Calgary International Airport II

[Ania]

Originally Posted by Acey

None of us know everything and none of us will make such claim... but I'm sorry. There is nothing to suggest 3-4 daily Q's GEG-YYC would work, and the rationale is even more flawed. It makes absolutely no sense.

I know! 3-4 Qs is an opportunity number based on the fact GEG is mostly serviced by it, and WS just so happens to have it as them main regional craft. Using a conservative number, people of Spokane fill up (at least) 3 to 4 q400s every day and connect to go to Europe during summer peak. I forget exact stats, but there is 1 plane that leaves daily from the USA to Europe for every 300k Americans. In Canada its about half that.

Again, I know it is currently a stretch. Currently. Kansas City has 0 European flights. Icelandair said: OK, come connect here. That city of Reykjavik, city of 200k, competes with every other USA hub, which some have more Euro destinations and more direct routes. The plane in service has 160 seats.

0 passengers will connect to Reykjavik to go to Canada, none will connect to Reyjavik for the Carribean, both advantages for YYC. Actually, since I'm not in the mood to run the numbers> tl;dr: If Westjet truly will make YYC a hub (it has good geography for it) it makes more sense sense for Westjet to service Spokane, than Icelandair Kansas City or Aer Lingus Providence. (Granted, in my opinion, from looking at the numbers myself.)

[Ania]

Originally Posted by YYCFlier

It boggles the mind how much YYZ/YUL/YVR fliers can't get past YYC as a hub. I rather doubt AUS was intended completely for OD. AC has successfully loaded up planes by getting Americans to transfer thru Canada. The point of a hub is not for O&D (that's point to point) but rather to route traffic thru the network. WS has to do the same if they want to keep expanding YYC and it would appear that is the plan.

cheers

[zahav]

The PDX does make sense, and with an Encore it is the right aircraft for the job.

I feel like WS isn't sure what to do with the rest of the network. The AUS is random, as is YEG-YYT out of nowhere. I feel like they are just taking stabs at different routes, and seeing which will perform. The summer sched update was their most conservative in years, if not ever. And they didn't announce any route reductions, but I'm sure there were some!

[Bokimon]

Interesting as usual Cage, so the AUS sector is really O/D traffic for the various basins? America has been cranking up their oil field ops in the last two years churning out record number of output each day and that seems to be on track for another record year. The Texas/Oklahoma as well as the Dakotas are prime destinations for oil workers who are assigned there while we deal with our bottlenecks..

Kind of like a mini Ft. Mac or Mackay run then even if it is seasonal I guess!
The city itself is a treat too so hopefully there is some tourism campaign to get regular vacationers to hit up that city, Portland too!

I would agree that geographically GEG-YYC-Europe is the most direct route, as for making such a link a profitable reality is another story and hopefully there is some demand out there which can have YYC capitalize on the near million strong inland northwester folks..Even if it is a seasonal venture. Everybody there is accustomed to transiting via SEA/PDX but like I said in my earlier post, if conditions and arrangements at YYC and customs can adjust to better expediate the connection, there could be potential.

Next seemingly random Westjet destination in 2020, uhh.. YYC-CLT or OKC. CLT for the coastal getaways and OKC for Devon I guess..

[casper]

Originally Posted by zahav

The PDX does make sense, and with an Encore it is the right aircraft for the job.

I feel like WS isn't sure what to do with the rest of the network. The AUS is random, as is YEG-YYT out of nowhere. I feel like they are just taking stabs at different routes, and seeing which will perform. The summer sched update was their most conservative in years, if not ever. And they didn't announce any route reductions, but I'm sure there were some!

I have been to AUS for business twice in the last four year. I would view YYC as yet another option out of YVR. I can see others doing the same if not travelling there more frequently. It is a major center for the tech sector. I would usually do Delta or United to get there. Don't know if AC goes there, however even if they do I am not flying all the way to Toronto to head to the western US. WS has a chance with that destination.

I have never been Spokane. I do remember seeing AC puddle jumpers heading there while sitting in Calgary waiting to go somewhere else.

[Ania]

Originally Posted by Acey

a) No they don't
b) How could you possibly think that means all of those pax would immediately jump ship and fill 3-4 Q's by WestJet to connect through Canada at a cost higher than that through SEA
c) Only one of the flights would realistically be timed for Europe cnx. What about the others? 5 pax on em like the southbound YQL and YXH flights at 10 am right now?

Acey I'm sorry for miscommunication and my errors!. Let me clarify. you are correct Delta does not use q400s.
I understand your point of view that you do not believe it would work, I'll be honest you haven't clearly explained to me wuth any kind of data why that is though.
Now I will clarify/reiterate. what the number 3-4 q400s represents in my posts. Washington State and Oregon have 15 direct summer seasonal flights daily during summer peak to Europe combined. Population 11.5million. Which is 1 flight for 760k people (keep in mind, alot of people from those states connect to other NA hubs since Seattle and Portland have limited options). 1 flight is say 280 seats. Which is roughly 3-4 q400s in SEAT value. All things being equal, if Spokane's airport catchment area is roughly 760k people~3-4 q400s (again in seat numbers, so say 280 seats) are filled from Spokane with end destination: Europe. Reason why I say q400s, its because Westjet has q400s. 3-4 q400s is the opportunity number. OPPORTUNITY. If no one else served Spokane, and Calgary served every meaningful city in Europe, and Calgary would ban any OD and any other connection other than Europe, there would be say 3-4 q400s doing Spokane and Calgary everyday (guestimate, naturally, I don't assume this to be true, a mere interpretation).

I am not advocating to have 3-4 q400s doing Spokane and Calgary everyday. I am not advocating. Mostly here for open constructive discussion of air service that could matter to the airport's future. In this case the prospect of service to Spokane. I would genuinely appreciate if you could give me insightful feedback as to why it would or wouldn't work. That's why I'm here ! On that note quick shout out to Cage who shared some juicy info .

If I dare be blunt: I don't believe being dismissive of a suggestion outright, in this instance incorrectly and needlessly focussing on an opportunity number (I mean I never recommended to have 3-4 q400s doing Spokane Calgary everyday) as being very good for your credibility.

[Ania]

Originally Posted by zahav

The PDX does make sense, and with an Encore it is the right aircraft for the job.

I feel like WS isn't sure what to do with the rest of the network. The AUS is random, as is YEG-YYT out of nowhere. I feel like they are just taking stabs at different routes, and seeing which will perform. The summer sched update was their most conservative in years, if not ever. And they didn't announce any route reductions, but I'm sure there were some!

Kind of always been their business model, really feels like they just dump a plane on a new route. Reminds me of Delta at times. As long as the end product slowly but surely reinforces that YYC hub I'm all good with it.

[jc_yyc_ca]

You don't have to be a know it all to know that the idea won't work. I agree with Blaine, it doesn't make much sense. You already have a couple of flights a day to Seattle. Westjet or AC can't compete with that. It's kind of obvious.

Originally Posted by Ania

Blaine! I respect your opinion. 'No sense at all' comment shows lacks of openess--unless, say, you actually are a know-it-all. WS is starting direct Austin service despite Toronto and Vancouver having a lot more OD. Austin doesn't currently have enough YYC OD to fill up the 2 weekly flights. These would be valid arguments to explain why the Calgary flight might not work, doesn't mean it will not. 'I don't think it would work' along with your arguments might've been a better comment giving a little more credibility rather than the absolute closed-eye 'no sense at all'.
Just trying to have constructive conversation :p

As for your arguments:

Yep Spokane is well serviced by DL by SEA, and DL and WS are buddies now. If WS is allowed to go to PDX I feel that DL wouldn't be overly frustrated WS does GEG.

Spokane is a 4h30min drive, not sure your average drives the distance if they have the choice (my argument here is, I don't think your average Montrealer drives to Toronto first when flying Copenhagen, or any Toronto non-stop Montreal doesn't have.)

As for connections: Ha! That's relative. WS is expanding, In the long term up to 20 Dreamliners, and who knows what next. SEA will likely always beat with anything going Pacific...but European flying? Well Vancouver is already up there with Seattle, if WS is serious about hubbing YYC and do everything right, I would absolutely be surprised if Calgary didn't have more service, and by extension better pricing, and y'know, the best option for the Spokane crowd. As for the Carribean, YYC is already the better option. YYC does also get any Canadian destinations not in BC (it all adds up when you are filling a prop).

720k people of Spokane: The airport serves, and has a larger catchment area, than the CSA.

Honest truth: I know its a stretch, but I think its worth the talk in hopes pleasant surprises can be found.

[FormerWingTipper]

The only way I see GEG works is with AC, not WS. With one of the many BEH that are apparently being repositioned out here. A DH4 is too large of an aircraft in my opinion to test the route. Theory being prove the route on a smaller aircraft and upgauge/add frequency from there if it justifies, or reduce/cut the market if it doesn't.

Schedule would be like this:

GEG 0715 YYC 1015
YYC 1100 GEG 1215
GEG 1245 YYC 1545
YYC 1745 GEG 1900

This way the crew overnights in GEG.

The morning GEGYYC feeds all the domestic Canadian routes, as well as NRT in the summer (if there is demand for that I have no idea). The return YYCGEG morning feeds all the domestic Canadian and NRT back to GEG.

The afternoon GEGYYC feeds all domestic Canadian routes as well as FRA/LHR. The return YYCGEG does the same, feeds all the domestic Canadian routes and FRA/LHR.

When Operations needs to swap out the FIN for maintenance, etc., you simply swap it during the afternoon turn.

Four flight legs in a BEH is low use of an aircraft, although this goes back to what AC is planning to do with all the BEH anyways; maybe it doesn't need to have an ambitious flying schedule?

Plus, the CAA can finally say Gates E96/97 are being used for a change

[Ania]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

You don't have to be a know it all to know that the idea won't work. I agree with Blaine, it doesn't make much sense. You already have a couple of flights a day to Seattle. Westjet or AC can't compete with that. It's kind of obvious.

Ah well that is too bad then. How do you feel about Washington D.C? AC seems to be targetting the route out of YVR once the A220 starts coming in.

[Ania]

Originally Posted by FormerWingTipper

The only way I see GEG works is with AC, not WS. With one of the many BEH that are apparently being repositioned out here. A DH4 is too large of an aircraft in my opinion to test the route. Theory being prove the route on a smaller aircraft and upgauge/add frequency from there if it justifies, or reduce/cut the market if it doesn't.

Schedule would be like this:

GEG 0715 YYC 1015
YYC 1100 GEG 1215
GEG 1245 YYC 1545
YYC 1745 GEG 1900

This way the crew overnights in GEG.

The morning GEGYYC feeds all the domestic Canadian routes, as well as NRT in the summer (if there is demand for that I have no idea). The return YYCGEG morning feeds all the domestic Canadian and NRT back to GEG.

The afternoon GEGYYC feeds all domestic Canadian routes as well as FRA/LHR. The return YYCGEG does the same, feeds all the domestic Canadian routes and FRA/LHR.

When Operations needs to swap out the FIN for maintenance, etc., you simply swap it during the afternoon turn.

Four flight legs in a BEH is low use of an aircraft, although this goes back to what AC is planning to do with all the BEH anyways; maybe it doesn't need to have an ambitious flying schedule?

Plus, the CAA can finally say Gates E96/97 are being used for a change

Bah. AC doesn't really care for YYC, with the next wave 787s and MAXs for WS I think Saabs by WS link would do GEG best.

[Ania]

Anyone have flight loads for the Prince George flight?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Ania

Bah. AC doesn't really care for YYC, with the next wave 787s and MAXs for WS I think Saabs by WS link would do GEG best.

GEG won't happen with happen with WS. The next major move for WS will be the hookup with DL, that is going to take 18 months to sort itself out and get to state of optimization and peak efficiency.

DL is in a dog fight with AS for NW USA and SEA. The morning mainline flights out of GEG are to fund the 9am departure bank. GEG is being used as remain over night location for addl aircraft as SEA doesn't have the apron space. Where this all gets down to is DL and AS spill a whack of seats into the GEG-SEA markets and depress yields accordingly.

[Ania]

Originally Posted by Acey

The problem with your argument is that this is an absolutely meaningless metric that does not actually equate to air service.

What metrics are used for air service, use them to recommend a destination that could work under those metrics that are meaningful and lets discuss!

[BlaineN]

Sorry for the way the comment sounded, but it just didn't make sense at all to me. I'm not an expert, but I'm 99% sure Spokane isn't on anyone's radar.

Originally Posted by Ania

Blaine! I respect your opinion. 'No sense at all' comment shows lacks of openess--unless, say, you actually are a know-it-all. WS is starting direct Austin service despite Toronto and Vancouver having a lot more OD. Austin doesn't currently have enough YYC OD to fill up the 2 weekly flights. These would be valid arguments to explain why the Calgary flight might not work, doesn't mean it will not. 'I don't think it would work' along with your arguments might've been a better comment giving a little more credibility rather than the absolute closed-eye 'no sense at all'.
Just trying to have constructive conversation :p

As for your arguments:

Yep Spokane is well serviced by DL by SEA, and DL and WS are buddies now. If WS is allowed to go to PDX I feel that DL wouldn't be overly frustrated WS does GEG.

Spokane is a 4h30min drive, not sure your average drives the distance if they have the choice (my argument here is, I don't think your average Montrealer drives to Toronto first when flying Copenhagen, or any Toronto non-stop Montreal doesn't have.)

As for connections: Ha! That's relative. WS is expanding, In the long term up to 20 Dreamliners, and who knows what next. SEA will likely always beat with anything going Pacific...but European flying? Well Vancouver is already up there with Seattle, if WS is serious about hubbing YYC and do everything right, I would absolutely be surprised if Calgary didn't have more service, and by extension better pricing, and y'know, the best option for the Spokane crowd. As for the Carribean, YYC is already the better option. YYC does also get any Canadian destinations not in BC (it all adds up when you are filling a prop).

720k people of Spokane: The airport serves, and has a larger catchment area, than the CSA.

Honest truth: I know its a stretch, but I think its worth the talk in hopes pleasant surprises can be found.

[Ania]

Originally Posted by BlaineN

Sorry for the way the comment sounded, but it just didn't make sense at all to me. I'm not an expert, but I'm 99% sure Spokane isn't on anyone's radar.

never need to be sorry with me. Mentioning stuff on the radar is hardly my speciality.

[Ania]

Originally Posted by Acey

Look at our Europe service, and YEG's Europe service... and look at the similar populations of the two metros. That is sufficient evidence to complete dispel the notion.

'the notion' of...what? You said that the metrics I use are meaningless (Which is the population size can have an impact on the amount of service to Europe-do be careful I never mentioned I believe it to be a single formula fit all, and it is used from a theoretical approach). For you to know what is meaningless you must also know what metrics are meaningful. I'm asking you to enlighten me on those to see if we can't find good possible destinations for YYC.

[YYCFlier]

Originally Posted by Acey

Look at our Europe service, and YEG's Europe service... and look at the similar populations of the two metros. That is sufficient evidence to complete dispel the notion.

Although Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa are all roughly the same size (Calgary biggest by maybe 100,000) metro wise -

YYC - 17.1 million passengers
YEG - 8.5 million passengers
YOW - 4.4 million passengers

YYC is double YEG, and YEG is double YOW. Because YOW is sandwiched between YUL and YYZ.

And if you think about it, Montreal has maybe 2.5x times the population of Calgary and a ton of international flights (70/30 vs 30/70 for YYC) but in terms of passengers - 17.1 million vs 19.2 or so for YUL. We do alright.

[boeing767300]

Meanwhile I flew on Westjet flight WS1 to LGW last Friday 25th. I was surprised that the company is still charging for the main meal as I thought that had gone away. I was shocked at the time wasted by the cabin crew explaining the charges and the additional time wasted with the credit card machines that were sooooooooo slow. Westjet needs to understand that the cabin crew needs to be on top of their game on international flights given the competitive world that they have entered into. I totally understand that food must be paid for but they would do well to build that cost into the fare. I travel across the Atlantic many times every year and primarily with AC. In comparison to AC this flight on Westjet looked like amateur hour. To make matters worse The chap sitting beside me went back to complain about the charges and he was presented with a free butter chicken!!! Flight attendant said that they were about to throw out the unused food so here you go. So I paid for my meal that would have been free had I gone back at the right time to complain. Total Mickey Mouse in my opinion, that said I was happy to have paid for my meal regardless. I have to say that the cabin crew were all decent folks and all things considered they did a good job. Had they not had to spend time explaining food charges and wrestle with credit card machines they would have really excelled at their job. Meanwhile the cabin itself showed signs of fatigue so the 787s can't come soon enough. Hopefully the company will allow the flight attendants to do a better job appropriate to the new aircraft type.

[Ania]

Originally Posted by Acey

The notion of equating 1 pax per person in an area to some level of Europe service or whatever that was.

So you don't know what it was? Anyhow what metrics do you use pal to base your opinions?