Calgary International Airport II

[Canadian74]

When does AC start installing Premium Y in the A333? Will YYC-LHR/FRA have Premium Y next summer?

[Rusty van Reddick]

I'm heading to Seattle over reading week in Feb and got a return ticket on Delta for $370. I used to fly Delta all the time when I lived in the southern US- many, many flights to visit my partner in Toronto through Atlanta- but it's been at least 15 years since the last time I flew them. So happy I don't have to fly Horizon with its bible passages and its incredibly rude service. Slew of options to Seattle now- I haven't been there since 2009 which was before the LRT to the airport was completed- feels like a city is suddenly very accessible to us. Wish I could say the same for Portland, which I prefer in every single respect.

Originally Posted by Canadian74

When does AC start installing Premium Y in the A333? Will YYC-LHR/FRA have Premium Y next summer?

Hasn't yet been announced, but that definitely wouldn't be done in time for all 8 to be retrofitted by S15.

[Canadian74]

Why would it take so long? They are leaving the J and Y seats the same iirc

Depends where they're doing it, and a seat reconfig is something you try to pair up with heavy maintenance, which AC gets done overseas. With only 8 frames it might be hard to get a free one for a retro during the busy summer sked. Making a somewhat educated guess on this, of course.

[Design-mind]

Just a question about the new runway. They built it extra long for the larger planes, but has an A380 ever landed in Calgary since the opening in June?

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

Just a question about the new runway. They built it extra long for the larger planes, but has an A380 ever landed in Calgary since the opening in June?

I don't think an A380 has ever been to YYC, but the old runway could handle an An-225 a few years ago so its not like there should be an issue there?

[Bigtime]

The new runway was not built for the large planes like the A380, that's just a ridiculous talking point the Airport Authority trumpets out to the media. As stated the previous longest runway, now 35L/17R handled the Antonov 225 just fine, and we could easily accommodate the A380 too. Just need to be cautious on some of the taxiways.

It was built longer due to our elevation above sea level, as a result of this on hot summer days aircraft performance suffers and although the elevation of the airport is 3557' above sea level and aircraft will perform as though the altitude is even higher (this is called Density Altitude). This means more runway is required for takeoff rolls, and on landing True Air Speeds are also higher, so longer landing rolls can be expected too.

So this pretty much means that the extra ~2000' of runway gives more flexibility in how much cargo/fuel the bigger aircraft can take off with, instead of possibly being limited by performance in those situations. For smaller airliners this also allows the option of de-rated takeoffs, in which the aircraft computer takes the conditions of the day, length of runway and calculates a reduced power engine setting for takeoff, thus saving fuel and reducing noise on departure.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

For smaller airliners this also allows the option of de-rated takeoffs, in which the aircraft computer takes the conditions of the day, length of runway and calculates a reduced power engine setting for takeoff, thus saving fuel and reducing noise on departure.

This... They all do Sunday drive-like departures. So much for high-intensity runway usage. Little wonder that departures could, once upon a time, depart between 2 arrivals that were barely 3 miles apart and now it takes the better part of 6. "Don't step on those brakes!" "Whoa, easy on the throttles, there, Jimbo!", etc. Bean counters win the day...

[Bigtime]

Damn bean counters, we yearn for the days of "Kick the tires and light the fires!".

Oh and of course the MAJOR reason for the new runway was so that we had parallels and guys like cyeg66 now have a much better time pushing tin around on their screens without worrying about all those active runways crossing one another.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

This... They all do Sunday drive-like departures. So much for high-intensity runway usage. Little wonder that departures could, once upon a time, depart between 2 arrivals that were barely 3 miles apart and now it takes the better part of 6. "Don't step on those brakes!" "Whoa, easy on the throttles, there, Jimbo!", etc. Bean counters win the day...

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Damn bean counters, we yearn for the days of "Kick the tires and light the fires!".

Oh and of course the MAJOR reason for the new runway was so that we had parallels and guys like cyeg66 now have a much better time pushing tin around on their screens without worrying about all those active runways crossing one another.

You mean pilots?

The joke with the maintenance engineers was always:

How was copper wire invented?

Two pilots fighting over a penny...

YEG is slightly better positioned geographically to get an A380 diversion because there's a larger percentage of flight time where YEG is the more suitable destination.

The way they flight plan due to wind, only westbound flights would be in vicinity of YEG or YYC and as they fly west, an A380 past 100° W longitude would likely want YEG (or YEG would be offered as it is closer) if not so deathly urgent that they needed Yellowknife. but once abeam Cranbrook give or take, I'm thinking they'd want YVR or SEA. Some 500+ miles of flying (depending on the routing and viability of Churchill, Manitoba) during which I would offer YEG, but only some 200 miles once they go by YEG for YYC to be ideal.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Acey

YEG is slightly better positioned geographically to get an A380 diversion because there's a larger percentage of flight time where YEG is the more suitable destination.

True. Edmonton has a higher chance of getting an unscheduled landing than Calgary, and while odds are low, Calgary has a higher chance of getting a scheduled landing than Edmonton.

[tuffyy]

And Cancun is more likely than both and we've only had a few scheduled charters by AF with the A380 up from the normal AF 77W.

Alberta simply is not A380 territory.

Big markets like LAX, JFK, SFO etc maybe but I don't think YYC or YEG are on the A380 hit list.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

This... They all do Sunday drive-like departures. So much for high-intensity runway usage. Little wonder that departures could, once upon a time, depart between 2 arrivals that were barely 3 miles apart and now it takes the better part of 6. "Don't step on those brakes!" "Whoa, easy on the throttles, there, Jimbo!", etc. Bean counters win the day...

Tell that to the folks at London Gatwick.... the majority of the the traffic there is A320/737 sized aircraft being operated by airlines who are infamous for their cost savings programs (EasyJet etc...) and yet somehow they manage to move aircraft through there at a rate that puts our ops here in Canada to shame. Not too sure what is holding us back in YYC but de-rated take-offs and idle reverse on landing can't be the only reason.

Tell the folks from Gatwick to come watch guys lolly gag off the high speeds on 35R at 15 knots after an autobrake 1 landing. The cost saving programs you allege obviously don't directly correlate with runway occupancy time.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by Acey

Tell the folks from Gatwick to come watch guys lolly gag off the high speeds on 35R at 15 knots after an autobrake 1 landing. The cost saving programs you allege obviously don't directly correlate with runway occupancy time.

You raise a good point and this comes down to airport design and how an airport can help make investments to aid with traffic flow. The main high speeds in Gatwick have exit speeds of 60kts. This is clearly noted on airport information charts. They also have longer run off areas to allow aircraft to decelerate prior to the main taxiway. In YYC, the high speeds along 35L are most definitely not designed for 60 kts exit speeds and have little room to decelerate prior to the inevitable "hold short taxiway C" instruction. 35R has high speeds/taxiways that are much better designed and allow for higher speed exits however unlike Gatwick, this info is not incorporated into any high intensity ops info published on charts.

Another big factor seems to be the shear volume of traffic out of YYC headed to the same destinations (oil patch) at the same time. My understanding is that this requires greater departure spacing to allow for en route spacing requirements and also contributes to slowing down high intensity ops in YYC.

[Bigtime]

Hmm, AC announces YYZ-DEL to start in November 2015. 3x weekly with the 789 and 1x weekly with the 788.

This is from a thread at a.net, any thoughts on how it this could affect YYC/YEG-India destined traffic?

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Hmm, AC announces YYZ-DEL to start in November 2015. 3x weekly with the 789 and 1x weekly with the 788.

This is from a thread at a.net, any thoughts on how it this could affect YYC/YEG-India destined traffic?

For India-bound travelers from YYC, would it be quicker to fly through a European airport or Toronto?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Riise

For India-bound travelers from YYC, would it be quicker to fly through a European airport or Toronto?

From my experience and others I know, the layovers in EU, particularly LHR, are horrendous. The direct flight from T.O. is wayyyy better, and you can work out great connections with all the options between here and T.O.

Additionally, the costs for an airplane to land/take-off at the major European hubs is massive.

I think the problem for Calgary travelers will be simply getting tickets. Those planes are going to be packed just from the Toronto crowd!