Calgary International Airport II

[LO 044]

There are pros and cons with WS trying to fortify YYC. Calgary simply isn't big enough to handle a base airline plus other international airlines like YVR, YYZ and YUL. But with WS you at least have non-stop service or multiple options per day to places you would never have if YYC wasn't a hub for WS. Maybe you have double daily service (KL and WS) to AMS and then WS replaces KL from YVR and YEG I dunno.

One of the benefits I find with flying AC is that if my flight is delayed or cancelled they have multiple options and hubs for that matter to get me home. If you miss your AMS-YYC flight due to a late flight on KL you are covered by maybe flying to YEG or YVR and then connecting to YYC. I would imagine this would also keep any "business paying" customer happy as well. If something happens to the FCO-YYC or BCN-YYC flight then what? I suppose AF/KL will help you but it just seems more seamless with a true hub in AMS. I would liken this to AC's numerous flights out of FRA, LHR and MUC.

ace.yyc do you have any info on loads/peerformance/cargo loads on the FCO and BCN flights relative to say CDG and LGW/LHR?

[hollywoodcory]

WS doesn’t fly YYC-BCN (at least not yet). It’s currently severed from YYZ, but isn’t scheduled in S23 so far.

Presumably he's talking about YYZ-BCN. Not sure what the BCN loads are but I could probably figure it out. FCO pax load on a per flight basis is roughly the same as the London flights but it's only 3x weekly. The LGW and LHR flights went out both full the other night. Just outside of peak season. That's WS carrying 640 pax YYC-London on the same night. Cargo uplift varies a lot from week to week. Not really consistent for WS.

[msmariner]

Originally Posted by LO 044

There are pros and cons with WS trying to fortify YYC. Calgary simply isn't big enough to handle a base airline plus other international airlines like YVR, YYZ and YUL. But with WS you at least have non-stop service or multiple options per day to places you would never have if YYC wasn't a hub for WS. Maybe you have double daily service (KL and WS) to AMS and then WS replaces KL from YVR and YEG I dunno.

One of the benefits I find with flying AC is that if my flight is delayed or cancelled they have multiple options and hubs for that matter to get me home. If you miss your AMS-YYC flight due to a late flight on KL you are covered by maybe flying to YEG or YVR and then connecting to YYC. I would imagine this would also keep any "business paying" customer happy as well. If something happens to the FCO-YYC or BCN-YYC flight then what? I suppose AF/KL will help you but it just seems more seamless with a true hub in AMS. I would liken this to AC's numerous flights out of FRA, LHR and MUC.

ace.yyc do you have any info on loads/peerformance/cargo loads on the FCO and BCN flights relative to say CDG and LGW/LHR?

True WS couldn’t support YYC oops without its connecting passengers. But that’s true for many hub cities around the world. KLM couldn’t support there vast network with just Amsterdam population (smaller than calgary 1.1m Vs 1.4m). Emirates couldn’t support 100+ 380’s with just Dubai’s population (not that much more than calgary 2.2m v 1.4m). The whole basis of having fortress hubs is all about connecting flights and passengers. There is no reason YYC and WS can’t grow a world wide network (if they want too)

[casper]

Originally Posted by msmariner

True WS couldn’t support YYC oops without its connecting passengers. But that’s true for many hub cities around the world. KLM couldn’t support there vast network with just Amsterdam population (smaller than calgary 1.1m Vs 1.4m). Emirates couldn’t support 100+ 380’s with just Dubai’s population (not that much more than calgary 2.2m v 1.4m). The whole basis of having fortress hubs is all about connecting flights and passengers. There is no reason YYC and WS can’t grow a world wide network (if they want too)

Even within Canada, Air Canada depends heavily on traffic originating in the US to top up its flights to Europe.

Over the years I have traveled to many European cities on business. I have only ever flown into Rome or Barcelona to catch a cruise. I would assume consolidator fares from the cruise industry help with those flight.

There is a cruise travel related forum I look at from time to time. I am a fan of Norwegian (NCL), depending on the fare class you pick the cruise line will give you "free" flights, if you get one of those packages there is no choice the cruise line does the air booking. For years it has been common to see passengers from the US get booked on to AC through Toronto. This summer there have been a number of Americans posting about being booked onto WestJet with routing such as LAX to Rome or Barcelona through Toronto.

That type of traffic could just as easily route through Calgary. I have no idea how profitable these bulk tour rates are for WestJet. In the case of Norwegian their turn around ports are typically Rome, Barcelona, Lisbon, and Copenhagen. Sometimes Southampton (London).

[LO 044]

My mistake for some reason I though BCN was also from YYC. In any case, I just wonder how much more business traffic they could get on YYC-AMS vs YYZ-BCN.

As for the feed that AC gets from the US sure but they get the feed from ALL of the US and AC's fleet is much larger. WS would get 1/3 of the US without backtracking and it is the west part of the US with a much smaller population. On top of that, 7 787's doesn't scream hub airport for European destinations so yeah WS is using YYC as a super fortress but only for North America/sun destinations. Better than what we have at YEG for sure but i'm sure most of you were hoping for WS to make YYC a true international hub.

[casper]

Originally Posted by LO 044

My mistake for some reason I though BCN was also from YYC. In any case, I just wonder how much more business traffic they could get on YYC-AMS vs YYZ-BCN.

As for the feed that AC gets from the US sure but they get the feed from ALL of the US and AC's fleet is much larger. WS would get 1/3 of the US without backtracking and it is the west part of the US with a much smaller population. On top of that, 7 787's doesn't scream hub airport for European destinations so yeah WS is using YYC as a super fortress but only for North America/sun destinations. Better than what we have at YEG for sure but i'm sure most of you were hoping for WS to make YYC a true international hub.

I think Amsterdam is like Frankfurt from Calgary. There just is not a lot of business traffic. The value is providing onward connections with the European partner.

I think AirTransat use to serve Amsterdam from Calgary a few days a week from Calgary. They would not have had connecting traffic. So some O&D traffic.

I live in YYJ. I was not hopping for anything in particular. That said, most of my flights over the next two months involve a WestJet connection in Calgary.

As for YYC being a mega hub. The airport layout is not designed for that. They have to undergo some major renovations to accomplish that.

Originally Posted by casper

As for YYC being a mega hub. The airport layout is not designed for that. They have to undergo some major renovations to accomplish that.

This is objectively not true.

Like what? The airport is ITI capable, it's just not in use right now because it's not necessary. This airport sucks overall and there is more walking than necessary but the lack of major renovations are certainly not stopping anything from achieving the mostly irrelevant and subjective "mega hub" status.

[Johnny Aussie]

YYC is far from being a mega hub.
Westjet certainly has a significant hub at YYC though.
As for AC it’s really just a small hub only and has been stagnant/shrinking.
Both airlines’ longhaul intl ops are limited and most intl flying is US/Sun destination based.
It’s even stretching it to call YYZ a mega hub.

Yeah so what I mean to say it's the lack of actual traffic causing YYC to not be a bigger hub, and there is no evidence to support the notion that the airport layout has restricted traffic to any measurable degree.

[hehehe]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

YYC is far from being a mega hub.
Westjet certainly has a significant hub at YYC though.
As for AC it’s really just a small hub only and has been stagnant/shrinking.
Both airlines’ longhaul intl ops are limited and most intl flying is US/Sun destination based.
It’s even stretching it to call YYZ a mega hub.

Completely agreed.
I think Westjet's goal was always building up some seasonal Europe from YYC. Any sort of mega hub was never in the question and completely unrealistic. A couple of year round destinations+summer seasonal TATL is the most we can expect. Even in 2017 when WS first ordered the ten planes I don't think most people thought they were trying to build the next ATL or something.

Not completely related but I'm a little surprised that YYC and YVR will have the same level of European service this winter. I think YYC might even have slightly more?

[casper]

Originally Posted by ace.yyc

This is objectively not true.

Like what? The airport is ITI capable, it's just not in use right now because it's not necessary. This airport sucks overall and there is more walking than necessary but the lack of major renovations are certainly not stopping anything from achieving the mostly irrelevant and subjective "mega hub" status.

I don't know if they are going to go back to the ITI. Without ITI active it would be sub-par to every other major airport in Canada.

When ITI was active, there was quite a bit of congestion in international arrivals when you have more than one or two widebody aircrafts arriving at the same time time. As a connecting passenger it was hard to figure out where to go.

The main part of the A, B and C concourse are fine. That gate area between A and B is a mess. There is not enough seating, and if you need to pass through that area to get to a different gate it just fells congested.

When they were doing the ITI the whole wait are for the swing gates was congested.

Now that they are not doing ITI. If you arrive on a domestic flight coming into D gates it is confusing how to get back to A,B or C.

The Link golf carts are cute.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by LO 044

On top of that, 7 787's doesn't scream hub airport for European destinations so yeah WS is using YYC as a super fortress but only for North America/sun destinations. Better than what we have at YEG for sure but i'm sure most of you were hoping for WS to make YYC a true international hub.

I don't believe people really thought YYC was going to so easily join the likes of YYZ/YUL/YVR in terms of an international network and reach. If they did, they were dreaming.

Originally Posted by casper

As for YYC being a mega hub. The airport layout is not designed for that. They have to undergo some major renovations to accomplish that.

1. There is nothing wrong with the airport layout of YYC. Most hubs (where did you get megahub from I wonder?, no one used that term) have a main terminal building between a set of parallel runways. It is the ideal layout for an international hub in fact.

2. YYC will never be an international hub. It is a domestic powerhouse. It will always struggle to attract what YYZ/YUL/YVR can attract in terms of foreign carriers. Also, as WS has clearly shown, it will struggle to maintain service to anything more than a few key international destinations. This much is undeniable, especially now.

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

It’s even stretching it to call YYZ a mega hub.

No, it is not.

Canada has 3 megahubs, as defined by OAG, pre-pandemic, in 2019.

https://www.oag.com/oag-megahubs-2019

Originally Posted by casper

I don't know if they are going to go back to the ITI. Without ITI active it would be sub-par to every other major airport in Canada.

When ITI was active, there was quite a bit of congestion in international arrivals when you have more than one or two widebody aircrafts arriving at the same time time. As a connecting passenger it was hard to figure out where to go.

The main part of the A, B and C concourse are fine. That gate area between A and B is a mess. There is not enough seating, and if you need to pass through that area to get to a different gate it just fells congested.

When they were doing the ITI the whole wait are for the swing gates was congested.

Now that they are not doing ITI. If you arrive on a domestic flight coming into D gates it is confusing how to get back to A,B or C.

The Link golf carts are cute.

Lack of signage doesn't really constitute major renovations, and is not currently nor will not ever be what stops the airport from achieving anything. Your statements have no actual bearing on the topic at hand, though mostly true.

[casper]

Originally Posted by ace.yyc

Lack of signage doesn't really constitute major renovations, and is not currently nor will not ever be what stops the airport from achieving anything. Your statements have no actual bearing on the topic at hand, though mostly true.

I am mostly flying out of YYJ these day and mostly connecting in YYC or YVR.

I find YVR a more comfortable experience for WS connections. That is taking into account your usually guaranteed a long walk to make a Canada->US Connection.

YYC is a bit better for AC connections.

If YYC want to be successful as a hub, I am the type of passenger they need to go after.

[Zmonkey]

Originally Posted by casper

I think Amsterdam is like Frankfurt from Calgary. There just is not a lot of business traffic. The value is providing onward connections with the European partner.

I think AirTransat use to serve Amsterdam from Calgary a few days a week from Calgary. They would not have had connecting traffic. So some O&D traffic.

I live in YYJ. I was not hopping for anything in particular. That said, most of my flights over the next two months involve a WestJet connection in Calgary.

As for YYC being a mega hub. The airport layout is not designed for that. They have to undergo some major renovations to accomplish that.

YYC won't ever be a mega hub. But even Toronto isn't designed to be one.
No airport would ever build out two pre clearance USA zones again. Makes it much more complicated to connect.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Zmonkey

YYC won't ever be a mega hub. But even Toronto isn't designed to be one.
No airport would ever build out two pre clearance USA zones again. Makes it much more complicated to connect.

The concept of multiple terminal buildings just does not work in the Canadian context.

[YYCFlier]

A few comments:

Population is only one factor when it comes to a hub. Yes, a large O&D is very helpful for hubs, but there is also geography. Pre-pandemic, YYC had almost 18 million passengers (70% domestic) compared to 20 million for YUL, and YUL has almost 3x the population of YYC in terms of catchment. Over 50% of passengers at YYC are connecting. YYC punches way above its weight looking at population alone - YEG was about 9 million, YOW about 4-5 million and based on population alone, YYC, YEG and YOW are very close.

YOW is simply too close to YUL to grow much more. It's like YXU - a city with a metro close to half a million, almost double YQR or YXE sees way less traffic due to - geography. It's a 90 minute drive to YYZ give or take. Geography wins again.

YYC is probably stuck for international growth now. AC isn't going to grow, BA pulled out, and that leaves KL as the sole year round foreign carrier. Our best hope was WS, but that only works if they intend to be a full service carrier with a larger widebody fleet, trying to route from western NA via YYC. We will continue to see good Europe service in summer, AMS/LHR/FRA in winter, and nothing to Asia. Other than DEL and potentially NRT, Asia is a hard sell with YVR an hour away by air.

As someone who almost always travels on points, I despise having WS as a fortress hub carrier because I can only access their Y inventory via Delta (at good value mind you), and have to pay real money for PY or J.

I agree that based on recent events with WS, YYC's potential as an international hub is limited. If WS wanted to go all out and get 20-30 frames then I could see it, but they won't. Even under Sims they were notoriously timid and conservative with their network. The new CEO seems even MORE so.

Also: For those trying to prognosticate how well routes are doing due to load, this is never the right metric. It's yield - how much the airline is making. YYC-MEX had very high loads, but WS and AM both pulled it.

[thewave46]

YYC's best chance is waiting it out, mostly.

There's a lot of money sloshing around in airline euphoria. Capital is just throwing money at anything that potentially could stick. Mania ends eventually, and being the hub of the solidly backed, known, and financed second airline of Canada is an advantage not to be squandered, even if it does mean lulls in growth. YYC is about as good a connecting hub as can be for domestic east-west flows in Canada.

What I hope doesn't happen is that Westjet ends up squeezing out the other solid players. The AMS play looks a little like WS aiming for KLM.

Maybe when things cool down, 787 deliveries ramp up, and orders get a little more scarce, perhaps WS takes a swing a Dubai from YYC for onwards to that part of the world with nicely discounted 787s.

[YYCFlier]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Maybe when things cool down, 787 deliveries ramp up, and orders get a little more scarce, perhaps WS takes a swing a Dubai from YYC for onwards to that part of the world with nicely discounted 787s.

Except WS has essentially cancelled remaining 787 orders. So their fleet is 7 frames. See https://www.flightglobal.com/strategy/ho...westjet-back-to-its-roots/150173.article.

von Hoensbroech is basically saying "being a widebody operator isn't a strategic priority and we'll keep doing it as long as it makes us money." To me this puts the entire international expansion in doubt.