PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

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

trofirhen
Jan 16, 2009, 10:58 AM
Given that we're currently comparing airports (destinations, traffic volumes, aircraft movements, and so forth) one of the best places to go to look up statistics for any given airport is WIKIPEDIA. Just enter the airport name followed by "wikipedia" and a description of the airport, the terminal, number of passengers annually, plus a list of airlines serving the airport with their respective destinations will come up. Very useful. ;)

Delirium
Jan 16, 2009, 1:18 PM
here's a fairly recent picture of the domestic terminal expansion

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3086/3195201407_9547a7100b_b.jpg
photo by indyinsane on flickr.com

and a nice aerial
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1091/3170358741_d9522ec476_b.jpg
photo by WorldWide Murman on flickr.com

Spork
Jan 16, 2009, 6:25 PM
Are there any concerns about the ultimate capacity of YVR? Airports always scare me because of their limitless expansion potential, but limited land availability.

Yume-sama
Jan 16, 2009, 6:30 PM
Are there any concerns about the ultimate capacity of YVR? Airports always scare me because of their limitless expansion potential, but limited land availability.

:P We could always re-claim land come the year 2250 if that becomes a necessity. :D

mr.x
Jan 16, 2009, 7:35 PM
^ wow, the domestic expansion looks great!

trofirhen
Jan 16, 2009, 8:27 PM
It's finally starting to look like a major airport. With an increased (emphasis on European) destination roster, it will finally be the major air hub that people in Vancouver have been longing for - and need.

LeftCoaster
Jan 16, 2009, 9:53 PM
Just a clarification that is the internation terminal expansion, not the domestic.

Also, in the second picture the Link II project can be seen under the orange tarp. The project will provide a link behind the security checkpoints between the ITB and DTB, expanded baggage handling facilities and better access to the DTB C pier.

Gordon
Jan 16, 2009, 10:03 PM
The above picture is of the C- Pier exapnsion( Air Canada's Area) As far as I know there is no curent International expansion in progress now.

trofirhen
Jan 17, 2009, 8:12 AM
Speaking to an official at YVR, I was told that Emirates wants to make Vancouver a destination point. It cannot. Why? Under current government regulations, it can only land at (where else) Toronto, three times a week. In addition Etihad Airlines of Abu Dhabi cand only land (at Toronto, of course) three times a week, giving Toronto 6-days per week service to the Persian Gulf. *
This same YVR official urged me to contact the Minister of Transport, The Hon. John Baird, in Ottawa, to be one of the MANY voices necessary to lift this restriction, and allow Emirates, plus other carriers like Asiana, to fly into Vancouver. * (BTW, Emirates has an "Open Skies" type deal with USA, and may end up at Seattle. If so, we'll be dropped from their wish list due to the proximity)
May I pass the word along, asking members to contact Minister Baird, asking him to lift this restriction? It is rules like these that hamper the growth and the true "gateway" status of Vancouver. *
If you want to add your voice, Minister Baird's email is // mintc@tc.gc.ca //
and there is a Transport Canada website where you could post a message to him, asking him to scuttle these restrictive and unprofitable rules, which benefit (you got it) only Toronto (or, more precisely, YYZ.) There, the red carpet is rolled out for airlines. Out here, we have to fight for what we get. So .... let's fight !! We need all the airlines we can get, in particular Emirates, as Dubai is now the "New Hong Kong" of the world. Come on, people! It's time to take on Ottawa! As the YVR official said, "make your voice heard!" :banger:

Vancity
Jan 17, 2009, 9:56 AM
Speaking to an official at YVR, I was told that Emirates wants to make Vancouver a destination point. It cannot. Why? Under current government regulations, it can only land at (where else) Toronto, three times a week. In addition Etihad Airlines of Abu Dhabi cand only land (at Toronto, of course) three times a week, giving Toronto 6-days per week service to the Persian Gulf. *
This same YVR official urged me to contact the Minister of Transport, The Hon. John Baird, in Ottawa, to be one of the MANY voices necessary to lift this restriction, and allow Emirates, plus other carriers like Asiana, to fly into Vancouver. * (BTW, Emirates has an "Open Skies" type deal with USA, and may end up at Seattle. If so, we'll be dropped from their wish list due to the proximity)
May I pass the word along, asking members to contact Minister Baird, asking him to lift this restriction? It is rules like these that hamper the growth and the true "gateway" status of Vancouver. *
If you want to add your voice, Minister Baird's email is // mintc@tc.gc.ca //
and there is a Transport Canada website where you could post a message to him, asking him to scuttle these restrictive and unprofitable rules, which benefit (you got it) only Toronto (or, more precisely, YYZ.) There, the red carpet is rolled out for airlines. Out here, we have to fight for what we get. So .... let's fight !! We need all the airlines we can get, in particular Emirates, as Dubai is now the "New Hong Kong" of the world. Come on, people! It's time to take on Ottawa! As the YVR official said, "make your voice heard!" :banger:

What are the reasons for these restrictions?

trofirhen
Jan 17, 2009, 1:38 PM
What are the reasons for these restrictions?

When I contacted the official at YVR, and asked him the reasons for these restrictions, he was at a loss to tell me. He only said that he felt angry, frustrated, and generally baffled by what seem to be such a counter-productive and pointless set of restrictions. * * *

However ... in my own view (and this is only an opinion of course) these restrictions are; firstly, the vestiges of the vast set of previous restrictions in place before the Canada - EU "Open Skies" agreement took effect. Remembering that the United Arab Emirates are not part of the European Union, the government can still apply the restrictions here.

Secondly, however, I imagine that they are in place mostly to make sure that Toronto maintains its prominence as the "Gateway to Canada" and the Number One City, even if it is at the expense of the regions, and possibly, as a consequence, the entire country.

It is important to remember that Southern Ontario and Quebec is where most Canadians live, and thus forms the major voting base of the country. In effect, it is an attempt to keep Toronto happy being Number One, by making sure it gets most of the action, and this usually means "adjusting" the regulations to shoulder everyone else out - with the possible exception of Montreal. However this, as I said, is my personal interpretation. :hell:

Perhaps if you contacted the Ministry of Transport, the Hon. John Baird could give you the official reason. (That, in fact, might be interesting to hear.)

eemy
Jan 17, 2009, 3:16 PM
Speaking to an official at YVR, I was told that Emirates wants to make Vancouver a destination point. It cannot. Why? Under current government regulations, it can only land at (where else) Toronto, three times a week. In addition Etihad Airlines of Abu Dhabi cand only land (at Toronto, of course) three times a week, giving Toronto 6-days per week service to the Persian Gulf. *
This same YVR official urged me to contact the Minister of Transport, The Hon. John Baird, in Ottawa, to be one of the MANY voices necessary to lift this restriction, and allow Emirates, plus other carriers like Asiana, to fly into Vancouver. * (BTW, Emirates has an "Open Skies" type deal with USA, and may end up at Seattle. If so, we'll be dropped from their wish list due to the proximity)
May I pass the word along, asking members to contact Minister Baird, asking him to lift this restriction? It is rules like these that hamper the growth and the true "gateway" status of Vancouver. *
If you want to add your voice, Minister Baird's email is // mintc@tc.gc.ca //
and there is a Transport Canada website where you could post a message to him, asking him to scuttle these restrictive and unprofitable rules, which benefit (you got it) only Toronto (or, more precisely, YYZ.) There, the red carpet is rolled out for airlines. Out here, we have to fight for what we get. So .... let's fight !! We need all the airlines we can get, in particular Emirates, as Dubai is now the "New Hong Kong" of the world. Come on, people! It's time to take on Ottawa! As the YVR official said, "make your voice heard!" :banger:

If asked, Emirates would say they wanted to make Thunder Bay a destination. As for the reason for the restrictions, they're almost certainly in place to protect Canadian carriers (read AC). There is very little traffic from the UAE to Canada and vice versa. Emirates operates almost exclusively as a hub carrier, especially to the the Indian subcontinent. There is a tonne of capacity from Canada-India/Pakistan already, via half a dozen different carriers.

Frankly, I can understand wanting Emirates to enter a particular market - apparently they have made claims to wanting to serve YYC and YUL as well, besides YVR. The bilateral agreement seems rather protectionist. However, if you really consider what Emirates wants, I believe that YVR is not first on the list. Emirates wants daily rights to Toronto. When the bilateral was first hammered out, no carrier was allowed more than 4x weekly flights to Canada. Emirates sat it out and said it would only serve Toronto if it had daily rights. Etihad went ahead and took the 4x weekly rights, leaving Emirates with 3x weekly, which it later went ahead and took anyway. Emirates wants open skies, not service to YVR, YYC, or YUL. Open skies would allow it to provide service where it wants; however, I guarantee, the first thing EK would do would be to increase YYZ to daily, if not 2x daily. Service elsewhere would be quite far down on the list. With respect to YVR, the desirability would largely depend on the attractiveness of DXB as a connecting point to the subcontinent. I suspect EK would have difficulty competing with Asian carriers in that respect.

eemy
Jan 18, 2009, 4:20 AM
Just for the record, the bilateral agreement is available here (http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/air-aerien/agreements/html/united_arab_emirate_e.html). You'll note that there is nothing restricting either Etihad or Emirates from flying to YVR.

mr.x
Jan 19, 2009, 12:26 AM
Taken by indyinsane at flickr
http://flickr.com/photos/bctransit/page4/


From the last few weeks.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3418/3195196737_0dd3c04d47_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3410/3198084936_a6bda512b1_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3308/3198077836_8fe08d17d7_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3369/3197228303_51c51f0dbe_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3478/3195207277_cfe6745c8f_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3500/3195205595_140946eabc_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3385/3195202167_babed0138c_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3086/3195201729_20e5dfc11e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3450/3195200725_69a3546404_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3453/3195200127_a91752f83a_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3536/3195199675_3e9be1941e_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3195197309_504fc00703_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/3194803880_2eef1e2485_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3369/3194802954_b80eeb371c_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3420/3193959543_eb8f3719cb_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3402/3193959051_5f1e9afb1a_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3337/3193958611_a9837d0f45_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3257/3193958065_acbf02a3a7_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3132/3193957525_0c93b55955_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3457/3194800122_b284ba3bfe_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3096/3193955673_54c82f80dd_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3301/3194798266_505cfce97c_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3257/3194799196_6ef7c623e2_o.jpg

Hourglass
Jan 19, 2009, 1:06 AM
Just for the record, the bilateral agreement is available here (http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/air-aerien/agreements/html/united_arab_emirate_e.html). You'll note that there is nothing restricting either Etihad or Emirates from flying to YVR.

Nothing except a minor fact that the Government of the United Arab Emirates can only have six (6) flights per week for operation of their own aircraft. That would appear to be Canada-wide capacity.

Now if I'm Etihad or Emirates, I'm allocating those flights to Toronto or maybe Montreal where there is both population base and sizeable ethnic communities. So this bilateral agreement as good as locks out service from UAE to any airport in Western Canada

trofirhen
Jan 19, 2009, 6:44 PM
Many thanks to "Mr .x2" for the terrific pictures on this page !! They really add something here, and give a feeling of the airport. They're great !!

(Now all we need are a few more foreign tails in such pictures, like: Air France, Emirates, Qantas (which used to fly here), Iberia ... as well as a few more key year-round destinations like: Dubai, Brisbane, Guadalajara, Madrid, Paris, Munich, Athens ....

....and we'll be a TRUE international gateway airport ! Thanks again "x2," and here's to the future reach of YVR !! :tup:

metroXpress
Jan 25, 2009, 6:23 PM
Thanks MrX2 and Delirium for those great pics

Nice finding!

phesto
Jan 25, 2009, 6:30 PM
It ain't much, but any new service is great news this year...

WestJet announces flight
The StarPhoenixDecember 18, 2008

Starting in May, Saskatoon travellers will be able to fly non-stop to Vancouver courtesy of WestJet.

Daily, seasonal non-stop flights from Saskatoon to the West Coast centre will begin on May 3, the airline announced Wednesday.

Flights from Saskatoon will depart at 5:30 p.m. CST and arrive in Vancouver at 6:41 p.m. PST, while flights departing from Vancouver will leave at 2 p.m. PST and arrive in Saskatoon at 4:46 p.m. CST.

"We're excited to offer a new service that will make it easier than ever for people to travel between the great western cities of Saskatoon and Vancouver," said Bob Cummings, a WestJet vice-president.

The announcement is part of the airline's enhanced summer schedule, the company says.

In November, the John G. Diefenbaker International Airport reported its one millionth passenger of the year.

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

SpongeG
Jan 25, 2009, 9:15 PM
What are the reasons for these restrictions?

basically to protect Canada's own Airline industry

Canada's airlines must serve Canadian desitinations first - not sure if they could fly direst to Vancouver from dubai but they couldn't say fly dubai - toronto - vancouver - because a Canadian airline can do the toronto - vancouver portion

ravman
Jan 26, 2009, 11:40 PM
Speaking of Westjet... is the new luggage ramp for WestJet completed in Domestic bldg... there was something about going underground and ramp and something... its been a while since i was out there and the last time i saw the marking on the floors

excel
Jan 27, 2009, 12:39 AM
great pictures mr x.

rather_draconian
Jan 29, 2009, 10:13 PM
Just got this from the Vancouver Sun...kinda cool. HSBC jetways remind me of Heathrow...


HSBC brands the jet bridges at YVR

By Derrick Penner, Vancouver SunJanuary 29, 2009 1:01 PM

The jet bridges at Vancouver International Airport will become billboards for HSBC Bank Canada as the two companies have agreed to a branding campaign at the facility.


HSBC, the Vancouver Airport Authority and outdoor advertising firm Clear Channel Outdoor Company Canada, on Thursday, announced that the bank has secured exclusive rights to put its name outside and inside the airport's 61 jet bridges, the enclosed ramps that carry passengers from the terminal to their planes out of the weather.


HSBC Group holds similar rights at 40 airports around the world including Pearson International in Toronto, Heathrow in London, JFK in New York and Tokyo's Narita airport.


Vancouver International Airport CEO Larry Berg said the contract helps the airport increase "non-aeronautical revenues" as a means to keep its landing fees the lowest of major Canadian airports.


A total of nine jet bridges will be branded with HSBC's name in 2009 with the remainder to be covered in 2010.


The contract between HSBC, Vancouver International Airport and Clear Channel will last until 2015. It's value to the airport was not disclosed.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

mr.x
Jan 29, 2009, 10:34 PM
^ they do that at Hong Kong too!

Yume-sama
Jan 29, 2009, 10:49 PM
HSBC owns the World :P

I don't think I've been anywhere without seeing them as soon as I step off the plane.

trofirhen
Jan 30, 2009, 12:16 AM
[QUOTE=Yume-sama;4056638]HSBC owns the World :P

... and soon the entire planet. :crazy2:

vanlaw
Jan 30, 2009, 12:21 AM
Toronto as well - the West Jet terminal at least - not sure about the new terminal.

therock023
Feb 2, 2009, 5:56 AM
Hello, just wondering if anybody had an answer to an odd question I have. What are the most "international" flights that arrive at YVR? By "international", I mean, which flights carry the most passengers who are not Canadians just returning home from a trip, but a flight which carries the most foreigners (the most culturally diverse flights, a flight on which would be people from all backgrounds, countries, etc.). Example, EVA Air 747 comes from Taipei, but carries mostly locals from Taipei or the surrounding area, but British Airways 747 from London seems to be a real "international" flight. So far I thought these might be the most "international/foreign/culturally diverse" flights arriving at YVR:

British Airways from London
Air Canada from London
Lufthansa from Frankfurt
Singapore Airlines from Singapore/Seoul
Cathay Pacific from Hong Kong
KLM from Amsterdam
American Airlines from Dallas
Air Canada from Toronto

Any ideas??.... Just wanting to know how much of a "gateway" or how "international" in scope Vancouver International really is...

Hourglass
Feb 2, 2009, 7:15 AM
:previous:

I would say the flights from HKG, LHR, AMS and YYZ would have the most international mix as these are large catchment hubs for a major airline. For example, CX funnels most transit passengers through their hub in Hong Kong. Similarly, Heathrow and Schipol are major transit hubs.

Having said that, I've taken CX from HKG to YVR numerous times, and it appears to be mainly Canadians on business or Hong Kongers (or ex-HKers who have moved to Canada) on personal visits with a sprinkling of people from PR China, the Philippines, India and elsewhere. Similarly, when I took BA from Heathrow to YVR a few summers ago, it seemed to be mainly Brits visiting on holiday, so anecdotally at least, it would seem that for most airlines, their home market makes up the majority of passengers. I've no stats to back that up, though...

On another note, finally some good news in the midst of all the route cutbacks at YVR by Air Canada. In March, Philippine Airlines is set to go daily from Manila and Korean Air will go daily from Seoul (source: airlineroute.blogspot.com).

trofirhen
Feb 12, 2009, 7:43 PM
To any interested readers: Considering that Vancouver is considered an "International Gateway," which of ten new worldwide destinations would, in your opinion, serve the city best, and why? My partial list of choices, among others, are:

1: New Delhi, to serve the large East Indian Community in the city.
2: Dubai, to hook up with this important centre of commerce, and
conecting point.
3: Melbourne, which at the present rate, will become the largest city in
Australia in 20 years, as well as the major financial centre.
4: Miami, the most direct route route for connections to South America. (Rio, Sao Paolo, Buenos Aires, Caracas, etc)
5: Paris CDG, the largest city in Continental Europe, and the most "connected," airwise.
6: Munich, to both serve the large German population in Vancouver and to
provided a connecting point to Eastern Europe.
7: Rome, to serve the large Italian community here, and provide a gateway
to the Mediterranean area.
8: Manchester, to serve the large maket of the northern UK, and as a connecting point to Scandinavia.

Any other ideas or suggestions? It would be interesting to see "where" we're heading, both as a city and as an airport.

sacrifice333
Feb 12, 2009, 8:38 PM
Direct flights to Miami would be fantastic.

Flying through Toronto en route to the Caribbean is so lame.

Coldrsx
Feb 12, 2009, 8:42 PM
"4: Miami, the most direct route route for connections to South America. (Rio, Sao Paolo, Buenos Aires, Caracas, etc)"

ever hear of mexico city?

"5: Paris CDG, the largest city in Continental Europe, and the most "connected," airwise."

frankfurt, which you already have, is a far better "connected" transfer point

trofirhen
Feb 13, 2009, 11:08 PM
"4: Miami, the most direct route route for connections to South America. (Rio, Sao Paolo, Buenos Aires, Caracas, etc)"

ever hear of mexico city?

"5: Paris CDG, the largest city in Continental Europe, and the most "connected," airwise."

frankfurt, which you already have, is a far better "connected" transfer point

Perhaps you are right about Mexico City over Miami, but I still think that a lack of year-round service to Paris is a "gap" that needs to be filled. Paris itself represents a huge market (being the most visited city in the world helps), is the largest city by far in continental Europe, and where you get the idea that Frankfurt is a better connecting point puzzles me. Airline statistics show that CDG is the most "connected" airport in Europe. Frankfurt is good, I agree, but Paris CDG is even better.

Anybody else? ..... Which destinations would make Vancouver a TRUE international gateway?

mr.x
Feb 14, 2009, 5:24 AM
From flickr....all but one are pictures of the recent 2010 security practice at the airport.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3253044463_a6628e5b6d_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/3253041421_192fb0417f_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3404/3199478029_d35670a600_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3414/3199478027_fffa1eb274_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3075/3199478021_d8d7ab3b3e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3315/3199478019_974496167b_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3478/3199478015_13ec6de0c3_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3466/3200310070_fc56324b58_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3082/3200310058_58ec0a7db6_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/3200310056_3391b11a17_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3516/3200310050_4e0ea65790_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3523/3200310046_e9824a20bd_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/3200310032_5edfc60d63_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3259/3171435158_f4424d3873_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/3253050973_7bb6778dd0_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3526/3253875448_42aec9dfed_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3394/3253047549_1611265fe8_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3253044463_a6628e5b6d_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3459/3253042761_4c4af57de8_b.jpg

nova9
Feb 14, 2009, 8:09 AM
Thank so much for the great insight into the security exercise.

Question: Do/can/would military planes share runways with commercial runways?

sacrifice333
Feb 14, 2009, 4:10 PM
Should the really be using Sea Kings as part of the Olympic Security... aren't those things up to like 24 hours of maintenance per flying hour or something?! :koko:

Canadian Mind
Feb 14, 2009, 7:46 PM
Thank so much for the great insight into the security exercise.

Question: Do/can/would military planes share runways with commercial runways?

Yes, YVR can handle everything in Canadian inventory save for F-18's in full afterburner or a C-17 trying to perform a short take off or landing. If either of these aircraft have to go to full power to take off or land, the asphalt peeling from the runway is probably the least of our worries.

Should the really be using Sea Kings as part of the Olympic Security... aren't those things up to like 24 hours of maintenance per flying hour or something?! :koko:

We don't have anything else that fills the SeaKings role. Now if we had a government willing to spend 50 billion per year, kit as old as the SeaKings wouldn't be a problem. But unfortunately we don't have a party with the nuts to do that, nor do i think you the taxpayer would approve of it.

mr.x
Feb 14, 2009, 7:54 PM
^ in the late-90s, the feds signed a contract to replace the Sea Kings for something like $5-billion with a lot of high-tech gadgets and weaponry but Chretien canceled at the last minute. Today, we'd just get the helicopter for the same price.

Canadian Mind
Feb 14, 2009, 8:13 PM
^ in the late-90s, the feds signed a contract to replace the Sea Kings for something like $5-billion with a lot of high-tech gadgets and weaponry but Chretien canceled at the last minute. Today, we'd just get the helicopter for the same price.

The first part is what I meant. We lost more money in the end then what we would have spent on the fucking things, which now would be 15 years old and starting to rust up.

At the same time, if you look at the deplorable state of the Comorants, which are based on the same model of helicopter, but 10 years newer, we may have lucked out as far as dodging a lemon.

Now the problem is delays of the current chopper because the government keeps increasing its demands year by year. Just give the airforce the fuckign platform and upgrade it after you have the airframes instead of constantly having the company rework the models they have 95% complete on the factory floor.

Miu
Feb 15, 2009, 12:35 AM
Perhaps you are right about Mexico City over Miami, but I still think that a lack of year-round service to Paris is a "gap" that needs to be filled. Paris itself represents a huge market (being the most visited city in the world helps), is the largest city by far in continental Europe, and where you get the idea that Frankfurt is a better connecting point puzzles me. Airline statistics show that CDG is the most "connected" airport in Europe. Frankfurt is good, I agree, but Paris CDG is even better.



I don't know if it's true, but I have heard more than once that Frankfurt Airport serves more destinations than any other airport in the world.

Locked In
Feb 15, 2009, 5:02 AM
Singapore Airlines ditches flights to Vancouver
By Staff, Vancouver Sun, February 14, 2009 8:01 PM


Singapore Airlines will not be flying into YVR after April 25, say executives with the company.

An SIA spokesman said the thrice-weekly service that stops over in Seoul was no longer viable to operate three times per week.

The economic conditions has lowered passenger numbers and performance on the route isn't likely to improve soon due to the global economic downturn, according to the company.

SIA will notify affected customers and offer them alternative travel plans.

Suspension of the Vancouver service will be 'indefinite', according to officials.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun


Source: Vancouver Sun (http://www.vancouversun.com/Travel/Singapore+Airlines+ditches+flights+Vancouver/1291689/story.html)

Yume-sama
Feb 15, 2009, 5:08 AM
That's too bad :(

trofirhen
Feb 15, 2009, 10:34 AM
That's too bad :(

You bet it's too bad. Watch and wait; I wouldn't be surprised if Seattle doesn't pick up that route, just the way they caught up with us with Lufthansa to Frankfurt and surpassed us with Air France to Paris CDG. The reality is, that great as Vancouver is, it just isn't a BIG enough city with a big enough market to warrant all these exotic destinations, particularly in this economic climate.

Hourglass
Feb 15, 2009, 3:46 PM
You bet it's too bad. Watch and wait; I wouldn't be surprised if Seattle doesn't pick up that route, just the way they caught up with us with Lufthansa to Frankfurt and surpassed us with Air France to Paris CDG. The reality is, that great as Vancouver is, it just isn't a BIG enough city with a big enough market to warrant all these exotic destinations, particularly in this economic climate.

Highly unlikely. If Singapore Airlines can't make Vancouver work, why would Seattle, with its far smaller Asian population, make better economic sense? Seattle itself is being hit pretty hard. Hainan Airlines launched Beijing - Seattle flights last year, and by all accounts, they are taking a bath on this route. SAS has just ended its Seattle route from Copenhagen -- and this after 40 years! In any case, Vancouver still has far more non-stops to Asia than Seattle does.

Anyway, I believe the suspension of the route was a result of (1) Korean Airlines increasing their frequency to daily on the YVR-ICN route, and (2) the inability of Singapore Airlines to increase its frequency from 3x/week to daily via Seoul under the new Canada-Singapore bilateral aviation agreement.

SpongeG
Feb 15, 2009, 9:00 PM
I don't know if it's true, but I have heard more than once that Frankfurt Airport serves more destinations than any other airport in the world.

it's central located - i know my parents flew via there to south africa a couple times

you can fly direct from most north american cities and further south east etc from frankfurt

SpongeG
Feb 15, 2009, 9:06 PM
more info on singapore - not just YVR has been cut

Singapore Airlines will cancel flights to Vancouver in April

By Charlie Smith

Singapore Airlines will cancel regular flights to Vancouver in April.

The International Herald Tribune has reported that the suspension is indefinite, and the last flight will be on April 25.

The airline operates three flights per week in and out of Vancouver. International air traffic has fallen in the wake of a global economic recession.

The IHT reported that Singapore Airlines had issued a statement about the cancellation of flights to Vancouver. However, the statement is not listed among the company's news releases on its Web site.

The Vancouver International Airport Authority, which operates Vancouver's major airport, had not issued a statement, as of 8:30 a.m. PST on Sunday (February 15).

Earlier this month, Singapore Airlines reported that third-quarter profits were down 42.8 percent over the same quarter a year ago.

In a news release accompanying the financial results, the company announced that flights had been cut back in the previous quarter to Manchester, Athens, Seoul, Osaka, Chennai, Bangalore, Penang, and Ho Chi Minh. Flights to Amritsar were suspended.

On January 28, Singapore Airlines announced it would reduce the number of flights each week to Bangkok, Los Angeles, London, Newark, New Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, and Zurich.

The airline increased the number of flights to Shanghai and Cairo, and will commence service to Kuwait on March 15.

http://www.straight.com/article-201589/singapore-airlines-will-cancel-flights-vancouver-april

trofirhen
Feb 16, 2009, 4:48 AM
it's central located - i know my parents flew via there to south africa a couple times

you can fly direct from most north american cities and further south east etc from frankfurt

I guess what I really mean is that Paris is a major destination in itself, as well as being a great transfer point. I'm not putting down Frankfurt; I flew through there transferring from Paris to Vancouver and back, but Paris is a a large air market - just ask the marketing department at YVR - and warrants a direct flight from Vancouver in addition to the summer charters. And CDG IS very well connected, especially within Europe. If the load factor and yield factor there are anything like they are out of Seattle, it would be worth having added to our destination roster.

SpongeG
Feb 16, 2009, 5:05 AM
well you could say Paris is a Destination vs Frankfurt being a hub hence why frankfurt serves more destinations

metroXpress
Feb 16, 2009, 5:06 AM
Hey I've heard about the flight cancellation....I hope it doesn't affect anyone
since they had to transfer anyways.

therock023
Feb 16, 2009, 5:34 AM
Quite a few things to say, bear with me....

I agree, Vancouver is a great city, but quite small in terms of population compared to other cities. However, for a city its size, the airport is pretty busy.

Vancouver Metro Population: 2.1 million; Airport traffic:17 million
Paris Metro Population: 12.1 million; Airport traffic:60 million
London Metro Population: 13 million; Airport traffic:68 million
Tokyo Metro Population: 13 million; Airport traffic:67 million
San Fran Metro Population: 4.2 million; Airport traffic:36 million (Total California population - being the size of BC - over 30 million; total BC population = 4.3 million)

This sort of puts things in perspective.

Another point, YVR (the international side atleast) is one of the nicest airports in the world - very 'Zen' like; domestic side is crap


Anybody else? ..... Which destinations would make Vancouver a TRUE international gateway?

Here are my picks (unrealistic?..perhaps, but desirable nonetheless) going around the world....(these are direct flights, both arriving and departing, flying either daily or 3x weekly, all year long, to the main airports in these cities ie. London - Heathrow; all actual planes and not just codeshares)(I'm not including charter airlines here that fly to holiday destinations like the Caribbean)

London British Airways (already have)
Paris Air France
Frankfurt Lufthansa (already have)
Madrid Swiss International
Rome Lufthansa
Amsterdam KLM (already have)
Moscow Lufthansa
Dubai Qatar
New Delhi Kingfisher (direct flight is planned using Indian 5* airliner Kingfisher)
Capetown South African
Kuala Lumpar Malaysia Airlines
Singapore Singapore Airlines (sadly, it's being cancelled)
Hong Kong Cathay Pacific (already have)
Seoul Asiana Airlines (already have Korean Air)
Tokyo Japan Airlines (already have)
Shanghai Cathay Pacific (already have China Eastern)
Beijing Asiana Airlines (already have Air China)
Auckland Air New Zealand (already have)
Sydney Qantas (already have crappy Air Canada)
Sao Paulo LAN Airlines
Mexico City Mexicana (already have)
New York United Airlines (already have crappy Air Canada)
LA, San Fran, Seattle, Chicago, Dallas, Denver Various (already have)

Preferably, all/most these flights should be either 747's or A340's (A380's perhaps); larger airplanes parked on the tarmac give the airport a better 'look'

These places would make YVR more 'international'...The list is pretty sweeet...

Soo sad to see Singapore Airlines go away. It is the world's best airline coming from the two best airports in the world (singapore, seoul). I surely hope Singapore airlines returns one day.

Yume-sama
Feb 16, 2009, 5:36 AM
Cathay Pacific also will fly you to New York City in their 747 if you dislike Air Canada :P

bbeliko
Feb 16, 2009, 10:10 PM
New York United Airlines (already have crappy Air Canada)

.

Wait, you're talking about crappy air canada, yet you want even crappier United????
The reality is, that great as Vancouver is, it just isn't a BIG enough city with a big enough market to warrant all these exotic destinations, particularly in this economic climate.
:yes: :yes: :yes:
And Canada isn't a big enough country (population wise), to have the need of multiple international gateways

SpongeG
Feb 16, 2009, 10:16 PM
KLM air France is making job cuts and cutting routes

the whole industry is having problems

a place like vancouver is an obvious cut for service or not to start at this moment

I don't know but I suspect most of the travel here is leisure as opposed to business where the money is in terms of setting up routes for airlines

twoNeurons
Feb 16, 2009, 11:35 PM
Wait, you're talking about crappy air canada, yet you want even crappier United????

:yes: :yes: :yes:
And Canada isn't a big enough country (population wise), to have the need of multiple international gateways

Many of the final destinations are to the US. And Vancouver has a Transborder agreement with the US. So, they don't have to go through Canada Customs if they're going to the states.

The US has a big enough population.

trofirhen
Feb 17, 2009, 5:11 AM
:( From the way folks are talking, it looks as if we're pretty much out of the running for major new destinations, at least in the foreseeable future. Oh well, a city can have its dreams, and Vancouver certainly has its share, however grandiose and fantastic they may be. (I'd still love a Paris nonstop, though, if nothing else)

SpongeG
Feb 17, 2009, 5:50 AM
its just not the time in the industry

hopefully things will improve but its taking a lot of hits

eemy
Feb 17, 2009, 1:02 PM
Quite a few things to say, bear with me....

I agree, Vancouver is a great city, but quite small in terms of population compared to other cities. However, for a city its size, the airport is pretty busy.

Vancouver Metro Population: 2.1 million; Airport traffic:17 million
Paris Metro Population: 12.1 million; Airport traffic:60 million
London Metro Population: 13 million; Airport traffic:68 million
Tokyo Metro Population: 13 million; Airport traffic:67 million
San Fran Metro Population: 4.2 million; Airport traffic:36 million (Total California population - being the size of BC - over 30 million; total BC population = 4.3 million)

This sort of puts things in perspective.

Another point, YVR (the international side atleast) is one of the nicest airports in the world - very 'Zen' like; domestic side is crap



Here are my picks (unrealistic?..perhaps, but desirable nonetheless) going around the world....(these are direct flights, both arriving and departing, flying either daily or 3x weekly, all year long, to the main airports in these cities ie. London - Heathrow; all actual planes and not just codeshares)(I'm not including charter airlines here that fly to holiday destinations like the Caribbean)

London British Airways (already have)
Paris Air France
Frankfurt Lufthansa (already have)
Madrid Swiss International
Rome Lufthansa
Amsterdam KLM (already have)
Moscow Lufthansa
Dubai Qatar
New Delhi Kingfisher (direct flight is planned using Indian 5* airliner Kingfisher)
Capetown South African
Kuala Lumpar Malaysia Airlines
Singapore Singapore Airlines (sadly, it's being cancelled)
Hong Kong Cathay Pacific (already have)
Seoul Asiana Airlines (already have Korean Air)
Tokyo Japan Airlines (already have)
Shanghai Cathay Pacific (already have China Eastern)
Beijing Asiana Airlines (already have Air China)
Auckland Air New Zealand (already have)
Sydney Qantas (already have crappy Air Canada)
Sao Paulo LAN Airlines
Mexico City Mexicana (already have)
New York United Airlines (already have crappy Air Canada)
LA, San Fran, Seattle, Chicago, Dallas, Denver Various (already have)

Preferably, all/most these flights should be either 747's or A340's (A380's perhaps); larger airplanes parked on the tarmac give the airport a better 'look'

These places would make YVR more 'international'...The list is pretty sweeet...

Soo sad to see Singapore Airlines go away. It is the world's best airline coming from the two best airports in the world (singapore, seoul). I surely hope Singapore airlines returns one day.

Interesting list, though I can't fathom why you have selected half the airlines for their particular destinations. Why would Lufthansa fly direct Moscow-Vancouver (which I don't believe is actually possible atm) when it could funnel Vancouver passengers through one of its hubs and make more money? Same with Asiana, Qatar, LAN, Cathay etc.

twoNeurons
Feb 17, 2009, 6:31 PM
How about restoring YVR - KIX (Osaka)

ANA or JAL could do this route.

Air Canada's 787s can't come soon enough.

usog
Feb 17, 2009, 7:15 PM
Dunno, to be honest the thing I hate about YVR is not the destinations themselves, but the airlines servicing them. All of them are United-Air Canada- Air China etc etc. Terrible aren't they.

SpongeG
Feb 18, 2009, 5:57 AM
found this at SCC - no source

PAL's MANILA-VANCOUVER FLIGHTS GOES 7X WEEKLY

Starting March 23, 2009, Philippines Airlines' will now offer dailly flights from Manila to Vancouver, BC utilizing A 340 aircraft. The airline currently flies five flights a week to Vancouver with continuing service to Las Vegas.

Pending FAA's lifting of Category 2 downgrade of the Philippines and with the addition of two brand new Boeing 777-300 ER aircraft by the last qurter of this year, this is how PAL's North America Schedule would look like by the peak fourth quarter of 2009 will look like:

- Manila - Los Angeles : 14x/week

One morning departure flight from Manila for LA utilizing 777 300 ER aircraft
One evening departure utilizing B744 aircraft

- Manila - San Francisco - 10x/week

Up from current 7 flight/week. The three extra flights will be utilizing PAL's A340 aircraft.

- Manila - Honolulu - 3 times/week

- Manila - Las Vegas (via Vancouver) - 4 times/week (down from current 5x/week)

- Manila - Vancouver - 7 times/week (up from current 5x/wk)

*New Service to San Diego via Vancouver - 3 times/week

We may also see additional frequencies to Guam and new service to Saipan.

SpongeG
Feb 25, 2009, 3:58 AM
Singapore Airlines' departure a sign of turmoil in Asia
Cut of Vancouver route comes as surprise to those in industry

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.canada.com/business/fp/singapore+airlines+departure+sign+turmoil+asia/1319802/1319149.bin
Ravinder Gaba, owner of Gaba Travel, says no one had predicted the cutbacks by Singapore Airlines because of its solid reputation.Photograph by: Ian Lindsay, Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Sun

Aficionados are reeling from news that Singapore Airlines is axing its 20-year-old service to Vancouver.

"We just got an e-mail that they are cancelling their flight. We never guessed it could happen," said Ravinder Gaba, a Vancouver-based travel agent who specializes in South Asia.

"I have talked to other agents and no one saw it coming. They have been here for so long. And it is a surprise, because it is a big name."

By that, Gaba means that the airline has long described itself as the world's heftiest by market cap; analysts have oft-lauded it as the best run and most profitable; and industry reviewers have consistently voted it No. 1 in many surveys.

But, of course, the mighty are stumbling all around the world and this example, in particular, gives B.C. consumers a front-seat view of the turmoil in Asia's hardest-hit economies.

While China, India and Japan have hogged most recession-in-Asia headlines, this is a rare line into Singapore and Korea.

Even before the global credit crisis, Singapore was running out of steam, according to economist Yuwa Hedrick-Wong, who is based there. "Its so-called non-oil domestic exports plunged in early 2008, largely due to its badly managed currency policy. The Singapore dollar stayed too high for too long, sapping the competitiveness of its electronic exports, and when overseas demand collapsed, the entire sector that was weak to begin with got wiped out.

"On top of it all, Temasek, the state-owned investment fund, has lost about $50 billion US in the last three years," said Hedrick-Wong in an e-mail.

Until recently, it was "run by the prime minister's wife, who is now being replaced by [Chip Goodyear] the former CEO of Australian mining company BHP. So, no stone is [being] left unturned to improve profitability of all the state owned businesses, Singapore Airlines included."

The Vancouver cut is "very sad news for me personally, as I am a frequent user of that connection," said Hedrick-Wong. He will switch over to Cathay Pacific Airways and travel via its home base in Hong Kong. Others plan to do the same when making travel plans to India, said Gaba.

There are definitely a number of other options via airlines that go through Taipei and even Frankfurt, "but Singapore used to be our gateway to Southeast Asia and South Asia," the same way Hong Kong serves mainland China, said Gaba. "It won't be the case anymore."

The Singapore-Vancouver flight picked up as much as 40 per cent of its passengers each way on a stopover in Seoul, Korea, according to Andrew Budiman, Vancouver-based vice-president Canada at Singapore Airlines.

Unfortunately, this is another Asian market that has been particularly hard hit, according to The Economist. It recently specifically singled out both Singapore and Korea in a roundup of the region's worst woes, saying that "in the fourth quarter of 2008, real GDP fell by an annualized rate of 21 per cent in South Korea and 17 per cent in Singapore."

It pointed out that: "South Korea is an exception to the rule of Asian prudence. Its households' debt amounts to 150 per cent of disposable income, even higher than in America. The banking system, which borrowed heavily abroad to finance a surge in domestic lending, has also been badly hit by the global credit crunch, making it harder for firms to finance investment."

Now, following the Vancouver announcement, Singapore Airlines said last week that it plans to cut capacity even further by 11 per cent from the preceding 12 months. So far, it hasn't said exactly which other destinations will go or be reduced.

There is a global slowdown, but the outlook definitely seems more dire for Asia-Pacific airlines. So far, at least, international passenger numbers have dropped more steeply for Asia-Pacific carriers than their counterparts.

For December 2008, Asia-Pacific airlines recorded a 9.7-per-cent decline in traffic compared to just 2.7 per cent for European and 4.3 per cent for North American airlines. Asia Pacific carriers account for 45 per cent of the world's cargo traffic and again, they led declines here, though more modestly. Singapore Airlines said its own cargo numbers have dropped over 20 per cent.

At Cathay Pacific Airways, which expects to pick up some incremental traffic from Singapore Airlines' leaving Vancouver, spokeswoman Jennifer Pearson said: "You never like to see it happen. The market conditions are difficult. There is no question of this [because of] the worldwide economy we are facing at the minute.

"We have seen a softening in our business in first class travel, but the economy class is holding up quite well. We have less flights than last year. We had three flights a day; we now have two. We are very competitive right now.

"That is the name of the game."

Asia-Pacific airlines lead declines

- Decline in December 2008 international passenger traffic numbers for:

Asia Pacific airlines

-9.7%

European airlines:

-2.7%

North American airlines:

-4.3%

- Decline in December 2008 international cargo numbers for:

Asia Pacific airlines, which move

45 per cent of world total:

-26%

European airlines:

-21%

North American airlines:

-22%

http://www.canada.com/business/fp/Singapore+Airlines+departure+sign+turmoil+Asia/1319802/story.html

SpongeG
Feb 25, 2009, 4:05 AM
Flights in and out of Vancouver plummet

At the harbour, they’re blaming the fog. At the international airport, they’re blaming the economy.

Either way, flights in and out of Vancouver were down sharply in January, Statistics Canada reported Tuesday.

Traffic at Vancouver International Airport plummeted 16 per cent last month to 21,105 aircraft movements from 25,421 in January last year. That compares to a national drop of 12.9 per cent.

At Coal Harbour, the total number of takeoffs and landings declined a whopping 51 per cent from 3,539 to 1,793.

“The fog had a substantial impact on our operations in January, which was very rare, very abnormal,” said Rick Baxter, president and CEO of Vancouver-based West Coast Air. “We’ve never experienced those kinds of flight cancellations ever.”

But it’s not all gloomy skies. While a number of airlines have announced capacity reductions at YVR, others are expanding service for the spring and summer, said airport spokeswoman Kate Donegani.

Singapore Airlines says it is pulling out of Vancouver in April because of falling passenger volumes. However, Philippine Airlines is increasing flights to Manila from five to seven a week in March and China Eastern Airlines will offer daily service to Shanghai starting in June, up from three times a week.

Meanwhile, float-plane flights from the harbour have rebounded, Baxter said.

“It’s nice that the weather has been great in February. Business has been good. It’s definitely coming back.”

Richmond-based Harbour Air “didn’t turn a prop for two weeks” because of January’s big fog, said Randy Wight, senior vice-president. Snow also grounded some flights in December and early January.

“We had a terrible month (from) Christmas into January, but it has bounced back quite nicely,” Wight said. “We’re not seeing any impact from the economy so far and we’re keeping our fingers crossed.”

To try to recoup some of January’s lost business, West Coast Air has introduced a half-price standby fare for its midday flights and recently announced some fare reductions in response to falling fuel prices.

Donegani said YVR was still tracking its own numbers for aircraft traffic in January, but a decline had been expected because of the economic downturn.

After welcoming a record 17.85 million passengers last year — 350,000 more than in 2007 — Canada’s second-busiest airport is expecting a drop-off of about 4.5 per cent this year.

While fewer flights mean fewer landing fees, Donegani said the Vancouver Airport Authority is committed to to keeping its landing costs to the airlines as low as possible. It currently has the lowest landing fees of any major airport in Canada.

Nor does it anticipate raising its $15 airport improvement fee charged to most passengers.

“This airport and airports around the world are facing some challenges with the economy being what it is, but we’ve budgeted for that and anticipated some reduction in this year’s business,” Donegani said.

Most of the airport’s $1.4-billion expansion program will be completed this year and no financing difficulties are anticipated, she said. While the airport is trying to minimize costs, no layoffs are planned.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Flights+Vancouver+plummet/1324887/story.html

I got a kick out of the picture they chose to run with the story! could it be any older - oi vei

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.vancouversun.com/business/flights+vancouver+plummet/1324887/1324888.bin
At Coal Harbour, the total number of takeoffs and landings in January declined a whopping 51 per cent from 3,539 to 1,793.Photograph by: Stuart Davis, Vancouver Sun files

nova9
Feb 25, 2009, 4:36 AM
Just wondering if people wanted certain pictures taken from inside past the security area. I'll be there in 2.5 weeks and wouldn't mind taking some pictures of things you wanted (not with a nice camera or anything) if I find the time.

Just throwing that out there.

Gordon
Feb 25, 2009, 3:57 PM
also as mentioned earilier in this threrad Korean Air is going to Daily service from either 3 or 4 days \week

Is there any news on the progress of the pier C expansioon?

trofirhen
Feb 25, 2009, 6:58 PM
Just wondering if people wanted certain pictures taken from inside past the security area. I'll be there in 2.5 weeks and wouldn't mind taking some pictures of things you wanted (not with a nice camera or anything) if I find the time.

Just throwing that out there.

Yes, please! If it's possible, some airside photos of jets lined up, taking off and landing, and perhaps some views of the terminal would be great, if you can manage that. Capturing the atmosphere of the airport is part of what this page is all about. Thanks for the offer. :yes:

officedweller
Feb 25, 2009, 8:59 PM
From the Richmond News:

Pipeline open house attracts few

Richmond News
Published: Wednesday, February 25, 2009

The environmentalists are crystal clear about their feelings on an aviation fuel pipe running through the heart of Richmond -- but it remains to be seen what the residents think about it.

Less than ten of them turned out Monday at the first of four public information sessions being hosted by the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC).

With several media, including the Richmond News, highlighting the plans over the weekend, VAFFC, were surprised at the poor attendance at the Holiday Inn on Cambie Road.
"We had been expecting a lot more," said VAFFC spokeswoman Gwennie Cheung.

"There were stories in the newspapers and the radio and adverts. We're hoping more people come to the next one on Thursday.

"The purpose of these events is to inform the public and get their feedback. It kind of defeats the purpose if no-one comes."

The next session is Thursday, Feb. 26 from 3 to 7 p.m. at the Aberdeen Centre, where more people are expected to attend.

The News reported last week that VAFFC, which is owned by most of the airlines that use YVR, wants to build a fuel receiving facility on the south arm of the Fraser River and then pump the fuel via a 30-centimetre wide and 15-kilometre long underground pipe diagonally across Richmond to the airport.

Environmentalists have condemned the idea, warning of risks of fuel spills from tankers coming up the river and of leaks from the pipe.

VAFFC say a new fuel delivery system, which will take 25-35 tanker truck movements off the road, is needed to keep up with demand and because the current pipeline from a Burnaby refinery is aging.

© Richmond News 2009

SpongeG
Feb 25, 2009, 10:30 PM
Just wondering if people wanted certain pictures taken from inside past the security area. I'll be there in 2.5 weeks and wouldn't mind taking some pictures of things you wanted (not with a nice camera or anything) if I find the time.

Just throwing that out there.

pictures of the stores and such

I am tired of seeing the aquarium and "art"

Yume-sama
Feb 25, 2009, 11:09 PM
Is there a good place to view planes yet, at the airport, or is that still coming?

I will be at both the domestic and international areas on the 9th.

SpongeG
Feb 25, 2009, 11:26 PM
for the general public?

I don't think there is anything yet - is there something planned? you haven't been able to see much action from the building itself in years

twoNeurons
Feb 26, 2009, 12:00 AM
When i was there last, you can go upstairs near the link building and there's a neat little area there where you can see out.

I think I remember seeing signage regarding a viewing area. Originally there was an open-air area planned but NAV-Canada/FAA wouldn't approve it.

Pinion
Feb 26, 2009, 12:09 AM
Flights in and out of Vancouver plummet
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.vancouversun.com/business/flights+vancouver+plummet/1324887/1324888.bin
At Coal Harbour, the total number of takeoffs and landings in January declined a whopping 51 per cent from 3,539 to 1,793.Photograph by: Stuart Davis, Vancouver Sun files

What year was that photo taken? I've lived on the North Shore for 21 years now and don't recognize some of those buildings.

osirisboy
Feb 26, 2009, 12:34 AM
its about 5 years old

SpongeG
Feb 26, 2009, 12:50 AM
its older than that - the park and seawall isn't even there in the pic - that park opened in 2000

Yume-sama
Feb 26, 2009, 12:56 AM
Well, at least they didn't go even further back!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3073/2922146928_ff0b8a292a_o.jpg
Musée McCord Museum http://www.flickr.com/photos/museemccordmuseum/2922146928/

nova9
Feb 26, 2009, 3:29 AM
I haven't flown through the US departures in awhile - is the waiting area after the security checkpoint the same wiating area for international flights?

Rusty Gull
Feb 26, 2009, 4:44 PM
No. It's because you actually clear US customs at YVR -- so the gates are in a separate area.

Which makes me wonder -- is that part of the airport bound by US law?

ravman
Feb 26, 2009, 5:08 PM
No. It's because you actually clear US customs at YVR -- so the gates are in a separate area.

Which makes me wonder -- is that part of the airport bound by US law?

its a grey area.... depends on what you do.... RCMP will arrest you... but US govt may charge you...

clooless
Feb 26, 2009, 5:52 PM
its a grey area.... depends on what you do.... RCMP will arrest you... but US govt may charge you...

There is not much grey area. You continue to be bound by Canadian law as technically you have not left Canada. There are signs to that effect posted in the pre-clearance area. At least, there are at YYZ. I don't recall seeing them at YVR.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-border-preclearance

whatnext
Mar 1, 2009, 8:41 PM
for the general public?

I don't think there is anything yet - is there something planned? you haven't been able to see much action from the building itself in years

There was a survey on the YVR homepage that dealt with constructing an observation deck (as the airport had as built in 1968). The survey seems to have disappeared.

ravman
Mar 1, 2009, 9:24 PM
There is not much grey area. You continue to be bound by Canadian law as technically you have not left Canada. There are signs to that effect posted in the pre-clearance area. At least, there are at YYZ. I don't recall seeing them at YVR.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-border-preclearance

yeah BUT what if i were to place drugs on the plane that is going south...

I would be charged under US laws for importing narcotics amongs the other charges....

SpongeG
Mar 1, 2009, 10:55 PM
There was a survey on the YVR homepage that dealt with constructing an observation deck (as the airport had as built in 1968). The survey seems to have disappeared.

ah

1968 was i guess pre-terroism

i know you used to be able to watch from the area where harveys is but its not really much of a view now and you could watch from upstairs but you had to look through the walkway and past wasn't ideal - now that is gone too

clooless
Mar 1, 2009, 11:59 PM
yeah BUT what if i were to place drugs on the plane that is going south...

I would be charged under US laws for importing narcotics amongs the other charges....

No, you would be charged under the applicable Canadian law as you have not left Canada. As I described above, there are signs alerting you to this fact in the customs area at YYZ (Pearson) and likely every other Canadian airport with pre-clearance facilities.

ravman
Mar 2, 2009, 10:44 AM
No, you would be charged under the applicable Canadian law as you have not left Canada. As I described above, there are signs alerting you to this fact in the customs area at YYZ (Pearson) and likely every other Canadian airport with pre-clearance facilities.

as someone who has worked in the airport, trust me. I was told by supervisors to be extra cautious with what i bring/leave behind in the transborder side and that all actions would be enforced by US officials. Basically things are extra strict on that side as they are on the other side... the planes on those sides are technically US space even though the wheels are on Canadian land.

now i mean the planes are US soil and not the actual terminal or aprons (outside area where pple work)

clooless
Mar 2, 2009, 3:21 PM
OK. I understand. I recall reading something that the planes themselves are considered to be under U.S. jurisdiction, just not the clearance area in the terminal.

ravman
Mar 2, 2009, 11:09 PM
OK. I understand. I recall reading something that the planes themselves are considered to be under U.S. jurisdiction, just not the clearance area in the terminal.

when a plane moves from domestic terminal to go to the Transborder side, it is "swept clean and bombed check" on the non transborder side and then driven over... for planes arriving from and then departing back to America are cleaned and bomb checked under Canadian authority before jurisdiction is given to the yankees

its kinda complex to explain here

Yume-sama
Mar 3, 2009, 12:59 AM
They actually bomb check every plane? :sly:

SpongeG
Mar 3, 2009, 2:50 AM
of course

teriyaki
Mar 4, 2009, 8:43 AM
They actually bomb check every plane? :sly:

I never knew that either. Go homeland security!

ravman
Mar 5, 2009, 5:11 PM
They actually bomb check every plane? :sly:

edit not every plane...


EVERY SEAT


Yes, all the seats get ripped up and get a good "pat-down"

Hourglass
Mar 7, 2009, 12:02 AM
YVR passenger numbers for January down 9.3% from a year earlier.

Ouch. The capacity cutbacks by the arilines are really starting to show in traffic figures...

YVR January 2009 Traffic Report (http://www.yvr.ca/pdf/authority/statistics/January-2009_Traffic_Update.pdf)

trofirhen
Mar 9, 2009, 8:36 PM
Given the current economic crisis, the stranglehold on air routes by Ottawa in favour of Toronto (with the long-awaited exception of the EU-Canada Open Skies agreement), and the relatively modest size of Vancouver as a
city, it looks as if it's going to be a few years before we really join the airport "Big-League." This seems to be what most people want: an airport that reflects the size, character and status of the city, along with the ease of getting from point A to point B. We have a great terminal with charming landscaping and modern facilities, all of which earn us accolades from folks like Condé Nast Magazine, and Skytrax. As for jets lining up on the runway for takeoff to all four corners of the world ... well ... that may take a while, but it's probably a future reality. Just how many years away is the question.

SpongeG
Mar 9, 2009, 9:54 PM
its happenning everywhere not just YVR

many airlines are cutting back routes all over the place and passenger traffic is down

SpongeG
Mar 15, 2009, 4:37 AM
the rings at YVR look awesome

they change colours and do a need effect but they weren't doing it by the time I got my camera out :( its extremely bright and really eye catching and huge

pics by me

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/spongeg/march%202009/DSC01652.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/spongeg/march%202009/DSC01653.jpg

trofirhen
Mar 18, 2009, 5:56 PM
There's been a a big push recently by Emirates to land more often at Toronto, and to start service to Vancouver as well. This includes the AIRBUS 380 giant jet. If you're interested, theres an informative article on the (so very typical) Canadian restrictions at:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1395409

Gordon
Mar 18, 2009, 7:03 PM
That's interesting information, hopefully the Federal Governmnet will allow that to happen.
The construction projects in the Domestic Terminal will be finished by June.

osirisboy
Mar 18, 2009, 7:09 PM
are there any renderings of the terminal expansion?

Gordon
Mar 18, 2009, 8:06 PM
I don'y know if there are . Ther may be some pictures on PCL's Website.

Canadian Mind
Mar 18, 2009, 8:41 PM
There's been a a big push recently by Emirates to land more often at Toronto, and to start service to Vancouver as well. This includes the AIRBUS 380 giant jet. If you're interested, theres an informative article on the (so very typical) Canadian restrictions at:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1395409


More airports than Just Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver.

Should add atleast Comox, Iqaluit to the list, even though there only use would be emergency landings.

whatnext
Mar 20, 2009, 4:36 AM
There's been a a big push recently by Emirates to land more often at Toronto, and to start service to Vancouver as well. This includes the AIRBUS 380 giant jet. If you're interested, theres an informative article on the (so very typical) Canadian restrictions at:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1395409

Good for those restrictions. Why let state-controlled Emirates come in and rape our own airlines?

Denscity
Mar 20, 2009, 4:49 AM
More choices means lower prices. Emirates are high quality from what i understand as well.

trofirhen
Mar 20, 2009, 3:58 PM
Good for those restrictions. Why let state-controlled Emirates come in and rape our own airlines?

Now that Air canada has gobbled up Canadian Air lines (formery CP Air), and WESTJET fills a big gap on intra-Canadian, and holiday charters, Canada is left - or, rather -VANCOUVER - is left with an under-represented overseas presence, be it one of our airlines, or a foreign airline. And whether they're state-controlled or not, does that matter, at this point?
*
In terms of overseas destinations - out of Vancouver - serviced by Air Canada, other than USA destinations like SFO, LAX, DFW and a couple of others, the ONLY overseas destination served from Vancouver in Europe is London Heathrow; not even Frankfurt, nor Amsterdam. Of course, there are several Asian destinations served by Air Canada, and Sydney, too.
*
Does Air Canada fly from Vancouver to Dubai?
NO; Why? Because it chooses not to. Dubai is a major world hub, rather like Singapore or Hong Kong - only richer - and is gaining enormous momentum financially, as a transit point, and as a tourist destination the world over.
*
Here we have Emirates, wanting to serve Vancouver, Air Canada stuffily saying "no!" and you're screaming "rape"? ! ? !
*
Having Emirates servicing Vancouver would enhance the city as a major world destination air-wise, and provide momentum for other as-yet nonexistent routes, like Paris, Rome, New Delhi, among others.
*
It seems to me that in your way of thinking, we should cut out other airlines like BA, KLM, Lufthansa, United, Delta, American, and other foreign carriers; like JAL, Korean Air Lines, Air New Zealand . . . . That way they wouldn't be "raping" Air Canada (or Westjet either) Then we could put in excellent Air Canada to San Francisco, L.A., Chicago, Dallas, Phoenix, Washington D.C., LHR, Denver, Tokyo, Auckland, Seoul, Beijing . . . .
*
YEAH. . RIGHT !!
*
Hey, did you know that GREYHOUND busses is an American firm.
Yeppers. . . . American. And they're the only one offering an across-Canada bus service.
Are they "raping" our cross-Canada bus services? NO. WHY? THERE'S NOTHING TO RAPE. (Otherwise stated, there exists no Canadian-owned, cross Canada bus service).
It's parallel with the air industry. Can you fathom that? :koko: