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

phesto
Dec 11, 2008, 9:17 PM
well idealy we could all fly BA, but when I was a student backpacking around europe Ryan Air was a godsend. Its great for what it is, a low cost people mover. Comparing it to a national airline like BA or Lufthansa is like comparing a Rolls Royce to a bus.

I loved Ryan Air when I was in the U.K. in 2005. That summer I took a handfuld of one-way flights that were all under 10 pounds.

That said, I can't imagine them coming to Vancouver given their current strategy, and even as a budget-conscious student a few years ago I would cringe at the thought of a Ryan Air long-haul flight.

fever
Dec 12, 2008, 2:16 AM
Ryanair's awesome. On two of my flights with them I was able to take a whole row of seats and lie down. First class for $25!

I don't see anything like that being possible here. They'd fly out of Abbotsford anyway (and call it Vancouver).

jlousa
Dec 12, 2008, 3:08 AM
A collegue sent me the following picture, I won't insert it as it's huge, but it's worth looking at, it's apparently YVRs 20yr plan for the northlands, but I'm not sure the date of it as there's no mention of a relocated Canada Post 600,000sqft main office.
Anyone have any insight on it?

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/NorthlandPhases34.jpg

Stingray2004
Dec 12, 2008, 3:53 AM
A collegue sent me the following picture, I won't insert it as it's huge, but it's worth looking at, it's apparently YVRs 20yr plan for the northlands

Hey... what's up with the designated area identified as BOMB DISPOSAL AREA, not too far from the cargo holding area by Baggage Road??

It's not as if that's a major problem (or anticipated) at YVR... or??? :D

Yume-sama
Dec 12, 2008, 7:38 AM
Hey... what's up with the designated area identified as BOMB DISPOSAL AREA, not too far from the cargo holding area by Baggage Road??

It's not as if that's a major problem (or anticipated) at YVR... or??? :D

:haha: Good eye! A little odd / funny they'd have an area just for that.

cornholio
Dec 12, 2008, 7:51 AM
I loved Ryan Air when I was in the U.K. in 2005. That summer I took a handfuld of one-way flights that were all under 10 pounds.

That said, I can't imagine them coming to Vancouver given their current strategy, and even as a budget-conscious student a few years ago I would cringe at the thought of a Ryan Air long-haul flight.

Yup Ryan airs awesomely cheap and useful, last time I used it i flew from London to Linz and then Brno back to London for just under $50 total, mind you my luggage was overweight by 2kg and i had to pay almost a $100 for it, beleive me i tried getting rid of what i could in the time i had but those last 2kg just werent going.

Oh yeah on the way back I got really drunk in Brno at the airport(had to get rid of my cash) and then cracked a beer on the flight and the flight attendant actually tried fighting me over it. The guy was screaming and trying to grab the can as i was trying to chug the rest down, once i finished i gave it to him he bitched, swore and whined and then finally left once he realized i wasnt paying attention to him. It was a funny experience but showed me that the attendants are dicks, oh and yes they do sell beer on the flights for their insanely inflated prices, not to mention that they had a bar where they sold the caned beer that i bought and it was literarly less than 5m from the entrance in to the bridge to the plane.

I mean the pathetic thing was that I was probably still above Czech airspace when he did that and in Czech republic you are allowed to drink beer anywhere by law, no one has the right to stop you because its a fundamental human right so the guy had no right to do that, as long as Czech laws still applied.
end/rant

raggedy13
Dec 12, 2008, 9:40 AM
^I loved exercising this freedom on my trip to Prague. It's nice being able to drink a beer while sitting on a bench in the sun in the middle of a bustling pedestrian plaza. Especially when it is Czech beer. :cheers:

Hourglass
Dec 12, 2008, 11:32 AM
No not at all... why would you not want ryan air in Canada??

I have taken over a dozen flights with Ryan air and had only positive experiances.

I had a horrible experience with them a couple of years ago and swore I'd never take them again. Then again, LCCs in general don't really do anything for me whether it be Ryanair, Norwegian or Air Asia. I fly very frequently, and I value things like lounge privileges, frequent flyer miles and decent IFE too much.

trofirhen
Dec 12, 2008, 6:55 PM
A lot of people :slob: are quibbling over the deficiencies and / or merits of Ryanair - and other low-cost airlines. Given the fact that Canada and the EU-27 have concluded a sweeping "open skies" type of deal, due to go into effect in the fist half of next year - (that's less than six months away, to put it in perspective) ... would it not be more productive to think up some much-needed air routes out of Vancouver to Europe, regardless of who operates them? (I say "regardless ..." because this is an open field right now, and nobody can make predictions who will pick up which route). For starters, how about the long awaited Paris -Vancouver route? Who could, and who would operate that one on a year-round basis, the way Air France operates it out of Seattle? What other major European markets are waiting for Vancouver? Consider the demographics. Rome, perhaps. Or perhaps Dusseldorf (given the large German community here) :cheers: As an example, Scandinavian Airlines operates out of only four American cities: New York, Washington; Chicago, and .... yes... Seattle (due to the large Scandinavian community there). Not forgetting Asia, but thinking of Europe for the moment, where would you, the readers of this page, like to see non-stop European destinations to, from Vancouver. :yes: My first choice is Paris Charles de Gaulle, as Paris represents a huge market, and CDG is the most "connected" airport in Europe. :yes: What about Rome? Do we have a large enough Italian community to sustain that? Zurich? Very central. Do we have enough Scandinavians to support a year-round service to Copehagen Kastrup (the main airport for Scandinavia)? Perhaps not. If so, what about Madrid? Lisbon? Ladies and gentlemen,:koko: rather than recalling anecdotes about beer and bad flights, and given the fact that European low-cost carriers will probably have only a modest presence here, please think of this, and then post it: :notacrook: 1. WHICH DESTINATIONS IN EUROPE ARE MOST IMPORTANT FOR VANCOUVER? 2. WHICH AIRLINES WOULD YOU SEE SERVING THEM? 3. WHICH CITIES COULD SUSTAIN YEAR-ROUND SERVICE? The time has come! The limitations and chains are loosening up, ready to be dropped! We are poised to become a major destination for Europe. :banana: Therefore, could, or can, anyone offer anything positive and concrete to ths page in the way of suggstions for routes and services, instead of squabbling over beer and peanuts? Please, people, rise to the occasion. The Golden Age of YVR may be just about to dawn. OK??? THINK !!! :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

phesto
Dec 12, 2008, 7:19 PM
^Dude, what's up with all the emoticons? You actually make some good points, but it's often hard to decipher them between the dancing bananas.

For carriers to consider YVR-Europe for regular service (ie. non-charter), it is a two-way street - there aren't a ton of Europeans demanding non-stop service to YVR, and those that do are well-served connecting out of London and Frankfurt. Paris? maybe, but anywhere else doesn't really make economic sense, and I don't see people really complaining about stopping over in London or YYZ on their way to European cities.

Yume-sama
Dec 12, 2008, 7:26 PM
It'd be nice to get a Vancouver - Paris flight with an airline that isn't Air Canada.

Their business / first class is still horribly uncomfortable compared to non-budget airlines (who still charge full price). And I know first hand how uncomfortable their economy class is, too. I suppose the only nice thing about them is they have USB plugs for cellphones / iPods, and AC Plugins for Laptops in their new interior. But I'd rather not need a massage after a 3 hour flight, let alone a 7 - 8 hour one :P

twoNeurons
Dec 12, 2008, 7:32 PM
abbotsford to Zurich (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/375156/Mennonite) may be popular. :P

phesto
Dec 12, 2008, 7:37 PM
^Ha! I can see the marketing brochures in Switzerland:

"...Only a 3-hour drive to Whistler..."

eduardo88
Dec 12, 2008, 7:42 PM
I loved Ryan Air when I was in the U.K. in 2005. That summer I took a handfuld of one-way flights that were all under 10 pounds.

That said, I can't imagine them coming to Vancouver given their current strategy, and even as a budget-conscious student a few years ago I would cringe at the thought of a Ryan Air long-haul flight.

Those flights barely exist anymore, I wanted to go to Berlin from London a few weekends ago, and booking 2 weeks in advance the prices were over 200 pounds round trip with both ryanair and easyjet, yet only 145 pounds with BA, over the past 6 months the low cost airlines have really hiked their fares

cc85
Dec 12, 2008, 11:15 PM
i saw that plan for YVR a while ago, must have been early 2008, very outdated plan imo.

trofirhen
Dec 13, 2008, 2:52 PM
^Dude, what's up with all the emoticons? You actually make some good points, but it's often hard to decipher them between the dancing bananas.

For carriers to consider YVR-Europe for regular service (ie. non-charter), it is a two-way street - there aren't a ton of Europeans demanding non-stop service to YVR, and those that do are well-served connecting out of London and Frankfurt. Paris? maybe, but anywhere else doesn't really make economic sense, and I don't see people really complaining about stopping over in London or YYZ on their way to European cities.
// You're right about the excess of "dancing bananas an so forth, and you're right about not needing large numbers of Euro-destinations that are, in fact, too numerous, as you say. However , there are one or two MAJOR European markets unserved from Vancouver, that should, in my opinion be served. * The first is PARIS CDG - a very large potential market (and the major city on the Continent), another might be Rome, given the travel needs of the Italian commuity here, and a third could easily be Zurich, as a connector for Eastern European destinations. Thank you for your feedback.

trofirhen
Dec 14, 2008, 11:06 AM
Given that Canada and the EU have recently concluded a sweeping Open Skies deal, which will allow unrestricted flights from anywhere in Canada (including Vancouver) to any city in Europe, regardless of the carrier which decides to pick up the given route, I'd like to ask people: WHICH EUROPEAN CITIES COULD, OR SHOUD BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF NONSTOPS OUT OF VANCOUVER? My first and foremost choice is Paris CDG. Does anyone have any other suggestions? Right now we have three: London Heathrow (which is a zoo), Amsterdam, and Frankfurt. What about Rome,
or perhaps Lisbon and Madrid on a combined route? What do people think, and what does the market warrant? :koko:

Spikester
Dec 14, 2008, 2:14 PM
I'm selfishly hoping for YVR-MAD because I go there regularly. Most of my trips I get a fairly easy and reliable single connection at AMS, but sometimes I get stuck with really bad routes through the US. The only thing worse than dealing with TSA to get in and out of the States is doing it just to connect and pass through.

Yume-sama
Dec 14, 2008, 7:52 PM
I wonder how hard it will be to get landing slots at some of the major airports such as CDG.

I think we'd have to see one flight changed (perhaps one of the Toronto - Paris flights) for there to even be an opening for Vancouver - Paris.

Airlines certainly couldn't just decide to start flying there right away. There's no way Vancouver would be given a "good" time slot right off the bat.

trofirhen
Dec 14, 2008, 9:32 PM
I wonder how hard it will be to get landing slots at some of the major airports such as CDG.

I think we'd have to see one flight changed (perhaps one of the Toronto - Paris flights) for there to even be an opening for Vancouver - Paris.

Airlines certainly couldn't just decide to start flying there right away. There's no way Vancouver would be given a "good" time slot right off the bat.^^Yes, what you say is very true. However, TRANSAT flies Vancouver-Paris CDG four times a week May to September, so perhaps there's an indication that there might be a landing slot available - or soon to become available - on a year-round basis. I hope so, because Paris is the one "hole" in the European destination map unserved from YVR. If you don't believe me, ask Larry Berg, YVR CEO, or anyone in the marketing department there. Also, this new "Open Skies" deal may take into account adding an extra landing slot here and there, not only at Paris CDG, but in other cities as well. Here's hoping. Our Asian coverage is fine, but we're still a little lacking in European coverage, although as "Phesto" stated quite accurately, there will not be a huge demand to get from Europe to Vancouver, at least not right away, although this may change, as we're the Canadian "junction" between Europe and Asia.

Yume-sama
Dec 14, 2008, 9:42 PM
Who would fly from Europe to Asia through Canada >.>?

trofirhen
Dec 15, 2008, 12:13 AM
Who would fly from Europe to Asia through Canada >.>?You're right! That in itself does sound rather preposterous. What I really meant was that as Canada's Pacific city, with many Asian flights, it makes sense to have an airport from which the routes are diversified: that is, not all oriented either westward, nor southward, nor domesticallly (as, to an extent, is the case with Calgary, for example. Another example, strangely enough, is Montreal: fabulous for travelling to Europe, the Eastern USA, and even destinations in Africa, but with virtually nothing - unlike Big Toronto - to the Pacific Rim, at all). I was not implying that people are going to fly from London or Paris to Tokyo via Vancouver, just that having an airport which is versatile in its flight offerings is better than one which is great for travelling one way, but awkward for travelling in another global direction. :yinyang: Then of course there is a market, largely business, in which flyers will come to Vancouver from either Asia, do business, and seek a flight onward to Europe, and vice versa. And as Canada's principal Western city, having an airport that serves as many corners of the world as possible, including U.S. destinations (given the relatively small size of Vancouver when compared to many other cities) is a good investment. Otherwise stated, it's good to be an airport that has "polyvalence" or versatility, and as much choice as possible. This will stimulate the economy and warrant the ambitious long-term expansion plans of YVR. That's all. :hi:

Spikester
Dec 15, 2008, 2:16 PM
Who would fly from Europe to Asia through Canada >.>?

Some of the around-the-world mavens on FlyerTalk would welcome another option for avoiding the tender mercies of the TSA.

crazyjoeda
Dec 15, 2008, 7:23 PM
Those flights barely exist anymore, I wanted to go to Berlin from London a few weekends ago, and booking 2 weeks in advance the prices were over 200 pounds round trip with both ryanair and easyjet, yet only 145 pounds with BA, over the past 6 months the low cost airlines have really hiked their fares

I flew for free with Ryan Air this summer (June 08). I flew Salzburg to London and only paid the tax it came to about $40 Canadian dollars. I like EasyJet better they have slightly better service, and only cost slightly more I paid about $55 Canadian for a flight from London to Berlin. My train trip to Luton Airport cost only slightly less.

If Ryan Air was the cheapest option to fly to Europe I would welcome them. I'm mostly interested in getting to the destination; I don't find flying to be comfortable even when I fly first class, though I did appreciate it on the 15hr flight from Vancouver to Sydney.

Hot Rod
Dec 18, 2008, 5:05 AM
I could definitely see Vancouver serving as a stopover for European/Asian business (and tourism). Vancouver itself is a business and tourist destination, so why not enhance that by adding in more European flights, so that a tourist or businessman could do everything via and including Vancouver (like was said). Perhaps Vancouver could snag a few offices or even head-offices of more international companies with this serving as a vehicle. ...

Nevertheless, This would enhance Vancouver as America's Singapore and is something the Vancouver officials should be pushing for!!!

trofirhen
Dec 18, 2008, 5:23 AM
I could definitely see Vancouver serving as a stopover for European/Asian business (and tourism). Vancouver itself is a business and tourist destination, so why not enhance that by adding in more European flights, so that a tourist or businessman could do everything via and including Vancouver (like was said). Perhaps Vancouver could snag a few offices or even head-offices of more international companies with this serving as a vehicle. ...

Nevertheless, This would enhance Vancouver as America's Singapore and is something the Vancouver officials should be pushing for!!!

:banana: Please excuse my "dancing banana," but, YES! That's precisely the concept I had in mind when I made the statement! I wish there were more readers who thought the way you do, instead of worrying about too many Ryanair flights, or boo-hooing the concept, saying we DON'T neeed it, when in fact, it's exactly what would make this airport, YVR, a major air hub!! Again, thank you sir!

SpongeG
Dec 18, 2008, 5:48 AM
its a lot longer though

that would be like going via edmonton to get to calgary

Yume-sama
Dec 18, 2008, 5:51 AM
its a lot longer though

that would be like going via edmonton to get to calgary

More like Toronto to get to Calgary :P

But yes, it would help the prospect of business in Vancouver to be able to go *anywhere*.

That is what is so lovely about New York. Of course, in no way do I expect anyone in Canada to ever get as many flights as JFK!

SpongeG
Dec 18, 2008, 5:55 AM
it would bode well for vancouver if europeans wanted to avoid the USA I have read on other forums where travellers have gone way out of there way not to have to transit in the USA to get to south america or mexico - they willingly paid more just to avoid a US stopover

trofirhen
Dec 18, 2008, 1:38 PM
At least it's refreshing that a number of readers here are beginning to understand and appreciate the potential now available for free access to Europe. Sure, nobody is going to fly from Western Europe to Asia on a regular basis. As one writer said, that would be like going to Edmonton - or was it New York - to get to Calgary from Vancouver. Nevertheless, if Toronto (although a larger market than Vancouver, I admit) can support nonstop flights to Paris and Nice, as well as Zurich and Geneva, and not only Frankfurt, but Munich and Dusseldorf as well, among numerous other cities, then I think in the case of Vancouver we have a legitimate case to push for two or three more European destinations, with Paris CDG at the top of the list. (Don't believe me??? Ask anyone in the marketing department at YVR, not to mention Larry Berg himself). Paris , Zurich, and perhaps Rome. That would be a good place to start.
(I live in Paris, and there are a lot of people in France travelling to Vancouver now, and several have expressed surprise and regret that there is no direct service year-round. Why? We lost that to Seattle, thanks to government restrictions designed to cater to YYZ.).
If we're going to become a truly "connected," well-rounded airport, we have got to agressively push for more European destinations, as several others have had the foresight to mention. Vancouver has good Asian connections (some of which bypass the city and go straight to YYZ, which is resolute in dominating the Canadian air market),
but Vancouver also has a special geographic position; sort of "half-way" around the planet. * So does Seattle, but... it is not the ONLY major American city on the West Cost. It has to compete with San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Vancouver, however is the ONLY major Canadian city on the Pacific Coast, and this changes the travelling context to a large degree. :tup: The government shackles that have held us back for decades are coming off next year. Now is the time to be thinking about European destinations, and how they will augment our position from an air traffic point of view, and from the long-term point of view of the economic and logistic importance of Vancouver and YVR.

trofirhen
Dec 18, 2008, 10:51 PM
Toronto(YYZ) has nonstop flights to not only Honolulu, but also, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo, and Beijing.
YVR was supposed to be the "Gateway to Asia." Somebody came along and pulled the rug out from under us. Guess who? NOW will people understand the necessity for more European connections, and stop resting on their laurels? :hell:

Yume-sama
Dec 18, 2008, 11:03 PM
To be honest, if we are going to get flights to Paris, Rome, and other locations in Europe, I have to wonder if it will *have* to be with someone other than Air Canada. They may be reluctant to give up some Toronto traffic, and Toronto will have a lot of say over what they do, I think. I just don't see us getting any new European destinations any time soon, unless Air France, Alitalia, and etc. decide to do it themselves.

And with the current economy, I don't know if they'll be risking picking up new routes.

Hot Rod
Dec 18, 2008, 11:45 PM
To be honest, if we are going to get flights to Paris, Rome, and other locations in Europe, I have to wonder if it will *have* to be with someone other than Air Canada. They may be reluctant to give up some Toronto traffic, and Toronto will have a lot of say over what they do, I think. I just don't see us getting any new European destinations any time soon, unless Air France, Alitalia, and etc. decide to do it themselves.

And with the current economy, I don't know if they'll be risking picking up new routes.

Yume, we don't need Air Canada. It is very clear whose side they are on; as they have augmented Vancouver further away from being a hub and sent everything 2000 miles to the east, even asia flights.

Who needs them. Vancouver can survive quite well as a gateway airport. Actually, somebody mentioned JFK - guess what, it is NOT a major hub for america, it is a GATEWAY airport. Tons of foreign flag carriers port there, the same can be done in Vancouver, the West Coast's Gateway airport.

Sure, we already have Asia Pacific flag carriers (and we need more of them), but we should shoot to be a World Gateway like JFK - touting Vancouver's position in tourism AND BUSINESS. I don't care if it starts out with just charter flights and conventions, we need to get the pro-business culture into the city where downtown becomes the business magnent that all of us vision it should be. What a great way to do it, than use YVR as the gateway to not just the pacific - but the world, the Olympics as the vehicle to introduce people to the city, and LEADERSHIP here to not rest on their laurels - but recognize the competition (Seattle, Calgary, TO mostly) and recognize the NATURAL advantage that Vancouver has to all of them be it economy of scale, location, population and diversity, or large yet compact downtown full of residents.

In order for this to work, we need a vision that has complete impact and flows throughout the city. This means expand the capacity of the Expo Line via 120m platforms and longer trains NOW, build the M-Line extension to UBC NOW, plan for the SkyTrain extensions and LRT for Surrey/Richmond, and possibly rethinking the M-Line (instead of Evergreen) and split it at Lougheed into Coquitlam (instead of calling that split a new line). It also calls for possibly taking on some debt in favor of creating economic stimulus for downtown, like a new and TRUE World Trade Center tower for international businesses to come and TRY OUT Vancouver before deciding to establish permanent roots here.

We have many models worldwide to look to (Singapore, Hong Kong, Osaka, Tokyo, Shanghai) that will work here. Instead of resting on our recent successes and laurels, we need to evolve as a city - relax some of the no-longer-necessary statutes (some of the view cones, entertainment zones/hours, density in the Financial District) to create the next impetus for the city. Sustainability means more than just density in residential, it also means places closeby for them to work and transit for suburbanites to come to work and shop/eat/dance/drink/play downtown! Downtown residents should not only be aware of this, but should encourage it in the entertainment districts - since, they live .. .. Downtown!

We need to use YVR and Downtown to move the Greater Vancouver Lower Mainland (yes, including the valley and island) as the next Asian, excuse me - WORLD Tiger! How do we get the word out, that this is what we want and demand from our leaders!

Yume-sama
Dec 18, 2008, 11:58 PM
Yume, we don't need Air Canada. It is very clear whose side they are on; as they have augmented Vancouver further away from being a hub and sent everything 2000 miles to the east, even asia flights.

Who needs them. Vancouver can survive quite well as a gateway airport. Actually, somebody mentioned JFK - guess what, it is NOT a major hub for america, it is a GATEWAY airport. Tons of foreign flag carriers port there, the same can be done in Vancouver, the West Coast's Gateway airport.

Sure, we already have Asia Pacific flag carriers (and we need more of them), but we should shoot to be a World Gateway like JFK - touting Vancouver's position in tourism AND BUSINESS. I don't care if it starts out with just charter flights and conventions, we need to get the pro-business culture into the city where downtown becomes the business magnent that all of us vision it should be. What a great way to do it, than use YVR as the gateway to not just the pacific - but the world, the Olympics as the vehicle to introduce people to the city, and LEADERSHIP here to not rest on their laurels - but recognize the competition (Seattle, Calgary, TO mostly) and recognize the NATURAL advantage that Vancouver has to all of them be it economy of scale, location, population and diversity, or large yet compact downtown full of residents.

In order for this to work, we need a vision that has complete impact and flows throughout the city. This means expand the capacity of the Expo Line via 120m platforms and longer trains NOW, build the M-Line extension to UBC NOW, plan for the SkyTrain extensions and LRT for Surrey/Richmond, and possibly rethinking the M-Line (instead of Evergreen) and split it at Lougheed into Coquitlam (instead of calling that split a new line). It also calls for possibly taking on some debt in favor of creating economic stimulus for downtown, like a new and TRUE World Trade Center tower for international businesses to come and TRY OUT Vancouver before deciding to establish permanent roots here.

We have many models worldwide to look to (Singapore, Hong Kong, Osaka, Tokyo, Shanghai) that will work here. Instead of resting on our recent successes and laurels, we need to evolve as a city - relax some of the no-longer-necessary statutes (some of the view cones, entertainment zones/hours, density in the Financial District) to create the next impetus for the city. Sustainability means more than just density in residential, it also means places closeby for them to work and transit for suburbanites to come to work and shop/eat/dance/drink/play downtown! Downtown residents should not only be aware of this, but should encourage it in the entertainment districts - since, they live .. .. Downtown!

We need to use YVR and Downtown to move the Greater Vancouver Lower Mainland (yes, including the valley and island) as the next Asian, excuse me - WORLD Tiger! How do we get the word out, that this is what we want and demand from our leaders!

Yes we can! Yes we can!

Oh... sorry. Got a bit in to it... :D :notacrook:

Canadian Mind
Dec 19, 2008, 12:51 AM
My keyboard is sticky... -.-

trofirhen
Dec 19, 2008, 5:00 AM
My keyboard is sticky... -.-

Is that supposed to be comic relief? It isn't funny. "Hot Rod" has a vision, and people are back to making inane and crude remarks. The subject was airports and airlines. The catalyst is the Canada -EU Open Skies agreement. Please peddle your inanities elsewhere, and let serious people with a vision express themselves with some dignity, whether you agree with them or not.

LeftCoaster
Dec 19, 2008, 4:41 PM
Is that supposed to be comic relief? It isn't funny. "Hot Rod" has a vision, and people are back to making inane and crude remarks. The subject was airports and airlines. The catalyst is the Canada -EU Open Skies agreement. Please peddle your inanities elsewhere, and let serious people with a vision express themselves with some dignity, whether you agree with them or not.

Settle down man... it's an internet fourm....

vansky
Dec 19, 2008, 5:16 PM
yes, overall, this city needs more ambitious and talented souls to build its future. which one of you are going to be the next great visionary?

trofirhen
Dec 19, 2008, 5:41 PM
yes, overall, this city needs more ambitious and talented souls to build its future. which one of you are going to be the next great visionary? :previous: Nobody..... and everybody. If we can all stay on track, we can take this airport concept - and the city that goes with it - to great things ahead. Sure this is an internet forum, but it's also the SKYSCRAPER PAGE column about the future of YVR. If you like jokes about "chicken periods" (eggs), warm beer, and making an art of personal ad hominem insults, there are forums that specialize in stuff like that ..... even better than here! Airline destinations, anyone? Or had you forgotten?

vansky
Dec 19, 2008, 6:12 PM
:previous: Nobody..... and everybody. If we can all stay on track, we can take this airport concept - and the city that goes with it - to great things ahead. Sure this is an internet forum, but it's also the SKYSCRAPER PAGE column about the future of YVR. If you like jokes about "chicken periods" (eggs), warm beer, and making an art of personal ad hominem insults, there are forums that specialize in stuff like that ..... even better than here! Airline destinations, anyone? Or had you forgotten?

...u r the one

trofirhen
Dec 19, 2008, 7:29 PM
...u r the one

.... hey man, thanks for the backhanded compliment, but I'd much rather just hear from people about the city, the airport, and at this moment in history, where our new destinations in Europe might be, and how this would impact on YVR, and by extension, on Vancouver itself. That's not asking too much, is it? Do YOU have a vision for the airport and the city, by the way? :rainbow:

jlousa
Dec 19, 2008, 7:34 PM
trofirhen you need to calm down now. Also stop using so many emoticons and bolding everything especially titles in your posts it makes it very hard to read.

trofirhen
Dec 19, 2008, 7:58 PM
You're right. I'll let the experts take over from here ....

vansky
Dec 19, 2008, 8:12 PM
You're right. I'll let the experts take over from here ....

during my flight to calgary, i checked out some yvr service routes in comparison to calgary, montreal, and toronto. anyways, vancouver is an asian gateway because it's close to asia, and its port does most business with asian countries. european travellers would only come here for tourism mostly. this is a small market for europe, both the airport and the city. it makes sense to increase its pacific rim gateway position with more frequent flights to asia, capitalizing on its special location. this is to make a lemonade when you only have lemons.

also, a minor improvement for the airport would be increasing its quality and number of asian stores, such as specialized dumpling shops and noodle houses to attract more asian customers, maximizing traveling experience.

vansky
Dec 19, 2008, 8:25 PM
trofirhen you need to calm down now. Also stop using so many emoticons and bolding everything especially titles in your posts it makes it very hard to read.

trofirhen is as passionate as any of us, just that probably like many of us, our visions have no political and economic power to turn things into reality.

dreambrother808
Dec 19, 2008, 8:40 PM
Wouldn't it be natural to have so many direct asian flights out of Toronto considering the size of the population back east? Wouldn't those people prefer direct flights as opposed to stopovers in Vancouver?

I don't really know much about the complexity or politics of these issues either way but this is what would make sense to me.

trofirhen
Dec 19, 2008, 8:49 PM
during my flight to calgary, i checked out some yvr service routes in comparison to calgary, montreal, and toronto. anyways, vancouver is an asian gateway because it's close to asia, and its port does most business with asian countries. european travellers would only come here for tourism mostly. this is a small market for europe, both the airport and the city. it makes sense to increase its pacific rim gateway position with more frequent flights to asia, capitalizing on its special location. this is to make a lemonade when you only have lemons.

also, a minor improvement would be increasing its quality and number of asian stores, such as specialized dumpling shops and noodle houses to attract more asian customers, maximizing traveling experience.
... but go the the AIR CANADA website, find the interactive route map, and click on Toronto - routes to the Pacific Rim. You'll find out out how "special" we are (or aren't) in regard to flights to Asia. This "Gateway to the Asia Pacific" stuff is half-truth/ half-myth. There are more nonstops from Toronto to Asia than there are from Vancouver to Europe, so don't get sucked into all the hype about the "Gateway to the Asia-Pacific" stuff. It's only because we're a few miles closer geographically that it exists at all, but it feeds Vancouverites' need to feel that they're somehow "apart" and "special" when in fact, all it is is a large branch-plant town on the West Coast. Where's canada's largest Chinatown? TORONTO. Where are the Canadian headquarters for ALL the major Japanese banks? TORONTO. I'm not trying to burst your bubble, man, just wake up and smell the coffee brewing back in Ontario, that's all. Enjoy your noodles.

vansky
Dec 19, 2008, 9:32 PM
... but go the the AIR CANADA website, find the interactive route map, and click on Toronto - routes to the Pacific Rim. You'll find out out how "special" we are (or aren't) in regard to flights to Asia. This "Gateway to the Asia Pacific" stuff is half-truth/ half-myth. There are more nonstops from Toronto to Asia than there are from Vancouver to Europe, so don't get sucked into all the hype about the "Gateway to the Asia-Pacific" stuff. It's only because we're a few miles closer geographically that it exists at all, but it feeds Vancouverites' need to feel that they're somehow "apart" and "special" when in fact, all it is is a large branch-plant town on the West Coast. Where's canada's largest Chinatown? TORONTO. Where are the Canadian headquarters for ALL the major Japanese banks? TORONTO. I'm not trying to burst your bubble, man, just wake up and smell the coffee brewing back in Ontario, that's all. Enjoy your noodles.

man, i'm eating my noodles right now. i see your point, but you gota relax about things like this. there's nothing in canada that could compete with toronto on stuff like this. we r still a sizable gateway regardless of toronto.

Canadian Mind
Dec 19, 2008, 10:11 PM
Is that supposed to be comic relief? It isn't funny. "Hot Rod" has a vision, and people are back to making inane and crude remarks. The subject was airports and airlines. The catalyst is the Canada -EU Open Skies agreement. Please peddle your inanities elsewhere, and let serious people with a vision express themselves with some dignity, whether you agree with them or not.

Who the F%^& are you man? I only said that because I don't have an emoticon where the dude splurges 4 litres of cum all over his keyboard. If I didn't like the idea i just would have put this up: :yuck:

And why all the hate against me and my chicken periods (that was Vid, actually)? reminds me of some other member I used to spar with.

SpongeG
Dec 20, 2008, 1:54 AM
Wouldn't it be natural to have so many direct asian flights out of Toronto considering the size of the population back east? Wouldn't those people prefer direct flights as opposed to stopovers in Vancouver?

I don't really know much about the complexity or politics of these issues either way but this is what would make sense to me.

distance is favourable to Vancouver - its another 4000+ km to toronto

did you know its the same distance form Saudi Arabia To London England as it is from Vancouver to Toronto!

p78hub
Dec 20, 2008, 2:28 AM
Where's canada's largest Chinatown? TORONTO.

I lurk A LOT here (considering the date I registered and this being my first post), but I couldn't let this slide. Canada's largest Chinatown is, in fact, in Vancouver, since in North America it has the second largest area after SF and third largest population after NY and SF.

In response to this thread, I personally hope to see more of both European and Asian routes to and from YVR. The International Terminal tends to look rather empty most of the time. After spending more than eight hours (after Air Canada overbooked three consecutive flights to SFO, of course) at the airport, I saw one KLM, one Air Transat, and one British Airways parked at the terminal. Glad to see an open skies agreement finally take shape; maybe we'll see some more air traffic.

trofirhen
Dec 20, 2008, 2:49 AM
Who the F%^& are you man? I only said that because I don't have an emoticon where the dude splurges 4 litres of cum all over his keyboard. If I didn't like the idea i just would have put this up: :yuck:

And why all the hate against me and my chicken periods (that was Vid, actually)? reminds me of some other member I used to spar with.

.... I like you, too. In fact, there's no hate against you or your "chicken periods," except that talking about that, splurging cum all over the keyboard, and so forth is the kind of thing one might expect to find on some punk chat room, and not on a (supposedly) adult site about a (hopefully) adult topic: YVR. But if adolescent "shock" behaviour gives you your jollies, and if, as it seems, you need someone to 'spar' with,' then go right ahead. :jester: Hey, maybe I'm uptight and over-zealous in trying to pull Vancouver away from being an overgrown, provincial town with big-city pretensions, and that speaks for itself. To those I've offended, my apologies. Your thing seems to be doing the adolescent kick-ass, out-grossing people trip. To each his own. What we write is like what we wear; it reflects our personalities in and of itself. I bow to your profound sensiblities and innate classiness, and regret there aren't more folks like you in the world. It would be such a finer, more dignified place if there were.

Canadian Mind
Dec 20, 2008, 3:02 AM
.... I like you, too. In fact, there's no hate against you or your "chicken periods," except that talking about that, splurging cum all over the keyboard, and so forth is the kind of thing one might expect to find on some punk chat room, and not on a (supposedly) adult site about a (hopefully) adult topic: YVR. But if adolescent "shock" behaviour gives you your jollies, and if, as it seems, you need someone to 'spar' with,' then go right ahead. :jester: Hey, maybe I'm uptight and over-zealous in trying to pull Vancouver away from being an overgrown, provincial town with big-city pretensions, and that speaks for itself. To those I've offended, my apologies. Your thing seems to be doing the adolescent kick-ass, out-grossing people trip. To each his own. What we write is like what we wear; it reflects our personalities in and of itself. I bow to your profound sensiblities and innate classiness, and regret there aren't more folks like you in the world. It would be such a finer, more dignified place if there were.

So it's not that you don't like me, you just don't like what I post. Big deal, suck it up. If you are incapable of ignoring it then why don't you report my posts as offensive?

And yes, this so called adolescent "shock" behaviour, which equates to crude internet humour, does give me the jollies. just as much as your overuse of emoticons and sarcasm must give you the jollies.

Now, back on topic...




With regards to the distance between toronto and Vancouver from asian destinations, it isn't all that different. while on a map toronto may appear to be 4000 km away, bby the nature of the geometry of a sphere, Toronto is actually only about 2000km further out which considering the distances already travelled, isn't that much of a difference.

What Vancouver needs, both the airport, the city, and the region as a whole, is to sell themselves to the world as a place you want to come to do buisness, travel, raise your kids, retire, and all the other jolly reasons why people travel. Olympics will help, alot, so we should spare no expense to make the most of them, then pursure other avenues to make Vancouver very public and visible on the world spotlight.

trofirhen
Dec 20, 2008, 4:05 AM
I'm not offended by your imagery to any great extent, and found it interesting what you had to say about Toronto, given the curvature of the Earth, not being all that much further from Asia than Vancouver - airwise, that is. Conversely, as Vancouver is more northerly, it isn't a whole lot further from Europe than Toronto is (or Montreal for that matter) To give you an example, I remember flying from London to Montreal some years ago, and it took over six hours, which is only about two hours less than a London -Vancouver flight. What irks me is the lack of accessibility to most European cities from Vancouver. It's true we don't have the market that Toronto has (it's a whole lot bigger) but, especially with this new Open Skies deal with the EU recently concluded - it seems to me that YVR, or more precisely, the passengers flying out of it, could and should have a slightly larger range of direct European destinations to choose from, without being forced to change planes in Toronto. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Paris is a "gap" missing from our destination roster. Marketing officials at YVR will tell you that. (They've told me that when I've spoken to them). So Paris CDG would be one nonstop I'd add, first and foremeost, being the major city of Continental Europe. There are probably one or two other air markets with high yield factors. Berlin might be one of them, to serve Central Europe and to connect to countries in Eastern Europe from where many recent immigrants to the city have come to live. Interesingly, although Vancouver has a large Italian community, the YVR official I spoke with said that given that it is now largely a "second-generation" community, with only the older generation born in Italy, the demand factor for flights to Rome is surprisingly lower than might be expected.
Vancouver is not a large enough market to warrant the smorgasbord of European destinations that exist out of Montreal and Toronto, but it IS underserved regarding Europe. Adding Paris, and one or two other high-yield destinations is in order, and will probably come about in a year ot so under the new agreement. Travelling back to Vancouver on a holiday from Paris, where I live, back in 2006, I went on Lufthansa via Frankfurt. The connecting time added four hours to the journey, and the plane was packed with people who had come not only from Paris to get to Vancouver, but from Germany, Sweden, and other countries as well. This seems to indicate that the Vancouver market warrants one or two more European destinations. The 2010 Olympics will put the city on the map and will probably spark interest and more demand. Even now, there are a number of French people who visit Vancouver every year - more than you'd expect - and several of them have expressed consternation and surprise that there is no direct flight.

SpongeG
Dec 23, 2008, 1:40 AM
sounds like YVR is a big mess with the snow storm

something like 50% of the flights are cancelled

a friend in montreal was waiting for his friend to come from vancouver today and his flight was cancelled and was not sure if he would get there

seattle is also in a big mess and portland - only 7 flights landed on sunday and onlt 13 flights departed! something like 400+ arrivals and departures is typical for a sunday at portland

Yume-sama
Dec 23, 2008, 7:06 AM
:P Hopefully the FedEx planes get out. I'm expecting my Christmas presents in Calgary tomorrow from Vancouver :haha:

trofirhen
Dec 23, 2008, 4:18 PM
In the Swedish industrial city of Norrkoping, as well as central parts of Stockholm, hot water pipes are placed under the roads and sidewalks to keep them snow and ice-free, in a country known for cold, icy winters. Although it might be a costly investment, what about the idea of placing similar heated piping under the main runways and principal taxiways at Canada's major airports? Even in cold weather, the heating could be left shut off if there was no precipitation forecast, then switched on during snowstorms or after a heavy snowfall to melt the snow, clear the runways, and keep the taxiways open for the planes to manoeuver. Maybe this sounds impractical, especially in cities like Victoria, which seldom see snow, but at most major Canadian airports, even at Vancouver, which gets infrequent but heavy periodic snow, such infrastructural investment might facilitate the ongoing flow of air traffic and air cargo, and simplify life for everyone.

(If this sounds too costly, remember that notorious white elephant named Mirabel Airport. Surely the cost of this idea couldn't be any higher)

jlousa
Dec 23, 2008, 4:42 PM
The problem isn't the runways. They are more then capable of plowing the runways effectively. The reason they had the south runway closed was due to not enough traffic to warrant it being open. The reduced traffic is due to planes not arriving here, or not arriving ontime, and the biggest factor is deicing of the planes everywhere across the continent. That is what needs to be worked on at all airports.

twoNeurons
Dec 23, 2008, 6:46 PM
The problem isn't the runways. They are more then capable of plowing the runways effectively. The reason they had the south runway closed was due to not enough traffic to warrant it being open. The reduced traffic is due to planes not arriving here, or not arriving ontime, and the biggest factor is deicing of the planes everywhere across the continent. That is what needs to be worked on at all airports.

Yeah... not to mention that when it's snowing heavily, it can be difficult to land.

Gordon
Dec 23, 2008, 6:52 PM
The north runway is the primary runway used in times of extremely low visibility because it has the the best ILS equiptment.

SpongeG
Dec 23, 2008, 9:52 PM
In the Swedish industrial city of Norrkoping, as well as central parts of Stockholm, hot water pipes are placed under the roads and sidewalks to keep them snow and ice-free, in a country known for cold, icy winters. Although it might be a costly investment, what about the idea of placing similar heated piping under the main runways and principal taxiways at Canada's major airports? Even in cold weather, the heating could be left shut off if there was no precipitation forecast, then switched on during snowstorms or after a heavy snowfall to melt the snow, clear the runways, and keep the taxiways open for the planes to manoeuver. Maybe this sounds impractical, especially in cities like Victoria, which seldom see snow, but at most major Canadian airports, even at Vancouver, which gets infrequent but heavy periodic snow, such infrastructural investment might facilitate the ongoing flow of air traffic and air cargo, and simplify life for everyone.

(If this sounds too costly, remember that notorious white elephant named Mirabel Airport. Surely the cost of this idea couldn't be any higher)

I know rich people up north used to have heated driveways - they always ahd the clearest ones :slob:

trofirhen
Dec 24, 2008, 12:28 AM
Why Air Canada could be a takeover target
Posted: December 15, 2008, 11:58 AM by Jonathan Ratner
Market Call, credit, loonie, airlines, Air Canada, fuel
ACE Aviation Holdings Inc.’s wind-up proposal, lower fuel prices, a better-than-expected Canadian air travel market, and Canada’s open skies agreement with the European Union could put Air Canada in play, a new report suggests. Its severely depressed share price may also lure strategic or financial buyers.

While it appears that ACE’s asset distribution plan would see its 75% of Air Canada’s outstanding shares passed on to shareholders, a court appointed liquidator would dictate what exactly is done with all of its assets.

Given their willingness to make acquisitions, Lufthansa, Air France/KLM or British Airways could be strategic bidders, according to Scotia Capital analyst David Tyerman. Lufthansa and Air Canada already have a revenue sharing agreement.

The Federal Government’s pact with the EU would eventually raise foreign ownership restrictions limits to 49% of voting shares, up from the current limit of 25%.

Toronto-based Onex Corp. bid for the airline in 1999 but its plan to merge it with Canadian Airlines failed. This time around, financial buyers might be attracted by Air Canada’s considerable asset-based borrowing power, which the analyst pegged a $1.2-billion. Mr. Tyerman said this should allow the company to fund its near-term liquidity challenges, while recent transactions suggest Air Canada should be able to execute on borrowing opportunities.
..............................................................................................
I'd love to see Toronto's air route hegemony go "POP!" :jester:

raggedy13
Dec 24, 2008, 5:18 AM
^That would be sweet. :yes:

trofirhen
Dec 24, 2008, 2:20 PM
Let's hear it for
year-round scheduled service
Vancouver - Paris CDG !

trofirhen
Dec 24, 2008, 2:28 PM
..... I'd be more than grateful. Thank you to all members for understanding.

Being a computer slow-poke, I'd need step-by-step instrctions; I went to the "Insert Image" symbol, got instructions to go add an URL// ....
then got totally lost. Any takers? :shrug:
Many thanks.

raggedy13
Dec 24, 2008, 2:56 PM
^To insert an image you must have a URL for it. In other words it must be an image you've found on a website or if it's one of your own you need to use an image hosting site such as photobucket.com, imageshack.com, flickr.com, etc.

If you've found it online just right click on the image and copy its address (URL) then paste it when using that 'insert image' icon. Let me know if you need any more info.

NetMapel
Dec 24, 2008, 9:58 PM
Just hearing about these recent stories about people stuck at the airport (mostly in Toronto and Ottawa) made me think about this whole air travel issue. People are stuck because there's a lot of snow and there's a lot of travellers. Now, had the government be more willing to redirect more stops to other airports instead of concentrating them all in Toronto, maybe this wouldn't be as bad. I see all kinds of stories on CTV and whatnot about people traveling from, say, BC to PEI but is stuck in Toronto because that's where they get their connection flight. There's a huge backlog of flight that needs to leave/arrive at Toronto airport because, well, that's Canada's central airport.

Therefore, I say we need more direct flights around Canada and other places instead of it all being concentrated in Ontario :P

jlousa
Dec 24, 2008, 11:00 PM
I gotr a pick out of reading the story in todays Globeand mail about them blaming the country's airline problem on VYR. Stating the system delays are being caused by us. :koko:
Now I'm sure we aren't helping, but the fact is that Toronto and Mtl are causing most of the delays and the planes aren't getting into YVR ontime to begin with.
It's also funny reading that we have received 55cm of snow (the average years worth) in the last week. Maybe I've lost it but since when do we even average 55cm/yr of snow?

SpongeG
Dec 25, 2008, 9:31 AM
on the news today sounded like some of the problems were pilots had been working their allowed hours - the one passenger said the aircraft was there but there were no pilots to fly it

trofirhen
Dec 25, 2008, 8:54 PM
Just hearing about these recent stories about people stuck at the airport (mostly in Toronto and Ottawa) made me think about this whole air travel issue. People are stuck because there's a lot of snow and there's a lot of travellers. Now, had the government be more willing to redirect more stops to other airports instead of concentrating them all in Toronto, maybe this wouldn't be as bad. I see all kinds of stories on CTV and whatnot about people traveling from, say, BC to PEI but is stuck in Toronto because that's where they get their connection flight. There's a huge backlog of flight that needs to leave/arrive at Toronto airport because, well, that's Canada's central airport.

Therefore, I say we need more direct flights around Canada and other places instead of it all being concentrated in Ontario :P

I agree with you about how good it would be to have more direct flights from Vancouver (and Calgary, Edmonton, and so forth) to other parts of Canada (take Halifax, as an example) but in all fairness to Air Canada, there is yield management to be considered. I'll try explaining using a simplistic example: imagine you want to fly Vancouver to Halifax. A regularly scheduled daily nonstop to Halifax from Vancouver would be flying about half empty, as the two cities do not have the market size to fill up a plane. The air route, or any route like it, would have a low yield factor and would lose a lot of money. Otherwise stated, there aren't enough people in these cities to warrant a daily service. There is a lot of traffic to Toronto from Vancouver, with a number of nonstops per day, and enough traffic between Toronto and Halifax to warrant a couple of nonstops per day. Toronto is a bigger market with more people, and Halifax is to the east of it, so travellers bound for Halifax from Vancouver are obliged, for financial reasons to the airline, to change in Toronto. This, by the way, is not only a "Toronto" syndrome; parallel circumstances exist in the USA around major hubs like Chicago, Denver, Atlanta, Dallas, etc. -> Therefore, the idea of of flights criss-crossing the country, avoiding Toronto (in addition to those whose destination really IS Toronto) is indeed a very attractive one, but would lower the load factor, and thus the yield factor, to the point where the airline would lose enormous revenues, sending prices up. This is the unpleasant reality :brickwall: of having that smug, arrogant, manipulative city on the lake as our largest air market, located where it is. It's a question of market size, location, and logistics - within Canada. But ..... overseas to Europe from Western Canada, (Vancouver being the major market with enough population to generate high enough traffic volume) ..... that's another story; one which, as I have mentioned here before, may change relatively soon thanks to the Open Skies agreement with the EU.
Right now, the Canadian government, (which promotes Air Canada, and caters to the large voting base in Southern Ontario and to Montreal) obliges someone flying, for example from Vancouver to Paris, or Vancouver to Rome, or to any other major European destination that, theoretically COULD provide a yield factor high enough to warrant nonstops between two given points, as above, to change in Toronto. This is a bit different. This is forced :whip: yield management, not yield management out of logistical and economic necessity.
(yes, I know many of you dislike my emoticons, but I use them to make a point).
In these cases, the federal government - UP UNTIL NOW - has had the right to dictate which foreign carriers can or cannot land where in Canada.
For example, the feds had arranged it with the French government that only TWO cities in Canada could be served by Air France (Toronto and Montreal, obvously) and the French in return said that Air Canada could fly nonstop between TWO cities in France, which are Paris and Nice. So we have Toronto-Paris, Toronto-Nice, and Montreal-Paris, and Montreal-Nice. Air France is not allowed to land at any other Canadian airports, although a run from Paris to Vancouver is large enough to justify itself, and would be even moreso, with a stopover in Calgary. But, to protect Air Canada, YYZ, and the voters of Central Canada, Vancouver travellers are obliged to transfer in Toronto or Montreal, or else to transfer in London Heathrow (which is the chaotic lost-luggage champion of the world; Amsterdam, or Frankfurt.) Transferring through Europe can mean you spend nearly five hours in Frankfurt (as I did), or just barely catch your plane if you run hard enough, by going through Amsterdam, even though polar routes are, theoretically much quicker - as long as they're nonstop. (Total flight time: about nine hours) However, the only alternative to that is going to Toronto (four hours), waiting for the Paris-bound flight, (which could be anywhere from 45 minutes on up - more like three hours), then onward to Paris (six hours). As you can see, THIS aspect of yield management means far more transit time for Western Canadian travellers (does Ottawa care? Three guesses,) and many more hours actually spent in the air (tally it up!!) than if Vancouver (Calgary and Edmonton, too, if worked in as stopovers from YVR) had the direct European connections to Paris, Zurich and Rome that took the polar route. But we don't. YET. The current worldwide recession will snarl things up a bit, but when air travel regains its footing, and the Open Skies agreement comes into effect, Toronto will lose its position as a "forced stopover" to Europe that it enjoys now :D . However, as for intra-Canadian routes go, you'll only see nonstops cirumventing Toronto (and Montreal) if/when there's a load factor - and resulting yield factor - high enough to warrant it. And this will only happen when the cities (and accomanying air markets) get big enough. So, your idea is very praiseworthy, and something a lot of travellers would like to see, but not yet very feasible at the domestic level. Overseas to Europe? Aha... That's another story. Watch and wait on that one as it unfolds. The results should be interesting.

officedweller
Jan 8, 2009, 8:28 PM
Long Term Plan has been released:

Our airport to get even larger RICHMOND/CKNW(AM980)

1/8/2009

Operators of the second-busiest airport on the west coast of North America have released a blueprint for growth over the next two decades.

If their numbers are right, by the year 2027, Vancouver's International Airport will be serving more than 33-million passengers a year. That's almost double the 17.5-million recorded in 2007.

YVR injects almost seven-billion dollars a year into the BC economy and currently employs 2.3 per cent of the Metro Vancouver work force.

Longterm plans include building a North-South taxiway, new passenger terminal facilities and a Customs hall, as well as preparations for a third runway.

The 20-year master plan was approved by the Federal Government last year. The 56-page report can be viewed at yvr.ca.

Couldn't find anything at the YVR site except this:

http://www.yvr.ca/yourairport2027/

Anyone else find anything?

phesto
Jan 9, 2009, 3:32 AM
^Thanks! Been waiting on this since I started this thread (almost 4 years ago!)

http://www.yvr.ca/yourairport2027/pdf/yvr_masterplan.pdf

Here's the timeline for their recommendations. Note it assumes medium growth projections, meaning the new runway could easily get pushed beyond the initial 2027 period for improvements.

GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT

2007 LINK BUILDING AND RUNWAY END SAFETY AREA (RESA) REGULATION: Completion of the current Link Building project and expected regulation changes by Transport Canada to extend runway end safety areas to the North and South runways.

2009 INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL BUILDING EXPANSION: Completion of current expansion project providing an additional nine aircraft gates.

2009 CANADA LINE: Completion of rapid transit connection between the airport, downtown Vancouver and Richmond.

2010 AVIATION FUEL SUPPLY: Additional supply and storage capacity required to meet growing demand and restore operational reserve to the required four-day supply.

2010 SEA ISLAND ROAD SYSTEM: Reorganize the Sea Island road system to accommodate the Canada Line and proposed North-South Taxiway.

2010 – Ongoing ARTHUR LAING BRIDGE CONGESTION RELIEF (GROUND ACCESS, VANCOUVER): Once the Canada Line is in service, the Airport Authority’s transportation demand management program will build progressively to reduce the vehicle demand on Arthur Laing Bridge and other Sea Island bridges. A dedicated “YVR Access” lane could be introduced.

2014 NORTH-SOUTH TAXIWAY: This taxiway is required to enhance aircraft flow on the airfield, increase efficiency and reduce costs and aircraft emissions.

2015 NORTH EAST TERMINAL – PHASE I: Phase I of the proposed North East Terminal will include a new customs hall, provide 11 additional aircraft gates, a Canada Line station and an additional parkade if required.

2015 – 2020 AIRSIDE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM: Once the North-South Taxiway is complete and both parallel runways are used for simultaneous takeoffs and landings, airside capacity will increase by approximately 12% and allow the Crosswind Runway to be closed.

2023 NORTH EAST TERMINAL – PHASE II: An additional 14 gates, providing a total of 87 jet gates at YVR, is expected to be required to meet demand.

2025 NEW RUNWAY: Medium-growth forecasts indicate that YVR may require an additional runway around 2025. The requirement will depend upon actual passenger growth and the size of aircraft in use. Also, it is assumed that non-essential air traffic will be moved to other airports to preserve YVR capacity. The runway options will be protected by implementing aeronautical zoning in the appropriate areas with the Minister of Transport’s approval of the 2027 Airport Land Use Plan.

2026 MIDDLE ARM (MORAY BRIDGE) CROSSING (GROUND ACCESS – RICHMOND): Increasing congestion on this YVR-Highway 99 link will have serious implications for commercial traffic. Along with transportation demand management, access between YVR and Highway 99 will need to be improved.

NetMapel
Jan 9, 2009, 3:39 AM
I agree with you about how good it would be to have more direct flights from Vancouver (and Calgary, Edmonton, and so forth) to other parts of Canada (take Halifax, as an example) but in all fairness to Air Canada, there is yield management to be considered. I'll try explaining using a simplistic example: imagine you want to fly Vancouver to Halifax. A regularly scheduled daily nonstop to Halifax from Vancouver would be flying about half empty, as the two cities do not have the market size to fill up a plane. The air route, or any route like it, would have a low yield factor and would lose a lot of money. Otherwise stated, there aren't enough people in these cities to warrant a daily service. There is a lot of traffic to Toronto from Vancouver, with a number of nonstops per day, and enough traffic between Toronto and Halifax to warrant a couple of nonstops per day. Toronto is a bigger market with more people, and Halifax is to the east of it, so travellers bound for Halifax from Vancouver are obliged, for financial reasons to the airline, to change in Toronto. This, by the way, is not only a "Toronto" syndrome; parallel circumstances exist in the USA around major hubs like Chicago, Denver, Atlanta, Dallas, etc. -> Therefore, the idea of of flights criss-crossing the country, avoiding Toronto (in addition to those whose destination really IS Toronto) is indeed a very attractive one, but would lower the load factor, and thus the yield factor, to the point where the airline would lose enormous revenues, sending prices up. This is the unpleasant reality :brickwall: of having that smug, arrogant, manipulative city on the lake as our largest air market, located where it is. It's a question of market size, location, and logistics - within Canada. But ..... overseas to Europe from Western Canada, (Vancouver being the major market with enough population to generate high enough traffic volume) ..... that's another story; one which, as I have mentioned here before, may change relatively soon thanks to the Open Skies agreement with the EU.
Right now, the Canadian government, (which promotes Air Canada, and caters to the large voting base in Southern Ontario and to Montreal) obliges someone flying, for example from Vancouver to Paris, or Vancouver to Rome, or to any other major European destination that, theoretically COULD provide a yield factor high enough to warrant nonstops between two given points, as above, to change in Toronto. This is a bit different. This is forced :whip: yield management, not yield management out of logistical and economic necessity.
(yes, I know many of you dislike my emoticons, but I use them to make a point).
In these cases, the federal government - UP UNTIL NOW - has had the right to dictate which foreign carriers can or cannot land where in Canada.
For example, the feds had arranged it with the French government that only TWO cities in Canada could be served by Air France (Toronto and Montreal, obvously) and the French in return said that Air Canada could fly nonstop between TWO cities in France, which are Paris and Nice. So we have Toronto-Paris, Toronto-Nice, and Montreal-Paris, and Montreal-Nice. Air France is not allowed to land at any other Canadian airports, although a run from Paris to Vancouver is large enough to justify itself, and would be even moreso, with a stopover in Calgary. But, to protect Air Canada, YYZ, and the voters of Central Canada, Vancouver travellers are obliged to transfer in Toronto or Montreal, or else to transfer in London Heathrow (which is the chaotic lost-luggage champion of the world; Amsterdam, or Frankfurt.) Transferring through Europe can mean you spend nearly five hours in Frankfurt (as I did), or just barely catch your plane if you run hard enough, by going through Amsterdam, even though polar routes are, theoretically much quicker - as long as they're nonstop. (Total flight time: about nine hours) However, the only alternative to that is going to Toronto (four hours), waiting for the Paris-bound flight, (which could be anywhere from 45 minutes on up - more like three hours), then onward to Paris (six hours). As you can see, THIS aspect of yield management means far more transit time for Western Canadian travellers (does Ottawa care? Three guesses,) and many more hours actually spent in the air (tally it up!!) than if Vancouver (Calgary and Edmonton, too, if worked in as stopovers from YVR) had the direct European connections to Paris, Zurich and Rome that took the polar route. But we don't. YET. The current worldwide recession will snarl things up a bit, but when air travel regains its footing, and the Open Skies agreement comes into effect, Toronto will lose its position as a "forced stopover" to Europe that it enjoys now :D . However, as for intra-Canadian routes go, you'll only see nonstops cirumventing Toronto (and Montreal) if/when there's a load factor - and resulting yield factor - high enough to warrant it. And this will only happen when the cities (and accomanying air markets) get big enough. So, your idea is very praiseworthy, and something a lot of travellers would like to see, but not yet very feasible at the domestic level. Overseas to Europe? Aha... That's another story. Watch and wait on that one as it unfolds. The results should be interesting.

I completely understand the notion that there may not be enough travellers between Vancouver and Halifax to warrant a direct route. I'm just giving a partial reasoning as to why the delay this Christmas was as bad as it was. Clearly, it's due to all the backlog of flights that had to leave Toronto or Montreal airports, whether they are international flights or national flights. I would say having direct routes from Paris to Vancouver or other major European cities would help the air traffic too. Seeing as how a lot of these international flights have to go through Toronto's airport, allocating those flights to other airports in Canada (Calgary and Vancouver, for example) would have helped Toronto airport's backlog of airplanes.

Furthermore, I find it ridiculous that while I was watching CTV during Christmas, they kept talking about Vancouver's airport screwing up and delaying flights. We all know those flights were delayed because Toronto's airport got screwed due to bad weather, yet, no coverage on Toronto's airport. It pretty much made it seem like Vancouver's airport is at fault even though that is not the complete truth.

officedweller
Jan 9, 2009, 9:34 PM
2015 NORTH EAST TERMINAL – PHASE I: Phase I of the proposed North East Terminal will include a new customs hall, provide 11 additional aircraft gates, a Canada Line station and an additional parkade if required.


Thanks - they must have posted the pdf after I posted in the forum.

BTW - one reason that YVR operates relatively efficiently (costwise) is that all international flights clear customs / security in one location. The introduction of a second customs hall will likely increase operating costs significantly. i.e. Pearson is very inefficient because of multiple customs / security checkpoints.

Hourglass
Jan 9, 2009, 11:03 PM
Thanks - they must have posted the pdf after I posted in the forum.

BTW - one reason that YVR operates relatively efficiently (costwise) is that all international flights clear customs / security in one location. The introduction of a second customs hall will likely increase operating costs significantly. i.e. Pearson is very inefficient because of multiple customs / security checkpoints.

True, although at peak periods, the customs hall at YVR can get rather chaotic.

Airports such as Singapore Changi seem to function efficiently with multiple customs halls. Actually, I think Pearson is just inefficient -- end of story... ;)

trofirhen
Jan 9, 2009, 11:20 PM
Long Term Plan has been released:



Couldn't find anything at the YVR site except this:

http://www.yvr.ca/yourairport2027/

Anyone else find anything?

- - Sorry, couln't find anything regarding this, but the very headline jumped out at me with "second-busiest airport on the West Coast..." How can that be the case? Los Angeles would no doubt be the busiest (it's one of the world's top ten), followed by San Francisco, then most likely Seattle; at least in passenger volume. Where this idea comes from that YVR is the second-busiest airport on the West Coast seems a myth to me. :jester:

Spork
Jan 9, 2009, 11:26 PM
- - Sorry, couln't find anything regarding this, but the very headline jumped out at me with "second-busiest airport on the West Coast..." How can that be the case? Los Angeles would no doubt be the busiest (it's one of the world's top ten), followed by San Francisco, then most likely Seattle; at least in passenger volume. Where this idea comes from that YVR is the second-busiest airport on the West Coast seems a myth to me. :jester:

They probably meant to say that it is the second busiest airport, on the west coast. Meaning that it is the second busiest in Canada, and is on the west coast.

phesto
Jan 9, 2009, 11:36 PM
- - Sorry, couln't find anything regarding this, but the very headline jumped out at me with "second-busiest airport on the West Coast..." How can that be the case? Los Angeles would no doubt be the busiest (it's one of the world's top ten), followed by San Francisco, then most likely Seattle; at least in passenger volume. Where this idea comes from that YVR is the second-busiest airport on the West Coast seems a myth to me. :jester:

The headline was from CKNW, a local radio station's website; they specialize in breaking news, so their headlines aren't always accurate. If you'd clicked the link to YVR's site, the first line says:

YVR is Canada's second-busiest airport

Hourglass
Jan 10, 2009, 4:16 AM
They probably meant to say that it is the second busiest airport, on the west coast. Meaning that it is the second busiest in Canada, and is on the west coast.

No, YVR is also the second busiest airport of the west cost of North America for international traffic -- after Los Angeles but ahead of San Francisco.

trofirhen
Jan 10, 2009, 6:26 AM
No, YVR is also the second busiest airport of the west cost of North America for international traffic -- after Los Angeles but ahead of San Francisco.

Excuse me, but are you sure about that? It's well known that as one of the world's top ten airports, LAX has has a vast destination roster, both across the Pacific, to Europe, and Latin America.

However, San Francisco too has flight destinations Vancouver does not have, both Transpacific and Translatlantic, again, with a number of foreign airlines flying there that well outnumbers Vancouver. (After all, the Bay Area itself has over 7 milion people).

Are we considering only Transpacific destinations?

I'm not contradicting you, I'm just wondering if Vancouver is as great a foreign gateway as it thinks it is. After all, there are only three year-round destinations to Europe. Perhaps the statistics warrant a deeper look.

Yume-sama
Jan 10, 2009, 7:50 AM
It would be a rather amazing stat if it were true, but I just can't imagine YVR having more traffic than SFO.

Hong Kongese
Jan 10, 2009, 8:50 AM
There are more flights from Asia to Vancouver than Asia to San Francisco.

trofirhen
Jan 10, 2009, 9:25 AM
There are more flights from Asia to Vancouver than Asia to San Francisco.

While that may be true, the word in question is INTERNATIONAL flights. That also includes Latin America, Europe, Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, etc) and even parts of Africa. (for example, Royal Air Maroc and Air Algérie flying from Montreal to their respective destinations). Being INTERNATiONAL is more than being ASIAN, even though this may be difficult for you to grasp.

Hourglass
Jan 10, 2009, 12:20 PM
Excuse me, but are you sure about that? It's well known that as one of the world's top ten airports, LAX has has a vast destination roster, both across the Pacific, to Europe, and Latin America.

However, San Francisco too has flight destinations Vancouver does not have, both Transpacific and Translatlantic, again, with a number of foreign airlines flying there that well outnumbers Vancouver. (After all, the Bay Area itself has over 7 milion people).

The claim is made by YVR itself: http://www.yvr.ca/authority/employment/index.asp

What you're forgetting is that US transborder traffic is also considered international, and this segment makes up 50% of YVR's international passengers. SFO may have many more international destinations, but it doesn't have anywhere near the transborder traffic that YVR gets. This is a function of relative population size as much as anything else -- the US has 10 times the population of Canada -- but also different traffic patterns. In contrast to Canadian airports, US airport figures are primarily driven by domestic passengers.

Let's use Toronto (YYZ) as an example. Check out the Airports Council International site (http://www.airports.org/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-212-1376-1379_666_2__) for August 2008 YTD international statistics. YYZ's international traffic is higher than much busier airports such as Los Angeles. In fact, New York JFK is the only US airport that has more international passengers than Toronto.

Note that SFO doesn't make the list.

Rusty Gull
Jan 10, 2009, 4:10 PM
^Are you sure about YVR even being on that list, never mind being ahead of SFO and LAX?

hollywoodnorth
Jan 10, 2009, 10:24 PM
The claim is made by YVR itself: http://www.yvr.ca/authority/employment/index.asp

What you're forgetting is that US transborder traffic is also considered international, and this segment makes up 50% of YVR's international passengers. SFO may have many more international destinations, but it doesn't have anywhere near the transborder traffic that YVR gets. This is a function of relative population size as much as anything else -- the US has 10 times the population of Canada -- but also different traffic patterns. In contrast to Canadian airports, US airport figures are primarily driven by domestic passengers.

Still don't believe me? Check out the Airports Council International site (http://www.airports.org/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-212-1376-1379_666_2__) for August 2008 YTD international statistics. YYZ's international traffic is higher than much busier airports such as Los Angeles airports. In fact, New York JFK is the only US airport that has more international passengers than Toronto.

Note that SFO doesn't make the list.


yes that makes sense factoring all the US/Can traffic

muzhav84
Jan 11, 2009, 3:12 AM
that's exactly right, with the inclusion of 'transborder' on vancouver's international numbers, we have greater 'international' numbers than SFO

Yume-sama
Jan 11, 2009, 3:24 AM
:shrug: Well, I had no idea.

Why do so many people want to go to America? :haha:

We'll definitely be needing those improvements, then, if we get some more Asian and European destinations! :D

SpongeG
Jan 11, 2009, 8:50 PM
um USA is Canada's biggest trading partner perhaps?

trofirhen
Jan 12, 2009, 4:52 AM
um USA is Canada's biggest trading partner perhaps?

... yes ... I rather think that the USA being Canada's largest trading partner, the world's largest economy, and that many Canadians have relatives living in the USA would play a role in all this .......

Yume-sama
Jan 12, 2009, 5:09 AM
Surely you didn't think I was serious.

It was even indicated by the ":haha:"

trofirhen
Jan 12, 2009, 4:12 PM
Surely you didn't think I was serious.

It was even indicated by the ":haha:"

It would be interesting to divvy up the "international" traffic out of YVR, and find out what per centage is going overseas, and what percentage is, in fact, going to the USA. I'll bet you a Denver-mint dollar that the percentage of USA - bound traffic is higher than you think - perhaps not MORE than overseas traffic, but not as far behind as we like to imagine. Remember, despite all its cosmopolitan pretensions, Vancouver still is a regional city. Not that that's an inherently bad thing, but all that "international gateway" hype, while largely true for Asia in the Canadian context, is just that: hype.
Flights to California, plus the major central US transfer ponts (Chicago, Denver, Dallas, etc) might comprise a larger chunk of the jets taking off from here than you think. (ooops. Let's not forget Seattle)

Spork
Jan 12, 2009, 6:15 PM
It would be interesting to divvy up the "international" traffic out of YVR, and find out what per centage is going overseas, and what percentage is, in fact, going to the USA. I'll bet you a Denver-mint dollar that the percentage of USA - bound traffic is higher than you think - perhaps not MORE than overseas traffic, but not as far behind as we like to imagine. Remember, despite all its cosmopolitan pretensions, Vancouver still is a regional city. Not that that's an inherently bad thing, but all that "international gateway" hype, while largely true for Asia in the Canadian context, is just that: hype.
Flights to California, plus the major central US transfer ponts (Chicago, Denver, Dallas, etc) might comprise a larger chunk of the jets taking off from here than you think. (ooops. Let's not forget Seattle)

There is quite a large volume as seen here: http://yvr.ca/pdf/authority/statistics/December_2007_Pax.pdf

From the document (assuming that "trans-border" is to/from the U.S.A):
Domestic: 9,016,556 (51.5%)
U.S.A: 4,361,177 (24.9%)
Asia-Pacific: 2,453,518 (14.0%)
Europe: 1,289,366 (7.4%)
Misc: 374,432 (2.1%)
Total: 17,495,049

Hot Rod
Jan 15, 2009, 6:43 AM
Vancouver is the 2nd busiest airport in Canada and the 2nd busiest International Airport on the West Coast of North America.

Vancouver has more capacity to Asia than SF does, it is close but YVR is bigger and it out edges SFO's edge to Europe. Also, consider that there is no separation of Transborder from Inter-continental; if it is to another country, then it is International. In this, you can clearly see that YVR beats SFO. There are not many more flag carriers to SFO that aren't at YVR.

LAX is the busiest Airport on the West Coast no matter how you measure, in every category.

In total passengers, I believe it is LAX, then SFO, SEA, YVR, SLC, PDX, OAK, ... So in this ranking, Vanocuver would be 4th busiest on the West Coast.

Hot Rod
Jan 15, 2009, 6:52 AM
There is quite a large volume as seen here: http://yvr.ca/pdf/authority/statistics/December_2007_Pax.pdf

From the document (assuming that "trans-border" is to/from the U.S.A):
Domestic: 9,016,556 (51.5%)
U.S.A: 4,361,177 (24.9%)
Asia-Pacific: 2,453,518 (14.0%)
Europe: 1,289,366 (7.4%)
Misc: 374,432 (2.1%)
Total: 17,495,049

Those stats are very telling, almost a 50% split between International and Domestic. That is amazing!

Also, you can see that YVR has a larger European presence than some on here have been leading to believe or realize. I assume the MISC represents Charters, which mostly would be Asia and Europe, probably 50-50 split.

Also interesting, take the Asia-Pacific numbers and that would equal 10 777/340's (350 capacity) in that route per day, Europe being half that. I think that is pretty realistic to what we see.

I think all of SFO's International numbers my only equate to Vancouver's USA Transborder.

You must consider that YVR is the busiest international destination from SEA and PDX (maybe SLC also).

zivan56
Jan 15, 2009, 7:10 AM
Does anyone know why one needs to pass through customs to continue one from YVR? i.e LHR->YVR->HKG
In Europe (both EU and non-EU) airports do not require passing through customs. However, here, you need a transit visa in order to just continue on. This which is a HUGE hassle...and I believe even affects some EU members.

trofirhen
Jan 15, 2009, 7:25 AM
[QUOTE=Hot Rod;4026338]Vancouver is the 2nd busiest airport in Canada and the 2nd busiest International Airport on the West Coast of North America.

Vancouver has more capacity to Asia than SF does, it is close but YVR is bigger and it out edges SFO's edge to Europe.
_________________________________________________________________
Excuse me, but when you say "YVR is bigger..." (than SFO), do you mean the traffic volume to Asia is bigger, or that YVR itself is bigger than SFO? On the first point, you could be right, but no way is YVR bigger than SFO, either in passengers per year, or in aircraft movements, (not to mention the number of slots and the terminal itself)

Vancity
Jan 15, 2009, 8:07 AM
Just a really quick question - how many gates does YVR have in total? According to the report of the YVR expansion (by 2020), the airport is supposed to get even larger. The airport may serve 33 million people a year? wow, that's almost the service size of Pearson International.

That would be impressive.

trofirhen
Jan 15, 2009, 10:04 AM
Just a really quick question - how many gates does YVR have in total? According to the report of the YVR expansion (by 2020), the airport is supposed to get even larger. The airport may serve 33 million people a year? wow, that's almost the service size of Pearson International.

That would be impressive.

Althought the gates are numbered up to 90, I believe the actual number is 60-something. Regading passenger volume,
33 million a year is impressive. TOO impressive. I just can't imagine it in Vancouver, which is still only a mid-sized city, at best.

Hourglass
Jan 15, 2009, 1:33 PM
Just a really quick question - how many gates does YVR have in total? According to the report of the YVR expansion (by 2020), the airport is supposed to get even larger. The airport may serve 33 million people a year? wow, that's almost the service size of Pearson International.

That would be impressive.

I think YVR has 56 airbridges right now. Not sure whether that includes the C-pier expansion or not -- don't think it does.

YVR is a significant Asian hub in its own right, but it does NOT have more capacity to Asia than SFO does -- especially not after the recent cutbacks by Air Canada and Cathay Pacific and the demise of Oasis. But as someone pointed out earlier, Metro Vancouver has less than 1/3 of the Bay Area's population, so it's not all that surprising.

YVR's total international figures, which Europe, Asia, Oceania and Latin America, generally run neck and neck with SFO's international figures. SFO's domestic traffic blows away YVR's domestic traffic figures.