Hello A.net!

I was recently surprised to discover that QR with its wacky new routes to ATL and (LAS?!?) flies to YUL of all places (It is a beautiful city, not to offend my fellow Montrealites). Anyway, seeing as both EY and EK both only fly to YYZ because of Canada's protectionism, why on earth would QR not seize the opportunity to fly to YVR instead? It is definitely a higher yielding and more desirable route. Anyway, this in itself brings up many more questions. If the open skies battle escalates, will the US resemble Canada's protectionist policy? Is the AC 787 to DXB a placeholder launched solely for the purpose of having some substance against the EK argument "We're serving a market that is unserved by anyone else" without any regard for revenue, much to the tune of QR's rubbing salt in the wound to fly to ATL? Is QR subject to the same restrictions as EK/EY? The list of questions goes on...

Hopefully Canadian A.netters can enlighten me

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Is the AC 787 to DXB a placeholder launched solely for the purpose of having some substance against the EK argument "We're serving a market that is unserved by anyone else" without any regard for revenue

Absolutely not. I understand AC's 3 x week YYZ-DXB 787-9 service is doing very well. Took a look at loads for the next 2 weeks and the average booked load factor as of now for the 6 flights in each direction is 89% eastbound and virtually totally full (98%) westbound. Several flights are 100% full and a few are overbooked.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Hello A.net!

I was recently surprised to discover that QR with its wacky new routes to ATL and (LAS?!?) flies to YUL of all places.....why on earth would QR not seize the opportunity to fly to YVR instead? It is definitely a higher yielding and more desirable route.

YUL metro area population - 4 million+
YVR metro pop. - 2.3 million

YUL-DOH is a shorter flight than YVR-DOH, meaning lower costs of operation.

YVR-DOH would be full of Indian subcontinent traffic, probably the lowest yielding of all traffic out there. YUL-DOH caters to traffic headed to CAI, BEY, AMM, etc..so definitely not irrelevant...

As for O&D to Doha, it's peanuts from both YUL and YVR, but probably still larger from the former.

Yes, QR is restricted just like EK/EY with three flights a week into Canada. Honestly, I think it helps out Canada a lot with only 3 ME3 flights per week on the three gulf carriers. First of all, they take away traffic. If EK, EY, and QR were allowed seven flights a week to the destinations they serve, and with even more rights, they would take away so many passengers from Canadian airlines. The government is more than smart enough to ban the ME3 for more than 3 flights per week.

While this does not talk about Canada as a whole, Canada isn't the only country to put an cap on the ME3 expansion. Germany has done so as well.

It's time Canada made a new bilateral with the UAE. Not sure about Qatar, but clearly there is enough demand between the UAE and Canada for more flights. They should at least increase the bilateral to 7x weekly for each carrier.

Not that loads are linear with yields however ACs recent route additions of DXB and DEL appear to have been a huge success. DXB has been so full it's already been upgauged to a 77W this winter, while DEL will shortly be daily from YYZ in addition they have added the thrice weekly seasonal YVR-DEL flights.

Canada has seen what the ME3 has done for the US3. The difference is that Air Canada has made a real attempt to get into the market. However, I completely agree that if the government were to ease the restrictions, the ME3 would destroy any possibility of AC holding its own. Down here in MCO, as excited as I was to finally get a nosnstop to DXB on EK, I was actually able to understand the scope of the damage that the US3 rant about. As much as I hate to admit it, the US3 are right- they're not even being given a fair shot compared to the ME3. Every single South Asian/Indian/Middle East/Asia person within the catchment area has taken this new MCO-DXB flight. I couldn't believe how quickly it wiped out connections through JFK, LHR, or FRA-it was virtually overnight! The amount of people I overhear saying "Oh you're traveling somewhere, you should take Emirates!" is kind of disheartening. I fly with DL and UA a lot as well (I can't speak for AA) and they've come a long way since years ago. Yeah, there not the cheapest but most of my flights with them have been pleasant, and I'm not flying Delta One or Business elite, just Economy comfort, and it was probably as good or better than EK. The FA's are humorous and friendly unlike those of the ME3 (No seriously). It's sad to see that most people will never venture outside the bubble of the ME3 and try something new like BA, LH, or CX which are just as good or better for the price. It is for this reason that I believe that Canada is not totally in the wrong for blocking the ME3. Many people that would otherwise never have given the AC nonstop to DEL a try may find that they love it, and fly it again to save some time and money. The best compromise would probably be to give each of the ME3 3 weekly services to one destination (YYZ, YUL, YVR) and counterbalance it with an additional AC equivalent, plus a possible YYC addition, to provide sufficient market demand to the ME3, while still giving AC a slight edge so as not to be trampled over.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Canada has seen what the ME3 has done for the US3. The difference is that Air Canada has made a real attempt to get into the market. However, I completely agree that if the government were to ease the restrictions, the ME3 would destroy any possibility of AC holding its own. Down here in MCO, as excited as I was to finally get a nosnstop to DXB on EK, I was actually able to understand the scope of the damage that the US3 rant about. As much as I hate to admit it, the US3 are right- they're not even being given a fair shot compared to the ME3. Every single South Asian/Indian/Middle East/Asia person within the catchment area has taken this new MCO-DXB flight. I couldn't believe how quickly it wiped out connections through JFK, LHR, or FRA-it was virtually overnight! The amount of people I overhear saying "Oh you're traveling somewhere, you should take Emirates!" is kind of disheartening. I fly with DL and UA a lot as well (I can't speak for AA) and they've come a long way since years ago. Yeah, there not the cheapest but most of my flights with them have been pleasant, and I'm not flying Delta One or Business elite, just Economy comfort, and it was probably as good or better than EK. The FA's are humorous and friendly unlike those of the ME3 (No seriously). It's sad to see that most people will never venture outside the bubble of the ME3 and try something new like BA, LH, or CX which are just as good or better for the price. It is for this reason that I believe that Canada is not totally in the wrong for blocking the ME3. Many people that would otherwise never have given the AC nonstop to DEL a try may find that they love it, and fly it again to save some time and money. The best compromise would probably be to give each of the ME3 3 weekly services to one destination (YYZ, YUL, YVR) and counterbalance it with an additional AC equivalent, plus a possible YYC addition, to provide sufficient market demand to the ME3, while still giving AC a slight edge so as not to be trampled over.

You mean like when an upstart airline enters a new market and the US3 dump capacity and cheap seats on the same route to drive them out. The only reason the US3 complain about the ME3 is because they are beating them at their own game and the US3 doesn't like that. Sorry give the ME3 all the new routes they want keeps our US3 honest as far as their price gouging of passengers.

People don't fly the ME3 for comfort or service vs the US3, they fly the ME3 for connections. To be honest the difference between AC and the US3 is night and day as far as willingness goes to try new destinations. AC has Casablanca, Venice, Athens, and Tel Aviv. The US3 resistance to new routes is what really kills them. The US3 combined has 5 routes to both Africa and India: Johannesburg, Accra, Lagos, Mumbai, and Delhi. AC blows this out of the water, and matches quite a few EK destinations at it. I know the US3 can't cover everything, but they aren't even trying, AA doesn't have a singles route to Africa or the Middle East which is absurd. There will always be some destinations that the ME3 will have to themselves, but maybe the US3 should have a go at India or Africa. United has, and it works for them, and gasp, it's profitable! I can guarantee you if AA put their best foot forward and tried a 787 and upgauged it to a 77W on DFW-DEL, they could give the ME3 in DFW a run for their money by competing both on product, price, and also by cutting a stopover in the ME. ie. Someone flies from XYZ, connects in DFW, and flies AA nonstop or connects with ME3- AA has both the network, the nonstop, and the price advantage. It won't work for every route of course, that goes to the ME3, but it is in the interest for the US3 to bring the heat and get their foot in the door, and get a good chunk of Asia traffic.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Canada has seen what the ME3 has done for the US3. The difference is that Air Canada has made a real attempt to get into the market. However, I completely agree that if the government were to ease the restrictions, the ME3 would destroy any possibility of AC holding its own. Down here in MCO, as excited as I was to finally get a nosnstop to DXB on EK, I was actually able to understand the scope of the damage that the US3 rant about. As much as I hate to admit it, the US3 are right- they're not even being given a fair shot compared to the ME3. Every single South Asian/Indian/Middle East/Asia person within the catchment area has taken this new MCO-DXB flight. I couldn't believe how quickly it wiped out connections through JFK, LHR, or FRA-it was virtually overnight! The amount of people I overhear saying "Oh you're traveling somewhere, you should take Emirates!" is kind of disheartening. I fly with DL and UA a lot as well (I can't speak for AA) and they've come a long way since years ago. Yeah, there not the cheapest but most of my flights with them have been pleasant, and I'm not flying Delta One or Business elite, just Economy comfort, and it was probably as good or better than EK. The FA's are humorous and friendly unlike those of the ME3 (No seriously). It's sad to see that most people will never venture outside the bubble of the ME3 and try something new like BA, LH, or CX which are just as good or better for the price. It is for this reason that I believe that Canada is not totally in the wrong for blocking the ME3. Many people that would otherwise never have given the AC nonstop to DEL a try may find that they love it, and fly it again to save some time and money. The best compromise would probably be to give each of the ME3 3 weekly services to one destination (YYZ, YUL, YVR) and counterbalance it with an additional AC equivalent, plus a possible YYC addition, to provide sufficient market demand to the ME3, while still giving AC a slight edge so as not to be trampled over.

Did it occur to you that people fly the ME3 because they prefer it? This argument that governments should restrict supply of one product to boost another product that passengers 'might like' when deprived of their preferred choice assumes that consumers lack intelligence and you know what's best for them. What next - restrict Samsung so that consumers use Microsoft phones and realize they might really like it more?

In any case, the Government's own review - chaired by a former transport minister- has criticized the current policy as counterproductive and outdated.

Excerpts from the review, released in February 2016:

"The world is moving towards an open market for air services. Canada’s approach has outlived its usefulness and now renders our air services less competitive, less trade-friendly, and more costly than those of our global competitors."

"Canada should embrace more open international competition and a willingness to work towards an open common market for air services with countries that represent major trade markets and trusted aviation jurisdictions, on a bilateral or multilateral basis. The Govern­ ment could issue a policy declaration that Canada will pursue more liberalized air agree­ ments with an objective of “open skies” with all willing, safe, and secure partner jurisdic­ tions within a transition period of no more than 10 years. The aim should be to narrow the gap with other major aviation markets that have competitive air hubs in terms of the pace and scope of Canada’s effort to liberalize its market for international air services."

Unsurprisingly, the recommendations provided by this panel is completely inconsistent with what you're advocating.

"a. a minimum allowance of seven flights per week (7/7 daily service) for each of the air carriers designated by all new and existing air services agreements with any safe and secure partner;
b. all subsequent increases in air access in increments of at least seven flights per week, per designated air carrier;
c. consider agreements that incorporate automatic planned increases in capacity to allow for stimulation of demand, with established timelines for moving towards “open skies;”
d. include fair trade and competition requirements in all new and expanded air services agreements, providing for remedies and enforcement mechanisms should a party not meet its obligations;30
e. accord greater weight to trade policy objectives, such as the Global Markets Action Plan, Federal Tourism Strategy, and Study in Canada, along with the busi­ ness objectives of Canadian airports and airlines, when developing negotiating strategies and priorities for new and expanded agreements."

The long and short of it is that the Canadian model is broken. Whole report here:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ctareview2014/c ... eview.html

KTPAFlyer wrote:

I can guarantee you if AA put their best foot forward and tried a 787 and upgauged it to a 77W on DFW-DEL, they could give the ME3 in DFW a run for their money.

Actually, you can't ! i can guarantee you that !

The problem witht the US3 is that they have more than one hub, unlike the ME3 which only have 1 each. Starting DFW-DEL makes little sense for AA, as that potential flight is neglecting the largest market to India from the US, the northeast and the midwest, specifically NY-NJ and Chicago, which have the largest Indian American populations in the US, respectively 620,000 and 170,000, compared to 100,000 in DFW. So if AA were to start anything to DEL, it would have to be first from JFK and then from ORD. However NY and ORD, as we know, are already well served to India, be it on one stop or non-stop flights. This is why AA rather stay out of those markets (for now).

Plus DFW-DEL is a monster 8,186 sm. (actually its longer due to the detour around the Himalayas). So a 787 is a no go. Plus, that long of a flight on an ultimately low yielding route is a killer.

Even AI's new DEL-SFO isn't as long as DFW-DEL, and AI has lower operating costs and can rely on feed from both sides, something AA cannot replicate on DFW-DEL. Simply because there is demand between two cities doesn't mean an airline can operate the route profitably. In this case, I can assure you they can't, which is why they haven't even bothered starting it.

do you think YYC could be served by one of the ME3?
although its pretty close to YVR

NichCage wrote:

Yes, QR is restricted just like EK/EY with three flights a week into Canada. Honestly, I think it helps out Canada a lot with only 3 ME3 flights per week on the three gulf carriers. First of all, they take away traffic. If EK, EY, and QR were allowed seven flights a week to the destinations they serve, and with even more rights, they would take away so many passengers from Canadian airlines. The government is more than smart enough to ban the ME3 for more than 3 flights per week.

While this does not talk about Canada as a whole, Canada isn't the only country to put an cap on the ME3 expansion. Germany has done so as well.

Spoken like a true Air Canada PR machine.


Air Canada has no desire to serve any markets outside Europe/Japan/HK.
Only reason AC is serving markets like Dubai and Dellhi is ME3 has shown them how Asia is undeserved by North American carriers.

ME3s are mostly taking jobs away from EU3 (BA/AF-KLM/LF) not AC. since ME3s cannot compete with Air Canada's core makers. (Euorpe/China/HK/Japan/SouthAmerica).Why should Canadian public and business suffer to subsidize bunch of Airlines in Europe?

The feds are reviewing things right now. Of course, that doesn't mean anything is necessarily going to change...
Canada has always been cautious and slow with transportation policy shifts so I would not hold my breath.

In time Qatar will inch up its rights to match those of the UAE. Obviously the full complement will go to QR. I could see additional frequencies being dished out to the UAE but I doubt any massive changes in tone or policy are on the horizon.

I think others have amply covered the original question of YUL vs. YVR for QR.

What about an AA JFK-CAI-AMM, JFK-AUH/DXB-DEL/BOM/DAC routes?

Depends if the public are happy to see airline/s 'feather-bedded' at their expense, either by subsidy, protection, or both, and the country's capacity and desire to increase tourist numbers.

If a Government believes lower international fares will result in more outward than inward travel, and/or the average spend is skewed in favour of outward travel, the status quo is preferred.

Where it gets more complex, is when you start looking on an area, or state by state basis.

Canada is conservative. The USA is a mixture, with so-called open skies, but protected by airports with poor international facilities, including for transit passengers, and using the EU3 to further protect and ration supply.

Long time readers of this site will recall the heated arguments back in 2010 when it was reported that the UAE threatened to revoke the Canadian Forces' access to the Canadian military base in Dubai (which was being used to support Canadian operations in Afghanistan) if the Government of Canada did not grant expanded civilian landing rights to Emirates and Etihad in Canada. An unnamed government source further said Canada was "essentially a pawn in a heavy-handed blackmail scheme and the demands were unacceptable".

This is a complicated issue with significant political undercurrents.

AirbusCanada wrote:

NichCage wrote:

Yes, QR is restricted just like EK/EY with three flights a week into Canada. Honestly, I think it helps out Canada a lot with only 3 ME3 flights per week on the three gulf carriers. First of all, they take away traffic. If EK, EY, and QR were allowed seven flights a week to the destinations they serve, and with even more rights, they would take away so many passengers from Canadian airlines. The government is more than smart enough to ban the ME3 for more than 3 flights per week.

While this does not talk about Canada as a whole, Canada isn't the only country to put an cap on the ME3 expansion. Germany has done so as well.

Air Canada has no desire to serve any markets outside Europe/Japan/HK.
Only reason AC is serving markets like Dubai and Dellhi is ME3 has shown them how Asia is undeserved by North American carriers.

If AC had no desire to fly to Dubai and "Dellhi" (or anywhere that you've arbitrarily defined as outside of its core markets) in the first place, what concern would it be to AC that those markets are underserved?

AirbusCanada wrote:

ME3s are mostly taking jobs away from EU3 (BA/AF-KLM/LF) not AC. since ME3s cannot compete with Air Canada's core makers. (Euorpe/China/HK/Japan/SouthAmerica).Why should Canadian public and business suffer to subsidize bunch of Airlines in Europe?

While I ultimately support the idea of granting EK and EY more traffic rights to Canada, it would be disingenuous to state that AC is unaffected by the ME3, as AC carries passengers on its own metal to European hubs where passengers connect onwards to destinations in India and other parts of South Asia through alliance/JV partners. It is plausible that the ME3 could take some of that traffic away from AC.

admanager wrote:

Long time readers of this site will recall the heated arguments back in 2010 when it was reported that the UAE threatened to revoke the Canadian Forces' access to the Canadian military base in Dubai (which was being used to support Canadian operations in Afghanistan) if the Government of Canada did not grant expanded civilian landing rights to Emirates and Etihad in Canada. An unnamed government source further said Canada was "essentially a pawn in a heavy-handed blackmail scheme and the demands were unacceptable".

This is a complicated issue with significant political undercurrents.

Very complicated. Long time readers will also remember that at least one Cabinet minister disagreed publicly with the decision. I don't think he would have taken that stance if it was "heavy handed blackmail". He certainly had no qualms about standing up to those who he disagreed with on his own cabinet. The corollary to that is the whole thing wasn't simply 'Canada right; UAE wrong'.

For what it's worth, access to the base wasn't revoked. It ended, but was renewed while negotiations were taking place. The negotiations collapsed, and the extension eventually ran out. The Liberals - now in power - were very critical of how this was handled. And that, in turn, led AC's COO at the time (and a participant in the review published above), to launch a bizarre attack on the Liberals.

So yes, all very complicated. Cabinet ministers disagreeing with their own government and airlines attacking political parties. There is, however, a simple way to uncomplicate it: let the consumer choose.

hoons90 wrote:

If AC had no desire to fly to Dubai and "Dellhi" (or anywhere that you've arbitrarily defined as outside of its core markets) in the first place, what concern would it be to AC that those markets are underserved?

They weaken their core European Network,which they use to funnel people to onward destinations in Middle-East/Asia/Africa.

hoons90 wrote:

While I ultimately support the idea of granting EK and EY more traffic rights to Canada, it would be disingenuous to state that AC is unaffected by the ME3, as AC carries passengers on its own metal to European hubs where passengers connect onwards to destinations in India and other parts of South Asia through alliance/JV partners. It is plausible that the ME3 could take some of that traffic away from AC.

Few problems with the above statement:

1. Emirates flights will have some effect on Air Canada, but it is minimal compared to carriers in Europe, Asia & Australia and Middle East. Dubai/Doha is not a very good location if you like to transport passages between Canada and Rest of the world, except for Middle East and Asia.

2. You probably have never flown to any secondary cities in Asia/Africa/Middle East from Canada via Europe. Allow me to elaborate a typical journey for you. It generally takes 35-50 hours to reach your final destination, consists of two or more stopovers lasting 4 to 10 hours each. Thanks to ME3+TK, you can pretty much Reach to anywhere in the world from Toronto/Montreal in less than 24 hours, with a single stopover lasting less than 4 hours. Unless your destination is a Major financial Center in Asia/Middle East, Air Canada’s network via Star Alliance in Africa/South Asia is non-existent with the exception of TK partnership.

3. Please explain why should Canadian businesses/Customer/tourists be forced to fly through Hubs in Europe, which are expensive, inconvenience and takes away jobs & revenue from Canadian airports/government.

4. Air Canada is in the business of flying passengers from point A to B. If they are not willing to fly to point B, and outsource that work to foreign carriers, they do not get to complain about other carriers who are willing to fly from A to B.

Duplicate post. Seems like editing a post somehow creates an entirely new reply? This should be fixed.

Double post

AirbusCanada wrote:

They weaken their core European Network,which they use to funnel people to onward destinations in Middle-East/Asia/Africa.

Non sequitur.

If they had no desire to operate those flights in the first place, they would simply not operate. If you're saying AC's nonstops to DXB and DEL are taking traffic away from their European routes, isn't cannibalizing your own traffic better than letting a competitor take it away? Furthermore, didn't you state that such an impact would be minimal anyways?

AirbusCanada wrote:

Few problems with the above statement:

1. Emirates flights will have some effect on Air Canada, but it is minimal compared to carriers in Europe, Asia & Australia and Middle East. Dubai/Doha is not a very good location if you like to transport passages between Canada and Rest of the world, except for Middle East and Asia.

Canada-Asia is not an insignificant market, which AC is involved in one way or another through interlining/JV.

AirbusCanada wrote:

2. You probably have never flown to any secondary cities in Asia/Africa/Middle East from Canada via Europe. Allow me to elaborate a typical journey for you. It generally takes 35-50 hours to reach your final destination, consists of two or more stopovers lasting 4 to 10 hours each. Thanks to ME3+TK, you can pretty much Reach to anywhere in the world from Toronto/Montreal in less than 24 hours, with a single stopover lasting less than 4 hours. Unless your destination is a Major financial Center in Asia/Middle East, Air Canada’s network via Star Alliance in Africa/South Asia is non-existent with the exception of TK partnership.

I used to work for AC. AC846, 876, 848, 858 are some of the transatlantic flights that routinely had onward connections to India. AC846 even had dedicated LD3 containers filled with bags connecting directly to LH762/764.

AC880 to CDG even had onward interline connections to JED and other Middle Eastern ports despite AC not having any strong Star partners at CDG.

If you're a corporation whose main goal is to maximize return to stakeholders, would you not try to prevent having that traffic taken away from you?

AirbusCanada wrote:

3. Please explain why should Canadian businesses/Customer/tourists be forced to fly through Hubs in Europe, which are expensive, inconvenience and takes away jobs & revenue from Canadian airports/government.

I'm sure that you read the part where I mentioned that I ultimately support ME3 expansion to Canada? Can't I explain AC's position without actually supporting it?

AirbusCanada wrote:

4. Air Canada is in the business of flying passengers from point A to B. If they are not willing to fly to point B, and outsource that work to foreign carriers, they do not get to complain about other carriers who are willing to fly from A to B.

Unless if they lose passengers between point A and the intermediate point to point B as a result of those other carriers.

Double post

Thenoflyzone wrote:

KTPAFlyer wrote:

AA's 789 will be able to do DEL-DFW with max passenger load. It is a bit under 16hrs on a typical day.

an issue in Canada has always been that carriers are expected to provide unprofitable service to communities that depend on air service. Carriers need profitable routes to be able to do this. They get these under the present bi-lateral system.

NichCage wrote:

Yes, QR is restricted just like EK/EY with three flights a week into Canada. Honestly, I think it helps out Canada a lot with only 3 ME3 flights per week on the three gulf carriers. First of all, they take away traffic. If EK, EY, and QR were allowed seven flights a week to the destinations they serve, and with even more rights, they would take away so many passengers from Canadian airlines. The government is more than smart enough to ban the ME3 for more than 3 flights per week.

While this does not talk about Canada as a whole, Canada isn't the only country to put an cap on the ME3 expansion. Germany has done so as well.

It is interesting to see how the ME3 affect things though, I recently booked a flight from YVR to MRU and I also looked at SEA and there were $500+ differences between SEA with ME3 service and YVR without it.

AirbusCanada wrote:

Air Canada has no desire to serve any markets outside Europe/Japan/HK.

Brisbane is a long way from Europe/Japan/HKG.
http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1017

And Casablanca is in Africa (new seasonal YUL-CMN Rouge service recently started).
http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1019

ICN also isn't in Europe/Japan/HKG. New YYZ-ICN service also recently started.
http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1033

I'm pretty sure Air Canada will fly wherever it believes it can make money. The current AC leadership is very focused on profit and growth and believes the two go hand in hand.

The concept of ME3/TK service to YVR has been discussed fervently over on the SSP forums. Vancouver to Dubai, Doha, Abu Dhabi and Istanbul (assuming the most direct routing possible) are all sub-12,000 km flights, so it's not totally out of reach of a 777-300ER or a 787-8/9. If a detour is necessary, that's a different story, but I still think a 77W or 789 could do it.

Using the Great Circle Mapper, I saw that a YVR-DXB or YVR-AUH flight would fly over the east coast of the Caspian Sea above some of the 'Stans, as well as bisect Iran. YVR-DOH's path splits the Caspian Sea, and YVR-IST flies over Poland, western Ukraine, Romania and the tip of the NWern Black Sea. I don't think the flight paths go over any turbulent areas (eastern Ukraine, the Caucuses, Iraq/Syria), so it is my assumption that no detours would be necessary, unlike AC72/73 which will have to detour around Jammu-Kashmir as well as the highest peaks of the Himalayas.

An ME3/TK flight would really bolster YVR's connections to MENASA. And, maybe, it's the idealist in me, but why shouldn't YVR have connecting flights to airports that are 4-6 hours' flying time from a good chunk of the world's population? It might be far away these airports, but the route is likely doable on a 77W or 789, or perhaps even a 778X in the future. Any A350 could do it. AC72/73 will likely be 12,000+ km because of the Himalayas, I don't see why an AC 789 can't do YVR-DXB.

On a personal level, my parents are Ethiopian and an ME3/TK flight would really bring down 1-stop YVR-ADD fares. Right now, even with the weak loonie, flying of the U.S. (SEA-DXB-ADD via EK, SEA-FRA-ADD via LH) or 2-stop flights (YVR-LAX-DOH-ADD via QR) are still cheaper than the cheapest 1-stop fares out of YVR. There are several *A routes between YVR and ADD (AC to YYZ and then ET503, AC854/ET701 via LHR, LH493/LH598 via FRA) but they are consistently around $1700-1800 CAD. EK, LH (SEA-FRA-ADD) and QR 2-stop fares are approximately $300-500 CAD cheaper.

At the same time, I am mindful that dirt-cheap oil in GCC countries basically doubles as state subsidies, even if they're not state subsidies per se. Also, if the ME3/TK come to YVR, they will have to be very careful not to cannibalize the entrenched longhaul players here; in particular, BA and Lufthansa. I don't have hard numbers, but from anecdotes and lurking on A.net and SSP, I believe a large chunk of BA84 and LH493 pax are MENASA-bound, and a big reason why the routes were upgauged from 744/343 to 388/744.

LH is *A, and YVR is a big *A hub (AC, United, ANA, Air China, etc). The ME3/TK cannibalizing YVR's *A partners will be terrible PR. I'm not sure if CA or NH do a lot of YVR-MENASA traffic (especially with competition coming from Lufthansa and KLM, the rise of China Eastern and China Southern at YVR, plus the new Chinese players of Hainan/Xiamen/Sichuan, and AC's improving MENASA connections), but I wouldn't doubt it.

I think a decent compromise would be 3x weekly 346s, 77Ws or 789s. The question is, which route would better suit Vancouver? YVR-DXB? YVR-AUH? YVR-DOH? YVR-IST? Would it be reasonable for YVR to get more than one of these routes? There is opportunity here for Vancouver; Delta says it will wait for Sea-Tac's new terminal to begin operation in 2019 before expanding international service from Seattle. AC, ME3 or TK could fill this void beforehand and maybe take some of the pressure off BA and Lufthansa, plus the Asian carriers. I still don't expect AC and the feds to accept that, unfortunately.

There is also the suggestion that YVR's boom is a side effect of Vancouver's overheated residential housing market, and that's a whole different can of worms...

Could any kind A.net user direct me to hard numbers or business case studies about YVR-MENASA traffic demand? I've already seen the business case for a nonstop YVR-IST on the SSP forums (http://aviation.itu.edu.tr/%5Cimg%5Cavi ... lysis.pdf; see slides 30, 32 and 41. Slide 41 in particular shows that YVR-IST is a strong connection/hub market and could serve 800 pax/day.) I doubt that such data is publicly available locked down since the data from Istanbul Technical University came from Sabre IDR, a consulting service. Their data is probably locked down and only available to the highest bidder; it's data for a niche market, held by a BI consulting service.

[quote="leftcoast8"]
Using the Great Circle Mapper, I saw that a YVR-DXB or YVR-AUH flight would fly over the east coast of the Caspian Sea above some of the 'Stans, as well as bisect Iran. YVR-DOH's path splits the Caspian Sea, and YVR-IST flies over Poland, western Ukraine, Romania and the tip of the NWern Black Sea. I don't think the flight paths go over any turbulent areas (eastern Ukraine, the Caucuses, Iraq/Syria), so it is my assumption that no detours would be necessary, unlike AC72/73 which will have to detour around Jammu-Kashmir as well as the highest peaks of the Himalayas.

The airways are not necessarily great circles. They take into account terrain issues. Go into FlightAware and take a look at the track between YYZ and DEL

I think its inevitable that the ME3 will be given more access into Canada as time passes and the government realizes it'll be beneficial to the airports and local economies. EK settled for SEA as a PACNW destination to try and attract the Vancouver passengers down and thus far I'd said its working pretty well. QR and EY aren't as pushy in regards to more access as I don't believe the Canada - Middle East market is that big whereas EK routes most of that traffic onwards to India.

sunrisevalley wrote:

leftcoast8 wrote:

Using the Great Circle Mapper, I saw that a YVR-DXB or YVR-AUH flight would fly over the east coast of the Caspian Sea above some of the 'Stans, as well as bisect Iran. YVR-DOH's path splits the Caspian Sea, and YVR-IST flies over Poland, western Ukraine, Romania and the tip of the NWern Black Sea. I don't think the flight paths go over any turbulent areas (eastern Ukraine, the Caucuses, Iraq/Syria), so it is my assumption that no detours would be necessary, unlike AC72/73 which will have to detour around Jammu-Kashmir as well as the highest peaks of the Himalayas.

The airways are not necessarily great circles. They take into account terrain issues. Go into FlightAware and take a look at the track between YYZ and DEL

I actually mentioned this in my post.

AC72/73 will likely be 12,000+ km because of the Himalayas, I don't see why an AC 789 can't do YVR-DXB.

But a flight from YVR to a GCC country or to IST doesn't have to worry about mountainous regions, or even warzones, since it bypasses western Ukraine, Syria and Iraq.

RL777 wrote:

I think its inevitable that the ME3 will be given more access into Canada as time passes and the government realizes it'll be beneficial to the airports and local economies. EK settled for SEA as a PACNW destination to try and attract the Vancouver passengers down and thus far I'd said its working pretty well. QR and EY aren't as pushy in regards to more access as I don't believe the Canada - Middle East market is that big whereas EK routes most of that traffic onwards to India.

I don't remember where I read it, but at some point, when TC was asked about the denial of UAE-Canada bilaterals, he said that they would not stop or ignore their efforts, and that at some point, in the future, they would return to this, and try to work out a deal. I am fairly certain that somebody at EK is reading A.net right now, and while this is hardly a means of swaying their decision, the management at EK have probably already set their sights on YVR. We may not see YVR-DXB for the next year or two, but it is without question on their radar, and the most important North American destination they do not serve. EK's American network started from only JFK, but who would've guessed that it now spans across the country to LAX, SFO, and SEA. High yielding or not, this is a flagship route that is needed by many, much like SFO, and YVR-DXB is not a question of if, but when.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Hello A.net!

I was recently surprised to discover that QR with its wacky new routes to ATL and (LAS?!?) flies to YUL of all places (It is a beautiful city, not to offend my fellow Montrealites). Anyway, seeing as both EY and EK both only fly to YYZ because of Canada's protectionism, why on earth would QR not seize the opportunity to fly to YVR instead? It is definitely a higher yielding and more desirable route. Anyway, this in itself brings up many more questions. If the open skies battle escalates, will the US resemble Canada's protectionist policy? Is the AC 787 to DXB a placeholder launched solely for the purpose of having some substance against the EK argument "We're serving a market that is unserved by anyone else" without any regard for revenue, much to the tune of QR's rubbing salt in the wound to fly to ATL? Is QR subject to the same restrictions as EK/EY? The list of questions goes on...

Hopefully Canadian A.netters can enlighten me

People take rub salt in Delta wound way to serious. Atlanta metro is approaching 7 million and has an India embassy for huge Atlanta Indian populations that love flying any ME3 carriers

YUL metro area population - 4 million+
YVR metro pop. - 2.3 million

not that it really matters. Vancouver population based on last census 5 years ago was 2.36 millions which does not included the Eastern Suburbs of Abbotsford, Mission and Chilliwack which puts the population at around 2.6 million when added in. the growth rate since the last census is expected to be around 14% putting the lower mainland just under 3 million in 2016. If you look at total population of southwest BC then the population will be around.
3.4 million+

KTPAFlyer wrote:

If the open skies battle escalates, will the US resemble Canada's protectionist policy?

It's interesting for me to reread this part of my original post. Well looking back, I guess we now know the answer to that one after the US verdict on open skies!

EK certainly wants to fly YVR. In an article from way back in 2010, the EK vice chairman at the time said EK wanted to fly double daily to YYZ, YVR, a daily to YYC.

“We have perfect open skies to the United States, we can fly anywhere we wish with any capacity and any frequency so we go to New York, San Francisco, Los Angles they are all non-stop. Canada we are restricted to three flights a week [which is] absolutely ridiculous when the market is there for double daily Toronto, double daily Vancouver, and double daily Calgary. The market is there,” Flanagan added.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/lufthans ... 6Fw0bgrKCg

Considering how much EK has grown since 2010, they could probably manage to operate 3x daily to YYZ now, and the two daily YVR flights could be served by an A380 and B77W. Unfortunately it doesn't look like they will be getting the rights anytime soon.

leftcoast8 wrote:

The concept of ME3/TK service to YVR has been discussed fervently over on the SSP forums. Vancouver to Dubai, Doha, Abu Dhabi and Istanbul (assuming the most direct routing possible) are all sub-12,000 km flights, so it's not totally out of reach of a 777-300ER or a 787-8/9. If a detour is necessary, that's a different story, but I still think a 77W or 789 could do it.

Well, EK does DXB-SEA with no payload restriction on the 77Ws, so theres the answer wrt 77Ws. Some months back DXB-SEA made an emergency stop in YVR as well.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

RL777 wrote:

I think its inevitable that the ME3 will be given more access into Canada as time passes and the government realizes it'll be beneficial to the airports and local economies. EK settled for SEA as a PACNW destination to try and attract the Vancouver passengers down and thus far I'd said its working pretty well. QR and EY aren't as pushy in regards to more access as I don't believe the Canada - Middle East market is that big whereas EK routes most of that traffic onwards to India.

I don't remember where I read it, but at some point, when TC was asked about the denial of UAE-Canada bilaterals, he said that they would not stop or ignore their efforts, and that at some point, in the future, they would return to this, and try to work out a deal. I am fairly certain that somebody at EK is reading A.net right now, and while this is hardly a means of swaying their decision, the management at EK have probably already set their sights on YVR. We may not see YVR-DXB for the next year or two, but it is without question on their radar, and the most important North American destination they do not serve. EK's American network started from only JFK, but who would've guessed that it now spans across the country to LAX, SFO, and SEA. High yielding or not, this is a flagship route that is needed by many, much like SFO, and YVR-DXB is not a question of if, but when.

Talks between the YVR Airport Authority and EK have taken place multiple times in the past 5 years, however nothing can be done until the bilateral agreement changes or EK decides to move its only Canadian flights to YVR which won't ever happen.

I wonder if EK will try something like "Emirates Canada" or "Emirates America," akin to how KLM Asia achieved its coveted flights to Taiwan and the mainland... Who knows, maybe that will do the trick!

KTPAFlyer wrote:

I wonder if EK will try something like "Emirates Canada" or "Emirates America," akin to how KLM Asia achieved its coveted flights to Taiwan and the mainland... Who knows, maybe that will do the trick!

I think the Government of Canada and AC would see right through this and realize that EK are just working their way around the bilateral. So it would never be allowed.

NichCage wrote:

[...]Canada isn't the only country to put an cap on the ME3 expansion. Germany has done so as well.

You are kidding, aren't you? The FRG grants them unlimited frequencies, unlimeted capacities and unlimited fifth freedom rights. They just can't serve more than 4 points of their choice. Scarcely will this situation compare to the one in Canada.

First of all, can anyone kindly explain the logic behind the theory that "there's no demand to Dubai to justify EK expansion" and yet " DXB is a gold mine for AC"? the argument just doesn't make sense.

Secondly, the argument that "the government of Canada requires services to secondary cities", and yet EK wanted to serve YYC according the initial bilateral draft. Now YYC is not exactly JFK, so definitely not a goldmine for EK, and the service can also help private airlines like WestJet that could compete with AC like other airlines do in free market economies and offer affordable international tickets from a variety of smaller cities across Canada served by WestJet.

Lastly I'm tired of this mythological representation of Air canada as a charitable entity of some sorts. Can you name me an airline that charges over $1000 for a domestic one-way Y ticket? Cuz this is what AC charges. Not to mention that fact that AC lucrated over those people stranded by wildfires in Fort mcmurray.

PerfectGriffin wrote:

KTPAFlyer wrote:

I wonder if EK will try something like "Emirates Canada" or "Emirates America," akin to how KLM Asia achieved its coveted flights to Taiwan and the mainland... Who knows, maybe that will do the trick!

I think the Government of Canada and AC would see right through this and realize that EK are just working their way around the bilateral. So it would never be allowed.

There is nothing stopping EY/EY/QR or any other foreign airline to buy stake in an existing Canadian airline or fund an startup in Canada, as long as the ownership is below 25%.

VCEflyboy wrote:

First of all, can anyone kindly explain the logic behind the theory that "there's no demand to Dubai to justify EK expansion" and yet " DXB is a gold mine for AC"? the argument just doesn't make sense.

Secondly, the argument that "the government of Canada requires services to secondary cities", and yet EK wanted to serve YYC according the initial bilateral draft. Now YYC is not exactly JFK, so definitely not a goldmine for EK, and the service can also help private airlines like WestJet that could compete with AC like other airlines do in free market economies and offer affordable international tickets from a variety of smaller cities across Canada served by WestJet.

Lastly I'm tired of this mythological representation of Air canada as a charitable entity of some sorts. Can you name me an airline that charges over $1000 for a domestic one-way Y ticket? Cuz this is what AC charges. Not to mention that fact that AC lucrated over those people stranded by wildfires in Fort mcmurray.

Well I'm not sure if it's a gold mine. It sells well with both EK and AC soon using their largest aircraft, but then again, there are only 6 flights a week between DXB and YYZ.

AC fares are way too high. But Westjet is normally priced similarly. Both these airlines work together to keep fares high. The Canadian domestic market needs much more competition.

The government shouldn't have to be so protective of AC. Less competition is bad for everyone, but unfortunately AC has convinced the Ottawa that jobs would be lost if EK got more rights. It's a ridiculous argument since EK doesn't compete for the same passengers as AC, but what can be done about it?

AirbusCanada wrote:

PerfectGriffin wrote:

KTPAFlyer wrote:

I wonder if EK will try something like "Emirates Canada" or "Emirates America," akin to how KLM Asia achieved its coveted flights to Taiwan and the mainland... Who knows, maybe that will do the trick!

I think the Government of Canada and AC would see right through this and realize that EK are just working their way around the bilateral. So it would never be allowed.

There is nothing stopping EY/EY/QR or any other foreign airline to buy stake in an existing Canadian airline or fund an startup in Canada, as long as the ownership is below 25%.

But what exactly would that new airline do? Feed their current flights or the US flights? Their YYZ flight does very well on it's own, and they already have agreements with Alaska airlines, Westjet and Porter to target the Canadian market. It's the best they can do.

If you're expecting this new airline to fly from Canada - DXB, it would never work since each airline is only allowed a maximum of 3 flights per week between Canada and the UAE.

PerfectGriffin wrote:

It's a ridiculous argument since EK doesn't compete for the same passengers as AC

I don't agree that EK doesn't compete for the same passengers as AC. EK's largest market from Canada is almost certainly India. AC operates YYZ-DEL nonstop, currently 4 x week, increasing to daily effective October 30. And AC starts 3 x week nonstop YVR-DEL seasonal service in October, effective through early April.

AirbusCanada wrote:

NichCage wrote:

Yes, QR is restricted just like EK/EY with three flights a week into Canada. Honestly, I think it helps out Canada a lot with only 3 ME3 flights per week on the three gulf carriers. First of all, they take away traffic. If EK, EY, and QR were allowed seven flights a week to the destinations they serve, and with even more rights, they would take away so many passengers from Canadian airlines. The government is more than smart enough to ban the ME3 for more than 3 flights per week.

While this does not talk about Canada as a whole, Canada isn't the only country to put an cap on the ME3 expansion. Germany has done so as well.

Spoken like a true Air Canada PR machine.


Air Canada has no desire to serve any markets outside Europe/Japan/HK.
Only reason AC is serving markets like Dubai and Dellhi is ME3 has shown them how Asia is undeserved by North American carriers.

ME3s are mostly taking jobs away from EU3 (BA/AF-KLM/LF) not AC. since ME3s cannot compete with Air Canada's core makers. (Euorpe/China/HK/Japan/SouthAmerica).Why should Canadian public and business suffer to subsidize bunch of Airlines in Europe?

Nonsense. So the resumption of flights to India, direct flights to Australia and expansion there, rumoured addition more direct to Africa, booming flights to South America (except Rio), possible South Asia are chicken feed? The advent of the 787-8 and 787-9 have had an immense impact on where AC is able to fly profitably. The exception being India which is being upgraded due to the increase in trade, cargo and demise of Indian carriers. So if stating a fact like other countries concern about ME3 traffic is PR, so must referencing Australia's experience with Qantas' massive loss of international business, and other facts must just be PR spin too. I guess logic is that the writer and anti-AC PR machine.

PerfectGriffin wrote:

KTPAFlyer wrote:

I wonder if EK will try something like "Emirates Canada" or "Emirates America," akin to how KLM Asia achieved its coveted flights to Taiwan and the mainland... Who knows, maybe that will do the trick!

I think the Government of Canada and AC would see right through this and realize that EK are just working their way around the bilateral. So it would never be allowed.

KLM Asia is nothing more than a different livery for political reasons, with "Asia" replacing the KLM "crown". It's not a separate carrier.