Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
YVR For The 2010 Winter Olympics  
User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5910 posts, RR: 6
Posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5230 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We all know that the next winter Olympics will be held in Vancouver, BC. There is a lot of construction going on in the city to remodel existing buildings and build new ones. Just about everyone in Vancouver, if not North America, are excited about having the winter Olympics. There is even talk of just allowing local traffic and mass transit on the highway between Vancouver and Whistler during the 2-week event.

I'm sure YVR is going to see a significant jump in passenger and freight traffic. They'll have their fair share of charter traffic on top of the regularly scheduled flights.

What is YVR going to do to make flying to into the airport an easy and efficient affair? Does YVR currently have the capacity to handle the traffic?

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineB6sea From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5210 times:

I do agree that there will be a significant increase in the amount of traffic to YVR... And with that said YVR should be able to handle all the traffic. But I dont think YVR will the largest factor, SEA on the other hand better watch out. SEA is significantly cheaper to fly in and out of and is a 3 hour drive from Vancouver. All the festivities will be being held in Whistler so anyone who wants to go there will have to rent a car or take a bus and renting a car is also cheaper in SEA and the busses to whistler are the same price as from Vancouver. So with that said, I think SEA will see a more significant increase in traffic than YVR although YVR does have a lot of space for expansion and four more years to make up their minds about it.

I'm speaking more from an American's perspective though, So I'm more talking about domestic flights whereas the Japanese or Europeans coming to Vancouver may fly to YVR, I dont know.

-Chans


User currently offlineSpyderz From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 651 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5178 times:

YVR is currently constructing an additional 6 gates on the international terminal. While this should help the airport in accomodating the traffic increase, the gates are also needed now, especially during the mid-day rush to Asia and the USA.

User currently offlineYVRSR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks ago) and read 5156 times:

YVR should have enough capacity to handle the 2010 Olympics traffic.

(1) Many fewer people pass through the airport in February than in the summer months, so there is probably enough capacity to handle the Olympic traffic without any new construction.

(2) Even given (1), right now 4 new gates are being added to the international terminal for 2007 . I believe that 2 of the gates will be able to handle the A380. (Don't quote me on this.) I believe that a further 5 gates are being planned. I don't know if they will be completed before the Olympics.

(3) A subway line connecting dowtown Vancouver, Richmond (suburb south of Vancouver), and YVR. The terminal station will be right between the domestic and international parts of the airport. I believe that the station will be quite close to the building.

(4) I have read that indeed the road between Whistler and Vancouver will be closed to private cars, except local traffic. (Don't quote me.) There will be buses transporting people between Vancouver and Whistler during the games.

You can get more info from www.yvr.ca


User currently offlineYVRSR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks ago) and read 5136 times:

Quoting B6sea (Reply 1):
All the festivities will be being held in Whistler so anyone who wants to go there will have to rent a car or take a bus and renting a car is also cheaper in SEA and the busses to whistler are the same price as from Vancouver.

Actually, half the events will be in Vancouver and North Vancouver (skating, curling, hockey, freestyle skiing, etc). Half the events will be in Whistler and vicinity (alpine & cross-country skiing, jumping, biatholon, bobsled, luge, skeleton, etc)


User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5005 times:

It will interesting to see what develops in Vancouver in the next few years. I think SEA will attract a lot traffic which should otherwise go into Vancouver unless the government liberalizes the CTA. Enemy number for Vancouver is AIr Canada who is limiting access into Vancouver for carriers not covered by bi - lateral agreements. AIr Canada does not seem to be very interested in developing traffic from Vancouver as they are from Toronto, and yet they will not allow access to foreign carriers into Vancouver, we are kind of screwed at the moment.
The airport authority has requested the Canadian Government to open bi-lateral talk with France, Singapore, Malaysia,U.A.E, Thailand and Korea. The biggest obstacle to these talk is Air Canada which feels a little insecure as it would have a negative effect on its own loads into Asia ex Vancouver. This seems a little narrow minded in my opinion as traffic is diverted to other cities such as Seattle. We are hoping this government will see beyond Toronto. Thai Airways has expressed interest in Vancouver but can not operate due to the current bilateral favours YYZ and YUL only, as has AIr Tahiti Nui.

AT the moment Air Canada is restricting carriers such as EVA who has been forced tor educe there flight from 5 to 3 / week, Koren who wants daily ex Vancouver and Singapore Airlines who also wants daily ex Vancouver

Future carriers in Vancouver to handle the build up in traffic next 2 yrs:

NZ/CZ/AI/HU/OZ

Prediction next 2 yrs

SQ daily
KE daily
BR daily
BA 2 daily
LH 2 daily
LT 5 x
QF 3 x year round

comments welcomed



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 offlineSimpilicity From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4955 times:

Australians love Whistler. (if u've been their u'll know what I mean), BUT they'll avoid Whistler like the plague prior to & during Olympics. The major beneficiaries will be U.S. resorts as long as AUD$/USD$ doesn't drop again.

Think whole Turin area has suffered in terms of tourists skiing. No one wants to pay stupid prices to see something they can watch on TV sometimes better than being there.


User currently offlineTCXDegsy From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 517 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4881 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 6):
Prediction next 2 yrs

BA 2 daily

BA already runs a 2 daily service in Summer Months, with the exception of a Wednesday, when it's one flight.

Interestingly, you don't mention VS in your predictions! This is been muted many times in other forums, and I think they will start a service over the next 2-3 years, since they currently don't operate any Canadian routes.

Having said that, there are already lots of operators between LGW and YVR to stop BA and VS adding, such as Air Transat, Zoom, AC, and TCX/MYT/MON charters



next flights: BA1441 0566 0581 1446 EDI-LHR-MXP-LHR-EDI
User currently offlinePolaris From Canada, joined Feb 2000, 1143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4811 times:

With current expansion plans, YVR will be more than ready to handle the extra traffic expected for the Olympics in February, 2010.

Snow events will be held in Whistler; other events will be held in Greater Vancouver.

Spillover traffic into Seattle will be minimal. Any supposed benefits offered by Seattle are exaggerated.

Neither Air Canada nor the federal government stand in the way of Vancouver's development. In fact, Air Canada is building Vancouver into their second most important domestic and international hub. Air Canada is on record as supporting more open bilaterals. However, you don't just give away rights into one of your country's main access points (in this case, Vancouver) without the other country granting reciprocal and equal rights into their countries/territories. Limits are mostly set by other countries. Canada is then forced to set its own limits so as not to give away rights with nothing in exchange.

If Air Tahiti Nui wants to serve Vancouver, the bilateral with France allows it. (French Polynesia - including Tahiti - is a French Territory.) Are they asking for more than what is covered in the current agreement? It's the same with EVA (Taiwan) and South Korea. Are they asking for more rights into Canada without granting reciprocal rights into their territories? Carriers from Singapore and Thailand are Star Alliance members. Air Canada would benefit and would not stand in their way.


User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4763 times:

Quoting Polaris (Reply 9):
either Air Canada nor the federal government stand in the way of Vancouver's development. In fact, Air Canada is building Vancouver into their second most important domestic and international hub. Air Canada is on record as supporting more open bilaterals. However, you don't just give away rights into one of your country's main access points (in this case, Vancouver) without the other country granting reciprocal and equal rights into their countries/territories. Limits are mostly set by other countries. Canada is then forced to set its own limits so as not to give away rights with nothing in exchange.

If Air Tahiti Nui wants to serve Vancouver, the bilateral with France allows it. (French Polynesia - including Tahiti - is a French Territory.) Are they asking for more than what is covered in the current agreement? It's the same with EVA (Taiwan) and South Korea. Are they asking for more rights into Canada without granting reciprocal rights into their territories? Carriers from Singapore and Thailand are Star Alliance members. Air Canada would benefit and would not stand in their way.

Not totally correct, SInce Air Canada is the dominant national carrier of Canada. The Feds do nOT go into bi-lateral negotiation on whim. It is usually requested by foreign government whose carriers want to operate into Canada or by our national airline.
Air Canada along with the Feds set the parameters of the negotiations. if it is not in the best interest of the national airline usually the national air line will not participate or in some cases, such as Air Canada they will lobby the feds against bi -lateral talks. this is the case with france as Air Canada has nothing to gain from new bi-lateral talks but have more to loose. If Air Tahiti open flight to CDG ex vancouver it will effect AC flight to London? or even Ac flight ex YYZ to CDG.
The TPE-YVR flights are capped, EVA has rights for maximum 3 flights per week. Air Canada did grant 5 flights to EVA but during the winter they pushed back EVA to 3 flights. Most likely five flights had a negative effect on Air Canada's other Asian destinations.

Another example is Singapore, Singapore operates on yearly basis to Vancouver as there is no bi-lateral agreement with Singapore. Sinpapore does want daily ex YVR but Air Canada is blocking it. However if Air Canada decided to fly into Singapore then you bet AC would grant them daily flights.

Unfortunately YYZ is not effected by this stuff as nearly all bi-lateral agreements favour YYZ.

I wish there was another carrier in Canada to operate overseas destination. A western based carrier such as Canadian.

i disagree on Air Canada and Vancouver. YVR is a bi-product to Air Canada and they should rename Air Canada Air Toronto. We wills ee more of the Air Toronto attitude in the future now that there are more liberal agreements with the U.S.A.. More stuff like YYZ-LAX-SYD.

i am not trying to bash Air Canada but the system itself needs bashing. This country is to mush Toronto and not enough every where else. It is the current CTA and Air Canada that is impeding traffic and trade to Canada West.



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 offlineZkojh From China, joined Sep 2004, 1702 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4682 times:

well NZ are on there way in 2007, so a few kiwi's will be heading there, and it will mean another way to LHR, !!


NZ 787-9 flying between PVG - AKL ! CAN'T WAIT!!
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4655 times:

now if they could just build a nice high-speed train between SEA and YVR, then the traffic could be split and everyone wins.

I look forward to the Vancouver games. Should be nice.

Crossing my fingers that Nagoya tries again for a summer games...we lost to Seoul in 1988



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4635 times:

I am not trying to bash Air Canada but the system itself needs bashing. This country is to mush Toronto and not enough every where else. It is the current CTA and Air Canada that is impeding traffic and trade to Canada West.


Vancouver will be a prime beneficiary as AC renews its fleet. As things stand, it plans a Vancouver-Guangzhou route in 2007 if it gets selected over HMY, and you will see larger capacity 777s take over much of the transpacific flying. AC's 777-300s will sit 351, and the 777-200LRs will seat at least 300, which is more than the 340-300s that dominate AC's transpacific routes from Vancouver. With the 777-200LR, AC will be able to do YVR-SYD nonstop in both directions, and launch YVR-SIN nonstop if it wants, or YVR-DEL. Moreover with the addition of many Embraer 190s to the North American fleet, you are going to see more transborder spokes to help fill transpac flights.

You have to understand/appreciate that YVR is the gateway to BC and Alberta, but with polar routings, it is not competitive with hubs like Chicago, Detroit and New York at serving eastern North America which is why AC is establishing so many more non-stops from Toronto. When CX was flying nonstop HKG-YYZ, and AC was routing all Hong Kong traffic through YVR, AC got killed in the Toronto market. Now that AC is flying YYZ-HKG nonstop in both directions, those flights are usually packed, even when AC will give a lower fare from Toronto on the connecting service through YVR. People want a nonstop and will choose it over connecting services.


User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5237 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4545 times:

What will be interesting is whether U.S. carriers, which usually increase flying into YVR during the summer cruise season, will add extra flights during the winter months of '10.

User currently offlineSimpilicity From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4480 times:

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 13):
What will be interesting is whether U.S. carriers, which usually increase flying into YVR during the summer cruise season, will add extra flights during the winter months of '10.

Would most likely decrease flights, no one wants to go to skiing anywhere near a winter games as huge impositions on skiing for the public.

We predict that Whistler will have a horrible winter in terms of tourists (not games competitors/officials) & will be the place to avoid !!!


User currently offlinePolaris From Canada, joined Feb 2000, 1143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4457 times:

In reply to DYK, I am very familiar with bilateral air agreements as this is an area of interest.

Air Canada does not set the parameters for negotiations. The federal government negotiates for the benefit of the country. Rights are owned by a country which, in turn, assigns them to a carrier based on the level of proposed service that the carrier can provide on that route. Any Canadian carrier can apply for Canadian rights to foreign destinations - Air Canada, Air Transat, CanJet, Harmony, Kelowna, Skyservice, Sunwing, WestJet, Canadian North, Zoom, Jazz, etc.

If France assigns the rights to them, Air Tahiti Nui can fly Papeete - Vancouver based on the current agreement with France. If they want to extend their rights from Vancouver to Paris, then France must be willing to grant additional rights to Canada in exchange.

EVA from Taipei to Vancouver is a different issue. Flights/seats are capped because Taiwan and Canada agreed to this as part of their agreement. If any carrier wants to operate above the limit, they must seek additional authority. Competing carriers have the right to legally counter that request. Based on evidence, the request can be accepted or denied. In Canada, the Canadian Transportation Agency publishes their decisions, with explanations, for all to read.

Singapore Airlines is a Star Alliance carrier. Air Canada would code-share with Singapore Airlines.

Bilaterals with Canada do not favour Toronto. Access to requested cities is granted with appropriate reciprocal agreements. If a country asks for access to Vancouver, rights would be granted as long as equal and reciprocal rights are granted to Canada. If access has been granted to Toronto, it is because countries have requested access and granted equal and reciprocal rights to cities in their countries. Canada is on record as preferring open agreements.

No one is impeding trade and access to Vancouver. The system works quite well. No "bashing" is necessary. You do not give away rights while getting nothing in return. If a country wants access to Vancouver for one of their air carries, then they must be prepared to negotiate access for our carriers into their country. If they want a cap on services, we should ask for one, too. If they want an open bilateral, all the better. Canadian air carriers are within their rights to ensure that they have equal and reciprocal access.

[Edited 2006-02-26 08:13:22]

User currently offlineJetboy319 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

Quoting B6sea (Reply 1):
think SEA will see a more significant increase in traffic than YVR

You are kidding, right? No, seriously! While I do not doubt SEA will see a traffic increase, Polaris hit the nail on the head...

Quoting Polaris (Reply 8):
Spillover traffic into Seattle will be minimal. Any supposed benefits offered by Seattle are exaggerated.

The Olymics aren't in Seattle, they are in Vancouver. And, from the times I've been through the International terminal at YVR, I have always been impressed. I imagine YVR is well positioned to handle the traffic increases. Very nice facility indeed!


User currently offlineJayce From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 520 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

DYK, I have to agree with you, Air Canada definitely favours Toronto. You can see this by looking at the number of destinations served from each city (courtesy of the AC website):

YVR: 27
YYZ: 79

Historically, AC has been an Eastern airline. We had CP, and when they were taken over, AC kept on doing what it was doing before; turning YYZ into the centre of the universe.  Wink



"Trying is the first step towards failure" -Homer Simpson
User currently offlineB6sea From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3768 times:

Quoting Jetboy319 (Reply 16):
You are kidding, right? No, seriously! While I do not doubt SEA will see a traffic increase, Polaris hit the nail on the head...

Have you priced a Y class flight to YVR recently? Now compare that to SEA, which is still relatively expensive... there's why. I know many many people who take cruises out of YVR, go to whistler... etc and won't fly to YVR because of constrictive price. Example Friends from NJ were pricing a flight from NYC (EWR, JFK, or LGA) to YVR or SEA, said YVR was around $700 per person whereas SEA is right around $350, quite a difference. Especially when it's not much of a drive from SEA.


Just saying, SEA may be a larger factor than anyone expects.

-Chans


User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3637 times:

Quoting TCXDegsy (Reply 7):
Interestingly, you don't mention VS in your predictions! This is been muted many times in other forums, and I think they will start a service over the next 2-3 years, since they currently don't operate any Canadian routes.

It would be nice to see VS at YVR but i dont think Vancouver is even on Virgin's radar.

Quoting Polaris (Reply 15):
Bilaterals with Canada do not favour Toronto. Access to requested cities is granted with appropriate reciprocal agreements. If a country asks for access to Vancouver, rights would be granted as long as equal and reciprocal rights are granted to Canada. If access has been granted to Toronto, it is because countries have requested access and granted equal and reciprocal rights to cities in their countries. Canada is on record as preferring open agreem



Quoting Polaris (Reply 15):
No one is impeding trade and access to Vancouver. The system works quite well. No "bashing" is necessary. You do not give away rights while getting nothing in return. If a country wants access to Vancouver for one of their air carries, then they must be prepared to negotiate access for our carriers into their country. If they want a cap on services, we should ask for one, too. If they want an open bilateral, all the better. Canadian air carriers are within their rights to ensure that they have equal and reciprocal access.

The system does not work, the current system is based on protecting Air Canada and benefiting Toronto/Montreal. if the system was working YVR and YYC would have lot more carrier serving it. If the Min of Transport would look at the needs of cities like YVR/YYC instead of living in fear of AC, Vancouver s passenger growth rate would surpass that of YYZ. Impeding traffic and trade, just look at pre U.S. open skies. The year open skies came into effect the number at YVR shot up. The system works as long a Air Canada is happy and YYZ is booming. Also Canada has a reputation of demanding to much when it comes to negotiation unless they are dealing with the U.S., then theya re ready to give the farm away.
France & Thailand, both countries are willing to open talks, we can even make it the talks as Air Canada is not interested in coming to the table. Thai would hurt there Asian traffic and flight to CDG would hurt traffic to France ex YYZ/YUL and LHR.
New example, the new open skies agreement came to life because it would benefit Toronto and Air Canada. We can see the start of it, YYZ-LAX-SYD. This works great for Toronto but what effect will it have on YVR/YUL/YYC. Why not a YVR-LAX-SYD? will we see a YVR-LAX-SCL, YYC-SEA-HKG, YUL-JFK-MAD? No we wont! Will we see the end of YVR-HNL-SYD maybe not but it is possible now. Guaranteed we will see more flight originating from YYZ via the U.S. to a third country!
Come on Canada, stop living in fear! The world does not evolve around YYZ and Air Canada. There are other cities want some of the action!!!
Look at Australia, great roll model, generally speaking very progressive and it has opened up the country to world.

Polaris, I understand were are coming from but just do not agree. I have hope though, that things will change. it time for places like YVR/YYC to be included in the vision of the CTA.



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 offlineDFORCE1 From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 505 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3583 times:

Quoting DYK (Reply 9):
I wish there was another carrier in Canada to operate overseas destination. A western based carrier such as Canadian.

We will be seeing Harmony Airways operating international flights or at least code sharing by the end of this year on international Asian routes. Likely by 2010, they will be operating their own.

Slightly off topic, does AC still own the rights to the Canadian Airlines name? If someone wanted to start a new airline in the West and call it Canadian airlines, would it be possible?


User currently offlineQB737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3547 times:

I don't foresee a lot of traffic going to SEA, keep in mind a lot of international visitors do requiere a visa to enter the States and most of them wont bother with it if they can avoid it by flying to YVR directly.

User currently offlineBomber996 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3511 times:

Think they might actually build an airport for Whistler? It would, afterall, be more direct.

Peace  box 



AVIATION - A Vacation In Any Town, I Own Nothing
User currently offlineAC7E7 From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 646 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3489 times:

Quoting Jayce (Reply 17):
Historically, AC has been an Eastern airline. We had CP, and when they were taken over, AC kept on doing what it was doing before; turning YYZ into the centre of the universe

Oh quit your complaining and look at the numbers. Toronto's population is much bigger than Vancouver, Calgary, and Montreal. If you were the head of the dominant airline, wouldn't you make your hub where you will reap the most business?

If crying and complaining about Toronto makes you feel better, fine, but it is the numbers that matter, not people endlessly complaining about failed airlines of the past.

BTW, I don't live in Toronto.

Quoting DYK (Reply 19):
The system does not work, the current system is based on protecting Air Canada and benefiting Toronto/Montreal

How does it protect Montreal?

It benefits Air Canada because they have the aircraft to fly the routes. If other airlines here had the aircraft to fly scheduled services to international destinations, then would benefit too...just like CP did for many many years.

Air Canada does not need protecting. I recall AC being under attack by the Competition Bureau on a daily basis when AC took over CP. Real protection there.... if there was anybody being protected, it was Westjet, who's President even said he would use the Competition Bureau as a weapon against AC.


User currently offlineDYK From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3457 times:

AC

Quoting AC7E7 (Reply 23):
Oh quit your complaining and look at the numbers. Toronto's population is much bigger than Vancouver, Calgary, and Montreal. If you were the head of the dominant airline, wouldn't you make your hub where you will reap the most business?

If crying and complaining about Toronto makes you feel better, fine, but it is the numbers that matter, not people endlessly complaining about failed airlines of the past.

BTW, I don't live in Toronto.

Maybe so but spoken like a true Torontonian!

We expect Toronto to be dominant player in Canada because of the number. Want we dont want is to be oppressed by Toronto. I am happy for Toronto to be what it is, but I think the feds, Air canada and the CTA should allow YYC/YVR reach its potential.

Montreal benifits as over 90 % of all bi-latteral agreemtns Canada has negotiated favours Montreal.



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
25 Post contains images AC7E7 : AC will use YVR to its full potential if it will make them money. Maybe, but last I checked, I am always having to transit through YYZ for most inter
26 Post contains links YYZAeroEng : Last time I checked Toronto (government and residents) weren't opressing anyone. I couldn't agree more. From what I can tell off YVR's website, it loo
27 DYK : What you are forgetting is the federal governemtn is not responsible for Vancouver success. You could say it is responsible for vancouver not be more
28 FLYYUL : "TG/EK/LA/TA/MS/TN/AF/OZ" -DYK, your losing it. You really think Egyptair, Lan Chile and Taca are interested in Vancouver? What business does Egyptair
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...
Flights To TRN And MXP For The Olympics posted Sat Jan 28 2006 02:21:41 by AltairF28
BA And The A380 For The 2012 Olympics posted Thu Jul 7 2005 08:19:01 by Megatop
BA Drop MAN-Bologna For The Winter posted Thu Aug 12 2004 21:42:25 by David_itl
Going South For The Winter posted Tue Mar 16 2004 02:40:00 by Schweizair
Air Transat Receiving A320's For The Winter posted Tue Jul 29 2003 19:04:26 by BWIA330
Planes Rerouted For The Olympics? posted Mon Jan 28 2002 04:12:31 by N1641
Cheapest Fare For The Route YVR-EDDL This June? posted Sun Jun 3 2001 09:06:39 by FP_v2
Sorry For The Delay.. It's A Heap Of Rubbish posted Fri Nov 17 2006 21:05:03 by Clickhappy
Early 777-200 To Be Broken-Up For The First Time posted Wed Nov 15 2006 10:35:03 by Leelaw
A320-100 To Be Scrapped For The First Time (ex-BA) posted Sun Nov 12 2006 14:09:42 by PlaneHunter