pman said:
I agree completely. The evening crowding at the end of the international pier is unlike anything I’ve seen in global hubs, outside of the US.
Click to expand...
I'm not even going to go into the hot mess at customs - I purposely schedule my flights to arrive at a time when the customs hall at T1 doesn't look like the New Orleans Astrodome post-Katrina.
 
pman said:
I agree completely. The evening crowding at the end of the international pier is unlike anything I’ve seen in global hubs, outside of the US.
Click to expand...

Build Pier G! But seriously, 5 flights to London, 2 to Tokyo, 1 to Hong Kong, 1 to Beijing, Paris, 5 to Germany, 1 to Israel, 1 to peru, 1 to Switzerland, 2 to Spain, 1 to Mexico, and a bunch others over ~12 permanent gates. They need more space.
 
Filip said:
No you are not, some just noticed the document a bit late - might be because of the UT editorial from yesterday that references the document as if it was new.

Either way, a good time to comment that AC has seen the writings on the wall and are funneling most of the PAX increase, and capacity growth through YVR and YUL. YYZ is full - and what the airport authority is planning to do won't go nearly far enough. If that editorial is anything to go by, the GTAA thinks it's ok that the departure halls are so crowded you can't move, or that there are no seats for passengers. Also not surprising that Pearson's ratings on Skytrax and other mediums keeps dropping.

I use global hubs (serving many more passengers than YYZ) in most of my travels and the crowding at Pearson is unique.
Click to expand...

Amen brother/sister Amen
 
Streety McCarface said:
Build Pier G! But seriously, 5 flights to London, 2 to Tokyo, 1 to Hong Kong, 1 to Beijing, Paris, 5 to Germany, 1 to Israel, 1 to peru, 1 to Switzerland, 2 to Spain, 1 to Mexico, and a bunch others over ~12 permanent gates. They need more space.
Click to expand...

Just wait for summer, when passenger volumes go up 30%.

The few times I've flown to Europe from Montreal it's seemed very crowded in the evening too, FWIW - the quite narrow structure of the YUL terminal building not helping at all. Though I see they've built a somewhat fatter extension at the far end of the international gates now.

I do find Pearson's decision not to build a proper expansion ASAP very hard to understand. That said, Air Canada is their primary tenant, so you have to think they support the strategy.
 
I've said it before on previous pages, and i'll re-state it again due to how pathetic the GTAA's plan is for both Terminal 1 and 3. The future "expansion" plans are absolutely pathetic and embarrassing. The size of the extension in Terminal 1 is just laughable outright and as the plan stands right now, it wont be able to handle virtually any dramatic increase in passenger numbers.

How they got the bright idea to shrink the size of the expansion from the previous Master Plan is really beyond me.
 
What is the reason for the delay or change in plans? I also find the Pier F crowding unique and unpleasant. Nowhere at all to sit.
 
TransitBart said:
What is the reason for the delay or change in plans? I also find the Pier F crowding unique and unpleasant. Nowhere at all to sit.
Click to expand...
They were very clear about why...

T1 and the entire initial 1997-2007 airport redevelopment program was so expensive that Pearson for a time became the most expensive airport to land in. Carriers like AC weren't too happy. This time around, when carriers were consulted about the next round of expansion, the message was clearly - cost efficiency.
 
It's really bad at all E and F gates, and most of the planes coming to Pearson from international destinations are large widebody 787s, 747s, 777s, A340s, A330s, A350s and an A380. These planes can only fit at the hammerhead, and smaller widebodies (and longbois) such as the 737, 757, 767, Future 797, A320s, A321s, are the major planes flying to the US and can only fit on the handle gates, not at the current expansion gates. Does anyone have any idea what the GTAA is thinking, because I have no idea.
 
Maybe sardine E and F a little more with doubledecker chairs at Pearson! ;)

A54B44B8-75EA-45B1-ADFC-E3C5C3A48D12.jpeg


Kidding, but I agree :mad: that the crowding at Pearson Peak is pretty insane...
 

Attachments

  • A54B44B8-75EA-45B1-ADFC-E3C5C3A48D12.jpeg
    A54B44B8-75EA-45B1-ADFC-E3C5C3A48D12.jpeg
    113.6 KB · Views: 530
Streety McCarface said:
It's really bad at all E and F gates, and most of the planes coming to Pearson from international destinations are large widebody 787s, 747s, 777s, A340s, A330s, A350s and an A380. These planes can only fit at the hammerhead, and smaller widebodies (and longbois) such as the 737, 757, 767, Future 797, A320s, A321s, are the major planes flying to the US and can only fit on the handle gates, not at the current expansion gates. Does anyone have any idea what the GTAA is thinking, because I have no idea.
Click to expand...
It's simple. They, and the airlines, are thinking that they can continue to make tons of money without spending more money.
 
They barely have enough capacity for peak. There isn't surge capacity or emergency capacity -- that is currently dangerously untested. An airport shutdown during Pearson Peak is going to be a little dicey, especially if it's an overnight shutdown. (Weather, accident, geopolitics/terrorism, computer glitch, etc), with all the cancelled passenger-filled flights coming back to all gates. At some point, it will become a major safety concern.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top