Summer seasonal mainline A319 service on YVR-BOS starting June 23, daily year round CRJ resumption on YUL-IAD starting May 1.

http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1116

http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1117

Good for Boston! Hopefully the flight will become daily year round and we will see more YVR- east coast service.

That's an insanely short season for YVR-BOS. The market is ridiculously seasonal, though.

YVR-BOS is also a resumption. Back in the early 2000s AC had a pretty impressive YVR-East Coast network with IAD, MIA, BOS, etc.

I would love to see YVR-IAH on AC at some point. I would think if DFW-YVR can work, IAH could have a shot.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I would love to see YVR-IAH on AC at some point. I would think if DFW-YVR can work, IAH could have a shot.

Possibly when the oil market rebounds, if not sooner. But yes, it is impressive how AC is firing up a salvo from its non-YYZ hubs to feed the increasing amount of int'l ops from cities like YVR, YUL and to a lesser extent, YYC. However, I'd argue that independently of this, BOS-YVR has pent up demand that has been meriting a nonstop for some time, especially during the high season.

Im glad YVR-BOS is coming back! Im also happy about IAD but do you think they chose IAD over DCA because they dont have enough slots or because of the many connections available at IAD.

nadavatar64 wrote:

Im also happy about IAD but do you think they chose IAD over DCA because they dont have enough slots or because of the many connections available at IAD.

That's possible. But IAD, to a large extent, is a separate market distinct from DCA. To be sure, there is some overlap in the catchment areas for each airport, but for the folks living in Loudoun, Prince William, Stafford, and western Fairfax counties, whose numbers now total upwards of 1.5 million, unless the fare is significantly lower at DCA, they'll be heading to IAD.

Any chance of YVR - MIA in the foreseeable future?

nadavatar64 wrote:

Im glad YVR-BOS is coming back! Im also happy about IAD but do you think they chose IAD over DCA because they dont have enough slots or because of the many connections available at IAD.

AC already flies YUL-DCA, this service simply complements existing service (UA also flies YUL-IAD)

pasu129 wrote:

Any chance of YVR - MIA in the foreseeable future?

Probably when they get the 40F/160J A380s ... along with Detroit, Nashville, St. Louis and Charlotte.

I believe AC is waiting to do YVR-MIA until it has either the MAX or C series. This leg is a bit of a stretch for the 319.

Topguncanada wrote:

I believe AC is waiting to do YVR-MIA until it has either the MAX or C series. This leg is a bit of a stretch for the 319.

Not much of a stretch; the A319s did it in the past when AC flew the route (though they also flew it with 767s).

Miami-Vancouver is the largest U.S.-Canada market - larger than BOS/WAS-YVR - without a non-stop and 125 PDEW+. The market is there, I definitely see AC reentering it especially given it is starting to build back it's YVR-U.S. network.

Yes the 319 is capable of the sector, but it is not ideal. It's 300NM longer than YVR-MEX and I know we have load restrictions on 996/997. In the interim it could be done...but the MAX and C series will definitely offer better CASM and full load capability.

Is BOS-YVR mostly cruise traffic?

I'm sure they're trying to capture some of the BOS-Australia traffic with good transfer scheduling, not to mention SYD/BNE-YVR-BOS passengers would get to avoid the monstrosity of clearing customs at LAX

I traveled over the weekend on WestJet from BOS to YVR via YYZ. There was at-least 25-30% of the plane that was connecting to YVR. The entire flight was jam-packed like sardines and WS must be laughing all the way to the bank. I think that AC is anticipating WestJet to start that route prospectively also YYC.

chrisnh wrote:

Is BOS-YVR mostly cruise traffic?

There is some academia traffic from BOS par usual but it's mostly cruise traffic I'd imagine.

MAH4546 wrote:

Miami-Vancouver is the largest U.S.-Canada market - larger than BOS/WAS-YVR - without a non-stop and 125 PDEW+. The market is there, I definitely see AC reentering it especially given it is starting to build back it's YVR-U.S. network.

If there's that much demand, I'm shocked AA doesn't operate the route since it would also provide a lot of Latin American connections from their Miami hub.

YYZLGA wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Miami-Vancouver is the largest U.S.-Canada market - larger than BOS/WAS-YVR - without a non-stop and 125 PDEW+. The market is there, I definitely see AC reentering it especially given it is starting to build back it's YVR-U.S. network.

If there's that much demand, I'm shocked AA doesn't operate the route since it would also provide a lot of Latin American connections from their Miami hub.

AA did operate it back when they partnered with Canadian. It is very heavily tilted to Canadian point of sale. Best done by a Canadian carrier. But as AA keeps growing it's MIA network, I wouldn't rule it out. I mean, AA is starting Miami-Omaha of all things.

keitherson wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

Is BOS-YVR mostly cruise traffic?

There is some academia traffic from BOS par usual but it's mostly cruise traffic I'd imagine.

Skiing is better in BC than in New England too

adamh8297 wrote:

keitherson wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

Is BOS-YVR mostly cruise traffic?

There is some academia traffic from BOS par usual but it's mostly cruise traffic I'd imagine.

Skiing is better in BC than in New England too

Nobody is skiing in June for seasonal flights??

adamh8297 wrote:

keitherson wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

Is BOS-YVR mostly cruise traffic?

There is some academia traffic from BOS par usual but it's mostly cruise traffic I'd imagine.

Skiing is better in BC than in New England too

You have a point but growing up in CT and traveling to VT/NH/ME resorts, I don't know many people who travel to BC for skiing. Some travel out west to Colorado and Utah but when you have dozens of resorts in New England (Depending on year, NE skiing can be very good) many people would rather drive the 3-4 hours then jump on a plane.

keitherson wrote:

adamh8297 wrote:

keitherson wrote:

There is some academia traffic from BOS par usual but it's mostly cruise traffic I'd imagine.

Skiing is better in BC than in New England too

Nobody is skiing in June for seasonal flights??

Very true, this is a seasonal flight after all.

keitherson wrote:

adamh8297 wrote:

keitherson wrote:

There is some academia traffic from BOS par usual but it's mostly cruise traffic I'd imagine.

Skiing is better in BC than in New England too

Nobody is skiing in June for seasonal flights??

I didn't say June just the traffic in general.

uconn99 wrote:

You have a point but growing up in CT and traveling to VT/NH/ME resorts, I don't know many people who travel to BC for skiing. Some travel out west to Colorado and Utah but when you have dozens of resorts in New England (Depending on year, NE skiing can be very good) many people would rather drive the 3-4 hours then jump on a plane.

I know a fair amount of done it - two just came back. Skiing is very similar to my hobby Scuba Diving - we have the ability to do our hobby locally but the apex of the hobby is typically a flight away (or maybe three when I went BOS-LHR-SIN-MDC!) There's also some decent yet cold Scuba Diving near YVR as well.

Also with a non-stop YVR its may be pretty close in total travel time than Western US resorts you have to stop to get to.

YVR, assuming an A319 seat price point, would be a very reasonable, "Let's take the kids to Whistler for winter break", vacation. Or, " Let's take the kids to Vancouver this summer ... We can spend a couple of days toward the end mountain biking up at Whistler."

BC has a ready vacation market willing to spend money in the Boston commuter region.

Canadian Airlines operated this sector as CP200/201 in the late 90's.

When it became obvious that they would not be able to make the Dec 15 1999 payroll, they raised the white flag and Air Canada scooped them up.

AC continued operating the flight as AC762/765 for while before someone figured out it was filled with the lowest yielding cruise traffic and not worth wasting an air frame on. Far better to feed it into the YYZ hub and then on the transcon than canibalizing themselves.

Even then, US carriers rarely operated flights that did not touch one of their hubs and they virtually never do it today either. It's one of the fundamental changes that has resulted in the US carriers being significantly more profitable than AC on an annual basis, with the gap widening. If it doesn't touch a hub, they basically don't operate it.

Vancouver might be a hub to Asia, but other than to Australia, Toronto has virtually the same n/s flights to Asia as YVR. Unless driven by hyper cheap yields, most Bostonians aren't going to fly to YVR to fly to Australia. Yes, it may actually be closer, but most passengers aren't going to be intuitive enough to figure that out, or going to want to transit a "foreign" country to go to Australia.

This makes one wonder why AC bothers with this when there is virtually zero chance of a US carrier operating this route on a n/s basis and overflying their own hub, precisely what AC will do now.

One of these days, AC will actually retire an airframe rather than continue to add capacity like there's no tomorrow. All the capacity adds have resulted in RASM falling faster than the lowered casm due to all the flying and the results over the last 2 quarters were at the bottom of the heap.

This is move is just more of the same.

Air Canada is retiring frames this year (6 763s), and next year ( 3 763s and 8 A319s). The mainline 763s and A319s are the first to go, as they're the most expensive to operate. Rouge tops out its fleet size next year, with the addition of 1 763 (they will be at 24 by the end of this year with the addition of 4 763s).

YVR is not what it was years ago. It has a burgeoning tech and film sector, and has very strong Asia pacific connections. There are several places that you can fly on Air Canada ex YVR that you can't from Toronto (Osaka and Nagoya immediately come to mind, as does Brisbane). You might as well add Sydney to that, as the flight from Toronto stops in YVR. The demand is there, or Air Canada wouldn't launch the route.

BTW, Vancouver is an Air Canada hub. They're not overflying anything.

Sure it's a hub, but in this instance, it's a hub for Asia Pacific markets and a few northern BC markets and not much else. No one is going to figure out how to fly BOS-YVR-SEA unless they specifically require that itinerary.

There won't be much interest in flying to YVR and backhauling to YLW, Alberta or Saskatchewan.

There are very few Asia-Pacific markets serviced from YVR that aren't already served from their YYZ hub, and those that are, are already well served from US network carrier hubs and markets stateside.

The best way to lure people to Asia over YVR is by doing what Air India did for years over the TATL. Heavy discounting. The question that needs to be considered is that does it make sense for the highest cost legacy airline in North America already with the lowest margins to be chasing the lowest yielding passengers to fill existing and new routes? And if so, why use AC mainline that has a cost structure apparently 20% higher than the alternative to do so?

Lest anyone forget, US premium customers, the ones that pay the freight, are as hooked to their mileage programs as Cdns are to Aeroplan.

It's not often that a long established, legacy airline with no shortage of airframes in its inventory can "discover" a new n/s market where the returns exceed those of incumbent markets. If that were the case, the market would already be operated.

It's a little different in the case of smaller, growing LCC airlines where there are always intrinsically more opportunities than airframes available.

The issue in Canada is well explained in this link:

https://raymondjames.bluematrix.com/sel ... ource=mail

I have my doubts the more consistently profitable and lower cost operator feels any need to ratchet back its growth anytime soon. There's only one way this scenario changes. A $20 increase in the price of oil would probably do it.

jimbo737 wrote:

Sure it's a hub, but in this instance, it's a hub for Asia Pacific markets and a few northern BC markets and not much else. No one is going to figure out how to fly BOS-YVR-SEA unless they specifically require that itinerary.

There won't be much interest in flying to YVR and backhauling to YLW, Alberta or Saskatchewan.

This service targets O&D passengers and not connecting passengers. Both BOS and YVR have limited connecting opportunities because of their coastal location which means there is backtracking involved with pretty much any connection that transoceanic. Beyond that BOS-YVR-SYD/BNE is a great way of avoiding the craziness of LAX, and AC can route some smaller Western Canadian markets through YVR to BOS.

And AC cannot connect passengers from the US to another US destination through Canada, the current open skies agreement does not allow for that.

jimbo737 wrote:

Sure it's a hub, but in this instance, it's a hub for Asia Pacific markets and a few northern BC markets and not much else. No one is going to figure out how to fly BOS-YVR-SEA unless they specifically require that itinerary.

There won't be much interest in flying to YVR and backhauling to YLW, Alberta or Saskatchewan.

There are very few Asia-Pacific markets serviced from YVR that aren't already served from their YYZ hub, and those that are, are already well served from US network carrier hubs and markets stateside.

The best way to lure people to Asia over YVR is by doing what Air India did for years over the TATL. Heavy discounting. The question that needs to be considered is that does it make sense for the highest cost legacy airline in North America already with the lowest margins to be chasing the lowest yielding passengers to fill existing and new routes? And if so, why use AC mainline that has a cost structure apparently 20% higher than the alternative to do so?

Lest anyone forget, US premium customers, the ones that pay the freight, are as hooked to their mileage programs as Cdns are to Aeroplan.

It's not often that a long established, legacy airline with no shortage of airframes in its inventory can "discover" a new n/s market where the returns exceed those of incumbent markets. If that were the case, the market would already be operated.

It's a little different in the case of smaller, growing LCC airlines where there are always intrinsically more opportunities than airframes available.

The issue in Canada is well explained in this link:

https://raymondjames.bluematrix.com/sel ... ource=mail

I have my doubts the more consistently profitable and lower cost operator feels any need to ratchet back its growth anytime soon. There's only one way this scenario changes. A $20 increase in the price of oil would probably do it.

I get what you are saying, and to an effect, it's evident there is very little capacity discipline from Canadian carriers. Just wait until Westjet starts adding more widebodies, things will only grow more competitive. However, what I feel like this misses is the fact that maybe their prerogative isn't to be so disciplined on capacity. What AC is doing (and to a lesser extent, WestJet) is pushing now while conditions (fuel prices, demand growth) are opportune to allow for a slight drop in yields, they are taking advantage of market factors to effectively stay ahead of the curve. AC has said time and time again that they have a very flexible fleet, if they begin to really outstrip demand, they can easily park old frames, hence holding onto the 767's and A330's. They hold 23 options for the 787 for this exact reason, if down the road, demand is keeping up, they will exercise their options and begins n retirement of old frames, of not, they don't have to exercise anything, and can park frames ad hoc.

I read the Raymond James evaluation, and honestly, it seems very baseless, there are a lot of bold claims with a lack of real evidence to back it up. The analysis of year over year fares shows so much variation, with one month up, and the other down, there just lacks a definitive trend to show any true weakness by my evaluation.

To conclude, what Canadian carriers are doing is more foreword thinking then anything, with contingency backups in place for the circumstance that the market doesn't pan out as they have forecast. They are trading some performance today for future potential.

I really respect your well researched position, (even if I don't agree) I just hope you read this and actually consider it's validity. I look foreword to a response.

MAH4546 wrote:

That's an insanely short season for YVR-BOS. The market is ridiculously seasonal, though.

It'll be interesting to see how it is priced.

Last time I made the journey it was for pleasure and I had time on my hands so I flew BOS-SEA and rented a car and drove to Vancouver. Spent a day or two in the SEA area (had to visit BFI and PAE of course!) as a bonus. Both B6 and AS have non-stop BOS-SEA flights so there's price pressure, whereas at the time the only way to do YVR involved stopping in Toronto and paying AC's high fares, so the rental car approach was cheaper.

When things go sideways, and in a cyclical business, it's not if, it's a question of when, AC will park its lowest cost airframes and presumably lay off its lowest cost employees.

With about 100 employees per aircraft, parking just 10 of those "free" aircraft when the cycle turns, (oil moves north of $70), would necessitate layoffs of about 1,000 people and a down sizing of all the infrastructure required to support all those aircraft, (i.e. hangar space, office space, etc etc), in order to adequately reduce costs. You can imagine how easy that will be, given that 10 year labor peace was "bought" with the promise of "growth growth growth".

The Raymond James report has some pretty detailed info that on both a micro, but more importantly, on a macro basis, illustrates both past and current trends. Naysayers will always conjure up reasons why it is all wrong, but never explain why it's wrong or present any detailed contrary analysis.

And meanwhile, the company's results over the last quarter was underwhelming, with the key numbers placing them dead last where it matters: profit margins, (or lack thereof), and skyhigh break-even load factors compared to industry peers. It's hard to take that information and use it to develop a compelling argument that the strategy is working well.

AC makes good money in the 3Q, the wheels fall off in 4Q and 1Q, and 2Q is mildly profitable, with the timing of Easter, (March vs April), being a key contributor. This has been the pattern for at least a couple of decades. Cheap fuel has raised the overall bar, and will lower it should it revert to prices seen just a couple of years ago.

Meanwhile, massive expansion far and away in excess of GDP growth rate continues, yields continue to fall due to over capacity due to said expansion, and fuel is more expensive this year compared to last.

It is most interesting that US carriers, all with lower costs and higher margins than AC, saw their share prices get hammered after releasing data showing growth rates of, hold your breath, maybe 4%. AC's growth rate continues to be 2-3x that and investors simply shrug.

That may be more of indication of how off the radar AC is amongst the US investment community.

It's simply supply and demand. To much capacity and prices drop. You can't lose a little,on every seat and make it up on volume.

I find the lack of direct flights from YVR to Florida hard to understand. Last year I was looking to take the family to Florida in the early spring. When I looked into it I couldn't believe that there were no direct flights. Even the WS connections through YYZ and YYC sucked. No way I was going to spend several unnecessary hours in the air and connecting somewhere(probably on a red eye). It's doable alone but not fun lugging a couple kids along. This seems like a route perfect for WS or Rouge.

YVRing wrote:

I find the lack of direct flights from YVR to Florida hard to understand. Last year I was looking to take the family to Florida in the early spring. When I looked into it I couldn't believe that there were no direct flights. Even the WS connections through YYZ and YYC sucked. No way I was going to spend several unnecessary hours in the air and connecting somewhere(probably on a red eye). It's doable alone but not fun lugging a couple kids along. This seems like a route perfect for WS or Rouge.

WS has operated YVR-MCO the last 2 winters....

With AC's current gate set-up @ BOS which of their gates can handle an A319?

jimbo737 wrote:

The Raymond James report has some pretty detailed info that on both a micro, but more importantly, on a macro basis, illustrates both past and current trends. Naysayers will always conjure up reasons why it is all wrong, but never explain why it's wrong or present any detailed contrary analysis.

And meanwhile, the company's results over the last quarter was underwhelming, with the key numbers placing them dead last where it matters: profit margins, (or lack thereof), and skyhigh break-even load factors compared to industry peers. It's hard to take that information and use it to develop a compelling argument that the strategy is working well.

AC makes good money in the 3Q, the wheels fall off in 4Q and 1Q, and 2Q is mildly profitable, with the timing of Easter, (March vs April), being a key contributor. This has been the pattern for at least a couple of decades. Cheap fuel has raised the overall bar, and will lower it should it revert to prices seen just a couple of years ago.

Meanwhile, massive expansion far and away in excess of GDP growth rate continues, yields continue to fall due to over capacity due to said expansion, and fuel is more expensive this year compared to last.

It is most interesting that US carriers, all with lower costs and higher margins than AC, saw their share prices get hammered after releasing data showing growth rates of, hold your breath, maybe 4%. AC's growth rate continues to be 2-3x that and investors simply shrug.

That may be more of indication of how off the radar AC is amongst the US investment community.

It's simply supply and demand. To much capacity and prices drop. You can't lose a little,on every seat and make it up on volume.

Out of all analyst to reference he chooses the worst and most incompetent in the finance industry. Why you have decided to compare apples and oranges is beyond me and I will spare myself from making a detailed response.

AC is still in the middle of a transformation process. Though they may not be able reach financial milestones such as Delta for example ( defined benefits pension plan at AC), it's been doing a great job so far in their transformation process. They've gone a long way and still have more to go. Will they face a tough road ahead? Yes, I won't deny it. Are they able to withstand another recession? Absolutely and their balance sheet shows it.

The entire industry is becoming challenged with over capacity. Have you not seen Westjet's margin decline as well (relative to other LCCs)? I can make the argument that their growth has been far less organic & rational.

FYI there is no bypassing hubs with yvr-bos. As the second largest hub, they offer a variety of destinations that yyz does not. Remember that US carriers have multiple hubs throughout the country. Your argument is just as senseless as saying that UA is bypassing ewr for operating bos-sfo.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

With AC's current gate set-up @ BOS which of their gates can handle an A319?

Checked in Google Earth last night, both B2 and B3 can fit the A319's wingspan

Massport has a project in the works to expand and rework the AA/AC side of Terminal B. Consolidated security area, expanded concessions and holding areas. The project would add 75,000 sqf and renovate 70,00 sqf on the PMUS side of Terminal B. AC's current 3 gates will be opened up to the rest of Terminal B.

I am wondering if this project may allow for more spacing with the AC gates?

briguychau wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

With AC's current gate set-up @ BOS which of their gates can handle an A319?

Checked in Google Earth last night, both B2 and B3 can fit the A319's wingspan

Look at slide 14 of this presentation of the Terminal B project. Looks like at the 3 AC Gtaes, B1-3, there are 2 A-319's and one RJ fitting in just fine. Slide 15 has a 321 and 319 at the 3 AC gates.

https://www.massport.com/capitalprogram ... 20Info.pdf

jimbo737 wrote:

When things go sideways, and in a cyclical business, it's not if, it's a question of when, AC will park its lowest cost airframes and presumably lay off its lowest cost employees.

With about 100 employees per aircraft, parking just 10 of those "free" aircraft when the cycle turns, (oil moves north of $70), would necessitate layoffs of about 1,000 people and a down sizing of all the infrastructure required to support all those aircraft, (i.e. hangar space, office space, etc etc), in order to adequately reduce costs. You can imagine how easy that will be, given that 10 year labor peace was "bought" with the promise of "growth growth growth".

In addition to isolating aircraft bases for quick retirement, the "10 year labour contracts" were also designed with retrenchment in mind, should it be necessary.

What you likely don't know is that a B scale was added to all union contracts. Unlike pilots and F/As which are already on a B scale when flying Rouge aircraft, all of the other employees, like agents, baggage handlers, mechanics, etc are paid by senority list position. If Rouge is flying 20% (for example) of flying at Air Canada, then the bottom 20% of those employees are paid a B scale wage, rising back to A scale when rising above the line.

It is brilliant, as then if lay-offs are required, then the efficiency of Rouge, by percentage. it maintained. However, I would be very surprised if any employees are laid off when a downturn occurs. Things are pretty thin right now, with all training departments running full tilt. A downturn, may just allow things to "catch up".

With regard to "employee satisfaction", remember that AC is about to pay its highest profit sharing in history. As I stated on another thread, mine will be enough to buy a new Lariat FX4, but I won't because that is what I used last years profit sharing for! And also remember, that in 2016 Westjet allocated only half of the profit sharing compared to 2015. Are Westjet's employees "satisfied"? hard to say ... but currently over 250 Westjet pilots have active applications for flying positions at Air Canada!

AC seems to be beefing up U.S.A. to YUL capacity quite nicely. This latest IAD resumption is on the tail of recent DFW and PHL adds. I would expect ATL, CLE, PIT and/or DTW to be next. I believe that all the new Mahgreb (Casablanca/Algiers), Tel Aviv and secondary European city flights (Lyon, Nice, Venice, Rekyavik etc.) are offering cheap Cdn.$ transfer options in many U.S. markets. A transfer in YUL for U.S. origin passengers is likely less crowded/painful than JFK/ORD and so on in many cases. The 30% discount on the Cdn.$ surely helps too.

You guys seem awfully threatened by a single A.net poster given the amount of responses he's gotten. If he's throwing flamebait, it's clearly working.

Congratulations to AC's new route. I for one, wouldn't choose to fly an A319 for over 5 hours in business class, especially if connecting lie-flat options are available YVR-YYZ or YVR-YUL or YVR-EWR. Then of course, there's the international airlines flying JFK-YVR. Economy class maybe. I think AC knows that anyways.

Skywatcher wrote:

AC seems to be beefing up U.S.A. to YUL capacity quite nicely. This latest IAD resumption is on the tail of recent DFW and PHL adds. I would expect ATL, CLE, PIT and/or DTW to be next. I believe that all the new Mahgreb (Casablanca/Algiers), Tel Aviv and secondary European city flights (Lyon, Nice, Venice, Rekyavik etc.) are offering cheap Cdn.$ transfer options in many U.S. markets. A transfer in YUL for U.S. origin passengers is likely less crowded/painful than JFK/ORD and so on in many cases. The 30% discount on the Cdn.$ surely helps too.

Exactly! AC has carved out a nice set of unique destinations with it's specialized hub strategy, with the support of strong local demand and network feed. I'm glad to see that they have decided to enter the market & compete with AT & AH. Now if only they could get that proposed BEY going?

Not sure how DL would react with atl & dtw?