Calgary International Airport II

[Cage]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

I don't particularly buy the "efficiency from only having seasoned passengers" argument I've heard either. Most security line-ups that I've been in have had the xray machine as the pure bottleneck. It can't move fast enough to serve the bags that people put in it, and nobody will spend money to have more machines with more staff. Unless CATSA+ is somehow different in this respect?

The heart of the trusted traveler program is that the pax agrees to operate under a zero tolerance regime. The trusted traveler is expected to know ALL the rules and cannot request lienency if caught on a minor violation. CBSA and USCBP abide by this process, however CATSA has yet to formalize this feature.

If CATSA were to implement this feature for the nexus lanes, X-ray screening would be faster because any violation would result in immediate confiscation. Forget your laptop in the carry on, go to the end of the regular line for rescreening. There is no screening officer at the divest station to ask a question or check your work for accuracy prior to screening by X-ray machine.

Third efficiency happens by way of pax self regulation. If you are in a precheck line in the USA, expect to get yelled at by other pax if you don't know the rules or impede the process flow.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Cage

Morning peak CATSA has personnel for 4 lines at the international terminal. From opening to about 6:15am the split is 3 lines @checkpoint E and 1 lane at D.

By 6:30 the checkpoint E connections Center opens to handle the early morning connections from YxE YQR, Red deer, etc, so one lane is taken from checkpoint E.

Also around 6:45 am checkpoint D might need an extra lane open, so staff are pulled from either E, E connections, or Non-passenger screening to staff the additional lane at D checkpoint.

Thursdays and Fridays are particularly dicey for CATSA, at 7:30 WS has their OGG departure from E and TS has their Mexico departure from D, both flights are widebody aircraft. One of the checkpoints gets a long line up and the screening officers get whiplash from being sent between the two checkpoints.

The reason why a dedicated nexus lane at E doesn't work, staff moving over to D will pull down checkpoint E to a single open lane on a moments notice.

The problem is that Aeroguard needs the following minimum staff complement:
- 3 lanes on checkpoint E,
- 2 lanes on checkpoint D,
- 1 lane on checkpoint E connections,
- 1 lane on checkpoint D connections,
- 1 lane on the nonpax screening checkpoint.
- 1 floater lane of staff to handle breaks and no shows.
However Aeroguard wants to staff the new terminal with equivalent staff complement from the old checkpoint B, which had a maximum of 7 lanes.

I have been avoiding US or International connections at YYC. When I lived in YXE, that was harder. Back then US connections were a real pain, especially to US. This has to be better, even with the problems. That said, why do they need a CASTA inspection from Domestic to International. I would have thought a single guard would be sufficient to check boarding passes. Do this mix international arriving passengers into that same mix?

Last couple of times I have done domestic to US connections at YVR. There is a single guard that checks boarding passes when going between the domestic and international concourse. At that point your mixed with international departing passengers. You then make your way through international departures to the connecting are to US departure. you clear US version of CASTA there. Given the way the doors are laid out, that is also where you mix with international arriving passengers heading to the US.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by casper

.....That said, why do they need a CATSA inspection from Domestic to International. I would have thought a single guard would be sufficient to check boarding passes. Do this mix international arriving passengers into that same mix?

The YYC process is similar to your description of YVR, however all the preboard security checkpoints happen in a much smaller space.

At YYC, the checkpoint E connections preboard security (PBS) occurs between the primary D and E PBS stations. pax using connections PBS station have arrived from either international an location (ITD) or domestic location. Checkpoint E connection ensures that all US bound pax have been through TSA style security.

Also at YYC there is a "hidden" checkpoint for D connections. Checkpoint D connections PBS station handles all international and transborder origin pax who are intelligible for One Stop Security (OSS) for their connection. These connection pax exit the CBSA hall with YYC destined pax, continue down the corridor behind the glass mountain artwork and to an escalator to D connections PBS. Once through PBS the pax exit at gate C70/71/72/73 holdroom and the YYC link terminus station. The pax either go left to their international flight or go right to their domestic flight.

OSS is ineligible for:
- all Asian origin pax (AC9 and HU pax cannot use OSS)
- pax requiring secondary inspection (bag searches, immigration, pax over their personal limits).
- pax with an incorrect match between original and destination airlines (eg. KL to WS connections are ineligible for OSS so all pax must go through the normal CBSA arrival process.

[yyc_engineer]

Looks like shit is getting real.. http://noairportselloff.ca/
I wonder if the Liberal Government will fight this battle, or just let it die on the hill?

Also, Hainan has obtained TWOV (Transit Without Visa) approval through the China Transit Program (CTP). Connections from China->YYC->USA do not need to "enter" Canada and can proceed directly to US CBP. Was this really an issue?.. I mean are there a lot of China->US pax transiting through Canada? I guess it help HU/WS partnership and opens up new flight options for PEK->YYC->PSP/PHX/Other small stations that don't have US->China service.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by yyc_engineer

Hainan has obtained TWOV (Transit Without Visa) approval through the China Transit Program (CTP). Connections from China->YYC->USA do not need to "enter" Canada and can proceed directly to US CBP. Was this really an issue?.. I mean are there a lot of China->US pax transiting through Canada? I guess it help HU/WS partnership and opens up new flight options for PEK->YYC->PSP/PHX/Other small stations that don't have US->China service.

I can't speak to your question about numbers that this could help, but it sounds like a very positive thing, that could help going forward, and in decisions about planes and frequency going forward.

On a related note, was hearing on CBC this morning that they expect 90,000 visitors from China to Alberta this year, and that tourism needs to adapt to the wants of younger Chinese - who maybe do not want just the standard bus tours that are often on the agenda.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by suburbia

On a related note, was hearing on CBC this morning that they expect 90,000 visitors from China to Alberta this year, and that tourism needs to adapt to the wants of younger Chinese - who maybe do not want just the standard bus tours that are often on the agenda.

More adventure tour type stuff? Norquay has that summer Via Ferrata climbing on the hill, maybe more things like that to appeal the younger set?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by yyc_engineer

Also, Hainan has obtained TWOV (Transit Without Visa) approval through the China Transit Program (CTP). Connections from China->YYC->USA do not need to "enter" Canada and can proceed directly to US CBP. Was this really an issue?.. I mean are there a lot of China->US pax transiting through Canada? I guess it help HU/WS partnership and opens up new flight options for PEK->YYC->PSP/PHX/Other small stations that don't have US->China service.

The CTP does not require that transit occur on the same airline, ticket, or PNR. Therefore HU connection traffic can also go onto AC group of airlines.

The other big help on the TWOV/CTP program, by summer 2017 schedule the China-US bilateral will be fully allocated for route rights. With Trumps views on immigration, international foreign travelers, and America First; there is no expectation the bilateral will be expanded anytime soon. UA and DL have stated they expect margins and yields to firm up on the TransPacific market because no more routes or flights are allowed.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

More adventure tour type stuff? Norquay has that summer Via Ferrata climbing on the hill, maybe more things like that to appeal the younger set?

That's my recollection of the conversation. Even something as simple as skiing is going to become bigger, building off of the China winter Olympics. Basically, the current offerings to Chinese are what they may have wanted a couple decades ago, but times have changed.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

More adventure tour type stuff? Norquay has that summer Via Ferrata climbing on the hill, maybe more things like that to appeal the younger set?

Way less shopping time would be one thing for sure.

[casper]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Way less shopping time would be one thing for sure.

That explains the desire to have a big duty free store on departure. Pickup last-minute items before heading home.

[Johnny Aussie]

NRT going to a 787-9 daily for 1 July - 30 Sept
FRA going to a 77L daily for 10 June - 29 Oct

[Johnny Aussie]

AC will replace the 3 x weekly rouge with a daily Jazz CRA to PHX.

This will rotate through with the daily YVR - PHX flight.

YYC-EWR upgauge to a 319
YYC-SEA down to one daily only DH4
YYC-LAX remains two daily but now 1 320 and 1 319 (previously both 320s)
YYC-SFO as previously mentioned goes to twice daily CRAs.

So a mixed bag of changes.

Edit: changes reflect comparison to summer 2016

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

NRT going to a 787-9 daily for 1 July - 30 Sept
FRA going to a 77L daily for 10 June - 29 Oct

Nice! Love seeing more 787-9's and of course the 777 is always welcome.

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

AC will replace the 3 x weekly rouge with a daily Jazz CRA to PHX.

This will rotate through with the daily YVR - PHX flight.

YYC-EWR upgauge to a 319
YYC-SEA down to one daily only DH4
YYC-LAX remains two daily but now 1 320 and 1 319 (previously both 320s)
YYC-SFO as previously mentioned goes to twice daily CRAs.

So a mixed bag of changes.

Not that bad, is AC feeling the battle in SEA?

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

AC will replace the 3 x weekly rouge with a daily Jazz CRA to PHX.

This will rotate through with the daily YVR - PHX flight.

YYC-EWR upgauge to a 319
YYC-SEA down to one daily only DH4
YYC-LAX remains two daily but now 1 320 and 1 319 (previously both 320s)
YYC-SFO as previously mentioned goes to twice daily CRAs.

So a mixed bag of changes.

EWR, with the exception of last summer, traditionally was a 319 in the summer, so just going back "to normal".
One daily SEA, going back "to normal" from the past few years (pre-'16).
LAX, from 2x daily 320's of years past, to 2x daily ROU319's, back to 2x daily AC320's, to AC320/319 combo. All that to say, my money's on 2x daily AC320's summer 2018.
SFO, 2x daily E90's to nothing back to 2x daily CRA's, so no change from last summer, IIRC.
Transatlantic, virtually no change.

Notable changes, PHX daily summer flights and NRT upgauge to 787-9 from -8. Overall, about a 0.0274% increase in seats. True story.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

EWR, with the exception of last summer, traditionally was a 319 in the summer, so just going back "to normal".
One daily SEA, going back "to normal" from the past few years (pre-'16).
LAX, from 2x daily 320's of years past, to 2x daily ROU319's, back to 2x daily AC320's, to AC320/319 combo. All that to say, my money's on 2x daily AC320's summer 2018.
SFO, 2x daily E90's to nothing back to 2x daily CRA's, so no change from last summer, IIRC.
Transatlantic, virtually no change.

Notable changes, PHX daily summer flights and NRT upgauge to 787-9 from -8. Overall, about a 0.0274% increase in seats. True story.

Don't you have some blips on a screen to keep separated?

I do like seeing NRT continue to grow, AC has stuck with the route from the start and even weathered the aftermath of the earthquake back in the initial year or two. To what can we credit the growth of the route? And does anyone see it going daily in the winter in the near future?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

AC will replace the 3 x weekly rouge with a daily Jazz CRA to PHX.

This will rotate through with the daily YVR - PHX flight.

YYC-EWR upgauge to a 319
YYC-SEA down to one daily only DH4
YYC-LAX remains two daily but now 1 320 and 1 319 (previously both 320s)
YYC-SFO as previously mentioned goes to twice daily CRAs.

So a mixed bag of changes.

Other than the reduction of 1flt on SEA, I don't see a major negative. The rest are all regular seasonal adjustments.

Good strengthening of the transborder departures out of YYC. The YYC-sfo late departure is a major request from the YYC tech sector. AC will sell lots of corporate flight passes on the new flight.

Originally Posted by Bigtime

(1) Nice! Love seeing more 787-9's and of course the (2) 777 is always welcome.

(3)Not that bad, is AC feeling the battle in SEA?

(1) the addition of the 789 is good sign that AC doesn't regard the seat difference between the 788 and 789 as an impediment to deploying the larger aircraft. This was a concern of mine when AC switched the aircraft order to the larger 789.

(2) the 77L is required on either FRA or LHR for the larger biz class cabin. Putting both departures on the 789 is too few premium cabin seats. Additionally, the optimal 77L rotation includes 1-2 aircraft on a TransAt rotation.

(3) for a YYC origin perspective, the desired rotation is YYC-SEa early morning departure, have meetings starting at 10 or 10:30.wrap up the biz event at 4:30pm, go to airport for late departure SEA-YVR-YYC.

The biz traveler can't do YYC-YVR-sEA morning departure as this routing wastes 1/2 day or requires an overnight stay the night before. The return favours yvr connection due flight frequency.

Looking at sfo destination for the YYC biz traveler, the late return flight is required due to the increased flight time between SFO-YVR makes using Yvr connection impossible, the traveler requires an overnight in either SFO or YVR.

From a YYC traveler perspective, transferring the evening flight from SEA to SFO is a positive.

From an SEA traveler perspective, I understand that many SEA based Corporations (Microsoft being the prime example) have switched their preferred vendor accounts from UA to DL.

[Johnny Aussie]

My AC transborder post...

Sorry I should have clarified these changes are compared to summer 2016 so not seasonal adjustments.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by Tobuz

They're moving seating into the D and E gate areas this afternoon!

YYC posted this...

Along with a video to prove it!

https://twitter.com/flyyyc/status/819686745704796161

Sorry to beat a dead horse but YYC did make a big deal about moving more seating into the International Terminal. After doing a flight out of there yesterday (the International departures side not the US departures side) I'm very curious as to where exactly this seating ended up?!? Definitely not anywhere close to the gates for international departures, I can tell you that. Still people sitting on the floor and still huge amounts of open space available by the gates for more seats that is instead sitting empty.

I would even go so far as to say that the designers of the terminal intended for there to be more seats in these areas because the floor underneath the limited seats that are there is a different colour than the rest of the flooring. Sure enough in the open areas where one would look and think 'why don't they put seats there?' the floor also changes colour in rectangle patterns that would perfectly fit several banks of seats... yet no seats. It's frustrating to see as our crews then have to deal with people who are already grumpy about their airport experience and it changes the dynamic of the passenger interactions.... and yes, I'm also still bitter about the lack of water fountains anywhere in the terminal.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Sorry to beat a dead horse but YYC did make a big deal about moving more seating into the International Terminal. After doing a flight out of there yesterday (the International departures side not the US departures side) I'm very curious as to where exactly this seating ended up?!? Definitely not anywhere close to the gates for international departures, I can tell you that. Still people sitting on the floor and still huge amounts of open space available by the gates for more seats that is instead sitting empty.

The new seats installed in early January in the E councourse between gates 90 and 96. There were no new seats in the D concourse.

The D concourse hammerhead area was designed to have lots of room for stanchions to create lines for boarding a large widebody aircraft. Early morning departures to sun destinations create a distortion of the area that could be set aside for seating.

For comparison, take a look at ord gates C16, 18, 27-31; these are UA's international widebody departure gates. A mid morning 739 departure to EWR from these gates makes it look like there is lots of empty space, but an evening 744/772 departure to FRA fills up the lines.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Acey

Cage I forget if you addressed this, but why isn't AC using the second bridge for the 1L door on gate 76 for the 789 to FRA? Seems like they'd get some utility out of it but it's likely then that they won't use it on the 77L either. The terminal is universally hated by AC crews (and everybody's crews) so I'm wondering if it's just because it requires a second agent to bridge and they don't want to bother, or if YYC isn't actually set up to do it yet or doesn't intend for it to be used for regular ops.

Using both L1 and L2 doors has limited functionality, especially in the Canadian setting. In Canada it is not best practice to have both bridges operating simultaneously. If you bridge L1 first, the biz cabin and the first few rows of the (premium) economy section is offloaded by the time the L2 is door is opened, causing a lot of confusion.

Using both L1 and L2 doors for boarding does not work for the AC boarding process. L1 door corresponds with biz class cabin, however biz class can board at their leisure. Zones 2-5 should use L2, but many pax go through L1 just to get a look at the biz cabin. I have done aproximately 6 flights in international biz class where door L1 was used for boarding. Each time has been a memorable negative experience.
- Most memorable was the economy class pax who was in my seat and wouldn't move because he claimed to not speak English.
- Then there was the economy class pax who put their carry on in the biz class cabin, he became quite irate when I suggested the bag would be gate checked all the way to DEL.
- Each biz seat gets a full size pillow and duvet at each seat only to be taken by economy class pax if I board after zone 3.
- passive aggressive comments from economy class pax about my elitist 1% status, or about my weight requiring an extra large seat, or other derogatory comments.

For the reasons mentioned above, I have advocated to AC executives that brand standard should be to board widebody aircraft from L2 door and have the FA direct biz cabin pax to the left and economy cabin pax to the right. For AC, the 333,77L, and 789 board from L2. 77HD and sometimes the 77W board from doors L1 and L2 at stations where it is possible to segregate pax at the gate agent desk. I also know that HKG boards from both L1 and L2 because the use of both gates is standard ops procedure for the contractor.