Westjet Targets Energy Sector, Launches Non-Stop Flights Between Fort Mcmurray And Vancouver

[CanadaEH]

WestJet targets energy sector, launches non-stop flights between Fort McMurray and Vancouver

WestJet Encore is zeroing in on the throngs of British Columbians that live on the West Coast but work in Alberta.

The regional carrier — a subsidiary of WestJet (TSX: WJA) — launched new services May 12, offering direct flights between Vancouver and Fort McMurray as well as Kelowna and Fort McMurray.

A May 2 report from the B.C. Business Council revealed that as of 2009 — the most recent period data was available — 29,000 people in Alberta’s workforce actually resided in British Columbia.

The study also showed over the past two decades B.C. has seen a net loss of 42,000 people. Half those people moved to Alberta permanently.

John Weatherill, WestJet's director of network and schedule planning, said in a statement the airliner was looking specifically for opportunities to offer more services for people looking to access “the energy sector that is so integral to the local, provincial and national economy."

Air Canada also offers non-stop flights between Vancouver and Fort McMurray. WestJet Encore is offering daily direct flights for comparable prices.

A passenger flying out of Vancouver May 12 would pay about $600 for a roundtrip WestJet Encore flight and about $700 for a roundtrip Air Canada flight.

http://www.biv.com/article/20140512/BIV0106/140519998/westjet-targets-energy-sector-launches-non-stop-flights-between-fort

[Guest longtimer]

Flights

Vancouver (YVR)

Depart:

Wed May 14, 1:40 PM

Fort McMurray (YMM)

Arrive:

Wed May 14, 5:09 PM

Fort McMurray (YMM)

Depart:

Thu May 15, 11:00 AM

Vancouver (YVR)

Arrive:

Thu May 15, 12:36 PM

Fare rules

Air transportation charges (ATC)

1 adult - base fare:

$578.00 CAD

Other ATC:

$36.00 CAD

Taxes, fees and charges:

$98.16 CAD

Total with taxes:

$712.16 CAD

Total price:

$712.16 CAD

AC on the same days with the CRJ is only 10.00 more and the flight time is 1 hr less each way..... Hmmmm I think I would take AC.

[Guest longtimer]

Flights

Vancouver (YVR)

Depart:

Wed May 14, 1:40 PM

Fort McMurray (YMM)

Arrive:

Wed May 14, 5:09 PM

Fort McMurray (YMM)

Depart:

Thu May 15, 11:00 AM

Vancouver (YVR)

Arrive:

Thu May 15, 12:36 PM

Fare rules

Air transportation charges (ATC)

1 adult - base fare:

$578.00 CAD

Other ATC:

$36.00 CAD

Taxes, fees and charges:

$98.16 CAD

Total with taxes:

$712.16 CAD

Total price:

$712.16 CAD

AC on the same days with the CRJ is only 10.00 more and the flight time is 1 hr less each way..... Hmmmm I think I would take AC.

Which aircraft flies at a higher altitude? Reason I ask is the air can be quite lumpy between YMM and YVR .....

[CanadaEH]

42 min longer on Encore - you're right. I'm seeing AC $100 more, though?

[Guest longtimer]

42 min longer on Encore - you're right. I'm seeing AC $100 more, though?

Time is as you show but the fares are not.

Dates quoted;

AC84451

Vancouver, Vancouver Int'l (YVR)

Terminal M

Fort Mcmurray (YMM)

Thu 15-May 07:55 10:47

0 1hr52 CRJ Flex, V

AC84401

Fort Mcmurray (YMM)

Vancouver, Vancouver Int'l (YVR)

Terminal M

Fri 16-May 11:15 12:14

0 1hr59 CRJ Flex, V

Operated by:

1 Air Canada Express - Jazz

Review final quote details Modify your search

Fare Summary

Total charge for 1 adult

Air Transportation Charges

Departing Flight (Flex)

(including surcharges)

312.00

Return Flight (Flex)

(including surcharges)

312.00

Taxes, Fees and Charges

98.66

Grand Total - Canadian dollars

$722.66

[Thebean]

Interesting commentary from the local newspaper in YMM.

When WestJet announced this week that it would prefer to operate one of its 120 or so aircrafts on a route that passengers would actually take, and cancelled its short-lived Fort McMurray-to-Las Vegas venture, there were probably more angry Facebook and Twitter comments than passengers in the history of the route.

It was cast as an interminable decision by a wrong-headed corporation that clearly ought to have bent its ear to the scores of armchair airline industry executives that appear to populate this city.

“Nobody flies to Las Vegas in the summertime!” cried many.

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority would beg to differ. Its statistics show that 3.47 million people flew to the city in July 2013, making it the busiest month of the year, compared to just 2.9 million in December, 3.1 million in January, and 3 million in February; the three least popular months.

As much as some cast the route as a perfect warm-weather getaway, the simple fact is that winter weather in Nevada isn’t actually all that great.

“You can’t judge a route after just two months!” cried many other amateur economic forecasters.

While it was undoubtedly a quick decision, the timeline doesn’t speak to WestJet’s impatience so much as it speaks to the severity of the problem.

The decision was made after just two months (with nine months of booking data, mind you) because of the route’s struggles to break 20% of capacity.

After the news was announced, I checked WestJet’s website myself to see what I’d have to pay for a short-notice direct trip to Las Vegas that very weekend. I could’ve gotten it for less than $300.

One heck of a bargain – and one heck of a sign of utter chaos and desperation on a route that absolutely no one was taking.

Even if the route were to surge in popularity in the winter months (and there was no evidence to suggest this would be the case) – is it likely popularity would make up for colossal losses from the overall indifference to the route in the majority of the year?

The same sudden steep decline in fare price could be seen in the airport’s Denver route with United Airlines when it was on its last legs. Popular and workable at first, it continually dropped in usage – perhaps due to its incredibly early departure time for the leg south.

But this brings us to yet another of the most popular social media castigations of WestJet: “They picked such terrible days for the flight! Why did they pick Tuesday and Saturday?”

WestJet would probably dream of a world where they could pick and choose the days on which its flights departed and arrived.

It would be a world where a comparatively tiny Canadian fleet could dictate to a major American airport, which would prioritize Canadian customers from the far north over passengers on airlines with seven times larger fleets.

Unfortunately, this is not our world.

WestJet did not become a company valued at nearly $4 billion by randomly selecting days and times for flight departures.

The greater question is which of the many vaunted “market studies” touted by both WestJet and the Airport Authority itself actually indicated that McMurrayites would be receptive to that Las Vegas schedule.

That study wasn’t just off – it was disastrously off.

A greater question still is why the Airport finds it appropriate to make itself “unavailable for comment” after a bad news story, rather than stepping out into the public realm and assuring people that efforts are still underway to secure a new U.S. hub destination.

But those who had high hopes of soon making their way down to Vegas need not fear the demise of WestJet Flight 1904.

Direct flights are nice - but connections aren’t exactly the end of the world.

A flight to Vegas with WestJet, with a one-hour stopover in Edmonton, is available every day, and only takes about 90 minutes more than the direct route did.

That’s not a bad alternative, until further city growth makes a direct route viable.

Until then, if we want planes flying out of here while 80% empty, we’ll have to enlist Alison Redford.

[chockalicious]

The flights did not line up for shift change for a lot of the oil workers, good to see WS maintaining a use it or lose it philosophy to this day.

Even by airport authority standards there are some unbelievably incompetent people on the YMM BoD, not a surprise that nobody would be available for comment.

[CanadaEH]

To be fair, a direct flight in the winter probably would've done better.......... but it is what it is. I believe WS added a third daily YYC-LAS so my guess is thats where the aircraft got redeployed to.

[Fido]

The flights did not line up for shift change for a lot of the oil workers, good to see WS maintaining a use it or lose it philosophy to this day.

Even by airport authority standards there are some unbelievably incompetent people on the YMM BoD, not a surprise that nobody would be available for comment.

Jeez. WestJet drops a turd and the acolytes want to tell us about the flecks of gold in it.

[inchman]

You sure you didn't write that article, Thebean? The only thing missing is a backhanded remark about AC. An almost-try with the comparison with "seven times larger fleets" which, to the aviationly-uneducated, could be taken as a reference to the big, bad guy.

AC has done exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons in many markets and been crucified in the press. St. John's - LHR a few years ago comes to mind where everyone from the editor to the mayor to the premier to people who would never use the service took shots.

If it isn't your pen, the writer of the article must be an export from the Clagary Harold, for whom WJ can do no bad.

[Tango Niner]

Jeez. WestJet drops a turd and the acolytes want to tell us about the flecks of gold in it.

Even being the bleeding-teal WestJetter that I am, I laughed and nodded, good one Fido!

[dagger]

Even being the bleeding-teal WestJetter that I am, I laughed and nodded, good one Fido!

Yep, it's a function of the airline industry that new things are tried, and sometimes abandoned. Everybody does it, Achieving success is a lot harder than predicting it based on a ouija board of statistics that might not line up as nicely as one thinks in support of a new venture.

Failure is a part of the learning process. Best to call it a failure rather than delude yourself into thinking it was smart to pull the plug. Then you've learned nothing. There's not always a better use of the aircraft at that given moment, especially if you've ordered too many aircraft.

[Thebean]

You sure you didn't write that article, Thebean? The only thing missing is a backhanded remark about AC. An almost-try with the comparison with "seven times larger fleets" which, to the aviationly-uneducated, could be taken as a reference to the big, bad guy.

AC has done exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons in many markets and been crucified in the press. St. John's - LHR a few years ago comes to mind where everyone from the editor to the mayor to the premier to people who would never use the service took shots.

If it isn't your pen, the writer of the article must be an export from the Clagary Harold, for whom WJ can do no bad.

Alas, I don't spend my time writing editorials for small town newspapers 400 miles north of a city I used to live in 10 years ago.

My guess is, like all of Northern Alberta, any editorial affinity is to Edmonton, not Calgary. That's how it works in Alberta.

Dagger makes a very good point. I remember various airport authorities wandering in with all kinds of data pointing routes WJ should operate. A lot of the ideas were truly bizarre and virtually all of the research immediately went to the global warming file, located at the foot of my desk.

When we did launch a route an airport authority suggested, they'd take all the credit for it when in fact, what they came up with was already well known internally and their shiny expensive studies had, in virtually all cases, very little to do with the decision. There may be exceptions to this, but I'm wracking my brain to think of one in my 10 year era.

The comment alluding to WJ's relationship with the media is more an indication of the importance and strength of the brand than anything else.

The most successful companies I'm aware of rarely screw with their brand. The day McDonalds brands a low cost / lower quality version of itself as McRonalds to compete in a different market segment is the day McDonalds dies as a brand.

When we road trip it south, we often find that Durty Ronnie's is often the only recognizable game in town for lunch where, if nothing else, the product in every respect is consistent and reasonably safe, so that's where we stop for a quick bite before continuing on the 26hr ordeal. We often joke that the trips are sponsored by Durty M's.

The day that consistency ends is the day we don't bother with Durty Ronnie's. Once that goes, it's death by a thousand paper cuts. It becomes a very slippery slope few corporations want to tackle.

[chockalicious]

@ Fido. I am not sure how acknowledging that WS did not line up their flights with shift changes warrants an acolyte comment about turds but It is the type of comment I would expect from someone who enjoys tormenting dogs.

[Super 80]

The flights did not line up for shift change for a lot of the oil workers, good to see WS maintaining a use it or lose it philosophy to this day.

Even by airport authority standards there are some unbelievably incompetent people on the YMM BoD, not a surprise that nobody would be available for comment.

Isn't FMAA just a bunch of ex-ERAA clowns?

The thing I wonder about that market in general is just how much of a market there really is among the well heeled transients. Everyone I know who has worked up there was pretty much "along for the ride" and really had no flexibility in their travel and were going back to YYC or YEG at the end of their schedule whether they liked it or not. I know an engineer who worked up there who was himself a pilot and he asked if he could fly himself in and out and was given an unequivocal no. He had to fly on the same charters as everyone else.

[moeman]

@ Fido. I am not sure how acknowledging that WS did not line up their flights with shift changes warrants an acolyte comment about turds but It is the type of comment I would expect from someone who enjoys tormenting dogs.

Isn't that akin to saying, F-you, or when did you stop beating your wife/dog? Klassy. Capital K, klassy.

[chockalicious]

@moeman. Referenced an post a while back given treatment of animals on the ramp. I find those kinds of things indicative of a person in general.

Probably would not have brought it up except for the unneeded insult when pointing out a mistake (IMO) that WS made. You have no problem with that though.

[DEFCON]

Geez...I thought Fido's remarks about 'gold flecks' were funny and not to be taken too seriously.

[Thebean]

Looks like United has had enough of a few trans-border markets.....

UNITED in Fall 2014 season is ending 3 routes to Canada. Affected routes and the effective dates for cancellation as follows.

eff 30SEP14 Chicago – Saskatoon Currently 1 daily Embraer ERJ service*
eff 25OCT14 Chicago – Regina Currently 1 daily CRJ200 service*
eff 26OCT14 Newark – Edmonton Currently 6 weekly A319 service

Note that they already pulled the pin on Fort McMurray - Denver.

[internet]

Signs United may finally be coming around to the idea of fly places that make you money?

[Fido]

It is more of a sign that Continental people have taken over the Network Planning.

They gave the old United routes a chance but have now decided to act.

[Thebean]

Signs United may finally be coming around to the idea of fly places that make you money?

They aren't the only airline that needs to figure this out.

[internet]

"No dry holes"

But how much of WestJet flying would be unprofitable? I assume that YYC-YEG never was until the Q's showed up

There must be some elements of network flying that don't make $ but are "necessary"

[Thebean]

If true, the question then becomes what percentage of flying performed is stinking the joint out and causing margins to continue to be consistently near the bottom of the ladder, quarter after quarter after quarter?

I would imagine Delta might have some routes that don't look that great, but as a % of their total ASM's or even raw seat capacity flown, and with the overall margins they produce, I'd bet those routes represent a far smaller proportion of their overall capacity than airlines at the other end of the margin spectrum.

That's where the discipline kicks in. Marketshare means nothing if it doesn't translate into bottomline performance.

Taking a hatchet to routes that blow chunks, and especially non-strategic routes that don't touch hubs that blow chunks, is a pretty good way of improving a bottomline.