YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by yesheh

Of course, such a policy would also be implemented on a national basis, so YYZ, YYC, and YUL and all the rest would be getting the same benefit. However, none of them has nearly the ideal geographic location vis-a-vis asia and North America. Now, if only we could get some more direct flights...

Yes, yes, and YES ! ! ! ! It's essential if YVR is going to become a major world airport. Even Brisbane, Australia handles more passengers than we do!! So does Oslo !!!

We're on about a par with Stockholm Arlanda, at present, and for most overseas flights, they have to connect at Copenhagen, Amsterdam; Heathrow, or Frankfurt.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Are you asking if this tax applies to out-of-country flights, and that in-country (Canada) flights are exempt? A clarification would be great, Yume. I'm not as up on economic / financial / legal issues as a lot of people are. Seriously.
Thanks.

Well, that could be part of the question, too. It would certainly make international flights much more expensive!

If you purchase YVR - NRT, for example, are you charged HST on one leg, or both legs? What if you're not even from BC?

So confusing, they just ought to not bother

[raskal]

Like HST is applied out east, it will be charged on domestic travel within Canada that originates in BC. That means if you buy a ticket from Vancouver to Calgary and back, you will pay HST on the entire fare.

If you buy a ticket Calgary to Vancouver and back, you will pay GST on the entire fare. HST will only be applied toward any AIF you pay for airports in BC.

For transborder travel originating in BC, you will pay GST on the entire fare. HST will only be applied toward any AIF you pay for airports in BC.

For international travel, neither HST or GST will apply on the fare. HST will only be applied toward any AIF for airports in BC.

The same rules apply for the upcoming HST in Ontario, which also starts on May 1 for travel July 1, 2010.

[whatnext]

I was sad to see the hideous concrete blocks still in front of the doors on the departures level. I was hoping that was an Olympics only project. Guess we have the errant valet driver to thank for that.

[trofirhen]

YVR Nonstop to:
-Osaka; Singapore; Bangkok; Melbourne; Dubai; Paris; Brisbane; Rome; Copenhagen; Athens; Munich; Zurich; Madrid; Delhi; Mumbai ......

all on regularly scheduled airlines

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

YVR Nonstop to:
-Osaka; Singapore; Bangkok; Melbourne; Dubai; Paris; Brisbane; Rome; Copenhagen; Athens; Munich; Zurich; Madrid; Delhi; Mumbai ......

all on regularly scheduled airlines

What we currently have to Europe is just embarrassing.

[Yume-sama]

Thanks for the explanation, raskal. Are you secretly Gordon Campbell? I'm on to you!

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by mr.x

What we currently have to Europe is just embarrassing.

A Cascadian comparison is in order:

Seattle-Europe non-stop
London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris (and if you feel like including it, Reykjavik)
Metro pop. 3,407,000
Major corporations: Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks, Nordstrom, Amazon

Vancouver-Europe non-stop
London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris, Manchester (last 2 seasonal charters)
Metro pop: 2,524,000
Major corporations: Umm, let me get back to you.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by whatnext

A Cascadian comparison is in order:
Seattle-Europe non-stop
Major corporations: Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks, Nordstrom, Amazon

Vancouver-Europe non-stop
Major corporations: Umm, let me get back to you.

Heh... that does bring up a point. We have so many connections to Asia due to previous immigration and businesses... but on the other hand business connections between Vancouver and other cities, particularly those in Europe, may be weak. (This of course doesn't take into account tourism.)

[raskal]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Thanks for the explanation, raskal. Are you secretly Gordon Campbell? I'm on to you!

[trofirhen]

This is the Toronto Airport site from WIKIPEDIA. Look at point number 4: airlines and destinations. It may open your eyes a little

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Pearson_International_Airport

[trofirhen]

OK, here it is, also from WIKIPEDIA.

You have to peruse it more carefully, but if you look hard enough, you'll see that they have about as many Asian destinations as we do.

They also have AIR FRANCE to Paris CDG, which we lost to them, thanks to the feds dithering.

What I'm saying is, don't write off Seattle. They're catching up fast. You just have to look at the airline destination page harder, that's all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle%E2%...erminals.2C_airlines.2C_and_destinations

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

OK, here it is, also from WIKIPEDIA.

You have to peruse it more carefully, but if you look hard enough, you'll see that they have about as many Asian destinations as we do.

They also have AIR FRANCE to Paris CDG, which we lost to them, thanks to the feds dithering.

What I'm saying is, don't write off Seattle. They're catching up fast. You just have to look at the airline destination page harder, that's all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle%E2%...erminals.2C_airlines.2C_and_destinations

Why shouldn't Seattle have as many Asian destinations as we do? As I pointed out they are a bigger city and a centre for major companies, which Vancouver is not. An airline's bread and butter is business traffic. Does Portland complain they only have service to Amsterdam and Tokyo?

Toronto is Canada's business capital and the Greater Toronto area is home to 5.6 million people.

[Hourglass]

The presence of large corporations is important, but not the only part of the equation. Demographics and location play a role, as do artificially imposed factors such as visa restrictions and whether or not the airport is a hub for a major airline.

For example, over 90 million passengers passed through Atlanta's Hartfield Airport in 2008. Why should Atlanta, wiith a metro population of 5.5 million people have almost 3x the number of passengers as Toronto Pearson? Because Atlanta is Delta's primary connecting hub -- not because there is huge O&D traffic from Atlanta.

Vancouver has more Asian destinations than Seattle because it has a far larger Asian population than Seattle with the business ties and relationships that go along with it (it's not only blue-chip corporate types who travel business class). It is also better known in Asia and most parts of Europe than Seattle -- Starbucks, Boeing and Microsoft notwithstanding -- so tourism is a factor. Finally, it is the only Canadian city on the west coast of North America -- making it Canada's de facto gateway to Asia. Seattle by comparison competes against major airports such as San Francisco and Los Angeles for US traffic. So NO, I don't think it strange at all that Vancouver has more Asian destinations than Seattle. Supporting proof? Seattle has been unable to support a non-stop to Hong Kong, while Vancouver has 3x daily nonstops.

To your point about Portland, yes they DO complain about only having service to Amsterdam and Narita, due partly to history -- Delta tried to build up PDX as an Asian hub. FYI, the Narita route is heavily subsidized by the Port Authority of Portland.

Whatnext, I'm curious about something: Vancouver airport is a huge employment and tax generator for the Lower Mainland in the same way you argue that Air Canada is. So why denigrate Trofiren's hope of seeing YVR develop into a leading North American transit hub for Asian traffic?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

The presence of large corporations is important, but not the only part of the equation. Demographics and location play a role, as do artificially imposed factors such as visa restrictions and whether or not the airport is a hub for a major airline.

For example, over 90 million passengers passed through Atlanta's Hartfield Airport in 2008. Why should Atlanta, wiith a metro population of 5.5 million people have almost 3x the number of passengers as Toronto Pearson? Because Atlanta is Delta's primary connecting hub -- not because there is huge O&D traffic from Atlanta.

Vancouver has more Asian destinations than Seattle because it has a far larger Asian population than Seattle with the business ties and relationships that go along with it (it's not only blue-chip corporate types who travel business class). It is also better known in Asia and most parts of Europe than Seattle -- Starbucks, Boeing and Microsoft notwithstanding -- so tourism is a factor. Finally, it is the only Canadian city on the west coast of North America -- making it Canada's de facto gateway to Asia. Seattle by comparison competes against major airports such as San Francisco and Los Angeles for US traffic. So NO, I don't think it strange at all that Vancouver has more Asian destinations than Seattle. Supporting proof? Seattle has been unable to support a non-stop to Hong Kong, while Vancouver has 3x daily nonstops.

To your point about Portland, yes they DO complain about only having service to Amsterdam and Narita, due partly to history -- Delta tried to build up PDX as an Asian hub. FYI, the Narita route is heavily subsidized by the Port Authority of Portland.

Whatnext, I'm curious about something: Vancouver airport is a huge employment and tax generator for the Lower Mainland in the same way you argue that Air Canada is. So why denigrate Trofiren's hope of seeing YVR develop into a leading North American transit hub for Asian traffic?

I'm a realist. With the advent of ultra long haul aircraft, there's no reason for traffic from Toronto to have to stop in Vancouver to reach Asia. How can one complain that we have to transit through Toronto to reach many points in Europe, then expect Torontonians to have to do the same to reach Asia? Note Asian airlines bypasses YVR on their way to Toronto: Cathay Pacific and Korean. Sure, I'd like to see YVR as an Asian hub, but that was hatched almost two decades ago between AA and Canadian and the world has changed.

The comparison to Atlanta is flawed. Atlanta is drawing from a huge US market, like it or not many Americans do not want to cross into Canada in their way to a third country, and Toronto will suffer in a comparison becuase of that. Plus Delta is the world's largest airline, so their hub will be correspondingly larger.

Trofirhen seems to be particularly incensed about Air France flying to Seattle, understandable since he lives in Paris. Under the Canada's recent Open Skies agreement with the EU, European carriers will be able to fly unrestricted to any point in Canada. (incidentally the deal's more liberal than that between the EU and the USA). At that time Air France will have to put up or shut up.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm a realist. With the advent of ultra long haul aircraft, there's no reason for traffic from Toronto to have to stop in Vancouver to reach Asia. How can one complain that we have to transit through Toronto to reach many points in Europe, then expect Torontonians to have to do the same to reach Asia? Note Asian airlines bypasses YVR on their way to Toronto: Cathay Pacific and Korean. Sure, I'd like to see YVR as an Asian hub, but that was hatched almost two decades ago between AA and Canadian and the world has changed.

Just a question: with the advent of super-long-haul aircraft (the boeing 787 coming to mind first), does that mean Vancouver passengers will be able to fly to Europe to Paris and Rome (the two most desired YVR - Europe destinations in a survey) WITHOUT having to change planes in Toronto, if the traffic warrants? Surely, yes. If not, I'd like to know why.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

The presence of large corporations is important, but not the only part of the equation. Demographics and location play a role, as do artificially imposed factors such as visa restrictions and whether or not the airport is a hub for a major airline.

For example, over 90 million passengers passed through Atlanta's Hartfield Airport in 2008. Why should Atlanta, wiith a metro population of 5.5 million people have almost 3x the number of passengers as Toronto Pearson? Because Atlanta is Delta's primary connecting hub -- not because there is huge O&D traffic from Atlanta.

Vancouver has more Asian destinations than Seattle because it has a far larger Asian population than Seattle with the business ties and relationships that go along with it (it's not only blue-chip corporate types who travel business class). It is also better known in Asia and most parts of Europe than Seattle -- Starbucks, Boeing and Microsoft notwithstanding -- so tourism is a factor. Finally, it is the only Canadian city on the west coast of North America -- making it Canada's de facto gateway to Asia. Seattle by comparison competes against major airports such as San Francisco and Los Angeles for US traffic. So NO, I don't think it strange at all that Vancouver has more Asian destinations than Seattle. Supporting proof? Seattle has been unable to support a non-stop to Hong Kong, while Vancouver has 3x daily nonstops.

To your point about Portland, yes they DO complain about only having service to Amsterdam and Narita, due partly to history -- Delta tried to build up PDX as an Asian hub. FYI, the Narita route is heavily subsidized by the Port Authority of Portland.

Whatnext, I'm curious about something: Vancouver airport is a huge employment and tax generator for the Lower Mainland in the same way you argue that Air Canada is. So why denigrate Trofiren's hope of seeing YVR develop into a leading North American transit hub for Asian traffic?

Very good points, Hourglass. One thing though; I don't just hope that YVR will become principally an ASIAN gateway, but more of an ALL-ROUND gateway, to Europe, and possibly Latin America, as well. (Although to be fair, Latin America is southeast of YVR, so it's more logical to have Toronto as it's jumping-off point, I think)

[MalcolmTucker]

Even with the humdrum A330-300 you can get:

It will be the changing bilateral deal as it comes into force that changes things however I can't imagine it will get too much better, creating new routes doesn't induce traffic where there isn't enough to fill a flight.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Even with the humdrum A330-300 you can get:

It will be the changing bilateral deal as it comes into force that changes things however I can't imagine it will get too much better, creating new routes doesn't induce traffic where there isn't enough to fill a flight.

Intersting. Thank you. However, there is a large demand for nonstops to Paris, principally as a tourist destination, and also to Rome, given the sizeable Italian population in Vancouver.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Tourists don't fill business class seats. Same issues happen in Calgary with the AMS flight. Plus Air Transat fills a lot of the gap.