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

twoNeurons
Oct 21, 2009, 2:06 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!

City 1 City 2 Start date Frequency
Seattle Osaka, Japan June 7 Daily


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

I wonder if this is a response to AC dropping its route to Osaka. I'm sure Seattleites didn't like having to go to San Francisco either.

trofirhen
Oct 21, 2009, 2:23 PM
At the current rate, in three years, Seattle will have eclipsed Vancouver for everything but domestic Canadian flights, and we'll be crying the blues.
Most of the blame lies with the feds, who breast-feed Ontario and Quebec, but a large part of the blame will be with Vancouverites, and other Western Canadians who sat back and let it happen.

Almost nobody is lobbying the federal government, of which the current Transport Minister is the Hon. John Baird, and I wonder how many people have written to their MPs, asking them to lobby on our behalf. Knowing us Canadians, we'll mostly sit aorund going "pretty bad, eh?" ..... while Vancouver Airport gradually assumes second-tier status internationally.

Too bad we don't have that good ol' American "go-gettership." We don't. We're Canadians, and can't seem to take a proactive approach to things we, in fact, COULD change if we WERE more aggressive and proactive. :koko: :yes: :shrug:

jlousa
Oct 21, 2009, 2:38 PM
So what if Seattle surpasses Vancouver, they are a larger city then Vancouver, and serve a larger population as well. Vancouver punches well above it weight as far as airports go. YVR is very well run and runs numerous airports across the world due to it's expertise. Just because you can't get the flight you want to Paris doesn't mean we're getting shafted by Ottawa. Heck ask Air Transit why they stopped flying to Paris, it wasn't Ottawa that stopped them, there wasn't a large enough market to justify it. If demand is there airlines will provide supply.

trofirhen
Oct 21, 2009, 2:47 PM
So what if Seattle surpasses Vancouver, they are a larger city then Vancouver, and serve a larger population as well. Vancouver punches well above it weight as far as airports go. YVR is very well run and runs numerous airports across the world due to it's expertise. Just because you can't get the flight you want to Paris doesn't mean we're getting shafted by Ottawa. Heck ask Air Transit why they stopped flying to Paris, it wasn't Ottawa that stopped them, there wasn't a large enough market to justify it. If demand is there airlines will provide supply.

Good points. Perhaps it's the proximity to Seattle, and the feeling of being in its shadow, that I'm reacting to. Nevertheless, on the wish-list for overseas destinations, Paris came out well on top, and Air France had been trying for access to Vancouver for ten years before the repeated refusals sent them to Seattle. I appreciate and respect your opinion, but I don't think it's as black-and-white as that.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 21, 2009, 2:48 PM
How is an airline cutting a route the fault of Ottawa?

trofirhen
Oct 21, 2009, 3:07 PM
How is an airline cutting a route the fault of Ottawa?

It isn't. Unless the airline has requested that route repeatedly, and Ottawa has turned them down repeatedly, as was the case of Air France, which finally gave up and went to Seattle, while Vancouver was their first - and stated - choice.

whatnext
Oct 21, 2009, 3:09 PM
So what if Seattle surpasses Vancouver, they are a larger city then Vancouver, and serve a larger population as well. Vancouver punches well above it weight as far as airports go. YVR is very well run and runs numerous airports across the world due to it's expertise. Just because you can't get the flight you want to Paris doesn't mean we're getting shafted by Ottawa. Heck ask Air Transit why they stopped flying to Paris, it wasn't Ottawa that stopped them, there wasn't a large enough market to justify it. If demand is there airlines will provide supply.

Seattle: Microsoft, Starbucks, Nordstrom, Boeing..
Vancouver: ...Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?...Anyone?

Its strange Seattle doesn't have MORE international flights and that Vancouver has so many.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 21, 2009, 3:10 PM
It isn't. Unless the airline has requested that route repeatedly, and Ottawa has turned them down repeatedly, as was the case of Air France, which finally gave up and went to Seattle, while Vancouver was their first - and stated - choice.

I was thinking of your complaint about Osaka, not Paris. And can you pull an article or press release on Air France's attempts?

twoNeurons
Oct 21, 2009, 3:29 PM
How is an airline cutting a route the fault of Ottawa?

It's not just an airline... it the national carrier. Some routes are routed to Toronto for political reasons. Routing the flight to Toronto will gain more support from the federal government and unless the Canadian government takes a position in the matter ( and officially makes Vancouver a hub for Asia ) there's no reason for Air Canada not to route through Toronto... it's more bang for buck.

As for the Seattle news:
From a Port of Seattle email today:

Airline Announces Non-Stops to Beijing and Osaka, Additional Amsterdam Flights
(Seattle) October 20, 2009 - The Port of Seattle and the Governor's office welcomed today's announcement from Delta Air Lines that they are positioning Seattle-Tacoma International Airport as a major gateway to Asia with the addition of nonstop routes to Beijing, China and Osaka, Japan in summer 2010. Delta also announced additional nonstop flights to Amsterdam. Delta Air Lines last year merged with Northwest Airlines, becoming the world's largest airline.

"This is excellent news for our state," said Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire. "China and Japan are two of our top export markets. These new direct flights will help expand trade with Asia, bringing more jobs and economic development to Washington. The new flight to Japan will also directly connect us with Hyogo Prefecture, Washington's sister state in Japan."

""We need good economic news right now - and the new jobs and opportunities created by Delta choosing Seattle as a major gateway to Asia is good news for the region,"said Bill Bryant, Port of Seattle Commission President.

Delta's Asian expansion is powered by its partnership with Alaska Air Group. The new nonstop flights to Beijing and Osaka will be timed to conveniently connect with Delta and Alaska's 267 combined daily departures to 64 destinations from Sea-Tac, and will complement Delta's existing daily service to Tokyo-Narita. Delta and Alaska offer customers reciprocal code share, lounge and frequent flyer benefits to make it easier to connect between the airlines' domestic and international networks at Seattle.

Currently, Delta nonstop service from Sea-Tac to Tokyo-Narita, Amsterdam (in partnership with Air France KLM), Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, Memphis, Minneapolis, New York - Kennedy, Paris Charles de Gaulle (in partnership with Air France KLM) and Salt Lake City. Connections through Alaska and Horizon would add 64 nonstop destinations.

Each of Delta's new services will use Boeing 767-300 aircraft. Beijing service will begin five times weekly on June 4, 2010. The Osaka route will begin daily service on June 7, 2010.

Expanded service to Amsterdam will begin June 1, 2010 increasing from seven to 10 weekly flights aboard a combination of Airbus A330-300 and Boeing 767-300 aircraft.

For more information, see Delta Air Lines website

More Details on International Flights
Including Delta's announcement today, eight new international services have been added at Sea-Tac since 2007: Air France (2007 to Paris), Aeromexico (2007 to Mexico City, 2008 to San Jose Del Cabo), Lufthansa (2008 to Frankfurt), Hainan (2008 to Beijing) and Icelandair (2009 to Reykjavik).

A Little History
The first one-stop international flight out of Sea-Tac was in 1949 when Northwest Airlines flew to Tokyo, stopping in Anchorage. That same flight became the first nonstop international flight by going directly to Tokyo in 1963.
Sea-Tac was originally constructed in 1944 for use by the U.S. military. The first year of commercial flights at Sea-Tac came in 1947. In 1966, SAS inaugurated service to Europe.

About Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
Operated by the Port of Seattle, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA, KSEA) is ranked as the 17th largest U.S. airport, serving more than 32.1 million passengers in 2008. With a regional economic impact of more than $13.2 billion in business revenue, Sea-Tac generates more than 161,000 jobs (89,902 direct jobs) representing more than $2.2 billion in direct earnings and $412.4 million in state and local taxes. Twenty-eight airlines serve 76 non-stop domestic destinations and 22 international cities.
source post at SSC (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=44918186&postcount=1215)

It's not JUST Canadian traffic that we're competing for. YVR is positioned as an excellent Asian hub for the United States, with transborder status and close proximity to much of the US. American travelers aren't going to choose to fly VIA Toronto when they can choose LA/SF. Vancouver is well positioned to have direct flights to places Toronto can't really serve well, as is illustrated by this map:
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=PEK-YVR-HNL-PEK&MAP-STYLE=ortho&MAP-CENTER=MDY&PATH-COLOR=red

What it lacks is the impetus to do so.

I don't know if it's completely relevant that Seattle serves a larger area. They're now starting to serve the Vancouver area as well.

twoNeurons
Oct 21, 2009, 3:31 PM
How is an airline cutting a route the fault of Ottawa?

It's not just an airline... it the national carrier. Some routes are routed to Toronto for political reasons. Routing the flight to Toronto will gain more support from the federal government and unless the Canadian government takes a position in the matter ( and officially makes Vancouver a hub for Asia ) there's no reason for Air Canada not to route through Toronto... it's more bang for buck.

As for the Seattle news:
From a Port of Seattle email today:

Airline Announces Non-Stops to Beijing and Osaka, Additional Amsterdam Flights
(Seattle) October 20, 2009 - The Port of Seattle and the Governor's office welcomed today's announcement from Delta Air Lines that they are positioning Seattle-Tacoma International Airport as a major gateway to Asia with the addition of nonstop routes to Beijing, China and Osaka, Japan in summer 2010. Delta also announced additional nonstop flights to Amsterdam. Delta Air Lines last year merged with Northwest Airlines, becoming the world's largest airline.

"This is excellent news for our state," said Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire. "China and Japan are two of our top export markets. These new direct flights will help expand trade with Asia, bringing more jobs and economic development to Washington. The new flight to Japan will also directly connect us with Hyogo Prefecture, Washington's sister state in Japan."

""We need good economic news right now - and the new jobs and opportunities created by Delta choosing Seattle as a major gateway to Asia is good news for the region,"said Bill Bryant, Port of Seattle Commission President.

Delta's Asian expansion is powered by its partnership with Alaska Air Group. The new nonstop flights to Beijing and Osaka will be timed to conveniently connect with Delta and Alaska's 267 combined daily departures to 64 destinations from Sea-Tac, and will complement Delta's existing daily service to Tokyo-Narita. Delta and Alaska offer customers reciprocal code share, lounge and frequent flyer benefits to make it easier to connect between the airlines' domestic and international networks at Seattle.

Currently, Delta nonstop service from Sea-Tac to Tokyo-Narita, Amsterdam (in partnership with Air France KLM), Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, Memphis, Minneapolis, New York - Kennedy, Paris Charles de Gaulle (in partnership with Air France KLM) and Salt Lake City. Connections through Alaska and Horizon would add 64 nonstop destinations.

Each of Delta's new services will use Boeing 767-300 aircraft. Beijing service will begin five times weekly on June 4, 2010. The Osaka route will begin daily service on June 7, 2010.

Expanded service to Amsterdam will begin June 1, 2010 increasing from seven to 10 weekly flights aboard a combination of Airbus A330-300 and Boeing 767-300 aircraft.

For more information, see Delta Air Lines website

More Details on International Flights
Including Delta's announcement today, eight new international services have been added at Sea-Tac since 2007: Air France (2007 to Paris), Aeromexico (2007 to Mexico City, 2008 to San Jose Del Cabo), Lufthansa (2008 to Frankfurt), Hainan (2008 to Beijing) and Icelandair (2009 to Reykjavik).

A Little History
The first one-stop international flight out of Sea-Tac was in 1949 when Northwest Airlines flew to Tokyo, stopping in Anchorage. That same flight became the first nonstop international flight by going directly to Tokyo in 1963.
Sea-Tac was originally constructed in 1944 for use by the U.S. military. The first year of commercial flights at Sea-Tac came in 1947. In 1966, SAS inaugurated service to Europe.

About Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
Operated by the Port of Seattle, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA, KSEA) is ranked as the 17th largest U.S. airport, serving more than 32.1 million passengers in 2008. With a regional economic impact of more than $13.2 billion in business revenue, Sea-Tac generates more than 161,000 jobs (89,902 direct jobs) representing more than $2.2 billion in direct earnings and $412.4 million in state and local taxes. Twenty-eight airlines serve 76 non-stop domestic destinations and 22 international cities.
source post at SSC (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=44918186&postcount=1215)

It's not JUST Canadian traffic that we're competing for. YVR is positioned as an excellent Asian hub for the United States, with transborder status and close proximity to much of the US. American travelers aren't going to choose to fly VIA Toronto when they can choose LAX, SFO or SEA. Vancouver is well positioned to have direct flights to places Toronto can't really serve well, as is illustrated by this map:
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=PEK-YVR-HNL-PEK&MAP-STYLE=ortho&MAP-CENTER=MDY&PATH-COLOR=red

What it lacks is the impetus to do so.

I don't know if it's completely relevant that Seattle serves a larger area. They're now starting to serve the Vancouver area as well.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 21, 2009, 4:17 PM
^ Hubs are efficient to a point from an economic perspective, and I think people like to ignore that and lay all the blame on the political side. Politicians have no control besides bilateral on Air Canada (and a couple weird provisions in the Air Canada Act like having three mandatory maintenance bases)

The funny thing is, you (twoNeurons) and trofirhen are arguing two sides of the same coin. You want Canada to hub air traffic through Vancouver to get to asia. Trofirhen does not want a policy he sees as requiring hubbing through Montreal or Toronto to get to France (which is only a restriction on French Airlines, not Canadian ones)

twoNeurons
Oct 21, 2009, 6:26 PM
^ Hubs are efficient to a point from an economic perspective, and I think people like to ignore that and lay all the blame on the political side. Politicians have no control besides bilateral on Air Canada (and a couple weird provisions in the Air Canada Act like having three mandatory maintenance bases)

The funny thing is, you (twoNeurons) and trofirhen are arguing two sides of the same coin. You want Canada to hub air traffic through Vancouver to get to asia. Trofirhen does not want a policy he sees as requiring hubbing through Montreal or Toronto to get to France (which is only a restriction on French Airlines, not Canadian ones)

Well, I would like more options to Asia and think we would be in a good position to be a HUB for the US. I don't think Air Canada

Air Canada's Asian Network:
http://www.airlineroutemaps.com/Canada/img/Air_Canada_asia.gif

Air Canada's European Network:
http://www.airlineroutemaps.com/Canada/img/Air_Canada_europe.gif

There's quite the disparity when it comes to Europe. I don't expect us to compete with Toronto when it comes to Europe, but why not try to be more competitive with YVR as an Asian hub? There seems to be an opportunity that is starting to be exploited by SeaTac.

Vancouver is forced to go through Toronto ( or a select few European cities ) which gives Toronto the ability to provide more destinations. What does this mean? Tourists come to Toronto from Europe. They won't transfer through Vancouver, as it's out of the way and further to travel. Vancouver seems like it would be an efficient place to establish an Asian hub, given travel times.

Hourglass
Oct 21, 2009, 7:05 PM
Seattle: Microsoft, Starbucks, Nordstrom, Boeing..
Vancouver: ...Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?...Anyone?

Its strange Seattle doesn't have MORE international flights and that Vancouver has so many.

It's true that Seattle is under-served relative to city population and this may be the beginning of a correction. But there is more to this than city size and corporate muscle. Catchment area and demographics also account for the difference.

Vancouver has a larger Asian population than Seattle. Generally speaking, it also has a higher profile in most Asian countries than Seattle.

Vancouver is the Asian gateway for all of Canada -- particularly Western Canada. US travelers have a variety of choices.

The fact is, Seattle could not support a non-stop HK route as recently as the 1990s. It'll be interesting to see how Delta's new China routes do.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 21, 2009, 7:25 PM
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=yyz-hkg,yyz-yvr-hkg

Well, hubbing only makes sense if you can't fill your planes, or if you can switch to a more efficient (bigger) planes by combining markets.

The route through Vancouver route adds about 9% length plus the transfer.

mr.x
Oct 21, 2009, 8:06 PM
I've posted a new topic on this YVR stranglehold issue in the Canada forum, fire away:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=174826

Rusty Gull
Oct 21, 2009, 11:25 PM
How is an airline cutting a route the fault of Ottawa?

How about higher taxes and high landing fees that a direct result of Ottawa's gouging?

Yume-sama
Oct 21, 2009, 11:33 PM
How about higher taxes and high landing fees that a direct result of Ottawa's gouging?

Isn't Toronto the one with the highest landing fees, created by the government making sure it the busiest airport?

MalcolmTucker
Oct 21, 2009, 11:38 PM
Isn't Toronto the one with the highest landing fees, created by the government making sure it the busiest airport?

Yeah. If airport rents were eliminated, there would be more hubbing through YYZ, not less. But yeah, there might be some winbacks from people currently traveling through border airports as well.

whatnext
Oct 22, 2009, 12:22 AM
How about higher taxes and high landing fees that a direct result of Ottawa's gouging?

How about having YVR drop their "Airport Improvement Fee". One would think if YVR was so concerned about attracting new traffic, they'd drop it.

mr.x
Oct 22, 2009, 12:25 AM
^ it's only for passengers, and it's a miniscule fee compared to even the cheapest air tickets. Considering it's what the airport uses to pay for its construction projects, I don't understand the logic behind canceling it.

LeftCoaster
Oct 22, 2009, 12:29 AM
How about having YVR drop their "Airport Improvement Fee". One would think if YVR was so concerned about attracting new traffic, they'd drop it.

Most people dont even know it still exists since they built it into the ticket fare. I bet it doesnt even detract 0.5% of traffic from YVR.

mr.x
Oct 22, 2009, 12:39 AM
^ precisely....$5.00 for local flights, $10.00 for domestic, and $15.00 for international. Miniscule.

raskal
Oct 22, 2009, 2:30 AM
^ precisely....$5.00 for local flights, $10.00 for domestic, and $15.00 for international. Miniscule.

$5.00 for flights to destinations within B.C. or the Yukon.
$15.00 for flights to all other destinations.

SpongeG
Oct 22, 2009, 3:40 AM
as long as it lets the airport keep expanding and do well i say keep it

whatnext
Oct 22, 2009, 7:08 PM
as long as it lets the airport keep expanding and do well i say keep it

Or question why they need to keep expanding. The terminal is hardly overtaxed with flights. Its become a self-perpetuating construction project.

As to it being only $15, surely every cent counts in our noble fight for competitiveness against Seattle. :P

trofirhen
Oct 22, 2009, 7:24 PM
I've posted a new topic on this YVR stranglehold issue in the Canada forum, fire away:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=174826

:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:

Your postings are ones I had already read, but you have more skill with this forum, and you found the right place to put them. They created quite a chain reaction. It's getting people thinking, and shaking things up a bit (although there are a couple of status quo-loving easterners who defend things just the way they are, but that's to be expected)

Anyway, thanks a lot! Hope this keeps the momentum alive. :tup:

Anybody who things Vancouver isn't getting its fair share of overseas routes should look at this link.

twoNeurons
Oct 22, 2009, 8:06 PM
Well, hubbing only makes sense if you can't fill your planes, or if you can switch to a more efficient (bigger) planes by combining markets.

The route through Vancouver route adds about 9% length plus the transfer.

The future of the airline industry is interesting... in the future, I wonder who's idealogy will win out... the Boeing strategy of "medium-sized efficient planes with more direct flights aka 787"
or the Airbus one:
"Massive hub-spoke planes that cattle people from hub to hub to transfer them to regional planes, aka A380 + A320/737"

You can probably tell my bias/preference.

Bigger Hubs or More destinations... which is the most sustainable?

SpongeG
Oct 23, 2009, 3:51 AM
in airline news...

Report: JAL will need $3.3 billion

Oct 23, 2009
A government task force working on a turnaround plan for Japan Airlines International Co. Ltd. will reportedly seek ¥300 billion ($3.3 billion) in new capital for the troubled airline from public and private sources.

The amount, which the Nikkei business daily reported Wednesday, is double the ¥150 billion previously mentioned in JAL restructuring discussions. The airline also seeks to erase nearly half of its ¥600 billion in debt by convincing a skeptical group of lenders to waive loans or trade debt for equity.

Source: thedeal.com

http://www.eturbonews.com/12399/report-jal-will-need-33-billion

Hourglass
Oct 23, 2009, 6:10 AM
Or question why they need to keep expanding. The terminal is hardly overtaxed with flights. Its become a self-perpetuating construction project.

As to it being only $15, surely every cent counts in our noble fight for competitiveness against Seattle. :P

Might I point out that you're being inconsistent? On one hand, you state that Air Canada is deserving of special protection as the home side because it is one of the biggest employers in the Lower Mainland. On the other hand, you question why YVR, another one of the biggest employers in the Lower Mainland, should continue to expand for the future (providing needed construction jobs). Eliminating the AIF won't make them more competitive. It'll result in higher landing fees for airlines, which would also result in LESS competitiveness vs Seattle...

You honestly think YVR has gold-plated expansion plans (Toronto *cough cough*)?

trofirhen
Oct 23, 2009, 7:25 AM
You honestly think YVR has gold-plated expansion plans (Toronto *cough cough*)?

Glory to The Great City on The Lake ........
.............................. (and guess who's paying for it, and in what way...)

excel
Oct 23, 2009, 8:42 AM
Anyone know what is being built beside UPS on the northlands? There are some pile drivers and diggers just east of the UPS cargo facility.

Gordon
Oct 23, 2009, 1:17 PM
I Think YVR has the the lowest landing fees of the major Canadian airports.

twoNeurons
Oct 23, 2009, 2:15 PM
I've posted a new topic on this YVR stranglehold issue in the Canada forum, fire away:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=174826

Wonder what would happen if you posted this in SSC's Toronto forum. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1504

It would be interesting to see the viewpoints from that forum.

Delirium
Oct 23, 2009, 4:20 PM
new art was recently installed at YVR. it was designed by the same artist who did the "device to root out evil" that was removed from coal harbour.

The circular form of “Arriving Home” suggests movement and mimics the rhythms of traveling. Both departure and arrival are crystallized in this metallic spiral by renown American artist Dennis Oppenheim. The sculpture stands as a greeting to travellers as they come and go.

Constructed out of steel and lexan acrylic, the spiralling iridescent multi-coloured form looks alive and as though it is about to spin and move through space.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3530/4034151653_a16b6cb1ff.jpg
photo by Vancouver Biennale on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/vancouverbiennale/sets/72157622639416892/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2771/4034907096_e7cee86def.jpg
photo by Vancouver Biennale on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/vancouverbiennale/sets/72157622639416892/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2445/4034153105_d7e304dd2e.jpg
photo by Vancouver Biennale on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/vancouverbiennale/sets/72157622639416892/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3518/4034152665_ef49b0a199_o.jpg
photo by Vancouver Biennale on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/vancouverbiennale/sets/72157622639416892/

wrenegade
Oct 23, 2009, 4:52 PM
I think that looks great. "The Device to Root out Evil" was my favourite from the last biennale, it's really a shame it's sitting in the Ramsey area of Calgary, probably mostly unnoticed.

mr.x
Oct 23, 2009, 5:47 PM
Wonder what would happen if you posted this in SSC's Toronto forum. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1504

It would be interesting to see the viewpoints from that forum.

I posted it in the Canada forum of SSC a few weeks ago, it was deleted by a Toronto mod.


Loving the new art at YVR!

Hed Kandi
Oct 23, 2009, 6:01 PM
:previous: :previous:

Great Art!

red-paladin
Oct 24, 2009, 7:59 AM
That is awesome!!!

I wasn't a fan of the device to root out evil since I'm religious and I wasn't sure what the message was supposed to be. But then I guess art is supposed to be thought provoking.

Johnny Aussie
Oct 26, 2009, 9:17 PM
This was posted in the milehighcustoms.com aviation forum yesterday.

"China Southern is going to start CAN-YVR in summer 2010."

Apparently the source of this rumour is:

"Local newspaper regarding Foreign Minister Braid's recent visit to China.

YVR-CAN supposed to start in July 2009 but was delayed due to downturn in economy."

Does anybody have any other information on this rumour?

Mr.Airport
Oct 27, 2009, 6:58 AM
Well I can't confirm if the rumor is true, but one of the other reasons why China Southern delayed YVR-CAN was because the 787 was delayed.
Now that the 787 is delayed even more, I'm surprised they're still interested in coming to Vancouver.
I guess they'll have to use another fleet.

SpongeG
Nov 1, 2009, 3:07 AM
from an article about lodging (http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Lodging+Games+gets+creative/2167766/story.html)

Canada's two major airlines said they have noticed a spike in interest for flights in and out of Vancouver during the Olympics.

WestJet spokesman Robert Palmer said the airline has received several requests for special charter flights to Vancouver during the Games and it plans to fly as many as it can, depending on the availability of aircraft.

Air Canada said it is closely monitoring demand and will add capacity to Vancouver when required. It will also introduce non-stop service from Vancouver to Frankfurt, Paris, Geneva and Zurich during the Games and will bring several hundred more employees to Vancouver during the Olympics to ensure it can handle the increased traffic.

Global Travel managing partner Scott Clute expects a lot of regular winter-season visitors to the Vancouver/Whistler region will travel instead to resorts like Sun Peaks or Big White during the Olympics.

He also said several Vancouver residents will leave town to avoid the Olympic hoopla and many will fly out of Seattle or Bellingham to escape the perceived congestion and security issues at Vancouver International Airport.

vansky
Nov 1, 2009, 3:14 AM
we need more public sculpture in this city...more stuff in front of malls

whatnext
Nov 4, 2009, 7:10 PM
Might I point out that you're being inconsistent? On one hand, you state that Air Canada is deserving of special protection as the home side because it is one of the biggest employers in the Lower Mainland. On the other hand, you question why YVR, another one of the biggest employers in the Lower Mainland, should continue to expand for the future (providing needed construction jobs). Eliminating the AIF won't make them more competitive. It'll result in higher landing fees for airlines, which would also result in LESS competitiveness vs Seattle...

You honestly think YVR has gold-plated expansion plans (Toronto *cough cough*)?

Not all . I'm not encouraging Air Canada to expand and buy more aircraft if there is no business case for it. With Vancouver's share of the cruise market shrinking, and nothing on the horizon to suggest a big jump in tourism, I don't see why YVR is in perpetual expansion mode either.

You're right, Pearson is also an expensive gold-plated edifice, worse in that regard than Vancouver. I don't why people think their airport needs to be some Cadillac showplace, they certainly don't feel the same way about bus stations.

eemy
Nov 5, 2009, 1:00 PM
Not all . I'm not encouraging Air Canada to expand and buy more aircraft if there is no business case for it. With Vancouver's share of the cruise market shrinking, and nothing on the horizon to suggest a big jump in tourism, I don't see why YVR is in perpetual expansion mode either.

You're right, Pearson is also an expensive gold-plated edifice, worse in that regard than Vancouver. I don't why people think their airport needs to be some Cadillac showplace, they certainly don't feel the same way about bus stations.

Poor people use bus stations.

MalcolmTucker
Nov 5, 2009, 1:05 PM
& Bus users are very sensitive to price, if you build a nice station and try to raise your prices to pay for it, a competitor can drive you out of the market pretty fast.

twoNeurons
Nov 5, 2009, 3:50 PM
Not all . I'm not encouraging Air Canada to expand and buy more aircraft if there is no business case for it. With Vancouver's share of the cruise market shrinking, and nothing on the horizon to suggest a big jump in tourism, I don't see why YVR is in perpetual expansion mode either.


I don't think Vancouver YVR was expanding for the cruise ship industry. They wanted to become the gateway to Asia. Something similar to San Francisco/LA, but for Canada.

IN actual fact, they do have that opportunity, but unfortunately, seem to hamstrung by politics.

Interestingly, the flight from SFO to Tokyo is 11 hours long. We beat that by 9 hours! If we became a substantial sized hub and people could save a couple of hours, why not?

Cathay Pacific uses YVR to act as a stopping point between NYC and Hong Kong. If Air Canada added more planes through YVR, and added routes, it could become the hub to Asia for much of North America. SF takes 11/12 hours to get to Tokyo. 14/15 hours to get to Hong Kong. Vancouver takes a few hours off both of those times. Many would opt for a shorter flight across the Pacific if they have to transfer anyhow.

How would it do this? Well, one way is hubbing most Canadian traffic through YVR to establish routes, and then reinstating the Eastern Canada <-> Asia direct routes once the YVR traffic has picked up US traffic.

This is part of the impetus in YVR being such a US friendly airport. I fear, however, with Seattle ramping up its international flights, YVR is losing its chance to be a North American hub for Asia.

For a list of places YVR serves ( Direct and non-direct ):
http://flightmapper.net/flights/Vancouver_YVR.html

MalcolmTucker
Nov 5, 2009, 3:53 PM
^ So Air Canada should cut services elsewhere to service Vancouver more? I guess you wouldn't mind hubbing through Toronto to get to London, :)

twoNeurons
Nov 5, 2009, 4:29 PM
^ So Air Canada should cut services elsewhere to service Vancouver more? I guess you wouldn't mind hubbing through Toronto to get to London, :)

Doesn't Toronto serve in that capacity now?

I'm not talking about cutting flights, but consideration should be made to YVR first when increasing capacity along a route or adding a new route. I think the latter does happen naturally anyhow. If we made YVR an attractive hub, the whole country benefits. People aren't going to hub through YYZ when it means going back on themselves. It's not all AC as well. Open skies deals are crucial to success as well.

London is a major hub for Europe and warrants direct flights. Just as Hong Kong does. However, Toronto is already a hub for Europe and London now. There are many flights that go through Toronto from YVR. I believe there are 12x daily flights to LHR. YVR has 3x? This makes sense due to YYZ's location. (EDIT: Correction. YYZ has 4x daily flights to London. YVR has 3x. (as of 2006) source (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2612502/) )
I doubt the Asian side of the equation is similarly skewed in YVR's favor.

MOST of the smaller European destinations ARE hubbed through Toronto. The idea for YVR was to become a hub for the REST of Asia. Increasing the number of flights and destinations for YVR makes the airport more convenient for connections. As it stands now, the traffic is split between the airports. I don't expect to go direct to many European places.

Hubbing all LONDON traffic through Toronto wouldn't really do much. YYZ isn't going to attract much US traffic when NYC and Chicago are far more attractive hubs.

Asia's different, as YVR's position actually makes it an attractive location. It's the shortest flight across the Pacific. It also goes both ways. We also need to improve our US connections when possible. That opens up the US market to Asia as well.

Many Asians going to US locations not directly served by their city could go through YVR as well.

trofirhen
Nov 5, 2009, 6:38 PM
[QUOTE=twoNeurons;4542333]Doesn't Toronto serve in that capacity now?
Asia's different, as YVR's position actually makes it an attractive location. It's the shortest flight across the Pacific. It also goes both ways. We also need to improve our US connections when possible. QUOTE]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Toronto ALREADY has nonstop flights to Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo, Beijing, and Seoul, all served by Air Canada. It also has (or had) a flight to Bangkok on Thai Airways through Seattle. And they are planning flights YYZ to New Zealand, as well, stopping at Los Angeles.

Get off this notion that YVR is the exclusive gateway to the Pacific for Toronto; it isn't. We need Toronto for Europe more than they need us for the Pacific.

Wake up and smell the coffee, everybody ! ! ! :hell:

whatnext
Nov 5, 2009, 7:46 PM
it isn't.[/B] We need Toronto for Europe more than they need us for the Pacific.

Wake up and smell the coffee, everybody ! ! ! :hell:

Why is this a problem for you? Greater Toronto has a population double that of Vancouver, plus it draws from the rest of ON. It only makes sense they have some direct flights to Asia, as YVR has some direct flights to Europe.

Why should residents of Seattle want to connect through YVR to get to Asia or Europe, when again they have a larger population and would have to connect in a foreign country (Canada)? Plus SEA can draw international-bound travellers from PDX.

twoNeurons
Nov 5, 2009, 8:04 PM
Why is this a problem for you? Greater Toronto has a population double that of Vancouver, plus it draws from the rest of ON. It only makes sense they have some direct flights to Asia, as YVR has some direct flights to Europe.
Yep, I agree. YVR is not the hub for YYZ... it's not in the right place for it. It can, however, be the hub for smaller US cities ( as well as West of Toronto ). To do this, it has to be convenient from these locations.


Why should residents of Seattle want to connect through YVR to get to Asia, when again they have a larger population and would have to connect in a foreign country (Canada)? Plus SEA can draw Asia-bound travellers from PDX.

I think it's more about the connecting flights to US destinations. Seattle can draw from a lot more US destinations which definitely gives it an edge.

Going through YVR isn't much of a hassle for Americans... they don't go through Canadian customs, it's like a domestic flight.

I wonder if Delta is starting SEA-KIX(Osaka) for example, because AC dropped it. Air Canada used to serve KIX with SEA and YVR pax. Incidentally, it was always cheaper out of SeaTac... go figure.

trofirhen
Nov 5, 2009, 8:35 PM
[QUOTE=whatnext;4542692]Why is this a problem for you? Greater Toronto has a population double that of Vancouver, plus it draws from the rest of ON. It only makes sense they have some direct flights to Asia, as YVR has some direct flights to Europe.QUOTE]

This is NOT a problem for me, as such. I simply wanted to point out to all the people who THINK that YVR is the Asia-Pacific jumping off point for YYZ
(and as such, a hub), that, in fact, it is not. YYZ has numerous nonstops to Asia that bypass Vancouver - and rightly so, given its size - and that Vancouver is not THE GREAT ASIA-PACIFIC HUB that it likes to think it is, that's all. In fact, this is really directed more towards people in Vancouver who think that we are THE pivotal Asia-Pacific city. (More delusions of grandeur, Vancouver-style)

whatnext
Nov 6, 2009, 4:06 PM
[QUOTE=whatnext;4542692]Why is this a problem for you? Greater Toronto has a population double that of Vancouver, plus it draws from the rest of ON. It only makes sense they have some direct flights to Asia, as YVR has some direct flights to Europe.QUOTE]

This is NOT a problem for me, as such. I simply wanted to point out to all the people who THINK that YVR is the Asia-Pacific jumping off point for YYZ
(and as such, a hub), that, in fact, it is not. YYZ has numerous nonstops to Asia that bypass Vancouver - and rightly so, given its size - and that Vancouver is not THE GREAT ASIA-PACIFIC HUB that it likes to think it is, that's all. In fact, this is really directed more towards people in Vancouver who think that we are THE pivotal Asia-Pacific city. (More delusions of grandeur, Vancouver-style)

Ahh, I see.

I see JAL is cutting the NRT-YVR-MEX flight as part of their reorg. :(

Yume-sama
Nov 6, 2009, 6:24 PM
Ahh, I see.

I see JAL is cutting the NRT-YVR-MEX flight as part of their reorg. :(

They will be flying once daily, as is the case now. They will not be flying twice daily two days a week, as they were before. So yes, they are cutting two flights per week.

They are also closing their Mexico office.

Yume-sama
Nov 6, 2009, 6:27 PM
:P OK, I just re-read the press release. The flights will remain exactly the same.

They are taking away two flights that go to Mexico City, but adding two flights that just go to Vancouver.

So, -2 +2 = no gain or loss.

Vancouver is the ONLY increase in service they will be doing out of every city in the World :)

Surprisingly they will be keeping us on the 747, even though they downgraded a lot of China flights from 777 or 767 to 737!

trofirhen
Nov 8, 2009, 1:02 AM
[QUOTE=trofirhen;4542797]

Ahh, I see.

I see JAL is cutting the NRT-YVR-MEX flight as part of their reorg. :(

They will be flying once daily, as is the case now. They will not be flying twice daily two days a week, as they were before. So yes, they are cutting two flights per week.

They are also closing their Mexico office.

It's a good thing we have Mexicana! BTW, some years back, federal interfering sent Mexicana packing off to Seattle as well, and we lost it. It's nice to see it back. Seattle has Aeromexico instead.

Hot Rod
Nov 8, 2009, 1:04 AM
Speaking as a Seattle resident, it was cheaper for me to fly to China from Vancouver than Seattle. I fly out of Vancouver because it has more options and is always WAY cheaper (well, every time I've flown).

also, most international flights from Seattle to Asia connect through SFO, LAX, or YVR.

So, I think you all can drop this notion that Seattle is more of an Asian gateway than YVR. Oh, and Portland people are not flocking to Seattle for International flights - Portland has almost as many flights to Asia as Seattle does (in fact, Northwest/Delta has SEA and PDX sharing the NRT route).

Off top of my head, SEA has flights to Seoul (Asiana and Korean), NRT (United and Northwest/Delta), PEK (Hainan, not sure this will last), TPE (EVA [China Air dropped SEA to cargo only]). IIRC, that's only 4 cities in Asia. I'm not so sure SEA has as many flights to Europe either.

PDX has Lufthansa (as does YVR), SEA does not. SEA's strength is US market, as it is the primary US hub for Alaska Airlines and is a focus city for most of the US Airlines.

So, it is a mixed bag; I think YVR is still in the best position in the Pac NW to be the international hub. Doesn't YVR have nonstops to Seoul (Korean and AC, Asiana wants in soon), NRT (Japan Airlines, AC), Manila (PAL), TPE (China Air and EVA), HKG (Cathay and AC), PEK (Air China and AC), PVG (China Eastern and AC), Sydney (AC, what happened to Qantas?), AUK (Air New Zealand), Thai Air?, CAN (China Southern - July 2010, was to be now but delayed due to 787). Also, isn't YVR the 2nd largest International hub on the west coast (after LAX)?

[I know some of you argue that only flights off the continent are International, but in Seattle (and SFO/LAX) USA in general - we count flights to Canada as International. ... so, so should YVR; hence being a larger Int'l hub than SFO]

It is a shame that the Osaka route was eliminated and no other airline has picked it up yet, but think I read somewhere ANA wants to do the KIX-YVR route but is waiting for? yes - the 787. I suspect many other routes will become available once that airplane comes online.

Why is it so hard for Canadians to realize that SEA flights to US cities would be cheaper than YVR flights to said US cities???

However, I am surprised that flights from Seattle to many Canadian cities are cheaper than YVR to said cities. Who the hell is running your air service system???

Oh well, my fiance lives in China (for the next 6 months) so I will continue to use YVR for flights to Chengdu, Sichuan due to the convenience (only change planes in PEK), time (only 15 hours TOTAL), and price (usually around $800 CAD).

Political_R
Nov 8, 2009, 6:18 AM
.

PDX has Lufthansa (as does YVR), SEA does not.
.

Incorrect, SEA does have one daily flight to Frankfurt.

trofirhen
Nov 8, 2009, 12:07 PM
Incorrect, SEA does have one daily flight to Frankfurt.

Yes, plus a daily Air France flight to Paris, which Vancouver does not have.

And a daily nonstop to Copenhagen, which Vancouver does not have.
Plus Amsterdam.
Plus London.

Seattle is better-connected to Europe than Vancouver, and catching up fast to Asia.

:jester: The joke's on you, Vancouver. hah!!

Gordon
Nov 8, 2009, 3:37 PM
One thing Seattle has that YVR doesn't have is a major is a major airline's hub ( Alaska 6th - 8th largest in the U.S)

Will AC keep it's YVR Sydney flight if the get YYZ to sydney. The current flight starts & Terminates in T0. A 777 can fly nonstop YYZ to Sydney

I wonder if there are any taxes that Victoria could reduce to make YVR a more appealing destination especially for low cost carriers.

As far as expansion goes the long term planning process must continue, but at this point we are running at 100% all afternoon for example.As of Jan 15 Westjet will start flying 4 times weekly to Lax & 3 times Weekly to Phx from yvr

trofirhen
Nov 8, 2009, 7:58 PM
One thing Seattle has that YVR doesn't have is a major is a major airline's hub ( Alaska 6th - 8th largest in the U.S)

Will AC keep it's YVR Sydney flight if the get YYZ to sydney. The current flight starts & Terminates in T0. A 777 can fly nonstop YYZ to Sydney

I wonder if there are any taxes that Victoria could reduce to make YVR a more appealing destination especially for low cost carriers.

As far as expansion goes the long term planning process must continue, but at this point we are running at 100% all afternoon for example.As of Jan 15 Westjet will start flying 4 times weekly to Lax & 3 times Weekly to Phx from yvr

I read somewhere (Wikipedia, as I recall) that the Australian airline Jetstar will start a YVR - Sydney nonstop once it purchases its 787s. (won't that be nice)?

As far as Westjet flying 4x a week to LA and 3x a week to PDX, this is not an excessively heavy volume, and I think the airpport can accomodate it with no trouble. Three times PER DAY would be another story ! !

Also, it's a winter seasonal thing, so there should be little problem from the USA terminal

Gordon
Nov 8, 2009, 10:31 PM
To me the most logical West Coast destination for Wes Jet from YVR is The Bay area (SFO).

Does Alaska have the right of first refusal on the slots that it gave up a year or so ago, or if say West Jet applies to the authorities can they take those slots .

Seeing as YVR is the only major airport that has a major competing U.S. airport 120 miles away, the Federal goverment needs to do something legislatively to to allow us to become more competitive.

zahav
Nov 8, 2009, 11:09 PM
i thought SAS dropped its Copenhagen service from Seattle?

ravman
Nov 9, 2009, 12:04 AM
Coming Soon: The new www.yvr.ca
[Last updated on 11/6/2009 at 3:29:29 PM]


Vancouver Airport Authority is about to launch a new and enhanced website next week.

Our customers, community members, business partners and employees provided us with valuable feedback. We've listened to those suggestions and worked to create a more user-friendly site, and one that is reflective of our airport.

As an official sponsor of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, we're excited to offer an improved online and interactive gateway as we welcome the world to our airport and to our city. Please visit again soon to check out the new www.yvr.ca.

http://yvr.ca/latestinfo/index.asp?id=574

deasine
Nov 9, 2009, 12:32 AM
Glad to see that the site being changed in time for the Olympics. They were supposed to have it done way earlier but obviously, they didn't release it.

trofirhen
Nov 9, 2009, 7:59 AM
i thought SAS dropped its Copenhagen service from Seattle?

It is being replaced. By Delta, I think.

trofirhen
Nov 9, 2009, 8:13 AM
To me the most logical West Coast destination for Wes Jet from YVR is The Bay area (SFO).

Does Alaska have the right of first refusal on the slots that it gave up a year or so ago, or if say West Jet applies to the authorities can they take those slots .

Seeing as YVR is the only major airport that has a major competing U.S. airport 120 miles away, the Federal goverment needs to do something legislatively to to allow us to become more competitive.

Hah! Go tell that to the feds. They could care less. Now if it were Toronto ... it WOULD be another story.

twoNeurons
Nov 9, 2009, 9:09 AM
It is a shame that the Osaka route was eliminated and no other airline has picked it up yet, but think I read somewhere ANA wants to do the KIX-YVR route but is waiting for? yes - the 787. I suspect many other routes will become available once that airplane comes online.


Now THAT would be AWESOME! I'd LOVE to fly ANA to Osaka on ANA metal... and ANA is the first to get the 787...

::crosses fingers::

Taj Mahal Traveller
Nov 11, 2009, 4:03 PM
I've been following the discusssion concerning air service from YVR to Japan/Asia with some interest. I appreciate everyone's contributions keeping this topic up-to-date. I flew to Japan for the very first time recently, about one year after AC canned the direct Osaka route. The flight attendants went through the cabin asking each passenger if they were terminating at Narita or continuing onwards and to where. Guess what the most popular answer was? Continuing on to the Kansai region. Now, I know the front half of an economy cabin section to Tokyo does not represent the majority of travellers to Japan, but even I was surprised by how many folks were heading to Western Japan.

After a 10 1/2 hour flight, I took a night bus to Kyoto. Fun, fun, fun.
I took the Nozomi to Tokyo station on the way back (what a train). Still a big pain, and an extra expense. Was Kyoto worth it? Absolutely. Would I desert AC for any airline offering a non-stop to KIX from YVR? In a heartbeat.

Anyone have an update on non-stop service to Osaka "during the Olympics", or is that another pipe dream?

Yume-sama
Nov 11, 2009, 6:22 PM
I would guess that a good percentage of the flyers on the AC jet may be headed to the Kansai region, because the flight is a codeshare with ANA.

Thus, people could have booked this flight on the ANA website, or through ANA.

Obviously if they did this they could catch a connecting ANA flight from Narita or Haneda to Osaka.

Which could be why they canceled the route altogether, it's better to give up a landing spot at KIX than NRT, which is booked 24 hours a day!

Taj Mahal Traveller
Nov 11, 2009, 11:38 PM
Sorry to go off topic, but how can I stop parts of my post from being underlined and turning into random links? Very annoying!

Taj Mahal Traveller
Nov 11, 2009, 11:44 PM
Oops, I think I just found out for myself...

Yume-sama, I'm sure you are right - Narita is the most desireable place to land in Japan, no doubt. JAL also offers a YVR-NRT-KIX option which is well-priced and timed, I just hate short plane rides on smaller jets (I get super sick, for some reason).

Anyways, I think I have a serious addiction for Japan (esp. Kansai) after my first trip, which probably explains my need to get there faster, faster....;)

Yume-sama
Nov 11, 2009, 11:51 PM
:P Kansai area is nice, but I can barely understand their dialect. It is much different from Tokyo.

And it is funny how they do everything the opposite, on purpose, of Tokyo. Such as standing on the left instead or right...

:haha: And in Kyoto there are no rules, because it is an even mix of people from Kansai and Tokyo, so nobody knows what to do.

Taj Mahal Traveller
Nov 12, 2009, 12:52 AM
Yume-sama: You're so right. There seems to be this charming anarchy to Kyoto. Bikes are a great example - is that person heading towards me gonna lean right or left? Usually left, but you never know until the last second. And notice how there are a million signs saying "bicycles forbidden" with just as many bikes parked under them? Kyoto people are supposed to be snobs, but I found them to be charming and friendly. Maybe I'm a snob, too! Can't wait to depart from YVR this coming Feb. to visit again (lame attempt make this post have ST to do with discussing YVR).

trofirhen
Nov 12, 2009, 12:55 PM
While you are all discussing destinations in Japan (and it is a fascinating country, I must say) please dont forget this. Click on the link, and you'll get the perspective. Thank you.

Gordon
Nov 12, 2009, 6:16 PM
The new yvr.ca is up & running & it's pretty good

zahav
Nov 13, 2009, 7:25 AM
yah it is much, much better than the old site! much mire professional and current look and features.

Air canada is introducing some mainline jet service to Victoria, Kelowna, and Whitehorse this winter (used to be only operated by Jazz). there is surprisingly a lot of demand for some of these regional destinations.. Kelowna is getting 4x daily Westjet this winter, and AC is doing 2x daily mainline jet service, and 4x daily on Jazz.. pretty decent growth on this route!

Mr.Airport
Nov 15, 2009, 8:49 AM
Seattle is not the only airport that is competing with YVR.
Bellingham is also a major player.
A roundtrip flight from YVR to Las Vegas is generally 300-500 dollars.
but if one was to drive (just ~45 minutes away from downtown Vancouver) to bellingham, you can fly to Vegas round trip for ~ 150-300 dollars.

Other cities served in bellingham are LA, San Diego, Phoenix, San Fran and palm springs.

As a Canadian, i would like to use Canadian airlines and fly from Canadian airports, but unless the Government does something about its "US Transportation tax" I'm gonna how to take my business elsewhere.

trofirhen
Nov 15, 2009, 2:53 PM
Seattle is not the only airport that is competing with YVR.
Bellingham is also a major player.
A roundtrip flight from YVR to Las Vegas is generally 300-500 dollars.
but if one was to drive (just ~45 minutes away from downtown Vancouver) to bellingham, you can fly to Vegas round trip for ~ 150-300 dollars.

Other cities served in bellingham are LA, San Diego, Phoenix, San Fran and palm springs.

As a Canadian, i would like to use Canadian airlines and fly from Canadian airports, but unless the Government does something about its "US Transportation tax" I'm gonna how to take my business elsewhere.

Can't blame you, either!! The enraging thing that, as this is Vancouver and not Toronto or Montreal, the federal government doesn't really care a whole lot; their voting base is back east, and that's who they cater to.

bar1967
Nov 16, 2009, 6:25 PM
Can't blame you, either!! The enraging thing that, as this is Vancouver and not Toronto or Montreal, the federal government doesn't really care a whole lot; their voting base is back east, and that's who they cater to.

I've been reading through this thread and have a question regarding the comment above as well as similar ones. I do not understand why and how the feds would prefer to grant airlines access to Toronto/Montreal over lets say YVR. Isn't it all just economics? Additionaly how do you create a link between Airline access and a voter base? I never hear of any Federal Govermnent promises regarding access in an attempt to sway votes.

Rusty Gull
Nov 16, 2009, 7:03 PM
It's all about jobs and regional favoritism.

The feds will continue to plow money into Montreal and Toronto airports, and the way to do is through propping up certain routes and engaging in monopolistic behaviours.

The free market, as you implied, is not in play in Canada's airline industry. Why do you think our airfares are twice the price of same-distance routes in the US?

trofirhen
Nov 16, 2009, 7:09 PM
I've been reading through this thread and have a question regarding the comment above as well as similar ones. I do not understand why and how the feds would prefer to grant airlines access to Toronto/Montreal over lets say YVR. Isn't it all just economics? Additionaly how do you create a link between Airline access and a voter base? I never hear of any Federal Govermnent promises regarding access in an attempt to sway votes.

They don't grant airline access to sway votes. They are simply catering to the larger population base that exists in Tonronto/ Montreal. More people means a larger number of seats in Parliament, and that's what determines who gets elected - and who gets the jobs in Ottawa.

The current Transport Minister, John Baird, has done nothing, and expressed no interest, in increasing destinations out of either Vancouver OR Calgary. His predecessor, Lawrence Cannon, similarly never once addressed the needs of YVR, despite the fact that neighbouring SEA-TAC is ramping up, and poses a genuine economic threat to YVR.* (as does much smaller Bellingham) !!

Why the lack of interest? The votes are back east, and the MPs' jobs are based who wins the elections. And that is decided - you got it - Back East.

All you need to do is look at history a little bit and this becomes apparent. That white elephant - and financial disaster - Mirabel Airport, was a "cadeau" to Québec to keep them happy at a precarious time in Canada's history.

Now, with the spread of the reform Party, and the manifestation of the Bloc Qébecois, it's Ontario's turn to be kept happy, and that includes a sleek, monstrously huge, and VERY EXPENSIVE new airport, designed to be the pivot point for flights in and out of Canada.

You want to fly somewhere? "Change in Toronto!"

MalcolmTucker
Nov 16, 2009, 7:09 PM
It's all about jobs and regional favoritism.

The feds will continue to plow money into Montreal and Toronto airports, and the way to do is through propping up certain routes and engaging in monopolistic behaviours.

The free market, as you implied, is not in play in Canada's airline industry. Why do you think our airfares are twice the price of same-distance routes in the US?

No airports get money from the feds. There is no institutionalized favoritism except bilaterals.

trofirhen
Nov 16, 2009, 7:11 PM
It's all about jobs and regional favoritism.

The feds will continue to plow money into Montreal and Toronto airports, and the way to do is through propping up certain routes and engaging in monopolistic behaviours.

The free market, as you implied, is not in play in Canada's airline industry. Why do you think our airfares are twice the price of same-distance routes in the US?

Thanks Rusty!! You just said in several terse sentences what it took me a paragraph and a half to do. You got it. Right on. Exactly!!

trofirhen
Nov 16, 2009, 11:04 PM
No airports get money from the feds. There is no institutionalized favoritism except bilaterals.

could you give me, underinformed on this suject, several examples of bilaterals? I need to have it defined, listed out, and explained with examples. Sorry to be so over-present on this page. Thanks for understading.:)

MalcolmTucker
Nov 16, 2009, 11:39 PM
could you give me, underinformed on this suject, several examples of bilaterals? I need to have it defined, listed out, and explained with examples. Sorry to be so over-present on this page. Thanks for understading.:)

They're are all here: Bilateral Air Agreements and Designated Air Carriers (http://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/doc.php?did=111&lang=eng#2)

Basically they are a mini-treaty, usually established by diplomatic note (or in some cases like Open Skies a full treaty) between Canada and another country governing how much capacity, and what routes they should be allowed on.

For example, the treaty with the Netherlands (http://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/doc.php?did=161&lang=eng) allows Dutch flights to Calgary and Vancouver but not Edmonton.

bar1967
Nov 17, 2009, 1:49 PM
They don't grant airline access to sway votes. They are simply catering to the larger population base that exists in Tonronto/ Montreal. More people means a larger number of seats in Parliament, and that's what determines who gets elected - and who gets the jobs in Ottawa.

The current Transport Minister, John Baird, has done nothing, and expressed no interest, in increasing destinations out of either Vancouver OR Calgary. His predecessor, Lawrence Cannon, similarly never once addressed the needs of YVR, despite the fact that neighbouring SEA-TAC is ramping up, and poses a genuine economic threat to YVR.* (as does much smaller Bellingham) !!

Why the lack of interest? The votes are back east, and the MPs' jobs are based who wins the elections. And that is decided - you got it - Back East.

All you need to do is look at history a little bit and this becomes apparent. That white elephant - and financial disaster - Mirabel Airport, was a "cadeau" to Québec to keep them happy at a precarious time in Canada's history.

Now, with the spread of the reform Party, and the manifestation of the Bloc Qébecois, it's Ontario's turn to be kept happy, and that includes a sleek, monstrously huge, and VERY EXPENSIVE new airport, designed to be the pivot point for flights in and out of Canada.

You want to fly somewhere? "Change in Toronto!"

I honestly think your grasping at strings here a bit and maybe layering on other personal dislikes for the East. John Baird is not touring the 'East' promising more routes for YYZ/YUL. Yes, I am sure there are backroom deals that go on - that's politics and I'm sure it happens in BC as well. In order to get ‘said’ votes, do promises not have to be made to voters to entice them to vote?

YYZ was not built with Federal or Provincial dollars. Where did you get that one from? It is private.

I now have to fly through YVR to get to Hawaii/Sydney whereas I used to go direct from YYZ. It's all economics. More people from the West go to Hawaii than from the East due to proximity. Reverse is true for the Caribbean and the East.

Rusty Gull
Nov 17, 2009, 8:00 PM
^ Why are all of the Toronto/YYZ defenders flocking to this forum to defend the federal government's aviation policy?

Anyways, here's the latest from Business in Vancouver on this issue. Apparently the feds are peeved about the bad press they received from the recent open skies summit in Vancouver.

Transport Canada defends Blue Sky policy

Federal government responds to calls for greater foreign airline access in Western Canada

Andrew Petrozzi

Canada’s Blue Sky policy is designed to yield “sustainable benefits” to the country as a whole and does not favour one region over another.

So says Transport Canada in response to a BIV cover story on calls at a recent summit to negotiate “open-skies” deals for Western Canada with Asian and Middle Eastern states.

In a wide-ranging response to “Open skies advocated for B.C.” (issue 1041, October 6-12), the federal government offered its perspective on its oft-maligned Blue Sky policy. Transport Canada had failed to respond by press time to requests for comment for the previous story.

According to Transport Canada, the Blue Sky policy, which was introduced in 2006 to negotiate agreements that give more airlines greater access to Canada’s airports, doesn’t discriminate in favour of one carrier over another.
Critics have charged that Ottawa is attempting to preserve Air Canada’s monopoly in some international markets. But Transport Canada pointed out that several Canadian carriers operate international scheduled air services under Canada’s bilateral air-service agreements.

Negotiations are sought to secure necessary bilateral rights to accommodate Canadian interests, according to Transport Canada.
“In some bilateral markets, Air Canada is the only Canadian carrier operating service because [it is] the only one with an interest and/or capability.”
Transport Canada also addressed calls by Emirates Airlines for improved access to Canadian airports.

Andrew Parker, Emirates Airlines’ senior vice-president, previously told BIV that his airline has been seeking “reasonable access” to Canada since the late 1990s. It’s still restricted to three flights per week to Toronto. The airline also wants permission to fly to Vancouver and Calgary.

But Transport Canada said the Canada-UAE air agreement allows UAE carriers to provide service to any city in Canada.

“Both Emirates and Ethiad have chosen to operate their entire service from Toronto instead of splitting it up among other Canadian cities.”
Transport Canada said the Blue Sky policy and bilateral air agreements are not hindering tourism.

“There is excess capacity in many of Canada’s bilateral agreements and this is supplemented by Canada’s liberal charter air-service regime, which is particularly well-suited for inbound tourism.”

The Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia (COTA BC) disagrees. The matter is highlighted in its 2008 federal tourism issues booklet.
According to Transport Canada, the federal Blue Sky policy is pro-economy and pro-consumer in so far as it accommodates the overall national interest.

“Unique business models chosen by foreign airlines should not be the determining factor for air-transportation policy decisions by the Canadian government.”

According to Transport Canada, Canada has 87 bilateral air-service agreements and two extra-bilateral air- service arrangements.

“Under the Blue Sky policy, Canada has ‘open’ agreements with 34 of these countries representing 71% of Canada’s international air traffic including the U.S., 27 E.U. states, Iceland, New Zealand, Barbados, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica and South Korea.”

The Canada-EU Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement was announced in December 2008.
According to a Transport Canada spokesman, the agreement, which is scheduled to be finalized by year’s end, equates to 27 open bilateral agreements.

While it claims that none of the bilateral agreements prevent either Canadian or foreign carriers from servicing Western Canada, Transport Canada conceded that there are exceptions.

For example, 32 of the pending bilateral agreements restrict access in Western Canada, but Transport Canada pointed out that nine are superseded by the Canada-E.U. air-transport agreement, which provides access to all Canadian cities.

Transport Canada said the remaining 23 agreements are outdated and the bilateral partner involved either doesn’t have an airline suitable to serve Canada or is not interested in serving Western Canada. •

apetrozzi@biv.com

Rusty Gull
Nov 17, 2009, 8:17 PM
bar1967 and other YYZ cheerleaders: Please read this article from Business in Vancouver published earlier this fall:

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. •

MalcolmTucker
Nov 17, 2009, 8:27 PM
bar1967 and other YYZ cheerleaders: Please read the various articles devoted to this topic earlier this fall.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=174826

Whenever the Open Skies With Europe is finalized and given an implementation date, Air France can try to start service to Vancouver. There is little point at doing a new bilateral when Open Skies was already announced, which was May 6th.

As for Emirates, until they allow fifth freedom unlimited access through Dubai, since there is very little Origin and Destination between Canada and Dubai, they [UAE] will not have access to more than 6 flights a week into Canada. Especially when there is more than enough capacity available.

trofirhen
Nov 17, 2009, 9:41 PM
Related to all this, if this link conncets, try it. It illustrates the Canadian preference for restriction instead of more aviation market freedom.
Canada did not attend, nor is a signatory to this. But the article explains it better...........

http://www.aviation.ca/content/view/8191/117/

Davel
Nov 17, 2009, 9:59 PM
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.

Didn't Singapore Airlines, within the last year, cut back service to Vancouver?
On a slightly different topic, I would love to see air travel between Canada and the US less regulated in order to make discount air travel more probable e.g. Easyjet and Ryan Air in Europe. I would love to see that business model successfully established locally.

MalcolmTucker
Nov 17, 2009, 10:14 PM
^ With airports and navigation required to be self financing in Canada, and most flights in Europe being international and therefor having access to untaxed jet-a (to my knowledge), there is a big difference in base costs that removes the advantages of an Easy Jet model.

trofirhen
Nov 17, 2009, 11:44 PM
Didn't Singapore Airlines, within the last year, cut back service to Vancouver?
On a slightly different topic, I would love to see air travel between Canada and the US less regulated in order to make discount air travel more probable e.g. Easyjet and Ryan Air in Europe. I would love to see that business model successfully established locally.

What about the North American market? You mention Easy Jet and Ryan Air in Europe. What about airline pair or group competion and co-operation in the Canada-USA Market.

I can see an alliance of some sort betweenWestjet and Southwest Airlines.
But what about eastern Markets?

If you're willing to come up with some ideas I'm very interested. :banana:

whatnext
Nov 18, 2009, 12:02 AM
Didn't Singapore Airlines, within the last year, cut back service to Vancouver?
On a slightly different topic, I would love to see air travel between Canada and the US less regulated in order to make discount air travel more probable e.g. Easyjet and Ryan Air in Europe. I would love to see that business model successfully established locally.

Singapore cut service between Singapore-KOREA-Vancouver. They could not make a go of it without siphoning off travellers from an intermediate market. There is little (read almost none) demand between Singapore and Vancouver.

There is no regulation prohibiting any US carrier starting service between the USA and Canada. Its totally Open Skies. The fact that Allegiant, Southwest, Jetblue, Virigin America etc haven't started service should tell you something. Despite all the Air Canada-bashing here, it was Air Canada that grabbed the opportunity to serve Canada-US markets and ran with it. Hate to burst folks anti-East bubble.

trofirhen
Nov 18, 2009, 12:12 AM
Singapore cut service between Singapore-KOREA-Vancouver. They could not make a go of it without siphoning off travellers from an intermediate market. There is little (read almost none) demand between Singapore and Vancouver.

There is no regulation prohibiting any US carrier starting service between the USA and Canada. Its totally Open Skies. The fact that Allegiant, Southwest, Jetblue, Virigin America etc haven't started service should tell you something. Despite all the Air Canada-bashing here, it was Air Canada that grabbed the opportunity to serve Canada-US markets and ran with it. Hate to burst folks anti-East bubble.

Yes, but is THIS AC bashing? There isn't a word against Air Canada, or the evil east, just an interest in easier transborder flights and airline alliance possibilities.

However:
The fact that the four mentioned carriers do not serve YVR seems to indicate we are not yet a large enough market to call any shots.

bar1967
Nov 18, 2009, 12:17 AM
^ Why are all of the Toronto/YYZ defenders flocking to this forum to defend the federal government's aviation policy?
bar1967 and other YYZ cheerleaders: Please read this article from Business in Vancouver published earlier this fall:


Honestly, I am not defending anyone - Feds or otherwise. Nor am I here cheerleading YYZ. I was trying to get a better understanding of how the system works but have seemingly stumbled on to something a bit larger than I'm willing to get into here.

My original question was a very simple one. I do not understand how parliament seats/votes could influence why the Feds would prefer to grant YYZ/YUL, etc, etc access to more airlines. That's it.

For what it's worth, thanks for the articles though. It did help shed some light on what is going on.

Related to all this, if this link conncets, try it. It illustrates the Canadian preference for restriction instead of more aviation market freedom.
Canada did not attend, nor is a signatory to this. But the article explains it better...........

http://www.aviation.ca/content/view/8191/117/

Thanks, that was very insightful.

deasine
Nov 18, 2009, 2:18 AM
Shifting gears here...


YVR ready for winter blast and Olympic crush: officials

Updated: Tue Nov. 17 2009 17:29:14

The Vancouver International Airport unveiled a plan Tuesday to show that it's ready to handle a major snow storm and the expected crush of visitors during the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games.
Last winter, record snowfall crippled YVR, causing chaos and delays for thousands of travellers. One night, 225 centimetres of snow fell, and the airport simply didn't have the equipment to cope.
Airport officials say they have spent $30 million on aircraft de-icing systems and snow plows and are ready for anything that Mother Nature brings.
"You will not see wholesale flight cancellations," Brett Patterson, manager of airside operations, told reporters Tuesday. "What you'll see is aircraft moving through with minor delays. Passengers will get in and out of there. They're going to get home for the holidays."
The airport - not the airlines - will now handle all aircraft de-icing. That should mean shorter delays, officials said.
"The airport authority believes we've done everything we need to handle the winter conditions that are possible for Vancouver," said Don Ehrenholz, YVR's vice president of air operations.
Officials said they are also ready to deal with the onslaught of Olympic visitors.
In February, the airport will see almost 300 additional flights.
And on March 1, the day after closing ceremonies, a record 39,000 people are expected to fly out, along with 77,000 pieces of luggage.
Officials said they have bolstered baggage handling, check-in and security services.
That includes full airport check-in facilities at the Athletes Village in Vancouver and Whistler.
The airport is also building a temporary terminal just to handle departing Olympic athletes, their families and other Olympic clients.
There will also be extra staff and volunteers working alongside translators who speak 170 languages.
With a report from CTV British Columbia's Mike Killeen and files from The Canadian Press
(CTV, 2009)

Gordon
Nov 18, 2009, 4:38 AM
The media reports on yvr 's Olympic plans mention temporary terminal facilities being built.
Does anyone know where it is being built?

SpongeG
Nov 18, 2009, 6:20 AM
virgin america is going to start is it not?

I read someone's facebook and he sais he was flyng virgin america to california - I assumed he left from here as he lives here