Airliners.net

What's the plan for the likes of YOW-LHR and YHZ-LHR once the B763s are gone? The B787-8 is too much aircraft IMHO so will these routes be rouged or dropped? Or is the B737 MAX the solution?

yow-lhr is going nowhere . too much government contract flying. it will go 788/333 like all other TATL routes I believe. but a few 763s will be around for next 24 months or so, so not imminent. I assume yhz-lhr the same. the one that should go Rouge is YYC-OGG, surprised it hasn't done so yet.

Remaining 763 routes (mainline) are:
yyz-yvr
yyz-yyc
yvr-yul (going 333 from 1/5)
yyz-sfo
yyz-lax (going 321 from 1/5)
yyz-yow-lhr
yyz-yhz-lhr
yyc-nrt
yyc-ogg
yyz-mad (going 789 from 8/4)
yul-lys

there are 3 more frames leaving the fleet before year end but one frame is currently in SNN. With MAD, YUL and LAX transitioning away from 763 flying in the next little while, that should cover the retired frames so there is no need to swap the other routes in 2017.

AC should have ordered more than just 8 B788s. Had they done that, YYC-NRT, YOW-LHR/FRA and YHZ-LHR would have the 788 by now.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

AC should have ordered more than just 8 B788s. Had they done that, YYC-NRT, YOW-LHR/FRA and YHZ-LHR would have the 788 by now.

Yeah but its much nicer to fly on the 767 than on the 787 so for people who are flying its better how it is.

Fred

Thenoflyzone wrote:

AC should have ordered more than just 8 B788s. Had they done that, YYC-NRT, YOW-LHR/FRA and YHZ-LHR would have the 788 by now.

They did originally, but converted the balance of the orders to 789. I could see yow going 333 & yyc-nrt perhaps back to 788? The max 8 or 9 should be able to handle yhz-lhr with a full load according to their specs (& depending on stops cert). Though, I am not sure how much cargo business they will have to give up??

As for yul-lys, I believe it's going 333 this summer. Not sure about winter 17/18?

Thenoflyzone wrote:

AC should have ordered more than just 8 B788s. Had they done that, YYC-NRT, YOW-LHR/FRA and YHZ-LHR would have the 788 by now.

Had the 787s been delivered on time, then everything would be replaced, not just those routes. The per flight cost of the 787 is so much less than the 767 that even with the 767 load, a profit will be made. The last hold outs for long range 767 flying are not routes that could not justify a 787, but routes which presently can be handled by a 767. Their 787 time will come as more are delivered.

The only exception might be YHZ-LHR. Rumours are running that when the MAX-8 is delivered, YHZ-LHR will be replaced by two MAX-8s flying YHZ-LHR and YHZ-FRA.

Like the A319 vs the A320, 737-700 vs the 737-800, the A330-200 vs the A330-300, etc. the larger version of an airframe usually offers far greater capability for a marginal increase in operating cost. the -8 vs the -9 is no different. My guess is that had AC been able, all 787s would be -9s.

How is Air Canada doing on YOW-FRA? It was turned from year round to seasonal, but is it profitable? What traffic does the route serve?

skipness1E wrote:

What's the plan for the likes of YOW-LHR and YHZ-LHR once the B763s are gone? The B787-8 is too much aircraft IMHO so will these routes be rouged or dropped? Or is the B737 MAX the solution?

What is the reason for saying it's "too much aircraft?" Simply because it has 38 more seats? The 787-8 may have more seats but it can fly them at much better economics so the extra passengers and cargo are like gravy. This has been happening across the system through larger aircraft on routes and more seats on existing aircraft. Passenger traffic growth in Canada has been outpacing growth in frequencies through larger and fuller aircraft. We'll see more of this as the Toronto Pearson hub becomes more and more capacity constrained, carriers will fly larger aircraft to adjust.

This is where an A321neoLR lease should be considered with Air Lease Corporation or some other lessor for faster delivery...with some direct orders down the line. They could also be used on transcon routes.

NichCage wrote:

How is Air Canada doing on YOW-FRA? It was turned from year round to seasonal, but is it profitable? What traffic does the route serve?

When operating, YOW-FRA typically pulls loads in the 80s. I personally think the only reasons why it went seasonal is a) due to AC's massive build-up at their hubs (AC has cut YOW in recent years to pump up yields to offset yield dilution at their hubs), b) a lack of competition at YOW and c) like longhauler said delays in 787 deliveries resulting in aircraft shortages at AC.

I took YOW-FRA many times when it used to operate both year-round and as a full summer-seasonal and I was never on a flight with a load under 85%. AC due to the YOW airport authority's abysmal track record with air service development knows they can get away with "highway robbery" at YOW by cutting capacity while they increase it practically everywhere else. YOW-LHR can easily handle a 788. They used a 333 on the route a few summers ago when they had an incentive to help put YOW-based Zoom out of business.

I think YHZ-LHR will go 737 in winter to allow for year-round daily service and be a 788 in summer. YHZ-FRA on a 737 interesting idea! Condor wouldn't be happy about that!

hkcanadaexpat wrote:

yow-lhr is going nowhere . too much government contract flying. it will go 788/333 like all other TATL routes I believe. but a few 763s will be around for next 24 months or so, so not imminent. I assume yhz-lhr the same. the one that should go Rouge is YYC-OGG, surprised it hasn't done so yet.

No Rouge base in YYC, that's why it's still mainline.

longhauler wrote:

The only exception might be YHZ-LHR. Rumours are running that when the MAX-8 is delivered, YHZ-LHR will be replaced by two MAX-8s flying YHZ-LHR and YHZ-FRA.

I have to say as a Haligonian I find that very interesting!

Thenoflyzone wrote:

AC should have ordered more than just 8 B788s. Had they done that, YYC-NRT, YOW-LHR/FRA and YHZ-LHR would have the 788 by now.

Had they done that, they wouldn't have had the necessary frames for hubs like YYZ and YVR. Remember they still hold 23 787 options, I'd say they are pretty likely to exercise them, a number of 78J's for YYZ would then alleviate strain on the 789's and 788's which can be used elsewhere.

Dominion301 wrote:

NichCage wrote:

How is Air Canada doing on YOW-FRA? It was turned from year round to seasonal, but is it profitable? What traffic does the route serve?

When operating, YOW-FRA typically pulls loads in the 80s. I personally think the only reasons why it went seasonal is a) due to AC's massive build-up at their hubs (AC has cut YOW in recent years to pump up yields to offset yield dilution at their hubs), b) a lack of competition at YOW and c) like longhauler said delays in 787 deliveries resulting in aircraft shortages at AC.

I took YOW-FRA many times when it used to operate both year-round and as a full summer-seasonal and I was never on a flight with a load under 85%. AC due to the YOW airport authority's abysmal track record with air service development knows they can get away with "highway robbery" at YOW by cutting capacity while they increase it practically everywhere else. YOW-LHR can easily handle a 788. They used a 333 on the route a few summers ago when they had an incentive to help put YOW-based Zoom out of business.

I think YHZ-LHR will go 737 in winter to allow for year-round daily service and be a 788 in summer. YHZ-FRA on a 737 interesting idea! Condor wouldn't be happy about that!

Perhaps, but I think you're over looking the main problem with air travel out of Canada & that's seasonality. Practically anything (within reason) could work to Europe in the summer & Xmas holiday. Was YOW-FRA profitable during the winter months? Perhaps/perhaps not? Did AC feel that the opportunity cost of utilizing that 763 was too great relative to somewhere else in the network? Maybe? I personally believe that the route would still be there if was achieving their fiscal targets.

It would be nice to see it come back. Perhaps Max8 would render it viable year round?

Let's add another dynamic variable to this discussion. Suppose BA or AF/KLM enters the market? How would AC react?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

This is where an A321neoLR lease should be considered with Air Lease Corporation or some other lessor for faster delivery...with some direct orders down the line. They could also be used on transcon routes.

I was quite surprised when I found out that AC did not order them or any new Airbus.

1900Driver wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

NichCage wrote:

How is Air Canada doing on YOW-FRA? It was turned from year round to seasonal, but is it profitable? What traffic does the route serve?

When operating, YOW-FRA typically pulls loads in the 80s. I personally think the only reasons why it went seasonal is a) due to AC's massive build-up at their hubs (AC has cut YOW in recent years to pump up yields to offset yield dilution at their hubs), b) a lack of competition at YOW and c) like longhauler said delays in 787 deliveries resulting in aircraft shortages at AC.

I took YOW-FRA many times when it used to operate both year-round and as a full summer-seasonal and I was never on a flight with a load under 85%. AC due to the YOW airport authority's abysmal track record with air service development knows they can get away with "highway robbery" at YOW by cutting capacity while they increase it practically everywhere else. YOW-LHR can easily handle a 788. They used a 333 on the route a few summers ago when they had an incentive to help put YOW-based Zoom out of business.

I think YHZ-LHR will go 737 in winter to allow for year-round daily service and be a 788 in summer. YHZ-FRA on a 737 interesting idea! Condor wouldn't be happy about that!

Sadly I don't think the MAX8 will be within YOW-FRA's range. The 321LR would be had AC ordered that. At this point, I just hope that YOW-FRA returns to a full IATA summer season in 2018.
Perhaps, but I think you're over looking the main problem with air travel out of Canada & that's seasonality. Practically anything (within reason) could work to Europe in the summer & Xmas holiday. Was YOW-FRA profitable during the winter months? Perhaps/perhaps not? Did AC feel that the opportunity cost of utilizing that 763 was too great relative to somewhere else in the network? Maybe? I personally believe that the route would still be there if was achieving their fiscal targets.

It would be nice to see it come back. Perhaps Max8 would render it viable year round?

I don't know whether the 737-8 has the range to do YOW-FRA, especially eastbound in winter. The 321LR probably would have. Either way, I'd be happy just to see the route return to a full IATA summer schedule (i.e. starting around April 1st) instead of Victoria Day weekend. I have taken AC838/839 in early May (when it existed) several times and I was never on a flight with a load under 95%. That doesn't just suddenly disappear...nor does it suddenly appear as of Victoria Day.

Dominion301 wrote:

1900Driver wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

I don't know whether the 737-8 has the range to do YOW-FRA, especially eastbound in winter. The 321LR probably would have.

I think you meant westbound. Eastbound in winter should be a cinch. But westbound is another matter.

Beech

dr1980 wrote:

longhauler wrote:

The only exception might be YHZ-LHR. Rumours are running that when the MAX-8 is delivered, YHZ-LHR will be replaced by two MAX-8s flying YHZ-LHR and YHZ-FRA.

I have to say as a Haligonian I find that very interesting!

Wouldn't that be giving up a lot of belly space for cargo? I thought AC had a fair amount of cargo on this route.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

AC should have ordered more than just 8 B788s. Had they done that, YYC-NRT, YOW-LHR/FRA and YHZ-LHR would have the 788 by now.

But I think this is why Boeing is looking at an MOM. The 788 is pretty much dead at this point with the 789 being superior in just about every metric and it not being the 767 replacement it was advertised to be. It's too much for one mission, but for the other it's not good enough. I am not saying this is necessarily the case for Air Canada as they have seemed to make due with them, but I don't think it's that likely there will be more than 8. UA for example has said the 788 is not what it was advertized to be or in other words is not th perfect 767 replacement which is why they are holding on to their 767s. AC has all the 767s they need in RV and probably doesn't really have much use for them in mainline because the 788 is good enough at this point. And YYC-NRT is 788 seasonally specifically in the summer.

"Air Canada" is in the title, either I am missing something or jimbo is late...

1900Driver wrote:

Let's add another dynamic variable to this discussion. Suppose BA or AF/KLM enters the market? How would AC react?

Definitely these are conceivable routes in the midterm future.

It's not quite the right time at the moment for either airline to launch this route that said, with Brexit, political upheaval, a shaky global economy etc. However the A321neoLR could well be the perfect frame to launch daily service on BA from LHR in future.

As for a potential AMS route on KL, perhaps the MAX might work there should KL order them to replace their 737s, or again on the A321neoLR which I could see KL using to open up secondary cities in North America, the Middle East, Central Asia & Africa.

"Air Canada" is in the title, either I am missing something or jimbo is late...[/quote]

I'm eagerly waiting for him as well to tell us that it is completely unsustainable and eventually they will succumb to dilution of yields and die.

In all honesty, this is the perfect new Boeing MoM route, though lately, AC seems to be doing more centralizing, is it really worth it to continue one of the more marginal routes when there are 3/4 daily AC/LH options to FRA, and 2 from YUL. That would boost yields, and at the same time, it removes the need for a sub-fleet.

beechnut wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

1900Driver wrote:

I think you meant westbound. Eastbound in winter should be a cinch. But westbound is another matter.

Beech

Yup...oops!

skipness1E wrote:

What's the plan for the likes of YOW-LHR and YHZ-LHR once the B763s are gone? The B787-8 is too much aircraft IMHO so will these routes be rouged or dropped? Or is the B737 MAX the solution?

Too much aircraft?...Maybe...looking around 20-30 seats more on the 787-8.

https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/home/fly/onboard/fleet.html

AC could always put more business seats on the 787-8 for YOW-LHR. The load factors must be very good.

Question is with YHZ-LHR - Halifax economy quite smaller than Ottawa but the 737 MAX still looks too small.

Alexdk wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

This is where an A321neoLR lease should be considered with Air Lease Corporation or some other lessor for faster delivery...with some direct orders down the line. They could also be used on transcon routes.

I was quite surprised when I found out that AC did not order them or any new Airbus.

The A321LR does not fit AC. Canada is a relatively small country population wise, where the majority of the population lives within a short driving distance of a major airport where they can catch a flight on a widebody.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/17 ... 69055.html
Routes for the A321LR in AC's network are too few to justify a small fleet when the future NB fleet will be comprised of the CS300 and 737MAX.

1900Driver wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

AC should have ordered more than just 8 B788s. Had they done that, YYC-NRT, YOW-LHR/FRA and YHZ-LHR would have the 788 by now.

They did originally, but converted the balance of the orders to 789. I could see yow going 333 & yyc-nrt perhaps back to 788? The max 8 or 9 should be able to handle yhz-lhr with a full load according to their specs (& depending on stops cert). Though, I am not sure how much cargo business they will have to give up??

Cargojet flies 763s into YHZ. Assuming the 737-MAX-9 did takeover YHZ-LHR; theoretically the Cargojet 763 could takeover cargo operations for that route as AC have an operations arrangement with them...

http://www.cargojet.com/pressReleases/2016/2016-09.htm

bmacleod wrote:

1900Driver wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

AC should have ordered more than just 8 B788s. Had they done that, YYC-NRT, YOW-LHR/FRA and YHZ-LHR would have the 788 by now.

They did originally, but converted the balance of the orders to 789. I could see yow going 333 & yyc-nrt perhaps back to 788? The max 8 or 9 should be able to handle yhz-lhr with a full load according to their specs (& depending on stops cert). Though, I am not sure how much cargo business they will have to give up??

Cargojet flies 763s into YHZ. Assuming the 737-MAX-9 did takeover YHZ-LHR; theoretically the Cargojet 763 could takeover cargo operations for that route as AC have an operations arrangement with them...

http://www.cargojet.com/pressReleases/2016/2016-09.htm

Good point.

bmacleod wrote:

Cargojet flies 763s into YHZ. Assuming the 737-MAX-9 did takeover YHZ-LHR; theoretically the Cargojet 763 could takeover cargo operations for that route as AC have an operations arrangement with them...

Not for very much longer.

An extension is being considered, but even if allowed, it would not extend past this year.

longhauler wrote:

bmacleod wrote:

Cargojet flies 763s into YHZ. Assuming the 737-MAX-9 did takeover YHZ-LHR; theoretically the Cargojet 763 could takeover cargo operations for that route as AC have an operations arrangement with them...

Not for very much longer.

An extension is being considered, but even if allowed, it would not extend past this year.

Well in that case it looks like forthcoming YHZ 788 service to LHR should be safe if the economic reports predicting strong growth are correct.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/halifaxpartnership/1374645-a-strong-year-for-growth-in-halifax

Until then one option is two have 4-5 days 788 YHZ-LHR service, and remaining 2-3 days going YHZ-YUL-LHR or YHZ-YOW-LHR.

bmacleod wrote:

Until then one option is two have 4-5 days 788 YHZ-LHR service, and remaining 2-3 days going YHZ-YUL-LHR or YHZ-YOW-LHR.

With many ETOPS equipped aircraft at its disposal, I suppose anything is possible. Although, I can't imagine backtracking to YUL or YOW.

It would appear though, that both YUL and YOW can each support a 787, so adding YHZ to the mix would just dilute yield. Remember that when the 767 stopped flying YHZ-YYT-LHR and v v. it was because YHZ and YYT started to compete for seats on the YYT-LHR leg ... I could see the same thing happening with a routing through YOW or YUL.

Marketing is holding their cards pretty closely, (as well they should), and the MAX-8 flying YHZ-LHR and YHZ-FRA was just a rumour. Boeing did publicly say though that the new Boeings will be delivered ETOPS 180 capable.

My own personal opinion though, is that if the route can support a daily 767, then it can support a daily 787 ... as the 777/787 mix is the widebody future for Air Canada.

Air Canada at one time had an A319 to LHR, its only about 2,200 miles, not a long distance for any commercial plane made today. The Canadian Maritime Provinces are so close to London that a morning flight is viable as is an overnight one. Two 737 Max flights are viable daily but using a 787 from Halifax or St. John to London or Europe is silly, an overkill. This is the type of route a 737 Max was designed for.

The head shed have talked about the MAX on the Atlantic. Where to/from wasn't specified.

As for them all being ETOPS that is not my understanding. I think only about a dozen will be delivered ETOPS.

jfk777 wrote:

using a 787 from Halifax or St. John to London or Europe is silly, an overkill. This is the type of route a 737 Max was designed for.

Not if you can fill 280+ seats and 30,000 kgs of cargo. The 787 can fly 15 hours, it doesn't have to! In other words, one 787 can do the job cheaper than 2 MAX-8s.

And who knows ... YHZ-LHR might just be one small leg of 5 days of worldwide flying .... YVR-BNE-YVR-LHR-YHZ-LHR-YYC etc etc etc. And YHZ-LHR is quite a bit longer than a few present 787 routes ... YYZ-YVR, YYZ-SFO, YYZ-LAX

sixtyseven wrote:

As for them all being ETOPS that is not my understanding. I think only about a dozen will be delivered ETOPS.

Yes, that was not worded well. The point I was making, is that the ones that are ETOPS equipped, will arrive from Boeing with the certification already intact. With a new airframe/engine/airline combination, Transport Canada paused, looked closely at the specs, then allowed it. Boeing publicly announced that achievement. So, if AC chose, the innagural flight could be YHZ-FRA.

longhauler wrote:

bmacleod wrote:

Until then one option is two have 4-5 days 788 YHZ-LHR service, and remaining 2-3 days going YHZ-YUL-LHR or YHZ-YOW-LHR.

It would appear though, that both YUL and YOW can each support a 787, so adding YHZ to the mix would just dilute yield.

YUL supports a 777hd in the summer.

This begs the question of the 737-10. With added range and capacity, it could fill the gap nicely and make these routes viable. With about 200 seats, it would provide a nice mix of capacity and ability to generate higher yields. Yes, these markets can likely support more the. 200 daily seats, but that all doesn't have to be direct. Put the highest yielding pax on the direct, and for people looking for a more affordable option, route them through a hub.

I get that the idea of a non-stop is really exciting, especially for these smaller cities, but centralization has become much more of the norm. Having a smaller aircraft running a select few point to point routes definitely works, but it doesn't need to be everything. People looking for the best deal can always connect if need be.

Here's a curveball, what about Rouge, YHZ definitely seems like a potential Rouge route, and it could free up a LHR slot.

My vote goes to the CS300, allowing flights from YHZ and YYT to DUB, LHR, EDI, FRA, AMS, CDG. 120-135 seats in J/Y+/Y or Y+/Y config. They can also fly YHZ/YYT to FLL, MIA, IAH, ORD, CUN, LAX. Great for locals living in YHZ/YYT and great opportunities for connection possibilities if the price is right.

jfk777 wrote:

Air Canada at one time had an A319 to LHR, its only about 2,200 miles, not a long distance for any commercial plane made today. The Canadian Maritime Provinces are so close to London that a morning flight is viable as is an overnight one. Two 737 Max flights are viable daily but using a 787 from Halifax or St. John to London or Europe is silly, an overkill. This is the type of route a 737 Max was designed for.

Air Canada continue to use the A319 into Heathrow from St Johns daily with two dedicated ETOP cleared aircraft C-GITP and C-GITR and flight numbers AC822/823 .
From St Johns they operate a connecting domestic flight back to Toronto .
These frames also operate the longer Caribbean , Mexican and over water flights to Bermuda.

Air Canada has some years of experience behind them with these aircraft , so use of max/A321LR types wouldn't come as a surprise on some/more Canadian Maritimes- Europe routes in the years ahead and as the 763 leave mainline operations imho.

longhauler wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

using a 787 from Halifax or St. John to London or Europe is silly, an overkill. This is the type of route a 737 Max was designed for.

Not if you can fill 280+ seats and 30,000 kgs of cargo. The 787 can fly 15 hours, it doesn't have to! In other words, one 787 can do the job cheaper than 2 MAX-8s.

And who knows ... YHZ-LHR might just be one small leg of 5 days of worldwide flying .... YVR-BNE-YVR-LHR-YHZ-LHR-YYC etc etc etc. And YHZ-LHR is quite a bit longer than a few present 787 routes ... YYZ-YVR, YYZ-SFO, YYZ-LAX

sixtyseven wrote:

As for them all being ETOPS that is not my understanding. I think only about a dozen will be delivered ETOPS.

Yes, that was not worded well. The point I was making, is that the ones that are ETOPS equipped, will arrive from Boeing with the certification already intact. With a new airframe/engine/airline combination, Transport Canada paused, looked closely at the specs, then allowed it. Boeing publicly announced that achievement. So, if AC chose, the innagural flight could be YHZ-FRA.

What type of Cargo for 30,000 kgs. is carried ? Fresh Fish and perishables or can it go via Toronto ?

dr1980 wrote:

longhauler wrote:

The only exception might be YHZ-LHR. Rumours are running that when the MAX-8 is delivered, YHZ-LHR will be replaced by two MAX-8s flying YHZ-LHR and YHZ-FRA.

I have to say as a Haligonian I find that very interesting!

Same here! I have some family in FRA and not having to connect via YYZ or YUL would be kinda nice and save me a few hours.

jfk777 wrote:

What type of Cargo for 30,000 kgs. is carried ? Fresh Fish and perishables or can it go via Toronto ?

Of course it can go through Toronto. But why? When you have a daily wide body from YHZ already. Why try to make the whole operation more difficult when the solution already exists?

Remember, that the 787 was chosen as a 767-300 and A330-300 replacement. We really shouldn't be surprised when that happens.

longhauler wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

What type of Cargo for 30,000 kgs. is carried ? Fresh Fish and perishables or can it go via Toronto ?

Of course it can go through Toronto. But why? When you have a daily wide body from YHZ already. Why try to make the whole operation more difficult when the solution already exists?

Remember, that the 787 was chosen as a 767-300 and A330-300 replacement. We really shouldn't be surprised when that happens.

Hey Longhauler, any chance that the 737-8 MAX is within range of YOW-CDG? With the enormous amount of CDG leakage to YUL, it has always perplexed me that YOW-CDG has never been served at least on a summer-seasonal basis by someone...TS' insincere attempt for two summers a decade ago to prevent Zoom from launching YOW-CDG notwithstanding. The 738MAX seems like the perfect aircraft for this type of market if it's within range. Here's were the 321LR would have definitely been within range for AC.

The problem with the 737 MAX isn't the pax capacity or range, it's the cargo capacity. It can't compete with the 763 or 788 with what they can carry downstairs.
YHZ sends tons of fresh seafood, produce and other products overseas via LHR every year, currently on the 763. If the MAX ever replaces the 763 on the YHZ-LHR route, my bet is we will see a massive drop in what AC Cargo directly ships out YHZ and the Maritime Provinces.
I feel that way because that's what happened here in YYT. Only a few years ago, AC flew YHZ-YYT-LHR with the 767. Almost every flight was blocked with cargo from YHZ going to LHR. Many times there was so much cargo loaded on the a/c in YHZ, that they didn't leave enough room for us to load our heavy/over sized cargo on the plane here in YYT. There was literally competition between YHZ and YYT to get space on the 767 to ship cargo overseas.
I remember many times that the flight would arrive in YYT with 4-6 pallets full of lobster bound for Europe. We would have to jockey things around to fit other pallets being shipped from YYT with either fresh seafood, seal pelts, blueberries or large, heavy drill bits for offshore oil production. The amount of cargo being shipped to LHR from YHZ and YYT was crazy. The 767 wasn't even big enough to carry it all!
In the summer of 2003 or 2004, AC made the decision to upgrade the YHZ-YYT-LHR route from the 763 to the 744! However, due to constraints from the YYT airport fire dept, AC downgraded the 744 to the A333. Even then, the flights still went out loaded with freight.
Unfortunately, a few years ago, AC decided to pull the 767 off the YYT portion of the route and replace it with the A319. With that downgrade, we here in YYT saw a massive reduction in cargo carried. We used to carry oil rig drill bits that weighed over 8000 lbs...no problems loading those on a 767. Impossible to do so on the 319. We also shipped out tons local seafood and other products that was not problem to carry on a widebody a/c, but can't be carried on the A319 because of space limitations or because they're too heavy to be bulk loaded. It's also made a big difference in overall cargo handled by AC in YYT. We don't see near as much freight anymore as much of it is sent now on Cargo Jet.
I fear that the much the same will happen to AC Cargo in YHZ if the route is downgraded to the MAX.

SaschaYHZ wrote:

dr1980 wrote:

longhauler wrote:

The only exception might be YHZ-LHR. Rumours are running that when the MAX-8 is delivered, YHZ-LHR will be replaced by two MAX-8s flying YHZ-LHR and YHZ-FRA.

I have to say as a Haligonian I find that very interesting!

Same here! I have some family in FRA and not having to connect via YYZ or YUL would be kinda nice and save me a few hours.

Condor flies seasonal 763 from YHZ-FRA, that leaves winter open but I still don't see a profitable decent market even for AC to jump in with a MAX-8 on that route...yet.

As for rumors of YHZ losing wide-body service to LHR those rumors will likely fade away as both pax and cargo yields will continue to remain strong.

bmacleod wrote:

Condor flies seasonal 763 from YHZ-FRA, that leaves winter open but I still don't see a profitable decent market even for AC to jump in with a MAX-8 on that route...yet.

I would see that as being two very different markets.

Condor flying leisure passengers from Germany to Halifax would indeed be seasonal. But my guess is that AC would be flying passengers from Atlantic Canada through connections at YHZ through connections in FRA to anywhere east.

You've probably noticed a shift in connections from LHR to FRA, as AC has lost it's Star Alliance connection partner at LHR to strong connection capabilities through FRA. While there will always be a cultural tie between the Maritimes / Newfoundland and the UK, for people travelling to Europe and points east, the connection is probably better at FRA. The big question would be therefore, is if there is enough connection traffic to warrant a daily flight as there is likely little point to point traffic.

The thing is though, I can't ever see a year-round YHZ-FRA service if YOW-FRA doesn't ever get restored back to year-round service.

bmacleod wrote:

SaschaYHZ wrote:

dr1980 wrote:

I have to say as a Haligonian I find that very interesting!

Same here! I have some family in FRA and not having to connect via YYZ or YUL would be kinda nice and save me a few hours.

Condor flies seasonal 763 from YHZ-FRA, that leaves winter open but I still don't see a profitable decent market even for AC to jump in with a MAX-8 on that route...yet.

As for rumors of YHZ losing wide-body service to LHR those rumors will likely fade away as both pax and cargo yields will continue to remain strong.

That is an option, however having AC employees as family, YHZ-FRA non stop would be good price wise, and from a bit of a selfish PoV.