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

Yume-sama
Oct 7, 2010, 5:08 AM
Terry Fox International. Yay? Or Nay?

:rolleyes: Not this crap again. Do we have to have Terry Fox naming fights every few months :P?

I think we've already had one IN this thread, where we determined it should at least be named after someone with a history IN AVIATION, if it had to be re-named at all.

Which we determined it shouldn't be. So people will at least know in what city Vancouver International Airport is in (kind of).

jlousa
Oct 7, 2010, 5:41 AM
Best comment I heard regarding renaming the airport.

Bad Optics, who would want to fly out of an airport named after someone that started a journey but didn't finish it.

A bit in bad taste I know, but after thinking about it, there is truth to it, the fit isn't there.

mr.x
Oct 7, 2010, 5:55 AM
Terry Fox International. Yay? Or Nay?

No. Please, no.

Terry did an incredible thing, but what I have a problem with is when he's made out to be some sort of god. And surely, they must realize that there have been countless things named after him in his honour...countless things.

It's an airport, it should be named after its location. To those who want it renamed in his honour, I should ask what about pride for your city? Not to mention that there are also obviously tourism and marketing issues, the airport advertises the Vancouver brand.

I for one can't believe that Betty Fox had the nerve to say that the Olympic Opening Ceremony didn't honour his son enough. She was the first flag bearer of the Olympic flag and her son was mentioned when she was introduced - that was absolutely fitting.



This is concerning:

News of Sage's petition has bolstered Vancouver Liberal MP Hedy Fry's desire to table a motion in the House of Commons to have the airport renamed after Fox. Fry said she is working on the motion and will present it before the end of the year.

Although the federal government must approve airport name changes, Fry said she planned to contact Philip Owen, a member of the Vancouver International Airport's board of directors, to discuss the idea.

Owen, former mayor of Vancouver, said Monday he would raise the request for a name change at the board's next meeting.

"It's something that should be discussed and I'm certainly in favour of having the think about it and digest it," said Owen, who wouldn't say whether he supports the change.

[B]Richmond MP Alice Wong, whose riding includes the airport, said she'd consult with her constituents before deciding whether to lobby to rename the airport after Fox.

Fred Fox, Terry's older brother, said the Fox family has traditionally approved all facilities, including schools, sports complexes, streets and parks, that bear Terry's name. He wouldn't say whether the family supported adding Terry's name to the airport.

"We really don't have an opinion on this kind of thing," said Fred, noting a mountain in B.C. is also named after his brother. "If it happens, it happens and that's great. But Terry would rather have people put their energy into raising money for cancer research and finding a cure for cancer.":tup:

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Move+rename+Terry+Airport+gaining+strength/3633505/story.html#ixzz11eLFCG00

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Move+rename+Terry+Airport+gaining+strength/3633505/story.html#ixzz11eJFF3hT

whatnext
Oct 7, 2010, 6:01 AM
Terry Fox International. Yay? Or Nay?

No. Fox started an impressive journey, but no. It will mean nothing to international visitors. To elaborate on jlousa's point, why not rename it Steve Fonyo International if you're going to go down that road? Or if we're going to follow YYZ or YUL's precedent, it should by rights be either John Turner Int'l or Kim Campbell Int'l.

Yume-sama
Oct 7, 2010, 6:33 AM
Best comment I heard regarding renaming the airport.

Bad Optics, who would want to fly out of an airport named after someone that started a journey but didn't finish it.

A bit in bad taste I know, but after thinking about it, there is truth to it, the fit isn't there.

:haha: That's so awful.

It seems like "Let's rename something after Terry Fox!" is a politicians last ditch effort to gain favour for SOMETHING they are for.

Just like with brand names there is such a thing as over saturation, to the point it becomes generic. Nothing special, not something people will look up.

We're nearing that now~ A better thing to do would be to replace the awful Chinese gate memorial at BC Place.

Hot Rod
Oct 7, 2010, 7:19 AM
For those hoping that the UAE's heavy hand would cause a new bilateral, I have bad news:


Source CTV News, more here (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101006/dubai-military-base-canada-101006/)

maybe UAE should retaliate and pull out of Canada, Toronto service that is. ....

Then who would be lau:notacrook: ghing?

red-paladin
Oct 7, 2010, 8:00 AM
No. Fox started an impressive journey, but no. It will mean nothing to international visitors. To elaborate on jlousa's point, why not rename it Steve Fonyo International if you're going to go down that road? Or if we're going to follow YYZ or YUL's precedent, it should by rights be either John Turner Int'l or Kim Campbell Int'l.

I agree. Finally everyone in the world knows where Vancouver is. Why rename the airport?

SpongeG
Oct 7, 2010, 9:04 AM
ridiculous idea but if you voice opposition than you are the bad guy

he has a school named after him and other things - just let him be dead

MalcolmTucker
Oct 7, 2010, 11:30 AM
maybe UAE should retaliate and pull out of Canada, Toronto service that is. ....

Then who would be lau:notacrook: ghing?

I think the government would be fine with that.

Vanzunator
Oct 7, 2010, 8:05 PM
from Twitter posted by AirFranceFR account:
An AF #A380 is taking off this pm for #Montreal for the 60th anniversary of #AirFrance flights to #Canada. Flash back http://ow.ly/2PZ72 (http://ow.ly/2PZ72)

and my response tweet to that was:
after 60 years we're still waiting for a YVR flight

I still can't believe how the federal government stopped them from starting a direct YVR flight, that was very well publicized in mainstream local media such as Vancouver Sun; how AF tried for over 10 years to get the approval for YVR route…

Routes conference has come and gone and no new announcements even beyond Paris…

mr.x
Oct 8, 2010, 9:04 AM
Best comment I heard regarding renaming the airport.

Bad Optics, who would want to fly out of an airport named after someone that started a journey but didn't finish it.

A bit in bad taste I know, but after thinking about it, there is truth to it, the fit isn't there.

In Asia, that argument would be quite logical to most people - it may be horrible but it's true....here, for some reason, you'd probably get death threats...

Leave our airport name alone!

trofirhen
Oct 8, 2010, 2:29 PM
The general consensus on renaming the airport seems to be no. Let me add my voice to that, please ...

NO !

SpongeG
Oct 8, 2010, 8:21 PM
but if they did they could hang banners like this ;)
http://hollywoodtwins.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/michaeljfox.jpg
hollywoodtwins.files.wordpress.com

trofirhen
Oct 8, 2010, 8:50 PM
:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:
Isn't that the actor, Michael J. Fox? I think Terry was a different person.

trofirhen
Oct 8, 2010, 8:54 PM
ridiculous idea but if you voice opposition than you are the bad guy

he has a school named after him and other things - just let him be dead

Amen and Amen

PaperTiger
Oct 8, 2010, 9:17 PM
:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:
Isn't that the actor, Michael J. Fox? I think Terry was a different person.

I think you missed the ;) .

But in truth it is not a bad idea. The ALex P. Keaton International Airport. I'm going to start a twitter campaign!

SpongeG
Oct 8, 2010, 11:53 PM
yeah i was making a funny like happenned during the olympics - those outside of Canada basically seem to have no idea who terry fox is but they know michael j fox - NBC even used a pic of MJF when talking about TF... haha

so we could just use MJF and tell people he is TF

Fairbanks
Oct 9, 2010, 12:09 AM
Terry Fox memorial Stadium or Terry Fox International Airport.
It's just that simple.
If asked...the people of BC would vote for these two names of these structures.

Quit trying to complicate everything with Terry Fox Vancouver International Airport...it's inevitable that once passengers are on the ground they will know they are in Vancouver not in the city of Terry Fox...I mean come on!

Who cares if they dont know who Terry Fox is when they watch soccer or football on TV. There isn't a Canadian alive today who doesn't know who Terry Fox is or was. After all, we don't care what the world knows... we name it for us... am matter of natrional pride.

I mean..does the United Arab Emirates care that we know who Al Kalifa is? NO!!! In the end it only matters what we care about.

Anyway...I am so sick of corporate names on these facilities. The Save-on -Foods Memorial Arena in Victoria ...gimme a break! Everyone calls it the "Fridge"...as in frozen foods section. With all of Jimmy's money he can afford to simply have it called Memorial Arena and put a simple plaque on a wall somewhere.

And while we are at it...let's get over the need to call everything a "PLACE"...Canada Place, BC Place, Robson Place.

We finally got something right..instead of calling GM Place the "Garage" now we just call it Rogers Arena.

K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid

SpongeG
Oct 9, 2010, 12:14 AM
why would they?

I think there loads of other people who could have something named after them

so he died of cancer and raised awareness - big whoop - sorry if its mean I don't care about him and the more his family shoves his name down my throat the less i will care about him - just have to be honest

just leave it alone

Fairbanks
Oct 9, 2010, 12:16 AM
And for the record...I like the name "Terry Fox International" or "Fox Stadium" or "Terry Fox Stadium"...or "Fox Memorial Stadium"...or how about...wait for it...."Olympic Stadium". Because that it what it is now DAMN IT!

SpongeG
Oct 9, 2010, 1:22 AM
well it end up with a corporate name - those kind of things need the money corporations can provide them - rather them than me the tax payer

trofirhen
Oct 9, 2010, 4:30 AM
I, like most Canadians, admire Terry fox for his valiant effort in the face of illness. However, as has been pointed out, there are already schools named after him, as well as a memorial (done in the worst of visual taste) downtown. Naming a stadium after him might be appropriate, but an airport, as a gateway to a country, if named after a person, is usually somebody known over the world (we'll keep the UAE out of this for the moment) like John Lennon Airport in Liverpool.

Lester B. Pearson was not only Prime Minister of Canada, but won the Nobel Peace Prize for his solution to the Suez Crisis of 1956.

Trudeau was PM for several terms, and became an international emblem of Canada, for better or worse.

Terry was a hero, but is too homespun for a name for our airport. Plus, there are numerous things named for him already, as has been noted.

Heck, why not Emily Carr as a name? She was a renowned artist who captured the spirit of BC in her art, and became famous posthumously.

Anyway, Vancouver is not yet a big enough airport (in my opinion) to be named after someone.

Leave well enough alone. PUH-LEEEEEEEZE.

whatnext
Oct 9, 2010, 5:11 AM
The federal government has knocked the stool out from the UAE's brazen attempt to coerce Canada into accepting Emirates flights, by pulling troops out early from Camp Mirage. UAE had threatened to restrict access to the base unless EK was allowed unlimited access to Canada:

http://www.nationalpost.com/Troops+pull+early+from+Dubai+base/3641380/story.html

mr.x
Oct 9, 2010, 6:08 AM
Lets not forget that technically, "Vancouver International Airport" is named after someone and therefore honours him. Does he not matter?

SpongeG
Oct 9, 2010, 6:13 AM
Kenya Airways joins Let’s Talk Travel road shows in western Canada

Oct 07, 2010
VANCOUVER, Canada - Kenya Airways is on the road this fall in western Canada. Kenya Airways, in conjunction with four other suppliers (Bestway Tours and Safaris, Safari Studio, SITA World Tours, and Destinos), has announced an exciting series of presentations highlighting the newest destinations, latest itineraries, and products available in Africa, South America, India, and Central Asia.

According to Mable Tang, Kenya Airways Western Canada manager, “We are inviting all agents fascinated with developing intimate knowledge of the latest product offerings in order to enhance their ability to sell some of the most exciting destinations in Africa and other destinations, to a dinner preview to see all the latest offers. Everyone attending will see our latest product updates and have a chance to win a trip for two valued at more than
US$5,000.”

...

http://www.eturbonews.com/18963/kenya-airways-joins-let-s-talk-travel-road-shows-western-canada

trofirhen
Oct 9, 2010, 12:53 PM
Lets not forget that technically, "Vancouver International Airport" is named after someone and therefore honours him. Does he not matter?

Captain George Vancouver, for whom our city was named,yes. Excellent point, Mr. X :tup:

trofirhen
Oct 9, 2010, 4:19 PM
Kenya Airways joins Let’s Talk Travel road shows in western Canada

Oct 07, 2010
VANCOUVER, Canada - Kenya Airways is on the road this fall in western Canada. Kenya Airways, in conjunction with four other suppliers (Bestway Tours and Safaris, Safari Studio, SITA World Tours, and Destinos), has announced an exciting series of presentations highlighting the newest destinations, latest itineraries, and products available in Africa, South America, India, and Central Asia.

According to Mable Tang, Kenya Airways Western Canada manager, “We are inviting all agents fascinated with developing intimate knowledge of the latest product offerings in order to enhance their ability to sell some of the most exciting destinations in Africa and other destinations, to a dinner preview to see all the latest offers. Everyone attending will see our latest product updates and have a chance to win a trip for two valued at more than
US$5,000.”

...

http://www.eturbonews.com/18963/kenya-airways-joins-let-s-talk-travel-road-shows-western-canada

Too bad they don't have a route from YVR into Nairobi and beyond. (If they applied for it, the government would more than likely allocate it to YYZ instead, so what's the use in hoping)?

Yume-sama
Oct 9, 2010, 4:38 PM
That's one time I'd rather fly Air Canada :P Kenyan planes sound scary.

Millennium2002
Oct 10, 2010, 2:39 AM
Unsafe? =O

There are a few countries whose airlines have been banned by say the EU... but I don't think Kenyan is high on the watch list...

whatnext
Oct 10, 2010, 7:13 AM
That's one time I'd rather fly Air Canada :P Kenyan planes sound scary.

If you've flown Air Canada's 767 fin # 690 you've flown on ex-Kenya plane.

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=073437

sacrifice333
Oct 11, 2010, 5:13 PM
Sounds like AC not only blocked further UAE airline routes & frequencies to Canada but is also forcing the Canadian Forces to make alternative arrangements re: Camp Mirage and the mission in Afghanistan! :koko:

UAE closes airspace to MacKay, blocks his flight from Afghanistan

JANE TABER AND DANIEL LEBLANC
Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
Published Monday, Oct. 11, 2010 10:42AM EDT
Last updated Monday, Oct. 11, 2010 1:01PM EDT

The United Arab Emirates has closed its airspace to Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Chief of the Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk as they were on their way back from a visit in Afghanistan, according to a senior government source.

The pair had landed at Camp Mirage in the UAE as they were on their way to Kandahar on Thursday. But as they prepared to return, Mr. MacKay and Gen. Natynczyk were informed that they could not land at Camp Mirage or even fly over the UAE, according to a senior government official.

...
Air Canada and Transport Canada oppose the idea of linking air negotiations to geopolitics.
...

Read the full article on Globe & Mail.com (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/military-will-vacate-dubai-base-as-uae-talks-fail-mackay/article1752151/)

whatnext
Oct 11, 2010, 5:25 PM
:previous: Yeah, Air Canada really has that kind of power.:rolleyes: As I pointed out upthread, the UAE threatened Canada with loss of the Camp Mirage base if they didn't accede to the demands of their air carriers for a huge increase in access. The Tories grew a pair and called their bluff.

And now we have the UAE closing their airspace to Peter Mackay's flight after he left a troop inspection in Afghanistan. A disgusting attempt at bullying Canada.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/uae-closes-airspace-to-mackay-blocks-his-flight-from-afghanistan/article1752151/

Waders
Oct 11, 2010, 5:43 PM
Of course bullying does not work and now Canada has decided to exit Camp Mirage.
What exactly is at stake that can cause such a diplomatic spat?

See article "Negotiations ended, MacKay confirms Camp Mirage exit" at http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101011/camp-mirage-talks-uae-canada-101110/

MalcolmTucker
Oct 11, 2010, 7:02 PM
Millions of dollars of air travel - the emirati are building huge airports in the region for a reason, in areas that don't have the population to anchor hubs. If they play hard ball with us, think about how they have built their networks all over the globe. They have hundreds of wide body airplanes on order, and are building multiple airports to service more than 100m people annually. They need people to fill those planes - they don't have enough oil to keep their society going on it alone, so diversification it is. Turned a small niche as the choke point between europe and asia into a huge competitive advantage, and they are expanding as much as possible. The public nature of the dispute isn't just about Canada, it is any nation that wants rights into the UAE, also it is a warning for nations like Australia that may want to limit emirati's growth when looking at bilateral/trilateral revisions.

I think Canadians often forget we are a rich country, and there are only so many rich people in the world and access to our market is worth lots of money.

trofirhen
Oct 11, 2010, 10:25 PM
Millions of dollars of air travel - the emirati are building huge airports in the region for a reason, in areas that don't have the population to anchor hubs. If they play hard ball with us, think about how they have built their networks all over the globe. They have hundreds of wide body airplanes on order, and are building multiple airports to service more than 100m people annually. They need people to fill those planes - they don't have enough oil to keep their society going on it alone, so diversification it is. Turned a small niche as the choke point between europe and asia into a huge competitive advantage, and they are expanding as much as possible. The public nature of the dispute isn't just about Canada, it is any nation that wants rights into the UAE, also it is a warning for nations like Australia that may want to limit emirati's growth when looking at bilateral/trilateral revisions.

I think Canadians often forget we are a rich country, and there are only so many rich people in the world and access to our market is worth lots of money.

With this latest arm-twisting episode, Sir Humph, I'm starting to see your point of view. Something that baffles me is that in the UK, they fly into not only London and Manchester, but also Birmingham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne!
"Why so many destinations?" I ask myself, and why Newcastle? It's not much bigger than Saskatoon!!

Johnny Aussie
Oct 11, 2010, 11:04 PM
With this latest arm-twisting episode, Sir Humph, I'm starting to see your point of view. Something that baffles me is that in the UK, they fly into not only London and Manchester, but also Birmingham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne!
"Why so many destinations?" I ask myself, and why Newcastle? It's not much bigger than Saskatoon!!

Dubai benefits by being in the cross roads between Europe and Asia and Europe and Australia. So pretty much any city in Europe can use Dubai as a transfer point to other places in the Middle East, India, South East Asia, East Asia, Australia etc. And Newcastle is a lot bigger than Saskatoon. Metro area is > 1 million and a good catchment area over 3 million +.

trofirhen
Oct 12, 2010, 2:20 AM
Dubai benefits by being in the cross roads between Europe and Asia and Europe and Australia. So pretty much any city in Europe can use Dubai as a transfer point to other places in the Middle East, India, South East Asia, East Asia, Australia etc. And Newcastle is a lot bigger than Saskatoon. Metro area is > 1 million and a good catchment area over 3 million +.

Yes, the catchment areas in British cities are large, and my analogy was way off. Nevertheless, Emirates seems to have its tentacles deep into Europe, and Australia too. I wonder why they didn't fight it the way Canada has?

whatnext
Oct 12, 2010, 5:46 AM
Yes, the catchment areas in British cities are large, and my analogy was way off. Nevertheless, Emirates seems to have its tentacles deep into Europe, and Australia too. I wonder why they didn't fight it the way Canada has?

You might find this interesting. I would suspect a lot of countries are question allowing Emirates unfettered access to their markets, when the playing field is not level:

Air France CEO Calls for EU Curbs on Expansion by Gulf Carriers

Air France-KLM Group is teaming up with Europe’s biggest airlines to push for European Union action to slow the encroachment of Emirates and other Gulf carriers, saying the region’s status as an air-travel hub is under threat. ...

...For the past two decades, the U.S. and Europe have agreed to withhold export credit guarantees from airlines registered in five countries where Airbus SAS and Boeing Co. airliners are built: Britain, France, Germany, Spain and the U.S. This means many European and all American carriers are denied cheaper government-backed plane financing available to rivals from countries including Gulf states....

...Emirates, the biggest Gulf carrier, already pays very little in the way of airport charges or fuel tax at its Dubai hub, as well as escaping many of the social charges that weigh on European companies, Air France’s Gourgeon said. Those benefits could generate 3 billion euros ($4.2 billion) of operating income if applied to Air France-KLM, he said....

If left unchecked, the competitive imbalance between the Gulf and Europe will eventually lead to a mass shift in stopover traffic, and other economic activities, to Middle Eastern hubs, Gourgeon said.

“I think it’s very dangerous for Europe,” he said. “What they’re trying to do is buy our jobs.”

Full article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-10/air-france-ceo-gourgeon-calls-for-eu-curbs-on-expansion-by-gulf-carriers.html

jsbertram
Oct 12, 2010, 6:22 AM
Of course bullying does not work and now Canada has decided to exit Camp Mirage.
What exactly is at stake that can cause such a diplomatic spat?

See article "Negotiations ended, MacKay confirms Camp Mirage exit" at http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101011/camp-mirage-talks-uae-canada-101110/

Will we need to be in Camp Mirage after we've pulled our troops out of Afghanistan next year? It seems to me that an early exit from Camp Mirage is a convenient tit-for-tat with Emirates & between the two governments.

I see that none of the news articles is saying the troops were brought home, so I wonder if they've just been relocated to another "undisclosed secret base" located in a friendlier nearby country for a year or so until the Afghanistan troop wind-down happens.

jsbertram
Oct 12, 2010, 6:43 AM
If you've flown Air Canada's 767 fin # 690 you've flown on ex-Kenya plane.

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=073437

I'm fairly confident that the AC maintenance crews made sure the plane was brought up to their air-worthiness standards before it was put into service.

Rusty Gull
Oct 12, 2010, 10:32 PM
Radio editorial from today...

CHQR Editorial Comment: The UAE Has a Point
Posted 10/12/2010 12:20:00 PM

Canada has suddenly found itself embroiled in a tense diplomatic standoff with the United Arab Emirates

Canada is being forced to vacate its military base in the Arab nation, and yesterday the UAE even closed its airspace to Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

On the surface, it seems quite galling that we could be lectured to by a country ranked by the organization Freedom House as being “not free” and scoring quite low on political rights and civil liberties

The source of the dipute is the question of aviation landing rights. The UAE wants more landing rights in Canada for its national carriers, Emirates and Etihad. Air Canada opposes the move.

What is so threatening about these airlines wanting to land more flights in Canada? Why, exactly, is this ostensibly pro-free-market and pro-free-trade Conservative government taking such a position?

It seems pretty clear that when it comes to air travel, this country has long been very protectionist. So the United Arab Emirates might have a very valid point here.

Not only that, but a recent study by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy showed how Canada's protectionist policies mean much higher costs for Canadian air travellers.

Ottawa's protectionist stanbce on this issue is very disappointing considering the other ways in which they've promoted free trade.

For example, last year Ottawa overruled the CRTC and allowed Globalive into the Canadian wireless market.

More recently, the federal government cut the 25-per-cent tariff on ship imports.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty defended the move saying, "We believe in free trade," said Flaherty. "We believe in reducing tariffs and we encourage countries around the world to do the same thing."

It's time for Ottawa to walk it's talk. Our protectionist approach to air travel flies in the face of that rhetoric and will ultimately hurt Canadian consumers and Canadian companies trying to compete abroad.

twoNeurons
Oct 12, 2010, 10:59 PM
One of the disadvantages that Canada has is that Canadians have a general dislike of Air Canada.

Other countries don't have to worry about their national airlines folding as a greater number of their countrymen would only fly on [one of] their national carriers.

Due to the demise of Canadian Airlines, there's not a lot of love in much of Canada for its only national carrier.

There just isn't the brand loyalty. Given the choice would you fly:
JAL or AC to Japan?
SQ or AC to Singapore?
BA or AC to Britain?
AF or AC to France?
KLM or AC to Amsterdam?
Luftthansa or AC to Germany?
Qantas or AC to Australia?

AC has a better reputation outside of Canada than inside. At least in the West this is true.

Rusty Gull
Oct 13, 2010, 3:12 PM
Wow - not only has the government's pandering to Air Canada jeopardized our country's military mission in the Middle East, it has also apparent cost us our UN security council seat. Read on...

Angering Emirates to help Air Canada is dumb


BY DON MARTIN, POSTMEDIA NEWSOCTOBER 13, 2010 7:30 AM


The foreign affairs fizzle of losing its bid for a UN Security Council seat on Tuesday, while a humiliation for the history books, was not Canada's major diplomatic breakdown of the last week.

The dogfight in the skies over the United Arab Emirates has the potential to punch a billion-dollar hole in Canadian exports to the region, even while we're hastily evicted from a military base that's cost tens of millions of dollars to carve out of the desert sand near Dubai.

Long after the red faces fade over Canada's smack down at the UN and Prime Minister Stephen Harper gives up his desperation tactic of trying to blame the failure on trash-talking by Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, the negatives from losing Camp Mirage and resulting economic tensions with this tiny but fabulously wealthy sheikdom will linger.

In a remarkable tit for tat exchange over 100 hours of total negotiation meltdown, Canada's belligerent refusal to allow more UAE-owned airline flights into Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary turned into the UAE's petulant aviation blockade and a premature military eviction. Some say the UAE went so far as to lobby its Arab neighbours to vote against Canada's security council seat.

There are no angels in the air over this dispute.

Transport Canada has been needlessly provocative and protectionist in refusing sisters Emirates and Etihad Airlines more than their thrice-weekly landing rights in Toronto -- a seriously warped change for a Conservative government that has campaigned worldwide to eliminate barriers to trade and commerce.

But the UAE is not playing fair in evicting Canada from its secret Camp Mirage military base on 30-days notice and then denying Defence Minister Peter MacKay and his top general permission to land there over the weekend.

The sheiks have cross-wired a business disagreement to a political-military discussion and blown a fuse that has plunged a speedy resolution into darkness.

The way it's been explained to aviation insiders, the air war began when former transport minister John Baird demanded continued route protection for Air Canada's one-stop hop to the Middle East, a position supported by Harper who was infuriated when the UAE slapped down Camp Mirage as a blackmail bargaining chip.

But tempers really flared after a trio of Transport Canada bureaucrats went to Dubai last summer to offer the airlines more flights but with the seat count capped below the existing limit.

It's not nice to jerk around mega-billionaire sheiks ruling an energy superpower.

The ones governing this New Brunswick-sized country of eight million people blew their stacks at what they perceived to be an intelligence insult and set to work making life miserable for all things Canadian amid rumours unofficial trade boycotts will follow if they don't get their way.

By ordering Camp Mirage emptied of Canadian soldiers, they've forced our military into an unnecessary and costly scramble for alternative military staging areas in far less strategic locations.

A trading relationship with an energy superpower with a strong aviation sector that's hungry for Canadian exports is also at risk. Of the $1.8 billion in two-way trade, $1.2 billion goes from Canada's canola fields and gold mines into the UAE market.

Here's hoping saner heads prevail on both sides of the world. To sacrifice so much trade in one of the world's fastest growing economies and a military partnership with the most Western friendly Gulf state just to preserve passenger counts for Air Canada is a ridiculously expensive airfare subsidy.

Provided Air Canada is granted equal air access to Dubai and Abu Dhabi, Transport Canada should open up our skies and let consumers make the choice of which seats to fill. That is supposedly the Conservative mantra.

After the brutal experiences of the last week, Canada needs to stop turning its red face to the world. It clearly needs a new look before its solid profile on the world stage disappears like, well, a mirage.

© Copyright (c) The Province

whatnext
Oct 13, 2010, 3:34 PM
:previous: The article above merely fuels a common misconception, and taps into some segments of the population's dislike of Air Canada. European carriers did not want to see Emirates given unfettered access to our market either. As I pointed out upthread, there is a backlash brewing against Emirates in Europe.

As to Camp Mirage, what's the big deal? We're going to be out of Afghanistan next year anyway. Dubai shamefully attempted to link a commercial issue with a geopolitical one and lost. The fact that they would do so at all shows how intertwined Emirates is with the State of Dubai.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 13, 2010, 4:57 PM
Europe has a good reason to support emirates, ethiad, they buy lots of their planes. Now if we had indicated they could have all the landing rights they want for buying 100 or 200 C-Series Jets, our government might be singing another tune.

In any case, still the right call by Harper, even if it could have been done a little quieter.

Hourglass
Oct 13, 2010, 5:11 PM
:previous: The article above merely fuels a common misconception, and taps into some segments of the population's dislike of Air Canada. European carriers did not want to see Emirates given unfettered access to our market either. As I pointed out upthread, there is a backlash brewing against Emirates in Europe.

Actually, it's protectionism. UAE wasn't asking for unfettered access to Canada. They were asking for MORE access, as in more than the 6x weekly flights to Canada they are allowed today. Despite what Air Canada might say, a daily flight from Vancouver to Dubai -- even using a 600 seat A380 -- isn't going to destroy Air Canada's dominant position at YVR.

Commercial practicalities aside, though, it was wrong for the UAE to try to link access to Camp Mirage with an aviation agreement. It's bully-boy tactics that unfortunately, result in both sides losing.

Yume-sama
Oct 13, 2010, 6:18 PM
There just isn't the brand loyalty. Given the choice would you fly:
JAL or AC to Japan?
SQ or AC to Singapore?
BA or AC to Britain?
AF or AC to France?
KLM or AC to Amsterdam?
Luftthansa or AC to Germany?
Qantas or AC to Australia?

:cool: If Qantas was flying an A380 I'd change my mind. But I don't think it has the range to do YVR - SYD does it :(?

SQ, Lufthansa, and Emirates are all top tier airlines. Otherwise, AC is nice.

twoNeurons
Oct 13, 2010, 6:20 PM
I think the only think that a link to Dubai would delay is a direct link to India...

When are we getting that YVR-DEL route, again?

MalcolmTucker
Oct 13, 2010, 7:04 PM
It could reduce frequency or capacity to LHR, AMS, and FRA.

Yume-sama
Oct 13, 2010, 7:15 PM
People will always prefer direct flights. Though, people wouldn't be connecting through "friendly" Countries if they did want to go to the Middle East.

One would have to know how many people fly to LHR or FRA to connect to India, etc. I'm sure there might be *some*

Even a small % of people who fly to Tokyo are connecting to Singapore, Philippines, etc. with the Star or One World Alliance.

NRT happens to be a major hub for both, of course :P

trofirhen
Oct 14, 2010, 10:40 AM
Wow - not only has the government's pandering to Air Canada jeopardized our country's military mission in the Middle East, it has also apparent cost us our UN security council seat. Read on...

Angering Emirates to help Air Canada is dumb


BY DON MARTIN, POSTMEDIA NEWSOCTOBER 13, 2010 7:30 AM


The foreign affairs fizzle of losing its bid for a UN Security Council seat on Tuesday, while a humiliation for the history books, was not Canada's major diplomatic breakdown of the last week.

The dogfight in the skies over the United Arab Emirates has the potential to punch a billion-dollar hole in Canadian exports to the region, even while we're hastily evicted from a military base that's cost tens of millions of dollars to carve out of the desert sand near Dubai.

Long after the red faces fade over Canada's smack down at the UN and Prime Minister Stephen Harper gives up his desperation tactic of trying to blame the failure on trash-talking by Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, the negatives from losing Camp Mirage and resulting economic tensions with this tiny but fabulously wealthy sheikdom will linger.

In a remarkable tit for tat exchange over 100 hours of total negotiation meltdown, Canada's belligerent refusal to allow more UAE-owned airline flights into Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary turned into the UAE's petulant aviation blockade and a premature military eviction. Some say the UAE went so far as to lobby its Arab neighbours to vote against Canada's security council seat.

There are no angels in the air over this dispute.

Transport Canada has been needlessly provocative and protectionist in refusing sisters Emirates and Etihad Airlines more than their thrice-weekly landing rights in Toronto -- a seriously warped change for a Conservative government that has campaigned worldwide to eliminate barriers to trade and commerce.

But the UAE is not playing fair in evicting Canada from its secret Camp Mirage military base on 30-days notice and then denying Defence Minister Peter MacKay and his top general permission to land there over the weekend.

The sheiks have cross-wired a business disagreement to a political-military discussion and blown a fuse that has plunged a speedy resolution into darkness.

The way it's been explained to aviation insiders, the air war began when former transport minister John Baird demanded continued route protection for Air Canada's one-stop hop to the Middle East, a position supported by Harper who was infuriated when the UAE slapped down Camp Mirage as a blackmail bargaining chip.

But tempers really flared after a trio of Transport Canada bureaucrats went to Dubai last summer to offer the airlines more flights but with the seat count capped below the existing limit.

It's not nice to jerk around mega-billionaire sheiks ruling an energy superpower.

The ones governing this New Brunswick-sized country of eight million people blew their stacks at what they perceived to be an intelligence insult and set to work making life miserable for all things Canadian amid rumours unofficial trade boycotts will follow if they don't get their way.

By ordering Camp Mirage emptied of Canadian soldiers, they've forced our military into an unnecessary and costly scramble for alternative military staging areas in far less strategic locations.

A trading relationship with an energy superpower with a strong aviation sector that's hungry for Canadian exports is also at risk. Of the $1.8 billion in two-way trade, $1.2 billion goes from Canada's canola fields and gold mines into the UAE market.

Here's hoping saner heads prevail on both sides of the world. To sacrifice so much trade in one of the world's fastest growing economies and a military partnership with the most Western friendly Gulf state just to preserve passenger counts for Air Canada is a ridiculously expensive airfare subsidy.

Provided Air Canada is granted equal air access to Dubai and Abu Dhabi, Transport Canada should open up our skies and let consumers make the choice of which seats to fill. That is supposedly the Conservative mantra.

After the brutal experiences of the last week, Canada needs to stop turning its red face to the world. It clearly needs a new look before its solid profile on the world stage disappears like, well, a mirage.

© Copyright (c) The Province

This - plus other issues like Oil Sands environmental destruction, and a near-total neglect of foreign aid - all coming from Canada, the "goody gumdrop" of the international scene, have given the present government the kick in the ass it deserves, and exposed Canada as the small-minded hypocrite it CAN SOMETIMES be. Although not directly the airlines, I think this episode has given the government the kick in the butt - humiliatingly done on the world stage - that it deserves, unless it changes it attitude and walks the talk.
Many will vehemently disagree, but that's my two cents' worth. Thank you.

Rusty Gull
Oct 14, 2010, 3:54 PM
Landing rights dispute with UAE may force 'open skies' debate

BY BARBARA YAFFE, VANCOUVER SUNOCTOBER 14, 2010

Canada's dispute with the United Arab Emirates over airline landing rights lifts a curtain on a dispute between Ottawa and Western premiers over Canadian airline policy.

The bilateral quarrel also highlights a key exception the Harper Conservatives make in their habitual stand against protectionism.

Conservatives, like governments before them, have been protective of Canada's domestic airline industry, reluctant to allow foreign carriers unfettered access to Canadian cities.

The UAE for many years has sought expanded landing rights in this country.

The disagreement blew open last weekend when the Middle Eastern country, in a high-profile expression of national anger, closed its airspace to a jet carrying Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

Further, the UAE has asked Canada to vacate its Camp Mirage military base over yonder in retaliation for this country's airline protectionism.

This will complicate pending plans to move Canadian soldiers and equipment out of Afghanistan.

The issue over airline rights has festered for a while. In June, the Western Premiers' Conference issued a statement: "The lack of Open Skies agreements is currently costing our economies hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

"This goes beyond transportation. It is about the West's ability to attract investors, trade, international students and tourists.

"Lack of agreements is holding Western economies back."

Specifically, the premiers contend, greater access for foreign carriers, particularly from the Asia-Pacific region, would translate into better airline service, increased flight options, enhanced competition and cheaper prices, as well as more jobs for Canadians.

In February, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach publicly raised the matter of UAE airline access: "During my recent visit to the UAE, it was very apparent that Alberta needs to have direct international air access from key markets like the UAE in order to stay competitive in the global economy. "

That same month, a study by the B.C. office of InterVISTAS Consulting, commissioned by Emirates Airline, projected that extra Emirates Airline flights to Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver would deliver $480 million in economic benefits and more than 2,800 jobs to Canada.

"Canada's domestic carriers stand to benefit significantly from the projected growth in foreign tourists and business travellers," asserted the study.

The state-backed Emirates Airline has been permitted to operate three flights weekly to Canada. It wants to fly daily to Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver.

Singapore Airlines and Icelandair also have been seeking greater access to the Canadian airline market.

Westerners have reason to want more flying options. It's inconvenient to have to fly first to Toronto or Montreal in order to catch a flight to major European capitals and points beyond.

And based on the sub-par service I received aboard a recent Air Canada flight to Paris, Canada's domestic airline might benefit from competition.

Room for competition also exists when it comes to price.

A study released last July by the Winnipeg-based Frontier Centre for Public Policy surveyed five cheapest-fare 3,300-mile flights and found Canadian passengers pay an average fare

per mile of 45 cents. Americans pay 28 cents, and Europeans pay 16 cents.

The report, by Frontier research director Mark Milke, urged Ottawa to adopt an "open-skies" policy that would allow foreign airlines to operate unfettered in Canada, in exchange for similar rights for Canadian airlines abroad.

This has now become a hot political issue, with Opposition Liberals accusing the government of incompetence and bungling in its negotiations with the UAE and reports circulating that the Harper cabinet is split on the landing-rights controversy.

To date, neither main party has put forward a clear position on an "open skies" airline policy for Canada. It is obviously time to have that national debate.

byaffe@vancouversun.com

Hot Rod
Oct 15, 2010, 7:23 AM
can I get an "Amen!"

trofirhen
Oct 18, 2010, 9:57 AM
can I get an "Amen!"
:previous: :previous: :previous:
AMEN

Vanzunator
Oct 18, 2010, 11:44 PM
SWISS/Edelweiss adds a second weekly flight to YVR for summer 2011, changes the planes from A330-200 to A330-300

Zurich – Vancouver
01JUN11 – 14SEP11 NEW roundtrip terminator flight with Airbus A330-300
WK010/LX8010 ZRH1215 – 1355YVR 333 3
WK011/LX8011 YVR1540 – 1055+1ZRH 333 3

this is in addition to Zurich – Calgary – Vancouver – Zurich
03JUN11 – 16SEP11 Service relaunched in Summer 2010 returns in S11
WK012/LX8012 ZRH1450 – 1655YYC1840 – 1900YVR2010 – 1525+1ZRH 332 5

from Airline Route: http://airlineroute.net/2010/10/1 (http://airlineroute.net/2010/10/18/wklx-s11/)8/wklx-s11/

jsbertram
Oct 19, 2010, 11:20 PM
American Airlines and WestJet Airlines formed an alliance Tuesday to more seamlessly carry passengers on each others' networks, the two carriers said.

American Airlines, owned by AMR Corp, and WestJet, Canada's second-biggest airline, said they had entered into a so-called interline agreement.

The deal will allow American passengers traveling to Canada and transferring to a WestJet flight to buy a single ticket and to check their bags through to the final destination.

American passengers will be able to connect to 25 new Canadian cities not currently served by American or American Eagle.

from:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/American+Airlines+WestJet+alliance/3696131/story.html

MalcolmTucker
Oct 19, 2010, 11:40 PM
Nice, WestJet is totally joining OneWorld if these deals work (and if there is a category for airlines such as theirs). FinnAir, Cathay Pacific, American, all with deals as of late.

SpongeG
Oct 22, 2010, 3:27 AM
found a vancouver mention...

Mr. Fentress mentioned that Vancouver International Airport has what strikes me as a brilliant idea: a bar in the baggage claim area, which might entice more friends and family to agree to the airport pick-up chore.

“You can sit there and have a beverage and wait for your friend,” he said. “Why that doesn’t catch on more in the U.S., I don’t know.”

full article/source: http://travel.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/travel/24prac.html

sacrifice333
Oct 22, 2010, 3:19 PM
Canada & Switzerland updating their Open Skies Agreements as well as Double Taxation Agreements.

PMOs press release (http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&featureId=6&pageId=26&id=3726)

twoNeurons
Oct 22, 2010, 7:41 PM
Good timing, considering the additional flight.

Hot Rod
Oct 23, 2010, 11:42 PM
found a vancouver mention...



full article/source: http://travel.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/travel/24prac.html

hm, interesting - I would think it should :tup: work.

SpongeG
Oct 24, 2010, 11:57 PM
in case u want to see that big airport conference from a while back

a4rxKnbaZ2M

Gordon
Nov 1, 2010, 2:23 PM
It looks like Air Canada has discontinued its YvR HKg service for the Winter. hong Kong Trafic now goes through Tokyo.

LeftCoaster
Nov 1, 2010, 2:36 PM
?? I'm flying HK Vancouver next month...

Gordon
Nov 1, 2010, 3:45 PM
It looks like AC is reverting back to last winter's schedule, which was 3 or 4 times \ week

deasine
Nov 1, 2010, 4:59 PM
^More like 4 to 5

Johnny Aussie
Nov 2, 2010, 4:10 AM
^More like 4 to 5

They are by no means dropping YVRHKG.

The reduced frequency to 5 per week is only from now until mid-December. They revert back to daily mid December. This is their normal schedule for November/December.

Denscity
Nov 2, 2010, 4:34 AM
Just saw a YVR south terminal shuttle parked in front of the airport here in Castlegar?! Say what? Flights from here land at the main terminal at YVR so there's not even a connection there. :shrug:

Johnny Aussie
Nov 2, 2010, 6:52 AM
Just saw a YVR south terminal shuttle parked in front of the airport here in Castlegar?! Say what? Flights from here land at the main terminal at YVR so there's not even a connection there. :shrug:

Maybe it is being used in the movie shoot "The Tall Man" being filmed in the Kootenays. Mainly around Nelson. Jessica Biel and Justin Timberlake just flew in to YCG today... maybe they rented the van from YVR for the movie shoot? Just a stab in the dark!

SpongeG
Nov 4, 2010, 11:10 PM
Air Canada to add new Vancouver-Tokyo flight

BRENT JANG — TRANSPORTATION REPORTER
From Friday's Globe and Mail

Air Canada (AC.B-T3.880.041.04%) is taking advantage of the expansion of Tokyo’s Haneda Airport, preparing to add a daily non-stop flight from Vancouver to Japan’s capital, part of the carrier’s Asia-Pacific growth strategy to plump up profit.

The new Vancouver-Haneda route will begin Jan. 29, complementing Air Canada’s current daily service between Vancouver and Tokyo’s Narita International Airport. Connections to partner airlines are available to fly to places such as Bangkok and Singapore.

Air Canada has been heartened by its existing transpacific routes, which helped the carrier’s third-quarter operating profit jump nearly five-fold to $327-million, with a boost in leisure and business-class travellers. Revenue climbed 13.3 per cent during the hectic July-to-September travel period, aided by the smarter deployment of planes.

UBS Securities Canada Inc. analyst Tasneem Azim said the airline is showing improvements in revenue per available seat mile, or RASM, a key industry measure of unit revenue.

Overall traffic increased 9.7 per cent in the third quarter, and the momentum carried into October. Traffic on the carrier’s routes between Canada and the Asia-Pacific region surged 25.1 per cent last month to 838 million revenue passenger miles, compared with the same period in 2009.

Total October traffic rose an average of 9.3 per cent to 4.2 billion revenue passenger miles, as consumers returned to the skies after last year’s recession. Air Canada’s load factor, or the proportion of seats filled by paying customers, climbed last month to 80.3 per cent from 79.6 per cent.

In Tokyo on Thursday, B.C. Transportation Minister Shirley Bond said Air Canada’s Vancouver-Haneda route will raise the profile of Vancouver International Airport. She set an ambitious target to boost total traffic going through the Vancouver airport to 28.4 million passengers in 2020, or a 75-per-cent surge from 2009.

...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/air-canada-to-add-new-vancouver-tokyo-flight/article1785216/

Hot Rod
Nov 4, 2010, 11:29 PM
good news, but I thought we already knew this was coming. I suppose this is the official or media announcement.

there is a key message in that last sentence, that Shirley Bond wants to expand YVR to 28.4 million pax by 2020. sounds like they are going to get much more active in recruiting international flights. ... Very good news!

twoNeurons
Nov 4, 2010, 11:54 PM
Now... about that Osaka flight...

vanlaw
Nov 5, 2010, 12:27 AM
Now... about that Osaka flight...

.....and at least a couple more direct flights to Europe. Paris, obviously, and maybe Munich, Copenhagen and Madrid........

trofirhen
Nov 5, 2010, 2:19 AM
.....and at least a couple more direct flights to Europe. Paris, obviously, and maybe Munich, Copenhagen and Madrid........

:yes: Thank you VANLAW !! Finally someone is speaking my language here on the YVR destintions thread. (although, frankly, I think Madrid is unlikely).

But I'd settle for Paris, Munich and Copenhagen. BTW, in a survey last year, Rome placed high on the list of desirable destinations. I imagine this is largely due to the substantial Italian community here in Vancouver.

Hot Rod
Nov 5, 2010, 7:34 AM
I thought YVR had Copenhagen via SAS already.

vanlaw
Nov 5, 2010, 8:14 AM
I thought YVR had Copenhagen via SAS already.

I don't think YVR has ever had a CPH direct. And correct me if i'm wrong, but i think SAS cut their SEA-CPH direct a year or two ago. CPH would be prime for the pcikin' for YVR, and given its a Star Alliance partner, it wouldn't ruffle any feathers in Ottawa ;)

And I realize Madrid is unlikely, just hoping to spread it around geographically :tup:

trofirhen
Nov 5, 2010, 10:33 AM
I thought YVR had Copenhagen via SAS already.

I don't think YVR has ever had a CPH direct. And correct me if i'm wrong, but i think SAS cut their SEA-CPH direct a year or two ago. CPH would be prime for the pcikin' for YVR, and given its a Star Alliance partner, it wouldn't ruffle any feathers in Ottawa ;)

And I realize Madrid is unlikely, just hoping to spread it around geographically :tup:

If you go to GOOGLE and look up "The Airport Shop" (or "shoppe), you'll notice which airports are looking for which destinations. Copenhagen requested two in Canada: Vancouver and Toronto. True to form, Toronto got a direct route, Vancouver did not. (This was with Air Canada, of course)

Perhaps a European airline will pick up the route to Kastrup Airport in Copenhagen. I think that would bve great. Our flights into Europe are limited -on a year-round scheduled basis - to London LHR, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt.


Not very impressive. Furthermore, I get furious when some smug Ontarian tells me "well, change in Toronto." Yeah, right. Waiting for hours to change planes, changing a 9 - hour flight into a 14 - hour journey.

Imagine adding Manchester, Copenhagen, Paris CDG, and Rome direct from YVR !!!!!!

It's a shame, in a sense, that nearly all the entries on this thread deal with Japan, and HK. Very important destinations, I admit, but Europe is definitely on the "back burner" in the minds of most people in Vancouver, or at least SSP Vancouver.

vanlaw
Nov 5, 2010, 2:13 PM
If you go to GOOGLE and look up "The Airport Shop" (or "shoppe), you'll notice which airports are looking for which destinations. Copenhagen requested two in Canada: Vancouver and Toronto. True to form, Toronto got a direct route, Vancouver did not. (This was with Air Canada, of course)

Perhaps a European airline will pick up the route to Kastrup Airport in Copenhagen. I think that would bve great. Our flights into Europe are limited -on a year-round scheduled basis - to London LHR, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt.


Not very impressive. Furthermore, I get furious when some smug Ontarian tells me "well, change in Toronto." Yeah, right. Waiting for hours to change planes, changing a 9 - hour flight into a 14 - hour journey.

Imagine adding Manchester, Copenhagen, Paris CDG, and Rome direct from YVR !!!!!!

It's a shame, in a sense, that nearly all the entries on this thread deal with Japan, and HK. Very important destinations, I admit, but Europe is definitely on the "back burner" in the minds of most people in Vancouver, or at least SSP Vancouver.


I was coming home from Germany a while ago. My lufthansa flight from hamburg to frankfurt was late so I missed my flight to Vancouver. I routed through Toronto a few hours later.

Not even counting the layover time, flying through Toronto added a bit more than 3 hours of flying. FRA-YVR is approx 10 hours, sometimes a bit less. FRA-YYZ was 8, then YYZ-YVR is 5 for a total of 13 in the air, then add the 3 hour layover at YYZ. That 75 min delay added 6 hours to my trip.I agree, we definitely need more directs. Routing through YYZ or YUL is a huge pain in the ass and a wast of precious time.

whatnext
Nov 5, 2010, 2:40 PM
I don't think YVR has ever had a CPH direct. And correct me if i'm wrong, but i think SAS cut their SEA-CPH direct a year or two ago. CPH would be prime for the pcikin' for YVR, and given its a Star Alliance partner, it wouldn't ruffle any feathers in Ottawa ;)

And I realize Madrid is unlikely, just hoping to spread it around geographically :tup:

SAS did indeed abandon SEA after decades of service. There's not a hope in hell YVR would have worked for them.

Gordon
Nov 5, 2010, 5:21 PM
What Shirley Bond is sugesting is exponential growth over 10 years. 1 million more pasengers \year would be amazing and it would take a significant change in policy from Ottawa?

golog
Nov 5, 2010, 6:46 PM
If you go to GOOGLE and look up "The Airport Shop" (or "shoppe), you'll notice which airports are looking for which destinations. Copenhagen requested two in Canada: Vancouver and Toronto. True to form, Toronto got a direct route, Vancouver did not. (This was with Air Canada, of course)

http://www.therouteshop.com/copenhagen-airport/
- - -

What about a different system of approving flights, one that minimizes domestic carriers gouging and retains jobs/expertise within Canada. We still own all the airports, and it wouldn't make a difference under the current rules if a domestic carrier was leasing all of their planes from another country or having all their maintenance performed in another country.

Allow any carrier to sign up for flights -- even from one Canadian city to another -- if they spend x% of revenue from flights to/within/from Canada on flight attendants/pilots/managers/... on Canadian employees, and pay Canadian maintenance crews to handle y% of all maintenance attributable to flights to/within/from Canada.

If they don't want to handle the logistics of setting up operations for employees or maintenance in Canada, let them buy maintenance or jobs credits from those Canadian firms who do.

This allows supply for routes that are in demand, it preserves the only things that are supposed to be the goal of the current policy, and it even subsidizes domestic flights to smaller communities via the transferable credits by making use of the economies of scale for airlines already employing Canadians in maintenance/pilot/.. roles

Short of a system like that, or a radical change in airspace access I think a 75% increase in passenger volume within a decade is a bit more than optimistic

trofirhen
Nov 5, 2010, 8:02 PM
http://www.therouteshop.com/copenhagen-airport/
- - -

What about a different system of approving flights, one that minimizes domestic carriers gouging and retains jobs/expertise within Canada. We still own all the airports, and it wouldn't make a difference under the current rules if a domestic carrier was leasing all of their planes from another country or having all their maintenance performed in another country.

Allow any carrier to sign up for flights -- even from one Canadian city to another -- if they spend x% of revenue from flights to/within/from Canada on flight attendants/pilots/managers/... on Canadian employees, and pay Canadian maintenance crews to handle y% of all maintenance attributable to flights to/within/from Canada.

If they don't want to handle the logistics of setting up operations for employees or maintenance in Canada, let them buy maintenance or jobs credits from those Canadian firms who do.

This allows supply for routes that are in demand, it preserves the only things that are supposed to be the goal of the current policy, and it even subsidizes domestic flights to smaller communities via the transferable credits by making use of the economies of scale for airlines already employing Canadians in maintenance/pilot/.. roles

Short of a system like that, or a radical change in airspace access I think a 75% increase in passenger volume within a decade is a bit more than optimistic

Great idea. And yes, I think those estimations (or pie-in-the-sky) projections of 75% per year are quite unreal.

But your idea makes a lot of sense. It would require even more market deregulation. YVR is ready for that, but YYZ is not, as they have the monopoly on just about all overseas flights and airlines.

Too bad we can't raise more of a stink about this in Parliament in Ottawa.
Hehe ... then again ... maybe we can .... ;)

trofirhen
Nov 7, 2010, 12:21 AM
Ladies and gentleman, the bully on the block continues to justify his actions.:worship:
Please click the link and read.


http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2010/06/c9798.html

vanlaw
Nov 8, 2010, 10:12 PM
I know this isn’t related directly to air travel etc, but stems from the Cdn Gov't/Air Canada - Emirates/UAE spat so I might as well post here.

UAE requiring visas for Canadian tourists and business travelers starting Jan 2, 2011. This is fairly significant. As of right now, Canadians, along with most other western nationals, simply get 30 day tourist stamp upon arrival:

U.A.E. slaps visas on Canadians

Canadians will need visas to enter the United Arab Emirates as of Jan. 2, 2011, according to Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and the U.A.E.'s embassy in Ottawa.

The move is the latest salvo in a growing diplomatic spat between Ottawa and the U.A.E. over airline landing rights at Canadian airports that also saw Canada evicted from a key military base in Dubai

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/08/canada-uae-visas.html

jlousa
Nov 9, 2010, 2:14 AM
*l* Gee and people think we should be doing business with them? This is going to end up hurting them more then it will hurt us.

Spork
Nov 9, 2010, 2:21 AM
Ya, that's going a bit too far. They should have publicized the story here better instead of politicizing it.

golog
Nov 9, 2010, 3:32 AM
U.A.E. wanted only Toronto air access: sources (http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/08/canada-uae.html)

The United Arab Emirates demanded more landing rights for its two national carriers only in Toronto during negotiations with Canada, CBC News has learned.

A government source told Evan Solomon of the CBC's Power & Politics that the U.A.E. demanded open access only to Toronto's Pearson airport and that Ottawa responded with an offer of more access to the airports in Calgary and Vancouver.

But the U.A.E. only wanted Toronto and used Canada's Camp Mirage military base near Dubai as a bargaining chip, the source said.

Johnny Aussie
Nov 9, 2010, 3:51 AM
U.A.E. wanted only Toronto air access: sources (http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/08/canada-uae.html)

Funny how Emirates kept publicly saying over and over they wanted Vancouver and Calgary and now, allegedly, we learn that it was the Government of Canada that was pushing for YVR and YYC... I find that VERY hard to believe!!

One of the parties is definitely lying!

Something does not add up.

MalcolmTucker
Nov 9, 2010, 2:14 PM
Well, if UAE publicly wanted extra spots to fly to YVR and YYC, why not hold them to their word, and present an agreement where the extra slots can be used to fulfill those wishes?

International diplomacy at its finest (until UAE realized too late that they couldn't bully Canada)

nova9
Nov 11, 2010, 2:28 AM
From the Vancouver Sun:

YVR has gone up against some of North America's top airports and soared to the top.

The Vancouver International Airport beat out 140 other airports to win the Richard A. Griesbach Award of Excellence winner in the 2010 Airport Concessions Contest. The purpose of the Airports Council International-North America contest is to inspire creativity in the industry and to recognize innovative and outstanding airport concessions.



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/wins+award+excellence+concessions/3808640/story.html#ixzz14w9c39H3

whatnext
Nov 11, 2010, 2:46 AM
U.A.E. wanted only Toronto air access: sources (http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/08/canada-uae.html)

That had been pretty openly speculated all along. Hate to :burstbubble , but that's the nature of it.

With longer range aircraft, routes to YVR are going to be under pressure. There's no longer a range issue causing East Coast flights to stop here. Case in point, the other week I flew back from NY on Cathay Pacific's flight which was continuing on to HKG. The 777 was about 40% full I'm guessing and I couldn't help but wonder why they still operate it when they have a non-stop HKG-NYC now. Maybe there's enough cargo to keep it profitable.

Hourglass
Nov 11, 2010, 5:40 AM
:previous:

Yes, cargo and aircraft utilization. Without the NY leg, the aircraft sits on the ground for several hours. Qantas tried running 747s from San Francisco to Vancouver as a tack-on a few years back for similar reasons except there's much more competition on that route than YVR-JFK.

red-paladin
Nov 11, 2010, 8:50 AM
We are pretty spoiled that when YVR gets a major award it's boring news.

SpongeG
Nov 11, 2010, 9:03 AM
Expansion of Tokyo airport is good news for YVR, minister says

Haneda Airport's new international terminal supports the goal of increasing traffic through Vancouver to 28.4 million by 2020

BY BRIAN MORTON, VANCOUVER SUN

The expansion of Tokyo's Haneda Airport, including new Air Canada flights in 2011, will bring more travellers through Vancouver International Airport (YVR), B.C. Transportation Minister Shirley Bond said Thursday in Tokyo.

"Haneda Airport's new international terminal and a fourth runway will significantly increase its capacity for airlines flying through the Pacific Gateway," Bond said in a statement. "This is a perfect example of Canada Pacific Gateway's air advantage and supports our goal of increasing traffic through YVR to 28.4 million passengers by 2020."

Haneda, Tokyo's new international terminal, opened last Sunday. Located just 20 minutes by monorail from Tokyo, it has capacity for 60,000 flights and more than seven million passengers a year.

...

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Expansion+Tokyo+airport+good+news+minister+says/3780962/story.html

SpongeG
Nov 11, 2010, 9:05 AM
YVR among the best of the worst Canadian airports

Canadians have included Vancouver International Airport among the worst airports in the country but it still stands head and shoulders above Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, according to a FlightNetwork.com survey released Monday.
The poll asked 783 Canadians to "weigh-in" on what makes a bad airport.

Of the participants, just 5.4% said Vancouver was the worst airport in the country compared with 27.6% who said Toronto’s Pearson International Airport is the worst.

...

http://www.bivinteractive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3294&Itemid=32

trofirhen
Nov 11, 2010, 1:39 PM
Emirates was lying, the government was lying, and YVR was never in for a piece of the action, be that good or bad.
I feel insulted.

Long-range jets can overfly Vancuver (and they will, to Toronto) diminishing
VYR's dream of becoming "The Gateway to the Pacific."
I feel concerned, maybe even a little worried.

Anyway, all of ths points up the fact that we are not as indispensable
as we thought we were, and that we're going to have to lobby hard to
maintain our status as a major world nexus.

Gordon
Nov 11, 2010, 6:46 PM
as Vancouver's population grows over the years and we get more & more Asian residents our importance as an Asian gateway will grow. A more even air policy form Ottawa would help.

I doubt the YYZ Dubai flights over fly Vancouver they probably probably Take the great circle route in the other direction.

YVR would be be better served by having more mainline Asian & European carriers serving it With non stop flights as opposed having to tranist through Dubai to get anywhere on Emerites.

Yume-sama
Nov 11, 2010, 8:16 PM
YVR among the best of the worst Canadian airports

Canadians have included Vancouver International Airport among the worst airports in the country but it still stands head and shoulders above Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, according to a FlightNetwork.com survey released Monday.
The poll asked 783 Canadians to "weigh-in" on what makes a bad airport.

Of the participants, just 5.4% said Vancouver was the worst airport in the country compared with 27.6% who said Toronto’s Pearson International Airport is the worst.

...

http://www.bivinteractive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3294&Itemid=32

Hmm. This is kind of like how Air Canada was voted "Best North American Airline", eh (with a 3 of 6 rating)? :P What a prize!

YVR is a much better airport than any I've been in, in Canada (with much better access now, too!) or the USA for that matter.

craneSpotter
Nov 11, 2010, 8:49 PM
YVR is a much better airport than any I've been in, in Canada (with much better access now, too!) or the USA for that matter.

Agreed. And YYZ is hardly the worst.

Flightnetwork agrees too, and ranks YVR #1 in Canada by its own standards ;)

http://www.flightnetwork.com/blog/2010/06/ranking-canadas-10-best-airports/

trofirhen
Nov 11, 2010, 9:14 PM
as Vancouver's population grows over the years and we get more & more Asian residents our importance as an Asian gateway will grow. A more even air policy form Ottawa would help.

I doubt the YYZ Dubai flights over fly Vancouver they probably probably Take the great circle route in the other direction.

YVR would be be better served by having more mainline Asian & European carriers serving it With non stop flights as opposed having to tranist through Dubai to get anywhere on Emerites.

I think you're right in that Dubai as a destination from YVR who do little to be a transfer point to East Asia ot Europe. However, it would be the ideal jumping off point for Africa, and parts of the Middle East itself. (although I don't think that comprises a very large market)