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

Johnny Aussie
Apr 3, 2012, 3:00 AM
^UA to LAX is year-round, EWR is seasonal.

trofirhen
Apr 3, 2012, 3:06 AM
??? Ever heard of codeshares?

AS has 4X daily (codeshared by AA & DL)
WS has 2X daily (codeshared by AA)
AC has 4X daily (codeshared by UA)
UA has 1X daily (codeshared by AC) - seasonal, as mentioned by Johnny Aussie upthread

11 daily, not 20.
:previous:

WHOOPS! There I go with another donkey remark!! But yes, I HAVE heard of codeshares. :blush:

SpongeG
Apr 3, 2012, 7:16 AM
a 747-8 landing at YVR

EzkPrZlIkXE

SpongeG
Apr 3, 2012, 7:20 AM
i could end up watching these videos all night - damn you youtube

W3EVbNlLlpc

Valley_Refugee
Apr 11, 2012, 12:08 AM
A follow-up to Air Canada's YVR-DCA application - the responses from the American carriers:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/us-rivals-try-to-keep-air-canadas-washington-plan-from-taking-off/article2397706/

deasine
Apr 11, 2012, 12:52 AM
Korean Airlines flight from YVR to Seoul forced to land at Comox Airport just now for an unknown reason. 149 people are on board - more info to come when we get details confirmed.

(via Global TV BC)

CPE
Apr 11, 2012, 1:26 AM
Apparently its a bomb threat.

deasine
Apr 11, 2012, 1:38 AM
Korean Airlines flight forced to land at a B.C. military base due to in-flight emergency
Amy Judd, Global BC : Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:50 PM

Breaking News
Global BC

Korean Airlines flight KE72, bound for Seoul, was forced to make an unscheduled landing at Comox military base on Tuesday afternoon.

The Boeing 777 took off from YVR at 2:35 p.m. but had to land at 19 Wing, Canadian Forces Base Comox at 5:30 p.m. for an unknown reason. The Royal Canadian Air Force said 19 Wing personnel are responding to an "in-flight emergency."

There are 149 people on board, and officials at YVR said everyone is safe.

"Wing emergency personnel are responding to the location and are securing the aircraft in accordance with normal procedures," said the RCAF. "All emergency services on the Wing have been activated."

Reports stated that a fighter jet from the military base escorted the airline in due to a possible threat on board.

We will update this post when more information becomes available.



Read it on Global News: Global BC | Korean Airlines flight forced to land at a B.C. military base due to in-flight emergency

(via Global TV BC (http://www.globaltvbc.com/korean+airlines+flight+forced+to+land+at+a+bc+military+base+due+to+in-flight+emergency/6442618432/story.html))

ACT7
Apr 11, 2012, 2:42 AM
A follow-up to Air Canada's YVR-DCA application - the responses from the American carriers:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/us-rivals-try-to-keep-air-canadas-washington-plan-from-taking-off/article2397706/
On a smaller scale, this is the same argument AC has been using against EK and EY.

deasine
Apr 11, 2012, 3:18 AM
Notice that the airlines against do not include United (or US Airways for that matter).

Bigtime
Apr 11, 2012, 12:41 PM
Notice that the airlines against do not include United (or US Airways for that matter).

Yup, no surprise there. I'm sure we would see their code share flight numbers on this route if it were approved.

Yume-sama
Apr 11, 2012, 5:34 PM
Air Canada upset that other airlines are meddling and trying to stop their planned routes~

That's rich.

And what's up with all the supposed bomb threats on Asian carriers out of Vancouver? CX has had several, and now Korean a few... I wonder if it's all the same person.

Bigtime
Apr 11, 2012, 5:47 PM
Air Canada upset that other airlines are meddling and trying to stop their planned routes~

That's rich.

And what's up with all the supposed bomb threats on Asian carriers out of Vancouver? CX has had several, and now Korean a few... I wonder if it's all the same person.

Nucks fans warming up for the cup run?


I'm sorry, that was just too easy. :D

Valley_Refugee
Apr 11, 2012, 6:46 PM
Air Canada upset that other airlines are meddling and trying to stop their planned routes~

That's rich.

I don't think the article suggested anywhere that Air Canada was upset per se. The article was based on the public documents that the other airlines get to file in response to each competitor's applications, as part of the application process. I'm sure Air Canada had the same opportunity to respond.

Yume-sama
Apr 11, 2012, 10:12 PM
:P Well, I'm sure they're not happy about it.

Valley_Refugee
Apr 12, 2012, 7:02 AM
Haha, no, definitely not. But I'm sure they got digs in at the others in their reply.

deasine
Apr 13, 2012, 12:48 AM
Qatar Airways in no rush to add CSeries but will order business jets
By Ross Marowits, The Canadian Press | April 12, 2012

MONTREAL - Qatar Airways is in no rush to add Bombardier's CSeries aircraft to its growing fleet but will order several business jets to expand its executive service, the airline's CEO said Thursday.
Akbar Al Baker said he will announce an order for Bombardier's new Global aircraft at next month's Ebace air show in Geneva, for delivery around 2016 or 2017.

The airline already operates a fleet of six Bombardier business jets. It hopes to eventually offer 10 to 15 aircraft, but Al Baker wouldn't say how many planes would be included in this order.
Qatar has shelved plans to order the CSeries while it is busy preparing to receive four new aircraft types — Boeing 787, Airbus A350 and A320Neo and another he didn't want to identify. The company is spending more than US$50 billion for 270 airplanes.

Nonetheless he remains interested in eventually ordering 20 to 30 of the larger version of the 110- to 149-seat commercial plane, plus adding as many options. The aircraft would be used for Qatar's regional service and flights of less than 2 1/2 hours from Doha.

"The CSeries is a very good airplane for a niche market," he told reporters after a lunch-hour speech.

"It is very fuel efficient and it is a very technologically advanced aircraft and I'm sure that Bombardier will be very successful in this venture."

Al Baker planned to tour Bombardier's production facilities and see the plane's updated cockpit and systems designs. The CSeries is slated to enter into service the end of 2013, with the larger model following a year later.

Bombardier (TSX:BBD.B) CEO Pierre Beaudoin said the company is still in discussion with Qatar over a CSeries order.

"It's a product that gives the performance that is needed in that region," he told reporters.
Beaudoin added that the train maker is also interested in metro, light rail and tramway projects that are planned for Qatar as it prepares to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup of soccer.

Meanwhile, Al Baker said Canadians deserve better airline service to the Middle East made possible by an expansion of the number of landing rights granted to Doha.

The three weekly flights launched last June from Montreal are running ahead of expectations and travelling 85 per cent full.

A similar number of cargo flights are offered weekly, along with return flights from the Middle East.

It would like to operate at least four flights a day from Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver.
The outspoken airline executive accused Ottawa of blocking that expansion to protect Air Canada (TSX:AC.B) from competition.

"I don't think they are in collusion in any way, but the government is trying to protect Air Canada," he added.

Al Baker said he faces no such opposition anywhere else in the world and questioned why the federal government is protecting Canada's largest carrier and its alliance partners, even though it produces weak financial results and forces passengers to connect through inefficient airports.

"If I was the prime minister or if I was the government I would tell Air Canada to go to hell."
Qatar has no plans to withdraw service if it doesn't win additional landing slots and is not worried that blunt talk may hamper its efforts.

"At the end of day I'm a foreigner trying to serve the people of Canada and if I'm not welcome then fine," Al Baker said.

But he said the aggressive expansion plans by Qatar Airways and other Middle East carriers such as Emirates Airlines is a new model that won't disappear.

Air Canada CEO Calin Rovinescu has criticized efforts to use hubs in the Middle East for Canadian travellers. He has argued that an eventual reduction in traffic flow through hubs used by Air Canada and its Star Alliance partners would ultimately threaten the viability of direct flights from secondary Canadian airports.

Al Baker said that additional flights by Qatar can easily be accommodated to reduce flying time to 113 destinations through its gateway.

He said the more than 6,000 Canadians living in the Middle Eastern country, along with visitors, can bypass intense American security by increasingly flying to Doha.

"You don't want every Canadian to be looked at as a terrorist and go through unnecessary searches," he said in an earlier speech to the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations.
Montreal is Qatar's fourth North American gateway, in addition to Houston, New York and Washington.

Return travel costs around $2,300, including taxes, for direct 13-hour flights. That's several hundred dollars more than traditional routes through Europe but at a fraction of the time.

(via Canadian Business (http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/79549--qatar-airways-in-no-rush-to-add-cseries-but-will-order-business-jets))

(emphasis mine)

trofirhen
Apr 13, 2012, 2:14 PM
I'd be thrilled to bits if Qatar got landing rights at YVR (along with the others). Evil Emirates has Seattle in its slimy tentacles now. I wonder how much that's hurting American carriers from Seattle?

deasine
Apr 13, 2012, 5:56 PM
I'd be thrilled to bits if Qatar got landing rights at YVR (along with the others). Evil Emirates has Seattle in its slimy tentacles now. I wonder how much that's hurting American carriers from Seattle?

Honestly though, with the exception of India, I can't see how gulf-state carriers can "add" to the destinations network. DOH/DXB/AUH, given their geographical location relative to cities on the west coast, are only reasonable alternatives to one-stop flights to India. For all other Asian destinations, it makes much more sense to fly via the Pacific. On the East Coast, however, there are a lot more opportunities. So honestly, I sort of fail to see how QR, EK, and EY can profit from providing service to YVR and YYC.

trofirhen
Apr 13, 2012, 6:32 PM
Honestly though, with the exception of India, I can't see how gulf-state carriers can "add" to the destinations network. DOH/DXB/AUH, given their geographical location relative to cities on the west coast, are only reasonable alternatives to one-stop flights to India. For all other Asian destinations, it makes much more sense to fly via the Pacific. On the East Coast, however, there are a lot more opportunities. So honestly, I sort of fail to see how QR, EK, and EY can profit from providing service to YVR and YYC.
:previous::previous:
Does the world air market out of YVR stop at India and China? Having a destination like DOH is the perfect transfer point not only to other parts of the middle east, but also Cairo, Cape Town, Jo'burg..... It may not seem profitable RIGHT now, but wait a few years as Vancouver grows, and the destination markets along with it.

If not the Gulf States, then Istanbul would make a great connection point, too, but that's another dead issue; right now, anyway.

Hourglass
Apr 13, 2012, 9:34 PM
:previous::previous:
Does the world air market out of YVR stop at India and China? Having a destination like DOH is the perfect transfer point not only to other parts of the middle east, but also Cairo, Cape Town, Jo'burg..... It may not seem profitable RIGHT now, but wait a few years as Vancouver grows, and the destination markets along with it.

If not the Gulf States, then Istanbul would make a great connection point, too, but that's another dead issue; right now, anyway.

There are already perfectly good options to Africa and the Middle East via London and Frankfurt as well as east coast cities such as New York.

Not saying it wouldn't be great to see Emirates or Etihad or Turkish in YVR, but the business case for these airlines would need to be more than another hubbing point for onward traffic.

twoNeurons
Apr 13, 2012, 9:39 PM
Flying direct to DOH would mean flights to South Africa from Vancouver go nowhere near Toronto or any other European city.

Right now, there's a CHANCE for a direct flight from YYZ to Cape Town or Johannesburg (unless there are ETOPS restrictions). I'm not sure if there is a direct flight right now from YYZ, I don't think so. As such, it would be a one transfer trip from Vancouver via a Canadian Airport instead of transferring to London or DOH.

Another reason why DOH is opposed by some. Right or wrong, DOH will ruffle feathers because taking the POLAR route it doesn't really have any competition.

trofirhen
Apr 14, 2012, 12:48 AM
There are already perfectly good options to Africa and the Middle East via London and Frankfurt as well as east coast cities such as New York.

Not saying it wouldn't be great to see Emirates or Etihad or Turkish in YVR, but the business case for these airlines would need to be more than another hubbing point for onward traffic.

Flying direct to DOH would mean flights to South Africa from Vancouver go nowhere near Toronto or any other European city.

Right now, there's a CHANCE for a direct flight from YYZ to Cape Town or Johannesburg (unless there are ETOPS restrictions). I'm not sure if there is a direct flight right now from YYZ, I don't think so. As such, it would be a one transfer trip from Vancouver via a Canadian Airport instead of transferring to London or DOH.

Another reason why DOH is opposed by some. Right or wrong, DOH will ruffle feathers because taking the POLAR route it doesn't really have any competition.
:previous::previous::previous:

Points well taken, but a simple question: Which route is SHORTER? Via London / Frankfurt to, say, Jo'burg, or over the pole to Qatar, then on to Jo'burg?
Also, @Metro-One: why does taking the POLAR route mean it has no real competition? Is this, then, the shortest "Route to Jo'burg?"

(hey, there's a theme for a new thread; just what is the best connecting point for Vancouver to Africa and the Middle East? The thread might be nicknamed "The Fastest Way to Jo'burg," but I'm not going to start it.:rolleyes:)

Yume-sama
Apr 14, 2012, 12:58 AM
Would be nice to see a new face, and with a 787 it'd be one of many economically viable routes.

Qatar announced today that when they take deliveries of some of their 60 787's their new routes will be 1x daily Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, and Detroit, and JFK 3x daily.

whatnext
Apr 14, 2012, 2:54 AM
At last a little construction-related YVR news, rather than routes! A few details of Canada Post's new facility from the Richmond Review:

http://www.richmondreview.com/news/147240685.html

SpongeG
Apr 14, 2012, 4:58 AM
you can fly to south africa via new york and atlanta - both have non-stop flights as south african airways flies to both cities in the states - if u wanna avoid europe all together

also there are more options from seattle - i know a few years ago you could fly seattle-chicago-madrid-joburg and it was $500 cheaper than anything i could find out of vancouver - which is quite a decent savings

if u wanna get there from here - u can go via london, frankfurt or amsterdam, i have done via london and amsterdam, my mom did frankfurt once, they are all about the same time, only difference is what airline you would prefer, British airways, KLM or Lufthansa

trofirhen
Apr 15, 2012, 1:54 AM
This might be an eventual destination out of Vancouver when 787s come onstream. Two First World economies, commonwealth countries, tourism, family ties ... Too soon now, of course, but something for the future......

http://www.routesonline.com/news/36/the-hub/147333/canberra-calling-for-international-links/

deasine
Apr 15, 2012, 2:03 AM
This might be an eventual destination out of Vancouver when 787s come onstream. Two First World economies, commonwealth countries, tourism, family ties ... Too soon now, of course, but something for the future......

http://www.routesonline.com/news/36/the-hub/147333/canberra-calling-for-international-links/

I'm going to be a pessimist. Canberra's been trying to pitch itself as Sydney's second airport (linked via HSR), but Sydney still has some capacity left in its current airport, and will have a larger capacity once they reconfigure their carriers in their terminals. Canberra doesn't have any international flights, and only the national carriers Qantas and Virgin Australia, and perhaps some other domestic carrier, flies from Canberra.

There's a chance for Canberra to feature more international destinations in the coming years, but I would imagine that only be in the Oceania region, or in Southeast Asia, served by carriers such as Silk Air/Scoot (Singapore's subsidiaries), and Jetstar.

Valley_Refugee
Apr 15, 2012, 7:53 AM
Melbourne certainly and Brisbane likely before Canberra.

trofirhen
Apr 15, 2012, 10:04 AM
Melbourne certainly and Brisbane likely before Canberra.
:previous::previous::previous:

Exactly!! I posted that link deliberately to elicit reaction, and you've hit the nail on the head. If YVR had Brisbane and Melbourne scheduled year-round service, in addition to Sydney, we'd have a great foothold in Australia. 787s can do all that nonstop from YVR. YYZ is too far out of nonstop range, even for the 787. Forget Canberra ... for a few decades, anyway. ;)

Valley_Refugee
Apr 15, 2012, 9:07 PM
Haha, okay, call it a "reaction" if you want.

I suppose I was just amazed you went one post without reminding us how small and insignificant Vancouver is. ;)

SpongeG
Apr 15, 2012, 9:18 PM
i've noticed Virgin is really ramping up its advertising here - looking good seeing the skytrain wrap or partial wrap

trofirhen
Apr 16, 2012, 6:40 AM
Haha, okay, call it a "reaction" if you want.

I suppose I was just amazed you went one post without reminding us how small and insignificant Vancouver is. ;)
:previous::previous::previous:

Hey, the "trick" wasn't on you. Canberra was just a "hook."
All I meant was, that in spite of being small and insignificant as so many cities go, Vancouver is still the LA, San Fran, and Seattle of Canada all rolled into one.

It would simply be nice to get a real solid foothold in Australia, that's all. Vancouver could do that; Toronto could not.

twoNeurons
Apr 16, 2012, 4:06 PM
:previous::previous::previous:

Points well taken, but a simple question: Which route is SHORTER? Via London / Frankfurt to, say, Jo'burg, or over the pole to Qatar, then on to Jo'burg?
Also, @Metro-One: why does taking the POLAR route mean it has no real competition? Is this, then, the shortest "Route to Jo'burg?"

(hey, there's a theme for a new thread; just what is the best connecting point for Vancouver to Africa and the Middle East? The thread might be nicknamed "The Fastest Way to Jo'burg," but I'm not going to start it.:rolleyes:)

If you take a look at www.gcmap.com you can see that London is probably one of the shortest routes.

A Qatar route is far enough east so that going over the pole is the direct route as well.

Plug in a few airports into gcmap.com to see what I mean:

YVR - LGW - CPT
YVR - DOX - CPT
YVR - JFK - CPT
YVR - YYZ - CPT

PaperTiger
Apr 16, 2012, 7:11 PM
Cool site,

Incidently, it appears the most direct route would be YVR-ATL-CPT. That is is only 149 Km's longer than if you could fly non-stop.

Does Delta still run YVR-ATL?

Gordon
Apr 16, 2012, 8:18 PM
yes Delta will be operating the YVR to ATL on a limited service. Saturdays

trofirhen
Apr 19, 2012, 12:10 AM
yes Delta will be operating the YVR to ATL on a limited service. Saturdays

:dunno: Hmmmmmmm. How is that to be interpreted?

Gordon
Apr 19, 2012, 2:09 PM
Westjet & Delta have a code Share YVR ATL might work as a codeshare route
DEelta uses 757s a 737-700 might be suffcient.

trofirhen
Apr 19, 2012, 3:19 PM
Westjet & Delta have a code Share YVR ATL might work as a codeshare route
Delta uses 757s a 737-700 might be suffcient.
:previous::previous::previous:

Would this still mean a once-a-week service to Atlanta anyway? Atlanta seems such an ideal jumping-off point for anything southeasterly, be it Jo'burg, DisneyWorld, Caracas, or Sao Paulo. Seems a shame not to have better service there. Often more direct than going via YYZ anyway.

LotusLand
Apr 19, 2012, 7:31 PM
YVR named best airport in North America and Number 9 in the world. So this is where all our fees our going :cool:

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2012/04/yvr-named-best-airport-in-north-america-for-third-year-in-a-row/

incognism
Apr 19, 2012, 7:42 PM
:previous::previous::previous:

Would this still mean a once-a-week service to Atlanta anyway? Atlanta seems such an ideal jumping-off point for anything southeasterly, be it Jo'burg, DisneyWorld, Caracas, or Sao Paulo. Seems a shame not to have better service there. Often more direct than going via YYZ anyway.

Delta runs YVR-SLC and YVR-MSP which both have numerous connections to ATL (since all three are DL hubs) and codeshare on WS and AS flights to LAX, PDX, SEA, and LAS for additional connections.

I can't imagine what would actually justify a once daily YVR-ATL.

SpongeG
Apr 20, 2012, 5:08 AM
just sucks if you wanna fly on overseas - you have to bounce around the USA before you get on your way and deal with all that goes on in a USA airport

Valley_Refugee
Apr 20, 2012, 7:25 AM
Would this still mean a once-a-week service to Atlanta anyway? Atlanta seems such an ideal jumping-off point for anything southeasterly, be it Jo'burg, DisneyWorld, Caracas, or Sao Paulo. Seems a shame not to have better service there. Often more direct than going via YYZ anyway.

It would be nice to have a year-round connection to Atlanta...probably has something to do with the lack of any decent SkyTeam connections in YVR. Air travel is becoming more and more about the alliances, for sure.

Going to Johannesburg through Atlanta could yield a 3-ish hour time saving over going through London or Frankfurt (based on the lowest possible connecting time SEA-ATL-JNB). I think South America is well-served from Vancouver through LAX, DFW, and IAH.

Hourglass
Apr 20, 2012, 8:05 AM
YVR was named best airport in North America and 9th best worldwide by Skytrax at the World Airport Awards (http://www.worldairportawards.com).

Not exactly scientific in its methodology, but nice recognition anyway. And it's hard to quibble about Seoul, Singapore and Hong Kong as the top three airports in the survey.

deasine
Apr 20, 2012, 8:07 AM
It would be nice to have a year-round connection to Atlanta...probably has something to do with the lack of any decent SkyTeam connections in YVR. Air travel is becoming more and more about the alliances, for sure.

I agree with your first statement, that SkyTeam practically has little activity here in YVR anyway.

But as for your second statement, I disagree, and as a matter of fact, I argue alliances seem to have less of an importance nowadays than ever before. Back when the three alliances were growing, airline business cooperation amongst opposing alliances was not accepted, but nowadays, this is not the case. I think the gulf-carriers and their ability to perform without an alliance are an indication that alliances aren't necessarily the key to a successful business, but more about the business cooperation one makes with different carriers. As a matter of fact, alliances can even hinder one's ability to seek the best business opportunities. Take WestJet for example, it has remained unaligned and its strategy allows for taking business from both Skyteam carriers and oneworld carriers. The same can be said for Virgin Australia, which has became quite successful in rocking the Qantas boat down in the South Pacific.

mezzanine
Apr 20, 2012, 3:34 PM
^I'm not sure if i would count out alliances yet. practically, a stronger skyteam precence would mean more shared resources like catering, front office and maintenance for its members, building on itself. at least this would help the existing non-delta skyteam flight IIRC, the KLM YVR-AMS flight.

i suspect that if westjet gets large enough to fly more internationally, there would be ++ incentive for them to pair up with an alliance. I'm not sure if the gulf airlines are equivalent comparisons - say what you want about suspected subsidies, at least from the get-go they pay no corporate or income taxes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_business_model)

I think seatac being a delta-skyteam fortress also plays a role with YVR being under-represented by them.

Interestingly, air canada's website allowed me to book YVR-MEL for equivalent cost as YVR-SYD, with the SYD-MEL leg being flown by qantas and my bags being transferred automatically.

Valley_Refugee
Apr 20, 2012, 9:45 PM
But as for your second statement, I disagree, and as a matter of fact, I argue alliances seem to have less of an importance nowadays than ever before. Back when the three alliances were growing, airline business cooperation amongst opposing alliances was not accepted, but nowadays, this is not the case. I think the gulf-carriers and their ability to perform without an alliance are an indication that alliances aren't necessarily the key to a successful business, but more about the business cooperation one makes with different carriers. As a matter of fact, alliances can even hinder one's ability to seek the best business opportunities. Take WestJet for example, it has remained unaligned and its strategy allows for taking business from both Skyteam carriers and oneworld carriers. The same can be said for Virgin Australia, which has became quite successful in rocking the Qantas boat down in the South Pacific.

I guess we'll just have to agree to profoundly disagree. Nearly every major US/European airport is a Fortress [Insert Alliance Here]. Airports organize new (and old) terminals around airline alliances. Gulf carriers and marginal carriers like WS and Virgin Australia aside. Why does AC fly to Frankfurt and Munich but not Amsterdam or Madrid (aside from seasonally on old planes)? Furthermore, AC/LH fly between Frankfurt (and Munich to a lesser extent) from Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, and Ottawa...AC and LH are two founding Star Alliance members and relatively deeply integrated in terms of code shares. Why is United the American carrier that serves Canada the most? British/Iberia and American's joint ventures across the Atlantic. Delta/KLM/Air France.

"Game changing" airliners like the 787 MAY shake things up a bit in terms of serving marginal markets that were better served through alliance connections before.

i suspect that if westjet gets large enough to fly more internationally, there would be ++ incentive for them to pair up with an alliance.

I do hope WestJet takes a run at being a true international airline. You think SkyTeam or oneworld?

Valley_Refugee
Apr 20, 2012, 10:30 PM
Great news! Sichuan is starting 3x weekly Chengdu-Shenyang-YVR flights on A330-200.

http://airlineroute.net/2012/04/20/3u-yvr-jun12/

It's already updated on the Wikipedia article...whoever edits that one is fast!

Johnny Aussie
Apr 20, 2012, 10:43 PM
^ Damn you beat me to it! Already had started drafting my post!

Yeah that is awesome news. I am always skeptical of Letters of Intent... But at least this one came to fruition.

Let's hope it does well and other Chinese Airlines (present and future) open even more routes/capacity to YVR

Valley_Refugee
Apr 22, 2012, 1:01 AM
^Yeah, for sure. Missing Hainan of the big carriers.

deasine
Apr 22, 2012, 5:07 AM
^Yeah, for sure. Missing Hainan of the big carriers.

Too bad they've chosen SEA instead. I've heard they've been really successful on that route: they've managed to cater to a niche audience.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 22, 2012, 6:26 AM
Oops dup post!

Johnny Aussie
Apr 22, 2012, 6:28 AM
^Yes but Hainan flies mainly from PEK which is well covered by CA and AC ex YVR. CA rumored to increase flights again next year as well.

Where Sichuan is an important step as it opens up 2 new cities in China rarely served with overseas flights. As China continues to grow and with the still relatively new ADS of Canada this will only open more opportunities.

Don't forget Air China, China Eastern, China Southern and now Sichuan have "chosen" YVR. You can even add Cathay Pacific too. I would say YVR is very well served by Chinese carriers. China Eastern used to serve SEA as well but not for years.

Hourglass
Apr 22, 2012, 12:55 PM
:previous:

I think you'll find quite a few people taking issue with you calling Cathay a "Chinese" carrier, esp since HK does its own bilateral negotiations and has its own regulatory authority that is completely separate from the People's Republic of China!

Nevertheless, you're right that much of the future growth in transpacific flights @ YVR will be coming from China. There are a bunch of so-called tier 2 cities in China with huge populations. Shenyang, who I warrant many people have never heard of, has a population of 7 million or so.

Back of the napkin calculations suggest that YVR will have around 106 flights per week to Asia this summer -- of which 40% will be to China (60% if you include HK)

trofirhen
Apr 22, 2012, 6:33 PM
I guess we'll just have to agree to profoundly disagree. Nearly every major US/European airport is a Fortress [Insert Alliance Here]. Airports organize new (and old) terminals around airline alliances. Gulf carriers and marginal carriers like WS and Virgin Australia aside. Why does AC fly to Frankfurt and Munich but not Amsterdam or Madrid (aside from seasonally on old planes)? Furthermore, AC/LH fly between Frankfurt (and Munich to a lesser extent) from Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, and Ottawa...AC and LH are two founding Star Alliance members and relatively deeply integrated in terms of code shares. Why is United the American carrier that serves Canada the most? British/Iberia and American's joint ventures across the Atlantic. Delta/KLM/Air France.

"Game changing" airliners like the 787 MAY shake things up a bit in terms of serving marginal markets that were better served through alliance connections before.



I do hope WestJet takes a run at being a true international airline. You think SkyTeam or oneworld?
:previous::previous::previous:

I seem to remember somethng a while back about the possibility of WestJet joining oneworld. British Airways is already oneworld. I hope WestJet can join SkyTeam, to give it a foothold in Star Alliance-dominated YVR

mezzanine
Apr 22, 2012, 7:25 PM
I do hope WestJet takes a run at being a true international airline. You think SkyTeam or oneworld?

My money would be on oneworld. IIRC, westjet code shares JAL and Cathay Flights thru vancouver to other cities in western canada.

Aside from KLM and delta, i'm not sure if there are any other skyteam members at YVR, and i don't really see any synergies there versus oneworld's transpacific flights.

Hourglass
Apr 22, 2012, 8:03 PM
Aside from KLM and delta, i'm not sure if there are any other skyteam members at YVR, and i don't really see any synergies there versus oneworld's transpacific flights.

Korean Airlines, China Eastern, China Southern, and China Airlines are all Skyteam members and serve YVR. There would actually seem to be plenty of opportunity for onward connections to the US on Delta or the rest of Canada if Westjet wanted.

trofirhen
Apr 22, 2012, 8:36 PM
I guess we'll just have to agree to profoundly disagree. Nearly every major US/European airport is a Fortress [Insert Alliance Here]. Airports organize new (and old) terminals around airline alliances. Gulf carriers and marginal carriers like WS and Virgin Australia aside. Why does AC fly to Frankfurt and Munich but not Amsterdam or Madrid (aside from seasonally on old planes)? Furthermore, AC/LH fly between Frankfurt (and Munich to a lesser extent) from Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, and Ottawa...AC and LH are two founding Star Alliance members and relatively deeply integrated in terms of code shares. Why is United the American carrier that serves Canada the most? British/Iberia and American's joint ventures across the Atlantic. Delta/KLM/Air France.

"Game changing" airliners like the 787 MAY shake things up a bit in terms of serving marginal markets that were better served through alliance connections before.



I do hope WestJet takes a run at being a true international airline. You think SkyTeam or oneworld?
:previous:

Good analysis and perspective. Thanks for this. It opens up different questions and opinions.

Delta runs YVR-SLC and YVR-MSP which both have numerous connections to ATL (since all three are DL hubs) and codeshare on WS and AS flights to LAX, PDX, SEA, and LAS for additional connections.

I can't imagine what would actually justify a once daily YVR-ATL.
:previous:
... maybe the fact that it's the Delta hub, and you can fly most anywhere in the southeastern states (Orlando, for example) or continue on to Latin America and the Caribbean. If we can already do all this through Dallas or Houston, forget what I just said.

just sucks if you wanna fly on overseas - you have to bounce around the USA before you get on your way and deal with all that goes on in a USA airport
:previous:
For sure, for sure.

My money would be on oneworld. IIRC, westjet code shares JAL and Cathay Flights thru vancouver to other cities in western canada.

Aside from KLM and delta, i'm not sure if there are any other skyteam members at YVR, and i don't really see any synergies there versus oneworld's transpacific flights.
:previous:
interesting....

Korean Airlines, China Eastern, China Southern, and China Airlines are all Skyteam members and serve YVR. There would actually seem to be plenty of opportunity for onward connections to the US on Delta or the rest of Canada if Westjet wanted.
:previous:

Great idea, and even better if / when WJ goes overseas ... (like Europe maybe)

Vancouver, though the hub city for Western Canada, is smaller in population that even Portland (metropolian totals of each city). When it gets bigger (and yes, it will!) there will be a larger air market, and there'll be scheduled routes we don't have now, I am sure

mezzanine
Apr 22, 2012, 8:59 PM
Korean Airlines, China Eastern, China Southern, and China Airlines are all Skyteam members and serve YVR. There would actually seem to be plenty of opportunity for onward connections to the US on Delta or the rest of Canada if Westjet wanted.

my bad. I'm not sure if WJ has any existing partnerships with those airlines, though. It might make more sense for WJ to be with skyteam, as alaska is a junior member of oneworld and can be seen as a local competitor.

SpongeG
Apr 22, 2012, 9:54 PM
Vancouver, though the hub city for Western Canada, is smaller in population that even Portland (metropolian totals of each city). When it gets bigger (and yes, it will!) there will be a larger air market, and there'll be scheduled routes we don't have now, I am sure

Vancouver is slightly bigger than portland, Portland has 2.2 million, vancouver has 2.3 million and 2.5 if u include FVRD

Valley_Refugee
Apr 22, 2012, 10:21 PM
Vancouver, though the hub city for Western Canada, is smaller in population that even Portland (metropolian totals of each city). When it gets bigger (and yes, it will!) there will be a larger air market, and there'll be scheduled routes we don't have now, I am sure

Vancouver is slightly bigger than portland, Portland has 2.2 million, vancouver has 2.3 million and 2.5 if u include FVRD

The US census areas are positively MASSIVE as well. Seattle's metro is something like 20,000 sq km whereas Metro Vancouver is under 3,000 (a good chunk of which being mountains). Stats Can refuses to merge CMAs, so even Abbotsford won't be counted as part of Vancouver, for now anyways. Both Seattle and Portland's metro figures are inflated, by Canadian standards.

You also have to look at Portland and Vancouver's respective 'roles' in their country. Vancouver is the Western gateway to the Pacific and the third-largest city, and still a major business centre for Canada (and yes, I know, not anywhere near Toronto or big by world standards). Portland might not even rank in the top 5 metros on the US west coast, let alone the country.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 23, 2012, 1:38 AM
:previous:

I think you'll find quite a few people taking issue with you calling Cathay a "Chinese" carrier, esp since HK does its own bilateral negotiations and has its own regulatory authority that is completely separate from the People's Republic of China!

Nevertheless, you're right that much of the future growth in transpacific flights @ YVR will be coming from China. There are a bunch of so-called tier 2 cities in China with huge populations. Shenyang, who I warrant many people have never heard of, has a population of 7 million or so.

Back of the napkin calculations suggest that YVR will have around 106 flights per week to Asia this summer -- of which 40% will be to China (60% if you include HK)

Agreed, that's why I kinda put it in its own sentence... however, it is still part of "China." Anyway!

Spot on with your 106 weekly frequencies to Asia this summer.

There is a bit of capacity shifting around but up from 103 frequencies last summer.

NOW back to my NHL app! GO CANUCKS!

casper
Apr 23, 2012, 2:13 AM
my bad. I'm not sure if WJ has any existing partnerships with those airlines, though. It might make more sense for WJ to be with skyteam, as alaska is a junior member of oneworld and can be seen as a local competitor.

Westjet has codeshares with American, Cathay, Japan Airlines, Delta and KLM. So fairly tight working relationship with both Oneworld and Skyteam members. I think they are going to do the same thing as Alaska and not join any alliance, they will just partner and codeshare with anyone who is not already a codeshare partner with Air Canada.

Westjet also has interline agreements (permitting baggage transfer and the ability to sell a ticket that involves flights with multiple interline partners) with several more airlines including: Aeromexico, Air China, Air India, Alitalia, British Airways, China Airlines, China Eastern, China Southern, El Al Emirates, Finnair, Korean Air, Pakistan, Air, Qantas, Qatar and SATA Portugal.

The interline agreements are very common. Air Canada has interline agreements with every major airline (and a lot of minor airlines) in the world regardless of alliance. Westjet just started signing interline agreements in the last year or two. Without the interline agreement if you are making a connection between airlines you were forced to buy two separate tickets and the airline was not responsible for making certain you made your connection.

mezzanine
Apr 23, 2012, 4:53 AM
Jebus, 0 for 2. my bad again. :yuck:

Johnny Aussie
Apr 23, 2012, 5:06 AM
El Al Emirates

.

An awesome name for one of the most unlikely mergers ever.

Classic case of different meaning by a minor punctuation error!

Slow news day... just had a chuckle.

SpongeG
Apr 23, 2012, 5:50 AM
The US census areas are positively MASSIVE as well. Seattle's metro is something like 20,000 sq km whereas Metro Vancouver is under 3,000 (a good chunk of which being mountains). Stats Can refuses to merge CMAs, so even Abbotsford won't be counted as part of Vancouver, for now anyways. Both Seattle and Portland's metro figures are inflated, by Canadian standards.

You also have to look at Portland and Vancouver's respective 'roles' in their country. Vancouver is the Western gateway to the Pacific and the third-largest city, and still a major business centre for Canada (and yes, I know, not anywhere near Toronto or big by world standards). Portland might not even rank in the top 5 metros on the US west coast, let alone the country.

according to wikipedia its rated 23rd or 29th in the country

it does have a few big companies like nike, columbia, tazo are three popular brands from there

Valley_Refugee
Apr 23, 2012, 8:51 AM
according to wikipedia its rated 23rd or 29th in the country

it does have a few big companies like nike, columbia, tazo are three popular brands from there

Right...we should compare Portland's place in America to Vancouver's place in Canada, relatively.

deasine
Apr 23, 2012, 6:39 PM
Because WS is so involved in carriers of both alliances, alienating its competitor alliances by joining another is the sole reason why WS will not join an alliance. Remember, an alliance is a way of saying you will be codesharing with certain carriers, and frequent flyer benefits will be shared. But it's entirely possible to achieve these partnerships without alliances. Alaska Airline and Delta not only codeshare, but also share frequent flyer benefits which is rather unusual for a non-aligned carrier: Gold members on Alaska get the same benefits as Gold members on Delta, and vice versa.

Even with alliances, carriers nowadays need to build partnerships on top of that, and this would be most definitely required for WS as it establishes as a feeder airline for the spokes of its partners.

Alliances are definitely attractive for businessmen, especially the Frequent Flyer Benefit carrier-wide recognition, but again, this can be achieved through partnerships. But I think WS needs to improve their Frequent Flyer rewards first more than anything... their program just doesn't really make any sense.

So until there's a third scheduled carrier in Canada, and Canadian aviation becomes more alliance-oriented (aside from Star Alliance of course), I can't see WS joining any alliance. And just to clarify what I said earlier, I never said alliances aren't important or valued, I just think they have less emphasis than they did before.

SpongeG
Apr 23, 2012, 7:36 PM
construction down by the airport - just to the north - pics by me april 22

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/863/dsc03945n.jpg

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3561/dsc03944n.jpg

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8281/dsc03943c.jpg

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/9853/dsc03942avo.jpg

SpongeG
Apr 23, 2012, 7:38 PM
Right...we should compare Portland's place in America to Vancouver's place in Canada, relatively.

yeah its not that big or important compared to here - which is kinda sad that other than importance on a national level we are basically the same city business wise, size wise, population etc.

hollywoodnorth
Apr 23, 2012, 8:02 PM
thx for the pics SpongeG that is the Canada Post building!

SpongeG
Apr 23, 2012, 8:03 PM
ah ok - was wondering if that is what it was

Johnny Aussie
Apr 24, 2012, 4:33 AM
Another decent month

All sectors up in March 2012 compared to March 2011.

Overall up 2.9% (up 5.1% YTD)

Asia Pacific up 5.9% (up 6.4% YTD)
Transborder up 4.7% (up 5.7% YTD)
Europe up 2.4% (up 3.4% YTD)
Other Int'l up 2.1% (up 3.0% YTD)
Domestic up 1.3% (up 4.7% YTD)

Valley_Refugee
Apr 24, 2012, 8:00 PM
Any thoughts/buzz on whether AC will serve YVR-BKK when the new 787's come online? I seem to recall Canadian serving this route in the 80's and/or 90's...?

trofirhen
Apr 24, 2012, 10:03 PM
yeah its not that big or important compared to here - which is kinda sad that other than importance on a national level we are basically the same city business wise, size wise, population etc.
:previous:
Just for interest, according to WIKIPEDIA, Portland airport handled 13.7m pax last year, and appears to have only Amsterdam and Tokyo as overseas destinations.

I believe Lufthansa once flew Portland to Frankfurt, but apparently that was dropped several years back. Nevertheless, it surprises me that there isn't a flight to LHR, given that it's such an important destination.

Currently, there are no Mexican destinations listed there, quite the contrary to the case of Vancouver. I guess they all change at LAX

sacrifice333
Apr 24, 2012, 10:33 PM
Any thoughts/buzz on whether AC will serve YVR-BKK when the new 787's come online? I seem to recall Canadian serving this route in the 80's and/or 90's...?

Only North America --> BKK direct right now is from LAX and that doesn't seem to be listed as continuing in 2013.

I was there last month, flew through NRT. Could have gone through HKG, SIN, TPE, PVG, PEK, or CAN (among others).

incognism
Apr 24, 2012, 11:19 PM
I'm not surprised PDX doesn't have many International routes. Why would an airline start an ex-PDX TPAC or TATL flight when they can pick up much more o/d traffic from LAX, SFO or SEA (or even DEN for that matter).

It'd be akin to any airline running a YYC-Asia non-stop. Simply won't happen any time soon.

With regards to AC's 787s, I think YVR-SIN might be more likely than YVR-BKK.

Rogie
Apr 24, 2012, 11:25 PM
It'd be akin to any airline running a YYC-Asia non-stop. Simply won't happen any time soon.



Except that AC will soon be flying YYC-NRT year-round.

incognism
Apr 24, 2012, 11:34 PM
Except that AC will soon be flying YYC-NRT year-round.

Oh right, that was seasonal for a while wasn't it? Still can't imagine much more than a 763 flying YYC-Asia though.

My point still stands (albeit maybe without the "Simply won't happen any time soon" statement).

EDIT: 5x summer, 3x winter.

Metro-One
Apr 25, 2012, 12:00 AM
Except that AC will soon be flying YYC-NRT year-round.

You have got to be kidding. AC will be flying YYC to NRT yet they dropped the daily YVR to KIX.

That still pisses me off since I used that direct connection several times a year.

Yume-sama
Apr 25, 2012, 12:15 AM
I think with a 787 we might see YVR - KIX. It's a route that I don't think was overly profitable, and the fees charged by KIX certainly didn't help. As far as Japan, it's most disappointing that a Haneda flight was a total flop and never actually took off. It's a loooong ride from Narita to Tokyo, unless you have $1200 to spend on a helicopter connection (even then the heliport in Tokyo is quite inconveniently located!).

I'm flying with AC to Tokyo in October, but then, for the first time in my life in November I managed to get a great price through LAX via SIA A380 (much cheaper than I usually end up seeing for AC Executive First, and even SIA Business Class is mind blowing). Depending on how badly molested I get at the border, I could be one of those people who choose going through the USA~ What a nightmare for YVR! I would *love* for SIA to use one of their forthcoming 787's for a YVR - SIN (possibly with a stop in KIX :P? as they stop in NRT from LAX, and Incheon from SFO). Their service is amazing, and I especially like being able to pre-order all my meals from their extensive menu through their "Book the Cook" program.

Also, ANA's business class service is not very impressive, but I could see some people choosing to fly their 787 from SEA - NRT when it starts up since the price will be lower surely.

twoNeurons
Apr 25, 2012, 12:56 AM
That'd be nice, but I won't hold my breath.

The Kansai Int't (KIX) landing fees are much lower now... to the point where they have a new discount carrier, Peach (discount airlines being new for Japan).

I think there's a couple of reasons KIX isn't used as much. It's become a less important transfer hub, Incheon successfully siphoned a lot of traffic from Japan in general in recent years. In addition, they still can't decide which airport to use... and some will want to fly direct to Kobe or Itami anyhow, which would make more sense to transfer in Tokyo. KIX SHOULD've built like it was planned, between Kobe and Osaka. It would've a whole lot easier to close Itami and not bleed money. But hey... it's Japan... king of pork barrel projects and overbuilt infastructure.

Haneda's expansion was in order to compete with Seoul's Incheon. I think Tokyo always thought it would be the "London" of Asia. So, I think for the foreseeable future, the focus will be Asian and some NA business travelers to Haneda, and keep Narita for most flights.

As for Narita, yea it's far. The Sky ACCESS Line (http://www.narita-airport.jp/en/whats_new/100409_skyaccess.html) just opened and it's still 36-44 minutes from the North-Eastern edge of Central Tokyo... and that's at 160km/h. Pity the landing slots are so bad on the incoming flight. Arriving at 10:30 at night isn't the greatest. The return was nice, though. Leaving in the evening was nice if you can get sleep on the plane.

If I'm going to fly out of Seattle, I'd take Delta and fly direct to KIX(Osaka) unless I have plans to stop in Tokyo.

Hot Rod
Apr 25, 2012, 5:49 AM
yep, Canadians will prop up SEA-KIX just like Canadians do for most SEA flights.

I agree with the assessment of KIX, and what really is killing KIX is Kobe airport. It is hard to believe that Itami is still the #1 airport in the Kansai region (pax wise). I think KIX can fight back by building the second terminal (setting up either Domestic in one, International in the other; OR Star Alliance-ANA in one and Oneworld-JAL in the other) and focus exclusively on Incheon; but they will have to cut their landing fees to make it work. I don't see how Itami could close (unless the neighbours effectively complain moreso), but the region needs a plan as it is not sustainable for Kansai to have 3 airports (Kanto has 2 and is 2/3 bigger in pop).

twoNeurons
Apr 25, 2012, 8:22 PM
yep, Canadians will prop up SEA-KIX just like Canadians do for most SEA flights.

I agree with the assessment of KIX, and what really is killing KIX is Kobe airport. It is hard to believe that Itami is still the #1 airport in the Kansai region (pax wise). I think KIX can fight back by building the second terminal (setting up either Domestic in one, International in the other; OR Star Alliance-ANA in one and Oneworld-JAL in the other) and focus exclusively on Incheon; but they will have to cut their landing fees to make it work. I don't see how Itami could close (unless the neighbours effectively complain moreso), but the region needs a plan as it is not sustainable for Kansai to have 3 airports (Kanto has 2 and is 2/3 bigger in pop).

It's The irony is that KIX was originally going to be built close to where Kobe airport is now. A MUCH more central location.

KIX has already cut their landing fees

The airport to downtown is still 30-40 minutes, depending on where you're going.
http://www.fair.or.jp/viva%20folder/viva/exhibition/english/hall/image/map.gif

It's cases like these which make me glad that YVR is so close to the city and that there's still considerable room for expansion.

Seoul is building a High Speed bullet train to reduce the travel time to 40 minutes.
Tokyo Narita has a 160km/h train to reduce the EXPRESS time to 36 minutes (to a non-central location) which leaves quite frequently.
Osaka KIX has two express services (110km/h?) that take 30-40 minutes, also leaving fairly frequently.
New York has no direct line, but LIRR/Airtrain will get you there in 35-45 minutes, leaving every 15 minutes.
Paris CDG takes 30-40 minutes (they're building an express that connects CDG to Gare L'est that will be a 20 minute ride and cost ~20 Euros).
San Francisco's BART takes 40 minutes, I think?
London's Heathrow airport is conveniently located 32km away with both 15 minute express service and about 50 minutes by Underground, but Gatwick and Stansted are quite a distance away.

Toronto's finally getting a 25 minute limited express train to Pearson in 2015.

Vancouver's SkyTrain though... it travels at normal subway speeds, stops at every station and it's still between 19-25 minutes to central Vancouver (Broadway to Waterfront) with trains leaving every couple of minutes. That's pretty hard to beat. Good station spacing (not too close together outside the core), fast service, and distance are all in Vancouver's favor.

SpongeG
Apr 25, 2012, 8:52 PM
I used Gatwick and used the express train to victoria station - it was 30 minutes and 11 GBP at that time

i didn't know there was a local train that was much cheaper, about 5GBP, but took 60 minutes which would have worked for me

sacrifice333
Apr 25, 2012, 9:09 PM
Vancouver's SkyTrain though... it travels at normal subway speeds, stops at every station and it's still between 19-25 minutes to central Vancouver (Broadway to Waterfront) with trains leaving every couple of minutes. That's pretty hard to beat. Good station spacing (not too close together outside the core), fast service, and distance are all in Vancouver's favor.

Canada Line has really put Vancouver and YVR on the easy airport --> city transit map! My wife and I travel quite a bit, and live near the C-line, it's SOOOOO easy... and SOOOOOOO quick!

Also, if you added price comparison to the above stats you'd also see that C-line us uber cheap, even with the outbound $5 YVR Fare add-on!

Jebby
Apr 25, 2012, 9:11 PM
London's Heathrow airport is conveniently located 32km away with both 15 minute express service and about 50 minutes by Underground, but Gatwick and Stansted are quite a distance away.
[/list].

There's also the Heathrow Connect train from Paddington which takes 25 minutes. Theyre also building Crossrail which will connect Heathrow to central London with metro frequencies.

Stansted Express takes 46 minutes to Liverpool Street and runs every 20 minutes. It is quite pricey at £21 one way in second class.

Gatwick Express takes 30 minutes to Victoria Station, run every 15 minutes and costs £19 one way.

Luton Airport is accesible by Thameslink trains from Luton Airport Station and there's a shuttle bus to and from the station. Trains run every few minutes during peak hours and about every 15 minutes off peak. Travel time is about 45 minutes from Kings Cross St Pancras. Thameslink also connects to Gatwick Airport.

London City Airport is connected to central London by the DLR.

twoNeurons
Apr 26, 2012, 4:11 AM
There's also the Heathrow Connect train from Paddington which takes 25 minutes. Theyre also building Crossrail which will connect Heathrow to central London with metro frequencies.

Stansted Express takes 46 minutes to Liverpool Street and runs every 20 minutes. It is quite pricey at £21 one way in second class.

Gatwick Express takes 30 minutes to Victoria Station, run every 15 minutes and costs £19 one way.

Luton Airport is accesible by Thameslink trains from Luton Airport Station and there's a shuttle bus to and from the station. Trains run every few minutes during peak hours and about every 15 minutes off peak. Travel time is about 45 minutes from Kings Cross St Pancras. Thameslink also connects to Gatwick Airport.

London City Airport is connected to central London by the DLR.

Yep, London is certainly well-connected by transit to its airports. It's not cheap, but there are options.

Am I the only one who impatiently wishes WestJet would be a little more adventurous and break out of their low-cost domestic budget roots a little.

I understand that they have standardized on 737s, but is there anything wrong with adding another, larger twin-engined plane and going after some international routes?

I think the 787 would be a perfect fit for the carrier and enable it to start taking on some longer routes. It seems to like the slow-but-steady glacial pace of expansion, however.

teriyaki
Apr 26, 2012, 4:30 AM
Yep, London is certainly well-connected by transit to its airports. It's not cheap, but there are options.

Am I the only one who impatiently wishes WestJet would be a little more adventurous and break out of their low-cost domestic budget roots a little.

I understand that they have standardized on 737s, but is there anything wrong with adding another, larger twin-engined plane and going after some international routes?

I think the 787 would be a perfect fit for the carrier and enable it to start taking on some longer routes. It seems to like the slow-but-steady glacial pace of expansion, however.

I think they already have their hands full with the pending purchase of either ATRs or Q400's for their regional flying plans. I'd say international plans are definitely long term if they have any at all. They seem content with aggressively code-sharing with other long-haul carriers and feeding them to their 737's.

trofirhen
Apr 26, 2012, 5:42 AM
Yeah, I'd love to see just four or five new, key, major destinations out of Vancouver, like ........

Hourglass
Apr 26, 2012, 9:14 AM
Yeah, I'd love to see just four or five new, key, major destinations out of Vancouver, like ........

Let me guess ... one of tese destinations is a city that lies a few thousand miles east of Vancouver, five letters long, starts with a 'P' and ends with an 's'? :rolleyes:

Bigtime
Apr 26, 2012, 1:02 PM
Yeah, I'd love to see just four or five new, key, major destinations out of Vancouver, like ........

Let me guess ... one of tese destinations is a city that lies a few thousand miles east of Vancouver, five letters long, starts with a 'P' and ends with an 's'? :rolleyes:

Perhaps, but first you'd have to fly YVR-YYC on WestProp (Q400) to catch the WestJet 787 flight from YYC to CDG. ;)

Bigtime
Apr 26, 2012, 2:23 PM
Vancouver airport looks to connect with passengers
Growth from Asian passengers presents huge opportunity, exec says

Read more:

http://www.canada.com/Vancouver+airport+looks+connect+with+passengers/6522769/story.html#ixzz1t9n49zM3

twoNeurons
Apr 26, 2012, 2:55 PM
Vancouver airport looks to connect with passengers
Growth from Asian passengers presents huge opportunity, exec says

Read more:

http://www.canada.com/Vancouver+airport+looks+connect+with+passengers/6522769/story.html#ixzz1t9n49zM3

The 4 comments on that article are typical. xenophobic, negative or spam.

I love that YVR is not standing still, despite getting the best airport in North America award. They not only want to be the best, but they want to put distance between them and second place.


Highlights from the article:


VANCOUVER -- The Vancouver Airport Authority is looking to capitalize on the increasing number of travellers from Asia by making it quicker and easier for them to fly through Vancouver on their way to elsewhere in North America.

---

Connecting passengers help fill seats on planes. So instead of a plane being 50 or 60 per cent full, by having connecting passengers airlines fly at 80 or 90 per cent, he said.

And it makes that route profitable, which brings more flights to Vancouver.

---

“Our connect time from an international flight to a domestic flight is about 90 minutes,” Gugliotta said.

“Some of the world’s best airports in terms of connect time is under an hour. So we need to be able to reduce that connect time to be competitive.”

YVR plans to do that by installing a high-speed baggage system that will move bags from one terminal to another in seven minutes and replace the current system of driving luggage between terminals.

Faster moving walkways will help passengers change terminals quicker.

Those two upgrades should be in place by 2014.

YVR is also in talks with Canada Border Services Agency to create an international customs hub so travellers won’t have to pick up their luggage and go through security screening when they land in Vancouver heading elsewhere, Gugliotta said.

Also under a test program with the CBSA, Chinese nationals from certain Chinese cities who are flying through Vancouver to the United States will not require a visa, according to YVR’s annual report, being released today.

---

That includes not charging connecting passengers the Airport Improvement Fee, which is increasing from $15 to $20 for all passengers travelling outside B.C. starting May 1. Passengers travelling within the province will continue to pay $5.

s211
Apr 26, 2012, 3:09 PM
I think the 787 would be a perfect fit for the carrier and enable it to start taking on some longer routes. It seems to like the slow-but-steady glacial pace of expansion, however.

Oh god no. Can you imagine how long it would take westjetters to load a 787? It would be faster to walk to your destination.

trofirhen
Apr 26, 2012, 4:35 PM
Let me guess ... one of tese destinations is a city that lies a few thousand miles east of Vancouver, five letters long, starts with a 'P' and ends with an 's'? :rolleyes:
:previous:

;) Yes, Paris of course, but others, too, such as (in the longer term) Istanbul, Qatar, Orlando, Miami, Brisbane, Copenhagen, Rome, Madrid, Singapore, Delhi, Mumbai ......

twoNeurons
Apr 26, 2012, 5:38 PM
Oh god no. Can you imagine how long it would take westjetters to load a 787? It would be faster to walk to your destination.

They don't seem to have a problem with the 757s they leased to go to Hawaii... which happens to be a difficult place to walk to.

LeftCoaster
Apr 26, 2012, 5:41 PM
Am I the only one who impatiently wishes WestJet would be a little more adventurous and break out of their low-cost domestic budget roots a little.

I understand that they have standardized on 737s, but is there anything wrong with adding another, larger twin-engined plane and going after some international routes?

I think the 787 would be a perfect fit for the carrier and enable it to start taking on some longer routes. It seems to like the slow-but-steady glacial pace of expansion, however.

I don't know why you would be. Any growth of Westjet is going to be to the benefit of YYC and the detriment of YVR.

As much as you guys hate AC, YVR is their second largest hub and it is far more responsible for the growth of the airport than Westjet.

Yume-sama
Apr 26, 2012, 5:54 PM
If anyone here is an avid spotter, ANA today announced July 25th as their start date for SEA - NRT with 787.

trofirhen
Apr 26, 2012, 7:42 PM
I don't know why you would be. Any growth of Westjet is going to be to the benefit of YYC and the detriment of YVR.

As much as you guys hate AC, YVR is their second largest hub and it is far more responsible for the growth of the airport than Westjet.
:previous::previous::previous:

Not to contradict, as I know you work in finance and economics, and I don't, but is it really true that any WestJet benefit to YYC would be to the detriment of YVR? YYZ is also a WestJet hub, and they make money flying out of there.
Surely if there is money to be made flying new routes out of YVR, wouldn't WestJet want to sieze upon the opportunity? They already have lots of flights from YVR, not only domestic, but to the mainland USA / Hawaii and Mexico as well. If there's a potentiallly profitable route out of YVR that WestJet could assume, would they not do that?
If not, why not?