PDA

View Full Version : YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion


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

casper
Apr 2, 2016, 5:17 PM
I completely agree. We have all discussed potential routes; some reasonable, some rather far-fetched... over and over. I appreciate the passion of some people's wish lists. But really, please put some thought into them. I really aim to be an optimist but come on people! ;)

For the USA, looking at the realities of the numbers - logistics, geographical location and just plain basic economics of air travel, there are really limited growth options.

Looking at that 1996 list:

CVG was dropped because DL dismantled its hub there.
RNO was dropped because AA dismantled its hub there.
MIA was dropped by AA (and AC)... a really long route - hard to make work (even from SEA only one daily flight exists on an AA 738).

So as discussed before, I think we have BOS, MIA/FLL and maybe PHL as potential routes (the ONLY unserved routes with > 30,000 annual pax). And these three have been tried before, but maybe the numbers are good enough to try again. I can see more ATL and IAD in the future. I doubt we will see DTW back to daily again. Most other destinations just don't have the numbers to make a route viable.

As for International, it's still going to be mainly all about Asia (China mainly). We've discussed the Middle East, India, South-East Asia.... India will happen eventually one day! Europe, limited potential new routes from YVR. South America? Been discussed a lot - sure there may be something in the works but not going to be very much really. More South Pacific? Sure MEL is rumoured and has been discussed a lot.

Given Air Canada is slowly rediscovering Vancouver as a hub with potential for growth I think we could see more US destinations if they can feed the mid-day bank of Aisa flights. The C-series is going to be great aircraft for Air Canada to build out US destinations.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 2, 2016, 9:51 PM
Given Air Canada is slowly rediscovering Vancouver as a hub with potential for growth I think we could see more US destinations if they can feed the mid-day bank of Aisa flights. The C-series is going to be great aircraft for Air Canada to build out US destinations.

If they don't affect their YYZ flights too much then it could be a go. But unlikely. Still shorter for the large East Coast cities (BOS, MIA, PHL for eg) to connect in YYZ compared to YVR. When BOS and MIA were connected to YVR direct, AC didn't have the Asian flights from YYZ they do now. Also, BOS didn't have any direct flights to Asia, look at BOS now! From YYZ, AC will be flying direct to every city in Asia as YVR.... and then some. In the West most of the major cities are connected to YVR already. Maybe SMF again? PHL would have to be AA if YVR is to be connected from there again.

Alpine
Apr 2, 2016, 10:19 PM
As for International, it's still going to be mainly all about Asia (China mainly). We've discussed the Middle East, India, South-East Asia.... India will happen eventually one day! Europe, limited potential new routes from YVR. South America? Been discussed a lot - sure there may be something in the works but not going to be very much really. More South Pacific? Sure MEL is rumoured and has been discussed a lot.

A nonstop YVR-DXB? Do I dare to dream?!

No. I don't dare to dream. Sorry, trofirhen, even though DXB has frequent connections to the subcontinent, I'm not sure if the low-yielding, Vancouver-India traffic (which is mostly VFR and tourism, in addition to being O&D; both death sentences for nonstop flights, and that's even before considering the flight is 11,000 km) is really all that time-sensitive. I can't speak for other travellers, but there is about 2-3 hours of transit time in Guangzhou (between CZ330, which arrives around 4-5:30 pm Beijing time, and CZ359, which leaves around 7:00 pm Beijing time from a quick check of Flight Aware). And even if the flights are notoriously delayed (which I've heard through the grapevine), would most Vancouver-India travellers prefer the rapid connections of DXB, or would they not mind an overnight layover in Guangzhou or Beijing or Frankfurt or the other hubs that connect YVR with DEL?

trofirhen
Apr 3, 2016, 12:00 AM
A nonstop YVR-DXB? Do I dare to dream?!

No. I don't dare to dream. Sorry, trofirhen, even though DXB has frequent connections to the subcontinent, I'm not sure if the low-yielding, Vancouver-India traffic (which is mostly VFR and tourism, in addition to being O&D; both death sentences for nonstop flights, and that's even before considering the flight is 11,000 km) is really all that time-sensitive. I can't speak for other travellers, but there is about 2-3 hours of transit time in Guangzhou (between CZ330, which arrives around 4-5:30 pm Beijing time, and CZ359, which leaves around 7:00 pm Beijing time from a quick check of Flight Aware). And even if the flights are notoriously delayed (which I've heard through the grapevine), would most Vancouver-India travellers prefer the rapid connections of DXB, or would they not mind an overnight layover in Guangzhou or Beijing or Frankfurt or the other hubs that connect YVR with DEL?

Sorry to me about what?
I have no strong wish to see EK in Vancouver, simply because of their policy that "ALL THE WORLD IS AN OPEN SKY" and they cannibalize other routes by insisting on access.
Access: like flying to YVR through FRA, AMS, CDG, which would probably greatly reduce the roster of foreign airlines that YVR has.
This issue has been raised at several major US airports, where EK wants the rights to fly to them - via Europe, displacing other airlines.
Look at Seattle. All the Scandinavians there used to use SAS for decades, nonstop to CPH. Now that's gone with the wind.

I'm not quite clear on where you're coming from on this, but I never screamed for EK to come to YVR. I think we're better off without them, if that's what you meant.

teriyaki
Apr 3, 2016, 2:06 AM
I've seen the movie and I can identify the location of about 60% of the outdoor scenes and they are indeed shot in Vancouver. (About 5% are scenes from Seattle but none of them contains any actor). If anything, there is no way I can mistaken a KCM bus as a TransLink bus in the background. My friends always joked around and called the movie "Beijing Meets Vancouver" :D

Same. Skimmed through the movie and identified most of the shots as being shot in Vancouver. That airport scene right at the beginning made me laugh the most. Just used the check-in counters at YVR in the US Departures level, and added some decals, voila US TSA and CBP in Seattle...:rolleyes:

SFUVancouver
Apr 3, 2016, 4:43 AM
Alaska Air poised to buy Virgin America, report says

Originally published April 2, 2016 at 12:03 pm Updated April 2, 2016 at 8:41 pm

By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED and LESLIE PICKER
The New York Times


Alaska Air Group is emerging as the likely winner of an auction for Virgin America, besting a rival bid from JetBlue as negotiations neared a conclusion Saturday.

Virgin America, founded on the premise of being a cool airline shuttling people from New York to California in style, is near a deal to sell itself to a competitor originally created to ferry people 330 miles across Alaska.

Alaska Airlines is poised to buy Virgin for about $2 billion, a person briefed on the matter said Saturday, describing a move that would unite two popular smaller airlines in the latest round of consolidation within the industry.

Should Alaska, which is based in Seattle, reach an agreement to acquire Virgin — details were still being negotiated and could still fall apart — an announcement could come as soon as Monday, said the person, who was not authorized to speak about the matter.

A sale of Virgin would be the latest instance of deal-making in an industry that has shrunk drastically over the past decade, concentrating power in the hands of a few major airlines.

Virgin, Alaska and JetBlue compete in a tier below the giants: American, Delta and United. When Virgin put itself up for sale this year, it drew preliminary interest from a host of potential suitors. But the biggest domestic airlines, constrained by antitrust regulations, soon gave way to smaller competitors eager to expand their networks.

[...]

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alaska-air-reportedly-nears-deal-for-virgin-america/

nname
Apr 3, 2016, 7:44 AM
If they don't affect their YYZ flights too much then it could be a go. But unlikely. Still shorter for the large East Coast cities (BOS, MIA, PHL for eg) to connect in YYZ compared to YVR. When BOS and MIA were connected to YVR direct, AC didn't have the Asian flights from YYZ they do now. Also, BOS didn't have any direct flights to Asia, look at BOS now! From YYZ, AC will be flying direct to every city in Asia as YVR.... and then some. In the West most of the major cities are connected to YVR already. Maybe SMF again? PHL would have to be AA if YVR is to be connected from there again.

There still South East Asia and Australia/NZ though, and also some secondary airport that may be reachable by rouge 767. I doubt we will ever see AC fly these non-stop from YYZ even if there may eventually planes capable of doing so.

And seems like BR finally switch YVR-TPE from 744 to 77W on March 2017. No frequency increase though.

trofirhen
Apr 3, 2016, 7:58 AM
There still South East Asia and Australia/NZ though, and also some secondary airport that may be reachable by rouge 767. I doubt we will ever see AC fly these non-stop from YYZ even if there may eventually planes capable of doing so..........

Yeah! If we get MEL (and I'm sure we may) YVR will have Australia/NZ sewn up! Tahiti is reachable from Vancouver, being further NE in the South Pacific, :sly:but it's accessible nonstop from YYZ too, (I checked on the flight route map), so I guess we'll always have to change in SFO or LAX for that one. Nice to dream, though. Only seasonal, anyway, I'm sure. (sour grapes)

Johnny Aussie
Apr 3, 2016, 9:04 AM
There still South East Asia and Australia/NZ though, and also some secondary airport that may be reachable by rouge 767. I doubt we will ever see AC fly these non-stop from YYZ even if there may eventually planes capable of doing so.

And seems like BR finally switch YVR-TPE from 744 to 77W on March 2017. No frequency increase though.

I was addressing the potential for new routes in the US. South East Asia direct on AC does not exist. Again we have discussed the potential routes on AC's Investor presentations to other cities in North Asia and SE Asia. Nothing new. If it does happen then we can revisit the potential for other US routes. But the numbers suggest BOS and MIA/FLL as the only markets with significant numbers at the moment (yes we are discussing this again). I would suggest the number of people on the East Coast of the US who would fly via YVR to get to Australia/NZ would be minimal. MIA to SYD via YVR? Sure a handful may want to. Easier to get there via SFO, LAX, DFW and now IAH. Of course we can what if what if any scenario but the same stuff keeps being brought up over and over.

And slowly but surely we will see fewer 744 operators as they continue to be phased out.

CI and LH also will be replaced with ???

Hot Rod
Apr 3, 2016, 11:08 PM
I think we were talking about growth and not whether Vancouver will get certain routes INSTEAD of Toronto.

In all fairness, YYZ is already well served by most if not all major East Coast and Central US cities by Air Canada (as was mentioned time and time again). So to keep saying that AC will not budge on granting Vancouver some of those cities to bolster it's Asian Connections does not make a good argument. Just the same, Vancouver has most West Coast cities well served but AC will still make Toronto a go at it - to serve TO's European connections.

I agree with whoever wrote that it appears as if AC is rediscovering it's Vancouver hub, because there is tremendous opportunity that is being unmet and COULD make the airline extremely successful and NOT interfere with the Toronto hub. That has been the question for so long and it appears now AC sees that it can have two major hubs - which is good news for Vancouver esp as new planes come online that can fill the range/capacity needed for certain city pairs to Vancouver.

Hot Rod
Apr 3, 2016, 11:11 PM
Also, I don't really see what SEA having one flight to Miami has to to with Vancouver. SEA uses a 738 for the flight, maybe Vancouver would use a different plane - but still, the city pair Vancouver-Miami is being unmet.

Now, whether AC fills the void or leaves it to WestJet or somebody else remains to be seem. But just like there probably is demand for SEA-MIA and they have a flight, there is demand for YVR-MIA (right?) so there should be a flight.

Apples to Apples.

trofirhen
Apr 4, 2016, 12:52 AM
Also, I don't really see what SEA having one flight to Miami has to to with Vancouver. SEA uses a 738 for the flight, maybe Vancouver would use a different plane - but still, the city pair Vancouver-Miami is being unmet.

Now, whether AC fills the void or leaves it to WestJet or somebody else remains to be seem. But just like there probably is demand for SEA-MIA and they have a flight, there is demand for YVR-MIA (right?) so there should be a flight.

Apples to Apples.
I think a great deal (if not most of it) depends on city size and economy. If Vancouver were a metro of 5 million, with a respectable # of head offices, this would be altogether different.

moosejaw
Apr 4, 2016, 2:19 AM
Also, I don't really see what SEA having one flight to Miami has to to with Vancouver. SEA uses a 738 for the flight, maybe Vancouver would use a different plane - but still, the city pair Vancouver-Miami is being unmet.

Now, whether AC fills the void or leaves it to WestJet or somebody else remains to be seem. But just like there probably is demand for SEA-MIA and they have a flight, there is demand for YVR-MIA (right?) so there should be a flight.

Apples to Apples.


Doesn't Seattle have a daily/direct flight to FLL Fort Lauderdale as well as Miami?

Black Box
Apr 4, 2016, 2:30 AM
I've seen the movie and I can identify the location of about 60% of the outdoor scenes and they are indeed shot in Vancouver. (About 5% are scenes from Seattle but none of them contains any actor). If anything, there is no way I can mistaken a KCM bus as a TransLink bus in the background. My friends always joked around and called the movie "Beijing Meets Vancouver" :D

I stand corrected. Maybe there should be a Hong Kong Meets Vancouver instead.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 4, 2016, 4:47 AM
*** delete *** duplicate post

Johnny Aussie
Apr 4, 2016, 4:51 AM
I think a great deal (if not most of it) depends on city size and economy. If Vancouver were a metro of 5 million, with a respectable # of head offices, this would be altogether different.

Sigh...

Exactly and this is why. Look at the market numbers between Vancouver and the US. There are very few unserved markets with an annual traffic base > 30,000 pax (approx 40 people per day each way). Other than BOS and MIA what other markets are large enough to make a viable route? YYZ has plenty of US routes because its market is SOOO much bigger than Vancouver's. I am one of Vancouver's (and Calgary's) biggest fans and am happy to "defend" it but realistically there are so few unserved transborder routes that would be viable. MIA has been tried by both AC and AA and have both been pulled. But read what I said... I see BOS and MIA (based on market info) as the most likely of new routes in the East IF there are going to be new routes but that's it. YES, I have just stated that AGAIN. The fact SEA has only one direct flight per day to MIA indicates traffic to the PNW has a lot of competition and it is a domestic route which normally would be a larger market.

So remember for a transborder market to be viable, you need at a very minimum a large O&D base and/or have the US city be a fortress hub for one of the majors. Without DL hubs at DTW, MSP and SLC for example, there would be no direct flights to any of those cities.

Hourglass
Apr 4, 2016, 5:34 AM
Sigh...

Exactly and this is why. Look at the market numbers between Vancouver and the US. There are very few unserved markets with an annual traffic base > 30,000 pax. Other than BOS and MIA what other markets are large enough to make a viable route? YYZ has plenty of US routes because its market is SOOO much bigger than Vancouver's. I am one of Vancouver's (and Calgary's) biggest fans and am happy to "defend" it but realistically there are so few unserved transborder routes that would be viable. MIA has been tried by both AC and AA and have both been pulled. But read what I said... I see BOS and MIA (based on market info) as the most likely of new routes in the East IF there are going to be new routes but that's it. YES, I have just stated that AGAIN. The fact SEA has only one direct flight per day to MIA indicates traffic to the PNW has a lot of competition and it is a domestic route which normally would be a larger market.

Not to push this back into a never-ending loop, but I don't fully agree with you Johnny. We know O&D numbers aren't the only measure of a route's success. If that were the case, EK would be just an insignificant regional ME airline given Dubai's population of 2.5 million... ;) But EK has built up its hub through combination of marketing hype, competitive pricing and a good hard/soft premium product.

AC has stated they want to grab a share of US traffic via YVR (reference Calin Rovanescu's speech to VBOT in 2014: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media/presentations/documents/yvr_boardoftrade.pdf). AC claims that 40% of their YVR passengers are already transfer passengers so this strategy appears to be developing. I agree that YYZ is going to be a more convenient transfer point for many Asian destinations from the US East Coast, but that still leaves Oceania, secondary Chinese cities and -- maybe in the future -- SE Asia. I guess it really depends on how attractive YVR can make itself as a transfer hub and whether AC is willing to play ball. I'm excited by the possibility of Westjet expanding to Asia as well. I think there's a strong possibility they'd use YVR over YYC given its much larger Asian community.

So I think secondary US cities such as PHL or CLT **could** work from YVR given enough commitment from AC and its Star Alliance partners. It would certainly help passenger load factors on their Asian flights ex YVR.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 4, 2016, 6:56 AM
Not to push this back into a never-ending loop, but I don't fully agree with you Johnny. We know O&D numbers aren't the only measure of a route's success. If that were the case, EK would be just an insignificant regional ME airline given Dubai's population of 2.5 million... ;) But EK has built up its hub through combination of marketing hype, competitive pricing and a good hard/soft premium product.

AC has stated they want to grab a share of US traffic via YVR (reference Calin Rovanescu's speech to VBOT in 2014: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media/presentations/documents/yvr_boardoftrade.pdf). AC claims that 40% of their YVR passengers are already transfer passengers so this strategy appears to be developing. I agree that YYZ is going to be a more convenient transfer point for many Asian destinations from the US East Coast, but that still leaves Oceania, secondary Chinese cities and -- maybe in the future -- SE Asia. I guess it really depends on how attractive YVR can make itself as a transfer hub and whether AC is willing to play ball. I'm excited by the possibility of Westjet expanding to Asia as well. I think there's a strong possibility they'd use YVR over YYC given its much larger Asian community.m

So I think secondary US cities such as PHL or CLT **could** work from YVR given enough commitment from AC and its Star Alliance partners. It would certainly help passenger load factors on their Asian flights ex YVR.

Ok.. here we go again...

PHL and CLT, your examples, are in fact US fortress hubs for a US major. So the emphasis is on their end dragging YVR pax into their web and not the other way around. Also, being AA hubs and not Star hubs would not help YVR's case. Star partners are not going to funnel these pax through YVR with EWR, ORD and SFO as three of their major hubs with substantial Asian connections. UA at SFO is slowly building up a decent network to secondary Chinese cities and recently announced nonstop to SIN. UA will want/need full support from its vast domestic network to fill these flights. YVR won't be in their best interests.

DXB is a small city in population but look at its oil wealth. Sorry YVR does not garner such power. It is also in a dynamic location being a cross roads with Asia, Europe, Australia and Africa.

YVR is a small market competing with the likes of many populous cities along the West Coast.

You are right O&D is not the only factor but the difference with Transborder here is O&D does play a VERY SIGNIFICANT role in YVR's ability to make any secondary city work. Again, look at the numbers. I suggest any city with less than a 30,000 annual market volume would only barely scratch the surface as a viable route. As for YVR being an alternative as an Asian hub... YVR is competing with all the US major hubs with vast Asian connections already. Star Alliance partner UA is more insterested in funnelling its pax through SFO and ORD. DL? AA? Not on the radar. To make this secondary city scenario work, YVR would have to steal enough of the Asian market from these secondary cities (which would have to have huge Asian traffic volumes to start with) away from these US mega hubs. Soooo... without a solid O&D base to start with, not going to happen.

Again, I am huge supporter of YVR and am thrilled how quickly it's has developed in recent years. But, again, it's ability to gain new routes in the US is limited.

My case in point with AC is their newest additions to their route network are all large O&D markets from YVR - ORD, SAN and SJC. ORD is over 113,000 pax per year. SAN is over 55,000 and SJC (part of the CMSA of SFO) about 350,000. These fit into Rovinescu's statements.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Hourglass
Apr 4, 2016, 9:44 AM
Ok.. here we go again...

PHL and CLT, your examples, are in fact US fortress hubs for a US major. So the emphasis is on their end dragging YVR pax into their web and not the other way around. Also, being AA hubs and not Star hubs would not help YVR's case. Star partners are not going to funnel these pax through YVR with EWR, ORD and SFO as three of their major hubs with substantial Asian connections. UA at SFO is slowly building up a decent network to secondary Chinese cities and recently announced nonstop to SIN. UA will want/need full support from its vast domestic network to fill these flights. YVR won't be in their best interests.

DXB is a small city in population but look at its oil wealth. Sorry YVR does not garner such power. It is also in ad dynamic location being a cross roads with Asia, Europe, Australia and Africa.

YVR is a small market competing with the likes of many populous cities along the West Coast.

You are right O&D is not the only factor but the difference with Transborder here is O&D does play a VERY SIGNIFICANT role in YVR's ability to make any secondary city work. Again, look at the numbers. I suggest any city with less than a 30,000 annual market volume would only barely scratch the surface as a viable route. As for YVR being an alternative as an Asian hub... YVR is competing with all the US major hubs with vast Asian connections already. Star Alliance partner UA is more insterested in funnelling its pax through SFO and ORD. DL? AA? Not on the radar. To make this secondary city scenario work, YVR would have to steal enough of the Asian market from these secondary cities (which would have to have huge Asian traffic volumes to start with) away from these US mega hubs. Soooo... without a solid O&D base to start with, not going to happen.

Again, I am huge supporter of YVR and am thrilled how quickly it's has developed in recent years. But, again, it's ability to gain new routes in the US is limited.

My case in point with AC is their newest additions to their route network are all large O&D markets from YVR - ORD, SAN and SJC. ORD is over 113,000 pax per year. SAN is over 55,000 and SJC (part of the CMSA of SFO) about 350,000. These fit into Rovinescu's statements.

We will have to agree to disagree.

If I'm AC, of course I'm going to go for low hanging fruit first ie cities with large O&D markets (the transfer argument falls down, though, since SAN has LAX next door and SJC is just down the road from SFO). No surprise there. The question is whether -- and how far -- this can be extended to smaller O&D markets with the potential transfer to/from Asia/Oceania added in. Is it 30,000 per your contention? Maybe it is.

Like yourself, I'm a YVR supporter, but hardly a blind booster; I simply question your assumption that the limits of which secondary US cities can be profitably served from YVR has been reached. You're right that there's a lot of hubs competing for Asian traffic. All in all, I'd say YVR punches above its weight.

I guess time will tell...

trofirhen
Apr 4, 2016, 11:48 AM
If I'm AC, of course I'm going to go for low hanging fruit first ie cities with large O&D markets (the transfer argument falls down, though, since SAN has LAX next door and SJC is just down the road from SFO). No surprise there. The question is whether -- and how far -- this can be extended to smaller O&D markets with the potential transfer to/from Asia/Oceania added in. Is it 30,000 per your contention? Maybe it is.

Like yourself, I'm a YVR supporter, but hardly a blind booster; I simply question your assumption that the limits of which secondary US cities can be profitably served from YVR has been reached. You're right that there's a lot of hubs competing for Asian traffic. All in all, I'd say YVR punches above its weight.

I guess time will tell...
If Vancouver packed more of a punch economically (the way Charlotte does as a major US banking centre); if there were a large pharma industry, among other diverse stuff.....
things might be different, as people from elsewhere would be saying "I'm flying to Vancouver on business/ for a convention / to close a deal with ...."
But, unfortunately, despite the $$$$ being pumped into real estate, and the TV/film industry and all that ..... we're just not that kind of city.

SFUVancouver
Apr 4, 2016, 6:01 PM
Great discussion!

My own humble contribution: I think that we are in a step-wise growth period at the moment at YVR with new Chinese carriers and linkages to second tier cities along with modest capacity improvements and up-gauging on established routes. The byzantine decision-making processes that lead to non-O&D passengers routing through Vancouver to support the new routes and capacity will need some time to sort out and I expect that some may be clawed back by airlines if their aspirational targets aren't met.

I agree that additional US direct routes would be welcome, but I see a more likely scenario in which capacity and frequency improvements to major US hubs to which YVR already has connection occurs before new routes are created by the US majors. I think that a trend we will see quite a bit of in the coming years is the main-lining of formerly regional/feeder routes. United Express -> United, American Eagle -> American, etc. This lets the airlines bump up the capacity of routes, improve the product, improve frequent flyer benefits, and "show the flag" to indicate the majors' commitment to the market and assist in their ongoing negotiations on landing fees, gate rentals, terminal investment, etc.

As for the question of new aircraft, I agree that the C-Series will be a major improvement for Air Canada and it will likely prompt them to prove new routes that were impossible/uneconomical with their E-190s and A320s, respectively. Meanwhile, fleet expansion and modernization is occurring with the US majors, with investment occurring in both the RJ and mainline fleets. Most of the recent aerodynamic improvements to the existing mainline fleet ("sharklets" and winglets being added) confer benefit during low level flight during take-off and landing, while offering limited benefit (even negative benefit due to parasitic drag) at cruising altitude, which means that airlines are realizing benefit primarily on short haul routes where aircraft spend proportionally more of their flight time at low altitude. The next gen narrow body aircraft (C-Series, 737Max, A320neo) all offer new/greatly enhanced engines that confer benefit primarily at cruising speeds and altitudes, which are coupled with sharklets, winglets, wing fences, etc., to confer benefit at lower altitude, plus weight savings and minor incremental aerodynamic refinements (excluding the C-Series, which is a clean-sheet exceptionally aerodynamic design). Cumulatively, this has the effect of making these next-gen aircraft substantially more economic to operate. The early proving of the A320neo is yielding close to 20% operational cost savings over the base model.

So, my point with this is that the efficiency improvements being added to current generation of mainline narrow body aircraft, or coming standard on the many hundreds of current-gen aircraft on order, don't confer a great deal of cost-benefit gains to the fleets serving YVR due to its relative geographic remoteness on the continent and the necessity for aircraft to spend the majority of their time at cruising speed and altitude where the aerodynamic benefits of the new wingtip-based improvements don't do much good. This is important because YVR functions as a quasi "long & thin" domestic long-haul flight for much of North America's population and it makes a lot more sense for the majors to hub to Vancouver than going direct. The current mainline aircraft (737s, A320s, B717 and kinda/sorta E175/190) are perfectly serviceable and the airlines adjust models and frequency to hit their load factor goals and profitability just fine. However, the game-changer for YVR will be the next-gen narrow-bodies (A320neo, 737Max, C-Series).

These aircraft, as mentioned before, feature new engines versus their predecessors and this confers substantial reductions in operating cost. In much the same way that the game-changing 787 has enabled airlines to put "long & thin" long-haul routes into profitable service, I believe that these next-gen narrow-bodies will prompt domestic carriers to exploit domestic "long & thin" routes that wouldn't make economic sense with the previous generation mainline aircraft (A320 & B737) or would exceed the range/operating economics of small mainline aircraft (E175/190 & B717). I think that as these new next-gen aircraft are deployed, we will find them being utilized with frequency on long-haul domestic YVR routes and we will see new routes (to markets that are borderline for O&D at the moment) be launched to exploit the new aircraft and take pressure off of congested hubs.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 4, 2016, 8:14 PM
With the new YVR website and the new format of presenting the statistics....

It is showing February as 1.6 million on the Facts & Stats landing page.

http://www.yvr.ca/en/about-yvr/facts-and-stats

But when you open up the Traffic Update link it shows October 2015.

Since they are rounding to the nearest 100,000 Feb could be anywhere from 1,550,001 to 1,649,999. :haha:

Feb 2015 was 1,437,469. This will mean a MINIMUM increase of at least 7.8% but I'll bet it will be much higher than that!

JA to investigate!

Johnny Aussie
Apr 5, 2016, 12:45 AM
The 2016 cruise ship season kicked off in Vancouver today.

Port of Vancouver expecting its busiest season since 2009. Still a long way to go to get back to the busiest years, but 2016 expecting 830,000 passengers (3% increase over 2015) on 228 sailings. 2002 had over 1.1 million pax whilst 2010 had a low of only 579k. Good to see the numbers are on the uptick again.

There are some larger ships this year as well.

https://www.biv.com/article/2016/4/busiest-vancouver-cruise-season-2009-sets-sail-tod/

Of course this really helps fuel the seasonality of traffic at YVR, particularly transborder.

stiffdeadman
Apr 5, 2016, 3:59 AM
Well it's official. Alaska is buying Virgin America. Perhaps this could mean Alaska re-instates YVR-LAX/SFO using VA metal as I would think some of the excess capacity that is currently flying SEA/PDX-LAX/SFO between the two airlines will be redeployed when the networks are fully merged. Being an Alaska Airlines Mileage Plan member I am happy.

http://flyingbettertogether.com/

ShawnShank
Apr 5, 2016, 6:41 AM
Air China switching down to A330-200 from 777-300ER on the current daily flight from 1st of August to 30th of September, and is also operating the second 4 weekly/daily seasonal flight on the A330-200. Seems a bit odd, was last summer at 11 weekly maximum? And if so was the overall capacity higher than 14 weekly A332?

http://airlineroute.net/2016/04/05/ca-yvr-s16/

Johnny Aussie
Apr 5, 2016, 7:10 AM
Air China switching down to A330-200 from 777-300ER on the current daily flight from 1st of August to 30th of September, and is also operating the second 4 weekly/daily seasonal flight on the A330-200. Seems a bit odd, was last summer at 11 weekly maximum? And if so was the overall capacity higher than 14 weekly A332?

http://airlineroute.net/2016/04/05/ca-yvr-s16/

The last sentence in the article indicates its going double daily from 25 July to 4 September.

Last summer it was 11 weekly except for about three weeks in August/early September when it went to 14 weekly.

This summer it bumps up to 14 weekly for a longer period.... More like 6 weeks.

So yeah from 1 August - 30 September it will be all A330-200s. Having recently done MEL-PEK-YVR-PEK-MEL the PEK-YVR-PEK were on 773s which were so much better than the old 332s on the MEL-PEK-MEL flights. Boo I say! Looks like it's all 773 again from 1 October when it winds back to once daily only.

ACT7
Apr 5, 2016, 2:35 PM
Compare that to Metro Toronto 532k and Vancouver 411k

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Canadians#Population_statistics

Richmond still beat them all in the percentage :D
Not to sound too picky, but GTA is closer to 600K Chinese (not including Hamilton and Oshawa CMA's, which wouldn't add a whole lot anyway). That's as of 2011:

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMA&Code1=535&Data=Count&SearchText=toronto&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=Ethnic%20origin&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1

Greater Vancouver's is closer to 435K - again 2011.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMA&Code1=933&Data=Count&SearchText=Vancouver&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=59&A1=Ethnic%20origin&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1

LeftCoaster
Apr 5, 2016, 5:30 PM
The last sentence in the article indicates its going double daily from 25 July to 4 September.

Last summer it was 11 weekly except for about three weeks in August/early September when it went to 14 weekly.

This summer it bumps up to 14 weekly for a longer period.... More like 6 weeks.

So yeah from 1 August - 30 September it will be all A330-200s. Having recently done MEL-PEK-YVR-PEK-MEL the PEK-YVR-PEK were on 773s which were so much better than the old 332s on the MEL-PEK-MEL flights. Boo I say! Looks like it's all 773 again from 1 October when it winds back to once daily only.

First signs of weakness on YVR-China runs it seems.

Double daily 332 is a capacity decrease from last years 11x 773 and a big capacity hit to the short period of 14x 773.

Hopefully this is just some internal shuffling of metal at Air China and not a sign of weakness on the route/market.

trofirhen
Apr 5, 2016, 5:39 PM
First signs of weakness on YVR-China runs it seems.

Double daily 332 is a capacity decrease from last years 11x 773 and a big capacity hit to the short period of 14x 773.

Hopefully this is just some internal shuffling of metal at Air China and not a sign of weakness on the route/market.
The Chinese economy has taken rather a beating recently. That could be a factor.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 5, 2016, 10:01 PM
First signs of weakness on YVR-China runs it seems.

Double daily 332 is a capacity decrease from last years 11x 773 and a big capacity hit to the short period of 14x 773.

Hopefully this is just some internal shuffling of metal at Air China and not a sign of weakness on the route/market.

Definitely odd. Especially during peak August. It could be just an aircraft utilisation issue until they get more 77Ws delivered. Who knows. At least double daily goes for a longer period. Some of the lost capacity being replaced by AC's daily 77W as it gets the new HD version so seating goes from 349 to 450.
Overall China is going to be up with CZ now daily 77W, PVG on AC going to be a daily HD 77W and the new Xiamen coming online.

Klazu
Apr 5, 2016, 10:52 PM
Sure, 777s are big and beautiful planes, but we see so many of them. Number of seats aside, I am personally happy to see more rarer A330s at YVR. Currently I think only China Eastern flies one to YVR and perhaps some of the YUL flights are also on Air Canada A330s? Lufthansa's flight to MUC is on A340s?

nname
Apr 5, 2016, 11:21 PM
Air China goes double daily on the same day as Xiamen commence their service to YVR, hmmm :rolleyes:

teriyaki
Apr 5, 2016, 11:23 PM
We also get the occasional A330 from Air Transat, but yea they're more rare than the 787 and 777's now, who woulda thunk.

ShawnShank
Apr 5, 2016, 11:24 PM
Sure, 777s are big and beautiful planes, but we see so many of them. Number of seats aside, I am personally happy to see more rarer A330s at YVR. Currently I think only China Eastern flies one to YVR and perhaps some of the YUL flights are also on Air Canada A330s? Lufthansa's flight to MUC is on A340s?

MUC is daily A333 at first (May 1st onwards) then splits to 4 weekly A333/3 weekly A346 on May 14th and stays that way

LeftCoaster
Apr 6, 2016, 12:41 AM
Definitely odd. Especially during peak August. It could be just an aircraft utilisation issue until they get more 77Ws delivered. Who knows. At least double daily goes for a longer period. Some of the lost capacity being replaced by AC's daily 77W as it gets the new HD version so seating goes from 349 to 450.
Overall China is going to be up with CZ now daily 77W, PVG on AC going to be a daily HD 77W and the new Xiamen coming online.

Seems to be a big loss of premium across the board though. No first and significantly less business on the CA A330 and the 77HD from Air Canada loses a lot of high yielding seats as well.

Sure, 777s are big and beautiful planes, but we see so many of them. Number of seats aside, I am personally happy to see more rarer A330s at YVR. Currently I think only China Eastern flies one to YVR and perhaps some of the YUL flights are also on Air Canada A330s? Lufthansa's flight to MUC is on A340s?

Lufthansa to Munich is a split 330/340, Edelweiss is a 330 as well. Everything AT sends is A330. To asia the proposed Tianjin, Beijing Capital and Hainan are all 330. 777 is vastly superior to the 330 in every way, the way I see it we have more than enough already.

trofirhen
Apr 6, 2016, 12:52 AM
Does all of this - more A330s than 777s - indicate an actual or impending downturn?

Infrequent Poster
Apr 6, 2016, 12:54 AM
With the new YVR website and the new format of presenting the statistics....

It is showing February as 1.6 million on the Facts & Stats landing page.

http://www.yvr.ca/en/about-yvr/facts-and-stats

But when you open up the Traffic Update link it shows October 2015.

Since they are rounding to the nearest 100,000 Feb could be anywhere from 1,550,001 to 1,649,999. :haha:

Feb 2015 was 1,437,469. This will mean a MINIMUM increase of at least 7.8% but I'll bet it will be much higher than that!

JA to investigate!

Am I missing something here? Why does it show october 2015? This is a mistake?

nname
Apr 6, 2016, 1:41 AM
Does all of this - more A330s than 777s - indicate an actual or impending downturn?

Most of the Chinese carriers have a large fleet of A330s and much smaller fleet of 777/787. Since Vancouver is one of the few cities in NA that is reachable by the A330s, they would prefer sending those here and deploy the 777s to longer routes.

Klazu
Apr 6, 2016, 2:10 AM
Wow, there is much more A330 action than I knew! I do sometimes wonder about the Air Transat and Edelweiss flights though, if they are for real or just a myth. :) I have never seen either airline at YVR. They must be flying on some odd hours or departing from some strange gates, as I am always on a lookout for some new plane tails and still have never seen one.

I think you guys worry too much about the premium seats. Almost none of us enjoys the luxury of flying Business, not to mention First frequently, so why does it matter so much? I doubt YVR's success depends on the number of premium seats and if the airlines see better investment in lower product, who are we to judge them? They are choosing to fly the product that is most profitable for them. I doubt the demand for premium seats depends on their availability, but the opposite is true and an important factor.

Anyways, just my 2c. Like said, I like seeing different planes and airlines, so more the mix, the better. Also, Economy Class has normally more leg room on other plane types than 777 or 787, so it is good to have those planes as an option as well. Or maybe it is just the case with Air Canada, perhaps.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 6, 2016, 2:14 AM
Seems to be a big loss of premium across the board though. No first and significantly less business on the CA A330 and the 77HD from Air Canada loses a lot of high yielding seats as well.

Yes it is. But I think it's temporary. Probably is just a temporary shuffle due to fleet utilisation. Who knows. Let's also not forget YVR is not a high premium market. It's definitely larger than most people think but it's not a YYZ, LAX or SFO etc.

Does all of this - more A330s than 777s - indicate an actual or impending downturn?

It's just one route shifting to a 330 for two months. But it's going to be double daily for longer than last year. We need to know the reason why this is happening before we can jump to any conclusions.. How do you see this as an impending downturn? The other A330 routes people are discussing here are current exisiting routes that have not down-gauged. In fact China Eastern holding at double daily and posted right through next winter at the moment, LH to MUC is a capacity increase with the 346 being put on the route 3 days per week. Tianjin and Beijing Capital only have 330s as their long haul fleet.

Am I missing something here? Why does it show october 2015? This is a mistake?

Just a tech glitch when they turned on the new site I am sure.

Most of the Chinese carriers have a large fleet of A330s and much smaller fleet of 777/787. Since Vancouver is one of the few cities in NA that is reachable by the A330s, they would prefer sending those here and deploy the 777s to longer routes.

That is also a plausible explanation.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 6, 2016, 2:20 AM
Ah, there is much more A330 action than I knew! I do sometimes wonder about the Air Transat and Edelweiss flights though, if they are for real or just a myth. :) I have never seen either airline at YVR. They must be flying on some odd hours or departing from some strange gates, as I am always on a lookout for some new plane tails and still have never seen one.

I think you guys worry about the premium seats too much. Almost none of us enjoys the luxury of flying Business not to mention First frequently, so why does it matter so much. I doubt YVR's success depends on the number of premium seats and if the airlines see better investment in lower product, who are we to judge them? They are choosing to fly the product that is most profitable for them. I doubt the demand for premium seats depends on their availability, but the opposite is crucial.

Anyways, just my 2c. Like said, I like seeing different planes and airlines, so more the mix the better. Also, Economy Class has normally more leg room in other plane types than 777 or 787, so it is good to have those planes as an option as well.

I wish I'd seen this before I just posted. But you are spot on about Premium seating on YVR flights. Despite YVR being down the list on premium traffic numbers, it's still larger than most people realise. But, it still is nowhere near as big as LAX, NYC, YYZ, SFO etc... YVR is very successful on many routes despite the lower premium demand. Look at all the new flights/airlines giving YVR love.

As for Transat - during the winter, flights are operated on sun routes (except LGW) so the flights tend to land late at night and depart early mornings. However, just wait about a month or two when the summer season kicks in and you will see them more frequently during the day when the European season kicks in. TS will be flying more A330s to Europe this summer compared to last as well.

As for Edelweiss - 3 times per week summer seasonal starting soon as well. So have a look out for them!

LeftCoaster
Apr 6, 2016, 6:50 PM
So hidden in this mess of YVRs new website stats page is how good these numbers could really be.

If we assume it is 1.6 million flat, which it could be lower or higher, that indicates a growth rate of 11.3%, and that is the middle assumption. At a bare minimum it is 7.48% and could go as high as 14.4%.

3.6% of the increase is due to the extra day in this leap year, but even with a 3.6% reduction, all but the lowest estimates look like a great month.

I think you guys worry too much about the premium seats. Almost none of us enjoys the luxury of flying Business, not to mention First frequently, so why does it matter so much? I doubt YVR's success depends on the number of premium seats and if the airlines see better investment in lower product, who are we to judge them? They are choosing to fly the product that is most profitable for them. I doubt the demand for premium seats depends on their availability, but the opposite is true and an important factor.


I don't care about the premium seats because I fly them a lot, I look at them because I think it indicates the strength of a route better than economy flying. If a route is heavy premium, like a lot of YVR-Asia seem to be, airlines are likely making better yields off it and are more likely to keep it during tough times and more likely to upgrade it/send nicer planes etc...

Johnny Aussie
Apr 6, 2016, 8:56 PM
I love my stats and I love the Australian BITRE (Bureau of Infrastructure, Transportation and Regional Economics). Each month they publish a separate document on the Australian domestic market and one on the international market. So much juicy information is included in these monthly reports.

Here is January 2016 report just released.

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/files/International_airline_activity_1601.pdf

Looking at Canada traffic:

AC flew 3,022 fewer pax in Jan 2016 vs Jan 2015 (was a daily 77W in 2015 vs 77L in 2016)
QF flew 3,490 more pax (a 99.9% increase on 83.3% more flights in Jan 2016)
AC had a LF of 83.4% (82.9% in 2015)
QF had a LF of 89.5% (84.4% in 2015) - note this LF is much higher than their USA services
YVR pax grew from 17,943 to 19,298 (AC and QF)
YYZ pax decreased from 3,470 to 2,583 (AC only)

Both airlines filling more seats in Jan 2016 vs Jan 2015 but QF seems to be filling more. As we can see they are increasing their flying again this year and into next winter. And of course BNE on AC kicking off in just a couple of months.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 8, 2016, 11:25 AM
AC just updated summer schedules and they are upgauging:

NRT from a 788 to a 77W
ICN from a 788 to a 789

So that means there will be nothing smaller than a 789 flying from YVR to Asia this summer on AC and BNE will be AC's only international 788 flight now this summer.... Well and EWR too of course.

Daily 77Ws to NRT, PVG, PEK and HKG. Daily 789 to ICN.

NRT is a huge boost in capacity. It will be on the 400 seater with the config with 40J seats.

Overall Asia/Pacific on AC from YVR is now a HUGE increase in seats compared to last summer.

Hourglass
Apr 8, 2016, 12:40 PM
I love my stats and I love the Australian BITRE (Bureau of Infrastructure, Transportation and Regional Economics). Each month they publish a separate document on the Australian domestic market and one on the international market. So much juicy information is included in these monthly reports.

Here is January 2016 report just released.

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/files/International_airline_activity_1601.pdf

Looking at Canada traffic:

AC flew 3,022 fewer pax in Jan 2016 vs Jan 2015 (was a daily 77W in 2015 vs 77L in 2016)
QF flew 3,490 more pax (a 99.9% increase on 83.3% more flights in Jan 2016)
AC had a LF of 83.4% (82.9% in 2015)
QF had a LF of 89.5% (84.4% in 2015) - note this LF is much higher than their USA services
YVR pax grew from 17,943 to 19,298 (AC and QF)
YYZ pax decreased from 3,470 to 2,583 (AC only)

Both airlines filling more seats in Jan 2016 vs Jan 2015 but QF seems to be filling more. As we can see they are increasing their flying again this year and into next winter. And of course BNE on AC kicking off in just a couple of months.

Johnny, I haven't seen anything from QF about their plans for YVR this year. Are they doing seasonal summer and winter flights again this year?

trofirhen
Apr 8, 2016, 1:02 PM
Johnny, I haven't seen anything from QF about their plans for YVR this year. Are they doing seasonal summer and winter flights again this year?
I'd love to see QF back year-round. I wonder if that'll ever happen?

nname
Apr 8, 2016, 5:42 PM
AC just updated summer schedules and they are upgauging:

NRT from a 788 to a 77W
ICN from a 788 to a 789

AC is trying to route many of their Asia traffic from places like TPE and SIN through NRT or ICN through codesharing with BR and SQ. I thought that was mainly to help their YYZ-ICN (new) and YYZ-NRT (seasonal) route. Maybe this result in high demand for both routes from YVR? :D

LeftCoaster
Apr 8, 2016, 7:10 PM
I love my stats and I love the Australian BITRE (Bureau of Infrastructure, Transportation and Regional Economics). Each month they publish a separate document on the Australian domestic market and one on the international market. So much juicy information is included in these monthly reports.

Here is January 2016 report just released.

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/files/International_airline_activity_1601.pdf

Looking at Canada traffic:

AC flew 3,022 fewer pax in Jan 2016 vs Jan 2015 (was a daily 77W in 2015 vs 77L in 2016)
QF flew 3,490 more pax (a 99.9% increase on 83.3% more flights in Jan 2016)
AC had a LF of 83.4% (82.9% in 2015)
QF had a LF of 89.5% (84.4% in 2015) - note this LF is much higher than their USA services
YVR pax grew from 17,943 to 19,298 (AC and QF)
YYZ pax decreased from 3,470 to 2,583 (AC only)

Both airlines filling more seats in Jan 2016 vs Jan 2015 but QF seems to be filling more. As we can see they are increasing their flying again this year and into next winter. And of course BNE on AC kicking off in just a couple of months.

Given QFs high and growing LF and the pretty open bilateral between the two countries I'm surprised we haven't seen any increase on the SYD-YVR route. Qantas isn't lacking the metal to fly it are they? Given the licking they seem to be taking on the kangaroo route they should have plenty of reason to siphon a plane off the push SYD to daily.

AC just updated summer schedules and they are upgauging:

NRT from a 788 to a 77W
ICN from a 788 to a 789

So that means there will be nothing smaller than a 789 flying from YVR to Asia this summer on AC and BNE will be AC's only international 788 flight now this summer.... Well and EWR too of course.

Daily 77Ws to NRT, PVG, PEK and HKG. Daily 789 to ICN.

NRT is a huge boost in capacity. It will be on the 400 seater with the config with 40J seats.

Overall Asia/Pacific on AC from YVR is now a HUGE increase in seats compared to last summer.

That's a monster pop on NRT, AC is really concentrating their western growth in YVR. I'm guessing their next move would be CAN? TPE would be an obvious choice too if there were any capacity available.

On the Europe front it will be interesting to see how their YYC flights fare over the next 24 months. They only fly to LHR from YVR so there are a lot of unserved destinations they've been happy to leave to their competition or alliance partners. If YYC loads drop (so far they've stayed strong) I wouldn't be shocked to see them move YYC-FRA to YVR-FRA.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 8, 2016, 8:20 PM
Johnny, I haven't seen anything from QF about their plans for YVR this year. Are they doing seasonal summer and winter flights again this year?

Yes and for longer too!

Summer from 30 June to 13 August - starting a bit later but ending much later. So from only 4 weeks to 6 weeks.
Winter from 10 December - 30 January - extended to 7 weeks from 6 last year

AC is trying to route many of their Asia traffic from places like TPE and SIN through NRT or ICN through codesharing with BR and SQ. I thought that was mainly to help their YYZ-ICN (new) and YYZ-NRT (seasonal) route. Maybe this result in high demand for both routes from YVR? :D

And PVG. Each Asia/Pacific route will see more seats compared to last year except HKG will be the same.

Given QFs high and growing LF and the pretty open bilateral between the two countries I'm surprised we haven't seen any increase on the SYD-YVR route. Qantas isn't lacking the metal to fly it are they? Given the licking they seem to be taking on the kangaroo route they should have plenty of reason to siphon a plane off the push SYD to daily.

That's a monster pop on NRT, AC is really concentrating their western growth in YVR. I'm guessing their next move would be CAN? TPE would be an obvious choice too if there were any capacity available.

On the Europe front it will be interesting to see how their YYC flights fare over the next 24 months. They only fly to LHR from YVR so there are a lot of unserved destinations they've been happy to leave to their competition or alliance partners. If YYC loads drop (so far they've stayed strong) I wouldn't be shocked to see them move YYC-FRA to YVR-FRA.

QF is increasing the periods of flying - see above. Their problem is a suitable aircraft to make the route viable year round. Their 744s and 388s are just too big. Just wait until they get their 787-900s....

I can see CAN and/or TPE, plus NGO on rouge. Again, looking at AC's investor day growth potential map gives some clues. At least AC will be code sharing on BR to TPE again.

FRA is indeed on AC's YVR potential route list. I highly doubt they would drop YYC though. LH will eventually have to replace the 744 on YVR-FRA. The don't have any more 748s or 388s coming which would be too premium heavy for YVR anyway. A scenario I see would be YVR-FRA and YVR-MUC both become A350-900 routes. The drop in capacity on FRA would be replaced with AC's own metal on a 788 for example. Overall capacity would increase on the Germany routes.

nname
Apr 8, 2016, 8:21 PM
That's a monster pop on NRT, AC is really concentrating their western growth in YVR. I'm guessing their next move would be CAN? TPE would be an obvious choice too if there were any capacity available.

I'm not sure about if AC wants to fly to CAN. Seems like their plan for YVR-CAN pretty much shelved after CZ start flying the route. Instead they planned YYZ-CAN, but now CZ is planning to start the route this summer...

I would think SZX maybe a better choice for them - it is a Star Alliance hub (CAN is a SkyTeam hub). There is already a strong domestic and short-haul international network by Shenzhen Airlines, and Air China is currently aggressively expanding long-haul routes from there. There is currently no direct competition, plus they can take some of the unserved HKG demand when the HD flight gets full...


I can see CAN and/or TPE, plus NGO on rouge. Again, looking at AC's investor day growth potential map gives some clues. At least AC will be code sharing on BR to TPE again.

Well sort of. They only codeshare BR with TPE-ICN and TPE-NRT to feed onto their network there.

The potential route on investor day map shows for the Asia side:
YVR-TPE
YVR-SIN
YVR-NGO (rouge?)
YVR-CTS (rouge?)
YYC-PEK (started by HU)
YYZ-CAN (started by CZ)
YYZ-TPE
YYZ-BKK
YYZ-DEL (started)
YYZ-BOM
YYZ-DXB (started)
YUL-PVG


And PVG. Each Asia/Pacific route will see more seats compared to last year except HKG will be the same.

I remember reading somewhere that the Canada - Hkong Kong bilateral limits the frequency to 14x weekly on Canada side? If that's the case, a 777HD is the most they can put on YVR-HKG, unless they want to either drop the YYZ route or get some A380HD :D

Johnny Aussie
Apr 8, 2016, 8:35 PM
I'm not sure about if AC wants to fly to CAN. Seems like their plan for YVR-CAN pretty much shelved after CZ start flying the route. Instead they planned YYZ-CAN, but now CZ is planning to start the route this summer...

I would think SZX maybe a better choice for them - it is a Star Alliance hub (CAN is a SkyTeam hub). There is already a strong domestic and short-haul international network by Shenzhen Airlines, and Air China is currently aggressively expanding long-haul routes from there. There is currently no direct competition, plus they can take some of the unserved HKG demand when the HD flight gets full...

Well sort of. They only codeshare BR with TPE-ICN and TPE-NRT to feed onto their network there.

I'm not sure if CZ CAN-YYZ is going to be approved. The number of allowable frequencies between Canada and China won't currently allow it. Same problem tying up Beijing Capital, Tianjin Airlines and Hainan's YVR applications. After Xiamen to YVR and Hainan to YYC, there are apparently only two frequencies available between Canada and China. However, the next round of talks is scheduled soon so perhaps more access will be granted.

SZX is certainly trying to expand its long haul network. They are planning Aussie services too. Someone mentioned earlier on this thread China Southern was interested in SZX-YVR but that information could never be corroborated with anything else.

And yes, you're right about BR. My mistake. The actual YVR-TPE route won't have AC's flight numbers on it. They should though!

nname
Apr 8, 2016, 9:18 PM
I still can't find any info about the capacity limit for Canada-China... 64x weekly seems to be pretty random number :???:

LeftCoaster
Apr 8, 2016, 10:15 PM
QF is increasing the periods of flying - see above. Their problem is a suitable aircraft to make the route viable year round. Their 744s and 388s are just too big. Just wait until they get their 787-900s....

Makes sense the 747 is too big to just throw in on a daily. Couldn't an A330-200 make it until the 787s are delivered though?

When is QF expecting their dreamliners? I took a quick look online and couldn't find a delivery date?


I'm not sure about if AC wants to fly to CAN. Seems like their plan for YVR-CAN pretty much shelved after CZ start flying the route. Instead they planned YYZ-CAN, but now CZ is planning to start the route this summer...

I would think SZX maybe a better choice for them - it is a Star Alliance hub (CAN is a SkyTeam hub). There is already a strong domestic and short-haul international network by Shenzhen Airlines, and Air China is currently aggressively expanding long-haul routes from there. There is currently no direct competition, plus they can take some of the unserved HKG demand when the HD flight gets full...


Fair enough, I didn't include SZX since it is for the most part still a very domestic focussed airport. If that is intended to change certainly it could be an attractive option for AC.

Who of the Chinese carriers could fly that route? it's one airline per route, but not one airline per destination, so might we see another Air China or China Southern destination?

I'm not sure if CZ CAN-YYZ is going to be approved. The number of allowable frequencies between Canada and China won't currently allow it. Same problem tying up Beijing Capital, Tianjin Airlines and Hainan's YVR applications. After Xiamen to YVR and Hainan to YYC, there are apparently only two frequencies available between Canada and China. However, the next round of talks is scheduled soon so perhaps more access will be granted.

SZX is certainly trying to expand its long haul network. They are planning Aussie services too. Someone mentioned earlier on this thread China Southern was interested in SZX-YVR but that information could never be corroborated with anything else.


I would be shocked if either government did anything to hamper the air travel growth between the two countries. Any reason you can foresee that the bilateral would not be expanded to accommodate several more years of growth?

Klazu
Apr 8, 2016, 10:35 PM
I am surprised that you guys think Air Canada and China Southern would potentially consider start flying between Vancouver and Shenzhen. I mean, Shenzhen is a huge and important city of over 10 million people, but it is very close to both Hong Kong and Guangzhou and well-connected. All those airports even have a direct ferry connection between each other (I am not 100% sure about CAN), which makes it possible to bypass immigration.

So why do you think airlines would be eager to start flying there as well, instead of just adding planes on their current HKG (AC) and CAN (CZ) routes? Or is Shenzhen just strong enough to warrant and support its own direct connection?

It's an interesting city for sure (I was there in February) and it would be cool to have a direct connection to all three major Pearl River Delta megacities. I just want to understand what the benefit to AC and CZ would be? Why is CZ not focusing on building it's own mega hub at CAN?

nname
Apr 8, 2016, 11:17 PM
It's an interesting city for sure (I was there in February) and it would be cool to have a direct connection to all three major Pearl River Delta megacities. I just want to understand what the benefit to AC and CZ would be? Why is CZ not focusing on building it's own mega hub at CAN?

CZ - Subsidy. Airlines won't get anything by increase frequency, but new routes from secondary cities will generally get subsidized by local government. This why new low-frequency routes from secondary cities are popping up all over the places. Chinese Airlines will do everything for Subsidy, like how MF choose to do XMN-YVR, FOC-JFK, SZX-SEA instead of flying everything from one hub.

CA - They cannot fly from CAN because the route is taken by CZ. They cannot fly from HKG either. So SZX would be the most logical choice as they already have Shenzhen Airlines (ZH) to feed them from their hub there.

AC - If what I heard is correct about the capacity cap, then they cannot add more frequency to HKG, They cannot upgauge from 777HD either, so to add more capacity to the region they would either team up with CA/ZH at SZX or fight with CZ alone from CAN.

Just a note, long-hual destinations that will have direct flights from all of CAN, SZX, HKG by the end of this year:
SYD, MEL, AKL, LAX

I would think if Auckland could support direct flight from all 3 airports (multiple dailies from 2 of them too), then YVR might be able too...

Johnny Aussie
Apr 9, 2016, 1:23 AM
I still can't find any info about the capacity limit for Canada-China... 64x weekly seems to be pretty random number :???:

64?

CZ CANYVR 7
CA PEKYVR 14 PEKYUL 3 TTL 17
MU PVGYVR 14 PVGYYZ 7 TTL 21
HU PEKYYZ 7 PEKYYC 3 TTL 10
3U SHEYVR 3
MF XMNYVR 3

TTL 61

The problem is the actual frequency limit isn't public info. It's also more complex than just a simple formula of total frequencies. For the sake of argument without getting too complicated it's capped at "roughly" 63 frequencies per week (9 daily) subject to some exceptions. I am not 100% privy to this information anyway so this is all based on my understanding of putting 2 and 2 together. Like I said I can't be 100% certain so I'll be up front and base it on the above assumptions.

After Xiamen's flights and Hainan's to YYC, that leaves 2 weekly frequencies available for any further China-Canada flights on Chinese carriers. The list and number of flights requested at the CAAC greatly exceeds the 2 per week available. That means, based on the current availability, Tianjin, Beijing Capital and Hainan with only 2 per week available may not think it's worth starting any further service until they can maybe get a new service to be 3 per week at a minimum. Who knows!

Johnny Aussie
Apr 9, 2016, 1:38 AM
Makes sense the 747 is too big to just throw in on a daily. Couldn't an A330-200 make it until the 787s are delivered though?

When is QF expecting their dreamliners? I took a quick look online and couldn't find a delivery date.

332 would be just stretching it too far from SYD-YVR.

The new Dreamliners will come online next year!

http://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-dreamliners-symbolise-new-era-for-national-carrier/

Here's one of the many stories published speculating where they 787-9s will go.

http://www.traveller.com.au/qantas-boeing-7879-dreamliner-routes-what-qantas-has-planned-for-new-planes-gj3tdb

MEL-DFW and SYD-YVR discussed frequently.

nname
Apr 9, 2016, 1:46 AM
64?

CZ CANYVR 7
CA PEKYVR 14 PEKYUL 3 TTL 17
MU PVGYVR 14 PVGYYZ 7 TTL 21
HU PEKYYZ 7 PEKYYC 3 TTL 10
3U SHEYVR 3
MF XMNYVR 3

TTL 61

4th weekly had been added to PEKYYC later this year, so that makes it 62. So one weekly left?

If there is only 2 weekly, I'm sure Tianjin Airlines will take it. They started their London service with only 2 weekly after all, and planned their Moscow routes with only 1 weekly. They won't have enough planes to run 4 weekly service anyways until late this year or early next year.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 9, 2016, 1:55 AM
4th weekly had been added to PEKYYC later this year, so that makes it 62. So one weekly left?

If there is only 2 weekly, I'm sure Tianjin Airlines will take it. They started their London service with only 2 weekly after all, and planned their Moscow routes with only 1 weekly. They won't have enough planes to run 4 weekly service anyways until late this year or early next year.

Yeah this is where it starts to get tricky. I think some of the applications were for later in the year anyway. I did a summary of all of the YVR applications but can't find it anymore! Boooo.

Perhaps 2 weekly to London and once weekly to Moscow work for them. To make YVR work, perhaps they want more? Who knows. And yes I forgot about the extra weekly to YYC being added!

But once weekly available just doesn't seem worth it. Will see how the next round of negotiations go.... Help clear the backlog of applications.

nname
Apr 9, 2016, 2:03 AM
The thing with China is that, even with 1x weekly, they might get the subsidy from local government AND prevent competitors from starting the route (and in this case, stop competitor from staring any route to Canada). It may not seems worth it for us, but with these factor in, who knows! The entire Hainan group (Tianjin, Beijing Capital, etc) is known for throwing low frequency flights between random airports all over the places

There are so many new routes popping up from China lately, and everything above 2x or 3x weekly seems more and more rare now....

Klazu
Apr 9, 2016, 2:16 AM
Well this sucks, but I am not surprised. I have always found it strange how anyone can walk to the luggage carousels at the domestic terminal and snatch a bag. I hope they will crack down on it and also install some small gates to prevent general people from walking up there.

Global: RCMP using bait bags to crack down on baggage theft at YVR (http://globalnews.ca/news/2628174/rcmp-using-bait-bags-to-crack-down-on-baggage-theft-at-yvr/)

An increase in baggage thefts at Vancouver International Airport has prompted Richmond RCMP to start using “bait bags” to catch thieves.

“I’m always impressed by YVR in so many ways compared to most other airports, but this lack of secure area as you leave the departures is one of the weakest points you’ll see in any terminal,” says Larry Issac.

The freelance sports producer says one of his bags was taken from carousel number six in February, after an Air Canada flight from Calgary to Vancouver.

“Bags have never been stolen from me before…it shocked me,” says Issac.

Global News has learned that at least 30 suitcases have been stolen from the domestic arrivals terminal since late January. The luggage carousels are not in a secure zone, and anyone from the public has access.

“All other airports you are still in the secure area as you go down the escalator. But [at YVR], thieves come off the SkyTrain platform and just blend in on the escalator as if they’re a fellow passenger. Not only do they have access..but they can come down with passengers on the escalator,” argues Issac.

The problem is so prevalent that Air Canada and the RCMP launched a ‘bait bag’ program in early February to catch the crooks. Richmond RCMP would not comment on the program, but say they are investigating, and that two people have been arrested and charged with theft under $5,000.

But Issac’s bag is still missing – and he’s hoping this situation forces YVR to increase security at the baggage carousels.

“It’s one area they have to fix up,” he says.

“This could be the trigger that gets them to remedy that aspect of it.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/2628174/rcmp-using-bait-bags-to-crack-down-on-baggage-theft-at-yvr/

Johnny Aussie
Apr 9, 2016, 2:16 AM
The thing with China is that, even with 1x weekly, they might get the subsidy from local government AND prevent competitors from starting the route. It may not seems worth it for us, but with these factor in, who knows! The entire Hainan group (Tianjin, Beijing Capital, etc) is known for throwing 1x or 2x weekly flights between random airports all over the places

There are so many new routes popping up from China lately, and everything above 2x or 3x weekly seems more and more rare now....

All valid points... It is pretty crazy.... maybe they are throwing darts at a map... Let's fly from.... whoosh.... Shenyang to...... whoosh.... Sheboygan!

:P

It's beer o'clock here btw!

ShawnShank
Apr 9, 2016, 4:32 AM
Does anyone know of any information relating to the time when TF-AAK (the Iron Maiden 744) is supposed to come in from Edmonton tomorrow? Hoping to get some shots of it landing

Johnny Aussie
Apr 9, 2016, 5:53 AM
Does anyone know of any information relating to the time when TF-AAK (the Iron Maiden 744) is supposed to come in from Edmonton tomorrow? Hoping to get some shots of it landing

I keep reading ETD YEG @1400 ETA YVR @1430.

Keep checking FR24 (Flight Radar 24) and/or Flightaware for more accurate information tomorrow morning.

They seem to be using the flight code CC666.

Hourglass
Apr 9, 2016, 4:01 PM
Didn't see this posted anywhere. Interesting article on the 1-year anniversary of Air France flights to YVR:

http://www.travelweek.ca/news/air-frances-first-year-yvr-route-exceeds-expectations/

Hope AF continues to grow @ YVR!

trofirhen
Apr 9, 2016, 4:49 PM
I recall the days when I used to rant interminably about the need for a direct Paris - YVR flight.
"Maybe Rouge seasonal...." / "it's only for those 'First Vacation in Paris types" / "not enough possible yield" / .... etc etc etc were the expert responses.
Well, now ....... what more can I say? :D

Klazu
Apr 9, 2016, 6:14 PM
The route has been there for an year now, so have you trofirhen flown it already? :) Sometimes I feel like we wish for routes without ever even planning to fly them.

trofirhen
Apr 9, 2016, 7:02 PM
The route has been there for an year now, so have you trofirhen flown it already? :) Sometimes I feel like we wish for routes without ever even planning to fly them.
I was back in Vancouver just 2 1/2 months before it came into effect.
CDG-YUL-YVR to Vancouver, then YVR-SFO-CDG back here. It'll be on AF next time, I'm sure.
BTW, I don't have the money you have, so please excuse me if I don't fly as far or as often.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 9, 2016, 7:20 PM
The Air France article pretty much surmises most European services.

Strong in summer, struggle in winter. That's YVR for you.

Happy to hear they are exceeding their expectations though.

Be good to see it go to daily by next summer.

Denscity
Apr 9, 2016, 9:36 PM
Hey Johnny just wondering why the next new service to Oz is to BNE and not MEL?

Johnny Aussie
Apr 9, 2016, 9:39 PM
After doing a mini-loop just SE of Kelowna, looks like EFO will be on the ground in about 20 mins most likely on 26R.

Confirmed 26R and I distinctly heard a British accent from the pilot... :P

Johnny Aussie
Apr 9, 2016, 9:48 PM
Hey Johnny just wondering why the next new service to Oz is to BNE and not MEL?

Although AC publicly stated MEL would have been their preferred market, BNE is an ideal route for a 788. My understanding is the 788 wouldn't be able to make MEL from YVR unrestricted and the 789 is just a wee bit on the large side. MEL is a much bigger market than BNE, but geography also plays a big role. BNE and SYD are better located for connections coming from NA. MEL would have to rely on O&D a lot more. So even though O&D is a lot higher from MEL to/from Canada, BNE can capture more of the traffic.

Also at the time of the initial route announcement, AC was restricted to the number of seats they could add to Australia. December last year the restriction was lifted and a much higher cap is being introduced in two steps. So prior to the new cap, AC would have been restricted to only three 788 flights per week. Taking into account the 77L is also increasing from 270 seats to 300 seats for the daily SYD flight. When the cap was lifted, AC jumped at making BNE daily vs say adding a new route to MEL as well. They are probably better off developing BNE before trying a third destination in Australia. Time will tell of course if/when AC decides to launch MEL.
One day it'll happen. I still think AC would be the carrier and not QF. QF will definitely do SYD-YVR so the race is on... who will be first QF SYD-YVR or AC MEL-YVR.... I tip the former.

Klazu
Apr 9, 2016, 11:39 PM
How long is YVR-MEL? I was just reading United's in-flight magazine and they mentioned their new route from San Francisco to Singapore being the longest Dreamliner flight in the world. I don't know if they fly a 787-8 or 787-9 (fo they even have a -9?) on that route, but it must be a long one. I wonder how that would compare to YVR-MEL?

Johnny Aussie
Apr 10, 2016, 12:47 AM
How long is YVR-MEL? I was just reading United's in-flight magazine and they mentioned their new route from San Francisco to Singapore being the longest Dreamliner flight in the world. I don't know if they fly a 787-8 or 787-9 (fo they even have a -9?) on that route, but it must be a long one. I wonder how that would compare to YVR-MEL?

SFO-SIN will be indeed on a 789 and it's about 250 miles further than YVR-MEL.... so that's one loooooong flight!

ShawnShank
Apr 10, 2016, 3:09 AM
I keep reading ETD YEG @1400 ETA YVR @1430.

Keep checking FR24 (Flight Radar 24) and/or Flightaware for more accurate information tomorrow morning.

They seem to be using the flight code CC666.

Thanks, managed to catch it at around 15:03 :)

AC just updated summer schedules and they are upgauging:

NRT from a 788 to a 77W
ICN from a 788 to a 789


When do they start? Checked on google flights yesterday but A/C types didnt seem to be updated

Johnny Aussie
Apr 10, 2016, 4:08 AM
Thanks, managed to catch it at around 15:03 :)



When do they start? Checked on google flights yesterday but A/C types didnt seem to be updated

Yeah they were a bit late.... Even did a mini loop southeast of YLW.

Both flights switch to the larger planes on 17th June. That's the same day AC launches YVR-BNE.

Klazu
Apr 11, 2016, 4:02 AM
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/iron-maiden-yvr-vancouver-boeing-747-ed-force-one-1.jpg
yvr.ca

EastVanMark
Apr 11, 2016, 7:35 PM
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/iron-maiden-yvr-vancouver-boeing-747-ed-force-one-1.jpg
yvr.ca

Friggin Awesome! :banger::banger::banger:

LeftCoaster
Apr 11, 2016, 11:53 PM
332 would be just stretching it too far from SYD-YVR.

The new Dreamliners will come online next year!

http://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-dreamliners-symbolise-new-era-for-national-carrier/

Here's one of the many stories published speculating where they 787-9s will go.

http://www.traveller.com.au/qantas-boeing-7879-dreamliner-routes-what-qantas-has-planned-for-new-planes-gj3tdb

MEL-DFW and SYD-YVR discussed frequently.

Thanks, sounds like it will be a great aircraft for that route, would love to see the roo in Vancouver year round.

I assume they will need to test them on smaller routes end of 2017, so we wouldn't be seeing them until some time in 2018?

LeftCoaster
Apr 11, 2016, 11:55 PM
Still linking to the Oct 2015 stats on the YVR website. Love the new look and all but would be great if they could get us the Feb stats, it's been 6 weeks now...

trofirhen
Apr 12, 2016, 3:18 AM
Thanks, sounds like it will be a great aircraft for that route, would love to see the roo in Vancouver year round.

I assume they will need to test them on smaller routes end of 2017, so we wouldn't be seeing them until some time in 2018?
I would like to know if / when we're going to get Melbourne. Big market, from what I understand.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 12, 2016, 6:42 PM
http://www.yvr.ca/-/media/yvr/documents/facts-sheets/traffic-update/traffic-update_february-2016.pdf?la=en

Overall up 10.8% an increase of 154,768 over Feb 2015
Domestic up 9.4%
Transborder up 7.5%
Asia Pacific up 16.9%
Europe up 20.4%
Misc Int'l up 17.7%

Ttl Int'l up 12.2%

Taking into account the extra day for leap year which gives a 3.6% boost, this is still an excellent result.

twoNeurons
Apr 12, 2016, 7:42 PM
The route has been there for an year now, so have you trofirhen flown it already? :) Sometimes I feel like we wish for routes without ever even planning to fly them.

I do!

I wished and wished for AC ( or preferably NH ) to run YVR-KIX again... even though I wouldn't use it that often. Now we've got an AC Rouge flight... which is better than nothing.

Mostly because I have friends and family that prefer a direct flight. Connecting flights generally suck, 100% of the time.

LeftCoaster
Apr 12, 2016, 8:38 PM
http://www.yvr.ca/-/media/yvr/documents/facts-sheets/traffic-update/traffic-update_february-2016.pdf?la=en

Overall up 10.8% an increase of 154,768 over Feb 2015
Domestic up 9.4%
Transborder up 7.5%
Asia Pacific up 16.9%
Europe up 20.4%
Misc Int'l up 17.7%

Ttl Int'l up 12.2%

Taking into account the extra day for leap year which gives a 3.6% boost, this is still an excellent result.

I sent them an email about this the other day, looks like my whining paid off!

Incredible result, well worth the wait. Like you said even dialing these numbers back 3.6% is astounding growth. Fingers crossed this keeps up!

Any idea what is causing the huge Europe growth? nNot a ton of new service this winter/spring to Europe, unless I am forgetting something.

LeftCoaster
Apr 12, 2016, 8:44 PM
AC just updated summer schedules and they are upgauging:

NRT from a 788 to a 77W
ICN from a 788 to a 789

So that means there will be nothing smaller than a 789 flying from YVR to Asia this summer on AC and BNE will be AC's only international 788 flight now this summer.... Well and EWR too of course.

Daily 77Ws to NRT, PVG, PEK and HKG. Daily 789 to ICN.

NRT is a huge boost in capacity. It will be on the 400 seater with the config with 40J seats.

Overall Asia/Pacific on AC from YVR is now a HUGE increase in seats compared to last summer.

Was thinking about this the other day while at LAX, seeing a couple of very pretty Asiana birds.

Does the recent upguage of AC and Korean metal on the YVR-ICN route make it less likely someone like Asiana would enter the market or signal strength in the route that would make it more likely?

It seems odd to me that Asiana flies to SEA, a skyteam hub, and not YVR a Star Alliance hub, given that they are a Star Alliance member.

Would love to see this tail at YVR:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/4/5/2805548.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Asiana-Airlines/Airbus-A330-323/2805548/L/&sid=215d7ab8b126723341004d384daf256f

trofirhen
Apr 12, 2016, 9:55 PM
http://www.yvr.ca/-/media/yvr/documents/facts-sheets/traffic-update/traffic-update_february-2016.pdf?la=en

Overall up 10.8% an increase of 154,768 over Feb 2015
Domestic up 9.4%
Transborder up 7.5%
Asia Pacific up 16.9%
Europe up 20.4%
Misc Int'l up 17.7%

Ttl Int'l up 12.2%

Taking into account the extra day for leap year which gives a 3.6% boost, this is still an excellent result.
I love the way Europe is leading the pack this time !!! :tup:

Johnny Aussie
Apr 12, 2016, 10:20 PM
I sent them an email about this the other day, looks like my whining paid off!

Any idea what is causing the huge Europe growth? nNot a ton of new service this winter/spring to Europe, unless I am forgetting something.

Transat did fly an additional weekly flight to LGW this winter. Also, AF started service in late March 2015 so that would also have an effect. These 4 additional flights per week would probably contribute the most to the increase. Remember in the winter YVR-Europe scheds are greatly reduced.



Does the recent upguage of AC and Korean metal on the YVR-ICN route make it less likely someone like Asiana would enter the market or signal strength in the route that would make it more likely?

It seems odd to me that Asiana flies to SEA, a skyteam hub, and not YVR a Star Alliance hub, given that they are a Star Alliance member.

Asiana publicly stated about 4 years ago YVR was on their list of future destinations. However, when the OZ214 incident happened at SFO in July 2013, that had an impact on Asiana's growth plans. As far as I am aware Asiana doesn't have one new destination in the pipeline at the moment.

Asiana has flown to SEA for yonks. They have code shared with AC for a long time as well. I'm sure YVR is still on their radar.

To be fair... AF, KL, CI, CZ, MU, AM and soon to be MF all fly to YVR and not SEA. :haha:

In fact, AF, KL, CI, MU and AM have all flown to SEA in the past but all have terminated their SEA services. Granted all terminated before DL set-up SEA as a hub.

I love the way Europe is leading the pack this time !!! :tup:

Go Europe Go! This should continue at least through the summer/autumn.

teriyaki
Apr 12, 2016, 11:50 PM
Was thinking about this the other day while at LAX, seeing a couple of very pretty Asiana birds.

Does the recent upguage of AC and Korean metal on the YVR-ICN route make it less likely someone like Asiana would enter the market or signal strength in the route that would make it more likely?

It seems odd to me that Asiana flies to SEA, a skyteam hub, and not YVR a Star Alliance hub, given that they are a Star Alliance member.

Would love to see this tail at YVR:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/4/5/2805548.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Asiana-Airlines/Airbus-A330-323/2805548/L/&sid=215d7ab8b126723341004d384daf256f

Would love to see this tail here too. Codeshare with AC and stagger their schedule with KE, should get some decent loads right off the bat.

Asiana's hard product in economy is really lacking though, on par with some of the older IFE stuff you see on the EVA 747s and CI A340's, really last gen stuff.

Klazu
Apr 12, 2016, 11:59 PM
The reason why I would like to see Asiana here is that they are one of the only seven 5-Star Airlines (http://www.airlinequality.com/ratings/5-star-airline-ratings/). The two that we currently have are ANA and Cathay Pacific.

Talking about stars, does anyone else think that Air Canada might soon lose their coveted fourth star? They are using it a lot in their advertising, emphasizing how they are the only four-star North American airline. I am just a bit worried that they will be losing their extra star soon, as their product is getting worse by the year (luggage fees, less leg room, poor snacks, etc.). To be honest, I don't know how Air Canada is any different from United, which I fly a lot and is only three stars? :shrug:

LeftCoaster
Apr 13, 2016, 12:12 AM
Transat did fly an additional weekly flight to LGW this winter. Also, AF started service in late March 2015 so that would also have an effect. These 4 additional flights per week would probably contribute the most to the increase. Remember in the winter YVR-Europe scheds are greatly reduced.

Thought AF started earlier, that would be a big chink of it. Still even with those two services, that's 5,274 seats added over the 29 days of Feb 2016. The remaining routes must be seeing much better loads given that there are still over 7,000 more PAX unaccounted for in Feb's growth, which is great news.


Asiana publicly stated about 4 years ago YVR was on their list of future destinations. However, when the OZ214 incident happened at SFO in July 2013, that had an impact on Asiana's growth plans. As far as I am aware Asiana doesn't have one new destination in the pipeline at the moment.

Ahh ya totally forgot about that. Didn't realize it had that big an impact, but I guess the optics were not great.


Go Europe Go! This should continue at least through the summer/autumn.

Especially once the two big new London frequencies start up. That's another 15,000 seats per month right there.

nname
Apr 13, 2016, 1:06 AM
To be fair... AF, KL, CI, CZ, MU, AM and soon to be MF all fly to YVR and not SEA. :haha:

MF plan to start XMN-SZX-SEA in Sept.

trofirhen
Apr 13, 2016, 1:44 AM
MF plan to start XMN-SZX-SEA in Sept.
So, is Seattle playing catch-up with YVR, in that case, do you think?

Spork
Apr 13, 2016, 2:37 AM
I'm planning to go to Japan in May and am on the fence over AC vs. JAL. Given many of you seem to travel at least once a month versus my quarterly travels, any recommendations on the better product for economy?

Orcair
Apr 13, 2016, 3:03 AM
I'm planning to go to Japan in May and am on the fence over AC vs. JAL. Given many of you seem to travel at least once a month versus my quarterly travels, any recommendations on the better product for economy?

JAL uses the 787 in an 8-abreast configuration vs. 9 for every other carrier (each economy seat is approximately 1.5in wider). I would definitely pick JAL over AC unless you have elite status with Star Alliance/Air Canada.

Johnny Aussie
Apr 13, 2016, 3:26 AM
MF plan to start XMN-SZX-SEA in Sept.

Applied not confirmed. My point of course is despite SEA being a SkyTeam hub, YVR has way more SkyTeam carriers than SEA.

Black Box
Apr 13, 2016, 4:43 AM
So, is Seattle playing catch-up with YVR, in that case, do you think?

If by serving the same markets, we'll probably never catch up with YVR. Seattle is a large, fast growing, domestic airport with a few international routes. We are not the largest city on the West Coast, nor the second largest city, whereas, it is said many times, Canada has Vancouver on the Pacific Rim, and nothing else comes close. Also, as you're all aware, the Chinese population in Vancouver is huge and very wealthy. Different markets, different countries, different focus. Vancouver is more luxury resort than Seattle, Seattle is more corporate business travel than Vancouver. Although it would be nice, I don't mind not having all those connections here. Sure, it takes longer to get to certain places without non-stop direct flights, but one can always fly to LA or San Fran, or make the short trip up to Vancouver.

nname
Apr 13, 2016, 6:56 AM
Applied not confirmed. My point of course is despite SEA being a SkyTeam hub, YVR has way more SkyTeam carriers than SEA.

Pretty much confirmed... not yet available for reservation though

MF845 XMN0900 - 1015SZX1245 - 1025SEA 788 135 eff. Sept 26
MF846 SEA1325 - 1815SZX2015 - 2125XMN 788 135 eff. Sept 26

Funny their both NA routes are between a SkyTeam hub (XMN, SEA) and a Star Alliance hub (SZX, YVR)...

Johnny Aussie
Apr 13, 2016, 10:55 AM
AC keeps changing their scheds/equipment. Unusual for them this close to summer season kicking off.

Current changes:

LHR - the second daily will now be operated by a 788 and not the 789. Perhaps just too much of an add. In any event still a large boost in seats from last summer. Looks like ICN and LHR have swapped around. 788 <--> 789.

YYZ will now see more 787 flights.

YYZ widebody breakdown:

77W twice daily
77L once daily
789 twice daily
788 twice daily
763 twice daily

YUL no change once daily 333 and once daily 763
EWR no change once daily 788

casper
Apr 13, 2016, 12:45 PM
The reason why I would like to see Asiana here is that they are one of the only seven 5-Star Airlines (http://www.airlinequality.com/ratings/5-star-airline-ratings/). The two that we currently have are ANA and Cathay Pacific.

Talking about stars, does anyone else think that Air Canada might soon lose their coveted fourth star? They are using it a lot in their advertising, emphasizing how they are the only four-star North American airline. I am just a bit worried that they will be losing their extra star soon, as their product is getting worse by the year (luggage fees, less leg room, poor snacks, etc.). To be honest, I don't know how Air Canada is any different from United, which I fly a lot and is only three stars? :shrug:

I still find United a step down from Air Canada. Things also still depend a fair bit on the aircraft your on. I just did the flight from Vancouver to Montreal on the A330. Probably the best wide body in the AC fleet from a comfort perspective.

Luggage Fees, Leg room, poor snacks are across all the airlines. The only one that feels like its improving is Delta.

deasine
Apr 13, 2016, 9:23 PM
Talking about stars, does anyone else think that Air Canada might soon lose their coveted fourth star? They are using it a lot in their advertising, emphasizing how they are the only four-star North American airline. I am just a bit worried that they will be losing their extra star soon, as their product is getting worse by the year (luggage fees, less leg room, poor snacks, etc.). To be honest, I don't know how Air Canada is any different from United, which I fly a lot and is only three stars? :shrug:

I don't think you are flying United enough if you think Air Canada and United are equivalent...