YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[casper]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

Looking at the itinerary as pulled directly from WestJet, I can fly YVR-YYC-CDG on March 21 for $352.16 one way in Economy Basic, which means, no free checked bags, no points, no seat assignment, and no changes. Econo fare is $387.16, and EconoFlex is $482.16.

Looks like there is also a pretty lengthy layover in Calgary as well; there is a 24 hour layover in Calgary.

I also saw some other pretty odd itineraries on other dates as well; one went YVR to YYJ, then YYC to CDG.

I just did a search for Paris-YYC-YVR April 13. Econ was $390 to $521. Premium was $1,587 or $3,964 and Business was $1,928 or $5,439.

The YVR-YYC-CDG was very similar. Also so the options with the extra hop through Victoria or Edmonton but usually with an extra $100-$200 or so.

I think those prices are reasonable. The low end price are based on booking two months out with no points, baggage, seat selection etc. If you were booking within two weeks I suspect the pricing would be similar to AF or AC.

[LeftCoaster]

My question isn't why is WS trying to fill their YYC-Europe planes with YVR based pax, that seems obvious.

My question is how is that a sustainable model when they need to offer cut rate prices to entice YVR based passengers to fly via YYC, when they already have service to Paris on 3 different airlines.

They are at a substantial competitive advantage using YYC as a hub unless the O&D there changes drastically.

Just to put their pricing into perspective, for that same week of April 13 YVR-YYC-CDG ranges from $350-$400 for a one stop flight ($330 if you want to stop in Kelowna on the way to Calgary), whereas Air France's direct YVR-CDG is $895-$945.

As a customer it makes sense to fly via YYC if you don't mind the hassle, but Westjets yields are going to be garbage, hitting their corporate profitability. If they took that same frame and put it on a direct YVR-CDG it stands to reason they would increase their yield on that same route.

[nname]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

As a customer it makes sense to fly via YYC if you don't mind the hassle, but Westjets yields are going to be garbage, hitting their corporate profitability. If they took that same frame and put it on a direct YVR-CDG it stands to reason they would increase their yield on that same route.

Then it's even harder to fill the plane!

YVR-YYC-CDG would work if the fare is low enough, but YYC-YVR-CDG would be a much tougher sell.

This is the same reason that I doubt WS will start any Asian route from YYC before YVR. No one wants to backtrack to YYC when there are already numerous (cheap) options available.

Plus... WS's network at YYC is more than twice as large as YVR, which means more connecting traffics to fill the seats.

[LeftCoaster]

How so? The trash yields are also present on the YYC-CDG direct booking, so the way the flight is currently booking you have trash yields on the direct and trash yields on the connecting pax.

YVR-CDG you keep the same trash connections, but likely need fewer of them because you can capture better yields and more load on the direct, since it's a stronger O&D market.

That is my confusion, how this works long term for WS when there's a complete disadvantage out of YYC right now. There's a reason very few, if any, long haul hubs exist out of small O&D markets.

[s211]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

My question isn't why is WS trying to fill their YYC-Europe planes with YVR based pax, that seems obvious.

My question is how is that a sustainable model when they need to offer cut rate prices to entice YVR based passengers to fly via YYC, when they already have service to Paris on 3 different airlines.

They are at a substantial competitive advantage using YYC as a hub unless the O&D there changes drastically.

Just to put their pricing into perspective, for that same week of April 13 YVR-YYC-CDG ranges from $350-$400 for a one stop flight ($330 if you want to stop in Kelowna on the way to Calgary), whereas Air France's direct YVR-CDG is $895-$945.

As a customer it makes sense to fly via YYC if you don't mind the hassle, but Westjets yields are going to be garbage, hitting their corporate profitability. If they took that same frame and put it on a direct YVR-CDG it stands to reason they would increase their yield on that same route.

Maybe Westjet's entire model for this flight was predicated upon an Albertan economy that is now insufficient to drive enough Alberta traffic onto the Paris flight to make it work?

[YYCspotter]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

My question isn't why is WS trying to fill their YYC-Europe planes with YVR based pax, that seems obvious.

My question is how is that a sustainable model when they need to offer cut rate prices to entice YVR based passengers to fly via YYC, when they already have service to Paris on 3 different airlines.

They are at a substantial competitive advantage using YYC as a hub unless the O&D there changes drastically.

Just to put their pricing into perspective, for that same week of April 13 YVR-YYC-CDG ranges from $350-$400 for a one stop flight ($330 if you want to stop in Kelowna on the way to Calgary), whereas Air France's direct YVR-CDG is $895-$945.

As a customer it makes sense to fly via YYC if you don't mind the hassle, but Westjets yields are going to be garbage, hitting their corporate profitability. If they took that same frame and put it on a direct YVR-CDG it stands to reason they would increase their yield on that same route.

The prices you listed are for one-way flights. Most people who travel to Europe are booking round trips flight where WS pricing is often more expensive on YVR-YYC-CDG than the direct flights from AC or AF.

[nname]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

How so? The trash yields are also present on the YYC-CDG direct booking, so the way the flight is currently booking you have trash yields on the direct and trash yields on the connecting pax.

YVR-CDG you keep the same trash connections, but likely need fewer of them because you can capture better yields and more load on the direct, since it's a stronger O&D market.

That is my confusion, how this works long term for WS when there's a complete disadvantage out of YYC right now. There's a reason very few, if any, long haul hubs exist out of small O&D markets.

Maybe a whole plane of low fare passenger generates a similar yield as a plane with a plane with some high-fare passengers and many empty seats?

Maybe the cheap economy fares are supported by higher-paying business fare?

Maybe the connecting passengers help fill up some seats from the regional plane that would otherwise be empty? Every extra seat got filled in their network would be a benefit for WS.

Maybe it's cheaper for WS to operating out of YYC due to subsidy of any type? (ie. cheaper landing and terminal fee?)

Or maybe WS is just eating the loss for now in order to build up their fortress hub at YYC and hope there will be enough demand in the future to increase their yield?

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by YYCspotter

The prices you listed are for one-way flights. Most people who travel to Europe are booking round trips flight where WS pricing is often more expensive on YVR-YYC-CDG than the direct flights from AC or AF.

That is possible, though two one way tickets on WS through YYC are still cheaper than a single one way on AF. ($350-400*2 vs 1*$895). Could be possible though given how strangely some airlines price their tickets, especially one way fare buckets. Looking at that same week Westjet is cheaper than AF round trip, and interestingly enough AC through YUL is the cheapest and a round trip is $200 cheaper than a one way. Ridiculous.

Westjet clearly believes in the YYC hub and they know a lot more about aviation than I do, it just seems like a tough proposition to launch a hub from an airport like YYC with low O&D.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by nname

Maybe a whole plane of low fare passenger generates a similar yield as a plane with a plane with some high-fare passengers and many empty seats?

Maybe the cheap economy fares are supported by higher-paying business fare?

Maybe the connecting passengers help fill up some seats from the regional plane that would otherwise be empty? Every extra seat got filled in their network would be a benefit for WS.

Maybe it's cheaper for WS to operating out of YYC due to subsidy of any type? (ie. cheaper landing and terminal fee?)

Or maybe WS is just eating the loss for now in order to build up their fortress hub at YYC and hope there will be enough demand in the future to increase their yield?

I'm sure all these factors apply to Westjet, but these factors also apply to all airlines at all hubs and what should really form the foundation for a hub, O&D, is limited.

In reality only time will tell if the YYC long haul hub can work or not.

[nname]

Last week, AC shortened the seasonal YVR-BOS route by moving the start date back to Jun 20. In this week's update, the route got extended by moving the end date back to Oct 12.

On the other hand, AC extend the seasonal YVR-ANC service by 1 day from Sept 17 to 18, where it drop from 2x daily to nothing.

AC now gradually removing MAX from schedule until the end of June. YVR-HNL/OGG will once again operated by 789 for the month of May and June, operating 4x/3x weekly.

YVR-CUN is now suspended for the month of May.

[casper]

So with Air Canada suspending all flight to mainline China that may free up some aircraft to reduce the pressure on their fleet. I suspect it will take a year or two after the virus is under control before traffic recovers.

That also leaves the foreign airlines as the only ones flying between Vancouver and China for the next month or two. As this increases I suspect the constraints on how YVR handles the flight will also increase.

Toronto has the infield terminal that could be allocated to flights to/from impacted countries. YVR does not have a separate building and what from an air circulation perspective is a very open terminal. Any thoughts on how this will evolve?

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by casper

Toronto has the infield terminal that could be allocated to flights to/from impacted countries. YVR does not have a separate building and what from an air circulation perspective is a very open terminal. Any thoughts on how this will evolve?

There is no point in using the IFT at YYZ when you still need to bus the inbound Chinese pax to customs, where they can mix and mingle with other international passengers.

If this thing escalates, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Canada ban all non stop flights from China. Israel did it. That would severely impact YVR intl numbers. Even without that move, the intl numbers will be impacted this year.

Almost all foreign airlines are cancelling flights to China for a month or two. So connecting via Europe or the US to Canada will become difficult as well.

[casper]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

There is no point in using the IFT at YYZ when you still need to bus the inbound Chinese pax to customs, where they can mix and mingle with other international passengers.

If this thing escalates, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Canada ban all non stop flights from China. Israel did it. That would severely impact YVR intl numbers. Even without that move, the intl numbers will be impacted this year.

Almost all foreign airlines are cancelling flights to China for a month or two. So connecting via Europe or the US to Canada will become difficult as well.

With the IFT they can setup a secure medical screening area for passengers before they get taken over to customs. I could be wrong, but I don't think YVR has any gates that could be setup in a similar way.

Obviously they are screening people before they get onto the flight. Screening them again 10-13 hours later when they get off would make sense.

Until the outbreak is fully controlled, my guess (and just a guess) we would likely end up with a small number of airports in the world that can accept flights from China. These do a second screening before letting the passengers continue on.

The US used the international terminal in Anchorage for that purpose. A separate terminal building only normally used during the summer.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by casper

With the IFT they can setup a secure medical screening area for passengers before they get taken over to customs. I could be wrong, but I don't think YVR has any gates that could be setup in a similar way.

Obviously they are screening people before they get onto the flight. Screening them again 10-13 hours later when they get off would make sense.

Until the outbreak is fully controlled, my guess (and just a guess) we would likely end up with a small number of airports in the world that can accept flights from China. These do a second screening before letting the passengers continue on.

The US used the international terminal in Anchorage for that purpose. A separate terminal building only normally used during the summer.

The only problem with this particular virus is that the incubation period is long. Up to 14 days. You could very well not show any symptoms at all several days after you land in North America. What then?

[connect2source]

Anyone know why YVR is delaying it's stats updates? We don't even have November's figures in yet and looks like YVR isn't even posting October any longer, just checked and the August stats are the latest posted.

Is there some re-work going on or are they so bad that YVR is delaying posting?

Seems most other Canadian major airports are posting entire 2019 stats.

https://www.yvr.ca/en/about-yvr/facts-and-stats

[SFUVancouver]

It seems like they unintentionally fall behind on making their stats public. I emailed them once and within hours it was posted online. I feel like someone else here must have done the same because I recall something similar happening another time. If one's interested, just email them and I bet we'll be happily surprised.

[twoNeurons]

Just flew back on an Omni 762 from Hawaii. The outgoing YVR-OGG flight was decent. Good service, and my favored 2-3-2 setup. The return red-eye was HORRIBLE as I somehow ended up choosing row 16, which is right in front of the bathrooms and FREEEZING cold with NO recline.

Seating is tight, but if you're flying in Y, make SURE you get a recline as there is NOT much room in front of your knees.

Here's hoping we can get some CS300s (née A220s) on the YVR-Hawaii route. I'm hoping to try that plane out and really hope that it takes over some key 737 routes over time. That 2+3 seating is SO MUCH better than 3+3 (the worst ever)

[casper]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Just flew back on an Omni 762 from Hawaii. The outgoing YVR-OGG flight was decent. Good service, and my favored 2-3-2 setup. The return red-eye was HORRIBLE as I somehow ended up choosing row 16, which is right in front of the bathrooms and FREEEZING cold with NO recline.

Seating is tight, but if you're flying in Y, make SURE you get a recline as there is NOT much room in front of your knees.

Here's hoping we can get some CS300s (née A220s) on the YVR-Hawaii route. I'm hoping to try that plane out and really hope that it takes over some key 737 routes over time. That 2+3 seating is SO MUCH better than 3+3 (the worst ever)

Not certain AC is looking at operating their A220 on ETOPS (extended over water) flights.

The fact Hawaii gets whatever aircraft is available and if there is no aircraft available the outsourced aircraft I think it makes it clear where it is on AC priority list.

[POCO]

Hasn't the A220 also had engine issues? I don't think ETOPS rating for hawaii will be coming any time soon.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by POCO

Hasn't the A220 also had engine issues? I don't think ETOPS rating for hawaii will be coming any time soon.

The A220 was certified for ETOPS180 mins by Transport Canada barely a year ago. If AC so wished, they could deploy the A220 to Hawaii within a few months. Pilot training would be the biggest hurdle. The rest is just maintenance (which AC knows very well) and paperwork.

The engine issues on the Swiss A220s were software related. They were quickly fixed.