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

Bigtime
Sep 28, 2011, 6:02 PM
Emirates has announced service to Seattle starting in March. Could this be a way to get at the YVR market while they continue to fight with the government?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-28/emirates-ceo-clark-ratchets-up-u-s-challenge-with-seattle-dallas-flights.html?cmpid=yhoo

Gordon
Sep 28, 2011, 6:04 PM
It was announced today that Emirates will start flying between SEA and Dubai
April 2012


main reason Ottawa's protection of Air Canada.

Thanks Ottawa

vanlaw
Sep 28, 2011, 6:21 PM
Emirates has announced service to Seattle starting in March. Could this be a way to get at the YVR market while they continue to fight with the government?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-28/emirates-ceo-clark-ratchets-up-u-s-challenge-with-seattle-dallas-flights.html?cmpid=yhoo

That is good news! Hopefully they have some of the same seat sale prices they offer out of Tornto frotime to time, which are great fares sometimes.

Long flight though. I think their SF and LA flights come in at around 17 hours going there. Anyone know which way they fly from the West Coast - i.e. Eastward over US/Europe or Westward over Asia? I think it is probably almost a wash distance wise.

Bigtime
Sep 28, 2011, 6:23 PM
Looks like they fly over the Atlantic on these flights to/from the west coast.

Example, LAX-DXB: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE216/history/20110928/2345Z/KLAX/OMDB

twoNeurons
Sep 28, 2011, 7:18 PM
That is good news! Hopefully they have some of the same seat sale prices they offer out of Tornto frotime to time, which are great fares sometimes.

Long flight though. I think their SF and LA flights come in at around 17 hours going there. Anyone know which way they fly from the West Coast - i.e. Eastward over US/Europe or Westward over Asia? I think it is probably almost a wash distance wise.

It would be "gooder" news if we could take the same flight out of YVR.

vanlaw
Sep 28, 2011, 8:23 PM
It would be "gooder" news if we could take the same flight out of YVR.

Of course, and hopefully we will see that one day. But at least Seattle is a drivable as opposed to hititng SF of LA flights that Alaska currently connects with which by the time you factor in time and cost you might as fly to YYZ and catch the flight from there.

Jebby
Sep 28, 2011, 8:47 PM
That is good news! Hopefully they have some of the same seat sale prices they offer out of Tornto frotime to time, which are great fares sometimes.


Emirates has amazing offers sometimes. I got Zürich-Dubai-Kuala Lumpur round trip with a 5 day layover in Dubai on the outbound trip (to do some shopping ;) ) for €1600...Business Class!

trofirhen
Sep 28, 2011, 10:02 PM
It was announced today that Emirates will start flying between SEA and Dubai
April 2012


main reason Ottawa's protection of Air Canada.

Thanks Ottawa
:previous:

Yes, thanks Ottawa! You do a wonderful job of protecting and promotong the economy of Ontario (.....oops, I meant Canada) :no:

trofirhen
Sep 28, 2011, 10:06 PM
Emirates has announced service to Seattle starting in March. Could this be a way to get at the YVR market while they continue to fight with the government?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-28/emirates-ceo-clark-ratchets-up-u-s-challenge-with-seattle-dallas-flights.html?cmpid=yhoo
:previous:

The article does not mention Canada. I think Emirates would like to fly to Seattle anyway, which a a more important overall size and economy than Vancouver. I do not know if they are in fact interested in Calagary, with the oil connection. Any ideas on that one?

Bigtime
Sep 28, 2011, 10:10 PM
I still believe that EK is really not that interested in serving YYC, they just kept dangling that carrot to try and get the frequencies into Canada so they could serve YYZ daily (and probably add YVR and YUL).

Even if they did serve YYC I think it would easily cannibalize the many options we already have (AC, LH, BA, KL) to get almost anywhere in the world with one stop in a super-hub (LHR, FRA, AMS, NRT).

vanlaw
Sep 28, 2011, 10:36 PM
Emirates has amazing offers sometimes. I got Zürich-Dubai-Kuala Lumpur round trip with a 5 day layover in Dubai on the outbound trip (to do some shopping ;) ) for €1600...Business Class!

That is unreal for business. A couple of years ago I managed to book Toronto-Dubai-Mumbai with a 4 day layover in Dubai and then open jaw flying back from Trivandrum(south India)-Dubai-Toronto for $1350 CAD in economy, which was still far cheaper than connections through Europe. I flew to Toronto on aeroplan points, so was a very good deal.

I still check from time to time and they seem to offer the better deals on onward connections - i.e. it is cheaper to fly to Mumbai or other cities through Dubai than to just fly to Dubai.

Another perk that they don’t really advertise is their long layover policy. Even if you are in economy, if your layover is more than 8 hours, less than 24 and your flight is the next one to your destination, they will shuttle you to a hotel, give you a free room and food vouchers for the buffet (not great, but at least its free) and get you back for your flight. If in business the arrangement is far better.

Hourglass
Sep 29, 2011, 8:46 AM
That is good news! Hopefully they have some of the same seat sale prices they offer out of Tornto frotime to time, which are great fares sometimes.

Good news for consumers, bad news for YVR and other airport-related businesses and services. According to the YVR website, one daily international flight creates about 186 person-years of direct employment. So the SEA flight offers more options for consumers but without the spin-off benefits a direct flight would bring.

trofirhen
Sep 29, 2011, 11:28 AM
Does anyone really think that allowing Emirates into Vancouver (which won't happen anyway) would suck the lifeblood out of our destinations in Europe and East Asia?

Hardly. Dubai is on the other side of the world, a much longer flight from Vancouver to, say, Athens or Rome, but a great gateway to Africa.

People are trying to hold their breath until long-range jets can fly from YVR to Airports in India, which probably won't be for years anyway, and are afraid Emirates would seize onto that market.

Emirates to Dubai would be great for Africa, and some other Middle Eastern destinations.

How it is perceived as a threat to Air Canada escapes me. Other more enlightened members will explain, I am sure. :koko:

Bigtime
Sep 29, 2011, 12:47 PM
An interesting tweet I just caught this morning:

WestJet signs new interline pact. Outbound fliers can connect to #Emirates thru #WestJet, "travelling to Dubai and beyond."

And the news release:

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2011/29/c7416.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

vanlaw
Sep 29, 2011, 4:14 PM
Good news for consumers, bad news for YVR and other airport-related businesses and services. According to the YVR website, one daily international flight creates about 186 person-years of direct employment. So the SEA flight offers more options for consumers but without the spin-off benefits a direct flight would bring.

The SEA-DXB flight targets a fairly specific market though in terms of where people are travelling. It wont have much of an impact on YVR's Asia and Europe bound flights with perhaps the exception of those who transit through Europe on their way to the ME or Africa. However, given the relatively small number of Europe bound flights YVR has, and they fact they seem to generally run fairly full (just my own impression), I don’t think it is an issue.

Having said that, perhaps it is some incentive for YVR and other airport authorities to start putting some pressure on the fed'l gov't to deal with this BS issue, if they aren't already.

I just like it for my own self-serving reasons - trying to get a job in the ME and it would make travel back and forth a little easier, and also have family in the region, so better options for them coming home in the summer. I despise having to transit through YYZ or YUL when heading east to Europe or beyond. I'd rather hop the puddle jumper to SEA and get on the 16 hour flight as opposed to 4 1/2-5hr to YYZ and still a 13-15 hour flight.

Hourglass
Sep 29, 2011, 5:37 PM
:previous:

Yes, this will definitely be an option for people traveling to MEA as well as South Asia.

It IS a BS issue -- although I know Air Canada apologists here will disagree. More choice is almost always a good thing for consumers. Transport Canada's stated position is to try to negotiate rights for direct traffic, arguing that airlines such as Singapore and Emirates are gunning for transfer traffic since they can't support a non-stop. True. And this is no different than what Air Canada does in conjunction with Lufthansa to hub ME and South Asian traffic via Frankfurt.

The problem is compounded by the fact than in many ways Air Canada still behaves like a monopoly. All one has to do is look at the whole saga with Toronto Island Airport. Air Canada basically left YTZ to rot while focusing on building up YYZ -- that is, until Porter Airlines came in and was hugely successful. Suddenly, Air Canada is banging on the door, demanding to be let into YTZ again.

With more competition at YVR, my belief is that Air Canada would respond to defend its market share, resulting in more flights and better connections.

I'm sure YVR has been putting pressure on the Federal Gov't. I'm just not overly optimistic the situation is going to change anytime soon.

MalcolmTucker
Sep 29, 2011, 5:58 PM
More choice is almost always a good thing for consumers. - Yes.

But is it in the national interest at all times? No.

jlousa
Sep 29, 2011, 6:00 PM
Don't think it's apologist when Emirates have a unfair competive advantage. France and the UK certainly aren't protecting Air Canada but are having the same issues with Emirates. I'm the last one for protectionist measures, but feel the government of Canada is taking the right approach with them.

trofirhen
Sep 29, 2011, 6:14 PM
Don't think it's apologist when Emirates have a unfair competive advantage. France and the UK certainly aren't protecting Air Canada but are having the same issues with Emirates. I'm the last one for protectionist measures, but feel the government of Canada is taking the right approach with them.
:previous::previous::previous:
Could you possibly detail this unfair competitive advantage that EMIRATES has? I'm not clear on exactly what it is and how it works against Canada. Thank you. :)

jlousa
Sep 29, 2011, 6:53 PM
It's been discussed in this very thread before, you can look there or google it. It's big news in France as well so it should be easily available. Boils down to Dubai subsidizing Emirates in order to turn Dubai into a global hub and feed the hotel/restuarant and rest of the city. Recommend you do some research on it as it's heavily documented and have been numerous stories all over the globe about it. Certainly not a Canada-only issue.

Chikinlittle
Sep 29, 2011, 8:59 PM
It's been discussed in this very thread before, you can look there or google it. It's big news in France as well so it should be easily available. Boils down to Dubai subsidizing Emirates in order to turn Dubai into a global hub and feed the hotel/restuarant and rest of the city. Recommend you do some research on it as it's heavily documented and have been numerous stories all over the globe about it. Certainly not a Canada-only issue.

From my personal conversations with Emirates staff, they tell the company story as per what is mentioned in the Wikipedia write-up on the airline, stating that the company started with $10m from the royal family to start-up (allowing for procurement of two aircraft), under the premise that they weren't allowed to come back for more and they needed to stand on their own legs.

From what I am reading and hearing, there are merely suspicions that there are hidden subsidies provided to EK raised from nature of the close relationships that the airline has with the Airport Authority and the Royal Family. I haven't personally found much detail (not to say it doesn't exist out there) in supporting evidence to show the existence of any said subsidies.

If subsidies do exist somewhere in a smokescreen, then I do think as a nation we need to play it cautiously in how we let them fly within our borders, making sure that they don't cannibalize our own airline industry. However, not granting them ANY further access I think is likely not the answer and probably crosses the line and actually hinders, not helps, Canada as a whole.

Chikinlittle
Sep 29, 2011, 9:17 PM
And yes, a simple Google search can provide for interesting discovery:

http://www.emirates.com/us/english/images/Subsidy%20-%20Myths%20and%20Facts%20August%20FINAL_tcm272-557688.pdf

They're quite defensive about it... even combative in their defense.

MalcolmTucker
Sep 29, 2011, 9:20 PM
The main 'subsidy' is low taxes on fuel, profits and labour along with lower labour costs due to the nature of the airline. Lets them earn a much higher margin.

I have to wonder how long it will be until India stops pushing back Emirates.

Hourglass
Sep 29, 2011, 9:25 PM
If subsidies do exist somewhere in a smokescreen, then I do think as a nation we need to play it cautiously in how we let them fly within our borders, making sure that they don't cannibalize our own airline industry. However, not granting them ANY further access I think is likely not the answer and probably crosses the line and actually hinders, not helps, Canada as a whole.


Exactly.

There's a big difference between the 6x weekly to Canada that Emirates is currently limited to and completely open skies (which BTW I am NOT advocating).

The reality is that long-haul international air travel to and from Vancouver is pretty much a monopoly or at best a duopoly -- and has been since the demise of Canadian Airlines. Can anyone here think of a current international long-haul route with more than 2 airlines serving it? HKG was at one point before Oasis went bust, but that's about it. Please explain to me how a duopoly or monopoly is good for me as a customer, particularly if these artificial barriers to access then encourage me to go south to Seattle or Bellingham. It certainly doesn't benefit Vancouver's economy.

Air Canada has 56% share of domestic travel and 39% of international travel across Canada (by comparison, Cathay has 7%, BA has 5%). That's a pretty dominant position, and candidly, if a 7x/weekly flight between Dubai and Vancouver is enough to sink Air Canada, then it doesn't deserve to survive as it isn't competitive in the first place.

MalcolmTucker
Sep 29, 2011, 9:29 PM
There is a strong national security argument to be made that if we didn't have Canadian owned and operated long haul airlines that the military would need to buy jets just to hold in reserve. When you are running a country you have a lot more to think about than saving people $100 on flights ...

trofirhen
Sep 29, 2011, 10:15 PM
Please explain to me how a duopoly or monopoly is good for me as a customer, particularly if these artificial barriers to access then encourage me to go south to Seattle or Bellingham. It certainly doesn't benefit Vancouver's economy. . . . . . . .

Air Canada has 56% share of domestic travel and 39% of international travel across Canada (by comparison, Cathay has 7%, BA has 5%).

That's a pretty dominant position, and candidly, if a 7x/weekly flight between Dubai and Vancouver is enough to sink Air Canada, then it doesn't deserve to survive as it isn't competitive in the first place.
:previous:

Right on. Thank you for this fresh breeze of logic! :yes:

whatnext
Sep 30, 2011, 5:29 AM
Emirates would have served Seattle before YVR anyway, it has far more business traffic. And any Asian traffic from YVR will rationally route through HKG or Tokyo, rather than Dubai.

Hourglass
Sep 30, 2011, 7:20 AM
Emirates would have served Seattle before YVR anyway, it has far more business traffic.

Possibly, but we'll never know for sure with the limitations placed on Emirates to serve Canada in the first place. And your point is by no means clear-cut; YVR has had far more international connections to both Europe and Asia than SEA. It still has a clear lead, although it is starting to erode.

And any Asian traffic from YVR will rationally route through HKG or Tokyo, rather than Dubai.

Agree for North Asia. But flying east from YVR to South Asia is a very viable alternative to transiting via NRT, ICN or HKG. In fact, the travel time is about the same (~17 hours total flight time to Delhi going east via LHR or west via HKG).

trofirhen
Sep 30, 2011, 9:07 AM
Emirates would have served Seattle before YVR anyway, it has far more business traffic. And any Asian traffic from YVR will rationally route through HKG or Tokyo, rather than Dubai.
:previous:
This is true. In fact, about two years ago, looking at the official SEA-TAC website, it had already mentioned that EMIRATES was negotiating service to Seattle.
*
But ... what I can't understand is, why were they so aggressive about landing rights in Vancouver in the first place, then?

My biggest concern in all this is that eventually Seattle will outstrip Vancuver in nearly all overseas destination preferences, becoming the "runway of choice" for the Pacific Northwest, and that Vancouver will be eclipsed. This has already happened with Air France, now Emirates. What lies ahead?

PaperTiger
Sep 30, 2011, 4:42 PM
The sense I got was that they weren't truly interested in the Vancouver or Calgary slots. It was more of a PR tactic. They were really trying to get daily into Toronto. I remember reading at the height of the "spat" that Baird had offered both Emirates and Eithad an additional route anywhere other than Pearson and they weren't accepted.

twoNeurons
Sep 30, 2011, 6:29 PM
The sense I got was that they weren't truly interested in the Vancouver or Calgary slots. It was more of a PR tactic. They were really trying to get daily into Toronto. I remember reading at the height of the "spat" that Baird had offered both Emirates and Etihad an additional route anywhere other than Pearson and they weren't accepted.

Reminds me of the new open skies policy Canada and Japan now have. Canadian Airlines (read: Air Canada) can do onward journeys via Japan, except through Tokyo airports. If this indeed was offered, it would be interesting and I'd be frankly surprised. But then again, maybe Emirates knew they were expanding into Seattle so considered Vancouver already part of their network.

deasine
Sep 30, 2011, 7:15 PM
Reminds me of the Open skies policy Canada and Japan now have. Canadian Airlines can do onward journeys via Japan, except for Tokyo airports.

The thing is, NRT is already incredibly busy and is reaching short of capacity, so I can sort of understand why the chose to not include Tokyo Airports into the Open Skies Agreement. Plus, the Japanese Government seems to want increasing activity at other Japanese Airports (KIX for instance).

trofirhen
Sep 30, 2011, 9:13 PM
Emirates would have served Seattle before YVR anyway, it has far more business traffic. And any Asian traffic from YVR will rationally route through HKG or Tokyo, rather than Dubai.
:previous:
Total agreement, with one exception. If Emirates got access to Vancouver, they could acquire the India market, quite substantial from Vancouver, and as yet unserved.

We are, I think "safe" from Emirates, especially now that they're going into Seattle.

It would still be great to have direct service to Delhi and Mumbai though. It's been talked about for a while, but issues (like bilaterals and the acquisition of long-haul jets) seem to have dragged it down to an eventuality perhaps unachievable for some years.

trofirhen
Oct 1, 2011, 9:50 AM
There, no more "Emiratophobia," children. The bad dream is over, and the bogeyman is going elsewhere.

Protectionism rules. Star Alliance rules. Ottawa rules! (along with Toronto, of course). We're safe at last! :worship:

http://www.routesonline.com/news/36/the-hub/127256/world-routes-2011-emirates-boosts-its-us-presence-with-dallas-and-seattle-links/

SpongeG
Oct 1, 2011, 8:59 PM
did you hear about air canada and winnipeg?

Downtown Winnipeg a no-go zone for Air Canada staff (http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111001/downtown-winnipeg-off-limits-for-air-canada-111001/20111001/?hub=EdmontonHome)

twoNeurons
Oct 1, 2011, 11:26 PM
The thing is, NRT is already incredibly busy and is reaching short of capacity, so I can sort of understand why the chose to not include Tokyo Airports into the Open Skies Agreement. Plus, the Japanese Government seems to want increasing activity at other Japanese Airports (KIX for instance).

Oh yeah, I totally understand why it doesn't include Tokyo, for sure. I don't think Japan is "focusing" on other airports, it's just that they know there is generally high demand for Tokyo landing spots in general. KIX may get a bit of love when they bring Itami, Kobe and Kansai under one management umbrella.

With the new runway and terminal at Haneda, they're attempting to create an airport that will rival Incheon in Seoul as a 24 hour airport. The landing slot times for international flights, however, are horrible.

While I'd love to see Air Canada use their existing fleets to run planes through Osaka, I don't think they are in a hurry, as there's no immediate pressure to do so. They only have a limited number of 777s that can fly directly to India and until they get 787s, they don't need to realistically do direct to India flights. They'll continue to code-share through Narita with their Star Alliance partners and keep their 777s for other opportunities.

If Emirates were flying from Vancouver to Dubai (and then serving India) you can bet your bottom dollar that they'd be pretty quick to either use one of their few 777s to fly direct (which I kind of doubt) or start using one of their many 767s to do a route like YVR-KIX-DEL. This would stop over in Osaka, but passengers would not be required to change planes... it would also be a shorter flight than Emirates. We may still see this if traffic to India starts an Exodus through Seattle.

This is the ONLY way they could CURRENTLY compete with Emirates. This competition would bring tickets down and force Air Canada to find efficiencies to reduce their costs. As long as there's no real competition to India, they don't need to worry about being wasteful or improving their efficiencies. The other airlines are all in the same boat. JAL has a slight advantage as they can do stopovers in Tokyo and JAL gets quite a bit of Indian traffic now. Chinese airlines are more concerned with connecting China. Not sure about Korean.

This is not to say that I think Emirates should be allowed more landing slots, but the argument that there's little need for direct traffic between Dubai and Canada is less of an issue. AC probably wouldn't fly direct to India anyhow. When they get their 787s, however... we'll see. A plane with a 777s range and a 767's size... interesting.

trofirhen
Oct 1, 2011, 11:37 PM
If Emirates were flying from Vancouver to Dubai (and then serving India) you can bet your bottom dollar that they'd be pretty quick to either use one of their few 777s to fly direct (which I kind of doubt) or start using one of their many 767s to do a route like YVR-KIX-DEL. This would stop over in Osaka, but passengers would not be required to change planes... it would also be a shorter flight than Emirates. We may still see this if traffic to India starts an Exodus through Seattle.
:previous::previous::previous:
I almost wish that would happen. It would be a kick in the pants for the Canadian government to smarten up and get moving. I am an enthusiastic supporter of YVR and I want to see it go places, but at the present rate, coupled with the protectionist Ontario-style mentality, I don't think we'll get direct India service, and frankly, it serves us right. Sorry. Excuse me. That's what I think.

Hourglass
Oct 2, 2011, 5:44 AM
Oh yeah, I totally
While I'd love to see Air Canada use their existing fleets to run planes through Osaka, I don't think they are in a hurry, as there's no immediate pressure to do so. They only have a limited number of 777s that can fly directly to India and until they get 787s, they don't need to realistically do direct to India flights. They'll continue to code-share through Narita with their Star Alliance partners and keep their 777s for other opportunities.

Actually, I think you'll find a lot of India-bound traffic already heads east via Europe. Air Canada works with Lufthansa with FRA as the transit hub. Try doing a search on expedia.ca. You'll find most options to, say, Delhi, are east-bound. From personal observation, I know CX also gets a lot of transit traffic to India.

I agree the 787s could be a game changer, and it'll be interesting to see how AC deploys them.

trofirhen
Oct 3, 2011, 1:20 AM
Actually, I think you'll find a lot of India-bound traffic already heads east via Europe. Air Canada works with Lufthansa with FRA as the transit hub. Try doing a search on expedia.ca. You'll find most options to, say, Delhi, are east-bound. From personal observation, I know CX also gets a lot of transit traffic to India.

I agree the 787s could be a game changer, and it'll be interesting to see how AC deploys them.
:previous::previous::previous:

My gut tells me something like: Toronto-Sydney, Toronto-Sao Paulo, Toronto-Hong Kong, Toronto-Delhi, Toronto .....

Bigtime
Oct 3, 2011, 1:31 AM
Well eventually the 787's will be replacing a bunch (if not all) of the 763's. So you can also add all the current routes they serve to 787 service.

trofirhen
Oct 4, 2011, 4:47 AM
Oh well, nice to see someone is benefitting with new routes. Not Vancouver at the moment. Three guesses where. A sign of future trends, no doubt - like when the 787s roll out maybe .......

http://www.routesonline.com/news/36/the-hub/127432/world-routes-2011-air-canada-brings-more-flights-to-toronto/

twoNeurons
Oct 4, 2011, 4:12 PM
Actually, I think you'll find a lot of India-bound traffic already heads east via Europe. Air Canada works with Lufthansa with FRA as the transit hub. Try doing a search on expedia.ca. You'll find most options to, say, Delhi, are east-bound. From personal observation, I know CX also gets a lot of transit traffic to India.

I agree the 787s could be a game changer, and it'll be interesting to see how AC deploys them.

From Vancouver, I think it's a real mix. Cathay Pacific (Hong Kong), Air China(Beijing), Air India (via Toronto) are all viable possibilities.

Oh well, nice to see someone is benefitting with new routes. Not Vancouver at the moment. Three guesses where. A sign of future trends, no doubt - like when the 787s roll out maybe...

I'm not so sure. Those aren't new routes, they're just increasing capacity. They are also upgrading their YYZ-NRT flight to a 777, not a new route.

They have a finite number of planes, so that just means they're switching the planes. They tried YVR-HND, remember, but it didn't sell well so they nixed it. Just as well, really. The Tsunami really dampened tourism for a few months.

Gordon
Oct 4, 2011, 4:31 PM
How about yVR KIX Delhi

trofirhen
Oct 4, 2011, 4:55 PM
How about yVR KIX Delhi
:previous:

Sounds OK to me, but I'd be interested to see the actual distance compared to a more direct, "over the pole" route such as Jet Airways or Air India could provide. Distance (as in km) equals dollars - and time, of course. It's that simple.

trofirhen
Oct 4, 2011, 5:17 PM
From my personal conversations with Emirates staff, they tell the company story as per what is mentioned in the Wikipedia write-up on the airline, stating that the company started with $10m from the royal family to start-up (allowing for procurement of two aircraft), under the premise that they weren't allowed to come back for more and they needed to stand on their own legs.

From what I am reading and hearing, there are merely suspicions that there are hidden subsidies provided to EK raised from nature of the close relationships that the airline has with the Airport Authority and the Royal Family. I haven't personally found much detail (not to say it doesn't exist out there) in supporting evidence to show the existence of any said subsidies.

If subsidies do exist somewhere in a smokescreen, then I do think as a nation we need to play it cautiously in how we let them fly within our borders, making sure that they don't cannibalize our own airline industry. However, not granting them ANY further access I think is likely not the answer and probably crosses the line and actually hinders, not helps, Canada as a whole.

And yes, a simple Google search can provide for interesting discovery:

http://www.emirates.com/us/english/images/Subsidy%20-%20Myths%20and%20Facts%20August%20FINAL_tcm272-557688.pdf

They're quite defensive about it... even combative in their defense.
:previous::previous::previous:

Like, yeah. I agree with your balanced answer to this for sure.

Other nations subsidize their own airlines anyway, as pointed out in the link you posted (even if Emirates published it in their own self-defense)

What I don't understand is: BY TAKING WHICH ROUTES away from Canadian airlines would Emirates "cannibalize" our airline industry? I don't get it. Most of our traffic seems either Transborder, East Asian, or European, none of which would (as I perceive it at the moment) be anywhere in the catchment area of Dubai anyway. Where's the monstrous threat?

twoNeurons
Oct 4, 2011, 5:58 PM
:previous:

Sounds OK to me, but I'd be interested to see the actual distance compared to a more direct, "over the pole" route such as Jet Airways or Air India could provide. Distance (as in km) equals dollars - and time, of course. It's that simple.

YVR-KIX-DEL (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=YVR-KIX-DEL&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=60&E=120&EV=410&EU=kts) : 13445 km
YVR-DEL (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=YVR-DEL&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=60&E=120&EV=410&EU=kts) : 11143 km

I don't believe you can fly direct to India over the pole due to ETOPS rules. 2-engined planes can't fly over large uninhabited swaths of land... they have to be within a certain time in minutes from an airport they can land at. I don't know what the limitations of AC's fleet, but I've included both 60 minute ETOPS and 120 minute in those links.

Someone with more knowledge of how it works can probably explain it better than I can.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 4, 2011, 6:56 PM
A330s and 777s are 180 minutes and beyond ETOPS (certification isn't automatic for every carrier however and depends on maintenance, airline experience).

trofirhen
Oct 4, 2011, 7:37 PM
YVR-KIX-DEL (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=YVR-KIX-DEL&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=60&E=120&EV=410&EU=kts) : 13445 km
YVR-DEL (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=YVR-DEL&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=60&E=120&EV=410&EU=kts) : 11143 km

I don't believe you can fly direct to India over the pole due to ETOPS rules. 2-engined planes can't fly over large uninhabited swaths of land... they have to be within a certain time in minutes from an airport they can land at. I don't know what the limitations of AC's fleet, but I've included both 60 minute ETOPS and 120 minute in those links.

Someone with more knowledge of how it works can probably explain it better than I can.
:previous::previous::previous:

If an airline can't do that, the how come Emirates, Jet Airways, (and Air India?) already do that from Toronto, and Qatar Airways from Montreal ? ? ? ? ?

The Arctic route is shorter (and cheaper in fuel and concommitant passenger fares) So why not from Vancouver "over the top" to Delhi, too?

WTF ! : pretty soon EMIRATES will be flying the northern route to Dubai, so where does this ETOPS ruling fit in, and how??

Baffling.

twoNeurons
Oct 4, 2011, 8:57 PM
:previous::previous::previous:

If an airline can't do that, the how come Emirates, Jet Airways, (and Air India?) already do that from Toronto, and Qatar Airways from Montreal ? ? ? ? ?

The Arctic route is shorter (and cheaper in fuel and concommitant passenger fares) So why not from Vancouver "over the top" to Delhi, too?

WTF ! : pretty soon EMIRATES will be flying the northern route to Dubai, so where does this ETOPS ruling fit in, and how??

Baffling.

ETOPS is for twin-engine planes. Basically, because you have very little redundancy, you have to fly within a certain number of minutes from a habitable area.

747s and the A380s Emirates use have four engines. If you start having engine problem or an engine dies in the middle of nowhere, you can still fly the plane (with 75% thrust) for a longer time.

If you start having engine trouble on a twin-engine plane, you risk losing 50% of your thrust and the entire side of your plane.

That being said, as Malcolm mentioned the 777s can fly further than 180 minutes but it's not automatic and depends on the carrier.

While Air Canada has some 777s that fly long ranges, I'm not sure they would want to use one on an India route. For a few reasons, I'm guessing:


They couldn't quickly change this route to a 767-sized plane to reflect seasonal demand changes
They would have to drop the route suddenly if the 777 went in for maintenance or went out of commission
ETOPS regulations may prevent them from doing so


I don't know if those are the actual reasons, but that's what comes to my mind. I'm sure there are technical challenges when flying over the pole and most of Air Canada's fleet is aging. I bet Air Canada would LOVE to have a direct route from Vancouver on a 767-sized plane. They're waiting for the 787... which will have the range and size to make it profitable.

vanlaw
Oct 4, 2011, 9:15 PM
:previous::previous::previous:

If an airline can't do that, the how come Emirates, Jet Airways, (and Air India?) already do that from Toronto, and Qatar Airways from Montreal ? ? ? ? ?

The Arctic route is shorter (and cheaper in fuel and concommitant passenger fares) So why not from Vancouver "over the top" to Delhi, too?

WTF ! : pretty soon EMIRATES will be flying the northern route to Dubai, so where does this ETOPS ruling fit in, and how??

Baffling.

Emirates YYZ-DXB and I assume the Etihad and Qatar flights as well - dont go over the top. They take a high "normal" eurpoean routing, crossing over southern Greenland then dropping over Germany, south-eastern Europe, Turkey and to UAE. On the return, it was a little further east, over Black Sea, Moldova and up to Scandinavia etc.

trofirhen
Oct 5, 2011, 2:27 PM
Regarding potential routes out of Vancouver, here's a link that might be interesting. YVR has a lot of potential to become a major air hub ... if some of these are implemented.

http://www.routesonline.com/airports/2539/vancouver-international-airport-yvr/opportunities/

Spikester
Oct 6, 2011, 7:00 AM
ETOPS is for twin-engine planes.

My first of many trips to Boeing was during the tooling installation for the 777, and ETOPS certification was a hot topic back then. When I first asked a Boeing guy what it meant, he responded without a pause: "Engines Turn Or People Swim".

hollywoodnorth
Oct 6, 2011, 8:03 AM
Regarding potential routes out of Vancouver, here's a link that might be interesting. YVR has a lot of potential to become a major air hub ... if some of these are implemented.

http://www.routesonline.com/airports/2539/vancouver-international-airport-yvr/opportunities/

better link

http://airceo.com/2010/04/why-air-canada-needs-the-787/

you can clearly see the cities that will be in play for YVR with the new 787s for AC

http://airceo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/76787exYVR.gif
767 vs 787 range for Vancouver

pic from http://airceo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/76787exYVR.gif

and

http://airceo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/76787exYYZ.gif
767 vs 787 range for Toronto

pic from http://airceo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/76787exYYZ.gif

ACT7
Oct 6, 2011, 12:48 PM
My crystal ball tells me that Emirates will receive its daily rights to YYZ and additional slots beyond as soon as AC is able to deploy its 787's to India. This is all AC is freaking out about, no more, no less.

trofirhen
Oct 6, 2011, 1:35 PM
My crystal ball tells me that Emirates will receive its daily rights to YYZ and additional slots beyond as soon as AC is able to deploy its 787's to India. This is all AC is freaking out about, no more, no less.
:previous:
You got it precisely. That's hitting the nail on the head!:tup:

MalcolmTucker
Oct 6, 2011, 1:47 PM
Emirates and the UAE burned a lot of bridges across the western world with what they did. Frankly there is little Canadian incentive for going back to the table, and we have already decided that Qatar and Kuwait are better partners anyways. I doubt we will see increased frequency to the UAE before the end of the decade.

UAE should drop the visa requirement as soon as practical and work on mending fences. First step would be to stop the hard sell - look where it has got them.

ACT7
Oct 9, 2011, 2:48 PM
Emirates and the UAE burned a lot of bridges across the western world with what they did. Frankly there is little Canadian incentive for going back to the table, and we have already decided that Qatar and Kuwait are better partners anyways. I doubt we will see increased frequency to the UAE before the end of the decade.

UAE should drop the visa requirement as soon as practical and work on mending fences. First step would be to stop the hard sell - look where it has got them.
I tend to disagree with that. Kuwait and Canada have had an open skies agreement for a few years now and neither AC nor Kuwait Airways have made a move to fly to any city. Qatar is of the same mentality as the UAE when it comes to landing rights in Canada, but like most younger siblings, they watched their older brothers implode with their tactics and have tried something completely different, i.e. they are building goodwill by flying into YUL first so the optics are better. Trust me, that flight is empty. EK and EY will come back to the table when AC starts to receive their 787's.

trofirhen
Nov 4, 2011, 10:51 AM
Don't know if this was posted before, but it might be interesting. I would think this thread is the most appropriate:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-canada-needs-a-smarter-tourism-strategy/article2207229/

The Globe and Mail. Oct 19, 2011

twoNeurons
Nov 4, 2011, 3:29 PM
Here's the interesting part from that article:
It’s long been clear that travel and trade are linked. But a recent study by Kiyong Keum, International Tourism and Trade Flows, published in the journal Tourism Economics, crunched the South Korean numbers and found that it’s usually increased tourism between countries that causes more trade – not the other way around. Promoting tourism from a country, it suggests, would increase trade.

But Canadian tourism problems were exposed by a soft U.S. market. It needs marketing in new places. New air routes encourage new tourists. But half of Canadian air trips go through the world’s most expensive airport to land a plane – Toronto’s Pearson. Other airports are losing domestic business to border airports such as the one in Plattsburgh, N.Y.

Canada’s immigration system aims to keep visitors from staying illegally or as asylum-seekers, so visitors from wealthy nations don’t need visas, but those from developing countries do. Tourists are discouraged by waiting. Now Canada needs to find a way to let new customers in more quickly.

There have been steps. The Canadian Tourism Commission shifted marketing to emerging markets. Canada finally completed a tourism deal with China that led to a big increase in trips – but also visa backlogs. That’s why the tourism industry was happy when Stephen Harper announced in a new air agreement with Brazil in August that three new visa offices were opened.

mezzanine
Nov 4, 2011, 3:37 PM
Anyone know if the american airlines YVR-DFW has wifi?

Yume-sama
Nov 4, 2011, 6:11 PM
AA's website says it does not~
http://www.aawifiwidget.com/?anchorLocation=DirectURL&title=wifiwidget

vanlaw
Nov 4, 2011, 6:22 PM
Anyone have any comments of which of the three is likely to be better than the other two (economy class)? I know most comments would be "pay more and fly Cathay or KA", but all three have some pretty good fares for Feb travel to SE Asia, with China Airways coming in at under $1100 to some destinations. With China Airlines, is transiting in Taipei any better/worse than Beijing or Shanghai with the other two?

Thanks!

Edit: What about EVA as well?

Yume-sama
Nov 4, 2011, 8:21 PM
What Country are you going to? If you have to connect with another airline, the alliance partner could be the important thing. =)

Is Air Canada an option for the first leg? I would never have said this a few years ago, but I actually think their economy product is pretty good compared to most.

So long as you're not on a seasonal route with one of their 3 yucky old 767's.

vanlaw
Nov 4, 2011, 8:47 PM
What Country are you going to? If you have to connect with another airline, the alliance partner could be the important thing. =)

Is Air Canada an option for the first leg? I would never have said this a few years ago, but I actually think their economy product is pretty good compared to most.

So long as you're not on a seasonal route with one of their 3 yucky old 767's.

Was thinking about Thailand - China Air flies both legs. AC is pricier than the rest, but I actually just checked Cathay and they were in at under $1250, which i think is extremenly good. For the extra $150 I'd imagine Cathay is a better bet than the Chinese/Taiwanese airlines.

Yume-sama
Nov 4, 2011, 8:55 PM
Yeah, I think most people would find some way to relate Chinese airlines to cattle carriers.

Though if you held out for AC through HKG or NRT I've heard good things about Thai Airways.

deasine
Nov 4, 2011, 9:06 PM
Anyone have any comments of which of the three is likely to be better than the other two (economy class)? I know most comments would be "pay more and fly Cathay or KA", but all three have some pretty good fares for Feb travel to SE Asia, with China Airways coming in at under $1100 to some destinations. With China Airlines, is transiting in Taipei any better/worse than Beijing or Shanghai with the other two?

Thanks!

Edit: What about EVA as well?

Personal preference, avoid China Airlines and China Eastern. Air China's experience from what I know is similar to Air Canada. If you are collecting miles on Air China through Air Canada's Aeroplan or other Star Alliance Frequent Flyer Programs, note most of Air China's fares (unless you pay for full fare Economy Y and B) only earn you a % of miles of the route.

EVA Airways is decent but their cabins are old.

As Yume-Sama mentioned, I'm sure you can try getting better fares at the other airlines. Consider other transit points other than HKG/TPE/PEK, there is also NRT (AC/NH or TG), ICN (AC/OZ or TG), or even other airlines like UA or CO in the States.

vanlaw
Nov 4, 2011, 9:08 PM
Yeah, I think most people would find some way to relate Chinese airlines to cattle carriers.

Though if you held out for AC through HKG or NRT I've heard good things about Thai Airways.

Just checked. Surprisingly AC comes in at $1230 through NRT. On the way there, there is an almost 24hr layover in Tokyo. At firsst I thought that was bad, but never been to Tokyo so a night there might be nice.

I’m actually kinda baffled at the prices to Asia. Maybe a result of all the airlines flying from YVR? I’m use to at least $1400+ to Europe now in the offseaon, so $1050-$1300 to Asia seems great.

deasine
Nov 4, 2011, 9:11 PM
I’m actually kinda baffled at the prices to Asia. Maybe a result of all the airlines flying from YVR? I’m use to at least $1400+ to Europe now in the offseaon, so $1050-$1300 to Asia seems great.

When do you fly? I'm looking at airfare to LHR and (well) through a very complicated routing, and I'm ending up in SEA, the airfare as of last night was $819 on Star Alliance Carriers (taxes inclusive).

vanlaw
Nov 4, 2011, 9:21 PM
When do you fly? I'm looking at airfare to LHR and (well) through a very complicated routing, and I'm ending up in SEA, the airfare as of last night was $819 on Star Alliance Carriers (taxes inclusive).

The last 4 times I've gone to europe (mostly to germany) in non-summer months were twice in October, once in early decemebr, and once at xmas. Cheapest was $1141 (2009), then $1430, $1480 and $1560 (xmas - to be expected). There are some good deals to be had, but it seems Europe is creeping up there from what I was seeing in '09. I generally try to go with one stop only.

mezzanine
Nov 4, 2011, 10:17 PM
^ FWIW I always try to fly out of YVR and do my best to avoid connecting in SEA and YYZ to encourage more flights to YVR.

If I am going to europe i try to connect in LHR AMS or FRA. you seem to be ensnared by staralliance and get bad options, consider oneworld and use the american airlines hub thru DFW to europe.
...

@vanlaw, can u book thru singapore airlines if u are going to se asia? they are star allliance and you might be able to hub thru japan or korea. too bad they no longer fly to yvr...

Yume-sama
Nov 4, 2011, 11:59 PM
Just checked. Surprisingly AC comes in at $1230 through NRT. On the way there, there is an almost 24hr layover in Tokyo. At firsst I thought that was bad, but never been to Tokyo so a night there might be nice.

I’m actually kinda baffled at the prices to Asia. Maybe a result of all the airlines flying from YVR? I’m use to at least $1400+ to Europe now in the offseaon, so $1050-$1300 to Asia seems great.

Only because Narita is 90 minutes or so from Tokyo I would not *really* recommend a 24 hour stay in the city, though you certainly could just to get a feel for it. However, the Narita area itself does offer a lot to people who have only a very limited time to experience "Japan", a lot of day tours cater to just that. http://wikitravel.org/en/Narita

trofirhen
Nov 5, 2011, 12:12 AM
^ FWIW I always try to fly out of YVR and do my best to avoid connecting in SEA and YYZ to encourage more flights to YVR.

If I am going to europe i try to connect in LHR AMS or FRA. you seem to be ensnared by staralliance and get bad options, consider oneworld and use the american airlines hub thru DFW to europe.
...
:previous:

all we need are one or two more nonstops to major European hubs. I know people are sick of my harping on Paris, but a sales and marketing representative at YVR said that it (Paris) would be a major market in Europe. It would still be second after LHR, but reportedly might overtake Amsterdam, possibly even Frankfurt as second or third destination; if it had scheduled daily service (but that would be bad for Toronto and its magnificent airport)

vanlaw
Nov 5, 2011, 12:22 AM
Thanks for the input everyone. Of course this started as thinking of going to Costa Rica for a couple of weeks, looking at flights around $750-$850, then it starts ..." I wonder where i could go for just a few hundred more..." and then it snowballs :cheers:

giallo
Nov 5, 2011, 1:06 AM
Anyone have any comments of which of the three is likely to be better than the other two (economy class)? I know most comments would be "pay more and fly Cathay or KA", but all three have some pretty good fares for Feb travel to SE Asia, with China Airways coming in at under $1100 to some destinations. With China Airlines, is transiting in Taipei any better/worse than Beijing or Shanghai with the other two?

Thanks!

Edit: What about EVA as well?

EVA by a country mile. You'll have to connect in Taipei, but it's worth it.

Here's a few words to live by: Never, ever, ever, ever fly with any Chinese airline internationally.

I fly with all kinds of Chinese outfits regionally, but only because I have to.

Yume-sama
Nov 5, 2011, 2:03 AM
And how could you not want to fly an airline that has Hello Kitty jets!
http://evakitty.evaair.com/ch/

Hot Rod
Nov 5, 2011, 3:29 AM
what about the new kid on the block? China Southern. ...

Guangzhou (CAN) is a brand new airport and China Southern is actually the largest airline in Asia - I think.

It is great to have so many foreign flag (Chinese/Taiwanese) options - Air China, China East, China South, Cathay Pacific, China Air, and Eva for nonstop YVR flights to China (and SE Asia).. ....

Yume-sama
Nov 5, 2011, 3:37 AM
An interesting read regarding the 787. Can't wait for Air Canada to start serving YVR with those sweet beautiful jets.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2011/11/flying-the-787-this-passengers.html

Sounds like you won't want to fly on anything else after! :P

Hourglass
Nov 5, 2011, 4:13 AM
Can't really go wrong with Cathay or Singapore. Very good IFE for both, and their home airports are fantastic. Cathay has those neat shell seats in economy where you slide down to recline, which is great for those who don't like getting their head cracked when the person in front decides to sleep.

Flying via Japan or Korea also a good choice. Not particularly enthused about either of the Taiwanese airlines, although haven't taken either for a couple of years.

Wouldn't willingly take any Chinese airline by choice.

Vanzunator
Nov 5, 2011, 4:20 PM
^ FWIW I always try to fly out of YVR and do my best to avoid connecting in SEA and YYZ to encourage more flights to YVR.

I do exactly the same, we need to put our money where our mouth is.

Vanzunator
Nov 5, 2011, 4:22 PM
Air Transat is adding a third weekly flight to YVR-CDG for summer 2012: two direct weekly flight and 1 weekly with a short stop at YYC all onboard their A330-200.

Johnny Aussie
Nov 5, 2011, 10:38 PM
^
Yup.

All up, TS will have 19 weekly transatlantic flights next summer.

All flights are non-stop unless otherwise noted

AMS - 3
CDG - 3 (1 is via YYC) up 1
FRA - 4 (1 is via YYC) up 1
LGW - 6 (was Thomas Cook x 5 TS x 1) prior summer 1 was 1-stop via YEG
MAN - 2 (was Thomas Cook)
GLA - 1 (was Thomas Cook)

MUC has been discontinued.

jlousa
Nov 6, 2011, 12:18 AM
Are the Barcalona/Madrid flights canned for this year?

Yume-sama
Nov 6, 2011, 12:26 AM
What are Air Transat flights like? I always equated them with budget and not too good. But I might be interested in going to Europe if the price is right lol

And by not too good I mean the horrors of having like, a TV you have to share with everyone else :P

deasine
Nov 6, 2011, 3:50 AM
What are Air Transat flights like? I always equated them with budget and not too good. But I might be interested in going to Europe if the price is right lol

And by not too good I mean the horrors of having like, a TV you have to share with everyone else :P

What TV? The only Air Transat plane that has TV is the one that they got from Dragonair.

Yume-sama
Nov 6, 2011, 4:26 AM
Oh holy hell *_* How uncivilized :P

ACT7
Nov 6, 2011, 4:35 AM
:previous:

all we need are one or two more nonstops to major European hubs. I know people are sick of my harping on Paris, but a sales and marketing representative at YVR said that it (Paris) would be a major market in Europe. It would still be second after LHR, but reportedly might overtake Amsterdam, possibly even Frankfurt as second or third destination; if it had scheduled daily service (but that would be bad for Toronto and its magnificent airport)
I don't know that the reason that there are no regularly scheduled daily flights to Paris is because of YYZ. Air France has had access to YVR for years but they have never decided to operate the flight. AC did seasonal summer flights last year (not sure if they did any this year). I think YVR could easily support a daily CDG run but it's unlikely to impact traffic at either YYZ or YUL.

Hourglass
Nov 6, 2011, 11:36 AM
Air France has had access to YVR for years but they have never decided to operate the flight.

Actually, for many years, Air France could only serve Toronto and Montreal. It's believed this was one of the reasons AF decided to serve Seattle instead of Vancouver. Of course, they are free to serve YVR now that a new bilateral with the EU has been negotiated. It's interesting to note that the SEA-CDG flight will switch to Delta Airlines metal, so I wonder if there is a chance whether AF might come to YVR.

You're right that Air Canada hasn't been able to make YVR-CDG work.

Some good news on European flights, though. It seems that Virgin Atlantic will begin seasonal 4x weekly flights next year between YVR and LHR. Story is here:

Virgin Atlantic to offer flights between Vancouver and London (http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Virgin+Atlantic+offer+direct+flights+between+Vancouver+London/5665015/story.html)

Gordon
Nov 6, 2011, 3:15 PM
That's good news . It would be nice to see it's sister airline Virgin America begin service out of YVR

craneSpotter
Nov 6, 2011, 4:13 PM
deleted, already posted..

Canadian74
Nov 6, 2011, 4:59 PM
That's good news. It' would be nice to see Virgin America beginf service out of YVR

It's not Virgin America. It's Virgin Atlantic, operating to London Heathrow. :rolleyes:

Yume-sama
Nov 6, 2011, 5:43 PM
It's not Virgin America. It's Virgin Atlantic, operating to London Heathrow. :rolleyes:

I believe the point still stands that it would be nice to see Virgin America :P

trofirhen
Nov 6, 2011, 6:08 PM
I don't know that the reason that there are no regularly scheduled daily flights to Paris is because of YYZ. Air France has had access to YVR for years but they have never decided to operate the flight. AC did seasonal summer flights last year (not sure if they did any this year). I think YVR could easily support a daily CDG run but it's unlikely to impact traffic at either YYZ or YUL.
:previous:

Thank you for the acknowlegment and reinforcement on that point. (A YVR Marketing person gave me those ratings.)

I can only muster an ambiguous response to your question; first, AC could profitably pick up this route, it seems, but will not. Air France is doing well with Seattle and has lost interest in the less business/more tourist YVR market (at least, that's how they perceive it)
Toronto has among the highest landing fees anywhere to help pay for that spanking new airport. They need planes to land and take off from YYZ. This a way of helping pay for the new YYZ.
YUL - Paris is self-sustaining due to the common language and economic link factors and don't seem to funnel off as much western traffic.
Is there a factor here, or it just my imagination?
Anyway, a potential YVR - CDG daily sched is expected to be a market biggie, (say YVR sources) so why is someone not taking it up?
It's overdue, and it doesn't make sense. Paris itself is not only a major destination in itself, but CDG is the most "connected" airport in Europe - an ideal connection point to just about anywhere.

'but 'nobody wan'd it, an' it jist don' make no sense' ...:shrug:

Anyone else ever wondered the same thing, or is it still only me? :koko:

Gordon
Nov 6, 2011, 6:47 PM
I realze that, but it would also be nice to see Virgin Anerica flyinf betqeen YVR & maybe SFO

trofirhen
Nov 6, 2011, 6:58 PM
I realze that, but it would also be nice to see Virgin Anerica flyinf betqeen YVR & maybe SFO
:tup:
For sure !!! The more the merrier!! (and that includes destinations, too)

Yume-sama
Nov 6, 2011, 8:02 PM
I wonder if there would actually be enough dedicated SFO traffic for that. I was under the impression it was somewhat of a feeder to the Star Alliance, Singapore Airlines and etc.

Though I can't imagine who in their right mind would choose to connect in America, just for the hassle of having to go to... America.

usog
Nov 6, 2011, 8:21 PM
I wonder if there would actually be enough dedicated SFO traffic for that. I was under the impression it was somewhat of a feeder to the Star Alliance, Singapore Airlines and etc.

Though I can't imagine who in their right mind would choose to connect in America, just for the hassle of having to go to... America.

It's often a lot cheaper even if a bit of a run-around to connect through SFO to Asia sadly.

Yume-sama
Nov 6, 2011, 8:39 PM
I'll give you that it's often slightly cheaper, but it's not worth the hours of hassle usually.

Though, I do personally know some people who've taken a 3 stop flight to Las Vegas to save $20 lol. People aren't smart / logical with time and money :P

Johnny Aussie
Nov 6, 2011, 9:40 PM
Also in the same Virgin Atlantic article, last couple of paragraphs.

"Meanwhile, Premier Christy Clark announced plans today for China's Sichuan Airlines to begin servicing Vancouver with three new flights a week, starting next year. A letter of intent was signed over the weekend, but the plan must still be approved by Transport Canada.

Earlier this year, China Southern Airlines began flying passengers and cargo from Guangzhou to Vancouver International Airport. The proposed new service from Chengdu and Shenyang to Vancouver is expected to bring 31,000 additional visitors to B.C. annually, Clark said in a release from Guangdong, a stop on her Jobs Trade Mission."

Well, letters of intent don't really mean anything... wait and see I guess.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Virgin+Atlantic+offer+direct+flights+between+Vancouver+London/5665015/story.html#ixzz1cxnizLd2

twoNeurons
Nov 7, 2011, 2:42 AM
Just checked. Surprisingly AC comes in at $1230 through NRT. On the way there, there is an almost 24hr layover in Tokyo. At firsst I thought that was bad, but never been to Tokyo so a night there might be nice.

I’m actually kinda baffled at the prices to Asia. Maybe a result of all the airlines flying from YVR? I’m use to at least $1400+ to Europe now in the offseaon, so $1050-$1300 to Asia seems great.

If it was a 6 hour layover, I'd agree... this is 24 hours. It's also only 36 minutes to Tokyo on the brand new SkyLiner (http://www.keisei.co.jp/keisei/tetudou/skyliner/us/).

And there's 3 or 4 routes to get to Tokyo.

I'd say if it's someone's first time to Asian, any airport in Japan is about the friendliest and easiest time that you'll have. Lots of signage in english and they'll go WAY out of their way to help people. Transit runs extremely punctually and there's lots to see in do in Tokyo that could fill 24 hours. They also have luggage lockers (I believe they have them at Narita too?) so you're not hauling your luggage around town and you're not worrying about it getting stolen as personal theft is really really low.

As a bonus, your code-share is likely going to be with ANA, which are really nice. I was on a [domestic] plane last year that was entirely full-reclining business-class seats. It's a pity it was only a short Osaka - Tokyo run.

usog
Nov 7, 2011, 2:57 AM
I'll give you that it's often slightly cheaper, but it's not worth the hours of hassle usually.

Though, I do personally know some people who've taken a 3 stop flight to Las Vegas to save $20 lol. People aren't smart / logical with time and money :P
This summer YVR-NRT direct priced in at ~$1500 all things considered, while YVR-SFO-NRT was ~$1200, I thought it was worth it for an extra 2 or 3 hours. Heck, just look at all the people going through Bellingham.