Calgary International Airport II

I am told feasibility, performance of the A332/A333 is/was closely examined. Transat probably gets good CASM with their sardine can config of the 332.

Doesn't necessarily mean anything, you don't go buy a multi-million dollar airplane without "closely examining" every possible option anyway.

Of course, somebody has already rendered a 332.



WS kinda needs new paint, don't they.

[tuffyy]

Originally Posted by casper

In the summer they could also use them on the Vancouver - Toronto and Calgary - Toronto run. Air Canada uses widebodies on those routes mostly to drive up utilization between overseas flights.

Air Canada even uses widebodies on the Toronto - Montreal and Toronto - Ottawa route during peek periods during the day.

Once a larger number of aircraft come into play I imagine a few domestic runs would see some wide body service as when the airline took it's initial leases on some Delta 738's back during start up for it's YYC/YEG/YYZ ops as the 732's weren't sufficient.

But initially it'll be interesting to see what European routes they start with...

The Hawaii routes are a no brainer eliminating the Thomas cook leases for YYC/YEG/Hawaii and as I mentioned YVR Hawaii will also likely come into play removing the 737's from that sector.

[rinathq]

hope i am not gatecrashing... but here are some photos from todays YYC visit

here is an interesting spot i found today.. its before the bridge at McCall way.. u take a rough path towards what looks like a temporary cabin for NAV Canada. They have a nice rooftop deck set up which gives a great view of the runway action... dunno if is restricted.... the place was empty. Heat will be an issue midday but again i shot at 105 mm... so the distance can easily be eliminated



putting the vastness of the 777 in perspective...





and my foreign visitor of the day...

[sync]

great shots!

Originally Posted by rinathq

here is an interesting spot i found today.. its before the bridge at McCall way.. u take a rough path towards what looks like a temporary cabin for NAV Canada. They have a nice rooftop deck set up which gives a great view of the runway action... dunno if is restricted.... the place was empty.

Great photos once again. Indeed, anything that says Nav Canada on it, they probably wouldn't want you standing on it even it was just a temporary thing, and the photo where you're very close to the R bridge, somebody might not like that either. But keep the pictures coming, as long as you're well behind the fence shouldn't have any issues. But the cabin... dunno about that.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by rinathq

hope i am not gatecrashing... but here are some photos from todays YYC visit

here is an interesting spot i found today.. its before the bridge at McCall way.. u take a rough path towards what looks like a temporary cabin for NAV Canada. They have a nice rooftop deck set up which gives a great view of the runway action... dunno if is restricted.... the place was empty. Heat will be an issue midday but again i shot at 105 mm... so the distance can easily be eliminated

Great shots, but please don't go up on that roof again. YYC has usually been really good with us spotters, but if the wrong security guy drives by and sees that it could lead to more trouble down the road.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

WestJet has confirmed they are going to go with wide-bodies as early as Fall 2015:

http://westjet2.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=901#.U7rK16t_3jk.twitter

As per the article they'd like 4 aircraft by Fall 2015 to operate the Alberta-Hawaii flights. So I THINK that would rule out the 787. Any thoughts?

The presser is created to be very vague. Most people assumed like Bigtime and think that WS will be operating 4 widebodies by winter 2015/16 schedule. However the presser does not state this. The presser indicates that WS wis planning to start widebody service for the fall 2015/16 and will grow widebody fleet to about 4 aircraft. First deployments are expected to be AB to HI.

I expect WS will start with 2 widebody aircraft for the winter season and then have 4 aircraft for the summer 2016 season. Immediate ramp up to four aircraft would be financially risky and present a lot of operational challenges.

Interesting tidbits still to come out:
- What does the pilot contract say about working conditions. Specifically does the contract reflect AC mainline working conditions or more like Air Transat/AC Rouge. For example AC mainline must fly 3 pilots on to Europe while Air Transat/ACr contract specifies 2 pilots. With each widebody requiring 5-7 crews, the difference in initial training costs and training time is significant.
- Will the aircraft be crewed from YYC or YYZ. Putting 2 aircraft at each base is highly inefficient and presents multiple operational challenges. But could YYC/YVR handle all four aircraft?
- What is the AC response. Put Rouge 763s onto daily HI flights to compete with WS widebody. Exit the HI market and leave it to WS. AC would give up the HI market if it protects W Cda to Europe.
- Does introduction of WS on W Cda to Europe cause one or more other players to exit. BA, KLM, LH, anf FI could be in trouble.

[Bigtime]

I'd hope AC (via Rouge) would stay on AB-Hawaii and help keep fares in check.

I think KLM could weather the "storm", but BA and FI could be in trouble. We can never really get a straight answer on how BA is doing with the YYC-LHR route, of course the economics of the 787 when it finally goes on the route will help matters.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Cage

The presser is created to be very vague. Most people assumed like Bigtime and think that WS will be operating 4 widebodies by winter 2015/16 schedule. However the presser does not state this. The presser indicates that WS wis planning to start widebody service for the fall 2015/16 and will grow widebody fleet to about 4 aircraft. First deployments are expected to be AB to HI.

I expect WS will start with 2 widebody aircraft for the winter season and then have 4 aircraft for the summer 2016 season. Immediate ramp up to four aircraft would be financially risky and present a lot of operational challenges.

Interesting tidbits still to come out:
- What does the pilot contract say about working conditions. Specifically does the contract reflect AC mainline working conditions or more like Air Transat/AC Rouge. For example AC mainline must fly 3 pilots on to Europe while Air Transat/ACr contract specifies 2 pilots. With each widebody requiring 5-7 crews, the difference in initial training costs and training time is significant.
- Will the aircraft be crewed from YYC or YYZ. Putting 2 aircraft at each base is highly inefficient and presents multiple operational challenges. But could YYC/YVR handle all four aircraft?
- What is the AC response. Put Rouge 763s onto daily HI flights to compete with WS widebody. Exit the HI market and leave it to WS. AC would give up the HI market if it protects W Cda to Europe.
- Does introduction of WS on W Cda to Europe cause one or more other players to exit. BA, KLM, LH, anf FI could be in trouble.

From what I gather and interpret it sounds like they will base them in YYC. This makes sense since most of the senior captains and FO's live in Calgary (or vicinity) and those are the guys likely to get first dibs.

I cannot recall where I am getting this number but for some reason 60 crew seems to ring a bell for initial training which would be about 15 crew per airframe. I don't recall what the pilot agreement stated but I do know there was some infighting amongst the pilots, although that is to be expected I suppose regardless of what kind of agreement was reached. The more senior guys were generally happy with it, the junior guys probably went along with it because it doesn't matter to them for a long time anyhow. It was the guys who could see this plane in their careers in 5-10 years or so that were likely the ones who resisted. I suppose you can read between the lines that perhaps there was some unhappiness with either pay or working conditions since nobody is going to bitch that things were too good. That would lead me to conclude the agreement with the pilots would look closer to what Transat/Rouge has than Air Canada mainline. But I'm sure there is some uniqueness to it, WestJet always seems able to find a different way to do things.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'd hope AC (via Rouge) would stay on AB-Hawaii and help keep fares in check.

I think KLM could weather the "storm", but BA and FI could be in trouble. We can never really get a straight answer on how BA is doing with the YYC-LHR route, of course the economics of the 787 when it finally goes on the route will help matters.

Straight answer, BA is not doing well on YYC-LHR. The only upside for them is feed through LHR. Plus BA does not want to cede the route to AC. BA has however been able to disrupt AC business on Western Canada to LHR enough that BA yields on YVR-LHR are holding. Plus BA network through LHR is under incredible pressure, so the bar to cut the route is very low. Finally, BA is awash in extra slots in LHR and must use them up or risk having the slot pulled. With no other markets soak up available slots, maintaining a marginal profitable route is best option.

Indications that BA is in trouble on YYC-LHR.
- Constant rumors the route could be transferred.
- BA puts the worst aircraft onto the route. For example the BA bread and butter is 772 or 747, but instead BA puts the old 763s and is really wanting to put 787. Where in the BA 787 fleet go to their prime destinations? Answer is that BA sends the 787 to secondary markets or secondary flights in primary markets.
- Flight times and equipment keep changing. BA network marketing is trying to find the most profitable scenario for deployment to YYC. Their approach seems to be throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

[Bigtime]

So what factors are BA against that KLM don't appear to be? Since they've been able to grow the AMS flight nicely since starting it up.

[MalcolmTucker]

Aimed more towards the middle of the market?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

So what factors are BA against that KLM don't appear to be? Since they've been able to grow the AMS flight nicely since starting it up.

BA needs to sell all four cabins in order to be successful on a route. KLM however is really a 2.5 cabin airplane with much heavier weight to the lower end of the market. This allows KLM to have better overall product mix compared to BA.

Nobody operating out of Canada is successful with their true first class product. True first class is currently operated by BA out of YYZ, EK out of YYZ, and I think perhaps LH out of YYZ, but I seem to remember that LH has pulled out First from all their Canadian routes.

Airlines that have true three cabin product have to make their Business Cabin inferior in order to maintain yields in first. Essentially people have to be encouraged to move forward and discouraged to move backward. In reality this has meant that BA and LH cannot offer the same Business Class product as AC and KLM IIRC CX operates first class on select flights to HKG and these flights continue onto JFK. Therefore First class product is supported from JFK and not solely from YVR.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by rinathq

hope i am not gatecrashing... but here are some photos from todays YYC visit

here is an interesting spot i found today.. its before the bridge at McCall way.. u take a rough path towards what looks like a temporary cabin for NAV Canada. They have a nice rooftop deck set up which gives a great view of the runway action... dunno if is restricted.... the place was empty.

That is the contract weather office. Small trailer with a deck on the side to observe the visibility and clouds. The building may be the property of Nav Canada, but it's operated by the weather dudes, so you should talk to them before going on site.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by Cage

Nobody operating out of Canada is successful with their true first class product. True first class is currently operated by BA out of YYZ, EK out of YYZ, and I think perhaps LH out of YYZ, but I seem to remember that LH has pulled out First from all their Canadian routes.

Correct, and BA is pulling first from the YVR-LHR route starting this winter. Makes perfect sense as fewer pax travel first globally. And more and more carriers are continuing to eliminate first or reduce it on many routes. Most (emphasis on most) travellers think business class is good enough on most carriers. I would never pay for first myself. Out of YVR I think China Southern is the only airline offering "true" first class to Asia.

Just from my recent observations....

On my last 6 flights in the last two weeks on Singapore Airlines there were 2/8 pax in first on one of my flights, 4/8 on another and there were no first seats on 4 of the flights I took. J was 100% full on one flight and almost full (~90%) on 2 of the flights but only 10/40 on one of the flights. Y was oversold on a couple of them.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Acey

I am told feasibility, performance of the A332/A333 is/was closely examined. Transat probably gets good CASM with their sardine can config of the 332.

Doesn't necessarily mean anything, you don't go buy a multi-million dollar airplane without "closely examining" every possible option anyway.

I would expect WS to look at options beside the 763, but in the end they are really only interested in an airplane of this size.

Many years ago Airbus put together a paper airplane concept for the 330-100, short version of the 332, that had seating comparable to the 763. The idea was to put the 330into the 763 market size. There was too much work involved to make the paper project into reality, but it was marketed to AC as a 763 replacement and 762 growth replacement.

Low CASM is all good on the provision that marketing can fill seats to 80% plus capacity. 20% CASM advantage evaporates quickly if the market cannot sustain he additional seats.

The AT 332s could easily be their undoing if there is a protracted dog fight for YYZ to Europe traffic. even by At standRds the 332/333 is too big of an airplane for western canada to Europe on daily basis. Also too big of an airplane for Caribbean, AT occasionally puts 310 onto the Caribbean to minimize losses.

In Amy event someone in Canada is going to lose the long haul dog fight. My money on the first casualty is BA, cut YYC and shrink YVR and YYZ, stem losses by entering into code share joint marketing agreement with WS.

Second casualty will be AT, they will get out of western canada wide body and shrink in YYZ. Pullback to their Quebec base where they can rely on their Québécois roots.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

So what factors are BA against that KLM don't appear to be? Since they've been able to grow the AMS flight nicely since starting it up.

And the timing of their increase after LH's exit from YYC. Clearly there was too much capacity for direct service east of London prior to that. KLM was able to absorb some of that after Star Alliance consolidated its FRA ops to AC only from YYC. BA still competing with AC to LHR.

[Spring2008]

Those spotting shots are epic, so close to the runway!

[Canadian74]

Originally Posted by rinathq

and my foreign visitor of the day...

Was this shot taken from the rooftop or the parking lot?