B6sea From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 340 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4237 times:
I think the topic really says it all, but why doesnt seattle have service from any of the Japanese carriers or Chinese carriers and why does Vancouver get so much more traffic, being the larger city, I would think that SEA would get more of the traffic... can someone explain this, Yes I do understand Vancouver has a large asian population, Yes i do understand that AC has a large base for connections in YVR but still, SEA seems like a perfectly viable route from cities like NRT, NGO, KIX, PEK, shanghai (forgot the code) and HKG... I know hkg was specifically discussed earlier but as a whole why doesnt sea see more service than currently?
AS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6098 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4158 times:
Yeah, this has been discussed many times, but all the reason above are valid not to mention there just is not the demand. If one of these airlines saw it viable to operate from SEA and YVR, they'd do it. But the fact is that connection opportunities are better from SEA via YVR/SFO/ and even LAX. Using their own metal just is to expensive. Now in my opinion the 787 may change this a little.
A couple of side note: Its been mention that ANA is looking at Nagoya-Seattle. Maybe some of our buddy's from JP have heard more. Centralair?
And Seattle's Cantonese population is a fraction of Vancouver's. CX I'd highly doubt will ever come to SEA.
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
Ctbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4028 times:
JAL, Thai and China Eastern have all operated out of Seattle at various times in the 70's and 80's. Cathay Pacific had plans in the 1980's to extend their HKG-YVR service to SEA but pulled out at the last minute.
SEA-HKG has been tried by both UA and NW, neither of whom were able to make any money on the route, so it was eventually dropped.
It can be argued that SEA is now quite well served across the pacific:
SEA-NRT by UA and NW
SEA-ICN by OZ and KE
SEA-TPE by CI and BR
Also, NW did operate SEA-KIX for a while and dropped it after 9/11, and (I think) had plans to run a seasonal flight to NGO, which was also scrapped.
The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
errrr not sure if u are joking or not? But i sincerely hope so, Seattle doesnt need two airports at this time, Sea is good enough for us, sw can pack up and leave if they dont like it,in fact id like open the door for them and wish them good day... but anyway
Quoting KEno (Reply 7): SEA being the hub for Alaska Airlines, are the connecting opportunities in SEA really that unattractive? (YVR arguments aside)
This is one of my main thoughts, AS has grown by leaps and bounds since the hong kong flights or the kix flight and I hold the belief that, seeing the KE flight being added and china airlines last year, is it a possibility, beyond just saying anything is possible? Also, I've heard this come up before somewhere, maybe as a joke i dont know, but is it that unfathomable that AS could place an order for 772s or 787s in the forseeable future for trans pac flights. I think the only condition for this is that AS would probably have to rebrand in order to establish that they dont only fly to Alaska. Also AS being such a codeshare whore could probably team up with ANA or JAL in order to offer the flight.
Also with so many aircraft pieces being built in Japan nowadays, for Boeing, wouldn't there be an opportunity for one of the majors or the Japanese carriers to offer a flight with business traffic in mind. I dont know exactly where in Japan they are built but I'm assuming somewhere south of Tokyo like NGO or KIX.
I dont really think taxes pay a huge role in this because YVR, from what i've heard, has higher taxes than SEA. I know this to be true on flights from the states.
Yes, I agree that Vancouver has a much larger cantonese population, due to heavy immigration to Canada right before Hong Kong transferred to Chinese rule. So CX may not happen.
And back to YVR, I dont believe that many people use it as an alternative airport when flying to asia. Look at the flights between the city, all are prop aircraft and the flight is rather expensive (I am flying it friday with UA and AC on the return). Although I've heard LAX is used a lot for people from SEA. And I believe that maybe in the past most of the "YVR is bigger" arguments work but in today's environment thats just not true.
Centrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3674 times:
I finally saw this post.
Well there was an article I read a while back (All the links are broken for the article now) that ANA is considering NGO-SEA using a 767 that would start in the fall of 2006. ANA Nagoya-Seattle: ANA is Looking!
The idea was the following:
1) Seattle is a huge trading partner for Nagoya heavy industry, mainly aviation. Some of the 787 parts are being made right here in the Chubu area.
2) Gifu Prefecture (in Chubu area)has many software and hardware development companies.
3) The number of tourists from Chubu taking flights to Tokyo and transfering to Seattle bound flights is on the rise. (Thank you Ichiro) NH feels that a direct could work but the aircraft has to be the right size.
Seattle is a 767/787/A330 market in my opinion. There have been many rumors floating about NW also looking at the route using an A332 but I think that won't happen.
Once the 787 is deployed I could see SEA having increased direct flights to destinations in Japan and China.
There also has to be, in my opinion, more domestic connections from SEA to make it worthwhile. SEA is a destination but you have to have enough connections.
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
RwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3083 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3658 times:
I too think SEA could use a few more flights to Asia. As mentioned, ANA has been rumored to be considering SEA-NGO sometime in 2006.
NRT, TPE, and ICN are all well-covered.
I'd like to see UA/CX start SEA-HKG, and NW reinstate SEA-KIX. SEA-KIX seemed to be a strong performer for NW prior to 9/11 and there are persistent rumors of it returning.
In the past, NW got good loads on SEA-HKG, however the yields were not as strong as hoped. I'm thinking a smaller plane (they used the 747-200 on the route) such as a 332 or 777 might be more successful. A 787 would definitely be successful.
One note about YVR: yes, it is a much smaller city than SEA. However, it is Canada's only major gateway to Asia. In the US, we have SFO/LAX/SEA all competing for Asian traffic. Often times SFO/LAX win out because of all the connecting opportunities, as well as their much larger O&D. YVR has great connections to the rest of Canada, and if an Asian carrier wants to serve Canada (not necessarily just Vancouver), then YVR is the logical choice. And it has been mentioned that YVR is a very cosmopolitan and worldly city, with very strong Asian ties.
DYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3416 times:
Quoting Charlib52 (Reply 16): SEA's catchment area of the whole Puget Sound area (3.5 M), however, is bigger than YVR (1.5 M).
Another fact: if it weren't for NIMBYs, Everett's PAE would almost certainly get quite a bit of service as well. It's catchment area is almost as big as YVR! (1.1 Million)
Actually Vancouver metro population is 2,250,000. , its cathcment area is approx 2,,800,000 and if extended o the province it is approx 4,500.000 as 90% of the international traveling population in the province is funneled through Vancouver.
I think that both cities will see substantial future growth to the Asia PAcific. The major advantage Sea has over YVR is they do not have the restrictions placed on foreign carriers as Vancouver does. AS the U.S. government is open to open skies with foreign carriers the Canadian Gov. is not.
Could be wrong on the catchment area, but the factoid I got was from the Abbotsford Airport (I used the one for the entire area, not just abbotsford it think), so I just assumed they knew what they are doing.
DFORCE1 From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 505 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3336 times:
Quoting B6sea (Reply 12): but is it that unfathomable that AS could place an order for 772s or 787s in the forseeable future for trans pac flights.
I don't think it is unfathomable. If we see a lot of the big legacy carriers go down, or merge, you might see AS move in a little bit. Certainly there would be good code sharing opportunities. On the other hand, AS has a successful business model and I wouldn't want to deviate too far from that.
Quoting B6sea (Reply 12): And back to YVR, I dont believe that many people use it as an alternative airport when flying to asia. Look at the flights between the city, all are prop aircraft and the flight is rather expensive (I am flying it friday with UA and AC on the return). Although I've heard LAX is used a lot for people from SEA. And I believe that maybe in the past most of the "YVR is bigger" arguments work but in today's environment thats just not true.
Everyone in Western Canada use Vancouver as their gateway to Asia. If you're living in SEA, I can't see why you would choose SFO/LAX over YVR. Not only is YVR a nicer airport, but who doesn't like flying on a prop?!
Quoting Charlib52 (Reply 16): Actually Vancouver's population is basically the same as Seattle -- roughly 550,000-600,000. And Portland, Or, much to most people's surprise, is also the same range -- in the 540,000 range.
Don't forget we have the Olympics coming in 2010. All airlines will want a strong presence in YVR for that, not to mention the future economic benefits including tourism.