British Airways further updated their summer plans at YVR. They will now be 2x daily to LHR (14 weekly, instead of 11 weekly in the last update). And still keeping the daily LGW. I talked about BA's strong growth at YVR a couple pages back, so won't repeat anything. Other than... IMO, this shows even more that BA is taking advantage of AC's relatively small presence on the YVR-London market. They still do daily 777, so it's not neglect or anything. Just relatively not their strongest commitment here, compared to the APAC routes, transborder routes, domestic.. So no complaints or saltiness, like I said in my last post, I like the idea of 3x BA 777s each and every day far more, so bring it on!
https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/240913-bans25lhr
Good news about CX going back to 2x daily year round on YVR-HKG, starting Dec. 1st and going as far as schedules go into next summer (and good for YYZ-HKG too of course, also going to 2x daily, but on Jan. 1st). In December, YVR will have 14X weekly CX and 10x weekly AC, pretty close to what we had in years past actually. I don't expect Hong Kong airlines back here anytime soon, they are owned by HNA, a gigantic mainland China conglomerate, they are not expanding Canadian service, for all the many reasons we've discussed before on this forum. So it's good to see some solidity from CX and AC on HKG. Yes, AC does go from 10x weekly to 7x weekly in January, but with the CX strength, it's not the end of the world, service won't suffer. And at least it means BKK going daily and adding to AKL. HKG is one of AC's most solid Asian destinations, something it inherited from Canadian. The combined AC/CP airline has a long history of linking YVR and HKG, and carried a lot of the immigrants from HK who came to Vancouver (and other places of course, but Van especially) during the 80s and 90s. CP had 747s, as shown below. And back when non-stops from YYZ were either impossible or challenging, AC routed things through YVR. My point is, AC is not going anywhere on the HKG route, it may have ups and downs, but it will link YVR-HKG as long as there isn't another global crisis getting in the way. So AC going back to 7x daily (which has been the standard anyways for a long time) isn't troubling. But both AKL and BKK are newer routes for AC, and not nearly as entrenched as HKG. So I'd personally rather see the increases in frequency go to newer, more "exotic" routes, where it's a show of strength on newer launches. And appears to show that there is solid demand to make the routes viable year round at some point, and candidates for some kind of expansion again.
Adding back MEL seems likely at some point in the future, hopefully near future. Considering Air Canada will be operating 22x weekly flights to Oceania in peak winter, it appears there is demand there. Not so long ago, Qantas was like a unicorn for YVR, it would come for a few weeks in December and in summer, but it was never a sure thing. There were years they were absent altogether, then times they went via SFO or even HNL (?) back in the day. So it was always reassuring when they announced any service, even though it was spotty. But since 2021 they are year-round (albeit only 3x weekly, but it's a consistent 3 weekly all year). So for 3 years now, they have maintained and nurturing the year-round. Would love to see that frequency increase for more reassurance, but I think the route is decently solid for QF now. Ditto for NZ (Air New Zealand), solid daily flights year round now. With AC's growth, plus Fiji Airways coming into the picture (they are majorly targeting AU and NZ pax, as well as the O&D Fijian community), it wasn't a sure thing that QF or NZ would hold their own. Increased overall seat capacity plus multiple airlines operating can really challenge a route's viability because of the intense competition, so a route needs to be in really high demand to successfully nurture multiple airlines and high frequency (ie. NYC-LON or HKG-TPE for example, these are powerhouse routes with tons of players and seats, and has been that way for ages. But for YVR-Oceania, it wasn't necessarily a sure promise of success, it was still uncharted territory for a long time, in terms of non stop flights. Although aircraft have existed for a long time that could do SYD-YVR non stop (ie. 747), the economics never worked to do it year round non-stop. So the situation seems to show that capacity has been generally well absorbed for these new routes, and there's quite a lot of demand on the Oceania routes. And I don't expect this to decrease in the coming years, barring some unforeseen event.
Short sidebar, anecdotal to my airport discussion but really more political content than airport related. At this point, I don't put it past our current gvt. to do something to piss off AU/NZ someow and cause a drop in demand/flights. They (aka JT) have managed to cause/prolong significant issues with India, China, and Mexico, and there's probably more. IMO poor diplomacy hasn't necessarily been the CAUSE of rifts, but it really made things worse and more personal. For right or wrong, he did something(s) to really
offend each of these countries, it's worse than just a run-of-the-mill trade row or bargaining on quotas in trade court. That's normal, it's part of the relationship to have economic concerns, trade concerns, and try and hash it out. Whether he meant to or not, JT said things to personally offend leaders of three of our most important partners. China, India, and Mexico should be some of the busiest markets between our countries, yet each of these routes are kept back by some artificial imposition, and strangling their potential. I know India has other factors such as Russian airspace, so I'm not saying JT was 100% responsible for flights being where they are, but it is a big factor, especially for China and Mexico. Aeromexico was really taking off (mind the pun) at YVR, YYZ, and YUL. Seemed to just keep adding, 3x daily sometimes, and a lot more potential for that huge and growing market. And yet here we are at 2x daily from each airport, the summer could definitely support more. But with the visa changes, it's killed lots of demand. Anyways, I am not some alt right, convoy driving guy, not at all. I am only taking aim at him here because I don't think he was as diplomatic as he should have been with them, considering their importance (/RANT OVER).
So as long as we don't have a diplomatic indecent with AU/NZ anytime soon, we should be good. Same goes for all ME/Asia/Latin America countries really, they are much more prone to have diplomatic incidents/offences with Canada than countries in Europe, for the most part.
OK I am going to try for the 1000000th time to post a photo on the forum, I can't believe I haven't figured it out yet, I'm usually decently savvy with things, &**^&** I'm a dinosaur now I guess, and this isn't even new technology lol... Anyways, if it doesn't work, please visit the link, it's a very cool picture:
Prev
Linear Mode
