That corresponds to a yearly increase of 7.2%.

Comparing with YYC however, from 2008 to 2013, traffic went from 12,506,807 to 14,316,074. A 14.5% increase.

Using the same source YEG went from 6,437,334 6,983,229. An 8.5% increase. So either there is a big discrepancy between sources, or the bulk of the YEG traffic increase occured before 2008?

As I've linked my source that answer is a click away. ;)

Sure.

What you did not say is that your source matches mine.

Thus indeed most of that growth is pre 2008. While over the period 2008-2013, YYC traffic actually grew faster. YEG, 1.6%/annum vs.2.75% for YYC.

Huh? LGW is a much easier ride to central London than LHR. Why would business travelers prefer LHR?

Agreed, makes no sense unless you use LHR to transit through, then LHR is only real choice for business. Actually going to London it's a wash.

Sorry but didn't see you providing a source.

Or you look at 2010 on, after the last O&G turn down in 2009
2010
YYC 12,630,695
YEG 6,089,099

2014
YYC ? still not published that I can find,
YEG 8,240,161


YEG growth in passengers 2,151,062 and 26 % growth

I meant to say that my numbers match the numbers from your source.

Though we're often on opposite sides, I respect your POV. But I'm confused ... You think market is still undersupplied or not? WS and TS are each curbing capacity increases YET traffic continues to lag growth.

I disagree. You'll lose the o/d power of London, and most of your cost savings via Rouge will be eaten feeding the existing traffic via FRA to many destinations already served from your global hub.
It's viable due to the relatively strong O/D nature of the route. O/D traffic is almost always more profitable than connecting.
FRA is not higher yielding.

Yes, generally speaking, I think its undersupplied. It might be well-supplied on some routes, but by and large, its undersupplied.

Take this thread for example.

Before Icelandair and KL came in, peak international service was limited to:
AC - 7 X 767 (211) = 1477
A year later, it can apparently support:
AC - 3 X 767 (211) = 633
KL - 4 X 332 (243) = 972
FI - 6 X 757 (183) = 1098
For a grand total of: 2703

That's an 83% increase in the number of international seats it can support. For 2014, YEG claims traffic increased by 7%. That's not insubstantial. One has to ask, where are all these passengers coming from? And who was serving them last year? Or the year before that? Or maybe they weren't being served at all?

As for WS and TS, I don't see WS curbing capacity. I see them moving to limit capacity growth for this year after increasing it by 6% last year, but not actually cutting capacity. TS... well, they've been losing money for years - it begs the question: is their decision is based on demand and supply or on rationalizing their business model?

AC increased its capacity by 7.8%. FWIW, the population grew by ~1.2%. So...where did these new passengers come from? And who were they flying last year? Pointing to the odd leisure route where other carriers have withdrawn is not indicative of the state of the general market; a lot of carriers are adding capacity as fast as they can (outdated bilateral agreements notwithstanding).

Yes, some carriers have reduced capacity. but I think you'll find that air traffic has grown significantly regardless - well beyond the population growth rate. Which means there was some serious undersupply that still being worked out of the system. Its being corrected, but a step in the right direction does not mean it no longer exists.

If o/d was strong enough, they wouldn't have to reduce the route. The two carriers they're losing traffic to are both primarily sixth freedom carriers. The passengers they're losing to those carriers can be catered through FRA. Of course, they would have to compete on price (ergo Rouge), which wouldn't make sense for high value slots in LHR, ergo FRA. If its premium traffic they're after, KL and FI shouldn't be a great concern...unless of course AC values its product more than the people who have to use it do.

:confused:

LGW on the Express takes 30 minutes. By bus, it takes forever. Cabs are expensive. No tube connection. The regular non-express train service isn't cheap either - fares are linked to specific trains. If you buy an advance (discount) fare, you're running the possibility of a loss of ticket, and a more expensive up front fare.

The only up side is that you get to Victoria, instead of Paddington.

LHR is much more convenient - tube, express, connect - even cab fares are much cheaper. LHR for me any day.

http://www.anna.aero/wp-content/uplo...ports-2014.png

http://www.anna.aero/wp-content/uplo...ports-2014.png

Pull out of Edmonton because of competition, but keep flying from shrinking Ottawa and Halifax.

So... can someone tell me?

If the yield is there; and the potential growth is there... why would AC reduce YEG in favour of YYC?

Out of spite for the airport authority???

There must be other factors. Any executive that is compensated by stock performance or financial outcome, should ideally, act in the best interest of the shareholders (including themselves). When I read that people here or "out there" say things like AC stuck it to them, here's the emoticon that comes to mind :rolleyes: