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

any move to jets is a defacto move to less centralized operation at YTZ.
I dont know about the C-series... its a jet and requires at least a 4500-5000 ft. runway
There just isn't really a lot more capacity at YTZ. So any new planes, jets or otherwise, in the medium term would almost certainly be applied to non-YTZ routings.

Expansion at YTZ could happen eventually with an expanded terminal, the tunnel built and US preclearance. However, all of those will take time.
 
No, because Canada does not have cabotage rights in the US. How about Toronto-Dulles-Nassau-Orlando? Weirdly, that one would be legal.
Toronto-Washington-Atlanta-Orlando would be legal for them to fly, but they just couldn't sell any tickets between US points. So they could sell Toronto-Orlando or Toronto-Atlanta, but not Washington-Atlanta. Newark-Orlando or Newark-Atlanta might be better as they have a number of Toronto-Newark flights that could feed into them (and potentially Ottawa-Newark/Montreal-Newark in the future).
 
Well, Winnipeg is about the same distance as Miami from Toronto, and Orlando is closer.
Fredericton? Last time I check, it is a small town with about 55K people. Why bother? Can't imagine demand will warrant it.

Air Canada certainly flies to tons of smaller communities currently un-served by Porter from YYZ, but it's feeding passengers into a huge global hub operation for flights to Asia, Europe, the US etc. Porter needs point-to-point traffic, which I imagine drastically alters the economics of those routes to smaller centres. Hard to see where else there is for Porter to expand without becoming more of a full-service airline.
 
I dont know about the C-series... its a jet and requires at least a 4500-5000 ft. runway...maybe thats Robert Deluces next goal, to extend the runway and get the the government to overrule the only-prop bylaw and allow jets to land at Billy Bishop.
After all the New-Gen C-Series jets are not any louder than the turbo prop Q400s landing there now.

Obviously Deluce (or any businessperson in his position) would want to change the conditions that limit his potential to expand. What's people's sense of the feasibility of such a change? As I was reading through the environmental assessment for the pedestrian tunnel/perimeter road, I was wondering whether there's any back-door to runway expansion.

I looked to see whether there's anywhere in the existing airport lands to expand runways. While there seems to be 4000-5000 feet available for a north-south runaway, given the development immediately north of the airport area, it seems clear that only the east-west flight path has any potential for extension/expanded use.

The only thing that jumped out at me from the EA was the description of what the airport would do with the rock extracted to dig the pedestrian tunnel: "Excavated materials on the airport side
would be placed on a barge or truck for off-site use/disposal or placed on the perimeter road alignment to build up the new road’s sub-base. It is possible that some of the excavated
material could be stockpiled at the airport side for future use in the construction of the perimeter road
.
"

It strikes me as strange to describe how the materials could be "used as sub base for the perimeter road" or "stockpiled for future use in the construction of the permimeter road". If "stockpiled", it would appear possible for the materials to be used for future runway expansion, although one would assume that any such expansion would require affirmative legislative/regulatory action by the city and province, and a pretty extensive EA.

But yeah, I'll admit that I'm looking at this with a bit of a conspiratorial eye.
 
Last edited:
With WestJet announcing today that they are planning a trubo-prop regional airline....I wonder if that makes them a potential new entrant at YTZ.

At the very least it likely puts more orders on the books at Bombardier and creates a bit of competition for aircraft orders.
 
With WestJet announcing today that they are planning a trubo-prop regional airline....I wonder if that makes them a potential new entrant at YTZ.

Should be at capacity, and i dont see them landing there unless they open more landing slots...

Porter beats out Air Canada to win 16 more spots at Billy Bishop
The Toronto Port Authority has granted 16 additional landing slots to Porter Airlines Inc. at Billy Bishop Toronto City airport, denying Air Canada’s request for greater access to the Island airport.

The slots were originally allocated to Continental Airlines as part of slot allocation process at Billy Bishop in 2010. But Continental, which has since merged with United Airlines, said earlier this year it was no longer interested in flying to the airport, as it scaled back its own expansion plans.

Both Air Canada and Porter applied to the TPA for the additional landing rights at the Toronto Island airport after the landing slots were vacated by Continental.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/fp/story/2011/09/22/5443089.html#ixzz1je96z8tJ
 
I dont know about the C-series... its a jet and requires at least a 4500-5000 ft. runway...maybe thats Robert Deluces next goal, to extend the runway and get the the government to overrule the only-prop bylaw and allow jets to land at Billy Bishop.
After all the New-Gen C-Series jets are not any louder than the turbo prop Q400s landing there now.

An extra thousand feet is enough. It would allow for the Q400 to max out on its range-payload. And there's no point talking any longer unless they are talking about light commercial jets like the CSeries. The CS300ER has a 6200ft take-off run at MTOW. Balanced field length at MTOW could be close to 7000 feet. 5000 ft and 6000 ft respectively for a CS100ER. If they aren't going to go that big, the extra 1000 feet would be sufficient for them.
 
1000 more feet would make it the same length as LCY (London City Airport). LCY can handle Embraer 170/190s and BAe 146s,

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-for-all-business-class-cseries-order-366588/
According to this, Bombardier is working on all-business-class version of the CS100 that will be able to fly LCY-JFK, which would be similar to the 32-seat A318 that British Airways uses for the route.

LCY-JFK is pretty close to the same distance as LCY-YTZ....Just saying...
 
Does anyone else think it will be logistically and politically difficult to dump 5 acres of fill into the inner harbour? At the very least, it would create a precedent that should scare even the most pro-business of governments. After all, if Toronto needs money, why not just create an additional 25 square kilometers of waterfront land and sell it off to developers?
 
1000 more feet would make it the same length as LCY (London City Airport). LCY can handle Embraer 170/190s and BAe 146s,

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-for-all-business-class-cseries-order-366588/
According to this, Bombardier is working on all-business-class version of the CS100 that will be able to fly LCY-JFK, which would be similar to the 32-seat A318 that British Airways uses for the route.

LCY-JFK is pretty close to the same distance as LCY-YTZ....Just saying...

Can handle those aircraft. But with horrible range-payload. Hence the limitation on the LCY-JFK run to 32 all business seats. That said, if there's a market for this kind of service in Toronto, perhaps it might not be a bad idea. However, I can't see even Rob Ford agreeing to allow "jets" at the airport, no matter how much sense it would make.
 
However, I can't see even Rob Ford agreeing to allow "jets" at the airport, no matter how much sense it would make.
What's it got to do with Rob Ford? I thought it was quite clear from what happened previously, that the mayor of Toronto has no say at all on what flies in and out of there.
 
What's it got to do with Rob Ford? I thought it was quite clear from what happened previously, that the mayor of Toronto has no say at all on what flies in and out of there.

It's tri-partite. But let's not pretend the mayor can't be helpful when pushing something like this. That was my point. There's nobody to push to allow jets.

Personally, I think the whole anti-'jets' argument is moot and stupid. Moot for now because not too many turbofan aircraft could make a go of it at YTZ (even for VLJs). And stupid because they should be using noise margins instead of banning a specific technology. But then again, when you have supposedly bright folks like Miller gunning to close the airport, what level of intelligence can you expect in this debate?
 
Does anyone else think it will be logistically and politically difficult to dump 5 acres of fill into the inner harbour? At the very least, it would create a precedent that should scare even the most pro-business of governments. After all, if Toronto needs money, why not just create an additional 25 square kilometers of waterfront land and sell it off to developers?

I was gonna say that a few days ago and didn't for fear people here would call me crazy. Would create thousands of jobs.
Actually, why not just connect the airport with the mainland so that porter shuttle buses can just drive in. It is so hypocritical that we change the nature big time all the time, and then fear other minor modification would bring some frivolous negative consequences (the fish, birds etc).
 
Last edited:
I thought it was quite clear from what happened previously, that the mayor of Toronto has no say at all on what flies in and out of there.
I am pretty sure the city must agree to any changes to the Tri-Partite Agreement (along with Port Authority and the federal government). The Tripartite Agreement was changed with the City's agreement (in 2003?) to allow the construction of a bridge. The City's agreement would be needed to allow a change to permit jets.
Can handle those aircraft. But with horrible range-payload. Hence the limitation on the LCY-JFK run to 32 all business seats.
There are a lot of potential destinations that are closer to YTZ than LCY, yet farther than the destinations currently served nonstop by Porter.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top