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

trofirhen
Oct 4, 2009, 4:31 AM
I've started a new thread about this.

mr.x wisely suggested I started a Facebook page or Wordpress blog, but, being a genereation older than most of you, I'm not sure how to begin.

If anyone's interest in taking their energy over there (if you have time) leaving instructions, and, better still, participating, please, please, do it ! ! !

Thank you all very much. :drummer:

whatnext
Oct 4, 2009, 7:45 AM
Subsidized employment is AWESOME! Not.

Perhaps you better reserve that for some of the other top employers in the city:
UBC
VGH
Fraser Health Authority
Providence Health

jlousa
Oct 4, 2009, 3:33 PM
It's a good thing that some of the biggest employers in our city are subsidized? :rolleyes:

trofirhen
Oct 4, 2009, 5:00 PM
I've started a new thread about this.

mr.x wisely suggested I started a Facebook page or Wordpress blog, but, being a genereation older than most of you, I'm not sure how to begin.

If anyone's interest in taking their energy over there (if you have time) leaving instructions, and, better still, participating, please, please, do it ! ! !

Thank you all very much. :drummer:


Trouble is, when my computer goes to "sleep" or I shut it off, my blog requires
my name ("trofirhen") AND my password to get into it. So . . . do I give out my password so that anyone who wants to leave a comment at any time may do so?? Or is this risky?? Please, all you wise techno-minded folks, advise me on this. Thank you. I'm fighting for open skies from Vancouver, and I welcome all to leave posts on my blog, so long as there's no abuse. But should I give out my password? YES? / NO? :koko:

Spork
Oct 4, 2009, 5:59 PM
Trouble is, when my computer goes to "sleep" or I shut it off, my blog requires
my name ("trofirhen") AND my password to get into it. So . . . do I give out my password so that anyone who wants to leave a comment at any time may do so?? Or is this risky?? Please, all you wise techno-minded folks, advise me on this. Thank you. I'm fighting for open skies from Vancouver, and I welcome all to leave posts on my blog, so long as there's no abuse. But should I give out my password? YES? / NO? :koko:

Commenting can be customized such that it can be left anonymously (no password required), or users are required to create an account, which would be separate to your own.

metroXpress
Oct 4, 2009, 6:48 PM
New parking ticket paying machines are being installed at YVR (for economy parkade)..they are white and not green anymore. I suspect that they will take debit.

trofirhen
Oct 5, 2009, 6:25 PM
This might be interesting to some. It seems Air Canada's protectionist policies, (or rather, the Canadian government's protectionist policies) are getting noticed elsewhere, too.

http://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2009/2/Pages/02102009_a48802ebecc0476ca4b98a4551bc4b2b.aspx

Vonny
Oct 6, 2009, 7:09 AM
This might be interesting to some. It seems Air Canada's protectionist policies, (or rather, the Canadian government's protectionist policies) are getting noticed elsewhere, too.

http://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2009/2/Pages/02102009_a48802ebecc0476ca4b98a4551bc4b2b.aspx

Frankly, Emirates is not synonym of fair competition, and I believe it is appropriate policy that to open our airport to a foreign company not obeying to free and undistorted market rules (Emirates is fully owned by the Dubai Emirates) if we can benefit of the liaison to the country, but not appropriate to have this company in competition with private company evolving and an open and undistorted market.

In fact what is almost never noticed is another rule preventing a foreign carrier (US) to offer a fare lower than a domestic carrier on a route. This rule is in effect across the border, and id the main culprit for non competitive price...

trofirhen
Oct 6, 2009, 5:58 PM
Frankly, Emirates is not synonym of fair competition, and I believe it is appropriate policy that to open our airport to a foreign company not obeying to free and undistorted market rules (Emirates is fully owned by the Dubai Emirates) if we can benefit of the liaison to the country, but not appropriate to have this company in competition with private company evolving and an open and undistorted market.

(trofirhen's response):. . . you mention competition with a private company in an open and "undistorted" market . . . the current market is NOT open, nor is it "UNDISTORTED"

In fact what is almost never noticed is another rule preventing a foreign carrier (US) to offer a fare lower than a domestic carrier on a route. This rule is in effect across the border, and id the main culprit for non competitive price...

(trofirhen's response):. . . a non-competitive price? Which ruse are you referring to? Regarding destinations: Where, please? Could you cite examples?


Excuse me, but I still see no reason why Emirates should be prevented from flying to Vancouver to Dubai.
Air Canada does not want that route.
No other airline serves that route.
Also, how does a given American airline, whether it be Delta, United, Northwest, or Continental, figure into your equation? I would like to understand your argument better, and other readers might like to, also.

Furthermore, if you are refering to AIR CANADA as a private company "evolving," then why can't they serve a huge potential market like Vancouver - to - Paris? Perhaps you could re-explain. I'm sorry but I fail to grasp your logic.
Thank you

twoNeurons
Oct 6, 2009, 8:40 PM
I think what he's trying to say is that Emirates, being wholly owned by the UAE, is apparently heavily subsidized... and undercuts flight prices.

Remember, most people's final destination is not Dubai. Dubai is usually the hub. My guess is that it's likely UAE has special treatment for UAE planes flying into Dubai but not for other carriers.

Of course, this would be fantastic for the consumer.

While that isn't fair it is protectionism either way you look at it. Protectionism isn't always bad, mind you. There are things worth protecting. I just don't know if it's being done the right way with Air Canada.

trofirhen
Oct 7, 2009, 5:00 AM
I think what he's trying to say is that Emirates, being wholly owned by the UAE, is apparently heavily subsidized... and undercuts flight prices.

Remember, most people's final destination is not Dubai. Dubai is usually the hub. My guess is that it's likely UAE has special treatment for UAE planes flying into Dubai but not for other carriers.

Of course, this would be fantastic for the consumer.

While that isn't fair it is protectionism either way you look at it. Protectionism isn't always bad, mind you. There are things worth protecting. I just don't know if it's being done the right way with Air Canada.

That seems to clarify it a bit. Thank you

Rusty Gull
Oct 8, 2009, 5:41 AM
The BIV story is now online, for those of you who subscribe (about Open Skies). I will try to post it as soon as I can find my subscriber code!

Hourglass
Oct 8, 2009, 10:19 AM
That's the USA's problem, not mine. Air Canada and Korean Airlines do a fine job of serving the Korea-Canada market. There's no reason for Singapore to serve it. If they can't make a go of Canada-Singapore than they really shouldn't be in that business.

One doesn't quite know how to respond to this. SQ obviously couldn't make a go of Canada-Singapore non-stop, which is why they stopped the route. So the result is now less competition to Asia, inconvenience for passengers who must now change planes in the US or via another Asian hub to get to Singapore, and the loss of economic benefits from servicing SQ's flights.

Air Canada doesn't exactly set the bar that high when it comes to perceived customer satisfaction, so your assertion that AC and KE are doing a 'fine job of serving the Korea-Canada market' is questionable at best.

Please tell me how competition is a bad thing?

phesto
Oct 8, 2009, 3:22 PM
BIV article:

Open skies advocated for B.C.

Analysts say Ottawa’s continued focus on preserving Air Canada’s monopoly is stifling international air transportation opportunities in Western Canada

Andrew Petrozzi

Ottawa should negotiate “open-skies” deals between Asian governments and B.C. and Western Canada even if it continues to refuse to open the entire country to international air carriers.

So says Tae Oum, UPS foundation chairman at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business and president of the Air Transport Research Society.

Oum chaired a recent panel discussion in Vancouver on the economic benefits of open-skies agreements, which give more airlines greater access to the country’s airports.

During a BIV interview, Oum cited the example of a 2006 bilateral agreement between Korea and China that includes transborder open skies between Korea and the Chinese provinces of Sandong and Heinan.

Oum’s suggestion was one among many aimed at realizing gains for B.C. and Western Canada under the federal Conservative government’s 2006 blue-sky policy, which was designed to liberalize Canada’s policies that preserve a monopoly for Air Canada, the country’s former national airline.

While there have been some recent gains (see “Canada-South Korea air agreement to provide $300 million tourism boost to B.C.” – issue 1031; July 28-August 3), many carriers, including Emirates Airlines and Singapore Airlines, want to increase service to Canada in general and B.C. in particular, but their requests have fallen on deaf ears in Ottawa.

Oum said the federal government and Transport Canada need to change their approach to the airline sector.

As an air-transport industry matures, its direct contribution to the economy becomes smaller relative to the size of tourism, foreign trade and direct investment generated by expanded air access.

“We’re spending a lot of time and effort trying to protect this small pie at the expense of consumers and the national economy as a whole including tourism and international trade,” said Oum.

According to Oum, air transportation’s contribution to Canada’s economy was $5.9 billion in 2008 compared with $30 billion for tourism and $932 billion in international trade. He said the antiquated policy of protecting national airlines is inconsistent with maximizing national economic benefits.

Oum added that Canadian air policy needs to become pro-economy and pro-consumer as are policies in jurisdictions like the European Union, the U.S. and Australia.

Andrew Parker, Emirates Airlines’ senior vice-president, also spoke at the September 25 B.C. International Open Skies Summit. He told BIV that his airline has been seeking “reasonable access” to Canada since the late 1990s. But it remains restricted to three flights per week to Toronto. The airline also wants to fly into Vancouver and Calgary.

“Other than Transport Canada and Air Canada, we have met no one who is opposed to letting carriers like Emirates have reasonable access to bringing tourists and carry goods out of Canada in a reasonable way.”

Vancouver is a desired tourist destination, and business connections between the gas and oil industries in Alberta and the Middle East make it a natural choice for direct air flights.

“We are very frustrated that this policy remains that very heavily restricts international carriers from getting access,” said Parker.

He estimated that every landing of a Boeing 777, which is what Emirates flies to Canada, generates about 800 direct employment hours in Canada.

“We would employ thousands of extra people in Western Canada if we were given access,” said Parker. “Clearly we think there would be, in the first 10 years of operations, a multibillion-dollar injection of tourism, exports and direct economic activity.”

Parker said that while summits and the support of provincial premiers such as B.C.’s Gordon Campbell and Alberta’s Ed Stelmach generate momentum, his airline and others who have been “in the queue for a long, long time” are resigned to “continue politely writing letters” to the federal government.

Canada needs to adopt open skies as a principle when negotiating air bilateral agreements with foreign governments, Oum said.

He added that Ottawa must also abolish the confidential addenda connected to bilateral air-services agreements, because they’re “fundamentally undemocratic.”

“Confidential addenda are not about security questions. [They are] about how prices will be regulated, how frequencies and capacity will be regulated and all commercial matters.

“There is virtually nothing about security matters. They are signing confidential agreements to hide true information from independent analysis by academics like myself.”

According to the B.C. government, Canada has 82 bilateral air-service agreements, but only eight classify as open skies. The other 74 have restrictions that prevent airports in Western Canada from competing with airports in the U.S. and Central Canada for international air travel and commerce.

By press time, Transport Canada had not responded to requests for comment from BIV. •

apetrozzi@biv.com

trofirhen
Oct 8, 2009, 5:13 PM
One doesn't quite know how to respond to this. SQ obviously couldn't make a go of Canada-Singapore non-stop, which is why they stopped the route. So the result is now less competition to Asia, inconvenience for passengers who must now change planes in the US or via another Asian hub to get to Singapore, and the loss of economic benefits from servicing SQ's flights.

Air Canada doesn't exactly set the bar that high when it comes to perceived customer satisfaction, so your assertion that AC and KE are doing a 'fine job of serving the Korea-Canada market' is questionable at best.

Please tell me how competition is a bad thing?



Competition, at least in the airline industry, is a "bad" thing in the minds of protectionists, who have the attitude that national-level jobs must be saved at all costs, and that higher fares and more inconvenience for the travelling public don't matter. They are often people who travel relatively little and have a parochial mindset, out of step with the global world economy, although some are no doubt brilliant, cosmopolitan entrepreneurs.

However, competition can be a bad thing as in the case of the "WAL-MART-ization" of the USA (and coming soon to Canada) where retail giants set up shop, pay low wages, cut costs through massive wholesale buying, and put smaller, often private retailers out of businesses they have hard to build up for years. THAT, however, is an altogether different topic, in a different philosphical domain, and depends on whether you define such a scenario as "bad" or "good."

Back to airlines. . . . . . .
given that Air Canada was once a Crown Corporation (owned and run by the government) had protected jobs, and under the rules of the day was protected from the "invasion" of (eeeek) foreign carriers, this has become something of a Canadian tradition, who are not yet fully comfortable with the "open market" concept, despite NAFTA, the recent EU-Canada Open Skies accord (((which, I hope, will take effect ASAP please Lord oh let Air France and Iberia fly here)))), and
want a "level playing field" for "Canada" which normally means the Ontario-Quebec voting base. (Just ask the Honorable John Baird, after he's had a couple of martinis).

Until we can get around that, Central Canada is going to try every last-ditch attempt to cater to Central Canada voters, and to protect Air Canada, whereas the employees who might lose jobs there would probably find similar work with other airlines, generated by the increased airline traffic flow to the country's major airports - even remote and iconsequential cities like Vancouver ! ! ! !

Alas, this is not the case at the moment.

Miro Cernetig of the Vancouver Sun recently published an article on the monopoly of Air Canada on routes like Paris-Vancouver (and their refusal to implement it, driving Air France to Seattle, losing us a major carrier and over 200 potential YVR jobs) plus the federal government's refusal to let EMIRATES fly into Vancouver and Calgary, despite the fact that it has no interest in flying to Dubai - a MAJOR tourist and petroleum world business hub - from the West.

I spoke with him on the telephone.
He told me that he received hundreds of emails, about 10 per cent supporting Air Canada and the government's current stance, which, incidentally, were written mostly by Air Canada employees, and the odd protectionist-minded person.

The other 90 per cent had the opportunity for a "let's beat up Air Toronto" (oooooops, I meant Air Canada; sorry) slugfest.

Given the above scenario, although your question might be considered highly subjective, the situations might explain why some people consider competition a "bad" thing.

I hope this has helped. ;)

whatnext
Oct 9, 2009, 5:13 AM
...However, competition can be a bad thing as in the case of the "WAL-MART-ization" of the USA (and coming soon to Canada) where retail giants set up shop, pay low wages, cut costs through massive wholesale buying, and put smaller, often private retailers out of businesses they have hard to build up for years. THAT, however, is an altogether different topic, in a different philosphical domain, and depends on whether you define such a scenario as "bad" or "good.". ;)

How can you possibly argue that competition is bad in the case of Wal-Mart but not in the case of air transport?

The BIV article isn't worth the paper its printed on. Oum cites a Korea-China bilateral as an example, while conveniently ignoring that Canad now has Open Skies with Korea (which the article later mentions-sloppy).

One doesn't quite know how to respond to this. SQ obviously couldn't make a go of Canada-Singapore non-stop, which is why they stopped the route. So the result is now less competition to Asia, inconvenience for passengers who must now change planes in the US or via another Asian hub to get to Singapore, and the loss of economic benefits from servicing SQ's flights.

Air Canada doesn't exactly set the bar that high when it comes to perceived customer satisfaction, so your assertion that AC and KE are doing a 'fine job of serving the Korea-Canada market' is questionable at best.

Please tell me how competition is a bad thing?

Have you checked the incredible amount of lift Korean and Air Canada offer? Explain again why you think Singapore deserves a bigger share of that? When they walked away from it?

As to Emirates: the ruling family controls the airport, the airline and the oil Hardly a level playing field. Does anybody seriously believe there is a huge untapped market of Emirati wishing to visit Canada :koko: They want to use their uncompetitive advantage to skim off traffic from Canadian carriers, which would have a domino effect on services offered within Canada.

Oh, in case folks didn't notice Transat is able to increase service to Paris, but strangely hasn't. Zoom served Paris as well. How'd that work out....

trofirhen
Oct 10, 2009, 8:14 AM
As to Emirates: the ruling family controls the airport, the airline and the oil Hardly a level playing field. Does anybody seriously believe there is a huge untapped market of Emirati wishing to visit Canada :koko: They want to use their uncompetitive advantage to skim off traffic from Canadian carriers, which would have a domino effect on services offered within Canada.

Oh, in case folks didn't notice Transat is able to increase service to Paris, but strangely hasn't. Zoom served Paris as well. How'd that work out....

It's not that the Emirati want to visit here so much (if at all) it's that Dubai in itself is, despite the current downturn, the new "Petro-Hong-Kong" of the world: a super-important financial and tourist centre.

As for Zoom going under, it was a number of factors, and you can't blame it on the "curse" of flying to Paris. It was a small, family-owned airline that got over-extended.

(Maybe rather like old Wardair, which used to offer EXCELLENT charter service to London, way, way back, but eventually succumbed)

Transat has the right to more frequencies, but won't implement them? OK, but does does it offer YEAR-ROUND service there in the first place, the way Air France does from Seattle?

No. It's summer season only. Paris is a very large destination market. Talk to the Marketing Department at YVR, and they'll tell you that. I have.

Hourglass
Oct 10, 2009, 2:27 PM
How can you possibly argue that competition is bad in the case of Wal-Mart but not in the case of air transport?

The BIV article isn't worth the paper its printed on. Oum cites a Korea-China bilateral as an example, while conveniently ignoring that Canad now has Open Skies with Korea (which the article later mentions-sloppy).



Have you checked the incredible amount of lift Korean and Air Canada offer? Explain again why you think Singapore deserves a bigger share of that? When they walked away from it?

As to Emirates: the ruling family controls the airport, the airline and the oil Hardly a level playing field. Does anybody seriously believe there is a huge untapped market of Emirati wishing to visit Canada :koko: They want to use their uncompetitive advantage to skim off traffic from Canadian carriers, which would have a domino effect on services offered within Canada.

Oh, in case folks didn't notice Transat is able to increase service to Paris, but strangely hasn't. Zoom served Paris as well. How'd that work out....

Some observations:

1/ 13x weekly YVR-ICN between KE and AC during the peak season can hardly be called an 'incredible amount of lift.'

2/ YVR competes as a North American gateway against other US cities such as Seattle, LA and SF, so any disparities in the bilateral agreements with third-party countries has an impact. Canada refuses to allow SQ more 1-stop frequencies? They stop the route and start routing passengers via their LA or SF service. Who loses? Vancouver's economy and the consumer who now has less choice.

3/ No one is advocate sacrificing Air Canada unfairly on the altar of open skies, especially (as you pointed out) their contribution to Vancouver's economy. However, let's face it. Even before the current economic crisis, AC had trimmed long-haul flights from YVR, focusing more on their Toronto hub. Taipei, Osaka, and Fukuoka? All axed. Add to that one other point: AC has also not really utilized their inherent advantage from their YVR hub -- their onward route network in North America -- the way they do at YYZ.

Which is why the refusal by Transport Canada not to grant SQ additional frequencies on SIN-ICN-YVR is so disappointing. 3x weekly is not a viable long-haul service and Singapore Airlines had been working with that for well over 10 years -- so it's not as if they hadn't shown any long-term commitment to Vancouver. Here's a thought: perhaps if AC offered a better overall product, they wouldn't be so afraid of SQ eating their lunch...

EK is a very different case, and I agree with you there.

whatnext
Oct 10, 2009, 6:15 PM
Some observations:

1/ 13x weekly YVR-ICN between KE and AC during the peak season can hardly be called an 'incredible amount of lift.'

When the markets are Canada and Korea, yes you can call it that.

...3/ No one is advocate sacrificing Air Canada unfairly on the altar of open skies, especially (as you pointed out) their contribution to Vancouver's economy. However, let's face it. Even before the current economic crisis, AC had trimmed long-haul flights from YVR, focusing more on their Toronto hub. Taipei, Osaka, and Fukuoka? All axed. Add to that one other point: AC has also not really utilized their inherent advantage from their YVR hub -- their onward route network in North America -- the way they do at YYZ.

The market in Japan for travel to Canada has been in free-fall for years. If there was money to be made, AC would still be serving Osaka and Nagoya. Or JAL would be doing it. Or ANA.

... Here's a thought: perhaps if AC offered a better overall product, they wouldn't be so afraid of SQ eating their lunch...

AC now offers a very good product in both classes. Try an American carrier for comparison. I suppose some might argue that the "Singapore Girls" are some service advantage, but quite frankly I wouldn't want to live in a country where companies are free to turf employees because they are no longer young.

Hourglass
Oct 10, 2009, 6:35 PM
When the markets are Canada and Korea, yes you can call it that.

Based on what, may I ask? Your opinion?

The market in Japan for travel to Canada has been in free-fall for years. If there was money to be made, AC would still be serving Osaka and Nagoya. Or JAL would be doing it. Or ANA.

And Taiwan has been in free-fall as well?

AC now offers a very good product in both classes. Try an American carrier for comparison. I suppose some might argue that the "Singapore Girls" are some service advantage, but quite frankly I wouldn't want to live in a country where companies are free to turf employees because they are no longer young.

Irrelevant. Singapore Airlines' hiring policies have nothing to do with this discussion. We are talking about service standards, and when it comes to Asia, AC isn't competing directly against American carriers. Check out www.airlinequality.com for passenger reviews about Air Canada if you like. A significant proportion of the reviews are appalling.

Where the USA comparison IS relevant is when it comes to air transport policy. That is where YVR currently remains at a disadvantage. And why Air France ended up serving SEA instead of YVR.

whatnext
Oct 10, 2009, 11:56 PM
Based on what, may I ask? Your opinion?

Based on the size of the markets, and a comparison with seats available to other int'l destinations out of YVR.

..Irrelevant. Singapore Airlines' hiring policies have nothing to do with this discussion. We are talking about service standards, and when it comes to Asia, AC isn't competing directly against American carriers. Check out www.airlinequality.com for passenger reviews about Air Canada if you like. A significant proportion of the reviews are appalling.

Hardly irrelevant. And neither is the fact that North American culture is different from some places in Asia, where women are expected to display more of a subservient attitude. And bitching about Air Canada is a national pastime, usually based more on anecdotes than anything else.

..Where the USA comparison IS relevant is when it comes to air transport policy. That is where YVR currently remains at a disadvantage. And why Air France ended up serving SEA instead of YVR.

We'll see how long Air Chance lasts in Seattle. My bet is on "not long".

trofirhen
Oct 11, 2009, 8:49 AM
We'll see how long Air Chance lasts in Seattle. My bet is on "not long".

Really? Apparently they're flying full just about every day, and the route is considered very successful by Air France itself.

Millennium2002
Oct 11, 2009, 10:04 AM
Sad.

We need some new markets. =O Maybe not total wipe-out of regulations but at least more foreign carriers land here.

I never really understand why the government wants to save Air Canada when people complain about its product. WestJet does somewhat better and it's a private enterprise. =S

We need a company that can change the old face of aviation here, something that all consumers want. The only holdup is the government and Air Canada, who do not want to change.

In the end, this makes change in the future much harder. If we think about it there will probably be even better products by then and Air Canada will be a dinosaur... that will fall extinct faster if we move ahead then.

Hourglass
Oct 11, 2009, 10:53 AM
Based on the size of the markets, and a comparison with seats available to other int'l destinations out of YVR.

When HKG has 21x/week and TPE has 12x/week? Come now. Even taking into account the resident immigrant populations, Korea is a much larger market than Taiwan. And who are you to dictate what is enough? Let the market decide with lower prices and more choice.

Hardly irrelevant. And neither is the fact that North American culture is different from some places in Asia, where women are expected to display more of a subservient attitude. And bitching about Air Canada is a national pastime, usually based more on anecdotes than anything else.

I'm sorry -- I thought we were talking about service quality -- which for me isn't about cute flight attendants prancing around in kebayas, but things such as seat comfort, in-flight entertainment, food, lounge access etc etc. Forget about 'subservient' flight attendants. AC doesn't hold a candle to SQ on any of those other measures either. BTW, this comes from direct experience. I fly 120,000 miles a year, and based on my own personal experience, I try to fly with AC as little as possible.

We'll see how long Air Chance lasts in Seattle. My bet is on "not long".

Again, completely irrelevant. Wouldn't it be better if they could have flown to YVR instead? Again, Canada's bilateral treaties have unfairly favored Toronto (and Montreal) at the expense of Vancouver. Even with the government's Blue Sky policy, Vancouver is still at a disadvantage compared with other North American west coast gateways.

whatnext
Oct 11, 2009, 5:23 PM
When HKG has 21x/week and TPE has 12x/week? Come now. Even taking into account the resident immigrant populations, Korea is a much larger market than Taiwan. And who are you to dictate what is enough? Let the market decide with lower prices and more choice.

Let the market decide? So we can end up with the sorry free for all that is the US aviation market? Where most carriers lose buckets and are forever being rescued by Chapter 11 on the backs of shareholders and the employees? There will come a point where you as a Canadian will have to realize that there will always be someone who can do it cheaper, but are you willing to sell out our sovereignty to save a few pennies?

I'm sorry -- I thought we were talking about service quality -- which for me isn't about cute flight attendants prancing around in kebayas, but things such as seat comfort, in-flight entertainment, food, lounge access etc etc. Forget about 'subservient' flight attendants. AC doesn't hold a candle to SQ on any of those other measures either. BTW, this comes from direct experience. I fly 120,000 miles a year, and based on my own personal experience, I try to fly with AC as little as possible.

No need to try and impress us with your miles. I fly a lot too, most of with Air Canada and I have had no complaints about their service.

Again, completely irrelevant. Wouldn't it be better if they could have flown to YVR instead? Again, Canada's bilateral treaties have unfairly favored Toronto (and Montreal) at the expense of Vancouver. Even with the government's Blue Sky policy, Vancouver is still at a disadvantage compared with other North American west coast gateways.

Its not completely irrelevant. The point is the market is not there. If it was Transat would serve it. I'm sure the folks at YVR would have you believe otherwise. It always amazes me how they're willing to beat up on their largest customer: Air Canada.

Another point conveniently ignored: AF owns KLM, who are free to increase service to YVR from AMS. Surely if SQ should be allowed to do SIA-ICN-YVR, it would be no hardship for our French friends to fly CDG-AMS-YVR?

Hourglass
Oct 11, 2009, 6:11 PM
Let the market decide? So we can end up with the sorry free for all that is the US aviation market? Where most carriers lose buckets and are forever being rescued by Chapter 11 on the backs of shareholders and the employees? There will come a point where you as a Canadian will have to realize that there will always be someone who can do it cheaper, but are you willing to sell out our sovereignty to save a few pennies?

Jeepers, I'm selling out Canada's sovereignty by advocating letting Singapore Airlines fly daily to Vancouver via Seoul and allowing more open skies???

There are airlines that were doing just fine in the US prior to the recession. Southwest comes to mind. Perhaps it isn't the regulatory situation in the US that is the problem, but rather too much debt, poor management and other factors?

No need to try and impress us with your miles. I fly a lot too, most of with Air Canada and I have had no complaints about their service.

Not to impress, sir. Just laying out creds. As a frequent flyer, I know what I like and what I don't like. The vast majority of my experiences on Air Canada have been mediocre and on occasion very poor indeed. From your posts, I was wondering whether you were an AC employee.

Its not completely irrelevant. The point is the market is not there. If it was Transat would serve it. I'm sure the folks at YVR would have you believe otherwise. It always amazes me how they're willing to beat up on their largest customer: Air Canada.

Yep, good ol Transat. You're right -- maybe there isn't a market there. But again, shouldn't the market decide that rather than the regulators? Please expalin why Air France should only be allowed to fly to Toronto and Montreal but be barred from flying to Vancouver?

Another point conveniently ignored: AF owns KLM, who are free to increase service to YVR from AMS. Surely if SQ should be allowed to do SIA-ICN-YVR, it would be no hardship for our French friends to fly CDG-AMS-YVR?

Be serious. Singapore and Vancouver nonstop is 12,831km -- a stretch for a 747-400 while Vancouver - Amsterdam is only 7,726km (which incidentally brings up something you conveniently ignore -- one reason SQ was doing a secondary stop was the sheer distance. In the winter, even CX sometimes has to make a technical stop in Taipei flying west). In any case, at this point, people wanting to fly to Vancouver from Paris have to fly via AMS, YYZ, YUL or another point anyway.

whatnext
Oct 11, 2009, 6:50 PM
Jeepers, I'm selling out Canada's sovereignty by advocating letting Singapore Airlines fly daily to Vancouver via Seoul and allowing more open skies???

There are airlines that were doing just fine in the US prior to the recession. Southwest comes to mind. Perhaps it isn't the regulatory situation in the US that is the problem, but rather too much debt, poor management and other factors?

Southwest and Jetblue are the exceptions. Even those others making a profit, the return is pretty poor.

Not to impress, sir. Just laying out creds. As a frequent flyer, I know what I like and what I don't like. The vast majority of my experiences on Air Canada have been mediocre and on occasion very poor indeed. From your posts, I was wondering whether you were an AC employee.

No I don't work for Air Canada, just trying to point out there are experiences out there quite different from yours.

Be serious. Singapore and Vancouver nonstop is 12,831km -- a stretch for a 747-400 while Vancouver - Amsterdam is only 7,726km (which incidentally brings up something you conveniently ignore -- one reason SQ was doing a secondary stop was the sheer distance. In the winter, even CX sometimes has to make a technical stop in Taipei flying west). In any case, at this point, people wanting to fly to Vancouver from Paris have to fly via AMS, YYZ, YUL or another point anyway.

Air Canada makes YVR-SYD work with a distance of 12,484 km. Why can't SQ, without poaching off traffic from a third market?

The issue isn't distance, its the connection. One connection in AMS is hardly a severe impediment to travel, especially when its between two carriers with the same ownership.

deasine
Oct 11, 2009, 9:44 PM
No I don't work for Air Canada, just trying to point out there are experiences out there quite different from yours.

There you go: they are inconsistent, which is certainly not a good thing.

big T
Oct 11, 2009, 11:22 PM
^I'm surprised, too. I've flown upwards of 200k miles on AC metal over the past 3 years, and I've been consistently happy with the product. They are certainly leaps and bouns ahead of other NA airlines.
I had the pleasure of flying Cathay to HK last year, and honestly their Business product wasn't so different from AC's, either.

SpongeG
Oct 12, 2009, 12:20 AM
Aerocar Begins Service at Vancouver International Airport (YVR)

(1888PressRelease) October 06, 2009 - Richmond, B.C - Aerocar Service today announced that the company is the official sedan and limousine provider for the Vancouver International Airport Authority (YVR).

Operating 24 hours a day, the on-demand service allows passengers to book a sedan or limousine in advance of arriving or departing from YVR. With pickup on the arrivals level of the International and Domestic Terminal buildings, Aerocar Service offers visitors a quick and seamless transportation alternative. This exclusive curbside service is also available without a reservation, by simply exiting either of the terminals and looking for an Aerocar vehicle.

“We are proud to be affiliated with the Vancouver International Airport Authority,” said Angela Mackinnon, Account Manager, Aerocar Service. “We intend to operate and conduct business in an up to date, first class and reputable manner, while making customer satisfaction our primary focus.”

Thousands of visitors are expected in Vancouver for the 2010 Winter Games and Aerocar Service will provide them with another fast and cost-efficient mode of transportation to and from the airport. Bookings for Aerocar Service can be done one year in advance.

“During the Games we anticipate a high volume of customers using our service,” said Mackinnon. “Our extensive fleet and comprehensive digital dispatch system provides us with the infrastructure to handle the Olympic Games demand while maintaining customer satisfaction.”

Aerocar Service has one of largest fleets of luxury sedans and limousines in the Lower Mainland, with professional chauffeurs on hand to take visitors to their destination in one of the company’s Mercedes Benz, BMW, Hybrid Tahoe or luxury stretch limousines. Offering fixed rates to locations in the Vancouver area, passengers can travel from YVR to downtown Vancouver for $39, a rate comparable to a taxi fare.

For more information on booking transportation with Aerocar Service and a complete list of the company vehicles, visit www.aeroservice.ca

About Aerocar Service
Aerocar Service services Vancouver International Airport, the City of Vancouver, the Lower Mainland, Whistler and Sea-Tac Airport and offers the finest in luxury VIP vehicles. Our mission is to provide the highest quality in prompt, professional services for our passengers and clients. We have built our reputation on clean new vehicles, highly trained chauffeurs, and a willingness to help make your visit to British Columbia a memorable and repeatable adventure!

For further information:
Media Relations
Angela Mackinnon
1-888-821-0021 or 604-298-1000
www.aerocarservice.ca

http://www.1888pressrelease.com/vancouver-airport/limousine-transportation/aerocar-begins-service-at-vancouver-international-airport-y-pr-154630.html

SpongeG
Oct 12, 2009, 12:21 AM
not good news for YVR but good for passengers...

Many Canadians flying out of Bellingham International Airport

American airlines advertise in the Lower Mainland

BELLINGHAM (NEWS1130) - The Port of Bellingham has reviewed its numbers and found a record number of passengers used the Bellingham International Airport. However, half of those passengers are Canadian.

About 16,000 Canadians took the drive down to Bellingham rather than using YVR in August.

Dan Zenk with the Port of Bellingham says airlines that use the airport, like Allegiant and Alaska, do advertise for the Bellingham based flights in the Lower Mainland.

He says customers may be looking for a way to cut costs and still take a trip. "Allegiant's model is a low-cost airline where there are value added amenities if one chooses to purchase those. For example, there's no meals served on the flight."

Zenk thinks a fairly strong Canadian dollar may have also attracted more customers from north of the border.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20091003_110720_7588

mezzanine
Oct 12, 2009, 12:25 AM
My experience on AC is inconsistent. Certainly, service is better than US carriers.

That being said, I got caught up in the big snowfall in Xmas 2008 (YVR-LAS). On the same day the snow hit us, AC was the first to shut down - no advance warning the morning we left - we were already at the airport. WestJet was able to clear passengers already at YVR on the day the snow came. We actually flew out of YVR on US airways, a star alliance partner of AC, that same day, after we called AC's help desk - the best they promised us was to fly us to LAS via YEG 2 days later.

In spite of AC's efforts, things like that will stick in ppl's minds for a long time....

mezzanine
Oct 12, 2009, 12:31 AM
There will come a point where you as a Canadian will have to realize that there will always be someone who can do it cheaper, but are you willing to sell out our sovereignty to save a few pennies?
....

Many Canadians flying out of Bellingham International Airport

American airlines advertise in the Lower Mainland

BELLINGHAM (NEWS1130) - The Port of Bellingham has reviewed its numbers and found a record number of passengers used the Bellingham International Airport. However, half of those passengers are Canadian.



Asked, and answered... :(

SpongeG
Oct 12, 2009, 12:32 AM
but could some of that be because the flight crew was vancouver based and couldn't get to the airport? maybe the other airlines had their crews there?

I couldn't leave my building for a few days at christmas

SpongeG
Oct 12, 2009, 12:34 AM
Asked, and answered... :(

we flew to San fran for $220 return in june - we had upgrades too we could have gotten cheaper tix - but the same trip from Vancouver was about $450 we looked - we saved a couple hundred

mezzanine
Oct 12, 2009, 2:17 AM
but could some of that be because the flight crew was vancouver based and couldn't get to the airport? maybe the other airlines had their crews there?

I couldn't leave my building for a few days at christmas

We were ok'd to go to the gate, and we could see our plane on the tarmac. couldn't see if the crew were there, but at that point most, if not all AC flights on the board were cancelled.

We got to YVR that day, it was a little difficult, yes, but we made it, plus many, many other passengers...... it was a mid-afternoon flight, so we were able to make it with time to spare.

And as I said, we saw the WJ flight to LAS board and take off, with only a 30 min delay. The US airways flight flew out ~ 10 min late. :shrug:

If all flights were majorly delayed, or if all of YVR was shutdown, then I wouldn't be so sore about it. I made it to my destination in spite of AC's performance. and that's what ppl will have burned in their memories.

SpongeG
Oct 12, 2009, 3:09 AM
oh yah for sure

just if they are unionized they would phone in for 1 inch of snow

twoNeurons
Oct 12, 2009, 4:28 AM
but could some of that be because the flight crew was vancouver based and couldn't get to the airport? maybe the other airlines had their crews there?

I couldn't leave my building for a few days at christmas

I flew out on the 25 Dec. last year. Think I got the last flight out ( YVR - NAR ) before they shut it down. Of course, I never heard about that until I got back. I heard the problem was with the deicing of the planes.

To whomever complained about airlines who kept young women as flight attendants, you have to understand that the cultural values of another country are different than this one. Many Asian cultures put great emphasis on image. There's a business case for keeping a young, attractive, high energy, work force as the public face of the company. The job of cabin attendant is known to be a "young person's job" and many move on to other (higher paying, stable) jobs.

In some cases, they move on to the job of homemaker if they chose to have kids, which for some strange reason people think is denigrating.

It's pretty sad, if you ask me... when people put their "secular career" over their filial one. I certainly wouldn't want my kids raised by a daycare.

Anyway, the point isn't the erosion of family values, it's that just because a culture is different, doesn't mean you have to attack it. Things are usually more complex than they seem. In many cases, it's not a job many men or older women would actually want.

Whatnext, I assume you or a family member work (or worked) for Air Canada or Aeroplan ( now a separate company ).

As for me, I prefer Air Canada's service over the American airlines I have traveled on.

deasine
Oct 12, 2009, 6:11 AM
^I'm surprised, too. I've flown upwards of 200k miles on AC metal over the past 3 years, and I've been consistently happy with the product. They are certainly leaps and bouns ahead of other NA airlines.
I had the pleasure of flying Cathay to HK last year, and honestly their Business product wasn't so different from AC's, either.

Once you are in business class, service level gets much better: it's economy you'll notice the difference.

whatnext
Oct 12, 2009, 7:45 PM
I flew out on the 25 Dec. last year. Think I got the last flight out ( YVR - NAR ) before they shut it down. Of course, I never heard about that until I got back. I heard the problem was with the deicing of the planes.

To whomever complained about airlines who kept young women as flight attendants, you have to understand that the cultural values of another country are different than this one. Many Asian cultures put great emphasis on image. There's a business case for keeping a young, attractive, high energy, work force as the public face of the company. The job of cabin attendant is known to be a "young person's job" and many move on to other (higher paying, stable) jobs.

In some cases, they move on to the job of homemaker if they chose to have kids, which for some strange reason people think is denigrating.

It's pretty sad, if you ask me... when people put their "secular career" over their filial one. I certainly wouldn't want my kids raised by a daycare.

Anyway, the point isn't the erosion of family values, it's that just because a culture is different, doesn't mean you have to attack it.. (bold mine)

And yet you did just that, for all those families who use daycares. :rolleyes:

Whatnext, I assume you or a family member work (or worked) for Air Canada or Aeroplan ( now a separate company ).


Sorry, but no as I have already answered. I firmly support the home team, and just as I think the federal Tories should have fought tooth and nail to keep Nortel Canadian and they should continue to provide judicious support for Bombardier. Without such actions we will just be hewers of wood and drawers of water. Patriotism shouldn't be that hard to understand.

Canadian Mind
Oct 12, 2009, 9:21 PM
(bold mine)

And yet you did just that, for all those families who use daycares. :rolleyes:

Just because one person wouldn't want their kids raised by a daycare doesn't mean they are attacking the values of someone who does want their kids raised by a daycare.

I can tell you mine certainly wont be.

twoNeurons
Oct 12, 2009, 11:35 PM
(bold mine)

And yet you did just that, for all those families who use daycares. :rolleyes:

I am against the erosion of the family unit and things that contribute to it, but I would hesitate to suggest that it is an attack against a culture. That being said, I apologize if it was taken to have caused offense.

It would be hard to disagree that the family unit is ( in general ) a human trait, as opposed to a cultural one.


Sorry, but no as I have already answered. I firmly support the home team, and just as I think the federal Tories should have fought tooth and nail to keep Nortel Canadian and they should continue to provide judicious support for Bombardier. Without such actions we will just be hewers of wood and drawers of water. Patriotism shouldn't be that hard to understand.

I am sure many here share that sentiment, however, the definition of judicious differs. Patriotism, on the other hand... I am against. I think it does more harm than it does good and can be an extremely divisive force. But I don't think one needs to be patriotic to support protectionism.

Yume-sama
Oct 13, 2009, 12:42 AM
Once you are in business class, service level gets much better: it's economy you'll notice the difference.

For economy class, WestJet wins. For business class AC wins by default (as there is no competition...) I have never had a pleasant AC flight attendant, they are always really crusty, and majorly depressed about having to do their job... even in business class. (once I was in business class and overheard the flight attendants joking about the plane crashing, and if it did, at least they'd finally get to do their "REAL" job instead of just being a waitress in the sky). But, I really like the amenities AC offers now, with the new interior, it beats WestJets in-flight service, even in economy. The only reason I take WestJet now is if AC flight schedules are just horribly inconvenient, or if WestJet is cheaper for the little flight between Calgary and Vancouver. So, if you have no standards for customer service, or are easily impressed, go with AC. On long flights having AC power is nice, too.

I will only fly them international if I have no other choice. For the USA, that is usually true.

Canadian Mind
Oct 13, 2009, 1:03 AM
I've never had a problem with either airline, aside from AC being more expensive for tickets generally... Though I did get kisses from AC flight attendants for free, where the one kiss I got from a WJ flight attendant I had to give up 10 bucks for. >_>

Hourglass
Oct 13, 2009, 6:21 AM
Southwest and Jetblue are the exceptions. Even those others making a profit, the return is pretty poor.



No I don't work for Air Canada, just trying to point out there are experiences out there quite different from yours.



Air Canada makes YVR-SYD work with a distance of 12,484 km. Why can't SQ, without poaching off traffic from a third market?

The issue isn't distance, its the connection. One connection in AMS is hardly a severe impediment to travel, especially when its between two carriers with the same ownership.

Look, since you seem to want to throw in extraneous issues, I'm going to make my train of thought very simple:

(I) Many of Canada's current bilaterals with other countries are outdated and favor Toronto and Montreal at the expense of Vancouver. Example: France - Canada. This puts YVR at a disadvantage against other US west coast hubs.

(II) The current situation in terms of taxes and fuel surcharges puts YVR (and Air Canada as well) at a disadvantage against other US west coast hubs.

(III) Air Canada has an inherent advantage in Vancouver -- it's North American network -- that it is under-utilizing. Moreover, recent announcements simply confirm that Air Canada seems to consistently favor building routes out of Eastern Canada. Check out the news releases at Air Canada's website if you don't believe me. Now this may indeed be sound business, but then AC shouldn't oppose letting other airlines fly to Vancouver (and don't think AC doesn't have an influence on Transport Canada bilateral negotiations). In the Singapore Airlines case, SQ may have been siphoning off traffic to Korea, but then again, as a Star Alliance partner, Air Canada would have benefited from the connecting traffic out of Vancouver. And consumers benefit from more choice.

Nowhere have I said that I believe in hosing AC. But I do believe that the current situation is not in Vancouver's best interests.

Whatnext, you consistently talk about the 'home side'. Well, Air Canada may be Canada's "Flag Carrier", but it often doesn't feel much like the home side. It doesn't have a single representative on its board of directors from Western Canada. It's hub is Toronto. And it has consistently favored consolidating traffic to Eastern Canada, particularly Toronto.

I would argue that YVR also represents the 'home side' -- a local airport authority that has built Vancouver International Airport into one of the best airports in the world and is competing against US airports for connecting traffic and the accompanying economic benefits.

trofirhen
Oct 13, 2009, 4:23 PM
not good news for YVR but good for passengers...

Many Canadians flying out of Bellingham International Airport

American airlines advertise in the Lower Mainland

BELLINGHAM (NEWS1130) - The Port of Bellingham has reviewed its numbers and found a record number of passengers used the Bellingham International Airport. However, half of those passengers are Canadian.

About 16,000 Canadians took the drive down to Bellingham rather than using YVR in August.

Dan Zenk with the Port of Bellingham says airlines that use the airport, like Allegiant and Alaska, do advertise for the Bellingham based flights in the Lower Mainland.

He says customers may be looking for a way to cut costs and still take a trip. "Allegiant's model is a low-cost airline where there are value added amenities if one chooses to purchase those. For example, there's no meals served on the flight."

Zenk thinks a fairly strong Canadian dollar may have also attracted more customers from north of the border.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20091003_110720_7588

IMAGINE . . . that if, from Bellingham Airport, they had nonstops to Tokyo, Osaka, Singapore, Dubai, Paris, Brisbane, London and Rome . . . .

What, oh what, would happen to YVR ? . . . . . :haha:

If present trends continue, people might start skipping YVR and fly out of Sea-Tac instead. Once you're in Bellingham, is Seattle all that much further? Then the joke will REALLY be on us . . . . . .

:jester:

twoNeurons
Oct 13, 2009, 5:06 PM
IMAGINE . . . that if, from Bellingham Airport, they had nonstops to Tokyo, Osaka, Singapore, Dubai, Paris, Brisbane, London and Rome . . . .

What, oh what, would happen to YVR ? . . . . . :haha:

If present trends continue, people might start skipping YVR and fly out of Sea-Tac instead. Once you're in Bellingham, is Seattle all that much further? Then the joke will REALLY be on us . . . . . .

:jester:

If they improved Amtrak to several trips per day, going to SeaTac would suddenly be a viable option. One train and a short LRT ride.

If they picked up a direct flight to Kansai International in Osaka, I'd take it in a heart-beat. Sure beats going through SFO or NAR.

nova9
Oct 13, 2009, 5:42 PM
IMAGINE . . . that if, from Bellingham Airport, they had nonstops to Tokyo, Osaka, Singapore, Dubai, Paris, Brisbane, London and Rome . . . .

What, oh what, would happen to YVR ? . . . . . :haha:

If present trends continue, people might start skipping YVR and fly out of Sea-Tac instead. Once you're in Bellingham, is Seattle all that much further? Then the joke will REALLY be on us . . . . . .

:jester:

Let's be thankful then that the small little bellingham airport cannot handle more traffic or larger planes without years of renovation and more land.

to be honest, i've never flown out of sea-tac for economics sake. i've never had a situation (personally) where the savings were so great that they enticed me to endure a border crossing then drive 2 hours south, pay for long term parking at american rates, and not have a last chance to eat decent food before flying off. Haha. The only times I've ever flown out of Sea-Tac was if it was part of the itinerary.

I stupidly just budget in the added expense of flying out of YVR.

SpongeG
Oct 13, 2009, 6:14 PM
IMAGINE . . . that if, from Bellingham Airport, they had nonstops to Tokyo, Osaka, Singapore, Dubai, Paris, Brisbane, London and Rome . . . .

What, oh what, would happen to YVR ? . . . . . :haha:

If present trends continue, people might start skipping YVR and fly out of Sea-Tac instead. Once you're in Bellingham, is Seattle all that much further? Then the joke will REALLY be on us . . . . . .

:jester:

many use seatac - its just so much cheaper especially for flying within the states or to europe - i looked at some flights from seattle - london and they were $400 cheaper from seatac funny thing was on the way back they stopped in vancover before heading back to seattle :shrug:

there is just more competition to euope - you can fly liberia to spain - it flys via chicago though but is quite cheap - liberia also flies onto south africa from spain - i looked at fares once it was about $1100 everything included - from here it was $1400 + taxes and fees :(

my family from overseas had to fly into seattle once because they couldn't land in canada directly - they had to get a visa in seattle - so it was needed

once i flew on a buddy pass with delta airlines out of seatac and back into YVR - sometimes you can arrange flights that do that fly out of seatac and back into YVR - a few options exist to do that

twoNeurons
Oct 13, 2009, 6:47 PM
Let's be thankful then that the small little bellingham airport cannot handle more traffic or larger planes without years of renovation and more land.

to be honest, i've never flown out of sea-tac for economics sake. i've never had a situation (personally) where the savings were so great that they enticed me to endure a border crossing then drive 2 hours south, pay for long term parking at american rates, and not have a last chance to eat decent food before flying off. Haha. The only times I've ever flown out of Sea-Tac was if it was part of the itinerary.

I stupidly just budget in the added expense of flying out of YVR.

I flew out of SeaTac when flying to New York once when I was younger and had less disposable income. Wouldn't do it now, unless it was a huge difference or a more convenient flight or a better airline.

Eg. On a trip to Osaka, if I'm going to have to transfer anyhow, I'd rather transfer somewhere I can stop for a few days, like Hawaii.

As for parking, Seattle has pretty cheap long-term parking just off Airport land. A couple dollars a day, if I recall correctly.

I'd only fly out of Seattle now if they offered a direct flight where there wasn't one here. For me, it's worth it to fly directly to my destination rather than struggle with an unfamiliar airport and risk missing a flight or a delayed flight or double my chance of lost/broken baggage, etc.

The Link Light rail and extra Amtrak train made Seattle a WHOLE lot more attractive in my book.

wrenegade
Oct 13, 2009, 7:42 PM
My girlfriend and I are saving $700 each on our flights to South Africa by flying out of Bellingham in December. That almost pays for our 3 days of Safari. Well worth the hassle of crossing the border and getting down there.

sacrifice333
Oct 13, 2009, 8:08 PM
My girlfriend and I are saving $700 each on our flights to South Africa by flying out of Bellingham in December. That almost pays for our 3 days of Safari. Well worth the hassle of crossing the border and getting down there.

Safari is something everyone should do if they have the chance!

My wife and I are just returning from a trip to Europe & Africa which included five amazing days in the Massai Mara.

WarrenC12
Oct 13, 2009, 8:16 PM
Just to add to the list, I'm flying out of Seattle to Mexico in January. We are saving about $600 for us as a couple. We have friends in Seattle we can stay with overnight and fly out in the morning. Without this connection we probably wouldn't be doing it.

yesheh
Oct 14, 2009, 12:39 AM
I've flown to the states maybe only once or twice out of Vancouver. In fact, despite residing north of the line, I've probably flown out of SeaTac more than YVR. While it adds 6h to the round trip, the savings is incredible, and seeing that YVR is an hour away by car (despite living in the Vancouver area) it's not that much different.

big T
Oct 14, 2009, 12:39 AM
For economy class, WestJet wins. For business class AC wins by default (as there is no competition...) I have never had a pleasant AC flight attendant, they are always really crusty, and majorly depressed about having to do their job... even in business class. (once I was in business class and overheard the flight attendants joking about the plane crashing, and if it did, at least they'd finally get to do their "REAL" job instead of just being a waitress in the sky). But, I really like the amenities AC offers now, with the new interior, it beats WestJets in-flight service, even in economy. The only reason I take WestJet now is if AC flight schedules are just horribly inconvenient, or if WestJet is cheaper for the little flight between Calgary and Vancouver. So, if you have no standards for customer service, or are easily impressed, go with AC. On long flights having AC power is nice, too.

I will only fly them international if I have no other choice. For the USA, that is usually true.
I'm confused as to whether you like WestJet or AC better... anyway I tried WJ for the first time 3 days ago (coming to Vancouver, incidentally) and it was vastly inferior to the AC domestic economy product in my opinion. The FAs were nice, but then again I very rarely have had grumpy attendants on AC even in economy. Certainly service in business has always been excellent.
Honestly, the current AC product outclasses every european airline I've tried in the past 2 years (BA, AF, LH, LX), and is more or less on par with the asian ones as far as I'm concerned. I wonder if Canadians denigrating AC is not a relic of past experiences (I came to Canada in 2005 so I don't know what the product was like before that).

Yume-sama
Oct 14, 2009, 12:47 AM
Yes... that was rather confusing. One of those middle of the night rants. I guess the way to put it is, I like Air Canada's in-flight amenities better, but I like WestJet's customer service a lot better. :P So, it depends where I am going, and how long the flight is. Usually I will fly WestJet on short trips (Calgary to Vancouver, etc.) but on trans-continental flights (Vancouver to Toronto, etc.), AC and USB Power is a bigger plus than flight attendants who would rather you see you dead, is a minus. Hopefully that makes more sense, now...! Mostly I will go with whoever is cheaper on short flights, where in flight amenities don't really matter.

Air Canada is much better now than they were even 2 years ago. But that reputation is hard to break, without getting those people back on your newly renovated previously rickety old planes.

Like, if I didn't have to, I probably never would have gotten back on that A330 with exposed wiring, broken tray tables, and ripped up seats. Which is now nice and new inside...

Spork
Oct 14, 2009, 1:55 AM
I will be flying out of Seattle in December to Colombia and will be saving about $400 for myself (and my friend saves an additional $400), or about 26%. Definitely worth it.

nova9
Oct 14, 2009, 2:05 AM
Perhaps YVR should take a poll of how much business they lose, or conduct some survey on customers diverting their $ to Sea-Tac and then send the results to the government.

Yume-sama
Oct 14, 2009, 2:22 AM
Is it not just all because of taxes? I don't think that's YVR or any airlines fault. Flying out of Canada is just more expensive. Example, I am going to Boston in March, I just checked out of Seattle it is $249 per person (round trip) for Alaska Airlines direct, out of Vancouver is it $634 per person (round trip) Air Canada, connecting in Montreal or Toronto. This may not hurt other airports, but Vancouver is relatively close to the border, so it becomes more of an issue.

EDIT: Ooops. I was looking at the pre-tax prices... ummm... I blame Air Canada now :P

SpongeG
Oct 14, 2009, 2:31 AM
sea-tac also offers customers something YVR can't - competition - there are more choices to get to europe with multiple carriers to choose from which keeps prices down

trofirhen
Oct 14, 2009, 6:25 AM
Perhaps YVR should take a poll of how much business they lose, or conduct some survey on customers diverting their $ to Sea-Tac and then send the results to the government.
:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:

Great Idea !! Seriously !! It might be the one way those fat feds will finally sit up and take notice of the economic damage they're doing by keeping YVR's wings clipped the way they do. (no pun intended)
If they think we're losing business to Toronto, they think "so much the better," but when that lost business is going out of the country altogether,
it might provide the jolt they need.

Worth a try, anyway.

twoNeurons
Oct 14, 2009, 2:48 PM
Is it not just all because of taxes? ... EDIT: Ooops. I was looking at the pre-tax prices... ummm... I blame Air Canada now :P
Even so, I think that taxes have something to do with it. Of course, going to US destinations will be cheaper from a US Airport. That being said, many airports consider YVR a domestic flight because you're essentially across the border before you're on the plane.

trofirhen
Oct 17, 2009, 6:06 PM
Good-bye YVR . . . Hello Sea-Tac ! ! !

sacrifice333
Oct 17, 2009, 6:33 PM
85% of my flying over the last 5 years has been out of SEA-TAC instead of YVR.

Now with the addition of twice-daily train transport to Seattle AND their new 'skytrain' almost complete from downtown Seattle to SEA, it'll make the journey quite enjoyable and pretty low-stress.

Hopefully the CDN airlines and YVR can compete, because although I enjoy the Seattle aspect of my air travel it is completely unnecessary.

Political_R
Oct 17, 2009, 8:32 PM
sacrifice, our light rail isn't by any means as good as skytrain. I think skytrain is extremely superior in frequency, reliability, and ridership. It is a start but we need our UW connection before we see the numbers spike.

SpongeG
Oct 17, 2009, 9:06 PM
yah but at least you can get from downtown to the airport on it - up until now it was not easy if you came to seattle without a car

nova9
Oct 17, 2009, 9:15 PM
you still have to take a bus, i thought the lightrail didn't go ALL the way to sea-tac.

sacrifice333
Oct 17, 2009, 9:21 PM
you still have to take a bus, i thought the lightrail didn't go ALL the way to sea-tac.

The track's there and they're working on the finishing touches... not sure of the date of service implementation.

trofirhen
Oct 17, 2009, 11:17 PM
Whatever the mode of transportation used to get to either airport, the basic fact of the matter is that Sea-Tac is gaining on Vancouver for overseas destinations, and will soon overtake us. Case closed.

SpongeG
Oct 17, 2009, 11:22 PM
its suppossed to be all teh way to seatac in december or november

either way its much easier than it was - with a morning train and the LRT to seatac its definately a viable option that you can leave your car at home

and again you can usually arrange to fly back in YVR - depends where you are going and its still cheaper

sacrifice333
Oct 17, 2009, 11:31 PM
Whatever the mode of transportation used to get to either airport, the basic fact of the matter is that Sea-Tac is gaining on Vancouver for overseas destinations, and will soon overtake us. Case closed.

For domestic US, especially compared to Canada to US travel, they've won everytime for a long time and that won't change anytime soon when weighing cost and direct-itude heavily. Obviously for ease and time required flights originating from Canada would generally be easier for Canadians... but there is the whole international vs. domestic factor.

Canada used to always win on International flights, like those to Europe, but recently I've found better, easier fares out of the US (SEA) to Europe than YVR.

trofirhen
Oct 18, 2009, 12:26 AM
Canada used to always win on International flights, like those to Europe, but recently I've found better, easier fares out of the US (SEA) to Europe than YVR.

Yeah, and thanks to the protectionist, anal blockheads in Ottawa, it's going to get more that way and STAY more that way. Once again, YVR and the west gets screwed out out of jobs and growth by Ontario.

vanman
Oct 18, 2009, 1:05 AM
Whatever the mode of transportation used to get to either airport, the basic fact of the matter is that Sea-Tac is gaining on Vancouver for overseas destinations, and will soon overtake us. Case closed.

Sounds like what happened with the cruise ship industry.

Rusty Gull
Oct 18, 2009, 1:19 AM
You know what's weird, though? David Emerson, the freakin' ex-CEO of YVR, was the government's second-in-command in the PM's cabinet a couple of years ago, and he made zero progress on opening up more flights for Vancouver.

Canadian airports across the board, it seems, suffer from higher landing fees, higher labour costs, higher taxes, and lower efficiency.

If Emerson couldn't fix the problem, then nobody will. It's a lost cause. YVR will continue to bleed international business to SeaTac, mostly because it's subsidizing Air Canada's operations in Montreal and Toronto.

For shame!!

MalcolmTucker
Oct 18, 2009, 2:29 AM
Yeah, and thanks to the protectionist, anal blockheads in Ottawa, it's going to get more that way and STAY more that way. Once again, YVR and the west gets screwed out out of jobs and growth by Ontario.
You act like it is all the bilaterals fault. It is not. At least on the Europe side, there will be open skies, possibly including fifth freedom when Canada and EU conclude the free trade deal in 2011 (more likely 2012). As for flights to Dubai, the only reason the route might be profitable is connections onto India. Why allow a state airline that for all we know gets to refuel its jets at ultra cheap prices (their books aren't public) to destroy the existing connections.

You have all the extra charges that are added to Canadian flights, including funding the airports. Plus sales taxes on the fares, and moderately higher fuel prices and you have a combination that really reduces relative competitiveness. All of these differences have very good reasons. Plus it is just going to get worse as the US dollar depreciates.

Add to this a consolidation in the US airline industry leading to increase hubbing and the economies of scale beginning to reduce flight prices due to higher load factors.

Sounds like what happened with the cruise ship industry.
Lots of Americans don't have passports, and didnt want to get them for their Alaska cruise. Nothing can be done about that. It has hurt the cruise lines too, since ships traveling without a stop in another country are forced to have american crews and be registered in the USA. They are really hurting.

SpongeG
Oct 18, 2009, 2:50 AM
cruise ship traffic was actually up 4% this past season

mr.x
Oct 18, 2009, 2:58 AM
^ after a free fall for the last 7 years?

Rusty Gull
Oct 18, 2009, 4:46 AM
Happy news for once -- from what I understand Air Canada will be resuming its direct service between YVR and Osaka-Kansai. This will be a temporary, three-month arranement (likely coinciding with the Olympics), but it's certainly a move in the right direction.

deasine
Oct 18, 2009, 6:17 AM
Happy news for once -- from what I understand Air Canada will be resuming its direct service between YVR and Osaka-Kansai. This will be a temporary, three-month arranement (likely coinciding with the Olympics), but it's certainly a move in the right direction.

Let's hope it leads to permanent. Isn't this kind of stupid though? Canceling it, then resuming, then ending it again...

trofirhen
Oct 18, 2009, 1:04 PM
Let's hope it leads to permanent. Isn't this kind of stupid though? Canceling it, then resuming, then ending it again...

A bit like the temporary Air Canada service during the Olympics: three or so weeks of Vancouver-Paris nonstop, Vancouver-Zurich nonstop, Vancouver-Geneva nonstop . . . . then back to the old "CHANGE PLANES IN TORONTO" routine. Only in Canada. :koko:

MalcolmTucker
Oct 18, 2009, 1:51 PM
A bit like the temporary Air Canada service during the Olympics: three or so weeks of Vancouver-Paris nonstop, Vancouver-Zurich nonstop, Vancouver-Geneva nonstop . . . . then back to the old "CHANGE PLANES IN TORONTO" routine. Only in Canada. :koko:

If there is not enough O and D you can't support the route. When the trade agreement is in place it will probably cause more hubbing not less. It is possible Vancouver will see a realignment in flights as the European connections from western Canada are realigned after everyone isn't forced to travel through London, Frankfurt or Amsterdam anymore.

It is entirely possible that Calgary could end up as the European connection hub to take advantage of Westjet's feeder service.

If all the routes you talk about go daily when the agreement goes in place I would be surprised if more than one survives after a year.

nickinacan
Oct 18, 2009, 4:53 PM
For domestic US, especially compared to Canada to US travel, they've won everytime for a long time and that won't change anytime soon when weighing cost and direct-itude heavily. Obviously for ease and time required flights originating from Canada would generally be easier for Canadians... but there is the whole international vs. domestic factor.

Canada used to always win on International flights, like those to Europe, but recently I've found better, easier fares out of the US (SEA) to Europe than YVR.

I can attest to that. I am heading to Copenhagen on Thursday and will be flying out of Seattle. Why? Because it costs close to 50% less to fly out of Seattle than Vancouver and I only have to change planes once (Not even an exaggeration, this is a completely true fact). Thank you Transport Canada for making it cheaper and easier to fly (And spend) my money in a foreign country!

Gordon
Oct 19, 2009, 2:17 PM
At this point I don't think Calgary has the facilities to become a signifcant hub for European flights.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 19, 2009, 2:48 PM
^ Right now there is no real western Canada hub for flights to Europe, but Calgary is planning a big new international wing ~$1,300 millio (http://www.calgaryairport.com/IFP/index.cfm)n, after deciding that expanding the current wing which has US preclearance, and international swing gates wouldn't be enough capacity, and yet cost almost as much as building an entirely new wing.

So who knows what will happen - when it is open skies it could go any which way!

Gordon
Oct 19, 2009, 2:57 PM
One advantage that Vancouver has over Calgary is that it is already a major Asian hub & could be used as link between Eurrope & Asia

MalcolmTucker
Oct 19, 2009, 3:26 PM
One advantage that Vancouver has over Calgary is that it is already a major Asian hub & could be used as link between Eurrope & Asia

Who goes the long way round? Unless your stopping for skiing in the middle...

I guess it may seem useful for airlines, but you would need Canada to give full fifth freedom rights for any service like that to work (or Air Canada to provide Tokyo - London flights). Of course it doesn't really make sense for passengers (the route is 57% longer), only to increase plane usage.

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=LHR-NRT,lhr-yvr-nrt&PATH-COLOR=red


LHR (51°28'39"N 00°27'41"W) NRT (35°45'53"N 140°23'11"E) 30° (NE) 5191 nm
2 segment path: 8166 nm (+57.3%)
LHR (51°28'39"N 00°27'41"W) YVR (49°11'38"N 123°11'04"W) 323° (NW) 4104 nm
YVR (49°11'38"N 123°11'04"W) NRT (35°45'53"N 140°23'11"E) 299° (NW) 4061 nm

trofirhen
Oct 19, 2009, 7:24 PM
With many major head offices, in the middle of a Saudi-Arabian sized oil patch, and a population that has passed the million mark, Calgary is, and will increasingly be, an important business destination.

Vancouver has few head offices, but is over twice as large in population, is a major tourist destination, and has things that Calgary does not have - such as being the third largest motion picture and television production centre in North America after NY and LA.

Vancouver will not be eclipsed by Calgary, but will no longer be able to take itself for granted as the only major Western Canadian destination. We have a powerful competitor over the other side of the Rockies, differrent in character, but flexing its young muscles as never before.

However, given that both cities might be viewed by overseas airlines as a combined market (Emirates, for example, though nobody seems to want them for perhaps valid reasons) the two cities will exert more clout if an airline - take Belgium, for the sake of argument - had a Brussels > Calgary > Vancouver trajectory.

Both cities would win.

What is necessary now is to rally: citizens, YVR officials, business community leaders >> to write to their MPs, and keep applying LOUD and relentless pressure on the government to open up the destination market - be it Asia, Europe, Oceania, or Latin America - to the major cities of the West . . . . Vancouver and Calgary.

We're building, we're growing, we're raring to go. Don't let apathy let protectionist Ontario - and the sycophant Feds - keep hogging the routes for Toronto (and to a lesser extent Montreal) while depriving the the booming West.

The only way to deal with Ottawa is to make a lot of loud - but valid and well-founded - ruckus and noise, and apply pressure relentlessly on whichever party is in power in Ottawa.

Lawrence Cannon did nothing for the West. Neither has John Baird.

Then we have a chance for the piece of the airline destination pie long overdue us.

twoNeurons
Oct 19, 2009, 7:44 PM
Or how about Calgrary <-> Asia with a stop in Vancouver.

Right now, Vancouver's Tokyo Service isn't really Vancouver's Tokyo service... the flight originates in Toronto.

If other airlines had open skies, you could see ANA do a Calgary - YVR - Osaka ( if Vancouver can't fill the planes by itself )

I'm happy to hear about Osaka, though! I'm SERIOUSLY thinking of booking a flight during that time!

Also consider that Calgary also serves the Edmonton market. In the future, if they ever build a high-speed rail line between those two cities, Edmongary will become a force to reckon with.

Yume-sama
Oct 19, 2009, 7:49 PM
So, JAL has announced they will be cutting 9000 jobs and abolishing the 747 this year, much sooner than earlier planned. Vancouver will likely be the last route to see a 747 :(

Many routes will be cut or taken over by American Airlines or Delta. While others will see a 777-300 or 777-300ER. They will be getting 35 787-8's soon, too.

The Japanese government is considering merging JAL and ANA to create one "super airline"

Gordon
Oct 19, 2009, 8:06 PM
Some of Air Canada's Asia service cuts out of Vancouver were initially due to high fuel prices and poor fuel economy with the 767s. The deep recession has devestated the airline industry.

Yume-sama
Oct 19, 2009, 8:28 PM
It's too bad that Boeing has screwed around so much with the 787, or a lot of these cuts wouldn't be necessary.

trofirhen
Oct 20, 2009, 4:06 AM
Some of Air Canada's Asia service cuts out of Vancouver were initially due to high fuel prices and poor fuel economy with the 767s. The deep recession has devestated the airline industry.

It's too bad that Boeing has screwed around so much with the 787, or a lot of these cuts wouldn't be necessary.

Somehow, nobody could ever admit it to themselves that one day, oil would become scarcer and scarcer, finally run dry, while getting more and more expensive all the while. Duuuuuh!
:koko:

GeeCee
Oct 20, 2009, 6:11 AM
Why is Calgary significant in terms of Asia?

Zassk
Oct 20, 2009, 3:01 PM
Why is Calgary significant in terms of Asia?

Only in the sense that it would help Vancouver to fill planes, and therefore to justify Asian flights to/from Western Canada.

twoNeurons
Oct 20, 2009, 3:16 PM
Why is Calgary significant in terms of Asia?

Oil. It's relevant everywhere. Actually, there's a large Vietnamese population there... many moved there when the cost of living was going up here.

trofirhen
Oct 20, 2009, 5:27 PM
Obviously, just about everyonehere is anxious to see our destination market opened up.
So ............................. LET'S ORGANIZE SOMETHING TO PUT HEAVY-DUTY PRESSURE ON THE TIGHT-ASSED ONTARIO FEDS !!!!!!!

Ideas, anyone ? ? ?

MalcolmTucker
Oct 20, 2009, 5:41 PM
Well, the European thing is already happening. As for Dubai, it ain't happening.

SpongeG
Oct 20, 2009, 11:04 PM
y'all flying out of seattle might like this... - the chart is easier to read at the source but Seattle is getting some improved routes - more competition!


Delta outlines new international service for 2010
5:33 PM Tue, Oct 20, 2009 | Permalink
Terry Maxon/Reporter Bio | E-mail | News tips



Delta Air Lines has laid out a long list of international routes that will start service or get expanded service next summer.

Says Glen Hauenstein, Delta's executive vice president of network planning and revenue management:

"No other airline has the alliance partners, fleet flexibility or network breadth to consistently deliver new routes for customers while at the same time being responsible in managing capacity in the face of a global economic recession.


"As America's flag carrier to the world, Delta's 2010 schedule will bring new nonstop service to dozens of communities around the globe, thanks to the strength of our worldwide alliances."


Delta says the changes "are part of the first fully consolidated schedule published following Delta's merger with Northwest, allowing the airline to reallocate existing capacity to new routes. Delta also will maintain many of the international route reductions it announced in June in response to decreased global demand."

City 1 City 2 Start date Frequency
Seattle Beijing, China June 4 Five times weekly
Seattle Osaka, Japan June 7 Daily
Detroit Hong Kong June 2 Five times weekly
Detroit Seoul-Incheon June 1 Five times weekly
Detroit Shanghai, China June 1 Expanded from five seven times weekly
Tokyo-Narita New York June 1 Upgraded from daily Boeing 777-200 to 747-400
Tokyo-Narita Los Angeles June 1 From seven to 11 weekly flights
Copenhagen New York May 27 Daily
New York Stockholm May 27 Daily
New York Tel Aviv June 3 Daily, upgraded from Boeing 767-300 to 747-400
Seattle Amsterdam June 1 Expanded from seven to 10 weekly flights
Atlanta Accra, Ghana June 1 Three times weekly
New York Abuja, Nigeria June 1 Three times weekly

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/10/delta-air-lines-has-laid.html

s211
Oct 20, 2009, 11:35 PM
Why is Calgary significant in terms of Asia?

It's not. Calgary's pulling another one of their tricks where they appear to say "we're getting Asia" when, in fact, they're selling a dream and hopefully people support it. Classic Calgary boosterism.

trofirhen
Oct 21, 2009, 6:21 AM
It's not. Calgary's pulling another one of their tricks where they appear to say "we're getting Asia" when, in fact, they're selling a dream and hopefully people support it. Classic Calgary boosterism.

You're right, s211, except in the domain of oil. That's why Emirates (which everybody seems to hate) wanted Vancouver AND Calgary as destinations.
Dubai is in the middle of one of the world's great oil producing regions (as everyone knows anyway) and it was for that, and only that, that they expressed a wish to have access to Calgary. Vancouver would have been the main entry point to Western Canada.

Oh well, there is still Qatar Airlines, and Etihad. Maybe people will accept their presence, if they ever come knocking.

(Though this being Canada, I doubt it)