HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1141  
Old Posted May 18, 2024, 1:51 PM
Dominion301 Dominion301 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djeffery View Post
Flair Airlines Orlando (MCO) Winter Schedule

Route Frequency Start Date Starting Fare

Kitchener-Waterloo (YKF) - Orlando (MCO) Up to 3x weekly October 29, 2024 $94
Orlando (MCO) - Kitchener-Waterloo (YKF) Up to 3x weekly October 29, 2024 $44
Toronto (YYZ) - Orlando (MCO) Up to 12 x weekly December 16, 2024 $114
Orlando (MCO) - Toronto (YYZ) Up to 12 x weekly December 16, 2024 $54
London (YXU) - Orlando (MCO) 2x weekly December 20, 2024 $94
Orlando (MCO) - London (YXU) 2x weekly December 20, 2024 $59
Saint John (YSJ) - Orlando (MCO) 1x weekly December 22, 2024 $124
Orlando (MCO) - Saint John (YSJ) 1x weekly December 22, 2024 $59
So as suspected F8 are flipping over to MCO to see if their abysmal Orlando loads will improve. Also as I figured, YOW would not come back even though the YOW route had some of the least bad loads. Between it and WS cutting YOW-MCO, even with AC restoring service to 2019 levels with the extra 2x weekly yesterday, that should pave the way for PD to add a 2nd daily next winter. Doing so would only slightly increase net capacity on the route.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1142  
Old Posted May 18, 2024, 2:11 PM
fanofYOW fanofYOW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
Checking out the route maps for our region. Lovely to see a line from St. John's to Europe again
Super happy for YYT! I feel like it's underserved and would be better suited as a pond hopping airport even though YHZ has a larger catchment. Feed it with YHZ, YOW, YUL, and YYZ on top of the western routes already available, it would be a great location for a quick TA mini-hub. Right now, not very many cities in the East can benefit from WS' offerings at YHZ, which is probably why the frequencies are low. AF from YOW to CDG frequently flies over YYT back and forth, so the geographical routing also makes sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1143  
Old Posted May 18, 2024, 2:30 PM
fanofYOW fanofYOW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justanothermember View Post
This has to be due to Porter's growing market on these routes, and in YWGs case, also due to WS having established YWG-YOW year-round. Lots of competition here now.

I am a bit surprised that there is no effort from AC to restore YEG-YOW however. I would have though this to be a route AC believing is lucrative and wanting to pursue once more.
Maybe it was driven by PD's expansion but I don't think they are going head-to-head with them. We all know AC will not add any actual significant direct flights from YOW so I think this is more in response to Flair's and Westjet's retreat when it comes to the sun destinations. YOW is just a mere insignificant/unimportant spoke in their system and it will always be, so PD will win when it comes to capacity and number of route offerings overall.

In terms of domestic, I'm pretty sure AC realizes not being able to connect major Canadian cities together as the "flag carrier" is pathetic (now they just have to work on that in YEG). If AC wants to compete with PD in YOW, they will need to add direct options to new markets very soon to cater to pax like myself who values direct options and will pay premium for them, otherwise, it's just going to be a headache for them. Or they will need drop their pricing significantly for the penny pinchers like when they were offering YOW-YUL-CDG for a dirt cheap price of $380 return when AF started in YOW. No way in a million years is PD going to back off their hub operation and growth from YOW, kind of like a "we can do this the easy way or hard way" type of thing.

Last edited by fanofYOW; May 18, 2024 at 2:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1144  
Old Posted May 18, 2024, 2:47 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamAviMech View Post
That's interesting placement for the Kingston Pin. It's either dropped in the wrong spot or it's supposed to be Hamilton. Which would be nice that something os planned for YHM bit I doubt it, as nothing seems be planned or announced by Porter to fly out of Hamilton.
Is someone thinking that the "Brooklyn of Canada" is the "Kingston of the GTHA"?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1145  
Old Posted May 18, 2024, 5:58 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is online now
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 67,147
YEG had quite the new arrival yesterday.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1146  
Old Posted May 18, 2024, 6:03 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 35,399


From the Halifax [Stanfield] thread in the Atlantic Canada section.

Quote:
Originally Posted by q12 View Post
Condor's new A330-900neo makes it debut in Halifax today:



Frankfurt, Germany

Discover Airlines YHZ-Frankfurt 5x weekly A330 Resumes April 28
Condor Airlines YHZ-Frankfurt 4x weekly A330 Resumes May 18

London, UK
Air Canada YHZ-London Heathrow, UK Daily 737max8 Year-round
Westjet YHZ-London, Gatwick, UK 4x weekly 737max8 Resumes April 28

Iceland
Icelandair YHZ-Reykjavik, Iceland 3x weekly 737max8 Resumes May 31

Scotland, UK
Westjet YHZ-Edinburgh, Scotland, UK 3x weekly 737max8 Starts June 20

Dublin, Ireland
Westjet YHZ-Dublin, Ireland 4x weekly 737max8 Resumes June 19
YEG may have 2x weekly Condor to Frankfurt, but YHZ will have 4x weekly Condor to Frankfurt. Cripes, I'm starting to sound like q12!!!
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1147  
Old Posted May 18, 2024, 8:45 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is online now
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 67,147
Yeah, but you have cruise ships and lobster.

Edmonton has but a mall.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1148  
Old Posted May 18, 2024, 9:14 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 35,399
And Jasper.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1149  
Old Posted May 18, 2024, 10:00 PM
Djeffery Djeffery is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Posts: 4,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx View Post
Yeah, but you have cruise ships and lobster.

Edmonton has but a mall.
Yeah, but there is almost as many people boarding cruise ships in Edmonton as there are in Halifax lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1150  
Old Posted May 18, 2024, 10:23 PM
Justanothermember Justanothermember is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2023
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
And Jasper.
It's interesting that people say this, because Jasper is only about 40 kms closer to Edmonton than it is to Calgary, which is roughly about 20-30 minutes difference. And Banff is only about 45 kms farther away from Edmonton than Edmonton is from Jasper. So in essence, one could say both Edmonton and Calgary 'have' Jasper.

If you want an analogy similar to the Calgary/Banff closeness, you can say Edmonton has Elk Island National Park, which is only 50 kms away (visitor centre).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1151  
Old Posted May 18, 2024, 11:38 PM
zahav zahav is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,926
Condor is such a big Canada booster, it's nice to see how they give and share the love between so many destinations across the county, coast to coast. And they've served small and mostly neglected airports like Whitehorse even. I worked for Air North for a few years in the mid 2000s, I was based in YVR but the airline is Yukon through and through, no matter what other base you were at, Whitehorse was king and you could never forget the airline existed to serve Yukoners first and foremost, which I always respected. Air North did the ground handling for Condor at YXY in the summer, and it was really cool for somewhere like that to have a non-stop European connection, and cool for the crews to service a widebody (it was always a 767). They operated this route for ~20 years I think, limited weekly seasonal frequency but still, a big score for YXY.

Unfortunately, YXY is undergoing runway maintenance for the next 2 years, so Condor has cancelled their YXY service. Sadly, even when the runway maintenance is done, apparently Condor may not be back, and it isn't due to lack of demand.. See below:

Condor Airlines won't fly to Yukon for at least the next 2 summers
Uncertain if German airline will ever return to Whitehorse, as runway won't accommodate larger planes

At the same time, Condor will switch next year from using smaller Boeing 767 aircraft to larger Airbuses A330s, and the new planes will be too big for the Whitehorse's alternate runway. So, after Labour Day, the airline won't be able to fly in and out of Whitehorse for at least the next two years.

And even after work on the runway finishes, Condor might not be able to return to the Yukon.

In an email to CBC News, the Yukon government says that even once the runway is repaved, the airport may not be able to accommodate the Airbuses that Condor will be flying.

"There are additional airport improvements, staffing, and procedural systems that would be required to accommodate this larger aircraft safely," said Tourism and Culture department spokesperson Cameron Webber.

"The airport can only intake planes of this size under emergency circumstances."


CBC News contacted Condor Airlines but did not receive a response before publication.

Repaving the runway, Webber wrote, is intended to ensure "the shipment of personnel, goods, critical medical services," and to support Yukon's tourism and resource sectors, as well as Arctic security.

To help maintain travel to and from Germany, the government, along with the Crown corporation Destination Canada, will jointly spend $120,000 to market indirect flights that connect Yukon's Air North with Condor flights to other Canadian cities, Webber said.

Most German-speaking Europeans who visit Whitehorse already connect through Vancouver, Webber added — about 15,000 people annually, compared to 7,000 through Condor's direct flights.

Air North is already connecting Condor passengers to Whitehorse through other Canadian cities such as Edmonton and Vancouver, said Ben Ryan, spokesperson for the Yukon airline. He says they're also streamlining those connections.

"So next year, your bags will automatically transfer — and hopefully that'll start sooner, like this summer," Ryan said.

He says Air North is now also working to offer more convenient connecting flights through those other cities, in line with Condor's schedule.


I personally didn't realize there was THAT much of a difference between the A330 and the B767, I always thought they were somewhat in the same ballpark of planes (yes I know the A330-900 that Condor flies is bigger, but I didn't think it was that much of a difference to cause an issue like this). It was a replacement for Condor's 767 (as it is for many airlines such as Delta), so it's not like we're going from an old-school 767-200 up to a 777-300 or anything... The fact that their only international carrier (and a loyal one at that) is now flying A330-900s, you'd think they would make necessary upgrades. They are already doing upgrades, why not integrate changes to accommodate Condor? The upgrades would be a benefit anyways, it isn't just to "please" Condor, it is an investment in the airport's infrastructure, and could create more opportunities.

Condor will be receiving A321neos, and according to Wikipedia, they have a range of 3,995 nautical miles. According to GCMap, YXY-FRA is 3,943 nautical miles. I am no expert on operational capabilities at all, but I know there are forumers who are very knowledgeable with the technical stats. There's probably more things to consider than just these two stats, maybe the range is too long for the 321neo due to something else. I just thought to mention it so those more knowledgeable than me can comment. If YXY isn't planning to invest in upgrades to allow the A330-900, then it would be nice if the 321neo could do it instead.

In typical Air North fashion, they are working hard to connect pax thru YVR and YEG, so doing what they can to ensure the tourists still come, even if it isn't on non-stop flights. They did say "Most German-speaking Europeans who visit Whitehorse already connect through Vancouver, Webber added — about 15,000 people annually, compared to 7,000 through Condor's direct flights." But still, I want to see YXY be driven and make the necessary improvements, and not just accept a belief that they can't handle these planes, and be content funneling through YVR and YEG... If the government can spend $120,000 on just marketing to promote connections, I find it hard to believe they couldn't find the money for a more important long term improvement.

Last edited by zahav; May 18, 2024 at 11:42 PM. Reason: Added URL link for the article
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1152  
Old Posted May 19, 2024, 1:30 AM
Myst Myst is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2023
Posts: 116
I find it a little odd that YXY (Whitehorse) main runway at 9500ft wouldn’t be long enough, especially with eastbound requiring less fuel, but elevation of 2300ft may also be relevant. Although the wording of alternate runway not being adequate is odd - although 6600ft isn’t enough, I don’t see why 2 adequate runways would be required - otherwise single runway airports couldn’t exist.

On paper the A321neo might have the range, but in reality it would require A321LR or XLR. They would need to carry enough fuel to get to an alternate airport, and the westbound typically has a headwind due to the jetstream.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1153  
Old Posted May 19, 2024, 6:33 AM
thenoflyzone thenoflyzone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 3,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst View Post
I find it a little odd that YXY (Whitehorse) main runway at 9500ft wouldn’t be long enough, especially with eastbound requiring less fuel, but elevation of 2300ft may also be relevant. Although the wording of alternate runway not being adequate is odd - although 6600ft isn’t enough, I don’t see why 2 adequate runways would be required - otherwise single runway airports couldn’t exist.

On paper the A321neo might have the range, but in reality it would require A321LR or XLR. They would need to carry enough fuel to get to an alternate airport, and the westbound typically has a headwind due to the jetstream.
The problem at YXY isn't runway length, but rather obstacle free environment of a runway and/or taxiway. The so called AGN (Aircraft group number) limit.

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/ref...-ac-no-602-005

The problem is aircraft wingspan.

B763 wingspan: 47.57 m
A330 wingspan: 60.3 m
A330neo wingspan: 64m

Unfortunately, runway 14R/32L (that's the longest one) at YXY is rated AGN IV, meaning it is limited to aircraft with a wingspan of 52.12 m or less. Meaning no A330s.

The taxiways are even worse. The only taxiway that can handle the 767 is taxiway A. (Again, rated AGN IV only, so no A330s.)

Taxiways E and F are limited to AGN IIIB, meaning no aircraft over a 36 m wingspan. (A321/B737 or less).

You can find airport runway/taxiway AGN limits in the CFS (Canada flight supplement). You'd think YXY would use the runway rehabilitation time to upgrade the AGN limit for runway 32L and taxiway A to at least AGN V, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Pretty stupid, if you ask me. It means no Condor now that the 767s are gone. Or maybe they are. That CBC article is from last year, so maybe things have changed.

PS. still can't wrap my head around how ugly that new Condor livery is.

PPS. Speaking of 767s, with the slump in cargo demand, and Air Canada being short of narrowbodies and widebodies, it seems they will be reactivating two 767s into passenger service. Timeline seems to be for fall this year, or possibly even early next year. Fins 640 (C-FOCA) and 641 (C-GLCA) are the birds in question. 34 and 33 year old frames, respectively. Pretty cool stuff! Fin 640 was ferried from MZJ to YHM last week. 641 is still in storage at MZJ.

Last edited by thenoflyzone; May 19, 2024 at 7:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1154  
Old Posted May 19, 2024, 12:28 PM
Myst Myst is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2023
Posts: 116
Interesting. It seems very odd that a 9600ft runway would be in place but be that limiting on aircraft dimensions - the only reason for a long runway in the first place would be supporting larger aircraft.

Is aircraft weight also a reason for runway taxiway limits at YXY? A 767-300 has a max takeoff weight of 412,000lbs. An A330-900 is 553,000lb. 1/3 heavier isn’t an order of magnitude, but isn’t nothing…
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1155  
Old Posted May 19, 2024, 2:00 PM
zahav zahav is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,926
Thumbs up

Thanks guys for the feedback on Whitehorse, I never knew any of that technical detail. But I agree 100% with noflyzone, it is perplexing that they aren't using this runway upgrade period to address the wingspan issue. How has no one pushed for it?! It's a small airport, you don't lose a major airline like that due to airport restrictions and just forget about it. It should be priority 1 to add the necessary upgrades to take larger aircraft, I am fairly certain the Feds would kick in extra cash, they are quite hospitable with the territories when it comes to certain things.

If I was responsible for selling the project to government, I would mention how Whitehorse received two 747s during Operation Yellow Ribbon (aka 9/11 flight diversions to Canada of US-bound aircraft already in the air). I am pretty sure the wingspan of a 747-400 is more than the A330-900? I am not technical expect again, so there could be a simple answer. But YXY is the first main Canadian airport coming from Asia/Russia, so I'd emphasize the potential strategic importance of being able to receive larger aircraft. Maybe some little birdy reading this will pass along the suggestion to the powers that be, although sounds like things are well underway on the project so they might not be able to adjust the scope that much at this stage in the game, who knows. Better late than never YXY, keep fighting for better
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1156  
Old Posted May 19, 2024, 3:05 PM
Myst Myst is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2023
Posts: 116
It’s hard to justify a major increase to the cost of an already expensive project to support a single weekly seasonal flight.

I would think it depends on the reason for the limit. If it’s pavement loading, then maybe this addresses it on the runway, but not the taxiways. I’m sure there could be other aspects of taxiway design that could be factors, too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1157  
Old Posted May 19, 2024, 3:25 PM
Djeffery Djeffery is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Posts: 4,742
Is it possible that the runway wingspan limit thing is a matter of paperwork? It's not like there is an antenna or driveshed sitting 10 feet off the side of the runway edge. And as mentioned, 747's have landed there before. An A339 Neo is going to overhang the runway edges by, what 30 feet on either side, similar to the 744. What does it take to upgrade this AGN thing? They didn't build a 9500 foot long runway just to give a 737 extra room to stop in the snow, I'm willing to bet the runway and taxiways can already handle the weight.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1158  
Old Posted May 19, 2024, 8:08 PM
Dominion301 Dominion301 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,104
A couple of AC employees on another board stated the plan is to restart 763 pax ops in January 2025.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1159  
Old Posted May 19, 2024, 8:20 PM
thenoflyzone thenoflyzone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 3,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst View Post

Is aircraft weight also a reason for runway taxiway limits at YXY? A 767-300 has a max takeoff weight of 412,000lbs. An A330-900 is 553,000lb. 1/3 heavier isn’t an order of magnitude, but isn’t nothing…
No. The problem is obstacle clearance on the ground.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Djeffery View Post
Is it possible that the runway wingspan limit thing is a matter of paperwork?
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Djeffery View Post
It's not like there is an antenna or driveshed sitting 10 feet off the side of the runway edge. And as mentioned, 747's have landed there before. An A339 Neo is going to overhang the runway edges by, what 30 feet on either side, similar to the 744. What does it take to upgrade this AGN thing? They didn't build a 9500 foot long runway just to give a 737 extra room to stop in the snow, I'm willing to bet the runway and taxiways can already handle the weight.
It's not an antenna.

I think the problem is that the main apron is not zoned for aircraft larger than the 767. And thus, the runway/taxiway combo can only accomodate what the apron can. A larger aircraft might come into conflict with parked aircraft or vehicle roads, light poles, etc.

The CBC article clearly says they can accommodate larger aircraft in an emergency, and obviously have during 9/11. The Transport Canada document above also has wording to that effect. (section 3.0, paragraph 10).

Quote:
It is recognized that aircraft larger, than the published certification level, such as cargo or charter are frequently part of the daily operational mix at an airport. When this occurs, those air operators are advised to contact the airport operator prior to the flight. This is needed so that the airport operator may establish procedures to ensure that the airport certification environment for the scheduled passenger operations is not compromised
So with advance notice, the airport might accept an A330neo, but it needs to establish special procedures on the ground. Ex. blocking certain gates, or vehicle roads while the plane is on the ground. Obviously it's not an ideal scenario, which is why it's only available during emergencies (according to that CBC article).

This also explains why the rehabilitation of the runway won't help the situation. The runway/taxiway aren't the problem. They can physically handle pretty much any aircraft. The problem seems to be the main apron area. The only way the airport can officially handle scheduled A330s and up, is by expanding the main apron. Maybe that's next on their agenda.

Last edited by thenoflyzone; May 19, 2024 at 9:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1160  
Old Posted May 19, 2024, 10:21 PM
Djeffery Djeffery is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Posts: 4,742
Thank you for the info, makes more sense now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:51 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.