Mirroring YULs 2x to Lima would be a good start, as would Panama City.

Also in the southern routes growth notation I came across this old article which states Interjet was originally looking at YVR-MEX and adding CUN and GDL later. Looks like they added Cancun immediately but could still be looking at Guadalajara later.
http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2016/10/mexicos-interjet-seeks-merger-with-american-or-united/

zahav
Sep 19, 2017, 7:13 PM
Some nice retro plane landings in these videos (as well as other cool Vancouver shots!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_fSYW6Sz4Q#action=share

https://www.facebook.com/BeVancouver/videos/1668207049918769/ (skip to the 12:30 mark for some amazing flyovers)

LeftCoaster
Sep 19, 2017, 8:25 PM
With YYZ going direct from Manilla on Philippine Airlines attention is turning to where the 4xPW YVR tag on will go next.

Key contenders seem to be:

MNL-YVR-ORD
MNL-YVR-IAH
MNL-YVR-LAS
MNL-YVR-SAN

This article (http://philippineairspace.blogspot.ca/) quotes the PAL president as saying they would like to Fly YVR to IAH and ORD, replacing the YYZ and NYC Routes. I'd be totally cool with this as SAN can transfer through LAX so easily and another carrier to LAS is hardly interesting.

Thoughts?

trofirhen
Sep 19, 2017, 9:34 PM
With YYZ going direct from Manilla on Philippine Airlines attention is turning to where the 4xPW YVR tag on will go next.

Key contenders seem to be:

MNL-YVR-ORD
MNL-YVR-IAH
MNL-YVR-LAS
MNL-YVR-SAN

This article (http://philippineairspace.blogspot.ca/) quotes the PAL president as saying they would like to Fly YVR to IAH and ORD, replacing the YYZ and NYC Routes. I'd be totally cool with this as SAN can transfer through LAX so easily and another carrier to LAS is hardly interesting.

Thoughts?

An East Coast destination (well, central), like ORD or IAH seems the most sensible from looking at your list.
*Also, reading the article, the headlines read "Opens up Chicago Houston and Seattle." Are they inaugurating Seattle flights or what?

LeftCoaster
Sep 19, 2017, 9:44 PM
Sounds like they are looking to launch SEA direct yes.