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

Yume-sama
Apr 27, 2010, 7:08 PM
That's a fake report, published on April 1st. Just in case we didn't all understand this by actually taking a look at the webpage.

trofirhen
Apr 27, 2010, 7:23 PM
That's a fake report, published on April 1st. Just in case we didn't all understand this by actually taking a look at the webpage.

Ha! And I fell in head-first! I should have know something was up when DELTA announced its move from Atlanta to Chatanooga, Tennessee (or was it Tallahassee, FLA) :jester: :jester:

trofirhen
Apr 27, 2010, 7:29 PM
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?

Sorry Alex. "All I want for Christmas is my Paris nonstop, my Paris nonstop, my Paris nonstop." (sung in the key of C Major) :2cents:

mezzanine
Apr 27, 2010, 8:31 PM
^ lol April fools!



Well, anyway, I still wish there was less objection to by AC for Emirates to serve YVR. Although Emirates giving up and codesharing with AC to serve the YYZ hub from YVR would be worse in someways... :P

Johnny Aussie
Apr 29, 2010, 7:48 AM
Looks like the JL flights to YVR have escaped the chopping block. Flights to remain daily, yet will be downgraded to 772 from 774.

"JAL Group on Wednesday (28APR10) announced it’s network restructure plan, which goes into effect from 01OCT10.
...
Narita – Vancouver 744 > 777 01OCT10"

Full details can be found here

http://airlineroute.net/2010/04/28/jal/

teriyaki
Apr 29, 2010, 8:43 AM
Looks like the JL flights to YVR have escaped the chopping block. Flights to remain daily, yet will be downgraded to 772 from 774.

"JAL Group on Wednesday (28APR10) announced it’s network restructure plan, which goes into effect from 01OCT10.
...
Narita – Vancouver 744 > 777 01OCT10"

Full details can be found here

http://airlineroute.net/2010/04/28/jal/

This is actually an upgrade in terms of planes. Been on both the JAL 744 and 772 and the 772 is a much newer plane:yes: Hope JAL will still be around when I take my next trip.

nova9
Apr 30, 2010, 12:47 AM
Not sure where to put this but this is a neat video simulation of the skies over europe pre and post-icelandic volcano.

11205494

phesto
May 3, 2010, 3:44 PM
I don't think there are any immediate implications of the UA-CO merger for YVR given few routes and little competition between the two on routes here, but some very interesting things could potentially impact the airline industry. Look at some of the market shares the combined airline would have at major airports like Newark!

United-Continental Merger Is Confirmed
By JAD MOUAWAD and MICHAEL J. de la MERCED
Published: May 3, 2010

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/05/03/business/03merger_inlinespan/03merger_inlinespan-sfSpan-v2.jpg

United Airlines and Continental Airlines on Monday announced a $3 billion merger that would create the world’s biggest airline.

The all-stock deal would form a coast-to-coast American behemoth with a leading presence in the top domestic markets, including New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, along with an extended network to Asia, Latin America and Europe. The deal was completed in a remarkably swift two weeks, and would give the airlines the muscle to fend off low-cost rivals at home and to take on foreign carriers abroad.

United is buying Continental, and the combined company will keep the United name and be based in Chicago. Jeffery A. Smisek, Continental’s chief executive, will run the company. Assuming the deal wins antitrust approval, the merged airline would replace Delta Air Lines as the top carrier.

The boards of both companies met Sunday to approve the all-stock deal. The UAL Corporation, United’s parent company, will issue 1.05 shares for each Continental share, valuing the acquisition at $3.17 billion, based on Friday’s closing price. The merger is expected to be completed before the end of the year.

For consumers, the merger could eventually result in higher prices. Though the new company does not intend to raise fares, according to people briefed on the matter, one of the rationales for airline mergers is to cut capacity. That reduces the number of seats in the industry and allows airlines to increase fares.

In addition, United and Continental will no longer be competing against each other on some routes, allowing them to save money but offering travelers fewer options.

“Airlines are struggling to find a business model that makes sense,” said Scott Sonenshein, an assistant professor at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University. “Consolidation gives them more leverage. As a consumer, you will have less choices, fewer routes, higher prices and more fees.”

Still, in the last decade fares in the United States have declined because of pressure from low-fare airlines like Southwest Airlines and JetBlue Airways, as well as lower passenger demand. As a result, previous mergers have had a muted effect on ticket prices, especially on routes served by low-fare carriers.

Even with the steep cuts made in the last two years, airlines are still losing money, with too many seats chasing too few passengers. For much of the last decade they have suffered a succession of powerful blows — from the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to rapidly rising fuel costs and the recession. They have also been straining to keep up with low-fare competition.

But with the economy starting to improve and passenger traffic picking up, the industry is generally healthier now, with more cash and less debt. Credit markets have also thawed, allowing access to capital.

Combined, United and Continental have 21 percent of domestic capacity, in terms of so-called available seat miles, or one seat flown one mile. Delta has a market share of 20 percent. Globally, the merged companies would have a 7 percent market share.

The merger would put pressure on American Airlines, which was once the market leader, but which would drop to third place. While American’s executives say they do not feel threatened by industry mergers, Wall Street analysts have been displeased by the company’s performance.

US Airways, which three weeks ago began its own merger talks with United, is now left on the sidelines, raising questions about its ability to survive as a stand-alone carrier.

The United-Continental deal has some major hurdles to clear. The airlines need to win approval from the Justice Department’s antitrust division, a challenge given the renewed regulatory zeal in Washington. Unlike the Bush administration’s six-month review of the Delta-Northwest deal, analysts expect a lengthier and more complex review of this merger.

The merger also needs the backing of employee unions, whose opposition to mergers in the past has undone many of the proposed savings. One factor in favor of the deal is that United’s pilots’ union indicated last month it would not oppose a deal with Continental, whose own pilots have so far remained silent.

The board approvals end nearly a month of intrigue after United initiated talks to combine with US Airways. Those negotiations caught Continental executives by surprise, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Many analysts said United’s talks with US Airways were intended all along to lure Continental to the table.

United and Continental were close to a merger two years ago, but Continental walked away because of United’s poor financial health.

The earlier talks allowed for swift negotiations this time. United and Continental executives quickly settled some potentially divisive issues, like the name of the combined company, where its headquarters would be and who would run it. United’s chairman, Glenn F. Tilton, would remain for two years. After that, Mr. Smisek of Continental would become the executive chairman.

The Chicago connection could provide additional benefits. Mr. Tilton has been courting local politicians, and the city is eager to retain a major business. United now could use that leverage with the Obama administration, whose ties to Chicago run deep.

United shareholders would own 55 percent of the combined company, with Continental shareholders owning the rest. Management would be roughly split between the sides. The new entity would expect annual cost savings of $1 billion to $1.2 billion, and would still fly to 370 cities in 59 countries.

The combined airlines would have a 40 percent market share at San Francisco International and 35 percent at Chicago O’Hare International, according to data compiled by Cambridge Aviation Research, a consulting company. At Houston Intercontinental, one of the city’s two airports, they would have 64 percent of the market and at Newark Liberty International, 55 percent.

A merger could yield more than $2 billion in additional revenue and cost savings, according to estimates by Vicki Bryan, an analyst at Gimme Credit.

The deal is a personal success for Mr. Tilton, a former oil executive who ran the Texaco Corporation until it was acquired by Chevron. He took over United in 2002 as it was on the verge of bankruptcy, and has since pushed relentlessly for a merger.

It also vindicates the work of Kathryn A. Mikells, United’s chief financial officer since November 2008, who is the highest-ranking woman in an industry dominated by men. Analysts have praised her for United’s cost-cutting efforts in the last year, Jeff Straebler, a strategist at RBS Securities, said.

United’s improved finances have allowed for a major turnaround in its fortunes. In 2008, it was Continental that was close to buying United. But as that deal was being negotiated, United reported steeper-than-expected losses, leading to doubts about the company’s health even as soaring oil prices were crippling the entire industry. Just hours before a deal was to be announced, Continental executives walked away.

But in the last two years, United has improved its cash position, aggressively reduced capacity, raised new revenue from bag and other fees, and cut costs. It now has $4.5 billion in cash.

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/04air.html?hp

twoNeurons
May 4, 2010, 6:21 PM
Interesting news: Etihad, Qatar Airlines, Air Macau and Emirates all started flying to Narita last month.

http://www.narita-airport.jp/en/whats_new/100330.html

Apparently, they're still finding new airports to land at. I thought Japan would be protectionist, especially with JAL not doing too well.

I guess they feel confident that they can compete with Emirates?

Yume-sama
May 4, 2010, 6:27 PM
Considering nearly every major airline in the World flies in to Narita, they are not worried about protecting a single entity.

twoNeurons
May 4, 2010, 9:13 PM
Considering nearly every major airline in the World flies in to Narita, they are not worried about protecting a single entity.

Well, NOW every major airline flies there. Quit bursting my bubble, YUME!!!

SpongeG
May 4, 2010, 9:25 PM
how bout a video :)

A Lufthansa A330 landing at Vancouver Int'l.
TjpFOg4yv90

SpongeG
May 4, 2010, 9:42 PM
HcyEatr4lhc

SpongeG
May 4, 2010, 9:47 PM
cYFBvk5Z6l8

SpongeG
May 4, 2010, 11:00 PM
an airplane we will probably never ever see again at YVR

G8ccL-eApGs

SpongeG
May 4, 2010, 11:05 PM
a couple more hes got some good vids and more olympic only appearances...

rkvJ-WUHz18

QEuG_jZBD2I

SpongeG
May 4, 2010, 11:15 PM
did you know Air Berlin flies to VancouveR? and we are the only city in Canada they fly to (summer only) and you book a flight from Vancouver to Paris - it doesn't say if it goes direct or via germany though I imagine it goes via germany?

http://www.airberlin.com/site/start.php?LANG=eng&MARKT=CA

trofirhen
May 5, 2010, 2:16 AM
Interesting news: Etihad, Qatar Airlines, Air Macau and Emirates all started flying to Narita last month.

http://www.narita-airport.jp/en/whats_new/100330.html

Apparently, they're still finding new airports to land at. I thought Japan would be protectionist, especially with JAL not doing too well.

I guess they feel confident that they can compete with Emirates?

More than anything else, they don't suffer from that singular, Canadaian protectionist paranoia that stifles growth in Canada, noticeably at YVR (although Yume's statement is right-on, too)

SpongeG
May 7, 2010, 12:42 AM
i thought this was interesting

For luxury private jet terminals, business centers, WiFi, and lounges are all standard. "During the Olympics in Vancouver, they had so many people -- about 20,000 people coming and going by private jet -- that they had to turn the (Million Air) hangar into a luxury lounge to accommodate them all," Gollan says. "They had it outfitted with big screen TVs, video games and they actually sold official Olympic merchandise."

full article here (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/world/news/e3i0b2233969ec82f2cbe3979b0feb8ece1)

Vanzunator
May 13, 2010, 6:15 PM
Today is YVR's annual public meeting for those of you who are interested to attend in person. The meeting is scheduled for 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 13 in the East Concourse, Departures Level, International Terminal Building.

trofirhen
May 15, 2010, 6:14 PM
Today is YVR's annual public meeting for those of you who are interested to attend in person. The meeting is scheduled for 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 13 in the East Concourse, Departures Level, International Terminal Building.

Did anyone attend? Were there any significant results? Thank you.

Denscity
May 16, 2010, 12:09 AM
Looks like there was a possible bomb scare aboard a Cathay Pacific flight from Hong Kong to Vancouver. Plane escorted to YVR by 2 fighter jets.

SpongeG
May 16, 2010, 3:56 AM
^^^ yup

Fighter jets escort Cathay plane to Vancouver after bomb threat

http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/2b/05/89835b7d4cbdb36ab0678fdcaf21.jpeg
A CF18 Hornet fighter jet intercepts a Cathay Pacific passenger plane headed for Vancouver on Saturday, May 15, 2010.
PATRICK BEATON/THE CANADIAN PRESS

VANCOUVER—Passengers on board a Hong Kong flight to Vancouver looking out over clear blue skies Saturday noticed something was wrong about an hour before landing when two fighter jets appeared and began shadowing their plane.

A bomb threat received by the RCMP two hours before the plane’s scheduled arrival led to a dramatic day at Vancouver’s airport with fighter jets launched to track the Cathay Pacific flight.

After the plane landed safely at the Vancouver International Airport, sniffer dogs went through the plane and luggage and found nothing suspicious.

Passengers on board Cathay Pacific CX 838 were kept in the dark about the whole incident.

“I saw fighter planes with us when we were 80 miles away from the airport,” said one passenger speaking to reporters after the 283 passengers and 14 crew members were released Saturday afternoon. “I was scared.” Another passenger said there was no announcement made about why fighter planes were escorting the 747 into the airport. Passengers were not allowed to retrieve their luggage but were told their items would be shipped out at a later date.

RCMP Corporal Sherrdean Turley said the local detachment learned about the threat on the plane shortly before 11 a.m. PST, about two and a half hours before the scheduled arrival of the plane.

The flight from Hong Kong to Vancouver is about 10 hours long.

Sniffer dogs found nothing after the plane landed on the airport tarmac.

“The threat is being taken very seriously,” said Cpl. Turley. “I’d like to assure the travelling public that there is no threat to them at this time.” The plane was towed to a secure area of the airport where investigators continued to search for anything suspicious.

The RCMP informed North American Aerospace Defence Command headquarters about the potential threat and the decision was made to scramble the two CF-18s, one Buffalo and one Cormorant out of Comox.

Major Holly Apostoliuk with NORAD in Winnipeg, the Canadian headquarters, said the fighter jets have the ability to respond with lethal force if required.

Emergency crews were put on standby and the RCMP and other officials were waiting at the tarmac and airport when CX838 arrived around 1:40 p.m. PST.

Vancouver airport spokeswoman Alisa Gloag said passengers were allowed to disembark and RCMP questioned passengers while the plane was towed to a separate area.

The airport remained opened and flights departed and arrived Saturday despite the threat.

“The airport and all the flights continued operations,” said Gloag.

Lieutenant-Commanded Gary Ross with NORAD in Colorado Springs, Colorado said that the two fighter jets returned to their home base in Comox on Vancouver Island after shadowing the plane for about two hours.

The jets did not land on the tarmac and returned to their base once the Cathay plane arrived at the airport without incident.

“The two CF-18 Hornets intercepted Cathay Pacific 838 this afternoon after intercepting a potential threat,” said Ross Saturday.

Ross said for security reasons NORAD is not releasing exactly when and where the fighter jets began shadowing the Cathay plane.

“We don’t like to disclose all of the timing of the events so people can’t put one and one together,” he said.

But he did confirm the jets were launched and were in the air within an hour or so before the scheduled 1:30 p.m. landing. The plane landed on schedule at Vancouver airport.

...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/810111--fighter-jets-escort-cathay-plane-to-vancouver-after-bomb-threat?bn=1

Yume-sama
May 16, 2010, 5:38 AM
And somehow the Canadian media didn't interrupt all programming for 8 1/2 hours with stories about how we're all GOING TO DIE?!?!

And that's clearly not a 747 (the most recognizable plane ever), it's an Airbus A340 (which, aside from having wings, looks nothing like a 747). What shoddy reporting :P

SpongeG
May 16, 2010, 7:36 AM
video from a regular plane watcher

kje6jA02ksY

Yume-sama
May 16, 2010, 5:53 PM
One of the passengers has a blog :P Included are some nifty fighter jet out the window photos!
http://blog.brendalogy.net/

trofirhen
May 22, 2010, 9:02 PM
Speaking to a contact at YVR not long ago, he said that there are definitely planes afoot for B Pier, the one major pier - along with smaller A pier - that has undergone virtually no upgrade or capacity increase since the original terminal was built in 1968 (and stands out like a gangrenous leg).

Someone mentioned this a while back. Do you have any information on what might happen there?

whatnext
Jun 2, 2010, 4:56 AM
:whatthefuck: Who's leasing out the BCIT Aerospace building and why did they allow this gawdawful sign:
http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy177/Whatnext2010/Richmond/SDC10671.jpg

SpongeG
Jun 2, 2010, 5:19 AM
Firstar is a sports apparel company

http://firstarsports.com/

whatnext
Jun 2, 2010, 5:43 AM
Firstar is a sports apparel company

http://firstarsports.com/

I was referring to the Sport BC logo! The Firstar one I could live with, but not the dayglo yellow mactac! :yuck:

red-paladin
Jun 8, 2010, 7:57 PM
NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release 2010PREM0118-000668

June 7, 2010

Office of the Premier / China Eastern Airlines

CHINA EASTERN TO FLY DAILY VANCOUVER-SHANGHAI

RICHMOND – China Eastern Airlines is expanding service to Vancouver to include permanent daily non-stop flights between Shanghai and Vancouver International Airport, announced Premier Gordon Campbell today.

Premier Campbell was joined by China Eastern Airlines general manager Margaret Meng, China Eastern sales manager Ben Lee and Vancouver Airport Authority president and CEO Larry Berg.

“The world was introduced to Vancouver during the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games and today’s announcement builds on that unparalleled momentum,” said Premier Campbell. “I want to thank China Eastern Airlines for growing their business through YVR, and I hope they continue to choose British Columbia for future growth.”

“To meet current and future demands, China Eastern is increasing flights between Vancouver and Shanghai to daily non-stop service this summer and permanently on

November 1st,” said Meng. “Our Airbus 340-300 aircraft will service this route, providing safe, efficient and convenient service to our customers.”

According to YVR’s 2005 Economic Impact Study, one new daily international long-haul flight into YVR generates over 100 person-years of employment, over $5 million in wages, and over $8 million to Canada’s GDP annually.

The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games highlighted B.C. and Canada to the world, including over 850 million Chinese television viewers.

“During the Olympic Games, our government met with more than a half-dozen global air carriers, including China Eastern Airlines, to encourage growth through Canada’s Pacific Gateway,” said Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Shirley Bond. “This increase to year-round daily flights will support job growth, tourism and new commerce in Vancouver and B.C.”

“China recently granted Canada approved destination status, which opens the door for more Chinese tour groups to travel to B.C. and Canada,” said Berg. “We are delighted that China Eastern has added additional capacity that will help us to attract this expanded tourist market.”

China Eastern Airlines account for nearly 50 per cent of Shanghai’s aviation market, operating flights to 151 cities, including connections to major cities across the globe such as Vancouver, New York, Los Angeles, Paris, London and Frankfurt. China Eastern has plans to extend its network by joining the SkyTeam global network of more than 13,133 daily flights covering 856 destinations in 169 countries.

China Eastern Airlines is a global partner and the exclusive air carrier for World Expo 2010 in Shanghai from May through October. During Expo, air travel volume is expected to increase by 40 per cent and 70 million visitors are expected, with two million overseas and six million domestic visitors travelling by air.


BACKGROUNDER
CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES

China Eastern Airlines Co., Ltd is one of three major carriers in China, headquartered in the most economically developed region and the fastest growing city in China, Shanghai.

In February 2010, China Eastern completed a major re-structuring, making the former Shanghai Airlines a fully owned subsidiary of China Eastern. With this consolidation, China Eastern is the nation’s second-largest carrier with a fleet of 331 aircraft, more than 60,000 employees and operating assets of over 150 billion RMB (22 billion USD).

Through the Shanghai hub, passengers can connect to most major cities in China and Asia within the same day. China Eastern passengers receive free connecting tickets to any of 40 major cities in China. For passengers unable to make a connecting flight the same day, China Eastern provides complimentary hotel accommodation.

From http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2010PREM0118-000668.htm

Gordon
Jun 8, 2010, 8:08 PM
This is good news for YVR. It would be nice destinations like Guangzhou and other so-called secondary citiesi n China as well other major Asian Destinations.


Has any one heard whether Yvr is going to upgrade pier B in the domestic terminal which looks old comapared to the rest of the facilities.

Yume-sama
Jun 8, 2010, 8:19 PM
The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games highlighted B.C. and Canada to the world, including over 850 million Chinese television viewers.

Reaaaaallllly. Well, I welcome our new(est) Chinese overlords.

jsbertram
Jun 8, 2010, 8:26 PM
This is good news for YVR. It would be nice destinations like Guangzhou and other so-called secondary citiesi n China as well other major Asian Destinations.


Has any one heard whether Yvr is going to upgrade pier B in the domestic terminal which looks old comapared to the rest of the facilities.

I heard just after the international terminal opened, that someone suggested taking those blueprints & flip them over to create a similar terminal building where the Utilities Building and the RCMP building are located. However, they soon realized the south runway was too close & there would be no room for a taxiway and gateway aprons.

trofirhen
Jun 8, 2010, 11:50 PM
Great news that we're getting China Eastern Airlines. Wouldn't it be great if Singapore returned, and maybe Thai Airways? (Although Bangkok is not too desirable a destination at the moment).

Oh, and if NOT Emirates, for all the political/economic resons ....... what about QATAR AIRWAYS? They have connections to Africa, too, but are not super-aggressive like EK. Also .... they have a 5-star rating as an airline. (Like to try them when my ship comes in ....)

You all know my penchant for a nonstop to Paris. I'd be happy if WESTJET took it on. Other than that, Copenhagen Airport is requesting a direct service to Vancouver, although I doubt SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM will take it on, seeing as they cut out Seattle - a very Scandinavian city. (Probably due to cost). Other than that, Rome, and that'll keep me happy where Europe is concerned.

What we have now to Europe now - three destinations - is almost embarassing for this up-and-coming "world class" city. Two or three more scheduled destinations to continental Europe, Paris first on the list, is all we need.

trofirhen
Jun 8, 2010, 11:59 PM
This is good news for YVR. It would be nice destinations like Guangzhou and other so-called secondary citiesi n China as well other major Asian Destinations.


Has any one heard whether Yvr is going to upgrade pier B in the domestic terminal which looks old comapared to the rest of the facilities.

Regarding Pier B (and possibly adjoining Pier A) a YVR Marketing contact recently told me there are definitely plans afoot for something there, but said it was too early to release any public information. Keep your eye on Pier B anyway. (it looks like a gangrenous leg, but I think that will change in a year or two)

MalcolmTucker
Jun 9, 2010, 1:17 AM
Canada doesn't currently have an Air Services Agreement with Qatar. Given they would likely want the same type of access as Emirates and Etihad have been lobbying for for the UAE, one would be very difficult to negotiate.

Kuwait signed an ASA with Canada in 2007 but neither countries carriers have decided to start a route.

trofirhen
Jun 9, 2010, 1:29 AM
Canada doesn't currently have an Air Services Agreement with Qatar. Given they would likely want the same type of access as Emirates and Etihad have been lobbying for for the UAE, one would be very difficult to negotiate.

Kuwait signed an ASA with Canada in 2007 but neither countries carriers have decided to start a route.

Even if they did start a route, it would be in and out of Toronto, anyway.

teriyaki
Jun 9, 2010, 8:31 PM
I was referring to the Sport BC logo! The Firstar one I could live with, but not the dayglo yellow mactac! :yuck:

I definitely hope that this logo is only temporary. It looks like some cheap vinyl job.

Vanzunator
Jun 10, 2010, 6:52 PM
China Eastern new enhanced service is an increase from current 4 weekly service. The service will be on Airbus 340-300 aircraft as follow:

Shanghai Pu Dong – Vancouver (Increase from 4 weekly)
MU581 PVG 1330 – 0750 YVR 343 D
MU582 YVR 1320 – 1745+1 PVG 343 D

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release 2010PREM0118-000668

June 7, 2010

Office of the Premier / China Eastern Airlines

CHINA EASTERN TO FLY DAILY VANCOUVER-SHANGHAI

RICHMOND – China Eastern Airlines is expanding service to Vancouver to include permanent daily non-stop flights between Shanghai and Vancouver International Airport, announced Premier Gordon Campbell today.

Premier Campbell was joined by China Eastern Airlines general manager Margaret Meng, China Eastern sales manager Ben Lee and Vancouver Airport Authority president and CEO Larry Berg.

“The world was introduced to Vancouver during the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games and today’s announcement builds on that unparalleled momentum,” said Premier Campbell. “I want to thank China Eastern Airlines for growing their business through YVR, and I hope they continue to choose British Columbia for future growth.”

“To meet current and future demands, China Eastern is increasing flights between Vancouver and Shanghai to daily non-stop service this summer and permanently on

November 1st,” said Meng. “Our Airbus 340-300 aircraft will service this route, providing safe, efficient and convenient service to our customers.”

According to YVR’s 2005 Economic Impact Study, one new daily international long-haul flight into YVR generates over 100 person-years of employment, over $5 million in wages, and over $8 million to Canada’s GDP annually.

The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games highlighted B.C. and Canada to the world, including over 850 million Chinese television viewers.

“During the Olympic Games, our government met with more than a half-dozen global air carriers, including China Eastern Airlines, to encourage growth through Canada’s Pacific Gateway,” said Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Shirley Bond. “This increase to year-round daily flights will support job growth, tourism and new commerce in Vancouver and B.C.”

“China recently granted Canada approved destination status, which opens the door for more Chinese tour groups to travel to B.C. and Canada,” said Berg. “We are delighted that China Eastern has added additional capacity that will help us to attract this expanded tourist market.”

China Eastern Airlines account for nearly 50 per cent of Shanghai’s aviation market, operating flights to 151 cities, including connections to major cities across the globe such as Vancouver, New York, Los Angeles, Paris, London and Frankfurt. China Eastern has plans to extend its network by joining the SkyTeam global network of more than 13,133 daily flights covering 856 destinations in 169 countries.

China Eastern Airlines is a global partner and the exclusive air carrier for World Expo 2010 in Shanghai from May through October. During Expo, air travel volume is expected to increase by 40 per cent and 70 million visitors are expected, with two million overseas and six million domestic visitors travelling by air.


BACKGROUNDER
CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES

China Eastern Airlines Co., Ltd is one of three major carriers in China, headquartered in the most economically developed region and the fastest growing city in China, Shanghai.

In February 2010, China Eastern completed a major re-structuring, making the former Shanghai Airlines a fully owned subsidiary of China Eastern. With this consolidation, China Eastern is the nation’s second-largest carrier with a fleet of 331 aircraft, more than 60,000 employees and operating assets of over 150 billion RMB (22 billion USD).

Through the Shanghai hub, passengers can connect to most major cities in China and Asia within the same day. China Eastern passengers receive free connecting tickets to any of 40 major cities in China. For passengers unable to make a connecting flight the same day, China Eastern provides complimentary hotel accommodation.

From http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2010PREM0118-000668.htm

trofirhen
Jun 16, 2010, 7:35 PM
I wonder if and when we'll get any major new destinations over and above Shanghai. The economic downturn has slowed things considerably, but Vancouver is not yet in the Big League when it comes to worldwide destinations. It will be nice if / when it is.

(Wouldn't it be great NOT to have to change planes in Toronto?):D

flight_from_kamakura
Jun 19, 2010, 12:30 AM
HOLY SMOKE! the airport improvement fee is $35 to the us now??

Hot Rod
Jun 21, 2010, 2:56 AM
Vancouver has long has shanghai and China Eastern. This is a permanent INCREASE in service, to daily (from 4 day a week).

I hope China Southern Airlines to Guangzhou is soon to follow, then Vancouver will have every Chinese Gateway covered; Beijing - Air China, Air Canada, Shanghai - Air China, China Eastern, 'Guangzhou - China Southern**'.

Air China is already doing the 2nd flight (night) to Beijing but it is not daily yet. I recently returned on the 'normal' daily CA flight and it was packed - and was not all Chinese as most on here might expect, not even half. I could see the need for the 2nd flight to become daily soon.

I also agree that Vancouver needs the return of Singapore Airlines to Singapore and All Nippon Airlines (or somebody else, but since ANA is hq in Osaka, then. .....) to Osaka.

Rusty Gull
Jun 21, 2010, 4:50 AM
I don't think the Osaka service is returning with this latest news from Seattle (courtesy JapanToday.com)

Delta starts Seattle-Osaka nonstop flights
SEATTLE —Washington Gov Chris Gregoire, Port of Seattle and other officials used mallets to break the lid on a barrel of sake Monday in a ceremony at Sea-Tac Airport to celebrate Delta Air Lines’ inaugural nonstop flight to Osaka, Japan.

Along with the addition Friday of a nonstop route to Beijing, Delta says it is positioning Sea-Tac as a major West Coast gateway to Asia.

Delta flies Boeing 767-300 aircraft on the new routes.

jsbertram
Jun 21, 2010, 6:01 AM
Saw this story on Friday:

Boeing 787 delays hampering Air Canada growth
http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article1607878.html


They mention specifically that they could make flights to Mumbai or Changzhou using the 787, whereas the 767 doesn't have the range and using the 777 isn't profitable. I suspect the 787 routes they talk about originate in Toronto, not Vancouver, because they mention current European flights out of Montreal and Toronto.

We'll have to wait until 2013 when AC starts using the 787 to see what new routes they'll start flying with it.

trofirhen
Jun 21, 2010, 8:33 AM
^Don't count on Vancouver getting much out of any new deals or air routes. We're being eclipsed, little by little.

Urban Dolphin
Jun 21, 2010, 12:02 PM
Why does it cost so much more to fly out of YVR than it does to fly out of SEA??? Like almost double :(

BTW some construction is going on at the airport next to the UPS warehouse. Looks like they're building new tanks to house the airline fuel

twoNeurons
Jun 21, 2010, 2:46 PM
Yeah, I'm not holding my breath for any Osaka love from AC when they get the 787s.

Delta's Seattle-Osaka run is replacing the Northwest run that used to run out of Seattle. They're flying older 767s on it.

AC "could" probably return the Vancouver-Osaka run with 787s, but since a lot of passengers are using Japan as a hub for Asia, and since Tokyo has many more flights going out it... I somehow don't see it being a priority for AC.

trofirhen
Jun 21, 2010, 3:03 PM
Bet your bottom dollar that ANY 787s AC gets will be used in an out of YYZ ... and nowhere else.

twoNeurons
Jun 21, 2010, 3:13 PM
Saw this story on Friday:

Boeing 787 delays hampering Air Canada growth
http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article1607878.html


They mention specifically that they could make flights to Mumbai or Changzhou using the 787, whereas the 767 doesn't have the range and using the 777 isn't profitable. I suspect the 787 routes they talk about originate in Toronto, not Vancouver, because they mention current European flights out of Montreal and Toronto.

We'll have to wait until 2013 when AC starts using the 787 to see what new routes they'll start flying with it.

This quote from the article is telling:
It hopes to increasingly attract business travellers from the U.S. Northeast to fly its growing non-stop service to Asia. It now offers four flights daily from Toronto to Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Tokyo.

Because Toronto has a lot more connections to the US eastern seaboard than Vancouver does, they would seem to be in a better position to operate as a hub to Asia.

Makes me wonder, however, what stops US airlines from flying direct to Asia once they get these long range 787 planes.

Does that bit of extra distance prevent non-stops?

Also makes me wonder if business travelers prefer a short hop + long flight or a medium hop but a shorter long flight.

trofirhen
Jun 21, 2010, 3:31 PM
:previous: :previous: :previous:

Not to be pessimistic, but YVR won't benefit much, if at all, from any of that -the coming onstream of the 787.
Toronto will be able to fly right over our heads.
The Transport Commission will still block flights from YVR to India or the Gulf States. (Dubai OR Qatar)
We might see a Paris nonstop, a marketing head at YVR told me on the phone.
Flights to India will continue to be hubbed through YYZ.
With Seattle expanding its Pacific destinations, and nonstop flights from the East Coast to Asia becoming possible with the 787, the dream of Vancouver YVR becoming that key hub for the USA to Asia will not materialize.
*
Something's gotta give, and something WILL give ... but just what and how is to bee seen. I just hope it doesn't mean YVR slowly being eroded to more into a regional transfer point than the "Pacific Gateway" everyone rhapsodizes about.

Yume-sama
Jun 21, 2010, 4:03 PM
Bet your bottom dollar that ANY 787s AC gets will be used in an out of YYZ ... and nowhere else.

:frog: Probably the first two dozen or so. All of their 30 767 will be retiring, and they somehow have 37 787's on order.

The 777's are quite nice and YVR gets those. I just want to see how cool these 787's are :P

Our best chance at seeing them is from flights that connect in YVR from YYZ on the way to China.

Gordon
Jun 21, 2010, 4:12 PM
The article does not specifically mention the Mumbai & Guangzhou as benig Toronto destinations but one certainly assumes this will be the case.

The 787s wil likely be spread througout the various hubs.

The Federal Government seems to coddle Air Canada. Transport Canada should say to Air Canada if you don't routex in 2 years we will give the route to anothe airline that will.

Yume-sama
Jun 21, 2010, 4:30 PM
Guangzhou I could see being one of the flights that connect in YVR.

As it is, I do not know if they could sell out their daily flights to China if they did *not* stop in Vancouver.

No way we get Mumbai, though :P

Also, I don't know why any Americans would choose to connect in Canada, when they could go to JFK and fly out of the USA at what is likely a significantly lower rate. I think it's rather funny and telling of the public perception of Air Canada when they only have 37% of International passengers. 63% of people MUST go beyond and out of their way to avoid them.

twoNeurons
Jun 21, 2010, 5:27 PM
To be fair... i would guess that 63% includes charter flights. I think charter flights make up a large percentage of Canadian international flights, a lot of which are tourism-class passengers. Canadians seems to be dollar conscious when it comes to larger purchases ( but have no problem racking up the debt in plastic on little things! )

If it doesn't... wow...

trofirhen
Jun 21, 2010, 8:54 PM
The article does not specifically mention the Mumbai & Guangzhou as benig Toronto destinations but one certainly assumes this will be the case.

The 787s wil likely be spread througout the various hubs.

The Federal Government seems to coddle Air Canada. Transport Canada should say to Air Canada if you don't routex in 2 years we will give the route to anothe airline that will.

Thank you for this post. Air Canada was ALWAYS the coddled child, either when it was a Crown Corporation, or after it got privatized.

**Also a question please: what does "routex" mean? Thanks.

big T
Jun 21, 2010, 11:22 PM
Also makes me wonder if business travelers prefer a short hop + long flight or a medium hop but a shorter long flight.

Definitely the first option. The closer you are to home, the more options you have in case you miss your connection. Plus once on the long-haul segment, you then get a chance to settle down and eat/sleep/work on your own schedule. There are only upsides.
Flying business is nothing like the back of the bus. A long flight up front is actually an enjoyable, productive experience. The less interruptions, the better (and you want to minimize the time spent flying domestic "business", which is a world and a half away from international business on most airlines)

SpongeG
Jun 22, 2010, 2:01 AM
Thank you for this post. Air Canada was ALWAYS the coddled child, either when it was a Crown Corporation, or after it got privatized.

**Also a question please: what does "routex" mean? Thanks.

i think he means Route X

meaning if air canada does not offer that destination aka Route X to Canadians another airline can offer it to Canadians since Air Canada isn't - say kingfisher starts offering direct flights from India to Canada since Air Canada isn't doing so

trofirhen
Jun 24, 2010, 6:20 PM
meaning if air canada does not offer that destination aka Route X to Canadians another airline can offer it to Canadians since Air Canada isn't - say kingfisher starts offering direct flights from India to Canada since Air Canada isn't doing so

Yes, that sounds logical in theory. However, Transport Canada is notoriously "dog-in-the-manger" when it comes to allowing air routes and destinations.

The Jet Air to Mumbai may not materialize, simply because Ontario wants to make sure it has the monopoly for a future option. And that route could thus remain "dead" for years.*1

A closer-to hme example was Air France ending up going to Seattle after requesting Vancouver for years and being denied by Transport Canada. Logically, Air Canada would have picked up that route (which, YVR sources tell me, is lucrative). But they didn't start a service. They just "sit on it," allowing only summer charters.

Air Canada is expanding agressively out of YYZ, though. They recently got Seattle, and are on the verge of starting Toronto nonstops to Portland, Oregon, and Copenhagen.

(Copenhagen, incidentally, requested a Vancouver route, but, of course, did not get one. Same with JET Airways to India. They fly Toronto-India, and Toronto-Brussels, which Vancouver was also supposed to get, but never did)*1

Traznsport Minister John Baird is doing everything he can ... to make sure Toronto remains and reinforces itself as the HUB, making Vancouver a SPOKE.

This is not only my personal opinion. A senior marketing contact at YVR told me the same thing.

SpongeG
Jun 24, 2010, 7:11 PM
yes so as an example since air canada never picked up the paris route air france after 2 years should be able to pick up the route since air canada didn't - i think thats what he is saying should be done

we all know that can never happen but its a nice idea

trofirhen
Jun 24, 2010, 8:53 PM
yes so as an example since air canada never picked up the paris route air france after 2 years should be able to pick up the route since air canada didn't - i think thats what he is saying should be done

we all know that can never happen but its a nice idea

Yes. I think you have the meaning. However, more importantly than that example, is Vancouver being reduced from an emerging HUB into a spoke for Toronto. The contact at YVR himself said that senior management and sales are all aware of this potentially happening. And if it does, it will mostly be the Ministry of Transport that deliberately caused it to happen.

Important to remember that Toronto is the principal Canadian city in just about every context, but their share of destinations is enormously larger than ours.

Go to the WIKIPEDIA entries for the airports YVR and YYZ, and compare; you'll understand what is happening if you look there.

twoNeurons
Jun 24, 2010, 9:15 PM
If you're a small country like Japan, Korea, Holland or the United Kingdom, it can make sense to make one city your hub... but Canada is so huge, it doesn't make any sense to do this.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 24, 2010, 11:46 PM
Vancouver should be much more concerned about the Calgary - Asia flights, the pledges for more when the 787s come than Toronto flights. Toronto flights to most of Asia make sense since the range is there, the market is there, and due to circle routes if you can get a high enough load factor you save a set of landing fees and somewhere around 800 miles.
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=yyz-hkg,yvr-hkg,&PATH-COLOR=red

The Calgary flights skim off higher fare customers that could contribute to more Vancouver flights. The Toronto flights are there in their own right, as Air Canada tries to prevent eastern Canadians from connecting into international hubs that have flights to almost everywhere, like New York.

Flights to New Delhi for example, with the circle route Vancouver only has a 300 mile advantage. Why should the air line waste money by routing them through YVR? Very different for Tokyo (YVR advantage 1800 miles) where the transfer only adds 300 miles, or Seoul (YVR advantage 1500 miles for a transfer penalty of only 500 miles.

You need to think of the globe as a sphere, not a flat map before proclaiming it logical to hub through Vancouver.

big T
Jun 25, 2010, 12:12 AM
Regarding the YVR-CDG situation, I believe AC's code share agreement with LH entitles them to a share of revenue of the YVR-FRA run (plus they have their own LHR run), so there's little incentive to dilute that with a direct flight. I'm not sure whether Van can really support that much traffic from Europe -- and before someone retorts that AF is/was interested in flying from CDG, please bear in mind that as a competitor they would actually be interested in cannibalizing the current Star Alliance routes.

SpongeG
Jun 25, 2010, 12:32 AM
Yes. I think you have the meaning. However, more importantly than that example, is Vancouver being reduced from an emerging HUB into a spoke for Toronto. The contact at YVR himself said that senior management and sales are all aware of this potentially happening. And if it does, it will mostly be the Ministry of Transport that deliberately caused it to happen.

Important to remember that Toronto is the principal Canadian city in just about every context, but their share of destinations is enormously larger than ours.

Go to the WIKIPEDIA entries for the airports YVR and YYZ, and compare; you'll understand what is happening if you look there.

no no no

if air canada does not offer Vancouver - to Paris flights and refuses to do so - than put a time limit on it and say okay listen to us Air Canada you offer Vancouver - Paris service in two years -if you don't do it - we will let Air France step in and do it

we all know toronto is the centre of the universe especially when it comes to air Canada - I knew someone who worked for Air Canada and he said he can't advance much as long as he remains in Vancouver - if he moved to Toronto he would get more shifts and better routes etc. but he likes living here and takes it on the chin to avoid moving to Toronto - where he was originally from many years ago

anyway carry on

jlousa
Jun 25, 2010, 1:00 AM
*sigh* we seem to go over this YVR-CDG ever couple of months, there is nothing stopping flights from YVR to Paris except for demand. Personally I'd love to connect via Paris instead of Amsterdam or Frankfurt but there isn't enough demand for the airlines to provide such a flight. Air Transit used to fly it seasonally and they have lower overhead then the major airlines and even they had to cancel it as it wasn't profitable. Let's leave the conspiracy theories alone and realize Toronto covers an population ~3x ours. We do extremely well for our size and should be happen we get the amount of flights we do.

whatnext
Jun 25, 2010, 1:24 AM
...I knew someone who worked for Air Canada and he said he can't advance much as long as he remains in Vancouver - if he moved to Toronto he would get more shifts and better routes etc. but he likes living here and takes it on the chin to avoid moving to Toronto - where he was originally from many years ago

anyway carry on

That's true for any large company that's based in Toronto. Too bad so sad. Career or lifestyle, make the choice.

Gordon
Jun 25, 2010, 2:51 AM
Transat Has 3x weekly service between YVR & CDG

jlousa
Jun 25, 2010, 2:58 AM
Thanks just saw that, happy to see that they brought it back and it appears to be straight thru w/o stopping in calgary either, impressive. I just snapped up a couple of tixs. :tup:

Looks like I got lucky with my dates though, looking at their schedule closer it appears most of their flights do in fact stop in Calgary but not all of them.

Hourglass
Jun 25, 2010, 5:26 AM
Vancouver should be much more concerned about the Calgary - Asia flights, the pledges for more when the 787s come than Toronto flights.

Yeah, good point. And Calgary Airport has announced a huge expansion as well, including a new parallel runway. Having said that, Vancouver's larger population base and demographics likely favor YVR for any new Asian routes first. Anyone know how AC's new Calgary-Tokyo flights are doing?


The Toronto flights are there in their own right, as Air Canada tries to prevent eastern Canadians from connecting into international hubs that have flights to almost everywhere, like New York.

Montreal (YUL) is also an AC hub, albeit more for European routes. But yes, as a business traveler, I prefer to do a short hop to a hub and then transfer for a long-haul flight rather than do a longer hop and then transfer. Generally, I have more flexibility and options with the short hop if there is ever a problem.

trofirhen
Jun 25, 2010, 9:56 PM
Here's an interesting article critiquing Canada's not-so-open skies from the Calgary Herald. Very much worth a look.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/travel/Study+calls+Canada+open+skies+competition/3199378/story.html

Gordon
Jun 25, 2010, 10:22 PM
The Federal Government is supposed to be bringing in a travel policy later this year.

As far as losing Asian flights to Calgary, Vancouver's population is roughly twice that of Calgary's & has a far largerAsian population that CAlgary does.

VAncouver's population is supposed to be increase by 1,000,000 in the next 20 years that alone wil keep the airport growing.

trofirhen
Jun 25, 2010, 10:32 PM
The Federal Government is supposed to be bringing in a travel policy later this year.

As far as losing Asian flights to Calgary, Vancouver's population is roughly twice that of Calgary's & has a far largerAsian population that CAlgary does.

VAncouver's population is supposed to be increase by 1,000,000 in the next 20 years that alone wil keep the airport growing.

Thanks for your support. However, whatever travel / air destination policy the Feds bring in, you can bet your boots it will serve the interests of Toronto (and maybe Montreal) but leave Vancouver and Calgary out in the cold.

Emirates wanted to fly to Vancouver and Calgary, but were denied. Jet Airways was to have started service from Vancouver to India, and Vancouver to Brussels, but Toronto is the only city with that airline and route.

If you check out the YVR thread, plus the news, you'll see how the West (mostly Vancouver and Calgary) gets screwed by Air Canada, The Federal Ministers of Transport (always from Ontario) and how Toronto rakes in all the lucrative (or most of the lucrative) destinations.

It angers many people, and even YVR officals are getting worried about Vancouver being reduced to a spoke serving the humungous hub of YYZ Toronto.

Oh, and here's another link to look at. It examines the high cost of flying within Canada, and in and out of Canada.

Read it and weep. (or get pissed off, anyway)!!

http://www.edmontonsun.com/comment/columnists/mindelle_jacobs/2010/06/25/14514741.html

MalcolmTucker
Jun 25, 2010, 11:00 PM
Here's an interesting article critiquing Canada's not-so-open skies from the Calgary Herald. Very much worth a look.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/travel/Study+calls+Canada+open+skies+competition/3199378/story.html
The issue the government liberalization isn't that - the study misses the point. Who pays for the equivalent of NavCan and CATSA in other nations? The national tax payers. In Canada the airport user not only pays for those things, but for airport rent to the federal government aswell.

Canadians also like things like entertainment and free pop and juice on flights which I doubt were available on the European and American flights, along with two checked bags.

What Milke and his organization want is cabotage, and I doubt you would like that. Certainly only one of Seattle or Vancouver would end up as a true hub under that situation and I doubt it would be the Canadian option given our higher fees.

As the counter point in the article says:
Airline consultant Rick Erickson, of Calgary-based R.P. Erickson & Associates, said foreign carriers would still face the higher tax burdens of operating in Canada.
"I don't see them showing up and all of a sudden revolutionizing the Canadian airfare game," he said.
"They are going to find the costs here are higher, and that Air Canada and WestJet are very competitive competition."

usog
Jun 26, 2010, 12:22 AM
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100625/new_flight_china_100625/20100625?hub=Toronto

Bleh, nothing really to say it stands by itself. On that note I haven't seen any Air Canada promotion/sale from YVR in forever, nothing but stuff from Toronto, especially sales promoting the new routes Air Canada added recently...from Toronto.

trofirhen
Jun 26, 2010, 10:45 AM
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100625/new_flight_china_100625/20100625?hub=Toronto

Bleh, nothing really to say it stands by itself. On that note I haven't seen any Air Canada promotion/sale from YVR in forever, nothing but stuff from Toronto, especially sales promoting the new routes Air Canada added recently...from Toronto.
:previous:
Thank you for that!!
It's time more people woke up and smelled the coffee. Vancouver is losing its prominence as a hub for the Pacific, and this will be eroded even further. A YVR marketing official contact told me that senior YVR staff are concerned about YVR being relegated to a "spoke."

People who sanguinely think otherwise are kidding themselves. Thanks again.

dubsH
Jun 26, 2010, 3:34 PM
:previous:
Thank you for that!!
It's time more people woke up and smelled the coffee. Vancouver is losing its prominence as a hub for the Pacific, and this will be eroded even further. A YVR marketing official contact told me that senior YVR staff are concerned about YVR being relegated to a "spoke."

People who sanguinely think otherwise are kidding themselves. Thanks again.

I'm pretty sure most people (on here) are aware; they just aren't losing any more sleep than you are over this.

Hourglass
Jun 26, 2010, 3:39 PM
:previous:
Vancouver is losing its prominence as a hub for the Pacific, and this will be eroded even further.

A couple of years ago, Vancouver had something like 120 flights a week from Asia during the peak summer months. This summer? Around 92 flights per week.

What's concerning as well is that a number of new Asian routes have opened up from Seattle, including Beijing and Osaka.

Vancouver still has way more nonstops to Asia than Seattle does, but Seattle is gradually creeping up...

Gordon
Jun 26, 2010, 4:54 PM
One reason for the decrease in the number of Asian Nonstops is that massive recession over the last year or so.

With the range on the new jets an Pacific gateway is not as necessary as it once was.

Roughly how many Asian non stops does Seattle have?

jsbertram
Jun 26, 2010, 6:57 PM
That's true for any large company that's based in Toronto. Too bad so sad. Career or lifestyle, make the choice.

I have a friend (not in the airline business) who has said for years he would take a promotion & transfer to Toronto only if he knew that one of the next promotions after that would bring him back to Vancouver (where he was born & raised and one branch of his family has been here since the 1850s gold rush).

His mindset is that a promotion is a step up the corporate ladder, but moving to Toronto was a necessary evil to get further into the top management. If the company really wanted him to stay with them, they would lay out a promotions 'path' to let him get back to Vancouver after a few moves while moving up the management ladder and he'd be happy to stay with the company.

I don't see that he's frustrated with 'being stuck' in Vancouver or 'being stuck' in his job, but I won't be surprised if he changes companies to take a position in Vancouver similar to what in his current company would require a move to Toronto.

Hourglass
Jun 26, 2010, 7:00 PM
One reason for the decrease in the number of Asian Nonstops is that massive recession over the last year or so.

With the range on the new jets an Pacific gateway is not as necessary as it once was.

Roughly how many Asian non stops does Seattle have?

Yes, part of it is the recession, and part of it is the withdrawal of services due to restrictions on air services -- perceived or otherwise (eg Singapore Airlines). The increase in Asian nonstops to Seattle is probably due to the fact that Seattle is under-served relative to main West Coast gateways such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and Vancouver,

As far as I can tell, Seattle currently has around 35 weekly nonstops to Asia, of which 21 are to Japan (compared to YVR which has 14 weekly nonstops to Japan but over 90 weekly Asian flights overall).

Overall SEA still has far fewer Asian flights than YVR, but if the new flights ex-Seattle are successful, I can see airlines such as Delta building further Asian hub operations there -- which will definitely impact Vancouver.

red-paladin
Jun 26, 2010, 7:14 PM
The fact that Canada is getting normalized tourist status in China should lead to more flights from there right?

jsbertram
Jun 26, 2010, 7:17 PM
:previous:
Thank you for that!!
It's time more people woke up and smelled the coffee. Vancouver is losing its prominence as a hub for the Pacific, and this will be eroded even further. A YVR marketing official contact told me that senior YVR staff are concerned about YVR being relegated to a "spoke."

People who sanguinely think otherwise are kidding themselves. Thanks again.

Vancouver as the Pacific Hub disappeared the day Canadian Airlines was taken over by Air Canada. From that point on every decision was Toronto-centric.

A friend who started with Wardair, lived through that merger with Canadian and then Air Canada before retiring has nearly-daily contact with 'her kids' still flying and says the Canadian vs. Air Canada staff gulf is still as deep & wide as the day of the takeover. Some ex-Canadian cabin crew prefer to fly with 'our' ex-Canadian pilots because 'their' AC pilots treat ex-Canadian crews like shit. This will get resolved only when staff of CA and AC retire and the younger staff won't have the historical animosity about the takeover.

mr.x
Jun 26, 2010, 7:20 PM
^ How vital was Canada 3000 to the Canadian airline industry back in the day? or even to Vancouver? Same question for Canadian Airlines.

MistyMountainHop
Jun 26, 2010, 7:45 PM
^ How vital was Canada 3000 to the Canadian airline industry back in the day? or even to Vancouver? Same question for Canadian Airlines.

Canadian Airlines focused much more on YVR than Air Canada does. I was quite disappointed when they were bought out.

whatnext
Jun 26, 2010, 9:06 PM
A break from the regularly scheduled Air Canada bashing (I believe there are forums for that) to actually discuss some YVR infrastructure:

For almost two decades, Vancouver International Airport has bucked a Transport Canada recommendation for safety buffers that would help aircraft land safely in the event of a runway overshoot or undershoot.

But with the federal government now threatening to mandate such buffers, YVR says it has the available space to implement them, even though it could cost tens of millions of dollars...

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/good+shape+handle+safety+buffers+officials/3198921/story.html#ixzz0rzmkXD3S

SpongeG
Jun 27, 2010, 6:09 AM
^ How vital was Canada 3000 to the Canadian airline industry back in the day? or even to Vancouver? Same question for Canadian Airlines.

Canada 3000 was a charter airline

Canadian Airlines was a scheduled airline like Air Canada is today

it was great from what I recall using it

I also remember PWA and CP Air

SFUVancouver
Jun 27, 2010, 6:37 PM
The name Ward Air is still spoken with reverence among many flyers of a certain age. Its customers service was simply unequalled in Canada. If I recall correctly Canadian Airlines bought them out and attempted to adopt their standard of customer service with pretty good results. When Air Canada bought Canadian it was Air Canada's lower level of customer service that was extended to the new acquisition.

aberdeen5698
Jun 27, 2010, 6:53 PM
The name Ward Air is still spoken with reverence among many flyers of a certain age. Its customers service was simply unequal led in Canada.I only flew once with WardAir to Hawaii and back again on a DC-10. It was the best flight I've ever had. Nothing since has equaled it. I was very sad to see them go.

trofirhen
Jun 27, 2010, 11:31 PM
Care to see an nteresting connection between open skies and lower air fares? If so, the please click on the link.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Want+cheap+airfares+Europe/3207898/story.html

trofirhen
Jun 29, 2010, 1:14 AM
:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:

Hate to be a repetitive bore, but many people complain that our airfares are so much higher in Canada than the USA. Read the above link and you'll find out all of that, and more ......... :cool:

SpongeG
Jun 29, 2010, 1:49 AM
we know we are getting screwed but being canadians we just take it

jlousa
Jun 29, 2010, 2:02 AM
Don't know about that, I just booked flights to Paris, Madrid and Barcelona and only paid $599 plus the barrage of taxes they came in at just over $900 each. That's pretty damn cheap if you ask me, I still remember paying $2000 a ticket in the mid eighties. I looked and I couldn't get anything out of Seattle for that price not to mention wasting hours of my time. I have no doubt you can save money on some flights out of Seatac but in my situations I've never found that.

Yume-sama
Jun 29, 2010, 2:34 AM
Airfares have gotten cheaper over the years. But, people want to have their lard butts and every personal belonging flown across the Country in a couple of hours for little more than the price of a bus ticket :P

Which is nice... :haha:

I'm planning to fly across Europe next Summer from city to city and was pleasantly surprised at how stunningly cheap the flights are between cities.

It never ceases to amaze me the stupid things people do to save a few dollars, too. Like, connecting at a place 4 hours out of the way when a direct flight is available for $40 more.

flight_from_kamakura
Jun 29, 2010, 3:31 AM
yvr has some pretty good bargains for some places, and less good for others. traveling from yul to narita, for some reason was always a few bucks cheaper than going via yvr. flying anywhere in the us will almost always be cheaper from sea-tac, though sometimes not enough to warrant the trip. i recently popped over to hawaii for a couple weeks from sfo and it came in at ~$260 roundtrip, a fare you'd never find out of yvr. actually, now that i think of it, i can't think of anything (other than maybe newfoundland or calgary) that would be cheaper out of yvr viz. sfo. but i guess for most folks, that's sort of academic.

giallo
Jun 29, 2010, 3:44 AM
^ ^I know. I'll always go for the direct flight every time (if it's available), even if it's a $100+ more than a connecting flight.
Another thing that dictates prices is the time of year of course. Vancouver is quite a popular destination out of Shanghai in the summer, and the ticket prices at PVG reflect that. I'm coming back at the end of July, and my ticket was about $1450CDN return. Compare that to if I left before June 13th; $750CDN.

SpongeG
Jun 29, 2010, 3:50 AM
how did u get a flight to paris?

it must be a charter flight not a regular airline flight since YVR isn't served by a regular flight there

jlousa
Jun 29, 2010, 4:33 AM
Air Transat reintroduced Paris this summer, they also introduced Barcelona and Madrid flights this year so I did my part, I'm a little worried if the demand is there for the service long term because when picking my seats on the flights I had almost carte blanche.

trofirhen
Jun 29, 2010, 3:50 PM
Air Transat reintroduced Paris this summer, they also introduced Barcelona and Madrid flights this year so I did my part, I'm a little worried if the demand is there for the service long term because when picking my seats on the flights I had almost carte blanche.

Was that going to Spain? Or to Paris? I ask this simply because I hear that the regularly scheduled Seattle-Paris service on Air France is doing very well, making money, flying full year round ........

trofirhen
Jun 29, 2010, 3:54 PM
we know we are getting screwed but being canadians we just take it

You're right ... but there MUST be a way to change that. What could we do to get those f---heads in Ottawa to allow Total Open skies, as the article says we should? :hell: