Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AC To Start YYZ-BOM, Other Routes, No YUL Hub?  
User currently offlineCayman From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 905 posts, RR: 9
Posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8341 times:

There have been numerous previous discussions regarding increase in AC at YUL and reducing or eliminating YYZ hub, some based on information I have received. I am also now hearing that this was either bad information or perhaps deliberate MISinformation to scare GTAA into lightening up on the onerous fees. There have been recent news reports of the high GTAA fees and the risk to service and the publicity may have had the desired effect; I am now told that subject to surviving the restructuring, AC and GTAA will do a very nice deal which will see big INCREASES in service to YYZ, perhaps involving codeshares with LH and other star alliance members, as well as numerous new mainline flights. YYZ could be positioned as a major STAR hub, of course much also depends on UA survival.

With regrets to FLYYUL, it does not appear that there will be anything more than marginal changes to AC service at YUL and that if the arrangements are finalized with GTAA then YYZ will be ensconced as the sole international hub operations.

I am also told of openly discussed AC intention to commence non stop YYZ-BOM service in a few months, provided that the DEL route seems to be worth it.

Two European airline execs I have contact with confirmed that in their view any plan to change the AC hub from YYZ to YUL would be "insane" and that their analysis shows long term growth at YYZ as "huge" especially in light of the new facilities and the anticipated continued population boom in the GTA. YUL is not really on anyone's map as a huge growth centre although there may be some nominal new services if demand is indicated.

71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8256 times:

Cayman, does this mean a big increase in Air Canada only, or does it suggest big increases in other airlines serving Toronto? Would Lufthansa for instance increase frequencies or rely on Air Canada to do so? I would imagine Lufthansa is better equiped to increase international frequencies with newer long-range aircraft being delivered and a more solid financial position.


"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineCayman From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 905 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8229 times:

This was a very general discussion, but the impression I got was that it might see AC focus on increasing tranborder and latin America routes, and maybe working with LH on code shares and feeding the routes from overseas. They see a big possible market and many travelers from overseas to latin America weary of transiting through US.

For example, LH has little service to central America as there is not quite a market for it out of FRA. LH could consider operating a YYZ mini hub in YYZ together with AC, to serve many central and S american destinations that do not warrant service from FRA. This is not unlike what IB did with their mini hub at MIA, feeding routes to central america through MAD via MIA. Problem is, IB is hurting from suspension of Transit W/O Visa in US. Even if it is reinstated, many many latin American business people I deal with on a daily basis will go out of their way to avoid US transit processes, even if they have visas.

It was all just conversation but the point remains that YYZ could see huge growth.


User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8226 times:

Well Cayman say what you must.

But Air Canada has taken very definite steps to hub building at YUL, with new services to YDF, YYT, YWG, YEG, MEX, YYG, BEY (if not shot down by our stupid govt), and MUC in co-op with LH. Air Canada has increased frequencies on pretty much every route to the USA, and there is more coming. As of summer, AC increased capacity by 13%, and this winter, the new winter sked is showing a 22% increase in capacity.

Anyway I asked this question to the CEO of Aeroports de Montreal a few weeks ago and this was the response;

"We have been holding very serious conversations with Air Canada in this
connection for some time. Air Canada has openly expressed significant
satisfaction with our expansion project our cost structure and our level of
cooperation. We are very hopeful, as we help them through the upcoming
restructuring, that we will be able to see interesting changes in Montreal."

Toronto, could never be huge STAR hub like LHR, FRA, ORD. It would say best, it is a secondary hub with high origin and destination demand for international travel. Toronto's geographic position is such that it is a key north-atlantic hub, that could be the crossroads between Europe and South America. The only problem is that AC is just getting by on numerous routes, especially in the States. Within North America, YYZ has hit its peak. To Europe, YYZ is pretty much also at peak. AC had a tough time with YYZ-NRT, and does not have the resource to go to HKG nonstop. Out in South America, few destinations other than EZE, SCL, GRU, GIG, CCS, maybe even LIM seem possible. From there on, I dont see where AC can go. New facility or not...

Cayman, with all due respect, I think anybody really believed what you were saying. There seems to be a lot misinformation out there, perhaps you were victim of such.

Mark



User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8201 times:

Cayman,

You'll see European airlines commence non-stop links in that event. Your really over-estimating the potential of the South America/Europe link via Toronto....

Mark


User currently offlineCayman From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 905 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8160 times:

FLYYUL, you are self contradicitng again...

Previously when I raised the possibility of a hub change to YUL, based on credible information, you claimed it would "never happen" and that I was "freaking out". I was only reporting some sources I had heard, good sources who were told things.

I am now reporting that perhaps it was in AC's interests to stir a little fear in GTAA, and that they may have done so. If they get the deal they want, they will be much happier in YYZ, again, direct quotes.

Set aside all of our various "sources" all of whom could be wrong.

AC cannot operate 2 hubs. It would be financial stupidity if not suicide. It cannot set up YUL as a quasi hub either. It is either YYZ or YUL, one or the other. There might be nominal increases in YUL services, but it will not become a "hub"...unless the original information was correct and it is to be THE only hub.

You keep repeating about LH and MUC out of YUL. It might be a feasible route, but it is highly noteworthy they suspended it for the winter.

Serious analysis has been conducted as to the viablity of YYZ in the latin American corridor especially in conjunction with LH. The same analysis sees YYZ as a big growth area, far and away the leader in Canada anyway. You seem to resist it, however there is solid data to support that it could be highly viable.

I am trying to base my viewpoint on the analaysis, data, and opinion I have been provided by intelligent, very well placed people, I believe. I respect your views but you might be a little overly optimistic for YUL, based on what I am told by decsionmakers.


User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8141 times:

Well I have been in touch with desicion makers within the ADM and AC, all of whom tell me that Montreal will likely continue to grow. For good measure, I have even inserted a quotation that perhaps would be of good value.

It is not suicide for Air Canada to have 2 functional hubs within Canada. Air Canada's downfall, especially for the year 2003, was that it was too dependent on Toronto. SARS, running out of de-ice fluid, and the power outage crippled AC almost to a halt.

Now let us speak of the operational side of Toronto. Let us do a network analysis. For North America, AC has failed on many routes, from GRR, SAN, GSO, JAX etc. These are routes that are 3 or 4 daily from neighbouring hubs such as DTW and ORD. In europe, it seems like Air Canada is also well served out there. They have cancelled Toronto-Rome indefinitely. Other routes such as YYZ-DUB, YYZ-AMS, YYZ-MAN, while profitable, they are marginal in the scheme of things since they are mostly operated in all Y seating. Asia, AIr Canada failed on YYZ-NRT, which is 2 daily in DTW. Air Canada doesnt have aircraft that can operate efficiently nonstop from YYZ to HKG, and several bets are that YYZ-DEL will likely never reach optimum due to potential weight restrict scenarios. Latin America, potential exists. However, most feasible routes are served and will be served this winter. Other feasible routes perhaps include LIM and CCS, but these arent high-yielding markets in nature anyway.

"You keep repeating about LH and MUC out of YUL. It might be a feasible route, but it is highly noteworthy they suspended it for the winter."

-LH never had the intention of operating the route in the winter. Several LH persons who work at YUL pretty much told me that LH was simply testing the waters. Alas, March28th, they are back daily.

Cayman, nobody here is saying that YUL will become the primary hub of Air Canada. I strongly believe it will be a good complementing hub for YYZ. Now if you dont believe that, revisit the statistics that I had posted on an earlier thread, and furthermore the quotations from person who are involved in this matter.

What you seem to consistently invoke is Toronto by far the most profitable and powerful market in Canada. While there is some truth to this statement, it is mostly false. Montreal itself can support a multitude of destinations around North America, Europe and even Latin America, not yet served out of YUL. DEN, BWI, DTW, RDU, ATL, SEA, with the right mix of inbound connections, can be supported. Europe, FCO/MXP/BRU/GVA/NCE/MAD are very popular destinations. In the Middle East, TLV not served with a huge jewish community, BEY not allowed due to govt interference, CAI etc etc.

Optimization of revenue is not done by connecting passengers in hubs. Connection traffic by nature is low-yield in nature anyway.


Mark


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8083 times:

Mark, all your commentary is skewed to minimizing YYZ potential while maximizing YUL potential with motherhood statements.

YUL will handle fewer passengers in 2003 than it did in 2000. So the growth figures you mention for YUL are simply regaining previously lost traffic.

YYZ has hit its peak. To Europe, YYZ is pretty much also at peak.

Based on what evidence? This is a motherhood statement. The LCC's are growing by leaps and bounds in YYZ. Strong economic growth forecasts for YYZ thru 2007 (higher than YUL's) will propel YYZ growth higher than YUL.

Mark, let's not start another YUL-YYZ argument....but your comments re-YYZ vs YUL growth are heavily one-sided and biased. They are absolutely refutable.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8080 times:

Cayman, and I say this with all due respect,

Based on what I have heard today from informative sources. Your gonna be dissapointed..

Mark



User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8074 times:

Neil..

"YUL will handle fewer passengers in 2003 than it did in 2000. So the growth figures you mention for YUL are simply regaining previously lost traffic."

-Same for YYZ.


"Based on what evidence? This is a motherhood statement. The LCC's are growing by leaps and bounds in YYZ. Strong economic growth forecasts for YYZ thru 2007 (higher than YUL's) will propel YYZ growth higher than YUL."

-Perhaps.. but the LCC's are taking away from AC. Furthermore, the argument im making is in terms of AC's network at YYZ..


THe writing is on the wall Neil.

Mark



User currently offlineCayman From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 905 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7983 times:

FLYYUL,

If your well placed sources are within AC management and if they are planning a major change to their hub model, I hope that they have some good lawyers acting for them because the litigation will be phenomenal. Normally any company would be free to make whatever changes its management thinks fit, whether it is commercially wise or not. But not when they are in CCA Act, not by a long shot.

Neither equity partners nor creditors nor other stakeholders are interested in a fundamental shift of the AC business model with respect to its hubs. If AC mgt is now that desperate then maybe things really are as bad as some say, in which case this whole discussion is irrelevant because there will be no AC in a few months. There would be issues as to serious misrepresenations within the CCA Act.

Of course, FLYYUL, you should be crossing your fingers that AC does not fail completely, because it is only owing to the institutional bias in favour of YUL that AC is even there....the Act of Parliament privatizing it MANDATES that both the H/O and maintenance remain at YUL, even if it makes NO economic sense to do so. The Mulroney conservatives included that clause when AC was privatized so as not to offend the Quebec nationalist types. As always in Canada, ridiculous poiltical dynamics have saddled AC with commercially un feasible propositions.

The point is, if AC fails, whatever replaces it will not be beholden to YUL by an Act of Parliament.

Finally, and I also say this with due respect FLYYUL, consider that there is a certain "PR" spin to those of your AC (or other Montreal, ie Head of Mtl Airports) sources....of course they are going to put the best spin on things from a Montreal perspective. What do you think AC media relations (or anyone else) would say if someone inquired as to the future of YYZ, or YVR, or YYC, or YUG, or whatever.....of course the future "will see growth and potential".....


User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7969 times:

Cayman please dont make this personal, I have never tried to offend you.


The strategy from what I have learned is to keep the status quo out of YYZ. Other than YYZ-BOM, there wont be much more expansion. And with good reason.... AC's YYZ network is almost maxed out to its destination capabilities. Only a few more destinations can be supported. This being the case, their revenue base will come under attack by competitors. Then what?

Apparently its much cheaper for them to transfer pax at YUL, this from transfer pax that is low-yield in nature anyway. It makes perfect sense for AC to pay better attention to where they will get the best substantial cost savings.

The YUL maintenance base has nothing to do with AC act. AC started off in YUL, built the huge facility before YYZ was even the main hub. What economic sense having the HQ in YYZ? How deos the HQ being in YYZ help them earn one more dollar.... besides the fact it is SO much cheaper for AC to operate in the city of Montreal, who has the lowest cost of living and cost of business in North America.

Lets talk when AC's summer sked comes out...

Mark

[Edited 2003-10-15 22:44:08]

[Edited 2003-10-15 22:45:32]

[Edited 2003-10-15 22:46:44]

User currently offlineAA61hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7922 times:

BOM-YYZ is quite a haul, whats the aircraft?


Go big or go home
User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7903 times:

Not sure YYZ-BOM has the range.

Perhaps a stop in DEL?? YYZ-DEL-BOM would really be neat in my opinion.

Mark


User currently offlineCayman From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 905 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7903 times:

This is not personal at all, rather I enjoy the discussion. I was only responding to your suggestion that I would be "disappointed".

I may be wrong but if you check the Act privatizing AC I think it includes maintenance issues.

The issue of the H/O is obvious. A YUL H/O is logically going to gravitate towards a YUL hub. How many US majors have their main hub anywhere but where their H/O is?

DL? ATL
AA? DFW
UA? ORD
CO? IAH

Or international carrriers

BA
LH
AF

The list goes on.

How many world majors operate a H/O in a location different from their main operations hub? Few, if any. Why? The answer is obvious. AC is the exception. US investors are stupified that a supposedly privatized company such as AC is restricted by Govt decree from making a commercial decision with respect to its H/O location.

You think if it were not decided by market forces AC wouldn't have moved long ago? Answer that sincerely.


User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7886 times:

LH is not based in FRA. US is based in Washington....

In all sincerity, La Caisse De Depot et Placement du Quebec has been one of AC's largest shareholders for a very long time, and I think there is no way that a move could have been made.

Having an HQ at YUL does gravitate to a hub. Because Montreal is a large economically diversified city that only recently exploded from a long period of darkness.

This being said, YYZ will always be Air Canada's main base of OPS. Montreal just might get larger. Good for AC... and no it isnt suicide.

Best Regards,
Mark


User currently offlineCanadaEH From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 1341 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7878 times:

How long is this Montreal vs. Toronto arguement going to go on for?

FLYYUL, your facts or opinions (whatever you want to call them) are so one-sided that you have no credibility. Your "decision makers" or "sources" say that Montreal will continue to grow. Great, so will every other Canadian city. Toronto will grow. Vancouver will grow. Calgary will grow. Montreal will grow. Heck, even Gander will grow! So if you're going to spew the same old Montreal crap at least spew it with some realistic views.

You're also not off by saying that it is not suicide for Air Canada to operate two hubs. What is suicide is having two hubs so close together. Air Canada SHOULD only operate two hubs - Vancouver and Toronto. However, your clouded, pro-motherhood mind will not allow you to think this way. Are you forgetting that Toronto is the largest city in Canada? Its OBVIOUS that more flights will be through this city.

You continually claim that Toronto is overserved, that Montreal will never be as big as Toronto, that flights will be shifted from Toronto to Montreal, blah blah blah. Your arguements and views always come back to the same thing - Montreal is the center of the universe and Toronto has reached its peak.

Air Canada's downfall, especially for the year 2003, was that it was too dependent on Toronto. SARS, running out of de-ice fluid, and the power outage crippled AC almost to a halt.

Running out of deicing fluid? That's a new one! Thanks for the chuckle. Westjet seemed to cope alright - they even had extra fluid get trucked in from Hamilton and the US to ensure that they were alright. Just another excuse for the motherhood.

Through your posts oozing your pro-Air Canada, pro-motherhood, pro-Montreal opinions, rants, and views, I've concluded this: Because Air Canada suffered so badly by a drop in demand in Toronto, you feel that some flights should be shifted from Toronto to Montreal so that there are less flights operating out of Toronto and more out of Montreal - another hub. You feel that there were/are too many flights operating out of Toronto, and had those flights been operating out of Montreal, Air Canada would not have suffered as dearly as they did.

I call the bullsh*t card on this one! The drop in demand of passengers travelling to Toronto, TO TORONTO, was because these people were travelling to TORONTO, not Montreal. If one person wanted to end up in Toronto, they still wouldn't travel whether or not the flight was direct to YYZ or routed through YUL connecting onto a flight to YYZ. Do you see what I'm getting at? Why offer a flight from YUL when the demand is far greater in YYZ?

Most of the people in this forum know that you are pro-motherhood and pro-Montreal, and thats fine. I'm just so sick of hearing the same excuses over and over again. Your "ideas" or "facts" (based on your insider info) is completely irrelevant because of your bias towards Air Canada and everything that is Montreal.

Toronto will continue to be the main hub for Air Canada. Montreal will grow, as will every other Canadian city. Get off the motherhood train and come back down to reality, my friend, cause sooner or later that motherhood train is going to come to a grinding halt. I'd love to see you in charge of Air Canada, you'd do just about as good of a job as Robert Milton is doing running it now.

Oh and by the way, Westjet raised $150 million in equity today. Air Canada can't even raise a simple $700 million. Not only are those in this forum and those in the industry weary about Air Canada's future, so are, apparently, investors.



EH.
User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7838 times:

CanadaEh.. ill gladly respond

"FLYYUL, your facts or opinions (whatever you want to call them) are so one-sided that you have no credibility. Your "decision makers" or "sources" say that Montreal will continue to grow. Great, so will every other Canadian city. Toronto will grow. Vancouver will grow. Calgary will grow. Montreal will grow. Heck, even Gander will grow! So if you're going to spew the same old Montreal crap at least spew it with some realistic views."

-Let me not get into a sources debate with you. If you would kindly look at the archives, I call Austrian, Lufthansa, Air Canada to Rome way before they are even announced. Let alone random tidbits about the situation about Montreal's 2 airports.

My view is based on informative sources that I have met on the way since I start working at the airport. You can simply not deny or discredit them. I am only repeating what I have heard.


"You're also not off by saying that it is not suicide for Air Canada to operate two hubs. What is suicide is having two hubs so close together. Air Canada SHOULD only operate two hubs - Vancouver and Toronto. However, your clouded, pro-motherhood mind will not allow you to think this way. Are you forgetting that Toronto is the largest city in Canada? Its OBVIOUS that more flights will be through this city."

-Obviously yes. I never made any mention that Montreal should be larger than Toronto, neither did I ever imply that Montreal will even get close to Toronto's current extensive network. My pro-motherhood mind has taken the recent events, recent additions by Air Canada at YUL and sources that are close to the action, to come up with the strategy that things are looking up at YUL. Many airlines have hubs very close together (insert MUC and FRA, insert CLT/PHL, insert ORD/DFW). The problem with Canada is that the population is mostly clustered around Montreal and Toronto. To choose one and ignore the other is not optimizing potential. These two markets may be all so close, but are not like one another. They have diffrent origins, different cultures almost.

"You continually claim that Toronto is overserved, that Montreal will never be as big as Toronto, that flights will be shifted from Toronto to Montreal, blah blah blah. Your arguements and views always come back to the same thing - Montreal is the center of the universe and Toronto has reached its peak. "

-Give me a break. At least do some in-depth analysis before you criticize my point of view. I have broken down the Toronto hub by continent, and by operational bank. If you keep in mind that it has failed on many routes that are 3 or 4 daily from competiting major US hubs, they are but limited destinations to serve. If you dont agree, then say why you disagree. Come up with possible strategies and scenarios.

"Through your posts oozing your pro-Air Canada, pro-motherhood, pro-Montreal opinions, rants, and views, I've concluded this: Because Air Canada suffered so badly by a drop in demand in Toronto, you feel that some flights should be shifted from Toronto to Montreal so that there are less flights operating out of Toronto and more out of Montreal - another hub. You feel that there were/are too many flights operating out of Toronto, and had those flights been operating out of Montreal, Air Canada would not have suffered as dearly as they did. "

-Not at all. Firstly, my views arents rants, they are becoming fact. To a certain extent I feel like Air Canada has focused itself too much on Toronto, at the expense of possibilities in other markets. Some routes in YYZ should also be operating in YUL. I personally think that the size of YYZ's hub is not properly proportional to YUL. I do not think there should be 15 YYZ-YVR flights a day, and only 3 out of YUL, when the market is only twice as big. Catch what Im saying.

" call the bullsh*t card on this one! The drop in demand of passengers travelling to Toronto, TO TORONTO, was because these people were travelling to TORONTO, not Montreal. If one person wanted to end up in Toronto, they still wouldn't travel whether or not the flight was direct to YYZ or routed through YUL connecting onto a flight to YYZ. Do you see what I'm getting at? Why offer a flight from YUL when the demand is far greater in YYZ?"

-The problem is that for AC its not about YYZ. Its about what it can offer via YYZ. Air Canada has concluded that only several routes out of YUL and even YYZ for that matter cannot rely solely on origin and destination pax. Therefore it needs connecting feed. People avoided Toronto for fear of SARS, and consequently also avoided Montreal to a lesser extent.

Now the problem is that TNEW is not as efficient as AC would have liked it. Its a monstrosity with the same connecting times as the previous T1/T2 deal. Furthermore, its something like almost 40% cheaper for them to send transit pax through YUL. On top of that, its a 30 minute flat connection time from domestic to international and vice versa. Once again, im only repeating what I was told about 4 months ago.

"Most of the people in this forum know that you are pro-motherhood and pro-Montreal, and thats fine. I'm just so sick of hearing the same excuses over and over again. Your "ideas" or "facts" (based on your insider info) is completely irrelevant because of your bias towards Air Canada and everything that is Montreal."

-Thank you for the kind complement. My purpose on this board is not to spread Montreal propaganda. I have made several friends from YYZ, from YYC, from YVR onthis board, and have made in person. I go to YYZ and marvel at the kind of traffic they receive. I continually fly there to hang out with people there. However, it wont stop me from expressing my view. I know most of the members are here from Toronto, so they might not be ecstatic about some of the news. But im not trying to trash them or disrespect them. Im calling a spade a spade essentially.

"Toronto will continue to be the main hub for Air Canada. Montreal will grow, as will every other Canadian city. Get off the motherhood train and come back down to reality, my friend, cause sooner or later that motherhood train is going to come to a grinding halt. I'd love to see you in charge of Air Canada, you'd do just about as good of a job as Robert Milton is doing running it now."

-Thanks again.


CanadaEH.. i love how you continually take me out of context. I know and acknowledge that Toronto will always be AC's main hub. I have no problems with that, its very the Canadian market is primarily. But I have always believed since I became a member, that Montreal in itself had a lot of potential to be a major part in the AC operation. I have been told since 2000 that I am crazy, that I am full of it, that im just a teenager kid that pretends like I know a lot... thats fine.

Those who know me better, (perhaps some of the people of my respected list) will acknowledge that I know what I am talking about... whether or not you agree with me...

Best Regards,
Mark

















User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7809 times:

Firstly, my views arents rants, they are becoming fact. To a certain extent I feel like Air Canada has focused itself too much on Toronto, at the expense of possibilities in other markets. Some routes in YYZ should also be operating in YUL. I personally think that the size of YYZ's hub is not properly proportional to YUL. I do not think there should be 15 YYZ-YVR flights a day, and only 3 out of YUL, when the market is only twice as big. Catch what Im saying.


Mark, CanadaEh is correct....it's all motherhood statements with you. Look at the above paragraph. You state that the YYZ market is only twice as big. According to the traffic (YYZ 27m vs YUL 8m), YYZ is more than 3 times as large. Don't you think AC would add more flights to YUL if there was a demand? Nort to mention all the other airlines also. The market has determined that YUL can only handle 8M passengers, not the airlines.


AC's YYZ network is almost maxed out to its destination capabilities. Only a few more destinations can be supported.


Most growth at ANY airport comes from addl flights to existing markets. In 10 years, YYZ will likely have flights to YVR every 20-30 minutes and perhaps 12 daily LHR flights. New destinations for estabished airports such as YYZ as a small portion of the traffic growth.

Mark, your "reliable sources" are nothing more than people pleased to agree with your enthusiasm for YUL growth, that's all. They're not the decision makers and they are just trying to placate you. If you go charging into the OS office and say "wouldn't it be great if OS had daily service to YUL!!!!! oh boy oh boy!" .....then of course they will agree with you.







Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7773 times:

Neil.. say what you want. You keep saying the same things about me and my views.

Whether or not you agree with me, I am confident in my view. Meanwhile your track record certainly leaves a lot to be desired.



User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7749 times:

Mark, why don't you just ease up on the incessant YUL glossing? The YUL opportunities are no greater than any other Cdn market. Accept it.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7723 times:



Do you remember the title of this thread?

*filler*


User currently offlineCanadaEH From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 1341 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7663 times:

-Let me not get into a sources debate with you. If you would kindly look at the archives, I call Austrian, Lufthansa, Air Canada to Rome way before they are even announced. Let alone random tidbits about the situation about Montreal's 2 airports.

Again, this is irrelevant. Air Canada employees don't even know what the future holds for them as individuals. The employees don't even know what the go-forward plan will be once Air Canada emerges from bankrupcty protection. So how can you come on here posting that "your sources" have been giving you "credible" information about a shift in Air Canada's business plan and operations? I acknowledge your information as nothing more than rumours and ideas - you know, the ones you come up with when you have a coffee with your co-workers.

My pro-motherhood mind has taken the recent events, recent additions by Air Canada at YUL and sources that are close to the action, to come up with the strategy that things are looking up at YUL. Many airlines have hubs very close together (insert MUC and FRA, insert CLT/PHL, insert ORD/DFW). The problem with Canada is that the population is mostly clustered around Montreal and Toronto. To choose one and ignore the other is not optimizing potential. These two markets may be all so close, but are not like one another. They have diffrent origins, different cultures almost

Looking up? Wow, Montreal must have a bunch of brilliant minds working together to come up with that statement! Every city in Canada is growing, and Montreal is no exception. I don't see Montreal growing any quicker than Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa, or Toronto.

You also mention that there are other airlines with hubs close to each other. Canada's population does not justify Air Canada having two hubs so close to each other.

I will acknowledge that Montreal does have people with different background and cultures, and I'd expect those markets to be served. Take Vancouver for example, there are many asian airlines that serve Vancouver, and you don't see any asian carriers serving Edmonton or Calgary or Winnipeg do you?

I have broken down the Toronto hub by continent, and by operational bank. If you keep in mind that it has failed on many routes that are 3 or 4 daily from competiting major US hubs, they are but limited destinations to serve. If you dont agree, then say why you disagree. Come up with possible strategies and scenarios.

The population and traffic difference is so high between Canada and the US, your arguement is not valid. Routes get tested over time, and if they fail they fail. That doesn't mean that that route is never to be used again. Maybe the time wasn't right for a route to be introduced, I don't know.

To a certain extent I feel like Air Canada has focused itself too much on Toronto, at the expense of possibilities in other markets. Some routes in YYZ should also be operating in YUL. I personally think that the size of YYZ's hub is not properly proportional to YUL. I do not think there should be 15 YYZ-YVR flights a day, and only 3 out of YUL, when the market is only twice as big. Catch what Im saying.

Which routes should also be operating out of YUL and why? Toronto is Canada's largest city. Vancouver is Canada's second largest city. Montreal is Canada's third largest city. I'd like to see some statistics on the amount of daily flights in and out of all three of these cities to see how disproportioned this service really is. How many international/transborder flights are operated out of Montreal? How many MORE international/transborder flights are operated out of Toronto? The justification for more Vancouver to Toronto flights is blatently obvious.

Now the problem is that TNEW is not as efficient as AC would have liked it. Its a monstrosity with the same connecting times as the previous T1/T2 deal. Furthermore, its something like almost 40% cheaper for them to send transit pax through YUL. On top of that, its a 30 minute flat connection time from domestic to international and vice versa. Once again, im only repeating what I was told about 4 months ago.

I've heard rave reviews about TNEW from Air Canada. I've read articles with Robert Milton and other execs claiming how great TNEW is. To use Vancouver and Calgary as an example, how about Air Canada shift some flights to Calgary instead of Vancouver. Its cheaper, so why not? If Air Canada can shift some flights from Toronto to Montreal, why would a shift of Vancouver to Calgary be any different?

Just to keep myself ON TOPIC.... the last line says: "No hub for YUL".



EH.
User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7607 times:

"Again, this is irrelevant. Air Canada employees don't even know what the future holds for them as individuals. The employees don't even know what the go-forward plan will be once Air Canada emerges from bankrupcty protection. So how can you come on here posting that "your sources" have been giving you "credible" information about a shift in Air Canada's business plan and operations? I acknowledge your information as nothing more than rumours and ideas - you know, the ones you come up with when you have a coffee with your co-workers."

-Its not a shift in the business plan, AC has been waiting for the new facilities in Montreal to go up. AC's intentions since the transfer of flights from YMX to YUL was to do what they are effectively doing now. Once again CanadaEH if you dont believe me, do an AC capacity overall capacity analysis from winter 2003 to winter 2003-04.

I will not divulge my sources. They are very credible, they are the people who work for the company themselves. Those who know me well, will believe me. I know you wont, im willing to live with that.

"You also mention that there are other airlines with hubs close to each other. Canada's population does not justify Air Canada having two hubs so close to each other.

I will acknowledge that Montreal does have people with different background and cultures, and I'd expect those markets to be served. Take Vancouver for example, there are many asian airlines that serve Vancouver, and you don't see any asian carriers serving Edmonton or Calgary or Winnipeg do you? "

-Who are you to say this?

"Which routes should also be operating out of YUL and why? Toronto is Canada's largest city. Vancouver is Canada's second largest city. Montreal is Canada's third largest city. I'd like to see some statistics on the amount of daily flights in and out of all three of these cities to see how disproportioned this service really is. How many international/transborder flights are operated out of Montreal? How many MORE international/transborder flights are operated out of Toronto? The justification for more Vancouver to Toronto flights is blatently obvious."

-What? Montreal is by far Canada's 2nd largest city. In terms of aviation traffic, it is no.3. There are more transborder flights out of YUL than YVR. Air Canada will have approximately 900 weekly departures out of YVR this winter, YUL will have approximately 875.

Routes out of YUL that can be served, are Lyon, Nice, Brussels, Rome, Milan, Tel Aviv, Madrid, Seattle, Baltimore, Albany, ManchesterNH, Detroit, Denver etc etc.

"I've heard rave reviews about TNEW from Air Canada. I've read articles with Robert Milton and other execs claiming how great TNEW is. To use Vancouver and Calgary as an example, how about Air Canada shift some flights to Calgary instead of Vancouver. Its cheaper, so why not? If Air Canada can shift some flights from Toronto to Montreal, why would a shift of Vancouver to Calgary be any different?

Just to keep myself ON TOPIC.... the last line says: "No hub for YUL"."

-TNew is great... but some are not pleased. Why has AC asked for a delay to move into TNew? The problem is that TNEW will apparently not improve connection times, while at YUL they guarantee 30 minutes flat from domestic to intl and vice versa.

Furthermore TNEW will not decrease AC cost of operations in Toronto, it will increase them. This at a time where AC is strapped for cash. The goal with YULs new expansion is that AC is looking at an immediate 30% operational cost savings. Other things also show that aircraft spend 40% less ground time at YUL.

"No hub for YUL".. the writing is on the wall.. and let me explain.

Why on earth would they start all these flights out of the city to YEG, YYT, MEX, YDF, MCO, MUC in co-op with LH, YYG, YWG.. because there is a "all-of-a-sudden" market, of all times when the aviation industry has hit rock bottom. Working at YUL, and more than ever, I see more and more people connecting via YUL.

When was the last time AC initiated a route out of YVR and YYC.. what was the last route started in these two cities? Because I simply dont recall other than an odd service to the Carribean.

CanadaEH bluff me all you want. Im no fool, I have a world of confidence in what I am being told. You certainly have a right to disagree with me, heck I dont blame you....

Let me ask you a question.. what am I trying to prove what I am saying!? Do you think im ranting and raving for the heck of it? Some of the people who read this board know me by person and face, Ive got some credibility to maintain here  Big thumbs up

Mark











User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 7576 times:

Mark, PLEASE stop YUL glossing.

Once again CanadaEH if you dont believe me, do an AC capacity overall capacity analysis from winter 2003 to winter 2003-04.

It's still below 2000 levels. Hence AC is shrinking at YUL over the last 3 years.

Routes out of YUL that can be served, are Lyon, Nice, Brussels, Rome, Milan, Tel Aviv, Madrid, Seattle, Baltimore, Albany, ManchesterNH, Detroit, Denver etc etc.

Well, most of these routes have flown in the past and have been dropped. Looks like they can't be served. Incidently......Seattle? YYZ can only handle 1 daily 319......YUL could not even support a CRJ on YUL-SEA which it could not fly nonstop anyway.

Working at YUL, and more than ever, I see more and more people connecting via YUL.

Anecdotal. A meaningless comment. YUL will handle fewer passengers in 2003 than 2000.

Mark, please stop YUL glossing.










Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
25 Aad665 : Hi, I read this forum since years now. I am always amaze how poeple can defend a city (YYZ717 vs FLYYUL). No offend to FLYYUL, but your discussion abo
26 Post contains images Captaingomes : I think YWG777 just gave up. He lacked the persistence and arguments that FLYYUL has. You can say what you want about FLYYUL, but he always backs up h
27 MAH4546 : Other feasible routes perhaps include LIM and CCS, but these arent high-yielding markets in nature anyway. I have to disagree, especially with LIM. Li
28 FLYYUL : Mah4546, Perhaps! From my experiences, most ppl I see travelling from Canada to Lima via IAH or EWR, are low-yield bulk tickets. Last year when CO had
29 VectorVictor : To tag on Yyz717's comments... YUL could not even support a CRJ on YUL-SEA which it could not fly nonstop anyway. Add Houston, a metro area of nearly
30 FLYYUL : "Add Houston, a metro area of nearly 4M, that Montreal (and Houston for that matter) has trouble maintaining a nonstop relationship between...not even
31 Yyz717 : Meanwhile in YYZ, AC's YYZIAH flights are just horrendous. And yet.....both CO and AC are maintaining YYZ-IAH. They must be profitable. You can say wh
32 Post contains images Captaingomes : hehehe, the saga continues, and I love it! Well, I'm worried about the fee hike at YYZ. Can anybody imagine the GTAA declaring bankruptcy? There is no
33 Jayce : I think what it comes down to when discussing YYZ vs YUL is that geographically, the cities are too close to both develop into major hubs and AC has m
34 Cayman : That's the point I tried to convey in the beginning. It seems that 2 hubs in such close proximity would be ridiculous. It is one or the other, and unl
35 FLYYUL : "And yet.....both CO and AC are maintaining YYZ-IAH. They must be profitable." -Just like when AC was flying those A319's to DFW with a 33% load facto
36 Marco : Just like when AC was flying those A319's to DFW with a 33% load factor, and then your wondering why they are losing millions.... Mark, do you have pr
37 FLYYUL : "Mark, do you have proof that indicates that these flights are not money-makers? If they weren't making any money, AC would simply reduce or halt the
38 FLYYUL : I see that the questions ive raised have not been attempted to answer, which is typical from the usuals who doubt me. Mark
39 Marco : see that the questions ive raised have not been attempted to answer, which is typical from the usuals who doubt me. Mark you still haven't answered m
40 FLYYUL : Marco send me your e-mail adress. For CO, I couldnt tell you exactly but I can tell you that when a route usually is downgraded from 735 to mostly XRJ
41 Cayman : FLYYUL, I pose this as a sincere question, but if YYZ-DFW is such a dog of a route, why is AA upgrading to 738 from MD80 service later this Fall, and
42 Post contains images FLYYUL : YYZ-LAX is now 1 daily unfortunately. YYZ-DFW is 3 daily. Its peak was 5 daily in summer of 2001 (right before 09/11). The 738 is an upgauge of 10 sea
43 Post contains images Yyz717 : Did AA not recently add a second daily YYZ-LAX flight? Yes, it was added briefly in 2002 and then discontinued. YOU STILL HAVENT answered my questions
44 FLYYUL : "Mark, we are ALL waiting for you to answer a few questions also: namely where is the proof that all airlines are in a conspiracy to deliberately unde
45 Marco : Yes it was deliberate in order to promote the YYZ hub how many times are we going to go over this Mark? AC thinks its better for them to operate a hub
46 Cayman : FLYYUL, your words, "You will talk to me about other major carriers who have ONE bonified hub, a la AF/BA/KL etc. But each of these carriers are based
47 Marco : --My friend, Canada and Germany are so VERY different, politically, economically, demographically and sheer size of population that a continued compar
48 Yyz717 : FLYYUL continues to jump on the MUC~YUL bandwagon thinking the 2 cities are comparable as "2nd" hubs. It's really just wishful thinking. The only AC h
49 Post contains images FLYYUL : "--Montreal is an important market, I for one do not doubt that. However, there are 5 million people in the GTA; very large proportion of that populat
50 FLYYUL : "FLYYUL continues to jump on the MUC~YUL bandwagon thinking the 2 cities are comparable as "2nd" hubs. It's really just wishful thinking. The only AC
51 Cayman : FLYYUL, You do make some interesting points, however if there was a theme you tend to follow it is that YUL is thriving and YYZ is shrivelling on the
52 Yyz717 : Out of YYZ, most destinations served are already established with multi-bank periods. Adding capacity on non-bank hours are redundant and not useful w
53 FLYYUL : "Not really. It's more efficient to expand the one hub. Two hubs near each other is inefficient. Mark...you're just grasping at straws to find reasons
54 FLYYUL : Cayman. The point im trying to make is not that things are so rosy in Montreal. Our network is primarily linked to major markets and STAR alliance hub
55 Skywatcher : The mantra for all carriers is now "low(er) cost". It's just a fact of life that if the GTAA keeps skyrocketing it's user fees then alternatives will
56 FLYYUL : The 2002 vs 2003 capacity should be up very slightly due to the fact that they have added many flights down south. YYZ has lost however its winter fli
57 Yyz717 : I see AC struggling on a lot of secondary routes where they just get by.. and this statement doesnt mean that these routes would do better in YUL. Bu
58 Post contains images FLYYUL : Yeah ok there. Primary markets are routes that can survive on origin and destination traffic alone. Unfortunately, there are only a handful out of the
59 Yyz717 : Primary markets are routes that can survive on origin and destination traffic alone. Unfortunately, there are only a handful out of these at YYZ and Y
60 FLYYUL : It was written in the GTAA master plan booklet that I got a few years back, that AC's traffic was in excess of 50% connection traffic. A clear origin
61 Post contains images Behramjee : AC should concentrate a bit more on long haul routes to Europe, introduce services to Africa (LOS-NBO-JNB-CAIRO), Middle East (BEY-DXB), more Indian c
62 Cayman : FLYYUL, Setting aside this debate, why did Aeroflot dump YUL? I would have thought this to be a good route for them, is there not a fairly significant
63 FLYYUL : There is. However SU thought YYZ was the market for them. TransAero is rumoured to commence YYZ-YUL-DME service shortly. Mark
64 Caribb : On the other hand, YUL is booming, with LH thrilled with the MUC service and full CO flights to IAH and numerous new airlines chomping at the bit to c
65 MSYtristar : MSY-YYZ service is back and, according to local UA employees who work the flight, doing well.
66 StarAC17 : According to the Star Alliance website and I think Air Canada's website. AC has 3 hubs and they are YYZ, YUL, and YVR
67 CanadaEH : Can Dorval handle additional flights in the present terminal? I was there on the weekend and I was not happy with the layout of the terminal, the cong
68 Post contains images FLYYUL : Well what time did you leave at? Yes that all gonna change within the next 2 years. All the checkin counters on the domestic side are set to be pushed
69 CanadaEH : I left at 1945 and yes it was a long walk! I had to use that moving walkway underground to get to my gate, I guess that's the older building then eh?
70 Post contains images Captaingomes : "We will look to further expand in Montreal since it is an underserved market".. OK, Clive has got to go. He's been surfing airliners.net and has been
71 Post contains links SurfSlade : "What exactly are they doing to better improve the airport aside from moving the check-in counters back?" This link should answer your question. http:
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AC To Start YYZ-BOM In Spring/05? posted Mon Nov 8 2004 19:28:54 by LH477
AC To Start YYZ-LIS-JNB? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 17:14:25 by RicardoFG
AC To Start YYZ To JNB posted Thu Dec 26 2002 08:03:08 by Jayce
AC To Start YUL-HAV In December posted Sun Aug 14 2005 19:26:38 by Aviationman
AC To Start MD11F Ops YYZ-FRA posted Wed Sep 8 2004 20:05:18 by DABZF
AC To Start YUL-PBI And YUL-RSW posted Mon Sep 6 2004 07:01:47 by MAH4546
AC To Start YHM-YUL posted Sat Sep 20 2003 05:04:28 by FLYYUL
Transaero To Start YYZ-DME-ATQ! posted Mon Aug 28 2006 22:48:05 by RicardoFG
Skyservice To Start YYZ-LIS-FAO - Sked! posted Tue Jul 18 2006 02:02:10 by RicardoFG
AC To Serve Yellowknife, Expands Western Routes posted Wed Mar 22 2006 22:14:26 by DFORCE1