|
|
|
Billy Bishop Airport Expansion?
- Thread starter hw621
- Start date
dowlingm
Senior Member
There were a few people a few pages up who basically said the City/Mayor had this coming because of inaction or whatever
The City and Mayor were asked to approve one of a number of options for expanding the airport. A lot of people wanted no expansion at all and were enraged when the City did actually pass some infill (to meet the RESA requirement) and some additional time on the expiry of the agreement.
So Chow did spend some political capital from downtown NoJets folks in her voter base to meet what had been sold as the airport’s minimum needs to operate safely.
It seems that somebody somewhere expected an even more expansive outcome, or else just decided on a whim that City Council’s decision was insufficient, and rather than go back and say “our bad, we shouldn’t have included that one, we need you to vote on the minimum to operate jets, and if you don’t approve we’re taking it over” have now via Ford Fiat merely seized control of the airport. Add it to the already length list of overreach by the province towards the municipal layer of government.
The City and Mayor were asked to approve one of a number of options for expanding the airport. A lot of people wanted no expansion at all and were enraged when the City did actually pass some infill (to meet the RESA requirement) and some additional time on the expiry of the agreement.
So Chow did spend some political capital from downtown NoJets folks in her voter base to meet what had been sold as the airport’s minimum needs to operate safely.
It seems that somebody somewhere expected an even more expansive outcome, or else just decided on a whim that City Council’s decision was insufficient, and rather than go back and say “our bad, we shouldn’t have included that one, we need you to vote on the minimum to operate jets, and if you don’t approve we’re taking it over” have now via Ford Fiat merely seized control of the airport. Add it to the already length list of overreach by the province towards the municipal layer of government.
TIFF50
New Member
Ontario says it won't take over all of the Toronto Islands despite tabling legislation saying it can.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
They did in your 2015 article. What about now?
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
That article is from 11 years ago lol, it has nothing to do with today.I can see Air Canada's POV. They've concentrated their jet fleet at Pearson and achieved economies of scale there. If Porter gets jets at YTZ, Air Canada will be obliged to do the same and divert some Pearson jet traffic to YTZ (just as AC had to expand Q400 service at YTZ once Porter started ops). But jets at YTZ will not increase the number of total passengers flying out of Toronto, but instead will force Air Canada to duplicate services that were previously concentrated. And Air Canada knows that the era of the turbo prop airliner is coming to an end, with only the ATR still in production, meaning that if jets are never allowed at YTZ, eventually Billy Bishop will end as a viable competitor to its concentrated focus on Pearson. I expect the new (presumably bilingual) CEO of Air Canada will be asking Carney to skip the YTZ expansion and instead to focus on investments at YYZ. Below you can see both the Pearson corp and Air Canada are pushing for expansion of YYZ. I can see Carney agreeing with this and suggesting that YTZ is peanuts and not worth expansion.
Pearson LIFT
Over the next decade we are committed to transforming Pearson into one of the most advanced, sustainable and passenger-friendly airports in the world – a world-class hub and global airport of the future.www.torontopearson.com
Global Horizons: Air Canada Further Strengthens Toronto Hub with Expanded International Network
New flights to Rio, Lima, Cartagena, Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadalajara, Puerto Escondido launching Winter 2025Shanghai and Budapest flights launching in Summer 2026More flights to Prague in Summer 2026New Boeing 787-10 fleet on order to be initially based in Toronto to support future growthMONTRÉAL...www.aircanada.com
If we can get people faster to Pearson, the need for YTZ will be done for. The UPE is a start.
afransen
Senior Member
It's like people saying that taking Central Park and making a BB sized airport that is more convenient than JFK is a Good Thing and anyone who complains is just a NIMBY.
It's not my backyard. I live near the flightpath to Pearson. Pearson should absorb any growth in air travel and the islands and waterfront should emphasize being an amenity for the whole region.
Last edited:
cryogen
New Member
Except the islands already have an airport, and central park doesn't.
afransen
Senior Member
Sunk cost fallacy? Why are we spending a billion $+ to make the waterfront worse when we have a global hub airport with great transportation links and capacity to grow at Pearson.
cryogen
New Member
just because you think it'll make the waterfront worse, doesn't make it so. Many, including myself, believe it will benefit the city. On a personal note, I enjoy watching planes approach and take off from BB.
bobbob911
Active Member
Do you think it will improve the waterfront specifically?
T3G
Senior Member
Can you name some specific ways in which it will benefit the city?
-First of all, most people who fly out of Toronto are travelling internationally, so this will benefit a very very small group of people who a) both live near enough to the airport to make it a more convenient choice over Pearson, and b) happen to be travelling to a location served by a flight out of BB. Most flights will continue to fly out of Pearson. The benefits here are marginal and certainly not worth spending a single penny on.
-It sets yet another precedent of the province coming up with some hare brained scheme and ramming it through with zero discussion or due process, steamrolling the wishes of the city. That's not a benefit to anyone who isn't a serf that wishes for local democracy to be undermined. Not a benefit either.
-It will result in the reduction of an extremely important and beneficial greenspace. Not a benefit unless you are a developer who loses their mind at the sight of grass and trees.
-It means that a bunch of people in private jets will now be able to land at the airport, and get to their downtown destinations faster. No one who doesn't own a private jet should be celebrating this.
picard102
Senior Member
They've already made their comments to the press about it.
There is no "opportunity" we're missing out on here. The airport is an asset, and the waterfront and the existing parks are sufficant in this area.
Oh no, the government fibbed to appease a vocal minority.
No, it's just over peoples homes.
LMAO.
That was the bare minimum required of them. Doing otherwise would have been a dereliction of their responsibilities.
T3G
Senior Member
1) Yes, today. Did the controversy arise today?
2) Just because they said as much doesn't mean they'll stick to their word. In particular, the question of where they're going to store the extra planes that will now fly out of BB hasn't been settled. You'll need more storage space and guess where that storage space is going to come from. You in particular are the last person on the entire forum I would expect to just blindly take them at their word. Why does your rightful skepticism of so many things politicians say and do not apply here? There are big business interests at play here and I see no especial reason to assume they're less full of it now than at any other point in the past. What part of the Greenbelt or FOI debacle, for instance, leads you to believe that in this case they will act in a way that is honourable and true?
txlseries4
Active Member
They aren't. Toronto staff have repeatedly stated that there is deficit of parkland in the downtown core to serve the density of population, current and expected over time. From the 2022 Parkland Strategy update
nfitz
Superstar
The airport and shoreline aren't in the downtown core. Look at those images you just posted. The first shows the density of park area per resident. And the Islands are have a lot of park per resident.
The second image shows where parks are needed in orange.
So where's the orange?