[Dan416]

Indeed. It's hard to blame GTAA though as they gave high-end a crack with T1. We, as Canadians, bitched for about 8 years after T1 opened about how Pearson was the most expensive airport on the planet: without government subsidies it appeared that way on tickets.

As a result, the federal government completely restructured the governance layer of the GTAA (board seat distribution between various governments/civilian spots changed) and they adopted a priority to lower landing fees by going hard into retail and other sources of revenue outside of airline operations [Union West was all about land-lease revenue]; and a lower cap on capital debt was also put into place.

I didn't know that they changed the governance change and that their priority shifted to lowering landing fees. That explains a lot (i.e. The Cheapening).

 

[Streety McCarface]

What's so awful about Option 1? Being consistent is a big plus. Besides, the general layout of T1 is still relatively modern I'd say. I don't think anything big has changed that would require a redesign

Issue with Option 1 is that it's not extensive enough. Sure, giving us G is good, but we need H on top of it as well (which was originally proposed as a 2-pier section).

Remember, YYZ is still low on gate space, even without a full return of traffic, and with the population boom, it's only a matter of time before G/H fill up themselves. We're still using the IFT after all.

 

[jcam]

What's so awful about Option 1? Being consistent is a big plus. Besides, the general layout of T1 is still relatively modern I'd say. I don't think anything big has changed that would require a redesign

It was explained to me by someone that the 'piers' model is being moved away from globally, as the traffic implications of planes getting going in and out of 'dead ends' is not preferred from an aircraft movements and ground logistics perspective...meaning bridged islands that offer full circulation of aircraft are preferred. The current layout is also not as conducive to snow clearing activities compared to islands.

 

[kthing]

Pretty timely video explaining the different airport layouts. Seems like option 1 optimizes passenger efficiency and option 2 optimizes for planes.

 

[allabootmatt]

Indeed, the "toast rack" design -- with linear concourses linked underground or by overhead bridges -- seems to be the industry standard now. Pretty boring to look at from a satellite photo, but the benefits for aircraft movement are obvious.

 

[Amare]

Indeed, the "toast rack" design -- with linear concourses linked underground or by overhead bridges -- seems to be the industry standard now. Pretty boring to look at from a satellite photo, but the benefits for aircraft movement are obvious.

But unless you have the underlying passenger infrastructure to transport passengers between those concourse, it becomes a huge pain in the a** to get between one concourse and another. Heck even if you do, it can still be a cumbersome mess.

Just look at Hartsfield in Atlanta, good luck trying to make a connecting flight if you've got 1-2 hours in between them. They can accommodate a lot of aircraft there for sure, but moving between or inside the concourses can be a nightmare with how busy that airport is.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

It was explained to me by someone that the 'piers' model is being moved away from globally, as the traffic implications of planes getting going in and out of 'dead ends' is not preferred from an aircraft movements and ground logistics perspective...meaning bridged islands that offer full circulation of aircraft are preferred. The current layout is also not as conducive to snow clearing activities compared to islands.

It would mean YYZ going full circle. The initial "aeroquay" plan is literally the OG island terminals plan. Then we got T3 and new T1 that were piers models. Now we are going back to islands...

 

[Fritter]

It would mean YYZ going full circle. The initial "aeroquay" plan is literally the OG island terminals plan. Then we got T3 and new T1 that were piers models. Now we are going back to islands...

 

[officedweller]

If anyone remembers old Terminal 1, they'll remember that the terminal was incredibly compact. Not much distance to walk, but then again, that was before all the security requirements, so a small building like that probably wouldn't have enough space for today's needs.

 

[nfitz]

If anyone remembers old Terminal 1, they'll remember that the terminal was incredibly compact. Not much distance to walk, but then again, that was before all the security requirements, so a small building like that probably wouldn't have enough space for today's needs.

Offhand, I can't think of any modern airport that has security in an island. The island at Terminal 3 has no security.

 

[officedweller]

Offhand, I can't think of any modern airport that has security in an island. The island at Terminal 3 has no security.

True - if they move to islands, then there would be a main terminal for check-in and security then a shuttle train to the island terminal.
I was thinking of the original Terminal 1, which was standalone.