News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.7K     5 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 5.2K     0 

Calgary International Airport

darwink said:
The 789 is the wrong aircraft for this distance. Air Canada is desperately waiting for 78Xs to shift to their long legged routes currently served by 789s to drastically improve route economics by being able to carry appreciable cargo loads that distance. For AC that is also sea level at both ends.
Click to expand...
Do you mean the 787-10 they have on order or 777X? Which I don't think they've ordered.

I could see an Asia/China announcement way ahead of DXB. Cathay and Hainan operated flights to Calgary previously. Cathay also had freighter service that's been discontinued, but with Calgary increasingly a logistics hub, they could restore passenger service and carry decent cargo load.

calgaryherald.com

Cathay Pacific exec says airline eyeing Calgary as possible 2016 destination

The prospect of a second non-stop flight between Calgary and Asia was dangled before local business groups Thursday by a senior executive with Cathay Pacific.
calgaryherald.com calgaryherald.com
 
I thought the 787-10 actually had less range than the 789. AFAIW, the 788 actually has the longest range.

Someone with more av knowledge than myself can confirm, but for Calgary to middle east or most Asia routes, we'd be looking at a 777 or A350, no?

Edit: I googled the range for the 78x and it is less than the 789 as I thought, but the 789 has more range than the 788. I stand corrected on that.
 
I'm not sure how the elevation plays into it but YYC-DXB is about 6200nmi and YYC-HKG is 5736nmi. Air Canada currently operates YVR-SIN, which is 6923nmi with a 787-9. Even with elevation, YYC-HKG should be doable with 787-9.
 
Surrealplaces said:
the 78x and it is less than the 789 as I thought, but the 789 has more range than the 788. I stand corrected on that.
Click to expand...
Air Canada explicitly talks about the 78X as for the Vancouver-Singapore route, which is beyond the published range. It might just have a better capability degradation curve, and maybe Boeing published a lower range estimate for the 78X to prevent getting sued due to missing promised performance?

The wikipedia numbers seem counterintuitive.
78978X
MTOW571,500574,000
Fuel Load as MTOW fraction39.2%39%
Payload as MTOW fraction20.3%22%
Empty Weight as MTOW fraction49.7%52%
Total weight to allocate vs. MTOW:109.1%113%

Certainly the 78X is more flexible. And if payload is bulking out way before it hits the weight limits, it might not matter much.
 

Attachments

  • 1767896163923.png
    1767896163923.png
    215.1 KB · Views: 12
trtcttc said:
Air Canada currently operates YVR-SIN, which is 6923nmi with a 787-9.
Click to expand...
Air Canada complains about yield due to cargo restrictions for Singapore. Hong Kong would be even worse. More price competitive for both cargo and passengers.
 
Calgary's elevation is the main issue for a lot of these longer flights. Air Canada launches out of Vancouver (sea level) and Toronto (600 ft). Calgary is at 3,600 ft. To give some context on how that impacts performance, WestJet's high density 737s from Swoop and Sunwing (189 pax) can carry full fuel and full pax on the hottest of days out of Vancouver and Toronto. In Calgary, performance penalties start to occur once the temperature hits about 20⁰, and that is if the longest 14,000 foot runway is used. If using 35L or 29, performance penalties start to hit at even lower temperatures.

WJ configures their 787s at a much higher density than airlines like AC so they would be running into similar issues in YYC as they do with the HD 737s. Air Canada’s hubs being at such low elevations really lets them maximize what they can do with their airplanes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJX
Screenshot 2026-01-08 134317.png


I know I asked this a few months ago...have not been inside the domestic terminal since centralized screen opened....I assume the plan would be to now add these 2 retail areas to the airside of the terminal? They would seem like pointless dead zones if they remained pre-screening
 
trtcttc said:
I'm not sure how the elevation plays into it but YYC-DXB is about 6200nmi and YYC-HKG is 5736nmi. Air Canada currently operates YVR-SIN, which is 6923nmi with a 787-9. Even with elevation, YYC-HKG should be doable with 787-9.
Click to expand...
We also do have to keep in mind though that Chinese and Southeast Asian destinations traditionally overfly Russia which is obviously not possible now, adding a significant distance to the flight. ICN on the 789 has to operate on a reduced load, HKG would be even worse. It's possible, but yields may be extremely low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJX
blue12 said:
We also do have to keep in mind though that Chinese and Southeast Asian destinations traditionally overfly Russia which is obviously not possible now, adding a significant distance to the flight. ICN on the 789 has to operate on a reduced load, HKG would be even worse. It's possible, but yields may be extremely low.
Click to expand...
Do you mean YYC-ICN? Westjet doesn't have fleet capacity anyways. It'd be an Asian/Chinese carrier that does the route and the Chinese ones (including CX) can overfly Russia.
 
zzkwilliamcanada said:
I feel we might see some news about new flights in couple weeks, maybe from middle east and Asia.
Click to expand...

Emirates is more likely to start YVR before YYC. Saudia didn't even increase YYZ to daily. As for China, any bilateral increase would just mean more flights for YVR.

However, we just might get some good news soon anyways ;)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top