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

[Northern Light]

Wonder how this will work out. We'll have different feds, prov and mayor so this could go any way.

As a practical matter, for all concerned, the decision can't (or at least shouldn't) wait til the last proverbial minute.

I tend to think a decision will be made by 2025/2026; it could possibly be made during a 3rd John Tory term.

I would certainly hope we don't get another term of Dougie.......

It is likely there would be a change in PM; as even if Trudeau leads the Libs into a fall election; and comes out of it successful, I find it improbable he would lead them into the election thereafter.

 

[drum118]

Billy Bishop Airport could become obsolete if there's HSR from Chicago to Montreal via Detroit/Windsor, Toronto, and Ottawa; from Toronto to New York City; and from Toronto to Boston.

Dream on as it will never happen for NY or Boston as it will still faster to fly considering the US is not gun ho on HSR in the first place. How long has there been talk about HSR between Quebec City and Windsor??

At the rate HSR going in NA, most of us and possibility all of us will be gone before we see the Quebec City-Windsor HSR fully in place. To have a true HSR, you need an new line separate from freight.

As long you try to place HSR on exist freight corridors, you will never get anything above 250 km for X sections only leaving flying is faster.

 

[SubHuman]

New airline hoping to compete with Porter at Billy Bishop.

New carrier Connect Airlines to launch US-Canada flights in October

New carrier Connect Airlines to launch US-Canada flights in October

A new regional carrier called Connect Airlines plans to begin passenger flights in October between the USA and Toronto's Billy Bishop City airport.

www.flightglobal.com

There is (or was?) also a proposed carrier, Odyssey Airlines, intending to have a premium trans-Atlantic service from London City Airport to Billy Bishop (YTZ is shown in the video), although that would obviously require the extending of the main runway to enable the use of the Airbus A220 (formerly Bombardier C Series) as Porter had also wanted to do.

 

[Rainforest]

There is (or was?) also a proposed carrier, Odyssey Airlines, intending to have a premium trans-Atlantic service from London City Airport to Billy Bishop (YTZ is shown in the video), although that would obviously require the extending of the main runway to enable the use of the Airbus A220 (formerly Bombardier C Series) as Porter had also wanted to do.

A new regional carrier is welcome.

However, I feel that trans-Atlantic service between the city airports is a bit of overshoot. Big planes are more efficient on such distances, and big planes should go to big airports.

 

[nfitz]

However, I feel that trans-Atlantic service between the city airports is a bit of overshoot. Big planes are more efficient on such distances, and big planes should go to big airports.

I thought one of the big selling points of the C-series was that it was more fuel efficient than almost every other jet out there, per seat mile - at 2.4L/100 km. Better than what is currently flying between Pearson and Heathrow.

Wouldn't it then make more sense to have small planes going to small airports?

 

[Quint]

A new regional carrier is welcome.

However, I feel that trans-Atlantic service between the city airports is a bit of overshoot. Big planes are more efficient on such distances, and big planes should go to big airports.

Trans-Atlantic service is by no means an "overshoot" . David Neeleman who founded both JetBlue and WestJet has created a new airline called "Moxy" He has ordered A220-300s with extra fuel tanks for 4,000 nmi (7,400 km) of range, allowing transatlantic flights. There is no reason why Porter or any other airline based at Billy Bishop cannot operate a similar aircraft that could provide non-stop service from Billy Bishop to London City Centre airport as well as most major European airports. The A220 (C-Series) can easily travel non-stop from Toronto to Los Angeles so it is in no way a "regional jet".

Bigger airplanes are actually going out of favor. The A380 program is dead as is the 747-8. Increasingly in the future trans-Atlantic flights will be on single aisle jets like the A321-LR and XLR as well as the A220-300 (500?) and even Boeing 737 Max and proposed Boeing NMA (New Midsize Airplane).

Having a QUIET airport within easy WALKING distance from downtown (what could be greener?) that can operate "Jets" that can fly DIRECT to the Capitols of Europe and to Entertainment capitols such as Los Angeles and Las Vegas *should* be seen as a MASSIVE asset for Toronto - especially when that "jet" is actually quieter than existing Jet-prop aircraft (Q400) and doesn't require DRIVING all the way to Pearson burning fossil fuels. Billy Bishop should really be seen as the GREEN ALTERNATIVE to Pearson.

Chicago regrets closing down it's lake front airport (for what?). Hopefully Toronto will never make that mistake.

 

[Northern Light]

Having a QUIET airport within easy WALKING distance from downtown (what could be greener?) that can operate "Jets" that can fly DIRECT to the Capitols of Europe and to Entertainment capitols such as Los Angeles and Las Vegas *should* be seen as a MASSIVE asset for Toronto - especially when that "jet" is actually quieter than existing Jet-prop aircraft (Q400) and doesn't require DRIVING all the way to Pearson burning fossil fuels. Billy Bishop should really be seen as the GREEN ALTERNATIVE to Pearson.

You're welcome to your preferences, but I neither share them, nor feel they are supported by the evidence.

Chicago regrets closing down it's lake front airport (for what?). Hopefully Toronto will never make that mistake.

What evidence do you have for that statement?

I couldn't find any recent polls as to the citizenry's views (last one I could find was 2003, which aside from being nearly 20 years old, pre-dates by more than a decade the opening of the park that is currently situated there. )

The only evidence I can see is that the mayor candidate who championed rebuilding the airport didn't finish in contention for said job. Specifically, he finished 4th.

 

[SubHuman]

… I feel that trans-Atlantic service between the city airports is a bit of overshoot…

British Airways already tried a very similar service from London City Airport to New York. It ended last year, with them blaming decreased demand because of the pandemic, but the fact that the specific plane they used, an all-business class 32-seat Airbus A318, is apparently being scrapped, would seem to indicate there is no intention to restart the service.
https://www.businesstraveller.com/b...ms-end-of-all-business-class-lcy-jfk-service/

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Large jets are going out of favour because it's becoming increasingly difficult to fill those aircraft with the 400+ passengers required to operate those aircraft profitably. Airlines have learned it's easier to fly smaller capacity aircraft (with multiple flights per day) and there is also the side benefit of creating artificial scarcity for each flight which can net a greater price from the consumer.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Trans-Atlantic service is by no means an "overshoot" . David Neeleman who founded both JetBlue and WestJet has created a new airline called "Moxy" He has ordered A220-300s with extra fuel tanks for 4,000 nmi (7,400 km) of range, allowing transatlantic flights. There is no reason why Porter or any other airline based at Billy Bishop cannot operate a similar aircraft that could provide non-stop service from Billy Bishop to London City Centre airport as well as most major European airports. The A220 (C-Series) can easily travel non-stop from Toronto to Los Angeles so it is in no way a "regional jet".

Trans Atlantic service could theoretically be feasible, but there are 2 problems to take into consideration:

1. Billy Bishop might not be able to handle the planes. I understand the fuel tanks, but that adds to runway distance needed for takeoff.
2. If you're running a service to European airports with such limited passenger capacity, prices will be high. You need downtown airports, and London City has limited slots. And I cannot name another European downtown airport.

Bigger airplanes are actually going out of favor. The A380 program is dead as is the 747-8. Increasingly in the future trans-Atlantic flights will be on single aisle jets like the A321-LR and XLR as well as the A220-300 (500?) and even Boeing 737 Max and proposed Boeing NMA (New Midsize Airplane).

Indeed. I feel, though, that Pearson can handle them more efficiently.

Having a QUIET airport within easy WALKING distance from downtown (what could be greener?) that can operate "Jets" that can fly DIRECT to the Capitols of Europe and to Entertainment capitols such as Los Angeles and Las Vegas *should* be seen as a MASSIVE asset for Toronto - especially when that "jet" is actually quieter than existing Jet-prop aircraft (Q400) and doesn't require DRIVING all the way to Pearson burning fossil fuels. Billy Bishop should really be seen as the GREEN ALTERNATIVE to Pearson.

The "greener" alternative is to not fly. Since that's never going to happen, we should pick the option with the most efficiencies. Small airports are less efficient. I also don't understand where the Green Alternative idea comes from. There is transit to Pearson, with 15 minute frequencies. Also, people from the suburbs have to drive to Billy Bishop.
I should also say that having almost a square kilometers of land to do whatever you want with, on the islands, is also a "MASSIVE" asset.

Chicago regrets closing down it's lake front airport (for what?). Hopefully Toronto will never make that mistake.

Really? Got any polls?

 

[nfitz]

[*]Billy Bishop might not be able to handle the planes. I understand the fuel tanks, but that adds to runway distance needed for takeoff.

I'd assume the assumption was that this would only be after the runway extension gets approved and constructed.

 

[picard102]

Also, people from the suburbs have to drive to Billy Bishop.

We take the subway.

 

[afransen]

Chicago regrets closing down it's lake front airport (for what?)

Says who?

 

[Rainforest]

I thought one of the big selling points of the C-series was that it was more fuel efficient than almost every other jet out there, per seat mile - at 2.4L/100 km. Better than what is currently flying between Pearson and Heathrow.

Wouldn't it then make more sense to have small planes going to small airports?

But the A220's will require an airport expansion, that means more restrictions on sailing.

And the competitive case isn't obvious. For one, the turboprop A220 are a bit slower than the jets. I read 829 kph typical, 871 kph max, while the jets cruise at something like 970 kph, sometimes even > 1,000 kph. Not a big deal for trips within the eastern half of Canada or to the eastern half of U.S., but for Toronto to London UK, the difference should be about 1 h each way. That kind of reduces the area within which the use of Billy Bishop is appealing.

Furthermore, transatlantic trips commonly include a connecting local flight, as opposed to regional trips that often go point to point. The London City and the Billy Bishop do offer some connecting options, but not nearly as many as Heathrow or Pearson. That means, harder to compete with those who fly between the primary hubs.

And if the business case isn't solid in the long term, then it doesn't look like a good idea to expand the airport. Probably better to stick with the plane sizes it can handle today, and regional trips only.

 

[nfitz]

But the A220's will require an airport expansion, that means more restrictions on sailing.

I"m not sure the airport would need to be expanded, other than the runway length which has been in discussion for years, and we've discussed above.

Yeah, sailboats would lose some water. As they have for years with lakefilling, including the current program south of the Ashbridges Bay treatment plant. I've seen no uproar about that.