[Tim MacDonald]

But these are all low yield markets, except for HKG. While Manila is the longest nonstop flight out of YYZ, it is an utter disaster yield wise. So long as the mainland chinese carriers are going to sell below cost for the western carriers, there is no point serving this market.

I think Air Canada is choosing to grow their markets but they are targeting markets that they can actually make money in. Just because you have a large population centre doesn't mean that you will be able to capture that traffic at a profitable price. Look what happened to Cathay Pacific. They had South East Asia by the tail until the mainland chinese carriers starting scooping up that traffic about ten years ago. Cathay is barely hanging on.

 

[Streety McCarface]

We're about 6-12 months away from finding out how Qantas' latest challenge to Airbus and Boeing has gone. "Project sunrise" was a challenge to the big aircraft manufacturers to design a plane that could economically fly 250-300 people across 3-4 classes from Melbourne & Sydney non-stop to London and New York.

The longest of those sectors is Sydney-London (9,188 nautical miles, v 9,127nm for Melbourne-London). Melbourne-New York is the next longest sector (9,015nm versus 8,646nm for Sydney-New York) however, there's been no mention of Toronto which arguably should be on the cards at least in the medium term if the aircraft manufacturers can produce a plane that will be able to do what Qantas is asking for. It appears it's a competition between potential variants of the A350-1000 or B777X.

Melbourne-Toronto (MEL-YYZ) on great circle is 8,774nm (versus 9,015nm MEL-JFK above) and Sydney-Toronto (SYD-YYZ) is 8,397nm (versus 8,646nm SYD-JFK above). It goes without saying, if the planes will be able to make the trip to New York from Melbourne/Sydney, they'll be able to make it to Toronto.

The Australia-Canada bilateral was liberalised not long ago (there were silly old-school restrictions like only able to choose a max of two different ports in each respective country - it was removed so that AC is now free to fly YVR-SYD/BNE/MEL - and they're now doing that) and Qantas codeshares with Westjet. I dare say beefing up numbers on the main long-haul sectors won't be that much of an issue with Westjet feed being really good eastwards from Toronto to/from Ottawa, Montréal, Québec City and Halifax.

Yep 20 hours in economy would suck, but Qantas' Perth-London flight (17.5 hours) on a 787 is going great guns apparently and there's been talk of introducing common areas into the internal configuration for economy passengers on the project sunrise planes. If you don't want to fly Air Canada at the moment, to get from Austrlaia to Canada, excluding QF's seasonal SYD-YVR flight, you have to go via the US, NZ or a much longer pacific circle route (i.e AU-HKG-CA on Cathay).

The only other city mentioned as part of project sunrise is Paris/CDG but I wouldn't be surprised if Toronto gets a look in eventually as Qantas have barely any presence in Canada - this might be their avenue in (leaving AC alone on Vancouver-Australia routes).

There's no way in hell that the A350-1000 will be chosen for their trip desires. Airbus royally f***ed up their maximum takeoff weight limits, and unless they can get a new, more powerful engine, it's not happening. With that in mind, the 777X wouldn't even have room to fit at T3, as far as I can remember, there are already like 12 777/747 flights (Korean, KLM, China Eastern, Emirates, Pakistan International, Air Transat *2(A310/A330s, I know, but they're still fairly large), Etihad, BA*2, El Al, Jet Airways) flights leaving from the few international gates T3 has. They need to redo that terminal or something, it's awful. Even if they wanted to fly into T1, there's no room at any of the E gates. As much as I want AC to consolidate a bit and get some 747-8s to reduce the number of London and Frankfurt flights, it's not going to happen, and until the GTAA gets on with building Pier G/H, we could be stuck with some serious international overcrowding at Pearson for quite some time.

It's easy for OneWorld to sell it through Dallas/Los Angeles/San Francisco. They can also sell it via JFK.

When I worked at AC almost twenty years ago, they were talking about YYZ-JNB back then ! It's a really long and thin route and you'd need at three frames to make it work since it would need to be daily. The problem is that they don't have three free frames right now and most of the 789s have been delivered. I don't think there are too many aircraft yet to be delivered. Haven;t looked at the GC map but I'm not even sure the 789 could make it both ways. I don't even know if SAA and Delta still do the ATL-JNB route.

Do you know if AC is willing to order 789s/787-10s or even 777X-8s in the future? It would seem highly unlikely they'd go for the airbus route for Toronto operations.

 

[TransitBart]

It's amazing that if you look at the top 5 by distance (Manila, Hong Kong, Taipei, Karachi & Addis Ababa) only one of them is operated by Air Canada. Shows that they are not pushing the opportunities to grow their network.

When did they cede YYZ -> TPE to EVA?

 

[amnesiajune]

The longest of those sectors is Sydney-London (9,188 nautical miles, v 9,127nm for Melbourne-London). Melbourne-New York is the next longest sector (9,015nm versus 8,646nm for Sydney-New York) however, there's been no mention of Toronto which arguably should be on the cards at least in the medium term if the aircraft manufacturers can produce a plane that will be able to do what Qantas is asking for. It appears it's a competition between potential variants of the A350-1000 or B777X.

The problem with these ultra-long nonstop flights is that they have an extremely high cost per passenger -- mainly the cost of flying with more fuel on board, and paying multiple flight crews because of how long the flight is. There needs to be demand from people who are willing to pay a steep premium to avoid a layover (this is why Singapore Airlines doesn't offer economy class on their SIN-JFK flight), and I doubt that a Sydney-Toronto or Melbourne-Toronto route has that sort of demand from high-end customers. At best it might end up being a once- or twice-weekly flight like we used to have with Concorde to London.

 

[nfitz]

At best it might end up being a once- or twice-weekly flight like we used to have with Concorde to London.

From Toronto? Once or twice a decade might be closer ... I only recall the occasional appearance.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

There's no way in hell that the A350-1000 will be chosen for their trip desires. Airbus royally f***ed up their maximum takeoff weight limits, and unless they can get a new, more powerful engine, it's not happening. With that in mind, the 777X wouldn't even have room to fit at T3, as far as I can remember, there are already like 12 777/747 flights (Korean, KLM, China Eastern, Emirates, Pakistan International, Air Transat *2(A310/A330s, I know, but they're still fairly large), Etihad, BA*2, El Al, Jet Airways) flights leaving from the few international gates T3 has. They need to redo that terminal or something, it's awful. Even if they wanted to fly into T1, there's no room at any of the E gates. As much as I want AC to consolidate a bit and get some 747-8s to reduce the number of London and Frankfurt flights, it's not going to happen, and until the GTAA gets on with building Pier G/H, we could be stuck with some serious international overcrowding at Pearson for quite some time.

Do you know if AC is willing to order 789s/787-10s or even 777X-8s in the future? It would seem highly unlikely they'd go for the airbus route for Toronto operations.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. T3 has 7 gates in the international hammerhead on pier C alone (GTAA does not distinguish between narrow and wide body gates so lets use this as the low estimate) plus another 5 or so gates at the recently re opened Infield Terminal. That's a total of 12 gates, now even if you choose to not have simultaneous departures from adjacent gates that give 6 usable gates at any one time. With proper gate utilization scheduling there is a lot of capacity to take wide bodies at T3+IFT.

As others have mentioned the biggest issue with A350 operations is being able to adequately fill the aircraft with passenger at a price point that is both competitive and profitable for the airline. Canada does not have that kind of demand levels to call for A350 or B777X flights. Even among the existing super jumbo flights, A380 flights are heavily subsidized by Gulf governments and the 747's are run by airlines that have significant demand on their side of the city pairs (KLM in Amsterdam for example)

 

[pman]

Further to WH’s point about inadequate Canadian demand, Singapore Airlines is configuring its ultra long distance A350 cabin exclusively as business class and premium economy in order to make the numbers work. Toronto doesn’t strike me as that kind of market.
http://www.traveller.com.au/singapo...a350900ulr-to-fly-worlds-longest-route-h15qtg

 

[11th]

When did they cede YYZ -> TPE to EVA?

I don't think AC (or CP) ever had a YYZ -> TPE. There is, however YVR -> TPE.

 

[TOareaFan]

From Toronto? Once or twice a decade might be closer ... I only recall the occasional appearance.

Seemed to show up for the odd air show....that was about it.

Aside from Concorde’s other cost issues, a huge problem with a service to Toronto was that too much if the route was over land where agreement to not exceed the speed of sound were needed.....so you got the revenue issues without much of the speed benefit.

 

[nfitz]

Aside from Concorde’s other cost issues, a huge problem with a service to Toronto was that too much if the route was over land where agreement to not exceed the speed of sound were needed.....so you got the revenue issues without much of the speed benefit.

That and the cost. Even back then the price was absurd with the fuel consumption. I checked the price once, and my recollection was that the New York to London leg was about $2,000 alone in the 1980s, at a time I was used to paying $200 for a Toronto to London leg.

The way fuel prices have risen since then, I can only imagine what the fare would be!

Sad - used to see it all the time at Heathrow, very prominently parked at Terminal 3 and later 4. And it was a common sight to see it flying there too.

 

[Tim MacDonald]

Back in 1995 or 1996, BA flew their concorde here on a weekly basis for a good chunk of the May to October period. It was a very regular visitor. I frequently had to pause phone calls from my Terminal one office when it would take off on Runway 33. Couldn't hear a darn thing when those RR engines spooled up.

Air Canada's widebody fleet is set for quite some time and they are on the way with the narrowbody fleet renewal taking 737Max from Renton. I'm not really foreseeing a 777-9 order for quite a while.

Ultra Long Haul markets are tough to make work. You really need the right airplane and there has got to be sufficient demand and price points. People say that it was the 747 that revolutionized air travel but for me, I think the 777-300ER should take most of the credit for linking many cities on the far sides of the world together. Wardair flew their 747-100s/200s with 456 seats in an all economy layout. Now air canada is running 450seat 777-300s in a three class layout. No wonder the pax version of 747 is all but dead. The A380 is not far behind. Within the next decade, I don't think you will see either 747s (pax) or A380s operating out of Pearson. Emirates will eventually go daily with 777s and KLM and BA will eventually retire their 747-400 fleets. Lufthansa will probably be the last to operate the 747 out of Toronto but even then the economics will catch up to them and they will have to ditch the quads for twins.

 

[ShonTron]

Seemed to show up for the odd air show....that was about it.

Aside from Concorde’s other cost issues, a huge problem with a service to Toronto was that too much if the route was over land where agreement to not exceed the speed of sound were needed.....so you got the revenue issues without much of the speed benefit.

Yes. I went to an elementary school in southeast Brampton for a few years and I remember the Concorde flying out overhead during one of our recesses (this would have been 1992-1995; the plane would have taken off from 33L), but it was a rarity. Pearson too was not so much a prestige airport like it is now, either.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Back in 1995 or 1996, BA flew their concorde here on a weekly basis for a good chunk of the May to October period. It was a very regular visitor. I frequently had to pause phone calls from my Terminal one office when it would take off on Runway 33. Couldn't hear a darn thing when those RR engines spooled up.

Air Canada's widebody fleet is set for quite some time and they are on the way with the narrowbody fleet renewal taking 737Max from Renton. I'm not really foreseeing a 777-9 order for quite a while.

Ultra Long Haul markets are tough to make work. You really need the right airplane and there has got to be sufficient demand and price points. People say that it was the 747 that revolutionized air travel but for me, I think the 777-300ER should take most of the credit for linking many cities on the far sides of the world together. Wardair flew their 747-100s/200s with 456 seats in an all economy layout. Now air canada is running 450seat 777-300s in a three class layout. No wonder the pax version of 747 is all but dead. The A380 is not far behind. Within the next decade, I don't think you will see either 747s (pax) or A380s operating out of Pearson. Emirates will eventually go daily with 777s and KLM and BA will eventually retire their 747-400 fleets. Lufthansa will probably be the last to operate the 747 out of Toronto but even then the economics will catch up to them and they will have to ditch the quads for twins.

I wouldn't discredit the 747, without it, there would be no future demand for the 777 and 787. Efficiency reduction doesn't come all at once, it's too expensive and politically challenging to accomplish.

I wouldn't say that's why the 747 died, the 747 died because the 77W, coupled with the 787 introduced point to point transpacific travel. This took away demand from the trunk routes the 747 was flying. It's also because airlines shrunk seats, meaning they could fit a significant number of passengers into one smaller aircraft. Airlines will make the 777 and 787 work for them by just changing the class layout of the aircraft. BA and Lufthansa don't have this luxury, and will keep their 747 fleets for a long time (relative term) because they need the capacity. Their hubs are choked.

 

[Tim MacDonald]

Some good points above. Certainly the slim line seats have helped the airlines but dimensionally, the 773 is just as big as the 747. Three things can be attributed to the success of the 777-300ER. First - engine technology resulting in much higher thrust. Second, the relaxation of ETOPs (What I call "Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming) rule dictating max allowable time away from a diversion airport if an engine on a twin engined airplane fails), and thirdly, the opening of polar air routes by the Russians allowing for more direct routings.

I'm pretty sure that the 777X will replace Lufty's 744s and 748s, starting next year or the year after. Economically, it just can't be beat. Lufthansa's fleet planning has always been a bit bizarre but I think they have finally come into the 21st century. I've never seen another airline so beholden to four holers.

I still like the 747. I don't get to fly on it very often anymore but was able snag a ride on KLM's PH-BFC two weeks before they retired it late last November. It's now being turned into a hotel near the Amsterdam airport and is currently being moved to the new position. Interesting to see how they are doing it.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Some good points above. Certainly the slim line seats have helped the airlines but dimensionally, the 773 is just as big as the 747. Three things can be attributed to the success of the 777-300ER. First - engine technology resulting in much higher thrust. Second, the relaxation of ETOPs (What I call "Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming) rule dictating max allowable time away from a diversion airport if an engine on a twin engined airplane fails), and thirdly, the opening of polar air routes by the Russians allowing for more direct routings.

I'm pretty sure that the 777X will replace Lufty's 744s and 748s, starting next year or the year after. Economically, it just can't be beat. Lufthansa's fleet planning has always been a bit bizarre but I think they have finally come into the 21st century. I've never seen another airline so beholden to four holers.

I still like the 747. I don't get to fly on it very often anymore but was able snag a ride on KLM's PH-BFC two weeks before they retired it late last November. It's now being turned into a hotel near the Amsterdam airport and is currently being moved to the new position. Interesting to see how they are doing it.

At this point, there should just be a planespotting and a general aviation thread. Nevertheless, I don't see Lufthansa getting rid of the 747s so soon, remember, they have a bunch of A340s they need to get rid of, and they're almost twice as fuel inefficient as the 777 and 747.

Pearson also sees 2 77W and a 744 flight to Frankfurt every day, with an a350 flight to Munich. There's definitely a need for larger capacities on that route.