Canadian Airport Thread II

[Alexcaban]

https://admtl.bonfirehub.ca/opportunities/84034

YUL looking at a 60 000 m2 satellite terminal to open summer 2028.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by Alexcaban

to open summer 2028.

lol. I’ll believe it when I see it.

It took them forever to just build two new taxiways (M and N).

It will be a cold day in hell when they build a 60,000 m2 terminal in under 4 years. A lot has to be done before they put shovel to ground. And it involves building new taxiways, their forté !!

[Zmonkey]

.

[RomanR27]

Originally Posted by fanofYOW

A mere 14% and 7% reduction respectively, they’ll live

This is how it should be. For example, YYZ doesn’t need 96 daily flights to California. According to OAA themselves in an email they sent me, the YOW traffic allows them to have multi-daily flights so they should move some to YOW.

Curious about the numbers OAA provided. Did they mention specific city pairs?

[fanofYOW]

Originally Posted by RomanR27

Curious about the numbers OAA provided. Did they mention specific city pairs?

Unfortunately no, they did not. I will copy a paste what they said in the email:

"YOW is uniquely positioned between two hubs -- Toronto-Pearson (YYZ) Canada's largest, as well as Montreal-Trudeau (YUL). This makes it difficult to grow air service. For example, pre-covid we had decent volume to justify Paris and San Francisco service. Unfortunately, airlines both stated that with so much CDG and SFO capacity at nearby hubs, the Ottawa flow is a big part of the hub's multi-daily services." - as you can see, this was an email sent before AF arrived.

They also went on to say folks who drive to YUL negatively impacts them the most on a data perspective and that YOW has to stand on O&D alone as only 5% connect through YOW. Obviously this was about pre pandemic before PD's expansion.

YOW's data is by far the most difficult to decipher because we don't have very many direct connections. Data may say that Route A-B has X O&D but it is most likely incorrect since it is taking assumed connections and does not take into consideration folks from YOW who drive to YUL. For example, YOW-YQT route data said "X" O&D but PD found they were moving far more people between the two than X (through YTZ) which is why they went in directly with 2x daily. Another example, 57% (yes, more than half) of pax were not accounted for in the YOW-CDG data since they were driving to YUL. So when PD begins YOW-SFO/LAX it will probably be less than daily to start, but if they become popular and they grow to daily or even multi-daily frequencies, I wonder how it will affect YYZ's frequencies to Cali. PD's CEO went into this whole topic/issue about YOW back in April.

I love listening to people criticize YOW's viability to sustain air service, and most of them are from Ottawa themselves. They did it when AF announced CDG and now this past Summer, there was a full daily AF 350 crossing the Atlantic and only dropping to 5x this winter on a ever so slightly larger capacity frame, 777. Now they are eating their words.

[RomanR27]

Originally Posted by fanofYOW

Unfortunately no, they did not. I will copy a paste what they said in the email:

"YOW is uniquely positioned between two hubs -- Toronto-Pearson (YYZ) Canada's largest, as well as Montreal-Trudeau (YUL). This makes it difficult to grow air service. For example, pre-covid we had decent volume to justify Paris and San Francisco service. Unfortunately, airlines both stated that with so much CDG and SFO capacity at nearby hubs, the Ottawa flow is a big part of the hub's multi-daily services." - as you can see, this was an email sent before AF arrived.

They also went on to say folks who drive to YUL negatively impacts them the most on a data perspective and that YOW has to stand on O&D alone as only 5% connect through YOW. Obviously this was about pre pandemic before PD's expansion.

YOW's data is by far the most difficult to decipher because we don't have very many direct connections. Data may say that Route A-B has X O&D but it is most likely incorrect since it is taking assumed connections and does not take into consideration folks from YOW who drive to YUL. For example, YOW-YQT route data said "X" O&D but PD found they were moving far more people between the two than X (through YTZ) which is why they went in directly with 2x daily. Another example, 57% (yes, more than half) of pax were not accounted for in the YOW-CDG data since they were driving to YUL. So when PD begins YOW-SFO/LAX it will probably be less than daily to start, but if they become popular and they grow to daily or even multi-daily frequencies, I wonder how it will affect YYZ's frequencies to Cali. PD's CEO went into this whole topic/issue about YOW back in April.

I love listening to people criticize YOW's viability to sustain air service, and most of them are from Ottawa themselves. They did it when AF announced CDG and now this past Summer, there was a full daily AF 350 crossing the Atlantic and only dropping to 5x this winter on a ever so slightly larger capacity frame, 777. Now they are eating their words.

Thanks! I'm not sure I necessarily interpret that as them saying YOW has enough traffic for multiple daily California in general, just that there is enough demand to justify some level of SFO service.

It's logical to assume that the "airline" they speak about is indeed AC, or even UA talking about their ORD/EWR/IAD hubs. That said, if the AC/UA do have enough data to know that there is enough traffic to justify a non-stop but they don't want to cannibalize their own hubs, PD's entrance may be enough to make them re-think their tune.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by RomanR27

Thanks! I'm not sure I necessarily interpret that as them saying YOW has enough traffic for multiple daily California in general, just that there is enough demand to justify some level of SFO service.

It's logical to assume that the "airline" they speak about is indeed AC, or even UA talking about their ORD/EWR/IAD hubs. That said, if the AC/UA do have enough data to know that there is enough traffic to justify a non-stop but they don't want to cannibalize their own hubs, PD's entrance may be enough to make them re-think their tune.

AC also has to decide when and where to get agressive with PD. Last summer there were crazy cheap fares to SFO. Do they repeat that as the direct flights start or regardless of the numbers do they launch service to discourage PD from expanding and grab some connections from point east. The risk for AC is losing Asia And Oceania bound traffic as one stop in SFO becomes appealing to those who don't mind transiting US.

[fanofYOW]

Originally Posted by RomanR27

Thanks! I'm not sure I necessarily interpret that as them saying YOW has enough traffic for multiple daily California in general, just that there is enough demand to justify some level of SFO service.

It's logical to assume that the "airline" they speak about is indeed AC, or even UA talking about their ORD/EWR/IAD hubs. That said, if the AC/UA do have enough data to know that there is enough traffic to justify a non-stop but they don't want to cannibalize their own hubs, PD's entrance may be enough to make them re-think their tune.

Yes for sure this is what I meant. If there truly is that much demand, AC will live by moving a mere 3x and 4x weekly to LAX and SFO to YOW. But at the end of the day, they want to keep YYZ happy regardless of demand. If the BA YOW-LHR rumour was false, I highly highly believe AC only restarted the route because OAA kept saying over and over "if AC doesn't want to restart it, then we will work with other airlines" which is a clear indication no one is waiting for AC or their love affair with YYZ. Not to mention the Ottawa Mayor's photo at BA headquarters in London. They wanted to wait for the XLRs, that part was a clear, now the 789 is good enough for the route? Even though the XLR delay was known about a long time ago? Hmm..

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by fanofYOW

Yes for sure this is what I meant. If there truly is that much demand, AC will live by moving a mere 3x and 4x weekly to LAX and SFO to YOW. But at the end of the day, they want to keep YYZ happy regardless of demand. If the BA YOW-LHR rumour was false, I highly highly believe AC only restarted the route because OAA kept saying over and over "if AC doesn't want to restart it, then we will work with other airlines" which is a clear indication no one is waiting for AC or their love affair with YYZ. Not to mention the Ottawa Mayor's photo at BA headquarters in London. They wanted to wait for the XLRs, that part was a clear, now the 789 is good enough for the route? Even though the XLR delay was known about a long time ago? Hmm..

Yes it seems obvious this was a pre-emptive move. I won't believe otherwise unless an insider says it wasn't a factor and even then who really knows but the decision maker.

I suppose Sutcliffe may have faked out Air Canada or at least put a finger on the scale on what was a close decision. They are also gaining back market share from AF here before some of that traffice really switches. A neighbour takes AC via Montrela or Toronto 3-4 times a year for his AC status and points. Status seems mostly pointless at this point domestically as there aren't many routes I would ever consider paying twice as much for Air Canda anymore. I guess if you bring a lot of luggage with you on some long layover to the north sure.

[fanofYOW]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes it seems obvious this was a pre-emptive move. I won't believe otherwise unless an insider says it wasn't a factor and even then who really knows but the decision maker.

I suppose Sutcliffe may have faked out Air Canada or at least put a finger on the scale on what was a close decision. They are also gaining back market share from AF here before some of that traffice really switches. A neighbour takes AC via Montrela or Toronto 3-4 times a year for his AC status and points. Status seems mostly pointless at this point domestically as there aren't many routes I would ever consider paying twice as much for Air Canda anymore. I guess if you bring a lot of luggage with you on some long layover to the north sure.

Same with me. Even the insiders could lie just so that type of information doesn't start spreading. I do have to thank AC though. If it wasn't for them snoozing on YOW, AF may have never begun service. Because of this, they don't have a monopoly on TATL anymore. Good luck to them maintaining the same frequencies from YYZ without this apparent important flow from Ottawa if PD's YOW-California become popular.

[MountainView]

Am I in the Canadian Airport thread?

BA is not going to YOW. Way to premium heavy as stated numerous times by many folks.

Traffic is nearly pre-pandemic levels where AC has served LHR year round for, what... 20+ years? Plus FRA for 5+ before covid?
AC realizes it's time to get back in the game whether they have their AC321XLRs or not.
AC will sell YYZ-YOW-LHR traffic to the lower priced customer still for those who don't want to take the other 3x dailies to LHR from YYZ.

When YOW had no competition on YOW-trans-Atlantic, AC was happy reaping the benefits of YOW-YYZ/YUL hub market... but now that AF is there, they likely don't want a potential new carrier coming and taking more market share.

I do think YOW would work for a Eurowings flight 4-6x weekly in the summer... but would take away something Star A YUL-FRA/MUC or YYZ-FRA/MUC (more so the 2nd YUL-FRA then anything else).

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by MountainView

Am I in the Canadian Airport thread?

BA is not going to YOW. Way to premium heavy as stated numerous times by many folks.

.

Yes and they said the same about Air France. Their J class is doing very well especially with connections.

[fanofYOW]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes and they said the same about Air France. Their J class is doing very well especially with connections.

Don’t bother, there will always be people criticizing YOW’s viability for air service. I was hoping that would go away with AF’s numbers but clearly not.

[Zmonkey]

Originally Posted by MountainView

Am I in the Canadian Airport thread?

BA is not going to YOW. Way to premium heavy as stated numerous times by many folks.

Traffic is nearly pre-pandemic levels where AC has served LHR year round for, what... 20+ years? Plus FRA for 5+ before covid?
AC realizes it's time to get back in the game whether they have their AC321XLRs or not.
AC will sell YYZ-YOW-LHR traffic to the lower priced customer still for those who don't want to take the other 3x dailies to LHR from YYZ.

When YOW had no competition on YOW-trans-Atlantic, AC was happy reaping the benefits of YOW-YYZ/YUL hub market... but now that AF is there, they likely don't want a potential new carrier coming and taking more market share.

I do think YOW would work for a Eurowings flight 4-6x weekly in the summer... but would take away something Star A YUL-FRA/MUC or YYZ-FRA/MUC (more so the 2nd YUL-FRA then anything else).

You can tell who works in industry and who just wants their cities to work. I get people want more routes to their cities and know how airlines think. Airlines are not scared by photo ops. I can tell people that factually. Air Canada always wants to serve LHR but people are ignoring:

Post covid Air Canada expected substantially less demand - they were wrong (as was basically everyone).
-They expected a drop off in business class tickets, again they were wrong. --Super cheap and super expensive have been strong sales for AC and generally everyone
-There were big restraints on both pilots and crew so air Canada pushed everything to its hubs.
-Russia air space, people here are fully ignoring how much this impacts utilization of aircrafts, crew and planes are away longer limiting how much they can go, again pushing people back to hubs.
-Aircraft demands, AC is basically out of long haul airplanes and has other issues on 737 and a220 shifting those to NA use when needed, even using OMNI on a premium heavy route like SFO. They need more planes
-AC has had planes to grow its retreated routes in 2025 (Calgary, Halifax, Ottawa). Nothing in YYC (they have given more to united).
-Than yes, you have the Montreal and Toronto factor. connecting is a normal part of flying.
-India - India has become very profitable for AC. They needed planes to serve that route and there is a reason they are serving LHR - Delhi. It became the new China, and fast. Again no one really expected this.

For the Air France thing, who was doubting them in industry? No one questioned AF resuming Quebec City, substantially smaller with less business demand. KLM/AF has massively increased their presence in Canada. If you have a 1 million person metro they want to serve you in Canada. They basically stated this right after Covid when they made their first big increase into Western Canada post covid. KLM/AF is the largest European carrier between Canada and EU. They know what they are doing.

[manny_santos]

I just completed my first flight on Flair, and I must say I was impressed with the service. They had multiple flights taking off from T3 at YYZ today and there were a lot of passengers, but the staff were very well organized and professional. On the flight the staff were extremely friendly.

A lot better than the late Lynx Air, where the staff clearly didn’t want to be there and were outright aggressive towards some passengers at the YVR terminal.

My mother used Flair earlier this summer and also had a great experience, aside from the lack of legroom which is par for the course for economy flights these days. It was her first time flying in decades.

I really hope Flair will thrive in this country. I also hope they add more flights from YXU next year as I really dislike having to go to YYZ.

[Calfan12]

Originally Posted by Zmonkey

You can tell who works in industry and who just wants their cities to work. I get people want more routes to their cities and know how airlines think. Airlines are not scared by photo ops. I can tell people that factually. Air Canada always wants to serve LHR but people are ignoring:

Post covid Air Canada expected substantially less demand - they were wrong (as was basically everyone).
-They expected a drop off in business class tickets, again they were wrong. --Super cheap and super expensive have been strong sales for AC and generally everyone
-There were big restraints on both pilots and crew so air Canada pushed everything to its hubs.
-Russia air space, people here are fully ignoring how much this impacts utilization of aircrafts, crew and planes are away longer limiting how much they can go, again pushing people back to hubs.
-Aircraft demands, AC is basically out of long haul airplanes and has other issues on 737 and a220 shifting those to NA use when needed, even using OMNI on a premium heavy route like SFO. They need more planes
-AC has had planes to grow its retreated routes in 2025 (Calgary, Halifax, Ottawa). Nothing in YYC (they have given more to united).
-Than yes, you have the Montreal and Toronto factor. connecting is a normal part of flying.
-India - India has become very profitable for AC. They needed planes to serve that route and there is a reason they are serving LHR - Delhi. It became the new China, and fast. Again no one really expected this.

For the Air France thing, who was doubting them in industry? No one questioned AF resuming Quebec City, substantially smaller with less business demand. KLM/AF has massively increased their presence in Canada. If you have a 1 million person metro they want to serve you in Canada. They basically stated this right after Covid when they made their first big increase into Western Canada post covid. KLM/AF is the largest European carrier between Canada and EU. They know what they are doing.

Good points.

Actually Air Canada doesn’t have enough long haul planes ✈️ to add more new international routes, as most of its already larger long haul planes like Boeing 787-8, 787-9 & 777 & Airbus A330 are very busy used on International/US/ Domestic flight routes mainly out of Toronto YYZ , Montreal YUL & Vancouver YVR.

Once AC gets deliveries of its (New) Boeing 787-10 fleet of planes starting from 2026 , they have more flexibility to add new international destinations from YYZ, YVR, YUL & also possibly re adding YYC- Frankfurt FRA & YYC -Tokyo NRT again & maybe even add new route like YYC-Paris CDG to compete with WestJet✅.

But yes AC does enough have planes to re add retreated routes from Calgary YYC, Ottawa YOW or Halifax YHZ for Domestic/US.

[Zmonkey]

Originally Posted by Calfan12

Good points.

Actually Air Canada doesn’t have enough long haul planes ✈️ to add more new international routes, as most of its already larger long haul planes like Boeing 787-8, 787-9 & 777 & Airbus A330 are very busy used on International/US/ Domestic flight routes mainly out of Toronto YYZ , Montreal YUL & Vancouver YVR.

Once AC gets deliveries of its (New) Boeing 787-10 fleet of planes starting from 2026 , they have more flexibility to add new international destinations from YYZ, YVR, YUL & also possibly re adding YYC- Frankfurt FRA & YYC -Tokyo NRT again & maybe even add new route like YYC-Paris CDG to compete with WestJet✅.

But yes AC does enough have planes to re add retreated routes from Calgary YYC, Ottawa YOW or Halifax YHZ for Domestic/US.

Crew bases and the joing venture.

AC Express doesn't have crews in YOW or YYC so they will be limited to what they fly there (its why you don't have YYC - SASKATOON and just the daily YYC - WINNIPEG which really exists to move a plane not people). Similar situation in Ottawa, just easier to connect people in YUL/yyz where they do have crews.

AC is also giving up some lift to United for cross border routes based on their joint venture. Calgary for example United has done the heavy lifting from Calgary.

Post covid everyone has gone back to their big hubs. Could AC do more, sure but they are doing what everyone else is doing - protecting their more profitable hubs.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Zmonkey

Crew bases and the joing venture.

AC Express doesn't have crews in YOW or YYC so they will be limited to what they fly there (its why you don't have YYC - SASKATOON and just the daily YYC - WINNIPEG which really exists to move a plane not people). Similar situation in Ottawa, just easier to connect people in YUL/yyz where they do have crews.

AC is also giving up some lift to United for cross border routes based on their joint venture. Calgary for example United has done the heavy lifting from Calgary.

Post covid everyone has gone back to their big hubs. Could AC do more, sure but they are doing what everyone else is doing - protecting their more profitable hubs.

I thought Jazz had a base in Calgary. Did they shut that down?

[Dominion301]

Originally Posted by Zmonkey

Crew bases and the joing venture.

AC Express doesn't have crews in YOW or YYC so they will be limited to what they fly there (its why you don't have YYC - SASKATOON and just the daily YYC - WINNIPEG which really exists to move a plane not people). Similar situation in Ottawa, just easier to connect people in YUL/yyz where they do have crews.

AC is also giving up some lift to United for cross border routes based on their joint venture. Calgary for example United has done the heavy lifting from Calgary.

Post covid everyone has gone back to their big hubs. Could AC do more, sure but they are doing what everyone else is doing - protecting their more profitable hubs.

Jazz has a YYC crew base even though there's not much Jazz flying out of YYC these days.

[SteelTown]

https://www.hamilton.ca/city-council...munro-hamilton

Originally Posted by LikeHamilton

City signs $400 million deal investing in John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport


September 24, 2024 | mediarelations@hamilton.ca | media@flyhamilton.ca

The City of Hamilton and TradePort International Corporation have finalized a historic $400 million agreement to further develop and expand John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport over a 49-year term. The deal, signed on September 13, 2024, secures significant investment from TradePort, a wholly owned subsidiary of Vantage Group, a global airport development and transportation infrastructure leader.

The investment aims to transform the Airport’s infrastructure, including expanding and enhancing passenger terminal buildings, upgrading cargo facilities, enhancing taxiways and aprons, and achieving Net Zero Carbon by 2030. The investment is designed to continue positioning Hamilton as a competitive player in the national and global markets while supporting the region’s supply chain and job creation.

“This investment marks a significant milestone in Hamilton’s future. Our airport is a vital transportation hub and a key driver of our community's economic growth and job creation. This $400 million commitment from TradePort and Vantage will enhance Hamilton’s global competitiveness while ensuring sustainability and long-term prosperity. We are excited to partner on a project that will benefit residents, businesses, and the broader region for decades to come,” said Mayor Andrea Horwath.

“This agreement is the result of dedicated collaboration between City staff and our partners at TradePort and Vantage Group. Our team has worked diligently to ensure that this agreement meets Hamilton’s current needs and positions us for long-term success,” said City Manager Marnie Cluckie. “By working closely with our partners, we’ve secured an investment that will bring lasting economic benefits to our community, enhance our airport’s infrastructure, and support a sustainable, thriving future for Hamilton.”

As part of the agreement, and in addition to the $400 million investment, the City of Hamilton will receive guaranteed annual payments, increased revenue sharing based on the Airport's performance, and commitments to annual community investments.

“TradePort’s investment in Hamilton International is great for Hamilton. We are more than just an airport – we are a jobs creator and strong economic contributor,” said Ron Foxcroft, Board Chair, TradePort. “Together, we can strengthen our economic position and inject millions into our local community by investing in our airport infrastructure today. Thanks to our collaborative partnerships with the City of Hamilton, Mayor Andrea Horwath, City Council, and staff, this agreement stands to evolve our city’s airport into the future with ambitious deliverables by 2073.”

“In Hamilton and across Vantage Group’s network, our airports are proven and thriving economic engines for local and national economies. This significant $400 million investment will position us to accommodate and expand passenger and cargo service, deliver safe, efficient cost-effective operations, enhance the customer experience with innovative solutions and technology, and operate sustainably,” said Cathie Puckering, Vice President & Head, Canadian Network, Vantage Group. “We are ready to deliver this exciting plan for the Airport and our city in partnership with the City of Hamilton and all stakeholders.”

TradePort has managed Hamilton International Airport since 1996, facilitating $452 million in investments, contributing more than $1.5 billion in industry activity, and creating more than 4,720 jobs. The new $400 million commitment will further drive local economic development and investment in Hamilton.

https://www.hamilton.ca/city-council...munro-hamilton