Calgary International Airport II

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Acey

Haven't heard anyone even suggest this before, but prior to committing to ditching them, surely AC considered the economics of ~346 seats in there like Transat's 333's have now...including 12 faux J class seats. Either way, based on the direction AC is going with the sardine cans and the slightly less sardine can mods to the existing 777, even the most casual of observers can see that 37 pods in an A330 sticks out like a sore thumb within the fleet. 788 economics must destroy it, with only 14 less total seats... but a whopping 17 less J seats. Am I correct in this assessment, Cage?

On pure technical merit the 333 would be a good rouge aircraft, however there are a few major stumbling blocks.
(1) Pilot contract only includes rouge working conditions and pay rates for the 763 and 319, any other aircraft type would require renegotiation of the contract. AC got ACPA to the table with the offer of growth aircraft at rouge or mainline (basically take your pick as to whether rouge is either growth or replacement flying and whether the 788 is either growth or replacement flying). Either way there is significant widebody flying growth at the AC group.
(2) Its not so much about the wages as its about the working conditions that give advantage to the rouge widebody flying. Among the most interesting working condition is the award of the "me too" clause for number of pilots. Basically works down to if the main competitor flies with 2 person flight crew then so does AC rouge. For YYZ-ATH this means ACr goes out with 2 person crew as does AT. The mainline pilot work rules would have required 3 person crew.
(3) The 333 marketing problem is whether AC could fill 350 seat airplane. Rouge 763 with 280 pax are a big gamble and putting the 333 seat into the mix would be too much capacity. To maintain yields on the major tier 1 markets (LHR, CDG, FRA, etc.) AC will keep them at mainline and not introduce rouge into either direct airport or near comparables (meaning LGW etal is also out of scope for rouge). Early results appear to indicate that AC rouge is a bigger success than originally thought. The rouge load factors are very impressive, more experience is required to prove out the rouge theory for the board to accept a larger aircraft.

[yyc_engineer]

Not the best picture, but here are the two twins and a fellow Boeing big brother hanging out in the back.

[Johnny Aussie]

^ those will look nice next to the new international terminal.

Now just need to land some more int'l flights to fill up those gates!!

Another observation from this photo: the Calgary Tower looks just soooo tiny next to the massive Bow building. (Or is that a light stand?)

Cropout the skyline and that pic could pass as the hammerhead at YYZ! 2x 77W is glorious.

[YYCspotter]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Now just need to land some more int'l flights to fill up those gates!!

WS widebody.. I can't help but think that part of the reason that the international terminal is so big is due to the long term plan of WS entering long haul.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by YYCspotter

WS widebody.. I can't help but think that part of the reason that the international terminal is so big is due to the long term plan of WS entering long haul.

Yup, I've been saying that for a while. Their first couple launches may not bring anything "new" but in time, I expect they would try to offer something not yet on offer to Western Canadians... One can hope, anyways. It'll be baby steps, no doubt.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Yup, I've been saying that for a while. Their first couple launches may not bring anything "new" but in time, I expect they would try to offer something not yet on offer to Western Canadians... One can hope, anyways. It'll be baby steps, no doubt.

International terminal is big for the following reasons:
(1) CAA originally had plans to extend concourse B/C as a cheap way to add gate capacity. However they ran into capacity problem with the central processor functions of CBSA, US CBP Pre-clearance, CATSA security, post security food court, etc. The international terminal fixes this issue by greatly expanding central processor functions such that follow on expansion will be to add a hammerhead onto the transborder pier.
(2) wingspans are going in one direction, longer. My prediction is the folding wingtip idea for the 777X will be just like the same thing as original 777-200. Early development of the 777 had folding wing because the airplane had to have been performance but early requirements were to fit within the same dimensions as DC10. Eventually the airlines figured out that weight of the fold wingtip significantly reduced the performance of the 777 and the option was never ordered.
(3) YYC is at maximum capacity for swing gates with B/C20-23 and C/D31-34 plus four gates on the D concourse. Any attempt to move international and transborder operations will reduce the ability to conduct swing gate operations. Consequently the new terminal must be overbuilt to account for the loss of utilization capability (where 1 gate could handle dual purpose, now 2 gates at single purpose are required).

[cyeg66]

^Yeah, *including* what he said...

[Cage]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Yup, I've been saying that for a while. Their first couple launches may not bring anything "new" but in time, I expect they would try to offer something not yet on offer to Western Canadians... One can hope, anyways. It'll be baby steps, no doubt.

On the WS widebody front, the following scenarios are most likely:
(1) WS widebody operations start in YYZ as a base. YYZ to Europe is very low risk strategy compared to Western Canada to Europe or anything to Asia. Also YYZ and YUL to Europe allows for WS to beat up and steal traffic from Air Transat.
(2) Air Transat is an economic train wreck waiting to happen. Their margins are not in air travel but rather in package vacation. I could foresee a situation where Air Transat gives up the airline side of the business to WS. Under this scenario WS would take all airline operations and then mould AT business overtime. Transat would then become a pure play package vacation operator.
(3) WS widebody operations start with YYC as a base. This scenario has a lot more risk than options 1 or 2 cause there is less low hanging fruit and no secondary market for WS to exploit.

[Cage]

Looking at YYC-IAH in-depth (cause I am about to take this route next week and throughout the summer) and it appears that UA has put the ghetto 738 onto the route. UA has 20 738s that have no E+, no IFE, no WIFI, old CO style seats. This aircraft type also has mid cabin lav between First and Economy. The aircraft numbers are 3260-3277.

The aircraft will receive standard UA treatment once they are out of heavy maintenance. In addition to the standard maintenance regime, the cabin configuration will change to UA standard and the FA equipment will be standardized with the rest of the fleet.

[yyc_engineer]

Originally Posted by Cage

Looking at YYC-IAH in-depth (cause I am about to take this route next week and throughout the summer) and it appears that UA has put the ghetto 738 onto the route. UA has 20 738s that have no E+, no IFE, no WIFI, old CO style seats. This aircraft type also has mid cabin lav between First and Economy. The aircraft numbers are 3260-3277.

The aircraft will receive standard UA treatment once they are out of heavy maintenance. In addition to the standard maintenance regime, the cabin configuration will change to UA standard and the FA equipment will be standardized with the rest of the fleet.

I know this has been talked about before (can't remember if it was here or A.net) but is there a reason why AC puts the (Jazz/Express) CRJ's on this route? I personally like them, but from others have only heard negative things (too cramped, not comfortable, too small etc). It would seem that this would be one of the most lucrative routes...why not upgauge? Put on mainline, E90's or 319's or something.

Or is this intentional to limit the #seats and keep prices high?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by yyc_engineer

I know this has been talked about before (can't remember if it was here or A.net) but is there a reason why AC puts the (Jazz/Express) CRJ's on this route? I personally like them, but from others have only heard negative things (too cramped, not comfortable, too small etc). It would seem that this would be one of the most lucrative routes...why not upgauge? Put on mainline, E90's or 319's or something.

Or is this intentional to limit the #seats and keep prices high?

Over at Flyertalk I asked this question to Ben Smith, Chief Commercial Officer and got the following responses:
- During the time when AC was bankruptcy protection they signed an agreement with US teamsters union that maintained mainline pay rates for ground handling operations that do mainline equipment work. This union agreement covers IAH, ATL, DFW, and a few other cities. AC has the ability to contract out the ground handling if they use another airline. Consequently if AC mainline went back into IAH the original teamster union contract would apply including old pay scales. So flying the E90 on YYC-IAH is out of the question.
- I also asked about the sky regional E75s. While the union contract would remain in compliance the airplane does not have the legs to make it there with a full load.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Cage

- I also asked about the sky regional E75s. While the union contract would remain in compliance the airplane does not have the legs to make it there with a full load.

Neither does the CRJ9, but that doesn't stop them.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Neither does the CRJ9, but that doesn't stop them.

YYC-IAH is 1750 miles.

CRA range is 2200 miles.

E75 range is 1500 miles.

[tuffyy]

WestJet Encore taking over YYC-YXS starting in October, once daily DH4.

[Bigtime]

I thought YXS was always an Encore route.

[Bigtime]

Whoot whoot, Air Canada plans to operate the 77L on the FRA route from October 26 to January 21, 2015.

It's only 5 more seats a day, but it is a 777 in the winter months.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Whoot whoot, Air Canada plans to operate the 77L on the FRA route from October 26 to January 21, 2015.

It's only 5 more seats a day, but it is a 777 in the winter months.

Looks like the source for that is YVR-SYD as it switches from 77L to 77W the same day. The 2 class 77W (whew!). Didn't think the 77W had the legs to do that nonstop without weight restrictions

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by tuffyy

WestJet Encore taking over YYC-YXS starting in October, once daily DH4.

Westjet hasn't had a non stop YYC-YXS for a number of years, but Encore will be doing this route UNTIL October, at which time they will re-evaluate the viability of keeping it year round.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Westjet hasn't had a non stop YYC-YXS for a number of years, but Encore will be doing this route UNTIL October, at which time they will re-evaluate the viability of keeping it year round.

Westjet is flying this route now on 737-700s until October when Encore takes over on the once daily flight.

Westjet now has the ability with the smaller Q400s to make certain routes year round without dropping to seasonal.