Calgary International Airport II

[Bokimon]

The 737max ranges out of YYC do look promising, in the past YYC-Scotland was a popular route, perhaps the market still exists and having the Max be used on a thinner transatlantic route could be successful provided the service perks are upgraded to suit. Same with Northern Ireland.

Besides the Caribbean Bigtime mentioned, another market that caught my attention was Ecuador. Sure it is a definite long shot but wouldn't that be something. The possibility of being able to fly straight down to the equator for a nice vacation in the Galapagos is definitely tempting if some sort of a seasonal service or charters were launched. Aeromexico had a massive sale last week where places like Quito and Lima were as low as $415 round trip! I tried to book it but the dates were quickly gobbled right up, book first ask questions later. It was a huge hit so the demand is there for many of us local jetsetters looking for an adventure beyond the typical resorts and S.America fits that bill just right. (Well if the price is right that is)

Or take a chance and hit up Sakhalin Island in the far east side of Russia for a nice soviet-esque vacay!

[Cage]

Originally Posted by LO 044

With everyone talking about the 321LR and the 739Max and all the possibilities of overseas flights, are these aircraft automatically ETOPS certified? Is it the aircraft that's certified or the route in conjunction with the aircraft that's certified? For some reason i thought AC had only two of their 319's ETOPS certified and i was curious how the whole system works and what it costs to have an aircraft ETOPS certified.

There is ETOPS certification for the aircraft and engine combination. So a 763 with GE engines plus a 763 with Pratt & Whitney engines will have different ETOPS Certification at the airline. Additionally, the Airline is ETOPS certified and the pilots as well.

In the AC instance. only 2 319s were certified ETOPS due to the extra requirements for life rafts and other specialized equipment. Additionally AC crewed the ETOPS 319s from the Winnipeg base because they only needed a small subset of their Airbue pilots to be ETOPS certified.

As far as new aircraft, the 321LR and max9 will be ETOPS certified from day 1. So its up to each airline to get corresponding ETOPS certification from their national regulator. This process takes between 30 and 180 days per airframe & engine combination.

[lubicon]

Besides south and east, WS could look west with the Max9 and do Hawaii from the prairies.(ETOPS permitting) based on that diagram. That opens up options for them here as well if they chose. Increased frequencies from YYC and YEG for example.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Besides south and east, WS could look west with the Max9 and do Hawaii from the prairies.(ETOPS permitting) based on that diagram. That opens up options for them here as well if they chose. Increased frequencies from YYC and YEG for example.

This was pointed out by a WS pilot on a facebook group, the ranges of all the MAX versions can easily accommodate YYC-Hawaii without any payload penalties. I'd like to see YYC-OGG go year round.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Cage

There is ETOPS certification for the aircraft and engine combination. So a 763 with GE engines plus a 763 with Pratt & Whitney engines will have different ETOPS Certification at the airline. Additionally, the Airline is ETOPS certified and the pilots as well.

In the AC instance. only 2 319s were certified ETOPS due to the extra requirements for life rafts and other specialized equipment. Additionally AC crewed the ETOPS 319s from the Winnipeg base because they only needed a small subset of their Airbue pilots to be ETOPS certified.

As far as new aircraft, the 321LR and max9 will be ETOPS certified from day 1. So its up to each airline to get corresponding ETOPS certification from their national regulator. This process takes between 30 and 180 days per airframe & engine combination.

Someone once told me that those two A319 aircraft also require special radios and communication equipment need for European airspace. The rest of the birds in the fleet are just equipment for North American operation.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by casper

Someone once told me that those two A319 aircraft also require special radios and communication equipment need for European airspace. The rest of the birds in the fleet are just equipment for North American operation.

Not sure about the Europe airspace part, but perhaps they needed to put in HF radios for the transatlantic portion? Anyone know if HF is still required to be on board for crossings?

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

-Love all the food options, really great for the kids
-Kids loved the big play area in the central hall

Finally, somebody has focused on, "Where will the children play?"

Can't wait to go through it with my two little ones in a couple of months!

[Nick]

I haven't seen anyone mention the sculptures that are near gate 70-73 on the international level. When we did the tour pre-opening they were talking about the sculptures. There are many surprises there, but if someone goes in have a look at the owl, it was pretty neat.

[YYCMatt]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Not sure about the Europe airspace part, but perhaps they needed to put in HF radios for the transatlantic portion? Anyone know if HF is still required to be on board for crossings?

Yes. HF is still a requirement....but.....

It's most likely the 8.33 khz radios that are not normally installed on North America domestic narrowbodies but is a requirement in alot of Europe.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Not sure about the Europe airspace part, but perhaps they needed to put in HF radios for the transatlantic portion? Anyone know if HF is still required to be on board for crossings?

Yes. Plus 8.33 kHz radio freq spacing, as was said above, and also CPDLC. The most important of all is probably the fire suppression system in the cargo hold, that need to windstand 2 hours from an alternate (as ACs 319s are 120 min ETOPS). All of these additional equipments cost money, and are not needed on domestic runs here in NA.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by Cage

In the AC instance. only 2 319s were certified ETOPS due to the extra requirements for life rafts and other specialized equipment. Additionally AC crewed the ETOPS 319s from the Winnipeg base because they only needed a small subset of their Airbue pilots to be ETOPS certified.

Initially it was YUL crews, but now it's crewed by YWG, as you say.

I spoke about this with more detail on the YEG page 2 years ago.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by YYCMatt

Yes. HF is still a requirement....but.....

It's most likely the 8.33 khz radios that are not normally installed on North America domestic narrowbodies but is a requirement in alot of Europe.

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

Yes. Plus 8.33 kHz radio freq spacing, as was said above, and also CPDLC. The most important of all is probably the fire suppression system in the cargo hold, that need to windstand 2 hours from an alternate (as ACs 319s are 120 min ETOPS). All of these additional equipments cost money, and are not needed on domestic runs here in NA.

Appreciate the answers from you both, love the detailed knowledge we have access to on here.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Cage

Adjusting Malcolm Tucker's gcmap for conservative route development and you can start to see where WS might put the max9. For clarity I reduced the nm's to 3500 and shifted the market to YYZ. From the map there are lots of opportunities for UK, Netherlands, and Northern France from YYZ or YUL. Overnight WS could add GLA, EDI, DUB, LGW from YYZ using the new max9. Additionally, Znotins wont have to staff a standby recovery crew and fueller services at Gander.

So, you're imagining a service similar to what American, Delta and United do from the east coast of the US to smaller European cities on their 757s?

I don't think Westjet would go that way - Boeing lists the max range of the 737 MAX 8/9 as 3500nm and the MAX 7 as 3800nm. Considering that the 757-200s the US airlines use has a max range of ~3900nm and still has to operate in load restricted fashion (with occasional westbound fuel stops in Newfoundland or Maine), I'm not sure the 737 MAX could do it reliably, especially with a headwind on the westbound leg. It might be doable with a A321neoLR, but Westjet isn't going that way.

As much as the transatlantic narrowbody market would be a boon for thinner Canada-Europe pairings, there just isn't an aircraft that will deliver the range needed.

Edit: looking at it again, I could see GLA, EDI and DUB working. London and Northern France would be too far though.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by wave46

So, you're imagining a service similar to what American, Delta and United do from the east coast of the US to smaller European cities on their 757s?

I don't think Westjet would go that way - Boeing lists the max range of the 737 MAX 8/9 as 3500nm and the MAX 7 as 3800nm. Considering that the 757-200s the US airlines use has a max range of ~3900nm and still has to operate in load restricted fashion (with occasional westbound fuel stops in Newfoundland or Maine), I'm not sure the 737 MAX could do it reliably, especially with a headwind on the westbound leg. It might be doable with a A321neoLR, but Westjet isn't going that way.

As much as the transatlantic narrowbody market would be a boon for thinner Canada-Europe pairings, there just isn't an aircraft that will deliver the range needed.

Edit: looking at it again, I could see GLA, EDI and DUB working. London and Northern France would be too far though.

The westbound issues the B752 has are only in winter, as the headwinds are strongest in winter. WS will more than likely operate summer seasonal flights to the destinations you mention, thus eliminating that problem.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by Cage

I'm not shocked that WS ordered the max9. However I am shocked they ordered the max9 for 2018 delivery. It is all ready known that Boeing is doing incremental performance improvements to the max9 program, so the longer airlines wait for the max9 the better performance will be achieved. This is particularly why AC max9 will be among the last to be delivered.

I think the initial frames will be able to get retrofitted with performance packages (PIP) in order to match the performance of the newer frames. Boeing has a history of doing that, If the performance gained is worth it.

However I don't think the difference will be that much between early and later frames.

Frames delivered after 2021 will have a 100nm boost in Range. That's negligeable.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl...ance-upgrade-for-737-max-after-2-430944/

It might be more important for WS to get the frames in 2018 rather than 2021. They won't be pushing the Max 9 to its max range anyways.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by wave46

So, you're imagining a service similar to what American, Delta and United do from the east coast of the US to smaller European cities on their 757s?

I don't think Westjet would go that way - Boeing lists the max range of the 737 MAX 8/9 as 3500nm and the MAX 7 as 3800nm. Considering that the 757-200s the US airlines use has a max range of ~3900nm and still has to operate in load restricted fashion (with occasional westbound fuel stops in Newfoundland or Maine), I'm not sure the 737 MAX could do it reliably, especially with a headwind on the westbound leg. It might be doable with a A321neoLR, but Westjet isn't going that way.

As much as the transatlantic narrowbody market would be a boon for thinner Canada-Europe pairings, there just isn't an aircraft that will deliver the range needed.

Edit: looking at it again, I could see GLA, EDI and DUB working. London and Northern France would be too far though.

From a YYZ centric perspective, I could see WS doing the following:
- EDI
- DUB
- GLA
- MAN
- BHX
- KEF
- LGW (low season)
- STN/LTN (High Season)
- ORK
- SNN
- BFS

WS would do the above routes to pre-empt Norwegian from starting up 7m8/7m9 services. Norwegian is all ready doing small Euro airports to small USA airports.

I'm also starting to think the WS is the long tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs. They are super vigilant about any incursions into their LCC turf.

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

The westbound issues the B752 has are only in winter, as the headwinds are strongest in winter. WS will more than likely operate summer seasonal flights to the destinations you mention, thus eliminating that problem.

Summer time there are problems for B752 when the US eastern seabord gets thunderstorms and other long hold situations. UA doing business as CO will set down in Gander to avoid the thunderstorm mess.

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

I think the initial frames will be able to get retrofitted with performance packages (PIP) in order to match the performance of the newer frames. Boeing has a history of doing that, If the performance gained is worth it.

However I don't think the difference will be that much between early and later frames.

Frames delivered after 2021 will have a 100nm boost in Range. That's negligeable.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl...ance-upgrade-for-737-max-after-2-430944/

It might be more important for WS to get the frames in 2018 rather than 2021. They won't be pushing the Max 9 to its max range anyways.

While I am seeing the same information as Thenoflyzone, I think Boeing is trying to accomplish the following:
(1) Under promise and over deliver. Boeing did the opposite for the Dreamliner and paid the price in performance compensation paid to customers
(2) With a signficant difference between the max9 and A321LR; Boeing will be incentivized to pushing out PIPs sooner than planned.
(3) They are waiting to see if the 321LR lives up to performance targets.

[Tobuz]

From today's Calgary Herald:

New CEO determined to fix international terminal troubles at YYC

http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-...x-international-terminal-troubles-at-yyc

[hoboman27]

Originally Posted by Tobuz

From today's Calgary Herald:




http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-...x-international-terminal-troubles-at-yyc

if only he reads this forum eh?

[Tobuz]

Originally Posted by hoboman27

if only he reads this forum eh?

I've often wondered. I'd assume that many from CAA would regularly lurk here (and on other sites, like FlyerTalk). It's a great way to get pure, unfiltered customer feedback.

But the cynical side of me thinks that - given the constant "everything is awesome, no problems here" messaging out of CAA's communications team - maybe they believe their own message and don't actually realize the breadth and scale of the issues with the ITB. (As an aside, it's an interesting communications strategy when both social media and traditional media are saying there you have problems from pretty much Oct 31 onwards, and yet the whole organization stays silent and seemingly remains deaf to the feedback -- until this Sartor article.)

Mr. Sartor: If you're here, welcome! (We'd love it if you'd change from 'lurker' to participant!)

[Bokimon]

I too value the incredible quality of knowledge and material a few key members here bring to the boards. Infact this forum thread is better than the Calgary Construction Thread over there. I have been spending more time reading all the great stuff with big interest everytime an airline news is made regarding new routes or modified existing routes and of course newspaper articles like the one out today.

Cage: Waiting for your comments on this, though I feel that what you are going to say has likely already been said a few times over by now on this board. If only the mainsteam media or the yycaa can acknowledge the existence of this website like a few developers and architectural firms already do as they certainly do lurk in the construction thread..