[kEiThZ]

This is an interesting point, and one that I hadn't actually thought about much when this topic has been brought up occasionally at the water cooler, etc. I guess smaller planes still take up a landing and take-off movement regardless of how many passengers they carry, just like a subway train the overall passenger capacity at the airport depends on the size and capacity of the aircraft. I remember hearing Buttonville (which is slated to close) is in the top ten busiest airports in Canada based on aircraft movements. I guess once it shuts down those aircraft will need to go somewhere.

It's even worse than that. Thanks to wake turbulence rules, you have to be careful how you slot aircraft. Can't slot a smaller aircraft too close to a heavy aircraft or you'll have an accident on your hands. This means that heavies actual take up more "slots" than what you would think they take up.

 

[kEiThZ]

Airlines run those narrow body flights partly because landing slots are not at all constrained at Pearson and they are all competing for a slice of demand. As a result there is a lot of duplication across airlines and destinations that would not exist if landing slots were more constrained. For example, here are today's departures to NYC airports before 10AM: 6:14, 6:20, 6:29, 6:30 (2), 7:00, 7:25, 8:05, 8:15, 8:20, 9:15, 9:25, 9:30, 9:40. Obviously this is an extreme example, but you should get the gist of it - there are a lot of small planes flying to the same destinations that could easily be consolidated (through higher landing fees) if necessary.

This was how it was when air travel was regulated. The government decided which airlines flew to which cities and how often. Good luck trying to go back to those days. And next, frequency is a driver because passengers seem to prefer it and vote for it with their wallets. The reality is that for short-haul, the benefits of consolidating to fewer flights (with lower air fares) doesn't seem to outweigh the convenience of higher frequencies. This is why you see airlines offering hourly to Montreal and Ottawa, and bi-hourly to New York.

Also, from the airlines perspective it is much better to have one large airport than multiple ones. Far easier to manage connections if all of your flights end up at the same place. This is one of the reasons that Hamilton is had little success in attracting commercial aviation - it can only serve origin and destination traffic.

Indeed. Air Canada realizes that it's long term profitability is condition on making Pearson a true hub for its spokes. Frequecies help with that, since you have traffic arriving and departing in waves to different parts of the country/world.

Hamilton, however, can play a huge role for airlines that don't need a large hub. No reason for Air Transat and Sunwing to operate out of Pearson, for example. But to draw them to Hamilton, there will have to be a lot of changes. Munro will need some kind of regular GO rail link with Union or at least some kind of very regular GO service to Hamilton with a quick LRT or bus transfer to the airport. The powers that be will have to build a new terminal there and basically offer it up for next-to-nothing to Sunwing and Air Transat to get them to move. That sounds harsh for the taxpayer. But it's good for the region in the long run.

 

[TOareaFan]

Hamilton, however, can play a huge role for airlines that don't need a large hub. No reason for Air Transat and Sunwing to operate out of Pearson, for example. But to draw them to Hamilton, there will have to be a lot of changes. Munro will need some kind of regular GO rail link with Union or at least some kind of very regular GO service to Hamilton with a quick LRT or bus transfer to the airport. The powers that be will have to build a new terminal there and basically offer it up for next-to-nothing to Sunwing and Air Transat to get them to move. That sounds harsh for the taxpayer. But it's good for the region in the long run.

Really, charters are the only carriers that I could see taking the "Hamilton risk"...that said, they must be somewhat dependant on people from outside of driving distance getting to Toronto (people in Sudbury must vacation to the sunbelt and europe too...no?) and if they moved to Hamilton how much of that business would they cede to the regular carriers?

That said, it would be a really interesting exercise to consult with the Transats and Sunwings of the world to see what kind of economics/improvements would be needed to Hamilton (both in the Airport and around/to it) to get a long term commitment to moving there and weigh those off against the cost of developing Pickering.

Say, for example, the sort of transit improvements you describe were a pre-requisite.....and those were cheaper than developing Pickering....wouldn't that be a cool message from a federal government "we have listened to the opponents in the eastern GTA and are scrapping that airport idea ....we are also investing in local transit improvements in the Hamilton area that will benefit air travellers and locals alike"

 

[kEiThZ]

Really, charters are the only carriers that I could see taking the "Hamilton risk"...that said, they must be somewhat dependant on people from outside of driving distance getting to Toronto (people in Sudbury must vacation to the sunbelt and europe too...no?) and if they moved to Hamilton how much of that business would they cede to the regular carriers?

They must. But that proportion is hardly going to be huge. Air Transat and Sunwing are largely origin-destination carriers between the GTA and vacation hotspots.

That said, it would be a really interesting exercise to consult with the Transats and Sunwings of the world to see what kind of economics/improvements would be needed to Hamilton (both in the Airport and around/to it) to get a long term commitment to moving there and weigh those off against the cost of developing Pickering.

Say, for example, the sort of transit improvements you describe were a pre-requisite.....and those were cheaper than developing Pickering....wouldn't that be a cool message from a federal government "we have listened to the opponents in the eastern GTA and are scrapping that airport idea ....we are also investing in local transit improvements in the Hamilton area that will benefit air travellers and locals alike"

Absolutely no reason this cannot be done. Hamilton is only slightly further from downtown Toronto than say Stansted from Central London. Hamilton could fulfill exactly the same function that Stansted does for London. Home of the region's low cost carriers. It's going to take cooperation between different levels of government and agencies. Metrolinx moves up Hamilton's A-Line. Hopefully, plans LRT. And initiates a GO bus service from the airport to Square One, Yorkdale, Union, etc. And then the feds have to invest in a new terminal that properly accomodate Sunwing and Air Transat as a minimum. In due course, I could see the airport attracting Southwest, Spirit, and JetBlue from the US and Norwegian long-haul from Europe.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Didn't WestJet (initially a purely low cost origin-destination airline) start out in Hamilton and then move into Pearson. Maybe the economics aren't as good as we think.

Also Sunwing and Air Transat do operate out of Hamilton, and aside Sunwing does run flights from Sudbury/northern Ont city to sun destinations with a stop over in Hamilton to pick up additional passengers; I happened to find a flight like that on Flight Aware a while back.

I don't think you will ever be able to convince Sunwing/Air Transat to ever leave Toronto Pearson completely because as much as most of the GTA's population lies in the Western GTA, a significant portion does still live East of Toronto Pearson and I don't think people would appreciate driving passed Toronto Pearson to get to Hamilton's airport just because they are taking a charter/LCC particularly given the West ends traffic problems. Using the Stansted example Heathrow and Gatwick are on the other side of the city (South West vs North East) so there is no "passing Heathrow to get to Stansted" issue, which kind of brings us back to an airport in the East and Pickering.

However I do think transit improvements around Hamilton could go a long ways to making it a more significant airport.

 

[TOareaFan]

Didn't WestJet (initially a purely low cost origin-destination airline) start out in Hamilton and then move into Pearson. Maybe the economics aren't as good as we think.

When WestJet first launched in Eastern Canada they did base their ops in Hamilton... I believe what they found was that they were getting killed on the Montreal/Ottawa flights as those are less price sensitive (given the predominance of business and gov't travellers on those routes) and to compete on those routes you needed to be at Pearson....once they moved those flights to Pearson that is where their Eastern ops got based.

However I do think transit improvements around Hamilton could go a long ways to making it a more significant airport.

I think that is the point...it really is hard to judge how successful Hamilton could be based on its current level of (in)accessibility.....could it be a more used/desirable airport (for airlines and passengers) if it were easier to get to?

 

[muller877]

However I do think transit improvements around Hamilton could go a long ways to making it a more significant airport.

The cost for a transit solution to Hamilton would be extremly costly. The train line up the mountain just north of Dundas has too many built up areas between it and the airport. It would have to backtrack 2-3 concessions to go around the currently build up areas (and would be the terminus of a line, not a through line).

An LRT line would have to be run through mixed traffic (or underground) through downtown from the Lakeshore Line. It then would have to get up the mountain (which would mean boring from the Mountain to past Mohawk Rd to get the ride gradient...does someone have the math?). Basically a really expensive line.

New Hwy 6 does go right to it...but the controlled access ends and turns into a normal rural highway (4 lanes and then 2). Hwy 403 is also really busy through Hamilton and up the mountain. If the airport was busier, this would have to be upgraded.

It is also at the very west end of the GTA.

The proposed Pickering airport is not at the extreme end of the GTA (Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa). It is right near the 407 with both future east and west connections (East being built right now with controlled access to the 401).

A heavy rail line could be re-routed through the airport lands with only a small increase in the length of the track (2 lengths of a triangle). Basically the Peterborough rail line can turn east just south of the 407. Once it hits the airport it can turn north again.

Comparing the Hamilton LRT not running in mixed traffic and diverting the rail line though the Pickering lands AND building an airport...the Pickering idea may actually be cheaper. The problem with the Hamilton Airport is that its on the top of the mountain and the topography makes it difficult to get to either via transit or driving.

 

[TOareaFan]

^so it may be cheaper to build a new airport and new transit links than to build transit links to an existing airport?

Interesting.

 

[muller877]

^so it may be cheaper to build a new airport and new transit links than to build transit links to an existing airport?

Interesting.

The cost to build a single runway airport is A$1.7M excluding transit (A is almost equal to C$). A 5-10 km link to go east and west of Pickering on heavy rail through rural countryside will be $100 to $200M (plus additonal trains...assuming same number as below). $1.9B dollars.

http://www.traveller.com.au/second-airport-proposal-struggles-to-get-off-ground-1u89p

15 km of LRT line is required to get to the Airport (plus additional GO Trains to the Hamilton GO Station). about 10 km will have to be buried (either through downtown Hamilton or to get up the Mountain). The remaining 6 km will be at grade. Assuming $200M for underground build and $50M for aboveground that's $2.3b.

There is also a secondary benefit of getting another airport in the GTA and GO Trains in Scarborough through Peterborough for the Pickering option. And a secondary benefit of Hamilton LRT for the Hamilton option. Soft benefits which I have assumed cancels each other out.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

This was how it was when air travel was regulated. The government decided which airlines flew to which cities and how often. Good luck trying to go back to those days. And next, frequency is a driver because passengers seem to prefer it and vote for it with their wallets. The reality is that for short-haul, the benefits of consolidating to fewer flights (with lower air fares) doesn't seem to outweigh the convenience of higher frequencies. This is why you see airlines offering hourly to Montreal and Ottawa, and bi-hourly to New York.

I'm not talking about regulation, rather that IF there came a time where Pearson was at capacity in terms of landing spots, then the price for a spot could be raised to the point where demand matched the supply. Airlines could decide for themselves whether to pay up to stay at Pearson, move to Hamilton, or if a new airport in Pickering is warranted.

This is basically how it works today in the greater London area - Heathrow is slot-constrained and landing rights are bought and sold by various airlines. Less lucrative routes gravitate to the other airports such as Gatwick and Stansted, but ultimately it is up to the individual airlines.

Unless you assume that our infrastructure needs to accommodate 100% of all aircraft movements (regardless of cost/benefit) today in the GTA we are nowhere near the point where a whole new airport is necessary. IMHO talk of Pickering is still premature by decades.

 

[TOareaFan]

Really, charters are the only carriers that I could see taking the "Hamilton risk"...that said, they must be somewhat dependant on people from outside of driving distance getting to Toronto (people in Sudbury must vacation to the sunbelt and europe too...no?) and if they moved to Hamilton how much of that business would they cede to the regular carriers?

That said, it would be a really interesting exercise to consult with the Transats and Sunwings of the world to see what kind of economics/improvements would be needed to Hamilton (both in the Airport and around/to it) to get a long term commitment to moving there and weigh those off against the cost of developing Pickering.

Say, for example, the sort of transit improvements you describe were a pre-requisite.....and those were cheaper than developing Pickering....wouldn't that be a cool message from a federal government "we have listened to the opponents in the eastern GTA and are scrapping that airport idea ....we are also investing in local transit improvements in the Hamilton area that will benefit air travellers and locals alike"

Turns out that bolded part of my post was wrong......Air Canada recently announced that they will commence service between Hamilton and Calgary (using Rouge) in June. While a discount carrier, Rouge is still a scheduled airline (as opposed to a Charter) so this is opposite to what I was saying back then.

Also, that new discount carrier based in Vancouver (Jetlines) announced recently that if it gets off the ground and expands beyond its starting point of 2 planes to its full compliment of 16 (I think) it will have hubs in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Hamilton.

We may get to see sooner rather than later if Hamilton can prove itself as the GTHA's "2nd airport"

 

[MrsNesbitt]

Turns out that bolded part of my post was wrong......Air Canada recently announced that they will commence service between Hamilton and Calgary (using Rouge) in June. While a discount carrier, Rouge is still a scheduled airline (as opposed to a Charter) so this is opposite to what I was saying back then.

Also, that new discount carrier based in Vancouver (Jetlines) announced recently that if it gets off the ground and expands beyond its starting point of 2 planes to its full compliment of 16 (I think) it will have hubs in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Hamilton.

We may get to see sooner rather than later if Hamilton can prove itself as the GTHA's "2nd airport"

Certainly Hamilton has the potential. If Air Canada can lead the way and others follow, and especially If the LRT does get built up to the airport in Hamilton, we can maybe see this ridiculous Pickering concept be finally put to rest.

 

[TOareaFan]

Certainly Hamilton has the potential. If Air Canada can lead the way and others follow, and especially If the LRT does get built up to the airport in Hamilton, we can maybe see this ridiculous Pickering concept be finally put to rest.

If (as has been suggested) Air Canada is abandoning YTZ (again!) then I wonder if they may move those Air Canada Express operations over to YHM too. After all, having to staff operations at YHM just for 1 flight to Calgary every day seems a recipe for high marginal operating costs.

Once the UPe is operational I could see AC focus its downtown Toronto service on a combined plane/train operation out of Pearson (perhaps even including the price of the train - or a portion of it - in their airfare (gotta be cheaper than the losses they are reportedly seeing at YTZ). Once they have done that they may just see the merit in offering Q400 service out of Hamilton to Ottawa and Montreal....perhaps.

 

[gweed123]

If (as has been suggested) Air Canada is abandoning YTZ (again!) then I wonder if they may move those Air Canada Express operations over to YHM too. After all, having to staff operations at YHM just for 1 flight to Calgary every day seems a recipe for high marginal operating costs.

Once the UPe is operational I could see AC focus its downtown Toronto service on a combined plane/train operation out of Pearson (perhaps even including the price of the train - or a portion of it - in their airfare (gotta be cheaper than the losses they are reportedly seeing at YTZ). Once they have done that they may just see the merit in offering Q400 service out of Hamilton to Ottawa and Montreal....perhaps.

Very good points. I can see Air Canada offering service from Hamilton to major Canadian destinations (Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Vancouver, Halifax), as well as a few major US hubs (Chicago, LaGuardia, Boston, Atlanta) so that passengers can get pretty much anywhere in North America with only 1 transfer and without having to go through Pearson.

 

[CDL.TO]

Air Canada operated to Ottawa and Montreal from Hamilton about 7 years ago. I flew Montreal-Hamilton and my flight was full.

I think they're doing a route where they're willing to take a loss just to undermine WestJet. The same for the Rouge flights out of Abbotsford they announced at the same time.

Personally, I think AC will be gone from Hamilton again within 2 years.