YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[nova9]

Originally Posted by Rusty Gull

I was not happy with my last Chicago-Vancouver experience on United. I'm looking forward to some much-needed competition on this very lucrative route.

I hated this route too. But mostly because of the passengers. I've taken it twice this year and both times have been really trying experiences.

[Yume-sama]

Air Canada is returning to daily service out of YVR to Beijing and Shanghai on June 1st.

They are currently at 3x and 4x weekly, respectively.

However, they have cut service to Seoul to 5x weekly, instead of daily.

[SpongeG]

YVR invests $30 million on new snow gear

By Martin van den Hemel - Richmond Review

Promising to prevent a repeat of last year's winter performance when a metre of snow brought airport operations to a virtual halt, YVR has thrown lots of money at the problem.

And with the busiest day in the airport's history expected on the day after the closing ceremonies of the 2010 Winter Olympics, it comes none too soon.

On Tuesday, officials from the Vancouver International Airport Authority unveiled their operation plans for the games and displayed some $30 million worth of snow removal and de-icing equipment.

231,000 extra passengers are expected to walk through the airport during the games period, and many of them will be lugging a lot of extra bags.

While the average passenger carries 1.6 bags, Olympic athletes travel with an average of six, most of them oversized.

The Olympics will see 50 per cent more passengers than airport's previous busiest day, which came in August of 2008 and saw just 26,0000 passengers.

"We know that our biggest challenge will be moving the increased volumes of people, planes and bags through our airport systems as quickly and efficiently as possible," airport authority vice president Don Ehrenholz said. "We've developed a reservation system for landings and takeoffs, centralized our de-icing system, increased our snow removal equipment, and will be taking a 'virtual YVR' to the athletes' village so that athletes and officials can check in there, just as they would at the airport."

This virtual YVR will enable athletes and officials to check-in 24 hours prior to their flight, and this will be the first time an off-site check-in facility will be made available at a winter games.

Should there be another massive snowstorm this winter, the airport is confident that $6.5 million in new plows and other snow-removal equipment will reduce runway clearing times.

Unlike previously, when airlines had to supply their own de-icing equipment, the system will now be centralized through a contract with Aeromag, which will make 20 de-icing trucks available to all carriers.

A number of changes and restrictions will go in effect at the airport from Feb. 1 to March 23, 2010.

All commercial vehicles—with a few exceptions—which are authorized to operate at the Vancouver airport will pick-up and drop-off passengers at the Templeton station of the Canada Line. Taxis, Aerocar sedans, limousines, Pacific Coach Lines buses will be permitted to continue to operate from the airport's curb.

The Canada Line is free between stations on Sea Island.

Hotel and parking shuttles will be restricted to pick-ups and drop-offs solely from the international terminal's second-level shuttle zone.

Double the number of Green Coat volunteers will be available at the airport to help passengers get to their destinations or seeking assistance.

Additional wheelchairs, specialized narrow wheelchairs and golf carts will be available as well.

Language Line services, normally available at 39 locations in the terminal, will be expanded to all retail locations, offering translation services in more than 170 different languages.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/70392227.html

[Yume-sama]

That's a lot of money to spend for like... 2 days per year

[SpongeG]

hey we had some snow yesterday it melted and not many people saw it - lol but it snowed in downtown vancouver and the valley got snow the other day too

its freakin cold here

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

That's a lot of money to spend for like... 2 days per year

They have to find reasons to keep charging for the AIF.

As for YYC - NAR. Narita is obviously a massive gateway to Asia. It's the Heathrow/Gatwick of Asia.

Lots of Vietnamese moved to Calgary when Vancouver got expensive. There is a steadily growing population there of other Asians too.

I agree with the Rockies gateway comment as well. It's pretty much an assumption that almost every Japanese tourist will go to the Rockies.

The route makes sense.


In other news... I saw them installing a green wall at the airport today. Looks REALLY nice... I'll post a shot later.
Of course, I also think YVR - KIX makes sense.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Well, I would be surprised if the route DID become more than 3x a week Spring - Summer season route. I just can't see the demand for it, but surely, they know things we don't.

I imagine people could connect in Tokyo to other Asian destinations like Singapore, and China, with other airlines in the Star Alliance.

Korean Airlines will also be flying a 747 in to Calgary a couple of times per week during the Summer, and ANA does several charters with a 747.

KE will be flying 3x per week for the month of August only and ANA has not had any charters to YYC for over 2 years now.

Also, AC has loaded the 77W for the daily flight to NRT from YVR summer 2010. So 3x week 763 from YYC to NRT will not have that much affect on the YVR-NRT route.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Air Canada is returning to daily service out of YVR to Beijing and Shanghai on June 1st.

They are currently at 3x and 4x weekly, respectively.

However, they have cut service to Seoul to 5x weekly, instead of daily.

AC YVR-ICN is cut to 5 x week for the winter season only. Daily flights return for Summer 2010 scheds.

YVR to Asia/Pacific for summer 2010

NRT daily 77W
HKG daily 77W
PVG daily 763
PEK daily 763
ICN daily 763
SYD daily 77L

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Singapore cut service between Singapore-KOREA-Vancouver. They could not make a go of it without siphoning off travellers from an intermediate market. There is little (read almost none) demand between Singapore and Vancouver.

There is no regulation prohibiting any US carrier starting service between the USA and Canada. Its totally Open Skies. The fact that Allegiant, Southwest, Jetblue, Virigin America etc haven't started service should tell you something. Despite all the Air Canada-bashing here, it was Air Canada that grabbed the opportunity to serve Canada-US markets and ran with it. Hate to burst folks anti-East bubble.

Sigh. Not this again. Singapore Airlines dropped Vancouver because they were limited to 3x weekly SIN-ICN-YVR. SIN-YVR non-stop is at the edge of the practical operating range for most aircraft, especially in winter, and a nonstop route simply doesn't make business sense -- just like doesn't make sense for much larger US markets. Contrary to your belief, YVR-SIN was a popular route for travelers to India and SE Asia -- not only Korean travelers.

Are you not aware of -- or do you choose to ignore -- the fact that airlines such Southwest, Virgin America are low-cost carriers IN THE US, and as such are unlikely to launch Canadian routes because of their business model? Air Canada 'ran' with the US opportunity, you say? I say that they haven't leveraged the opportunity as well as they could have. Considering that they likely hold a dominant market share on most routes from Canada to the US, Europe and Asia, they've done pretty crap over the past decade.

But enough of that. You clearly are a complete Air Canada homer, and anything I state that doesn't pay homage to the airline with the toothpaste-colored airplanes will constitute Air Canada bashing anyway.

[Gordon]

Before the recession hit the was going to be a Nonstop from YvR to India(Kingfisher Airlines).

I wonder how long it will take Air Canada to replace the 767s on YVR's Asian routes with 787s once they start taking delivery of the new planes?

[Yume-sama]

So, apparently Calgary's YYC - NRT flight originates in Toronto.

Three days a week people will have to go YYZ - YYC - NRT rather than YYZ - NRT.

This makes much more sense, now. And now, YYC will fly to YYZ 3x per week with a 767 and lie-flat seats!

We can ponder no more

[eemy]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Sigh. Not this again. Singapore Airlines dropped Vancouver because they were limited to 3x weekly SIN-ICN-YVR. SIN-YVR non-stop is at the edge of the practical operating range for most aircraft, especially in winter, and a nonstop route simply doesn't make business sense -- just like doesn't make sense for much larger US markets. Contrary to your belief, YVR-SIN was a popular route for travelers to India and SE Asia -- not only Korean travelers.

SIN-YVR is about the same distance as YYZ-HKG or LAX-MEL, neither of which stretch aircraft range. SIN is a small market from Canada, and it is poorly positioned as a hub to other destinations (as opposed to its ideal location for Australia to Europe traffic). As a result, SQ relies on supporting its flights with intermediate destinations such as ICN. Range is definitely not an issue, as the aircraft SQ regularly flew into YVR could easily make the flight non-stop.

Emirates and Singapore Airlines or two airlines which have been very successful at targeting external markets to counteract the low origin and destination of their home market. Transport Canada has taken the stance that further opening up access to the UAE and Singapore (actually, I'm quite sure that they would be perfectly willing to allow Singapore daily or more rights to Vancouver, direct, just not with an intermediate stop) is not in the interest of Canadians or Canadian businesses. Emirates in particular would likely greatly reduce the viability of future direct air service to India.

[Yume-sama]

With a 777-LR like the type AC uses to fly from YVR - Sydney you could *definitely* make it to Singapore. It's range is 17,370 km, and was specifically designed to fly routes like LAX - SIN, Dallas - Tokyo, etc.

I would love to see Singapore Airlines come back to Vancouver.

Would an A380 make it ?

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

SIN-YVR is about the same distance as YYZ-HKG or LAX-MEL, neither of which stretch aircraft range. SIN is a small market from Canada, and it is poorly positioned as a hub to other destinations (as opposed to its ideal location for Australia to Europe traffic). As a result, SQ relies on supporting its flights with intermediate destinations such as ICN. Range is definitely not an issue, as the aircraft SQ regularly flew into YVR could easily make the flight non-stop.

Not exactly. During the northern winter, the jetstream over the Pacific does indeed make the range an issue. I've been on a number of flights from YVR-HKG which in winter needed a technical stop in Taipei because of strong headwinds. On the Great Circle route, Singapore is further than HK. So either planes would likely in winter either need to make a technical stop or be weight-restricted. Either is not good for business.

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Emirates and Singapore Airlines or two airlines which have been very successful at targeting external markets to counteract the low origin and destination of their home market. Transport Canada has taken the stance that further opening up access to the UAE and Singapore (actually, I'm quite sure that they would be perfectly willing to allow Singapore daily or more rights to Vancouver, direct, just not with an intermediate stop) is not in the interest of Canadians or Canadian businesses. Emirates in particular would likely greatly reduce the viability of future direct air service to India.

The bilateral that was signed between Canada and Singapore indeed allows daily direct nonstops between YVR and SIN. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, Singapore Airlines flies to San Francisco and LA (much larger markets) via Hong Kong, Taipei and Tokyo -- despite the impact on US carriers. Is the impact to Canadians any different? Is Air Canada so much more fragile than United Airlines or American Airlines?

Singapore Airlines demonstrated admirable commitment to the Canadian market, serving Vancouver for well over a decade. This is not a 'slash and burn' approach (as many fear with Emirates). Unfortunately, their withdrawal from the market means Canadian consumers and businesses actually suffer from less competition and choice.

[SpongeG]

I thought the reason was Singapore was in financial trouble and they were cutting troutes all over the world not just Vancouver

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Sigh. Not this again. Singapore Airlines dropped Vancouver because they were limited to 3x weekly SIN-ICN-YVR. SIN-YVR non-stop is at the edge of the practical operating range for most aircraft, especially in winter, and a nonstop route simply doesn't make business sense -- just like doesn't make sense for much larger US markets. Contrary to your belief, YVR-SIN was a popular route for travelers to India and SE Asia -- not only Korean travelers.

Are you not aware of -- or do you choose to ignore -- the fact that airlines such Southwest, Virgin America are low-cost carriers IN THE US, and as such are unlikely to launch Canadian routes because of their business model? Air Canada 'ran' with the US opportunity, you say? I say that they haven't leveraged the opportunity as well as they could have. Considering that they likely hold a dominant market share on most routes from Canada to the US, Europe and Asia, they've done pretty crap over the past decade.

But enough of that. You clearly are a complete Air Canada homer, and anything I state that doesn't pay homage to the airline with the toothpaste-colored airplanes will constitute Air Canada bashing anyway.

LOL, your choice of words reveals how "unbiased" you are. Had you followed the discussion you'd realize my point about Southwest et al was in response to a poster wishing for more deregulation (sic) so we'd get Ryanair type carriers entering the market. Regardless, US legacy carriers have not taken advantage of Open Skies to the extent Air Canada (or Westjet) have.

I won't go into SQ's situation further, as your defense of them has been rebutted above.

[Yume-sama]

As we learned a few weeks ago, JAL would stop flying MEX - YVR - NRT and back, and would instead fly YVR - NRT most days.

WELL, today, it was announced Mexicana Airlines has joined the OneWorld Alliance, and the times are such that they will arrive and be able to depart on the JAL flight.

Considering JAL announced Mexicana joining in a press release, it's almost like they planned this !

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

I thought the reason was Singapore was in financial trouble and they were cutting troutes all over the world not just Vancouver

Indeed, they cut routes across a number of cities. However, the question is this: Do you think if SQ had been flying daily to Vancouver instead of being limited to 3x weekly they might not have cut the route? It's quite likely.

Consider the facts: Only a number of months before they cut the route, Singapore launched a public relations push in Canada to allow greater access to Vancouver, and claimed their load factors were in excess of 90%. This was probably in conjunction with the ongoing open skies negotiations between Singapore and Canada. At this time, comments made to the press indicated that 3x weekly was not viable and that they had other choices and opportunities should they continue to have limited access to Vancouver. There was speculation in various quarters that, following successful completion of a new bilateral agreement, Singapore Airlines would launch SIN-HKG-YVR 7x weekly IN ADDITION to the 3x SIN-ICN-YVR. How cool would that have been? I can already see Whatnext cringing now at the impact to his beloved Air Canada.

It is POSSIBLE that even flying daily, Singapore might have cut the route, but more likely, continuing to have limited access to the Canadian market with the flights they wanted means they simply cut their losses. The issue is that from a business perspective, flying to a destination 3x weekly simply doesn't give business travelers the flexibility they need.

[trofirhen]

With the advent of the bankruptcy of Dubai, which apprently made much of its money from real estate and not from direct oil revenues, it seems that Emirates is unlikely to ever fly to Vancouver. One more complication solved. Now, if we could get back Singapore and Osaka, and then work on a couple of European destinations, we'd be back on the right track.

[Yume-sama]

There's a difference between a Country being "bankrupt" and two crown corporations asking for time to re-pay a $60 billion loan. All of these corporations could go bankrupt, and leave everything else still standing. It's why every development has it's own company name aside from the developer, so that if the project goes belly up, it doesn't bring the developer down with it. Perfect example of this is Arriva in Calgary, which has 1 of 3 towers complete, and the other two stopped below ground level. Arriva is bankrupt, Torode, the developer, is not. AND, if Dubai really was "bankrupt" the stock market would have gone down a lot more than 155 points, considering them and China kind of own America.

So, Emirates Airlines, a completely separate entity, is unlikely to see any changes as a result of this.