Calgary International Airport II

[lubicon]

Plus some Arbi's (ie Airbus) from the U.S carriers (319's and 320's) if they are still flying them.

[Bigtime]

Oh and don't forget all the A380's we'll get once the new international terminal opens up.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

According to this press release, Air Canada will upgauge all three international routes out of YYC to Dreamliners.

http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=933

Not specific whether they will be 787-8 or 787-9.

My hunch is YYC-LHR and YYC-FRA go 787-9 and with YVR-PVG going 777 replacing the 787-8 this frees up a 787-8 for YYC-NRT.

YYC-LHR going to be a 787-8 from Jan - April anyway.

I'm not sure that YVR-PVG has the volume to go 777, especially since it was long a 767 route, even well after AC picked up multiple 777s. I'd have thought that if it was going to go 777, it would have done so already.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

I'm not sure that YVR-PVG has the volume to go 777, especially since it was long a 767 route, even well after AC picked up multiple 777s. I'd have thought that if it was going to go 777, it would have done so already.

MU goes double daily on YVR-PVG in the summer that's a lot of seats to fill. They must think there is a large market there.

AC has a clear pecking order of which routes will be upgauged and when based on the timeline of the new fleet coming online. The 777 fleet was definitely fully utilised. Now with more 777s coming along with more 787-9s the pecking order is now moving down the list. YVR-PVG is actually a bigger O&D market than PEK. But PEK is CA's main global hub and Star Alliance... So you have Star Aliance "hubs*" on both ends. Hence why YVR-PEK was made a 777 route before PVG.

* one large hub and one smaller hub.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Oh and don't forget all the A380's we'll get once the new international terminal opens up.

Coincident with opening the longest runway in Canada, taking the crown of longest runway in Canada away from YYC.... Bring on all those super duper heavies (that unfortunately need less runway than much smaller/lighter aircraft from a generation or two ago)....

[yyc_engineer]

CX Heavy has been sitting here all week. I heard there is a hole in the wing and it is waiting on a part(s). Anyone know what's going on?

[Innersoul1]

I am wondering if anyone else read this article in July's Rolling Stone Magazine? I am totally fascinated.

Up in the Air: Meet the Man Who Flies Around the World for Free

Last year, a young man walked into the Seattle airport and took the next flight to anywhere — and he hasn't come down since

By Ben Wofford July 20, 2015


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/ben-schlappig-airlines-fly-free-20150720#ixzz3pzxH0Qj0
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/ben-schlappig-airlines-fly-free-20150720

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by Cage

could still see CS100 (if it ever gets to commercial service).

O Ye, of little faith ! Quebec just pumped $1.3B in the program. It'll get done.

[s211]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

O Ye, of little faith ! Quebec just pumped $1.3B in the program. It'll get done.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

Funniest SSP quote of the week.

Bombardier just scammed Quebec Inc. (i.e. the Caisse) and the people of Quebec again. I just thank God that Bombardier did not have the gall to seek federal support.

[casper]

Originally Posted by s211

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

Funniest SSP quote of the week.

Bombardier just scammed Quebec Inc. (i.e. the Caisse) and the people of Quebec again. I just thank God that Bombardier did not have the gall to seek federal support.

Honestly it may not be pretty but it is how the game is played.

In the US most of the aerospace R&D comes out of government military contracts.

In Canada if it is small or medium business it is done through SRED and IRAP. If it is someone big like Bombardier it is more direct.

If we want to be a resource based economy then the government should stay out of it. If we want a manufacturing base (especially in Aerospace) then we needs to be some government environment. The trick is to minimize the government involvement.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by casper

Honestly it may not be pretty but it is how the game is played.

In the US most of the aerospace R&D comes out of government military contracts.

In Canada if it is small or medium business it is done through SRED and IRAP. If it is someone big like Bombardier it is more direct.

If we want to be a resource based economy then the government should stay out of it. If we want a manufacturing base (especially in Aerospace) then we needs to be some government environment. The trick is to minimize the government involvement.

Yep, if you want to play with the big boys (Airbus, Boeing, and Embraer) state support is absolutely essential, because they all get it, and so if you don't you're immediately at a huge disadvantage.

Still don't think the C-series was a wise investment, though - I think Bombardier would have been better off sticking with smaller planes.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by s211

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

Funniest SSP quote of the week.

Bombardier just scammed .....the people of Quebec again. I just thank God that Bombardier did not have the gall to seek federal support.

Considering the federal government gives millions to Quebec every year, one can argue they are directly involved. So does any province that contributes more than they get back in return.......such as Alberta!

[casper]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

Considering the federal government gives millions to Quebec every year, one can argue they are directly involved. So does any province that contributes more than they get back in return.......such as Alberta!

When it comes to equalization payments BC, AB, NFL, and SK contribute more than they get.

That was not always the case, for example in years past SK use to receive equalization payments and ON did not.

Getting back to the Aircraft business. What is odd about Canada, is everything is centered in a cluster around Montreal and to a lesser extent Toronto.

The US military programs tend to depend on a supply chain that puts major sub-suppliers or plants all over the country as a means of ensuring national political support for a program.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by yyc_engineer

CX Heavy has been sitting here all week. I heard there is a hole in the wing and it is waiting on a part(s). Anyone know what's going on?

Have heard that it suffered a bird strike on approach which may have damaged one of the slats on the leading edge. I was under the impression the other CX 748 brought in some parts for it to get fixed up. Perhaps they need to find a crew that can work on the bird? I'd assume it would be easiest to get some wrenches up from Boeing in Washington.

[Surrealplaces]

Hey guys off topic from YYC, but an avgeek type of question nonetheless

Does anyone recall a time when Canadian flights to Cuba couldn't fly over U.S. Airspace?

[yyc_engineer]

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

Hey guys off topic from YYC, but an avgeek type of question nonetheless

Does anyone recall a time when Canadian flights to Cuba couldn't fly over U.S. Airspace?

How would that even be possible (without a massive detour), unless you were flying to the Maritimes?

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

Hey guys off topic from YYC, but an avgeek type of question nonetheless

Does anyone recall a time when Canadian flights to Cuba couldn't fly over U.S. Airspace?

All I have been able to find so far is that for a period of time Cubana was not permitted to overfly the U.S. I don't see anything about Canadian airlines having the same retrictions on their way to/from Cuba.

1960-1988 - Cubana restricted from U.S airspace entirely.
1988-2007 - flights restricted from U.S. airspace until ~ New York, then allowed directly north in a defined corridor until reaching Canada.

Since 2007 it sounds like most restrictions have been lifted.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Mx2NCgA...%20overflights%20united%20states&f=false

[Johnny Aussie]

https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_da...015_Provisional_International_Routes.pdf

Comparisons to Sept 2014.

LHR - traffic up almost 3,000 pax and 11%. LF was ~ 88% which is still a very good result. LF in Sept 2014 was closer to 94%. This does indicate the additional capacity was probably not as well absorbed as estimated.

LGW - traffic fell 59% or approximately 2,500 passengers. This was due to reduced flying in the month compared to Sept 2014. LF took a bit of a hit too to 85%. That is still respectable.

MAN/GLA -hard to look at these individually because some of the flights are combined GLA/MAN. Pax traffic was down 8%. LF a bit harder to nail but it would have been at least 81% and at most 90%.

Can any conclusions be drawn from this? Perhaps the LHR numbers weren't as good as AC was expecting. Therefore, part of the whole reduction in AB flying was a result of this.

[msmariner]

Flew into YYC this afternoon and saw a couple of tails I've never seen before. Air international over by FedEx and B&H Air by Cargo jet.
Any ideas why they were here?

[Nick]

I think they were British troop transport. BH Air is a Bulgarian carrier. The Air International was probably parked over there on the old Whiskey taxiway. They frequently park aircraft over there.