spider
Senior Member
I watched the Air Show from the Island airport many years ago and there were US Navy fighter jets on the tarmac, I doubt if they were trucked in for the event.
Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
kEiThZ
Superstar
That's an air show specific permit. I doubt you'll see US Navy jets landing there on a regular basis.
Peepers
Banned
I think a big problem is most Canadian's just don't appreciate just how successful Bombardier has been and why that is important for Canada.
Over the last couple of decades Canada has seen it's manufacturing decimated. Aerospace is the only sector that I can think of where we are doing much more today than two decades ago and in fact are world leaders.
Most Canadians seem oblivious to this fact. I find it particularly astounding that in Toronto our local politicians seem oblivious to the importance of the Bombardier Downsview plant. It is the largest manufacturing employer in Toronto and Porter has been one of its biggest and most important customers and yet supporting Porter and the Island Airport has long been considered toxic for most local politicians?
Now I realize the CSeries in not going to be manufactured in Downsview but we should not overlook the great importance to Canada of having a successful CSeries program.
Last edited:
bleu
Banned
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?
why do we have to sound so bitter whenever Ford does or says anything?
Not everything Ford supports is wrong.
Plus, he is the elected mayor of Toronto. Toronto elected him and we have to deal with him, that's how democracy works. Stop the never ending bitterness.
bleu
Banned
This is because Canada stubbornly and stupidly stick to ONE export destination, the US. We export 80% of our products to the US, including 100% of petroleum. When you don't diversify your export at all and bind your fate with one single obviously declining superpower, why should we be surprised our manufacturing sector gets decimated?
Canada has a small market, smaller than California, or two Chinese cities combined. We depend on export and if we don't do something smarter, more jobs will be lost most definitely. You simply can't expect an ever strong US economy to buy all our stuff.
I didn't vote for him and don't like him, haven't for 10 years, so I reserve my right to think he's an idiot. I didn't say that him supporting the jets is wrong, or that the jets are wrong. I simply noted that him supporting them was NOT a news flash. If he had come out against the idea, THAT would be news. It was actually a diss at whoever decided that was a breaking news story, not at Ford.
bleu
Banned
well,if a snowstorm on Jan 15 can be news, why can't that Ford supports this project be news too.
News means something important just happened. Doesn't have to be something unexpected. The mayor ot Toronto supports a major project, that definitely is news worthy, whether you like it or not.
If a liberal politician says he supports the construction of the DRL, will you be equally pissed since it should surprise no one?
CDL.TO
Moderator
In Pearson's flight path... its flight paths go over residential neighbourhoods and York U...
kEiThZ
Superstar
I more than share your sense of frustration. The right wants us to drill holes and chop wood. The left thinks economic success can be attained through the "service sector". Neither vision has panned out. Resource extraction hasn't brought the average joe much prosperity. And any service job that is expensive is now being outsourced. All we're left with are clerical and barista jobs. This isn't a recipe for economic prosperity.
All those condos in the core, those aspirations to have better transit, or to be a world-class city, will be pointless if we don't have an economically vibrant region. And I fail to see how we'll be economically vibrant with the majority of the population working on jobs that make $30 000 per year.
As for Bombardier at Downsview, it's not just that they are a big industrial employer. It's also that they retain some of the most highly skilled talent in this city. And they have an ecosystem of support from sub-contractors to universities doing high-tech research. But there's many people who'd rather trade that all for more condos at Downsview Park.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
I'm a supporter of business and glad to have the Bombardier Downsview employer; however, I don't buy the argument that the decision to have C series jets land at Billy Bishop should be influenced by the fact that a Canadian company builds said planes.
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
Are you saying YTZ sees daily C-130 landings??
kEiThZ
Superstar
And I agree. What should influence is us though is the number of jobs this will create right in the 416, the potential economic spinoffs, the number of tourists this could bring in, and the impact on trade with easier facilitation of business travel.
My only point about the manufacturing jobs has been an insistence on consistency. Why does the taxpayer (particularly those of this city) have some particular obligation towards sustaining jobs in one sector and yet have no obligation towards considering the impact of government policy on jobs in another sector.
No. What I am saying though is that it would be perfectly legal under today's rules for that scenario to actually happen though. Legally speaking some company could set up at YTZ and run C-130 cargo flights out regularly for example.
Banning jets is like banning laser printers because you thought typewriters were noisy three decades ago. People would think that was strange. If you want to target noise emissions, you target noise emissions with specific regulations. You don't try and achieve your aims by banning a given engine technology and leave a C-130 size hole in your policy framework.
Interestingly enough, if the had actually aimed to limit noise emissions, Porter may well have never existed in the first place (if say noise thresholds were lower than the emissions of the Q400).
kEiThZ
Superstar
I am curious. Where did Downsview go? It's still there. It was never a public airfield. And will never be one. For a whole host of reasons. Airspace conflict issues. Bombardier's needs for the airfield. The military's need for a securable airfield inside/near Toronto, etc.
kEiThZ
Superstar
http://www.oxfordairport.co.uk/home/noise_comparison.pdf
People need to understand that it's actually quite possible for a Cessna to be more annoying than a commercial airliner.
People need to understand that it's actually quite possible for a Cessna to be more annoying than a commercial airliner.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Keithz:
That I agree with. Perhaps some kind of grand bargain can be made - in return for modifying the agreement and allowing the use of low noise jets and the required runway extension, perhaps the footprint of the airport should be modified - removal of the 2 shorter runways, transfer of at least a portion of the land (say, beyond 250, 300m south of the main runway) to the city for use as parkland (with reciprocal guarantee that such land will not be utilized in a manner that is detrimental to operation of the airport); that the noise level generated by the jets is monitored for the entire duration that the airport is open at multiple locations under the flightpath; that a hard cap be put in place for the total number of flights per day at the allotted hours.
AoD
That I agree with. Perhaps some kind of grand bargain can be made - in return for modifying the agreement and allowing the use of low noise jets and the required runway extension, perhaps the footprint of the airport should be modified - removal of the 2 shorter runways, transfer of at least a portion of the land (say, beyond 250, 300m south of the main runway) to the city for use as parkland (with reciprocal guarantee that such land will not be utilized in a manner that is detrimental to operation of the airport); that the noise level generated by the jets is monitored for the entire duration that the airport is open at multiple locations under the flightpath; that a hard cap be put in place for the total number of flights per day at the allotted hours.
AoD