[Woodbridge_Heights]

I think what @kEiThZ and I are saying is simply this......location of flying customers is far less relevant to the success/viability of an airport than ability to attract airlines/planes to base their operations there.....and it is not clear at all why anyone would move out of Pearson.

If Pearson were full (and they don't seem to be) and/or unable to expand (which does not seem to be the case) and if there was a major new entrant (a third national carrier?) that needed a hub/base....maybe you have something.....but right now (and for the medium term) there is no compelling reason to build a second commercial airport for the GTA.

Fair enough. Yes there needs to be airlines who want to serve the airport, then the people will come.

 

[kEiThZ]

Every effort should be done to utilize YHM. That means that a 6 lane divided highway needs to be built from 403 to it. Then another from where Red Hill and the LINC meet to it as well. Next, a GO train line needs to extend to it.
....
Now, it has the necessary services to attract the travelers.

Roads and trains aren't going to attract passengers to an airport. Flights are. Buffalo gets over 2 million Canadian passengers willing to cross the border which a far bigger obstacle than a rural road.

Canada does need a new low cost carrier. Westjet was, but now their pricing is on par with Air Canada. If that new airline ran from YHM then it would thrive.

Canada is just too small, and too oligopolistic to have a third carrier. Any new carrier will face predatory pricing by Air Canada and Westjet. And it'll be fully tolerated by the feds. The only reason Porter has survived, is its advantage on the Island. And because of Porter, pricing in Southern Ontario has gone down substantially. The day the Island airport goes, is the day ticket prices go back up. HSR is really the only real alternative. And there seems to no appetite for a multi-billion dollar investment to build this.

 

[muller877]

Fair enough. Yes there needs to be airlines who want to serve the airport, then the people will come.

Westjet serves KW and Hamilton Airports with limited but very useful service. KW gets you to the Westjet hub at Calgary while Hamilton has service to a half dozen location. Westjet has recognized that people are willing to go to a smaller airport closer to home rather than have to deal with YYZ. Each of these airports also have flights to the sunny south.

Not huge volume but there is probably more demand for this type of service in the east end than out west (further from Pearson). Pickering can easily surpass Hamilton in terms of volume quite easily. Air Canada may be too myopic to go to Pickering but Westjet would probably use the airport similar to how they use Hamilton (Calgary to start and then add destinations as volume grows).

If I lived in Oshawa and I had to choose Air Canada direct to Vancouver from Pearson or Pickering to Calgary to Vancouver i'd 100% choose the later.

 

[kEiThZ]

If I lived in Oshawa and I had to choose Air Canada direct to Vancouver from Pearson or Pickering to Calgary to Vancouver i'd 100% choose the later.

Would you make the same choice if Air Canada was charging $100 more for the Pickering flight?

Everyone assumes that prices will be cheaper. Airlines aren't stupid. They want to capture the value of that convenience.

 

[TOareaFan]

Would you make the same choice if Air Canada was charging $100 for the Pickering flight?

Everyone assumes that prices will be cheaper. Airlines aren't stupid. They want to capture the value of that convenience.

That and it is not clear to me why landing at this new airport would be cost effective......built with 2017 (or later, I guess) dollars there would have to be some cost recovery in the form of landing fees....and since the government seems to be moving in the direction of of privatizing airports it would be cost + profit recovery.

 

[kEiThZ]

That and it is not clear to me why landing at this new airport would be cost effective......built with 2017 (or later, I guess) dollars there would have to be some cost recovery in the form of landing fees....and since the government seems to be moving in the direction of of privatizing airports it would be cost + profit recovery.

The high cost of Canadian airports comes from the government's hidden tax on aviation: airport rents. And they will absolutely charge that on Pickering.

Privatization is only going to make it worse. Either they keep charging the rents. Or the sell the lands to all the airport authorities for billions, only to have those authorities (or corporations) charge loads to recover the capital spent buying those lands.

 

[muller877]

Would you make the same choice if Air Canada was charging $100 more for the Pickering flight?

Everyone assumes that prices will be cheaper. Airlines aren't stupid. They want to capture the value of that convenience.

Real life example vs hypotheticals...

To Vancouver on May 30 via Westjet (one-way)
from YYZ - $251 to $487
from KW - $271
from Hamilton - $251 to $284

 

[muller877]

That and it is not clear to me why landing at this new airport would be cost effective......built with 2017 (or later, I guess) dollars there would have to be some cost recovery in the form of landing fees....and since the government seems to be moving in the direction of of privatizing airports it would be cost + profit recovery.

The cost to build an airport like Hamilton is not that expensive. Even the Quebec City airport reno (basically a rebuild while still operating) cost around $300-400M over 10 years. Comparing the fees at Quebec City to Pearson you can why Westjet loves to land at secondary airports.

 

[narduch]

Even Air Canada has a few flights a day between Hamilton and Montreal. Not sure how much of a success that is.

I guess you could build Pickering small at first. But aren't we years away from needing it? Is the population on the East side of the GTA enough to support it?

I keep thinking it will end up being a Mirabel.

Plus the fight from the locals will be fierce.

 

[jje1000]

Even Air Canada has a few flights a day between Hamilton and Montreal. Not sure how much of a success that is.

I guess you could build Pickering small at first. But aren't we years away from needing it? Is the population on the East side of the GTA enough to support it?

I keep thinking it will end up being a Mirabel.

Plus the fight from the locals will be fierce.

Don't new airports usually only succeed when when they're replacements for older airports and major carriers are essentially forced to move there?

The old airport sometimes remains and becomes the secondary airport afterwards.

I guess the alternate option is when ovewhelming traffic from the main airport spills over into a local regional airport and bumps it up into an international airport.

 

[muller877]

Even Air Canada has a few flights a day between Hamilton and Montreal. Not sure how much of a success that is.

I guess you could build Pickering small at first. But aren't we years away from needing it? Is the population on the East side of the GTA enough to support it?

I keep thinking it will end up being a Mirabel.

Plus the fight from the locals will be fierce.

Mirabel was Trudeau's lousy Field of Dreams idea. If you build it they will come. Plus the corruption that was already rampant in Quebec with the Liberal Part (a lawyer working for a commission in the 70's saw union cheques made out to the Liberal Party...his name was Lucien Bouchard).

I understand for Pickering they will start small and then incrementally build it bigger if there is demand.

KW airport really only services Waterloo Region, areas north of it (which are sparsely populated) and maybe a bit of Guelph. Woodstock goes to London if they want to avoid Toronto. Brantford goes to Hamilton. So about 600,000 catchment basin.

Pickering airport has a much larger catchment area. About 1/2 way between Pickering Airport site and Pearson is the DVP. Cities included in the area:
- Scarborough
- Markham
- Pickering
- Ajax
- Whitby
- Oshawa
- Peterborough

So "maybe" a bit bigger of an area than the Kitchener airport

I'm assuming it'll be the same size as Hamilton.

 

[kEiThZ]

@muller877

It's great that there's a large catchment area. But that doesn't necessarily mean there's a business case. The catchment has to be large enough to split traffic. And that's where I doubt the case. No airline will want to reduce frequencies at Pearson. Since the most profitable business travellers insist on frequencies and pay for them. So they won't be cutting flights substantially. This means that they have to cut aircraft size. Given that both Westjet and Air Canada are moving their fleets up by 1-2 sizes in every category (just see all their recent Boeing and Bombardier orders and the seat counts), so that's not happening either. Business travel? Pickering doesn't have the downtown catchment that fuels Porter.

So what's the case for regular service at Pickering? The only thing I see are charters like Sunwing or Air Transat moving wholesale from Pearson. But that too will require a substantial discount in fees. Enough to make up for the possible lost business with a good chunk of their customer base now facing a longer drive. Can the airport authority build a large enough and new airport on discounted revenue? We'll see. But I suspect that's why there's no interest in making Pickering anything more than GA for a least a few decades.

 

[crs1026]

Don't know why one would build at Trenton when Peterboro has just lengthened its runway to enable commercial use, and is probably closer to more people.

- Paul

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

@muller877

It's great that there's a large catchment area. But that doesn't necessarily mean there's a business case. The catchment has to be large enough to split traffic. And that's where I doubt the case. No airline will want to reduce frequencies at Pearson. Since the most profitable business travellers insist on frequencies and pay for them. So they won't be cutting flights substantially. This means that they have to cut aircraft size. Given that both Westjet and Air Canada are moving their fleets up by 1-2 sizes in every category (just see all their recent Boeing and Bombardier orders and the seat counts), so that's not happening either. Business travel? Pickering doesn't have the downtown catchment that fuels Porter.

So what's the case for regular service at Pickering? The only thing I see are charters like Sunwing or Air Transat moving wholesale from Pearson. But that too will require a substantial discount in fees. Enough to make up for the possible lost business with a good chunk of their customer base now facing a longer drive. Can the airport authority build a large enough and new airport on discounted revenue? We'll see. But I suspect that's why there's no interest in making Pickering anything more than GA for a least a few decades.

I think the charters could support a small airport though. Last time I did the math, I think I came up with 3 million people living East of the DVP. If 1 in 3 (just pulling numbers from the air here) travels at least once per year to a pleasure destination (Florida, Caribbean, Vegas), that's 1 million travelers per year. If the airport attracts even a fraction of that number that's enough for about 4,000 flights per year on Sunwing's 180'ish seat 737's.


***Edited to correct math***

 

[TOareaFan]

I think the charters could support a small airport though. Last time I did the math, I think I came up with 3 million people living East of the DVP. If 1 in 3 (just pulling numbers from the air here) travels at least once per year to a pleasure destination (Florida, Caribbean, Vegas), that's 1 million travelers per year. If the airport attracts even a fraction of that number that's enough for about 40,000 flights per year on Sunwing's 180'ish seat 737's.

am I misreading your math?

assume pop of 3MM
assume 1/3 take a trip = 1MM
assume some fraction go to new airport
that fills 40,000 planes of 180 passengers? isn't 40,000 X 180 equal to 7,200,000?

So the fraction of the 1MM we are assuming use this airport is 720/100?