Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport

[kattiff]

sooo something I learned about our airport.

The airport authority is looking at a quick short term solution for this years charter season. Since the 2018-2019 was a gong show for the gates for the airlines, they are looking at for the 2019-2020 season is having the planes park out in the holds and getting special busses to shuttle people back n forth fr the building to the plane.
They are the buses that they have in Europe and I thought maybe Washington Dulles had them once upon a time... it’s like a capsule and they raise up to the aircraft door then lower snd drive them to the terminal.

[esquire]

So you mean these



If WAA has to resort to using these in a new, fairly slow-growth airport instead of just having the proper number of fixed gates, then I don't know how you don't characterize that as a planning fail.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

If WAA has to resort to using these in a new, fairly slow-growth airport instead of just having the proper number of fixed gates, then I don't know how you don't characterize that as a planning fail.

I could see the hesitancy for the Airport Authority to go whole hog in 2011, since the 2008-09 downturn was fresh in their minds, but did they not envision that expansion should be part of the plan over the lifespan of the terminal?

[kattiff]

Yea! That’s them!

we all know by now, the WAA is a joke!

[buzzg]

JFK uses busses to terminals too, like a transit bus but way bigger and more open. Then you walk up stairs to get on.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by buzzg

JFK uses busses to terminals too, like a transit bus but way bigger and more open. Then you walk up stairs to get on.

Probably closer to the outcome. It would probably be mostly used for arrivals.

[EspionNoir]

Originally Posted by esquire

So you mean these



If WAA has to resort to using these in a new, fairly slow-growth airport instead of just having the proper number of fixed gates, then I don't know how you don't characterize that as a planning fail.

You mean Winnipeg airport is fairly slow growth?

[Rogie]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Probably closer to the outcome. It would probably be mostly used for arrivals.

Vancouver uses them now for peak services too. Buses that drive to the plane, then a ramp that lets passengers walk up.

They save a lot of money if they can be used effectively. The YVR airport authority says passengers like the service, though I have my doubts.

[CoryB]

Saw the air side buses in a few European airports last fall.

Basically passengers go from departure level (ie second floor) to ground level then onto a special transit bus not all that different than you see on the streets here. Those buses then take you to some location away from the terminal and you load the plane. At FCO (Rome) it almost seemed like the planes were loading it a maintenance style yard which was part of the larger airport campus.

At the plane you walk up a set of exposed stairs similar to what you see politicians on when they are exiting big planes, especially the American president.

I have heard the reason for doing this is airlines using this passenger flow pay significantly less airport fees.

--

I think a better solution for YWG is to actively encourage airlines to be using more off peak times for their flights. There are essentially two 3 hour peak periods (6 hours a day) out of a 24 hours period. If those flights were spread over a wider time it solves the problem in the short term.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I think a better solution for YWG is to actively encourage airlines to be using more off peak times for their flights. There are essentially two 3 hour peak periods (6 hours a day) out of a 24 hours period. If those flights were spread over a wider time it solves the problem in the short term.

Not a bad idea on the surface, but I would imagine that the calculus of route arrival/departure times is pretty complex when you consider demand, gate availability at other airports (particularly YYZ), staff/aircraft availability, etc.

Even larger airports tend to be deadsville outside the rush hour periods. Really only YYZ seems busy all the time among Canadian airports.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

Not a bad idea on the surface, but I would imagine that the calculus of route arrival/departure times is pretty complex when you consider demand, gate availability at other airports (particularly YYZ), staff/aircraft availability, etc.

Even larger airports tend to be deadsville outside the rush hour periods. Really only YYZ seems busy all the time among Canadian airports.

But even YYZ has its lulls. You can really notice it after around 9pm. International departures feels busy because of red-eye departures but everything else definitely slows.

[esquire]

I've taken that 10:30 pm departure a number of times and YYZ still feels pretty busy at that hour... during the daytime, T1 is packed all the time these days. It's quite a change from when T1 first opened when there were still fairly noticeable periods of downtime.

The international part of T1 is a gong show in the evenings, it feels really congested in there nowadays when all the evening eastbound flights are leaving.

[esquire]

Incidentally, it's interesting to hear this news about the new Airbus 321XLR variant with a range of 5400 nautical miles.

From Winnipeg, this plane can reach places like Tokyo, Beijing, Santiago, and anywhere in Europe. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5400nm%40YWG

It will be interesting to see whether any Canadian airlines order it.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

Incidentally, it's interesting to hear this news about the new Airbus 321XLR variant with a range of 5400 nautical miles.

From Winnipeg, this plane can reach places like Tokyo, Beijing, Santiago, and anywhere in Europe. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5400nm%40YWG

It will be interesting to see whether any Canadian airlines order it.

5400? I only heard 4700, but 54 would definitely open up a few markets to YWG. I could see it being a big driver of point to point flying.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

5400? I only heard 4700, but 54 would definitely open up a few markets to YWG. I could see it being a big driver of point to point flying.

You are probably thinking of the previously announced 321LR with a range of 4600nm. This one ups the ante somewhat.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

Incidentally, it's interesting to hear this news about the new Airbus 321XLR variant with a range of 5400 nautical miles.

From Winnipeg, this plane can reach places like Tokyo, Beijing, Santiago, and anywhere in Europe. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5400nm%40YWG

It will be interesting to see whether any Canadian airlines order it.

I'd say that Europe (especially London, say 3X weekly) and Hawaii would be a good fit for this plane.

The problem being that it's probably not high on Westjet's wish list and Air Canada is limited by its slots at Heathrow and doesn't seem too inclined to serve Gatwick.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

You are probably thinking of the previously announced 321LR with a range of 4600nm. This one ups the ante somewhat.

Yeah at 5400 nm it would be a game changer for airlines. Man, with the trends going on in aviation we could see aircraft like the 777 struggling if we continue to go towards a frequency based model.

I hope this launches. I could see YWG getting quite a few new routes if WAA plays its cards right.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by wave46

I'd say that Europe (especially London, say 3X weekly) and Hawaii would be a good fit for this plane.

The problem being that it's probably not high on Westjet's wish list and Air Canada is limited by its slots at Heathrow and doesn't seem too inclined to serve Gatwick.

Yeah, I would never expect this plane to fly to Asia from Canada, but Europe seems like a possibility. I could see cities with marginal Europe service like YOW/YEG/YHZ getting a real bump if AC got its hands on a few of these.

I'm not sure where that would leave Winnipeg, though. Maybe as you suggest Hawaii and/or some minor Europe service, let's say a 3x weekly route to some Star Alliance hub like Frankfurt, that kind of thing...at best.

[CoryB]

The challenge with lower total passenger volumes and smaller but longer point to point routes is you really start to bump into the issue of pilot shortage.

That will be one of the things that keeps the longer range/higher passenger planes viable for a while.

As for potential interest in the A321XLR I wouldn't be surprised is the Max 8 issue has both AC and WestJet seriously rethinking their fleet choices to the point they move to a more varied fleet. It would definitely help mitigated future issues similar to Max 8.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by CoryB

As for potential interest in the A321XLR I wouldn't be surprised is the Max 8 issue has both AC and WestJet seriously rethinking their fleet choices to the point they move to a more varied fleet. It would definitely help mitigated future issues similar to Max 8.

I think Air Canada is looking to have a mixed fleet of A320s and 737s in the future. So, they have the infrastructure, pilots and maintenance required to introduce another A320-type aircraft fairly easily.

I'm not sure about Westjet. Do they have enough critical mass to justify running two separate narrowbody fleets, especially since their operations are fragmenting now (Encore, Swoop, Link, Longhaul)?