Calgary International Airport II

[Bigtime]

Haha, can't argue with that, and a beautiful Seinfeld reference to boot.

[Deepstar]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

It's called goading. You say a sensible thing or two, then just before closing the door behind you, you say "Costanza". Keeps 'em coming back for more...

Awesome reference

[tuffyy]

Better get your fill of KFA's 727's and DC-10's as they have lost the Purolator contract to CargoJet.

CargoJet has been awarded the Purolator and Canada post contracts as of yesterday. Not sure of when the take over becomes effective however.

In other news Harper has made it firm he will not be easing Visa restrictions with Mexico… Sort of a unexpected turn of events however a new agreement will be signed today with a few developments.

[AlbertanToo]

Quite a bit of excitement with headwinds and turbulence reported around YYC late last week.

Occurrence No. : A14W0022 Occurrence Type: INCIDENT REPORTABLE
Class : CLASS 5 Reportable Type: H. FUEL SHORTAGE
Date : 14-02-2014 Time : 10:58 MST
Region of Responsibility : WESTERN
Location : CYYC CALGARY INTL, ALBERTA

Aircraft Information:
Registration : C-GDJZ Operator : JAZZ
Manufacturer : CANADAIR Operator Type: COMMERCIAL
Model : CL-600-2D15 (RJ705) CARs Info: 705 - AIRLINER
Injuries: Fatal : 0 Serious : 0 Minor : 0 None : 0 Unknown : 0

Occurrence Summary :

A14W0022: The Jazz Aviation LP Bombardier CL-600-2D15 (CRJ 705), C-GDJZ, was operating as flight JZA8103 from Houston, TX (KIAH) to Calgary, AB (CYYC). Before departure Company Dispatch advised the crew that due to strong headwinds and turbulence a possible tech stop for fuel may be required. The fuel was checked over Denver and was determined to be sufficient for the remainder of the flight. Headwinds later increased and turbulence intensified. The crew decided to descend. Numerous calculations were conducted and it was determined that fuel was still sufficient to continue to CYYC. Approximately 20 nm south of CYYC JZA8103 declared critical fuel state with ATS and requested an unrestricted visual approach to Runway 17R. JZA8103 landed on Runway 17R with 1508 lbs of fuel remaining when 1461 lbs was required to meet No Alternate IFR (NAIFR) reserves.

[Bigtime]

I'm assuming in addition to the NAIFR reserves there was also the emergency reserve still in the tanks? Or am I wrong?

[AlbertanToo]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'm assuming in addition to the NAIFR reserves there was also the emergency reserve still in the tanks? Or am I wrong?

I would think so but am not certain of that.

[AlbertanToo]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'm assuming in addition to the NAIFR reserves there was also the emergency reserve still in the tanks? Or am I wrong?

It turns out NAIFR is a term used for a condition of weather forecasting that suggests that alternate reserves won't be necessary. Looks like that backfired here. The following quote is from an article by NavCanada. Apparently it only applies to the destination airport and not the enroute winds.

For airlines, the most frequently used metric is
NAIFR*, or No Alternate IFR—an indication that
the weather will not require the aircraft to carry
additional fuel to divert to an alternate airport.

I was not familiar with this term before today.

[Bigtime]

So then are we safe to assume that they ate into their emergency reserve? That is how I would interpret it.

I'm rusty on this stuff and obviously the regs have changed (NAIFR wasn't around when I was flying) but from my memory I remember the following being required for fuel:

-Normal fuel load required
-Enough fuel to hold (I think 30 minutes) and then complete two missed approaches at your destination
-Fuel to make alternate
-Emergency fuel reserve

[AlbertanToo]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

So then are we safe to assume that they ate into their emergency reserve? That is how I would interpret it.

I'm rusty on this stuff and obviously the regs have changed (NAIFR wasn't around when I was flying) but from my memory I remember the following being required for fuel:

-Normal fuel load required
-Enough fuel to hold (I think 30 minutes) and then complete two missed approaches at your destination
-Fuel to make alternate
-Emergency fuel reserve

My Commercial ground school was more than a decade ago!

Here is another snippet from the NavCanada article about this term.

This means dispatchers and pilots can
confidently make a decision to carry less
reserve fuel. That makes the aircraft lighter,
which in turn means less fuel burn. Being able
to see how reliable historical NAIFR forecasts
have been over a time period or season
provides front-line decision makers with
another layer of information.

NAIFR (No Alternate IFR) is defined as ceiling at or above
1,500 feet, visibility at or above six statute miles or ceiling at
or above 2,500 feet, visibility at or above three statute miles.
Additionally, there can be no forecast (including PROB) of
thunderstorms, freezing rain or freezing drizzle.

The only issue here is, if the weather enroute severely degrades your fuel remaining, the TAF at the destination being clear is pretty moot.

[Tills13]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

My GAWD cyeg66, I just caught up on the YYC thread over at a.net. Why are you doing that to yourself buddy?

holy cow what's with the West hate around the world?

We beat them in cold, hard numbers, it doesn't matter how many trains, plains, cars, boats, rockets we don't have - our economy is booming and our airport is busier than ever.

I especially like the "the reason Calgary has such high numbers is 'cause there's no other major centers around" - then how do they explain Vancouver? Seattle is an hours drive away and services many of the same cities YVR does. Toronto? Boston. Like bugger off - it's ridiculous.

[tuffyy]

Originally Posted by Tills13

holy cow what's with the West hate around the world?

We beat them in cold, hard numbers, it doesn't matter how many trains, plains, cars, boats, rockets we don't have - our economy is booming and our airport is busier than ever.

I especially like the "the reason Calgary has such high numbers is 'cause there's no other major centers around" - then how do they explain Vancouver? Seattle is an hours drive away and services many of the same cities YVR does. Toronto? Boston. Like bugger off - it's ridiculous.

I guess YEG just doesn't exsist in the eyes of easterners either... Hmm.

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by Tills13

holy cow what's with the West hate around the world?

We beat them in cold, hard numbers, it doesn't matter how many trains, plains, cars, boats, rockets we don't have - our economy is booming and our airport is busier than ever.

I especially like the "the reason Calgary has such high numbers is 'cause there's no other major centers around" - then how do they explain Vancouver? Seattle is an hours drive away and services many of the same cities YVR does. Toronto? Boston. Like bugger off - it's ridiculous.

I don't think that's the issue at all. No one is taking away from the fact that YYC has very impressive numbers - especially for a city the size of Calgary. It punches well above it's weight in total traffic. But when newspapers and the airport authority keep harping on international growth when that's visibly not the case, they need to be kept in check. YYC will likely never pass YUL in international pax traffic in volume or destinations or airlines. Nothing wrong with that.

Look at ATL - sure it's on a different scale, but by and large it's a domestic airport.

[DarthMalgus]

Originally Posted by Tills13

holy cow what's with the West hate around the world?

We beat them in cold, hard numbers, it doesn't matter how many trains, plains, cars, boats, rockets we don't have - our economy is booming and our airport is busier than ever.

I especially like the "the reason Calgary has such high numbers is 'cause there's no other major centers around" - then how do they explain Vancouver? Seattle is an hours drive away and services many of the same cities YVR does. Toronto? Boston. Like bugger off - it's ridiculous.

Based on their logic you could argue that Montreal ought to get a big boost from being so proximate to a large city with a small-ish airport (Ottawa)...that's another 1.5 million more people who are likely to use Montreal for many connections due to Ottawa not exactly being a "gateway" airport...

Besides, a lot of the reasons Calgary has the busier airport even with a substantially smaller regional population can be summed up by the economic factors:
-Gateway airport for the Prairies;
-large number of corporate headquarters;
-much higher per capita GDP and disposeable income numbers;
-being one of the world's primary hubs for the energy industry;
-gateway for Banff, a major global tourist draw.

Having a smaller city with a busier airport is not unheard of...very similar to how Denver has a busier airport than Philadelphia even though it's considerably smaller. Why is Dubai the busiest airport in the Middle East rather than Tehran?

The fact is, that for an urban centre of 4 million, Montreal isn't exactly an economic heavyweight, and for 1.4 million Calgary punches far above its weight. There is no cheating or misrepresentation here.
I read, somewhere, that Calgary's economy (measured by GDP) is of comparable size to the Vancouver region's even though their population is nearly double ours. Not sure where I saw it, but it makes sense.

[yyc_engineer]

Anybody know why there is no regular YYC-ATL service? (ie. 365, I know we have had the 1X weekend flight in summer's previous). Does it have to do with the length of flight + change of two time zones that makes this prohibitive... could a Delta jet not do early a.m. departure out of YYC, couple short hops around US S.E., then back to YYC in the evening with a RON?

Talking to a few people I get the sense that this the biggest hole in YYC's North American network...and with all the onward Southern US connections you'd think this flight would work.??

Weird that we do not have a flight to the busiest airport in N.A.?

[Cage]

Short article from Cdn Press, UA outsources all CSA jobs in Canada, 61 agents in YYC are out of work in 90 days:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/united-airlines-outsources-cuts-240-jobs-toronto-vancouver-190805703.html

CHICAGO - United Airlines says it is cutting 240 jobs in Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary.

The U.S.-based airlines says the jobs, which include customer service agents and ramp agents, will now be outsourced.

There will be 95 jobs affected in Toronto; 84 in Vancouver and 61 in Calgary.

The cuts will become effective in three months.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by yyc_engineer

Anybody know why there is no regular YYC-ATL service?

From an ATL perspective DL doesn't know Canada exists. There are 7 daily CR7 and CR9 flights on YYZ-ATL.

From a DL perspective, W Cda is served from MSP with supporting role at SLC, Eastern Canada is DTW with YYZ and YUL also having ATL and LGA/JFK services.

There are couple of items that stack up against DL:
- YYC-ATL is outside the range of regional jets, including Embraers. For DL to open up this route they would have to go mainline from day one.
- There is poor market penetration for DL and all of Skyteam. Building a market in YYC is difficult.
- No strong economic ties between ATL and YYC where as other markets such as DEN and IAH have strong ties. O&D market is small.
- ATL for DL is about as big domestically as IAH is for UA (There is an international imbalance in favour of ATL). Basically anywhere in domestic USA that ATL connection opens up can also be serviced from IAH. IAH has better O&D potential so the UA flights can better defend their turf.
- WS overflies the ATL to the most popular SE USA destinations from YYC.
- No ability to pick up feed on the Calgary end for DL.

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by Cage

- WS overflies the ATL to the most popular SE USA destinations

ATL is not a particularly desirable hub for YYC passengers, as it is not really "on the way" to much other than Florida and Florida destinations can support non stop flights from YYC. Most of the rest of the east coast would involve back tracking, and therefore be less desirable routes.

[tuffyy]

ATL actually offers a lot of the same connections that UA offers at IAH (it's not all oil related traffic), same as AA and DFW...

You can get to much of central and South America through ATL via DL.

Originally Posted by tuffyy

You can get to much of central and South America through ATL via DL.

AA even bigger to South America from MIA, no doubt WS looking to tap into that with their new MIA non-stop. Still waiting for someone I know to take that flight to ask them about loads. Decent, I suspect.

United Airlines is cutting 240 jobs in Canada by outsourcing work in Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto. The cuts take effect in 90 days.

United's Calgary operations will see 61 jobs cut.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/united-airlines-to-cut-240-jobs-in-canada-1.2545058

Go away, UA. Just go away.