Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by vip77

Are you sure? Why don't we have international flights then? Just US and Iceland.
Immigrants never arrive directly in Winnipeg, mostly through Toronto since there are immigration services...

mexico jamiaca

[Lenin]

I apologize in advance if I appear ignorant. I am a transit geek, but honestly don't know a hell of a lot about airports. I have followed this thread extensively, though, and am enthusiastic about future developments.

vip77, I appreciate your experiences and your hopes for airport improvement. But I feel you misunderstand the role of airports, and why some airports play host to a larger number of immigrants and / or foreign students than others.

The arguments / explanations posted above as to the need for documentation BEFORE you (in your home country) board are entirely correct. But we're confusing the real crux of the matter, which is this: people don't arrive in Toronto or Vancouver because those cities have stacks of paperwork on hand or more staff to handle newcomers. Such cities have said documents to fill out on hand because more people arrive at those airports / cities to begin with.

You have suggested that even people 'willing' to live / study in Manitoba MUST first land in Toronto. This is correct. But, again, it has nothing to do with Winnipeg lacking the proper facilities. That is a silly notion. It is about Toronto being larger, with a larger airport, and obviously offering more direct flights than anywhere else in the nation.

I understand that you kind of addressed this point when you mentioned that the demand in Winnipeg is not here. But I don't comprehend why you go on to call our smaller airport / lack of documents "unfair." It seems that you really just answered your own question, and nullified your own concern. I think your reasoning would follow that....

Winnipeg's metro area is home to roughly 800,000 people if you're being generous. Our airport serves a region of perhaps a couple million people. We're not Vancouver @ 2.5 M and the 'Gateway to Asia,' nor are we Toronto at 5.9 M and in the heart of an industrial belt that pretty much consumes the Great Lakes. Hell, we're not even a major cargo hub like Memphis at 1.2 million.

Winnipeg is a mid - sized but growing centre. The fact that less immigrants arrive here than in other, much larger urban areas is in no way indicative of the forms or documents we have to offer. To assert this seems to me ludicrous.

The airport shall grow alongside the metropolitan area. And as more foreigners arrive here, more documentation resources will be offered at the terminal, even though this process should have been completed before boarding the bloody plane in the first place. Again, I'm really not trying to be a dick. And perhaps I'm just confused and don't understand your exact query or concern, as I've just smoked a lot of hash. But I think we have differing views on why certain airports and cities play certain roles.

If we actually look for reasons why Winnipeg's airport isn't a Mecca for international passengers, we will soon find that it's not because we don't have enough staff or the right stamps or wickets. It's because we're not a massive metropolitan region already host to a large, busy airport. Why would we need these resources here if people generally land elsewhere first? Paperwork won't change that. Perhaps a Winnipeg population of three million would.

[North of 49]

Originally Posted by Lenin

I apologize in advance if I appear ignorant. I am a transit geek, but honestly don't know a hell of a lot about airports. I have followed this thread extensively, though, and am enthusiastic about future developments.

vip77, I appreciate your experiences and your hopes for airport improvement. But I feel you misunderstand the role of airports, and why some airports play host to a larger number of immigrants and / or foreign students than others.

The arguments / explanations posted above as to the need for documentation BEFORE you (in your home country) board are entirely correct. But we're confusing the real crux of the matter, which is this: people don't arrive in Toronto or Vancouver because those cities have stacks of paperwork on hand or more staff to handle newcomers. Such cities have said documents to fill out on hand because more people arrive at those airports / cities to begin with.

You have suggested that even people 'willing' to live / study in Manitoba MUST first land in Toronto. This is correct. But, again, it has nothing to do with Winnipeg lacking the proper facilities. That is a silly notion. It is about Toronto being larger, with a larger airport, and obviously offering more direct flights than anywhere else in the nation.

Winnipeg's metro area is home to roughly 800,000 people if you're being generous. Our airport serves a region of perhaps a couple million people. We're not Vancouver @ 2.5 M and the 'Gateway to Asia,' nor are we Toronto at 5.9 M and in the heart of an industrial belt that pretty much consumes the Great Lakes. Hell, we're not even a major cargo hub like Memphis at 1.2 million.

Winnipeg is a mid - sized but growing centre. The fact that less immigrants arrive here than in other, much larger urban areas is in no way indicative of the forms or documents we have to offer. To assert this seems to me ludicrous.

The airport shall grow alongside the metropolitan area. And as more foreigners arrive here, more documentation resources will be offered at the terminal, even though this process should have been completed before boarding the bloody plane in the first place.

If we actually look for reasons why Winnipeg's airport isn't a Mecca for international passengers, we will soon find that it's not because we don't have enough staff or the right stamps or wickets. It's because we're not a massive metropolitan region already host to a large, busy airport.

An airline cant just decide where it can land. there's a business case to account for (So weather there is a need for it, a market, and is it sustainable in making a profit) And secondly it's controlled buy our government in terms of point of access.

Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto have been designated the main port cities by our federal government bureaucrats. In the past they have determined where international airlines and our own Air Canada where they can land from internationally and how often. These guidelines have been set to curb international competition to help out Air Canada.

trying to find that government publication that I got that from....

but recently they have liberalized air travel

see:

http://http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/polic...luesky-745.htm

SO maybe soon we'll see more point to point international flights.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by North of 49

An airline cant just decide where it can land. there's a business case to account for (So weather there is a need for it, a market, and is it sustainable in making a profit) And secondly it's controlled buy our government in terms of point of access.

Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto have been designated the main port cities by our federal government bureaucrats. In the past they have determined where international airlines and our own Air Canada where they can land from internationally and how often. These guidelines have been set to curb international competition to help out Air Canada.

trying to find that government publication that I got that from....

but recently they have liberalized air travel

see:

http://http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/polic...luesky-745.htm

SO maybe soon we'll see more point to point international flights.

I find it EXTREMELY stupid that Canada decided to choose Air Canada over an Emirates flight to Calgary AND a military supply base in Dubai. Just saying

[rrskylar]

No surprise here in the journalist or paper:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2011/10/1...rport-terminal

[Lenin]

I appreciate the feedback, North of 49. But I think maybe we're not understanding each other.

As for the 'business case to account for', I agree with you completely. Actually, that's a large chunk of my argument in the first place. Yep. There needs to be a city, then an airport, and then the rest follows.... That's pretty much exactly what I said. After this occurs, YES, actually, an airline can clearly decide where it wants to land. If there's a market, any government will allow any airline to land any craft anywhere. Unless we're in a war zone.

As for the 'government case' to account to, I understand why Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver have been designated a quasi - special status by the federal government in comparison to other Canadian centres: it's because they are by far the three largest cities in the nation.

There are also airports in the country that are doing quite well despite not being located in one of these three metropolitan areas. Halifax and Calgary come to mind.

This goes back to your initial argument, which I think we both actually agree on.

[Lenin]

But again, I really don't mean to be a dick. And certainly not a Richard. I can't claim to be brilliant on the subject. I just find sometimes people are quick to object when actually many points are in agreement, and sometimes things just seem to make common sense to me.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

No surprise here in the journalist or paper:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2011/10/1...rport-terminal

Although i HATE reading the Sun (right-wing garbage), I do have to agree with it. Tear the damn thing down and turn it into a hotel to improve immediate room choices during whiteouts and emergencies. And to show Karma, dont allow Air Canada to sleep in the new hotel, since they're too "scared" to sleep in Downtown.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by armorand93

I find it EXTREMELY stupid that Canada decided to choose Air Canada over an Emirates flight to Calgary AND a military supply base in Dubai. Just saying

I'm glad we did stand up to them, EK serving YYC was nothing more than a carrot they were dangling out there to try and get daily frequency into YYZ. Had the feds caved and given in they would have probably served YYC for a few months, but they would have gone daily YYZ right away if it was in the agreement. EK goes on and on about all the jobs their flight into YYC would create, but how many jobs would be lost if BA, LH, and KL all had to reduce or stop their service due to EK? I can't help but think that it would be a net loss in jobs.

People either don't know or forget that the feds had 6x service available to YYZ years ago for the Emirates. EK didn't take them and instead Etihad out of Abu Dhabi took 3 of the frequencies, ONLY then did EK grab the remaining 3. They could have taken all 6 had they really been interested, so now that they came to late to the table they want to complain about it.

YYC already has PLENTY of options to one-stop to get anywhere on the globe. The EK flight wouldn't have given us much more. We already have non-stop flights to LHR (x2), FRA (x2), AMS, and NRT (not too mention connection options via YYZ, YVR, YUL, LAX, EWR, ORD, etc).

Now an airline like Qatar is going about getting more rights into Canada the right away. They are taking their time and building service with what has been offered to them so far, not making childish threats and crying about it.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

No surprise here in the journalist or paper:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2011/10/1...rport-terminal

I heard it mentioned on the news that there are structural (foundation sinking) problems with the old terminal building.

I don't see the point in keeping it either.

[BKB]

Originally Posted by Riverman

I heard it mentioned on the news that there are structural (foundation sinking) problems with the old terminal building.

I don't see the point in keeping it either.

When someone wants to raze a building they always use the same excuses. Just because they say it is falling down doesn't necessarily mean that it is true.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Riverman

I heard it mentioned on the news that there are structural (foundation sinking) problems with the old terminal building.

I don't see the point in keeping it either.

Quite frankly, I find it extremely hard to believe the structural issues of the airport would include it "sinking" into the ground. This building is certainly on piles, with a properly designed foundation.

"If" this sinking is true, it would mean it to be the first building designed and built in this fashion to sink in Winnipeg, as far as I know.

The only structural issues the building would likely have would be associated with maintenance deficiencies. Roof leaks, building envelope issues, etc.

[Riverman]

Not saying what I heard is true - just saying that I heard it. I believe it was Ms. Alongi.

It appears no one is interested in using the building, the WAA has been trying to find a use for it since 2005. It's hard to make a business case for heating and maintaining a building no one wants. It was mentioned at one time the WCAM may want to use it but I can't see someone paying airport parking rates to go to a museum.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Not saying what I heard is true - just saying that I heard it. I believe it was Ms. Alongi.

It appears no one is interested in using the building, the WAA has been trying to find a use for it since 2005. It's hard to make a business case for heating and maintaining a building no one wants. It was mentioned at one time the WCAM may want to use it but I can't see someone paying airport parking rates to go to a museum.

I don't think it would be that hard to make the admission tickets to the museum on the same paper, stripe as the parking tickets. That way, parking could be covered as part of the admission.

But honestly, I don't see the point in keeping the building either. I'm not a native Winnipegger, so I have NO attachment to it whatsoever, and I don't really think its anything worth keeping. I'd rather see a Phase II airport expansion built in its place in 15 - 20 years, when CentrePort Canada takes off

And on that note, CentrePort Canada could make Winnipeg a major air cargo hub contender in the coming years. CPC is moving forward at a very nice pace, and the new airport terminal is a key component. The foreign trade zone that is included could bring in some major new manufacturing business, which would take advantage of the the intermodal AND air cargo options offered by CentrePort Canada.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by drew

Quite frankly, I find it extremely hard to believe the structural issues of the airport would include it "sinking" into the ground. This building is certainly on piles, with a properly designed foundation.

"If" this sinking is true, it would mean it to be the first building designed and built in this fashion to sink in Winnipeg, as far as I know.

The only structural issues the building would likely have would be associated with maintenance deficiencies. Roof leaks, building envelope issues, etc.

I have also heard there are foundational issues, from people who work at the airport and would be in a position to know such things, though specifically sinking I have not. But there are foundational issues for sure. One of the main reasons the old terminal is likely to be torn down, I'm told.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

I have also heard there are foundational issues, from people who work at the airport and would be in a position to know such things, though specifically sinking I have not. But there are foundational issues for sure. One of the main reasons the old terminal is likely to be torn down, I'm told.

Foundational issues? Sounds like you're talking about the NEW terminal

[vip77]

Interestingly, is it possible to rebuild an old terminal to the hotel
(or a warehouse for DHL, UPS and so on)?

Amateur could find it cheaper than to build a new one in the field if there is a demand for it

May be it is too close to the strip to build an hotel there, but the demolition sounds too sad not to mention the amount of money to be thrown down the drain...someone has definitely paid for the old terminal in the past

I am just wondering whether anyone has calculated the benefits of demolition or selling the building to any company or it is just politics of keeping it or getting rid of.

[flatlander]

I really like the existing terminal. And rest assured despite all the eye candy that the new terminal will offer, flying in Winnipeg will never be as simple again as it is now.

I appreciate that modern architecture doesn't have a lot of fans and isn't really receiving enough attention in preservation circles. However I would always hear the same arguments from my grandparents about tearing down the gingerbread city hall. I'm sure we will regret the loss of the airport terminal, as modern architecture really speaks to a vibrant part of winnipeg's history.

That being said I have no idea what to do with it. It is so hard to convert these purpose-built buildings to another use.

But the WAA has put in zero effort into finding another use. If Ms Alongi did say there are foundation issues I don't know if I believe that. The building looks pretty sturdy from where I stand. They're just making excuses.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by flatlander

I really like the existing terminal.

That being said I have no idea what to do with it. It is so hard to convert these purpose-built buildings to another use.

Originally Posted by flatlander

But the WAA has put in zero effort into finding another use. If Ms Alongi did say there are foundation issues I don't know if I believe that. The building looks pretty sturdy from where I stand. They're just making excuses.

Bit of a contradiction there lol.

There are several large splits in the ground floor that have been temporarily grouted. I would suspect this may be related to the structural issues that you don't believe exist.

I don't quite get why some of you think that the WAA, an entity with a clear mandate to serve the public should get into the building preservation business. One of their directions is to try to develop new revenue streams and the property the old building is sitting on could be used for any number of initiatives.

[YYCguys]

If the old terminal has asbestos issues, then I can see why nobody would be interested in renovating it. Asbestos removal is dangerous, time consuming and expensive! Let it fall so Phase 2, or whatever is planned for that site, can move forward!