[Bigtime]

Someone (perhaps more than one) at the airport should be fired. Absolutely ridiculous.

Somewhat related, the Airport is demanding that the in runway lighting for the new runway use all LED bulbs. Apparently, this requires heaters to be installed in each fixture, as the heat from a normal bulb would melt snow off of the fixture, whereas with LED bulbs, it probably wouldn't, at least not as fast.

In other words, the LED bulbs will only save energy in good weather conditions.

I wonder what the breakdown is between good weather days and days when the heaters would be needed? I think we may still come out with energy savings even with that setup. But that is just my guess.

[SmokWawelski]

Well now I'm pissed :hell: They turned off lights for earth day....and close to 200 people on our flight were delayed on tarmac in Edmonton. Great just great. Our scheduled time of landing was to be 8:38pm, because of this stupid idea we finally landed at 11:40pm. Some people on the flight missed their connections to other cities.

How fucked up is this :hell::hell:

Does anyone know who I could contact about this??? and I don't mean calling the airport authority? Who do they report to?

[Bigtime]

Well as of right now nobody has CONFIRMED that this happened due to Earth Hour, but the timing of when it happened is pretty suspicious.

I feel bad for you that you had to go to Edmonton, did you get a mullet while you were on the ground there? ;)

[You Need A Thneed]

I wonder what the breakdown is between good weather days and days when the heaters would be needed? I think we may still come out with energy savings even with that setup. But that is just my guess.

Oh, it will still come out with an energy savings over the course of a year. It will come with significant extra up front cost though, perhaps off-setted by less maintenance (don't need to change bulbs as often).

[Bigtime]

cyeg66, the ILS for 16 has been acting up over the last week. I'm chatting with a WS pilot on twitter and he hopes that it was just a very weird coincidence that the runway lights went out right around Earth hour.

[SmokWawelski]

OK so I called YYC talked to a guy by the name of Kevin. He indicated that in fact Enmax substation that delivers power to the airport had a burn and power went out at the airport. They had trouble getting the emergency back up systems to work and that is why we got diverted.

I told him about the news story on CTV.....he was not even aware of earth day. He said he will talk to the news media individual to put out word. We'll see.....although I'm not holding my breath.

But at least his explanation made a lot more sense that Earth day scenario.

[Bigtime]

Well that is a relief, much better that it was just a coincidence.

[SmokWawelski]

Well as of right now nobody has CONFIRMED that this happened due to Earth Hour, but the timing of when it happened is pretty suspicious.

I feel bad for you that you had to go to Edmonton, did you get a mullet while you were on the ground there? ;)

that's tooooo funnnnnnyyy.

No mullet, just old cookies and some water :):)

They refueled us, deiced one engine (apparently there was some ice on the engine) then we waited and waited.... deiced the plane and took off.

I've never been on such a short flight. Lift off at 11:03pm touch down 11:33pm.

[cyeg66]

All this didn't transpire at exactly 8:30 but it was pretty guffin' close. The largest pain in the a$$ in all this is that the backup power didn't work. What's the point of having it, then? If every time this building had a power failure, and our radars would go tits up, then you'd be hearing about a whole lot of airspace closures over the course of each year. It was a deplorable situation in many ways. I think the airport saved 17% on their power bill, 90% of that due in part to the 2+ mile long unlit strip. :D The ILS has had a couple issues with it recently but what a time for it to crap out! Literally, within seconds of the lights going out....coincidence? We'll see.

[freeweed]

I hope like hell "Earth Hour" was not involved. I've always thought that whole thing is a pointless feelgood waste of time that solves absolutely nothing and some day will endanger someone's life for no reason whatsoever... I hope like hell I'm never right on that one. Fired isn't enough, that's criminal liability in my books.

I'd believe Enmax problems. We've been having regular power bumps (just dimming of the lights, no complete loss yet) for several days now. This extreme humidity/fog/frost seems to be working a number on power in this city.

[Bigtime]

Here is the CADOR's report for the power outage:

Power failure at Calgary resulting in a loss of field lighting, ILS's and frequency 121.9. Departures held after 0231z due to darkness and no lights. Fifteen arrivals diverted to alternate destinations. Airport field lighting returned to service at 0250z. ILS returned to service at 0309z.

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/rpt.aspx?lang=eng&rptcads=2011C1007&cads=&occdtefrom=2011-03-26&occdteto=2011-03-28&srchfldcd=1&txt=cyyc&srchtype=1

[SmokWawelski]

thanks Bigtime :) It at least confirms what Kevin at YYC office told me over the phone. I think they will have something on the news at 6pm. Not sure which channel. 243 if you're on Bell express.

[Ferreth]

thanks Bigtime :) It at least confirms what Kevin at YYC office told me over the phone. I think they will have something on the news at 6pm. Not sure which channel. 243 if you're on Bell express.

I can confirm that CBC radio 1 this afternoon was reporting the lights outage as occurring around earth hour but unrelated to it.

[cyeg66]

Yeah, it was a whole minute (seconds?) off so it couldn't possibly be one and the same and thus justify terminating someone's employment over airlines' $1000's extra in costs..... Lo and behold, things were back to normal a little over an hour later. :shrug:

--just sayin' what it looked like from my then-clueless point of view.

[Ramsayfarian]

Yeah, it was a whole minute (seconds?) off so it couldn't possibly be one and the same and thus justify terminating someone's employment over airlines' $1000's extra in costs..... Lo and behold, things were back to normal a little over an hour later. :shrug:

--just sayin' what it looked like from my then-clueless point of view.

According to this surveillance video, it was a guy named Johnny.

OFHjdYoNb_Y&

[SmokWawelski]

That's tooo fuuuunnnnyyy Ramsayfarian :):)

thank God they didn't play this on the plane during the approach :):)

[O-tacular]

Apparently Steve-O from Jackass was arrested at the airport the other day. I wonder if they gave him a cavity search?

[Bigtime]

According to this surveillance video, it was a guy named Johnny.

OFHjdYoNb_Y&

The fog was certainly getting thicker. The question is, was Leroy getting larger? :haha:

Saturday the 26th was the first flight of the season of the Tokyo Narita flight. Nice to see it up and running again! :tup:

[Cage]

Hold onto that thought about AC9 and AC10 starting up again. April schedule has cut a lot of individual flights for AC9 and AC10, no word yet on May's adjustments.

Look at the middle of April where AC9/10 only operate once per week. The YYC-YYZ sectors have been replaced by AC120 and AC171 with 763 service.

YVR-NRT has also been reduced to 763 for April. down from 77W.

Just my opinion, but I am pretty sure that AC9/10 will be cut from May onward. I'm just waiting for other major airlines to announce permanent reductions on their NRT runs, then AC will follow suit. For summer 2011 I expect AC to operate:
- YYZ-NRT with 77L daily.
- YVR-NRT with 763 daily or maybe a 333 if AC can pull the aircraft from somewhere.
- YYC-NRT will be cancelled.

[Bigtime]

I could see it happening, but I also see YYC-NRT returning once the situation is Japan is resolved and the traveling public is confident to visit there again.

[Johnny Aussie]

^^
It is so hard to even try and keep track of capacity reductions to Japan right now. I am not surprised with AC's reductions. Looks like YYC-NRT cut to 2 weekly through April, as you mentioned. YVR's downgrade is actually from a 333 to a 763 though, the 77W wasn't scheduled to come back online until 1 June.

[AlbertanToo]

Hey all.

Just wanted to pass along word that Integra Air will be hosting a Time Air 45th Anniversary BBQ at the Alberta International Airshow in Lethbridge this July 23rd.

We are looking for any former Time Air folks to attend the event which will also include the performers from the airshow also. We are in the process of building a new head office for our aviation company in Lethbridge which will incorporate the original Time Air hangar.

Here is a link to our blog which shows our new head office design. http://integraair.blogspot.com/

Here is a link to our Facebook group for Time Air.http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=12141281311

If you are interested in attending the BBQ, please send me an e-mail at kmeintzer@integraair.com and please be sure to pass this along to anyone who you think would be interested in attending.

Cheers,

Ken Meintzer

[bookermorgan]

Airport Tunnel, Barlow Trail
“It’s incredible,” Doug Dugan said. “The tunnel is already there. It’s full of gophers, but it’s there.”
http://swervecalgary.com/2011/03/31/airport-tunnel-barlow-trail/
:jester:

[Johnny Aussie]

Ouch!

February 2011 passenger stats, not great as all sectors show decline.

First monthly decline noted since November 2009.

Feb 2011 (% compared to Feb 2010)
Overall down 1.2% to 942,172
Domestic down 0.6% to 627,393
Transborder down 1.7% to 206,651
International down 4.5% to 108,128

YTD
Overall up 0.4% to 1,918,821
Domestic up 1.1% to 1,276,889
Transborder down 0.4% to 412,598
International down 1.9% to 229,334

EDIT: GOOD NEWS: looks like January 2011 domestic stats has been revised up (previously reported to be up only 0.6%) - no change to transborder or international numbers though:

Overall up 1.9% to 976,649
Domestic up 2.5% to 649,496
Transborder up 0.9% to 205,947
International up 0.5% to 121,206

[Bigtime]

Just back from YYZ on Westjet 651. Excellent flight and a beautiful landing into Calgary, as we were taxiing on the ramp rounding the D pier to the north gates the 737 decided to start sliding towards the edge of the ramp and the piles of snow. The pilot hit the breaks and fired up the left reverser to stop the slide, very impressive airmanship!

When we pulled up to the gate he came on the PA and said:

"If you are driving tonight folks conditions are a lot more slippery than they look."

The cabin had a good laugh at that!

Kudos to an amazing Westjet crew for bringing us in tonight!

[KrisYYC]

Just back from YYZ on Westjet 651. Excellent flight and a beautiful landing into Calgary, as we were taxiing on the ramp rounding the D pier to the north gates the 737 decided to start sliding towards the edge of the ramp and the piles of snow. The pilot hit the breaks and fired up the left reverser to stop the slide, very impressive airmanship!

When we pulled up to the gate he came on the PA and said:

"If you are driving tonight folks conditions are a lot more slippery than they look."

The cabin had a good laugh at that!

Kudos to an amazing Westjet crew for bringing us in tonight!

Right on. Last time I flew Westjet in similar conditions we went off the end of the runway landing in YOW :haha:

Working on the ramp, it's a little nerve racking in conditions like this if you're the marshaller. Some gates (ie: 34) require the plane to make some pretty sharp turns and in slippery conditions it's not uncommon for the nosewheel to turn but the aircraft keeps going straight. Often I have to use "slow down" hand signals before giving the turn hand signal. Some of those American pilots are cowboys :D

[Bigtime]

I remember that trip report of your runway excursion in YOW, I was actually thinking about that after we almost went off the ramp!

I made mention of it on Facebook and sure enough my buddy that works in the ops centre for Westjet quickly wrote back "you must have been on 651", he is part of the emergency response team, so he must have got word of what happened pretty quick.

[cyeg66]

Ouch!

February 2011 passenger stats, not great as all sectors show decline.

First monthly decline noted since November 2009.

Feb 2011 (% compared to Feb 2010)
Overall down 1.2% to 942,172
Domestic down 0.6% to 627,393
Transborder down 1.7% to 206,651
International down 4.5% to 108,128


Yikes, and 2010 wasn't even a leap year. This winter's poor weather has been hurting our movements, as well. Plenty of cancellations compared with past years. That certainly contributes a little bit to the drop. I think this year's numbers will be on par with last year's at best.

[cranium]

Okay, I've heard it explained why Calgary needs a fourth runway. My question is , how does an airport like San Diego, that moves roughly 18 million passengers a year, get away with only one?

[mersar]

Okay, I've heard it explained why Calgary needs a fourth runway. My question is , how does an airport like San Diego, that moves roughly 18 million passengers a year, get away with only one?

SAN has less aircraft movements by 30,000+ annually than YYC, which means that those passengers are on a lot more larger capacity planes then what YYC sees. So its not really the passenger count, but rather the flight count that determines a lot of the capacity needs in terms of runways. Gatwick is a similar case, about 6000 more movements a year than YYC, but almost 20 million more passengers.

[freeweed]

Wouldn't San Diego's complete lack of "interesting" weather help too? I can't fathom how you'd ever run YYC with one runway, regardless of passenger/flight volume.

[Cage]

Okay, I've heard it explained why Calgary needs a fourth runway. My question is , how does an airport like San Diego, that moves roughly 18 million passengers a year, get away with only one?

Winds are failrly consistent in S Cal area, so almost all runways are built within the same configuration and cross wind runways are note required.

For looking at direct comparison with SAN vs YYC, one of YYC runways cannot handle commercial aircraft and a another runway (10/28) has insufficient length to be considered within the same caliber as primary runway. However in YYC favour the primary runway can handle intercontinental jets while SAN is large aircraft capacity constrained.

Big difference however is ATC procedures (not slagging CYEG66 professionalism, just stating the facts and I think CYEG66 would be in agreement that more sectors and controllers would be helpful). USA ATC procedures are way more efficient in both airspace and runway capacity than Canada. That said USA ATC runs a much higher inherent risk tolerance than Canada. USA has adjusted and optimized their operating procedures, but there is still a higher residual risk factor for USA procedures compared to Canada.

YYC could learn a thing or two from the American and European experience by optimizing the airspace (additional sectors) and additional controllers to staff those sectors.

[cyeg66]

Agree with most of that. The big difference is TC hasn't developed a pair over time whereas the FAA's got berries. Separation minima is too restrictive in IMC weather, esp considering towers have tools at their disposal today that they didn't 15-20 years ago. Honestly, radar is more accurate for gauging separation than visually observing from a tower cab 2 miles+ away. In the states, they've got procedures for having 2 planes share the same piece of pavement dep vs arr. The airlines are also responsible for this efficiency, all of them willing to use 100% t/o thrust, actually using their brakes on landing, minimizing runway occupancy times, etc. We're significantly hampered here by the local airlines' unwillingness to play ball. It's all about slow, steady, and the omnipresent term 'safety' (I think that parlay is mandated by TC).

As for developing more sectors, I don't think that would actually be required in our neck of the woods. There are plenty of hands in the cookie jar at present time. The problem is some controllers (and their corresponding ops) are antiquated and thus lacking in their capacities. I wonder how some of them even do up their fly let alone keep a few airplanes apart. It's a little known fact that controllers unable to cut the mustard in, say, a terminal airspace, can be just fine working an enroute sector. If that's the case, then trust me, they're safer there. Some airspaces require you to think a lot more on your feet than others, terminal typically is one of those. Your judgment needs to be good, your plan flexible, and ready to change that plan at a moment's notice. Things happen fast, exacerbated by the fact you're sharing the same piece of airspace with up to 4 or 5 other controllers. Enroute sectors, for example, are stand alone.

The final piece to the puzzle, the airport and its climate. Since we're talking about SAN vs YYC, can we at least agree that YYC sees a multitude of seasons? The wind is not stable, almost always turbulent, and guaranteed to be vastly different a few thousand feet off the deck than it is at ground level. More importantly, it affects aircraft on different approaches in radical ways sometimes, meaning a/c on 28 can have a quartering tailwind component (for example) while a/c on 34 can have a hefty serving of headwind. When you're trying to guarantee intersection spacing b/w successive arrivals and also allowing for 1 or 2 departures depending on the mode we're in, it's not always as easy as it sounds. Then factor in that there's a wide variety of a/c types (unlike observed at SAN) and you've got a healthy bag of shit somedays.

So, I conclude, if the average airplane was the size of that at SAN, the wind was the same from 10000 to ground level, aircraft performed at 3600' the same as they do at sea level, airlines start to push their planes closer to their true abilities, there was never any snow, icing, turbulence, hail, and tornado warnings, there weren't the amount of photo flights operating in the vicinity of the airport (Calgary the most photo'd city in the world, by our estimates. Nothing short of ridiculous somedays), enroute controllers would stream props and jets (like elsewhere in this great nation), TC would relax spacing requirements (esp in IMC) and allow towers to push tin a little more, and finally, have terminal vector planes to runways that are aligned in the same direction and close together rather than 40 nm apart, and without having to worry about intersections and stop group distances and surface conditions (etc), then YYC could probably overtake SAN....:cool:

---lengthy, didn't proofread, so pardon sp. errors.

[Bigtime]

So, I conclude, if the average airplane was the size of that at SAN, the wind was the same from 10000 to ground level, aircraft performed at 3600' the same as they do at sea level, airlines start to push their planes closer to their true abilities, there was never any snow, icing, turbulence, hail, and tornado warnings, there weren't the amount of photo flights operating in the vicinity of the airport (Calgary the most photo'd city in the world, by our estimates. Nothing short of ridiculous somedays),

This got a big laugh out of me, I had no idea the city was being over-run by photo flights! :haha:

Excellent post, easy for the layman to understand just what is happening in the "wedding cake" and sectors around YYC.

[Bigtime]

Big YYC Twitter user Chris Harper is at a Rotary Club gathering where Garth Atkinson is now speaking about the airport expansion. Will pass on any juicy news from him.

[Mazrim]

If I may ask...photo flights? Of what? The City in general? Specific places? Why so often?

[bookermorgan]

They're up high and looking into your back yard!!

[Mazrim]

My balcony needs some better aerial shots, so they should be heading down South more often for Google Maps! Someday I'll have my own backyard.

[RicoLance21]

Airport underpass going ahead? If so, GREAT NEWS!!

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Airport+authority+says+tunnel+necessary/4564831/story.html

[Bigtime]

Nothing in that article says it's a done deal at this point.

[Bigtime]

I'll have to make a point to try and get some update shots of the new control tower, when I was heading to the airport last Thursday it looked like they were driving piles in already.

[Mazrim]

Interesting to see the Airport Authority actually sticking their neck out and making public comments, though. I'd call that a good sign in my opinion.

[You Need A Thneed]

A draft agreement is definitely a good sign. They can't delay much longer. I know the tender drawings should be getting close to done too, from what I've heard. I imagine they'll be out VERY shortly after an agreement is reached.

Like I posted on twitter yesterday, just a little bit of money from the province, and the feds, and perhaps the Airport authority giving the required land to the city (land that they can't use for anything else anyway, since they signed an agreement to keep it for a future tunnel), all that could substantially reduce or even eliminate the borrowing costs.
From what I've heard, the tunnel construction could be under budget too (thanks to the city's 30% contingency going to council).

Combine al of that, and the total project costs could be under $240-250 million. And remember that even that includes $24 million of building Airport Trail that would be required eventually anyway.

The construction itself is simple, straight forward, and there's nothing that's really prone to delays. It's just a large concrete box. I wouldn't be too worried about not finishing on time. Getting behind could simply be corrected by adding workers.

[AlbertanToo]

Hey everyone.

I am attending a forum at the Calgary Airport control tower tomorrow and part of the forum includes a display about the new control tower. I will take my camera along and see if I can get some photos to share with all of you.

[freeweed]

I'll have to make a point to try and get some update shots of the new control tower, when I was heading to the airport last Thursday it looked like they were driving piles in already.

One of you (might have been you, BT) mentioned that the new tower will be almost twice as high as the old. Ever since then, I've been noticing the tower from various places in the city - twice the height will make it monumental. Almost like having a second downtown skyline in the NE (albeit with one tower).

Can't wait!

[Bigtime]

YNAT, as you know my beef is that the higher levels of government aren't putting any money forward for the tunderpass, runway, or new terminal.

I can understand the new terminal, but Harper pledged something like $26M to Quebec city for a runway extension, and I believe Halifax is also getting an upgrade. The fact that the federal government is not contributing AT ALL to a project that ensures safety, efficiency, and economic savings for all involved just confuses me.

[Bigtime]

Hey everyone.

I am attending a forum at the Calgary Airport control tower tomorrow and part of the forum includes a display about the new control tower. I will take my camera along and see if I can get some photos to share with all of you.

Very cool, get some shots if you can.

One of you (might have been you, BT) mentioned that the new tower will be almost twice as high as the old. Ever since then, I've been noticing the tower from various places in the city - twice the height will make it monumental. Almost like having a second downtown skyline in the NE (albeit with one tower).

Can't wait!

When I was in YYZ last week I was looking at their control tower, it looks very similar to the rendering for our new one (just that ours will be taller).

[Bigtime]

YYZ control tower:

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/50416_2751175433_7112_n.jpg

Proposed YYC control tower:

http://www.navcanada.ca/DirectRoute/Images/Story6a_EN.jpg

[You Need A Thneed]

YNAT, as you know my beef is that the higher levels of government aren't putting any money forward for the tunderpass, runway, or new terminal.

I can understand the new terminal, but Harper pledged something like $26M to Quebec city for a runway extension, and I believe Halifax is also getting an upgrade. The fact that the federal government is not contributing AT ALL to a project that ensures safety, efficiency, and economic savings for all involved just confuses me.

If we got $26 million from the Feds, that would go a long way to cutting back on the financing costs.

$50 million from other levels of government combined would just about pay for everything without borrowing.

[tmjr]

YNAT, as you know my beef is that the higher levels of government aren't putting any money forward for the tunderpass, runway, or new terminal.

I can understand the new terminal, but Harper pledged something like $26M to Quebec city for a runway extension, and I believe Halifax is also getting an upgrade. The fact that the federal government is not contributing AT ALL to a project that ensures safety, efficiency, and economic savings for all involved just confuses me.

Speaking as a generally conservative type, the solution is simple. Alberta needs to vote more liberal federally - we get taken for granted...

[AlbertanToo]

YYZ control tower:

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/50416_2751175433_7112_n.jpg

Proposed YYC control tower:

http://www.navcanada.ca/DirectRoute/Images/Story6a_EN.jpg

Those designs could be carbon copies of one another! Could they have attempted to save design costs by using an off the shelf plan?

[Bigtime]

Those designs could be carbon copies of one another! Could they have attempted to save design costs by using an off the shelf plan?

It sure looks that way, but we can say to YYZ "Ours is taller!". :D

[Jack Doe]

It sure looks that way, but we can say to YYZ "Ours is taller!". :D

Yaa, but theirs probably has more girth, staying power when the earth trembles and is more satisfying to their users.

Ever notice that aircraft never crash into the control tower? I'm just saying...

[Innersoul1]

I have a question. It seems that the closure of Barlow trail has been nothing short of a gong show. I have spoken to Wesjet employees who are adding close to an hour to the commutes depending on traffic. Who does the responsibility for alternate routes fall on. The airport authority of the city? It seems like a major oversight for the city to believe that a 4 lane highway would not need to be replaced to some extent.

[AlbertanToo]

I have a question. It seems that the closure of Barlow trail has been nothing short of a gong show. I have spoken to Wesjet employees who are adding close to an hour to the commutes depending on traffic. Who does the responsibility for alternate routes fall on. The airport authority of the city? It seems like a major oversight for the city to believe that a 4 lane highway would not need to be replaced to some extent.

Man is that an understatement! I work on the SW corner of the airport and we have a brand new expressway running down the front of our hangar now!

All the traffic that was using Barlow to get to WJ, the AC hangar and the other cargo operators over there are now cutting through our neighborhood to get to McKnight from Deerfoot. They take the 64th Ave exit from Deerfoot to 11th Street NE then cut across on Aviation Park to bypass the clog-fest that is McKnight from Deerfoot.

How they thought you could close 4 lanes of 90km/hr traffic with no viable replacements is beyond me. There is going to be a whole lot more people late for work for the foreseeable future!

[Bigtime]

So they are sneaking through 11th street to then get eastbound on McKnight at 12th street?

I think a big problem is a lot of employees that work at Westjet/McCall Way cargo facilities are coming in from Airdrie area and losing the north section of McCall way is a huge blow for them.

[You Need A Thneed]

I have a question. It seems that the closure of Barlow trail has been nothing short of a gong show. I have spoken to Wesjet employees who are adding close to an hour to the commutes depending on traffic. Who does the responsibility for alternate routes fall on. The airport authority of the city? It seems like a major oversight for the city to believe that a 4 lane highway would not need to be replaced to some extent.

The opening of Metis Trail between 80th and CHB will help out, the city tried to get that done last year, but ran into expropriation delays. This should be open in later summer.

The opening of the traffic circle between McCall Way and Barlow trail will also help, since the only way out of the WestJet area is now to the south. This should be open in month or two. There likely wasn't a way to complete this before Barlow closed, since Barlow has to be realigned.

In a few years, the opening of the tunnel will take some of the pressure off of McKnight.


For employees who come from the North, the commute is always going to be a little bit longer than it was before. That's just what happens when the WestJet building is nearly in the centre of the airfield, and there is no only going to be one access.

[Bigtime]

I'm also guessing quite a few of the Westjet employees at the campus don't all have the standard 9-5 jobs. It is a 24 hour operation with shifts starting and ending all the time. Same with the Air Canada facilities and other cargo operators in the area.

[AlbertanToo]

So they are sneaking through 11th street to then get eastbound on McKnight at 12th street?

I think a big problem is a lot of employees that work at Westjet/McCall Way cargo facilities are coming in from Airdrie area and losing the north section of McCall way is a huge blow for them.

They sure are and I noticed a whole bunch of trucks from the Day and Ross truck terminal east of the airport snaking through there now too.

The Purolator/UPS/ Fed Ex trucks are now winding up 11th Street now too. Somedays it takes three traffic lights to get through the intersection at 11th Street and Aviation Park as the cars back up from trying to get on Eastbound McKnight!

[Pegasus]

:superwhip

:brickwall: That just reinforces the urgency on getting the underpass
negotiations done and increases the frustration with the CAA
dragging their feet. The CAA is basically keeping the City and
all its residents :censor: hostage.

I am puzzled as to why Calgary need a new N-S runway. I fly in and out of Calgary quite frequently and I have NEVER been "stacked" waiting to land, and never had to wait to take off (other than perhaps behind one or two planes). However, have you ever landed on the existing N-S runway when a strong Chinook is blowing? If extra runway capacity is needed it is in the E-W direction (aren't Calgary's strongest winds from the west??). As for "growth", I see much of Calgary's growth in passenger numbers being size of planes, not just more planes.

Regarding the tunnel, do you really want to support building it and help City Council increase taxes by 22% over the next three years (or more - look what happened to the so-called Peace Bridge). I don't see why Country Hills Boulevard can't be upgraded to support traffic from the eastern quadrant of the city - it's only a block or so north of where the tunnel would be. Why is this not an option?? Again, like the Peace Bridge which is not needed because it is close to another pedestrian bridge, the tunnel is not needed because it is close to Country Hills Blvd.

[freeweed]

I am puzzled as to why Calgary need a new N-S runway. I fly in and out of Calgary quite frequently and I have NEVER been "stacked" waiting to land, and never had to wait to take off (other than perhaps behind one or two planes). However, have you ever landed on the existing N-S runway when a strong Chinook is blowing? If extra runway capacity is needed it is in the E-W direction (aren't Calgary's strongest winds from the west??). As for "growth", I see much of Calgary's growth in passenger numbers being size of planes, not just more planes.

Folks who plan airport capacity for a living believe we need another runway. Calgary's numbers just keep going up. I've personally been on planes waiting to both takeoff and land due to runway contention. And chinook winds do not blow 365 days of the year.

I don't see why Country Hills Boulevard can't be upgraded to support traffic from the eastern quadrant of the city - it's only a block or so north of where the tunnel would be. Why is this not an option??

It's nearly 1.5km away. That's more like 10-15 "blocks or so".

[You Need A Thneed]

Regarding the tunnel, do you really want to support building it and help City Council increase taxes by 22% over the next three years (or more - look what happened to the so-called Peace Bridge). I don't see why Country Hills Boulevard can't be upgraded to support traffic from the eastern quadrant of the city - it's only a block or so north of where the tunnel would be. Why is this not an option?? Again, like the Peace Bridge which is not needed because it is close to another pedestrian bridge, the tunnel is not needed because it is close to Country Hills Blvd.

Neither the tunnel nor the Peace bridge have anything to do with tax increases. The tax increases affects the operating budget, whereas the construction projects come out of the capital budget.

CHB is 16 "blocks" North of Airport trail, not 1. It is an option, but would cost more than the tunnel to provide the future capacity requirement on CHB, also, it would ruin the plans the city has to make CHB an urban blvd.

Basically, proximity is not the issue for the tunnel (and for the peace bridge), capacity is. Both are needed becaaue of capacity issues.

Someone else can better answer the question about why we need the runway, but, in short, it's needed.

Chinook winds only happen less than 5% of the time, no need to base airplane traffic on the 5% instead of the 95%.

[Bigtime]

I am puzzled as to why Calgary need a new N-S runway. I fly in and out of Calgary quite frequently and I have NEVER been "stacked" waiting to land, and never had to wait to take off (other than perhaps behind one or two planes). However, have you ever landed on the existing N-S runway when a strong Chinook is blowing? If extra runway capacity is needed it is in the E-W direction (aren't Calgary's strongest winds from the west??). As for "growth", I see much of Calgary's growth in passenger numbers being size of planes, not just more planes.

Instead of me posting it all over again, I suggest going back a good 20 pages in this thread and reading what many of us have already posted supporting the need for a parallel 16/34. Pay close attention to the wind diagrams I have posted a few times, plus the expertise of cyeg66 as a YYC terminal controller.

Edit: Not being rude, just that it has all been said over and over again in this thread. I'm tired of typing it out.

Edit 2: Here is the prevailing winds chart for YYC for summer and winter, as you can see it still favours the 16/34 alignment:

http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/7807/yyc.png
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2010-01-25

[MalcolmTucker]

YNAT, as you know my beef is that the higher levels of government aren't putting any money forward for the tunderpass, runway, or new terminal.

I can understand the new terminal, but Harper pledged something like $26M to Quebec city for a runway extension, and I believe Halifax is also getting an upgrade. The fact that the federal government is not contributing AT ALL to a project that ensures safety, efficiency, and economic savings for all involved just confuses me.

As it stands now, if the tunnel goes ahead, the province will be paying 100% of the costs for the airport tunnel. As for federal assistance, having money for it would be robbing Peter to pay Paul - since federal contributions aren't anywhere close to 1/3rd of Calgary's capital budget, just shuffling money between projects doesn't really mean anything, expect for optics.

[Innersoul1]

I am puzzled as to why Calgary need a new N-S runway. I fly in and out of Calgary quite frequently and I have NEVER been "stacked" waiting to land, and never had to wait to take off (other than perhaps behind one or two planes). However, have you ever landed on the existing N-S runway when a strong Chinook is blowing? If extra runway capacity is needed it is in the E-W direction (aren't Calgary's strongest winds from the west??). As for "growth", I see much of Calgary's growth in passenger numbers being size of planes, not just more planes.

Regarding the tunnel, do you really want to support building it and help City Council increase taxes by 22% over the next three years (or more - look what happened to the so-called Peace Bridge). I don't see why Country Hills Boulevard can't be upgraded to support traffic from the eastern quadrant of the city - it's only a block or so north of where the tunnel would be. Why is this not an option?? Again, like the Peace Bridge which is not needed because it is close to another pedestrian bridge, the tunnel is not needed because it is close to Country Hills Blvd.

Oh God, here we go....:fireworks

[cyeg66]

I am puzzled as to why Calgary need a new N-S runway. I fly in and out of Calgary quite frequently and I have NEVER been "stacked" waiting to land, and never had to wait to take off (other than perhaps behind one or two planes). However, have you ever landed on the existing N-S runway when a strong Chinook is blowing? If extra runway capacity is needed it is in the E-W direction (aren't Calgary's strongest winds from the west??).
<again, sigh> Have you only flown in/out of YYC for the past 1 1/2 years (since YVR TMU handles flow?). Have you never had a ground delay to fly into YYC? Have you never flown into Calgary b/w 4 pm and 9 pm, or departed b/w 7 and 10 am, all during the week and not on the weekend? How is it possible that you're not somewhere in the complaints line with all other YYC based pilots. Admittedly, things are smoother (perhaps quieter, it seems) now than they have been over the last couple of years. When the parallel is completed, pilots will increasingly need to be 'players' and take the long ones despite chinook winds, strictly for capacity reasons. There's so much pavement there to 'grease' a landing with a 20+ knots crosswind that it'll have to become the modus operandi of the airport and its tenants, unless we're talking about extreme conditions, which I'm not. Capacity will take 30-50% hit when we're forced to go to E-W ops.


As for "growth", I see much of Calgary's growth in passenger numbers being size of planes, not just more planes.


There are only a handful of airports where this may be true, London's "big 4" being some of them. Eco-crazies and NIMBY's rely heavily on this type of rhetoric. The problem is, Calgary airport, and virtually all those not included in the list above, would love to have more destinations on tap rather than sending bigger planes to competitors' plaque tournantes. As the market grows, the business case becomes more appealing for a point-to-point flight. In suitable (ideal?) conditions, an airline takes the risk in starting that flight and thus sends more airplanes our way. Growth, in YYC's foreseeable future, will be almost exclusively movement-based. The small oil patch traffic has already been reduced to a shadow of its former self, companies no longer chartering countless KingAirs in favour of far fewer B732, 735, 734, CRJ2, CR9 shuttles. We've hit a little bit of a lull at the moment (phew!) but I suspect that'll pick up rather soon. By 2020, it should easily be in the 300K+ column.

[cyeg66]

.

...on second thought, perhaps you have your idents mixed up. YYC stands for Calgary, not Edmonton. :D Sorry, couldn't resist....

[trofirhen]

Don't you folks in Calgary (maybe Edmonton, too) feel that we in the West are getting the short end of the stick (as usual) with the feds being as restrictive as they are about foreign airline landing rights here? (All three cities, really).

EMIRATES is the classic example, but also, there are no nonstops or direct flights YVR to Paris, and I don't think there are from Calgary, either.

Paris traffic is spread all over: weeklty summer charters -wowee- or else changing planes in YYZ, or in Europe at LHR, AMS, or FRA.

If we could treat all three Western cities combined: Calgary and edmonton with about a million people each, Vancouver at 2.5 million; we would have an air market of 4.5 million and growing.

Flights could begin in Vancouver, and touch down at Calgary or Edmonton en route to Europe.

I contacted WESTJET about doing this from Western Canada to Paris, but they are not expanding into Europe at the present time.

Much of which means that for India, which the feds use a pretext to block EMIRATES, we go to YYZ and change. In Vancouver anyway, there is a sufficient market to India to warrant direct flights over the pole.

We're getting screwed by the East, as usual, I don't care what anybody says; argue if you will. :hell:

[Canadian74]

Don't you folks in Calgary (maybe Edmonton, too) feel that we in the West are getting the short end of the stick (as usual) with the feds being as restrictive as they are about foreign airline landing rights here? (All three cities, really).

EMIRATES is the classic example, but also, there are no nonstops or direct flights YVR to Paris, and I don't think there are from Calgary, either.

Paris traffic is spread all over: weeklty summer charters -wowee- or else changing planes in YYZ, or in Europe at LHR, AMS, or FRA.

If we could treat all three Western cities combined: Calgary and edmonton with about a million people each, Vancouver at 2.5 million; we would have an air market of 4.5 million and growing.

Flights could begin in Vancouver, and touch down at Calgary or Edmonton en route to Europe.

I contacted WESTJET about doing this from Western Canada to Paris, but they are not expanding into Europe at the present time.

Much of which means that for India, which the feds use a pretext to block EMIRATES, we go to YYZ and change. In Vancouver anyway, there is a sufficient market to India to warrant direct flights over the pole.

We're getting screwed by the East, as usual, I don't care what anybody says; argue if you will. :hell:

You really need to educate yourself about Canadian aviation.

[Bigtime]

I'm not even touching that, asides from why do you need to fly through YYZ to reach India? You can go through LHR, FRA, and AMS right from YVR and YYC and connect through there.

And if you think Emirates is saying they want to serve YYC and YVR out of the goodness of their hearts than I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Alberta...

[You Need A Thneed]

I posted a new thread about the airport expansion projects in the Main Transportation section of SSP.

Link Here. (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5232701&postcount=1)

[AlbertanToo]

I had a very interesting visit to the Calgary Control Tower this afternoon. We learned all about the new construction blitz and even some details that I had not heard before like a new parallel taxiway that will run from south of 28-10 on the east side of 16/34 as a reliever for traffic on taxiway Charlie. Apparently, this will be finished before the end of this coming summer!

I thought about uploading photos on here but I already posted them on my blog so here is the link. http://integraair.blogspot.com/2011/04/trip-to-calgarys-control-tower.html

Hope you enjoy the post!

[Bigtime]

Thanks for the link and the pics. I didn't realize that the parallel taxiway to Charlie was going ahead this summer, excellent news.

I took a couple of groundschool classes up to the tower in my flight instructing days, I could have watched their view forever!

Also very intersting to hear that by the time the parallel is complete we will have runway's 35/17.

[AlbertanToo]

Thanks for the link and the pics. I didn't realize that the parallel taxiway to Charlie was going ahead this summer, excellent news.

I took a couple of groundschool classes up to the tower in my flight instructing days, I could have watched their view forever!

Also very intersting to hear that by the time the parallel is complete we will have runway's 35/17.

I was surprised by the expedited construction of the taxiway but I know it will come in very handy. Now they will be able to send traffic south to depart from 34 while still being able to send planes north to the terminal for deicing or to load.

[cyeg66]

Hope you enjoy the post!
I did, and LOL, I hope tower wasn't bitching about the arrival guy's spacing 'cause it was me working arrival at the time... And yeah, their view is a little better than our's. ;)

[shogged]

too bad the new tower design is so.. meh.

could have gone all out!

[bikegypsy]

Don't you folks in Calgary (maybe Edmonton, too) feel that we in the West are getting the short end of the stick (as usual) with the feds being as restrictive as they are about foreign airline landing rights here? (All three cities, really).

EMIRATES is the classic example, but also, there are no nonstops or direct flights YVR to Paris, and I don't think there are from Calgary, either.

Paris traffic is spread all over: weeklty summer charters -wowee- or else changing planes in YYZ, or in Europe at LHR, AMS, or FRA.

If we could treat all three Western cities combined: Calgary and edmonton with about a million people each, Vancouver at 2.5 million; we would have an air market of 4.5 million and growing.

Flights could begin in Vancouver, and touch down at Calgary or Edmonton en route to Europe.

I contacted WESTJET about doing this from Western Canada to Paris, but they are not expanding into Europe at the present time.

Much of which means that for India, which the feds use a pretext to block EMIRATES, we go to YYZ and change. In Vancouver anyway, there is a sufficient market to India to warrant direct flights over the pole.

We're getting screwed by the East, as usual, I don't care what anybody says; argue if you will. :hell:

This business doesn't work like that. You have to think in terms of hub and not O and D. Vancouver alone could not generate all those flights to Far East Asia as well as the Indian sub-continent.... It's Vancouver plus the rest of Canada. JUst like it's Toronto plus the rest of Canada which generate all those European flights out of YYZ. "Hub" is not a glorified term which an airport gets because it's cool, busy or efficient. It means that a particular facility is used as a funel for other cities.

By the way, if you include the regions of Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec city you get a population in excess of 6 million (and that's excluding all the smaller cities around such as Kingston and Trois Riviere). Yet, how many flights are there to Asia excluding the Middle East? Ziltch, nada.... None with the exception of the odd charter flights from Japan in the fall.... but no seats available for the locals.

The aviation industry is not a charity and nore is it a passtime where buddies meet behind closed doors in order to "screw the west". It chrunches numbers in a very serious way, plan years ahead and benefit from paper thin profits.

[AlbertanToo]

I did, and LOL, I hope tower wasn't bitching about the arrival guy's spacing 'cause it was me working arrival at the time... And yeah, their view is a little better than our's. ;)

I wondered if you were working today! Yes...they have the most enviable view going! I didn't hear any complaints about spacing either!

[jeremy_haak]

Don't you folks in Calgary (maybe Edmonton, too) feel that we in the West are getting the short end of the stick (as usual) with the feds being as restrictive as they are about foreign airline landing rights here? (All three cities, really).

EMIRATES is the classic example, but also, there are no nonstops or direct flights YVR to Paris, and I don't think there are from Calgary, either.

Paris traffic is spread all over: weeklty summer charters -wowee- or else changing planes in YYZ, or in Europe at LHR, AMS, or FRA.

If we could treat all three Western cities combined: Calgary and edmonton with about a million people each, Vancouver at 2.5 million; we would have an air market of 4.5 million and growing.

Flights could begin in Vancouver, and touch down at Calgary or Edmonton en route to Europe.

I contacted WESTJET about doing this from Western Canada to Paris, but they are not expanding into Europe at the present time.

Much of which means that for India, which the feds use a pretext to block EMIRATES, we go to YYZ and change. In Vancouver anyway, there is a sufficient market to India to warrant direct flights over the pole.

We're getting screwed by the East, as usual, I don't care what anybody says; argue if you will. :hell:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have open skies with Europe now? If you think there should be a flight to Paris, complain to Air France, or to Air Canada. There is no conspiracy by the so-called eastern powers that be to deprive westerners of their inalienable rights to direct international air travel.

[Canadian74]

Since when is Lufthansa offering First Class on the YYC route? I always thought that they stopped offering it once they switched to A343 from A333, but I was looking at seating charts on Expert Flyer for LH495 and it shows Lufthansa are operating the A343 with 8F/48J/165Y. Since when? This version of the A343 has the same number of seats as the A333 (also 8F/48J/165Y).

This version of the A343 has quite a lot of premium seats (56!). It's the most premium version of the A343. Quite surprising since they operate the YYZ route without a F cabin.

[Bigtime]

Hmm, that's a good question. When I flew the route in January it was still the 2 class cabin on the A343 (and that same the year prior to that).

I'm not familiar with the website Expert Flyer, is it always accurate? Or could it be a glitch?

Edit: On Saturday LH operated the route with the A333, any chance that the info is still on that website even though it is back to the A343?

[Canadian74]

Hmm, that's a good question. When I flew the route in January it was still the 2 class cabin on the A343 (and that same the year prior to that).

I'm not familiar with the website Expert Flyer, is it always accurate? Or could it be a glitch?

Edit: On Saturday LH operated the route with the A333, any chance that the info is still on that website even though it is back to the A343?

Website is accurate, it even showed 2 seats were booked out of 8. You can even book First Class on YYC-FRA-YYC on the Lufthansa website directly.

[Innersoul1]

I have been looking at the International Terminal expansion material. I am wondering if the expansion will include a new dedicated de-icing facility. Flying through Denver this month I was amazed to see the size of their facility. It would certainly speed things up if Calgary were to do the same.

[You Need A Thneed]

I have been looking at the International Terminal expansion material. I am wondering if the expansion will include a new dedicated de-icing facility. Flying through Denver this month I was amazed to see the size of their facility. It would certainly speed things up if Calgary were to do the same.

Information on De-icing facility on page 7-60 of this link. (http://www.yyc.com/data//1/rec_docs/345_Chapter_7-Project_Description_(9_MB).pdf) (9 MB download)

[Stang]

Since when is Lufthansa offering First Class on the YYC route? I always thought that they stopped offering it once they switched to A343 from A333, but I was looking at seating charts on Expert Flyer for LH495 and it shows Lufthansa are operating the A343 with 8F/48J/165Y. Since when? This version of the A343 has the same number of seats as the A333 (also 8F/48J/165Y).

This version of the A343 has quite a lot of premium seats (56!). It's the most premium version of the A343. Quite surprising since they operate the YYZ route without a F cabin.

I took Lufthansa to Frankfurt a month ago, but I honestly can't remember the plane (lots of flights that day). They didn't have the pods in first on that flight, unfortunately, but the service was quite good as you would expect. If it helps, it was on March 10th.

[Canadian74]

I checked upto April 2012 and they are offering F class.
Booking for May 2011 is also pretty decent in F.

[Bigtime]

This is a most interesting development that LH is offering the F class product to YYC again.

[Doug]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have open skies with Europe now? If you think there should be a flight to Paris, complain to Air France, or to Air Canada. There is no conspiracy by the so-called eastern powers that be to deprive westerners of their inalienable rights to direct international air travel.

Open skies in name only. If Emirates thinks the business is viable that is all that matters.

There is a sensitivity to federal interfence in aviation as the west has been screwed many times in the past:
-until deregulation in the 80's, fares were set higher in the west to subsidize those in the east
-when AB boomed in the 70s, the Feds were very slow to allow more flights despite obvios demand
-the Feds have bailed out Air Canada three times, giving it an unfair advantage over WestJet and the former, Canadian

[Bigtime]

Open skies in name only. If Emirates thinks the business is viable that is all that matters.

There is a sensitivity to federal interfence in aviation as the west has been screwed many times in the past:
-until deregulation in the 80's, fares were set higher in the west to subsidize those in the east
-when AB boomed in the 70s, the Feds were very slow to allow more flights despite obvios demand
-the Feds have bailed out Air Canada three times, giving it an unfair advantage over WestJet and the former, Canadian

I believe that was not a "bailout" but a loan that AC has since repaid fully (plus interest).

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[SubwayRev]

I believe that was not a "bailout" but a loan that AC has since repaid fully (plus interest).

Correct me if I'm wrong.

When a bank gives a company money, it's a loan. When the Government does, it's a bailout. Whether or not they plan to pay it back, companies only go to the Government when nobody in the private sector is willing to finance them.

Air Canada was given that money because they would crumble without it and nobody was willing to invest a penny with them.

[Canadian74]

Open skies in name only. If Emirates thinks the business is viable that is all that matters.



What is this suppose to mean? :sly:

[Doug]

What is this suppose to mean? :sly:

If we had true open skies, the federal government would not be allocating landing slots. If Emirates thinks it can make money servicing Calgary and Vancouver, why should anything stand in its path? The impact to Toronto as a hub and Air Canada's financial viability (or should I say inviability) is irrelevant.

[Doug]

I believe that was not a "bailout" but a loan that AC has since repaid fully (plus interest).

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Which one? Air Canada has received government assistance three times since 1999. It is a dog and should have gone down in flames a long time ago.

[Doug]

When a bank gives a company money, it's a loan. When the Government does, it's a bailout. Whether or not they plan to pay it back, companies only go to the Government when nobody in the private sector is willing to finance them.

Air Canada was given that money because they would crumble without it and nobody was willing to invest a penny with them.

If a company receives more favorable financing terms from government than it could have from financial markets, it is a bailout.

[Bigtime]

If we had true open skies, the federal government would not be allocating landing slots. If Emirates thinks it can make money servicing Calgary and Vancouver, why should anything stand in its path? The impact to Toronto as a hub and Air Canada's financial viability (or should I say inviability) is irrelevant.

Emirates wanting to serve YYC and YVR is all about getting more flights to YYZ, nothing else. Don't be fooled by their spin job.

[Bigtime]

I'm curious if anyone here thinks that the Onex bid to buy Air Canada would have turned out any differently than AC pretty much being forced to merge with Canadian?

[Doug]

Emirates wanting to serve YYC and YVR is all about getting more flights to YYZ, nothing else. Don't be fooled by their spin job.

Doesn't really matter one way or the other. Everyone, except for Air Canada employees, would benefit from increased competition.

[Doug]

I'm curious if anyone here thinks that the Onex bid to buy Air Canada would have turned out any differently than AC pretty much being forced to merge with Canadian?

Hard to say. Onex is just a leveraged buy out company. It probably would have loaded AC up with more debt, collected its fee and walked away. At the time, Onex was also looking to the Feds to "help" it buy AC.

American Airlines should have been allowed to buy Canadian.

[Canadian74]

Doesn't really matter one way or the other. Everyone, except for Air Canada employees, would benefit from increased competition.

Air Canada is not the only one who expressed concern. And no, everyone will not benefit (especially at YYC and YVR).

[Canadian74]

If we had true open skies, the federal government would not be allocating landing slots. If Emirates thinks it can make money servicing Calgary and Vancouver, why should anything stand in its path? The impact to Toronto as a hub and Air Canada's financial viability (or should I say inviability) is irrelevant.

The original poster was talking about the European services and how Western Canada is getting screwed.
Canada has had an open skies agreement with EU for quite some time now, and no one is stopping Air France or Air Canada from operating YVR-CDG. If there was a real market between these two cities, someone would be operating it. Apparently AC and AF feel it is not the right time. When there is enough demand (J class), I am sure someone will open up the market. In the meanwhile there are charters for VFR traffic.

As for India-YVR, the traffic is *highly* low yield and also Air Canada does not have the right aircraft for this route. Operating this kind of long haul route requires good premium traffic, which is lacking. There is already several one-stop options from Asia as well as Europe which are quite popular among Indians in YVR.

Emirates is another story, I feel both Canada and UAE equally messed this up. It's a long story.