CZAMFlyer

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.

24left

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.

CZAMFlyer

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

Does YVR-MCO/MIA (on the Max) count as long haul? Look for it in the spring.

YXUFlyboy

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

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However if you look at what's happened at YYC since the crash - other than NRT going seasonal, AC hasn't withdrawn much service and has introduced some new service to sun destinations.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.

CZAMFlyer

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.

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..."

5mm

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

Symmetre

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.

mellon

and AC might have some spare 787 planes around because they might not be needed on SFO anymore.

YXUFlyboy

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

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.

Dorienna

My selfish wish would be to bring back YUL-HNL direct, even if it has to be Rouged...

YXUFlyboy

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.

The Lev

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?