PDA

View Full Version : YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion


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

SpongeG
Jan 30, 2012, 7:37 AM
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.

there is already a pipeline to the airport that comes from burnaby, but its older and needs upgrading or replacing and this new pipeline is shorter and better but people just don't want to hear it :shrug:

Hot Rod
Jan 30, 2012, 7:38 AM
Oh, I said YYZ is giving YVR competition because Air Canada has shifted some Asia flights to go polar from YYZ and are making some of YVR/YYC traffic connect in YYZ to help sustain it.

I wonder why they feel the need to do that, given YYZ has the entire Eastern Canada to catch from. ... If you want to follow a hub strategy, seems to make sense to me to have an East and West fortress hub so they can focus on their strengths without YYZ trying to monopolize everything going from the country. The way things are now, is why it costs so much for Canadians to fly - one central fortress hub that is fostered by the federal govt. ...

I think the foreign flag carriers from YVR is the equalizer since AC must maintain a presence, otherwise YYZ would have probably siphoned all Asia traffic from YVR - which is ridiculous to even consider. Canada needs to allow flag carriers access to YVR if they want to nurture only Air Canada's YYZ fortress or let the West Coast hub do it's job and YYZ handle the East - One or the other ...

One final thought, YVR probably should have just added the $5.00 facility charge to International/Transborder and maybe YYZ pax - since that Int'l is the focus of the expansion and likely growth area of flights and the YYZ fortress strategy is at the expense of YVR (from Air Canada pov).

deasine
Jan 30, 2012, 9:48 AM
Oh, I said YYZ is giving YVR competition because Air Canada has shifted some Asia flights to go polar from YYZ and are making some of YVR/YYC traffic connect in YYZ to help sustain it.

I wonder why they feel the need to do that, given YYZ has the entire Eastern Canada to catch from. ... If you want to follow a hub strategy, seems to make sense to me to have an East and West fortress hub so they can focus on their strengths without YYZ trying to monopolize everything going from the country. The way things are now, is why it costs so much for Canadians to fly - one central fortress hub that is fostered by the federal govt. ...

I think the foreign flag carriers from YVR is the equalizer since AC must maintain a presence, otherwise YYZ would have probably siphoned all Asia traffic from YVR - which is ridiculous to even consider. Canada needs to allow flag carriers access to YVR if they want to nurture only Air Canada's YYZ fortress or let the West Coast hub do it's job and YYZ handle the East - One or the other ...


One final thought, YVR probably should have just added the $5.00 facility charge to International/Transborder and maybe YYZ pax - since that Int'l is the focus of the expansion and likely growth area of flights and the YYZ fortress strategy is at the expense of YVR (from Air Canada pov).

Economies of scale. YYZ is their powerhouse, and while YVR has the facilities to handle maintenance and storage of their planes, most of that gets carried out in YYZ. And yes, their presence at YVR is really due to the amount of foreign carriers from Asia.

Funnelling Asia-Pacific (and Australian) passengers through YYZ to YVR also allows AC to pick-up additional passengers en-route while still marketing it as a "direct" flight (note the distinction between direct and non-stop). Without the funnel, I'm afraid many of AC's routes might not be able to sustain a nonstop flight to YVR. So for that matter, I support this, and plus I'm not the one who is being inconvenienced, it's people from YYZ.

As for the surcharge, it applies to all flights leaving British Columbia.

ACT7
Jan 30, 2012, 3:03 PM
Oh, I said YYZ is giving YVR competition because Air Canada has shifted some Asia flights to go polar from YYZ and are making some of YVR/YYC traffic connect in YYZ to help sustain it.

I wonder why they feel the need to do that, given YYZ has the entire Eastern Canada to catch from. ... If you want to follow a hub strategy, seems to make sense to me to have an East and West fortress hub so they can focus on their strengths without YYZ trying to monopolize everything going from the country. The way things are now, is why it costs so much for Canadians to fly - one central fortress hub that is fostered by the federal govt. ...

I think the foreign flag carriers from YVR is the equalizer since AC must maintain a presence, otherwise YYZ would have probably siphoned all Asia traffic from YVR - which is ridiculous to even consider. Canada needs to allow flag carriers access to YVR if they want to nurture only Air Canada's YYZ fortress or let the West Coast hub do it's job and YYZ handle the East - One or the other ...

One final thought, YVR probably should have just added the $5.00 facility charge to International/Transborder and maybe YYZ pax - since that Int'l is the focus of the expansion and likely growth area of flights and the YYZ fortress strategy is at the expense of YVR (from Air Canada pov).
Exactly as deasine said...economies of scale. YYZ's Asia-Pacific flights do not rely on YVR to exist. Nor is YYZ's hub at the expense of YVR. Nor is the federal government backing AC's YYZ hub strategy. As I said, the federal government takes more than a proportionate share of rent from YYZ relative to the traffic it handles so that argument does not hold any water.

All that aside, AC is in direct competition with the foreign flag carriers at YVR but all these flights have had a neutralizing effect on the Asia-Pacific traffic basically since 2002. If you look at true hubs around the world, YVR, unfortunately does not fall into that category. By Canadian standards it may be considered a secondary, maybe even tertiary hub (after YUL) for AC, but the reality is that Canada is simply not big enough to have multiple hubs the way that the U.S. does. So to blame AC for focusing their attention on YYZ is somewhat misdirected in my opinion since they are a business with the purpose of making money for their shareholders.

As I said before, YVR should focus on its strengths and keeps its ambitions more realistic.

PaperTiger
Jan 30, 2012, 6:28 PM
Nor is YYZ's hub at the expense of YVR. Nor is the federal government backing AC's YYZ hub strategy. As I said, the federal government takes more than a proportionate share of rent from YYZ relative to the traffic it handles so that argument does not hold any water.

I agree with many of your points but your argument here doesn’t hold water". The federal government benefits directly from the high rents and landing fees at Pearson. Therefore this would be a reason for them to support and encourage YYZ's status as Canada’s primary hub. It certainly isn’t evidence to the contrary.

ACT7
Jan 30, 2012, 7:03 PM
I agree with many of your points but your argument here doesn’t hold water". The federal government benefits directly from the high rents and landing fees at Pearson. Therefore this would be a reason for them to support and encourage YYZ's status as Canada’s primary hub. It certainly isn’t evidence to the contrary.
we may be locked in a chicken and egg discussion though. I would argue that Pearson has high landing fees as a direct result of high federal rents imposed on them. If the feds lowered the rent, Pearson (and every other Canadian airport for that matter) could attract more airlines and the total dollar volume of rent paid would probably increase. But that's a little off topic.

The feds may be benefitting from Pearson but I don't believe they are supporting AC's hub strategy there. AC will operate based on its own bottom line and YYZ makes the most sense as a hub.

deasine
Jan 30, 2012, 7:12 PM
Exactly as deasine said...economies of scale. YYZ's Asia-Pacific flights do not rely on YVR to exist. Nor is YYZ's hub at the expense of YVR. Nor is the federal government backing AC's YYZ hub strategy. As I said, the federal government takes more than a proportionate share of rent from YYZ relative to the traffic it handles so that argument does not hold any water.

All that aside, AC is in direct competition with the foreign flag carriers at YVR but all these flights have had a neutralizing effect on the Asia-Pacific traffic basically since 2002. If you look at true hubs around the world, YVR, unfortunately does not fall into that category. By Canadian standards it may be considered a secondary, maybe even tertiary hub (after YUL) for AC, but the reality is that Canada is simply not big enough to have multiple hubs the way that the U.S. does. So to blame AC for focusing their attention on YYZ is somewhat misdirected in my opinion since they are a business with the purpose of making money for their shareholders.

As I said before, YVR should focus on its strengths and keeps its ambitions more realistic.

I agree with many of your points but your argument here doesn’t hold water". The federal government benefits directly from the high rents and landing fees at Pearson. Therefore this would be a reason for them to support and encourage YYZ's status as Canada’s primary hub. It certainly isn’t evidence to the contrary.

Well, Transport Canada's persistence with limiting EK YZ flight slots in hopes to disperse EK flights throughout Canada is already a clear indicator that Transport Canada isn't just wholly interested in YYZ. One could argue these protectionist policies are protecting AC and Canadian Carriers best-interest, but this doesn't necessarily equate to backing the YYZ hub.

If Canadian carriers had the ability to tap into the American market and funnel passengers through its airport hubs, then having multiple Canadian hubs would be possible, but this isn't the reality. And even if this economically possible for Canadian carriers, the presence of international borders and its taxes and fees push prices for consumers to the point where something like this isn't possible. But this also causes American carriers to become clear competitors to Canadian Carriers, and I'm sure AC enjoys its reciprocal business relationship with United.

The relationship of alliances, the synergies between airlines within the alliances, and antitrust immunity, are clearly are benefiting the airlines: a quick look at airfare pricing of transatlantic flights from many North American gateways show nearly identical airfare pricing between carriers within the same alliance. Doesn't necessarily apply to the Canadian context, but for instance, AA, BA, and IB take this a step-further and are practically priced exactly the same. Same applies between AC, UA, and LF (including the LF group carriers). There is no priority to change this, nor is it really in AC's best interests.

WS's international presence (if they do not join an alliance) has the potential ability to rock the boat, so to speak, but this may only occur during the short-term. This is clear in the domestic market: AC prices drop to reflect the changes in demand and supply, but WS prices also have increased since their inception. Either way though, more carriers equates to more competition, and as we reach a stage in society where many carriers are merging with one another (BA and IB as IAG, UA and CO, LF and its portfolio of carriers, AF and KL, DL and NW, and with rumors and expectations of US merging with AA), any new competition should be welcomed. This is why YVR's strategy of decreasing upfront business costs for airline carriers is really one of the only ways of attracting more competition, and thus, theoretically, lower prices for consumers.

---

Unrelated note, but Hainan, despite its size, actually has one of the lowest cost per passenger of all the carriers in China (Asia).

casper
Jan 31, 2012, 4:08 AM
It looks like WestJet is about to add Kona and Kauai as year-round destinations from Vancouver.

http://westjet2.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=628

Whitehorse also being added as a destination from Vancouver.

Hot Rod
Jan 31, 2012, 6:41 AM
good news re: Westjet.

twoNeurons
Feb 1, 2012, 3:55 PM
Just got back from a flight on Air France. Great service. It's a shame Delta's taking over that route next month.

On another note, perhaps that frees up some Air France metal for a flight into Vancouver.

trofirhen
Feb 1, 2012, 5:08 PM
Just got back from a flight on Air France. Great service. It's a shame Delta's taking over that route next month.

On another note, perhaps that frees up some Air France metal for a flight into Vancouver.
:previous:

Do you think that's a real possibility? Oh, how I wish ...... :rolleyes: ... [ sorry folks, but you know how it is with me on that ...]

ACT7
Feb 2, 2012, 7:49 PM
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/westjet-sees-calgary-and-toronto-as-centres-for-its-new-regional-carrier-367740/

WestJet sees Calgary and Toronto as centres for its new regional carrier 
PrintBy:

Lori Ranson Washington DC 1 hours ago Source:

Management at WestJet today disclosed that its proposed new regional subsidiary would be centred in Calgary and Toronto.

WestJet last month unveiled its desire to launch a new turboprop operation to serve smaller Canadian cities and its employees are currently voting on the plan.

"We're wrapping up the voting in a few days and our board will make a decision in the coming weeks," the carrier told FlightglobalPro.

Carrier CEO Gregg Saretsky told attendees at the Raymond James Global Airline conference on 2 February the new subsidiary would have a national footprint with two operations, one centred in Calgary and the other in Toronto to serve domestic and transborder city pairs.

The new operation will have a three-pronged strategy, said Saretsky - targeting new destinations with a single competitor that charges monopoly fares, joining the dots on its own route map and schedule improvements to increase frequencies during off-peak times with smaller gauge aircraft operating with lower trip costs.

Saretsky said WestJet is really building "something here for business travellers that provides them more utility".

WestJet concludes there are 30 Canadian cities too small for the Boeing 737s it currently operates, and where fares on stage lengths of under one hour are upwards of $1,200 roundtrip.

Saretsky explained WestJet's highest fare on a coast-to-coast flight in Canada is $600 one way, and there are markets from Canada to the north eastern US that are 45 minutes to one hour, "where you'll pay $1,500 one way".

WestJet believes it can successfully replicate its low-fare model into the regional space and create a new stream of traffic to connect those small cities to its hubs, allowing for additional growth of its 737 fleet, Saretsky said.

The regional operation would be a separate subsidiary owned by WestJet, with roughly 40-plus 70-seat turbroprops. Saretsky mentioned both the Bombardier Q400 and the ATR 72-600 as possible airframes.

This doesn't exactly help the feeder potential that has been discussed regarding YVR's expansion strategy.

Re: Air France. Don't hold your breath on that one. I think AF kept a close eye on AC's run at that service and realized that the market just isn't lucrative enough right now for it.

trofirhen
Feb 2, 2012, 9:31 PM
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/westjet-sees-calgary-and-toronto-as-centres-for-its-new-regional-carrier-367740/

Re: Air France. Don't hold your breath on that one. I think AF kept a close eye on AC's run at that service and realized that the market just isn't lucrative enough right now for it.

:previous:
Yeah, I gotta concede. You're right on that one.

trofirhen
Feb 2, 2012, 9:45 PM
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/westjet-sees-calgary-and-toronto-as-centres-for-its-new-regional-carrier-367740/


A major question; will West Jet's subsidiary operate mostly out of Calgary and Toronto, or ONLY out of YCG and YYZ ?

Gordon
Feb 2, 2012, 9:47 PM
One would suspect that B.C. would play a part in west jets regional strategy, centers s such as Trail & Prince Rupert amongst other small interior destinations would be perfect or this service. Let's hope WestJet doesn't forget B.C.

SpongeG
Feb 3, 2012, 5:25 AM
westJet has added or expressed interest in fort st john for its regional service - was big news up there in the ignored part of BC

WestJet CEO names Fort St. John as target for expansion
In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Westjet CEO Gregg Saretsky names Fort St. John as a potential market the airline would service with the addition of smaller planes to their fleet.

http://energeticcity.ca/article/news/2012/01/01/westjet-ceo-names-fort-st-john-target-expansion

Denscity
Feb 3, 2012, 6:08 AM
One would suspect that B.C. would play a part in west jets regional strategy, centers s such as Trail & Prince Rupert amongst other small interior destinations would be perfect or this service. Let's hope WestJet doesn't forget B.C.

Trail does not have a long enough runway, has no security, poor maintenance equipment, no control tower, no terminal just a construction trailer, and no money in the bank to put in this stuff. Castlegar on the other hand has a mile long runway, catsa security, transport canada approved maintenance equipment, a nav canada control tower, an empty space for a second airline like the old days, and Air Canada with no competition.

ACT7
Feb 3, 2012, 6:53 PM
A major question; will West Jet's subsidiary operate mostly out of Calgary and Toronto, or ONLY out of YCG and YYZ ?
I think their focus will be YYC and YYZ mainly. In other words, their two existing hubs. Doesn't mean YVR will be left out of the picture completely of course. It's just that the need for serious feeder traffic through YVR will not be addressed with WJ. That may change though if WJ can secure more partnerships and interline agreements.

ACT7
Feb 3, 2012, 6:56 PM
I don't even know where to begin with this one...

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/326871--abbotsford-airport-wants-routes-to-europe-india-toronto

Abbotsford Airport wants routes to Europe, India, Toronto
Hopes that would Fraser Valley economy

Dan Burritt Feb 03, 2012 08:22:10 AM

ABBOTSFORD (NEWS1130) - Abbotsford International Airport is looking overseas to help attract some new customers and boost its business to become a bigger economic engine for the Fraser Valley.

Business Development Manager Jean-Paul Laube says they hope to take in $2 million worth of revenue in 2013, up from the estimated $1.4 million they currently make.

"We have a fairly comprehensive strategy to make sure that we treat the airport as the economic driver that it can be, and that it should be," explains Laube.

"That comes down to what we can do by way of commercial aviation, potentially charter aviation, aerospace and industrial development, and then lastly cargo and intermodal... transportation of goods," he adds.

Laube explains the airport would also like to attract more international carriers, although he admits it takes time.

"We look at things like some European flying... India would [also be] a great route to develop, given the size of the Indo-Canadian community in our catchment area... But also, routes like Toronto would be well-received by this community. So we're always pursuing that."

The airport recently underwent a $30 million renovation. It's currently run by an authority that answers to city hall.

I could see a flight to Toronto in the future...maybe, plus some sun destinations at best.

MalcolmTucker
Feb 4, 2012, 12:23 AM
I'm not sure they have the capacity for it, but they should target Transat, like how they used to run out of Mirabel for Montreal. If they can handle the immigration, and has low cost enough parking, could lead to a shift, but I doubt it would be worth it, especially with Canada Line at YVR.

deasine
Feb 4, 2012, 12:38 AM
I think their focus will be YYC and YYZ mainly. In other words, their two existing hubs. Doesn't mean YVR will be left out of the picture completely of course. It's just that the need for serious feeder traffic through YVR will not be addressed with WJ. That may change though if WJ can secure more partnerships and interline agreements.

If WS were to have some trans-pacific routes, I can see them operate some routes from YYC/YYZ via YVR to pick up passengers (a la AC). Perhaps they can also leverage Japan and Canada's bilateral fifth freedom agreements via Japanese airports outside of NRT/HND.

Johnny Aussie
Feb 6, 2012, 9:53 AM
Just returned from yet another trip around Australia and just read on airlineroute.net...
As suspected, CZ increasing YVR 18 June to 5 weekly.

trofirhen
Feb 6, 2012, 10:42 AM
I'd love to see one or two more trans-Atlantic routes appear. No chance of that, with any airline, I am sure.

LeftCoaster
Feb 6, 2012, 3:00 PM
^ Get your economy out of the crapper and maybe there will be some impetus, but until then I wouldn't hope for much growth there.

Bigtime
Feb 6, 2012, 3:11 PM
Dear YVR,

Thanks for the crappy weather on Saturday, as we got to enjoy Air China diverting here as a result.

Love,

YYC spotters

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6819621313_1081d16359_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigtimeaa/6819621313/)
Korea and China (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigtimeaa/6819621313/) by BigtimeAa (http://www.flickr.com/people/bigtimeaa/), on Flickr

twoNeurons
Feb 6, 2012, 3:58 PM
Dear YVR,

Thanks for the crappy weather on Saturday, as we got to enjoy Air China diverting here as a result.

Love,

YYC spotters


Wha?!? Was the weather bad? It was sunny and clear on Saturday in Vancouver!

twoNeurons
Feb 6, 2012, 3:59 PM
If WS were to have some trans-pacific routes, I can see them operate some routes from YYC/YYZ via YVR to pick up passengers (a la AC). Perhaps they can also leverage Japan and Canada's bilateral fifth freedom agreements via Japanese airports outside of NRT/HND.

How about YVR - KIX (Osaka)? << grin >>

Bigtime
Feb 6, 2012, 4:08 PM
Wha?!? Was the weather bad? It was sunny and clear on Saturday in Vancouver!

Saturday morning perhaps? That is the reason given for Air China diverting here, stayed on the ground for a couple of hours and departed back to YVR around 2:30 or so.

teriyaki
Feb 6, 2012, 6:24 PM
Wha?!? Was the weather bad? It was sunny and clear on Saturday in Vancouver!

In Richmond, and probably YVR the fog was extremely thick in the morning.

trofirhen
Feb 6, 2012, 7:00 PM
I'd love to see one or two more trans-Atlantic routes appear. No chance of that, with any airline, I am sure.

^ Get your economy out of the crapper and maybe there will be some impetus, but until then I wouldn't hope for much growth there.
:previous::previous::previous:

Very, very true. Just how to get the economy going again is a toughie, looking at all the plants and factories that are relocating to Asia, shutting down factories, and of course, taking jobs with them.

p78hub
Feb 7, 2012, 2:08 AM
In Richmond, and probably YVR the fog was extremely thick in the morning.

Actually, it was pretty foggy for most of Saturday around the entire city. The fog lifted some time early Sunday. There were other flights that were diverted to Calgary because of the fog.

Jebby
Feb 7, 2012, 2:46 AM
:previous::previous::previous:

Very, very true. Just how to get the economy going again is a toughie, looking at all the plants and factories that are relocating to Asia, shutting down factories, and of course, taking jobs with them.



Lowering corporate taxes would bring some jobs back here, also scrapping is much of the EU regulatory burden imposed by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Bruxelles.

quobobo
Feb 7, 2012, 4:03 AM
How about YVR - KIX (Osaka)? << grin >>

Unfortunately I doubt that's going to happen. I flew YVR - Narita in November and it was maybe half full both ways - if there isn't much of a market for that route anymore, I doubt there's one for Osaka. It's a shame, I miss the old flights to KIX as it's a much nicer airport.

usog
Feb 7, 2012, 6:57 AM
Is YVR-Asia really seasonal or something? I only fly over there in the Summer/Winter but the flights are always packed when I do.

deasine
Feb 7, 2012, 7:21 AM
YVR-HKG is always packed, even during low season.

mezzanine
Feb 7, 2012, 7:22 AM
I flew JAL last dec 2010 and it was pretty full.

Hopefully, JAL will pick up more business year-round now that they code-share with westjet. JAL's website routes EDM, CGY, winnipeg and some of TO thru vancouver. with the terminal improvements making transfers easier, this would be even stronger.

Hot Rod
Feb 7, 2012, 8:27 AM
that is the key, increase Vancouver's catchment!

ACT7
Feb 7, 2012, 5:39 PM
What's interesting is that going back to 2000, YVR's international traffic growth has been roughly .8% per year on average. Transborder has been a mere .19% per year on average. In other words international pax traffic is 9.3% higher as of the end of 2011 compared to 2000 and transborder is only 2.2% higher. Something has happened at YVR.

Some of that can be explained away from 9/11, and economic slowdown in 2008-2009 but some of the in-between years are difficult to explain.

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

For example, what happened between 2005 and 2006? The Olympics had no effect whatsoever on pax growth. Other than making the airport look pretty, the airport authority doesn't seem to be grasping the dwindling growth. Might be time for a shake-up at YVR.

Zassk
Feb 7, 2012, 6:13 PM
According to the various stats at http://www.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/src/datadisp.xml, air traffic in general has been basically flat since 2002. It would seem that YVR has slightly beat the overall trend. I'm not sure that there is anything in particular that needs explaining. For example, what are you referring to in 2005-06? YVR shows an incremental growth in those years just like every other recent year.

trofirhen
Feb 7, 2012, 6:16 PM
What's interesting is that going back to 2000, YVR's international traffic growth has been roughly .8% per year on average. Transborder has been a mere .19% per year on average. In other words international pax traffic is 9.3% higher as of the end of 2011 compared to 2000 and transborder is only 2.2% higher. Something has happened at YVR.

Some of that can be explained away from 9/11, and economic slowdown in 2008-2009 but some of the in-between years are difficult to explain.

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

For example, what happened between 2005 and 2006? The Olympics had no effect whatsoever on pax growth. Other than making the airport look pretty, the airport authority doesn't seem to be grasping the dwindling growth. Might be time for a shake-up at YVR.
:previous::previous::previous:

Totally agreed, esp when you consider that Brisbane's traffic equals ours, and Oslo, a city half the size or less has more pax than we do.

My question to you,and anyone else is, given that the airport authority doesn't seem to be grasping the dwindling growth, what form would this "shake up" take? A restructuring of personnel? Or something else?

ACT7
Feb 7, 2012, 6:28 PM
For example, what are you referring to in 2005-06? YVR shows an incremental growth in those years just like every other recent year.

Not for international traffic. Down by 4,000 pax - essentially flat.

ACT7
Feb 7, 2012, 6:37 PM
:previous::previous::previous:

Totally agreed, esp when you consider that Brisbane's traffic equals ours, and Oslo, a city half the size or less has more pax than we do.

My question to you,and anyone else is, given that the airport authority doesn't seem to be grasping the dwindling growth, what form would this "shake up" take? A restructuring of personnel? Or something else?
I think that YVR needs someone at the helm who has come from running another major international airport in either Asia or Europe. Much like YYZ has just done - the nee CEO is the former COO at HKG. Canadian guy, but still.

Larry Berg seems to be too focused on aesthetics and streamlining international-domestic transfers for a segment that isn't growing too quickly. I'm not saying ignore that side of the operation, but I think there should be more focus on true growth. As I've said before, all the extra Asian flights that he brags about have had a redistribution effect on YVR, not a true growth effect.

Good point about Brisbane and Oslo too.

deasine
Feb 7, 2012, 6:45 PM
I'm not going to comment so much on Brisbane as I don't have much knowledge of their operations, but with regards to Oslo, keep in mind this is Norwegian Air Shuttle's main hub. Norwegian is one of the most successful low cost carriers in Europe, expected to grow as large as Easyjet within the next few years, and has really shaken up the market distribution in Scandinavia. It's a threat to legacy carriers such as SAS and Finnair. It has also ordered 787s and is expected to begin international long-haul routes pretty soon (quite a risky move as no low-cost carriers haven't really yet mastered this). So naturally, Oslo's traffic is significant due to the fact that its a hub!

My post I made a few pages back, I've pointed out that unless YVR becomes a major hub for an airline, it will be a challenge to gain high traffic numbers as it relies on a collection of foreign carriers that otherwise relies on Vancouver demand and on the transit-network by Canadian carriers, namely WestJet and Air Canada. Perhaps if anything, YVR needs to find ways to attract more WestJet and Air Canada operations to Vancouver. WestJet will probably have a higher chance given its expansion and interests in establishing international routes.

ACT7
Feb 7, 2012, 6:45 PM
According to the various stats at http://www.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/src/datadisp.xml, air traffic in general has been basically flat since 2002. It would seem that YVR has slightly beat the overall trend. I'm not sure that there is anything in particular that needs explaining. For example, what are you referring to in 2005-06? YVR shows an incremental growth in those years just like every other recent year.
I guess I wouldn't consider slightly beating the average much of an accomplishment for a so-called hub.

9.3% and 2.2% growth in international and transborder traffic respectively over 11 years is not great anyway you slice it.

deasine
Feb 7, 2012, 7:14 PM
And more evidence of WS seriously taking on the transborder market; fresh from the pressroom.

This can definitely start more price wars between WestJet and Star Alliance carriers United and Air Canada. On the East Coast, Porter, Air Canada, and WestJet have offered fares to New York at unbelievably low prices. Depending on flight scheduling, this could become a feeder/codeshare for airlines such as CZ (no service to the East Coast) and MU (service to only New York).

WestJet adds Chicago to growing network

Airline complements eastern code-share flights with new service from the West

CALGARY, Feb. 7, 2012 /CNW/ - WestJet today announced it will launch daily non-stop service between Chicago and Vancouver, and between Chicago and Calgary, effective May 14, 2012.

While WestJet will fly these routes with its own Boeing 737 Next-Generation aircraft, the airline will continue to market non-stop service from Chicago to Toronto, Chicago to Ottawa and Chicago to Montreal on our partner American Airlines' code-share flights. Chicago is an American Airlines' major hub, providing connections to key destinations in the U.S. and across the world.

"We're pleased to introduce service to and from Chicago," said John MacLeod, WestJet Vice-President, Network Management and Alliances. "The addition of Chicago shows how our continued growth and code-share agreements are working together to provide guests with non-stop service from the East and West. We believe this balance appeals to both business and leisure travellers looking to experience what Chicago has to offer, as well as for northbound travellers looking to visit Banff and the Rocky Mountains via Calgary or board cruise ships from Vancouver. We look forward to welcoming new and returning guests on board these exciting new services."

WestJet non-stop service between Vancouver, Calgary and Chicago is subject to government approval.

Full schedule details and great introductory one-way fares start at $149 from Calgary and $169 from Vancouver, plus applicable taxes and fees. Fares are available by visiting westjet.com, by calling WestJet's Sales Super Centre at 1-888-WESTJET (937-8538) or through your preferred travel agent.

With more access to more vacation destinations than ever before, WestJet Vacations offers flexible and convenient packages to popular destinations throughout WestJet's network, including Chicago. Guests can enjoy Chicago's Magnificent Mile with the convenience of booking flights and hotel together. Vacation packages will be available prior to the launch of service in May. For more information, visit westjetvacations.com, contact a WestJet Vacations Experience Specialist at 1-877-737-7001 or see your preferred travel agent.

The new destination announcement follows the release of the airline's summer schedule, which includes:

Seven-times daily service to New York (LaGuardia)
Daily service to Whitehorse, Yukon
Three-times weekly service to Kingston, Jamaica
Weekly non-stop service to Aruba
About WestJet
WestJet is Canada's favourite airline, offering scheduled service throughout its 76-city North American and Caribbean network. Inducted into Canada's Most Admired Corporate Cultures Hall of Fame and named one of Canada's best employers, WestJet pioneered low-cost flying in Canada. WestJet offers increased legroom and leather seats on its modern fleet of 97 Boeing Next-Generation 737 aircraft. With future confirmed deliveries for an additional 38 aircraft through 2018, WestJet strives to be one of the five most successful international airlines in the world.

About WestJet Vacations
WestJet Vacations provides guests with affordable, reliable and easy-to-book travel experiences to 45 destinations in 12 countries, including the United States, Mexico and the Caribbean. Leveraging WestJet's fun and friendly image, extensive network and world-class guest experience, WestJet Vacations offers guests a great flight schedule and a wide variety of hotel and resort options to create fun and affordable vacation experiences. For more information, visit www.westjetvacations.com.

Connect with WestJet on Facebook at www.facebook.com/westjet
Follow WestJet on Twitter at www.twitter.com/westjet
Subscribe to WestJet on YouTube at www.youtube.com/westjet

For further information:

Media contact
Robert Palmer, Media Relations, telephone: 1-888-WJ 4 NEWS (1-888-954-6397), email: media@westjet.com.

(via WestJet (http://westjet2.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=631))

ACT7
Feb 7, 2012, 7:16 PM
So naturally, Oslo's traffic is significant due to the fact that its a hub!

My post I made a few pages back, I've pointed out that unless YVR becomes a major hub for an airline, it will be a challenge to gain high traffic numbers as it relies on a collection of foreign carriers that otherwise relies on Vancouver demand and on the transit-network by Canadian carriers, namely WestJet and Air Canada. Perhaps if anything, YVR needs to find ways to attract more WestJet and Air Canada operations to Vancouver. WestJet will probably have a higher chance given its expansion and interests in establishing international routes.

That's exactly the point, Oslo is a hub. Sadly, YVR is not really a hub. WJ's new regional carrier is focusing on YYC and YYZ, at least for the short term. That doesn't bode well for feeder traffic through YVR. Attracting Virgin Atlantic and Sichuan Airlines is not enough. Besides, I personally don't think Virgin will last too long and Sichuan just makes the market too crowded.

What I find particularly amusing is when CZ launched YVR service (and good on them for making it work so far) I read an article in a magazine that said the reason they wanted to fly to YVR was because, and I quote "Vancouver's Chinese population has been ranked as #1 in North America". First of all, I'm not even sure what the hell that means. Second of all, if they mean size of population it's not true, and third of all, that's hardly a reason to link up two cities if the yields will be low. It's concerning to see that's how some of the market research has been. I wish I could find the article again online but it was physically in a magazine at Indigo.

Gordon
Feb 7, 2012, 7:41 PM
WestJet's addition of Chicago is a good because it breaks AC\UA's monopoly on that route and will hopefully bring down prices.

I think Virgin is a low cost carrier so their service could be very popular.

ACT7
Feb 7, 2012, 8:01 PM
I think Virgin is a low cost carrier so their service could be very popular.

Could be. But their PR was to stimulate demand for the Olympics. Beyond that, I'm not sure how well the route will do.

Zassk
Feb 7, 2012, 8:05 PM
I guess I wouldn't consider slightly beating the average much of an accomplishment for a so-called hub.

But as you said yourself in a later post, it is not a hub!

The demise of Canadian Airlines dealt a blow to any hopes of YVR becoming a hub. Even then, Calgary was the one being nurtured as a hub, not YVR.

Do we really have any chance of becoming a hub for any carrier? Our geographic location seems like it would always prevent this.

cornholio
Feb 7, 2012, 8:14 PM
Lowering corporate taxes would bring some jobs back here, also scrapping is much of the EU regulatory burden imposed by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Bruxelles.

I really really dont want to take this of topic but I have to respond, this would be the single stupidest thing they could do. Europe unlike NA doesnt have a strong resource based sector and it doesnt have a growing population either because it is already fully populated. The single best thing they could do, and In the next decade NA and most developed countries will be taking similar routes, is increasing protectionist measures and closing their borders to trade with un equal competition. Imposing heavy import taxes on products from countries which are third world manufacturing hubs and closing their borders off to competition from these countries. Lowering corporate taxes further would be a absolute disaster and wreck destruction on Europe, protectionism is the way to go. That means opening up trade between developed countries(ex.EU, NA, Japan, Korea, etc. lots of countries on a equal playing field) and while capping trade with developing countries who are cheap manufacturing hubs and not equal competition.

trofirhen
Feb 7, 2012, 8:23 PM
But as you said yourself in a later post, it is not a hub!

The demise of Canadian Airlines dealt a blow to any hopes of YVR becoming a hub. Even then, Calgary was the one being nurtured as a hub, not YVR.

Do we really have any chance of becoming a hub for any carrier? Our geographic location seems like it would always prevent this.

:previous:
That's true, but the volume of our California traffic exceeds that of Calagary, the volume of our winter vacation routes (two now year-round in Hawaii from YVR) plus simply the fact that Vancouver is a larger city (x 2.5) and therefore air market, might ... just might ... make YVR another another hub for West Jet? Or am I overoptimistic?

anyway, I forgot ... West Jet to Chicago, yeay !!!! :cheers:

ACT7
Feb 7, 2012, 8:23 PM
But as you said yourself in a later post, it is not a hub!

The demise of Canadian Airlines dealt a blow to any hopes of YVR becoming a hub. Even then, Calgary was the one being nurtured as a hub, not YVR.

Do we really have any chance of becoming a hub for any carrier? Our geographic location seems like it would always prevent this.
Precisely, I did say that. I was saying 'so-called' in this case because unfortunately AC gives false hope and YVR itself touts this claim as well.

I don't think geography is the reason that YVR will never be a true hub though (LAX is a true hub on the same coast). It's simply market size and market dynamics. L.A. is obviously a much bigger city but further away from Asia than YVR is.

Totally agree with your assessment of Canadian Airlines too.

ACT7
Feb 7, 2012, 8:27 PM
:previous:
That's true, but the volume of our California traffic exceeds that of Calagary, the volume of our winter vacation routes (two now year-round in Hawaii from YVR) plus simply the fact that Vancouver is a larger city and therefore air market might ... just might ... make YVR another another hub for West Jet? Or am I overoptimistic?

oh, I forgot ... West Jet to Chicago, yeay !!!! :cheers:
I think WJ will use the same wording as AC regarding YVR, calling it a hub at some point, but I don't think Wesjet is big enough to have 3 true hubs. It's a focus city right now and will probably continue to be that for the forseeable future. But maybe I'm being too pessimistic...

Chikinlittle
Feb 7, 2012, 11:07 PM
WestJet's addition of Chicago is a good because it breaks AC\UA's monopoly on that route and will hopefully bring down prices.

I think Virgin is a low cost carrier so their service could be very popular.



Virgin Atlantic is NOT a discount carrier. And while Virgin America is priced as a discount carrier, it's value is amazing and the inflight experience probably one of the best of any carrier in North America.

deasine
Feb 7, 2012, 11:49 PM
:previous:
That's true, but the volume of our California traffic exceeds that of Calagary, the volume of our winter vacation routes (two now year-round in Hawaii from YVR) plus simply the fact that Vancouver is a larger city (x 2.5) and therefore air market, might ... just might ... make YVR another another hub for West Jet? Or am I overoptimistic?

anyway, I forgot ... West Jet to Chicago, yeay !!!! :cheers:

I think WJ will use the same wording as AC regarding YVR, calling it a hub at some point, but I don't think Wesjet is big enough to have 3 true hubs. It's a focus city right now and will probably continue to be that for the forseeable future. But maybe I'm being too pessimistic...

Plus, YYC and YVR are just so close: it would be absolutely unsustainable for them to have two hubs at such geographical proximity. One of which will come out on top, and most likely that will be YYC because (1) it already has their base there, (2) it's cheaper to operate than YVR (I'm making an assumption here, but I think this assumption is valid).

Which is why when I look at WS international expansion, I can only see the Asian routes use YVR en-route to pick up the demand YVR has that YYC doesn't have. And plus, by doing this, economies of scale, it can still focus all of its maintenance work at YYC. But still, this is simply funneling traffic through. And unless demand significantly picks up at YVR (to warrant more attention by Canadian carriers), there will be little incentive for carriers to upgrade YVR to a true hub status.

And note, if an airline relies on a transit-market, there's no need to do it at YVR, carriers can use cheaper alternatives. Carriers are choosing to do so at YVR instead of YYC is because of our demand and that WS hasn't been penetrated the transborder market yet.

Nothing is static in the aviation world. YVR really needs to step up the game not only to attract new and more carriers, but also to retain existing ones. But then again, how much agency does the airport authority have given our current structure? I don't want to make it sound like doom and gloom, but I can't see how much YVR can do better other than improving its current product and offerings.

PaperTiger
Feb 8, 2012, 12:22 AM
YVR can only play to its strengths and try and communicate those strengths to the airline community. Ultimately the Airlines invest where they think they can realize a profit.

They have terminal capacity, they have no PST on fuel for international flights. They have top notch ground services , maintenance facilities, reasonable landing fees, Trans-border pre-clearance etc. etc. They are about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on additional improvements. They were also voted the Best airport in North America. How exactly are they supposed to “Step Up” for Pete’s sake?

With regard to the WS hub issue, the other factor (beside cost) is location. Calgary is more central to western Canada therefore functions better as a western Canadian hub. If I live in Edmonton I’m not going to be keen on a jaunt to YVR before heading to YYZ, but a stop in YYC is more palatable. Once YYC is established as a WS hub it doesn’t make sense for them to try and make YVR one as well.

ACT7
Feb 8, 2012, 1:53 AM
They were also voted the Best airport in North America. How exactly are they supposed to “Step Up” for Pete’s sake?

Best airport in North America as voted by travellers and maybe travel agents is nice but it hardly means that that will translate into more traffic. It just means that it's a nice airport, which it is. So is YWG now - doesn't mean a thing if the building is empty half the time. By 'step up' we mean focus on its strengths for the market that it is, not just aesthetically improve the airport facilities. I would say focus on feeder traffic as much as possible to build its Asia Pacific network. It will never grow that segment based on the O&D demand that it has now. That's been proven since 2002 with the stagnant growth.

twoNeurons
Feb 8, 2012, 3:32 AM
People saying Vancouver is bigger than Calgary need to remember that if you're including YXX's catchment area (Abbotsford) into Vancouver then you have to include Edmonton when talking about Calgary.

In addition, Calgary has more head offices (more business travel).

Vancouver's traffic is primarily west. There are many Chinese nationals who live here and work in China and there is a lot of leisure travel.

If Vancouver can score a big head office or two its airport may respond in kind.

memememe76
Feb 8, 2012, 3:51 AM
I don't know if there are any numbers to back this up, but YVR seems to attract a good number of locals who come to the airport just for the fun of it. At least for me, we took our kids to the airport (after a day Downtown skating at the "ice rink" at the Art Gallery) via the Canada Line. Having Subway/A&W/Burger King for dinner while watching the planes on the runway made for an entertaining couple of hours. The kids love those telescopes!

Gordon
Feb 8, 2012, 4:44 AM
The airport can only do so much to attract airlines, when the landing slots are contolled by Ottawa.
when Victoria re-introduces they PST the should exclude Aviation fuel from the tax. did the Provincial government ever actually remove the aviation fuel surtax as they promised?

I wonder if the government make the airport a tax free zone . That would certainly help the cost competitiveness side of things.

trofirhen
Feb 8, 2012, 6:48 AM
YVR can only play to its strengths and try and communicate those strengths to the airline community. Ultimately the Airlines invest where they think they can realize a profit.

They have terminal capacity, they have no PST on fuel for international flights. They have top notch ground services , maintenance facilities, reasonable landing fees, Trans-border pre-clearance etc. etc. They are about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on additional improvements. They were also voted the Best airport in North America. How exactly are they supposed to “Step Up” for Pete’s sake?

With regard to the WS hub issue, the other factor (beside cost) is location. Calgary is more central to western Canada therefore functions better as a western Canadian hub. If I live in Edmonton I’m not going to be keen on a jaunt to YVR before heading to YYZ, but a stop in YYC is more palatable. Once YYC is established as a WS hub it doesn’t make sense for them to try and make YVR one as well.

Best airport in North America as voted by travellers and maybe travel agents is nice but it hardly means that that will translate into more traffic. It just means that it's a nice airport, which it is. So is YWG now - doesn't mean a thing if the building is empty half the time. By 'step up' we mean focus on its strengths for the market that it is, not just aesthetically improve the airport facilities. I would say focus on feeder traffic as much as possible to build its Asia Pacific network. It will never grow that segment based on the O&D demand that it has now. That's been proven since 2002 with the stagnant growth.

People saying Vancouver is bigger than Calgary need to remember that if you're including YXX's catchment area (Abbotsford) into Vancouver then you have to include Edmonton when talking about Calgary.

In addition, Calgary has more head offices (more business travel).

Vancouver's traffic is primarily west. There are many Chinese nationals who live here and work in China and there is a lot of leisure travel.

If Vancouver can score a big head office or two its airport may respond in kind.
:previous::previous::previous:

All the above statements would seem to indicate that YVR will not become a major hub until it is a bigger city with a more important, and diverse, economy. That seems to be where Vancouver should -somehow - be making a push.

golog
Feb 8, 2012, 7:17 AM
Moving up in the rankings isn't always about growing absolutely, it's also about hanging on when others slide back

The population centers of Canada and America are moving westward and have been ever since the first censuses. Economies all over the globe are on shaky footing. I think YVR's approach is doing the best with what it can, making steady progress but not relying on any more than what it already has to support such investments.

Unlike the American airports that get subsidies, it has to kickback rent and airlines have to pay for navigation services, and passengers have to pay for security costs (correct?) Furthermore the spatial distribution of major Canadian population centres and Federal government airline agreements are another key hindrance. Some of these obstacles may fall by the wayside, and YVR will get a boon for having succeeded before without that relative help its competitors had. It's actually possible for all of those relative disadvantages beyond YVR's control to change significantly in just 5 years, at which point we might talk about the undue advantage of an easier border to commute through than the American.

The one change coming to their operating environment they can predict is for longer ranged flights with newer aircraft, and new trans-arctic routes. There will be both new opportunities and new competition. I wouldn't be surprised to see increased Open Skies from the Federal government at that time, otherwise I don't know why they have paused some of their negotiations.

If YVR were to behave like you might wish them to, say by borrowing and spending a few billion to seize upon a long term geographic advantage then they would increase the probability of complete failure much quicker than they would success. They're doing the right thing by patiently making decisions on what exists today.

I don't know if anyone sees Burkeville (the mini suburb SE of the airport, leftover from WWII manufacturing) lasting on Sea Island forever, but until there is a better need for the land I wouldn't see the rush to develop the land ASAP. Dubai and China make for great forum threads, but the magic never lasts as long as the developments do.

Paris was once a cesspool and Fordlandia grew at incredible rates because it had one of the world's richest companies partnering with a completely cooperative government. Paris stuck around, Fordlandia didn't.

Bigtime
Feb 8, 2012, 2:51 PM
I don't know if there are any numbers to back this up, but YVR seems to attract a good number of locals who come to the airport just for the fun of it. At least for me, we took our kids to the airport (after a day Downtown skating at the "ice rink" at the Art Gallery) via the Canada Line. Having Subway/A&W/Burger King for dinner while watching the planes on the runway made for an entertaining couple of hours. The kids love those telescopes!

That's pretty neat, as it stands right now doing something like that at YYC just wouldn't be very affordable with parking, although I guess one could always use the bus service to the airport (but that is not as direct and accessible as the Canada line is).

mezzanine
Feb 8, 2012, 4:36 PM
Totally agreed, esp when you consider that Brisbane's traffic equals ours, and Oslo, a city half the size or less has more pax than we do.



It's always good to compare and see if we can learn from other centres, but the comparisons are not entirely equal. Oslo obviously is the capital Norway and really not on the same league as vancouver.

Brisbane (http://bne.com.au/media-centre/passenger-statistics) has an equivalent amount of intl traffic to vancouver (http://www.yvr.ca/Libraries/Facts_and_Stats/December_2011_Passenger.sflb.ashx). Remember, the intl traffic is counted separtely from USA-transborder. Intl traffic to YVR i assume are more longer range flights compared to brisbane

A big difference with brisbane seems to be high domestic pax, which is aided by deregulation of AUS domestic aviation (http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/27/Files/IS006.pdf), which i am not sure is comparable to canada's system. perhaps JohnnyAussie can correct me or add to this.

still though, i think larry berg is on the right track with improvements to airport effeciency. Adding the proposed pipeline from the south arm of the fraser would also be important.

golog
Feb 8, 2012, 6:41 PM
Air France to cancel 40 percent of long-haul flights (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-france-airfrance-idUSTRE8170JI20120208)
(Reuters) - Air France said on Wednesday it expected to cancel up to 40 percent of its long-haul flights and up to 30 percent of shorter flights as a pilot strike ran into its third day.

Air France has had to notify thousands of passengers of axed flights this week via email or text message.

On Tuesday, roughly one in two long and medium-haul flights were cut, but many passengers were re-routed on alternative flights, the airline said.

The SNPL pilots union says around half its members are participating in the action over plans by the conservative government to make strikers in the airline industry give two days' notice before any walkout. Currently, they are not required to give any notice.

The industrial action, which adds to travel disarray caused by freezing temperatures across Europe, was set to run until Thursday night.

French daily La Tribune, citing unnamed sources, said Air France loses roughly 15 million euros ($20 million) per day during a strike, before the cost of compensating passengers.

Transport Minister Thierry Mariani said earlier this week the government was determined to push through the legislation, which would let airlines plan minimum services during a strike rather than finding out on the day that staff have not showed up.

The legislation, adopted in the lower house of parliament in January, is to be taken up by the Senate in mid-February.

(Reporting by Catherine Bremer; Editing by Alessandra Rizzo)

YVR is suddenly closer to the top of the rankings, while this is temporary I wouldn't be surprised to see significant shaking out of airlines in the next few years.

Valley_Refugee
Feb 8, 2012, 7:11 PM
Hey guys, I follow this thread closely but don't post very often...I feel the need to chime in on two things:

1) Brisbane - Australian cities are even more isolated than Canadian ones. Brisbane is not near any other major population centre. Vancouver is a relatively easy drive to Calgary, Edmonton, Seattle, Portland, and even San Fran.

2) YVR is still Air Canada's second-largest base of operations, so it's not exactly neglected by AC. I only have 2009 stats available, but I don't think there's been a significant change in terms of ranking: http://www.anna.aero/2009/12/11/air-canada-growing-atlantic-services-now-represent-25-of-all-capacity/

Yes, [as trofhiren never fails to remind us :)] Vancouver is not a major world city. But for a city of around 2.3-2.5 million, we punch WAY above our weight in terms of our airport. Montreal is approaching 4M and has significantly less air traffic. Denver has less connectivity to Europe and none (I believe) to Asia. Anyways, I know you know all this...but it's good to keep in mind that many American cities of our size barely have flights to even Canada or Mexico, let alone Europe, Asia, and Australia. :)

ACT7
Feb 8, 2012, 7:47 PM
Hey guys, I follow this thread closely but don't post very often...I feel the need to chime in on two things:

1) Brisbane - Australian cities are even more isolated than Canadian ones. Brisbane is not near any other major population centre. Vancouver is a relatively easy drive to Calgary, Edmonton, Seattle, Portland, and even San Fran.

2) YVR is still Air Canada's second-largest base of operations, so it's not exactly neglected by AC. I only have 2009 stats available, but I don't think there's been a significant change in terms of ranking: http://www.anna.aero/2009/12/11/air-canada-growing-atlantic-services-now-represent-25-of-all-capacity/

Yes, [as trofhiren never fails to remind us :)] Vancouver is not a major world city. But for a city of around 2.3-2.5 million, we punch WAY above our weight in terms of our airport. Montreal is approaching 4M and has significantly less air traffic. Denver has less connectivity to Europe and none (I believe) to Asia. Anyways, I know you know all this...but it's good to keep in mind that many American cities of our size barely have flights to even Canada or Mexico, let alone Europe, Asia, and Australia. :)

A couple of things. I don't think AC neglects YVR as such, but it persistently touts YVR's potential and how it wants to be a part of that growth. I'm saying that AC had ulterior motives for saying that (i.e. EK) and is not really virtuous in its statements. Also YVR is not AC's second largest hub in terms of destinations anyway - weekly departures as of 2009 but YUL was a very close second at the time. YUL has around 75 destinations on AC and its subs. YVR handles around 50 AC destinations. On top of that, YUL has just surpassed YVR in terms of international plus transborder traffic (it has pretty much always had more international pax). YUL's shortfall is on the domestic end when compared to YVR, so while it's true that YVR handles more total passenger traffic than YUL, that is largely as a result of Canadian only traffic.

Valley_Refugee
Feb 8, 2012, 8:25 PM
Right, and I hope you don't feel I was targeting you! I was just making comments on some trends I see in the posts in general. True, AC is usually more talk than action, but I think we also have to put it in perspective...Montreal is a metro of nearly 4M people, YVR is around 2.5M, so to have each one roughly equal in weekly departures is still pretty good, I think. But I'm certainly not under the delusion that AC doesn't favour its Eastern hubs.

ACT7
Feb 8, 2012, 8:55 PM
Definitely didn't think that :)
I totally agree that YUL punches below it's weight in terms of airport traffic given its population. I think YVR has a lot of potential if it leverages its strengths properly. It'll be a struggle, but then again, what the hell isn't, right?

trofirhen
Feb 9, 2012, 12:28 AM
Definitely didn't think that :)
I totally agree that YUL punches below it's weight in terms of airport traffic given its population. I think YVR has a lot of potential if it leverages its strengths properly. It'll be a struggle, but then again, what the hell isn't, right?
:previous:
What ARE YVR's strenghts, other than the fine terminal building?

ACT7
Feb 9, 2012, 12:53 AM
:previous:
What ARE YVR's strenghts, other than the fine terminal building?
Can't think of one off the top of my head ;)

jlousa
Feb 9, 2012, 12:58 AM
Landings fees a fraction of Toronto's :tup:

deasine
Feb 9, 2012, 1:02 AM
:previous:
What ARE YVR's strenghts, other than the fine terminal building?

Can't think of one off the top of my head ;)

Come on... the infrastructure YVR has within its terminal buildings are pretty good. Don't quote me, but YVR was I believe the first airport to introduce effortless transfers between Domestic/International<->Transborder flights. And when it was introduced, there really wasn't that many transborder transfers. YUL is the only other Canadian airport does this, but they have quite a considerable amount of these passengers coming from Europe. I'm honestly surprised YYZ hasn't yet done this. And with similar experience for International<->Domestic passengers, this will really improve the experience of YVR.

Geographical location, not necessarily in a global context, but in a local context is great. And one other good thing is if there is ever a need to significantly expand, we have ample amount of room to do so.

mezzanine
Feb 9, 2012, 2:25 AM
Air France to cancel 40 percent of long-haul flights (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-france-airfrance-idUSTRE8170JI20120208)


YVR is suddenly closer to the top of the rankings, while this is temporary I wouldn't be surprised to see significant shaking out of airlines in the next few years.

? i assume that AF is cuitting flights for the short term during the job action, not permanently, or did i read this right?

Hourglass
Feb 9, 2012, 4:03 AM
Come on... the infrastructure YVR has within its terminal buildings are pretty good. Don't quote me, but YVR was I believe the first airport to introduce effortless transfers between Domestic/International<->Transborder flights. And when it was introduced, there really wasn't that many transborder transfers. YUL is the only other Canadian airport does this, but they have quite a considerable amount of these passengers coming from Europe. I'm honestly surprised YYZ hasn't yet done this. And with similar experience for International<->Domestic passengers, this will really improve the experience of YVR.

Yep. As I recall, YVR's international terminal was originally designed with transfer passengers in mind (think Changi or Schipol). A lot of the upgrades YVR has announced are focused not on building new gates but rather improving transit times through faster baggage belts and new secure halls for transit passengers. This will be critical in drawing more flights from major users such as Air Canada.

The other big advantage of YVR for transit passengers that hasn't been mentioned yet is not having to through TSA. Don't underestimate how important this one is. I've had too many bad -- and sometimes bizarre -- experiences with TSA when entering the US and many friends have had the same.

deasine
Feb 9, 2012, 5:09 AM
The other big advantage of YVR for transit passengers that hasn't been mentioned yet is not having to through TSA. Don't underestimate how important this one is. I've had too many bad -- and sometimes bizarre -- experiences with TSA when entering the US and many friends have had the same.

Much agreed. SFO is my airport of choice when transferring in the States for that reason.

mezzanine
Feb 9, 2012, 5:33 AM
Agree about the TSA/homeland security. strong plus for YVR for a number of canadian/resident alien transfer pax.

golog
Feb 9, 2012, 6:20 AM
? i assume that AF is cuitting flights for the short term during the job action, not permanently, or did i read this right?

Yes, the service cuts are temporary.

Air France - KLM has been promising to restructure so that it can break even for a few years now. Each year since 2009 the promised cuts have increased while virtually nothing has happened, but then they say all terminations will be voluntary with a deadline of 2013 -- after French elections this year.

Discount airlines have a strong hold on their marketshare, and the old flagbearers need to replace their fleets while being squeezed on all sides by oil prices, pensions, corporate travel reduction, competition from expanded highspeed rail, losses from strikes and volcanoes...

So Air France - KLM, among others, have some big cuts coming but I misread and posted before I thought it through. Since I couldn't delete the post, I figured I might as well leave it because the service reductions are certainly notable.

----
I think Europe is more strict / job-protectionist, but a lot of aircraft maintenance is being outsourced to the lowest cost country, even if the workers don't speak english which the manuals are written in. (expect a few accidents before regulators bother to teach a CEO a lesson)

Still, their competitors are doing it which makes it even tougher to break even. That's a big reason for the push to try and force foreign carriers to buy bogus carbon credits from european banks.

deasine
Feb 9, 2012, 7:54 AM
AF-KLM are the two carriers with the highest CASK per passenger. It's really going to be hard to compete with LH and its family, along with IAG without major cutbacks and major restructuring.

One thing I've yet to see is airlines cut their ground-crew services. Actually, I was really amazed in SQ's only SIN hub, they don't use their own staff to handle ground operations. Their operations are carried out by SATS Singapore. And SQ is still able to maintain its service standard even on the ground (well I guess the culture of people has something to do with it as well).

I'm sure they'll run into so many hurdles, but I mean contracting ground crew services out can save quite a bit of money without really affecting the integrity and service of the airline.

And other news... WS once again makes headlines:

News Releases
WestJetters vote 91 per cent in favour of regional airline

Airline moves to aircraft selection as next step

CALGARY, Feb. 8, 2012 /CNW/ - WestJet today announced its employees have voted overwhelmingly - 91 per cent - in favour of the launch of a regional airline as a wholly owned subsidiary of WestJet.

"The opportunity presented to WestJetters has been very well received and I thank them for their input and consideration in this important matter," said Gregg Saretsky, WestJet President and CEO. "Clearly, WestJetters have recognized and embraced that the service we have provided for 16 years is in demand in even more communities across Canada. Bringing WestJet to these communities will benefit Canadians while providing increased shareholder value. We now look forward to planning the launch of this new airline as early as 2013."

"There are not many organizations that would put such a strategic decision in front of the employees for their input and approval," commented Antonio Faiola, WestJet Flight Attendant, Board Member and Chair of PACT, WestJet's employee association. "I am proud to work for a company that puts such tremendous importance on culture and the relationship with WestJetters."

With approval from the Board of Directors to proceed with implementation of a low-cost regional airline, WestJet will move to the next stage of planning by sending requests for proposals to two aircraft manufacturers: Bombardier for the Q400 NextGen and ATR for the ATR 72-600.

Caution regarding forward-looking statements
Certain information set forth in this news release, including information regarding the launch of a short-haul regional airline including timing for launching the airline and fleet type, our process for planning the launch of a short-haul regional airline, the goals relating to implementation of a short-haul regional airline and profitability thereof, the benefits to certain stakeholders from implementing a short-haul regional airline, and our strategy, contain forward-looking statements. By their nature, forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, some of which are beyond WestJet's control. These forward-looking statements are based on our current strategic plan, our analysis of the requirements for a short-haul regional airline including fleet type and size and network design, our experience in creating and growing a low-cost domestic airline, and currently available implementation plans, but may vary due to factors including, but not limited to, general economic conditions, the competitive environment for a short-haul regional airline, information obtained through stakeholder consultations, regulatory requirements, aircraft manufacturer information including aircraft supply proposals, and other factors and risks described in WestJet's public reports and filings. WestJet's public reports and filings are available on WestJet's profile at www.sedar.com. Readers are cautioned that undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking statements as actual results may vary materially from the forward-looking statements. WestJet does not undertake to update, correct or revise any forward-looking statements as a result of any new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required by applicable law.

About WestJet
WestJet is Canada's favourite airline, offering scheduled service throughout its 76-city North American and Caribbean network. Inducted into Canada's Most Admired Corporate Cultures Hall of Fame and named one of Canada's best employers, WestJet pioneered low-cost flying in Canada. WestJet offers increased legroom and leather seats on its modern fleet of 97 Boeing Next-Generation 737 aircraft. With future confirmed deliveries for an additional 38 aircraft through 2018, WestJet strives to be one of the five most successful international airlines in the world.

Connect with WestJet on Facebook at www.facebook.com/westjet
Follow WestJet on Twitter at www.twitter.com/westjet
Subscribe to WestJet on YouTube at www.youtube.com/westjet

For further information:

Media contact
Robert Palmer, Media Relations
Telephone: 1-888-WJ 4 NEWS (1-888-954-6397)
Email: media@westjet.com.


(via WestJet).

Metro-One
Feb 9, 2012, 8:14 AM
Too bad all the airlines based out of Vancouver failed...sigh....

trofirhen
Feb 9, 2012, 9:55 AM
Too bad all the airlines based out of Vancouver failed...sigh....
:previous:
The biggest loss was when Canadian was taken over by Air Canada. However, there are other factors, too. One is geographic location. Other than a stop for long-haul Pacific flights, Vancouver, being where it is, has a rather small catchment area. Calgary is more centrally located, and Toronto has a great location as a gateway not only to Canada, but to North America.

Also, (maybe it's the "freedom-loving" Prairie tradition), but stuffy Air Canada could never match WJ for in-flight service; one of the two reasons WJ is popular, (the other being lower fares).

I'd love to see a successful airline, similar perhaps to WJ, based out of Vancouver, but as WJ already has a tight grip on Canada and the North American market, such a hypothetical airline would, I imagine, need to concentrate on overseas services, and I don't think the Vancouver market is big enough or economically important enough to warrant that. Not for years to come, anyway.

twoNeurons
Feb 9, 2012, 3:14 PM
Much agreed. SFO is my airport of choice when transferring in the States for that reason.

Could you elaborate on this? I mean, if you're flying out of Vancouver, you are essentially on a US domestic flight to any US Airport, correct? Does SFO have a leg up over other airports somehow?

Excuse my ignorance on this.

ACT7
Feb 9, 2012, 3:17 PM
I'd love to see a successful airline, similar perhaps to WJ, based out of Vancouver, but as WJ already has a tight grip on Canada and the North American market, such a hypothetical airline would, I imagine, need to concentrate on overseas services, and I don't think the Vancouver market is big enough or economically important enough to warrant that. Not for years to come, anyway.

I have to agree. Vancouver is predominantly a VFR/tourist market (and even tourist numbers were down this year particularly on the international front) so it's not a logical place to base an airline out of. Alberta has the lowest taxes in the country, so even though Calgary is technically a smaller market, it makes sense from a tax perspective to base an airline there (don't forget that Canadian Airlines had their corporate head office in Calgary too).

LeftCoaster
Feb 9, 2012, 3:27 PM
:previous:
The biggest loss was when Canadian was taken over by Air Canada. However, there are other factors, too. One is geographic location. Other than a stop for long-haul Pacific flights, Vancouver, being where it is, has a rather small catchment area. Calgary is more centrally located, and Toronto has a great location as a gateway not only to Canada, but to North America.

Also, (maybe it's the "freedom-loving" Prairie tradition), but stuffy Air Canada could never match WJ for in-flight service; one of the two reasons WJ is popular, (the other being lower fares).

I'd love to see a successful airline, similar perhaps to WJ, based out of Vancouver, but as WJ already has a tight grip on Canada and the North American market, such a hypothetical airline would, I imagine, need to concentrate on overseas services, and I don't think the Vancouver market is big enough or economically important enough to warrant that. Not for years to come, anyway.

Central to what? Calgary doesn't really have an advantage geographically over vancouver either, it may be more in the middle of the continent but it isnt close to anything. I can't think of very many situations where it is more convenient to transfer in Calgary unless you live in saskatoon or Edmonton, and those are hardly going to wrest control from Vancouver.

Bottom line is vancouver is an AC hub but Calgary is THE Westjet hub, so it will draw flights due to that, not due to any geographic advantages. I am not so worried about YVRs competitiveness with YYC, as they don't really compete as much as you would think. YVR will always have the dominant position on trans-pacific flights and trans atlantic flights will be difficult for YYC to draw as it is such a small pop base. Look at YVRs trans atlantics as an example of this, it only has a few and they meet demand.

YYC will compete with YVR on trans-border to the US, but I don't really see that as a major issue as both airports will continue to attract many flights to the US as they are shorter and less risky. The real meat and potatoes of YVR (inter-continental) isn't really threatened by YYC.

YVR's main competition remains with YYZ and it's ability to provide service to the pacific, diminishing YVRs role as an Asia-pacific hub, and ACs preference to fly trans Atlantic out of Toronto, forcing Vancouverites to fly through YYZ to get to europe.

Also I think it's time you come back to Canada and take a ride on both Westjet and Air Canada, I think you will be reversing your statement about in-flight service, as in my opinion AC has surpassed WJ by leaps and bounds in terms of the passenger experience.

s211
Feb 9, 2012, 4:22 PM
Also I think it's time you come back to Canada and take a ride on both Westjet and Air Canada, I think you will be reversing your statement about in-flight service, as in my opinion AC has surpassed WJ by leaps and bounds in terms of the passenger experience.

Hear hear!

The glee club schtick on WJ was cute for about five seconds, but those cheerleaders are supposed to be responsible for my safety?

Talk about mixed messages.

ACT7
Feb 9, 2012, 6:18 PM
Hear hear!

The glee club schtick on WJ was cute for about five seconds, but those cheerleaders are supposed to be responsible for my safety?

Talk about mixed messages.
+1,000! AC has upped their game so much so that I dare say I thoroughly enjoy flying with them.

Re: AC's preference to fly trans-atlantic out of YYZ - that's just market dynamics. AC tried, for example, CDG out of YVR and it didn't work. Both yield and loads are simply higher out of YYZ to Europe, so the preference is really just economics more so than anything else.

LeftCoaster
Feb 9, 2012, 6:26 PM
Yea I'm not saying its a preference in terms of some guy think it would be neat that they fly out of YYZ, im saying they made a business decision to route a chunk of western travelers through Toronto to capitalize on economies of scale.

Sorry in retrospect preference wasn't really the most accurate term.

PaperTiger
Feb 9, 2012, 7:27 PM
+1,000! AC has upped their game so much so that I dare say I thoroughly enjoy flying with them.

I agree, remember flying AC back in 2000 and it was horrible, made even more so by the fact that I flew transpacific with Malaysian, who are amazing.

Nowadays they are professional and efficient, if not over the top for service like some of the Asian carriers. I would rank them on par with Lufthansa, Cathay Pacific and a serious step above every American carrier (US Air and United are some of the worst mainline I have ever flown.)

West Jet is a discount carrier, with lame jokes and lamer surcharges. The worst is flying a multi leg route with them and having the FA’s make the exact same folksy- assed jokes at every take off and landing. The cheery bullshit is actually scripted, which makes it even more annoying.

Bigtime
Feb 9, 2012, 7:34 PM
Couldn't agree more with you PaperTiger, AC has really stepped their game up. Even on a low-yielding route like YYC-OGG the service was excellent, frequent and always friendly.

deasine
Feb 9, 2012, 7:34 PM
One can't argue AC hasn't improved. But I think service levels, for the most part (and I'm basing it on an average of my personal experiences), vary depending on where the service is based. YYZ AC staff, I find, are superior to the YVR ones. On the ground, AC service at YVR is horrendous: disorganized, unhelpful, and sometimes down right rude. I've never had a good experience approaching a gate agent. YYZ is not much better in this case I find. A bit, but not by much. I guess this is why I don't see the need for airlines to have their own ground crew services. I'm sure contractors can deliver a service quality much higher than what is achieved right now. On the air, aside from the excellent in-flight product AC has (superior to North American and European carriers, AF-KL, UA, CO, US, AA, and BA included), ACs service has also improved a lot. But I find YYZ-based flight attendants, for the most part, are really nice. Ones from YVR handling PEK and HKG are a bit more rude (haven't experienced NRT or ICN yet). YUL ones, at least the ones that fly to CDG, aren't that great. Actually, I had a time where the flight attendant handling my aisle didn't speak a word of English. I understand that it's a CDG-bound flight, originating from French Canada, and I understand a basic level of French, but seriously on a national carrier and on an international route, I find it unacceptable and a bit disrespectful. Now that I think about it, I think I should sue AC in-light of the recent incidents where AC didn't provide service in French haha.

I value in-flight product over service since I don't ask for much service anyway, so I love AC until they've downgraded all their transpacific fares to Tango from Tango+. That's a 50% mileage reduction! And they've kept it at the same price! It's only a matter of time that this happens to the Europe routes (while there are Tango fares available for transatlantic flights, Tango+ it's often cheaper, though I'm sure this won't last). This alone, along with a lot of devaluations within the past year, is enough for me to fly with UA+CO and other Star Alliance carriers than AC.

Could you elaborate on this? I mean, if you're flying out of Vancouver, you are essentially on a US domestic flight to any US Airport, correct? Does SFO have a leg up over other airports somehow?

Excuse my ignorance on this.

If I had to transfer through SFO, and I actually choose to fly down to the states sometimes for extra mileage, I would prefer to do it at SFO. For one, they are one of the best airports in the States (at least that's from my personal experiences). But TSA doesn't operate the security there: it regulates private firms that handle the security, and the security there is much less... errr... annoying than the TSA counterparts in many American airports.

Yume-sama
Feb 9, 2012, 7:39 PM
WRT to AC vs. WS, the main problem is WS is no longer a "discount" airline. The fares are 95% of the time exactly the same as AC, and AC now provides better in-cabin features (with the exception of Live TV, but I can do without re-runs of Storage Wars for a few hours). One just has to have bought in to the "culture" of WS to honestly prefer them over AC.

That said, the E75 still scares the crap out of me ever since I was in one that was losing hydraulics last year and had to return to Toronto with firetrucks lining the runway lol Evidently those rickety Brazilian planes have a ton of hydraulic issues, so it's the rare case where I'll actually pay more to fly on a 320. But now I'm just on edge for those damn cabin chimes I never even noticed until that flight and don't really know what they mean still. I just know that if it chimes more than 3 times in a row you have a 50% chance of being screwed.

Yeah, my next flight on AC the "wheels up" chime resulted in me thinking my demise was imminent.

But I am flying WS to Orlando at the end of the month because they are the only ones with a direct flight. Hopefully I can survive being squished for 5.5 hours.

craneSpotter
Feb 9, 2012, 8:09 PM
YVR January 2012 numbers are up 5.5% over 2011

Asia-Pacific traffic is up 8%

ACT7
Feb 9, 2012, 8:18 PM
YVR January 2012 numbers are up 5.5% over 2011

Asia-Pacific traffic is up 8%
Do you have a reference for that?

Valley_Refugee
Feb 9, 2012, 9:26 PM
A raft of trade deals with China today. From the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/09/china-and-canada-reach-deals-on-air-travel-oil-and-uranium-and-pandas/

Of relevance to this thread is the air travel deal, though I haven't been able to find specifics. Anyone know the current restrictions?

SFUVancouver
Feb 9, 2012, 10:18 PM
I haven't flown Air Canada domestically for close to a decade. The change in experience (and cost) from domestic Air Canada to West Jet was so immense back then that I switched over to West Jet and haven't looked back since. Occasionally the price for a flight would be so close as to make no difference but I just had no interest in flying with Air Canada. The last straw with them for me was a flight into Montreal. The bags for the flight never came out and while the problem was with the airport, Air Canada staff were beyond uncaring; they were outright belligerent and refused to speak English to anyone who addressed them in that language. Finally when the flight's bags were found we were informed that they had been set out for us outside in the well-below-zero December night against the wall of the taxi/limo pickup/drop off area. There were four or five flights' worth of identical black bags all randomly laid out and the Air Canada staffperson who was supposed to be looking out for us was rude and then walked away for good as dozens of people were trying to get assistance. I'm certain there were a whole bunch of issues, but that was it. Air Canada blew it with me for a decade.

Now, if they have improved their in-flight and ground-side service, then more power to them. However they have only done that because West Jet was growing and capturing loyal passengers. I only fly two or three times a year, but that adds up to dozens of flights they have missed out on based on past behaviour. It's like the Big Three auto companies; after building lousy cars for decades they finally have upped their game and are shocked that so many people are still of the opinion that they build below-average cars. You can't turn around public opinion on a dime and you just know they will revert back to old habits the moment their competition slackens.

/rant

Johnny Aussie
Feb 9, 2012, 10:38 PM
I have had nothing but excellent experiences on AC and AC Express over the last couple of years including over Christmas again. My recent experiences on trans-Tasman and trans-Pacific on Air NZ recently were also top notch. Hard to choose! AC Maple Leaf lounges, however, bordering on embarrassing (all 3 of YVR's anyway). Compared to other Star Alliance lounges worldwide.

Good result for January. I expect to see Asia Pacific continue to do well.

As for the China news, hopefully this will pave the way for Sichuan Airlines to actually start their new service from that Letter of Intent. LOI's usually don't mean much... but maybe this one will eventuate.

giallo
Feb 9, 2012, 10:59 PM
AC has been good to me out of Shanghai. Friendly, nice cabins and, surprising, decent food.

While it may take a while for anything to happen regarding these trade deals with China, expect A LOT more Chinese tourists to be coming. Last year, Chinese tourism in Canada was up 25%, just one year after China deemed Canada a 'special travel zone' (or whatever it's called). Air China and Air Canada are trying to coordinate more flights as the ones currently out of Shanghai and Beijing are completely jammed annually.

jlousa
Feb 9, 2012, 11:16 PM
My experience has always been AC intl is one of the best while domestic is pretty bad. Noticed the same with BA as well though.

craneSpotter
Feb 9, 2012, 11:23 PM
Do you have a reference for that?

http://www.bivinteractive.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5372:yvr-sees-year-on-year-passenger-increase-&catid=14:daily-news&Itemid=46

craneSpotter
Feb 9, 2012, 11:27 PM
While it may take a while for anything to happen regarding these trade deals with China, expect A LOT more Chinese tourists to be coming. Last year, Chinese tourism in Canada was up 25%, just one year after China deemed Canada a 'special travel zone' (or whatever it's called). Air China and Air Canada are trying to coordinate more flights as the ones currently out of Shanghai and Beijing are completely jammed annually.

This is the kind of 'free' advertising BC is getting on Chinese TV these days.

zFEw1amoBfU