YEG - Edmonton Int Airport - Page 252

hilman · #**5021** Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 4:29 PM**

^^ Of course more non-stop routes are wanted in Edmonton but I think the majority want the longer haul flights (EWR, FRA, etc). Westjet serves Edmonton quite well for the shorter flights (Western Canada) and a pretty good for the mid-range flights to the US but I don't really see the need for more Q400 routes (unless you just want AC flights for the Aeroplan miles but that isn't reason enough). AC needs to step it up as it only has a handful of routes and none of them go to the US.

LO 044 · #**5022** Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hilman

What's pathetic is flying to Vancouver to get to Kelowna, your hatred for Westjet is getting tiresome. Whilst Westjet doesn't go to those International places it does go to Mexico, Hawaii, Jamaica, etc and has numerous flights to the US, how many flights does AC have directly to the US again, thats right, zero.

I have no hatred for WestJet. I prefer AC but i have flown WestJet and will happily fly them again. Whomever gets me to where i want to go at a decent price is fine with me.

What is tiresome is the general hatred for Air Canada and then propping up WestJet like some kind of supreme airline in this world. They are OK and nothing more.

Rocket252 · #**5023** Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 7:04 PM**

^Considering Air Canada's performance at YEG over the years it does not take Westjet much to achieve favorable status.

cyeg66 · #**5024** Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 9:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanadianCentaur

CRJ-200s.....
.... At least they're faster than turboprops and climb well.

Faster than props, yes, but saying "CRJ200" and "climb well" in the same sentence is a no-no....

CanadianCentaur · #**5025** Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 10:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Faster than props, yes, but saying "CRJ200" and "climb well" in the same sentence is a no-no....

I disagree. Before you go spouting out stuff like "you've obviously never been on one", I've been on that aircraft type at least a few times.

EdmTrekker · #**5026** Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 10:14 PM**

I hate turbos because they are NOISY. I will fly out of my way to avoid them. I am so glad Alaska now has jets.

cyeg66 · #**5027** Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 10:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanadianCentaur

I disagree. Before you go spouting out stuff like "you've obviously never been on one", I've been on that aircraft type at least a few times.

I've got a pretty good idea, too.

It's OK to almost 20K feet, then it's nothing short of anemic in that department.

CanadianCentaur · #**5028** Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 10:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

I hate turbos because they are NOISY. I will fly out of my way to avoid them. I am so glad Alaska now has jets.

If you're talking about Alaska Airlines and not just the 49th state, are you actually thinking Horizon Air, the regional subsidiary? Alaska Airlines hasn't had props in decades.

MrBigStuff · #**5029** Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 11:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyeg66

I've got a pretty good idea, too.

It's OK to almost 20K feet, then it's nothing short of anemic in that department.

Especially on hot days, as it seems to take forever to climb to a given altitude.

Bigtime · #**5030** Posted **Aug 7, 2010, 1:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanadianCentaur

I disagree. Before you go spouting out stuff like "you've obviously never been on one", I've been on that aircraft type at least a few times.

I've got a feeling cyeg66 knows what he is talking about. I'm pretty sure he is an ATC controller, so he/she will have very good knowledge on the climbing capability of all sorts of a/c.

How does the RJ's rate of climb compare to Lufthansa's A343 climbing out of YYC?

cyeg66 · #**5031** Posted **Aug 7, 2010, 2:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

How does the RJ's rate of climb compare to Lufthansa's A343 climbing out of YYC?

Lol. Pertinent question.... The RJ is a veritable rocket in that scenario.

Bigtime · #**5032** Posted **Aug 7, 2010, 2:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Lol. Pertinent question.... The RJ is a veritable rocket in that scenario.

That's about what I figured!

EdmTrekker · #**5033** Posted **Aug 7, 2010, 9:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanadianCentaur

If you're talking about Alaska Airlines and not just the 49th state, are you actually thinking Horizon Air, the regional subsidiary? Alaska Airlines hasn't had props in decades.

I am but I book on Alaska, have Alaska FF and Alaska PCC. I use Alaska to fly out of SeaTac and avoid connecting through YYC or YVR on AC. At least until I see AC cough up nonstop to FRA and reinstate some nonstop to USA using their own metal. Back to Horizon...they are flying jets.

In a nutshell I am flying nonstop US airlines wherever possible over WJ. Doing my bit to keep each route alive.

MrBigStuff · #**5034** Posted **Aug 7, 2010, 10:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I've got a feeling cyeg66 knows what he is talking about. I'm pretty sure he is an ATC controller, so he/she will have very good knowledge on the climbing capability of all sorts of a/c.

How does the RJ's rate of climb compare to Lufthansa's A343 climbing out of YYC?

I would like to see how each of them would climb out from YYC empty, then full - on a cold day, and on a hot day. There would be a lot of variables - I'm sure that you would agree.
I'm pretty sure that the A343 could give the CRJ a real good run for it's money especially on a cold day, if it didn't have very many passengers on it.

Bigtime · #**5035** Posted **Aug 7, 2010, 10:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBigStuff

I would like to see how each of them would climb out from YYC empty, then full - on a cold day, and on a hot day. There would be a lot of variables - I'm sure that you would agree.
I'm pretty sure that the A343 could give the CRJ a real good run for it's money especially on a cold day, if it didn't have very many passengers on it.

I agree, I just love watching a fully loaded A343 eat up a ridiculous amount of our runway in the summer to get airborne.

But yes, there are a lot of variables that could change the picture considerably.

cyeg66 · #**5036** Posted **Aug 8, 2010, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBigStuff

I would like to see how each of them would climb out from YYC empty, then full - on a cold day, and on a hot day. There would be a lot of variables - I'm sure that you would agree.
I'm pretty sure that the A343 could give the CRJ a real good run for it's money especially on a cold day, if it didn't have very many passengers on it.

The CRJ would also benefit from being empty and the colder weather. By all measurements, it would still outperform the A343 until it gets to 20000' or more. Once the A343 gets spooled up, though, it would/could outrun the CRJ in climb speed. By another measure, an empty (fuel + pax) A343 on a cold day doing max performance climb/speed wouldn't keep up with a fully loaded B767 with the throttles pushed up. The A330/340's max speed is in the region of 330 kts IAS while a 767 is north of 360 kts IAS. MD11's and B727's are some of the faster a/c out there when asked to do max speed (380+ IAS, I think...). CRJ's have to work to maintain greater than 280 kts in the climb and maintain a positive climb rate. A320 series/B737s/E170 & 190s/CRJ700/900s all fall somewhere in the middle pack in terms of overall performance. My proof is mostly anecdotal, based on what I see them doing day in day out. As for actual 'barber pole' speed, pilots would have to weigh in. In level flight, B777 and B747s are quick, too, a notch above the A330/340family, while the 767 is slower. That concludes today's very simplistic class on a/c performance....

cyeg66 · #**5037** Posted **Aug 8, 2010, 6:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I agree, I just love watching a fully loaded A343 eat up a ridiculous amount of our runway in the summer to get airborne.

He used 28 to depart one time this summer when 34 was closed for mx but could have been made available had he asked for it. He didn't...

Must have scared the ever lovin' s?it out of people on the Deerfoot. I'm not sure but I think the perimeter fence is still there so he did a good job.

edit: Ah, oops! Forgot. This is supposed to be about YEG....sorry.

MrBigStuff · #**5038** Posted **Aug 8, 2010, 7:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyeg66

The CRJ would also benefit from being empty and the colder weather. By all measurements, it would still outperform the A343 until it gets to 20000' or more. Once the A343 gets spooled up, though, it would/could outrun the CRJ in climb speed. By another measure, an empty (fuel + pax) A343 on a cold day doing max performance climb/speed wouldn't keep up with a fully loaded B767 with the throttles pushed up. The A330/340's max speed is in the region of 330 kts IAS while a 767 is north of 360 kts IAS. MD11's and B727's are some of the faster a/c out there when asked to do max speed (380+ IAS, I think...). CRJ's have to work to maintain greater than 280 kts in the climb and maintain a positive climb rate. A320 series/B737s/E170 & 190s/CRJ700/900s all fall somewhere in the middle pack in terms of overall performance. My proof is mostly anecdotal, based on what I see them doing day in day out. As for actual 'barber pole' speed, pilots would have to weigh in. In level flight, B777 and B747s are quick, too, a notch above the A330/340family, while the 767 is slower. That concludes today's very simplistic class on a/c performance....

A goodly amount of info on the more current aircraft that are flying these days. Some of it surprises me though. After seeing that clip of the U2 flight - I sure wouldn't mind a ride in that one! The rate of climb wouldn't matter, because the U2 would leave almost everything in the dust. Love the view from 70K ft, however.

halifaxboyns · #**5039** Posted **Aug 9, 2010, 4:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I agree, I just love watching a fully loaded A343 eat up a ridiculous amount of our runway in the summer to get airborne.

I remember when the events of 9/11 occured and a number of aircraft were sent to YHZ - 777's, 343's, 333's, etc. They turned the shorter runway into a parking lot (I think an aerial photo of it is still on the airport authority's website).

A number of my friends and I were volunteers at YHZ and helped out; but on the day the flights started leaving we went to watch (there is a road along the long runway) and I remember thinking that most of these planes were going to struggle. When I watched the 343 go down that runway; man I was crossing fingers they would get off the ground (since most of the 767's got up by the time they got to taxiway alpha; which is 3/4 of the runway). Man, some pretty LONG take offs!

The discussions on performance though explain a lot for me!

LO 044 · #**5040** Posted **Aug 10, 2010, 2:33 AM**

The new bus route to YEG / Leduc is up. Let's hope that some of YEG's staff schedules are flexible enough to make this pilot project worthwhile. It takes 22 minutes from Century Park to YEG. Not too shabby. The $5 fare is quite reasonable. So basically you can get to anywhere in Edmonton for $7.75. That's quite good.

http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/transit/route_schedules_and_maps/future/RT590.pdf