YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[Yume-sama]

Just a question that I've been wondering since the (appropriate) outrage of the Americans at TSA screening procedures; the only place I have noticed body scans in Canadian airports is when you are going to America. I have not seen them in use domestically, yet (although I'm sure that's coming). When you are flying to the USA from Canada, are the screeners CATSA or TSA? Are they bound by Canadian laws and regulations, or American? Is there such a thing as an "enhanced" pat-down in Canada? The CATSA website doesn't really provide much detail.

The last time I went to the USA, I was going to Las Vegas. I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, nothing else, and I did not set off the metal detector. Then they tried to usher me in to the body scan, I rejected, and they said I'd get a "pat down". I looked at them and said "Really?" - it was clear as day nothing could possibly be under my clothes. So he looked me over and said "OK, go on..."

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

yah i don't fly ever so but i know i've looked at the careers site for YVR many times and they all funnell you to a company that deals with a lot fo the services so its kind of — cause you don't get some of the great travel benefits when you are employed by the airline

The benefits aren't as great as they used to be. In addition, there have been cutbacks as well.

A friend has worked at Aeroplan for 10+ years and new hires there don't get any flight benefits as Aeroplan is not run (directly) by Air Canada any more.

• When you do get benefits, you fly stand-by and other passengers who are on stand-by get priority.
• You still pay all the taxes ( or at least a portion ) which is pretty high these days for AC.
• If you're flying overseas where there is only one flight daily, you may be stuck waiting a day or two to travel.
• Flights nowadays are regularly overbooked and are more efficient (financially). Many flights fly full. Less empty seats.
• If you're using one of you "buddy" passes, they have to travel with you. One good thing is that it doesn't HAVE to be only family, like some airlines do.
• You still need to take time off from work, and since popular times to fly are around stat holidays, you need to generally take more time off and it's harder to travel in busy times.
• It's hard to plan for stay in a hotel or book an event, if you're not sure when you're going to arrive.

In short, it's great for frequent flights like to San Francisco or Calgary, but on the long haul flights, being on "employee standy-by" isn't what it used to be.

In addition to all this, wages aren't as high as other sectors because this perceived benefit attracts people who care less about the money and more about so-called "free flights"

Maybe someone who works for AC (or another major airline) can comment on all this, but this is the general feeling i get.

A friend who used to work for American Airlines says that he took a higher paying job working for YVR and his wage increase more than makes up for the "cheap flights" he used to get.

He did admit that it can be nice for someone who's young and unattached.

[Chikinlittle]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Just a question that I've been wondering since the (appropriate) outrage of the Americans at TSA screening procedures; the only place I have noticed body scans in Canadian airports is when you are going to America. I have not seen them in use domestically, yet (although I'm sure that's coming). When you are flying to the USA from Canada, are the screeners CATSA or TSA? Are they bound by Canadian laws and regulations, or American? Is there such a thing as an "enhanced" pat-down in Canada? The CATSA website doesn't really provide much detail.

The last time I went to the USA, I was going to Las Vegas. I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, nothing else, and I did not set off the metal detector. Then they tried to usher me in to the body scan, I rejected, and they said I'd get a "pat down". I looked at them and said "Really?" - it was clear as day nothing could possibly be under my clothes. So he looked me over and said "OK, go on..."

There is now a body scanner at domestic security at YVR.

[Yume-sama]

Oh. Good. I've always been a fan of security theatre.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

The Air Canada (or another Canadian airline) doesn't think it is worth it to run 6 flights a week to UAE but the UAE wants more flights should tell you all you need to know. It isn't about connecting UAE to Canada.

I've never been good at "second-guessing" or "reading between the lines."

That Emirates wants greater access to Canada, but that it has nothing to do with connecting the UAE to Canada is supposed to mean something.

In plain language, tell me please: WHAT ??

[Yume-sama]

It's apparently part of some grand conspiracy to make Emirates the "World" airline by funnelling traffic to DXB from elsewhere, enticing people with superior service, equipment, and connections, at a lower cost.

Diabolical. And they would have gotten away with it too, if not for those...

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I've never been good at "second-guessing" or "reading between the lines."

That Emirates wants greater access to Canada, but that it has nothing to do with connecting the UAE to Canada is supposed to mean something.

In plain language, tell me please: WHAT ??

It means that Air Canada feels like demand to Dubai is sufficient, but feels like they would be undercut by Dubai for India flights that hubbed in Dubai.

Reading further between the lines, it probably means Air Canada WANTS to fly direct to Indian destinations, likely using 787s they're waiting for (or use 777-ERs on this route and 787s elsewhere) and a discount carrier to Dubai would affect the viability such a route.

Air Canada wants a direct flight to 1 or 2 major Indian cities and wants to have perhaps a future Indian Hub for the country in Delhi or Mumbai.

Limiting Emirate to the current number of flights means Dubai can not serve as a hub for India.

[golog]

The op-ed article was probably part of the campaign the UAE they hired a publicist for.

I'm sure they want access to the Canadian domestic market in addition to having more flights between the countries. On the popular routes within Canada like Vancouver-Toronto, there is a huge markup and little choice for consumers.

The question is how much access is fair, and by what reason do we restrict access. The problem that comes up even before that is that the process is not open or transparent. We don't know what the offers are, and how the decisions are reached.

There's big money involved, and it comes down to arbitrary decisions. I could care less if the UAE gets more landing rights, I just want to hear the arguments how and why this surplus gets divided up the way it does. If spending 30% more up front saves me money later, I can be convinced. If all it does is feed into the bonus check of some key political donor, I won't want any part of that. If it were an honest deal, they would feel free to discuss it in public.

If they were worried about domestic jobs in aerospace, they wouldn't allow overflight by planes with shoddy maintenance performed by the lowest bidder abroad. Those jobs are higher value than ones as stewardesses, and there is a legitimate appeal to national security/sovereignty/safety.

[Yume-sama]

Of course, Emirates just gets around having half the amount of landing slots they want, by using a plane that can seat double the people lol

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

It means that Air Canada feels like demand to Dubai is sufficient, but feels like they would be undercut by Dubai for India flights that hubbed in Dubai.

Reading further between the lines, it probably means Air Canada WANTS to fly direct to Indian destinations, likely using 787s they're waiting for (or use 777-ERs on this route and 787s elsewhere) and a discount carrier to Dubai would affect the viability such a route.

Air Canada wants a direct flight to 1 or 2 major Indian cities and wants to have perhaps a future Indian Hub for the country in Delhi or Mumbai.

Limiting Emirate to the current number of flights means Dubai can not serve as a hub for India.

According to a contact at YVR, Vancouver - Delhi (and presumably Mumbai) is coming up. It was to have started in 2008, but the recession postponed it. Now it seems back on again.

Therefore ... if Air India (or Air Canada) get rights to one or two cities in India, as seems very possible now, does that mean that EK would not be interested in YVR any more because they can't "milk" it?

And what's all this about EK only wanted unlimited access to Toronto all along, and that YVR and YYC were never part of the bargain??? What's going on?

Furthermore, even if EK were to get more landing rights in Canada (presumably increased frequency at YYZ, and flights to YVR and YYC,) how would this cost Canada "thousands of jobs" as the government claims??

I don't get this conundrum at all. Oh well, I've always been called simple-minded, and maybe I am. But if not, can someone out there clarify this weird puzzle for me, please?
Thank you.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

• When you do get benefits, you fly stand-by and other passengers who are on stand-by get priority.
• You still pay all the taxes ( or at least a portion ) which is pretty high these days for AC.
• If you're flying overseas where there is only one flight daily, you may be stuck waiting a day or two to travel.
• Flights nowadays are regularly overbooked and are more efficient (financially). Many flights fly full. Less empty seats.
• If you're using one of you "buddy" passes, they have to travel with you. One good thing is that it doesn't HAVE to be only family, like some airlines do.
• You still need to take time off from work, and since popular times to fly are around stat holidays, you need to generally take more time off and it's harder to travel in busy times.
• It's hard to plan for stay in a hotel or book an event, if you're not sure when you're going to arrive.

In short, it's great for frequent flights like to San Francisco or Calgary, but on the long haul flights, being on "employee standy-by" isn't what it used to be.

Oh wow... big deal. I can't believe people are complaining about this. Most other international airlines have these policies for their staff. Unless you are an extra crew member on board, you are on standby. And you are on standby based on seniority and date of join. This is what you get for having such discounted S-Class fares.

The regular flier should always have priority over discounted staff airfare.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by deasine

Oh wow... big deal. I can't believe people are complaining about this. Most other international airlines have these policies for their staff. Unless you are an extra crew member on board, you are on standby. And you are on standby based on seniority and date of join. This is what you get for having such discounted S-Class fares.

The regular flier should always have priority over discounted staff airfare.

Just a note, that wasn't a complaint against Air Canada or any airline specifically. It just happens that I'm only familiar with Air Canada's policies. Sorry if I wasn't clear that I was stating specifics about generalities which apply to most airlines.

It was just a reality that people have to consider when evaluating whether the flight benefits are useful to them or not. It's definitely not as cheap or as nice as it "used" to be.

As I mentioned, a friend who worked for American Airlines felt similarly.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

According to a contact at YVR, Vancouver - Delhi (and presumably Mumbai) is coming up. It was to have started in 2008, but the recession postponed it. Now it seems back on again.

Therefore ... if Air India (or Air Canada) get rights to one or two cities in India, as seems very possible now, does that mean that EK would not be interested in YVR any more because they can't "milk" it?

I don't think it's a matter of whether EK is interested or not. They want in whether there are direct routes or not. It's obviously better for them to be in before a direct flight is in place so they can compete directly with their service, newer fleet, and bargain basement prices.

However, from evidence elsewhere, they would likely be able to undercut a direct flight due to lower expenses of flying through their home country.

Business travelers to India would prefer direct, but a lot of the traffic to India will be family, to start. In addition, as I doubt Air Canada would fly direct to smaller secondary cities in India, there would be an advantage EK would have in that they DO fly direct to smaller cities.

They also have loyalty within India as they inexpensively serve the world to India. They have over 10 destinations in India.

I think, though, that Emirates is fighting Canada so hard on this not because they really care about the Canadian market. They probably don't REALLY care about Canada. However, they know that even if one relatively insignificant nation denies them additional landing spots, it gives others reason to do the same... namely the USA.

We've even seen that argument here... "if Emirates can work in Australia, why can't it work here?"

I'm not saying that they should be allowed, or that they shouldn't. I'm just stating that there seems to me more at stake here than Emirates wanting to serve Canada's market.

As for me, I find it all very interesting.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Good advice! I am planning on a tour through China later this year. Well, Beijing / Shanghai / Xian (maybe), Hong Kong and then on to Macau.

Are you sure that's their name, though Google can't find them.

Go to www.canadacts.com

[deasine]

New tour entrant prepares for takeoff
Maple Fun Travel to offer packages to Japan in 2011

26 November 2010
National Post

A lack of competition across the Pacific this year has buoyed Air Canada's earnings in recent months, but it is also attracting a number of new competitors to the market.

One tour operator, Maple Fun Travel Inc., being launched by Jacques Kavafian, a former Bay Street analyst, aims to begin selling packaged tours between Canada and Japan next year.

Maple Fun Travel is being built through the acquisitions of Vancouver-based Maple Fun Tours Ltd. and Tokyo-based Ryoko Club, providing a sales force in both countries.

The company intends to begin selling packaged tours on one dedicated chartered plane, four times a week between Vancouver and Osaka and Nagano, Japan, before expanding to Montreal in the fall, Mr. Kavafian said. All the funding is in place to begin flying in June 2011, he said.

But Mr. Kavafian would not say who would be operating the aircraft or what sort of plane would be used, only that an announcement was imminent.

At least one operator, Transat A.T., had been competing for the business, but others, like Calgary-based Enerjet, had dropped out, an industry source said.

Maple Fun Travel will bring together a disparate group of players, including WestJet cofounder Mark Hill as its chief operating officer and former Air Canada executive Robert Peterson as its chief financial officer. Both men worked at WestJet and Air Canada during their high-profile spying dispute a few years ago.

The men have put their differences aside to try to take advantage of the opportunities Air Canada has been capitalizing on this year to Asia due to a lack of competition.

In the first nine months of the year, the country's largest carrier has seen a 31% increase in passenger revenue on its Pacific routes, in particular to China, on the back of a 22% increase in traffic and a 7% improvement in yields. The third quarter proved especially strong with yields up 17%and passenger revenue up nearly 38%.

By contrast, Air Canada's system-wide passenger revenue has been up 10% year over year in the first nine months of the year, with traffic up 8.4% and yields up only 1.6%. The company has seen improved demand on almost every route, with the exception of Korea, and added new service to Tokyo and more frequency to China from the West.

While the Pacific has certainly been a boon, Air Canada chief executive Calin Rovinescu has warned about increased competition on the routes in the months ahead.

"The U.S. carriers, particularly, are adding a lot of capacity, which typically translates into reduced yields," he said in an interview this month.

But it is not just U.S. carriers that are eyeing the Pacific. Ontario financier James Hultquist-Morrissey also has plans to launch a charter airline to South Korea, XPO Airlines, in the spring of 2011.

(National Post, 2010)

[Johnny Aussie]

^ So I guess this is what was Canadian Pacific Travel Inc.? I was actually wondering about this recently. So at least we know it will be Osaka and Nagano (I wonder if they meant Nagoya as Nagano does not actually have a commercial airport).

I would imagine Montreal will be for the fall colours.

Their first press release a few months ago also mentioned Calgary too, so not sure if that will still be happening or not.

I see Air Transat was mentioned as a possible carrier. Wonder why Enerjet was in there, unless they were planning on getting some larger aircraft.

On Enerjet's website they mention they are "restructuring" so I doubt they will be offering any winter charters. A bit late now anyway.

So I guess, as they say, stay tuned.

PS - sorry Trofirhen - more talk about Japan

[twoNeurons]

Considering many Japanese travel on packages, 10-day fixed, tour groups, I'd imagine that if they can get a foothold into that industry and offer open-jaw between Calgary and Vancouver, they'll survive.

The idea of a 6-day trip is appealing: a couple of days in Vancouver/Whistler, a Rail or Bus trip through to the Rockies for a few nights and then return from Calgary.

Though, this kind of trip happens now, it's just all on scheduled airlines.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Considering many Japanese travel on packages, 10-day fixed, tour groups, I'd imagine that if they can get a foothold into that industry and offer open-jaw between Calgary and Vancouver, they'll survive.

The idea of a 6-day trip is appealing: a couple of days in Vancouver/Whistler, a Rail or Bus trip through to the Rockies for a few nights and then return from Calgary.

Though, this kind of trip happens now, it's just all on scheduled airlines.

That's so true. A trip just isn't possible if it's not know what exactly will be happening down to the minute.

So stressful!

[Johnny Aussie]

Not sure if the Japanese are really into cruises.. but... downunder, they are REALLY selling the Rocky Mountaineer/Alaska Cruise combos. Every travel section I read always has at least a few full page ads selling these types of packages. I wonder if the Maple Fun group will be doing something similar.

[Yume-sama]

Somewhat. Yokohama is quite a big port for cruise ships, though I couldn't tell you how many Japanese people actually go on these cruises. There are certain cultural stereotypes which are true. Australians and Germans love to come here, rent a car, drive through the mountains, camp, hike, etc. Japanese people love order and groups. Particularly if they can get a chance to lineup in an orderly line once in awhile to take a picture . Rather "controlled" adventure, instead of... spontaneous adventure. One of the big money makers is Japanese people flying here, busing through the mountains, and flying back to YVR from YYC.

And they seem to congregate wherever there is a Fairmont lol. Hotel Vancouver, Lake Louise, Banff, Calgary...

I mean, even our JTB is in the basement of the Hotel Vancouver.