Agree, Calgary YYC , Vancouver YVR & Toronto YYZ have long walks for all Airline ✈️ passengers in their airport terminals , but it’s not that bad compared to connecting in a larger & busier airports in Asia which have several large terminals- like Beijing (PEK) , Shanghai (PVG) , Hong Kong (HKG) or Seoul Incheon (ICN) ✅.

https://www.flyporter.com/en-ca/abou...routes+2025+10

New PD routes targeting AA hubs, as well as the first non-Florida YUL sun flight.

YOW-MIA 3x weekly (start 24JAN26)
YVR-PHX daily (starts 02FEB26, first YVR route not to the east coast)
YUL-NAS 3x weekly (starts 05FEB)
YOW-PHX 3x weekly (starts 07FEB)

I believe the other sun increases were already loaded/posted about on this forum

The dedicated line exists but CATSA doesn’t have the manpower to staff it currently (that is what is being said). They still use it for international to US connections though.

We’ve heard it may get used again once the centralized domestic checkpoint opens.

Here's YHZ's August 2025 & YTD 2025 pax stats:

Sector / 2019 / 2024 / 2025 / % Change vs 24 / vs 19
Dom: 415,934 / 411,033 / 387,396 / -5.8% / -6.9%
TB: 38,946 / 38,849 / 44,892 / +15.6% / +15.3% - domestic down and transborder way up, interesting
Int'l: 31,631 / 47,012 / 64,986 / 38.2% / +105.5% - I wonder how that translates to overall seat factor?
TTL: 486,511 / 496,894 / 497,274 / +0.1% / +2.2% - while all airports in Canada swing, look at the huge seasonality at YHZ & compare with winter months

Year-to-Date:

Sector / 2019 / 2024 / 2025 / % Change vs 24 / vs 19
Dom: 2,365,198 / 2,182,783 / 2,174,814 / -0.4% / -8.0%
TB: 255,343 / 203,103 / 242,801 / +19.5% / -4.9%
Int'l: 257,507 / 343,618 / 397,695 / +15.7% / +54.4%
TTL: 2,878,048 / 2,729,504 / 2,815,310 / +3.1% / -2.2%

While I'm not surprised by YOW-MIA, I'm a bit surprised they're not just shifting capacity from YOW-FLL to YOW-MIA.

YOW-PHX essentially replaces YOW-LAS but with a whole hub of connection options.

I feel the same way, although maybe we are in the minority.

My theory for why American airports score better is that American and Canadian airports are now on the same level, but Canadians invested in their airports 15-20 years ago, while Americans have only improved their airports in the last 10 years, or so. Before that, American airports were really run down, and a lot of them used facilities last updated in the 1970s. So Americans probably are just happy to see their airports improve, it's not that their airports are now luxurious, or anything like that.

I am flying to the US far less frequently that before. However that was my main reason for avoiding Calgary. Far to many connections where I arrive at the gate just minutes before they close the door.

Being based out Victoria, I need to make a connection somewhere. Seattle, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto are always better for US flights than Calgary for this reason.

I don't fly very often, in fact this past summer was the first time I had flown from Toronto in over 25 years (used Buffalo and Detroit all the time between then and now). I was completely unimpressed with Terminal 3. Very drab and boring, and that glass wall down the centre separating domestic from US just looks ridiculous. Couple little kiosks and one small store up at the top of the concourse to buy some flight snacks. The US airports I experienced in the last year were Buffalo, LaGuardia and San Francisco. The latter 2 were very nice in my opinion, especially SFO. I enjoyed walking around there during the few hours we had to wait until departure. Even Buffalo didn't suck while killing time. I've never been inside Terminal 1 but I imagine given its age compared to T3 that it would be nicer.

T1 at YYZ is vastly better than T3 and has improved a lot since its opening around 22 years ago. When it first opened it was really sterile. I still miss T1 old for the spotting. One of the best spotting locations to ever exist.

For sure. I still have a pic floating around of the Concorde from the early 80's on airshow weekend when my step dad took me up on the roof of the parking garage. Old T1 was in fact the last time I flew from YYZ, Nov 1999, Royal Airlines to FLL (A310 down, 757 back).

I wholeheartedly agree. T3 needs a dedicated TB concourse. I avoid flying TB (I don’t fly TB hardly at all anymore though considering the way things are going down there)/Int’l through YYZ as much as possible.

T3 needs serious work but functions more as the discount airline terminal so I guess it sort of makes sense. T1 is still fine to me, just overcrowded.

Pearson desperately needs an expansion.

YYZ is in a massive planning stage for a total rehaul of the airport. Both T1 and T3 would get a massive overhaul.
T1 would get a new USA/International section which sits on top of each other.
T3 gets would a major overhaul, while footprint would not change it would essentially be redone from an interior / flow perspective.

T3 also isn't a discount terminal. High end stores, real lounges, and teir 1 airlines. (KLM, Qatar, British, AF, Cathay Pacific, American, Delta, China Eastern, Korean, Virgin).
It operates far from a discount terminal.

I think the issue is you have:

Air Canada and its Star Alliance friends in T1 + Infield.

WestJet and its Skyteam friends in T3.

Porter and its Oneworld friends and Air Transat in T3.

Discount airlines in T3.

The only group that is well served by this is Air Canada. It has reasonable gate space and lounges for itself. Its real good friends are in the main terminal and its so-so friends (aka TAP Air Portugal, Copa etc.) in the infield terminal.

The other two clusters are stuck in in a much smaller more limited terminal.

Seems like some of the A321XLR customers are having second thoughts. I wonder if AC will be disappointed? Granted they're a legacy carrier nota budget one.


Airbus’ Budget Customers Feel Buyer’s Remorse Over New XLR Jet
By Kate Duffy
September 30, 2025 at 9:00 PM PDT

Airbus SE marketed its A321XLR as offering widebody-jet capabilities at narrowbody economics, an attractive proposition to low-cost airlines seeking to expand their radius. Now some customers are showing buyer’s remorse as they struggle to unlock those advantages.

The A321XLR was supposed to open long-haul routes for Wizz Air Holdings Plc, Frontier Airlines Inc. and JetBlue Airways Corp., with the trio ordering a combined 78 XLRs. But the airlines may end up taking just 23 units, some saying the plane’s real range is shorter than advertised when it’s full of people and luggage.

The extra fuel tank, touted by Airbus as a game changer, meanwhile limits space for potentially lucrative cargo.

“It appears that the market for the XLR is not as deep as Airbus had initially expected,” said Dudley Shanley, an analyst at Goodbody....

....“In terms of the legacy carriers, the XLR is a better fit,” Shanley said. “It allows them to replace larger aircraft on some of the thinner long-haul routes as well as open up new destinations.”...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...?sref=x4rjnz06

If you fly that much to the states why don’t you have Nexus? No lineups..

Was always on the list of things to do. Then COVID hit and all he interview locations were closed down. Then they opened it up for a few locations. I don't know what interview locations are available now.

Victoria is unlikely to be one, we only have US pre-clearance at the harbour for the ferries to the US not at the airport.

I touched upon this a few weeks ago. I don’t think the article specifically talks about the range issue, but advertised range was 4700nm. Last I checked, that’s still what it says on their website, btw. However, apparently real range is around 4500nm. Regulators told Airbus they needed design changes on the new rear center tank (RCT), to reinforce fire suppression. This added weight, and therefore decreased real range by about 200nm.

The difference is not much, but clearly some airlines feel it’s not what was promised. This being said, the XLR wasn’t built for the ULCC model. If you want to carry 240 pax in an XLR, you won’t be able to fill up the tanks to full. So range will be lower.

Lack of space for cargo was a known issue from the get go, so airlines can’t blame Airbus for that one. The RCT on the XLR is lighter and takes up less space than the 3 aux tanks of the LR.

As for your question about AC, I don’t feel they will be disappointed. Iberia, for example, are very pleased with theirs. Legacy carriers in a 2 class config are better suited for the XLR. Also, YUL and YYZ are very well placed for XLR routes to Europe. I think the decrease in range isn’t all that important for them, as 4500nm still offers plenty of new opportunities. Look at what TS is doing with the LR, and that plane only has a 4,000nm range, and even less room for cargo than the XLR.

This will be an important lesson for Airbus though, with regards to the RCT issue. It’s always better to underpromise and overdeliver than the other way around.

As for the ULCCs, they should have never ordered the XLR in the first place. The plane isn’t built for their strategy. Yet more proof that ULCC ops over long haul ranges don’t work. Business class cabins and cargo are important elements of long haul ops that boost revenue and are the difference between making or losing money.

AM are going to be introducing the 7M9 to YYZ and YUL for winter 2025-26 and briefly to YVR too: https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/251003-amnw25ca

^

CM has been using the Max 9 to YUL as well. Although it seems the route has reverted back to the -800 as of this month.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/cm422