Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport

[Andy6]

yes I was just being grouchy

[Mrj]

Newflyer, you could email WAA and see if they would send you a copy of the PDF layout drawings they used to have posted on their website with the tender documents for the new building. They were pretty much as I described a while ago - a retail and restaurant cluster just past the security checkpoint, with some additional concessions also located down the concourse, and in the US departure area. Passengers headed to the US would clear customs after going through security, so they would have better access to all the airside concessions. I believe there was also some retail and restaurant space near the baggage claim. Gates for CalmAir and any other ground-boarded aircraft looked particularly well done, being nicely integrated into the southwest side of the main building (no covered walkways in the way of operations or sightlines) with good access to the baggage claims. Great views post-security, but unfortunately no observation deck (at least not that I noticed in the drawings I saw). Also would have preferred a slightly different setup for the corridors to Canada Customs.

I firmly believe the existing YWG terminal is very underappreciated, and I kind of agree with Andy's sentiments - I'd love to keep it. It's simply a wonderful example of the international style of airport architecture. I think it's not a bad idea for it become home to the WCAM, which preserves the building in some form and gives them a much higher visibility location - although to be honest I'm rather fond of their existing hangar and all the history that also holds...

That said, I think the biggest reasons for the new terminal being built are very much functional reasons. The existing terminal originally served a very different mix of aircraft types and route structures, and predates the boarding bridges that were added to it by quite a few years. Fitting the gate positions and properly sized holdrooms in place is a challenge. The existing terminal predates virtually all of todays security measures, which also shaped the way holdroom areas and amenities are the way they are. The existing terminal also predates todays accessible design ideas, making wheelchair access difficult to impossible for different parts of the terminal or different gates. Passenger flow in the current building goes from the checkin and security screening in the middle, to baggage claims at the north and south ends - which makes expansion much more difficult than the top to bottom flow of the new building. The fact the terminal served so long and so well is very much a testament to the functionality and adaptability of the design, but I think these all played a role in the decision to build a new ground-up design, and I think we have a very good new building now in progress.

Andy, I also have to agree about the human rights museum - I think the WAG is a better attraction, and it would be better to upgrade and add to it than build the new museum.

[viperred88]

Originally Posted by trueviking

i see your point, but at least it will be turned into a pretty good aviation museum....if they would have torn it down, that would have been a crime....this way we kind of get the best of both worlds...a sparkly new terminal and a restored old one with an exciting new function that will elevate the stature of the WCAM and might even make it a bit of a tourist attraction.

Are they for sure moving the aviation museum to the old terminal I thought that hasn't been decided yet. I thought the Wpg airport authorities want to tear it down. If thats the case bring the museum to the west exchange and redo an exchange building like RRC has done by only keeping the facade.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by viperred88

Are they for sure moving the aviation museum to the old terminal I thought that hasn't been decided yet. I thought the Wpg airport authorities want to tear it down. If thats the case bring the museum to the west exchange and redo an exchange building like RRC has done by only keeping the facade.

ummm you have any idea how much of a pain it would be to transport the planes to down town winnipeg.......

[newflyer]

My feelings in regard to the old terminal is that it is and has been a vert poor representation of Winnipeg for far to long. It is old and out of date. It has always been an imbarrassment to pick up people who are visiting the city from that building.

While this should have all the brick huggers scrambling to make it a heritage site... it won't be taken out of service soon enough for me.

The new terminal is very attractive, modern in design and will give visitors an image of Winnipeg of being a cutting edge city.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by newflyer

My feelings in regard to the old terminal is that it is and has been a vert poor representation of Winnipeg for far to long. It is old and out of date. It has always been an imbarrassment to pick up people who are visiting the city from that building.

While this should have all the brick huggers scrambling to make it a heritage site... it won't be taken out of service soon enough for me.

The new terminal is very attractive, modern in design and will give visitors an image of Winnipeg of being a cutting edge city.

umm newflyer... i have had alota international travelers come and stay at my home over the years... and they love the curent terminal

only thing realy wrong with it is if you are flying from an international destination you come threw the basement....

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by Andy6

They don't want to keep it up because they'd prefer to build a new monument to themselves with the "fees" they extort from air travellers. Winnipeg would have been far more impressive with an immaculately restored (and expanded) modernist terminal from the glory days of air travel than it will be with a cookie-cutter design from 2005 that will be outdated by the time the building itself is finished.

Calgary went with the expansion model .. and most would agree it didn't work that well. With the number of times they had to "improve" it the old terminal has been covered over by the ever expanding new portions.

As far as the fees go, I would much prefer that the users pay a fee to a independant managment oraginzation (WAA) .. than the alternative which would be a massive government project sure to be full of red tape and over runs in cost. That would be if there was ever enough politial will to get a project like this off the ground... not many people live in the light industrial area around the airport.

No I think the users should pay for the airport.. its free enterprise. Once the government got out of the airport biz, we have seen vast improvements in many airports across the nation.

Well except Toronto.. who wasted over a billion dollars on probibly the worst terminal in the world. Its horrible.. very very bad.

[viperred88]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

ummm you have any idea how much of a pain it would be to transport the planes to down town winnipeg.......

I know what u mean and I thought of it but the the MB museum of man and nature were able to bring the Nonesuch (sp?)boat their so its possible.

[Mrj]

Originally Posted by newflyer

Calgary went with the expansion model

Not really. Calgary's current terminal was built in 1977, a generation newer in design than YWG, and the current expansions have been really more like later phases to the building. Although like most long term phased projects, the complexion of that idea changes with time. The old Calgary terminal building, the one truly from the from the golden age of aviation, was at the south end of the airfield, built around 1950, and was quite outdated by the time the current one was built. I'm not that old, but having around Calgary for most of my years I can even remember the old blue and white striped air traffic control tower until the new one was built around '92 or so.

I have a certain fondness for YYC, and find it a functional building, although I agree there is a lot that could have been done better in the upgrades, and the shopping mall area is just terrible...

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by newflyer

a billion dollars on probibly the worst terminal in the world. Its horrible.. very very bad.

You must have incredibly high standards. It seems pretty nice to me.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by newflyer

My feelings in regard to the old terminal is that it is and has been a vert poor representation of Winnipeg for far to long. It is old and out of date. It has always been an imbarrassment to pick up people who are visiting the city from that building.

While this should have all the brick huggers scrambling to make it a heritage site... it won't be taken out of service soon enough for me.

The new terminal is very attractive, modern in design and will give visitors an image of Winnipeg of being a cutting edge city.

For about two years until it too looks out of date from the point of view of people like yourself. Who is really going to believe that Winnipeg is a "cutting edge city" anyway?

[tuffyy]

I really must say I like the looks of the new terminal for YWG and it looks the airport is planning well ahead,not like the folks at YEG who are now left in a mad dash to bring the terminal's upto snuff with all the traffic increases.

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Who is really going to believe that Winnipeg is a "cutting edge city" anyway?

That about sums it up right there.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by Andy6

You must have incredibly high standards. It seems pretty nice to me.

Its not just me ... Canadian Business panned it as well. Even the Toronto loving Globe has stated a few dispuraging things about that terminal. The CBC also has been far from supportive of this massive white elephant.

Many people discribe it as a terminal which must have been designed by people who have never flown before.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by Andy6

For about two years until it too looks out of date from the point of view of people like yourself. Who is really going to believe that Winnipeg is a "cutting edge city" anyway?

You mark my words the new Winnipeg terminal is to be clearly the nicest terminal building in Canada. You may not share my views, but this building will be one more symbol of the new Winnipeg. One with a bit of swagger and style.

Am I the only one who sees the tide starting to shift? Perhaps you guys should read more off the Winnipeg Chamber site... confidence is building. The new airport will be an excellent monument to the growing momentum.

Its hard to have style when your city's airport looks like a shoebox.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by newflyer

Its not just me ... Canadian Business panned it as well. Even the Toronto loving Globe has stated a few dispuraging things about that terminal. The CBC also has been far from supportive of this massive white elephant.

Many people discribe it as a terminal which must have been designed by people who have never flown before.

I'm not sure what they're referring to. I've found it to be a very pleasant terminal, even if it cost too much and lacks the architectural interest of the current Winnipeg terminal.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I'm not sure what they're referring to. I've found it to be a very pleasant terminal, even if it cost too much and lacks the architectural interest of the current Winnipeg terminal.

I believe Canadian Business mentioned the lack of seating ... retail .. and passenger comforts. They said large sums of money was spent on overpriced art. They also stated the cost overruns has resulted in Toronto having higher landing fees than New York City .. among the top 3 in the world. It is a massive mess .. and is hurting the ability of Toronto to attract more routes and is driving some to Hamilton. The local business community is being hurt by the complete lack of planning which has left the city with a massive mistake.

I'll try to dig up the article. It was sometime last fall... maybe September or early October.

[ILYR]

This could be interesting for Winnipeg, specifically increasing the potential of the cargo activities. Maybe we'll even see some passenger flights passing throgh Winnipeg ... and not just because of airrage.

Canada, U.S. Open Skies deal set for takeoff
Carriers can now pick up passengers, cargo in either country before heading overseas
PETER MORTON, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Canadians might be seeing cheaper flights to the U.S. and overseas now that Canada and the U.S. have finally implemented a 2-year-old Open Skies agreement.
As of today, Canadian and U.S. airlines will be able to pick up passengers and cargo in each other's country as long as the flight is continuing on to a third country.
The original deal, initialed in 2005, was intended to boost cross-border air traffic in passengers and cargo, but was never implemented.
t a signing at Ronald Reagan International Airport yesterday, Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon said the pact is long overdue.
"And it may lead to lower prices as well," he said, a view echoed by U.S. Transport Secretary Mary Peters.
"Our new aviation relationship will stimulate stronger partnerships, innovation, more choices and lower prices to the benefit of both countries," she said.
Designed to replace a 1995 agreement, Canada and the U.S. have agreed to allow each other's airlines broader access to their domestic markets.
In the case of passengers, airlines will be allowed to pick up passengers in each country as long as the flight is destined for another country.
"What this means is that a Canadian airline can now fly, for example, from Toronto to New York, pick up passengers in New York and continue on to Amsterdam," Cannon said.
Both countries, so far, have refused to allow cabotage - allowing foreign airlines to ferry passengers between cities in the other country - for fear of undermining domestic service.
However, cargo flights will now be allowed to cabotage packages in each other's country under the so-called seventh freedom part of the Open Skies pact, a Canadian transport official said.
Cross-border cargo traffic hovers around $30.5 billion a year.
One reason the original 2005 deal was never implemented was Air Canada had applied for global anti-trust immunity because of its relationships with other airlines.
Air Canada planned to use the Open Skies deal to launch flights from Toronto to Los Angeles to Sydney, Australia. Now, it plans to launch those flights through Vancouver, a spokesman said.

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by ILYR

This could be interesting for Winnipeg, specifically increasing the potential of the cargo activities. Maybe we'll even see some passenger flights passing throgh Winnipeg ... and not just because of airrage.

Canada, U.S. Open Skies deal set for takeoff
Carriers can now pick up passengers, cargo in either country before heading overseas
PETER MORTON, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Canadians might be seeing cheaper flights to the U.S. and overseas now that Canada and the U.S. have finally implemented a 2-year-old Open Skies agreement.
As of today, Canadian and U.S. airlines will be able to pick up passengers and cargo in each other's country as long as the flight is continuing on to a third country.
The original deal, initialed in 2005, was intended to boost cross-border air traffic in passengers and cargo, but was never implemented.
t a signing at Ronald Reagan International Airport yesterday, Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon said the pact is long overdue.
"And it may lead to lower prices as well," he said, a view echoed by U.S. Transport Secretary Mary Peters.
"Our new aviation relationship will stimulate stronger partnerships, innovation, more choices and lower prices to the benefit of both countries," she said.
Designed to replace a 1995 agreement, Canada and the U.S. have agreed to allow each other's airlines broader access to their domestic markets.
In the case of passengers, airlines will be allowed to pick up passengers in each country as long as the flight is destined for another country.
"What this means is that a Canadian airline can now fly, for example, from Toronto to New York, pick up passengers in New York and continue on to Amsterdam," Cannon said.
Both countries, so far, have refused to allow cabotage - allowing foreign airlines to ferry passengers between cities in the other country - for fear of undermining domestic service.
However, cargo flights will now be allowed to cabotage packages in each other's country under the so-called seventh freedom part of the Open Skies pact, a Canadian transport official said.
Cross-border cargo traffic hovers around $30.5 billion a year.
One reason the original 2005 deal was never implemented was Air Canada had applied for global anti-trust immunity because of its relationships with other airlines.
Air Canada planned to use the Open Skies deal to launch flights from Toronto to Los Angeles to Sydney, Australia. Now, it plans to launch those flights through Vancouver, a spokesman said.

When they say Canada, I"m curious to know if Winnipeg will be included in this.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by Albertaboy

When they say Canada, I"m curious to know if Winnipeg will be included in this.

It should be. Hell, by default, we're one end of a Pan-Am air route, like from Winnipeg to Kansas City to Mexico City. We should be guaranteed in this plan.