YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[twoNeurons]

whatnext: I'm really curious to hear your take on that article.

I want to hear both sides.

[Hot Rod]

I really don't see what the fuss is over. What is Air Canada afraid of?

They aren't adequately serving Vancouver now, yet someone wants to come in and provide some options. What's the fear?

What would stop the Indian airlines from expanding into YVR with Emerates here? What would stop Air Canada from making YVR their Asian hub with Emerates here?

I don't get it?????

Air Canada could already be making YVR their Asian hub, but we all know they are making Toronto. Indian Airlines could already be flying into YVR but we all know they aren't because of the protectionalism and preference that IF said airlines DO fly into Canada - they do so to Toronto and NOT Vancouver. The government of Canada mandated SQ fly non-stop in order to increase flights, but SQ has no airplane (well, now they do) that could go non-stop YVR-SIN [and not to mention, the other West Coast SQ gateways connect in Asia]. ....

So what does any reasonable person conclude from this behaviour. To me, this is a Growth strategy for Toronto at the expense of Vancouver. Plain and Simple.

Look at the 57 weekly asian nonstops YVR HAD before being "the Asian Gateway" vs. the 35 from Air Canada now. I ask, how many nonstops have Toronto GAINED during the same time. ......

And now, Montreal wants to get in the mix???

Protectionism of Toronto, plain and simple. That's the way I see it.

If Air Canada really wants to set up YVR as "THE Asian Hub", then why dont they do so? What are they waiting on?

They don't want to do it, they want Toronto to be the "IT" hub for everything; with only high dollar directs going out of YVR. AND they don't want anybody else messing with their turf and Im sure they influenced Lufthansa to come bulldog for them.

I don't see this as much as Dubai taking over as much as I see it as Air Canada and the East not wanting Vancouver to 'take over' Toronto.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

...........

Protectionism of Toronto, plain and simple. That's the way I see it.

If Air Canada really wants to set up YVR as "THE Asian Hub", then why dont they do so? What are they waiting on?

They don't want to do it, they want Toronto to be the "IT" hub for everything; with only high dollar directs going out of YVR. AND they don't want anybody else messing with their turf and Im sure they influenced Lufthansa to come bulldog for them.

I don't see this as much as Dubai taking over as much as I see it as Air Canada and the East not wanting Vancouver to 'take over' Toronto.

That's largely the essence of it.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Due to the current bilateral, Indian Airlines could only fly twice a week to Vancouver if current service to Toronto is maintained. This is being fixed, as there is a reasonable amount of origin and destination traffic.

One reason Singapore Airlines left is the new Canadian bilateral with South Korea , which created a bit of economic pressure on yields on the route. Singapore Airlines could have maintained the existing service, but choose not to.

Yeah, Canada's strategy of discouraging travel to international hubs in favour of direct flights breaks a few eggs along the way. Complete open skies with other advanced economies has the additional effect of discouraging hubs in Canada. Calgary will even soon have a direct to asia flight.

If Emirates comes in, YVR will likely never have direct flights to multiple destinations on the subcontinent. With the growth in demand Vancouver will likely be able to support daily flights to multiple cities across India over time. Is having flight to Dubai worth a bunch of loses elsewhere? Because Air Traffic is pretty much a zero sum game.

[Hot Rod]

Oh, somebody earlier asked - Seattle does not differentiate Transborder like Canada/Vancouver does.

So, all NON-US bound passengers are counted as International, regardless of the US airport it is from. Therefore, Seattle's International numbers include passengers to/from Canada even though they don't go through customs in Seattle (they do so in YVR).

One more thing, Im happy Air China is expanding in YVR; Im in China now and like the low fares from YVR (say 800 nonstop YVR vs 1700 from SEA).

[Hot Rod]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ Due to the current bilateral, Indian Airlines could only fly twice a week to Vancouver if current service to Toronto is maintained. This is being fixed, as there is a reasonable amount of origin and destination traffic.

One reason Singapore Airlines left is the new Canadian bilateral with South Korea , which created a bit of economic pressure on yields on the route. Singapore Airlines could have maintained the existing service, but choose not to.

Yeah, Canada's strategy of discouraging travel to international hubs in favour of direct flights breaks a few eggs along the way. Complete open skies with other advanced economies has the additional effect of discouraging hubs in Canada. Calgary will even soon have a direct to asia flight.

If Emirates comes in, YVR will likely never have direct flights to multiple destinations on the subcontinent. With the growth in demand Vancouver will likely be able to support daily flights to multiple cities across India over time. Is having flight to Dubai worth a bunch of loses elsewhere? Because Air Traffic is pretty much a zero sum game.

why is this? or is this what Air Canada thinks/says?

what difference does Emerates coming into YVR now prevent YVR from having expanded subcontinent service later?

Were only talking about one daily flight, surely Vancouver has a much more significant Indian population and business community that WHEN Indian airlines start service, people would migrate to them and Emerates would be in check....... BINGO

Emerates could 'start' the service and PROVE that Vancouver has the O/D for subcontinent directs. Emerates would get some 'visibility and profit' in the start - but I hardly see them TAKING OVER and being Vancouver's only choice for that region. Right now, sure - since nobody else is doing it (including no AC). So why not let them in, pent up demand is there.

Also, if AC is really serious about YVR being its Asian Hub, why don't they start flights in Toronto or Montreal or Calgary - hub them through YVR then non-stop to more Asian destinations? They would have the numbers, surely.

But oh wait - that's what their doing in Toronto. Having flights originate mostly in Vancouver then going to Europe and even Asia ironically. Got-cha.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

But oh wait - that's what their doing in Toronto. Having flights originate mostly in Vancouver then going to Europe and even Asia ironically. Got-cha.

Yes that is exactly the issue here but it is not Pearson or Toronto who is to blame, simply Air Canada. AC wants to subsidize their transcontinental flights, be it yvr-yyz yyc-yyz etc... by creating artifical demand by forcing intercontinental passangers to fly across the country first. By using a codeshare agreement with connecting flights out of YYZ AC is able to fill its flights without even selling a ticket. This allows AC to maintain a competitive advantage, and it uses these cash cow routes to fund its operations and less profitable routes, some of which it is forced to operate by the fed.

The ones to blame here are AC and the fed who are consistantly scratching eachothers back to the detriment to the majority of the Canadian population... even people from Toronto.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

One reason Singapore Airlines left is the new Canadian bilateral with South Korea , which created a bit of economic pressure on yields on the route. Singapore Airlines could have maintained the existing service, but choose not to.

So SQ chose to leave Vancouver because another airline came in and offered flights on a segment that they could only do thrice weekly? Essentially, they didn't want to ( or couldn't ) compete with a carrier that had better service? That's what I don't understand. I want to understand their logic. I WANT to side with AC. But seriously, if people will gravitate to carriers with better service, what's the problem? People will fly direct over Emirates Air.

If Air Canada wanted more direct service for Canadians, why did they start dropping direct flights to regions with NO competition? Osaka, for one.

If Emirates comes in, YVR will likely never have direct flights to multiple destinations on the subcontinent. With the growth in demand Vancouver will likely be able to support daily flights to multiple cities across India over time. Is having flight to Dubai worth a bunch of loses elsewhere? Because Air Traffic is pretty much a zero sum game.

Never is a long time. Canada is basically only server by the Star Alliance. This puts people on AC code-shares.

Interestingly, until fall 2010, there will be NO Indian Airlines in the Star Alliance. Is it really about direct flights to India for Canadians? Or is it about maintaining an edge with their Star Alliance partners?

If an airline isn't the the Alliance, that would mean it's not advantageous for them to code-share with Air Canada, right? That would mean they would be better off flying direct, right?

I could, for example, see 3x weekly flights out of Abbotsford, and 4x out of Vancouver to India if a non-Star-Alliance partner were to set up shop here.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Under the current bilateral with India there can only be 2 flights a week offered to a second city, with the first city only having 2100 seats per week. As part of a Canada India trade deal there is supposed to be open skies, so wait until then for flights.

And once again, there is almost no demand for direct flights to Dubai - The Canadian government's goal is to establish and nurture direct flights to places where origin and demand warrant it.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

And once again, there is almost no demand for direct flights to Dubai - The Canadian government's goal is to establish and nurture direct flights to places where origin and demand warrant it.

Sorry, doesn't wash with me. If that is the case, why has the Canadian government been trumpeting 'blue sky' agreements with such "major" markets as Iceland (population 319,960)? Icelandair does quite a lot of business transiting passengers from Europe to North America via Reykjavik. How come there are no howls of protest from Air Canada here? (rhetorical question only -- we all know the answer)

Air Canada itself is far from innocent. They tried to launch Toronto-Sydney via Los Angeles a couple of years ago (denied by Australia due to concerns over the impact on one of Qantas' most profitable routes -- deja vu anyone?). AC still do Vancouver-Honolulu-Sydney. If the US government took the same stance to Air Canada that Canada did to Emirates and Singapore, such routes would be impossible.

BTW, it interesting to note that because of limited competition on the LA-Sydney route, the prices are high, to say the least.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Iceland gets open skies because it is part of EFTA, which signed an all encompassing free trade agreement. Since Canada and the destinations served through Iceland have or soon will have Open Skies there is little concern Iceland will poach market share. Why would Canadians hub through Iceland to reach Europe when they already have direct flights? (Iceland Air would do well to go into under served markets like Winnipeg however)

Vancouver-Honolulu-Sydney, I don't believe Americans can buy tickets on segments of the route (confirmed, AC site does not allow the routing). The LA flight Australia objected to obviously was trying to pull a 5th freedom.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Why would Canadians hub through Iceland to reach Europe when they already have direct flights? (Iceland Air would do well to go into under served markets like Winnipeg however)

Price and/or service (but mainly price). Why else would people endure flights on carriers such as Ryanair?

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Vancouver-Honolulu-Sydney, I don't believe Americans can buy tickets on segments of the route (confirmed, AC site does not allow the routing). The LA flight Australia objected to obviously was trying to pull a 5th freedom.

Yes, the attempted LA-Sydney flight was a 5th freedom.

Strange, I was under the impression one could fly HNL-Sydney but I just tried the AC site and it didn't work for me either. I stand corrected

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

whatnext: I'm really curious to hear your take on that article.

I want to hear both sides.

Its trying to compare apples and oranges. Canada isn't Australia. It tries to compare international tourism, then asks the reader to dismiss the visitors to Canada from the USA.

If you're looking for an article showing how tightly Emirates is woven into the state of Dubai, you can find it here:

...As head of Dubai's Supreme Fiscal Committee, Sheik Ahmed is in charge of distributing the billions of dollars of bailout money that Dubai received from Abu Dhabi. And as chairman of Emirates Group he has been at the center of rumors that Dubai's airline, along with other key assets like the huge container port in Jebel Ali, might be handed over to Abu Dhabi in return for the larger emirate's help....

..."The airline put Dubai on the world map," he says, adding that the airline's 32,000-strong workforce makes it Dubai's biggest employer. "We've put a lot into the Dubai economy. The number of units we rent within the local market, the expenditure of the staff and how much it brings people to Dubai. If it wasn't for Emirates, this market wouldn't have been able to grow as it has. It's one of the core businesses of Dubai."...

...If Emirates decided to IPO I'm sure it will be good, especially if it's placed within the U.A.E. stock markets," says Sheik Ahmed. "It will see a lot of people trading in it. I will look at it as a positive thing. But as we speak today I don't have any direction from the government to do this...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...13440863220.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

When Emirates is willing to compete on a level playing field, get back to me.

[trofirhen]

I'd like to know when the Canada - EU Open Skies agreement is coming into full effect. Is it in effect now? If so, nothing has developed out of it thus far, though I admit it is a bit early to tell.

However, if it is not in full effect yet, when will it be? Does anybody know?

[Chikinlittle]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Air Canada itself is far from innocent. They tried to launch Toronto-Sydney via Los Angeles a couple of years ago (denied by Australia due to concerns over the impact on one of Qantas' most profitable routes -- deja vu anyone?). AC still do Vancouver-Honolulu-Sydney.

Actually, no. AC does YVR-HNL, and YVR-SYD (nonstop) but is currently not operating YVR-HNL-SYD.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by whatnext

When Emirates is willing to compete on a level playing field, get back to me.

If the UAE is willing to subsidize flights for Canadians (by backing Emirates), so much the better. I have no problem with UAE taxpayers paying for part of my flight.

From Canada's point of view, the government backing of Emirates is simply comparative advantage - obviously not a reason for protectionism. It doesn't matter why Emirates can fly passengers for less money, only that they can.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

Actually, no. AC does YVR-HNL, and YVR-SYD (nonstop) but is currently not operating YVR-HNL-SYD.

Yeah, their new 777-200LR are capable of flying 17,000km! Non-stop to Sydney.

Fricken long (nearly 16 hours), expensive, flight though

Originally Posted by quobobo

If the UAE is willing to subsidize flights for Canadians (by backing Emirates), so much the better. I have no problem with UAE taxpayers paying for part of my flight.

From Canada's point of view, the government backing of Emirates is simply comparative advantage - obviously not a reason for protectionism. It doesn't matter why Emirates can fly passengers for less money, only that they can.

Hmmm. They don't pay taxes there.

[quobobo]

My mistake, replace "taxpayers" with "oil industry" and my point still stands.

[trofirhen]

Regarding Australia, I think a flight to Brisbane is worth considering, as it is the closest to Vancouver. From there, you could continue on to Melbourne, or change for Perth, Adelaide, or another city.

The nonstop to Sydney should stay, in my opinion, although Melbourne is due to to overtake Sydney in population in 20 years.

[Yume-sama]

I'm a tiny bit surprised they manage to fill a daily flight to Sydney and back.