News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

I don't know the economics of airline flights, but wouldn't flying one 787 to PV be a lot better economically than two 737s? If there are extra 737s they could always be sold or leased to another airline. Like I say, I'm not an expert, and I'm sure Westjet has thought about more than I have.
One benefit is the flight time, two 737s could provide better scheduling. Operationally, 737s are also easier to manage and they can swap aircrafts/pilots if there's any maintenance or other issues. The CASM (cost per available seat mile) is usually higher on 787 than 737, but that really varies between airlines and it's worth it depends on how many premium seats they sell.
 
I don't know the economics of airline flights, but wouldn't flying one 787 to PV be a lot better economically than two 737s? If there are extra 737s they could always be sold or leased to another airline. Like I say, I'm not an expert, and I'm sure Westjet has thought about more than I have.
They currently run a daily 789 from YYC,YVR&YYZ to Cancun. And a 789 from YYC (maybe YVR) to PVR in the winter time. They used to fly them daily to OGG/HNL in the past. No I believe just a few times a week
 
IMO 787s really degrade the passenger experience in PVR. Maybe the airport will finally upgrade itself enough? But I doubt it.
I heard a rumour that PVR airport authority prefers WS’s 737 service over the 787 service due to the fact that PVR doesn’t have bridges to fit the 787 and therefore requires guests to board/deplane via stairs and use busses to transport the guests between the terminal and the plane.. So more resources needing to be used for that aircraft type.
 
The 789 that Westjet uses for their Vancouver flight to PV sits out on the runway, a fair ways away. They also use buses and stairs for 737s also, whenever it's full I guess. From the passenger point of view one of the downsides of the 787 or other wide bodies at an airport like PV, is the airport is too small. I landed there once when an Air Transat A330 landed and the customs area was flooded and took over an hour to get through. As Darwink mentioned they need to upgrade their airport.
 
Any time a plane isn't moving, it isn't making money, and we're speculating about adding 787s not a choice between adding 787s or two 737s. .

IMO 787s really degrade the passenger experience in PVR. Maybe the airport will finally upgrade itself enough? But I doubt it.
It would be a case of adding 787s for sure, as they would need to add them to do the Athens route, but would need to find a winter use. I know what you mean about the widebody experience to a small airport like PV. I've seen first hand the downside of that.
 
One benefit is the flight time, two 737s could provide better scheduling. Operationally, 737s are also easier to manage and they can swap aircrafts/pilots if there's any maintenance or other issues. The CASM (cost per available seat mile) is usually higher on 787 than 737, but that really varies between airlines and it's worth it depends on how many premium seats they sell.
This is a really great point on this. Westjet only has 7 of the 787 type in their fleet I believe, the 737 is a much more common type rating amongst their pilots, thus it is easier to schedule these across their routes and save the 787 for routes which it makes most sense. With the hub and spoke model going the way of the dinosaur for most airlines, a smaller carrier like WJ (in the grand global scheme) can likely achieve much greater utility with narrow body aircraft.
 
One benefit is the flight time, two 737s could provide better scheduling. Operationally, 737s are also easier to manage and they can swap aircrafts/pilots if there's any maintenance or other issues. The CASM (cost per available seat mile) is usually higher on 787 than 737, but that really varies between airlines and it's worth it depends on how many premium seats they sell.
And also the distance, shorter flights will usually be more efficient for a 737. when you get into a distance like Puerto Vallarta it will almost always be more efficient to fly a 787, however, like you said, operationally wise, it’s more flexible to use the 737.
If WestJet did buy extra 787 for European summer flights, it’s not out of the realm of possibilities for them to use those planes for flights to places like Puerto Vallarta. They already use a 787 from Vancouver to PV.
 

Here's where Calgary ranks among Canada's trending summer travel destinations

Calgary is a top trending Canadian travel destination for those planning adventures for the summer, according to new flight data.
calgary.ctvnews.ca
calgary.ctvnews.ca

Article from CTV, outlines a story about Google flights data. Basically Calgary, came in 2nd in Canada after Vancouver for searched flights globally. Could be because of all the new Westjet international flights.
 

Here's where Calgary ranks among Canada's trending summer travel destinations

Calgary is a top trending Canadian travel destination for those planning adventures for the summer, according to new flight data.
calgary.ctvnews.ca
calgary.ctvnews.ca

Article from CTV, outlines a story about Google flights data. Basically Calgary, came in 2nd in Canada after Vancouver for searched flights globally. Could be because of all the new Westjet international flights.
Yes, thanks to Banff. Otherwise Calgary would be on the same level as Edmonton.
 
Yes, thanks to Banff. Otherwise Calgary would be on the same level as Edmonton.
I doubt it. Calgary would still be higher in the google search list due to the international flights from WestJet. How much of that would change if Banff wasn't around is hard to say, as that's anybody's guess, As Calgary is also the business capital of the province.
It's like saying Hawaii wouldn't be nearly as popular a destination if it was located near Baffin Island, or Orlando would be just a town if not for Disneyland. The reasons don't matter. Things are the way they are.
 
Yes, thanks to Banff. Otherwise Calgary would be on the same level as Edmonton.
Dude you said this before and it’s a pointless take. You can come up with a million “if onlys” but in the end it doesn’t change anything, it only makes people look envious.
It sucks that Edmonton isn’t close to the Rockies or to Banff, but you need to get over it.
 
Yeah. Calgary aggregates flights due to Banff. Due to aggregated flights Calgary aggregates corporate HQs. Due to corporate HQs Calgary aggregates flights. Due to aggregated flights a superconnector makes sense to further aggregate flights. Due to further aggregated flights Banff is even more accessible to international visitation and attracts specialized aero maintenance and manufacturing which requires a deep flight network to move urgent high value but small parts.

It is all a virtuous cycle. Add in the train from the airport to downtown and Banff plus a future policy change from WestJet to allow layovers on itineraries and see it even further reinforce.
 
Yeah. Calgary aggregates flights due to Banff. Due to aggregated flights Calgary aggregates corporate HQs. Due to corporate HQs Calgary aggregates flights. Due to aggregated flights a superconnector makes sense to further aggregate flights. Due to further aggregated flights Banff is even more accessible to international visitation and attracts specialized aero maintenance and manufacturing which requires a deep flight network to move urgent high value but small parts.

It is all a virtuous cycle. Add in the train from the airport to downtown and Banff plus a future policy change from WestJet to allow layovers on itineraries and see it even further reinforce.
Calgary's role as as a head office host can also be traced back to one single person, or rather one single building. The Barron building is likely more responsible for Calgary's HO status than Banff is.
The Barron building was built at a time (just after the oil strike in Leduc) when it looked like Edmonton would be the host city for the oil industry, but Jacob Barron built the Barron Building on spec hoping to attract oil companies, which he did (Sun Oil Shell and a couple of others), even though Edmonton was the more logical location for the oil industry HOs, but Edmonton didn’t have a new building or similar offering at the time.

From there things snowballed and Calgary took over as the oil capital of Canada. Over the years the combination of HO skilled workers and the better connected airport combined to form the way things are today.
In the end it comes down to more than one thing. Banff is part of it, but not all of it.
In the past few decades the airport has been a big reason for the head office status, for example when Shaw moved from Edmonton to Calgary, they cited the airport as one of the reasons. Other companies have also cited the airport as a reason.
 
Last edited:
I imagine it is probably partly due to the locations of CFB Edmonton and the former Edmonton Municipal Airport. Made sense for it to be on the south side of the city. That said, I don’t know if there is a specific reason why it’s so far away from the city.
 

Back
Top