HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #281  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2024, 7:23 PM
thenoflyzone thenoflyzone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 3,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
I'm struggling what AC's overall strategy these days. Is it a lack of metal and/or qualified pilots? Their downscaling in Western Canada is not helpful. I can only imagine what their shareholders must think these days, with how the stock has underperformed the last several quarters.
Air Canada's stock has not performed well recently, but it's still considered a good buy by analysts.

As for the strategy, it seems pretty clear to me. What's not to understand?

Revenues/earnings have grown. Q3 2023, they hit a 22% margin, that's one of the best in the world. Clearly the strategy isn't the problem.

International demand remains strong. They are allocating their limited resources to where they think they will maximise profit. Part of the reason why the stock prices have fallen is because earnings are forecast to decline in the next couple of years. There is not much AC can do about that.

AC is doing OK. I'm more worried about TS and PD, quite frankly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
Well I think the frame and pilot shortage are real, can't fault them on that one. Their market performance on the other hand....

What I certainly don't understand is why then insist on cramming as many flights as they can into two capacity constrained airports, leading to major operation meltdowns and terrible press, all while more or less completely ignoring the second biggest airport in the country.

I get the impression Rousseau has never been west of Mississauga.
International demand is strong. They're allocating capacity to the 2 largest international markets in the country: Toronto and Montreal. This being said, they've added important markets from YVR as well (SIN, DXB, etc). YVR-MEL will probably be announced shortly. So they haven't "completely ignored" YVR.

As for lack of European flights by AC specifically, I think the major culprit on that front lies ~700km east of Vancouver.

The XLRs and 787-10 start arriving by the end of next year. I think 2026 is where AC can really start flexing its muscles out west, so to speak. This is assuming market conditions warrant it, of course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #282  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2024, 10:42 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 12,695
Oh yay, measly seasonal service to Dubai and 4x PW to Singapore. Stop the presses.

Also, they had a 10% profit margin on the year ended 2023, not 20%, probably explains why the stock is still worth the same amount it was in the middle of covid lockdowns. Meanwhile the S&P has nearly doubled...

If ACs major lack of flights out of YVR is because of a small city with limited O&D hubbed by an airline that has 8 dreamliners I think you are making my point more than you mean to. AC doesn't give a damn about YVR, it wont even defend its "own turf".

Meanwhile AC is dumping all its resources into two maxed out hubs 300 miles apart and completely ignoring the rest of the country, which is insane considering the three fastest growing major cities by growth rate in Canada last year were Calgary, Vancouver and Edmonton in that order. Rousseau probably couldn't even find YVR on a map.

No wonder their stock is languishing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #283  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2024, 11:06 PM
mcj mcj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: New West
Posts: 635
Sounds like an opportunity for competitors to step in... If there were any that could (Looking at you Air Transat)

Euro Airlines that service YYZ but not YVR:
Aer Lingus
Azores Airlines
ITA
LOT
Neos
Swiss (although YVR has Edelweiss)
TAP
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #284  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2024, 12:09 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcj View Post
Sounds like an opportunity for competitors to step in... If there were any that could (Looking at you Air Transat)

Euro Airlines that service YYZ but not YVR:
Aer Lingus
Azores Airlines
ITA
LOT
Neos
Swiss (although YVR has Edelweiss)
TAP
isn't the lack because of regulations though? airlines can only fly to a certain number of airports in Canada?
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #285  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2024, 1:02 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,689
Well AC's strategy is clearly Pacific from YVR and Europe from YYZ/YUL. I'd be surprised if we get any new route to Europe from AC before we got MEL/TPE back, or new route to SGN/MNL... Maybe we'll get something from the JV with LH similar to year-round MUC and daily ZRH. Oh by the way, through JV, AC increased its offering of direct YVR-ZRH from 4x weekly during the peak summer only, to daily through almost the entire S25 season. So AC did increase service even without using their own metal

WS dumping European seats from YYC aren't helping either. The only way WS is able to fill the plane is by drawing passengers in BC and west coast US - the same catchment area as a theoretical AC route from YVR. So why would AC want to add route from YVR when they could've add it from YYZ/YUL and draw passengers from the entire North America?

As for dumping... I see many people complain about Flair dumping cheap seat and is "unfair" to the competition.. what about WS dumping round-trip YYC-CDG for $12 base fare (or about $400 if you count "Other ATC" as base fare)? So far, AC had been largely ignoring Flair - only WS was actively trying to push them out... so I'd expect they'll do the same to WS at YYC, or just pull out completely as they almost did. Trying to undercut each other to fill a plane is definitely not a way to maximize the revenue for any airline, when they can just move it elsewhere where it's more profitable.

AC probably think the Pacific hub from YVR is safe because WS is focusing on Europe and doesn't have nearly enough plane to make an impact on the Pacific, plus that YVR have a geographical and demographic advantage compared to YYC.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
isn't the lack because of regulations though? airlines can only fly to a certain number of airports in Canada?
Canada is open skies with EU countries, there is no limit for route and capacity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #286  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2024, 6:53 AM
thenoflyzone thenoflyzone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 3,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
Oh yay, measly seasonal service to Dubai and 4x PW to Singapore. Stop the presses.

Also, they had a 10% profit margin on the year ended 2023, not 20%, probably explains why the stock is still worth the same amount it was in the middle of covid lockdowns. Meanwhile the S&P has nearly doubled...
I did specify Q3 margins. It was 22%. Besides, a 10% profit margin average at the end of the year is nothing to scoff at either. That's considered very good in the airline business.

Of course the S&P is going to go up. It's all mostly tech companies. Airlines aren't on S&P and they aren't trending the same way in general, as tech companies are. Most airline companies haven't yet matched their pre-covid stock prices. WN and AS surpassed their pre-COVID prices in 2021, but they've been dropping since. Delta isn't doing bad now and comes close to 2020 prices, but no cigar just yet.

AA stock price is bad. LH is doing bad as well. UA is doing ok, but nowhere near 2020. IAG stock is stagnant, and nowhere near 2020 levels as well, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
If ACs major lack of flights out of YVR is because of a small city with limited O&D hubbed by an airline that has 8 dreamliners I think you are making my point more than you mean to. AC doesn't give a damn about YVR, it wont even defend its "own turf".
Like it or not, those 8 dreamliners at YYC are part of the reason why AC isn't looking eastward too much out of YVR. But they most certainly do give a damn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
Meanwhile AC is dumping all its resources into two maxed out hubs 300 miles apart and completely ignoring the rest of the country, which is insane considering the three fastest growing major cities by growth rate in Canada last year were Calgary, Vancouver and Edmonton in that order. Rousseau probably couldn't even find YVR on a map.

No wonder their stock is languishing.
Like I said, YYZ and YUL, the two largest international markets in Canada, are well placed for AC to use, especially to Europe, and especially to draw 6th freedom traffic from the US.

Besides, are you saying if AC added more long haul out of YVR, YEG and YYC, stock prices would magically go up? Come on Lefty !

AC stock is undervalued, and is a strong buy by analysts. That, and AC's strong results last year tells me their strategy is working and is not to blame for their weak stock price.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #287  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2024, 2:26 AM
trofirhen trofirhen is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,871
If Air Canada will not initiate more European destinations out of YVR, is it possible to convince more European airlines to come here? // I am sure there is a dynamic behind all this, and I'd love to know what it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #288  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2024, 7:15 AM
thenoflyzone thenoflyzone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 3,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by trofirhen View Post
If Air Canada will not initiate more European destinations out of YVR, is it possible to convince more European airlines to come here? // I am sure there is a dynamic behind all this, and I'd love to know what it is.
There are a lot of dynamics. We already know a bunch of them. Keep reading...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcj View Post
Sounds like an opportunity for competitors to step in... If there were any that could (Looking at you Air Transat)

Euro Airlines that service YYZ but not YVR:
Aer Lingus
Azores Airlines
ITA
LOT
Neos
Swiss (although YVR has Edelweiss)
TAP
You can eliminate TS, Neos and Azores from that list right off the bat.

TS is losing money and have been for quite a number of years now. I doubt opening a summer seasonal YVR base is top priority right now.

Azores Airlines got rid of their widebodies in 2018, and they only have a very limited fleet of A321LRs, which can't reach YVR non stop from PDL or LIS. They did fly 1 stop to OAK with the A310s in the past. I doubt a similar scenario is on their mind to YVR.

Neos: Limited fleet of widebodies. Only 6. You won't see them anywhere else in Canada besides YYZ.

Those were the definite no's. There are a few unlikely's as well.

Aer Lingus: AC already serves YVR-DUB + WS draws a good amount of YVR traffic for their YYC-DUB. Ireland is a very seasonal market, so not much room left for EI. Also, their A330s are too big for YVR, and the A321LRs can't reach YVR. The route would need the A321XLR. They are supposed to start getting delivery of the A321XLRs this year. Rumor had it they were the first airline to get the XLR (officially it was MEA when the A321XLR was launched), but with EI pilots threatening to strike, i think EI won't be the first.

Swiss: As you said, Edelweiss is on the route, and they're a sister company. Where one goes, the other usually doesn't follow. The only possibility for LX to start YVR is for a switch to happen. They did switch last summer, but it was due to lack of frames at Edelweiss.

LOT: I think you'll see them at YUL before you see them at YVR.

Now for the maybe's:

TAP: It must be an A330 flying it. The A321LR can't operate the route. I don't believe TAP have ordered the XLR, and even if they did, it also will struggle to make it to YVR. It's a bit too tight. This being said, they could have started the route by now if they truly wanted to fly to YVR. Nothing is stopping them. LIS is capacity constrained though.

ITA: This one is a strong possibility. ITA will leave Skyteam and join Star Alliance, due to LH acquiring a significant share in the airline. It could definitely happen. Let's see.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #289  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2024, 8:42 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,689
I remember EI was looking at second route to Canada. Was that YUL or YVR?

Others I can think of:
LEVEL could start YVR-BCN if they ever want to start operating to Canada and don't want to compete at YYC/YUL/YYZ as there are plenty of seats for those market.

Maybe OS to start YVR-VIE as JV with AC, since YYZ and YUL are already covered with the JV, so the next on the list would be YVR. Also from YVR, the major LH hubs at FRA, MUC, and ZRH already served at least daily in the summer, and VIE would be the next one on the list.

===========================

Speaking of AC, some route change today

YVR-CUN will run 2x daily 7M8 in W24, instead of 1x 788. The route was upgauged to 789 last winter after cancellation of YYC-CUN.

AC932 YVR 0810 - 1715 CUN 7M8 D
AC1316 YVR 2205 - 0710+1 CUN 7M8 D

AC1317 CUN 0815 - 1155 YVR 7M8 D
AC933 CUN 1820 - 2200 YVR 7M8 D

So next winter, there will be 7 flights to CUN on some days of the week (3x WS, 2x AC, 1x F8, 1x WG). This must be a new record, right?

Last edited by nname; Jun 14, 2024 at 8:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #290  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2024, 11:30 AM
trofirhen trofirhen is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,871
Good that these possibilities are even being discussed seriously ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoflyzone View Post
There are a lot of dynamics. We already know a bunch of them. Keep reading... /// edited out by trofirhen...

Now for the maybe's:

TAP: It must be an A330 flying it. The A321LR can't operate the route. I don't believe TAP have ordered the XLR, and even if they did, it also will struggle to make it to YVR. It's a bit too tight. This being said, they could have started the route by now if they truly wanted to fly to YVR. Nothing is stopping them. LIS is capacity constrained though.

ITA: This one is a strong possibility. ITA will leave Skyteam and join Star Alliance, due to LH acquiring a significant share in the airline. It could definitely happen. Let's see.
Thank you for the informative feedback. It would be great to have TAP at YVR. If they get sufficiently large planes with long range, they could make it, but what is that YVR><LIS city market based? Tourism? Is there sufficient O&D to satisfy the criterion of Transport Canada on that? Would there be sufficient demand? And from what sector? Would it be seasonal?

Now, Rome is a destination I would really be excited about getting. Other than Istanbul to the east, all the Euro destinations from YVR are in Britain, or NW Europe if you include AMS, CDG, KEF, MUC, ZRH, and FRA. Rome would break through that barrier and give us access to Italy and Southern Europe for the first time. If it could be made to go year-round, fantastic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #291  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2024, 3:24 PM
Zmonkey Zmonkey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
isn't the lack because of regulations though? airlines can only fly to a certain number of airports in Canada?
Nope. EU is fully unrestricted in Canada. Can fly anywhere and with how many frequencies they want.

Air Canada just wants to use its partner LH from YVR. Air Canada shares revenue with them into Europe so they facilitate that partnership.

Toronto and Montreal Europe operations get a benefit of being able to connect Americans to the Europe (and vice versa). The Midwest has 70 Million people for example, and most cities are connected to Toronto, Montreal or both, most of those cities outside of the hubs have limited connections to Europe so AC has access to more people in that one region than all of Canada. There are certain flights that have more EU/Americans than Canadians from Toronto. That is why Toronto gets so much these days.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #292  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2024, 7:07 PM
teriyaki teriyaki is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by trofirhen View Post
Thank you for the informative feedback. It would be great to have TAP at YVR. If they get sufficiently large planes with long range, they could make it, but what is that YVR><LIS city market based? Tourism? Is there sufficient O&D to satisfy the criterion of Transport Canada on that? Would there be sufficient demand? And from what sector? Would it be seasonal?

Now, Rome is a destination I would really be excited about getting. Other than Istanbul to the east, all the Euro destinations from YVR are in Britain, or NW Europe if you include AMS, CDG, KEF, MUC, ZRH, and FRA. Rome would break through that barrier and give us access to Italy and Southern Europe for the first time. If it could be made to go year-round, fantastic.
I swear I remember in the crevice of my mind being bombarded with ads at some point before about a Vancouver-Rome direct flight. Maybe about 10 years ago? Not sure what carrier, likely Air Transat?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #293  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2024, 7:12 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by teriyaki View Post
I swear I remember in the crevice of my mind being bombarded with ads at some point before about a Vancouver-Rome direct flight. Maybe about 10 years ago? Not sure what carrier, likely Air Transat?
Correct.

Quote:
RICHMOND, BC, June 17, 2016 /CNW/ - Today, Air Transat and Vancouver International Airport (YVR) celebrated new seasonal service between Vancouver and Rome's Leonardo Da Vinci (Fiumicino) International Airport (FCO). The flight will depart YVR weekly between June 17 and October 7 and is the first non-stop service from Vancouver to Italy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #294  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2024, 8:47 PM
thenoflyzone thenoflyzone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 3,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by nname View Post
I remember EI was looking at second route to Canada. Was that YUL or YVR?
YUL.

Officially announced in 2018 for a summer 2019 start, but they canceled their plans. I think they said the A321LR delivery delays were the reason, but the fact they havent started YUL is a clear sign they aren’t too interested, now that AC is on the route.

https://mediacentre.aerlingus.com/pr...ails/108/10103

I think YVR is in a similar situation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #295  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2024, 11:19 PM
thenoflyzone thenoflyzone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 3,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by nname View Post

Maybe OS to start YVR-VIE as JV with AC, since YYZ and YUL are already covered with the JV, so the next on the list would be YVR. Also from YVR, the major LH hubs at FRA, MUC, and ZRH already served at least daily in the summer, and VIE would be the next one on the list.
Here's the beef with OS.

OS at VIE has an excellent network coverage of Eastern Europe, Western Asia. YYZ/YUL have demand to that region. No so sure about YVR. It also kind of overlaps TK's territory as well. This being said, even YYZ/YUL only ever saw the smallest OS widebody, the B763. Nothing bigger. (In the late 90s, early 2000s, it was the A310)

So it goes without saying that the 772 (330 seats) is too much metal for VIE-YVR. The B763 would be perfect (211 seats), but they only have 3 of them, and they are on their way out.

So if VIE-YVR happens, and it's a big if, it will have to wait until OS has a decent number of B789s, which seat 294 (similar to AC). It's still a bit big, but the economics of the dreamliner could make it work. This being said, I still think it's a long shot.

I think once ITA joins Star and fully integrates into the AC/LH TATL joint venture, they are the #1 favourites to start YVR.

Don't have the numbers, but FCO must be the largest unserved market from YVR to Europe. If not #1, definitely top 3. So all odds point to ITA, if not AC outright to eventually fly the route. I just don't see VIE happening. YYZ/YUL have the depth to make VIE work. Not so sure about YVR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #296  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2024, 12:03 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoflyzone View Post
Here's the beef with OS.

OS at VIE has an excellent network coverage of Eastern Europe, Western Asia. YYZ/YUL have demand to that region. No so sure about YVR. It also kind of overlaps TK's territory as well. This being said, even YYZ/YUL only ever saw the smallest OS widebody, the B763. Nothing bigger. (In the late 90s, early 2000s, it was the A310)

So it goes without saying that the 772 (330 seats) is too much metal for VIE-YVR. The B763 would be perfect (211 seats), but they only have 3 of them, and they are on their way out.

So if VIE-YVR happens, and it's a big if, it will have to wait until OS has a decent number of B789s, which seat 294 (similar to AC). It's still a bit big, but the economics of the dreamliner could make it work. This being said, I still think it's a long shot.

I think once ITA joins Star and fully integrates into the AC/LH TATL joint venture, they are the #1 favourites to start YVR.

Don't have the numbers, but FCO must be the largest unserved market from YVR to Europe. If not #1, definitely top 3. So all odds point to ITA, if not AC outright to eventually fly the route. I just don't see VIE happening. YYZ/YUL have the depth to make VIE work. Not so sure about YVR.
Well I don't really follow all the EU ruling and the concessions that ITA have to make to join the LH group. But two of them I've seen besides slots is that it will not join Star for at least 2 years, and it will never be able to join the JV between LH and AC/UA. Not that the ruling will stop them from starting the route and codeshare with AC, but it's less ideal for them compared with full JV.

As for OS, I was never thinking about year-round flight and daily in summer like YYZ/YUL. If that happens, it's probably no more then 3-4x weekly during peak summer season only. Otherwise the only thing LH/AC can do to increase service to YVR in the summer is to add even more flights from FRA... (or FCO without JV)

====================

In other news, AF recently reduce W24 YVR-CDG from daily to 5x weekly except for a few weeks during peak holiday season. This is just after WS announce daily YYC-CDG through winter season... hard to say these aren't related...

Last edited by nname; Jun 15, 2024 at 12:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #297  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2024, 6:36 AM
thenoflyzone thenoflyzone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 3,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by nname View Post
Well I don't really follow all the EU ruling and the concessions that ITA have to make to join the LH group. But two of them I've seen besides slots is that it will not join Star for at least 2 years, and it will never be able to join the JV between LH and AC/UA.
The European commission (EC) did want that.

However, latest news is the EC and LH have come to a compromise. We don't know what that is yet. We will know by July 4, but it sounds like a concession on both sides, possibly even for the JV restriction.

Ex. New unserved routes out of FCO can join the JV. Current ones cannot. Or it could be that current routes with competition outside the JV can join (ex. YYZ, JFK, BOS, ORD), and routes with no competition cannot (Ex. LAX, SFO). We'll know soon enough I guess.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transpo...y-ita-takeover

Quote:
Of late, long-haul routes were a particular concern. The EC is understood to have demanded that ITA be kept out of Lufthansa A++ transatlantic joint venture with United Airlines and Air Canada. Aviation Week’s sources said a compromise has now been found, but declined to reveal further details, which could still change. The EC has until July 4 to publish its decision and the two sides are likely to continue work on some aspects of their agreement until then.
The slots issue is mostly at Milan Linate airport, the downtown airport that is capacity controlled, and where ITA has a majority of slots. It doesn't really concern FCO. Plenty of capacity and foreign competition there.

Last edited by thenoflyzone; Jun 15, 2024 at 6:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #298  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2024, 8:19 AM
trofirhen trofirhen is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,871
... as an outsider looking in ...

I am impressed with the knowledgabilty of the avaiation industry displayed by posters on the YVR thread. /// That said, if Lufthansa does acquire ITA, what is the % probability of YVR>< FCO happening?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #299  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2024, 8:26 PM
zahav zahav is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,926
YVR-Europe is always going to be more limited than YYZ and YUL for endless reasons. I considered solidifying AF a big score, as well as year-round MUC on LH. But ya, overall nothing stellar, especially from AC (1x daily on the sardine can 777, not a great offering..). I don't think we should expect much more from AC or anyone else (the Euro airlines have been steady or growing slowly, but better than AC's performance). Having Edelweiss go daily was nice (even if it was due to AC pulling out), maybe they will one day swap this to mainline SWISS? Anything Italy and Spain seem unlikely.

But as others have said, it has meant some good gains elsewhere. Leftcoaster, I know it's frustrating to see AC's abysmal service to Europe, but they do make up for it elsewhere IMO. Don't dismiss the DXB, SIN adds as insignificant, these are much more bold additions than LHR or CDG, and they have strengthened already in just a short time. SIN is 5x weekly in winter as well, and then don't forget BKK same at 5x weekly winter. Then of course there is HKG, which is 10x weekly (took the YYZ frequencies), and the gains in Australasia (AU and NZ). I don't think this winter is anything to sneeze at, Europe was never strong and is now just less strong, kinda sad but I am happy AC is giving adds where our strengths lie, and not the big European airports that other carriers are servicing.

AC transborder in winter is very healthy now too, miles above where it was even 10 years ago. Not only with new routes like MIA, but flying to UA hubs like IAD, IAH, DEN, and ORD that used to just be UA operated. Then they really started giving WS a run for its money on leisure sun routes like LAS, SNA, PSP, and PHX. Previously stronger with WS than AC, but this winter it appears AC has more capacity on all of these routes than WS does (WS still very healthy on all four, so not a matter of them massively shrinking, rather AC just gaining).

Overall, there are some major structural limitations holding AC back even more (China status and Russian war shutting down airspace). These two major roadblocks are preventing AC from operating YVR to China and India, and there's nothing they can do about it. They would certainly be back on YVR-DEL if the airspace opened, no doubt about it. They finally had the right aircraft with the right math to make the route work, and then all of a sudden the airspace closes and it becomes impossible. So sad, thankfully Air India and Russia aren't on bad terms and they can fly the route. And AC would likely back to daily to PVG and PEK if China opened up, they never really got past this frequency or destination count anyways. So they were less affected than the Asian airlines who were responsible for almost all the growth over the years. Essentially AC is only down by 7x weekly flights to China/HK from YVR (PVG is 4x weekly, plus we got 3x extra HKG flights, so that's 7x flights). So if circumstances were different, they'd be back to daily on both I think. Is the YYZ-HKG cancellation (and partial shift to YVR) due to the same Russian space restrictions as that preventing YVR-DEL? I think that is the reason. So hypothetically if Canada and China sorted out their row and magically things opened up, it's likely AC would go back to daily PEK and PVG, and also maintain 10x weekly to HKG.

I just wish these current impediments to air travel disappeared ugh. Open markets and supply/demand should dictate route creation/growth, it's so frustrating to see demand there but these artificial barrier strangling operations. I am so nostalgic for 2019 sometimes, I have to really check myself or else I start wallowing in the memories. Imagine what would have been, had that trajectory continued, COVID never happened, and Canada and China not descending into enemies...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #300  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2024, 9:50 PM
zahav zahav is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,926
Very good news about McArthurGlen, even somewhat surprising to see so soon after the last phase (the Covid years should almost be deleted as they were not normal operations for retail). I am guessing that this expansion is the entirety of the last vacant parcel in the NE corner the property? Google aerial show it clearly. I believe it would be somewhat smaller than the last retail expansion, depending how it is configured and how much is non-store space like plazas etc. But the vacant land seems too small to be divided up in portions to creatin another future phases, so I think this will build it out. Very exciting, 27 more stores so there's bound to be some interesting ones.

I'd never seen that Government of Canada website with the assessments before, thank you for sharing it!! It has lots of little nuggets that I didn't even know about, and I consider myself well versed in the YVR world. Such as this:

The Vancouver Airport Authority is proposing to construct an airside cargo warehouse facility that will be leased for use as a sorting, processing and storage facility. The new facility will be located at 5960 Miller Road at the Vancouver International Airport in Richmond B.C.

The Proposed Project
The project consists of constructing a new 4000 square meter warehouse building with associated paved parking areas. The facility will have both airside and groundside access. An existing gravel access road will be paved and site services and utilities will be upgraded. The total project area is approximately 20,000 square meters. The location is previously developed and is currently used as a gravel parking lot.

https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/83619

I wonder if it will be leased by Air Canada, it is directly beside their hangar. But I think AC wants to expand/upgrade its existing cargo facility, rather than lease separately. But maybe in the short terms, who knows, but I'm sure such a large new facility with airside and ground side access will be in high demand.

Here's another one:

https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/152552

The Proposed Project

Air Canada is proposing the expansion and replacement of the flight simulator facility located at the Vancouver International Airport (YVR), at 6001 Grant McConachie Way, Richmond, British Columbia.

The project site is currently used as an existing flight simulator and building. This replacement project will require demolition of portions of the existing facility and construction of new buildings to house new flight simulator equipment. The proposed replacement Project will be constructed in three phases (Figure 2):

• Phase 1: Construction of a two-storey expansion building (approximately 700sqm).

• Phase 2: Demolishing existing centre buildings (the east and west buildings to remain in place)

• Phase 3: Construction of a two-storey building (approximately 1500sqm)over part of the demolished buildings footprint to connect to the building constructed in Phase 1. The north end of the demolished area will be converted into a parking area.

The project activities will include paving for the new parking area, concrete removal/paving, building demolition and building construction.

So this won't likely have much of a visual impact to anyone on the road, it is within AC's campus compound. But still, nice to see them investing in this building and infrastructure, just a small thing but a nice confidence boost from AC. I have a theory (not even theory, basically just a musing lol) about some of the turnaround in AC's commitment to YVR in the last several years compared to the early 2000s to 2010s. I worked in various capacities in the airport from 2003-2008, which were turbulent years for AC (mind the pun). Not only was it struggling with zillions of global factors (9/11/war on terror, Iraq war, SARS) that depressed demand, but it was a mess internally (it was essentially a laughing stock of disorder financially, and seen as a dying venture saddled with debt, losses, and a tarnished image in public. At least in Vancouver, people would be so surprised if a young leisure traveller flew AC to anywhere in the west, it was always assumed WS was the preference and was stronger than AC in the west, even in YVR. They seemed high growth, well managed, expanding, better service, etc. etc., basically the dead opposite of AC in people's minds. It took years to change that perception, and a ton of hard work by AC to really stay on the right path and prove itself. They really do deserve recognition, like them or not. Coming from the state they were in for many years, to a quickly expanding, refreshed, growth-minded and financially stable company, it is very difficult to do. Hence why many airlines fail, cease operations, convert to cargo, reformat as a massively downsized carrier, the list goes on. The fail rate is spectacular, the odds are usually against you unless you are smart, lucky, or ideally both. AC was so close to shutting down or doing a massive reorganization, people don't even realize know. So yes, the government did give them a bailout, but this was not a wasted handout. Some companies take government help but still go under, or misuse it. The mess that was caused by these airline bankruptcies was brutal, so disruptive to passengers, and just generally a crap situation when your carrier stops flying immediately without warning. But AC really used the government money smartly, and really changed everything around to achieve results. Some companies wouldn't have learned their lesson, and just use the gov't money but don't fix the core problems, and then ultimately implode. AC clawed itself out of a huge hole that dragged on for years, not easy to do a 180 from that to today.

So with that in mind, also remember that AC was a giant amalgam of previous airlines that basically were in existence not long before the largest merger with Canadian Airlines in 2001. And so AC was seen as very Eastern Canada, while CP (Canadian Airlines) was bigger out in BC and AB. The merger was very complex; there were a lot of union factors, lots of complications integrating the two operations, labour issues, just very tough and not well received by anyone it seemed. CP employees hated it, they felt a big culture shock with AC management and many eastern employees doing things their way from Toronto. CP employees were affected worse IMO. Not only did they have the stress that all combined AC/CP employees had regarding the health of the company ("Will I even be around next week, is my pension worthless, I am not going to pretend to be friendly when I'm frustrated as hell and the airline is sinking"), but coming from a somewhat well-liked airlines like CP (including its predecessors like Ward Air, CP Air, Pacific Western), it was jarring to now be part of basically a foreign company with a totally different style and different employee reception. I knew a lot of former CP staff who couldn't make it work after the takeover, the vibe was too off for them to overcome.

So what all this meant was there was some dismissal of YVR from Air Canada, since it was a CP stronghold with a very different focus than AC. So even though they inherited their Asian routes from CP, they were never regarded in the same league as the big European routes from the east. CP was much more popular, AC just inherited their market presence, but lost the CP likability. So my theory is that part of the reason why AC didn't build up YVR for so long was it was former Canadian, and still not on the same level as YYZ or YUL in any way. I don't mean that in some western alienation/consiracy kind of way, I just mean AC was much more comfortable and established in the east than in the west, so it stands to reason that when they are in rocky financial times, their main focus will be where they know best. They were trying to just stay afloat, so making a big spash in former CP territory would be too risky.

There were years of disorder, followed by a lengthy reconstruction period that many employees were still not sure would work, and they'd be axed anytime. Especially former CP staff, they always thought they'd be the first to go, or be forced to move east (many original AC staff were almost numb to the chaos because they were so embittered from years of negativity), but the CP staff were not used to that mindset, so it was jarring. But patience paid off, and finally AC started getting itself back on stable footing, and then focused on upgrading its planes, its offerings, its staff/appearance. Then came the network expansions, and it started getting positive reviews and some actual acclaim in the industry. For an airlines that was most likely going to collapse, it was a major turnaround. Then they really starting utilizing all of its hubs, and not hiding from WS. From the 2001 CP merger through basically all the 2000s, WS was arrogant as an airline, and really saw AC as a dying animal, and the government money nothing more than wasted tax dollars on a hopeless cause. WS would be the one launching route after route to challenge AC wherever they could, with AC just struggling to keep what they had. But over the years of stabilization and growth, AC realized they didn't need to be intimidated, and basically started doing the same thing to WS, and reclaiming a lot of ground.

I hate to say this, I hope it isn't flagged by the mods as inappropriate or hateful, but the combined AC/CP had so many old, bitter, tired, "fed up with your S%&" type staff, it was just toxic for passengers and staff themselves. As they got this generation out through retirement, buy outs, etc., the attitude changed. It went from mass layoffs to mass hirings, and of a much more ethnically, linguistically, and age diverse group. And it just built and built, so now a lot of the cranky granny stereotypes of the 2000s would be foreign to young adults of today.

So I realized this is like a university essay rather than a forum post lol I'm sorry I went on so long, I just needed to express these thoughts in case other people remember the history and its impact. The original point was it is nice seeing AC invest in their building here, which has barely changed since they inherited it from CP lol, how fitting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:24 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.