Calgary International Airport II

[hollywoodcory]

Originally Posted by Tobuz

True, but what's happening at YYC is a very YYC-specific thing.

Tourism is booming everywhere. AFAIK, only YYC is seeing this broad downgrading of air service.

Our biggest carrier, hubbed here, is intentionally downgrading all of their products as part of their new strategy. The country's biggest carrier (and only full-service mainstream carrier now) largely pulled out -- taking YYC from a small hub to a spoke. And on one of their dropped routes, they swapped out for a no-frills leisure carrier.

That's all a huge shift for YYC.

But it's not happening elsewhere. At the same time as Lufthansa Group decided to send their no-frills carrier here, they announced a bunch of new North America routes on their mainstream (LH and Swiss) brands. They decided that Raleigh NC was worthy of LH, but that YYC wasn't.

Catastrophic? No. We're still well served for a city of our size. Non-stop destinations are great. Even if we're now somehow seen as a leisure/no-frills market not worthy of mainstream, full service. Humbling.

I'm not disagreeing with you, it isn't great seeing mainline airlines being replaced by leisure carriers - although 4Y (nor any long haul carrier that currently serves YYC) is not a "no frills" carrier.

And it isn't just YYC. Last winter 4Y replaced LH mainline service on both YVR/YYZ.

I wouldn't go as far as to compare us to US markets. There's plenty of US cities with twice the population that currently have no TATL service at all.

YYC will still gain additional capacity to Europe in S24, including a returning foreign carrier.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by hollywoodcory

And it isn't just YYC. Last winter 4Y replaced LH mainline service on both YVR/YYZ.

That was last winter though - still a bit of a pandemic hangover

This winter both YVR and YYZ are mainline LH again

[hehehe]

Either way we're getting more long haul flights every year-even if it's not on premium airlines it provides great options for most people. And there still is KL and AC to LHR if premium is a concern. The alternative is fewer flights

For a city the size of YYC having 3 weekly ZRH flights is impressive even if it's on WK. And it's not like WK/DE are like Spirit airlines or something.

[msmariner]

Originally Posted by hehehe

Either way we're getting more long haul flights every year-even if it's not on premium airlines it provides great options for most people. And there still is KL and AC to LHR if premium is a concern. The alternative is fewer flights

For a city the size of YYC having 3 weekly ZRH flights is impressive even if it's on WK. And it's not like WK/DE are like Spirit airlines or something.

Discussing YYC international flying with the likes of Johnny Aussie (YVR fanboy) or YUL lovers is useless. Remember them ripping YYC because it’s “all” domestic. Then it’s international numbers are skewed by high Mexico/Caribbean #’s. Nothing like the all important YUL European #’s or YVR Asian #’s. Now that YYC’s Europe #’s are rising fast they don’t matter because they are on WS not AC or one AC mainline flight was cancelled and immediately replaced by more flights & seats by so called leisure airlines. Or the fact YYC has flights to no less than 10 cities in Europe ( multiple daily flights to a few of them too). FRA has 3 carriers flying the route. That’s damn impressive. KLM has taken the AMS-YYC route from less than daily to year round daily plus having minimum B789 on the route but routinely subbing in 789-10, 772 & 773. The average Joe doesn’t care if they are flying mainline to Europe or to YYC (for European’s) or the connection passengers going both directions. They want and affordable, comfortable ride across the Atlantic. YYC destroys YVR on a per capita in terms of actual destinations to Europe (although I’m so jealous they have direct to MUC 😢😢). We in YYC should hold our heads high and be proud of the service with have across the pond and also the large amounts of flights we have to other international destinations. Be it Mexico/Central America/USA. I count close to 30 US direct flights plus close to 15 Sun destinations from YYC. I’ll end my rant with who cares if YYC has a higher ratio of Domestic flights or if they are on leisure carriers. The main fact is we have them. We don’t have to connect to the “big 3” airports in Canada to get directly this great globe of ours❤️

[YYCFlier]

@msmariner - YYC is in the "big 4". In passenger volume, it's close to YUL and has passed it a couple of times in the past. While I lament mainline service on legacy carriers being lost, I agree for a city of our size, we are doing amazingly well.

[jc_yyc_ca]

While I love all the detailed information and minutia that comes from this discussion thread I think people sometimes lose track of the big picture.

A lot of focus has been put on AC pulling the Frankfurt flight and Calgary’s status as an AC hub. At the end of the day there are far more non stop flights to overseas and American destinations then we had back when Calgary was a so called “AC hub”. Calgary being an AC hub didn’t gain us all these Euro and US destinations we currently have, and if we left it up to AC, we would be going the way of YEG or YOW. Which is why I couldn’t care less about AC dropping the Frankfurt flight.
As for AC focusing on YVR, YUL and YYZ, it make sense, and I would do the same thing if I were AC. In those hubs, they are having to compete with other international carriers, and in eastern Canada they are set up well for feeder traffic.
YYC isn’t a good place for AC to focus on as hub. It was decent before WestJet came along, but WestJet has been taking over traffic in and out of western destinations, and WS adding the international flights was the nail in the coffin for AC. AC isn’t going to compete with that here without putting a lot of money and resources into it.

There are few cities our size in the world that have so many non-stop international destinations. I am happy with the way things are turning out.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by Tobuz

True, but what's happening at YYC is a very YYC specific thing,

That's all a huge shift for YYC.

But it's not happening elsewhere. At the same time as Lufthansa Group decided to send their no-frills carrier here, they announced a bunch of new North America routes on their mainstream (LH and Swiss) brands. They decided that Raleigh NC was worthy of LH, but that YYC wasn't.

Catastrophic? No. We're still well served for a city of our size. Non-stop destinations are great. Even if we're now somehow seen as a leisure/no-frills market not worthy of mainstream, full service. Humbling.

It isn’t a huge shift for YYC. It’s a huge shift for avgeeks like us who actually care about stuff like mainline vs leisure, but it isn’t for the other 98% of the people who fly somewhere and are concerned mostly with the price of their flight.

As far as Luthansa choosing place like Raleigh instead, that makes sense. Raleigh is with within 3 hours driving distance of over 10 million people, and short connection distance to about 50 million people. Of course, they’re going to choose a place like Raleigh. I would too. It’s not even worth bringing up to be honest but if your argument is that YYC is going to be a hub more for leisure travel yes, that’s true and I agree 100%.
Those who want to fly business class on mainline can still take KLM to AMS or Air Canada to LH but everybody and their dog knows that the growth in airline industry is moving toward leisure travel. And yes, that is probably where YYC is heading, but who cares, just enjoy all the extra destinations..

[hehehe]

Originally Posted by ace.yyc

RDU's Europe service has far more to do with tech in the area than the proximity of population.

As far as YYC... this is just going in circles. People are allowed to be upset at the fact that we are now dominated by WestJet because they are a shitty airline with an increasing monopoly on travel out of Calgary that prices are beginning to reflect.

You're also allowed to be over the moon that we have more nonstops than we did before, are "well served for our size" or whatever else. Love that for you.

Nowhere else for that line of discussion to really go.

It's a bit insane to see the YYC buildup, like WS is 5x daily on YYC-YWG this winter but not even 1x daily on YVR-YWG

[zahav]

I agree with everyone who said be happy with the service YYC has, it is definitely proportionally higher than most cities. AC withdrawing is not a shocker, they said as much in their investor releases over the last couple years with only mentioned YVR, YYZ, and YUL. And it was never a giant, well connected hub anyways, so WS elbowing them out is definitely a net positive. AC had YYC as 4th in their hierarchy, so it was never going to be spoiled by new routes. YYC is by far WS's biggest hub, so it's better to support the hub airport than an airline that was only ever partially interested. Being a fortress hub for an airline is a major feat, it guarantees massive connectivity and priority service. There are not many major airports that host a true fortress hub in North America, Atlanta being the most striking example of one. But YYC is becoming the ATL of Canada, with WS instead of DL. And ATL overtook longtime inchubent ORD as the busiest airport in the world in the late 90s, catching many off guard as Chicago O'Hare was always thought to be the behemoth of US airports, and all of a sudden ATL knocked it off. And how? Because of DL and really building that fortress hub. So any naysayers chiming in about the loss of the AC routes and less growth from other airlines, it really is irrelevant. As others have said, for the majority of travellers, the WS product is more than sufficient. It beats some US legacy carriers I'm sure. The gaining of flights and routes is the main goal; pontificating about the merits of one airline or another is not relevant, the fact is WS has added a ton of capacity, and will only increase every time AC removes some. So other than specific people who have FF point issues or a really strong preference for AC and their product, the cancellations are not a big loss to YYC overall, as WS just adds the missing capacity (or airlines like Condor).

As an aside, I have to say I'm surprised all of the new LCCs are still in business (Lynx, Flair, Jetlines). Although Jetlines has really changed plans and now exclusively serve YYZ to sun destinations I the US and south. So they aren't even really in the conversation. But the fact that both Lynx and Flair as still operating is actually surprising. With their super low fares, I thought they'd be wiped out by now. Oil prices are very high and interest rates are higher than they've been in decades. These are two huge factors that determine an airline's success. Fuel costs are a massive factor, and then the ability to borrow capital investment is tied to interest rates. I am certainly not wishing for failure, I hope these airlines just become stronger and provide that extra competition that we sorely need. But my fear is one or both could be victims of circumstance and not make it. But again, WS in YYC would backfill any loss from somebody else, so it's not really an issue for YYC.

YVR is 2nd most important hub for WS, and basically tied for status of 2nd most important for AC, along with YUL (lately YUL has been gaining like crazy, so they might be more a solid #2 for AC in fact, but doesn't matter, both YUL and YVR are distant seconds to YYZ). So we don't have a fortress hub airline, so any losses we suffer are not guaranteed to be picked up the way WS does in YYC. Here in YVR, if AC makes cuts, there often isn't a replacement. But in YYC when there is, WS goes right in, so that's a perk of being a fortress hub.

[hehehe]

Originally Posted by zahav

I agree with everyone who said be happy with the service YYC has, it is definitely proportionally higher than most cities. AC withdrawing is not a shocker, they said as much in their investor releases over the last couple years with only mentioned YVR, YYZ, and YUL. And it was never a giant, well connected hub anyways, so WS elbowing them out is definitely a net positive. AC had YYC as 4th in their hierarchy, so it was never going to be spoiled by new routes. YYC is by far WS's biggest hub, so it's better to support the hub airport than an airline that was only ever partially interested. Being a fortress hub for an airline is a major feat, it guarantees massive connectivity and priority service. There are not many major airports that host a true fortress hub in North America, Atlanta being the most striking example of one. But YYC is becoming the ATL of Canada, with WS instead of DL. And ATL overtook longtime inchubent ORD as the busiest airport in the world in the late 90s, catching many off guard as Chicago O'Hare was always thought to be the behemoth of US airports, and all of a sudden ATL knocked it off. And how? Because of DL and really building that fortress hub. So any naysayers chiming in about the loss of the AC routes and less growth from other airlines, it really is irrelevant. As others have said, for the majority of travellers, the WS product is more than sufficient. It beats some US legacy carriers I'm sure. The gaining of flights and routes is the main goal; pontificating about the merits of one airline or another is not relevant, the fact is WS has added a ton of capacity, and will only increase every time AC removes some. So other than specific people who have FF point issues or a really strong preference for AC and their product, the cancellations are not a big loss to YYC overall, as WS just adds the missing capacity (or airlines like Condor).

As an aside, I have to say I'm surprised all of the new LCCs are still in business (Lynx, Flair, Jetlines). Although Jetlines has really changed plans and now exclusively serve YYZ to sun destinations I the US and south. So they aren't even really in the conversation. But the fact that both Lynx and Flair as still operating is actually surprising. With their super low fares, I thought they'd be wiped out by now. Oil prices are very high and interest rates are higher than they've been in decades. These are two huge factors that determine an airline's success. Fuel costs are a massive factor, and then the ability to borrow capital investment is tied to interest rates. I am certainly not wishing for failure, I hope these airlines just become stronger and provide that extra competition that we sorely need. But my fear is one or both could be victims of circumstance and not make it. But again, WS in YYC would backfill any loss from somebody else, so it's not really an issue for YYC.

YVR is 2nd most important hub for WS, and basically tied for status of 2nd most important for AC, along with YUL (lately YUL has been gaining like crazy, so they might be more a solid #2 for AC in fact, but doesn't matter, both YUL and YVR are distant seconds to YYZ). So we don't have a fortress hub airline, so any losses we suffer are not guaranteed to be picked up the way WS does in YYC. Here in YVR, if AC makes cuts, there often isn't a replacement. But in YYC when there is, WS goes right in, so that's a perk of being a fortress hub.

Flair's massive cuts make me think they're feeling the pain now. But yeah WS is also focusing a decent bit on YVR too.

[msmariner]

Originally Posted by ace.yyc

by what metric

OTP no, cabins no, regional jets no, general competence no, lounges no, FF absolutely no, alliance no, connectivity no

For the most negative SSP poster award goes too….

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by zahav

YVR is [.....] basically tied for status of 2nd most important for AC, along with YUL (lately YUL has been gaining like crazy, so they might be more a solid #2 for AC in fact, but doesn't matter, both YUL and YVR are distant seconds to YYZ).

Actually, as far international seat capacity goes, YUL is closer to YYZ than it is to YVR. So yes, I would say YUL is solidly in second position for AC.

Also, from what I can see so far, the main benefactor of AC closing shop at YYC (both mainline and regional) has been YUL, not YVR. So the gap will only widen.

[msmariner]

Originally Posted by ace.yyc

lol. How is that negative. If you say WestJet is better, then at least have some department in which they are actually better.

All those I listed they are objectively worse, if there is a category that actually matters in which they are better then I'm all ears.

As a very frequent flyer at YYC and one who doesn’t require any of the stuff you seem to complain about constantly. I think I’m in the majority. Most flyers out of YYC like the fact WS offers us a very large amount of destinations domestically, Transborder, Sun destinations and overseas. Plus they offer multiple daily flights to those locales. I care about price, direct flight options, smooth and comfortable flights. Most flyers don’t use lounges or care about FF programs. I’m happy I rack up lots of WS dollars but it’s not a deal breaker. I look at the positives of WS & YYC. If WS doesn’t offer what I need there are many one stop options threw the other carriers. Understand the average flyer at YYC and WS is quite happy with what it offers
I read your posts and I see a very knowledgeable person. Though you seem very pissed off at YYC, WS (maybe a former employee and maybe a contractor for them now). I’d probably be annoyed if I blogged about my place of employment. Though I choose to leave that stress at work.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by ace.yyc

^ good point. Our NRT flight moving directly to YUL instead of additonal seats from YVR was one early indicator of that, among many.

AC did increase YVR-NRT with an upgauge to the 400 seater 77W though. Up from a 789. Back to a 789 for the winter though which is normal.

[hehehe]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

AC did increase YVR-NRT with an upgauge to the 400 seater 77W though. Up from a 789. Back to a 789 for the winter though which is normal.

YUL and YVR have both grown so much. To be honest even if WS didn't expand at YYC so fast and AC was still dominant at YYC I think AC would've moved capacity to YVR/YUL from YYC anyways in a post covid world.

[nname]

Originally Posted by ace.yyc

I just mean it from the perspective that our NRT ended permanently around the same time YUL's started.

I can argue that YYZ actually end up getting the YYC slot.

Initially, AC operates the following routes:
AC 1 YYZ-NRT
AC 3 YVR-NRT
AC 9 YYC-NRT

I believe AC briefly tried YVR-HND with a night time slot back in 2011, but the route disappeared so quickly it never appeared in any timetable I saved.

In 2014 when AC gains a daytime slot at HND and moved AC 1 to HND, they tried to operate both NRT and HND from YYZ
AC 1 YYZ-HND
AC 3 YVR-NRT
AC 9 YYC-NRT
AC 19 YYZ-NRT

In 2018, they move the YYZ-NRT flight to YUL and cancelled AC 19
AC 1 YYZ-HND
AC 3 YVR-NRT
AC 5 YUL-NRT
AC 9 YYC-NRT

And shortly after, YYZ tag was added to the YYC-NRT flight
AC 1 YYZ-HND
AC 3 YVR-NRT
AC 5 YUL-NRT
AC 9 YYZ-YYC-NRT

After the pandemic, the YYC intermediate stop was dropped
AC 1 YYZ-HND
AC 3 YVR-NRT
AC 5 YUL-NRT
AC 9 YYZ-NRT

So in short, YYZ lost the NRT slot to YUL, but gain it back through YYC. And the YYZ flight now uses the YYC flight number. For winter AC only have 2x daily, so the second daily flight was shared between YYC/YYZ/YUL. There you can argue YUL get it from YYC, but still... YYZ uses the flight number from YYC-NRT.

[nname]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

Actually, as far international seat capacity goes, YUL is closer to YYZ than it is to YVR. So yes, I would say YUL is solidly in second position for AC.

Also, from what I can see so far, the main benefactor of AC closing shop at YYC (both mainline and regional) has been YUL, not YVR. So the gap will only widen.

Well, I could argue that AC moved YYC-PHX, IAH, and YHZ to YVR. Especially for IAH... AC added YVR-IAH the same day they cancelled YYC-IAH. Really hard to argue otherwise. Long haul though... that FRA plane basically ended up in YUL. There's no question about that.

As for #2 in AC's network... it's still very close between YVR and YUL. AC had been adding many long haul international flights from YUL, but a the same time obliterated many short-hual domestic routes in Quebec during and after the pandemic. In the end, the difference in the number of flights remains very similar. In term of seat counts though, it's probably a different story...

And as for #4... for probably the first time, this winter YOW may take the spot instead of YYC. Schedule update is still ongoing, but the difference right now is 3 flights a week favoring YOW.

[nname]

Originally Posted by ace.yyc

The simple counter-argument is that adding YUL-IAH/PHX/YHZ to replace YYC makes zero geographical sense by any measure, so those routes moving from YYC to YVR is not really evidence of YVR being a bigger benefactor than YUL because there was nowhere else for those particular routes to go.

Doesn't have to fly to IAH/PHX/YHZ. YUL would have so many places they can use that extra narrowbody or Express plane freed up by cancelling route. Similarly, AC didn't move the YYC-FRA to YUL (the second daily FRA from YUL began this year, not next year). That extra widebody is partially used to add YUL-MAD, and the rest of the capacity redistributed to a bunch of other routes out of YUL.

[Zmonkey]

Originally Posted by hehehe

YUL and YVR have both grown so much. To be honest even if WS didn't expand at YYC so fast and AC was still dominant at YYC I think AC would've moved capacity to YVR/YUL from YYC anyways in a post covid world.

I don't think anyone was really expecting this type of international demand post covid.
I bet WestJet regrets cancelling the 787's. Connecting everyone trough Calgary is working well and they could have made a couple other cities or frequencies a success.

[hollywoodcory]

Originally Posted by Zmonkey

I don't think anyone was really expecting this type of international demand post covid.
I bet WestJet regrets cancelling the 787's. Connecting everyone trough Calgary is working well and they could have made a couple other cities or frequencies a success.

This was asked at a recent town hall, and they basically said they weren't sure how much of this demand is simply pent up post-pandemic demand or if it will remain like this for the foreseeable future. Sounds like they're going to see how S24 goes before making a decision on acquiring more frames.

They also mentioned its one thing to make money during peak summer on the 787s, but you have to find use of them the rest of the year. It was mentioned they were looking at increasing services (not sure how though - they don't have enough aircraft to add in anything else, unless they just mean extending the seasons on the routes).