YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Like, wow!! * I wonder what the next market down the notch would be. And where would Guadalajara fit in? It seems Seattle has had Guadalajara on Volaris for some time, but no Mexico City route in the past: Aeromexico is starting up SEA-MEX on Nov 1; quite a bit later than YVR, but the marketability of GDL is evident here. BTW, PDX already has both.

Another thing going for Cancun is its pretty much cartel free which you cannot say for any of those cities on the mexican west coast. Not so long ago there was a travel advisory for Jalisco and Sinaloa. In fact a lot fo those citites have lost ground to cancun during Spring Break. I dont know why Canadians are so gung ho about visiting the mexican rivera. Its just not safe anymore.

Also Cancun is very American, pretty much every restaurant we have in the states is in Cancun. Mexicans even enjoy going to Chili's. Would be pretty cool if they had a white spot down there. I actually wish there was a white spot in Miami! But we do have an Earls in fact very soon there will be two!

[jmt18325]

Puerto Vallarta is just as safe, if not safer, than Cancun.

[Alpine]

YVR-CDG is now 9x weekly between June and October (AF379 year round, AC806/807 seasonal); but due to the way the departures are structured, flights to Paris only leave four days a week (AF reduces to 3x weekly from October until April 30, 2018, then 4x weekly through the peak season). By sheer numbers, there are a lot of flights to Paris, but I'd be willing to give up the volume in exchange for daily flights. Since CDG is a Skyteam airport with relatively few *A connections (unlike say, Frankfurt), AC can't leverage AF's network, and as a whole I don't think this will improve connections to MENASA and other regions underserved by YVR. The cheap Chinese airlines aren't much good either because such destinations are mostly situated too far away to make it economical to connect through China, Hong Kong or Taiwan (with a couple of exceptions like DEL). Unless AC and AF develop some kind of interline deal like AC did with Emirates, allowing for fares where you fly YVR-LHR on AC, then transfer to a connecting EK flight to Dubai. I don't see that happening since EK like the rest of the ME3 is not in any alliance while AF is part of the rival Skyteam. I think AF could crush BA and LH on YVR-MENASA fares, and MU/CA on YVR-India fares, if they expanded to daily.

Year round to MEL was an unexpected and pleasant surprise, I'm sure all the Aussies working up in Whistler will be over the moon.

I wonder how long it'll be before we see all of the main Vancouver-China services (AC29/30, CA992/991, AC25/26, MU582/581, MU598/597, CZ330/329) upgauge to 77W. I remember, not even that long ago when most of AC's TPAC routes from YVR were old 763s or 333s; the YVR-SYD flight even had a stopover in HNL to refuel because Canada to Australia is just barely outside of the range of a 767 (~12,500 km, the 767-300ER can only crack 11,000)! While CA and MU both flew A330s to YVR. How times have changed. Maybe China Southern will start using A380s on the YVR-CAN route. I doubt it though, since it's a very premium heavy aircraft (BA had to get rid of its 5x weekly additional summer flights in order to balance out the glut of pointy-end seats resulting from using an A380 on the YVR route).

I'll be honest, I don't know much about Zurich or even Switzerland in particular. I haven't see ZRH grabbing headlines as an emerging global hub like Dubai, Doha, Istanbul or even Guangzhou are, though that may just be due to my own ignorance. Here's what I know about Switzerland:

• Speeding fines are proportional to the offender's income
• It's where corrupt European bankers and FIFA/IOC executives stash their cash (or, at least, used to, before the U.S. started cracking down on tax evasion through Swiss banks back in 2013)
• There's an unhealthy obsession with direct democracy: due to popular referendums, women didn't get the right to vote until 1990, and there's been ban on constructing new mosques in the country since 2009.
• Switzerland was also the first country to pilot a UBI program, only to shut it down...after it was rejected in a referendum.
• A lot of supercars have Swiss license plates, registered in Geneva or Zurich.
• The typical stuff about chocolate, watches, ski resorts, cheeses, the stuff everyone knows.

Why ZRH? Is Zurich becoming a growing hub, like Newark? I know that AC operated non-revenue YVR-ZRH and YVR-GVA flights on the day after the 2010 Closing Ceremonies, to ferry IOC officials back to Switzerland.

[officedweller]

City of Richmond fighting against proposed third runway for Vancouver International Airport
By Paula Baker
Online Journalist Global News
...
One of the City’s main concern is the Airport Authority’s decision to go ahead with its application to Transport Canada without any previous public consultation with the residents and property owners that would be impacted by the new plans.

In an attempt to decrease noise from the planes, the City requested the proposed Close-In south Parallel Runway be used for landings only (except under limited circumstances). The Airport Authority rejected this request which, the City says, leaves open the possibility for the runway to be used for regular takeoffs.

The City says this decision would also limit building height in parts of Richmond’s City Centre, which goes against existing local and regional plans for the area.
...

http://globalnews.ca/news/3726066/city-o...way-for-vancouver-international-airport/

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Alpine

I think AF could crush BA and LH on YVR-MENASA fares, and MU/CA on YVR-India fares, if they expanded to daily.

Year round to MEL was an unexpected and pleasant surprise, I'm sure all the Aussies working up in Whistler will be over the moon.

>>>>>>>>>I was pretty thrilled about getting Melbourne 4x a week, too. We now cover the Eastern part of Australia; the three major cities.<<<<<

Why ZRH? Is Zurich becoming a growing hub, like Newark? I know that AC operated non-revenue YVR-ZRH and YVR-GVA flights on the day after the 2010 Closing Ceremonies, to ferry IOC officials back to Switzerland.

Here's a Wikipedia look at Zurich airport of you're interested.
I suggest click directly on number 4 in the headings. Airlines & Destinations
Well connected city for sure.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich_Airport

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Booking systems sometimes lag a few days. I assume they are not worried if a few people book for next June or July already.

PVG was downgauged to a 789 this summer...

Right you are, it's not bookable any longer.

I guess I've been showing PVG wrong all along. Good sign that it has been boosted though.

Originally Posted by Alpine

I think AF could crush BA and LH on YVR-MENASA fares, and MU/CA on YVR-India fares, if they expanded to daily.

I wonder how long it'll be before we see all of the main Vancouver-China services (AC29/30, CA992/991, AC25/26, MU582/581, MU598/597, CZ330/329) upgauge to 77W.

I bet AF goes summer daily soon, once they receive more of their 787-9s. They have 2 in service with 14 more to come and it is the perfect aircraft for YVR-CDG, as it has the same seeatcount as their current 772 but less premium heavy.

- AC to Beijing is already daily 77HD.
- AC to Shanghai is going daily 77W next summer (not this summer as I thought).
- MU is still predominantly 332 but has been running some 77W since early August as well as some 333. Lots of room for growth if they go all 77W.
- CA I believe splits their service with one daily 77HD and one daily 332 which carries through the winter.
- CZ used to run pure 77Ws but with the MEX add on and the extra 3 flights PW they went back to mostly 788. I bet they will grow into the MEX service and we'll see a lot more of the 77W going forward.

Hopefully upgauges will continue to satisfy China growth for the next 2 years or so until either WJ opens up some China routes or the bilateral is expanded. I wonder if China will trade prime slots to Canadian airlines in exchange for a relaxation on the bilateral frequencies?

[Chikinlittle]

Originally Posted by officedweller

http://globalnews.ca/news/3726066/city-o...way-for-vancouver-international-airport/

I'm still not fully understanding the rationale to support a third parallel runway. LHR has two parallel runways and accommodates 75 million passengers and 475,000 aircraft movements. YVR has two parallel runways and sees 22 million passengers and 280,000 aircraft movements.

And there is/was a third (crosswind) runway at YVR that has been essentially de-commissioned... why? Especially if it could accommodate a significant quantity of the smaller regional aircraft movements?

[Chikinlittle]

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

I'm still not fully understanding the rationale to support a third parallel runway. LHR has two parallel runways and accommodates 75 million passengers and 475,000 aircraft movements. YVR has two parallel runways and sees 22 million passengers and 280,000 aircraft movements.

And there is/was a third (crosswind) runway at YVR that has been essentially de-commissioned... why? Especially if it could accommodate a significant quantity of the smaller regional aircraft movements?

Further to that, LGW has been dubbed the busiest runway in the world... it sees 280,000 aircraft movements per year... ...

[excel]

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

And there is/was a third (crosswind) runway at YVR that has been essentially de-commissioned... why? Especially if it could accommodate a significant quantity of the smaller regional aircraft movements?

It is not de-commissioned. They only use it during significant crosswinds. They cannot use it while the parallel runways are in use because of conflicting arrival/departure and missed approach flight paths. As well as being a logistical nightmare for the tower and ground controllers.

[Nick]

LHR and LGW are severely slot restricted and have next to no corporate aircraft using them. A good operational day at Heathrow is when the departure delays equal the arrival delays. LGW happens to have a 2nd runway that they don't use unless there are issues with Rwy 08R/26L. Just because a couple airports in the UK do it doesn't mean it's orderly or expeditious and we should mimic it.

YVR has no option closer than YXX for an ad-hoc corporate jet or charter bigger than a citation. If slots fill up, they would have to extend a runway at Boundary Bay or Pitt Meadows to move all corporate away from YVR. From my perch in YYC, we frequently get ground delay programs to YVR when it's anything other than fully open parallel runway ops. Prior to our parallel runway opening in YYC, we had delay programs daily. Aircraft had to reserve arrival times between 14 and 7 days in advance because we couldn't accommodate the demand.

With the way that "Close-In south Parallel Runway" is shown on the pictures, it would be used for landings mostly only. At airports with close parallels like that, aircraft usually land the outer runway and depart the inner runway because the runway crosses are more safe for ground controllers. It's easier to stop a departing aircraft from taking off than overshooting an arriving aircraft if a crossing plane is slow to cross. But if they are keeping any south terminal infrastructure or corporate operations on the south side of the airport as they currently are, you can be prevented by bureaucracy to not allow the south field departure go off the safest runway for them. All major airports have weird bureaucratic rules that we have to follow so maybe YVRAA is getting ahead of them. Why pigeon-hole yourself for something 20 years in the future?

In terms of using Rwy 12/30. It adds a large amount of complexity that is not worth the risks for a tiny amount of capacity improvement. The appetite for crossing runway ops at major airports is diminishing fast. At YYC, if we can use the parallel runways, we use them exclusively. The little runways are for operational requirements only. Our motto at Nav Canada mentions safe, orderly, and expeditious movement of aircraft, in that order It's less safe, a lot less orderly, and only a little bit more expeditious overall.

Anyways, that's my rambling for the night

[trofirhen]

Craig Richmond has repeatedly said recently that a third runway is not in the cards for YVR at the moment. I think LHR manages because it's got mostly big overseas planes.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

I'm still not fully understanding the rationale to support a third parallel runway. LHR has two parallel runways and accommodates 75 million passengers and 475,000 aircraft movements. YVR has two parallel runways and sees 22 million passengers and 280,000 aircraft movements.

And there is/was a third (crosswind) runway at YVR that has been essentially de-commissioned... why? Especially if it could accommodate a significant quantity of the smaller regional aircraft movements?

If you look at the fine print, YVR is saying they need the additional capacity within the next 30 years. Taking an average of 2.5% annual growth for the next 30 years means the current 280,000 movements per year will increase to 573,000 aircraft movements per year by 2047. Unless there's a complete change in the way we fly, that means a new runway will be required before then.

The other thing is, it takes time to plan and build a new runway. At Brisbane Airport, it took 8 years because of tricky soil conditions. I don't recall exactly how long it took to build the parallel runway at YVR, but I'm pretty sure it was at least 2-3 years. If you don't plan for it now, it's a lot harder in the future when things are built up around the airport. You cite Heathrow as an example. There's actually desperate need for new runway capacity in Southeast England since Heathrow is at 99% capacity. Yet it's difficult to talk about a 3rd runway because it will require relocation of communities, and have a significant impact on transport infrastructure such as the M25.

[Johnny Aussie]

Per airlineroute.net tweet

Effective 13 June 2018 YVR-KEF increases to 4 weekly from 3 weekly.

Another little boost to YVR-Europe next summer.

FI696 YVR 1545 - 0600+1 KEF 1345 752
FI697 KEF 1715 - 1750 YVR 2357 752

[twoNeurons]

Regarding LGW... Gatwick may make do with 2 runways... but remember it's not the only game in town. There are 3 other fairly major airports in the area that can take traffic. In addition, LGW ( as was mentioned ) likely handles more passenger load in the form of larger planes. YVR is pretty much the only game in town and has to handle ALL future traffic. YXX is pretty far away and YDT doesn't look set for growth ( though I'd love to see it become a limited LCC airport, tbh ).

In short, comparing YVR to LGW is apples and oranges.

[LeftCoaster]

I also don't think we should be holding ourselves up to LHR and LGW as examples of what to follow. The survive in spite of their runway constraints because of the massive draw of London. If YVR had the same constraints of the London airports people would simply transit elsewhere.

[LeftCoaster]

So I did a bit more analysis and though the Paris and Zurich additions are big the London 'increase' is actually only a 1.1% increase in seats per week. The loss of 3xLGW on Rouge and downgauge of the first daily LHR flight to a 789 effectively negate the second daily 789.

Still would much rather have double daily LHR on 789 than 10x on a 77HD and Gatwick on Rouge though!

Also Airlineroute noted on his twitter than DEL is going year round as well, though no further info. Could be wrong, but he is pretty well informed and usually corrects his mistakes;
https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status/903303425164795904

[Canadian74]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Also Airlineroute noted on his twitter than DEL is going year round as well, though no further info. Could be wrong, but he is pretty well informed and usually corrects his mistakes;
https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status/903303425164795904

Air Canada mentioned this too during the event, but no timeline was given

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

So I did a bit more analysis and though the Paris and Zurich additions are big the London 'increase' is actually only a 1.1% increase in seats per week. The loss of 3xLGW on Rouge and downgauge of the first daily LHR flight to a 789 effectively negate the second daily 789.

Still would much rather have double daily LHR on 789 than 10x on a 77HD and Gatwick on Rouge though!

Also Airlineroute noted on his twitter than DEL is going year round as well, though no further info. Could be wrong, but he is pretty well informed and usually corrects his mistakes;
https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status/903303425164795904

Comparing YVR-LON over the last two years on AC:

Summer 2016 - 1 daily 77W 1 daily 788
Summer 2017 - 1 daily 77W 3 weekly 763 rouge
Summer 2018 - 2 daily 789

Basically in 2017 the daily 788 was moved to FRA and they added the 3 weekly rouge to LGW.

So just comparing 2016 to 2018 YVR - Europe has gone from just 17 weekly flights to two destinations to 31 weekly flights to five destinations.

I always saw AC favouring YYC for Europe flights but that certainly isn't the case anymore. In fact next summer each of their 3 daily overseas flights (including NRT) is being down gauged. A lot of capacity being stripped away in YVR's favour for Western Canada ops. Same with TS at YYC... down to just 4 weekly... 3 to LGW and 1 to AMS which originates in YVR as well. YVR has maintained its TS Europe schedule and all flights now nonstop except for one of the three weekly AMS flights that goes via YYC. Their experiments with FCO, BCN and ATH just wouldn't work... their 332s just too large for just once weekly flights.

Assuming 2018 schedules to LGW stay the same next summer there will still be 13 weekly flights to LGW. Perhaps the rouge experiment on YVR-LGW was a failure. In any event I agree with you.... 2 daily LHR on mainline is much better for YVR.

WS and TS can duke out the lower yielding LGW traffic. I wonder if Westjet will boost YVR-LGW to daily.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

LGW on rouge is gone.

Strange that it doesn't seem to have gone back to YYZ.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Strange that it doesn't seem to have gone back to YYZ.

Perhaps 4x week is a good balance for YYZ-LGW... enough to remain a thorn in the side of TS and WS without bleeding with a daily flight.