Calgary International Airport II

Originally Posted by Myke

Is the airport trying to facilitate the use of 'YYC' in the vernacular like LAX?

Not like LAX, which is generally used to refer to only the airport.

But if you go on Twitter it's Global, CTV, CBC, everybody using the code to literally replace the city name.

"This #yyc mother has questions about her child's school, more at 6"
"Snow falling west and southwest of #yeg, moving NE. Expect reduced visibility on areas HWYs."

That is not a usage of LAX.

The original usage of hashtags like that was to make the tweet easier to find for those with a #yyc search in their Twitter clients, so the tag would just be appended like

"This Calgary mother has questions about her child's school, more at 6 #yyc"

But increasingly, it has simply just replaced the city name as everybody knows what it means.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I hadn't noticed the lack of water fountains! Good observation! Are they expecting everyone to buy water in the concourse or acquire it onboard now? That is a big miss! Hope that will be fixed pronto!

Also noticed that there weren't any moving sidewalks. As mentioned above, there are some distances to cover and will be challenging for people with small children or people who just can't/don't want to walk that far.

The green chairs in the E concourse were my favorite! So comfy! But didn't see a charging station installed in those seats. The blue sofas though were hard as a rock! At least there are lots of choices of places to sit, however.

There are moving sidewalks in the new D terminal. My script for the trial was outbound to LHR and back which was though gate D76, and there is a moving sidewalk on the way from the gate to the customs hall.

Overall I was impressed, there are a few things they need to fix up and its still not a great environment to drag little kids along (only two tiny play areas in D, and one of which is sized for kids who are too tall to use it according to the rule sign).

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Myke

Is the airport trying to facilitate the use of 'YYC' in the vernacular like LAX?

Well if you're flying to Los Angeles, you may very well be flying to LAX, SNA, LGB, ONT, or BUR. So specifying "I'm flying to LAX" is somewhat meaningful.

If you're flying to Calgary, it's a safe assumption you're flying to YYC. Saying "I'm flying to YYC" just sounds slightly silly. More syllables than "Cal-gree" anyway

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Well if you're flying to Los Angeles, you may very well be flying to LAX, SNA, LGB, ONT, or BUR. So specifying "I'm flying to LAX" is somewhat meaningful.

If you're flying to Calgary, it's a safe assumption you're flying to YYC. Saying "I'm flying to YYC" just sounds slightly silly. More syllables than "Cal-gree" anyway

YEG is worse because people have started to pronounce it like a word. It's horriawful.

[Myke]

Originally Posted by Acey

Not like LAX, which is generally used to refer to only the airport.

But if you go on Twitter it's Global, CTV, CBC, everybody using the code to literally replace the city name.

"This #yyc mother has questions about her child's school, more at 6"
"Snow falling west and southwest of #yeg, moving NE. Expect reduced visibility on areas HWYs."

That is not a usage of LAX.

The original usage of hashtags like that was to make the tweet easier to find for those with a #yyc search in their Twitter clients, so the tag would just be appended like

"This Calgary mother has questions about her child's school, more at 6 #yyc"

But increasingly, it has simply just replaced the city name as everybody knows what it means.

Yes I know YYC is often used to describe Calgary as a whole. What was the goal in the name change? Is the airport trying to take back its name?

Originally Posted by Myke

Yes I know YYC is often used to describe Calgary as a whole. What was the goal in the name change? Is the airport trying to take back its name?

The airport is run by idiots and there is absolutely zero reason for this change.

But that's just my opinion.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by mersar

There are moving sidewalks in the new D terminal. My script for the trial was outbound to LHR and back which was though gate D76, and there is a moving sidewalk on the way from the gate to the customs hall.

Overall I was impressed, there are a few things they need to fix up and its still not a great environment to drag little kids along (only two tiny play areas in D, and one of which is sized for kids who are too tall to use it according to the rule sign).

I must have missed the moving sidewalks enroute to the customs hall from the E gates, but I was with two friends who also noted the same as I, so I hope I'm not just imagining it.

Were there water fountains in the D terminal?

[Frenzy]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I must have missed the moving sidewalks enroute to the customs hall from the E gates, but I was with two friends who also noted the same as I, so I hope I'm not just imagining it.

Were there water fountains in the D terminal?

As far as I remember, there weren't any water fountains in D (non that I can remember anyways) I checked out the bathrooms and was expecting to see some close by, but I guess not.

Unless you mean a water fountain display...which there weren't any either, except near gate D72/73? - there was a water/art feature with a animatronic owl/beaver where their heads would move (probably has security cameras in the eyes) hah

[hoboman27]

Originally Posted by Acey

The airport is run by idiots and there is absolutely zero reason for this change.

But that's just my opinion.

Please Acey tell us more! Please!

[Bigtime]

KLM has tweaked their planned summer '17 flights. Was originally going to be 1x 772 and 6x 789. Now revised to 3x 333 and 4x 789.

Looks like this will reduce the planned weekly seats by about 28.

Thoughts as to why the change?

[yyc_engineer]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

KLM has tweaked their planned summer '17 flights. Was originally going to be 1x 772 and 6x 789. Now revised to 3x 333 and 4x 789.

Weird that they would operate mixed equipment..aren't the 333's and 789's similar in their seat capacity? Seems confusing for the passengers, especially when they are marketing their 787 service to Calgary and then to have 3 of 7 weekly flights operated by a different aircraft with different level of service.

[Bigtime]

The 333 and 789 are very close in overall seats, 292 versus 294.

It was the originally planned 772 that would have brought more seats online, 316 in total in one of their versions (they show two but not sure what they planned to use). .

[mersar]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I must have missed the moving sidewalks enroute to the customs hall from the E gates, but I was with two friends who also noted the same as I, so I hope I'm not just imagining it.

Were there water fountains in the D terminal?

Nope, didn't notice any.

The moving sidewalks were fenced off and not operating in D but pretty obvious as you walked alongside it for 300+ feet. Maybe E just doesn't have them.

[yyc_engineer]

Originally Posted by mersar

Nope, didn't notice any.

The moving sidewalks were fenced off and not operating in D but pretty obvious as you walked alongside it for 300+ feet. Maybe E just doesn't have them.

There are moving sidewalks at the following locations:
- Down the ramp leading into in the Transborder (E) Pier
- Arrivals Sterile Corridor in (D)
- Arrivals Sterile Corridor in (E)

There are also provisions for a potential additional moving sidewalk approximately mid-way down the E pier, however that is not planned until the E-Hammerhead is constructed (my guess 2030+)

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

KLM has tweaked their planned summer '17 flights. Was originally going to be 1x 772 and 6x 789. Now revised to 3x 333 and 4x 789.

Looks like this will reduce the planned weekly seats by about 28.

Thoughts as to why the change?

They're also adding flights to Edmonton.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Acey

Even then I feel like JFK and LaGuardia are on a different level of public recognition than O'Hare and Dulles. Like if you took a random poll of 100 North Americans who have flown at least a couple times, and asked if they were able to identify what city JFK, LGA, Dulles, and O'Hare are in... would Dulles or O'Hare do better than like 2/10?

What city they are located in or what city they serve?

Originally Posted by lubicon

What city they are located in or what city they serve?

What city they serve. Dulles obviously is not in Washington, but O'Hare is within Chicago limits.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

KLM has tweaked their planned summer '17 flights. Was originally going to be 1x 772 and 6x 789. Now revised to 3x 333 and 4x 789.

Looks like this will reduce the planned weekly seats by about 28.

Thoughts as to why the change?

As I just posted over on the YEG forum, the KLM GDS schedule release was either botched (as in upload file was not completely loaded) or not ready for prime time (as in they loaded a schedule without completing all the checks). YEG has the most glaring problems (4 inbound flights but 6 outbound flights). YYC has equipment changes for no apparent reason.

If the YYC schedule change sticks around and becomes the permanent solution, then KLM network scheduling needs "a check up from the neck up" (old Tim Morgan saying around the big shots office at Westjet). The difference between the 333 and 789 at KLM is in premium cabin, the 789 is newer, better all round, and should command a $300 CAD premium. However the revenue premium is lost if only some flights/days on a route have the better product. This is why most airlines roll out their new products on a route by route basis. If the premium product is a winner, better airline marketing departments will highly market the roll out schedule.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by Cage

As I just posted over on the YEG forum, the KLM GDS schedule release was either botched (as in upload file was not completely loaded) or not ready for prime time (as in they loaded a schedule without completing all the checks). YEG has the most glaring problems (4 inbound flights but 6 outbound flights). YYC has equipment changes for no apparent reason.

If the YYC schedule change sticks around and becomes the permanent solution, then KLM network scheduling needs "a check up from the neck up" (old Tim Morgan saying around the big shots office at Westjet). The difference between the 333 and 789 at KLM is in premium cabin, the 789 is newer, better all round, and should command a $300 CAD premium. However the revenue premium is lost if only some flights/days on a route have the better product. This is why most airlines roll out their new products on a route by route basis. If the premium product is a winner, better airline marketing departments will highly market the roll out schedule.

This schedule is now loaded on KL website. Showing 4x789 and 3x333. Fascinating.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

This schedule is now loaded on KL website. Showing 4x789 and 3x333. Fascinating.

Perhaps it comes down to allocation of aircraft elsewhere and Calgary gets the aircraft that are left over after the other routes are allocated.