YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[Chikinlittle]

Originally Posted by jlousa

It's been discussed in this very thread before, you can look there or google it. It's big news in France as well so it should be easily available. Boils down to Dubai subsidizing Emirates in order to turn Dubai into a global hub and feed the hotel/restuarant and rest of the city. Recommend you do some research on it as it's heavily documented and have been numerous stories all over the globe about it. Certainly not a Canada-only issue.

From my personal conversations with Emirates staff, they tell the company story as per what is mentioned in the Wikipedia write-up on the airline, stating that the company started with $10m from the royal family to start-up (allowing for procurement of two aircraft), under the premise that they weren't allowed to come back for more and they needed to stand on their own legs.

From what I am reading and hearing, there are merely suspicions that there are hidden subsidies provided to EK raised from nature of the close relationships that the airline has with the Airport Authority and the Royal Family. I haven't personally found much detail (not to say it doesn't exist out there) in supporting evidence to show the existence of any said subsidies.

If subsidies do exist somewhere in a smokescreen, then I do think as a nation we need to play it cautiously in how we let them fly within our borders, making sure that they don't cannibalize our own airline industry. However, not granting them ANY further access I think is likely not the answer and probably crosses the line and actually hinders, not helps, Canada as a whole.

[Chikinlittle]

And yes, a simple Google search can provide for interesting discovery:

http://www.emirates.com/us/english/image...Facts%20August%20FINAL_tcm272-557688.pdf

They're quite defensive about it... even combative in their defense.

[MalcolmTucker]

The main 'subsidy' is low taxes on fuel, profits and labour along with lower labour costs due to the nature of the airline. Lets them earn a much higher margin.

I have to wonder how long it will be until India stops pushing back Emirates.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

If subsidies do exist somewhere in a smokescreen, then I do think as a nation we need to play it cautiously in how we let them fly within our borders, making sure that they don't cannibalize our own airline industry. However, not granting them ANY further access I think is likely not the answer and probably crosses the line and actually hinders, not helps, Canada as a whole.

Exactly.

There's a big difference between the 6x weekly to Canada that Emirates is currently limited to and completely open skies (which BTW I am NOT advocating).

The reality is that long-haul international air travel to and from Vancouver is pretty much a monopoly or at best a duopoly -- and has been since the demise of Canadian Airlines. Can anyone here think of a current international long-haul route with more than 2 airlines serving it? HKG was at one point before Oasis went bust, but that's about it. Please explain to me how a duopoly or monopoly is good for me as a customer, particularly if these artificial barriers to access then encourage me to go south to Seattle or Bellingham. It certainly doesn't benefit Vancouver's economy.

Air Canada has 56% share of domestic travel and 39% of international travel across Canada (by comparison, Cathay has 7%, BA has 5%). That's a pretty dominant position, and candidly, if a 7x/weekly flight between Dubai and Vancouver is enough to sink Air Canada, then it doesn't deserve to survive as it isn't competitive in the first place.

[MalcolmTucker]

There is a strong national security argument to be made that if we didn't have Canadian owned and operated long haul airlines that the military would need to buy jets just to hold in reserve. When you are running a country you have a lot more to think about than saving people $100 on flights ...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Please explain to me how a duopoly or monopoly is good for me as a customer, particularly if these artificial barriers to access then encourage me to go south to Seattle or Bellingham. It certainly doesn't benefit Vancouver's economy. . . . . . . .

Air Canada has 56% share of domestic travel and 39% of international travel across Canada (by comparison, Cathay has 7%, BA has 5%).

That's a pretty dominant position, and candidly, if a 7x/weekly flight between Dubai and Vancouver is enough to sink Air Canada, then it doesn't deserve to survive as it isn't competitive in the first place.

Right on. Thank you for this fresh breeze of logic!

[whatnext]

Emirates would have served Seattle before YVR anyway, it has far more business traffic. And any Asian traffic from YVR will rationally route through HKG or Tokyo, rather than Dubai.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Emirates would have served Seattle before YVR anyway, it has far more business traffic.

Possibly, but we'll never know for sure with the limitations placed on Emirates to serve Canada in the first place. And your point is by no means clear-cut; YVR has had far more international connections to both Europe and Asia than SEA. It still has a clear lead, although it is starting to erode.

Originally Posted by whatnext

And any Asian traffic from YVR will rationally route through HKG or Tokyo, rather than Dubai.

Agree for North Asia. But flying east from YVR to South Asia is a very viable alternative to transiting via NRT, ICN or HKG. In fact, the travel time is about the same (~17 hours total flight time to Delhi going east via LHR or west via HKG).

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Emirates would have served Seattle before YVR anyway, it has far more business traffic. And any Asian traffic from YVR will rationally route through HKG or Tokyo, rather than Dubai.

This is true. In fact, about two years ago, looking at the official SEA-TAC website, it had already mentioned that EMIRATES was negotiating service to Seattle.
*
But ... what I can't understand is, why were they so aggressive about landing rights in Vancouver in the first place, then?

My biggest concern in all this is that eventually Seattle will outstrip Vancuver in nearly all overseas destination preferences, becoming the "runway of choice" for the Pacific Northwest, and that Vancouver will be eclipsed. This has already happened with Air France, now Emirates. What lies ahead?

[PaperTiger]

The sense I got was that they weren't truly interested in the Vancouver or Calgary slots. It was more of a PR tactic. They were really trying to get daily into Toronto. I remember reading at the height of the "spat" that Baird had offered both Emirates and Eithad an additional route anywhere other than Pearson and they weren't accepted.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

The sense I got was that they weren't truly interested in the Vancouver or Calgary slots. It was more of a PR tactic. They were really trying to get daily into Toronto. I remember reading at the height of the "spat" that Baird had offered both Emirates and Etihad an additional route anywhere other than Pearson and they weren't accepted.

Reminds me of the new open skies policy Canada and Japan now have. Canadian Airlines (read: Air Canada) can do onward journeys via Japan, except through Tokyo airports. If this indeed was offered, it would be interesting and I'd be frankly surprised. But then again, maybe Emirates knew they were expanding into Seattle so considered Vancouver already part of their network.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Reminds me of the Open skies policy Canada and Japan now have. Canadian Airlines can do onward journeys via Japan, except for Tokyo airports.

The thing is, NRT is already incredibly busy and is reaching short of capacity, so I can sort of understand why the chose to not include Tokyo Airports into the Open Skies Agreement. Plus, the Japanese Government seems to want increasing activity at other Japanese Airports (KIX for instance).

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Emirates would have served Seattle before YVR anyway, it has far more business traffic. And any Asian traffic from YVR will rationally route through HKG or Tokyo, rather than Dubai.

Total agreement, with one exception. If Emirates got access to Vancouver, they could acquire the India market, quite substantial from Vancouver, and as yet unserved.

We are, I think "safe" from Emirates, especially now that they're going into Seattle.

It would still be great to have direct service to Delhi and Mumbai though. It's been talked about for a while, but issues (like bilaterals and the acquisition of long-haul jets) seem to have dragged it down to an eventuality perhaps unachievable for some years.

[trofirhen]

There, no more "Emiratophobia," children. The bad dream is over, and the bogeyman is going elsewhere.

Protectionism rules. Star Alliance rules. Ottawa rules! (along with Toronto, of course). We're safe at last!

http://www.routesonline.com/news/36/the-...-presence-with-dallas-and-seattle-links/

[SpongeG]

did you hear about air canada and winnipeg?

Downtown Winnipeg a no-go zone for Air Canada staff

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by deasine

The thing is, NRT is already incredibly busy and is reaching short of capacity, so I can sort of understand why the chose to not include Tokyo Airports into the Open Skies Agreement. Plus, the Japanese Government seems to want increasing activity at other Japanese Airports (KIX for instance).

Oh yeah, I totally understand why it doesn't include Tokyo, for sure. I don't think Japan is "focusing" on other airports, it's just that they know there is generally high demand for Tokyo landing spots in general. KIX may get a bit of love when they bring Itami, Kobe and Kansai under one management umbrella.

With the new runway and terminal at Haneda, they're attempting to create an airport that will rival Incheon in Seoul as a 24 hour airport. The landing slot times for international flights, however, are horrible.

While I'd love to see Air Canada use their existing fleets to run planes through Osaka, I don't think they are in a hurry, as there's no immediate pressure to do so. They only have a limited number of 777s that can fly directly to India and until they get 787s, they don't need to realistically do direct to India flights. They'll continue to code-share through Narita with their Star Alliance partners and keep their 777s for other opportunities.

If Emirates were flying from Vancouver to Dubai (and then serving India) you can bet your bottom dollar that they'd be pretty quick to either use one of their few 777s to fly direct (which I kind of doubt) or start using one of their many 767s to do a route like YVR-KIX-DEL. This would stop over in Osaka, but passengers would not be required to change planes... it would also be a shorter flight than Emirates. We may still see this if traffic to India starts an Exodus through Seattle.

This is the ONLY way they could CURRENTLY compete with Emirates. This competition would bring tickets down and force Air Canada to find efficiencies to reduce their costs. As long as there's no real competition to India, they don't need to worry about being wasteful or improving their efficiencies. The other airlines are all in the same boat. JAL has a slight advantage as they can do stopovers in Tokyo and JAL gets quite a bit of Indian traffic now. Chinese airlines are more concerned with connecting China. Not sure about Korean.

This is not to say that I think Emirates should be allowed more landing slots, but the argument that there's little need for direct traffic between Dubai and Canada is less of an issue. AC probably wouldn't fly direct to India anyhow. When they get their 787s, however... we'll see. A plane with a 777s range and a 767's size... interesting.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

If Emirates were flying from Vancouver to Dubai (and then serving India) you can bet your bottom dollar that they'd be pretty quick to either use one of their few 777s to fly direct (which I kind of doubt) or start using one of their many 767s to do a route like YVR-KIX-DEL. This would stop over in Osaka, but passengers would not be required to change planes... it would also be a shorter flight than Emirates. We may still see this if traffic to India starts an Exodus through Seattle.

I almost wish that would happen. It would be a kick in the pants for the Canadian government to smarten up and get moving. I am an enthusiastic supporter of YVR and I want to see it go places, but at the present rate, coupled with the protectionist Ontario-style mentality, I don't think we'll get direct India service, and frankly, it serves us right. Sorry. Excuse me. That's what I think.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Oh yeah, I totally
While I'd love to see Air Canada use their existing fleets to run planes through Osaka, I don't think they are in a hurry, as there's no immediate pressure to do so. They only have a limited number of 777s that can fly directly to India and until they get 787s, they don't need to realistically do direct to India flights. They'll continue to code-share through Narita with their Star Alliance partners and keep their 777s for other opportunities.

Actually, I think you'll find a lot of India-bound traffic already heads east via Europe. Air Canada works with Lufthansa with FRA as the transit hub. Try doing a search on expedia.ca. You'll find most options to, say, Delhi, are east-bound. From personal observation, I know CX also gets a lot of transit traffic to India.

I agree the 787s could be a game changer, and it'll be interesting to see how AC deploys them.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Actually, I think you'll find a lot of India-bound traffic already heads east via Europe. Air Canada works with Lufthansa with FRA as the transit hub. Try doing a search on expedia.ca. You'll find most options to, say, Delhi, are east-bound. From personal observation, I know CX also gets a lot of transit traffic to India.

I agree the 787s could be a game changer, and it'll be interesting to see how AC deploys them.

My gut tells me something like: Toronto-Sydney, Toronto-Sao Paulo, Toronto-Hong Kong, Toronto-Delhi, Toronto .....

[Bigtime]

Well eventually the 787's will be replacing a bunch (if not all) of the 763's. So you can also add all the current routes they serve to 787 service.