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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

trofirhen
Feb 20, 2016, 11:58 PM
I really don't see QF sending their A380s to YVR. It's just too big a beast. QF only use them on LAX and DXB/LHR from SYD and MEL and from SYD to HKG only.

To really give AC (and NZ) some serious competition QF would need to do SYD-YVR daily and the 787-9 would be the perfect equipment for that (without F class).
Do you see that as an eventuality? And will Melbourne ever come on stream with QF 789 (or AC 789)? It seems to be a fast-growing city.

Johnny Aussie
Feb 21, 2016, 12:06 AM
Do you see that as an eventuality? And will Melbourne ever come on stream with QF 789 (or AC 789)? It seems to be a fast-growing city.

YVR-SYD year-round on the 787-9 is one of the routes mostly talked about including from the CEO himself. It's certainly no secret that may be the launch route. But like any route, I'm sure they are constantly watching the economics on a weekly basis so who knows. With QF increasing the seasonality of SYD-YVR each year as well I think that is inevitable. I would guess daily for at least Peak northern summer and southern summer. Perhaps not daily for the shoulder seasons.

As for Melbourne growing fast?? Too fast! Over 100,000 per annum and I'm noticing it. MEL airport is growing so fast it's starting to struggle handling international ops. January 2016 it grew another 11%. New terminal T4 opened recently for some of the LCC operations and it was muchly needed. But they seriously need to do something with International T2 ASAP! And as for MEL-YVR? I bet we see AC on that first.

Just to give you guys an idea of population of Australian cities (estimates at 30 June 2015):

Sydney 4.92 million
Melbourne 4.55 million
Brisbane 2.32 million
Perth 2.07 million
Adelaide 1.32 million

That's it for cities > 1 million the next largest metro area would be Gold Coast down around 600+ thousand.

trofirhen
Feb 21, 2016, 3:46 AM
Interesting that Brisbane and Vancouver are so similar in population: Brisbane at 2.32 m /as of summer 2015 and Vancouver / July 2015/ at 2.5 m.
Toronto 6.12m and Montreal 4m, including all the other larger Canadian cities, are all feeder roiutes into the YVR - Australia market. The AC YVR - Sydney flight is, I believe same-plane service from YYZ. As such, with the infeed of Australia-bound pax from the ROC through YVR, we'll be seeing an uptick of frequencies and destinations, now that the bilateral has freed up.
(But of course, that's rather self-explanatory and already widely understood) :blush::redface:It makes me happy, anyway.

Gordon
Feb 22, 2016, 1:33 PM
When re we likely to see the next phase of ITB expansion start & YVR?
Any idea how the Pier A work is progerssing?

Vin
Feb 22, 2016, 6:53 PM
You're daydreaming, I take it. First off, Singapore and Emirates don't fly here.
Korean? Hmm, a long shot, but maybe. Qantas? More likely 789s when they (or AC) start up Melbourne.

Singapore's Big Tops and Mega Tops used to fly here via Seoul, so the airline can choose to restart the route. Emirates has the most number of A380s (49 now maybe) in their fleet among all the airlines, so if they choose to fly here one day, that would be an A380. Both Korean and Qantas do enjoy high passenger volumes so I'd like to see them bring in the A380s one day. That would leave all the North American airplanes to "shame"....hahaha.

Vin
Feb 22, 2016, 7:08 PM
I really don't see QF sending their A380s to YVR. It's just too big a beast. QF only use them on LAX and DXB/LHR from SYD and MEL and from SYD to HKG only.


I think Qantas is not sending their A380s here only because there aren't airlines here giving them competition to bring in "the beast". For the Asian/European city routes, they are facing stiffer competition from almost every major airline that actually has the A380s, including, British Airways, Lufthansa, Air France, Singapore (SIA), Garuda, Malaysian (MAS), ANA, Korean Air, Asiana, Thai, Emirates, Ethihad, Qatar, Virgin Atlantic, and a couple more. They have to bring in "the beast" to those airports to counter the heavyweights there. In north America, nah, a 747 would do. However, this would certainly change when more airlines follow British Airways by bringing in their A380s to Vancouver, hopefully. Remember that many Chinese airlines still do not possess the A380s, but I'm sure that would change in the near future. I'm also hoping that China Southern Airlines will bring in their A380 some day soon.

Orcair
Feb 22, 2016, 7:28 PM
I think Qantas is not sending their A380s here only because there aren't airlines here giving them competition to bring in "the beast". For the Asian/European city routes, they are facing stiffer competition from almost every major airline that actually has the A380s, including, British Airways, Lufthansa, Air France, Singapore (SIA), Garuda, Malaysian (MAS), ANA, Korean Air, Asiana, Thai, Emirates, Ethihad, Qatar, Virgin Atlantic, and a couple more. They have to bring in "the beast" to those airports to counter the heavyweights there. In north America, nah, a 747 would do. However, this would certainly change when more airlines follow British Airways by bringing in their A380s to Vancouver, hopefully. Remember that many Chinese airlines still do not possess the A380s, but I'm sure that would change in the near future. I'm also hoping that China Southern Airlines will bring in their A380 some day soon.

YVR, even currently, has way more INTL traffic than it proportionally should, given its population. Qantas would only bring the 380 here if they could actually fill it, which I doubt they could do without obliterating yield. The 787-9 has 3 classes (something that is more reflective of the Canadian market vs. the 4 on the 380), has better range and protects the yield because of its much lower capacity. Qantas could also offer higher frequency with the 789 vs. the 380 which seems to be the major problem currently for 380 operators.

(spoken as someone who loves the 380)

nname
Feb 22, 2016, 7:33 PM
Seems like WestJet is adding seasonal flights this summer from Vancouver to London, ON, and Hamilton

http://westjet2.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1107

Vin
Feb 22, 2016, 8:02 PM
YVR, even currently, has way more INTL traffic than it proportionally should, given its population. Qantas would only bring the 380 here if they could actually fill it, which I doubt they could do without obliterating yield. The 787-9 has 3 classes (something that is more reflective of the Canadian market vs. the 4 on the 380), has better range and protects the yield because of its much lower capacity. Qantas could also offer higher frequency with the 789 vs. the 380 which seems to be the major problem currently for 380 operators.

(spoken as someone who loves the 380)

Ok you got a point there, so maybe not from Qantas, but perhaps a higher-yielding city from asia could do it. I remember flying an A380 from Singapore to Melbourne return before and the planes were full. Many of the Asia-bound planes from YVR are always fully-loaded, so I can see that happening with the A380s too.

DDP
Feb 22, 2016, 8:57 PM
Seems like WestJet is adding seasonal flights this summer from Vancouver to London, ON, and Hamilton

http://westjet2.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1107

Shifting planes away from Alberta? I'm always surprised Waterloo isn't on the list, it is close to Toronto But has a large high income population of 500,000 plus.

Also bringing in Brandon MB- Toronto.

Johnny Aussie
Feb 22, 2016, 9:07 PM
Shifting planes away from Alberta? I'm always surprised Waterloo isn't on the list, it is close to Toronto But has a large high income population of 500,000 plus.

Also bringing in Brandon MB- Toronto.

The CEO of Westjet indicated they would be shuffling capacity around.

Westjet did try YVR-YKF before in 2010. It lasted one summer season. Westjet also tried YHM (2006) and YXU (2009-2010) nonstop flights in the past. I guess they are giving the latter two another crack.

nname
Feb 22, 2016, 9:45 PM
Well at least this time, they could code-share with those non-star-alliance airlines, so maybe it will help the load a bit :D

Johnny Aussie
Feb 23, 2016, 1:24 AM
Well at least this time, they could code-share with those non-star-alliance airlines, so maybe it will help the load a bit :D

Yes, there are a few of those. Flight times may work for some of them.

With the latest additions, Westjet will offer 458 flights per week from YVR this summer to 29 destinations. 106 of those weekly flights are on Encore.

SFUVancouver
Feb 24, 2016, 12:21 AM
CBC piece about the growth of tourism with France, enabled, in no small part, by the direct Air France service.


B.C. tourism numbers boosted by international visitors
French tourists take the top spot for international visitors to B.C.

The Canadian Press Posted: Feb 23, 2016 3:28 PM PT

The British Columbia government says the number of international visitors to the province is increasing and France comes first on a list of seven countries and regions.

It says tourism to B.C. from France jumped by 33 per cent in 2014 compared to the previous year.

[...]

Almost 360,000 more international visitors came to the province in 2015, with the total number approaching five million people.

The ministry is crediting its marketing strategy, along with the province's aboriginal tourism sector and more direct flights to B.C. for the jump in visitors from outside Canada.

It says B.C.'s tourism sector is growing despite fierce global competition for tourists and that the industry generated $14.6 billion in revenue in 2014.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tourism-bc-international-numbers-1.3460923

trofirhen
Feb 24, 2016, 1:07 AM
CBC piece about the growth of tourism with France, enabled, in no small part, by the direct Air France service.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tourism-bc-international-numbers-1.3460923
I used to rave on about that years ago, so it's nice to see it working out so well. Hey!! Look at Mexico! Right up there!! Great to see.

nname
Feb 25, 2016, 7:31 AM
And I said above... I wouldn't be surprised to see EVA bump both YVR and YYZ to daily as there are still 4 unused frequencies on Canada-Taiwan bilateral. I'm just not sure who gets them BR or CI? As both airlines phase out their 744s and the aircraft replacing these all have fewer seats, more frequencies will be the key if they want to maintain capacity.

I just figured this out... There is no more unused frequency. CI took the other 4 and placed them onto "seasonal" service to YVR.

When the bilateral increased to 17, BR increase both YVR and YYZ service to 4x weekly, and CI took the rest and ran TPE-YVR at 9x weekly for one week. This add up to 17x weekly total.

When the bilateral increased to 21, BR increase both YVR and YYZ to 5x weekly, and CI took the rest and throw all to YVR as they ran the route 11x weekly for one week only, Dec 19-25, and drop to 5x weekly the week after.

This post says it all:
http://airlineroute.net/2015/07/17/ci-yvr-w15update2/

The only reason they ran those flights is to prevent BR from using those frequency. I expect them to do this again this coming summer.

So this is the distribution:
BR TPE-YVR 5x weekly
BR TPE-YYZ 5x weekly
CI TPE-YVR 11x weekly (4-6x weekly being seasonal)

That's it, the 21x weekly are all used up.

casper
Feb 26, 2016, 3:51 AM
I just figured this out... There is no more unused frequency. CI took the other 4 and placed them onto "seasonal" service to YVR.

When the bilateral increased to 17, BR increase both YVR and YYZ service to 4x weekly, and CI took the rest and ran TPE-YVR at 9x weekly for one week. This add up to 17x weekly total.

When the bilateral increased to 21, BR increase both YVR and YYZ to 5x weekly, and CI took the rest and throw all to YVR as they ran the route 11x weekly for one week only, Dec 19-25, and drop to 5x weekly the week after.

This post says it all:
http://airlineroute.net/2015/07/17/ci-yvr-w15update2/

The only reason they ran those flights is to prevent BR from using those frequency. I expect them to do this again this coming summer.

So this is the distribution:
BR TPE-YVR 5x weekly
BR TPE-YYZ 5x weekly
CI TPE-YVR 11x weekly (4-6x weekly being seasonal)

That's it, the 21x weekly are all used up.

That sounds sneaky. I have flow BR a few times never CI. People I know in Taiwan avoid CI at all cost. Mostly because of safety concerns.

Would love to see BR go daily.

Spork
Feb 26, 2016, 6:48 AM
CI is totally fine. Good service, comfortable planes, reasonably reliable departure/landing times. The last time they had a fault that caused an accident was 1998 (barring 2002, which was caused by a fault in 1980).

Klazu
Feb 26, 2016, 12:53 PM
Never flown either one but they both have four star rating by Skytrax. BR does have slightly better reviees though. Too bad that I just returned from TPE and didn't have the chance to fly them. Although business class on HX was reeally nice instead. :)

Klazu
Feb 26, 2016, 5:03 PM
Yesterday I returned to Vancouver after amazing two weeks in Asia. Flying Air Canada's high-density 777 both ways wasn't that bad and I am happy that I didn't spend money upgrading my seat (even exit row would have cost $120 one way!).

It is a huge plane that takes over 450 passengers. Interestingly on the route to Hong Kong even in economy class the luggage allowance is two pieces of maximum 23 kilograms. That means that there can be up to 900 pieces of luggage on the plane! This was very visible when coming back, as I had to wait an hour for my bag to arrive. There was a constant stream of luggage coming in, but it just took a while to have my bag arrive.

I noticed that there were hundreds of bags on their way to elsewhere in Canada. YOW seemed especially common destination, but overall it seems that YVR is a big transit point for Canadians traveling to Hong Kong, which is great! :)

One thing that I have not fully understood is why do people transiting at YVR have to pick up their luggage before boarding the next flight? Considering that it can indeed take close to an hour to get your bags, it may cause problems making the connecting flight! We had this happen to us in Toronto, when we were coming back from Chile and missed our connection due to this very reason.

What is the reason for having to pick up the bags? Why can't they be automatically transfered onto the next flight and all the border controls be done at the destination airport?

This is normally the custom everywhere in the world and for example in the US I don't have to do anything similar when transiting at any airport. It seems very complicated and time-wasting process for travelers choosing to transit in Canada, which doesn't work in our benefit IMO. :(

vanlaw
Feb 26, 2016, 7:19 PM
This was very visible when coming back, as I had to wait an hour for my bag to arrive. There was a constant stream of luggage coming in, but it just took a while to have my bag arrive.

This is my biggest pet peeve with arriving back home at YVR. I've waited an hour after clearing immigration for bags from an LH flight on an A344. It was also close to an hour when we returned from HK on AC's 777HD a while back. I just dont understand how it can be so slow.


One thing that I have not fully understood is why do people transiting at YVR have to pick up their luggage before boarding the next flight? Considering that it can indeed take close to an hour to get your bags, it may cause problems making the connecting flight! We had this happen to us in Toronto, when we were coming back from Chile and missed our connection due to this very reason.

What is the reason for having to pick up the bags? Why can't they be automatically transfered onto the next flight and all the border controls be done at the destination airport?

This is normally the custom everywhere in the world and for example in the US I don't have to do anything similar when transiting at any airport. It seems very complicated and time-wasting process for travelers choosing to transit in Canada, which doesn't work in our benefit IMO. :(

Probably as simple as the domestic flight would have to arrive at the international terminal at the destination airport. It just doesn't work. In the US, we clear before we get on the plane at YVR. If you transit through the US from a departure airport that doesn't pre-clear, you have to do the same - i.e. arriving at Seatac from Europe, you have to collect bags and clear customs then put your bag back on the belt as you do in Vancouver.

I’ve always wondered how Europe does it. You clear immigration at the entry airport, but you don’t get your bags then you essentially land "domestically" at the destination airport (assuming you landed initially at a Schengen airport and destination airport is within Schengen zone) and there is no customs clearance once you get your bags. I’ve never been able to figure that one out.

Klazu
Feb 26, 2016, 7:40 PM
I just dont understand how it can be so slow.

They do prioritize business class bags and also transit bags come first, which makes sense, provided that they are in the hurry. Only after this arrive the bags for those whose destination YVR is.

In the US, we clear before we get on the plane at YVR.

I am writing this badly jetlagged, so maybe my brains are just running slow, but I don't remember clearing any customs when flying to the US from YVR. You check in, drop your bags at the conveyor belt and then go through the US immigration (not customs). Am I missing something here? :???:

If you transit through the US from a departure airport that doesn't pre-clear, you have to do the same - i.e. arriving at Seatac from Europe, you have to collect bags and clear customs then put your bag back on the belt as you do in Vancouver.

Didn't know that as I have not flown to Vancouver via US (trying to avoid that on purpose).

I’ve always wondered how Europe does it.

At most European airports there is no separation between domestic or international terminal. It's all just one and you have the same process for both.

Most of the flights are also direct, but the few times I have had to transit in Germany and UK, I have never had to collect my bags before the next flight. Even when flying through LHR to YVR, one does not need to collect any bags. I encountered that for the first time here in North America.

And my pet peeve is not with immigration, but having to pick up my luggage upon transiting. I also don't see the point, as they can always security check bags behind the scene as much as they want. There should be no reason for passengers to do anything on their side.

vanlaw
Feb 26, 2016, 10:26 PM
I am writing this badly jetlagged, so maybe my brains are just running slow, but I don't remember clearing any customs when flying to the US from YVR. You check in, drop your bags at the conveyor belt and then go through the US immigration (not customs). Am I missing something here? :???:

Ok - I see what you are saying. In Vancouver, when you drop your bags on the belt before US security, I recall they scan your boarding pass, and then scan your bag tags, so when you go through US immigration they know how many you have checked. I guess if there was an issue and you get pulled for a secondary they could do a bag pull.

nname
Feb 26, 2016, 10:55 PM
Ok - I see what you are saying. In Vancouver, when you drop your bags on the belt before US security, I recall they scan your boarding pass, and then scan your bag tags, so when you go through US immigration they know how many you have checked. I guess if there was an issue and you get pulled for a secondary they could do a bag pull.

Yes, they'll do a bag pull if you gets into a secondary inspection. I had that once, checked in 3.5 hours early, and took them more than 1.5 hours to find my bag because they had to unload the entire plane in order to find mine as it was one of the very first to be loaded onto the plane.

Ended up delaying the flight so it missed the window before t-storm hitting SFO, which it delayed even more (and so I didn't miss the flight). 5.5 hours delay just for the stupid secondary inspection, pretty stupid IMO.

LeftCoaster
Feb 27, 2016, 1:46 AM
G.S MTL in the Canada section put together a great chart based off the numbers I put together (and his own for several other Canadian airports).

Same info but shows the brands so it's a lot more visually appealing.


YVR
http://s27.postimg.org/czd3fuj03/YVR.png

trofirhen
Feb 27, 2016, 4:53 AM
Cool! Thanks, LeftCoaster!

PS/: Does Aeromexico to Mexico City not count? It's outside the USA, hence not "Transborder."

dharper
Feb 27, 2016, 6:31 AM
One thing that I have not fully understood is why do people transiting at YVR have to pick up their luggage before boarding the next flight? Considering that it can indeed take close to an hour to get your bags, it may cause problems making the connecting flight! We had this happen to us in Toronto, when we were coming back from Chile and missed our connection due to this very reason.

What is the reason for having to pick up the bags? Why can't they be automatically transfered onto the next flight and all the border controls be done at the destination airport?

This is normally the custom everywhere in the world and for example in the US I don't have to do anything similar when transiting at any airport. It seems very complicated and time-wasting process for travelers choosing to transit in Canada, which doesn't work in our benefit IMO. :(

If I recall correctly, when I flew from SYD to YVR via LAX with Qantas/Alaska, at LAX, first I went through custom/immigration, claimed my bag, took it about 100 feet, then put it on another belt, walked to a different terminal for flight to YVR.

connect2source
Feb 27, 2016, 4:42 PM
Branding looks great LeftCoaster, looking forward to seeing KAL's 748's at YVR!.. only 39 in service worldwide so a rare sight!

Hot Rod
Feb 29, 2016, 6:41 AM
Cool! Thanks, LeftCoaster!

PS/: Does Aeromexico to Mexico City not count? It's outside the USA, hence not "Transborder."

Same continent though.

Nice to see those sexy foreign flags. :) Vancouver's so pretty! wink

twoNeurons
Feb 29, 2016, 8:09 PM
Ok - I see what you are saying. In Vancouver, when you drop your bags on the belt before US security, I recall they scan your boarding pass, and then scan your bag tags, so when you go through US immigration they know how many you have checked. I guess if there was an issue and you get pulled for a secondary they could do a bag pull.

Someone clear this up for me... but aren't customs and immigration essentially the same thing for an air traveler to the USA?

I realize one technically deals with the importing of goods and one for the importation of people... but for all intents and purposes, you only deal with one person when flying into the US.

Doesn't YVR transborder status technically just put you in quasi-USA soil within the airport?

LeftCoaster
Feb 29, 2016, 11:47 PM
So who wants to talk about the January numbers that just came out??

Healthy growth for YVR to start 2016....January stats as follows:

Overall 1,625,104 passengers (+6.6% from Jan 2015 - 1,524,588)

Domestic 786,005 (+5.0%)
Transborder 406,107 (+0.1%)
International 432,992 (+16.9%)

Totally nuts growth in Intl'

17% is just astounding. A look at the details uncovers even more jems:

Europe up 11%
Misc Intl' up 15%
Scheduled Misc flights up 25.6%
Asia up 19%!


The Asia numbers just blow my mind. 19% on that big a number is just astounding, and there are so many more capacity increases yet to begin.

Transborder was a complete wiff, but 2016 is looking like it might be a BIG year.

trofirhen
Mar 1, 2016, 12:55 AM
^Maybe time to think about getting on with the terminal expansion (option 3) that Craig Richmond pointed out in his speech some months back. :):rolleyes:

Also, whatever happened to TWV? It was "supposed" to be operational last spring.
Found this on it. It's still cooking. But exactly when it will come into effect is what I want to know. They speak of it as if it is iminent .... but is it?
https://news.gov.bc.ca/stories/yvr-travellers-increase-with-simplified-visa-free-transit-program#
(and if interested, click on "expand story")

Hot Rod
Mar 1, 2016, 2:39 AM
I want to see the International Terminal chevron completed first, with hopefully at least 6-8 more widebody gates with at least 2 of them as A380 (wound't that give us 4 A380 gates in total, more than plenty).

I'd like to see hard construction on the Int'l Chevron immediately and planning for the T3 and taxiway crossway (is that the terminology) in the next year or two.

Expand Expand Expand - but be sure to Expand Int'l first. :)

casper
Mar 1, 2016, 3:12 AM
I want to see the International Terminal chevron completed first, with hopefully at least 6-8 more widebody gates with at least 2 of them as A380 (wound't that give us 4 A380 gates in total, more than plenty).

I'd like to see hard construction on the Int'l Chevron immediately and planning for the T3 and taxiway crossway (is that the terminology) in the next year or two.

Expand Expand Expand - but be sure to Expand Int'l first. :)

I agree expanding International first makes the most sense. There are swing gates between domestic and international as well as swing gates between international and US. Expanding international means the swing gates can be used for their other purposes longer.

I am not certain I like that x-gate thing in the middle of the crossway runway. Toronto and Montreal both have one of these little infield terminals connected to the main terminal by an underground walkway. You go down and back up. It always feels like a long way out.

Come to think of it Geneva also has one (Air Canada use to operate out it). In there case it is round. Round circular terminals are neat. If we must have one of these I vote for it being round instead of a cross. Even the Swiss who have a think for crosses have a round in field terminal.

craneSpotter
Mar 1, 2016, 4:58 AM
Also, whatever happened to TWV? It was "supposed" to be operational last spring.


I found this government page regarding TWOV - http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/twov/travellers.asp. Looks like only nationals from Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan and the Philippines qualify, and they also have to meet the following conditions:


They travel to Canada on an approved airline (either Air Canada, Air Canada Rouge, Air China, WestJet, Cathay Pacific, Philippines Airlines, China Southern, Jazz Air, Sky Regional Airlines Inc., and Air Georgian); and
They transit through an approved Canadian airport (either Vancouver International Airport or Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, Terminal 1 only). A change of terminal between flights in Toronto’s Pearson International Airport does not qualify as a condition of the TWOV program.


Wasn't the main goal of the program proponents to include Chinese nationals :shrug:

Edit: whoops found this - the China Transit Program. Looks like Chinese nationals have a seperate program altogether.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/ctp/eligibility.asp

craneSpotter
Mar 1, 2016, 5:20 AM
The Asia numbers just blow my mind. 19% on that big a number is just astounding, and there are so many more capacity increases yet to begin.

Transborder was a complete wiff, but 2016 is looking like it might be a BIG year.

Yes indeed. If I have been following this thread close enough, I do believe there is some decent transborder and International flight (capacity/route) expansion happening this year @ YVR :)

February numbers should be great too, regular growth plus an extra day ;)

so possible 2016 PAX numbers based on the following growth rates (2015=20,315,978):

+4% = 21,128,617

+5% = 21,331,777

+6% = 21,534,937

+7% = 21,738,097

dharper
Mar 1, 2016, 5:43 AM
I looking at the yvr.ca website yesterday, trying to find any information on the north south taxiway, or the next terminal expansion. The only thing I found on the website was a 20 year plan link, called yvr2027.ca. (Kind of dated) On this it had a time line that the north south taxiway was to be built in 2014, and the terminal expansion was to be built in 2015. Not sure if those were start or completion dates, but either way, they are behind the latest info I could find.
Does anyone have any idea when either of these project are to be started?

Johnny Aussie
Mar 1, 2016, 6:11 AM
January stats... Wow. Exceeded my expectations.

100,000 more pax than Jan 15.

Transborder certainly ground to a halt. Tipping more US visitors still but offset by plummeting Canadian originating pax due to the $.

Compared to other Canadian cities reporting January (so far) Transborder is an excellent result.

But look at Asia, Europe and Misc Int'l. Amazing!

craneSpotter
Mar 1, 2016, 6:53 AM
I looking at the yvr.ca website yesterday, trying to find any information on the north south taxiway, or the next terminal expansion. The only thing I found on the website was a 20 year plan link, called yvr2027.ca. (Kind of dated) On this it had a time line that the north south taxiway was to be built in 2014, and the terminal expansion was to be built in 2015. Not sure if those were start or completion dates, but either way, they are behind the latest info I could find.
Does anyone have any idea when either of these project are to be started?

As far as the next terminal expansion goes, the current plan - expansion 2020 - was to request approval to spend $400 million to add 5 gates to the International terminal and 5 gates to Pier A. Also, an older section of Pier B is to be renovated. They are hoping for approval by May 2016. After expansion 2020, they wish to spend ~1 billion+ on one of three expansion proposals - all outlined by this article :

https://www.biv.com/article/2015/11/critics-question-yvrs-400m-terminal-expansion-plan/

Cage
Mar 1, 2016, 5:09 PM
One thing that I have not fully understood is why do people transiting at YVR have to pick up their luggage before boarding the next flight? Considering that it can indeed take close to an hour to get your bags, it may cause problems making the connecting flight! We had this happen to us in Toronto, when we were coming back from Chile and missed our connection due to this very reason.

What is the reason for having to pick up the bags? Why can't they be automatically transfered onto the next flight and all the border controls be done at the destination airport?

This is normally the custom everywhere in the world and for example in the US I don't have to do anything similar when transiting at any airport. It seems very complicated and time-wasting process for travelers choosing to transit in Canada, which doesn't work in our benefit IMO. :(

Pax having to pick up their bags to go through Customs and Immigration inspection is a CBSA or USCBP requirement. The customs people want you to identify and collect your bags so that they can assess duties and see if you are over the exemption limit for importing personal items.

In both Canada and USA, personal exemption limits only apply to bags that are dragged across the border by the respective individual. Items that sent via courier have zero personal exemption limit. In order to apply this legal standard, the traveler must personally import the items.

The 1 hour delay in getting your bags off the international flight is also a CBSA or USCBP thing. Watch the Border Security: Protecting America's Border TV program on Global. The American version gives a much better description of the behind the scenes bag inspection that is conducted by the Customs people. The Canadian's do similar amount of behind the scenes inspection, however nothing is ever disclosed publicly.

For example it is not uncommon for CBSA to require all bags off a specific flight be lined up and then inspected by canine. Once the dog does their sniff test the bags can be released onto the belt. this adds time as all bags must be offloaded, then canine does their job, followed by all cleared bags being released at the same time.

This is my biggest pet peeve with arriving back home at YVR. I've waited an hour after clearing immigration for bags from an LH flight on an A344. It was also close to an hour when we returned from HK on AC's 777HD a while back. I just dont understand how it can be so slow.

See above for the unseen hand of the government wanting to do all kinds of inspection behind the scenes.

From a HKG perspective, its a hot source country for both drug and agricultural items. This requires the use of either canine or xray technology, either method is time consuming.

I’ve always wondered how Europe does it. You clear immigration at the entry airport, but you don’t get your bags then you essentially land "domestically" at the destination airport (assuming you landed initially at a Schengen airport and destination airport is within Schengen zone) and there is no customs clearance once you get your bags. I’ve never been able to figure that one out.

The difference between Canada/USA/Australia and Europe/Certain Asia Countries is that Customs laws have much high personal exemptions in the latter countries.

Example, buddy was transporting computer servers into an Asian country and upon claiming his luggage proceeded through the "red lane" to pay customs bill that was estimated to be $10,000 CAD. The officer took a quick look and told my buddy to proceed on through. In Canada or the USA, duties of $10 get flagged for immediate payment.

In Europe, your personal exemption is in thousands of dollars and there are few quantity exemptions. In Canada there is very low personal exemption for under 72 hour excursions plus many items have quantity limits (e.g. cannot import more than 20lbs of cheese).

Someone clear this up for me... but aren't customs and immigration essentially the same thing for an air traveler to the USA?

I realize one technically deals with the importing of goods and one for the importation of people... but for all intents and purposes, you only deal with one person when flying into the US.

Customs and immigration are very different from a legal perspective. For entering Canada, Canadian citizens have mobility rights under section 6 of Charter of Rights and Freedoms, contents have no similar provisions.

From a primary inspection line perspective in both CBSA and USCBP world, the officer is one person. However if there is any issue on either customs or immigration perspective, the traveler is sent to secondary inspection where the officers are specialized into either immigration officer or customs officer.

trofirhen
Mar 1, 2016, 5:13 PM
As far as the next terminal expansion goes, the current plan - expansion 2020 - was to request approval to spend $400 million to add 5 gates to the International terminal and 5 gates to Pier A. Also, an older section of Pier B is to be renovated. They are hoping for approval by May 2016. After expansion 2020, they wish to spend ~1 billion+ on one of three expansion proposals - all outlined by this article :

https://www.biv.com/article/2015/11/critics-question-yvrs-400m-terminal-expansion-plan/
In a presentation to (I believe) the VBT, Craig Richmond pointed out the problems facing the Eastern and Western extensions, and stated that option C, the "Central" - green in the diagram -was the preferred design.

Gordon
Mar 1, 2016, 6:16 PM
Has any date been given for the opening of the 1st of the new A gates

LeftCoaster
Mar 1, 2016, 6:35 PM
January stats... Wow. Exceeded my expectations.

100,000 more pax than Jan 15.

Transborder certainly ground to a halt. Tipping more US visitors still but offset by plummeting Canadian originating pax due to the $.

Compared to other Canadian cities reporting January (so far) Transborder is an excellent result.

But look at Asia, Europe and Misc Int'l. Amazing!

Ya I expect transborder will be a problem for the non-tourist months but I anticipate more big numbers once the sun pops out again. Will be tough to replicate the Women's World Cup draw but I still think we will see some solid growth this summer.

Can't wrap my head around the Asia numbers though. YVR to Asia more of less added the equivalent of YYCs entire roster of monthly widebody flights... and there's still so much capacity add coming this summer.

Growth back up in the 7%-8% range could be possible this year.

craneSpotter
Mar 1, 2016, 8:23 PM
In a presentation to (I believe) the VBT, Craig Richmond pointed out the problems facing the Eastern and Western extensions, and stated that option C, the "Central" - green in the diagram -was the preferred design.

I certainly hope that is what in fact happens. Probably the best option from a cost perspective too.

Johnny Aussie
Mar 1, 2016, 11:41 PM
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/51-205-x/2016000/tablesectlist-listetableauxsect-eng.htm

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/160301/dq160301c-cansim-eng.htm

Updated transborder O&D Data for 2013/2014

Some decent market information. YVR increased to over 3.2 million in 2014 up over 280,000 from 2013.

YVR has 7 markets > 100,000 annual pax: LAX, SFO, "Hawaii," LAS, PHX, NYC and ORD all had strong growth.

BOS remains the largest unserved non-stop market with over 62,000 annual pax.

There were 21 markets with traffic volumes > 30,000. Unserved markets above this threshold are BOS, FLL, MIA and PHL.

2015 was a good year for transborder as well so further increases will have occurred.

Hot Rod
Mar 2, 2016, 12:20 PM
I kind of like the Central expansions as well, because it completes the existing terminal complex. It is nice to not have to transfer between buildings - well, at least to have continuous walkway/connection between Domestic and Int'l/US.

Perhaps the central expansion would get us to 30M pax per year (assuming the 2020 gets us to 25M) and likely would be cheapest/easiest/quickest to build; then if we get close to that 30M we could talk about the new East Terminal and put all US into there. ...

twoNeurons
Mar 2, 2016, 4:21 PM
Perhaps the central expansion would get us to 30M pax per year (assuming the 2020 gets us to 25M) and likely would be cheapest/easiest/quickest to build; then if we get close to that 30M we could talk about the new East Terminal and put all US into there. ...

The Eastern terminal is nice in that it would likely give us another SkyTrain station. :)

But from the looks of things, it would also also make Int'l / USA transfers longer if they moved USA to that one wing. Interesting that one airline doesn't have a 'home' in YVR. I mean I suppose it's because Canada only has 1 major Airline ( WestJet still isn't a major international player ) and the airport is still small enough so that there's no huge advantage to an airline bunching up in one place.


https://www.biv.com/media/filer_public/cc/20/cc20121b-1762-48bb-a2d7-fdaac74f6f32/yvr_expansion.png

“There should be meaningful consultation with consumers – the people who use the airport – and see if they want to spend all this money,” Cran said.

He added that he believes high fares at YVR have driven hundreds of thousands of British Columbians annually to Bellingham International Airport.

The AIF for a flight outside B.C. jumped 33% to $20 in 2012 to help pay for $1.8 billion in improvements, including the $400 million in terminal expansions currently being contemplated.
source: https://www.biv.com/article/2015/11/critics-question-yvrs-400m-terminal-expansion-plan/

I somehow don't think AIF has much to do with travelers flying out of BLI while I would assume landing fees at YVR are higher, it's the cross-border fees that raise the price of tickets in relation to BLI.

In any case, the way I see it, the bigger YVR gets, the more the airport has to attract flights, the more options Vancouverites get, the more competition there is, the cheaper flights get. Of course, you have to have the traffic to justify it, but if you don't expand, you can't attract more flights in the first place, can you?

Cage
Mar 2, 2016, 5:05 PM
The Eastern terminal is nice in that it would likely give us another SkyTrain station. :)

But from the looks of things, it would also also make Int'l / USA transfers longer if they moved USA to that one wing. Interesting that one airline doesn't have a 'home' in YVR. I mean I suppose it's because Canada only has 1 major Airline ( WestJet still isn't a major international player ) and the airport is still small enough so that there's no huge advantage to an airline bunching up in one place.

The east terminal has a great amount of possibilities, particularly as a greenfield design. to keep the connection time down and have maximum efficiency, I would like to see a 20 gate terminal that serves a combined domestic/transborder/international traffic by using multiple levels to segregate pax. a 20 gate terminal would be of particular appeal to WS since they wouldn't have ops spread through the main terminal complex.

The tricky component for this east terminal idea is that WS does not usually like to sign primary hub airline agreements with airports. A primary hub airline agreement would bind WS to long term commitment for hub status.

The other option would be to have AC sign a primary hub airline agreement for the main terminal building and then place other airlines into the east terminal. However this would also require YVRAA to work with AC to fix a number of pax flow constraints at the main terminal building (For example the longterm rebuild of concourse C to handle AC mainline for domestic/transborder/international purposes.

The final hurdle for east terminal proposal is that both CBSA and USCBP are loathsome to splitting operations into separate customs halls. This is the primary reason why YVRAA has made provisions for a long connecting corridor from B concourse back to international terminal rather than having a small customs hall closer to the A/B concourse.

The gate plan for the new east terminal could look something like this:
Concourse A - reconfigured for other domestic airline.
Concourse B - AC express ops with provision for smaller mainline aircraft (e.g. CSeries).
Concourse C - AC mainline (the express holdrooms are pulled out and more mainline gates put into that area). Reconfigure the concourse to allow for additional swing gates (this includes addition of a upper level for international departures.
Concourse D - AC and star alliance international ops.
Concourse E - primary other airline international and transborder ops
East Terminal - WS and few other codeshare airlines, all types of pax.

twoNeurons
Mar 2, 2016, 6:10 PM
The gate plan for the new east terminal could look something like this:
Concourse A - reconfigured for other domestic airline.
Concourse B - AC express ops with provision for smaller mainline aircraft (e.g. CSeries).
Concourse C - AC mainline (the express holdrooms are pulled out and more mainline gates put into that area). Reconfigure the concourse to allow for additional swing gates (this includes addition of a upper level for international departures.
Concourse D - AC and star alliance international ops.
Concourse E - primary other airline international and transborder ops
East Terminal - WS and few other codeshare airlines, all types of pax.

WS seems to be partnered with OneWorld and SkyTeam, so having their own terminal ( East Wing ) would be conducive to airlines like JAL, KE, AF moving in as well. I think East terminal as a hub would be a golden opportunity to hub in. If it gets its own transit station, I feel that the inconvenience of being far from the 'main' hub would disappear.

Could that station more business travellers?

Although I wouldn't have thought WS wants a proper hub in Vancouver 10 years ago, I can see them thinking about soon. It feels like they've become a legitimate 2nd airline for Canada, it just seems like they've been dipping their toes in the international market for too long... and don't want to take the plunge. Maybe this spat of profitability and low oil prices will convince them to expand more aggressively? Pardon me if this has been talked about before. Maybe it already is in their plans.

Klazu
Mar 2, 2016, 7:02 PM
This is already few years old and from 2012, but I have never seen such a presentation of the three alliances. Interesting stuff and only Star Alliance seems to have a truly balanced coverage of the whole globe.

Africa, South America and Australia are tought regions to have proper coverage since there are not many airlines to partner in those regions. This doesn't reflect TAM Airlines joining One World after purchase by LAN.

http://pointsmilesandmartinis.img.boardingarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Alliance-Route-Map-fader1.gif
boardingarea.com

If someone has a more up-to-date version of this, it would be interesting to see. :)

twoNeurons
Mar 2, 2016, 7:39 PM
I just had an epiphany. There are few low-cost operators who fly to Asia. It seems this market is ripe for some shake-up and I wonder if Air Canada sees WestJet possibly entering this market and has made a few pre-emptive strikes.

For example, they restarted up YVR-KIX using AC Rouge. The interesting thing about this route, is that KIX is turning into a LCC Hub in Japan. Ironic, considering that the airport used to be super expensive to fly into for airlines.

It would be an IDEAL place in Asia for an airline like WS to fly into. AC Rouge flies a 767 on this route which WS would have NO problem competing with. I could see WS doing the same and potentially creating partnerships with airlines that use KIX as a base.

nname
Mar 2, 2016, 7:57 PM
I somehow don't think AIF has much to do with travelers flying out of BLI while I would assume landing fees at YVR are higher, it's the cross-border fees that raise the price of tickets in relation to BLI.

In any case, the way I see it, the bigger YVR gets, the more the airport has to attract flights, the more options Vancouverites get, the more competition there is, the cheaper flights get. Of course, you have to have the traffic to justify it, but if you don't expand, you can't attract more flights in the first place, can you?

Nope. I say this every time, its the US Government that charges more. If you are a non-US citizen and fly internationally, they charge $60 more than the domestic rate. Canadian government also charge a custom fee of about $20 that is not needed if you enter by land.

The landing fee is not that bad - approx rate for 2013 for a 737-800 at full load:
BLI = $175 USD
YVR = $380 CAD = $283 USD

Source: BLI (http://portofbellingham.com/DocumentCenter/View/2620) YVR (http://www.yvr.ca/Libraries/Comms_Documents/Tariff_of_Fees_and_Charges_-_April_1_2013_-_aero.sflb.ashx)

That's equal to about 60 cents extra per passenger.

SFUVancouver
Mar 2, 2016, 8:38 PM
I prefer the Central option, followed by the Eastern option. An airport where I'm currently doing work is planning long-term to have a remote terminal accessible by an APM but it is pursuing the equivalent of YVR's Central and Eastern options first.

Interesting map of the three airline alliances. Thanks for sharing it.

Stanford85
Mar 2, 2016, 10:47 PM
I recall hearing some years ago that the airport favoured an eastern expansion due to it giving an increase in both terminal capacity and curb space at departures and arrivals level, which can get quite busy during peak hours, vs the central and infield options which increase terminal capacity but retain the previous amount of curb space.

trofirhen
Mar 3, 2016, 12:49 AM
I just had an epiphany. There are few low-cost operators who fly to Asia....... I wonder if Air Canada sees WestJet possibly entering this market and has made a few pre-emptive strikes.......

For example, they restarted up YVR-KIX using AC Rouge. The interesting thing about this route, is that KIX is turning into a LCC Hub in Japan...........

It would be an IDEAL place in Asia for an airline like WS to fly into. AC Rouge flies a 767 on this route which WS would have NO problem competing with. I could see WS doing the same and potentially creating partnerships with airlines that use KIX as a base.

.... WS has already daringly gone into the UK market.
Wish they'd, following the success of AF, come to Paris. {Orly Airport, of course.;))

Cage
Mar 3, 2016, 1:25 AM
I just had an epiphany. There are few low-cost operators who fly to Asia. It seems this market is ripe for some shake-up and I wonder if Air Canada sees WestJet possibly entering this market and has made a few pre-emptive strikes.

For example, they restarted up YVR-KIX using AC Rouge. The interesting thing about this route, is that KIX is turning into a LCC Hub in Japan. Ironic, considering that the airport used to be super expensive to fly into for airlines.

It would be an IDEAL place in Asia for an airline like WS to fly into. AC Rouge flies a 767 on this route which WS would have NO problem competing with. I could see WS doing the same and potentially creating partnerships with airlines that use KIX as a base.


AC restarted KIX because they thought they could make money by deploying the rouge 763 into the market. AC left KIX because there was no market for front cabin services that are required for mainline international profitability.

Turning to thoughts of WS, they could deploy YVR to both of KIX and NGO (although probably not daily). ICN would be a good second Asian destination. Anything into China would require either a much newer 763 or the 787/333neo.

However, the big problem for WS is that the price for international route rights just included an order for the CSeries. No one will ever find a senior government bureaucrat or Minister say that, but behind closed doors the politics of aviation have come down hard on WS for not supporting the home town industry. AC riding into the savior of BBD is being looked on very nicely by the federal government.

Any WS international expansion is going to be limited to countries with a favourable Open Skies agreement with Canada. Anything else is off the table for next few years.

LeftCoaster
Mar 3, 2016, 7:07 PM
So based off the 2014 statscan info Johnny provided us with I've updated my transborder route prediction chart with actuals inflated for 2015. I've also included ACs purchase of the CS300, which will benefit routes like Miami.

As expected there were winners and losers, with few in between. Of the big winners, Boston, Nashville, New Orleans, Washington DC and most of Florida all saw moderate to strong growth.

About all I can say is 74,000 O&D pax should be enough to launch Boston, as should 77,000 be enough to see much more than 1 a week service to Washington Dulles. Miami and Florida in general showed strong growth, so that one seems like another no brainer. The only thing holding Miami up it seems is the right plane to be acquired by AC, be it 737MAX or the CS300. Not sure which plane AC takes delivery of first.

http://i.imgur.com/08G5OF7.png
http://i.imgur.com/08G5OF7.png

SFUVancouver
Mar 3, 2016, 8:38 PM
Who on earth does the weekly direct YVR-CLT flight? American?

LeftCoaster
Mar 3, 2016, 8:40 PM
Who on earth does the weekly direct YVR-CLT flight? American?
I think you're misreading the chart. The chart shows how many flights current O&D traffic could support, given a particular airframe.

No one currently flies the routes shown, with the exception of irregular service such as Atlanta, Detroit, Orlando etc... which are once or twice per week and often seasonal.

SFUVancouver
Mar 3, 2016, 9:00 PM
I think you're misreading the chart. The chart shows how many flights current O&D traffic could support, given a particular airframe.

No one currently flies the routes shown, with the exception of irregular service such as Atlanta, Detroit, Orlando etc... which are twice and once per week and often seasonal.

Ah, I see. I did misread it. Thanks for the clarification, and I appreciate you making the table in the first place!

LeftCoaster
Mar 3, 2016, 9:13 PM
Of course!

It shows the transborder cities we don't currently fly into cant for the most part support many flights, with the obvious exceptions being Boston, Washington, Miami/Ft Lauderdale and to a lesser extent Sacramento, Tampa and Austin.

Given Atlanta's hub status though I'm surprised that 3 days worth of O&D isn't enough to couple with it's hub traffic to allow for a daily. I would think them ignoring this link pushes more SE US, Caribbean and Florida flyers through Dallas and Houston benefiting AA and United respectively.

Henbo
Mar 3, 2016, 9:24 PM
"the fact we are hiring people who speak Portuguese, Italian, German, Mandarin and Cantonese gives people a pretty good guess at where we’re going next"

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/asia+pacific+report+westjet+hints+international+plans+including+flights+asia/11750237/story.html#ixzz41sS5FTy6

I know YYZ already has service to Rio, and Sao Paulo (and Lisbon), but is it feasible that WestJet could be planning service to Brazil?

trofirhen
Mar 3, 2016, 9:49 PM
............
http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/asia+pacific+report+westjet+hints+international+plans+including+flights+asia/11750237/story.html#ixzz41sS5FTy6

I know YYZ already has service to Rio, and Sao Paulo (and Lisbon), but is it feasible that WestJet could be planning service to Brazil?
If yes, this would no doubt be out of YYZ, and only YYZ, I presume?

Johnny Aussie
Mar 3, 2016, 9:50 PM
Of course!

It shows the transborder cities we don't currently fly into cant for the most part support many flights, with the obvious exceptions being Boston, Washington, Miami/Ft Lauderdale and to a lesser extent Sacramento, Tampa and Austin.

Given Atlanta's hub status though I'm surprised that 3 days worth of O&D isn't enough to couple with it's hub traffic to allow for a daily. I would think them ignoring this link pushes more SE US, Caribbean and Florida flyers through Dallas and Houston benefiting AA and United respectively.

As I've said before.... Love your work!

I honestly don't see TPA or AUS for at least the next decade or more. Neither one would offer a large enough O&D to even make an economic case.
Especially TPA would be 98% leisure. Also, MCO is more than double TPA and only recently is WS even attempting a seasonal twice weekly service. National pulled the pin before even launching.
AUS, again too small a market for even a daily CRA. It is a bit of a stretch to include AUS and SAT as a single market (as is CLE and CVG). Even attempting to tap into some sort of AUS-Asia transit is just too competitive for such a small market.

Sure I see BOS, MIA/FLL, more IAD, more ATL and maybe PHL as front runners. Perhaps AC is looking at SMF again.

BOS - mainly O&D but BOS is also increasing its direct Asia flights so less likely to grab much of that market especially with YYZ's direct Asian network too.
MIA/FLL - decent leisure O&D plus MIA's massive South America network. Perhaps AA may attempt that again and/or AC. MIA still lacks direct Asian flights.
IAD - decent O&D and UA's IAD hub would help. Let's not also forget AC did apply for YVR-DCA as part of DCA's limited release of beyond-perimeter slots a couple of years ago.
PHL - mediocre O&D and a large hub for AA.

twoNeurons
Mar 3, 2016, 9:54 PM
"the fact we are hiring people who speak Portuguese, Italian, German, Mandarin and Cantonese gives people a pretty good guess at where we’re going next"

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/asia+pacific+report+westjet+hints+international+plans+including+flights+asia/11750237/story.html#ixzz41sS5FTy6

I know YYZ already has service to Rio, and Sao Paulo (and Lisbon), but is it feasible that WestJet could be planning service to Brazil?

HKG is a pretty competitive market but also a strong OneWorld city. German I would not have expected. Maybe they'll make a big deal out of flying into the new Berlin airport? Berlin and Dusseldorf are big OneWorld hubs ( and much nicer than Frankfurt for O/D travel ) which would fit into WestJet's non-alliance routes as well.

Of note: Air Berlin does not have ANY flights to Canada as far as I can tell, so an agreement between WestJet and Air Berlin seems like a good fit. That would be a GREAT option out of YVR! ( but I imagine YYZ gets that one if anything comes of it ).

Klazu
Mar 3, 2016, 10:27 PM
Talking about Boston, there has been all winter some very cheap Air Canada flights via Toronto, so I wouldn't be surprised if many people have taken that flight this winter.

Regarding Austin, it is a major tech hub in Texas. Many Silicon Valley tech firms that have an office here seem to also have an office there, hence there might be a growing potential on that route.

Air Berlin used to fly to Vancouver from Düsseldorf not so many winters ago. What happened with that route? DUS is indeed a nice and modern airport, but both current Berlin airports are horrible. If and when the new BBI opens, that may change many things, considering Berlin being one of the world's most popular tourist destinations and a growing tech hub.

Funny enough, I am currently browsing some flights to several different Florida airports. I have to say that connection options out of Vancouver are pretty poor, with most cheap flights being via Dallas and Phoenix. The latter seems especially common as the cheapest option when flying to east coast, I wonder why? They have cheap landing fees in there? :???:

vanlaw
Mar 3, 2016, 10:38 PM
Maybe they'll make a big deal out of flying into the new Berlin airport?

At this point they don't even know when, or whether, it will open, with some calling for it to be demolished and rebuilt. It is actually astonishing what has happened there. A complete clusterF. We had friends from Germany come and visit us in June 2012. When they booked their tickets in early 2012, they were scheduled to fly out of TXL and return to BER. Shortly before the planned June 2012 move, opening was cancelled. That was almost 4 years ago, and the most optimistic opening date is now late 2017.

Long article, but a great read:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-07-23/how-berlin-s-futuristic-airport-became-a-6-billion-embarrassment

LeftCoaster
Mar 3, 2016, 10:52 PM
"the fact we are hiring people who speak Portuguese, Italian, German, Mandarin and Cantonese gives people a pretty good guess at where we’re going next"

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/asia+pacific+report+westjet+hints+international+plans+including+flights+asia/11750237/story.html#ixzz41sS5FTy6

I know YYZ already has service to Rio, and Sao Paulo (and Lisbon), but is it feasible that WestJet could be planning service to Brazil?

I'd imagine that portugese would be for the Portugal market, not Brazil.

Also Cantonese strikes me as weird considering the HKG market is already very well served and out of the range of their 763s.

They're going to need to acquire some new planes if they plan on these markets, and given their current share nose dive that may be somewhat optimistic.


I honestly don't see TPA or AUS for at least the next decade or more. Neither one would offer a large enough O&D to even make an economic case.
Especially TPA would be 98% leisure. Also, MCO is more than double TPA and only recently is WS even attempting a seasonal twice weekly service. National pulled the pin before even launching.
AUS, again too small a market for even a daily CRA. It is a bit of a stretch to include AUS and SAT as a single market (as is CLE and CVG). Even attempting to tap into some sort of AUS-Asia transit is just too competitive for such a small market.

Sure I see BOS, MIA/FLL, more IAD, more ATL and maybe PHL as front runners. Perhaps AC is looking at SMF again.

BOS - mainly O&D but BOS is also increasing its direct Asia flights so less likely to grab much of that market especially with YYZ's direct Asian network too.
MIA/FLL - decent leisure O&D plus MIA's massive South America network. Perhaps AA may attempt that again and/or AC. MIA still lacks direct Asian flights.
IAD - decent O&D and UA's IAD hub would help. Let's not also forget AC did apply for YVR-DCA as part of DCA's limited release of beyond-perimeter slots a couple of years ago.
PHL - mediocre O&D and a large hub for AA.


I'd totally agree with this analysis.

The two I really want to see are Boston and Miami for obvious connectivity reasons. IAD growth would be nice too.

AUS is the only one i think may surprise some. I know of a few tech firms based in Austin with major growing operations in Vancouver. If this trend continues we might see a surprise there.

Klazu
Mar 3, 2016, 10:53 PM
At this point they don't even know when, or whether, it will open, with some calling for it to be demolished and rebuilt. It is actually astonishing what has happened there. A complete clusterF.

Yeah, the original opening date for BBI (Berlin-Brandenburg International, I think that is still the name and not BER?) was indeed 2012. I didn't read your link, but I remember reading that they installed some oversize A/C equipment on the roof and have since been afraid of the structure not being able to hold them, etc. crazy stuff.

The good reputation of German engineering is taking a big hit with this project, although I am sure there has been a lot of outsourcing etc. typical stuff... :rolleyes:

On the other hand Hamburg is having an even more embarrassing project called Elbphilharmonie. That was supposed to be completed six years ago...

http://vuosiamaailmalla.fi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/elbphilharmonie_vastarannalta.jpg

Klazu
Mar 3, 2016, 11:00 PM
MIA still lacks direct Asian flights.

Is there an airplane that could even make Miami - Asia flights work? Isn't that a crazy long route even just to Japan and South Korea?

Even the routes out of New York are very long to begin with, but then again, there used to be a direct JFK-SIN route which was world's longest until cancelled. I always wondered which way it flew - over the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean?

Johnny Aussie
Mar 3, 2016, 11:35 PM
Talking about Boston, there has been all winter some very cheap Air Canada flights via Toronto, so I wouldn't be surprised if many people have taken that flight this winter.

Air Berlin used to fly to Vancouver from Düsseldorf not so many winters ago. What happened with that route?

Funny enough, I am currently browsing some flights to several different Florida airports. I have to say that connection options out of Vancouver are pretty poor, with most cheap flights being via Dallas and Phoenix.

BOS would be a real struggle to make work in the winter. I only see YVR-BOS as a summer seasonal service if it ever re-opens.

About three years ago, Air Berlin pulled out of all Non-one World hub cities in North America. The service was a summer seasonal service only.

http://worldairlinenews.com/2012/11/16/airberlin-to-drop-las-vegas-san-francisco-and-vancouver-while-increasing-service-to-american-airlines-hubs/

AUS is the only one i think may surprise some. I know of a few tech firms based in Austin with major growing operations in Vancouver. If this trend continues we might see a surprise there.

Yes, if the trend continues. I would still expect this O&D market would need to double in order to even attempt a non-stop service. Without any potential of a hub on that end you'd need a lot more than 50 ppdew to even show up on a radar as a potential new route.

Is there an airplane that could even make Miami - Asia flights work? Isn't that a crazy long route even just to Japan and South Korea.

And welcome the A350! MIA-NRT, MIA-ICN, MIA-PEK are a lot shorter than LAX-SIN and NYC-SIN which are on tap to be restarted by SQ. Also, MIA-HKG is just slightly longer than LAX-SIN but again a lot shorter than NYC-SIN. A few airlines in these regions have ordered them.

Klazu
Mar 3, 2016, 11:49 PM
BAbout three years ago, Air Berlin pulled out of all Non-one World hub cities in North America. The service was a summer seasonal service only.

Perhaps this made sense for the states where there are oneworld hubs, but pulling out of whole Canada seems a bit strange as nobody in their right mind will be flying from Germany via the US to Canada. So they basically dropped the whole country.

Maybe this was a good thing for operators like Icelandair to be able to step up? On that note, do you think that Aer Lingus with their increasing North American operations might be interested in bridging Western Canadian cities (YVR, YYC, YEG) to Europe via Dublin? They have pretty much the same geographical advantage as Icelandair has...

And welcome the A350! MIA-NRT, MIA-ICN, MIA-PEK are a lot shorter than LAX-SIN and NYC-SIN which are on tap to be restarted by SQ. Also, MIA-HKG is just slightly longer than LAX-SIN but again a lot shorter than NYC-SIN. A few airlines in these regions have ordered them.

It's hard to comprehend that LAX-SIN is a longer route than MIA-HKG, but I guess it is. The latter must be a very northern route...

Cool to hear that SQ might be bringing back those destinations (those 15+ hour routes are suffering), although I wouldn't mind them making a layover at YVR on their way to New York and back. That might actually bea very profitable move on their side, in the same fashion as Cathay Pacific is doing on their YVR route? :)

Cage
Mar 3, 2016, 11:59 PM
"the fact we are hiring people who speak Portuguese, Italian, German, Mandarin and Cantonese gives people a pretty good guess at where we’re going next"

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/asia+pacific+report+westjet+hints+international+plans+including+flights+asia/11750237/story.html#ixzz41sS5FTy6

I know YYZ already has service to Rio, and Sao Paulo (and Lisbon), but is it feasible that WestJet could be planning service to Brazil?

Here is most important quote from the Vancouver Sun article:
As part of the airline’s 20th anniversary, WestJet CEO Gregg Saretsky has been making the rounds of Canadian media outlets in recent weeks....

I graduated high school at the tail end of the 90s recession period. the time when Reality Bites, Clerks, and Breakfast Club were documentaries on the economic reality for recent grads. However the grad speeches were still inspirational "look at how great the future holds". No one gave the speech about no prospects for gainful employment, bleak future, etc.

The Van Sun piece, like the other articles in Calgary Herald, Globe and Mail; are meant to be reflective on past successes and aspire to greatness in the future. However it also appears the Van Sun author was most interested in getting specific details about near term growth, which is unrealistic expectation when interviewing a Westjet CEO.

In the early days, the marketing and strategy department was known as the "Department of Planning and Paranoia" by the CEO. The paranoia aspect is as engrained into WS culture as corny jokes about "there maybe 50 ways to leave your lover, but there are only six ways off this airplane".

Yes WS is looking for Mandarin and Cantonese speaking employees, but that is first and foremost to address the inbound interline and codeshare traffic with only a minor thought to future international expansion.

Similarly South America is out of the question right now because of the economic recession in that part of the world is depressing traffic more than $30/bbl oil to the YEG and YYC markets.

Take a look at the Calgary Herald article on WS 20th anniversary:
http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-business/as-westjet-turns-20-ceo-and-crew-navigate-headwinds-in-alberta

This quote is especially telling:
On the eve of WestJet’s 20th anniversary, Saretsky notes the company has been holding sessions with employees called Ignite 20 to celebrate the past, but also look toward the future — two decades ahead, to be specific.

“It’s a bit of a call to action. We’re going to war … I need all 12,000 to be battling it out every day,” says Saretsky, who replaced former CEO Sean Durfy in 2010.

Ignite 2020 is a long term inspirational strategy, but its also not a mid term Action Plan for growth. Considering how long it took to get the current 763 examples running, I would expect that any wide body air frame growth is 12-18 months away. short term growth in the summer 2017 schedule will come at the expense of summer 2016 routes that failed to meet expectations.

Johnny Aussie
Mar 4, 2016, 12:05 AM
Cool to hear that SQ might be bringing back those destinations (those 15+ hour routes are suffering), although I wouldn't mind them making a layover at YVR on their way to New York and back. That might actually bea very profitable move on their side, in the same fashion as Cathay Pacific is doing on their YVR route? :)

SQ bringing back NYC (being vague as unsure if it will be EWR or JFK) and LAX are pretty much a sure thing.

Hmmmmm.... How about SQ launch SIN-YVR-MIA!? :runaway:

It's only an extra 220 miles detour.

vanlaw
Mar 4, 2016, 12:13 AM
Yeah, the original opening date for BBI (Berlin-Brandenburg International, I think that is still the name and not BER?) was indeed 2012. I didn't read your link, but I remember reading that they installed some oversize A/C equipment on the roof and have since been afraid of the structure not being able to hold them, etc. crazy stuff.

BBI is the IATA code for an airport in India. BER is the IATA for Brandenberg, if it ever opens. The entire fire suppression system didn't work properly. The proposed solution was to have 800 "fire watchers" stand on tall platforms to look for smoke. That obviously didn't go over well. Since then its been discovered that basically the whole airport is f'd, walls not strong enough etc. But none of it can be blamed on corruption..not in Germany :sly:


On the other hand Hamburg is having an even more embarrassing project called Elbphilharmonie. That was supposed to be completed six years ago...

...designed by Herzog & de Meuron, budgeted to come in at 77M Euros, now at least 10x that. Let's see how the new Vancouver Art Gallery pans out...

SFUVancouver
Mar 4, 2016, 12:23 AM
Cage, thanks for the thoughtful commentary about WestJet. I could see them taking the plunge on putting some additional "long & thin" (for WestJet) long-haul flights into service and, perhaps, even test the waters for their next round of aircraft buying with some leased modern wide-bodies, like A333s or potentially even 788s. However, but I think that it is more likely that they will consolidate what they have now and run their 767s into the ground and then adopt a single wide-body fleet, perhaps based on A333s that are being swapped out by carriers for A330neos. To the best of my knowledge, WestJet is steadily and quietly buying new 738s from Boeing to modernize and expand the fleet, but buying new wide-bodies is a whole other ballgame and the risk of straying from a lean one or two-model fleet is not to be taken likely.

Klazu
Mar 4, 2016, 12:24 AM
Hmmmmm.... How about SQ launch SIN-YVR-MIA!? :runaway:

I am serious. What do they have to lose there? CX is just as premium of an airline and they make a stop in YVR on their way to New York and back. SQ used to fly here and might consider returning, so they could hit two birds with one stone, especially on the MIA route.

If they plan on re-launching the New York route and will not be flying it in all business class configuration as previously, YVR might make sense. Or perhaps Toronto, I don't know.

BBI is the IATA code for an airport in India. BER is the IATA for Brandenberg, if it ever opens.

You are right.

"During much of the planning and construction phase, the new airport was known as Berlin Brandenburg International Airport, abbreviated BBI. When the planned and missed opening date of 2 June 2012 drew nearer, the FBB launched a marketing campaign introducing the BER branding, reflecting the new airport code."

But none of it can be blamed on corruption..not in Germany :sly:

Yeah, it's the same kind of of BS as Finland being the least corrupted country in the world. Oh, how wrong those studies are. In Finland it's just not called corruption but a "good brother system" or "knowing a guy"... :rolleyes:

Klazu
Mar 4, 2016, 12:30 AM
Aviation related: on my recent trip I was reading WSJ and was surprised to learn that apparently the A330 series is currently a best-seller for Airbus and demand for them is much larger than Airbus is able to respond to. That was somehow surprising to me, as I have considered A330 being an older plane, but then again I took note how many A330's there were on HKG and TPE tarmacs.

A340's seem to be getting fewer and fewer quickly and A350's are slow to make an appearance.

What is also a very exciting plane going forward will be the new Boeing 777X. Damn, that plane looks just sweet and Boeing seems to be leading the game with Airbus playing constantly catch with them.

Orcair
Mar 4, 2016, 12:36 AM
Aviation related: on my recent trip I was reading WSJ and was surprised to learn that apparently the A330 series is currently a best-seller for Airbus and demand for them is much larger than Airbus is able to respond to. That was somehow surprising to me, as I have considered A330 being an older plane, but then again I did take now how many A330's there were on HKG and TPE tarmac.

A340's seem to be getting fewer and fewer quickly and A350's are slow to make an appearance.

What is also a very exciting plane going forward will be the new Boeing 777X. Damn, that plane looks just sweet and Boeing seems to be leading the game with Airbus playing constantly catch with them.

The 330 has been outselling the 787 ;) because of the cost margin - Airbus simply can discount a fully paid-off manufacturing line 330 much more than Boeing who is currently having cost problems with the 787. The 350s are really starting to ramp up which is good news, especially now that Singapore has their first 359 as of this week!

twoNeurons
Mar 4, 2016, 12:47 AM
They're going to need to acquire some new planes if they plan on these markets, and given their current share nose dive that may be somewhat optimistic.


Isn't their current share price linked to the oil fields? If so, it might be a good time for WJ to make a YVR a stronger hub city for them. I tend to see WJ as a company better suited for Vancouver than Calgary, anyhow. Their Southwest-style low-cost model jives well with YVR, which has more O/D than Calgary.

YYC has to have more business travel than YVR and that's the traffic that's taking a hit with the price of oil.

Anyhow, Berlin's airport woes aside, Berlin as a destination would be a great win. Additionally, YVR–BER is perfect range-wise for a 763. It's a focus city for Air Berlin and with the right agreement with Air Berlin, WJ could potentially fill a gap and provide YVR with some great 1-stop options in Europe (
( BER is the code for Berlin, all airports )

Air Berlin destinations:
http://www.metman66.com/images/map%20airberlin.JPG

Klazu
Mar 4, 2016, 12:52 AM
The 350s are really starting to ramp up which is good news, especially now that Singapore has their first 359 as of this week!

Cool! Interesting that they are flying the A350 first to AMS and DUS. It looks like a great plane, but am I the only one thinking that the Singapore Airlines color scheme looks a bit too retro?

http://www.avionale.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/singapore_airlines_a350-900.jpg
www.avionale.com

Johnny Aussie
Mar 4, 2016, 12:58 AM
Cool! Interesting that they are flying the A350 first to AMS and DUS. It looks like a great plane, but am I the only one thinking that the Singapore Airlines color scheme looks a bit too retro?

http://www.avionale.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/singapore_airlines_a350-900.jpg

I fly them a lot. Definitely for international travel out of MEL anyway.

Interesting comment.... The actual logo has held its own but I think you are right.... Maybe it's time for a minor adjustment. I bet with just a few subtle tweaks here and there they could really have an impressive livery again.

Still an impressive sight seeing all the SQ planes with the Silver Kris logo all lined up!

Johnny Aussie
Mar 4, 2016, 1:07 AM
Literally just a minute ago saw an ad by Flight Centre promoting travel to Vancouver on Air Canada's new upcoming Brisbane - Vancouver service....

$2,079 including 4 nights 3-Star all in.

Not bad! Beware for a new flood of Aussies Vancouver!

Some very impressive video footage of Vancouver - an amazing city skyline pan shot with the North Shore Mountains, Capilano Bridge, North Shore hiking, Grouse Mountain Skyride, cycling the Seawall in Stanley Park.

OK... homesick again...

twoNeurons
Mar 4, 2016, 1:11 AM
Aviation related: on my recent trip I was reading WSJ and was surprised to learn that apparently the A330 series is currently a best-seller for Airbus and demand for them is much larger than Airbus is able to respond to. That was somehow surprising to me, as I have considered A330 being an older plane, but then again I took note how many A330's there were on HKG and TPE tarmacs.

A340's seem to be getting fewer and fewer quickly and A350's are slow to make an appearance.

What is also a very exciting plane going forward will be the new Boeing 777X. Damn, that plane looks just sweet and Boeing seems to be leading the game with Airbus playing constantly catch with them.

Airbus has been playing catch-up since they embarked on the A380, which was more or less a vanity product. I think Airbus KNEW the A380 had a HIGH risk factor but got so enamoured with building the biggest and shiniest toy that they forgot that they had to turn a profit as well... or just ask taxpayers for more $$$.

The A380 did do one thing, though. It elevated the general Airbus image, so it's not all bad.

And Boeing took on quite a bit of risk with the 787 as well, but it appears to have paid off. For consumers, the 787 is easily the best plane to fly on out there.

We'll see about the A350XWB. It should compete, but it still relies on tried and true technologies. The 787 is really a large leap in aviation technology. Like any new technology, it has had teething problems, but the 777X and 747-8 have both REALLY benefited from these teething problems.

The A350XWB seems like a tweener plane. It's essentially built on the A330 to compete while Airbus decides if/when it wants to go with the all-electric route Boeing has gone with. I think they're taking a wait and see approach.

Boeing's 787 could blow up in their faces... literally... but they've been fortunate in being quick to solve problems ( even though that means grounding the fleet for a year to fix the battery problems ).

Either way, it's nice to have choice as a consumer. Now if only Bombardier could step up to the plate... :)

LeftCoaster
Mar 4, 2016, 1:13 AM
Hmmmmm.... How about SQ launch SIN-YVR-MIA!? :runaway:

It's only an extra 220 miles detour.

Don't tease! I miss the days of SG being my main airline, what a different expectation of service.

If Van keeps growing its economy the way it has been the last 18 months, and the way it is projected to grow the the next 4 years, I can't see SG ignoring YVR for too much longer. I don't know the O&D figures, but they made it work for 20 years flying to a much smaller, less affluent Vancouver on less efficient planes. With the A350 it seems like it could be a viable market for them once again.

Johnny Aussie
Mar 4, 2016, 1:28 AM
Don't tease! I miss the days of SG being my main airline, what a different expectation of service.

If Van keeps growing its economy the way it has been the last 18 months, and the way it is projected to grow the the next 4 years, I can't see SG ignoring YVR for too much longer. I don't know the O&D figures, but they made it work for 20 years flying to a much smaller, less affluent Vancouver on less efficient planes. With the A350 it seems like it could be a viable market for them once again.

It still is my main airline 😜

The conundrum with the likes of the A350 and B787... These types of planes make longer thinner routes from YVR certainly more viable. But it's a double edged sword right? These types of long range equipment also make other longer thinner routes viable.... Hence the discussion about MIA-Asia for example.

However!! Before anybody spirals into a doom and gloom scenario.... So far these have actually benefitted YVR and there really is no indication this will be a detriment to YVR. The growing Asia pie just keeps getting larger all the time and YVR is well positioned to steal a big piece of that pie... Just going to have to learn to share that pie!

nname
Mar 4, 2016, 1:44 AM
SQ bringing back NYC (being vague as unsure if it will be EWR or JFK) and LAX are pretty much a sure thing.

Hmmmmm.... How about SQ launch SIN-YVR-MIA!? :runaway:

It's only an extra 220 miles detour.

Are they even allowed for service that not terminating in Canada?

I read this somewhere, for Taiwan, the bilateral limit those 21x weekly so it cannot fly anywhere beyond Canada. Therefore route like TPE-YVR-MIA is not allowed. However, there is no restriction if the flight is via a US city and terminating in Canada. They can fly TPE-MIA-YVR as much as they want, if they feel they can make money that way and have a plane that's capable of doing that :D

Speaking of TPE... Haven't seen this posted here:

Air Canada / EVA Air Resumes Codeshare Partnership from March 2016

Air Canada and EVA Air starting March 2016 will resume codeshare partnership after 6-year hiatus, covering service within Domestic Canada, and intra-Asia service. Subject to Government Approval, planned codeshare partnership will commence on 10MAR16, on following routes.

Air Canada operated by EVA Air
Seoul Incheon – Kaohsiung
Seoul Incheon – Taipei Taoyuan
Tokyo Narita – Kaohsiung
Tokyo Narita – Taipei Taoyuan

EVA Air operated by Air Canada
Toronto – Montreal
Vancouver – Calgary
Vancouver – Edmonton

http://airlineroute.net/2016/02/28/acbr-codeshare-mar16/

Still, no direct flight if purchase from AC :(

Orcair
Mar 4, 2016, 2:18 AM
Cool! Interesting that they are flying the A350 first to AMS and DUS. It looks like a great plane, but am I the only one thinking that the Singapore Airlines color scheme looks a bit too retro?

http://www.avionale.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/singapore_airlines_a350-900.jpg
www.avionale.com

I fly them a lot. Definitely for international travel out of MEL anyway.

Interesting comment.... The actual logo has held its own but I think you are right.... Maybe it's time for a minor adjustment. I bet with just a few subtle tweaks here and there they could really have an impressive livery again.

Still an impressive sight seeing all the SQ planes with the Silver Kris logo all lined up!

I would agree - although if they do an update like Cathay Pacific it will be worse than the current one :/

Airbus has been playing catch-up since they embarked on the A380, which was more or less a vanity product. I think Airbus KNEW the A380 had a HIGH risk factor but got so enamoured with building the biggest and shiniest toy that they forgot that they had to turn a profit as well... or just ask taxpayers for more $$$.

The A380 did do one thing, though. It elevated the general Airbus image, so it's not all bad.

And Boeing took on quite a bit of risk with the 787 as well, but it appears to have paid off. For consumers, the 787 is easily the best plane to fly on out there.

We'll see about the A350XWB. It should compete, but it still relies on tried and true technologies. The 787 is really a large leap in aviation technology. Like any new technology, it has had teething problems, but the 777X and 747-8 have both REALLY benefited from these teething problems.

The A350XWB seems like a tweener plane. It's essentially built on the A330 to compete while Airbus decides if/when it wants to go with the all-electric route Boeing has gone with. I think they're taking a wait and see approach.

Boeing's 787 could blow up in their faces... literally... but they've been fortunate in being quick to solve problems ( even though that means grounding the fleet for a year to fix the battery problems ).

Either way, it's nice to have choice as a consumer. Now if only Bombardier could step up to the plate... :)

I would disagree on the 350, but the 380 has definitely not played out as it should have - even Airbus is starting to admit this.

The original 350 I would argue was, yes, a build-on from the 330 with the same fuselage, etc. But I would argue that the current XWB variant is much more similar to the 787 than the 330 - new cross-section, higher-usage of composites, more humidity (like the 787), new undercarriage design, completely new wings with interesting wingtip treatments. The 330neo I would argue builds further on this legacy, while giving Airbus the opportunity to bid much lower per aircraft on deals vs. the 787 which makes up for its ~4% greater fuel burn.

Hot Rod
Mar 4, 2016, 11:47 AM
Airbus has been playing catch-up since they embarked on the A380, which was more or less a vanity product. I think Airbus KNEW the A380 had a HIGH risk factor but got so enamoured with building the biggest and shiniest toy that they forgot that they had to turn a profit as well... or just ask taxpayers for more $$$.

The A380 did do one thing, though. It elevated the general Airbus image, so it's not all bad.

And Boeing took on quite a bit of risk with the 787 as well, but it appears to have paid off. For consumers, the 787 is easily the best plane to fly on out there.

We'll see about the A350XWB. It should compete, but it still relies on tried and true technologies. The 787 is really a large leap in aviation technology. Like any new technology, it has had teething problems, but the 777X and 747-8 have both REALLY benefited from these teething problems.

The A350XWB seems like a tweener plane. It's essentially built on the A330 to compete while Airbus decides if/when it wants to go with the all-electric route Boeing has gone with. I think they're taking a wait and see approach.

Boeing's 787 could blow up in their faces... literally... but they've been fortunate in being quick to solve problems ( even though that means grounding the fleet for a year to fix the battery problems ).

Either way, it's nice to have choice as a consumer. Now if only Bombardier could step up to the plate... :)

:shrug:

Maybe from a customer prospective and to test the market for larger, more viable aircraft (777X and 737 MAX) using composite airframes; but it should be noted that Boeing also loses money on every 787 to the tune of $28M per airplane. Airbus is not alone in having a novel money loser.

But again, Boeing will benefit from the new technology leap from 787 being applied to profitable platforms (777X and 737 Max). I agree that A380 did boost the image of Airbus, so that also was probably worth it despite it also being a money loser.

moosejaw
Mar 4, 2016, 1:18 PM
BBI is the IATA code for an airport in India. BER is the IATA for Brandenberg, if it ever opens. The entire fire suppression system didn't work properly. The proposed solution was to have 800 "fire watchers" stand on tall platforms to look for smoke. That obviously didn't go over well. Since then its been discovered that basically the whole airport is f'd, walls not strong enough etc. But none of it can be blamed on corruption..not in Germany :sly:




...designed by Herzog & de Meuron, budgeted to come in at 77M Euros, now at least 10x that. Let's see how the new Vancouver Art Gallery pans out...

HDM has the PAMM art museum here in miami, took forever to complete and they did a private parking garage in miami beach that you see in car commercials now. Now they are doing a private hi rise on the beach here too. All three projects went over budget. Not a fan of the new VAG, reminds me of the one in San Fran.

twoNeurons
Mar 4, 2016, 5:22 PM
However!! Before anybody spirals into a doom and gloom scenario.... So far these have actually benefitted YVR and there really is no indication this will be a detriment to YVR. The growing Asia pie just keeps getting larger all the time and YVR is well positioned to steal a big piece of that pie... Just going to have to learn to share that pie!

That's because YVR IS a 2nd tier city, the perfect size for the 787.... and there are lots of cities in China. Lots of them.... and the Pacific Ocean is big. Really big.

twoNeurons
Mar 4, 2016, 5:34 PM
I would agree - although if they do an update like Cathay Pacific it will be worse than the current one :/



I would disagree on the 350, but the 380 has definitely not played out as it should have - even Airbus is starting to admit this.

The original 350 I would argue was, yes, a build-on from the 330 with the same fuselage, etc. But I would argue that the current XWB variant is much more similar to the 787 than the 330 - new cross-section, higher-usage of composites, more humidity (like the 787), new undercarriage design, completely new wings with interesting wingtip treatments. The 330neo I would argue builds further on this legacy, while giving Airbus the opportunity to bid much lower per aircraft on deals vs. the 787 which makes up for its ~4% greater fuel burn.

Yes, it's quite similar, but with considerably different internals. There's a pretty good write-up on Quora (https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-new-Airbus-A350XWB-compare-to-the-Boeing-787-Dreamliner?share=1), which I won't rehash here, but essentially the A350XWB is less electrical and more conservative.

I'm looking forward to flying on one. I have LOVED flying on the 787 and for the customer, I think the A350 will get just as good reviews.

LeftCoaster
Mar 4, 2016, 9:36 PM
Just for a little nostalgia here's a Singapore Airlines 772 landing at YVR back in 2009.

Skip to 1:50 if you dont want to see a westjet 737 and air Canada A3300...

WhVZgZz6w2E?t=1m50s

Johnny Aussie
Mar 4, 2016, 10:44 PM
Just for a little nostalgia here's a Singapore Airlines 772 landing at YVR back in 2009.

Tease!

Also a good panning shot of a KLM MD-11 upon each arrival... More nostalgia.

LeftCoaster
Mar 4, 2016, 11:08 PM
Airliners.net is a pretty great spot for some nostalgia:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/8/3/1295388.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Singapore-Airlines/Boeing-777-212-ER/1295388/L/&sid=f0fae5847f3fa0c9eed3ba44edb9bbab

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/4/7/1576745.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Singapore-Airlines-Cargo/Boeing-747-412F-SCD/1576745/L/&sid=f0fae5847f3fa0c9eed3ba44edb9bbab

Johnny Aussie
Mar 5, 2016, 9:42 AM
Just a mini update.

For the 777 lovers out there...

AC has just updated YVR-YYZ for the summer scheds by adding back one of the 77Ws early afternoon. So there will be two 77Ws, one 77L, one 788 and four 763s per day for wide body action.

The daily tally on YVR-YYZ also goes back to 18-19 per day.

trofirhen
Mar 5, 2016, 1:34 PM
Just a mini update.

For the 777 lovers out there... AC .......

....... The daily tally on YVR-YYZ also goes back to 18-19 per day.
Good stuff! Are the 18 - 19 YYZ flights a day just AC, or AC and WS combined? Thanks. :) (I would assume the latter?) ...

connect2source
Mar 5, 2016, 4:17 PM
Airbus has been playing catch-up since they embarked on the A380, which was more or less a vanity product. I think Airbus KNEW the A380 had a HIGH risk factor but got so enamoured with building the biggest and shiniest toy that they forgot that they had to turn a profit as well... or just ask taxpayers for more $$$.

The A380 did do one thing, though. It elevated the general Airbus image, so it's not all bad.

And Boeing took on quite a bit of risk with the 787 as well, but it appears to have paid off. For consumers, the 787 is easily the best plane to fly on out there.

Don't forget Boeing is still losing money on every 787 built hence the profits still elude them on this project. The 787 has also been highly criticized in the comfort category by many customers mostly due the the 9 abreast configuration resulting in very narrow seating, coupled with, for example, AC's 31" pitch which makes for a rather cramped long-haul experience.

The A350 has already proven itself to be a far more pleasant ride, wider cabin and still the same 9 abreast seating as the 787 but with 18"+ wide seats. If airlines has stuck to the originally proposed 8 abreast config of the 787, ( only ANA and JAL have a few birds in this config ) it would have truly felt far closer to the proposed Dreamliner experience.

ShawnShank
Mar 5, 2016, 6:30 PM
and four 763s per day for wide body action.

What flights will these 763s be on/when do they start? Currently no scheduled 763s to YVR AFAIK (only equipment swaps), want to capture some of the mainline 763s before they go Rouge/are retired

Johnny Aussie
Mar 5, 2016, 9:24 PM
What flights will these 763s be on/when do they start? Currently no scheduled 763s to YVR AFAIK (only equipment swaps), want to capture some of the mainline 763s before they go Rouge/are retired

They start in May with three a day then ramp up to four daily in July with the full summer schedule.

YVR-YYZ flt dep/arr
AC136 0600/1328
AC1162 1030/1758
AC132 1300/2028
AC156 2215/0543+1

YYZ-YVR flt dep/arr
AC1173 0700/0903
AC1175 0915/1118
AC137 1800/2003
AC1171 2125/2328

The 18-19 daily flights is AC only. Add another 11 with Westjet and one daily Sunwing and a couple of weekly Transats.