JasonParis
Moderator
I'm no expert here, but I'd think it would make sense to have one authority manage all the region's major airports (and there's some international precedence for that), but I'm sure there's a thoursand reasons why I'm wrong too.
|
|
|
Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Dead)
- Thread starter wyliepoon
- Start date
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,647
- Reaction score
- 1,732
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
If this became an international airport it would provide a lot of jobs, but would the environmental impact be worth it?
MarkBrooks
Active Member
Nav Canada is the Not for Profit corporation that manages all of Canadas airspace including the busy Toronto area. This includes everything from the local airport control tower in Oshawa to city center to Pearson and Pickering when it opens to complete regions and jets flying over the country at FL360. They also do our aviation weather.
It is irrelevant to Our Airspace management who owns or operates an airport.
Pickering is also expected to be a huge boost to GA by reducing the commercial pressure on city center, and by providing capacity on longer runways that can support the executive jets soon to be squeezed out of Pearson during prime time.
The GA section of Pickering is planned for the North East corner of the airport and unlike Buttonville & Oshawa is expected to be able to provide room for growth for decades.
MarkBrooks
Active Member
Surprise, it’s called the infrastructure paradox. How can building an airport be good for the environment and reduced global warming?
Read more here:
https://pickeringairport.org/how-pickering-airport-can-be-carbon-neutral/
Not to mention it gives us the breathing room and capacity to be ready for aviations electric future:
https://pickeringairport.org/will-toronto-miss-out-on-aviations-green-revolution/
MarkBrooks
Active Member
That was once the plan thus the graciously named Greater Toronto Airports Authority ( GTAA) But then the GTAA changed its originally stated mission and instead focused on a single airport, Pearson the only airport it runs, and only that airports business interests. It is now clearly opposed to building Pickering.
As the GTAA accounts for 6% of Ontario’s GDP, even as a not for profit, the anti competition implications of this monopoly are huge. It can not be allowed to continue to dominate and dictate our region’s economic fortunes.
See:
https://pickeringairport.org/493-2/
And in case you are wondering about the impact on the GTAAs bottom line when Pickering opens:
https://pickeringairport.org/will-the-gtaa-be-hurt-when-pickering-airport-opens/
kEiThZ
Superstar
Nav Canada does control and manage airspace. But the number of slots and the approaches at all the airports in the GTA determine the traffic flows around the GTA. This is what I was referring to by my comment on separating commercial and GA traffic.
For example, Buttonville being relatively close to Pearson (by air), really put a damper on both airports' operations.
kEiThZ
Superstar
No, it wouldn't. And Mark's argument here is based on the idea that aviation can run more efficiently with a less congested airport. However, a 10% savings in fuel burn, for example, doesn't help much, if you double the amount of flights.
I fly. I've made a career in the air force. I love airplanes. But I also understand the impact commercial aviation has on the planet. And to that end, we need smart aviation policies that can manage growth while reducing emissions. This would mean offsetting local travel to rail where possible. For example, on the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor. And it would mean concentrating traffic so that operators can fly larger aircraft to destinations, driving unit costs and fuel burn per seat lower.
The above, does, however, harm competitiveness in the sector somewhat. And this is why I've argued that we can't really close YTZ until we have a really solid rail service that is at least near competitive with air from Union. And we should probably open up our aviation sector to more foreign competition (like the Gulf carriers) to keep the pressure on our domestic carriers.
lenaitch
Senior Member
"Friends of the Pickering Airport" helps to clarify things. I'm not that knowledgeable in the aviation field but, given the radical newness of an electric/hybrid electric commercial aircraft, I would think it would take to at least to 2022 to certify a plane that rolled off the line tomorrow. Airport capacity aside, why wouldn't Pearson be able to accommodate electric aircraft? I can't see any particular impediment to making the electric load capacity available to an operator who is willing to pay for it. I'm not for or against a Pickering airport, simply because I don't know. If enough people with deep enough pockets can make it happen, I suppose fill your boots, but it seems there is and will be a finite amount of money to toss around at and supporting transportation, and the short-haul market seems to be in direct competition with HSR/HFR/RER/VIA/highways and all the other models that are being tossed around.
kEiThZ
Superstar
It will be a very long time before you see an electric airplane in commercial passenger service. 2022? That actually made me spit out my coffee. I don't think even 2042 would be realistic. The power/weight ratio of jet engines is unbelievable. Electric motors are orders of magnitude lower than that. At best you'll get battery powered Cessnas in 2022.
This is why I say it'll be interesting to see what investors say about Pickering. Especially if HFR is a go.
MarkBrooks
Active Member
There is a deep relationship between the all powerful GTAA bean counters and NavCanada, a true love hate relationship. The GTAA wants to stuff as many aircraft as possible into the airport, which Nav Canada loves due to the revenue they get for each one , but at the same time actually doing it safely without breaking the laws of physics or man rests on ATC ( Nav Canada) and the pilots they must heard.. Both are increasingly nervous about the “ insane” new masterplan numbers from the GTAA which are setting new goals of 48 movements an hour on runway 23 and 60 combined on runway the 24 L&R set. More over these numbers are for 18 hours a day in all weather conditions. This is not for an hour or two, but 18 hours a day, this has never been achieved in North America at any other airport, even ones without Canadas weather problems.
While setting lofty goals is fine, they need to be achievable, all of the time for the slot system to work. Otherwise they simply overflow into Pearson “after hours” time slots and Pearson will become the fragile link in North America’s airport system.
Surprisingly Buttonville, which is 20 nm away, but is right under Pearson runway 23 approach, has no impact on Pearsons traffic flow now that they have dropped it’s airspace to 2000ft. This was done to allow simultaneous operations with both horizontal and vertical separation on 24L and 23 . Buttonville will be open for another 5 years, possibly much longer now that displaced exec jet traffic from Pearson has rediscovered it.
The boys at transport Canada are not happy campers right now. This is what they are worrying about:
https://pickeringairport.org/gtaas-new-airside-masterplan-safe/
As always The pilots will be the adults in the room, will try thier best to make it work by waviering wake separation on departure as they are able.
We all need to be worried by the profit motive driving both the GTAA and NavCanada at this point. The GTAA is turning into an accidental realestate empire, and NavCanada is bleeding cash looking for ways to cut costs and boost revenue.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
MarkBrooks
Active Member
Totally wrong, but you are not the first to have this misconception.
A couple of facts. The Pickering lands have been owned by the federal government ( that’s us tax payers) for 45 years and managed by Transport Canada directly. It is perhaps one of the best Realestate investment every made by the federal government.
See :
https://pickeringairport.org/are-th...ng-lands-the-best-government-investment-ever/
The GTAA is not a government agency, or part of transport Canada. It is a not for profit corporation, that leases and runs the Pearson airport. It pays rent to us ( the tax payer) and puts the money it makes back into the airport, salaries and buying realestate.
Back in the early 2000’s the GTAA was invited by transport to suggest a way forward for Pickering airport, it instead wanted to focus on Pearson.
While this single airport focus was a disappointment to the political entities that encourage its creation ( thus the strange grandiose name for a single airport manager) , it is certainly understandable, after all it needs to stay focused on its bottom line, not some political goal.
Today, the GTAAs only relationship with Pickering is its constant insistence that it doesn’t need the competition.
So chances of it bidding for or building Pickering airport are low at best, especially given its historical opposition to the airport. But it is still possible, if for no other reason than to block another player from creating competition for its main tenant, Air Canada.
Last edited:
rbt
Senior Member
I disagree with that line of thought. The absolute best way to ensure Pickering is not competition to Pearson is to ensure Pearson wins the bid to build and operate it.
Expect them to fight it the entire way until the very last minute when the project is inevitable, and they'll jump in to try to control Pickering.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
So about what other major hub airports in the world do?
If the pilots have a tough time with this one, they had better avoid JFK, LAX, LHR, etc at peak. I see no issues with 2 min event spacings on the mains. This is in an era of, and aircraft equipped with ACARS, FMS and RNP/RNAV. It's not like they have to read back a transatlantic clearance before lining up, like the past. Technology should facilitate an increase in productivity without compromising safety. Are these guys just upset they have to work harder for their six figure paycheques?
Pure FUD.
Did you just forget to mention all the other factors like AF358 landing half way down the runway (when they should have gone around), or the lack of grooved pavement at the time, hurting the runway index?
If you have to resort to sensationalism to make your case, then your case isn't as strong as you think.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
So same ownership as Pearson then.