Calgary International Airport II

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Canadian74

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

Never ever that horrible middle seat. I don't even subject the kids to that when we fly. I'd rather pay the extra money to enjoy my flight.

[Canadian74]

These new slim seats have more knee room than older thicker seats. However since the pitch is reduced, the tray table and PTV is closer than before

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

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

Dude - when we're talking about how many seats abreast a plane has, generally that has nothing to do with leg room.

Originally Posted by suburbia

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.

Originally Posted by Acey

10 abreast in the 777 is abysmal, but the Transat 9 is worse without question.

Transat 9 on a A330 is way worse than 10 on a 777. Both of these configurations have two isles (that need to meet minimum isle width) so you look at the different in cabin width against the only difference being the reduction of one seat. A 777 is 19' 7" (only 5" less than a 747) whereas an A330 is only 17' 4". So Air Transat only drops one seat across with a net reduction in cabin width of 27". Air Transat is way more cramped.

Originally Posted by Canadian74

These new slim seats have more knee room than older thicker seats. However since the pitch is reduced, the tray table and PTV is closer than before

That's a good point, as while the seats have gotten thinner, proportionally, the mechanisms for screen and particularly the tray have not deceased in thickness as much.

Back to my 777 experience. My comments were only in context of the width (IE 10 abreast on a 19' 7" cabin width). I can't really comment on leg room as we were in the front row of our plane segments on each leg of our trip. I would have been fine even if I were 8' tall. Lots of room.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Dude - when we're talking about how many seats abreast a plane has, generally that has nothing to do with leg room.

Dude - look at the seat width of each. They're the same. The legroom comment was an aside.

[Johnny Aussie]

UA has once again updated its YYC summer schedules.

For the first time in quite a long time all UA routes will see mainline.

DEN: 1 daily 739; 1 daily CR7; 2 daily CRJ
IAH: 1 daily 739; 1 daily 738; 1 daily 320
ORD: 2 daily 319; 1 daily E75
SFO: 1 daily 319; 1 daily CR7

Weekend service varies somewhat...

Until next time.....

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

UA has once again updated its YYC summer schedules.

For the first time in quite a long time all UA routes will see mainline.

DEN: 1 daily 739; 1 daily CR7; 2 daily CRJ
IAH: 1 daily 739; 1 daily 738; 1 daily 320
ORD: 2 daily 319; 1 daily E75
SFO: 1 daily 319; 1 daily CR7

Weekend service varies somewhat...

Until next time.....

Thanks Johnny, interesting as always. I think the return to mainline commitment speaks to UA comfort with loads and is yet another sign that our local economy has stabilized.
I wonder why SFO service is always so skimpy with UA. Given the size of the market and the possible connections to Pacific destinations, I have always wondered why this route is under served in relation to DEN and ORD.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by PPAR

Thanks Johnny, interesting as always. I think the return to mainline commitment speaks to UA comfort with loads and is yet another sign that our local economy has stabilized.
I wonder why SFO service is always so skimpy with UA. Given the size of the market and the possible connections to Pacific destinations, I have always wondered why this route is under served in relation to DEN and ORD.

All a matter of where the markets are, I guess. In my personal anecdote, nearly all of my business travel took me through DEN or ORD in my past job, to a number of places that aren't even on Air Canada's map. I'd wager there's few continental US destinations that SFO serves that DEN doesn't.

On top of that, AC gives competition on YYC-SFO.

As for SFO's TPAC connections... I assume they're at least somewhat better than YVR's, but who wants to transit the U.S.? Big disincentive there.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

For the first time in quite a long time all UA routes will see mainline.

Sfo has been the lone service without mainline. Mainline was last on the route in 2013 IIRC.

About 10 years ago SFO had AC mainline service with 2-3x daily A319 service. Then over the space of 2 years service was transferred to UAX CRJ-700 service 3-4 times per day.

Originally Posted by PPAR

I wonder why SFO service is always so skimpy with UA. Given the size of the market and the possible connections to Pacific destinations, I have always wondered why this route is under served in relation to DEN and ORD.

DEN and ORD are better domestic connection points because they have shorter distance for the same price (yield is better).

Until 2014 UA had to operate a split operation at SFO. There were insufficient gates to operate a large DEN size hub. In 2014 they got 10 gates from concourse E and were able to bring the Frmr CO flights to T3 and expand domestic flights. Further an airside connection corridor was opened to concourse G so that UA got gate domestic flights there as well.

O the pacific side. There is a moderate in convenience for the pax. They have to leave YYC by 8-9 am to get the primary Asian bank. YVR connections don't have to leave until 10:30 to noon.

UA has developed a secondary midnight departure bank. The UA A319 to sfo feeds this secondary bank quite well.

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

All a matter of where the markets are, I guess. In my personal anecdote, nearly all of my business travel took me through DEN or ORD in my past job, to a number of places that aren't even on Air Canada's map. I'd wager there's few continental US destinations that SFO serves that DEN doesn't.

On top of that, AC gives competition on YYC-SFO.

By design, UA closed off a lot of connection options through SFO and forced traffic through ORD and DEN.

The AC flights are new after a 5+ yr abscence.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Cage

O the pacific side. There is a moderate in convenience for the pax. They have to leave YYC by 8-9 am to get the primary Asian bank. YVR connections don't have to leave until 10:30 to noon.

That's certainly not entirely true. The AC YVR-PVG flight, for example (which I take fairly regularly)leaves Vancouver at around 11am. You have to be out of Calgary by 9am in order to be on time for this flight.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

That's certainly not entirely true. The AC YVR-PVG flight, for example (which I take fairly regularly)leaves Vancouver at around 11am. You have to be out of Calgary by 9am in order to be on time for this flight.

AC25 leaves YVR at 11:35am. The 10am departure on YYC-YVR is a valid domestic to international connection, however I too would agree that a 9am flight would be better in case things went wrong with either the departure out of YYC or the connection in YVR.

ICN in the winter also shares an unusally early departure from YVR. However HKG, PEK, NRT, HND, KIX, and NGO all leave in the 1130-2pm time frame which favours the the YVR connection over the SFO connection.

[Bigtime]

From the YYC twitter page a few minutes ago:

We're excited to announce @DeBeersCanada is relocating their flight operations from YEG to #YYC, operating two charter flights weekly

Who operates the charters and with what equipment?

[Nick]

It might be Canadian North or First Air. Since it's YYC I'd venture a guess and say it's Cdn North

[Bigtime]

Calgary Herald article on the move, flights operated by Summit Air and their Avro RJ85's:

http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-...on?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

CEO Kim Truter said the move from Edmonton makes sense since Calgary offers better connections for the company’s employees and visiting international colleagues.

The Calgary Airport Authority welcomed Tuesday’s announcement, which president and CEO Bob Sartor said is part of what has the potential to be a burgeoning charter business at YYC and could not have happened without the opening of the new international terminal last year.

“We were so congested in this airport before building this new terminal that we were going to be faced potentially with the loss of business . . . We didn’t have the availability of gates,” Sartor said. “What the new terminal has given us is the ability to do these kinds of things.”

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

We were so congested in this airport before building this new terminal that we were going to be faced potentially with the loss of business . . . We didn’t have the availability of gates,” Sartor said. “What the new terminal has given us is the ability to do these kinds of things.

LOL.

Kind of exaggerating there. De Beers didn't choose YYC because of the international terminal. Yet another example of management blowing hot air....

This was bound to happen, new terminal or not. kind of goes with the fact that the Canadian HQ of the company is now in Cowtown.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

LOL.

Kind of exaggerating there. De Beers didn't choose YYC because of the international terminal. Yet another example of management blowing hot air....

This was bound to happen, new terminal or not. kind of goes with the fact that the Canadian HQ of the company is now in Cowtown.

In this instance, Sartor is not exaggerating. Prior to the new terminal opening, there was no way to process flights arriving from airports that lacked preboard security screening. So no Firebag or Ekati mine flights.

The old customs arrival corridor on concourse B has been transformed into the ability for nonsterile passengers to arrive at the terminal.

[Tobuz]

Originally Posted by Cage

The old customs arrival corridor on concourse B has been transformed into the ability for nonsterile passengers to arrive at the terminal.

Kind of disappointing, IMHO.

Concourse B was/is in desperate need of a full gut job, including removing that overhead corridor that makes the main floor seem so bloody claustrophobic. I understand that B is getting some lipstick, but it'll remain a pig as long as those nasty old architectural features - like that overhead tunnel - remain.

A net gain of twice-weekly 90 seat charter flights doesn't really seem like an exciting trade off for keeping that old concourse cramped and ugly.

(The Suncor WS charters use the B gates and tunnels now, too. While they're new to the terminal building, those flights aren't new to YYC.)

[Nick]

From what I've seen at work the YFI flights have been using gates 11 and 12, which can exit via the stairs to the old customs area.

[Bigtime]

It would be cool to see something like this for YYC, it would put the current noise complaints into perspective:

[hoboman27]

http://www.yyc.com/News/tabid/91/article...ority--2017-Annual-General-Meeting-.aspx

The Airport's AGM is tomorrow. If anyone's going, ask them about airport privatization, the latest development.

[Bigtime]

Thanks hoboman27, was coming to post that just now. I was planning to attend but due to work it looks like I won't be able to swing it. I do believe Cage will be attending, anyone else?