YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ 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.

Are most of the seats on standard size jets Business Class? I thought tourist class was the majority. I'm just a humble peasant. Live and learn

[dubsH]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Are most of the seats on standard size jets Business Class? I thought tourist class was the majority. I'm just a humble peasant. Live and learn

No, but which seat do you pay more for? The "majority" of the seats don't make nearly as much money, I would think (someone can correct me on that).

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by dubsH

No, but which seat do you pay more for? The "majority" of the seats don't make nearly as much money, I would think (someone can correct me on that).

Yes. That makes total sense to me. But do most airline passengers fly Business, except the rich types / company reps? Most tourists fly economy, I thought, and I thought that made up the majority of a plane's seating, unless I'm wrong.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

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.

But is there? There certainly isn't two-way demand, French tourism to Western Canada is inconsequential. It falls behind the UK, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, China, S. Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, just barely beating out Switzerland.
http://www.tca.gov.bc.ca/research/Indust..._Visitor_Arrivals_December_2009.sflb.pdf

With regards to business class, a premium class seat is 4 to 6 times more profitable than an economy class seat.

[dubsH]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Yes. That makes total sense to me. But do most airline passengers fly Business, except the rich types / company reps? Most tourists fly economy, I thought, and I thought that made up the majority of a plane's seating, unless I'm wrong.

Yes, most of the seats on a plane are economy, and most tourists will fly economy, but I don't think that's the argument. Economy seats alone do not make up the majority of the revenue and/or profitability.

Let's look at it this way. Economy tix are at $750 for one-way flight and there are 200 seats. That's $150 000. Business class are at $3000 for one-way flight and there are 50 seats. That's $150 000 as well. 50 business class pax vs 200 economy, with the former taking less cargo/weight space. This is really simplified, but you get the point.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Yeah, but you have to think profit for seat (or floor area, or weight). If business class wasn't more profitable, it wouldn't be on airplanes. As it stands, a business class passenger pays anywhere from 3 times to 10 times as much, and travels with less luggage. Much more profitable.

[Yume-sama]

I've never really been on an International flight from Canada (specifically Vancouver) where there were more than a handful of people in business / first. This is a problem JAL faced, and decided not to sell "First Class" seats from Vancouver, nor would they retrofit their 747 to have "suites", etc., like flights originating in Chicago, New York, and San Francisco. Actually there was an article some time back in Japanese about this, that I posted on here with the translation. As odd as it is for a city like Vancouver, there's not overwhelming amounts of demand for high class travel. Now, from the USA, almost every seat is full! Maybe their companies have nicer expense accounts on average

Currently on the Air Canada flight I'm booked on, there are 4 people in Executive / First to Tokyo on a 777 (2 of them happen to be me...)

Each seat, on average, takes up the space of 6 economy seats. It would be interesting to see the profit margin from this....

[dubsH]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ Yeah, but you have to think profit for seat (or floor area, or weight). If business class wasn't more profitable, it wouldn't be on airplanes. As it stands, a business class passenger pays anywhere from 3 times to 10 times as much, and travels with less luggage. Much more profitable.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Didn't Qantas cut their first-class service and convert them into business class recently because of the current economy? Anyways...

[twoNeurons]

When it comes to numbers, if I'm not mistaken, Vancouver's Chinese population is about the same size as Vancouver's.

Delta plan is to make Seattle a major Asian hub. For some reason, they feel that a hub in the Northwest is viable, despite there being two West Coast Asian hubs already. Perhaps part of their plan is to draw Vancouver traffic.

Remember, too... that part of the reason that Seattle is getting beefed up is because of US airline competition... which we really don't have.

As for point to point 2nd tier city to 2nd tier city travel... we'll be waiting for at least 5 years before that becomes a possibility... with new planes like the 787 coming online.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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.

You guys might be surprised as to some of the corporations in vancouver. They arent as large as the three big guys in Seattle, but are larger than most in Vancouver realize.

Here are the largest firms headquartered in either city by market cap. If I forgot any please let me know.

Microsoft: 273 billion
Amazon: 65.5 billion
Weyerhauser: 52 billion
Costco: 26 billion
Starbucks: 20.38 billion
Nordstrom: 9.75 billion
Expeditors Intl: 8.6 billion
Expedia: 7.13 billion

Goldcorp: 29.85 billion
Teck: 25.41 billion
Telus: 12.22 billion
Eldorado: 7.7 billion
First Quantum: 6.6 billion


Also on the list would be the Jim Pattison group, but it is privately held so clearly, no market cap to display, but revenues are reportedly just under 7 billion reportedly, so slightly behind starbucks at 9 billion.

Clearly there is a gap, espeically among the largest firms, but vancouver does have some very large corporations as well, they just happen to be in industries where they dont come into contact with your average person. Someone is much more likely to have heard about starbucks or nordstroms, but they are not as large a company as Goldcorp or Teck.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

But is there? There certainly isn't two-way demand, French tourism to Western Canada is inconsequential. It falls behind the UK, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, China, S. Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, just barely beating out Switzerland.
http://www.tca.gov.bc.ca/research/Indust..._Visitor_Arrivals_December_2009.sflb.pdf

With regards to business class, a premium class seat is 4 to 6 times more profitable than an economy class seat.

Regarding tourist destinations, I was referring to Paris as a tourist destination from Vancouver, not the other way around. And for your information, at Canada house here in Paris, about half the inquiries are for Montreal to be sure, and the other half? For British Columbia. It seems the French have discovered BC, and there are magazine articles and subway posters to prove it. ..................... and as far as barely beating out Switzeland, that's a non-issue, as Switzerland is geographically almost an extension of France.

You seem to have access to all kinds of figures, WHATNEXT, but are you taking them in context? (read on, further down)

Additionally, why are you so against Vancouver becoming a major hub? Whenever the idea is raised, you seem to find some counter-information, or put forth a counter-argument to squelch it.

I respect you, and I respect your opinions, but sometimes it seems a little bit too "unreal" to be real.

Oh yes, and as far as that customs entries figure from France being so relatively low, isn't the answer rather blatantly obvious?

THEY HAVE TO TRANSIT THROUGH MONTREAL OR TORONTO FIRST AS THERE IS NO DIRECT FLIGHT (except weekly summer charters) TO VANCOUVER

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Regarding tourist destinations, I was referring to Paris as a tourist destination from Vancouver, not the other way around. And for your information, at Canada house here in Paris, about half the inquiries are for Montreal to be sure, and the other half? For British Columbia. It seems the French have discovered BC, and there are magazine articles and subway posters to prove it. ..................... and as far as barely beating out Switzeland, that's a non-issue, as Switzerland is geographically almost an extension of France.

You seem to have access to all kinds of figures, WHATNEXT, but are you taking them in context? (read on, further down)

Additionally, why are you so against Vancouver becoming a major hub? Whenever the idea is raised, you seem to find some counter-information, or put forth a counter-argument to squelch it.

I respect you, and I respect your opinions, but sometimes it seems a little bit too "unreal" to be real.

Oh yes, and as far as that customs entries figure from France being so relatively low, isn't the answer rather blatantly obvious?

THEY HAVE TO TRANSIT THROUGH MONTREAL OR TORONTO FIRST AS THERE IS NO DIRECT FLIGHT (except weekly summer charters) TO VANCOUVER

Then how do you explain the Swiss and Scandinavian figures when they have no direct flights? India is in the same boat, although the high numbers could be explained by a large VFR component. And if Switzerland is almost geographically an extension of France, the same could be said about the Netherlands?

I'm rather mystified about the the comment about me taking the figures in context, or being "unreal"? As far as I can tell I've only taken the existing data and arrived at a realistic conclusion that differs from yours about Vancouver's ability to become a major hub.

I would gladly be proven wrong when Open Skies comes into effect shortly and Air France, Iberia, Austrian, SN Brussels, TAP, Alitalia and Aer Lingus decide to add masses of flights to YVR.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Then how do you explain the Swiss and Scandinavian figures when they have no direct flights? India is in the same boat, although the high numbers could be explained by a large VFR component. And if Switzerland is almost geographically an extension of France, the same could be said about the Netherlands?

I'm rather mystified about the the comment about me taking the figures in context, or being "unreal"? As far as I can tell I've only taken the existing data and arrived at a realistic conclusion that differs from yours about Vancouver's ability to become a major hub.

I would gladly be proven wrong when Open Skies comes into effect shortly and Air France, Iberia, Austrian, SN Brussels, TAP, Alitalia and Aer Lingus decide to add masses of flights to YVR.

If you take another look, the top three figures are from the UK,Germany, and the Netherlands. Why?? It's simple. We have direct flights from London, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam to Vancouver!
In addition, at the bottom of the list, is Mexico, with a much higher number than others. (Ths could be due to coming through the USA, or ...............the fact that Mexicana has year-round scheduled service from Mexico to Vancouver) Other countries like New Zealand have small populations, and the Nordic countries ususally land on the East Coast of the USA before coming to Canada.

Compare Switzerland and the Netherlands on your map. Both small. Both in Western Europe. But we have no air connections to Switzerland, and plenty to the Netherlands, as you say. And the figures for the Netherlands are propertionally WAY hgher than those for Switzerland. (I rather imagine they come on Swiss Air Lines which lands at Toronto)
Oh, and for the record, I'm not imagining a horde of European carriers slathering to get into Vancouver. I was just thinking of one or two more principal destinations, like Paris (where I live, as you know) and maybe Rome. I'm a bit of a realist, too.

[Vanzunator]

Loosing Singapore was a shock to me.

Paris, I really don't understand what the holdup is for Air France or Air Canada to start this route. A non-stop YVR-CDG flight will have the potential to attract customers from Victoria, Vancouver, northern WA state, Calgary, Edmonton and the rest of western provinces population; that is a large and affluent market. I can't imagine how Air France with proper destination advertising can’t get a very reasonable load factor on a A330-200 (similar to what they use on their Seattle-CDG) and be profitable on this route. As I said before, Paris is the most visited city in the world. It is incomprehensible to me that the whole western Canada doesn’t have a direct flight to CDG. Currently Quebec and Ontario get 4 daily direct flights to CDG (2 AF and 2 AC) and I can only guess that at least one of those 4 flights is transfer passengers from the west. Also I think it is logical to consider that a non-stop flight attracts new passengers from the west who never considered CDG before simply because of lack of direct flights.

We also have a huge demographic with very close ties to Indian sub-continent (Origin and Destination passengers) which can easily justify direct flights.

I love to see the rest of destinations you mentioned. But Paris and India make so much economic sense to start with.

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

[MalcolmTucker]

^ I know many people that go to Paris as part of a general European vacation, flying out of either LHR, FRA, or AMS. I know personally flying to CDG seems to always be more expensive, and it makes no difference to the leisure traveler that is renting a car or getting a Eur-rail pass where they start and end, as long as it somewhere close to a place they want to go.

[Vanzunator]

Also we have lots of medium size businesses here in technology sector or biotech which can generate lots of business travel.
Electronic Arts (head quartered in California) has their largest global game development studio here in Burnaby.
companies like MDA, Intrawest, HSBC, Ledcor, Sierra Wireless, Nintendo, QLC and Ballard Power are all either have their head office or major operations in BC. As an example Sierra Wireless just acquired Paris-based Wavecom which doubles Sierra’s global workforce.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

You guys might be surprised as to some of the corporations in vancouver. They arent as large as the three big guys in Seattle, but are larger than most in Vancouver realize.

Here are the largest firms headquartered in either city by market cap. If I forgot any please let me know.

Microsoft: 273 billion
Amazon: 65.5 billion
Weyerhauser: 52 billion
Costco: 26 billion
Starbucks: 20.38 billion
Nordstrom: 9.75 billion
Expeditors Intl: 8.6 billion
Expedia: 7.13 billion

Goldcorp: 29.85 billion
Teck: 25.41 billion
Telus: 12.22 billion
Eldorado: 7.7 billion
First Quantum: 6.6 billion


Also on the list would be the Jim Pattison group, but it is privately held so clearly, no market cap to display, but revenues are reportedly just under 7 billion reportedly, so slightly behind starbucks at 9 billion.

Clearly there is a gap, espeically among the largest firms, but vancouver does have some very large corporations as well, they just happen to be in industries where they dont come into contact with your average person. Someone is much more likely to have heard about starbucks or nordstroms, but they are not as large a company as Goldcorp or Teck.

[mezzanine]

Another issue is of Air Canada trying to enhance its hub at YYZ at the expense of YVR (I.e., Emirates).

If I read this correctly, it looks like some vancouver AC flights will be arranged to connect to Emirates flights. It looks like emirates has backed down for access to YVR, for now. Note the quote from Calvin Rovinecu....

Air Canada has announced that it will commence codesharing with Emirates Airline with effect from 1-Apr-2010 on all routes in the carriers’ networks. The new commercial agreement is especially designed to reroute all passengers on Emirates’ system through Vancouver. Air Canada CEO, Calin Rovinescu, announcing the deal yesterday, said “this innovative move will transform the global aviation model and hopefully take peoples’ minds off our government’s silly aviation policy.”

http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/20...es-to-codeshare-ryanair-air-charge/page1

[MalcolmTucker]

^ lol April fools!

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

If you take another look, the top three figures are from the UK,Germany, and the Netherlands. Why?? It's simple. We have direct flights from London, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam to Vancouver!
In addition, at the bottom of the list, is Mexico, with a much higher number than others. (Ths could be due to coming through the USA, or ...............the fact that Mexicana has year-round scheduled service from Mexico to Vancouver) Other countries like New Zealand have small populations, and the Nordic countries ususally land on the East Coast of the USA before coming to Canada.

Compare Switzerland and the Netherlands on your map. Both small. Both in Western Europe. But we have no air connections to Switzerland, and plenty to the Netherlands, as you say. And the figures for the Netherlands are propertionally WAY hgher than those for Switzerland. (I rather imagine they come on Swiss Air Lines which lands at Toronto)
Oh, and for the record, I'm not imagining a horde of European carriers slathering to get into Vancouver. I was just thinking of one or two more principal destinations, like Paris (where I live, as you know) and maybe Rome. I'm a bit of a realist, too. :babyeat:

Both of you are talking about correlation and not causation and both of you are accusing the other of talking about the same. Until someone directly links the chicken to the egg, why don't we all take a deep breath and stop with the freaky baby eating?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Another issue is of Air Canada trying to enhance its hub at YYZ at the expense of YVR (I.e., Emirates).

If I read this correctly, it looks like some vancouver AC flights will be arranged to connect to Emirates flights. It looks like emirates has backed down for access to YVR, for now. Note the quote from Calvin Rovinecu....

Air Canada has announced that it will commence codesharing with Emirates Airline with effect from 1-Apr-2010 on all routes in the carriers’ networks. The new commercial agreement is especially designed to reroute all passengers on Emirates’ system through Vancouver. Air Canada CEO, Calin Rovinescu, announcing the deal yesterday, said “this innovative move will transform the global aviation model and hopefully take peoples’ minds off our government’s silly aviation policy.”

http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/20...es-to-codeshare-ryanair-air-charge/page1

This codesharing between AC and Emirates will no doubt all take place out of Toronto. additionally, what's a *bleeeeeeep* like Rovinescu talking about when he refers to "our silly government's aviation policy" I'm still not sure what all this implies.