Jump to content

Talk:Edmonton International Airport

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Airport Location

[edit]

I've added the airport location as being within Leduc County on a number of occasions, however, some of the Edmonton folk keep on removing this information. It is a factual piece of data, and the appropriate reference has been added. I would request moderators to ensure this doesn't happen again. Removing such factual information amounts to vandalism of Wikipedia. 14:23, 22 May 2007

The airport location is very well described as is. With it's distance from downtown Edmonton, to the bedroom communities that it is surrounded by. There is no need to keep saying it is in "Leduc County" when the article already says it is close to Leduc. I will continue to remove references to Leduc County. You have edited the name of the airport, on several occasions to "Leduc International Airport". You are obviously here to vadalize, and I will remove all edits. Have a great day.

Airport Facilities

[edit]

Some mention needs to be made about the different facilities and amenities in the airport. For eg. - Maple Leaf lounge as well as the many retail and food outlets located in the terminal building. In addition, the number of gates in the airport should also be included in this area. Brief mention of the viewing areas available for pre-security flyers and aviation enthusiasts alike should be added. As I recall, the most recently built terminal and "centrall Hall" won a design award when they first opened a few years back. This should be included in the article as well. Lastly I feel some mention should be made of the various works of art which hang in the airport, and this could be tied to a brief reference about Edmonton's extremely active cultural and arts scene.--Markh15 (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Region Area Control Centre

[edit]

Is it important to discuss that Edmonton is also the base for the Western Region Area Control Centre that is responsible for all aircraft movements over Alberta and most of northern Canada, including the high Arctic?

Yes, as well as all the upgrades that went into the center. If I recall correctly, it is the first one in Canada to get all the new equipment... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edmonchuck (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Newark?

[edit]

It says on the YEG page that Northwest flies YEG-EWR, yet I see no other mention of that supposed flight anywhere else on the internet. Can somebody please clarify this? Metstotop333 06:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered in your similar question on the Newark page. Tinlinkin 10:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YEG-EWR is not a direct flight. The only New York flight that is same plane from what I recall is YEG-LGA...bu tthey did take us off the plane in MSP to groom and to have the INS take a look see...Edmonchuck 19:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History?

[edit]

Anyone know when the airport was built, or why this site was chosen? Kevlar67 11:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Built in 1960. (see article) I also know they were considering land in the Ellerslie area, but chose to go with the Leduc sight for a variety of reasons. Unsure of anything more 'concrete'. I'd like to know more as well. Onishenko 16:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read somewhere that back in the 1950s, the city wanted to have the international airport built by Namao just north of Edmonton, but Defence Canada got first dibs on that piece of land and turned it into CFB Namao (now CFB Edmonton). The city ended up having to go with the Leduc site. NorthernFire 20:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had heard that as well, which is why I was curious if anyone had any more info on it. Personally I thik Namao would have been a 1000x better location. Kevlar67 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The AMERICANS built Namao in the 1940's in response to increasing needs for heavy bombers...YXD couldn't cut it. Namao was completed in 1944. CYEG was a Transport Canada initiative in response to the need for a larger field and no room at CYXD to do so, and this debate happened a decade after Namao was completed. Namao was a DND Facility so NO civillian airliners were allowed. It was NOT an option. Check out http://www.abheritage.ca/aviation/history/military_namao.html which is a well written article and does accurately depict several things, including WHY CFB namao was not chosen to be the next CYEG in the 1990's when it was going to be transformed into the current army base. Sure, Namao was a better location in terms of proximity, but it is still a transportation nightmare with no alignment for an LRT and even more congested side streets preventing expansion of 97th avenue.Edmonchuck 15:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marriott

[edit]

So are they actually building that Marriott? They were supposed to break ground in the Fall of 2006, now Wiki (no citation) sez Summer 2007. There have been 4 hotels built within a mile of the site since last year, seem like it won't be viable, even if they can afford to build it, or manage to staff it. I've heard that Marriott is preoccupied with the River Cree project and something in Whitecourt, and that the deal is dead. Anybody know? (DAG)

It could be the labour shortage due to the red-hot economy in Alberta and not necessarily just due to Marriott's other projects, but don't quote me on this. NorthernFire 17:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is official, the hotel will start construction in 2008. This should be added to the page.here is the link for more information [1]

(info about hotel is at very bottom) Excerpt from that page: Airport Expansion

Sustained double-digit passenger growth at Edmonton International Airport (EIA) is driving the need to expand the airport terminal building, parking facilities, and other infrastructure much faster than expected.

Our last phased expansion project, 1998 - 2005 Air Terminal Redevelopment Project, including the parkade, South Terminal and Central Hall, was completed for approximately $280 million, giving EIA a 5.5 million passenger capacity.

We expected to reach 5.5 million passengers, the trigger point for expansion by 2015; however, EIA will serve more than six million passengers in 2007 – accelerating the need to expand.

To ensure passengers move through the airport as smoothly as possible and to minimize the terminal's physical, environmental and financial impact, Edmonton Airports is adopting "future airport" technologies such as self-serve check-in kiosks and check-in desks useable by any airline.

As well, over the next five years we will invest $1 billion in a three-phase expansion project that will enable Edmonton International to serve nine million passengers annually.


2007 - 2012 Expansion Project

An additional 13 bridges will be built on the south side of the terminal, boosting the total number of bridges to 30 from the current 17. 

    Phase 1 (completion date 2010): 253,000
    square metres of new apron space to  
    accommodate new south terminal
    development.

    Phase 2 (completition date 2010): A new
    "hammerhead" located south of the
    current airport terminal.

    Phase 3 (completion date 2012): A new concourse linking the existing south terminal
    with the "hammerhead."


Expansion projects already underway

Parkade expansion - 1,000 new parkade stalls Completion date: 2008 Expanding aprons and new de-icing pads Completion date: 2007 Upgrading or replacing current systems and better utilizing existing space New airport hotel

A 192-room Courtyard by Marriott hotel will also begin construction in 2008. The costs for this project will be borne by the developer, Concord Hospitality Enterprises Company, and is not part of the $1 billion airport expansion. 

--Markh15 (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hotel project was delayed by NavCan and the developer disagreeing on land issues as well as rising construction costs. At least, that's what I was told by an ERAA representative during an informal Q&A session last week. NorthernFire (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can leave it as it is, then, but this hotel seems like a pipe dream at this point; it was first scheduled for 2006, and 2008 is almost over. My own informal hearsay indicates that Concorde has dropped out entirely, and they are seeking a new developer. Dagnabbitt (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charters?

[edit]

I could not find any evidence that Aeromexico and All Nippon Airways fly out of YEG. Can anyone source this or remove it? Scrapschad 06:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of regular updates discouraging

[edit]

There is a lot of information relevant to EIA not included in the article. I have outlined some of these mising facts on the discussion pages, however I am not comfortable modifing the actual page, as I am unsure about sourcing and formatting etc. Perhaps someone with a bit of experience editing wikipedia could visit EIAs website www.edmontonairports.com and create appropiate updates for the page. :) --Markh15 (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:YEG Logo.jpg

[edit]

Image:YEG Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Logo for Edmonton International Airport

[edit]

Please note that the airport now has a new logo of its own in conjunction with a rebranding of the airport (See http://corporate.edmontonairports.com/news/238). The same licensing and copyright rules should apply. NorthernFire (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the airport

[edit]

Someone should add to the article the fact that traffic is dropping just as a major expansion is underway. Just look at how quiet things are in the photos of the gallery section. The "stop the Calgary habit" campaign shows to me that the airport authority is very nervous. This should be mentioned. I would do it but no doubt that someone would just remove the comments.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spj (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the expansion information to the past tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.228.180 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Do you have a source that says passenger growth has declined? 117Avenue (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's right in the growth section of this article. In 2009 traffic dropped 5.5%. Traffic is flat in 2010 according to the airport authority's stats. That means that the airport would need 25% increases both in 2011 and 2012 to reach 9million. Impossible. 70.74.228.180 (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded your changes so that they are based on fact, not opinion. Spj (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have no source for your "fact" on the 2010 values. 117Avenue (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check the airport website Corporate - Passenger Statistics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.228.180 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Edmonton International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images

[edit]

Hello Thankyoubaby, I have removed these additional images because Wikipedia is not a gallery like Commons and I don't see how so many photos contributes to a reader's understanding. The Good Article McCarran International Airport has only two such images, and another to represent the unique Janet government flights. Why do you feel four images of aircraft at this airport are important? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:IG "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." It is just your opinion that there should only be one image, but let's use McCarran International Airport as the guide, and use two instead of four. Thankyoubaby (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyoubaby, that sounds perfectly fine to me. With regards to the McCarran Airport article, I actually made it a Good Article and frequently edit the article, just so you know! Earlier there were several images of aircraft there, but I cut it down to two: one for a major domestic airline and one for an international one. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Focus Cities

[edit]

There has been some "discussion" surrounding what constitutes a focus city.

By definition, including the definition regularly accepted in Wikipedia, under the Airline Hub discussion, a focus city is a city that is not a hub but offers a significant number of routes for an airline. Therefore, a focus city is not a hub, but generally relies more on origin and destination traffic. The key words used in the regularly accepted definitions are "significant number" or "several" when it refers to the number of routes.

Based on the definitions of "significant" or "several" a city with only two or three routes would not meet the criteria of significant or several.

Any airline that operates two or three routes out of a city would not meet the definition of a focus city.

Therefore, the airlines "Swoop" and "NorthWest Air Lease" would not meet the definition of a focus city for its Edmonton International Airport operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephmoe (talk • contribs) 07:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Air serves five destinations non-stop from Edmonton. External sources indicate Edmonton is a focus city for Swoop [2]. Thankyoubaby (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Northwest Air Lease actually flies to four destinations nonstop from YEG: Ft Mc Murray, High Level, Fort Smith and Hay River. None of these routes are even flown daily. Regardless, to call YEG a focus city for an airline with so few services doesn't meet the definition.
Also, the external source you posted is someone's opinion, it is not an official source from either the airline or the airport. I could write an article tomorrow with misinformed information. That does not make it a credible source.
Pleas refer to the definition of "focus city" in Wikipedia (Airline Hub section) and you will clearly see that a city with only two (or even four routes) does not meet the criteria of "several" routes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.53.61 (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of "focus city" found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_hub#Focus_city_2 and the definition of "several" includes the term "more than two." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.53.61 (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot refer to another Wikipedia article as a definitive source. The source there refers to a book that states "[focus city] has been generally adopted to refer to either a destination or transfer airport that an airlines uses on a fairly heavy basis." A direct reference is also made to airline marketing. Seems pretty vague, but if you want to use this source as a definitive ruling he seems content to say that if an airline wants to call their operation at a given city a "focus city", then it is a focus city. As such, the insistent claims that a given city does not meet the definition of a focus city holds no water, as long as said city has been referred to as a focus city by the airline. There is something inherently hilarious about referring to a passage in another Wikipedia article as a definitive source in this or any other matter. -- Acefitt 18:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that has been my point all along. The reference he was using is not from the the airline. It is from an independent third party person who has used the term focus city to describe Edmonton and Abbotsford as focus cities. Nowhere has the airline made reference to the term focus city. I used the Wikipedia reference only as a guide. The person who continues (insists) on describing these cities as focus cities continues to focus on this one article by a misinformed writer. Ask anybody in the airline industry what constitutes a focus city and anyone will tell you it is certainly more than a city with more than two routes. The writer asks to cite a source to prove they are not focus cities? How can one cite a source for something that doesn't exist. My suggestion then would be until the airline itself describes these cities as focus cities, do not call them as such. Easy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.53.61 (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; I've only vaguely been following this ridiculous argument so... @Thankyoubaby: until you can cite a presser from Swoop or WS claiming anything to be a focus city, you have no basis to call them that. Because neither city meets the traditional definition of a focus city, the only way we could realistically call them that is if the airline calls them that, which they haven't, to my knowledge. -- Acefitt 15:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not even the one who originally called them focus cities. However, on Wikipedia you need third party sources, Swoop or EIA would not be considered third party in this case. All we have in this case is the source that has already been cited. Thankyoubaby (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the problem remains that said third party source would need to be citing the airline itself calling it a focus city. It is clearly not a focus city by any stretch of the imagination, and the source is not a remotely reputable aviation publication. -- Acefitt 16:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not need to cite the airline, in fact it should not [3]. Thankyoubaby (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except, if you've read anything here, it must cite the airline... in the case of determining whether or not a city is a focus city. The source we are using to define a focus city makes it clear that the city either has to have a somewhat substantial operation (which YEG obviously does not), or the airline itself has to call it a focus city. Since we miserably fail at #1, then #2 has to be fulfilled. Which it is not. -- Acefitt 17:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the first line in thankyoubaby’s source about guidelines says the source must be “reliable.” The person who wrote that article is not reliable. No offence to the writer but he is just misinformed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.204.13 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edmonton_International_Airport&oldid=1196429140"