YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[casper]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Does YVR really need a Gulf carrier anyway?
Yes, I know the route from SEA ->< DBX is profitable, but Dubai is EXACTLY on the opposite longitude from YVR (and SEA)!!
I think Turkish (*Alliance) would be equally good, if not better. IST is a great connection point for the Mideast and Africa, and the Turkey-Canada bilateral seems looser than the UAE bilateral.
And IST is a great connection to the Balkans, Iran, Caucasus and Eastern Mediterranean regions, where a lot of immigrants here seem to be coming from these days.

I would be surprised if it a Gulf carrier has any benefit for Vancouver. It would likely have a bigger negative impact. The Dubai flight takes passengers off of BA, CX and many of the Chinese airlines.

Take Seattle and SAS, they have a long relationship going back decades. All gone.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by casper

I would be surprised if it a Gulf carrier has any benefit for Vancouver. It would likely have a bigger negative impact. The Dubai flight takes passengers off of BA, CX and many of the Chinese airlines.

Take Seattle and SAS, they have a long relationship going back decades. All gone.

Yes,I agree that a Gulf carrier would not do YVR much good, although I think TURKISH would serve it well.
And yes, SAS dropping SEA was a shock, esp given the high Scandinavian population of Seattle that went by SAS. Icelandic seems to have stepped in to fill the void.

[Hot Rod]

Mostly, I wish Vancouver can fill up it's Asia slate and mature it's European offerings.

For Asia, my wish list is:

Chongqing: China Southern 777-200LR (I know Tianjin wants the route, but I hope China Southern gets it once CKG T3A opens and Chongqing likely becomes its #2 hub, no fuel stop necessary)
Fuji: Air Fuji 747
Kaohsiung: EVA Airlines A330
Nagoya: ANA A330 + Air Canada 767
New Deli: Air India 777-200LR
Melbourne: Qantas 787
Osaka: (Daily Air Canada 767) + ANA 787
Thailand: Bangkok on Thai Airlines 777
Singapore: Singapore Airlines A350 (don't have to be daily, any return would be huge)
Vietnam: Saigon on Vietnam Airlines 777

I think this would basically complete our Asia Pacific conquest, making YVR #1 gateway into North America.
DREAM/DROOLING

[LeftCoaster]

I assume by Fuji you mean Fiji? They don't run 747s anymore, down to all A330 for long haul. Would certifiably be a nice tail to see at YVR though.

Kaohsiung is doubtful due to the restrictive bilateral. Any capacity increases are likely to go to TPE to YVR and YYZ.

Tianjin's stop on their Chongqing route is not a fuel stop as far as I know, the A330-200 they propose to fly the route can easily make the 10,000km journey. I think the stop is a passenger pickup. I'd rather see another tail in Tianjin and see China Southern go double daily to Guangzhou.

Air India 787 would be perfect for the YVR route. Really wish someone would launch this one.

SE Asian routes would all be great, but outside of SIN are such low yield runs I don't know how they would be profitable.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by casper

I would be surprised if it a Gulf carrier has any benefit for Vancouver.

While I do think you're right that ME3 usually have a negative impact on other airlines, YVR-Asia prices are already so low I doubt a ME3s presence would depress prices that much. And if seats/week were limited I think something like a daily Ethiad 787-8 or 787-9 wouldn't add a catastrophic amount of capacity.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

One day it may just happen...until then don't give up on your hopes and dreams.

I think I'll be able to hold on, it's just that the new Ehtiad livery is so pretty!

Also, related to this topic, here's a pic of the Emirates 777 on it's unscheduled visit YVR yesterday


bombardierboy on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/64424538@N06/25680675571/

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Volaris, Interjet or VivaLasVegasAerobus

Haha didn't know about that last ones rebrand

Would love to see any of those tails at YVR, and by the looks of it they've all got decent equipment to make the run work.

[nname]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Air India 787 would be perfect for the YVR route. Really wish someone would launch this one.

Again, restricted bilateral. They could run them daily to YYZ or YUL (Atlantic route), but only allowed 2x weekly to YVR (Pacific route).

I highly doubt AI is in a financial state to expand their network, as I read somewhere before that they are losing money on all but one of their long-haul route. They were already cannibalizing one of their *new* 787s for parts...

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Kaohsiung is doubtful due to the restrictive bilateral. Any capacity increases are likely to go to TPE to YVR and YYZ.

Only chance of that happening is from AC as both BR and CI are not particularly interested in long-haul from KHH (the furthest they fly from there is CTS [Sapporo]?)

Speaking of which, maybe YVR-CTS on AC Rouge would be a good route to have too...

[vanlaw]

Originally Posted by casper

I would be surprised if it a Gulf carrier has any benefit for Vancouver. It would likely have a bigger negative impact. The Dubai flight takes passengers off of BA, CX and many of the Chinese airlines.

Take Seattle and SAS, they have a long relationship going back decades. All gone.

SAS ceased Seattle service in 2009 I think. Emirates launched Seattle service in 2012. Emirates was not a factor of the cancellation of the SAS run.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by nname

Speaking of which, maybe YVR-CTS on AC Rouge would be a good route to have too...

I was recently browsing flights to Sapporo and was surprised on how many 777s and 747s the Japanese airlines are flying on their Tokyo/Osaka - Sapporo routes. There must be a lot of passanger potential in there, even though it is only a metropolitan area of 2 million people.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by vanlaw

SAS ceased Seattle service in 2009 I think. Emirates launched Seattle service in 2012. Emirates was not a factor of the cancellation of the SAS run.

The ouster of SAS at SEA was the launch of CPH-SFO service. SFO launched in late 2008 and SEA was dropped less than one year later.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I was recently browsing flights to Sapporo and was surprised on how many 777s and 747s the Japanese airlines are flying on their Tokyo/Osaka - Sapporo routes. There must be a lot of passenger potential in there, even though it is only a metropolitan area of 2 million people.

It's no wonder. It's a long 9½ hour train ride with 2 transfers from Tokyo to Sapporo... and Japan likes to channel all its international airline traffic through NRT or HND. Budget airlines are centralizing around KIX in Osaka and Osaka is pretty much the gateway to West Japan.

Saying that, there's considerable excitement over the first bullet train to reach Hokkaido. It will shave 2 hours and 1 transfer off that trip. Still a long trip at 7½ hours, mind you... but it's nice to have options.

Distance from Tokyo – Sapporo is about the same as Vancouver – Edmonton.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I was recently browsing flights to Sapporo and was surprised on how many 777s and 747s the Japanese airlines are flying on their Tokyo/Osaka - Sapporo routes. There must be a lot of passanger potential in there, even though it is only a metropolitan area of 2 million people.

After all, Sapporo is the only metro area over 1M population that is not served by Shinkansen, and will not be until at least 2030.

Something I found interesting that neither JL nor NH have any interest in running any international route out of Sapporo. Not even to Korea, China, or Taiwan. They rather route all air traffic via Tokyo or Osaka despite its the closest major airport to North America. All international routes at the airport was by foreign airlines, and pretty much all route goes south and west, with the exception of Hawaiian. Would it be a good business case if AC fly there and route all the North America traffic via YVR? (NH may not like it though...)

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by casper

I would be surprised if it a Gulf carrier has any benefit for Vancouver. It would likely have a bigger negative impact. The Dubai flight takes passengers off of BA, CX and many of the Chinese airlines.

Take Seattle and SAS, they have a long relationship going back decades. All gone.

But a Gulf carrier would give the real-estate media something more interesting to chew on. At least they could alternate memes between Chinese billionaires and UAE Sheiks as the boogeymen on the front page of who they think is driving real estate prices this week.

/sarcasm

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

Mostly, I wish Vancouver can fill up it's Asia slate and mature it's European offerings.

For Asia, my wish list is:

Chongqing: China Southern 777-200LR (I know Tianjin wants the route, but I hope China Southern gets it once CKG T3A opens and Chongqing likely becomes its #2 hub, no fuel stop necessary)
Nadi: Air Fiji 747
Kaohsiung: EVA Airlines A330
Nagoya: ANA A330 + Air Canada 767
New Delhi: Air India 777-200LR
Melbourne: Qantas 787
Osaka: (Daily Air Canada 767) + ANA 787
Bangkok: Thai Airlines 777
Singapore: Singapore Airlines A350 (don't have to be daily, any return would be huge)
Ho Chi Min City: Vietnam Airlines 777

I think this would basically complete our Asia Pacific conquest, making YVR #1 gateway into North America.
DREAM/DROOLING

First off, I fixed your list for spelling and other differences that are out of favour (e.g. Saigon has not been used to describe the major Vietnamese city in over 30 years, despite the IATA airport code being SGN).

NAN is unlikely due to the recent Typhoon that wiped out everything from a tourist perspective. Unfortunately it will be years before tourist traffic recovers.

NGO is half way between KIX and TYO, actually its so close to KIX that it would compete very well. However its possible for WS to go to NGO and leave KIX to ACr.

MEL would occur once QF gets SYD-YVR daily year round. Actually the better option is for AC to run YVR-MEL less than daily, especially if AC can kick QF off the SYD run.

SIN is a possibility through AC, especially if they have continued success with their international growth strategy.

BKK and SGN are too thin and too far to make the operation profitable, plus these routes would complete with SIN, and SIN has the best chance of survival.

I like your thinking on CGK and offer my own list of next cities for YVR:
- XIY to daily.
- CTU on CA.
- HGH on AC
- NKG on MU
- CAN on AC
- CSX on CZ
Catch my drift as to where YVR must get new services in order to compete with LAX and SFO.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

NRT is closer to YVR than LHR.

You got me, but not by much! But I'd equate LHR to HND... in which case... oh crap. LHR is still further by 15 miles. Gah... I concede.

If only I could use London's Luton airport, that airport is 5 miles closer than HND.

MOST of Asia is further than Most of Europe. Still, the point was that the Pacific is really big. It still is surprising to think we cross Canada and the Atlantic and it equals just getting to Asia.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

While I do think you're right that ME3 usually have a negative impact on other airlines, YVR-Asia prices are already so low I doubt a ME3s presence would depress prices that much. And if seats/week were limited I think something like a daily Ethiad 787-8 or 787-9 wouldn't add a catastrophic amount of capacity.

The catastrophic capacity impact comes from the ME3 decision to accept nothing less than full open skies prior to starting new services or expanding services in existing countries.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Cage

The catastrophic capacity impact comes from the ME3 decision to accept nothing less than full open skies prior to starting new services or expanding services in existing countries.

How did we end up with the current situation of 14x into the Emirates and 3x into Qatar? Was that a previous deal before ME3 decided to force countries into full open skies?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Cage

The catastrophic capacity impact comes from the ME3 decision to accept nothing less than full open skies prior to starting new services or expanding services in existing countries.

Thanks, Cage. I seem to recall reading recently that there's a problem in the USA with Emirates demanding rights to AMS-JFK, LHR-JFK, CDG-ATL, and such, (as hpothetical examples) operating on the very premise you stated: that they treat the world as an Open Skies market.
That could, would and seems to have them poised to "cannibalize" traffic that would normally be flown on LH, BA, AF, KLM, and AC metal, and that would include YVR. Better to keep them out, I think, and keep our other friends flying here, and our roster of foreign tails at the max.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Cage

F
Catch my drift as to where YVR must get new services in order to compete with LAX and SFO.

I think your drift is for the most part correct, but I do think there is some untapped demand in the developed countries of Asia, South Korea and Taiwan in particular.

I could see Asiana get into the ICN fray and Taiwan/Canada to expand their bilateral to push China Airlines and Eva daily and allow AC to put some PAX through YYZ/YVR as well.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by nname

Again, restricted bilateral. They could run them daily to YYZ or YUL (Atlantic route), but only allowed 2x weekly to YVR (Pacific route).

I highly doubt AI is in a financial state to expand their network, as I read somewhere before that they are losing money on all but one of their long-haul route. They were already cannibalizing one of their *new* 787s for parts...

That's a very strange bilateral, I wonder what exactly it is protecting by allowing only flights to once side of the country.