Error 601

I suppose where I struggle with the pessimism, at least where it pertains to YYC is what routes are perceived to be in jeopardy?

Symmetre

Clearly WS sees it that way, and I expect people who live in YYC do as well. But I don't believe anyone else does. With almost twice the population to pull from and more existing connection options, YVR would still seem like the 'natural' western hub.

aerobod

Although YVR has a larger local population, the concept of one-stop hub flying doesn�t rely on a majority of local traffic, it is about the realistic catchment area. YYC has a larger catchment area for the western US and Canada for flights that require minimum back flying and optimum flight paths from origins such as LAX, YVR, SLC, PHX and DEN on to Europe. YYC is also a better hub for YEG, YWG, YXE and YQR, equivalent for YLW and only less effective for YYJ.

YYC also has more spare capacity in both the terminals and runways and generally a better OTP record (especially in the summer) as an airport compared with YVR, giving lower operational challenges. WS would also have to invest a lot in maintenance and office facilities in YVR that already exist in YYC.

gmclean1987

I don't know if others feel the same, but I tend to not mind connection as long as the connecting city feels somewhat "on the way" or at least in the right general direction. I live in Vancouver and while I'd certainly prefer a direct flight, stopping over in Calgary on the way to Europe or the eastern US/Canada doesn't bother me too much. But connecting in Calgary to fly to Asia or the US west coast would upset me (I don't like to feel like I'm flying in the wrong direction), and also seems slightly wasteful for the airlines.

I think YVR would make more sense for Westjet to use as a hub to Asia, but that market is already well served by foreign airlines and to some extent Air Canada, so I'd get why Westjet wouldn't want to compete there. The model I could see working is through code-shares: Westjet uses their strong network in the west to get people to Vancouver and then partner airlines complete the journey, which perhaps the Korea announcement suggests might be the plan?

cedric

The flaw with this argument is that there are several other airlines which can offer one-stop connections from all of these origins. And most of them have a more compelling FFP than Westjet. So that leaves WS to compete on price and schedule alone. For daily Europe flights, schedule is less important to most. It becomes purely price-driven, and that's not generally a path to success when you don't have significant O&D traffic to support those non-stops at a premium. STL, PIT, CVG & CLE and others are examples of smaller cities that at one time were significant hubs but could not maintain a decent yield when compared to the larger cities that their airlines also operated in. WS built up YHM and then abandoned it for YYZ when it realized it could make more money there despite the higher costs.

aerobod

I don’t think FFP and loyalty has any significant bearing on revenue for the majority of PAX WS is planning to attract. Their aircraft seating density on the routes they fly against alliance orientated airlines with strong FFP programs is far superior from a CASM perspective. So yes, it is all about price and being the lowest cost operator on the route. This is a model they have been very successful in operating in the past and is the biggest facet of “returning to their roots” or maybe they could call it “returning to our routes” (sic).

As I’ve stated in the past, certainly pre Covid loyalty is worth about $5 in ticket price to the majority of PAX based on online selling and not being on the first page of a Google search, price is the biggest factor generally followed by routing (I.e. number of stops), so if the competition is also one stop, price is the biggest factor.

Fisch

B737-10 MAX has been approved with no design modifications. All systems go for WS order!!!

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...-10-unchanged/

YXUFlyboy

Does anyone know if WestJet plans on taking and B737-7s? They originally ordered them, but I think they have largely been replaced with the 737-8s. The value proposition for the -7 was longer range, less seats so good for long and thin.

aerobod

It is not actually type approval yet, it is the ability to get type approval after the end of this year without fitting an EICAS system as long as they fit the enhanced AoA indicator and erroneous stick shaker silencer, as required in the EU and Canada for future certifications. They also have to retrofit all MAXs with these 2 mods within 3 years, at Boeing’s expense.

Fisch

Good clarification! Def better than a cancelled type by years end!

Symmetre

The idea of shoehorning 230 people into a 737 alarms me. That is one plane I would, in fact, refuse to fly on.

YXUFlyboy

A sub-200 count like 190 would make more sense to save on FA costs. Not like they ordered the 737 MAX 200 for WO or anything.

aerobod

I think they will either go 16J + 188Y or 16J + 184Y if the projected extra revenue having 4 additional seats is less than the likely 5th FA cost.

It is pretty close, 4 seats can bring in about $100 per flight hour, ex-fuel and per-passenger related taxes and handling costs at 75% load factor, but loaded FA cost is around $60 per flight hour for an average salary.