YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[casper]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

I completely agree. We have all discussed potential routes; some reasonable, some rather far-fetched... over and over. I appreciate the passion of some people's wish lists. But really, please put some thought into them. I really aim to be an optimist but come on people!

For the USA, looking at the realities of the numbers - logistics, geographical location and just plain basic economics of air travel, there are really limited growth options.

Looking at that 1996 list:

CVG was dropped because DL dismantled its hub there.
RNO was dropped because AA dismantled its hub there.
MIA was dropped by AA (and AC)... a really long route - hard to make work (even from SEA only one daily flight exists on an AA 738).

So as discussed before, I think we have BOS, MIA/FLL and maybe PHL as potential routes (the ONLY unserved routes with > 30,000 annual pax). And these three have been tried before, but maybe the numbers are good enough to try again. I can see more ATL and IAD in the future. I doubt we will see DTW back to daily again. Most other destinations just don't have the numbers to make a route viable.

As for International, it's still going to be mainly all about Asia (China mainly). We've discussed the Middle East, India, South-East Asia.... India will happen eventually one day! Europe, limited potential new routes from YVR. South America? Been discussed a lot - sure there may be something in the works but not going to be very much really. More South Pacific? Sure MEL is rumoured and has been discussed a lot.

Given Air Canada is slowly rediscovering Vancouver as a hub with potential for growth I think we could see more US destinations if they can feed the mid-day bank of Aisa flights. The C-series is going to be great aircraft for Air Canada to build out US destinations.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by casper

Given Air Canada is slowly rediscovering Vancouver as a hub with potential for growth I think we could see more US destinations if they can feed the mid-day bank of Aisa flights. The C-series is going to be great aircraft for Air Canada to build out US destinations.

If they don't affect their YYZ flights too much then it could be a go. But unlikely. Still shorter for the large East Coast cities (BOS, MIA, PHL for eg) to connect in YYZ compared to YVR. When BOS and MIA were connected to YVR direct, AC didn't have the Asian flights from YYZ they do now. Also, BOS didn't have any direct flights to Asia, look at BOS now! From YYZ, AC will be flying direct to every city in Asia as YVR.... and then some. In the West most of the major cities are connected to YVR already. Maybe SMF again? PHL would have to be AA if YVR is to be connected from there again.

[Alpine]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

As for International, it's still going to be mainly all about Asia (China mainly). We've discussed the Middle East, India, South-East Asia.... India will happen eventually one day! Europe, limited potential new routes from YVR. South America? Been discussed a lot - sure there may be something in the works but not going to be very much really. More South Pacific? Sure MEL is rumoured and has been discussed a lot.

A nonstop YVR-DXB? Do I dare to dream?!

No. I don't dare to dream. Sorry, trofirhen, even though DXB has frequent connections to the subcontinent, I'm not sure if the low-yielding, Vancouver-India traffic (which is mostly VFR and tourism, in addition to being O&D; both death sentences for nonstop flights, and that's even before considering the flight is 11,000 km) is really all that time-sensitive. I can't speak for other travellers, but there is about 2-3 hours of transit time in Guangzhou (between CZ330, which arrives around 4-5:30 pm Beijing time, and CZ359, which leaves around 7:00 pm Beijing time from a quick check of Flight Aware). And even if the flights are notoriously delayed (which I've heard through the grapevine), would most Vancouver-India travellers prefer the rapid connections of DXB, or would they not mind an overnight layover in Guangzhou or Beijing or Frankfurt or the other hubs that connect YVR with DEL?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Alpine

A nonstop YVR-DXB? Do I dare to dream?!

No. I don't dare to dream. Sorry, trofirhen, even though DXB has frequent connections to the subcontinent, I'm not sure if the low-yielding, Vancouver-India traffic (which is mostly VFR and tourism, in addition to being O&D; both death sentences for nonstop flights, and that's even before considering the flight is 11,000 km) is really all that time-sensitive. I can't speak for other travellers, but there is about 2-3 hours of transit time in Guangzhou (between CZ330, which arrives around 4-5:30 pm Beijing time, and CZ359, which leaves around 7:00 pm Beijing time from a quick check of Flight Aware). And even if the flights are notoriously delayed (which I've heard through the grapevine), would most Vancouver-India travellers prefer the rapid connections of DXB, or would they not mind an overnight layover in Guangzhou or Beijing or Frankfurt or the other hubs that connect YVR with DEL?

Sorry to me about what?
I have no strong wish to see EK in Vancouver, simply because of their policy that "ALL THE WORLD IS AN OPEN SKY" and they cannibalize other routes by insisting on access.
Access: like flying to YVR through FRA, AMS, CDG, which would probably greatly reduce the roster of foreign airlines that YVR has.
This issue has been raised at several major US airports, where EK wants the rights to fly to them - via Europe, displacing other airlines.
Look at Seattle. All the Scandinavians there used to use SAS for decades, nonstop to CPH. Now that's gone with the wind.

I'm not quite clear on where you're coming from on this, but I never screamed for EK to come to YVR. I think we're better off without them, if that's what you meant.

[teriyaki]

Originally Posted by nname

I've seen the movie and I can identify the location of about 60% of the outdoor scenes and they are indeed shot in Vancouver. (About 5% are scenes from Seattle but none of them contains any actor). If anything, there is no way I can mistaken a KCM bus as a TransLink bus in the background. My friends always joked around and called the movie "Beijing Meets Vancouver"

Same. Skimmed through the movie and identified most of the shots as being shot in Vancouver. That airport scene right at the beginning made me laugh the most. Just used the check-in counters at YVR in the US Departures level, and added some decals, voila US TSA and CBP in Seattle...

[SFUVancouver]

Alaska Air poised to buy Virgin America, report says

Originally published April 2, 2016 at 12:03 pm Updated April 2, 2016 at 8:41 pm

By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED and LESLIE PICKER
The New York Times


Alaska Air Group is emerging as the likely winner of an auction for Virgin America, besting a rival bid from JetBlue as negotiations neared a conclusion Saturday.

Virgin America, founded on the premise of being a cool airline shuttling people from New York to California in style, is near a deal to sell itself to a competitor originally created to ferry people 330 miles across Alaska.

Alaska Airlines is poised to buy Virgin for about $2 billion, a person briefed on the matter said Saturday, describing a move that would unite two popular smaller airlines in the latest round of consolidation within the industry.

Should Alaska, which is based in Seattle, reach an agreement to acquire Virgin — details were still being negotiated and could still fall apart — an announcement could come as soon as Monday, said the person, who was not authorized to speak about the matter.

A sale of Virgin would be the latest instance of deal-making in an industry that has shrunk drastically over the past decade, concentrating power in the hands of a few major airlines.

Virgin, Alaska and JetBlue compete in a tier below the giants: American, Delta and United. When Virgin put itself up for sale this year, it drew preliminary interest from a host of potential suitors. But the biggest domestic airlines, constrained by antitrust regulations, soon gave way to smaller competitors eager to expand their networks.

[...]

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boe...eportedly-nears-deal-for-virgin-america/

[nname]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

If they don't affect their YYZ flights too much then it could be a go. But unlikely. Still shorter for the large East Coast cities (BOS, MIA, PHL for eg) to connect in YYZ compared to YVR. When BOS and MIA were connected to YVR direct, AC didn't have the Asian flights from YYZ they do now. Also, BOS didn't have any direct flights to Asia, look at BOS now! From YYZ, AC will be flying direct to every city in Asia as YVR.... and then some. In the West most of the major cities are connected to YVR already. Maybe SMF again? PHL would have to be AA if YVR is to be connected from there again.

There still South East Asia and Australia/NZ though, and also some secondary airport that may be reachable by rouge 767. I doubt we will ever see AC fly these non-stop from YYZ even if there may eventually planes capable of doing so.

And seems like BR finally switch YVR-TPE from 744 to 77W on March 2017. No frequency increase though.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by nname

There still South East Asia and Australia/NZ though, and also some secondary airport that may be reachable by rouge 767. I doubt we will ever see AC fly these non-stop from YYZ even if there may eventually planes capable of doing so..........

Yeah! If we get MEL (and I'm sure we may) YVR will have Australia/NZ sewn up! Tahiti is reachable from Vancouver, being further NE in the South Pacific, but it's accessible nonstop from YYZ too, (I checked on the flight route map), so I guess we'll always have to change in SFO or LAX for that one. Nice to dream, though. Only seasonal, anyway, I'm sure. (sour grapes)

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by nname

There still South East Asia and Australia/NZ though, and also some secondary airport that may be reachable by rouge 767. I doubt we will ever see AC fly these non-stop from YYZ even if there may eventually planes capable of doing so.

And seems like BR finally switch YVR-TPE from 744 to 77W on March 2017. No frequency increase though.

I was addressing the potential for new routes in the US. South East Asia direct on AC does not exist. Again we have discussed the potential routes on AC's Investor presentations to other cities in North Asia and SE Asia. Nothing new. If it does happen then we can revisit the potential for other US routes. But the numbers suggest BOS and MIA/FLL as the only markets with significant numbers at the moment (yes we are discussing this again). I would suggest the number of people on the East Coast of the US who would fly via YVR to get to Australia/NZ would be minimal. MIA to SYD via YVR? Sure a handful may want to. Easier to get there via SFO, LAX, DFW and now IAH. Of course we can what if what if any scenario but the same stuff keeps being brought up over and over.

And slowly but surely we will see fewer 744 operators as they continue to be phased out.

CI and LH also will be replaced with ???

[Hot Rod]

I think we were talking about growth and not whether Vancouver will get certain routes INSTEAD of Toronto.

In all fairness, YYZ is already well served by most if not all major East Coast and Central US cities by Air Canada (as was mentioned time and time again). So to keep saying that AC will not budge on granting Vancouver some of those cities to bolster it's Asian Connections does not make a good argument. Just the same, Vancouver has most West Coast cities well served but AC will still make Toronto a go at it - to serve TO's European connections.

I agree with whoever wrote that it appears as if AC is rediscovering it's Vancouver hub, because there is tremendous opportunity that is being unmet and COULD make the airline extremely successful and NOT interfere with the Toronto hub. That has been the question for so long and it appears now AC sees that it can have two major hubs - which is good news for Vancouver esp as new planes come online that can fill the range/capacity needed for certain city pairs to Vancouver.

[Hot Rod]

Also, I don't really see what SEA having one flight to Miami has to to with Vancouver. SEA uses a 738 for the flight, maybe Vancouver would use a different plane - but still, the city pair Vancouver-Miami is being unmet.

Now, whether AC fills the void or leaves it to WestJet or somebody else remains to be seem. But just like there probably is demand for SEA-MIA and they have a flight, there is demand for YVR-MIA (right?) so there should be a flight.

Apples to Apples.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

Also, I don't really see what SEA having one flight to Miami has to to with Vancouver. SEA uses a 738 for the flight, maybe Vancouver would use a different plane - but still, the city pair Vancouver-Miami is being unmet.

Now, whether AC fills the void or leaves it to WestJet or somebody else remains to be seem. But just like there probably is demand for SEA-MIA and they have a flight, there is demand for YVR-MIA (right?) so there should be a flight.

Apples to Apples.

I think a great deal (if not most of it) depends on city size and economy. If Vancouver were a metro of 5 million, with a respectable # of head offices, this would be altogether different.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

Also, I don't really see what SEA having one flight to Miami has to to with Vancouver. SEA uses a 738 for the flight, maybe Vancouver would use a different plane - but still, the city pair Vancouver-Miami is being unmet.

Now, whether AC fills the void or leaves it to WestJet or somebody else remains to be seem. But just like there probably is demand for SEA-MIA and they have a flight, there is demand for YVR-MIA (right?) so there should be a flight.

Apples to Apples.

Doesn't Seattle have a daily/direct flight to FLL Fort Lauderdale as well as Miami?

[Black Box]

Originally Posted by nname

I've seen the movie and I can identify the location of about 60% of the outdoor scenes and they are indeed shot in Vancouver. (About 5% are scenes from Seattle but none of them contains any actor). If anything, there is no way I can mistaken a KCM bus as a TransLink bus in the background. My friends always joked around and called the movie "Beijing Meets Vancouver"

I stand corrected. Maybe there should be a Hong Kong Meets Vancouver instead.

[Johnny Aussie]

*** delete *** duplicate post

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I think a great deal (if not most of it) depends on city size and economy. If Vancouver were a metro of 5 million, with a respectable # of head offices, this would be altogether different.

Sigh...

Exactly and this is why. Look at the market numbers between Vancouver and the US. There are very few unserved markets with an annual traffic base > 30,000 pax (approx 40 people per day each way). Other than BOS and MIA what other markets are large enough to make a viable route? YYZ has plenty of US routes because its market is SOOO much bigger than Vancouver's. I am one of Vancouver's (and Calgary's) biggest fans and am happy to "defend" it but realistically there are so few unserved transborder routes that would be viable. MIA has been tried by both AC and AA and have both been pulled. But read what I said... I see BOS and MIA (based on market info) as the most likely of new routes in the East IF there are going to be new routes but that's it. YES, I have just stated that AGAIN. The fact SEA has only one direct flight per day to MIA indicates traffic to the PNW has a lot of competition and it is a domestic route which normally would be a larger market.

So remember for a transborder market to be viable, you need at a very minimum a large O&D base and/or have the US city be a fortress hub for one of the majors. Without DL hubs at DTW, MSP and SLC for example, there would be no direct flights to any of those cities.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Sigh...

Exactly and this is why. Look at the market numbers between Vancouver and the US. There are very few unserved markets with an annual traffic base > 30,000 pax. Other than BOS and MIA what other markets are large enough to make a viable route? YYZ has plenty of US routes because its market is SOOO much bigger than Vancouver's. I am one of Vancouver's (and Calgary's) biggest fans and am happy to "defend" it but realistically there are so few unserved transborder routes that would be viable. MIA has been tried by both AC and AA and have both been pulled. But read what I said... I see BOS and MIA (based on market info) as the most likely of new routes in the East IF there are going to be new routes but that's it. YES, I have just stated that AGAIN. The fact SEA has only one direct flight per day to MIA indicates traffic to the PNW has a lot of competition and it is a domestic route which normally would be a larger market.

Not to push this back into a never-ending loop, but I don't fully agree with you Johnny. We know O&D numbers aren't the only measure of a route's success. If that were the case, EK would be just an insignificant regional ME airline given Dubai's population of 2.5 million... But EK has built up its hub through combination of marketing hype, competitive pricing and a good hard/soft premium product.

AC has stated they want to grab a share of US traffic via YVR (reference Calin Rovanescu's speech to VBOT in 2014: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media/presentations/documents/yvr_boardoftrade.pdf). AC claims that 40% of their YVR passengers are already transfer passengers so this strategy appears to be developing. I agree that YYZ is going to be a more convenient transfer point for many Asian destinations from the US East Coast, but that still leaves Oceania, secondary Chinese cities and -- maybe in the future -- SE Asia. I guess it really depends on how attractive YVR can make itself as a transfer hub and whether AC is willing to play ball. I'm excited by the possibility of Westjet expanding to Asia as well. I think there's a strong possibility they'd use YVR over YYC given its much larger Asian community.

So I think secondary US cities such as PHL or CLT **could** work from YVR given enough commitment from AC and its Star Alliance partners. It would certainly help passenger load factors on their Asian flights ex YVR.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Not to push this back into a never-ending loop, but I don't fully agree with you Johnny. We know O&D numbers aren't the only measure of a route's success. If that were the case, EK would be just an insignificant regional ME airline given Dubai's population of 2.5 million... But EK has built up its hub through combination of marketing hype, competitive pricing and a good hard/soft premium product.

AC has stated they want to grab a share of US traffic via YVR (reference Calin Rovanescu's speech to VBOT in 2014: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media/presentations/documents/yvr_boardoftrade.pdf). AC claims that 40% of their YVR passengers are already transfer passengers so this strategy appears to be developing. I agree that YYZ is going to be a more convenient transfer point for many Asian destinations from the US East Coast, but that still leaves Oceania, secondary Chinese cities and -- maybe in the future -- SE Asia. I guess it really depends on how attractive YVR can make itself as a transfer hub and whether AC is willing to play ball. I'm excited by the possibility of Westjet expanding to Asia as well. I think there's a strong possibility they'd use YVR over YYC given its much larger Asian community.m

So I think secondary US cities such as PHL or CLT **could** work from YVR given enough commitment from AC and its Star Alliance partners. It would certainly help passenger load factors on their Asian flights ex YVR.

Ok.. here we go again...

PHL and CLT, your examples, are in fact US fortress hubs for a US major. So the emphasis is on their end dragging YVR pax into their web and not the other way around. Also, being AA hubs and not Star hubs would not help YVR's case. Star partners are not going to funnel these pax through YVR with EWR, ORD and SFO as three of their major hubs with substantial Asian connections. UA at SFO is slowly building up a decent network to secondary Chinese cities and recently announced nonstop to SIN. UA will want/need full support from its vast domestic network to fill these flights. YVR won't be in their best interests.

DXB is a small city in population but look at its oil wealth. Sorry YVR does not garner such power. It is also in a dynamic location being a cross roads with Asia, Europe, Australia and Africa.

YVR is a small market competing with the likes of many populous cities along the West Coast.

You are right O&D is not the only factor but the difference with Transborder here is O&D does play a VERY SIGNIFICANT role in YVR's ability to make any secondary city work. Again, look at the numbers. I suggest any city with less than a 30,000 annual market volume would only barely scratch the surface as a viable route. As for YVR being an alternative as an Asian hub... YVR is competing with all the US major hubs with vast Asian connections already. Star Alliance partner UA is more insterested in funnelling its pax through SFO and ORD. DL? AA? Not on the radar. To make this secondary city scenario work, YVR would have to steal enough of the Asian market from these secondary cities (which would have to have huge Asian traffic volumes to start with) away from these US mega hubs. Soooo... without a solid O&D base to start with, not going to happen.

Again, I am huge supporter of YVR and am thrilled how quickly it's has developed in recent years. But, again, it's ability to gain new routes in the US is limited.

My case in point with AC is their newest additions to their route network are all large O&D markets from YVR - ORD, SAN and SJC. ORD is over 113,000 pax per year. SAN is over 55,000 and SJC (part of the CMSA of SFO) about 350,000. These fit into Rovinescu's statements.

We will have to agree to disagree.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Ok.. here we go again...

PHL and CLT, your examples, are in fact US fortress hubs for a US major. So the emphasis is on their end dragging YVR pax into their web and not the other way around. Also, being AA hubs and not Star hubs would not help YVR's case. Star partners are not going to funnel these pax through YVR with EWR, ORD and SFO as three of their major hubs with substantial Asian connections. UA at SFO is slowly building up a decent network to secondary Chinese cities and recently announced nonstop to SIN. UA will want/need full support from its vast domestic network to fill these flights. YVR won't be in their best interests.

DXB is a small city in population but look at its oil wealth. Sorry YVR does not garner such power. It is also in ad dynamic location being a cross roads with Asia, Europe, Australia and Africa.

YVR is a small market competing with the likes of many populous cities along the West Coast.

You are right O&D is not the only factor but the difference with Transborder here is O&D does play a VERY SIGNIFICANT role in YVR's ability to make any secondary city work. Again, look at the numbers. I suggest any city with less than a 30,000 annual market volume would only barely scratch the surface as a viable route. As for YVR being an alternative as an Asian hub... YVR is competing with all the US major hubs with vast Asian connections already. Star Alliance partner UA is more insterested in funnelling its pax through SFO and ORD. DL? AA? Not on the radar. To make this secondary city scenario work, YVR would have to steal enough of the Asian market from these secondary cities (which would have to have huge Asian traffic volumes to start with) away from these US mega hubs. Soooo... without a solid O&D base to start with, not going to happen.

Again, I am huge supporter of YVR and am thrilled how quickly it's has developed in recent years. But, again, it's ability to gain new routes in the US is limited.

My case in point with AC is their newest additions to their route network are all large O&D markets from YVR - ORD, SAN and SJC. ORD is over 113,000 pax per year. SAN is over 55,000 and SJC (part of the CMSA of SFO) about 350,000. These fit into Rovinescu's statements.

We will have to agree to disagree.

If I'm AC, of course I'm going to go for low hanging fruit first ie cities with large O&D markets (the transfer argument falls down, though, since SAN has LAX next door and SJC is just down the road from SFO). No surprise there. The question is whether -- and how far -- this can be extended to smaller O&D markets with the potential transfer to/from Asia/Oceania added in. Is it 30,000 per your contention? Maybe it is.

Like yourself, I'm a YVR supporter, but hardly a blind booster; I simply question your assumption that the limits of which secondary US cities can be profitably served from YVR has been reached. You're right that there's a lot of hubs competing for Asian traffic. All in all, I'd say YVR punches above its weight.

I guess time will tell...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

If I'm AC, of course I'm going to go for low hanging fruit first ie cities with large O&D markets (the transfer argument falls down, though, since SAN has LAX next door and SJC is just down the road from SFO). No surprise there. The question is whether -- and how far -- this can be extended to smaller O&D markets with the potential transfer to/from Asia/Oceania added in. Is it 30,000 per your contention? Maybe it is.

Like yourself, I'm a YVR supporter, but hardly a blind booster; I simply question your assumption that the limits of which secondary US cities can be profitably served from YVR has been reached. You're right that there's a lot of hubs competing for Asian traffic. All in all, I'd say YVR punches above its weight.

I guess time will tell...

If Vancouver packed more of a punch economically (the way Charlotte does as a major US banking centre); if there were a large pharma industry, among other diverse stuff.....
things might be different, as people from elsewhere would be saying "I'm flying to Vancouver on business/ for a convention / to close a deal with ...."
But, unfortunately, despite the $$$$ being pumped into real estate, and the TV/film industry and all that ..... we're just not that kind of city.