YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[twoNeurons]

Which begs the question... if Air Canada doesn't want to use YVR, why shouldn't someone else be able to?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Which begs the question... if Air Canada doesn't want to use YVR, why shouldn't someone else be able to?

It's a classic case of "dog in the manger." However, Business in Vancouver is onto this, and it gets read by "movers and shakers" in local and regional commerce. I sent the link from mezzanine "www.centreforaviation..." to them and I think they'll do something based on that and other material they've received. The shit will rightly hit the fan yet.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Which begs the question... if Air Canada doesn't want to use YVR, why shouldn't someone else be able to?

The easy answer? Because they don't have to. As long as there is no competition, Air Canada will continue to default to its primary hub in Toronto (which is exactly what I would do in their position given that it is Canada's commercial and population center). However, the moment competition comes in, it is almost certain that Air Canada would fight to maintain their market share -- regardless of the implicit threat in Mr Rovinescu's remarks.

Candidly, the YVR hub strategy is nothing new. The International Terminal Building was designed with this in mind, and it was this strategy that Canadian Airlines was implementing prior to being bought over by Air Canada -- funneling Asian traffic through YVR to various destinations across North America.

Air Canada bought over Canadian in 2001 -- which means they've had 9 years to roll-out a similar hub strategy in Vancouver. Arguably, they haven't. Instead, they've cut back routes to several Asian hubs. Now Emirates starts lobbying hard for more access, and with the threat of competition, bingo!, Air Canada starts talking up YVR as a transit hub. Coincidence? Methinks not...

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Which begs the question... if Air Canada doesn't want to use YVR, why shouldn't someone else be able to?

What would amount to illegal dumping in any other industry, lets say if Dubai had huge forests and wanted to import 300 million logs a year to feed bc's mills in preference to bc wood, logs it cut down for free on royal land, is what emirates wants to do in aviation. Dump capacity, provide basically arbitrage service between Canada and markets Canada doesn't have access to (ie: Canada's restrictive bilateral with India).

The whole Air Canada vs Canadian plan you have to remember that what brought Canadian down was being over extended in the Asian market during the financial crisis. Basically Canadian had an agreement to service asia with American Airlines like Luftansa and Air Canada have for trans-atlantic, a true corporate partnership (which is why AA tried to buy most of Canadian on its own). The strategy didn't work then, as there is little economic reason to hub through cities if you can fill a direct flight of a jet with similar economics.

If Air Canada can fill a jet in Toronto to make a direct flight to asia, it makes no sense to hub that flight. Just like Calgary's new flight (which is fed in from Toronto, it makes no sense to do Toronto- Calgary- Vancouver).

Do YVRers want their airport to be a gateway airport, or just a spoke? Right now it is still a spoke, even Toronto is still a spoke outside of North America/Carribean and Europe.

Canada's air policy is based on trying to build as many of our airports into gateways, with direct service to as many destinations as possible without hubbing. It means serving Amirstar, not Mumbai, Dehli, or Dubai which would feed Amirstar if and when there is demand. It also means that Vancouver is pissed at Toronto, while Calgary is pissed at Vancouver and Edmonton is pissed at Calgary for funneling potential direct traffic off to hubs.

Signing bilaterals that allow the creation of these gateway airports in Canada is the goal - it is much better to have daily service to 10 Indian cities in 20 years than 5 larger direct flights a day to Dubai.

You can see this in China as our airlines start to spread out to secondary centres, some routes will be successful some won't. But we are able to compete on an equal basis not forced to run through an arbitrary hub, plus we have offered reciprocal access.

Australia you can see has fallen out of this pattern, with a large majority of its traffic going through Singapore, Hong Kong or Dubai. Of course Australia might have some issues with range of airliners, but if they had sought out a policy like Canada's, airlines would buy the right jets to provide direct service to the destinations Australians actually want to go to.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

What would amount to illegal dumping in any other industry, lets say if Dubai had huge forests and wanted to import 300 million logs a year to feed bc's mills in preference to bc wood, logs it cut down for free on royal land, is what emirates wants to do in aviation. Dump capacity, provide basically arbitrage service between Canada and markets Canada doesn't have access to (ie: Canada's restrictive bilateral with India).

Do you think that allowing Emirates into Vancouver really poses that much of a threat?
And do you want to wait 15 or 20 years until a destination on the Indian subcontinent becomes viable?
What do we do in the meantime? Just whistle in the dark, hoping everthing turns out alright?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Do you think that allowing Emirates into Vancouver really poses that much of a threat?

Yes. Why do you think they are willing to cause a diplomatic row to get access? They think they can make a lot of money. It is what they do, leverage their preferential air services agreements with surrounding countries, while threatening to limit service to them if they sign permissive asa's with their feeder ie: western countries. Since Dubai has much much cheaper fuel and can use it on half of their trips they can undercut the price we can offer. From Toronto I can fly through Dubai to almost anywhere in the world for a comparable price to a direct flight, even when traveling more than twice the distance on Emirates compared to other airlines.

If Emirates had its way, every intercontinental flight in the world would route through Dubai - they are building a new airport with five parallel runways and 150 million people a year processing capacity - double the size of the worlds next biggest airport. They need passengers and they know how to get them.

Think about if they controlled a large part of our strategic connection to India, destined to be a big trading partner and then threatened to end that connection over a foreign policy move - they have already showed they are willing to play strategic chess with our commerce and foreign policy.

It is just bad in almost every single way (unless you enjoy vacationing in an absolute corporatist monarchy, or think that being subservient to any other nation is a good thing as long as you can make a quick buck)

Originally Posted by trofirhen

And do you want to wait 15 or 20 years until a destination on the Indian subcontinent becomes viable?
What do we do in the meantime? Just whistle in the dark, hoping everthing turns out alright?

We negotiate and sign the most permissive air service agreement India will sign. Right now there isn't room in the bilateral to run a second daily flight even from Toronto, let alone Vancouver one from Vancouver or another city. Who knows what flights will be viable? It is possible Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary could each support direct to India flights - from where you will be able to connect into the UAE.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Yes. Why do you think they are willing to cause a diplomatic row to get access? They think they can make a lot of money. It is what they do, leverage their preferential air services agreements with surrounding countries, while threatening to limit service to them if they sign permissive asa's with their feeder ie: western countries. Since Dubai has much much cheaper fuel and can use it on half of their trips they can undercut the price we can offer. From Toronto I can fly through Dubai to almost anywhere in the world for a comparable price to a direct flight, even when traveling more than twice the distance on Emirates compared to other airlines.

If Emirates had its way, every intercontinental flight in the world would route through Dubai - they are building a new airport with five parallel runways and 150 million people a year processing capacity - double the size of the worlds next biggest airport. They need passengers and they know how to get them.

Think about if they controlled a large part of our strategic connection to India, destined to be a big trading partner and then threatened to end that connection over a foreign policy move - they have already showed they are willing to play strategic chess with our commerce and foreign policy.

It is just bad in almost every single way (unless you enjoy vacationing in an absolute corporatist monarchy, or think that being subservient to any other nation is a good thing as long as you can make a quick buck)

Your point is well made, but I have a question. You mentioned our strategic connection to India. OK. Which airlines fly there? Air India? Kingfisher? Jet Airlines? Which cities do they serve? Delhi? Mumbai? Amitsrar? You talk about this service to India as if it existed. So, er ............. where are the planes? What are the departure and arrival times? ..........

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Your point is well made, but I have a question. You mentioned our strategic connection to India. OK. Which airlines fly there? Air India? Kingfisher? Jet Airlines? Which cities do they serve? Delhi? Mumbai? Amitsrar? You talk about this service to India as if it existed. So, er ............. where are the planes? What are the departure and arrival times? ..........

There can't be service because of the current bilateral. The government is working with the Indians to fix this! No reason to give up on this and let UAE get all the economic benefit and the strategic leverage of providing the future routes.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

What would amount to illegal dumping in any other industry, lets say if Dubai had huge forests and wanted to import 300 million logs a year to feed bc's mills in preference to bc wood, logs it cut down for free on royal land, is what emirates wants to do in aviation. Dump capacity, provide basically arbitrage service between Canada and markets Canada doesn't have access to (ie: Canada's restrictive bilateral with India).

Perhaps, but a daily YVR-Dubai flight is far from 300 million logs per year.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

The whole Air Canada vs Canadian plan you have to remember that what brought Canadian down was being over extended in the Asian market during the financial crisis. Basically Canadian had an agreement to service asia with American Airlines like Luftansa and Air Canada have for trans-atlantic, a true corporate partnership (which is why AA tried to buy most of Canadian on its own). The strategy didn't work then, as there is little economic reason to hub through cities if you can fill a direct flight of a jet with similar economics.

Yes, the financial crisis caused a big hole in Canadian's bottom line given their emphasis on Asian routes. But the strategy was not predicated on serving LAX or SEA from YVR, but to serve East Coast US cities such as Boston, Washington DC, Miami and others for which a non-stop flight is technically or commercially unfeasible. And anyway, you omit the fact that Air Canada is doing exactly that out of Toronto for Latin America and the US to Europe.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

If Air Canada can fill a jet in Toronto to make a direct flight to asia, it makes no sense to hub that flight. Just like Calgary's new flight (which is fed in from Toronto, it makes no sense to do Toronto- Calgary- Vancouver).

I don't think anyone here disputes that fact.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Do YVRers want their airport to be a gateway airport, or just a spoke? Right now it is still a spoke, even Toronto is still a spoke outside of North America/Carribean and Europe.

Canada's air policy is based on trying to build as many of our airports into gateways, with direct service to as many destinations as possible without hubbing. It means serving Amirstar, not Mumbai, Dehli, or Dubai which would feed Amirstar if and when there is demand. It also means that Vancouver is pissed at Toronto, while Calgary is pissed at Vancouver and Edmonton is pissed at Calgary for funneling potential direct traffic off to hubs.

Signing bilaterals that allow the creation of these gateway airports in Canada is the goal - it is much better to have daily service to 10 Indian cities in 20 years than 5 larger direct flights a day to Dubai.

Of course daily service to 10 Indian cities would be great. But from a traveler's perspective, it's also about choice. Let's use your example of daily non-stop India services together with a Dubai flight. Some will choose the nonstop because of time and convenience. Others will choose price and so hub via DXB or another airline. Restricting traffic flows doesn't build up future hubs. It only means that this traffic goes a different route. And so India traffic goes by CX via Hong Kong or maybe BA via London.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

You can see this in China as our airlines start to spread out to secondary centres, some routes will be successful some won't. But we are able to compete on an equal basis not forced to run through an arbitrary hub, plus we have offered reciprocal access.

Compete against whom? YVR views its main competitors as US West Coast airports, so this restrictive air transport regime benefits SEA, PDX, LAX and SFO at the expense of YVR.

And right now because of restricted air agreements with several countries, passengers in Canada are forced to run through an arbitrary hub anyway.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Australia you can see has fallen out of this pattern, with a large majority of its traffic going through Singapore, Hong Kong or Dubai. Of course Australia might have some issues with range of airliners, but if they had sought out a policy like Canada's, airlines would buy the right jets to provide direct service to the destinations Australians actually want to go to.

Not a good example. Australia DOES have issues with airliner range, which is why Qantas been jawboning both Boeing and Airbus on this very issue. There are no planes in service today that allow commercially viable service between Australia and Western Europe. This has nothing to do with air transport policy, as Qantas is a huge player on the kangaroo route. Have you been to Singapore recently? Land in the morning and you'll see a ton of Qantas metal sitting there.

In fact, Australia has been accused of protecting the local carrier at the expense of traveler choice and cost. For example, the SYD-LAX is highly lucrative for QF and limited to only a couple of carriers. Lack of competition on this route = hefty premium for travelers.

[SpongeG]

whatever happenned to Kingfisher Airlines?

they announced delhi-vancouver flights a few years ago

[mr.x]

Great article:




Taking the air out of Vancouver


In Transit by Derek Moscato
March 29, 2010 12:58 a.m.


So much for flying the friendly skies. The last month has been marked by bickering aplenty between this country’s largest airline, Air Canada, and Emirates Airlines, the state-sponsored carrier from the United Arab Emirates.

The latter wants to deliver new air service to Vancouver — and bolster flights elsewhere in Canada. It’s a desire that has been met with stiff resistance — and plenty of tough talk — from Air Canada. Calin Rovinescu, the top boss at the airline, has taken his campaign on a national tour of sorts — telling folks from Vancouver to Montreal that new flights from Emirates into Canada will cost this country jobs and money.

It’s a tough argument to accept, given the underwhelming state of air travel in this country, and a possibly marginalized future for Vancouver International Airport. The airlines spat has spilled over into the press, with numerous policy wonks and transportation analysts adding their two cents’ worth.

But what may have been missed amidst the trash talk and punditry was a fascinating report recently published by the Australia-based Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, an aviation market think-tank that has been observing this turf war with particular zeal — and some contempt.

“It is intriguing to examine precisely where the vaguely defined threat to Air Canada exists,” says the report. “What exactly is the flag carrier being protected from?”

There’s the thorny issue of flying costs. “The simple fact is that Air Canada’s network is skeletal at best,” it says. “This helps make Canada one of the more inaccessible (and higher priced) destinations for most travellers.”

There’s also the issue of YVR. “Vancouver is ... a delicate issue for Air Canada. It needs to humour the airport and the local commercial interests, while recognizing that its clear economic priority has to be to bed down in Toronto.”

Ouch.

And finally, this analysis of Canadian aviation economics — and public relations.

“The carrier has chosen to consolidate its operations on Toronto, reflecting the economics of a lower-yielding Vancouver gateway and the value of focusing on a single hub. Air Canada simply doesn’t have the scale to manage two major airport hubs at this stage. So the argument against Emirates had to be more carefully constructed for Vancouver consumption.”

Translation: We are being duped.

But what’s good for Toronto is also good for the rest of Canada, right?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

whatever happenned to Kingfisher Airlines?

they announced delhi-vancouver flights a few years ago

..... and JET AIRLINES. ..... and AIR INDIA.

We have no direct flights either to Dubai, or to India, and have to take the long way round. This sucks, and diminishes our role as a hub airport. Anyway, as for that idea that allowing Emirates one flight YVR-DBX per day is going to cause Air Canada to collapse strikes me as protectionist nonsense.

This same attitude already lost us Air France to Seattle, and that would have been a choice route.

What we ARE doing is keeping our Star Alliance partners, notably Lufthansa, happy, by routing through Frankfurt.

And waiting around for years until some extensive India - Canada bilateral is reached is like fiddling while Rome burns. It could take 10 years. And if nothing is added or developed in the meantime, Vancouver will be locked out in the cold.

Countries all over the world, including Australia, are embracing Open Skies on a global level. We should be doing the same. If don't, we'll get left behind. It's as simple as that (IMHO)

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Great article:




Taking the air out of Vancouver


In Transit by Derek Moscato
March 29, 2010 12:58 a.m.


So much for flying the friendly skies. The last month has been marked by bickering aplenty between this country’s largest airline, Air Canada, and Emirates Airlines, the state-sponsored carrier from the United Arab Emirates.

The latter wants to deliver new air service to Vancouver — and bolster flights elsewhere in Canada. It’s a desire that has been met with stiff resistance — and plenty of tough talk — from Air Canada. Calin Rovinescu, the top boss at the airline, has taken his campaign on a national tour of sorts — telling folks from Vancouver to Montreal that new flights from Emirates into Canada will cost this country jobs and money.

It’s a tough argument to accept, given the underwhelming state of air travel in this country, and a possibly marginalized future for Vancouver International Airport. The airlines spat has spilled over into the press, with numerous policy wonks and transportation analysts adding their two cents’ worth.

But what may have been missed amidst the trash talk and punditry was a fascinating report recently published by the Australia-based Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, an aviation market think-tank that has been observing this turf war with particular zeal — and some contempt.

“It is intriguing to examine precisely where the vaguely defined threat to Air Canada exists,” says the report. “What exactly is the flag carrier being protected from?”

There’s the thorny issue of flying costs. “The simple fact is that Air Canada’s network is skeletal at best,” it says. “This helps make Canada one of the more inaccessible (and higher priced) destinations for most travellers.”

There’s also the issue of YVR. “Vancouver is ... a delicate issue for Air Canada. It needs to humour the airport and the local commercial interests, while recognizing that its clear economic priority has to be to bed down in Toronto.”

Ouch.

And finally, this analysis of Canadian aviation economics — and public relations.

“The carrier has chosen to consolidate its operations on Toronto, reflecting the economics of a lower-yielding Vancouver gateway and the value of focusing on a single hub. Air Canada simply doesn’t have the scale to manage two major airport hubs at this stage. So the argument against Emirates had to be more carefully constructed for Vancouver consumption.”

Translation: We are being duped.

But what’s good for Toronto is also good for the rest of Canada, right?

And my hatred for Toronto grows.

Sorry had to vent

[twoNeurons]

Don't be hatin' on Toronto. They're not at fault, here.

[Gordon]

I always thought that in normal times the Asian routes from YVR were always quite profitable for AC.

It's the government that plays favorites with Air Canada. If they don't show any interest in reviving the Oasak Kansai Route after the 787s are delivered that route should be immediatly opened up for someone else to service

China Southern was supposed to start yvr to Gangzhou(sp), I wonder if that will happen once the industry strengthens.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Don't be hatin' on Toronto. They're not at fault, here.

Very true. It's important to understand that, since the majority of Canadians live in Southern Ontario and Quebec, that's where their voting support comes from. So they try and please the voters there to make sure they'll get their Parliamentary jobs back, come election time.
In fact, the Toronto chamber of commerce (or equivalent body) supports Emirates getting access to Calgary and Vancouver. It's not as if most people in Toronto are into some evil conspiracy to suck the rest of the country dry. They aren't. They're just as much puppets of the feds as we are, only there are more of them, so they get more attention and more freebies.

[Rusty Gull]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Its that kind of knee-jerk remark that leads me to dismiss people's whinging about Air Canada. I'm curious as to why you'd dismiss the Embraer E-jets as "cheap"? In my travels I much prefer the two abreast seating in Economy compared to the possibility of getting stuck in a middle seat in a 737 or Airbus

Ok, WhatNext, why don't you come forward and reveal your affiliation with Air Canada. Seriously, you are the one who is full of knee-jerk remarks in defence of your beloved AC.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Very true. It's important to understand that, since the majority of Canadians live in Southern Ontario and Quebec, that's where their voting support comes from. So they try and please the voters there to make sure they'll get their Parliamentary jobs back, come election time.
In fact, the Toronto chamber of commerce (or equivalent body) supports Emirates getting access to Calgary and Vancouver. It's not as if most people in Toronto are into some evil conspiracy to suck the rest of the country dry. They aren't. They're just as much puppets of the feds as we are, only there are more of them, so they get more attention and more freebies.

And there in lines the problem. Because there are more of them. The feds kiss their ass more.

So we end up getting screwed more times than not because of all the ass kissing the feds do.

It would be fine if Air Canada was running these routes themselves. But they are not. They then act like it would be a disaster for the country if another air line were to run these routes. When by country they are talking more about Toronto.

[Yume-sama]

If you're in the market to visit Japan this Summer, Air Canada is having an unadvertised seat sale up to 30% off (depending on day) today from YVR only.

I just booked for September~!

It'll be my first time flying AC to Japan since their A330's kicked the bucket a couple of years ago. Looking forward to flying on a plane that isn't falling apart, their 777's.

[trofirhen]

Meanwhile, back at the airport, federal troops are crouched behind the rocks atop the canyon, waiting for those stinkin' Emirates jets, ready to head 'em off at the pass, guns loaded (with more bullshit than bullets......)