Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport

[jmt18325]

I would think they would have pushed someone else out of the way to get WOW here if necessary. I could be wrong. I wasn't really doubting what you were saying, I was just doubting the accuracy which may have been lost somewhere down the line.

[YWG-RO]

I think the 2 major priorities are:
- Canada-US transfer corridor
- East expansion with 4 ground level gates for US departures

I think YWG can make some big inroads here by:
- Allowing WS and DL to code share moving traffic from SK to MSP through YWG
- increase US departures by moving smaller aircraft (UA E145, CRJ) to new ground gates, keep gates 2-4 for larger TB (DL E75 & A319), gate 5 mainly domestic, gate 6 for international WB arrivals.
- Maybe add a second entry point to Canada Border Services from new ground gates to improve flow and allow more domestic use of gates 4-6, now limited by single stairway / elevator.

I doubt a direct flight to SEA is in the cards. Too far for Horizon, not enough demand for AS. I'd rather see more frequency to YVR, DEN back to 2/d, ORD back to 4/d (and larger planes), MSP at 4-5/d.

DEN is poorle served now, even ORD not great. MSP at 3/d would be terrible.

[RepomanYWG]

It's pretty bad at YWG this morning. Most of the flights canceled until around 10:30. They are going to try and get the sun destination flights out. We'll see.

[jmt18325]

So YWG is apparently losing the once weekly WJ flight to LGW - no big loss, IMO.

[YEG]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

So YWG is apparently losing the once weekly WJ flight to LGW - no big loss, IMO.

Winnipeg's only flight to Europe isn't a big loss?

[esquire]

^ I agree with jmt... the reality of the situation is that nearly all travellers between Winnipeg and Europe are already connecting somewhere as it is even with the Westjet flight to LGW. The difference between one flight a week and zero is pretty minor.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by YEG

Winnipeg's only flight to Europe isn't a big loss?

A single weekly flight was pretty hard to work your schedule around, which is why I didn't end up using it. I'm quite happy to connect somewhere else on my schedule for the few extra hours. If the flight were possible more often (like 3 times a week) with smaller planes, it would be a different thing altogether.

[esquire]

^ Yeah, losing a daily flight would be a pretty big deal, but once a week is such a marginal level of service that I don't think its departure will be noticed by many. The biggest impact is probably a PR one as WAA can no longer boast about nonstop service to Europe.

[biguc]

I did use that flight. While it's no great loss to us in getting to Europe, the flight back is full of English tourists. Sure, it's only a couple hundred people a week, but it was surprising to see that there was a marketing push in Gatwick to get people to Winnipeg, of all places. Losing that flight lowers our city's profile.

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by biguc

I did use that flight. While it's no great loss to us in getting to Europe, the flight back is full of English tourists. Sure, it's only a couple hundred people a week, but it was surprising to see that there was a marketing push in Gatwick to get people to Winnipeg, of all places. Losing that flight lowers our city's profile.

I think this is an important note to take in. It's a pretty big deal to has that I ternational connection to market the city to one of the world most important global cities. For me, this is a big loss.

Was it just Winnipeg that lost this flight or were there other casualties ad well? And wasn't this flight mostly at capacity on most flights? This makes no sense to me at all.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Pinus

I think this is an important note to take in. It's a pretty big deal to has that I ternational connection to market the city to one of the world most important global cities. For me, this is a big loss.

Was it just Winnipeg that lost this flight or were there other casualties ad well? And wasn't this flight mostly at capacity on most flights? This makes no sense to me at all.

I think fundamentally on the operations side the WestJet 767 service into LGW was a complete mess. They were stretched thin servicing two few destinations with only four aircraft and could not effectively adjust to delays and operational challenges without causing a domino effect. Dropping a destination only served once per week, adds some flexibility in positioning crews and dealing with delays when things don't go as planned.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

I don't think there is a problem. The Airport has a plan to create more gates below the US gates and it can be done rather quickly from what I understand, if and when necessary (there would be jet bridges coming out of the lower level up to the smaller aircraft that would be moved there, like those from Air Canada Express and Westjet Encore). It's almost certain that any impediment to WOW would be coming from the absolute gong show that KEF has become (just don't tell anyone in the Edmonton Airport forum that).

Not sure what those plans for the east gates coming off ground level will be but it sounds like it is going to be a mess either way. On one flight out our plane was using one of the flex gates that had an earlier US bound flight so it wasn't even possible to wait near the gate until the US flight left not a long time before our Canadian bound flight used the gate. Adding four gates to the east accessed from ground level would seem to just further compound the problem. The linked document also makes reference to considering wide body service from the US secured side, perhaps WestJet 767 to Hawaii? That alone would be a huge mess with the limited hold room on the US secure side.

Definitely lots of challenges ahead of YWG. It is somewhat interesting though expanding the east end with additional second level bridges as originally envisioned seems to now be off the table.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Not sure what those plans for the east gates coming off ground level will be but it sounds like it is going to be a mess either way. On one flight out our plane was using one of the flex gates that had an earlier US bound flight so it wasn't even possible to wait near the gate until the US flight left not a long time before our Canadian bound flight used the gate. Adding four gates to the east accessed from ground level would seem to just further compound the problem. The linked document also makes reference to considering wide body service from the US secured side, perhaps WestJet 767 to Hawaii? That alone would be a huge mess with the limited hold room on the US secure side.

Seems to me that WAA could make room for a US-bound widebody by maxing out the transborder flex space. It would still be crowded, but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

That said, a US-bound widebody seems unlikely to me except on a rare one-off basis. Winnipeg-Hawaii seems like a very long and thin route considering that Winnipeg is fairly convenient to the Caribbean, a place that people in Alberta and BC tend not to go to as much as Mexico, CA, AZ and HI ... it's hard to imagine a scenario where it wouldn't make more sense for an airline to operate a 767 bound for Hawaii through YYC or YVR instead. I think it's fate of Hawaii-bound Winnipeggers to have to keep connecting.

[MalcolmTucker]

Weekly Hawaii charter-esque might work for 10-15 weeks a year. When they start getting more wide-bodies in the depth of winter they are going to need to stay in the air somehow!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Weekly Hawaii charter-esque might work for 10-15 weeks a year. When they start getting more wide-bodies in the depth of winter they are going to need to stay in the air somehow!

Yeah, fair enough... maybe as a once a week winter charter type thing to Maui or Honolulu... that's about as far as it would likely go, though.

Personally I didn't give a lick about WestJet's once a week LGW service and had booked flights to Europe using other carriers, but a nonstop flight to Hawaii is something I would definitely use.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Weekly Hawaii charter-esque might work for 10-15 weeks a year. When they start getting more wide-bodies in the depth of winter they are going to need to stay in the air somehow!

YWG-HNL direct about once or twice a week using a WestJet operated 767 heavily booking air+hotel vacation packages seems somewhat inevitable as they get more of the wide bodies into service and are looking to capture the Hawaii market from AB. Adding more people going there gives them added leverage with hotels to get better rates and act as incentives. It is definitely a game the airlines play and you can see it most clearly on Allegiant's site where the hotel rates are cheaper than anything you can find elsewhere but only at their partner sites. Clearly it is something that is in discussions too as a US bound wide body leaving WYG is specifically called out in the airport's detailed plans linked by esquire. Where else in the US would there be demand to warrant a YWG originated wide body? I could see Florida perhaps for Disney but that seems like even more a stretch than Hawaii.

[MalcolmTucker]

As the MAX get delivered, they have legs to make it to Hawaii. Question is will the widebody fleet have any better use in winter?

[CoryB]

WestJet reportedly bought the wide body fleet with the expressed purpose of flying routes to Hawaii. For a year or more before they bought the wide bodies they had operated seasonal leases on similar planes to run those routes from the then booming AB markets. As airlines are shifting away from 767 to more modern and more fuel efficient planes a heck of a deal came up on some used 767 that WestJet jumped on. The AB economy then tanked pretty good. The Gatwick flights seen last summer were actually themselves an expansion on some trans-Atlantic test routes WestJet had operated from the Maritimes with its 737 fleet for a few years.

The question remains though, if not Hawaii, where else in the USA would there be demand from YWG to warrant a wide body? Having wide body service to the USA is specifically called out by the airport themselves as a consideration in their future plans.

[esquire]

^ I think we've pretty well covered it... maybe weekly charter-type flights to Hawaii or one of a handful of other US vacation hotspots (Orlando, LA, Vegas, Phoenix).

I would imagine that widebody service to the US is a pretty rare thing in Canada, apart possibly from Toronto and unusual things like the Cathay Pacific fifth freedom flight from Vancouver to New York. I don't think the WAA really needs to spend much time thinking about ways to accommodate transborder widebodies. The widebody gates on the TB side probably do get regularly used for international arrivals from sunspots and the short-lived LGW run... I recall my parents taking an Air Transat flight from Panama or some such on a A310 that flew directly to Winnipeg.

[jmt18325]

Vancouver also has EWR service on an Air Canada 787, and some Rouge flights to Arizona and Vegas. Other than that, and YYZ to LGA and LAX (with rumours of SFO) and some Rouge flights, I don't see much else really.