YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion - Page 107

PaperTiger · #**2121** Posted **Dec 22, 2009, 7:25 PM**

True, their target market is clearly Chinese Nationals. This announcment is directly related to Canada being granted Approved Destination Status by the pinko commies, errrr chinese government.

twoNeurons · #**2122** Posted **Dec 22, 2009, 10:27 PM**

Regarding the temporary reinstatement of the YVR-KIX route, it looks like it's not happening. Here's the email I received back from Air Canada.

( I recommend you write Air Canada and ask about the route if you care about it )

Quote:

A temporary reinstatement is not economically feasible as there are many costs related to any new scheduling. Most airlines world wide lost a great deal of money in recent years, Air Canada alone lost 1 billion dollars last year. For this reason, capacity has been cut wherever possible to reduce costs. While we had a number of passengers who loved the Osaka route, the cost of operating it far outweighed the benefits as it was not as well utilised as Air Canada would have liked.

I think it was probably due to the fact that it was using a 767 and 767s aren't the most efficient planes for those distances. "Hopefully" we'll see this route come back either in the form of ANA 787 or an AC 787.

Also, given that Air Canada doesn't have any presence at KIX I can see why they don't think it's worth it to fly into there temporarily.

Until then, the best choice will be Delta's new direct service out of Seattle. If the times are favorable, you could even take Amtrak to Seattle, and Link LRT to the Airport.

The additional $50 and few hours is probably made up by the transfer in Tokyo and cost savings.

Of course, if you can fly NAR - KIX without transferring to Haneda, the Tokyo transfer isn't that bad, which is what I try to do, as KIX is closer to my destination anyhow.

vansky · #**2123** Posted **Dec 22, 2009, 11:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

True, their target market is clearly Chinese Nationals. This announcment is directly related to Canada being granted Approved Destination Status by the pinko commies, errrr chinese government.

yes, the commies are coming, it better be ready.

there are 6 million commies in china, i wonder how many will land 3 months from now...

trofirhen · #**2124** Posted **Dec 23, 2009, 2:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Airport

However, I also hear they will expand Pier A to increase westjet's capacity.

Any further information on Pier A and Pier B? It seems to me that these piers are underused, and could be the terminal hub for Westjet if they were unpgraded, at least for domestic flights.

Would Westjet international flights (USA, Mexico) still leave from the International Departure Building? I would assume so, but it might be convenient to have Westjet concentrated in one area.

Of course, in very large US airports, like JFK and LAX, each major airline often has its own terminal, but YVR isn't that big yet.

deasine · #**2125** Posted **Dec 23, 2009, 8:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Any further information on Pier A and Pier B? It seems to me that these piers are underused, and could be the terminal hub for Westjet if they were unpgraded, at least for domestic flights.

Would Westjet international flights (USA, Mexico) still leave from the International Departure Building? I would assume so, but it might be convenient to have Westjet concentrated in one area.

Of course, in very large US airports, like JFK and LAX, each major airline often has its own terminal, but YVR isn't that big yet.

It depends on the airport, but many American airports also split Domestic (Canada and US) and International flights to separate terminals, where within each terminal, there is a section for each airline. SFO has that.

The security screening processes in Domestic and Int'l flights are a little different, even though it's relatively the same from a passenger standpoint. So no, Westjet won't have their Int'l flights in the Domestic terminal, and certainly not any US flights as US bound flights have their own security at YVR.

Hot Rod · #**2126** Posted **Dec 23, 2009, 10:03 AM**

Chicago O'hare does international arrivals in a specific international terminal, but international departures can be made using domestic terminals *very useful for alliance partners. However, there are still many foreign flag carriers that only go out of the international T5 terminal.

As for Air China, I applaud their increased capacity to Vancouver. I ALWAYS fly Air China from Vancouver and have never had bad service or problems with them.

Well, there was this one time - when I was charged for my 3rd bag despite being an Elite United member (AChina is a Star Alliance member, like United/Air Canada). But it was not Air China's fault, as the check-in agent was from AIR CANADA!!!!

I must say that Air Canada must be the worst run airline in the world because the employees have absolutely no idea how to have good customer service.

And, come to find out - I should NOT have been charged for that 3rd bag after all; so you bet I will get my money back!

Other than that, Air China is wonderful to me - as is the Airbus 330 that they currently use for the YVR-PEK service. The price is right too.

Hot Rod · #**2127** Posted **Dec 23, 2009, 10:06 AM**

one more thing, I would not be surprised at all - if China Southern starts CAN-YVR service soon (especially once they get new aircraft) and we see additional PVG-YVR capacity.

I also think Hainan might 'shift' service from Seattle to Vancouver as well, as Im not sure the route from Seattle is doing too well (way overpriced/inconvenient). ...

Im very happy about the additional daily PEK-YVR Air China flight.

trofirhen · #**2128** Posted **Dec 23, 2009, 4:46 PM**

Well, as for me, (as many of you know), now that the ink is dry on the Canada - EU Open Skies accord, I'm just waiting for Air France to touch down
with regularly scheduled service at Vancouver.

In fact, I don't care if it's BA, KLM (Air France, really), or even (giiiiik) Air Canada, just as long as there's a year-round scheduled service Paris to Vancouver. Apparently, the route out of Seattle is flying full just about every day. They might even combine that into a Paris > Seattle > Vancouver service, rather the way British Airways has a regular Heathrow > Vancouver > Seattle run.

But, as they say "just do it." Hey, we might even get one or two other destinations too, in due time, of course. Rome was second on the list of desired destinations, after Paris, and I believe Melbourne was third, though I doubt we'll see that for a long long time, if ever.

Gordon · #**2129** Posted **Dec 23, 2009, 7:23 PM**

Air China's expanded service to yvr does not appear on Air China's or other travel websites.

Th will give YVR 3 flights to Beijing on same days.

Johnny Aussie · #**2130** Posted **Dec 23, 2009, 11:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon

Air China's expanded service to yvr does not appear on Air China's or other travel websites.

Th will give YVR 3 flights to Beijing on same days.

I don't think this has been "officially" announced yet, other than the article with the comments made by Air China's Vancouver Manager, so I wouldn't expect to see the expanded service updated yet.

In the same article it mentions Cathay upgrading one of their HKG-YVR 2 daily flights to large aircraft. Does anybody know about what the change will be?

I did read on the West Coast Aviaition Forum[/I]that China Southern has indicated it wants to start CAN-YVR flights by next spring/summer. Apparently on Canada's last trade mission to China this was "announced" by the foreign trade minister. Details a bit sketchy.

And with AC returning to both daily PEK and PVG next summer, looks like airlines have confidence the ADS will make a difference....

Yume-sama · #**2131** Posted **Dec 23, 2009, 11:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

I don't think this has been "officially" announced yet, so I wouldn't expect to see the expanded service updated yet.

In the same article it mentions Cathay upgrading one of their HKG-YVR 2 daily flights to large aircraft. Does anybody know about what the change will be?

Maybe they will go back to using 747 instead of 777?

Gordon · #**2132** Posted **Dec 23, 2009, 11:57 PM**

Maybe the A340 to a 777.

Yume-sama · #**2133** Posted **Dec 23, 2009, 11:59 PM**

I want another 747 before nobody is using them at all

The 787 will pretty much be the death of it for YVR.

Chikinlittle · #**2134** Posted **Dec 24, 2009, 5:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I think it was probably due to the fact that it was using a 767 and 767s aren't the most efficient planes for those distances. "Hopefully" we'll see this route come back either in the form of ANA 787 or an AC 787.

How do you figure? 767s are made almost exactly for routes of that distance.

Chikinlittle · #**2135** Posted **Dec 24, 2009, 5:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

They might even combine that into a Paris > Seattle > Vancouver service, rather the way British Airways has a regular Heathrow > Vancouver > Seattle run...

...Rome was second on the list of desired destinations, after Paris, and I believe Melbourne was third, though I doubt we'll see that for a long long time, if ever.

BA does not fly LHR-YVR-SEA. They operate daily non-stops to both cities.

Also, if you recall, AC was operating flights into MEL several years ago (In addition to SYD), before they started operating non-stop from YVR. It still required the then obligatory 'stop and stretch your legs' in HNL at the time.

Chikinlittle · #**2136** Posted **Dec 24, 2009, 6:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

I want another 747 before nobody is using them at all

The 787 will pretty much be the death of it for YVR.

How do you figure? The 787 is more of a modern replacement to the 767 than anything else (in terms of capactity). The 777 more replaces the 747 than does the 787.

Yume-sama · #**2137** Posted **Dec 24, 2009, 6:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

How do you figure? The 787 is more of a modern replacement to the 767 than anything else (in terms of capactity). The 777 more replaces the 747 than does the 787.

Very few airlines fly the 747 to YVR anymore, and JAL will likely be stopping in a couple of years.

But, really, I can see airlines moving more towards the efficiency of the 787 even if it takes less passengers.

Ultimately the 747 will likely just be cargo, orders for the new 747-800 are 2 to 1 cargo over passenger, with only Lufthansa and Korean purchasing them.

red-paladin · #**2138** Posted **Dec 24, 2009, 8:27 AM**

Will we ever get A380s? That's a real plane.

trofirhen · #**2139** Posted **Dec 24, 2009, 3:23 PM**

It sure is ! ! But it would only be used on very heavily-trafficked, long distance routes, with sufficient, consistent passenger load. If you can think of such a route, and an airline that flies that route that may invest in the Airbus 380, then I'm qure we'll see them here, although maybe not in large numbers, such as at CDG, JFK, LHR, etc etc

trofirhen · #**2140** Posted **Dec 24, 2009, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

BA does not fly LHR-YVR-SEA. They operate daily non-stops to both cities.

Also, if you recall, AC was operating flights into MEL several years ago (In addition to SYD), before they started operating non-stop from YVR. It still required the then obligatory 'stop and stretch your legs' in HNL at the time.

I was speaking to a contact in the YVR marketing department two days ago, and he said Brisbane is a likely new destination from Vancouver, as it is the closest to North America. Flights could make a stop there then continue on to Sydney and / or Melbourne

I was not aware than AC ever flew to Melbourne at one time.

FYI, at the present rate of growth, predictions are that it sill overtake Sydney as the largest city in Australia within 20 years. Sydney will remain the most desirable city, but for business passengers, Melbourne may be the top destination.