Saskatoon and Regina Air Service

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by Draftsman

"Waschuk said the Regina airport could see 2.8-per-cent more passengers in the next 20 years, according to a medium-growth-rate projection."

2.8 percent more passengers in the next 20 years? This must be a typo, otherwise that is a really crappy growth rate!

Yes, a 2.8 percent-per-annum growth rate. The terminal will still require a significant expansion anyway. Each annual successive increase of 2.8% [projected] would yield a higher number of pax.

As I mentioned above, build it, and they'll come, sort-of-speak. Without a more accomodating facility, operators will continue to bypass Regina. That was the premise for the airside infrastructure expansion/enhancements; the same would apply to the ATB.

[one_brick_at_a_time]

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

Yes, a 2.8 percent-per-annum growth rate. The terminal will still require a significant expansion anyway. Each annual successive increase of 2.8% [projected] would yield a higher number of pax.

As I mentioned above, build it, and they'll come, sort-of-speak. Without a more accomodating facility, operators will continue to bypass Regina. That was the premise for the airside infrastructure expansion/enhancements; the same would apply to the ATB.

Agreed!

[Draftsman]

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

Yes, a 2.8 percent-per-annum growth rate. The terminal will still require a significant expansion anyway. Each annual successive increase of 2.8% [projected] would yield a higher number of pax.

As I mentioned above, build it, and they'll come, sort-of-speak. Without a more accomodating facility, operators will continue to bypass Regina. That was the premise for the airside infrastructure expansion/enhancements; the same would apply to the ATB.

Ah! Thanks, that's better. I read it as 2.8% growth over 20 years (as in 0.14% growth per year)

[one_brick_at_a_time]

How many more passenger bridges do we expect in the YQR expansion?

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by Draftsman

Ah! Thanks, that's better. I read it as 2.8% growth over 20 years (as in 0.14% growth per year)

Lol!

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by one_brick_at_a_time

How many more passenger bridges do we expect in the YQR expansion?

From the plan I saw during the fall of '14, by virtue of the extent of the extent of the ATB expansion, I reckon at least three more bridges. (I think four.)

[one_brick_at_a_time]

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

From the plan I saw during the fall of '14, by virtue of the extent of the extent of the ATB expansion, I reckon at least three more bridges. (I think four.)

So 10 or 11 bridges including the current 7?

[one_brick_at_a_time]

An exciting year of new liveries:







and WestJet that did nothing substantial

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by one_brick_at_a_time

So 10 or 11 bridges including the current 7?

Yup.

[Robag]

Originally Posted by one_brick_at_a_time

An exciting year of new liveries:







and WestJet that did nothing substantial

I wonder if WestJet is waiting 4 more years for a new livery as that will be their 25th year in business.

[casper]

Originally Posted by one_brick_at_a_time

So 10 or 11 bridges including the current 7?

I think Saskatoon has 8 plus some ground stands.

My impression is for the last couple of years the number of flights during peek times has not been going up in YXE. What has occurred is the aircraft have switched to higher capacity aircraft. More regional 75 seaters instead of 50 seat aircraft. I think the Toronto run has more Airbus and less Embrear. I think Air Canada is working on finding way of getting more people in the Q400 aircraft.

Same in Regina? This may permit both airports to delay the need for expansion by a few more years.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Robag

I wonder if WestJet is waiting 4 more years for a new livery as that will be their 25th year in business.

They also should be getting the 787 aircraft start to arrive in 2019.

[one_brick_at_a_time]

Originally Posted by Robag

I wonder if WestJet is waiting 4 more years for a new livery as that will be their 25th year in business.

White seems to be a Canadian theme.

[wacko]

Are airplanes white by default? I would think the less paint you need to apply, the better (from a cost perspective, anyway).

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by wacko

Are airplanes white by default? I would think the less paint you need to apply, the better (from a cost perspective, anyway).

By default they are bare metal. American Airlines used to claim they didn't paint so as to save weight.

[Stormer]

everything you ever wanted to know about airliner paint

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2354/why-are-planes-generally-painted-white

[SkydivePilot]

Well, I can tell ya all that white aircraft are a hell of a lot easier to see than any other colour. (And of course, yellow.)

[casper]

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

Well, I can tell ya all that white aircraft are a hell of a lot easier to see than any other colour. (And of course, yellow.)

Always thought the old CP Orange stands out, perhaps I am wrong and white is easier to see.....

(Source Wikipedia).

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

Well, I can tell ya all that white aircraft are a hell of a lot easier to see than any other colour. (And of course, yellow.)

I suppose the more light reflected the better when you are staring at a speck in the distance.

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by casper

Always thought the old CP Orange stands out, perhaps I am wrong and white is easier to see.....

(Source Wikipedia).

Hahaha, well, I won't disagree with you here - ESPECIALLY - with regards to the DC-10s and '747s, LOL!!!!!!!

But you know what? Nowadays, these would be impossible to see because CP Air is defunct and orange aircraft are, generally, out of style. (The '60s and '70s would have been great though!!!)

Yeah, white is the best overall colour for aircraft to be easiest to spot. Blue, gray and black are incredibly tough to see when such aircraft are at a lower altitude; white is extremely obvious. On the other hand, when white aircraft are flying above, they are still easy to see because the sun doesn't illuminate the bottom surfaces. Moreover, even white aircraft still are somehow easy to spot on cloudy/dingy days etc. (And at night, who cares? Lol!!!)

Because of wings' relatively large surface areas, they are usually white, light gray or silver in order to keep fuel relatively cool on hot days in order to mitigate fuel's thermal expansion. (Military aircraft don't concern themselves as much about that because the vast majority are refuellable in mid-flight anyway.) Choppers need-not worry because their tanks are no different than opposed to a road vehicle. Unlike fixed-wing a/c, their fuel tanks have virtually no surface area.

Bla, bla, bla, . . . . . .