[MalcolmTucker]

If there is a net economic benefit, why doesn't Air Canada simply start the route? I believe their new 787s have the range.

There isn't unless they get an Indian airline as a Star Alliance partner to fly connections to UAE. Or if UAE allows fifth freedom from Israel.

Plus, even if there was Air Canada would use the 6 available slots to service Toronto and Vancouver before us. I believe in free trade and all but letting unlimited competition from countries that apply no business tax, and more importantly no fuel taxes (and are likely selling fuel at a local low price) is a recipe for disaster.

On the plus side though, I saw Emirates Flight Attendents unloading at the Royal York in TO and wowza!

[Doug]

Because there isn't much origin and destination demand between the two. The direct flight is wanted to cannibalize Canada-India/Middle East traffic which currently goes through Frankfurt or London for the most part. In essence, you would be creating a competitor for Air Canada that would find it impossible to provide a comparable service (ie: one stop service to regional airports in India).

Why is that an issue? More competition is always good for the consumer even if the competitor has a tax advantage. The Feds did the same thing in the 70's, trying to limit direct flights out of Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver, forcing them to hub through Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal. The Alberta government's purchase of Pacific Western was aimed directly at forcing the federal government to loosen up its regulation.

[MalcolmTucker]

Why is that an issue? More competition is always good.

If every country was playing by the same rules, your position would be fine. But we live in imperfect world, where air travel is governed by a series of arcane bilateral treaties which discourages international hubs in favour of intrational hubs. Protecting domestic airlines has a strategic aspect as well. If Canada had no 'flag carrier' we could be left without air mobility during an international crisis.

If the entire world signed treaties offering fifth freedom rights and required all places charge the same fees to all airlines for the same services at the same location then open competition works.

[Bokimon]

Wowza, that refueling sight is amazing! A first time ever in probably all of our collective memories combined of all things YYC. A squadron of Raptors and a refueller showing off a part of their day's work right over our city.

If it was the NW as the photographer says, then my bet is Alaska and Elmandorf Airbase in Anchorage. I saw picts on airliners that the base has several F22's as well as F16s.

Bah humbug to the Emirate article. Basically from what I take, the government is so scared that Emirates will single handedly take over Canadian air travel and put AC into the grave. I say single handedly because EK is definetely a global airline and really do plan on becoming the biggest and best airline on Earth with its scores of A380's and wide flavour of Flight Attendants from Brazil and Korea and terminals built by Samsung!
From what I read they are not interested in joining any of the alliances and want to take the world solo.
It does make sense that its important to protect canadian interests(I agree) but allow some services here to open up the market a little. They been doing the same thing with several asian airlines trying to openup/increase flights to YVR/YYC.

[FormerWingTipper]

Emirates is on the offensive again in regards to serving YYC:

Fed's move to block Calgary-Dubai flight costing city $117M: airline

By Dina O'Meara, Calgary HeraldFebruary 23, 2010 11:44 AM

CALGARY - Federal aviation policies that have denied direct flights between the United Arab Emirates and Calgary could be costing the city up to $117 million in potential benefits, according to a new report released today.

The report, commissioned by Emirates Airline and conducted by InterVISTAS Consulting, said direct flights between the two oil and gas hubs would boost city coffers through increased tourism, taxes and business opportunities.

An executive of Emirates Airline went further, saying closed-skies policies to Western Canada is nonsense, and represent missed opportunities for provinces and the country as a whole.

"We do know there are those that either don't share our optimism or our belief that this is in Canada's economic interest to allow an airline like Emirates to have further access to this market," said Andrew Parker, Emirates senior vice president international affairs, speaking from Vancouver.

"They simply argue that there is sufficient capacity to meet existing demand. But we believe that for a G8 market like Canada, and the host of these extraordinarily successful international branding that is the modern Olympics, that this proposition is nonsense."

Emirates Airlines has been lobbying for more than a decade to gain access to Calgary, and more recently Vancouver for direct flights, but has been stymied by Transport Canada, he said.
Parker said putting obstacles in the way of a new airline anxious to fly to Western Canada as quickly as possible, with some of the richest tourists in the world, is a major missed opportunity.

"We, like some other airlines in the world, are frustrated with the lack of progress with aspects of Canada's air policies," he said during a press conference in Vancouver with British Columbia Minister of Transportation Shirley Bond.

Increasing daily flights to Toronto and adding direct flights to B. C. and Alberta could bring $480 million in economic benefits to Canada, plus 2,800 jobs through passenger traffic and cargo export capacity, according to the report.

domeara@theherald.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/move+block+Calgary+Dubai+flight+costing+city+117M+airline/2602622/story.html)


----------------------------------------------------------------------


I thought that the only restriction that they had was three flights a week to Canada. They could very well close or reduce their DXB-YYZ route. However, that would be a terrible idea. But to say that they cannot do DXB-YVR or DXB-YYC is incorrect. They get three frequencies a week. They could spread them out across the country if they want.

[Bigtime]

----------------------------------------------------------------------


I thought that the only restriction that they had was three flights a week to Canada. They could very well close or reduce their DXB-YYZ route. However, that would be a terrible idea. But to say that they cannot do DXB-YVR or DXB-YYC is incorrect. They get three frequencies a week. They could spread them out across the country if they want.

That is true, but with only 3x a week to Canada can you really offer the business traveller much of an incentive to fly with you? If they went:

1x weekly YYZ
1x weekly YVR
1x weekly YYC

All served with their A380 to maximize seats I still don't think it would work. How many business travellers (and travellers in general) would they lose because they only offer 1 flight a week to each of those cities versus the multiple daily flights offered by carriers such as AC, Lufthansa, KLM, Air France, British Airways, etc.

Direct to Dubai or not 1 flight a week would just not offer the flexibility the big money paying passenger is looking for. That is why Emirates continues to push to get expanded flight rights, they know they need more than a 3x weekly to Canada to make it work.

[Aegis]

Free-trade and unlimited competition is great - but the airline industry is heavily regulated, with the majority of world airlines (by number of carriers) being government owned. Canada needs one flag carrier, otherwise we would be left with sub-par service from larger world airlines that don't see enough of a market to provide good service here. That being said, within Canada, we need more competition. Westjet is great, but they are successful partially because of the oligoply that exists here. Often, Westjet and Air Canada have the exact same fares!

Re, trans-pacific, AC is at a significant cost disadvantage over just about any Indian airline, but maybe not as much against Emirates.

I'd rather fly a Canadian airline any day than most foreign carriers, due to safety!

[You Need A Thneed]

ATAC Statement: Feb 2, 2010.


Our many Associations, including the members of Calgary Federation of Communities, Calgary Hotel Association, Alberta Hotel & Lodging Association, Airways Business Association, Calgary Airport Business Association, Canadian Home Builders’ Association, Tourism Calgary, Tourism Industry Association Canada, and community residents have actively worked together in the past year to highlight the need for the Airport Trail Access Tunnel.

Our Associations and many of the public agree on the following:

· It is time to have a BRT/LRT link to the Airport – and the Airport Trail Tunnel is the easiest, lowest cost, and most effective way to accomplish that in a very short timeframe by linking to the existing Calgary east LRT line. Without the Airport Trail Tunnel, LRT to the Airport will not happen for another 25 or more years.

· The Airport Trail Tunnel, linked via Metis Trail expressway, provides a key transportation and economic link for the many hospitality providers and business users in the South Airport Business region to the Airport.



· The Airport Trail Tunnel linked via Metis Trail expressway provides the easiest way to alleviate Deerfoot Trail & McKnight Blvd traffic congestion once Barlow Trail is closed at McKnight Blvd in April 2011 to construct the new Parallel Runway Project. Without this option, the vast majority of the traffic flow will move to Deerfoot Trail to access the Airport, and create substantial additional congestion during peak hours on Deerfoot Trail, which already experiences significant delays between Memorial Drive and Country Hills Blvd interchanges.



· The Airport Trail Tunnel linked to the Stoney Trail on the east via Airport Trail expressway is the most effective way to move goods to the east and southern industrial sections of the City, without impacting residential traffic.

· The cost of building the Airport Trail Tunnel after the new Parallel Runway Project is complete will be substantially above the current proposed maximum cost of $287 million. It is also highly unlikely that the Calgary Airport Authority would agree to limit operation of the new runway to allow construction to proceed on the Tunnel after the new runway is operational.

· Finally, with planned development that will see 100,000+ new residents and millions of square feet of commercial development in the region over the next decade, the future traffic congestion will turn the Calgary Airport into an inner city Airport with very poor access for all Airport users.

ATAC felt we had made progress when the City of Calgary & the Calgary Airport Authority signed an agreement to build the Tunnel as part of the Parallel Runway Project, depending on Federal & Provincial government participation. However, this past week has indicated reluctance on the part of the latter two partners to participate financially in what they view as a belatedly prioritized project by the City of Calgary.

ATAC’s response to this was to meet with Federal Minister, Hon. Jim Prentice and to request a meeting with Provincial Transportation Minister, Hon. Luke Ouellette. Our meeting with Hon. Jim Prentice was a frank and candid discussion of the impacts of not having the Tunnel. We also strongly urged the Federal Government, who in the words of the Minister “have a special relationship with the CAA,” to provide political leadership to find a way to include the Tunnel in the Parallel Runway Project. The Minister gave us his commitment that he will embark on conversations with both the City & the CAA to explore the transportation options available. He also committed to getting back to us within a short while and to setting up a meeting with all parties, including ATAC, to discuss Tunnel options.

At this point, ATAC Associations are calling on all 3 levels of government and the CAA, to urgently meet together and hammer out a way to include the Airport Trail Access Tunnel as part of the Parallel Runway Project. Ignoring the opportunity for an LRT link to the Airport won’t cut it with future generations; glossing over the inevitable traffic congestion and delays for the citizens of Southern Alberta won’t cut it; telling us it’s the City’s problem or the Federal problem, or the Province’s problem, won’t cut it. We are looking for political leadership from all levels – we urge you to sit down in the same room this month, and demonstrate to taxpayers how working together can make it happen.

We call on the CAA to exercise restraint and to act in the best interests of all citizens, even if that delays the new runway by a few months. We call on the CAA Board to put the citizens’ interests ahead of a project timeline – and sit down to an honest hard discussion with the 3 levels of government to ensure the Tunnel is included at the time when it is easiest to build it.

Because, without the Airport Trail Tunnel, building an LRT connection to the Airport is a distant fuzzy dream that only our great-grandchildren might experience. By not including it, the CAA ensures we will experience more traffic congestion, more delays in getting to the Airport, and threatens the livelihood of many who work in the Airport Business & Hospitality region.

A number of our Associations have provided impact statements, and some are here to present them at this time. Following their statements, presenters will be available for interviews.

George Brookman/Randy Williams, Tourism Calgary & TIAC

Joseph Clohessey/Curtis Fernets, Calgary Hotel Association

Michael Sieger, Alberta Hotel & Lodging Association

Donna K. Moore, Canadian Home Builders Association (Calgary Region)

Derek Burnett, Calgary Pathways & Bikeways Advisory Council

Leslie Evans, Federation of Calgary Communities



For more information contact:



Grant Galpin, ATAC spokesperson, (403) 615-7597 (403) 615-7597

Rofina Groebmair, ATAC Co-Chair, Communities (403) 650-6068 (403) 650-6068

Update on Yestunnel.ca.

[mooky]

Bloody social engineering! We don't need no stinking tunnel if they are going to put an LRT line [/people mover] under it, too expensive! :rolleyes: ;)


Taking my tongue out of my cheek, they better do this now; I can only imagine the chaos that will become the deerfoot and the bitterness that will result after once people really do understand how important this tunnel would have been to ALL Calgarians, business, and even the airport itself if it doesn't get built.

[FormerWingTipper]

That is true, but with only 3x a week to Canada can you really offer the business traveller much of an incentive to fly with you? If they went:

1x weekly YYZ
1x weekly YVR
1x weekly YYC

All served with their A380 to maximize seats I still don't think it would work. How many business travellers (and travellers in general) would they lose because they only offer 1 flight a week to each of those cities versus the multiple daily flights offered by carriers such as AC, Lufthansa, KLM, Air France, British Airways, etc.

Direct to Dubai or not 1 flight a week would just not offer the flexibility the big money paying passenger is looking for. That is why Emirates continues to push to get expanded flight rights, they know they need more than a 3x weekly to Canada to make it work.



Oh, I completely agree. That is why I said:

"However, that would be a terrible idea."

But for Emirates to say they can't serve YYC or YVR because of Transport Canada is inaccurate and misleading. Sounds like politicans who twist the facts!

[Bigtime]

A slight schedule change for AC Jazz's YYC-Whitehorse service this summer:

-Instead of one CRJ-705 flight daily, it will change to two CRJ-200 flights.
-1045 & 2045 departures from YYC.

[MalcolmTucker]

So 30 extra seats a day. NICE!

[BTinSF]

$30 Million Airport Facility to Expedite International Shipments

MISSISSAUGA, Ontario--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- UPS (NYSE:UPS) today announced the official opening of its new distribution centre at the Calgary International Airport (YYC), a state-of-the-art hub to provide businesses with direct access to the U.S. and international markets.

The facility, built at a cost of $30 million, will be central to the continued growth of Alberta’s economy, allowing local businesses to tap into global growth markets such as China, India and Mexico.

“Despite the recent recession, Calgary’s economy still stands as a growth engine for Canada with many businesses in the area looking to take advantage of emerging markets overseas,” said Mike Tierney, president of UPS Canada, who was joined by UPS International President Dan Brutto for the official opening.

“The rise of middle classes in China and India offers great potential to businesses in the Calgary area,” Tierney continued. “And this new facility will provide our customers with access to those markets in a more convenient and reliable fashion than ever before.”

Economists predict China will become the biggest economy in the world by 2050, while the rise of the middle class in India serves as a boon to entrepreneurs in Canada looking to capitalize on consumer demand for western goods. In 2008, India’s purchasing power parity stood at US $2.3 trillion, while China’s stood at US $8 trillion.

The 150,000-square-foot distribution facility has been under construction since June of 2008 and will allow UPS to double its package processing capability. The hub houses 157 trucks for ground transportation to surrounding communities in addition to serving as a staging point for aircraft.

The facility also will serve to boost the local economy by employing more than 400 Calgarians and contributing to the transportation sector — one of the few sectors to see growth during the 2009 recession.

The new hub will sort and distribute both air and ground packages and is a direct response to a surge in UPS business. The global logistics company’s shipment volume from the Calgary area has increased 60 percent since 2003.

The UPS facility is part of the YYC Global Logistics Park, a highly efficient and multifunctional international trade and transportation hub that moves high volumes of goods to and from local, regional and international destinations.

“The new UPS facility is a welcome addition to the YYC Global Logistics Park,” said Stephan Poirier, vice president and chief commercial officer. “Over the last decade YYC has solidly established itself as a major transportation and logistics hub in North America, making it a strategic location where cargo and passenger airlines can develop a strong link with their customers in western Canada and around the globe.”

Air cargo tonnage has more than doubled at YYC from 66,000 tonnes in 1999 to 134,000 tonnes in 2007. Today, YYC generates more than $6 billion of annual economic activity, accounting for approximately 10 per cent of Calgary’s gross domestic product. More than 15,000 people work on airport land.
Source: http://investing.quicken.com/public/view_headline.asp?symbol=UPS&documentKey=600-201002221330BIZWIRE_USPRX____BW6511-1

[Bigtime]

For those that want to read a bunch of aviation nerds duke it out on the whole Emirates wanting to serve YYC and YVR thing, read this thread over at airliners.net:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4725514/#menu146

[CalgaryLankan]

Hmm.. there is a KLM 678 coming from Vancouver tonight and going to Amsterdam 1.55 AM. It is going to be MD11 and looks like a Olympic special only for today. too bad, it is late night to capture a photo.

[Coldrsx]

thought you might like to see this...


http://www.stopyourcalgaryhabit.ca/

[Bigtime]

Hmm.. there is a KLM 678 coming from Vancouver tonight and going to Amsterdam 1.55 AM. It is going to be MD11 and looks like a Olympic special only for today. too bad, it is late night to capture a photo.

Today's flight from Amsterdam to YYC (enroute right now) is a MD-11 instead of the usual A330-200. It will hop over to YVR after to probably operate a flight back to AMS later on.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/KLM677

The flight coming back from YVR tonight is listed as an A332 right now. I wonder if it will also be an MD-11 as you have said.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/KLM678

[CalgaryLankan]

Today's flight from Amsterdam to YYC (enroute right now) is a MD-11 instead of the usual A330-200. It will hop over to YVR after to probably operate a flight back to AMS later on.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/KLM677

The flight coming back from YVR tonight is listed as an A332 right now. I wonder if it will also be an MD-11 as you have said.

Yes, you are right, I didn't see that part. Hopefully I can get a glimpse at this rare bird today on the way home. KLM is probably the last airline operating MD11 in their passenger fleet.

[SubwayRev]

thought you might like to see this...


http://www.stopyourcalgaryhabit.ca/



That's pretty funny!

[Doug]

If every country was playing by the same rules, your position would be fine. But we live in imperfect world, where air travel is governed by a series of arcane bilateral treaties which discourages international hubs in favour of intrational hubs. Protecting domestic airlines has a strategic aspect as well. If Canada had no 'flag carrier' we could be left without air mobility during an international crisis.

If the entire world signed treaties offering fifth freedom rights and required all places charge the same fees to all airlines for the same services at the same location then open competition works.

Given that commercial aviation has done nothing but lose money since its inception, wouldn't it be good for Canada if it allowed foreign carriers to loose money servicing the Canadian market? I also don't get the international crisis argument. During a crisis like 9/11 all commercial airlines where grounded in North America regardless of their head office's nationality. Are you thinking that a government could expropriate a domestically HQ'd airline during a prolonged crisis? I could maybe see an advantage to protecting a domestic civil aviation industry if there were some risk that a foreign government might use control of its own civil aviation industry to purposefully restrict traffic into and out of Canada. This was in essence what the Alberta government did in the early 70's to get around the Federal government's reluctance to allow increased traffic in western Canada to service the increased demand that resulted from the huge post-OPEC economic boom.

[Doug_Cgy]

thought you might like to see this...


http://www.stopyourcalgaryhabit.ca/

I'm gonna say this campaign looks quite desperate to me. While I get YEG needs to make changes and do things to improve their airport, I don't see how crapping on our airport is the answer. YYC has done alot of great things to attract business, airlines, and passengers to the city. Why can't Edmonton show some class, take the high road and actually work for the business instead of resort to smear campaigns?? We don't do it here and its proved successful for us!

Someone on the Edmonton forum said we lack class...but I'd say this campaign puts them right up there! Just my 2 cents!

[Ramsayfarian]

I'm gonna say this campaign looks quite desperate to me. While I get YEG needs to make changes and do things to improve their airport, I don't see how crapping on our airport is the answer. YYC has done alot of great things to attract business, airlines, and passengers to the city. Why can't Edmonton show some class, take the high road and actually work for the business instead of resort to smear campaigns?? We don't do it here and its proved successful for us!

Someone on the Edmonton forum said we lack class...but I'd say this campaign puts them right up there! Just my 2 cents!

I don't know if we lack class, but I think it's safe to say some of us may lack a sense of humour.

[Doug_Cgy]

I don't know if we lack class, but I think it's safe to say some of us may lack a sense of humour.

I have a great sense of humor for things that are actually FUNNY...This (to me at least) is not!

[Ramsayfarian]

I have a great sense of humor for things that are actually FUNNY...This (to me at least) is not!

You'll love the article in the Herald.

"The time-honoured Calgary-Edmonton rivalry just kicked up a notch Monday after the Edmonton International Airport launched a campaign to get more direct flights to the capital city -- by urging folk to bypass Calgary.

Stop the Calgary Habit urges the 750,000 northern Albertans a year who either drive or fly to Calgary's bigger, better airport to instead get connecting flights from the United States or Europe.

The move could prompt carriers such as KLM, Air France and Lufthansa, all of which fly out of the southern airport, to glide into YEG, as the Edmonton International Airport is known, according to organizers.

"It's an interesting marketing campaign," said Jody Moseley, Calgary Airport Authority director of communications, with diplomacy. "From our perspective, YYC (Calgary) has the best airlines, with the most flights, with the most destinations, in Alberta and because we offer those great connection we're obviously a destination of choice for travelers and airlines."

On Sunday Calgary Airport Authority got a head's up from its peer in Edmonton about the launch of a new campaign, without the full details.

Edmontonians were called on to rally downtown Monday and become an Edmonton International Airport Activist, lured by free t-shirts and the chance to win a $4,000 travel voucher.

Sporting “EIA Activist” shirts, staff marched down Jasper Avenue to the noon rally at Telus Plaza, with banners such as “Heck no, we won’t go ... through Calgary,” “Stop the Calgary Habit” and “Fly EIA every time.”

The campaign targets the northern Alberta passenger arrivals and departures that should be going through Edmonton, the people who will drive to Calgary every year to catch a flight.

“The 750,000 passengers translates into seven flights each day that are leaving from Calgary that could be leaving from Edmonton,” said Peter McCart Edmonton International Airport's vice-president of marketing.

The EIA website www.flyeia.com also added a “Stop the Calgary Habit” tool kit that includes parking coupons, flight-mapping information and a cost calculator to estimate the real costs of driving to Calgary to catch a flight.

"I think we should be focusing on air access through Alberta," Moseley said. "We would never tell Calgarians to avoid Edmonton if that was the best route for their travel value. The economic benefit for keeping travel in Alberta helps Alberta as a region."



Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Edmonton+airport+launches+Stop+Calgary+habit+campaign/2628778/story.html#ixzz0gzAMQQSx

[MalcolmTucker]

Given that commercial aviation has done nothing but lose money since its inception, wouldn't it be good for Canada if it allowed foreign carriers to loose money servicing the Canadian market? I also don't get the international crisis argument. During a crisis like 9/11 all commercial airlines where grounded in North America regardless of their head office's nationality. Are you thinking that a government could expropriate a domestically HQ'd airline during a prolonged crisis? I could maybe see an advantage to protecting a domestic civil aviation industry if there were some risk that a foreign government might use control of its own civil aviation industry to purposefully restrict traffic into and out of Canada. This was in essence what the Alberta government did in the early 70's to get around the Federal government's reluctance to allow increased traffic in western Canada to service the increased demand that resulted from the huge post-OPEC economic boom.

Effectively yes. During the Yom Kippur war the USA effectively did this to their airlines to compel them to carry cargo to Israel. Canada uses Air Canada to provide supplemental cargo services strategically. Also, the overseas air service helps to support cheaper domestic air service since it is much higher yield. while the companies themselves rarely make much money if ever, they do cause lots of economic activity which is beneficial. Emirates would be unlikely to establish a maintenance base which used Canadian made replacement parts for example.

[Bigtime]

The move could prompt carriers such as KLM, Air France and Lufthansa, all of which fly out of the southern airport, to glide into YEG, as the Edmonton International Airport is known, according to organizers.

Hey I didn't know we had regularly scheduled service with Air France! AWESOME fact checking Herald! :tup:

[MalcolmTucker]

AF owns KLM, so who knows... Maybe with open skies if they think it will yield higher than AMS they will switch off or split the route

[Stang]

I can see the dilemma that Edmonton's airport is in... can't attract the same carriers, etc. as Calgary, yet Edmontonians drive right past it to go to Calgary for flights. I don't mind the marketing campaign as the airport has a job to do. That being said, I don't know if it'll do much to break the vicious circle: "We can't get the good flights because we don't have the numbers. We don't have the numbers because we don't have the good flights."

Speaking of KLM, my Mum is on a flight to Amsterdam tonight, departing at 1:55 AM. Very strange time for a European departure. Does anyone know why? My only guess is that is has something to do with the Olympics and easing some of the load off of Vancouver's international departure area. But that's uneducated and purely conjecture on my part.

It worked out well for her, however, as she has to go to England for a family emergency and KLM services her destination as well. One stop. Beats going to London and driving or taking a train/bus in time, cost, convenience, etc.

[Bigtime]

Speaking of KLM, my Mum is on a flight to Amsterdam tonight, departing at 1:55 AM. Very strange time for a European departure. Does anyone know why? My only guess is that is has something to do with the Olympics and easing some of the load off of Vancouver's international departure area. But that's uneducated and purely conjecture on my part.

Your guess would be correct. The KLM flight that arrived Monday afternoon was a larger MD-11 instead of the usual A332. It then hopped over to Vancouver to pick up passengers (including some of the Dutch royal family) and came back to YYC to load up further and head off.

[freeweed]

Someone should register stopyourleduchabit.ca :D

Seriously, all this talk about extra gas wasted driving to Calgary - does Edmonton even have public transit service to their airport?

[Bigtime]

Don Braid wrote a column in todays Herald about the campaign, I don't think our YEG forumers here would like what he says much.

Article Here (http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/2010wintergames/Braid+They+fighting+losing+battle+Edmonton+airport/2631105/story.html)

[Bigtime]

Here is the KLM MD-11 in YYC yesterday:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2723/4400428725_0cdfca3f6a.jpg
Link (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonsey737/4400428725/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4400421357_5c32b4c832.jpg
Link (http://www.flickr.com/photos/raf_yyc/4400421357/)

[Coldrsx]

Don Braid wrote a column in todays Herald about the campaign, I don't think our YEG forumers here would like what he says much.

Article Here (http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/2010wintergames/Braid+They+fighting+losing+battle+Edmonton+airport/2631105/story.html)


Is YYC a better airport? Does that extra 10mins of driving to YEG put it at a disadvantage? Are we destined to be a feeder to YYC?

Without taking anything away from YYC, I think it is quite fair to say that YEG has had an impressive 'return' to a proper status of flights and terminal amenities. However, even with these gains, many choose to still not take advantage of many YEG directs. Last time I had to fly out of YYC, it was to Jamaica and while YEG had a flight, I could not take advantage of it due to a package deal pre-arranged. I had to stay over 1 night in calgary, pay for gas, and then upon my return we had a lot of snow which closed HWY2 which lead to me missing a day of work. What are the costs of that? Most people do not take into account that saving $200 on a flight is quickly offset by hotels, gas, and time.

The whole point of this campaign is not to slight Calgary, but rather remind Edmonton that we have an impressive airport for a northern city of 1 million with over 50 direct flights.

Our new terminal expansion, steel is almost all up, will give us capacity of 9,000,000 (up from 5.5) and over a dozen new gates. The infrastructure will be there but we need to try and capture some of those 750,000 people who currently drive to or connect at YYC.

Simple as that.

[Bigtime]

Very true Cold, but I feel like Edmonton has to do a lot of work with their own citizens to get back those passengers.

As long as our two main airports continue to grow and attract new carriers and destinations I am a happy guy.

[Western Spaghetti]

Kind of "buy Canadian" type campaign.

thought you might like to see this...


http://www.stopyourcalgaryhabit.ca/

[Stang]

I find YEG frustrating for business, if nothing else. In my line of work (conference planning), we need to fly speakers in from across Canada and the US. Edmonton is always a tricky place to get direct flights to, particularly at a time of day that works.

And when I have to go myself, I have the choice to fly, drive, or take the bus. Flying is the least desirable. Many things are out of YEG's control (airport security, waiting times, etc.) but the biggest pain is the distance from the city. Plus there are the things that were mentioned in the Don Braid column. Geography, economics/business climate, etc. that seem to work against YEG in terms of drumming up business.

All of that being said, I don't see anything wrong with the airport trying to raise awareness to the citizens in Edmonton. You can bet that they're going to make sure the airlines know that they are actively promoting their airport to try and encourage more airlines and routes to consider Edmonton.

[Coldrsx]

Very true Cold, but I feel like Edmonton has to do a lot of work with their own citizens to get back those passengers.

As long as our two main airports continue to grow and attract new carriers and destinations I am a happy guy.

concur

again this is not us versus you, but us versus us

we need to stem the flow of our own region











plus calgary smells

[Western Spaghetti]

It's a catch 22 scenario right now. There are direct flights from YEG to many of the same destinations that YYC goes to, but with more frequent flights from YYC, it sometimes works out better to use YYC. Who can blame the passenger's? It's working out to something akin to Walmart, where you might have to make a stand and pay a bit more something that's better in the long run.

There's also direct flights from YYC that YEG doesn't have, and driving down to Calgary works out much easier than taking a connecting flight to YYC or YVR.

Is YYC a better airport? Does that extra 10mins of driving to YEG put it at a disadvantage? Are we destined to be a feeder to YYC?

Without taking anything away from YYC, I think it is quite fair to say that YEG has had an impressive 'return' to a proper status of flights and terminal amenities. However, even with these gains, many choose to still not take advantage of many YEG directs. Last time I had to fly out of YYC, it was to Jamaica and while YEG had a flight, I could not take advantage of it due to a package deal pre-arranged. I had to stay over 1 night in calgary, pay for gas, and then upon my return we had a lot of snow which closed HWY2 which lead to me missing a day of work. What are the costs of that? Most people do not take into account that saving $200 on a flight is quickly offset by hotels, gas, and time.

The whole point of this campaign is not to slight Calgary, but rather remind Edmonton that we have an impressive airport for a northern city of 1 million with over 50 direct flights.

Our new terminal expansion, steel is almost all up, will give us capacity of 9,000,000 (up from 5.5) and over a dozen new gates. The infrastructure will be there but we need to try and capture some of those 750,000 people who currently drive to or connect at YYC.

Simple as that.

[Stang]

Your guess would be correct. The KLM flight that arrived Monday afternoon was a larger MD-11 instead of the usual A332. It then hopped over to Vancouver to pick up passengers (including some of the Dutch royal family) and came back to YYC to load up further and head off.

Very cool. Thanks for the info.

[Airboy]

Very true Cold, but I feel like Edmonton has to do a lot of work with their own citizens to get back those passengers.

As long as our two main airports continue to grow and attract new carriers and destinations I am a happy guy.

I agree with both you and cold. That is what the campain is trying to do, Get the locals to actually buy in. And besides anyone who has driven #2 regularly will know that its better to fly.

I'm heading out to France in a short while and I will be routed through Calgary. But its better that Montreal or TO which adds 6 hours of flying time.

[Bigtime]

plus calgary smells

Whoever smelt it dealt it... :cool:

[Tarsus]

Typical media type stuff.

Interesting though, I was spending alot of time in Edmonton when the debate over the two airports was raging. One of the things I heard many times was the claim that once they combined both Edmonton airports, YEG would catch up, and eventually handle more passengers than Calgary's. I guess it didn't pan out in the end, instead the gap has widened (in actual numbers). It seems like right now both airports are growing at a decent pace.

Don Braid wrote a column in todays Herald about the campaign, I don't think our YEG forumers here would like what he says much.

Article Here (http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/2010wintergames/Braid+They+fighting+losing+battle+Edmonton+airport/2631105/story.html)

[CalgaryLankan]

Here is the KLM MD-11 in YYC yesterday:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2723/4400428725_0cdfca3f6a.jpg
Link (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonsey737/4400428725/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4400421357_5c32b4c832.jpg
Link (http://www.flickr.com/photos/raf_yyc/4400421357/)


Very cool pictures - thanks for posting- I missed it by few minutes - I saw take off, but no time for photo since I was just approaching the McKnight end. Thank you for the pictures. This can be the last MD 11 passenger flight to Calgary.

[Bigtime]

Westjet announces seasonal service from YYC to Windsor, Ontario.

The flight will operate from May 31st to October 30th daily:

Calgary-Windsor Dep 1000 Arr 1523
Windsor-Calgary Dep 1615 Arr 1814

http://www.iflycalgary.ca/2010/02/westjet-announces-service-between.html

[GoflamesGo]

Yeah that MD-11 is great lookin'. I remember when I was 10 I went to Hawaii with my grandparents, I'm pretty sure it was an md-11, or maybe a dc-10. Either way, that was back in the day when air travel was relaxed, and fun. I went into the cockpit during the flight, and I remember playing with 5 other kids in the very back end of the plane, there was a huge open area near the bathrooms, and kitchen, separated from the passenger cabin.
Those were the days.

[Policy Wonk]

Ahh... Edmonton Airports, the only airport operator with a stronger persecution complex and just more paranoid, more alienating and weirder than the DFW Airport Board.

Keep in mind these are the same guys who were wetting themselves over this thing flying between YYC and the Muni believing a pair of Junkstream 31's with no connecting opportunities was going to reduce Edmonton to a spoke of a Calgary hub.

http://www.murray-aviation.com/images/pass-jetstream.jpg

[YYCguys]

Airport tunnel in doubt after funding deadline passes

New runway could cut off northeast

By Kim Guttormson, Calgary Herald

An airport tunnel that would provide an east-west connector across Calgary's growing northeast has been grounded, after a funding deadline passed with the provincial and federal governments refusing requests for cash.

Without money from other levels of government, the city says it can't afford to proceed with the project.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Airport+tunnel+doubt+after+funding+deadline+passes/2635461/story.html#ixzz0h8pYAEhu

[Big Sky]

I think someone already brought this up, but could tolls be used to support the funding?

Airport tunnel in doubt after funding deadline passes

New runway could cut off northeast

By Kim Guttormson, Calgary Herald

An airport tunnel that would provide an east-west connector across Calgary's growing northeast has been grounded, after a funding deadline passed with the provincial and federal governments refusing requests for cash.

Without money from other levels of government, the city says it can't afford to proceed with the project.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Airport+tunnel+doubt+after+funding+deadline+passes/2635461/story.html#ixzz0h8pYAEhu

[YYCguys]

Either that or a P3 arrangement! Many workers at the airport only make a pittance in wages so I bet a toll would be a hardship for them. I think a P3 would be a better idea.

[yeeg]

Either that or a P3 arrangement! Many workers at the airport only make a pittance in wages so I bet a toll would be a hardship for them. I think a P3 would be a better idea.

Why couldnt they give employees a passcard for the toll?

[lubicon]

Why couldnt they give employees a passcard for the toll?

Nothing to stop that from happening, but it would be a taxable benefit.

[SubwayRev]

Would this toll be put on Airport Trail as well? If it isn't, everybody would use Airport Trail instead. If it is, you'd be hurting the employees at the airport and business at the airport. Nobody would want an office/store/warehouse/distribution center, where tolls are required to access it.

[You Need A Thneed]

Would this toll be put on Airport Trail as well? If it isn't, everybody would use Airport Trail instead. If it is, you'd be hurting the employees at the airport and business at the airport. Nobody would want an office/store/warehouse/distribution center, where tolls are required to access it.

???

The tunnel is part of Airport Trail.

[SubwayRev]

???

The tunnel is part of Airport Trail.

I mean coming from Deerfoot. Sorry, that wasn't clear. What I'm getting at is, do you have a toll at the tunnel? Then everybody would take Airport Trail from the West, off Deerfoot. If it is from both directions, it is a business killer for the airport.

[You Need A Thneed]

I mean coming from Deerfoot. Sorry, that wasn't clear. What I'm getting at is, do you have a toll at the tunnel? Then everybody would take Airport Trail from the West, off Deerfoot. If it is from both directions, it is a business killer for the airport.

There's a lot of businesses in the Barlow area that are a long way from the airport if they have to cut over to Deerfoot to get there, and fairly close to the airport if the tunnel is there. Not too mention all of the residents.

Plus, Deerfoot & McKnight couldn't handle all of that extra traffic.

The toll wouldn't be $10, nothing nearly that high. Nothing large enough to scare people into driving another route.

[SubwayRev]

There's a lot of businesses in the Barlow area that are a long way from the airport if they have to cut over to Deerfoot to get there, and fairly close to the airport if the tunnel is there. Not too mention all of the residents.

Plus, Deerfoot & McKnight couldn't handle all of that extra traffic.

The toll wouldn't be $10, nothing nearly that high. Nothing large enough to scare people into driving another route.

Most people travelling to the airport will come from Deerfoot, not Barlow. If people live in the NW, SW, or SE; which most people in Calgary do, they probably already take Airport Trail from the West. So, I don't think there'd be much extra traffic. The only extra traffic would come from the NE.

Also, the airport just opened a humongous parkade expansion. I don't think they'd ever tack on a toll to access it.

[You Need A Thneed]

Most people travelling to the airport will come from Deerfoot, not Barlow. If people live in the NW, SW, or SE; which most people in Calgary do, they probably already take Airport Trail from the West. So, I don't think there'd be much extra traffic. The only extra traffic would come from the NE.

Also, the airport just opened a humongous parkade expansion. I don't think they'd ever tack on a toll to access it.

People, yes. Businesses, no. Most businesses that serve the airport (hotels, etc, are in the Barlow/McKnight area. Businesses would gladly pay 2 bucks to save 5 km of driving and 10-12 minutes of time.

It's true that the majority of the residents of Calgary already get to the airport via Airport Trail (anyone west of Deerfoot, or deep in the SE). But there's a lot of people that don't (The entire residential area East of Deerfoot and North of 17th Ave or so - plus everyone coming into Calgary from the east (Chestermere, Strathmore, Medicine Hat, etc)

The tunnel isn't just about Airport Access either, especially for the future. There's a big retail area that will go in just east of the new runway, not too mention the 50-80 thousand more residents that will live inside the ring road in the NE once it's all built out.

[SubwayRev]

People, yes. Businesses, no. Most businesses that serve the airport (hotels, etc, are in the Barlow/McKnight area. Businesses would gladly pay 2 bucks to save 5 km of driving and 10-12 minutes of time.

It's true that the majority of the residents of Calgary already get to the airport via Airport Trail (anyone west of Deerfoot, or deep in the SE). But there's a lot of people that don't (The entire residential area East of Deerfoot and North of 17th Ave or so - plus everyone coming into Calgary from the east (Chestermere, Strathmore, Medicine Hat, etc)

The tunnel isn't just about Airport Access either, especially for the future. There's a big retail area that will go in just east of the new runway, not too mention the 50-80 thousand more residents that will live inside the ring road in the NE once it's all built out.

I'm all for the tunnel, and think it's needed for the future. I just don't think a toll is the way to go, and I'm pretty sure it'll never happen.

[You Need A Thneed]

I'm all for the tunnel, and think it's needed for the future. I just don't think a toll is the way to go, and I'm pretty sure it'll never happen.

I don't think most people really want a toll. The discussion has been that having the tunnel with a toll in place is better than having no tunnel at all. If a toll is required to make this project happen, then that's what should happen.

[mooky]

The toll wouldn't be permanent anyways, just 20'ish(?) years to pay it off.... depending on traffic volume and fee rate. Not the end of the world for a piece of infrastructure that if not done now will NEVER happen.

As already discussed the chance of the YYC airport authority allowing construction under an active runway down the road once its built and in use are virtually zero.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ You can always structure the agreement for the toll that if a gov or the airport authority wanted to pay it off sooner they could.

[YYCguys]

In Orlando, there is a toll to actually access the airport. And tolls on many roads there are just a normal part of life there. People pay them and don't seem to bitch about it. It's not high...I don't recall the amount, but it's reasonable. And many frequent toll road users have a transponder on their dash that just deducts the toll from their "account". Same in Japan, though I think the tolls are there to stay.

[Aegis]

I'm surprised that people actually drive 3 hours to take a flight from YYC when they have perfectly good facilities in YEG. How could adding 6 hours (return) to your travel time be worthwhile?

Most airlines offering charter service fly from both YYC and YEG, and even Winnipeg! Westjet and A/C provide full service. What am I missing?

[tuffyy]

^In my time in Edmonton I never understood it either.But it seems that people were going to save a few dollars on certain routes, I am sure the gas for the car was a expense but they did it anyway.Never made sense to me especially in winter when the highway was not often friendly.

Also seemed some people didnt realize what destinations they could get to.I remember a family saying they ''had to go'' to Calgary because there were no flights to Cancun...

At the time there were 8 flights per week nonstop!!!

When they were informed they looked totally puzzled.

Maybe EIA should have spent the money on advertising more on its destinations, rather than this campaign.

[eggbert]

March 8, 2010
Airport tunnel land settled, but not funding
By CBC News
CBC News

The Calgary Airport Authority and the city have agreed to prepare land for a tunnel under a new runway - even though there's no word on where money for the project would come from.

After a private meeting on Monday afternoon, the airport authority agreed to set aside 22 hecatres of land, which could be used for a potential tunnel, Ald. Jim Stevenson told CBC News.

Busy Barlow Trail between 48th Avenue and Airport Road is slated to close in April 2011 for construction of a fourth airport runway. The tunnel would create an east-west artery across the city's northeast, connecting 96th Avenue east to 36th Street N.E. at a cost of $287 million.

The Calgary Airport Authority and the city agreed in December 2009 to jointly cover $90 million, but the provincial and federal governments rejected a request to fund the remaining $197 million cost.

"With the realization that funding will not be available at this time, [the city and airport authority] have agreed to revisit the possibility of adding the 96th Avenue extension, and associated tunnel under the fourth runway at a future date," said a news release from the city late Monday.

For now, the city will focus on compensating for the impending Barlow Trail closure by upgrading roads to:

* Connect 36 Street N.E. to 48th Avenue N.E.
* Connect Metis Trial up to Country Hills Boulevard.
* Upgrade Country Hills across to Barlow Trial.

City planners hope that will "fully accommodate all current and future traffic requirements," said the release.

"We've let the taxpayers of Calgary down," said Stevenson, who has been lobbying for the tunnel. "We're back to the old thing about reacting to growth, rather than planning for growth."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/03/08/calgary-airport-tunnel-runway-barlow-trail.html?ref=rss

[unibrain]

March 8, 2010
Airport tunnel land settled, but not funding
By CBC News
CBC News

The Calgary Airport Authority and the city have agreed to prepare land for a tunnel under a new runway - even though there's no word on where money for the project would come from.

After a private meeting on Monday afternoon, the airport authority agreed to set aside 22 hecatres of land, which could be used for a potential tunnel, Ald. Jim Stevenson told CBC News.

Busy Barlow Trail between 48th Avenue and Airport Road is slated to close in April 2011 for construction of a fourth airport runway. The tunnel would create an east-west artery across the city's northeast, connecting 96th Avenue east to 36th Street N.E. at a cost of $287 million.

The Calgary Airport Authority and the city agreed in December 2009 to jointly cover $90 million, but the provincial and federal governments rejected a request to fund the remaining $197 million cost.

"With the realization that funding will not be available at this time, [the city and airport authority] have agreed to revisit the possibility of adding the 96th Avenue extension, and associated tunnel under the fourth runway at a future date," said a news release from the city late Monday.

For now, the city will focus on compensating for the impending Barlow Trail closure by upgrading roads to:

* Connect 36 Street N.E. to 48th Avenue N.E.
* Connect Metis Trial up to Country Hills Boulevard.
* Upgrade Country Hills across to Barlow Trial.

City planners hope that will "fully accommodate all current and future traffic requirements," said the release.

"We've let the taxpayers of Calgary down," said Stevenson, who has been lobbying for the tunnel. "We're back to the old thing about reacting to growth, rather than planning for growth."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/03/08/calgary-airport-tunnel-runway-barlow-trail.html?ref=rss

This is interesting... would it still be possible to be building underground/around the runway down the road, without affecting the airplanes or vice-versa?

Or will they be somehow building a portion of the tunnels underneath the runway, and just not connecting to them yet?

[mersar]

This is interesting... would it still be possible to be building underground/around the runway down the road, without affecting the airplanes or vice-versa?

Or will they be somehow building a portion of the tunnels underneath the runway, and just not connecting to them yet?

My understanding is they won't be building anything now, but the airport has set aside the land for all the right of ways and is designing the runway so that it will be possible to tunnel below it (likely it would have to be a bored tunnel from the language I've heard in interviews) in the future.

[SubwayRev]

This is interesting... would it still be possible to be building underground/around the runway down the road, without affecting the airplanes or vice-versa?

Or will they be somehow building a portion of the tunnels underneath the runway, and just not connecting to them yet?

While I think this should be done right now, it can be done later. JFK is closing one of their runways for four months, and it is naturally far busier than YYC. It can be done, but at what cost? It should obviously be done now.

[Bigtime]

I took Littletime to the airport on Sunday for the first time, took me back to my days of going to the airport with my dad for hours to watch planes. A couple of pics I took when I had my hands free:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4061/4413982097_beaf4ef32b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigtimeaa/4413982097/sizes/l/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2723/4413973769_18e9f4c04a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigtimeaa/4413973769/sizes/l/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4414740274_da399f00a8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigtimeaa/4414740274/sizes/l/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4413968345_d07e142010_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigtimeaa/4413968345/sizes/l/)

[You Need A Thneed]

I know that a P3 option was being explored - Stevenson said so in the video update on his webpage. I suppose that takes a little bit of time to put together. Even if land is set aside for bored tunneling in the future (at the very least), it does help matters. A large area to start the bored tunnelling can save a lot of cost. I would still be more expensive then the overpasses idea, but it might be reasonable. It would be a relatively simple tunnel, and not too long. I'm guessing that if it was bored, it would end up being two, perhaps three tunnels.

[bookermorgan]

You would think a cut and cover would be cheaper now than a bored later in the future...
Reactive not proactive...

[MalcolmTucker]

You would think a cut and cover would be cheaper now than a bored later in the future...
Reactive not proactive...

Yeah, the city should bite the bullet and borrow the money.

[mooky]

Why not use the $90 million between the city and airport authority and do the cut and cover of the part that would go directly beneath the runway and leave the rest for later funding, much like Edmonton's EPCOR tower LRT tunnel?

This just doesn't make good economic sense to put it off, its gonna be a heck of a lot more expensive down the road with a boring machine and potentially closing the runway for a time period (safety of runway integrity, depending on depth of tunnel?)

[MalcolmTucker]

Under the runway is the most expensive part, and also includes two taxi ways. only really have the two options here.

[Doug]

It should be possible to drive the pilings for the support structures and build the cover on the tunnel now and compelete the remainder later. I've seen that done on road interchanges in Edmonton and Salt Lake.

No way should the City be borrowing any additional money for anything right now.

I'm still skeptical that the new runway will break ground next year.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Why shouldn't the city borrow money? Sign a fixed cost contract and get some debt at super low interest rates.

[outoftheice]

I took Littletime to the airport on Sunday for the first time, took me back to my days of going to the airport with my dad for hours to watch planes. A couple of pics I took when I had my hands free:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4413968345_d07e142010_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigtimeaa/4413968345/sizes/l/)

Very nice! :tup:

As far as the tunnel goes, I don't understand why a P3 option isn't being explored. With $90 million being put up by the City and the Airport Authority, they should be able to finance the first few years of a P3 construction contract without a problem. By the time additional funds would be needed to continue the P3 financing, the economy should have shifted around and getting the additional funding from both the provincial and federal governments shouldn't be a problem.

[You Need A Thneed]

It should be possible to drive the pilings for the support structures and build the cover on the tunnel now and compelete the remainder later. I've seen that done on road interchanges in Edmonton and Salt Lake.



If the proposed budget is $270 million, doing what you say is probably at least $220 million of that.

[lubicon]

It should be possible to drive the pilings for the support structures and build the cover on the tunnel now and compelete the remainder later. I've seen that done on road interchanges in Edmonton and Salt Lake.
No way should the City be borrowing any additional money for anything right now.

I'm still skeptical that the new runway will break ground next year.

I was thinking the same thing. I believe the QE2 / Ellerslie Road interchagne in Edmonton was done this way. Basically build the bridge structure in place but without excavating anything.

[Bigtime]

I'm still skeptical that the new runway will break ground next year.

I've said it before on this thread but YYC needs that runway yesterday. I really can't see the airport authority delaying construction further. The amount of flow times, holds, and speed restrictions on aircraft arriving/departing will start to piss off the airlines and we could lose frequencies and even routes if the CAA isn't taking steps to reduce those (building the runway). There is no other way to cram anymore traffic into YYC without the parallel runway.

[outoftheice]

I've said it before on this thread but YYC needs that runway yesterday. I really can't see the airport authority delaying construction further. The amount of flow times, holds, and speed restrictions on aircraft arriving/departing will start to piss off the airlines and we could lose frequencies and even routes if the CAA isn't taking steps to reduce those (building the runway). There is no other way to cram anymore traffic into YYC without the parallel runway.

Absolutely correct. Calgary is probably the worst airport in the country right now for delays. That runway was needed yesterday!

[Bigtime]

I'm posting this quote from a Terminal controller for YYC (these guys sit in a building in Edmonton and direct traffic into YYC before handing them off to YYC tower for landing clearance):

Well said CYEG66. This isnt a Nav Canada issue ladies and gentlemen. This has to do with the Calgary Airport Authority. Call them if your pissed off about delays. The parallel was required 10 years ago. They have been dragging their ass on this issue for years.

Using a RWY 34/28 VFR wx cond mode we can do 33-37 arrivals an hour. If the tower has light departure demand we can do RWY 34/28/25 arrival mode. This plugs the airport and departures will back up fast, as ground controller has to taxi across two active runways to get someone into postion on Rwy 34. The arrival rate is about 42-45 an hour.

Like I have said on previous post, years ago we had an experience controller program to try to staff the TCU. We had controllers from Hong Kong, 2 from Sydney Aus, Frankfurt, Dubai, Abu Dhabi to name a few. They all say the same thing.... running this amount of traffic on Intersecting RWY ops is crazy. We had one controller make it and is still with us today. 13 years in Frankfurt terminal then to YYC.

I think that last paragraph says it all, when they are bringing in experienced controllers from places like Frankfurt and Hong Kong and even they say we are crazy to be operating intersecting runway operations you know the time for the parallel is now!

[Airboy]

^In my time in Edmonton I never understood it either.But it seems that people were going to save a few dollars on certain routes, I am sure the gas for the car was a expense but they did it anyway.Never made sense to me especially in winter when the highway was not often friendly.

Also seemed some people didnt realize what destinations they could get to.I remember a family saying they ''had to go'' to Calgary because there were no flights to Cancun...

At the time there were 8 flights per week nonstop!!!

When they were informed they looked totally puzzled.

Maybe EIA should have spent the money on advertising more on its destinations, rather than this campaign.

Another major problem is the Airline online booking process. Some flight cannot be found using online services or using your points.

I have a flight coming up that has me through Calgary and Frankfurt but I could have just flown through LHR then onto France.

But anyone that drive QE2 knows that its better to fly. or at least take a bus. To many IDIOTS

[KrisYYC]

A large section of the employee lot was closed off today, and another large section will be closed on the 15th so the A-wing expansion can begin.

[Bigtime]

A large section of the employee lot was closed off today, and another large section will be closed on the 15th so the A-wing expansion can begin.

Excellent news!

[lubicon]

According to the YYC website, Barlow will close on April 3, 2011.

link
http://www.calgaryairport.com/Default.aspx?cid=621&lang=1

[evolv]

A large section of the employee lot was closed off today, and another large section will be closed on the 15th so the A-wing expansion can begin.

Have they released the plans for the new wing? Is this the international terminal or are you talking of something different?

[Innersoul1]

Air Canada fights Emirates' push for flights to Calgary


From Herald News ServicesMarch 10, 2010


Airlines - The fight to limit Emirates Airline's access to the Canadian market escalated Tuesday with Calin Rovinescu, Air Canada's chief executive, accusing the United Arab Emirates carrier of telling "fairy tales" about the economic benefi ts greater access would create in Canada.

"Simply put, the market between Canada and the UAE has not developed to the point where more capacity is warranted," Rovinescu told the Vancouver Board of Trade in a speech.

Emirates has been aggressively lobbying for greater access to the Canadian market, including Calgary. Under federal regulations, it is limited to sharing six flights a week with Abu Dhabi's Etihad Airways.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Canada+fights+Emirates+push+flights+Calgary/2665068/story.html#ixzz0ho8AwEYP

[Yume-sama]

Well, if a company is willing to gamble, why not let them? Emirates does not need financial advice from Air Canada, trust me.

Nor should anyone in the government actually take financial advice from Air Canada very seriously. Especially when it involves private money, that isn't theirs.

As far as I'm concerned, Air Canada should be given first rights to the route, as of now. If they don't take it up in the next 18 months, allow competitors in.

It makes sense. But, I'm not a politician who receives contributions for my votes :P

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, if a company is willing to gamble, why not let them? Emirates does not need financial advice from Air Canada, trust me.

Nor should anyone in the government actually take financial advice from Air Canada very seriously. Especially when it involves private money, that isn't theirs.

As far as I'm concerned, Air Canada should be given first rights to the route, as of now. If they don't take it up in the next 18 months, allow competitors in.

It makes sense. But, I'm not a politician who receives contributions for my votes :P

Would you be willing to go back down to one flight a day from lhr and FRA and potentially weaken the AMS flight? Because if Emirates gets in its goal will be to convert every customer that connects further from Europe into a Emirates customer.

Because of that, and due to the small origin and destination demand into Dubai I think the government is perfectly reasonable in limiting flights to 6 a week, anywhere in Canada from the UAE. Canadian airlines have reciprocal rights and we can see that since none are chomping at the bit provide service, there must be rather limited demand.

[Yume-sama]

Well, honestly I don't think a route from Calgary is economically viable, more than perhaps 1 - 2x per week, and seasonally at that.

But, both Toronto and Vancouver have large middle eastern populations, and having a direct connection to India, Pakistan, Lebanon etc. would make things a lot easier for a lot of people (Vancouver has no India flights!)

The Emirates route from Toronto has been performing quite well.

In any case, I'm not a fan of corporate protectionism and welfare on the part of the government. And I think Air Canada should do a better job of servicing that area of some 2 billion people :P

[MalcolmTucker]

If Emirates starts serving Vancouver I would bet that there will never be direct service between Vancouver and the subcontinent.

If Emirates ever gets access, it will hopefully be a couple years after a new bilateral is signed with India as part of a new trade agreement.

[tuffyy]

Another article from today on the same story.


Fighting Back ---Calin Rovinescu, CEO of Air Canada made a speech in Vancouver today (Mar 9th) launching a more public fight against Emirates Airlines ambitions to expand in Canada. He accused Emirates airline of wanting to "flood" Canadian skies with airline seats so it can scoop up travelers and divert them through Dubai. Such a move by the Dubai government-owned airline would be "severely damaging" to airports and airlines operating in Canada as it would steal away the connecting passengers they depend on to make their routes profitable, Calin said. "While its argument may be seductive, what Emirates' strategy will do is constrain the growth of Canadian airports by turning them from hubs into stubs at the end of a spoke that leads only to Emirates' hub in Dubai." Emirates has been lobbying the Canadian government to allow it to expand its three day per week Dubai-Toronto service. It also wants to fly to Calgary and Vancouver. A study, commissioned by Emirates and released two weeks ago, concluded that Canada could reap economic benefits of C$480 million a year and create 2,800 jobs if the Mideast airline was given more flying slots. "It is well known in the industry that Emirates is trying to push hard to divert as much global flow traffic via Dubai in order to deploy its massive fleet of wide-body aircraft, including A380s it has purchased or has on order," Rovinescu said. He said statistics showed that the number of people traveling daily to Dubai from Canada last year was "barely enough to fill a mid -size 213-seat Boeing 767."

[mooky]

Not specifically related to YYC, but as an airport related matter and a hockey fan I had to chuckle, especially at the chief executive's comment:

Air Canada learns that hockey trumps flying (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/777491--air-canada-learns-that-hockey-trumps-flying?bn=1)

[outoftheice]

Excellent article on the airport tunnel today in the Herald...

Airport tunnel decision disastrous for city


By Naheed Nenshi, For The Calgary HeraldMarch 11, 2010

In killing the Airport Trail tunnel, city council has made an irreversible error whose impact will be felt for generations.

Despite assurances that the issue will be revisited once the new runway is built, there is no way it will happen.

For better or worse, from 2011 forward, the citizens of east Calgary will be cut off from the airport, we will never have adequate transit access for 18,000 workers, and a number of businesses built to serve travellers will fail.

(And don't get me started on 36th Street as an alternative; this 11-kilometre detour is a narrow strip of potholed pavement, no shoulders and no lane markings, ending at a stop sign at Country Hills Boulevard.)

There's a lot of blame to go around here: the feds and the province failed to pony up the cash. The Calgary Airport Authority has been ambivalent at best about the tunnel. Conspiracy theories about the latter abound -- was the airport loath to give up even a stripe of potentially developable land? Are they so in thrall of parking revenues and taxi concessions that they oppose anything that may lead to better transit service to YYC?

It doesn't really matter. It's not the airport authority's responsibility to fight for citizens. No, that job rightly lives with city council, and it is council that has failed us.


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Airport+tunnel+decision+disastrous+city/2669357/story.html#ixzz0htfP1r19

[mooky]

Bigtime, since your such an airplane buff, you want to set the anonymous moron who commented at 12:28 PM straight in the article? :)
---------------
Ask yourself this does the runway have to be built now? There was a time that Calgary's airport was extremelly busy because it was the main airport for Alberta. Most Edmontonians flew to Calgary as it was a hub. If I recall correctly there was 30 + planes a day shuttling passengers to Calgary. This situation no longer exists. Edmonton's airport has been the fastest growing airport for several years, it is truly an International airport. So why do we need this runway now when this airport actually handled more flights 10 years ago than it does now? Can this runway be deferred say 5 years and let the city catch up. This whole thing smells dirty. I am not drinking the koolaid that this runway needs to go in today
-------------------------------------------

[You Need A Thneed]

(And don't get me started on 36th Street as an alternative; this 11-kilometre detour is a narrow strip of potholed pavement, no shoulders and no lane markings, ending at a stop sign at Country Hills Boulevard.)

Of course, 36th Street will be upgraded in the future, but it's still no alternative.

That description is very accurate, and it really sad that such a road is the most direct road to travel from some places in the NE to places in the NW, and vice versa.

[Bigtime]

Bigtime, since your such an airplane buff, you want to set the anonymous moron who commented at 12:28 PM straight in the article? :)
---------------
Ask yourself this does the runway have to be built now? There was a time that Calgary's airport was extremelly busy because it was the main airport for Alberta. Most Edmontonians flew to Calgary as it was a hub. If I recall correctly there was 30 + planes a day shuttling passengers to Calgary. This situation no longer exists. Edmonton's airport has been the fastest growing airport for several years, it is truly an International airport. So why do we need this runway now when this airport actually handled more flights 10 years ago than it does now? Can this runway be deferred say 5 years and let the city catch up. This whole thing smells dirty. I am not drinking the koolaid that this runway needs to go in today
-------------------------------------------

As much as I'd love to I've kind of made it my creed not to argue on those newspaper comment boards. The people on there are bordeline idiotic for the most part.

30 flights a day between YYC and YEG? That seems pretty steep even now.

[SubwayRev]

As much as I'd love to I've kind of made it my creed not to argue on those newspaper comment boards. The people on there are bordeline idiotic for the most part.

30 flights a day between YYC and YEG? That seems pretty steep even now.

My doctor has forbid me from even reading the comments anymore. He says the rage that is induced by reading them will lead me to an early grave.

[Bigtime]

My doctor has forbid me from even reading the comments anymore. He says the rage that is induced by reading them will lead me to an early grave.

Ditto to that, I don't even read the comments sections anymore.