Calgary International Airport II

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Flights already loaded for next summer. Same days Thursdays and Sundays.

Flights will be operated by ex-Swiss A340-300s.

Aww yeah! The 5 APU aircraft coming back to YYC!

Chewing up all of the runway on a hot and high day. Can't wait.

Q: How does an A343 get airborne?

A: The Earth curves away from it.

[yyc_engineer]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Flights already loaded for next summer. Same days Thursdays and Sundays.

Flights will be operated by ex-Swiss A340-300s.

And I thought I'd never get to see an A340 parked at the IFP!!

[Johnny Aussie]

The A340 is going the way of the dodo.... so enjoy the rare birds!

I was just looking at the list of current A340-300 operators and there are still a few out there.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Chewing up all of the runway on a hot and high day. Can't wait.

In terms of distance between point of brake release and point at which you are airborne, vs say the A333, then yes. Because the thrust/weight ratio of the A333 is more than that of the A343. At MTOW, the A343 weighs 35-40t more than the A333, depending on the variant.

But in terms of runway length requirement for departure, the A343 needs less runway than an A333, even at MTOW.

It's all about the extra thrust that the A343 has over the A333 after an engine failure at V1. If an A333 loses an engine after V1, it needs to get airborne and clear all the obstacles after the runway. That's tougher to do on 1 engine vs 3 engines. This is why the A333 needs a longer runway; for when things start to go wrong after V1.

Once both are airborne (with all their engines running), here I agree, the A343 is a pig. But it's not the quads that need a 14,000 ft runway on a hot day ! It's the twins.

This is exactly why you see BA, LH , KL , IB and AF operate quads into MEX. They perform very well at hot and high airports. And it's probably also why Edelweiss decided to bring the quad into YYC.

When was the last time a 330 of any variant had anything resembling a serious issue at YYC with weight, even before the parallel? Nowhere near frequent enough (if ever) for that to be a primary reason for them to bring a 343 to an airport not even that hot nor high for a sector not even that long, i.e. 600+ miles less than MEX-Europe.

Hell, KL would probably still go off 29 if they could.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Just thinking about A340s for a second: has anyone heard of companies re-engine-ing A340s as A330s. They have the same wings and fuselages. Just seems a shame to phase out those frames earlier than needed if something could be done.

How could they have the same wings? The A340 has 4 engines, while the A330 only has two. I'd imagine the engineering changes required for such a change would be cost prohibitive given that it'd have to get new certification from the relevant authorities.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

In terms of distance between point of brake release and point at which you are airborne, vs say the A333, then yes. Because the thrust/weight ratio of the A333 is more than that of the A343. At MTOW, the A343 weighs 35-40t more than the A333, depending on the variant.

But in terms of runway length requirement for departure, the A343 needs less runway than an A333, even at MTOW.

It's all about the extra thrust that the A343 has over the A333 after an engine failure at V1. If an A333 loses an engine after V1, it needs to get airborne and clear all the obstacles after the runway. That's tougher to do on 1 engine vs 3 engines. This is why the A333 needs a longer runway; for when things start to go wrong after V1.

Once both are airborne (with all their engines running), here I agree, the A343 is a pig. But it's not the quads that need a 14,000 ft runway on a hot day ! It's the twins.

This is exactly why you see BA, LH , KL , IB and AF operate quads into MEX. They perform very well at hot and high airports. And it's probably also why Edelweiss decided to bring the quad into YYC.

Why you gotta bring facts and figures into what was clearly a fun post?

All I care about is that they chew up runway in the summer here. I have fond memories of golfing McCall lake course at the end of what was then 16 and having the Air Canada flights to LHR and FRA come ripping over the course at a couple of hundred feet.

Good times.

[yyc_engineer]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I have fond memories of golfing McCall lake course at the end of what was then 16 and having the Air Canada flights to LHR and FRA come ripping over the course at a couple of hundred feet.

Hopefully we get some crosswinds next summer, if I can't have my LH 343's I will gladly take a WK bird performing one of these!

[Habanero]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

Not by much, and if the current trend continues, YUL should overtake YYC next year in the cargo department as well. Which is all the more impressive, as YUL has next to no dedicated freighter flights (all handled at YMX.)

Actually not that impressive considering YUL has three times the population of YYC, but both YUL and YMX combined aren't even double YYC's numbers.

[Bigtime]

No no no no, please don't start this debate again on this page.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

How could they have the same wings? The A340 has 4 engines, while the A330 only has two. I'd imagine the engineering changes required for such a change would be cost prohibitive given that it'd have to get new certification from the relevant authorities.

The A330-200 wing shares the same design structure, including the strengthened mounting points, as that of the four-engine A340 aircraft. The wing positions for mounting the air-to-air refuelling pods therefore require minimal modification.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a330_200/

[Habanero]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

No no no no, please don't start this debate again on this page.

Fair enough. Sounds like this has come up before lol.

[ST1]

Originally Posted by Habanero

Fair enough. Sounds like this has come up before lol.

My apologies for dragging this out more, and probably causing a flare up but, I'm going to say it anyway. Most of us don't respond to posts from NoFlyzone because he's a douchebag YYC hater. O/O

[Bigtime]

That's not it. There is a very strong case to be made that YUL has very convenient road/rail access to major parts the USA and Canada. Thus their transborder and domestic numbers don't pack as much punch as a relatively isolated place like YYC.

I think that is a fair point to consider in the pax numbers between the two of us.

[hoboman27]

Originally Posted by ST1

My apologies for dragging this out more, and probably causing a flare up but, I'm going to say it anyway. Most of us don't respond to posts from NoFlyzone because he's a douchebag YYC hater. O/O

nah he's got some biases sure, but nothing that doesn't have some sort of logic/numbers to back them up. You may disagree with him and his reasoning, but nothing suggest that he's a YYC hater (or dbag hah). Hey he even defended Tuffy on the Airliners.net forum when rumors were running wild a year ago.

If you really want to talk about haters, go to the YEG forum, AC gets trashed all. the. time.

[LO 044]

Originally Posted by hoboman27

If you really want to talk about haters, go to the YEG forum, AC gets trashed all. the. time.

Yes and for all the wrong reasons.

[GTING]

I just wanted to comment that ever since the airport got rid of the 30 minute free parking, the loading area has gotten insane. I was doing a pickup around 11pm and it took me about 15 minutes to make it meeting place C. There are far too many spaces reserved for limos and cabs, it leaves only about 4 legitimate spots for pick ups in each zone. Compound that with the fact that there are people loading up passengers with multiple large suitcases and 4 or more people... I guess I am going to have to invest in my own jet or airport or both

By the looks of it, the new international terminal should have great pickup and drop-off access with through lanes on the left side.

P.S. I am aware that I could spend the money to use the short term lot but it's the principle

[CalgaryCheese]

Originally Posted by GTING

I just wanted to comment that ever since the airport got rid of the 30 minute free parking, the loading area has gotten insane. I was doing a pickup around 11pm and it took me about 15 minutes to make it meeting place C. There are far too many spaces reserved for limos and cabs, it leaves only about 4 legitimate spots for pick ups in each zone. Compound that with the fact that there are people loading up passengers with multiple large suitcases and 4 or more people... I guess I am going to have to invest in my own jet or airport or both

By the looks of it, the new international terminal should have great pickup and drop-off access with through lanes on the left side.

P.S. I am aware that I could spend the money to use the short term lot but it's the principle

We used to use the 30 minute free parking all the time when picking people up! I'd park, go in and greet them as they come out into the arrivals hall, and then walk with them back to the car for free. I wish they still had it

[hoboman27]

Originally Posted by CalgaryCheese

We used to use the 30 minute free parking all the time when picking people up! I'd park, go in and greet them as they come out into the arrivals hall, and then walk with them back to the car for free. I wish they still had it

The thing is none of the other major Canadian Airport had it as generous, for that many years. Someone at the YYC probably figured that "hey we are giving money away here!". Though with the new terminal opening, that's probably induced some penny pinching attitudes as well.

[MalcolmTucker]

Know the solution? Eat the $3 and marvel at how convenient it still is.