News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

With the blue being Transborder, Purple being swing, pink being strictly international. It would move current transborder swing flights out of Pier E.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-12-09 at 4.10.20 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-12-09 at 4.10.20 PM.png
    998.5 KB · Views: 1,280
Streety McCarface said:
With the blue being Transborder, Purple being swing, pink being strictly international. It would move current transborder swing flights out of Pier E.
Click to expand...

Thing is all of this can be accomplished by simply sticking to the original plan and building pier G. We are reinventing the wheel here, and for no reason.

I can't imagine the cost of building pier G is that significant in comparison to what is being planned at the transit hub...
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Thing is all of this can be accomplished by simply sticking to the original plan and building pier G. We are reinventing the wheel here, and for no reason.

I can't imagine the cost of building pier G is that significant in comparison to what is being planned at the transit hub...
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing, just arguing that not all transborder planes should be moved to Pier G and all international flights should be only in Pier F.
 
Streety McCarface said:
Not disagreeing, just arguing that not all transborder planes should be moved to Pier G and all international flights should be only in Pier F.
Click to expand...
For the record, after 9/11 there are specific requirements on handling passengers to and from the USA that are different than other international departures. A trans- order pier will make the operation of all airlines using it more efficient and more consistent.
 
TransitBart said:
For the record, after 9/11 there are specific requirements on handling passengers to and from the USA that are different than other international departures. A trans- order pier will make the operation of all airlines using it more efficient and more consistent.
Click to expand...

That can still be facilitated as it is now with the current Pier F setup. However, you can't fit a 777 at most of the current F gates, and you won't for many G gates either. It makes no sense to allocate that area for international flights when only 767s can use it. Keep the necks for transborder and leave the ends for international flights.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Thing is all of this can be accomplished by simply sticking to the original plan and building pier G. We are reinventing the wheel here, and for no reason.

I can't imagine the cost of building pier G is that significant in comparison to what is being planned at the transit hub...
Click to expand...

Pier G is under construction albeit with the name of an expanded Gate 193.

It's not a pretty beast but it's also not temporary.
 
TransitBart said:
For the record, after 9/11 there are specific requirements on handling passengers to and from the USA that are different than other international departures. A trans- order pier will make the operation of all airlines using it more efficient and more consistent.
Click to expand...

I still think that the best option once the terminals merge is to allocate all US flights to T3. Pier G/Gate 193 can be used for RapidAir (lots of small planes).

This gives the GTAA the ability to modify the T3 building to allow for a larger US Customs area. And frees up this room in T1 so there can be a large Duty-free mall for Int'l traffic.
 
Upon further reflection, I agree with the general sentiment expressed here. The GTAA’s intent to become a world class international transit point is more akin to an Atlanta, than it is a Munich or Singapore. With the revenues from increased passenger traffic in addition to the increase in retail revenue, you would think that they were building a serious war chest to undertake something more ambitious. I guess not.

It seems the core aim of the GTAA is to stuff as many people into existing spaces, and in doing so, mix them across ad-hoc retail spaces. The passenger experience, which is already causing much consternation, is only going to get worse. It’s too bad. The old plan indicated full build out of Piers G and H when traffic reached approx 40 Million and 50 million, respectively. We are already there! It’s not like LOS standards have reduced, and peak periods remain the same. Passenger processing hasn’t really improved all that much and recommended arrival times at the airport remain the same as they have been for the last 10 years. So what does that mean? More passengers will be using the same space at the same time. If we think the LOS is not comfortable right now, I would think it’s going to get drastically worse.

It’s not surprising to me to see passengers numbers grow at a greater clip in YVR and YUL instead of here. Moreover, I am hearing more and more stories of passengers having terrible experiences at the airport (the “I will not come here again” variety).

One saving grace (depending on your perspective) is that this plan is sparse on details, which basically givesg the GTAA a lot of room to manoeuvre. We are all well aware of the GTAA's more ambitious ideas. So perhaps much of this is but a temporary measure, until they have everything lined-up for what they really want to do. Time will tell...
 
I haven't used T1 in couple years now. Been using T3 a lot mostly for transborder flights. The experience is really suboptimal. Huge crowds, no lounge access within transborder section (I think there is one for AA, but none for Skyteam) etc. The never-ending construction at T3 is tiring. It feels that the main concourse been under some sort of construction for the last 10 years. Similar situation inside the piers.

Since 2004, we went from having one of the nicest airports in North America to one of the cramped. Out of NA airports, I can only think of a few that feel as cramped as YYZ. We went from 28mln in 2004 to 47 mln passengers in 2017. Yet, facilities have not changed much in that timeframe.
 
Panontario said:
I haven't used T1 in couple years now. Been using T3 a lot mostly for transborder flights. The experience is really suboptimal. Huge crowds, no lounge access within transborder section (I think there is one for AA, but none for Skyteam) etc. The never-ending construction at T3 is tiring. It feels that the main concourse been under some sort of construction for the last 10 years. Similar situation inside the piers.

Since 2004, we went from having one of the nicest airports in North America to one of the cramped. Out of NA airports, I can only think of a few that feel as cramped as YYZ. We went from 28mln in 2004 to 47 mln passengers in 2017. Yet, facilities have not changed much in that timeframe.
Click to expand...

Consider the following...

Those 28 million passengers in 2004 were flown in on 355,000 aircraft movements. Last year 44 million passengers were flown in on 419,000 aircraft movements. Passenger numbers have nearly doubled but aircraft numbers have only increased 18%. The answer here is not to stand still, the answer is to expand the terminals a concourses to accommodate the thousands of passengers in a space where you once only held a couple hundred people. This is why gate 193 needs to be a full fledged pier G construction, not for the extra gates but instead for the additional room for waiting passengers.

Also regarding the transit terminal (which they strangely term T-New despite terminal 1 being termed T-New in previous documents). If they think they can move the ~12 000 existing parking spaces that are in the garages attached to the terminals, move them to the transit hub + any growth in parking, and create a mini Union station they have another thing coming. The infrastructure required to accommodate all those parking cars will absolutely ruin any chance of creating an "urban" transit hub anywhere close to what Union has. Mark my words.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Consider the following...

Those 28 million passengers in 2004 were flown in on 355,000 aircraft movements. Last year 44 million passengers were flown in on 419,000 aircraft movements. Passenger numbers have nearly doubled but aircraft numbers have only increased 18%.
Click to expand...

it doesn't take away from the point you are making....but 44 million is not nearly double 28 million. Your point still stands if you say: the number of passengers has increased 57% while the aircraft numbers have only increased 18%.
 
Thinking some more about the proposed bend in the Kitchener line to line up with the Transit Hub. Why not go whole hog. Move Malton Go to the airport, and strike a deal with the owners of the international centre to build meeting conference facilities as part of the Transit Hub development. Turn around and sell the land Malton Go and the International Centre used to occupy for some other type of development.

Downside;
- Loss of ~800 parking spaces that exist at Malton. This could be mitigated by allowing for GO commuter parking at the Transit Hub
- Slight increase in travel times vs the existing Malton station???
- Increase in scope for the rail station at the Transit hub, it would now be served by, planned HSR, VIA, GO RER, GO regional trains. Thus requiring at least a handful of platforms

Upside;
- Complete integration of transit at the Transit Hub. All roads lead to Pearson
- Sale of land would fund Transit Hub development (caveat, I do not know who owns that property)
- Increase in appeal of relocated international centre for conferences etc due to transit connectivity and connectivity to Pearson airport
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top