Calgary International Airport II - Page 268

Avgeek · #**5341** Posted **Oct 22, 2016, 6:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Is BA serving YYC with the 787-8 or -9 in summer 17? It is unclear on routesonline and even BAs website which version they are sending. Anyone have any info? I've left it a -9 for now in the spirit of optimism.

I would wait after the start of 2017 to hear anything from BA and routesonline before knowing which 787 they will deploy. However, I'm speculating that BA would bring in the -8 regularly for the summer and the -9 for repositioning or additional premium demand (though we won't see that happen then). Besides, the -9 will be used for replacing existing 772 long-haul flights with F demand (BOS, KUL, NRT, IAH, PVG) and route expansion (i.e. SJC, SCL).

Personally I do share your same optimism with the -9 so I totally agree with that.

Johnny Aussie · #**5342** Posted **Oct 22, 2016, 7:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Is BA serving YYC with the 787-8 or -9 in summer 17? It is unclear on routesonline and even BAs website which version they are sending. Anyone have any info? I've left it a -9 for now in the spirit of optimism.

Right now OAG shows it as a daily 787-8.

However, the difference in seating is only 2 because the 787-9 is quite a lot more premium heavy including F.

So the total effect on capacity would be negligible.

Bigtime · #**5343** Posted **Oct 22, 2016, 2:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Design-mind

Does anyone know if New Leaf has acquired any gates at the airport? There website shows YYC on the list but no flights leaving from here yet.

As of right now they are only going to be operating a very limited number of flights around the holiday season to Abbotsford and Hamilton. No word on if it will become permanent. Speculation was A concourse for them.

Riise · #**5344** Posted **Oct 23, 2016, 1:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McMurph

Speaking of cramped seats, I had the misery of flying on the BA 787 in steerage yesterday. My previous experience on a 787 had been in business and was lovely. The back of BA's was positively Rouge-esque. Didn't help that I was sitting beside a grandpa with restless legs and no sense of personal space. Great plane, but an inhuman spot to have to inhabit for 9 hours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Maybe it's me. I've always been bewildered by the notion of air travel. I've always looked at it as "fancy bus travel". As long as I get there with little-to-no hassle, then I'm satisfied.

As always, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I do think there is a bit of entitlement among those siting in coach who are expecting an entirely lush experience. However, I also think the world is moving away from the have and have nots to the have, have nots and having a fucking lots. With the sky no longer being the limit for premium packages, the have and have nots can't help but think the have a fucking lots are having a laugh at everyone else's expense.

sdimedru · #**5345** Posted **Oct 25, 2016, 2:31 PM**

Any idea why that BA A380 diversion didn't drop into Calgary and continued over to Vancouver? Looks like YYC would have been a logical spot?

Bigtime · #**5346** Posted **Oct 25, 2016, 2:50 PM**

Could have been lots of reasons:

-Weather conditions (we were very low vis and rvr at the time)
-Altitude (perhaps too high to make a descent to YYC very practical)
-Fuel load (may not have hurt to burn more fuel)
-Response capability at that time of night (ambulances, staff at the airport, equipment)

lubicon · #**5347** Posted **Oct 25, 2016, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Could have been lots of reasons:

-Weather conditions (we were very low vis and rvr at the time)
-Altitude (perhaps too high to make a descent to YYC very practical)
-Fuel load (may not have hurt to burn more fuel)
-Response capability at that time of night (ambulances, staff at the airport, equipment)

Weather and Fuel load are logical. Altitude does not jive, they were over western Saskatchewan when they diverted. I would hope response capability (other than ground handling an A380) did not factor in to the decision, that would be troubling if it were true.

Weather would be ironic. YYC fogged in so go to YVR instead.

MalcolmTucker · #**5348** Posted **Oct 25, 2016, 6:00 PM**

If landing at Calgary (or elsewhere) meant the crew would time out and they would need to unload, landing where CBSA was still staffed to process people and at a compatible gate would help. I imagine somewhere the airport/Swissport has a push back/tow bar sitting around.

yyc_engineer · #**5349** Posted **Oct 25, 2016, 6:12 PM**

Weird. It basically flew directly over Calgary. I'm guessing fog, BA has a station here and YYC is more than equipped to handle diversions (even a 388).

nname · #**5350** Posted **Oct 25, 2016, 6:56 PM**

Maybe the pilots are more comfortable to land at YVR than YYC, given the situation is not very urgent. YVR have regular A380 ops during the summer, so they might already flown there before many times - compared to flying to a complete new airport for them, at night, and feeling ill.

CrossedTheTracks · #**5351** Posted **Oct 25, 2016, 7:08 PM**

Says this: http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/...anding-in-vancouver-with-ill-crewhttp://

Quote:

A British Airways flight that took off from San Francisco bound for London Monday night was forced to land in Vancouver after the crew reported feeling ill

Speculation: getting a replacement 380 crew to YVR would be easier for BA. And/or rerouting the passengers on other planes would be easier.

No mention of the nature of the illness.

Bigtime · #**5352** Posted **Oct 25, 2016, 7:29 PM**

Ultimately it's the Captain's discretion, and if they felt the need was urgent they would have landed at YYC. Since they did continue on to YVR whatever was going was under enough control that they decided to press on to YVR. Doubtless contacting BA during all of this to help with the decision.

Bureaudog · #**5353** Posted **Oct 26, 2016, 2:32 PM**

KLM plus two transborder flights are scheduled to arrive in the IFP today along with two more transborder departures and KLM outbound. These will be fully live trials to prepare for opening.

holhm22 · #**5354** Posted **Oct 26, 2016, 2:55 PM**

Bigtime · #**5355** Posted **Oct 26, 2016, 4:15 PM**

Heard about that yesterday, good to see a "soft" opening, perhaps it will help iron some things out before the big day on Monday.

YYCguys · #**5356** Posted **Oct 26, 2016, 4:39 PM**

I've been told that, due to trial participant feedback, that two water fountains (filling stations?)---wow! a whole two!-- have been installed (in which part of the IFP I am unsure). But I was also told that two moving sidewalks were discovered to not have been installed as per the blueprints????

The Fisher Account · #**5357** Posted **Oct 26, 2016, 4:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I've been told that, due to trial participant feedback, that two water fountains (filling stations?)---wow! a whole two!-- have been installed

Bigtime... the guy has pull at YYC!

Bigtime · #**5358** Posted **Oct 26, 2016, 5:04 PM**

I bet it was Mersar, he was there on one of the trial days.

GreenSPACE · #**5359** Posted **Oct 26, 2016, 8:38 PM**

Friends first new flight into the new terminal today (KLM from Amsterdam). Bazillion of greeters, free Starbucks gift cards to all passengers.

yyc_engineer · #**5360** Posted **Oct 26, 2016, 9:06 PM**

Yup, limited test flights in and out of the new terminal today. Departures on KLM to AMS, AA to DFW, AC to EWR and a handful of arrivals on WS, AA and KLM. Great to see people enjoying the terminal. Full opening Monday Oct. 31st for all flights to/from the USA and abroad.

Sorry for the poor lighting, sun was not cooperating. KLM still on the 330 for a couple days, will be 787 as of Sunday!