Canadian Airport Thread - Page 235

SaskScraper · #**4681** Posted **Jul 11, 2017, 8:43 PM**

Quote:

originally posted by jmt18325
And they didn't land there. Sometimes humans make mistakes.

good thing there were others that could radio the Air Canada pilots to advise them of their impending doom!

jmt18325 · #**4682** Posted **Jul 11, 2017, 8:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

good thing there were others that could radio the Air Canada pilots to advise them of their impending doom!

Definitely. Apparently the setup of the airport makes this not completely uncommon.

LeftCoaster · #**4683** Posted **Jul 11, 2017, 9:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACT7

YYZ came up because if EK is to expand service into Canada, it likely means the bilateral is being expanded, which in turn likely means expanded service into YYZ. Sorry, what's the issue?

I cannot see a scenario in which the Canadian Government lets the Emirates have more flights into Canada. All around the world we've seen examples of how the ME3's practices hurt local airlines and Canada has long protected it's airlines.

kwoldtimer · #**4684** Posted **Jul 11, 2017, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I cannot see a scenario in which the Canadian Government lets the Emirates have more flights into Canada. All around the world we've seen examples of how the ME3's practices hurt local airlines and Canada has long protected it's airlines.

That's what I would have thought, unless something has happened to change Air Canada's opinion.

SaskScraper · #**4685** Posted **Jul 11, 2017, 10:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Definitely. Apparently the setup of the airport makes this not completely uncommon.

What could have happened today with Air Canada would have been the Greatest Aviation Disaster In History!
..but people make mistakes (and it was probably the airport's fault)

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017...on-taxiway-at-san-francisco-airport.html

wave46 · #**4686** Posted **Jul 11, 2017, 11:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

What could have happened today with Air Canada would have been the Greatest Aviation Disaster In History!
..but people make mistakes (and it was probably the airport's fault)

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017...on-taxiway-at-san-francisco-airport.html

I'm legitimately curious what happened in the cockpit. There's two sets of eyes who (to my understanding) should be watching the runway as they approach. What happened there? One of them should have noticed that they were on the wrong approach.

Don't get me wrong, pilot screw ups happen (see: Air France Flight 447), but the absence of other possible factors (weather, most notably) makes it quite concerning.

To my knowledge, similar things have happened to Continental Airlines in Newark (Continental Flight 1883) and Alaska Flight 17 at Sea-Tac.

jmt18325 · #**4687** Posted **Jul 11, 2017, 11:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

What could have happened today with Air Canada would have been the Greatest Aviation Disaster In History!
..but people make mistakes (and it was probably the airport's fault)

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017...on-taxiway-at-san-francisco-airport.html

That's not what I said, but, okay:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3589493/san-francisco-air-canada-taxi-way-runway/

Cage · #**4688** Posted **Jul 12, 2017, 12:43 AM**

Air Transat to replace A310s with A321neoLR

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/air...10-new-airbus-a321neo-lrs-633797283.html

Quote:

"These brand-new A321neo LRs will allow us to continue offering our customers the service and comfort they are used to, at the best possible price," says Transat President and CEO Jean-Marc Eustache.

MONTREAL, July 11, 2017 /CNW Telbec/ - Transat A.T. Inc. is pleased to announce that its Air Transat business unit has signed an agreement with AerCap for the long-term (12-year) leasing of 10 Airbus A321neo long-range aircraft. The aircraft are to be delivered between spring 2019 and fall 2020, and will replace Transat's Airbus A310s, which will be gradually retired from the fleet.

The A321neo LRs will be deployed on both Sun destinations and transatlantic routes. Combined with the Airbus A330s and Boeing 737s, they will serve Transat's entire network in an efficient and cost-effective way. Air Transat's A321neo LRs will be configured for 200 seats across both classes: Club and Economy. All seats will be equipped with individual touch screens offering an extensive choice of entertainment for all.

"The A321neo LRs will perfectly complete our fleet of A330s and B737s," said Jean-Marc Eustache, President and Chief Executive Officer of Transat. He added: "These aircraft are also an ideal solution for replacing our A310s. This agreement with AerCap will allow us to continue offering our customers the service and comfort they are used to, at the best possible price. We are very pleased to strengthen our partnership with the world's leading aircraft lessor, with which we have enjoyed a fruitful and long-standing association."

Aengus Kelly, Chief Executive Officer, AerCap, stated: "We are very proud of our long-standing partnership with Air Transat and are thrilled to play a significant role in the future growth of the airline. The A321neo LR will significantly improve Air Transat's fleet with the most efficient, longest-range single-aisle aircraft that offers an exceptional level of passenger comfort."

Air Transat will be among the first carriers to operate the new long-range (LR) variant of the Airbus A321neo (new engine option). The A321neo LR has the longest range of any single-aisle jetliner, capable of flying up to 4,000 nautical miles (7,400 km). It is ideally suited for Transat's combination of routes. Specifically, its size gives major flexibility in terms of flight commercialization and frequency while its fuel efficiency will keep cost per seat as low as possible, while reducing its carbon footprint.

Air Transat's fleet currently consists of 31 permanent aircraft in a unique flexible-fleet model that allows it to deploy more wide-body aircraft in summer for the high transatlantic season, and narrow-body aircraft in winter for the high Sun destinations season.

My first thought is this could lead to a major shakeup at YYZ T3. WS will be able to get onto the widebody gates at the concourse C hammerhead while TS would take the narrowbody gates currently occupied by WS.

As for the overall T3 gate plan, at some point very soon the infield terminal will need to be reactivated, likely with some significant renovations. I always thought that TS and WG would make good IFT roomates. Today's plan does not change this possibility, but TS no has more opportunities to stay in T3 proper.

Canadian74 · #**4689** Posted **Jul 12, 2017, 1:58 AM**

Nice to see some 321neos in the Canadian skies. Everyone else is getting 737maxs.

MalcolmTucker · #**4690** Posted **Jul 12, 2017, 3:18 PM**

[del]

plrh · #**4691** Posted **Jul 12, 2017, 6:29 PM**

Didn't Harrison Ford land on the taxiway last year in Orange County or something?

lubicon · #**4692** Posted **Jul 12, 2017, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46

I'm legitimately curious what happened in the cockpit. There's two sets of eyes who (to my understanding) should be watching the runway as they approach. What happened there? One of them should have noticed that they were on the wrong approach.
Don't get me wrong, pilot screw ups happen (see: Air France Flight 447), but the absence of other possible factors (weather, most notably) makes it quite concerning.

To my knowledge, similar things have happened to Continental Airlines in Newark (Continental Flight 1883) and Alaska Flight 17 at Sea-Tac.

And they did notice something was not right when you listen to the ATC tapes. They questioned their landing clearance because they saw lights on what they thought was the runway and were told the runway was clear. Neither they nor the tower realized they were lined up on the parallel taxiway at that point but the pilots had definitely noticed something was different than what they were expecting to see.

The investigation will tell the tale but an interesting theory out there about how the parallel runways (28 R and 28L) were lit that night. If 28L was not being used and not lit like it normally would be for night operations the visual appearance could look two parallel runways (which is what they were expecting to see) with 28R being on the left and the taxiway being the lit up feature on the right. easy to see how the taxiway could be mistaken for runway based on visual cues only if this turns out to be the case.

wave46 · #**4693** Posted **Jul 13, 2017, 2:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cage

Air Transat to replace A310s with A321neoLR

I figured that Air Transat would either go with the A321neoLR or the 787-8 to replace their A310s. They are about the best 'middle of market' replacement offered today.

I guess the 787-8 is too expensive for their requirements.

The A321neoLR is probably the best fit for them - it has enough range to do YUL/YYZ/YQB to western European destinations that don't require the capacity for the A330. It can also be used for sun destinations in the winter as well.

I'm not sure how this bodes for AT in western cities though. I can't see them using an A330 for YVR-Manchester or Glasgow. Maybe they'll try using connecting flights via YYZ?

rotten42 · #**4694** Posted **Jul 13, 2017, 3:04 PM**

"These brand-new A321neo LRs will allow us to continue offering our customers the service and comfort they are used to, at the best possible price,"

Wait...since when does one associate AirTansat with comfort?

Canadian74 · #**4695** Posted **Jul 13, 2017, 3:19 PM**

They should be better than 9 across A310s and A330s.
They can have 18" seats vs 16.5" currently.

Also I read somewhere that AT can't stuff too many seats if they want these to fly to Europe. So legroom should be improved too.

Overall an upgrade for passengers even though it is a narrow body.

G.S MTL · #**4696** Posted **Jul 13, 2017, 3:45 PM**

Let me tell you...Transat is better than sunwing or
Rouge.

nname · #**4697** Posted **Jul 13, 2017, 4:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46

I'm not sure how this bodes for AT in western cities though. I can't see them using an A330 for YVR-Manchester or Glasgow. Maybe they'll try using connecting flights via YYZ?

It's already A330 for both routes.

wave46 · #**4698** Posted **Jul 13, 2017, 4:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname

It's already A330 for both routes.

I stand corrected. I thought they used an A310.

LeftCoaster · #**4699** Posted **Jul 13, 2017, 5:17 PM**

I don't think the YVR sees the A310 on any routes aside from the odd equipment transfer.

Depending on what the actual range of the 321LR is, it looks like it could do YVR-GLA or MAN though. It's posted range is 7,500KM with both GLA and MAN being about 7,100KM.

wave46 · #**4700** Posted **Jul 13, 2017, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I don't think the YVR sees the A310 on any routes aside from the odd equipment transfer.

Depending on what the actual range of the 321LR is, it looks like it could do YVR-GLA or MAN though. It's posted range is 7,500KM with both GLA and MAN being about 7,100KM.

Under very optimal circumstances, maybe. I doubt it could make the trip back with prevailing winds. It would also leave very little margin of error for fuel reserve, so I doubt any airline would use it for that.