News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.9K     0 

Exactly what do you have an issue with? You don’t like the idea of designing green spaces into urban environments such as an airport? You don’t like the idea that the nearby park stabilizes temperatures, or just more trolling? Let me look at your history of comments... Oh right trolling, well troll on, it’s a free world, but please don’t expect me to respond in the future.

Lol troll? Might want to souble check the dictionary definition of troll. Im quite confident few if any members here consider me a troll
 
This thread had a troll like atmosphere from the get go and I think someone even mentioned Mark was shifting the goal posts. Recognizing that early on, I bowed out and suggest others do the same and let this thread die since there is really nothing new here. it just seems to be a time waster and a platform for Mark to pump his own site.
 
Letting this nonsense go unchallenged unfortunately may give the impression that it's accurate.

I wish the mods would deal with what is literal corporate shilling in this case.
 
This thread had a troll like atmosphere from the get go and I think someone even mentioned Mark was shifting the goal posts. Recognizing that early on, I bowed out and suggest others do the same and let this thread die since there is really nothing new here. it just seems to be a time waster and a platform for Mark to pump his own site.
Actually the debate on this thread has help myself and others to define the technical arguments for and against the airport. A decision on this airport is due within the year so the topic is full of new twist and turns as new information becomes available. For instance the HFR issue.

It’s important to keep politics out of it, but it is a highly politicized issue. This issue is now being debate at the federal level and is being added to the election platforms of many of the candidates . It may be the single most important issue for the people of the eastern GTA in the coming federal election.
 
"most important issue for people of the eastern GTA"

Maybe Pickering. Nobody else gives a damn.
 
Most of us here are transit nerds or interested in urban design. And for the most part we are skeptical about the viability of this airport.

I bet the NIMBY's will be way more of a challenge for the proponents of this airport then anything written here.
 
Most of us here are transit nerds or interested in urban design. And for the most part we are skeptical about the viability of this airport.

I bet the NIMBY's will be way more of a challenge for the proponents of this airport then anything written here.

This is a great spot to have a technical discussion, If you want to see how the NIMBYs are reacting to the building enthusiasm for the new airport, check out the city of Pickering Facebook page.

As a shamelessly pro airport supporter, I find the interactions with the NIMBY folks fascinating.
 
While I don't believe "Pearson East" is required or likely in the near future, I don't see any real objection to a much smaller and less costly municipal airport on the designated lands, especially with the closure of Buttonville. It can easily be designed to scale up at a future date when required, I just think that date is much farther in the future thank Mark thinks.
 
I go away from my computer for a few days and things get down right dirty.

I like the argument of: look at JFK, and then: Don't look at NYC. It proves that building another airport in the GTA has no real world need.

I like how people think that another airport is going to break the duopoly of Air Canada and Westjet. There is a reason there are no longer many more airlines in Canada.

Westjet did start in Hamilton, but moved into Pearson more and more to compete with Air Canada. So, if a new air carrier were to open up in Pickering, they would soon be moving to Pearson to compete with Air Canada and Westjet.

And, as a taxpayer, I sure hope it isn't built with public funds.
 
A lot of their argument for this airport is based on the growth of passenger traffic in the GGH (~2.5 million annually) and the maxing out of Pearson. But there's so many problems with that argument:

1) Most of that growth (~90%) has occurred at Pearson. Doesn't look at all, like any carrier is sincerely interested in growing traffic elsewhere.

2) A lot of that growth has come from AC's growing hub. Far less of it is origin-destination. Hub traffic can and will be directed elsewhere as Pearson gets congested. Air Canada is starting to grow Montreal as a global hub.

3) Pearson has some room to grow through upgauging, another runway and some displacement to rail.

4) Traffic is not necessarily an indicator of financial sustainability. And in particular, if the plan to launch and/or grow through lower yielding LCCs and ULCCs, it's going to be really difficult to charge the kind of fees necessary to recoup their capital investment.
 
I also want to call out Mark's constant assertion that Pickering will be green. It's based on the idea that newer aircraft are more fuel efficient. That's true. But doesn't apply substantially to his airport proposal. An airport that's starting out like Pickering, unless they have a major anchor carrier like Westjet, is going to launch with lots of Low Cost Carriers (LCCs) or Ultra-Low Cost Carriers (ULCCs). Both of these types of airlines base their business models on using cheap, commonly-available and often used/second-hand aircraft. None of these are going to be clean or quiet. Mark talks about the CSeries/A220. In reality, you wouldn't see a single one of those operate from Pickering for at least a decade or more.

You want to know what kind of aircraft and airline might operate at launch? Look up how loud Allegiant's MD-88 was. And they only retired those in 2018. Flair just launched in Canada with 737-400s. The last one of those was produced in 2000. And they aren't even buying the 737 MAX or A320 NEO. Their replacement for those is 737-800.

So let's be clear on this. Pickering is not going to be some quiet, clean commercial airport at launch. Its business model simply won't allow it to be. Here's a tell: Ask Mark if Pickering proponents are willing to restrict traffic specifically to the latest generation aircraft.
 
Last edited:
I remember the Mad Dogs well. Those things could be turned on a dime! As a matter of fact, American Airlines still has them in service until September 4th when they will be withdrawn from use. I'd be interested to know if Pickering will use all electric ground equipment. The diesel ground equipment is where the real pollution is.

**edited to replace electronic with Electric.
 
d be interested to know if Pickering will use all electric ground equipment.

Expecting them to voluntarily do anything that increases their capital costs is naive. They aren't going to do anything that makes their threadbare business case worse.
 
As much as I am a fan of electric aircraft developments —

Rail and air are not necessarily always competitors. Pearson endorses HSR with their Transit hub proposal. It frees up less profitable short-haul slots for more profitable long-haul slots. And it makes it easier to get to the airport for a number of locations. A fast trip between Kitchener-Waterloo and Pearson or even too perhaps between Kingston/Peterborough and Pearson (depending on route future HSR takes).

That said, never say never — Pickering just gets built later this century if it is needed, and/or possibly as a smaller regional airport far smaller than its current huge land reserved — simply given the growth of between Toronto and Oshawa. Smartly sized rather than Mirabel sized. But not before it is truly needed by enough people and enough airlines, IMHO.
What future HSR?
 

Back
Top