# Talk:Calgary International Airport

I know from just reading the departures list that this article is majorly out of date - Delta now comes here from Boston as well as MSP, and 9M runs far more routes than just Lloydminster and Edmonton. 68.146.92.51 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC). 

I reverted as the new stuff has a copyvio in it. I can implement the infobox later as it is still being hashed out right now. Burgundavia 20:41, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

So that means we can't put in any pictures then...

Dre, if you read your talk page, the pictures are all copyvios as well. As both the text and pictures were copyright violations, it was easier to revert everything, and then add the infobox back in when we has it out. Burgundavia 20:47, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Me to the rescue! I took some neat photos of the airport while visiting it today. Is taking photos of inside of the airport, by yourself, with your own camera, illegal in some way? If not, I should have some pictures up by Saturday or Sunday. - RPharazon 05:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It's not illegal in any way (although, I know that security sometimes have problems with people taking pictures inside airports these days :) ). Anyway, just specify the copyright status of your photos using the pull-down menu when you upload them. --Arch26 07:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful. I'll upload the best ones once I have them out of the developer. (I have a film camera, and the roll still has 8 pictures left.) - RPharazon 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Length

Is it really due to the high altitude that the runway is that long?  It is only 1000 feet longer than Vancouver (at sea level), and Mirabel (though now cargo only) is only 600 feet shorter.  There are a large amount of airports with a runway length around 11000 feet (including YYZ, YUL, YWG, YEG).  Or was it simply built this long because they could?  The area around the northern end of the runway didn't start to become developed until the late 1970s

In Calgary's case, it can safely be asserted that the additional runway length is primarily due to airport elevation. There are many considerations that drive a decision to make runways a certain length (land cost and topography, materials cost, altitude, supported aircraft types current and future, etc.), and so it's hard to say that altitude is the only reason. However, the following statements are true:
1] the longer a runway is, the safer it is, all other things being equal
2] the biggest jets, such as B747-400, safely require about 10000+ feet at sea level (on a hot day)
3] the higher the runway, in terms of elevation, the longer it needs to be
If Calgary's runway were 11000 feet like the examples above, then it would be unsafe for fully-loaded departing B747 traffic (such as Korean and Asiana Cargo to Seoul ROK). Therefore, the additional 1675 feet is primarily due to elevation. Note that Denver International Airport (high elev at 5431 feet) has 5 X 12000 foot runways, and a sixth runway at 16000 feet.

Space Shuttle

According to Transport Canada's "Designated NASA Space Shuttle Emergency Landing Sites in Canada" only Gander International Airport, Halifax International Airport, St. John’s Airport, Stephenville Airport, CFB Goose Bay are officially designated.  According to http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/sts-els.htm Calgary does not make the list of emergency landing locations.  In an absolute emergency it is conceivable that Calgary is a prospective landing location.  However, shuttle control would likely choose Mountain Home AFB in Idaho (490 nautical miles SSW) or White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico (1175 nautical miles SSE) to reduce diplomatic issues (among other reasons).
Is this an urban legend in Calgary, due to the fact that the Antonov has used 16-34?
No, they fly here about a dozen times per year. The 225's are rarer, about once a year.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.70.168 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 

I suppose it must be. I have hear this claimed myself, though I do not remember the source. CConrad 18:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The Antonov An-124 has. I've seen it with my own eyes. The Antonov An-225 probably can, but it hasn't come to Calgary due to the fact that Calgary just isn't that type of place to have such a big cargo plane flown in for a customer or corporation or something. - RPharazon 06:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I work at YYC and during ramp training we got to take a look up close at an Antonov and it had 6 engines, so I assume that was the An-225! But since that day I have only seen the four engine Antonov. But that six engine one took virtually every inch of 16-34 to get off the ground (it departed to the south)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.112.146 (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC) 

I wonder, are radio frequencies really necessary for the purposes of a Wikipedia article? Alr 19:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I could be crazy Alr, but i don't see any radio frequencies mentioned in this article at all.  Can you show me what you're talking about? – Fudoreaper 02:33:31, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Oh i see, you've already removed them.  So you're not wondering, you're asserting.  I think it's important to state how you feel if you're wanting action, and ask wondering questions when you're wanting people opinions BEFORE action.  Anyhow, i tend to agree that only aviators need radio frequencies like this, and thus, is outside the scope of Wikipedia.  However, there's also the idea that more info is usually better than less. – Fudoreaper 02:41:15, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
I just caught this, because I don't look at my watchlist every day. (Is there a way to get an email sent with updates to ones watchlist? I'm new at all this.) Soooo, sure, right after I correct a glaring omission, then you whack the list. :-) Anyway, as a pilot, I would tend to agree that the frequencies are not required here, and I wouldn't trust a list here to be up to date anyway. I would always get the information before a flight from official sources. However, the frequencies might be interesting for non-pilots to see, and I agree that more information is usually better. There is also the issue of consistency. Don't other airport articles have the frequencies? If this were a vote, I'd vote for reinstating them. But I don't feel strongly about it. –CConrad 16:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
No, i don't think there's an email watchlist feature.  This is probably because if there was, people like me would get 47 emails a day (or more).  It would quickly get silly, for very active editors.  Other than that, your comments make sense. I'm not a pilot, i don't even know how to get these frequencies, so i'm not really going to make any edits to do with them.  Also, thanks for the contributions, C Conrad.  You'll get the hang of things. :) – Fudoreaper 17:34:00, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

The destination for British Airways was listed as London-Gatwick.  It is actually Heathrow.  [[1]]

Should the B/C concourse section be divided? All flights departing from the B concourse are International while all departing out of the C concourse are going to the USA. I feel that for better organization of the article it may be wise to divide this. If no one will object to this within the next week I will divide this section. --204.191.215.5 08:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
this should be divided, but take note that B concourse is not always international out, Air Canada domestic departs out of B concourse, and lots of domestic comes into B (most often turned into trans-border) as well. Phobal (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 
is the hongkong thing going to happen or not???

I think it would be wise to make this division. YothSog 08:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Air Canada this week loaded up their schedule in a fashion that leads us to believe that on August 1st, the 77W will operate AC850 while the second flight will remain a 763. However, from what I've heard, this is just temporary, and the 77W will be needed elsewhere. There is a possibility that the Airbus A340-300 will operate the flight. --Phoenix (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
you are thinking about the 333. this summer it will be on a 333 and 763. Phobal (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a long list of airlines that are stated to operate out of their own private facility. I've removed UPS and DHL since they do not operate their own private facility at the airport. Although UPS will soon have their own, shouldn't be on this section yet. I will be removing others soon once I find out for sure.--Feelgood 02:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

fully incorrect; the YYC UPS gateway (located right beside air canada cargo) is a "private facility" for use by UPS. it's labeled as UPS and it's only used by UPS, although the ramp handling is done through ATS. the new facility near apron VII is intended to be a building to consolidate their two ground facilities and the gateway under one roof. using your "private facility" criteria in reference to buildings fully controlled by a cargo operation, only FedEx, CargoJet, Puro, Air Canada Cargo, UPS and Menzies Cargo would be considered "private facilities". OZ, CV definately do not have their own "private facilities", and why you would remove DHL yet not remove the airline operating for them (GB) really beats the hell out of me. therefore, UPS and DHL are worthy of being mentioned of having operations in YYC. Phobal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Calgary airport has had several notable incidents, and as other Canadian airports have this section it should be added here for consistency. Sources can be gathered from aviation-safety.net. YYC T Dawg (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no history section for this article, and as other Canadian airports have this section it should be added here for consistency. Notable items would seem to include the 1938 move as referenced at http://www.calgaryairport.com/Default.aspx?cid=21&lang=1 YYC T Dawg (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the closure of the Concourse B Pre-Screening area, there are no longer any gates labelled "B". All gates 20-28 are now either A or C depending on which Pre-Screening area you pass through.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.246.187 (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Calgary 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111201114641/http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_servs/metstat1_e.html to http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_servs/metstat1_e.html
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 00:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please remove the following:
- Alaska Airline (operated by SkyWest Airlines): this airline does not fly into Calgary International Airport
- American Eagle: the airline does not land at the Calgary International Airport
- Atlas Air (at the Cargo section): Atlas Air is already in the list under DHL Aviation. Kagoshima remains a year-round operation, while Kitakyushu is charter.
Can someone also add the following:
- Cargolux in the Cargo section: Seattle International Airport 
205.206.131.251 (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eteethan(talk) 01:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Calgary International Airport/CommentsTalk:Calgary International Airport/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 10:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Calgary International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015185038/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=02b19397-2fdf-4039-ba29-b93eaf908adb to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=02b19397-2fdf-4039-ba29-b93eaf908adb
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canadiannorth.com/contact/administration
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

All international flights are handled in Terminal 2, therefore all U.S. bound and international services should depart from either Concourse D or E 75.111.228.79 (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Topher385 (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, an exact date must be mentioned in the source prior to being added. The Frontier source previously added does not mention this. Searching frontiers timetable is WP:OR, and must be avoided. There is no need to rush these entries. Wait for a quality source with an exact date mentioned.  Garretka (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Widr I do not have auto confirmed access. This information needs a proper source and a proper date before it can be added, per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Thanks if you're able to take care of this - Daylen, please cite a source mentioning an exact date or remove this information. Garretka (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello all, I have taken a WP:BOLD move by adjusting the "Airlines and destinations" table to account for WP:V and MOS:RELTIME. Rather than being a table that appears current and is constantly updated, this table is a snapshot of the airlines and destinations in September 2017. It only lists those destinations that were operating this month, so seasonal and new routes are not indicated (when the table is updated in future months, these destinations would appear in the table).
A clear difference from the old table is the fact that there are now references for all entries in the right-hand column. Because the references do not always specify whether, for example, a route is operated by Air Canada or Air Canada Express, I have opted to consolidate all destinations under the main airline along with a note ("Certain routes might be operated by a subsidiary...").
Please tell if you have any concerns or questions. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 12:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for being constructive with such edits, however there are a few problems that I have noted along with a few other moderators. It may seem like a good idea to provide a "snapshot" of each month at first, however in the grand scheme of things (more on the applicability side of it, it simply is not useful). For example, many people refer to this table to look to see when/what flights are operating direct to each destination, this can cause a problem because for example if I wanted to do book a flight a flight to Huatulco in November, I would have absolutely no idea that Air Canada Rouge is operating direct to Huatulco (starting November), which in turn would cause me to book perhaps a more expensive flight. Another example is WestJet, today they announced their new budget airlines Swoop (airline), which when they announce the routes (where Calgary will most certainly be apart of), this wikipedia page will not reflect this until the certain "month"... which is quite frustrating. Furthermore, there are no other major or even smaller airports that do this in their wikipedia page, it simply does not make sense. All wikipedia pages are being constantly updated, and I do know for a fact that some Wikiepdians jump on the fact that a certain airline is flying to such destination. As for the references, we can still easily provide references for all entries.This should not stay how it is, although your reasoning is trying to be constructive it does not make sense. Thank you for your contributions. 
Martinillo (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally I like the revisions - these are edits that are bold and a trial for other airport pages.  It should be noted that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, it is an encyclopedia. If users wish to book a flight they would do so using airline websites anyways. The way this table is laid out seems more in line with WP:V, but the trade of is the maintenance of these tables as they require periodic updating. Garretka (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Martinillo, thank you for coming to the talk page. I echo Garretka's point on WP:V. It is true that many airport articles are updated regularly (mainly their "Airlines and destinations" tables) –  however this is probably not the case for airports in non-English-speaking regions that don't get the same level of attention. I wanted to institute a format that has broad applicability.Garretka, I don't believe the lists change tremendously over time. Updates could take place every few months or so. Inevitably it is a lot of information to update at once, on the other hand. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I wholeheartedly disagree with any change to the existing format as it's not overly difficult to keep the list up to to date. But that's just me. -- Acefitt 20:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Acefitt: Do you support the use of references? (To be honest, I don't think we have a choice here, according to WP:V.) — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course I support the use of references. The ability to check what destinations are served seasonally at a given airport is a gigantic benefit and I (and many others) regularly access the section on many pages. I'm not fighting you on it here, but I'm strongly opposed to this anywhere else and will be the biggest advocate against it on other pages, as it makes the section useless in my opinion. -- Acefitt 13:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with you Acefitt, us like many others use this feature a lot, and is arguabley the most widely used feature in these airport pages. Martinillo (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Increasingly I am of the opinion that we need to get the page back to how it was and Sunny needs to take it up on the talk page of the WikiProject. These radical changes aren't going to happen anywhere else if I have anything to do with it; the correct place for the proposal is therefore the talk page of the WikiProject. I do not care if Wikipedia is not a travel brochure or what not; needlessly excluding information to prove a point (what point is it, even?) accomplishes absolutely nothing. -- Acefitt 00:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Acefitt: I'm sorry that you take it that way. I'm not trying to prove a point –  I'm also a big aviation enthusiast and I'm trying to find a way to make these tables more compliant with Wikipedia policies. Please don't take this move as a threat. I have introduced RfC's at WT:AIRPORTS (here and here), I have inquired at the Reliable Source Noticeboard here. As the discussions have grown stale, I have tried to be more WP:BOLD to see what the community thinks.For anyone who finds the table is no longer useful, please explain why. Why is it important that the tables be current (but please read MOS:RELTIME!) and that seasonal destinations be included? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not that I want it to always be up-to-date, it's that I don't see the detriment of listing seasonal destinations. Is it not more work to have to be changing it on a monthly basis anyway? When AC announced the new Mexico routes launching from YYC this winter, the fastest way to see, "okay, do WS, TS and WG also fly to HUX seasonally" is to come here. Nowhere else on the internet lists this information in as quickly as accessible a format as the Destinations sections on Wikipedia. The flights operating today or in the coming days can be seen from any multitude of sources, namely the arrivals/departure board on yyc.com. I wouldn't come here for that specific info. -- Acefitt 02:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that I don't know how to reference seasonal destinations. Sometimes we will find a press release or something similar, but most of the time what do we do? Ask readers to search several dates in an airline's timetable? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Timetable documents can be cited, WestJet and Air Canada for example have entire pdf documents of their timetable. For those without, press releases or any other document from a reliable source could be cited. Definitely wouldn't be an issue here, though other airports would be more difficult. -- Acefitt 04:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
However, the timetable PDFs (at least all the ones I've seen) are only valid for a few months at a time, like Air Canada's. True, the route maps in that PDF include "seasonal [...] routes currently not operating," but the ones that are currently operating are not noted as being seasonal. Also could you please link me to WestJet's PDF timetable? This is the best I've managed to find. I like your point about how a reader can access the arrivals/departure board of the airport's website (and similar resources) for the same information. I would note, however, that the table format I've instituted does not present a single day's worth of flights, but rather the routes operating over the entire month. This information cannot be accessed on the airport's website, etc. in the coming months. Also I think we could make a similar argument about the normal table format. For current (or relatively current) route information, a reader can easily go to that same multitude of sources at any point in time. Chances are the current information on an airline's website and similar sources is more reliable than the "current" information in the normal table format, which has no indication of when it was last updated and could therefore contain errors (particularly in airport articles that receive less attention, like those about airports in Africa). — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 15:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
At this point, my only argument is that what you want to do is both less informative, and requires (on average) more frequent updating. Seems like a lose-lose. That's just my take on it. -- Acefitt 23:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I've tried my best to reconcile Wikipedia policy with these tables. If you or anyone else can propose something better, I'm all ears. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 14:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
04-Oct-2017 The new format doesn't work at all. Suggest reverting it back. The article has now lost all reference to regional carriers, seasonal routes and seasonal airlines. This should be part of an encyclopedia. There is a reason the other airport articles are following the old format.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forestburg1 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC) 

I am changing it back due to the strong consensus on this talk page. Until we are able to get a clear answer for ALL pages this will be the norm from now on. Please consider bringing this up elsewhere to start a new discussion but as of now, it does not make sense to have this for one airport; either all or none. Martinillo (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I would hardly call this discussion a strong consensus, just sayin.. I'm standing by my opinion that if you cannot find an explicit reference, the information does not belong on Wikipedia, as is the case most often with these tables. Air Canada's PDF timetable for example, does not differentiate between mainline and express, so how do you accurately reference that the route is served by express without using original research? Garretka (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Garretka You need to realize that this table is much less uninformative. The references issue can seriously be solved quite easily, check this out (it took me about 2 seconds of searching to find this) (here). This is the AC route map for ALL destinations. If you click on a certain destination it will tell you where it serves to and by whom. So for example West Kootenay Regional Airport in Castlegar, flies to YVR and YYC, it will also tell you that this route is operated by AC Express. The same can be said for AC Rouge destinations. There are similar tables for WestJet and other airlines. As far as I'm aware, we are not getting to get far with this discussion talking on the YYC talk page. Why don't you or Sunnya343 bring this up to a bigger forum in which we can get a solid consensus for ALL airports, or try this idea on a bigger airport such as Heathrow Airport or Dubai International Airport, and see what type of feedback we receive there.Martinillo (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
martinillo feel free to explore the airport talk page. As far as being informative, great. But it can only be as informative at the references given, which currently, are slim to none (WP:V). Wikipedia is not a travel guide nor a fan guide and the deeper this discussion surrounding the tables gets, the more I believe they do not fit Wikipedia material.  Garretka (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Martinillo: I already have... see here, here, here. Please also read the policies I cited above and in these discussions, like MOS:RELTIME. However, I'm going to hold off on pushing a new format until this RfC is closed (I've submitted it for formal closure due to the sharply diverging opinions and apparent lack of consensus). — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello all, an editor has assessed the latest RFC at WT:AIRPORTS, determining that references have to be provided for "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged" in the Airlines and destinations tables. The only thing I'm stuck on is figuring out how to reference seasonal routes, as I mentioned in the previous discussion as well. For example, Air Canada Express to Phoenix. I can't find any secondary sources for it, and the timetable (p.39) says there is only Rouge service right now... no word on Express service nor the seasonal nature of the route. What should we do in this case? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd tend to remove seasonal routes, as this is not a travel guide. I don't see the encyclopedic point of having such information in airport articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd tend to disagree wholeheartedly with that and keep seasonal routes, as the destinations listing is the most beneficial thing on a Wikipedia page for myself and many others who quickly use it to check if a destination is served. -- Acefitt 17:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you Acefitt –  if we list year-round destinations, why not seasonal ones? Particularly for airports that depend on seasonal traffic, like tourist destinations. My question though is about how we reference them... — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
it's probably just something that will ahve to be continually addressed and updated by editors. i'm sure the airlines have listing of flights, ro the airport webpage. -- Aunva6talk - contribs  19:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Quite frankly this is why I liked the table format you had previously, discussed and rejected above. The problem with the previous comment is it's all interpretation and in my opinion original research using airline search pages. If they can't be referenced reliably then in my opinion, they shouldn't be there. Garretka (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
"as the destinations listing is the most beneficial thing on a Wikipedia page for myself and many others who quickly use it to check if a destination is served". That's exactly what Wikipedia is not for.--Jetstreamer Talk 04:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"it's probably just something that will ahve(sic) to be continually addressed and updated by editors."  Doesn't continually needing to update something make it a directory Wikipedia is an Encyclopeadia it is not a directory as per WP:DIRECTORY [is NOT] "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business."  Andrewgprout (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
My issue is this. The seasonal routes at Calgary carry an immense amount of traffic and are lucrative. Okay fine, WP is not a travel guide, but where are you drawing the line? You should probably scrub the entire table and not pick and choose what makes it a travel guide and what doesn't. UA isn't flying mainline to SFO at the moment yet it's on the table among other errors... either do it right and include everything or scrub it all. My preference at this point is to scrub it, because the desired cherrypicking of flight is immensely useless. -- Acefitt 08:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
In last year's RFC we decided to keep the tables while doing something about referencing. I don't see the problem with saying "As of December 2017..." and including the routes that are operating at that time –  in other words, the routes for which we can find acceptable references. You make a good point about the significance of seasonal traffic for Calgary. However, there is no way for a reader to determine that just by looking at the table. This is where we see the value of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia of information based mainly on secondary sources, rather than as, to some extent, a "directory" of airline routes without additional context.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnya343 (talk • contribs) 
 A reader should neither interpret nor figure anything out from reading a table of destinations. Travel information is not provided here but at Wikivoyage. I just don't know why this is so hard to understand.--Jetstreamer Talk 05:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I see the conversation has not continued even though I think Jetstreamer and I raised a good point. I am going to reconstruct the A&D table as I had done previously, now that the RFC has come through and I see no other way to reconcile the A&D tables with WP policy. Instead of reverting, please let's talk about it first. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Can I just ask why does the reference need to be in a seperate column - there is a perfectly good inline place for a general reference next to the airline name in column one - it is not normal in Wikipedia to seperate references out from the detail that is being referred to.  Perhaps the reason no-one bothers to reference in this general way is that this is not controversial and verifiability is obvious as per WP:V. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
It looks better. But yeah, you could do that too. I don't see a big difference. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
A column for a general reference violates WP:CITEFOOT.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think these are truly general references, as I explained here at WT:AIRPORTS. With regards to WP:CITEFOOT I don't think there's much of a conflict. The citation should be added close to the material it supports, and I believe this is the case. A reader accessing the reference in the right-hand column will see a map displaying all the destinations in the row, or something similar. It's not like the reference is placed at the bottom of the entire article with no indication as to the exact piece of information it supports. It is directly across from a list of destinations for a single airline in one row of the table. I don't know what other solution is feasible. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@NBA2030: With this new format that I have proposed (indeed a WP:BOLD edit, basing myself off of the recent RFC and my WP:GA nomination for this article), routes operating in January 2018 (see the sentence and note I added just before the A&D table) are the only ones to be listed in the table. On the other hand, I left new routes that were already listed, as I didn't know what to do with them... (I know it's common on Wikipedia for people to add new routes right when they're publicized.) Unless Nashville is a new destination, it should be removed from the table as per my proposed format.If you have a strong reason for including Nashville (which would mean changing the whole table format as well), you would need to add a reference, as per the RFC. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: So basically, the table is updated seasonally with whatever routes are operating during that period? That makes no sense. No offense, I am not at all a fan of the new table you created. Unless I am reading it wrong? NBA2030 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Correct, it makes zero sense and renders the list useless, but that's what he's been pushing for. This article is now a lost cause, I suggest simply moving on. Hopefully other airport article will retain their old format. -- Acefitt 17:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@NBA2030: Your understanding is correct. The emphasis is on the referencing and not on how up-to-date the table is. The format could be different if we knew how to properly reference seasonal destinations like Nashville. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sunnya343: That is incredibly absurd to say the least. It is almost impossible for one to keep up with all the seasonal changes in real time. As long as it can be found in the timetable, a destination should be listed. That is the way it should be with every airline destination table in every airport article. It's plain and simple. I do not know what the big issue is. I'm really getting irritated with this referencing nonsense. Do not do this anywhere else. NBA2030 (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The issue is referencing in line with WP:V, these tables are the most edited and as a result the most edit warred on airport pages. With that said, they need to be referenced reliably (not the airline booking engine; but a timetable or press articles). Do I like this format? No. Do I have any idea how to reference seasonal routes given that it (often) requires timetable interpretation? No. The issue with Nashville (and other seasonal routes) is that given there is no inline source saying it's seasonal, the reader is left to arbitrarily search dates to assume seasonality for a particular route. What's plain and simple is referencing should always be included and not deleted when the fact that it's accompanying is not. If we really want to get encylopedic, historic routes should be included too and not deleted, but that's another discussion. Garretka (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The best thing at this point would clearly be to remove the section entirely, at least it's not misleading like the partial list created by not even being able to cite press releases that clearly stated a new route would be seasonal. -- Acefitt 16:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
If you can find a suitable reference for each seasonal destination explicitly saying so, I see no reason why the table can't return to its previous state. Garretka (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
What is incredibly absurd to me is the continuous criticism from various editors without providing anything substantial, something we can work off of in line with the nature of this encyclopedia, i.e. not "get rid of the whole thing." Instead of "I hate this" why not "Let's try this (a different format as opposed to the one I have proposed)"? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Because you went ahead and changed the table without consensus. The old table format was fine. There really isn't a way you can explicitly cite seasonal routes other than the timetable. I still do not see what the issue is with having a timetable as one main reference for all the routes, seasonal and year round. It meets WP:V just fine. I apologize if I have come across as rude, but this is incredibly frustrating. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears certain editors are beginning to elevate their personal preferences above everything else. I am at a complete loss here. NBA2030 (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Because finding them in the format you desire is probably going to be very difficult, if not impossible. It's not me trying to be snarky, it's me genuinely thinking no list is better (and far less work) than a partial list that can't feasibly be maintained under these new criteria. -- Acefitt 21:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Seasonal routes will always be problematic in that it requires the user to interpret timetables with no set definition of seasonality. Another major hurdle to overcome is timetables change, routes get added or dropped with little warning, seasonal routes with WestJet being a prime example. I stand by the best way to cite seasonal routes is with explicit references, as using timetables in this regard are indeed original research. If this can't be achieved then to be honest, I don't have any suggestions, and getting input from the community other than "I don't like it" is excruciatingly painful. Garretka (talk)

Hence my suggestion that we ditch the list, which increasingly is the only way to realistically meet those expectations. This isn't an "I don't like it" response, it's a "stop wasting your time with something you now claim cannot realistically be achieved".  If timetables are not valid sources, then the list can't ever be properly sourced and should be eliminated. Simple as that.  -- Acefitt 16:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Calgary International Airport/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ral 33 (talk · contribs) 03:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


### Introduction
Hello, I am Ral_33_. I will be working on this review. If you need to contact me, the quickest way is email or ping. I look forward to reviewing this article. Thank you,
Ral 33 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ral 33: Hello Ral 33, thank you for taking up the review. I see that you have already listed the article as GA; was that your intention? I haven't addressed any of your concerns yet. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sunnya343: Yes this was my intention. The article passes for a GA but the things listed below are for improvements to make it even better! Thank you, Ral 33 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


#### Updates
Initial copyright violation checker shows low probability of copyright


##### To do
 Done Copyright violation checks
 Done Reference checks
 Done Validity checks
 Done Flow of article check
 Done Statistical check
 Done Final decision


##### Thoughts
Y Multi-level map
Y Lots of accurate stats
Y High number of sources
Y Good flow throughout article
Y Active page
Y Ref #1 not located in the stats section of the infobox. (This would be helpful)
Y Sources 2&3 are grouped very often.
Y Would like to have seen flight numbers on the first accident in the accidents section.
Y Not all refs for the airlines and deistination section are in the refs column.
Y There are more pages that could be linked (ex. Customs and immigration)
N Fact about the air traffic control tower needs to be cited.

Hello. Go to runways:17R/35L should read:is 12,675 ft x 200 ft (3,863 m x 61 m) to keep the same consistent format.Just reverse the data. Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8500:949C:493A:192D:A70E:BD78 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I must have missed that the other day. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What's the point of listing the charter destinations served by Canadian North? How often are these routes served and who are they for? Per WP:Airport, "Do not include ad-hoc, irregular, or private charter services." Thankyoubaby (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Should we add a runway map showing positions of terminals, taxiways, and runways? Whyme943 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sunwing Airlines flies multiple routes from Calgary and should be added, not sure why it's missing --Mezaco (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Can someone add Lufthansa to Frankfurt and westjet to ams and removed to lgw because they are correct also can someone add the concourses back to the airport! Thanks! Can someone help me with this! 2001:56A:7B14:CC00:DDF2:13F3:4A27:E79D (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Flag of Calgary, Alberta.svg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey 67.69.76.160! I reverted your edit because at least two of the removals you made seem to be contradicted by online sources: see this article and WestJet's website. Please discuss and establish consensus here if you want to make more changes of this kind. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

https://calgaryherald.com/business/local-business/westjet-granted-slots-for-direct-calgary-dubai-flights-but-airline-says-no-decisions-made
"In a statement, WestJet said it's continually evaluating its network opportunities and growing its list of destinations, but said there aren't currently any decisions to announce"
The additions were reverted because they were completely inaccurate and not factual.
https://www.westjet.com/en-ca/flights/direct-flights
From Westjet's website there are no indications of any of these non stop flights happening. And the Calgary Herald website is from November 2022 and the flights never happened. Please let the edits be reverted. There is absolutely zero evidence of these non stop flights. IceCream-Hehehe (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I was just trying to make two edits (Air Canada to YOW is now year round and is mainline year round to YWG, no more Express).  Somehow I messed up and now the entire table is screwed up, I didn't mean to do that I must have accidentally deleted some code because now the table is all messed up, I'm sorry!  If someone could revert the table back to its proper formatting, but then make the two changes I noted above?  Thanks! Zahav (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)