Air Canada bumps Brisbane-Vancouver flights up to a Boeing 787-9

NZ will definately get alot of competition with all the new Nth American services coming online from QF, AA, AC within the next 12 Months. It seems like MEL will be quite more valuble for NZ now in feeding its Nth American services.

But more flights should hopefully pull down fares and increase redemption rates! 

Yes there's seems to be hesitancy in recent North American routes from MEL, I wonder if it's that extra distance that puts them off direct routes and they would rather feed through BNE, SYD or AKL.

If the 788's had the legs to do MEL-YVR, you would see AC hop onto the route in a heart beat, trust me. AC really did hope for a MEL route to eventuate. 

"Average" as in "current standard"?

I remind readers that EY has 4-abreast F on their 787 fleet, and JL is running 6-abreast J to BOS and JFK on their 788 fleet, so 4-abreast J on AC seems like a decent offering to me.

The W and Y seats are also typical width and pitch.  This is a product of Jack and Chloe Public wanting a good fare over comfort.

<"Average" as in "current standard"?>

Absolutely agree.  I don't know what else in a 787 cabin, in service or planned upcoming, can be considered better than this so-called "average" cabin config+seat std across all 3-classes in AC 787 fleet....

<"JL is running 6-abreast J to BOS and JFK on their 788 fleet">

I don't consider this set-up(A.k.a. SkySuite) as inferior to the 1-2-1 layout.  It still retains direct aisle access for every seat & of course flat bed thru a pretty neat staggered layout.

I doubt that they'll go head-to-head with NZ on the AKL route, and if MEL was such a juicy plum they would have announced that instead of BNE. 

Agree.  I see this new move by AC re YVR-BNE as 1 part of a larger battle plan by Star Alliance(i.e. AC+UA+NZ) to thicken frequency+network coverage in the wider N.America-Oceania Trans-Pcf war against OneWorld(i.e. QF+AA).  Instead of <"to rival Air NZ>", we may see NZ code on the YVR-BNE service operated by AC.....reinforcing/bulking-up to sell more triangular itin across YVR, BNE and AKL.

It's been a long time coming.It has been a while since I was last in Canada(1990)but do remember the days of the Brisbane to Vancouver QF25 747's of which one if starting from Sydney transferred from the QF3 IN Honolulu but a welcome return.How one longs for the days of NOT HAVING TO DO A SYDNEY transit like back then.

If you didn't like transits in SYD or LAX, why didn't you head north and transfer somewhere in Asia?

I would like to answer the people of Brisbane the same thing in the years since the QF25 which either went Brisbane-Cairns-Honolulu-Vancouver or started the other way around ended the same thing.What did you lot do from 1991 to the present day when Qantas switched for the final sector to sharing with Canadian up to 2000 that is if not into the going via LA thing and prior to Air New Zealand offering such services via Auckland.Did any of you consider Flying Cathay PACIFIC To Hong Kong then continue onwards as another option.Just my thoughts.

Hear hear. Given that Brisbane is both quite a bit closer to Vancouver than Sydney, and considerably closer than the other place, it is as usual the foreign carrier which shows the way, as Hawaiian Airlines has done, it is another deserved kick in the face to the airline which still has the hide to have a Q in its name.

If your city isn't big enough to viably support direct services, there's no reason why airlines would be dumb enough to open routes just for your convenience. Your argument is the epitome of first world problem - you aren't entitled to direct services, if you have to connect well suck it up. 

No need for that tone tm_smile – certainly non-stop flights aren't an entitlement, although Air Canada upgrading this route to a daily service before it has even commenced demonstrates that there is indeed demand between Brisbane and Vancouver.

I have a tone? Have you seen his/her comments on this story? Talk about condescending and pious...

Not sure why people think Sydney is "Hellish" (LAX, I definitely agree). Sydney is an Average airport, nothing that is absolutely terrible. For a country's largest International Gateway, it sits just shy of Average. I guess we've been too spoilt by the likes on Changi, Hong Kong and Incheon. Sydney is perfectly fine for an airport, it's nt good, but NOWHERE near hellish. 

LAX  is still a different story

It's pretty bad

Jimmy - you're obviously from Sydney, and if you want to fly out internationally, you just go to the international terminal - easy.  However, the rest of us who don't live in Sydney need to transit thru the domestic terminal, catch a bus, re-do security, and if lucky, make our connection.  Trust me, hellish may be a bit harsh, but it aint easy, and adds no pleasure to the beginning of a long international flight, expecially if you've just come in on the red-eye from Perth.  Try it some time.

Agree.  Each terminal @ SYD by itself is actually decent. Collectively as a terminal system, they fall short especially for connection between them which doesn't bother local OD pax(i.e. those heading to/fm around Sydney region) but adversely affect those connecting between flights @ SYD. 

It's fundamentally an airport layout problem due to legacy issues possibly dating back to when SYD was born(e.g. planners did not envisioned SYD as a hub to facilitate large volume of domestic-int'l connections).  MEL doesn't hv this problem possibly thx to later birth & more modern planning concept but PER and BNE also have this layout issue.  Interestingly though, both have been actively trying to address the issue by relocating /consolidating terminals(PER) or building rapid inter-terminal shuttle facility(BNE) while SYD, despite being the largest hub,  continues to prefer sitting on its hands.....go figure.

The changes at Sydney airport have been happening, albeit slowly. I personally dont find changing terminals a major issue, it's just the fact that you have to pay to do it which is a pain. If not eligible for the free qantas or Virgin transfer, then the train comes regularly and is no different than other airports which require terminal to terminal transfer. It's just that you need to pay $5.80 for the transfer - a rort. 

There is the master plan to co-locate domestic and international, though that is up to a decade away. The speed of  Sydney major developments when it comes to large projects developers can't immediately profit off...

"I personally dont find changing terminals a major issue.."

Probably because unlike most foreign visitors/non-locals, you're familiar with navigating thru all 3 pax terminals @ SYD?

For int'l-domestic(or vice-versa) transfer even accounting for the occassional extra-long immigration+custom+security queues, 90min MCT is doable @ hubs such as SFO, YVR, NRT, KIX, ICN, etc. but will be a pretty risky scheduling adventure @ SYD.....especially when U're a foreigner visiting SYD less than once every 5yrs....

"If not eligible for the free qantas or Virgin transfer..."

Even if eligible, I estimate the avg 1-way total transfer time fm pick-up point to drop-off point including waiting time between shuttle departures is @ least 20mins.  I vividly recall one time when I was on such shuttle and my ride was held-up by ATC & stuck on the tarmac for 5-10mins only to wait for a taxiing jumbo to pass thru...actually one 744 plus one 763ER...my mandatory 'free tour' of the entire SYD airfield took nearly 30mins.

"the train comes regularly and is no different than other airports....just that you need to pay $5.80..."

And just that now you've gone thru all the hoops @ Australian immigration & custom and made it to the arrival exit,  your schedule still has extra time built-in to:

1.  Locate that local currency exchange counter.

2.  Remind the counter staff that U need denomination small  enough to cover $5.80....fare info which you've magically found out in advance fm some inflight magazines or mobile apps   despite the fact that you've only learnt 72hrs ago @ your home country office in Texas or Ontario that you need to be @ a meeting in Queensland tomorrow morning.

3.  Locate that subway station under the terminal while hauling all your bags along.

4.  Despite managing only 5-6hrs of sleep inflight in your Y seat for the past 16-17hrs, still somehow quickly learnt how to buy the correct subway ticket to the domestic terminal fm a machine U've never used before.

5.  Get on the right train instead of ending-up @ Wolli Creek.

Of course, none of the above is a "major issue" for locals but then again, I believe about half of all int'l traffic to/fm Australia goes thru SYD....not hard to guess the volume of  foreigner visitors with domestic connecting flights @ SYD.

Compared to other airports I have been unfamiliar with, I don't find it any more difficult (taking cost out of the equation) than changing terminals at LAX, LHR, CDG, JFK, SIN, DFW, BNE etc.

Is it as easy as single terminal airports like HKG, DOH, KIX or ICN? Of course not, but that is a fact of life when working with a legacy airport and also when you have large, separate international and domestic operations.

Things are changing, however slowly, so improvements are coming. Changing terminals is unfortunately unavoidable when it comes to travelling.

Yes, it's a mild pet peeve of mine when people talk about narrow seats as a fat-person problem.

Unless you're very fat indeed or a double amputee, your shoulders are the broadest part of you, not your waist (by more than the width of the armrest). And yeah, narrow seats equals thirteen hours of uncomfortable arm-to-arm contact with a stranger.  

Yep 17.3 inch in Y is a deal breaker. I agree with GregXL - can't do that on such a long flight.

<"Another airline that I won't be flying...">

And may I know which alternative carrier you'll be flying on in Y for the BNE-YVR nonstop route?  Even if you ignore the time-savings of nonstop, I think some folks will be more than happy to trade 1 inch of seat width for the ability to by-pass the dreaded connecting experience @ the OneWorld hub in SYD or LAX(Star's AKL and SFO are decent though and YVR is actually an award-winner re pax experience).

Most importantly, many folks have forgotten that for decades since 747 debut, seat width specs for 10 abreast Y on almost all 747s that flew 8-12 hours long-haul sectors hv always been more or less 17.3in.(Or equal to a typical Y on 737).  Apparently, vast majority of 747 Y pax managed to survive such long trips repeatedly....for decades.

Or it could be that we've just gotten larger on avg or more pampered than the last generation of longhaul Y travelers..... 

Tom Bradley, the terminal, is enormously improved.

Tom Bradley, the international arrivals hall, is somewhat improved. They have a little computer kiosk system now... but you still have to take your printed kiosk slip to an actual person so it just means there's now two lines to stand in instead of just one. Still, it keeps you busy and I think I got through in about ten to fifteen minutes last time, not really bad. 

You'll probably still have to connect to a flight at a different dreary terminal though. 

I'd definitely try hard to avoid it if I were actually going to Canada though, no point in going through US immigration unnecessarily. 

Totally agree.  Current TBIT @ LAX is actually world-class and IMHO, on-par with T3 @ DXB(Actually, T3 is becoming unpleasant during daily peaks when well over a dozen of 380 unload/load all their pax @ the same time).

The 2 major problems of connecting @ LAX are:

1)  The other 8 operational terminals which a connecting pax, even if arriving @ TBIT, can't avoid.

2) U.S. immigration policy insist on <inviting> all connecting pax,  regardless of destination country, to <experience> the super-long immigration queue to legally enter the U.S. 1st before catching their onward flights.

Nice call FLX, even with the TBIT improvements LAX still has a long way to go. Let's not forget

3) Transfer between terminals generally involves (despite the terminal buildings between contiguous) going outside and walking some way, or catching the shuttle bus. Stepping outside into the heat, noise and stink, while looking for a shuttle bus among the cars and vans whizzing around with only a multi-storey concrete carpark for scenery is a terrible 'welcome to LA'/'welcome to America' moment.

A real shame for that first impression, as the city has so much to recommend it...

<3) Transfer between terminals.....is a terrible 'welcome to LA'/'welcome to America' moment.>

And the above has always been a big mystery to me re connecting between LAX terminals.  It really doesn't have to be this terrible for a top U.S. city like L.A.  I mean just take a casual look across the top U.S. intercon gateways such as SFO, SEA, DFW, IAH, ORD, ATL, DTW, IAD, JFK, etc., ALL of them have some kinda automated &  frequent inter-terminal shuttle service to facilitate connections...except LAX.

May be California state is simply too deep in red to organize /underwrite financing to build this type of shuttle system for LAX.....

The first rule of business class is that business class is not first class.

Sorry, was unable to read most of that owing to the capital letters (shouting), but did catch sight of a rather unbelievable suggestion that Qantas should have more flights to Vancouver from Sin City!

Sport, this is about an airline providing a service to another Australian city, in fact the capital of its home state.

The arrogance and sense of privilege of cockroaches is unbelievable.

<...QF will consider making the Vancouver-Sydney route a daily 787-9 service rather than the current seasonal 747 service in order to compete to some degree...>

Which is practically impossible for QF to turn such plan into reality until late 2017 when its 1st 789 arrive.  Even then, QF will face tough competition because AC has already been in SYD-YVR daily nonstop mkt for nearly a decade.....in addition to   BNE-YVR nex yr.

<...but that gives AC quite a bit of time.>

At least a 18 mths head start assuming QF has no other network priority for its 1st 789(Frankly, I doubt it) higher than SYD-YVR.  In any case, I believe leveraging QF's inability to react in the short-term is precisely why AC seems to be moving launch schedule+frequency of BNE-YVR a bit forward.

The change happened last week.

The change now sees Canadian carriers allowed to fly up to 6,000 seats weekly, going up to 9,000 seats by the end of next year. The cap of 2 destinations per country has also been revoked, Canadian carriers can fly to as many destinations it wants too, although the 4 main gateway airports (SYD, MEL, PER & BNE) are restricted by the seat count, but all other airports are effectively open skies. 

The new agreement is effective immediately. 

The Australian listing of Available Capacity was updated on the 17th (Thursday last week).

It's now showing 4908 seats/week (this doesn't inculde what QF has assigned currently) between the 4 Australian gateway ports (SYD/MEL/BNE/PER) and anywhere in Canada. Adds another 3000 seats on 1 Dec 2016.

A new 5th freedom allowance is to be added. Before the updated agreement, 5th freedom was allowed via HNL, PPT, NAN and SFO. It's now listing those 4 plus "and a point to be agreed".

<...one can fly via Asia to Aust. the route can easily be arduously double the flight time.>

If we remain on topic re the city pair YVR & BNE, the theoretical fastest route "via Asia" will be YVR-NRT-BNE which may be possible thru JL/QF codeshare(Will require realignment of arr/dep timings of either BNE->NRT or NRT->YVR to allow same day connnection @ NRT though).  Relative to this new YVR-BNE nonstop route by AC, a 1-stop JL/QF codeshare will add about 4hrs total block time(Or over 2,800km) excluding transit time @ NRT.

So unlikely "double the flight time" but more like 50% longer total journey time if "fly via Asia to Aust".

To clarify, the double time was directed at finding award space to Aust. Many routings via Asia, either  on OW/SA, can, repeat can, be double the time over a direct route, certainly with long layovers and 2 stops enroute. SEA/YVR-Tokyo area airports with a minimum connect time is a viable routing. But I would still prefer a direct, even it were to closer-in Cairns. I look at it as the glass half full - getting over the Pacific to the Aust. continent is the main effort. After that a connection to points elsewhere in Aust. is the least of the hassles.

I don't think the financial justications for AC to launch YVR-BNE is to improve "...finding award space to Aust." for FFP members.  If it is, this flight is doomed and will be terminated pretty quickly...

I'm guessing AC projects the overwhelming majority of all pax on this flight will be Rev$-paying pax rather than non-Rev$ ones.

YVR/NRT/BNE will add about 5 hours + over 5 hours at NRT. Total transit ~ 24 hours. No thanks.

Via TPE longer

Via HKG same

Via BKK much longer

Via SIN much longer

YVR/BNE nonstop timetabled at 14 hours 30 mins & probably about hour less flying time most of the time.

Not to mention a routing via BKK or SIN will involve a minimum of @ least 2-stops regardless of which carrier(s) /alliance.

In today's Trans-Pacific mkt environment, viturally no pax will pay to fly a route with more than 1-stop between 2 cities in the mkt size category of Brisbane and Vancouver or larger......unless an airline practically give the seat away for free(e.g. FFP mileage redemption).

IMHO, the only real competition to YVR-BNE by AC are these 1-stop options(All of them much faster than any routing via Asia):

1) YVR-AKL-BNE by NZ

2) BNE-SYD-YVR by QF

3) BNE-LAX-YVR by QF+AA

FLX,

There is no competition at all.

AC is providing a non-stop service. No one else is.

Certainly not the Australian airline.