Calgary International Airport II

[Cage]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

A332Neo small enough then? Or I guess the possible Max 10X.

The correct variant is the 338neo, which has similar characteristics to the 332.

Very low airline take up ofthe 338 is a reason why It is a poor fit for WS. Some 338s go to Hawaiian but there will still only be under 20 aircraft produced. There is lots of speculation that Airbus will deliver 339s to Hawaiian and Transavia and not produce the 338.

This must seem like deja vu all over again as WS faced the same problem with E190 vs 736 decision. WS chose the 737-600 and got stuck with 13 aircraft they cannot unload.

The max7 purchase is another case where WS must acquire an aircraft larger than what their mission contemplates.

The max10 is likely the same problem as initial 739 prior to extended range. Wisdom has it that a 737 derivative will never match 757 performance.

On another forum there is speculation that AC might buy a small (10-20 aircraft) number of 321LR for rouge to do YYZ to Western Europe (British isles). They could also be used on Hawaii routes.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by wave46

Boeing is still producing 767s - albeit in freighter form. Not sure if they'd accept a passenger order though.

I'd imagine there are plenty of newer off-lease 767s around (not the 20 year old ones WS got the last time) so that they shouldn't have problems leasing something newer.

After figuring out their new 767 operations from a maintenance perspective, I don't know why they'd go through the headache of introducing a new aircraft type again.

They also could go for the A330-200/A330neo if they wanted a cheaper new option if it meant hurting their relationship with Boeing.

No more pax 767 from Boeing. The line is being kept open for potential large tanker order from the USAF.

Newer 763s are being retained by their owners or go for a big premium on the second hand market.

Fleet commonality is another problem for WS. While there maybe better 763s on the market, they will have different parts, engines, and door configurations than current models at WS. As an example, AC had 10 sub fleets for the 763 when there were 30 examples at mainline.

[hoboman27]

Cage you are on a roll today, give Bob Sartor or Gregg Sarestky a call and make one of them hire you. You probably have a better chance with the airport though.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Acey

Sure, but the fact remains that it has not been a fact of life to a big extent for WS at YYC. I simply stated a few of the variables that WS would have to account for with towing based on my observations of their ops at YEG. In the event that it came to a point where they had to start doing a lot of tows, they'd quickly realize some zip by and go smoothly, and others take forever waiting for other movements on the ramp, etc... and adjustments would be made accordingly.

A little Friday fun to the westjet folks.

[ElmerJrG]

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

I just saw a KLM Boeing 777 take off a few minutes ago. Is that one of the normal planes they fly to Calgary.? I thought the flu the dream liner and the A330

I believe KLM flies the 777 on Fridays for the winter schedule..

5X 789 - Mon,Wed,Thu,Sat,Sun
1X 772 - Fri

-E

[Bokimon]

Yeah Cage, next time there is a YYC board of directors opening, apply for a position! Or we'll nominate you if that's how it works. Unless you'd be in a conflict of interest with your current profession..

[casper]

Originally Posted by Cage

No more pax 767 from Boeing. The line is being kept open for potential large tanker order from the USAF.

Newer 763s are being retained by their owners or go for a big premium on the second hand market.

Fleet commonality is another problem for WS. While there maybe better 763s on the market, they will have different parts, engines, and door configurations than current models at WS. As an example, AC had 10 sub fleets for the 763 when there were 30 examples at mainline.

The c series is probably a good fit for westjet. Only problem is it is yet another aircraft type.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Cage

No more pax 767 from Boeing. The line is being kept open for potential large tanker order from the USAF.

Newer 763s are being retained by their owners or go for a big premium on the second hand market.

Fleet commonality is another problem for WS. While there maybe better 763s on the market, they will have different parts, engines, and door configurations than current models at WS. As an example, AC had 10 sub fleets for the 763 when there were 30 examples at mainline.

Is that still a potential large order? I thought the KC-46 was basically a done deal and that the KC-45 was dead.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by casper

The c series is probably a good fit for westjet. Only problem is it is yet another aircraft type.

Since Westjet still has the 737-600 and 737-700s to cover the 110-130 passenger North American market and the Q400 for the 78 passenger regional market, I'm not seeing the gap for the CSeries, especially since Boeing probably is offering generous incentives to keep Westjet as a customer for their MAX 7/8.

Edit: never mind, I looked at the capacity for the MAX 7 and noticed that it would be on the large side for a -600 replacement. So, I guess the CSeries might fit there. The question becomes whether it is more expensive to run two different narrowbody fleets or just cope with lower load factors on some routes for the 737.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by wave46

Since Westjet still has the 737-600 and 737-700s to cover the 110-130 passenger North American market and the Q400 for the 78 passenger regional market, I'm not seeing the gap for the CSeries, especially since Boeing probably is offering generous incentives to keep Westjet as a customer for their MAX 7/8.

Edit: never mind, I looked at the capacity for the MAX 7 and noticed that it would be on the large side for a -600 replacement. So, I guess the CSeries might fit there. The question becomes whether it is more expensive to run two different narrowbody fleets or just cope with lower load factors on some routes for the 737.

On several occasions WS has attempted to unload the 600s. There was even a rumour that WS coordinated a meeting with SAS (the only other airline with a decent number of 600s) to discuss offloading the airframe. Each airline thought they would be selling the airplanes to the other. Each airline did not want to be left with the oddball airframe.

In order for the max7 to be equivalent CASM to the CS300 and E190-E2, Boeing had to add 12 seats (2rows). This makes the max7 airframe very close to the max8. This poses a problem for WS, why have 25 max7 and 40 max8 when there is only a 14 seat capacity difference (two full rows plus the 800 does not lose 2 seats for exit row).

WS got good pricing in the max, but it's nothing to write home about. Certainly not to the extent that AC got through unloading 20 E190s at high market price (AC didn't have to take a large loss on disposition of the aircraft).

The biggest problem for WS and choosing the max7 over the CS300 is the lack of political goodwill. AC generated huge goodwill with both Quebec and Federal government by not only buying the CS300, but also signing up for the BBD total care maintenance package which will mean the aircraft are maintained in QC.

A lot of this is just bad luck for westjet rather than bad planning. WS signed on for a max7 that is equivalent to 700, only to find out later the airframe they ordered would not be produced. The conservatives are far more free market in air transport sector than the Liberals.

The solution for WS might be to take a bunch of the early build max8 order slots and convert them into 788 late builds before Boeing drops the smallest Dreamliner from active sales. WS current fleet of 737NG will do fine for the next 5-7 years.

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by casper

The c series is probably a good fit for westjet. Only problem is it is yet another aircraft type.

Westjet really put their cards on the table about a year ago when they slammed the C-Series, and gave all praise to the Boeing product. If the world stayed the same, I have no doubt that Westjet would remain a Boeing shop.

Trump is making things interesting with his talk of "border adjustment taxes" (read tariffs). If these were come to pass, and trigger a trade war, an easy countervailing tariff for Canada would be to put a import tax on Boeing products that compete with Bombardier. Suddenly Westjet would find the C-Series very compelling....

[casper]

Originally Posted by PPAR

Westjet really put their cards on the table about a year ago when they slammed the C-Series, and gave all praise to the Boeing product. If the world stayed the same, I have no doubt that Westjet would remain a Boeing shop.

Trump is making things interesting with his talk of "border adjustment taxes" (read tariffs). If these were come to pass, and trigger a trade war, an easy countervailing tariff for Canada would be to put a import tax on Boeing products that compete with Bombardier. Suddenly Westjet would find the C-Series very compelling....

Lots of politics behind all of this. The c series is probably a nicer fit for the traditional Canadian market serving regional centers like YXE and YWG.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Cage

On several occasions WS has attempted to unload the 600s. There was even a rumour that WS coordinated a meeting with SAS (the only other airline with a decent number of 600s) to discuss offloading the airframe. Each airline thought they would be selling the airplanes to the other. Each airline did not want to be left with the oddball airframe.

In order for the max7 to be equivalent CASM to the CS300 and E190-E2, Boeing had to add 12 seats (2rows). This makes the max7 airframe very close to the max8. This poses a problem for WS, why have 25 max7 and 40 max8 when there is only a 14 seat capacity difference (two full rows plus the 800 does not lose 2 seats for exit row).

WS got good pricing in the max, but it's nothing to write home about. Certainly not to the extent that AC got through unloading 20 E190s at high market price (AC didn't have to take a large loss on disposition of the aircraft).

The biggest problem for WS and choosing the max7 over the CS300 is the lack of political goodwill. AC generated huge goodwill with both Quebec and Federal government by not only buying the CS300, but also signing up for the BBD total care maintenance package which will mean the aircraft are maintained in QC.

A lot of this is just bad luck for westjet rather than bad planning. WS signed on for a max7 that is equivalent to 700, only to find out later the airframe they ordered would not be produced. The conservatives are far more free market in air transport sector than the Liberals.

Just quickly looking at the order sheet, I'm wondering if the MAX 7 will become the new -600, judging by the lack of orders for it. Or Boeing will just simply drop the model and convert orders to the MAX 8, due to low demand, like Airbus is doing with the A350-800 and (maybe) the A330-800neo.

As for the politics angle, Westjet has purchased a number of Q400s, ensuring some goodwill in the eyes of Ottawa. Sure, it's not the "save Bombardier's bacon" move of Air Canada with the CSeries, but I don't think it can be discounted. The overt politicking of the past for influence hopefully is a thing of yesteryear; not to say it will totally go away, but to bet on that sort of goodwill when the government may change in a few years seems silly.

Westjet really put their cards on the table about a year ago when they slammed the C-Series, and gave all praise to the Boeing product. If the world stayed the same, I have no doubt that Westjet would remain a Boeing shop.

Trump is making things interesting with his talk of "border adjustment taxes" (read tariffs). If these were come to pass, and trigger a trade war, an easy countervailing tariff for Canada would be to put a import tax on Boeing products that compete with Bombardier. Suddenly Westjet would find the C-Series very compelling....

As for a trade war between the US and Canada we'd come out the worse of it IMO; the CSeries (and Bombardier in general) is more reliant on good US demand than Boeing is hurt by decreased Canadian demand. That being said, I see it as unlikely as the incoming administration's focus seems to be against China/Mexico/low-wage jurisdictions that other first world countries.

[Cage]

One week with no posts on this forum.

Several checkin positions at the international terminal have recently changed into a more orderly manner.
- DL is now over on the E side across from UA.
- TS now shares space with KL.
- WG appears to have moved as well.
- Exception is HU, they are still in the E checkin area.

My guess is that the far east checkin desks are no longer the home of cats and dogs (charter airlines and other infrequent attendees). The cats & dogs mostly go out of D to international sun charter destinations. The exception is a 1x/month Sun Country to Laughlin NV.

This is an improvement over the day 1 checkin position configuration that co-mingled international and transborder airlines.

The only remaining challenge is lack of notification (a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 considering all that was required was tweet) that will bug frequent terminal users. I am assuming the change is so recent that the touch screen interactive displays have not been updated.

[Rollerstud98]

I guess it just balanced itself, HE WAS RIGHT!

[Tobuz]

Originally Posted by Cage

The only remaining challenge is lack of notification (a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 considering all that was required was tweet) that will bug frequent terminal users. I am assuming the change is so recent that the touch screen interactive displays have not been updated.

I'd say that the issue of the curbside airline signs still needs to be addressed, too! When I last flew out (Monday), they're still wrong.

Each of those 10-or-so signs along the full length of the terminal road is still flashing airline names/logos randomly ... with absolutely no correlation to where each airline actually has their check-in and bag drop located inside the building.

Whether you're a frequent flier unaware of changes, a tourist flying home and departing YYC for the first time, or a cab driver dropping someone off ... it's a cr@p shoot if you get dropped at the right spot along that long roadway!

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Tobuz

I'd say that the issue of the curbside airline signs still needs to be addressed, too! When I last flew out (Monday), they're still wrong.

Each of those 10-or-so signs along the full length of the terminal road is still flashing airline names/logos randomly ... with absolutely no correlation to where each airline actually has their check-in and bag drop located inside the building.

Whether you're a frequent flier unaware of changes, a tourist flying home and departing YYC for the first time, or a cab driver dropping someone off ... it's a cr@p shoot if you get dropped at the right spot along that long roadway!

Yesterday I thought about curbside signage. While I agree that curbside signage should be door specific, until such time as the checkin counters are solidified, then I think the current practice is acceptable.

There is also the terminal design facility failure for westjet. If the middle section of the international terminal curbside area was dedicated to WS, their pax have no door nearby. AC and BA is pretty much door 15 only, but WS is a combination of either door 15 or 16. The remainder of the airlines are a combination of doors 16 or 17. Consequently, out of the dozen or so airlines using the international terminal, only 2 airlines work for door specific curbside signage, and then only 1 airline (AC) has a long term hold the specific door.

The only thing for certain is that AC and WS are not moving checkin desks. But other airlines could be in constant flux, especially the charter and sun destination airlines (I like to call them cats and dogs).

[Tobuz]

But I'd expect that - given they're electronic signs - they should be easily changeable and customizable, no??

If positions change, those outdoor signs should easily adapt. I'd hope they even should be customizable depending on time of day, ie only display BA signs at curbside in an "x" hour window prior to departure ... and do the same for others with only 1x daily departures.

I've cringed every time I've been there, as the very first sign (just after the Marriott, nearest to the Tim Hortons) always flashes the United and Alaska logos. But they're a long, long way down the concourse!

Even with few entry doors to the ITB, I think the signs should correlate. Otherwise, why bother having signs at all? (If they're not going to help with wayfinding, just replace them with "International/USA - all airlines" so people aren't intentionally misdirected when they first arrive!)

[Bureaudog]

Realistically, the terminal doors do not align very well with the airline desks inside, so it's a crapshoot no matter what. Maybe they could have the AC signage closer to the AC desk and SE/J class area, and focus the E gate airline signage closer towards the two hanging signs at the East end, but it's not a huge hike if you get off at say the middle door and have to walk to either end..so maybe just have "Tim Hortons/Skyline Liquor and Lower Level Access" signage on the Western edge?

[Tobuz]

That'd be a start!

There certainly doesn't need to be an exact match of names-on-signs to exact locations inside the building. That ain't feasible, and would be overkill.

Just something as simple as putting the names of airlines in the first half of the terminal only on the first five outdoor signs ... then airlines in the second half of the terminal only on the last five outdoor signs.

First 5 signs as you drive up only show AC, BA, WS (and whoever else is there)
Second 5 signs only show KL, DL, AS, UA, AA, et al

Clearly represents what's inside the building. Cabs more likely to stop in the right general area. Tourists lugging skis not walking for two city blocks once they squint and see where United's check-in really is.

Imagine the clarity that would ensue for drivers and fliers!