YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by abc1

There is the one rendering on page 22 depicting Phase one of the Pier A/B renovation and I think that it is due to be completed in 2012.


In addition, there is a reference on page 23 of the (150 million) phase 2 Pier A/B renovations which does not have a picture associated with it.

Of note, Phase 2 (Pier A/B) appears to be in line after the future expansion of the ITB (250 million) and the north south taxiway.

Interesting that it'll be next in line after ITB expansion. I wonder if there will ever be enough US traffic to create the Transborder Terminal ?

[zahav]

Below are some photos of the recently opened Ground Run Up facility (keep in mind it just opened, so not many opportunities for photos yet, but airline buffs will take lots im sure, as background or whatever). All pics courtesy of YVR Connections (http://yvrconnections.com/2012/01/it%E2%...un-up-enclosure-is-now-open-at-yvr-blog/)

[SpongeG]

seattle got hit hard by the snow and an ice storm today - only 16 horizon alaska flights made it out, alaska horizon had to cancel 310 flights today due to the weather

RT @BreakingNews Alaska, Horizon fly only 16 flights from Seattle; cancel 310. 29,000 pass impacted - Seattle Times http://t.co/kwdEnrug

[ACT7]

Year end traffic numbers are in for YVR and overall, fairly unimpressive growth. December was a decent month, but I suspect that a good chunk of that came during the Christmas rush. At this rate it will take at least another 3 to 4 years to reach the 2008 peak of 17.8 MM pax.

http://www.yvr.ca/Libraries/Facts_and_Stats/December_2011_Passenger.sflb.ashx

[ACT7]

http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/va...go-down-81-259-mill-pax-in-fy2011-137771

Vancouver Airport reports 4% increase in Dec-2011 pax but cargo down 8.1%; 25.9 mill pax in FY2011
CAPA > Aviation News > Vancouver Airport reports 4% increase in Dec-2011 pax but cargo down 8.1%; 25.9 mill pax in FY2011
23-Jan-12 1:40 PM
inShare.


© CAPA
Canada's Vancouver International Airport passenger numbers up 3.9% - traffic highlights for Dec-2011:

•Dec-2011:
◦Passenger numbers: 1.4 million, +3.9% year-on-year;
■Domestic: 734,446, +2.5%;
■International: 670,526, +5.4%;
■Transborder: 344,147, +3.9%;
■Asia Pacific: 203,413, +7.2%;
■Europe: 61,813, +10.3%;
◦Other: 61,153, +3.9%;
◦Cargo volume: 18,625 tonnes, -8.1%;
◦Aircraft movements: 20,723, -0.4%;
•FY2011:
◦Passenger numbers: 25.9 million, +1.4%;
■Domestic: 8.9 million, +1.1%;
■International: 17.0 million, +1.5%;
■Transborder: 4.2 million, +0.8%;
■Asia Pacific: 2.4 million, +3.1%;
■Europe: 1.2 million, +1.7%;
■Other: 450,422, +9.1%;
◦Cargo volume: 223,878, -2.0%;
◦Aircraft movements: 258,276, +1.3%.

Interesting math...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by ACT7

http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/va...go-down-81-259-mill-pax-in-fy2011-137771



Interesting math...

.... yeah, I don't exactly get the numbers either. Does this really and truly mean they're telling us the number of passangers in 2011 was nearly 26m? I, er, find that hard to believe.

[Alex Mackinnon]

It could be that connecting flights are counted twice by this measure and not by other measures. What's interesting about the math though? 17M + 8.9M = 25.9M. All the others are subcategories. The 3.9% increase is for the month.

Makes sense to me...

[incognism]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

It could be that connecting flights are counted twice by this measure and not by other measures. What's interesting about the math though? 17M + 8.9M = 25.9M. All the others are subcategories. The 3.9% increase is for the month.

Makes sense to me...

The number is way too high.

Plus if you add up the subcategories, you get 8.2 million (4.2 + 2.4 + 1.2 + .4) which sounds a bit more reasonable.

8.9M + 8.2M = 17.1M

Sounds like the total should have been 17M rather than it being just the international figure.

[ACT7]

http://www.yvr.ca/Libraries/Facts_an...nger.sflb.ashx

It's an error, plain and simple. This is from YVR's website. CAPA added the total pax numbers to the international total to come up with a new and improved total. Someone at CAPA should catch it and correct it.

What's also interesting is that YVR's Asia-Pacific traffic (its largest segment of int'l traffic) hasn't improved much since 2002. It's been fluctuating around the 2.3-2.4 MM per year mark give or take. I wonder if it's because of U.S. West coast airports siphening off traffic or if it's just natural demand that has stagnated.

[nova9]

The YVR twitter account posted a rendering of renovations to the Domestic Westjet Departure gates. I haven't flown Domestic in years so I have no idea what improvements are planned.

From @yvrairport:

[deasine]

This brings (part of) the domestic terminal to the International Terminal standard. I noticed there's an overhead walkway: could be just a service walkway, but it could also hint that these gates can somehow serve International Arrivals. This would be useful, since there are only three gates at YVR that are dual-purpose International/Domestic gates. So flights coming in from ICN/HKG/NRT/SYD, for instance, going onwards to YYZ can take advantage of these gates. Though this renovation is quite far away from the International Terminal...

[officedweller]

there's a video too:

• Video Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfx7S4CZKlc&feature=player_detailpage

Nice overview of past projects, too:

• Video Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZskiqSB4hjQ&feature=player_detailpage

[nova9]

I'm surprised by how much growth there was. Every time they showed an addition to the departure gates, I said to myself, "There's more?!?" And I grew up in this region.

I'm busy on wikipedia trying to compare physical size of our terminals with larger airports. I know it must be small because I'm always early and never out of breathe when I reach even the farthest gates - not the case at LAX or HK, haha.

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by nova9

I'm surprised by how much growth there was. Every time they showed an addition to the departure gates, I said to myself, "There's more?!?" And I grew up in this region.

I'm busy on wikipedia trying to compare physical size of our terminals with larger airports. I know it must be small because I'm always early and never out of breathe when I reach even the farthest gates - not the case at LAX or HK, haha.

The area for the entire terminal is 330,000 sq. m. as per YVR customer service. I've always found that for the amount of pax traffic, YVR is completely oversized. It definitely does not seem necessary to expand the airport in anyway. Nice airport for sure but unecessarily large. On the plus side, I've really never seen it overly crowded though so it makes going through it a breeze.

[usog]

Pretty detailed article here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...ure-asia-pacific-traffic/article2315293/

So they went through with temporarily removing the provincial fuel tax, how much would that actually shave off costs? Also hands up anyone who thinks it'll be passed on to consumers -_-

[mr.A]

No need for improvement. And a high speed carousel will not got the bag from the plane any faster. To many fees and taxes as it is now.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by incognism

The number is way too high.

Plus if you add up the subcategories, you get 8.2 million (4.2 + 2.4 + 1.2 + .4) which sounds a bit more reasonable.

8.9M + 8.2M = 17.1M

Sounds like the total should have been 17M rather than it being just the international figure.

Originally Posted by ACT7

http://www.yvr.ca/Libraries/Facts_an...nger.sflb.ashx

It's an error, plain and simple. This is from YVR's website. CAPA added the total pax numbers to the international total to come up with a new and improved total. Someone at CAPA should catch it and correct it.

What's also interesting is that YVR's Asia-Pacific traffic (its largest segment of int'l traffic) hasn't improved much since 2002. It's been fluctuating around the 2.3-2.4 MM per year mark give or take. I wonder if it's because of U.S. West coast airports siphening off traffic or if it's just natural demand that has stagnated.

Originally Posted by ACT7

The area for the entire terminal is 330,000 sq. m. as per YVR customer service. I've always found that for the amount of pax traffic, YVR is completely oversized. It definitely does not seem necessary to expand the airport in anyway. Nice airport for sure but unecessarily large. On the plus side, I've really never seen it overly crowded though so it makes going through it a breeze.

Before the advent of planes like the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Vancouver, in past years, naïvely thought of itself as THE gateway to the Asia Pacific region, not taking into account that many planes could overfly it, if they were going to Toronto, Calgary, or other points east.

Also, (and many will snap and snarl at this, I know) Vancouver is not yet big enough to be a major international destination; neither in population (2.5m / Seattle 3.6m) nor in economy.

In the USA, even San Diego - not a major international player - has almost exactly the same pax numbers per year (although this is primarily US domestic traffic, I know), even Tampa is equally busy. On the international front, Oslo (a considerably smaller city than Vancouver) has higher pax numbers (due to Norwegian oil industry, I'd imagine), as does Stockholm Arlanda.

Even Brisbane Airport has higher pax numbers than Vancouver. And so does low-cost airport Stansted in London (now with two terminals with a people mover; 20+m pax per year)

There was talk in the Master plan of a new Transborder terminal, but as ACT7 mentioned, YVR terminal is already oversized in relation to pax numbers, and there seems to be little international push to get landing rights here.

( ... and when foreign airlines apply for them, they are often turned down by Transport Canada. The case of Air France and Seattle is iconic of this).

Otherwise stated, I think the current YVR configuration, especially with a new and revamped A/B Pier, is going to last it well for the next decade or two. That massive growth once forecast isn't going to happen until Vancouver becomes a larger market, with a more diversified economy ... a bit like what Seattle is now.

Vancouver got a little carried away in the past with delusions of being a MAJOR global hub. Looking on the positive side, what we have now will probably suffice nicely for some years to come. Anyway, just for comparison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm-Arlanda_Airport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Airport,_Gardermoen

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

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

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

[mezzanine]

I'm glad YVR is doing this. Improving intl to domestic transfers IMO is key to helping YVR become a better hub.

A new high-speed baggage system, new moving walkways and secure corridors between the domestic and international terminals will cut the time passengers spend connecting to flights from 90 minutes to under an hour.

From the G&M link


why do we need to encourage air traffic at YVR?

With new aircraft and navigational technology, a lot more cities are accessible from Asia today. And these cities have figured out what YVR’s founders knew. Serving as a gateway can bring vast economic benefits to their communities ...

although ultimately, regardless of what the federal govt does, our ability to attract flights depends a lot on our local economy.

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Before the advent of planes like the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Vancouver, in past years, naïvely thought of itself as THE gateway to the Asia Pacific region, not taking into account that many planes could overfly it, if they were going to Toronto, Calgary, or other points east.

Also, (and many will snap and snarl at this, I know) Vancouver is not yet big enough to be a major international destination; neither in population (2.5m / Seattle 3.6m) nor in economy.

In the USA, even San Diego - not a major international player - has almost exactly the same pax numbers per year (although this is primarily US domestic traffic, I know), even Tampa is equally busy. On the international front, Oslo (a considerably smaller city than Vancouver) has higher pax numbers (due to Norwegian oil industry, I'd imagine), as does Stockholm Arlanda.

Even Brisbane Airport has higher pax numbers than Vancouver. And so does low-cost airport Stansted in London (now with two terminals with a people mover; 20+m pax per year)

There was talk in the Master plan of a new Transborder terminal, but as ACT7 mentioned, YVR terminal is already oversized in relation to pax numbers, and there seems to be little international push to get landing rights here.

( ... and when foreign airlines apply for them, they are often turned down by Transport Canada. The case of Air France and Seattle is iconic of this).

Otherwise stated, I think the current YVR configuration, especially with a new and revamped A/B Pier, is going to last it well for the next decade or two. That massive growth once forecast isn't going to happen until Vancouver becomes a larger market, with a more diversified economy ... a bit like what Seattle is now.

Vancouver got a little carried away in the past with delusions of being a MAJOR global hub. Looking on the positive side, what we have now will probably suffice nicely for some years to come. Anyway, just for comparison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm-Arlanda_Airport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Airport,_Gardermoen

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

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

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

Well said. The other thing to remember is that when CP was around, their focus was almost exclusively on turning YVR into an Asia Pacifc gateway. They even had that partnership with AA back in the day to funnel pax through YVR and onwards to NRT, HKG, PEK, etc. Didn't last long, even before CP 'merged' with AC. AC can talk all they want about wanting to do the same with YVR but their main focus has been, is, and always will be YYZ. It's got a substantially larger population and its economy is multiples larger. AC's argument for YVR was to make a point to the Feds about EK and EY.

Based on YVR's master plan, I think they showed conservative traffic estimates to be 27 MM by 2027. That's a 57% increase from where they are today, or roughly 3 to 3.5% per year. Definitely doable but even the size of the terminal that exists now would be more than capable of handling that amount of traffic.

With respect to AF, they do have rights to fly to YVR and have for several years now. AC gave it try with season 77W service but it didn't last. The market is obviously just not their yet. Seattle is a bigger market with several large corporate head offices and a substantially larger economy so YVR has tough competition in that respect. The Olympics have proven to be a bust in terms of tourist arrivals and pax number increases.

Interesting, in the 60's Montreal also thought that for the rest of time, all European flights would be forced to stop there for a refuel or that airlines would just want to because it was Montreal - hence the biggest white elephant in aviation history, YMX. Along comes bigger and faster growing economies, longer range 707's and of course 747's and all of a sudden Montreal is bypassed for YYZ and several U.S. airports. I'm not suggesting that YVR is, or will ever be a white elephant, but ambition and reality are very different things.

I personally think that YVR and YYC are embarking on projects that are way over the top for their market size.

[Gordon]

Vancouver is still the 4th largest Asian Gateway behind LAX SFO and I think
JFK

right now the only gate expansion in this plan is the completion of the west Chevron.

with the announcement that West Jet is considering a regional carrier, I wonder if there will be space for proper regional aircraft handling(covered bridges for loading\unloading)