Talk:Calgary International Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Alberta
Alberta Portal
This article is part of the Alberta WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] Revert

I reverted as the new stuff has a copyvio in it. I can implement the infobox later as it is still being hashed out right now. Burgundavia 20:41, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures?

So that means we can't put in any pictures then...

  • Dre, if you read your talk page, the pictures are all copyvios as well. As both the text and pictures were copyright violations, it was easier to revert everything, and then add the infobox back in when we has it out. Burgundavia 20:47, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Me to the rescue! I took some neat photos of the airport while visiting it today. Is taking photos of inside of the airport, by yourself, with your own camera, illegal in some way? If not, I should have some pictures up by Saturday or Sunday. - RPharazon 05:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It's not illegal in any way (although, I know that security sometimes have problems with people taking pictures inside airports these days :) ). Anyway, just specify the copyright status of your photos using the pull-down menu when you upload them. --Arch26 07:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful. I'll upload the best ones once I have them out of the developer. (I have a film camera, and the roll still has 8 pictures left.) - RPharazon 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Runway 16-34 issues

Length

  • Is it really due to the high altitude that the runway is that long? It is only 1000 feet longer than Vancouver (at sea level), and Mirabel (though now cargo only) is only 600 feet shorter. There are a large amount of airports with a runway length around 11000 feet (including YYZ, YUL, YWG, YEG). Or was it simply built this long because they could? The area around the northern end of the runway didn't start to become developed until the late 1970s


In Calgary's case, it can safely be asserted that the additional runway length is primarily due to airport elevation. There are many considerations that drive a decision to make runways a certain length (land cost and topography, materials cost, altitude, supported aircraft types current and future, etc.), and so it's hard to say that altitude is the only reason. However, the following statements are true: 1] the longer a runway is, the safer it is, all other things being equal 2] the biggest jets, such as B747-400, safely require about 10000+ feet at sea level (on a hot day) 3] the higher the runway, in terms of elevation, the longer it needs to be

If Calgary's runway were 11000 feet like the examples above, then it would be unsafe for fully-loaded departing B747 traffic (such as Korean and Asiana Cargo to Seoul ROK). Therefore, the additional 1675 feet is primarily due to elevation. Note that Denver International Airport (high elev at 5431 feet) has 5 X 12000 foot runways, and a sixth runway at 16000 feet.


Space Shuttle

  • According to Transport Canada's "Designated NASA Space Shuttle Emergency Landing Sites in Canada" only Gander International Airport, Halifax International Airport, St. John’s Airport, Stephenville Airport, CFB Goose Bay are officially designated. According to http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/sts-els.htm Calgary does not make the list of emergency landing locations. In an absolute emergency it is conceivable that Calgary is a prospective landing location. However, shuttle control would likely choose Mountain Home AFB in Idaho (490 nautical miles SSW) or White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico (1175 nautical miles SSE) to reduce diplomatic issues (among other reasons).
  • Is this an urban legend in Calgary, due to the fact that the Antonov has used 16-34?
  • I suppose it must be. I have hear this claimed myself, though I do not remember the source. CConrad 18:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The Antonov An-124 has. I've seen it with my own eyes. The Antonov An-225 probably can, but it hasn't come to Calgary due to the fact that Calgary just isn't that type of place to have such a big cargo plane flown in for a customer or corporation or something. - RPharazon 06:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio frequencies?

I wonder, are radio frequencies really necessary for the purposes of a Wikipedia article? Alr 19:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I could be crazy Alr, but i don't see any radio frequencies mentioned in this article at all. Can you show me what you're talking about? – Fudoreaper 02:33:31, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Oh i see, you've already removed them. So you're not wondering, you're asserting. I think it's important to state how you feel if you're wanting action, and ask wondering questions when you're wanting people opinions BEFORE action. Anyhow, i tend to agree that only aviators need radio frequencies like this, and thus, is outside the scope of Wikipedia. However, there's also the idea that more info is usually better than less. – Fudoreaper 02:41:15, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
I just caught this, because I don't look at my watchlist every day. (Is there a way to get an email sent with updates to ones watchlist? I'm new at all this.) Soooo, sure, right after I correct a glaring omission, then you whack the list. :-) Anyway, as a pilot, I would tend to agree that the frequencies are not required here, and I wouldn't trust a list here to be up to date anyway. I would always get the information before a flight from official sources. However, the frequencies might be interesting for non-pilots to see, and I agree that more information is usually better. There is also the issue of consistency. Don't other airport articles have the frequencies? If this were a vote, I'd vote for reinstating them. But I don't feel strongly about it. –CConrad 16:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
No, i don't think there's an email watchlist feature. This is probably because if there was, people like me would get 47 emails a day (or more). It would quickly get silly, for very active editors. Other than that, your comments make sense. I'm not a pilot, i don't even know how to get these frequencies, so i'm not really going to make any edits to do with them. Also, thanks for the contributions, C Conrad. You'll get the hang of things. :) – Fudoreaper 17:34:00, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

[edit] British Airways Destination

The destination for British Airways was listed as London-Gatwick. It is actually Heathrow. [[1]]

[edit] B/C Concourse

Should the B/C concourse section be divided? All flights departing from the B concourse are International while all departing out of the C concourse are going to the USA. I feel that for better organization of the article it may be wise to divide this. If no one will object to this within the next week I will divide this section. --204.191.215.5 08:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

this should be divided, but take note that B concourse is not always international out, Air Canada domestic departs out of B concourse, and lots of domestic comes into B (most often turned into trans-border) as well. Phobal (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

is the hongkong thing going to happen or not???

I think it would be wise to make this division. YothSog 08:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AC 777 to Operate YYC-LHR

Air Canada this week loaded up their schedule in a fashion that leads us to believe that on August 1st, the 77W will operate AC850 while the second flight will remain a 763. However, from what I've heard, this is just temporary, and the 77W will be needed elsewhere. There is a possibility that the Airbus A340-300 will operate the flight. --Phoenix (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

you are thinking about the 333. this summer it will be on a 333 and 763. Phobal (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Operation

There is a long list of airlines that are stated to operate out of their own private facility. I've removed UPS and DHL since they do not operate their own private facility at the airport. Although UPS will soon have their own, shouldn't be on this section yet. I will be removing others soon once I find out for sure.--Feelgood 02:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

fully incorrect; the YYC UPS gateway (located right beside air canada cargo) is a "private facility" for use by UPS. it's labeled as UPS and it's only used by UPS, although the ramp handling is done through ATS. the new facility near apron VII is intended to be a building to consolidate their two ground facilities and the gateway under one roof. using your "private facility" criteria in reference to buildings fully controlled by a cargo operation, only FedEx, CargoJet, Puro, Air Canada Cargo, UPS and Menzies Cargo would be considered "private facilities". OZ, CV definately do not have their own "private facilities", and why you would remove DHL yet not remove the airline operating for them (GB) really beats the hell out of me. therefore, UPS and DHL are worthy of being mentioned of having operations in YYC. Phobal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)