YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[Hot Rod]

Im sure most of the West Jet flights will land at Chicago Midway, which now is Southwest's 2nd largest hub. I agree that Vegas and Phoenix surely might get a few flights, same with Saint Louis and possibly Kansas City.

But, Chicago has the best access of Southwest's network and it is the closest large hub to Canadian WestJet cities. Besides, you get the 2nd largest business centre in North America to boot - it only makes sense to hook up with Chicago Midway.

Now the only thing that could derail the link would be lack of capacity at Midway, but I think with the decline of Valujet and a few other carriers there, WestJet should be able to fill those slots with several flights from Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, and Montreal; you'd think.

[ravman]

i have been to midway and prefer ohare... its bigger and better lol... midway is far south and hence why it is serviced by low cost airlines.... but yeah... it would be interesting to see the pricing...

[twoNeurons]

There's a rail link to Chicago if memory serves me correctly.

[SpongeG]

southwest lands at all the second tier airports doesn't it?

didn't they apply to land at boeing field in seattle a few years ago and got turned down?

[Smooth]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

southwest lands at all the second tier airports doesn't it?

didn't they apply to land at boeing field in seattle a few years ago and got turned down?

Isn't Boeing Field alot closer to downtown Seattle than SeaTac? It would almost seem like a good thing to be allowed to land at Bowing Field... unless you have to transfer flights. I'm sure that most second tier airports are less geographically desirable than their first tier counterparts though.

[MistyMountainHop]

I don't think Boeing Field has the facilities to handle scheduled passenger flights.

[SpongeG]

heres the story from 2005

Southwest's $130 million plan for Boeing Field
Airline calls it 'expensive gift'; critics say otherwise

Southwest Airlines yesterday proposed spending $130 million to build a passenger terminal and other facilities at Boeing Field, with the goal of launching service there and abandoning Sea-Tac Airport by 2009.

Competitor Alaska Airlines immediately announced it would seek a similar deal with King County, which owns Boeing Field, raising the prospect of 370 new jet takeoffs and landings there each day.

Southwest wants to build an eight-gate passenger terminal, parking garage, office space, rental-car space and accommodations for cruise-ship traffic and buses. It would not share those facilities with competitors, officials said.

"Southwest Airlines is here today to propose a gift for ... this community -- a nice big, shiny new expensive gift," said Ron Ricks, a company vice president. "And when we finish doing that, we're going to give you millions of dollars in fare savings so people can fly more places, more often, for a lot less money."

Critics quickly pointed out that the gift comes with potentially expensive strings -- the unknown costs of road and highway improvements, neighborhood noise mitigation and airport security upgrades. Those presumably would be borne by airport users or taxpayers.

"Southwest just delivered a $130 million bouquet of roses to the King County officials, but you have to look under the surface of what that really brings," said Mark Cooper, a Georgetown resident who lives near the Boeing Field runway, located between the Duwamish Waterway and Interstate 5.

When the low-fare carrier announced its interest in moving last month, some called it a bluff to win cost concessions at Sea-Tac. But yesterday's announcement, combined with Alaska's response, should launch a public debate on whether the Puget Sound area needs a second passenger airport.

King County Council Chairman Larry Phillips said he's not convinced Southwest's proposal makes sense for the region, much less for neighbors.

Phillips supported legislation introduced this week that would require any airline to pay the entire costs associated with relocating from Sea-Tac to Boeing Field, which is accessible off Interstate 5 through a counterintuitive maze of turns.



"Doesn't this sort of beg for some kind of on- or off-ramp for the freeway?" he said. "Are you going to be able to do that bob and weave ... with stacks of people behind you and in front of you doing the same thing?"

King County Executive Ron Sims, whose office is negotiating the details of a lease, said yesterday that questions about traffic, noise and other concerns would be studied and publicly vetted before any agreement is approved.

But he said a preliminary look at the proposal indicates that major roadwork might not be necessary. Sims said he would look to finance improvements with airport user fees, not taxpayer dollars.

He called Southwest's offer a "very generous proposal" that could deliver varied benefits to King County's residents -- from shoring up the public airport's finances to increasing demand for Boeing airplanes.

Southwest, which currently offers 38 daily departures from Sea-Tac, would seek to begin passenger service in 2009 with 60 flights. That number could grow to 85 flights, the company said.

The Dallas-based airline estimates its local economic impacts -- including payroll, taxes and tourism dollars -- would nearly double at Boeing Field to $1.6 billion.

Instead of stealing passengers away from Sea-Tac, officials said that when Southwest introduces or expands low-cost service, more people are enticed to take a vacation or hop a plane rather than make a five-hour drive.

Before Southwest introduced service here in 1994, roughly 100,000 people flew from Seattle to Spokane, according to the company's proposal. The next year, Southwest's cheap fares lured 70,000 passengers, while other airlines that also cut prices handled nearly 175,000 passengers.

Port of Seattle officials, who operate Sea-Tac and have opposed the move, say that because Southwest is already operating here, consumers shouldn't expect to see those benefits again.

But Southwest CEO Gary Kelly said high costs at Sea-Tac have diluted the "Southwest effect" in Seattle.

He expects per passenger airport costs at Boeing Field to be less than half of what the airline would pay at Sea-Tac, allowing the company to grow.

Alan Bender, a professor of aeronautics at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida, said a no-frills airport would make sense for Southwest passengers flying to regional destinations like Spokane, Boise, Portland or Oakland.

"Their needs are limited," he said, referring to the passengers. "They're not there to admire the airport or use all sorts of amenities."

Given the company's proposed 50-year lease at Boeing Field, spending $130 million on construction costs could over time be cheaper than paying fees at Sea-Tac, said Bijan Vasigh, a professor of economics at the same university.

Alaska Air Group CEO and Chairman Bill Ayer said the cost of building all the infrastructure that Boeing Field lacks is one of many reasons his airline would rather not pursue commercial service there.

He said that Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air, which currently offer 147 and 134 daily departures from Sea-Tac, would seek to compete with as many as 100 flights from Boeing Field.

A regrettable outcome of splitting those operations might be a decline in service for communities that depend on Sea-Tac flights for connections, officials said.

"If Boeing Field turns out to be viable for a carrier, then we're going to have to be there as well. We don't have any choice. We can't have a competitor with a significant cost advantage at a different airport serving the same market," Ayers said yesterday in a conference call with financial analysts.

King County Councilwoman Julia Patterson, who represents South King County, said she had extreme concerns about shifting that much noisy traffic over other communities.

She doesn't believe the loss of those flights would offer appreciable relief to her constituents around Sea-Tac. But adding hundreds of daily jet flights to Boeing Field would be a huge quality of life issue for neighborhoods under those flight paths, which range from Tukwila to Beacon Hill to Magnolia.

"They would simply spread those noise impacts and blight a brand new section of King County with noise pollution," Patterson said.

Sims dismissed the idea that Boeing Field would become a second Sea-Tac. There simply isn't enough space, he said.

Southwest's passenger facilities -- which would displace roughly a dozen tenants -- would occupy 21 prime acres around the airport's recently renovated historic terminal.

Sims vigorously disputed accusations that leasing that space to Southwest would show favoritism toward one particular airline. It's the only one that has made the county an offer.

Sims said the county would be happy to talk with Alaska, as it has several times over the past decade with no results.

"We have not shown preferential treatment at any time," he said. "We'll see what can be accommodated but our rule will be the same -- we're not going to spend any taxpayer money."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/233645_boeingfield22.html

[Gordon]

It Sounds like this is a dead Issue now.

Where is Southwest's nearest West Coast hub( California?)


Is there any news on the progress of the pier C Expansion?


Gordon

[muzhav84]

i will post a full construction schedule for the C-Pier tomorrow, courtesy of PCL

[SEA-TOWN]

Originally Posted by Smooth

Isn't Boeing Field alot closer to downtown Seattle than SeaTac? It would almost seem like a good thing to be allowed to land at Bowing Field... unless you have to transfer flights. I'm sure that most second tier airports are less geographically desirable than their first tier counterparts though.

Not really, after SWA came out with their plan, Alaska demanded that they be allowed to move about half of their flights to Boeing Field, dramatically reducing numbers at the airport that was designed to handle the passenger traffic for the Puget Sound region and currently undergoing upgrades to expand and reduce delays. It would basically all have been one big waste of money if SWA got their way. You're lookin at about a 25% decrease, at least, in passenger numbers at Seatac, not a good scenario really.

[SEA-TOWN]

Originally Posted by Gordon

It Sounds like this is a dead Issue now.

Where is Southwest's nearest West Coast hub( California?)


Is there any news on the progress of the pier C Expansion?


Gordon

SWA doesn't operate the "hub and spoke" system typical of the US legacy carriers. They have large operations up and down the West Coast including SEA, PDX, SLC, OAK, SJC, PHX, LAS, LAX, ONT, SNA, BUR, and SAN. And to some extent, GEG, BOI, and RNO. Does this mean all these airports will see Westjet flights? Definately not. Most will never see service from them. The only real point of the codeshare is to expand options for their customers. SWA is not the type of airline that will develop a close relationship to another through codesharing such as AF/DL or KL/NW. I don't think you will see any significant increases in transborder operations from Westjet. Just look at how they codeshared with ATA back in the day. They partnered on some flights to Hawaii and maybe 1 or 2 in the continental US. I don't this will be any different.

[SpongeG]

like ^^^ you say i don't see codesharing or new destinations

the article seemed to only say that one can now buy southwest tickets on westjet's site and vice versa

[Smooth]

Originally Posted by SEA-TOWN

Not really, after SWA came out with their plan, Alaska demanded that they be allowed to move about half of their flights to Boeing Field, dramatically reducing numbers at the airport that was designed to handle the passenger traffic for the Puget Sound region and currently undergoing upgrades to expand and reduce delays. It would basically all have been one big waste of money if SWA got their way. You're lookin at about a 25% decrease, at least, in passenger numbers at Seatac, not a good scenario really.

Thanks for the insight. My observations as an outsider were based purely on geography. I'm sure there are countless reasons why SWA moving to Boeing Field would have been a bad idea.

[SEA-TOWN]

Originally Posted by Smooth

Thanks for the insight. My observations as an outsider were based purely on geography. I'm sure there are countless reasons why SWA moving to Boeing Field would have been a bad idea.

Oh don't worry, geography probably did play a role, considering that it would also give Alaska, in addition to Southwest, a cheaper and closer airport to Seattle. As a result of it all though, fees were reduced at Seatac and SWA got what they were really after.

[mr.x]

Ottawa eyes runway extensions
Transport Canada explores new safety measures for major airports

Jack Branswell and Phil Couvrette, Canwest News Service
Published: Monday, July 14, 2008

OTTAWA -- More than three years after a fiery Air France crash at Toronto airport, Transport Canada is still trying to decide whether to require runway extensions at Toronto, Vancouver and other major airports that do not already have them.

Aircraft going off the end of runways is one of the most frequent accidents involving airliners, with at least 10 such incidents in bad weather worldwide since the Air France crash.

Yet the Transportation Safety Board's final report on the Air France crash watered down how the lack of a runway extension contributed to passenger injuries and damage to the plane, according to documents obtained by Canwest News Service.

Transport Canada is considering requiring 300-metre Runway End Safe Areas as a safety measure, which was a key recommendation of the TSB's report into the Air France crash.

Vancouver doesn't have RESAs because they aren't required by Transport Canada, said Brett Patterson, a spokesman for the Vancouver Airport Authority.

An early version of the TSB's Air France report noted if Runway 24L at Pearson Airport had a safety area at the end of it "the damage to the aircraft and injuries to the passengers would certainly have been reduced."

When the report was published that section was changed to read: "the damage to the aircraft and injuries to the passengers may have been reduced."

The Air France plane travelled about 300 metres off the runway before stopping -- but not before it went through ditches, fences and into a steep ravine and that the injuries and the plane damage "was incurred due to these."

All 309 passengers and crew survived but 33 people were taken to hospital, including 12 who were treated for serious injuries.

In a memorandum dated a little more than a month after the TSB delivered its recommendations on the crash landing, the Standards Branch of Transport Canada noted that "current airport certification standards are under review with the participation of industry experts."

That position hasn't changed from January of this year, when the latest memo was written.

A spokesman said Transport Canada is reviewing studies from ICAO and the U.S. on runway design standards and RESAs "and this review has resulted in a recommendation to amend the Canadian regulations and standards," but the department will consult with the aviation industry before finalizing changes.

Toronto's airport authority, facing a lawsuit over the Air France crash, would not comment.

Montreal recently refurbished its airport and runways and it brought them up to the most recent standards of International Civil Aviation Organization, including adding RESAs.

RESAs don't necessarily have to be paved or cemented runways. For example, Edmonton has fields that would stop a plane. Some U.S airports -- RESAs are required at major airports -- use a material that crushes under the plane's weight and slows momentum. Typically, that material is a wall of concrete puffed so full of air that it has a consistency similar of styrofoam.


© The Vancouver Sun 2008

[SpongeG]

i was at the airport last night around 9:30 pm

it was quite busy and almost everything was closed and the few things that were open were quite busy - why do they shut down so early?

there seemed to be flights well into the night - some left as late as 2:00 am and arrived as last as that

[osirisboy]

i have always wondered that too!

[SpongeG]

oi got to see the closed store - it looked pretty nice

Airport ideal for Olympic marketing


Julian Asuncion, Marketing Assistant with the YVR authority, checks out some of the Vancouver 2010 merchandise available at the airport with the recently opened Olympic Store in the International Departures area.
Photograph by : Ian Lindsay/Vancouver Sun


Visitors from around the world meet Vancouver at Vancouver International, and 2010 Olympic organizers are making a big bid to make sure they are greeted by a strong representation of the 2010 Games.

Vanoc and Vancouver International Airport have just opened their first dedicated Vancouver 2010 store, a 1,300-square-foot boutique located in the international departures area of the facility.

"It's an ideal market for us, and an ideal place for us to be," said Caley Denton, Vanoc's vice-president of ticketing and consumer marketing.

"People who come to Vancouver look for 2010 merchandise, and if they can get it conveniently at the airport, that's a great thing for us.

"At the same time, local people who are going abroad and want to take a gift with them, they know they can pick [2010 gear] up at the airport."

Vanoc expects sales of licensed merchandise to generate $46 million in royalties to support its budget. To earn that revenue will require $500 million in total sales. At the end of April, some $7.8 million were earned in merchandising royalties, according to Vanoc's latest quarterly report.

Denton noted that the bulk of that revenue is going to flow around Games time in February 2010, but in the meantime, the airport will factor significantly in generating sales among souvenir-hunting tourists.

Opportunities to exploit airport retail space was one reason Vanoc cited for striking a sponsorship deal with Vancouver International Airport, which brands itself under the banner of its international airport code, YVR.

The sponsorship deal (which is worth at least $3 million) includes allowing Vanoc to set up up to six retail locations with the retail contractors that operate at the facility.

Tony Gugliotta, senior vice-president of marketing and commercial development for the Vancouver Airport Authority, said the Olympic merchandise "is a welcome addition to our existing selection of more than 160 shops, services and restaurants."

Denton said the remaining five locations will be developed and unveiled as space becomes available. The next will be in the U.S. departures area.

To date, Denton added, the merchandising program is "tracking ahead of projections," with the Olympic and Paralympic mascot trio of Quatchi, Miga and Sumi proving to be among the most popular items.

"If I had to pick one thing, I would point to [the mascot program] as something that really caught the attention and the hearts of some people," Denton said, "because it has gone really well."

T-shirts and hoodies and the merchandise being developed by the Hudson's Bay Co. (HBC), one of Vanoc's primary corporate sponsors, have also done well.

With around 18 months before the Games open, Vanoc has signed up a roster of licensees that have produced a wide array of products from traditional caps, shirts, pins and glassware to more fashion-oriented items by licensees such as Aritzia.

"As a whole, we have a full line of different looks for people with different interests," Denton said. "And really, as a whole, the program is going well."

The Hudson's Bay, with some 500 stores between the Bay and Zellers banners, is Vanoc's biggest outlet for its branded goods, but the merchandise can be found at dozens of boutiques, souvenir shops and stationery stores around Metro Vancouver.

Denton said Vanoc is working closely with HBC to develop its Games-time retail strategy. That will be centred on a central merchandise superstore, with satellite locations at key Games venues.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=dffe8405-e74e-4ea6-a4c6-31d7233d0279

[mr.x]

Vanoc expects sales of licensed merchandise to generate $46 million in royalties to support its budget. To earn that revenue will require $500 million in total sales. At the end of April, some $7.8 million were earned in merchandising royalties, according to Vanoc's latest quarterly report.

That's pretty good.....that means VANOC has sold roughly $85-million worth of merchandise.

[Punkster]

Poor Seattle

Sea-Tac losing 94 weekly flights this fallPosted by John Gillie @ 09:30:33 am Sea-Tac Airport will lose 94 weekly flights beginning this fall as airlines prune their schedules of unprofitable flights.

That figure comes from data from flight scheduling company Innovata.

Sea-Tac's lose is relatively small compared with loses at some airports.

At Los Angeles International, for instance, the airport will lose some 1,900 weekly landings and takeoffs.