Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport

[optimusREIM]

I understand why the flight was dropped. But O&D flights from YWG to Europe must have enough volume during tourist high season to justify at least a few flights a week. The number one reason that we can't sustain the ONCE weekly flight is that it is inherently unusable and totally inflexible. Even if it were 3-4x weekly it would definitely coax more people to use the service. I would go out of my way to support that sort of flight if it were useful to whatever my itinerary was. But with only one flight per week, the public isn't going to be convinced that there is much use to it. So it really was just a token flight from the start. The real winners in all of this are the airports that have oriented themselves to be hubs in the system. Whoever lives in those places is just secondary. YYZ could be in a city a tenth of the size and yet get the same number of flights because they funnel so many passengers through it.

I know I know, the high population constitutes a big portion of business there, I just can't help but feel as though the model is designed to benefit the hub airports. I thought point to point flying was supposed to be the next big thing!

[drew]

It's not just population as evidenced by Calgary with a population not quite double that of Winnipeg having almost 4x the airport traffic, and nearly double that of same size Edmonton.

The hub and spoke system looks like it's here to stay (unless some upstart airline based in Winnipeg can force the issue a la Westjet in Calgary).

[roccerfeller]

For me, losing the direct London flight is a huge loss

Basically all my extended family is in the uk, and that is a destination I frequent. The LGW flight was great for both visitors and for me heading in that direction.

I know for many people it won’t matter, but for me personally it does.

Direct >>> connecting. It just extends the trip so much.

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

For me, losing the direct London flight is a huge loss

Basically all my extended family is in the uk, and that is a destination I frequent. The LGW flight was great for both visitors and for me heading in that direction.

I know for many people it won’t matter, but for me personally it does.

Direct >>> connecting. It just extends the trip so much.

Wasn't a huge loss for me. The last time I went I didn't even fly it because it wasn't convenient. Once a week flights are virtually useless unless it's to a warm destination and runs basically on weekends.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Jammon

Wasn't a huge loss for me. The last time I went I didn't even fly it because it wasn't convenient. Once a week flights are virtually useless unless it's to a warm destination and runs basically on weekends.

This is sort of my point. I get a sense that there might be a chance for the flight to succeed if it were a little more frequent as to make it more attractive to people using YWG as their origin to get to Europe. If the flight is once a week you're not going to bend yourself into a pretzel to support the route whereas if it were like 3-4 times a week you might be more inclined to shift your travel plans by a day.

The result of the experiment here is that they essentially proved that people are not likely to support an unusable flight. Convenience is everything.

[Pinus]

Well, better than nothing I suppose.

New Swoop routes:
Winnipeg-Victoria
Winnipeg-London, ON
https://www.flyswoop.com/news/2020-s...edule-release/

[EspionNoir]

Winnipeg to Victoria is something new.

[optimusREIM]

Noticed that the delta flight from Minneapolis last night on Flightaware was listed as a 757. Fun fact of the day.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Noticed that the delta flight from Minneapolis last night on Flightaware was listed as a 757. Fun fact of the day.

Was that a public flight or was it the Philadelphia Flyers charter? They played Saturday night in Saint Paul.

Also, looking at Flightaware, there has been an amazing number of Prime Air flights (I'm guessing) filled with Amazon stuff coming up from Milwaukee.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

Also, looking at Flightaware, there has been an amazing number of Prime Air flights (I'm guessing) filled with Amazon stuff coming up from Milwaukee.

Very interesting. If you place an order from Amazon.ca and Amazon decided to fulfill from a different country they eat the costs for import (ie duties, etc). This points towards lots of stuff coming by plane that would have minimal duties beyond sales taxes. It is also interesting orders are no longer coming from the BC or ON fulfillment centres. The final note is it is possible it is a partial plane load doing a drop in Winnipeg before continuing on to another city, say Regina.

[kattiff]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Noticed that the delta flight from Minneapolis last night on Flightaware was listed as a 757. Fun fact of the day.

Was def the NHL charter. Delta uses the 757 now they have like 10 for charter use.

[DavefromSt.Vital]

The easiest way to see if it is an NHL charter is to look at the activity log of past flights (scroll down here):

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...910Z/KPHL/KDEN

If you know where the other team is coming from you can use flightaware.com to monitor the incoming flight live to see how late they get in. (Umm, not that I have ever been geeky enough to do that).

[DavefromSt.Vital]

Chicago Blackhawks charter should be landing at 1:30-ish a.m.:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWQ2531

[Biff]

The 4 gate, eastern expansion of the terminal should start construction in 2021. In design this year.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Biff

The 4 gate, eastern expansion of the terminal should start construction in 2021. In design this year.

Thanks, Biff...now refresh my memory... are these all going to be transborder gates or are they simply going to tag the new expanded part as transborder and repurpose the existing eastern end as domestic/international?

I'm also assuming that this is going to be as far as the current terminal will ever go to the east?

[DonaldSmith]

Originally Posted by esquire

Thanks, Biff...now refresh my memory... are these all going to be transborder gates or are they simply going to tag the new expanded part as transborder and repurpose the existing eastern end as domestic/international?

I'm also assuming that this is going to be as far as the current terminal will ever go to the east?

I would assume transborder would continue to be the eastern most gates and then they can shift gates to the domestic/international side as needed.

[plrh]

Biff, do you know if the expansion will be consistent with the current terminal design?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by DonaldSmith

I would assume transborder would continue to be the eastern most gates and then they can shift gates to the domestic/international side as needed.

Seems logical. The number of transborder gates appears to be adequate (given that a few of them can swing either way based on need). The bigger issue is that the transborder space is way too small with few amenities. It's verging on pathetic and is barely an improvement over the little cubby hole transborder area that the old terminal used to have. Anytime you have more than 2 regional jets or 1 737/320 type narrowbody boarding, it gets really choked in there. I was disappointed by how tiny it was the first time I set foot in there... hopefully this expansion will improve the situation.

Originally Posted by plrh

Biff, do you know if the expansion will be consistent with the current terminal design?

Good Lord I would hope so. A mismatched expansion on a 10 year old terminal would be beyond the pale. I wonder if the original architects are involved in the expansion?

[Biff]

...yes, no, yes.

- stay on transborder side
- no to repurpose
- would be as far as it can go east. They want to follow the flow and roof of the existing terminal. I believe they will be building 2 bridges and then using the MARS jetway system. So essentially a flexible jetway that can service larger planes with 2 jetways each or swing one arm around and service 2 smaller jets at the same bridge/gate (like a Y).

[wave46]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I know I know, the high population constitutes a big portion of business there, I just can't help but feel as though the model is designed to benefit the hub airports. I thought point to point flying was supposed to be the next big thing!

It's slowly coming along as aircraft technology evolves.

It used to be 747s and DC10s that could make the intercontinental flights, so only the largest airports got that sort of service.

Then the 767 came along and changed that. The 787 increased the point-to-point mantra too as you can fly just about anywhere in the world from a major airport - I'm struggling to think of a destination that's not served from YYZ. Heck, even YYC (which is tiny by global standards - only 1.3 million people) is getting more connected. One can fly to Asia and many destinations in Europe from there now.

Now, the A321XLR will broaden that. Unfortunately for Winnipeg, the major airlines in this country aren't choosing Airbus right now (though AC may decide to take some up in the future given the MAX debacle). However, on the downside, it's close to the edge of the performance limits of the A321XLR, LHR is a tough airport to get slots at currently and Air Canada doesn't operate to Gatwick airport. I swear this post was meant to be more optimistic when I first started typing it.