[Bigtime]

So I had to scour my old Webshots online photo albums to see which B-17 it was that came by back in 2004, turns out it was Sentimental Journey:

http://inlinethumb24.webshots.com/51543/1168938090057393374S500x500Q85.jpg (http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1168938090057393374RdZjJX)

http://inlinethumb10.webshots.com/49097/1168938240057393374S500x500Q85.jpg (http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1168938240057393374AIvJLT)

[Frenzy]

Was able to snap this photo of YYC (via cellphone) before flying off to Hawaii!

You can defs see the outline of the IFP taking shape

http://i.imgur.com/rV6Nh.jpg

[Johnny Aussie]

Was able to snap this photo of YYC (via cellphone) before flying off to Hawaii!

You can defs see the outline of the IFP taking shape.

Great shot! Been over a year since I have been there now (although may make a very quick visit in 2 weeks!)

Questions:
1) what is the big grey "box" between gates C29 and D31?
2) concourse B/C has only 9 aerobridge gates now (used to be 10)?
3) how many aerobridge equipped gates are there now on concourse A (used to be 8, now looks like at least 9)?

[Cage]

Great shot! Been over a year since I have been there now (although may make a very quick visit in 2 weeks!)

Questions:
1) what is the big grey "box" between gates C29 and D31?
2) concourse B/C has only 9 aerobridge gates now (used to be 10)?
3) how many aerobridge equipped gates are there now on concourse A (used to be 8, now looks like at least 9)?

1) Transborder bag screening and assembly. Old facility way to small and was impacting increase in checkin desks. By moving AC transborder checkin to their international area, an additional 6 spaces openned up. Further WS added another 4 transborder positions down by their end.
2) Correct gate 29 has been removed. However there are gates 31-34.
3) concourse A has 10 aerobridges. However gate 9 (used to be 11) can only handle CRJ or 705, especially when 1 or 3 (regional hard stands) are used. There are new gates between old 10 and 12 and between old 11 and 15. Gates were renumbered to have gate 9 on the main concourse and new gate 14.

[CalgaryLankan]

Another AN 124 arriving YYC tonight.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VDA1388

[Full Mountain]

Question for those of you in the NavCanada loop, this new executive airport/Race track by Airdrie, how will NavCanada/TC/YYC take to having another airport in the vicinity with regards to traffic? It seems that the air space can get pretty busy as is.

[Bigtime]

Question for those of you in the NavCanada loop, this new executive airport/Race track by Airdrie, how will NavCanada/TC/YYC take to having another airport in the vicinity with regards to traffic? It seems that the air space can get pretty busy as is.

I was going to ask this very question to our resident ATC'er, cyeg66. Glad you brought it up.

[YYCguys]

Would this replace the current Airdrie airstrip? How much activity does the current Airdrie facility see? Airdrie has now annexed the airport lands from RVC, which if replaced by a new facility, would be perfectly positioned for other uses by the city of Airdrie.
http://www.airdrie.ca/annexation/docs/annexation_sep2_al.pdf

[suburbia]

Article with video about the runway:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/08/01/canadas-longest-runway-set-for-2014-opening

[ACT7]

From the Calgary Herald...

“We require a runway of this magnitude in order to get large, heavy aircraft to be able to get to Asian destinations,”
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Workers+site+Calgary+airport+runway+project/7026541/story.html#ixzz22Ok82i2a

Actually, you need the demand. Maybe the runway needed to built, but it will not stimulate demand from Asian carriers. This guy may need it to take off and retrieve his head from the clouds, though.

[Bigtime]

I think the CAA reps keep saying stupid stuff like that because it would just be too hard to explain to all the media types why the runway is really needed. However it drives me crazy because it makes us look like we are expecting Asian carriers and destinations to just magically start arriving when the parallel is complete.

Edit: Well to be fair he also said this after the Asian remark:

We’re at capacity with our existing airfield and we need this runway to be built so we can accommodate growth in the region and just accommodate business and leisure travel in the Calgary community.

[cyeg66]

I also hate the repeated assertion that this will be Canada's longest runway. That distinction already belongs to YYC, and believe it or not, it's current 12650' length is adequate for anything flying out there today. The little bit of extra length allows airlines to use even less power on departure, you know 'cause it's allllllllll about fuel economy and little to do with expediency, with added safety margins. It's positioning is geared toward commercial traffic (land 34L/depart 34R, land 16R/depart16L). 'Screw the GA'. I suspect that's why Sunwest is moving to the NW part of the field, also because of other constraints in their current digs.

[Bigtime]

I also hate the repeated assertion that this will be Canada's longest runway. That distinction already belongs to YYC, and believe it or not, it's current 12650' length is adequate for anything flying out there today. The little bit of extra length allows airlines to use even less power on departure, you know 'cause it's allllllllll about fuel economy and little to do with expediency, with added safety margins. It's positioning is geared toward commercial traffic (land 34L/depart 34R, land 16R/depart16L). 'Screw the GA'. I suspect that's why Sunwest is moving to the NW part of the field, also because of other constraints in their current digs.

A buddy at WestJet said that they have switched from reduced power takeoffs to TOGA (or slightly less) for all departures now. Apparently faster to altitude is saving more money than the reduced thrust departures.

Are you seeing evidence of this on the radar screens?

[artvandelay]

I finally got around to watching the Flight Plan: YYC documentary and I thought it was quite informative. As someone who is using the airport more and more for business travel these days, I wasn't aware of the massive scale of the IFP and I'm sure it will be a huge improvement! The interviews with some of the YYC execs were quite candid with regards to the airport repatriating YVR traffic for Asian flights, but I doubt that Asian carriers are going to rush here because we have a shiny new building. I don't think that YYC management is naive enough to believe in the "if you build it, they will come" approach either. So forgive me for speculating, but reading between the lines here:
- Westjet has been rumored to be moving into international flights (likely with the 787) once there Q400 network is up and running probably around 2016 (IFP coincidently opens in 2015)
- WS has been building their codeshare network with AA
- WS it going hard after business travellers, with the recently announced economy plus offering
- So these factors lead me to believe that the IFP is being built with WestJet in mind, having them essentially becoming Canadian Airlines 2.0; except using YYC as the Asian gateway rather than YVR
Is this realistic or am I totally out to lunch?

[halifaxboyns]

Is there an online link to the documentary?

[cyeg66]

- So these factors lead me to believe that the IFP is being built with WestJet in mind, having them essentially becoming Canadian Airlines 2.0; except using YYC as the Asian gateway rather than YVR
Is this realistic or am I totally out to lunch?

Probably out to lunch but then that would make two of us because I've often been wondering the same thing. I feel that since YVR is well served by AC and many other players in the Asian market, then that would serve YYC and WS well in serving a different Canadian market altogether from various points abroad. WS going international will poach some AC ridership but not that significantly. I think what it will do is stimulate WS riders to seek other destinations once it's on offer, and at a far more reasonable price.

YYC's June stats out. Pretty good:
http://www.yyc.com/Default.aspx?cid=117&lang=1

[Bigtime]

YYC's June stats out. Pretty good:
http://www.yyc.com/Default.aspx?cid=117&lang=1

Not bad:

Domestic up 4.8%
Transborder up 8.8%
International down 2.6%

[ACT7]

I finally got around to watching the Flight Plan: YYC documentary and I thought it was quite informative. As someone who is using the airport more and more for business travel these days, I wasn't aware of the massive scale of the IFP and I'm sure it will be a huge improvement! The interviews with some of the YYC execs were quite candid with regards to the airport repatriating YVR traffic for Asian flights, but I doubt that Asian carriers are going to rush here because we have a shiny new building. I don't think that YYC management is naive enough to believe in the "if you build it, they will come" approach either. So forgive me for speculating, but reading between the lines here:
- Westjet has been rumored to be moving into international flights (likely with the 787) once there Q400 network is up and running probably around 2016 (IFP coincidently opens in 2015)
- WS has been building their codeshare network with AA
- WS it going hard after business travellers, with the recently announced economy plus offering
- So these factors lead me to believe that the IFP is being built with WestJet in mind, having them essentially becoming Canadian Airlines 2.0; except using YYC as the Asian gateway rather than YVR
Is this realistic or am I totally out to lunch?

You're a little out to lunch - and I mean that in the nicest way possible. Even when Canadian Airlines was headquartered out of Calgary, the bulk of their operations were YYZ and YVR. I don't foresee WJ using YYC as a hub for trans-pac flights so I'll keep saying it until I'm wrong - the IFP is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to big to justify any realistic growth models for YYC's international pax traffic. In fact, new numbers are in for Q2 and international pax has been down for the past 2 months.

http://www.yyc.com/data//1/rec_docs/33_BR_PaxTotal.pdf

The only reason there's any growth in international pax this year is because of sun destination traffic in the winter months. Like you said, a shiny new concourse will not drive demand. If there was so much pent up Asian demand out of YYC, AC (other than flying to NRT, which is part tag-on to YYZ anyway) or any other number of Asian carriers would have started by now.

YYC's growth is domestic and transborder so, while there is a need to expand the terminal for those sectors, a 200,000+ sq. ft. international pier is complete overkill, as has been stated repeatedly on this thread. Even if YYC's international pax traffic grew by 10% per year for the next 10 years (which I think we can safely assume it won't), in 2022 it would be handling about 3.3 million international passengers. Even that doesn't warrant that kind of facility.

But, what do I know...

On a side (more positive) note, YYC is only about 300K pax behind YUL ytd and growing much faster overall. I'm sticking by my prediction earlier in the year :)

[Bigtime]

I understand the hesitation about the IFP due to the weaker international numbers, but isn't it also going to be serving the transborder flights? Do people get hung up on the "I" in IFP and forget about the US flights?

[artvandelay]

You're a little out to lunch - and I mean that in the nicest way possible. Even when Canadian Airlines was headquartered out of Calgary, the bulk of their operations were YYZ and YVR. I don't foresee WJ using YYC as a hub for trans-pac flights so I'll keep saying it until I'm wrong - the IFP is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to big to justify any realistic growth models for YYC's international pax traffic.

Yeah, this is all true. I agree that the IFP is out of scale based on current growth models, but I'm making an assumption here that YYC management aren't just doubling the size of the airport based on nothing. I assume they would have to justify an expansion of this magnitude in order to secure financing, and the only logical scenario I can think of is the expansion being done in cahoots with WJ's long term strategic plan. If WS can funnel Asian traffic from Eastern Canada and smaller U.S. markets through YYC, would the increase in international passengers be large enough to justify the IFP?

However I'm just an occasional business traveller and don't really know the inner dynamics of the airline industry. But I find it is a really interesting industry to study from a business strategy standpoint.

[ACT7]

Yeah, this is all true. I agree that the IFP is out of scale based on current growth models, but I'm making an assumption here that YYC management aren't just doubling the size of the airport based on nothing. I assume they would have to justify an expansion of this magnitude in order to secure financing, and the only logical scenario I can think of is the expansion being done in cahoots with WJ's long term strategic plan. If WS can funnel Asian traffic from Eastern Canada and smaller U.S. markets through YYC, would the increase in international passengers be large enough to justify the IFP?

However I'm just an occasional business traveller and don't really know the inner dynamics of the airline industry. But I find it is a really interesting industry to study from a business strategy standpoint.
I would assume they have absolutely done some due diligence but it wouldn't be the first time an authority has touted big promises and then for one reason or another, reality never materializes the way it was planned. Mirabel comes to mind immediately. Granted Calgary doesn't have the political issues, yadda, yadda, yadda...

I think there is always an element of building something so grand just to impress, nothing more, nothing less. I kind of feel the same way about YVR. It's far too big a terminal for the amount of traffic.

[Bigtime]

I think there is always an element of building something so grand just to impress, nothing more, nothing less. I kind of feel the same way about YVR. It's far too big a terminal for the amount of traffic.

Isn't that true, I love the 30 miles* of walking from a domestic flight to the international/transborder area.


*Ok, maybe not 30 miles, but damn does it feel long. Especially when you are dragging toddler along too.

[suburbia]

Probably out to lunch but then that would make two of us because I've often been wondering the same thing. I feel that since YVR is well served by AC and many other players in the Asian market, then that would serve YYC and WS well in serving a different Canadian market altogether from various points abroad. WS going international will poach some AC ridership but not that significantly. I think what it will do is stimulate WS riders to seek other destinations once it's on offer, and at a far more reasonable price.

YYC's June stats out. Pretty good:
http://www.yyc.com/Default.aspx?cid=117&lang=1

I'm looking forward to seeing the July numbers. With the Stampede bonanza, it could possibly be the highest number of passengers of any month in history. 1.3M maybe?

[Spring2008]

What are the chances of Calgary getting a direct connection to Rome, or any other direct connect flights to a European city south of Frankfurt in general with the massive expansion in the works at YYC?

Edit-I see Edelweiss Air has a seasonal flight to Zurich, but that doesn't help much. I'm thinking more along the lines of Air Transat or any other Airline adding a seasonal flight to Spain/Italy?

[suburbia]

... seasonal flight to Spain/Italy?

Looking for a deal on EU bankruptcy sales?

Just kidding ... kinda.

I think it is more long-term strategic to get better connected to Istanbul.

vvv - yup, agree with you there. We need to get off our high horse and let them in.

[Full Mountain]

Looking for a deal on EU bankruptcy sales?

Just kidding ... kinda.

I think it is more long-term strategic to get better connected to Istanbul.

Dubai? I would bet UAE would be here in a flash if they were able

[MalcolmTucker]

Looking for a deal on EU bankruptcy sales?

Just kidding ... kinda.

I think it is more long-term strategic to get better connected to Istanbul.

vvv - yup, agree with you there. We need to get off our high horse and let them in.

Not sure how Dubai or Istanbul would work out, the Amstwerdam and Frankfurt flights carry lots of connections to Northern Africa and the Middle East.

It might not be zero sum, but it could be close to it.

[bakersdozen]

CNOOC Nexen purchase should increase demand to China somewhat...

[cyeg66]

A quick look at how some Canadian airports are performing in 2012, up to June unless otherwise indicated....


YWG 2011: 1655092
2012: 1762996
Growth: + 6.5%

YYZ 2011: 13360601 (til May)*
2012: 13995299*
Growth: + 4.8%*

YYC 2011: 6180176
2012: 6536320
Growth: + 5.8%

YVR 2011: 8179377
2012: 8513254
Growth: + 4.1%

YYJ 2011: 716261
2012: 720486
Growth: + 0.6%

YOW 2011: 2296257
2012: 2409973
Growth: + 5.0%

YUL 2011: 6757269
2012: 6873024
Growth: +1.7%

YEG 2011: 3062115
2012: 3268083
Growth: + 6.7%

YQB 2012 Growth + 1.6%
Probably around 660K pax thru June*

YLW 2011: 683937
2012: 709767
Growth: + 3.8%

YXE 2011: 327709 til March, approx 660K thru June*
2012: 351320 til March, approx 700K thru June*
Growth: + 7.2% thru March

YHZ Anyone’s guess. Can someone get off their lazy ash and print some stats?

[Rusty van Reddick]

a 200,000+ sq. ft. international pier is complete overkill, as has been stated repeatedly on this thread.

Aren't you the only one stating this- repeatedly? In fact your whole raison d'etre on SSP seems to be to throw cold water on YYC.

[Bigtime]

CNOOC Nexen purchase should increase demand to China somewhat...

Perhaps, but probably an amount so small that it doesn't justify a non-stop flight. :(

[ACT7]

Aren't you the only one stating this- repeatedly? In fact your whole raison d'etre on SSP seems to be to throw cold water on YYC.

Not just me- go back and read some other posts. And no, my raison d'etre is not just to throw cold water on YYC. I just think YYC is leaving in a bit of a dream world when it comes to international traffic projections. Prove me wrong.

There seems to be a notion that airlines are pounding down the door waiting to serve YYC, YVR, etc, and the one thing holding them back was runway length, terminal capacity, and so on, and it behooves me to raise the question of whether or not this makes any sense. I've mentioned before that the only way an airport will grow rapidly, is if it's a true hub. And no matter what AC says, YYC and YVR are not true hubs in any global sense of the word. All you need to do is take a look at the amount of destinations it serves out of each airport. So even if every single Asian carrier offered daily service into YYC, it will never reach the amount of pax needed to make solid, appropriate use of the IFP.

And, I'm saying this as someone who loves YYC and wants to see it grow!

[Bigtime]

ACT7, I asked a few posts back whether or not the fact that the IFP will also handle the transborder traffic would at least bring it in line for the scale of the project. What are your thoughts?

[CalgaryLankan]

Another Antonov 124 arriving YYC today at 3.40 PM (daytime arrival in this instance).

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VDA1390/history/20120803/1800Z/PANC/CYYC

[Bigtime]

I got the email from Flightaware as well, that makes 3 of the 124's in a week or so. Wonder what they are transporting?

[MalcolmTucker]

Not just me- go back and read some other posts. And no, my raison d'etre is not just to throw cold water on YYC. I just think YYC is leaving in a bit of a dream world when it comes to international traffic projections. Prove me wrong.

There seems to be a notion that airlines are pounding down the door waiting to serve YYC, YVR, etc, and the one thing holding them back was runway length, terminal capacity, and so on, and it behooves me to raise the question of whether or not this makes any sense. I've mentioned before that the only way an airport will grow rapidly, is if it's a true hub. And no matter what AC says, YYC and YVR are not true hubs in any global sense of the word. All you need to do is take a look at the amount of destinations it serves out of each airport. So even if every single Asian carrier offered daily service into YYC, it will never reach the amount of pax needed to make solid, appropriate use of the IFP.

And, I'm saying this as someone who loves YYC and wants to see it grow!
You might not get the pax, but I think you'd still up the loading bridges and what are they called, stands? Unless they had a wonky schedule (or fifth freedom at either end to top up total service time to as close as you can get to 24 hours) you would need lots of room to store aircraft. Plus often airlines are providing flights at similar times, so the terminal is there for surge capacity, not average.

That being said I wouldn't be surprised if some of IFP ended up being reconfigured for triple swing gates in the end.

[cyeg66]

Further to how airports are doing pax-wise, here's how they fare in the aircraft movements category for 2012, something I'm more familiar with...:D YTD stats ending June, 2012.

YWG Total: 65761 (-3.6%)
IFR: 53961 (-1.6%)

YYZ Total: 214914 (+1.5%)
IFR: 213785 (+1.6%)

YYC Total: 118445 (+2.6%)
IFR: 111982 (+2.4%)

YVR Total: 144378 (+0.5%)* only 127000 of which actually used the runways.
IFR: 122458 (+2.9%)

YYJ Total: 64922 (-2.4%)
IFR: 20908 (+3.3%)

YOW Total: 79553 (-1.7%)
IFR: 53091 (+2.8%)

YUL Total: 116485 (+3.0%)
IFR: 113154 (+3.6%)

YEG Total: 70522 (+5.0%)
IFR: 65851 (+5.0%)

YQB Total: 65057 (+4.1%)
IFR: 31776 (+12.9%)

YHZ Total: 41663 (-1.8%)
IFR: 37911 (-1.4%)

I know I'm boring you folks with this but oh well, it's better than all the gloom-and-doom drivel about airport expansions and whether they're to scale or not. I figure there's enough qualified people in the business that have a much better idea than I as to how things will pan out.

[ACT7]

ACT7, I asked a few posts back whether or not the fact that the IFP will also handle the transborder traffic would at least bring it in line for the scale of the project. What are your thoughts?
Here's my thought:

YYC handles approx. 2.5 MM transborder pax and approx. 1.4 MM international pax for a rounded-up total of 4 MM pax in both sectors. In my opinion, a 200,000 sq. ft addition is not necessary to accomodate even that amount. What it will do is make the existing terminal seem pretty empty if the current 140,000 sq. ft is used almost exclusively for domestic pax. I tend to think YYC should have done a phased construction, the way YEG and YYZ are doing.

By my math, 4 MM pax a year is about 11,000 a day. If we assume 17 hours of productive use of gates per day, using 22 gates (the amount in the IFP) it's only about 30 pax an hour at each gate. Overkill...

[CalgaryLankan]

Turning out to be interesting day at YYC.

Ryan International A330 - came from and left back to Brize Norton this morning.

Antonov 124 on the way ETA 3.40 PM

Also Another RAF charter showing in YYC arrival list with ETA 2.30 PM (no clue about the carrier or aircraft in this case)


Plus KLM/Edelweiss/Condor in regular list will make it a perfect day for spotters.

[You Need A Thneed]

Airport Trail tunnel update:

34/50

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Documents/Road-projects/Airport-Tunnel-Update-August2012.pdf

[cyeg66]

Just saw this:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Alberta+courts+Korean+London+Olympics/7033161/story.html

Hmmm, not sure about that but someone's gotta try someday. Who knows? Could happen. Again, the usual b.s. about the longest runway, blah blah blah. The existing one is already sufficient. :rolleyes:

[cyeg66]

Airport Trail tunnel update:

34/50

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Documents/Road-projects/Airport-Tunnel-Update-August2012.pdf

Thanks for the update. That is a f*ck of a lot of concrete! I tend to forget that the tunnel needs to stretch not only the width of the runway but under 2,3, maybe 4 taxiways. The decision to pour now is still better than boring it out years down the road by which time it would have been loooooong overdue (like the Anthony Henday roundabouts) and at terrific expense.

[ACT7]

Just saw this:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Alberta+courts+Korean+London+Olympics/7033161/story.html

Hmmm, not sure about that but someone's gotta try someday. Who knows? Could happen. Again, the usual b.s. about the longest runway, blah blah blah. The existing one is already sufficient. :rolleyes:
Interesting. I could see a seasonal 3 weekly frequency to start, maybe in 2014/15. Although Korean has scaled back their Canadian operations in the past couple of years so I think they would be more likely to increase YVR and YYZ first and then consider YYC.

[Bigtime]

Interesting. I could see a seasonal 3 weekly frequency to start, maybe in 2014/15. Although Korean has scaled back their Canadian operations in the past couple of years so I think they would be more likely to increase YVR and YYZ first and then consider YYC.

I wonder if they got a decent taste of Canadian bookings when they ran the 3x weekly charters in the summer of 2010? They had opened those bookings up to the general public, not just charters.

[ACT7]

I wonder if they got a decent taste of Canadian bookings when they ran the 3x weekly charters in the summer of 2010? They had opened those bookings up to the general public, not just charters.
Perhaps. But then why not keep them running in 2011 and 2012?? Could just be an aircraft limitation I suppose.

[Bigtime]

Perhaps. But then why not keep them running in 2011 and 2012?? Could just be an aircraft limitation I suppose.

I thought the same thing, if only we could know every single truth and detail in the aviation world eh? :)

[ACT7]

I thought the same thing, if only we could know every single truth and detail in the aviation world eh? :)
Yah, if only. But it would make all this speculating on these forums very uninteresting :)

[Policy Wonk]

The problem at the end of the day remains that the business case for serving secondary destinations in Canada is very, very weak. The costs are off the chart and the yields are relatively poor.

A guy who consulted for a US low-cost carrier told me when they looked at serving several Canadian cities (including Calgary and Edmonton) they determined their break-even load factor would be above 100% if they employed their prevailing pricing strategy. And if they couldn't - what was the point again? Why come to Canada as the scrappy discount US airline just to match Air Canada's fares?

[halifaxboyns]

A quick look at how some Canadian airports are performing in 2012, up to June unless otherwise indicated....

YHZ Anyone’s guess. Can someone get off their lazy ash and print some stats?

From the Halifax Stanfield International Airport website:
2011 - 3,594,164
2010 - 3,508,153
2009 - 3,417,164
2008 - 3,578,931
2007 - 3,469,062
2006 - 3,378,601
2005 - 3,229,111
Website link (http://www.hiaa.ca/default.asp?id=190&pagesize=1&sfield=content.id&search=737&mn=70.1.262.296)

I've emailed asking for some more detailed numbers and to see if there are plans to publish a breakdown.

[halifaxboyns]

Few questions.

1) What was the seating layout for Air Canada 747-400, A340-300 and 767-200? I can find 744 Combi and A345 layouts on their website, but not the 744 Pax, A343 and 762.
2) What about Canadian Airlines 747-400s?
3) Did Air Canada or Canadian Airlines ever offer 3 classes of service (F/J/Y)? If so, in which aircraft and what was the layout?

Thanks.

I was a bit of airline nut growing up and used to collect the old printed 'pocket' schedules from both Air Canada and Canadian. I used them for a project in university and still have many of them in my book case.

The oldest Canadian one I can find (some may be tucked away) is 1996. I have one from 97, 98 and then the two timetables created when they went to the proud wings format, just prior to being taken over by Air Canada.

For Air Canada, I have June 96, October 97, April/November 98, October 99 and then the last pocket schedule printed which was the AC/Canadian Combo.

For the AC 767 Domestic (767-200) it was 36J/159Y until 97 when it became 37J/155Y. It stayed that way up until a few years before retirement, when they reconfiged to 24J/183Y. The 767-200ER (international) was 25F/152Y and was unchanged up to 2000. When the A340 was introduced it was 32F/252Y and stayed that way up until the 2000 schedule. The 747 for AC in the 96 schedule was 37F/262Y, but was changed in 97 to 42F/253Y and appears to have stayed that way up to 2000 - I think it stayed that way until it was retired if memory serves.

Canadian's 747 in the 1996 schedule had 48F (22 main deck, 26 upper) and 379Y. In 1998 it changed to 52F (22 main deck, 30 upper)/379Y. In 99, it was 42F (18 main deck, 24 upper)/379Y and remained that way into 2000 during the merger.

[outoftheice]

A buddy at WestJet said that they have switched from reduced power takeoffs to TOGA (or slightly less) for all departures now. Apparently faster to altitude is saving more money than the reduced thrust departures.

Are you seeing evidence of this on the radar screens?

Interesting to hear that they have made the switch at WS as most operators are moving towards reducing as much wear and tear on the engine as possible by using assumed temperature take-offs combined with de-rated thrust take-offs to maximize cost savings. No matter what method is used though, no real evidence would show on the radar screens as regardless of what power setting is to be used on take-off, all aircraft have to abide by the Vertical Noise Abatement Procedures out of Calgary. I can't remember if Calgary uses a VNAP A or VNAP B proceedure but depending on which one is used, take-off power must be reduced to climb power at either 1000 or 1500 feet AGL.

In regards to the longer runway being able to attract more service to Asia due to aircraft performance... it may actually be a factor. I'm not too sure about the performance figures for the various wide-bodies but some people would probably be surprised to learn that we very quickly become take-off weight limited on the 737-800 in Calgary once the temperature rises over 20 degrees in the summer.... I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same for operators operating twins trans-pacific and payload restrictions may just make the difference in the flight being profitable or not to operate.

[cyeg66]

Interesting to hear that they have made the switch at WS as most operators are moving towards reducing as much wear and tear on the engine as possible by using assumed temperature take-offs combined with de-rated thrust take-offs to maximize cost savings.
Agreed.

No matter what method is used though, no real evidence would show on the radar screens as regardless of what power setting is to be used on take-off, all aircraft have to abide by the Vertical Noise Abatement Procedures out of Calgary. I can't remember if Calgary uses a VNAP A or VNAP B proceedure but depending on which one is used, take-off power must be reduced to climb power at either 1000 or 1500 feet AGL.
Untrue. Jets have to comply with noise abatement, climbing to 6500' BPOC, but that isn't to be confused with voluntarily filing a vertical noise abatement procedure, formerly VNAP, now NDP1 or 2 procedure, which involves specific climb gradients and speeds to specific altitudes prior to "pushing the power" up farther. These are useful in cases such as Flightcraft's 727's taking off at 10 pm. Not useful when tower is departing a jet on an NDP1 departure followed by an a/c such as a Lear of Challenger behind it on a visual separation standard. They've almost gotten run over on a few occasions. Oh well, it's a big sky. :D
In regards to the longer runway being able to attract more service to Asia due to aircraft performance... it may actually be a factor. I'm not too sure about the performance figures for the various wide-bodies but some people would probably be surprised to learn that we very quickly become take-off weight limited on the 737-800 in Calgary once the temperature rises over 20 degrees in the summer.... I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same for operators operating twins trans-pacific and payload restrictions may just make the difference in the flight being profitable or not to operate.

First and only time I've heard of the 738 ever being weight restricted. You'll never need greater than 12675' and 99% of the time, WS's 738's are departing to places like CUN off 28 without any issue at all, regardless of temperature and wind. The new monster runway isn't conceived with narrow bodies in mind.

[cyeg66]

Let me correct myself... Jets are expected to comply with noise abatement but it really only depends on whether the captain wants to comply. He can turn whenever he wants (and possibly risk a noise complaint). I've heard some neighbourhoods can be sticklers.:rolleyes:

[Mazrim]

I've heard some neighbourhoods can be sticklers.:rolleyes:
What, do they have their noise snare beside their porch thermometer? Checking on planes with a casual glance over their shoulder when it sounded louder than usual? That would be pretty hilarious.

[outoftheice]

Untrue. Jets have to comply with noise abatement, climbing to 6500' BPOC, but that isn't to be confused with voluntarily filing a vertical noise abatement procedure, formerly VNAP, now NDP1 or 2 procedure, which involves specific climb gradients and speeds to specific altitudes prior to "pushing the power" up farther. These are useful in cases such as Flightcraft's 727's taking off at 10 pm. Not useful when tower is departing a jet on an NDP1 departure followed by an a/c such as a Lear of Challenger behind it on a visual separation standard. They've almost gotten run over on a few occasions. Oh well, it's a big sky. :D


First and only time I've heard of the 738 ever being weight restricted. You'll never need greater than 12675' and 99% of the time, WS's 738's are departing to places like CUN off 28 without any issue at all, regardless of temperature and wind. The new monster runway isn't conceived with narrow bodies in mind.

You are correct that VNAP is no longer the proper term.... for whatever reason I can never seem to remember NDP. I didn't realize that the NDPs were optional in Calgary. I haven't taken a look at the Calgary plates in a while but I thought that they were listed as a "shall" in our Jepps... I guess I was mistaken.

As far as the performance issue goes, Westjet has the good fortune of only having 166 seats on their -800s. We have 189 in ours... the -800 in charter configuration can be an absolute pig when it comes to performance. The structural maximum take-off weight for the -800 is 79015 kgs and once the temperature climbs over about 20 degrees we begin to be performance weight limited on 34/16 which means we can no longer take advantage of the aircraft's maximum structural weight... which can start to restrict payload. I realize that the longer runway isn't being built with narrowbody aircraft in mind, but if it helps eliminate a performance problem with a 737, I have no doubt there may be widebody aircraft with similar perfomance restrictions that the new runway will help eliminate.

[Bigtime]

outoftheice, with WS adding seats to the 738's do you think that will start bringing them into the same challenges you are mentioning? I think they'll still be short of the 189 seats, think the press release about the new seating had them around 174-176.

[Canadian74]

KLM to operate 5x weekly A330-200 service in Winter season. Last winter was 4x weekly.
Airlineroute.net

[Johnny Aussie]

Just a couple of weeks after Westjet announced its Hawaii expansion, AC is doing the exact opposite.

YYC-HNL is pretty much toast except for 5 non-stop flights over the peak Xmas period between 21 Dec and 6 Jan.

YYC-OGG is weekly only up to 16 Dec. Then it does increase to the originally planned 6 weekly, but again, only for the peak period 16 Dec to 9 Jan. Then it drops to 4 weekly after that for the remainder of the winter through mid April.

So basically, we go from 8 weekly (6 OGG and 2 HNL) last winter to 4 weekly (OGG only) this winter... hmmm... anybody holding any bookings to OGG or HNL better check to see what they are doing with you!

[Aegis]

Did anyone else see the C-17 Globemaster departing at approx 16:15 local time? Pretty sweet.

[Vascilli]

Yep, saw it down by Chinook. Big.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Just a couple of weeks after Westjet announced its Hawaii expansion, AC is doing the exact opposite.

YYC-HNL is pretty much toast except for 5 non-stop flights over the peak Xmas period between 21 Dec and 6 Jan.

YYC-OGG is weekly only up to 16 Dec. Then it does increase to the originally planned 6 weekly, but again, only for the peak period 16 Dec to 9 Jan. Then it drops to 4 weekly after that for the remainder of the winter through mid April.

So basically, we go from 8 weekly (6 OGG and 2 HNL) last winter to 4 weekly (OGG only) this winter... hmmm... anybody holding any bookings to OGG or HNL better check to see what they are doing with you!

My God- thanks for letting me know this. Departure from YYC on the 20th was changed to 21st and return on 3rd was changed to 4th. Must now make some changes- annoying!!! Partner booked these with flight passes so I wasn't informed and he's out of the country right now.

[Bigtime]

Just a couple of weeks after Westjet announced its Hawaii expansion, AC is doing the exact opposite.

YYC-HNL is pretty much toast except for 5 non-stop flights over the peak Xmas period between 21 Dec and 6 Jan.

YYC-OGG is weekly only up to 16 Dec. Then it does increase to the originally planned 6 weekly, but again, only for the peak period 16 Dec to 9 Jan. Then it drops to 4 weekly after that for the remainder of the winter through mid April.

So basically, we go from 8 weekly (6 OGG and 2 HNL) last winter to 4 weekly (OGG only) this winter... hmmm... anybody holding any bookings to OGG or HNL better check to see what they are doing with you!

Wonder what the reason is for this dramatic reduction?

AC getting ready to announce a whole bunch of YYC-Hawaii when they start up their international LCC? :haha:

[Bigtime]

I personally consider this move to reduce YYC-OGG to be pretty crappy. I much prefer traveling on a two aisle widebody with the kids, more room to move around and not keep them confined to their seats. I also prefer to take a non-stop flight to OGG from YYC versus connecting in YVR, SFO, or LAX (just shoot me instead of LAX).

I really, really, don't want to use the WS options of the chartered 752 (from YYC) or 737's from YVR. May have to take a hard look at going through YVR when the upgraded seating comes into play though.

Do we know where AC is re-allocating these "leisure" class 763's with the reduction in flights?

[AlbertanToo]

We got an email from the Airport Authority this afternoon saying that runway 10-28 had to be closed immediately. Here's a snippet of the release.

"Please be advised a significant section of pavement on RWY 10-28 has heaved and requires urgent repair. To accommodate this repair, RWY 10-28 will be closed THUR AUG 09 0800-2300L (1400-0500Z). In conjunction, Taxiway C between Taxiway C2 and Taxiway J will be restricted to Code C to accommodate the repair. "

http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv332/Skydrvr7/Rwy28-10closure.jpg

I didn't think we had had enough hot weather to make this happen.

[outoftheice]

outoftheice, with WS adding seats to the 738's do you think that will start bringing them into the same challenges you are mentioning? I think they'll still be short of the 189 seats, think the press release about the new seating had them around 174-176.

It may, but to be honest they should still be fine considering the sectors they use their -800s on. We push ours to get them to CUN and VRA with 189 people on board and we do this year round. I think that the majority of Westjet's sun flights occur in the winter months when the colder temperatures would eliminate any worry about performance penalties. Outside of the southern flying, I don't think they operate their -800s on many 4+ hour sectors which should keep the TOWs low enough that they wouldn't need to worry about performance even on the hottest days of summer.

[mersar]

Heads up for those who are interested. The cab for the new control tower at the airport is scheduled to be lifted into place on Monday at some point according to my brother (who is working on the datacom for the tower)

[Bigtime]

Awesome, thanks for the info. I'll make sure I have my camera with me at work and go get a shot or two if I can when the lift happens.

[Cage]

Wonder what the reason is for this dramatic reduction?

AC getting ready to announce a whole bunch of YYC-Hawaii when they start up their international LCC? :haha:

Last winter AC had 3 to 4 charter config 763, this year the company only has 2 aircraft.

The AC HNL/OGG service feeds from AC Vacations wing, much like WS Hawaii operation feeds from WS Vacations. Reduction in HNL from both AC and WS signals a possibility the hotels are turning to other sources for package deals. On the domestic front all the major airlines are expanding into Hawaii. Plus tje Japanese traffic is picking up from DL, ANA, UA, and JAL. Similar thing could be happening in OGG for AC Vacations.

The AC LCC operation will become a WS killer. The 319s will be heavy into Florida, LAS, and Mexico. The 763s will cover flying from YYZ to Carribean, Mexico, and Florida. Wondering aloud what a charter config 763 on YYC-LAS would do to WS. Also the 763 operation will run to places where WS could legitimately set up their own flights. So look for AC LCC to become the second flight to either LHR or LGW.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Last winter AC had 3 to 4 charter config 763, this year the company only has 2 aircraft.

The AC HNL/OGG service feeds from AC Vacations wing, much like WS Hawaii operation feeds from WS Vacations. Reduction in HNL from both AC and WS signals a possibility the hotels are turning to other sources for package deals. On the domestic front all the major airlines are expanding into Hawaii. Plus tje Japanese traffic is picking up from DL, ANA, UA, and JAL. Similar thing could be happening in OGG for AC Vacations.

The AC LCC operation will become a WS killer. The 319s will be heavy into Florida, LAS, and Mexico. The 763s will cover flying from YYZ to Carribean, Mexico, and Florida. Wondering aloud what a charter config 763 on YYC-LAS would do to WS. Also the 763 operation will run to places where WS could legitimately set up their own flights. So look for AC LCC to become the second flight to either LHR or LGW.

If there's an award for most acronyms/initialisms in a post, I think you just won it.

[Frenzy]

Just got back from holiday and I was able to snap a few cell phone pics of the airport expansion display on the arrivals level.

http://i.imgur.com/YkNbK.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ynzyG.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/eLHhu.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/QrZnI.jpg
new baggage handling system

http://i.imgur.com/CEhGK.jpg
cross section of the runway

http://i.imgur.com/5cqtD.jpg
and finally, some steel working going up!

[Bigtime]

Thanks for the photos Frenzy! Awesome to see the steel going up! Overkill or not the IFP is going to be an excellent looking facility.

[Frenzy]

For you all you airplane buffs out there, our flight from yvr to yyc was delayed a few minutes due to this piece of equipment coming in late.

Can anyone explain what this is used for?

http://i.imgur.com/7jm7N.jpg

[MalcolmTucker]

For you all you airplane buffs out there, our flight from yvr to yyc was delayed a few minutes due to this piece of equipment coming in late.

Can anyone explain what this is used for?

http://i.imgur.com/7jm7N.jpg
I believe for starting the engines when bleed air (air under pressure) from the auxillary power unit is not available.

[Full Mountain]

I believe for starting the engines when bleed air (air under pressure) from the auxillary power unit is not available.

It can also be used to provide faster engine starts and to reduce wear on the APU, similar reasons why most airlines use ground power units to run A/C etc. at the gate.

[Bigtime]

Well it's not the honey wagon... :D

[Full Mountain]

Well it's not the honey wagon... :D

Now there's a job I don't wish on anyone!

[patm]

For you all you airplane buffs out there, our flight from yvr to yyc was delayed a few minutes due to this piece of equipment coming in late.

Can anyone explain what this is used for?

http://i.imgur.com/7jm7N.jpg

They use it to dry the glue after they notice critical cracks in the wings of the plane. Congrads on making it safely.

[Full Mountain]

They use it to dry the glue after they notice critical cracks in the wings of the plane. Congrads on making it safely.

I hear glue bonds really well to aluminium :haha: :rolleyes:

[Bigtime]

They use it to dry the glue after they notice critical cracks in the wings of the plane. Congrads on making it safely.

Still better than this (Alaska Airlines):

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17v65g7h5agz3jpg/xlarge.jpg

:haha:

[MalcolmTucker]

^ That is awesome.

[cyeg66]

Triple LoL!

[cyeg66]

So, did anyone get out there with their photo-taking apparatuses and snap photos of photo-worthy material, namely the soon-to-be photogenic tower cab being heaved into place? Kidding aside, were they not doing that yesterday or the day before?

[Bigtime]

So, did anyone get out there with their photo-taking apparatuses and snap photos of photo-worthy material, namely the soon-to-be photogenic tower cab being heaved into place? Kidding aside, were they not doing that yesterday or the day before?

I thought it was going down on Monday? I did notice some more steelwork up yesterday but wasn't very close.

[Cage]

So, did anyone get out there with their photo-taking apparatuses and snap photos of photo-worthy material, namely the soon-to-be photogenic tower cab being heaved into place? Kidding aside, were they not doing that yesterday or the day before?

Photogenic, the thing is going to look like a big phallic symbol. Get ready for all sorts of big tower compensating for small member jokes. :jester:

[cyeg66]

You're correct, it's going up tomorrow. I'd been misinformed.

[mersar]

You're correct, it's going up tomorrow. I'd been misinformed.

Early tomorrow. I'd hoped my brother might be on site but they sent him up to YEG to do some work on their new tower instead. He did tell me though they they are starting at 5:30am and brought in a special crane from out of province supposedly to to the lift since its so high up. I have a dentist appointment at 7:30am so I may try to swing by the airport on the way to work to see how far along they are by that point.

[O-tacular]

Here's one for all you airplane geeks: Was driving down MArquis of Lorne Friday around 6:00pm and a huge cargo plane that looked to be military went by. Anyone else catch it or know what I'm talking about?

[Bigtime]

Here's one for all you airplane geeks: Was driving down MArquis of Lorne Friday around 6:00pm and a huge cargo plane that looked to be military went by. Anyone else catch it or know what I'm talking about?

That was a RAF C-17, saw it from the East Village.

[O-tacular]

Thanks Bigtime. Was it Canadian Forces then do you think?

[Bigtime]

Thanks Bigtime. Was it Canadian Forces then do you think?

Nope, it was RAF (Royal Air Force). British.

[Bigtime]

A YYC spotter got some pics of the arrival Friday evening:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7129/7760046640_7597e0989f_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8497129@N02/7760046640/)
ZZ177 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8497129@N02/7760046640/) by Rob Sowald (http://www.flickr.com/people/8497129@N02/), on Flickr

[Bigtime]

A couple of Blackberry shots of the cab on the new control tower:

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2960/yyctower1.jpg

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8418/yyctower2.jpg

[cyeg66]

Ok, so maybe photogenic wasn't the word I was looking for :)

[suburbia]

A couple of Blackberry shots of the cab on the new control tower:[]
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8418/yyctower2.jpg

Ok, so maybe photogenic wasn't the word I was looking for :)

Looks like a smoke stack from 50 years ago.

[Frenzy]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the sq. footage of our current terminal?

[You Need A Thneed]

141,648 square metres, according to their website. (gross floor area of the existing terminal)

The new IFP project is larger itself than the existing airport, at 183,500 square metres.

[CalgaryLankan]

Anyone captured Daimler Chrysler Aviation A319 (D-ADNA) arrived this afternoon? It must be still there and no sign of departure yet.

[Bigtime]

I know Wee_in_YYC got it.

[MalcolmTucker]

Anyone captured Daimler Chrysler Aviation A319 (D-ADNA) arrived this afternoon? It must be still there and no sign of departure yet.

I wonder, is Merkel [Edit, not her, she is in Halifax tomorrow] taking a couple days vacation where it would be indiscreet to bring along an official jet? It is pretty well equipped for even a corporate jet (http://www.dc-aviation.com/EN/business-jet-charter/fleet/airplanes/vvip-airbus.php).

Came in from Toronto. (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-adna/) Was in Goose Bay before that.

[Bigtime]

Nice looking bird:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8305/7786057162_7ffdaeb0c4_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wee_in_yyc/7786057162/)
D-ADNA (B) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wee_in_yyc/7786057162/) by Wee in YYC (http://www.flickr.com/people/wee_in_yyc/), on Flickr