Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
PD & The Runway At YTZ  
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 821 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3578 times:

PD Q400's are limited to 70 seats due the runway length at YTZ (CYTZ). According to NAV Canada RNWY 08/26 is 4000 FT. At MTOW the q400 needs 4,819 to get airborne. Why hasn't PD tried to get the runway extended another 800-900 feet, in order to put more seats aboard their aircraft? (I know the TPA and PD aren't that good of friends) Keep in mind PD longest route from YTZ, is YTZ-MYR @ only 687 mi.

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1761 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Thread starter):
Why hasn't PD tried to get the runway extended another 800-900 feet, in order to put more seats aboard their aircraft?

The simple answer is that nobody would ever be in favor of constructing additional fill in Lake Ontario to extend YTZ's primary runway. Extending it to the west would significantly reduce, if not close, the entrance to the western gap. Extending it to the east would put an undesired runway between the Toronto Islands and Harbourfront.

Knowing that there isn't a chance of ever getting such an extension built, there's no sense proposing it just to anger people.


User currently offlineYYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 998 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3550 times:

Given the political opposition to even building a tunnel or bridge, it would be inconceivable to imagine the TPA going for it (and taking on the cost).

My $.05 (the penny has been discontinued in Canada... and my thoughts are worth rounding up!)

[Edited 2013-03-06 07:45:15]

[Edited 2013-03-06 07:45:47]

[Edited 2013-03-06 07:46:21]

User currently offlinexero9 From Canada, joined Feb 2007, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3538 times:

Just some thoughts, from someone with next to no knowledge on the matter, but I don't think their planes are usually at capacity.

Also, isn't the range of the Q400 more than double their longest route? Not having a fully-fueled Q400 should cut back on some of the weight.


User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 3338 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3538 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Would a runway extension include building out into the water? I can see NIMBYs and eco-minded people having problems with that. Also, if it aint broke, don't fix it. If they are comfortably filling their planes at 70 seats to smaller markets like MYR and smaller Canadian markets why test their luck and add more? It might just be easier to add frequency, ya know?   


\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1761 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3513 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 4):
I can see NIMBYs and eco-minded people having problems with that.

You're not wrong, but this is actually a case where I think most people in general would have a problem with it. It's also a case where commercial service at the levels being operated by PD were not there long before the people living around the airport; most folks living on the Islands have been there a long time, and it would be entirely reasonable for them to expect that the runway won't be extended several hundred feet into the harbour.


User currently offlineYchocky From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3498 times:

Forget the runway. PD has built it's reputation on it's frequency and pax ex.

I don't think stuffing more seats in a very comfortable aircraft has crossed their minds.


User currently offlineslawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3259 times:

Actually, the "stuff" being dug out of the tunnel is actually being placed in the lake at the runway end...but not to create new landfill, but to provide a shallow "safety zone" so that boats don't come too close to the runway end...

Read into this what you will, but remember that everything in terms of development at YTZ recently has been done quickly and quietly with little media attention for a reason...



"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25989 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3174 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 4):
Would a runway extension include building out into the water? I can see NIMBYs and eco-minded people having problems with that. Also, if it aint broke, don't fix it. If they are comfortably filling their planes at 70 seats to smaller markets like MYR and smaller Canadian markets why test their luck and add more? It might just be easier to add frequency, ya know?

As others have said, there is not a hope that YTZ runways will ever be expanded due to the local political opposition and environmentalists etc. who would like to see the airport closed completely. And why does PD need more seats on their Q400s? They reported a 54% load factor in February and their business model is based on comfortable aircraft and good service.

I flew on a Sky Regional (AC Express) Q400 the week before last YUL-YTZ. They have the same spacious 70 seat configuration with 34 inch pitch as PD. Very comfortable and pleasant flight. Can cross your legs with no problem. Load factor on that flight at 1:30 PM on a Monday was about 30%. About 20 passengers and 50 empty seats. PD was leaving for YTZ from a nearby gate about the same time and they seemed to have a very similar load, not more than 20 or 25 passengers.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4414 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Thread starter):

PD Q400's are limited to 70 seats due the runway length at YTZ (CYTZ). According to NAV Canada RNWY 08/26 is 4000 FT. At MTOW the q400 needs 4,819 to get airborne. Why hasn't PD tried to get the runway extended another 800-900 feet, in order to put more seats aboard their aircraft? (I know the TPA and PD aren't that good of friends) Keep in mind PD longest route from YTZ, is YTZ-MYR @ only 687 mi.

They have limited the seats to 70, not for the restriction of the airport but by the quality of service they want to provide. They could increase the number of seats and not need the extra length of runway. Besides my ex-neighbous would throw a fit if they tried to expand the airport. I don't see it ever happening even with the present mayor and council.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineAirontario From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 563 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 9):
I don't see it ever happening even with the present mayor

Rob Ford would build a 10 lane expressway direct from Pearson to the Island if he could :p


User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3110 times:

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 2):
My $.05 (the penny has been discontinued in Canada... and my thoughts are worth rounding up!)

Brilliant LOL

Quoting brilondon (Reply 9):
They have limited the seats to 70, not for the restriction of the airport but by the quality of service they want to provide. They could increase the number of seats and not need the extra length of runway. Besides my ex-neighbous would throw a fit if they tried to expand the airport. I don't see it ever happening even with the present mayor and council.

It has long been said even before PD got into the air that the reason for their 70 seats and not 71-78 seats was due the the runway length at YTZ, I believe the service argument was later and they just stuck with it.


User currently offlineaamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1061 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3005 times:

If more seats was a consideration, I'm sure they could add the extra two rows of seats and just not sell them on departures from the island. I don't think the landing weight with a 78-seater would be as big an issue as take-off weight from the island... The extra few seats might come in handy for the non-YTZ flying at peak times (YOW/YUL-YHZ-YYT for example). Even then, limiting yourself to 70 seats sold wouldn't always be necessary - I can't imagine there are too many Q400s flying YTZ-YOW/YUL/YSB/YQG that get too close to the restricted MTOW at the island in most conditions.

User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2357 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2986 times:

A couple of points....

It's not the TPA that's the problem. It's Toronto City Council. The TPA is actually quite Porter friendly. City Council on the other hand, would love to kill Porter if they could. And they've tried everything they can.

Next, after talking to some Porter employees, as far as I understand, baggage space and weight are issues on their longer flights. Not seating capacity.

The way I see it, the main value of a runway extension is to add some operating margin and to allow Porter to eventually deploy whatever 100 seater turboprop comes about. In any event, I think getting US CBP pre-clearance is far more pressing issue than a runway extension.


User currently onlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2683 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2829 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Thread starter):
At MTOW the q400 needs 4,819 to get airborne.

That figure of 4819 ft is most likely the balanced field takeoff length required. (meaning additional length is factored in, in the event of a rejected takeoff at V1.)

A fully loaded Q400 will get airborne much sooner than that ! (however legally cannot from YTZ ! )

Thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineAirCanada787 From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2824 times:

Quoting slawko (Reply 7):
Actually, the "stuff" being dug out of the tunnel is actually being placed in the lake at the runway end...but not to create new landfill, but to provide a shallow "safety zone" so that boats don't come too close to the runway end...

Read into this what you will, but remember that everything in terms of development at YTZ recently has been done quickly and quietly with little media attention for a reason...

I heard the same thing about the earth being removed from the tunnel project being dumped at the end of the runway however I heard that Mr Deluce was hoping that he could eventually get approval for a runway extension... However we all know how unlikely that is to happen.

Quoting ytz (Reply 13):
Next, after talking to some Porter employees, as far as I understand, baggage space and weight are issues on their longer flights. Not seating capacity.

  



The mind, like a parachute, functions only when open.
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2635 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 13):
I think getting US CBP pre-clearance is far more pressing issue than a runway extension.

Agreed. That will enable LGA and DCA for PD, the 2 big airport gaps in its network. YTZ already handles more xborder traffic than YWG which has pre-clearance. However, I think the US would be more willing to extend pre-clearance to YTZ if a US carrier flew to YTZ and was lobbying for it. A lone Canadian carrier lobbying for pre-clearance likely has little sway.

Quoting ytz (Reply 13):
It's not the TPA that's the problem. It's Toronto City Council. The TPA is actually quite Porter friendly. City Council on the other hand, would love to kill Porter if they could. And they've tried everything they can.

Not really. City council is pretty supportive of YTZ -- they approved the tunnel now under construction. The highest profile opposition to YTZ were David Miller and Olivia Chow, but these 2 hard-left reactionaries have moved on. TPA is supportive of YTZ since the PD operation has resulted in substantial revenue growth for the TPA.

The TPA needs to reduce YTZ reliance on PD. Presumably they are (or should be) seeking additional carriers. US Express to PHL and United Express to EWR and CLE seem logical additions to me. Also Bearskin to YYB, and perhaps other smaller points in N Ont.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2566 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 16):

Agreed. That will enable LGA and DCA for PD, the 2 big airport gaps in its network. YTZ already handles more xborder traffic than YWG which has pre-clearance. However, I think the US would be more willing to extend pre-clearance to YTZ if a US carrier flew to YTZ and was lobbying for it. A lone Canadian carrier lobbying for pre-clearance likely has little sway.

From what I read last year, CBP dosent really want to added another pre-clearance facility... but thats politics & money

I know JFK may be a hassle, but why not give it a shot. AC dose it 3x daily I believe


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 17):
I know JFK may be a hassle, but why not give it a shot. AC dose it 3x daily I believe

Yeah JFK could be an option for PD without pre-clearance. Perhaps also YHU (for PD or Pascan).

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 17):
From what I read last year, CBP dosent really want to added another pre-clearance facility... but thats politics & money

If xborder traffic continues to build, they will eventually. Although PD has stopped growing (last Q400 delivered in 2011 and no more on order) and there is no indication any US carriers are interested in YTZ. Perhaps the return of United Express Q400's to EWR (now operated by Republic vs Colgan) might see UE show interest (again).



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1932 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2334 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 13):
It's not the TPA that's the problem. It's Toronto City Council. The TPA is actually quite Porter friendly. City Council on the other hand, would love to kill Porter if they could. And they've tried everything they can.

Toronto City Council is extremely divided on just about every issue that comes before them, so you can't really say they are collectively anti-Porter, rather there are a handful of individual Councillors that don't see the value in growing YTZ or PD.

Quoting slawko (Reply 7):
Actually, the "stuff" being dug out of the tunnel is actually being placed in the lake at the runway end...but not to create new landfill, but to provide a shallow "safety zone" so that boats don't come too close to the runway end...

Read into this what you will, but remember that everything in terms of development at YTZ recently has been done quickly and quietly with little media attention for a reason...

I remember quite well that when they started dumping the dirt into the lake after breaking ground, the NIMBYs went nuts. I also remember there were even people on my Facebook who had shared YTZ NIMBY propaganda saying that there were already official plans to build the runway and that they would be flying jets into the airport. All of it is non-sense of course.

Quoting ytz (Reply 13):
In any event, I think getting US CBP pre-clearance is far more pressing issue than a runway extension.

  



Flying refined.
User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2185 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2238 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
environmentalists etc. who would like to see the airport closed completely.

I consider myself an environmentalist, but favour as many downtown airports as possible. It's a shame what happened in Chicago, Edmonton, and we need more operations like in Toronto and Cleveland. The carbon costs incurred getting all the way out to YYZ or YEG for example would actually support the use of in-close facilities.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 16):
However, I think the US would be more willing to extend pre-clearance to YTZ if a US carrier flew to YTZ and was lobbying for it.

Not gonna happen anytime soon, no matter who lobbies for it. With the recent CBP reductions due to the sequestration events in the US, there is no hope of new or expanded facilities at present.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

Quoting threepoint (Reply 20):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
environmentalists etc. who would like to see the airport closed completely.

I consider myself an environmentalist, but favour as many downtown airports as possible. It's a shame what happened in Chicago, Edmonton, and we need more operations like in Toronto and Cleveland. The carbon costs incurred getting all the way out to YYZ or YEG for example would actually support the use of in-close facilities.

YTZ is great for the environment of Toronto. There is essentially no public parking at YTZ which encourages public transit, and every YTZ passenger is one less passenger driving to YYZ or taking a bus.

Quoting threepoint (Reply 20):
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 16):
However, I think the US would be more willing to extend pre-clearance to YTZ if a US carrier flew to YTZ and was lobbying for it.

Not gonna happen anytime soon, no matter who lobbies for it. With the recent CBP reductions due to the sequestration events in the US, there is no hope of new or expanded facilities at present.

Maybe in 3-5 years for YTZ. That's what I was thinking.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1932 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 21):
and every YTZ passenger is one less passenger driving to YYZ or taking a bus.

Until they build a subway out there   

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 21):
Maybe in 3-5 years for YTZ. That's what I was thinking.

Personally, I would put 5 years at the optimistic end of my range. But with that said, I'd have no problem being wrong!

But say it happened tomorrow, would PD bail on EWR for LGA? They've recently invested in a lounge there (although I don't know how it compares to the one at YTZ) so I don't think they're in any rush to leave? Would they serve both?



Flying refined.
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4414 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 22):
Until they build a subway out there  

A light railway is being built to connect Union Station with the airport, to be ready for 2015.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2077 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 22):
But say it happened tomorrow, would PD bail on EWR for LGA? They've recently invested in a lounge there (although I don't know how it compares to the one at YTZ) so I don't think they're in any rush to leave? Would they serve both?

They'd probably serve both. A wholesale transfer of the 13 daily flights to LGA would not be in the cards. Even with pre-clearance tomorrow, they would still need LGA slots (either by purchase or allotment when others came up). Even then, initially they would like only get a few daily slots (ie, not 26/day as they have at EWR, or whatever the number is). So LGA could only ever (likely) start out slowly.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2357 posts, RR: 25
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2103 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 24):
They'd probably serve both.

I only partially agree. Like you say, the restriction is slots. But if they could get 13 slots at LGA? They'd move in a hearbeat. Porter's whole image is based around flying from urban centre to urban centre.

And although EWR is decent, when one thinks of New York City, quite frequently, LGA is viewed as its urban airport. Then again, maybe they'd split the frequencies and serve both for the sake of their interline agreements.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25989 posts, RR: 22
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2086 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 25):
Like you say, the restriction is slots. But if they could get 13 slots at LGA? They'd move in a hearbeat.

It's not just slots. PD can't operate to LGA until LGA has no facilities to handle international arrivals that aren't pre-cleared. I expect
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2357 posts, RR: 25
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1938 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 26):
It's not just slots. PD can't operate to LGA until LGA has no facilities to handle international arrivals that aren't pre-cleared.

See prior discussion. Our musing about LGA was conditional on there being preclearance at YTZ.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Breaking News: Taca A321 Out Of The Runway At SJO posted Thu Oct 18 2012 15:31:53 by CRFLY
Crack On The Runway At BKK? posted Thu Jul 5 2012 23:23:07 by Baldwin471
DL Connection CRJ Skids Off The Runway At FOD posted Mon Jan 23 2012 22:34:47 by evanbu
UA Express E145 Off The Runway At Ottawa Airport posted Sun Sep 4 2011 14:01:14 by crazyfoo88
ExpressJet Off The Runway At MLI posted Mon Aug 29 2011 13:38:37 by Acey559
GF A320 Off The Runway At COK posted Mon Aug 29 2011 00:13:35 by KFlyer
Plane Off The Runway At SeaTac posted Mon Nov 22 2010 16:56:26 by F9Animal
WindJet A319 Skids Off Of The Runway At Palermo posted Fri Sep 24 2010 13:19:51 by alwaysontherun
Plane Skids Off The Runway At TIJ Due To Rain/wind posted Thu Jan 21 2010 18:23:50 by Marcus
Kingfisher ATR Skids Off The Runway At BOM posted Tue Nov 10 2009 04:49:53 by Cricket