Here's an interesting report published in Urbanized.

"Vancouver International Airport’s (YVR) extraordinary recent growth in passenger traffic, turning the airport into a major Trans-Pacific hub, could be challenged by another expanding player"

(...)

"But the threat for Pacific Northwest airport supremacy in terms of connections between the Americas and Asia and Australia is looming. Richmond highlighted Delta Airline’s potential of drawing on 330 million US residents, and SEA’s US$968-million, 450,000-sq-ft international terminal expansion, which will allow Seattle’s airport to better connect domestic and international passengers. The number of international-capable gates at SEA will increase from 12 to 20."

(...)

"Another advantage that SEA has, but YVR does not, is Seattle’s significant global business community."

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/seattle ... acific-hub

In 2018, YVR handled 25,936,907 passengers, of which 6,332,091 were Transborder (24,4%) and 7,158,094 International (27,6%).

For its part, SEA deplaned/emplaned a total of 49,849,520, of which 5,427,551 (10,88%) were international.

Besides building a new terminal expansion and see DL develop connecting traffic, do SEA has enough runway capacity as it is?

SEA’s constraints currently are not runway related, it’s all taxiways and terminal congestion. They’re working on it, but it’s a long ways from completion.

Doesn’t SFO have ‘Pacific Northwest supremacy’?

I don't think the article framed the comparison correctly. How many YVR Transborder pax also were TPAC? How many Canadian TPAC pax did YVR lose to SEA? (Not a big fraction, I would guess.) Due to geography YVR is always going to be Canada's primary TPAC hub. SEA is competing as much (if not more) with SFO and LAX as YVR.

Jetty wrote:

Doesn’t SFO have ‘Pacific Northwest supremacy’?

I am sure SFO draws a much smaller share of WA,OR,BC,YT, AK transpacific traffic than SEA and YVR.

SEA will never be a “threat” to YVR simply because the US customs require pax connecting in the US to have visas, ESTA, etc and go through the long customs process, while Canada doesn’t.

A threat to US-bound pax maybe..

The costs at YVR vs SEA should also be looked at.

SFO is not in the Pacific NW

santi319 wrote:

SEA will never be a “threat” to YVR simply because the US customs require pax connecting in the US to have visas, ESTA, etc and go through the long customs process, while Canada doesn’t.

A threat to US-bound pax maybe..

I was thinking exactly the same thing. YVR's ease of connections make SEA not much of a threat. I don't see SEA surpassing YVR's international pax count any time soon, even with stripping away transborder traffic.

Airports don't like competition just like Airlines don't like competition. I see SEA with more International flights than YVR. SEA needs to NOT stop growing. Just keep building!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe AC should add more transborder routes like WS did in YYC and AC did in YUL and YYZ cause now it seems like AC or WS is doing nothing to add more transborder routes out of YVR. There are many unserved and underserved routes AC or WS can serve out of YVR like IAD (Year-Round Daily), DTW (Year-Round Daily), PHL, MCO (Year-Round Daily), FLL (Year-Round Daily), BOS (Year-Round), BNA, AUS, MSY, ONT, etc.

The TPAC hub champ is SFO. LAX has a ton of traffic but it's mostly O/D for now. SEA and YVR aren't in the same league as SFO.

Aliqiout wrote:

Jetty wrote:

Doesn’t SFO have ‘Pacific Northwest supremacy’?

I am sure SFO draws a much smaller share of WA,OR,BC,YT, AK transpacific traffic than SEA and YVR.

I bet that YK transpacific traffic is huge!

YVR is filled with Washington and Oregon license plates, and SEA is filled with British Columbia license plates. Why pay international fares when you drive across the border, pay to park, and fly domestically?

YVR will not be threatened to SEA simply because the two airports serve two different countries, two different markets, and two different purposes. Canadians are NOT going to give up their airport because it's a few shekels cheaper in another country. Who really wants to transit via the U.S. if they don't have to?

Whatever.

SEA doesnt generate near the Transpacific O&D that Vancouver does. Its like 1/3 the total.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Whatever.

SEA doesnt generate near the Transpacific O&D that Vancouver does. Its like 1/3 the total.

As someone who works by LAX, your point is what exactly?

SEA and YVR will serve some of the same Pacific destinations. Each has an advantage serving their own citizens. The 787 and A350 will continue to fragment the market so both will be viable as hubs for a long time.

Lightsaber

Saw YVR's INTL concourse expansion - how many more gates will that bring?

The Seattle INTL expansion doesn't really add MANY gates - it just makes current domestic gates available *as* international from what I read.

lightsaber wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Whatever.

SEA doesnt generate near the Transpacific O&D that Vancouver does. Its like 1/3 the total.

As someone who works by LAX, your point is what exactly?

SEA and YVR will serve some of the same Pacific destinations. Each has an advantage serving their own citizens. The 787 and A350 will continue to fragment the market so both will be viable as hubs for a long time.

Lightsaber

That there isnt a threat to YVR. The market is way too big. As it is, YVR's AC network to the US isnt that big. SEA serves way more destinations in the US and could feed them now. The traffic SEA would theoretically be stealing, YVR is barely getting as it is now.

SFO may be a bigger single airline hub than LAX, but SFO cant touch the local market LAX has to Asia even if its fragmented among other carriers.

usxguy wrote:

Saw YVR's INTL concourse expansion - how many more gates will that bring?

The Seattle INTL expansion doesn't really add MANY gates - it just makes current domestic gates available *as* international from what I read.

the much more important part of the SEA expansion is the upgraded FIS, not so much the added number on international gates, although that will be nice.

I dont think SEA/YVR is a threat to the SFO TPAC's supremacy. SEA is extremely congested when it comes to gates and terminal space. Unless they can expand their terminals, i dont see them being a threat to SFO.

I could be wrong, so please correct me if needed.

Just a couple geographic notes. Seattle and Vancouver are far enough apart and with a pesky border (to be even more understaffed as people are sent this summer to the Mexican border). Friends and relatives occasionally drive to Vancouver for a flight, but not all that often. San Francisco generally is not considered part of the Pacific Northwest.

these cities are very much independent in terms of markets. Most licensed plates you see at SEATAC are passengers flying domestic USA travel. it is little or no financial benefit or conveniance benefit flying in/out SEA to reach YVR to/from International markets. .
Seattle is a commercial powerhouse and I can see the interest by an airline to get into this market. Wheres as Vancouver is an immigration powerhouse with an ever-increasing immigrant population. at the end of the day, Seattle is effected by commercial booms and busts, Vancouver is a little more resilient with increasing immigration sustaining an airline in the long run. My guess is the YVR Airport authority is watching Seattle closely, but not overly worried.

How much of YVR's hub status is due to just its location but not its demographics anyway? For example, all those services to China will be there regardless of SEA growth just b/c of the local O&D. I mean, you think Vancouverites are going to connect at, let say, SEA when it's a huge pain to connect in US, even for somebody with Canadian passport?

Yes, SEA TPAC traffic is probably higher yield than YVR as SEA TPAC is more business-oriented, while YVR TPAC is more VFR-oriented. But that brings another point - they serve two totally different markets and it's just hard to see how they conflict with each other.

And I agree with LAXdude - SFO doesn't even come close to LAX for TPAC traffic. Plus people are seriously underrating the amount of traffic that connect at LAX alongside the large O&D.

The biggest threat to SEA and YVR is Bellingham

YYZORD wrote:

Maybe AC should add more transborder routes like WS did in YYC and AC did in YUL and YYZ cause now it seems like AC or WS is doing nothing to add more transborder routes out of YVR. There are many unserved and underserved routes AC or WS can serve out of YVR like IAD (Year-Round Daily), DTW (Year-Round Daily), PHL, MCO (Year-Round Daily), FLL (Year-Round Daily), BOS (Year-Round), BNA, AUS, MSY, ONT, etc.

In the last 3 years

Denver
Dallas
San Diego
Sacramento
San Jose
Boston
Phoenix
Lihue
Chicago

You should reconsider your statement

Bellingham was swamped with Canadians during the time a few years ago when the Canadian dollar was abnormally strong. Now, not so much anymore (and BLI has lost flights as a result).

There's not much O&D bleed between SEA and YVR. By the time you take the border, traffic, and both airport locations into account, it adds three to four hours to a trip to substitute one for the other.

xxcr wrote:

I dont think SEA/YVR is a threat to the SFO TPAC's supremacy. SEA is extremely congested when it comes to gates and terminal space. Unless they can expand their terminals, i dont see them being a threat to SFO.

I could be wrong, so please correct me if needed.

SEA is congested. The new international facilities will help. Delta usually has a long-term plan. As TPAC traffic grows, I think YVR, SEA, PDX, SFO, and LAX can all have an appropriate share. DL is revamping its complete Pacific system. In a few years they may come charging out of SEA and ICN. SEA may never be a SFO or LAX, but a significant TPAC presence.

usxguy wrote:

Saw YVR's INTL concourse expansion - how many more gates will that bring?

The Seattle INTL expansion doesn't really add MANY gates - it just makes current domestic gates available *as* international from what I read.

Looking at Google maps, if YVR extends the D concourse to the west, they might get six more gates. Not sure if they are planning it eastward as well. Long term perhaps. I believe extending the trans-border concourse past the Fairmont hotel and getting rid of the RJ connector gates.

I believe YVR is not only adding a few new gates to the international concourse, but also adding remote stands too (unfortunately).

Prost wrote:

SEA’s constraints currently are not runway related, it’s all taxiways and terminal congestion. They’re working on it, but it’s a long ways from completion.

Actually SEA is runway constrained. There are noise abatement procedures in place and those restrict the max operations to about 81 per hour in VFR and about 40 per hour during IFR operations even though there are three runways. If the airport is in a northerly flow then the traffic from BFI also causes restrictions during departures.

As of lately the peak banks on off seasons are floating just below 81 per hour scheduled operations, during peak seasons the number of operations scheduled is getting close to 100 per hour operations. During peak season the taxi time is getting way long for some departures.

EvanWSFO wrote:

usxguy wrote:

Saw YVR's INTL concourse expansion - how many more gates will that bring?

The Seattle INTL expansion doesn't really add MANY gates - it just makes current domestic gates available *as* international from what I read.

Looking at Google maps, if YVR extends the D concourse to the west, they might get six more gates. Not sure if they are planning it eastward as well. Long term perhaps. I believe extending the trans-border concourse past the Fairmont hotel and getting rid of the RJ connector gates.

The plan is to extend the D pier and add six gates, then extend the E pier and build an F pier where the
90-96 gates are.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-international-airport-expansion-2018-plan-yvr

Jetty wrote:

Doesn’t SFO have ‘Pacific Northwest supremacy’?

Only if you fail geography or are referencing Ecotopia .

But seriously, I'm sitting at YVR right now and as a soon-to-be AS 75k who uses BA connections often, I would so much rather fly through Vancouver than deal with the clusterf$%K that is SEA.

YVR is spacious, attractive, well-signed and comparatively quiet vs. the ridiculous, chaotic stampeding to multiple trains to go the 100 yards between terminals at SEA

They've already got a lot of super structure/girders up for the D gate expansion... didn't realize it was ONLY going to add 6 gates, just looked like it would be a lot larger than that.

usxguy wrote:

The Seattle INTL expansion doesn't really add MANY gates - it just makes current domestic gates available *as* international from what I read.

That was my understand as well in addition to FIS expansion.

Delta is pretty good at running facilities busting at the seams before any additional facilities are added.

Is there a SEA master plan that addresses DL’s expansion needs?

kdeg00 wrote:

YVR is spacious, attractive, well-signed and comparatively quiet vs. the ridiculous, chaotic stampeding to multiple trains to go the 100 yards between terminals at SEA

Agree. SEA does feel like you’re going from carnival ride to carnival ride sometimes.

I doubt that SEA is much of a threat.. These are two different types of cities and airports.

YVR- Strong Ethinic O/D, essential connecting hub for Canada to the Pacific, Strong tourism and some USA connections to Pacific.

SEA- Business O/D to Pacific, non-essential but relevant connecting hub for NW USA and more. Mild seasonal tourism, limited growth options, will always play a more 3rd fiddle to LAX and SFO.

YVR is actually more like a smaller version of LAX and SFO even though it is much calmer and smaller, it's mix of diverse International airlines at multiple frequencies and essential in being for AC to Pacific.

santi319 wrote:

SEA will never be a “threat” to YVR simply because the US customs require pax connecting in the US to have visas, ESTA, etc and go through the long customs process, while Canada doesn’t.

A threat to US-bound pax maybe..

That depends where you're coming from. I switched thru YVR last year on a US to Japan flight and found the amount of walking and the customs check at YVR rather cumbersome. There is a lot of distance to cover between the US arrival/departure gates and the gates where flights to Asia depart. I don't think that airport will draw a lot of connecting US-to-Asia traffic as it is. This was reflected in my fare which was somewhat cheaper than flying through a US hub (suggesting lower demand). SEA certainly has its issues (which will mostly be alleviated through ongoing construction) but on the plus side (from a connecting/walking perspective) it is a rather compact airport. The main issue at the moment is really the immigration and arrivals baggage/customs area being too small and completely overwhelmed during international peak arrivals times midday.

I think that both YVR and SEA serve primarily a healthy O&D market for flights to Asia from/to their respective metro regions, while YVR also serves as an Asian hub for AC for connecting pax from the rest of Canada (but not US). The obnoxiously unpredictable border crossing makes the likelihood one airport drawing pax from the other's local population rather limited.

xxcr wrote:

I dont think SEA/YVR is a threat to the SFO TPAC's supremacy. SEA is extremely congested when it comes to gates and terminal space. Unless they can expand their terminals, i dont see them being a threat to SFO.

I could be wrong, so please correct me if needed.

SFO is too far in the opposite direction. If you're flying from the PNW, backtracking to SFO adds some 5 hours to your trip to Asia compared to a direct flight. The Seattle metro region has a huge population of well paid professionals in tech and other services and industries, plus tons of residents with Asian family roots. Add to that Asian tourism to the region (including cruise ships departing from Seattle) and you've got more than enough for a hefty O&D market. SEA doesn't need to be a huge Asian hub to sustain the flights it has.

how about the two cities to share a new built airport?

a

santi319 wrote:

SEA will never be a “threat” to YVR simply because the US customs require pax connecting in the US to have visas, ESTA, etc and go through the long customs process, while Canada doesn’t.

A threat to US-bound pax maybe..

It’s US-Asia traffic they’re taking about. YVR wants a piece of that. They aren’t talkin about 3rd countries like Mexico. For the local market, I would guess SEA has lower fares

alan3 wrote:

but also adding remote stands too (unfortunately).

Why's that "unfortunate?"

As whiny as people are about remote stands, I'd wager that 99% of them would be far happier using those than having to land and sit remotely while waiting for a terminal gate... as is becoming increasingly common at several large airports (notably my own).

PDX resident here. For the second time in two years, my wife and I will be driving to YVR to fly to Europe. Because of the fare difference, I swung for Biz Class this time.

Here are the 'ballpark' fares I remember when I booked the tix a few weeks ago:

Criteria
- 6/30-7/14
- Max Stops: 1-stop
- Max Duration: <20 hours
- Exclude: Condor, Iceland Air

PDX: $3,900 each r/t
SEA: $3,600 each r/t
YVR: $2,800 each r/t

In addition to being more expensive, SEA and PDX had too many options that connected on the East Coast. Due to congestion and thunderstorm delays in summer/fall, I avoid East Coast connections like the plague.

The big factor influencing this is currency (USD is stronger than the CAD in recent years) You pay CAD$ Fares when you originate in YVR.

PacificWest wrote:

PDX resident here. For the second time in two years, my wife and I will be driving to YVR to fly to Europe. Because of the fare difference, I swung for Biz Class this time..

But an 11hr roundtrip drive, to save that comparatively little?

I understand that preferences vary.....but F that!

Spend as much time driving as you do crossing the ocean.

LAX772LR wrote:

PacificWest wrote:

PDX resident here. For the second time in two years, my wife and I will be driving to YVR to fly to Europe. Because of the fare difference, I swung for Biz Class this time..

But an 11hr roundtrip drive, to save that comparatively little?

I understand that preferences vary.....but F that!

Spend as much time driving as you do crossing the ocean.

I think 11 hours roundtrip is a bit of an exaggeration. If you plan on passing through Seattle at a nonpeak time, you can go Portland-Vancouver BC in under 4 hours.

HPRamper wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

PacificWest wrote:

PDX resident here. For the second time in two years, my wife and I will be driving to YVR to fly to Europe. Because of the fare difference, I swung for Biz Class this time..

But an 11hr roundtrip drive, to save that comparatively little?

I understand that preferences vary.....but F that!

Spend as much time driving as you do crossing the ocean.

I think 11 hours roundtrip is a bit of an exaggeration. If you plan on passing through Seattle at a nonpeak time, you can go Portland-Vancouver BC in under 4 hours.

Well sure, but "Seattle" is effectively JBLM through Everett and you've still got unpredictable border traffic to deal with, parking/gas to pay for and lead time for your flight out of YVR to account for. More power to ya if the savings are worth it, but I'd rather pay the difference to fly out of PDX and avoid the commute. At the very least, I'd pay extra not to get off the return leg from NRT or LHR and have to make that drive.

HPRamper wrote:

I think 11 hours roundtrip is a bit of an exaggeration. If you plan on passing through Seattle at a nonpeak time, you can go Portland-Vancouver BC in under 4 hours.

You speak of "exaggeration," yet then state that?

Airport to Airport from PDX to YVR is 316mi, taking the minimal roadway possible (5) and going straight through SEA-- even if you maintained 75mph at all times, it'd still take you 4hr 13min.

So unless you live at the northernmost region of PDX, depart at 3am, punch it up to 80 then never once take your foot off the gas... then there's no way you're doing that drive in "under 4 hours" on any consistent basis.

When was the last time anyone was in the SEA customs hall? What an absolute joke ! Avoid at all cost . Plus connection security!

Jetty wrote:

Doesn’t SFO have ‘Pacific Northwest supremacy’?

As much as people from the PNW hate Californians, I'd be careful who you say that to.

LAX772LR wrote:

HPRamper wrote:

I think 11 hours roundtrip is a bit of an exaggeration. If you plan on passing through Seattle at a nonpeak time, you can go Portland-Vancouver BC in under 4 hours.

You speak of "exaggeration," yet then state that?

Airport to Airport from PDX to YVR is 316mi, taking the minimal roadway possible (5) and going straight through SEA-- even if you maintained 75mph at all times, it'd still take you 4hr 13min.

So unless you live at the northernmost region of PDX, depart at 3am, punch it up to 80 then never once take your foot off the gas... then there's no way you're doing that drive in "under 4 hours" on any consistent basis.

He doesn't know what he's talking about. It's a better part of 6 hours from downtown Portland to Vancouver. And that's without any major problems at the border.

That much only in three years is pretty small, they can still add more transborder routes that are profitable from YVR but for some reason the airport is really underserved for their transborder routes.

flyyul wrote:

YYZORD wrote:

Maybe AC should add more transborder routes like WS did in YYC and AC did in YUL and YYZ cause now it seems like AC or WS is doing nothing to add more transborder routes out of YVR. There are many unserved and underserved routes AC or WS can serve out of YVR like IAD (Year-Round Daily), DTW (Year-Round Daily), PHL, MCO (Year-Round Daily), FLL (Year-Round Daily), BOS (Year-Round), BNA, AUS, MSY, ONT, etc.

In the last 3 years

Denver
Dallas
San Diego
Sacramento
San Jose
Boston
Phoenix
Lihue
Chicago

You should reconsider your statement

Until SeaTac gets another terminal, I don’t see how it can threaten YVR’s position—the current facility just can’t handle that much traffic. The current South Terminal needs a complete makeover to provide better passenger experience, and they need to move cats and dogs to a new terminal to make room for all the new flights. The new terminal is proposed to be finished by 2030, so we’ll see by then if anything would change.

YYZORD wrote:

That much only in three years is pretty small, they can still add more transborder routes that are profitable from YVR but for some reason the airport is really underserved for their transborder routes.

flyyul wrote:

YYZORD wrote:

Maybe AC should add more transborder routes like WS did in YYC and AC did in YUL and YYZ cause now it seems like AC or WS is doing nothing to add more transborder routes out of YVR. There are many unserved and underserved routes AC or WS can serve out of YVR like IAD (Year-Round Daily), DTW (Year-Round Daily), PHL, MCO (Year-Round Daily), FLL (Year-Round Daily), BOS (Year-Round), BNA, AUS, MSY, ONT, etc.

In the last 3 years

Denver
Dallas
San Diego
Sacramento
San Jose
Boston
Phoenix
Lihue
Chicago

You should reconsider your statement

I think you are overly optimistic on the cities you list. While I'd love to see a flight from BNA, it would likely be less than daily, and likely the smallest aircraft with the range. maaaaybe AUS. MCO, FLL...They could have started them long ago, but they haven't. That tells me the market isn't there. The cities added are a good mix, but for a lot of the U.S., n/s service to YVR isn't going to happen.