PDA

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

View Full Version : YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

twoNeurons
Mar 17, 2010, 3:09 PM
Its trying to compare apples and oranges. Canada isn't Australia. It tries to compare international tourism, then asks the reader to dismiss the visitors to Canada from the USA. :koko:

The impression that I got is that it was trying to even the comparison out... kind of a "if Canada were a somewhat isolated island, like Australia..."
To be fair, the only thing around Australia is New Zealand. They don't have a "USA" beside them.


If you're looking for an article showing how tightly Emirates is woven into the state of Dubai, you can find it here:

...As head of Dubai's Supreme Fiscal Committee, Sheik Ahmed is in charge of distributing the billions of dollars of bailout money that Dubai received from Abu Dhabi. And as chairman of Emirates Group he has been at the center of rumors that Dubai's airline, along with other key assets like the huge container port in Jebel Ali, might be handed over to Abu Dhabi in return for the larger emirate's help....

..."The airline put Dubai on the world map," he says, adding that the airline's 32,000-strong workforce makes it Dubai's biggest employer. "We've put a lot into the Dubai economy. The number of units we rent within the local market, the expenditure of the staff and how much it brings people to Dubai. If it wasn't for Emirates, this market wouldn't have been able to grow as it has. It's one of the core businesses of Dubai."...

...If Emirates decided to IPO I'm sure it will be good, especially if it's placed within the U.A.E. stock markets," says Sheik Ahmed. "It will see a lot of people trading in it. I will look at it as a positive thing. But as we speak today I don't have any direction from the government to do this...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575099713440863220.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

When Emirates is willing to compete on a level playing field, get back to me.
They may be tightly woven into the state. In fact, some could argue that national airlines like AC and JAL are also woven into the state. But is that a reason for protectionism? Or is it fearmongering due to actually having the potential for viable competition.

Emirates Air is actually successful and isn't part of any alliance. They're not in a "club."

Why do we tolerate the Chinese government backing their industries, hiring cheap labour, artificially keeping the yuan low? Is there something I'm missing here? Maybe there is, but I just don't see it.

I'm no conspiracy theorist... but it's odd that in the year of Air India joining the Star Alliance we are getting promises of bilateral agreements and direct flights to India.

I think we can be reasonable with Emirates. It's not as if they're running empty planes at a loss in an attempt to flood the market.

Rusty Gull
Mar 17, 2010, 4:36 PM
Why do we tolerate the Chinese government backing their industries, hiring cheap labour, artificially keeping the yuan low? Is there something I'm missing here? Maybe there is, but I just don't see it.



Good point. This is the first time, I've ever heard Air Canada complaining about government-backed airlines. What about the Chinese carriers, AC? What about a bailed-out Japan Airlines? What about so many of the other carriers that touch down at YVR, that are either taxpayer subsidized, government-protected or the beneficiary of lobbying and monopolistic business practices?

To me, Air Canada -- an airline that has long been coddled by Transport Canada's protectionist policy -- IS government-backed, so their name calling of Emirates is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Rusty Gull
Mar 17, 2010, 4:52 PM
The Montreal Gazette published a story yesterday about Air Canada's desire to build a Canada Line-like connection to Trudeau International Airport. At any rate, the comments that follow the story are quite worthwhile.. apparently Montrealers are as fed up with Air Canada as West Coasters are.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/montreal/Airline+urges+swift+ride+airport/2687108/story.html
(ttp://www.montrealgazette.com/news/montreal/Airline+urges+swift+ride+airport/2687108/story.html)

whatnext
Mar 17, 2010, 5:07 PM
The impression that I got is that it was trying to even the comparison out... kind of a "if Canada were a somewhat isolated island, like Australia..."
To be fair, the only thing around Australia is New Zealand. They don't have a "USA" beside them..

Exactly which is why the comparison is meaningless. For example, travellers from Vancouver can easily fly out of Seattle if they don't like the options here. Not possible in Australia.

They may be tightly woven into the state. In fact, some could argue that national airlines like AC and JAL are also woven into the state. But is that a reason for protectionism? Or is it fearmongering due to actually having the potential for viable competition.

Emirates Air is actually successful and isn't part of any alliance. They're not in a "club."

Why do we tolerate the Chinese government backing their industries, hiring cheap labour, artificially keeping the yuan low? Is there something I'm missing here? Maybe there is, but I just don't see it.

I'm no conspiracy theorist... but it's odd that in the year of Air India joining the Star Alliance we are getting promises of bilateral agreements and direct flights to India.

I think we can be reasonable with Emirates. It's not as if they're running empty planes at a loss in an attempt to flood the market.

Air Canada has not been owned by the state for decades. As to Chinese industries, that's a whole different debate.

As to Emirates not flying empty planes at a loss, who knows? They're not a public company. We do know that the @ 90% load factor they bandied about was pre-A380. Records show that since adding that plane its about 61%. Now, if you've ordered a whole whack of A380's you don't need, are you concerned about flooding the market? Nobody's pointed out Emirates turned down the chance to serve Toronto 6 times week, and Etihad quietly stepped in without complaint to pick up those three weekly slots.

Yume-sama
Mar 19, 2010, 7:59 PM
Has anyone flown Air China from YVR before? How much of a cattle cart is it :P? What about their domestic service? I want to go from Beijing - Xi'an for 2 days.

Perhaps better than China Eastern?

bils
Mar 19, 2010, 8:41 PM
:previous: i flew to beijing last october. the flight was acceptable, although the service and food were below average. if you can find a good deal with them, then go ahead and fly with them. otherwise stick to the north american airliners. we flew cathay on the way home and it was A+

Johnny Aussie
Mar 19, 2010, 10:10 PM
Has anyone flown Air China from YVR before? How much of a cattle cart is it :P? What about their domestic service? I want to go from Beijing - Xi'an for 2 days.

Perhaps better than China Eastern?

My partner and I flew Air China MEL-PEK-YVR-PEK-MEL last Christmas and I have to agree with "bils." Flight was acceptable but would have to say it did not really meet our expectations. (Although, neither did the Air Canada domestic flights either!) Economy all legs except the YVR-PEK on the return thanks to my AC elite status and my partner's SQ gold status. But even the J was a little dissapointing. Also did a leg PEK-PVG and PVG-PEK and the service was average again, but acceptable.

We flew MU 2 years before on a similar routing and went in with low expectations, but they actually greatly exceeded that (although my expecations were low!).. so overall I would give the tick to China Eastern. Where MU fell apart was on the ground, very poor handling for transfers and just basic arrival / check-in / departure procedures. What a mess! Whereas Air China was much better on the ground.

Overall, would still have to rate both these carriers below average when compared to other asian carriers - I would rate them on the same level as PR. But, the other Asian carriers I have flown on (CX, SQ, KE, CI, OZ, JL, MH, EK) are definitely better. CX and SQ are still my faves... about to fly SQ A380 J-class to SIN next Fri from MEL... cannot wait to fly on that big bird!

giallo
Mar 19, 2010, 10:38 PM
Has anyone flown Air China from YVR before? How much of a cattle cart is it :P? What about their domestic service? I want to go from Beijing - Xi'an for 2 days.

Perhaps better than China Eastern?

Don't fly any with Chinese airline internationally. They are far below the Cathays and Air Canadas of the world. Spend the extra two hundred dollars and enjoy the piece of mind that comes along with it.

Domestically, you'll have to use the local airlines which is fine for a 2-5 hour flight.

Yume-sama
Mar 19, 2010, 10:43 PM
Don't fly any with Chinese airline internationally. They are far below the Cathays and Air Canadas of the world. Spend the extra two hundred dollars and enjoy the piece of mind that comes along with it.

Domestically, you'll have to use the local airlines which is fine for a 2-5 hour flight.

lol well, I have another flight next year Moscow - Beijing and it is either Air China or Aeroflot. That, or back track to Frankfurt for Lufthansa. :yes:

Overall, would still have to rate both these carriers below average when compared to other asian carriers - I would rate them on the same level as PR. But, the other Asian carriers I have flown on (CX, SQ, KE, CI, OZ, JL, MH, EK) are definitely better. CX and SQ are still my faves... about to fly SQ A380 J-class to SIN next Fri from MEL... cannot wait to fly on that big bird!

:yes: I want to fly in Class R :slob:

whatnext
Mar 19, 2010, 11:50 PM
I see Virgin America has chosen Toronto to be their first international destination, from LAX and SFO. Is this part of the massive Government/Air Canada conspiracy to slight YVR? :P

Spork
Mar 20, 2010, 12:09 AM
I see Virgin America has chosen Toronto to be their first international destination, from LAX and SFO. Is this part of the massive Government/Air Canada conspiracy to slight YVR? :P

Probably a symptom of it. When you funnel so many flights through Pearson, the effect is that more carriers want to fly there for all of the connections. Economies of scale by artificially maintained markets.

Yume-sama
Mar 20, 2010, 12:18 AM
I haven't flown Virgin America yet but I want to :D Mood lighting and wi-fi!!

Isn't Air Canada rolling out wi-fi soon? Though I think only from flights originating out of Toronto / Montreal :(

trofirhen
Mar 20, 2010, 9:23 AM
NOW EVERYBODY, REMEMBER....

"What's good for Air Canada is good for Canadians."
"What's good for Air Canada is good for Canadians."
"What's good for Air Canada is good for Canadians."
"What's good for Air Canada is good for Canadians."
"What's good for Air Canada is good for Canadians."
"What's good for Air Canada is good for Canadians."
"What's good for Air Canada is good for Canadians."
"What's good for Air Canada is good for Canadians."
"What's good for Air Canada is good for Canadians."
"What's good for Air Canada is good for Canadians."
"What's good for Air Canada is good for Canadians."
"What's good for Air Canada is good for Canadians."

jsbertram
Mar 20, 2010, 6:48 PM
That sounds sounds very much like

"whippings and beatings will continue until morale improves"

Yume-sama
Mar 20, 2010, 6:54 PM
Further to the wifi point:
Check email, access your VPN network, browse the web, shop online, play video games, IM, tweet and more! Now you can enjoy full Wi-Fi Internet access for a trial period, onboard select long haul Air Canada flights travelling over the United States between Montreal or Toronto.

:( I'm flying to Toronto in a few days, what I'd give for wifi! But the flight is from Calgary, so, we're out of luck!

MalcolmTucker
Mar 20, 2010, 8:42 PM
Further to the wifi point:


:( I'm flying to Toronto in a few days, what I'd give for wifi! But the flight is from Calgary, so, we're out of luck!

The system uses ground stations - and I guess there aren't any in Montana!

Yume-sama
Mar 20, 2010, 9:57 PM
Ground systems seem slightly inefficient. I look forward to the day when you can cross oceans on 10 hour long flights and stay connected.

trofirhen
Mar 20, 2010, 10:09 PM
That sounds sounds very much like

"whippings and beatings will continue until morale improves"

:haha: :haha: :haha:

trofirhen
Mar 23, 2010, 10:41 PM
Here is some interesting reading from THE NATIONAL POST.

All about airlines............ as well as Canada's policies, and those of other similar markets.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/tags/Air+Canada/default.aspx

Hot Rod
Mar 24, 2010, 7:18 AM
Has anyone flown Air China from YVR before? How much of a cattle cart is it :P? What about their domestic service? I want to go from Beijing - Xi'an for 2 days.

Perhaps better than China Eastern?

ive mentioned my flights from YVR to China on CA many times - I've never had a problem with them and actually enjoyed the service. It isn't carte blanche by any means, but the cost of the flight (as in lowest) makes up for it.

The flight is only 11 hours - not too big a deal. I go all the way to Chengdu where my honey is (and I am right now), and I must say I prefer CA for the Star Alliance and also (especially in China) the way they keep their aircraft!!!

Sometimes, when traveling foreign it is a good idea to stick with the state owned product!

Hourglass
Mar 24, 2010, 12:23 PM
lol well, I have another flight next year Moscow - Beijing and it is either Air China or Aeroflot. That, or back track to Frankfurt for Lufthansa. :yes:



:yes: I want to fly in Class R :slob:

Or you can fly in style Moscow - Hong Kong - Beijing on Cathay/Dragonair, which isn't such a backtrack. Cathay has announced Hong Kong - Moscow.

twoNeurons
Mar 24, 2010, 2:10 PM
I see Virgin America has chosen Toronto to be their first international destination, from LAX and SFO. Is this part of the massive Government/Air Canada conspiracy to slight YVR? :P

Why do you think that? That sounds like a good route.

SFO-YVR and LAX-YVR are crowded markets.

Gordon
Mar 24, 2010, 3:46 PM
YVR SFO is only serviced by AC\UA. I would think that there is still roo in the market for some more capacity. hopefully Westjet or maybe Virgin America will service the market.

BCPhil
Mar 24, 2010, 5:38 PM
I think the lack of YVR-SFO is because of the ticket price. YVR-SFO ticket prices seem to be stuck at around $500. Take a 3 hour drive to SEA and you can get to SFO for around $200. You can make a connection in Salt Lake or LAX or something to bring it down to about $350, but you will end up spending more time travelling than if you just drove to SEA.

The flights are short, so spending a few hours in your car doesn't affect travel plans. It's much harder to fit in a 3 hour drive before an 8 hour flight.

sacrifice333
Mar 24, 2010, 6:00 PM
^Don't forget Bellingham to Oakland. Can be as low as around $120 round trip on Allegiant!

(Just don't forget to travel with carry-on and get your seat at check-in.)

Transit connections from Oakland to SF are probably easier and about the same time (maybe less) than from SFO to SF.

Yume-sama
Mar 24, 2010, 6:03 PM
Not related to YVR, but I survived DEATH! More so than usual when you fly Air Canada. I had my first emergency landing today, it was thrilling ;) Firemen and firetrucks and all.

Just after my flight left Toronto, the pilot came on to say there is an "issue" with the wings of the aircraft (he said we could not gain altitude), that will require us to turn back and do a "routine and safe" landing in Toronto. But then when we got on the ground they told us it was a partial hydraulic failure, due to a hydraulic leak and we probably had about half an hour before full hydraulic failure! We wouldn't have made it to Boston! This was Air Canada in their cheap little Brazilian Embraer 75 jets. Now in credit to Air Canada it was handled very professionally by everyone (including the flight attendants), the pilots were very skilled, and they had a replacement plane out of the hangar (that was getting its tires replaced) within about an hour.

And I was crazy enough to get on it. But a handful of people elected not to fly today...

They were not, however, offered refunds as Air Canada policy "only compensates people if a flight is delayed by at least 3 hours".

By the way, this was the second emergency landing in Toronto in 12 hours, and fourth Air Canada hydraulic related emergency in 24 hours.

Gordon
Mar 24, 2010, 6:12 PM
flights from Sea-SFO seem to range from $323.00 to around $459.

twoNeurons
Mar 24, 2010, 7:44 PM
SFO has a lot of Asian connections. Something we could have as well, were we positioned as an Asian hub.

SF city is about the same size as VanCity, but they admittedly have a larger metro population to draw on. That being said, SFO has more viable competition from Oakland and San Jose. YXX (Abbotsford) isn't bad but YYJ ( Victoria ) is very small.

As far as I can gather, their "Equivalent to Canada Metro" metro population is around 4 million people.

Note: SF's Metro is calculated to be 4x the land area of Vancouver. By US standards, we would probably be including Victoria, Nanaimo Abbotsford and perhaps Bellingham into Vancouver's Metro. YVR draws on all these locations for international flights adding up to ~3,000,000.

WaxItYourself
Mar 24, 2010, 9:35 PM
In the Skytrax World Airport Awards, though they do not have it up on their website yet, YVR has been named as the top airport in North America.

http://www.miss604.com/2010/03/yvr-named-top-airport-in-north-america.html

Delirium
Mar 24, 2010, 9:57 PM
I thought this was really interesting [though i don't agree that we should follow Isreal's example]. i will however try to remember this the next time i'm asked to remove my shoes :D

What Israel can teach us about security
At Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, screening is done in 30 minutes. The key? Look passengers in the eye

Cathal Kelly
Staff Reporter

While North America's airports groan under the weight of another sea-change in security protocols, one word keeps popping out of the mouths of experts: Israelification.

That is, how can we make our airports more like Israel's, which deal with far greater terror threats with far less inconvenience.

"It is mind boggling for us Israelis to look at what happens in North America, because we went through this 50 years ago," said Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy. He has worked with the RCMP, the U.S. Navy Seals and airports around the world.

"Israelis, unlike Canadians and Americans, don't take s--- from anybody. When the security agency in Israel (the ISA) started to tighten security and we had to wait in line for – not for hours – but 30 or 40 minutes, all hell broke loose here. We said, `We're not going to do this. You're going to find a way that will take care of security without touching the efficiency of the airport.'"

Despite facing dozens of potential threats each day, the security set-up at Israel's largest hub, Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, has not been breached since 2002, when a passenger mistakenly carried a handgun onto a flight. How do they manage that?

The first layer of actual security that greets travellers at Ben Gurion is a roadside check. All drivers are stopped and asked two questions: How are you? Where are you coming from?
"Two benign questions. The questions aren't important. The way people act when they answer them is," Sela said.

Once you've parked your car or gotten off your bus, you pass through the second and third security perimeters.

Armed guards outside the terminal observe passengers as they move toward the doors, again looking for odd behaviour. At Ben Gurion's half-dozen entrances, another layer of security is watching. At this point, some travellers will be randomly taken aside, and their person and their luggage run through a magnometer.

"This is to see that you don't have heavy metals on you or something that looks suspicious," said Sela.

You are now in the terminal. As you approach your airline check-in desk, a trained interviewer takes your passport and ticket. They ask a series of questions: Who packed your luggage? Has it left your side?

"The whole time, they are looking into your eyes – which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds," said Sela.

Lines are staggered. People are not allowed to bunch up into inviting targets for a bomber who has gotten this far.

At the check-in desk, your luggage is scanned immediately in a purpose-built area. Sela plays devil's advocate – what if you have escaped the attention of the first four layers of security, and now try to pass a bag with a bomb in it?

"I once put this question to Jacques Duchesneau (the former head of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority): say there is a bag with Play-Doh in it and two pens stuck in the Play-Doh. That is `Bombs 101' to a screener. I asked Duchesneau, `What would you do?' And he said, `Evacuate the terminal.' And I said, `Oh. My. God.'

"Take (Toronto's) Pearson (airport). Do you know how many people are in the terminal at all times? Many thousands. Let's say I'm (doing an evacuation) without panic – which will never happen. But let's say this is the case. How long will it take? Nobody thought about it. I said, `Two days.'"

A screener at Ben Gurion has a pair of better options.

First, the screening area is surrounded by contoured, blast-proof glass that can contain the detonation of up to 100 kilos of plastic explosive. Only the few dozen people within the screening area need be removed, and only to a point a few metres away.

Second, all the screening areas contain `bomb boxes.' If a screener spots a suspect bag, he/she is trained to pick it up and place it in the box, which is blast proof. A bomb squad arrives shortly and wheels the box away for further investigation.

"This is a very small, simple example of how we can simply stop a problem that would cripple one of your airports," Sela said.

Five security layers down: you now finally arrive at the only one which Ben Gurion airport shares with Pearson – the body and hand-luggage check.

"But here it is done completely, absolutely 180 degrees differently than it is done in North America," Sela said.

"First, it's fast – there's almost no line. That's because they're not looking for liquids, they're not looking at your shoes. They're not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you," said Sela. "Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes ... and that's how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys."

The goal at Ben Gurion is to move fliers from the parking lot to the airport lounge in 25 minutes tops.

And then there's intelligence. In Israel, Sela said, a coordinated intelligence gathering operation produces a constantly evolving series of threat analyses and vulnerability studies.

"There is absolutely no intelligence and threat analysis done in Canada or the United States," Sela said. "Absolutely none."

But even without the intelligence, Sela maintains, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab – who allegedly tried to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day – would not have gotten past Ben Gurion's behavioural profilers.

So. Eight years after 9/11, why are we still so reactive?

Sela first blames our leaders, and then ourselves.

"You can easily do what we do. You don't have to replace anything. You have to add just a little bit – technology, training," Sela said. "But you have to completely change the way you go about doing airport security. And that is something that the bureaucrats have a problem with. They are very well enclosed in their own concept."

And rather than fear, he suggests outrage would be a far more powerful spur to provoking that change.

"Do you know why Israelis are so calm? We have brutal terror attacks on our civilians and still, life in Israel is pretty good. The reason is that people trust their defence forces, their police, their response teams and the security agencies. They know they're doing a good job. You can't say the same thing about Americans and Canadians. They don't trust anybody," Sela said. "But they say, `So far, so good.' Then if something happens, all hell breaks loose and you've spent eight hours in an airport. Which is ridiculous. Not justifiable."

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744426--what-israel-can-teach-us-about-security

trofirhen
Mar 25, 2010, 2:06 AM
SFO has a lot of Asian connections. Something we could have as well, were we positioned as an Asian hub.

SF city is about the same size as VanCity, but they admittedly have a larger metro population to draw on. That being said, SFO has more viable competition from Oakland and San Jose. YXX (Abbotsford) isn't bad but YYJ ( Victoria ) is very small.

As far as I can gather, their "Equivalent to Canada Metro" metro population is around 4 million people.

Note: SF's Metro is calculated to be 4x the land area of Vancouver. By US standards, we would probably be including Victoria, Nanaimo Abbotsford and perhaps Bellingham into Vancouver's Metro. YVR draws on all these locations for international flights adding up to ~3,000,000.

If you include Oakland, the East Bay, the Peninsula, San Jose and Marin County, I think SF's Metro population is over 4 million (more like 7 million)
And of course, it's positioned on the West Coast, has a large Asian poplulation, so naturally has a lot of Asian connections.

Vancouver will get there, proportionally, as we have a large Asian population and are on the West Coast. Plus, being the northernmost major city on the Pacific, our travel distance is the shortest.

OK ... now, with no disrespect intended, all this Asian-destination-obsessed talk leaves me with one yawning question: WHAT ABOUT FLIGHTS TO EUROPE, DUBAI, OCEANIA, AND EVEN LATIN AMERICA?

Is anyone really interested, or is it only China, Japan, Korea, Singapore and (possibly) Thailand we're interested in at YVR?

A TRULY international airport is just that. INTERNATIONAL.!!

SpongeG
Mar 25, 2010, 6:52 AM
^Don't forget Bellingham to Oakland. Can be as low as around $120 round trip on Allegiant!

(Just don't forget to travel with carry-on and get your seat at check-in.)

Transit connections from Oakland to SF are probably easier and about the same time (maybe less) than from SFO to SF.

did that - it was like $15 seat sale by the time my friend booked the tickets with all the extras it was $177 total US - was worth getting the seat check thing cause we had space for our carry ons :)

twoNeurons
Mar 25, 2010, 5:04 PM
Delta had some really cheap DIRECT flights from SEA - KIX ( Osaka ) if anyone's interested. $600 return for that flight is a steal.

Picked up a couple myself.

whatnext
Mar 25, 2010, 5:34 PM
Not related to YVR, but I survived DEATH! More so than usual when you fly Air Canada. .

Its that kind of knee-jerk remark that leads me to dismiss people's whinging about Air Canada. I'm curious as to why you'd dismiss the Embraer E-jets as "cheap"? In my travels I much prefer the two abreast seating in Economy compared to the possibility of getting stuck in a middle seat in a 737 or Airbus

Yume-sama
Mar 25, 2010, 5:47 PM
Its that kind of knee-jerk remark that leads me to dismiss people's whinging about Air Canada. I'm curious as to why you'd dismiss the Embraer E-jets as "cheap"? In my travels I much prefer the two abreast seating in Economy compared to the possibility of getting stuck in a middle seat in a 737 or Airbus

Because they are, in fact, cheap, at 1/3 the price of the smallest Airbus A319 and half the price of a 737.

But that was so not the point of the story.

whatnext
Mar 25, 2010, 6:08 PM
Because they are, in fact, cheap, at 1/3 the price of the smallest Airbus A319 and half the price of a 737.

But that was so not the point of the story.

But you were so not referring to them as "cheap" in the price sense then, were you? ;)

They're nice little planes, my only beef is that they have just one washroom for the whole Economy section.

Yume-sama
Mar 25, 2010, 7:31 PM
But you were so not referring to them as "cheap" in the price sense then, were you? ;)

They're nice little planes, my only beef is that they have just one washroom for the whole Economy section.

:P I was too. Cheap little Brazilian plane.

It is a little unfair that the 6 people at the front of the plane get a nice washroom to themselves. :banana:

But take solace in the fact that when Air Canada does crash we'll be the first to feel it.

mezzanine
Mar 29, 2010, 12:35 AM
Interesting post here:

http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2010/03/16/canada-australia-emirates--etihad-case-study-of-protectionism-vs-liberalism-whos-got-it-right/page1

I was on the fence about Emirates, but I now think that it would be good for YVR. AC's talk on their 'hub' at YVR is just that.

The future Vancouver “hub”: a promising future?

When Canadian Airlines folded, it hurt Vancouver badly. For decades a “spheres of influence” strategy had applied, where the Vancouver-based airline was awarded the bulk of (the then less valuable) Asia Pacific routes and Air Canada dominated Europe and the rest of the world. So, predictably when Air Canada took the smaller airline over, the gravitas shifted back east. Toronto is still today the centre of the world for the Canadian flag.

This was cause for western Canada’s dissatisfaction with Ottawa and Air Canada, also opening the way for WestJet to establish and flourish locally, eventually spreading across the country. But today, even for Asian points, Toronto remains very much Canada’s hub. Vancouver is therefore a delicate issue for Air Canada. It needs to humour the airport and the local commercial interests, while recognising that its clear economic priority has to be to bed down in Toronto.

From Vancouver too, as with the eastbound routes, it is hard to see exactly how Emirates and others directly threaten Air Canada, or even its partners, heading west into Asia. The carrier has chosen to consolidate its operations on Toronto, reflecting the economics of a lower yielding Vancouver gateway and the value of focussing on a single hub. Air Canada simply doesn’t have the scale to manage two major airport hubs at this stage. So the argument against Emirates had to be more carefully constructed for Vancouver consumption.

The result was intriguing, Mr Rovinescu’s combination of a vision for a joyous future under threat, combining - without a hint of irony - a suggestion that Air Canada could “scoop up (US) travellers going elsewhere in the world and funnel them through (Vancouver)” – to adopt the CEO’s own words, used so disapprovingly against the UAE airlines.

(i) Vancouver’s endangered future: According to the Air Canada CEO, “the longer term impact (of open entry) is devastating and could have the effect of restricting or even marginalizing Vancouver as a hub. When an international carrier dumps seats into a market like Canada, it becomes harder for Canadian airlines to operate internationally. Ultimately, this translates into less economic activity, fewer jobs and fewer routes served. While its argument may be seductive, what Emirates’ strategy will do is constrain the growth of Canadian airports by turning them from hubs into stubs at the end of a spoke that leads only to Emirates’ hub in Dubai.”

This led into the next step, Vancouver’s imminent role as a transfer hub for US traffic.

(ii) “Scooping up” some US traffic: After an imaginative comparison with Vancouver’s potential to emulate Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth’s hub roles, Mr Rovinescu pointed out the great opportunity which might exist: “the fact remains, Vancouver has an opportunity to attract substantially more global flow traffic….I believe we can connect a lot more U.S.-Asia traffic through Vancouver. At present, we have about 34 per cent of the Canada-Asia market, so we are getting our share domestically. But of course, in North America the far, far larger market is between the U.S. and Asia, where our share is only one per cent. By winning only a couple of extra percentage points of market share on these routes we could connect a million more passengers through Vancouver’s airport, ensuring Vancouver’s hub status.”

That “only a couple of extra percentage points” is drawing a long bow, given that Air Canada currently only operates three times weekly to Beijing and four times weekly to Shanghai from Vancouver. These are to increase to daily later this year, as Air Canada is “betting significantly on the rebound of business and leisure traffic to and from Vancouver.”

There are also dailies to Hong Kong, Seoul and Tokyo.

A lot more movement will be needed to make Vancouver a compelling hub for the US – meanwhile without undermining Air Canada’s Toronto hub. What Mr Rovinescu didn’t say was that the “34 per cent of the Canada-Asia market” was heavily biased towards Toronto travel, with no clear intent to expand Vancouver’s ex-Canada share.

trofirhen
Mar 29, 2010, 2:02 AM
So,

The truth is seeping out. The attempt to pull the wool over
Vancouver's eyes didn't work out as AC had hoped. This is a critical time in the history of YVR, if it is going to grow as an international hub, or even maintain what it has.
*
How to deal with this? The first, most obvious, and logical step would be to inundate the Federal Minister of Transport, John Baird. (another Ontario lad, like his predecessor, Lawrence Cannon).
*
If he doesn't react (and he probably won't, or else he'll make up straw man excuses to protect Air Canada,) the next step is taking it to the streets.
*
How this could be done, I don't know right off the bat, but this is an economic rip-off on a grand scale, and YVR is the party being ripped off. As I've pointed out before, rather than sit back and let things take care of themselves (which they will not do under the circumstances), something has to give.
*
It's time to fight. Take the gloves off, put your heads together, get into busloads for Ottawa, raise a cloud of dust, broadcast this thing country-wide, do whatever is necessary to give it as much profile as possible.
*
Then, whatever it takes: draw your metaphorical sabres. If we don't, we'll get relegated to a spoke and nothing more.

Gordon
Mar 29, 2010, 2:20 PM
Air Canada seems to have added a srcond YVR HK flight 2:05AM

twoNeurons
Mar 29, 2010, 5:26 PM
Which begs the question... if Air Canada doesn't want to use YVR, why shouldn't someone else be able to?

trofirhen
Mar 29, 2010, 6:09 PM
Which begs the question... if Air Canada doesn't want to use YVR, why shouldn't someone else be able to?

It's a classic case of "dog in the manger." However, Business in Vancouver is onto this, and it gets read by "movers and shakers" in local and regional commerce. I sent the link from mezzanine "www.centreforaviation..." to them and I think they'll do something based on that and other material they've received. The shit will rightly hit the fan yet. :hell:

Hourglass
Mar 29, 2010, 6:13 PM
Which begs the question... if Air Canada doesn't want to use YVR, why shouldn't someone else be able to?

The easy answer? Because they don't have to. As long as there is no competition, Air Canada will continue to default to its primary hub in Toronto (which is exactly what I would do in their position given that it is Canada's commercial and population center). However, the moment competition comes in, it is almost certain that Air Canada would fight to maintain their market share -- regardless of the implicit threat in Mr Rovinescu's remarks.

Candidly, the YVR hub strategy is nothing new. The International Terminal Building was designed with this in mind, and it was this strategy that Canadian Airlines was implementing prior to being bought over by Air Canada -- funneling Asian traffic through YVR to various destinations across North America.

Air Canada bought over Canadian in 2001 -- which means they've had 9 years to roll-out a similar hub strategy in Vancouver. Arguably, they haven't. Instead, they've cut back routes to several Asian hubs. Now Emirates starts lobbying hard for more access, and with the threat of competition, bingo!, Air Canada starts talking up YVR as a transit hub. Coincidence? Methinks not...

MalcolmTucker
Mar 29, 2010, 6:15 PM
Which begs the question... if Air Canada doesn't want to use YVR, why shouldn't someone else be able to?

What would amount to illegal dumping in any other industry, lets say if Dubai had huge forests and wanted to import 300 million logs a year to feed bc's mills in preference to bc wood, logs it cut down for free on royal land, is what emirates wants to do in aviation. Dump capacity, provide basically arbitrage service between Canada and markets Canada doesn't have access to (ie: Canada's restrictive bilateral with India).

The whole Air Canada vs Canadian plan you have to remember that what brought Canadian down was being over extended in the Asian market during the financial crisis. Basically Canadian had an agreement to service asia with American Airlines like Luftansa and Air Canada have for trans-atlantic, a true corporate partnership (which is why AA tried to buy most of Canadian on its own). The strategy didn't work then, as there is little economic reason to hub through cities if you can fill a direct flight of a jet with similar economics.

If Air Canada can fill a jet in Toronto to make a direct flight to asia, it makes no sense to hub that flight. Just like Calgary's new flight (which is fed in from Toronto, it makes no sense to do Toronto- Calgary- Vancouver).

Do YVRers want their airport to be a gateway airport, or just a spoke? Right now it is still a spoke, even Toronto is still a spoke outside of North America/Carribean and Europe.

Canada's air policy is based on trying to build as many of our airports into gateways, with direct service to as many destinations as possible without hubbing. It means serving Amirstar, not Mumbai, Dehli, or Dubai which would feed Amirstar if and when there is demand. It also means that Vancouver is pissed at Toronto, while Calgary is pissed at Vancouver and Edmonton is pissed at Calgary for funneling potential direct traffic off to hubs.

Signing bilaterals that allow the creation of these gateway airports in Canada is the goal - it is much better to have daily service to 10 Indian cities in 20 years than 5 larger direct flights a day to Dubai.

You can see this in China as our airlines start to spread out to secondary centres, some routes will be successful some won't. But we are able to compete on an equal basis not forced to run through an arbitrary hub, plus we have offered reciprocal access.

Australia you can see has fallen out of this pattern, with a large majority of its traffic going through Singapore, Hong Kong or Dubai. Of course Australia might have some issues with range of airliners, but if they had sought out a policy like Canada's, airlines would buy the right jets to provide direct service to the destinations Australians actually want to go to.

trofirhen
Mar 29, 2010, 6:26 PM
What would amount to illegal dumping in any other industry, lets say if Dubai had huge forests and wanted to import 300 million logs a year to feed bc's mills in preference to bc wood, logs it cut down for free on royal land, is what emirates wants to do in aviation. Dump capacity, provide basically arbitrage service between Canada and markets Canada doesn't have access to (ie: Canada's restrictive bilateral with India).

Do you think that allowing Emirates into Vancouver really poses that much of a threat?
And do you want to wait 15 or 20 years until a destination on the Indian subcontinent becomes viable?
What do we do in the meantime? Just whistle in the dark, hoping everthing turns out alright?

MalcolmTucker
Mar 29, 2010, 6:45 PM
Do you think that allowing Emirates into Vancouver really poses that much of a threat?

Yes. Why do you think they are willing to cause a diplomatic row to get access? They think they can make a lot of money. It is what they do, leverage their preferential air services agreements with surrounding countries, while threatening to limit service to them if they sign permissive asa's with their feeder ie: western countries. Since Dubai has much much cheaper fuel and can use it on half of their trips they can undercut the price we can offer. From Toronto I can fly through Dubai to almost anywhere in the world for a comparable price to a direct flight, even when traveling more than twice the distance on Emirates compared to other airlines.

If Emirates had its way, every intercontinental flight in the world would route through Dubai - they are building a new airport with five parallel runways and 150 million people a year processing capacity - double the size of the worlds next biggest airport. They need passengers and they know how to get them.

Think about if they controlled a large part of our strategic connection to India, destined to be a big trading partner and then threatened to end that connection over a foreign policy move - they have already showed they are willing to play strategic chess with our commerce and foreign policy.

It is just bad in almost every single way (unless you enjoy vacationing in an absolute corporatist monarchy, or think that being subservient to any other nation is a good thing as long as you can make a quick buck)


And do you want to wait 15 or 20 years until a destination on the Indian subcontinent becomes viable?
What do we do in the meantime? Just whistle in the dark, hoping everthing turns out alright?

We negotiate and sign the most permissive air service agreement India will sign. Right now there isn't room in the bilateral to run a second daily flight even from Toronto, let alone Vancouver one from Vancouver or another city. Who knows what flights will be viable? It is possible Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary could each support direct to India flights - from where you will be able to connect into the UAE.

trofirhen
Mar 29, 2010, 6:50 PM
Yes. Why do you think they are willing to cause a diplomatic row to get access? They think they can make a lot of money. It is what they do, leverage their preferential air services agreements with surrounding countries, while threatening to limit service to them if they sign permissive asa's with their feeder ie: western countries. Since Dubai has much much cheaper fuel and can use it on half of their trips they can undercut the price we can offer. From Toronto I can fly through Dubai to almost anywhere in the world for a comparable price to a direct flight, even when traveling more than twice the distance on Emirates compared to other airlines.

If Emirates had its way, every intercontinental flight in the world would route through Dubai - they are building a new airport with five parallel runways and 150 million people a year processing capacity - double the size of the worlds next biggest airport. They need passengers and they know how to get them.

Think about if they controlled a large part of our strategic connection to India, destined to be a big trading partner and then threatened to end that connection over a foreign policy move - they have already showed they are willing to play strategic chess with our commerce and foreign policy.

It is just bad in almost every single way (unless you enjoy vacationing in an absolute corporatist monarchy, or think that being subservient to any other nation is a good thing as long as you can make a quick buck)

Your point is well made, but I have a question. You mentioned our strategic connection to India. OK. Which airlines fly there? Air India? Kingfisher? Jet Airlines? Which cities do they serve? Delhi? Mumbai? Amitsrar? You talk about this service to India as if it existed. So, er ............. where are the planes? What are the departure and arrival times? .......... :koko:

MalcolmTucker
Mar 29, 2010, 6:56 PM
Your point is well made, but I have a question. You mentioned our strategic connection to India. OK. Which airlines fly there? Air India? Kingfisher? Jet Airlines? Which cities do they serve? Delhi? Mumbai? Amitsrar? You talk about this service to India as if it existed. So, er ............. where are the planes? What are the departure and arrival times? .......... :koko:

There can't be service because of the current bilateral. The government is working with the Indians to fix this! No reason to give up on this and let UAE get all the economic benefit and the strategic leverage of providing the future routes.

Hourglass
Mar 29, 2010, 7:05 PM
What would amount to illegal dumping in any other industry, lets say if Dubai had huge forests and wanted to import 300 million logs a year to feed bc's mills in preference to bc wood, logs it cut down for free on royal land, is what emirates wants to do in aviation. Dump capacity, provide basically arbitrage service between Canada and markets Canada doesn't have access to (ie: Canada's restrictive bilateral with India).

Perhaps, but a daily YVR-Dubai flight is far from 300 million logs per year.

The whole Air Canada vs Canadian plan you have to remember that what brought Canadian down was being over extended in the Asian market during the financial crisis. Basically Canadian had an agreement to service asia with American Airlines like Luftansa and Air Canada have for trans-atlantic, a true corporate partnership (which is why AA tried to buy most of Canadian on its own). The strategy didn't work then, as there is little economic reason to hub through cities if you can fill a direct flight of a jet with similar economics.

Yes, the financial crisis caused a big hole in Canadian's bottom line given their emphasis on Asian routes. But the strategy was not predicated on serving LAX or SEA from YVR, but to serve East Coast US cities such as Boston, Washington DC, Miami and others for which a non-stop flight is technically or commercially unfeasible. And anyway, you omit the fact that Air Canada is doing exactly that out of Toronto for Latin America and the US to Europe.

If Air Canada can fill a jet in Toronto to make a direct flight to asia, it makes no sense to hub that flight. Just like Calgary's new flight (which is fed in from Toronto, it makes no sense to do Toronto- Calgary- Vancouver).

I don't think anyone here disputes that fact.

Do YVRers want their airport to be a gateway airport, or just a spoke? Right now it is still a spoke, even Toronto is still a spoke outside of North America/Carribean and Europe.

Canada's air policy is based on trying to build as many of our airports into gateways, with direct service to as many destinations as possible without hubbing. It means serving Amirstar, not Mumbai, Dehli, or Dubai which would feed Amirstar if and when there is demand. It also means that Vancouver is pissed at Toronto, while Calgary is pissed at Vancouver and Edmonton is pissed at Calgary for funneling potential direct traffic off to hubs.

Signing bilaterals that allow the creation of these gateway airports in Canada is the goal - it is much better to have daily service to 10 Indian cities in 20 years than 5 larger direct flights a day to Dubai.

Of course daily service to 10 Indian cities would be great. But from a traveler's perspective, it's also about choice. Let's use your example of daily non-stop India services together with a Dubai flight. Some will choose the nonstop because of time and convenience. Others will choose price and so hub via DXB or another airline. Restricting traffic flows doesn't build up future hubs. It only means that this traffic goes a different route. And so India traffic goes by CX via Hong Kong or maybe BA via London.

You can see this in China as our airlines start to spread out to secondary centres, some routes will be successful some won't. But we are able to compete on an equal basis not forced to run through an arbitrary hub, plus we have offered reciprocal access.

Compete against whom? YVR views its main competitors as US West Coast airports, so this restrictive air transport regime benefits SEA, PDX, LAX and SFO at the expense of YVR.

And right now because of restricted air agreements with several countries, passengers in Canada are forced to run through an arbitrary hub anyway.

Australia you can see has fallen out of this pattern, with a large majority of its traffic going through Singapore, Hong Kong or Dubai. Of course Australia might have some issues with range of airliners, but if they had sought out a policy like Canada's, airlines would buy the right jets to provide direct service to the destinations Australians actually want to go to.

Not a good example. Australia DOES have issues with airliner range, which is why Qantas been jawboning both Boeing and Airbus on this very issue. There are no planes in service today that allow commercially viable service between Australia and Western Europe. This has nothing to do with air transport policy, as Qantas is a huge player on the kangaroo route. Have you been to Singapore recently? Land in the morning and you'll see a ton of Qantas metal sitting there.

In fact, Australia has been accused of protecting the local carrier at the expense of traveler choice and cost. For example, the SYD-LAX is highly lucrative for QF and limited to only a couple of carriers. Lack of competition on this route = hefty premium for travelers.

SpongeG
Mar 29, 2010, 9:06 PM
whatever happenned to Kingfisher Airlines?

they announced delhi-vancouver flights (http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2007OTP0195-001564.htm) a few years ago

mr.x
Mar 29, 2010, 11:48 PM
Great article:




Taking the air out of Vancouver


In Transit by Derek Moscato
March 29, 2010 12:58 a.m.


So much for flying the friendly skies. The last month has been marked by bickering aplenty between this country’s largest airline, Air Canada, and Emirates Airlines, the state-sponsored carrier from the United Arab Emirates.

The latter wants to deliver new air service to Vancouver — and bolster flights elsewhere in Canada. It’s a desire that has been met with stiff resistance — and plenty of tough talk — from Air Canada. Calin Rovinescu, the top boss at the airline, has taken his campaign on a national tour of sorts — telling folks from Vancouver to Montreal that new flights from Emirates into Canada will cost this country jobs and money.

It’s a tough argument to accept, given the underwhelming state of air travel in this country, and a possibly marginalized future for Vancouver International Airport. The airlines spat has spilled over into the press, with numerous policy wonks and transportation analysts adding their two cents’ worth.

But what may have been missed amidst the trash talk and punditry was a fascinating report recently published by the Australia-based Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, an aviation market think-tank that has been observing this turf war with particular zeal — and some contempt.

“It is intriguing to examine precisely where the vaguely defined threat to Air Canada exists,” says the report. “What exactly is the flag carrier being protected from?”

There’s the thorny issue of flying costs. “The simple fact is that Air Canada’s network is skeletal at best,” it says. “This helps make Canada one of the more inaccessible (and higher priced) destinations for most travellers.”

There’s also the issue of YVR. “Vancouver is ... a delicate issue for Air Canada. It needs to humour the airport and the local commercial interests, while recognizing that its clear economic priority has to be to bed down in Toronto.”

Ouch.

And finally, this analysis of Canadian aviation economics — and public relations.

“The carrier has chosen to consolidate its operations on Toronto, reflecting the economics of a lower-yielding Vancouver gateway and the value of focusing on a single hub. Air Canada simply doesn’t have the scale to manage two major airport hubs at this stage. So the argument against Emirates had to be more carefully constructed for Vancouver consumption.”

Translation: We are being duped.

But what’s good for Toronto is also good for the rest of Canada, right?

trofirhen
Mar 30, 2010, 2:47 AM
whatever happenned to Kingfisher Airlines?

they announced delhi-vancouver flights (http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2007OTP0195-001564.htm) a few years ago

..... and JET AIRLINES. ..... and AIR INDIA.

We have no direct flights either to Dubai, or to India, and have to take the long way round. This sucks, and diminishes our role as a hub airport. Anyway, as for that idea that allowing Emirates one flight YVR-DBX per day is going to cause Air Canada to collapse strikes me as protectionist nonsense.

This same attitude already lost us Air France to Seattle, and that would have been a choice route.

What we ARE doing is keeping our Star Alliance partners, notably Lufthansa, happy, by routing through Frankfurt.

And waiting around for years until some extensive India - Canada bilateral is reached is like fiddling while Rome burns. It could take 10 years. And if nothing is added or developed in the meantime, Vancouver will be locked out in the cold.

Countries all over the world, including Australia, are embracing Open Skies on a global level. We should be doing the same. If don't, we'll get left behind. It's as simple as that (IMHO)

cabotp
Mar 30, 2010, 8:58 AM
Great article:




Taking the air out of Vancouver


In Transit by Derek Moscato
March 29, 2010 12:58 a.m.


So much for flying the friendly skies. The last month has been marked by bickering aplenty between this country’s largest airline, Air Canada, and Emirates Airlines, the state-sponsored carrier from the United Arab Emirates.

The latter wants to deliver new air service to Vancouver — and bolster flights elsewhere in Canada. It’s a desire that has been met with stiff resistance — and plenty of tough talk — from Air Canada. Calin Rovinescu, the top boss at the airline, has taken his campaign on a national tour of sorts — telling folks from Vancouver to Montreal that new flights from Emirates into Canada will cost this country jobs and money.

It’s a tough argument to accept, given the underwhelming state of air travel in this country, and a possibly marginalized future for Vancouver International Airport. The airlines spat has spilled over into the press, with numerous policy wonks and transportation analysts adding their two cents’ worth.

But what may have been missed amidst the trash talk and punditry was a fascinating report recently published by the Australia-based Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, an aviation market think-tank that has been observing this turf war with particular zeal — and some contempt.

“It is intriguing to examine precisely where the vaguely defined threat to Air Canada exists,” says the report. “What exactly is the flag carrier being protected from?”

There’s the thorny issue of flying costs. “The simple fact is that Air Canada’s network is skeletal at best,” it says. “This helps make Canada one of the more inaccessible (and higher priced) destinations for most travellers.”

There’s also the issue of YVR. “Vancouver is ... a delicate issue for Air Canada. It needs to humour the airport and the local commercial interests, while recognizing that its clear economic priority has to be to bed down in Toronto.”

Ouch.

And finally, this analysis of Canadian aviation economics — and public relations.

“The carrier has chosen to consolidate its operations on Toronto, reflecting the economics of a lower-yielding Vancouver gateway and the value of focusing on a single hub. Air Canada simply doesn’t have the scale to manage two major airport hubs at this stage. So the argument against Emirates had to be more carefully constructed for Vancouver consumption.”

Translation: We are being duped.

But what’s good for Toronto is also good for the rest of Canada, right?

And my hatred for Toronto grows.

Sorry had to vent ;)

twoNeurons
Mar 30, 2010, 2:19 PM
Don't be hatin' on Toronto. They're not at fault, here.

Gordon
Mar 30, 2010, 3:27 PM
I always thought that in normal times the Asian routes from YVR were always quite profitable for AC.

It's the government that plays favorites with Air Canada. If they don't show any interest in reviving the Oasak Kansai Route after the 787s are delivered that route should be immediatly opened up for someone else to service

China Southern was supposed to start yvr to Gangzhou(sp), I wonder if that will happen once the industry strengthens.

trofirhen
Mar 30, 2010, 4:40 PM
Don't be hatin' on Toronto. They're not at fault, here.

Very true. It's important to understand that, since the majority of Canadians live in Southern Ontario and Quebec, that's where their voting support comes from. So they try and please the voters there to make sure they'll get their Parliamentary jobs back, come election time.
In fact, the Toronto chamber of commerce (or equivalent body) supports Emirates getting access to Calgary and Vancouver. It's not as if most people in Toronto are into some evil conspiracy to suck the rest of the country dry. They aren't. They're just as much puppets of the feds as we are, only there are more of them, so they get more attention and more freebies.

Rusty Gull
Mar 30, 2010, 7:55 PM
Its that kind of knee-jerk remark that leads me to dismiss people's whinging about Air Canada. I'm curious as to why you'd dismiss the Embraer E-jets as "cheap"? In my travels I much prefer the two abreast seating in Economy compared to the possibility of getting stuck in a middle seat in a 737 or Airbus

Ok, WhatNext, why don't you come forward and reveal your affiliation with Air Canada. Seriously, you are the one who is full of knee-jerk remarks in defence of your beloved AC.

cabotp
Mar 30, 2010, 8:40 PM
Very true. It's important to understand that, since the majority of Canadians live in Southern Ontario and Quebec, that's where their voting support comes from. So they try and please the voters there to make sure they'll get their Parliamentary jobs back, come election time.
In fact, the Toronto chamber of commerce (or equivalent body) supports Emirates getting access to Calgary and Vancouver. It's not as if most people in Toronto are into some evil conspiracy to suck the rest of the country dry. They aren't. They're just as much puppets of the feds as we are, only there are more of them, so they get more attention and more freebies.

And there in lines the problem. Because there are more of them. The feds kiss their ass more.

So we end up getting screwed more times than not because of all the ass kissing the feds do.

It would be fine if Air Canada was running these routes themselves. But they are not. They then act like it would be a disaster for the country if another air line were to run these routes. When by country they are talking more about Toronto.

Yume-sama
Apr 10, 2010, 1:14 AM
:D If you're in the market to visit Japan this Summer, Air Canada is having an unadvertised seat sale up to 30% off (depending on day) today from YVR only.

I just booked for September~!

It'll be my first time flying AC to Japan since their A330's kicked the bucket a couple of years ago. Looking forward to flying on a plane that isn't falling apart, their 777's.

trofirhen
Apr 11, 2010, 12:32 AM
Meanwhile, back at the airport, federal troops are crouched behind the rocks atop the canyon, waiting for those stinkin' Emirates jets, ready to head 'em off at the pass, guns loaded (with more bullshit than bullets......) :twoguns:

whatnext
Apr 11, 2010, 1:55 AM
Ok, WhatNext, why don't you come forward and reveal your affiliation with Air Canada. Seriously, you are the one who is full of knee-jerk remarks in defence of your beloved AC.

Have you ever even flown on an Embraer jet (this is the 'net, why do I even bother asking). The 2+2 seating arrangement is far better than Westjet's 3+3 737 (or Air Canada's 3+3 Airbus' for that matter)

This whole "Central Canada's out to get us" parochialism is tireseome.

And sorry, I don't work for Air Canada.

Chikinlittle
Apr 11, 2010, 4:01 AM
Love the Embraer jets (90 and 150 versions alike). No middle seats please!

Ever since WS switched reservation systems back in the fall (which was a nightmare!!), AC and WS have pretty much switched places. AC customer service has drastically improved, with staff actually wanting to find solutions for problems. And meanwhile, Westjet has lost the plot behind the scenes.

Yume-sama
Apr 11, 2010, 6:02 AM
I think coincidentally the layoffs Air Canada had may have particularly laid off those grumpy 90 year old women who were usually the flight attendants on any AC flight I was on.

Now they are young and attractive, and haven't been jaded by working for Air Canada for 30 years :P

Which, emergency landing or not does improve service! Kind of.

whatnext
Apr 11, 2010, 6:09 AM
:D If you're in the market to visit Japan this Summer, Air Canada is having an unadvertised seat sale up to 30% off (depending on day) today from YVR only.

I just booked for September~!

It'll be my first time flying AC to Japan since their A330's kicked the bucket a couple of years ago. Looking forward to flying on a plane that isn't falling apart, their 777's.

Air Canada's A330's didn't kick the bucket. Found this photo of one on airliners.net and the interior looks nice. I assume you'd ride up front, as always? :worship:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-Canada/Airbus-A330-343X/1646674/&sid=e1655ed05f76c0734731e29a3d83d2fe

Yume-sama
Apr 11, 2010, 6:11 AM
Air Canada's A330's didn't kick the bucket. Found this photo of one on airliners.net and the interior looks nice. I assume you'd ride up front, as always? :worship:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-Canada/Airbus-A330-343X/1646674/&sid=e1655ed05f76c0734731e29a3d83d2fe

Well, they don't use the A330's for the YVR - NRT run anymore, they use the 777. They are in the midst of retiring all 330's and 767's (will be fully replaced with the 787).

And the last time I was on an A330 it was in the pre-retrofit days. It's my version of a war story to tell my grandchildren.

I have not been in the First Suite yet, but I will in September. As most North American flights (except Vancouver - Toronto) don't have them.

And by the way, I usually don't pay for Business Class. It's usually empty on every flight that doesn't originate in Toronto, and I ask nicely 24 hours in advance ;)

trofirhen
Apr 11, 2010, 1:45 PM
Have you ever even flown on an Embraer jet (this is the 'net, why do I even bother asking). The 2+2 seating arrangement is far better than Westjet's 3+3 737 (or Air Canada's 3+3 Airbus' for that matter)

This whole "Central Canada's out to get us" parochialism is tireseome.

And sorry, I don't work for Air Canada.

:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:
I agree with you that the 2+2 seating on the Embraer is nicer than the 3+3 seating on a Boeing. I've flown on an such a plane with Air France.

But calling this "Toronto's out to get us" (which it isn't) attitude you accuse YVR of being 'PAROCHIAL' is rather like the pot calling the kettle black.

Excuse me, but your unbending defenses of restrictive Air Canada airspace-hogging, Toronto-hubbing, and market restrictions are parochialism at its most obvious.

It can only seem that you have an interest somehow, somewhere, even if not an Air Canada employee. Your bias is blatantly noticeable to many forumers.

trofirhen
Apr 11, 2010, 1:57 PM
Love the Embraer jets (90 and 150 versions alike). No middle seats please!

Ever since WS switched reservation systems back in the fall (which was a nightmare!!), AC and WS have pretty much switched places. AC customer service has drastically improved, with staff actually wanting to find solutions for problems. And meanwhile, Westjet has lost the plot behind the scenes.

Could I ask you a favour? I'd like to know about the "plot behind the scenes." :naughty: I'm sure there is one!!! But what is it, what would it be, and is it a surreptitious thing or what? You've piqued my curiosity, and I wonder what Air Toronto is up to, if anything. Thanks.

phesto
Apr 11, 2010, 5:23 PM
Well, they don't use the A330's for the YVR - NRT run anymore, they use the 777. They are in the midst of retiring all 330's and 767's (will be fully replaced with the 787).

And the last time I was on an A330 it was in the pre-retrofit days. It's my version of a war story to tell my grandchildren.

I have not been in the First Suite yet, but I will in September. As most North American flights (except Vancouver - Toronto) don't have them.

And by the way, I usually don't pay for Business Class. It's usually empty on every flight that doesn't originate in Toronto, and I ask nicely 24 hours in advance ;)

I say why pay for Business Class? I flew NRT-YVR on AC last week and the flight was only half full...an empty middle row is just as good as a lie-flat seat.:tup:

Yume-sama
Apr 11, 2010, 5:41 PM
For some reason the return flights are always much much emptier than the flights to NRT. You can't hope for this on the way there.

Likely because YVR isn't a hub like NRT is :P A good % of people on the flight to Tokyo are not staying in Japan.

trofirhen
Apr 11, 2010, 10:04 PM
Has anybody read this? If you are interested in the issue of YVR's role as a "hub", protectionism, airline chauvinism and propoganda, the "threats" to our airline industry, comparative studies with another country in the same situation, then this read is a must.

Source: Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, 16 March, 2010

http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2010/03/16/canada-australia-emirates--etihad-case-study-of-protectionism-vs-liberalism-whos-got-it-right/page1

.... some feedback would be nice, too......

Millennium2002
Apr 12, 2010, 12:19 AM
Reading both sides of the story tells me that there's heavy bias on both sides... but anyway...

The fact that there's almost no competition here (other than WestJet which only operates locally) is somewhat problematic as it means that Air Canada can't and is unwilling to adapt to the world market.

On the other hand, that adaptation may cause them to lose revenue and jobs, which is the excuse that they're putting forward.

In the end... I say... open up the markets... because Vancouver will surely benefit from increased tourism if there were more airlines operating here to more destinations. Also, if in the longer term Air Canada is able to adapt to this challenge, then maybe it itself could expand all over the place.

trofirhen
Apr 12, 2010, 12:51 AM
Reading both sides of the story tells me that there's heavy bias on both sides... but anyway...

The fact that there's almost no competition here (other than WestJet which only operates locally) is somewhat problematic as it means that Air Canada can't and is unwilling to adapt to the world market.

On the other hand, that adaptation may cause them to lose revenue and jobs, which is the excuse that they're putting forward.

In the end... I say... open up the markets... because Vancouver will surely benefit from increased tourism if there were more airlines operating here to more destinations. Also, if in the longer term Air Canada is able to adapt to this challenge, then maybe it itself could expand all over the place.

:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:
Thanks for reading that, Allan. I think it's important that people are as informed about all this as possible. I hope others will read it, too.
The whole thing addresses a vitally important, for Canada, its airlines, policies, and of course YVR above all.

twoNeurons
Apr 12, 2010, 1:30 AM
:D If you're in the market to visit Japan this Summer, Air Canada is having an unadvertised seat sale up to 30% off (depending on day) today from YVR only.

I just booked for September~!

It'll be my first time flying AC to Japan since their A330's kicked the bucket a couple of years ago. Looking forward to flying on a plane that isn't falling apart, their 777's.

Actually I really like their 777s to Tokyo.

Ever since being forced to fly through Tokyo ( enroute to Osaka ) I've flown on their 777s. Although I prefer JAL's 747s ( their upper deck is nice to be in... feels like a smaller plane )

Yume, I'm guessing your Aeroplan points status allows you to more easily get free upgrades. Are you elite status?

whatnext
Apr 12, 2010, 1:43 AM
Reading both sides of the story tells me that there's heavy bias on both sides... but anyway...

The fact that there's almost no competition here (other than WestJet which only operates locally) is somewhat problematic as it means that Air Canada can't and is unwilling to adapt to the world market.

On the other hand, that adaptation may cause them to lose revenue and jobs, which is the excuse that they're putting forward.

In the end... I say... open up the markets... because Vancouver will surely benefit from increased tourism if there were more airlines operating here to more destinations. Also, if in the longer term Air Canada is able to adapt to this challenge, then maybe it itself could expand all over the place.

Huh?

Other than Vancouver-Sydney you'd be challenged to find a route that Air Canada doesn't have competition on. And saying Westjet operates "locally" is stretching things quite a bit.

As to trofirhen's article, that's been rebutted already here. Name me a spot in Australia where they can easily drive across a border to access unlimited flight options, as you can in most of Canada.

trofirhen
Apr 12, 2010, 2:58 AM
Huh?

Other than Vancouver-Sydney you'd be challenged to find a route that Air Canada doesn't have competition on. And saying Westjet operates "locally" is stretching things quite a bit.

As to trofirhen's article, that's been rebutted already here. Name me a spot in Australia where they can easily drive across a border to access unlimited flight options, as you can in most of Canada.

Tell me please: Who has "rebutted" the article, and what do you mean by "here?" Are you talking about your own contradiction to what is contained in the article?

And who said anything about "easily driving across the border" to (Seattle presumably) to get " unlimited flight options?"

If that is the case, then why do we have an airport In Vancouver in the first place, Whatnext? Why not just 'shut 'er down' and turn it into a megamall or something? Huh? Huh?

Why don't we just hop on a bus or car and drive to an American airport if we want to go somewhere? That seems to be the underlying thesis of your remark.

whatnext
Apr 12, 2010, 3:38 AM
Tell me please: Who has "rebutted" the article, and what do you mean by "here?" Are you talking about your own contradiction to what is contained in the article?

And who said anything about "easily driving across the border" to (Seattle presumably) to get " unlimited flight options?"

If that is the case, then why do we have an airport In Vancouver in the first place, Whatnext? Why not just 'shut 'er down' and turn it into a megamall or something? Huh? Huh?

Why don't we just hop on a bus or car and drive to an American airport if we want to go somewhere? That seems to be the underlying thesis of your remark.

:previous:
I'll put it simply for you: comparing the Australian and Canadian aviation markets is comparing apples and oranges. The fact is that most major airports in Canada are a relatively short distance from competition from American airports. So to bleat that there is some sort of evil Central Canadian monopoly etc. etc. is ridiculous. That is not a reason to "shut it down": by your flawed logic above Edmonton should just shut down their airport, as Calgary offers more options a short distance away.

I find it richly ironic that you post from one of the only Western countries that still clings to a state ownership share in their flag carrier. :rolleyes:

Regardless, this topic has become tiresome and isn't adding anything new to the discussion of YVR.

trofirhen
Apr 12, 2010, 5:25 AM
:previous:
I'll put it simply for you: comparing the Australian and Canadian aviation markets is comparing apples and oranges. The fact is that most major airports in Canada are a relatively short distance from competition from American airports. So to bleat that there is some sort of evil Central Canadian monopoly etc. etc. is ridiculous. That is not a reason to "shut it down": by your flawed logic above Edmonton should just shut down their airport, as Calgary offers more options a short distance away.

I find it richly ironic that you post from one of the only Western countries that still clings to a state ownership share in their flag carrier. :rolleyes:

Regardless, this topic has become tiresome and isn't adding anything new to the discussion of YVR.

I'm not "bleating" about an evil Central Canadian monopoly.
In fact, I never referred to such a thing at all, I just gave a link to an article, to which you seem to react like sodium on water.
I think that you're strying to stonewall on this. What about the US airports you mentioned earlier? Now it's Calgary and Edmonton. Is this a "bait and switch" technique for escaping intellectual responsibility or what?

As for this not adding anything to the YVR thread, neither much do the endless discussions about flights to Japan, (no offense, please) although we accept input from all parties as a mattter of courtesy.

As far as THIS post is concerned, let other readers decide for themselves, would you please? Thank you.

For anyone interested, the original post is number 2570. Please people, help me out with this "number."

Hourglass
Apr 12, 2010, 6:13 AM
:previous:
The fact is that most major airports in Canada are a relatively short distance from competition from American airports. So to bleat that there is some sort of evil Central Canadian monopoly etc. etc. is ridiculous. That is not a reason to "shut it down": by your flawed logic above Edmonton should just shut down their airport, as Calgary offers more options a short distance away.



Then why not open up the Canadian market further, since there is competition anyway? :rolleyes:

Everyone has choice. The issue is whether people driving or flying to Seattle to catch a flight brings the most economic benefit to Vancouver. Is that your idea of a 'rebuttal'? ;)

I've actually seen little in the way of logical rebuttal from you -- only an unbending defense of Air Canada's God-given right (aided and abetted by Transport Canada) to primacy on overseas routes (regardless of whether the route is actually served by Air Canada or not), and a thin-skinned sensitivity toward any perceived criticism of Air Canada itself (as observed by a number of other forum members).

Deregulation or opening up of markets always brings cries that the sky is falling (case in point, the recent speech by the Air Canada CEO to the Vancouver Board of Trade: Don't allow Emirates in! Vancouver will only be a spoke to a Dubai hub!). And yet, somehow successful companies manage to adapt and thrive -- and the consumer generally benefits from better choice and price. Air Canada has the benefit of an extensive route network in Canada, a young fleet, and dominant market share, so logically they should be able to be very successful in such an environment.

I think we're simply going to have to agree to disagree. Enough already.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 12, 2010, 10:56 AM
As for the originally posted article, its argument runs around the fact Air Canada underserves India and chooses to to help Lufthansa. Therefor to get more service to India, we should allow Emirates in. It completely ignores the fact that Air Canada is not allowed to start another route to India due to the current bilateral (well it is, but the 2nd route provisions in the current bilateral are pretty awful).

Don't allow Emirates in! Vancouver will only be a spoke to a Dubai hub!). And yet, somehow successful companies manage to adapt and thrive -- and the consumer generally benefits from better choice and price. Air Canada has the benefit of an extensive route network in Canada, a young fleet, and dominant market share, so logically they should be able to be very successful in such an environment.

So because Air Canada can compete against WestJet, we should allow a subsidized state carrier, which operates from an illogically big hub, and this will be good? For consumers, price might go down, but choice will not.

Emirates operates pretty slyly. They go around and say, 'be open to us, we are open to you' and say this to everyone. Then because two countries they are open to, are not open to each other, they arbitrage. Emirates can only continue to exist as it does now in an environment where there is unfair market access into certain countries. (Beyond serving the Kangaroo routes)

quobobo
Apr 12, 2010, 4:08 PM
...we should allow a subsidized state carrier, which operates from an illogically big hub, and this will be good?

Yes. I have no problems with another state subsidizing flights for me.

Rusty Gull
Apr 13, 2010, 1:24 AM
Have you ever even flown on an Embraer jet (this is the 'net, why do I even bother asking). The 2+2 seating arrangement is far better than Westjet's 3+3 737 (or Air Canada's 3+3 Airbus' for that matter)

This whole "Central Canada's out to get us" parochialism is tireseome.

And sorry, I don't work for Air Canada.

You don't work for Air Canada - or so you claim - but you sure do have a vested interest in them.

Maybe, just maybe What Next, you can explain to me why your pals at Transport Canada were trying to quash the sentiments of at least one aviation academic at last year's Open Skies Summit, who said exactly what Air Emirates is now saying - that the feds are protecting Air Canada's ass, at the detriment of the Canadian consumer?

You are condescending, aren't you What Next? The Embraer is not as special as you think - I recently flew one domestically from Tokyo on JAL.

You are also very good at creating red herrings - hoping to distract forumers here from the REAL issue - that Canadian taxpayers and the federal government are propping up Air Canada and Pearson International Airport. (and frankly, I don't care where Pearson or AC are headquartered. As an advocate of free markets, I despise the notion of any business getting preferential treatment from the feds).

You have lost all credibility on this forum, WhatNext.

Oh - and your jab against Surrey and North Van on another thread (you referred to North Van as "Surrey on the Slope") is equally childish and classless. Obviously, your perception of Surrey doesn't go beyond a few sensationalist headlines about Whalley - and you haven't clued in to the fact that many forumers at SSP are indeed living in Surrey!

Get a life please.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 13, 2010, 1:28 AM
How are taxpayers propping up Air Canada again? They haven't received any government funds since they were privatized.

Millennium2002
Apr 13, 2010, 1:33 AM
Well... the fact that Emirates is involved in this discussion is going to make things really messy.... but if we just pull them out of the equation for a moment and re-evaluate where Vancouver is... I say that we may still be lacking some important connections and competition to Europe and Asia that may be of use to us.

Spork
Apr 13, 2010, 1:38 AM
How are taxpayers propping up Air Canada again? They haven't received any government funds since they were privatized.

1) http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/air-canada-gets-bailout-from-ottawa/
2) Protectionism by keeping the market tightly controlled

Rusty Gull
Apr 13, 2010, 1:39 AM
How are taxpayers propping up Air Canada again? They haven't received any government funds since they were privatized.

Any time a body of government grants a business a license to engage in essentially monopolistic behaviours, it costs taxpayers - both through indirect subsidies and depleted tax revenues due to a depleted business environment.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 13, 2010, 2:05 AM
1) http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/air-canada-gets-bailout-from-ottawa/
2) Protectionism by keeping the market tightly controlled

A loan from a government controlled bank is not a bailout. By that standard, Porter has gotten a bailout too, as have most Canadian corporations that export.

As Vancouver benefits greatly from protectionism (I doubt YVR would have developed as it has if it was in a common market with SeaTac for the past 50 years) it is hard to pick and choose. Protectionism bad when it means a loss of a flight to a hub without any O & D traffic ie: Singapore, Dubai, protectionism good when it means direct service to many destinations that otherwise would have a hub along the way.

If you want to be against protectionism of one form in air travel, you have to be against it all.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 13, 2010, 2:10 AM
Any time a body of government grants a business a license to engage in essentially monopolistic behaviours, it costs taxpayers - both through indirect subsidies and depleted tax revenues due to a depleted business environment.

If all our long haul routes were served by foreigners, I am pretty sure there would be little heavy air craft maintenance domestically, little spare parts manufacture, and therefor the loss of all those jobs and the taxes they generate to overseas.

If there was demand for a 6 times a year flight from Vancouver, any Canadian that can provide that service can. They could start nearly instantaneously. No change in treaty. Just a simple diplomatic note designating a carrier on the route.

Why does it not happen? There is not any demand for the route.

whatnext
Apr 13, 2010, 2:55 AM
You don't work for Air Canada - or so you claim - but you sure do have a vested interest in them.

Maybe, just maybe What Next, you can explain to me why your pals at Transport Canada were trying to quash the sentiments of at least one aviation academic at last year's Open Skies Summit, who said exactly what Air Emirates is now saying - that the feds are protecting Air Canada's ass, at the detriment of the Canadian consumer?

You are condescending, aren't you What Next? The Embraer is not as special as you think - I recently flew one domestically from Tokyo on JAL.

You are also very good at creating red herrings - hoping to distract forumers here from the REAL issue - that Canadian taxpayers and the federal government are propping up Air Canada and Pearson International Airport. (and frankly, I don't care where Pearson or AC are headquartered. As an advocate of free markets, I despise the notion of any business getting preferential treatment from the feds).

You have lost all credibility on this forum, WhatNext.

Oh - and your jab against Surrey and North Van on another thread (you referred to North Van as "Surrey on the Slope") is equally childish and classless. Obviously, your perception of Surrey doesn't go beyond a few sensationalist headlines about Whalley - and you haven't clued in to the fact that many forumers at SSP are indeed living in Surrey!

Get a life please.

Whoa, lighten up Frances.

As to condescending: it appears in your world that someone can't disagree with your point of view with regards to Emirates without being an Air Canada employee or having some sinister "vested interest". (Full disclosure: at some point after the CP merger I owned Air Canada shares and managed to escape without too much of a haircut). I hope you enjoyed your Embraer E-jet flight on JAL, particularly not having to deal with middle seats.

I assume, as Sir.Humphrey.Appleby pointed out, you are equally outraged that a Federal body, the Toronto Port Authority, shuts out all competition from Toronto Island Airport to favour Porter Airlines? And likewise outraged by the Federal government's requirement that Air Canada provide service in English and French, a requirement which it does not apply to any other Canadian carrier?

As to the "Surrey on the slope" comment, many people of a certain age who grew up in Vancouver would be familiar with it, as it alludes to North Van's historically blue collar roots. Just like the old "living in Richmond means never having to say you're Surrey". (edit: I notice in your outrage you ignored the smillie beside the comment)

Geesh.

mezzanine
Apr 13, 2010, 3:47 AM
A loan from a government controlled bank is not a bailout. By that standard, Porter has gotten a bailout too, as have most Canadian corporations that export.

From Spork's nytimes link:

Ottawa will kick in 250 million dollars — 150 million through Export Development Canada and 100 million dollars from the government’s Canada Account.
The Canada Account is used for financing that is considered to be in the “national interest,” but is either too risky or too large for Export Development Canada to accept on its own, the newspaper said.


As Vancouver benefits greatly from protectionism (I doubt YVR would have developed as it has if it was in a common market with SeaTac for the past 50 years)

Well, on some level that's true, but you're really pushing the rhetoric limit here. I would counter that if the border did dissolve in some common market treaty but Canadian Airlines survived the Asian Economic crisis in the late 1990s (like by having american airlines buy a controlling stake, which the feds deemed offside and promptly disallowed), we would have AA transborder flights hubbing here for Canadian's Trans-pacific hub. I suppose they would't be 'transborder' flights though... ;-)

mezzanine
Apr 13, 2010, 4:27 AM
If all our long haul routes were served by foreigners, I am pretty sure there would be little heavy air craft maintenance domestically, little spare parts manufacture, and therefor the loss of all those jobs and the taxes they generate to overseas.

Well, the current situation isn't so great with air canada at YVR..

Air Canada has served notice that it plans to lay off more than 1,000 machinists seconded to work at maintenance and overhaul company Aveos Fleet Performance in Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/03/01/aircanada-aveo-layoffs.html#ixzz0ngWB904f




If there was demand for a 6 times a year flight from Vancouver, any Canadian that can provide that service can. They could start nearly instantaneously. No change in treaty. Just a simple diplomatic note designating a carrier on the route.

Why does it not happen? There is not any demand for the route.


I doubt that it's that simple. IMO simple economies of scale and major improvements to pearson favor AC maximizing their hub at TO for the foreseeable future.

From AC investor literature:

Multi-hub Strategy and Seamless Transfers at Toronto

Since the opening on January 30, 2007 of the latest development at Toronto Pearson Airport, Air Canada operates all its transborder flights from Terminal 1.
This provides Air Canada with the ability to more seamlessly transfer passengers to and from the U.S. to Europe and Asia. This is a major improvement from the prior challenges of checking out of Terminal 2 and checking into Terminal 1 or vice-versa. Air Canada’s Toronto operations are now consolidated in one terminal, in one of North America’s newest and most convenient facilities from which to travel internationally.

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/investor/documents/2006_AIF.pdf

mezzanine
Apr 13, 2010, 4:33 AM
I'm not against AC, but I do think that Emirates at YVR isn't a bad thing. If anything, it will make AC step up its game at YVR, and give us ++ connections to africa and south asia. The crappy part is AC fear-mongering about Emirates - they are not open to giving YVR flyers more options.

Emirates' ownership profile should be a non-issue. If Emirates is able to compete down prices on certain routes because of its deep (State) capital reserves, it would again be consumers which reap the benefits. As Paul Krugman is said to have once quipped, the best policy response to foreign State subsidies is "to send a thank-you note to the embassy." Quoted in Alan O. Sykes, International Trade: Trade Remedies, in Research Handbook of International Economic Law 62, 106 (Edward Elgar Publishing 2007).

Given Air Canada's primacy of place in influencing Canadian air transport policy, see, e.g., Michael E. Levine, Why Weren't the Airline Reregulated?, 23 Yale J. on Reg. 269, 294-95 (2006), it seems unlikely that Canada will accede to Emirates' demands. The "benefit" is that Air Canada will be able to keep itself afloat in markets where it lacks a bona fide competitive advantage; the "cost" will be felt by consumers.


http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/aviation/2010/03/air-canada-says-no-to-competition.html

jlousa
Apr 13, 2010, 5:21 AM
I am far from a AC fan and only ever fly them if I can't get a similar flight with another airline. That said it's standard economics that you should care if they want to use up state funds subsidizing our flights. It's a principle rule that the company that can afford to lose money the longest will end up making the most money. All they have to do is subsidize the flights for long enough that the competition dries up, the won't continue subsidizing the flights past that stage.

mezzanine
Apr 13, 2010, 3:36 PM
I am far from a AC fan and only ever fly them if I can't get a similar flight with another airline. That said it's standard economics that you should care if they want to use up state funds subsidizing our flights. It's a principle rule that the company that can afford to lose money the longest will end up making the most money. All they have to do is subsidize the flights for long enough that the competition dries up, the won't continue subsidizing the flights past that stage.

I suppose, but the market forces are all skewed here (see Spork's link on AC's bail-out in 2009). I am unsure how a YVR-Dubai flight would disrupt AC/star alliance international network out of YVR. (For instance, I am an aeroplan member, but when going to europe, I always try to fly LH direct fromYVR. Those flights are always sold at a higher price compared to stopping over in YYZ or YYC.) Singapore flew YVR-Inchon-Singapore without much debate on Seoul-YVR 'dumping'.

In all fairness, IMO a lot of the recently lost flights from YVR are from the recent economic crisis (KIX, SIA). I worry what things will look like when the economy improves.

Finally, let's say that emirates did rely on state capital more than the next airline (AC sure relies on it). If emirates did think it would be a strategic move to service YVR, then i'm sure they would run the numbers to make sure that their effort is sustainable within their business plan (ie with state subsidies). IMO star alliance intl flights would still see an interest serving vancouver in spite of this (FRA, LHR). If emirates was losing buckets of money, they would withdraw and things IMO would revert back to the present situation.

From the Aviation law link:

First, suppose that Rovinescu is correct and Emirates possesses excess capacity, it does not follow that the carrier is going to "dump" services into the Canadian market in any economically precise sense. Similar to the concept of predatory pricing in antitrust law, dumping refers to the practice whereby a foreign firm (or firms) sells its goods or services at a price below what it charges for the same goods/services in its home and/or third country markets. No showing has been made that Emirates plans to do this.

Second, even if Emirates engaged in dumping, any loss sustained by Air Canada would be outweighed by the surplus given to airline consumers. Passengers flying to or from Canada would have access to more flights to or from more destinations, and with potentially cheaper prices than Air Canada is capable of providing.

Third, dumping is similar to, but not synonymous with predatory pricing, i.e., selling below marginal cost. Again, there is no evidence that Emirates would sell air services to consumers at a loss. It would be an irrational tactic anyway. Were Emirates capable of driving competitors out of certain markets with predatory prices, the carrier would still have to recoup its losses at a later date by resetting its prices to a supracompetitive level. All that would do, however, is attract other carriers back into those markets to take advantage of the new price structure. Eventually, rates would be competed down to the competitive level, leaving Emirates to either eat the losses it sustained during the predatory period or forcing it to reengage in predation to again drive out competitors. All during this time, though, consumers would benefit by having access to cheap airfares.

SpongeG
Apr 16, 2010, 1:03 AM
Most Europe-bound flights cancelled out of YVR

By: ctvbc.ca

Date: Thursday Apr. 15, 2010 4:13 PM PT

Four flights bound for Europe out of Vancouver were cancelled Thursday, after clouds of ash caused by volcanic activity in Iceland closed airports across the continent.


Two flights bound for London Heathrow airport as well planes headed for Frankfurt and Amsterdam were grounded, and one flight to London Gatwick airport has been delayed.


Two inbound flights were cancelled from London and Amsterdam.


Air Canada says it has cancelled all flights to and from London's Heathrow airport, Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris and the Frankfurt airport until further notice.


Airports across Europe were forced to close after an erupting volcano in Iceland spewed a treacherous ash cloud, closing all air space over Britain, Ireland and Nordic countries.


Experts say the ash, comprised of bits of sand and glass the consistency of talcum powder, compromises visibility for pilots and aircraft engines.


The Vancouver International Airport is recommending that passengers with flights scheduled for European destinations check the YVR website (yvr.ca) or with their airlines to stay updated on flight status.


With files from The Canadian Press

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100415/bc_flights_cancelled_100415/20100415?hub=BritishColumbia

Yume-sama
Apr 16, 2010, 1:07 AM
Hah. I loved one experts opinion when he was asked when the eruption will end.

"History tells us anywhere from a few hours to several thousand years"

Sorry, no flights to Europe for 10,000 years :(

Locked In
Apr 16, 2010, 1:56 AM
Apparently the last time this volcano erupted it continued to pour out ash for 18 months. How on earth would they deal with that?

Locked In
Apr 16, 2010, 1:58 AM
double post

Yume-sama
Apr 16, 2010, 2:05 AM
Build a cross ocean maglev!!

Well, if it were to last thousands of years.

SpongeG
Apr 16, 2010, 2:05 AM
people they showed on global news were not happy - the one woman was like i wanna go home now not on sunday or monday!

um did you not pay attention to the volcano and europe being shut down to air traffic?

MalcolmTucker
Apr 16, 2010, 2:12 AM
Fly to Spain and train? Develop much higher altitude airplanes? Fit aircraft with a more advanced radar to help steer around ash.

Best idea is to just wait I guess, soon air lines will be flying again to the continent at least (Frankfurt), will just have to take a much longer route.