Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Icelandair | Reykjavik-Keflavik | Discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • howie
    replied
    ^ Fair point.

    Leave a comment:


  • kkozoriz
    replied
    I wouldn't trust Boeing's word on any of their planes safety at this point.

    Leave a comment:


  • howie
    replied
    It may well be the safest thing in the air now, the Max8. I'm not going to put my butt in one, though. For me, London's going to be via somewhere else.

    Leave a comment:


  • noodle
    replied
    So that's a ~12.5% reduction in available seats on an increasingly-seasonal flight.

    Leave a comment:


  • IanO
    replied
    Their 57 was one of my favourite planes to fly in...especially their exit row near the front behind prem econ/Saga.

    Leave a comment:


  • kkozoriz
    replied
    Don't count on the 737 MAX as being back in service. It may, it may not.

    Canadian official's email saying 737 Max software must go reflects 'working-level' view

    An email sent by an official at Transport Canada urging Boeing to remove an anti-stall system involved in two 737 Max crashes reflects "working-level discussions" and was not reviewed by the Canadian regulator, the agency said on Friday.


    The New York Times reported that an engineering manager in aircraft integration and safety assessment at Transport Canada emailed international regulators on Tuesday, saying: "The only way I see moving forward at this point" is that Boeing's Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) "has to go."


    The email was sent to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and Brazil's National Civil Aviation Agency, the New York Times said.

    ---

    "The email reflects working-level discussions between highly trained aircraft certification experts of key aviation authorities who have been given wide latitude for assessing all issues and looking at all alternatives for the safe return to service of the aircraft," Transport Canada said in a statement. "The views are at the working level and have not been subject to systematic review by Transport Canada."


    The FAA said in a statement that its international partners have "engaged in robust discussions at various stages in this process as part of the thorough scrutiny of Boeing's work. This email is an example of those exchanges."


    Earlier Friday, Transport Minister Marc Garneau said the department isn't committing to a date for the aircraft's return.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/can...view-1.5370540

    Leave a comment:


  • EdmTrekker
    replied
    “ Icelandair in last week’s schedule update filed aircraft changes for Reykjavik Keflavik – Edmonton route for summer 2020 season. From 01JUN20 to 12SEP20, the airline’s 4 weekly flights will see Boeing 737 MAX 8 operating, replacing 757-200. Further changes remain likely.

    FI693 KEF1645 – 1715YEG 7M8 x247
    FI692 YEG1815 – 0635+1KEF 7M8 x247”

    https://www.routesonline.com/news/38...ervice-in-s20/

    Leave a comment:


  • SP59
    replied
    It makes no difference to me if tourism is stronger in southern Alberta. How is that going to benefit me or people in northern Alberta? I get to pay more for hotel accommodation when I go. Yay!

    Leave a comment:


  • moahunter
    replied
    Originally posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    It's funny how people here have this collective existential/identity crisis about Edmonton every time an airline cuts back on service. I get the impression that some of you here and on SSP believe that the sole reason for a city's existence is to feed airline traffic numbers. The flights will come back when the provincial economy improves, simple as that. And Icelandair is coming back.
    I think its because there is an obsession with the comparison to Calgary. The weak economy has impacted business travel to both YEG and YYC. But YYC has an offset - when the economy is strong and the Canadian dollar is strong, tourism suffers. But now that the economy is weak, and the dollar is weak, Calgary / Banff / Canmore / Waterton is a bargain for US and Asian tourists. I was just in Texas and about 3 people told me they were planning trips to the Canadian Rockies or Waterton/Glacier (a lot of Americans have Montana on their bucket list), prices are surprisingly cheap for flights now, as little as $300 return, so more flights can be maintained. It all feeds into the narrative and supports the build of port alberta in Calgary - the flights are more consistent and the airport continues to grow while YEG shrinks. People need to take their blinders off - at the end of the day what matters is that Alberta gets a tourist offset for the economic impact from the oil price decline - that's a good thing for all Albertans regardless of the relative airport impacts.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-09-2017, 09:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Glenco
    replied
    It is not an identity crisis air travel and the connectivity it brings is essential to economic prosperity. EIA has ambitions to be an aerotropolis which requires as a fundamental ingredient an airline partner dedicated to route development at your airport. Without this the service becomes erratic at best and is poison to business activity.
    AI is the latest godsend to our local economy. How long do you think it will take for high tech companies decide without direct service to London or the Bay Area they may as well move 200 miles south and get all the air service they want?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sonic Death Monkey
    replied
    It's funny how people here have this collective existential/identity crisis about Edmonton every time an airline cuts back on service. I get the impression that some of you here and on SSP believe that the sole reason for a city's existence is to feed airline traffic numbers. The flights will come back when the provincial economy improves, simple as that. And Icelandair is coming back.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rocket252
    replied
    ^ no not tourism although we can do our best to sell the attractions we have and create new ones but business is the key driver here. It identifies the city as being successful and brings in people especially young professionals who travel and create airline routes that feeds on itself creating more business etc. A simplistic model but this business / travel loop is key. Hey maybe we can become the pot capital of Canada and create cafes on White Ave where Americans can come and have a legal smoke. Who knows but business is essential for bringing people to this city initially.

    Leave a comment:


  • Glenco
    replied
    Tourism is not going to do it. Commerce in one form or another is what is going to drive air service in this region. You only have to look back a few years to the oilsands boom to realize that. We are too far away from major population centres and to far from the trans Canada and not enough points of interest to drive the airline industry. Sure London is built on a swamp but there are many things to do. We can add tourist attractions one at a time but the process is incremental and takes time. Besides it is just as easy to get to Yellowknife and Jasper from YYC as it is from here.
    Something of the same magnitude as Amazon that can generate it's own airline service is what is needed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rocket252
    replied
    The problem with Edmonton is identity - or lack of one. Edmonton needs an identity that will bring business and tourists to this city in summer and winter. That will bring the airlines in once the demand is there. But if all this city is recognized for nationally and internationally is a big mall and where Gretzky played that does not cut it.

    We do not have mountains or oceans but other cities in the world don't either and they made it work so we can as well.

    So what can we do? Make it business and tourist friendly - better transportation within the city and around the city to our recreational areas - Elk Island park being one -coordination of transportation services. Aggressive marketing of our city and its positives as a safe clean friendly city - explore what we have near by as in recreational facilities

    the city of Edmonton need to sell this city better and the tourists and business will come - we just need to get our house in order

    Leave a comment:


  • Glenco
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr.D View Post
    Originally posted by noodle View Post
    Keep in mind latitude is not climate. Comparing Edmonton, literally in the middle of the continent, with European cities that are moderated by large bodies of water is a fool's errand.

    It hasn't been -20 in Reykjavik in at least the last 70 years. At least 40 years for Copenhagen. We get 28 days a year on average at -20 or lower. My wife is from central Sweden (north of 60) & her home town has never been below -30 since they've kept records.
    Yes, I know what the differences are in temperature. But the argument that people won't travel somewhere because it is cold is a weak argument. I have been to Yellowknife in February when it is -25 with very little daylight and there are still plenty of tourists walking outside and doing outdoor activities. They just dress for it. People can and will go outside in cold weather as long as there is something interesting to do.

    I'm not saying Winter tourism will ever be as big as Summer tourism, but making the city an attractive place to travel to in the Winter can certainly help in sustaining year-round flights to international destinations.
    It is just as easy to get there from YYC as it is from YEG and both WS and AC have that covered.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X