canadiantree From France, joined Jun 2006, 103 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7684 times:
This may be a stupid question, but I'm really curious.Every major capital in Europe (London, Frankfurt, Munich, Amsterdam) have at least a direct flight to Vancouver but Air Canada does not and I'm just curious as to why. I know they used to have it a long time ago with the 747 but hasn't it returned? At some point Zoom and Air Transat were both operating the route at least in the summer months. I know we have a direct CDG-SEA flight since 2008 but Air France belongs to Skyteam and Air Canada to Star Alliance.
Let's hear the experts as to why this isn't and whether the future might see it happening, perhaps with the 787?
OH-LGA From Denmark, joined Oct 1999, 1436 posts, RR: 21 Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7622 times:
It most likely comes down to a matter of yields, along with opportunity costs. The same problems dogs essentially any West Coast city to Paris.
On the major "legacy" airline side, West Coast - Paris routes generally are the domain of Air France/SkyTeam. UA, who have a much larger hub in San Francisco compared to AC in YVR for example, doesn't even offer a SFO-CDG nonstop. They discontinued it a few years ago after running it on a summer seasonal basis the few years before cancelling the route. They cited the high seasonality and low yields on the flight (it was apparently a very high award redemption route) as the reason for it being cut, and that demand could be satisfied through their existing hubs further east. The problem is that the demand for the pointy end (premium cabins) to Paris is quite small from the West Coast (absent a large corporate agreement which would essentially subsidize the route, aka RDU-LHR). Leisure/VFR demand (highly price sensitive) is VERY seasonal (northern summer), and is better funneled through hubs on the East Coast (such as YYZ for AC, ORD/IAD/EWR for UA).
A big part comes down to costs of varying types, including tying up an aircraft for such a long-stage route that is likely marginally profitable at best. With fuel being such a large part of operating expenses now compared to the past, it makes more sense to segment flights where possible to increase loads, and using the aircraft on shorter stage lengths and on routes that make more money. While it may have been possible in the past, with increases in fuel prices YVR-CDG may simply have become unprofitable to operate. Opportunity costs of using an aircraft for one route when it could be used to make more money elsewhere should also be considered.
Additionally, YVR already has good air links to Europe (FRA, AMS, LHR, etc.), which are all major hubs in their own rights and can easily carry on the connecting traffic onwards to Paris. Because KLM already has a flight YVR-AMS, as part of the AF-KLM Group this flight already satisfies the majority of the demand the group would want to capture. With SEA just down the road and connected with AS/QX links (partnering with Delta, who operate the SEA-CDG route) make it a fairly simple transfer for YVR-originating pax. Also, YVR handles lots of summer seasonal flights which are covered by other carriers (VS, AB, TS)
YVR as a hub for AC wouldn't be able to generate enough originating & connecting traffic to feed a CDG flight, because its connection capabilities are fairly small from that end and the connection potential is very low. AC flights to Europe from YVR (LHR and FRA) feed into large Star Alliance hubs with high connection potential. A flight to CDG would not offer any of these synergies.
Downward trends in fuel prices and/or the introduction of the 787 may make the route viable again - but it depends on again if the aircraft could be used to make more money elsewhere...
Head in the clouds... yet feet planted firmly on the ground.
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7602 times:
At least AC doesn't try to be all things to all people. YVR is the clear pacific hub, YYZ is the clear atlantic and latin america hub, and YUL is a specialized TATL hub and partial reliever for YYZ.
I'm no AirCanada "expert", but my guess is that for a country of just 30-some million people, AC already flies to CDG from 2 cities. If AC doesn't even do YVR-MUC, then I can't imagine YVR-CDG seeing the light, which would be strictly O&D (those few pax from the rest of BC barely adds to the PDEW count).
If AC were ever to attempt it, I'd guestimate they'd start with 787 4-5x weekly. But if a route is in red ink with the 763 and only flips to black ink with 787, then it would be hard to hold onto upon any minor economic downtown or increase in oil prices. AC has plenty of expansion opportunity before having to go fill a nonexistent gap like this.
ktachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1763 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7525 times:
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 2): At least AC doesn't try to be all things to all people. YVR is the clear pacific hub
I remember that I posted a similar topic a few years ago and don't know if this info is accurate, but another poster pointed out to me generously that the current bilateral between France and Canada only allows for two gateways from one country. Which turns out to be YYZ and YUL.
Of course, this could be completely wrong but if there isn't a legitimate reason, I don't really see why Air France or Air Canada would give all their connecting traffic to KL, LH and BA.
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7482 times:
Quoting ktachiya (Reply 3): I remember that I posted a similar topic a few years ago and don't know if this info is accurate, but another poster pointed out to me generously that the current bilateral between France and Canada only allows for two gateways from one country. Which turns out to be YYZ and YUL.
I'm surprised open skies doesn't exist in this day and age. It's EU for heaven's sake, not UAE.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 23154 posts, RR: 23 Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days ago) and read 6919 times:
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 4): Quoting ktachiya (Reply 3):
I remember that I posted a similar topic a few years ago and don't know if this info is accurate, but another poster pointed out to me generously that the current bilateral between France and Canada only allows for two gateways from one country. Which turns out to be YUL.
I'm surprised open skies doesn't exist in this day and age. It's EU for heaven's sak.e, not UAE.
Canada-EU (all 27 countries including France) has been a full Open Skies market since late 2009. Any Canadian or EU-based carrier can fly anywhere they want with no restrictions whatsoever.
The reason why AC doesn't fly YVR-CDG is because the market is much too small and CDG isn't a Star Alliance hub. There are plenty of connections to Paris via LHR/AMS/FRA/YYZ/YUL or via the U.S.
AirCanada787 From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 268 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6508 times:
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 7):
AC operated a 763 on YVR-YUL-CDG during summer 2010. Needless to say, they haven't bothered with that service since.
I was thinking that would be the only way such a flight would work. Either YVR-YYZ-CDG or YVR-YUL-CDG. Similar to how the flight to Sydney is routed YYZ-YVR-SYD and passengers can book tickets on any or all of the segments. Seeing as they aren't doing it anymore I guess it didn't work well enough to continue or there are better ways to utilize aircraft. I agree with others however that it is easier to just route passengers from YVR to YYZ or YUL on any of the various flights and then from there they can go on to CDG.
I would guess also that people from YEG or other places in the west wouldn't want to back track to YVR just to get a flight to Paris. They would most likely just fly direct to LHR (if they can) and then go on to Paris or fly to YYZ and go from there. So really its all about serving passengers in the YVR region and how many of them fly to Paris everyday?
The mind, like a parachute, functions only when open.
RJLover From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 570 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6508 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6): The reason why AC doesn't fly YVR-CDG is because the market is much too small and CDG isn't a Star Alliance hub. There are plenty of connections to Paris via LHR/AMS/FRA/YYZ/YUL or via the U.S.
IIRC, back in 2009, we had a 763 thru-flight YVR-YUL-CDG and v.v.. I don't know the final reason why they got rid of the thru-flight (and the 763 from YVR-YUL), but it only lasted for a few months...
Last Flight(s): YHZ-YYZ-YVR // YVR-YYJ // YYJ-YYZ-YUL-YHZ.....Next Flight(s):
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 2): But if a route is in red ink with the 763 and only flips to black ink with 787, then it would be hard to hold onto upon any minor economic downtown or increase in oil prices.
Which actually brings up a good point for not just this but any proposed 787 route. I will admit I'm not an expert on figuring out the route costs but we all know that the 787 will operate routes with a lower cost than the 767. But if the route isn't economical with a 767 but is with a 787 during the next rise in fuel prices or economic downturn at the origin or destination the the route may be quickly axed as suggested by mogandoCI.
The mind, like a parachute, functions only when open.
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2143 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6287 times:
Quoting dolphinflyer (Reply 12): Would also make it easier for some passengers by not requiring them to get a visa for transit via the US.
Except that both ends of the trip are part of France, therefore, no need for US visas for most people doing CDG-PPT o&d, either French from the mainland or Tahitians. Just the ESTA + clearing customs + dealing with extra security of US-bound flights. I am not sure how many citizens of countries that need a visa to transit in LAX are on average per CDG-PPT flight, but certainly not enough to justify shifting the route to YVR. Plus, if those few passengers can afford traveling to PPT, chances are high that they are going to be relatively frequent intl travelers, and already having a US visa obtained for previous trips to the US.
However, the US-PPT market is quite lucrative, and especially out of LAX. So, expect neither TN nor AF to miss on that opportunity and transfer to YVR.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 23154 posts, RR: 23 Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6119 times:
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 14): However, the US-PPT market is quite lucrative, and especially out of LAX. So, expect neither TN nor AF to miss on that opportunity and transfer to YVR.
QF replaced their once-a-week YVR-SFO tag-on with a new YVR-PPT-NAN-SYD service in 1973 using 707-338Cs, with 5th freedom rights YVR-PPT. Forget whether it was once or twice a week. Don't think it lasted more than a couple of years. QF then reverted to the YVR-SFO tag-on but with the 747-200. That's the only direct service that's ever existed between Canada and PPT. At the time, the QF YVR-PPT nonstop was YVR's longest nonstop route, 60 nm further than CP's YVR-AMS route which was next longest.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7860 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5873 times:
I think the answer is simple: there aren't enough passengers to justify YVR-CDG. Now, YVR-LHR is a very different story, given that there are many British expatriates living in the Vancouver/Victoria area (a lot of British retirees that could afford it move to the Victoria, BC area, from what I've read).
CPA62 From Canada, joined Jan 2012, 43 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5745 times:
I dont think there is an issue with passenger numbers. Vancouver-Paris is a growing market and in terms of numbers, it is probably behind London and Frankfurt. Problem the way i see it; Delta airlines calls the shots for the alliance in North America. Delta Airlines is keeping Air France out of Vancouver to support the Seattle flight much the same way they limit KLM into Vancouver to support Seattle-Amsterdam. i was told few years back that Air Canada does not operate the route as it needs the feed for Toronto-Paris. Why Air Canada does not have a through flight Vancouver via Montreal to Paris is an aircraft issue?
Even though bi-lateral allows for Air France to service Vancouver. Four years ago it did not and Air France began service to Seattle. I firmly believe if Air France would have started service to Vancouver 4 years ago, it would still be flying to Vancouver. I am not sure the argument yields are that bad in Vancouver is still valid. Yields have been increasing year by year and it has allowed a growing list of carriers to survive in Vancouver? The passenger loads for carriers serving Europe are very good. While supposedly high yield markets have lost service to Europe Vancouver has been consistent.
It is just a matter of time before Vancouver sees a year round service to Paris and Munich for that matter.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31722 posts, RR: 72 Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5606 times:
Paris is Vancouver's fourth largest European market after London, Frankfurt and Amsterdam. The local market is decent (but there is a big drop off from AMS to CDG) and average fare is on par with FRA and AMS.
As for why nobody flies it - why send a plane to the West Coast when you can make more money and get better plane utilization from the East Coast?
25 YVRLTN: Funnily enough the French Air Force fly this routing a few times a year with an A342 on I believe troop flights. While its as cosmopolitan as it gets
26 czbbflier: As an individual who has been in the tourism business and who once owned a touring company that actively worked to gain a market share in the French t
27 MAH4546: The local market grew by less than 1% in the past two years. So, if it's up so much, French are sure finding unique ways of getting there that doesn'
28 YVRLTN: But AC obviously feel it works better routing via their eastern hubs. LHR is the only exception from YVR because of strong O&D traffic, some Star
29 YVRSpeedBird: I remembered AC operating non-stop YVR-CDG 2 x a week back in the late 90's, summer seasonal only. If I recall, it was on a 763, and lasted only 1 yea
30 CPA62: KLM flights have been limited by Delta, there are lot of passengers which are transferred to the SEA-AMS flight even though the YVR-AMS on KLM may no
31 dolphinflyer: Why are so many posters on this topic focusing on the local demand YVR-CDG only? Lest we forget that CDG is a major international hub. IIRC, a key imp
32 usdcaguy: Are there many pax traveling over AMS to points in Britain? AMS might be a better hub for that traffic. I think what is going on here is that the cor
33 mogandoCI: Because the thread is specifically about AirCanada, so whether AF's hub at CDG matters at all is a separate discussion. From AC's perspective, local
34 pnwtraveler: AC has almost hourly flights to YYZ and frequent direct flights to YUL that are good connectors for flights to CDG. So any premium passengers can fly
35 Viscount724: KL's AMS service no doubt serves that market adequately. I don't see a need for both KL and AF in YVR. Many French visitors to Canada are on package
36 ANM604: I'm not sure I'm seeing your point here. I don't think you can accurately compare connecting to DXB to CDG, they are miles away from each other. CDG
37 N1120A: Its not really a wash. Exactly. The vast majority of the traffic on those flights - both local and intra-France - is O&D. Its a major hub for AF,
38 IrishAyes: You basically just asked and answered your own question, but the AF change to DL on SEA-CDG has nothing to do with EK. This change would have happene
39 pnwtraveler: The expanding Middle East Airlines via YYZ and YUL, plus Turkish Airlines, plus the rumoured Ethopian Airlines through YYZ for the African subcontine