Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley_Refugee
^I agree. The single mega-hub or fortress is suited to countries with large population bases and multiple large carriers (like the US) or else countries with a single dominant city and small geography (like most European countries...where else is British realistically going to create a 'fortress' than LHR? Where else would is AF going to dominate than CDG?). Because of Canada's expansive geography, Toronto will never be the only possible connection point on Air Canada. Gateway to Europe, yes, and connection point for Europe-South America traffic. In addition it will always be able to draw from the densely populated US Northeast. But YVR will always have good connections on AC or Star Alliance to the Western half of North America, and I can't see AC viably forcing people to connect in YYZ for every flight. Indeed, we have convenient service to Star mega hubs Chicago and Houston. Maybe not on AC metal, but AC and UA cooperate extensively.
But YVR is NOT a slouch for service, especially given its low population and relative lack of economic power. We have incredible service for a city our size. I get tired of the constant refrains of "it's just a regional focus city" or whatever. We have to think within our means, so to speak.
Honestly, this thread can get very repetitive. I encourage people to either think or research before they post.
|
Thank you for this objective and instructive feedback. It made me realize that I had jumped to conclusions without having the numbers, as Johnny said.
(where to access the numbers, anyway?)
but Vancouver is indeed served nonstop worldwide, far moreso than many cities of its size, in the USA, in particular, although they have several very large city megahubs, as you stated.
I have
never had any grand delusions of Vancouver, being some kind of 4-runway, 30+ overseas destinations, 4+ continents - and 25 transborder+, plus who knows how many domestic routes,
all of 'em year round scheduled, huge concourses, terminal connector rail, constant take offs and landings, bla bla.
I rather like it the way it is.
I just wish it could get 2 or 3 more European
destinations (and maybe one day, Istanbul....), get Brisbane and Melbourne, plus the possible >(yes I know everyone hisses; nevertheless there's to be a meeting with the YVR president and Canada immigration about the visa-free China - South America connector that the airport is chasing like a hunting wolf, yet most forumers say it'll never fly. Maybe that's true. I do not know.)
Just a handful of destinations more is all I'm really talking about. Maybe it's because it's Canada's third largest and only Pacific coast city.
Prev
, I definitely second this. At the same time though, I also understand that the aviation industry and knowing the analysis/business operations behind it is significantly more complicated than other industries/businesses. You really have to use a systems perspective in order to be able to understand the whole picture. For instance, looking solely at one traffic flow, in the most recent case the Asia-South America traffic and YVR/SEA, doesn't look at the whole picture. One has to include current business operations, aviation policies, competing business structures, other countries' aviation policies, demand and supply, etc. (list goes on) in order to realise that it's not as simple as telling AC to fly a route down to BOG for continuing feed on AV to other South American destinations (for instance). There are so many more players, and so many more levels from agendas of individual airlines, to agendas of governments, to agenda of airports. To a degree, it's like the City of Surrey's LRT case, Surrey wants LRT as a means of generating additional tax revenues and CACs to improve city services and more cash flow, whereas TransLink seems to prefer ALRT to reduce costs in offering service. One needs to examine multiple systems and stakeholders in order to understand the situation.
Linear Mode
