YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

obviously not that far.....

A slap in the face of YVRAA, that's for sure. (similar to BA choosing Charleston over St. Louis)

SEA catching up to YVR, slowly but surely. When the new IAF opens, more international routes will open up at SEA, further solidifying the Emerald City as a TPAC hub.

AC wont be launching SIN anytime soon. No planes left. Neither will SQ in the short to medium term (according to me, although several disagree).

One thing is for sure, this came out of left field. So does SQ have another surprise in store? If so, how likely is it to be SIN-YVR?

Not totally out of left field. congrats to SEA, YVR would need to stay on its toes to keep up.

2019 will be an interesting year for PNW traffic, I still think that AC or SQ service to SIN will happen in the near term at YVR but we'll see what happens..

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

obviously not that far.....

A slap in the face of YVRAA, that's for sure. (similar to BA choosing Charleston over St. Louis)

SEA catching up to YVR, slowly but surely. When the new IAF opens, more international routes will open up at SEA, further solidifying the Emerald City as a TPAC hub.

AC wont be launching SIN anytime soon. No planes left. Neither will SQ in the short to medium term (according to me, although several disagree).

One thing is for sure, this came out of left field. So does SQ have another surprise in store? If so, how likely is it to be SIN-YVR?

Let’s compare the two cities now for international traffic to see just how far behind Seattle is now.

[vanlaw]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

SEA catching up to YVR, slowly but surely. When the new IAF opens, more international routes will open up at SEA, further solidifying the Emerald City as a TPAC hub.

Yes, until the new expansion is done, departing and arriving internationally at SEA south satellite is just a horrible experience. They are out of gates most of the day, if a flight is delayed when you land, sit in the tarmac till the gate clears, immigration lines are outrageous sometimes, people being stacked up in the hallways immediately outside the jet bridge. I'm sure this has limited SEA's international route expansion past few years.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Well if it is 3x YUL-DUB on an A333 Vs 4x on a 737MAX its not that big a boost. 795 seats Vs 676 seats.

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

Will be interesting to see what happens. I personally feel the Max8 was well suited for YUL-DUB. The A333 might be overkill, even if it is only 3x weekly.

Originally Posted by Alexcaban

YVR-DUB is staying Rouge guys, I don't see it changing to a 333.

Planes need down time too, especially the 767 and will be needed for flex.

YUL-DUB will actually be moving up to 5x weekly 7M8 and its already loaded in the system so I doubt any rotation will happen.

Nobody knows when those extra 333 are coming in however I know they will be arriving from Singapore Airlines and will need time to be refurbished into the AC brand. However looking at YUL-ALG, they are not selling J and the seat map looks exactly like SQ layout.

The new 333s AC is getting will spend the summer period flying mainline routes as rouge style seating. These aircraft will not have the signature suite, so expect to see them on routes to DUB that are usually the domain of Rouge. Once these 4 gently used 333s get the full Signature Suite installed, I would expect the routes like DUB to return to Rouge or mainline max8/9.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Not totally out of left field. congrats to SEA, YVR would need to stay on its toes to keep up.

2019 will be an interesting year for PNW traffic, I still think that AC or SQ service to SIN will happen in the near term at YVR but we'll see what happens..

Greetings from Singapore... just flew in last night on one of SQ’s shiny new A350s

Yes even Craig Richmond acknowledged SEA will provide great competition. But again nothing new. Ever since the mid 80s.

YVR will need to remain competitive. A lot of that is out of anybody's control.

The announcement by SQ does not rule out service to YVR as well.

So now SEA will have 19 long haul carriers of which 7 don't fly to YVR (that's as of next Sept 2019 and a lot can happen between now and then too )

YVR will have 25 long haul carriers of which 13 don't fly to SEA.

YVR remains one of the best internationally connected airports in NA (not just for its size but overall too) and will continue to be.... competition is nothing new to YVR and is still in a great position. Future is bright!

For example, regardless if YVR overtakes ORD in total international passengers this year (YTD it has) being that close to their number is crazy.

Of course when you’re used to “having it all” and your peers start to acquire things the first reaction is the sky is falling!

[osirisboy]

http://www.yvr.ca/-/media/yvr/documents/...raffic-update-september-2018-website.pdf

Just shy of 20 million YTD

[zahav]

I have always been interested by the aircraft rotations that some people on the Canada forum seem to know about. So I did a spreadsheet of YVR's widebody international operations next summer and have been able to pair most of the aicraft/route rotations (actually wasn't that hard when you line up all arrivals and departures and organize by aircraft type and times, the kind of snap together in logical pairs).

However I have found a couple gaps which makes me think additional routes might be coming or at least some revised departure times. If anyone wants to see the spreadsheet let me know and I'll email it to you:

788
The KIX/CDG/ZRH all cycle together, so that is two aircrafts. Then there is LHR and BNE. That is where something seems to be missing. Both flights arrive in YVR in the morning (AC36 from BNE at 710 and AC855 from LHR at 1130. But the departures aren't until last at night (AC35 to BNE at 2350 and AC896 to LHR at 2105). There are no domestic or transborder routes using the 788, so that is a lot of downtime of those frames I feel like. Seems like AC will either add a domestic roation to YYZ for instance? It just seems like a massive under-utilization for a new aircraft.

789
There are lots of these route pairings at YVR next summer. SO many of the arrival and departure times are close so not sure exactly what pairs with what but it doesn't matter, the final # of pairs matches up. It looks like there will be ten 789 daily flight pairings. The one oddity is the aircraft that does MEL. There are 3 empty holes in the schedule where this aircraft isn't doing anything (that flight operates 4 weekly). It isn't even operating a scheduled flight to YYZ or YUL, so that means it just remains on ground all day? Like the 788 comment above, I can't see them let this aircraft sit idle that long. The MEL route will be the only 789 route that isn't daily.

773
All pairings line up, there's a couple of lengthy remains on ground but nothing that crazy, There's 6 daily 773 paired routes per day.

772
We only get one of these aircraft, and they dedicated to YYZ-YVR-SYD and back. Cycling is >730
900>
>2205
2350>

333
This one is 4 weekly and naturally cycles with the YUL route, easy peezy.

So the questions at this point are the slack in the 788 and the missing 789 routing. Right now the lowest frequency routes are MEL and CDG at 4 per week, which is still pretty good. Anyone have any ideas what will be done with the extra 788/789 capacity?

Disclaimer, I have no idea if my work is correct, I Might be missing a super obvious variable that throws it all away, but everything else lines up so these discrepancies seem legit

[nname]

Originally Posted by zahav

788
The KIX/CDG/ZRH all cycle together, so that is two aircrafts. Then there is LHR and BNE. That is where something seems to be missing. Both flights arrive in YVR in the morning (AC36 from BNE at 710 and AC855 from LHR at 1130. But the departures aren't until last at night (AC35 to BNE at 2350 and AC896 to LHR at 2105). There are no domestic or transborder routes using the 788, so that is a lot of downtime of those frames I feel like. Seems like AC will either add a domestic roation to YYZ for instance? It just seems like a massive under-utilization for a new aircraft.

The YVR-LHR rotates with YYZ... and yes, there haven't been a route that can rotate with BNE so far. But then, the 788 fleet is pretty much fully utilized, with down time of about half a day each at YVR and YYZ. So perhaps AC did it on purpose in case of aircraft issues or delays?

AC 35	788 (214)	D	YVR - BNE	23:50 - 07:25	14.6	...2
AC 36	788 (214)	D	BNE - YVR	10:40 - 07:10	13.5

AC 39	788 (214)	12346	YVR - KIX	13:30 - 15:45	10.3	...2
AC 40	788 (214)	23457	KIX - YVR	17:15 - 10:10	8.9
AC 802	788 (214)	24567	YVR - ZRH	13:00 - 07:55	9.9
AC 803	788 (214)	13567	ZRH - YVR	10:05 - 11:25	10.3
AC 806	788 (214)	1357	YVR - CDG	12:45 - 07:35	9.8
AC 807	788 (214)	1246	CDG - YVR	09:25 - 10:20	9.9

AC 896	788 (214)	D	YVR - LHR	21:05 - 14:20	9.3	...2
AC 859	788 (214)	D	LHR - YYZ	18:00 - 20:40	7.7
AC 868	788 (214)	D	YYZ - LHR	09:10 - 21:00	6.8
AC 855	788 (214)	D	LHR - YVR	10:05 - 11:30	9.4

AC 894	788 (214)	D	YYZ - MXP	20:45 - 10:30	7.8	...2
AC 895	788 (214)	D	MXP - YYZ	12:10 - 15:00	8.8
AC 739	788 (214)	D	YYZ - SFO	18:45 - 21:12	5.5
AC 754	788 (214)	D	SFO - YYZ	22:45 - 06:37	4.9

Originally Posted by zahav

789
There are lots of these route pairings at YVR next summer. SO many of the arrival and departure times are close so not sure exactly what pairs with what but it doesn't matter, the final # of pairs matches up. It looks like there will be ten 789 daily flight pairings. The one oddity is the aircraft that does MEL. There are 3 empty holes in the schedule where this aircraft isn't doing anything (that flight operates 4 weekly). It isn't even operating a scheduled flight to YYZ or YUL, so that means it just remains on ground all day? Like the 788 comment above, I can't see them let this aircraft sit idle that long. The MEL route will be the only 789 route that isn't daily.

What I came up with for the 789 at YVR:

AC 3	789 (247)	D	YVR - NRT	13:25 - 15:15	9.8	...2
AC 4	789 (247)	D	NRT - YVR	16:50 - 09:25	8.6
AC 17	789 (247)	D	YVR - TPE	11:10 - 14:15	12.1
AC 18	789 (247)	D	TPE - YVR	15:55 - 11:45	10.8

AC 44	789 (247)	D	YVR - DEL	01:30 - 04:00	14	...2
AC 45	789 (247)	D	DEL - YVR	06:10 - 07:30	13.8
AC 548	789 (247)	D	YVR - EWR	08:45 - 16:50	5.1
AC 549	789 (247)	D	EWR - YVR	18:20 - 21:10	5.8

AC 63	789 (247)	D	YVR - ICN	11:00 - 13:55	10.9	...1
AC 64	789 (247)	D	ICN - YVR	15:25 - 09:15	9.8

AC 92	789 (247)	1357	YYZ - SCL - EZE	21:40 - 13:00	14.3	...2
AC 93	789 (247)	1246	EZE - SCL - YYZ	15:00 - 05:00	15
AC 56	789 (247)	246	YYZ - DXB	23:00 - 19:50	12.8
AC 57	789 (247)	357	DXB - YYZ	23:30 - 05:10	13.7
AC 183	789 (247)	D	YYZ - YVR	07:30 - 09:13	4.7
AC 112	789 (247)	D	YVR - YYZ	11:00 - 18:21	4.4

AC 840	789 (247)	D	YVR - FRA	13:25 - 08:05	9.7	...1
AC 841	789 (247)	D	FRA - YVR	10:15 - 11:05	9.8

AC 37	789 (247)	1357	YVR - MEL	22:50 - 08:00	16.2	...2
AC 38	789 (247)	2357	MEL - YVR	09:40 - 07:35	14.9
AC 314	789 (247)	D	YVR - YUL	09:10 - 16:48	4.6
AC 309	789 (247)	D	YUL - YVR	18:35 - 20:48	5.2

AC 854	789 (247)	D	YVR - LHR	17:50 - 11:05	9.3	...3
AC 851	789 (247)	D	LHR - YYC	13:05 - 14:55	8.8
AC 850	789 (247)	D	YYC - LHR	18:25 - 10:00	8.6
AC 897	789 (247)	D	LHR - YVR	16:15 - 17:40	9.4

And yes, I cannot find a use for the other 3 days of the MEL flight, and the EWR/YUL flight can't do anything else other than connecting to the DEL/MEL flights at YVR...

As for aircraft sitting idle.. the last pair YVR-LHR-YYC-LHR-YYC seems to be sitting idle for pretty much 23hr everyday.

[connect2source]

Icelandair to acquire WOW air. Wonder how this will affect WOW's YVR plans?

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2...n/Icelandair-Group-acquires-Wow-air.html

[deasine]

Originally Posted by connect2source

Icelandair to acquire WOW air. Wonder how this will affect WOW's YVR plans?

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2...n/Icelandair-Group-acquires-Wow-air.html

Just beat me it. In the short term, nothing probably but I would expect synergies and capacity cuts for following seasons.

[CareerShow]

Sea-tac gaining ground on YVR with regard to Asian based carriers...add JAL to the list of carriers to resume flying next year. Olympus is falling!

On a serious note, does anyone have any verifiable insight into whether or not there is chance YVR lands Singapore airlines? It would of course be great if AC started the route as well, but the addition of a new carrier would be nice.

[agamemnon]

I love the precision and clarity of your analyses, nname!

One observation: doesn't the YVR-LHR-YYZ-LHR-YVR pairing take 3 days? That would of course leave the 788 schedule one frame short. Perhaps the YYZ-SFO-YYZ turn will be operated by something else; it's the most "flexible" route in the mix.

Zooming out, my overall sense with this year's summer schedule is that AC is "cleaning up" and "refining" (i.e. smoothing out rough edges, and making all the pieces fit together more closely) after a period of growth and experimentation, and as widebody deliveries wind down. The precise sharing of two frames among CDG/ZRH/KIX being one example; dropping BOM and pairing DXB with SCL-EZE being another.

With that in mind, the three days when MEL doesn't operate stick out like a sore thumb - it's the most jarring "hole" remaining in an otherwise coherent picture. AKL or SIN seem like they might fit in nicely... Who knows.

Looking forward to seeing what shows up in tomorrow's update!

[nname]

Originally Posted by agamemnon

I love the precision and clarity of your analyses, nname!

One observation: doesn't the YVR-LHR-YYZ-LHR-YVR pairing take 3 days? That would of course leave the 788 schedule one frame short. Perhaps the YYZ-SFO-YYZ turn will be operated by something else; it's the most "flexible" route in the mix.

Hmm... You're right. Perhaps they'll need to shift the MXP back by ~1hr and rotate like this:

AC 896	788 (214)	D	YVR - LHR	21:05 - 14:20	9.3	...4
AC 859	788 (214)	D	LHR - YYZ	18:00 - 20:40	7.7
AC 894	788 (214)	D	YYZ - MXP	20:45 - 10:30	7.8
AC 895	788 (214)	D	MXP - YYZ	12:10 - 15:00	8.8
AC 739	788 (214)	D	YYZ - SFO	18:45 - 21:12	5.5
AC 754	788 (214)	D	SFO - YYZ	22:45 - 06:37	4.9
AC 868	788 (214)	D	YYZ - LHR	09:10 - 21:00	6.8
AC 855	788 (214)	D	LHR - YVR	10:05 - 11:30	9.4

If that's the case, seems like all 788 would be based at YVR, so it make sense for the BNE to stay on the ground and substitute into any other rotation if necessary. And for the YYZ-SFO, if the plane was really late or have issue, they could always substitute the SFO flight with something else and have time to rectify it before the next flight back to LHR?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by CareerShow

Sea-tac gaining ground on YVR with regard to Asian based carriers...add JAL to the list of carriers to resume flying next year. Olympus is falling!

On a serious note, does anyone have any verifiable insight into whether or not there is chance YVR lands Singapore airlines? It would of course be great if AC started the route as well, but the addition of a new carrier would be nice.

Speaking of a new carrier, TK would be a great one to have. There are all kinds of murmurs about it coming to YVR in 2019, but Ottawa keeps - seemingly -slowing things up.
Perhaps this is to protect traffic out of YYZ and / or YUL, but at any rate, it is all too often "The Canadian Way." TK apparently said that if they don't get YVR, they'll fly to SEA instead.
If that happened, SEA would have two ME destinations whereas YVR would have none .... and that would be a real shame IMHO

[Gordon]

I wonder we are going to see the first of these 7 or 8 major distentions by 2020 that yvr was talking about earlier in the year.

The airport is certainly busy last Thursday the line up to get my bagage tag for my west Jet flight was 30 - 35 mins.

[agamemnon]

Originally posted by nname
If that's the case, seems like all 788 would be based at YVR, so it make sense for the BNE to stay on the ground and substitute into any other rotation if necessary. And for the YYZ-SFO, if the plane was really late or have issue, they could always substitute the SFO flight with something else and have time to rectify it before the next flight back to LHR?

It definitely looks like the 788 fleet is to be Vancouver based for S19, so ground time in between the BNE turns would be a logical choice.

Somewhat OT: it's interesting that AC seems to have made some effort to consolidate the 788s in YVR, with the 333s playing a similar role in YUL (the seat count is about equal, I believe?)... Except, since the 333s can't do YUL-NRT nor YUL-PVG, they had to make those routes 789 (instead of 788 like last year). If this is intended as a (relatively) permanent move, it will have implications for what ultimately happens to the 763 holdouts, specifically YYC-NRT, YOW-LHR and YOW-FRA (always a popular topic of discussion ). YOW-LHR/FRA could eventually be covered by the extra 333s coming into the fleet: b/c with YUL-LHR a 333, it would be easy to rotate to the aircraft in. But how would you get a 788 onto YYC-NRT if the fleet is YVR based? I doubt AC would run a 788 from YVR to YYC... so then does YVR-NRT go 788, or does YYC-LHR go 788...?

I also wonder whether the fleet base allocations (~ 788 in YVR; 333 in YUL; 77W/77L in YYZ; 789 everywhere) will be the same in a "mature" winter schedule, or whether they'll switch it up. (That's a long way off, though!)

[Alexcaban]

Originally Posted by agamemnon

It definitely looks like the 788 fleet is to be Vancouver based for S19, so ground time in between the BNE turns would be a logical choice.

Somewhat OT: it's interesting that AC seems to have made some effort to consolidate the 788s in YVR, with the 333s playing a similar role in YUL (the seat count is about equal, I believe?)... Except, since the 333s can't do YUL-NRT nor YUL-PVG, they had to make those routes 789 (instead of 788 like last year). If this is intended as a (relatively) permanent move, it will have implications for what ultimately happens to the 763 holdouts, specifically YYC-NRT, YOW-LHR and YOW-FRA (always a popular topic of discussion ). YOW-LHR/FRA could eventually be covered by the extra 333s coming into the fleet: b/c with YUL-LHR a 333, it would be easy to rotate to the aircraft in. But how would you get a 788 onto YYC-NRT if the fleet is YVR based? I doubt AC would run a 788 from YVR to YYC... so then does YVR-NRT go 788, or does YYC-LHR go 788...?

I also wonder whether the fleet base allocations (~ 788 in YVR; 333 in YUL; 77W/77L in YYZ; 789 everywhere) will be the same in a "mature" winter schedule, or whether they'll switch it up. (That's a long way off, though!)

Not equal. 788 (255 seats), 333 (292 seats). 789 and 333 are pretty equal.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Speaking of a new carrier, TK would be a great one to have. There are all kinds of murmurs about it coming to YVR in 2019, but Ottawa keeps - seemingly -slowing things up.
Perhaps this is to protect traffic out of YYZ and / or YUL, but at any rate, it is all too often "The Canadian Way." TK apparently said that if they don't get YVR, they'll fly to SEA instead.
If that happened, SEA would have two ME destinations whereas YVR would have none .... and that would be a real shame IMHO

TK was given 9x weekly frequencies to Canada. TK are the ones that chose to fly to YYZ and YUL.

It's not the govt of Canada that told them to start YUL. Therefore the government of Canada is not protecting YUL/YYZ, as they already serve those 2 cities. The govnt of Canada is protecting the Canadian market as a whole by limiting frequency between the two countries. Not just YYZ/YUL.

From my readings on this matter over on airliners, apparently TK has been granted 3 additional weekly frequencies to Canada. Let's see what they choose to do with those frequencies. All indications point to YVR service.

Lack of long haul frames is a reason they haven't announced the route yet.

Could also be they are waiting to relocate to the new IST airport before announcing service. Another reason for the delay might be that TK wants more frequencies, because their priority might be to increase YYZ to daily, all the while wanting to start at least 3x weekly service to YVR.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

TK was given 9x weekly frequencies to Canada. TK are the ones that chose to fly to YYZ and YUL.

It's not the govt of Canada that told them to start YUL. Therefore the government of Canada is not protecting YUL/YYZ, as they already serve those 2 cities. The govnt of Canada is protecting the Canadian market as a whole by limiting frequency between the two countries. Not just YYZ/YUL.

From my readings on this matter over on airliners, apparently TK has been granted 3 additional weekly frequencies to Canada. Let's see what they choose to do with those frequencies. All indications point to YVR service.

Lack of long haul frames is a reason they haven't announced the route yet.

Could also be they are waiting to relocate to the new IST airport before announcing service. Another reason for the delay might be that TK wants more frequencies, because their priority might be to increase YYZ to daily, all the while wanting to start at least 3x weekly service to YVR.

Thank you for that explanation. However, if they use up most of those extra frequencies to go YYZ daily, and still do YVR 3x weekly, wouldn't that necessitate a new bilateral?
And just how receptive is Ottawa to renegotiating a new bilateral? From past experience, it seems that they're very conservitative in allowing more frequencies (except in areas where there are open skies policies), and Turkey is outside any such area. // Also, if the limit is 9 per week, to protect the Canadian market, and given that AC dropped IST, couldn't TK pick up the frequencies AC dropped? This would allow YYZ daily and YVR 3x weekly, would it not, or am I wrong? Thanks.

[nname]

Some codeshare news:

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/a-2018-232

WS to codeshare with QF for Australia-Canada and Australia-USA flights.
QF to codeshare with WS for flights within Canada and Canada-USA flights.

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/a-2018-231

9W to codeshare with HX for Hong Kong-Canada flights.