YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by deasine

To be honest, I don't think there really is enough demand to allow for direct a profitable route between YVR and CDG. If there was, I'm sure AC would have continued operating their YVR-YUL-CDG route but they haven't. Note, they axed the route despite the fact that it increases service between YUL and CDG, which is a very popular route (AF operates an A380 on this route to compete with AC).

The stopover in YYC is also because YYC does not have a direct route to CDG, and YYC is WestJet's homebase and hub. YVR is not considered a hub for WestJet, it's a focus city. For obvious reasons, I wish WestJet used YVR as a hub instead of YYC, but that's not the case.

Canadian carriers have the ability to take advantage of stoping over domestically on an international route and because our market and demand isn't as large as the United States, I think it's better to stop over domestically so that it can pick up additional passengers that otherwise could not have had a direct route.

Keep in mind, I believe one only needs to deplane at YYC on the return leg. So for onward passengers to CDG from YVR, passengers remain on the plane.

Pardon a contradiction to a moderator, but regarding your opening statement, speaking to a marketing official at YVR, I learned that CDG as a destination would probably overtake Amsterdam, possibly even Frankfurt.

I think one of the reasons there seems to be rather little direct traffic YVR - CDG is because people are forced to change; either in Europe at LHR, AMS, and FRA, or in Canada, usually at Toronto, ( a long flight).

Living in Paris, I have met a surprisingly high number of people here who travel to Vancouver on business, tourist, or family reasons - in both directions, and beleive that this market has been grossly underestimated.

In a confidential poll taken in 2010, there was a list of cities to which Vancouverites would like to see a non-stop. Paris came in the absolute leader at 18% followed by Melbourne, Dubai, and Rome, all hovering at around 9% give or take.

Düsseldorf, Zurich, and Osaka were much lower, coming in at about 4%, given a one % margin of error.

I know most people here are more interested in Asia than Europe, for family and econiomic reasons, but the absence of a Vancouver - Paris nonstop leaves "the biggest hole" in YVR's destination roster according to this marketing official.

Even a stopover in Calgary is better than changing planes in Toronto - much shorter.

Regarding Westjet to Paris; would a YVR passenger CHANGE PLANES in Calgary en route to Paris? This seems to be implied, since you mentioned they would stay on the same plane returning to YVR (as though it were different)

At any rate, it beats changing planes in Toronto, which is a musch long flight if you include change-of-plane time (something like 14 hours as opposed to about 9 over the pole)

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

[
As well, he said, Lufthansa is the only airline that offers Canadians one-stop service to seven Indian destinations.

Except that it's not...Air India I'm sure offers one stop service to more than 7 Indian destinations. 9W offers two stop (via BRU). Whether you'd want to fly on Air India is another story though...

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Regarding Westjet to Paris; would a YVR passenger CHANGE PLANES in Calgary en route to Paris? This seems to be implied, since you mentioned they would stay on the same plane returning to YVR (as though it were different)

At any rate, it beats changing planes in Toronto, which is a musch long flight if you include change-of-plane time (something like 14 hours as opposed to about 9 over the pole)

Passengers are required to disembark from the plane on the first entry into Canada to go through customs. They then transfer to a domestic flight. The flight changes from international to domestic... thus the change.

The other way, you're making a domestic stop on an international flight and since you obviously don't have to go through customs when flying domestically, the international portion of your flight really starts when you would (in this case) leave Calgary.

In this case, assuming you're on a larger plane for the domestic portion (737s wouldn't make it), WestJet would likely not force a plane change for the second segment as they're not required to.

Not sure how it's done elsewhere, but that's how it's usually done. Not sure about the EU Zone, though. Would a flight stopping in paris be able to continue to Berlin? Maybe.

Also, I'm not sure about YVR, when the destination is the US. I know that pax transitting through YVR don't go through Canada Customs and that flights to the US aren't considered international (you land at domestic terminals) so even if the stopover was in the US, you might not be required to disembark. I'm not sure.

[Chikinlittle]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG
[
As well, he said, Lufthansa is the only airline that offers Canadians one-stop service to seven Indian destinations.

Originally Posted by ACT7

Except that it's not...Air India I'm sure offers one stop service to more than 7 Indian destinations. 9W offers two stop (via BRU). Whether you'd want to fly on Air India is another story though...

Perhaps they meant from Vancouver. Obviously if we're talking about 'Canadians' there are many options from Canada one-stop to many destinations in India. From Toronto, for example, consider Emirates, who last time I counted, offer one-connection service to at least 9 Indian destinations. Or Etihad from Toronto, with service to at least 7 Indian destinations I believe.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Pardon a contradiction to a moderator, but regarding your opening statement, speaking to a marketing official at YVR, I learned that CDG as a destination would probably overtake Amsterdam, possibly even Frankfurt.

I think one of the reasons there seems to be rather little direct traffic YVR - CDG is because people are forced to change; either in Europe at LHR, AMS, and FRA, or in Canada, usually at Toronto, ( a long flight).

Living in Paris, I have met a surprisingly high number of people here who travel to Vancouver on business, tourist, or family reasons - in both directions, and beleive that this market has been grossly underestimated.

In a confidential poll taken in 2010, there was a list of cities to which Vancouverites would like to see a non-stop. Paris came in the absolute leader at 18% followed by Melbourne, Dubai, and Rome, all hovering at around 9% give or take.

Düsseldorf, Zurich, and Osaka were much lower, coming in at about 4%, given a one % margin of error.

I know most people here are more interested in Asia than Europe, for family and econiomic reasons, but the absence of a Vancouver - Paris nonstop leaves "the biggest hole" in YVR's destination roster according to this marketing official.

There's no problem with disagreeing with a moderator, so feel free to say what you have to say. Moderators are general contributors who just need to enforce the rules whenever it is needed.

I'm curious to see the source of the results. But of the cities you've mentioned, these aren't the top destinations of YVR without a direct flight. Directly from YVR, the airport authority recognizes that the Indian Market (this was found in one of the Vancouver Sun articles in the past) is the largest market without a direct flight. Currently, CI and CX are the main carriers going to India for the Pacific Route, BA being the large carrier for the Atlantic direction. I don't know about Lufthansa as per spongeg's article, but if they were to make a claim such as that, I would think they may be a big choice for some passengers bound for India.

Similar can be said for some areas in Southeast Asia: Philippines (PR runs direct daily route from MNL, using YVR as a stopover onwards to LAS) along with Vietnam. Keep in mind, there are still quite a lot of Filipino and Vietnamese using other carriers including CI, CX, and BR to travel to Canada. Actually, CI's entire existence in YVR is to serve as a transit carrier for passengers. If they only had Taiwanese passengers taking them, YVR would not be a large enough market.

So while I agree, most discussion focus tends to focus on Asia, the reason is because Asian destinations are the largest market for YVR and not Europe. So even if there is a bit of demand for a YVR-CDG route, it's definitely not the largest destination market.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by deasine

..........................

So while I agree, most discussion focus tends to focus on Asia, the reason is because Asian destinations are the largest market for YVR and not Europe. So even if there is a bit of demand for a YVR-CDG route, it's definitely not the largest destination market.

I never said it was THE largest destination market, but it would be (according to YVR) a major destination like SFO, LAX, AMS and such.

Put it another way; it's too big and potentially lucrative a destination to simply bush off. Just ask the marketing department at YVR.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I never said it was THE largest destination market, but it would be (according to YVR) a major destination like SFO, LAX, AMS and such.

Put it another way; it's too big and potentially lucrative a destination to simply bush off. Just ask the marketing department at YVR.

Sorry, I should have not said the "large" market thing. But I still am hesitated to say it's a "large" market that will sustain weekly direct flights. Like I said before, it there was enough demand for CDG as a final destination, AC would have continued operating their YVR-YUL-CDG route, and this picks up passengers at YUL along the way. But obviously, AC felt it was best to feed passengers through YYZ and YUL instead, meaning they didn't have enough passengers to sustain such a route.

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I never said it was THE largest destination market, but it would be (according to YVR) a major destination like SFO, LAX, AMS and such.

Put it another way; it's too big and potentially lucrative a destination to simply bush off. Just ask the marketing department at YVR.

But if that were the case, AC would have likely continued their summer season service to CDG. I don't know that the number of French tourists who visit Vancouver is overly large (approx. 23K in 2010). Besides, tourists are low yield and I don't believe the business traffic is there to support a regular service between YVR and CDG.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by deasine

Sorry, I should have not said the "large" market thing. But I still am hesitated to say it's a "large" market that will sustain weekly direct flights. Like I said before, it there was enough demand for CDG as a final destination, AC would have continued operating their YVR-YUL-CDG route, and this picks up passengers at YUL along the way. But obviously, AC felt it was best to feed passengers through YYZ and YUL instead, meaning they didn't have enough passengers to sustain such a route.

When booking a flight from YVR to CDG, I'd be less than happy to be sent to Montreal first then on to Paris, when a polar flight from the west coast can be several hours quicker.

I would have thought a Toronto -Montreal -Paris flight would make more sense instead of moving passengers from the west to Montreal before heading to Paris.

Would a YVR-YYC-CDG flight work better for western passengers?

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I would have thought a Toronto -Montreal -Paris flight would make more sense instead of moving passengers from the west to Montreal before heading to Paris.

Would a YVR-YYC-CDG flight work better for western passengers?

There used to be a YYZ-YMX-CDG flight on AC years and years ago. But YYZ and YUL are large enough, high yeild markets for CDG so there is no need to do a stopover.

YVR and YYC are too low yield for CDG. That's why TS can make that run work reasonably well in the summer.

[Hourglass]

From what I can see, BA and Lufthansa benefit from strong local tourism demand, business connections and onward traffic from their main hubs (eg India). KLM may not have the tourism or business connections, but it does have Schiphol which is a great transit hub.

Air France lags in all of these things. The business connections and tourist demand to Vancouver don't seem that strong, and CDG is horrible as a transit hub. I'd rather go through Heathrow or Frankfurt (and that's saying something...).

Maybe if Tourism BC started doing more marketing in some of these countries, you might see an uptick in demand, which could in turn result in more non-stops (although tourist traffic is low-yield). As it stands, I'm not sure AF will be serving YVR anytime soon.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by deasine

Sorry, I should have not said the "large" market thing. But I still am hesitated to say it's a "large" market that will sustain weekly direct flights. Like I said before, it there was enough demand for CDG as a final destination, AC would have continued operating their YVR-YUL-CDG route, and this picks up passengers at YUL along the way. But obviously, AC felt it was best to feed passengers through YYZ and YUL instead, meaning they didn't have enough passengers to sustain such a route.

Originally Posted by ACT7

But if that were the case, AC would have likely continued their summer season service to CDG. I don't know that the number of French tourists who visit Vancouver is overly large (approx. 23K in 2010). Besides, tourists are low yield and I don't believe the business traffic is there to support a regular service between YVR and CDG.

Originally Posted by ACT7

There used to be a YYZ-YMX-CDG flight on AC years and years ago. But YYZ and YUL are large enough, high yeild markets for CDG so there is no need to do a stopover.

YVR and YYC are too low yield for CDG. That's why TS can make that run work reasonably well in the summer.

Originally Posted by Hourglass

From what I can see, BA and Lufthansa benefit from strong local tourism demand, business connections and onward traffic from their main hubs (eg India). KLM may not have the tourism or business connections, but it does have Schiphol which is a great transit hub.

Air France lags in all of these things. The business connections and tourist demand to Vancouver don't seem that strong, and CDG is horrible as a transit hub. I'd rather go through Heathrow or Frankfurt (and that's saying something...).

Maybe if Tourism BC started doing more marketing in some of these countries, you might see an uptick in demand, which could in turn result in more non-stops (although tourist traffic is low-yield). As it stands, I'm not sure AF will be serving YVR anytime soon.

I'm not going to argue with anybody, but what I cannot understand is the seeming conflict with this group of statements, and with what the marketing department official at YVR told me. I mean ... wouldn't they (YVR) know? Wouldn't they have the stats? Either they got it all wrong, others have it wrong, or I'm imagining what he told me. In any case, it all seems totally out-of whack.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

When booking a flight from YVR to CDG, I'd be less than happy to be sent to Montreal first then on to Paris, when a polar flight from the west coast can be several hours quicker.

I would have thought a Toronto -Montreal -Paris flight would make more sense instead of moving passengers from the west to Montreal before heading to Paris.

Would a YVR-YYC-CDG flight work better for western passengers?

Sure would

[ACT7]

Does anyone have any hard numbers on how China Southern's Guangzhou run is doing? Pax loads, etc?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Air France lags in all of these things. The business connections and tourist demand to Vancouver don't seem that strong, and CDG is horrible as a transit hub. I'd rather go through Heathrow or Frankfurt (and that's saying something...).

CDG is indeed a pretty bad airport. I was absolutely amazed of the lack of space in 2A for my AC flight to YYZ, and was even more amazed to see buses shuttling passengers to their flight for not only my AC flight which uses a 777 aircraft, but also the CX flight which uses a 747! Clearly shows they need more boarding gates.

But meanwhile, Terminal 2E and 2A are like night and day. 2E is wonderful, and while facility wise, it might not be able to compete with the best airports in Asia, it's still a wonderful terminal with great architecture.

I think if you happen to transfer within the same terminal at CDG, and preferably in 2E, it's really not bad at all, the problem of CDG is when you transfer between terminals.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by deasine

CDG is indeed a pretty bad airport. I was absolutely amazed of the lack of space in 2A for my AC flight to YYZ, and was even more amazed to see buses shuttling passengers to their flight for not only my AC flight which uses a 777 aircraft, but also the CX flight which uses a 747! Clearly shows they need more boarding gates.

But meanwhile, Terminal 2E and 2A are like night and day. 2E is wonderful, and while facility wise, it might not be able to compete with the best airports in Asia, it's still a wonderful terminal with great architecture.

I think if you happen to transfer within the same terminal at CDG, and preferably in 2E, it's really not bad at all, the problem of CDG is when you transfer between terminals.

Are you talking about termminal 1 (One), the circular terminal, versus terminal 2, the long terminal with the series of "halls," A,B,C,D,E,F ?

Terminal 2 is a largely contigous building broken into sections, whereas Terminal One, the original CDG oppened in the early 1970s, is a round thing with glass tubes.

Anyway, at CDG, there is now a shuttle train service "CDGval" connecting them, so it's a lot less hassle than when they were using busses. Now, that WAS a real hassle !!

p.s. What's so great about Heathrow, anyway, while we're on the subject. It's a gigantic hodge-podge of terminals all plunked down every which way; overwhelming and confusing; at least I find it so. (and much more expensive to get into central London than CDG is to central Paris)

[deasine]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Are you talking about termminal 1 (One), the circular terminal, versus terminal 2, the long terminal with the series of "halls," A,B,C,D,E,F ?

Terminal 2 is a largely contigous building broken into sections, whereas Terminal One, the original CDG oppened in the early 1970s, is a round thing with glass tubes.

Anyway, at CDG, there is now a shuttle train service "CDGval" connecting them, so it's a lot less hassle than when they were using busses. Now, that WAS a real hassle !!

p.s. What's so great about Heathrow, anyway, while we're on the subject. It's a gigantic hodge-podge of terminals all plunked down every which way; overwhelming and confusing; at least I find it so. (and much more expensive to get into central London than CDG is to central Paris)

I wouldn't consider Terminal 2 as a longly continuous building... it's all separate terminal halls (A/B/C/D/E/F) with an enclosed elevated walkway connecting the terminals together. It takes at least 15 minutes to walk between the different terminals within Terminal 2. The CDGval only connects Terminal 1 and 2 and 3 together, and does not connect the different Terminals within Terminal 2. I haven't been in Terminal 1 before, but I know it has a very unusual and inefficient layout.

LHR isn't really a good airport either (with the exception of IAG's Terminal 5), but I think LHR was a bit better than CDG. Most of the transit activity at LHR occurs within the terminal, with some exceptions to a few passengers on OneWorld transferring onto BA/IB flights. In CDG, AF's flights are distributed across almost all the terminals of Terminal 2, so you are bound to be transferring between terminals.

In terms of handling transfers, honestly, I haven't been in an airport better than HKG to transfer. SIN might be better in terms of facilities, but in terms of logistics, it's much better to have everything under one roof (well HKG now has a satellite terminal for boarding gates, though transfers are still relatively easy).

[Yume-sama]

HKG might be easiest, but if you have time to kill SIN or NRT are both great for food and shopping. Though, HKG isn't too bad on that end either, I suppose.

My main problem with HKG are the lacklustre Star Alliance lounges lol

I've always heard horror stories about both LHR and CDG! I've not heard if FRA is much better...

[Bigtime]

I've always had an easy time transiting through FRA. It's just always under construction.

[twoNeurons]

While we're on the subject of CDG. How long does it take to walk from the CDG TGV Terminal to Terminal 2E? My train into the terminal arrives 2 hours before my flight.

They look like they're right beside each other on the airport map.