SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Canada (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Canadian Airport Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153826)

J81 Feb 14, 2017 2:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325 (Post 7710032)
And that's a pretty big hole from the Q400 to there.

Not much different then what they have now. Plus the MAX 7 offers lower operational costs then WJ smallest 737 variant the -600. So more seats and lower costs. What could be wrong with that?

wave46 Feb 14, 2017 3:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325 (Post 7710032)
And that's a pretty big hole from the Q400 to there.

I'm just wondering if the cost savings on the CSeries is worth the hassle of running two different narrow body aircraft and the associated maintenance requirements. At least between the different models of 737, you get commonality.

Also, it has been mentioned that Westjet isn't too enamored with their 737-600s, so I'm not sure they'd be looking for an aircraft of similar size.

The logic of the Q400/737/767 for short/medium/long haul works for Westjet's current size. I'm not sure they have the capacity to emulate Air Canada and have many types of aircraft.

casper Feb 14, 2017 5:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46 (Post 7711080)
I'm just wondering if the cost savings on the CSeries is worth the hassle of running two different narrow body aircraft and the associated maintenance requirements. At least between the different models of 737, you get commonality.

Also, it has been mentioned that Westjet isn't too enamored with their 737-600s, so I'm not sure they'd be looking for an aircraft of similar size.

The logic of the Q400/737/767 for short/medium/long haul works for Westjet's current size. I'm not sure they have the capacity to emulate Air Canada and have many types of aircraft.

The 737-600 is an excellent sized aircraft for Canada and WestJet. Especially given Canada has a lot of smaller cities that need service and the geography does not lend it self to a strict hub structure such as the US.

The problem is the 737-600 is an expensive aircraft to operate. That is the reason Air Canada ended up with the Embrear instead of the 737-600 or A318. The 717 also plays a similar role in the US. Almost every airline in the world passed on the 737-600 and A318.

The 737-700 and 737-700max are in the same boat as the 737-600. There is almost no interest and there is a good chance there will never be any new builds going forward. In a few years, if the smallest jet WestJet has is a 737-800 it is going to have a rough time competing against Air Canada.

jmt18325 Feb 14, 2017 5:45 AM

That's what I'm thinking. Air Canada is going to have the CS3, CR9 and E175 to fill in the size and geography gaps. If Westjet doesn't have anything....

Cage Feb 14, 2017 7:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46 (Post 7711080)
(1) I'm just wondering if the cost savings on the CSeries is worth the hassle of running two different narrow body aircraft and the associated maintenance requirements. At least between the different models of 737, you get commonality.

(2) Also, it has been mentioned that Westjet isn't too enamored with their 737-600s, so I'm not sure they'd be looking for an aircraft of similar size.

(3) The logic of the Q400/737/767 for short/medium/long haul works for Westjet's current size. I'm not sure they have the capacity to emulate Air Canada and have many types of aircraft.

(1) Capital cost for aircraft acquisition make the CSeries a winner over the 737. Trip operating costs also favour the CSeries by a 10% lower costs.

To compensate fro higher trip costs, Boeing has added 12 seats to the max7 in order to have comparable CASM. This puts the max7 at between 15 and 20 more seats. However in order to get the lower CASM, the airline has to fill the extra seats.

WS problem is that they must find 15 more pax for the max7 compared to AC on the CS300. Further compounding the problem, WS cannot use the upper end of the yield to attract pax, therefore to fill seats WS has to discount more.

(2) WS is looking for an aircraft of the size of 736 or 73G. WS problem is that Boeing has pulled out the rug from under them with the addition of 2 rows on the max7.

WS problem with the 736 is that there is only 87 examples in the world wide fleet. Not enough examples to have the APB winglets retrofitted onto the wing and spend the $50-10 million in design and test costs. The 7367 with no winglets is very close in op costs to a wingletted 73G.

WS went for the 736 when Boeing stopped giving discounts on the 73G. WS profit motive was an acquisition cost reduction of $4-6 million. Over 13 aircraft this equates to 1.3 extra airplanes.

WS final problem with the 736 is that they cannot be unloaded to lessors or other airlines.

(3) Ws has two strategic problems with their long range fleet plan. (a) the max program is too big of an airplane for 40% of the mainline market. (b) there is no viable direct replacement for the 763 in an LCC all economy setting.

The perfect fix for WS would be to drop the max7 orders and instead put the deposits and fleet commitment to 788s. Once the Boeing order changes are finalized, then bring in an order for 40-60 CSeries aircraft.

There are two problems with the above mentioned perfect fix. (a) Boeing will see through the strategy and then not offer discount pricing on the 788. (b) Boeing might decide to close the 788 program infavour of 789 and 7810 models. The 789 is too big of an airplane under the WS all economy model. For the 789 to work efficiently, it requires a large premium cabin with lie flat seats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper (Post 7711118)
(4) The 737-600 is an excellent sized aircraft for Canada and WestJet. Especially given Canada has a lot of smaller cities that need service and the geography does not lend it self to a strict hub structure such as the US.

(5) The problem is the 737-600 is an expensive aircraft to operate. That is the reason Air Canada ended up with the Embrear instead of the 737-600 or A318. The 717 also plays a similar role in the US. Almost every airline in the world passed on the 737-600 and A318.

(6) The 737-700 and 737-700max are in the same boat as the 737-600. There is almost no interest and there is a good chance there will never be any new builds going forward. In a few years, if the smallest jet WestJet has is a 737-800 it is going to have a rough time competing against Air Canada.

(4) Agreed, a 736 size aircraft is perfect fit for WS.

(5) The 736 is not an expensive aircraft to operate, especially if the market size is well under 140 pax per flight. The 736 problem is that Boeing must drop their capital costs 10-15% to match the lower seat capacity.

AC went with the Embraer 190 because of pax reaction to the economy cabin. The E190 was a clear winner among the frequent flyers and AC's most profitable segments. Further the E190 was not an aircraft that WS or the americans could easily replicate the experience (at time of acquisition).

(6) I suspect that Southwest will operate over 500 max7 and switch all their max8 orders to the max7 once max7 aircraft are in production.

Furhermore I suspect that when the US domestic market enters a correction, airlines will transfer from the max8 to the max7. There is a legacy airline business case for the max 7 and max 9 combination.

casper Feb 15, 2017 5:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cage (Post 7711778)
(1) Capital cost for aircraft acquisition make the CSeries a winner over the 737. Trip operating costs also favour the CSeries by a 10% lower costs.

To compensate fro higher trip costs, Boeing has added 12 seats to the max7 in order to have comparable CASM. This puts the max7 at between 15 and 20 more seats. However in order to get the lower CASM, the airline has to fill the extra seats.

WS problem is that they must find 15 more pax for the max7 compared to AC on the CS300. Further compounding the problem, WS cannot use the upper end of the yield to attract pax, therefore to fill seats WS has to discount more.

(2) WS is looking for an aircraft of the size of 736 or 73G. WS problem is that Boeing has pulled out the rug from under them with the addition of 2 rows on the max7.

WS problem with the 736 is that there is only 87 examples in the world wide fleet. Not enough examples to have the APB winglets retrofitted onto the wing and spend the $50-10 million in design and test costs. The 7367 with no winglets is very close in op costs to a wingletted 73G.

WS went for the 736 when Boeing stopped giving discounts on the 73G. WS profit motive was an acquisition cost reduction of $4-6 million. Over 13 aircraft this equates to 1.3 extra airplanes.

WS final problem with the 736 is that they cannot be unloaded to lessors or other airlines.

(3) Ws has two strategic problems with their long range fleet plan. (a) the max program is too big of an airplane for 40% of the mainline market. (b) there is no viable direct replacement for the 763 in an LCC all economy setting.

The perfect fix for WS would be to drop the max7 orders and instead put the deposits and fleet commitment to 788s. Once the Boeing order changes are finalized, then bring in an order for 40-60 CSeries aircraft.

There are two problems with the above mentioned perfect fix. (a) Boeing will see through the strategy and then not offer discount pricing on the 788. (b) Boeing might decide to close the 788 program infavour of 789 and 7810 models. The 789 is too big of an airplane under the WS all economy model. For the 789 to work efficiently, it requires a large premium cabin with lie flat seats.



(4) Agreed, a 736 size aircraft is perfect fit for WS.

(5) The 736 is not an expensive aircraft to operate, especially if the market size is well under 140 pax per flight. The 736 problem is that Boeing must drop their capital costs 10-15% to match the lower seat capacity.

AC went with the Embraer 190 because of pax reaction to the economy cabin. The E190 was a clear winner among the frequent flyers and AC's most profitable segments. Further the E190 was not an aircraft that WS or the americans could easily replicate the experience (at time of acquisition).

(6) I suspect that Southwest will operate over 500 max7 and switch all their max8 orders to the max7 once max7 aircraft are in production.

Furhermore I suspect that when the US domestic market enters a correction, airlines will transfer from the max8 to the max7. There is a legacy airline business case for the max 7 and max 9 combination.

I have to admit as a passenger I loved the E190/E175 in-seat experience. What I hated about the E190 during the first couple of years was the delays. After the first year or two they appear to have figured out how to fly these birds reliably. It was a regular on the YXE-YYZ route and YVR-YYC. That said it is improved a bit.

I have never quite understood Southwest. There boarding process is just weird and I generally avoid them. They do like those 700s.

wave46 Feb 15, 2017 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cage (Post 7711778)

AC went with the Embraer 190 because of pax reaction to the economy cabin. The E190 was a clear winner among the frequent flyers and AC's most profitable segments. Further the E190 was not an aircraft that WS or the americans could easily replicate the experience (at time of acquisition).

(6) I suspect that Southwest will operate over 500 max7 and switch all their max8 orders to the max7 once max7 aircraft are in production.

Cool insights! Thanks!

A second question though - unrelated to Westjet - why is Air Canada so excited to dump its E190s? I see why they're planning on replacing their Airbuses due to age, but the 190s are relatively new, are they not? Are they too close in size to Air Canada Express CRJ700/900s?

As for Southwest, I think they must be doing something right, as they're consistently profitable and have one of the highest customer satisfaction among US airlines. Their boarding process is weird though.

thenoflyzone Feb 15, 2017 3:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46 (Post 7712782)
why is Air Canada so excited to dump its E190s?

Maintenance costs. Particularly the engines.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...raer-190-costs

Go to the YEG airport thread, (p.196) I posted all the info there a while back (including a bit of humor about this subject)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cage (Post 7711778)
The 736 is not an expensive aircraft to operate, especially if the market size is well under 140 pax per flight. The 736 problem is that Boeing must drop their capital costs 10-15% to match the lower seat capacity.

AC went with the Embraer 190 because of pax reaction to the economy cabin. The E190 was a clear winner among the frequent flyers and AC's most profitable segments. Further the E190 was not an aircraft that WS or the americans could easily replicate the experience (at time of acquisition).

Let's face it, the 736 IS more expensive to operate compared to the E190/195. Or else it would have sold more than 69 frames ! By comparison, the E190/195 duo has sold over 750 frames.

The 736 is a much heavier bird. It has an OEW of over 80,000 lb. The E195 sits at under 64,000 lb, carries almost as many passengers, and can cover 90% of the routes the 736 can. The extra range the 736 has over the E190/195, or the extra cargo capacity is not required for the majority of routes. So the minute the E190/195 was launched in 1999, the B736 was dead in the water.

Whether it had comfortable seats or not is besides the point.

ACT7 Feb 15, 2017 3:18 PM

Year end numbers in for YYZ and, as expected, it cracked the 44 MM pax barrier. The trend also continues that in real number volume growth, YYZ grew by more than all other 'big 3' airports combined - not only overall, but in both the transborder and international passenger categories. For international, YYZ handles more than all other big 3 combined as well, by a solid 2 MM more passengers.

https://www.torontopearson.com/uploa...gerSummary.pdf

FFX-ME Feb 15, 2017 4:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACT7 (Post 7712894)
Year end numbers in for YYZ and, as expected, it cracked the 44 MM pax barrier. The trend also continues that in real number volume growth, YYZ grew by more than all other 'big 3' airports combined - not only overall, but in both the transborder and international passenger categories. For international, YYZ handles more than all other big 3 combined as well, by a solid 2 MM more passengers.

https://www.torontopearson.com/uploa...gerSummary.pdf

Big 3? Wouldn't it be Big 4 since Montreal and Calgary are essentially identical?

I wonder when (if?) it will crack the top 10 for north America.

esquire Feb 15, 2017 4:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFX-ME (Post 7712988)
Big 3? Wouldn't it be Big 4 since Montreal and Calgary are essentially identical?

I wonder when (if?) it will crack the top 10 for north America.

Standard SSP formula for creating lists of the "Big x" is to take your local ranking, whether it's CMA population, airport pax count or whatever, and that becomes the category size. So to a Montrealer, it's "Big 3" and YYC might as well be some Podunk general aviation field.

But if YYC ever overtakes YUL, then it becomes "Big 4". And so on.

Hope this helps!

Alexcaban Feb 15, 2017 5:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFX-ME (Post 7712988)
Big 3? Wouldn't it be Big 4 since Montreal and Calgary are essentially identical?

I wonder when (if?) it will crack the top 10 for north America.

I'm sorry to say but a 1 million passenger difference is not a all identical. With AC hardly adding anything over the last few months at YYC, I only see the gap between YUL and YYC getting bigger of the next few years, especially with domestic traffic at YUL on the rise the way its been the last year.

wave46 Feb 15, 2017 5:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 7713021)
Standard SSP formula for creating lists of the "Big x" is to take your local ranking, whether it's CMA population, airport pax count or whatever, and that becomes the category size. So to a Montrealer, it's "Big 3" and YYC might as well be some Podunk general aviation field.

But if YYC ever overtakes YUL, then it becomes "Big 4". And so on.

Hope this helps!

Or, alternately, if from the GTA, it becomes:

Greater Toronto Area thing (airport, sports team, home price, how many types of donuts at local Tim Hortons, etc. etc.)
Token nod to Vancouver/Montreal, depending on topic.
Rest of country.

ACT7 Feb 15, 2017 5:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFX-ME (Post 7712988)
Big 3? Wouldn't it be Big 4 since Montreal and Calgary are essentially identical?

I wonder when (if?) it will crack the top 10 for north America.

I said 'Other Big 3.

FFX-ME Feb 15, 2017 6:20 PM

YYC had in fact passed YUL in 2014 so your argument is voided.

DrNest Feb 15, 2017 7:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46 (Post 7712782)

As for Southwest, I think they must be doing something right, as they're consistently profitable and have one of the highest customer satisfaction among US airlines. Their boarding process is weird though.

Having never flown with Southwest, what is different about their boarding?

speedog Feb 15, 2017 7:31 PM

YYC, YUL that, holy shit people get their panties quite knotted up about all of this. The simple fact remains s that Calgary most likely will never catch Montreal in population and certainly Calgary will never have that certain thing that Montreal does and this from someone e who has lived in Calgary for almost 40 years.

In fact, my most memorable vacation was in Montreal and I'd go back in a heartbeat. People need to relax and quit bickering over all of this YYC/YUL bull shit.

thenoflyzone Feb 15, 2017 7:58 PM

The simple fact remains that AC is expanding at YYZ, YVR and YUL and hasn't done much at YYC in several years. Foreign airlines are doing pretty much the same thing, concentrating on the big 3.
2017 looks to be more of the same, and so the gap between YUL and YYC will only widen. Add to that the WS push in the QC market and it's only obvious YUL will more than likely see around 18 million passengers this year, whereas YYC will remain stagnant.

The days of YYC matching YUL's traffic volume is probably over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACT7 (Post 7712894)
For international, YYZ handles more than all other big 3 combined as well, by a solid 2 MM more passengers.

That's what happens with a global hub based within 2 hours drive from 9 million ppl. International numbers are among the best in North America, but in terms of overall numbers, there is nothing impressive about 44 million. YYZ should be handling 60 million passengers with that kind of population base. Same way YUL should be handling 25-30 million by now. As far as I'm concerned, the only 2 airports that punch above their weights in Canada in terms of total passenger count are YVR and YYC. YEG does pretty good too ! Even with the recent slump.

Cage Feb 15, 2017 8:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest (Post 7713301)
Having never flown with Southwest, what is different about their boarding?

On southwest you board according to group letter and boarding number. The groups are A B C and the numbers are 1-30. For A group, you either have frequent flyer status, pay full fare, or buy up to early boarding. After those groups are handled, boarding occurs based on the checkin order.

Also, pax line up beside a podium according to their boarding number in group of five. For A1 to A5 board together, then A6 to A10, etc.

Once you board the aircraft, it is an open seating plan. Therefore groups boarding order determines if you get a desireable seat or middle seat back row.

ACT7 Feb 15, 2017 8:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 7713341)
That's what happens with a global hub based within 2 hours drive from 9 million ppl. International numbers are among the best in North America, but in terms of overall numbers, there is nothing impressive about 44 million. YYZ should be handling 60 million passengers with that kind of population base. Same way YUL should be handling 25-30 million by now. As far as I'm concerned, the only 2 airports that punch above their weights in Canada in terms of total passenger count are YVR and YYC. YEG does pretty good too ! Even with the recent slump.

I don't disagree with you on that point, and it will get there, no doubt. But I will say that population base alone isn't going to push YYZ to 60 million pax. It will come almost exclusively from U.S. connecting passengers and other international. Canada is only so big...
Toronto's advantage is its proximity to the U.S. but, like all Canadian airports, it's also its disadvantage to some extent- or at least until AC's and YYZ's strategy changed, it was. Canada's population is too small to grow its airport passenger totals domestically, so the U.S. is the obvious choice to funnel transfer traffic - which AC has been doing aggressively for a few years now.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.