YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[LeftCoaster]

Having recently flown out of Abbotsford on a flight to Mexico and Luton to Spain I got to thinking about the simplicity of LCC carrier terminals. Abbotsford has seen incredible growth the last few years in ULCC and LCC carriers and most of the growth has likely come at the expense of YVR. I wonder if YVR would ever entertain a LCC carrier terminal, a smaller Luton or Stanstead, to compliment their main terminal and stop airports like YXX leaching their passengers.

The terminal and operation would not need to be difficult, a simple warehouse like terminal similar to Luton (https://c8.alamy.com/comp/EGN0FC/luton-airport-checkin-check-in-desks-empty-queues-EGN0FC.jpg) could be built cheaply and quickly, and a thin tarmac with walk on boarding like at Abbotsford. No pre-clearing to the US is needed and a simple customs/immigration station in arrivals could keep costs down. Shuttle service from Templeton station and the main terminals could help keep things connected at a low cost.

There is plenty of land flanking the airport, you likely wouldn't need more than a 300m x 500m area for a sizable operation. YXX serves nearly a million passengers on a size of roughly 125m x 250m.

Is this something anyone thinks YVR would ever do? It could help chase a growth segment without ruffling too many feathers at the main terminal, especially if Rouge and Flair were given good rates at the LCC terminal.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Having recently flown out of Abbotsford on a flight to Mexico and Luton to Spain I got to thinking about the simplicity of LCC carrier terminals. Abbotsford has seen incredible growth the last few years in ULCC and LCC carriers and most of the growth has likely come at the expense of YVR. I wonder if YVR would ever entertain a LCC carrier terminal, a smaller Luton or Stanstead, to compliment their main terminal and stop airports like YXX leaching their passengers.

The terminal and operation would not need to be difficult, a simple warehouse like terminal similar to Luton (https://c8.alamy.com/comp/EGN0FC/luton-airport-checkin-check-in-desks-empty-queues-EGN0FC.jpg) could be built cheaply and quickly, and a thin tarmac with walk on boarding like at Abbotsford. No pre-clearing to the US is needed and a simple customs/immigration station in arrivals could keep costs down. Shuttle service from Templeton station and the main terminals could help keep things connected at a low cost.

There is plenty of land flanking the airport, you likely wouldn't need more than a 300m x 500m area for a sizable operation. YXX serves nearly a million passengers on a size of roughly 125m x 250m.

Is this something anyone thinks YVR would ever do? It could help chase a growth segment without ruffling too many feathers at the main terminal, especially if Rouge and Flair were given good rates at the LCC terminal.

If YVR ever needs to build the remote satellite terminal and its a PITA to use, IMO it will become the defacto LCC budget terminal.

Otherwise i don't think YVR needs to focus on building a LCC terminal now and YXX plays that role well. TBH with earthquake risk and probable sea level rise, I like having a robust second terminal in the lower mainland.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Wow that is some poor uptake of new capacity. I wonder how long some of these new flights will last. I want SEA to succeed for the good of the region but I also want SQ to regret their decision to go there over YVR.

Will be interesting to see how YVR fares in Feb once we get those numbers... which will be in like June the way YVR has been releasing stats these days.

What uptake?

JL started March 31. CX started April 1. SQ hasn't even started yet and DL SEA-KIX resumed April 1.

That doofus is talking as if Jan and Feb 2019 had any meaningful service adds over the same months in 2018. They didn't. Usual hot air.....

BTW, Feb numbers are up.

[Johnny Aussie]

Feb stats have been released by YVR.

http://www.yvr.ca/-/media/yvr/documents/...y/february-2019-traffic-update.pdf?la=en

Definitely a slower month as well. All sectors up though.

Overall up 2.5% to 1,875,049
Domestic up 2.1% to 880,457
International up 2.8% to 994,952

International breakdown
Transborder up 2.8%
Asia Pacific up 3.8%
Europe up 1.0%
Misc intl up 0.8%

YTD overall up 3.5% to 3.9Million
YTD Domestic up 3.3% to 1.822 million
YTD Intl up 3.7% to 2.08 million

YTD intl has already added about 75,000 more pax.

Decent numbers but definitely slower.

Math lesson.... teacher to class: airport B Adds 4 long haul international flights in a year. How many annual seats will this add to an airport’s passenger numbers?

Johnny puts his hands up and says: well... assuming each flight is daily (in reality this may not be the case), each flight operates all year-round (may not be the case), and each flight has 280 seats (a bit too high).... 817,600?

Well done Johnny!

“So yeah, as predicted, SEA will definitely catch and overtake YVR this year in intl pax stats! Those additional 8 million pax needed to overtake YVR will arrive in SEA before the end of this year for sure!”

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Wow that is some poor uptake of new capacity. I wonder how long some of these new flights will last. I want SEA to succeed for the good of the region but I also want SQ to regret their decision to go there over YVR.

Yes, yes, and yes. Wouldn't it be great if SQ found that their yields on the Seattle run weren't as high as expected, so they switched to YVR? A long shot, but it makes me drool.

[Vin]

Does SQ fly their A380 over to Seatac? I remember they used to fly their "Big Tops" 747 here to YVR.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Having recently flown out of Abbotsford on a flight to Mexico and Luton to Spain I got to thinking about the simplicity of LCC carrier terminals. Abbotsford has seen incredible growth the last few years in ULCC and LCC carriers and most of the growth has likely come at the expense of YVR. I wonder if YVR would ever entertain a LCC carrier terminal, a smaller Luton or Stanstead, to compliment their main terminal and stop airports like YXX leaching their passengers.

The terminal and operation would not need to be difficult, a simple warehouse like terminal similar to Luton (https://c8.alamy.com/comp/EGN0FC/luton-airport-checkin-check-in-desks-empty-queues-EGN0FC.jpg) could be built cheaply and quickly, and a thin tarmac with walk on boarding like at Abbotsford. No pre-clearing to the US is needed and a simple customs/immigration station in arrivals could keep costs down. Shuttle service from Templeton station and the main terminals could help keep things connected at a low cost.

There is plenty of land flanking the airport, you likely wouldn't need more than a 300m x 500m area for a sizable operation. YXX serves nearly a million passengers on a size of roughly 125m x 250m.

Is this something anyone thinks YVR would ever do? It could help chase a growth segment without ruffling too many feathers at the main terminal, especially if Rouge and Flair were given good rates at the LCC terminal.

The South Terminal could be expanded to include a low cost terminal for the budget airlines. The area is under-utilized at the moment. In other parts of the world, many cities have "low cost terminals" that have all the regular terminal facilities, including aero-bridges, etc.

YVR's South Terminal:
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.1828083,-123.1721405,1463m/data=!3m1!1e3

[Rogie]

Originally Posted by Vin

The South Terminal could be expanded to include a low cost terminal for the budget airlines. The area is under-utilized at the moment. In other parts of the world, many cities have "low cost terminals" that have all the regular terminal facilities, including aero-bridges, etc.

YVR's South Terminal:
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.1828083,-123.1721405,1463m/data=!3m1!1e3

True there is room, and that would be a decent solution, I think if YVR were to do anything for budget airlines, it would involve busing out of the main terminal.

They have discovered the "magic" of remote stand operations (i.e. busing from the terminal to the plane), and are indicating they're here to stay. Of 18 new gates being built and put into operation right now (including the D-pier expansion), 14 are for RSO.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Math lesson.... teacher to class: airport B Adds 4 long haul international flights in a year. How many annual seats will this add to an airport’s passenger numbers?

Johnny puts his hands up and says: well... assuming each flight is daily (in reality this may not be the case), each flight operates all year-round (may not be the case), and each flight has 280 seats (a bit too high).... 817,600?

Well done Johnny!

“So yeah, as predicted, SEA will definitely catch and overtake YVR this year in intl pax stats! Those additional 8 million pax needed to overtake YVR will arrive in SEA before the end of this year for sure!”

What are you babbling on about? No one said that SEA will catch and overtake YVR in 2019. You need to find your medication and use it.....

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

What are you babbling on about? No one said that SEA will catch and overtake YVR in 2019. You need to find your medication and use it.....

Haha you need to turn on your irony detector...

Originally Posted by Rogie

True there is room, and that would be a decent solution, I think if YVR were to do anything for budget airlines, it would involve busing out of the main terminal.

They have discovered the "magic" of remote stand operations (i.e. busing from the terminal to the plane), and are indicating they're here to stay. Of 18 new gates being built and put into operation right now (including the D-pier expansion), 14 are for RSO.

I actually think a budget terminal the way you describe it is not a great passenger experience. Singapore had a budget terminal and demolished it only a few years later to make way for Terminal 4 (which btw is a crazy cool testbed for new tech). Kuala Lumpur tore down its budget terminal to build KLIA2 (which is horrible). And Luton in London is extremely unpleasant in terms of passenger experience.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Rogie

They have discovered the "magic" of remote stand operations (i.e. busing from the terminal to the plane), and are indicating they're here to stay. Of 18 new gates being built and put into operation right now (including the D-pier expansion), 14 are for RSO.

I feel like they already have something planned a while ago.

When they renumber the gate, I always wondered why they jump from gate 54, 55 straight to 58. And now they magically find some space below the departure level to build the remote gates, and the gate numbers just happened to perfectly fit in the existing numbering scheme.

Maybe 56, 57 already count as two of the 4 remote gates... and the other two might be 68, 69. The bridge gates would be 59, 60, 61, 62, and/or 63.

(Note: the plan is to have 10 parking positions accessible by 4 dedicated gates for RSO)

[Rogie]

Originally Posted by nname

I feel like they already have something planned a while ago.

(Note: the plan is to have 10 parking positions accessible by 4 dedicated gates for RSO)

Yes, there are four RSO gates off D-pier, and another 10 being added off E-pier.

[Rogie]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Haha you need to turn on your irony detector...



I actually think a budget terminal the way you describe it is not a great passenger experience. Singapore had a budget terminal and demolished it only a few years later to make way for Terminal 4 (which btw is a crazy cool testbed for new tech). Kuala Lumpur tore down its budget terminal to build KLIA2 (which is horrible). And Luton in London is extremely unpleasant in terms of passenger experience.

I totally agree (especially having been disappointed by Luton myself), but they say passengers and airlines are reacting favourably to the setup.

Gotta go see SIN Terminal 4... and the whole airport for that matter.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Rogie

Yes, there are four RSO gates off D-pier, and another 10 being added off E-pier.

Where do you see that?

What I've seen is, they are moving the plane parking from the de-icing pads to the 10 parking locations in East Apron specifically built for the remote stand operation.

I don't see a plan to add RSO gate to the E-pier other than the existing E85 gate.

If anything, they would be added to the F-pier since it would be much closer to the parking area than the E-pier.

[Gordon]

Were they not re configuring the the jet Set Parking lot to create more room for RSO operations?

[Rogie]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Were they not re configuring the the jet Set Parking lot to create more room for RSO operations?

That's exactly it, where they're taking out McDonald Road.

https://goo.gl/maps/U9Rn5PFXDpp

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

I actually think a budget terminal the way you describe it is not a great passenger experience. Singapore had a budget terminal and demolished it only a few years later to make way for Terminal 4 (which btw is a crazy cool testbed for new tech). Kuala Lumpur tore down its budget terminal to build KLIA2 (which is horrible). And Luton in London is extremely unpleasant in terms of passenger experience.

It's different demographic and customer expectation with LCCs - IMO people who fly LCCs would have more flexibility for customer experience if the price is right, are transparent with fees and expectation and are efficient once you get to their terminal.

Building a separate LCC at YVR terminal costs a lot of money, but may be important if LCC become more ubiquitous. Otherwise 1 influential LCC may get an advantage by incorporating with regular YVR ops. I'm thinking of thai smile having an advantage at BKK, while all other LCCs are disadvantaged by being pushed to DMK, perhaps similar to AC Rouge if they expanded its presence at YVR. they aren't quite LCCs, but YVR has further options that way.

One of my favourite airlines is AirAsia - it's everywhere in SE asia and in some cases it is really the only way to get from point a to b. But fares are really inexpensive and they are very transparent with extra costs. They've never cancelled a flight or been massively delayed on me - I've never had a bad flight with them, but my expectations are low.

I don't find KLIA2 bad other than it is a hassle to get from KLIA1 (intl carriers) to KLIA2. In that way, SIN's terminal 4 makes a intl carrier to a LCC transfer a lot easier.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

It's different demographic and customer expectation with LCCs - IMO people who fly LCCs would have more flexibility for customer experience if the price is right, are transparent with fees and expectation and are efficient once you get to their terminal.

Building a separate LCC at YVR terminal costs a lot of money, but may be important if LCC become more ubiquitous. Otherwise 1 influential LCC may get an advantage by incorporating with regular YVR ops. I'm thinking of thai smile having an advantage at BKK, while all other LCCs are disadvantaged by being pushed to DMK, perhaps similar to AC Rouge if they expanded its presence at YVR. they aren't quite LCCs, but YVR has further options that way.

One of my favourite airlines is AirAsia - it's everywhere in SE asia and in some cases it is really the only way to get from point a to b. But fares are really inexpensive and they are very transparent with extra costs. They've never cancelled a flight or been massively delayed on me - I've never had a bad flight with them, but my expectations are low.

I don't find KLIA2 bad other than it is a hassle to get from KLIA1 (intl carriers) to KLIA2. In that way, SIN's terminal 4 makes a intl carrier to a LCC transfer a lot easier.

Haha I think you’re definitely more forgiving than me in terms of airport experience.

KLIA2 is a massive terminal where you can end up walking miles to get to your gate yet somehow manages to feel really cramped. I’ve met some senior AirAsia people, and they are not happy with the facility at all. They’re actually quite public about it (https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2019/01/08/airasia-to-stop-charging-klia2-fee/).

For YVR, I’d say a blended terminal such as SIN T4 where automation saves much of the cost would be much preferable to Don Mueang, Luton or Stansted.

[Johnny Aussie]

https://jetlines.ca/2019/04/jetlines-announces-anticipated-launch-timing/

Jetlines now expecting to launch 17 December

What a great strategy to launch days before the Xmas rush. What could possibly go wrong? (Flair ring any bells?)
Followed by traditionally one of the weakest domestic travel periods in the year.

Wow

I crunched the actual SEA intl numbers.. those flights are adding about 510,000 seats. Only 7.6 million to go to catch up to YVR!

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

https://jetlines.ca/2019/04/jetlines-announces-anticipated-launch-timing/

Jetlines now expecting to launch 17 December

What a great strategy to launch days before the Xmas rush. What could possibly go wrong? (Flair ring any bells?)
Followed by traditionally one of the weakest domestic travel periods in the year.

Wow

I crunched the actual SEA intl numbers.. those flights are adding about 510,000 seats. Only 7.6 million to go to catch up to YVR!

International numbers don’t mean anything when SEA overall pax blow YVR out of the water.