PDA

View Full Version : YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143

zivan56
Dec 15, 2009, 10:48 PM
Was this guy drunk/high? How can you not stop a car before it would even get to the doors? He wasn't speeding up to ramp to the departures level going 60 or anything.

officedweller
Dec 15, 2009, 10:55 PM
... and they let him catch his flight?

SpongeG
Dec 15, 2009, 11:21 PM
it was a valet - the valet parker got into the SUV and didn't know it was in reverse and accelerated

a witness on TV said it was a woman driver

zivan56
Dec 15, 2009, 11:42 PM
That's a pretty sorry excuse. Virtually all cars have an indicator on the dashboard to tell you what gear it is in as does the shifter itself.
What was she thinking?
"Oh, its in drive...I made 100% sure of it and now its going backwards. Instead of braking and seeing what is the cause, I'll just press the accelerator harder. It's not my fault, it was not in reverse! The car was wrong!" :rolleyes:

Some women are way too ditzy to be allowed on the road.

Zassk
Dec 16, 2009, 12:37 AM
^ It was a man, not a woman :-)

Millennium2002
Dec 16, 2009, 1:16 AM
No security bollards?

The last time I visited there (which was many months ago)... no.

... and they let him catch his flight?

If you read the story on CTV you'll find out that the person who had his car driven was able to catch his flight. The valet person however was just doing his job when the big mishap occurred.

zivan56
Dec 16, 2009, 2:39 AM
A witness on the news said the driver was female...I read the article and it says male. Who to believe? Now on the news, they said it was a Honda Pilot which was involved, but it was a Ford Explorer obviously from the news video.

SpongeG
Dec 16, 2009, 7:36 AM
yah the guy on the news said it was a woman and he also said someone inside the airport was hit - while the news article says no one was hurt

twoNeurons
Dec 16, 2009, 5:21 PM
This is the plane that I can't wait to fly on :)

Tell me about it. I'm actually more excited about the 787 than I ever was about the A380.

Mr.Airport
Dec 19, 2009, 6:03 AM
Your question has been partly answered in the previous page.



Clearly, everything's quite preliminary. The transborder terminal is an extension of the airport eastwards from the Int'l terminal. A new Canada Line station will be built (at the point where there are two tracks). It will be broken up into two phases. Phase 1 is expected to be complete in 2015, phase 2 in 2023. YVR's been expanding quite quickly: you might see these two phases built as one. No, there are no renderings, but the expansion is covered in the 2027 Masterplan.

Refer to plan: http://wwwnew.yvr.ca/en/about/future-planning/YVR-Your-Airport-2027.aspx

Yes, the new transborder terminal will just be an extension of the International Terminal building, where the fairmont hotel and the cruise ship loading is.
As for the dates, due to the economy and the reduction of flights, we may even see these dates pushed back.
Since the design hasn't started, there are no drawings.

However, I also hear they will expand Pier A to increase westjet's capacity.

Rothwell
Dec 19, 2009, 6:20 AM
That's a pretty sorry excuse. Virtually all cars have an indicator on the dashboard to tell you what gear it is in as does the shifter itself.
What was she thinking?
"Oh, its in drive...I made 100% sure of it and now its going backwards. Instead of braking and seeing what is the cause, I'll just press the accelerator harder. It's not my fault, it was not in reverse! The car was wrong!" :rolleyes:

Some women are way too ditzy to be allowed on the road.

Dude don't be so quick to judge the person. Have you ever worked as a valet? Have you ever worked in any job requiring you to move cars all day? I have. I saw a perfectly sober guy floor it in an H2 in reverse right into a concrete pole. It ended up costing $5000 to fix. Like this lady/man in the news, he thought it was in drive. He let his mind wander for a minute and it ended up costing him. It can happen to anyone.

natelox
Dec 19, 2009, 7:29 AM
Surprised this wasn't posted earlier today..


Canada. EU signs 'open skies' deal with Canada

Canwest News Service December 18, 2009

The European Union on Thursday signed an "open skies" deal with Canada, liberalizing air traffic between the two, the EU Commission said. The deal, which was agreed upon a year ago, allows European airlines to fly to Canada from anywhere they want in Europe rather than just their home country. It will also lift all restrictions on routes, prices or the number of weekly flights between Canada and the EU as well as limits on investing in or setting up airlines in Canada and vice versa. The deal replaces a patchwork of bilateral accords between Canada and individual EU states.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Canada+signs+open+skies+deal+with+Canada/2354437/story.html

There are better, more in depth articles out there if you're interested in what this entails, ie:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-12-17-eu-canada-aviation-deal_N.htm

Zassk
Dec 19, 2009, 8:24 AM
^ Interesting footnote to that USA Today article, this should make life a lot simpler for travellers:

The deal also recognizes security checks in both regions which should simplify flight transfers because passengers, luggage or cargo taking a connecting flight would be exempted from a second round of security screening.

trofirhen
Dec 19, 2009, 4:08 PM
duplicate

trofirhen
Dec 19, 2009, 4:09 PM
Surprised this wasn't posted earlier today..



http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Canada+signs+open+skies+deal+with+Canada/2354437/story.html

There are better, more in depth articles out there if you're interested in what this entails, ie:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-12-17-eu-canada-aviation-deal_N.htm

..... finally .......

zivan56
Dec 19, 2009, 7:21 PM
Dude don't be so quick to judge the person. Have you ever worked as a valet? Have you ever worked in any job requiring you to move cars all day? I have. I saw a perfectly sober guy floor it in an H2 in reverse right into a concrete pole. It ended up costing $5000 to fix. Like this lady/man in the news, he thought it was in drive. He let his mind wander for a minute and it ended up costing him. It can happen to anyone.

This was in the morning...not after a 20 hour shift. Still, that's no excuse to rush and not pay attention. Do you realize how much/long you have to press on the gas to do this? Not to mention the slow reaction time to hit the brake. Why would the person hit the gas that hard on a car that doesn't belong to them and they have never driven before?

I would understand if they had a seizure or medical condition which caused them to temporarily lose consciousness, but this wasn't the case. Imagine if there were dozens on people along the way they hit and killed because of their careless attitude...I can't believe anybody would defend this person unless it was due to circumstances beyond their control. I hope they at least received a careless/unsafe driving ticket, driving on sidewalk, etc and insurance through the roof so that they can finally learn how to tell if the car is in drive.

twoNeurons
Dec 19, 2009, 10:29 PM
There was news that Air Canada was going to [temporarily] reinstate YVR - KIX (Osaka) for next spring. Has anyone heard any more about this recently? I haven't seen anything in the news.

PaperTiger
Dec 21, 2009, 10:21 PM
More good news in the sun today. Looks like we can expect and increase from 7 to 14 flights per day for Air China to and from Beijing and an increase of 300 seats per week (total) on Cathay's current schedule.

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Airlines+gear+more+Vancouver+Beijing+flights/2366393/story.html

Never flown Air China, but I've flown China Southern and it was a little getto.

giallo
Dec 22, 2009, 3:09 AM
^ I only take Air Canada between China and Vancouver. The alternatives are less than appealing.

twoNeurons
Dec 22, 2009, 7:21 PM
To be fair, their target market probably isn't born-in-Canada Canadians.

PaperTiger
Dec 22, 2009, 7:25 PM
True, their target market is clearly Chinese Nationals. This announcment is directly related to Canada being granted Approved Destination Status by the pinko commies, errrr chinese government.

twoNeurons
Dec 22, 2009, 10:27 PM
Regarding the temporary reinstatement of the YVR-KIX route, it looks like it's not happening. Here's the email I received back from Air Canada.

( I recommend you write Air Canada and ask about the route if you care about it )


A temporary reinstatement is not economically feasible as there are many costs related to any new scheduling. Most airlines world wide lost a great deal of money in recent years, Air Canada alone lost 1 billion dollars last year. For this reason, capacity has been cut wherever possible to reduce costs. While we had a number of passengers who loved the Osaka route, the cost of operating it far outweighed the benefits as it was not as well utilised as Air Canada would have liked.

I think it was probably due to the fact that it was using a 767 and 767s aren't the most efficient planes for those distances. "Hopefully" we'll see this route come back either in the form of ANA 787 or an AC 787.

Also, given that Air Canada doesn't have any presence at KIX I can see why they don't think it's worth it to fly into there temporarily.

Until then, the best choice will be Delta's new direct service out of Seattle. If the times are favorable, you could even take Amtrak to Seattle, and Link LRT to the Airport.

The additional $50 and few hours is probably made up by the transfer in Tokyo and cost savings.

Of course, if you can fly NAR - KIX without transferring to Haneda, the Tokyo transfer isn't that bad, which is what I try to do, as KIX is closer to my destination anyhow.

vansky
Dec 22, 2009, 11:17 PM
True, their target market is clearly Chinese Nationals. This announcment is directly related to Canada being granted Approved Destination Status by the pinko commies, errrr chinese government.

yes, the commies are coming, it better be ready.

there are 6 million commies in china, i wonder how many will land 3 months from now...

trofirhen
Dec 23, 2009, 2:06 AM
However, I also hear they will expand Pier A to increase westjet's capacity.

Any further information on Pier A and Pier B? It seems to me that these piers are underused, and could be the terminal hub for Westjet if they were unpgraded, at least for domestic flights.

Would Westjet international flights (USA, Mexico) still leave from the International Departure Building? I would assume so, but it might be convenient to have Westjet concentrated in one area.

Of course, in very large US airports, like JFK and LAX, each major airline often has its own terminal, but YVR isn't that big yet.

deasine
Dec 23, 2009, 8:39 AM
Any further information on Pier A and Pier B? It seems to me that these piers are underused, and could be the terminal hub for Westjet if they were unpgraded, at least for domestic flights.

Would Westjet international flights (USA, Mexico) still leave from the International Departure Building? I would assume so, but it might be convenient to have Westjet concentrated in one area.

Of course, in very large US airports, like JFK and LAX, each major airline often has its own terminal, but YVR isn't that big yet.

It depends on the airport, but many American airports also split Domestic (Canada and US) and International flights to separate terminals, where within each terminal, there is a section for each airline. SFO has that.

The security screening processes in Domestic and Int'l flights are a little different, even though it's relatively the same from a passenger standpoint. So no, Westjet won't have their Int'l flights in the Domestic terminal, and certainly not any US flights as US bound flights have their own security at YVR.

Hot Rod
Dec 23, 2009, 10:03 AM
Chicago O'hare does international arrivals in a specific international terminal, but international departures can be made using domestic terminals *very useful for alliance partners. However, there are still many foreign flag carriers that only go out of the international T5 terminal.

As for Air China, I applaud their increased capacity to Vancouver. I ALWAYS fly Air China from Vancouver and have never had bad service or problems with them.

Well, there was this one time - when I was charged for my 3rd bag despite being an Elite United member (AChina is a Star Alliance member, like United/Air Canada). But it was not Air China's fault, as the check-in agent was from AIR CANADA!!!!

I must say that Air Canada must be the worst run airline in the world because the employees have absolutely no idea how to have good customer service.

And, come to find out - I should NOT have been charged for that 3rd bag after all; so you bet I will get my money back!

Other than that, Air China is wonderful to me - as is the Airbus 330 that they currently use for the YVR-PEK service. The price is right too. :D

Hot Rod
Dec 23, 2009, 10:06 AM
one more thing, I would not be surprised at all - if China Southern starts CAN-YVR service soon (especially once they get new aircraft) and we see additional PVG-YVR capacity.

I also think Hainan might 'shift' service from Seattle to Vancouver as well, as Im not sure the route from Seattle is doing too well (way overpriced/inconvenient). ...

Im very happy about the additional daily PEK-YVR Air China flight.

trofirhen
Dec 23, 2009, 4:46 PM
Well, as for me, (as many of you know), now that the ink is dry on the Canada - EU Open Skies accord, I'm just waiting for Air France to touch down
with regularly scheduled service at Vancouver.

In fact, I don't care if it's BA, KLM (Air France, really), or even (giiiiik) Air Canada, just as long as there's a year-round scheduled service Paris to Vancouver. Apparently, the route out of Seattle is flying full just about every day. They might even combine that into a Paris > Seattle > Vancouver service, rather the way British Airways has a regular Heathrow > Vancouver > Seattle run.

But, as they say "just do it." Hey, we might even get one or two other destinations too, in due time, of course. Rome was second on the list of desired destinations, after Paris, and I believe Melbourne was third, though I doubt we'll see that for a long long time, if ever.

Gordon
Dec 23, 2009, 7:23 PM
Air China's expanded service to yvr does not appear on Air China's or other travel websites.

Th will give YVR 3 flights to Beijing on same days.

Johnny Aussie
Dec 23, 2009, 11:35 PM
Air China's expanded service to yvr does not appear on Air China's or other travel websites.

Th will give YVR 3 flights to Beijing on same days.

I don't think this has been "officially" announced yet, other than the article with the comments made by Air China's Vancouver Manager, so I wouldn't expect to see the expanded service updated yet.

In the same article it mentions Cathay upgrading one of their HKG-YVR 2 daily flights to large aircraft. Does anybody know about what the change will be?

I did read on the West Coast Aviaition Forum[/I]that China Southern has indicated it wants to start CAN-YVR flights by next spring/summer. Apparently on Canada's last trade mission to China this was "announced" by the foreign trade minister. Details a bit sketchy.

And with AC returning to both daily PEK and PVG next summer, looks like airlines have confidence the ADS will make a difference....

Yume-sama
Dec 23, 2009, 11:36 PM
I don't think this has been "officially" announced yet, so I wouldn't expect to see the expanded service updated yet.

In the same article it mentions Cathay upgrading one of their HKG-YVR 2 daily flights to large aircraft. Does anybody know about what the change will be?

Maybe they will go back to using 747 instead of 777?

Gordon
Dec 23, 2009, 11:57 PM
Maybe the A340 to a 777.

Yume-sama
Dec 23, 2009, 11:59 PM
:P I want another 747 before nobody is using them at all :(

The 787 will pretty much be the death of it for YVR.

Chikinlittle
Dec 24, 2009, 5:48 AM
I think it was probably due to the fact that it was using a 767 and 767s aren't the most efficient planes for those distances. "Hopefully" we'll see this route come back either in the form of ANA 787 or an AC 787.


How do you figure? 767s are made almost exactly for routes of that distance.

Chikinlittle
Dec 24, 2009, 5:57 AM
They might even combine that into a Paris > Seattle > Vancouver service, rather the way British Airways has a regular Heathrow > Vancouver > Seattle run...

...Rome was second on the list of desired destinations, after Paris, and I believe Melbourne was third, though I doubt we'll see that for a long long time, if ever.

BA does not fly LHR-YVR-SEA. They operate daily non-stops to both cities.

Also, if you recall, AC was operating flights into MEL several years ago (In addition to SYD), before they started operating non-stop from YVR. It still required the then obligatory 'stop and stretch your legs' in HNL at the time.

Chikinlittle
Dec 24, 2009, 6:04 AM
:P I want another 747 before nobody is using them at all :(

The 787 will pretty much be the death of it for YVR.

How do you figure? The 787 is more of a modern replacement to the 767 than anything else (in terms of capactity). The 777 more replaces the 747 than does the 787.

Yume-sama
Dec 24, 2009, 6:52 AM
How do you figure? The 787 is more of a modern replacement to the 767 than anything else (in terms of capactity). The 777 more replaces the 747 than does the 787.

Very few airlines fly the 747 to YVR anymore, and JAL will likely be stopping in a couple of years.

But, really, I can see airlines moving more towards the efficiency of the 787 even if it takes less passengers.

Ultimately the 747 will likely just be cargo, orders for the new 747-800 are 2 to 1 cargo over passenger, with only Lufthansa and Korean purchasing them.

red-paladin
Dec 24, 2009, 8:27 AM
Will we ever get A380s? That's a real plane.

trofirhen
Dec 24, 2009, 3:23 PM
It sure is ! ! But it would only be used on very heavily-trafficked, long distance routes, with sufficient, consistent passenger load. If you can think of such a route, and an airline that flies that route that may invest in the Airbus 380, then I'm qure we'll see them here, although maybe not in large numbers, such as at CDG, JFK, LHR, etc etc

trofirhen
Dec 24, 2009, 3:29 PM
BA does not fly LHR-YVR-SEA. They operate daily non-stops to both cities.

Also, if you recall, AC was operating flights into MEL several years ago (In addition to SYD), before they started operating non-stop from YVR. It still required the then obligatory 'stop and stretch your legs' in HNL at the time.

I was speaking to a contact in the YVR marketing department two days ago, and he said Brisbane is a likely new destination from Vancouver, as it is the closest to North America. Flights could make a stop there then continue on to Sydney and / or Melbourne

I was not aware than AC ever flew to Melbourne at one time.

FYI, at the present rate of growth, predictions are that it sill overtake Sydney as the largest city in Australia within 20 years. Sydney will remain the most desirable city, but for business passengers, Melbourne may be the top destination.

twoNeurons
Dec 24, 2009, 4:06 PM
Will we ever get A380s? That's a real plane.

I like the A380 for its sheer size and technological prowess, but in terms of looks, I don't think I'll ever see a plane that is as well-proportioned and as good-looking as the B747.
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/747a3801024.jpg?t=1223246191
Beluga vs. Dolphin

The A380 is a more comfortable ride for passengers, however, so from a passenger perspective, much better.

Chikinlittle
Dec 24, 2009, 4:11 PM
I was speaking to a contact in the YVR marketing department two days ago, and he said Brisbane is a likely new destination from Vancouver, as it is the closest to North America. Flights could make a stop there then continue on to Sydney and / or Melbourne

I was not aware than AC ever flew to Melbourne at one time.

FYI, at the present rate of growth, predictions are that it sill overtake Sydney as the largest city in Australia within 20 years. Sydney will remain the most desirable city, but for business passengers, Melbourne may be the top destination.

BNE used to be a destination out of YVR (again with a touchdown in HNL) some 8 years ago in the old Canada 3000 days. In the winter their A330s would make a twice weekly loop of the South Pacific... YVR-HNL-BNE-SYD-AKL-RAR-HNL-YVR and vice versa. In the summer months, it used to operate solely as YVR-HNL-BNE-SYD and return.

twoNeurons
Dec 24, 2009, 4:40 PM
How do you figure? The 787 is more of a modern replacement to the 767 than anything else (in terms of capactity). The 777 more replaces the 747 than does the 787.
These new planes are built for more direct point-to-point flying.

They're essentially designed for places like Vancouver/Calgary/Edmonton.

What you might see is that instead of an airline flying one Jumbo Jet into Vancouver, and then to Calgary, they'll find they will assume less risk on two more efficient 787s flying into each destination.

I've started to rethink how I think about YVR. I think that YVR's growth will have more to do with Vancouver's growth than its role as a Pacific hub.

Of course, I'd like to see YVR as a hub bigger than its population warrants... but that's purely for selfish reasons. :)

PaperTiger
Dec 24, 2009, 4:59 PM
The A380 is a more comfortable ride for passengers, however, so from a passenger perspective, much better.

Really?? I have never flown in an A380, But I have flown on every other Airbus and all modern Boeings and I would rather be on a Boeing any day.

In fact, Malaysian Airlines Trans-pacific 747-400 is the best economy flying experience I have ever had. It was so good that it almost made up for my annoying YVR-LAX-TPE-KUL-SYD routing.

twoNeurons
Dec 24, 2009, 5:06 PM
Really?? I have never flown in an A380, But I have flown on every other Airbus and all modern Boeings and I would rather be on a Boeing any day.

In fact, Malaysian Airlines Trans-pacific 747-400 is the best economy flying experience I have ever had. It was so good that it almost made up for my annoying YVR-LAX-TPE-KUL-SYD routing.

Well, the A380 is quieter, has bigger windows and is more spacious than a 747.

The 787 will trump all of them apparently, for passenger comfort.

zivan56
Dec 24, 2009, 8:23 PM
Don't worry, all airlines will find a way to make both the A380 and 787 as uncomfortable as possible in order to cram as many people in as possible in them. I'm not that tall and I still can't sit in a non-aisle/exit row seat on most major airlines (Lufthansa, BA, etc) without my kneecaps feeling like they are about to pop off due to pressure from the seat in front.

twoNeurons
Dec 24, 2009, 11:50 PM
Don't worry, all airlines will find a way to make both the A380 and 787 as uncomfortable as possible in order to cram as many people in as possible in them. I'm not that tall and I still can't sit in a non-aisle/exit row seat on most major airlines (Lufthansa, BA, etc) without my kneecaps feeling like they are about to pop off due to pressure from the seat in front.

While that's true about the distance between seat rows, the A380 is really before its time. They COULD maximize the plane and put 800 people in there in a 100% economy setup... however, most airlines are ordering the plane with under 500. So, until there is some mega demand for moving 800 passengers daily going from one destination to another, the A380 will be spacious.

The 787 could be cramped, but where its comfortableness lies is that they can raise the humidity because the airframe's not metal and they can pressurize the cabin at higher pressure. This can't be done on ANY plane today. They've also put the largest windows of any aircraft on the plane.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e125/mirrodie/window.jpg
Comparing the 787 to an A340 ( or any other Boeing craft too, I'd imagine )

These things are what will make even a cramped flight more comfortable.

trofirhen
Dec 25, 2009, 12:12 AM
Of course, I'd like to see YVR as a hub bigger than its population warrants... but that's purely for selfish reasons. :)
:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:
Me too! I'd like to see Vancouver punching way over its weight, but not ONLY for the Pacific Rim, which everyone seems obsesed with.

I'd like to see better sceduled to service to Europe. (A YVR marketing official told me that Paris and Munich are the two most likely new destinations there, now that Open Skies is active)

And I'd like to see a flight to Bangkok, better, more consistent service to Australia, and by that I mean NOT ONLY sydney, and a reliable connection into Latin America as well.

And direct service to India. (This, I was told is being held up by a disorganised and over-competitive situation within India, not a typical snag-up from Ottawa).

One Asian airline (Cathay or JAL) is soon dropping the YVR - Mexico city run. Good thing there's Mexicana to take its place, but it would be great to see year-round service to Guadalajara as well, if the market will support it.

Yes, it would be great to see YVR assume a role that is "pivotal" in world aviation traffic patterns. And I'm talking about year-round scheduled service, not seasonal traffic or charters.

whatnext
Dec 26, 2009, 7:18 PM
Looks like US-bound travellers are going to be in for some delays ex-YVR. I can't see how this is going to be workable:

MONTREAL December 26, 2009 -- Air Canada advises passengers travelling to the U.S. that due to enhanced government security measures air travellers should arrive early at airports to allow extra time to clear security screening. Passengers should also expect flight delays, cancellations and missed connections, and limit themselves to a single piece of carry-on baggage.

Air Canada recommends passengers travelling to the U.S. to arrive early at the airport for their flight in order to allow adequate time for additional personal searches. Under new rules enacted by Transport Canada and the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, passengers and their carry-on baggage will be subject to full searches both at airport screening points and prior to boarding at the aircraft gate area.

As a result of the added security precautions, passengers should also expect delayed and cancelled flights as well as missed connections. Air Canada will endeavour to transport passengers to their destination as quickly as possible and rebook passengers who miss their connections at no charge.
While these measures directly affect only flights from Canada to the United States, domestic and international flights may also experience delays due to airport congestion and delayed aircraft. For information on a flight's status please consult www.aircanada.com.

In addition, new rules imposed by Transport Canada will limit the amount of carry-on baggage to one item per person travelling on flights from Canada to the United States. Existing checked baggage rules remain in effect. For details on checked baggage allowances, please consult http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/airport/baggage/index.html.

"The safety of our customers and staff is our number one priority at Air Canada," said Duncan Dee, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. "Our operations teams will be working closely with airport and government authorities to minimize any inconvenience to our customers and to ensure that our customers reach their destinations safely and comfortably."

New rules imposed by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration also limit on-board activities by customers and crew in U.S. airspace that may adversely impact on-board service. Among other things, during the final hour of flight customers must remain seated, will not be allowed to access carry-on baggage, or have personal belongings or other items on their laps. (bold mine)
http://www.aircanada.com/en/news/trav_adv/091226.html

Yume-sama
Dec 26, 2009, 7:21 PM
Is this because of what happened yesterday? Or did they always plan to make going to the USA more miserable than it is now.

Either way, another over reaction that will stick around way too long (no shoes, no liquids, etc.). Yay!

In addition, new rules imposed by Transport Canada will limit the amount of carry-on baggage to one item per person

Why?

Among other things, during the final hour of flight customers must remain seated

Tell me how that even begins to make sense. So, what, you just have to make sure you bomb the plane early on?

Even a Nigerian terrorist wannabe has a watch.

WBC
Dec 26, 2009, 8:13 PM
Seriously, why are these people obsessed with bombing planes?!? And in the most idiotic way possible?

I say nudist flights are the way of the future...The only thing is - I would like to see some throw-away cushions. :haha:

Yume-sama
Dec 26, 2009, 8:15 PM
Seriously, why are these people obsessed with bombing planes?!? And in the most idiotic way possible?

I say nudist flights are the way of the future...The only thing is - I would like to see some throw-away cushions. :haha:

Hmmm, well, planes are about the most obvious thing that doesn't fit in with their 12th century World view. :haha:

I wonder what the last few remaining uncontacted tribes of people in the World think when a plane flies over their heads :frog:

vansky
Dec 26, 2009, 10:04 PM
747 got a classic exterior look, but it's very small inside...they can combine the two planes together to form sth even better.

SpongeG
Dec 27, 2009, 5:32 AM
While that's true about the distance between seat rows, the A380 is really before its time. They COULD maximize the plane and put 800 people in there in a 100% economy setup... however, most airlines are ordering the plane with under 500. So, until there is some mega demand for moving 800 passengers daily going from one destination to another, the A380 will be spacious.

The 787 could be cramped, but where its comfortableness lies is that they can raise the humidity because the airframe's not metal and they can pressurize the cabin at higher pressure. This can't be done on ANY plane today. They've also put the largest windows of any aircraft on the plane.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e125/mirrodie/window.jpg
Comparing the 787 to an A340 ( or any other Boeing craft too, I'd imagine )

These things are what will make even a cramped flight more comfortable.

now if they could only remove the shades - everytime i fly someone next to the window keeps the sdhade down teh entire flight take off to landing :hell:

Yume-sama
Dec 27, 2009, 5:41 AM
now if they could only remove the shades - everytime i fly someone next to the window keeps the sdhade down teh entire flight take off to landing :hell:

Hmmm, well, they technically did get rid of them. The windows are electronic, and can dim to varying levels of brightness. :notacrook:

zivan56
Dec 27, 2009, 8:54 AM
I would rather they all be closed 100% of the time with cameras around the plane you can watch from the video screen. The worst thing is try to get some sleep with all lights off and some idiot has the shade open lighting up the whole plane.

GeeCee
Dec 27, 2009, 9:01 AM
I read recently that due to the new electronic windows, when the plane's interior is in 'sleep mode' the windows will be restricted as well which should help. A plane with no windows at all in the cabin would be kinda scary..

sacrifice333
Dec 27, 2009, 5:13 PM
The humidity factor is supposed to greatly reduce jet lag on the 787.

whatnext
Dec 27, 2009, 5:54 PM
now if they could only remove the shades - everytime i fly someone next to the window keeps the sdhade down teh entire flight take off to landing :hell:

Well, as part of these new security regulations airlines have had to disable the map feature on their IFE. And they're forbidden to point out any US landmarks they're flying over. So perhaps they'll just close all the shades for the whole flight! :koko:

Spork
Dec 27, 2009, 6:08 PM
I just bought 50,000 shares in Greyhound.

SpongeG
Dec 27, 2009, 9:06 PM
i sat next to the window and kept it open the whole time :)

zivan56
Dec 27, 2009, 10:13 PM
I read recently that due to the new electronic windows, when the plane's interior is in 'sleep mode' the windows will be restricted as well which should help. A plane with no windows at all in the cabin would be kinda scary..

Well ok I was exaggerating a bit. Something should be in place to make sure windows are all down when it is "nap time." This sounds like a good solution.
If someone wants to enjoy the full effects of jet lag, then they are free to go to the bulkhead sections of the plane behind the curtains to look outside without bothering everyone else.

SpongeG
Dec 27, 2009, 10:20 PM
yah but on a 90 minute flight to california?

its different with overseas travel - i don't get people who leave it down on short flights

Yume-sama
Dec 27, 2009, 10:24 PM
When I go to Japan I never sleep, but during "sleep time" the flight attendants come through and ask people to close their windows, they even have a big long pole that they use to reach over and close the window if you are sleeping :P And who dares argue with a cute Japanese flight attendant with a long metal pole. Plus, everybody has a personal TV set with a variety of "outside view" cameras, front, below, sometimes tail.

I think I would probably only sleep if I went YVR - Sydney (16.5 hours), the long way. And didn't connect in Tokyo or Singapore for a few days :P

Waders
Dec 29, 2009, 5:01 AM
No book allowed? And what is 'a special-needs item'?

Source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091228/flights_091228/20091228?hub=TopStoriesV2

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Mon. Dec. 28 2009 10:31 PM ET

Mounties are now helping to ease commuter chaos at Canada's major airports, as airline officials enact tough new restrictions for flights headed to the U.S.

Transport Minister John Baird called the RCMP Sunday night, and asked that officers be stationed at Canada's largest airports to help speed up security checkpoints.

The new restrictions came after the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airline.

U.S.-bound passengers are no longer able to bring carry-on bags into the cabin of the aircraft, according to Transport Canada. The only items passengers may carry are:

medication or medical devices
small purses
cameras
coats
items for care of infants
laptop computers
crutches
canes
walkers
containers carrying life-sustaining items
a special-needs item
musical instruments
diplomatic or consular bags
"Additional searches of passengers and their exempted items will continue. Delays can be expected so passengers are advised to arrive at the airport three hours in advance of their scheduled flight," Transport Canada said in a statement.

"These measures are expected to be in place at least for several days."

Besides the usual pre-boarding security checks that have been in place since 2001-- such as restrictions on liquids and gels in carry-on bags -- the new checks include additional physical pat-downs of passengers.

The long line-ups that marked Sunday appeared to be shorter at most flight centres in Canada on Monday, and most flights to the U.S. are departing on time.

That's in contrast to Sunday, when dozens of flights to the U.S. were cancelled or delayed. At Pearson International Airport alone -- Canada's busiest airport -- more than 160 flights were cancelled. Those that did go were typically delayed by one to five hours.

On Monday, Pearson officials said operations were running more smoothly, after Air Canada consolidated some flights and operated larger aircraft on certain routes.

Longer lines around the world

Airports across Europe also reported some delays to U.S.-bound flights Monday, because of the new security requirements.

At London's Heathrow Airport, Europe's busiest air hub, there were delays of about an hour, but both British Airways and Virgin Atlantic said delays had been minimal.

In France, the Paris airport authority said security backlogs on flights to the U.S. early Monday had delayed overall traffic an average of one hour, but by the evening, the backlogs had cleared.

While fewer flights are being delayed, the lineups at check-in counters at Canadian airports continue.

Airports are warning that all passengers flying to the United States should allow a few hours to check in. Domestic flights are not facing the same delays and security checks.

Reports from Pearson on Monday suggested that with the extra security searches, it was taking U.S.-bound passengers about three hours to get through security.

Officials with the U.S. Transport Security Administration said Sunday that passengers should not expect to see the same thing at every airport.

The TSA said heightened security procedures could include more gate screening, added presence of law enforcement officers -- some visible, some not -- and bomb-sniffing canine teams.

With reports from The Canadian Press

Spork
Dec 29, 2009, 7:27 AM
Time to go buy a small purse for the next flight that I'm on! (P.S. I am male.)

Political_R
Dec 29, 2009, 7:30 AM
This is just as ridiculous as the reaction back in July of 2008 after the attempt to blow up 5 trans-atlantic flights was foiled. Time to get those high speed rail lines built ASAP.

trofirhen
Dec 29, 2009, 10:02 AM
This is just as ridiculous as the reaction back in July of 2008 after the attempt to blow up 5 trans-atlantic flights was foiled. Time to get those high speed rail lines built ASAP.

Great idea. I'm all for high-speed rail. In Europe they have trains that cruise at 320 km/h (Paris-Strasbourg TGV). Problem is, in Canada and especially the West, do we have the population base to support enough ridership to justify building those trains? Not really.

Even the "high-speed" rail link between Montreal and Toronto only travels at about 165 km/h max, and only has about two trips a day.

twoNeurons
Dec 29, 2009, 3:14 PM
Even the "high-speed" rail link between Montreal and Toronto only travels at about 165 km/h max, and only has about two trips a day.

That could read:
...[because] the "high-speed" rail link between Montreal and Toronto only travels at about 165 km/h max, [it] only has about two trips a day.

Faster trains attract more passengers, higher paying customers. If there's one corridor that could use HSR in Canada, this is it.

eemy
Dec 29, 2009, 6:00 PM
Great idea. I'm all for high-speed rail. In Europe they have trains that cruise at 320 km/h (Paris-Strasbourg TGV). Problem is, in Canada and especially the West, do we have the population base to support enough ridership to justify building those trains? Not really.

Even the "high-speed" rail link between Montreal and Toronto only travels at about 165 km/h max, and only has about two trips a day.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Toronto-Montreal sees 6 trains per day each way, as does Ottawa-Montreal. Toronto-Ottawa sees 5 trains per day. There isn't any "high-speed", just a few trips with fewer stops (more than 2 per day though).

trofirhen
Dec 29, 2009, 7:12 PM
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Toronto-Montreal sees 6 trains per day each way, as does Ottawa-Montreal. Toronto-Ottawa sees 5 trains per day. There isn't any "high-speed", just a few trips with fewer stops (more than 2 per day though).

I stand corrected about the number of trains. I was thinking of the Rapido, years back, and got confused.

What I'm really saying though, is that despite Montreal and Toronto being both big cities, there doesn't seem to be either the will, interest, and/or market for the kind of high-speed trains they have in Europe ..... which is a shame.

twoNeurons
Dec 29, 2009, 8:11 PM
I stand corrected about the number of trains. I was thinking of the Rapido, years back, and got confused.

What I'm really saying though, is that despite Montreal and Toronto being both big cities, there doesn't seem to be either the will, interest, and/or market for the kind of high-speed trains they have in Europe ..... which is a shame.

High speed markets have to be created. The market doesn't exist for them until you create then. Even until the late 30s people still, by and large, travelled by train or oceanliner because it was less expensive. The airline industry didn't take off :D until it was cheap enough and fast enough.

A Transatlantic airplane ride costed half a year's salary.

Even the revolutionary Boeing 247 still took over 20 hours and seven refuel stops to cross the country. This was 7 hours faster than any other plane. The 247 sped along at 189mph.

Contrast that with a train that could likely do a 2000mi trip (Chicago to SF) in under 30 hours for a LOT less money. (A record breaking Zephyr did a 1000mi Denver-Chicago run in 13 hours averaging 79mph)


These Streamliner trains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamliner#United_States) were pushing 120mph.

So why didn't they keep up the advancement?

According to wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamliner#USA) A decision by the Interstate Commerce Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission) which limited trains to 79mph and the growing interstate construction and other similar restrictions really sounded the death knell of practical rail transport.

The point is that there isn't a huge benefit to taking the train (yet) as the speeds barely compete with a car but you lose the convenience of a car.

People don't (generally) chose a mode of transit because of the mode... in other words, people don't go by train because they like trains. They will do it because it is economical, quick and convenient.

The current line only barely approaches those criteria when compared with the alternatives.

Waders
Dec 30, 2009, 5:01 AM
Time to go buy a small purse for the next flight that I'm on! (P.S. I am male.)

Wait a minute. The latest information is the carry-on bag ban will only be effective for the next few days.
I don't get it. How does this temporary measure improve security? A terrorist would just wait till the security measure is relaxed. :koko:

Yume-sama
Dec 30, 2009, 6:42 AM
Wait a minute. The latest information is the carry-on bag ban will only be effective for the next few days.
I don't get it. How does this temporary measure improve security? A terrorist would just wait till the security measure is relaxed. :koko:

The same way preventing passengers from reading a magazine, or preventing Granny from going to the bathroom makes you safer. It doesn't.

But you FEEL a tiny bit safer in the immediate aftermath of an attempted attack, don't you :P

And they absolutely can't be seen to be doing nothing...

SpongeG
Dec 30, 2009, 9:55 PM
it gives time for officials to come up with an idea

Yume-sama
Dec 30, 2009, 10:08 PM
Yes, and their idea is to take away even more privacy by using those digital "strip search" machines. If I was a CBC conspiracy theorist, I would say the government planted this guy (most likely the CIA) so they could make the case to take away more civil rights :P But, of course, you will still have to take off your shoes (as a result of a 2001 attempt), not have any liquid (as a result of a bogus claim), and remove your belt, jacket, etc.

Last night on TV they showed a TSA security person patting down a person with short sleeves and shorts (yes, the exposed parts). People that stupid shouldn't be in charge of anything. It is, of course, worth nothing that a pat down (no matter how many they insist on giving, 2 to 3) would not have stopped this guy, unless they were going to grope his crotch where it was sewn in to his underwear.

Probably the MOST common sense thing they could do is to have bomb sniffing dogs, who really don't discriminate. Rather than highschool dropouts who have to pat down every 90 year old woman out of political correctness.

I so begrudgingly had to book a flight to the USA yesterday. If they haven't calmed the hell down by the time I go in March, it'll probably be the last time I go to the USA.

Yume-sama
Jan 1, 2010, 8:21 PM
The second emergency landing this week at YVR, coincidentally both Hawaii bound planes, happened yesterday.

Honolulu bound passengers had to spend New Years Eve in Vancouver after a tire blew on takeoff.
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.vancouversun.com/opinion/WestJet+flight+makes+emergency+landing/2396532/2396724.bin?size=620x400
http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/WestJet+flight+makes+emergency+landing/2396532/story.html

mr.x
Jan 2, 2010, 11:07 AM
What's the likelihood of JAL going under and axing all of its international routes to focus on solely domestic routes?

MalcolmTucker
Jan 2, 2010, 1:10 PM
^ Unless JAL is inside out, international flights with the higher margin on first and business passengers should continue to form the backbone of it. That does not mean there won't be realignment and cut of excess capacity especially now that Japan is used less and less as a gateway to the rest of Asia.

Johnny Aussie
Jan 2, 2010, 5:21 PM
Air China has loaded their summer scheds. 10 weekly YVR-PEK.

CA992 daily dep YVR 1350
CA998 2,4,7 dep YVR 0300

Yume-sama
Jan 2, 2010, 6:42 PM
What's the likelihood of JAL going under and axing all of its international routes to focus on solely domestic routes?

Domestic routes in Japan aren't really that profitable. They usually cost the same or less than the Shinkansen bullet train, and you can imagine the costs of running an aircraft with 150 seats compared to a train with hundreds or thousands, which are all full. However, both ANA and JAL have began focusing more on the "sophisticated" business traveler with their expanded "Class J" (usually $100 more), a step above economy, and an ultra luxurious first class (5 - 6x more than economy).

The efficiency of the Japanese airlines are truly amazing, though. They can have the plane turned around in half an hour or less, it's literally swarmed with workers when it lands, and they don't even begin boarding until 10 - 15 minutes before departure, and everyone waits in line nicely and taps their cellphone (the majority of people buy tickets with their cellphone, now) or insert a low-tech paper ticket in to a machine. And security is a breeze, 5 - 10 minutes (you can still bring liquids on domestic Japan flights :P). All of this in an effort to try and win customers over the Shinkansen! It's always interesting to watch the prices, even the train tries to compete with them price-wise, if one has a sale.

Yume-sama
Jan 5, 2010, 9:49 PM
Time to start working out, digital strip searches coming to YVR.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2010/01/05/w-body-scanner-cp-7880366.jpg

Dozens of body scanners will be installed in Canadian airports to comply with new U.S. security protocols, the federal government confirmed Tuesday.

Rob Merrifield, minister of state for transport, said 44 scanners ordered on Tuesday will be used on passengers selected for secondary screening at Canadian airports.

CBC News has confirmed that the machines, which can scan through clothing, be installed in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax.

The system, tested over the last year in British Columbia at the Kelowna Airport, allows a screening officer to see whether someone is carrying plastic explosives or other dangerous items.

The plan to use the technology has stirred controversy because the scanner produces a three-dimensional outline of a person's naked body.
Privacy concerns addressed

Chantal Bernier, the assistant privacy commissioner, said in October the national air-security agency had successfully answered her office's questions about the project. Under the plan approved by the privacy chief, the officer would view the image in a separate room and never see the actual traveller.

Only people singled out for extra screening would be scanned, and they would have the option of getting a physical search instead.

Merrifield and Transport Minister John Baird said after an individual has successfully passed through the scanning, the information and images will not be stored, transmitted or printed in keeping with Canada's privacy laws.

The scanners cost $250,000 each, including parts and training. The first 12 scanners ordered will arrive next week, said Baird, with the remaining 32 coming over the next six to 10 weeks.

Baird said it takes about five days to train airport personnel to use the machines.

Transport Canada will also set up an airport watch system to look for suspicious passengers and tab them for enhanced screening, Baird said. He said the new system will not affect passengers under 18 years of age.
Screening process concerns privacy groups

Bernier told CBC News the behavioural screening process introduced Tuesday was not part of its October review and said the Office of the Privacy Commissioner will be discussing the issue with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

"We intend to keep a close watch on this file," she said.

Canadian Civil Liberties Association general counsel Natalie Des Rosiers said she had concerns about the behavioural screening plan, which she says could be used to single out certain groups for racial profiling.

She also had concerns that while the government has portrayed the scanners as optional, security officials may change their minds and make the scans mandatory after their implementation.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government could be looking at more airport security measures.

President Barack Obama is scheduled to speak in Washington, D.C., at 4 p.m. ET after a meeting with top security and intelligence officials.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/05/security-canada-us-airport.html

Curious that they just so happen to have 12 $250,000 machines ready to ship to next week. It's almost as if these had been already ordered, and the government was just waiting for a convenient time to stomp on more of our privacy. I wonder what will happen if the machine sees something "suspicious", will you then have to go for a REAL strip search? Hmph. This is just another fake, feel good, "security" measure.

Zassk
Jan 5, 2010, 10:00 PM
If you're ugly, will they spend less time looking at your scan, and let you through faster? :-)

clooless
Jan 5, 2010, 10:47 PM
Time to start working out, digital strip searches coming to YVR.

Curious that they just so happen to have 12 $250,000 machines ready to ship to next week. It's almost as if these had been already ordered, and the government was just waiting for a convenient time to stomp on more of our privacy. I wonder what will happen if the machine sees something "suspicious", will you then have to go for a REAL strip search? Hmph. This is just another fake, feel good, "security" measure.

I don't see how a generic and rather nondescript image of my body is more intrusive and invasive than a fully body search. I would rather the scan than someone putting their hands down my pants, as happened to me last year on one occasion.

And I do see these scanners as offering real, tangible security if the technology can do what they say it does. That said, I agree that most of what is done now is simply feel-good, security theatre. If we want real security we need to adopt the security policies and procedures that are used at Israeli airports. Terrorism in Israel is a real and credible daily threat and their focus is on behavior, threat profiling and common sense security, such as not allowing long queues and large crowds, not nail clippers and bottled water.

Yume-sama
Jan 5, 2010, 10:52 PM
I don't see how a generic and rather nondescript image of my body is more intrusive and invasive than a fully body search. I would rather the scan than someone putting their hands down my pants, as happened to me last year on one occasion.

The image portrayed on the screen is not what the real examiner behind the scene sees. They see a full 3D image of your body, and every detail.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2008/06/20/bc-080620-scanner-2.jpg

And, MIT has a study that says prolonged exposure to the "terahertz radiation may damage DNA and interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication." it may do things such as cause "birth defects" and "bring cancer out of remission".
http://www.mit.edu/~soljacic/THz_review_Mat_Today.pdf Well, at least we'll be safe from one possible terrorist. Just as long as he's over 18.

trofirhen
Jan 6, 2010, 12:57 AM
The image portrayed on the screen is not what the real examiner behind the scene sees. They see a full 3D image of your body, and every detail.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2008/06/20/bc-080620-scanner-2.jpg

And, MIT has a study that says prolonged exposure to the "terahertz radiation may damage DNA and interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication." it may do things such as cause "birth defects" and "bring cancer out of remission".
http://www.mit.edu/~soljacic/THz_review_Mat_Today.pdf.

This of course will be especially hazardous to people who are frequent flyers - as many of you on this site are - and/or people who have had cancer.

I wonder if a former cancer patient could obtain a medical certificate requiring that they not be subjected to this type of scan, but to a conventional body scan instead. It's a hassle, but it might save lives.

Perhaps a similar type of document could be had for people who fly over a certain number of times per year.

zivan56
Jan 6, 2010, 1:03 AM
Thankfully I have never flow (or plan to) the United States. Being forced to be exposed to radiation disturbing to the say the least. I really could care less about the images, but the radiation is my main concern.

Yume-sama
Jan 6, 2010, 1:06 AM
Thankfully I have never flow (or plan to) the United States. Being forced to be exposed to radiation disturbing to the say the least. I really could care less about the images, but the radiation is my main concern.

I guarantee we will be seeing these for domestic flights before long. The government has an excuse, now.

trofirhen
Jan 6, 2010, 1:58 AM
A contact at YVR recently told me that yes indeed, Pier A will be upgraded to provide more space for Westjet.

Conversely, it seems that pier B is due to be torn down, and a new part of the airport (under wraps; I don't know what it is) is destined to be built in its place.

Interesting to watch to the ongoing evolution of YVR.

However (another tangent) ... don't get the idea that it's one of the the world's emerging big airports. Brisbane, Australia had slightly more pasengers per year in 2008, and Stanstead, that low-cost airport in Northeast London, had 20million+, beating out YVR by over 2 million.

London also has Gatwick and enormous Heathrow, too; (we can forget about small Luton for a minute)!

YVR is beautiful and efficient, but in terms of passenger volume and number of take-offs and landings, is really still fairly modest.

SpongeG
Jan 6, 2010, 2:16 AM
just go es to prove Vancouver isn't as big a deal as we like to think it is

vansky
Jan 6, 2010, 2:36 AM
the world's top talent and brains is a very small percentage, we got the top ppl , o well, that's why the population is small~~....we just need a few more genius to increase the city's power...

look at cities with population dominated by idiots...look at their airport toilets, u can't even flush...look at their houses and infrastructure, look at the ugliness, look at the stupidity...

mr.x
Jan 6, 2010, 2:47 AM
the world's top talent and brains is a very small percentage, we got the top ppl , o well, that's why the population is small~~....we just need a few more genius to increase the city's power...

look at cities with population dominated by idiots...look at their airport toilets, u can't even flush...look at their houses and infrastructure, look at the ugliness, look at the stupidity...

......

zivan56
Jan 6, 2010, 2:53 AM
I guarantee we will be seeing these for domestic flights before long. The government has an excuse, now.

So I guess the choice is an almost cerntain later slow and painful death or an earlier quick and painless one (if at all)? :D
I heard you can choose to be patted down, so that's at least a relief.

MalcolmTucker
Jan 6, 2010, 4:22 AM
The image portrayed on the screen is not what the real examiner behind the scene sees. They see a full 3D image of your body, and every detail.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2008/06/20/bc-080620-scanner-2.jpg

And, MIT has a study that says prolonged exposure to the "terahertz radiation may damage DNA and interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication." it may do things such as cause "birth defects" and "bring cancer out of remission".
http://www.mit.edu/~soljacic/THz_review_Mat_Today.pdf Well, at least we'll be safe from one possible terrorist. Just as long as he's over 18.

The study in your link does not include the word cancer, gene, birth, defect, or DNA. In fact when I search for the quoted section, intended by you to be seen as a quote from the study by us, the only page that comes up on google is this one.

The only thing that comes close is a study quoted on the terahertz wikipedia page, a review of which says (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/) "They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. "

From the study (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0910/0910.5294v1.pdf) which said this:
"This suggests that THz radiation may signicantly interfere with the naturally occurring local strand separation dynamics of double-stranded DNA, and consequently, with DNA function."
The study was done at Los Alamos National Lab, with scientists from there and Harvard, not from MIT.

You have to remember that even if terahertz can interfer DNA, so can ultraviolet. The reason we have skin is to block out almost all radiation from our internal systems. One reason why THz are so good at body scanning is that they do not penetrate the body beyond the skin, but are able to go through clothes. UV light is used in water treatment plants to stop bacteria from reproducing by fouling up their DNA. Yet we walk outside in the Sun almost every day.

If you are going to scaremonger, at least use a source that backs up what you are trying to say.

vansky
Jan 6, 2010, 5:36 AM
just go es to prove Vancouver isn't as big a deal as we like to think it is

dont be fooled by delusional airport statistics, dont be fooled by ppl who put down this city, we r the greatest order to all the chaos in this world...

SpongeG
Jan 6, 2010, 5:45 AM
they had a women on CBC today who made much sense and brought up things about the scanning and its effectiveness - its pretty much not going to stop it happenning its only in some countries - theres nothing stopping would be terrorists using a country that doesn't use the machines and get aboard a US airline and something else - the person who sees the image on th machine is in a hidden room and the security dealing with the passengers don't see anything and there is too much room for miscommunication to happen in there and a few other valid points for and against

giving up privacy to fly is never a good thing

trofirhen
Jan 6, 2010, 6:01 AM
just go es to prove Vancouver isn't as big a deal as we like to think it is

Precisely. It's a lovely city, with many fine attributes, but lacks a real economy of scale (unlike Seattle, which has a real economy) and has little corporate power (just compare us with Calgary; dealt with in another thread)

It's a city with a delusion of grandeur. Either that grandeur is going to break and crumble, or, conversely, the city will one day live up to what it likes to believe itself to be.

zivan56
Jan 6, 2010, 7:05 AM
Ok, this machine is now officially useless. It only detects stuff on the outside of the body. A person committing suicide could remove a kidney/lung or put explosives in there since they are going to die anyways. I'm willing to bet the same amount as the bomber had could be put in body cavities along with a detonator. So just another inconvenience and not much of a safeguard...

s211
Jan 6, 2010, 4:22 PM
dont be fooled by delusional airport statistics, dont be fooled by ppl who put down this city, we r the greatest order to all the chaos in this world...

Please find a sarcasm emoticon.

SpongeG
Jan 7, 2010, 12:00 AM
Ok, this machine is now officially useless. It only detects stuff on the outside of the body. A person committing suicide could remove a kidney/lung or put explosives in there since they are going to die anyways. I'm willing to bet the same amount as the bomber had could be put in body cavities along with a detonator. So just another inconvenience and not much of a safeguard...

plus its only being used in certain countires - i think canada, uk france for sure because of teh shoe bomber boarding in france - the comments on the news were whats stopping a would be getting on in italy where the machines are not being used or any number of countries where the scanners won't be used