YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Ironically there is a gas pipeline to almost every single building in Metro area. Perhaps we should remove them and return to have fuel delivered by truck and we can go down the road and pick it up ourselves.
I don't see the reason to be so much against the pipe line, it'll be less dangerous then our main natural gas lines, and in the proposed environment any leak will be identified immediately and the line shut down almost instantly. Worst case scenario is you have localized spill which will get cleaned up.

there is already a pipeline to the airport that comes from burnaby, but its older and needs upgrading or replacing and this new pipeline is shorter and better but people just don't want to hear it

[Hot Rod]

Oh, I said YYZ is giving YVR competition because Air Canada has shifted some Asia flights to go polar from YYZ and are making some of YVR/YYC traffic connect in YYZ to help sustain it.

I wonder why they feel the need to do that, given YYZ has the entire Eastern Canada to catch from. ... If you want to follow a hub strategy, seems to make sense to me to have an East and West fortress hub so they can focus on their strengths without YYZ trying to monopolize everything going from the country. The way things are now, is why it costs so much for Canadians to fly - one central fortress hub that is fostered by the federal govt. ...

I think the foreign flag carriers from YVR is the equalizer since AC must maintain a presence, otherwise YYZ would have probably siphoned all Asia traffic from YVR - which is ridiculous to even consider. Canada needs to allow flag carriers access to YVR if they want to nurture only Air Canada's YYZ fortress or let the West Coast hub do it's job and YYZ handle the East - One or the other ...

One final thought, YVR probably should have just added the $5.00 facility charge to International/Transborder and maybe YYZ pax - since that Int'l is the focus of the expansion and likely growth area of flights and the YYZ fortress strategy is at the expense of YVR (from Air Canada pov).

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

Oh, I said YYZ is giving YVR competition because Air Canada has shifted some Asia flights to go polar from YYZ and are making some of YVR/YYC traffic connect in YYZ to help sustain it.

I wonder why they feel the need to do that, given YYZ has the entire Eastern Canada to catch from. ... If you want to follow a hub strategy, seems to make sense to me to have an East and West fortress hub so they can focus on their strengths without YYZ trying to monopolize everything going from the country. The way things are now, is why it costs so much for Canadians to fly - one central fortress hub that is fostered by the federal govt. ...

I think the foreign flag carriers from YVR is the equalizer since AC must maintain a presence, otherwise YYZ would have probably siphoned all Asia traffic from YVR - which is ridiculous to even consider. Canada needs to allow flag carriers access to YVR if they want to nurture only Air Canada's YYZ fortress or let the West Coast hub do it's job and YYZ handle the East - One or the other ...


One final thought, YVR probably should have just added the $5.00 facility charge to International/Transborder and maybe YYZ pax - since that Int'l is the focus of the expansion and likely growth area of flights and the YYZ fortress strategy is at the expense of YVR (from Air Canada pov).

Economies of scale. YYZ is their powerhouse, and while YVR has the facilities to handle maintenance and storage of their planes, most of that gets carried out in YYZ. And yes, their presence at YVR is really due to the amount of foreign carriers from Asia.

Funnelling Asia-Pacific (and Australian) passengers through YYZ to YVR also allows AC to pick-up additional passengers en-route while still marketing it as a "direct" flight (note the distinction between direct and non-stop). Without the funnel, I'm afraid many of AC's routes might not be able to sustain a nonstop flight to YVR. So for that matter, I support this, and plus I'm not the one who is being inconvenienced, it's people from YYZ.

As for the surcharge, it applies to all flights leaving British Columbia.

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

Oh, I said YYZ is giving YVR competition because Air Canada has shifted some Asia flights to go polar from YYZ and are making some of YVR/YYC traffic connect in YYZ to help sustain it.

I wonder why they feel the need to do that, given YYZ has the entire Eastern Canada to catch from. ... If you want to follow a hub strategy, seems to make sense to me to have an East and West fortress hub so they can focus on their strengths without YYZ trying to monopolize everything going from the country. The way things are now, is why it costs so much for Canadians to fly - one central fortress hub that is fostered by the federal govt. ...

I think the foreign flag carriers from YVR is the equalizer since AC must maintain a presence, otherwise YYZ would have probably siphoned all Asia traffic from YVR - which is ridiculous to even consider. Canada needs to allow flag carriers access to YVR if they want to nurture only Air Canada's YYZ fortress or let the West Coast hub do it's job and YYZ handle the East - One or the other ...

One final thought, YVR probably should have just added the $5.00 facility charge to International/Transborder and maybe YYZ pax - since that Int'l is the focus of the expansion and likely growth area of flights and the YYZ fortress strategy is at the expense of YVR (from Air Canada pov).

Exactly as deasine said...economies of scale. YYZ's Asia-Pacific flights do not rely on YVR to exist. Nor is YYZ's hub at the expense of YVR. Nor is the federal government backing AC's YYZ hub strategy. As I said, the federal government takes more than a proportionate share of rent from YYZ relative to the traffic it handles so that argument does not hold any water.

All that aside, AC is in direct competition with the foreign flag carriers at YVR but all these flights have had a neutralizing effect on the Asia-Pacific traffic basically since 2002. If you look at true hubs around the world, YVR, unfortunately does not fall into that category. By Canadian standards it may be considered a secondary, maybe even tertiary hub (after YUL) for AC, but the reality is that Canada is simply not big enough to have multiple hubs the way that the U.S. does. So to blame AC for focusing their attention on YYZ is somewhat misdirected in my opinion since they are a business with the purpose of making money for their shareholders.

As I said before, YVR should focus on its strengths and keeps its ambitions more realistic.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by ACT7

Nor is YYZ's hub at the expense of YVR. Nor is the federal government backing AC's YYZ hub strategy. As I said, the federal government takes more than a proportionate share of rent from YYZ relative to the traffic it handles so that argument does not hold any water.

I agree with many of your points but your argument here doesn’t hold water". The federal government benefits directly from the high rents and landing fees at Pearson. Therefore this would be a reason for them to support and encourage YYZ's status as Canada’s primary hub. It certainly isn’t evidence to the contrary.

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

I agree with many of your points but your argument here doesn’t hold water". The federal government benefits directly from the high rents and landing fees at Pearson. Therefore this would be a reason for them to support and encourage YYZ's status as Canada’s primary hub. It certainly isn’t evidence to the contrary.

we may be locked in a chicken and egg discussion though. I would argue that Pearson has high landing fees as a direct result of high federal rents imposed on them. If the feds lowered the rent, Pearson (and every other Canadian airport for that matter) could attract more airlines and the total dollar volume of rent paid would probably increase. But that's a little off topic.

The feds may be benefitting from Pearson but I don't believe they are supporting AC's hub strategy there. AC will operate based on its own bottom line and YYZ makes the most sense as a hub.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by ACT7

Exactly as deasine said...economies of scale. YYZ's Asia-Pacific flights do not rely on YVR to exist. Nor is YYZ's hub at the expense of YVR. Nor is the federal government backing AC's YYZ hub strategy. As I said, the federal government takes more than a proportionate share of rent from YYZ relative to the traffic it handles so that argument does not hold any water.

All that aside, AC is in direct competition with the foreign flag carriers at YVR but all these flights have had a neutralizing effect on the Asia-Pacific traffic basically since 2002. If you look at true hubs around the world, YVR, unfortunately does not fall into that category. By Canadian standards it may be considered a secondary, maybe even tertiary hub (after YUL) for AC, but the reality is that Canada is simply not big enough to have multiple hubs the way that the U.S. does. So to blame AC for focusing their attention on YYZ is somewhat misdirected in my opinion since they are a business with the purpose of making money for their shareholders.

As I said before, YVR should focus on its strengths and keeps its ambitions more realistic.

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

I agree with many of your points but your argument here doesn’t hold water". The federal government benefits directly from the high rents and landing fees at Pearson. Therefore this would be a reason for them to support and encourage YYZ's status as Canada’s primary hub. It certainly isn’t evidence to the contrary.

Well, Transport Canada's persistence with limiting EK YZ flight slots in hopes to disperse EK flights throughout Canada is already a clear indicator that Transport Canada isn't just wholly interested in YYZ. One could argue these protectionist policies are protecting AC and Canadian Carriers best-interest, but this doesn't necessarily equate to backing the YYZ hub.

If Canadian carriers had the ability to tap into the American market and funnel passengers through its airport hubs, then having multiple Canadian hubs would be possible, but this isn't the reality. And even if this economically possible for Canadian carriers, the presence of international borders and its taxes and fees push prices for consumers to the point where something like this isn't possible. But this also causes American carriers to become clear competitors to Canadian Carriers, and I'm sure AC enjoys its reciprocal business relationship with United.

The relationship of alliances, the synergies between airlines within the alliances, and antitrust immunity, are clearly are benefiting the airlines: a quick look at airfare pricing of transatlantic flights from many North American gateways show nearly identical airfare pricing between carriers within the same alliance. Doesn't necessarily apply to the Canadian context, but for instance, AA, BA, and IB take this a step-further and are practically priced exactly the same. Same applies between AC, UA, and LF (including the LF group carriers). There is no priority to change this, nor is it really in AC's best interests.

WS's international presence (if they do not join an alliance) has the potential ability to rock the boat, so to speak, but this may only occur during the short-term. This is clear in the domestic market: AC prices drop to reflect the changes in demand and supply, but WS prices also have increased since their inception. Either way though, more carriers equates to more competition, and as we reach a stage in society where many carriers are merging with one another (BA and IB as IAG, UA and CO, LF and its portfolio of carriers, AF and KL, DL and NW, and with rumors and expectations of US merging with AA), any new competition should be welcomed. This is why YVR's strategy of decreasing upfront business costs for airline carriers is really one of the only ways of attracting more competition, and thus, theoretically, lower prices for consumers.

---

Unrelated note, but Hainan, despite its size, actually has one of the lowest cost per passenger of all the carriers in China (Asia).

[casper]

It looks like WestJet is about to add Kona and Kauai as year-round destinations from Vancouver.

http://westjet2.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=628

Whitehorse also being added as a destination from Vancouver.

[Hot Rod]

good news re: Westjet.

[twoNeurons]

Just got back from a flight on Air France. Great service. It's a shame Delta's taking over that route next month.

On another note, perhaps that frees up some Air France metal for a flight into Vancouver.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Just got back from a flight on Air France. Great service. It's a shame Delta's taking over that route next month.

On another note, perhaps that frees up some Air France metal for a flight into Vancouver.

Do you think that's a real possibility? Oh, how I wish ...... ... [ sorry folks, but you know how it is with me on that ...]

[ACT7]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/article...res-for-its-new-regional-carrier-367740/

WestJet sees Calgary and Toronto as centres for its new regional carrier 
PrintBy:

Lori Ranson Washington DC 1 hours ago Source:

Management at WestJet today disclosed that its proposed new regional subsidiary would be centred in Calgary and Toronto.

WestJet last month unveiled its desire to launch a new turboprop operation to serve smaller Canadian cities and its employees are currently voting on the plan.

"We're wrapping up the voting in a few days and our board will make a decision in the coming weeks," the carrier told FlightglobalPro.

Carrier CEO Gregg Saretsky told attendees at the Raymond James Global Airline conference on 2 February the new subsidiary would have a national footprint with two operations, one centred in Calgary and the other in Toronto to serve domestic and transborder city pairs.

The new operation will have a three-pronged strategy, said Saretsky - targeting new destinations with a single competitor that charges monopoly fares, joining the dots on its own route map and schedule improvements to increase frequencies during off-peak times with smaller gauge aircraft operating with lower trip costs.

Saretsky said WestJet is really building "something here for business travellers that provides them more utility".

WestJet concludes there are 30 Canadian cities too small for the Boeing 737s it currently operates, and where fares on stage lengths of under one hour are upwards of $1,200 roundtrip.

Saretsky explained WestJet's highest fare on a coast-to-coast flight in Canada is $600 one way, and there are markets from Canada to the north eastern US that are 45 minutes to one hour, "where you'll pay $1,500 one way".

WestJet believes it can successfully replicate its low-fare model into the regional space and create a new stream of traffic to connect those small cities to its hubs, allowing for additional growth of its 737 fleet, Saretsky said.

The regional operation would be a separate subsidiary owned by WestJet, with roughly 40-plus 70-seat turbroprops. Saretsky mentioned both the Bombardier Q400 and the ATR 72-600 as possible airframes.

This doesn't exactly help the feeder potential that has been discussed regarding YVR's expansion strategy.

Re: Air France. Don't hold your breath on that one. I think AF kept a close eye on AC's run at that service and realized that the market just isn't lucrative enough right now for it.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by ACT7

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/article...res-for-its-new-regional-carrier-367740/

Re: Air France. Don't hold your breath on that one. I think AF kept a close eye on AC's run at that service and realized that the market just isn't lucrative enough right now for it.

Yeah, I gotta concede. You're right on that one.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by ACT7

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/article...res-for-its-new-regional-carrier-367740/

A major question; will West Jet's subsidiary operate mostly out of Calgary and Toronto, or ONLY out of YCG and YYZ ?

[Gordon]

One would suspect that B.C. would play a part in west jets regional strategy, centers s such as Trail & Prince Rupert amongst other small interior destinations would be perfect or this service. Let's hope WestJet doesn't forget B.C.

[SpongeG]

westJet has added or expressed interest in fort st john for its regional service - was big news up there in the ignored part of BC

WestJet CEO names Fort St. John as target for expansion
In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Westjet CEO Gregg Saretsky names Fort St. John as a potential market the airline would service with the addition of smaller planes to their fleet.

http://energeticcity.ca/article/news/2012/01/01/westjet-ceo-names-fort-st-john-target-expansion

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by Gordon

One would suspect that B.C. would play a part in west jets regional strategy, centers s such as Trail & Prince Rupert amongst other small interior destinations would be perfect or this service. Let's hope WestJet doesn't forget B.C.

Trail does not have a long enough runway, has no security, poor maintenance equipment, no control tower, no terminal just a construction trailer, and no money in the bank to put in this stuff. Castlegar on the other hand has a mile long runway, catsa security, transport canada approved maintenance equipment, a nav canada control tower, an empty space for a second airline like the old days, and Air Canada with no competition.

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

A major question; will West Jet's subsidiary operate mostly out of Calgary and Toronto, or ONLY out of YCG and YYZ ?

I think their focus will be YYC and YYZ mainly. In other words, their two existing hubs. Doesn't mean YVR will be left out of the picture completely of course. It's just that the need for serious feeder traffic through YVR will not be addressed with WJ. That may change though if WJ can secure more partnerships and interline agreements.

[ACT7]

I don't even know where to begin with this one...

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/artic...ort-wants-routes-to-europe-india-toronto

Abbotsford Airport wants routes to Europe, India, Toronto
Hopes that would Fraser Valley economy

Dan Burritt Feb 03, 2012 08:22:10 AM

ABBOTSFORD (NEWS1130) - Abbotsford International Airport is looking overseas to help attract some new customers and boost its business to become a bigger economic engine for the Fraser Valley.

Business Development Manager Jean-Paul Laube says they hope to take in $2 million worth of revenue in 2013, up from the estimated $1.4 million they currently make.

"We have a fairly comprehensive strategy to make sure that we treat the airport as the economic driver that it can be, and that it should be," explains Laube.

"That comes down to what we can do by way of commercial aviation, potentially charter aviation, aerospace and industrial development, and then lastly cargo and intermodal... transportation of goods," he adds.

Laube explains the airport would also like to attract more international carriers, although he admits it takes time.

"We look at things like some European flying... India would [also be] a great route to develop, given the size of the Indo-Canadian community in our catchment area... But also, routes like Toronto would be well-received by this community. So we're always pursuing that."

The airport recently underwent a $30 million renovation. It's currently run by an authority that answers to city hall.

I could see a flight to Toronto in the future...maybe, plus some sun destinations at best.

[MalcolmTucker]

I'm not sure they have the capacity for it, but they should target Transat, like how they used to run out of Mirabel for Montreal. If they can handle the immigration, and has low cost enough parking, could lead to a shift, but I doubt it would be worth it, especially with Canada Line at YVR.