China Airlines might axe its New York route:

- China Airlines reportedly lost US$10 million on New York route (only 5x weekly) in first four months of the year.
- China Airlines' New York route difficult because of new cabin crew agreement and interior design is very heavy.
- China Airlines considers cancelling New York route: even to consider, telling.
- China Airlines briefly mentions possibility of JV for US.

Source
https://tw.mobi.yahoo.com/news/%E8%8F%A ... nance.html
https://twitter.com/winglets747 (translation)

I always thought that there would be enough demand to support flights to TPE with the large Taiwanese diaspora in the region. I guess BR with 2x daily and CX with 4x daily along with the 1x daily from EWR are too much for them?

maortega15 wrote:

I always thought that there would be enough demand to support flights to TPE with the large Taiwanese diaspora in the region. I guess BR with 2x daily and CX with 4x daily along with the 1x daily from EWR are too much for them?

Demand probably isn't the issue, yields likely are. JFK-TPE is a long route, TPE isn't the highest yielding destination (and if targeting diaspora that doesn't help), and China Airlines doesn't have the greatest reputation in the world (although better than it was ~20 years ago).

Polot wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

I always thought that there would be enough demand to support flights to TPE with the large Taiwanese diaspora in the region. I guess BR with 2x daily and CX with 4x daily along with the 1x daily from EWR are too much for them?

Demand probably isn't the issue, yields likely are. JFK-TPE is a long route, TPE isn't the highest yielding destination (and if targeting diaspora that doesn't help), and China Airlines doesn't have the greatest reputation in the world (although better than it was ~20 years ago).

You can say the same for MNL too. JFK-MNL is a much longer route and the Filipino diaspora in the NY area is not that great compared to the Taiwanese diaspora. PR doesn't really have a great reputation either (service wise). Filipinos are notoriously known to take the cheapest option over convenience and there are a lot of choices from the NYC are to MNL and are cheaper than PR and the stop in YVR doesn't help their case although they plan to do it nonstop with the A350 next year.

Sorry to digress.

I guess the loads for CI aren't that great.

Sounds like a sensible business decision. Usually they have already got another route planned that they think the asset would earn more on.

maortega15 wrote:

Polot wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

I always thought that there would be enough demand to support flights to TPE with the large Taiwanese diaspora in the region. I guess BR with 2x daily and CX with 4x daily along with the 1x daily from EWR are too much for them?

Demand probably isn't the issue, yields likely are. JFK-TPE is a long route, TPE isn't the highest yielding destination (and if targeting diaspora that doesn't help), and China Airlines doesn't have the greatest reputation in the world (although better than it was ~20 years ago).

You can say the same for MNL too. JFK-MNL is a much longer route and the Filipino diaspora in the NY area is not that great compared to the Taiwanese diaspora. PR doesn't really have a great reputation either (service wise). Filipinos are notoriously known to take the cheapest option over convenience and there are a lot of choices from the NYC are to MNL and are cheaper than PR and the stop in YVR doesn't help their case although they plan to do it nonstop with the A350 next year.

Sorry to digress.

I guess the loads for CI aren't that great.

Well we don't actually know how well PR is doing in JFK either...

Also while PR may not have the greatest reputation in service that doesn't really matter, people will overlook service for price/schedule. The problem with CI is its reputation hits it in an area that does actually matter and where passengers will actually actively book away: safety.

Who would JV with them on JFK-TPE route?

flyinghippo wrote:

Who would JV with them on JFK-TPE route?

Not to JFK but probably via LAX or TPE and just codeshare with DL to JFK

If this does get xxld it will free up two A359s so which route or routes would they be redeployed on?

flyinghippo wrote:

Who would JV with them on JFK-TPE route?

The article said they are considering cs with Delta via SFO/LAX whom just signed a cooperation agreement with them back in April

behramjee wrote:

If this does get xxld it will free up two A359s so which route or routes would they be redeployed on?

They're using the 77W

Polot wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

Polot wrote:

Also while PR may not have the greatest reputation in service that doesn't really matter, people will overlook service for price/schedule. The problem with CI is its reputation hits it in an area that does actually matter and where passengers will actually actively book away: safety.

I agree, CI still has a reputation that it has to overcome. The reality in flying them in 3 different classes of the last 4 years is that they really have become excellent. Even with improvements thought, they still are usually one of the cheapest options to Asia outside of the Chinese carriers.This is probably based on the perception that they are not safe/good. I also think that two major international carriers for Taiwan likely impacts yields for both BR and CI.

behramjee wrote:

If this does get xxld it will free up two A359s so which route or routes would they be redeployed on?

This flight is operated by a 77W.

- Would it be that they're planning to use the aircraft for their new LGW route?
- Or could it be that it is simply an indirect way to tell their crews, especially those US-based crews, if they continue their fight for more resources then they might have to axe the line and make them lost the job?

EVA Air is increasingly dominating CI on US services. More destinations, more frequencies.

EVA and CX are killing CI on USA routes. NYC would be the most effected, as CI is already by far the weakest in terms of frequency offered. Last time I flew CX's HKG-EWR, the flight is full with Taiwanese passengers representing over 50% in Y. HKG-JFK is less so. Taipei is not a business destinations for NYC business (i.e. banks) as well, while I would imagine TPE-SFO may be a more business route than TPE-NYC due to Taiwan's position in the tech industry but negligible financial industry. Cancelling JFK would make sense.

raylee67 wrote:

EVA and CX are killing CI on USA routes. NYC would be the most effected, as CI is already by far the weakest in terms of frequency offered. Last time I flew CX's HKG-EWR, the flight is full with Taiwanese passengers representing over 50% in Y. HKG-JFK is less so. Taipei is not a business destinations for NYC business (i.e. banks) as well, while I would imagine TPE-SFO may be a more business route than TPE-NYC due to Taiwan's position in the tech industry but negligible financial industry. Cancelling JFK would make sense.

CI also has a shuttle bus service between JFK and Philadelphia and certain points in NJ. With CX's EWR service, the shuttle bus isn't really convenient for CI. Would you rather transit without lugging your bags or take a bus lugging around your bags?

KarelXWB wrote:

- China Airlines' New York route difficult because of new cabin crew agreement

What is the new agreement? And why did they agree to it?

GolfBravoRomeo wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

- China Airlines' New York route difficult because of new cabin crew agreement

What is the new agreement? And why did they agree to it?

https://www.china-airlines.com/tw/zh/di ... /20170417#
22 Delta flight within America will be codeshared with CI and 12 CI TPAC and Asia flight will be codeshared with Delta
It also include Delta flights ex-NY..

Would putting an A359 on the route lower trip costs to make it more viable? They got so many 744Fs going to JFK I doubt the loss of cargo capacity is a major issue for them down gauging from a 77W.
Might they be better off at IAD, BOS etc now they have A359s capable of non stop, or even using one stop at ANC etc with an A333??.

Stupid CI. CX can sustain so many flights between HKG and JFK/EWR while they can't even do 5 times weekly?

Even SQ can do it

United Airline wrote:

Stupid CI. CX can sustain so many flights between HKG and JFK/EWR while they can't even do 5 times weekly?

Even SQ can do it

BR has twice daily already and TPE is not HKG.

They couldn't even do TPE-LHR daily while CX is doing HKG-LHR 5 times daily and HKG-LGW daily.

United Airline wrote:

Stupid CI. CX can sustain so many flights between HKG and JFK/EWR while they can't even do 5 times weekly?

Even SQ can do it

So CI is stupid for pulling out of a route that is not sustainable anymore?! Give me a break. The reason CX and SQ are able to fill their planes is because of their superior connections with their Asian network.

You're notoriously known on here to ask things when they will return to their former glory. I wouldn't be surprised to see a thread from you on when will CI and CX return to their former glory...

United Airline wrote:

They couldn't even do TPE-LHR daily while CX is doing HKG-LHR 5 times daily and HKG-LGW daily.

TPE IS NOT HKG

bfitzflyer wrote:

Polot wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

I also think that two major international carriers for Taiwan likely impacts yields for both BR and CI.

I was under the impression that there is a political element to the fact that Taiwan has two carriers -- that Kuomintang supporters usually flew CI, and Democratic People's Party supporters fly BR, and that they two airlines' liveries/corporate colors even match those of the respective parties.

Perhaps one of the Taiwanese posters can elaborate as to whether this is accurate?

United Airline wrote:

Stupid CI. CX can sustain so many flights between HKG and JFK/EWR while they can't even do 5 times weekly?

Even SQ can do it

There is more demand from HKG&SIN than Taipei.Also as pointed out it isn't about HKG&SIN it's about Taipei.

United Airline wrote:

They couldn't even do TPE-LHR daily while CX is doing HKG-LHR 5 times daily and HKG-LGW daily.

They had to do TPE-LHR non stop with and A343 due to the Taiwan UK ASA (which had a historical carrier - BR- given a one stop flight to UK and a new authority for a non stop given few years ago to CI) along with the PRC flight restrictions which made all Taiwanese carriers fly over an hour+ longer than non Taiwanese ones like CX (which gets to fly a shorter direct route over western China). BR does their UK flights via BKK which has a lot of traffic. I dont know the actual numbers but I suspect without that BKK stop, BR may not be doing LHR that often either. Or profitably, but then BR isnt there to make money, it has always had its shipping arm to subsidize everything. Since their rapid expansion taking on many 77Ws etc, their yields have dropped, see their recent financials. The ROC government arent into subsidizing CI like they did decades ago, they may never let it fail completely but they arent pumping money in or having the CAA lease them planes at a pittance (BRs view of what happened) like in previous years either.
Even today Taiwanese carriers on non stops to Europe fly north over Japan/Korea and then Russian Far East before going west over Siberia, on the east bound they have to fly south of the Himalayas and only route over SW China and close to HK. They cannot fly over Xinjiang on a more direct route like all other carriers from HK to Europe. There is also a huge historic UK-HK market unlike UK-Taiwan.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Forgive me, but what do LHR/Europe, HKG and SIN have to do with JFK-TPE?

If JFK-TPE is overwhelmingly loaded with lower yielding VFR traffic, then I can see where the route could be unprofitable. Full seats at bargain prices doesn't equate to a less full load but with full fare tickets, especially at the front end. I would have thought NYC-TPE would be a bigger business route than it sounds like from the above posts. Is Taiwan/Taipei that far down the ladder as far as big corporate and banking interests go, compared to the other Asian business capitals?

maortega15 wrote:

Polot wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

I always thought that there would be enough demand to support flights to TPE with the large Taiwanese diaspora in the region. I guess BR with 2x daily and CX with 4x daily along with the 1x daily from EWR are too much for them?

Demand probably isn't the issue, yields likely are. JFK-TPE is a long route, TPE isn't the highest yielding destination (and if targeting diaspora that doesn't help), and China Airlines doesn't have the greatest reputation in the world (although better than it was ~20 years ago).

You can say the same for MNL too. JFK-MNL is a much longer route and the Filipino diaspora in the NY area is not that great compared to the Taiwanese diaspora. PR doesn't really have a great reputation either (service wise). Filipinos are notoriously known to take the cheapest option over convenience and there are a lot of choices from the NYC are to MNL and are cheaper than PR and the stop in YVR doesn't help their case although they plan to do it nonstop with the A350 next year.

Sorry to digress.

I guess the loads for CI aren't that great.

At least Philippine Airlines can carry fifth freedom traffic between JFK and YVR, but the 77W is way too much plane. The Boeing 787-9 would be a more suitable plane for this route with Business and Fiesta Economy. Likewise, the Boeing 787-9 or the A350-900XWB (the latter is what CI has) would be more suitable than a 77W for JFK-TPE, since I doubt that China Airlines carries any cargo on the passenger planes, flying cargo-only flights 5 times weekly JFK-TPE via ANC. I do suspect that the DL/KE joint venture could spell the end of JFK-TPE for CI when it could simply fly passengers to ICN and then put passengers on KE to New York on its double-daily service. (From mainland China, the 787-9 or the A359 is the perfect-sized plane from secondary Chinese destinations to New York; Xiamen Airlines uses a B789 Fuzhou to JFK.)

BTW, EVA Air is cutting back to 11-12 weekly on JFK to TPE.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

Polot wrote:

Demand probably isn't the issue, yields likely are. JFK-TPE is a long route, TPE isn't the highest yielding destination (and if targeting diaspora that doesn't help), and China Airlines doesn't have the greatest reputation in the world (although better than it was ~20 years ago).

You can say the same for MNL too. JFK-MNL is a much longer route and the Filipino diaspora in the NY area is not that great compared to the Taiwanese diaspora. PR doesn't really have a great reputation either (service wise). Filipinos are notoriously known to take the cheapest option over convenience and there are a lot of choices from the NYC are to MNL and are cheaper than PR and the stop in YVR doesn't help their case although they plan to do it nonstop with the A350 next year.

Sorry to digress.

I guess the loads for CI aren't that great.

At least Philippine Airlines can carry fifth freedom traffic between JFK and YVR, but the 77W is way too much plane. The Boeing 787-9 would be a more suitable plane for this route with Business and Fiesta Economy. Likewise, the Boeing 787-9 or the A350-900XWB (the latter is what CI has) would be more suitable than a 77W for JFK-TPE, since I doubt that China Airlines carries any cargo on the passenger planes, flying cargo-only flights 5 times weekly JFK-TPE via ANC. I do suspect that the DL/KE joint venture could spell the end of JFK-TPE for CI when it could simply fly passengers to ICN and then put passengers on KE to New York on its double-daily service. (From mainland China, the 787-9 or the A359 is the perfect-sized plane from secondary Chinese destinations to New York; Xiamen Airlines uses a B789 Fuzhou to JFK.)

BTW, EVA Air is cutting back to 11-12 weekly on JFK to TPE.

They've cut back for awhile now.

Wingtips56 wrote:

Forgive me, but what do LHR/Europe, HKG and SIN have to do with JFK-TPE?

If JFK-TPE is overwhelmingly loaded with lower yielding VFR traffic, then I can see where the route could be unprofitable. Full seats at bargain prices doesn't equate to a less full load but with full fare tickets, especially at the front end. I would have thought NYC-TPE would be a bigger business route than it sounds like from the above posts. Is Taiwan/Taipei that far down the ladder as far as big corporate and banking interests go, compared to the other Asian business capitals?

Its not a financial center like HKG, TYO or SIN. Its nowhere as big as Korea. As someone said west coast esp Silicon Valley to TPE may be heavy business traffic. LAX is probably mostly VFR also. It also cant have mainland Chinese transit through TPE to China, at least to the main hubs due to the restrictions on cross straits travel- IIRC only CKG,KNM, KHN allowed.
With one local carrier already doing twice daily from NYC, others in the area ie CX, only a short flight away, all the US big 3 able to feed their west coast, midwest etc hubs to east Asia, CI are in a tough spot. They had to give up SEA after quite a few years and IAH after a short time.
With the A359s maybe they should be flying to smaller US markets without direct flights to TPE and with lots of cargo potential.
They're changing SFO to A359 from 77W, if JFK goes where are the 77Ws going? That leaves LAX, FRA only.

SurlyBonds wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

Polot wrote:

I also think that two major international carriers for Taiwan likely impacts yields for both BR and CI.

I was under the impression that there is a political element to the fact that Taiwan has two carriers -- that Kuomintang supporters usually flew CI, and Democratic People's Party supporters fly BR, and that they two airlines' liveries/corporate colors even match those of the respective parties.

Perhaps one of the Taiwanese posters can elaborate as to whether this is accurate?

Not true. CI has leadership changes when the ruling party changes. Although BR was suspected of supporting the DPP via their livery, it was never confirmed. They had a supposed "falling out" with the DPP that led to them openly supporting the KMT in the 2000s. However, BR now remains neutral and heavily donates to both parties.

trex8 wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

Forgive me, but what do LHR/Europe, HKG and SIN have to do with JFK-TPE?

If JFK-TPE is overwhelmingly loaded with lower yielding VFR traffic, then I can see where the route could be unprofitable. Full seats at bargain prices doesn't equate to a less full load but with full fare tickets, especially at the front end. I would have thought NYC-TPE would be a bigger business route than it sounds like from the above posts. Is Taiwan/Taipei that far down the ladder as far as big corporate and banking interests go, compared to the other Asian business capitals?

Its not a financial center like HKG, TYO or SIN. Its nowhere as big as Korea. As someone said west coast esp Silicon Valley to TPE may be heavy business traffic. LAX is probably mostly VFR also. It also cant have mainland Chinese transit through TPE to China, at least to the main hubs due to the restrictions on cross straits travel- IIRC only CKG,KNM, KHN allowed.
With one local carrier already doing twice daily from NYC, others in the area ie CX, only a short flight away, all the US big 3 able to feed their west coast, midwest etc hubs to east Asia, CI are in a tough spot. They had to give up SEA after quite a few years and IAH after a short time.
With the A359s maybe they should be flying to smaller US markets without direct flights to TPE and with lots of cargo potential.
They're changing SFO to A359 from 77W, if JFK goes where are the 77Ws going? That leaves LAX, FRA only.

CI is boosting SFO to 11 weekly as well. Not sure if both flights are 359 with this change...

SFOA380 wrote:

CI is boosting SFO to 11 weekly as well. Not sure if both flights are 359 with this change...

Not totally clear from the press release if its a . mix of 77W and A359 or only A359
https://www.china-airlines.com/us/en/di ... e/20170515
San Francisco was the first American destination when China Airlines began developing Trans-Pacific services in 1970. The 777 passenger aircraft was introduced in July, 2015, and the new A350 aircraft will also be used on existing and additional services from May14 onwards. The newly added CI-16 Taipei-San Francisco service will depart at 6:00PM and arrive at 2:25PM local time on the same day in San Francisco. The CI-15 San Francisco-Taipei return flight departs at 4:50PM and arrives in Taipei at 9:10PM on the following day. The new service will provide travelers flying between Taiwan and America with more options.

edit; timetable shows all flights A359 .https://www.china-airlines.com/us/en/Im ... 2-5191.pdf

For fun here is how BR and CI stack up on Trans Pacific passenger flight frequencies. I used week of July 10th.

BR
IAH - 7x 77W
JFK - 10x 77W
LAX - 21x 77W
ORD - 7x 77W
SEA - 10x 77W
SFO - 14x 77W
YVR - 7x 77W/744
YYZ - 7x 77W
= 83 flights

CI
HNL - 9x A330
JFK - 5x 77W
LAX - 14x 77W
SFO - 10x A350
YVR - 7x 744
= 45 flights

Based on what many have written, should we expect CI to convert TPE-JFK to the A359 to see if it can be saved? It would be a pity if this route would cease to exist. Then again, if the economics are not there, then the responsible choice would be to terminate this route and allocate the aircraft to more profitable routes.

I will always regret not flying CI's 744 fifth freedom service from JFK to KIX while it existed. Interesting that CI never considered dropping that service while it existed; perhaps CI made more money dropping and picking up passengers at KIX?

EddieDude wrote:

Based on what many have written, should we expect CI to convert TPE-JFK to the A359 to see if it can be saved? It would be a pity if this route would cease to exist. Then again, if the economics are not there, then the responsible choice would be to terminate this route and allocate the aircraft to more profitable routes.

I will always regret not flying CI's 744 fifth freedom service from JFK to KIX while it existed. Interesting that CI never considered dropping that service while it existed; perhaps CI made more money dropping and picking up passengers at KIX?

- From the report linked in OP, it said the route is losing money almost every year, so I don't think that stopover help a lot.
- It also said that back in 2012 when fuel price was high they're urged to drop LHR and JFK routes which were losing the most money, and at the end after considering the route's history they axed the new LHR and keep the JFK route. At the time I think it had a Japanese stop?

c933103 wrote:

From the report linked in OP, it said the route is losing money almost every year, so I don't think that stopover help a lot.
- It also said that back in 2012 when fuel price was high they're urged to drop LHR and JFK routes which were losing the most money, and at the end after considering the route's history they axed the new LHR and keep the JFK route. At the time I think it had a Japanese stop?

Yes, that was exactly my point. In the past, before the 77Ws, CI flew TPE-KIX-JFK-KIX-TPE. That stopped some years ago when the 77Ws came along and it became a nonstop. I wonder if the route made a bit of money when the flight stopped at KIX with fifth freedom rights; it was very clear from the beginning of the thread that it has not made a profit since it became nonstop.

I am wondering if 4 or 5 weekly 77W's flying TPE-BOS-TPE would work? I think ICN on KE or OZ would be the most likely additions to BOS asia service

LAXintl wrote:

For fun here is how BR and CI stack up on Trans Pacific passenger flight frequencies. I used week of July 10th.

BR
IAH - 7x 77W
JFK - 10x 77W
LAX - 21x 77W
ORD - 7x 77W
SEA - 10x 77W
SFO - 14x 77W
YVR - 7x 77W/744
YYZ - 7x 77W
= 83 flights

CI
HNL - 9x A330
JFK - 5x 77W
LAX - 14x 77W
SFO - 10x A350
YVR - 7x 744
= 45 flights

BR has the strongest flights to North America due to good safety records and customer service. They'll keep growing, and perhaps (considering) start new flights to San Jose-Mineta, Washington DC, Boston, or Mexico.

EddieDude wrote:

c933103 wrote:

From the report linked in OP, it said the route is losing money almost every year, so I don't think that stopover help a lot.
- It also said that back in 2012 when fuel price was high they're urged to drop LHR and JFK routes which were losing the most money, and at the end after considering the route's history they axed the new LHR and keep the JFK route. At the time I think it had a Japanese stop?

Yes, that was exactly my point. In the past, before the 77Ws, CI flew TPE-KIX-JFK-KIX-TPE. That stopped some years ago when the 77Ws came along and it became a nonstop. I wonder if the route made a bit of money when the flight stopped at KIX with fifth freedom rights; it was very clear from the beginning of the thread that it has not made a profit since it became nonstop.

Or maybe its more to do with those $1 1/4million+/month lease payments versus a paid off 744 (even with more fuel burn an dmx costs)!

georgiabill wrote:

I am wondering if 4 or 5 weekly 77W's flying TPE-BOS-TPE would work? I think ICN on KE or OZ would be the most likely additions to BOS asia service

An A359 would seem a better fit for the market. I agree BOS or IAD would be a good place for them to go.

precure787 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

For fun here is how BR and CI stack up on Trans Pacific passenger flight frequencies. I used week of July 10th.

BR
IAH - 7x 77W
JFK - 10x 77W
LAX - 21x 77W
ORD - 7x 77W
SEA - 10x 77W
SFO - 14x 77W
YVR - 7x 77W/744
YYZ - 7x 77W
= 83 flights

CI
HNL - 9x A330
JFK - 5x 77W
LAX - 14x 77W
SFO - 10x A350
YVR - 7x 744
= 45 flights

BR has the strongest flights to North America due to good safety records and customer service. They'll keep growing, and perhaps (considering) start new flights to San Jose-Mineta, Washington DC, Boston, or Mexico.

Growth is great, they just need to turn it into revenue
For first 5 months, BR increased pax numbers by 10% over 2016, RPK by 15% but revenue only by 7%! Cargo a little better, revenue up 7% on 5% increase FTK
http://www.evaair.com/images/englobal/e ... -47231.pdf

CI has been flat, pax up 1%, RPK 5% but revenue only 2%. Cargo has done much better for them revenue up 16% on 5% increase in FTK
https://www.china-airlines.com/us/en/Im ... -22900.pdf

I know they were planning on serving YYZ until BR came in and filled the bilateral. Dropping NYC could allow them to upguage YVR and use the extra frequencies to YYZ, however, yields to YVR are absolutely abysmal (they sell F as J and J as Y+ on the 747, or they did recently according to onemileatatime). So that there is another option. Otherwise, I could definitely see SFO picking up the 77W to upguage it's A359's.

trex8 wrote:

maybe its more to do with those $1 1/4million+/month lease payments versus a paid off 744 (even with more fuel burn an dmx costs)!

Good point trex8. Very expensive leases.

whywhyzee wrote:

I know they were planning on serving YYZ until BR came in and filled the bilateral. Dropping NYC could allow them to upguage YVR and use the extra frequencies to YYZ, however, yields to YVR are absolutely abysmal (they sell F as J and J as Y+ on the 747, or they did recently according to onemileatatime). So that there is another option. Otherwise, I could definitely see SFO picking up the 77W to upguage it's A359's.

SFO was 77W till 2 months ago then they downgauged to A359 although they did increase frequency. I doubt it will go back to 77W soon. They need a 788 or A338 to pioneer new routes. Plus something that size will fill in the gap between the 738 and A359/333 in their fleet.

trex8 wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

I know they were planning on serving YYZ until BR came in and filled the bilateral. Dropping NYC could allow them to upguage YVR and use the extra frequencies to YYZ, however, yields to YVR are absolutely abysmal (they sell F as J and J as Y+ on the 747, or they did recently according to onemileatatime). So that there is another option. Otherwise, I could definitely see SFO picking up the 77W to upguage it's A359's.

SFO was 77W till 2 months ago then they downgauged to A359 although they did increase frequency. I doubt it will go back to 77W soon. They need a 788 or A338 to pioneer new routes. Plus something that size will fill in the gap between the 738 and A359/333 in their fleet.

SFO will be 77W during the month of Dec.