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

Possible New Long Haul Air Canada Routes in the next 5 years

Possible New Long Haul Air Canada Routes in the next 5 years

Reply

Old Dec 14, 18, 12:26 pm
  #61  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,294
Originally Posted by 24left View Post
I don't care about bus gates in the grand scheme.
You have mentioned you dislike remote stand ops in previous conversations, but I appreciate your opinion has changed.
Originally Posted by 24left View Post
As for SIN, AFAIK, it does not have gate constraints but there are other issues that affect AC's ability to launch this route yesterday.
I'm curious what those are. I'm not sure if AC lists SIN as a priority new destination, and what any barriers might be.
CZAMFlyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 18, 12:31 pm
  #62  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K, 1MM, NH, DL, AA, GE/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 15,694
Originally Posted by CZAMFlyer View Post
You have mentioned you dislike remote stand ops in previous conversations, but I appreciate your opinion has changed.

I'm curious what those are. I'm not sure if AC lists SIN as a priority new destination, and what any barriers might be.
Since you have asked me to dance ....

I did not really enjoy boarding the TK A330 in the rain and their version of bus gate boarding was chaos. Arriving in BKK at midnight was pleasant and of course, big A330 plane porn as well. It was just an example of @Transpacificflyer's point about gate constraints at BKK.

I am not sure if AC lists SIN as a priority, but since you talk to more of the "people who work at the airport" than I do , I am quite sure you will hear the same answers I've heard but won't post publicly, or you will know more.
24left is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 18, 12:55 pm
  #63  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,294
Originally Posted by 24left View Post
I am not sure if AC lists SIN as a priority, but since you talk to more of the "people who work at the airport" than I do , I am quite sure you will hear the same answers I've heard but won't post publicly, or you will know more.
Of course I do hear things that I can't repeat publicly, but not so in this case. I believe I've disclosed all I know: that the airports and the business & trade associations are very keen for a nonstop YVR-SIN service, and have been working with airlines to entice them to start. The rights have been in place for a few named carriers from either country to fly nonstop via any airport in both nations. There remain restrictions from intermediate points, preventing SQ from increasing its previous 3x weekly SIN-ICN-YVR route. There is a non-public second intermediate point named in the agreement, but evidently no carriers are rushing to exercise that privilege. The game has changed since the agreement was signed in 2007 with the introduction of the 789 and 359 and the associated ability to carry people n' stuff at much less cost than before. A big question is whether there are enough (premium) passengers interested in a nonstop Canada-Singapore flight.
CZAMFlyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 18, 10:07 pm
  #64  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,294
Does YVR-MCO/MIA (on the Max) count as long haul? Look for it in the spring.

Last edited by CZAMFlyer; Dec 24, 18 at 8:34 am
CZAMFlyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 18, 8:38 am
  #65  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: YYC, Canada
Programs: Former AC*E, WorldPerks, Air Miles
Posts: 1,427
Originally Posted by CZAMFlyer View Post
Does YVR-MCO/MIA (on the Max) count as long haul? Look for it in the spring.
AC has tried MCO before on Rouge, but it didn't return. I assumed it didn't do well. Perhaps the 7M8 is the right aircraft.
YXUFlyboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 18, 8:49 am
  #66  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: YYC, Canada
Programs: Former AC*E, WorldPerks, Air Miles
Posts: 1,427
Originally Posted by MicSanToro View Post
It's just unfortunate that AC is cutting their investment into YYC. Every time I'm in the city I really enjoy it, it's the gateway to the Rockies, and the new airport expansion is beautiful. It would be interesting if AC made YYC a backup to YVR for flights to Asia. YYC is only ~1hr farther from cities in Asia than YVR, and it would relieve congestion in YVR, allowing AC to add new routes to Southeast Asia and/or South America out of YVR.
People blame the oil price, and it's true that for O&D, YYC is dependent on oil. Big spending by oil companies will drive AC's investment in international routes.

However if you look at what's happened at YYC since the crash - other than NRT going seasonal, AC hasn't withdrawn much service and has introduced some new service to sun destinations. The difference is that for AC, they don't seem to want to drive much traffic thru YYC. About 50% of WS traffic at YYC is connecting and they are relying on that to fill the 789s (and part of the reason why they had hourly flights from YVR). I only see this increasing. Longer term, in the west I see YYC being the European hub and YVR taking most of the Asian routes when they launch, with maybe one or two staying in YYC.

AC could if they wanted shift some capacity out of YVR to YYC, particularly, for example, their summer seasonal Europe routes (DUB, CDG, ZRH). I doubt many people would mind the short hop as it's going the correct way; AC could even share the capacity (5x YVR, 2x YYC) with connections between both to facilitate. They just choose not to - either because they make more money keeping it the way it is, or the overall network strategy of not growing YYC or driving any traffic through it. It seems less likely now they will do that, given past behaviour and given WS seems to be trying to set up YYC as a fortress hub; it is easier to grow YUL where WS's presence is pathetic. I am still surprised WS launched the 789s out of YYC instead of YYZ.

Either way, I am just glad we've kept LHR and FRA, and I'm hopeful NRT returns on a 788/789 in 2020.
MicSanToro likes this.
YXUFlyboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 18, 10:31 am
  #67  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,294
Originally Posted by YXUFlyboy View Post
AC has tried MCO before on Rouge, but it didn't return. I assumed it didn't do well. Perhaps the 7M8 is the right aircraft.
And mainline is the right product. Rouge had difficulties competing with an all-economy 737-800 with Mickey painted on the tail. The 319 seemed a bit small; the 767 a bit big for the time. Miami is a destination for leisure & cruise passengers, and offers premium flyers a (limited, compared to AA, granted) connection point to Central and South American cities on Star carriers.

Originally Posted by YXUFlyboy
AC could if they wanted shift some capacity out of YVR to YYC, particularly, for example, their summer seasonal Europe routes (DUB, CDG, ZRH). I doubt many people would mind the short hop as it's going the correct way; AC could even share the capacity (5x YVR, 2x YYC) with connections between both to facilitate. They just choose not to - either because they make more money keeping it the way it is, or the overall network strategy of not growing YYC or driving any traffic through it. It seems less likely now they will do that, given past behaviour and given WS seems to be trying to set up YYC as a fortress hub; it is easier to grow YUL where WS's presence is pathetic. I am still surprised WS launched the 789s out of YYC instead of YYZ.
The quickest way to kill a new route is to introduce an unneeded stopover. Travellers in all cabins want quick & easy travel; adding 90-120 minutes and an immigration stop en route will send passengers in droves to alternate carriers. I'm not certain what the demand is for business class travel on these seasonal routes, but remember that AC is competing for the US-based traveller living in cities lacking non-stop service to Europe. It's just as easy & fast, and often cheaper, for them to connect in YVR - an airport configured for seamless transit - than to connect in a US hub such as LAX, ORD, DTW, JFK etc. If you add a second stop in Calgary, the AC option becomes a lot less appealing. Then Delta and SEA, modelling themselves in part on AC's strategy, win the business.

Regarding Calgary, I'm of the opinion that if they wean themselves off their current dependence on energy, they might gain a better chance to create demand for long haul routes from YYC. Alberta is blessed with space, a talented workforce, business-friendly climate, natural resources & beauty and a population large enough to sustain increased traffic. The leaders just need to broaden their outlook - away from believing that they're sufficiently diversified today "why shucks, we've got both oil and gas..."

Last edited by CZAMFlyer; Dec 24, 18 at 10:37 am
CZAMFlyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 18, 10:49 am
  #68  
5mm
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 669
Originally Posted by YXUFlyboy View Post

AC could if they wanted shift some capacity out of YVR to YYC, particularly, for example, their summer seasonal Europe routes (DUB, CDG, ZRH). I doubt many people would mind the short hop as it's going the correct way; AC could even share the capacity (5x YVR, 2x YYC) with connections between both to facilitate. They just choose not to - either because they make more money keeping it the way it is, or the overall network strategy of not growing YYC or driving any traffic through it. It seems less likely now they will do that, given past behaviour and given WS seems to be trying to set up YYC as a fortress hub; it is easier to grow YUL where WS's presence is pathetic. I am still surprised WS launched the 789s out of YYC instead of YYZ.

.
Canadian tried this. It doesn't work Unless you are looking for the cheapest fare or status chasing, most pax want direct. AC would lose most of their high rue pax on your plan. LH get 2 J return flights from me per year because I will not waste 2 to 3 hours changing planes in YYC
5mm is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 18, 10:50 am
  #69  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Body in YYZ, heart in YYG
Programs: airlines and hotels and rental cars - oh my!
Posts: 2,128
As unlikely as it is to happen, I would love to see YYZ-AKL one day. It's feasible with the 777-200 and probably the 789.
Symmetre is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 18, 11:52 am
  #70  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: ord
Programs: UA 1k SPG Platinum
Posts: 365
Originally Posted by Symmetre View Post
As unlikely as it is to happen, I would love to see YYZ-AKL one day. It's feasible with the 777-200 and probably the 789.
and AC might have some spare 787 planes around because they might not be needed on SFO anymore.
rankourabu likes this.
mellon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 18, 12:02 pm
  #71  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: YYC, Canada
Programs: Former AC*E, WorldPerks, Air Miles
Posts: 1,427
Originally Posted by CZAMFlyer View Post
Regarding Calgary, I'm of the opinion that if they wean themselves off their current dependence on energy, they might gain a better chance to create demand for long haul routes from YYC. Alberta is blessed with space, a talented workforce, business-friendly climate, natural resources & beauty and a population large enough to sustain increased traffic. The leaders just need to broaden their outlook - away from believing that they're sufficiently diversified today "why shucks, we've got both oil and gas..."
This will take decades, even with good government incentives. Clean, high paying jobs like IT don't have critical mass here beyond oil and gas. It can happen, but will it take many years.
YXUFlyboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 18, 12:05 pm
  #72  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: YYC, Canada
Programs: Former AC*E, WorldPerks, Air Miles
Posts: 1,427
Originally Posted by 5mm View Post
Canadian tried this. It doesn't work Unless you are looking for the cheapest fare or status chasing, most pax want direct. AC would lose most of their high rue pax on your plan. LH get 2 J return flights from me per year because I will not waste 2 to 3 hours changing planes in YYC
I disagree. Most pax want the cheapest fare they can get, and they will do things like leave early in the morning and add a connection to get it. Even status pax - I still shake my head at people doing YYC-YVR-YYZ just to get a widebody (adding a stop and 3+ hours just for that?). If someone can get a decent fare and have to stop in YYC from YVR, they will do it. They will even do it if the times are better and there's a direct flight, but it's inconvenient.

I, like you, will often pay for convenience which is usually a non-stop flight. But we are not the average flier.
YXUFlyboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 18, 12:20 pm
  #73  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 20
My selfish wish would be to bring back YUL-HNL direct, even if it has to be Rouged...
Dorienna is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 18, 12:20 pm
  #74  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: YYC, Canada
Programs: Former AC*E, WorldPerks, Air Miles
Posts: 1,427
Originally Posted by CZAMFlyer View Post
The quickest way to kill a new route is to introduce an unneeded stopover. Travellers in all cabins want quick & easy travel; adding 90-120 minutes and an immigration stop en route will send passengers in droves to alternate carriers. I'm not certain what the demand is for business class travel on these seasonal routes, but remember that AC is competing for the US-based traveller living in cities lacking non-stop service to Europe. It's just as easy & fast, and often cheaper, for them to connect in YVR - an airport configured for seamless transit - than to connect in a US hub such as LAX, ORD, DTW, JFK etc. If you add a second stop in Calgary, the AC option becomes a lot less appealing. Then Delta and SEA, modelling themselves in part on AC's strategy, win the business.
I think price always wins, in the end a little inconvenience is worth it if it you save on cash for most pax. However, for AC - where they have more connectivity thru YVR it may not make sense as they might have to drop price to stimulate demand, which reduces yield. WS's transborder connectivity is better in YYC. AC does decently well, though - SEA, PDX, LAX, EWR, SFO. I agree a Europe-YYC-YVR-US would need to be discounted for demand to remain.

In any case, all this is proving is that AC is not willing to invest in YYC like it does at YVR, YUL and YYZ to facilitate connecting traffic, hence why there will be no new international flights and we'll be lucky to maintain what we have.
YXUFlyboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 18, 12:37 pm
  #75  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE MM, SD Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 12,877
Originally Posted by YXUFlyboy View Post
In any case, all this is proving is that AC is not willing to invest in YYC like it does at YVR, YUL and YYZ to facilitate connecting traffic, hence why there will be no new international flights and we'll be lucky to maintain what we have.
An airline can afford only so many hubs for international travel before they become economic. It makes sense to run YYC to LHR and FRA due to volume and onward connections. NRT is probably pretty marginal and my guess is it will disappear if WS ever adds that route. At the end of the day YYC is a primary WS hub and a secondary AC one. How many direct flights does Delta run to Europe or Asia from ORD rather than MSP or DTW?
The Lev is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread