PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

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

casper
Dec 5, 2013, 9:02 PM
Not sure about the others, but I'd rather pay $150-$200 more, and not having to turn my 12 hours flight into an 18 hours journey, plus the hassle going through US custom.

I remembered taking the BR SEA-TPE flights a couple of times to save maybe $150, but we just decided that its not worth it..

I have done the transit to the US when it was shorter, easier or the price different was to high to pass up. A price difference of $150-200 is not material on a $2,000+ flight. A difference of $1,000 is.

The airlines are all trying to ensure the flights are full. If you are also making a connection on the other side of the pond depending on when the flights arrive it may in fact be faster going through the US. When I have done it I have found as soon as the customs people figure out you are leaving the same day they have no interest in you and send you on your way.

The last time I did an overseas transfer was Air Canada to US Airways in Philadelphia to connect on to the US Airways flight to Rome. Clear US Customs in Toronto coming off a domestic flight is not bad, baggage is automatically transferred through customs. This was during the winter when Air Canada was not flying into Rome. The other option was transiting in Europe which was no worse or better.

Cage
Dec 5, 2013, 9:12 PM
AC should be doing more in YVR of what they say they're going to do in YYZ ie connections and feeder flights to support their transpacific business. Maybe the new 787s will help open up some new route opportunities too.

Hourglass please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not attacking you but rather then bolded statement above that rips throughout the Vancouver market.

AC and /or the YVRAA needs to come clean about the concept that its AC that is putting the boots to YVR Transpacific hub vision, infact if CP had the 77L and 77W back in the mid 90s; they would have dehubbed YVR infavour of YYZ much worse than AC has done. Particularly because CP would not have the ability to get Kai Tak and NRT slots to operate dailies from both YVR and YYZ (the operational capability of the named airports did not allow for the additional slots until well after 2000s).

I guess my rant is against the YVR trend that harks back to the days of CP/Canadian when YVR was the center of the universe and also negative impression of YVR status under the AC regime. The full knowledge of inside CP information (direct from former CP schedulers) is that CP was connecting huge volumes of traffic from YYZ through YVR to Asia. Without the YYZ connection traffic there was no Canadian Airlines hub in YVR.

As far as building the YVR operation and airport status, there is nothing preventing YVRAA from signing a MOU with AC much like the YYZ Hub MOU.

deasine
Dec 5, 2013, 9:20 PM
Another aspect to consider is Tokyo. In the old Northwest days nearly all NWA Asian bound flights from across the US stopped in Tokyo and that was the main transfer hub. Is this a shift to Seattle being the transfer hub instead of Narita?

Both UA and DL have based their Asian-operations in NRT, but because the market/buying power has shifted to China now and the devaluation of the Japanese YEN, this has caused notable losses for UA and DL despite having high load factors. Seling a NRT-transfer to the Chinese, many of which are willing to pay for a more direct US option, does not help their case. DL's move to SEA is reflective of a shift to try to reduce NRT's importance in its network, and DL needs this more than UA given the lack of an airline parter in NRT.


I have done the transit to the US when it was shorter, easier or the price different was to high to pass up. A price difference of $150-200 is not material on a $2,000+ flight. A difference of $1,000 is.

The airlines are all trying to ensure the flights are full. If you are also making a connection on the other side of the pond depending on when the flights arrive it may in fact be faster going through the US. When I have done it I have found as soon as the customs people figure out you are leaving the same day they have no interest in you and send you on your way.

The last time I did an overseas transfer was Air Canada to US Airways in Philadelphia to connect on to the US Airways flight to Rome. Clear US Customs in Toronto coming off a domestic flight is not bad, baggage is automatically transferred through customs. This was during the winter when Air Canada was not flying into Rome. The other option was transiting in Europe which was no worse or better.

The example you cited are for transfers, but then all that's a level playing field for many North American carriers. But direct options cannot compete with transfers given the time savings, and if you are doing it for business on premium bookings, these time savings equate to money saved. Only TK and the gulf carriers have been able to challenge the legacy carriers on their direct routes as they have been able to offer a generally equal, if not better product, at a lower price point. And their market is being able to take passengers in secondary cities off from the legacy carriers by offering them a one-stop option without having to take a feeder/shuttle flight, or without having to back-track (as per Qantas and BA prior to the existence of EK). In terms of product, arguably, I don't think DL is much better than AC. Hard product, both carriers offer lie-flat in J and similar seats in Y, soft product, I rate both are equal.

Johnny Aussie
Dec 5, 2013, 9:34 PM
The example you cited are for transfers, but then all that's a level playing field for many North American carriers. But direct options cannot compete with transfers given the time savings, and if you are doing it for business on premium bookings, these time savings equate to money saved. Only TK and the gulf carriers have been able to challenge the legacy carriers on their direct routes as they have been able to offer a generally equal, if not better product, at a lower price point. And their market is being able to take passengers in secondary cities off from the legacy carriers by offering them a one-stop option without having to take a feeder/shuttle flight, or without having to back-track (as per Qantas and BA prior to the existence of EK). In terms of product, arguably, I don't think DL is much better than AC. Hard product, both carriers offer lie-flat in J and similar seats in Y, soft product, I rate both are equal.

Agree 100%. Delta is going to have to market the via SEA option better than stating "now you have one-stop options" to all these amazing important places. Do not focus on the "one-stop" They are going to have to entice by offering a superior product and / or entice with much lower fares. The playing field is a bit different than it was 10 years ago with YVR's Asian route network really well developed to compete with SEA's. Not saying YVR's is necessarily better, but certainly enough to offer many many options to fly as direct as possible to as many "important" cities as possible without having to go through the connection game especially via the US.

casper
Dec 6, 2013, 12:34 AM
Both UA and DL have based their Asian-operations in NRT, but because the market/buying power has shifted to China now and the devaluation of the Japanese YEN, this has caused notable losses for UA and DL despite having high load factors. Seling a NRT-transfer to the Chinese, many of which are willing to pay for a more direct US option, does not help their case. DL's move to SEA is reflective of a shift to try to reduce NRT's importance in its network, and DL needs this more than UA given the lack of an airline parter in NRT.




The example you cited are for transfers, but then all that's a level playing field for many North American carriers. But direct options cannot compete with transfers given the time savings, and if you are doing it for business on premium bookings, these time savings equate to money saved. Only TK and the gulf carriers have been able to challenge the legacy carriers on their direct routes as they have been able to offer a generally equal, if not better product, at a lower price point. And their market is being able to take passengers in secondary cities off from the legacy carriers by offering them a one-stop option without having to take a feeder/shuttle flight, or without having to back-track (as per Qantas and BA prior to the existence of EK). In terms of product, arguably, I don't think DL is much better than AC. Hard product, both carriers offer lie-flat in J and similar seats in Y, soft product, I rate both are equal.

My point is get the impression Seattle is taking over for the role Narita use to have. The old network structure was to fly a 747 from various cities in the US to Narita then have a transfer bank to flights to the rest of Asia. All they are doing now is shifting that transfer location to Seattle from Tokyo.

Once they fill the premium seats (likely with connecting traffic from the rest of the US) they need to fill the remaining seats with discounted passengers. I would be surprised if AC is expecting to get a lot of premium US traffic and Delta is expecting to get a lot of Canadian premium traffic.

Personally I like the AC product; I find it better that US and United product both in Economy and International Business. I have only done Delta business on domestic aircraft and I find it on par with Air Canada. Have not tried Delta's international product since they merged with Northwest.

deasine
Dec 6, 2013, 4:22 AM
Once they fill the premium seats (likely with connecting traffic from the rest of the US) they need to fill the remaining seats with discounted passengers. I would be surprised if AC is expecting to get a lot of premium US traffic and Delta is expecting to get a lot of Canadian premium traffic.

That's true, and given SEA's corporate significance and current growth trends, I don't think they will have problems filling it in per say. And I think Johnny and I (if I may speak on your behalf Johnny) isn't that DL/SEA wouldn't be a threat to YVR, but it is not as significant as it is portrayed by many and in the media.

casper
Dec 6, 2013, 5:49 AM
That's true, and given SEA's corporate significance and current growth trends, I don't think they will have problems filling it in per say. And I think Johnny and I (if I may speak on your behalf Johnny) isn't that DL/SEA wouldn't be a threat to YVR, but it is not as significant as it is portrayed by many and in the media.

Yes. I would also agree.

trofirhen
Dec 6, 2013, 1:39 PM
Will any of this increase the probability of the role of YVR as a connection hub for Asia > Latin america?

http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/227628/market-insight-the-rise-of-the-latin-american-market-/

http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/227629/air-service-development-in-brazil-as-it-prepares-to-host-the-olympic-games-and-more/

Hourglass
Dec 6, 2013, 2:57 PM
That's true, and given SEA's corporate significance and current growth trends, I don't think they will have problems filling it in per say. And I think Johnny and I (if I may speak on your behalf Johnny) isn't that DL/SEA wouldn't be a threat to YVR, but it is not as significant as it is portrayed by many and in the media.

Well, I'm not going to say 'the sky is falling', but if DL is building up a mega hub in SEA, this is cause for concern any way you look at it.

For one thing, AC seems to be having trouble making its Asian routes out of YVR work. As I recall, this was the reason that one of the options being explored before they launched Rouge was a joint-venture which would have taken over many of the existing Asia Pacific routes from Vancouver..

Now you have DL just down the road which potentially offers discounted one-stop fares to Asia from YVR. Even if you have 5% erosion of passenger traffic to SEA, it would seem that AC's already marginal routes become even more so. And AC has not shown any hesitation in cutting back routes. 4x weekly to ICN during the summer? Really? As a business traveler, that kind of schedule simply doesn't work for me.

Certainly other foreign airlines will fill some of the gap (assuming the Canadian government lets them). Johnny Aussie talked about the NH rumor already. But it's AC that concerns me. They are still a pretty big employer in the Vancouver area, but it would seem to me that their seat growth out of YVR has been stagnant at best.

Gordon
Dec 6, 2013, 3:31 PM
How does Air Canada do on The major Asian Routes from YVR (HK,PeK&PVG)?

Does SEA have the facilities to host any sort of a major hub?

are there enough passengers to sustain 16 daily flights YVR & SEA

Johnny Aussie
Dec 6, 2013, 5:26 PM
So as expected AC has announced YYZ-HND on the 787 effective 1 July.

In the press release it does say this will "complement" existing flights to NRT from YYZ, YYC and YVR.

So this is in addition to YYZ-NRT... Not replacing it... which was being alluded to by Rovinescu's comments about shifting some services from NRT to HND.

The press release appears to be very clear this is not the case.

http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=723

Now for that ANA announcement ;-)

deasine
Dec 6, 2013, 8:02 PM
Australian Business Traveller also talks about the new AC 787 and potential deployment to MEL when the 787-9 becomes available. Johnny, looks like the HD Y configuration will come in one form or another. All the more reason to fly W or J ;)

http://www.ausbt.com.au/air-canada-maps-out-first-boeing-787-routes-tokyo-tel-aviv?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=flipper&utm_campaign=home-flipper

Well, I'm not going to say 'the sky is falling', but if DL is building up a mega hub in SEA, this is cause for concern any way you look at it.

For one thing, AC seems to be having trouble making its Asian routes out of YVR work. As I recall, this was the reason that one of the options being explored before they launched Rouge was a joint-venture which would have taken over many of the existing Asia Pacific routes from Vancouver..

Now you have DL just down the road which potentially offers discounted one-stop fares to Asia from YVR. Even if you have 5% erosion of passenger traffic to SEA, it would seem that AC's already marginal routes become even more so. And AC has not shown any hesitation in cutting back routes. 4x weekly to ICN during the summer? Really? As a business traveler, that kind of schedule simply doesn't work for me.

Certainly other foreign airlines will fill some of the gap (assuming the Canadian government lets them). Johnny Aussie talked about the NH rumor already. But it's AC that concerns me. They are still a pretty big employer in the Vancouver area, but it would seem to me that their seat growth out of YVR has been stagnant at best.

I'm not sure where you got this from. AC has never had any issues making YVR-Asia work. First of all, I can assure you that the fallout between Virgin and AC starting its LCC wasn't because of problems in traffic, but rather, due to the costs of a long-haul LCC. Aside from Jetstar and its Japan-Australia services, no carrier has been able to successfully launch long-haul LCC services including AirAsia. Long haul LCC is a complete different ballpark than short haul LCC services.

Secondly, a potential reason why AC didn't go with an Asia LCC was because it was profiting on its Asia routes and we've seen this trend happening. Meanwhile, the sun destinations and some leisure European routes is where AC could not compete with carriers such as TS and WS. And it's exactly why AC would want a LCC, to provide services while lowering cost to compete on a more level-playing field. But costs in relation with other competitors on its Asia routes, aside from Mainland carriers, are similar.

Traffic on many of the Asian routes have increased over the past bit. AC deploys its HD 777 aircraft for YVR-HKG as a response to these traffic demands (as well as providing an "equal" premium economy product in response to CX).

What AC has realised is a focus on YYZ provides more profits than YVR. It's not AC can't make YVR-Asia work, it's that YYZ, with its existing flights to the Eastern Seaboard, works better without necessarily significant additional capacity.


How does Air Canada do on The major Asian Routes from YVR (HK,PeK&PVG)?

Does SEA have the facilities to host any sort of a major hub?

are there enough passengers to sustain 16 daily flights YVR & SEA

I would wager that there isn't enough demand for the extra Delta flights. But that doesn't really matter. Delta is operating those services in order to market the one-stop Asia options. Profits from the long-haul services offset the costs of operating the short-haul feeders. An equivalent example would be transit: the 99 B-Line's ridership is high because of services that feed into its route. If you cut feeder, unprofitable services, you won't have that ridership for the B-Line, meaning you will loose profits.

And yes SEA has the facilities for a hub although I know airlines have been a bit constrained in space. In fact I don't think SEA was prepared for so many new flights from DL and I would imagine further terminal optimisation (and planning for future expansion) would be needed in order to accommodate DL's increase. Of airports in the United States, it's not a bad one, although I believe YVR is much better.

Hot Rod
Dec 7, 2013, 12:05 AM
So funny... and a sign of what times?

"By next summer, customers will have ONE-STOP service to the top five cities in Asia as well as the top three European markets."

So clever!

Hmmmm.... How about NON-STOP from YVR to all of those destinations.... plus more!

I think they're going to have to come up with something just a tad stronger than that.

They might want to do a little bit of homework before making such lame statements.

better word, CONNECTING since pax would need to transfer planes in SEA. One stop means same plane or flight number.

The planes are 77-seaters, is that a true worry for yvr? Who already has a much more significant presence for int'l traffic? Not saying rest on laurels, but I don't think the sky is falling and that yvr should proceed with adding foreign flags and its push for Asia/China-South America gareway status.

By the way, SEA is not a DL hub nor will it be. Instead, SEA a focus city for DL growing into more of an Int'l gateway than its previous status likely for the aforementioned reasons regarding NWA and NRT. SLC is DL hub for the west North America.

trofirhen
Dec 7, 2013, 12:21 AM
IF they get that customs-free area built at YVR, with facilities for connections from Asia to the mining centres of South America (Lima, Santiago; maybe even Sao Paolo for business) ... THAT is what will put YVR in the vanguard of West Coast airports. The sooner that's done (if ever) the better.
If Seattle (and the growing Delta hub there) does indeed pose some stiffer-than-expected competition, being the Asia - South America connecting hub will put YVR head and shoulders above SEA-TAC (even if we don't have Emirates or such an airline). The sooner the better, I think.
An arguable point, no doubt, but if we don't do it soon, SEA-TAC just might (although they don't have as many Chinese destinations as we do - yet).
If they were - hypothetically - to beat us to it, we would remain forever a regional focus city, and never a transit hub, or a real hub of any sort.

twoNeurons
Dec 7, 2013, 12:36 AM
So as expected AC has announced YYZ-HND on the 787 effective 1 July.

In the press release it does say this will "complement" existing flights to NRT from YYZ, YYC and YVR.

So this is in addition to YYZ-NRT... Not replacing it... which was being alluded to by Rovinescu's comments about shifting some services from NRT to HND.

The press release appears to be very clear this is not the case.

http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=723

Now for that ANA announcement ;-)

Although expected, it would be nice for YVR to get a 787 to Asia. YVR-HND on ANA metal... pleeeeeease!

As for Delta in Seattle. It just dropped its SEA - KIX 787 flight... and YVR has a healthy chunk of the China traffic.

I think, if Japan gets its way, its plan is to turn HND into a real competitor to ICN, so connections to HND in the future will be pretty important as it's being positioned as a major hub to Asia.I think over time, Narita may end up being more of a discount hub... as HND is just a far superior airport to fly into for multiple reasons.

ACT7
Dec 7, 2013, 4:03 AM
I'm not sure where you got this from. AC has never had any issues making YVR-Asia work. First of all, I can assure you that the fallout between Virgin and AC starting its LCC wasn't because of problems in traffic, but rather, due to the costs of a long-haul LCC. Aside from Jetstar and its Japan-Australia services, no carrier has been able to successfully launch long-haul LCC services including AirAsia. Long haul LCC is a complete different ballpark than short haul LCC services.

Secondly, a potential reason why AC didn't go with an Asia LCC was because it was profiting on its Asia routes and we've seen this trend happening. Meanwhile, the sun destinations and some leisure European routes is where AC could not compete with carriers such as TS and WS. And it's exactly why AC would want a LCC, to provide services while lowering cost to compete on a more level-playing field. But costs in relation with other competitors on its Asia routes, aside from Mainland carriers, are similar.

Traffic on many of the Asian routes have increased over the past bit. AC deploys its HD 777 aircraft for YVR-HKG as a response to these traffic demands (as well as providing an "equal" premium economy product in response to CX).

What AC has realised is a focus on YYZ provides more profits than YVR. It's not AC can't make YVR-Asia work, it's that YYZ, with its existing flights to the Eastern Seaboard, works better without necessarily significant additional capacity.

I think he's referring to this article...

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2012/6/13/Air-Canada-eyes-Asia-for-low-cost-airline.aspx

ACT7
Dec 7, 2013, 4:18 AM
Not sure if this article from CAPA has been posted yet, but it's in relation to the discussion...

http://centreforaviation.com/

trofirhen
Dec 7, 2013, 8:40 AM
Not sure if this article from CAPA has been posted yet, but it's in relation to the discussion...

http://centreforaviation.com/

Hmm. I wonder if there's a way YVR could, "en revanche," siphon traffic from Seattle? ... :cool: ... as that China >< South America transit hub, we probably could ....

deasine
Dec 7, 2013, 8:52 AM
Hmm. I wonder if there's a way YVR could, "en revanche," siphon traffic from Seattle? ... :cool: ... as that China >< South America transit hub, we probably could ....

Elaborate please. Why would a South America-China traffic positioning affect Seattle? SEA has no flights to South America either. If YVR ever becomes this transit hub, and I would be surprised if YVR ever gets close to YYZ in terms of being able to handle this type of traffic, this would be additional traffic and not take any traffic away from SEA.

Let me also add that while AC is not often cheaper than its American counterparts, flights from US to Asia via Vancouver are often cheaper than flights direct from Vancouver to the same destinations.

Hourglass
Dec 7, 2013, 8:57 AM
I think he's referring to this article...

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2012/6/13/Air-Canada-eyes-Asia-for-low-cost-airline.aspx

Yes, that was the article. Thanks for posting the link. This perspective was also referenced in other articles as well, but I can't be bothered to go searching for them.

I agree you go where the money is, and for Air Canada, that's YYZ. What's annoying is that the combination of economics (YYZ being AC's primary focus) and selective government policy really does airports outside of YYZ -- particularly Western Canada -- a disservice. It's ironic that on the same week Calvin Rovanescu warns YVR against pursuing open skies, AC announces plans to beef-up their Toronto hub. Some people on airliners.net have argued that TC is in Air Canada's pocket with regards to new bilaterals. Whether that's true, either way, as long as this status quo lasts and foreign access to YVR is limited, the airport will continue to suffer from benign neglect.

In addition to more consumer choice, competition might actually force AC to devote more attention to YVR. It's interesting that when Oasis launched flights to YVR from HK several years ago, AC and CX responded with more flights. At one point there were more than 31 flights per week to HKG alone. You see the same thing with Toronto Island airport. For years, it was completely neglected by AC. All of a sudden, when Porter starts making a go of it, AC wakes up and starts begging for access.

Hmm... Maybe the new DL service to Seattle could be a good thing... ;)

trofirhen
Dec 7, 2013, 4:14 PM
Elaborate please. Why would a South America-China traffic positioning affect Seattle? SEA has no flights to South America either. If YVR ever becomes this transit hub, and I would be surprised if YVR ever gets close to YYZ in terms of being able to handle this type of traffic, this would be additional traffic and not take any traffic away from SEA.

Let me also add that while AC is not often cheaper than its American counterparts, flights from US to Asia via Vancouver are often cheaper than flights direct from Vancouver to the same destinations.

In my mind, it was just a question of getting the connection hub for China >< South America set up before Seattle gets the same idea.
At any rate, doesn't YVR have more Asian destinations than SEA-TAC, anyway? I hope so, because I'd hate to see them get the idea, implement it, and
thereby leaving YVR "out in the cold" (in this instance), since the Pacific NW could not support TWO Asia >< S. America transfer hubs. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Otherwise stated, if we got that configuration set up (before the possibility of Seattle doing it), it would render YVR a more important connection hub than it is now, and might even work the opposite way Delta planned it - drawing Seattle pax to YVR to go to South America. That's really all I meant.

casper
Dec 7, 2013, 7:56 PM
In my mind, it was just a question of getting the connection hub for China >< South America set up before Seattle gets the same idea.
At any rate, doesn't YVR have more Asian destinations than SEA-TAC, anyway? I hope so, because I'd hate to see them get the idea, implement it, and
thereby leaving YVR "out in the cold" (in this instance), since the Pacific NW could not support TWO Asia >< S. America transfer hubs. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Otherwise stated, if we got that configuration set up (before the possibility of Seattle doing it), it would render YVR a more important connection hub than it is now, and might even work the opposite way Delta planned it - drawing Seattle pax to YVR to go to South America. That's really all I meant.

Seattle customs immigration is not as well setup as Vancouver. International transfers are easier to do in Vancouver.

From Victoria we do not have US Pre-clearance and the Alaska Airlines/Horizon flight from Victoria arrives at an international gate in Seattle.

I went through last month on a trip down to California. You get off the Q400, walk up into the terminal and then up into the international arrivals area. We where held in the corridor for a good 15 minutes because the immigration hall was to congested to handle another flight (our 75 Q400). We needed to wait for the one Delta flight to clear.

You then go through customs and immigration, get on a train to the next terminal where then walk across the corridor to get on yet another shuttle train to yet another terminal. This is all connecting from an Alaska (Horizon) flight to a mainline flight.

YVR has a better terminal setup. Short of massive changes to the multi-terminal layout at Seattle, YVR is the better transfer airport.

What Canada should do if it has not yet is offer fifth freedom rights to South American airlines through Vancouver to points in Asia.

trofirhen
Dec 7, 2013, 9:31 PM
Seattle customs immigration is not as well setup as Vancouver. International transfers are easier to do in Vancouver.

From Victoria we do not have US Pre-clearance and the Alaska Airlines/Horizon flight from Victoria arrives at an international gate in Seattle.

I went through last month on a trip down to California. You get off the Q400, walk up into the terminal and then up into the international arrivals area. We where held in the corridor for a good 15 minutes because the immigration hall was to congested to handle another flight (our 75 Q400). We needed to wait for the one Delta flight to clear.

You then go through customs and immigration, get on a train to the next terminal where then walk across the corridor to get on yet another shuttle train to yet another terminal. This is all connecting from an Alaska (Horizon) flight to a mainline flight.

YVR has a better terminal setup. Short of massive changes to the multi-terminal layout at Seattle, YVR is the better transfer airport.

What Canada should do if it has not yet is offer fifth freedom rights to South American airlines through Vancouver to points in Asia.

Thanks for that encouraging feedback. However, I fear that protectionist Ottawa will, firstly, want to maintain YYZ as the major, and perhaps only, exchange point between Asia and South America.

As an example, Calvin Rovinescu says he does not want YVR to be a "stub" airport, feeding into other hubs. He says a "solid base" should be developed by Air Canada. OK,
if this is the intention of AC, and it either starts routes from YVR to South America and if if Ottawa takes the daring step of granting fifth freedoms to Asia >< South America routes, the bottom line question may be: is this to protect Air Canada's routes into YYZ (and maybe YUL which doesn't absorb as many routes as YYZ, but has the best array of European connections;
*alliance Turkish just started flying there. there is already Turkish at YYZ and An upcoming double-daily YYZ > IST, à propos)....

OR ... would this benefit YYZ as well. It's a federal law, so it applies to YVR and YYZ, as is well-known.
If it means a profit for AC and YYZ, they'll probably go for it. ... IMHO :uhh:

casper
Dec 7, 2013, 10:31 PM
Thanks for that encouraging feedback. However, I fear that protectionist Ottawa will, firstly, want to maintain YYZ as the major, and perhaps only, exchange point between Asia and South America.

As an example, Calvin Rovinescu says he does not want YVR to be a "stub" airport, feeding into other hubs. He says a "solid base" should be developed by Air Canada. OK,
if this is the intention of AC, and it either starts routes from YVR to South America and if if Ottawa takes the daring step of granting fifth freedoms to Asia >< South America routes, the bottom line question may be: is this to protect Air Canada's routes into YYZ (and maybe YUL which doesn't absorb as many routes as YYZ, but has the best array of European connections;
*alliance Turkish just started flying there. there is already Turkish at YYZ and An upcoming double-daily YYZ > IST, à propos)....

OR ... would this benefit YYZ as well. It's a federal law, so it applies to YVR and YYZ, as is well-known.
If it means a profit for AC and YYZ, they'll probably go for it. ... IMHO :uhh:

All of these treats have different rules.

For example here is the one with Japan: http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=100225

It would permit a Japanese airline to operate 5th freedom beyond Vancouver to Brazil but not from Toronto. JAL did operate Tokyo-Vancouver-Mexico City some days of the week until it ran into financial problems.

trofirhen
Dec 7, 2013, 10:42 PM
All of these treats have different rules.

For example here is the one with Japan: http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=100225

It would permit a Japanese airline to operate 5th freedom beyond Vancouver to Brazil but not from Toronto. JAL did operate Tokyo-Vancouver-Mexico City some days of the week until it ran into financial problems.

Wheew!! Didn't know different cities in Canada have different rights like that.
Do any other asian Airlines have parallel 5th freedoms into YVR? (and not YYZ :???:)

If so, couldn't it be a real meal deal, or is there a set of other restrictions keeping Vancouver out, and letting Toronto in?

moosejaw
Dec 8, 2013, 1:49 AM
Couldn't South American airlines feed into YVR to serve the asian market?
Lan Chile or TAM? They are pretty big.

casper
Dec 8, 2013, 2:50 AM
Wheew!! Didn't know different cities in Canada have different rights like that.
Do any other asian Airlines have parallel 5th freedoms into YVR? (and not YYZ :???:)

If so, couldn't it be a real meal deal, or is there a set of other restrictions keeping Vancouver out, and letting Toronto in?

Some countries and regions have open skies. European airlines for example can operate to any Canadian international airport and Air Canada and WestJet can fly into any European airport.

You can try searching the other agreements. http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/search-recherche.aspx?type=10&page=TLA

I also looked at Malaysia (http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=100243): the only airport in Canada that can be used to provide service to Malaysia is Vancouver, with an optional stop in Taipei. The agreement does not permit service to Toronto.

Looking at Peru: http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=103280
SECTION I

Route to be operated in both directions by the designated airline of the Government of Canada:

From Vancouver via points in Mexico, Cuba and Panama to Lima and/or Talara and beyond to Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo (Brazil) and such other points as may be agreed by the two Contracting Parties.

SECTION II

Route to be operated in both directions by the designated airline of the Government of the Republic of Peru:

From Lima via points in Ecuador, Panama, Cuba and Mexico to Vancouver and points beyond to be agreed by the two Contracting Parties.


There are lots of unused rights to service Vancouver, (any many exclude Toronto). The reason these flights are not operating may have more to do with the economic viability than government restrictions.

trofirhen
Dec 8, 2013, 4:27 AM
Some countries and regions have open skies. European airlines for example can operate to any Canadian international airport and Air Canada and WestJet can fly into any European airport.

You can try searching the other agreements. http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/search-recherche.aspx?type=10&page=TLA

I also looked at Malaysia (http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=100243):the only airport in Canada that can be used to provide service to Malaysia is Vancouver, with an optional stop in Taipei. The agreement does not permit service to Toronto. Looking at Peru: http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=103280SECTION I

Route to be operated in both directions by the designated airline of the Government of Canada:

From Vancouver via points in Mexico, Cuba and Panama to Lima and/or Talara and beyond to Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo (Brazil) and such other points as may be agreed by the two Contracting Parties.

SECTION II

Route to be operated in both directions by the designated airline of the Government of the Republic of Peru:

From Lima via points in Ecuador, Panama, Cuba and Mexico to Vancouver and points beyond to be agreed by the two Contracting Parties.
There are lots of unused rights to service Vancouver, (any many exclude Toronto). The reason these flights are not operating may have more to do with the economic viability than government restrictions.


Very informative. Thank you very much.
We have a potential, uncontested route to Malaysia, it seems. KL, anybody?

The possible airlines for the Vancouver >< Lima run seems to be at first AC, but Peruvian is mentioned in Article2

This is confusing.

Will Lima (and for Vancouver, it's the most logical, being almost westermost in a southeastern continent) be the main route, with connecting services to Rio, San Paolo etc, or would there be seperate routes operated by AC?
(That I VERY MUCH doubt)
I understand that both Peruvian and AC have options into a number of "intermediate" points south of Mexico.

And what about Chile? Nothing there at all? No LAN Chile or AC Santiago run possible?
A lot of copper mining there, and the value of humble copper is going way up due to its widespread use in electronics, as everyone knows.
And when I've asked what the economic base of Vancouver really was, I was told mining.
It's said that the mining interests in the Andes are booming, and that would
surely generate yield, unless the airlines' operating cost is too high.

Calin Rovanescu said he didn't want too many airlines at YVR, but preferred a strong AC hub there.
Here's part of his chance to do just that, as long as the profit is there. Surely.

Kapten
Dec 8, 2013, 10:08 PM
I just saw an ad on Canada Line for Fiji tourism. The ad included the Fiji Airways logo. Will they be coming back to YVR? They once flew here as Air Pacific...

Johnny Aussie
Dec 9, 2013, 2:23 PM
Here is the official press release from ANA.

http://www.ana.co.jp/eng/aboutana/press/2013/pdf/131209.pdf

Daily 767-300ER effective 30 March 2014

HND - YVR NH116 dep 2155 arr 1455
YVR - HND NH117 dep 1655 arr 1905 +1

This will be YVR's 19th international airline

No word about AC JV yet... I assume that will be released shortly.

So tick that rumour off the list... next!

And here is YVR's press release ----> http://yvr.ca/en/flight-information/latest-information/13-12-09/YVR_to_Welcome_All_Nippon_Airways_First_Flight_to_Canada-473116419.aspx

trofirhen
Dec 9, 2013, 3:48 PM
Johnny, thank you once again.

I think this post is going to make a lot of people very happy. ;):cheers:

deasine
Dec 9, 2013, 4:15 PM
Yay!

Prometheus
Dec 10, 2013, 7:56 PM
In case this hasn't been posted yet:

Virgin Atlantic to increase summer traffic between Vancouver and London

By Tricia Lo

Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:50am PST

After seeing an 18% increase in passenger volume from 2012 to 2013, Virgin Atlantic will be adding a seasonal fifth weekly flight from Vancouver to London Heathrow Airport.

“We currently run a seasonal service four times a week from London Heathrow to Vancouver and we are delighted at its popularity,” said Edmond Rose, director of airline planning at Virgin Atlantic.

“To meet this demand we have taken the decision to introduce a fifth weekly service next summer, resulting in a strong increase in the number of seats available for holiday makers looking for a getaway to British Columbia.”

It will result in more than 2,000 additional seats to and from Vancouver during peak summer months. Currently, flights operate on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday.

Since its Vancouver service launched in 2012, Virgin Atlantic has carried more than 17,000 passengers to Vancouver. “The North American market has always been at the core of our business,” Rose said.

The added Sunday flight will launch on May 22, 2014 and will run through to Oct. 11, 2014. Additional flight services will go on sale online at www.virginatlantic.com beginning December 11.

http://www.biv.com/article/20131210/BIV0118/131219998/virgin-atlantic-to-increase-summer-traffic-between-vancouver-and

Denscity
Dec 10, 2013, 8:08 PM
Here is the official press release from ANA.

http://www.ana.co.jp/eng/aboutana/press/2013/pdf/131209.pdf

Daily 767-300ER effective 30 March 2014

HND - YVR NH116 dep 2155 arr 1455
YVR - HND NH117 dep 1655 arr 1905 +1

This will be YVR's 19th international airline

No word about AC JV yet... I assume that will be released shortly.

So tick that rumour off the list... next!

And here is YVR's press release ----> http://yvr.ca/en/flight-information/latest-information/13-12-09/YVR_to_Welcome_All_Nippon_Airways_First_Flight_to_Canada-473116419.aspx

In case this hasn't been posted yet:



http://www.biv.com/article/20131210/BIV0118/131219998/virgin-atlantic-to-increase-summer-traffic-between-vancouver-and

YVR is rocking right now and so is this thread. Wooo :tup::tup:

Johnny Aussie
Dec 10, 2013, 8:20 PM
YVR is rocking right now and so is this thread. Wooo :tup::tup:

Yes it is. There seems to be a bit of momentum picking up.

And I am pretty sure there is a bit more on the horizon.

I will have to prepare a summary of changes soon. :-)

Kapten
Dec 10, 2013, 8:45 PM
Yes it is. There seems to be a bit of momentum picking up.

And I am pretty sure there is a bit more on the horizon.

I will have to prepare a summary of changes soon. :-)

Like you I'm still waiting on the airport authority to issue a press release celebrating Delta's expansion @ YVR.

trofirhen
Dec 10, 2013, 9:59 PM
Yes it is. There seems to be a bit of momentum picking up.

And I am pretty sure there is a bit more on the horizon.

I will have to prepare a summary of changes soon. :-)

Like you I'm still waiting on the airport authority to issue a press release celebrating Delta's expansion @ YVR.

and I'm waiting to hear more about the theoretical-but-seeminly plausible likelihood of YVR becoming that China >< South America connection hub !!

LeftCoaster
Dec 10, 2013, 10:07 PM
I will have to prepare a summary of changes soon. :-)

That'd be much appreciated. For those like me who are a little less in tune with YVR and the industry (constantly having to google the acronyms you guys use) it's tough to keep up lately.

twoNeurons
Dec 10, 2013, 11:13 PM
Here is the official press release from ANA.

http://www.ana.co.jp/eng/aboutana/press/2013/pdf/131209.pdf

Daily 767-300ER effective 30 March 2014

HND - YVR NH116 dep 2155 arr 1455
YVR - HND NH117 dep 1655 arr 1905 +1

This will be YVR's 19th international airline

No word about AC JV yet... I assume that will be released shortly.

So tick that rumour off the list... next!

And here is YVR's press release ----> http://yvr.ca/en/flight-information/latest-information/13-12-09/YVR_to_Welcome_All_Nippon_Airways_First_Flight_to_Canada-473116419.aspx

Woo hoo! Good trade! I'll take NH for AC any day!

Also of note, a new flight to Hanoi.

A great transfer window from Hanoi - Haneda - YVR. 50 minutes transfer. Totally doable in Japan.
On the way to Hanoi, it would require an overnight airport stay in Tokyo.

Johnny Aussie
Dec 11, 2013, 8:59 PM
According to this article about Westjet pilots rejecting their new tentative agreement... I saw this paragraph down towards the bottom.

Ricardo Miranda is leading CUPE’s organization drive at WestJet, and said the flight attendants have many of the same concerns the pilots do, including the impact opening bases in Toronto and Vancouver in 2014 will have on them.

Another good sign of Westjet's commitment to YVR and its growing base there.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/your-money/WestJet+Airlines+pilots+reject+tentative+agreement/9228727/story.html

Johnny Aussie
Dec 11, 2013, 9:10 PM
In case this hasn't been posted yet:



http://www.biv.com/article/20131210/BIV0118/131219998/virgin-atlantic-to-increase-summer-traffic-between-vancouver-and

The 5th weekly flight's schedule is definitely interesting.

VS095 arrives in YVR Sundays at 15:45 and then departs as VS096 at 00:25 that night (Monday morning).

rxp
Dec 11, 2013, 10:25 PM
The 5th weekly flight's schedule is definitely interesting.

VS095 arrives in YVR Sundays at 15:45 and then departs as VS096 at 00:25 that night (Monday morning).

What time does it land at lHR? could it be for travellers who need to be in Lon early Monday morning?

connect2source
Dec 11, 2013, 10:49 PM
Looks like YVR will be seeing a lot of 737MAX's from both AC and WS in the future as AC has chosen Boeing over Airbus for their Airbus A320 A319 and A321 replacements. The CSeries may still be a contender to replace some of the E190's.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/air-canada-orders-new-planes-from-boeing/article15884760/

YVR Bruce
Dec 12, 2013, 4:20 PM
'Looks like those who were sorry to see the A346 replaced by B744 get a brief reprise: The Airbus comes back for most of March, then back to the slightly bigger a/c March 30

Hot Rod
Dec 14, 2013, 4:06 AM
I don't know if this was reported, but United will end its long standing SEA-NRT service in Jan http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/227322/united-cancels-seattle-a-tokyo-narita-service-from-mid-jan-2014/ .

That will leave Delta (former Northwest) SEA-NRT and the new All Nippon SEA-HND for the Tokyo market. Delta also dropped the SEA-KIX route it tried for 2013.

YVR has JAL and A/C to NRT and soon All Nippon to HND.

Denscity
Dec 14, 2013, 6:14 AM
Yes!!

mezzanine
Dec 14, 2013, 6:23 AM
Surprised this wasn't posted, but the YVR tankfarm and richmond pipeline was approved by the ministry of the environment, after much back-and-forth.

YVR jet fuel plan given environmental approval (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/yvr-jet-fuel-plan-given-environmental-approval-1.2462200)

IMO this is a big advancement for the airport. they can now seek fuel from different sources other than cherry point or chevron, building on YVR's competitiveness, while bringing more efficiency to the transport and storage of jet fuel.

Johnny Aussie
Dec 14, 2013, 6:59 AM
I don't know if this was reported, but United will end its long standing SEA-NRT service in Jan http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/227322/united-cancels-seattle-a-tokyo-narita-service-from-mid-jan-2014/ .

That will leave Delta (former Northwest) SEA-NRT and the new All Nippon SEA-HND for the Tokyo market. Delta also dropped the SEA-KIX route it tried for 2013.

YVR has JAL and A/C to NRT and soon All Nippon to HND.

Almost right.

SEA will have SEA-NRT on DL and NH and SEA-HND on DL
YVR will have YVR-NRT on AC and JL and YVR-HND on NH

But you are right SEA-KIX on DL was recently chopped and SEA-NRT on UA about to go.

Johnny Aussie
Dec 14, 2013, 6:42 PM
Another expected announcement.

China Southern to commence daily 787 from 10 Feb. This replaces the current daily 772.

Right now this is scheduled to the end of March only.

This is also China Southerns first trans pacific 787 flight.

But there you have it YVR... regularly scheduled Dreamliner flights. :-)

This also introduces first class on this route.

http://airlineroute.net/2013/12/14/cz-yvr-feb14/

I wouldn't be surprised if you see a another frequency increase in the not too distant future.

excel
Dec 14, 2013, 10:19 PM
New additions so far this winter/spring:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IomjTGVJUkU/UaTNdchetBI/AAAAAAAAA7U/p53UBTExv-M/s1600/china_southern_787_3.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IomjTGVJUkU/UaTNdchetBI/AAAAAAAAA7U/p53UBTExv-M/s1600/china_southern_787_3.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2568/3845500552_e229de6798_o.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2568/3845500552_e229de6798_o.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vxibCbWCZqk/T823LIOR6oI/AAAAAAAAAZ8/vLGJo_C42lc/s1600/ANA+%5BJA622A%5D.JPG
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vxibCbWCZqk/T823LIOR6oI/AAAAAAAAAZ8/vLGJo_C42lc/s1600/ANA+%5BJA622A%5D.JPG

trofirhen
Dec 15, 2013, 3:58 AM
Exciting stuff!
Thanks for the photos.
(I wish Turkish Airlines were among some newcomers.....)

twoNeurons
Dec 15, 2013, 6:01 PM
Now that DL dropped SEA-KIX I'm starting to wonder why KIX is so hard to fly to. Not enough O/D? Greater Osaka has 17 million people, an economy bigger than Hong Kong (apparently (http://www.osaka-info.jp/en/about/overview.html)), a large ex-pat population and popular tourist places like Nara, Kyoto and Kobe within its catchment.

I just don't get why there aren't more flights to KIX. They dropped landing fees lower than Tokyo and the airport's a work of art.

The only thing that I can think of is that Tokyo is like Japan's London. A huge airport that is overserved because ultimately, the government wants it to be contintental hub and a huge number of travellers are in transit...

Any thoughts?

rsxstock
Dec 15, 2013, 7:12 PM
Now that DL dropped SEA-KIX I'm starting to wonder why KIX is so hard to fly to. Not enough O/D? Greater Osaka has 17 million people, an economy bigger than Hong Kong (apparently (http://www.osaka-info.jp/en/about/overview.html)), a large ex-pat population and popular tourist places like Nara, Kyoto and Kobe within its catchment.

I just don't get why there aren't more flights to KIX. They dropped landing fees lower than Tokyo and the airport's a work of art.

The only thing that I can think of is that Tokyo is like Japan's London. A huge airport that is overserved because ultimately, the government wants it to be contintental hub and a huge number of travellers are in transit...

Any thoughts?

in terms of tourist destinations, when you think of japan, you think of tokyo. when you think of US, you think of vegas and new york. so maybe there is only demand for business and family

casper
Dec 15, 2013, 7:14 PM
Now that DL dropped SEA-KIX I'm starting to wonder why KIX is so hard to fly to. Not enough O/D? Greater Osaka has 17 million people, an economy bigger than Hong Kong (apparently (http://www.osaka-info.jp/en/about/overview.html)), a large ex-pat population and popular tourist places like Nara, Kyoto and Kobe within its catchment.

I just don't get why there aren't more flights to KIX. They dropped landing fees lower than Tokyo and the airport's a work of art.

The only thing that I can think of is that Tokyo is like Japan's London. A huge airport that is overserved because ultimately, the government wants it to be contintental hub and a huge number of travellers are in transit...

Any thoughts?

Narita is a major transit hub to the rest of Asia.

You don't think of KIX. I have not been in Japan for several years. Last time was three years ago, i was heading to Kobe (for business). I just booked a flight into Narita and then onto the train systems. I suspect many others are the same way.

Cage
Dec 16, 2013, 8:22 PM
Now that DL dropped SEA-KIX I'm starting to wonder why KIX is so hard to fly to. ....

Any thoughts?

Osaka has the same problem as Montreal in the 70-90s. Think of it this way KIX=YMX and ITA=YUL. Hard for local Japan traffic to hub at KIX due to small domestic operations.

Second big problem is that Japanese are introverted with a strong preference to stay on their own airlines, JAL and ANA. Both the major airlines had hub in Tokyo so no need for major connection hub at KIX. Consequently KIX was primarily a foreign airline airport.

Back when KIX was conceived, airlines had to use Japan as connection point for all of Asia. Today with the long range aircraft can overfly Japan. Combined with Chinese/Japanese neighbour relations considered poor at best, an most Chinese connection pax would prefer to pay for nonstop to NA.

Finally Japan economy has been in perpetual slump/recession since mid 90s.

Gordon
Dec 16, 2013, 9:55 PM
West Jet seems to be using Gate B21 for Encore Flights instead of all of the gates the recently for Encore. I wonder why?

trofirhen
Dec 16, 2013, 11:23 PM
Osaka has the same problem as Montreal in the 70-90s. Think of it this way KIX=YMX and ITA=YUL. Hard for local Japan traffic to hub at KIX due to small domestic operations.

Second big problem is that Japanese are introverted with a strong preference to stay on their own airlines, JAL and ANA. Both the major airlines had hub in Tokyo so no need for major connection hub at KIX. Consequently KIX was primarily a foreign airline airport.

Back when KIX was conceived, airlines had to use Japan as connection point for all of Asia. Today with the long range aircraft can overfly Japan. Combined with Chinese/Japanese neighbour relations considered poor at best, an most Chinese connection pax would prefer to pay for nonstop to NA.

Finally Japan economy has been in perpetual slump/recession since mid 90s.

This being the case, doesn't KIX face an uncertain as a viable airport on the scale it is now? As a city of 18m, it surely has its slice of the domestic market, but is that enough? If it is eclipsed by both Toko airports a connection hub, what is its future?
It seems KIX has to somehow fill a "role." What could that role be? If not, doesn't KIX risk stagnating, even losing airlines, pax and profit?

twoNeurons
Dec 16, 2013, 11:36 PM
Osaka has the same problem as Montreal in the 70-90s. Think of it this way KIX=YMX and ITA=YUL. Hard for local Japan traffic to hub at KIX due to small domestic operations.

Second big problem is that Japanese are introverted with a strong preference to stay on their own airlines, JAL and ANA. Both the major airlines had hub in Tokyo so no need for major connection hub at KIX. Consequently KIX was primarily a foreign airline airport.

Back when KIX was conceived, airlines had to use Japan as connection point for all of Asia. Today with the long range aircraft can overfly Japan. Combined with Chinese/Japanese neighbour relations considered poor at best, an most Chinese connection pax would prefer to pay for nonstop to NA.

Finally Japan economy has been in perpetual slump/recession since mid 90s.

Interesting comparison to Montreal. I hadn't thought of it like that. Though, in Montreal's case... they even have the cultural advantage of being North America's French link.

True, Itami (Osaka International) is a MUCH more convenient airport for most of the Area, being smack dab in the middle of Osaka, Kobe and Kyoto... pity there was never any room for expansion.

Interestingly, KIX seems to have more connections to China than Narita or Haneda.

However, one thing that I don't understand is that in the meantime, ICN ended up taking a lot of the through traffic to Asia. ICN isn't exactly conveniently located for most of Seoul. How did ICN attract the base? Low landing fees?

In some ways, I see a parallel between YVR, YYZ and LAX/SFO. YVR is a secondary airport, KIX... YYZ is like Tokyo and Seoul is the mega hub of SFO/LAX. OF course, the difference being that we can't jump on a train and be in ANY major city in less than 3 hours. :)

twoNeurons
Dec 16, 2013, 11:41 PM
This being the case, doesn't KIX face an uncertain as a viable airport on the scale it is now? As a city of 18m, it surely has its slice of the domestic market, but is that enough? If it is eclipsed by both Toko airports a connection hub, what is its future?
It seems KIX has to somehow fill a "role." What could that role be? If not, doesn't KIX risk stagnating, even losing airlines, pax and profit?

KIX seems to be positioning itself as the LCC (Low-cost-Carrier) of choice.

Lots of routes to China: http://info.flightmapper.net/airport/KIX

trofirhen
Dec 17, 2013, 3:08 PM
Interesting how different airports adapt themselves to different "roles."

I just hope the "role" for YVR as a "transit hub" Asia >< South America becomes a reality. A lot of people either scorn this, or doubt its viability at all, but it would certainly put YVR a solid notch above being a regional focus city (and partial hub for East Asia) as it is now.

Johnny Aussie
Dec 17, 2013, 8:45 PM
AIR CANADA NARITA

As expected (I say that a lot) AC has downgauged YVR-NRT to a daily 763.

Total seats in the YVR-TYO Star Alliance market therefore increases from 349 to 425 seats per day. 532 per week.

Still waiting on the next 787 announcements :whistle:

AIR CANADA DOMESTIC

Although early for domestic summer scheds, looks like AC will be running 2 daily 77W from YVR-YYZ. Last summer there were nil 77W flights. And more 763 flying again (and to YOW as well, see below).

Also, the early afternoon flight to YOW being upgauged to a 763.

KLM

KLM has also switched its daily 772 to a 333. So this is a decrease in capacity from 318 to 292 seats per day. 182 per week.

In my opinion this is a plus though as the 772 has middle seats in business class... very old school! If I'm going to be paying the big bucks for business class.. no thanks!

rxp
Dec 17, 2013, 9:07 PM
Delta Adds More Service to Support International Gateway in Seattle

PR Newswire

SEATTLE, Dec. 17, 2013

SEATTLE, Dec. 17, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL) will add new
daily nonstop flights to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport from San Jose
International Airport and Juneau International Airport as well as an
additional flight from Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, all
beginning May 29, 2014. The new service will provide customers with convenient
connections to the airline's growing international network from Seattle.

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20090202/DELTALOGO )

Delta's new and expanded Seattle service includes:

o Four new daily nonstop flights from San Jose, Calif.
o One new daily summer seasonal flight from Juneau, Alaska – a new city to
Delta's network
o One additional summer seasonal flight from Anchorage for a total of three
daily nonstop flights

"The Pacific Northwest economy is one of the fastest-growing in the U.S., and
a big part of why we're adding domestic flights in support of our growing
global gateway in Seattle," said Mike Medeiros, Delta's vice president –
Seattle. "By next summer, we'll offer more than 2,500 daily international
seats as part of our 79 peakday departures to 25 destinations."

Delta's new service from San Jose will be operated by Delta Connection carrier
SkyWest Airlines using 76-seat, two-class CRJ-900s. The airline's new Juneau
service as well as the additional Anchorage summer seasonal flight will be
operated with a Boeing 737-800. Each aircraft is equipped with First Class and
Economy Comfort seating as well as onboard Wi-Fi.

The airline recently announced expanded Seattle service to Anchorage, Alaska,
Fairbanks, Alaska, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., San Diego, San
Francisco and Vancouver to support its increasing international network that
currently operates nonstop flights to Amsterdam, Beijing, Paris,
Shanghai-Pudong and Tokyo. The airline will also operate new nonstop
international service in 2014 to London-Heathrow in March as well as Hong Kong
and Seoul in June, pending government approval.

Every long-haul international Delta flight from Seattle now features full
flat-bed seats in BusinessElite, Economy Comfort seating and entertainment on
demand in every seat throughout the aircraft.

Delta currently operates 35 peak-day departures to 15 destinations from
Seattle, and every flight offers BusinessElite/First Class and Economy Comfort
seating as well as domestic Wi-Fi service. The airline has also invested $14
million in its facilities at Sea-Tac, including its recently completed lobby
renovations, new Delta Sky Club, Sky Priority services, new gate area power
recharging stations and expanded ticket counters.

Delta Air Lines serves more than 160 million customers each year. Delta was
named by Fortune magazine as the most admired airline worldwide in its 2013
World's Most Admired Companies airline industry list, topping the list for the
second time in three years. With an industry-leading global network, Delta and
the Delta Connection carriers offer service to 315 destinations in 58
countries on six continents. Headquartered in Atlanta, Delta employs nearly
80,000 employees worldwide and operates a mainline fleet of more than 700
aircraft. The airline is a founding member of the SkyTeam global alliance and
participates in the industry's leading trans-Atlantic joint venture with Air
France-KLM and Alitalia. Including its worldwide alliance partners, Delta
offers customers more than 15,000 daily flights, with hubs in Amsterdam,
Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York-LaGuardia, New
York-JFK, Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Salt Lake City and Tokyo-Narita. Delta is
investing more than $3 billion in airport facilities and global products,
services and technology to enhance the customer experience in the air and on
the ground. Additional information is available on delta.com, Twitter @Delta,
Google.com/+Delta, Facebook.com/delta and Delta's blog takingoff.delta.com.

SOURCE Delta Air Lines

Website: http://www.delta.com
Contact: Delta Corporate Communications, 404-715-2554

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20131217-908573.html?dsk=y

moosejaw
Dec 18, 2013, 12:01 AM
At the risk of not quoting the post above........If the above isnt enough justification for YVR to get in gear i dont know what it.
SEA has a lot more people going in and out than YVR. I think what hinders YVR becoming competitive is the fees and the in-transit visa issue.

All it takes is SEA to land south american destinations.

Gordon
Dec 18, 2013, 5:12 AM
Does Sea-Tac have In-transit facilities because generally U.s. Aiprots don't have them.

Will delta be operating it's red-eye to JFK this Summer?

deasine
Dec 18, 2013, 8:35 AM
Does Sea-Tac have In-transit facilities because generally U.s. Aiprots don't have them.

No none of the US Airports have them.

Responding to moosejaw's post, it begs the question what power does YVR really have? SEA is getting more service not because SEA is an excellent airport, but rather because DL is choosing SEA as a strategic gateway (also because there are few existing US services, notice the majority of hubs in the United States do not have a competitor: SFO-UA; DFW-AA; ATL-DL; MSP-DL; IAH-UA; DEN-UA; CLE-UA; PHX-US; MIA-AA; IAD-UA; CLT-US; etc. Only ORD-UA,AA; JFK/EWR: US-AA,DL,UA; LAX: UA,AA,US; etc.). AC has made it clear that YYZ is its focus and even with YVR making significant improvements and lowering fees, YVR cannot compete against YYZ based on economies of scale. Also note, YYZ isn't a bad airport, especially T1 where all of ACs operations are based at: I personally would rank YVR maybe a little higher (also because I'm bias) but really not by much. Our airport just doesn't fit into ACs short-term business portfolio and it will not be able to compete it. Thus I think YVRs current strategy in recruiting more international services seems to be the best way moving forward and at the very least, can improve network/destination diversification. With increasing services, there will eventually be demand for increasing feeder routes, and this is when WS and AC, and potentially any future Canadian airline, may step up to the plate to handle this increase.

Millennium2002
Dec 18, 2013, 9:25 AM
According to this article about Westjet pilots rejecting their new tentative agreement... I saw this paragraph down towards the bottom.

Ricardo Miranda is leading CUPE’s organization drive at WestJet, and said the flight attendants have many of the same concerns the pilots do, including the impact opening bases in Toronto and Vancouver in 2014 will have on them.

Another good sign of Westjet's commitment to YVR and its growing base there.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/your-money/WestJet+Airlines+pilots+reject+tentative+agreement/9228727/story.html

Off topic, but... that's the first time I've heard of unionization issues at a successful lower-cost airline such as WestJet.

I honestly think that the share-sharing model in WestJet is a pretty fair one considering how it rewards all employees in times of success. That in theory should keep everyone working towards the same goal of good returns year after year.

Given that, and noting all the other financial and work-related troubles that exist at Air Canada due to union struggles there, I feel this is probably one rare case where a union is not in the workers' best interest in the long term.

Anyway, back to topic... perhaps someone could move this elsewhere if desired.

trofirhen
Dec 18, 2013, 11:27 AM
At the risk of not quoting the post above........If the above isnt enough justification for YVR to get in gear i dont know what it.
SEA has a lot more people going in and out than YVR. I think what hinders YVR becoming competitive is the fees and the in-transit visa issue.

All it takes is SEA to land south american destinations.

My idea exactly. If that happens, YVR will be rather eclipsed, if not shot through the knees.
And are the Feds serious about letting South American destinations pass through YVR anyway?
I wish someone could clarify this precise point. It worries me.

Gordon
Dec 18, 2013, 1:25 PM
Craig Richmod the CEO of YVRAA will be having a meeting with the federal Minister of transportation In early 2014 to discuss the Visa issue as well as other competitiveness issues.

Klazu
Dec 18, 2013, 3:12 PM
Can't help it, but the discussion here seems to get stuck constantly stuck with repeated discussions on YVR needing to become a hub between Asia and South America and how Seattle is a serious threat to YVR's existence. :rolleyes:

trofirhen
Dec 18, 2013, 4:04 PM
Can't help it, but the discussion here seems to get stuck constantly stuck with repeated discussions on YVR needing to become a hub between Asia and South America and how Seattle is a serious threat to YVR's existence. :rolleyes:

Excuse us, I undertsand what you mean, but these two topics ARE pertinent to YVR.
Most other posts are about Haneda versus Narita, why no service to KIX, and such, so I don't think there's too much risk in addressing the critical issues you mention.

Why critical? Easy. If Seattle gets the South American connector hub up and running before we do, YVR will always be a regional focus city, and little more.
IMHO.

Cage
Dec 18, 2013, 4:37 PM
If Seattle gets the South American connector hub up and running before we do, YVR will always be a regional focus city, and little more.
IMHO.

There is a very small chance that Seattle would get a South American connector hub running for the following reasons:
- SEA major hub airline is domestic US narrowbody only.
- Other major new player in the SEA market is (DL) has poor presence in the South American market. If DL is to have a South American hub, it will be through ATL or LAX.
- There is a larger opportunity for UA to have a South America to Asia hub at IAH than SEA chances of getting South America international hub.
- If AA is looking to get into this market, They will create a hub from DFW.

The more pressing issue with YVR is that with new longer range mid-size wide body aircraft (specifically the 787) coming onto the market, there is another opportunity for American carriers and AC to hub Asia connections in locations that were not previously possible. SEA has this same market threat.

The path forward for YVR is to become a Western fortress hub for at least one airline. To accomplish this feat, YVR has to work with AC and give them preferential treatment. More importantly this is not just YVRAA imperative but also the imperative of the general YVR travelling population. Specifically the YVR travelling public has to embrace AC to be the primary market leader above other airlines that only make YVR a spoke operation. This is the tough battle for YVR as there is significant doubt the travelling population would accept AC with a 75% market share. Note that for fortress hub status AC would have to achieve 85% market share status, similar to DL at ATL and DTW, UA at EWR and IAH, US at PHX and CLT, AA at DFW.

Edit to Add: In the late 80s and into the mid 90s DL had a international Asia hub at PDX. The DL PDX operation was dehubbed about the time that AC got into HKG market. I remember that oAC got their initial Kai Tak slots from DL, this occurred under the Hollis Harris leadership as he had connections into DL (having held several senior positions).

deasine
Dec 18, 2013, 6:48 PM
There is a very small chance that Seattle would get a South American connector hub running for the following reasons:
- SEA major hub airline is domestic US narrowbody only.
- Other major new player in the SEA market is (DL) has poor presence in the South American market. If DL is to have a South American hub, it will be through ATL or LAX.
- There is a larger opportunity for UA to have a South America to Asia hub at IAH than SEA chances of getting South America international hub.
- If AA is looking to get into this market, They will create a hub from DFW.

I've been trying to say that a few pages ago but have given up. SEA has experienced de-hubbing and a removal of international flights from US carriers for the past decade: only within these past 5 years has DL introduced significant international growth.

Then there's an issue of looking at geographies and how SEA is obviously not positioned to become a South American hub just as YVR is and will not become one either. For one, these cities are not far south, and even if you can capture demand from Asia, you won't be able to capture demand from other North American cities. Why? Because one would would have to backtrack to YVR or SEA in order to fly down South. That is a terrible waste of time and with the costs of doing business, airlines cannot possibly price tickets low enough to stimulate the low yielding demand.

Then there's an issue of competing airports and what destinations they offer. For South America, the hubs are IAH-UA, DFW/MIA-AA, and ATL-DL. LAX and JFK also have quite a number of flights but these cities have enough O&D. SEA cannot compete against any of these airports simply because the airlines are not interested in doing so at the expense of their current hubs. Notice all four of these US hubs to South America are far south in the United States. Similarly, YVR does not pose a real cost advantage as a South American hub for our home carriers, solely AC in our case. Why should AC introduce YVR as a South American hub at the expense of AC, when (1) the entire Canada practically needs to backtrack to YVR to fly down South; and (2) there are no significant time savings flying from Asia to South America via YVR when compared with YYZ. Given its current YYZ operations, why is it in ACs interest to move its operations?

SEAs increase from DL came for several reasons, and honestly I don't think the airport authority as a business really did much to rally for its increase. DL is dehubbing Japan as with UA. However, UA has a Japanese partner and a JV with ANA in addition to a strong foothold in the west already using its SFO base. DL has a terrible network on the west and if it is interested in expanding its business, it needs to launch more routes from the west. With dehubbing from NRT/KIX, it is thus able to move its Asian operations to the west, and it chose SEA because there aren't many competitors. DL partnered with AS initially so that it can sustain its TPAC operations without having to make a risky significant investment in changing domestic operations. It realised it could make SEA work and is now significantly increasing domestic operations knowing that there is business.

YVRAA is competing for business in an environment not favorable to our airport given our small city size and economic power. And it should not try to reach out for business that is unattainable. A South American hub operation of YVR is unrealistic unless YYZ goes downhill significantly, and I can tell you Pearson will not under its current management CEO (who happened to be an executive for HKG).

Genauso
Dec 18, 2013, 8:56 PM
This commentary has been an interesting read, thanks. It's nice to know what is new, and what will be new.

Gordon
Dec 18, 2013, 9:07 PM
I think the the airport authority is just trying to extend it's reach as much as possible. the Asia S America transit hub is maybe a bit of a longer term thing. It would be nice if yvraa was able get Ottawa to t re asses it's tax structure as it applies to the commercial airline sector.

Johnny Aussie
Dec 18, 2013, 11:50 PM
I've been trying to say that a few pages ago but have given up. SEA has experienced de-hubbing and a removal of international flights from US carriers for the past decade: only within these past 5 years has DL introduced significant international growth.

YVRAA is competing for business in an environment not favorable to our airport given our small city size and economic power. And it should not try to reach out for business that is unattainable. A South American hub operation of YVR is unrealistic unless YYZ goes downhill significantly, and I can tell you Pearson will not under its current management CEO (who happened to be an executive for HKG).

You and I are on the same page. Exactly what YVR should be doing it is doing.

Not sure why some people are expecting YVR to become some sort of mega hub.

It's not going to happen. What is happening though is decent growth with so many international, domestic and transborder routes. Can reach most major centres in the entire world with one connection.

Vancouver is a city around 2.5 million. Geographically, demographically and economically it has its advantages and disadvantages.

Going forward there will be many new routes and depending on future bilaterals and / or open skies agreements this will play a role.

Klazu
Dec 19, 2013, 4:28 AM
Excuse us, I undertsand what you mean, but these two topics ARE pertinent to YVR.

I know and there was no pun intended. I just expressed my amusement, although it seems that there can be more insight to these same topics. I also find this a very interesting thread to read. :)

I will have my next chance to fly out of our great airport tomorrow. I will be seeing enough airports for some time on my YVR-PDX-ORD-CMX and MSY-IAH-SEA-YVR routes. :haha:

Johnny Aussie
Dec 19, 2013, 8:35 AM
So another AC PEK update.

It's back to one daily for the summer but now upgauging from a 763 to a 77W.

So it's like YVR-NRT and YVR-PEK are swapping aircraft.

So now we know where the NRT 77W is going.

This is actually an increase in capacity still compared to last summer.

Gordon
Dec 19, 2013, 3:16 PM
I thought AC was running a running a red eye a coup,e of nights a week last Summer yvr pek

YYCspotter
Dec 19, 2013, 9:21 PM
So another AC PEK update.

It's back to one daily for the summer but now upgauging from a 763 to a 77W.

So it's like YVR-NRT and YVR-PEK are swapping aircraft.

So now we know where the NRT 77W is going.

This is actually an increase in capacity still compared to last summer.

So they now have an available slot at PEK? hmmmmmm..

Cage
Dec 20, 2013, 4:22 AM
So they now have an available slot at PEK? hmmmmmm..

No PEK slots available according to AC. The slot pair given up was not viable for services from canada. Kind of similar to the initial HND slots that were at compsrable times as PEK. AZc has also tried midnight departures on yvr-hkg with little profitable success.

Gordon
Dec 20, 2013, 4:39 AM
Why is that hte Asian carriers seem to be successful red eye flights from YVR to Asia?

teriyaki
Dec 20, 2013, 5:53 AM
No PEK slots available according to AC. The slot pair given up was not viable for services from canada. Kind of similar to the initial HND slots that were at compsrable times as PEK. AZc has also tried midnight departures on yvr-hkg with little profitable success.

Odd. Since almost all the asian airlines have a midnight flight. CX, MU, BR to name a few that find success with this timing. I love these timings since it lets me work the whole day, hop on a plane and wake up in the morning in the different country ready to go!

deasine
Dec 20, 2013, 4:23 PM
Odd. Since almost all the asian airlines have a midnight flight. CX, MU, BR to name a few that find success with this timing. I love these timings since it lets me work the whole day, hop on a plane and wake up in the morning in the different country ready to go!

Answer comes down to available connections. While red eye timings were generally great for O&D passengers, the later inbound arrival times restrict the number of potential connection flights.

Meanwhile for Asian carriers, their inbound arrivals arrive in the morning thereby offering more connecting options.

Cage
Dec 20, 2013, 4:46 PM
Odd. Since almost all the asian airlines have a midnight flight. CX, MU, BR to name a few that find success with this timing. I love these timings since it lets me work the whole day, hop on a plane and wake up in the morning in the different country ready to go!

Answer comes down to available connections. While red eye timings were generally great for O&D passengers, the later inbound arrival times restrict the number of potential connection flights.

Meanwhile for Asian carriers, their inbound arrivals arrive in the morning thereby offering more connecting options.

:yeahthat:

For the detailed answer:
- CX888/889 continues onto JFK. IIRC le3ss than 1/2 the plane gets off at YVR.
- PR118/119 continued onto LAS many moons ago and now does YYZ turn.
- BR9/10 and CI30/31 both have 18:15 arrival into YVR, much too late for transcontinental traffic (YYZ, YOW, YHZ).
- MU598/599 at least gets coordination with the day time departure. But I doubt China Eastern is making money on this run. Likely they are hoping to dominate the market someday (long term market strategies are a hallmark of Chinese modus opperandi). This is the only strategy to get connection feed at both ends of the route.

PaperTiger
Dec 20, 2013, 5:58 PM
I know and there was no pun intended. I just expressed my amusement, although it seems that there can be more insight to these same topics. I also find this a very interesting thread to read. :)

I will have my next chance to fly out of our great airport tomorrow. I will be seeing enough airports for some time on my YVR-PDX-ORD-CMX and MSY-IAH-SEA-YVR routes. :haha:

Ha Ha, This sounds like a trip booked with Aeroplan points.

Very similar to my up coming YVR-LAS-PTY-BOG / BOG-PTY-LAX-YVR trip.

My all time worst aeroplan routing was YVR-ORD-IAD-GRU-GIG :rolleyes:

deasine
Dec 20, 2013, 6:15 PM
To reinforce my SEA/DL argument and that SEA is only receiving an Intl expansion due to convenience and the dehubbing of other hubs, the CAPA article posted today further backs this up:http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/delta-air-lines-2014-network-strategy-entails-bypassing-tokyo-and-leveraging-partnerships-145281

nname
Dec 20, 2013, 7:22 PM
- BR9/10 and CI30/31 both have 18:15 arrival into YVR, much too late for transcontinental traffic (YYZ, YOW, YHZ).

But they are perfect for the connections at the other side of the Pacific - arriving at 5:15 in the morning, and departing 23:55 in the evening.

trofirhen
Dec 21, 2013, 12:41 AM
:yeahthat:
..... Likely they are hoping to dominate the market someday (long term market strategies are a hallmark of Chinese modus opperandi). This is the only strategy to get connection feed at both ends of the route.

Connection feed to where, for example, please.

Johnny Aussie
Dec 21, 2013, 4:30 AM
I thought AC was running a running a red eye a coup,e of nights a week last Summer yvr pek

Last summer, the 2200 departure was actually daily and the midday flight was 4 days a week for a total of 11 flights per week. It looked like AC was then bumping both flights to daily. However, the night flight was in fact dropped but the day flight was then returned to daily. This has now been upgauged to the 2 class 77W.

So compared to last summer YVR-PEK goes from 11 763s per week (2,321 seats per week) to a daily 77W (2,443 seats per week).

So as Cage says, the day slots that AC have appear to be completely allocated to the YVR and YYZ flights.

Johnny Aussie
Dec 21, 2013, 4:35 AM
To reinforce my SEA/DL argument and that SEA is only receiving an Intl expansion due to convenience and the dehubbing of other hubs, the CAPA article posted today further backs this up:http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/delta-air-lines-2014-network-strategy-entails-bypassing-tokyo-and-leveraging-partnerships-145281

Yes. And yet they still list Osaka as a destination from SEA in that article. I usually find these articles quite thorough and sometimes answer a lot of my questions, but lately I am starting to question the quality of some of them.

Hot Rod
Dec 21, 2013, 4:36 AM
Wasn't it CA (as in Air China) that was running/still runs the red eye Yvr-PEK (CA997/8), not AC?

I recall taking this and enjoyed the conveniences spoken of earlier (work entire day then fly and be in another country the next, and start work there).

Johnny Aussie
Dec 21, 2013, 4:40 AM
Connection feed to where, for example, please.

China Eastern flies from Shanghai Pudong to about 100 cities in China and East/Southeast Asia. MU has a massive hub based in PVG.

I encourage anyone to go to these airlines websites and look at their route maps to get an idea of just how big and vast some of their networks are.

Johnny Aussie
Dec 21, 2013, 4:43 AM
Wasn't it CA (as in Air China) that was running/still runs the red eye Yvr-PEK (CA997/8), not CA?

I recall taking this and enjoyed the conveniences spoken of earlier (work entire day then fly and be in another country the next, and start work there).

I think you meant AC instead of CA (your second CA). In recent memory Air China has only run daytime flights.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is eventually bumped to two daily from the current 11 weekly.

Hot Rod
Dec 21, 2013, 5:44 AM
Yes sorry, not AC. Lol :)

I went back and corrected it with bold. Thx

And yes, it was like in 2011 when I took the CA red eyes.

trofirhen
Dec 21, 2013, 10:28 AM
Calin Rovinescu talked about the importance of developing a true "hub" at YVR (no, not a 'megahub,' just a hub).
It would, of course, be incumbent on Air Canada to create this.
I just wonder how serious AC is, given that their fortress is YYZ. Would YVR be designed to be a real hub, however modest by comparison, or more of a feeder into YYZ?
I doubt the ability of developing YVR into a real hub.
It's just (with the exception of its proximity to Asia), not in the right place to become a hub.

casper
Dec 21, 2013, 6:09 PM
Calin Rovinescu talked about the importance of developing a true "hub" at YVR (no, not a 'megahub,' just a hub).
It would, of course, be incumbent on Air Canada to create this.
I just wonder how serious AC is, given that their fortress is YYZ. Would YVR be designed to be a real hub, however modest by comparison, or more of a feeder into YYZ?
I doubt the ability of developing YVR into a real hub.
It's just (with the exception of its proximity to Asia), not in the right place to become a hub.

i think these concepts of "Megahub" and "fortress" are more suited to the US than Canada. Air Canada does not dominate Toronto in the same way that Delta does in Atlanta or MSP for example.

i would be surprised in anyone in Air Canada truly believes Toronto will become the sole Canadian "Megahub" where all connections are made and they move away from the point-to-point and regional hubs they have now. For example if you fly from Ottawa to Halifax you can usually find a direct flight. In the US hub model your only option would be to made a connection at one of the hubs.

I think what they have been proposing is that Toronto is a connecting hub between the US and Europe and Asia. For the eastern US it makes sense to connect there. In the western US and Western Canada is makes more sense to connect in Vancouver or Calgary.

From the US, Air Canada has good connections between Vancouver and places like Seattle, Portland, San Fransisco, LA. Perhaps over time it might be able to build more connections into the mid west. The difference between connecting western us cities is outside of California there is a fairly limited population base.

Valley_Refugee
Dec 21, 2013, 8:29 PM
^I agree. The single mega-hub or fortress is suited to countries with large population bases and multiple large carriers (like the US) or else countries with a single dominant city and small geography (like most European countries...where else is British realistically going to create a 'fortress' than LHR? Where else would is AF going to dominate than CDG?). Because of Canada's expansive geography, Toronto will never be the only possible connection point on Air Canada. Gateway to Europe, yes, and connection point for Europe-South America traffic. In addition it will always be able to draw from the densely populated US Northeast. But YVR will always have good connections on AC or Star Alliance to the Western half of North America, and I can't see AC viably forcing people to connect in YYZ for every flight. Indeed, we have convenient service to Star mega hubs Chicago and Houston. Maybe not on AC metal, but AC and UA cooperate extensively.

But YVR is NOT a slouch for service, especially given its low population and relative lack of economic power. We have incredible service for a city our size. I get tired of the constant refrains of "it's just a regional focus city" or whatever. We have to think within our means, so to speak.

Honestly, this thread can get very repetitive. I encourage people to either think or research before they post.

Johnny Aussie
Dec 21, 2013, 10:33 PM
But YVR is NOT a slouch for service, especially given its low population and relative lack of economic power. We have incredible service for a city our size. I get tired of the constant refrains of "it's just a regional focus city" or whatever. We have to think within our means, so to speak.

Honestly, this thread can get very repetitive. I encourage people to either think or research before they post.

Well said mate. I especially like your comment to encourage people to think / research before posting. Many questions can be answered in less time than actually typing and posting a question.

Exactly my point. YVR has an enviable list of international carriers and routes and certainly serves the city well. There is definitely more to come, but there isn't an infinite amount of possibilities.

deasine
Dec 22, 2013, 1:24 AM
^I agree. The single mega-hub or fortress is suited to countries with large population bases and multiple large carriers (like the US) or else countries with a single dominant city and small geography (like most European countries...where else is British realistically going to create a 'fortress' than LHR? Where else would is AF going to dominate than CDG?). Because of Canada's expansive geography, Toronto will never be the only possible connection point on Air Canada. Gateway to Europe, yes, and connection point for Europe-South America traffic. In addition it will always be able to draw from the densely populated US Northeast. But YVR will always have good connections on AC or Star Alliance to the Western half of North America, and I can't see AC viably forcing people to connect in YYZ for every flight. Indeed, we have convenient service to Star mega hubs Chicago and Houston. Maybe not on AC metal, but AC and UA cooperate extensively.

But YVR is NOT a slouch for service, especially given its low population and relative lack of economic power. We have incredible service for a city our size. I get tired of the constant refrains of "it's just a regional focus city" or whatever. We have to think within our means, so to speak.

Honestly, this thread can get very repetitive. I encourage people to either think or research before they post.

Well said mate. I especially like your comment to encourage people to think / research before posting. Many questions can be answered in less time than actually typing and posting a question.

Exactly my point. YVR has an enviable list of international carriers and routes and certainly serves the city well. There is definitely more to come, but there isn't an infinite amount of possibilities.

If I'm can also guilty of being repetitive :P, I definitely second this. At the same time though, I also understand that the aviation industry and knowing the analysis/business operations behind it is significantly more complicated than other industries/businesses. You really have to use a systems perspective in order to be able to understand the whole picture. For instance, looking solely at one traffic flow, in the most recent case the Asia-South America traffic and YVR/SEA, doesn't look at the whole picture. One has to include current business operations, aviation policies, competing business structures, other countries' aviation policies, demand and supply, etc. (list goes on) in order to realise that it's not as simple as telling AC to fly a route down to BOG for continuing feed on AV to other South American destinations (for instance). There are so many more players, and so many more levels from agendas of individual airlines, to agendas of governments, to agenda of airports. To a degree, it's like the City of Surrey's LRT case, Surrey wants LRT as a means of generating additional tax revenues and CACs to improve city services and more cash flow, whereas TransLink seems to prefer ALRT to reduce costs in offering service. One needs to examine multiple systems and stakeholders in order to understand the situation.

trofirhen
Dec 22, 2013, 1:29 AM
^I agree. The single mega-hub or fortress is suited to countries with large population bases and multiple large carriers (like the US) or else countries with a single dominant city and small geography (like most European countries...where else is British realistically going to create a 'fortress' than LHR? Where else would is AF going to dominate than CDG?). Because of Canada's expansive geography, Toronto will never be the only possible connection point on Air Canada. Gateway to Europe, yes, and connection point for Europe-South America traffic. In addition it will always be able to draw from the densely populated US Northeast. But YVR will always have good connections on AC or Star Alliance to the Western half of North America, and I can't see AC viably forcing people to connect in YYZ for every flight. Indeed, we have convenient service to Star mega hubs Chicago and Houston. Maybe not on AC metal, but AC and UA cooperate extensively.

But YVR is NOT a slouch for service, especially given its low population and relative lack of economic power. We have incredible service for a city our size. I get tired of the constant refrains of "it's just a regional focus city" or whatever. We have to think within our means, so to speak.

Honestly, this thread can get very repetitive. I encourage people to either think or research before they post.

Thank you for this objective and instructive feedback. It made me realize that I had jumped to conclusions without having the numbers, as Johnny said.
(where to access the numbers, anyway?)
but Vancouver is indeed served nonstop worldwide, far moreso than many cities of its size, in the USA, in particular, although they have several very large city megahubs, as you stated.

I have never had any grand delusions of Vancouver, being some kind of 4-runway, 30+ overseas destinations, 4+ continents - and 25 transborder+, plus who knows how many domestic routes, all of 'em year round scheduled, huge concourses, terminal connector rail, constant take offs and landings, bla bla.

I rather like it the way it is.
I just wish it could get 2 or 3 more European
destinations (and maybe one day, Istanbul....), get Brisbane and Melbourne, plus the possible >(yes I know everyone hisses; nevertheless there's to be a meeting with the YVR president and Canada immigration about the visa-free China - South America connector that the airport is chasing like a hunting wolf, yet most forumers say it'll never fly. Maybe that's true. I do not know.)

Just a handful of destinations more is all I'm really talking about. Maybe it's because it's Canada's third largest and only Pacific coast city.