Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did AC Propose YYZ-LAX-SYD Before YYZ-YVR-SYD  
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7085 times:

If I'm not mistaken, before Air Canada decided on YYZ-YVR-SYD they had proposed YYZ-LAX-SYD?

what was the reasoning for that?

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3411 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7028 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
If I'm not mistaken, before Air Canada decided on YYZ-YVR-SYD they had proposed YYZ-LAX-SYD?

They had always served SYD on a YYZ-YVR-HNL-SYD routing using a 763 or a 343. With the 77L they now had the ability to do the YVR-SYD-YVR leg non-stop so it really isn't a new route.

When AC proposed this the route was far more lucrative than today with only QF and UA operating it and the Canada-Australia bi-lateral allows two points where 5th freedom traffic could be carried which were SFO and HNL, QF also operated SYD-SFO-YVR and in the late 1990's up to 9/11 ran SYD-HNL-YVR/YYZ.

IIRC Canada wanted this bi-lateral amended to include LAX but that wasn't agreed upon. Hindsight in 20/20 now that QF operated A380's on this route and DL and VA have entered it the amount of competition means AC would not be making as much on this route on a thinly stretched fleet so that metal is better used elsewhere at the present time.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7013 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 1):
IIRC Canada wanted this bi-lateral amended to include LAX but that wasn't agreed upon. Hindsight in 20/20 now that QF operated A380's on this route and DL and VA have entered it the amount of competition means AC would not be making as much on this route on a thinly stretched fleet so that metal is better used elsewhere at the present time.

So like Singapore, Air Canada was denied access to LAX-SYD


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3411 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6953 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 2):
So like Singapore, Air Canada was denied access to LAX-SYD

IIRC yes but now both airlines are probably thankful that they didn't get these rights. It was QF's baby back then but I'm not so sure how much they make on it now.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1765 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6906 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 2):
So like Singapore, Air Canada was denied access to LAX-SYD

True, though those aren't quite apples-to-apples. Obviously it was the (at the time) lucrative SYD-LAX local traffic the enticed both carriers to request rights, but for AC, it would truly be a stop on the way. LAX lies directly on the great circle route from YYZ to SYD, making it a natural stopping point on the route in addition to being a large market in its own right.

By comparison, SIN-SYD-LAX would be about 30% longer than a non-stop SIN-LAX and also considerably longer than routing through other points in Asia. For SQ, it was definitely a matter of going out of the way just to hit on a lucrative route.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26029 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6478 times:

I don't think AC was ever very serious about the YYZ-LAX-SYD route. It was more for political reasons. And, as mentioned, I'm sure they're now very glad the Australian government said no. Much better to operate YYZ-YVR-SYD where they're the only direct operator from YYZ and the only nonstop operator from YVR than on the highly-competitive LAX-SYD route. Yields of 5th freedom carriers, which AC would obviously be on LAX-SYD, are normally the lowest. They have much more pricing power on YVR-SYD.

User currently offlineChinook747 From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6402 times:

and not to mention AC can capitalize on the market that cannot or does not want to transit via the USA on their way to Australia.

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5916 times:

Quoting Chinook747 (Reply 6):
and not to mention AC can capitalize on the market that cannot or does not want to transit via the USA on their way to Australia.

A very big selling point given the apparent policies of TSA at this time. This is particularly true for those not on Canadian or American passports.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5830 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):
I'm sure they're now very glad the Australian government said no

Not quite; Canada requested meetings to modify the bi-lateral with Australia, but Australia said they would get back to Canada when they had time to deal with it. Subsequent entry of Virgin and DL into the market made the whole matter irrelevant.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5653 times:

YYZ-YVR-SYD and YYZ-LAX-SYD are very different markets, and likely would have been considered at the same time. Namely YVR-SYD is such a successful route, that it would have flown whether LAX-SYD was approved or not. The only difference, as the time would be shorter, is that the YYZ-YVR-YYZ tag-on likely would have been put on LAX instead for YYZ-SYD through traffic.

AC (or Canada, technically) presently holds the rights for SFO-SYD. I am always surprised that those rights have never been exercised ... at least not since the days of the DC-6B.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4970 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 9):
AC (or Canada, technically) presently holds the rights for SFO-SYD

Singapore requested twice to be allowed on LAX-SYD, both times the Australians denied them. How I wish they'd have looked at SFO-SYD


User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4958 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 9):
AC (or Canada, technically) presently holds the rights for SFO-SYD. I am always surprised that those rights have never been exercised ... at least not since the days of the DC-6B

If I have my facts straight,UA is currently the only operator on the route after QF recent withdrawal. Adding another carrier like AC may exceed demand and dilute yields for UA. UA agreeing to be a code-share partner would be essential to ensure it's success.


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4796 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
A very big selling point given the apparent policies of TSA at this time. This is particularly true for those not on Canadian or American passports.

That's a very big one for us, and we have Canadian passports. We travel down under a lot, and the two relatively new YVR services to Sydney (AC) and Aukland (ANZ) -- both non-stop -- avoid that US scrutiny. I can still remember trooping off an Air Pacific flight in Honolulu, going through US customs, then going back through security (because they didn't have a "secure" route from the customs exit back to the terminal) and ultimately back on the airplane. You're really vulnerable because there are two places you can get pulled out of the line, and although my wife has a Canadian passport it lists her place of birth as the US -- and that has caused some aggravation recently as they try to insist she's still a US citizen (she left the US permanently nearly 45 years ago).

I understand (not entirely sure) that they've cut some of that crap out in Honolulu -- but it still gives me the creeps. I'll pay a premium to avoid a US connection if my destination is somewhere else. Much as I love Hawaii, I'm much happier cruising by it at 40K than taking my chances, unnecessarily, with US customs and border agents.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26029 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4247 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 9):

AC (or Canada, technically) presently holds the rights for SFO-SYD. I am always surprised that those rights have never been exercised ... at least not since the days of the DC-6B.

CP never exercised SFO-SYD rights, and to the best of my memory, never scheduled the DC-6B on YVR-SFO-HNL except possibly for occasional fuel stops. In all the timetables I've seen the DC-6B was scheduled nonstop in both directions. Even when the Canadair C-4s were used on YVR-SYD where SFO was a stop in both directions, it was strictly a tech stop. No traffic was sold on either YVR-SFO or SFO-NAN/SYD (CP didn't get traffic rights YVR-SFO until 1967).

Just checked a 1951 timetable when the C-4 was still being used and the schedules allow time for the SFO stop but there's not even any reference to the tech stop.

Elimination of the SFO stop (and the Canton Island stop between HNL and NAN) was the major benefit when the DC-6B replaced the C-4 around 1952. Looking at a 1953 DC-6B schedule, the elapsed time YVR-HNL was almost 5 hours faster than the former Canadair C-4 with the SFO fuel stop.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5164 posts, RR: 43
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4157 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
Elimination of the SFO stop (and the Canton Island stop between HNL and NAN) was the major benefit when the DC-6B replaced the C-4 around 1952. Looking at a 1953 DC-6B schedule, the elapsed time YVR-HNL was almost 5 hours faster than the former Canadair C-4 with the SFO fuel stop.

That's interesting. I wonder why they never used the rights? As we know, the rights to carry passengers from SFO-SYD were always there.

I assume the SFO rights were there, (over say LAX) as it would have begun for technical reasons. SFO being closer to HNL than either YVR or LAX.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4099 times:

Quoting Chinook747 (Reply 6):
and not to mention AC can capitalize on the market that cannot or does not want to transit via the USA on their way to Australia.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
A very big selling point given the apparent policies of TSA at this time. This is particularly true for those not on Canadian or American passports.

Actually it would have made no difference at all: Air Canada wanted their existing US customs and immigration pre-clearance at Toronto to be widened to include transit passengers.

The idea was that transit passengers would funnel straight into T2 at LAX without passing customs and immigration.

And terminating passengers at LAX would not have to undergo customs and immigration formalities.

The problem would have been that Australia doesn't have US pre-clearance, even though Sydney's numbers entitle it to if the costs are carried. So while outbound YYZ-LAX-SYD would be a breeze, inbound SYD-LAX-YYZ would have got held up at LAX.

It still staggers me that Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland have not applied for US pre-clearance, and sought government support to do so.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3995 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 15):
It still staggers me that Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland have not applied for US pre-clearance, and sought government support to do so

Apparently the passenger number required is 400,000. NZ carried 950,000 from AKL to North America/UK year ending June 30th 2012. Deduct ~50,000 for AKL-YVR leaves more than enough to qualify for pre-clearance. I am assuming that UK bound passengers via LAX would also be cleared to simplify the transit situation or am I wrong on this ? If AKL got a jump on SYD and MEL this it would make it more attractive to Australian's using NZ's service .
I would pay a surcharge, say $10 for this service. The backups at US points of entry are not funny. Last week JFK and EWR were typically pushing 2-hours.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3411 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3868 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 15):
It still staggers me that Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland have not applied for US pre-clearance, and sought government support to do so.

It may be worth it in SYD but for MEL and AKL there are perhaps 2 or 3 flights to the US daily that go into major airports and pre-cleared pax have to be sequestered from everyone else.

YYZ for example handles hundreds of flights to the US daily and serves smaller domestic airports that do not have large customs and immigration facilities.

Also it would really make logistics a challenge as Australia and NZ have exit immigration so I assume any pre-clearance would have to be done after the fact or set aside desks to handle both.

Quoting koruman (Reply 15):
So while outbound YYZ-LAX-SYD would be a breeze, inbound SYD-LAX-YYZ would have got held up at LAX.

This is fixed if the US where feasible can do a simple transit setup where you go back to the gates if you have a boarding pass for a further flight and you go through security. Pre-clearance isn't necessary to accomplish this, proper airport configuration is.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 567 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3699 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 10):
Singapore requested twice to be allowed on LAX-SYD, both times the Australians denied them. How I wish they'd have looked at SFO-SYD

That also was because QF was jumping up and down aswell, there was no way known QF wanted SQ on the SYD-LAX route.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3603 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 17):
It may be worth it in SYD but for MEL and AKL there are perhaps 2 or 3 flights to the US daily that go into major airports and pre-cleared pax have to be sequestered from everyone else.

All passengers would be pre-cleared into the U.S even if they are transiting to another country. Just the same as I do when
I fly YYZ-AKL via SFO/LAX. The disadvantage would be that all passengers on AKL-LAX-LHR would need the documentation necessary to enter the U.S. The present transiting arrangement at LAX for eastbound passengers to LHR on NZ would be done away with. It would require dedicated departures space with baggage handling at AKL and certainly an increase in check in time and connecting time between inbound flights from Australia and outbound flights to SFO/LAX.


Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 17):
YYZ for example handles hundreds of flights to the US daily and serves smaller domestic airports that do not have large customs and immigration facilities.

You appear to be confusing outbound to the US and inbound from the US at YYZ/YUL/YVR. Canada does not pre-clear inbound passengers from any jurisdiction that I am aware of.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8517 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3251 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
CP never exercised SFO-SYD rights, and to the best of my memory, never scheduled the DC-6B on YVR-SFO-HNL except possibly for occasional fuel stops. In all the timetables I've seen the DC-6B was scheduled nonstop in both directions. Even when the Canadair C-4s were used on YVR-SYD where SFO was a stop in both directions, it was strictly a tech stop. No traffic was sold on either YVR-SFO or SFO-NAN/SYD (CP didn't get traffic rights YVR-SFO until 1967).

The airline that operated SFO to YVR as an extension of an Aussie flight was Commonwealth Pacific Airways.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3072 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3232 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 1):
the Canada-Australia bi-lateral allows two points where 5th freedom traffic could be carried which were SFO and HNL

Three actually - PPT is also a 5th freedom intermediate point.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26029 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3047 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 20):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):
CP never exercised SFO-SYD rights, and to the best of my memory, never scheduled the DC-6B on YVR-SFO-HNL except possibly for occasional fuel stops. In all the timetables I've seen the DC-6B was scheduled nonstop in both directions. Even when the Canadair C-4s were used on YVR-SYD where SFO was a stop in both directions, it was strictly a tech stop. No traffic was sold on either YVR-SFO or SFO-NAN/SYD (CP didn't get traffic rights YVR-SFO until 1967).

The airline that operated SFO to YVR as an extension of an Aussie flight was Commonwealth Pacific Airways.

Minor correction: It was British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines (BCPA), jointly owned by the governments of Australia (50%), New Zealand (30%) and U.K. (20%). It was shut down in 1954 and their routes transferred to QF.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2903 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22):
It was shut down in 1954 and their routes transferred to QF.

And TEAL the predecessor of NZ ended up with the DC6B's.If my recollection is correct there were three. A fourth was lost on Oct.29th 1953 due to a navigational error, in the hills during an approach into SFO


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26029 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 23):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22):
It was shut down in 1954 and their routes transferred to QF.

And TEAL the predecessor of NZ ended up with the DC6B's.If my recollection is correct there were three. A fourth was lost on Oct.29th 1953 due to a navigational error, in the hills during an approach into SFO

If memory correct, they were standard original DC-6s, not DC-6Bs.


25 Kaiarahi : My father was a TEAL FE on Solents and DC-6s. I believe they were standard DC-6s (although the props were converted by TEAL from Curtiss-Wrights to Ha
26 sunrisevalley : A search of Wiki confirms that they were in fact DC 6's.
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...
Did AC Split YYZ CCS And YYZ POS posted Fri Oct 7 2005 07:17:16 by CayMan
When And Why Did SQ Quit YYZ? posted Mon May 24 2004 10:30:20 by United Airline
Why Did AC Move In PHX? posted Sun Mar 15 2009 14:36:23 by Planenutz
Why Did US Cancel JFK-LAX posted Tue Sep 11 2007 23:18:03 by USAirALB
WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG? posted Wed May 16 2007 18:03:34 by LAXdude1023
Why Did AC Placed Small Orders Of B787s? posted Fri Apr 20 2007 12:18:25 by Aircanada014
Why Did AC Serve Norfolk? posted Sun Feb 18 2007 00:50:23 by Flynavy
SQ Vs AC On The LAX-SYD Route posted Sat Mar 4 2006 04:32:55 by AC330
Why Did Eagle Stop Flying LAX-PSP posted Mon May 9 2005 23:32:42 by RampRat74
Did Cathy Pacific Have A LAX-HKG Before 747 400 posted Thu Mar 4 2004 06:21:22 by 747400sp