+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF (/showthread.php?tid=19)
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - Canard - 07-22-2015
If love to fly out of YKF, but I can't make the pricing work for anything. It's just too expensive. The winter MCO option is the first time I've ever been able to logically make it work.
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - rangersfan - 07-22-2015
The last flight I went on July 2014 YKF was cheaper than yyz, traveling to Edmonton.
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - JoeKW - 07-23-2015
Wasn't YKF under consideration for relieving some of the growth of YYZ, long term?
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - jgsz - 07-25-2015
We flew back from Chicago last night (ORD ->YKF on American Eagle). I was surprised to learn they oversold our flight by two seats so they were looking for volunteers to give up their seats. In return the two people giving up their seats got a free stay and meals at a hotel plus $500 and they could fly to Toronto in the morning or Kitchener on the evening flight. They got their volunteers.
I don't know how often overselling happens on this flight but I'm sure AA must be pleased. So I guess they're here to stay. Hopefully they'll expand service to include New York and San Francisco.
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - jamincan - 07-25-2015
San Francisco is unlikely; it's easier and cheaper to send passengers through mid-continental hubs like Chicago, Detroit or Denver. Chicago has the added benefit of being useful for a lot of southern destinations as well.
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - BuildingScout - 07-25-2015
(07-25-2015, 09:37 AM)jamincan Wrote: San Francisco is unlikely; it's easier and cheaper to send passengers through mid-continental hubs like Chicago, Detroit or Denver. Chicago has the added benefit of being useful for a lot of southern destinations as well.
This would be true if SFO was a destination only. However it is also a hub. By my estimation there are somewhere between 15 to 40 daily trips from RoW with SFO as a destination, to which we need to add people connecting on to Hong Kong, Singapore, India, Hawaii, Philippines, and Australia. This can easily fill to capacity a CRJ200/LR every day of the week or a CRJ705 at 80-90%.
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - tomh009 - 07-25-2015
(07-25-2015, 10:06 AM)BuildingScout Wrote:(07-25-2015, 09:37 AM)jamincan Wrote: San Francisco is unlikely; it's easier and cheaper to send passengers through mid-continental hubs like Chicago, Detroit or Denver. Chicago has the added benefit of being useful for a lot of southern destinations as well.
This would be true if SFO was a destination only. However it is also a hub. By my estimation there are somewhere between 15 to 40 daily trips from RoW with SFO as a destination, to which we need to add people connecting on to Hong Kong, Singapore, India, Hawaii, Philippines, and Australia. This can easily fill to capacity a CRJ200/LR every day of the week or a CRJ705 at 80-90%.
Neither aircraft you suggest has enough range. YKF-SFO is 1932nm, and you need to allow margin due to winds (which are not always favourable). CRJ200LR is closest, but at 2004nm of range you end up with only 72nm of margin, and that's simply not enough.
That aside, you would also be taking away traffic from the YKF-ORD route, which might (or might not) be a problem as well.
JFK or MIA would make much more sense, giving connections to the east coast and Europe/Latin America. And no problems with range.
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - BuildingScout - 07-25-2015
(07-25-2015, 10:37 AM)tomh009 Wrote:(07-25-2015, 10:06 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: This would be true if SFO was a destination only. However it is also a hub. By my estimation there are somewhere between 15 to 40 daily trips from RoW with SFO as a destination, to which we need to add people connecting on to Hong Kong, Singapore, India, Hawaii, Philippines, and Australia. This can easily fill to capacity a CRJ200/LR every day of the week or a CRJ705 at 80-90%.
Neither aircraft you suggest has enough range. YKF-SFO is 1932nm, and you need to allow margin due to winds (which are not always favourable). CRJ200LR is closest, but at 2004nm of range you end up with only 72nm of margin, and that's simply not enough.
It's my understanding that range as described in manufacturer specifications means effective range and not "you arrive there with the last drop of fuel". So if the range is 2076nm it means: you can reach any airport at that distance with enough spare fuel to meet normal airline regulations.
Quote:That aside, you would also be taking away traffic from the YKF-ORD route, which might (or might not) be a problem as well.
Not in any significant way. First, few people would be flying YKF-ORD-SFO since there are six direct flights from YYZ and with the exception of Hawaii all other destinations are still too far from ORD, outside of you-don't-want-to-take 16-18hr direct flights which are already available from YYZ to begin with. So very little cannibalization there.
Quote:JFK or MIA would make much more sense, giving connections to the east coast and Europe/Latin America. And no problems with range.
Huh? Is YKF already at capacity, unbeknownst to me?
Because short of that I don't see what the viability of YKF-JFK has to do with YKF-SFO. They serve different parts of the globe. I have argued for YKF-JFK for pretty much the exact same reasons as YKF-SFO. So almost the opposite to what you say, if JFK makes sense this is an argument in favour of SFO as well.
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - ookpik - 07-25-2015
(07-25-2015, 10:06 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: This would be true if SFO was a destination only. However it is also a hub. By my estimation there are somewhere between 15 to 40 daily trips from RoW with SFO as a destination, to which we need to add people connecting on to Hong Kong, Singapore, India, Hawaii, Philippines, and Australia. This can easily fill to capacity a CRJ200/LR every day of the week or a CRJ705 at 80-90%.
Those 15 to 40 daily trips from RoW to SFO happen throughout the day to synch up with connecting flights at the SFO (or other) hub airport. (Who's going to fly YKF to SFO direct on a morning flight if their flight out of SFO happens that evening when they could instead get a more conveniently-scheduled afternoon flight from YYZ to SFO?) So to make a YKF to SFO route practical you'd need 2 or 3 flights per day.
That said, I don't know flight schedule patterns at SFO. Prehaps they follow some pattern analogous to eastern NA flights for European destinations that tend to leave late in the afternoon or early in the evening so as to arrive in the morning in Europe. I could see how an afternoon flight from YKF to say JFK might attract enough people who want to connect to European flights without them having to spend hours cooling their heels in a US-embargoed lounge. Is that also the situation with flights out of SFO?
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - tomh009 - 07-25-2015
(07-25-2015, 11:25 AM)BuildingScout Wrote:(07-25-2015, 10:37 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Neither aircraft you suggest has enough range. YKF-SFO is 1932nm, and you need to allow margin due to winds (which are not always favourable). CRJ200LR is closest, but at 2004nm of range you end up with only 72nm of margin, and that's simply not enough.
It's my understanding that range as described in manufacturer specifications means effective range and not "you arrive there with the last drop of fuel". So if the range is 2076nm it means: you can reach any airport at that distance with enough spare fuel to meet normal airline regulations.
Quote:JFK or MIA would make much more sense, giving connections to the east coast and Europe/Latin America. And no problems with range.
Huh? Is YKF already at capacity, unbeknownst to me?
Because short of that I don't see what the viability of YKF-JFK has to do with YKF-SFO. They serve different parts of the globe. I have argued for YKF-JFK for pretty much the exact same reasons as YKF-SFO. So almost the opposite to what you say, if JFK makes sense this is an argument in favour of SFO as well.
The range means you can reach an airport within that distance with no wind. Depending on the wind patterns, you need to allow additional range, otherwise you end up making emergency fuel stops when there is a strong headwind (and there are always headwinds flying west).
I am saying that JFK or MIA would be more viable than SFO. Where the threshold lies (all are viable, none are, or somewhere in between) is a question only AA route planners can determine -- they have far more data than we can even think of.
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - mpd618 - 07-25-2015
(07-25-2015, 09:37 AM)jamincan Wrote: San Francisco is unlikely; it's easier and cheaper to send passengers through mid-continental hubs like Chicago, Detroit or Denver.
There is also travel demand specifically between SF / Silicon Valley and Waterloo Region. If you have to stop in Chicago, it's not generally better than flying nonstop from Pearson.
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - plam - 07-25-2015
(07-25-2015, 12:42 PM)ookpik Wrote: That said, I don't know flight schedule patterns at SFO. Prehaps they follow some pattern analogous to eastern NA flights for European destinations that tend to leave late in the afternoon or early in the evening so as to arrive in the morning in Europe. I could see how an afternoon flight from YKF to say JFK might attract enough people who want to connect to European flights without them having to spend hours cooling their heels in a US-embargoed lounge. Is that also the situation with flights out of SFO?
The US does not do transit lounges. If you want to fly through the US, you have to clear customs. Since we don't preclear at YKF, you have to clear customs upon arrival. This, along with some other reasons, makes transitting through the US less than ideal for many people.
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - ookpik - 07-26-2015
Thank you for the clarification. Presumably if you have to clear US customs then you also have to collect your checked baggage at the US hub, schlep it through customs, then recheck it. By contrast if you fly out of Pearson you can check your baggage there and pick it up at your overseas destination.
You also have to go through a US physical security check. This is sometimes stricter than elsewhere so even if your nail clipper (or similarly benign item) could have travelled in your carry on between Canada and overseas it might get confiscated in the US.
And you alluded to the "special" welcome that the US provides to those passengers that they suspect may have ill intent. (Granted it was an exceptional case, but I imagine Maher Arar would not be a household name if he'd flown directly to Canada.) I know other people from alleged "terrorist" countries who avoid going to the US at all costs.
In any case and for whatever reason(s), going overseas from YKF through a US hub is more inconvenient and/or impractical in all too many situations than departing from YYZ.
This is yet another reason why for me better ground transport options between RoW and YYZ is far more important than more international flights out of YKF. I appreciate that's not what fans of YKF want to hear. But that doesn't make it any less a reality.
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - jerryhung - 07-26-2015
If only AA releases YKF-ORD reward consistently for me to get there (I have NEXUS & Global Entry, but yes, transit from ORD T5 to Domestic terminals on train is annoying)
There's sale for ORD-LAX round-trip for $140 USD (~$180 CAD) all the way into May 2016!!!
RE: Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF - SammyOES - 07-26-2015
(07-26-2015, 09:49 AM)ookpik Wrote: This is yet another reason why for me better ground transport options between RoW and YYZ is far more important than more international flights out of YKF. I appreciate that's not what fans of YKF want to hear. But that doesn't make it any less a reality.
I completely agree. I'd love to fly out of YKF instead of YYZ - but its going to take a lot of growing before its worth flying out of for the majority of my travelling.