[SubHuman]

... Regardless of YTZ's subterfuge and hesitancy to be open about plans ...

Do we know how much longer Porter is contracted to continue using YTZ? The last thing I could find (June 29, 2023) was "Terms are undisclosed" when the lawsuit was resolved -- the one where Porter said the fees were "three or four times as expensive as those of Pearson" and threatened to leave. Porter's advertising and website for the last couple of years has been almost entirely about their jet destinations, and you have to look around to find a mention of "and still flying to Billy Bishop".

And other than Porter and Jazz/Air Canada Express, if there's another existing airline that has any interest in using the vacant slots at YTZ (or a purely hypothetical and not officially proposed expanded version for jets), they've done a good job of hiding these intentions.

 

[rbt]

Do we know how much longer Porter is contracted to continue using YTZ?

This says 2033 for their terminal lease, which would have been a natural date to use for contract expiration.

Porter Airlines mulls sale-lease back of Toronto airport terminal

Several daily Operator News updates covering all Operator Route Network changes, strategic fleet developments and aircraft orders, start-ups and bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions and partnerships and alliances.

www.ch-aviation.com

 

[dowlingm]

This says 2033 for their terminal lease, which would have been a natural date to use for contract expiration.

Porter Airlines mulls sale-lease back of Toronto airport terminal

Several daily Operator News updates covering all Operator Route Network changes, strategic fleet developments and aircraft orders, start-ups and bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions and partnerships and alliances.

www.ch-aviation.com

That article is 10 years old. Porter divested the terminal some time ago

Canada's Porter Airlines, Nieuport Aviation end dispute

Several daily Operator News updates covering all Operator Route Network changes, strategic fleet developments and aircraft orders, start-ups and bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions and partnerships and alliances.

www.ch-aviation.com

 

[rbt]

That article is 10 years old. Porter divested the terminal some time ago

Canada's Porter Airlines, Nieuport Aviation end dispute

Several daily Operator News updates covering all Operator Route Network changes, strategic fleet developments and aircraft orders, start-ups and bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions and partnerships and alliances.

www.ch-aviation.com

Yes, they sold the terminal in January 2015. The article was about the proposed terms of the sale which included a tenant lease through 2033. The actual contract was private, so I shared what was in their sales-pitch when selling the terminal.

AFAIK, they have no other long-term obligations to that airport.

 

[dowlingm]

Yes, they sold the terminal in January 2015. The article was about the proposed terms of the sale which included a tenant lease through 2033. The actual contract was private, so I shared what was in their sales-pitch when selling the terminal.

AFAIK, they have no other long-term obligations to that airport.

I would suspect that if any discussions have been held between Nieuport and Ports Toronto on an option for extension in the event of a tripartite extension, that they have been kept very quiet.

It would presumably be in PT’s interest to have Nieuport backing their lobbying to get an extension, but to say publicly that an option has been worked out would seem likely to agitate those who want a dead stop in 2033 under any and all circumstances

 

[PL1]

Toronto is down to two airports: Pearson and Billy Bishop. The next closest are Oshawa, Brampton-Caledon, Burlington Executive,and Hamilton. In my opinion, those are not sufficient to serve general aviation needs for a city of Toronto's size. Ornge uses BB/TCCA as a base, as well. For these reasons, I think we need Billy Bishop to continue as an airport. Whether runways should be extended to accommodate the safety zones for Q400s and larger planes is a different question.

 

[rdaner]

Toronto is down to two airports: Pearson and Billy Bishop. The next closest are Oshawa, Brampton-Caledon, Burlington Executive,and Hamilton. In my opinion, those are not sufficient to serve general aviation needs for a city of Toronto's size. Ornge uses BB/TCCA as a base, as well. For these reasons, I think we need Billy Bishop to continue as an airport. Whether runways should be extended to accommodate the safety zones for Q400s and larger planes is a different question.

Why does everyone assume that the current placement of the runways is a given?! Move them further away from the city and everyone is happy! And I have yet to hear a valid reason for why it can’t be done which means there isn’t one and the real reason is political or bureaucratic.

 

[picard102]

Why does everyone assume that the current placement of the runways is a given?! Move them further away from the city and everyone is happy! And I have yet to hear a valid reason for why it can’t be done which means there isn’t one and the real reason is political or bureaucratic.

If the purpose is to have a downtown airport, moving it outside the city doesn't meet that goal.

 

[rdaner]

If the purpose is to have a downtown airport, moving it outside the city doesn't meet that goal.

I meant move it away from the city on the Island.

 

[picard102]

I meant move it away from the city on the Island.

You'd need to make a new island.

 

[Dan416]

Is there another part of the islands that would be more suitable to host an airport? Something tells me moving the airport won't satisfy those who don't want the airport there at all.

 

[Northern Light]

So........Council passed Option 1, but has opened the door to lease extension as late as 2045. (But its not automatic, it allows staff to provide up to that if Ports demonstrates the need for financing reasons).

Here's the text:

This should be interesting...........they've given Ports Toronto what they seemingly need, but not what they wanted.............and the theoretical ability to finance it, but, for option one, that help wasn't really needed, and that may well be reflected in any actual tripartite agreement extension. To Be Determined.

 

[generalcanada]

So........Council passed Option 1, but has opened the door to lease extension as late as 2045. (But its not automatic, it allows staff to provide up to that if Ports demonstrates the need for financing reasons).

Here's the text:

View attachment 602964

This should be interesting...........they've given Ports Toronto what they seemingly need, but not what they wanted.............and the theoretical ability to finance it, but, for option one, that help wasn't really needed, and that may well be reflected in any actual tripartite agreement extension. To Be Determined.

2045. I could live with that. If this is what it takes to keep them operating normally until we get actual support for an island park

 

[AlexBozikovic]

Here are the PUBLIC WORK drawings.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Once the runways are long enough to accommodate jets I can foresee the airlines suing the city to demand approval for jet ops. There’s also the issue of turbo prop aircraft availability. There’s no guarantee that Viking will be successful in marketing their new builds of former Bombardier’s Dash 8.

Dying Breed: Turboprop Regional Airliners

Turboprop Regional Airliners. - New York Aviation History - Metropolitan Airport News

metroairportnews.com