Calgary International Airport II - Page 496

Denscity · #**9901** Posted **Feb 25, 2022, 5:54 AM**

Ha our landing rate is higher than the nickname suggests.

#**9902** Posted **Feb 26, 2022, 5:35 AM**

We're still not fully sure why AC likes the 77L on FRA so much - this is not the first season of it. YYC-FRA and YYC-LHR remain relatively profitable routes for AC, some of the highest yielding in the system. The additional 10 J seats vs the 789 seems to be the leading theory. The 77L can lift more over a longer distance but a sector of this length is still child's play for a 789 so it's a wash. For the same payload, fuel burn on YYC-FRA is roughly 15t greater on the 77L, which is why they spent the pandemic in the desert. Neither frame is ideal for a sector of this length.

thenoflyzone · #**9903** Posted **Feb 26, 2022, 12:52 PM**

^ Cargo is a big factor for where AC puts their B77L's. FRA is a big cargo hub. The busiest in Europe, in fact. That's why AC's first dedicated freighter's sole European destination is FRA.

If AC is putting a gas guzzling 77L on YYC-FRA instead of a more efficient B789, it's because what's below deck is paying for the difference, and then some.

It could be horse meat.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/a-glimpse-inside-canada-s-sinister-horse-meat-industry-1.5324002

Even upwards of 7000 live horses were shipped out of YYC several years ago, but I'm guessing that practice has slowed down.

https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsan...aft,dark%20secrets%20from%20the%20public.

#**9904** Posted **Feb 26, 2022, 2:49 PM**

Most days in summer, 850 goes out with more freight than 844. Again, even if it didn't, on a sector this length the 789 would still have no problem which is what I meant by:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace.yyc

The 77L can lift more over a longer distance but a sector of this length is still child's play for a 789 so it's a wash.

MalcolmTucker · #**9905** Posted **Feb 26, 2022, 2:59 PM**

Hot high performance limitations on the Dreamliner as it creeps closer to MTOW? Needing to reshuffle due to weather when their is risk of a +25’ day likely is weighed against fuel burn.

Heck just have to look at KLM- running a no bleed takeoff in Calgary in much cooler weather. Clearly our elevation has a significant impact on operational planning.

#**9906** Posted **Feb 26, 2022, 3:15 PM**

Not based on the flight plans we saw the last time it operated, hence the theory about the J cabin. 850, with consistently higher payloads, was never close to being performance limited. Westbound delta between 845 and 851 payloads is smaller but not limiting.

They very well could be anticipating higher payloads this summer but it still doesn't necessarily explain previous usage of the type.

MalcolmTucker · #**9907** Posted **Feb 26, 2022, 5:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace.yyc

Not based on the flight plans we saw the last time it operated, hence the theory about the J cabin. 850, with consistently higher payloads, was never close to being performance limited. Westbound delta between 845 and 851 payloads is smaller but not limiting.

They very well could be anticipating higher payloads this summer but it still doesn't necessarily explain previous usage of the type.

How many tonnes are they taking on? Differential fuel cost-like between Calgary, and YVR and Toronto-could drive decisions when it is really close in the optimization.

#**9908** Posted **Feb 26, 2022, 8:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

How many tonnes are they taking on? Differential fuel cost-like between Calgary, and YVR and Toronto-could drive decisions when it is really close in the optimization.

789 block fuel for YYC-FRA in the 50t ballpark, 77L is ~70t but obviously it varies. YVR fuel has been a bit of a wildcard for the last year but based on the significant hedging that occurred in recent years there's no way the equipment would have been selected based on that alone.

MalcolmTucker · #**9909** Posted **Feb 26, 2022, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace.yyc

789 block fuel for YYC-FRA in the 50t ballpark, 77L is ~70t but obviously it varies. YVR fuel has been a bit of a wildcard for the last year but based on the significant hedging that occurred in recent years there's no way the equipment would have been selected based on that alone.

Hedging, depending on the strategy would reduce costs by a similar margin company wide. Unless the counter party was super stupid.

Someone in the system is paying for the difference between airports.

For the counter party to not account for the cost difference, would incentivize AC to make less efficient choices and cost the counter party money.

#**9910** Posted **Feb 27, 2022, 2:03 AM**

There is enough slack in the 789 fleet this summer that this route could be operated by a 789, given that it could lift the required payload... which renders this entire discussion moot.

hollywoodcory · #**9911** Posted **Feb 27, 2022, 6:33 PM**

YYC March International/Transborder Schedule:
I believe we are up to non-stops to 10 countries including 25 destinations in the US, 8 in Mexico, 4 in Central America/Caribbean and 5 in Europe. Bolded the new/resuming routes.

Air Canada:
FRA - 5x weekly 789 (daily from Mar 26)
LHR - 2x weekly 789 (5x weekly from Mar 26)
CUN - 5x weekly 7M8
PVR - 2x weekly 7M8
SFO - 1x daily CR9
LAX - 1x daily CR9
PHX - 5x weekly CR9
LAS - 3x weekly 7M8
OGG - 4x weekly 7M8
HNL - 3x weekly 7M8

WestJet:
LGW - Up to 3x weekly 789 (until March 25)
LHR - 4x weekly 789 (starts Mar. 26)
CDG - Up to 2x weekly 789 (from Mar. 17)
CUN - Up to 3x daily 737/789
PVR - Up to 3x daily 737/789
SJD - Up to 1x daily
HUX - 3x weekly
ZIH - Up to 4x weekly
ZLO - 2x weekly
MZT - 2x weekly
LTO - 1x weekly
LIR - Up to 4x weekly
MBJ - 1x weekly
PUJ - 1x weekly
SEA - 6x weekly DH4
PDX - 3x weekly DH4 (From Mar. 11)
SFO - Up to 4x weekly
LAX - 1x daily
PSP - Up to 2x daily
SNA - 2x weekly
SAN - 2x weekly
LAS - Up to 2x daily
PHX - Up to 2x daily
AZA - 2x weekly
IAH - 6x weekly
BNA - Up to 2x weekly (from Mar. 17)
ATL - 6x weekly
JFK - Up to 4x weekly
MCO - Up to 6x weekly
FLL - 1x weekly (from Mar. 19)
OGG - 1x daily 7M8/789
HNL - Up to 1x daily 7M8
LIH - 1x weekly 7M8
KOA - 1x weekly 7M8 (from Mar. 6)

Flair:
AZA - 2x weekly
LAS - Up to 3x weekly

Sunwing:
CUN / PVR / SJD / MZT / VRA / MBJ

United Airlines:
DEN - 2x daily 319
IAH - 1x daily 738
ORD - 1x daily E75 (from Mar. 27)

Delta Airlines:
MSP - 2x daily 319
SLC - 1x daily E75

American Airlines:
DFW - 1x daily 319

Alaska Airlines:
SEA - Up to 2x daily E75/DH4

KLM:
AMS - Up to 1x daily 333/332 (789 from Mar. 27)

Cage · #**9912** Posted **Feb 28, 2022, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace.yyc

We're still not fully sure why AC likes the 77L on FRA so much - this is not the first season of it. YYC-FRA and YYC-LHR remain relatively profitable routes for AC, some of the highest yielding in the system. The additional 10 J seats vs the 789 seems to be the leading theory. The 77L can lift more over a longer distance but a sector of this length is still child's play for a 789 so it's a wash. For the same payload, fuel burn on YYC-FRA is roughly 15t greater on the 77L, which is why they spent the pandemic in the desert. Neither frame is ideal for a sector of this length.

The 77L was originally bought for:
- 2 frames to YYZ-HKG;
- 2 frames on YYZ-YVR-SYD
- 2 frames as back up for mtce concerns and because YYZ-HKG is a top money maker.

YVR SYD can be accomplished by 789 or 77w and YYZ-HKG can go with a 77W. Therefore no need for the 2 spares. AC needs front large front cabin on YYC-FRA and the timing means the aircraft is fully utilized.

Johnny Aussie · #**9913** Posted **Feb 28, 2022, 10:12 PM**

^ and probably also why they put the 40 J seater 77W on YVR-FRA as probably more likely to fill the other 100 seats despite LH having the 744 on the YVR-FRA route with an even larger J class.

thewave46 · #**9914** Posted **Feb 28, 2022, 10:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace.yyc

There is enough slack in the 789 fleet this summer that this route could be operated by a 789, given that it could lift the required payload... which renders this entire discussion moot.

Perhaps in light of the issues that have unexpectedly pulled 787s out of service (The ones the FAA is investigating Boeing for), keeping additional slack in the 787 schedule is not a bad idea.

The 787 is better used on very long haul routes (typically across the Pacific) where its fuel efficiency really shines.

The 77L is paid for and AC has to stick it somewhere. Given its smaller seat capacity, a smaller hub makes sense.

I am curious where AC goes with its eventual 777 replacement, but that’s decades down the road.

#**9915** Posted **Feb 28, 2022, 10:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cage

AC needs front large front cabin on YYC-FRA

That's what I said in the post you quoted. The J cabin bookings are already strong, and like I said... cargo uplift on the 789 to LHR remained higher most days it was opposite the 77L to FRA the last time this pair operated. Of course that particular statistic could very well change with the vast changes in cargo since the pandemic start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thewave46

The 787 is better used on very long haul routes (typically across the Pacific) where its fuel efficiency really shines.

Yes, that's what I meant when I said neither frame is ideal for a sector the length of YYC-FRA, strictly in the metric of absolute aircraft capability.

hollywoodcory · #**9916** Posted **Feb 28, 2022, 10:31 PM**

From May 20-June 10, AC has the 77L on LHR as well.

#**9917** Posted **Feb 28, 2022, 11:29 PM**

First Jazz to LAX tomorrow is showing zero seats open but I feel like it might not be accurate. Will look tomorrow.

#**9918** Posted **Mar 1, 2022, 11:25 PM**

About 80% LF both ways on first LAX run. Advance bookings are apparently strong, wouldn't be surprised to see the 7M8 extended through summer instead of the currently scheduled 220 for July/August.

loonytoon44 · #**9919** Posted **Mar 2, 2022, 11:09 PM**

Awesome to see those flights come back to Calgary and good to see the KLM Triangle route split up. I have used the KLM flight countless times from both YYC and YEG, still travel heavily on WS to the UK.

hollywoodcory · #**9920** Posted **Mar 6, 2022, 10:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by loonytoon44

Awesome to see those flights come back to Calgary and good to see the KLM Triangle route split up. I have used the KLM flight countless times from both YYC and YEG, still travel heavily on WS to the UK.

The KLM triangle ends March 26th, should have noted that when I posted that update.