Maybe Mr. McEwan can give us the names of the Airlines that were going to land but didnt because of the recession. It would also be nice if he would confirm what Airlines will be landing once the recession is over. Do we have any firm commitments????

I think he might be confusing the 58 hours closer with ship sailings rather than Airlines.

In any event Steig Hoig at an earlier date on Meisner stated that they could not compete with Alaska on West Bound air flights because of the Jet Stream, and that they were trying to get those Airlines that flew Eastbound only, out of Asia.

Maybe we can get more specifics as this thing progresses, but at this point in time it seems to be pure conjecture.

"In any event Steig Hoig at an earlier date on Meisner stated that they could not compete with Alaska on West Bound air flights because of the Jet Stream, and that they were trying to get those Airlines that flew Eastbound only, out of Asia."

That is an interesting little tidbit that has me scratching my head.

Why? Because we are told that we share the fact with Anchorage that we are on the route of planes from the key location in China as well as Korea to Chicago and beyond. If we share that route one way only, what is the other route that would still take them over Anchorage but not Prince George when they fly west?

Here is a jet stream forcast for up to the next 20 days at 6 or 12 hour intervals. Just click on the animation for the northern hemisphere and set the conditions.

Draw an imaginary line between the southern tip of Lake Michigan and Anchorage on the middle of the South Alaska coast and see whether there is any benefit for the next 20 days to flying via Anchorage rather than PG.
[url]
http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html[/url]

BTW, when one draws a line on google earth from Chicago or Memphis to Shanghai or Seoul, Achorage is roughly 1,000km to the south of that shortest distance line. A shortest distance line between Chicago and Anchorage is directly above Fort Nelson.

I would love a clearer explanation from someone like the airport manager of why we are considered to be on the same route. Edmonton is relatively close.

http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html

"Maybe Mr. McEwan can give us the names of the Airlines that were going to land but didnt because of the recession. It would also be nice if he would confirm what Airlines will be landing once the recession is over. Do we have any firm commitments????"

We all know the answer to this. It still astounds me that $36M of taxpayer money was spent without any form of due diligence whatsoever and a 'build it and they will come' philosophy. If it was a good deal for cargo planes to land here, they would be landing here.

You would think the global recession would spur some of these carriers into finding ways to cut costs and if PG is the great deal that the promoters and cheerleaders are touting, it would be a no-brainer.

Calgary tried to break into this market and couldn't make it work. Get ready for lots more excuses in the months ahead.

Well, MrPG, they ARE here, and if we hadn't built this facility to where it is today they would NOT be !!

If we were just wining and dining them with smoke and mirrors, and rosy promises -- they wouldn't give us the time of day.

We've put our money where our mouth is, and they are definately not fools - the proof is there that we mean business, and believe me - they see it, and that's why thet're here.

Also, they are smart enough to know that if there is opportunity here, that sitting around on their haunches poo-pooing the deal while the competition grabs the chance and leaves them dead last won't look too good on the rap sheet at the board of directors either, or with the shareholders.

If there's genuine opportunity here, you can bet your boots these business folks will see it. They are among the best in the world when it comes to business affairs.

Sure hard to figure that out isn't it, for some of you Guys.

"It still astounds me that $36M of taxpayer money was spent without any form of due diligence whatsoever and a 'build it and they will come' philosophy.

Now we are about to spend several hundred million dollars on a powerline north along the #37 corridor in the hope of attracting mining and other developments!

Is it o.k. *this time* to use a 'build it and they will come' philosophy?

What happens if any future tangible rewards will take a decade to materialize?

It better be o.k. because we are looking at 12 times the money invested in the airport runaway & infrastructure venture!

I am tired about the whining about this P.G. airport initiative!

I bet Kamloopians wouldn't be bitching if the money had been spent on their airport!

The whole world can read this (www) and what good does it do to show the world how utterly pessimistic some people are here?

We spent 20 billion dollars already on a war that (according to US and Canadian military experts and our own PM) is basically unwinnable and some are griping about a measly few millions spent on our prospects for the future here, where we live.

Ah yes, the old 'We've wasted money on this and that, what's wrong with this?' argument. The argument that actually pokes holes in itself!

Anyway, I really do hope I'm proven wrong on this. I remember all the rosy promises before the runway was built. If you remember, according to the pundits, planes were circling the airport waiting for the runway expansion to be complete.

It's a fine line between optimism and delusion.

Gus. I all has to do with Cargo and Fuel.

Coming from South East Asia to Prince George you would have the Jet Stream behind you and therefore could take a full load of Cargo and use less fuel. The same does not apply going West.

In order to fly Prince George to Asia into the Jet Stream you would have to reduce Cargo to take on more fuel. Thus you lose revenue and increase costs. This can be avoided by landing in Anchorage and adding fuel while still keeping a full Cargo, load. There is no where between Prince George and Asia over the Pacific Ocean where you can take on fuel.

The situation may change with the lighter Cargo jets, where refueling between Asia and New York will become a thing of the past. The Boeing 777 Freighter is the Worlds Largest, and has a capability of flying 4,885 nautical miles (9047 km) with a full payload and general cargo market densities, making it the worlds longest-range freighter. These new Cargo Jets are the future in Air Cargo and are coming on stream at the same time that we are supposedly building infrastructure to have Cargo Jets (747s) land in Prince George.

"It's a fine line between optimism and delusion."

That's what they said to Columbus when he set out on his exploratory jouneys.

I'm sure that's exactly what they said.

Well, actually he was told: "E 'una linea sottile fra l'ottimismo e la delusione"

-------------------------
Palopu. I realized what you said before you repeated it again. All I did was pointed out that one still flies west whether going from Anchorage or Prince George and one encounters the same jet stream. That is why I posted the predicted 20 day jet stream locations as a link.

I think the more detailed reason why Hoeg's comment might be right is that if one takes the distance to Shanghai from Memphis as an example these are the distances to consider:

Shanghai > Anchorage = 6,900km
Anchorage > Memphis = 5,100km

Shanghai > PG = 8,700 km
PG > Memphis = 3,300 km

Thus, while PG and many other cities such as Edmonton and possbily even Calgary are more or less on the "great circle route", only Anchorage is a major city that is relatively half way.

Since Tokyo is the major city that is the closest to the Pacific Northwest, here are distances from that city

PG > Tokyo = 7,500
Anchorage > Tokyo = 5,700km

Total distances:
Tokyo via PG to Memphis = 10,800
Tokyo via Anchorgage to Memphis = 10,800

Shanghai > Memphis via PG = 12,000 km
Shanghai > Memphis via Anchorage = 12,000 km

So, the key reason that PG may be out of the question on a return trip east is because Anchorage is considerably closer to the half way point than PG is from two major cargo airports.

Then you provide the info on the Boeing 777 Freighter, being the world's largest with a range of 9047 km with a full general density payload and general cargo market densities. What you do not say is whether it can fly that range against the jet stream.

No matter, since that is still not far enough to go in one hop from either Shanghai or Tokyo to Memphis. However, it puts PG in reach, whereas it was not before.

So, maybe that is the change that has to come before PG might be considered by some carriers as they get newer equipment. Also by those who might fly lighter loads west and heavier loads east.

BTW, New York is 600 to 700 km further than Memphis from Anchorage and PG respectively.

Good points Gus.