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)

Denscity Jun 30, 2020 5:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by le calmar (Post 8967453)
I didn't know Castlegar was served by AC. I am surprised to see Kingston go as it appeared to be reasonably busy. Not really surprised about the rest of the list though.

Yes YCG Castlegar boasts "jet service since 1968"! Trans Canada Airlines, CP Air, Pacific Western, Air Canada, Air BC, etc.
Our current service was 3X daily to Vancouver and daily to Calgary. Service to both cities for decades. Both flights are the same distance. :tup:

Dominion301 Jun 30, 2020 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainView (Post 8967509)
It's weird that this was listed as I'm not entirely sure it was bookable on AC's website, but the route was a triangle route YOW-YQR-YXE-YOW that ran summer seasonally, usually May through October.

You could only book it one way as part of the triangle route.

I imagine most of the YOW routes will be back eventually.

whatnext Jun 30, 2020 6:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denscity (Post 8967419)
Whew Castlegar survives!

I wonder how much of this is the airlines stepping up pressure to get Ottawa to re-open or else offer state aid?

Marty_Mcfly Jun 30, 2020 6:03 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbxSdlGXQAAoTY1?format=jpg
https://twitter.com/PeterCBC/status/...691847/photo/1

Routes cut by Air Canada in Atlantic Canada.

wave46 Jun 30, 2020 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly (Post 8967555)

Routes cut by Air Canada in Atlantic Canada.

It's a bloodbath in Atlantic Canada.

Second worst hit is rural Quebec.

Ontario and the West are relatively unscathed.

Nick Jun 30, 2020 6:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denscity (Post 8967532)
Yes YCG Castlegar boasts "jet service since 1968"! Trans Canada Airlines, CP Air, Pacific Western, Air Canada, Air BC, etc.
Our current service was 3X daily to Vancouver and daily to Calgary. Service to both cities for decades. Both flights are the same distance. :tup:

Well, daily ATTEMPTS at service :haha::haha:

Denscity Jun 30, 2020 6:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick (Post 8967611)
Well, daily ATTEMPTS at service :haha::haha:

Ha yes the old "Cancelgar". We have mountains at both ends of our runway so it takes a 180 corkscrew to enter/leave the valley. Plus river fog in the winter ensures that your flight is not ensured during the colder months. Hard to believe we had 737 service for so long back in the day.

esquire Jun 30, 2020 8:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46 (Post 8967574)
It's a bloodbath in Atlantic Canada.

Second worst hit is rural Quebec.

Ontario and the West are relatively unscathed.

Probably because on the prairies at least, there is nowhere near as much regional service from the big carriers. For instance, the only Air Canada stations in MB/SK are Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg. By contrast, the Atlantic provinces except PEI have several each including some in fairly small cities. Same as in QC and ON.

There's no AC service to even somewhat sizable and/or remote prairie centres like Prince Albert, Thompson or Brandon.

wave46 Jun 30, 2020 8:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8967734)
Probably because on the prairies at least, there is nowhere near as much regional service from the big carriers. For instance, the only Air Canada stations in MB/SK are Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg. By contrast, the Atlantic provinces except PEI have several each including some in fairly small cities. Same as in QC and ON.

There's no AC service to even somewhat sizable and/or remote prairie centres like Prince Albert, Thompson or Brandon.

BC got by pretty unscathed too.

I do agree that Manitoba and Saskatchewan seem quite underserved by the major airlines, not that somebody like Perimeter Aviation really minds.

I'm somewhat curious if some of this service ever comes back, or is this an attempt on Air Canada's part to completely eliminate some regional flying in the East.

The closure of several stations seems to indicate the latter.

lubicon Jun 30, 2020 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YYCguys (Post 8967401)
I note that one of the route cancellations is YQR-YXE. I didn’t know they even did the route and must be one of the few who even did it!

They used to run mainline in a triangle route. YYZ-YXE-YQR-YYZ and YYZ-YQR-YXE-YYZ. Allowed for double daily service to Toronto on mainline aircraft and a non stop option to/from each city in Saskatchewan.

Dominion301 Jun 30, 2020 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon (Post 8967844)
They used to run mainline in a triangle route. YYZ-YXE-YQR-YYZ and YYZ-YQR-YXE-YYZ. Allowed for double daily service to Toronto on mainline aircraft and a non stop option to/from each city in Saskatchewan.

That was a long time ago.

It’s clear that this marks the end of the 1900s and EVAS at AC.

zahav Jul 1, 2020 3:25 AM

I wonder if the government will step in and give AC money to keep service to those cities and routes that were cut? I read that AC and WS are two of the few major carriers that haven't gotten a bailout (apparently national airlines in most countries have gotten $$ infusions). I feel like they will get something, especially because so many of the cities are in Eastern Canada (sorry to those easily offended, but the government is way more likely to act if it's Quebec and the east getting affected, just the way it is). BC didn't get by just "pretty unscathed", it had absolutely no route cuts or station cuts at all. The regional routes out here are pretty solid, and this release shows that. But I can bet if the route cuts were all out west then the Feds wouldn't blink, but cutting the smaller eastern cities is more likely to get a response. Not fanning the east vs. west debate honestly, but it is true

jmt18325 Jul 1, 2020 4:26 AM

I don't believe it's true. I believe you perceive it to be true.

zahav Jul 1, 2020 5:39 AM

I think an airline axing a bunch of services in NL and QC would be more likely to get an action plan than the same airline axing Cranbrook, Smithers, or Quesnel. I'm not saying the government will action necessarily, but I think the pressure would be higher and more likely to produce results than if smaller locations in the West got cut. If AC only cut the Sask and MB routes, it probably wouldn't even get noticed nationally.

casper Jul 1, 2020 6:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominion301 (Post 8967938)
That was a long time ago.

It’s clear that this marks the end of the 1900s and EVAS at AC.

The YQR-YXE route has come and gone and come back many times. Some times it has been a triangle YYZ-YQR-YXE-YYZ other times it is YOW-YQR-YXE-YYZ. As well as the reverse. When Air Canada operated the flight it would sell seats on the YQR-YXE route.

The odd one, now gone was the United airlines flight from Chicago. When it operated it was ORD-YQR-YXE and then it would do the reverse YXE-YQR-ORD. They never sold seats on the YQR-YXE leg.


There is also a regular service with a couple of flights a day on that route using a 19 seat beach aircraft.

J81 Jul 1, 2020 12:35 PM

I find it interesting that the majority of the AC cuts are in liberal territory. This is purely political on ACs part. Basically the same as a child throwing a temper tantrum when they dont get their own way.

Djeffery Jul 1, 2020 12:44 PM

I would say the federal wage subsidy program qualifies as getting bailout money from the government.

wave46 Jul 1, 2020 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J81 (Post 8968289)
I find it interesting that the majority of the AC cuts are in liberal territory. This is purely political on ACs part. Basically the same as a child throwing a temper tantrum when they dont get their own way.

I'd disagree. The routes AC is cutting are very marginal ones that serve very small places. It just happens to be largely located in the eastern part of the country as that is where AC historically was stronger.

I don't know why BC got off so easy. Maybe round 2 hits them harder?

What would AC accomplish by throwing a temper tantrum? What end does it serve them?

J81 Jul 1, 2020 1:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46 (Post 8968295)
I'd disagree. The routes AC is cutting are very marginal ones that serve very small places. It just happens to be largely located in the eastern part of the country as that is where AC historically was stronger.

I don't know why BC got off so easy. Maybe round 2 hits them harder?

What would AC accomplish by throwing a temper tantrum? What end does it serve them?

If you want to believe that then that is your prerogative. I guarantee this is a ploy to pressure the liberal government into coughing up bailout money.

YFC-YOW and YQM-YOW directly affect the liberal government by limiting how liberal MPs in New Brunswick can get to and from Ottawa. Same goes for many of those other routes on the list which make it an all day affair to get to Ottawa. For a large portion of these cities these routes are the only convenient way in and out aside from driving which for most in those remote locations is not an option.

wave46 Jul 1, 2020 2:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J81 (Post 8968321)
If you want to believe that then that is your prerogative. I guarantee this is a ploy to pressure the liberal government into coughing up bailout money.

YFC-YOW and YQM-YOW directly affect the liberal government by limiting how liberal MPs in New Brunswick can get to and from Ottawa. Same goes for many of those other routes on the list which make it an all day affair to get to Ottawa. For a large portion of these cities these routes are the only convenient way in and out aside from driving which for most in those remote locations is not an option.

Perhaps.

However, I also suspect AC doesn't want to be in the business of serving tiny communities or ultra-thin routes anymore. This gives them cover to end those services permanently.

They've been trimming their small-time regional flying for the past couple of years, dropping some of their regional partners. The crumbs don't matter to them and they're probably happy to be rid of the distraction.

thenoflyzone Jul 1, 2020 2:18 PM

I think its a targeted move towards government as well.

Airlines seldom announce route cancellations. It's simply not a thing they do, as it's bad PR. Unless they have something to gain from it.

Let's see if its going to work.

J81 Jul 1, 2020 3:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46 (Post 8968338)
Perhaps.

However, I also suspect AC doesn't want to be in the business of serving tiny communities or ultra-thin routes anymore. This gives them cover to end those services permanently.

They've been trimming their small-time regional flying for the past couple of years, dropping some of their regional partners. The crumbs don't matter to them and they're probably happy to be rid of the distraction.

There’s probably some truth in that but it says a lot that none of the regional routes in the west where the liberals are nonexistent havent been touched. My guess is they wont be touched either. Make no mistake. This was a political move by AC and theyll use covid as an excuse.

TheGreatestX Jul 1, 2020 4:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J81 (Post 8968407)
There’s probably some truth in that but it says a lot that none of the regional routes in the west where the liberals are nonexistent havent been touched. My guess is they wont be touched either. Make no mistake. This was a political move by AC and theyll use covid as an excuse.

They did axe Lethbridge and Medicine Hat at the start of the pandemic.

whatnext Jul 1, 2020 5:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J81 (Post 8968407)
There’s probably some truth in that but it says a lot that none of the regional routes in the west where the liberals are nonexistent havent been touched. My guess is they wont be touched either. Make no mistake. This was a political move by AC and theyll use covid as an excuse.

It's not an "excuse" they have every right to be pressuring the government:

Airlines need aid or ability to fly to escape ‘catastrophic territory,’ Air Canada CEO warns
'This is hundreds of times worse than 9/11, SARS, or the global financial crisis — quite frankly combined'

....Rovinescu said “broad brush” blanket travel advisories were appropriate in March and April when little was understood about the virus and how COVID-19 was transmitted, but that jurisdictions such as the European Union have since moved to create “safe corridors” or “travel bubbles” based on science and virus tracking, with “bio-safety” measures put in place in airports and on flights.

“In my opinion, that’s the way to go,” he said, adding that there has been “dialogue” with government officials, but no significant movement to ease global or domestic restrictions for Canadian airlines. Those include mandatory 14-day quarantines that Rovinescu described as putting “the cold shower” on business travel. He said the blanket approach has persisted even as Canada’s virus reproduction rate has been contained below a key threshold that was understood to be the key to easing some restrictions.

“Right now, we’re closed to business by government decree,” he said.

Meanwhile, while Canadian air carriers such as Air Canada have had to raise funds to offset their high fixed costs and cash burn, their global counterparts including American Airlines, United, Southwest, Singapore Airlines, Air France and KLM in the Netherlands are receiving billions of dollars and euros in government aid and rescue packages, he said.

That aid “is something of a recognition that airlines are a key driver of economic activity,” Rovinescu said, adding that while Air Canada generated nearly $20 billion in revenue last year, it is estimated to have enabled spin-off revenue at other companies — from food service to aircraft maintenance — of around $50 billion....(bold mine)

hollywoodcory Jul 1, 2020 5:09 PM

https://hub.united.com/2020-07-01-un...646305172.html

United released it's August plans. Additional flights at YYZ/YUL/YVR & YYC plus resuming flights to YQB. UA resumes flights to Canada beginning July 6.

Will operate the following from August 3:
ORD-YYC 1x daily
ORD-YUL 2x daily
ORD-YYZ 3x daily
ORD-YQB 1x daily
DEN-YYC 1x daily
DEN-YVR 1x daily
IAH-YYC 1x daily
EWR-YYZ 1x daily
SFO-YVR 2x daily
IAD-YYZ 1x daily

YQB is an odd choice of a secondary market to resume first over say YOW or even YEG.

Dominion301 Jul 1, 2020 6:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper (Post 8968228)
The YQR-YXE route has come and gone and come back many times. Some times it has been a triangle YYZ-YQR-YXE-YYZ other times it is YOW-YQR-YXE-YYZ. As well as the reverse. When Air Canada operated the flight it would sell seats on the YQR-YXE route.

The odd one, now gone was the United airlines flight from Chicago. When it operated it was ORD-YQR-YXE and then it would do the reverse YXE-YQR-ORD. They never sold seats on the YQR-YXE leg.


There is also a regular service with a couple of flights a day on that route using a 19 seat beach aircraft.

Yeah I was referring to back in the YYZ triangle days when you could actually travel both ways on AC within Saskatchewan.

As for UA, that would have been cabotage = not allowed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J81 (Post 8968321)
If you want to believe that then that is your prerogative. I guarantee this is a ploy to pressure the liberal government into coughing up bailout money.

YFC-YOW and YQM-YOW directly affect the liberal government by limiting how liberal MPs in New Brunswick can get to and from Ottawa. Same goes for many of those other routes on the list which make it an all day affair to get to Ottawa. For a large portion of these cities these routes are the only convenient way in and out aside from driving which for most in those remote locations is not an option.

Once Porter get up and running again, they will still be flying to all the Southern NB cities from YOW. Notice how they didn’t cut YOW-YYG or YOW-YQB, where they have a virtual monopoly. YOW-YXU will probably return when traffic picks up. It had been served continuously since the 70s.

The YGK and YYB cuts show how AC want every route to YYZ with a decent amount of O&D traffic. It’s why YZR is gone too. I could see FlyGTA expanding to all of these places once biz travel returns. I could even see Porter taking another crack at YYB with AC out of the picture.

thenoflyzone Jul 2, 2020 3:39 AM

QR launching Toronto, in 3 days time no less.

https://www.qatarairways.com/en-ca/o...ntolaunch.html

Quote:

Qatar Airways is pleased to announce it will start operating three weekly flights to Toronto Pearson International Airport from 4 July 2020, with the revolutionary Airbus A350-900 offering 36 seats in Business Class and 247 seats in Economy Class.

With the addition of our Toronto service, Qatar Airways will be taking off from Canada with seven weekly flights as per the following schedule:

Three-weekly flights out of Toronto (Airbus A350-900)
Four-weekly flights out of Montreal (Airbus A350-900 and Boeing 777)

ssiguy Jul 2, 2020 4:45 AM

That is patently absurd. Little Qatar's COVID number are already very high for it's population and are continuing to soar.

Are we suppose to put the health of Canadians and our economic on the back burner to appease some airlines? AFAIC we shouldn't be allowing in ANY international flights except from countries that have shown that the virus has almost be completely eradicated like NZ or Iceland. All it takes is one new case to start the whole situation all over again.

thenoflyzone Jul 2, 2020 5:16 AM

QR has been operating almost at full capacity during this pandemic. "Full steam ahead" has been their motto it seems. They are trying to take advantage of the situation and launch key routes will little no no competition at the moment.

EK, by comparison, has grounded most of its fleet and is only now slowly resuming routes, similar to pretty much all other major airlines. QR is very much the exception.

On another note, here is a nice video with good overviews of all the parked planes at YUL and YMX during this pandemic. Video was taken on June 18.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU-P...youtu.be&t=780

J81 Jul 2, 2020 4:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext (Post 8968487)
It's not an "excuse" they have every right to be pressuring the government:

Airlines need aid or ability to fly to escape ‘catastrophic territory,’ Air Canada CEO warns
'This is hundreds of times worse than 9/11, SARS, or the global financial crisis — quite frankly combined'

....Rovinescu said “broad brush” blanket travel advisories were appropriate in March and April when little was understood about the virus and how COVID-19 was transmitted, but that jurisdictions such as the European Union have since moved to create “safe corridors” or “travel bubbles” based on science and virus tracking, with “bio-safety” measures put in place in airports and on flights.

“In my opinion, that’s the way to go,” he said, adding that there has been “dialogue” with government officials, but no significant movement to ease global or domestic restrictions for Canadian airlines. Those include mandatory 14-day quarantines that Rovinescu described as putting “the cold shower” on business travel. He said the blanket approach has persisted even as Canada’s virus reproduction rate has been contained below a key threshold that was understood to be the key to easing some restrictions.

“Right now, we’re closed to business by government decree,” he said.

Meanwhile, while Canadian air carriers such as Air Canada have had to raise funds to offset their high fixed costs and cash burn, their global counterparts including American Airlines, United, Southwest, Singapore Airlines, Air France and KLM in the Netherlands are receiving billions of dollars and euros in government aid and rescue packages, he said.

That aid “is something of a recognition that airlines are a key driver of economic activity,” Rovinescu said, adding that while Air Canada generated nearly $20 billion in revenue last year, it is estimated to have enabled spin-off revenue at other companies — from food service to aircraft maintenance — of around $50 billion....(bold mine)

It is an excuse! Valid or not!

ACT7 Jul 3, 2020 7:26 PM

Biman Bangladesh just announced Dhaka-Toronto flights starting October:

https://www.thedailystar.net/biman-b...flight-1924513

Wow, is really all I can say, between this and Qatar the other day.

thenoflyzone Jul 3, 2020 9:16 PM

AC had identified YYZ-DAC as a potential route. Pandemic or not, a VFR route like that will be full come the winter season, once border restrictions are eased.

Biman, like QR, is taking advantage of the fact that YYZ is underserved to South Asia at the moment.

hollywoodcory Jul 3, 2020 10:45 PM

Doesn't Qatar only have permission to operate YYZ for just July? Doesn't look like it's available beyond the end of July for now.

zahav Jul 4, 2020 1:37 AM

Biman is also very sketchy, I wouldn't put a ton of faith in it necessarily. Their NYC flights have been riddled with issues for years, and has been rerouted thru many cities over the years. They operate it as a prestige route but they have a really hard time with it. Not too long ago (up until end of 2017) they were still operating the ancient DC-10 on pax flights until basically every country stopped them from using it. Also the indefinite start date is concerning. This isn't really filling a South Asian void, that really would need to be AC resuming, which would be more real than this

J81 Jul 4, 2020 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zahav (Post 8970653)
Biman is also very sketchy, I wouldn't put a ton of faith in it necessarily. Their NYC flights have been riddled with issues for years, and has been rerouted thru many cities over the years. They operate it as a prestige route but they have a really hard time with it. Not too long ago (up until end of 2017) they were still operating the ancient DC-10 on pax flights until basically every country stopped them from using it. Also the indefinite start date is concerning. This isn't really filling a South Asian void, that really would need to be AC resuming, which would be more real than this

Actually that is mostly incorrect. The FAA did prevent the DC10 from landing at JFK once. The flight was diverted to YUL where the aircraft was thoroughly inspected and given a clean bill of health. The FAA admitted they were wrong and that was the end of it. No country banned their DC10s which were retired in Feb 2014 and not 2017. Thats hokum. They operated one of the last DC10s to come off the assembly line. There were still lots of Cargo DC10s flying all over the world in the early 2000s and im pretty sure Northwest still operated their pax 10s until 2007 or around there.

While their ability to maintain their flight schedules has been lacking in the past, it was mostly due to lack of aircraft especially during the Hajj. With the government running the airline and the acquisition of 4 777s and 6 787s i think those issues are largely in the past.

Id give them a shot. Plus that livery is one of the best is the sky right now. Ill be happy to go watch that arrive into YYZ.

Djeffery Jul 4, 2020 2:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J81 (Post 8970819)
Actually that is mostly incorrect. The FAA did prevent the DC10 from landing at JFK once. The flight was diverted to YUL where the aircraft was thoroughly inspected and given a clean bill of health. The FAA admitted they were wrong and that was the end of it. No country banned their DC10s which were retired in Feb 2014 and not 2017. Thats hokum. They operated one of the last DC10s to come off the assembly line. There were still lots of Cargo DC10s flying all over the world in the early 2000s and im pretty sure Northwest still operated their pax 10s until 2007 or around there.

While their ability to maintain their flight schedules has been lacking in the past, it was mostly due to lack of aircraft especially during the Hajj. With the government running the airline and the acquisition of 4 777s and 6 787s i think those issues are largely in the past.

Id give them a shot. Plus that livery is one of the best is the sky right now. Ill be happy to go watch that arrive into YYZ.


I think Kelowna Flightcraft still has a couple DC-10's in service now, running to South America or Europe. They had 4 or 5 when they had the Purolator contract but scrapped a couple at Hamilton after they lost that contract to Cargojet a few years ago.

Dominion301 Jul 4, 2020 4:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djeffery (Post 8970852)
I think Kelowna Flightcraft still has a couple DC-10's in service now, running to South America or Europe. They had 4 or 5 when they had the Purolator contract but scrapped a couple at Hamilton after they lost that contract to Cargojet a few years ago.

KF’s 10s were retired a couple of years ago.

zahav Jul 4, 2020 9:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J81 (Post 8970819)
Actually that is mostly incorrect. The FAA did prevent the DC10 from landing at JFK once. The flight was diverted to YUL where the aircraft was thoroughly inspected and given a clean bill of health. The FAA admitted they were wrong and that was the end of it. No country banned their DC10s which were retired in Feb 2014 and not 2017. Thats hokum. They operated one of the last DC10s to come off the assembly line. There were still lots of Cargo DC10s flying all over the world in the early 2000s and im pretty sure Northwest still operated their pax 10s until 2007 or around there.

While their ability to maintain their flight schedules has been lacking in the past, it was mostly due to lack of aircraft especially during the Hajj. With the government running the airline and the acquisition of 4 777s and 6 787s i think those issues are largely in the past.

Id give them a shot. Plus that livery is one of the best is the sky right now. Ill be happy to go watch that arrive into YYZ.

All I said was they had a spotty record, and given the circumstances, not sure this is a slam dunk. Also it wasn't even a formal release by the airline, which always seem weird. And considering in January 2020 (even prior to the pandemic) they had issues with keeping NYC going, the fact they are going to be a go for YYZ out of nowhere is suspicious. And the DC-10 issues weren't BS, and they have had scheduling issues even recently. It would be cool to get it, but I am just saying it should be taken with a grain of salt. If AC can't even keep Mumbai but you think Biman is a slam dunk seems baselessly optimistic. These are some excerpts from their issues:

New York and Manchester

As of January 2020, flights to New York remain suspended due to a shortage of aircraft.[110] From 1993 to 2006, Biman operated flights to John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York City, from Dhaka via Brussels. New York was Biman's farthest and most prestigious destination, and was kept operational, despite heavy financial losses towards the end, to maintain a landing slot in the US which, if cancelled, could be difficult to regain. To curb the losses, Biman reduced the service to one flight per week and re-routed it through Manchester Airport, UK, capitalising on travel demands from the expatriate Bangladeshi community in the north of England. On 8 April 2006, Biman's inaugural flight to Manchester landed at Manchester Airport en route to JFK. However, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had placed the Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh (CAAB) into Category 2 (does not meet International Civil Aviation Organization standards) according to its International Aviation Safety Assessment Program, which placed additional restrictions on the country's airlines when flying to the US. For Biman, this meant that it could continue flying to the US, but could not expand or make alterations to its routes, such as changing the transit from Brussels to Manchester. The FAA fined Biman for breaching its rules, and flights to New York were again re-routed through Brussels.

The FAA had already warned Biman to replace its ageing DC-10s by December 2005. According to experts, these aircraft were inadequately equipped to safely cross the Atlantic. On 13 May 2006, the FAA refused permission for Biman flight BG001 (Dhaka–Brussels–JFK) to enter its airspace, citing safety concerns over the ailing DC–10 aircraft used on the route. The flight was diverted to Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport in Canada, where the passengers were provided with alternative airline options to complete their journey. Canadian authorities inspected the aircraft and gave it a clean bill of health after which the aircraft returned to Dhaka without any passengers. The FAA eventually admitted it was mistaken and apologised for the error. The incident put an end to the route, which had been losing US$80,000 per flight, owing to its use of obsolete DC-10s. Biman decided to axe the route along with a number of other regional and domestic routes to curb the huge losses being incurred by the airline each month. However, in October 2007, Biman was directed by the then caretaker government to resume flights to New York. Biman was given until 25 October 2008 (extended from an earlier deadline of 23 March 2008) to resume flights to the airport by the JFK airport authority, after which it would have lost the landing slot permanently.
London
On 4 March 1972, Biman started its first international operations with a weekly flight to London using a Boeing 707. As of January 2020, Biman Bangladesh Airlines flies directly to London Heathrow, from Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport in Dhaka, four times a week transporting both passengers and cargo, using its newly purchased Boeing 777 aircraft. Under its new management, the airline has seen a marked improvement in punctuality as well as in on-time flight performance in recent times. Back in 2007, Biman faced strong criticism from major international airports including London Heathrow Airport and Dubai International Airport for its failure to maintain flight schedules. Heathrow Airport operator BAA wrote to Biman providing evidence which showed Biman had not achieved the minimum 80% usage of its allocated landing slots at Heathrow, as required by EU and International Air Transport Association (IATA) regulations, during the summer of 2007. Biman should, therefore, not expect slot allocations at Heathrow for the summer of 2008 and should look to Stansted or Gatwick airports if it wished to continue serving London. Following discussions with BAA, however, Biman obtained landing slots for the summer of 2008 on condition that it achieved 80% usage. Delays continued unabated and in September 2008, Biman's Dhaka–London direct flight utilising a DC-10 aircraft was diverted and landed at Gatwick when it did not have sufficient fuel to remain in a holding pattern over Heathrow following arrival over three hours after the scheduled time.[131] In 2008, the United Nations advised its staff not to fly with Biman, citing both safety and security concerns and Biman's unreliable flight schedules. It was made clear that UN staff who flew with Biman did so at their own risk, and would be ineligible to make claims on insurance. Biman's then newly appointed managing director said he was unaware of the UN directive, but admitted that Biman did face problems in managing its flight schedules. He expected the situation to improve with the procurement of aircraft in the coming months.

ACT7 Jul 5, 2020 1:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodcory (Post 8970551)
Doesn't Qatar only have permission to operate YYZ for just July? Doesn't look like it's available beyond the end of July for now.

Not just July, but they may still be updating their schedule.

J81 Jul 5, 2020 1:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zahav (Post 8971156)
All I said was they had a spotty record, and given the circumstances, not sure this is a slam dunk. Also it wasn't even a formal release by the airline, which always seem weird. And considering in January 2020 (even prior to the pandemic) they had issues with keeping NYC going, the fact they are going to be a go for YYZ out of nowhere is suspicious. And the DC-10 issues weren't BS, and they have had scheduling issues even recently. It would be cool to get it, but I am just saying it should be taken with a grain of salt. If AC can't even keep Mumbai but you think Biman is a slam dunk seems baselessly optimistic. These are some excerpts from their issues:

New York and Manchester

As of January 2020, flights to New York remain suspended due to a shortage of aircraft.[110] From 1993 to 2006, Biman operated flights to John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York City, from Dhaka via Brussels. New York was Biman's farthest and most prestigious destination, and was kept operational, despite heavy financial losses towards the end, to maintain a landing slot in the US which, if cancelled, could be difficult to regain. To curb the losses, Biman reduced the service to one flight per week and re-routed it through Manchester Airport, UK, capitalising on travel demands from the expatriate Bangladeshi community in the north of England. On 8 April 2006, Biman's inaugural flight to Manchester landed at Manchester Airport en route to JFK. However, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had placed the Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh (CAAB) into Category 2 (does not meet International Civil Aviation Organization standards) according to its International Aviation Safety Assessment Program, which placed additional restrictions on the country's airlines when flying to the US. For Biman, this meant that it could continue flying to the US, but could not expand or make alterations to its routes, such as changing the transit from Brussels to Manchester. The FAA fined Biman for breaching its rules, and flights to New York were again re-routed through Brussels.

The FAA had already warned Biman to replace its ageing DC-10s by December 2005. According to experts, these aircraft were inadequately equipped to safely cross the Atlantic. On 13 May 2006, the FAA refused permission for Biman flight BG001 (Dhaka–Brussels–JFK) to enter its airspace, citing safety concerns over the ailing DC–10 aircraft used on the route. The flight was diverted to Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport in Canada, where the passengers were provided with alternative airline options to complete their journey. Canadian authorities inspected the aircraft and gave it a clean bill of health after which the aircraft returned to Dhaka without any passengers. The FAA eventually admitted it was mistaken and apologised for the error. The incident put an end to the route, which had been losing US$80,000 per flight, owing to its use of obsolete DC-10s. Biman decided to axe the route along with a number of other regional and domestic routes to curb the huge losses being incurred by the airline each month. However, in October 2007, Biman was directed by the then caretaker government to resume flights to New York. Biman was given until 25 October 2008 (extended from an earlier deadline of 23 March 2008) to resume flights to the airport by the JFK airport authority, after which it would have lost the landing slot permanently.
London
On 4 March 1972, Biman started its first international operations with a weekly flight to London using a Boeing 707. As of January 2020, Biman Bangladesh Airlines flies directly to London Heathrow, from Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport in Dhaka, four times a week transporting both passengers and cargo, using its newly purchased Boeing 777 aircraft. Under its new management, the airline has seen a marked improvement in punctuality as well as in on-time flight performance in recent times. Back in 2007, Biman faced strong criticism from major international airports including London Heathrow Airport and Dubai International Airport for its failure to maintain flight schedules. Heathrow Airport operator BAA wrote to Biman providing evidence which showed Biman had not achieved the minimum 80% usage of its allocated landing slots at Heathrow, as required by EU and International Air Transport Association (IATA) regulations, during the summer of 2007. Biman should, therefore, not expect slot allocations at Heathrow for the summer of 2008 and should look to Stansted or Gatwick airports if it wished to continue serving London. Following discussions with BAA, however, Biman obtained landing slots for the summer of 2008 on condition that it achieved 80% usage. Delays continued unabated and in September 2008, Biman's Dhaka–London direct flight utilising a DC-10 aircraft was diverted and landed at Gatwick when it did not have sufficient fuel to remain in a holding pattern over Heathrow following arrival over three hours after the scheduled time.[131] In 2008, the United Nations advised its staff not to fly with Biman, citing both safety and security concerns and Biman's unreliable flight schedules. It was made clear that UN staff who flew with Biman did so at their own risk, and would be ineligible to make claims on insurance. Biman's then newly appointed managing director said he was unaware of the UN directive, but admitted that Biman did face problems in managing its flight schedules. He expected the situation to improve with the procurement of aircraft in the coming months.

You just copy pasted wikipedia lol. But it basically says exactly what i said. The FAA made a mistake. There were no issues with the DC10s ability to cross the Atlantic.

zahav Jul 5, 2020 7:41 AM

It is totally copied from Wikipedia, but it reinforces my point. They have had issues on various fronts, from the DC-10s, to schedule reliability, to fleet issues, to warnings from airports on both sides of the Atlantic. It was never just the mistaken FAA thing. As recently as Jan 2020 they had to suspend New York, so that's current and outside the DC-10 thing.

This wasn't supposed to be an argument, just that this particular airline has had issues with different routes in the past for various reasons, and this all of a sudden announcement may or may not be as concrete as you make it seem

Airboy Jul 6, 2020 1:19 AM

Heard Porter is getting ready to start up again, then end of August early September

Airboy Jul 6, 2020 2:53 PM

New mask rules in effect today. Must wear a mask at all times after security. Except in restaurants. However YVR only has a curry /rice and noodle place and a Tims open this morning. YEG had 2 sit down restaurants and they had take out coffee. Also noticed only an Air France flight at the international side.

Definitely more travelers this week. YEG security staff had more lines open

Denscity Jul 6, 2020 3:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airboy (Post 8972221)
New mask rules in effect today. Must wear a mask at all times after security. Except in restaurants. However YVR only has a curry /rice and noodle place and a Tims open this morning. YEG had 2 sit down restaurants and they had take out coffee. Also noticed only an Air France flight at the international side.

Definitely more travelers this week. YEG security staff had more lines open

Check out the YVR thread for all the international action and there has been lots.

Airboy Jul 6, 2020 3:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denscity (Post 8972249)
Check out the YVR thread for all the international action and there has been lots.

There was more last time through but still shocking to see all the empty gates. One good sign. Most of the parked big jets are gone or moved.

Denscity Jul 6, 2020 4:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airboy (Post 8972263)
There was more last time through but still shocking to see all the empty gates. One good sign. Most of the parked big jets are gone or moved.

I guess it was just your timing then. Johnny reported over 20 heavies during yesterday's operations. Both Atlantic and Pacific action.

hollywoodcory Jul 6, 2020 5:05 PM

United resumes operations to Canada today with flights to YYZ, YUL, YVR and YYC.

KLM will be back in YVR & YYC later this week, followed by YUL next week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denscity (Post 8972310)
I guess it was just your timing then. Johnny reported over 20 heavies during yesterday's operations. Both Atlantic and Pacific action.

Some of that could have been cargo flights which won't go to a gate or show up on the terminal FIDS.

Denscity Jul 6, 2020 5:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodcory (Post 8972389)
United resumes operations to Canada today with flights to YYZ, YUL, YVR and YYC.

KLM will be back in YVR & YYC later this week, followed by YUL next week.



Some of that could have been cargo flights which won't go to a gate or show up on the terminal FIDS.

Ah could be? Johnny would know for sure.

thenoflyzone Jul 6, 2020 8:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodcory (Post 8972389)



Some of that could have been cargo flights which won't go to a gate or show up on the terminal FIDS.

Most of those are cargo flights. And some of them are just fuel stops, such as Air Tahiti and Air France, and soon French Bee. So even though it's movements for the airport, the terminal building doesn't get to benefit from those flights. Just the fueling company at YVR, and the spotters.....;)

Explaining why Airboy saw an empty terminal and only 2 or 3 concession stands open.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denscity (Post 8972394)
Ah could be? Johnny would know for sure.


Johnny doesn't know shit. He's opening FR24 and telling you what flights he sees to/from YVR. He doesn't know which intl flights have pax on them, and which ones dont. The vast majority don't, at least not to/from YVR anyway.

nname Jul 6, 2020 9:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 8972711)
Most of those are cargo flights. And some of them are just fuel stops, such as Air Tahiti and Air France, and soon French Bee. So even though it's movements for the airport, the terminal building doesn't get to benefit from those flights. Just the fueling company at YVR, and the spotters.....;)

AFAIK, even for fuel stop, passengers are allowed to leave the plane and walk or go to the washroom in the terminal building within the holding area. Not sure if there are any shop within the holding area though...


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.