Calgary International Airport - New Terminal, Runway, Control Tower

[sa226]

Okay cool.

All I was getting at is that the route network is pretty diverse. If you were trying to get to Vancouver, even with the cancellations, the frequency of flights would make that re-booking pretty crazy.

If you were trying to get to, I dunno, Prince George, Nanaimo or any other place where there is a lack of frequency or service or perhaps its Encore or something. Maybe that would give context in the round'about way you were re-booked. Not saying it is right, just that it may help understand why you were re-booked the way you were and what solutions there are for your situation.

[Lubicon]

YYC moving ahead with central deicing facility which makes all kinds of sense. The location doesn't look ideal for aircraft using the west runway but other than that this makes all kinds of sense. Unions are predictably not happy about it.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5087402/c...ncreased-fees/

[Acey]

Good job Aeromag, they spray with twice the fluid they need to which is what created the mess that justified this in the first place.

Unbelievable amount of overspray and incompetence with their vehicles blocking other traffic, etc.

[Ryan Coke]

Not a union fan at all, but I don’t doubt that there will be a single provider and the costs will go up, and that will get passed on to airlines and passengers. It will also often cause additional delays and increased greenhouse gases due to aircraft running and having to taxi to and from the CDF, as opposed to being sprayed at the gate while engines are shutdown.

But I expect YYC airport authority will increase their revenue, so as long as they’re happy....

[Fuzz]

That's a pretty long drive from the west gates, isn't it? How much extra time would it add taxiing over there, getting sprayed, then having to taxi back to the west runway, vs being gate sprayed? Airlines can't be all that happy with it?

[Acey]

It's not that long a taxi. There will only be issues twice a day: 10 am and 11 pm, when 15 flights leave at the same time. Might be a bit of a traffic jam in that corner.

The loser is WestJet who saved quite a bit of gas by not having to run their engines during spray. That said, WestJet is the least disciplined airline on the field by FAR when it comes to APU usage, so they don't care anyway and like throwing money down the drain.

[Acey]

To answer the question, Air Canada already goes to apron 2 for spray so it's negligible difference for them. For eastbound WestJets that will likely go off the east side anyway, negligible difference. For westbound WestJets that theoretically go off the west side, I'd estimate it to be maybe ~10 additional taxi minutes. I'll have to see how it plays out in terms of traffic movement on the field... but they're used to this on the daily at YYZ. Couple hundred pounds more of taxi gas that they could just save anyway if they turned off their APU during turns like every other modern airline.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by Acey

Good job Aeromag, they spray with twice the fluid they need to which is what created the mess that justified this in the first place.



Unbelievable amount of overspray and incompetence with their vehicles blocking other traffic, etc.

Not sure if it was Aeromag, but on our way to Hawaii, the guy driving the de-icing truck hit the tail of our WestJet 737.

No damage, but didn't need that stress with a short connection in YVR.

[bob-loblaw]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ny/3267136002/

At least it wasn't Winnipeg...

[Barnes]

What does Westjet do differently at the gate? Don’t most companies run the APU at the gate or do they get power and air from the gate and start the APU and then fire up the engines?

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by Barnes

What does Westjet do differently at the gate? Don’t most companies run the APU at the gate or do they get power and air from the gate and start the APU and then fire up the engines?

They'll have the APU on as they approach the gate, and the APU provides power after the engines are shut down. Once they get external ground power connected, the APU typically will be shut down to save fuel and abide by airport noise regulations.

The APU is started again (and GPU disconnected) just before pushback on the next flight, and the APU is used to start the engines. You don't need air to start the APU, just electrical power and fuel.

WestJet (according to Acey, I don't have first hand knowledge myself) just runs the APU for the entire process. So instead of getting de-iced at the gate, they now have to push back, start the engines, and taxi over to the central de-icing facility.

But like Acey said, the difference is negligible, and WestJet likely won't be too broken up about it.

[Ryan Coke]

Well, good points about the APU, except that it is all completely wrong.

Of course things are never quite as simple as people who don’t really know about it think it is.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Well, good points about the APU, except that it is all completely wrong.

Of course things are never quite as simple as people who don’t really know about it think it is.

Even the first half of my post explaining what the APU does? I was feeling pretty confident there, lmao.

[Ryan Coke]

Sorry, wasn’t referring to you Stealth. We much prefer to get the apu shut down ASAP, as you described, but it depends on weather and GPU and PCA (pre conditioned air) availability. That relies on whether the airport authority has them at the gate and has them functioning.

Either way taxiing back and forth and the time to get sprayed while engines are running burns far more fuel than the apu running.

[Stealth22]

Lol no worries, you just confused me for a second.

Would there be a considerable increase in the amount of fuel used (and/or cost passed on to passengers) for flights that have to taxi across the field?

[Ryan Coke]

There are pros and cons to a CDF vs. gate sprays, but it will add time and fuel burn.

Is it considerable? I suppose that is subjective. But an extra 10 minutes or more for every flight that needs a spray will add up.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

There are pros and cons to a CDF vs. gate sprays, but it will add time and fuel burn.

Is it considerable? I suppose that is subjective. But an extra 10 minutes or more for every flight that needs a spray will add up.

I think it was Acey who had commented over the winter about the negatives for doing the deice at the gate. IIRC it centred on extra time during pushback and therefore delaying inbound flights coming in behind and needing that gate. Plus the mess on the ground that the ground crew then have to work in servicing the next aircraft (or alternatively the time cleaning up the spray before the next aircraft arrives).

So central de-ice might add taxi time but perhaps not add much overall time.

De-ice at gate. Reduced taxi time but overall time from door close to take off probably about the same. Plus the mess at the gate/gate area.

Not saying which one is better, but there are advantages and drawbacks to both.

Time will tell about the cost argument.

Edit to add:
Is it feasible to change the runway usage during times of heavy de-icing? (ie a storm etc. when everyone is doing it). Departures off the east side and arrivals on the west side? That reduces the back taxi for aircraft that would normally depart the westside. Everyone pretty much would taxi right past the de-ice pad on the way to the east runway.

[Ryan Coke]

Good point about the runway usage, it makes some sense but I don’t recall if I’ve ever seen them do that in Toronto.

Of course many days it is just frost sprays, so an aircraft that had a quick turn may not need to spray, whereas an overnighter would have to spray. So some are going to the CDF, others aren’t.

And the point Acey made about potential gate delays is a good one. However the situations I have witnessed like that have been seldom in YYC, vs much more frequently being able to just do a quick spray at the gate and save a bunch of time. But it is definitely an issue on occasion, anyway.

[Acey]

I'm not completely wrong, given that I don't actually believe APU burn on a turn entirely equates to taxi burn to a CDF... though I phrased it that way.

I'm just saying, if they want to take a chunk out of the new burn, be more disciplined with their APU on turns.

We know exactly how much the APU burns on a 600, 700, 800, 7M8, averaged over an hour, with one pack, 2 packs, and OAT. Also the amount WS requests for taxi duration of given length averaged over hundreds of thousands of flight plans. I guess I know nothing. The "seldom" concerns in December was WS in talks with YYC to get the early departures at IFP off the gates earlier and spray somewhere else so they could get their tows going quickly. Reasonably significant if they cared that much.

Overall, the burn is obviously far greater with a CDF and it's not even close. Don't get me wrong. I don't know if you fly for WS, but the notion that your airline tries to get the APU shut down ASAP is bull####, in Calgary anyway. Everybody else... yes.

Originally Posted by Barnes

What does Westjet do differently at the gate? Don’t most companies run the APU at the gate or do they get power and air from the gate and start the APU and then fire up the engines?

With power plugged in and pre-conditioned air flowing, WestJet pilots will still often start the APU upon arrival at the aircraft because the PCA isn't good enough for them. Last year they stopped doing it for a bit in an effort to save money as per their company, but I guess they don't care anymore.

Like clockwork on a WS turn at T-40 you can see the FO leaning out the window trying to find a guy on the ground crew to get the PCA turned off cause they want to run the APU and packs instead.

Originally Posted by Stealth22

WestJet (according to Acey, I don't have first hand knowledge myself) just runs the APU for the entire process.

The problem is that on a lot of their gates on A wing there is no pre-conditioned air. In their infinite wisdom, WS has ZERO cooling carts on the airport, only heat. So come any day warmer than 10°, it's APU for the duration of turn on all those gates.

Air Canada has combination heat/cool carts, like a civilized airline, to remedy this problem.

As aforementioned, the other issue is that even at gates with PCA and GPU, the crews don't like it.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by Acey

Overall, the burn is obviously far greater with a CDF and it's not even close. Don't get me wrong. I don't know if you fly for WS, but the notion that your airline tries to get the APU shut down ASAP is bull####, in Calgary anyway. Everybody else... yes.

We've got contradicting statements then, cause Ryan Coke flies for WS, and according to him, they want to shut down the APU asap upon arrival after landing.

I am not a pilot (anyone got a time machine so I can go back and become one? LOL), so my knowledge plateaus at a certain point.

If what you say is true, maybe Ryan Coke is the only one at WS who cares about saving fuel?