Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport (YOW/CYOW) 1.0

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

There's a VIA station at Dorval already. I repeat: please list all current codeshares on VIA allowing seamless ticketing and travel on Mtl flights. I'll wait.

Airlines aren't going to codeshare with a service that is unreliable and poor frequency. That ends when VIA gets its own track and gets > 95% OTP.

Originally Posted by ac888yow

It already is that for a variety of reasons. There is no accessibility issue. Again, solution looking for a problem.

Your opinion. Might want to ask major employers why they won't just shut down their Montreal offices and relocate to Ottawa.

Originally Posted by ac888yow

We agree on the this and I already stated all of this. What we don't agree on is the "power" of a few more trains to propel this growth. It's potent kool aid. This isn't Europe nor Asia no matter how hard people dream of it being so.

The Quebec-Windsor corridor has population density that's on par with Spain or Southern France. So I am curious why what works there wouldn't work here. It's pretty normal to see upper middle class professionals take 150km commutes on rail there. I fail to see why Ottawa-Montreal could not be like that.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

The challenge is that a successful business model must provide something more - an added value - at which this idea fails miserably. There is no extra benefit for YOW passengers... No saving in cost, no saving in time, no added simplicity. Imagine this: you're flying back from Rome - you've been travelling all day and are tired - and instead of sitting in an airport lounge sipping on a beer as you wait for your YOW flight, you need to walk with your luggage across a large airport to reach your train to Ottawa, where upon your arrival, you still have to take a cab home or to a hotel... It makes no sense.

Posts like this really show how out of touch frequent fliers are with the regular public.

Here's reality for a lot of people (especially if not flying Star Alliance): bus or drive yourself back from YUL after that trip from Rome. And if bus, you will either be getting picked up or taking a cab after.

Being able just on a train, not have to worry about weather, and just get back to Ottawa after a long TATL/TPAC flight, would be nice. Even nicer, if there are more comfortable options than just Air Canada.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Airlines aren't going to codeshare with a service that is unreliable and poor frequency. That ends when VIA gets its own track and gets > 95% OTP.

If and then that ends all of the other nuisances with doing this still exist. So, there's that.

Your opinion.

Fact. Nobody has problems getting to/from Mtl.

Might want to ask major employers why they won't just shut down their Montreal offices and relocate to Ottawa.

This argument has to be a joke.

"Employers aren't shuttering operations in Mtl which means Ottawa has an accessibility problem that needs resolution by more frequent rail service. When in place employers will begin shuttering operations in Mtl and moving to Ottawa because accessibility problems will be solved"

I'm all for solid discussion but I can't come down there.

Incidentally, I now wonder how Costco overcame this accessibility crisis when it moved its HQ from Mtl to Ottawa years ago.

[Aylmer]

As a semi-regular transatlantic flyer, I would *love* codeshares on the Canadian side. Here in Benelux, it's not uncommon to find yourself on a local train "flight" to Brussels or a high speed Thalys to Paris. Of course, it's less convenient than a direct flight, but moreso than a flight connection;

- Stations are often located in the basement of the airport, so I just wheel my bags to the elevator and down to the platform. It's no worse than having to navigate the airport, especially when you consider than you often have to walk to the very end of the terminal for the short-haul flights.

- There are no weather delays. Trains run on time. I came dangerously close to missing the transatlantic leg of a YOW-YUL-LHR because of a thunderstorm. We were an hour on the tarmac due to lightning, then we flew a massive detour over Trois-Rivières to go around the storm just to land in time for it to hit Montreal and stay another 30-40 minutes on the tarmac there. None of that would happen with a train.

- I don't have to deal with any of the miseries of boarding a small flight (waiting in line, stuffing and retrieving my carry-on from the tiny comparments, waiting forever to get off the plane). I just wheel my bag onto the train, easily choose a seat, and quickly alight at my station.

- I never end up stranded at the airport waiting for my connection. During one MUC-YUL-YOW, the first leg got delayed, so I narrowly missed my YOW connection and had to wait fully 4 hours for the next one. When all was said and done, it effectively took me 5 hours to fly from Montreal to Ottawa. With a train codeshare, I'd have just waited 30-40 minutes for the next one.

Of course, nothing beats a direct flight. But the reality is that currently, direct flights from Ottawa are expensive and limited. I need to fly back to Europe in February and the best I can find from Ottawa is over $1000 whereas Montreal and Toronto can get me less than $500 roundtrip. There are few conveniences worth that much, and I'll likely end up making my own "codeshare" trip, taking VIA+UP to Toronto, or VIA+free shuttle to YUL. But that's because I know how they work and I'm aware of these options off hand. But someone travelling to Ottawa or wanting to organize a conference there might not, and might just see Ottawa as a prohibitively expensive and hard-to-get-to destination. Codeshares help to bring down costs, bring more options, and simplify travel for passengers.

In any event, I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't have codesharing.

[NOWINYOW]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Airlines aren't going to codeshare with a service that is unreliable and poor frequency. That ends when VIA gets its own track and gets > 95% OTP.
.

That's your opinion.

I'm trying to figure out what's "in it" for AC or WJ to codeshare on this supposed train service.
1. VIA is and would continue to be subsidized by taxpayers. Airlines are not.
2. For AC, a codeshare on a train to MTL could have unintended consequences. For example, a codeshare would provide validity to the train service, but there's little to no guarantee people will use the codeshare aspect but instead just book on another airline altogether. AC is supporting a service they get no benefit from in that regard.
3. While YUL is important to AC, YYZ is their crown jewel. People that might typically flight YOW-YYZ-🞵🞵🞵 might instead opt for train service to YUL (again, no guarantee they'll fly AC once there). What impact might that have on getting "Ottawa bums'" in the seats of YYZ-🞵🞵🞵 flights? How might that affect their hourly YYZ-YOW-YYZ flights? Gran & Grandad flying once a year might not worry about frequency. Those that fly multiple times per week do care.
4.WJ? What benefit is there at all? I don't believe WJ flies YOW-YUL, so why encourage people to train to YUL, then fly WJ from there? That will only reduce YOW-YYZ flying, meaning less frequency, meaning AC gains dominance at YOW.

The only airlines I could see benefiting from code-sharing with VIA on YUL-YOW are foreign, non Star Alliance airlines that don't already fly into YOW.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

That's your opinion.

Based on reams of experience from elsewhere. But somehow "it's different here" to people who think Ottawa and Canada are at the peak of sound transport policy apparently.

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

I'm trying to figure out what's "in it" for AC or WJ to codeshare on this supposed train service.

Cost first off.. Far cheaper than staffing two pilots plus cabin crew for a puddle jumper and using up airline slots at hubs. In an era of pilot shortages, airlines are doing everything they can to move up average sizes without hurting business.

Slots next. AC would absolutely to stop wasting a dozen slots a day at Pearson on service to Ottawa. If given the chance, they would move every pax to high speed rail rail tomorrow, if they could, and use all those slots on international flights. Pearson's building a mobility hub with provision for intercity rail for exactly this reason. They want to move shorter regional flights to rail.

Westjet and Porter as domestic carriers may be less inclined to shift traffic to rail. But if it comes to pass, they will have to adjust.

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

1. VIA is and would continue to be subsidized by taxpayers. Airlines are not.

We make policy for the benefit of Canadians. Not the airlines. And something really missing in this debate, is carbon emissions. Aviation is particularly bad. Moving short-haul flying to rail is one of the "easy" wins so to speak.

Also to be noted, VIA has been pretty specific that a huge part of the motivation for HFR is that it would be profitable. They wouldn't need subsidies anymore. Every previous study on high speed rail between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal has said the same thing.

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

2. For AC, a codeshare on a train to MTL could have unintended consequences. For example, a codeshare would provide validity to the train service, but there's little to no guarantee people will use the codeshare aspect but instead just book on another airline altogether. AC is supporting a service they get no benefit from in that regard.

AC isn't driving rail policy. Whether AC supports this or not is all but irrelevant if the government decides to push forward. Once, it is in place, AC can choose to either work with the service or compete with it.

I suspect they'll split the difference, with fewer flights and rail codeshare where appropriate.

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

3. While YUL is important to AC, YYZ is their crown jewel. People that might typically flight YOW-YYZ-🞵🞵🞵 might instead opt for train service to YUL (again, no guarantee they'll fly AC once there). What impact might that have on getting "Ottawa bums'" in the seats of YYZ-🞵🞵🞵 flights? How might that affect their hourly YYZ-YOW-YYZ flights? Gran & Grandad flying once a year might not worry about frequency. Those that fly multiple times per week do care.

If VIA pulls off ≤ 3hr travel time between Toronto and Ottawa, for the prices they suggest they can, you'll see a lot of people who fly "multiple times per week" ditch air service altogether. Is 100% more in travel cost worth the 1-1.5 hrs saved for downtown-to-downtown travel? Especially when you can actually work on the train? I suspect, quite a few people will say "not really".

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

4.WJ? What benefit is there at all? I don't believe WJ flies YOW-YUL, so why encourage people to train to YUL, then fly WJ from there? That will only reduce YOW-YYZ flying, meaning less frequency, meaning AC gains dominance at YOW.

Ummm, reduced YOW-YYZ, wouldn't help AC's dominance at YOW. WJ could actually use the rail service to bolster a possible hub at YOW or YUL. I would argue that WJ could actually do well with a YOW hub.

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

The only airlines I could see benefiting from code-sharing with VIA on YUL-YOW are foreign, non Star Alliance airlines that don't already fly into YOW.

Again, we don't build infrastructure solely on the consideration of airlines. We build all infrastructure for the benefits of citizens and taxpayers who fund said infrastructure.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We make policy for the benefit of Canadians. Not the airlines. And something really missing in this debate, is carbon emissions. Aviation is particularly bad. Moving short-haul flying to rail is one of the "easy" wins so to speak.

Exactly. Even if every airline that flies into YUL entered into a code share agreement with VIA for service to Ottawa, most of VIA's customers would be using the service for origin to destination transportation. The connections at YUL (and possibly YYZ) would be a bonus.

As for carbon emissions, I will quite this article:

As a rule, taking the train instead of the plane will substantially reduce your carbon emissions – perhaps by a factor of five to ten on a domestic trip. The benefits will be somewhat reduced as the journey gets longer.

It is written for the UK, but should be somewhat transferable to Canada. For short distances, flying is particularly bad for the environment compared to other modes of travel.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As for carbon emissions, I will quote this article....

It is written for the UK, but should be somewhat transferable to Canada. For short distances, flying is particularly bad for the environment compared to other modes of travel.

It's not like we haven't known about rail being more efficient for a long time. Ultimately, rail has to be part of the solution in Canada if we have to cut emissions.

Here's the Sankey diagram for carbon in Canada:

http://www.cesarnet.ca/sites/default/files/blog260617-fig1.jpg

Unless we are willing to decimate our energy sector overnight, the next biggest chunk of emissions is transport. If the government is even the least bit sincere, electrification of transport, shift to rail for short-haul, and more public transport have to be part of the solution. And quite frankly are inevitable if carbon taxes stay in place.

Domestic aviation will struggle more and more every year. The first big hit comes when carbon taxes move to $50 per tonne in 2022 and keep going up from there. Imagine $100 per tonne in 2030. Airlines will shift to fewer frequencies, larger airplanes and fewer domestic destinations to cope. International service has less carbon taxes. So it's more profitable. Meanwhile investment in rail will look more and more attractive to large infrastructure investors (like the pension funds). And this is exactly why Pearson is going ahead with their mobility hub and specifically citing European hubs:

Valuable landing slots at Toronto Pearson are currently utilized to service Southern Ontario destinations with smaller planes. The opportunity cost is significant when one considers that direct international flights from Toronto Pearson equate to $10 billion in GDP.

Their replacement by high-quality transit service would free that capacity for higher-value international flights. By way of example, many connections from Frankfurt Airport to significant cities like Cologne are made by train, with the cost of the train ride included in the airfare.

https://www.torontopearson.com/uploadedF...onal_Growth/PearsonConnects_20160225.pdf

I expect, eventually we'll see similar development at YUL.

ps. Cologne to Frankfurt is about as far as Ottawa to Montreal.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Exactly. Even if every airline that flies into YUL entered into a code share agreement with VIA for service to Ottawa, most of VIA's customers would be using the service for origin to destination transportation. The connections at YUL (and possibly YYZ) would be a bonus.

Connections at YUL are a red herring in the sense that they aren't central to the case of building HFR. But they definitely will add to the business case if airlines are willing to codeshare.

When it comes to the discussion at hand, the reason to discuss HFR here is because it could have substantial impact on YOW. The airport should be considering how to reposition itself in the event that HFR is a go.

[Dominion301]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Slots next. AC would absolutely to stop wasting a dozen slots a day at Pearson on service to Ottawa. If given the chance, they would move every pax to high speed rail rail tomorrow, if they could, and use all those slots on international flights. Pearson's building a mobility hub with provision for intercity rail for exactly this reason. They want to move shorter regional flights to rail.

I don't think AC would love to give up their highly profitable, high-yielding Rapidair services to subsidized HSR. I've never ever heard AC refer to Rapidair as 'wasting slots'.

YOW-YYZ (and YUL-YYZ for that matter) is more than just connections. YOW/YUL-YYZ/YTZ O&D traffic is at least 3 million pax a year (that's about 30 O&D pax on average per flight), many of whom are of the extremely lucrative walk-up biz pax type.

YYZ's rail hub will be for commuter GO Trains to the likes of Guelph, Kitchener, Hamilton, etc.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dominion301

I don't think AC would love to give up their highly profitable, high-yielding Rapidair services to subsidized HSR. I've never ever heard AC refer to Rapidair as 'wasting slots'.

YOW-YYZ (and YUL-YYZ for that matter) is more than just connections. YOW/YUL-YYZ/YTZ O&D traffic is at least 3 million pax a year (that's about 30 O&D pax on average per flight), many of whom are of the extremely lucrative walk-up biz pax type.

Numbers don't equate to yield. Southern Ontario and Quebec is also the most competitive aviation market thanks to Porter. Hence, why AC is so focused on growing their international hub at YYZ.

But again, this is a red herring. AC's support/or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant to whether HFR will or will not happen. If you care about YOW, you should be asking what should YOW be doing and how should it be positioning itself if HFR happens.

Originally Posted by Dominion301

YYZ's rail hub will be for commuter GO Trains to the likes of Guelph, Kitchener, Hamilton, etc.

I quoted GTAA specifically citing HSR as a feeder into Frankfurt, from Cologne. As one among many factors (with local transit being the major driver).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Dominion301

I don't think AC would love to give up their highly profitable, high-yielding Rapidair services to subsidized HSR. I've never ever heard AC refer to Rapidair as 'wasting slots'.

AC don't own the spots, they lease them from the airport. As a result, they have a different perspective on the situation than the airport authority, who want to maximize their return on investment. Right now the puddle jumpers as they provide valuable connections to the big birds, where the big money is for the airport. If rail can provide those connections instead, they can replace the puddle jumpers with more big birds, increasing profit for the airport.

YOW-YYZ (and YUL-YYZ for that matter) is more than just connections. YOW/YUL-YYZ/YTZ O&D traffic is at least 3 million pax a year (that's about 30 O&D pax on average per flight), many of whom are of the extremely lucrative walk-up biz pax type.

Agreed and HFR could certainly take a bite out of the O&D traffic to Toronto from Ottawa and Montreal. Even if it takes a bit longer, it is much more comfortable and your time is much more productive (fewer lineups, cell phone can be on the entire time, free WiFi, and no need to stow your laptop for takeoff and landing).

As said before, today the service is too infrequent, unreliable and slow to be a major contender. Dedicated tracks will change this.

YYZ's rail hub will be for commuter GO Trains to Kitchener or Hamilton/Niagara.

I agree that the primary focus for the rail hub will be cities within about 300km of the YYZ, as flights in that range don't make a lot of sense (so you could add London, Peterborough and Kingston to your list). Ottawa and Montreal are a stretch for rail connections to YYZ with HFR for many, and those flying AC or WS will likely continue to take an air connection in the near future. We may see a gradual shift over the long run though, as the cost of operating flights under 600km grows.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I quoted GTAA specifically citing HSR as a feeder into Frankfurt, from Cologne. As one among many factors (with local transit being the major driver).

To be fair, that is HSR, not HFR (which is equivalent to European Intercity (IC) trains). Now HFR could eventually be used as a stepping stone to HSR, but that is a long way off. We need to take one step at a time. One thing I like about the HFR plan is that it isn't putting the cart before the horse. Lets focus on improving frequency and reliability with some baby steps on decreasing travel time with dedicated tracks (one of the requirements for HSR anyway).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

To be fair, that is HSR, not HFR (which is equivalent to European Intercity (IC) trains). Now HFR could eventually be used as a stepping stone to HSR, but that is a long way off. We need to take one step at a time. One thing I like about the HFR plan is that it isn't putting the cart before the horse. Lets focus on improving frequency and reliability with some baby steps on decreasing travel time with dedicated tracks (one of the requirements for HSR anyway).

If HFR happens, the distinction in this particular case is almost irrelevant. Trains can be run through Union with service or even a terminus at Pearson. And you can be that's exactly what they will do. It's simply a continuation down the Kitchener line. Adds 20-25 min to the trip to get to Pearson.

[JCL]

There is a Boeing 777-300 on Air Canada's flights 464 and 467 tonight, registration C-FIUW:

- ACA464: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CFIUW/history/20181128/0020Z/CYYZ/CYOW
- ACA467: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CFIUW/history/20181128/0205Z/CYOW/CYYZ

Both flights are running late. As I type this post (10:15pm), it looks like ACA464 is currently taxiing for departure.

[Dominion301]

This 735 is due in to YOW this afternoon at 1220:



I'm guessing it's the San José Sharks charter. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/KAI525/history/20181129/1630Z/CYYZ/CYOW

Also, I noticed AC460 is upguaged to a 320 from an E90 today and tomorrow and there's an extra Rapidair tomorrow AC492 arriving at 1831, also a 320 for at least the next couple of Fridays.

[MountainView]

Something to perhaps look forward to (although it could just be a place holder)

But according to the AC online booking schedule, they are planning 4x daily to YVR in the summer (AC 338/342/344/346 & 341/343/345/347). Dummy bookings in July show a red-eye YVR-YOW and a 20:00 YOW-YVR as something new to me. Looks to be all A320s as of now, but I am digging the capacity increase. (can't route everyone through YYZ!)

I can only find 2x YYC (no red eye) and 2x YEG (1 red-eye) as of now.

Was YYC 3x last year? I believe it was?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by MountainView

Something to perhaps look forward to (although it could just be a place holder)

But according to the AC online booking schedule, they are planning 4x daily to YVR in the summer (AC 338/342/344/346 & 341/343/345/347). Dummy bookings in July show a red-eye YVR-YOW and a 20:00 YOW-YVR as something new to me. Looks to be all A320s as of now, but I am digging the capacity increase. (can't route everyone through YYZ!)

That’s great news!

I can only find 2x YYC (no red eye) and 2x YEG (1 red-eye) as of now.

I would rather save YYC to WS to allow better connections to YXX et.al.

[Dominion301]

Originally Posted by MountainView

Something to perhaps look forward to (although it could just be a place holder)

But according to the AC online booking schedule, they are planning 4x daily to YVR in the summer (AC 338/342/344/346 & 341/343/345/347). Dummy bookings in July show a red-eye YVR-YOW and a 20:00 YOW-YVR as something new to me. Looks to be all A320s as of now, but I am digging the capacity increase. (can't route everyone through YYZ!)

I can only find 2x YYC (no red eye) and 2x YEG (1 red-eye) as of now.

Was YYC 3x last year? I believe it was?

YOW-YVR hasn't been 4x in years. Hopefully that'll also mean 3x in winter next year.

Does anyone remember whether YOW-YYC was 3x 319 this past summer or 3x E90 or a mixture of the two? I see for the 2x you referenced it's currently showing as 1x 319 and 1x 320. There hasn't been a 320 on YOW-YYC in ages. However the current combo vs even vs 3x E90 is still a 25 seat/day capacity cut. At this point it looks like AC are simply moving one YOW-YYC to YVR.

I did notice YOW-YQB appears to be remaining at 2x DH1 in summer 2019. For the past few summers it's been at 1x only.

Evidently the summer 2019 schedule is still in its early stages at this point.

[Dominion301]

AC352 YYC-YOW had a bird strike incident back on Nov. 5th: http://avherald.com/h?article=4c0a9c9e&opt=0

[RomanR27]

Originally Posted by Dominion301

YOW-YVR hasn't been 4x in years. Hopefully that'll also mean 3x in winter next year.

Does anyone remember whether YOW-YYC was 3x 319 this past summer or 3x E90 or a mixture of the two? I see for the 2x you referenced it's currently showing as 1x 319 and 1x 320. There hasn't been a 320 on YOW-YYC in ages. However the current combo vs even vs 3x E90 is still a 25 seat/day capacity cut. At this point it looks like AC are simply moving one YOW-YYC to YVR.

I did notice YOW-YQB appears to be remaining at 2x DH1 in summer 2019. For the past few summers it's been at 1x only.

Evidently the summer 2019 schedule is still in its early stages at this point.

I think it was 3x 319 on YYC last summer. Actually I flew on a 320 to YYC in 2015, the morning flight was that for a couple of weeks in July.