PDA

View Full Version : YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143

SpongeG
Apr 16, 2010, 5:56 AM
out of YVR? lol there is nowhere to go from YVR unless you go to Toronto and fly ;) isn't that what everyone whines about in here? hehe

but not many options this week - I wonder how long it will last

Millennium2002
Apr 16, 2010, 6:07 AM
Radar doesn't really help detect ash. The dust isn't as detectable as rain. In fact, BBC news reports say meteorologists can only predict where it might be by using visual indications and wind speed and not by using tracking instruments or anything.

If this continues, I think that Iceland should then immediately hose down the dust and cap the vent with an emergency cover.

red-paladin
Apr 16, 2010, 7:53 AM
If this continues, I think that Iceland should then immediately hose down the dust and cap the vent with an emergency cover.

Right. Good luck with that.

jsbertram
Apr 16, 2010, 8:59 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?

An antique device called a 'BOAT', sometimes called a 'SHIP'.
Quite popular for moving passengers until the 50's when jetliners became reliable and cheap.

My solution: Fly the planes to an east coast airport; roll them off the runway onto barges; tow them to England or France; roll them onto nearby runways; continue the flight as if nothing has happened.

jsbertram
Apr 16, 2010, 9:08 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.

Why not fly the other way via Asia & India to a Mediterranean city in France, Spain or Italy, and then take the train the rest of the way?

Millennium2002
Apr 16, 2010, 9:37 AM
Actually circumnavigating part of the world is not a bad "alternate route or method" idea... since everyone has been stuck for at least a day or more now...

I also think cruise ships should restart temporary relief services between Europe and North America.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 16, 2010, 10:47 AM
Actually circumnavigating part of the world is not a bad "alternate route or method" idea... since everyone has been stuck for at least a day or more now...

I also think cruise ships should restart temporary relief services between Europe and North America.

Cruise ships aren't designed for trans ocean voyages, it would be an 'experience' for the passengers to be sure.

As for Radar not detecting ash - yeah there is a reason they can't fly around today. If the problem persists for another week who knows maybe just a firmware update and some tweaks will give a rudimentary capacity. Over time trying different frequencies might work, and after that other 'alternative' technologies.

twoNeurons
Apr 16, 2010, 1:47 PM
Sorry, guys... I was planning for the eruption for December 21, 2012 as part of a much bigger show. Consider this a sneak preview...


bwwaaaaa haa ha ha haa

jsbertram
Apr 16, 2010, 4:57 PM
Cruise ships aren't designed for trans ocean voyages, it would be an 'experience' for the passengers to be sure.

As for Radar not detecting ash - yeah there is a reason they can't fly around today. If the problem persists for another week who knows maybe just a firmware update and some tweaks will give a rudimentary capacity. Over time trying different frequencies might work, and after that other 'alternative' technologies.

Funny how the Alaska Cruise ships don't have a problem doing the Vancouver - Alaska - Hawaii - California - Mexico - Panama - Florida route as part of their winter repositioning at the end of the Alaska season

Best six weeks of sailing the family has ever had.

I'm curious why you think trans-atlantic sailing is such an 'experience' when compared to coastal-pacific and trans-pacific sailing.

trofirhen
Apr 16, 2010, 5:06 PM
Sorry, guys... I was planning for the eruption for December 21, 2012 as part of a much bigger show. Consider this a sneak preview...


bwwaaaaa haa ha ha haa

Aha! A psychopath with cosmic powers planning the end of the world. (Can I be part of it, too please? I want to hear the screams, the explosions ...... to see the smoke-filled terror in humanity's eyes in their final moments....):evil:

johnjimbc
Apr 16, 2010, 5:14 PM
The problem flying through a thin layer of ash is like flying through particles of fine rocks . . . hard as rocks or glass but suspended in air. It's the kind of dust you can die breathing cause it collects in your lungs. I'm sure when it's thick enough, it shows up on radar. But my understanding is in thin layers, it's scarcely visible but highly destructive.

There was a plane that barely escaped flying through it somewhere in the Pacific back in the 80s. Pilots saw nothing - even visually - yet the plane engines all shut down entirely and electrical systems failed. Once they got the engines restarted after a harrowing plunge, they climbed back to altitude and the same thing started happening again. After they landed mechanics said the engines looked like they had been sandblasted with destructive force. No one even realized what caused it until after investigators put two and two together, realizing the intersection of the flight path with air patterns from a volcanic eruption several hundred miles away.

Volcanic ash is nothing like the image we have of "ash" . . . it is much more insidious, yet can appear as just a layer of light haze.

officedweller
Apr 16, 2010, 5:26 PM
My understanding is that the ash does not show up on radar (unlike clouds) beacuse theire is no moisture in it. That what was said in a "Mayday" episode on a flight in the 1980s that lost all engines between Malaysia and Austrailia due a volcanic ash cloud.

Funny how the Alaska Cruise ships don't have a problem doing the Vancouver - Alaska - Hawaii - California - Mexico - Panama - Florida route as part of their winter repositioning at the end of the Alaska season

Best six weeks of sailing the family has ever had.

I'm curious why you think trans-atlantic sailing is such an 'experience' when compared to coastal-pacific and trans-pacific sailing.

The ships are definitely designed differently - I recall a Discovery channel show on the Queen Mary II).
The "ocean liners" are definitely built more rugged than "cruise ships".
The repositioning cruises would typically stick close to shore and may be a favourable times of year.

i.e. Ships such as the Queen Mary II are built to withstand huge seas on a regular basis, while cruise ships are not.

whatnext
Apr 16, 2010, 5:32 PM
Funny how the Alaska Cruise ships don't have a problem doing the Vancouver - Alaska - Hawaii - California - Mexico - Panama - Florida route as part of their winter repositioning at the end of the Alaska season

Best six weeks of sailing the family has ever had.

I'm curious why you think trans-atlantic sailing is such an 'experience' when compared to coastal-pacific and trans-pacific sailing.

Hmm, ask me about my QE2 crossing in 11m seas one April, and that ship was designed for the weather.:yuck:

Its not so much that a typical cruise ship can't do a transatlantic crossing, just that it could get pretty uncomfortable for the passengers. There are frequent repositioning cruises transatlantic, but they tend to follow a more southerly route and are slower. The Queen Mary 2 is the only ship today designed to cross the North Atlantic with any speed.

Spikester
Apr 16, 2010, 8:30 PM
I lucked out this time. My usual trip to Spain connects via Heathrow or Schiphol. This trip includes a stopover in Texas on the return leg, so I flew YVR-DFW-MAD on Thursday instead, and thus completed my journey without incident.

trofirhen
Apr 16, 2010, 10:04 PM
I lucked out this time. My usual trip to Spain connects via Heathrow or Schiphol. This trip includes a stopover in Texas on the return leg, so I flew YVR-DFW-MAD on Thursday instead, and thus completed my journey without incident.

You are lucky. The eruption shows no sign of slowing down, and the crystalline dust particles are spreading further and further. If it continues unabated for more than two or three weeks, it will wreak havoc on much of the world's aviation patterns; at least anything over the North Atlantic and Europe, and that includes routes like LHR > JFK !!

We're in for an experience here, it seems.

jsbertram
Apr 17, 2010, 8:16 AM
Hmm, ask me about my QE2 crossing in 11m seas one April, and that ship was designed for the weather.:yuck:

Its not so much that a typical cruise ship can't do a transatlantic crossing, just that it could get pretty uncomfortable for the passengers. There are frequent repositioning cruises transatlantic, but they tend to follow a more southerly route and are slower. The Queen Mary 2 is the only ship today designed to cross the North Atlantic with any speed.

I've always heard to avoid a repositioning cruise on the boats coming up from Mexico / California to Vancouver in the spring to start the Alaska runs, because they can be caught in some really horrid coastal weather while the seasons are changing.

jsbertram
Apr 17, 2010, 8:19 AM
You are lucky. The eruption shows no sign of slowing down, and the crystalline dust particles are spreading further and further. If it continues unabated for more than two or three weeks, it will wreak havoc on much of the world's aviation patterns; at least anything over the North Atlantic and Europe, and that includes routes like LHR > JFK !!

We're in for an experience here, it seems.

I saw a news bit on BBC that said the last time this volcano was so active, it lasted for 2 1/2 years.
And it triggered a nearby volcano to start belching too.

The same news piece said its getting belched high enough to get into the jetstream, and the particles are so small they can stay aloft for weeks. This is the same jetstream that loops over Russia, China and North America.

If you start seeing Bright Red and Brilliant Pink sunsets, you are seeing the only pleasant effect of the ash particles that are nearby.

mezzanine
Apr 17, 2010, 8:46 PM
^^All further evidence of a need of Emirates flights to YVR. We cannot access any of the european hubs, but flights to Dubai are still ongoing from north america.

trofirhen
Apr 17, 2010, 9:06 PM
^^All further evidence of a need of Emirates flights to YVR. We cannot access any of the european hubs, but flights to Dubai are still ongoing from north america.

I was just thinking the very same thing!! Precisely. Thank you for that!! ;)

SpongeG
Apr 18, 2010, 12:56 AM
just a small amount of ash can be bad - it happenned to a british airways fight in the 80's when a volcano erupted in indonesia - all 4 engines went out

Yume-sama
Apr 18, 2010, 2:33 AM
And it sand blasted the outside of the 747, it came home with no paint.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 18, 2010, 2:47 AM
Love the quote from the Captain of the flight if I remember it correctly from the tv show.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them under control. I trust you are not in too much distress.

Pure brilliance.

Coldrsx
Apr 18, 2010, 2:49 AM
^speedbird... good ol St. Elmo's fire baby.

trofirhen
Apr 18, 2010, 6:26 AM
When this volcanic ash problem subsides, and the conversation gets back to business, and the obligatory remarks about when what flights will go to KIX again, and where can you buy the best Japadogs, etc ............

I wonder if we'll get our teeth into destinations again. Otherwise stated, making sure that YVR becomes a real hub, and does not remain the hybrid spoke-hub that it is.

Other than the Emirates issue (which is dead in the water, let's face it), what about the following, all of which have been mentioned before: Westjet joining Skyteam with Air France, Korean, Delta..... (sounds surreal doesn't it)....

Southwest codesharing with Westjet, providing vastly improved access to the USA..... etc etc etc

It's time to make sure Vancouver becomes the all-round hub it should be. With the powers that be at the helm, that is unlikely. Wouldn't it be great to have a federal Minister of Transport who hailed from BC? (dream on...... Ontario rules...... )

jsbertram
Apr 18, 2010, 7:05 AM
When this volcanic ash problem subsides, and the conversation gets back to business, and the obligatory remarks about when what flights will go to KIX again, and where can you buy the best Japadogs, etc ............

I wonder if we'll get our teeth into destinations again. Otherwise stated, making sure that YVR becomes a real hub, and does not remain the hybrid spoke-hub that it is.

Other than the Emirates issue (which is dead in the water, let's face it), what about the following, all of which have been mentioned before: Westjet joining Skyteam with Air France, Korean, Delta..... (sounds surreal doesn't it)....

Southwest codesharing with Westjet, providing vastly improved access to the USA..... etc etc etc

It's time to make sure Vancouver becomes the all-round hub it should be. With the powers that be at the helm, that is unlikely. Wouldn't it be great to have a federal Minister of Transport who hailed from BC? (dream on...... Ontario rules...... )

typed too soon ....

Partner ends pact with WestJet.
Southwest exits.
Airlines part ways over arrangement for codesharing
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Partner+ends+pact+with+WestJet/2917763/story.html

lezard
Apr 18, 2010, 11:55 AM
An antique device called a 'BOAT', sometimes called a 'SHIP'.
Quite popular for moving passengers until the 50's when jetliners became reliable and cheap.

My solution: Fly the planes to an east coast airport; roll them off the runway onto barges; tow them to England or France; roll them onto nearby runways; continue the flight as if nothing has happened.


Brilliant!

trofirhen
Apr 18, 2010, 3:27 PM
typed too soon ....

Partner ends pact with WestJet.
Southwest exits.
Airlines part ways over arrangement for codesharing
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Partner+ends+pact+with+WestJet/2917763/story.html

Yikes! I goofed again. Oh well, it seems they have other stuff cooking, and if part of it is with AF/KLM, it may turn out to be something big-time. I hope so. (Would this mean Westjuet is going to start European flights, I wonder??)

jsbertram
Apr 18, 2010, 4:27 PM
Yikes! I goofed again. Oh well, it seems they have other stuff cooking, and if part of it is with AF/KLM, it may turn out to be something big-time. I hope so. (Would this mean Westjuet is going to start European flights, I wonder??)

According to the article, Southwest killed their agreement because WestJet wants to get cozy with Delta.

Seems to me like killing the Southwest + WestJet codeshare agreement makes it easier for WestJet to codeshare with Delta now. After all wasn't that a primary motivator for WestJet to go though the pain of switching to Sabre? To make it easier to codeshare with everyone else using Sabre too?

Yume-sama
Apr 18, 2010, 4:43 PM
I hope it was for something good, because I don't like Sabre. It looks ugly. :sly:

trofirhen
Apr 18, 2010, 6:17 PM
I hope it was for something good, because I don't like Sabre. It looks ugly. :sly:

Could you elaborate on that, Yume? I'd be interested to hear what you think might happen. Thanks. :)
ps: why don't you like Sabre? I'm not criticizing your choice, just curious, as I know
little or nothing about the different booking engines.

SpongeG
Apr 20, 2010, 12:29 AM
According to the article, Southwest killed their agreement because WestJet wants to get cozy with Delta.

Seems to me like killing the Southwest + WestJet codeshare agreement makes it easier for WestJet to codeshare with Delta now. After all wasn't that a primary motivator for WestJet to go though the pain of switching to Sabre? To make it easier to codeshare with everyone else using Sabre too?

thats what i heard - that delta and westjet were going to do a codeshare thing

speaking of air travel - bellingham airport is closing in september for a month or something - i got an email from allegiant air about a special sale they will be having before the airport shutdown - i think its a few weeks or something for construction $75 with all fees etc one way to most places like LA, Las vegas, san fran etc. they are adding flights in anticipation of the lost business

trofirhen
Apr 20, 2010, 2:25 AM
If Westjet and Delta are going to do a codeshare, does that mean that they'll be covering some of the same routes? Surely not, as Delta's routes (in addition to being 100 times more extensive and longer) are in a different region altogether.

Will Westjet simply allow passengers to transfer to Delta (and Vice versa) with a single ticket?

Is Westjet planning to start overseas service? This seems improbable with an all-737 fleet, but I heard somewhere that they were a candidate for Skyteam, which includes Air France/KLM, Korean, and several other major airlines, including now-gigantic Delta.

It would be great if Westjet got big and offered real competiton for Air Canada. Then we might see some real changes in the Canadian aviation industry, including more traffic out of Vancouver.

SpongeG
Apr 20, 2010, 2:28 AM
it would be like the deal they have or had with southwest i guess - meaning you can book a flight on westjets site for southwest only now it will be with delta

trofirhen
Apr 20, 2010, 2:36 AM
it would be like the deal they have or had with southwest i guess - meaning you can book a flight on westjets site for southwest only now it will be with delta

Thanks for the clarification. Do you think that Westjet will ever become a big airline, or at least bigger than it is now, with possible flights overseas? That would be GREAT, in my opinion.

SpongeG
Apr 20, 2010, 2:39 AM
my friend told me i have no clue - he has a friend who works at delta and they talk i have no clue we were driving past the airport last week and he said he heard westjet and delta were going to do something together like a codeshare or something

jsbertram
Apr 20, 2010, 6:36 AM
it would be like the deal they have or had with southwest i guess - meaning you can book a flight on westjets site for southwest only now it will be with delta

Why would WestJet bother with becoming an international and overseas airline? With the codeshare, they can funnel their passengers to a hub like Calgary, and the passengers can switch to a Delta flight to the US, or an AF / KLM flight to Europe, or an KAL flight to Asia. These international and overseas flights would likely route through another hub for further connections. All of this can be booked on the Westjet website as one ticket. The codeshare partners can feed their international and overseas passengers to WestJet, and have the flights booked on the AF /KLM / KAL websites as one ticket too.

And of course Sabre can tie all this together too for travel agents.

ie: Saskatoon to Calgary using Westjet; continue to Paris using AF; Use AF regional for the last hop in Europe to your true destination.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 20, 2010, 11:09 AM
^ If WestJet can secure landing slots flying to Europe, especially England can be really profitable. Considering Delta's weak position in the transatlantic market and Skyteam's lack of an English player there is room there. Shareholders expect continuous growth, once they have saturated domestic, transborder and sun destinations, there is only international to go. Edging out Thomas Cook and Transat wouldn't be a bad thing.

whatnext
Apr 20, 2010, 3:05 PM
Looks like NIMBYism is alive and well in Richmond when it comes to the aviation fuel pipeline. Harold Steves makes it sound like Armageddon:

..Take it someplace else," an angry Harold Steves told VAFFC representatives.

"Richmond council has told you over and over again that we reject your project putting a pipeline through Richmond. You're going to be endangering portions of the estuary, endangering the fishery, endangering agricultural land, and endangering the citizens of Richmond...
http://www2.canada.com/richmondnews/news/story.html?id=7d010641-1474-4a7c-b5c9-5fc99d9974db&p=1

trofirhen
Apr 20, 2010, 4:17 PM
^ If WestJet can secure landing slots flying to Europe, especially England can be really profitable. Considering Delta's weak position in the transatlantic market and Skyteam's lack of an English player there is room there. Shareholders expect continuous growth, once they have saturated domestic, transborder and sun destinations, there is only international to go. Edging out Thomas Cook and Transat wouldn't be a bad thing.

Humph, are you saying that you think there is a possibility that Westjet might take the quantum leap, and start overseas flights, or am I misinterpreting you?

(Incidentally, somewhere on the Web, I saw talk of Westjet joining Skyteam. How probable do you think THAT might be? I'd like your opinion. Thanks)

trofirhen
Apr 20, 2010, 4:23 PM
Why would WestJet bother with becoming an international and overseas airline? With the codeshare, they can funnel their passengers to a hub like Calgary, and the passengers can switch to a Delta flight to the US, or an AF / KLM flight to Europe, or an KAL flight to Asia. These international and overseas flights would likely route through another hub for further connections. All of this can be booked on the Westjet website as one ticket. The codeshare partners can feed their international and overseas passengers to WestJet, and have the flights booked on the AF /KLM / KAL websites as one ticket too.

And of course Sabre can tie all this together too for travel agents.

ie: Saskatoon to Calgary using Westjet; continue to Paris using AF; Use AF regional for the last hop in Europe to your true destination.

I wonder if YVR will EVER get that Paris nonstop I harp about? BTW, it isn't just me. In that survey of desired destinations, Paris came out Number One, way ahead of all others. The second, surprisingly, was Rome.

We lost Air France to Seattle thanks to the feds. I wonder if the Open Skies will remedy that?

Most of YVR's ovrseas destinations (not counting charters) are in Asia, which is great. But I'd like to see one or two more scheduled services to Europe, too. ..... and to Dubai, for that matter, although I think that's a dead duck.

trofirhen
Apr 20, 2010, 4:31 PM
Found an article that might clarify the Westjet question somewhat.

Financial Post/ March 26/ 2010
http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/story.html?id=2731968#ixzz0jTVyvC10

MalcolmTucker
Apr 20, 2010, 4:31 PM
Yeah, If the economy is going well Vancouver will get Air France with the Euro deal. Calgary might aswell, to try to skim off more traffic that is currently going to London and Frankfurt instead. Especially with the code sharing deals.

With a SkyTeam codesharing deal - WestJet vacations could go head to head with Transat Holidays in Europe. Wouldn't be too long until the benefits of having flights to the UK would be obvious.

Gordon
Apr 20, 2010, 4:33 PM
I wonder if Air Canada would consider running their Olympic European services
as seasonal services.

If westJet is going to stay true to it's buisness model( Southwest) they won't have the plames that will allow them to fly trans oceanic.

trofirhen
Apr 20, 2010, 4:34 PM
Yeah, If the economy is going well Vancouver will get Air France with the Euro deal. Calgary might aswell, to try to skim off more traffic that is currently going to London and Frankfurt instead. Especially with the code sharing deals.

With a SkyTeam codesharing deal - WestJet vacations could go head to head with Transat Holidays in Europe. Wouldn't be too long until the benefits of having flights to the UK would be obvious.

Nifty. But if Westjet is going to to that, it will have to invest in a few 777s or such like.

sacrifice333
Apr 20, 2010, 7:18 PM
Virgin America Announces Expansion via Twitter

Today, Virgin America announced its forthcoming expansion to Toronto Pearson International Airport (YYZ) not via the travel press, but on the company’s Twitter account.

In addition to using Twitter to make the announcement, Virgin America is also running a 50% off promotion for the first 500 travelers who book flights from LAX or SFO to Toronto using the #VXREDHOT promo code.

Beginning June 23, 2010, Virgin America will start offering daily round-trip flights out of both San Francisco (SFO) and Los Angles (LAX) to Toronto. Noting that “Virgin America is the only airline based in Silicon Valley” and that Toronto has “strong ties to California – most notably in the entertainment and high-tech sectors,” both the expansion and the way the company chose to release the news makes a lot of sense.

Article Link (http://mashable.com/2010/04/20/virgin-america-twitter-expansion/).

Not YVR yet... but hopefully next! :banana:

Zassk
Apr 20, 2010, 8:14 PM
Looks like NIMBYism is alive and well in Richmond when it comes to the aviation fuel pipeline. Harold Steves makes it sound like Armageddon:

..Take it someplace else," an angry Harold Steves told VAFFC representatives.

"Richmond council has told you over and over again that we reject your project putting a pipeline through Richmond. You're going to be endangering portions of the estuary, endangering the fishery, endangering agricultural land, and endangering the citizens of Richmond...
http://www2.canada.com/richmondnews/news/story.html?id=7d010641-1474-4a7c-b5c9-5fc99d9974db&p=1

This is a strange one. If you are going to custom-build fuel barges and offload them on a custom-built depot on the Fraser River, then why not do all of that on the North Arm AT THE AIRPORT? Why pipe it 15 km across Metro Vancouver from a more distant dock next to Ladner? YVR has never explained why its proposed South Arm depot location justifies the additional risk vs. building the depot at the airport itself.

zivan56
Apr 21, 2010, 6:26 AM
Just an FYI: the first flight to land at London-Heathrow after the UK airspace opened was BA 84 from Vancouver. Apparently they only received clearance to enter the airspace after circling the Isle of Man a couple of times. They were forced to descend at 18 m/s through the ash layer apparently.

trofirhen
Apr 21, 2010, 1:31 PM
Article Link (http://mashable.com/2010/04/20/virgin-america-twitter-expansion/).

Not YVR yet... but hopefully next! :banana:

I hope so !! The way things are going, we need all the airlines we can get !!

Vanzunator
Apr 21, 2010, 3:12 PM
There was lots of speculation on this forum that as soon as EU-Canada open skies pact is signed, YVR will get a non-stop Air France flight to Paris (CDG), which obviously hasn't materialized yet; with no announcements from Air France.
I've flown YVR-CDG three times in the last 18 months and going through Montreal or Toronto adds minimum of 6-7 hours plus additional connection fatigue compared to a non-stop flight.
Paris is the most visited city in the world and it is simply unacceptable for YVR not to have a non-stop flight to CDG. I'm in Paris currently, flying back to YVR on Apr. 26th via YYZ wishing a non-stop flight instead.
Currently, the only non-stop YVR-CDG flight is the summer-only weekly AirTransat on their A330-200. YVR needs some good old lobbying to attract a few more European airlines here.


I wonder if YVR will EVER get that Paris nonstop I harp about? BTW, it isn't just me. In that survey of desired destinations, Paris came out Number One, way ahead of all others. The second, surprisingly, was Rome.

We lost Air France to Seattle thanks to the feds. I wonder if the Open Skies will remedy that?

Most of YVR's ovrseas destinations (not counting charters) are in Asia, which is great. But I'd like to see one or two more scheduled services to Europe, too. ..... and to Dubai, for that matter, although I think that's a dead duck.

trofirhen
Apr 21, 2010, 5:50 PM
There was lots of speculation on this forum that as soon as EU-Canada open skies pact is signed, YVR will get a non-stop Air France flight to Paris (CDG), which obviously hasn't materialized yet; with no announcements from Air France.
I've flown YVR-CDG three times in the last 18 months and going through Montreal or Toronto adds minimum of 6-7 hours plus additional connection fatigue compared to a non-stop flight.
Paris is the most visited city in the world and it is simply unacceptable for YVR not to have a non-stop flight to CDG. I'm in Paris currently, flying back to YVR on Apr. 26th via YYZ wishing a non-stop flight instead.
Currently, the only non-stop YVR-CDG flight is the summer-only weekly AirTransat on their A330-200. YVR needs some good old lobbying to attract a few more European airlines here.
:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:
My sentiments EXACTLY ! ! A senior contact at YVR told me that there won't be any new Vancouver - Europe destinations this year because the airlines already have their schedules in place for this year. However, he did say that next year could be quite different. Remember, the deal was only finalized in May of 2009, in Prague. However next year, when passenger demand becomes more apparent (the recession has depressed flyer numbers a lot this year) we will probably see more destinations from Vancouver to Europe. Someone will pick up the Paris nonstop sooner or later (better sooner than later)!

Mr.Airport
Apr 23, 2010, 4:17 AM
So are there any airport news?

Now that the Olympics are over, are there any construction plans for the Airport?
With the employee lot moved to Templeton, what are they going to do with all the parking space?

trofirhen
Apr 23, 2010, 11:49 PM
So are there any airport news?

Now that the Olympics are over, are there any construction plans for the Airport?
With the employee lot moved to Templeton, what are they going to do with all the parking space?

Leave it as is for the moment, I imagine. Vancouver airport growth is rather "on hold" right now, partly because fewer people are flying due to the recession, and partly because it has had its wings clipped (no pun intended) and is thus rather stagnant in terms of expansion. I think it will be a few more years before we see anything really substantial happening there, either in terms of new terminal construction, or in terms of new destinations and more flights. Disappointing

mezzanine
Apr 24, 2010, 12:14 AM
This is a strange one. If you are going to custom-build fuel barges and offload them on a custom-built depot on the Fraser River, then why not do all of that on the North Arm AT THE AIRPORT? Why pipe it 15 km across Metro Vancouver from a more distant dock next to Ladner? YVR has never explained why its proposed South Arm depot location justifies the additional risk vs. building the depot at the airport itself.

Multiple options were explored as discussed in their briefing doc, including tanker rail service from alberta, rail service from washinton state, and a new jetty on the north arm, or a facility on roberts bank.

http://www.vancouverairportfuel.ca/files/Project_Description_Jan%20_16_2009.pdf

WRT the north arm, I think they decided it would interfere too much with existing shipping lanes, it would be too exposed to bad weather and a new jetty would have to be built. the south arm has an existing warve (warf?) already built, but unused.

And IMO, i think they want to save sea island space for airport services that can't be moved off-island. having the affluent southlands neighbourhood across from the proposed north arm facilioty may also paly a role.:shrug:

I think they would prefer sea access b/c the wider trend in the near-term is for a shortage of refineries in north america, rather than raw oil itself.

“Helmut Fredrich VP of corporate fuel management for Lufthansa said that fuel prices are not the major problem affecting his airline. He said: “Greater issues are the lack of refineries, cutbacks at existing refineries because of small margins and a fall in demand for gasoline. Oil companies are withdrawing from airports.” Chevron has withdrawn from continental Europe; Conoco has removed itself from Germany and the UK, while both Exxon and BP have also withdrawn from bases in Finland and the UK. Shell, too, is shutting down smaller refineries.

Lufthansa is managing its own fuel supply in many areas, using barges, trucks, trains, and pipelines into Zurich, Munich, and Vienna. Fredrich said: “It is not so easy to put the product through. We don’t like to do that as it is not our core business, but we are increasingly forced to do so.” ”

http://www.aviationtoday.com/regions/usa/Biofuel-Efforts-Distracting-from-Fuel-Infrastructure-Crisis_35599.html

trofirhen
Apr 24, 2010, 4:02 AM
:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:

Would a change in policy, procedure, and infrstructure help YVR develop into a more important hub? Would it attract more airlines? I'm not being cynical, I would simply like to know if the two things are related. Thank you.

yesheh
Apr 24, 2010, 4:13 PM
:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:

Would a change in policy, procedure, and infrstructure help YVR develop into a more important hub? Would it attract more airlines? I'm not being cynical, I would simply like to know if the two things are related. Thank you.

If the CBSA allowed passengers to transfer international to international without going through customs, there could be a market for South and Central America <--> Asia traffic that could be exploited. Even if the process was improved for International <--> US I think there could be a bit of a boost to YVR's traffic.

trofirhen
Apr 24, 2010, 4:25 PM
If the CBSA allowed passengers to transfer international to international without going through customs, there could be a market for South and Central America <--> Asia traffic that could be exploited. Even if the process was improved for International <--> US I think there could be a bit of a boost to YVR's traffic.

As a connector for Asia > Central & South America, that would be GREAT !!
We've got to do all we can to increase YVR's importance as a hub, otherwise it'll get relegated to a "spoke" with a few branches sticking out from it, by ...... (do I need to say who ?) :cool:

yesheh
Apr 24, 2010, 5:21 PM
As a connector for Asia > Central & South America, that would be GREAT !!
We've got to do all we can to increase YVR's importance as a hub, otherwise it'll get relegated to a "spoke" with a few branches sticking out from it, by ...... (do I need to say who ?) :cool:

Of course, such a policy would also be implemented on a national basis, so YYZ, YYC, and YUL and all the rest would be getting the same benefit. However, none of them has nearly the ideal geographic location vis-a-vis asia and North America. Now, if only we could get some more direct flights...

whatnext
Apr 24, 2010, 5:29 PM
If you're flying this summer, the cold, dark hand of Gordo's grasping claws will add the HST to airline tickets starting May 1

...Thinking of taking a summer vacation? Then you'd be wise to book your airfare this coming week if you are flying after July 1. That's because airline tickets are also PST-exempt, but will get slammed with the HST come July 1. If you pay for those airline tickets before May 1, you will pay only the GST, and save seven per cent....
http://www.theprovince.com/Dodge+collection+period/2941914/story.html

Yume-sama
Apr 24, 2010, 5:32 PM
Well, that IS unfortunate. How does this work? EVERY flight out of YVR? Only purchased by people who live in BC? I'm confused :P

Let's say I buy... Calgary - Vancouver round trip, how do they figure out the HST.

Flying out of YVR will become 7% less competitive than it already is :P Super.

trofirhen
Apr 24, 2010, 5:57 PM
Well, that IS unfortunate. How does this work? EVERY flight out of YVR? Only purchased by people who live in BC? I'm confused :P

Let's say I buy... Calgary - Vancouver round trip, how do they figure out the HST.

Flying out of YVR will become 7% less competitive than it already is :P Super.

Are you asking if this tax applies to out-of-country flights, and that in-country (Canada) flights are exempt? A clarification would be great, Yume. I'm not as up on economic / financial / legal issues as a lot of people are. Seriously.
Thanks.

trofirhen
Apr 24, 2010, 6:04 PM
Of course, such a policy would also be implemented on a national basis, so YYZ, YYC, and YUL and all the rest would be getting the same benefit. However, none of them has nearly the ideal geographic location vis-a-vis asia and North America. Now, if only we could get some more direct flights...

Yes, yes, and YES ! ! ! ! It's essential if YVR is going to become a major world airport. Even Brisbane, Australia handles more passengers than we do!! So does Oslo !!!

We're on about a par with Stockholm Arlanda, at present, and for most overseas flights, they have to connect at Copenhagen, Amsterdam; Heathrow, or Frankfurt.

Yume-sama
Apr 24, 2010, 6:13 PM
Are you asking if this tax applies to out-of-country flights, and that in-country (Canada) flights are exempt? A clarification would be great, Yume. I'm not as up on economic / financial / legal issues as a lot of people are. Seriously.
Thanks.

Well, that could be part of the question, too. It would certainly make international flights much more expensive!

If you purchase YVR - NRT, for example, are you charged HST on one leg, or both legs? What if you're not even from BC?

So confusing, they just ought to not bother :P

raskal
Apr 25, 2010, 5:36 AM
Like HST is applied out east, it will be charged on domestic travel within Canada that originates in BC. That means if you buy a ticket from Vancouver to Calgary and back, you will pay HST on the entire fare.

If you buy a ticket Calgary to Vancouver and back, you will pay GST on the entire fare. HST will only be applied toward any AIF you pay for airports in BC.

For transborder travel originating in BC, you will pay GST on the entire fare. HST will only be applied toward any AIF you pay for airports in BC.

For international travel, neither HST or GST will apply on the fare. HST will only be applied toward any AIF for airports in BC.

The same rules apply for the upcoming HST in Ontario, which also starts on May 1 for travel July 1, 2010.

whatnext
Apr 25, 2010, 5:18 PM
I was sad to see the hideous concrete blocks still in front of the doors on the departures level. I was hoping that was an Olympics only project. Guess we have the errant valet driver to thank for that. :yuck:

trofirhen
Apr 26, 2010, 4:56 AM
YVR Nonstop to:
-Osaka; Singapore; Bangkok; Melbourne; Dubai; Paris; Brisbane; Rome; Copenhagen; Athens; Munich; Zurich; Madrid; Delhi; Mumbai ......

all on regularly scheduled airlines

mr.x
Apr 26, 2010, 5:09 AM
YVR Nonstop to:
-Osaka; Singapore; Bangkok; Melbourne; Dubai; Paris; Brisbane; Rome; Copenhagen; Athens; Munich; Zurich; Madrid; Delhi; Mumbai ......

all on regularly scheduled airlines

What we currently have to Europe is just embarrassing.

Yume-sama
Apr 26, 2010, 6:21 AM
Thanks for the explanation, raskal. Are you secretly Gordon Campbell? I'm on to you!

whatnext
Apr 26, 2010, 7:16 AM
What we currently have to Europe is just embarrassing.

A Cascadian comparison is in order:

Seattle-Europe non-stop
London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris (and if you feel like including it, Reykjavik)
Metro pop. 3,407,000
Major corporations: Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks, Nordstrom, Amazon

Vancouver-Europe non-stop
London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris, Manchester (last 2 seasonal charters)
Metro pop: 2,524,000
Major corporations: Umm, let me get back to you. :haha:

Millennium2002
Apr 26, 2010, 8:42 AM
A Cascadian comparison is in order:
Seattle-Europe non-stop
Major corporations: Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks, Nordstrom, Amazon

Vancouver-Europe non-stop
Major corporations: Umm, let me get back to you. :haha:

Heh... that does bring up a point. We have so many connections to Asia due to previous immigration and businesses... but on the other hand business connections between Vancouver and other cities, particularly those in Europe, may be weak. (This of course doesn't take into account tourism.)

raskal
Apr 26, 2010, 12:04 PM
Thanks for the explanation, raskal. Are you secretly Gordon Campbell? I'm on to you!

:yuck:

trofirhen
Apr 26, 2010, 2:46 PM
This is the Toronto Airport site from WIKIPEDIA. Look at point number 4: airlines and destinations. It may open your eyes a little

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Pearson_International_Airport

trofirhen
Apr 26, 2010, 3:07 PM
OK, here it is, also from WIKIPEDIA.

You have to peruse it more carefully, but if you look hard enough, you'll see that they have about as many Asian destinations as we do.

They also have AIR FRANCE to Paris CDG, which we lost to them, thanks to the feds dithering.

What I'm saying is, don't write off Seattle. They're catching up fast. You just have to look at the airline destination page harder, that's all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle%E2%80%93Tacoma_International_Airport#Terminals.2C_airlines.2C_and_destinations

whatnext
Apr 26, 2010, 3:21 PM
OK, here it is, also from WIKIPEDIA.

You have to peruse it more carefully, but if you look hard enough, you'll see that they have about as many Asian destinations as we do.

They also have AIR FRANCE to Paris CDG, which we lost to them, thanks to the feds dithering.

What I'm saying is, don't write off Seattle. They're catching up fast. You just have to look at the airline destination page harder, that's all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle%E2%80%93Tacoma_International_Airport#Terminals.2C_airlines.2C_and_destinations

Why shouldn't Seattle have as many Asian destinations as we do? As I pointed out they are a bigger city and a centre for major companies, which Vancouver is not. An airline's bread and butter is business traffic. Does Portland complain they only have service to Amsterdam and Tokyo?

Toronto is Canada's business capital and the Greater Toronto area is home to 5.6 million people.

Hourglass
Apr 26, 2010, 4:25 PM
:previous:

The presence of large corporations is important, but not the only part of the equation. Demographics and location play a role, as do artificially imposed factors such as visa restrictions and whether or not the airport is a hub for a major airline.

For example, over 90 million passengers passed through Atlanta's Hartfield Airport in 2008. Why should Atlanta, wiith a metro population of 5.5 million people have almost 3x the number of passengers as Toronto Pearson? Because Atlanta is Delta's primary connecting hub -- not because there is huge O&D traffic from Atlanta.

Vancouver has more Asian destinations than Seattle because it has a far larger Asian population than Seattle with the business ties and relationships that go along with it (it's not only blue-chip corporate types who travel business class). It is also better known in Asia and most parts of Europe than Seattle -- Starbucks, Boeing and Microsoft notwithstanding -- so tourism is a factor. Finally, it is the only Canadian city on the west coast of North America -- making it Canada's de facto gateway to Asia. Seattle by comparison competes against major airports such as San Francisco and Los Angeles for US traffic. So NO, I don't think it strange at all that Vancouver has more Asian destinations than Seattle. Supporting proof? Seattle has been unable to support a non-stop to Hong Kong, while Vancouver has 3x daily nonstops.

To your point about Portland, yes they DO complain about only having service to Amsterdam and Narita, due partly to history -- Delta tried to build up PDX as an Asian hub. FYI, the Narita route is heavily subsidized by the Port Authority of Portland.

Whatnext, I'm curious about something: Vancouver airport is a huge employment and tax generator for the Lower Mainland in the same way you argue that Air Canada is. So why denigrate Trofiren's hope of seeing YVR develop into a leading North American transit hub for Asian traffic?

whatnext
Apr 26, 2010, 5:03 PM
:previous:

The presence of large corporations is important, but not the only part of the equation. Demographics and location play a role, as do artificially imposed factors such as visa restrictions and whether or not the airport is a hub for a major airline.

For example, over 90 million passengers passed through Atlanta's Hartfield Airport in 2008. Why should Atlanta, wiith a metro population of 5.5 million people have almost 3x the number of passengers as Toronto Pearson? Because Atlanta is Delta's primary connecting hub -- not because there is huge O&D traffic from Atlanta.

Vancouver has more Asian destinations than Seattle because it has a far larger Asian population than Seattle with the business ties and relationships that go along with it (it's not only blue-chip corporate types who travel business class). It is also better known in Asia and most parts of Europe than Seattle -- Starbucks, Boeing and Microsoft notwithstanding -- so tourism is a factor. Finally, it is the only Canadian city on the west coast of North America -- making it Canada's de facto gateway to Asia. Seattle by comparison competes against major airports such as San Francisco and Los Angeles for US traffic. So NO, I don't think it strange at all that Vancouver has more Asian destinations than Seattle. Supporting proof? Seattle has been unable to support a non-stop to Hong Kong, while Vancouver has 3x daily nonstops.

To your point about Portland, yes they DO complain about only having service to Amsterdam and Narita, due partly to history -- Delta tried to build up PDX as an Asian hub. FYI, the Narita route is heavily subsidized by the Port Authority of Portland.

Whatnext, I'm curious about something: Vancouver airport is a huge employment and tax generator for the Lower Mainland in the same way you argue that Air Canada is. So why denigrate Trofiren's hope of seeing YVR develop into a leading North American transit hub for Asian traffic?

:previous: I'm a realist. With the advent of ultra long haul aircraft, there's no reason for traffic from Toronto to have to stop in Vancouver to reach Asia. How can one complain that we have to transit through Toronto to reach many points in Europe, then expect Torontonians to have to do the same to reach Asia? Note Asian airlines bypasses YVR on their way to Toronto: Cathay Pacific and Korean. Sure, I'd like to see YVR as an Asian hub, but that was hatched almost two decades ago between AA and Canadian and the world has changed.

The comparison to Atlanta is flawed. Atlanta is drawing from a huge US market, like it or not many Americans do not want to cross into Canada in their way to a third country, and Toronto will suffer in a comparison becuase of that. Plus Delta is the world's largest airline, so their hub will be correspondingly larger.

Trofirhen seems to be particularly incensed about Air France flying to Seattle, understandable since he lives in Paris. Under the Canada's recent Open Skies agreement with the EU, European carriers will be able to fly unrestricted to any point in Canada. (incidentally the deal's more liberal than that between the EU and the USA (http://www.thetransnational.travel/news.php?cid=European-Union-Canada-Open-Skies.May-09.14)). At that time Air France will have to put up or shut up.

trofirhen
Apr 26, 2010, 5:54 PM
:previous: I'm a realist. With the advent of ultra long haul aircraft, there's no reason for traffic from Toronto to have to stop in Vancouver to reach Asia. How can one complain that we have to transit through Toronto to reach many points in Europe, then expect Torontonians to have to do the same to reach Asia? Note Asian airlines bypasses YVR on their way to Toronto: Cathay Pacific and Korean. Sure, I'd like to see YVR as an Asian hub, but that was hatched almost two decades ago between AA and Canadian and the world has changed.


Just a question: with the advent of super-long-haul aircraft (the boeing 787 coming to mind first), does that mean Vancouver passengers will be able to fly to Europe to Paris and Rome (the two most desired YVR - Europe destinations in a survey) WITHOUT having to change planes in Toronto, if the traffic warrants? Surely, yes. If not, I'd like to know why.

trofirhen
Apr 26, 2010, 6:00 PM
:previous:

The presence of large corporations is important, but not the only part of the equation. Demographics and location play a role, as do artificially imposed factors such as visa restrictions and whether or not the airport is a hub for a major airline.

For example, over 90 million passengers passed through Atlanta's Hartfield Airport in 2008. Why should Atlanta, wiith a metro population of 5.5 million people have almost 3x the number of passengers as Toronto Pearson? Because Atlanta is Delta's primary connecting hub -- not because there is huge O&D traffic from Atlanta.

Vancouver has more Asian destinations than Seattle because it has a far larger Asian population than Seattle with the business ties and relationships that go along with it (it's not only blue-chip corporate types who travel business class). It is also better known in Asia and most parts of Europe than Seattle -- Starbucks, Boeing and Microsoft notwithstanding -- so tourism is a factor. Finally, it is the only Canadian city on the west coast of North America -- making it Canada's de facto gateway to Asia. Seattle by comparison competes against major airports such as San Francisco and Los Angeles for US traffic. So NO, I don't think it strange at all that Vancouver has more Asian destinations than Seattle. Supporting proof? Seattle has been unable to support a non-stop to Hong Kong, while Vancouver has 3x daily nonstops.

To your point about Portland, yes they DO complain about only having service to Amsterdam and Narita, due partly to history -- Delta tried to build up PDX as an Asian hub. FYI, the Narita route is heavily subsidized by the Port Authority of Portland.

Whatnext, I'm curious about something: Vancouver airport is a huge employment and tax generator for the Lower Mainland in the same way you argue that Air Canada is. So why denigrate Trofiren's hope of seeing YVR develop into a leading North American transit hub for Asian traffic?

Very good points, Hourglass. One thing though; I don't just hope that YVR will become principally an ASIAN gateway, but more of an ALL-ROUND gateway, to Europe, and possibly Latin America, as well. (Although to be fair, Latin America is southeast of YVR, so it's more logical to have Toronto as it's jumping-off point, I think)

MalcolmTucker
Apr 26, 2010, 6:02 PM
Even with the humdrum A330-300 you can get: http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?RANGE=10460km%40yvr&RANGE-STYLE=best

It will be the changing bilateral deal as it comes into force that changes things however I can't imagine it will get too much better, creating new routes doesn't induce traffic where there isn't enough to fill a flight.

trofirhen
Apr 26, 2010, 6:07 PM
Even with the humdrum A330-300 you can get: http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?RANGE=10460km%40yvr&RANGE-STYLE=best

It will be the changing bilateral deal as it comes into force that changes things however I can't imagine it will get too much better, creating new routes doesn't induce traffic where there isn't enough to fill a flight.

Intersting. Thank you. However, there is a large demand for nonstops to Paris, principally as a tourist destination, and also to Rome, given the sizeable Italian population in Vancouver.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 26, 2010, 6:08 PM
^ Tourists don't fill business class seats. Same issues happen in Calgary with the AMS flight. Plus Air Transat fills a lot of the gap.

trofirhen
Apr 26, 2010, 6:11 PM
^ Tourists don't fill business class seats. Same issues happen in Calgary with the AMS flight. Plus Air Transat fills a lot of the gap.

Are most of the seats on standard size jets Business Class? I thought tourist class was the majority. I'm just a humble peasant. Live and learn :(

dubsH
Apr 26, 2010, 6:43 PM
Are most of the seats on standard size jets Business Class? I thought tourist class was the majority. I'm just a humble peasant. Live and learn :(

No, but which seat do you pay more for? The "majority" of the seats don't make nearly as much money, I would think (someone can correct me on that).

trofirhen
Apr 26, 2010, 6:53 PM
No, but which seat do you pay more for? The "majority" of the seats don't make nearly as much money, I would think (someone can correct me on that).

Yes. That makes total sense to me. But do most airline passengers fly Business, except the rich types / company reps? Most tourists fly economy, I thought, and I thought that made up the majority of a plane's seating, unless I'm wrong. :shrug:

whatnext
Apr 26, 2010, 7:30 PM
Intersting. Thank you. However, there is a large demand for nonstops to Paris, principally as a tourist destination, and also to Rome, given the sizeable Italian population in Vancouver.

But is there? There certainly isn't two-way demand, French tourism to Western Canada is inconsequential. It falls behind the UK, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, China, S. Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, just barely beating out Switzerland.
http://www.tca.gov.bc.ca/research/IndustryPerformance/pdfs/intl_visitor_arrivals/2009/International_Visitor_Arrivals_December_2009.sflb.pdf

With regards to business class, a premium class seat is 4 to 6 times more profitable than an economy class seat.

dubsH
Apr 26, 2010, 7:35 PM
Yes. That makes total sense to me. But do most airline passengers fly Business, except the rich types / company reps? Most tourists fly economy, I thought, and I thought that made up the majority of a plane's seating, unless I'm wrong. :shrug:

Yes, most of the seats on a plane are economy, and most tourists will fly economy, but I don't think that's the argument. Economy seats alone do not make up the majority of the revenue and/or profitability.

Let's look at it this way. Economy tix are at $750 for one-way flight and there are 200 seats. That's $150 000. Business class are at $3000 for one-way flight and there are 50 seats. That's $150 000 as well. 50 business class pax vs 200 economy, with the former taking less cargo/weight space. This is really simplified, but you get the point.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 26, 2010, 7:35 PM
^ Yeah, but you have to think profit for seat (or floor area, or weight). If business class wasn't more profitable, it wouldn't be on airplanes. As it stands, a business class passenger pays anywhere from 3 times to 10 times as much, and travels with less luggage. Much more profitable.

Yume-sama
Apr 26, 2010, 7:42 PM
I've never really been on an International flight from Canada (specifically Vancouver) where there were more than a handful of people in business / first. This is a problem JAL faced, and decided not to sell "First Class" seats from Vancouver, nor would they retrofit their 747 to have "suites", etc., like flights originating in Chicago, New York, and San Francisco. Actually there was an article some time back in Japanese about this, that I posted on here with the translation. As odd as it is for a city like Vancouver, there's not overwhelming amounts of demand for high class travel. Now, from the USA, almost every seat is full! Maybe their companies have nicer expense accounts on average ;)

Currently on the Air Canada flight I'm booked on, there are 4 people in Executive / First to Tokyo on a 777 (2 of them happen to be me...) :D

Each seat, on average, takes up the space of 6 economy seats. It would be interesting to see the profit margin from this....

dubsH
Apr 26, 2010, 7:55 PM
^ Yeah, but you have to think profit for seat (or floor area, or weight). If business class wasn't more profitable, it wouldn't be on airplanes. As it stands, a business class passenger pays anywhere from 3 times to 10 times as much, and travels with less luggage. Much more profitable.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Didn't Qantas cut their first-class service and convert them into business class recently because of the current economy? Anyways...

twoNeurons
Apr 26, 2010, 8:13 PM
When it comes to numbers, if I'm not mistaken, Vancouver's Chinese population is about the same size as Vancouver's.

Delta plan is to make Seattle a major Asian hub. For some reason, they feel that a hub in the Northwest is viable, despite there being two West Coast Asian hubs already. Perhaps part of their plan is to draw Vancouver traffic.

Remember, too... that part of the reason that Seattle is getting beefed up is because of US airline competition... which we really don't have.

As for point to point 2nd tier city to 2nd tier city travel... we'll be waiting for at least 5 years before that becomes a possibility... with new planes like the 787 coming online.

LeftCoaster
Apr 26, 2010, 8:18 PM
A Cascadian comparison is in order:

Seattle-Europe non-stop
London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris (and if you feel like including it, Reykjavik)
Metro pop. 3,407,000
Major corporations: Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks, Nordstrom, Amazon

Vancouver-Europe non-stop
London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris, Manchester (last 2 seasonal charters)
Metro pop: 2,524,000
Major corporations: Umm, let me get back to you. :haha:

You guys might be surprised as to some of the corporations in vancouver. They arent as large as the three big guys in Seattle, but are larger than most in Vancouver realize.

Here are the largest firms headquartered in either city by market cap. If I forgot any please let me know.

Microsoft: 273 billion
Amazon: 65.5 billion
Weyerhauser: 52 billion
Costco: 26 billion
Starbucks: 20.38 billion
Nordstrom: 9.75 billion
Expeditors Intl: 8.6 billion
Expedia: 7.13 billion

Goldcorp: 29.85 billion
Teck: 25.41 billion
Telus: 12.22 billion
Eldorado: 7.7 billion
First Quantum: 6.6 billion


Also on the list would be the Jim Pattison group, but it is privately held so clearly, no market cap to display, but revenues are reportedly just under 7 billion reportedly, so slightly behind starbucks at 9 billion.

Clearly there is a gap, espeically among the largest firms, but vancouver does have some very large corporations as well, they just happen to be in industries where they dont come into contact with your average person. Someone is much more likely to have heard about starbucks or nordstroms, but they are not as large a company as Goldcorp or Teck.

trofirhen
Apr 26, 2010, 8:25 PM
But is there? There certainly isn't two-way demand, French tourism to Western Canada is inconsequential. It falls behind the UK, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, China, S. Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, just barely beating out Switzerland.
http://www.tca.gov.bc.ca/research/IndustryPerformance/pdfs/intl_visitor_arrivals/2009/International_Visitor_Arrivals_December_2009.sflb.pdf

With regards to business class, a premium class seat is 4 to 6 times more profitable than an economy class seat.

Regarding tourist destinations, I was referring to Paris as a tourist destination from Vancouver, not the other way around. And for your information, at Canada house here in Paris, about half the inquiries are for Montreal to be sure, and the other half? For British Columbia. It seems the French have discovered BC, and there are magazine articles and subway posters to prove it. ..................... and as far as barely beating out Switzeland, that's a non-issue, as Switzerland is geographically almost an extension of France.

You seem to have access to all kinds of figures, WHATNEXT, but are you taking them in context? (read on, further down)

Additionally, why are you so against Vancouver becoming a major hub? Whenever the idea is raised, you seem to find some counter-information, or put forth a counter-argument to squelch it.

I respect you, and I respect your opinions, but sometimes it seems a little bit too "unreal" to be real.

Oh yes, and as far as that customs entries figure from France being so relatively low, isn't the answer rather blatantly obvious?

THEY HAVE TO TRANSIT THROUGH MONTREAL OR TORONTO FIRST AS THERE IS NO DIRECT FLIGHT (except weekly summer charters) TO VANCOUVER

whatnext
Apr 26, 2010, 9:46 PM
Regarding tourist destinations, I was referring to Paris as a tourist destination from Vancouver, not the other way around. And for your information, at Canada house here in Paris, about half the inquiries are for Montreal to be sure, and the other half? For British Columbia. It seems the French have discovered BC, and there are magazine articles and subway posters to prove it. ..................... and as far as barely beating out Switzeland, that's a non-issue, as Switzerland is geographically almost an extension of France.

You seem to have access to all kinds of figures, WHATNEXT, but are you taking them in context? (read on, further down)

Additionally, why are you so against Vancouver becoming a major hub? Whenever the idea is raised, you seem to find some counter-information, or put forth a counter-argument to squelch it.

I respect you, and I respect your opinions, but sometimes it seems a little bit too "unreal" to be real.

Oh yes, and as far as that customs entries figure from France being so relatively low, isn't the answer rather blatantly obvious?

THEY HAVE TO TRANSIT THROUGH MONTREAL OR TORONTO FIRST AS THERE IS NO DIRECT FLIGHT (except weekly summer charters) TO VANCOUVER

:previous: Then how do you explain the Swiss and Scandinavian figures when they have no direct flights? India is in the same boat, although the high numbers could be explained by a large VFR component. And if Switzerland is almost geographically an extension of France, the same could be said about the Netherlands?

I'm rather mystified about the the comment about me taking the figures in context, or being "unreal"? As far as I can tell I've only taken the existing data and arrived at a realistic conclusion that differs from yours about Vancouver's ability to become a major hub. :burstbubble

I would gladly be proven wrong when Open Skies comes into effect shortly and Air France, Iberia, Austrian, SN Brussels, TAP, Alitalia and Aer Lingus decide to add masses of flights to YVR.

trofirhen
Apr 27, 2010, 12:28 AM
:previous: Then how do you explain the Swiss and Scandinavian figures when they have no direct flights? India is in the same boat, although the high numbers could be explained by a large VFR component. And if Switzerland is almost geographically an extension of France, the same could be said about the Netherlands?

I'm rather mystified about the the comment about me taking the figures in context, or being "unreal"? As far as I can tell I've only taken the existing data and arrived at a realistic conclusion that differs from yours about Vancouver's ability to become a major hub.

I would gladly be proven wrong when Open Skies comes into effect shortly and Air France, Iberia, Austrian, SN Brussels, TAP, Alitalia and Aer Lingus decide to add masses of flights to YVR.

If you take another look, the top three figures are from the UK,Germany, and the Netherlands. Why?? It's simple. We have direct flights from London, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam to Vancouver!
In addition, at the bottom of the list, is Mexico, with a much higher number than others. (Ths could be due to coming through the USA, or ...............the fact that Mexicana has year-round scheduled service from Mexico to Vancouver) Other countries like New Zealand have small populations, and the Nordic countries ususally land on the East Coast of the USA before coming to Canada.

Compare Switzerland and the Netherlands on your map. Both small. Both in Western Europe. But we have no air connections to Switzerland, and plenty to the Netherlands, as you say. And the figures for the Netherlands are propertionally WAY hgher than those for Switzerland. (I rather imagine they come on Swiss Air Lines which lands at Toronto)
Oh, and for the record, I'm not imagining a horde of European carriers slathering to get into Vancouver. I was just thinking of one or two more principal destinations, like Paris (where I live, as you know) and maybe Rome. I'm a bit of a realist, too.

Vanzunator
Apr 27, 2010, 3:41 PM
Loosing Singapore was a shock to me.

Paris, I really don't understand what the holdup is for Air France or Air Canada to start this route. A non-stop YVR-CDG flight will have the potential to attract customers from Victoria, Vancouver, northern WA state, Calgary, Edmonton and the rest of western provinces population; that is a large and affluent market. I can't imagine how Air France with proper destination advertising can’t get a very reasonable load factor on a A330-200 (similar to what they use on their Seattle-CDG) and be profitable on this route. As I said before, Paris is the most visited city in the world. It is incomprehensible to me that the whole western Canada doesn’t have a direct flight to CDG. Currently Quebec and Ontario get 4 daily direct flights to CDG (2 AF and 2 AC) and I can only guess that at least one of those 4 flights is transfer passengers from the west. Also I think it is logical to consider that a non-stop flight attracts new passengers from the west who never considered CDG before simply because of lack of direct flights.

We also have a huge demographic with very close ties to Indian sub-continent (Origin and Destination passengers) which can easily justify direct flights.

I love to see the rest of destinations you mentioned. But Paris and India make so much economic sense to start with.


YVR Nonstop to:
-Osaka; Singapore; Bangkok; Melbourne; Dubai; Paris; Brisbane; Rome; Copenhagen; Athens; Munich; Zurich; Madrid; Delhi; Mumbai ......

all on regularly scheduled airlines

MalcolmTucker
Apr 27, 2010, 4:02 PM
^ I know many people that go to Paris as part of a general European vacation, flying out of either LHR, FRA, or AMS. I know personally flying to CDG seems to always be more expensive, and it makes no difference to the leisure traveler that is renting a car or getting a Eur-rail pass where they start and end, as long as it somewhere close to a place they want to go.

Vanzunator
Apr 27, 2010, 4:07 PM
Also we have lots of medium size businesses here in technology sector or biotech which can generate lots of business travel.
Electronic Arts (head quartered in California) has their largest global game development studio here in Burnaby.
companies like MDA, Intrawest, HSBC, Ledcor, Sierra Wireless, Nintendo, QLC and Ballard Power are all either have their head office or major operations in BC. As an example Sierra Wireless just acquired Paris-based Wavecom which doubles Sierra’s global workforce.

You guys might be surprised as to some of the corporations in vancouver. They arent as large as the three big guys in Seattle, but are larger than most in Vancouver realize.

Here are the largest firms headquartered in either city by market cap. If I forgot any please let me know.

Microsoft: 273 billion
Amazon: 65.5 billion
Weyerhauser: 52 billion
Costco: 26 billion
Starbucks: 20.38 billion
Nordstrom: 9.75 billion
Expeditors Intl: 8.6 billion
Expedia: 7.13 billion

Goldcorp: 29.85 billion
Teck: 25.41 billion
Telus: 12.22 billion
Eldorado: 7.7 billion
First Quantum: 6.6 billion


Also on the list would be the Jim Pattison group, but it is privately held so clearly, no market cap to display, but revenues are reportedly just under 7 billion reportedly, so slightly behind starbucks at 9 billion.

Clearly there is a gap, espeically among the largest firms, but vancouver does have some very large corporations as well, they just happen to be in industries where they dont come into contact with your average person. Someone is much more likely to have heard about starbucks or nordstroms, but they are not as large a company as Goldcorp or Teck.

mezzanine
Apr 27, 2010, 4:20 PM
Another issue is of Air Canada trying to enhance its hub at YYZ at the expense of YVR (I.e., Emirates).

If I read this correctly, it looks like some vancouver AC flights will be arranged to connect to Emirates flights. It looks like emirates has backed down for access to YVR, for now. Note the quote from Calvin Rovinecu....:(

Air Canada has announced that it will commence codesharing with Emirates Airline with effect from 1-Apr-2010 on all routes in the carriers’ networks. The new commercial agreement is especially designed to reroute all passengers on Emirates’ system through Vancouver. Air Canada CEO, Calin Rovinescu, announcing the deal yesterday, said “this innovative move will transform the global aviation model and hopefully take peoples’ minds off our government’s silly aviation policy.”

http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2010/04/01/lufthansa-buys-baair-france-delta-moves-hub-air-canada-emirates-to-codeshare-ryanair-air-charge/page1

MalcolmTucker
Apr 27, 2010, 4:41 PM
^ lol April fools!

AlexYVR
Apr 27, 2010, 6:13 PM
If you take another look, the top three figures are from the UK,Germany, and the Netherlands. Why?? It's simple. We have direct flights from London, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam to Vancouver!
In addition, at the bottom of the list, is Mexico, with a much higher number than others. (Ths could be due to coming through the USA, or ...............the fact that Mexicana has year-round scheduled service from Mexico to Vancouver) Other countries like New Zealand have small populations, and the Nordic countries ususally land on the East Coast of the USA before coming to Canada.

Compare Switzerland and the Netherlands on your map. Both small. Both in Western Europe. But we have no air connections to Switzerland, and plenty to the Netherlands, as you say. And the figures for the Netherlands are propertionally WAY hgher than those for Switzerland. (I rather imagine they come on Swiss Air Lines which lands at Toronto)
Oh, and for the record, I'm not imagining a horde of European carriers slathering to get into Vancouver. I was just thinking of one or two more principal destinations, like Paris (where I live, as you know) and maybe Rome. I'm a bit of a realist, too. :babyeat:

Both of you are talking about correlation and not causation and both of you are accusing the other of talking about the same. Until someone directly links the chicken to the egg, why don't we all take a deep breath and stop with the freaky baby eating?

trofirhen
Apr 27, 2010, 7:06 PM
Another issue is of Air Canada trying to enhance its hub at YYZ at the expense of YVR (I.e., Emirates).

If I read this correctly, it looks like some vancouver AC flights will be arranged to connect to Emirates flights. It looks like emirates has backed down for access to YVR, for now. Note the quote from Calvin Rovinecu....:(

Air Canada has announced that it will commence codesharing with Emirates Airline with effect from 1-Apr-2010 on all routes in the carriers’ networks. The new commercial agreement is especially designed to reroute all passengers on Emirates’ system through Vancouver. Air Canada CEO, Calin Rovinescu, announcing the deal yesterday, said “this innovative move will transform the global aviation model and hopefully take peoples’ minds off our government’s silly aviation policy.”

http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2010/04/01/lufthansa-buys-baair-france-delta-moves-hub-air-canada-emirates-to-codeshare-ryanair-air-charge/page1

This codesharing between AC and Emirates will no doubt all take place out of Toronto. additionally, what's a *bleeeeeeep* like Rovinescu talking about when he refers to "our silly government's aviation policy" I'm still not sure what all this implies. :shrug: