SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Canada (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Canadian Airport Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153826)

casper Dec 30, 2020 1:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YYCguys (Post 9144881)
Boeing 737 Max returns to American skies with 1st passenger flight
By DAVID KOENIG The Associated Press
Posted December 29, 2020 3:47 pm

American Airlines flew a Boeing 737 Max with paying passengers from Miami to New York on Tuesday, the plane’s first commercial flight in U.S. skies since it was grounded after two deadly crashes.

American flight 718 carried 87 passengers on the 172-seat plane, and the return flight from LaGuardia Airport to Miami International Airport held 151 passengers, according to an airline spokeswoman....

.... American plans to make one round trip a day between Miami and New York with Max jets through Jan. 4 before putting the plane on more routes. United Airlines plans to resume Max flights in February, and Southwest Airlines expects to follow in March.

All three airlines say they will give customers the chance to change flights if they are uncomfortable flying on the Max....

https://globalnews.ca/news/7546503/boeing-737-max-us/

⬆️ Would you fly on it? Do you think Canadian airlines will offer passengers a no fee change?

I would avoid the MAX and go with A320 or A220 given the choice. Not because of a safety concern but because the AC seat configuration and lavs have a bit more space. I don't like how AC configured there 737.

Thankfully AC has adopted the A220 as its smaller narrow body and the A321 as it wider narrow body. The role of 737MAX in AC is fairly narrow.

samuelx88 Dec 30, 2020 1:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname (Post 9144312)
Apparently, TS will start YQB-YVR first next summer:

TS968 YQB1845 – 2145YVR 321 7
TS969 YVR0800 – 1605YQB 321 1

https://twitter.com/theaeronetwork/s...93368715853824

Should we expect Air Canada to codeshare on that flight this summer because of their purchase of TS? Or they will start codesharing later on?

Coldrsx Dec 30, 2020 3:04 AM

While I am satisfied with the MAX recertification, I would rather travel on the 220 where possible.

YYCguys Dec 30, 2020 3:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samuelx88 (Post 9144905)
Should we expect Air Canada to codeshare on that flight this summer because of their purchase of TS? Or they will start codesharing later on?

Oh! Did the purchase go through? I thought someone told me that it fell through!

Coldrsx Dec 30, 2020 3:25 AM

Went through at 25 cents on the dollar no?

hollywoodcory Dec 30, 2020 3:31 AM

Calgary Sun shared an interview with WS CEO Ed Sims, in which the tone was much more optimistic than the interview he gave back in May.

He mentioned back then the airline was considering deferring the 4 787s it was planning to take delivery of in 2021. In this interview, he confirms the airline will take them and have a fleet of 10 by the end of next year.

Quote:

The airline is confident enough in its eventual COVID-19 recovery that it now is banking on a return to its former long-term strategy. The company could have made the decision this year to cancel the forward orders for the four remaining Dreamliners it is scheduled to take delivery of in 2021. It has not done that, meaning by the end of next year, it will have a fleet of 10 state-of-the-art long-haul 787 aircraft as originally planned. “We’re committed to taking that full delivery of 10 (Dreamliners) during the course of 2021, which we wouldn’t do if I was waking up every night worried about the company’s viability,” Sims said.
He also talks about the MAX return to service, and hopes to have all 13 in their existing fleet back in service in 2021 and then consider possibly taking delivery of more of them.

And here he takes a page out of Air Canada's playbook on government support:

Quote:

further layoffs or route reductions by WestJet can’t be ruled out, in the event that federal aid does not materialize.
Be interesting to see what they do with 10 787s in 2021, given the six they have haven't seen much action until recently.

Dominion301 Dec 30, 2020 8:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samuelx88 (Post 9144828)
Thanks for telling me about that. As a huge fan of Québec city and its airport, it's one of the best (late) Christmas gift we could get!!

Looks like you will get your wish at long last. Way to go!

Dominion301 Dec 30, 2020 8:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper (Post 9144904)
I would avoid the MAX and go with A320 or A220 given the choice. Not because of a safety concern but because the AC seat configuration and lavs have a bit more space. I don't like how AC configured there 737.

Thankfully AC has adopted the A220 as its smaller narrow body and the A321 as it wider narrow body. The role of 737MAX in AC is fairly narrow.

You have to wonder when a lot of transatlantic flights resume from the east that are normally on widebodies, will they be relegated to the MAX for the first year or two of the recovery? Routes like YOW-LHR, YYZ-DUB and YUL-LYS spring to mind.

I personally would wait two years for the MAX to prove itself before getting aboard one.

thenoflyzone Dec 30, 2020 8:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominion301 (Post 9145444)
You have to wonder when a lot of transatlantic flights resume from the east that are normally on widebodies, will they be relegated to the MAX for the first year or two of the recovery? Routes like YOW-LHR, YYZ-DUB and YUL-LYS spring to mind.

Well, if the long term storage of the MAX will give us engine reliability issues with the frames, like we saw last week, there could be ETOPS implications for AC/WS.

I think it’s wiser for AC/WS to operate these frames closer to home - and closer to land - for a few years. Wasn't WS using the MAX to Hawaii before the grounding? Those are ETOPS 180 min routes.

whatnext Dec 30, 2020 8:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 9145447)
Well, if the long term storage of the MAX will give us engine reliability issues with the frames, like we saw last week, there could be ETOPS implications for AC.

I think it’s wiser for AC to operate these frames closer to home - and closer to land - for a few years.

It won't just be the Max8. Every other a/c from Dash 8s up to the 777 that has been parked for months.

thenoflyzone Dec 30, 2020 8:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext (Post 9145452)
It won't just be the Max8. Every other a/c from Dash 8s up to the 777 that has been parked for months.

Sure, but AC has a lot of widebodies that never went into long term storage. And COVID storages have barely broken 8 months now. Whereas every single MAX has been grounded for close to 2 years now.

casper Dec 30, 2020 9:14 PM

Good news the feds are going to require a positive COVID test to re-enter Canada.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...ival-1.5248467

If you want to get people upset tell them they can't have Christmas dinner with their family while there are people vacationing in COVID hot zones such as the US and Mexico. This is a good positive decision in brining public confidence back to the airline industry.

Prairiedawg Dec 30, 2020 9:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper (Post 9145487)
Good news the feds are going to require a positive COVID test to re-enter Canada.

We're all assuming you mean negative test to covid before arrival back to Canada.

It'll be interesting to see the overall pax for airports in Canada for the 2020 year.
Calgary will very likely get 3rd busiest Canadian airport for passengers designation again after being 4th for a few years.

hollywoodcory Dec 30, 2020 9:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper (Post 9145487)
Good news the feds are going to require a positive COVID test to re-enter Canada.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...ival-1.5248467

If you want to get people upset tell them they can't have Christmas dinner with their family while there are people vacationing in COVID hot zones such as the US and Mexico. This is a good positive decision in brining public confidence back to the airline industry.

If anything I see this as another barrier to keep people from traveling. Those tests aren’t free and can cost upwards of $300. It also appears they would still need to quarantine for 14 days afterwards. Also they can’t legally prevent Canadians from returning to Canada so I’m curious how this will be enforced? Leaving the airline employees to be the bad guys.

Also why a half ass vague announcement with no real details on how this will be done or when it starts. This sounds like the government is trying to gain public support possibly in reaction to that Ontario minister who was caught traveling well telling people to stay home.

nname Dec 30, 2020 9:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodcory (Post 9145501)
Leaving the airline employees to be the bad guys.

That's how it is done in other parts of the world where negative test result is required. If you cannot provide a negative test result, you will be denied boarding as the airline will be responsible (and possibly facing fines) if the passenger is denied entry at the destination.

casper Dec 30, 2020 9:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodcory (Post 9145501)
If anything I see this as another barrier to keep people from traveling. Those tests aren’t free and can cost upwards of $300. It also appears they would still need to quarantine for 14 days afterwards. Also they can’t legally prevent Canadians from returning to Canada so I’m curious how this will be enforced? Leaving the airline employees to be the bad guys.

Also why a half ass vague announcement with no real details on how this will be done or when it starts. This sounds like the government is trying to gain public support possibly in reaction to that Ontario minister who was caught traveling well telling people to stay home.

I think it should be "evidence of vaccination or the PRT test" with the 14 only being required if you don't have the vaccination.

The vague announcement makes sense. They are basically launching a trial balloon to see how the industry and public react. In two or three days they will announce the details once they digest all the feedback. In the article the conservatives have already responded negatively, however they are the opposition its their job to find problems with the government position.

As for Canadians entering Canada. They can't stop that, so if a Canadian shows up at a point of entry with COVID the government has to let them in. That would leave marine, rail and land boarders available.

They can however define safety rules on who is allowed to board a flight into Canada.

I think it is a positive for the airlines. They need to rebuild confidence in domestic travel so Canadians are willing to travel in side the country. This is a step in that direction.

casper Dec 30, 2020 9:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prairiedawg (Post 9145491)
We're all assuming you mean negative test to covid before arrival back to Canada.

It'll be interesting to see the overall pax for airports in Canada for the 2020 year.
Calgary will very likely get 3rd busiest Canadian airport for passengers designation again after being 4th for a few years.

Yes, negative for COVID being present.

I guess most people would view a negative result as a positive things, but that is not how the term is used.

hollywoodcory Dec 30, 2020 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname (Post 9145505)
That's how it is done in other parts of the world where negative test result is required. If you cannot provide a negative test result, you will be denied boarding as the airline will be responsible (and possibly facing fines) if the passenger is denied entry at the destination.

They’ve already barred foreigners and CBSA cannot legally deny entry to a Canadian citizen or permanent resident.

kwoldtimer Dec 30, 2020 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodcory (Post 9145529)
They’ve already barred foreigners and CBSA cannot legally deny entry to a Canadian citizen or permanent resident.

As noted above, you need to actually get to Canada to be granted or denied entry.

thenoflyzone Dec 30, 2020 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer (Post 9145533)
As noted above, you need to actually get to Canada to be granted or denied entry.

Which isn't all that hard if you're vacationing in the US. Simply rent a car and drive. It'll be cheaper than spending another 2 weeks in the US.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.