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

on another note, with the runway extension dead, has Porter's order been cancelled as well or do they have a plan b for it?
 
I believe it's status has not changed....it was a conditional order....it would not change to a firm order until that condition was met....no need for Porter to do anything with the order.
 
TOareaFan said:
I believe it's status has not changed....it was a conditional order....it would not change to a firm order until that condition was met....no need for Porter to do anything with the order.
Click to expand...
But, from what i understand, they still have a deposit for the order. It doesn't show up on the BBD order book but they stand to lose $$$ if the order is cancelled. On some production lists it shows up under MOU.
http://www.abcdlist.nl/cseries/cseries.html
 
Burnt creek said:
But, from what i understand, they still have a deposit for the order. It doesn't show up on the BBD order book but they stand to lose $$$ if the order is cancelled. On some production lists it shows up under MOU.
http://www.abcdlist.nl/cseries/cseries.html
Click to expand...
Right, so why cancel it if there is lost money.

One of three things can happen by waiting.

  1. Something can change in Toronto and they can remove the condition on the order
  2. Porter can find somewhere else to operate their jets from
  3. Another airline could take an assignment of the order and waive the condition
 
Pretty disappointing that London City Airport (where very strict noise regulations exist) approves the C-Series while Toronto Billy Bishop has to wait on the sidelines. Seems that common sense and science trump baseless hysteria on the other side of the pond.
 
isaidso said:
Pretty disappointing that London City Airport (where very strict noise regulations exist) approves the C-Series while Toronto Billy Bishop has to wait on the sidelines. Seems that common sense and science trump baseless hysteria on the other side of the pond.
Click to expand...

i think that the main opposition is witht extension of the runway but yes, nimbyism is rampant here and the paranoia over noise is also one of the chief reasons for its demise. ironically the jet is quieter than the q400 that
its is being compared to
 
isaidso said:
Pretty disappointing that London City Airport (where very strict noise regulations exist) approves the C-Series while Toronto Billy Bishop has to wait on the sidelines. Seems that common sense and science trump baseless hysteria on the other side of the pond.
Click to expand...
The C-Series is welcome at Pearson, where the runways are long enough, the runways, taxiways, terminals, parking and transit infrastructure have the capacity to handle long haul flights, and where the airport is not located in the middle of one of our best tourist attractions.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The C-Series is welcome at Pearson, where the runways are long enough, the runways, taxiways, terminals, parking and transit infrastructure have the capacity to handle long haul flights, and where the airport is not located in the middle of one of our best tourist attractions.

42
Click to expand...
As an East York resident, general aviation and seaplanes heading to/from YTZ are far more noisy and disruptive (as they climb more slowly) than Porter who tend to stay nearer the lake.

It's time for the City and the airport to get on the same page.
  • Close 06/24, 15/33 and reduce the footprint of the airport such that the triangular section south of 06/24 is made public access and shortening the distance between the Hanlans Point ferry and the beach.
  • Extend 08/26 to the west only on the condition that the extra footprint is dedicated to improved runoff protection.
  • Build a parallel taxiway south of 06/24*
  • Put noise deflectors around the reduced footprint zone
Does anyone know what happened to the plan to relocate Terminal A? It was supposed to go "100 metres east" but seems to have ended up near Hanlan's Point.

* There is an alternative - build a new 08/26 to the south and convert the existing to a taxiway. But that's making a choice to trim Hanlan's beach to allow moving further from Ontario Place.
 
@dowlingm

Great suggestions. The only one I would add is that I think they should drop the "jets" ban and move to an objective noise standard. Why should anybody care what type of engine it is. Have objective noise standards. Everything above is banned. Anything below is allowed.

With geared turbofans we are fast getting to the point where "jets" (turbofans actually) are quieter than turboprops for the same sized aircraft. Why should operators be compelled to operate noisier aircraft?
 
kEiThZ said:
@dowlingm

Great suggestions. The only one I would add is that I think they should drop the "jets" ban and move to an objective noise standard. Why should anybody care what type of engine it is. Have objective noise standards. Everything above is banned. Anything below is allowed.

With geared turbofans we are fast getting to the point where "jets" (turbofans actually) are quieter than turboprops for the same sized aircraft. Why should operators be compelled to operate noisier aircraft?
Click to expand...

Because the end goal isn't about noise, its about trying to force a company (Porter) to not be able to expand and grow, something that is necessary for a company to stay afloat in a competitive market. The end goal of the NIMBYs is the hope that they can close Toronto Island airport.

Just like the mandate of MADD is total prohibition, but they take things one battle at a time.
 
robmausser said:
Because the end goal isn't about noise, its about trying to force a company (Porter) to not be able to expand and grow, something that is necessary for a company to stay afloat in a competitive market. The end goal of the NIMBYs is the hope that they can close Toronto Island airport.

Just like the mandate of MADD is total prohibition, but they take things one battle at a time.
Click to expand...
Don't presume to speak on behalf over everyone opposed to expansion at the airport, and certainly not regarding my end goal. I'm happy to have the airport there, but I don't want to see it become a behemoth with constant landings and takeoffs, requiring lake infill for a longer runway, requiring jet blast defectors, requiring more parking space, requiring more traffic capacity in the neighbourhood. The 81 hectare waterfront airport is not the place for a massive air transportation hub: we have an 1,867 hectare spot for that a quick train ride from Union.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top