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

trofirhen
Dec 29, 2011, 10:26 PM
While I do agree that the government has been quite protectionist with AC (the whole Emirates debacle), AC in the end is still a business that (tries) to make money.

If the load factors were there to justify direct flights from YVR, I assume they would position themselves to take advantage of that. Right now, everything goes through YYZ because it is necessary.

i wonder if people in kansas city sit around and bitch about how new york gets all the flights and they get shafted
:previous::previous::previous:

I stand corrected

YVR Bruce
Dec 31, 2011, 3:30 AM
What about - laugh or scorn this out as you may - Istanbul as a destination? It makes a perfect transit point for the places mentioned, and Turkish Airlines is expanding fast.

Actually you have a very good idea. Turkish is far and away the leading link to the growing mid east area, let alone its own significant growing market.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/36/the-hub/136532/stats-air-capacity-between-europe-and-the-middle-east/

deasine
Jan 4, 2012, 2:52 AM
Emirates is hiring FTs from Vancouver and Edmonton. A sign of things to come?

http://www.workopolis.com/EN/job-search/emirates-jobs?e=314758&lg=en&r=false

whatnext
Jan 4, 2012, 3:03 AM
:previous:They used to periodically advertise in the Sun etc. for FT's, its just an online version of the same. They rely on ex-pats for staff, I suspect not many of the Emirati are slinging coffee at 38,000 ft.

trofirhen
Jan 4, 2012, 3:15 AM
Emirates is hiring FTs from Vancouver and Edmonton. A sign of things to come?

http://www.workopolis.com/EN/job-search/emirates-jobs?e=314758&lg=en&r=false
:previous:

Interesting stuff; thanks Deasine.

Nevertheless, this leaves a couple of questions hanging in my mind:
Firstly: Now that Emirates has Seattle, why would they want the less-important destination of Vancouver, almost next door?

Secondly: if they're hiring in Edmonton, wouldn't this be for a presumed eventual route out of Calgary (more important $$$ than Edmonton)?

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems hard to believe at this point that Emirates is interested in Western Canada, when it was discovered all they really wanted was daily from Toronto.

Nevertheless, I must admit it piques the curiosity, but I doubt very much Emirates will ever come to Vancouver. Calgary with the oil-related industry, yes. Vancouver, with Seattle next door, no.

For Vancouver, I think Turkish Airlines direct to Istanbul would be equally practical and much less contentious, but who can say.

trofirhen
Jan 4, 2012, 3:16 AM
:previous:They used to periodically advertise in the Sun etc. for FT's, its just an online version of the same. They rely on ex-pats for staff, I suspect not many of the Emirati are slinging coffee at 38,000 ft.


Yeah. That kind of went through my mind, too. You beat me to it with your post. Good on 'yer!

deasine
Jan 4, 2012, 3:19 AM
I realize they do hire a lot of ex-pats for their staff (technically the entire Middle East relies on foreign labour), but recently there's word that Emirates and Canada's relationship has been improving, so I wouldn't be surprised to see more destinations (or at least more flights to YYZ) in the near future.

trofirhen
Jan 4, 2012, 4:33 AM
I realize they do hire a lot of ex-pats for their staff (technically the entire Middle East relies on foreign labour), but recently there's word that Emirates and Canada's relationship has been improving, so I wouldn't be surprised to see more destinations (or at least more flights to YYZ) in the near future.
:previous:

I read somewhere that Qatar Airways was looking to expand in Canada. They already serve Montreal, and if they expanded, their first goal would be Toronto, of course.

I read something about "four destinations in Canada" so I would assume the other two would be Calgary and Vancouver.

Do you know anything about this?

MalcolmTucker
Jan 4, 2012, 6:00 AM
:previous:

I read somewhere that Qatar Airways was looking to expand in Canada. They already serve Montreal, and if they expanded, their first goal would be Toronto, of course.

I read something about "four destinations in Canada" so I would assume the other two would be Calgary and Vancouver.

Do you know anything about this?
They are only months into their first bilateral. I suspect they would want dialy service out of Montreal first before expanding otherwise. I believe they have 3 flights a week, plus the same in dedicated cargo.

trofirhen
Jan 4, 2012, 6:09 AM
I'd still like to see Turkish fly to Istanbul from Vancouver, but it's not in the books (not a potential route). Istanbul would make a great gateway, not only to The Middle East, but also to cities like Jo'burg, Cape Town and such. And the 787s will not cover Vancouver - Jo'burg, anyway, so we'd have to change regardless. Getting a nonstop into Istanbul would be a prize for Vancouver.

ACT7
Jan 4, 2012, 3:25 PM
They are only months into their first bilateral. I suspect they would want dialy service out of Montreal first before expanding otherwise. I believe they have 3 flights a week, plus the same in dedicated cargo.
Not sure what the loads are like to YUL for Qatar but my guess is that they will actually go for YYZ with 3 weekly before daily into YUL. Just my gut feel...

As for THY into YVR, that's a long shot at best. Their next likely destination ın Canada would be YUL for sure, after securing daıly YYZ slots.

Emirates was also hiring in Halifax not too long ago so I wouldn't read too much into their latest hiring campaign.

PaperTiger
Jan 4, 2012, 5:26 PM
Not sure what the loads are like to YUL for Qatar but my guess is that they will actually go for YYZ with 3 weekly before daily into YUL. Just my gut feel...

As for THY into YVR, that's a long shot at best. Their next likely destination ın Canada would be YUL for sure, after securing daıly YYZ slots.

Regardless, the biggest barrier is the fact that Turkish is Star Alliance, they won't be wanting to upset the older bothers Air Canada and Lufthansa. The only way I could see Turkish Airway metal in Vancouver is if Air Canada wanted YVR - IST and they operated as a code share.

SpongeG
Jan 4, 2012, 11:26 PM
emirates has hired in the area before - it doesn't mean much - my best friend applied and went through a first stage interview with emirates a few years ago, if hired he would have worked in dubai for training for a number of months but was never told he would be working in vancouver as they don't come here

anyway there really are no direct aussie-Canada flights? my relatives just flew here and back via Los Angeles there doesn't seem to be another choice - they got to fly the A380 though

vanlaw
Jan 4, 2012, 11:34 PM
anyway there really are no direct aussie-Canada flights? my relatives just flew here and back via Los Angeles there doesn't seem to be another choice - they got to fly the A380 though

AC does a Vancouver-Sydney direct.

SpongeG
Jan 4, 2012, 11:37 PM
well they are australians they wanna support quantas ;)

deasine
Jan 5, 2012, 12:06 AM
well they are australians they wanna support quantas ;)

Even after the QF fiasco?

I heard loads on QR from YUL are really low - it seems that QR's first entrance into YUL was more like to please the Transport Canada as opposed to for strategic reasons. But QR recently signed codeshare agreements with AC, so at least whatever they are doing might be paying off.

SpongeG
Jan 5, 2012, 6:22 AM
ah they flew to LA and than flew alaska airlines to vancouver since alaska is a partner airline with quantas

whatnext
Jan 5, 2012, 6:58 AM
ah they flew to LA and than flew alaska airlines to vancouver since alaska is a partner airline with quantas

Aargh: QANTAS (Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Services) :)

SpongeG
Jan 5, 2012, 7:02 AM
i know i always spell it wrong its just wrong not to have a U after the Q!!!! lol

twoNeurons
Jan 5, 2012, 9:29 AM
:previous:
You obviously don't play scrabble. :D

trofirhen
Jan 5, 2012, 12:09 PM
well they are australians they wanna support quantas ;)

ah they flew to LA and than flew alaska airlines to vancouver since alaska is a partner airline with quantas
:previous::previous::previous:

I seem to recall QANTAS flying to Vancouver once, or am I wrong? I remember from early childhood my grandmother taking a trip home to New Zealand, and seeing the QANTAS jet at YVR. She had to change planes in Fiji at that time.

Also, I heard that, briefly anyway, QANTAS once had a direct flight YVR - Tahiti, then onwards. That obviously didn't last long (if it ever existed)

trofirhen
Jan 5, 2012, 1:17 PM
Not sure how it's done elsewhere, but that's how it's usually done. Not sure about the EU Zone, though. Would a flight stopping in paris be able to continue to Berlin? Maybe.

I caught this re-reading your answer. I think you're asking if Fifth Freedom Rights are allowed. Contentious point.

First is the formalized legal agreement itself, just FYI

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/international_aviation/country_index/doc/canada_final_text_agreement.pdf

............ and here is the premable, "Publicity" for the agreement, much briefer and easier to read, with the mention of open fifth freedoms, first where they are defined as being "grandfathered" (which, on thinking about it, could be used to either allow or prevent 5th Fr. The business attorneys who use this page might be able to answer more accurately than I, to be sure. ;) Hope this answers your question.

[PDF] Canada - European Union Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement (http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=canada%20eu%20air%20agreement%20fifth%20freedom&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eu-canada.com%2Fdf%2Fdoc_download%2F61-robert-ready.html&ei=950FT9eXMs2BhQfuqsjvAQ&usg=AFQjCNGcrMt0Ra8yy33GwTPTllnPg5XPpQ)

www.eu (http://www.%3Cb%3Eeu%3C/b%3E)-canada.com/df/doc.../61-robert-ready.h

ps: interpretation and feedback more than welcome, anyone willing.:rolleyes:

incognism
Jan 5, 2012, 10:45 PM
:previous::previous::previous:

I seem to recall QANTAS flying to Vancouver once, or am I wrong? I remember from early childhood my grandmother taking a trip home to New Zealand, and seeing the QANTAS jet at YVR. She had to change planes in Fiji at that time.

Also, I heard that, briefly anyway, QANTAS once had a direct flight YVR - Tahiti, then onwards. That obviously didn't last long (if it ever existed)

QF has had an on/off presence at YVR over the years.

They used to have a flight YVR-SFO-HNL-SYD for a while. It then became YVR-HNL-SYD, but the YVR-HNL was operated by CP. Then when CP went under, QF operated it by themselves again. This ended in 2001, I believe. QF then operated SYD-YVR-SFO in the summer of 2006.

And yes, there used to be a YVR-PPT-SYD flight on QF in the 70s.

jsbertram
Jan 5, 2012, 10:48 PM
:previous::previous::previous:

I seem to recall QANTAS flying to Vancouver once, or am I wrong? I remember from early childhood my grandmother taking a trip home to New Zealand, and seeing the QANTAS jet at YVR. She had to change planes in Fiji at that time.

Also, I heard that, briefly anyway, QANTAS once had a direct flight YVR - Tahiti, then onwards. That obviously didn't last long (if it ever existed)

I'm a bit fuzzy on this, but I recall that CPAir & Qantas shared the Vancouver - Honolulu - Sydney run with CPAir flying the northern leg and Qantas the southern leg. The passengers & cargo would change planes in Honolulu to continue the trip.

I discovered a trick with these flights was to arrange to land in Hawaii on a Friday & lay-over until Sunday, so you got a weekend in Hawaii to top-up the tan before arriving in Vancouver.

I think that when CPAir went bust, but before AC started cooperating with Qantas, Qantas had to fly the entire route - sometimes with a layover in Hawaii, other times the layover was in Fiji.

deasine
Jan 5, 2012, 11:20 PM
^You do mean, competing versus cooperating right? Unless there's an agreement between AC and QF, whereby they won't compete with one another (which sounds much more of a win-win situation for AC rather than QF, given they are also in competing alliances.

QF's ticketing and check-in is still in YVR's system last I remember. I would love for them to restart flying directly into YVR again. It'd be nice if they could operate a MEL-SYD-YVR, or even a SYD-BNE-YVR. Nothing worse than transferring to another Australian city after a long transpacific flight (especially the distance between YVR and SYD). I wouldn't be surprised if QF signs codeshare agreements with WS and have HNL as future connection points.

Bigtime
Jan 6, 2012, 12:21 AM
I'm a bit fuzzy on this, but I recall that CPAir & Quantas shared the Vancouver - Honolulu - Sydney run with CPAir flying the northern leg and Quantas the southern leg. The passengers & cargo would change planes in Honolulu to continue the trip.

I discovered a trick with these flights was to arrange to land in Hawaii on a Friday & lay-over until Sunday, so you got a weekend in Hawaii to top-up the tan before arriving in Vancouver.

I think that when CPAir went bust, but before AC started cooperating with Quantas, Quantas had to fly the entire route - sometimes with a layover in Hawaii, other times the layover was in Fiji.

QANTAS, QANTAS, QANTAS.

That is all. :)

jsbertram
Jan 6, 2012, 3:08 AM
QANTAS, QANTAS, QANTAS.

That is all. :)

Sorry
Just my scrabble mind at work trying to get the extra "U" point.

deasine
Jan 6, 2012, 3:31 AM
Hate it to break it to you guys, but Qantas is not a valid word in Scrabble ;)

twoNeurons
Jan 6, 2012, 7:40 AM
Correct. But QUANTA is!
http://www.anagrammer.com/scrabble/quanta

Jebby
Jan 7, 2012, 12:06 AM
I flew Qantas from YVR to Honolulu in Summer 2000 and the flight was fully operated by Qantas.

Chikinlittle
Jan 7, 2012, 4:27 AM
QF's most recent foray into Vancouver saw service SYD-SFO-YVR, and I believe it was three days per week (and perhaps seasonal only if I recall correctly).

trofirhen
Jan 7, 2012, 5:13 AM
... so that makes QF and SQL among airlines no longer serving YVR. A bit sad, in a way. Any other lost arlines? (Fiji's airline for one, whatever that was called) ... any others?

Boy I'd love to see a few more foreign tails into Vancouver, even if I don't live there any more. That will take time, as the city gets bigger.

Incidentally, I recently received a message from a forum member passing through Europe, flying back to Vancouver from Paris .... via Seattle ...

ACT7
Jan 7, 2012, 8:39 AM
Even after the QF fiasco?

I heard loads on QR from YUL are really low - it seems that QR's first entrance into YUL was more like to please the Transport Canada as opposed to for strategic reasons. But QR recently signed codeshare agreements with AC, so at least whatever they are doing might be paying off.
I heard the same thing. In fact every time I'm at YUL, the line up at Qatar Airways is virtually non-existent. This reminds me of when Transearo started serving YUL before YYZ - it eventually vapourized and it's nothing but YYZ now.

Chikinlittle
Jan 7, 2012, 7:36 PM
... so that makes QF and SQL among airlines no longer serving YVR. A bit sad, in a way. Any other lost arlines? (Fiji's airline for one, whatever that was called) ... any others?

Boy I'd love to see a few more foreign tails into Vancouver, even if I don't live there any more. That will take time, as the city gets bigger.

Incidentally, I recently received a message from a forum member passing through Europe, flying back to Vancouver from Paris .... via Seattle ...

Frontier (F9 - discount carrier based out of Denver) made a brief visit to Vancouver and then left.

Jebby
Jan 7, 2012, 10:00 PM
Incidentally, I recently received a message from a forum member passing through Europe, flying back to Vancouver from Paris .... via Seattle ...

Yeah I did that once, SAS from Copenhagen to Seattle and connecting flight to vancouver was like €700 cheaper than flying direct on KLM from schiphol

abc1
Jan 15, 2012, 5:05 PM
Here is a link to a presentation from Nov 2011 for future capital projects at YVR which includes some timelines, budgets, and renderings of projects like the Pier A/B phase 1 upgrades.




http://www.bccr.net/images/nov2011/Presentation-Nov_24.pdf

mezzanine
Jan 15, 2012, 6:57 PM
thanks for the link.

Does that mean that the baggage upgrades will allow transiting bags to go directly to the next flight? That should really improve things for transit passengers - picking up bags after a long transpacific flight to check them in again would suck.

-----------------------

Another important major project, then new yvr pipeline, recently kicked back to life again, with the proponents changing the route to follow hwy 99.

http://www.richmond-news.com/Protest+group+continue+fight+despite+Richmond+pipeline+route+change/5959082/story.html

trofirhen
Jan 15, 2012, 10:57 PM
Here is a link to a presentation from Nov 2011 for future capital projects at YVR which includes some timelines, budgets, and renderings of projects like the Pier A/B phase 1 upgrades.




http://www.bccr.net/images/nov2011/Presentation-Nov_24.pdf

Thanks for the link. At present, I'm the most curious about the Pier A/B upgrades, (esp Pier B; looks as if it has airport ga,grene right now!)

Any renderings?

abc1
Jan 16, 2012, 10:05 PM
There is the one rendering on page 22 depicting Phase one of the Pier A/B renovation and I think that it is due to be completed in 2012.


In addition, there is a reference on page 23 of the (150 million) phase 2 Pier A/B renovations which does not have a picture associated with it.

Of note, Phase 2 (Pier A/B) appears to be in line after the future expansion of the ITB (250 million) and the north south taxiway.

abc1
Jan 16, 2012, 10:09 PM
Having had a closer look, it seems to be listed in order of gross capital expenditures from highest to lowest and not chronologically. My bad.

trofirhen
Jan 16, 2012, 11:43 PM
There is the one rendering on page 22 depicting Phase one of the Pier A/B renovation and I think that it is due to be completed in 2012.


In addition, there is a reference on page 23 of the (150 million) phase 2 Pier A/B renovations which does not have a picture associated with it.

Of note, Phase 2 (Pier A/B) appears to be in line after the future expansion of the ITB (250 million) and the north south taxiway.
:previous::previous::previous:

Interesting that it'll be next in line after ITB expansion. I wonder if there will ever be enough US traffic to create the Transborder Terminal ?

zahav
Jan 18, 2012, 7:44 AM
Below are some photos of the recently opened Ground Run Up facility (keep in mind it just opened, so not many opportunities for photos yet, but airline buffs will take lots im sure, as background or whatever). All pics courtesy of YVR Connections (http://yvrconnections.com/2012/01/it%E2%80%99s-official-the-ground-run-up-enclosure-is-now-open-at-yvr-blog/)

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/zahav84/IMG_7453s.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/zahav84/IMG_7389s.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/zahav84/jan11YVR01.jpg

SpongeG
Jan 20, 2012, 6:07 AM
seattle got hit hard by the snow and an ice storm today - only 16 horizon alaska flights made it out, alaska horizon had to cancel 310 flights today due to the weather

RT @BreakingNews Alaska, Horizon fly only 16 flights from Seattle; cancel 310. 29,000 pass impacted - Seattle Times http://t.co/kwdEnrug

ACT7
Jan 23, 2012, 1:32 AM
Year end traffic numbers are in for YVR and overall, fairly unimpressive growth. December was a decent month, but I suspect that a good chunk of that came during the Christmas rush. At this rate it will take at least another 3 to 4 years to reach the 2008 peak of 17.8 MM pax.

http://www.yvr.ca/Libraries/Facts_and_Stats/December_2011_Passenger.sflb.ashx

ACT7
Jan 23, 2012, 8:33 PM
http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/vancouver-airport-reports-4-increase-in-dec-2011-pax-but-cargo-down-81-259-mill-pax-in-fy2011-137771

Vancouver Airport reports 4% increase in Dec-2011 pax but cargo down 8.1%; 25.9 mill pax in FY2011
CAPA > Aviation News > Vancouver Airport reports 4% increase in Dec-2011 pax but cargo down 8.1%; 25.9 mill pax in FY2011
23-Jan-12 1:40 PM
inShare.


© CAPA
Canada's Vancouver International Airport passenger numbers up 3.9% - traffic highlights for Dec-2011:

•Dec-2011:
◦Passenger numbers: 1.4 million, +3.9% year-on-year;
■Domestic: 734,446, +2.5%;
■International: 670,526, +5.4%;
■Transborder: 344,147, +3.9%;
■Asia Pacific: 203,413, +7.2%;
■Europe: 61,813, +10.3%;
◦Other: 61,153, +3.9%;
◦Cargo volume: 18,625 tonnes, -8.1%;
◦Aircraft movements: 20,723, -0.4%;
•FY2011:
◦Passenger numbers: 25.9 million, +1.4%;
■Domestic: 8.9 million, +1.1%;
■International: 17.0 million, +1.5%;
■Transborder: 4.2 million, +0.8%;
■Asia Pacific: 2.4 million, +3.1%;
■Europe: 1.2 million, +1.7%;
■Other: 450,422, +9.1%;
◦Cargo volume: 223,878, -2.0%;
◦Aircraft movements: 258,276, +1.3%.

Interesting math...

trofirhen
Jan 23, 2012, 8:39 PM
http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/vancouver-airport-reports-4-increase-in-dec-2011-pax-but-cargo-down-81-259-mill-pax-in-fy2011-137771



Interesting math...

.... yeah, I don't exactly get the numbers either. Does this really and truly mean they're telling us the number of passangers in 2011 was nearly 26m? I, er, find that hard to believe.

Alex Mackinnon
Jan 23, 2012, 9:20 PM
It could be that connecting flights are counted twice by this measure and not by other measures. What's interesting about the math though? 17M + 8.9M = 25.9M. All the others are subcategories. The 3.9% increase is for the month.

Makes sense to me...

incognism
Jan 24, 2012, 2:34 AM
It could be that connecting flights are counted twice by this measure and not by other measures. What's interesting about the math though? 17M + 8.9M = 25.9M. All the others are subcategories. The 3.9% increase is for the month.

Makes sense to me...

The number is way too high.

Plus if you add up the subcategories, you get 8.2 million (4.2 + 2.4 + 1.2 + .4) which sounds a bit more reasonable.

8.9M + 8.2M = 17.1M

Sounds like the total should have been 17M rather than it being just the international figure.

ACT7
Jan 24, 2012, 3:13 AM
http://www.yvr.ca/Libraries/Facts_an...nger.sflb.ashx

It's an error, plain and simple. This is from YVR's website. CAPA added the total pax numbers to the international total to come up with a new and improved total. Someone at CAPA should catch it and correct it.

What's also interesting is that YVR's Asia-Pacific traffic (its largest segment of int'l traffic) hasn't improved much since 2002. It's been fluctuating around the 2.3-2.4 MM per year mark give or take. I wonder if it's because of U.S. West coast airports siphening off traffic or if it's just natural demand that has stagnated.

nova9
Jan 25, 2012, 9:53 PM
The YVR twitter account posted a rendering of renovations to the Domestic Westjet Departure gates. I haven't flown Domestic in years so I have no idea what improvements are planned.

From @yvrairport:
https://p.twimg.com/AkCSdjnCQAASdwV.jpg:large

deasine
Jan 25, 2012, 10:10 PM
This brings (part of) the domestic terminal to the International Terminal standard. I noticed there's an overhead walkway: could be just a service walkway, but it could also hint that these gates can somehow serve International Arrivals. This would be useful, since there are only three gates at YVR that are dual-purpose International/Domestic gates. So flights coming in from ICN/HKG/NRT/SYD, for instance, going onwards to YYZ can take advantage of these gates. Though this renovation is quite far away from the International Terminal...

officedweller
Jan 25, 2012, 11:24 PM
there's a video too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfx7S4CZKlc&feature=player_detailpage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfx7S4CZKlc&feature=player_detailpage

Nice overview of past projects, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZskiqSB4hjQ&feature=player_detailpage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZskiqSB4hjQ&feature=player_detailpage

nova9
Jan 26, 2012, 12:06 AM
I'm surprised by how much growth there was. Every time they showed an addition to the departure gates, I said to myself, "There's more?!?" And I grew up in this region.

I'm busy on wikipedia trying to compare physical size of our terminals with larger airports. I know it must be small because I'm always early and never out of breathe when I reach even the farthest gates - not the case at LAX or HK, haha.

ACT7
Jan 26, 2012, 2:26 AM
I'm surprised by how much growth there was. Every time they showed an addition to the departure gates, I said to myself, "There's more?!?" And I grew up in this region.

I'm busy on wikipedia trying to compare physical size of our terminals with larger airports. I know it must be small because I'm always early and never out of breathe when I reach even the farthest gates - not the case at LAX or HK, haha.
The area for the entire terminal is 330,000 sq. m. as per YVR customer service. I've always found that for the amount of pax traffic, YVR is completely oversized. It definitely does not seem necessary to expand the airport in anyway. Nice airport for sure but unecessarily large. On the plus side, I've really never seen it overly crowded though so it makes going through it a breeze.

usog
Jan 26, 2012, 3:35 AM
Pretty detailed article here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/vancouver-airport-launches-plan-to-lure-asia-pacific-traffic/article2315293/

So they went through with temporarily removing the provincial fuel tax, how much would that actually shave off costs? Also hands up anyone who thinks it'll be passed on to consumers -_-

mr.A
Jan 26, 2012, 4:13 AM
No need for improvement. And a high speed carousel will not got the bag from the plane any faster. To many fees and taxes as it is now.

trofirhen
Jan 26, 2012, 6:06 AM
The number is way too high.

Plus if you add up the subcategories, you get 8.2 million (4.2 + 2.4 + 1.2 + .4) which sounds a bit more reasonable.

8.9M + 8.2M = 17.1M

Sounds like the total should have been 17M rather than it being just the international figure.

http://www.yvr.ca/Libraries/Facts_an...nger.sflb.ashx

It's an error, plain and simple. This is from YVR's website. CAPA added the total pax numbers to the international total to come up with a new and improved total. Someone at CAPA should catch it and correct it.

What's also interesting is that YVR's Asia-Pacific traffic (its largest segment of int'l traffic) hasn't improved much since 2002. It's been fluctuating around the 2.3-2.4 MM per year mark give or take. I wonder if it's because of U.S. West coast airports siphening off traffic or if it's just natural demand that has stagnated.

The area for the entire terminal is 330,000 sq. m. as per YVR customer service. I've always found that for the amount of pax traffic, YVR is completely oversized. It definitely does not seem necessary to expand the airport in anyway. Nice airport for sure but unecessarily large. On the plus side, I've really never seen it overly crowded though so it makes going through it a breeze.
:previous::previous::previous::previous:

Before the advent of planes like the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Vancouver, in past years, naïvely thought of itself as THE gateway to the Asia Pacific region, not taking into account that many planes could overfly it, if they were going to Toronto, Calgary, or other points east.

Also, (and many will snap and snarl at this, I know) Vancouver is not yet big enough to be a major international destination; neither in population (2.5m / Seattle 3.6m) nor in economy.

In the USA, even San Diego - not a major international player - has almost exactly the same pax numbers per year (although this is primarily US domestic traffic, I know), even Tampa is equally busy. On the international front, Oslo (a considerably smaller city than Vancouver) has higher pax numbers (due to Norwegian oil industry, I'd imagine), as does Stockholm Arlanda.

Even Brisbane Airport has higher pax numbers than Vancouver. And so does low-cost airport Stansted in London (now with two terminals with a people mover; 20+m pax per year)

There was talk in the Master plan of a new Transborder terminal, but as ACT7 mentioned, YVR terminal is already oversized in relation to pax numbers, and there seems to be little international push to get landing rights here.

( ... and when foreign airlines apply for them, they are often turned down by Transport Canada. The case of Air France and Seattle is iconic of this).

Otherwise stated, I think the current YVR configuration, especially with a new and revamped A/B Pier, is going to last it well for the next decade or two. That massive growth once forecast isn't going to happen until Vancouver becomes a larger market, with a more diversified economy ... a bit like what Seattle is now.

Vancouver got a little carried away in the past with delusions of being a MAJOR global hub. Looking on the positive side, what we have now will probably suffice nicely for some years to come. Anyway, just for comparison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm-Arlanda_Airport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Airport,_Gardermoen

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

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

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

mezzanine
Jan 26, 2012, 4:33 PM
I'm glad YVR is doing this. Improving intl to domestic transfers IMO is key to helping YVR become a better hub.

A new high-speed baggage system, new moving walkways and secure corridors between the domestic and international terminals will cut the time passengers spend connecting to flights from 90 minutes to under an hour.

From the G&M link


why do we need to encourage air traffic at YVR?

With new aircraft and navigational technology, a lot more cities are accessible from Asia today. And these cities have figured out what YVR’s founders knew. Serving as a gateway can bring vast economic benefits to their communities ...

although ultimately, regardless of what the federal govt does, our ability to attract flights depends a lot on our local economy.

ACT7
Jan 26, 2012, 4:43 PM
:previous::previous::previous::previous:

Before the advent of planes like the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Vancouver, in past years, naïvely thought of itself as THE gateway to the Asia Pacific region, not taking into account that many planes could overfly it, if they were going to Toronto, Calgary, or other points east.

Also, (and many will snap and snarl at this, I know) Vancouver is not yet big enough to be a major international destination; neither in population (2.5m / Seattle 3.6m) nor in economy.

In the USA, even San Diego - not a major international player - has almost exactly the same pax numbers per year (although this is primarily US domestic traffic, I know), even Tampa is equally busy. On the international front, Oslo (a considerably smaller city than Vancouver) has higher pax numbers (due to Norwegian oil industry, I'd imagine), as does Stockholm Arlanda.

Even Brisbane Airport has higher pax numbers than Vancouver. And so does low-cost airport Stansted in London (now with two terminals with a people mover; 20+m pax per year)

There was talk in the Master plan of a new Transborder terminal, but as ACT7 mentioned, YVR terminal is already oversized in relation to pax numbers, and there seems to be little international push to get landing rights here.

( ... and when foreign airlines apply for them, they are often turned down by Transport Canada. The case of Air France and Seattle is iconic of this).

Otherwise stated, I think the current YVR configuration, especially with a new and revamped A/B Pier, is going to last it well for the next decade or two. That massive growth once forecast isn't going to happen until Vancouver becomes a larger market, with a more diversified economy ... a bit like what Seattle is now.

Vancouver got a little carried away in the past with delusions of being a MAJOR global hub. Looking on the positive side, what we have now will probably suffice nicely for some years to come. Anyway, just for comparison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm-Arlanda_Airport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Airport,_Gardermoen

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stansted_Airport
Well said. The other thing to remember is that when CP was around, their focus was almost exclusively on turning YVR into an Asia Pacifc gateway. They even had that partnership with AA back in the day to funnel pax through YVR and onwards to NRT, HKG, PEK, etc. Didn't last long, even before CP 'merged' with AC. AC can talk all they want about wanting to do the same with YVR but their main focus has been, is, and always will be YYZ. It's got a substantially larger population and its economy is multiples larger. AC's argument for YVR was to make a point to the Feds about EK and EY.

Based on YVR's master plan, I think they showed conservative traffic estimates to be 27 MM by 2027. That's a 57% increase from where they are today, or roughly 3 to 3.5% per year. Definitely doable but even the size of the terminal that exists now would be more than capable of handling that amount of traffic.

With respect to AF, they do have rights to fly to YVR and have for several years now. AC gave it try with season 77W service but it didn't last. The market is obviously just not their yet. Seattle is a bigger market with several large corporate head offices and a substantially larger economy so YVR has tough competition in that respect. The Olympics have proven to be a bust in terms of tourist arrivals and pax number increases.

Interesting, in the 60's Montreal also thought that for the rest of time, all European flights would be forced to stop there for a refuel or that airlines would just want to because it was Montreal - hence the biggest white elephant in aviation history, YMX. Along comes bigger and faster growing economies, longer range 707's and of course 747's and all of a sudden Montreal is bypassed for YYZ and several U.S. airports. I'm not suggesting that YVR is, or will ever be a white elephant, but ambition and reality are very different things.

I personally think that YVR and YYC are embarking on projects that are way over the top for their market size.

Gordon
Jan 26, 2012, 5:09 PM
Vancouver is still the 4th largest Asian Gateway behind LAX SFO and I think
JFK

right now the only gate expansion in this plan is the completion of the west Chevron.

with the announcement that West Jet is considering a regional carrier, I wonder if there will be space for proper regional aircraft handling(covered bridges for loading\unloading)

ACT7
Jan 26, 2012, 5:28 PM
Vancouver is still the 4th largest Asian Gateway behind LAX SFO and I think
JFK

Yes, but as I mentioned, Asian pax traffic has been more or less stagnant since 2002. YVR should be in the top five for Asia Pacific traffic simply by virtue of its location. The trouble is that the gap is widening between it and the other 3 aforementioned airports, and the gap is narrowing between it and other hubs with growing Asian traffic.

mezzanine
Jan 26, 2012, 5:31 PM
Remeber most of the near-term construction projects are not for terminal expansion, but for infrastructure upgrades (roads, runway visibility systems, baggage upgrades) and north runway/tempelton business park development.

a lot of their near-term political capital will be spent trying to pass the YVR pipeline plan.

I agree that the need for gate expansion isn't there now.

PaperTiger
Jan 26, 2012, 5:48 PM
From Berg's comments in the G&M article, it seems that these improvements are as much about maintaining market share as they are about growth. I agree that the terminal itself seems plenty large enough to handle the volumes anticipated.

s211
Jan 26, 2012, 6:14 PM
I personally think that YVR and YYC are embarking on projects that are way over the top for their market size.

Loved your comments, and couldn't agree more with your summary. YVR seems to think it can punch above its weight, but it's weight is lower than what it thinks it is. And YYC? Are they trying to become the Alberta International Airport?

ACT7
Jan 26, 2012, 6:16 PM
And YYC? Are they trying to become the Alberta International Airport?

Looks more like they're aiming for Western Canada International Airport.

trofirhen
Jan 26, 2012, 6:28 PM
I personally think that YVR and YYC are embarking on projects that are way over the top for their market size.

:previous::previous::previous:
Well, trying to look at the bright side ... IF Vancouver and Calgary ever really do become larger, more desirable air destinations with concommitant larger economies, the airport infrastructure will already be there, and there will be no last-minute scrambling to build additional facilities. ... ;)

whatnext
Jan 26, 2012, 6:33 PM
What a shrewd strategy from YVR to stop their traffic bleed to BLI and SEA, raise their airport improvement fee.:koko:

Maybe they should survey all the travellers defecting to those airports as to how important new couches or artwork is to them.:haha:

ACT7
Jan 26, 2012, 6:49 PM
:previous::previous::previous:
Well, trying to look at the bright side ... IF Vancouver and Calgary ever really do become larger, more desirable air destinations with concommitant larger economies, the airport infrastructure will already be there, and there will be no last-minute scrambling to build additional facilities. ... ;)
There's always a silver lining :)

mezzanine
Jan 26, 2012, 7:00 PM
What a shrewd strategy from YVR to stop their traffic bleed to BLI and SEA, raise their airport improvement fee.:koko:

Maybe they should survey all the travellers defecting to those airports as to how important new couches or artwork is to them.:haha:

Larry Berg seems to be concerned about the intl transfer traffic to western canada.

i don't think people will change to fly out of SEA/BLI for a $5 increase in fees. They will fly out of SEA for $100s in savings, which is mainly due to factors outside of YVR's control.

jlousa
Jan 26, 2012, 7:49 PM
My understanding is the $5 AIF increase is being offset and passengers should acutally save money. They are freezing the landing fees already quite competive with other airports. (hint compare our landing fees to Torontos) I also beleive they are removing a provincial fuel tax which should save the airlines much more then $5 per head. The theory is it'll attract additional flights to YVR. How this all plays out will remain to be seen.

Personally I think YVR should still team up with Translink and offer free transit on the date of your flights.

cornholio
Jan 26, 2012, 9:26 PM
trofirhen nailed it I think when he said planes have no problem simply overflying YVR.

I think people place to much importance on the location of YVR as the furthest north west major airport in north America.

With the efficient use of a hub system being the norm now, YVR no longer has a geographical advantage, if I would have to take a guess I would lean towards saying it has a geographical disadvantage now. The problem is it is too far north west and cant take advantage of north American domestic flights to the extent airports further inland can. For a airport to be successful going forward imo it will need to be centrally located for both international flights and domestic flights, and YVR is not well located for the later.

Vancouver is a small market, even Seattle and such, for many flights it will simply be better and more cost effective to have passengers going to these destinations overfly them and then backtrack from the HUB airport.

I personally think that Calgary, Denver, etc. have a much better future with their airports.

trofirhen
Jan 27, 2012, 12:15 AM
:previous::previous::previous:
Thanks for the support, cornholio.
And yes, I'd even go so far as to say we are DISadvantaged geographically in many regards.

But not entirely. Here in Paris, people I know who fly to the South Pacific (Papeete, or New Caledonia) usually go through Los Angeles on the way there.

I'll have to check my great circle route mapper, but I think It sould be shorter for them with a YVR stopover, rather than LAX.

And of course, Sydney, Melbourne, and Auckland are more in our range than is Toronto. Trouble is, from where Vancouver is, most destinations are to the south or east. Westward ...... well, there is SO MUCH Pacific Ocean out there.

deasine
Jan 27, 2012, 12:55 AM
I think geography as a comparative advantage is much more of a historical line of thought and only comes into play in certain specific conditions. Historically, when planes don't have the long ranges that they do now, geography is absolutely critical as planes only have a certain distance that fly to. I argue that Tokyo's and Anchorage's presence in the aviation world is because historically, these were cities that planes needed to stop for fuel. And unlike Tokyo, Anchorage did not have much demand as a final destination city, but was an incredibly busy airport back then due to its geographical significance. And today, while passenger services are much lower at Anchorage than they were before, Anchorage is still the fifth busiest airport in terms of cargo flights and I reckon this is due to the fact that old legacy carriers had set up base at Anchorage.

With even higher extended ranges at airplanes now (introduction of 787 for instance) and FAA approval of ETOPS for existing airplane infrastructure (see feature map article: http://www.gcmap.com/featured/20111220), geographical barriers are really being taken down around the world now.

What makes geography a real comparative advantage is when connections are involved. Vancouver may not have the demand as a final destination, but it may have the demand in terms of as a connection city. But this only works when there is interest developing a hub-spoke network from carriers and economic conditions (costs, supply and demand) favor the city hub. There's a lot of talk on this forum how Air Canada favours Toronto, but they are doing so as a result because demand in Toronto is much higher than demand in Vancouver. Plus, in terms of Asia-Pacific travel for passengers originating from the East Coast, Vancouver is not necessarily positioned in a location with a comparative advantage. Vancouver is only good for cities on the West Coast, but Los Angeles and San Francisco already have more direct-flights to Asia than Vancouver. What could make Vancouver more favorable is for smaller carriers who may not be able to logistically deploy resources to two cities, but can use Vancouver as a hub-and-spoke and have passengers make connections. But this relies on carrier-to-carrier cooperation, and the Canadian Aviation Market really only has two carriers: WestJet and Air Canada, which makes it limiting. Star Alliance carriers would partner with Air Canada, and other carriers would be with WestJet, but WestJet's ability (i.e. failure to capture regular travellers to the US from/via Canada) is still limited in this regard even though it has made great strides in providing feeder services.

And while many seem to be questioning Calgary's expansion plans, keep in mind, Calgary has an airline that's based there: WestJet. Air Canada has a hub in Vancouver, yes, but most of its services are focused on the East Coast. Vancouver is not a hub for WestJet, only a focus city, and I don't think this will ever change unless Vancouver's demand grows significantly to demand for a hub status, but then I'm sure Air Canada would also be reacting. Plus, Calgary is growing and likewise, its demand is also growing. And while WestJet seems like a national carrier now, they are really seriously looking into expanding its network significantly within the next decade. Next up in the horizon is to grow its regional traffic network to compete with Air Canada Express, and unlike before, WestJet has publicly announced its intentions to become an international carrier. This can significantly change Vancouver's ability to become the Western Canadian-Asian Pacific Gateway, given that many carriers are partnering with WestJet, relying on its feeder network. Vancouver's demand for Asia-Pacific destinations is still larger than Calgary's, but it's a matter of time that the demand levels equate to one another.

So essentially, I think the ability for Vancouver to remain Canada's Asia-Pacific hub and keep current carriers and attract new carriers is our ability to increase demand as a final destination, and this really rests on the shoulders of Provincial and Federal Governments and their ministries, not really on the Airport Authority or the city. What the Airport Authority is and will be doing is controlling its share to attract carriers: lowering costs (in this case, passing them on to consumers) and improving its facilities.

---

On a side, but related note, I actually think Finnair could eventually fly into Vancouver. Helsinki does present a big geographical comparative advantage over existing carrier hubs in Europe. London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt are all far Westward, but Helsinki seems to be in the centre between Europe and Asia, and Finnair is leveraging Helsinki's location in its strategy to attract demand between Europe and Asia. I see Helsinki is also a strategic location for a focus of travel between North American West Coast Cities and Central Asia/Gulf States.

Currently, there are no non-stop routes directly between India and North America that are profiting. Air India flies nonstop to North America, but do note that none of the routes are making any money. American Airlines, with a rather large presence in Chicago, announced an end to their Chicago-New Delhi route because of the lack of profits despite having high load factors. It really comes down to cost of operation, and I suspect that demand between North America and India, were routes catering to specialized markets (specialized since passengers connecting in North America stay in North America, likewise passengers connecting to India stay in India, as opposed to markets like Thailand, Gulf States, Hong Kong, China, and Japan), haven't reached adequate levels where this is feasible (and the relative operation costs are still yet too high). This is why airlines like Cathay Pacific, China Airlines, China Southern, etc. have routes through other cities. Even Jet Airways, which operates direct-flights to Toronto and New York, fly through their European hub Brussels, before going to New Delhi.

How is this related to Vancouver (West Coast Cities in general) and Helsinki? Well since there is unlikely a direct service to India given the success (or lack of) between North America and India, this means passengers who want to fly between these markets must rely on transit carriers. Well in Vancouver, transit carriers are identified to be China Airlines, Korean Air, and Cathay Pacific for Asia side, and British Airways and Lufthansa in Europe side. It so happens that Helsinki is the shortest via connection point between other carriers.


ASIA:
Via Cathay Pacific: 2 segment path: 8723 mi
YVR (49°11'38"N 123°11'04"W) HKG (22°18'32"N 113°54'53"E) 309.1° (NW) 6392 mi
HKG (22°18'32"N 113°54'53"E) DEL (28°34'07"N 77°06'44"E) 288.4° (W) 2331 mi
Via China Airlines: 2 segment path: 8692 mi
YVR (49°11'38"N 123°11'04"W) TPE (25°04'40"N 121°13'58"E) 305.1° (NW) 5971 mi
TPE (25°04'40"N 121°13'58"E) DEL (28°34'07"N 77°06'44"E) 285.2° (W) 2721 mi
Via Korean Air: 2 segment path: 8004 mi
YVR (49°11'38"N 123°11'04"W) ICN (37°28'09"N 126°27'02"E) 309.2° (NW) 5108 mi
ICN (37°28'09"N 126°27'02"E) DEL (28°34'07"N 77°06'44"E) 272.8° (W) 2896 mi

EUOPRE:
Via British Airways: 2 segment path: 8914 mi
YVR (49°11'38"N 123°11'04"W) LHR (51°28'39"N 0°27'41"W) 34.4° (NE) 4723 mi
LHR (51°28'39"N 0°27'41"W) DEL (28°34'07"N 77°06'44"E) 80.0° (E) 4191 mi
Via Lufthansa: 2 segment path: 8836 mi
YVR (49°11'38"N 123°11'04"W) FRA (50°01'35"N 8°32'35"E) 30.2° (NE) 5025 mi
FRA (50°01'35"N 8°32'35"E) DEL (28°34'07"N 77°06'44"E) 85.6° (E) 3812 mi

HELSINKI:
Via Finnair: 2 segment path: 7928 mi
YVR (49°11'38"N 123°11'04"W) HEL (60°19'02"N 24°57'48"E) 16.4° (N) 4679 mi
HEL (60°19'02"N 24°57'48"E) DEL (28°34'07"N 77°06'44"E) 108.4° (E) 3249 mi

(Distances Calculated by GCMAP (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=YVR-HEL-DEL,+YVR-HKG-DEL,+YVR-TPE-DEL,+YVR-ICN-DEL,+YVR-LHR-DEL,+YVR-FRA-DEL) [see diagram])

And given that there are few direct flights to Europe, there is an emphasis placed on connections between Vancouver to Europe markets. Naturally, the connection points in Vancouver would be Toronto and Montreal (via Air Canada/LOT/Swiss/Air France+WestJet), Frankfurt (via Lufthansa), London (via British Airways), and Amsterdam (via KLM). Aside from Toronto and Montreal, as indicated, there are many other large cities in Europe that don't have a direct connection to Vancouver nor is there really a demand for additional direct routes (Paris example). So a Vancouver-Helsinki route can also attract the segregated Europe-Vancouver markets. Take Paris as an example:


Via Air Canada: 2 segment path: 5836 mi
YVR (49°11'38"N 123°11'04"W) YYZ (43°40'38"N 79°37'50"W) 83.7° (E) 2085 mi
YYZ (43°40'38"N 79°37'50"W) CDG (49°00'35"N 2°32'52"E) 53.3° (NE) 3751 mi

Via British Airways: 2 segment path: 4940 mi
YVR (49°11'38"N 123°11'04"W) LHR (51°28'39"N 0°27'41"W) 34.4° (NE) 4723 mi
LHR (51°28'39"N 0°27'41"W) CDG (49°00'35"N 2°32'52"E) 140.8° (SE) 216 mi

Via Finnair: 2 segment path: 5860 mi
YVR (49°11'38"N 123°11'04"W) HEL (60°19'02"N 24°57'48"E) 16.4° (N) 4679 mi
HEL (60°19'02"N 24°57'48"E) CDG (49°00'35"N 2°32'52"E) 238.6° (SW) 1181 mi
(Distances calculated by GCMAP (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=YVR-HEL-CDG,+YVR-LHR-CDG,+YVR-YYZ-CDG) [see diagram])

While the fastest route (assuming perfect connections) between Vancouver and Paris are using British Airways, which will be similar to Lufthansa and KLM via their respective hubs, notice that Finnair via Helsinki is essentially the same as Air Canada via Toronto. The advantage is more obvious in Scandinavia and in Eastern Europe destinations. So if priced and marketed right, the route should take a small share of everyone's pie right now. With some of the India Market plus some of the Europe Market, I think this may be a future route worthwhile exploring.

mezzanine
Jan 27, 2012, 1:04 AM
^agree.

Building infrastructure to make transfers easy will have benefit now as westjet IIRC codeshares with cathay and JAL making it more seemless.

Denscity
Jan 27, 2012, 3:54 AM
Dont agree with one of those points. Calgary's demand for asian destinations will never catch up to Vancouvers. Vancouver has a way larger asian population and despite incredible growth in calgary, vancouver is still twice the size.

ACT7
Jan 27, 2012, 4:18 AM
Dont agree with one of those points. Calgary's demand for asian destinations will never catch up to Vancouvers. Vancouver has a way larger asian population and despite incredible growth in calgary, vancouver is still twice the size.
I would agree with that too. The oil industry is not enough for YYC to overtake YVR for Asia Pacific traffic. There may be a little poching here and there but you're not likely to see an Asian carrier (or AC for that matter) opt for YYC over YVR as a first destination to or from Asia.

I do think that pretty much every other point that deasine made is a good one. Although, I would say that even though Westjet can serve as a decent feeder airline and they have made their intentions known that they would like to become an international carrier, they are more likely to go head to head with AC out of YYZ first, imo. I also don't believe that simply because their corporate office is in Calgary that that necessarily means they will continue to develop YYC as a hub over YVR if the market conditions aren't right. My guess is that setting up corporately in Calgary had more to do with taxes and the fact that Calgary is more of a head office city than Vancouver. That being said, they have been able to develop a strong domestic hub out of YYC over the years but even their focus has shifted more eastward where the population and the more lucrative demand is. I mentioned in the YYC thread that as much as AC has technically and publicly declared YYC as a hub, it is predominantly a domestic airport with some international connections. In fact, based on pax numbers alone, it has a higher count of domestic pax than YVR. But I digress...

I do think YVR's challenge will be to attract 'hubbing' from AC. Whether that is actually doable remains to be seen. As I also said earlier, Asia-Pacific traffic has been more or less fllat since 2002, so what that tells me is that any new carrier over that time period has simply had a redistribution effect of that segment. LAX and SFO are both true United hubs, much larger markets (tourist and business), and obviously much larger economies in general, so its almost a non-starter to compare. The only similarities is that they are on the west coast. YVR has its work cut out for it, no question.

Hot Rod
Jan 27, 2012, 7:48 AM
ya, I think some people are getting way over carried-away here with YVR. Sure, Seattle picked up some flights, but that was more to Delta chosing to elevate SEA as a focus city given SEA's position as the US's closest city to Asia; companies actually have cut back on travel and particularly with the advent of the internet, there isn't a flood of corporate travel originating from SEA. It was a natural move, since YVR is Star Alliance and SEA wasn't anything until the Delta merger with Northwest.

Vancouver ONLY shot itself in the foot (or the government of Canada) with respect to Air France and Emirites. But again, this made more sense from a Delta/SkyTeam point of view to use SEA than to set up shop in a 'hostile' Star Alliance fortress that is Canada-Vancouver. Just because YVR doesn't have non-stops to CDG year round isn't the end of the world. Notice how Air France no longer serves the SEA-CDG route and I believe the flight is A330 service and may not be daily anymore.

In some respects, I think it is nice to have two major airports (3 if you count Portland) so close. One with definitely an international edge (being Vancouver) and the other with the US domestic edge (being Seattle).

Trof - relax, despite Seattle picking up flights (somewhat naturally) - SEA is no comparison when it comes to International flights. Also keep in mind, in the US we dont distinguish between transborder and 'international' like Canada does. We would call transborder + international = international. Keep that in mind when you see SEA's roughly 1M pax a year in Int'l vs. YVR's 12M if I recall correctly. ???

Can YVR do better, YES. Should YVR do better, YES. It has nothing to do with corporate hq; Air Canada needs to better facilitate its Star Alliance hub in YVR and YVR needs to work with foreign flags to get more flights (which it has with China Southern, Air China expansion, and so forth).

trofirhen
Jan 27, 2012, 11:49 AM
I do think YVR's challenge will be to attract 'hubbing' from AC. Whether that is actually doable remains to be seen. As I also said earlier, Asia-Pacific traffic has been more or less fllat since 2002, so what that tells me is that any new carrier over that time period has simply had a redistribution effect of that segment. LAX and SFO are both true United hubs, much larger markets (tourist and business), and obviously much larger economies in general, so its almost a non-starter to compare. The only similarities is that they are on the west coast. YVR has its work cut out for it, no question.

Good point, ACT7. My question to that would be: "Vancouver hubbing? From which points into Vancouver, and bound to/from which destinations?"


Vancouver ONLY shot itself in the foot (or the government of Canada) with respect to Air France and Emirites. But again, this made more sense from a Delta/SkyTeam point of view to use SEA than to set up shop in a 'hostile' Star Alliance fortress that is Canada-Vancouver.


Regarding the Star-Alliance fortress, I think that this is also a real chain on our ankle. We have to not upset or anger the other Star Alliance partners - most notably Lufthansa - and this limits, or at least has limited - who will fly here. I wish YVR could get ut from under that, but I doubt it'll be able to.

ACT7
Jan 27, 2012, 2:53 PM
[QUOTE=Hot Rod;5566205]YVR's 12M if I recall correctly. ???

No, YVR has roughly 8 MM pax per year of 'int'l' traffic and that includes transborder.

I don't really have a thought as to which destinations could be derived from active hubbing at YVR - I'd have to think about that one. It was more of a general comment on the ability to grow an airport's traffic. The trouble is the sparce relative population in Vancouver's chachement area compared to the GTHA. With the latter, you have roughly 100 MM people within a 2-3 hour flight of your hub. YVR simply does not have that advantage so it would be difficult to force a true hub there.

whatnext
Jan 27, 2012, 4:03 PM
Larry Berg and YVR were certainly taking it on the chin in the media from ordinary travellers yesterday. Like many said, its death by a thousand cuts, $5 here, $5 there, with YVR funding their int'l plans on local backs. Many said they would look to flying out of the States or Abbotsford instead.

On the other hand, Air China just annoucned they will increase flights to YVR:
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/324206--chinese-airline-plans-to-double-service-to-vancouver

mezzanine
Jan 27, 2012, 4:32 PM
^ interesting article.

The airline's Chinese passengers will no longer need a transit visa to change planes in Vancouver on their way to the US. Chinese passengers enroute to the US via Vancouver typically need the visas for their stop in Canada.

Currently Air China has a daily flight into Vancouver, but Holloway anticipates more service will be added once passengers learn about the streamlined process.
....

Only a handful of flights from China to the US are direct flights. All the others require connecting flights within the continent. Solloway says with four million passengers travelling between the two countries yearly, even getting a small fraction to make connecting flights in Vancouver would be very lucrative.



This change looks like is was mainly due to visa changes, but the planned upgrades will enhance transfers and dovetail nicely with this. air china is star alliance.

Perhaps china eastern will also apply for this too.

ACT7
Jan 27, 2012, 4:54 PM
On the other hand, Air China just annoucned they will increase flights to YVR:
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/324206--chinese-airline-plans-to-double-service-to-vancouver

The article says that they could see increased flights in the future -we'll see. Hopefully that leads to actual traffic flow increases because as I said in a previous post, if you look at the numbers, Asia Pacific traffic has been more or less flat since 2002. The increased frequencies, capacity, carriers, etc have had more of a redistributon effect rather than increasing pax numbers substantially.

usog
Jan 27, 2012, 6:44 PM
Looks like YVR is foregoing domestic/short-haul flights for long-haul international ones. Probably a good idea since those seem to be maxed out for now anyways, the people who fly through Bellingham or Seattle are usually Vacationers who aren't willing to pay much it seems and who YVR will never win over.

ACT7
Jan 27, 2012, 7:03 PM
Looks like YVR is foregoing domestic/short-haul flights for long-haul international ones. Probably a good idea since those seem to be maxed out for now anyways, the people who fly through Bellingham or Seattle are usually Vacationers who aren't willing to pay much it seems and who YVR will never win over.
Bellingham, yes. Seattle, maybe not so much. Seattle has a number of long haul routes that compete directly with YVR, plus EK now which will pull some of the sub-continent destined traffic away from Vancouver. Long haul may be the focus for YVR but it won't work well without domestic and transborder feeder traffic - O&D traffic at YVR is probably not strong enough to focus solely on long haul international flights.

SpongeG
Jan 27, 2012, 7:07 PM
they talked to listeners on news1130 a couple nights ago, i only heard a few comments on air but the ones i heard all said they haven't used YVR in years and when they fly they fly out of seattle, even if they have to pay for a night in a hotel down there its still a couple hundred bucks cheaper than flying out of YVR and this new fee is only going to reinforce their choice to use seattle or bellingham

PaperTiger
Jan 27, 2012, 7:19 PM
The article says that they could see increased flights in the future -we'll see. Hopefully that leads to actual traffic flow increases because as I said in a previous post, if you look at the numbers, Asia Pacific traffic has been more or less flat since 2002. The increased frequencies, capacity, carriers, etc have had more of a redistributon effect rather than increasing pax numbers substantially.

I think that there is also a few lost routes that are being compensated for with some of these new destinations. Singapore and Osaka come to mind. I think if we start to see a couple of new destinations with no other losses we would start to see overall increases in international pax.

teriyaki
Jan 27, 2012, 10:18 PM
If Air China advertises this right in the mainland, this new change in visa requirements could potentially bring us a lot more traffic when you consider the potential there is in China for new pax.

It does kind of worry me that this is another star alliance route being upgraded. Hopefully it does become successful, and skyteam and one world members will try their hand at cracking the yvr star alliance stronghold.

deasine
Jan 28, 2012, 12:12 AM
If Air China advertises this right in the mainland, this new change in visa requirements could potentially bring us a lot more traffic when you consider the potential there is in China for new pax.

It does kind of worry me that this is another star alliance route being upgraded. Hopefully it does become successful, and skyteam and one world members will try their hand at cracking the yvr star alliance stronghold.

Quite a few Mainland Chinese news sources have already taken note of this.

And while this is good news, I question how much this really benefits Vancouver. Air China already flies into three large American gateways, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. And while Vancouver is the closest North American destination than all three of these cities, our coverage of the United States is also substantially less than these other North American gateways. Three factors come into play:


Destinations: Our transborder network unfortunately doesn't have many regular destinations.
Frequency: Aside from San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Portland (in other words, cities on the West Coast), there aren't too many routes with a high frequency.
Flight Scheduling: Many of the transborder destinations served by American carriers have an unusual schedule that does not yet work well with any of the flights Air China flights.

Chinese carriers are going to be expanding everywhere as soon as they have the infrastructure. They have the lowest cost of operation in Asia right now, and they can afford to expand to many more destinations soon. So in the short-term, it may benefit Vancouver to some extent, but in the long-term, as Chinese carriers add more destinations to their route map, Vancouver will become less of a transit airport city.

Vancouver will be a Star Alliance stronghold for a long long time: other airlines will not be able to use Vancouver as a transit destination unless there is reciprocal agreements made with other North American airlines. WestJet has failed to capture the regular traveller business for their North American flights, and until they can do this, expand their Vancouver network, and have many more regular flights from Vancouver, Chinese carriers will be looking into flying straight into the United States, where there short-haul transit network can support their demand.

As for the discussion about Bellingham, I feel this is often misrepresented and overreported in the media. Those who are choosing Bellingham over Vancouver are those only flying for recreation and leisure purposes, and often to vacation destinations only within the United States. And while there is a market for vacationers (hence the existence of charter carriers such as Transat and Thomas Cook), the majority of the market is the business and international/legacy market. There is little the Vancouver Airport Authority can do to lower costs to become as competitive as Bellingham, it's just not economically possible, nor do I think it makes any sense either.

Seattle is a bit further from Vancouver. But are costs necessarily cheaper? Yes if it's within the United States, but for international flights, Seattle, specifically the Asia-Pacific flights, can often be more expensive than Vancouver. That being said, Seattle is a big competitor for Vancouver, and Seattle has the United States domestic network that can support transiting passengers from foreign carriers, which is something Vancouver will never be able to compete with. Asiana Airlines from Seoul and Hainan Airlines from Beijing, are the carriers Vancouver don't have right now (Korean Air flies to both Vancouver and Seattle). All Nippon Airways is also expected to add Seattle to its international route map with their new 787s. In terms of Asia-Pacific flights, since geographically, there's little difference between the two cities, Vancouver's advantage over Seattle is the final-destination demand and perhaps the West Coast Canadian transit network, while Seattle's advantage is the American transit network.

trofirhen
Jan 28, 2012, 3:01 AM
Quite a few Mainland Chinese news sources have already taken note of this.

And while this is good news, I question how much this really benefits Vancouver. Air China already flies into three large American gateways, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. And while Vancouver is the closest North American destination than all three of these cities, our coverage of the United States is also substantially less than these other North American gateways. Three factors come into play:


Destinations: Our transborder network unfortunately doesn't have many regular destinations.
Frequency: Aside from San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Portland (in other words, cities on the West Coast), there aren't too many routes with a high frequency.
Flight Scheduling: Many of the transborder destinations served by American carriers have an unusual schedule that does not yet work well with any of the flights Air China flights.


Chinese carriers are going to be expanding everywhere as soon as they have the infrastructure. They have the lowest cost of operation in Asia right now, and they can afford to expand to many more destinations soon. So in the short-term, it may benefit Vancouver to some extent, but in the long-term, as Chinese carriers add more destinations to their route map, Vancouver will become less of a transit airport city.
:previous:

Regarding this point - the lack of a comprehensive Transborder route coverage -- is there not therefore a niche market to fill? If, for example West Jet were to become ever more ambitious, could they not increase routes and frequencies from YVR to major US destinations, and adding a couple more that would largely cater to Asian businness travellers; they already have a scad of online agreements with other carriers. Or ... aha ... could they do that out of Calgary, steal business away from YVR? Hmmm.

Anyway, my major point is that there be, if $$$ permits, a higher, denser transborder network. Is there the demand? Could it be achieved? Pray yes. ;) :rainbow:

deasine
Jan 28, 2012, 9:12 AM
:previous:

Regarding this point - the lack of a comprehensive Transborder route coverage -- is there not therefore a niche market to fill? If, for example West Jet were to become ever more ambitious, could they not increase routes and frequencies from YVR to major US destinations, and adding a couple more that would largely cater to Asian businness travellers; they already have a scad of online agreements with other carriers. Or ... aha ... could they do that out of Calgary, steal business away from YVR? Hmmm.

Anyway, my major point is that there be, if $$$ permits, a higher, denser transborder network. Is there the demand? Could it be achieved? Pray yes. ;) :rainbow:

The problem is, WestJet is not yet able to capture any of the regular Transborder business, it's mostly the leisure. Though this is something I believe they will try to change over the next few years, and them gaining slots at LGA (New York) is already a sign of this (note: Air Canada Express will begin flying to JFK (New York) from Toronto soon, meaning they will have flights to all three airports of New York). Air Canada and United have a monopoly and pretty much dominate the entire transborder market. And while WestJet has had much success in breaking apart monopolies, it's still going to take a lot of work to break this one apart.

TransitJack
Jan 28, 2012, 6:28 PM
I didn't realize that AC Jazz changed their name to Express.. but now I see it has been like that since April.

So much to learn from this forum. :yes:

deasine
Jan 29, 2012, 12:16 AM
I didn't realize that AC Jazz changed their name to Express.. but now I see it has been like that since April.

So much to learn from this forum. :yes:

Technically, Jazz, a subsidiary under Air Canada, still exists. Air Canada added the "Express" name as a brand classification for all its short-haul regional flights because Air Canada also contracts other short-haul regional flight routes to other companies (i.e. Chorus Aviation operates Air Canada flights from Toronto City Airport).

mezzanine
Jan 29, 2012, 6:58 AM
anyhoo, the new YVR pipeline is under review, with the new change in its route - it will follow hwy 99 away from residential areas.

Comments are open at the EAO. I would encourage those who want an efficient airport and moving ++ tanker trucks off the road to write in a quick note.

If you don't like it, well, i guess you can write in too. ;)

http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pcp/forms/VAFD_form.html

s211
Jan 29, 2012, 5:29 PM
anyhoo, the new YVR pipeline is under review, with the new change in its route - it will follow hwy 99 away from residential areas.

Comments are open at the EAO. I would encourage those who want an efficient airport and moving ++ tanker trucks off the road to write in a quick note.

If you don't like it, well, i guess you can write in too. ;)

http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pcp/forms/VAFD_form.html

But it's a pipeline!

Pipelines = Hitler, or so the media would like me to believe.

jlousa
Jan 29, 2012, 5:53 PM
Ironically there is a gas pipeline to almost every single building in Metro area. Perhaps we should remove them and return to have fuel delivered by truck and we can go down the road and pick it up ourselves.
I don't see the reason to be so much against the pipe line, it'll be less dangerous then our main natural gas lines, and in the proposed environment any leak will be identified immediately and the line shut down almost instantly. Worst case scenario is you have localized spill which will get cleaned up.

whatnext
Jan 29, 2012, 6:57 PM
Technically, Jazz, a subsidiary under Air Canada, still exists. Air Canada added the "Express" name as a brand classification for all its short-haul regional flights because Air Canada also contracts other short-haul regional flight routes to other companies (i.e. Chorus Aviation operates Air Canada flights from Toronto City Airport).

Nope.

Jazz is not a subsidiary of Air Canada. It is wholly owned by Chrous Aviation (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=194177&p=irol-homeProfile&t=&id=&). Chorus does not operate Air Canada Express flights from YTZ, that was contracted out to a completely different company, Skyregional (http://www.skyregional.com/). You have to think that must have pissed Jazz off, I noticed the maple leaves have come off their hangar in Richmond:

http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy177/Whatnext2010/Richmond/JazzSign.jpg

Jazz also operates Thomas Cook 757 charter flights to the Carribean

deasine
Jan 29, 2012, 10:40 PM
Nope.

Jazz is not a subsidiary of Air Canada. It is wholly owned by Chrous Aviation (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=194177&p=irol-homeProfile&t=&id=&). Chorus does not operate Air Canada Express flights from YTZ, that was contracted out to a completely different company, Skyregional (http://www.skyregional.com/). You have to think that must have pissed Jazz off, I noticed the maple leaves have come off their hangar in Richmond:

Totally mixed up the names. You are right:

Jazz is the original regional brand, but as Air Canada added additional routes, it needed to change its regional brand to reflect other companies adding in.

Sure Jazz lost business to another company, but at the same time, Chorus Aviation took on business with Thomas Cook Canada. Goes both ways.

Hot Rod
Jan 30, 2012, 5:18 AM
Great to see the new agreement, it should open up Vancouver as an even stronger Star Alliance hub particularly when you consider the size of Beijing - soon to be the world's largest passenger airport (domestic and/or international). Having Vancouver as a strong hub is great for the city and far surpasses anything that my home city (Seattle) has; as Hainan is filling a niche (the ONLY airline with nonstop PEK-SEA service) and most of that capacity is premium.

One other point, Air China ALREADY has twice daily service (or something like 12 weekly flights) on the PEK-YVR route; I've flown both times of day (departure roughly 3am and departure roughly 1pm), I think they are or have moved the 3am departure earlier to the evening now but Im not sure if it runs daily or 5 times weekly in addition to the daily 1pm flight.

One final thought regarding the CA-Canada expansion, this could be an an assault on Cathay Pacific that could move pax away from HKG-YVR over to PEK-YVR. But I would be interested if they apply for the agreement, and if China Southern will (CAN-YVR) and China Eastern (PVG-YVR). There was news in China that Xiamen Airlines wants to start non-stop Xiamen-YVR service, and I believe Sichuan Airlines wants in the game with CTU-YVR. We'll have to wait and see what solidifies as airlines get 787's and move older planes from 'legacy carriers' Air China/China Southern/China Eastern to the smaller/now regional ones Sichuan Airlines/Xiamen Airlines/Hainan Airlines.

Personally, I find it hard to believe $5.00 would make a difference for somebody flying from YVR. I think there is more to it, such as SEA's vast/cheap national connection since it is not a fortress hub for any alliance. Those pax going from Vancouver to SEA are doing so for this reason, and not for International. I think it only makes sense for YVR to focus on what it is good at - International, particularly since SEA has added capacity that should have gone to YVR (thinking of Star Alliance's ANA NRT-SEA 787 service this year - however, I suspect this will replace United's current NRT-SEA 777 ops, which is always half empty). It is weird to see flag carriers at SEA, particularly any Star Alliance.

Will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I honestly dont think SEA has been the major competitor for YVR that some on here think, I think Toronto Pearson's Air Canada fortress and its demand for service/routes helped by the Federal Government protection is the real thing holding up Vancouver, regardless of YVR's Star Alliance fortress (for evidence, see X carriers who are non-star that are/were interested in adding routes but did not due to Air Canada/Toronto/Federal Govt).

ACT7
Jan 30, 2012, 5:41 AM
Having Vancouver as a strong hub is great for the city and far surpasses anything that my home city (Seattle) has; as Hainan is filling a niche (the ONLY airline with nonstop PEK-SEA service) and most of that capacity is premium.

There was news in China that Xiamen Airlines wants to start non-stop Xiamen-YVR service, and I believe Sichuan Airlines wants in the game with CTU-YVR.

I honestly dont think SEA has been the major competitor for YVR that some on here think, I think Toronto Pearson's Air Canada fortress and its demand for service/routes helped by the Federal Government protection is the real thing holding up Vancouver, regardless of YVR's Star Alliance fortress (for evidence, see X carriers who are non-star that are/were interested in adding routes but did not due to Air Canada/Toronto/Federal Govt).

See, but you hit the nail on the head with your first point. Hainan is predominantly premium capacity, which generally means higher yields - making it a very viable flight.

I'd be very curious to see how long Sichuan Airlines and potentially Xiamen Airlines will last in the Vancouver market. The Chinese carriers may be flooding a saturated market with all these flights. Yes, Vancouver has a large Chinese population but it is the fourth or fifth largest in N.A. and has been discussed at length on this and other threads, point-to-point traffic to YVR will only last for so long. As far as I know, Sichuan Airlines and Xiamen Airlines do not have agreements with other carriers within Canada or the U.S. for onward traffic out of YVR. Might not be that diffiicult to establish but is YVR the most practical stop-over considering SFO, LAX, JFK, YYZ all have larger Chinese populations and more business traffic. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Regarding your last point, I don't see the federal government supporting YYZ at all. In fact they milk so much rent out of YYZ that one could argue they are hampering its growth. Yes, Air Canada will likely focus on YYZ for the rest of its corporate life (population, cachement, and business traffic have everything to do with that), so that's why I think YVR has a tough road ahead. SEA is competition, no doubt, but really it's technology that has hampered YVR's growth (i.e. Ultra long range aircraft). As someone pointed out earlier of this thread, YVR's location is potentially its disadvantage as airlines can fly over Vancouver easily and enter the far larger markets to the east and to the south of it.

Hot Rod
Jan 30, 2012, 7:29 AM
Hainan is premium because it is the only flight from SEA-PEK. Im not sure how yields are doing, but it is the ONLY choice to China from SEA, nonstop. YVR has China Southern, Eastern, Air China, and Air Canada to mainland (likely more soon), and Cathay to HK. I've been very satisfied with flying from YVR to China (or connecting via YVR from SEA using Star Alliance).

I am pretty sure ANA is NOT adding capacity to the SEA-NRT route but likely are just taking over with their new/more efficient/smaller 787 what United is currently doing with 'empty' 777. I honestly couldn't believe the United flight is still in operation since they can't be making any money and SEA is not a Star hub, and the flight is significantly discounted given SkyTeam/Delta has more of a stronghold on the Japan market from SEA (767 flights to NRT and KIX).

The only other Asian competitive market like NRT-SEA is Seoul-SEA, which is served by Asiana and Korean; though Im not sure if it is daily on both. China Air got out of SEA, Eva remains for the SEA-TPE route. That's it for Asia from SEA.

Again, Im don't see how SEA is giving YVR competition internationally. Certainly not to Asia and both airports are quite comparable to Europe (particularly if you consider YVR's many charters).

SEA provides competition to YVR in US Domestic (YVR transborder) and BLI provides comp to HI and LAS, but that makes sense to me since SEA/BLI are US (and BLI specifically is targeting Canadian pax to justify its existence), this should not surprise Canadians just like I'd think/hope that YVR has better handle on Canadian domestic than SEA's few flights to Canada.

Again, it is nice to have choices and not be stuck with a monopoly one way or another.