Calgary International Airport - New Terminal, Runway, Control Tower

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think quite a few of the ones that do fly regularly and in higher classes of service. If they can fill the front of the plane at good yields that helps a lot. I have a couple of former colleagues now working shifts in the Middle East that come back and forth many times per year, but I'm not sure how many people total do that.

I bet monthly you can count on your hands and toes. Especially these days.

[btimbit]

Phillipines a few times a week would always be full too

I'd jump on that one

[KelVarnsen]

A route to Paro is clearly needed

[bizaro86]

I wonder if they'll move a few to Vancouver. Seems like farther routes in Asia would probably better from there. And with the AngloTeck merger there will be tons of high fare demand between Vancouver and Santiago - that would be an interesting route as AC only serves South America from Toronto.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

A route to Paro is clearly needed

You remember how people were saying a few posts ago that the elevation in Calgary is an issue for long flights?

Paro says, "hold my beer."

They have a short narrow runway in the middle of a Himalayan valley at 7300 feet elevation. But at least there's no ILS...

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Boo to Edmonton, they get NOTHING. Build that HSR between Calgary and Edmonton and put more nails in Leduc International airport.

I worked for an airline for several years after university. In every single meeting when we'd talk about Edmonton I'd say, 'holy sht! we're flying to Edmonton now?!'. Then somebody would clarify YEG and I'd be all like, 'ahh, okay, you got me excited for a second...you're just talking about Leduc.'

I realize it's not that funny, but I just wanted to acknowledge my own efforts to subtly belittle Edmonton in casual industry business conversations. It's the little things like that you can do to keep them in their place beneath the superior race of Albertans (aka Calgarians).

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I worked for an airline for several years after university. In every single meeting when we'd talk about Edmonton I'd say, 'holy sht! we're flying to Edmonton now?!'. Then somebody would clarify YEG and I'd be all like, 'ahh, okay, you got me excited for a second...you're just talking about Leduc.'

I realize it's not that funny, but I just wanted to acknowledge my own efforts to subtly belittle Edmonton in casual industry business conversations. It's the little things like that you can do to keep them in their place beneath the superior race of Albertans (aka Calgarians).

I was lucky enough to fly into the city centre airport a couple of times. Once on my own with a friend for a day trip in the Mighty Cessna 172, and another time in a Jetstream 31.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I was lucky enough to fly into the city centre airport a couple of times. Once on my own with a friend for a day trip in the Mighty Cessna 172, and another time in a Jetstream 31.

Yeah, that would be my other thing. "Can Edmonton's airport even handle our planes? I thought it was super small."

Cool you've been in there, though. I never have :-(

[lazypucker]

Calgary can benefit from having direct flights to/from more major Asian cities like Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, HK, Singapore, etc.

[topfiverecords]

Conveniently timed

Why are there no direct flights from Calgary to India, China or the Philippines?

https://calgaryherald.com/news/calga...china?tbref=hp

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I worked for an airline for several years after university. In every single meeting when we'd talk about Edmonton I'd say, 'holy sht! we're flying to Edmonton now?!'. Then somebody would clarify YEG and I'd be all like, 'ahh, okay, you got me excited for a second...you're just talking about Leduc.'

I realize it's not that funny, but I just wanted to acknowledge my own efforts to subtly belittle Edmonton in casual industry business conversations. It's the little things like that you can do to keep them in their place beneath the superior race of Albertans (aka Calgarians).

Seriously, that's so unprofessional. No wonder you're no longer in the industry acting like that... your joke was hilarious, don't lie to us and say it wasn't funny.

[Acey]

Articles like this are kinda silly.

The reason is complicated, says the director of air service development for Calgary Airports

Well, no it isn't. If there was sufficient profit to be had, somebody would be flying it... period.

The key word is "sufficient" because what they don't ever mention in these articles is the basic principle of opportunity cost... southeast Asia is low yielding VFR traffic that can perhaps fill a plane but doesn't make money. Even if the flying is profitable, it has to be more profitable than some other use of that airplane. Major airlines have many many people whose sole job is to figure out the most profitable place to fly their airplanes. Calgary is not it, for the most part.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Acey

Articles like this are kinda silly.



Well, no it isn't. If there was sufficient profit to be had, somebody would be flying it... period.

The key word is "sufficient" because what they don't ever mention in these articles is the basic principle of opportunity cost... southeast Asia is low yielding VFR traffic that can perhaps fill a plane but doesn't make money. Even if the flying is profitable, it has to be more profitable than some other use of that airplane. Major airlines have many many people whose sole job is to figure out the most profitable place to fly their airplanes. Calgary is not it, for the most part.

I think its a bit complicated in this specific case. The only airline with enough feed at the Calgary end to justify this is Westjet. They also have a high density 787 which would be the right plane for those routes, which are long and not very premium heavy. But Westjet only has a handful of them, so it would have to beat out all the other uses. Westjet has also only been flying inter-continental routes a short time, and you probably wouldn't start with a long VFR route.

Plus the Russian airspace being closed is an issue for India. Eg Toronto-Hong Kong has never come back post-pandemic on Air Canada. Cathay has brought it back but they can overfly Russia and Canadian airlines can't.

But in general I agree with you - airlines in general aren't that profitable. So anything they aren't flying probably isn't great.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think its a bit complicated in this specific case. The only airline with enough feed at the Calgary end to justify this is Westjet. They also have a high density 787 which would be the right plane for those routes, which are long and not very premium heavy. But Westjet only has a handful of them, so it would have to beat out all the other uses. Westjet has also only been flying inter-continental routes a short time, and you probably wouldn't start with a long VFR route.

In other words... it's not complicated and could simply be reduced to the notion of opportunity cost. Every airline has constraints. In this case, the most important constraint for WestJet is the fact that the airplane cannot physically operate the routes but making an entire article about it is perhaps more interesting.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

But in general I agree with you - airlines in general aren't that profitable. So anything they aren't flying probably isn't great.

I didn't say that airlines aren't profitable. Delta and United are raking in billions. It's not that anything they aren't flying isn't great. The two biggest planemakers both suck at delivering new airplanes and there's a decade long backlog. It's just a matter of finding the most cost effective use of the planes you have given whatever set of constraints.

[BlackArcher101]

I just ran some route calcs on my hobbiest fightplanning site, and yup, only way to make it to India from Vancouver, let alone Calgary, would be over Russia. Both a 787 and 777 would be short fuel, with anywhere close to a full passenger load. In the case of a 787-9 avoiding Russia, it would be short 20,000 lbs of fuel, with a reduced passenger load. Even to be profitable, imagine if the smaller amount of passengers had to offset the cost of the missing ones, plus the cost of the extra fuel. Purely not viable.

An A350-900ULR could do it, but Singapore runs (or ran?) that plane between Singapore and New York with 161 passengers in multi-class config and very expensive. A Westjet 787-9 carries 320, and I can't imagine they would want to run it with 100 passengers to be able to satisfy customers desires for a direct flight.

The comments on that article are absurd as usual.

Everything is limited by it's max takeoff weight. If you need full fuel to get there, then you have to start removing weight to make up for it.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

I just ran some route calcs on my hobbiest fightplanning site, and yup, only way to make it to India from Vancouver, let alone Calgary, would be over Russia.

I'm not sure what site you're using but this is simply not true. Just look at the longest flights list on Wikipedia of stuff that has actually operated or currently operates.

Air India's 777, which is the same model as Air Canada's and configured with a similar number of seats, flies a 7,500 nm route.

YVR-DEL, even while avoiding Russia, would be under 7,000 nm.

That's the 777-200LR, or 77L... absolute beast. Calgary's altitude would barely hamper the 77L, but spanks the 787 which quickly runs into performance issues at higher payloads and carries far less fuel.

[BlackArcher101]

Sorry I should have clarified, I only checked against the 777-300ER not 200LR

Site is simbrief. Pretty accurate on estimates, but relies on real world routes flown but if one doesn't exist it sort of makes one up and likely not exactly what an airline would fly. The flight from CYVR to VABB was more southerly than I expected it to be and was nearly 8000nm.

Point still stands though on why we won't see direct flights out of YYC if we rely on WestJet and the 787's to do it.

[Acey]

Gotcha, though even the 300ER can and does fly 7,000 nm+. In any case, WestJet's 787 is relatively performance limited at 320 seats. British Airways has only 216 seats in the same airplane and United has new ones coming with only 222 seats. Configuration has a massive effect on performance especially when you're talking about 100+ seat differences on the same type.

[btimbit]

777x WestJet, do it you cowards

(I know, unlikely)