Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport (YOW/CYOW)

FFX-ME · #1 Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 12:26 AM**

YOW is the 6th busiest airport in canada in passenger traffic and is ranked 2nd in custumer satisfaction for airports with less than 5 million passengers per year in the world, it is the second year in a row that it has aquired this title.

It has been going under great changes lately and I was surprised that there was no thread about it so I started one. use this thread to update the construction, post pictures of the terminal and talk about your experience. I can't wait for phase 2 to be finished, it will be awesome, a world class airport. Lately it has added internationnal flights, such as Paris from May to september and several southern destinations (Yay)

I love the fact that a city Ottawa's size starts to see less and less the need to go to Montreal to fly, we are no longer a "suburb" lol.

So I beleive after the expansion there will be 29 gates wich is great, it also has sufficeient boutiques and restaurants etc. All they need (in my opinion) is to update de runways (they are still in asphalt, and it is in a bad condition, asphalt is not as safe as concrete) And I beleive the security should be emproved (larger) for it was prety tight when i went this summer, but that may have changed.

the dude · #2 Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 1:01 AM**

that's a nice lookin' airport you've got there. i know that many ottawans would like to see something bigger and better but it's pretty damned nice all things considered. hey, you guys should consider an LRT project linking the airport to downtown...ooops. sorry.

Taller Better · #3 Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 3:59 AM**

Nice pix!

3madjack · #4 Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 4:40 AM**

I have always loved flying/going to Ottawa but with recent changes/re-orgs, I haven't been there in a while. I need to get my ass back there. Airport is looking good, really good.

FFX-ME · #5 Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 10:47 PM**

Most of the pictures were from the airport website, Its beautifull but small, yes, but with the phase 2 (first pic) it will be like half a kilometer long wich is prety good. the food court is very empty also (only Harveys, swiss chalet, Tim Hortons, a grill and some other cold food places)

chris · #6 Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 11:18 PM**

That's beautiful! Nice to see that YOW is expanding once again. I hope they keep up the good work, that's really good news for Ottawa.

BTW, how many people from Ottawa actually go to Montreal for flights?

harls · #7 Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 11:42 PM**

it's just dash-8 flights, isn't it? I know once my parents visited me in Montreal (flying from YWG) and had a transfer in Ottawa on one of those.. I can't imagine any businesspeople going through the hassle of a direct flight to Montreal or vice-versa when it's only 2 hours away by car... less with the train..

FFX-ME · #8 Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 11:44 PM**

I have no idea but for internationnal flights almost everyone goes to Montreal because Ottawa isnt suppliing. But with the new terminal they have added new internationnal locations like Glascow, Paris, other London floghts and several southern flights. So the use of Ottawa's airport is cimbing as montreal will probably decrease

YOWflier · #9 Posted **Mar 22, 2007, 3:18 AM**

Ottawa Airport loses over 200,000 pax per year to Montreal. About half of these pax are people who drive to Montreal to catch a flight, and the other half fly to Montreal to catch an overseas connection.

Ottawa Airport will reclaim most of this lost traffic with the addition of an Ottawa-Frankfurt nonstop. This new service is a matter of when, not if.

YOWflier · #10 Posted **Mar 22, 2007, 1:01 PM**

I propose some amendments to your introductory post as some information is wrong, incomplete, or misleading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

YOW is the 6th busiest airport in canada in passenger traffic and is ranked 2nd in custumer satisfaction for airports with less than 5 million passengers per year.

This makes the reader think the airport is ranked 2nd in Canada, when really it was ranked 2nd in the World in the "airports serving 0-5 million passengers" category. It is also the 2nd year running that the airport has claimed this title. I believe you should mention this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Lately it has added many internationnal flights, such as London, Paris, Glascow and several southern destinations (Yay)

The London and Glasgow service have existed for years.

London (Heathrow) is served by Air Canada (year-round, 1x daily using 767-300 equipment) and London (Gatwick) is served by both Zoom Airlines (year-round except winter, 2x weekly using 767-300 equipment) and Thomas Cook Airlines U.K. (year-round except winter, 1x weekly using ETOPS certified 757-200 equipment). Glasgow is served by Zoom Airlines (year-round except winter, 1x weekly using 767-300 equipment).

The only new service of the group you mention is to Paris, and this was inaugurated last Summer by Air Transat. It is a seasonal service operating May-September, 1x weekly using A310 equipment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

All they need (in my opinion) is to update de runways (they are still in asphalt, and it is in a bad condition, not safe)

Your personal opinion that the runways should be "updated", however silly I believe to be, is perfectly fine. However, your claim that the runways are in such a bad condition that they are "unsafe" is ill-informed, unfounded, presumptuous, misleading, and just plain flat out wrong. You should remove the unsafe part immediately.

FFX-ME · #11 Posted **Mar 22, 2007, 3:49 PM**

It is a FACT that asphalt runways aren't as safe as concrete because that the friction coefficient between the rubber and the asphalt is greatly decreased when the asphalt is wet, causing it to take longer for the plane to come to a complete stop. Concrete doesn't have as large side effects as asphalt. The fact that it is crumbling isnt what makes in unsafe, just annoying. The fact that it is asphalt makes it unsafe in winter and in wet conditions, OK. For the rest i will change it.

You have probably heard of hydroplaning before, a layer of water forms on the top of the surface so the vehicle doesn't touch the ground and "floats" on water causing it to slip. Concrete has larger pores which helps to limit this missfortune. There are many examples of this sort of accident, google it you will see.

YOWflier · #12 Posted **Mar 22, 2007, 5:50 PM**

Sigh. You didn't say an asphalt runway is "not as safe" as concrete. You said asphalt runways are "not safe", which is not only childish but completely absurd.

By your information we should decommission any asphalt runways worldwide due to safety concerns ... this would include some/all runways at Heathrow, O'Hare, Pearson, JFK, Boston, etc. etc. While we're at it let's decommission all non-concrete highways and motorways around the world too.

FFX-ME · #13 Posted **Mar 22, 2007, 6:01 PM**

It is being done, slowly they are changing major highways to concrete instead of asphalt and the same is beeing done for airports.

JFK's main runway is half concrete
O'hare also has many runways that have a concrete mixture
Heathrow has grooved asphalt which increases friction
Pearson has a half concrete runway

They are changing them slowly but it is difficult for high traffic airports due to the fact they need their runways to accommodate the traffic. Changes that large can't come overnight, they are expensive and time consuming. Your comment is absolutely fallacious.

YOWflier · #14 Posted **Mar 22, 2007, 7:00 PM**

LOL. Whatever you say.

At some point I'd like to see some pics of the "crumbling" runways because I'm there every week and haven't seen it.

BTW, you misspelled the thread title.

FFX-ME · #15 Posted **Mar 22, 2007, 9:20 PM**

That,s your opinion, i believe they are in a bad condition, anyway this thread wasn't made in the intention of causing disputes but more to bring new information on the airport's development so stop complaining

YOWflier · #16 Posted **Mar 23, 2007, 12:14 AM**

Forgetting about the fact that much of your information and some of your graphics come from me, this is a discussion forum so I'll go ahead and continue to interject my commentary where appropriate and/or when fictional statements are being made. This is especially true for topics that I am quite familiar with such as this one.