longhauler wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

There is a business component of course but ACs flight between the two should cover that. If not, WS is probably the best candidate.

Westjet had better hurry.

I would not be surprised to see AC start a second daily rotation with CX pulling out. A (pre cleared) red eye YVR to EWR but leading to an early morning departure out of EWR back to YVR.

Red eye A220 opportunity perhaps using otherwise idle fleet time? Could rotate aircraft with an EWR-YYZ.

ramprat320 wrote:

A YVR to USA pre-cleared red-eye is not possible for anyone unfortunately as I believe US Customs and hence pre clearance closes at or just before 2100.

It’s probably possible to adjust the operating hours. CX had no need for preclearance as it means/meant all international pax clear at JFK instead of preclearing the thru HKG pax at YVR.

Correct. YVR US Immigration and Customs closes quite early in the evening for some reason.

BWA900 wrote:

ST165 wrote:

Unfortunate thing for YVR though is that now it will lose first-class service on HKG, and CX will pull first out of the Canadian market completely.

Doesn't CX fly to YYZ up to 2x daily and also have 2x daily HKG-YVR apart from CX888/865?

I don't think any of those flights have first class.

HJM wrote:

YVR US Immigration and Customs closes quite early in the evening for some reason.

That is a good point. Normally it is 2100.

If the departure time out of YVR were set at, say, 2115, arrival time at EWR would be around 0530. Early, but not too early.

(An A320 would do the trip in about 5:20. A bit slower than a 787, which is about 5:05).

longhauler wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

There is a business component of course but ACs flight between the two should cover that. If not, WS is probably the best candidate.

Westjet had better hurry.

I would not be surprised to see AC start a second daily rotation with CX pulling out. A (pre cleared) red eye YVR to EWR but leading to an early morning departure out of EWR back to YVR.

I agree. I can see AC starting up a 2nd daily flight most likely a red eye departure on the 737max once they are back or possibly the A220 once they have a good amount in the fleet next year. Perfect opportunity for aircraft rotation between YUL/YYZ -YVR.

longhauler wrote:

While CX may have had the only daily YVR to JFK, they did not have the only daily YVR to NYC. AC has flown a daily YVR to EWR for quite some time and has used a daily 787 for a couple years now. With “normal” daytime arr/dep times, they always had an edge on CX whose late night schedule timings did not work well for O&D traffic.

TBH the timings are perfect but more for non-Business traffic. And it's very much O&D. Imagine a weekend in NYC from YVR, perfect way to maximize time in NYC.

longhauler"

I would not be surprised to see AC start a second daily rotation with CX pulling out. A (pre cleared) red eye YVR to EWR but leading to an early morning departure out of EWR back to YVR.[/quote]

A morning flight out of NYC to YVR will perfectly feed into Asia-bound AC flights out. The night ones feed into Austrialia. Although I think AC has Asia-bound connections covered via YYZ.

[quote="aemoreira1981 wrote:

PR flew YVR-JFK because they didn't have anything that could fly JFK-MNL nonstop without restriction. Now with a 280t A359, PR could fly that route nonstop...and daily, no longer needing a YVR stop (service to YVR is now 100 percent terminator). As for AC, they answered CX by upgrading that A319 YVR-EWR flight to a B788 (and now a B789)...because of the international J seats at the front. Also, that return flight times in very well with flights to Asia and Australia (although the reverse is not always the case).

If AC starts a second daily flight, I'd expect that on a 737 MAX 8.

I don't think that AC's addition of the B788 was in response to CX, but growth in its own merit including connectivity to Australia. CX has operated to JFK via YVR since the first time it served that city, so it's not new service.

Didn't CX have a cabin crew base at JFK? I'm fairly sure I read that somewhere.

patrickjp93 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

patrickjp93 wrote:

BNE-AKL is still flying. I flew SIN-BNE-AKL on their 777-300ER just a couple months ago.

No it's not?!? They haven't operated BNE-AKL for over 12 months now.

I can't remember exactly when EK last operated DXB-SIN-BNE-AKL on a 777, but it would have been around 2009.

EK432/3/4, still have the tickets July 11 2019.

EK432 still operates between SIN and BNE but EK434 terminates in BNE, no longer continuing to AKL.


With Philippines Airlines and Air Asia X gone, the only carrier to operate 5th Freedom between Queensland and AKL is China Airlines.

hodavid1985 wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

ACCS300 wrote:

Likely partially due to the current problems in HK resulting a 40% drop in tourism among other things. This was a nice red-eye for YVR travellers as it arrived early in NYC allowing for a full day of business or pleasure, coupled with great Cathay service and a premium experience overall.

The source clearly states the two situations are unrelated. They are increasing non stop to JFK by 4x weekly. If the demand was weaker, they wouldn’t have done that.

and CX mentioned that the sector has been losing money for years.....
NYC's demand is strong enough to have additional flights,
it will also allow CX to open up a new CANADA-USA flight after the change if they wanted.
(HK carrier has right to operate 5th freedom flight to one USA city from Canada)

So something like YYZ-MIA if they're seriously considering MIA?

LAXdude1023 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

5th freedom = vestige from a very different industry
Push is for ever more nonstops. 1-stops and 5th freedom don't make much sense in most cases anymore.

Industry trend is very much moving away from 5th freedom and milk run routes.
For U.S. carriers look at how they have almost entirely walked away from what once was a significant feature in their international networks.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

SQ seems to be enjoying LAX-NRT/SFO-HKG/IAH-MAN/JFK-FRA.

Per CEO interview a couple years ago they said their goal was to offer all nonstops from SIN. Things like the A350ULR to the U.S. and reshaping their European network in favor of more nonstops goes towards this goal. I think its only a matter of time before more 5h freedom is cut at SQ.

I can’t imagine them going IAH-SIN nonstop. They get too much on IAH-MAN relative to the routes performance as a whole. Maybe getting rid of the FRA stop makes sense though.

At this stage, I highly doubt that SQ will be getting rid of the FRA stop until they have an aircraft with a more balanced cabin than the ULR that can fly SIN-JFK nonstop. They are hugely benefitting from the capacity on the FRA-SIN sector where they are in a JV with LH which also helps them fill up the plane (notably the whale). And on the FRA-JFK sector, they have built a strong brand over the years and charge significant premiums upfront. SQ being the earliest flight out of FRA also helps with business traffic. If anything, they might down gauge at some point but they're not letting go of that route anytime soon.

Any idea if the flights will be replaced with direct flights or 5th freedoms through somewhere else.

I've got a feeling the stop is more to do with timing than anything else. If it arrived/left JFK much earlier/later it would be outside of curfew hours. Flying direct at the same times would give some unattractive arrival and departure times at HKG.

Maybe a tag to a European flight would be better where aircraft tend to sit all morning waiting for an afternoon departure to HKG.

Makes me really sad. Really wished I had a chance to try this out before it ends, but don't think that will happen.

ramprat320 wrote:

A YVR to USA pre-cleared red-eye is not possible for anyone unfortunately as I believe US Customs and hence pre clearance closes at or just before 2100.

So do other carriers' redeyes (for example, UA to ORD) get treated as international arrivals into the US?

One reason why this route has been 'losing money for years' but still stick around could be departure time ex-HKG for JFK, which I think few has mentioned so far. It enables a red-eye departure at the midnight bank ex-HKG. To replace this 1 stop flight will mean departing HKG at around 4am. I am not sure if CX wants to experiment with this slot. quite doubtful.

Maybe we will see them use the 5th freedom they gain from dropping this to launch a 1 stop to MEX, or MIA via Canada.

I thought CX is able to capture a lot of the premium traffic between Vancouver and NY. The timing of the flights are perfect for business travelers too. I guess just filling the F and C cabin on a 77W is not enough. Good that HKG-JFK itself is being increased though. And I suppose the daily HKG-YVR-JFK flight will just become a HKG-YVR terminator flight so YVR retains the frequency?

YYZORD wrote:

The route lost money cause they wouldn't go through US Preclearance in YVR. Why would pax from Vancouver want to fly a route where they have to do customs at JFK instead while there is a perfectly fine preclearance facility at YVR.

CX terminal at JFK actually has dedicated immigration lines for Canadian passport holders. I don't know why. It has lines for Americans, and then a few lines that say Canadian, and then obviously lines for the rest. The Canadian line is therefore even emptier than the Americans line. I have arrived at JFK directly from HKG on CX, and there is no one using the Canadian immigration line. I passed thru it in 1 minute literally. For me, that's better than a crowded pre-clearance. Passengers arriving from YVR will be able to utilize that.

YYZORD wrote:

The route lost money cause they wouldn't go through US Preclearance in YVR. Why would pax from Vancouver want to fly a route where they have to do customs at JFK instead while there is a perfectly fine preclearance facility at YVR.

Would it have been possible for the passengers on HKG-YVR-JFK to go through preclearance in Vancouver? If so, why did CX not arrange it that way?

spinotter wrote:

Would it have been possible for the passengers on HKG-YVR-JFK to go through preclearance in Vancouver? If so, why did CX not arrange it that way?

If they had done that, (with proper timing) then all passengers would have to deplane at YVR and clear customs. It could make a very cumbersome through flight for those flying HKG to JFK.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see Delta jump in on year-round 757 service. Could be a good opportunity for them.

AA seems like the natural fill for One World, but they don't seem too interested in JFK at the moment, but they could step up with a 738?

raylee67 wrote:

I thought CX is able to capture a lot of the premium traffic between Vancouver and NY. The timing of the flights are perfect for business travelers too. I guess just filling the F and C cabin on a 77W is not enough.

I notice that on AC’s YVR-EWR-YVR flights, J and W are almost always booked full a few days in advance. Y goes around 85% full. I am surprised therefore that CX is “losing money on the route”. The only variable I see is the schedule time.

If they are abandoning the route, then one must assume their premium cabins are not selling well.

Having flown to YVR for 30+ years, CX has an excellent reputation in Canada.

CX has carried alot of passengers on that route , they definitely have a base of flyers who will need to go somewhere. Someone will jump up to grab em i bet. EWR might be convenient for people in alot of CT, NY State and Manhattan but not everyone who used JFK. Someone will get in there from JFK I bet for all the people on long island , other boroughs of NY city and interational connections or people use to JFK.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

EWR might be convenient for people in alot of CT.

Pardon my ignorance, but how is EWR convenient for residents in Connecticut?

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

CX has carried alot of passengers on that route , they definitely have a base of flyers who will need to go somewhere. Someone will jump up to grab em i bet. EWR might be convenient for people in alot of CT, NY State and Manhattan but not everyone who used JFK. Someone will get in there from JFK I bet for all the people on long island , other boroughs of NY city and interational connections or people use to JFK.

Seems like a candidate for JetBlue's MINT service or AA's A321 Transcon. Filling a 130 pax low density A321 should be an easy thing.

End of an era. The days of widebody Asian carrier service on a North American route are probably done.....once upon a time there was JL YVR-MEX and PR YVR-LAS, then PR YVR-JFK and CX YVR-JFK.

Does QF have 5th freedom on JFK-LAX? Is that the last one?

Technically, there is still CZ YVR-MEX but they have no fifth freedom.

luckyone wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

EWR might be convenient for people in alot of CT.

Pardon my ignorance, but how is EWR convenient for residents in Connecticut?

Amtrak has a direct stop at Newark Airport on the Northeast corridor line. Extremely heavily used from Stamford, Bridgeport, New Haven. Some of the most popular destinations after NYP for Amtrak out of EWR station are to Connecticut. People also ride metro-north to smaller stations too.

Also for alot of Western Connecticut the NYC suburbs its faster with traffic to hit EWR and avoid NYC. JFK requires you to get thru some of the countries worst traffic. You can avoid NYC going to EWR and parking is generally alot cheaper for long trips too.

I am just saying thay yes those people can transition to EWR, but others JFK is alot more convenient and i think there is room for either AA or DL to add YVR daily service with a narrowbody year-round. Cathay carried alot of seats.

MCGYVR wrote:

Good thing I booked myself in J for February 2020. I've never tried biz before so thought it would be a good use of 25k AS miles.

Very good move - Cathay Pacific is great in business class.

I reviewed flight 888 from YVR to JFK last year in J - https://travelupdate.boardingarea.com/cathay-pacific-business/ - are you going from New York or from YVR? Either way it'll be pretty decent all round.

ClassicLover wrote:

MCGYVR wrote:

Good thing I booked myself in J for February 2020. I've never tried biz before so thought it would be a good use of 25k AS miles.

Very good move - Cathay Pacific is great in business class.

I reviewed flight 888 from YVR to JFK last year in J - https://travelupdate.boardingarea.com/cathay-pacific-business/ - are you going from New York or from YVR? Either way it'll be pretty decent all round.

I'm going from JFK-YVR, I believe the flight time is a bit longer than YVR-JFK and the timing allows me to maximize my time in NYC.

longhauler wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

I thought CX is able to capture a lot of the premium traffic between Vancouver and NY. The timing of the flights are perfect for business travelers too. I guess just filling the F and C cabin on a 77W is not enough.

I notice that on AC’s YVR-EWR-YVR flights, J and W are almost always booked full a few days in advance. Y goes around 85% full. I am surprised therefore that CX is “losing money on the route”. The only variable I see is the schedule time.

If they are abandoning the route, then one must assume their premium cabins are not selling well.

Having flown to YVR for 30+ years, CX has an excellent reputation in Canada.

i think the product is all wrong. AC offers the standard domestic FC seat whereas CX offers a very luxurious lie flat seating that makes no sense for this route. I remember looking up pricing for J a while back and CX J pricing was so out of whack compared to what AC/DL were charging on this route, because of product difference. That combined with their huge J cabin makes it hard to believe they can ever fill it consistently with fully paid J fare.

luckyone wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

EWR might be convenient for people in alot of CT.

Pardon my ignorance, but how is EWR convenient for residents in Connecticut?

It probably is more convenient than going to CT suburbs from JFK - definitely quicker by train (AirTrain -> Amtrak vs. AirTrain -> LIRR/Subway -> Metro North)

Depending on traffic, would be quicker to go through NJTP through GWB than go up through Queens.

tphuang wrote:

i think the product is all wrong. AC offers the standard domestic FC seat whereas CX offers a very luxurious lie flat seating that makes no sense for this route. I remember looking up pricing for J a while back and CX J pricing was so out of whack compared to what AC/DL were charging on this route, because of product difference. That combined with their huge J cabin makes it hard to believe they can ever fill it consistently with fully paid J fare.

Air Canada operates a three class 787 on the route with J with full lie flat seats, W at 7 abreast and normal Y with 9 abreast seating. While advanced purchase J fares are offered well in advance, I notice that over the next week, CX is considerably cheaper than AC. Some days AC does not show a J fare, indicating the cabin is full. On the same days CX is offering a very low one way fare of CAD 1361!!

longhauler wrote:

tphuang wrote:

i think the product is all wrong. AC offers the standard domestic FC seat whereas CX offers a very luxurious lie flat seating that makes no sense for this route. I remember looking up pricing for J a while back and CX J pricing was so out of whack compared to what AC/DL were charging on this route, because of product difference. That combined with their huge J cabin makes it hard to believe they can ever fill it consistently with fully paid J fare.

Air Canada operates a three class 787 on the route with J with full lie flat seats, W at 7 abreast and normal Y with 9 abreast seating. While advanced purchase J fares are offered well in advance, I notice that over the next week, CX is considerably cheaper than AC. Some days AC does not show a J fare, indicating the cabin is full. On the same days CX is offering a very low one way fare of CAD 1361!!

my bad then. Still don't see how CX can fill lie flat seats at 5K R/T on this route given the size of their J cabin.

longhauler wrote:

spinotter wrote:

Would it have been possible for the passengers on HKG-YVR-JFK to go through preclearance in Vancouver? If so, why did CX not arrange it that way?

If they had done that, (with proper timing) then all passengers would have to deplane at YVR and clear customs. It could make a very cumbersome through flight for those flying HKG to JFK.

Last time I flew CX 888 from HKG to JFK, we had to deplane in YVR and stay in a small waiting area. This was not for immigration, however. We were given laminated cards to reboard the aircraft after servicing. (I would have preferred to sleep on board the stop).

alan3 wrote:

End of an era. The days of widebody Asian carrier service on a North American route are probably done.....once upon a time there was JL YVR-MEX and PR YVR-LAS, then PR YVR-JFK and CX YVR-JFK.

Does QF have 5th freedom on JFK-LAX? Is that the last one?

Technically, there is still CZ YVR-MEX but they have no fifth freedom.

QF can’t sell ticket to non-transit pax as LAX-JFK is a domestic route, and US laws prohibit foreign carriers from selling tickets on a US domestic flight.

Otherwise, there are CA’s YUL-HAV and IAH-PTY also. Both are still within North America, at least in geographic sense.

I do agree with you - it is definitely end of an era. I am surprise that the route last as long as it did anyway, especially when CX can use the JFK slot on a non-stop instead.

longhauler wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

I thought CX is able to capture a lot of the premium traffic between Vancouver and NY. The timing of the flights are perfect for business travelers too. I guess just filling the F and C cabin on a 77W is not enough.

I notice that on AC’s YVR-EWR-YVR flights, J and W are almost always booked full a few days in advance. Y goes around 85% full. I am surprised therefore that CX is “losing money on the route”. The only variable I see is the schedule time.

If they are abandoning the route, then one must assume their premium cabins are not selling well.

Having flown to YVR for 30+ years, CX has an excellent reputation in Canada.

I can say that when I flew CX888, most passengers got off at YVR and only about 20 people were in both J cabin, including the captain's family which may have been non-revs.

Does anyone know the new schedule of the additional flights. Amazing they can fill three 777-300ER from JFK to Hong Kong.

alan3 wrote:

End of an era. The days of widebody Asian carrier service on a North American route are probably done.....once upon a time there was JL YVR-MEX and PR YVR-LAS, then PR YVR-JFK and CX YVR-JFK.

Does QF have 5th freedom on JFK-LAX? Is that the last one?

Technically, there is still CZ YVR-MEX but they have no fifth freedom.

QF doesn't have fifth freedom. However, it can collect passengers from its own flights from MEL and SYD to go to JFK (the plane originates in BNE).

hodavid1985 wrote:

NYC's demand is strong enough to have additional flights

Probably would've, prior to the recent strife.

hodavid1985 wrote:

it will also allow CX to open up a new CANADA-USA flight after the change if they wanted.

Guessing MIA, though wondering if they'd wish to move that to YYZ instead, due to demand.

LAX772LR wrote:

hodavid1985 wrote:

NYC's demand is strong enough to have additional flights

Probably would've, prior to the recent strife.

Surprised how strong this continues to be. Never would've thought that CX would remove the 1-stop but keep the frequency. I mean, I know how strong the business ties are, but 6x daily ULR when combining JFK/EWR and CX/UA?

LAX772LR wrote:

hodavid1985 wrote:

it will also allow CX to open up a new CANADA-USA flight after the change if they wanted.

Guessing MIA, though wondering if they'd wish to move that to YYZ instead, due to demand.

If the YVR-JFK was so poor, do you really think YYZ-MIA (or any other CAN-USA leg) do well? There may be value there, but I think you have to go to SQ approach and try to find a city-pair that will almost work completely independent of the ex-HKG traffic (e.g. what SQ has with the FRA-JFK leg).

dmstorm22 wrote:

If the YVR-JFK was so poor, do you really think YYZ-MIA (or any other CAN-USA leg) do well?

No, I do not.

But CX has publicly and repeatedly stressed their desire to be in MIA, so this may yet be a lower risk way of them accomplishing that in the interim.

dmstorm22 wrote:

I think you have to go to SQ approach and try to find a city-pair that will almost work completely independent of the ex-HKG traffic (e.g. what SQ has with the FRA-JFK leg).

Err, have you *SEEN* the amount of traffic that goes between YYZ and MIA/FLL?? Particularly in winter.

There's a reason that AC/RV and TS have routinely operated widebodies on that route.

Granted, I have my doubts that there's any real money to be made on that as a standalone, as expressed above; but topping-off the loads on an aircraft from Toronto to S.Florida, won't be a challenge in the slightest.

alan3 wrote:

End of an era. The days of widebody Asian carrier service on a North American route are probably done.....once upon a time there was JL YVR-MEX and PR YVR-LAS, then PR YVR-JFK and CX YVR-JFK.

Does QF have 5th freedom on JFK-LAX? Is that the last one?

Technically, there is still CZ YVR-MEX but they have no fifth freedom.

TG flew SEA-YYZ for years. Starting with the 743 routing BKK-NRT-SEA-YYZ, then the 744 BKK-SEL-SEA-YYZ, then TG based an A-310 in SEA to run the tag SEA-YYZ-SEA only, allowing the overseas widebody to operate hours late & NOT cause the tag to be late, as the local traffic SEA-YYZ-SEA was most of that leg after time went by & people learned how inexpensive it was & how good the service was.

There were almost always less than 50 through passengers BKK-XXX-SEA-YYZ& often times under a dozen transiting SEA onwards to YYZ

Then TG got their new MD-11's & introduced them to the route, BKK-TPE-SEA-YYZ. I worked at the #1 producing TG agency in the USA, I got a solid resin 743 1/24 scale model & two business class SEA-YYZ-SEA tickets for my sales with them. Awesome service, a missing glass or two maybe & the MD-11 was a few months old as the type was new to TG & it smelled & looked so clean & amazingly fresh.

The fares in Y were between 200-250 published plus taxes, which were about 100 r/t at that time.

I hear many bucket shops in NYC or YVR can hook a traveler up with discounted F & J rates, I plan on making my inquiries soon, I wish I'd done it when it was flown by the 744, but a 77X will be just great. I hear the flight from YVR to JFK is less expensive for the US travelers because of the conversion rates that are currently in place.

jfk777 wrote:

Does anyone know the new schedule of the additional flights. Amazing they can fill three 777-300ER from JFK to Hong Kong.

a lot of that is connection traffic. When I fly to SIN, I always transition at HKG.

If WS does jump into YVR JFK, I expect the flight times to mirror that of their YYC JFK service, with emphasis on a 1630 arrival to facilitate international connections. The departure would probably be around 1730. With roughly a 5h30 minute flight YVR JFK and factoring in time differences, that probably means a departure around 8 am from Vancouver, which would be ideal for business travelers and even allow limited early morning arrival connectivity from certain BC markets. Since WestJet started YYC JFK they have done quite well on it; it is usually an -800, and pax loads are a full mix of international connections and business / tourists for NYC.

The smart money says that the WestJet route planning people are well aware of this. The challenge for WS is JFK is a Level 3 slot controlled airport. The landing and departure times they probably would like to have are right in the middle of JFK's busy period mid afternoon to mid evening. I made an international connection YYC JFK - onwards recently and was impressed by the ease of it, plus the options you have tapping into Delta's international network.

mdavies06 wrote:

One reason why this route has been 'losing money for years' but still stick around could be departure time ex-HKG for JFK, which I think few has mentioned so far. It enables a red-eye departure at the midnight bank ex-HKG. To replace this 1 stop flight will mean departing HKG at around 4am. I am not sure if CX wants to experiment with this slot. quite doubtful.

4am departure in HKG is no longer rare nowadays and slots are still available,
but it would free up a slot for the prime midnight bank (not much slots available), so not a bad idea.

dmstorm22 wrote:

If the YVR-JFK was so poor, do you really think YYZ-MIA (or any other CAN-USA leg) do well? There may be value there, but I think you have to go to SQ approach and try to find a city-pair that will almost work completely independent of the ex-HKG traffic (e.g. what SQ has with the FRA-JFK leg).

The busiest local market between the U.S. and Canada is Toronto-New York. The second busiest is Toronto-Miami. And the third busiest is Montreal-Miami (which is bigger than Montreal-New York). I’m not saying Cathay will make YYZMIA work, I think that’s doubtful, but it’s literally the definition of a city pair that will work completely independent of ex-HKG. Miami-Toronto is one of the most travelled international city pairs to/from the U.S. It’s quintuple or more the size of YVRJFK.

MAH4546 wrote:

dmstorm22 wrote:

If the YVR-JFK was so poor, do you really think YYZ-MIA (or any other CAN-USA leg) do well? There may be value there, but I think you have to go to SQ approach and try to find a city-pair that will almost work completely independent of the ex-HKG traffic (e.g. what SQ has with the FRA-JFK leg).

The busiest local market between the U.S. and Canada is Toronto-New York. The second busiest is Toronto-Miami. And the third busiest is Montreal-Miami (which is bigger than Montreal-New York). I’m not saying Cathay will make YYZMIA work, I think that’s doubtful, but it’s literally the definition of a city pair that will work completely independent of ex-HKG. Miami-Toronto is one of the most travelled international city pairs to/from the U.S. It’s quintuple or more the size of YVRJFK.

I thought the second (or third) busiest Canada-US route was between YVR and LAX, is that outdated?

MAH4546 wrote:

dmstorm22 wrote:

If the YVR-JFK was so poor, do you really think YYZ-MIA (or any other CAN-USA leg) do well? There may be value there, but I think you have to go to SQ approach and try to find a city-pair that will almost work completely independent of the ex-HKG traffic (e.g. what SQ has with the FRA-JFK leg).

The busiest local market between the U.S. and Canada is Toronto-New York. The second busiest is Toronto-Miami. And the third busiest is Montreal-Miami (which is bigger than Montreal-New York). I’m not saying Cathay will make YYZMIA work, I think that’s doubtful, but it’s literally the definition of a city pair that will work completely independent of ex-HKG. Miami-Toronto is one of the most travelled international city pairs to/from the U.S. It’s quintuple or more the size of YVRJFK.

I stand corrected. But that also means there's a good amount of local competition, be it AA or AC.

And given my quick look-up pulled that both AC flights YYZ-MIA/FLL are on Rouge, I can't imagine these are too high yielding passengers.

I pulled T100 load factor information for the past few years. load factors on the CX flight YVR-JFK-YVR, which included passengers going onward to Hong Kong and beyond, was mostly in the 50%-60% range, some times dipping into the 40% range, sometimes in the very low 70%. This year specifically (Jan - Jul 2019) the load factor has not gotten above 57%. It's no wonder this is going away. No need for CX to operate it when they have 2-3 daily flights nonstop to Hong Kong, and plan to go up to 4 flights next year on some days during the summer season.

This is odd to me, thought YVR-JFK was a very popular and profitable route by CX.

USAirALB wrote:

Interesting. I’ve always read/heard from numerous channels (especially from multiple posters here) that the route did very well considering it was the only daily nonstop on JFK-YVR.

= It used to. Times change. Increasing amount of 1-stop options including several on AC and WS with minimal elapsed time increases had an impact. Also, without a Canada / US FFP base, they increasingly struggled on the Westbound direction.

Saludos,
Alex

alan3 wrote:

Does QF have 5th freedom on JFK-LAX? Is that the last one?

JFK-LAX isn't a 5th freedom flight. It's full on cabotage by a foreign carrier on a US domestic run. It's technically 8th freedom. So no, QF has no traffic rights on JFK-LAX or LAX-JFK.