News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.9K     0 

And here I thought the Scarborough subway was the most acrimonious debate thread on UT :D

My own two cents, this really looks like another Mirabel in the making.

The anti airport folks have a lot on the line, from those currently leasing the land today to those invested in other airports to those that see it as a symbol For what ever cause tickles their fancy, and many hate it when I provide an opposing view.

Me I like facts, and a good old fashion debate, Like busting open the Pickering is another Mirabel Myth:


Welcome to the party!
 
I'm not sure if Mark Brooks knows what facts are.

Whatever he likes, they most certainly aren't facts. I wish they were.
 
I guess i just don't believe Pearson is as capacity starved as claimed, when geographically constrained airports like JFK handle a much higher passenger volumes

Remember what I said about how I annoy folks with facts?

Well you just made the case for the immediate opening of Pickering airport. But Unfortunately it will take 10 years to build.

Consider :

1) JFK is full, and due to safety concerns is currently under a FAA order restrictioning movements to 81 an hour on three runways under instrument conditions. Pearson does 96 on three runways ( it can only use 3 of it 5 runways at once) in instrument conditions , but we don’t have the FAA to get past.
See:
And:

2) JFK moved 60 million passengers 10 more that Pearson ) because it had the ability to shuffle many smaller pax aircraft ( including a number of regional jets that use to fly in ) to one of the 5 other passenger airports within a 90 min drive of JFK.

3) consider New York has milder weather than Toronto.

But Toronto cant just match JFKs traffic load, Pearson already did 50 million in 2018 and is growing 1.5-2.5 million pax a year. That means it needs to handle 70 million passengers by 2028, to do that it needs other existing airports such as Hamilton to take many ( but not all) smaller aircraft such as Regional jets, Q400 and ATRs that service short haul routes.
Hopefully by 2028 Pickering is then ready to take up some of the load, that means we must start the buildout ASAP!
 
Remember what I said about how I annoy folks with facts?
I believe you forgot to put "facts" in air quotes.

Let's dig a bit deeper into one of these "facts".

2) JFK moved 60 million passengers 10 more that Pearson ) because it had the ability to shuffle many smaller pax aircraft ( including a number of regional jets that use to fly in ) to one of the 5 other passenger airports within a 90 min drive of JFK.
Wait - there's only 6 passenger airports in the 24-million people New York area? That's about 4 million per airport. The Toronto area (the Greater Golden Horseshoe) has 4 passenger airports for only about 9.5 million. That's less than 2.5 million per airport.

If we want to keep up with New York, we need to close one of the existing airports - not open a fifth!

Pickering might have some uses for general aviation and/or to be held in reserve for sometime next century for passengers - but you've presented nothing that shows any current need for passengers at Pickering.
 
I don't think we'd need to wait all the way to the next century, and holding the land makes sense. But I don't believe we're only 8 years away from Pearson being clogged, and that that airlines wouldn't just shift some operations to nearby Hamilton. Hamilton had never been much of a success before, but that's because people will always choose Pearson until Pearson is completely full. Even if you built Pickering today, it would sit mostly empty because it's been shown time and time again that people will pick the most convenient airport, and generally only go farther afield if the price is significantly cheaper. The cheaper role is already filled by both Billy Bishop and Buffalo
 
I don't think we'd need to wait all the way to the next century, and holding the land makes sense. But I don't believe we're only 8 years away from Pearson being clogged, and that that airlines wouldn't just shift some operations to nearby Hamilton. Hamilton had never been much of a success before, but that's because people will always choose Pearson until Pearson is completely full. Even if you built Pickering today, it would sit mostly empty because it's been shown time and time again that people will pick the most convenient airport, and generally only go farther afield if the price is significantly cheaper. The cheaper role is already filled by both Billy Bishop and Buffalo

The experts think Pearson is capacity constrained right now. The experts think we need to build Pickering now, but you can of,course believe what every you like. The new KPMG capacity study is just the second million dollar study produced by experts saying we need to build Pickering, perhaps you would like to wait until the crisis hits, and commission a third?
Best 3 out of 5?
 
The experts think Pearson is capacity constrained right now. The experts think we need to build Pickering now, but you can of,course believe what every you like. The new KPMG capacity study is just the second million dollar study produced by experts saying we need to build Pickering, perhaps you would like to wait until the crisis hits, and commission a third?
Best 3 out of 5?

Oddly enough that's exactly what I'm suggesting. There's no point building it until it's a crisis, as counterintuitive as that seems. Airlines go where the passengers are, and the passengers won't go elsewhere until there's no choice.
 
Oddly enough that's exactly what I'm suggesting. There's no point building it until it's a crisis, as counterintuitive as that seems. Airlines go where the passengers are, and the passengers won't go elsewhere until there's no choice.
So don’t plan ahead or utilize private funding, just wait until it’s an emergency and then use tax payer money to slap down a hastily designed slab of an airport at 3 times the price in half the time? The construction company’s will love it. Everyone else not so much.

Unfortunately this Crisis method is being used by our current government in its handling of the pipeline capacity issue in western Canada.

I prefer proper urban planning utilizing private funding.

Breaking the Pearson monopoly by giving people a choice, and Air Canada some competition is an added bonus.
 
LOL @ the idea that a new airport will break the aviation duopoly (Mark seems to always forget about Westjet).

It's hilarious how Mark thinks all of Canada's aviation comes down to "breaking the monopoly of Air Canada" at Pearson. Or the even more outlandish idea that our entire regional economy is dependent on another airport within minutes of the 416.

The idea that you'll get cheaper flights to some Canadian cities is particularly bunk. Vancouver is slot controlled like Toronto. Montreal is on its way there. Not to mention how busy American airports are. So all the preferred destinations that GTA residents want to fly to face restrictions that probably won't result in notable increases in service. If any. But Mark keep's saying we'll have a great economic boom if we build this airport. By being able to fly to Sudbury and North Bay more often or having tourists come the less well off provincial bits of Europe? Colour me skeptical.
 
The idea that you'll get cheaper flights to some Canadian cities is particularly bunk.

Yeah, I don't get that one at all. Adding significantly more infrastructure increases fees, and fees make up most of the ticket price. It only magically becomes lower if the feds decide to skip the Ground Lease or PILTs are significantly lower than in Mississauga.

Anyway, if a private entity wanted to build at Pickering they would almost certainly be allowed to do so, but they won't get any gifts. The Feds will jump on another $50M+/year ground lease.

The Pickering pushing is similar to the Moose Rail project in Ottawa; one person with an idea, but no control over the assets and not enough experience to create a business case to raise private funding. Much of the material in this thread over the last couple years is more Fantasy Airport (similar to the Fantasy Map thread) than actionable information. [I love fantasy threads; and would fund a Toronto infrastructure think-tank if just to play out all the "what ifs" if I had the funding].

Waterloo and Hamilton can both build out substantial capacity without federal subsidies; and can run shuttles to the nearest "GO Expansion" station (which is an independently worth while project).
 
Last edited:
So don’t plan ahead or utilize private funding, just wait until it’s an emergency and then use tax payer money to slap down a hastily designed slab of an airport at 3 times the price in half the time? The construction company’s will love it. Everyone else not so much.

Unfortunately this Crisis method is being used by our current government in its handling of the pipeline capacity issue in western Canada.

I prefer proper urban planning utilizing private funding.

Breaking the Pearson monopoly by giving people a choice, and Air Canada some competition is an added bonus.

I didn't claim its the cheapest option, but Mirabel is hardly the only example of a white elephant airport in the world. Airports
don't follow the "build it and they will come" model. They vie for the most desirable slots at the most desirable airports first. As long as there's any capacity left at Pearson, a Pickering airport would be very modest at best, maybe 3 million a year if you're lucky.
 
I didn't claim its the cheapest option, but Mirabel is hardly the only example of a white elephant airport in the world. Airports
don't follow the "build it and they will come" model. They vie for the most desirable slots at the most desirable airports first. As long as there's any capacity left at Pearson, a Pickering airport would be very modest at best, maybe 3 million a year if you're lucky.

The GTA and particularly the Eastern GTA may well be underserved. But Mark Brooks stretches this to the point of ridiculousness by suggesting that the Pickering airport won't just solve that issue but also create tons of jobs, boost economic growth, lower airfares, and break the national duopoly of Air Canada and Westjet. There's no particular explanation of how adding capacity will do all that, and especially not beyond the immediate environs of the airport. How, for example, will someone from Mississauga or Etobicoke benefit from a Pickering airport?

Yeah, I don't get that one at all. Adding significantly more infrastructure increases fees, and fees make up most of the ticket price. It only magically becomes lower if the feds decide to skip the Ground Lease or PILTs are significantly lower than in Mississauga.

It's an argument based on the idea that Pearson is an expensive airport to operate out of. That argument is half-baked though. Pearson frees fees and gives rebates to airlines that push through a certain level of traffic through there. Air Canada is definitely not paying as much per passenger and aircraft movement as Westjet, who themselves are probably paying less than other carriers there.

Those other airlines may consider moving, but so many have codeshares with the big players at Pearson. Or will value Pearson's mobility set up over simply lower fees.

Anyway, if a private entity wanted to build at Pickering they would almost certainly be allowed to do so, but they won't get any gifts. The Feds will jump on another $50M+/year ground lease.

There's no private entity that has the level of financing required to build a second major airport in the GTA. And if there was, they most certainly wouldn't have an ascerbic flight instructor as their hypeman. That's not how big money works. And airports and airlines are all about big money...... They'd have lined up airliner partners already, would have been lobbying government bureaucrats and politicians across the spectrum and would only present the whole thing publicly when they had the go-ahead.

I am not sure to what end Mark and his crew are publicly lobbying. But I am willing to bet that the next step if they ever got approval to build would be to campaign for public funds. The clue is in their website talk about a PPP. Notice that there's no talk on their actual website of "we'll pay for it all". Despite what Mark says.....

The Pickering pushing is similar to the Moose Rail project in Ottawa

Best comparison.
 
The new KPMG capacity study is just the second million dollar study produced by experts saying we need to build Pickering

Everyone please ask Mark where he read the conclusions of this study. Because to the best of my knowledge, Transport Canada has not released this. I'm not even sure the study has been completed yet.
 

Back
Top