YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[nname]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

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

Each side would allow 2 routes, first route is limited by 2100 seats/week, second route only allowed 2x weekly.

If stopover were to be considered, points on the Atlantic side is allowed for first route, Pacific for second route.

India picked DEL-YUL-YYZ for their first route, leaving only the 2nd route for YVR or YEG
AC picked YYZ-DEL for their first route, leaving only the 2nd route for YVR or YUL

AC had the right for the 2nd route for a couple of decades but choose not to operate. They only got the right for first route after Canada3000 went under.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by nname

Each side would allow 2 routes, first route is limited by 2100 seats/week, second route only allowed 2x weekly.

If stopover were to be considered, points on the Atlantic side is allowed for first route, Pacific for second route.

India picked DEL-YUL-YYZ for their first route, leaving only the 2nd route for YVR or YEG
AC picked YYZ-DEL for their first route, leaving only the 2nd route for YVR or YUL

AC had the right for the 2nd route for a couple of decades but choose not to operate. They only got the right for first route after Canada3000 went under.

IMO, strangely tight and restrictive. Too bad India and Canada can't negotiate some kind of "more open" skies accord, and let the numbers increase as with Canada & Australia.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

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?

In the case of the UAE, the agreement for 1 daily by a UAE airline and 1 daily by a Canadian airline was indeed the legacy air agreement that predates the rapid expansion of EK and ET.

For Qatar, the Canadian government of the day was under a lot of pressure to open up traffic rights to the ME3. In this case, both the Canadian and Qatar governments were willing to severely limit capacity on the bilateral.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Thanks, Cage.

Your welcome.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

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

Nname is referencing the old bilateral. The new bilateral was signed in 2005 in the dieing days of the Martin Liberal government.

new bilateral presser is available here: http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=156789

As to why the bilateral is so strange, the answer related to 1980s available equipment and economic ties. There was no equipment to allow for nonstop services. Further the equipment available for one stop services required fifth freedom rights to make the route viable. Therefore a very restrictive agreement was reached to allow AC or AI to fly across the Atlantic as an extension of the UK and select other European traffic rights. CP had no desire to service India through the Pacific and did not want AI to take passengers from either HKG, NRT, or ICN. At some point the Canadian government threw India a bone and allowed for 2x weekly flights across the Pacific.

Finally (and this gets really strange to wrap your head around) back in the AC vs CP days, Transport Canada policy was "Divide the World". AC got TransAt services (with the exception of AMS) and CP got TransPac. The World was divided and India became a TransAt destination rather than TransPac because services were traditionally conducted with a European intermediary stopover.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

IMO, strangely tight and restrictive. Too bad India and Canada can't negotiate some kind of "more open" skies accord, and let the numbers increase as with Canada & Australia.

The new bilateral allows for 35 weekly frequencies between the two countries. Also YvR is included as a Canadian gateway in addition to YYZ and YUL.

In this case, the restrictive govt policy is an Indian requirement and not Camadian. The Indians are so protectionist they are actively inhibiting international air trade with many countries. For years the Indians did not allow A38 services into the country to block out EK. However this also blocked out LH, AF, SQ, and a few others from deploying the best aircraft for the market.

[Johnny Aussie]

Even if Canada-India had a completely unrestricted open-skies (sounds a bit redundant but some open skies agreements do have slight restrictions) this does not change the economics of a route.

Based on what Cage has posted above with the updated bilateral there is nothing stopping any Indian carrier or Air Canada from starting YVR - DEL right now.

We have, like many other topics, discussed this over and over...

YVR-India (DEL) is a massively VFR route. Seasonal as well. There are already so many one stop options to India (DEL). My last flights on Air China to / from PEK were at least 50% Indian passengers most likely transferring to/from DEL. Any nonstop flight offered would have to be competitive enough to draw pax away from the likes of CA, CI, CX, MU etc etc.

So yes, there is a huge YVR-DEL market, but is it economically viable to have a nonstop flight?

As the Indian population continues to grow, yes, one day even the VFR market may be large enough.

[nname]

Speaking of India.. AC is increasing YYZ-DEL to daily this winter... Maybe if there is still enough demand, they could throw a 3x weekly YVR-DEL (like what they did with Dublin this summer )

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by nname

Speaking of India.. AC is increasing YYZ-DEL to daily this winter... Maybe if there is still enough demand, they could throw a 3x weekly YVR-DEL (like what they did with Dublin this summer )

Makes sense right? Toronto's South Asian population is about 3x that of Vancouver's. Plus they can feed the YYZ-DEL route with AC's massive network @ YYZ.

As I stated above, Vancouver's South Asian population is large... but it's still only about a third of Toronto's. Vancouver's is also over 3x that of Calgary's which has the next largest South Asian community in Canada (slightly larger than Montreal's). So even using YVR as some sort of Western hub to feed a DEL route would pale in comparison to YYZ's market for this service. There are some significant Indian populations down the West Coast as well but even AI now flies nonstop from SFO.

Hmmmmmm... SFO. Here's an idea... SFO-DEL isn't daily so how about increasing SFO-DEL to daily and have say maybe three flights a week go via YVR. Don't know of 5th freedom capabilities but.... anyway.. Just a thought. AI being Star Alliance would help... codeshare AC and UA as well.

As for DUB, that is an ideal rouge route. Perhaps DEL would be better suited to a rouge type operation. However, rouge doesn't have the equipment to make that long leg.

[Hot Rod]

or 3 days DEL-YVR and 4 days DEL-SFO.

Share the love, since Vancouver and San Fran are children of the same mother, different daddies.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Even if Canada-India had a completely unrestricted open-skies (sounds a bit redundant but some open skies agreements do have slight restrictions) this does not change the economics of a route.

Based on what Cage has posted above with the updated bilateral there is nothing stopping any Indian carrier or Air Canada from starting YVR - DEL right now.

We have, like many other topics, discussed this over and over...

YVR-India (DEL) is a massively VFR route. Seasonal as well. There are already so many one stop options to India (DEL). My last flights on Air China to / from PEK were at least 50% Indian passengers most likely transferring to/from DEL. Any nonstop flight offered would have to be competitive enough to draw pax away from the likes of CA, CI, CX, MU etc etc.

So yes, there is a huge YVR-DEL market, but is it economically viable to have a nonstop flight?

As the Indian population continues to grow, yes, one day even the VFR market may be large enough.

I would imagine that the VFR market here in Toronto still dominates the market, yet they manage to make it work. Toronto may be a big business city but its connections mainly go south to the US and Latin America and east to the UK, not much with India at all.

According to this air access analysis: http://culture.alberta.ca/tourism/pr...StudyFinal.pdf the inbound traffic to Toronto from DEL is only double that of YVR. The rest of India is a different story but as far as the direct flight is concerned, it's not a huge discrepancy. certainly not enough that one needs a daily flight on a 787-9 and the other can't even support 3x per week on a 787-8.

Anyway, just my $0.02. Thanks for the info on the updated bilaterals Cage and Johnny, that 2 route one didn't make any sense to me so glad they updated it to let the market decide.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Hmmmmmm... SFO. Here's an idea... SFO-DEL isn't daily so how about increasing SFO-DEL to daily and have say maybe three flights a week go via YVR. Don't know of 5th freedom capabilities but.... anyway.. Just a thought. AI being Star Alliance would help... codeshare AC and UA as well.

Or maybe AC could target the tech sector for SJC-DEL traffic. Since there could probably never be a direct flight, for those who want to avoid travel all the way to SFO, YVR, SEA, and ANC would be the only one-stop choices without involving a big detour. This could very well feed into the new YVR-SJC flight starting this summer.

[LeftCoaster]

Not sure if it could ever work via 5th freedoms or customer desire for a stop in YVR, but the route from California to DEL is perfect:


http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=LAX-DEL&M...X=540x540&PM=*

[nname]

Originally Posted by Klazu

It has now happened: Emirates 777 on YVR today. The Seattle-bound flight had to land in Vancouver due to the strong winds.

Reading about this on Airliners... I would be a bit scared to fly with them if I know the captain had declared a MAYDAY and there were only 19min of fuel left when the plane landed at YVR (after only one missed approach at SEA and a short diversion to YVR).

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

According to this air access analysis: http://culture.alberta.ca/tourism/pr...StudyFinal.pdf the inbound traffic to Toronto from DEL is only double that of YVR. The rest of India is a different story but as far as the direct flight is concerned, it's not a huge discrepancy. certainly not enough that one needs a daily flight on a 787-9 and the other can't even support 3x per week on a 787-8.

Anyway, just my $0.02. Thanks for the info on the updated bilaterals Cage and Johnny, that 2 route one didn't make any sense to me so glad they updated it to let the market decide.

Yes, but O&D consists of inbound and outbound. So YVR may attract more visitors per capita but total O&D to/from YYZ is close to 3X that of YVR. And yes YVR would be more DEL-centric than YYZ which would have a more diversified traffic pattern to India. Also YYZ has the advantage of being a much larger business centre so I would guess more higher yielding Pax than YVR. YYZ Is also better located to capture a better share of the huge diaspora also located in the US north East.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Yes, but O&D consists of inbound and outbound. So YVR may attract more visitors per capita but total O&D to/from YYZ is close to 3X that of YVR. And yes YVR would be more DEL-centric than YYZ which would have a more diversified traffic pattern to India. Also YYZ has the advantage of being a much larger business centre so I would guess more higher yielding Pax than YVR. YYZ Is also better located to capture a better share of the huge diaspora also located in the US north East.

A tough reality. Let's hope that somebody does the LAX - DEL route with a YVR stopover, as mentioned several posts back.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by nname

Reading about this on Airliners... I would be a bit scared to fly with them if I know the captain had declared a MAYDAY and there were only 19min of fuel left when the plane landed at YVR (after only one missed approach at SEA and a short diversion to YVR).

That's indeed worrying! Could you land a 777 on BLI or is YVR the only option to SEA? Isn't PDX closer to SEA than YVR?

I am curious what happens in this kind of diversions. Does the airline have to pay for people's overnight accommodation? How about those that don't have Canadian visas? Are they granted some sort of temporary permit to enter the country? And finally, does the airline fly you to your destination without extra cost when the weather permits it?

I have never had that happen to me, so I am curious.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Klazu

That's indeed worrying! Could you land a 777 on BLI or is YVR the only option to SEA? Isn't PDX closer to SEA than YVR?

They could land and BLI, but probably would have big problem when trying to fly it out and the aircraft would certainly be stuck there for days or weeks. Abbotsford and Victoria airport were offered as landing locations while the plane was enroute to YVR because they were closer. Even though both airports have longer runways than BLI, neither would support flying the 777 out with passengers.

YVR is slightly closer to SEA than PDX by a few miles. The thing is, with so little fuel left, the pilots basically have at most 2 attempts to land at YVR. Had the weather been as bad as SEA and they missed the first approach, they would have to immediately turn around and make the second attempt, and the aircraft would not have enough fuel to climb back up if the second attempt failed.

[casper]

Originally Posted by nname

They could land and BLI, but probably would have big problem when trying to fly it out and the aircraft would certainly be stuck there for days or weeks. Abbotsford and Victoria airport were offered as landing locations while the plane was enroute to YVR because they were closer. Even though both airports have longer runways than BLI, neither would support flying the 777 out with passengers.

YVR is slightly closer to SEA than PDX by a few miles. The thing is, with so little fuel left, the pilots basically have at most 2 attempts to land at YVR. Had the weather been as bad as SEA and they missed the first approach, they would have to immediately turn around and make the second attempt, and the aircraft would not have enough fuel to climb back up if the second attempt failed.

It almost never happens now (I believe due to upgrades in Vancouver) but Abbotsford use to handle YVR diversion of wide bodies in the past. Victoria in years past handled Wardair 747 flights. That said, the needs for this specific 777 with its combination of weight and passangers is something I don't have the background to comment on.

As for diversions to weird airports. It has happen to me the odd time. Thunderstorms around MSP and ending up in a small airport in the Midwest. Flying into Ottawa and getting diverted to Montreal. Flying into Toronto and getting diverted to Ottawa. Flying to Winnipeg and ending up in Saskatoon. It is a weird feeling to be on an aircraft when the pilot aborts at the last minute and pulls up. They usually go somewhere else fill up with gas and try again when things clear up. They keep people on the aircraft if they can.

As for the cost to the passenger you paid to go from point A to point B. The airline is responsible for getting you to you destination if they can't do it as planned they put you on another flight at no cost.

[stiffdeadman]

Originally Posted by nname

They could land and BLI, but probably would have big problem when trying to fly it out and the aircraft would certainly be stuck there for days or weeks. Abbotsford and Victoria airport were offered as landing locations while the plane was enroute to YVR because they were closer. Even though both airports have longer runways than BLI, neither would support flying the 777 out with passengers.

YVR is slightly closer to SEA than PDX by a few miles. The thing is, with so little fuel left, the pilots basically have at most 2 attempts to land at YVR. Had the weather been as bad as SEA and they missed the first approach, they would have to immediately turn around and make the second attempt, and the aircraft would not have enough fuel to climb back up if the second attempt failed.

Abbotsfords main runway is 9600ft long. It could have handled a 777 with passengers.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by casper

As for the cost to the passenger you paid to go from point A to point B. The airline is responsible for getting you to you destination if they can't do it as planned they put you on another flight at no cost.

Reminds me of a flight to Japan where we were delayed by snow @ YVR. Missed our connecting flight in Tokyo to Osaka.

They offered us a night at the hotel in Haneda and an early morning flight or cash for a bullet-train ride that evening.

Different from a diversion, but same principle.

We took cash for the train.

[moosejaw]

Got delayed on Alaska airlines flight from Mia to Sea
Lady had a seizure on the plane
Had to stop off at Jax (Jacksonville)
Alaska had no maintainence crew at Jax to clear for takeoff o they had to hire American Airlines to clear them for takeoff. Well American Airlines maintainence crew found a lot of things that they wanted fixed. All of sudden a one-two hour delay turned into four five hours
Then eight hours passed. I'm doing the math in my head. I know Mia-Sea is a six hour flight
I know pilots can only fly a limited amount of hours. So I figured were not going home tonight (Xmas eve btw)

Anyways they break the news to the flight and Alaska Airlines (keep in mind they are not that big of an airline) offers to put us up for the night and pays for dinner at the local Bennigans outside the hotel. We were on our way the next day and they had representatives put us on connecting flights. Usually I'm picked up in Seattle but managed to score a connecting flight to YVR