EBITDAR of $1.265B
Operating income of $840M
Revenue of $5.415B

https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2018-10 ... 18-Results

Pretty good news considering the current global realities. I'm just hoping that intl expansion won't slow down too much.

Surprisingly strong revenue growth YOY, and good EBITDAR margin actual and forecast. All an investor really needs to know at a high level. Looks good.

yyz717 wrote:

Surprisingly strong revenue growth YOY, and good EBITDAR margin actual and forecast. All an investor really needs to know at a high level. Looks good.

Frankly, anything else would be a major embarrassment considering Air Canada is basically operating a monopoly the way the government protects the air routes.

aviationaware wrote:

Frankly, anything else would be a major embarrassment considering Air Canada is basically operating a monopoly the way the government protects the air routes.

You need to refresh yourself on the definition of monopoly.

[photoid][/photoid]

aviationaware wrote:

yyz717 wrote:

Surprisingly strong revenue growth YOY, and good EBITDAR margin actual and forecast. All an investor really needs to know at a high level. Looks good.

Frankly, anything else would be a major embarrassment considering Air Canada is basically operating a monopoly the way the government protects the air routes.

With a comment like this, you’re definitely not aviation aware

aviationaware wrote:

Frankly, anything else would be a major embarrassment considering Air Canada is basically operating a monopoly the way the government protects the air routes.

Believe it or not, AC serves a number of routes other than those on which it competes with Emirates.

Whoops looks like I tapped a nest of angry Canadian honey bees who are sour grapes over being confronted with facts.

The Fraser Institute agrees with me.

aviationaware wrote:

Whoops looks like I tapped a nest of angry Canadian honey bees who are sour grapes over being confronted with facts.

WestJet.

aviationaware wrote:

Whoops looks like I tapped a nest of angry Canadian honey bees who are sour grapes over being confronted with facts.

The Fraser Institute agrees with me.

First of all, the Fraser Institute--always a reliable source there. Secondly, pray tell where did the Fraser Institute say that it agrees with you?

If you had said duopoly on domestic routes, you'd have a case. Otherwise, your statement is ridiculous.

YYZLGA wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Whoops looks like I tapped a nest of angry Canadian honey bees who are sour grapes over being confronted with facts.

The Fraser Institute agrees with me.

First of all, the Fraser Institute--always a reliable source there. Secondly, pray tell where did the Fraser Institute say that it agrees with you?

If you had said duopoly on domestic routes, you'd have a case. Otherwise, your statement is ridiculous.

I guess Fraser Institute has noticed Air Canada has no competition on domestic flights, no US airline flies to Canada and Air Canada is the only carrier who flies internationally from Canada.

Congratulations to the employees of Air Canada. I always fly them to visit family in Montréal and they have always taken very good care of me.

YYZLGA wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Whoops looks like I tapped a nest of angry Canadian honey bees who are sour grapes over being confronted with facts.

The Fraser Institute agrees with me.

First of all, the Fraser Institute--always a reliable source there. Secondly, pray tell where did the Fraser Institute say that it agrees with you?

If you had said duopoly on domestic routes, you'd have a case. Otherwise, your statement is ridiculous.

You do realize I was being hyperbolic when I said monopoly. I didn't mean it literally. You cannot possibly argue that the Canadian airline market is anywhere near as deregulated as that of the US or Europe. Don't embarrass yourself.

Duopoly.

aviationaware wrote:

You do realize I was being hyperbolic when I said monopoly. I didn't mean it literally. You cannot possibly argue that the Canadian airline market is anywhere near as deregulated as that of the US or Europe. Don't embarrass yourself.

Oh forgive me! I am terribly embarrassed that I took you saying "Air Canada is basically operating a monopoly" to mean "Air Canada is basically operating a monopoly." How I could have possibly drawn that conclusion is beyond me.

The government regulations around domestic flying in Canada and the US are pretty much the same. There are no route authorities or anything like that, and any Canadian is free to lease a few planes and start up an airline. It's a fully deregulated system. Unfortunately, deregulated systems often tend toward oligopoly (as is mostly the case in the US and as is increasingly becoming the case in Europe). The US (a much larger market) is overwhelmingly dominated by four large national carriers, with a handful of smaller carriers serving more niche markets. The Canadian domestic market is dominated by two large national carriers, along with a handful of smaller carriers serving niche markets (Porter, Air Transat, the new ULCCs, the northern carriers, etc.).

AC's domestic market share is around 45%. Westjet's is around 25%. As a comparison, the Lufthansa group's domestic market share in Germany is 87%.

You have to remember the population of Canada is less than half of the UKs. Its a tiny population for such a big country so there isnt a massive need for more airlines.

What's also particularly impressive is that Air Canada's also expecting FCF in the range of $500m to $600m for FY2018.

I do wish Air Canada was a little more forthcoming with their NI figure in their PR. NI for the first nine months of 2018 is $398m, which is down from $2,021m for the equivalent period last year. This year definitely won't be as stellar as last, but nonetheless great to see Air Canada remaining profitable.

aviationaware wrote:

Frankly, anything else would be a major embarrassment considering Air Canada is basically operating a monopoly the way the government protects the air routes.

This guy ......

Back in this neat space called reality, WS are deferring MAX8s bc they can't deploy them profitably. US3 are slashing USA<>CAN routes/frequencies every quarter

No doubt, due to the Cdn gov't again ...... "protecting the air routes"

YYZLGA wrote:

AC's domestic market share is around 45%. Westjet's is around 25%. As a comparison, the Lufthansa group's domestic market share in Germany is 87%.

Comparing the domestic markets of Canada and Germany is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Lufthansa's main competitor on domestic routes is the railway, which is not included in your number. Of course there are plenty of people travelling Vancouver to Toronto by train in Canada, right?

Also, why are you so hung up on the domestic market? Domestic did not even contribute a third to Air Canada's revenue last year.

B748eye wrote:

No doubt, due to the Cdn gov't again ...... "protecting the air routes"

Air Canada is the only legacy airline that's virtually unscathed by the ME3 competition, because there is no competition for Air Canada. They can't fly even daily to a single destination in Canada. How silly is this? Just another example of Ottawa's blatant regulatory protectionism. Thank god Trump at least broke that on some fronts last month with USMCA. The Canadian consumers are paying the price for this corporate welfare queen aka Air Canada.

aviationaware wrote:

Also, why are you so hung up on the domestic market? Domestic did not even contribute a third to Air Canada's revenue last year.

I'm hung up on it because it's the only place where even a limited claim of monopoly (or, more accurately, duopoly) can be made. On international routes, it's patently absurd. AC competes on international routes with Air Transat and WestJet, plus an immense array of international carriers. Pearson, AC's top hub, is served by 28 international carriers not affiliated with AC. Delta's main hub ATL, by comparison, has a grand total of 5 international non-SkyTeam airlines and it's the busiest airport in the world. Maybe they're getting government protection of the air routes! Or maybe not...

You probably shouldn't believe everything the UAE government tells you.

It really does amaze me how deeply concerned about Emirates' access to Canada these people who've likely never even been to Canada seem to be. I doubt this guy is paid by Emirates, because honestly I think they could do better, so I just don't get what motivates them.

The only thing that's absurd is that you refuse to see how protected Air Canada is from competition, even on international long haul markets. Are you an employee of Air Canada or why do you have blindfolds on? Comparing Atlanta to Toronto is apples and oranges all over again, just like your Canada/Germany thing. ATL is big because Delta is big. is YYZ big because Air Canada is big? Of course not, it's the other way around.
And don't do yourself the disservice of branding me a UAE mouthpiece. One look into my posting history will reveal to you that I am more than critical of the ME3 and Arab nations in general. ME3 and Canadian protectionism can both be bad at the same time.

/e changed YYC into YYZ as it was intended to be.

aviationaware wrote:

The only thing that's absurd is that you refuse to see how protected Air Canada is from competition, even on international long haul markets. Are you an employee of Air Canada or why do you have blindfolds on? Comparing Atlanta to Toronto is apples and oranges all over again, just like your Canada/Germany thing. ATL is big because Delta is big. is YYC big because Air Canada is big? Of course not, it's the other way around.
And don't do yourself the disservice of branding me a UAE mouthpiece. One look into my posting history will reveal to you that I am more than critical of the ME3 and Arab nations in general. ME3 and Canadian protectionism can both be bad at the same time.

Please explain--any details at all--precisely how AC is protected from international long-haul competition. Canada has open skies with Europe, by far AC's biggest overseas market. I'm really curious to understand how the Canadian government is "protecting the air routes" for AC. Can you give me any example other than Emirates wanting to operate two more frequencies a week (they just rose to 5/wk)?

As for your examples...they're a bit baffling. YYC is a busy airport because it's WestJet's hub. Not sure how this supports your point in any way.

Have you seen how many countries Canada actually have open skies agreements with? On top of that, under this government’s “Blue Sky Policy”, the Government of Canada has concluded new or expanded air transport agreements covering 104 countries. The policy encourages long-term, sustainable competition and the development of international air services. Not allowing state subsided airlines to endlessly capacity dump into the market is not a bad thing.

Switch over to the other seaboard and see protectionism in full effect. YYC was a typo of course, don't try to deflect from your own poor examples by lambasting me for a typo.

findingnema wrote:

Have you seen how many countries Canada actually have open skies agreements with?

20 according to this rather official looking list, half of which are negligible banana republics with little to no traffic to Canada.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/air-blu ... u-2989.htm

aviationaware wrote:

The only thing that's absurd is that you refuse to see how protected Air Canada is from competition, even on international long haul markets. Are you an employee of Air Canada or why do you have blindfolds on? Comparing Atlanta to Toronto is apples and oranges all over again, just like your Canada/Germany thing. ATL is big because Delta is big. is YYZ big because Air Canada is big? Of course not, it's the other way around.
And don't do yourself the disservice of branding me a UAE mouthpiece. One look into my posting history will reveal to you that I am more than critical of the ME3 and Arab nations in general. ME3 and Canadian protectionism can both be bad at the same time.

/e changed YYC into YYZ as it was intended to be.

Then where is the so called protection of routes for AC by Canada? If it's not the UAE which dug it's own hole with Canada over the agreement by trying to strongarm us... where are you talking about? What examples can you give that are so unusual that makes them absurd to you?

aviationaware wrote:

Switch over to the other seaboard and see protectionism in full effect. YYC was a typo of course, don't try to deflect from your own poor examples by lambasting me for a typo.

findingnema wrote:

Have you seen how many countries Canada actually have open skies agreements with?

20 according to this rather official looking list, half of which are negligible banana republics with little to no traffic to Canada.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/air-blu ... u-2989.htm

Thats the blue sky agreement page, not all open skies agreements... you may notice the US is missing entirely???

Also EU is a defacto open sky agreement...

"All of the agreements concluded under the Blue Sky policy cover 96% of Canada’s overall international passenger traffic and of this, 70% is covered by an Open Skies-type agreement."

aviationaware wrote:

Switch over to the other seaboard and see protectionism in full effect. YYC was a typo of course, don't try to deflect from your own poor examples by lambasting me for a typo.

Ah, so you didn't mean Calgary then? I'm guessing now that you meant Toronto? It's great we get to enjoy the benefit of an expert on Canadian aviation who doesn't know the airport code for Toronto.

To address that example, then, I'm still not quite sure what you mean. Toronto has been one of the fastest growing airports in the developed world in recent years pretty much entirely because of AC's dramatic growth in the highly competitive market for international (sixth freedom) connecting traffic, to and from the US, and, to a lesser extent, Latin America. There's certainly no protection from competition there.

As for switching over to the other "seaboard" (not a term used in Canada, as our resident Canadian aviation expert surely knows), what exactly do you mean? I'm honestly struggling to decipher what you're trying to say here. Are you talking about the Pacific? So you mean Vancouver where 9 different Chinese airlines operate, more than any other airport in North America? Sounds like Air Canada's air routes are pretty well protected there!

20 according to this rather official looking list, half of which are negligible banana republics with little to no traffic to Canada.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/air-blu ... u-2989.htm

If you'd read the link you provided, you'd see that 70% of Canada's total international traffic is covered by an Open Skies agreement, including the entire EU.

Again, aside from Emirates, which just got a substantial capacity increase, can you point to any other meaningful cases where capacity is, even arguably, constrained by the Canadian government?

YYZLGA wrote:

If you'd read the link you provided, you'd see that 70% of Canada's total international traffic is covered by an Open Skies agreement

Which is far less than either the US or EU.

aviationaware wrote:

The only thing that's absurd is that you refuse to see how protected Air Canada is from competition, even on international long haul markets. Are you an employee of Air Canada or why do you have blindfolds on? Comparing Atlanta to Toronto is apples and oranges all over again, just like your Canada/Germany thing. ATL is big because Delta is big. is YYZ big because Air Canada is big? Of course not, it's the other way around.
And don't do yourself the disservice of branding me a UAE mouthpiece. One look into my posting history will reveal to you that I am more than critical of the ME3 and Arab nations in general. ME3 and Canadian protectionism can both be bad at the same time.

/e changed YYC into YYZ as it was intended to be.

Canada has open skies agreements with the EU nations, the US and 20 other nations and is constantly updating and expanding bi-laterals. Also YYZ gets way more international traffic than ATL and not all of that is provided by AC as there are a hell of a lot more international carriers at YYZ as opposed to 10 years ago.
Granted I think the ME3 should get more than they are getting but they shouldn't get unlimited access to Canada and the fares show that the international market is competitive. I would give 20 slots to the UAE and 10 to Qatar.

aviationaware wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Whoops looks like I tapped a nest of angry Canadian honey bees who are sour grapes over being confronted with facts.

The Fraser Institute agrees with me.

First of all, the Fraser Institute--always a reliable source there. Secondly, pray tell where did the Fraser Institute say that it agrees with you?

If you had said duopoly on domestic routes, you'd have a case. Otherwise, your statement is ridiculous.

You do realize I was being hyperbolic when I said monopoly. I didn't mean it literally. You cannot possibly argue that the Canadian airline market is anywhere near as deregulated as that of the US or Europe. Don't embarrass yourself.

I can argue say for Canada's size and population distribution it is a more competitive market than the US one is and it faces a huge disadvantage flying 1/10 the US population over a bigger landmass, any attempts at increased competition is not really sustainable and other carriers have tried and failed.

The US has a population 10 times that of Canada and has AA, UA, DL, WN, B6, AS and some smaller carriers. Canada has AC, WS, TS and some other regional carriers that focus on northern routes and those along the lines of PD. The US should have 10 times the carriers and it does not as many have consolidated.

YYZLGA wrote:

Emirates, which just got a substantial capacity increase

That's a substantial capacity increase by you? They aren't even daily to a single destination. Absolutely ludicrous. If Air Canada had to put up with the ME3 in a meaningful way like any US or EU carrier does, their ability to cheat customers on their way to certain regions of the world would be diminished greatly.

aviationaware wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

If you'd read the link you provided, you'd see that 70% of Canada's total international traffic is covered by an Open Skies agreement

Which is far less than either the US or EU.

Is that so? I'd love to see the precise figures for the US and EU, since you obviously had them handy when you made that statement.

Regardless, most of the countries not covered by Open Skies agreements have very generous bilaterals that are more than adequate for any conceivable flying. Look at China, for example, whose carriers have a huge number of flights into Canada. It may not technically be Open Skies, but there are no meaningful constraints.

aviationaware wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

Emirates, which just got a substantial capacity increase

That's a substantial capacity increase by you? They aren't even daily to a single destination. Absolutely ludicrous. If Air Canada had to put up with the ME3 in a meaningful way like any US or EU carrier does, their ability to cheat customers on their way to certain regions of the world would be diminished greatly.

Yes, I'd say a 67% capacity increase overnight is rather substantial.

Again, any case other than Emirates? A single one? C'mon. Try.

But alright, let's look at the minuscule proportion of the overall Canadian market that is arguably affected by constraints on Emirates. I did a random booking for a two week trip to DEL next January. Cheapest flight from Toronto? $843.04. Cheapest flight from NYC? $860.73. Is this the promised land of no more "cheating" by AC that increased ME3 competition is supposed to bring?

Some idiot comes on here whining about the ME3 and everyone starts chasing their tails to explain to this guy. Who cares.

Am I in the least bit worried that the ME3 hasn’t been coddled?

Nope. They can go pound sand.

What a world we live in. A bunch of westerners worried about a level playing field for a society that governs so unfairly it’s inconceivable. Yet here we are making sure they get a fair shake.

YYZLGA wrote:

AC's domestic market share is around 45%. Westjet's is around 25%. As a comparison, the Lufthansa group's domestic market share in Germany is 87%.

The problem with your comparison is that AC is protected in its domestic market, the way U.S. carriers are protected in their domestic market. What's LH's European market share? What's the market share of AA in the U.S., about 22%? 45% and only one other major domestic competitor looks pretty comfy.

YYZLGA wrote:

But alright, let's look at the minuscule proportion of the overall Canadian market that is arguably affected by constraints on Emirates. I did a random booking for a two week trip to DEL next January. Cheapest flight from Toronto? $843.04. Cheapest flight from NYC? $860.73. Is this the promised land of no more "cheating" by AC that increased ME3 competition is supposed to bring?

Let me make it clear that I'm not at all agreeing with the other poster, but you're definitely missing the point here.

Increased ME3 presence wouldn't just make airfares to the Indian subcontinent cheaper, but rather European fares, Asian fares, and wherever else currently picks-up connecting traffic that is headed to the Indian subcontinent or Middle East. Currently a proportion of the traffic headed to these regions is flown via carriers like AC/LH/KL/CX/MU/etc. via intermediary points. Airlines that lose this source of traffic to the ME3 would end up offering cheaper fares to passengers only bound for Europe or Asia to fill empty seats. Overall, you're bringing about greater competition and benefiting the average Canadian who might only be headed to Europe.

I recall Air Canada making a statement that increased competition from ME3 in Canada would bring about an end to routes like YEG-LHR; YOW-LHR; YOW-FRA for this very reason.

aviationaware wrote:

Comparing the domestic markets of Canada and Germany is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I guess you've never heard anyone read your posts aloud then. They would surely take the cake! I know doubling down on stupid hyperbolic statements is all the rage these days, but try to be a bit better than that for the sake of everyone else who has to read the forum.

Can we stop discussing about Germany and the UAE in this thread? This thread should be about the Q3 results.

To all of those who try to deny AC is not monopoly position: Try to book an YXU - YVR RT flight in J 2 weeks out: You'll get to roughly to 4500 CAD. Where else you can charge that for a 2200 sm flight?

WildcatYXU wrote:

To all of those who try to deny AC is not monopoly position: Try to book an YXU - YVR RT flight in J 2 weeks out: You'll get to roughly to 4500 CAD. Where else you can charge that for a 2200 sm flight?

https://www.expedia.ca/Flights-Search?f ... tinlap%3AY

Went on expedia and got multiple routing via ac and westjet starting at $761 (Westjet) and $771 (AC)

cf105arrow wrote:

WildcatYXU wrote:

To all of those who try to deny AC is not monopoly position: Try to book an YXU - YVR RT flight in J 2 weeks out: You'll get to roughly to 4500 CAD. Where else you can charge that for a 2200 sm flight?

https://www.expedia.ca/Flights-Search?f ... tinlap%3AY

Went on expedia and got multiple routing via ac and westjet starting at $761 (Westjet) and $771 (AC)

OK in J it is expensive but because Westjet doesn't offer it!

aviationaware wrote:

Whoops looks like I tapped a nest of angry Canadian honey bees who are sour grapes over being confronted with facts.

The Fraser Institute agrees with me.

The Fraser institute is a bunch of biased junk that only the biased media use to prop up their narratives. The average Canadian knows better than to fall for their tactics of trying to use “data” to force their ideals and hidden political biases on the unsuspecting population.

Sorry but when a so called “non partisan” think tank gets bent out of shape as to which ritzy private school is the best and most snobbish, you know they’re not a reliable source to back up an argument.

As for the whole thing about UAE vs AC/Canadian Govt, find a better source for that opinion, until then that’s all it is.

mdavies06 wrote:

Can we stop discussing about Germany and the UAE in this thread? This thread should be about the Q3 results.

I think a lot of people on this site would be surprised to note that there are a few who will use any subject to segue to their own intended focus. Take a thread about meals or baggage and make it into a thread about governmental restrictions on Emirati carriers. Sometimes it is kind of funny to watch.

Also, by using multiple accounts they can pretend to argue with themselves. "Gee, I hadn't thought about that. That's a good point".

I suspect they are using this site to try out their arguments first, just in case there are points or counterpoints they hadn't considered. Then, they go out into the real world and lobby as they intended. Or ... do these gentlemen, with their several accounts really think that Justin looks as this website and will change governmental policy based on their rants.

I usually find it best to chuckle to myself ... "oh, it's him again, under another name" ... roll my eyes, shake my head and walk away.

I wonder then why AC isn't adding any new routes out of YYZ, VIE doesn't count cause they're replacing the currently existing OS YYZ-VIE route as they are both Star Alliance carriers. YYZ needs to expand asap and build more gates because once the 50 million mark comes by end of 2018, Pearson will be screwed...

master14225 wrote:

I wonder then why AC isn't adding any new routes out of YYZ, VIE doesn't count cause they're replacing the currently existing OS YYZ-VIE route as they are both Star Alliance carriers. YYZ needs to expand asap and build more gates because once the 50 million mark comes by end of 2018, Pearson will be screwed...

They aren't adding new international routes anywhere really, they simply don't have any more aircraft to do so. Expansion will be contingent on acquisition of more aircraft and YYZ expanding.

Don't sell VIE short though, capacity expands roughly 40% with AC taking over the route. It wasn't an accident they arranged this with OS and ultimately LH.

master14225 wrote:

I wonder then why AC isn't adding any new routes out of YYZ, VIE doesn't count cause they're replacing the currently existing OS YYZ-VIE route as they are both Star Alliance carriers. YYZ needs to expand asap and build more gates because once the 50 million mark comes by end of 2018, Pearson will be screwed...

They aren't adding new international routes anywhere really, they simply don't have any more aircraft to do so. Expansion will be contingent on acquisition of more aircraft and YYZ expanding.

Don't sell VIE short though, capacity expands roughly 40% with AC taking over the route. It wasn't an accident they arranged this with OS and ultimately LH.

whywhyzee wrote:

They aren't adding new international routes anywhere really, they simply don't have any more aircraft to do so. Expansion will be contingent on acquisition of more aircraft and YYZ expanding.

Reading between the lines of the press releases, it almost appears that Air Canada is stockpiling for the next economic downturn. With over $5B in liquid cash, delaying the expensive 787s, stopping used purchases at 4 A330s (even though SQ offered another 4) and moving aircraft around as widebodies are tight ... if things do slow down (and the inidcators are there), they are well prepared for it.

It almost appears that the GTAA is doing the same thing. Yes, things are tight at YYZ, but it's not like no one knew this was going to happen. By slowing the expansion, then they are a better fit during the down cycle. Unlike, say YYC, with a huge new terminal ... and no customers. Or like Westjet with forays into the unknown, just time time for the next recession.

longhauler wrote:

Reading between the lines of the press releases, it almost appears that Air Canada is stockpiling for the next economic downturn. With over $5B in liquid cash, delaying the expensive 787s, stopping used purchases at 4 A330s (even though SQ offered another 4) and moving aircraft around as widebodies are tight ... if things do slow down (and the inidcators are there), they are well prepared for it.

This makes sense. I was wondering about the other SQ 330s being retired.
Any hopes that they haven't been picked up and AC will end up taking more ex SQ birds?? I hope so!

Any idea why they pulled out the Bom-yyz flight from S19 schedule, despite announcing a frequency increase from 3 to 4 weekly services?

Karan

longhauler wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

They aren't adding new international routes anywhere really, they simply don't have any more aircraft to do so. Expansion will be contingent on acquisition of more aircraft and YYZ expanding.

Reading between the lines of the press releases, it almost appears that Air Canada is stockpiling for the next economic downturn. With over $5B in liquid cash, delaying the expensive 787s, stopping used purchases at 4 A330s (even though SQ offered another 4) and moving aircraft around as widebodies are tight ... if things do slow down (and the inidcators are there), they are well prepared for it.

It almost appears that the GTAA is doing the same thing. Yes, things are tight at YYZ, but it's not like no one knew this was going to happen. By slowing the expansion, then they are a better fit during the down cycle. Unlike, say YYC, with a huge new terminal ... and no customers. Or like Westjet with forays into the unknown, just time time for the next recession.

Great analogy! AC seems prudent in their forecasts and planning while WestJet seems to have little idea of where they are headed in these uncertain times.

YVR like YYZ and unlike YYC, also opted for rather conservative expansion plans, scrapping the idea of a new terminal and instead opting for modest extensions of three of the piers and an expanded parkade. AC seems very certain of their future while Westjet seems far less so.