72 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

I like the shuttle idea, VHF.

As it stands now, if a Victoria resident needs to fly somewhere, they'll either pay up and fly out of Victoria or make the journey to Vancouver or Seattle. The carriers face no loss in revenue and are therefore disinterested in pricing direct Victoria flights just a few dollars above flights out of Vancouver.

However, if a Victoria-based Westjet-style operation started up you'd see fares drop in a heartbeat and carriers, particularly Westjet, would likely start up a shuttle to Vancouver.

[VicHockeyFan]

I like the shuttle idea, VHF.

As it stands now, if a Victoria resident needs to fly somewhere, they'll either pay up and fly out of Victoria or make the journey to Vancouver or Seattle. The carriers face no loss in revenue and are therefore disinterested in pricing direct Victoria flights just a few dollars above flights out of Vancouver.

But maybe they do lose share. If AC makes the small price as an add-on to it's Van/LA route*, then maybe less people drive to Vancouver or Seattle and then take United or Southwest or whatever.

*I don't really know what routes AC does into the US, but you get my idea.

[Mike K.]

Yeah I get what you're saying. I'm sure they lose some business but any Victoria passenger who first travels to Seattle or Vancouver just becomes like every other passenger living and flying out of their respective city.

[LJ]

I thought someone would have brought this up a week ago. I am afraid that I do not understand the role that the provincial government has in funding improvements at YYJ. I have always thought that was a federal responsibility.

Perhaps someone could smarten me up.

B.C. says it lacks funds for runway expansion

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz1ZLteHcx6

The only provincial interest would be as a job producing exercise, they have no responsibility in providing funding.

Neither do the feds. The airports are privately operated under the rules and regs of Transport Canada. They get their funding from airport rents, landing fees, and airport improvment fees.

[LJ]

This is starting to smell a little fishy. If you look at the plans for the new runway, the extension appears to be no more than a buffer on either end of the runway. In other words, it looks very much like the safety buffer the feds are talking about.
.

The extension goes on both ends of the runway, in this case, to mitigate other expenses and staying within current airport confines. The runway extension is not the buffer zone. The buffer zone, called an overrun protection area, is not built to runway standards. It's intention is to drastically slow an aircraft down that has exited the runway surface, but still within landing gear limits in order to save lives. It is sometimes made out of perforated aerated portland cement or other partially frangible material. After use by an aircraft it will require to be repaired. Think of it as a runaway lane you see on the highways for trucks.

[Bingo]

The buffer zone, called an overrun protection area, is not built to runway standards. It's intention is to drastically slow an aircraft down that has exited the runway surface, but still within landing gear limits in order to save lives.

For pilots that know they will slide off the end of the runway, they could deploy the hook, and catch cables stretched across the tarmac.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=LGcNRkwm2G4

[Mike K.]

Thanks, LJ. So why is the added length of the runway not being fully used for landing aircraft? It just seems odd that the VAA would extend the runway by only 700' in each direction for landing aircraft.

[LJ]

Thanks, LJ. So why is the added length of the runway not being fully used for landing aircraft? It just seems odd that the VAA would extend the runway by only 700' in each direction for landing aircraft.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Are you asking why the overrun protection area is not going to be used for day to day operations as part of the runway?

If so, it is meant to contain aircraft if they slide/overrun the runway surface, it is not built to withstand the weight of a landing aircraft and would not allow for a smooth landing. It is much cheaper to build than an actual runway and you don't have to add additional clearway or obstical clearance as you do with a runway surface.

[Mike K.]

I'll try to be a little clearer. The runway extension will allow aircraft to take off using the new extended area of the runway, but when landing, aircraft will still aim for the same touchdown zone that is on the existing runway, in effect only benefiting from an additional 700'. The document linked above shows the runway extensions with arrows painted on them and I assume this is not the softer concrete compound that you're referring to?

[VicHockeyFan]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to develop commercial aircraft with vertical take-off abilities?

[LJ]

I'll try to be a little clearer. The runway extension will allow aircraft to take off using the new extended area of the runway, but when landing, aircraft will still aim for the same touchdown zone that is on the existing runway, in effect only benefiting from an additional 700'. The document linked above shows the runway extensions with arrows painted on them and I assume this is not the softer concrete compound that you're referring to?

OK, I got you now.

The limiting factor on which aircraft and how heavy they can be, is the departure length of the runway. You can land most modern larger jets in a much shorter distance than they require for take-off.

Leaving the touchdown zone the same as before allows them to leave the glide path installation and the VASIS installation where they are now, saving costs, and it will reduce the noise impact on nearby neighbours for 50% of the operations.

[Mike K.]

Ok, so the cost saving aspect of maintaining the same glide path makes sense!

[Sparky]

Greater Victoria mayors and businesses need to make a stronger case for the airport runway expansion if they hope to win the support of the B.C. government, Premier Christy Clark said Wednesday. [...]

http://www.vancouver...8716/story.html

[CarlonCouncil]

If we are looking at 1,455 feet of runway expansion, has anybody heard yet how many roundabouts we can expect to see as part of the expansion??

Carl

[Mike K.]

Can't never have enough roundabouts!

[CarlonCouncil]

Sorry, I couldn't resist as I have to negotiate that collection of roundabouts several times a week. I can only go through there when I am mentally at 100% because anything less just won't cut it in there! On the brightside, kids love them, and they're cheaper than a trip to Disneyland!!

Carl

[Bingo]

I can only go through there when I am mentally at 100% because anything less just won't cut it in there!

Carl

Really!

[Mike K.]

The Province's new tourism plan sidestepped the Victoria International Airport's hopes for a longer runway.

I don't think this is much of a surprise.

[Coreyburger]

When I was at the Chamber of Commerce's "briefing" for candidates, they mentioned that they thought that runway expansion was the highest priority economic expansion project in the region right now. Sorry, but no.

[G-Man]

Well one of the things taht couldcome of a runway expansion is that the new super cruiseships could be based here and this could bea huge boost to the city. In addition we could handle more direct regional flights.

While perhaps not above lowering taxes on business it is up there in my opinion. Its the old plumbing problem you can have the largest tap in the world but you are not going to increase water flow without making the pipes bigger.