Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canada / Korea Open Skies  
User currently offlineYVR1968 From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 704 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4997 times:

As reported by KBS Radio (KBS News):

*****
Korea, Canada Strike Open Sky Agreement

Friday, November 21, 2008

South Korea and Canada have agreed to the full liberalization of air travel.

The Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs Ministry in Seoul says Korea became the first Asian nation to strike such a deal with Canada during two-day talks in Vancouver this week.

Now, both passenger and cargo flights originating in South Korea can fly to the United States or Latin America via Canada.

The ministry expects the aviation pact will ease the chronic shortage of seats on passenger flights to Canada.

Seoul has now signed 'open sky' agreements with the three major North American states following its deals with the U.S. in 1998 and with Mexico in June.
*****

Well... it's about time! Good news for YVR!

Hopefully YVR will get daily KE flights and also increased SQ flights.

Asiana also recently mentioned (in June 2008) starting flights to YVR, so perhaps will see them in YVR as well.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHeeseokKoo From South Korea, joined Jan 2005, 654 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4905 times:

Open sky deal between Korea and Canada will affect negatively on SQ's ICN-YVR, once KE/AC increase capacity and OZ enters this market. Hopefully KE start using refurbished planes to YVR/YYZ as competition begins.

User currently offlineConnector4you From Canada, joined May 2001, 933 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4728 times:



Quoting YVR1968 (Thread starter):
Well... it's about time! Good news for YVR!

Agree

Anybody in the know of the Canada-Europe open sky agreement ? Negotiations started in November last year and it was said at the time, by the Canadian PM, that the agreement is expected to be concluded in a timely fashion before the start of Quebec City's 400th anniversary celebrations.


User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5947 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4709 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How many times per week does KE fly to YVR? I thought it was daily or near daily already.

Maybe we'll see KE or OZ fly to destinations like MIA via YYZ , IAH via YVR, MEX via YVR. KE already flies to Brazil via LAX.

This pact could also allow OZ to expand more into the southern and eastern US using equipment that typically would not have the range to reach those destinations.

Does this pact give AC beyond-rights via ICN to Southeast Asia or Indonesia? Does KE or OZ have the right to fly intra-Canada routes like YVR-YUL or YYC-YUL?


User currently offlineYegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1732 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4698 times:



Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 1):
Open sky deal between Korea and Canada will affect negatively on SQ's ICN-YVR, once KE/AC increase capacity and OZ enters this market. Hopefully KE start using refurbished planes to YVR/YYZ as competition begins.

I thnk SQ would love to see an open skieg agreement between Canada and Singapore so they can fly daily possibly non-stop


User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2280 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4688 times:

I think we will see YYZ become a mini hub for Korean. I am not sure how it will effect YVR.

User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1666 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4640 times:



Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 5):

I think we will see YYZ become a mini hub for Korean. I am not sure how it will effect YVR.

How does it become a mini-hub? Do you think they are going to fly 3-4 times a day between YYZ and Inchon? Many Asian airlines have fifths and few use them. None use them from YYZ. Generally speaking, if a US market is good enough to serve with a long-haul jet, it is good enough to get a nonstop flight. I think the most likely scenario is a flight from Canada continuing to Latin America somewhere. Maybe a YYZ-GIG route where the combined Canadian, Korean and Brazilian business would make for a viable service. Or YVR-SAO.


User currently offlinePzurita1 From Greenland, joined Sep 2002, 1393 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4587 times:



Quoting YVR1968 (Thread starter):
Seoul has now signed 'open sky' agreements with the three major North American states following its deals with the U.S. in 1998 and with Mexico in June.

Which has been rather useless in the case of Mexico, as we have not seen any Korean or Mexican carrier willing to fly the route.



Next flight: IAH-DBX-MRU-ANT
User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2280 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4571 times:



Quoting Sebring (Reply 6):
How does it become a mini-hub?

Sorry bad choice of words. I was told to watch for daily flights with alternating service to one location the first day and another on the second and so on.


User currently offlineAF086 From France, joined Jan 2007, 1062 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4561 times:



Quoting Sebring (Reply 6):
think the most likely scenario is a flight from Canada continuing to Latin America somewhere. Maybe a YYZ-GIG route where the combined Canadian, Korean and Brazilian business would make for a viable service.

They would need a revision of the Brasil - South Korea bilateral since all of it's 3 weekly frequencies are already taken by KE. It would be great to finally have an asian carrier at GIG after such a long time. My guess is that a routing such as ICN-YYZ-GIG with OZ with AC's codeshare on the YYZ-GIG leg would definetly be a nice addition, specially if you consider that apparently AC is not really moving towards serving GIG with their own metal any time soon and that Rio can support flights to Asia and has none to fill the gap.



Please insert a "smart" joke here.
User currently offlineYVRSR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

Currently, AC flies YVR-ICN daily with a 767-300. In the last few years, in the summer peak period, there has been a 2nd daily flight 3 days a week or the daily flight has been upgauged to the 343-300. KE flies YVR-ICN 3 days a week with a 777-200. In the summer there is one additional weekly flight. SQ flies SIN-ICN-YVR 3 times a week with a 777-200 year-round.

I believe that AC has a summer nonstop YYZ-ICN and that KE flies year-round, but don't know the details.


User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1666 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4393 times:



Quoting AF086 (Reply 9):

They would need a revision of the Brasil - South Korea bilateral since all of it's 3 weekly frequencies are already taken by KE. It would be great to finally have an asian carrier at GIG after such a long time. My guess is that a routing such as ICN-YYZ-GIG with OZ with AC's codeshare on the YYZ-GIG leg would definetly be a nice addition, specially if you consider that apparently AC is not really moving towards serving GIG with their own metal any time soon and that Rio can support flights to Asia and has none to fill the gap.

I'm not sure AC can code-share to Brazil on third country metal. They certainly can't fly their own metal to GIG because the current bilateral is pretty restrictive. I suspect that if AC is willing to fly YUL-GVA, they would fly at least seasonally between YYZ and GIG if the bilateral is liberalized, especially since TAM could codeshare.

The problem with fifths in any agreement is that bilaterals with the prospective third countries are often restrictive.


User currently offlineAF086 From France, joined Jan 2007, 1062 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4314 times:



Quoting Sebring (Reply 11):
I'm not sure AC can code-share to Brazil on third country metal. They certainly can't fly their own metal to GIG because the current bilateral is pretty restrictive. I suspect that if AC is willing to fly YUL-GVA, they would fly at least seasonally between YYZ and GIG if the bilateral is liberalized, especially since TAM could codeshare.

Agreed but apparently It wouldn't be very hard for the bilateral to be updated, if the canadian side asked for that given the current attitude taken by the brazilian authorities. Over the last months there were several bilateral upgrades with bilaterals between Brazil and countries like Peru, Singapore, Australia, South Africa, United Kingdom, United Stated and so on.



Please insert a "smart" joke here.
User currently offlineCarfield From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1943 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4296 times:

I actually think Asiana will be benefited from this deal the most. It can fly ICN to YVR and YYZ, and then connect to Air Canada's hubs at both coasts. It can even consider codesharing with AC on flights to South America. Not sure if OZ will start flying to GRU via YYZ using its own metal, but I can see it codeshares with AC on those flights.

OZ can possibly start a ICN to YVR flight and an A330-300 will be perfect, and it can connect onward to various cities like Calgary, Edmonton, as well as some US cities like Seattle and Portland through AC. It can use one of its 74Es to go to YYZ, which can connect to AC's South American network, as well as its extensive network to other US east coast cities. In the Asian front, it can tap a bit into the India and SE Asia traffic.

For SQ, I think it will hurt its flight more because it can't increase like AC, OZ or KE. But I think SQ has carved a little market for itself like onward flights to SE Asia.

This move will definitely strengthen Star Alliance's hold in Canada. Not sure if oneworld can do much at this point.

Carfield


User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1666 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4276 times:

I don't even think the Korean market is such a big deal here, it's the China-Canada market, and that's particularly dicey for SQ which serves a fair bit of China via SIN. A single connection in ICN is a lot better than two connections to China over SIN. The same might work in the Canada-India market. It puts the Korean carriers in a good place. They direct more capacity at building their China and India connecting traffic.

User currently offlineFlyyul From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4999 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4276 times:



Quoting Sebring (Reply 11):
I'm not sure AC can code-share to Brazil on third country metal. They certainly can't fly their own metal to GIG because the current bilateral is pretty restrictive. I suspect that if AC is willing to fly YUL-GVA, they would fly at least seasonally between YYZ and GIG if the bilateral is liberalized, especially since TAM could codeshare.

The problem with fifths in any agreement is that bilaterals with the prospective third countries are often restrictive.

I dont see the logic between GVA and GIG? With GIG, 1 airplane gives you 3/7 service, pretty expensive from a resource perspective.

Given that GRU will be upgauged to the B77W seasonally, I would suspect AC's focus will be on making this work by using TAM's network in GRU - to GIG especially.


User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2170 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3548 times:



Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 3):
Does KE or OZ have the right to fly intra-Canada routes like YVR-YUL or YYC-YUL?

Cabotage? I highly doubt it.

Quoting Carfield (Reply 13):
It can fly ICN to YVR and YYZ, and then connect to Air Canada's hubs at both coasts.

The hubs on the Pacific coast and which other? The coast of Lake Ontario?

Quoting Sebring (Reply 14):
I don't even think the Korean market is such a big deal here, it's the China-Canada market, and that's particularly dicey for SQ which serves a fair bit of China via SIN. A single connection in ICN is a lot better than two connections to China over SIN.

I share your assessment on the possible detrimental effects for SQ's YVR-ICN service but I disagree with your initial comment: the Korea-Canada market is certainly a big deal here. But don;t count out SQ. They have a loyal clientele (rightfully so) and their connections are very attractive - even with the 90-min tech stop in ICN.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineFly2YYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 1046 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3387 times:



Quoting Threepoint (Reply 16):
I share your assessment on the possible detrimental effects for SQ's YVR-ICN service but I disagree with your initial comment: the Korea-Canada market is certainly a big deal here. But don;t count out SQ. They have a loyal clientele (rightfully so) and their connections are very attractive - even with the 90-min tech stop in ICN.

I think its also important to note that SQ, OZ, and AC are all in the same alliance.

YVR-ICN would be great for both ends for all three airlines connecting the dots be it Canadians going to China, Koreans going to Canada/US etc. Its all about improving upon the connecting opportunities for pax. if OZ were to commence service on the ICN-YVR routing, it could possibly operate a 3 or 4 time a week service complimenting SQ's service. Profit sharing. Would be a good idea no?


User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2170 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 days ago) and read 3308 times:



Quoting Fly2YYZ (Reply 17):
I think its also important to note that SQ, OZ, and AC are all in the same alliance...Profit sharing. Would be a good idea no?

In theory, yes. But all Star Alliance partners are not necessarily willing bedmates. There is no love lost between AC and SQ. I'm not sure the extent of the warm & fuzzy feelings between either of them and OZ. There exists a lot of bad blood and political & regulatory wrangling in the thorny SQ-to-Canada issue, which to be honest is beyond me to describe accurately.

My sense is that SQ wants to capitalize on the lucrative Korea-Canada traffic, and the Canadian govt regulator correctly views this as detrimental to Canadian carriers' best interests. SQ, like EK and a few other airlines doesn't make most of it's money from ferrying passengers between their home state and international destinations - they reap huge profits from serving as a hub and capturing (some would say poaching) the traffic flying between two points outside of their home country. If I could speculate, I'd wager that SQ would quickly drop YVR if it could not capture a significant amount of high-yield travelers between Vancouver and Seoul. The nonstop YVR-SIN market is not yet viable for them.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25860 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2983 times:



Quoting Threepoint (Reply 16):
Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 3):
Does KE or OZ have the right to fly intra-Canada routes like YVR-YUL or YYC-YUL?

Cabotage? I highly doubt it.

Foreign carriers can't carry wholly domestic passengers in Canada, but if memory when KE first started service to YYZ it was routed via YVR without traffic rights on the domestic sector. Air China also did that at one time. I remember CA operating a 747SP PEK-YVR-YYZ for some time. Obviously not an economic operation.


User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2170 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2899 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
I remember CA operating a 747SP PEK-YVR-YYZ for some time. Obviously not an economic operation.

I wonder why...I'd assume the SP would have the legs to make the trip nonstop.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25860 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2876 times:



Quoting Threepoint (Reply 20):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
I remember CA operating a 747SP PEK-YVR-YYZ for some time. Obviously not an economic operation.

I wonder why...I'd assume the SP would have the legs to make the trip nonstop.

I don't think range was the issue. At that time the Canada-mainland China market was small and there wouldn't have been enough demand for separate nonstop flights to both YVR and YYZ. The Canada-China bilateral probably didn't even permit nonstop service to YYZ then. It was quite restrictive in terms of frequency and capacity for both CA and CP Air, the designated Canadian carrier on transpacific routes then.


User currently offlineYVR1968 From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 days ago) and read 2804 times:

Well, regardless what happens, I expect KE will announce daily flights to YVR first off before any other announcements. Just a gut feel there. LONG overdue!

As for SQ, a bit on the fence on that one. Not sure if additional frequencies will be had or not. Perhaps at least an upgrade to 777-300ER... great aircraft.. have flown many times MEL-SIN.
I too doubt any non-stop flights would be in the cards. Too much traffic dependency on the YVR-ICN portion.

Not sure what AC will do. Will they additional frequencies in the summer?

And as for OZ, can see it happening, but I would think not in the next 18 months. Unless they pick up AC's usual additional capacity and then have 2 daily code shared flights (1 daily AC and 1 daily OZ).

Things will happen.. just not sure when, especially with the recent downturn in traffic worldwide.


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...
Canada - New Open Skies Policy? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 18:09:44 by AirbusfanYYZ
Canada-US Open Skies Policy posted Sun Dec 18 2005 08:56:21 by RyGuy
Canada - E.U. Open Skies Negotiations posted Sun Nov 25 2007 20:25:22 by Czbbflier
US, Canada & Mexico Plan North American Open Skies posted Sat Jun 9 2007 17:38:36 by Juventus
Canada Wants US Style EU Open Skies Agreement posted Mon Mar 26 2007 22:55:49 by Laxintl
Canada Signs "open Skies" With Serbia And Croatia posted Mon Dec 11 2006 20:53:23 by AirbusfanYYZ
Canada, Britain Sign Open Skies Agreement posted Sat Apr 22 2006 01:29:51 by Rattibone
Canada, U.S. Agree On New Open Skies Deal posted Mon Nov 14 2005 23:52:42 by Vio
U.S., Canada To Start New Open Skies Talks posted Wed Oct 19 2005 00:51:36 by Searpqx
Canada-US Transborder Open Skies posted Sun May 29 2005 15:55:44 by Aseem