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

kEiThZ said:
I've hand flown approaches at YTZ. And talking to the guys who've done this and Kai Tak, there's no comparison. YTZ really is a breeze, since the approach parallels the shoreline. There are no obstacle concerns. 08/26 is a different matter. And that's certainly debatable for closure. But they are rather strict in who and under what conditions someone is using that runway.
Click to expand...

But how will that flight path be impacted by the development of the Portlands? If history is any guide, the area's future buildings will probably be much taller than we now envision.

Interestingly enough..my uncle used to work at the Kai Tak Airport Authority for the colonial government, and there were plans at one point to downsize the airport to fly smaller planes and serve the regional market - the mainland aviation market was just about the open and it could had served the Pearl River Delta region. But it was incompatible with the government's land use plans.
 
Last edited:
DB9 said:
But how will that flight path be impacted by the development of the Portlands?
Click to expand...

Not substantially at all. The only safety concern I've ever had with YTZ is the RESA (Runway End Safety Area). I would support the extension just on that basis. Adds margin of safety. Though, to be fair, Q400s can stop on a dime and Porter isn't flying them very heavy. So braking distance is sufficient.

Would like to see even a small extension (dozens of feet at each end) and installation of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_system
 
kEiThZ said:
You will never have airports in the same city offering completely different destinations. They have the same catchment. They have basically the same set of customers. You can only get segmentation based on the time value difference of traveling to each airport. This is why I say that YTZ can go when we have high speed rail. Till then, the closure of YTZ will have a broad economic impact, given the duopoly at Pearson.

The Feds aren't stupid. They recognize this situation. Transport Canada's own statistics have shown a real decrease in airfares for Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal (wish I could find the table, I've seen it before). And despite what some here think, even a decade of Liberal government at the federal level will not bring the closure of YTZ. The last thing they want is to see a massive increase in regional airfares from reduced competition, making access to tax revenue generating Toronto more difficult. Decent rail service that competes with the airlines should ameliorate those concerns. Which then might negate the need for YTZ.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is realistically expecting YTZ to close anytime soon - expanding its destination catchment area beyond regional is the contentious part. One of its key proposition values right now is to ameliorate YYZ by freeing up some Toronto-Ottawa & Toronto-Montreal slots for higher value flights.
 
DB9 said:
- expanding its destination catchment area beyond regional is the contentious part. One of its key proposition values right now is to ameliorate YYZ by freeing up some Toronto-Ottawa & Toronto-Montreal slots for higher value flights.
Click to expand...

I don't get this talking point either.

1) Expanding their repertoire of flights won't change throughput in any way. Same number of slots at that airport.

2) Competing airlines will not cut flights to the same cities. Air Canada and Westjet run hourly flights to feed the hub at Pearson. There will be no displacement of that service. The existence of YTZ simply means Air Canada and Westjet operating smaller aircraft on their feeder services. This is why I say that only HSR can truly replace YTZ.
 
cplchanb said:
and yet as they are trying to expand the niche we in turn are trying to cut the head off. Seems counter-intuitive....

I wonder how London made their city airport work and here we are doing the same thing and supposedly its doomed to fail....
Click to expand...
LCY was in a regeneration district so its presence wasn't objected to in the same way as it might have been a mile or two further west. Imagine if LCY was in the Portlands and the Unilever lands really were Canary Wharf as it is in the Mayor of Toronto's mind (presumably without bankrupting a Canadian developer this time), providing the customers who can make a 48 seat A318 with 2x2 business seats transatlantic work even with a fueling/immigration stop in one direction. Additionally, LCY got a stop on the Jubilee Line whereas YTZ would never get a streetcar tunnel/loop with the political climate in the downtown wards.
 
LCY has homes and businesses as close or closer than YTZ (looking at primary runways on each). So the context is absolutely relevant.

dowlingm said:
providing the customers who can make a 48 seat A318 with 2x2 business seats transatlantic work even with a fueling/immigration stop in one direction.
Click to expand...

Interestingly:

https://centreforaviation.com/insig...ssey-airlines-epic-tale-end-in-triumph-171835

Toronto was being eyed for all business trans-Atlantic service if the extension panned out.
 
kEiThZ said:
Not substantially at all. The only safety concern I've ever had with YTZ is the RESA (Runway End Safety Area). I would support the extension just on that basis. Adds margin of safety. Though, to be fair, Q400s can stop on a dime and Porter isn't flying them very heavy. So braking distance is sufficient.

Would like to see even a small extension (dozens of feet at each end) and installation of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_system
Click to expand...
I am curious:

If it becomes politically impossible to extend the runway, do you envision new airplane technology (in a decade or two) such as future jets with larger braking safety margins big enough to be approved for YTZ with no runway extension into the water?
 
People forget that the port authority was days away from sending out barges to start infilling the lake for a small runway extension on either end for exactly that before Porter went public with their plans for a large runway extension. No idea what happened to those plans.
 
innsertnamehere said:
People forget that the port authority was days away from sending out barges to start infilling the lake for a small runway extension on either end for exactly that before Porter went public with their plans for a large runway extension. No idea what happened to those plans.
Click to expand...
that is funny.....when the runway expansion was talked about there was all that talk about how the runway needed lengthening anyway for pure safety reasons....prior to that I never gave much extra thought to safety when landing at YTZ.....now every time I am on a plane landing there I am thinking "is this safe....doesn't this runway need to be longer". lol
 
kEiThZ said:
I've hand flown approaches at YTZ. And talking to the guys who've done this and Kai Tak, there's no comparison. YTZ really is a breeze, since the approach parallels the shoreline. There are no obstacle concerns. 08/26 is a different matter. And that's certainly debatable for closure. But they are rather strict in who and under what conditions someone is using that runway.
Click to expand...

08/26 is the main runway, which would stay. I'm thinking you meant 06/24 and/or 15/33. In my opinion they should shut down those two runways, they're rarely used. That would free up lots of space that could be given to the city as parkland on the island, maybe in exchange for small runway extensions for a RESA.

Maybe a smaller parallel runway would be beneficial, for general aviation activities, though I'm not sure if the circuits or crossings would work.
 
brainfreezed said:
08/26 is the main runway, which would stay. I'm thinking you meant 06/24 and/or 15/33. In my opinion they should shut down those two runways, they're rarely used. That would free up lots of space that could be given to the city as parkland on the island, maybe in exchange for small runway extensions for a RESA.

Maybe a smaller parallel runway would be beneficial, for general aviation activities, though I'm not sure if the circuits or crossings would work.
Click to expand...

That still wouldn't address two key issues, though: 1) further protrusion into the harbour of any sort could be a non-starter (and I doubt parkland dedication in lieu would ameliorate the concern in any way), and 2) the city and community were both dead-set against jets as an engine technology, which is an entirely separate item from any physical infrastructure changes.
 
I am wondering does only Porter Airlines operate in Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport? I checked out the departures and I only did see Porter Airlines. I wonder why only Porter Airlines operate in Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport?
 
Ahmet Kul said:
I am wondering does only Porter Airlines operate in Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport? I checked out the departures and I only did see Porter Airlines. I wonder why only Porter Airlines operate in Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport?
Click to expand...

PinkLucy said:
Air Canada also flies out of Billy Bishop
Click to expand...

Porter (through a separate company with the same owners) owned the airport terminals from 2001 until 2015. They kicked out Air Canada in 2006 (when they were starting their airline). Air Canada sued them a few years later (I think it was a Competition Act issue or something similar) and they reached a settlement with Porter that let them operate some flights to/from Montreal.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top