Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport

[casper]

Originally Posted by kattiff

so I've heard the Winnipeg Manila rumour is going around again.
But it will be Manila-Los Angeles-Winnipeg flight by Phillipine Airlines. highly doubt they will be allowed to carry passengers between LAX and YWG but who knows...Its just what I've heard fr the people I know.

I would be surprised to see Philipine Airlines come to Winnipeg.

If they do, Philippine Airlines has been able to sell tickets on routes between Canada and the US for years. They did that on the Vancouver to Las Vegas run for many years before switching that to being Vancouver to JFK.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by kattiff

so I've heard the Winnipeg Manila rumour is going around again.
But it will be Manila-Los Angeles-Winnipeg flight by Phillipine Airlines. highly doubt they will be allowed to carry passengers between LAX and YWG but who knows...Its just what I've heard fr the people I know.

I'm not sure if the people who repeat (or invent?) these rumors have much understanding of the economics of air travel.

I'd imagine the a MNL-LAX-YWG flight would be 90%+ filled with passengers from MNL-LAX. The plane would empty out at LAX and I doubt it would pick up many people on the way to YWG. There's no way that any airline (outside of some state-subsidized carrier maintaining a prestige route) would fly a mostly empty 777 from LAX-YWG. I doubt the few low-yielding passengers would even cover the cost of fuel from Los Angeles-Winnipeg.

Philippine Airlines codeshares with Westjet anyway. So, likely most people going from Winnipeg to Manila would transit via Vancouver, which makes both airlines happy. Westjet improves its domestic passenger loads and Philippine gets feed into its operation without the hassle of setting up at every airport in Canada.

[Rookie00]

Perhaps instead of flying a 77W through LA or Vancouver they'll look at a direct flight. PAL is supposed to start receiving the A359 next year and with that aircraft they could fly direct to Winnipeg. Would be a pretty long flight at around 15 and a half hours westbound but I'm sure there is enough demand for a couple times weekly direct flight.

[esquire]

There was a rare bird in these parts last week... a 787 dropped in from Seattle, apparently for some sort of Boeing corporate event given that Boeing's facilities here manufacture parts for this plane.

Here's a photo from the stop:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/concor...-8iPSDz-i3khAJ

[Roger Strong]

Did a C-5 Galaxy just land here?

It wasn't an Antonov 125 - it had a T-shaped tail. And it seemed far too big for a C-17.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

It wasn't an Antonov 125 - it had a T-shaped tail. And it seemed far too small for a C-17.

Isn't a Galaxy bigger?

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Isn't a Galaxy bigger?

Sorry; fixed. I meant that a C-17 was too small for what I saw. (And heard, and felt before I saw it.)

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by Rookie00

Perhaps instead of flying a 77W through LA or Vancouver they'll look at a direct flight. PAL is supposed to start receiving the A359 next year and with that aircraft they could fly direct to Winnipeg. Would be a pretty long flight at around 15 and a half hours westbound but I'm sure there is enough demand for a couple times weekly direct flight.

Aint gonna happen.

They currently have 6 A359s on order. They have 6 A343s in the fleet. They will replace the A343s with A359s on a one for one basis as of next year. That doesn't leave any room for expansion, much less starting a near 12,000 km low yielding route to YWG.

[Rookie00]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

Aint gonna happen.

They currently have 6 A359s on order. They have 6 A343s in the fleet. They will replace the A343s with A359s on a one for one basis as of next year. That doesn't leave any room for expansion, much less starting a near 12,000 km low yielding route to YWG.

They have 6 on order however they have options for 6 additional aircraft. They say that they would fly to new places in North America and Europe


https://www.philippineairlines.com/p...20Airbus%20350

[The Unknown Poster]

Interesting story about the impending end of the line for 747's

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/news...ner/index.html

[wave46]

Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster

Interesting story about the impending end of the line for 747's

The arrival of ETOPS, the focus on airline cost-efficiency and the arrival of larger twin-engine planes (777/A350) have really decimated the market for large 4-engine airliners. It is also destroying the market value for used A340s as well.

It makes sense though. Engine maintenance is something like 50% of the cost of maintaining an aircraft. When you can halve the number of engines, you can take a big chunk out of those costs. That's not to mention that twin-engine airliners are more fuel efficient and easier to fill with passengers than the large 747s and A380s.

The only airline that seems to be keeping up with 4-engine airliners is Emirates. It works for their operation of the superhub at Dubai and the fact that they get a lot of feed from slot restricted airports like Heathrow. Even old 747 stalwarts like Lufthansa and British Airways don't seem to have much interest either.

[CoryB]

The end of 747-8 production could have interesting implications for the next-next Air Force One fleet. Those planes must be four engine US made jets.

[Authentic_City]

^I'm sure Trump will threaten Boeing via Twitter if there are any concerns about the next Air Force One fleet.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by CoryB

The end of 747-8 production could have interesting implications for the next-next Air Force One fleet. Those planes must be four engine US made jets.

I think the US government is already planning to replace Air Force One prior to the 747-8 line closing.

It might be the last one off the assembly line, who knows.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by wave46

I think the US government is already planning to replace Air Force One prior to the 747-8 line closing.

It might be the last one off the assembly line, who knows.

I would think that the plane could still be custom built for the government. If not they'll have to change the law to reflect the new reality.

[Biff]

I believe they will still be producing 747's, just in freighter/cargo configurations only. This will allow them to continue to be Air Force One's plane of choice for years to come.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Biff

I believe they will still be producing 747's, just in freighter/cargo configurations only. This will allow them to continue to be Air Force One's plane of choice for years to come.

Different aircraft though (8F and 8I have different fuselages). From what I understand, freight strategies have changed and there is little demand for the 8F. Even that will come to an end within a few years.

[esquire]

According to the all knowing wikipedia, the wheels are turning on a replacement:

Future replacement

The VC-25As are expected to be replaced, as they have become less cost-effective to operate.[38] On 28 January 2015, the Air Force announced that the Boeing 747-8 will serve as the next presidential aircraft.[39][40] On 6 December 2016, then-President-elect Donald Trump tweeted his opposition to the Air Force One replacement due to its high cost of "more than $4 billion". The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated the total cost at $3.2 billion, and the U.S. Air Force's budget for the program is projected to be nearly $4 billion. In December 2016, Boeing was on contract for preliminary development worth $170 million.[41][42][43]

$4B, holy smokes.

The article also mentions that there was a 3-engine requirement that dated back to the 1980s, although things have advanced so much since then you have to wonder how much that still matters... these days some twin-engine 777 variants beat the 747's range by a few thousand kms.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

According to the all knowing wikipedia, the wheels are turning on a replacement:



$4B, holy smokes.

The article also mentions that there was a 3-engine requirement that dated back to the 1980s, although things have advanced so much since then you have to wonder how much that still matters... these days some twin-engine 777 variants beat the 747's range by a few thousand kms.

I think the 3/4 engine requirement is to prevent unexpected diversions if an engine fails. For a normal twin-engine airliner, an engine failure means you divert to the nearest appropriate airport, for example, Swiss Airlines had a surprise diversion to Iqaluit earlier this year with a 777.

Considering the mission of Air Force One and the logistics of security, I'd imagine that the US government would like to avoid that potential situation.

[esquire]

^ Given that they're in the process of procuring a 747 now, that basically buys the USAF a good, what, 30 years or so before having to worry about a replacement? By the time they need to replace the 747, twin-engines might be all that there is left...