Calgary International Airport - New Terminal, Runway, Control Tower

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by getbak

Yeah, that would be the only way that it could actually work and be enforceable. Even those "Parking for pregnant women and parents with young children" spots that some places have are completely unenforceable.

I believe I've seen sponsorship deals like that with valet parking at some places in the States. If you valet park your Lexus (or other sponsoring luxury brand), it's free. Otherwise, you pay the regular valet rate.

I'm a parent with a young child. The sign says nothing about him having to be with me at the time I park.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But what's the end game?

Sure, when the first player gets the idea and implements it, it is cute and novel. But then what? So Acura and GM decide they need to do this as well for their customers? Then Mercedes, BMW and Audi join in?

The end game is revenue.

Given the negative feedback, I don't foresee automakers lining up to buy spots. If they did, I suspect simple supply and demand would apply and YYC would begin charging far more and/or cap the number of sponsored spaces.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Why wouldn't the airport just have spots for an manufacturer to lease for their customers, but only allow those spots for one manufacturer?

That way you don't have Lexus parking, and BMW parking, and Audi parking, but only one. It'd drive up the cost to lease those spots and make them 'special'.

That said, you sure as blue mountain valley don't remove handicapped parking to create these spots.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Why wouldn't the airport just have spots for an manufacturer to lease for their customers, but only allow those spots for one manufacturer?

That way you don't have Lexus parking, and BMW parking, and Audi parking, but only one. It'd drive up the cost to lease those spots and make them 'special'.

That said, you sure as blue mountain valley don't remove handicapped parking to create these spots.

Not sure your suggestion makes sense given the plethora of parking there, but at any rate, why is it so morally outrageous to remove the handicap spots? If they still have sufficient spots to meet various codes/requirements, then who cares? Just because they used to be handicapped doesn't mean anything. Why are you not angry they didn't add 100 more handicap accessible spots? Why are these 5-10 spots the tipping point for what handicap drivers need?

People nowadays need to calm down and quit making everything into someone being attacked or a group being persecuted.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Not sure your suggestion makes sense given the plethora of parking there, but at any rate, why is it so morally outrageous to remove the handicap spots? If they still have sufficient spots to meet various codes/requirements, then who cares? Just because they used to be handicapped doesn't mean anything. Why are you not angry they didn't add 100 more handicap accessible spots? Why are these 5-10 spots the tipping point for what handicap drivers need?

People nowadays need to calm down and quit making everything into someone being attacked or a group being persecuted.

You can't remove handicapped parking to replace it with Lexus only parking.

By reducing the number of spots, there still is handicapped parking.

** I suppose since we're getting into semantics to this level I should note that when I typed "You" I meant a general "you" as is anyone, and to a specific person or Ducay specifically.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Not sure your suggestion makes sense given the plethora of parking there, but at any rate, why is it so morally outrageous to remove the handicap spots? If they still have sufficient spots to meet various codes/requirements, then who cares? Just because they used to be handicapped doesn't mean anything. Why are you not angry they didn't add 100 more handicap accessible spots? Why are these 5-10 spots the tipping point for what handicap drivers need?

People nowadays need to calm down and quit making everything into someone being attacked or a group being persecuted.

Optics - that's it. The perception is that Lexus can buy and paint over handicapped spots, which makes them look arrogant. It doesn't matter how many other spots there are, where they are located, etc. Easily outraged society? Fair point. But YYC and Lexus know that and could have avoided the blunder. Perception is everything.

Two additional points - the lucky Lexus owners parking isn't actually free to them. They have to pay the same rate as everyone else when they leave the parkade. Lexus has just paid to reserve these spots for them. And the point of the marketing campaign is not to have the spots very well utilized by Lexus owners. The point is to have them mostly empty so non-Lexus people walking by experience a little envy for those VIP Lexus drivers and their exclusive club. Interesting marketing, I'll admit, but spoiled by optics.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

You can't remove handicapped parking to replace it with Lexus only parking.

Why can't you? YYC had more than the required number of stalls, and is even moving these ones in addition. Just because something was a handicapped stall once doesn't mean it is forever.

But I agree with Jimmy et al. that it is terrible optics and was a poor choice, but my point is that is media and society are always looking for a story to be outraged at (OMG POOR HANDICAPS) when it is really a non-story at all.

[Amethyst]

A totally stupid idea. Instead of advertising Lexus, it makes Lexus look bad (and apparently they didn't even choose the spots). If they had painted the spots next to the handicapped spots or on the other side of the driving lane, it would have been a non-issue. Whoever chose those spots should be fired. They made their employer and their client both look bad.

[Mass_nerder]

I worked as a summer student at the firm that designed the terminal, and they seemed really excited about how well researched, and forward thinking the design was, but the public really seems to dislike it for the most part.
I'm flying out of it for the first time this weekend, so I'll finally get a chance to see what all the hubbub is all about.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

I worked as a summer student at the firm that designed the terminal, and they seemed really excited about how well researched, and forward thinking the design was, but the public really seems to dislike it for the most part.
I'm flying out of it for the first time this weekend, so I'll finally get a chance to see what all the hubbub is all about.

The old US customs hall was about 1000x nicer than the current one.

Not sure why the new terminal needed a downgraded customs hall.

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

I worked as a summer student at the firm that designed the terminal, and they seemed really excited about how well researched, and forward thinking the design was, but the public really seems to dislike it for the most part.
I'm flying out of it for the first time this weekend, so I'll finally get a chance to see what all the hubbub is all about.

I think it is a beautiful addition to the airport, but there has been some minor issues that can be fixed.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The old US customs hall was about 1000x nicer than the current one.

Not sure why the new terminal needed a downgraded customs hall.

I disagree.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by rotten42

I disagree.

I agree with your disagree. The old customs hall was a dreary place.

[Fuzz]

The US departure one with the big open ceilings and all the pictures? That was as nice as can be expected. The arrivals Canada Customs was dreary.

[Resolute 14]

It was a confined box with cheap art. I'd probably have shot myself if I had to look at that 30 year old picture of Mount Rushmore every day.

In fairness though, I've only been out of the new international customs hall once, so my memory of it is not strong enough to form a solid opinion.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

You can't remove handicapped parking to replace it with Lexus only parking.

By reducing the number of spots, there still is handicapped parking.

** I suppose since we're getting into semantics to this level I should note that when I typed "You" I meant a general "you" as is anyone, and to a specific person or Ducay specifically.

Originally Posted by Ducay

Why can't you? YYC had more than the required number of stalls, and is even moving these ones in addition. Just because something was a handicapped stall once doesn't mean it is forever.

I suppose when getting to this level of semantics I should note that you can reduce the number of handicapped spots and add Lexus only spots so long as there are sufficient handicapped spots per parking regulations. You cannot replace handicapped spots (ie: each handicapped spot is eliminated and Lexus parking put in its place). It would no longer meet regulations.

My apologies, I thought that was clear by context.

[KelVarnsen]

CroFlames hates the new terminal with every fiber of his being, you should just ignore what he posts about the airport.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I suppose when getting to this level of semantics I should note that you can reduce the number of handicapped spots and add Lexus only spots so long as there are sufficient handicapped spots per parking regulations. You cannot replace handicapped spots (ie: each handicapped spot is eliminated and Lexus parking put in its place). It would no longer meet regulations.

My apologies, I thought that was clear by context.

I would imagine we agree at the end of the day. Optically terrible, but since they are well above required number of stalls, its a non issue.

Agree it would be a huge story if they cut legally required stalls for Lexus parking, and that is precisely how the media was pushing the story, for "clickbait" sake

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The old US customs hall was about 1000x nicer than the current one.

Not sure why the new terminal needed a downgraded customs hall.

If you owned the airport, and had 2 to 3 stories of space in a US Customs area, would you keep the upper portion empty, or install some money making duty-free shops?

[CroFlames]

Incorrect. The cafeteria is directly above US customs. The duty free shop is north of it.

2ndly, it's a BRAND NEW BUILDING. There were no restrictions on design.