MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33874 posts, RR: 70
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4704 times:
Yeah, sorry about that, forgot to include the link. I never knew about this IATA thing until recently. What exactly is the IATA? I've found lot's of random stuff going through the scheds. AA is launching JFK-BCN and JFK-FCO; IB is adding some MIA-Central America frequencies, etc.
ChrisA330 From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 647 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4660 times:
I don't think a lot of these will materialize - they don't have enough aircraft to cover this. For example: YYZ-HKG with the A340-500 requires 2 aircraft for a daily operation, but they also have the A345 running YVR-SYD. They only have 2 of these aircraft on order, unless they changes their mix between the 345 and 346 again.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16454 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4645 times:
Actually, daily 345 YYZ-HKG vv would require 3, not 2, 345's. Since a 345 could not return to YYZ within 24h of leaving. Same with the new YVR-SYD nonstop.....this would also require 3, not 2, 345 aircraft for it to be daily. Since AC will only have 2, not 6, 345's in service next summer, this timetable cannot be correct (it is called draft after all).
As for the other routes:
1. YYC-LHR was 2x daily 763 in summer 02....they are upgrading one flight to the 343.
2. YYZ-LHR stays at 6x daily.
3. I'm very surprized that YVR-LHR is 3x daily including 1 all-pax 744.
4. YYC-FRA is going from 1x daily 343 to a 2x daily 763.
5. I'm also surprized that YEG-FRA is 2x week while there is still no YEG-LHR.
6. YYZ-ICN 3x weekly is a new route.
7. YVR-PEK upgrades from a daily 763 to a 343.
So, the 6 AC 744's will be used as follows:
1. YYZ-LHR (combi)
2. YYZ-FRA (combi)
3. YYZ-FRA (combi)
4. YVR-LHR (all passenger)
5. YVR-NRT (all passenger)
6. YVR-KIX (all passenger).
It looks like all the YYZers will sleep well tonight.
Of course. We always do (despite the constant drone of aircraft overhead).
Its really discouraging being from YUL...
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
Flyguy1 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1746 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4566 times:
I don't know how accurate this website is, but many airlines will be adding new, expanded international services next summer.
You can check to see what a favorite airline is doing for next summer http://www.iata.org/sked/schedules.asp
Slawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3803 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4535 times:
This is an airbus afterall, and a new one at that, Im sure there will be a number of delayed and xld flights in the begining, no way that 2 planes could handle a load like that. Could it be that they are planning on adding an extra aircraft or two? I understand they still hold options on A340NG's.
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
RP TPA From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4484 times:
Well, this will sure take some time to digest. Just a few preliminary thoughts:
It appears that the elapsed flight time for YYZ-HKG is roughly the same as YVR-HKG. How can this be? The YYZ-HKG route must be a much longer distance, even taking into account the polar track. Someone please explain this one to me.
It seems like the YYZ-ICN flt will be a direct one, with a stop in YVR. So, it's not non-stop, just an extension of the YVR-ICN run.
Wolfy From Taiwan, joined Mar 2001, 337 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4417 times:
Good news that they are having more flights next summer, but I really hate to know that YVR-TPE will not be back. I guess, yeah, everything can change, as the booking system still shows YVR-TPE next summer.
FLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 5031 posts, RR: 50
Reply 21, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4398 times:
Of course I went wrong somewhere...
AC874 Montreal-Frankfurt A330-300, Boeing B74E is one of AC's best international flights in terms of load factor. This summer, I swear the flight was oversold every day, until they brought a second daily to FRA from YUL. AC's route planning decides "HEY, lets make the 2nd flight depart within one hour from the original departure AC874, same for the arrival. At the same time, lets program the route LESS than one month from the start-up"..... and the FLIGHT was still full....
They also added a 2nd flight to YYc but on a 2 weekly basis. The end result, Montreal will be stuck with the same stupid overbooked AC874, while YYC gets a 2nd. More insulting, YEG and YHZ-FRA which are nice, but using this logic, every city in the United States of America over 300,000 in pop. should get a flight to their nearest largest European alliance hub...... and Id love to see DL, AA, NW, CO, US get of their Hub track, and add PWM-CDG or MKE-AMS.
So here we are again with the same dilemma Montreal's have been facing for the last 4 years. Air Canada's international flights for the most part, all leave with consistent load factors of 90% + non-rev's. Air Canada also saw what it doubted (Milton told me to my face that OS would never survive in Montreal), Austrian do quite well especially with their code-share. No Montrealers are stuck with a half-assed airport only because AC convinced the ADM and the BTMM (board of trade of Montreal metro) that YUL was to become a hub for AC. A hub with routes to TLV, MXP, FCO, BEY, FRA, LHR, BRU, CDG etc etc. AC continuously watches high load factors, only acts when the pressure is on by other carriers, and continues to send the excess to YYZ.
The expansion $850 million until 2009, near $1.4 billion for 2020, is mostly in part for Air Canada to have better transfer facilities, gain more VIP rooms, better baggage systems, more gates, more counters..... Milton stood before Montrealers (as he is the one calling for the expansion) saying that this expansion will allow "Quantum Leaps" the "Munich of Canada"..
Of course AC's gotta worry about their financial side of the picture, but having a YUL smaller alternative to YYZ isnt such a destructive idea. Even Robert Milton himself said that this was to be Montreal's potential. He predicted great things for YUL when I met him, saying that their core-routes (those that will never change) are some of the strongest in their network..
Anyway by the like of AC"s wish list, Calgary will have the same number of trans-atlantic as Montreal. While Calgary is quite prosperous, its international traffic is 1/4 the size of Montreal's. I dont expect big things from AC, but I do expect eventual 2X YUL-LHR, 2X YUL-FRA, 3X YUL-CDG, and maybe even YUL-MUC, YUL-MXP. These are all viable routes with viable demand. They are also a multi-tude of frequencies/destinations to this mini-hub that could also be considered, without infringing on Toronto's loads..
I will discount that the demand isnt there. KLM has reported the highest load factor per flight in its whole network from Montreal, primarily shuffling the Italy and India markets. Austrian is quite happy, BA is status quo, AF is adding a 3rd flight, RAM is going daily, MS is gonna go YUL-CAI non-stop, LH is interested in Montreal, CSA is going to do YUL-PRague without YYZ feed, and AC is constantly overbooked to its international destinations.
Is Air Canada waiting for more gate space? Is Air Canada waiting for the Dorval expansion to be completed given the absolutely awful facilities that they have? Or is Dorval pax just gonna be shuffled to YYZ, YYC, YVR and other hubs..Im anxious to see this, but im not very encouraged. Im encouraged with everybody else happy with their business at YUL, expanding their business as well. As for AC's, they're flights are not gonna get fuller than they are on the international side, because they cant, they are already full... (of course some dates in Nov, early Dec, Mid-Jan are open because its real low-season)..
So in short, Im pro-AC YYZ hub. But Im also pro-AC YUL secondary hub that will not hurt the YYZ main hub. With the new installations that promise to be world-class, easy, efficient, and friendly, I wonder if AC will consider taking a better look at us. Ive seen the plans, and they are quite good..
Jcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 37
Reply 22, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4382 times:
YQB-CDG? Shocking! I remember this topic being posted a couple months back with AF proposing the service. I said it would never happen...looks like I've been proven wrong once again. Heres a new prediction; it wont last later 1 Jan 2004