Calgary International Airport II

[yyc_engineer]

Originally Posted by Acey

I agree that movement has failed, though it's not even close to being the weakest link in a trip from the airport to downtown. When they start dumping money into Airport Trail, the W-S flyover should be the first thing to be constructed.

THIS. This movement is in dire need of an immediate fix (more so than both the Barlow and 19th Street Interchanges IMO) for the following two reasons:

- The traffic light to make the left turn to get onto Deerfoot South is atrocious. Why this is not on a loop ramp with a right hand lane exit is beyond me. (yes, I know the grades are steep but there is more than enough space to put one in)

- The Merge (it might as well be a Yield) onto Deerfoot is extremely unsafe. Line of sight is terrible over your left shoulder, the merge lane is WAAAAYY too short and traffic speeds and volumes on mainline are not conducive to a safe freeway entrance. Add to this the fact that for some people this is their first time driving in Calgary (rental cars for tourists or business travelers) and you have what is a very potentially deadly mix. Frankly I am amazed no one has died at this spot yet.

PLEASE, PLEASE would somebody think of the children and fix Calgary's roads! We don't need any more blue rings!

[holhm22]

Originally Posted by Acey

What's frustrating is that the province knows damn well what a proper merge distance should be for a 110 zone. When they redid the Highway 11A and QE2 interchange from a clover to a diamond in 2012, the ramps were extended to ~1,070 metres, and even Alberta's worst drivers can get up to speed and it works pretty well. The Airport Trail onramps are woeful; southbound is about 590 metres and northbound at ~670. The interchange isn't even old, 2000 ish... so I'm not sure why it's such shit cause that should have been after the Highway Design Guide of 1995.

I suspect a recommendation from the 2018 Deerfoot Study will be for a reduction in the speed limit from 110 to 100 from Beddington to north of CHB cause I doubt they do anything in the interim to fix the ramp until the flyover is built.

Just looked at both of the ramps on Google maps.... wow. Airport Trail's ramps are indeed a complete joke compared to 11A.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by yyc_engineer

- The Merge (it might as well be a Yield) onto Deerfoot is extremely unsafe. Line of sight is terrible over your left shoulder, the merge lane is WAAAAYY too short and traffic speeds and volumes on mainline are not conducive to a safe freeway entrance.

I've never had any issue.

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by Acey

I'm not doubting that 100,000 will eventually need to be serviced by interchanges east of the airport.

I would guess that when Airport Trail connects through to Stoney Trail, Westbound Airport Trail from the ring road will become the preferred access route to the airport for everyone in the Southeast. In some ways that may act to decrease congestion from Deerfoot to the terminal.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by PPAR

I would guess that when Airport Trail connects through to Stoney Trail, Westbound Airport Trail from the ring road will become the preferred access route to the airport for everyone in the Southeast. In some ways that may act to decrease congestion from Deerfoot to the terminal.

That's absolutely correct. I think the airport folks are being overly sticky on this one. They need to toss over a pinch of goodwill.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by yyc_engineer

- The Merge (it might as well be a Yield) onto Deerfoot is extremely unsafe. Line of sight is terrible over your left shoulder, the merge lane is WAAAAYY too short and traffic speeds and volumes on mainline are not conducive to a safe freeway entrance. Add to this the fact that for some people this is their first time driving in Calgary (rental cars for tourists or business travelers) and you have what is a very potentially deadly mix. Frankly I am amazed no one has died at this spot yet.

Honestly the merge isn't that bad. It's the part where it's the only interchange on Deerfoot in Calgary that you go under the freeway, so you don't get your usual "birds-eye" view of traffic as you get ready to merge. That causes more grief for less confident drivers than the merge length.

[Cage]

Lots of great discussion regarding Airport Trail and Deerfoot. Couple of points:

(1) This interchange redesign gets caught up in the redesign of Beddington/64th and deerfoot interchange. With three interchanges in such a short space, there are plans that would put local traffic onto a side road with through traffic on a separate road for southbound traffic.
(2) The city and province are in a fighting match over Deerfoot. City wants Deerfoot improved for free while province wants Deerfoot handed back to the city. I think this is the reason why there is no discussion regarding Airport Trail and Deerfoot when looking at Airport Trail expansion east of 36th Ave.

Regarding the use of Stoney Tr instead of Deerfoot for SE Calgary residents; there are a lot fewer communities that would have preferential use of Stoney over Deerfoot.
- Auburn Bay, Mahogany, Seton, Inverness, Copperfield, MacKenzie Town, New Brighton are all clear favourites to Stoney.
-Cranston appears to be very difficult to use with Stoney, although Deerfoot is not much better.
- Foothills industrial areas would appear to favour South Barlow Trail to Deerfoot for all times except the afternoon rush.

[Cage]

Watch this space for the day Norwegian comes to Canada or YYC.

Norwegian just announced LGW-DEN 2x/week and LGW-SEA 4x/week. Equipment is the 789. Service to start in September 2017.

Here is a great article on Norwegian, their products and services and prices.
https://www.travelcodex.com/2017/04/fly-norwegian-to-london-from-seattle-denver-for-199-ow/

A couple of quotes worth noting....

Norwegian Air Shuttle is adding direct flights between London Gatwick and both Seattle and Denver in September of 2017. The new flights will connect Norwegian’s European network with two more cities, thus growing their American network.

Remember when flying Norwegian Air Shuttle that you are flying a low cost carrier. Norwegian fare structure is similar to other low cost carriers such as Spirit or the basic fares now offered by the US majors. Norwegian has a fee for everything. Check baggage, food, and beverages will all cost you more. Although the base fare is only $199, that fare does not include luggage, seat assignment, or the other items which once were “basic”.

[Canadian74]

Originally Posted by Acey

The Calgary media would have an absolute field day with the prospect of Norwegian's antics... $40 meals and $100+ luggage. They'd call it inhumane and all sorts of bullshit. Nothing else in the world would matter.

For the sake of entertainment, I welcome potential Norwegian service to Calgary.

Don't think it makes much difference, especially if the fares are indeed low

Westjet charges for checked bags and doesn't give meals on LGW services either. I would much rather fly on a new Norwegian 787 with real IFE than a old, mechanical issue prone 767

Westjet's fares are also almost as high as AC where you get full service, meals, checked bags, IFE, new 787

[Bigtime]

AC has upgauged the LHR flight from the 787-9 to the 77W for June 14 to September 17. A bump in capacity of about 100 seats per day.

[Canadian74]

Originally Posted by Acey

That said, the fact that it's a "new 787" does not make up for the fact that 2-3-2 spanks a 9 abreast 787 every day of the week, all other things being equal.

That depends. For a family of 3, 3-3-3 is ok. The seats on the WS 767 are same width as 787. For a couple 2-3-2 might be better, but many people flying to LGW are families anyways. Also the vast majority won't be aware (or really care) until after boarding that WS is flying a 7 abreast plane vs competition's 9 abreast.

What they will notice beforehand is WS fares are as high as AC or BA, but that WS fare does not include meals, baggage, proper ife


It's amazing Westjet is able to get away with such an inferior product. They seem to be worse than Transat and Rouge longhaul

[zahav]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

AC has upgauged the LHR flight from the 787-9 to the 77W for June 14 to September 17. A bump in capacity of about 100 seats per day.

Nice, that means both LHR and FRA are on 777s (ER and LR)

[Canadian74]

Originally Posted by Acey

What the general public does notice is how inhumane a 9-abreast 330 is on Transat longhaul. If you think the WestJet product is worse than that, then you haven't flown a 9-abreast 330, or have some unreasonable hatred of WS.

Families and casual travellers won't mind it if they're saving $200+ per ticket

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Canadian74

Families and casual travellers won't mind it if they're saving $200+ per ticket

Well, they might mind it at the time, but are more likely to forget about it. I still haven't forgotten the Transat's 9-abreast seating on their 330's and 310's (even worse on the 310's, 16.5 seat width!). Not knowing any better back then (2003-ish), I quickly decided "never again for Transat", and I haven't! (Not that I've flown many Transat routes on competitors either since then, to be fair...).

[outoftheice]

Speaking of comfort I heard a rumour that Westjet will be adding one more row of Plus into its 737s and reducing its seat pitch from 31" to 30". This is comparable to Sunwing's seat pitch (30") and slightly better than Rouge (29"). Both Sunwing and Rouge are holiday carriers and people seem to expect to be crammed in. Be curious to see how Westjet regulars react to the change.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Acey

What the general public does notice is how inhumane a 9-abreast 330 is on Transat longhaul. If you think the WestJet product is worse than that, then you haven't flown a 9-abreast 330, or have some unreasonable hatred of WS.

Surely can't be worse than 10 abreast on a 777, which is pretty terrible and is pretty widespread. I purposely fly PE when I come back to Canada on AC because from my experience (Aeroflot, not AC, but same difference), 10 abreast in economy on a 777 is just too much to bear.

[MalcolmTucker]

Depends - with new seats how much of a reduction is it?

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Surely can't be worse than 10 abreast on a 777, which is pretty terrible and is pretty widespread.

According to the numbers, you're right. In fact, Air Transat gives more legroom.

[Canadian74]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

According to the numbers, you're right. In fact, Air Transat gives more legroom.

10 across on a 777 is just a bit better than 9 across on A330. Transat must be using 1.5" armrests vs 2" on 777s

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Surely can't be worse than 10 abreast on a 777, which is pretty terrible and is pretty widespread. I purposely fly PE when I come back to Canada on AC because from my experience (Aeroflot, not AC, but same difference), 10 abreast in economy on a 777 is just too much to bear.

I was on a 10 abreast 777 not too long ago and it was reasonable I thought.
777 cabin width - 19' 7"

If I'm not mistaken, a 747 cabin width is 20', so the 777 is a pinch smaller, but not much. I think design of the actual seats can make a big difference.