YVR And Sea Island Developments Discussion II

[ninjakafi_81]

Originally Posted by nname

More interesting is how the Chinese side allocate their frequency. The majority will go to YVR, but maybe a couple may go YYZ or even YUL (with fuel stop at YVR), based on what we seen on the US side.

What do you mean by "based on what we seen on the US side". Is there some sort of restriction in place for Chinese carriers flying into the US ?

[Alexcaban]

I feel that with OZ leaving Star, it's time for AC to add back some China.
Will be interesting to see they could add.

[VancityAvgeek33]

Any news on china flights? Where are these rumours from?

[Johnny Aussie]

More Icelandair flights off peak

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/240925-fins25

Reykjavik Keflavik – Vancouver Latest frequency adjustment includes restoration of 4th weekly service during off-peak season
30MAR25 – 04JUN25 4th weekly service restored (Previous: reduce from 4 to 3 weekly)
05JUN25 – 30AUG25 Increase from 4 to 6 weekly
eff 31AUG25 4th weekly service restored (Previous: reduce from 4 to 3 weekly)

Also looks like DL will be adding a third daily flight to SLC next summer… should bring DL to 12 daily and with Westjet flights a total of 19 daily to Delta hubs.

https://x.com/xjonnyc/status/1838445...QbiW_TOEUoTaSA

[ninjakafi_81]

It looks like Tap Air Portugal is considering YVR to be new destination in the North American market.

“We are always evaluating existing and new markets in future seasons and we will consider a possible move if the right opportunity presents itself,” Ozarovsky said when asked which destinations were under consideration. “However, only when our fleet cap ends in 2025 will we have room to think about these options even more closely.”

TAP currently has a fleet limit of 99 aircraft, which is part of the conditions set by the European Commission as part of its restructuring plan approved in December 2021.

Several major destinations in North America are currently unserved nonstop from Portugal, including cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles and Vancouver, as well as Mexico’s capital Mexico City, which attracts sizable indirect flows.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transpo...ments-enhanced

[nname]

Originally Posted by VancityAvgeek33

Any news on china flights? Where are these rumours from?

CZ will increase YYZ-CAN to 4x weekly from Oct 27 from a leaked memo to travel agency. The memo from CZ's Toronto office did not mention service YVR.

Looks like there will be 18 additional weekly flights from the Chinese side, and they are unevenly distributed to all the carriers that currently fly to Canada. Not sure if CZ is one of them that got 3 additional weekly flights, or the one who get 6x weekly...

And I guess both 3U and MF will get 2 additional weekly flights for TFU-YVR and XMN-YVR. There's no other choice to put it. That leaves one other carrier that got 2x weekly... if the rumor is correct.

Likely AC won't have enough planes to use all frequency from the Canada side, if both of them gets 24x weekly after the increase...

[EDIT]
Looks like MU is also increasing YYZ-PVG to 4x weekly. No words on other airlines, but looks like CA is the one who gets the 6x weekly increase?

And looks like AC gets 14x weekly. So after they increase YVR-PVG to daily and add daily YVR-PEK, where will they put the other 4x weekly (if they have enough planes)
The other 4x weekly from the Canada side will probably go to whoever currently holding the 2x weekly frequency? (if there is one)

================

In other news, looks like TW is rolling back the European increase planned in late-November. So maybe they will be getting one less 332 than planned. If that's the case, the earliest start date for ICN-YVR will be start of S25 season at late March.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by ninjakafi_81

It looks like Tap Air Portugal is considering YVR to be new destination in the North American market. /////////

https://aviationweek.com/air-transpo...ments-enhanced

Great that YVR got a mention among others, but as Vancouver is not a midway point nor connector for onward North American traffic, it would seem that the Pax would have to be high O/D.
There would seemingly need to be a big enough market here, correct me if I am wrong. Also, I wonder if they might not go for Seattle. (But that's not *A, so maybe that works in YVR's advantage).
Feedback welcome. Having Tap Air Portugal coming here would be a real breakthrough, I think.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by nname

CZ will increase YYZ-CAN to 4x weekly from Oct 27 from a leaked memo to travel agency. The memo from CZ's Toronto office did not mention service YVR.

Looks like there will be 18 additional weekly flights from the Chinese side, and they are unevenly distributed to all the carriers that currently fly to Canada. Not sure if CZ is one of them that got 3 additional weekly flights, or the one who get 6x weekly...

And I guess both 3U and MF will get 2 additional weekly flights for TFU-YVR and XMN-YVR. There's no other choice to put it. That leaves one other carrier that got 2x weekly... if the rumor is correct.

Likely AC won't have enough planes to use all frequency from the Canada side, if both of them gets 24x weekly after the increase...

[EDIT]
Looks like MU is also increasing YYZ-PVG to 4x weekly. No words on other airlines, but looks like CA is the one who gets the 6x weekly increase?

And looks like AC gets 14x weekly. So after they increase YVR-PVG to daily and add daily YVR-PEK, where will they put the other 4x weekly (if they have enough planes)
The other 4x weekly from the Canada side will probably go to whoever currently holding the 2x weekly frequency? (if there is one)

================

In other news, looks like TW is rolling back the European increase planned in late-November. So maybe they will be getting one less 332 than planned. If that's the case, the earliest start date for ICN-YVR will be start of S25 season at late March.

Thanks for your continuing updates. I find China to be the most difficult to put my finger on due to the constant changes and restrictions (unlike in Australia).

What is the current state of play with YVR-China flights? Is there an accurate breakdown by carrier and destination?

[nname]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Thanks for your continuing updates. I find China to be the most difficult to put my finger on due to the constant changes and restrictions (unlike in Australia).

What is the current state of play with YVR-China flights? Is there an accurate breakdown by carrier and destination?

Actually, I'm not too sure. The number 18 is being thrown around, now I'm not sure if it is 18x increase, or total 18x from each side.

Now thinking about it, if AC gets 14x weekly increase for a total of 18x, then 18x on each side make more sense.

From the leaked memo, both MU and CZ plan to increase the YYZ route to 4x weekly at the beginning of W24 season. If this is the case, then likely all will be announced by sometime next week. Even that, the lead time would be less than a month.

There are many versions of increase spreading around. For the 18x increase scenario (for a total of 24x weekly), the break down for each Chinese carrier is likely 7-4-4-3-3-3. For the total 18x weekly, then 4-4-4-2-2-2. Likely both of the 4s are already accounted for, and probably the only reasonable one to split the service into two routes is the 7x weekly scenario. For all other carrier, most likely for them is to increase the current route to the allotted frequency (splitting a 4x weekly into 2-2 or 1-3 wouldn't make sense?)

AC clearly stated that all China service will be out of YVR until they can fly through Russia. AC can increase PVG to daily as soon as the start of W24 season (when KIX ends). From the start of S25, AC still haven't reallocate the service from HKG reduction. If they once again reduce BNE to 6x like this summer, then they can add a 4x weekly route to PEK or elsewhere in China.

Technically AC still haven't allocated the 767 they bringing back to passenger service starting next Jan. For S25, AC had fully allocated all the non-767 widebodies, including a new 789 that's coming, with the assumption that TLV is not resuming. So I'm guessing if they are able to fly to TLV and/or want to give an extra plane for an additional daily flight to China, they can always use the 767 for shorter TATL routes like YYZ-MAN/EDI/DUB to free up 2 additional 787s. So it is still possible for AC to use all 18x weekly if they want to, but where will they put the extra 4x weekly? Adding YVR-CAN given that CZ is not resuming the route? Or they change their mind and add service out of YYZ, but then the 3-4x weekly from the HKG reduction can only originate from YVR...

Anyways, all of the above are just speculation. Maybe things will change and everything I said above will be wrong after the announcement as soon as next week...

[whatnext]

I’m surprised it hasn’t been mentioned here what a clusterf*ck the City of Vancouver has created in accessing the airport. Thanks to the sewer work they’re doing on Oak and the neverending road closures around Oakridge(ridiculous they allow a private business to impact roads that way) a lot more traffic is diverting to Granville thus gridlocking the Arthur Laing bridge and its approaches. No wonder YVR keeps threatening a dedicated bridge on the West Side to the airport.

[Johnny Aussie]

^^ thanks nname for trying to make sense of it! Definitely not straight forward!!

For just a comparison, prior to Covid Melbourne and Vancouver were almost on par for flights from mainland Chinese airlines.
This summer (MEL’s summer, YVR’s winter) MEL will have 75 flights per week on 8 different carriers to 9 mainland Chinese cities. And sounds like still more to come. And that’s just MEL. Even more at SYD.

Also, speaking of AC

AC will be flying more widebodies to Central Canada from YVR this winter.
10 (up to 11) of the 17 daily flights this winter will be on widebodies.
Pretty sure last winter it was only 8 per day. The other 7 are made up of 321s and 7M8s.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by whatnext

…. No wonder YVR keeps threatening a dedicated bridge on the West Side to the airport.

Where would such a bridge be built?

[casper]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Where would such a bridge be built?

If the airport wanted to address the real problems with traffic a good start would be to remove the surcharge on Skytrain. There is already ample auto bridges.

The only bridge I could see being justified on the west side is a light rail bridge connecting to a future arbutus line.

[Orcair]

Originally Posted by casper

If the airport wanted to address the real problems with traffic a good start would be to remove the surcharge on Skytrain. There is already ample auto bridges.

Except YVR does not receive any of the surcharge funding:

The Canada Line YVR AddFare is levied and collected by TransLink. The Airport Authority receives no portion of the money collected from the Canada Line YVR AddFare.

Per: https://www.yvr.ca/en/passengers/tra...y%20TransLink.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Orcair

Except YVR does not receive any of the surcharge funding:

Per: https://www.yvr.ca/en/passengers/tra...y%20TransLink.

Yet more money disappearing down the bottomless black hole that is Translink.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I’m surprised it hasn’t been mentioned here what a clusterf*ck the City of Vancouver has created in accessing the airport. Thanks to the sewer work they’re doing on Oak and the neverending road closures around Oakridge(ridiculous they allow a private business to impact roads that way) a lot more traffic is diverting to Granville thus gridlocking the Arthur Laing bridge and its approaches. No wonder YVR keeps threatening a dedicated bridge on the West Side to the airport.

Fully agree that Oak Street is a complete mess right now, but that's the trade off we make for living in a society with indoor plumbing.

The Oakridge project hasn't had much of an impact on traffic from my experience, and it certainly isn't affecting YVR in any manner.

As for YVR constantly threatening a new West Side bridge, this is the first I'm hearing of it, and I would like to think I'm plugged in enough to be aware of a proposal that's being constantly floated.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Fully agree that Oak Street is a complete mess right now, but that's the trade off we make for living in a society with indoor plumbing.

The Oakridge project hasn't had much of an impact on traffic from my experience, and it certainly isn't affecting YVR in any manner.

As for YVR constantly threatening a new West Side bridge, this is the first I'm hearing of it, and I would like to think I'm plugged in enough to be aware of a proposal that's being constantly floated.

...The YVR Master Plan 2037, created in 2017, recommends the airport should “explore options for the provision of dedicated access for airport traffic including an airport-bound high priority vehicle lane on Russ Baker Way and/or the southward extension of Templeton Street to Russ Baker Way,” both of which would certainly help people finding themselves late for a flight when stuck in today’s unpredictable traffic jams....

https://www.richmond-news.com/opinio...ctable-9121124

Lane closure on Cambie thanks to Oakridge definitely impact YVR-bound traffic. By virtue of being connected to downtown by the Cambie Street Bridge it is one of the natural routes.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by whatnext

...The YVR Master Plan 2037, created in 2017, recommends the airport should “explore options for the provision of dedicated access for airport traffic including an airport-bound high priority vehicle lane on Russ Baker Way and/or the southward extension of Templeton Street to Russ Baker Way,” both of which would certainly help people finding themselves late for a flight when stuck in today’s unpredictable traffic jams....

https://www.richmond-news.com/opinio...ctable-9121124

Lane closure on Cambie thanks to Oakridge definitely impact YVR-bound traffic. By virtue of being connected to downtown by the Cambie Street Bridge it is one of the natural routes.

A southward extension of Templeton via an underground tunnel to link up to a realigned and rebuilt Gilbert Road/Bridge via Russ Baker Way perhaps would provide an alternate route to get to the airport via Richmond.

[nname]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yet more money disappearing down the bottomless black hole that is Translink.

Well the airport authority also does not pay Translink to allow free travel between the 3 stations on Sea Island. So we can see it as the contribution in providing the free service for the employees and passengers travel to/from long-term parking and the outlet mall.

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

For just a comparison, prior to Covid Melbourne and Vancouver were almost on par for flights from mainland Chinese airlines.
This summer (MEL’s summer, YVR’s winter) MEL will have 75 flights per week on 8 different carriers to 9 mainland Chinese cities. And sounds like still more to come. And that’s just MEL. Even more at SYD.

Even though I want more service to YVR and $350 connecting round-trip flights to Singapore, I'm not sure allowing that many service from China to just one airport would be a good idea. I don't think YVR ever got that much before, and demand to China had dramatically reduced post-pandemic and will likely to stay that way for quite some time in the future. I'm sure if YVR gets 75 weekly flights to places in China, all the current routes to SE Asia will disappear and will limit opportunity to elsewhere like Japan, Korea, Australia, etc. Maybe this is why MEL right now cannot sustain year-round flight to Korea, and have limited (for its size) flight to Japan? Maybe 36x a week to all of Canada with YVR getting 24x of those would be a good starting point...

[Johnny Aussie]

Surprisingly YVR - Mainland China was 60 flights per week in 2019 in comparison MEL has now exceeded the pre COVID frequencies. And in fact a new route to PKX just got added today.