YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion - Page 423

LeftCoaster · #**8441** Posted **Jan 22, 2016, 10:32 PM**

very unlikely any of the above would venture into that.

The alliance carriers (Delta United & American) are all too focused on building and defending their hubs. With the exception of the hubs you listed, most of these smaller US airports only fly into hubs and direct to other cities via point to point airlines (Southwest etc...)

The point to point airlines could fill certain niches at YVR, but it is still doubtful they will expand to Canada. Not exactly sure why, but they seem quite content in their domestic roles in the US.

Our only real hope comes from Air Canada, or from a dark horse being Westjet. Westjet is going to be in some serious trouble in Alberta, where most of their flying is done right now. With yields and loads set to drop significantly in Alberta they will be under pressure to re-deploy their fleet. YYZ is the obvious choice, but they face huge competition from Air Canada there. An alternative is to develop their operations at YVR, which are currently very weak, and certain gaps may exist as Air Canada would prefer to route through YYZ. I am personally quite interested to see how WestJet responds to the slowdown in Alberta. I am fully expecting their eyes to turn to the west coast...

trofirhen · #**8442** Posted **Jan 22, 2016, 11:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

very unlikely any of the above would venture into that. ...
The alliance carriers (Delta United & American) are all too focused on building and defending their hubs.......
Our only real hope comes from Air Canada, or from a dark horse being Westjet. Westjet is going to be in some serious trouble in Alberta, where most of their flying is done right now. .......
I am personally quite interested to see how WestJet responds to the slowdown in Alberta. I am fully expecting their eyes to turn to the west coast...

I'm hoping for something like that, too. WS might just do that. YVR might just become a Westjet "Hub City." Imagine. It could happen.

Johnny Aussie · #**8443** Posted **Jan 23, 2016, 4:06 AM**

This may be of interest to a lot of you wondering about YVR's Transborder routes potential.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/51-205-x/2011000/tablesectlist-listetableauxsect-eng.htm

Granted the last time this info was compiled was 2012. There has been significant growth between YVR and the U.S. since then but these tables give a good indication of potential markets based on O&D.

Just to put the numbers into perspective.

Annualised market based on the number of pax per day each way (ppdew)

40 ppdew = 29,200 annual pax
50 ppdew = 36,500 annual pax

I'll stop there for now.

So factoring in a secondary US city is NOT a hub or even a focus city, any direct YVR route would depend more on O&D unless YVR can leverage off its broad Asian network. So imagine just a 90 seat aircraft would generate 65,700 annual seats on a route.

Per these tables and based on 2012 data, the largest under-served route (after SAN - since it is starting up again) is BOS with an annual traffic of 50,540 pax, which is just under 70 ppdew.
After BOS: FLL (39,491), MIA (32,570), PHL (31,400) then a big gap down to AUS (20,830). AUS's figure puts it at 28 ppdew. SMF isn't far behind AUS but they'd be under 28 pax per day. When AC attempted SMF a few years ago, again AC was attempting to leverage its Asian connections. This route would not survive on O&D alone even with just one daily 50 seater. As we recall this route did not last long.

The above flights (except SMF) have very long stage lengths and the economics of making any of these routes profitable would be tough. Having said that, BOS, MIA and PHL were definitely served at one time direct from YVR. MIA can leverage off its huge South American network (as what AA tried to do years ago), PHL is of course a huge hub for AA and as for BOS, perhaps another crack at that direct one day.

But these raw figures should help explain why there are no direct flights to PIT, MCI or Chippewa Falls.

Interesting tid bit in regards to PIT - US Airways back in their PIT hub hey day was on the verge of launching a PIT-YVR route... they were predicting about 94% of passengers would be connecting onto their vast network at the time. Similar to TWA and the YVR-STL route. PIT and US (now AA) as we all know has gone the way of the dodo bird.

trofirhen · #**8444** Posted **Jan 23, 2016, 4:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

This may be of interest to a lot of you wondering about YVR's Transborder routes potential.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/51-205-x/2011000/tablesectlist-listetableauxsect-eng.htm

Granted the last time this info was compiled was 2012. There has been significant growth between YVR and the U.S. since then but these tables give a good indication of potential markets based on O&D.

Just to put the numbers into perspective.

Annualised market based on the number of pax per day each way (ppdew)

40 ppdew = 29,200 annual pax
50 ppdew = 36,500 annual pax

data, the largest under-served route (after SAN - since it is starting up again) is BOS with an annual traffic of 50,540 pax, which is just under 70 ppdew.
After BOS: FLL (39,491), MIA (32,570), PHL (31,400) then a big gap down to AUS (20,830). AUS's figure puts it at 28 ppdew. SMF isn't far behind AUS but they'd be under 28 pax per day. When AC attempted SMF a few years ago, again AC was attempting to leverage its Asian connections. This route would not survive on O&D alone even with just one daily 50 seater. As we recall this route did not last long..............................

............These raw figures should help explain why there are no direct flights to PIT, MCI or Chippewa Falls.

What cities would work as regularly served destinations? You mentioned Boston. Any others?

Johnny Aussie · #**8445** Posted **Jan 24, 2016, 6:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

What cities would work as regularly served destinations? You mentioned Boston. Any others?

Have a look through the data tables. Some interesting numbers in there.

Other than O&D of course....

Passengers originating in Vancouver (and BC in general using YVR) heading to the U.S. are mainly:

1) connecting to somewhere else in the US
2) connecting to somewhere in Europe
3) connecting to somewhere in Central/South America
4) connecting to somewhere in Asia
5) connecting to somewhere in Australia

Again, other than O&D

Passengers originating in the USA heading to YVR are mainly:

1) connecting to somewhere else in Canada
2) connecting to somewhere in Asia
And to a lesser extent Europe or Australia.

As a transit point, geographically, YVR's advantage for the rest of North America is obviously Asian connections. So any large US city with large traffic numbers to/from Asia would be ideal connections. So again, outside those routes already served directly to/from YVR how many would be left? But don't forget there are plenty of non-stop flights from plenty of US gateways to Asia.

The other main point I want to make is geographical as well. The further East a city is in the US, the less likely a passenger would use YVR to transit to somewhere in Canada other than BC/Yukon. However, YVR is also the main transfer point to the US for other cities in BC, Yukon and to a much lesser extent Alberta.

Soooooo, unless a US city is a big hub for one of their domestic airlines, using the above criteria the number of viable new routes would be fairly limited.

After saying all that... East of the Mississippi: BOS, MIA and PHL would at least be in the realm of possibilities as restarting. But.....
BOS would only most likely be served by AC but O&D alone is still not enough and AC would route Asian passengers via YYZ from BOS. Too much risk to move them through YVR by dedicating an aircraft for that long route. MIA and PHL would be operated by AA only. MIA, perhaps on AC but again, would be a huge risk due to stage length. Perhaps a long shot may be seasonal service to CLT based on their huge AA hub. But, YVR-ATL is down to just a couple of flights per week seasonally anyway so who knows? Also consider, DTW and IAD are now just token weekly seasonal flights. And those are both relatively large hubs for DL and UA respectively. This side of the Mississippi: maybe SMF again only because of leveraging YVR's Asian connections and could provide decent connections to other places in Canada.

All other markets based on the data presented would present too many difficulties to make any of them viable. Remembering that any route with an annual traffic volume of less than 36,500 passengers is less than 50 pax per day each way.

casper · #**8446** Posted **Jan 24, 2016, 6:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Have a look through the data tables. Some interesting numbers in there.

Other than O&D of course....

Passengers originating in Vancouver heading to the U.S. are mainly:

1) connecting to somewhere else in the US
2) connecting to somewhere in Europe
3) connecting to somewhere in Central/South America
4) connecting to somewhere in Asia
5) connecting to somewhere in Australia

Again, other than O&D

Passengers originating in the USA heading to YVR are mainly:

1) connecting to somewhere else in Canada
2) connecting to somewhere in Asia
And to a lesser extent Europe or Australia.

As a transit point, geographically, YVR's advantage for the rest of North America is obviously Asian connections. So any large US city with large traffic numbers to/from Asia would be ideal connections. So again, outside those routes already served directly to/from YVR how many would be left? But don't forget there are plenty of non-stop flights from plenty of US gateways to Asia.

The other main point I want to make is geographical as well. The further East a city is in the US, the less likely a passenger would use YVR to transit to somewhere in Canada other than BC/Yukon. However, YVR is also the main transfer point to the US for other cities in BC, Yukon and to a much lesser extent Alberta.

Soooooo, unless a US city is a big hub for one of their domestic airlines, using the above criteria the number of viable new routes would be fairly limited.

After saying all that... East of the Mississippi: BOS, MIA and PHL would at least be in the realm of possibilities as restarting. But.....
BOS would only most likely be served by AC but O&D alone is still not enough and AC would route Asian passengers via YYZ from BOS. Too much risk to move them through YVR by dedicating an aircraft for that long route. MIA and PHL would be operated by AA only. MIA, perhaps on AC but again, would be a huge risk due to stage length. Perhaps a long shot may be seasonal service to CLT based on their huge AA hub. But, YVR-ATL is down to just a couple of flights per week seasonally anyway so who knows? Also consider, DTW and IAD are now just token weekly seasonal flights. And those are both relatively large hubs for DL and UA respectively. This side of the Mississippi: maybe SMF again only because of leveraging YVR's Asian connections and could provide decent connections to other places in Canada.

All other markets based on the data presented would present too many difficulties to make any of them viable. Remembering that any route with an annual traffic volume of less than 36,500 passengers is less than 50 pax per day each way.

I get the impression as AC builds up Asia from Vancouver it is left with creative things to do with widebodies. Perhaps we mighty see a BOS or MIA in the future to increase aircraft utilisation.

Johnny Aussie · #**8447** Posted **Jan 24, 2016, 7:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper

I get the impression as AC builds up Asia from Vancouver it is left with creative things to do with widebodies. Perhaps we mighty see a BOS or MIA in the future to increase aircraft utilisation.

I am still impressed they are putting a 787-8 on EWR.

But overall, future new US routes will be rather limited for some time. (ie new routes, not just additional frequencies or new airlines on exisiting routes which is more likely).

Transborder ex YVR has grown about 20% since 2012 (based on projected 2015 full year results).

Looking forward to seeing the December and full year 2015 results. We know YVR will exceed 20,000,000 passengers, but looking at other categories:

Transborder will exceed 5,000,000 for the first time
Asia Pacific will exceed 3,000,000 for the first time
Europe will exceed 1,300,000 for the first time

And total international is going to be oh so close to hitting 10,000,000.... gonna be very close. I just ran some projections and will most likely be in the 9,960,000 to 9,980,000 range.

Quite a few significant milestones will be reached.

stiffdeadman · #**8448** Posted **Jan 24, 2016, 10:19 AM**

I don't see much happening transborder wise. I think the winter and summer schedules are pretty much set for the most part for awhile. United is the dominant US carrier, serving all their hubs multiple times daily. Delta is dumping everything they have into Seattle. Perhaps if the Los Angeles flights perform well, they will upgauge them to mainline with 717's. Would be cool to see those up here having seen them in PDX and SEA. Everything else has been downsized such as MSP and SLC. I think American would be the only possibilty of adding a route. Perhaps with increased cruise traffic next summer they will restart ORD. They did it a few years ago for a summer but didn't bring it back. It is the one glaring hole in their network from here. Perhaps they throw an A319 on it. Frontier has been and gone. Alaska is done with YVR and wouldn't be surprised in BLI ends after this schedule cycle. Spirit isn't coming. Southwest isn't coming. Jetblue's only western presence is Long Beach and that is minimal. They don't even use all their slot pairings down there anymore. As well they don't serve Toronto or Montreal from their Boston hub, so odds are they are not even thinking of YVR. Virgin America could be a candidate with their hub in SFO, however they tried SFO-YYZ and it failed, so they may be afraid of Canada now. Maybe when Hawaiian gets their A321neo's in 2017 they'll send one here. Would love to see that tail here. Saw the A330-200 down in PDX and it was cool.

Johnny Aussie · #**8449** Posted **Jan 24, 2016, 5:48 PM**

So goodbye AS and hello WS.

According to airliners.net and the weekly OAG update....

Westjet is adding a third daily flight on the YVR-LAX route this summer.

YVR-LAX back to 13 daily with 5 carriers this summer.

Edit: schedules just loaded. All three daily will be operated with 73H equipment.

YVR-LAX schedule (dep-arr)
0805 - 1100
1625 - 1920
1945 - 2240** new flight

LAX-YVR schedule (dep-arr)
0835 - 1114** new flight
1145 - 1424
2005 - 2244

trofirhen · #**8450** Posted **Jan 24, 2016, 6:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

I am still impressed they are putting a 787-8 on EWR.
But overall, future new US routes will be rather limited for some time.
We know YVR will exceed 20,000,000 passengers, but looking at other categories:

Transborder will exceed 5,000,000 for the first time
Asia Pacific will exceed 3,000,000 for the first time
Europe will exceed 1,300,000 for the first time

And total international is going to be oh so close to hitting 10,000,000.... gonna be very close. I just ran some projections and will most likely be in the 9,960,000 to 9,980,000 range.
Quite a few significant milestones will be reached.

Hokey smokes, that's just uner the slightly larger half for domestic !! I wonder if we'll get any interesting new destinations this year, other than ones already announced.

... imagine when TWV is in ... whenever that will be .....

Cage · #**8451** Posted **Jan 24, 2016, 10:53 PM**

Transborder wise, YVR big problem is that UA is the most western of US airlines, they are not going to desire transport pax from their hubs to connect in YVR to Asian destinations. Counterpoint would be if AC, CA, NH, and UA could do a Joint venture like what's happening on the Atlantic side. This would bring lots of pax through YVR.

With DL trying to build a hub at SEA before they get kicked out of NRT, they are unlikely to promote YVR unless it's hourly shuttle to SEA or LAX.

The best hop is that AC starts to build a transborder connection bank to facilitate Asian connection traffic.

Johnny Aussie · #**8452** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 12:37 AM**

Effective 16 June 3 weekly YVR-SAN on 73H equipment.

http://airlineroute.net/2016/01/24/ws-jun16/

Flights will operate Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays.

WS1762 YVR1215 - 1508SAN 247 73H
WS1763 SAN1555 - 1851YVR 247 73H

Effective 7 Septemebr this flight will switch to a 73W.

Unsure if seasonal or permanent... I'm tipping permanent year round.

Vagabond · #**8453** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 1:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Effective 16 June 3 weekly YVR-SAN on 73H equipment.

http://airlineroute.net/2016/01/24/ws-jun16/

Flights will operate Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays.

WS1762 YVR1215 - 1508SAN 247 73H
WS1763 SAN1555 - 1851YVR 247 73H

Effective 7 Septemebr this flight will switch to a 73W.

Unsure if seasonal or permanent... I'm tipping permanent year round.

Yeah! I've been waiting for this flight for a while.

I especially like the timings (more family friendly that the corresponding AC Rouge flight). No Saturday flight is a bit of a bummer, however. Here's to hoping the flight is a success, and they add more days to the schedule (sooner than later!)

Cage · #**8454** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

I am still impressed they are putting a 787-8 on EWR.

I too have been thinking about the reasoning for putting the 788 onto YVR-EWR.

AC current location at EWR cannot handle the Dreamliner without significantly harming other operators at terminal A banjo 1. This could be a way for AC to get into terminal B or C. with the recent DL- UA slot swap, 2-3 gates at terminal B will open up. AC could take over the vacated DL gates and be closer to Joint venture partner UA.

The alternative is AC going into terminal C with UA. This would have all kinds of additional benefits for AC customer; lounge access, tighter connections to Europe and eastern USA.

All the extra benefits of moving at EWR and AC gets higher utilization on widebody aircraft.

ShawnShank · #**8455** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 4:42 AM**

Looks like Xiamen Airlines finally got approval, announcing service starting 25th of July, 3 weekly (evening arrival) with 787-8

http://airlineroute.net/2016/01/25/mf-yvr-jul16/

excel · #**8456** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 5:23 AM**

^

Year round I assume?

Probably been mentioned, but I just noticed that we will be only the second city outside of Asia/Oceania served by Xiamen Airlines.

The other city being Amsterdam.

Johnny Aussie · #**8457** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 5:38 AM**

Finally!

Excellent news.... Let's see if the other three applications to the CAAC come to fruition!

Another decent day of service increase announcements with Westjet to SAN and increased LAX and now Xiamen to Xiamen.

2016 really is shaping up to be another impressive year.

Johnny Aussie · #**8458** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 8:42 PM**

http://westjet2.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1099

Buried in this article by Westjet about expanding YYZ are the highlights to YVR's Transborder flights. Of course it mentions the SAN and LAX additions but also HNL and OGG. So both HNL and OGG back to daily (up from 6 weekly each). However, KOA and LIH are being made seasonal so no weekly summer flights this year. Basically the KOA and LIH flights have been transferred to HNL and OGG.

LeftCoaster · #**8459** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 10:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cage

T Counterpoint would be if AC, CA, NH, and UA could do a Joint venture like what's happening on the Atlantic side. This would bring lots of pax through YVR.

I thought this was already in place? Well AC and CA at least. Bringing in UA would be huge.

LeftCoaster · #**8460** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 10:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Another decent day of service increase announcements with Westjet to SAN and increased LAX and now Xiamen to Xiamen.

Funny how we go from 0 flights to SAN to 10 a week in the span of a month or so.