YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[twoNeurons]

Flythrough of the international Wing Expansion. Skip to 37:20 with commentary at the presentation.

• Video Link

or click here: https://youtu.be/mJtY7x9qGM8?t=37m20s

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

A few interesting things.

One: Air China bumping up to 11 is not their current plan as far as I can tell. They have the 2 unused frequencies so it is likely but it would be nice to see them confirm it.

Two: How little seasonality there is in Asia flying. Sure the planes get upgauged in the summer, but wow what a difference from Europe flying that has an entirely different profile from January to July.

Three: Carl Jones of YVR stating that Hainan is still looking to start up Tianjin even though the bilateral appears maxed. As director of the air service department I'm sure he is aware of the bilateral so maybe he knows something we don't ie: expansions to it, a separately negotiated exception for Hainan or YYC losing its service.

1) the chart is accurate - Air China will be 10 weekly this summer.
2) yep.
3) Hainan still has two unused frequencies....

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Flythrough of the international Wing Expansion. Skip to 37:20 with commentary at the presentation.

• Video Link

or click here: https://youtu.be/mJtY7x9qGM8?t=37m20s

Very nice! Love that "bringing the outside in" aspect. But it seemsl enough to warrant moving pedestrian walkways, unless the're on the overhead cental
walkways, but I saw nothing. Does anyone think YVR needs or will need / benefit fom "moving sidewalks?" It'll be a cleverly compact terminal, shaped almost like a squid, or Celebes.
However, the arms of the terminal may be long and tiring for some, and terminal terminal to transit is quite the trek. Could moving sidewalks be used more?

[thenoflyzone]

^
Nice presentation, although like all managers he does like to blow hot air once in a while !

I like the parallel taxiways planned and the new north south taxiway to the east. Makes total sense, ATC wise.

[connect2source]

Enjoyed the presentation as well! Terminal footprint is beginning to take on the shape of some very mature terminals like MIA, kinda of a hodgepodge mess of add-ons, extensions and modifications.

While there's nothing wrong with that I have the impractical wish for a clean-sheet terminal design by a famous architect, the likes of Foster and Partners and a design similar to the sweeping futuristic ones in China.

As far as moving walkways trofirhen, there are many, the C, D and E piers all have them.

[mezzanine]

I like the outside garden concept, very zen, almost like a large terranium.

The devil is in the details. I saw a similar garden at KUL and the space frame blocks a lot of the view from the inside of the terminal. You could enter the garden, but i would think it works better as a visual centre piece than a garden that you could enter.



http://www.flickriver.com/photos/uwebkk/sets/72157613589983634/

[SpongeG]

do any airports have smoking areas? yvr could use one post security, in an an enclosed outdoor area

[excel]

The federal government banned smoking in airports. YVR used to have quite a few but will never see them again.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

do any airports have smoking areas? yvr could use one post security, in an an enclosed outdoor area

I saw a very cool smoking 'box' at Munich: it was its own little building within the main terminal - a glass box the size of a Starbucks with chairs and stools along a number of laptop bars. It was sponsored and named after Camel: the Camel Smoking Lounge.

I haven't noticed one of these elsewhere in Germany or Europe, but with the level of smoking over there, I would bet there are plenty more of them.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by connect2source

Enjoyed the presentation as well! Terminal footprint is beginning to take on the shape of some very mature terminals like MIA, kinda of a hodgepodge mess of add-ons, extensions and modifications.

While there's nothing wrong with that I have the impractical wish for a clean-sheet terminal design by a famous architect, the likes of Foster and Partners and a design similar to the sweeping futuristic ones in China.

As far as moving walkways trofirhen, there are many, the C, D and E piers all have them.

Well I think D and E were always designed to be expanded in this manner so I wouldn't call it a hodgepodge.

A, B & C are definitely a hodgepodge, especially when viewed from the exterior, but it is difficult to tell from a user standpoint.

Honestly D and E are going to be the perfect length once this expansion is completed. Long enough to maximize the utility of the check in/security services, but not too long as to be a marathon to get to your gate.

And ya I don't know what Trofirhen is talking about, there are moving walkways all over the terminal, both in the departures and arrivals levels.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

3) Hainan still has two unused frequencies....

Hmm interesting. That does sound familliar, I guess I just forgot.

Hope to see them used at YVR then and not YYZ.

[LeftCoaster]

Word over at A.net is that Iran Air is interested in serving YVR.

This is one rumour that I am inclined to believe, as there is likely a huge market here and not a ton of competition with the ME3 at bay. Additionally the new administration in the US is likely much less friendly to Iran and therefore less likely to allow flights to JFK, LAX and other areas with a large Persian diaspora.

My question to those in the know would be what regulatory hurdles does Iran Air face in serving YVR? I'm assuming because of our government's previously frosty relations there is no bilateral in place?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Very nice! Love that "bringing the outside in" aspect. But it seemsl enough to warrant moving pedestrian walkways, unless the're on the overhead cental
walkways, but I saw nothing. Does anyone think YVR needs or will need / benefit fom "moving sidewalks?" It'll be a cleverly compact terminal, shaped almost like a squid, or Celebes.
However, the arms of the terminal may be long and tiring for some, and terminal terminal to transit is quite the trek. Could moving sidewalks be used more?

To your point Trofirhen, I think YVR needs a different approach to the longer range distances than the traditional approach of moving sidewalks. The distances can become quite a factor, especially once switchbacks are considered. Let's look at AC34 pax going the full distance. The pax has to arrive at D50 and depart from C50 after walking over 1.5 to 2 km.

I am more and more coming to the conclusion that remote hard stands served by buses are a better option than far flung gates and definitely better than swing gates. With the YVR winter lite conditions, a regular bus operation could be a good option, at least on the arrival.

Another area where YVR bus operation could work out is at international to domestic connections. Pax should be able to clear CBSA Primary inspection at connections center, then head to an airport operated bus to get to concourse C or A/B.

Originally Posted by connect2source

As far as moving walkways trofirhen, there are many, the C, D and E piers all have them.

While there are moving sidewalks at YVR C/D/E concourses, they are short in length and slow moving. High capacity moving sidewalks would be better.

Also, Especiall on the ends of D and E concourse, the different ages of the concourse show most on the arrivals corridor. The solution is longer and faster moving sidewalks. Additionally, the airport should consider a personalized mass transit option to get limited mobility pax from the arrival gate to customs. This option should consider a rooftop option.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Honestly D and E are going to be the perfect length once this expansion is completed. Long enough to maximize the utility of the check in/security services, but not too long as to be a marathon to get to your gate.

D and E are the perfect length for the global traveler with no mobility issues. However for the vacation infrequent traveler or the mobility challenged traveler, a better option needs to be designed and implemented at YVR.

[cornholio]

Can they not put in a post security casino at the airport? That would generate some very good revenue especially with the increasing number of Asian flyers.

Has always been on my mind. People often have transfers and need to kill time, what better way then by offering them a activity that allows them to leave their money behind.

*Also I don't mean Vegas style slots all over, I mean a actual casino (say 50k square feet with tables and slots in one area that you have to enter lie any other establishment but located past security.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by excel

The federal government banned smoking in airports. YVR used to have quite a few but will never see them again.

What was the justification for this? Seems like over reaching and beyond the mandate of the federal government to blanket ban a activity that does not concern them. The airport should be able to provide a smoking area (out door or what ever) where smokers can smoke without impacting any one else, if the airport wants to do that and cares about its customers. (by the way I don't smoke, though I did at one point in my life).

I just don't get it. I would want to see some justification.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Cage

To your point Trofirhen, I think YVR needs a different approach to the longer range distances than the traditional approach of moving sidewalks. The distances can become quite a factor, especially once switchbacks are considered.

While there are moving sidewalks at YVR C/D/E concourses, they are short in length and slow moving. High capacity moving sidewalks would be better.

Also, Especiall on the ends of D and E concourse, the different ages of the concourse show most on the arrivals corridor. The solution is longer and faster moving sidewalks.

D and E are the perfect length for the global traveler with no mobility issues. However for the vacation infrequent traveler or the mobility challenged traveler, a better option needs to be designed and implemented at YVR.

Thank you for the feedback. Off the top of my head, I can say that ORLY, FRA, and PVG all have moving sidewalks that are longer, more contiguous, and faster.
I think that is one of the factors somewhat neglected in YVR, which otherwide is great, as we all know....
One more thing to improve YVR would be having baggage check open an hour earlier. Once -before the arrival of Air France - I had to return to Paris via San Fran.
My plane left at 8 a.m., and the man in baggage check told meto hold onto it, because unlocking baggage claim at 6 a.m. might be too tight and cause me to miss my early plane.
One other thing they had at SFO was a 'courtesy' phone - free- right at departures, getting off the plane and into the airport. It's free, and covers three area codes!

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Cage

I am more and more coming to the conclusion that remote hard stands served by buses are a better option than far flung gates and definitely better than swing gates. With the YVR winter lite conditions, a regular bus operation could be a good option, at least on the arrival.

I can't see that from a passenger perspective, unless there are other operational advantages. definately a worse experience for departing pax (no priority boarding, bus loading area is usu far from amenities). even if it is arrivals only I see more hassle with buses than jetways (stairs/steps with seniors, strollers, carrying bags, and the ride with all of the above on the bus). How often does it rain at YVR?

Another area where YVR bus operation could work out is at international to domestic connections. Pax should be able to clear CBSA Primary inspection at connections center, then head to an airport operated bus to get to concourse C or A/B.

Additionally, the airport should consider a personalized mass transit option to get limited mobility pax from the arrival gate to customs. This option should consider a rooftop option.

D and E are the perfect length for the global traveler with no mobility issues. However for the vacation infrequent traveler or the mobility challenged traveler, a better option needs to be designed and implemented at YVR.

IMO it would seem to make more things complex than necessary. I'd be worried if YVR adopted a form of a all-access YYC Link-type service after reading comments about how it performs.

Like it or not, flying is not for everyone, especially flights with connections. One who is not used to flying will have difficulty at YVR, but then again will have difficulty at any airport. BLI skims off a lot of the low hanging transborder fruit from Metro vancouver, but YVR has wisely decided not to compete against this. I have also seen "working-class" seniors and families with small children going to asia moving thru YVR like a boss. Of course there is room for improvement (more washrooms for arrivals walkways in D, please) but for the airlines it has and the destinations it serves, I'm sure that some one who flies globally will appreciate YVR, especially international.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by cornholio

What was the justification for this? Seems like over reaching and beyond the mandate of the federal government to blanket ban a activity that does not concern them. The airport should be able to provide a smoking area (out door or what ever) where smokers can smoke without impacting any one else, if the airport wants to do that and cares about its customers. (by the way I don't smoke, though I did at one point in my life).

I just don't get it. I would want to see some justification.

Not a a legal expert, but BC worksafe legistlation bans smoking rooms, not federal law.

You may have a choice to avoid the smoking room, but not the cleaners or the HVAC guy. YVR also saves a lot of $ by not building the added ventilation ducts and the extra cleaning costs.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Word over at A.net is that Iran Air is interested in serving YVR.

This is one rumour that I am inclined to believe, as there is likely a huge market here and not a ton of competition with the ME3 at bay. Additionally the new administration in the US is likely much less friendly to Iran and therefore less likely to allow flights to JFK, LAX and other areas with a large Persian diaspora.

My question to those in the know would be what regulatory hurdles does Iran Air face in serving YVR? I'm assuming because of our government's previously frosty relations there is no bilateral in place?

If we ever get a bilateral, I can see AC taking dibs on YYZ and Iran Air on YVR.

[zahav]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Well I think D and E were always designed to be expanded in this manner so I wouldn't call it a hodgepodge.

A, B & C are definitely a hodgepodge, especially when viewed from the exterior, but it is difficult to tell from a user standpoint.

Honestly D and E are going to be the perfect length once this expansion is completed. Long enough to maximize the utility of the check in/security services, but not too long as to be a marathon to get to your gate.

And ya I don't know what Trofirhen is talking about, there are moving walkways all over the terminal, both in the departures and arrivals levels.

I think the C-pier is definitely a hodepodge of many renos and extenions. But A-B is great with the expansion and very cohesive, ont a hodgepodge anymore. The end of the b-gates are definitely awful, but luckily you have to walk down to get there so doesn't affect anyone unless they go down that hall