Calgary International Airport II

[Calgarian]

JUst heard a bunch of jets fly over downtown, anyone know if the Snowbirds are in town?

[Bigtime]

Yes it was the Snowbirds, doing a flyby to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the RCAF.

They were also in town for the High River airshow yesterday.

[Calgarian]

Oh cool. Too bad I could only hear them and not see, Thanks BT

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Thanks for giving us this great rundown Johnny!

Any way we can see stats on the AC side of things?

My pleasure.

AC hasn't finalised their winter scheds yet. Usually done by mid August.

There are very few changes right now other than the rouge transfers so capacity increases on the LAX and PHX routes.

Oh and it's looks like Red Deer back to 3 daily!

Ill look into the rest a bit later.

OK it's later...

AC is increasing sun destination flying again this winter from YYC.

CUN going up to 4 weekly from 3
PVR going up to 2 weekly from 1
So all up 9 weekly flights this winter from 7 last year.

Other than LHR dropping to 6 weekly (763s) for a few weeks late January-early March that's about it for now.

I did notice that effective 8 March 2015, AC's LHR departure is pushed to 8:05pm. That's about 90 minutes later than normal.

Sunwing is also increasing to 17 weekly from 13 last winter, so their presence keeps getting bigger at YYC too.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Anyone else see the snowbirds fly over in formation around supper time tonight?

They "interrupted" my round at McCall Lake yesterday.

[Wooster]

It was a pretty cool very low flyover past city hall.

I see the 738 into December on AA's website, for both daily flights, it had been showing MD-80 for some time. I suspect we are done with the AA mad dog forever in YYC.

AA has been taking delivery of new 738, 319 and 321 aircraft at a furious pace.

[Bigtime]

Pour one out for the Mad Dog...

[tuffyy]

Looks like YEG is getting a lot of cancellations and diversions today from the winds in the area.

I suspect this will be the routine for the day. You may even see FI at YYC if things don't settle down later today if it doesn't just delay or get scrubbed.

[Full Mountain]

Question for our resident experts, why would a flight over West Virginia be escorted back to Pearson after a threat rather than to the nearest airport? Seems like you would want to put it down ASAP. This is the second time a plane over US airspace has been sent back to Canada after a threat like this.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Question for our resident experts, why would a flight over West Virginia be escorted back to Pearson after a threat rather than to the nearest airport? Seems like you would want to put it down ASAP. This is the second time a plane over US airspace has been sent back to Canada after a threat like this.

You only need to put the plane down if there is a medical emergency or emergency mechanical issue. In the Sunwing example, the passenger was unruly but nothing was especially emergent.

Also the airplane is unlikely to set down in the USA because a bunch of the pax would not have proper documentation to enter the USA. The airline could get fined if the pax don't have proper documentation.

A final problem for the airline is in how each jurisdiction handles unruly passengers. In Canada the standard course of action is a stern warning before RCMP officer unless there is an emergent threat. In the USA the pax will get arrested and sent through the court system. If the USA police end up determined to press charges; the Captain, In-charge, and relevant flight attendant have to remain within the jurisdiction in order to provide police statements and what not. Therefore setting down in the USA would require the flight be cancelled, all pax provided hotels and meal vouchers, and new crew sent in to operate the flight. What does not happen in these situations is plane lands, pax gets taken into custody, plane is splashed with fuel pit stop style and takes off in less than 1 hour after diversion.

I actually have a little fun with the flight attendants when returning home to Canada. USA flight attendants are unaware of the Canadian attitude for unruly passengers, what constitutes and unruly situation, and consequences for overstepping their authority. The FAs are also not familiar with the requirement to stay in the foreign land to provide testimony to a judge, prosecutor, police, etc. In a few situations the flight attendant has flipped out over a small issue (headrest not full retracted, electronics not stored as fast as the FA would like, carryon not stowed immediately upon request, seat back not returned to upright position, etc.). After being issued a threat for noncompliance, it is fun to see the FA whither once they are informed of the consequences of following through on said threat.

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Pour one out for the Mad Dog...

Indeed, at least the good news is that 2x 738 vs 2x MD-80 means 140 additional int'l seats per week throughout the coming winter (or as many as 280 with the 160 seat 738's, I see AA has 150 and 160 seat versions...)

Originally Posted by tuffyy

Looks like YEG is getting a lot of cancellations and diversions today from the winds in the area.

I'm at YEG at the moment, being from Lethbridge I don't find wind of 300 at 30 gusting 37 to be particularly unusual. Of course, runway 30 is closed... ruining the day.

Saw a pilot do a heck of a job brining down a Dash 8 on runway 20 about an hour ago. Wind has been pretty stead all morning yet Encore thought it was a good idea to fly almost all the way to the field from YXE only to divert to YMM?



lol.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Acey

Saw a pilot do a heck of a job brining down a Dash 8 about an hour ago. Wind has been pretty stead all morning yet Encore thought it was a good idea to fly almost all the way to the field from YXE only to divert to YMM?

Probably because 2/3 of the people were destined to go there, I'm guessing. The 37 knots crosswind is almost too strong for a bare and dry runway, exceeds most company limits for a wet runway. It was raining heavily for most of the morning. Appears to be letting up now, except for the wind.

In other news, KLM showing B77W today on Flightaware but not sure it's accurate. I'm going onto the floor to check now.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Cage

You only need to put the plane down if there is a medical emergency or emergency mechanical issue. In the Sunwing example, the passenger was unruly but nothing was especially emergent.

Also the airplane is unlikely to set down in the USA because a bunch of the pax would not have proper documentation to enter the USA. The airline could get fined if the pax don't have proper documentation.

A final problem for the airline is in how each jurisdiction handles unruly passengers. In Canada the standard course of action is a stern warning before RCMP officer unless there is an emergent threat. In the USA the pax will get arrested and sent through the court system. If the USA police end up determined to press charges; the Captain, In-charge, and relevant flight attendant have to remain within the jurisdiction in order to provide police statements and what not. Therefore setting down in the USA would require the flight be cancelled, all pax provided hotels and meal vouchers, and new crew sent in to operate the flight. What does not happen in these situations is plane lands, pax gets taken into custody, plane is splashed with fuel pit stop style and takes off in less than 1 hour after diversion.

I actually have a little fun with the flight attendants when returning home to Canada. USA flight attendants are unaware of the Canadian attitude for unruly passengers, what constitutes and unruly situation, and consequences for overstepping their authority. The FAs are also not familiar with the requirement to stay in the foreign land to provide testimony to a judge, prosecutor, police, etc. In a few situations the flight attendant has flipped out over a small issue (headrest not full retracted, electronics not stored as fast as the FA would like, carryon not stowed immediately upon request, seat back not returned to upright position, etc.). After being issued a threat for noncompliance, it is fun to see the FA whither once they are informed of the consequences of following through on said threat.

Ah that makes sense.

Is this what your refering to as the consequence for the threat of noncompliance?

Originally Posted by Cage

The FAs are also not familiar with the requirement to stay in the foreign land to provide testimony to a judge, prosecutor, police, etc.

[tuffyy]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Probably because 2/3 of the people were destined to go there, I'm guessing. The 37 knots crosswind is almost too strong for a bare and dry runway, exceeds most company limits for a wet runway. It was raining heavily for most of the morning. Appears to be letting up now, except for the wind.

In other news, KLM showing B77W today on Flightaware but not sure it's accurate. I'm going onto the floor to check now.

Yep, it is PH-BVC today according to flightradar24 a 777-306.

KLM 77W taxiing in after landing on 35R. Would be nice if they made this a thing... 3x 77W for YYC today.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Is this what your refering to as the consequence for the threat of noncompliance?

Admittedly that section was difficult to write and more difficult to read.

Here s another attempt.

In the USA the FA can make any accusation they want, however in Canada they must have a bonafide reason for their accusation. The problem stems from the section of the aeronautics act that requires passengers to follow crew member instructions. In the USA this is interpreted much more broadly than in Canada, based on legal precedent.

For example the FA tells pax to shut down all electronics immediately. Pax starts the shut down process but not fast enough for the FA. FA threatens to have pax arrested for failure to follow crew member instructions. In the USA the FA is immune from having to justify their actions in the court of law. However in Canada, the pax can ask for judicial review of the FA actions. As soon as the FA actions become a matter/question of law, they must remain in the jurisdiction for an extended period of time.

It is detaining the FA that is consequence for making a false accusation. Additionally, it is the Captain that has final authority while inflight. So if the FA is detained, so is the Captain.

ETA: it is the uniqueness of local law is the reason for many catch and release scenarios played out in Gander NL. Plane diverts for unruly drunken pax, Passenger get ejected from the airplane. FA gets ejected as well because they over served said pax unless the pax was drinking from their own alcohol. USA based FAs usually miss the requirement that they follow NL Pro-serve guidelines in order for the drunken charge to stick.

[Bigtime]

Took a quick drive out to see the KL 77W, nice surprise and a bonus with the KLM Asia titles too.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Took a quick drive out to see the KL 77W, nice surprise and a bonus with the KLM Asia titles too.

Apparently, with the extra diversions today, the apron was a little but of a fuster cluck. ACA, in particular, was running out of parking spaces.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Apparently, with the extra diversions today, the apron was a little but of a fuster cluck. ACA, in particular, was running out of parking spaces.

Would have been interesting to take a look at the apron scene from the tower on the terminal building.