Talk:Vancouver International Airport

Improvement fee

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)

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)

Definition of Downtown

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

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:

• Halifax International Airport
• Pierre Trudeau International Airport in Montreal
• Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport in Ottawa
• Lester Pearson International Airport in Toronto
• Winnipeg International Airport
• Calgary International Airport
• Edmonton International Airport

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

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)

I have removed the image. - SNIyer12 21:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I've now nominated the image for deletion (see WP:IFD). -Lommer | ^talk 18:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

FBOs section

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Airbus A380

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.nwsource.com/business/290663_airbus01.html FlyAirCanada 15:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

YVR logo

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

Agreed! Ianus Maximus 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

=The New YVR Logo

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

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