YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[Alexcaban]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

I think the MAX is a big reason. Also with all waht is going on with China, probably a lot less people wanting to do business with them and them with us.

The MAX is not to blame, AC has had everything covered since April.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Alexcaban

The MAX is not to blame, AC has had everything covered since April.

"covered" also means reduction in service. There is just no last minute cancellation.

YVR-YYZ, YYC, YEG, YUL, YOW, LAX, SFO, HNL, OGG, ANC, BOS, LAS all received service reduction at some point of time on or after May, compared to the original schedule planned for S19.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by nname

"covered" also means reduction in service. There is just no last minute cancellation.

YVR-YYZ, YYC, YEG, YUL, YOW, LAX, SFO, HNL, OGG, ANC, BOS, LAS all received service reduction at some point of time on or after May, compared to the original schedule planned for S19.

I agree the Max grounding definitely having an effect.

Eg AC reduced YVR-LAS to one daily from two daily rouge. That reduces 136 daily departing seats from the market.

Look at the May results more closely and put it in perspective.

The May Transborder result is a reduction of only 90 departing passengers per day. Not taking anything else into account, that one reduction on YVR-LAS, which is a direct result of the grounding, removed more seats than the actual reduction in passengers carried.

Voila.

[zahav]

I wasn't expecting Domestic to grow much, the MAX effect was almost more with domestic since a lot of the aircraft changes/swaps affected domestic flights (YYC, YEG, YYZ, YUL all saw major modifications from the MAX grounding). Transborder is the one that surprised me, especially since it was holding up well and had a decent April. Maybe is just a blip

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by s211

I fly that tin can / cigar tube route and it's a dire slog to experience. AC ought to be ashamed flying that thing on that route.

LOL.

Why would they? They just pushed AA to drop YVR-ORD/PHX to seasonal, specifically because they serve both routes with the CRJ and AA won't or most likely can't. (regional scope clauses)

AA dropped both routes because they underperformed. The cost of operating a Jazz CRJ is much less than a mainline AA B738 or A319. This is why AC is consistently the lowest fare on YVR-ORD.

yes, they should be ashamed all right....

AC is laughing all the way to the bank with the CRJs on these mid-haul runs.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Terrible numbers for May, possibly the worst since I've been keeping track for several years now:

http://www.yvr.ca/-/media/yvr/documents/facts-sheets/2019/05-may/maytrafficupdate.pdf?la=en

Overall up 1.8% to 2,186,452
Domestic up 1.2% to 1,071,882
International up 2.4% to 1,114,570

International breakdown
Transborder down 1.1%
Asia Pacific up 7.8%
Europe up 3.1%
Misc intl down 1.6%

YTD overall up 2.8% to 10.3 million
YTD Domestic up 2.1% to 4.9 million
YTD Intl up 3.4% to 5.4 million

I am very surprised by some of these numbers, in particular:

- Paltry domestic growth: Given the strong economy in Vancouver right now this is very surprising
- Loss in transborder: This is even more surprising given the economy, tourism numbers, and record number of cruise ships this season
- Asia Pacific Gains: Another shocker, but to the good this time. With the drawdowns in Asia seats I expected a drop here. I guess loads must be improving big time.

Hopefully the rest of the summer is a bit better than this, however I don't expect it will be.

Asia pac if pretty impressive, all things considered.

The poor results in May are partly due to the Max and partly due to the fact that YVR's growth is slowing down since the end of last year. Simply comparing YVR numbers to that of YYZ, YUL or even YYC makes this fact crystal clear. Even the overall international numbers for North America's busiest that I post monthly on the Canada airport page illustrate this.

[thenoflyzone]

SQ to codeshare with Alaska Airlines from SEA to YVR/YYJ/YYC/YEG in September, when SQ begin their non stop SIN-SEA.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air...expands-codeshare-service-from-sep-2019/

SQ already codeshares with AC out of YVR to NRT/LAX/SFO/ICN.

[casper]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

SQ to codeshare with Alaska Airlines from SEA to YVR/YYJ/YYC/YEG in September, when SQ begin their non stop SIN-SEA.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air...expands-codeshare-service-from-sep-2019/

SQ already codeshares with AC out of YVR to NRT/LAX/SFO/ICN.

SQ and AC not playing nice! You don't say. But they are both in Star Alliance.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by casper

SQ and AC not playing nice! You don't say. But they are both in Star Alliance.

There's rumoured bad blood dating back to the days when SQ flew to Toronto and then suspended its flights after AC complained...

Being in the same alliance doesn't really matter. QF tried to launch an airline in Hong Kong to compete with CX, another OneWorld airline.

[osirisboy]

that's not bad blood. Makes it sound like they take it personally. That's just business. Unless the airlines are run by a bunch of teenage girls that hold on to grudges

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

that's not bad blood. Makes it sound like they take it personally. That's just business. Unless the airlines are run by a bunch of teenage girls that hold on to grudges

Replace “teenage girls” with “human beings” and that’s closer to the truth. You can search online yourself about AC/SQ and CX/QF tensions. Here’s an example of the discussions around QF/CX: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20426091#p20426091. Whether it’s more than imaginings by armchair aviation enthusiasts I couldn’t say.

[osirisboy]

Teenage girls is way more apt

[thenoflyzone]

In the 90s, SQ was in its third decade of operation, and was trying to do what EK/QR/TK are doing now. Trying to expand and become a global airline. There were objections along the way, and not just from Canada.

This article describes well what happened.

This one shows that other (regional) countries were having similar objections with SQ back in the 90s.

EK has been facing similar issues from the US3 and Canada in their 3rd and now 4th decade of operations.

They fly ATH-EWR, and rumor has it they want to launch DXB-Prague-US service. The results are going to be the same. If the route is launched, DL/UA/AA will cry foul and hope the government does something about it.

Fifth freedom flights will always attract the attention of the home carrier on either end. It's the name of the game. SQ shouldn't take it personally, and I'm sure they dont. Much of the execs in charge at SQ now were only infants back in the 90s. That stuff is history. With ULR planes and non stops SIN-YVR/YYZ more than doable today, if SQ wanted to serve either city, they could launch it tomorrow.

In reality, even if the Canadian government hadn't revoked SQ rights to fly SIN-AMS/VIE-YYZ, chances are those routes would have been terminated long ago anyways.

SIN-ICN-YVR was canceled in 2009 because it wasn't meeting expectations (the fact that the economy was tanking didn't help). YYZ would have suffered a similar fate.

[nname]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

SIN-ICN-YVR was canceled in 2009 because it wasn't meeting expectations (the fact that the economy was tanking didn't help). YYZ would have suffered a similar fate.

I remember it was SQ who wanted the ICN-YVR to go daily, but both Canada and Korea said no?

[casper]

Originally Posted by nname

I remember it was SQ who wanted the ICN-YVR to go daily, but both Canada and Korea said no?

I believe the Canadian perspective was your more than welcome to do SIN-YVR daily if you want to.

All said, it is interesting that they are code-sharing on Alaska but not on Air Canada for Seattle to Vancouver and Calgary.

[nname]

Seems like it's the time of the year when AF and TN applies for extra-bilateral service to operate service from Canada to Tahiti via US. However, I've noticed something new this year:

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/a-2019-131

Now for the first time in all the years I've checked, AF is specifically asking for the license to operate on Route 3.

Am I looking at it too much?

[YYCguys]

What’s “Route 3”?

[trofirhen]

Reading further into the document, it seems that they (AF) want to fly Canada - French Polynesia, via intermediate stops in the USA. Or am I wrong?

[vanlaw]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

What’s “Route 3”?

Looks like Route 3 is YVR-PPT

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/amc-gac/E3-1982-7.pdf

[YYCguys]

YVR -PPT would be fantastic! I’ve already been to PPT once via LAX on AF but if they will do it from YVR, I’d go back in a heartbeat!

[nname]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Reading further into the document, it seems that they (AF) want to fly Canada - French Polynesia, via intermediate stops in the USA. Or am I wrong?

That would be this one:

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/a-2019-132

Which AF had applied every year for at least the past 7 years. However, this is the first time I've seen they filed a separate application to operate "Route 3" though. Would it be different this year, or it's just the process changed?