YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[Gordon]

The north Satellite Expansion is for Alaska.

[Canadian74]

Originally Posted by Cage

The 321neo is kicking the stuffing out of the max9. Boeing has stated that they will improve the max9 over time (the have to, otherwise Airbus will walk away with all orders going to the the 321neoLR). The longer AC waits to take delivery of the max9 the better chance of getting the performance improvement packs into their max9 builds.

Would a MAX10 fit in AC's fleet?

And how long does rouge intend to fly the 319s and 321s? Will they eventually be replaced by Airbus NEOS or 737MAX?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

well with the chinese investors leaving the vancouver market for the seattle area they will need the flights to china.

Some posters jumped down my throat when I dared point out the whole arrival experience at YVR in international seems like it's one big promo to pimp Vancouver out to Chinese property investors: "Get your permanent residency from ABC immigration consultants, buy in XYZ development etc etc"

A bit off-putting for visitors from anywhere else in the world.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Canadian74

Would a MAX10 fit in AC's fleet?

And how long does rouge intend to fly the 319s and 321s? Will they eventually be replaced by Airbus NEOS or 737MAX?

The 321neoLR would be a better fit for AC because where Ac wants to use this aircraft type is at Rouge. These 321s would be used for YVR/YYC to Hawaii and YYZ to the British isles (LHR excluded).

AC doesn't have the right equipment to copy the 752 TransAt operation that is at UA EWR and DL JFK. The new 321LR would provide this lift.

Rouge intends to fly the Airbus narrowbody on a long term basis. Fleet plan is out 15+years.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Some posters jumped down my throat when I dared point out the whole arrival experience at YVR in international seems like it's one big promo to pimp Vancouver out to Chinese property investors: "Get your permanent residency from ABC immigration consultants, buy in XYZ development etc etc"

A bit off-putting for visitors from anywhere else in the world.

Now it's Seattle's turn to swallow that. (YVR could do with routes other than China, added to its destination roster) Those ads will probably remain at YVR anyway.

[jmt18325]

.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Some posters jumped down my throat when I dared point out the whole arrival experience at YVR in international seems like it's one big promo to pimp Vancouver out to Chinese property investors: "Get your permanent residency from ABC immigration consultants, buy in XYZ development etc etc"

You are, after all, complaining about foreign influence, on a thread about an international airport.

And the CEO of said airport wants to cultivate traffic from china and maximize non-aeronautical revenue.

Why are you torturing yourself?

[mezzanine]

Hat tip to cage for finding this AC link on a financial and operations analysis from the last part of 2016.

Not sure if i found anything new wrt YVR. Wasn't aware about AC renewing code sharing agreements with Thai airways - wonder if that increases the chances of possible service to BKK.

Other tidbits - more international routes are key:

Air Canada remains focused on identifying new international growth opportunities to generate increasedprofit and diversify its network which also lowers its risk profile. Part of this strategy focuses on the development of additional synergies offered by alliances with foreign carriers. Consistent with 2016, in 2017, more than 90% of the airline’s planned capacity growth is in international markets. International growth is being pursued on a lower-cost basis, primarily through the introduction of new Boeing 787 aircraft,
increased seating on Boeing 777 and Airbus A330 aircraft, and by an increase in flights operated by Air Canada Rouge.

[jmt18325]

According to the numbers on Aircanada.com, two of those six 767s have already left the fleet in the last month. On the document, as of December 31st, there were 14. There are now, according to Air Canada.com, 12.

[Orcair]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

According to the numbers on Aircanada.com, two of those six 767s have already left the fleet in the last month. On the document, as of December 31st, there were 14. There are now, according to Air Canada.com, 12.

Yea, from my records they are C-GEOU and C-GEOQ, both of which I believe are going to Rouge. Every time I flew on C-GEOU it was delayed so good riddance!

[jmt18325]

That would seem to say that they are following their fleet plan, and it actually does make sense. They are worried that fuel is going to go up this year. That would make the mainline 767s and 319s the least cost effective for them.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

According to the numbers on Aircanada.com, two of those six 767s have already left the fleet in the last month. On the document, as of December 31st, there were 14. There are now, according to Air Canada.com, 12.

Originally Posted by Orcair

Yea, from my records they are C-GEOU and C-GEOQ, both of which I believe are going to Rouge. Every time I flew on C-GEOU it was delayed so good riddance!

Originally Posted by jmt18325

That would seem to say that they are following their fleet plan, and it actually does make sense. They are worried that fuel is going to go up this year. That would make the mainline 767s and 319s the least cost effective for them.

I'm interested in something here. Wit your exchanges, and agreement, that the 767s and other models are not to your preference and are thankfully, being phased out......

What aircraft do you see becoming the most frequntly purchased? The most cost-effective, the best size and range for markets etc etc.
The Bombardier C-series? The 737H? What? Please this is a question of intellectual curiosity only, not criticism. Thanx

[Orcair]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I'm interested in something here. Wit your exchanges, and agreement, that the 767s and other models are not to your preference and are thankfully, being phased out......

What aircraft do you see becoming the most frequntly purchased? The most cost-effective, the best size and range for markets etc etc.
The Bombardier C-series? The 737H? What? Please this is a question of intellectual curiosity only, not criticism. Thanx

If AC actually took care of their 767s I would love them, since Row 19 is one of my favourite seats on Air Canada. The reality is though that the 787 provides more seats at similar/lower costs than the 767 and can be used for long/thin and short/heavy routes - thus, it can replace the 330 and 767 with one model, with all the efficiencies this brings in crewing and maintenance.

Re: the 319, it is heavy for its size, as an A320 shrink, while the CSeries 100 and 300 are more efficient and lighter at both sizes, while still being part of the same family. Also, the CSeries is designed with lighter materials and takes more advantage of the new generation of engines vs. the 737MAX and A320neo which are penalized by their 60s/80s empennages.

To answer your question, I think we will see airlines ordering CSeries/Embraer E2s at the sub-150 seat threshold or have airlines abandon this class size, due to labour costs. For 150-180 seats, I think the 737-8 slightly edges out the 320neo, but the 321neo is miles ahead of the 737-9 in the 180+ seat area, meaning some airlines might just take the 320neo as the family. Basically, the most efficient aircraft in their segment.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I'm interested in something here. Wit your exchanges, and agreement, that the 767s and other models are not to your preference and are thankfully, being phased out......

To be honest, I've had only one experience with the 767. It was on Rouge, and other than the almost non existent recline, I found it very comfortable.

What aircraft do you see becoming the most frequntly purchased?

I really have no idea. I'm not expert, I'm just some guy. There are 5 787s coming on line this year, and 6 767s leaving the mainline. I'm not sure what is replacing the missing 767.

Edit: I misread - there are 9 787s coming this year.

The most cost-effective, the best size and range for markets etc etc.
The Bombardier C-series? The 737H? What? Please this is a question of intellectual curiosity only, not criticism. Thanx

And this is far outside of my expertise. All I really know is this (in terms of Air Canada). The 767 in mainline will have the worst CASM in Air Canada's widebody fleet. It's a solid bet that the worst CASM in the mainline narrowbody fleet will be the A319 (as it's a shrink of the A320). That means that the more efficient aircraft (the 787 is something like 25% more efficient than the mainline 767, and on par with the Rouge 767. Shifting them over to Rouge in the absence of newer used 767s on the market (Amazon has ruined the used market) would seem to be the best use of frames with life left is where they are most efficient in a higher fuel environment.

The A319 at Rouge is something like ~7% more efficient than the one at mainline. The Max 8 is said to be about 10% more efficient than the mainline narrow body fleet average. As the A319 is the least efficient mainline narrowbody (of the Airbus variety, anyway), it makes sense to cut those costs first.

[jmt18325]

My question - will some of the newer A320s/321s make their way over to Rouge to replace some of the 319s, or to grow the fleet?

[Canadian74]

Originally Posted by Cage

The 321neoLR would be a better fit for AC because where Ac wants to use this aircraft type is at Rouge. These 321s would be used for YVR/YYC to Hawaii and YYZ to the British isles (LHR excluded).

AC doesn't have the right equipment to copy the 752 TransAt operation that is at UA EWR and DL JFK. The new 321LR would provide this lift.

Rouge intends to fly the Airbus narrowbody on a long term basis. Fleet plan is out 15+years.

It would be nice if Rouge gets 320/321neos in a few years. Canadian skies will be full of 737MAX otherwise. Some variety would be nice

[LO 044]

Personally i have always loved AC's 767 and 330 aircraft more so from seating arrangements than anything else. With all the chatter about how much more efficient the 787 is regardless of the length of the route, why is AC keeping the 767 or 330 at all besides aircraft availability? I can see AC holding out the 767's until a new agreement can be made with Rouge pilots to transfer over more aircraft but keeping 8 330's doesn't seem to make sense. Can/do 330 pilots fly other Airbus aircraft and vice versa the 319/320/321 pilots? If not then you are keeping a pilot base for only 8 aircraft which again doesn't make sense but i have no idea how it all works on the pilot staffing side so maybe people can correct me.

Again personally but i have always liked AC's 320 aircraft over WS's 737 aircraft. I'm assuming it's based on the seat and the material used on it but AC's 320 family always "seems" more spacious to me. Saying that, i never care for flying LH's 320/321 aircraft and that is definitely based on LH's seats. Bottom line is i will miss AC's 320's when they leave the fleet.

[Cage]

Dumped a response into the wrong thread, should not have used multiple open tabs.

Anyways short story for YVR thread, WS is expanding out of YXX to take on Newleaf competition in YWG.
Surely you can't be serious that WS thinks Newleaf is a threat. I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by Cage

The 321neoLR would be a better fit for AC because where Ac wants to use this aircraft type is at Rouge. These 321s would be used for YVR/YYC to Hawaii and YYZ to the British isles (LHR excluded).

AC doesn't have the right equipment to copy the 752 TransAt operation that is at UA EWR and DL JFK. The new 321LR would provide this lift.

Rouge intends to fly the Airbus narrowbody on a long term basis. Fleet plan is out 15+years.

Completely agree!! A321neos are the king of the MOM ( middle of market ) at the moment, and killing the 737MAX-9's in sales, 1388 vs 418 at the moment ( wiki ) and that's not even including the A321neoLR which seem unmatched in range and runway performance, hence AC is certainly going against the tide with this order. Even the US carriers are scrambling to add dozens of A321's at the moment, AA alone will have over 300 soon.

AC's decision was most certainly based on the deal the got from Boeing because little-to-nothing about the MAX even comes close to the neos at the moment, the present 737-900 is a dog, the MAX9 will likely follow suit. Horrible runway performance, especially hot and high and chronic weight and balance issues, many require a tail-stand to prevent tipping at the gate when loading and unloading. Shame AC went in this direction.

[casper]

Originally Posted by LO 044

Personally i have always loved AC's 767 and 330 aircraft more so from seating arrangements than anything else. With all the chatter about how much more efficient the 787 is regardless of the length of the route, why is AC keeping the 767 or 330 at all besides aircraft availability? I can see AC holding out the 767's until a new agreement can be made with Rouge pilots to transfer over more aircraft but keeping 8 330's doesn't seem to make sense. Can/do 330 pilots fly other Airbus aircraft and vice versa the 319/320/321 pilots? If not then you are keeping a pilot base for only 8 aircraft which again doesn't make sense but i have no idea how it all works on the pilot staffing side so maybe people can correct me.

Again personally but i have always liked AC's 320 aircraft over WS's 737 aircraft. I'm assuming it's based on the seat and the material used on it but AC's 320 family always "seems" more spacious to me. Saying that, i never care for flying LH's 320/321 aircraft and that is definitely based on LH's seats. Bottom line is i will miss AC's 320's when they leave the fleet.

The key thing to keep in mind on the A330 pilots is they use to run a much larger fleet. I believe they operated the A330 and a340. Now that the 340s are all gone it is a small fleet that is still left.