hollywoodcory
New Member
There's still an overall increase in 787 flying Transoceanic. In S23 WS ran 40x weekly flights, and this year its about 43x weekly.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Golfing guy
Active Member
That is true. WS is almost reaching their limit on 789 expansion though. They are grinding out as much as they can with existing fleet. Anymore meaningful Summertime expansion is going to require more long range lift.
Any news on if they are going to take any more 787s? I had heard somewhere the current CEO isn't keen on widebody stuff.
Chowda7
Active Member
With all the issues at Boeing right now will probably be a while before they receive any type of aircraft
zzkwilliamcanada
Active Member
yeah, one of my cx is working for westjet, he said the CEO is not a fan of widebody fleet... but everyone else in WS think they should take more 787s....
trtcttc
Active Member
Was on a YYC-FCO flight earlier this month and it was jam packed, surprised by the full load even before summer. Calgary can definitely support more international, although I imagine they’ll have to fly some of them out of other airports in the winter, which means competing with AC, which this current leadership seems keen to avoid.
zzkwilliamcanada
Active Member
hongkong , Singapore, Manila, Delhi , Athens, Istanbul . let's make a wish
Golfing guy
Active Member
Maybe Hong Kong or other Chinese destinations in Asia first. But I’d think they would increase existing flights to current locations first. Probably add LGW again.
El Dorado
New Member
We really need a direct to the Middle East. There is a ton of demand, not only for tourism but also a massive south Asian population that connects through the ME onwards to Pakistan, India, etc. I’m sure there are reasons why this flight hasn’t taken off (no pun intended) yet but I feel this is the next big move if we want to truly be considered as a major airport.
zzkwilliamcanada
Active Member
Emirates, Qatar , Etihad Turkish . Let’s make a wish
darwink
Senior Member
Friends and family market is incredibly price motivated.
The only time Calgary got close was the attempt to bribe Stephen Harper with goodies for his home town by the UAE/Emirates.
At the time I doubt we would have sustained all the direct lift to Europe we had if the flight had come to pass.
El Dorado
New Member
I remember that but I think it was more about Air Canada protectionism than anything else. With Westjet at the helm now at YYC it’s really up to them. AC is always flying YVR-DXB.
darwink
Senior Member
UAE dangled YYC to try to raise the cap at YYZ.
Nawads
Active Member
The problem with DXB/ the UAE is the current government agreements only allow for 21 flights per week (per UAE/Canadian airlines). Currently, Air Canada is flying 11 flights a week ( 7 from YYZ and 4 from YVR) so there is capacity for more flights, but not sure if there is more complicated bureaucracy to deal with behind the scenes because of it.
darwink
Senior Member
The goal is to keep Canadian long haul capacity by stopping UAE from killing half of the lift to LHR/AMS/FRA by collecting all the super connectors via UAE instead, where AC cannot or wouldn't benefit from onward connections via an alliance or codeshares.
The YYC UAE flight was explicitly a dangle, and explicitly a cross subsidized one. (get more YYZ frequency and use the profits to subsidize the lower yield Calgary flight up to the average yield they expect to maintain a flight).
Would you trade a UAE flight for AMS, LHR or FRA?