moondog

Of course, they want more flights. They have lots of big planes flying PEK-SHA that they could redeploy to NYC or LAX. Then, there are cities like Xiamen and Hangzhou that simply want to increase inbound tourism (these flights will be cheap).

lsquare

I'm already on the record by saying I want 2018/2019 level pricing to China.

Xiamen and Hangzhou are both amazing cities. Totally recommended!
​​​​​​

travelinmanS

Wow, that’s a really bold stance to take 😂. Does anyone prefer todays situation other than the CEOs of UA, DL and AA?

moondog

I think UA would launch EWR flights in a New York minute. Of course, this would presumably entail CA and MU flying to JFK daily.

notdw

In Canada. Haven't seen/felt the increased direct flights yet. I wouldn't mind a trip to Hangzhou or Xiamen, as long as the flight doesn't drag on forever.

moondog

We haven't really talked about Canada flights in this thread or others that touch upon the same topic, but I have wondered about the stagnation on that front. Unlike the US case in which opening the floodgates would benefit UA at the expense of AA and DL, Canada only has one airline that flies to China these days (CP was great while it lasted, btw), so there shouldn't be any internal conflicts on the Canada side. Prior to Covid, the Canada-China bilateral was similar in structure to US-China, Japan-China, Korea-China, etc. IIRC, AC flew YVR-PEK, YVR-PVG, YYZ-PEK, YYZ-PVG, and YUL-PVG...all daily, so 35 weekly frequencies. Meanwhile, CA served YVR and YYZ from PEK daily and MU did the same from PVG. I think HU also had a daily flight, but I don't remember the specific route.

From what I can tell, the current situation is AC YVR-PVG, 4 days/week + MU PVG-YYZ 1 day/week.

This perplexes me for two reasons: 1. AC (via the Canadian government) seemingly hasn't asked to ramp up again; 2. Chinese airlines haven't bothered to add 3 more weekly frequencies in order to create parity in the absence of a re-expanded bilateral (this might be an economies of scale issue, though; it might not be worth CA's or CZ's time to fly to a Canadian city once per week).

I suppose the most logical explanation for #1 could be that there isn't enough demand to support additional flights now. The problem I have with this argument is that both AC and MU are still selling their flights for $2k+ each way (in normal economy class), and there hasn't been a shortage of takers. Sure, jumping back up to 70 weekly frequencies could push the airlines into the red, but there must be a number between 5 and 70 that benefits both the airlines and passengers.

IluvSQ

Xiamen Air had a daily YVR-XMN, CA had a daily PEK-YUL ( continuing on to Cuba), CZ flew CAN-YYZ, and there may have
been more that I don't recall. HU was PEK-YYZ.

moondog

Oh, boy. I feel embarrassed/ashamed for missing CZ and MF (I thought about CZ after posting, though). The specific routes are less important than the cap (i.e. number of total frequencies permitted per side) that was in place immediately before the five ones came to town.

mlin32

Man, Canada and the US need to lighten up on the politics and open up flights.

Meanwhile, in Europe, things near-normal

3x/day frequency FRA to PVG.

2x/daily from Paris-Roissy to PVG and also to PEK.

moondog

At least in the US case, straight up protectionism is the driving force. That becomes politics when sufficiently spun (e.g. "American jobs"), but the heart of matter remains ensuring that our airlines can continue to soak passengers. ~70 new China-Canada flights would certainly disturb this equilibrium, so I wonder if the DOT is playing a role in Canada's posture?

YVR Cockroach

Cold war and the PRC is not consuming any Canadian tourism (and lobster among other things) as a result. Used to be 8 greater China airlines (B-reg'd) flying to YVR. MU used to have 2x to YVR at 12 hr intervals. Traffic at YVR is still down substantially, contributed by a fall in trans-Pacific travel (4.5mm arrivals in 2019, 1.8mm in in 2022).

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/l...-china-7145049

Of course, AC is benefiting from reduced competition and launching direct routes to distant airports that were at least previously 1 stop or change of planes. SQ apparently still can't make YVR work w/o 5th freedom traffic.

Lots of traffic in way of (surface) freighters though. Brought over my 3 newly-acquired-from-WM Acer 28" UHD monitors.

moondog

I'll readily concede that there seems to me much less demand for inbound and outbound tourism. Wrt inbound, I went to Yuyuan yesterday, and I didn't witness more than a handful of people speaking languages other than Mandarin.

Outbound is starting to pick up, just not to North America. I suspect that sky high airfares and inconvenient connections are a major factor here. Then, there is an accompanying lack of promotion (e.g. there is no point in trying to pitch Montreal, as long as getting there is close to impossible). I guess we could describe this as a chicken and egg problem.

My Chinese friends HAVE traveled abroad this summer, but England and France have been their top picks.

in any event, I believe that the tourism industry will rebound, but bringing airfares down to more digestible levels (through more flights and increased competition) is an important step.

Wrt "more flights", I'm simply hoping for "more than now" and a framework that permits further expansion with minimal government involvement (i.e. just set high caps and let the airlines test the waters themselves).

As a consumer, I don't care if there is actual parity in practice.

YVR Cockroach

I think it's more likely the PRC government is only permitting tourism to countries that are not hostile. Canada, U.S. and Australia (and might as well throw in the other "Five Eyes" nations, U.K. and N.Z.) are deemed hostile so at the receiving end of what is essentially a trade embargo.

moondog

Upon retiring the five ones, CAAC's statement said that preexisting bilaterals could be reinstated. I've seen no hints that this offer was disingenuous. Most Chinese people I know who like to visit the US or Canada don't have issues with visas. Expensive/inconvenient airplane tickets are honestly the only real stumbling block.

YVR Cockroach

And what better way to embargo or at least discourage tourist trade by restricting supply and jacking up prices? Reportedly group tourism (albeit supposedly falling out of favour) is only approved to 60 countries and the U.S. is stated to be not one of them (I suspect Canada is another).