YVR - Airport & Destinations Discussion

[Yume-sama]

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

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

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

[twoNeurons]

That'd be nice, but I won't hold my breath.

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

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

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

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

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

[Hot Rod]

yep, Canadians will prop up SEA-KIX just like Canadians do for most SEA flights.

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

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

yep, Canadians will prop up SEA-KIX just like Canadians do for most SEA flights.

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

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

KIX has already cut their landing fees

The airport to downtown is still 30-40 minutes, depending on where you're going.


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

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

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

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

[SpongeG]

I used Gatwick and used the express train to victoria station - it was 30 minutes and 11 GBP at that time

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

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

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

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

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

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

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

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

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

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

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

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

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by galeforcewinds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[teriyaki]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

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

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

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

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

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

[trofirhen]

Yeah, I'd love to see just four or five new, key, major destinations out of Vancouver, like ........

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Yeah, I'd love to see just four or five new, key, major destinations out of Vancouver, like ........

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

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Yeah, I'd love to see just four or five new, key, major destinations out of Vancouver, like ........

Originally Posted by Hourglass

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

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

[Bigtime]

Vancouver airport looks to connect with passengers
Growth from Asian passengers presents huge opportunity, exec says

Read more:

http://www.canada.com/Vancouver+airp...#ixzz1t9n49zM3

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Vancouver airport looks to connect with passengers
Growth from Asian passengers presents huge opportunity, exec says

Read more:

http://www.canada.com/Vancouver+airp...#ixzz1t9n49zM3

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

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


Highlights from the article:

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

Faster moving walkways will help passengers change terminals quicker.

Those two upgrades should be in place by 2014.

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

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

---

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

[s211]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

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

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

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

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

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

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by s211

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

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

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

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

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

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

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

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

[Yume-sama]

If anyone here is an avid spotter, ANA today announced July 25th as their start date for SEA - NRT with 787.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

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

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

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