YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[whatnext]

Slightly off topic but check out this video of the Horizon Q400 stolen from SeaTac tonight (turn sound down if at work!)
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10212530577644892&id=1396687468&_rdr

[Lancaster]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Logic? It’s called market size and simple geography. The market between YYZ (and points east) and YCD/YYJ/YKA is clearly larger than YVR-YKF/YQB etc. Any flights from YVR to secondary cities in Central and Eastern Canada will almost entirely rely on O&D with very minimal transfer traffic on either end.
Geography hasn’t changed for decades... same discussions held in the 1980s. Nothing has changed... YVR is and always will be the end of the line. YVR does have a great location for Asian traffic but those Eastern cities you mention are easily reached through YYZ. Again, just basic geography at play.
YUL-Asia means that market is large enough now to sustain nonstop flights to the three largest Asian markets being NRT, PEK and PVG. There are probably very few Asian markets left that would be a viable route from YUL. Maybe HKG?

Are you forgetting Air Canada flies nonstop from YVR to LHR, DUB, FRA, CDG and ZRH? Aren’t these flights “under cutting” YYZ and YUL?

Does anybody honestly think that AC has “neglected” YVR in the last three years? It’s been nothing but one route addition after another.

As for secondary cities in BC being connected through YYC - there’s that evil geography wheeling its hand again. The traffic flows are mainly within Canada. All these cities are obviously connected to YVR as well for the strong O&D plus some decent connectivity. But what traffic flows would YVR be able to garner with links to YQL, YXH, YMM and YQU. Basically O&D and maybe some Asian and US traffic. Otherwise those pax would be back tracking. Interestingly enough YYC will only be connected to YQL, YXH, YMM and YQU after AC pulls out of YQF so that’s only 4 secondary cities in Alberta connected with air service to YYC other than some small towns with charter like services.

So despite all the disadvantages YVR has as a domestic hub.... not bad
Global reach huh?

I conveyed some bad tone evidently.

I can see why people would see a consolidation of Rouge to the East hubs, more added routes in total out of YUL/YYZ, and taking on eastern BC routes as them slighting YVR. I commented that the eastern BC destinations are all about geography, and that should not be a surprise. I have no angst against it.

I am surprised that AC would operate the YCD/YYJ routes from YUL/YYZ, just as I would be baffled if AC operated a YVR-YQB route. I don't think AC should operate a YVR-YQB route, because geography! You made a great point, I am surprised they have added LHR/CDG/FRA/ZRH frequencies because YYZ/YUL is there. Much like I am surprised that YUL operates flights to the major Asian hubs when YYZ and YVR have similar offerings.

I just don't understand having two major hubs that are 500 kms apart. That was my comment on "not understanding the logic" Would you not want to consolidate? I am not asking to make a statement, I'm asking cause I don't know.

Please don't get me wrong, I think AC's development in the last few years is excellent for plenty of reasons. I genuinely don't care which airports gets what service and when. I just don't understand how the system works some times. But I'm happy to learn!

[casper]

Originally Posted by Lancaster

I conveyed some bad tone evidently.

I can see why people would see a consolidation of Rouge to the East hubs, more added routes in total out of YUL/YYZ, and taking on eastern BC routes as them slighting YVR. I commented that the eastern BC destinations are all about geography, and that should not be a surprise. I have no angst against it.

I am surprised that AC would operate the YCD/YYJ routes from YUL/YYZ, just as I would be baffled if AC operated a YVR-YQB route. I don't think AC should operate a YVR-YQB route, because geography! You made a great point, I am surprised they have added LHR/CDG/FRA/ZRH frequencies because YYZ/YUL is there. Much like I am surprised that YUL operates flights to the major Asian hubs when YYZ and YVR have similar offerings.

I just don't understand having two major hubs that are 500 kms apart. That was my comment on "not understanding the logic" Would you not want to consolidate? I am not asking to make a statement, I'm asking cause I don't know.

Please don't get me wrong, I think AC's development in the last few years is excellent for plenty of reasons. I genuinely don't care which airports gets what service and when. I just don't understand how the system works some times. But I'm happy to learn!

I spend a lot of time in YYJ and YVR. Frequently flying out of both airports. The reason there has been a YYJ-YYZ flight for years is there is a lot of traffic between these two cities. A good percentage of the flight is not connecting. The flight to Montreal is fantastic it removes the need to connect somewhere to get to Montreal. It also connects to a number of the European flights from montreal that are heading to destinations not served from Toronto.

The YYJ-YVR is doing well. It is increasing a Q400. It is not unusually for most flights to go out full and to have hourly if not better service.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by Lancaster

Much like I am surprised that YUL operates flights to the major Asian hubs when YYZ and YVR have similar offerings.

I just don't understand having two major hubs that are 500 kms apart.

Me too. They should just de-hub YUL and leave a market of 4 million people to find another hub carrier. WS is keen on serving Quebec. Maybe they would take over most routes..



btw, UA operates hubs at IAD and EWR, less than 400 km apart. Same for LH, with FRA and MUC. DL operates two hub airports in NYC. LGA and JFK. Maybe they should just dehub LGA?

Point is, each hub serves a purpose. When the O&D is there at both locations, distance between hubs takes a backseat. Airlines are in the business of making money. They go where the money is. And in Canada, most of the money is in YYZ, YUL, YVR and YYC. Do you really expect AC to avoid the Montreal market simply because it is 500 km from YYZ?

[Gordon]

New York can handle multiple hub airports because of it's large population base.

Laguardia is principally a domestc airport & JFK is the largest Int'l airport in Metro new york.

When the East Apron remote stands are complete will it not be more efficient to use them instead of de-planing at D48 & 49 & moving the plane to another gate.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

Point is, each hub serves a purpose. When the O&D is there at both locations, distance between hubs takes a backseat. Airlines are in the business of making money. They go where the money is. And in Canada, most of the money is in YYZ, YUL, YVR and YYC. Do you really expect AC to avoid the Montreal market simply because it is 500 km from YYZ?

I partly agree, but it s not all O+D - much of the new AC growth is them trying to grow their 6th freedom service to the USA. 2 AC hubs by the eastern seaboard of the USA would make sense to me. I do appreciate growth at YVR, but I also think there is potential for even more at YVR (regular IAD, BOS, ZRH, FRA AC service, MIA, service to smaller centres of the PNW, even SLC)

With the next world/USA downturn, it would be interesting to see what routes shake out.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

I partly agree, but it s not all O+D - much of the new AC growth is them trying to grow their 6th freedom service to the USA. 2 AC hubs by the eastern seaboard of the USA would make sense to me. I do appreciate growth at YVR, but I also think there is potential for even more at YVR (regular IAD, BOS, ZRH, FRA AC service, MIA, service to smaller centres of the PNW, even SLC)

With the next world/USA downturn, it would be interesting to see what routes shake out.

YYZ traffic is 70% O&D.
YUL traffic is 80% O&D
YVR is in the 80s too I believe.

AC in 2016 accounted for less than 1% of all International traffic to/from the US. Yes, even a 1% increase represents billions of dollars in revenue for AC, but don't kid yourself, without the O&D, a lot of routes AC has wont survive.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

I partly agree, but it s not all O+D - much of the new AC growth is them trying to grow their 6th freedom service to the USA. 2 AC hubs by the eastern seaboard of the USA would make sense to me. I do appreciate growth at YVR, but I also think there is potential for even more at YVR (regular IAD, BOS, ZRH, FRA AC service, MIA, service to smaller centres of the PNW, even SLC)

With the next world/USA downturn, it would be interesting to see what routes shake out.

YYZ traffic is 70% O&D.
YUL traffic is 80% O&D
YVR is in the 80s too I believe.

AC in 2016 accounted for less than 1% of all International traffic to/from the US. Yes, even a 1% increase represents billions of dollars in revenue for AC, but don't kid yourself, without the O&D, a lot of routes AC has wont survive. Not every airport/airline has the cost structure to mimick DXB or ATL.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

YYZ traffic is 70% O&D.
YUL traffic is 80% O&D
YVR is in the 80s too I believe.

% of what traffic? all aggregate traffic? if so, that doesn't say much. I suspect many low-margin carribean AC routes from eastern canada are predominately O+D with no 6th freedom traffic.

AC in 2016 accounted for less than 1% of all International traffic to/from the US. Yes, even a 1% increase represents billions of dollars in revenue for AC, but don't kid yourself, without the O&D, a lot of routes AC has wont survive. Not every airport/airline has the cost structure to mimick DXB or ATL.

I agree O+D is important, but it's not the only factor. c'mon, for the past 5 years, AC has telegraphed to its investors that much of its growth and investment is focused on 6th freedom flights from the USA.

Airlines go a long way to make their route planning opaque, but it's public record that 90% of the pax on the YYZ-CPH flight is connecting, at least in 2015.

Connecting passengers can fill from 25% to 50% (or more) of flights and consequently increase the number of flight frequencies to major international markets and stimulate services to new destinations that Canada would not be able to otherwise support due to its smaller market base. The success of certain nonstop international routes is entirely dependent on connecting traffic – for example, 90% of the traffic between Toronto Pearson and Copenhagen is connecting.

[Johnny Aussie]

Westjet’s winter schedules really a blah for YVR.

An extra daily flight to YCD? That’s about it on the upside.

YUL being dropped for the winter and MEX is getting chopped (from YYC too). I just couldn’t see all those additional flights being successful. That leaves AM, AC and 4O which is probably more balanced.

Everything else is status quo really.

Their schedule release is all about pumping up YYC. Really solidifying YYC as their largest hub.

[LeftCoaster]

Definitely strengthening my original thought that YVR will not see the bulk of the western based 787s.

Westjet is betting on YYC going forward, it's a bit of a gamble given the economy there and the likely slow recovery in jobs/employment income.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Definitely strengthening my original thought that YVR will not see the bulk of the western based 787s.

Westjet is betting on YYC going forward, it's a bit of a gamble given the economy there and the likely slow recovery in jobs/employment income.

Yes a very bold and aggressive move at their main hub. Certainly a warning shot to Flair and a direct attack against AC at YYC. Their hub at YYC is definitely approaching critical mass. They are going to heavily rely on connecting traffic to fill all these planes!

[excel]

The timing is perfect as I am moving to Calgary this October

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Yes a very bold and aggressive move at their main hub. Certainly a warning shot to Flair and a direct attack against AC at YYC. Their hub at YYC is definitely approaching critical mass. They are going to heavily rely on connecting traffic to fill all these planes!

It's great to see the WS YYC hub (and by extension Western Canada) gaining more "clout" in air travel. Will any of the increase at YYC "spill over" a little to YVR?
Westjet talked about 787 flights to Asia and to South America. Would this be done through YYC, or will YVR get a slice of the action, too?

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

It's great to see the WS YYC hub (and by extension Western Canada) gaining more "clout" in air travel. Will any of the increase at YYC "spill over" a little to YVR?
Westjet talked about 787 flights to Asia and to South America. Would this be done through YYC, or will YVR get a slice of the action, too?

Westjet's YYC hub's growth comes almost entirely to the detriment of YVR.

[CloudInspector]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

It's great to see the WS YYC hub (and by extension Western Canada) gaining more "clout" in air travel. Will any of the increase at YYC "spill over" a little to YVR?
Westjet talked about 787 flights to Asia and to South America. Would this be done through YYC, or will YVR get a slice of the action, too?

While Calgary makes an ideal domestic transfer hub, I don’t believe YYC has the market size to support multiple daily flights to Asia and South America.

[Firebrand]

Why is WestJet so obsessed of having YYC as the main hub for Asia-Pacific flights and not YVR?

[LeftCoaster]

They aren't. They have made literally 0 commitment to where the 787s will be based or where they will be flying.

I think most Asia service they do will be from YVR, but I just don't think they'll do much Asia service.

[CloudInspector]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

They aren't. They have made literally 0 commitment to where the 787s will be based or where they will be flying.

I think most Asia service they do will be from YVR, but I just don't think they'll do much Asia service.

I think the first tail will be based in YYC (no surprise really), but Gregg’s Vancouver Board of Trade presentation was a good indication of their desire to grow YVR, which they’ve done quite a bit of in the past few years. The “potential route map” looked like Canada 3000 and Canadi>n merged!

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by CloudInspector

I think the first tail will be based in YYC (no surprise really)

Is it because YYC has a larger capacity for 787s, lower costs, or is it just to please Albertans?