Wow, look at the news I missed (still on vacation on the other side of the pond)

I don't necessarily oppose the idea of small C-Series jets at YTZ. It seems to be a logical evolution at Toronto City Centre Airport (don't call it Billy Bishop unless we're talking Owen Sound, folks).

But I am disturbed at the Toronto Port Authority's cozy relationship with Porter. Lisa Raitt, the current minister of "Labour" was the previous head of the TPA, which of course kicked Air Canada out at the beginning. The TPA is a rogue agency, not at all accountable to the public. I also would like to know more about how much extra fill will be added for extended runways, and the changes in approaches that could significantly change noise profiles in the area.

I'm slightly surprised as I figured that Porter was pleased with their current business model of using low-expense Q400s and serving short haul destinations. Since it's an airline, I am also skeptical of any major expansion plan or change in focus being successful. Huh.
 
kEiThZ said:
Okay then, that's the conversation we should be having. And that's the conversation that a mature public has in London (London City), Stockholm (Bromma), Washington D.C. (Reagan), Boston (Logan), New York (LaGuardia). All those places have airports that are either in urban areas or very, very close to major urban areas. For example, LaGuardia is only 5km from Manhattan as the crow flies and it handles far bigger aircraft than YTZ. Boston Logan is 2km from Boston's waterfront and it gets 747s and 777s. London City is in the heart of London. It gets aircraft about as large as the CSeries will be. Londoners see that airport as an asset.

World class cities have world class infrastructure. That's not just subways and LRTs. Just look at the debate in the UK over how to expand airport capacity. And London has 5 airports. The Brits seem to recognize that strong aviation infrastructure is vital to London's economic strength. In Toronto, we tie ourselves in knots over the Island airport and the feds extract billions in rent from Pearson. It make Toronto harder to access for those who want to visit here and those who want to invest. And it is particularly vital for a city whose major industry is finance to enable rapid and effective transportation to core.

Now I can understand the desire to balance the needs of local residents. And for that, I personally believe that London-City provides a great model with very stringent noise exposure limits. I believe that such an approach at YTZ would facilitate the interests of airport users and nearby residents. What I can't support is this tidea that we should curtail all progress.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what to make of Porter's annoucements. But I am sure of one thing: we HAVE to stop using London City as an example of a comparable urban airport. Have you ever been there, Keithz? It is something like eight miles from Charing Cross, in an area that could charitably be described as an industrial wasteland. A taxi from the City can easily take 30 minutes, one from the West End much longer. Indeed, for many people in central London it's much faster to get to Heathrow. Even Canary Wharf, which is LCY's main selling point, really isn't very close. You certainly couldn't walk it in any reasonable time frame, as you could from the foot of Bathurst St to Toronto's finacial district.

There is simply no comparison between LCY and the Island; an equivalent in London would be outting a landing strip across from Borough Market. The existence of LCY is not an argument for the expansion of Billy Bishop.
 
My issue is the inevitable twinning of the runways (cause they can't lengthen the current runway while it's being used - and then they'll have two instead of one) which will double the number of slots and the relocation of Porters maintenance facility from Sudbury to the south fence line of the Island airport causing the "Industrialization" of the western segment of the Island park.

These are the issues that need to be tackled - I'm pretty sure the planes will be just as quiet as the Q400's (and I do fly Porter so I'm not against jets at the Island necessarily).

Why can't they do maintenance at Downsview - its Bombardier product anyways...
 
js97 said:
This is the same Adam Vaughan that's been okay with building up his ward with a condo in every corner (and tearing down historic buildings and opera buildings?)

The guys is not credible with some of the hogwash he spews.
Click to expand...

Actually it was Lastman who created the current condo mess.
 
ShonTron said:
But I am disturbed at the Toronto Port Authority's cozy relationship with Porter. Lisa Raitt, the current minister of "Labour" was the previous head of the TPA, which of course kicked Air Canada out at the beginning. The TPA is a rogue agency, not at all accountable to the public. I also would like to know more about how much extra fill will be added for extended runways, and the changes in approaches that could significantly change noise profiles in the area.
Click to expand...

If they're willing to open it up to jets, they should raffle a few slots to other airlines willing to comply with the regulations. Continental could have their flights as long as they use CSeries flights. Helping a Canadian airline and a Canadian manufacturer at the same time.

I'm slightly surprised as I figured that Porter was pleased with their current business model of using low-expense Q400s and serving short haul destinations. Since it's an airline, I am also skeptical of any major expansion plan or change in focus being successful. Huh.
Click to expand...

Maybe they're safeguarding their business in case the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor gets serious rail competition?
 
Keithz:

Actually, having just done some background research, I just realized that the CS series dated back to the mid-2000s (and orders were taken since what, 2008) and the PW1000G had been in development since the late 90s and entered testing around 2008, I found it exceedingly difficult to believe that Porter just jumped right into the idea of ordering the jets and realizing the conflict it will pose to the existing agreement, while it is pretty clear that this aircraft and its' performance characteristics had been known for years. Given the lead time, I found the argument that it is a sudden opportunity extremely perplexing.

And btw, the CS series will be manufactured in Montreal, I believe, not Downsview.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I don't think there are any plans for twinning - should there be an extension, it will happen while the runway is in use.

AoD
Click to expand...

That's not what I heard from a pilot who's used the airport for many years and still parks there.... The Master Plan was completed last year but "nobody has seen it" for a very good reason.
 
themarc:

While it maybe true, I would find that extremely difficult to believe. Besides, if you want to maximize the capacity of two runways, you'd need to have adequate separation between the two - 1525m is the often quoted figure, but that's for runways handling widebody jets.

AoD
 
More idiocy from Adam Vaughan:

Councillor Vaughan also said one of his concerns is possible spills of jet fuel into Lake Ontario.
“This is a really serious issue that can’t just simply be about do you like raccoons or not,†Vaughan said, referring to Porter’s logo.
Click to expand...

http://www.thestar.com/business/201...ardier_jet_out_of_toronto_island_airport.html

Hey Adam guess what the current fleet of Q400 turboprops run on. Jet Fuel! Where do Airliners making an emergency landing at Pearson dump their Jet fuel? Lake Ontario!

“It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.†– Abraham Lincoln
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
themarc:

While it maybe true, I would find that extremely difficult to believe. Besides, if you want to maximize the capacity of two runways, you'd need to have adequate separation between the two - 1525m is the often quoted figure, but that's for runways handling widebody jets.

AoD
Click to expand...

LAX North Complex has separation of only 700 feet - and those runways (8,900 ft and 10,200 ft) handle THE BIG PLANES - not the commuter ones. I think SFX has a set with 600 feet center-line separation. If using something as small as a C100 500 feet should be generous for simultaneous Visual Flight Approach/Take-Off.
 
themarc:

You can have a closer sep, but that means the two runways won't be operated independently and the number of takeoffs/landings takes a hit.

AoD
 
themarc:

Can't judge, not having seen the plans, but that's like a whole new level of controversy way beyond merely extending the runways should it be permanent (which I would imagine will require an EA?).

ApD
 
Peepers said:
More idiocy from Adam Vaughan:



http://www.thestar.com/business/201...ardier_jet_out_of_toronto_island_airport.html

Hey Adam guess what the current fleet of Q400 turboprops run on. Jet Fuel! Where do Airliners making an emergency landing at Pearson dump their Jet fuel? Lake Ontario!

“It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.” – Abraham Lincoln
Click to expand...

Actually most planes circle in "full drag" mode these days to burn off as much as possible unless its a super emergency - but when dumped at altitude a lot of the fuel dissipates. I think of what Adam is referring to is a localized spill with a holding tank full of un-dissipated fuel flowing off into one of the islands lagoons or the Island Parks sewer system (like what is going on in Arkansas atm).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top