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

[TOareaFan]

Actually most planes circle in "full drag" mode these days to burn off as much as possible unless its a super emergency - but when dumped at altitude a lot of the fuel dissipates. I think of what Adam is referring to is a localized spill with a holding tank full of un-dissipated fuel flowing off into one of the islands lagoons or the Island Parks sewer system (like what is going on in Arkansas atm).

Does that risk change with the plane type?

 

[Peepers]

Actually most planes circle in "full drag" mode these days to burn off as much as possible unless its a super emergency - but when dumped at altitude a lot of the fuel dissipates. I think of what Adam is referring to is a localized spill with a holding tank full of un-dissipated fuel flowing off into one of the islands lagoons or the Island Parks sewer system (like what is going on in Arkansas atm).

Vaughan may be worried about a local spill of jet fuel but what does he think the current fleet of turboprops run on? Obviously this is a subject Vaughan doesn't have a clue about.

As for dumping of fuel, yes it's true they try to burn off fuel but in a real emergency those aircraft capable of dumping (not every aircraft is capable) would be dumping fuel over Lake Ontario and most of it would find its way into the lake. I don't know why anyone would be so concerned about a little spill of Jet fuel into Lake Ontario when the Lake itself is essentially a closed-loop septic system with human sewage - sometimes untreated - being discharged from a pipe at Ashbridges Bay where it is mixed with Lake water before entering an intake pipe a short distance to the east at the R.C. Harris Water filtration plant to be treated before being piped to our drinking taps.

 

[EnviroTO]

I don't so much have an issue with Porter's current proposal as I do with a general feeling that there is no end to the expansion. To go to the extreme, would the general public be willing to accept two parallel 10,000 ft runways as the vision of their waterfront? No, that isn't what is being proposed now but the question in my mind is where do we draw the line in the sand? It is an incremental improvement just like building a new terminal, expanding the terminal, sending the old historic terminal to the field, kicking out flight schools, creating a monopoly on land holdings, and building a tunnel. Each on its own was a small change. I can imagine that if someone opposed the original Q400 flights on the grounds that it was a precursor to 200 jet flights a day on the waterfront that they would have been slammed by island airport supporters as being far fetched and not realistic, but here we are. I find any argument that we should not be concerned about this being the next step to much bigger change due to protections in the existing agreement such as slot restrictions as disingenuous because the whole discussion is centred around that agreement being changed. An agreement which is so easily changed to allow a tunnel and which is to now be adjusted to allow a runway expansion and use of jets is obviously no protection against future change.

What is the real impact of this change? For most measures there is no change: Negligible change in noise, negligible change in pollution from aircraft, small reduction in water in an out of bounds area. The real change is in the neighbourhood where an additional 7000+ people will pass by the waterfront school and playground and unfortunately they are not likely to be using public transit based on current travel patterns.

I would support this change if as part of the agreement there can be put in place "kill pills" to future changes to the agreement that would expand the airport property or number of flights permitted, but I don't think Porter would sign it. I think that this is just the next step on changes that will not stop.

 

[kEiThZ]

I am not sure what to make of Porter's annoucements. But I am sure of one thing: we HAVE to stop using London City as an example of a comparable urban airport. Have you ever been there, Keithz? It is something like eight miles from Charing Cross, in an area that could charitably be described as an industrial wasteland. A taxi from the City can easily take 30 minutes, one from the West End much longer. Indeed, for many people in central London it's much faster to get to Heathrow. Even Canary Wharf, which is LCY's main selling point, really isn't very close. You certainly couldn't walk it in any reasonable time frame, as you could from the foot of Bathurst St to Toronto's finacial district.

There is simply no comparison between LCY and the Island; an equivalent in London would be outting a landing strip across from Borough Market. The existence of LCY is not an argument for the expansion of Billy Bishop.

Having flown from LCY, I beg to differ. Have you been there? It's quite comparable to the area around Billy Bishop. Perfectly, direct analogy? No. But quite close. And even tougher for LCY actually. They have to fly an approach down the Thames to get in. Right over central London. Most of Porter's approach is over water, further from residences and businesses. You don't have Q400s flying right over the core to land at YTZ, the way that LCY takes in traffic.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Lisa Raitt, the current minister of "Labour" was the previous head of the TPA.....

Whenever I read of Ms. Raitt I am reminded of her former assistant, the politically connected and disastrously forgetful, yet smoking hot... Jasmine MacDonnell.

http://www2.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/img_8608.jpg?w=635

 

[kEiThZ]

Keithz:

Actually, having just done some background research, I just realized that the CS series dated back to the mid-2000s (and orders were taken since what, 2008) and the PW1000G had been in development since the late 90s and entered testing around 2008, I found it exceedingly difficult to believe that Porter just jumped right into the idea of ordering the jets and realizing the conflict it will pose to the existing agreement, while it is pretty clear that this aircraft and its' performance characteristics had been known for years. Given the lead time, I found the argument that it is a sudden opportunity extremely perplexing.

And btw, the CS series will be manufactured in Montreal, I believe, not Downsview.

AoD

1) Nowhere have I ever said that the CSeries will be manufactured in Downsview. The extra jobs that Porter will create come from expansion of the airline itself. But it's nice that we can sustain jobs in Montreal, just like our subway contracts sustain jobs in Thunder Bay.

2) The idea has been around for a long time. The technology hasn't. I graduated from Ryerson with an aerospace engineering degree in 2003. We all knew that theoretically a geared turbofan would be a superb engine. The technology to pull that off? Much more difficult than talking about. Pratt and Whitney will have spent over a billion dollars and nearly a decade developing this. And the CSeries will be the first aircraft to put the engine into service. And that's just the engine. Bombardier has done a whole bunch of development on the airframe as well. Effectively this aircraft will simply do more while burning the same gas and making the same noise as a Q400.

That the idea is old is irrelevant. The technology to build such an efficient aircraft hasn't existed till now.

 

[kEiThZ]

themarc:

While it maybe true, I would find that extremely difficult to believe. Besides, if you want to maximize the capacity of two runways, you'd need to have adequate separation between the two - 1525m is the often quoted figure, but that's for runways handling widebody jets.

AoD

Not just for widebodies. You need substantial separation for independent runway operations. Otherwise you are effectively managing both runways as one operation. As in you can't let an aircraft on one runway depart till the inbound aircraft on another has landed.

 

[kEiThZ]

LAX North Complex has separation of only 700 feet - and those runways (8,900 ft and 10,200 ft) handle THE BIG PLANES - not the commuter ones. I think SFX has a set with 600 feet center-line separation. If using something as small as a C100 500 feet should be generous for simultaneous Visual Flight Approach/Take-Off.

Except, what's the need twin runways at YTZ? They'll reach their limit on ramp space well before they need a twinned runway.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Keithz:

1) Nowhere have I ever said that the CSeries will be manufactured in Downsview. The extra jobs that Porter will create come from expansion of the airline itself. But it's nice that we can sustain jobs in Montreal, just like our subway contracts sustain jobs in Thunder Bay.

No, but I think it is useful information. As to whether it sustains jobs in Montreal, that's really not my concern.

2) The idea has been around for a long time. The technology hasn't. I graduated from Ryerson with an aerospace engineering degree in 2003. We all knew that theoretically a geared turbofan would be a superb engine. The technology to pull that off? Much more difficult than talking about. Pratt and Whitney will have spent over a billion dollars and nearly a decade developing this. And the CSeries will be the first aircraft to put the engine into service. And that's just the engine. Bombardier has done a whole bunch of development on the airframe as well. Effectively this aircraft will simply do more while burning the same gas and making the same noise as a Q400.

The orders started flowing 5 years ago, not last year, not 2003. 5 years - and the intention to use them just came up what, yesterday? This has nothing to do with R&D and all to do with intent. Do recall:

A gameplan which would not be feasible without Bombardier actually delivering the CSeries. By the way, Bombardier targetted London City while designing the CSeries. It's a happy coincidence that urban airports all over the world will benefit from the stringent rules at LCY.

That the idea is old is irrelevant. The technology to build such an efficient aircraft hasn't existed till now.

Now, or 5 years ago? I am talking about the the airline's intention vis-a-vis their plans, and the requirements it will impose on the agreement. Airlines don't make snap decisions about plane purchases -and if Porter just realized the potential of CS (to such an extent that it wasn't in their planning, relative to the airport) they'd be incompetent.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't so much have an issue with Porter's current proposal as I do with a general feeling that there is no end to the expansion. To go to the extreme, would the general public be willing to accept two parallel 10,000 ft runways as the vision of their waterfront?

The slippery slope argument has no basis in reality. There is no way to build some 10 000 ft runway without substantial construction and expansion outside the airport's boundaries. And if you're building a 10 000 foot runway, it's because you want to land some big birds in there. Where will they be parked?

In reality, Porter is simply working towards maximizing the utility of the Island airport. There won't be twin runways. Ramp space is a far bigger concern. I can see Porter pushing to get rid of two runways and going down to just one at YTZ, while working to expand the terminal. Eventually, I can see the terminal covering the whole north side and a large maintenance facility and parking ramp to the south of the runway. That would see the airport becoming a fully commercial operation, ditching the flying school and FBO operations catering to visitors. I don't see this as a bad thing. It's maximizing utility of valuable infrastructure.

 

[kEiThZ]

The orders started flowing 5 years ago, not last year, not 2003. 5 years - and the intention to use them just came up what, yesterday? This has nothing to do with R&D and all to do with intent. Do recall:

Now, or 5 years ago? I am talking about the the airline's intention vis-a-vis their plans, and the requirements it will impose on the agreement. Airlines don't make snap decisions about plane purchases -and if Porter just realized the potential of CS (to such an extent that it wasn't in their planning, relative to the airport) they'd be incompetent.

AoD

I fail to see your point. Sure, some customers ordered 5 years ago. Porter ordered in December. And according to Deluce, Porter started studying the aircraft a little over a year ago. This makes perfect sense to me. If you've been following the CSeries program, as I have, that's about the timeframe that Bombardier started providing more solid performance numbers (after some windtunnel testing), that let them confidently state that the aircraft would be commercially viable operating from London City. I'm guessing that's when Deluce started paying attention. Prior to that point, Bombardier was quoting runway take-off lengths over 5000ft at MTOW. Their focus till then was on getting fuel burn down (that's what will ultimately sell the airplane). Those who could do with the 5000ft runway length ordered. Porter had no viable business case till the CSeries field performance numbers improved.

And if you were in Deluce's shoes would you not act the same way? It's a business opportunity for his airline to expand that is enabled by new technology. Whether that lines up with the interests of the city is a question we need to answer as citizens. I fail to see what Deluce's intent has to do with the public debate on whether or not to expand the airport. His intent is irrelevant. Porter can only operate to the limits set by the tripartite agreement.

 

[Kitsune]

its kinda funny - tonight I witnessed a small business jet making a decent to the airport and then pulling up after flying over - it was going quite low. I dunno what to make of the stunt, I'm surprised there is little news about it.

 

[kEiThZ]

how do you know porter won't try to amend the tripartite agreement for this as well?

the same arguments could be made... nimby's are whiners, increased convenience, it's good for the economy, etc.

And we can then have a debate on whether more slots are warranted then. I fail to see how fear of a future discussion should preclude any progress at all.

afaik, porter isn't filling their planes these days. if they take delivery of the cs100's, what are they going to do with that excess capacity? i don't want to jump to conclusions, but it's a bit curious.

1) Because the Q400 is pretty efficient, Porter can make a profit with a substantially lower load factor than Air Canada or Westjet.
2) Porter bought more slots than they probably needed to keep them out of the hands of Air Canada. If this plan goes through, Porter will reallocate its slots. I would anticipate some consolidation and reduction of services to Montreal and Ottawa to free up slots for all the new services they want to launch.

 

[Dan416]

As to whether it sustains jobs in Montreal, that's really not my concern.

Glad to hear Canadian jobs aren't your concern. What Canadian companies are left?? Nortel is gone. RIM err BlackBerry is going extinct.

I do have a (small) amount of Bombardier stock, so of course I want this to go through from that perspective, but also from a "nationalistic" perspective. I know nationalism isn't very popular these days, but why would you not want a Canadian company to do well? Should we just give up and let America rule us? As much as I love America, I don't think so.

 

[Peepers]

its kinda funny - tonight I witnessed a small business jet making a decent to the airport and then pulling up after flying over - it was going quite low. I dunno what to make of the stunt, I'm surprised there is little news about it.

A Dassault Falcon 10 Business Jet landed tonight at 9:24 PM after a short flight from Oshawa!

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BFF100/history/20130411/0100Z/CYOO/CYTZ

It is now headed on London Ontario:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BFF100/history/20130411/0200Z/CYTZ/CYXU

It does not appear to be on a MEDEVAC flight (these are designated with a red-cross symbol on FlightAware)

Did it look like this:

EDIT: I notice a couple of hours earlier another Falcon 10 Jet landed at City Centre - originally scheduled to land at Buttonville but diverted to City Centre.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/FEX11/history/20130410/1300Z/CYYT/CYKZ