AF340
Topic Author
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:57 am

Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:54 am

I sure this has been talked about in the past but I wasn't here so...

For all you Toronto/Ontario aviation guys/gals what do you think of the proposed Pickering Airport. I personally severely dislike the GTAA and don't want to see them have another airport. Also the airport I do my flight training at (Buttonville) would probably close if this happens. I want to see a YYZ reliever if it isn't owned by the GTAA and the fees aren't so damn high.



AF340
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:59 am

No chance since the GTAA already is in control of Pickering. Some of the business users will object very strongly about moving to Pickering. So some way may be found to keep Buttonville alive but none is yet on the horizon.
 
BlueSkys
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:05 am

If we can get all the people on the Island to shut up for a bit, we can build a bridge to to YTZ and do some expansion there.

I live downtown and that would be a GREAT location for a much busier airport... It wont happen though Sad

I see no point in Pickering happening, just expand YYZ or YTZ. And I sure as heck do not want to see YKZ close down, I fly there once in a while. Nice airport!
 
AF340
Topic Author
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:57 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:58 am

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 2):
If we can get all the people on the Island to shut up for a bit

How true... why would you want to live there anyway Wink I would only for the airport!

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 2):
expand YYZ or YTZ

YYZ a possibility. YTZ not. Mayor Miller for 4 more years...

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 2):
Nice airport!

I really like it. I find it quite funny that it is Canada's 8th busiest airport (aircraft movements).

AF340
 
MattRB
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:30 am

Quoting AF340 (Thread starter):
Also the airport I do my flight training at (Buttonville) would probably close if this happens.

How likely would that be, given that there's a considerable investment being made to put in a new control tower at YKZ?

As to Pickering? The land has been expropriated, and, as our esteemed PM is fond of saying as of late, it's time to fish or cut bait with regards to a reliever airport for Toronto. If Pickering isn't willing, I'm sure we can find some other community willing to take it on.
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3010
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:46 am

Mirabel...er Pickering is not a solution to YYZ. It would take years to design and build and the costs associated with a brand new airport would be astronomical.

Was there not a plan to redevelop Oshawa's airport and make it eventually a secondary airport to YYZ?

Connecting would be a nightmare. Try driving across the 401 from Pickering/Oshawa to Pearson during the daytime, I hope that you have an extra three hours to waste.(total time,not just drive time) Then checking in at YYZ and going through security again. This is akin to flying into JFK only to have to go to LGA to connect flights.

With all the improvements (I use the term loosely) at YYZ and millions of $$'s being spent at that airport I don't think the government will be willing to pony up the coin for a new airport.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
BlueSkys
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:53 am

Once again, YTZ is the best bet, you land and you are in Downtown Toronto.... Could not get a better location, sort of like Kai Tak. Once Miller is out they can do some dredging and extend the runways to accommodate some larger airplanes.


There is no other location that makes sense, Oshawa is to far, Pickering is to far..... Who the heck wants to fly to Pickering anyways???  duck 
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:02 am

Pickering is a bad idea, for several reasons:
1. It's simply not needed. YYZ has 5 runways and plenty of terminal capacity (and room for more).
2. It's more cost effective to add to YYZ than an all-new airport at Pickering.
3. The majority of growth in the GTA region is in the West which is where YYZ is. Pickering would arguably service only the slower growing Eastern burbs.
4. The hubbing capabilities of YYZ would be reduced if traffic was split betw 2 airports. Witness YUL/YMX in the 80's.
5. Local commuter traffic can be developed (further) at YTZ, YHM and Buttonville.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
pacifica
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 4:56 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:45 am

Maybe it's just because it's my home airport, but I always thought that YKZ could serve as a nice little commuter airport for the locals in York Region, with service to maybe Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Chicago, and New York ala a Porter type service. With a large centralized population (250,000+ in Markham alone) and a ton of nearby hi-tech businesses, I think it could be viable. And there is still quite a bit of land unused on the site (although it would required buses to transport passengers to their planes from the terminal), probably enough for at least 6-8 commuter ATR72/Q400 size stands.

Although all the nearby residents would probably complain the idea away (even though the ATR makes less noise than Stronach's Falcons do).

But alas, one can only dream right?
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:52 am

Air Atlantic (operating as a CP commuter carrier) used to operate Dash 8's from YKZ to YOW/YUL in the late 80's.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:38 am

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 2):
If we can get all the people on the Island to shut up for a bit, we can build a bridge to to YTZ and do some expansion there.

I live downtown and that would be a GREAT location for a much busier airport... It wont happen though

The bridge really isn't what is holding up any expansion at YTZ. The issue is that it is penned in by water.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 7):
5. Local commuter traffic can be developed (further) at YTZ, YHM and Buttonville.

Not to mention farther out airports that serve communities that currently use YYZ heavily. Think YKF
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
AF340
Topic Author
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:57 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:12 pm

Quoting MattRB (Reply 4):
How likely would that be, given that there's a considerable investment being made to put in a new control tower at YKZ?

They made it removable...

YKZ's licence expires in 2010 and that is when the GTAA will cease it's funding to it. I think that Toronto Airways Flight School, Seneca Flight College and MillionAir would split the bill each year if the GTAA stopped funding because they wouldn't want to pay the GTAA's high fees.

AF340
 
BlueSkys
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:59 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
The issue is that it is penned in by water

Dredging is a simple (expensive) solution, just make some new land to expand the runways. The new Hong Kong airport is on a completely man mad island.
 
AF340
Topic Author
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:57 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:24 pm

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 12):

With all the condos and the island residents complaining  Yeah sure , it will never happen. I wish it would but we are at the mercy of thousands of condo-people. They made a big stink about Q400's imagine 737s (or worse a 727  Wow!). But imagine the spotting from the CN tower!

I guess YZD would be an okay location, if Bombardier would let it go... and it was expanded. It is relatively close to YYZ and although you would have to go on the hell that is the 401 it would be an okay connection. Whatever the case, I just don't want the GTAA to be involved.


AF340
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:23 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
The bridge really isn't what is holding up any expansion at YTZ. The issue is that it is penned in by water.

That's not it either. The current runway and facilities can easily handle much more traffic. In City Express' peak year (1989), YTZ handled about 550k pax to YUL, YOW and EWR. This dropped to about 40k pax in 2005 (with Jazz' reduced service). With 5 gates (as of December), and delivery of the 5th & 6th Q400's, Porter will possibly exceed the 550k pax mark in 2008.

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 12):
Dredging is a simple (expensive) solution, just make some new land to expand the runways.

Dredging involves an environmental assessment that will take years to get past, if it happens. Anyway, there is a permanent ban on anything but turboprops at YTZ (other than small business jets) so the Q400 is the largest commercial aircraft that can land there. Porter could fly to further destinations with a longer runway at YTZ but a longer runway will never happen.

Quoting AF340 (Reply 13):
I wish it would but we are at the mercy of thousands of condo-people.

Oddly, the opposition to Porter and YTZ seems to have evaporated. We can look at Porter expanding as it sees fit, which is great.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
AF340
Topic Author
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:57 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:27 pm

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 14):
Oddly, the opposition to Porter and YTZ seems to have evaporated

That's great but that's because the Q400s are so quiet. I think it'll be different if they let bigger jet aircraft into the airport.


AF340
 
BlueSkys
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:57 pm

Quoting AF340 (Reply 13):
With all the condos and the island residents complaining , it will never happen. I wish it would but we are at the mercy of thousands of condo-people. They made a big stink about Q400's imagine 737s (or worse a 727 ). But imagine the spotting from the CN tower!

LoL, I am one of those condo people. I would enjoy watching them land from my living room, but unfortunatly people would not all agree....

One thing all of the Condo people would agree on though is having a 1.5 min ride to the airport or a 10 min walk  Smile
 
ReidYYZ
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:00 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:22 pm

My theory is (not exclusively mine, maybe I read it somewhere and forgot the origin), Pickering isn't for now. It is for 20-30 years from now (or sooner) when YYZ is saturated. When the saturation of YZ happens, and it will, Pickering would be best to start fresh and close YZ. To keep them both operational and split the ops between the two, well, YUL/YMX all over again. It is a case of shit, or get off the pot. Before anyone says it, yes, YUL was supposed to close with YMX taking over. But that was a different time and different political environment and it is a whole other debate, quite covered in other threads ad nauseum.
 
YYZatcboy
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:26 pm

YZD would not really be able to expand even if Bombardier let it go. It's fenced in by Shepherd, The Allen Expressway, the 401 and Keele St. Another issue is that it sits right under the FAF for YYZ's 24 series rwys. We'd have to kick the military out though, they have an armoury there. A plus side to it however is it has subway access from Downsview Station. Oh Imagine the possibility.

Buttonville and City Center could absolutly ease some of the load from YYZ. However YYZ it's self has the space and with some more pavement on the ground it could easily handle more traffic. (Even so, we only really see holding patterns when the weather is bad) Upgrade to RNP airspace if we have not already, Get another Cat2/3 ILS and YYZ should be set.

as to fees, YYZ's fees would be lower if they could convince the government to lower the airport land rent fee.
DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:47 pm

Well if you ask the airlines @ YYZ, the answer is simple: BAD.................. as Pickering is on the wrong side of YYZ.

Cheers,
 
BlueSkys
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:08 pm

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 18):
A plus side to it however is it has subway access from Downsview Station. Oh Imagine the possibility.

A new Subway?  pray 
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:24 pm

I'll put in my two cents as a non-GTA resident: Pickering is a bad idea.

As stated, it's on the wrong side of the area's economic growth. The GTAA would probably want to scale it to handle more than just regional service, and connections across Toronto would be a nightmare.

I believe a better solution would be to expand (modestly) either Buttonville or Oshawa so they can handle flights to YUL, YOW, YXU, etc. I don't believe you'll ever see runway expansion at YTZ, although there is no technical reason it can't be done. It's politics !
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
AF340
Topic Author
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:57 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:26 pm

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 20):
A new Subway?

We can't pay for the ones we have now... Wink

AF340
 
BlueSkys
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:06 am

Quoting AF340 (Reply 22):
We can't pay for the ones we have now...

A good reason to re-elect Miller AGAIN!!! and raise every T.O tax again! Of Course, with no benefit to the Torontonian! or Toronto for that matter.  Wink
 
AF340
Topic Author
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:57 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:21 am

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 23):
A good reason to re-elect Miller AGAIN!!! and raise every T.O tax again! Of Course, with no benefit to the Torontonian! or Toronto for that matter.

It is hard to believe that Lastman was actually better...
If they do expand YTZ, I will buy a condo as close to the airport as possible. I'll be the next AirNikon!

AF340
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:06 am

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 16):
LoL, I am one of those condo people. I would enjoy watching them land from my living room, but unfortunatly people would not all agree....

I'm one of those harbourfront people, and I alos like seeing the Q400's land at YTZ.  Smile

Quoting ReidYYZ (Reply 17):
Pickering isn't for now. It is for 20-30 years from now (or sooner) when YYZ is saturated.



Quoting ReidYYZ (Reply 17):
When the saturation of YZ happens, and it will, Pickering would be best to start fresh and close YZ.

Define "saturation". By any definition (including massive traffic growth), arguably YYZ cannot and will not max out.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:37 am

Quoting MattRB (Reply 4):
I'm sure we can find some other community willing to take it on.

Good luck.

Airports are like Dump's in the public's mind. (Dump as in garbage dump). No one wants one in their backyard.

Everyone here should go read the ACTUAL business plan for Pickering.

IF they go ahead and build Pickering, it will *NOT* be seeing airliner traffic until WELL into the future. (15 years I think it showed).

Pickering would be mainly a GA perhaps Cargo airport for the time being, UNTIL the capacity is needed.

We all have to understand something.. The Gov't HAS to expropriate lands NOW for the future. If Durham Region grows as much and as fast as Toronto, Peel and other regions has, soon we'll be building a replacement airport in Barrie, because all the land will be gone.

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
BE77
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:15 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:07 am

Oshawa and Hamilton both make more sense as relievers - as megalopolis grows, it makes less sense to drive (or subway as discussed) through all the mess if you can get decent O and D frequencies to more places - as Hamilton is getting. A "new" international type airport is just going to be costly, nasty, and then imagine transferring (as during the Dorval / Mirabel mess) if some yahoo decides that one or the other is domestic, the other international.
Hey - how about building the condos in Pickering, so the island airport can be used better?
Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
 
ReidYYZ
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:00 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:06 am

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 25):
Define "saturation".

As per the GTAA's master plan, with a sixth Rwy open, the aircraft movement capacity at YYZ will max out projected in the year 2020 with approx. 660,000 movements. Land at YZ is finite, for either rwy or terminal space. When either is maxed out, it is saturated. Current technology and information not withstanding, it is ignorant not to expect this to happen. YYZ saturation can and will happen, most likely in our lifetime.

Besides, with 18,600 acres in the Pickering lands, they can build more than just 6 runways.
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:29 am

The east side of Toronto is growing in leaps and bounds. So some relief on from that side of the city even for GA and some smaller commuter airlines will be needed. It would be all point to point. I can't comment whether the Oshawa airport could be expanded because I know very little about it. I do know that however nice it would be to put fill in and expand City Centre it just isn't going to happen. I just hope city centre will keep running for a long time. As has been said Downsview is right on the approach paths and hemmed in with city. In addition some of the runways have been closed and new housing is going up in the area. One thing to have Global Express' and Q's flying in and out another thing for scheduled service. I think Buttonville will be the little engine that could for a while yet.
 
jamincan
Posts: 572
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:28 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:47 pm

Quoting Pacifica (Reply 8):
Maybe it's just because it's my home airport, but I always thought that YKZ could serve as a nice little commuter airport for the locals in York Region, with service to maybe Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Chicago, and New York ala a Porter type service. With a large centralized population (250,000+ in Markham alone) and a ton of nearby hi-tech businesses, I think it could be viable. And there is still quite a bit of land unused on the site (although it would required buses to transport passengers to their planes from the terminal), probably enough for at least 6-8 commuter ATR72/Q400 size stands.

Although all the nearby residents would probably complain the idea away (even though the ATR makes less noise than Stronach's Falcons do).

But alas, one can only dream right?

Didn't Bearskin serve YKZ from YOW for awhile?
 
pacifica
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 4:56 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:56 pm

Quoting Jamincan (Reply 30):
Didn't Bearskin serve YKZ from YOW for awhile?

Yeah. I think it lasted a little over a year or two, and I never really did find out why they ended the service. Although it must have been tough to make money with the small Pilatus PC-12s that they were using.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:04 pm

Quoting ReidYYZ (Reply 28):
As per the GTAA's master plan, with a sixth Rwy open, the aircraft movement capacity at YYZ will max out projected in the year 2020 with approx. 660,000 movements. Land at YZ is finite, for either rwy or terminal space. When either is maxed out, it is saturated.

None of this means "saturation". LGW handles more pax than YYZ with just one runway. LHR handles more than double the current YYZ traffic with just 2 runways. If/when YYZ maxes out (wrt movements), all they need to do is eliminate general/business aviation and raise the landing fees for commuter aicraft thus creating more slots. But this is decades if not generations away.

As for terminal capacity, there is enough room for terminal expansion to handle 100M+ pax at YYZ. Expanding T1, T3, developing the infield terminal and adding a terminal at the former MDD site will allow virtually unlimited expansion options.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:51 pm

I agree that it will take a long time for yyz's capacity to be reached. I think a relief airport has more to do with highway congestion than airport congestion. If the government (Fed,Prov, and Mun) had their act together there would be another West/East subway. If the white elephant Shepherd line came west to the Airport or the cancelled Eglinton line was built as it should have been, getting to Pearson would be much easier. If the current city council wasn't in place the Spadina and waterfront Street car line would have a loop one block south to the ferry to the City Centre Airport. And of course the stalled rail link from downtown to the airport would be under construction instead of in limbo. It is about time that the thinking demonstrates real leadership, is more long term in scope and not so reactionary and backward not much is going to change until a huge crisis developes. YVR's rail link is making huge progress, YUL has a line in planning - not to mention how their subway covers way more of their city than Toronto's (ie, not just focused on getting downtown), in the meantime Toronto diddles. OK rant over now.  Smile
 
brilondon
Posts: 3010
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:17 pm

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 20):
A new Subway?

Mel Lastman's subway along Sheppard could conceivably be extended over to YYZ I guess, but the CN line runs on the northern perimeter of YYZ and would be billions of $$ less, and be able to run straight to the downtown within about 30 minutes, where as the subway would take at least an hour and I would not want to bring luggage and the family on the subway before a long international flight.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:47 pm

I agree Brilondon except the Subway would bring people from all over the city not just downtown. If the rail line ever gets built and links up with the subway somewhere then that would solve the problem. One of the biggest problems with Toronto is everything is downtown oriented. In Montreal the subway is in a big square with lines that run off of it. So you can get from point A to B in the city a little better. Rapid Transit is needed all over the city. The somewhat aggressive plan of the TTC to establish some light rail lines all over the city (new generation streetcars) was perfect except funding doesn't exist. Someone in Scarborough (east end) would need to go downtown first and then could catch the train to the Airport. That isn't practical.
 
ReidYYZ
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:00 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:57 pm

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 32):
LGW handles more pax than YYZ with just one runway. LHR handles more than double the current YYZ traffic with just 2 runways.

You'll have to excuse me, the most current numbers I could find are: LGW-263000 movements. LHR-477000 movements and YYZ-417000 movements. All 2006 figures from respective airport authorities. 263K is not more than 417K. 477K is not more than double 417K.
I didn't make:

Quoting ReidYYZ (Reply 28):
YYZ will max out projected in the year 2020 with approx. 660,000 movements

up. It is from the GTAA site, master plan. Granted it is a projection from 1999 figures and subject to minor variation. If the airport authority states it will max out in 2020 for movements for the given projected six runways, who, if anyone can argue. I'm not quoting the YYZNEWS, some Rotman School of Business thesis, or a 16 year old enthusiast in his parents basement in Etobicoke. Secondly, a movement is per aircraft. I have never said anything about pax loads. A C172, G IV or a A346 is a movement each. As you said, raising fees to squeeze out the commuter crowd (which is not a smart idea, as they feed the majors) does not create more slots.

As far as terminal capacity, as I've said before:

Quoting ReidYYZ (Reply 28):
Land at YZ is finite, for either rwy or terminal space. When either is maxed out, it is saturated.

When you run out of runway capacity OR terminal capacity, you are MAXED OUT.

I thought I clearly stated all this. But for curiosity sake, what is your definition of "saturated"

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 33):
I agree......

I agree with you, in terms of access to the airport. It is indeed shameful, to want to call yourself a world class airport, and you have to rely on bus service down the 427 to get to the downtown core. The politicians don't want to start a project they can't be around to see finished for many reasons: 1) when completed, they won't be in power to take all the credit, 2) expenditures will come out of their budget and they won't be able to reap the rewards 3) The sight of the expenditures will be a hot topic in any future election (bridge to the island). 4) The person they lost the election to WILL be in power, and taking all the credit. It always brings me back to the 'Big Dig' in Boston (Burying their Green Monster elevated highway downtown-think Gardner Expressway) It takes an enormous set of cajones to implement and see through a project like that. I'm no GTAA cheerleader, but I'm one of the few here that applauded the building of T1 Taj Mahal. Now that it is up and running, I see the nay-sayers have gone back to where they came from.

**Rant-o.........Oh who am I kidding, I'm in a constant state of rant.
 
Cruiser
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:08 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:10 pm

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 25):
I'm one of those harbourfront people, and I alos like seeing the Q400's land at YTZ. Smile

I am one of them too and I love sitting there and watching the Q400's as I sit in my living room. Too bad they didn't clean the windows more often in my building or there would be more pics on A.net from my condo.

As for Pickering, I think that eventually it would be beneficial to the GTA region, but it certainly will have to done properly and started with GA, and then Cargo. Passenger service would be a disaster at Pickering as was seen at Mirabel. It just should not even be considered.

Just as as FYI, any new airports within the GTA (I believe 60 miles from the center of Toronto) will fall under the jurisdiction of the GTAA - Pickering or otherwise. Knock the YYZ management all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they came into a very difficult situation (an airport that needed rebuilding!), had to deal with a less-than-stellar Canadian Government which wanted to milk YYZ for everything possible, and a poor aviation climate during the major reconstruction effort (AC & CDN merger, AC Bankruptcy, C3000/Royal Collapse, 9/11, SARS). They had a lot going on and they did an admirable job considering everything that happened. While it may be a little bit late, they are now taking the initiative to cut costs across the board and are making progress. You will see them slowly lowering fees and attracting more airlines which will make them more and more competitive. Also, hopefully there will be a rent cut for them from the feds, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

James
Leahy on Per Seat Costs: "Have you seen the B-2 fly-by at almost US$1bn a copy? It has only 2 seats!"
 
heathrow
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:33 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:14 am

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 2):
If we can get all the people on the Island to shut up for a bit, we can build a bridge to to YTZ and do some expansion there.

If they wont let us have BAe146's cos of noise poloution, how the hell do you think they're going to feel about a 763?

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 20):
A new Subway? pray



Quoting AF340 (Reply 22):
We can't pay for the ones we have now... Wink



Quoting BE77 (Reply 27):
Oshawa and Hamilton both make more sense as relievers

They are both way out of Toronto. That's like driving from LON to BHX to fly

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 29):
The east side of Toronto is growing in leaps and bounds. So some relief on from that side of the city even for GA and some smaller commuter airlines will be needed. It would be all point to point.

I live in Scarborough, and I'd like nothing more than not to have to take an hours subway and a half hour bus to get to pearson, but the fact is, theres nowhere for an airport, and if they found it, it would be even more innaccessible than pearson.


YYZ will be fine. Worse comes to worse, they'll expand they're area and make a new terminal. we need one anyways to make up for the missing 2 (Come on, who has a terminal 1 and 3?).
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:51 am

Quoting ReidYYZ (Reply 36):
Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 32):
LGW handles more pax than YYZ with just one runway. LHR handles more than double the current YYZ traffic with just 2 runways.

You'll have to excuse me, the most current numbers I could find are: LGW-263000 movements. LHR-477000 movements and YYZ-417000 movements. All 2006 figures from respective airport authorities. 263K is not more than 417K. 477K is not more than double 417K.

A more accurate picture of airport capacity is by pax count, not movements. Anyway, by either count, YYZ is decades or generations from maxing out. Rather than blindly taking the GTAA numbers as factual, perhaps you could ask by LGW can handle 263k movements with one runway, but somehow YYZ will "max out" at 660k movements with 5 runways. Using the movements/runway ratio of LGW, YYZ should be able to handle 1M+ movements.

Quoting ReidYYZ (Reply 36):
When you run out of runway capacity OR terminal capacity, you are MAXED OUT.

Correct, but any reasonable analysis suggests that YYZ is decades and decades away from maxing out based on its 5 runways (let alone the planned 6th) and land for terminal expansion. Unless you choose to parrot the GTAA assumptions.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
ReidYYZ
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:00 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:36 am

You asked me for my definition of saturation. I thought I was pretty clear with:



Quoting ReidYYZ (Reply 28):
Land at YZ is finite, for either rwy or terminal space. When either is maxed out, it is saturated.



Quoting ReidYYZ (Reply 36):
When you run out of runway capacity OR terminal capacity, you are MAXED OUT.

I'm still waiting for yours. To now change to "more accurate picture of airport capacity is by pax count, not movements" why stop there. Why not go for "Baggage handled is really the true indicator", "Quantity of catered casserole meals truly define the heart of an airports operation" or any other argument to suit your needs.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 39):
Rather than blindly taking the GTAA numbers as factual.....

Where would you recommend I search for cold, hard, accurate facts about an airports operation, capacity and growth if not the operator of same. Should I ask Transport Canada, Mississauga Mayor McCallion or Toronto Mayor Miller? Where do you think they get the information? Don't answer, the GTAA.

Even I'm sick of this nonsensical argument, but why stop here.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 39):
perhaps you could ask by LGW can handle 263k movements with one runway, but somehow YYZ will "max out" at 660k movements with 5 runways. Using the movements/runway ratio of LGW, YYZ should be able to handle 1M+ movements.

Do you work at the airport? Have you ever flown out of the airport? Have you ever experienced a day in southern Ontario above a slight breeze? Do you understand the theory of flight? If there is a 'no' after each question, then I'm sorry, let me explain. YYZ's five ILS equiped runways are intersecting. Three at 237 deg. and two more at 327 deg. Rwy 05/23, 06R/24L and 06L/24R are orientated for the prevailing east/west winds of the geography. Rwy 15R/33L and 15L33R are for the 5% of the time when the winds are in a north/south orientation, primarily in the winter and also early in the morning on saturdays, so as not to piss off Mississauga citizens sleeping in. Movements cannot happen on all 5 runways at the same time. So it is not 5 times the runway capacity. It is only twice. Rwys 24L and 24 R cannot operate simultaneously as they lack the 210M separation as required by Transport Canada document TP312 Aerodromes Standards and Recommended Practices for a code 3 or 4 runway. Secondly, the runway utilization has been capped by the GTAA at 85%. At 100%, the maximum throughput would result in a level of delay that would be unacceptable for significant portions of peak periods. Look at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. There they have 5 runways, running in the same direction and at any time 3 are used for parrallel ILS operation.

This is my stop, and I'm getting off. On this joyous ride I realized that one of two things is happening. One, you just don't get it, never will. I have done nothing but state facts (do you want references for all statements, Google them, or at least the ones i haven't already provided) you have done nothing but state opinion. Secondly, you don't necessarily care much for the argument itself, you just like to goad people into these rants and get real pleasure as they spend time arguing your perceived ignorance. If that's true, my hat's off, you got me and thanks. It was a good excersize for my researching skills. Take care and best regards. that was fun.
 
BlueSkys
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:43 am

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 35):
I agree Brilondon except the Subway would bring people from all over the city not just downtown. If the rail line ever gets built and links up with the subway somewhere then that would solve the problem. One of the biggest problems with Toronto is everything is downtown oriented. In Montreal the subway is in a big square with lines that run off of it. So you can get from point A to B in the city a little better. Rapid Transit is needed all over the city. The somewhat aggressive plan of the TTC to establish some light rail lines all over the city (new generation streetcars) was perfect except funding doesn't exist. Someone in Scarborough (east end) would need to go downtown first and then could catch the train to the Airport. That isn't practical.

You could not be more right, someone from Mississauga for example, has a 2.5 hour PT ride to downtown unless they take the GO which is not always the best route as it is very limited.

Toronto has a HORRIBLE transit system if you need to get out of downtown or in, if you are local than it is still functional, barely.

One more thing, we need our subways to run MUCH later than they run now, they stop before 2am.....!!! If we want to cut down on drinking and driving we need to get that Rocket runing 24/7 ASAP!!!
 
MattRB
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:39 am

Quoting ReidYYZ (Reply 40):
Rwys 24L and 24 R cannot operate simultaneously as they lack the 210M separation as required by Transport Canada document TP312 Aerodromes Standards and Recommended Practices for a code 3 or 4 runway.

They operate simultaneously all the time. Usually 24L is the inbound arrivals and 24R is operating as the outbound departures with 23 doing double duty as both a departure/arrival rwy.
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:09 am

Quoting ReidYYZ (Reply 40):
I have done nothing but state facts (do you want references for all statements, Google them, or at least the ones i haven't already provided) you have done nothing but state opinion.

You have not stated facts. You have just parroted the GTAA assumptions without any analysis at all.

Under no reasonable review can anyone conclude decisively that YYZ will max out at 660k movements, and that it will happen it 2020. There are too many variables, such as additional terminal capacity, more efficient runway usage, differential landing fees to encourage use of larger aircraft, and more efficient terminal/gate usage. I realize that a 5-runway system will have less than a 5x limit than a one-runway system such as LGW, but certainly more than double. And given that LGW currently handles MORE pax than YYZ with only one runway and LESS room for terminals, there is clearly almost limitless expansion possible at YYZ.

Quoting ReidYYZ (Reply 40):
This is my stop, and I'm getting off. On this joyous ride I realized that one of two things is happening. One, you just don't get it, never will. I have done nothing but state facts (do you want references for all statements, Google them, or at least the ones i haven't already provided) you have done nothing but state opinion. Secondly, you don't necessarily care much for the argument itself, you just like to goad people into these rants and get real pleasure as they spend time arguing your perceived ignorance.


This is a discussion site, so if opinion, thought and ideas outside your comfort zone are uncomfortable, then this is not a site for you. Think outside the box once in a while. Look at some truly busy airports that handle far more pax than YYZ with less terminal capacity and runways.....then ask yourself why. It will make those GTAA "facts" seems disputable.

[Edited 2007-11-04 21:14:51]
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:07 pm

In the early '90s, I remember a commuter airline flew from Oshawa to (of all places) DET. Has any other airline offered scheduled service from Oshawa?

I'm a little surprised Northwest Airlink hasn't tried DTW-Oshawa. They've been able to make DTW-Kitchener work, because of all the traffic from Detroit to the Toyota plant in Cambridge, even though Kitchener is on the same side of Toronto as YYZ. All the GM traffic flying between DTW and their factories in Oshawa could be enough to help support two Saab 340s a day....
Seaholm Maples are #1!
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:36 pm

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 44):
In the early '90s, I remember a commuter airline flew from Oshawa to (of all places) DET. Has any other airline offered scheduled service from Oshawa?

Only cargo ops to my knowledge on a sked basis.

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 44):
I'm a little surprised Northwest Airlink hasn't tried DTW-Oshawa.

Is there a terminal for suitable operations? I'm surprised that NW has not added YHM or YTZ yet.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:42 pm

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 45):
Is there a terminal for suitable operations? I'm surprised that NW has not added YHM or YTZ yet.

Yes, there is. Albeit a very very tiny one.

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
hmmmm...
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:32 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:03 pm

How can anyone poo-poo Pickering as being too far away from Pearson, or on the "wrong side of the growth", yet advocate Oshawa, much, much further away on the same side? Hamilton? Hamilton is three times further away from Pearson as Pickering. The island airport? Please, that's a postage stamp in the harbor and expanding that one is about as feasible as building on the moon. Pickering is the perfect spot for another airport if one is needed. Lots and lots of room there, and it's all farmland. All other airports are now constrained geographically and politically.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:42 pm

If you check the stats towns such as Ajax, Pickering and Uxbridge to the north are rapidly expanding and in crisis because they don't have the social infrastructure to accomodate it. Charities that serve the area are concerned that they will not be able to keep up with the growth.
 
ReidYYZ
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:00 am

RE: Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:11 pm

Well, I'm back on. Like a good train wreck, I can't look away.



Quoting MattRB (Reply 42):
They operate simultaneously all the time. Usually 24L is the inbound arrivals and 24R is operating as the outbound departures with 23 doing double duty as both a departure/arrival rwy.

True, but the 210M separation is for simultaneous arrivals and simultaneous departures. With 23 doing double duty, with the given aircraft spacing for arrivals let's say, aircraft can 'shoot the gap' and depart between said arrivals. With 24L and R doing arrivals on one and dept on the other, there is a marginal increase of efficiency. The dept are still spaced between each other as are the arrivals spaced between each other. According to the GTAA master plan, the two east-west runways run at 104 movements/hr and the three east-west runway operate at 120 movements/hour. A 15% gain, but with a 50% gain in runway space.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 43):
You have not stated facts. You have just parroted the GTAA assumptions without any analysis at all.

Their forecasts are based on, but not limited to: current operational requirements, historical trends, current and near future technology, analysis of similar operation airports, optimizing land use, meteorological conditions of the area, topography of the surrounding area (buildings and other high structures), feedback from current airline and airline service companies, environmental assessment reviews and local citizen review boards all the while keeping a keen eye on the bottom line-price. I don't have to do my own mulitmillion dollar analysis to satisfy your stringent requirements. They have already done it. Do you honestly think they went ahead with spending 2 Billion dollars over the last 15 years based on just a "Hunch".

Your variables:- additional terminal capacity-. As I have already said twice before, if you can't get enough people in or out via aircraft (movements) it does not matter how much terminal space/capacity you have especially if it exceeds the runway usage/capacity.

-more efficient runway usage- there was a chance at this with the MLS, but that technology died before it was born. There is still a slim chance at this one, but it is still limited. Two masses cannot occupy the same space in the same time.

-differential landing fees to encourage use of larger aircraft- airlines do their own analysis and if they can't fill a '47 to YYZ but they can fill a A330, well guess what they will use. Cheaper landing fees will not off set the fuel burn, crew pay or complement or lease costs for the larger 747. It will be the smaller A330 because it will be the same 280 passengers getting on, regardless of aircraft type. Should American Eagle start 757 operations because it is now cheaper to fly one in than it was a few years ago?

-and more efficient terminal/gate usage- there is a minor over capacity of gate space at T3 now (will not guess on T1, don't work there) with the 5 Alpha gates currently being used as all day parking stands.

To sum up about said variables, I said a day and a half ago:

Quoting ReidYYZ (Reply 28):
Current technology and information not withstanding

Nobody knows what the future holds, that is why educated guesses based on information in hand have to be made. To just ignore forecasts based on these voodoo witch theories is, well, I just don't get you. You are clinging on to the hope and dream that Pearson will be here and operating with no major change to the perimeter fence, arrivals and departures compressed to 1000/hour based on your 'variables'. It is you who are not thinking outside the box. It is you who are saying your Great-Grandchildren will be flying out of the Pearson airport we know today. It is you who will not venture

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 43):
outside your comfort zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 910A, Alexpaok, Baidu [Spider], Beatyair, Bing [Bot], cornishsimon, DaufuskieGuy, DeltaB717, gcskye, jake112, jbs2886, jelpee, jetblastdubai, karungguni, klm617, legacyins, LH463, Majestic-12 [Bot], Mexicana757, N62NA, VirginFlyer, Zaf and 267 guests