Calgary International Airport II

[outoftheice]

As part of the B concourse renovations is the airport planning on building a hammerhead at the end of the pier designer specifically for ground loading regional aircraft? I know back before the international terminal project took shape the hammerhead was planned to to expand US and international ops. I think converting the plans for regional use by Jazz, Encore and CMA would make the most sense in the long run.

[speedog]

Dug this out of page 74 of this thread (early December, 2012) and it is strictly a city of Calgary graphic (per the poster back then) with respect to the footprint required for the future Airport Trail intersections on the north side of the terminal. As best as I can discern from the conversation back on page 74, this by no mean represents any future terminal plans. It is, however, a delicious image to discuss...

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Acey

Total number of swing gates is only 4 (4 narrowbodies or two 767/310 and greater sized aircraft) which is a significant reduction from operations prior to IFP. These gates are already maxed out at peak times regardless of what is going on with A, B, and C piers. Utilization of the US-only gates and international-only gates remains somewhat low, and there is plenty of capacity there. Years from now when these gates get maxed out, the 4 swings will function less as swings and more as US-only or int'l-only to pick up the slack, creating even more tows.

It's hard to speak to a time frame. Planes leaving at 10 am remain overnight on gates right now. At anything resembling a busy airport that is laughably impossible. It is therefore fair to say that aside from the swing gate conundrum, YYC's gate utilization is laughably low. Even on the swings, planes do 2+ hour turns at times, which are turns that do not even need to be on a swing.

First of all, there is more than four swing gates at D/E; however there are only 4 gates that allow for a Domestic segment to be one end of the turn. There are a further 13 gates that can swing intl/USA. Further, most YYC gates can swing independently or atleast semi-independently of other nearby gates; a feature not replicated at YVR or YYZ.

Yes there is a problem with the WS 10-11am intl/USA departure bank, and a second smaller problem for WS in the evening. The evening departure bank problem occurs when WS wants an in bound USA flight to turn in less than 1 hour to the YYZ/YUL/YOW/YHZ redeyes. IMHO and amateur opinion, its a mistake to turn quick turn the redeyes out of YYC because they are also quick turned in Eastern Canada as one of the first flights of the day. It is better to complete daytime maintenance then depart YYC as redeyes and begin a 24 hour flight schedule in the late evening.

I will however admit that two ingredients to WS schedule and low cost philosophy of high a/c utilization are the 10am departure bank and redeye flying out of YYC. But these two features have a finite level of capacity beyond which there is no Canadian comparison or even world wide comparison.

WS has realized that their past success cannot be replicated onto expanded future operations. In the Winter 2017/18 schedule I'm seeing a lot more mature network scheduling. This new schedule is also the first under the new Network scheduling team that Saretsky hired away from UA. By summer 2018 schedule most of WS complaints WRT YYC new terminal will be gone. Those that remain are simply a factor the complexity of running a major hub operation, its just that WS doesn't have experience with major hub operations on the global scale.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by Acey

IFP is a white elephant, they said.

Originally Posted by Acey

YYC's gate utilization is laughably low

So pale grey elephant?

[SKYSTHELIMIT]

Just used the new International terminal Sunday on my way from YVR to ORD. Looks great guys. We gated at Pier D from YVR and took that little Link cart. Was very convenient.

[hollywoodcory]

Is there any chance Interjet would be interested in YYC now that they've launched YYZ, YUL and YVR? I feel like they might opt for YEG instead.

Also on the same-ish subject, it appears AeroMexico isn't operating on Tuesday for all of September.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Cage

First of all, there is more than four swing gates at D/E; however there are only 4 gates that allow for a Domestic segment to be one end of the turn. There are a further 13 gates that can swing intl/USA. Further, most YYC gates can swing independently or atleast semi-independently of other nearby gates; a feature not replicated at YVR or YYZ. .

Some of the Euopean airports do this by having each zone on a different floor and each gate with an elevator or stairs to get to the correct level. That said, I am not certain YYC gains much over YVR or YYZ having this.

For AC, international is mostly wide-body and trans-boarder is mostly narrow body. It might be of benefit in YVR where they could potentially run wide body aircraft to New York or LAX. The same for YYZ to SFO or LAX. However Calgary is unlikely to have wide-body service to the US any time soon.

Maybe a bigger benefit to WestJet where they could swing some of the Mexico flights with US flights.

Originally Posted by Cage

Yes there is a problem with the WS 10-11am intl/USA departure bank, and a second smaller problem for WS in the evening. The evening departure bank problem occurs when WS wants an in bound USA flight to turn in less than 1 hour to the YYZ/YUL/YOW/YHZ redeyes. IMHO and amateur opinion, its a mistake to turn quick turn the redeyes out of YYC because they are also quick turned in Eastern Canada as one of the first flights of the day. It is better to complete daytime maintenance then depart YYC as redeyes and begin a 24 hour flight schedule in the late evening. .

Does WestJet not have a who bunch of aircraft that overnight in Calgary or do they position most of the fleet at outstations for early morning departures back into Calgary? I would have expected it would be that critical to turn aircraft for the redeyes. Must annoying for passengers connecting onto these flights, you arrive at the other end of a fairly empty terminal and have to walk (or ride the sci-fi cart to the opposite end of the terminal).

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Acey

Rumour from a high up at Delta: they are considering a relaunch of YYC-ATL, maybe 4x weekly 738. That is the same source that told me about YEG getting the 717 from MSP long before it appeared on the sked, so there is some validity to the source.

I don't see it happening, but I'm interested to hear what you guys think... Cage, Johnny...

Oooh...I would like this. I fly to Charlotte every 6 weeks and I would love to take that flight over that crappy United flight through that god awful airport in Houston.

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by Acey

Rumour from a high up at Delta: they are considering a relaunch of YYC-ATL, maybe 4x weekly 738. That is the same source that told me about YEG getting the 717 from MSP long before it appeared on the sked, so there is some validity to the source.

I don't see it happening, but I'm interested to hear what you guys think... Cage, Johnny...

That would be great. There are unique international connections out of ATL as well; it is one of the few airports in North America that operates flights to South Africa. A slightly shorter option than going through Europe (which is basically the only option from YYC now.

[Lancaster]

Originally Posted by Cage

First of all, there is more than four swing gates at D/E; however there are only 4 gates that allow for a Domestic segment to be one end of the turn. There are a further 13 gates that can swing intl/USA. Further, most YYC gates can swing independently or atleast semi-independently of other nearby gates; a feature not replicated at YVR or YYZ.

I thiiiink (correct me if I'm wrong) that some of the hammerhead gates in T1 at YYZ can swing independently between International and US gates (International above, and US below)?

[Chinook Arch]

Originally Posted by PPAR

That would be great. There are unique international connections out of ATL as well; it is one of the few airports in North America that operates flights to South Africa. A slightly shorter option than going through Europe (which is basically the only option from YYC now.

NYC has flights to South Africa, but true it would be nice to have the direct flight to Atlanta.

[FormerWingTipper]

If DL brings back ATL, they need to time it better. Should be an early morning departure out of Calgary and a late night return from Atlanta. However, this could result in poor aircraft utilization, as the aircraft would need to sit at YYC for ~10hrs. e.g.:

ATL 19:00 YYC 22:30
YYC 08:00 ATL 14:30

<not sure of the exact flying times>

This would allow a small domestic feed at YYC as well for connections in/out of ATL.

[FormerWingTipper]

Originally Posted by Acey

Obviously the domestic swings are the ones that matter and in any context of a swing gate discussion it is those to which I am referring. The other "swings" almost never function as swings, i.e. transitioning from one op to another on the same turn.

Also, technically, 82/83 can arrive domestic and Transat uses it for that purpose on YVR-YYC-LGW and YVR-YYC-AMS. Four full swings and two one-way swings, we like to say... the WS morning domestic improvisation on 74/75 notwithstanding.

Probably because it's bullshit and the maze of prison-like hallways of the low and high roads are a waste of space.

I agree with Acey and disagree with Cage over the last few months on this thread on this topic. The swing gates are an issue. There are simply not enough DOM/TB and TB/DOM swing gates. Plus, the walks through those tunnels (high road/low road) are horrendous from a customer friendly experience.

The amount of towing is way up. Look at AC144 to YYZ this summer. It normally turns off AC10 from NRT and has an OTP rate of terrible%. What other airport forces airlines to tow on a 1hr 30min turn? CAA rarely gives AC the widebody swing gate for this as they usually give AC the widebody swing gate for YYZ-YYC-NRT. Think of it this way, if AC got swing gates for both NRT-YYC-YYZ and YYZ-YYC-NRT, then all the swing gates would be in use for just those two aircraft as the widebodies take up 2 swing gates each. Let alone no swing gates for Westjet, Jazz, and other AC aircraft or any other carrier looking at expanding service both domestically and transborderly in the future. Absolutely stunning that no one realized or cared how much inconvenience this offers.

Now the CAA is trying to have Gates 74/75 swing as well with added new doors through the high/low roads (what is next - middle roads?). Clearly their is a problem... and the bandaid solution will not allow for 30+ years of growth. It is no wonder airlines like AC are not expanding at YYC. Clearly other airports (YVR, YYZ, and YUL) look at airlines as partnerships, not foes, and the design meets their needs. The fact that a widebody flight has to be towed after a brand new terminal is built shows that the development is not up to the needs of the operators. Too many engineers, not enough airline operations personnel involved in the planning.

[hoboman27]

Originally Posted by FormerWingTipper

I agree with Acey and disagree with Cage over the last few months on this thread on this topic. The swing gates are an issue. There are simply not enough DOM/TB and TB/DOM swing gates. Plus, the walks through those tunnels (high road/low road) are horrendous from a customer friendly experience.

The amount of towing is way up. Look at AC144 to YYZ this summer. It normally turns off AC10 from NRT and has an OTP rate of terrible%. What other airport forces airlines to tow on a 1hr 30min turn? CAA rarely gives AC the widebody swing gate for this as they usually give AC the widebody swing gate for YYZ-YYC-NRT. Think of it this way, if AC got swing gates for both NRT-YYC-YYZ and YYZ-YYC-NRT, then all the swing gates would be in use for just those two aircraft as the widebodies take up 2 swing gates each. Let alone no swing gates for Westjet, Jazz, and other AC aircraft or any other carrier looking at expanding service both domestically and transborderly in the future. Absolutely stunning that no one realized or cared how much inconvenience this offers.

Now the CAA is trying to have Gates 74/75 swing as well with added new doors through the high/low roads (what is next - middle roads?). Clearly their is a problem... and the bandaid solution will not allow for 30+ years of growth. It is no wonder airlines like AC are not expanding at YYC. Clearly other airports (YVR, YYZ, and YUL) look at airlines as partnerships, not foes, and the design meets their needs. The fact that a widebody flight has to be towed after a brand new terminal is built shows that the development is not up to the needs of the operators. Too many engineers, not enough airline operations personnel involved in the planning.

Interesting, where's yyc_engineer when you need him? Defend thy honor!

The only thing I feel you exaggerated is AC's relationship with the airport. Even if YYC provided them with all the swing gates in the world, AC still wouldn't have their focus here.

[yyc_engineer]

Originally Posted by hoboman27

Interesting, where's yyc_engineer when you need him? Defend thy honor!

While I appreciate the shout-out.. my expertise and skill is/was limited to a very specific portion of the terminal.. one that had almost nothing to do with the aeroplanes.

It has been a very humbling year, I can say that. After 3 years of build-up and excitement pre-opening, the mood has been very different on the inside in 2017.

I have spent many a walk around the facilities thinking about what could have been done differently. I'm pretty sure I could write a thesis on my findings.

[hoboman27]

Originally Posted by yyc_engineer

While I appreciate the shout-out.. my expertise and skill is/was limited to a very specific portion of the terminal.. one that had almost nothing to do with the aeroplanes.

It has been a very humbling year, I can say that. After 3 years of build-up and excitement pre-opening, the mood has been very different on the inside in 2017.

I have spent many a walk around the facilities thinking about what could have been done differently. I'm pretty sure I could write a thesis on my findings.

Uh sorry if the tone sounded trollish, it's just a lighthearted jab. We all know that you are not responsible for any of the issues, we are very lucky to have insiders on the forum.

The mood you speak of, I'm going to guess neutral to slightly negative, you can't keep everyone all hyped up forever. Thing's got to return back to normal.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by hoboman27

Uh sorry if the tone sounded trollish, it's just a lighthearted jab. We all know that you are not responsible for any of the issues, we are very lucky to have insiders on the forum.

The mood you speak of, I'm going to guess neutral to slightly negative, you can't keep everyone all hyped up forever. Thing's got to return back to normal.

Things could take a major positive turn if Nenshi and team land Amazon!

[Cage]

Originally Posted by casper

(1)Some of the Euopean airports do this by having each zone on a different floor and each gate with an elevator or stairs to get to the correct level.

(2) For AC, international is mostly wide-body and trans-boarder is mostly narrow body. It might be of benefit in YVR where they could potentially run wide body aircraft to New York or LAX. The same for YYZ to SFO or LAX. However Calgary is unlikely to have wide-body service to the US any time soon.

(1) Yes, MUC T2, FRA T1, CDG some terminals, and others do have Domestic/Schenegen on one level and International on a second level.

However the key point is that Europe combine domestic and Schenegen into same zone where as Canada has uniquely 3 separate zones.

(2) I think many people on this forum missunderstand the primary purpose of swing gates. Swing gates are increase airport operating efficiency by requiring less building infrastructure. Gates can be used for Transborder in the morning, international in the afternoon, and domestic in the evening. The primary purpose is not for an aircraft to arrive domestic and depart 1.5 hours later as transborder.

Originally Posted by Lancaster

(3) I thiiiink (correct me if I'm wrong) that some of the hammerhead gates in T1 at YYZ can swing independently between International and US gates (International above, and US below)?

This is partially true. YYZ ops allow for the two gates closest to the hammerhead to either be international loading or transborder loading. Any of the gates on E/F pier can arrive from any international city.

There is no provision for an aircraft to depart for USA using the international gate area.

Originally Posted by FormerWingTipper

(4) Plus, the walks through those tunnels (high road/low road) are horrendous from a customer friendly experience.

(5)The amount of towing is way up. Look at AC144 to YYZ this summer. It normally turns off AC10 from NRT and has an OTP rate of terrible%. What other airport forces airlines to tow on a 1hr 30min turn?

(4) Agreed the walks are horendously long.

(5) The amount of towing are YYC pales in comparison to LHR, FRA, HKG, NRT, BEI.

5. As for airports that require quick turns, this occurs at (ATL, FRA, etc.) Airports that has 1.5 hour turns" ATL, HKG, FRA. HKG, just to name a few.

[FormerWingTipper]

Originally Posted by Cage

I think many people on this forum missunderstand the primary purpose of swing gates. Swing gates are increase airport operating efficiency by requiring less building infrastructure.

That may be the "airport" definition and understanding of swing gates.

Originally Posted by Cage

The primary purpose is not for an aircraft to arrive domestic and depart 1.5 hours later as transborder.

That is exactly the purpose the "airlines" want, especially for a regional hub like YYC that relies on domestic traffic feeding transborder flights and vice versa.


The airport authority should have built an airport that the airlines wanted. That is what most businesses do... they build what the customer wants. Instead, we have an airport authority that thinks they know everything and the airlines are to blame for not scheduling flights accordingly. Again, no wonder there is no love for YYC from either AC or WS right now.

[EdmontonTraveller]

Originally Posted by FormerWingTipper

The airport authority should have built an airport that the airlines wanted. That is what most businesses do... they build what the customer wants. Instead, we have an airport authority that thinks they know everything and the airlines are to blame for not scheduling flights accordingly. Again, no wonder there is no love for YYC from either AC or WS right now.

In most jurisdictions, the airport is managed as civic infrastructure squeezed into what is increasingly insufficient space with no room for expansion. In these places airport operational efficiency is the first priority.

In the U.S., in the ME3, large airport terminals are largely funded by* and provisioned for airlines, with lots of opportunity to expand, tear down, rebuild to optimize for the paying customer - the airlines and their operational desires. Even when there's no space, no permission to expand, they spend billions to address airlines' requests. (e.g. LAX)

Canada has a strange model - the recent build-outs are paid for directly by the passenger via AIF fees for the next 30 years. Who does the Airport Authority believe is their primary customer? There's relatively little constraint on expansion and refurbishment (I'd argue YYZ proved even cost isn't a constraint) so how does an Authority prioritize design requirements? I assume airlines aren't immune from "good, cheap, fast: pick two" - did they choose the wrong two when participating in the visioning? Or (as some suggest) were the airlines secondary players in the IFP vision?

I'd agree with Cage that the original purpose of a swing gate is to maximize terminal utilization, but in larger airport terminals int'l dp. and ar. are usually wide-body, or in segregated terminals, or have separate airlines handling int'l short-haul (sun destination) flights. Those scenarios don't have the same metal doing a domestic and an int'l flight. I'd be interested how SCL, GRU, EZE manage their swing gates (if they exist), same with mid-size constrained airports in Europe. SCL's would be down that one wing, so the swing would be on the corner.

*We can debate who actually pays for ME3 airports, obviously there's a state component that is different than the U.S.