Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport

[esquire]

Originally Posted by kattiff

so it's legit now and officially on delta.com
Starting January 5 6am flight and the 11pm arrival are a mainline plane B717 and around Apr it changes to an A319 and the other three flights are CRJ900 to Minnie and it stays till the end of summer of 2016 so far.
And yea delta is very busy this week alone I asked they are oversold by like five on every flight. They are very busy, they need a second city bad and they are trying hard to get one.

And United apparently is going down to only four flights a day come the me year for awhile, two to Chicago and two to Denver so that isn't very good. They are wondering too if they will ever get their Newark flight.

And the airport talk amongst the agents is the London-Gatwick with WestJet come that announcement on Tues because they don't kno what else would go into Winnipeg other then that.

And that new plaza lounge is open on the domestic/international side. I like it but wish the windows were frosted for privacy at least on the passenger side but that's just my pref

That really stinks about the United flights. It's going to make connections in ORD and DEN a lot less convenient. They really seem to slashing their prairie service... I know Edmonton has lost some service and they've chopped the Sask airports altogether. But still...

As for Delta, service to either Detroit, Seattle or Salt Lake City would be a nice addition... they (or their antecedent NW) have operated from Winnipeg to two out of those three cities at various times in the past, so it's not without precedent.

I'm looking forward to checking out the new lounge... took them a long time to get it set up. I'm surprised they didn't build in a little more privacy (not that I care personally, but some might).

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by esquire

That really stinks about the United flights. It's going to make connections in ORD and DEN a lot less convenient. They really seem to slashing their prairie service... I know Edmonton has lost some service and they've chopped the Sask airports altogether. But still...

As for Delta, service to either Detroit, Seattle or Salt Lake City would be a nice addition... they (or their antecedent NW) have operated from Winnipeg to two out of those three cities at various times in the past, so it's not without precedent.

I'm looking forward to checking out the new lounge... took them a long time to get it set up. I'm surprised they didn't build in a little more privacy (not that I care personally, but some might).

It doesn`t make much sense for Delta to have a Seattle flight due to the proximity of Vancouver. They tried SLC a few years back and it lasted all of 6 months I think. I took one flight to SLC and the next thing I knew, it was gone. I would be fine with a renewed flight to Detroit or a new one to Newark. As for the west coast, the only cities that makes sense to go to from Winnipeg would be SF or LA...

As for United, I`m not surprised they have reduced their flights. They are the worst airline in the US, bar none. I hate connecting through Chicago as they never give you enough time for your connections and I have been late and missed a flight on more than one occasion. Many travellers I know will fly Delta or a Canadian air carrier before they would go with United. Plus, United tends to be pricey for what you get and Minneapolis is a much better hub than Chicago, in particular. I rarely fly United and if I do, it`s usually because the flight was cheap or it was desperation! Just my two cents from a frequent flier.

[esquire]

^ I could see Delta going to Seattle not because Winnipeggers are going to Seattle, but because Delta is clearly trying very hard to turn Seattle into a major hub for their transpacific flights. They have had some amazing sales - like under $600 from Winnipeg and other Canadian cities to Asia - in the last 2 years, but this has necessitated stops in Minneapolis and Seattle so it's off the radar of business travellers as a result. If they think there is decent potential to channel Asia-bound traffic from Winnipeg through Seattle, they might do it.

As for United, many who go with them are beholden to Star Alliance due to Air Canada... so quite often, United gets the nod despite the fact that MSP is a much better airport to connect at than ORD, as you pointed out.

[Johnny Aussie]

http://airlineroute.net/2015/09/14/ws-lgw-s16/

YYZ Daily 76W
YYT Daily 73W
YVR 6 weekly 76W
YYC 5 weekly 76W
YEG 2 weekly 76W
YWG 1 weekly 76W

[esquire]

^ Only once a week, but at least it's on Saturday which will make it convenient for leisure travellers... decent connections to low-cost carriers at LGW.

[CoryB]

Just want to say it is nice to see the wide body service coming to YWG a lot sooner than even I expected it would.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Just want to say it is nice to see the wide body service coming to YWG a lot sooner than even I expected it would.

These widebody services have come and gone in the past ever since CP stopped its regular overseas service back in the 80s.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by esquire

These widebody services have come and gone in the past ever since CP stopped its regular overseas service back in the 80s.

This has a bit more seriousness to it though being it's ( a ) Westjet, and ( b ) built on the back of increased passenger numbers. There are 3 more flights I'd like to see direct - NY, LA, and Halifax. They could drop Denver at that point and I'd be fine with it.

[CoryB]

I still maintain YWG is going to see more Q400, especially if they up the range to cover YWG-YYC and YWG-YYZ and more wide bodies on the vacation routes and far fewer narrow bodies.

The wide bodies would do things like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Orlando and the beach locations in winter. Reduce the number of direct flights to those places by moving the seats from separate flights to wide bodies. The excess could then move to Q400 and hit either YYZ or YYC and flights out of there.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by CoryB

The excess could then move to Q400 and hit either YYZ or YYC and flights out of there.

I think you'll see Q400s in Calgary, but not Toronto. It's a bit too far. You'll probably end un with narrow bodies to Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver and Q400s to anything closer. You may see some flight consolidation on vacation routes, but most need to be a few times a week that are now in order to allow for flexible schedules.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

They could drop Denver at that point and I'd be fine with it.

Still necessary as GWL has a large operation in Denver.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Still necessary as GWL has a large operation in Denver.

The Denver route is fairly important as a way into a fairly significant UA hub... I guess LAX or SFO could replace it as a gateway into United's western and transpacific network, but it's an important destination (and an extremely pleasant airport to connect in... it has more in common with the top Asian airports than with its fellow US counterparts).

Winnipeg, like most Canadian cities, has a really heavy proportion of dedicated AC users, and UA is an important part of those travel patterns being alliance partners.

[jmt18325]

For me I'd give up Denver for LA. That's all I'm saying.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

I think you'll see Q400s in Calgary, but not Toronto. It's a bit too far. You'll probably end un with narrow bodies to Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver and Q400s to anything closer. You may see some flight consolidation on vacation routes, but most need to be a few times a week that are now in order to allow for flexible schedules.

I could be wrong but it wouldn't be a surprise to seem something like a Q400ER show up on the market to meet some of those stretch routes like YWG-YYZ. With the lower costs all the way around it could be a huge winner on short haul routes and bring in some much needed cash for the C-Series program. The question is would a Q400ER start eating into the potential C-Series sales?

In terms of flexibility of vacation routes, it isn't needed. If people are going to beach resorts now the flights occur once in the middle of the week and people make that work. I suspect that the other vacation routes might move more to that model out of YWG. If you need flexibility there would not be a direct but you can connect through YYC, YYZ or someplace else and get those flights. This will be even more so with WestJet and AC if New Leaf ever gets started and eats into those markets.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I could be wrong but it wouldn't be a surprise to seem something like a Q400ER show up on the market to meet some of those stretch routes like YWG-YYZ.

Blech, I sure hope not. 3 hours+ in a turboprop would be a bit much.

[MalcolmTucker]

There is the Q400 EHGW with a range of 2,063 km. You're getting quite close to four hours.


source: http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=&...OR=&MAP-STYLE=

[drew]

Originally Posted by esquire

Blech, I sure hope not. 3 hours+ in a turboprop would be a bit much.

Maybe on those flying culverts that Perimeter flies - but a modern Q400? I can't see how much different it would be than a jet.

This coming from someone who has flown extensively up north, on all manner of prop - turbo and otherwise.

Calm Air planes (Saabs and ATRs) are a touch louder than a Jet, but that's it. Very comfortable planes, even traveling all the way up to Nunavut.

[CoryB]

Passenger comfort is often the last consideration for airlines, after all if they cared about that the ever decreasing seat pitches wouldn't be a thing. For them it is all about revenue per seat. This direct quote from brochure linked above: "At higher speeds, the Q400 delivers over 30% cost advantage compared to the jet aircraft it often replaces." Do customers want to pay a 50% premium to fly on a narrow body over a turbo prop or does the "cost per flight" matter most to them?

As much as customers want to say they strongly dislike turbo props they even more strongly like keeping their cash in their pockets. The biggest challenge right now is the existing leases on planes preventing a bigger shift from happening. As the narrow body leases come up for renewal and the airlines can bring in more turbo props to their fleet the shift will start.

[esquire]

^ Not a fan of turboprops. Feels cramped, little space for carry-ons, washroom is tiny to the point that it is best avoided (not always easy on a morning flight after a couple of coffees), noisier, service more truncated... just not ideal.

I've been on Perimeter to the north and that is a totally different ballgame, but I accept that things are different when you're going up there. At least they're kind enough to supply you with hearing protection!

As to coryb's point, you got me there. On a shorter trip if I'm paying out of pocket, I might pay a small premium to fly a more comfortable plane, but I certainly wouldn't pay 50% more or anything like that.

[drew]

^ the Calm Air ATRs have SIGNIFICANTLY more shoulder, and leg room compared to a Westjet 737.

Less room for carry-on yes (but not compared to RJs)

I tend to avoid bathrooms on planes like the plague, so I can't comment there.