YXS Named As Air China's Alternate Airport

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:13 PM

More large aircraft could be on the horizon at YXS, the IL76 landing yesterday

Vancouver, B.C. - Big news for Prince George at news conference in Vancouver's Robson Square this afternoon, as Transportation Minister Shirley Bond and Air China officials announced increased air service to B.C..

In announcing three new flights per week between Vancouver International Airport and Beijing, Air China Canada's Senior Advisor, David Solloway, has revealed that Prince George has been named as Air China's alternate airport, should the flights need to be diverted from Vancouver due to bad weather.

Solloway says Prince George has been chosen over Calgary and Seattle, he says it has the infrastructure - the runway, the new terminal, the hotel rooms, etc. - to take on this role. Solloway says work underway since last fall's 'Open Skies' summit in Vancouver has really strengthened Air China's ties to the province and this is the result.

Transportation Minister, Shirley Bond, says this is a significant day. She says she can't underscore the work that's gone on since the Open Skies summit between all parties and she singled out efforts by Initiatives Prince George and its partner groups. Bond says "Part of the reason that we're able to make this announcement today is because of the significant investment in infrastructure at regional airports, like Prince George, right across this province."

Prince George Airport Authority Marketing and Economic Development Director, Todd Doherty, says this is a critical first step in the Authority's vision for the future of the airport and the northern region. He says YXS opened Canada's third longest commercial runway approximately one year ago, but it's really only been open for business since November with an expanded fuel pad and infrastructure in-place to service wide-body and long range aircraft.

He says Air China's commitment underscores a connection that goes back decades. "Through this announcement today, they have again demonstrated their belief in 'the product'." Doherty says BC is "open for business."

Doherty says YXS plans to use this connection with Air China as a springboard. He says the real work in promoting the airport as a transportation hub connecting North America to the Asia-Pacific Gateway begins now.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:13 PM in News by Michelle Cyr-Whiting

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Municca on February 24 2010 4:35 PM

This is awesome news for Prince George! Does anyone know how often the air traffic needs to be diverted from Vancouver due to bad weather?

Posted by: Palopu on February 24 2010 5:12 PM

Municca.

Abbotsford International Airport (YXX) is the 24-hour International Civil Aviation Organizations designated alternate airport to Vancouver International Airport (YVR)

Dave Kandal, Chair of the Abbotsford Airport Authority states.

***Most large commercial aircraft have the technology to land at YVR in all types of weather conditions, however, aircraft that can not, have the option to use the Abbotsford Airport as an alternate***

I dont know how many smaller aircraft would be diverted to Abbotsford in a year however the number would be insignificant.

Every Airport that handles commercial aircraft has to have an alternative. I suspect that the Alternative for Prince George Airport would be Vancouver or Edmonton, Ft St John, or Kamloops. Usually if a plane from Vancouver cannot land at Prince George it returns to Vancouver. Planes must always have sufficient fuel on board to reach their alternative.

There are many many commercial airlines that land at Vancouver on a regular basis.

I have no idea why they are making Prince George the alternative for these three (3) extra planes per week for Air China, however Im sure someone on this site will be able to tell us.

The Prince George Air;port on average is closed to fog about 7 times per year.

Posted by: quesnel on February 24 2010 7:47 PM

As a commercial pilot, I don't expect any diversions to YXS. Just a media/PR spin. Palopu has the correct info.

Posted by: Harbinger on February 24 2010 8:28 PM

Is fuel for the big airplane relative to the overpricing of gasoline in PG?

Posted by: quesnel on February 24 2010 8:34 PM

Harbinger, no rational person would ever put autofuel in a plane of this type--or those that I fly. Just spin on your part.

Posted by: interceptor on February 24 2010 9:00 PM

yawn - another day, another palopu airport bash. Stay tuned, he will work the cameron street bridge in soon.

Posted by: interceptor on February 24 2010 9:08 PM

ps - if you read the story, it says they released this during the announcement of the three extra flighs.. this isnt the alternative JUST for the three extra flights...

Posted by: He spoke on February 24 2010 10:02 PM

Way to go YXS, its been a long time coming for some good positive news. You see, the reason why they would pick PG is because it needs length. We now have it.

Posted by: quesnel on February 24 2010 10:05 PM

Interceptor--clearly you are associated with the local government/airport. There was no bash there. Just facts. You sound scared about the facts. I fly big stuff. The facts are what they are. You have not provided any facts/specs to back up your claim. Provide facts, please, not just mouth !! Enough from you unless you provide numbers/specs about aircraft stopping at YXS.. and references.

Posted by: interceptor on February 24 2010 10:21 PM

Actually I have absolutely nothing to do with either the airport or local government. I just think progress is good.
Heres a number/spec for you: How many large commercial planes would land at YXS without the runway expansion? ZERO

Posted by: He spoke on February 24 2010 10:35 PM

Quesnel is probably right, In a year Air China will fly into BC 150 times. Of that may be they will need to land in PG twice.

But hey that will double our numbers to date

Posted by: quesnel on February 24 2010 10:36 PM

progress is always good !! There are a significant other aircraft that could have landed without the extension. It's funny--our 737's/CRJ's now turn off Delta--instead of going farther down 33. okay--maybay a tad of fuel saved--but...at what cost?? in the big picture?? YXX will take YVR over-flow---when rarely, it is needed.

As to your question, many 'heavys' could not land before the extension because the ground would not support them and fuelling was not possible.

Posted by: MrPG on February 24 2010 10:38 PM

I agree that progress is good, but I can't tell from this story whether it is really 'progress' or some PR stunt. If as He Spoke says, it results in two landings a year maximum, it wasn't worth announcing.

Posted by: quesnel on February 24 2010 10:51 PM

With respect to all, I think Opinion 250 needs to seek information from those close to the topic, instead of spinning 'tales'. 'Tales' cause false information to be spread. eg info around YXS. Shame on the owners of this "250". But who cares ???

Posted by: palomino on February 25 2010 7:22 AM

The last time I was on a commercial flight to Prince George, that got diverted due to fog, we wound up landing in Ft. St. John, where we sat for a couple hours, then flew back to Prince George. I don't know what we'd have done if Ft. St. John had been socked in at the time as well, or if we'd have simply turned back - because that would of course have meant we'd have to be carrying enough fuel when we left Vancouver, to make it back again.

quesnel - I think you completely missed the point when Harbinger asked "is fuel for the big airplane RELATIVE to the overpricing of gasoline in PG"? I think he/she was wondering if the price of aviation fuel is ALSO higher in PG, vs "other" locations in the Province, or Canada, like gasoline is.

And - if you consider palopu as the "facts" guru of this board, at least with regards to his favorite bash, the PG airport, then according to him, on some earlier posts there are a lot of "heavies" that can not even make the flight from Asia to North America, without stopping for fuel in Anchorage anyway, and according to him, could not even make Prince George without stopping first in Anchorage. If that is true, then why wouldn't those planes just "park" in Anchorage, and wait out the weather, or whatever the problem, since they've already paid the landing fees there anyway.

I think the long and the short of all this "blarb" about aviation is this -- every airline, no matter how big or small, knows exactly how far it can fly, how heavy it can load its airplanes, how much fuel and fees will cost wherever it lands, and where it will go if bad weather or any other circumstance appears that force a change in the flight plan. We "armchair aviators" won't change one iota of those facts, no matter how long we "huff and puff" over them, except maybe to taint the positive attitude a carrier may have had about the overall "friendliness" of a place in general.

I think the very least we can do is let them know they're WELCOME here, and that we appreciate the opportunity to extend a hand and show the world what we have to offer, which the vast majority of us here DO appreciate!!

It can start right here today, with our very welcome Russian visitors.

palomino

Posted by: IMO on February 25 2010 8:18 AM

I think the very least we can do is let them know they're WELCOME here, and that we appreciate the opportunity to extend a hand and show the world what we have to offer, which the vast majority of us here DO appreciate!!

It can start right here today, with our very welcome Russian visitors.

palomino

Well said Palomino! Even one visitor is better than none.

Posted by: MrPG on February 25 2010 8:24 AM

36 million dollars (cost of runway expansion) is a heck of a lot of money to pay for one visitor. How much more will Boundary Road cost? Maybe that will bring a visitor or two as well.

Posted by: Municca on February 25 2010 1:58 PM

Boundary road was paid for by the Federal Government in attempts to help the economy. It was part of the stimulus package. It is giving families in Prince George much needed income. Yes I believe a bike trail and sidewalk all the way where no one lives is pathetic when we don’t even have a sidewalk. But the money and work is appreciated at this time.

Posted by: MrPG on February 25 2010 2:26 PM

As far as I know, there is only one taxpayer, whether it's federal money, provincial money or municipal money. I do not believe tax dollars should be going towards these make-work projects.

Like someone else pointed out, there is no way any private business would spend so much money without having customers lined up first. But as we all know, there is a whole different set of rules when it comes to taxpayer money.

Posted by: anniemartin on February 25 2010 5:18 PM

Well said palomino! Lets WELCOME those who land in our city no matter the reason.

I have to wonder at the number of negative comments every release of news by the government.

I practice my right to democracy by voting a representative into government to make decisions. I get frustrated when that decision is not necessarily the one I would make, but I also recognize that I did not run for the position therefore I don't get to make that decision.

When contrasting private business versus government - private business is held up as the example to follow, but never with the idea that every business owner wants to grow, which takes investment and the ideology that improvements mean moving forward.

Good or bad the new runway is here and promoting would be the best alternative to having it unused I would think.

Posted by: Harbinger on February 25 2010 6:04 PM

I never commented on gasoline in an airplane. I merely commented on the price of jet fuel being relative to our overpriced ($1.06 per litre today) motor fuel here in PG. No spin there, pal.

Posted by: MrPG on February 25 2010 6:40 PM

anniemartin: "private business is held up as the example to follow, but never with the idea that every business owner wants to grow, which takes investment and the ideology that improvements mean moving forward. "

What does this mean? Sounds like some sort of Government spin.

Business grows when opportunities and customers are identified and money is spent in a responsible manner. Private businesses that spend money without a clear plan or direction do not last long. Government does not have to worry so much, there are always more taxpayer dollars.

Posted by: gus on February 25 2010 8:09 PM

"Private businesses that spend money without a clear plan or direction do not last long"

Oh?????

I think many last longer than they should.

On top of that, who pays for the losses the failed businesses have? In my opinion, in the end, society "pays" for so-called mismanagement of its systems, and benefits from the well managed systems, whether public or private.

It is part of the system of continual "improvement" through diversity of approaches

Posted by: MrPG on February 25 2010 10:30 PM

"Oh?????

I think many last longer than they should."

Kind of a vague statement. Examples?