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

It's a handful of gates though. Not the entire terminal. Is it great? No. Would it stop me from flying through YYZ? Absolutely not. The rest of the terminal is still fantastic. And you're a short walk away from all the restaurants at Pier F. And I believe some of the airline lounges (like Plaza Premium) might move back.

Gates at all seems like a premium with discount airlines getting all the attention. I'm pretty thankful with any flight that doesn't end with a walk on the tarmac (to a bus or door) through the rain. Munich was even doing that with Lufthansa transatlantic flights when I went through there a couple years ago.
 
Gates at all seems like a premium with discount airlines getting all the attention. I'm pretty thankful with any flight that doesn't end with a walk on the tarmac (to a bus or door) through the rain. Munich was even doing that with Lufthansa transatlantic flights when I went through there a couple years ago.

Yep. If you travel frequently enough, those G gates aren’t close to bad at all. Spartan? Sure. But beats having to board a bus after a flight, or walking on the tarmac. Not just LH. I’ve had to do it at airports in the US, Turkey, India, etc.
 
Gates at all seems like a premium with discount airlines getting all the attention. I'm pretty thankful with any flight that doesn't end with a walk on the tarmac (to a bus or door) through the rain. Munich was even doing that with Lufthansa transatlantic flights when I went through there a couple years ago.
I had to do that on flight to Quebec City a few weeks ago.

I think it's Gate D30
 
Last edited:
Andrew is a Senior Project Manager from WSP.
“My name is Andrew and I’m a Senior Project Manager from WSP, working on the GTAA’s Airport Development and Construction team at Pearson.

I’m managing the expansion of Gate 193, which will be developed into a new pier, Pier G, in the next three years. The Gate 193 Extension was constructed in 2010 for ground-loaded aircraft. We’re expanding this area significantly as Toronto Pearson continues to grow, making a better passenger experience and building the capacity that the airport will need for the next 10 years.

The first step in the Gate 193 development was to build bigger passenger lounges and washrooms, add new retail and a new escalator for departing passengers. We then built a new apron for aircraft parking and are now adding six new all-glass boarding bridges—they are unlike any existing bridges at Toronto Pearson and will be very light and open. It’s a big change that we hope will delight our passengers.

The next phase, Pier G, will start construction later this year and will add a further 11 passenger boarding bridges, improvements to passenger flow and a new mix of retail, restaurants, mixed seating and children’s play areas so that passengers can count on Pearson for an engaging experience when they travel. I’m a civil engineer with a passion for aviation and have spent a large part of my career specializing in airport projects. I find it very rewarding to work with a team of people to tackle challenging problems to build something that will be enjoyed by the passengers travelling through Pearson.”


 
The next phase, Pier G, will start construction later this year and will add a further 11 passenger boarding bridges,...

Any speculation on what that means in relation to the Master Plan (page 64) document? This sounds like a demolition of the older west facing gate 193 section and rebuilding as a raised gated structure; or is he talking about building what the diagram labels Pier H which shows 13 gates and is also on the short-medium term list.

 
Last edited:
I'm guessing it probably means Pier H as there likely isn't enough space for 11 jetways on the west side of gate 193.
 
It really feels like the communication out of GTAA has deteriorated in recent years. During the major construction phase (Construction of TNew, demolition of T1, etc) the amount of communication was much better and you had a better idea of what was going on and what was being done for what. At least that's how I remember it. Lately every thing seems to be less open.

I'm assuming based on the Master Plan stating that the original gate 193 extension was demolished that this new set of gates was built up on the same site. The next expansion then, again I assume, is to build the other side of the pier. Compare figure 7.2 with figure 7.4 in the master plan. I wonder if they are counting total new gates without counting the demolished gate 193 extension gates, because I count 6 gates there on Pearson's terminal maps, doubling that for the other side gives a total of 12.

I really think they could benefit from an airside people mover travelling between each of the piers in T1 and T3. This would eliminate people having to leave the secure airside area when making a connection between T1 and T3
 
Last edited:
I really think they could benefit from an airside people mover travelling between each of the piers in T1 and T3. This would eliminate people having to leave the secure airside area when making a connection between T1 and T3

How many people connect between T1 and T3? All of Star is in T1. Everybody else is in T3 (notably WestJet, all of their codeshare partners, Transat and Sunwing). There's a few exceptions but that's broadly it. The likelihood of transferring between terminals (unless you've actually booked separate tickets yourself) is really low.
 
It really feels like the communication out of GTAA has deteriorated in recent years. During the major construction phase (Construction of TNew, demolition of T1, etc) the amount of communication was much better and you had a better idea of what was going on and what was being done for what. At least that's how I remember it. Lately every thing seems to be less open....

Totally agree...why would they announce a future development through a tweet? Perhaps some aviation nerd will pick this up, but that's about it.

Owing to the fact that this message was from the GTAA and there was a very specific reference to Pier G, I can only assume there will be 3 years of additional work on Pier G. Of course that doesn't make much sense, because that's what they've being doing for the last 3 years or so.
 
Do they? For Americans, a lot of those options are transferring at American hubs. And in particular UA hubs, as the other Star Alliance carrier. I can't think of any UA hub as nice as YYZ. And for Canadians, you don't really have a choice because AC or Westjet is going to send you to Toronto or Montreal if you're crossing the Atlantic.

SFO isn’t particularly bad. Neither is Denver. Also, another thing that’ll weigh on a pax decision (beyond price) is the hassle of crossing an additional border crossing with all the joys of bag collection and then another outbound international destination. YYZ (and all Canadian airports) need to do more to attract pax because of this. The Gate 193 extension doesn’t cut it and looks incredibly cheap. For me; improving the waiting area with light, windows, amenities is far more important than adding glass jet bridges.


Nobody is transiting through middle tier airports though. The large ones are going through redevelopment plans. But that will only get some of their terminals up to YYZ T1 standards. And they'll still have plenty of spartan gates too.

With an increase in point-to-point travel, pax have more options. Middle tier airports are growing too, and some are offering international destinations.


The growth of Montreal is not about passnegers choosing anything. It's about Air Canada directing growth that way because they can't get more slots at Pearson. See the Pickering Airport thread for more of this discussion.

This can’t be the reason, because if it was then they would be building capacity at a clip (why risk losing pax to competing airports). Going by the Masterplan, if there are any slot restrictions it is not due to airside limitations, but lack of terminal/gate capacity. In which case, you’d expect money to be spent on increasing gate capacity. The pace of YYZ gate expansion is mediocre at best (especially if the 193 extension is to be demonstrative of capacity building).


It's a handful of gates though. Not the entire terminal. Is it great? No. Would it stop me from flying through YYZ? Absolutely not. The rest of the terminal is still fantastic. And you're a short walk away from all the restaurants at Pier F. And I believe some of the airline lounges (like Plaza Premium) might move back.

There's also some unrecognized value here. The night I flew out of those gates, the relocated Plaza Premium lounge had closed. The rest of Pier F was still closing up. I bought some Thai Express and was happy to have a nice quiet spot to sit and eat. With traffic ramping up, the airport is getting crowded. These gates might actually some of the most peaceful to fly out of.

I am only judging by the pics. It looks like a prison waiting room. If you are travelling overseas, and then directed to wait in this space. That’s where you will wait. If you have time to explore you’ll notice the stark difference between the other areas of the airport and here. I don’t believe this pier to be a temporary facility, so its a shame that it looks the way it does. IFT looks better than this. And all I’m saying is that it doesn’t bode well for attracting pax who have other options. The American airports are putting significant money in revamping their facilities and improving the user experience; this is the opposite of that. Sure, we can explain it away. But why? Perhaps the pics didn't do it justice, and I may have to experience this for myself.
 
I think T3 is alright. The pre-security area is probably above-average for North American standards, while the post-security area is average. The only thing that looks really dated are some of the Departure screens.
 
SFO isn’t particularly bad. Neither is Denver.

Agreed. Living in NorCal for 2.5 years, I thought SFO was alright. Really liked their transit connection to downtown. But they have some crappy gates too. If you've ever taken a regional flight from SFO, you'll recall them.

YYZ (and all Canadian airports) need to do more to attract pax because of this.

Airports don't attract pax. Airlines do. You are thinking of some ideal world where pax are discerning and picking out which airport they transfer at. In reality, all of Air Canada's transborder to international growth at Pearson comes from their transatlantic joint venture with United and Lufthansa. Those partners have agreed to facilitate a certain amount of growth and AC is pricing tickets accordingly. Heck, AC will literally price the YYZ-Europe portion lower for Americans than Canadians departing from YYZ to maintain marketshare. All done in coordination with UA and LH.

There's no pax deciding where they are going to transfer. They are given fare options that direct a certain portion of the JVs transatlantic US/Latin America- Europe traffic through AC's hubs.

With an increase in point-to-point travel, pax have more options. Middle tier airports are growing too, and some are offering international destinations.

And Pearson can't compete with that. Nobody is going to choose a layover in a foreign airport just because the lounge is a bit nicer. So if Pearson loses some pt2pt traffic, so be it.

This can’t be the reason....Going by the Masterplan, if there are any slot restrictions it is not due to airside limitations, but lack of terminal/gate capacity.

It absolutely is. Pearson is a Level 3 slot controlled airport. The slots that are available aren't in timings that are advantageous to further growth. Pearson's on-time performance is among the worst in North America of the larger airports. So until they get another runway, there's not going to be as much opportunity for growth. AC has largely achieved growth by trying to find opportunities for those shoulder/off-peak slots, upgauging (for example they now send widebodies to SFO and LA) to offer more seats, and consolidating service to smaller destination onto larger aircraft to free up slots. But that kind of growth has its limits.

Aside from that, for AC, bolstering Montreal just makes sense for several reason. First, eggs in one basket and all that. I doubt they want to end up like Delta with Atlanta. Next, Montreal is less of a backtrack from the Maritimes, and effectively has nearly as much of a catchment for international and transborder as Pearson, when you count Ottawa, and all of Quebec.

The Gate 193 extension doesn’t cut it and looks incredibly cheap. For me; improving the waiting area with light, windows, amenities is far more important than adding glass jet bridges.
am only judging by the pics.

I don't see anything in the pictures that are all that bad. They are clean and functional. And that's exactly how I remember it from the night I used one of these gates. Seating, lighting, windows were as good as other gates. The only difference was that very spartan hallway to connect and the lack of shops and restaurants.

Moreover, I stand by what I said, having a handful of gates with no shops immediately nearby is very much not a reason to avoid an airport. But if it matters that much, it's really very easy to make sure that those gates are allocated to lower-yielding traffic.

In the end, that pier will get developed in due course and will end up more like the rest. It's just going to take longer than what we've seen with the rest. In no small measure because the airlines at Pearson have been particularly averse to accelerating development and want the GTAA to get debt and costs under control. If they aren't willing to support more development, I don't get how the GTAA is supposed to push for nicer facilities.
 
Last edited:
You can order UBER without a phone at the airport:


Maybe they can place these at Union Station.
Very curious given how much financial interest Pearson has had with the conventional taxi/limo industry (and their supposed desire to have a transit centre) - aside from who the market for these kiosks is meant to be.

One begins to wonder if the long term goal is to toll vehicles coming into YYZ (refundable to transit/taxis/uber/long stay parking) in order to dissuade "free" drop off/pickup which Pearson makes nothing from.
 
Very curious given how much financial interest Pearson has had with the conventional taxi/limo industry (and their supposed desire to have a transit centre) - aside from who the market for these kiosks is meant to be.

One begins to wonder if the long term goal is to toll vehicles coming into YYZ (refundable to transit/taxis/uber/long stay parking) in order to dissuade "free" drop off/pickup which Pearson makes nothing from.
Can’t see how that would fly, so to speak. That would make a delivery/pickup fee mandatory for all terminating passengers, and they already collect such mandatory fees on the ticket.

There’s also far too many passengers to serve solely through public transit/hires.

That said, there is precedent:
 

Back
Top