YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by craneSpotter

As far as the next terminal expansion goes, the current plan - expansion 2020 - was to request approval to spend $400 million to add 5 gates to the International terminal and 5 gates to Pier A. Also, an older section of Pier B is to be renovated. They are hoping for approval by May 2016. After expansion 2020, they wish to spend ~1 billion+ on one of three expansion proposals - all outlined by this article :

https://www.biv.com/article/2015/11/critics-question-yvrs-400m-terminal-expansion-plan/

In a presentation to (I believe) the VBT, Craig Richmond pointed out the problems facing the Eastern and Western extensions, and stated that option C, the "Central" - green in the diagram -was the preferred design.

[Gordon]

Has any date been given for the opening of the 1st of the new A gates

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

January stats... Wow. Exceeded my expectations.

100,000 more pax than Jan 15.

Transborder certainly ground to a halt. Tipping more US visitors still but offset by plummeting Canadian originating pax due to the $.

Compared to other Canadian cities reporting January (so far) Transborder is an excellent result.

But look at Asia, Europe and Misc Int'l. Amazing!

Ya I expect transborder will be a problem for the non-tourist months but I anticipate more big numbers once the sun pops out again. Will be tough to replicate the Women's World Cup draw but I still think we will see some solid growth this summer.

Can't wrap my head around the Asia numbers though. YVR to Asia more of less added the equivalent of YYCs entire roster of monthly widebody flights... and there's still so much capacity add coming this summer.

Growth back up in the 7%-8% range could be possible this year.

[craneSpotter]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

In a presentation to (I believe) the VBT, Craig Richmond pointed out the problems facing the Eastern and Western extensions, and stated that option C, the "Central" - green in the diagram -was the preferred design.

I certainly hope that is what in fact happens. Probably the best option from a cost perspective too.

[Johnny Aussie]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/51-205-x/2016000/tablesectlist-listetableauxsect-eng.htm

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/160301/dq160301c-cansim-eng.htm

Updated transborder O&D Data for 2013/2014

Some decent market information. YVR increased to over 3.2 million in 2014 up over 280,000 from 2013.

YVR has 7 markets > 100,000 annual pax: LAX, SFO, "Hawaii," LAS, PHX, NYC and ORD all had strong growth.

BOS remains the largest unserved non-stop market with over 62,000 annual pax.

There were 21 markets with traffic volumes > 30,000. Unserved markets above this threshold are BOS, FLL, MIA and PHL.

2015 was a good year for transborder as well so further increases will have occurred.

[Hot Rod]

I kind of like the Central expansions as well, because it completes the existing terminal complex. It is nice to not have to transfer between buildings - well, at least to have continuous walkway/connection between Domestic and Int'l/US.

Perhaps the central expansion would get us to 30M pax per year (assuming the 2020 gets us to 25M) and likely would be cheapest/easiest/quickest to build; then if we get close to that 30M we could talk about the new East Terminal and put all US into there. ...

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

Perhaps the central expansion would get us to 30M pax per year (assuming the 2020 gets us to 25M) and likely would be cheapest/easiest/quickest to build; then if we get close to that 30M we could talk about the new East Terminal and put all US into there. ...

The Eastern terminal is nice in that it would likely give us another SkyTrain station.

But from the looks of things, it would also also make Int'l / USA transfers longer if they moved USA to that one wing. Interesting that one airline doesn't have a 'home' in YVR. I mean I suppose it's because Canada only has 1 major Airline ( WestJet still isn't a major international player ) and the airport is still small enough so that there's no huge advantage to an airline bunching up in one place.

“There should be meaningful consultation with consumers – the people who use the airport – and see if they want to spend all this money,” Cran said.

He added that he believes high fares at YVR have driven hundreds of thousands of British Columbians annually to Bellingham International Airport.

The AIF for a flight outside B.C. jumped 33% to $20 in 2012 to help pay for $1.8 billion in improvements, including the $400 million in terminal expansions currently being contemplated.

source: https://www.biv.com/article/2015/11/critics-question-yvrs-400m-terminal-expansion-plan/

I somehow don't think AIF has much to do with travelers flying out of BLI while I would assume landing fees at YVR are higher, it's the cross-border fees that raise the price of tickets in relation to BLI.

In any case, the way I see it, the bigger YVR gets, the more the airport has to attract flights, the more options Vancouverites get, the more competition there is, the cheaper flights get. Of course, you have to have the traffic to justify it, but if you don't expand, you can't attract more flights in the first place, can you?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

The Eastern terminal is nice in that it would likely give us another SkyTrain station.

But from the looks of things, it would also also make Int'l / USA transfers longer if they moved USA to that one wing. Interesting that one airline doesn't have a 'home' in YVR. I mean I suppose it's because Canada only has 1 major Airline ( WestJet still isn't a major international player ) and the airport is still small enough so that there's no huge advantage to an airline bunching up in one place.

The east terminal has a great amount of possibilities, particularly as a greenfield design. to keep the connection time down and have maximum efficiency, I would like to see a 20 gate terminal that serves a combined domestic/transborder/international traffic by using multiple levels to segregate pax. a 20 gate terminal would be of particular appeal to WS since they wouldn't have ops spread through the main terminal complex.

The tricky component for this east terminal idea is that WS does not usually like to sign primary hub airline agreements with airports. A primary hub airline agreement would bind WS to long term commitment for hub status.

The other option would be to have AC sign a primary hub airline agreement for the main terminal building and then place other airlines into the east terminal. However this would also require YVRAA to work with AC to fix a number of pax flow constraints at the main terminal building (For example the longterm rebuild of concourse C to handle AC mainline for domestic/transborder/international purposes.

The final hurdle for east terminal proposal is that both CBSA and USCBP are loathsome to splitting operations into separate customs halls. This is the primary reason why YVRAA has made provisions for a long connecting corridor from B concourse back to international terminal rather than having a small customs hall closer to the A/B concourse.

The gate plan for the new east terminal could look something like this:
Concourse A - reconfigured for other domestic airline.
Concourse B - AC express ops with provision for smaller mainline aircraft (e.g. CSeries).
Concourse C - AC mainline (the express holdrooms are pulled out and more mainline gates put into that area). Reconfigure the concourse to allow for additional swing gates (this includes addition of a upper level for international departures.
Concourse D - AC and star alliance international ops.
Concourse E - primary other airline international and transborder ops
East Terminal - WS and few other codeshare airlines, all types of pax.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Cage

The gate plan for the new east terminal could look something like this:
Concourse A - reconfigured for other domestic airline.
Concourse B - AC express ops with provision for smaller mainline aircraft (e.g. CSeries).
Concourse C - AC mainline (the express holdrooms are pulled out and more mainline gates put into that area). Reconfigure the concourse to allow for additional swing gates (this includes addition of a upper level for international departures.
Concourse D - AC and star alliance international ops.
Concourse E - primary other airline international and transborder ops
East Terminal - WS and few other codeshare airlines, all types of pax.

WS seems to be partnered with OneWorld and SkyTeam, so having their own terminal ( East Wing ) would be conducive to airlines like JAL, KE, AF moving in as well. I think East terminal as a hub would be a golden opportunity to hub in. If it gets its own transit station, I feel that the inconvenience of being far from the 'main' hub would disappear.

Could that station more business travellers?

Although I wouldn't have thought WS wants a proper hub in Vancouver 10 years ago, I can see them thinking about soon. It feels like they've become a legitimate 2nd airline for Canada, it just seems like they've been dipping their toes in the international market for too long... and don't want to take the plunge. Maybe this spat of profitability and low oil prices will convince them to expand more aggressively? Pardon me if this has been talked about before. Maybe it already is in their plans.

[Klazu]

This is already few years old and from 2012, but I have never seen such a presentation of the three alliances. Interesting stuff and only Star Alliance seems to have a truly balanced coverage of the whole globe.

Africa, South America and Australia are tought regions to have proper coverage since there are not many airlines to partner in those regions. This doesn't reflect TAM Airlines joining One World after purchase by LAN.


boardingarea.com

If someone has a more up-to-date version of this, it would be interesting to see.

[twoNeurons]

I just had an epiphany. There are few low-cost operators who fly to Asia. It seems this market is ripe for some shake-up and I wonder if Air Canada sees WestJet possibly entering this market and has made a few pre-emptive strikes.

For example, they restarted up YVR-KIX using AC Rouge. The interesting thing about this route, is that KIX is turning into a LCC Hub in Japan. Ironic, considering that the airport used to be super expensive to fly into for airlines.

It would be an IDEAL place in Asia for an airline like WS to fly into. AC Rouge flies a 767 on this route which WS would have NO problem competing with. I could see WS doing the same and potentially creating partnerships with airlines that use KIX as a base.

[nname]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I somehow don't think AIF has much to do with travelers flying out of BLI while I would assume landing fees at YVR are higher, it's the cross-border fees that raise the price of tickets in relation to BLI.

In any case, the way I see it, the bigger YVR gets, the more the airport has to attract flights, the more options Vancouverites get, the more competition there is, the cheaper flights get. Of course, you have to have the traffic to justify it, but if you don't expand, you can't attract more flights in the first place, can you?

Nope. I say this every time, its the US Government that charges more. If you are a non-US citizen and fly internationally, they charge $60 more than the domestic rate. Canadian government also charge a custom fee of about $20 that is not needed if you enter by land.

The landing fee is not that bad - approx rate for 2013 for a 737-800 at full load:
BLI = $175 USD
YVR = $380 CAD = $283 USD

Source: BLI YVR

That's equal to about 60 cents extra per passenger.

[SFUVancouver]

I prefer the Central option, followed by the Eastern option. An airport where I'm currently doing work is planning long-term to have a remote terminal accessible by an APM but it is pursuing the equivalent of YVR's Central and Eastern options first.

Interesting map of the three airline alliances. Thanks for sharing it.

[Stanford85]

I recall hearing some years ago that the airport favoured an eastern expansion due to it giving an increase in both terminal capacity and curb space at departures and arrivals level, which can get quite busy during peak hours, vs the central and infield options which increase terminal capacity but retain the previous amount of curb space.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I just had an epiphany. There are few low-cost operators who fly to Asia....... I wonder if Air Canada sees WestJet possibly entering this market and has made a few pre-emptive strikes.......

For example, they restarted up YVR-KIX using AC Rouge. The interesting thing about this route, is that KIX is turning into a LCC Hub in Japan...........

It would be an IDEAL place in Asia for an airline like WS to fly into. AC Rouge flies a 767 on this route which WS would have NO problem competing with. I could see WS doing the same and potentially creating partnerships with airlines that use KIX as a base.

.... WS has already daringly gone into the UK market.
Wish they'd, following the success of AF, come to Paris. {Orly Airport, of course.)

[Cage]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I just had an epiphany. There are few low-cost operators who fly to Asia. It seems this market is ripe for some shake-up and I wonder if Air Canada sees WestJet possibly entering this market and has made a few pre-emptive strikes.

For example, they restarted up YVR-KIX using AC Rouge. The interesting thing about this route, is that KIX is turning into a LCC Hub in Japan. Ironic, considering that the airport used to be super expensive to fly into for airlines.

It would be an IDEAL place in Asia for an airline like WS to fly into. AC Rouge flies a 767 on this route which WS would have NO problem competing with. I could see WS doing the same and potentially creating partnerships with airlines that use KIX as a base.

AC restarted KIX because they thought they could make money by deploying the rouge 763 into the market. AC left KIX because there was no market for front cabin services that are required for mainline international profitability.

Turning to thoughts of WS, they could deploy YVR to both of KIX and NGO (although probably not daily). ICN would be a good second Asian destination. Anything into China would require either a much newer 763 or the 787/333neo.

However, the big problem for WS is that the price for international route rights just included an order for the CSeries. No one will ever find a senior government bureaucrat or Minister say that, but behind closed doors the politics of aviation have come down hard on WS for not supporting the home town industry. AC riding into the savior of BBD is being looked on very nicely by the federal government.

Any WS international expansion is going to be limited to countries with a favourable Open Skies agreement with Canada. Anything else is off the table for next few years.

[LeftCoaster]

So based off the 2014 statscan info Johnny provided us with I've updated my transborder route prediction chart with actuals inflated for 2015. I've also included ACs purchase of the CS300, which will benefit routes like Miami.

As expected there were winners and losers, with few in between. Of the big winners, Boston, Nashville, New Orleans, Washington DC and most of Florida all saw moderate to strong growth.

About all I can say is 74,000 O&D pax should be enough to launch Boston, as should 77,000 be enough to see much more than 1 a week service to Washington Dulles. Miami and Florida in general showed strong growth, so that one seems like another no brainer. The only thing holding Miami up it seems is the right plane to be acquired by AC, be it 737MAX or the CS300. Not sure which plane AC takes delivery of first.


http://i.imgur.com/08G5OF7.png

[SFUVancouver]

Who on earth does the weekly direct YVR-CLT flight? American?

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Who on earth does the weekly direct YVR-CLT flight? American?

I think you're misreading the chart. The chart shows how many flights current O&D traffic could support, given a particular airframe.

No one currently flies the routes shown, with the exception of irregular service such as Atlanta, Detroit, Orlando etc... which are once or twice per week and often seasonal.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I think you're misreading the chart. The chart shows how many flights current O&D traffic could support, given a particular airframe.

No one currently flies the routes shown, with the exception of irregular service such as Atlanta, Detroit, Orlando etc... which are twice and once per week and often seasonal.

Ah, I see. I did misread it. Thanks for the clarification, and I appreciate you making the table in the first place!