Calgary International Airport II

[casper]

Originally Posted by YYCFlier

This. Air Canada and WestJet are both cutting back routes as their capacities are 7-8% less than they'd like. Given YYC is WestJet's biggest hub, 13 frames sitting on the ground is going to hurt. Air Canada has the luxury of rouge frames and new A223 frames coming on-line whereas WestJet's narrowbody capacity increases are all MAX.

What is going to be interesting in the 2020-21 season when Air Canada and Air Transat start to consolidate flying.

[topdog]

Originally Posted by wave46

The Boeing 737 was out of sync with engine development cycle, which Airbus exploited with the A320neo. Thus, the rapid launch of the MAX as a response.

I suspect the debacle of the 787 launch diverted much needed resources away from a 737 replacement and made Boeing cautious about such investments.

Boeing just can't seem to get it right in the 2000s - it either pushes the edge too far and gets burnt (the 787) or not enough and it gets burnt (the MAX). I'm not sure if this is just a problem with management or what the deal is.

I wouldn't say they got burnt on the 787. They had the problems with the batteries initially, and they've had problems with the Rolls Royce engines lately but overall they've done well with the 787. They've sold over 1400 of them and they are still selling. Not exactly what you'd call 'getting burnt'.

The Max, yeah, that's getting burnt, but I don't think it's a problem that can be attributed to not creating a whole new aircraft or not enough resources. The issue could have happened with a whole new aircraft as well. Before the issue happened it was selling at a good pace.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by topdog

The Max, yeah, that's getting burnt, but I don't think it's a problem that can be attributed to not creating a whole new aircraft or not enough resources. The issue could have happened with a whole new aircraft as well. Before the issue happened it was selling at a good pace.

I agree with except the bolded part. In short, the max issue could not have happened with a whole new aircraft design. The issue is that max was too short for the new larger engines, so the engineers decided on an automated solution (MCAS and other computer systems). If the gear were extended any further, there would be huge center of gravity issues. As it stands, there are CofG the are partially mitigated by computer software.

[topdog]

Originally Posted by Cage

I agree with except the bolded part. In short, the max issue could not have happened with a whole new aircraft design. The issue is that max was too short for the new larger engines, so the engineers decided on an automated solution (MCAS and other computer systems). If the gear were extended any further, there would be huge center of gravity issues. As it stands, there are CofG the are partially mitigated by computer software.

Fair enough, I just meant that an issue can arise with a whole new aircraft as well. If the issue on the Max is to be corrected, which I believe it will, then one could say that the Max still could have been a success without having to do a while new aircraft. The issue has to be corrected of course, and time will tell. I believe it will be, but until then it's anyone's guess.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by topdog

Fair enough, I just meant that an issue can arise with a whole new aircraft as well. If the issue on the Max is to be corrected, which I believe it will, then one could say that the Max still could have been a success without having to do a while new aircraft. The issue has to be corrected of course, and time will tell. I believe it will be, but until then it's anyone's guess.

I agree the max AoA CofG issue could arise on a clean sheet design, however the issue would be discovered in the design phase well before first flight. There is no reasonable path to having an AoA CofG issue on a clean sheet new airplane with 350+ in service aircraft.

Likewise the 737max issues were discovered during the design phase. What's different is that Boeing decided to go a computer program fix rather than to clean sheet design or end the max program while still on the drawing board.

Boeing had a problem that exceeded flight dynamics by a very small amount, small enough they thought could be overcome with technology. MCAS and putting the engine more forward and slightly higher than the wing was the innovative solution.

[Mazrim]

Thanks again to everyone for the informative discussions here! I always enjoy reading them.

Only thing I can really add is that the Westjet 787 was very nice to fly in, and I hope they can upgrade the 737s to proper 2x2 PE seating soon.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Cage

I agree the max AoA CofG issue could arise on a clean sheet design, however the issue would be discovered in the design phase well before first flight. There is no reasonable path to having an AoA CofG issue on a clean sheet new airplane with 350+ in service aircraft.

Likewise the 737max issues were discovered during the design phase. What's different is that Boeing decided to go a computer program fix rather than to clean sheet design or end the max program while still on the drawing board.

Boeing had a problem that exceeded flight dynamics by a very small amount, small enough they thought could be overcome with technology. MCAS and putting the engine more forward and slightly higher than the wing was the innovative solution.

Boeing's biggest crimes in this whole fiasco were:
1. Making the MCAS system reliant on only ONE AoA sensor, and making the second AoA sensor / AoA disagreement alarm OPTIONAL.
2. Not telling the pilots how the new MCAS system differed from the flight controls on older 737s.

For those two things alone Boeing should have the book thrown at them, but given how buddy buddy they are with the US government they'll get a slap on the wrist, if that.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I hope they can upgrade the 737s to proper 2x2 PE seating soon.

My understanding is that your wish has all ready been granted. The WS max aircraft have all been converted into 2X2 Premium Economy seat during the grounding.

I suspect that somewhere in a warehouse are 100s of seats waiting to be installed in the rest of the 737 fleet.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by topdog

I wouldn't say they got burnt on the 787. They had the problems with the batteries initially, and they've had problems with the Rolls Royce engines lately but overall they've done well with the 787. They've sold over 1400 of them and they are still selling. Not exactly what you'd call 'getting burnt'.

The Max, yeah, that's getting burnt, but I don't think it's a problem that can be attributed to not creating a whole new aircraft or not enough resources. The issue could have happened with a whole new aircraft as well. Before the issue happened it was selling at a good pace.

For the 787, I was referring to how the development costs and timeline spiraled out of control due to the method in which Boeing outsourced much of the work to subcontractors, not so much the battery problems and the engine problems. Engine problems are the result of Rolls-Royce issues; I'm fully aware they're not Boeing problems.

As Cage mentioned, a new design would have accounted for the increased size and weight of the engines whereas the 737 was limited by other factors. Thus, the innovation - MCAS - that proved to be poorly conceived and implemented. A new aircraft could have other design flaws that only experience may have detected, yes, but it is ironic to note that the A220 (nee: CSeries), E2 and A350XWB - all new designs - have entered service with minimal teething problems (so far).

[hollywoodcory]

Some updates:

-HU has (again) closed all reservations from end of October till late March.
-KL presently has the 772 replacing the 333 in S20. Still way too early to say that's been finalized.
-AC LHR 788 replacing 789 from end of October until Christmas.
-WS still hasn't updated its Max schedule yet, and still shows as early Nov. 5.

[TheGreatestX]

Originally Posted by hollywoodcory

Some updates:
-WS still hasn't updated its Max schedule yet, and still shows as early Nov. 5.

I do see the MAXs still scheduled, despite this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/westjet-boeing-737-max-8-1.5268771

[hollywoodcory]

Originally Posted by TheGreatestX

I do see the MAXs still scheduled, despite this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/westjet-boeing-737-max-8-1.5268771

Probably means it’ll get removed on the next schedule update.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by hollywoodcory

Some updates:

-HU has (again) closed all reservations from end of October till late March.

Looks like Hainan is in fact shifting to seasonal.

Following the same pattern as AC to NRT and BA to LHR.

No flights from end of October until the end of March.

[hollywoodcory]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Looks like Hainan is in fact shifting to seasonal.

Following the same pattern as AC to NRT and BA to LHR.

No flights from end of October until the end of March.

Which is better then completely pulling out. I believe Hainan really wants to make the route work.

Crazy to think just 2 years ago we had 6 weekly flights to Asia in the winter, and this year it will be zero.

Likely won't be seeing year-round to Asia again until WS goes to Asia.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by hollywoodcory

Which is better then completely pulling out. I believe Hainan really wants to make the route work.

Crazy to think just 2 years ago we had 6 weekly flights to Asia in the winter, and this year it will be zero.

Likely won't be seeing year-round to Asia again until WS goes to Asia.

The rumour mill was that Hainan was exiting YYC this year and in true mainland China carrier fashion they pull the flights with less than 8 weeks notice.

Whether they return or not is the question. Schedules showing they will be returning but that of course is always subject to change. So perhaps they aren’t gone for good.

[hollywoodcory]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

The rumour mill was that Hainan was exiting YYC this year and in true mainland China carrier fashion they pull the flights with less than 8 weeks notice.

Whether they return or not is the question. Schedules showing they will be returning but that of course is always subject to change. So perhaps they aren’t gone for good.

Just have to keep an eye on what they do around February.

---

Also, Pacific Coastal got approval to operate routes to the US for WS Link:
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/a-2019-164

So time to re-start the GEG debate again. Or maybe FCA, GTF. Could mean gate 96/97 actually gets used now.

[MalcolmTucker]

Need two flights a day to serve the transcontinental departure bank right? out and back for departing passengers, out and back for arriving passengers.



A gamble? Yes. But if you can get a business class passenger connecting on each flight could it be worth it? I remember I think it was Cage on here saying Red Deer's 3 flights a day were propped up entirely by 3 high value travellers living in Red Deer.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by hollywoodcory

Also, Pacific Coastal got approval to operate routes to the US for WS Link:
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/a-2019-164

So time to re-start the GEG debate again. Or maybe FCA, GTF. Could mean gate 96/97 actually gets used now.

It makes more sense for WS Link to start transborder services from YVR than YYC. I'm thinking YVR-SEA (fill in the gaps for DL) and YVR-PDX.

But if you want to open up the YYC-GEG debate.......

GEG has near hourly services to SEA on 3 airlines (WN, AS, DL). They have UA service to SFO and DEN. If you really like spending time on airplanes, there is AA service to DFW and PHX. GEG is well served with one stop service and Americans are okay with one stop service so long as the ticket is cheap.

GEG is a market without a high value traveler base that will support international travel. This is an issue for the whole inland northwest region. Spokane, Boise, Bozeman, etc. are all low value traveler only and don't produce enough origin traffic to make it worthwhile for airlines. This leaves destination traffic that is equally small.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Need two flights a day to serve the transcontinental departure bank right? out and back for departing passengers, out and back for arriving passengers.

A gamble? Yes. But if you can get a business class passenger connecting on each flight could it be worth it? I remember I think it was Cage on here saying Red Deer's 3 flights a day were propped up entirely by 3 high value travellers living in Red Deer.

Yes that was me regarding Red Deer operation being supported primarily by 2-3 SE's.

Two flights per day is ideal from network connectivity and base for attracting the high value pax. The challenge is that GEG is very much a domestic USA O&D airport, there is not much international traffic to worry about.

[YYCFlier]

Originally Posted by Cage

It makes more sense for WS Link to start transborder services from YVR than YYC. I'm thinking YVR-SEA (fill in the gaps for DL) and YVR-PDX.

YVR is already well served to SEA and PDX.

I'm not sure what WS intends to do with TB WS Link. Perhaps it intends to open the east and is signing a capacity agreement out of YYZ.

[hollywoodcory]

Originally Posted by Cage

It makes more sense for WS Link to start transborder services from YVR than YYC. I'm thinking YVR-SEA (fill in the gaps for DL) and YVR-PDX.

But if you want to open up the YYC-GEG debate.......

GEG has near hourly services to SEA on 3 airlines (WN, AS, DL). They have UA service to SFO and DEN. If you really like spending time on airplanes, there is AA service to DFW and PHX. GEG is well served with one stop service and Americans are okay with one stop service so long as the ticket is cheap.

GEG is a market without a high value traveler base that will support international travel. This is an issue for the whole inland northwest region. Spokane, Boise, Bozeman, etc. are all low value traveler only and don't produce enough origin traffic to make it worthwhile for airlines. This leaves destination traffic that is equally small.



Yes that was me regarding Red Deer operation being supported primarily by 2-3 SE's.

Two flights per day is ideal from network connectivity and base for attracting the high value pax. The challenge is that GEG is very much a domestic USA O&D airport, there is not much international traffic to worry about.

That was suppose to be a joke referring to the 3 or so page GEG debate a couple of months back.

Is there many other options for WS Link to serve in the US other than Montana/Washington/Idaho or North Dakota?