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

trofirhen
Nov 3, 2012, 8:38 PM
Does anyone have any updates on the Pier A\B Renos.

No, but I would love to know too.

What I do know is that Gate A1 has been removed and replaced with a new location for the Plaza Premium Lounge. So what is to become of the old location, I am unsure. And where will A1 be located now?

Also, bits and pieces of the B side has hoarding up, but again, I am unsure of what is happening there.
:previous:

I asked the very same thing a while back, and while I don't know the timeline of the reno completions, I do know that this will be a major operations centre for Westjet flights. (Or maybe everybody already knew that?) :shrug::blush:

Valley_Refugee
Nov 3, 2012, 10:01 PM
Lufthansa didn't get to be one of the world's most successful airlines by happenstance. They obviously wouldn't be attempting the market if they didn't think they could make a decent go of it for at least the summer. They have done market research, I'm sure. Summer seasonal routes are also more geared at tourists, the German variety of which love to travel far abroad and love coming to Canada.

I'm not sure if this is relevant to this particular route, but AC and LH have a longstanding transatlantic joint venture as well.

deasine
Nov 3, 2012, 11:07 PM
Actually one reason why LH may be bringing back the YVR-MUC route is because it has focused a lot more in making MUC a hub. FRA has been imposing a lot more aerospace restrictions, which is making LH rethink its strategy.

Johnny Aussie
Nov 4, 2012, 11:25 PM
Sorry duplicated posting!

Johnny Aussie
Nov 4, 2012, 11:40 PM
Yes I am assuming the YVR-MUC launch is riding along with LH's beefing up MUC. I wonder if anything will happen in Berlin too when they finally get BER finally opened!

Johnny Aussie
Nov 4, 2012, 11:41 PM
I still cannot believe that YVR has not even had a press release about the new LH Munich route. Perhaps because not a new airline or actually a relaunch. But is this not a significant route launch? Talk about nonchalant.

ACT7
Nov 4, 2012, 11:53 PM
Yes I am assuming the YVR-MUC launch is riding along with LH's beefing up MUC. I wonder if anything will happen in Berlin too when they finally get BER finally opened!
I don't think in this particular case it has anything to do with refocusing LH's hub on Munich - this is summer seasonal after all and I don't expect this to eat into the existing FRA route at all. It's a tourist run for now, but if it turn into something more it may start to cannibalize FRA more than one would expect. Hopefully that's not the case though.

casper
Nov 5, 2012, 3:56 AM
I don't think in this particular case it has anything to do with refocusing LH's hub on Munich - this is summer seasonal after all and I don't expect this to eat into the existing FRA route at all. It's a tourist run for now, but if it turn into something more it may start to cannibalize FRA more than one would expect. Hopefully that's not the case though.

I regularly transfer through FRA and sometimes Munich via the Air Canada Toronto-Munich flight when going to other parts of Europe. For LH they are both major transfer hubs. Personally I prefer Munich as it is an easier airport to make connections at. I would view it simply as a move to add more capacity as I suspect the major of passengers on both the FRA and Munich flight are connecting to somewhere else and don't care that much which airport they are using.

SpongeG
Nov 5, 2012, 9:34 AM
Actually one reason why LH may be bringing back the YVR-MUC route is because it has focused a lot more in making MUC a hub. FRA has been imposing a lot more aerospace restrictions, which is making LH rethink its strategy.

FRA has banned flights between is it 10 pm and 6 am or 2am and 6 am? as well as putting a cap on the number of take offs and landings allowed in a day

i wonder if activists will try for the same thing here :sly:

Valley_Refugee
Nov 6, 2012, 2:44 AM
At least the airport has no possibility for NIMBYs on its west side...

Jebby
Nov 6, 2012, 12:29 PM
Yes I am assuming the YVR-MUC launch is riding along with LH's beefing up MUC. I wonder if anything will happen in Berlin too when they finally get BER finally opened!

If it ever opens! :p

It's delayed till October 2013 now...

trofirhen
Nov 6, 2012, 1:29 PM
If it ever opens! :p

It's delayed till October 2013 now...
:previous:

deleted (see below)

Bigtime
Nov 6, 2012, 2:09 PM
:previous:

Oh no! A year from now! But ... if they inaugurate it in the off-season, perhaps it's an indication of a year-round service .....

I think you are misinterpreting what Jebby was saying. He wasn't talking about YVR-MUC launching in October 2013, just mentioning that the new Berlin airport is further delayed again until that point.

cyeg66
Nov 6, 2012, 3:05 PM
I think you are misinterpreting what Jebby was saying. He wasn't talking about YVR-MUC launching in October 2013, just mentioning that the new Berlin airport is further delayed again until that point.

What a boondoggle. Not to hijack this thread but pundits say that were the YYC expansion to become delayed, it would cost the airport $1M per day in cost overruns. By that measure, how much is former West Germany :poke:footing the bill on that big P.O.S.? Tegel really is not a suitable expansion site so I understand that they had no choice to consolidate at a suitable airfield (Schonefeld) but my goodness, what mismanagement. Overruns in the billions, clearly. Their safety systems are the latest culprits for the delay, among many others.

Sorry for the :offtopic: As you were....

MalcolmTucker
Nov 6, 2012, 4:04 PM
The new Berlin Airport is beautiful! Hopefully worth the wait. I wonder about O&D demand from that airport beyond the leisure class however, and because of that I doubt any service except charters into western canada for a long time.

trofirhen
Nov 6, 2012, 4:32 PM
I think you are misinterpreting what Jebby was saying. He wasn't talking about YVR-MUC launching in October 2013, just mentioning that the new Berlin airport is further delayed again until that point.
:previous:

Yes. Excuse me.
In fact, I was just looking at the plans for the new Berlin "Brandenburg" Airport, and it sems it will be only a "focus city" for LH, not a hub like FRA or MUC. However, there are, of course, a lot of planned routes from it.

deasine
Nov 7, 2012, 6:51 AM
:previous:

Yes. Excuse me.
In fact, I was just looking at the plans for the new Berlin "Brandenburg" Airport, and it sems it will be only a "focus city" for LH, not a hub like FRA or MUC. However, there are, of course, a lot of planned routes from it.

And that was because of the extra capacity available for all airlines, which allows LH to compete with AB (which is becoming an increasing threat being in the oneworld alliance working with AA, its business relationship with EY [and of course as everyone knows, LH hates gulf-state carriers], as well as a recent codeshare with AF and KL).

Hourglass
Nov 7, 2012, 7:22 AM
:previous:

Yes. Excuse me.
In fact, I was just looking at the plans for the new Berlin "Brandenburg" Airport, and it sems it will be only a "focus city" for LH, not a hub like FRA or MUC. However, there are, of course, a lot of planned routes from it.

Don't just think in terms of LH, Trof. The new Berlin airport is potentially a significant opportunity for Air Berlin to set-up a hub (assuming they don't go bust...), providing an alternative to Star Alliance.

deasine
Nov 7, 2012, 7:26 AM
Don't just think in terms of LH, Trof. Berlin is potentially a significant opportunity for Air Berlin to set-up a hub (assuming they don't go bust...).

Berlin is their hub...

Hourglass
Nov 7, 2012, 7:33 AM
Berlin is their hub...

Yeah, maybe more accurate to say "expand" rather than "set-up".

Jebby
Nov 7, 2012, 8:40 PM
Berlin is their hub...

They actually have more flights out of their hub in Düsseldorf than out of Berlin. Their seasonal fight to Vancoucer is from Düsseldorf.

trofirhen
Nov 7, 2012, 11:44 PM
Don't just think in terms of LH, Trof. The new Berlin airport is potentially a significant opportunity for Air Berlin to set-up a hub (assuming they don't go bust...), providing an alternative to Star Alliance.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
might that mean extension and/or expansion of theîr current summer YVR - Düsseldorf service?

bils
Nov 8, 2012, 1:38 AM
outlet mall officially moved to templeton station as per richmond review (http://www.richmondreview.com/news/177552161.html)

Klazu
Nov 8, 2012, 7:52 PM
In Berlin the new airport will replace not just one or two, but three existing airports. Tempelhof was already shut down and Tegel and Schönefeld will follow once new the BER opens. All of those airports were so old that renovating or expanding them to meet today's standards was just not viable option.

The new BER is definitely a great thing for Berlin and will be amazing airport once they finally complete it. I remember reading that Lufthansa plans adding more long-distance flights from the new airport and at least for Air Berlin it will be a key-hub.

Berlin's problem has been that despite being one of the most popular tourist destinations in Europe, it has lacked on non-stop connections outside of Europe. Inside Europe you can get anywhere non-stop, many times even very cheaply, thanks to several low-cost airlines operating to/from Berlin. However anywhere else one always needs to transit through another airport. Hopefully with BER this will change.

Jebby
Nov 8, 2012, 11:36 PM
In Berlin the new airport will replace not just one or two, but three existing airports. Tempelhof was already shut down and Tegel and Schönefeld will follow once new the BER opens. All of those airports were so old that renovating or expanding them to meet today's standards was just not viable option.

The new BER is definitely a great thing for Berlin and will be amazing airport once they finally complete it. I remember reading that Lufthansa plans adding more long-distance flights from the new airport and at least for Air Berlin it will be a key-hub.

Berlin's problem has been that despite being one of the most popular tourist destinations in Europe, it has lacked on non-stop connections outside of Europe. Inside Europe you can get anywhere non-stop, many times even very cheaply, thanks to several low-cost airlines operating to/from Berlin. However anywhere else one always needs to transit through another airport. Hopefully with BER this will change.

The thing about Berlin is it's in the middle of nothing. It's an island of population with nothing really within a 2-3 hour drive. Frankfurt, on the other hand, is positioned where within 2-3 hours drive/train you hit a large amount of Germany's population.

Replacing Tempelhof isn't of much consequence, by the time it closed it was handling about 300,000 passengers per year out of over 20 million using Berlin's airports. I only used it a handful of times flying from Friedrichshafen to go home for the weekend while I was at boarding school in southern Germany.

My favorite airport ever, though, is Tegel. I loved being able to arrive half an hour before my flight would leave, check in and have the gate right behind the check-in desk. I imagine it was a mess for people transferring, especially on international routes where you'd have to go through customs to get into Germany, then go through customs again before boarding another flight, but I doubt those passengers made up more than 1% of people using the airport, especially since Schengen.

BER looks amazing, but it's been an endless money pit.

deasine
Nov 9, 2012, 8:30 PM
My favorite airport ever, though, is Tegel. I loved being able to arrive half an hour before my flight would leave, check in and have the gate right behind the check-in desk. I imagine it was a mess for people transferring, especially on international routes where you'd have to go through customs to get into Germany, then go through customs again before boarding another flight, but I doubt those passengers made up more than 1% of people using the airport, especially since Schengen.

Reminds me of Helsinki, where the minimum check-in time for a domestic flight is 20 minutes; and minimum international-domestic flight connection is 40 minutes, which is pretty astonishing for an airport that size. I think next steps for improvement at YVR should be reducing connection times and a faster baggage system to allow for this.

Now that YVR is moving the outlets to Templeton, perhaps they can begin considering to add facilities for check-in services and baggage drop-off there to encourage more people to shop at the outlet.

trofirhen
Nov 10, 2012, 1:07 AM
Reminds me of Helsinki, where the minimum check-in time for a domestic flight is 20 minutes; and minimum international-domestic flight connection is 40 minutes, which is pretty astonishing for an airport that size. I think next steps for improvement at YVR should be reducing connection times and a faster baggage system to allow for this.

Now that YVR is moving the outlets to Templeton, perhaps they can begin considering to add facilities for check-in services and baggage drop-off there to encourage more people to shop at the outlet.
:previous:

In what I hope is a related context, could I ask your perception of plans for a new transborder terminal at Templeton. This is years off, I know, but do you have any information to share about it? Thank you. :)

Klazu
Nov 10, 2012, 1:51 AM
Reminds me of Helsinki, where the minimum check-in time for a domestic flight is 20 minutes; and minimum international-domestic flight connection is 40 minutes, which is pretty astonishing for an airport that size.

I don't consider HEL a very large airport, as most of the traffic from it is just by Finnair. But I agree that for transiting it's great thanks to great arrangements and small distances.

I think it has a lot to do with Finnair's strategy to connect Europe and Asia thanks to Helsinki's location on the shortest flight path (just like Vancouver is located between North America and Asia). The airport has been largely built with this strategy in mind. Also, the airport is the only major airport out of Finland, which means that almost all domestic flights connect through HEL.

trofirhen
Nov 10, 2012, 3:13 AM
Never flown through it, but I looked up Helsinki's destination roster, and it surely is impressive and far-reaching for a relatively small, seemingly remote airport. But the factors of short polar distances and connectivity, as stated, are what give it an advantage.

On a tangent, checking in Wikipedia again, Emirates, spring 2013, apparently starts service to Warsaw. WAW has fewer than 10m pax per year. Warsaw appears very well-connected with a lot of range also, it seems.

I wonder what their marketing strategy is? Poland has 35m people let's not forget. Maybe that's it, the Polish air market, in and of itself.

deasine
Nov 11, 2012, 7:00 AM
I don't consider HEL a very large airport, as most of the traffic from it is just by Finnair. But I agree that for transiting it's great thanks to great arrangements and small distances.

Yes it isn't large by any means at all, but achieving such connection times for the capacity it handles is impressive. I haven't transferred myself, but I know people who have and they enjoy how compact everything is at the airport, especially since a lot of other European airports require a lot of walking.

@trofirhen, what transborder terminal are you referring to? I never heard of them developing anything near there, and frankly with the developments that will be taken place there, I can't see them develop a terminal there.

Did you mean an expansion of the Transborder terminal? If so, it's just a new wing/pier to the East of the current airport check-in area, and it will be a long ways away especially since YVR has so many other plans. Transborder traffic really isn't that much at YVR, and nor has international traffic grown that much to justify a need for another expansion (note the current configuration allows for flexible change of gates between international and transborder since they share the same arrival procedures and infrastructure).

Hourglass
Nov 11, 2012, 11:11 AM
@trofirhen - are you referring to the new terminal outlined in the 2027 strategic plan? That would be built to the east of the existing ITB.

If so, best to check the YVR website as the documents are there, I think under future developments.

trofirhen
Nov 11, 2012, 6:10 PM
Yes it isn't large by any means at all, .......

@trofirhen, what transborder terminal are you referring to? I never heard of them developing anything near there, and frankly with the developments that will be taken place there, I can't see them develop a terminal there.

Did you mean an expansion of the Transborder terminal? If so, it's just a new wing/pier to the East of the current airport check-in area, and it will be a long ways away especially since YVR has so many other plans. Transborder traffic really isn't that much at YVR, and nor has international traffic grown that much to justify a need for another expansion (note the current configuration allows for flexible change of gates between international and transborder since they share the same arrival procedures and infrastructure).

I think I got my locales mixed up.
Was confusing Templeton Station with Terminal 3 station.
I thought this retail, with the possible check-ins and baggage cheques you mentioned, was a perhaps a precursor for the eventual transborder terminal- years off, yes I know - but got confused about it. Sorry

@trofirhen - are you referring to the new terminal outlined in the 2027 strategic plan? That would be built to the east of the existing ITB.

If so, best to check the YVR website as the documents are there, I think under future developments.

Yes, I had looked at the 2027 master plan, and had seen the plan for the transborder terminal to be built in 10 or 15 years. In the YVR Master Plan, this terminal pland has oval structures predominating.

In another render I saw somewhere here, (?) I saw the proposed new transborder terminal with five straight piers prodtrucing parallel.

I just wondered about the future of the airport, is really all. Just a question as to where it's headed, etc.

Bigtime
Nov 12, 2012, 6:56 PM
Let me just say that if this is indeed true you guys in YVR suck, you suck suck suck!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/WILCO737/A380.jpg

On the bright side this will be yet another A388 flight that may divert to YYC one of these days...

Spork
Nov 12, 2012, 7:31 PM
Excellent. Heading to Europe around that time. Unfortunately Vancouver->Munich round trip is about $1400. Munich->Vancouver is $1000. How does that work. :koko:

LeftCoaster
Nov 12, 2012, 7:42 PM
A380 Munich to Vancouver? I'd be surprised if there was that much demand.

Bigtime
Nov 12, 2012, 7:51 PM
Update, according to the thread on airliners.net this was a mistake by the folks at Lufthansa. The MUC flight remains an A333.

teriyaki
Nov 12, 2012, 8:03 PM
Don't see why they would send an A380 over to YVR on their first A380 out of MUC. Although I surely hope its true (747's are dropping like flies already at YVR), i'm not holding my breath on this one.

Side note. Do we have gates that can fully accomodate 2-level boarding for the A380?

moosejaw
Nov 12, 2012, 9:04 PM
Side note. Do we have gates that can fully
accommodate 2-level boarding for the A380?

There are currently two gates capable but none fly there currently

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj58/sparkyhollywood2/MBWorld%20Posers%202/YVR.jpg

Only YYZ and YUL regularly see A380s

YUL- Air France
YYZ -Emirates

LeftCoaster
Nov 12, 2012, 10:23 PM
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before YVR sees its first regular service A380, I was just very surprised it was Munich.

Turns out my surprise was well founded.

Gordon
Nov 12, 2012, 10:26 PM
I thought Lufthansa had discontnued it's service to Calgary so it would likely be a while before they would start a new service to Calgary.

Bigtime
Nov 12, 2012, 10:30 PM
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before YVR sees its first regular service A380, I was just very surprised it was Munich.

Turns out my surprise was well founded.

Me too, it was surprising. However it would have been cool to see.

I thought Lufthansa had discontinued it's service to Calgary so it would likely be a while before they would start a new service to Calgary.

Huh? Not sure what you are trying to say here. Lufthansa ceased their YYC operations with their last flight to FRA on February 4th of this year. There have been no plans to bring it back.

Here's the last flight leaving YYC:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7169/6819631755_3eaf09c741_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigtimeaa/6819631755/)
Auf wiedersehen Lufthansa (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigtimeaa/6819631755/) by BigtimeYYC (http://www.flickr.com/people/bigtimeaa/), on Flickr

trofirhen
Nov 12, 2012, 10:43 PM
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before YVR sees its first regular service A380, I was just very surprised it was Munich.

Turns out my surprise was well founded.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where, in fact, do you think the first scheduled A380 service out of YVR might be routed, (putting aside for a moment the time frame)? Asia, would it not? If so, which would be the first probable destination to get the service?

ACT7
Nov 12, 2012, 11:53 PM
There are currently two gates capable but none fly there currently

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj58/sparkyhollywood2/MBWorld%20Posers%202/YVR.jpg

Only YYZ and YUL regularly see A380s

YUL- Air France
YYZ -Emirates

YUL no longer sees the A380.

deasine
Nov 13, 2012, 12:25 AM
YUL gets to AF services now as opposed to the A380. So YYZ is the only one. It'd be nice to see some TPAC A380 services, but I'm not sure which carrier would (1) have that much demand, and (2) have that many A380s available. SQ doesn't fly to YVR anymore, CX doesn't have any A380s, CA doesn't have any either, JL nope, PR nope, neither does MU, that leaves CZ, but they don't even have daily service yet... (and they only have a few A380s and are deploying them to the LAX and CDG flights). There was word of CZ introducing PEK-YVR service, but remember China doesn't allow inter-carrier competition... CZ's route to CDG from PEK was required to be code-shared with CA its competitor. So the chances of even seeing a TPAC A380 is slim...

twoNeurons
Nov 13, 2012, 12:34 AM
I'm more excited to see the 787 come to YVR, personally.

Chikinlittle
Nov 13, 2012, 4:28 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where, in fact, do you think the first scheduled A380 service out of YVR might be routed, (putting aside for a moment the time frame)? Asia, would it not? If so, which would be the first probable destination to get the service?

If there were an airline with an A380 on this route, I would suggest YVR-LHR would be a likely choice. It consistently has one of the highest load:seat ratios out of Vancouver. Otherwise, YVR-YYZ would also be a good choice too!

casper
Nov 13, 2012, 4:59 AM
If there were an airline with an A380 on this route, I would suggest YVR-LHR would be a likely choice. It consistently has one of the highest load:seat ratios out of Vancouver. Otherwise, YVR-YYZ would also be a good choice too!

The YVR-YYZ route with A380 is not going to happen. That route can only be operated by a Canadian airline. Air Canada dropped the 747 several years ago and now operates the 777-300 as their large aircraft. They have some routes that could support a A380 but not enough year round routes to support a fleet of A380s.

On the YVR-LHR a British Airways A380 might work. Quantas from Australia to Vancouver with a A380 would be a possibility; however that is not a route they currently see enough business on to even attempt.

trofirhen
Nov 13, 2012, 7:18 AM
I'm more excited to see the 787 come to YVR, personally.
:previous:

Same here. Then (perhaps) we'll see flights into India on AC 787s, and hopefullly, the deadlock over Gulf carriers (think Qatar, not Emirates) coming to YVR might be broken, too.

LeftCoaster
Nov 13, 2012, 6:34 PM
The YVR-YYZ route with A380 is not going to happen. That route can only be operated by a Canadian airline. Air Canada dropped the 747 several years ago and now operates the 777-300 as their large aircraft. They have some routes that could support a A380 but not enough year round routes to support a fleet of A380s.

On the YVR-LHR a British Airways A380 might work. Quantas from Australia to Vancouver with a A380 would be a possibility; however that is not a route they currently see enough business on to even attempt.

Pretty surprised the business isn't there considering the amount of Aussies that come up here, the amount of Canadians that go down there and the deep business connections between Vancouver and Australia due to their shared mining focuses.

Otherwise, YVR-YYZ would also be a good choice too!

AC and WJ both would much rather fly multiple small planes over fewer larger flights. You'll notice the only time you fly YYZ to YVR on a 777 is when its a leg of a intercontinental flight.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where, in fact, do you think the first scheduled A380 service out of YVR might be routed, (putting aside for a moment the time frame)? Asia, would it not? If so, which would be the first probable destination to get the service?

All depends on who buys one first. Loads are there on several routes but I don't think any of the major airlines flying into Van have or have ordered A380s

moosejaw
Nov 13, 2012, 7:26 PM
Only a handful of cities in North America currently hosts A380 or a regular schedule
New York JFK, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Washington, Montreal and what i thought was Toronto.

Surprisingly Atlanta, Chicago, and Boston don't host the A380.

Lufthansa briefly flew the A380 into Miami for a short time, but i imagine that the european economy put an end to that. Miami built one gate that has three jet bridges that can accommodate the A380. They spent $4 million to accommodate Lufthansa only to find out that they swapped it for a 747 months later. Eventually they would have had to make the change anyways.

Other than Europe, Miami doesn't have many transcontinental flights. Most of South America is hours away. Orlando (Mickey Mouse!) has a lot of European flights but they are mostly charter airlines that service Europe. BTW Orlando prob has the best format for an airport with it's satellite terminals connected by trains. Really convenient to get in and out. Tampa's Airport is designed the same way.

Bigtime
Nov 13, 2012, 7:40 PM
I believe Korean is still planning to fly the A388 to ATL in the near future.

trofirhen
Nov 13, 2012, 7:44 PM
Is it more probable that airllines using this the 787 will fly into Vancouver? Has not AC placed an order (or was that just speculation)?
Where would possible destinations for the Boeing 787 be, out of YVR?

LeftCoaster
Nov 13, 2012, 8:05 PM
Like I said before, it really depends on who orders the planes/

Vancouver has more than enough capacity on several routes to handle an A380, but the airlines that happen to run those high capacity routes dont have any A380s.

I could see Singapore booting up their YVR service again and some day running an A380, but that would be several years off at best.

My best guess would be China Southern running an A380 to YVR with an outside chance of Korean or British Airways when they get theirs.

trofirhen
Nov 13, 2012, 8:10 PM
Like I said before, it really depends on who orders the planes/

Vancouver has more than enough capacity on several routes to handle an A380, but the airlines that happen to run those high capacity routes dont have any A380s.

I could see Singapore booting up their YVR service again and some day running an A380, but that would be several years off at best.

My best guess would be China Southern running an A380 to YVR with an outside chance of Korean or British Airways when they get theirs.
:previous:

I thought I had heard talk of flights from YVR to Delhi with eventual AC 787s.

Bigtime
Nov 13, 2012, 8:15 PM
:previous:

I thought I had heard talk of flights from YVR to Delhi with eventual AC 787s.

Isn't the biggest challenge with NA-India the yields? The India market is a notoriously price sensitive one, but if the 787 can deliver the promised economics it could make a flight like YVR-DEL viable.

trofirhen
Nov 13, 2012, 8:29 PM
Isn't the biggest challenge with NA-India the yields? The India market is a notoriously price sensitive one, but if the 787 can deliver the promised economics it could make a flight like YVR-DEL viable.
:previous:

I thought that one of the main reasons the Gulf carriers; not only Emirates, but also Qatar Airways, were being kept out of YVR and YYC was so that they couldn't jump in first and siphon off the market to India.

I heard that AC was waiting to acquire 787 metal for just such a route as YVR-DEL. Maybe I'm wrong, but other than EK putting their cards on the table and revealing they were after YYZ daily, (not YVR nor YYC), Qatar Airways also mentioned - in a presss release, somewhere -- that they wanted not only YUL, but of course YYZ and also Western Canada (presumably YYC and YVR).

The whole "flights to India" thing seems cryptic to me.

Bigtime
Nov 13, 2012, 8:42 PM
Everything I have heard is there is no money in long range flights to India. The typical consumer heading there is ridiculously price sensitive so yields on the flights will typically suffer. Unless you can make a bunch of money with the premium cabin and cargo.

trofirhen
Nov 13, 2012, 9:24 PM
Everything I have heard is there is no money in long range flights to India. The typical consumer heading there is ridiculously price sensitive so yields on the flights will typically suffer. Unless you can make a bunch of money with the premium cabin and cargo.
:previous:

Hey I believe you totally. All that hubbub about keeping the Gulf carriers out, though, so they wouldn't get at the India market first ..... I wonder what that was all about? And the talk of AC flights over the pole to India using 787s ..... makes you wonder just what's going on ......

Gordon
Nov 13, 2012, 9:29 PM
If AC has the choice the would likely run the service out of Toronto.

Does SFO or LAX have good service to India?

ACT7
Nov 13, 2012, 10:48 PM
Only a handful of cities in North America currently hosts A380 or a regular schedule
New York JFK, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Washington, Montreal and what i thought was Toronto.

Montreal no longer hosts the AF A380, so it's only the remaining above cities you mentioned, and if I'm not mistaken SFO is only seasonal with an LH A380, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.

ACT7
Nov 13, 2012, 10:54 PM
:previous:

I thought that one of the main reasons the Gulf carriers; not only Emirates, but also Qatar Airways, were being kept out of YVR and YYC was so that they couldn't jump in first and siphon off the market to India.

I heard that AC was waiting to acquire 787 metal for just such a route as YVR-DEL. Maybe I'm wrong, but other than EK putting their cards on the table and revealing they were after YYZ daily, (not YVR nor YYC), Qatar Airways also mentioned - in a presss release, somewhere -- that they wanted not only YUL, but of course YYZ and also Western Canada (presumably YYC and YVR).

The whole "flights to India" thing seems cryptic to me.
I do think the 'India thing' is a bit of smokescreen sometimes. It's true that the loads are predominantly sub-continent on EK and EY out of YYZ, but it is a low yield market and almost every NA carrier has failed miserably at making a go of it. I could see the 787 making it the most efficient but I still think it's a money losing venture. AI can't even seem to make money on NA and they probably have the lowest cost structure of any airline offering the service. True, they're a mess in general but still.

Either way, YVR won't see AC operate to DEL before YYZ-DEL is fully operational and stable. Remember that AC is having a hard time making Asia work out of YVR and that is a much higher yielding, higher load market for Vancouver.

trofirhen
Nov 13, 2012, 11:04 PM
If AC has the choice the would likely run the service out of Toronto.

Does SFO or LAX have good service to India?
:previous:

Along with Air India, which flew out of YYZ many years, and is returning next March, to both Armritsar and Delhi, as well as Jet Airways to Delhi?
If AC used 787s, from YYZ) would this mean over the Pole, therefore more economical, or exactly what?

And what happened to that talk of YVR - India service? It was mentioned earlier on in the thread

ACT7
Nov 14, 2012, 12:58 AM
:previous:

Along with Air India, which flew out of YYZ many years, and is returning next March, to both Armritsar and Delhi, as well as Jet Airways to Delhi?
If AC used 787s, from YYZ) would this mean over the Pole, therefore more economical, or exactly what?

And what happened to that talk of YVR - India service? It was mentioned earlier on in the thread
I personally think AC has been playing the YVR card for a long time to give the appearance of not focusing almost exclusively on YYZ. If you look at the AC destination list out of YVR, it's skeletal at best, especially when you consider the fact that YVR is supposedly a hub for AC. It's really more of a decently serviced focus city. These are not the actions of an airline looking to 'fortify Vancouver as a hub' to use their words. My opinion is that YVR-DEL is not on the table for the foreseeable future - at least not with Air Canada.

Valley_Refugee
Nov 14, 2012, 1:14 AM
Is it more probable that airllines using this the 787 will fly into Vancouver? Has not AC placed an order (or was that just speculation)?
Where would possible destinations for the Boeing 787 be, out of YVR?

Yes, it has been widely known for a very long time that AC has 37 firm orders for 787s, delivery starting 2014. The company has said most major Canadian airports will see 787 service. The 787s will largely be replacing 767s at first.

casper
Nov 14, 2012, 3:23 AM
I personally think AC has been playing the YVR card for a long time to give the appearance of not focusing almost exclusively on YYZ. If you look at the AC destination list out of YVR, it's skeletal at best, especially when you consider the fact that YVR is supposedly a hub for AC. It's really more of a decently serviced focus city. These are not the actions of an airline looking to 'fortify Vancouver as a hub' to use their words. My opinion is that YVR-DEL is not on the table for the foreseeable future - at least not with Air Canada.

The american airlines have this fascination with the concept of hubs where every flight is to/from a hub. I think both Air Canada and WestJet are more focused on making money and if they have a competitive advantage flying from/to Vancouver they probably will. They fly to Asian, Hawaii and Australian from Vancouver because they can make money doing it. They fly from Toronto to some Asia destinations because it is a shorter route from most destinations in the East that connect via Toronto.

From Saskatoon as an example I have access to direct-non-stop flights to Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver. If they followed the American hub model I would have to connect through Calgary and Toronto to go anywhere.

Over the last three years, Air Canada, as examples, has introduced new routes to Europe from Montreal, a new Edmonton to London route; a new Calgary to Tokyo route and a new Ottawa to Frankfurt route. The Saskatoon and Regina to Ottawa route is also new. They are not exclusively focused on the Toronto hub.

I suspect the problem for Air Canada from Vancouver is there are few new East-West connections they can make in Vancouver that don't involve competing against an Asian airline.

ACT7
Nov 14, 2012, 5:05 AM
The american airlines have this fascination with the concept of hubs where every flight is to/from a hub. I think both Air Canada and WestJet are more focused on making money and if they have a competitive advantage flying from/to Vancouver they probably will. They fly to Asian, Hawaii and Australian from Vancouver because they can make money doing it. They fly from Toronto to some Asia destinations because it is a shorter route from most destinations in the East that connect via Toronto.

From Saskatoon as an example I have access to direct-non-stop flights to Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver. If they followed the American hub model I would have to connect through Calgary and Toronto to go anywhere.

Over the last three years, Air Canada, as examples, has introduced new routes to Europe from Montreal, a new Edmonton to London route; a new Calgary to Tokyo route and a new Ottawa to Frankfurt route. The Saskatoon and Regina to Ottawa route is also new. They are not exclusively focused on the Toronto hub.

I suspect the problem for Air Canada from Vancouver is there are few new East-West connections they can make in Vancouver that don't involve competing against an Asian airline.
I don't entirely disagree with you but a hub system for airlines is essential to make money or it wouldn't have evolved the way it has over the last half century. Point-to-point traffic can be minimal in most cases - how do you think ATL developed into the hub it has become? It's not because everyone wants to visit Atlanta or that it has more business traffic than other U.S. cities.

AC has focused on YYZ because it is very simply the largest market in Canada and has 100 million to draw from within a 2 1/2 hour flight. It's very deliberate effort to ramp up U.S. flights to use YYZ as a connection has worked extremely well as is evidenced by the growth in transborder and international pax traffic.

Yes, AC can make money on flights from YVR to SYD but that flight also starts and ends in YYZ, so absent that leg, it remains to be seen how viable the trans-pacific leg would be on its own. The same holds true for YYC-NRT. Not saying that it wouldn't be viable, but unless AC drops the YYZ portion, we'll never know.

Valley_Refugee
Nov 14, 2012, 6:38 AM
From Saskatoon as an example I have access to direct-non-stop flights to Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver. If they followed the American hub model I would have to connect through Calgary and Toronto to go anywhere.

AC is perhaps slightly less spoke driven than American carriers, BUT I have to disagree with you...Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver are all Air Canada hubs or focus cities and Saskatoon is a sizeable city (for Canada). If you take an airport like Kansas City, Delta offers service to Atlanta, Detroit, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, La Guardia, Salt Lake City, Cincinnati...all of which are DL hubs or focus cities. See the comparison? If Saskatoon had a direct flight to Prince George or Thunder Bay or Quebec City, your point would be stronger.

Outside the 8 largest airports - the six above plus Montreal and Halifax - AC offers few point to point flights. Indeed, Winnipeg and Edmonton are barely focus cities. AC is largely a traditional hub and spoke airline.

trofirhen
Nov 14, 2012, 7:35 AM
I personally think AC has been playing the YVR card for a long time to give the appearance of not focusing almost exclusively on YYZ. If you look at the AC destination list out of YVR, it's skeletal at best, especially when you consider the fact that YVR is supposedly a hub for AC. It's really more of a decently serviced focus city. These are not the actions of an airline looking to 'fortify Vancouver as a hub' to use their words. My opinion is that YVR-DEL is not on the table for the foreseeable future - at least not with Air Canada.
:previous:

Thank you for that feedback. I know these are difficult economic times, but I still think YYZ dominates everything - sometimes unecessarily - and that, as you say, Vancouver is really more of a "decently serviced focus city."

It's a real drag, and is a Canadian syndrome that goes on and on and on. Like a chameleon, it changes colours, but it's always there: the hegemony of YYZ and AC backing it up.

moosejaw
Nov 14, 2012, 1:34 PM
I believe Korean is still planning to fly the A388 to ATL in the near future.

Its scheduled for 2013 but they still have to widen the existing taxiways and they still need a jetway which i haven't seen done yet at that terminal. ATL is a ver congested airport, not a lot of room. Funny this article discusses how the A380 is impacting US airports

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11450450/1/how-the-airbus-a380-squeezes-into-the-us-airline-model.html

deasine
Nov 14, 2012, 9:13 PM
I do think the 'India thing' is a bit of smokescreen sometimes. It's true that the loads are predominantly sub-continent on EK and EY out of YYZ, but it is a low yield market and almost every NA carrier has failed miserably at making a go of it. I could see the 787 making it the most efficient but I still think it's a money losing venture. AI can't even seem to make money on NA and they probably have the lowest cost structure of any airline offering the service. True, they're a mess in general but still.

Either way, YVR won't see AC operate to DEL before YYZ-DEL is fully operational and stable. Remember that AC is having a hard time making Asia work out of YVR and that is a much higher yielding, higher load market for Vancouver.

Agreed. 787 only reduces a cost of business, but it isn't eliminating the cost entirely.

The North America to India direct scenario is similar to UK/Europe to Australia. It's not that it's not possible to fly direct or via another city between the two destinations, but it's about profitability and margins. Many carriers have been slowly pulling out or reducing its service in the Europe/Australia market because it's just not making that much money. Often times, a business class ticket to Sydney via Singapore from London on BA is not much more expensive than a ticket from London to New York. That's a lot less distance to cover: lower costs, more capacity for other routes. Similarly, North America to India is a pretty long distance, and with that capacity dedicated to these routes, one could probably deploy more service on another shorter route and make more money.

There's a reason why Jet Airways runs all its business from India to North America via Brussels.

Pretty surprised the business isn't there considering the amount of Aussies that come up here, the amount of Canadians that go down there and the deep business connections between Vancouver and Australia due to their shared mining focuses.

Oh there's quite a bit: YVR-SYD is also one of the hardest routes to upgrade with points/eUpgrade certificates on AC. In fact AC is upgrading the capacity to 10 weekly between YVR and SYD for a short duration in the winter season to take advantage of Australians and their Christmas/Summer vacation and the ski season out here in the Northern Hemisphere. NZ is also increasing the flights up to the west coast destinations, including Vancouver.

QF won't fly to YVR, and really I think QFs situation, they've dug themselves a hole they can't fly out of. At one point, they were pondering about purchasing some 777s, but decided to rely on A380s for their long-haul service. Everyone in the airline industry knows that the costs of flying A380s are extremely high (therefore, you have to achieve consistent high load factors), there are only certain routes that can sustain an A380, and they have a limited range compared to the 777s. Look, now QF has to partner with EK because its international division is doing so poorly. Moreover, they've cancelled their order on 787s (only Jetstar is going to take the first few 787s), which really reduces the hope of them flying to YVR.

SpongeG
Nov 14, 2012, 10:47 PM
i know someone who just went to palm springs for the weekend, her flight back went via edmonton with a layover, thats pretty weird - is that normal?

twoNeurons
Nov 14, 2012, 11:04 PM
Look at Europe. It's a bunch of countries with one major city:

France has Paris(10M), but how many flights go to Marseille or Lyon (1.6M ppl)?
Norway, Sweden and Finland only need to concentrate on one city, their capitals.
UK, a kingdom with 60M people, almost double the population of Canada only truly has London (10M).

Canada really only has 4 major cities. Vancouver, Calgary/Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal.

Yes, Canada is large enough (geographically) to have at least 3 airlines. However, politically, it is able to concentrate its efforts in one city. We can all imagine what it would be like to have BC Air, Air Alberta, Air Ontario and Quebecair, all with governments concentrated on local markets, because this is what it would likely be like if they were separate countries, but you can bet that if that were the case, direct flights from smaller markets like Victoria, Kelowna, Abbotsford, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, Ottawa and Quebec City would all be even more funneled to their local hub than they are now.

That being said, Vancouver's position on the edge of the Pacific does have specific advantages when flying to the Far East.

It's very much a hub and spoke system and would be even MORE hub and spoke were it not for the geographical challenges.

It is for this reason that Air Canada always feels pressure to consolidate in YYZ, but thankfully for Vancouver can't do it 100%.

Gordon
Nov 15, 2012, 1:42 AM
Has WestJet discontinued it's YVR - OrD Route completely or just for the summer Season?

casper
Nov 15, 2012, 3:41 AM
I don't entirely disagree with you but a hub system for airlines is essential to make money or it wouldn't have evolved the way it has over the last half century. Point-to-point traffic can be minimal in most cases - how do you think ATL developed into the hub it has become? It's not because everyone wants to visit Atlanta or that it has more business traffic than other U.S. cities.

AC has focused on YYZ because it is very simply the largest market in Canada and has 100 million to draw from within a 2 1/2 hour flight. It's very deliberate effort to ramp up U.S. flights to use YYZ as a connection has worked extremely well as is evidenced by the growth in transborder and international pax traffic.

Yes, AC can make money on flights from YVR to SYD but that flight also starts and ends in YYZ, so absent that leg, it remains to be seen how viable the trans-pacific leg would be on its own. The same holds true for YYC-NRT. Not saying that it wouldn't be viable, but unless AC drops the YYZ portion, we'll never know.

I am not suggesting that Air Canada is trying to be a point-to-point airlines. It obviously builds its schedules around connections occurring in major airports. It is not as focused on the hub-system as the US airlines. For example, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Vancouver are all major airports in the West where passengers make connections. In the East it is Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. In the US system a given airline would not have that many hubs that close together.

I have done the Geneva - Montreal - Toronto flight in the past and the fact you have to get off the plane, collect baggage, clear customs go through security again in Montreal basically means there is little difference between having both segments on the same flight number or not. I suspect it is the same for Vancouver. You might trick the odd passenger into thinking they are on the same flight but the frequent flyer knows better.

My experience is with Air Canada you end up with a single boarding pass and the same seat assignment for both segments. On United they don't even do that they issue two separate boarding passes sometimes with different seat assignments. I have done United on the Melbourne - Sydney - LAX flight (you also need to get off the plane in Sydney with all your bags and then take a different seat. I have also done United on the Chicago - Regina - Saskatoon route; that one is a little better in that United does not have rights to carry passengers between Regina and Saskatoon so you stay on the plane and clear customs on arrival in Saskatoon.

Getting back to Vancouver, I suspect Air Canada routes that flight to Toronto so it does not sit on the group in Vancouver waiting until it is time to turn it around and send it back to Sydney; instead it is making money with passengers heading back to Toronto and lets it rotate the aircraft with other planes for maintenance etc.

Valley_Refugee
Nov 15, 2012, 5:35 AM
Thank you for that feedback. I know these are difficult economic times, but I still think YYZ dominates everything - sometimes unecessarily - and that, as you say, Vancouver is really more of a "decently serviced focus city."

AC serves upwards of 45 destinations from Vancouver. Hardly a "decently served focus city." Last I checked, AC weekly departures from YVR were about half as many as from YYZ...not bad considering metro Vancouver is 1/3 the size and much more isolated from other population centres.

Hourglass
Nov 15, 2012, 5:46 AM
^

Not to mention that it is the 2nd-busiest hub in terms of number of weekly flights in Air Canada's network.

If you're comparing against Delta or United, it may seem a small number of flights by comparison, but then again, the US has 10x the population.

deasine
Nov 15, 2012, 7:19 AM
^Not to mention, DL and UA are practically the largest carriers in the world.

Getting back to Vancouver, I suspect Air Canada routes that flight to Toronto so it does not sit on the group in Vancouver waiting until it is time to turn it around and send it back to Sydney; instead it is making money with passengers heading back to Toronto and lets it rotate the aircraft with other planes for maintenance etc.

Not sure about your last part: it isn't typical for AC to replace the YVR-YYZ route on their HKG and SYD routes with another aircraft unless there was an unexpected maintenance issue.

twoNeurons
Nov 15, 2012, 10:44 AM
I am not suggesting that Air Canada is trying to be a point-to-point airlines. It obviously builds its schedules around connections occurring in major airports. It is not as focused on the hub-system as the US airlines. For example, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Vancouver are all major airports in the West where passengers make connections. In the East it is Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. In the US system a given airline would not have that many hubs that close together.


You make some good points, but I don't think the comparison with the US is completely sound.

Edmonton and Winnipeg are about as major an airport as Portland or Sacramento. There are very few overseas flights. You have to go through SFO, LAX or SEA. Calgary has more flights but serves a strong and wealthy business community and is within reasonable driving distance of 2 million people. Even still, there aren't too many flight options over an ocean.

Winnipeg and Calgary/Edmonton mostly have flights due to the geographical challenges of Canada being short and wide, population-wise. Driving to a BIG city isn't all that feasible.

I'd be inclined to agree with you when it comes to transfers, although I believe I still get two boarding passes on AC.

ACT7
Nov 15, 2012, 5:55 PM
AC serves upwards of 45 destinations from Vancouver. Hardly a "decently served focus city." Last I checked, AC weekly departures from YVR were about half as many as from YYZ...not bad considering metro Vancouver is 1/3 the size and much more isolated from other population centres.
Well I wouldn't call 45 destinations a hub - maybe a strong focus city. 17 of those are Jazz flights to regional destinations, mainly BC, and another 6-8 are domestic. And how many of those weekly departures are YYZ and YYC?

Klazu
Nov 15, 2012, 6:08 PM
Well I wouldn't call 45 destinations a hub - maybe a strong focus city. 17 of those are Jazz flights to regional destinations, mainly BC, and another 6-8 are domestic. And how many of those weekly departures are YYZ and YYC?

You are correct that most of the AC destinations from YVR are definitely local inside BC, and YVR is only the third best served city after YYZ and YUL. It's very obvious when you look at the route map they have on their magazine. From their online route map (http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/destinations/where_we_fly.html) it's not that obvious, as you can't have more than one city selected at once.

Spikester
Nov 15, 2012, 8:40 PM
787 metal

I saw what you did there. :cheers:

Valley_Refugee
Nov 19, 2012, 5:43 AM
Well I wouldn't call 45 destinations a hub - maybe a strong focus city. 17 of those are Jazz flights to regional destinations, mainly BC, and another 6-8 are domestic. And how many of those weekly departures are YYZ and YYC?

Well, this point we're arguing is really silly, I guess...does it really matter? It's a small hub, it's a focus city on steroids. Whatever. However, being a lifelong Vancouver resident, I know there's nothing more Vancouverites like better than to complain and feed their inferiority complexes...myself included sometimes!

If we're comparing to an American carrier's hub airport, then no, 45 is not a hub. But the US has 10x the people and way more population density. I bet you, though, that none of any US airlines' focus cities have anywhere near the international connections AC offers out of YVR. For Canada and Air Canada, yes, YVR is a hub. Perhaps better connections to the US on AC metal would be more "hubby," so to speak, but in these days of alliance dominance, AC lets UA fill that role. Also, Air Canada's mainline aircraft only serve about 15-20 cities domestically, and some of those only seasonally. By contrast I think AC Express serves almost 60 cities...so the majority of destinations in Canada are only served by the regional affiliates. It's much the same in the US.

And obviously the most weekly departures would be to other AC hubs (YYC and YYZ), which are also two of Canada's only large cities.

Hot Rod
Nov 21, 2012, 3:47 AM
guys, your definition of a hub is fundamentally flawed. Only the largest airports in the world live up to some of what you guys are describing (PEK, SHA, HND, ORD, ATL).

I believe SFO is the major Asian gateway and west coast hub for United and has similar number of destinations (in United metal) as AC does at YVR. So in the same respect, I would consider YVR appropriately the major Asian gateway and western AC hub. A major focus city for AC would be Winnepeg or Edmonton in my mind.

United also has a wide variety of aircraft at SFO (not everything is widebody and they do have a few puddle jumpers). In fact, I would argue it is the small planes that make SFO a hub NOT the widebodies, which are almost exclusively the international gateway. I think YVR again, is similar.

Canada just isn't big enough to have multiple 100+ city hubs for the same airline. Sometimes, I often wonder why some of you are so quick to dismiss Vancouver. It is beyond being humble at times. ...

teriyaki
Nov 29, 2012, 5:53 PM
"...Four additional departures each week between Vancouver and Beijing starting June 1, for a total of 11 weekly departures, including a new late night flight timed to be convenient for business travellers. The flights will be operated with a Boeing 767-300ER aircraft."

Full press release here (http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=601)

So Air Canada has announced a bunch of new capacity upgrades and routes for 2013 summer season. YVR will be getting 4x more flights to PEK onboard their 767-300ER.

Also of note is YYC-NRT getting bumped up to daily service. Service to Japan seems to be on its way to recovery. Seattle has its new service from ANA. Delta is also trying to get into the market with their proposed SEA-NRT service.

trofirhen
Nov 29, 2012, 6:19 PM
I notice Air Canada is beginning evening flights Toronto-Istanbul. Turkish already serves YYZ.
If YVR were ever to get IST, we wouldn't need to worry so much about EK and the other gulf state carriers. IST would be a great destination, but .... you can't have everything.

sacrifice333
Nov 29, 2012, 7:33 PM
I notice Air Canada is beginning evening flights Toronto-Istanbul. Turkish already serves YYZ.
If YVR were ever to get IST, we wouldn't need to worry so much about EK and the other gulf state carriers. IST would be a great destination, but .... you can't have everything.

If YYZ has IST, YVR will NEVER get it. [Un]Open Skies. :hell:

Johnny Aussie
Nov 29, 2012, 8:34 PM
^^ funny how they don't mention YVR-ICN is being cut to only 4 x week.
Yes, "Canada to Seoul" will be daily but it already was daily YVR-ICN... but not anymore... sneaky!

So net gain for YVR is one additional weekly 763! Yeah!

The "major" expansion is really out of YYZ.

I do know Asiana specifically mentioned YVR a few years ago... Who knows.

And Delta already flies SEA-NRT... they have applied and have been given approval to fly SEA-HND.

Hourglass
Nov 29, 2012, 11:00 PM
^^ funny how they don't mention YVR-ICN is being cut to only 4 x week.
Yes, "Canada to Seoul" will be daily but it already was daily YVR-ICN... but not anymore... sneaky!

So net gain for YVR is one additional weekly 763! Yeah!

The "major" expansion is really out of YYZ.

I do know Asiana specifically mentioned YVR a few years ago... Who knows.

And Delta already flies SEA-NRT... they have applied and have been given approval to fly SEA-HND.

Wow, that press release is really terrible spin.

I wonder if the ICN cuts from Vancouver are due to a shortage of aircraft or competition from Korean Air, which will be running daily 772 service next summer?

As an observation, it's no wonder AC finds it hard to make YVR viable with schedules like that. 4x/weekly to one of the largest economies in Asia during peak season? Business travellers in particular will seek to find alternatives.

trofirhen
Nov 29, 2012, 11:10 PM
If YYZ has IST, YVR will NEVER get it. [Un]Open Skies. :hell:

dammit !! :whip:

Of course, under the present Turkey - Canada bilateral, Turkish (or AC) can start YVR - IST whenever they want, if the market is there.
Jeremy Haak pointed this out to me some months back.
I think market size has a lot to do with it, not just YYZ hegemony.

ACT7
Nov 30, 2012, 5:58 AM
dammit !! :whip:

Of course, under the present Turkey - Canada bilateral, Turkish (or AC) can start YVR - IST whenever they want, if the market is there.
Jeremy Haak pointed this out to me some months back.
I think market size has a lot to do with it, not just YYZ hegemony.
Yah, I don't think there is a some sort of YYZ conspiracy going on. The market in and surrounding YYZ (within 2.5 hours flight) is over 100 million people. Premium traffic is also higher given the substantially larger corporate base. I agree though, that the press release spin was bizarre.

deasine
Nov 30, 2012, 11:41 PM
There's no conspiracy going on. Not factoring demand, YYZ-IST will always make more sense than YVR-IST even based on the reasons of geography. Connections to Asia (particularly Southeast Asia, India) make sense via IST, whereas it doesn't make as much as sense from YVR.

Which is why I'm surprised Finnair hasn't beefed up its service to East Coast to further increase competition due increase more fifth freedom traffic through its HEL hub (then again, it's much more focused on increasing its Asia services).

Klazu
Nov 30, 2012, 11:55 PM
Finnair's strategy is more to be the fastest connection between Europe and Asia, and their only connection to North America is a daily flight to New York. They also have some seasonal flights to Toronto and Miami, I think.

I think their long distance planes are pretty much tied to the existing Far East routes, at least before they get their A350's in few years. Even then I haven't heard them planning to expand their NAM offering, so most likely they will open more routes to Asia (if they are still flying at that point).

trofirhen
Dec 1, 2012, 12:14 AM
Which destination WOULD make a viable transfer point for Vancouver, heading east into Russia, India, Africa, and so forth? Are we just fine with what we have? (LHR, AMS, FRA) or is there another airport that would serve us well AND be economically viable?

If not, so be it, but I was sure we had not exhausted all the possibilities yet.

deasine
Dec 1, 2012, 12:21 AM
Finnair's strategy is more to be the fastest connection between Europe and Asia, and their only connection to North America is a daily flight to New York. They also have some seasonal flights to Toronto and Miami, I think.

Precisely so, but Finnair's (AY) main competition (aside from of course the direct routes) are the Gulf-based carriers. Yes, DOH, DXB, and AUH perhaps doesn't have the geographic-advantage HEL has, but QR, EK, and EY have a lot more resources at hand. And with QR joining oneworld, QR having "a really friendly relationship" with BA, EY increasing its partnerships with AF and KL, and EY mobilizing AB's resources (also in oneworld), and potential word of LH and TK merging, AY might find increasingly difficult to compete in this market. Don't forget, AY is also struggling with internal costs, just not to the scale as its regional competitor SAS (who almost folded).

Which destination WOULD make a viable transfer point for Vancouver, heading east into Russia, India, Africa, and so forth? Are we just fine with what we have? (LHR, AMS, FRA) or is there another airport that would serve us well AND be economically viable?

If not, so be it, but I was sure we had not exhausted all the possibilities yet.

Wouldn't this be at the mercy of airlines? Don't get me wrong: I would love to see flights to Doha, Dubai, Helsinki, and Istanbul, but it just doesn't seem realistic at this point in time given the low demand and limited potential of fifth-freedom traffic through these hubs.

trofirhen
Dec 1, 2012, 12:54 AM
Wouldn't this be at the mercy of airlines? Don't get me wrong: I would love to see flights to Doha, Dubai, Helsinki, and Istanbul, but it just doesn't seem realistic at this point in time given the low demand and limited potential of fifth-freedom traffic through these hubs.
:previous:
When Vancouver gets bigger (3 million plus), do you think that any such destinations might be possible at that time?

Gordon
Dec 1, 2012, 1:08 AM
AC announced today the they were adding 3 flights per week to the yvr pek route for their Summer schedule.

twoNeurons
Dec 1, 2012, 9:30 AM
YVR - KIX pretty please!
SEA - HND sounds attractive. I'd much rather fly into HND. Anyone know if those are still restricted to after 10PM landings or has Tokyo opened up time slots earlier in the day?

Gordon
Dec 1, 2012, 3:39 PM
Has Ac totlly gien up on yvr- hnd?

Johnny Aussie
Dec 2, 2012, 1:10 AM
Strange.

The AC App is actually showing 2 daily PEK on AC metal (in addition to Air China) next summer....

AC 29 dep YVR 1215 Daily
AC 27 dep YVR 2200 Daily

Returns

AC 28 arr YVR 2150 Daily
AC 30 arr YVR 1205 Daily

Not sure if this is "correct" or not.

I say "strange" because all of the other flight increases mentioned are loaded as well. So not sure why PEK is showing 2 daily and not 11 weekly as mentioned in the press release.

deasine
Dec 3, 2012, 11:22 AM
Has Ac totlly gien up on yvr- hnd?

The landing times given for international carriers at HND were pretty bad and didn't allow for connections, thus there wasn't fifth freedom traffic. As such, there wasn't enough demand generated and many North American carriers did not start service to HND.