Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

AC increases YYC-LHR, decreases YEG-LHR for S15

AC increases YYC-LHR, decreases YEG-LHR for S15

Old Feb 11, 15, 7:53 am
  #61  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 22,471
Originally Posted by tcook052 View Post
Yes, 2014 record number of 8.2M, a new record and twice the overall amount of 2004 .
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?
Stranger is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 8:24 am
  #62  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend and Moderator: Air Canada Aeroplan, Canada & Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Posts: 53,231
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post
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.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 8:34 am
  #63  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 22,471
Originally Posted by tcook052 View Post
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.
Stranger is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 8:54 am
  #64  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC
Programs: AA GLD, AC
Posts: 3,025
Originally Posted by Arcanum View Post
That seems like a sensible plan. The leisure travelers don't know/care which London airport they're going into and would be fine with LGW. The O/D business crowd will grumble and take the YEG-YYC-LHR.
Huh? LGW is a much easier ride to central London than LHR. Why would business travelers prefer LHR?
M60_to_LGA is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 8:59 am
  #65  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,237
Originally Posted by M60_to_LGA View Post
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.
xLuther is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 9:16 am
  #66  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend and Moderator: Air Canada Aeroplan, Canada & Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Posts: 53,231
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post
What you did not say is that your source matches mine.
Sorry but didn't see you providing a source.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 9:18 am
  #67  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,237
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post
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.
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
xLuther is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 9:32 am
  #68  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 22,471
Originally Posted by tcook052 View Post
Sorry but didn't see you providing a source.
I meant to say that my numbers match the numbers from your source.
Stranger is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 12:14 pm
  #69  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 5,813
Originally Posted by yulred View Post
Yeah, I was wrong. As one often is when passenger traffic exceeds growth in capacity. Something about an 8.5% increase in pax traffic on a 7.8% increase in capacity.
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.

Originally Posted by yulred View Post
My bet (based on no tangible evidence whatsoever) is that this will serve as the basis for a Rouge flight to FRA.
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.
Originally Posted by PLeblond View Post
Not sure I understand/agree with the Rouge idea. I'm actually surprised LHR was a viable destination since its mostly an O/D route, only connecting to other *A hubs.
It's viable due to the relatively strong O/D nature of the route. O/D traffic is almost always more profitable than connecting.
Originally Posted by PLeblond View Post
FRA, I believe, is a higher yield route and I don't see Rouge on such a route, especially since most lower yield traffic will gladly take the 40 minute flight to YYC to save a few bucks.
FRA is not higher yielding.

Last edited by tcook052; Feb 11, 15 at 12:33 pm
CloudsBelow is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 3:37 pm
  #70  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: YYZ/YUL/YOW
Programs: TK*G/E+ SPG (G)
Posts: 2,968
Originally Posted by CloudsBelow View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by CloudsBelow View Post
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.
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.
yulred is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 3:52 pm
  #71  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: YYZ/YUL/YOW
Programs: TK*G/E+ SPG (G)
Posts: 2,968
Originally Posted by M60_to_LGA View Post
Huh? LGW is a much easier ride to central London than LHR. Why would business travelers prefer LHR?


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.
yulred is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 4:11 pm
  #72  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: YVR
Programs: ACSEMM QRGold SPGLifetimePlat FairmontPlat HyattD AMEXCenturion SerenaPlat TalkBoard Founding Member
Posts: 8,962
Dorian is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 6:46 pm
  #73  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 627


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.
TheGreatestX is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 7:00 pm
  #74  
Formerly known as tireman77
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Programs: ACA
Posts: 4,524
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???
PLeblond is offline  
Old Feb 11, 15, 7:04 pm
  #75  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K (*G) WS Gold | SPG/Fairmont Plat Hilton/Hyatt Diamond Marriott Silver | National Exec Elite
Posts: 19,284
Originally Posted by PLeblond View Post
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
superangrypenguin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: