yeggator
Active Member
Now if only we could get a direct flight to Harbin, China so that we can finally get some trans-Pacific air service without connecting to Vancouver.
|
|
|
Edmonton International Airport (EIA/YEG)
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Not gonna happen, for technical reasons.
The_Cat
Senior Member
I wonder if this aircraft could help Edmonton. https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/...ngest-range-single-aisle-airliner-the-a321xlr
IanO
Superstar
Didn't we say that about the 787, Max, C200.... .. .. ...
EdmTrekker
Senior Member
What Airbus say:
"Starting from 2023, the aircraft will deliver an unprecedented Xtra Long Range of up to 4,700nm – 15% more than the A321LR and with the same unbeatable fuel efficiency. With this added range, airlines will be able to operate a lower-cost single-aisle aircraft on longer and less heavily travelled routes – many of which can now only be served by larger and less efficient wide-body aircraft. This will enable operators to open new world-wide routes such as India to Europe or China to Australia, as well as further extending the Family’s non-stop reach on direct transatlantic flights between continental Europe and the Americas." https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/...ngest-range-single-aisle-airliner-the-a321xlr
No doubt this would be prefect for Flair for flights to LON, FRA, WAR
"Starting from 2023, the aircraft will deliver an unprecedented Xtra Long Range of up to 4,700nm – 15% more than the A321LR and with the same unbeatable fuel efficiency. With this added range, airlines will be able to operate a lower-cost single-aisle aircraft on longer and less heavily travelled routes – many of which can now only be served by larger and less efficient wide-body aircraft. This will enable operators to open new world-wide routes such as India to Europe or China to Australia, as well as further extending the Family’s non-stop reach on direct transatlantic flights between continental Europe and the Americas." https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/...ngest-range-single-aisle-airliner-the-a321xlr
No doubt this would be prefect for Flair for flights to LON, FRA, WAR
The_Cat
Senior Member
I'm guessing 4,700 nm is 4,700 nautical miles, or about 6,100 miles (9,700 km). Edmonton to Tokyo is 7,500 km, Dublin is 6.000 km. A plane like this one could provide connections between smaller destinations with less transfers at major centres. For example, we could have Edmonton-Sapporo or Winnipeg-Edinburgh.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
You are correct on your conversions!
David A
Senior Member
This may be exactly what we need here. Nothing in the world is permanent and the current hub model is based on a number of things, including the type of aircraft flown. A change to this could have a lot of impacts.
A lot of people may want to avoid more crowded hubs and having to hang around these airport for several hours to catch connecting flights, which can add significantly to travel time.
IanO
Superstar
Sure, but that's not the industry's intent.
They want to improve efficiencies at hubs versus deliver those kinds of route to more places.
archited
Senior Member
Not if their Hub happens to be EIA.
occidentalcapital
Senior Member
Yep, despite others' best efforts, Edmonton retains a large portion of its northern and central Alberta/BC destinations, and is a hub for many passengers. With the growth of FLAIR, we'll start seeing drive-up price sensitive traffic from Calgary and other locations. Just so long as FLAIR can survive the onslaught from rent-seeking established players and grumpy ex-executives that don't see the high-growth potential for the airline...
David A
Senior Member
It was probably not the main intention of auto manufacturers to put buggy makers out of business either, but change can have unintended consequences.
MattPT
Active Member
reading about carbon pricing in airline industry, I wonder if theres a way for carbon pricing to encourage direct flights or incentivize more efficient routing. Seems like it could make distribution of flights more equitable especially for a city like Edmonton that is well positioned for certain routes. Random example below isn’t the greatest because the fares are so close, but in this example it’s cheaper to route through Toronto than direct. Could there be some system to tax routings with more emissions to make the direct route equal in price or better?
EdmTrekker
Senior Member
Airlines ought to step up and force passengers to pay for carbon consumption - and it should be the law. Milk runs and routes through often inconvenient HUBS should cost more for the environmental impact caused by the airline air pollution. It must be user pay - and I hope our MP for Edmonton Centre who is federal Minister of Tourism agrees.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
You're really proposing yet another tax? Because this you're proposing is just that.
I'll personally slap Randy in the face if he supports this kind of madness!
This model you're proposing also has margin to some constitutional debate over individual freedoms, since you're trying to dictate, by some debatable means, where they should fly through.
Not to mention that it will likely kill most airlines, especially smaller ones like Flair, by making tickets more expensive, creating a ripple effect that would see fares skyrocket.
This math doesn't quite work this way. The carbon emissions should be calculated on a per-capita basis, not per-flight.
If cities A, B and C doesn't have enough flyers to support a direct flight to city E, and usually feed into D before, there is a reason for that.
In the end you would end with one of three situations:
a) 1 - 3 new, emptier flights, from A, B and C, direct to E. The flights from A, B and C to D will still exist, as D is a major destination on itself. This will have more expensive fares, since flying a plane costs the same with 30 or 100% of occupancy, which will also drive a lower demand and spiral down.
b) A, B and C will have less options to reach both D and E, as the company reduces the number of flights to concentrate demand and have higher occupancy, with a lower cost per capita. This is environmentally better, but will lower the service standard and will hurt the customer, with less options of destinations, unless he pays a hefty premium.
c) People from A, B and C will, if possible, drive to a better developed air hub, let's say, F, G and H, respectively so that they can get more flights at a lower cost than paying the extra price of the air connections. This will throw thousands of extra tonnes of GHG in the atmosphere, not only from fossil fuel burning in their engines, but the extra deterioration of roads and cars, etc.
Replace A, B and C for Edmonton, Ottawa and Quebec, for example, and you get the picture.