YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[CareerShow]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

CAPA has released this report on Philippine Airlines.

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ph...-300ers-and-potentially-a350-900s-229720

YVR is the second largest international route in its route network, after LAX, based on ASKs of course

They are looking at doing MNL-JFK nonstop but do not have any aircraft in their fleet to make the route viable ATM. If they do pick up some A350-900s this will most likely happen. Keeping the A340 on that route also makes the MNL-YVR route with inconsistent product. In the unlikely event I would actually fly PR I certainly know which flight I would choose based on equipment used!!

The report also said they will continue to serve YYZ as a one-stop route via YVR as the attempt at the route nonstop was due to lack of demand and not aircraft performance.

I would invision they will discontinue YVR JFK. Already in the summer time there are delta, Cathay, AC, and United serving new york.

[trofirhen]

^Here is a list from CAPA of the airports of North America with nonstop links to China. Page starts with a mention of AA Asian growth. Scroll down a bit.
YVR is near the top, but SFO has airlines we don't. Yet
In Vancouvr's case, they omitted, Kunming, Chengdu, and now possibly Tianjing. Interesting list, nonetheless, of you care to open the link:

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/am...lines-refocus-on-china-over-japan-223642

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by CareerShow

I would invision they will discontinue YVR JFK. Already in the summer time there are delta, Cathay, AC, and United serving new york.

Yes, that's what I was alluding to. Until PR can get its hands on an a/c that makes MNL-JFK viable the YVR stop will remain. Or perhaps keep a few per week via YVR and a few nonstop to JFK.

Pretty hard for PR to beat most trans-pacific competitors using their very dated A340s on that route. But $$$ talks of course and the VFR traffic is their main target anyway. Business travellers would probably just bypass PR and fly via the many other onestop options available.

Edit: in the CAPA article it also mentions that the majority of pax on the MNL-YVR-JFK route are flying through to JFK. But as I said earlier if you were flying MNL-YVR and had to choose one of the 11 flights per week on the route would you pick the 77W or the 343?

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

But as I said earlier if you were flying MNL-YVR and had to choose one of the 11 flights per week on the route would you pick the 77W or the 343?

Oh 343 for sure. I love the slow laborious climb to 37,000 feet!

If the YVR-JFK tag was replaced by a non-stop, would PR replace it with another city? Or is this limited by current bilateral agreements? For VFR traffic, I was thinking there are large Filipino communities in a number of US states such as Texas and Florida that may be a stretch for a non-stop flight.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Oh 343 for sure. I love the slow laborious climb to 37,000 feet!

If the YVR-JFK tag was replaced by a non-stop, would PR replace it with another city? Or is this limited by current bilateral agreements? For VFR traffic, I was thinking there are large Filipino communities in a number of US states such as Texas and Florida that may be a stretch for a non-stop flight.

Miami would be excellent. They can become the default airline for all the Filipino crew who work on cruise ships out of Florida.

On a more serious note, Miami is a destination that Vancouver would benefit form having and if it helps PR fill the aircraft even better.

[Large Cat]

Guess what! Westjet Announces 767 direct flights to London!

The article doesn't mention specific cities/routes, but says "several Canadian cities". Do you think Vancouver's included?

[CareerShow]

I would really like to see Miami

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Oh 343 for sure. I love the slow laborious climb to 37,000 feet!

If the YVR-JFK tag was replaced by a non-stop, would PR replace it with another city? Or is this limited by current bilateral agreements? For VFR traffic, I was thinking there are large Filipino communities in a number of US states such as Texas and Florida that may be a stretch for a non-stop flight.

I understand the bilateral allows one city (not designated) to the US beyond YVR. I know SAN was really going after having that changed so they could get direct flights through YVR. Basically the days the flights didn't go to Vegas. AC lobbied very hard against PR getting even just one additional frequency to LAS back in the day. Read the arguments on the CTA rulings.

Originally Posted by Large Cat

Guess what! Westjet Announces 767 direct flights to London!

The article doesn't mention specific cities/routes, but says "several Canadian cities". Do you think Vancouver's included?

Well... Maybe not in round one but maybe round two. I'd say YYC is a given and then after that who knows! YYZ is by far the largest Canadian-UK market followed by a distant second YVR, then a distant (but not as distant between 1&2) third YYC, a distant (but not as distant between 2&3) fourth YUL then a very distant fifth YEG. YVR is still much larger than the entire Alberta market, but with Westjet's main hub at YYC, I think that's a given. Plus, it can feed its flights from all over Western Canada. YYZ would provide the biggest pool by far but some very heavy duty competition. Certainly some tough competition in both YYC and YVR as well. So who knows though maybe WS will surprise us all where else they go other than YYC.

Originally Posted by casper

Miami would be excellent. They can become the default airline for all the Filipino crew who work on cruise ships out of Florida.

On a more serious note, Miami is a destination that Vancouver would benefit form having and if it helps PR fill the aircraft even better.

Yup. I can honestly see rouge stepping up with more flights to PSP and taking over KOA. Also, I could see rouge launching LIH, MIA, MCO, SAN and SNA... certainly not all at once, not necessarily daily, and not necessarily in that order... All in due time!

[Klazu]

Why is Westjet always advertised as "low-cost carrier"? There is nothing low-cost in them IMO. Maybe once they were cheaper, but today they seem like your regular airline to me.

[deasine]

YYZ might be a difficult market for WS to enter I think because there's 4-5 flights alone from Air Canada, followed by another 2-3 from British Airways. Whereas YVR has much fewer flights per day, 1 from AC and 1-2 from BA. With the exit of VS, there might be a better opportunity here...

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by deasine

YYZ might be a difficult market for WS to enter I think because there's 4-5 flights alone from Air Canada, followed by another 2-3 from British Airways. Whereas YVR has much fewer flights per day, 1 from AC and 1-2 from BA. With the exit of VS, there might be a better opportunity here...

And don't forget Air Transat which offers 6 weekly flights from YVR-LGW in the summer (up from 5 weekly last summer). Although the exit of VS certainly would help.

All up in the summer YVR-UK has 28 weekly flights and a lot of seats:

AC 7 weekly YVR-LHR on the HD 77W
BA 12 weekly YVR-LHR on 744s
TS 6 weekly YVR-LGW on 332s
TS 2 weekly YVR-MAN on 332s
TS 1 weekly YVR-GLA on 332s

YYC has 23 flights per week in the summer to the UK albeit on smaller aircraft (other than the TS 332s) but that's still some significant capacity.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

And don't forget Air Transat which offers 6 weekly flights from YVR-LGW in the summer (up from 5 weekly last summer). Although the exit of VS certainly would help.

All up in the summer YVR-UK has 28 weekly flights and a lot of seats:

AC 7 weekly YVR-LHR on the HD 77W
BA 12 weekly YVR-LHR on 744s
TS 6 weekly YVR-LGW on 332s
TS 2 weekly YVR-MAN on 332s
TS 1 weekly YVR-GLA on 332s

YYC has 23 flights per week in the summer to the UK albeit on smaller aircraft (other than the TS 332s) but that's still some significant capacity.

Since YYZ and YYC (and YVR) already have a slew of flights to London; might it make more sense to launch YEG or maybe even Winnipeg? I understand the Icelandair flight from YEG is doing really well? Agree YYC is probably a given, but wonder whether there's a better opportunity for WS in non-hub airports

[Hourglass]

An interesting write-up about YVR's competitive positioning (particularly vis-a-vis SEA) and the importance of the expanded visa-free transit program for Latin aamerican connections:

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/va...th-latin-america-as-traffic-jumps-230276

Nothing really new but a good read nonetheless.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

An interesting write-up about YVR's competitive positioning (particularly vis-a-vis SEA) and the importance of the expanded visa-free transit program for Latin aamerican connections:

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/va...th-latin-america-as-traffic-jumps-230276

Nothing really new but a good read nonetheless.

This is exciting anyway, to see YVR grow the way it is doing.

I can't help but laugh at Calin Rovinescu's remark last year that without a strong Air Canada hub at YVR,
the airport risked becoming a "stub" airport, with routes leading into the hubs of foreign (ooooh and especially non Star-Alliance) airlines.
Well, Mr.Rovinescu, we're doing well as a "stub" thank you very much, and the majority of our new airlines seem to be SKYTEAM, sometimes ONEWORLD, (and a few *A members as well).

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by deasine

YYZ might be a difficult market for WS to enter I think because there's 4-5 flights alone from Air Canada, followed by another 2-3 from British Airways. Whereas YVR has much fewer flights per day, 1 from AC and 1-2 from BA. With the exit of VS, there might be a better opportunity here...

What kind of aircraft would WS need to fly from YYZ, YYC or YVR?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

What kind of aircraft would WS need to fly from YYZ, YYC or YVR?

Well they only have a few old 767s (from QF if I'm not mistaken). YYC is most likely a definite given that it's their main hub in Western Canada. Ultimately I find YYZ going to be very terribly challenging for WS to enter in given the sheer number of frequencies from both Air Canada and British Airways, whereas Westjet will be competing in relatively equal footing in terms of frequencies (not in terms of product or capacity) for YVR. But there are also a lot of feeder routes at YYZ...

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Why is Westjet always advertised as "low-cost carrier"? There is nothing low-cost in them IMO. Maybe once they were cheaper, but today they seem like your regular airline to me.

In general it is because they follow the low-cost carrier philosophy, which includes:

- Minimal range of aircraft models, and ideally one model, to simplify supply chain, maintenance, training, and benefit from economies of scale.

- Charge for in-flight services (meals, entertainment, etc.)

- Short dwell times and quick turn-around to maximize revenue hours per aircraft per day.

[SpongeG]

will be interesting to see what happens with westjet if/when they unionize

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

In general it is because they follow the low-cost carrier philosophy, which includes:

- Minimal range of aircraft models, and ideally one model, to simplify supply chain, maintenance, training, and benefit from economies of scale.

- Charge for in-flight services (meals, entertainment, etc.)

- Short dwell times and quick turn-around to maximize revenue hours per aircraft per day.

Those may only benefit their bottom line. Price wise they are nothing but low-cost carrier. Even the "ultra low-cost carriers" in North America seem ridiculously expensive to us Europeans.

[casper]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

In general it is because they follow the low-cost carrier philosophy, which includes:

- Minimal range of aircraft models, and ideally one model, to simplify supply chain, maintenance, training, and benefit from economies of scale.

- Charge for in-flight services (meals, entertainment, etc.)

- Short dwell times and quick turn-around to maximize revenue hours per aircraft per day.

They are quickly moving away from those:

- Only one type of aircraft. They now operate 3 versions of the 737, the Dash-8 and the 767 by the end of the year.

- All the legacy airlines now charge for in-flight service

- The short dwell time primarily works for airlines that are doing point to point. As they move to handling a lot of connecting traffic that goes away. If you look at WestJet in Calgary it is all banked.

Low cost airlines also usually try to have the following (that WestJet is also moving away from):

- Single class of service (there plus product is becoming more like Air Canada business class every day)

- No lounges (they currently contract out business lounges, but they do have them)

- No interlining (they now interline with every major non-star alliance foreign carrier that services Canada)

Every day Westjet is becoming more and more like a full service airline.

Most of the low-cost features they use to have simply don't work in Canada beyond a certain size. If all you do is shuttle passengers to Vegas or Mexico you can operate a simple point-to-point type low-cost service. If you want to service most of the Canadian market you have to do more. WestJet is doing more now.