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

kkgg7 said:
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).
Click to expand...

Well the airport bridge was rejected by Miller et al. in the election that focussed on the issue. So instead we're getting the tunnel. That's good enough for now.

As for extending the runway, I don't think it's overly likely, but I'm not against it.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
Well the airport bridge was rejected by Miller et al. in the election that focussed on the issue. So instead we're getting the tunnel. That's good enough for now.

As for extending the runway, I don't think it's overly likely, but I'm not against it.
Click to expand...

I agree. I could never understand what's the big deal with the 200 meter long bridge. Instead, they prefer the world's shortest ferry ride.
"Keep the island as it is!" "Don't do anything to it!" Apparently making it easier for thousands of passengers to get in/out of the airport is NOT as important as, I don't know, picnics on the island which happens three times each year. What exactly are the imagined consequences of this particular bridge??
 
A couple more daily flights added between Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport:)

Porter Airlines increases New York service to 13 daily flights
Airlines is enhancing its New York service with two additional daily flights and a more convenient schedule. This increases daily roundtrip departures between Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport to as many as 13 flights, and provides a wider range of morning, afternoon and evening departures for passengers.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/po...w-york-service-to-13-daily-flights-2012-01-27
 
kkgg7 said:
I agree. I could never understand what's the big deal with the 200 meter long bridge. Instead, they prefer the world's shortest ferry ride.
"Keep the island as it is!" "Don't do anything to it!" Apparently making it easier for thousands of passengers to get in/out of the airport is NOT as important as, I don't know, picnics on the island which happens three times each year. What exactly are the imagined consequences of this particular bridge??
Click to expand...
Because the ferry existing at the time could only carry a few passengers, and not very comfortably, it was assumed that preventing the bridge from being built would put a halt on any introduction of new airline service to the airport.

There is no way that the old Maple City could handle the traffic that is at the airport now. Nor could the first new ferry they built, which is why they had to build a bigger replacement ferry (to be soon augmented by a tunnel).

Also, as long as there is a ferry, there will be big taxi queues and lots of cars/buses moving through the neighbourhood. This gives the anti-airport people a community-safety/health issue to complain about. If there was a bridge, everybody could just drive to the other side and there would be minimal impact on the local community. How would they gain supporters if nobody is negatively impacted?
 
voxpopulicosmicum said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're right that there is no potential to expand Runway 15/33 (north-south). Take-offs to the north and landings to the south are usually not allowed for most of the year due to all the new condos to the north of the airport.

I have no doubt that the interested parties have their eye on expanding the main runway (08/26) further out into the lake westbound. That would seem to be the only expansion that would not interfere with either the island parkland or harbour boat traffic. Landing a Q400 on a 3988' runway has been described as doing a "carrier landing with a passenger plane." Giving them an extra 1000' would certainly lower a lot of blood pressure readings at head office and in the cockpits.

With the mass eviction that is currently underway, I get the impression that we haven't heard half of what the TPA and Porter have in mind for CYTZ.
 
Last edited:
can332 said:
Missed approaches are a weekly occurrence as there is very little room for error in how far down the runway you can land. Giving them an extra 1000' would certainly lower a lot of blood pressure readings at head office and in the cockpits.
Click to expand...

Just curious where you're getting this information from?
 
jn_12 said:
Just curious where you're getting this information from?
Click to expand...

Through the "CADORS query" site at Transport Canada. Missed approaches seem to be listed when involving scheduled aircraft. While there are certainly weeks where they do not occur, from querying the site over the years, it does appear to me that there are 3-5 a month for various reasons. That is certainly not an indication on the professionalism or abilities of any particular airline or their employees. On the contrary, fighting the urge to put it down the first time is a sign of professionalism and maturity, imho.
 
can332 said:
Through the "CADORS query" site at Transport Canada. Missed approaches seem to be listed when involving scheduled aircraft. While there are certainly weeks where they do not occur, from querying the site over the years, it does appear to me that there are 3-5 a month for various reasons. That is certainly not an indication on the professionalism or abilities of any particular airline or their employees. On the contrary, fighting the urge to put it down the first time is a sign of professionalism and maturity, imho.
Click to expand...

Are weather issues mentioned on that site? Because in my experience (I worked there for a year and a half) it was very rare to see a missed approach that didn't involve some drastic weather related event, often fog. In fact off the top of my head I can only think of one that happened that didn't involve some sort of weather issue. Then again, I'll admit that I haven't worked there in 3 years, and since then the number of flights and employees has ballooned, so I guess as they hire more pilots and fly more flights these issues could arise more often. However, I'd add that in my conversations with pilots I've never heard anyone mention any particular difficulties with the length of the runway. The most common remarks had to do with the crosswinds.
 
jn_12 said:
Are weather issues mentioned on that site? Because in my experience (I worked there for a year and a half) it was very rare to see a missed approach that didn't involve some drastic weather related event, often fog. In fact off the top of my head I can only think of one that happened that didn't involve some sort of weather issue. Then again, I'll admit that I haven't worked there in 3 years, and since then the number of flights and employees has ballooned, so I guess as they hire more pilots and fly more flights these issues could arise more often. However, I'd add that in my conversations with pilots I've never heard anyone mention any particular difficulties with the length of the runway. The most common remarks had to do with the crosswinds.
Click to expand...

No, it often doesn't list the reason, unless the flight crew specifically states it to ATC. Rereading my original post, I've removed that sentence as I didn't mean to imply that missed approaches were being flown due to errors in airmanship.
 
can332 said:
I have no doubt that the interested parties have their eye on expanding the main runway (08/26) further out into the lake westbound. That would seem to be the only expansion that would not interfere with either the island parkland or harbour boat traffic.

...

With the mass eviction that is currently underway, I get the impression that we haven't heard half of what the TPA and Porter have in mind for CYTZ.
Click to expand...

Fair enough re: expansion west. I thought that was getting a bit close to Ontario Place, but the southeasternmost part of Ontario Place doesn't feature any elevation, so I guess there would be no physical obstacle. So, one could expand the main runway without putting 5 acres of landfill in the inner harbour (i.e. by putting 5 acres of fill in Lake Ontario). It still seems like extending the runway west would interfere with the yacht club, etc.
 
Can332: No problem. I wasn't really calling you out on it. Was just curious about it because it wasn't something I had heard before, and given that the conversation has steered towards runway length, I felt it was important to clarify whether pilot's were actually have an issue with the runway, just in case people started using it as a reason for extending the runway.
 
They got turned down by the US government. There is room in the terminal. I'm guessing they will go back and ask again once they have increased their US service a bit more.
 
Porter is setting up a vacation division:
The Toronto-based company has registered Porter Escapes as a Canadian trademark, with the goal of marketing all-inclusive holiday packages that feature flights, hotels, car rentals, travel insurance and vacation services.

Mr. Deluce said he’s aiming to have a website for Porter Escapes up and running during the April-to-June quarter. The second phase of Porter Escapes will add options such as theatre, spa, adventure themes and sports events.
Click to expand...

http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article2339959.html
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top