Calgary International Airport II - Page 393

Johnny Aussie · #**7841** Posted **Nov 26, 2018, 4:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by msmariner

I’m Ok with that. Somebody has too fly the passengers to Europe/Asia or beyond. If that means our existing carriers will be stronger that’s a plus. On top of that I could see WestJet expanding their route network to cover the gap. By then more Dreamliners will be arriving

If there is a profitable market for those routes in the winter I'm sure they'll go for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YYCFlier

Tried a dummy booking YYC-NRT on 2019/11/13. AC 009 is still there. Still likely seasonal, though. Will have to see if it survives end of month. Also still showing 767-300ER; there will be few of those left by then.

Pretty sure there will be no AC mainline 763s left by the Q4 2019. AC tends to remove the schedules first (just done this week) then they remove from the booking engine.

YYCFlier · #**7842** Posted **Nov 26, 2018, 5:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acey

Yeah at this point the focus of my concern is the frame that AC absolutely finds to operate NRT in S20. Could possibly the 330 which would be excellent.

There are 6 763s leaving the fleet to be replaced by 4 additional 333s and 2 more 789s.

I would say the 333s would be the favourite to replace the 763s in YYC... but wonder if they wouldn't try a 787-8 since it's a smaller frame.

YYCFlier · #**7843** Posted **Nov 27, 2018, 2:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acey

788 is tied up with AC's attempt to take over the world from YVR. Not sure they'll spare us the frames, hence many here thinking it will be 333.

Do you think we will see the 333 doing at least one turn a day YYC-YYZ and 2-3 turns in the winter like we do now with the 763? Or will we just get stuck with more 7M8s?

Cage · #**7844** Posted **Nov 27, 2018, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by YYCFlier

Do you think we will see the 333 doing at least one turn a day YYC-YYZ and 2-3 turns in the winter like we do now with the 763? Or will we just get stuck with more 7M8s?

Ac will/should keep at least one 333 turn per day, ideally to connect into the European departure bank at YYZ. This provides lie flat seats for Business Class pax.

YYCFlier · #**7845** Posted **Nov 27, 2018, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acey

Current overnight 763 probably becomes a 321, or both redeyes will run year-round.

In winter, AC is running up to three 763s - one red-eye and two mid-day (i.e. most popular times). Those are nice, I'd like to keep those mid-day widebodies.

hollywoodcory · #**7846** Posted **Nov 28, 2018, 2:02 AM**

YYC posted it's October stats:

Domestic - 1,048,156 (+ 5.9%)
Transborder - 273,814 (+ 5.4%)
International - 105,201 (+ 3.0%)
October Total - 1,427,171 (+ 5.6%)

2018 so far: 14,628,195 (+ 6.99%)

Year-end looking good for 17.2 million.

FormerWingTipper · #**7847** Posted **Nov 28, 2018, 2:45 PM**

AC has said many times the A330 is not the right airframe for them to fly across the Pacific. There is no A330 flying across the Pacific in AC's schedule anymore and has been like this for some time now.

I believe YYC-NRT will be a B787 or dropped altogether. It could rotate off a YVR-NRT, YYZ-NRT, YUL-NRT depending on what AC does with NRT/HND and hence no domestic widebody flying is required to support YYCNRT.
e.g.: YUL-NRT-YYC-NRT-YUL

IF (big IF) AC does an A330 YYC-NRT, it could very well be that AC introduces a YUL-YYC A330 since AC is growing YUL and the A330's are being based at YUL. I can see a morning YUL-YYC-NRT (not marketed as a thru flight) and then NRT-YYC-YUL. This feeds Atlantic Canada via YUL to YYC in the morning and then YYC to Europe via YUL in the afternoon.

e.g.:
YUL inwards or overnight
YUL 0800 YYC 1145
YYC 1330 NRT 1515
NRT 1645 YYC 1015
YYC 1145 YUL 1800
YUL onwards

The few YYZ-YYC-YYZ widebodies that are B767 right now can be any B787/B777 depending on how AC rotates them in and out of YYZ. Or YYCYYZ goes all narrowbody with the B737's coming on (you can always just add an extra roundtrip or two if you need more capacity).

If YYC and Alberta don't start an economic recovery soon then I would suggest AC would be very hesitant to grow YYC at all anyways and focus on their three hubs more. Domestic widebody flying to YYC could become a thing of the past.

YYCFlier · #**7848** Posted **Nov 28, 2018, 2:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acey

Loads do not suggest the midday flights will need to be replaced by a widebody.

Most days in winter AC runs two widebodies (767s) in the daytime slots (late morning early afternoon) in addition to the red eye, sometimes 4 turns.

YYCFlier · #**7849** Posted **Nov 28, 2018, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerWingTipper

If YYC and Alberta don't start an economic recovery soon then I would suggest AC would be very hesitant to grow YYC at all anyways and focus on their three hubs more. Domestic widebody flying to YYC could become a thing of the past.

Agreed this is possible. But remember AC still calls YYC a hub

YYCFlier · #**7850** Posted **Nov 28, 2018, 5:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acey

My point therefore remains; upon departure of the 763 I don't believe it to be necessary for some other widebody to replace all 4 of those turns, given the loads and the fact that all other widebodies have more seats than 763.

Agreed. But this is true of any domestic route. There's no need for widebodies YVR-YYZ/YVR-YUL either, but it is convenient for AC to reposition aircraft. AC might want to continue to offer signature service. Definitely would see a reduction but one widebody daily would be nice.

YYCFlier · #**7851** Posted **Nov 28, 2018, 6:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acey

The convenience of positioning widebodies to YVR does not apply to YYC, as our Europe frames turn on the Europe side and we have no other heavy int'l flying. Running AC156 year-round seems an infinitely more logical solution even without being able to see loads. They are clearly fine doing this, given that they added a 3rd redeye MAX turn instead of a summer widebody.

Right. My point is that NA travel doesn't require widebodies; in the Canadian domestic market you simply increase frequency and as you pointed out, the summer/winter differential is significant. It would be a business decision for another reason to use widebodies - notably positioning (which is why YYC-YYZ runs on a 763 for WS as they reposition), or a desire to keep Signature class service in YYC for those connecting to YYZ.

PPAR · #**7852** Posted **Nov 29, 2018, 2:41 AM**

Are multiple narrowbody 73M really cost equivalents of widebody options? What would the CASM be for the two strategies? I was under the impression that if you can fill the aircraft at reasonable yields, wide body is always more profitable. This was the core concept behind hub and spoke networks.

FormerWingTipper · #**7853** Posted **Nov 29, 2018, 2:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PPAR

Are multiple narrowbody 73M really cost equivalents of widebody options? What would the CASM be for the two strategies? I was under the impression that if you can fill the aircraft at reasonable yields, wide body is always more profitable. This was the core concept behind hub and spoke networks.

The bet is that there is an international route where the widebody can be deployed to that a narrowbody cannot. e.g.: Instead of two YYC-YYZ roundtrips on a B767, AC can fly YYZ-Europe/Africa/South America/etc. and make more money in total on the one roundtrip international leg than the two roundtrip domestic legs. The B737 can't do those routes. So by adding narrowbody frequency it frees up the larger aircraft to do the longer missions that may or may not work (e.g. YYC-NRT a few years ago - worth a try, right?).

FormerWingTipper · #**7854** Posted **Nov 29, 2018, 2:21 PM**

Sorry, what I am saying is, you can't compare 1 B767 flying 2 roundtrips daily vs 2 B737 flying 4 roundtrips daily. You are comparing the risk of flying 1 B767 two roundtrips daily domestically or experimenting with a new international B767 roundtrip and weighing the risk/reward costs of that.

wave46 · #**7855** Posted **Nov 29, 2018, 2:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PPAR

Are multiple narrowbody 73M really cost equivalents of widebody options? What would the CASM be for the two strategies? I was under the impression that if you can fill the aircraft at reasonable yields, wide body is always more profitable. This was the core concept behind hub and spoke networks.

Widebody aircraft are optimized for longer flights than their narrowbody counterparts. Thus, they have a lot more wing, fuel capacity and structure needed to accommodate this. That adds a fair amount of weight.

Think of it this way: a narrowbody aircraft has one aisle for 6 seats per row in economy. The aisle is necessary (obviously) but requires space on the aircraft that doesn't provide revenue. In Air Canada's Boeing 787s, there are 2 aisles for 9 seats per row in economy, resulting in 4.5 seats per aisle. Again, this is necessary given the logistics of loading and unloading.

Yes, on a widebody you have fewer pilots per passenger, but the costs of a pilot on a given flight are low relative to the costs of fuel. The number of cabin staff is regulated according to the number of passengers, so there's not much savings there.

Finally, a single widebody aircraft is usually more expensive than 2 of narrowbody counterpart. They're (usually) designed with fewer cycles in mind, as they were conceived as long-haul aircraft. So each cycle costs more.

So, unless there's a large fare premium for many passengers to fly at a given time, or there are restrictions at an airport (e.g. landing slots), Air Canada can run 2 Boeing 737-MAX8s (338 passengers) more cheaply (and profitably) than one 787-9 (298 passengers).

MalcolmTucker · #**7856** Posted **Nov 29, 2018, 4:11 PM**

With the wide body you pay 2 less pilots. You pay them more though. Also your FA in charge is probably paid more as they are supervising more people. Your turn time at the gate is probably more though.

Johnny Aussie · #**7857** Posted **Nov 29, 2018, 11:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acey

Hainan is now confirmed as completely pulling out.

Stand by for the day.

Edit: I'm hearing end of next summer season. I don't feel like they'll last that long. We'll know in a bit.

Surprised? No. I’ll be curious where Hainan utilises those 3 frequencies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acey

The elimination of the 763 is clearly resulting in a shift of strategy, to what degree remains to be seen. Yes AC has said this, AC since saying this has also launched routes from YVR that require the services of the 787, and have also said YYC-NRT is profitable.

The shift in AC’s strategy may slide YYC-NRT into the unprofitable category if there isn’t a frame that would continue to make that route profitable. They may just dump it altogether. AC’s Western Canada strategy becomes clearer and clearer with each schedule update.

The above two posts though reaffirm what I’ve been saying about YYC-Asia... there is a market of course but clearly it’s a struggle and will continue to be.

thebus · #**7858** Posted **Nov 30, 2018, 1:44 AM**

Wonder if they're going until whatever airport incentives run out.

Western Canada to Asia (China particularly) has been a bloodbath of low fares out of YVR. I'd imagine that makes it hard for Hainan to compete out of YYC, especially with less buying power in the Calgary market.

PPAR · #**7859** Posted **Nov 30, 2018, 3:58 AM**

Hainan is having some difficulties right now. They are highly indebted and apparently they just had mass resignations in the executive ranks this week.

Johnny Aussie · #**7860** Posted **Nov 30, 2018, 5:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PPAR

Hainan is having some difficulties right now. They are highly indebted and apparently they just had mass resignations in the executive ranks this week.

Yup. Here in MEL, another city along with SYD and YVR with a significant secondary Chinese city network, Hainan has just dropped Changsha in favour of Haikou. Just happened this week, one week you’re in, the next week you’re out!