Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Downsizing, A Fad At YVR?  
User currently offlineKtachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1820 times:

Downsizing and revivials. I am sorry to talk too much about YVR but I just think its a wonderful airport (I can spot it now but I will sure miss it when I go back to Japan) But there are a few comments I would like to pose and I would like to get your feedback.

First of all, the SQ down-sizing. When did this route start as a 777-200ER? It was on many videos operated using a 747, but was there not enough demand? The same goes with Korean Air 071. When was this plane also changed to an 777 from a 744?

Revival of Malaysian airlines, will this be a likely case or no? With traffic increasing, YVR seems to be booming so I thought this could be a case? And also the Philippine 106, when was the shift of this aircraft to an A340 from a 744? Well I know that the company is in bad situation right now and can't blame them.

Dash-8, I have read in past posts of Air Canada getting the CRJ instead. Is this for spacing or approach speed regulations? I know the dash-8's are really slow compared to the CRJ's.

Thanks


Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCO737800 From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

SQ went from a 747 to a A340 then to the 777. I think it a few more years you wont see many SQ 747's anyplace. As for Philippines they went for a 747 to the MD-11 then to the A340. I think the A340 is a good fit for that route, I don't think it has enough demand for a 747. JAL is going from a 747-300 to a 747-400 and KLM went from a 767 to a MD-11.

User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

When SIA started flying to Vancouver, the only aircraft they had capable of flying trans-pacific were the 747s. But the loads were too little to make that route profitable.

Before the 777s came along, the next step down from the Jumbos were the A310s (SQ's weren't configured to fly that far). Now u know the route does not justify 747s so when they ordered the A340s for long haul low-density routes, the aircraft was perfect for it... but we all know what happened to the A340s!

And so voila! They were replaced by the 777s!




Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1770 times:

Ktachiya

As far as Korean is concerned, the bilateral between Canada and Korea is based on pre determined capacity. Korean and Air Canada agree on capacity or nbr of seats not frequency. I believe Korean downgraded to a 777 from a 747 as it allowed them to increase frequency into YVR as a 777 is a smaller aircraft allowing them to spread there allocated seats over more flights. The Korean ex YYZ & YVR flights should match the Air Canada flights ex YVR in terms of seats. Korean applied to the CTA for additional flights during the 2004 summer season and it was granted, they have also applied for additional capacity from YVR/YYZ for the winter months and I believe it is still pending. SQ is in different situation as they are restricted by the CTA on flights per week, My understanding is SQ would like to add an additional flight but under the current one year agreement but they can not. SQ must apply on a year by year basis to serve YVR via ICN.

Wish the Canadian Government will some day Change the Canadian Transportation ACt alowing for easier access into other airports outside of YUL/YYZ. Doubt it will happen anytime soon as I am also new to Vancouver and really like the airport. Has a great deal of potential but may never reach it due to the heavy retrictions placed on foreign carriers interested in YVR.



AC,CP,PW,WD,ND,UA,AA,NW,CO,DL,WA,AS,QX,PR,SQ,AI,TG,MH,JL,9W,IC,UL,PG,BW,NZ,QF,DJ,BA,LH,KL,OA,OS,ME,RJ,HA,AQ
User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6126 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1675 times:

PR is a A340 cause the flight continues on to LAS3 or 4 days a week. YVR doesn't seem to have the filipino pop. to fill a 747. Even SFO get a lot of A340, and we have a filipino pop. 3 times the size of YVR. Downsizing a city is when you lose more flights. Airlines are being smart by using more efficiant plane, not that they have them

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

As739x

"PR is a A340 cause the flight continues on to LAS3 or 4 days a week. YVR doesn't seem to have the filipino pop. to fill a 747. Even SFO get a lot of A340, and we have a filipino pop. 3 times the size of YVR. Downsizing a city is when you lose more flights. Airlines are being smart by using more efficiant plane, not that they have them"

No exactly correct. The Vancouver Philipino community is certainly not the largest in NA but it is one of the fastest growing Philipino communities. Keep in mind there are several Philipino communities accross Canada and the flights from YVR to Manila collects passengers connecting from domestic flights arriving from such large Canadian-Philipino communities in Winnipeg and Toronto. There are also a lot of Seattle passengers connecting to this flight as well. Phillipines Airlines has been very happy with the loads ex YVr and we are looking at a posiibilty of a YVR turn around flight summer 2005.




AC,CP,PW,WD,ND,UA,AA,NW,CO,DL,WA,AS,QX,PR,SQ,AI,TG,MH,JL,9W,IC,UL,PG,BW,NZ,QF,DJ,BA,LH,KL,OA,OS,ME,RJ,HA,AQ
User currently offlineWarren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1586 times:

CI and BR still flys 744s. But I don't see it lasting much longer as CI will replace JFK service with 744 instead of the dreaded 343. I think they will switch to A343 service to YVR next year as well.


747SP
User currently offlineKtachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1578 times:

But with the large amount of business men flying on this route, don't you think CI should be happy with it? I heard that their routes are pretty packed along with BR. Well eitherway, I know JL is going to keep their newly brought in 747-400


Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1541 times:

No Ktachiya, you won't see any MH in the near future.

KE used to fly into YVR with a B744 but when their code share with AC expired they increased frequency and changed to flying the B772. Summer 2004 they operated an extra flight as per granted by Transport Canada.

CI and BR's flights are always packed indeed and BR is seeking to increase frequency. During peak seasons you have to book in advance of up to 1/2 a year and often times even so you are on waitlist (for Y and Deluxe Y). Their front cabins are often fully occupied as well but their F is less so. C is doing good for BR.

However I noticed on NRT/TPE/ICN to YVR flights in C class, that mainly it is not business travellers. It's those that visit family or fly between work/home and family (most normally their children studying in YVR and wives accompany children). So I'd think the traffic would mostly consist of those flying for social reasons, ie. the ties.


User currently offlineB-HOX From Canada, joined Aug 2000, 226 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1499 times:

Loads on TPE-YVR on CI are strong year round.....i doubt it will be degraded to an Airbus A340 service........

Luthansa used to send 747 classics to YVR....then it had a mix of B744/A343 and now the A346... they will go back to an A343 in the winter...

Over the years there a lot of new international airlines that have begun new services into YVR... (this summer China Eastern ) as well on the flip side that there were airlines the withdrew... (Qantas, MH to name a couple)

In my opinion I think YVR has room to expand to more connecting European cities such as Paris, Zurich...and strength their name as a gateway to Asia...There are currently no aircraft to fly to SYD from YVR direct except for AC's A345 however there is on 2 of them in the fleet rite now... I also think there is potential to expand into Southeast Asia...BKK, SIN... so yes YVR has so much potential to grow especially with the 2010 Olympics


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...
UA Observations At YVR posted Thu Aug 28 2008 11:39:19 by KL642
Lufthansa Airbus Parked At YVR posted Tue Jul 29 2008 21:08:50 by Oasis
Damaged CX 744 At YVR posted Tue Jul 29 2008 13:33:49 by YVR99
Peter Nygard Private Jet At YVR posted Wed Jun 18 2008 23:45:53 by TwinOtter4Ever
KLM MD11 Parked At YVR Late Yesterday posted Thu Jun 5 2008 11:58:28 by TwinOtter4Ever
Philipines A340 Parked For Days At YVR posted Tue May 27 2008 22:58:36 by TwinOtter4Ever
Skybus A319s At YVR? posted Mon May 5 2008 16:49:15 by CanadianNorth
A340 Emergency At YVR Today? posted Fri May 2 2008 13:54:40 by Vio
UAE VIP A319 At YVR posted Fri Apr 25 2008 00:22:23 by TwinOtter4Ever
Iberia At YVR posted Fri Apr 11 2008 06:25:13 by Czbbflier