YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[trofirhen]

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?

I can imagine YYZ getting Iran Air or AC to Teheran.
Vancouver, hmm, I still think that the relationship with the GTAA and AC is cozy enough that they'd make people change planes there.
I hate to be negative, but it'll be much the same as the deal with Istanbul, IMO, with YVR not getting a (much needed and viable) route east.

[LeftCoaster]

I don't really think Turkish is that viable anymore. Istanbul is an absolute shitstorm right now and people are avoiding connecting there.

I don't see why Iran and Canada would negotiate a bilateral in which only AC gets to serve Tehran. Iran Air would get frequencies as well and would likely serve whichever market AC did not. Since the Persian population in Vancouver is quite similar to that in Toronto I could see the service being split, especially if Iran air can codeshare with WestJet to LAX to dip into the 'Tehrangeles' market

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Cage

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.

E is currently only 365M from security to the end of the terminal. Quite small IMO and easily navigable.

D is longer at 435M, but that's still pretty short compared to most large airports. At it's maximum extent as depicted in the expansion plans it looks to be around 675M to the end of the hammerhead. That's getting long but I would assume the expansion will have more walkways and likely the high speed ones seen at YYZ. The mobility issue will need to be tackled by an attentive ground staff, but it's do-able.

Assuming a full expansion of D the maximum travel would be 1.37KM from the D hammerhead to the furthest reaches of A pier. The PAX YVR is really going after is Asia-USA or Asia to Intl which would both be within D/E and therefore under a 1KM connection distance. If E pier is fully extended and D pier fully extended the distance from hammerhead to hammerhead would be 1.1KM.

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I don't really think Turkish is that viable anymore. Istanbul is an absolute shitstorm right now and people are avoiding connecting there.

I don't see why Iran and Canada would negotiate a bilateral in which only AC gets to serve Tehran. Iran Air would get frequencies as well and would likely serve whichever market AC did not. Since the Persian population in Vancouver is quite similar to that in Toronto I could see the service being split, especially if Iran air can codeshare with WestJet to LAX to dip into the 'Tehrangeles' market

I'm pretty sure this has come up before but Vancouver's Iranian population is less than half of Toronto's (as of the 2011 census, and it's unlikely that gap has been closed much since then):

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/...hnic%20origin&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/...hnic%20origin&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1

Someone on airliners.net very incorrectly pointed out that Vancouver has the largest Iranian population in Canada, but regardless, I don't see either AC or Iran Air starting service to either city based on each market's local diaspora. Like anything else, it would be based on 'hubbing' and transfer traffic, as well as, I'm guessing, U.S. connections.

[LeftCoaster]

Hmm you're right on the hard numbers, thought YVR was about 30,000 and YYZ about 45,000. Van always seemed more Persian to me but I guess that's cause I grew up on the North Shore.

Originally Posted by ACT7

I don't see either AC or Iran Air starting service to either city based on each market's local diaspora. Like anything else, it would be based on 'hubbing' and transfer traffic, as well as, I'm guessing, U.S. connections.

Yes I agree that neither would do it based solely on that, but if they are looking to launch NA service a strong O&D market to work connections around is a must, which makes both Toronto and Vancouver strong contenders.

LAX is the obvious first choice, but like I said if the current US Administration does not pursue relations with Iran (and kills the Boeing deal) that puts YVR and YYZ at the top of the pile. Worth noting that the GC line from LAX to YVR to Tehran is only 0.9% further than a LAX-IKA direct flight. Connecting from LAX through the gulf adds another 20% in travel distance.

[Genauso]

It's not directly YVR related, but given the talk about flights between Iran, or Turkey: expectations are that American based airlines will get their wish to reduce ME3 flights (circa 2015, http://www.openandfairskies.com/about-us/. more background)

I couldn't tell you what the resulting ripples would be to SeaTac, or traffic flows in general. But there would be at least one more major consequence depending on whether the EU sides with Airbus or the airlines. It seems a round of airline consolidation is upon the world outside North America.

[fredinno]

Is there any need for a 3rd terminal at YVR as planned?

Is there any space for a YVR expansion for another international runway, or we going to have to expand in Boundary Bay or Abbostford after the 3rd terminal?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Is there any need for a 3rd terminal at YVR as planned?

Is there any space for a YVR expansion for another international runway, or we going to have to expand in Boundary Bay or Abbostford after the 3rd terminal?

As I understand it, from plans, and from Craig Richmond's speech to the VBOT, there will be no third terminal, nor a third runway at present.
The plan as I understand is to elongate the wings of the current terminal, which has 6 such "wings."
Mr. Richmond spoke of the possibility of a seperate terminal to the west of the existing one, but said that soggy ground conditions, and an expensive subway would rule that out.
If you scroll backwards to the presentation, you might find his plans for the terminal, to clarify any questions about a third terminal tentatively ruled out (AFAIK)

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Is there any need for a 3rd terminal at YVR as planned?

Is there any space for a YVR expansion for another international runway, or we going to have to expand in Boundary Bay or Abbostford after the 3rd terminal?

Future plans contemplate a third runway and a third and even fourth terminal if necessary.

As it stands today those are not necessary and an expansion of the existing terminal will provide enough future capacity.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

As I understand it, from plans, and from Craig Richmond's speech to the VBOT, there will be no third terminal, nor a third runway at present.
The plan as I understand is to elongate the wings of the current terminal, which has 6 such "wings."
Mr. Richmond spoke of the possibility of a seperate terminal to the west of the existing one, but said that soggy ground conditions, and an expensive subway would rule that out.
If you scroll backwards to the presentation, you might find his plans for the terminal, to clarify any questions about a third terminal tentatively ruled out (AFAIK)

Well, the current international north runway is the "third runway". The newest one would be the forth. I always thought you would need to build it right next to the Westmost edge of Sea Island, or close up the hole between Iona and Sea Island to build one in the North.

And how would they connect to a terminal in the west? Wouldn't it be in the East, right next to the current terminal, where it would connect to Skytrain?
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/08/four-stations-could-be-added-to-skytrain-canada-line/

"Vancouver International Airport’s long-term master plan includes a possible fourth station for Sea Island. An additional station would be built as part of the proposed Northeast Terminal expansion, a project that would expand the airport terminal building to accommodate increased international and transborder growth."



I guess there's no demand... They really should cut fees so people stop going South to fly.

[nname]

The east terminal plan was replaced by building the F concourse and add more gates to the A, B, C, D, and E concourse. New runway is no longer required for the near future as airlines start to fly bigger plane or cram more people by reducing seat pitch.

The fee charged by the airport is peanuts compared to the huge tax US government charges for international passenger. The only way to bypass that is to either become a US citizen (which exempt from the tax), or fly domestically from a US airport. There is nothing else we can do about it beside not going down there altogether.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by nname

The east terminal plan was replaced by building the F concourse and add more gates to the A, B, C, D, and E concourse. New runway is no longer required for the near future as airlines start to fly bigger plane or cram more people by reducing seat pitch.

The fee charged by the airport is peanuts compared to the huge tax US government charges for international passenger. The only way to bypass that is to either become a US citizen (which exempt from the tax), or fly domestically from a US airport. There is nothing else we can do about it beside not going down there altogether.

I'm talking about the "Airport Improvement Fee" specifically. http://www.richmond-news.com/news/flashb...-improvement-fee-is-still-here-1.2131030

There are no major expansions planned in the near future.

[nname]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I'm talking about the "Airport Improvement Fee" specifically. http://www.richmond-news.com/news/flashb...-improvement-fee-is-still-here-1.2131030

There are no major expansions planned in the near future.

Building a new concourse, extend the existing ones, building new taxiway, add more parking facility.... these are not expansions? Maybe not major one like a billion dollar new terminal or runway, but it's still a couple hundreds of millions here and there...

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by nname

Building a new concourse, extend the existing ones, building new taxiway, add more parking facility.... these are not expansions? Maybe not major one like a billion dollar new terminal or runway, but it's still a couple hundreds of millions here and there...

That's the thing. The fee was for big expansions back in the day, and there are none. Thus, why people are angry.

[nname]

Originally Posted by fredinno

That's the thing. The fee was for big expansions back in the day, and there are none. Thus, why people are angry.

So the better approach would be like Calgary? They raised the AIF to $30 in order to pay for the $2B+ new terminal that is going to be mostly empty while it is slowly filling up during the next few decades. Now this would take even longer as the economic downturn started while it was under construction. All this means higher operating cost per passenger...

[dharper]

I watched that presentation, and it was basically talking about 10-20 years out. Is there any information out there that says what the first terminal or taxiway expansion is going to be, and when?

[nname]

Originally Posted by dharper

I watched that presentation, and it was basically talking about 10-20 years out. Is there any information out there that says what the first terminal or taxiway expansion is going to be, and when?

It said in the presentation that D and F concourse would be first.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I'm talking about the "Airport Improvement Fee" specifically. http://www.richmond-news.com/news/flashb...-improvement-fee-is-still-here-1.2131030

There are no major expansions planned in the near future.

You're right that once a fee such as AIF or fuel surcharges comes in, it generally stays whether its really needed or not.

In YVR's case though, there HAS been ongoing expansion, including most recently a $200M upgrade to the baggage handling system. Just because you don't see a shiny new terminal doesn't mean there isn't ongoing investments in infrastructure. And IIRC the expansion of the international terminal will start this year, since terminal capacity will be maxed in the existing facility by 2020. So not sure why you're saying there are no major investments planned in the near future.

I really think you're barking up the wrong tree going after YVR's AIF. Money for investment has to come from somewhere, whether from increased fees to airlines (which gets passed on to passengers anyways), government taxes or debt. YVR is noted for being pretty efficient (see here: https://blogs.ubc.ca/chowdhurian/2013/08/05/vancouvers-yvr-is-canadas-most-efficient-airport/)

In fact, a better target for your dissatisfaction might be the federal government, which charges a huge amount of money in ground lease rent to the airport authority -- little if any of which gets reinvested in the airport. In 2012, YVR paid $39.1 million to the feds. Between 1992 and 2003, YVR paid the federal government $600M in ground rent (that alone could fund a fancy new terminal). See here for more info: https://www.biv.com/article/2013/3/multiple-airport-fees-hurt-yvr-competitiveness/. When Canada is ranked 125th out of 139 countries for airport taxes and ticket fees, this points to a systemic problem, not simply a YVR problem.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

E is currently only 365M from security to the end of the terminal. Quite small IMO and easily navigable.

D is longer at 435M, but that's still pretty short compared to most large airports. At it's maximum extent as depicted in the expansion plans it looks to be around 675M to the end of the hammerhead. That's getting long but I would assume the expansion will have more walkways and likely the high speed ones seen at YYZ. The mobility issue will need to be tackled by an attentive ground staff, but it's do-able.

Assuming a full expansion of D the maximum travel would be 1.37KM from the D hammerhead to the furthest reaches of A pier. The PAX YVR is really going after is Asia-USA or Asia to Intl which would both be within D/E and therefore under a 1KM connection distance. If E pier is fully extended and D pier fully extended the distance from hammerhead to hammerhead would be 1.1KM.

It appears your connection distances are based on "as the crow flies". To get a true picture of pax travel distances, the route must be considered. For example, a recent PEK-YVR-YYC trip was a connection walking distance closer to 1.4km to go from gate 49 to CBSA to domestic connections and finally to the domestic MLL (right above gate 49).

Another example is WS desire to run an interstitial corridor from A/B to international terminal. This would require pax to walk from B15 all the way to D70 (where the entrance to CBSA primary inspection line starts) and then turnaround and go through the entry formalities. This process would be easily double the advertised walking distance once line ups, vertical circulation, and line ups are taken into consideration.

[WhyVeeAre]

Originally Posted by Cage

Another example is WS desire to run an interstitial corridor from A/B to international terminal. This would require pax to walk from B15 all the way to D70 (where the entrance to CBSA primary inspection line starts) and then turnaround and go through the entry formalities. This process would be easily double the advertised walking distance once line ups, vertical circulation, and line ups are taken into consideration.

I thought they built that corridor already? There's corridors above the departure lounge (like in the international terminal) that go to some of the new gates in that part of the terminal. Has anyone been up there before?