Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

[kEiThZ]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...enges-to-keep-economy-strong/article11039814/

You have news like this. And yet there are those who would oppose an extra thousand jobs and likely another billion in economic activity from that airport.

This is exactly why Toronto will always be mediocre. We don't have cojones to do anything bold. From airports to transit to food carts. The same morasse. And if something does succeed we'll go out of our way to kill it or make it mediocre.

 

[bleu]

If you look at the comments on this issue at the Star, G/M and NP, the vast majority of readers (like 90%) are in favour of this expansion, including many who identified themselves as residents nearby. It exactly matches the response on this forum here.

What's "public interest"? It is clear and loud the "public" does want this project to go ahead. I don't think a bunch of clowns crying about "water quality" or peaceful life of island residents will prevent this from happening, although they pretend to represent the general public.

 

[bleu]

I know, I heard the roar from my place in Cabbagetown, the dishes in the cupboard rattled and my dog began to howl. Will no one think of the children?!

what about the children? Did any children get hurt, or suffer psychological trauma?
so convenient to use "children" as an excuse... what not ask the children if they care instead of speaking for them?

 

[kEiThZ]

would you be in favor of maintaining the current noise exposure limits even if it was more advantageous from a business perspective to increase them?

Absolutely. And apparently, ditto for Porter. They have specifically stated that they are not asking for any amendments to the Noise Exposure Forecast. And they are not applying to Transport Canada for any departure flight path deviations either. Nor is Porter applying for new landing slots.

If you take the sum of that, as far as I'm concerned, there will be no additional impact from flight operations with the CSeries.

And I would keep the noise restrictions in place, specifically so that the community will not be impacted by other operators flying in noisier jets. I would just move from the "no jets" rule to a strict decibel level. It's absurd that a C-130 Hercules could fly in today and do a full power departure, with all the noise that entails, but a CSeries is the aircraft that's band. If you care about noise, you regulate noise. Not propulsion types.

 

[bleu]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...enges-to-keep-economy-strong/article11039814/

You have news like this. And yet there are those who would oppose an extra thousand jobs and likely another billion in economic activity from that airport.

This is exactly why Toronto will always be mediocre. We don't have cojones to do anything bold. From airports to transit. The same morasse.

so true. And the Gardiner.
Doing nothing is always the safest and incurs least political risks. Having any change will bring some negative impacts for sure, but it is a matter of paying a small price for a large gain. Apparently politicians don't like it. They just can't make major decisions. They'd rather build a tiny parkette claiming it brings so much value to the city, since who doesn't like some harmless green grass?
This is exactly why Toronto is mediocre, and we pretend it is a great city.

 

[kEiThZ]

All that to say: if anyone's dumping fuel in Lake Ontario it's more likely to be an Air Canada 777 or an Air France A340 out of Pearson than anything out of YTZ.

Exactly.

Not just that. I don't get why the fairness argument is irrelevant. If the 1.9 million passengers flying through the Island were moved to Pearson, we'd be talking about at least 35 more flights per day out of there. Why is it reasonable to insist that the residents of Malton, Rexdale and Mississauga put up with more, just so downtowners don't have to put with anything. Quite frankly, that argument smacks of economic-class based discrimination. I paid more for my condo, therefore my peace and quiet is worth more.

themarc - London City Airport's Consultation Committee would be a good one to look at in terms of what's possible in terms of involving elected officials, airport operators and the community in deciding how the airport functions, not least given its location deep within a much larger urban centre than Toronto. I suspect a regime crafted to noise and emissions requirements without blatantly writing so that only certain operators can use the facility would stick, but IANAL etc.

That model would work perfectly for Billy Bishop. It's actually more restrictive than what we have YTZ. The LCY model takes into account the cumulative impact of noise. If operators want more slots there they are going to have fly quieter aircraft. That's the model to pursue. We are coming up on an era where turbofan aircraft may actually turn out to be quieter than turboprop era. It would be quite silly to outright ban "jets" even whey they turn out to be quieter than "props".

Here's something to consider. Bombardier and ATR are studying 90 seat turboprops. They will be slightly smaller than the CSeries, slightly larger than the Q400. And both will most likely be noisier than the CSeries though (we are reaching limits on containing prop noise on turboprops). Now imagine that Porter would be compelled to buy this aircraft instead of the CSeries just because of the "no jets" rule. Who exactly benefits from a poor policy like this?

Or more bizarre. Helicopters are noisier and more annoying. Allowed at Billy Bishop.

Does anyone know if non-commercial jet flights have been permitted to land during the air show in the past?

MEDEVAC, emergency or truly exceptional circumstances (military can use national security exemptions for example...).

AoD: " As to whether it sustains jobs in Montreal, that's really not my concern." It was David Miller's concern this morning on Matt Galloway's show this morning when he reminded us how he propped up Bombardier Thunder Bay (1383km away compared to Montreal's 543km) with billions worth of subway and streetcar orders. Obviously you don't speak for him or vice versa, but thought that was worth noting.

Hypocrisy is always justified for me because my viewpoint is relevant.... That's how this comes off to me.

They were going out of the way. Were even willing to consider sole-sourcing to keep subway car builders employed in Thunder Bay. And that purchase was far less impactful than $3 billion worth of airplanes. Subway car builders count. Highly skilled, well paid aerospace jobs don't.

Canadians are like crabs in a bucket. We just can't stand successful Canadian enterprise.

 

[kEiThZ]

what about the children? Did any children get hurt, or suffer psychological trauma?
so convenient to use "children" as an excuse... what not ask the children if they care instead of speaking for them?

I think you're missing the sarcasm....

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Keithz, dowlingm et al.

They were going out of the way. Were even willing to consider sole-sourcing to keep subway car builders employed in Thunder Bay. And that purchase was far less impactful than $3 billion worth of airplanes. Subway car builders count. Highly skilled, well paid aerospace jobs don't.

Some issues with that logic - first of all, the purchase of subway cars had to be made, either from Bombardier or someone else. There is no such equivalent in this case. A more appropriate analogy would be Porter having to buy replacement planes, and the choice being Bombardier (made in Montreal) and Embraer (made in Brazil), in which case my personal preference (ignoring the financial case) would be for the purchase to be Canadian sourced. Second, the purchase of TR is jointly funded by the city, the province and the feds - there is a legitimate rationale for government interest in where that contract lands. As far as I know, this isn't a government order right?

Canadians are like crabs in a bucket. We just can't stand successful Canadian enterprise.

Nice try, but the validity of using jobs in Montreal to justify the purchase (or non purchase) has little to do with the merit of the expansion, nor whether one can stand successful Canadian enterprise or not.

AoD

 

[mettle]

Absolutely. And apparently, ditto for Porter.

that's reassuring to hear that from you. i'm not against successful enterprise (i'm in banking), but i know that the unbridled pursuit of one's interest is never a good thing (as was seen in my industry). there is such a thing as the tyranny of the rich or the political connected; just as there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority.

as for porter, i don't know what their future plans are. in a few months, it could be a case of that-was-then-this-is-now-we-need-more-slots.

 

[kEiThZ]

Keithz, dowlingm et al.



Some issues with that logic - first of all, the purchase of subway cars had to be made, either from Bombardier or someone else. There is no such equivalent in this case. A more appropriate analogy would be Porter having to buy replacement planes, and the choice being Bombardier (made in Montreal) and Embraer (made in Brazil), in which case my personal preference (ignoring the financial case) would be for the purchase to be Canadian sourced. Second, the purchase of TR is jointly funded by the city, the province and the feds - there is a legitimate rationale for government interest in where that contract lands.

Government also has a responsibility to foster a healthy economic environment, mostly by encouraging private enterprise where possible. You can't argue that subway builder jobs are worth protecting because it's public spending and that we can outright ignore any additional boost to another part of Canada because there is no public spending involved. I would suggest that most of us would find that position rather bizarre to outright hypocritical. Most cities around the world would be ecstatic if a major employer were to announce a plan to create a thousand jobs there at no real net impact to the community.

And again, I have yet to see a shred of evidence that CSeries will have any more of a noise impact than the Q400. Had Bombardier picked some aircraft that was noisier, there is no way I would support this expansion. But when they pick an airplane that isn't noisier than what's in place and they aren't pushing for more slots, I struggle to see the case to oppose this expansion.

Nice try, but the validity of using jobs in Montreal to justify the purchase (or non purchase) has little to do with the merit of the expansion, nor whether one can stand successful Canadian enterprise or not.

AoD

Eh, what? So the several hundred to a thousand jobs that maybe created in Toronto at Porter itself and all the spinoff employment, in addition to the high-tech employment in Montreal, is not relevant?

Since when is economic activity generated by the expansion of public infrastructure not relevant to a debate about expanding said infrastructure.

I think you're reaching to try an shut down legitimate arguments.

I'm excited by the idea exactly because of the economic impact it will have on the core. More tourists. Easier access for businesses to major centres in North America. Porter's very existence, keeps pressure on air fares which makes this city more accessible to outsiders. I'd like to encourage that trend. People can bury their heads in the sand. But this city and this region is definitely not firing on all cylinders. And simply dismissing private sector initiatives that will create lots of jobs will not help.

I am willing to bet that the if the airport were completely sodded over tomorrow that you still would not see a substantial rise in visitors to the Islands or some dramatic growth in employment or sudden vibrancy along the waterfront. It's not the airport holding any of that back.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Government also has a responsibility to foster a healthy economic environment, mostly by encouraging private enterprise where possible. You can't argue that subway builder jobs are worth protecting because it's public spending and that we can outright ignore any additional boost to another part of Canada because there is no public spending involved. I would suggest that most of us would find that position rather bizarre to outright hypocritical. Most cities around the world would be ecstatic if a major employer were to announce a plan to create a thousand jobs there at no real net impact to the community.

It is not the job of the city council to consider additional boost to another part of Canada - that's the job of the other parties. The Government of Canada on the other hand might, but they are not the sole party of the agreement.

As to the no "real" "net" impact - that remains to be determined.

And again, I have yet to see a shred of evidence that CSeries will have any more of a noise impact than the Q400. Had Bombardier picked some aircraft that was noisier, there is no way I would support this expansion. But when they pick an airplane that isn't noisier than what's in place and they aren't pushing for more slots, I struggle to see the case to oppose this expansion.

Economic activity in Toronto yes, economic activity in Montreal? Not really if your argument is about the economic health of Toronto and the benefits it offer for the city. Confounding the two is what I am getting at.

As to the matter of slots - you yourself said this:

If I was Deluce, I would be asking for strict noise exposure limits and no growth in slots at YTZ (at least for the next few years)

What about the beyond that? Isn't that exactly what we've been through over the years? The slow creep of the vision of the airport?

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

that's reassuring to hear that from you.

Quite frankly I was surprised by that. The fact that they haven't seen the need to ask Transport Canada for any deviations, definitely means that the CSeries will be as quiet or quieter than the Q400. That was a pleasant surprise to me. I'm guessing Bombardier was pleasantly surprised after their windtunnel testing to be able to promise this. Also, the CSeries is being certified to fly out of London City. That is also driving a lot of noise limiting requirements.

as for porter, i don't know what their future plans are. in a few months, it could be a case of that-was-then-this-is-now-we-need-more-slots.

They may want more slots in several years. But I can't see them needing more slots till at least the end of the decade. They have way more than what they need now. That's reflected by their 61% load factor. They will simply repurpose many of their slots away from Ottawa and Montreal and start flying to long-haul destinations with the CSeries. And since the flights are much longer, they won't need that many slots to do it. For example, a flight to LA would be 5 hours. This means that a flight departing in the morning would arrive back at night from LA. It won't have time to do another flight. So while 12 aircraft sounds like a lot, 6 Q400s flying to Montreal or Ottawa would have a much higher impact, because their flights are only an hour long and so they can do lots of back and forth.

In the end, airlines chase yield not loads. Porter has setup their business where they can breakeven at a 49% load factor (as per Globe and Mail in 2010.....fuel efficient airplanes help a lot). Westjet probably needs around 60% to breakeven. And Air Canada may even need 70% or more to breakeven. So even with flying to LA, Vancouver, Miami, etc. Porter isn't looking to lots of flights. They want to offer a few flights and fill them with high-yielding passengers...the kind that usually live downtown and want to jet away for the weekend or the kind that will fly into downtown for a business meeting and leave the same day.

Beyond this expansion there is really not much Porter can do. They can buy out other tenants and expand their terminal and maintenace facilities a bit. But ramp space may well out turn out to be the limiting factor. Not slots. Porter will never be or beat Air Canada or Westjet. They know that. They are, however, determined to make the most out of YTZ. That's to be applauded.

 

[PinkLucy]

Just got a "breaking news" alert that Ford supports jets at the island airport. Is that really a news flash? Did anyone think he wouldn't?

 

[kEiThZ]

As to the no "real" "net" impact - that remains to be determined.

If there was any real impact at all from the noise front, Porter would have to file for an amended approach procedure or an amendment to the Noise Exposure Forecast. They haven't. So no impact there.

I will buy the argument that there will be additional traffic. But even that's a stretch. Porter could order 30 Q400s instead of 30 CS100s and they'd be flying 70 pax per airplane instead of 107. That sounds like a big difference until Porter start operating the CS100s on long flights so they only 1-2 runs per day. In the end, if the tunnel and associated infrastructure is being built out to support the increase use of the airport, I fail to see what the huge impact is, from these aircraft.

Economic activity in Toronto yes, economic activity in Montreal? Not really if your argument is about the economic health of Toronto and the benefits it offer for the city. Confounding the two is what I am getting at.

I have not confounded the two. I am quite clear. Porter expanding is good for our economic health (my primary consideration). That they are creating/sustaining lots of jobs in Montreal is definitely great. What I'd like is the hypocrisy to stop where people will argue some government decision (like buying subway cars) must be supported because it creates jobs while suggesting another government decision (like allowing "jets" at YTZ) should not include any consideration of the jobs created elsewhere.

What about the beyond that? Isn't that exactly what we've been through over the years? The slow creep of the vision of the airport?

AoD

Beyond that, you have that debate then. Why is it that anything must be set in perpetuity for the rest of our lifetimes? And why do we have to stop all progress now just because we are worried of some debate in the future where it's entirely within our power to control the issue? They City could easily insist that the tripartite agreement come with a hard cap on landing slots and that the City get a say in any future expansion of slots. It doesn't have that power today. Or we could put on radius limits. This is the case for both LaGuardia and Washington Reagan, for example, to bias use of the airport towards regional transportation.

Overall, what I find disappointing with this issue is the fixation on "jets". Like I said earlier, it's perfectly legal for somebody to land a fully loaded C-130 with more noise than you'll ever hear from any CS100, at YTZ. This is bizarre. If we care about noise, then let's regulate noise. If we care about expansion or whether the Island is an appropriate place for an airport, let's have that discussion. But trying to stifle growth through some silly clause that does not take into account at all for changes in technology doesn't benefit anybody. For once, I would like an intelligent policy debate, not city councillors yelling, "Props good. Jets bad." This "no jets" rule is akin to banning computers today because you had an issue with typewriters, 30 years ago.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just got a "breaking news" alert that Ford supports jets at the island airport. Is that really a news flash? Did anyone think he wouldn't?

I would never compliment Ford. But in this case: useful idiot.