YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[nname]

Calculating long haul frequency

S23:
YYZ 214 (or 220 including MXP)
YUL 145
YVR 64
YYC 14
YHZ 7
Narrowbody -14 (LHR 7, KEF 7)
TOTAL: 430

S24:
YYZ 218 (or 232 including MXP, SYD)
YUL 163
YVR 68
YYC 7
YHZ 7
Narrowbody -14 (LHR 7, KEF 7)
TOTAL: 449

An increase of 19 weekly flights using widebodies (YYZ +4, YVR +4, YUL +18, YYC -7)

So anyone from YYC reading this, now you know where that FRA plane goes

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by nname

Calculating long haul frequency

S23:
YYZ 214 (or 220 including MXP)
YUL 145
YVR 64
YYC 14
YHZ 7
Narrowbody -14 (LHR 7, KEF 7)
TOTAL: 430

S24:
YYZ 218 (or 232 including MXP, SYD)*
YUL 163
YVR 68
YYC 7
YHZ 7
Narrowbody -14 (LHR 7, KEF 7)
TOTAL: 449

An increase of 19 weekly flights using widebodies (YYZ +4, YVR +4, YUL +18, YYC -7)

So anyone from YYC reading this, now you know where that FRA plane goes

Is that SYD from YYZ a new ultra-long-haul nonstop, or does that mean that it touches down in YVR first? (I would presume the latter; correct me if I'm wrong)

[Alexcaban]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Is that SYD from YYZ a new ultra-long-haul nonstop, or does that mean that it touches down in YVR first? (I would presume the latter; correct me if I'm wrong)

It what we call in the industry a thru flight. Same flight number and same plane direct service to SYD. Passengers must still disembark to re-groom and re-cater the flight.

AC33 YYZ-YVR-SYD
AC34 SYD-YVR-YYZ

Same as YYZ-YUL-MXP, although they've removed the YYZ tag for September and October.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Alexcaban

It what we call in the industry a thru flight. Same flight number and same plane direct service to SYD. Passengers must still disembark to re-groom and re-cater the flight.

AC33 YYZ-YVR-SYD
AC34 SYD-YVR-YYZ

Same as YYZ-YUL-MXP, although they've removed the YYZ tag for September and October.

Thank you for the explanation. It makes it all clear to me now.
And speaking of thru-flights, if Westjet had a couple more 787s based in Vancouver, couldn't they pull off a thru flight YVR-YYC> Europe? (Rome springs to mind as first pick)

[nname]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Thank you for the explanation. It makes it all clear to me now.
And speaking of thru-flights, if Westjet had a couple more 787s based in Vancouver, couldn't they pull off a thru flight YVR-YYC> Europe? (Rome springs to mind as first pick)

Yes then can, but why would they do that? Remember, they only have 7 planes.

Currently YYC-FCO departs at 6pm, and return to YYC at 4:30pm the next day. Only 1 plane needed for a daily flight.

Now if you add a YVR tag, the plane will need to depart YVR at 2pm and arrive 7:30pm the next day. What are they going to do for the other 18 hours? A round-trip flight to YYZ?

Again, not a good use of resource with what they got right now.

AC can do YYZ-YVR-SYD because all of the 77L are based at YYZ. In fact, SYD is the only 77L route from YVR. Also the fact that YYZ-YVR-SYD-YVR-YYZ takes exactly 2 days round-trip, so the schedule will work out nicely.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by nname

Yes then can, but why would they do that? Remember, they only have 7 planes.

Currently YYC-FCO departs at 6pm, and return to YYC at 4:30pm the next day. Only 1 plane needed for a daily flight.

Now if you add a YVR tag, the plane will need to depart YVR at 2pm and arrive 7:30pm the next day. What are they going to do for the other 18 hours? A round-trip flight to YYZ?

Again, not a good use of resource with what they got right now.

AC can do YYZ-YVR-SYD because all of the 77L are based at YYZ. In fact, SYD is the only 77L route from YVR. Also the fact that YYZ-YVR-SYD-YVR-YYZ takes exactly 2 days round-trip, so the schedule will work out nicely.

Thank you, nname, for this further explanation. It clarifies things for me I did not know or understand before.

I was naively hoping for another major YVR route to Europe (Rome, yes, but maybe Barcelona > though that's be a summer seasonal, I'm sure > or maybe Madrid, or somewhere... Athens, Lisbon, Munich, ...

[canlynx]

Originally Posted by nname

Yes then can, but why would they do that? Remember, they only have 7 planes.

AC can do YYZ-YVR-SYD because all of the 77L are based at YYZ. In fact, SYD is the only 77L route from YVR. Also the fact that YYZ-YVR-SYD-YVR-YYZ takes exactly 2 days round-trip, so the schedule will work out nicely.

I believe AC has removed the YYZ-YVR-YYZ portions of AC33/34 for some time now. The aircraft still operate from YYZ with an evening departure before going down to SYD, then leaving around 930-1000 in the morning back to YYZ, but using standard 1xx series flight numbers.

[nname]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Thank you, nname, for this further explanation. It clarifies things for me I did not know or understand before.

I was naively hoping for another major YVR route to Europe (Rome, yes, but maybe Barcelona > though that's be a summer seasonal, I'm sure > or maybe Madrid, or somewhere... Athens, Lisbon, Munich, ...

For Europe, better look for AC (when they got more planes) or European carriers.

For WS, unlikely that'll happen unless their YYC hub fails miserably and they need to pick a different strategy. But if that's the case, they'll likely be looking at YYZ for European routes, rather than YVR.

Originally Posted by canlynx

I believe AC has removed the YYZ-YVR-YYZ portions of AC33/34 for some time now. The aircraft still operate from YYZ with an evening departure before going down to SYD, then leaving around 930-1000 in the morning back to YYZ, but using standard 1xx series flight numbers.

For S24, the YYZ portion will go back to using AC33/34 flight number.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by nname

Calculating long haul frequency

S24:
YYZ 218 (or 232 including MXP, SYD)
YUL 163
YVR 68
YYC 7
YHZ 7
Narrowbody -14 (LHR 7, KEF 7)
TOTAL: 449

An increase of 19 weekly flights using widebodies (YYZ +4, YVR +4, YUL +18, YYC -7)

So anyone from YYC reading this, now you know where that FRA plane goes

I’m guessing this is assuming YVR-DXB doesn’t operate next summer.

With only +2 B789s for next summer, +19 weekly obviously means that some routes will need to get their frequency tweaked, but it’s pretty clear that is all AC can do for next summer, assuming their fleet projection stays the same.

Which means, if ever, between now and S24, they announce new long haul routes, either:

1. They’ve secured additional frames somehow.
2. They’re going to cancel other routes or reduce frequencies to make the new route possible.

Both those scenarios remain highly unlikely in my book, at least until the pilot contract is in the bag.

[nname]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

I’m guessing this is assuming YVR-DXB doesn’t operate next summer.

With only +2 B789s for next summer, +19 weekly obviously means that some routes will need to get their frequency tweaked, but it’s pretty clear that is all AC can do for next summer, assuming their fleet projection stays the same.

Which means, if ever, between now and S24, they announce new long haul routes, either:

1. They’ve secured additional frames somehow.
2. They’re going to cancel other routes or reduce frequencies to make the new route possible.

Both those scenarios remain highly unlikely in my book, at least until the pilot contract is in the bag.

All was calculated with what's in the schedule as of the post. YVR-DXB is not in the schedule for S24 so not included.

AC can always squeeze out more long haul capacity by reducing domestic and trans-con widebody flights. As mentioned before, it seems like AC was able to add one of the weekly SIN flight by making one trans-con flight x7 and another x1. Mid and short haul schedule is not updated yet, so cannot confirm if this is the case.

Also, there are 3 weekly spare for the PVG flights, so the actual addition is likely more than +19 right now. If China and Canada does not come to any agreement close to S24 start, those flight can still be assigned somewhere. This year, AC made a very late adjustment (by their standard) to reallocate that frequency:
- Reduce a hot spare YVR-YYZ to 6x weekly
- Split YVR/YUL-DUB rotation, and use the 3+1 weekly on YVR-DUB
- Trim one of the YUL long-haul by 1 weekly, then use the 4+1 weekly to announce YUL-AMS

[trofirhen]

Why couldn't Transport Canada have given EK access to YVR? What were they so afraid that would to to other (read AC) revenues? Siphon off all other traffic, I guess.
So EK went to Seattle instead, but SEA-TAC doesn't seem to be crying the blues about EK bleeding traffic from there. I just don't get it. Would it have killed AI to Delhi or what?

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by nname

AC made a very late adjustment (by their standard) to reallocate that frequency:
- Reduce a hot spare YVR-YYZ to 6x weekly
- Split YVR/YUL-DUB rotation, and use the 3+1 weekly on YVR-DUB
- Trim one of the YUL long-haul by 1 weekly, then use the 4+1 weekly to announce YUL-AMS

....and then an even later adjustment, wet-leasing a B767 for YYZ-MAN....

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Why couldn't Transport Canada have given EK access to YVR? What were they so afraid that would to to other (read AC) revenues? Siphon off all other traffic, I guess.
So EK went to Seattle instead, but SEA-TAC doesn't seem to be crying the blues about EK bleeding traffic from there. I just don't get it. Would it have killed AI to Delhi or what?

Canada and the U.A.E recently expanded the bilateral to 21x weekly frequencies for each country's carriers. Canada never told EK where to fly, nor did they tell them you can't fly to YVR. EK chose YYZ first, and then YUL. Just like QR chose YUL all those years ago instead of YYZ or YVR. There is no hidden agenda.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

Canada and the U.A.E recently expanded the bilateral to 21x weekly frequencies for each country's carriers. Canada never told EK where to fly, nor did they tell them you can't fly to YVR. EK chose YYZ first, and then YUL. Just like QR chose YUL all those years ago instead of YYZ or YVR. There is no hidden agenda.

... That's good to know. Thank you for the clarification.

[teriyaki]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Why couldn't Transport Canada have given EK access to YVR? What were they so afraid that would to to other (read AC) revenues? Siphon off all other traffic, I guess.
So EK went to Seattle instead, but SEA-TAC doesn't seem to be crying the blues about EK bleeding traffic from there. I just don't get it. Would it have killed AI to Delhi or what?

This is not how it works. At all. The agreement is not based on city destination. It is from Country to Country. The carriers themselves have 100% of the decision to serve which city-pairing they'd like.

[Klazu]

I feel like YVR - South America on repeat has been replaced by YVR to FCO on repeat...

Anyways, why is Air Canada struggling so much to find more planes? Traffic everywhere in the world is still down from 2019, so there must be a lot of grounded planes available to lease? Also, the closure of Russian airspace has forced some airlines, like Finnair, to lease out a lot of their planes and crew and I doubt they are the only one, so why is fleet and pilots such a problem? Almost every airline is flying the same metal these days, so type training cannot be an issue either?

[nname]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I feel like YVR - South America on repeat has been replaced by YVR to FCO on repeat...

Anyways, why is Air Canada struggling so much to find more planes? Traffic everywhere in the world is still down from 2019, so there must be a lot of grounded planes available to lease? Also, the closure of Russian airspace has forced some airlines, like Finnair, to lease out a lot of their planes and crew and I doubt they are the only one, so why is fleet and pilots such a problem? Almost every airline is flying the same metal these days, so type training cannot be an issue either?

IF YVR is going to get FCO eventually, then we will return to YVR - South America repeat

Having plane is one thing, having pilots to fly them is another. Plus AC is looking at very specific type of planes. There are many A380 lying around but there's no way AC is going to lease them.

And I believe the current contract with pilots prevent them from doing long-term wet lease.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I feel like YVR - South America on repeat has been replaced by YVR to FCO on repeat...

Anyways, why is Air Canada struggling so much to find more planes? Traffic everywhere in the world is still down from 2019, so there must be a lot of grounded planes available to lease? Also, the closure of Russian airspace has forced some airlines, like Finnair, to lease out a lot of their planes and crew and I doubt they are the only one, so why is fleet and pilots such a problem? Almost every airline is flying the same metal these days, so type training cannot be an issue either?

Heard some chatter on a-net about Air Canada picking up a few of Alaska's retired ( but quite new ) A321neos in the short term. Won't suffice for long haul tho.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by connect2source

Heard some chatter on a-net about Air Canada picking up a few of Alaska's retired ( but quite new ) A321neos in the short term. Won't suffice for long haul tho.

I heard the Alaska A321s are going to AA instead.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

I heard the Alaska A321s are going to AA instead.

Thanks, disappointing, was looking forward to some additional, newish 321's for AC.

[Alexcaban]

Honestly AC had the option of adding YVR-FCO this passed summer but decided to give the extra frequencies to YYZ/YUL and same goes for next summer.

YVR-FCO would have made sense to compete against Westjet over at YYC. So I guess thats telling a story on how much of a priority is for YVR-Europe for AC.

A321XLRs will free up a few widebody planes for YVR-CDG/FCO eventually.