Jump to content

Talk:Vancouver International Airport

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

Improvement fee

[edit]

The statement on the airport improvement fee states that it's included in the price of a ticket, didn't Transport Canada explicitly state they didn't want to do that, which was why the fee had to be payed seperately? Sparky-sama (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they didn't want to, but this is indeed how the fee is currently set up. See http://www.yvr.ca/authority/whoweare/aif.asp . --Ktims (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The airlines didn't want the improvement fee on their tickets. That is why the airport had the AIF vending machines. Eventually the fee was blended into the ticket. Source: I worked there.AvHistoryGuy (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Downtown

[edit]

You should either clarify what is meant by "downtown", or choose some other term, for the benefit of non-North Americans. Someone did explain it to me once, and how it related to the build up of block structured settements with numbered streets, but that isn't part of any wider context for other people. PML.

Do you have any suggestions? I am from North America, and "Downtown" is what I know. I don't just want to change it to something that is explicitly not "downtown". -matt

I can't even recall just what it is that is distinctive about "downtown". Here in Australia the term CBD is used as an abbreviation for the more self-explanatory "Central Business District", but that doesn't apply to places smaller than cities (by our standards), and it might not even mean downtown anyway. I'm hoping for a phrase as widely understood as "red light district", though clearly that's not what downtown is. Failing that, a rephrasing that says something about Vancouver, e.g. "... miles from the centre of Vancouver". But you already have that particular approach. PML.

Central Business District would not bother us in Canada, it just seems a bit strange. I'm thinking along the lines of "... miles from central Vancouver, where the business and financial districts reside." -matt

Ok, its switched. I decided to just clarify what was meant by "downtown". Thanks for the constructive criticism. -matt

U.S. customs info

[edit]

I removed the following about customs clearances being done for US travel in Canada and therefore the flight is treated as domestic in the US:

The same also applies if you're traveling from the following Canadian airports:

I don't see how it is relevant to YVR that customs clearance to US is done the same way in all of the major airports in Canada (and actually I believe the true list would be even longer). -- Webgeer 00:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

9/11

[edit]

I think the vancouver airport on 9/11 image should be removed. It doesnt fit well with the layout, is copyrighted, and the image isn't particularly special either. If it were a bird's eye view showing numerous aircrafts then that would be worth adding to the page otherwise the image looks like any typical busy airport. sikander July 8, 2005 21:55 (UTC)

I think the 9/11 image shouldn't be removed, sikander. You must understand that Vancouver International on 9/11 had no other choice but to be part of Operation Yellow Ribbon because it was the only major Canadian airport on the West Coast that could handle large aircraft used for trans-Pacific flights. User:SNIyer12(talk) July 27, 2005 13:34 (UTC)
Yes I understand that it was the only major airport but I was talking about the image itself. Gander Airport is a good image as you can clearly see that something unusual is happening. However, the vancouver image just looks like any busy airport with a bunch of planes lined up for take-off. Anyhow, just my thoughts. sikander 14:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree on the fact that the Vancouver image looks like any busy airport with a bunch of planes lined up for take-off. The image was the scene at YVR on September 11, 2001 as aircraft were lined up on the runway waiting for a security sweep by the RCMP. I also saw the image published in the article, "International Flights Diverted to Canada," in the September 12, 2001 edition of The Washington Post. Global also broadcast the scene at YVR as flights were diverted there following the attacks. SNIyer12 16:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with sikander that the image should be removed; not only is its value in illustrating 9/11 dubious, it has that horrendous watermark across the middle and is almost certainly not fair-use (it should probably be deleted as a copyvio). -Lommer | talk 17:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the image. - SNIyer12 21:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've now nominated the image for deletion (see WP:IFD). -Lommer | talk 18:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lommer, I'm going to remove the image and try to get the image from Global TV on the scene at YVR on 9/11. The image you nominated for deletion is the only one I could get about the scene at YVR on 9/11. SNIyer12, 19:13, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. -Lommer | talk 21:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added information about YVR being part of Operation Yellow Ribbon. It is important to understand that YVR is the only major Canadian airport on the West Coast that could handle aircraft used for trans-Pacific flights. Also, please do not remove information that YVR received more passengers than any other Canadian airport involved in the operation. No other Canadian airport received more than 8,000 passengers. The only airport to receive 8,000 passengers was Vancouver International. In fact, 8,500 landed at Vancouver International on 9/11. - SNIyer12, 00:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that you found a copy of that Global screenshot — any chance of finding a higher quality version? That one looks like a tv screen that was photographed, not a direct capture from the video feed. -Lommer | talk 01:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I could not get a higher quality version. I couldn't get a direct capture from a video feed because Global doesn't have it on their web site. - SNIyer12 | talk 15:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the 911 image has popped up again on the page. Okay fine.. leave it there. I still think its a bad quality image and doesnt need to be on the front page of an airport. the text is more than enough but apparently you really want the image there because it has gone off and on the page many times. since i started this discussion i'll end it now.. at least you won't hear anymore from me about it. sikander 15:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be removed; it's not a good picture and it doesn't show anything special; if it had been taken on any other day, we'd have no idea that it wasn't taken on 9/11. Nothing noteworthy about it. Additionally, it doesn't seem like a valid "fair use" from a licensing standpoint. The image should be deleted. —Cleared as filed. 21:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree about having it removed. The 9/11 image was from Global's broadcast on September 11, 2001. SNIyer12 15:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't matter. The picture is of poor quality, and it doesn't show anything noteworthy. A bunch of planes lining up on a taxiway happens at busy international airports every day. Just because it was taken on 9/11/01 doesn't mean anything if it doesn't show something relevant. But as you've removed it, I'll stop harping on it. —Cleared as filed. 15:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FBOs section

[edit]

User:AlbertR recently reverted and edit of mine for a section describing the Fixed base operators at YVR. I've readded that section, and to avoid an edit war thought I'd explain myself here. Two criticisms were given, which I'll address in order:

  1. a section on FBOs is not seen in other wikipedia airport articles. I would say that is more a problem with every other article than with this one. Actually, I'd like to see FBO data become standard in wikipedia articles because I think it's important (more below).
  2. it reads like an ad. I agree that this may be true, but I do not immediately see a way to rectify that. The important material is the services they offer, and I've tried to be NPOV by not adding prices (which isn't encyclopaedic at all) and by adding every FBO at the airport. I also debated adding UNICOM frequencies, but decided this was similar to including phone numbers, and therefore inappropriate for an encyclopaedia.

I believe FBO data is important because many charter aircraft, all private jets, and all small planes stage out of FBOs. It's not only important to know which companies operate at an airport, its also important to know what services they provide. Some companies, like GlobeGround, RP, and JetEagle are totally transparent to passengers while others like Shell, Esso, and Chevron are very visible to those that use their services. Information regarding available services is critical to pilots for flight planning, and thats why it's included impartially in the Canada Flight Supplement. In all, just because these companies and their operations aren't visible to travellers that move through a terminal doesn't mean they're not important or deserving of mention. So, I say leave them in. If you have input on how to make them sound less like an ad, I welcome it. -Lommer | talk 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not going to waste my time removing the section again (and risk a 3RR block). I did change "lav" to "lavatory" so it doesn't seem to read like pilot jargon. I was probably a bit hasty (I'm a deletionist) to remove it, though. Alr 02:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a note on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports, so hopefully we'll get some other editors in here with their opinions. If the section is removed again, I will not repost it BTW (not so much for fear of a 3RR block as because I hate edit wars). -Lommer | talk 01:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the extra details. Pilots, who are most likely the only folks who would be interested in those details, aren't going to be coming to Wikipedia to get it. I've also mentioned at the top of the section that the FBOs serve general aviation, which I think is the thing that most people probably don't know about FBOs. —Cleared as filed. 01:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I like the latest edit, but I just realized there's one problem: Jet Eagle, RP, and GlobeGround don't service GA, they service scheduled airlines (RP and Jet eagle do the south terminal, and globeground does the north side for all airlines that don't have their own facilities). -Lommer | talk 01:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Are they considered FBOs if they only service airlines? I didn't know that was the case. Hmmm, you know, that almost makes me rethink the FBOs being here again. Maybe, instead, a detailed explanation of how the behind-the-scenes stuff works should be under the airport article, since this kind of stuff applies to all airports. Seems to me that someone interested in the details of how airports work, as opposed to the history/details of this particular airport, would go to the airport article. —Cleared as filed. 01:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm almost certain they're still FBOs; that also made me consider something else: there are non-sched "airlines" that operate small jets out of FBOs on the south side, how do we differentiate between them and the big guys? Note that these small ones are actually airlines offering public service, as opposed to private jets. Anyways, I agree that the info on FBOs and behind-the-scenes operations should be greatly expanded in airport and fixed base operator, but I wanted a space to provide some local details for each airport. -Lommer | talk 02:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my last comment/response to your question, I think the only difference is that some FBOs have fixed buildings that operate as "mini-terminals", while others do not. Also keep in mind that those with "mini-terminals" also sometimes service airlines as well (e.g. shell does fuel for the Purolator and FedEx heavies on the north side, despite being an otherwise traditional FBO. Also, Esso fuels Voyageur Airlines from the South Terminal). So yeah, the line isn't as definite as we might like it to be. -Lommer | talk 02:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see what you're trying to do, but I still just think that the only people who would be interested in specifically what FBOs are at an airport, wouldn't be using Wikipedia to find out. But if you disagree I won't stand in your way. Perhaps it's something that should be decided on the Projects page, though, since a decision one way or another will have an impact on a lot of airport pages. —Cleared as filed. 05:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Operation Yellow Ribbon

[edit]

I'v reduced the content under the Operation Yellow Ribbon section. There is a main article for the event anyways so I've linked that. Removed the tv screenshot as it wasn't serving any purpose and was pretty bad quality. Also added reference for the airport winning the Management Award. sikander 04:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A380

[edit]

Airbus A380 is to make a test flight to YVR during this month. I thought this information might be interesting to add in the article. YVR is also the first North American international airport that the JumboJet A380 is visiting. http://seattlepi.com/business/290663_airbus01.html FlyAirCanada 15:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This is almost impossible to see in white on the current background colour. 208.246.214.145 22:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Ianus Maximus 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Anyone mind replacing the logo with the new one? Spyco 04:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done :D--Ktims (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Rapid Transit

[edit]

I put in the fact the airport will be the only one in Canada served by mass or rapid transit.take that toronto...lulz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.73.65 (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Pacific

[edit]

Does Air Pacific depart from the international terminal or the transborder terminal? Since there are 2 daily flights to Honolulu (which is a US destination) and to Nadi (which is not a US destination). I know Cathay Pacific and Phillippines Airlines have flights to Las Vegas and New York-JFK but they are not listed under "transborder terminal". Cashier freak (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Pacific, Phillippines, and Cathay Pacific flights fly from international terminals because they are classifyed as international airlines with original destination to vancouver from overseas. Hence, in the situation of Cathay Pacific, original flights are from Hong Kong to New York via. Vancouver, however, these flights are not classified as a stoppover destination because of the sheer volume and time designated to the amount of people travelling between these cities. --kasperone (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, Air Pacific should not be under the "transborder terminal" section. It should go under the "international terminal" section of the article. So, my last edit was correct and I noted that flights to Honolulu uses the non-U.S. gates. I am not sure who put Air Pacific in the transborder side but it not go there. I put it back under the "international terminal" section. Cashier freak (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

This page needs a lot more research. Facts I know: old RCAF base, Boeing Canada had a factory here during WW2 and before, Stanley Burke (Prez of Boeing) built social housing now called Burkeville, Vancouver International Airport not even in Vancouver but the City of Richmond, original 3rd runway expansion planned in 1970s (which already included completed expropriations) was stopped, lengthy environmental hearings in early 90s and the then controversial 3rd runway built, termianl expansion of 1968 and the new terminal of 1996, 1972 hijacker diverted the aircraft to Vancouver (Eastern Airlines DC8 I think), expansion of the original terminal (south side) and the burning of the original (1970s), first ever TCA flight in the 1930s connecting Vancouver to Seattle Accidents besides the one stated: Canadian Airlines DC10 over-ran Rwy 26 in aborted take-off roughly 1992-95, DC3 crashes across the river in construction site, Airbus A320 crashes into a Canadian Airlines building (within a week of the DC10 incident), Wagalisa Air crashes short of Rwy 12 (either 1987 or 1988) Other highlights: royalty using airport and Air Force 1 during a major summit —Preceding unsigned comment added by AvHistoryGuy (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest YVR-MEM

[edit]

Just to let you know that this route is served only during the summer seasons and the route operates on Saturdays. Verified using nwa.com for the month of June. Cashier freak (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Terminals

[edit]

The main page should show FOUR terminals, but not the four listed. They should be the domestic, international terminal building, south terminal and float plane terminal. The international terminal has two sides, but the airport clearly labels it as a single building http://yvr.ca/pdf/guide/terminal_map.pdf. The south terminal and float plane terminal are distinct buildings, and hence the south terminal section should be split. 24.86.105.157 (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The terminology "transborder" is used internally by staff. International and Domestic are the only signage in the terminal buildings. Suggest that the list should be changed as International/Domestic/Transborder -> Main. Leave South as is. Besides, the roads to the airport terminal buildings are labeled at Main and South.

Charter?

[edit]

Should there really be a charter section? The meaning of a charter is basically flights that are operated and sold strictly by tour operators, not by the airlines. Most of the airlines - Air Transat, Condor, Edelweiss, Sunwing, and Thomas Cook - all sell seats on their flights directly to the public, and not wholly through tour operators, as a charter flight would be. 24.81.90.64 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed, I think the distinction should probably be 'public charter' or 'regularly scheduled charter'. Companies that operate an ad-hoc for a specific customer only, really shouldn't be listed here76.77.75.72 (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway

[edit]

"Several major airlines are currently negotiating for landing rights at YVR with the Canadaian Ministry of Transport. If given these rights, YVR stands to become an even more important North American gateway to all continents."

This sites no sources, is general. Should this be removed? YYC T Dawg (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but I would remove it, cite the reason, and assume that anyone who cared about the edit will see it and replace it with a sourced statement Alejandro Erickson (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future expansion

[edit]

A nine-gate international terminal expansion has been done in two phases ($420 million; Phase 1 which was completed in 2007; Phase 2 was completed in 2009). The first phase saw four new gates with two conventional wide-bodied gates and two able to accommodate the Airbus A380. The international terminal addition has several examples of beauty in British Columbia, including a stream in a pathway and fish and jellyfish tanks (completed). Phase 2 added five additional gates and is completed. Should this be moved to the Termianl section or deleted as it does not fit any definition of future?YYC T Dawg (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly called YVR?

[edit]

Whenever I hear someone call Vancouver's airport "YVR" it seems a bit odd. The letters YVR seem rather random. In fact I had to make sure I had the right letters when typing this section's title just now (I only just discovered that all Canadian airport codes begin with Y). People do generally call it YVR, don't they? I see there's a "YVR–Airport" rail station. I came to read this page to see if YVR really was the common name and was slightly surprised to find no mention of it--other than the actual use of YVR as the name on the page. I tried to think of other airports known by their IATA letters. I came up with three: LAX, DFW, and PDX. Unlike YVR, these three all have code letters that make sense, more or less; PDX not quite as much. Their Wikipedia pages all point out their being commonly called by their code letters. I suppose there's also JFK, but people don't call it JFK because that's its IATA code! The Denver airport is commonly called DIA, but its code name is DEN. I knew the Toronto airport was YYZ, but only because of that song. Doesn't looks like people commonly call the airport YYZ. Anyway, all this just to say, hey, it's normal to say things like "I'm flying out of YVR tomorrow"? Really? How weird. I understand now that the Y is because it's in Canada, but I didn't ten minutes ago. The V for Vancouver? The R...? Pfly (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people who use the airport regularly call it YVR (in spoken english) and there are signs and brands around the city that call it YVR. I don't have a source for this, however Alejandro Erickson (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

It is definitely locally known as YVR, much shorter than saying Vancouver International Airport.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.132.8.192 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

China Southern Possible Cancellation

[edit]

According to some sources China Southern has appeared to cancel its upcoming service to Vancouver. The claim for this is that the GDS inventory display has been zeroed out. This, however, by itself does not necessarily mean that a route has been cancelled, but may be a temporary change, and incorrect update, or the route may still be waiting final regulatory approval, etc. As such, and until further confirmation by the airline/airport is forth coming, I believe it is best to keep the entry on here for the mean time. Note that the source I've quoted also only says it has appeared to cancel service, and in regards to policy, WP:V and WP:OR, without a reliable source, we should revert to China Southern's official stance, which, as of now do to no word to the contrary, is that this service is still scheduled to begin as announced. Ravendrop 08:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove it and then readd it if CZ decides to reinstate it. For now, Vancouver is not bookable at the moment. When it reappears again, then we can add it. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skytrax Info

[edit]

Objecting to the blanket removal of Skytrax info. In this case I think it is relevant because it is more than a random rating; it is an award one by the airport that is reported on by a much wider section of the media. Posted this on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#Skytrax page. As I mentioned there I'm open to moving it somewhere else in the article than the lead, if that becomes a consensus move. Ravendrop 22:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

[edit]

We need maps like this [1] here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Floatplane Terminal

[edit]

YVR seems to be the only international airport to have its own Floatplane Terminal - does anyone know of another? I am going to put this in unless anyone can come up with an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.61.172 (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hub for Air China?

[edit]

Source provided states that Vancouver is a hub for Air China. How can it be a hub when it has flights to Beijing only? It may be a hub as a result of codeshare with Air Canada (both being Star Alliance members). Citydude1017 (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try going to this page: http://ca.fltmaps.com/EN/US? (linked from airchina.us) Suddenly LAX/SFO/JFK are hubs! What can we learn from this? These pages linked from Air China's country-specific websites are unauthoritative! HkCaGu (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the same for all the other country-specific websites, then we might as well list all the major cities as Air China's hubs. Citydude1017 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vancouver 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 00:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vancouver 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for history

[edit]

Any ideas about expanding the history section? YVR used to be a hub for CP Air. Later, there were codeshares between American Airlines and Canadian Airlines International. This was an attempt by American to build transpacific traffic but it never generated as much traffic as American had hoped. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hub for WestJet

[edit]

WestJet has a greater presence in Western Canada, period. There are more flights within the west, including other focus cities, such as Edmonton and Winnipeg. I am not sure it qualifies as a hub. WestJet has never called it that. The 767 aircraft fly from YYC and YYZ, the hubs in the west and east and between each other and not YVR, except in summer where the 767s fly from other airports. Otherwise it has no unique flights from WestJet except year round Hawaii and Orange County. Hawaii is only year round from YVR because the 737s can't reach HNL or OGG from YYC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.233.194 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Vancouver 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Vancouver International Water Airport

[edit]

The "Vancouver International Water Airport" is Vancouver International Airport's seaplane terminal. The main YVR article already mentions it at Vancouver International Airport#Floatplane facility and the main list of passenger destinations includes seaplane destinations. Since most of this information is being duplicated it makes sense to merge the article. Madg2011 (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. There may be a degree of duplicated information but this is classified by Nav Canada as a separate facility with its own LID. And it is indeed separate. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the seaplane destinations/other information be removed from this article then? Madg2011 (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The seaplane facilities have no unique IATA code, meaning it is not a separate airport for commercial aviation. More importantly, it has no unique ICAO code, so by international aviation law, it's not a unique airport. A separate LID doesn't make an airport. LID's are waypoints related to navigation. Because landing on water is different from landing on a runway, different navigational data are needed. Doesn't make it a separate airport. They should be merged. oknazevad (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide a citation for "it has no unique ICAO code, so by international aviation law, it's not a unique airport"? Nav Canada says that it is a separate certifed airport (rather than a registered aerodrome) and is listed as such in the Water Aerodrome Supplement and the entry for the land based airport in the Canada Flight Supplement has no mention of any water based operations and not included in the diagram. Your description does not seem to mesh with Location identifier (the sections on the FAA and Canada). While a LID may refer to a location other than an airport it can indeed refer to an airport. The idea that not having a ICAO means it isn't a unique airport is odd because that means that a lot of airports on Wikipedia will need merging into something else. Such as Meadowbank Aerodrome which has flights but no ICAO or IATA code. Look at List of Canadian airports by location indicator: CA. Are these all supposed to be merged as they have no ICAO codes, although some have IATA codes. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I possess no technical appreciation on the matter, but have been a resident of this area for decades. I have always considered that the floatplane operation has an identity distinct from the YVR land-based main and south terminals. Is Vancouver International Water Airport its proper name? I tend to think of it as the Middle Arm Floatplane Terminal.DMBanks1 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge because the floatplane terminal is a terminal of YVR, and few residents view it as a separate airport. Just because it is a classified as a separate facility doesn't mean it's actually is separate. It's so close it can't be separate, and unless I've gotten it all wrong, YVR's website lists it as Airport South Terminal[1]Zacharycmango (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Airport South Info". YVR. Retrieved 2021-07-03.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Former and proposed airlines serving YVR" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Former and proposed airlines serving YVR. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#Former and proposed airlines serving YVR until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Kaseng55 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Past and Future Airlines serving YVR" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Past and Future Airlines serving YVR. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#Past and Future Airlines serving YVR until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Kaseng55 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of YVR Sustainability into Vancouver International Airport

[edit]

Not much that can be salvaged from this essay, but it really could be covered in a single "Sustainability" section in the main airport article. SounderBruce 01:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"More direct flights to China than any other airport"

[edit]

The article's fourth sentence, "as a trans-Pacific hub, the airport has more direct flights to China than any other airport in North America or Europe" might have been valid in 2019, but it's been years since that's been an accurate statement. It should be removed. Demonstrably London-Heathrow and Los Angeles LAX each have more flights by more airlines to more destinations in Mainland China. Dfiner (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vancouver_International_Airport&oldid=1231296881"