YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

According to A.net Turkish and Canadian officials are meeting again to discuss adding slots to the bilateral for Western Canadian service. Apparently 3xPW is being offered up, we'll see if there's any truth to this, but I take it with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Is this the quote to which you are referring?

"The Canadian and Turkish CAA officials will meet in Canada in two weeks time and the bilateral will be amended to give 3 new slots to Turkish Airlines to serve Western Canada (YVR) so if Turkish will accept this proposal this will go forward and TK can launch IST YVR IST thrice weekly from April 1st, 2018;"


I like his choice words "will be amended...." I'd be curious if it should actually say "may be amended..."

In any event... seems like user ankaraflyjet either actually knows something or is just speculating. Who knows. And as for a 1st April start date, I'd say for an airline like Turkish, that would be a very short lead-in time.

Grain of salt also taken

As an outsider looking in, I can only say that I remember this 3x / week offering coming up earlier in the year, as I recall.
IF TK is offered YVR - IST service 3x /week, I hope they take it and run with it. Just getting that foothold would be so important, and an upwards revision of the bilateral could come later.
Such a service would really "round out" YVR Europe destinations.

[thenoflyzone]

Have I mentioned I hate the CTA's website on these bilateral agreements. Even the link to Global Affairs Canada website for the full treaty texts is useless in this case.

However, if we go by the current routes flown, the current limit on the Canada-Turkey bilateral seems to be 9x weekly flights. TK uses 6x weekly to YYZ and 3x weekly to YUL.

If the bilateral will be amended, I would think TK would push for 14x weekly frequencies straight away, and not just 12x weekly.

So that would mean YYZ can go daily, YUL could go 4x weekly and they could launch YVR at 3x weekly.

The timeline seems too tight for an April 1 launch though. June or July seems more plausible, if the treaty gets amended that is.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Saw on airliners.net on the weekly OAG update:

AC continues to build YVR trans border next summer.

That's getting pretty close to 40 daily next summer on AC. Total YVR-transborder as it stands now will be ~ 95 flights per day... if you include the scheduled Mexico flights (not including charters) YVR will have over 100 daily international flights just within North America.... how do like THEM apples?!

AC increasing SAN to 3 daily (YVR-California bumps to 17 daily on AC)
AC increasing DEN to 3 daily

Other changes

AS increasing SEA back to 6 daily (restoring one of the lost daily frequencies)
AA increasing DFW to 3 daily (normal summer bump)

DL cutting YVR-LAX (code share remains on the 3 daily Westjet flights) DL will still have 13 daily flights from YVR next summer.

Therefore YVR-LAX will be served by only 4 carriers again with 12 daily flights next summer.

Four carriers on a single route is pretty outstanding and you don't see that very often with the hub nature most airlines operate under these days.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

Have I mentioned I hate the CTA's website on these bilateral agreements. Even the link to Global Affairs Canada website for the full treaty texts is useless in this case.

However, if we go by the current routes flown, the current limit on the Canada-Turkey bilateral seems to be 9x weekly flights. TK uses 6x weekly to YYZ and 3x weekly to YUL.

If the bilateral will be amended, I would think TK would push for 14x weekly frequencies straight away, and not just 12x weekly.

So that would mean YYZ can go daily, YUL could go 4x weekly and they could launch YVR at 3x weekly.

The timeline seems too tight for an April 1 launch though. June or July seems more plausible, if the treaty gets amended that is.

Thank you for that breakdown. It makes things much more understandable.

But if they only get that 12xweek, YVR will stay shut out of that market, so here's prayin' for those 14 flights a week.
*On another angle, SEA was once considered an option if YVR fell through. With the DT foreign policy slowing or stopping flights from certain 'other' countries, that just might tilt lt to YVR's advantage .....
IF it goes through. This is a biggie. Pray for it, please.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Four carriers on a single route is pretty outstanding and you don't see that very often with the hub nature most airlines operate under these days.

Yes it is. And I kind of figured with 5 on the route... someone is going to have to cave in. So it was DL. But with their upcoming JV with WS that move actually makes sense with 3 flights per day they can code share on. And with the daily SNA as well that’s 4 to the LA basin.

Of the 4 remaining carriers only 2 are aligned (UA and AC), AA and WS will be “independent” shortly.

[Johnny Aussie]

As for Turkish... IF this rumour is true (I really don't like speculating from airliners.net but I will ) and IF TK is gunning for a "Western Canada" clause, which they can then the bilateral can be amended to add Vancouver as a designated point served. Countries can add any clause they want as long as both parties agree to it. Perhaps AC won't object as they can easily codeshare with their Star Alliance partner to further strengthen their growing YVR hub. But the poster was specific about an amendment regarding Western Canada (YVR mentioned specifically).

[Klazu]

Peak holiday season at YVR with up to 83 000 passangers traveling through the airport a day. This in mind I was surprised to find the US terminal almost empty at 5pm tonight. It wasn't busy at all, which is of course nice on our way to Guam. I was just prepared to skip the lines with our new NEXUS cards, but not today.

[zahav]

The extra CR900 transborder are likely coming from the YWG route, which will go from a single 319 and 3 or 4 CR900s,to 3 320s.

Also EWR on AC is now 787-900 instead of -800. Freeing up the -8 from Paris/Zurich?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

As for Turkish... IF this rumour is true (I really don't like speculating from airliners.net but I will ) and IF TK is gunning for a "Western Canada" clause, which they can then the bilateral can be amended to add Vancouver as a designated point served. Countries can add any clause they want as long as both parties agree to it. Perhaps AC won't object as they can easily codeshare with their Star Alliance partner to further strengthen their growing YVR hub. But the poster was specific about an amendment regarding Western Canada (YVR mentioned specifically).

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year SSP YVR.

I would expect AC to object to TK being allowed YVR-IST. AC gets beyond revenue if traffic flows through FRA on either AC or LH, however if traffic flows through IST on TK, its outside the TransAt ATI++ JV with UA and the LH Group.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Cage

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year SSP YVR.

I would expect AC to object to TK being allowed YVR-IST. AC gets beyond revenue if traffic flows through FRA on either AC or LH, however if traffic flows through IST on TK, its outside the TransAt ATI++ JV with UA and the LH Group.

A star alliance airlines trying to block another star alliance airlines from starting a new route. How unfriendly would that be ....

I would also not be surprised. Do you know if AC and TK partner at all on the YYZ-IST routes?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Cage

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year SSP YVR.

I would expect AC to object to TK being allowed YVR-IST. AC gets beyond revenue if traffic flows through FRA on either AC or LH, however if traffic flows through IST on TK, its outside the TransAt ATI++ JV with UA and the LH Group.

Although Air Canada is privatized (and I understand no longer a Crown Corporation), it still
amazes and frustrates me how much power they wield. They can block this, block that, make sure YYZ gets what it wants, and so forth.
Seems a bit out of whack to me, but then ........

Originally Posted by casper

A star alliance airlines trying to block another star alliance airlines from starting a new route. How unfriendly would that be ....

I would also not be surprised. Do you know if AC and TK partner at all on the YYZ-IST routes?

I understood (correct me if I'm wrong) that AC itself had dropped routes into IST (from YYZ and YUL presumably). If true, that leaves just Turkish.

https://ac.fltmaps.com/en .... check out YYZ destinations

[casper]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Although Air Canada is privatized (and I understand no longer a Crown Corporation), it still
amazes and frustrates me how much power they wield. They can block this, block that, make sure YYZ gets what it wants, and so forth.
Seems a bit out of whack to me, but then ........



I understood (correct me if I'm wrong) that AC itself had dropped routes into IST (from YYZ and YUL presumably). If true, that leaves just Turkish.

https://ac.fltmaps.com/en .... check out YYZ destinations

Something about Turkey having a bit of a revolution on the go has hit travel demand into the country. I don't know if AC codeshares on the Turkish flights or not.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Although Air Canada is privatized (and I understand no longer a Crown Corporation), it still
amazes and frustrates me how much power they wield. They can block this, block that, make sure YYZ gets what it wants, and so forth.
Seems a bit out of whack to me, but then ........



I understood (correct me if I'm wrong) that AC itself had dropped routes into IST (from YYZ and YUL presumably). If true, that leaves just Turkish.

https://ac.fltmaps.com/en .... check out YYZ destinations

AC never served YUL-IST, only YYZ-IST.

Although we dont have access to the bilateral agreement between Canada and Turkey, I'm pretty sure there are no restrictions for TK to serve YVR. The restrictions are strictly on frequency. If TK wanted to serve YVR that badly, they can cancel YUL and start YVR. Pretty straighforward move.

Contrary to what people believe, i don't think AC has that much pull with the government anymore. AC can't stop TK from launching YVR. Just like AC couldnt stop TK from launching YYZ or YUL.

Originally Posted by casper

Something about Turkey having a bit of a revolution on the go has hit travel demand into the country. I don't know if AC codeshares on the Turkish flights or not.

Yes, they still do.

https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/home...alliance-and-other-airline-partners.html

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air...light=air%20canada%20turkish%20codeshare

[nname]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

noticed some construction while at the airport yesterday

2017-11-19_02-23-01 by snub_you, on Flickr

Saw that when arriving at YVR a couple days ago.. The construction is now completed and looks like there will be 2 (or maybe just 1?) temporary gates at the end of D pier.

Went to that part of the terminal about a month ago, and saw two new counters. One was signed "59" while the other on the right of it was unsigned. Chairs were added to that area where it was just an empty space before.

Not sure if those are new, or it was already like that when 59 was a remote stand this past summer...

[Alpine]

Happy holidays to all.

Lufthansa had a special promotion underway where they introduced the 747-8i on the FRA-SEA (11/6~12/31 replacing the regular 744) and FRA-DXB (10/16~10/28 replacing regular 333). And that got me wondering why YVR doesn't get a lot of 747-8i's or A380s, like from the Euro flag carriers. After all, if LH can send an A380 to Delhi, and a 747-8i to Dubai, surely they can throw a 388 or 74H Vancouver's way.

Sure, we get plenty of 787s and A350s, and that's great, but quadjet flagships are hard to come by. All that money the YVR airport authority spent to retrofit the gates as A380-compliant, and we didn't get our first A380 flight until 2016 (and even then, it's a May-September flight only, not year round). We didn't get our first non-freight 747-8i (CX and KE had sent 747-8F to YVR on cargo flights) until 2016 either. Lufthansa and Air France do not send 747-8is/A380s to YVR.

In fact, if the Port of Seattle had actually bothered to spend money on A380-gates, Sea-Tac would have beaten us to the first A380 service in the Pacific Northwest; Emirates would have sent over its A380s instead of the weird mix of morning 77L/evening 77W (Sea-Tac has no A380 gates at present). Anyway, EK discontinued the morning 77L flight after the Trump Administration's immigration ban came into force.

Then it occured to me that maybe YVR doesn't get as much 747-8is or A380s as a destination like LAX, SFO or JFK, because Vancouver is low-yielding destination in general. So, I did some research.

BA's 747s on the London Heathrow-Vancouver route are always Mid-J. These planes have the lowest number of Club World seats and the highest number of World Traveller seats. The proportion of seats taken up by premium cabins (First, CW, WT+) is 30.2%; on a Hi-J, this proportion is 39.1%, and on a Super Hi-J, almost half of the seats are First, CW or WT+.

It turns out that BA likes putting A380s on routes with a lot of business travel, where higher frequency is not required: e.g. LHR-JNB, BOS, LAX, etc. This is because there are pretty much zero available takeoff/landing slots at Heathrow, so 2-3 744s can be collapsed down to 1-2 daily 388 departures (like what happened with the LHR-LAX route). The A380 used during summer has 469 seats; 35.4% of seats are premium seats.

For destinations with high-frequency corporate travel like JFK or SFO, Super Hi-J 744s are used, and capacity is sacrificed for more frequent departures. These only happen with the absolute highest-demand routes, since takeoff/landing slots at Heathrow are so expensive. Also, BA flies out of Terminal 7 in JFK, which has no A380 gates.

BA used to fly 12x 744s to YVR in summer, I'm guessing to attract the Alaska cruise ship tourist crowds. It seems logical that since Vancouver is a low-yielding destination anyway, BA decided to switch from 12 weekly 744 to daily 388 in order free up a landing spot at Heathrow. In addition, with AC expanding Vancouver-London service in summer using its high-density 77Ws and 789s, I think that BA decided to shift its Vancouver strategy away from the VFR/O&D crowd, and more towards business travellers headed to destinations for which direct flights from YVR are not economical. i.e., BA sent its premium-heavy A380 to attract business travellers that fly to their hub in London, then connect to an onward flight via BA's vast network in Europe, Africa and the Middle East: New Delhi, Istanbul, Dubai, Athens. BA knows that the Chinese carriers have cornered the market when it comes to budget/VFR travel to South Asia, so it's going after an more upmarket clientele. At least, that's what I think.

Similar logic can be applied to Lufthansa. YVR gets the premium-light 3-class 744 (as do other destinations like DXB, SEA, SAN) with 26.7% of seats being Business or Premium Economy. Although their 388s are premium-light, it also means they have enormous capacity--40 more seats than BA's 388s. Perhaps Lufthansa just didn't think there was enough demand for a 509 seat 388 to Vancouver. This logic can be applied to AF's 772s, KL's 333s/789s, etc. Premium-light aircraft for a low-yielding destination.

I also find it very interesting that non-Air Canada longhaul flights to YVR still rely on hub-and-spoke model using 744s, 77Ws, 388s and 346s, instead of the point-to-point model pioneered by the 789/359. Maybe it has something to do with Vancouver's geographic isolation.

[Gordon]

According to the Dec. YVR Air Mail Hoarding has been erected near gates D 55 &
58 for terminal expansion. Gate D59? There seems to be more use of D/E Swing gates especially D75.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by Alpine

After all, if LH can send an A380 to Delhi, and a 747-8i to Dubai, surely they can throw a 388 or 74H Vancouver's way.

LH send the A380/B748 to DEL and BOM because those airports are slot constrained. BOM is at capacity for most of the day, as it is a single runway airport for all intents and purposes. (They dont use the crossing runway simultaneously)

So in order to maximize connectivity through FRA, LH send their biggest birds to India.

YVR, even though it is a level 3 slot controlled airport, is not at capacity. Add the fact that Canada in general isn't a premium market, and you have all the reasons you need to figure out why LH doesn't send the A380 to YVR.

As you said, BA sending the A380 to YVR has more to do with freeing up slots at LHR than anything else.

AF tried the A380 to YUL. It didnt' last. The only reason why EK sends the A380 to YYZ is because they are restricted in terms of frequency to Canada. So of the 3 airlines that serve/served Canada with the A380, one failed, and the other two do it due to capacity restrictions.

Proof that the A380 is useful only to a handful of airlines. Meaning, the whole program is a flop. Besides, the production line will close in less than 10 years. Yes, it is a tactic to get EK to order more A380s, but ultimately, it will fail, and the line will close.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

LH send the A380/B748 to DEL and BOM because those airports are slot constrained. BOM is at capacity for most of the day, as it is a single runway airport for all intents and purposes. (They dont use the crossing runway simultaneously)

So in order to maximize connectivity through FRA, LH send their biggest birds to India. /edited out, please excuse me/ .....

Proof that the A380 is useful only to a handful of airlines. Meaning, the whole program is a flop. Besides, the production line will close in less than 10 years. Yes, it is a tactic to get EK to order more A380s, but ultimately, it will fail, and the line will close.

Interesting about the A380. Rather a "white elephant situation" for most routes, it seems.
Doing a 180°, which airplane type(s) do you think will be more and more used in future?

[casper]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

....
Proof that the A380 is useful only to a handful of airlines. Meaning, the whole program is a flop. Besides, the production line will close in less than 10 years. Yes, it is a tactic to get EK to order more A380s, but ultimately, it will fail, and the line will close.

AC is probably a good example of where the rest of the industry is going. The use to operate 747-400 (and the earlier models before that). They are now long gone, however they just pretty close to the same number of people into their 777-300. They have 50 fewer seats, but thouse are probably seats that need to be deeply discounted anyway.

[Lancaster]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Interesting about the A380. Rather a "white elephant situation" for most routes, it seems.
Doing a 180°, which airplane type(s) do you think will be more and more used in future?

YVR already gets a great mix of aircraft of all stripes. If you think of all the types of large commercial aircraft made by Boeing and Airbus I think YVR sees all of them (save the old ones).

As for what can be expected in the future - CSeries, 737 MAX, more 787s, more A350s, maybe A330neos to replace existing A330-200 traffic, and additional 777s sprinkled in from time to time on major routes.