YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[casper]

Originally Posted by nname

Not sure about the others, but I'd rather pay $150-$200 more, and not having to turn my 12 hours flight into an 18 hours journey, plus the hassle going through US custom.

I remembered taking the BR SEA-TPE flights a couple of times to save maybe $150, but we just decided that its not worth it..

I have done the transit to the US when it was shorter, easier or the price different was to high to pass up. A price difference of $150-200 is not material on a $2,000+ flight. A difference of $1,000 is.

The airlines are all trying to ensure the flights are full. If you are also making a connection on the other side of the pond depending on when the flights arrive it may in fact be faster going through the US. When I have done it I have found as soon as the customs people figure out you are leaving the same day they have no interest in you and send you on your way.

The last time I did an overseas transfer was Air Canada to US Airways in Philadelphia to connect on to the US Airways flight to Rome. Clear US Customs in Toronto coming off a domestic flight is not bad, baggage is automatically transferred through customs. This was during the winter when Air Canada was not flying into Rome. The other option was transiting in Europe which was no worse or better.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

AC should be doing more in YVR of what they say they're going to do in YYZ ie connections and feeder flights to support their transpacific business. Maybe the new 787s will help open up some new route opportunities too.

Hourglass please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not attacking you but rather then bolded statement above that rips throughout the Vancouver market.

AC and /or the YVRAA needs to come clean about the concept that its AC that is putting the boots to YVR Transpacific hub vision, infact if CP had the 77L and 77W back in the mid 90s; they would have dehubbed YVR infavour of YYZ much worse than AC has done. Particularly because CP would not have the ability to get Kai Tak and NRT slots to operate dailies from both YVR and YYZ (the operational capability of the named airports did not allow for the additional slots until well after 2000s).

I guess my rant is against the YVR trend that harks back to the days of CP/Canadian when YVR was the center of the universe and also negative impression of YVR status under the AC regime. The full knowledge of inside CP information (direct from former CP schedulers) is that CP was connecting huge volumes of traffic from YYZ through YVR to Asia. Without the YYZ connection traffic there was no Canadian Airlines hub in YVR.

As far as building the YVR operation and airport status, there is nothing preventing YVRAA from signing a MOU with AC much like the YYZ Hub MOU.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by casper

Another aspect to consider is Tokyo. In the old Northwest days nearly all NWA Asian bound flights from across the US stopped in Tokyo and that was the main transfer hub. Is this a shift to Seattle being the transfer hub instead of Narita?

Both UA and DL have based their Asian-operations in NRT, but because the market/buying power has shifted to China now and the devaluation of the Japanese YEN, this has caused notable losses for UA and DL despite having high load factors. Seling a NRT-transfer to the Chinese, many of which are willing to pay for a more direct US option, does not help their case. DL's move to SEA is reflective of a shift to try to reduce NRT's importance in its network, and DL needs this more than UA given the lack of an airline parter in NRT.

Originally Posted by casper

I have done the transit to the US when it was shorter, easier or the price different was to high to pass up. A price difference of $150-200 is not material on a $2,000+ flight. A difference of $1,000 is.

The airlines are all trying to ensure the flights are full. If you are also making a connection on the other side of the pond depending on when the flights arrive it may in fact be faster going through the US. When I have done it I have found as soon as the customs people figure out you are leaving the same day they have no interest in you and send you on your way.

The last time I did an overseas transfer was Air Canada to US Airways in Philadelphia to connect on to the US Airways flight to Rome. Clear US Customs in Toronto coming off a domestic flight is not bad, baggage is automatically transferred through customs. This was during the winter when Air Canada was not flying into Rome. The other option was transiting in Europe which was no worse or better.

The example you cited are for transfers, but then all that's a level playing field for many North American carriers. But direct options cannot compete with transfers given the time savings, and if you are doing it for business on premium bookings, these time savings equate to money saved. Only TK and the gulf carriers have been able to challenge the legacy carriers on their direct routes as they have been able to offer a generally equal, if not better product, at a lower price point. And their market is being able to take passengers in secondary cities off from the legacy carriers by offering them a one-stop option without having to take a feeder/shuttle flight, or without having to back-track (as per Qantas and BA prior to the existence of EK). In terms of product, arguably, I don't think DL is much better than AC. Hard product, both carriers offer lie-flat in J and similar seats in Y, soft product, I rate both are equal.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by deasine

The example you cited are for transfers, but then all that's a level playing field for many North American carriers. But direct options cannot compete with transfers given the time savings, and if you are doing it for business on premium bookings, these time savings equate to money saved. Only TK and the gulf carriers have been able to challenge the legacy carriers on their direct routes as they have been able to offer a generally equal, if not better product, at a lower price point. And their market is being able to take passengers in secondary cities off from the legacy carriers by offering them a one-stop option without having to take a feeder/shuttle flight, or without having to back-track (as per Qantas and BA prior to the existence of EK). In terms of product, arguably, I don't think DL is much better than AC. Hard product, both carriers offer lie-flat in J and similar seats in Y, soft product, I rate both are equal.

Agree 100%. Delta is going to have to market the via SEA option better than stating "now you have one-stop options" to all these amazing important places. Do not focus on the "one-stop" They are going to have to entice by offering a superior product and / or entice with much lower fares. The playing field is a bit different than it was 10 years ago with YVR's Asian route network really well developed to compete with SEA's. Not saying YVR's is necessarily better, but certainly enough to offer many many options to fly as direct as possible to as many "important" cities as possible without having to go through the connection game especially via the US.

[casper]

Originally Posted by deasine

Both UA and DL have based their Asian-operations in NRT, but because the market/buying power has shifted to China now and the devaluation of the Japanese YEN, this has caused notable losses for UA and DL despite having high load factors. Seling a NRT-transfer to the Chinese, many of which are willing to pay for a more direct US option, does not help their case. DL's move to SEA is reflective of a shift to try to reduce NRT's importance in its network, and DL needs this more than UA given the lack of an airline parter in NRT.




The example you cited are for transfers, but then all that's a level playing field for many North American carriers. But direct options cannot compete with transfers given the time savings, and if you are doing it for business on premium bookings, these time savings equate to money saved. Only TK and the gulf carriers have been able to challenge the legacy carriers on their direct routes as they have been able to offer a generally equal, if not better product, at a lower price point. And their market is being able to take passengers in secondary cities off from the legacy carriers by offering them a one-stop option without having to take a feeder/shuttle flight, or without having to back-track (as per Qantas and BA prior to the existence of EK). In terms of product, arguably, I don't think DL is much better than AC. Hard product, both carriers offer lie-flat in J and similar seats in Y, soft product, I rate both are equal.

My point is get the impression Seattle is taking over for the role Narita use to have. The old network structure was to fly a 747 from various cities in the US to Narita then have a transfer bank to flights to the rest of Asia. All they are doing now is shifting that transfer location to Seattle from Tokyo.

Once they fill the premium seats (likely with connecting traffic from the rest of the US) they need to fill the remaining seats with discounted passengers. I would be surprised if AC is expecting to get a lot of premium US traffic and Delta is expecting to get a lot of Canadian premium traffic.

Personally I like the AC product; I find it better that US and United product both in Economy and International Business. I have only done Delta business on domestic aircraft and I find it on par with Air Canada. Have not tried Delta's international product since they merged with Northwest.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by casper

Once they fill the premium seats (likely with connecting traffic from the rest of the US) they need to fill the remaining seats with discounted passengers. I would be surprised if AC is expecting to get a lot of premium US traffic and Delta is expecting to get a lot of Canadian premium traffic.

That's true, and given SEA's corporate significance and current growth trends, I don't think they will have problems filling it in per say. And I think Johnny and I (if I may speak on your behalf Johnny) isn't that DL/SEA wouldn't be a threat to YVR, but it is not as significant as it is portrayed by many and in the media.

[casper]

Originally Posted by deasine

That's true, and given SEA's corporate significance and current growth trends, I don't think they will have problems filling it in per say. And I think Johnny and I (if I may speak on your behalf Johnny) isn't that DL/SEA wouldn't be a threat to YVR, but it is not as significant as it is portrayed by many and in the media.

Yes. I would also agree.

[trofirhen]

Will any of this increase the probability of the role of YVR as a connection hub for Asia > Latin america?

http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/brea...-the-rise-of-the-latin-american-market-/

http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/brea...ares-to-host-the-olympic-games-and-more/

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by deasine

That's true, and given SEA's corporate significance and current growth trends, I don't think they will have problems filling it in per say. And I think Johnny and I (if I may speak on your behalf Johnny) isn't that DL/SEA wouldn't be a threat to YVR, but it is not as significant as it is portrayed by many and in the media.

Well, I'm not going to say 'the sky is falling', but if DL is building up a mega hub in SEA, this is cause for concern any way you look at it.

For one thing, AC seems to be having trouble making its Asian routes out of YVR work. As I recall, this was the reason that one of the options being explored before they launched Rouge was a joint-venture which would have taken over many of the existing Asia Pacific routes from Vancouver..

Now you have DL just down the road which potentially offers discounted one-stop fares to Asia from YVR. Even if you have 5% erosion of passenger traffic to SEA, it would seem that AC's already marginal routes become even more so. And AC has not shown any hesitation in cutting back routes. 4x weekly to ICN during the summer? Really? As a business traveler, that kind of schedule simply doesn't work for me.

Certainly other foreign airlines will fill some of the gap (assuming the Canadian government lets them). Johnny Aussie talked about the NH rumor already. But it's AC that concerns me. They are still a pretty big employer in the Vancouver area, but it would seem to me that their seat growth out of YVR has been stagnant at best.

[Gordon]

How does Air Canada do on The major Asian Routes from YVR (HK,PeK&PVG)?

Does SEA have the facilities to host any sort of a major hub?

are there enough passengers to sustain 16 daily flights YVR & SEA

[Johnny Aussie]

So as expected AC has announced YYZ-HND on the 787 effective 1 July.

In the press release it does say this will "complement" existing flights to NRT from YYZ, YYC and YVR.

So this is in addition to YYZ-NRT... Not replacing it... which was being alluded to by Rovinescu's comments about shifting some services from NRT to HND.

The press release appears to be very clear this is not the case.

http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=723

Now for that ANA announcement ;-)

[deasine]

Australian Business Traveller also talks about the new AC 787 and potential deployment to MEL when the 787-9 becomes available. Johnny, looks like the HD Y configuration will come in one form or another. All the more reason to fly W or J

http://www.ausbt.com.au/air-canada-maps-...medium=flipper&utm_campaign=home-flipper

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Well, I'm not going to say 'the sky is falling', but if DL is building up a mega hub in SEA, this is cause for concern any way you look at it.

For one thing, AC seems to be having trouble making its Asian routes out of YVR work. As I recall, this was the reason that one of the options being explored before they launched Rouge was a joint-venture which would have taken over many of the existing Asia Pacific routes from Vancouver..

Now you have DL just down the road which potentially offers discounted one-stop fares to Asia from YVR. Even if you have 5% erosion of passenger traffic to SEA, it would seem that AC's already marginal routes become even more so. And AC has not shown any hesitation in cutting back routes. 4x weekly to ICN during the summer? Really? As a business traveler, that kind of schedule simply doesn't work for me.

Certainly other foreign airlines will fill some of the gap (assuming the Canadian government lets them). Johnny Aussie talked about the NH rumor already. But it's AC that concerns me. They are still a pretty big employer in the Vancouver area, but it would seem to me that their seat growth out of YVR has been stagnant at best.

I'm not sure where you got this from. AC has never had any issues making YVR-Asia work. First of all, I can assure you that the fallout between Virgin and AC starting its LCC wasn't because of problems in traffic, but rather, due to the costs of a long-haul LCC. Aside from Jetstar and its Japan-Australia services, no carrier has been able to successfully launch long-haul LCC services including AirAsia. Long haul LCC is a complete different ballpark than short haul LCC services.

Secondly, a potential reason why AC didn't go with an Asia LCC was because it was profiting on its Asia routes and we've seen this trend happening. Meanwhile, the sun destinations and some leisure European routes is where AC could not compete with carriers such as TS and WS. And it's exactly why AC would want a LCC, to provide services while lowering cost to compete on a more level-playing field. But costs in relation with other competitors on its Asia routes, aside from Mainland carriers, are similar.

Traffic on many of the Asian routes have increased over the past bit. AC deploys its HD 777 aircraft for YVR-HKG as a response to these traffic demands (as well as providing an "equal" premium economy product in response to CX).

What AC has realised is a focus on YYZ provides more profits than YVR. It's not AC can't make YVR-Asia work, it's that YYZ, with its existing flights to the Eastern Seaboard, works better without necessarily significant additional capacity.

Originally Posted by Gordon

How does Air Canada do on The major Asian Routes from YVR (HK,PeK&PVG)?

Does SEA have the facilities to host any sort of a major hub?

are there enough passengers to sustain 16 daily flights YVR & SEA

I would wager that there isn't enough demand for the extra Delta flights. But that doesn't really matter. Delta is operating those services in order to market the one-stop Asia options. Profits from the long-haul services offset the costs of operating the short-haul feeders. An equivalent example would be transit: the 99 B-Line's ridership is high because of services that feed into its route. If you cut feeder, unprofitable services, you won't have that ridership for the B-Line, meaning you will loose profits.

And yes SEA has the facilities for a hub although I know airlines have been a bit constrained in space. In fact I don't think SEA was prepared for so many new flights from DL and I would imagine further terminal optimisation (and planning for future expansion) would be needed in order to accommodate DL's increase. Of airports in the United States, it's not a bad one, although I believe YVR is much better.

[Hot Rod]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

So funny... and a sign of what times?

"By next summer, customers will have ONE-STOP service to the top five cities in Asia as well as the top three European markets."

So clever!

Hmmmm.... How about NON-STOP from YVR to all of those destinations.... plus more!

I think they're going to have to come up with something just a tad stronger than that.

They might want to do a little bit of homework before making such lame statements.

better word, CONNECTING since pax would need to transfer planes in SEA. One stop means same plane or flight number.

The planes are 77-seaters, is that a true worry for yvr? Who already has a much more significant presence for int'l traffic? Not saying rest on laurels, but I don't think the sky is falling and that yvr should proceed with adding foreign flags and its push for Asia/China-South America gareway status.

By the way, SEA is not a DL hub nor will it be. Instead, SEA a focus city for DL growing into more of an Int'l gateway than its previous status likely for the aforementioned reasons regarding NWA and NRT. SLC is DL hub for the west North America.

[trofirhen]

IF they get that customs-free area built at YVR, with facilities for connections from Asia to the mining centres of South America (Lima, Santiago; maybe even Sao Paolo for business) ... THAT is what will put YVR in the vanguard of West Coast airports. The sooner that's done (if ever) the better.
If Seattle (and the growing Delta hub there) does indeed pose some stiffer-than-expected competition, being the Asia - South America connecting hub will put YVR head and shoulders above SEA-TAC (even if we don't have Emirates or such an airline). The sooner the better, I think.
An arguable point, no doubt, but if we don't do it soon, SEA-TAC just might (although they don't have as many Chinese destinations as we do - yet).
If they were - hypothetically - to beat us to it, we would remain forever a regional focus city, and never a transit hub, or a real hub of any sort.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

So as expected AC has announced YYZ-HND on the 787 effective 1 July.

In the press release it does say this will "complement" existing flights to NRT from YYZ, YYC and YVR.

So this is in addition to YYZ-NRT... Not replacing it... which was being alluded to by Rovinescu's comments about shifting some services from NRT to HND.

The press release appears to be very clear this is not the case.

http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=723

Now for that ANA announcement ;-)

Although expected, it would be nice for YVR to get a 787 to Asia. YVR-HND on ANA metal... pleeeeeease!

As for Delta in Seattle. It just dropped its SEA - KIX 787 flight... and YVR has a healthy chunk of the China traffic.

I think, if Japan gets its way, its plan is to turn HND into a real competitor to ICN, so connections to HND in the future will be pretty important as it's being positioned as a major hub to Asia.I think over time, Narita may end up being more of a discount hub... as HND is just a far superior airport to fly into for multiple reasons.

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by deasine

I'm not sure where you got this from. AC has never had any issues making YVR-Asia work. First of all, I can assure you that the fallout between Virgin and AC starting its LCC wasn't because of problems in traffic, but rather, due to the costs of a long-haul LCC. Aside from Jetstar and its Japan-Australia services, no carrier has been able to successfully launch long-haul LCC services including AirAsia. Long haul LCC is a complete different ballpark than short haul LCC services.

Secondly, a potential reason why AC didn't go with an Asia LCC was because it was profiting on its Asia routes and we've seen this trend happening. Meanwhile, the sun destinations and some leisure European routes is where AC could not compete with carriers such as TS and WS. And it's exactly why AC would want a LCC, to provide services while lowering cost to compete on a more level-playing field. But costs in relation with other competitors on its Asia routes, aside from Mainland carriers, are similar.

Traffic on many of the Asian routes have increased over the past bit. AC deploys its HD 777 aircraft for YVR-HKG as a response to these traffic demands (as well as providing an "equal" premium economy product in response to CX).

What AC has realised is a focus on YYZ provides more profits than YVR. It's not AC can't make YVR-Asia work, it's that YYZ, with its existing flights to the Eastern Seaboard, works better without necessarily significant additional capacity.

I think he's referring to this article...

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2012/6/13/Air-Canada-eyes-Asia-for-low-cost-airline.aspx

[ACT7]

Not sure if this article from CAPA has been posted yet, but it's in relation to the discussion...

http://centreforaviation.com/

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by ACT7

Not sure if this article from CAPA has been posted yet, but it's in relation to the discussion...

http://centreforaviation.com/

Hmm. I wonder if there's a way YVR could, "en revanche," siphon traffic from Seattle? ... ... as that China >< South America transit hub, we probably could ....

[deasine]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Hmm. I wonder if there's a way YVR could, "en revanche," siphon traffic from Seattle? ... ... as that China >< South America transit hub, we probably could ....

Elaborate please. Why would a South America-China traffic positioning affect Seattle? SEA has no flights to South America either. If YVR ever becomes this transit hub, and I would be surprised if YVR ever gets close to YYZ in terms of being able to handle this type of traffic, this would be additional traffic and not take any traffic away from SEA.

Let me also add that while AC is not often cheaper than its American counterparts, flights from US to Asia via Vancouver are often cheaper than flights direct from Vancouver to the same destinations.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by ACT7

I think he's referring to this article...

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2012/6/13/Air-Canada-eyes-Asia-for-low-cost-airline.aspx

Yes, that was the article. Thanks for posting the link. This perspective was also referenced in other articles as well, but I can't be bothered to go searching for them.

I agree you go where the money is, and for Air Canada, that's YYZ. What's annoying is that the combination of economics (YYZ being AC's primary focus) and selective government policy really does airports outside of YYZ -- particularly Western Canada -- a disservice. It's ironic that on the same week Calvin Rovanescu warns YVR against pursuing open skies, AC announces plans to beef-up their Toronto hub. Some people on airliners.net have argued that TC is in Air Canada's pocket with regards to new bilaterals. Whether that's true, either way, as long as this status quo lasts and foreign access to YVR is limited, the airport will continue to suffer from benign neglect.

In addition to more consumer choice, competition might actually force AC to devote more attention to YVR. It's interesting that when Oasis launched flights to YVR from HK several years ago, AC and CX responded with more flights. At one point there were more than 31 flights per week to HKG alone. You see the same thing with Toronto Island airport. For years, it was completely neglected by AC. All of a sudden, when Porter starts making a go of it, AC wakes up and starts begging for access.

Hmm... Maybe the new DL service to Seattle could be a good thing...