There are 3 airlines that currently operate this city pair (NYC being an IATA code for all NYC-area airports)...PR, CX, and AC. All three currently normally serve this city pair with wide-body planes (PR with 2-class 77Ws, CX with 4-class 77Ws, and AC with 3-class 787s). I know that CX tends to get good F/J/W loads on this city pair, but what about PR, which has a really bad time for a forward flight, and AC, which until last year had flown the route with a 120-seat A319 before upgauging to a 251-seat 787-8 (F20W21Y210) and then a 298-seat 787-9 (C30W21Y247)? Are there are lot of empty seats in Y on PR and AC? I can't see AC downgrading the route to a narrow-body (although there was an A321 this week on an equipment change)..but going from 120 seats to 251/298 is a huge upgauge, likely caused by CX's eating AC's lunch on higher-yields.

For AC the decision to upgauge YVR-EWR from an A319/320 to a 787-8/9 has been a phenomenal success in terms of pax carried. Flt#548/549 load factors are extremely high. Averaging around 90%. I cannot speak to yield or profitability however the J cabin tends to be full.

Topguncanada wrote:

For AC the decision to upgauge YVR-EWR from an A319/320 to a 787-8/9 has been a phenomenal success in terms of pax carried. Flt#548/549 load factors are extremely high. Averaging around 90%. I cannot speak to yield or profitability however the J cabin tends to be full.

The change to the 787 also had to do with attempting to better compete with CX in the premium cabins with a true J product. Now that being said, the route was inevitably going to be up gauged as loads are consistently up.

Topguncanada wrote:

For AC the decision to upgauge YVR-EWR from an A319/320 to a 787-8/9 has been a phenomenal success in terms of pax carried. Flt#548/549 load factors are extremely high. Averaging around 90%. I cannot speak to yield or profitability however the J cabin tends to be full.

I think in part this upgauge has to do with AC wanting to funnel traffic from NYC area to Asia via YVR. In my observation, about half of CX 888/889 pax are between NYC and YVR, and about half are to/from HKG. I am not sure what exactly traffic AC is targeting with this service, but fares on AC flight are consistently higher than those on CX, and not far lower than if I am to fly AC to Asia via YVR on that flight.

anrec80 wrote:

Topguncanada wrote:

For AC the decision to upgauge YVR-EWR from an A319/320 to a 787-8/9 has been a phenomenal success in terms of pax carried. Flt#548/549 load factors are extremely high. Averaging around 90%. I cannot speak to yield or profitability however the J cabin tends to be full.

I think in part this upgauge has to do with AC wanting to funnel traffic from NYC area to Asia via YVR. In my observation, about half of CX 888/889 pax are between NYC and YVR, and about half are to/from HKG. I am not sure what exactly traffic AC is targeting with this service, but fares on AC flight are consistently higher than those on CX, and not far lower than if I am to fly AC to Asia via YVR on that flight.

I would accept that logic, AC has a tendency to be a lower priced option when it comes to premium cabin traffic. With the up-gauge, it gives NYC based Star Alliance members yet another option on a good airline, with upgraded aircraft.

Still CX has owned this route for many years & their 744's & now 777's have provided many passengers a great experience over 4 cabins. I know CX used bucket shops to fill the flights originally, I don't know if that's so much the case these days. But for PR I'd imagine that is going to be the way that they fill up seats on their 77W.

AC has the home field advantage, with a market NYC-Asia & NYC-YVR & all the AC connecting opportunities YVR offers. I think AC will do well with the 787 & I expect CX will continue to do well, it's PR that I think will need to use super low fares to attract customers. But I'm sure they'd be a good flight for 5 hours. Next time I go to NYC, I'm buying a ticket r/t PDX-YVR & taking PR one way & CX the other, just for the experience.

Just a quick question. I'm on Flightradar right now and I noticed both the AC and CX flights from NYC to YVR have complete different flight paths.

AC 549 EWR-YVR operated by the 787-9 is flying over Canadian airspace and seems to have a much shorter flight time compared to CX 889 JFK-YVR which is flying over the U.S.

How come the Cathay flight isn't taking the same route as AC? The CX flight is about 30 mins longer. I know distance plays an important role, and it looks like the flight path AC is taking is a bit shorter as well.

Thanks for the info

funny this question should be asked as it came up the other day on a CX thread. I have only run the numbers for JFK at the moment, but here's what i know for CX,PR and DL (although i am largely discounting DL as it's a summer seasonal route)

12 Month Rolling (Aug 15-Jul 16)
CX loads averaged 66% (no split on pax type sadly), down about 2.5% on the equivalent previous year. However the consensus on this one is that is huge for Cargo as they already have 3 N/S daily, however they do attract a large up front crowd to make it worthwhile. carried about 132K pax during the period. Inbound to JFK averaged around 74% loads , outbounds 58%

PR definitely has issues. They increased frequency and switched to the 77W with 370 seats, a very large increase in capacity, which saw pax loads collapse from 61% to 41%, however that change has seen a BIG increase in cargo 41% increase in June 16 over June 15 alone and a doubling in July. They've only been running since June 15, so hard to get too many comparatives, but their actual pax counts have increased in June and July 16 over 2015 by 22 and 37% respectively, so either they are starting to garner interest or as noted above, they are selling at rock bottom just to get folks on the plane and are surviving on the cargo. Interestingly in July if the numbers are right. PR actually carried more Cargo than CX did on 1/2 the flights pretty much, I will reserve judgement on this to see if it was just a blip and they return to previous levels in August when those numbers come out next week.

Although i said i was largely ignoring DL in this, their summer seasonal run on 738's manage high 80's to low 90's.

I've not looked at EWR yet so I don't have the AC numbers, as I am working through JFK first on a project i am working on and happen to have reviewed this particular route.

Hope it helps.

RWA380 wrote:

Next time I go to NYC, I'm buying a ticket r/t PDX-YVR & taking PR one way & CX the other, just for the experience.

Sure, have fun. First, it will be costlier. Second - are you sure you even want to try PR? Better try UA or AA, seriously (I know it's hard to imagine this suggestion).

I fly this route regularly, and I tried PR once one-way. Need to see a significant reason to do them again. They fly 3-4-3 77W, as opposed to CX 3-3-3. In the section I was in, seat armrests were broken, seats and cabin had been partly repaired with random pieces. Food - OK. And - I am not even sure they have a notion of schedule. I was sitting in the lounge, sipping beer, looking at the monitor, where nothing was showing against my PR flight. Suddenly - it showed "last call", and I drop everything, run across the whole terminal section to the gate, I was the last one to jump onto the plane, and they closed the door. The plane pushed back like 30 minutes AHEAD of schedule. It was stressful.

VS4ever wrote:

PR definitely has issues. They increased frequency and switched to the 77W with 370 seats, a very large increase in capacity, which saw pax loads collapse from 61% to 41%.

I agree they have issues. These LFs show that now there seems to be overcapacity on the market. I know PR used to fly like 4 times a week. Are they daily now?
I also know they are chasing A-350 ULR to do MNL-JFK non-stop. I wonder if they even will keep this tag-on once they start their non-stop to JFK.

Emirates77W wrote:

Just a quick question. I'm on Flightradar right now and I noticed both the AC and CX flights from NYC to YVR have complete different flight paths.

AC 549 EWR-YVR operated by the 787-9 is flying over Canadian airspace and seems to have a much shorter flight time compared to CX 889 JFK-YVR which is flying over the U.S.

How come the Cathay flight isn't taking the same route as AC? The CX flight is about 30 mins longer. I know distance plays an important role, and it looks like the flight path AC is taking is a bit shorter as well.

Thanks for the info

Could it be navigation costs? AC may be getting a deal with NAVCAN at least on domestic/North American routes over foreign carriers.

anrec80 wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

PR definitely has issues. They increased frequency and switched to the 77W with 370 seats, a very large increase in capacity, which saw pax loads collapse from 61% to 41%.

I agree they have issues. These LFs show that now there seems to be overcapacity on the market. I know PR used to fly like 4 times a week. Are they daily now?
I also know they are chasing A-350 ULR to do MNL-JFK non-stop. I wonder if they even will keep this tag-on once they start their non-stop to JFK.

Nope not daily still appear to be 4x weekly unless that has changed since July.

I believe PAL had issuers with YVR-LAS as well before it got suspended.

The AC EWR flights also connects with YVR-BNE/SYD.

anrec80 wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

Next time I go to NYC, I'm buying a ticket r/t PDX-YVR & taking PR one way & CX the other, just for the experience.

Sure, have fun. First, it will be costlier. Second - are you sure you even want to try PR? Better try UA or AA, seriously (I know it's hard to imagine this suggestion).

I fly this route regularly, and I tried PR once one-way. Need to see a significant reason to do them again. They fly 3-4-3 77W, as opposed to CX 3-3-3. In the section I was in, seat armrests were broken, seats and cabin had been partly repaired with random pieces. Food - OK. And - I am not even sure they have a notion of schedule. I was sitting in the lounge, sipping beer, looking at the monitor, where nothing was showing against my PR flight. Suddenly - it showed "last call", and I drop everything, run across the whole terminal section to the gate, I was the last one to jump onto the plane, and they closed the door. The plane pushed back like 30 minutes AHEAD of schedule. It was stressful.

I do want to try PR only because I haven't flown PR before, which is my only real interest. I figured how bad could it be on a rather short flight? I've worked in the industry for decades & I am aware of PR's reputation, but I thought to myself how bad could a rather new 77W be, even if on PR?

I do appreciate your feedback & I figured I'd prefer CX over any carrier, another carrier I've never flown. So this is a market where a r/t purchase on the same carrier makes a difference? I do not like the PR "schedule" you described & I would likely be vocal about my displeasure.

I was hoping that maybe the J cabin would be affordable enough to pay for a discounted J/C fare. I then was wondering who would likely have the best J fare in the market & again I think it would be more costly to do two one ways. I'd have to buy one via a Canadian agency & the other via NYC wholesaler. But no problem, I have connections into the wholesale world of air tickets.

It's just a thought, nothing can get ahead of my next trip to Hawaii, so it'll be a year or so still, thanks again for the advice.

Can someone provide the links for the passenger and freight data on this route?

anrec80 wrote:

I think in part this upgauge has to do with AC wanting to funnel traffic from NYC area to Asia via YVR.

Isnt AC's Asia departure bank around noon, with this flight mainly connecting to SYD/BNE? In fact the same aircraft usually does EWR-YVR-BNE-YVR-EWR.

B747forever wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

I think in part this upgauge has to do with AC wanting to funnel traffic from NYC area to Asia via YVR.

Isnt AC's Asia departure bank around noon, with this flight mainly connecting to SYD/BNE? In fact the same aircraft usually does EWR-YVR-BNE-YVR-EWR.

This looks like a scissor route with YYZ-YVR-SYD-YVR-YYZ.

Is there a reason AC cannot use the same flight numbers for EWR as the YVR-BNE-YVR legs?

anrec80 wrote:

Could it be navigation costs? AC may be getting a deal with NAVCAN at least on domestic/North American routes over foreign carriers.

Are you just speculating? NAV CANADA'S charging principles require rules to be non-discriminatory:

• charges for the same services must not differentiate between domestic and international
flights of air carriers;
• charges for the same services must not differentiate among Canadian air carriers or among
foreign air carriers

anrec80 wrote:

Emirates77W wrote:

Just a quick question. I'm on Flightradar right now and I noticed both the AC and CX flights from NYC to YVR have complete different flight paths.

AC 549 EWR-YVR operated by the 787-9 is flying over Canadian airspace and seems to have a much shorter flight time compared to CX 889 JFK-YVR which is flying over the U.S.

How come the Cathay flight isn't taking the same route as AC? The CX flight is about 30 mins longer. I know distance plays an important role, and it looks like the flight path AC is taking is a bit shorter as well.

Thanks for the info

Could it be navigation costs? AC may be getting a deal with NAVCAN at least on domestic/North American routes over foreign carriers.

NavCan charges are the same for all carriers, based on aircraft type, weights etc etc. Routes flown vary widely depend on winds, weather and other operational factors. Look at AC flights on routes like YYZ-YVR over a period of a week or two and you will find that some flights remain entirely in Canadian airspace and others often overfly much of the U.S.

yyztpa wrote:

B747forever wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

I think in part this upgauge has to do with AC wanting to funnel traffic from NYC area to Asia via YVR.

Isnt AC's Asia departure bank around noon, with this flight mainly connecting to SYD/BNE? In fact the same aircraft usually does EWR-YVR-BNE-YVR-EWR.

This looks like a scissor route with YYZ-YVR-SYD-YVR-YYZ.

Is there a reason AC cannot use the same flight numbers for EWR as the YVR-BNE-YVR legs?

Wouldn't that make it an America-->Australian flight with a Canada stop over (as opposed to two separate flights)? Not sure if that would matter for regulators, but it would be a great marketing tool in BNE to be able to advertise direct services to NYC!

Qantas16 wrote:

yyztpa wrote:

B747forever wrote:

Isnt AC's Asia departure bank around noon, with this flight mainly connecting to SYD/BNE? In fact the same aircraft usually does EWR-YVR-BNE-YVR-EWR.

This looks like a scissor route with YYZ-YVR-SYD-YVR-YYZ.

Is there a reason AC cannot use the same flight numbers for EWR as the YVR-BNE-YVR legs?

Wouldn't that make it an America-->Australian flight with a Canada stop over (as opposed to two separate flights)? Not sure if that would matter for regulators, but it would be a great marketing tool in BNE to be able to advertise direct services to NYC!

That would be a nice 6th-freedom route to advertise if regulations permit it to be advertised...if AC can undercut Qantas on the route.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

yyztpa wrote:

This looks like a scissor route with YYZ-YVR-SYD-YVR-YYZ.

Is there a reason AC cannot use the same flight numbers for EWR as the YVR-BNE-YVR legs?

Wouldn't that make it an America-->Australian flight with a Canada stop over (as opposed to two separate flights)? Not sure if that would matter for regulators, but it would be a great marketing tool in BNE to be able to advertise direct services to NYC!

That would be a nice 6th-freedom route to advertise if regulations permit it to be advertised...if AC can undercut Qantas on the route.

They wouldn't really need to undercut, it would be the only real 1-stop *A route between BNE-NYC so that alone would gather some traffic (BR does offer it but would require 12 hour layover on way there and 6 on way back). It's also quicker than BNE-LAX-JFK on QF (on way there, coming back is slightly slower). I guess it will depend whether they can fill the YVR-BNE route with enough O&D pax from Oz & Canada, or whether advertising it as a direct route to NYC is needed.