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)

ACT7 Dec 10, 2018 4:20 PM

This would be interesting if it ever happens:

https://www.timesofmalta.com/article...d-range.696290

thenoflyzone Dec 10, 2018 6:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACT7 (Post 8404014)
This would be interesting if it ever happens:

https://www.timesofmalta.com/article...d-range.696290

Flight would be severely weight restricted on the westbound leg.

MLA-YYZ (4137 nm) is beyond the range of the A321LR, which has a 4,000 nm range.

FFX-ME Dec 10, 2018 7:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 8404246)
Flight would be severely weight restricted on the westbound leg.

MLA-YYZ (4137 nm) is beyond the range of the A321LR, which has a 4,000 nm range.

Indeed. A 4 nanometer range is indeed very short. :haha:

LeftCoaster Dec 10, 2018 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper (Post 8399304)
First off I have had chicken from the chicken place pre-security. It is ok. Nothing to write home about.

The walkway between A-B-C-D need art. The airport needs to develop a collection and being populating it with suitable art work.

It's much beyond art, the entire addition feels so soulless, sterile and value engineered. Art would help but it's just a distraction from the problems.

thenoflyzone Dec 12, 2018 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFX-ME (Post 8404264)
Indeed. A 4 nanometer range is indeed very short. :haha:

I'll use NM next time, promise........:cheers:

thenoflyzone Dec 12, 2018 3:45 PM

Speaking of narrowbodies across the Atlantic, AC is reflecting on YUL-Nantes and YUL-Toulouse, according to their France head manager. Both within range of the Max 8. (although a A321LR would suit Toulouse better, in more ways than one !)

AC should jump on the A321LR bandwagon.

Link in french...

https://www.le-tout-lyon.fr/-la-liai...pes-10179.html

Used google translate for the quote.

Quote:

For example, we are opening up many privileged routes to North America from the major metropolitan areas (Lyon, Nice, Bordeaux, whose link to Montreal will open in June 2019, and Nantes and Toulouse in reflection)

nname Dec 12, 2018 9:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 8406095)
AC should jump on the A321LR bandwagon.

And they can then get the A321XLR if the rumor comes true, which allows them to run YVR-Europe/South America/Japan and YUL/YYZ-South America/Europe/Middle East/Africa with narrowbodies :D

zahav Dec 13, 2018 6:09 AM

Something lighthearted, YVR named as one of the best Twitter accounts by Twitter itself. Just an excerpt:

In a statement, Cam Gordon, the head of PR for Twitter Canada, added:

In my opinion, @YVRAirport is consistently one of the most informative and entertaining corporate Twitter accounts we have here in Canada. The account team clearly has a knack for what makes a strong Twitter experience: provide detail and information but also humour, heart and responsiveness. I see all three and more each time I check out their account and it’s become one of my favourite Canadian best-in-class examples to reference at conferences and in presentations.


I don't use Twitter but I follow them on Instagram and they definitely are a PR machine, the "YVR brand" is actually a thing in Vancouver and has a surprsingly broad following even amongst non airport geeks :)

Full article here:
http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanco...er-banter-2018

thenoflyzone Dec 13, 2018 1:35 PM

Something not so lighthearted.

Transport Canada has - finally - amended flight and duty time regulations.

Major Canadian airlines have 2 years to comply. Smaller and regional operators have 4 years.

https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-c...anagement.html

Quote:

Flight time

Previous regulations (1996)
1,200 hours in any 365 consecutive days
300 hours in any 90 consecutive days
120 hours in any 30 consecutive days
40-60 hours in any 7 consecutive days

New regulations
1,000 hours in any 365 consecutive days
300 hours in any 90 consecutive days
112 hours in any 28 consecutive days

Flight duty period*

Previous regulations (1996)
14 hours (aerial workers and air taxi operators) or
13 hours, 45 minutes (commuter operations and airline operators)

New regulations
Maximum 9-13 hours – based on start time of day/sectors flown

Rest periods

Previous regulations (1996)
8 hours plus time for meals, personal hygiene, and travel to and from suitable accommodation

New regulations
At home– 12 hours or 11 hours plus travel time, or 10 hours in suitable accommodation provided by the air operator
Away from home – 10 hours in suitable accommodation

Time free from duty

Previous regulations (1996)
36 hours / 7 days; or
3 days / 17 days; or
3 periods x 24 hours / 30 days
13 periods x 24 hours / 90 days.

New regulations
Option 1:
1 single day free from duty per 7 consecutive days
4 single days free from duty per 28 days
Option 2: 5 days off per 21 days

Consecutive night duties

Previous regulations (1996)
Not applicable

New regulations
Maximum of 3 nights of duty in a row without a rest during the night
If a rest is provided during the night, up to 5 consecutive nighttime duty periods

Fatigue Risk Management Systems

Previous regulations (1996)
No Fatigue Risk Management Systems option

New regulations
Option to use Fatigue Risk Management Systems
* Flight duty times listed is for 1 or 2 man crews. With proper augmentation and crew rest facilities on the plane, duty time can extend to 20 hours.

thenoflyzone Dec 13, 2018 3:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname (Post 8406575)
And they can then get the A321XLR if the rumor comes true, which allows them to run YVR-Europe/South America/Japan and YUL/YYZ-South America/Europe/Middle East/Africa with narrowbodies :D

Just for shits and giggles.....

The A321XLR would have a 4,500 NM range. That's only 500 NM more (~1 hour more) than the A321LR. Not enough for any meaningful YVR-South America or YVR-Europe routes. LIS, BCN and FCO still outside the range. LIM would be tight, especially for the return back to YVR.

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=yvr,+lis,...MX=720x360&PM=

A bit of the same for YUL. Pushes GRU within range, but tight, just like YVR-LIM. Doesn't give you anything meaningful in Africa that is not doable with an A321LR.

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=yul,+dkr,...MX=720x360&PM=

The truth is, the A321neo and neoLR will cover 95% of the missions the B757 was taking care of over the atlantic. The market case for an A321XLR simply isn't there. Better for Airbus to come up with a fresh design. A middle of the market plane (MOM), something along the lines of a 250 seater with a 5,000-6,000 NM range. Basically a new version of the B767.

kwoldtimer Dec 13, 2018 3:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 8407349)
The A321XLR would have a 4,500 nm range. That's just 1 hour more than the A321LR. Not enough for any meaningful YVR-South America or YVR-Europe routes.

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=YVR,+bog,...MX=720x360&PM=

A bit of the same for YUL.

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=yul,+gru,...MX=720x360&PM=

That would make YVR-PTY a possibility, which is really all you need.

thenoflyzone Dec 13, 2018 4:02 PM

YVR-PTY is 3241 NM. A Max 8/A320neo could operate it. The Max 7/A319neo would be ideal, as they have slightly more range.

No need for an A321LR or A321XLR.

nname Dec 13, 2018 5:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 8407349)
Just for shits and giggles.....

The A321XLR would have a 4,500 NM range. That's only 500 NM more (~1 hour more) than the A321LR. Not enough for any meaningful YVR-South America or YVR-Europe routes. LIS, BCN and FCO still outside the range. LIM would be tight, especially for the return back to YVR.

I thought it was 4700NM...

But nevertheless, the coverage from YVR increases from just part of UK and Ireland, to pretty much half of Europe. And for Japan, increase from only CTS to pretty much the entire country.

lubicon Dec 13, 2018 7:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 8407180)
Something not so lighthearted.

Transport Canada has - finally - amended flight and duty time regulations.

Major Canadian airlines have 2 years to comply. Smaller and regional operators have 4 years.

https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-c...anagement.html



* Flight duty times listed is for 1 or 2 man crews. With proper augmentation and crew rest facilities on the plane, duty time can extend to 20 hours.

The 9-13 hour flight duty one is going to have some impact on many of the sun destination routes. Some of them are 6+ hours each way meaning it will be pretty tough to operate a round trip now. And layovers can be awkward to schedule on some of these markets as the flights operate very infrequently.

thenoflyzone Dec 13, 2018 8:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon (Post 8407726)
The 9-13 hour flight duty one is going to have some impact on many of the sun destination routes. Some of them are 6+ hours each way meaning it will be pretty tough to operate a round trip now. And layovers can be awkward to schedule on some of these markets as the flights operate very infrequently.

It will mostly affect west coast-Caribbean runs. It won't be that bad. If the flight is worth keeping, 2 crews will operate them. The outbound crew can deadhead back home (on multiple carriers) if need be.

nname Dec 13, 2018 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon (Post 8407726)
The 9-13 hour flight duty one is going to have some impact on many of the sun destination routes. Some of them are 6+ hours each way meaning it will be pretty tough to operate a round trip now. And layovers can be awkward to schedule on some of these markets as the flights operate very infrequently.

I believe 6+ hours each way round-trip wouldn't fit in the old regulation too?

Shouldn't turn-around time, and all the pre-flight and post-flight stuff before the first and after the last segment also count as "flight duty"?

thenoflyzone Dec 14, 2018 1:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname (Post 8407827)
I believe 6+ hours each way round-trip wouldn't fit in the old regulation too?

Shouldn't turn-around time, and all the pre-flight and post-flight stuff before the first and after the last segment also count as "flight duty"?

It's only a 45 minute difference between the old regulation (13h45) and the new one (13h). Assuming the flight departs in the morning, and usually west coast-Caribbean runs do.

thenoflyzone Dec 14, 2018 6:16 PM

Its going from bad to worse at WOW air. They canceled LAX, SFO, DEL, YVR and MCO.

I wouldnt book them at this point.....

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewt...d12de12bd3d66d

zahav Dec 14, 2018 6:23 PM

The writing is definitely on the wall for WOW. But YVR isn't cancelled, it's still available along with YYZ and YUL.

wave46 Dec 14, 2018 6:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 8408990)
Its going from bad to worse at WOW air. They canceled LAX, SFO, DEL, YVR and MCO.

I wouldnt book them at this point.....

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewt...d12de12bd3d66d

When you have to return your leased airplanes, it's hard to fly to destinations.

Isn't Indigo (private equity firm) taking a stake in WOW? Or is that still in negotiation?


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:34 AM.

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