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

[allabootmatt]

As I said earlier, I'm still not sure what I think about this proposal. My initial inclination is to be opposed, not necessarily on substantive grounds but because Porter and the Port Authority, which seems awfully focused on advancing the interests of a single private company, have consistently obfuscated about their true intentions for the Island.

I recall during the 2003 election a rendering floating around of a significantly expanded terminal surrounded with jets that had been prepared for some conceptual study of the airport, and the Port Authority people dismissed it as a completely ridiculous misrepresentation of what they had in mind. Well, less than a decade later here we are. I am not generally sympathetic to slippery-slope arguments, but this is a case in which we might want to think about just that.

That said, I like and have used Porter, and there's no question it's a great amenity (though a decent Pearson rail link may reduce its relative attractiveness, especially to destinations like New York where you lose the time at the other end because Porter doesn't serve the most convenient airport).

One thing I hope all can agree on is that if this expansion gets the green light, there needs to be a significant financial contribution from Porter and the TPA toward fixing the absolute mess that exists at the foot of Bathurst St at the moment. That means decent public spaces and a traffic management plan that mitigates stress on the nieghborhood and its streets, which clearly weren't designed for this level of activity. I am not sure how this would work and I understand the geometry of the area is restricted, but there has to be a better way--and one that improves the pedestrian and cycling amenities along the water's edge as well.

 

[ShonTron]

I'm appreciating many of the responses here that go beyond boosterist support or apocalyptic outrage.

The TPA is not the kind of organisation I can trust, and they have a far too cozy relationship with Porter, the corporate proponent.

I don't think noise, on its own, is a huge issue, it's whether YTZ can handle substantial growth, especially land-side.

We need to have this debate.

I raised the concern of whether Porter can handle such growth and change to its business model. Canada's recent history is littered with the remains of failed airlines; Porter seemed to find its niche serving short-haul, high demand routes and serving intraprovincial markets well. I flew to Timmins last September on Porter, the flight was nearly full! Apart from the once charming, now annoying ferry ride, there's little to dislike about Porter the way it is.

I would have expected Porter to grow more incrementally; a few more destinations, and/or a second hub in Montreal, Moncton or Halifax. This is a major departure from that model.

 

[diminutive]

I don't think noise, on its own, is a huge issue, it's whether YTZ can handle substantial growth, especially land-side.

I wonder what long term transit connections could look like to YTZ. If some kind of DRL was ever built along the the rail corridor, building a spur or shuttle line between a Bathurst Station and the landside pavilion could be relatively cheap (single track, one station...) and also pick up some condodweller ridership. Like, it wouldn't even need to be a subway. A people mover type system would be pretty adequate.

I would have expected Porter to grow more incrementally; a few more destinations, and/or a second hub in Montreal, Moncton or Halifax. This is a major departure from that model.

Yea, the economics don't seem obvious to me. Maybe the jets aren't primarily for longer distance regional travel (YTZ-LAX) but just to get quicker/more flights in on existing routes. The C-series is quite a bit faster than the Q400, so maybe they figure they could get more fares out of a single aircraft? Most budget airlines still use twin-jets, right?

LAX-YTZ is ~3,500km. The figures I saw for shortfield operations suggest ranges well short of that. Most of the Westcoast markets seem too far for a reduced range C-Series, and the rest is sort of flyover country. Maybe YTZ-Calgary? YTZ-Florida/Caribbean? Those routes alone though wouldn't justify a few dozen jets, so I assume most would remain on existing routes (NYC, Mtl, Ottawa) and just try to get more passenger miles in a given day.

 

[Hipster Duck]

^I'm not an aviation expert, but I still wonder if the speed of a jet and the increased range (so, I guess, the ability to turn around without refueling) makes sense on flights as short as YTZ-YUL, YTZ-YOW, YTZ-EWR, etc.

I also find it strange that Porter would want to buy larger jets while Westjet is moving in the opposite direction: buying Q400s to start a regional airline that would compete directly with Porter.

Again, I'm not an aviation expert, but I find the business case to be a little shaky. Pulling this off is contingent on a multimillion dollar expansion of a runway into a lake and the purchase of aircraft that are still in development on a level that would effectively double the size of the existing fleet.

Like I said, I respect the right of private corporations to make free decisions on how they want to run or grow their business. On the other hand, it's a two way street: corporations should respect that private people have the right to make decisions on where they choose to invest their money. Personally, I wouldn't invest in Porter's business plan in a million years. As a taxpayer, I have every right not to see my hard earned tax money used to support what I perceive to be a very flimsy investment opportunity without my permission. If they finagle a way to get some level of higher government to subsidize them, whether it's a sweetheart deal to purchase Bombardier jets or any assistance to expand their runway - I will vocally protest this.

 

[diminutive]

^I'm not an aviation expert, but I still wonder if the speed of a jet and the increased range (so, I guess, the ability to turn around without refueling) makes sense on flights as short as YTZ-YUL, YTZ-YOW, YTZ-EWR, etc.

Yea, I've got no real clue either. Notwithstanding Westjet though, the vast majority of low-cost carriers still use 737s or A320 family aircraft. So I assume the business case for those aircraft still exists on short-haul routes.

Westjet's Q400 services are also targeted at very marginal travel markets. I've honestly never even heard of Castlegar, BC. Presumably their operating criteria on these routes only involve a handful of passengers per flight, so profitability depends on getting the absolute lowest cost-per seat possible. Different from Toronto - New York.

Like I said, I respect the right of private corporations to make free decisions on how they want to run or grow their business. On the other hand, it's a two way street: corporations should respect that private people have the right to make decisions on where they choose to invest their money. Personally, I wouldn't invest in Porter's business plan in a million years. As a taxpayer, I have every right not to see my hard earned tax money used to support what I perceive to be a very flimsy investment opportunity without my permission. If they finagle a way to get some level of higher government to subsidize them, whether it's a sweetheart deal to purchase Bombardier jets or any assistance to expand their runway - I will vocally protest this.

Ohh yeah, Porter's definitely tries to use public opinion to its business advantage. It's no shock they've gone with the C-Series, the Federal Government's little industrial welfare baby, as opposed to other narrowbody twinjets. I imagine a A319 with the same engine would have similar noise and performance specifications as the C-Series, but no political benefits.

That said, and I may have missed this, but are they expecting a public subsidy for the runway expansion? I assumed it would be paid for through airport improvement fees like the tunnel project.

 

[RC8]

I live in South Parkdale, just north of their flight path and noise is hardly noticable, we have bigger problems with the ornge helicopters flying overtop of us
to Billy Bishop

Anyways, i say bring them on.....lovely plane

The noise when they are flying is hardly noticeable (especially due to the noise of the gardiner covering it), but the noise of their engines idling in the airport is terrible. You wouldn't get this in parkdale.

 

[Peepers]

The noise when they are flying is hardly noticeable (especially due to the noise of the gardiner covering it), but the noise of their engines idling in the airport is terrible. You wouldn't get this in parkdale.

The noise that you are hearing is the changing of the propeller pitch. They use different settings for example when taxiing they use "ground fine" which allows the pilot to slow down the aircraft while maintaining a certain RPM. On touchdown the propeller pitch is completely reversed. This changing of the propeller pitch is extremely noisy.

With the CSeries there will be none of these noises. Even full reverse thrust will be comparatively quieter that's if full reverse is even required. Airlines limit reverse thrust to extent needed because it puts considerable wear on engine parts.

 

[nfitz]

With the CSeries there will be none of these noises. Even full reverse thrust will be comparatively quieter that's if full reverse is even required. Airlines limit reverse thrust to extent needed because it puts considerable wear on engine parts.

So what you are saying, is that these jets will be a lot quieter than the current planes?

Perhaps Porter could win a concession that the restriction be changed based on sound, and the jets are kept, and instead they ban noisy jets and propellers.

I wonder how the sound profile of the existing and proposed planes compares to the ORNGE helicopters.

 

[innsertnamehere]

My understanding is that they will essentially be just as loud as the Q400s

 

[whatever]

I can't imagine any strong opposition to a re-writing of the restrictions. That was the point of the restrictions, after all, wasn't it? To prevent incredibly loud planes from taxiing a couple hundred meters away from residents? If they were to request a new restriction that kept sound levels at or below existing levels I'd have a hard time getting upset over the introduction of jets to the island.

 

[Peepers]

So what you are saying, is that these jets will be a lot quieter than the current planes?

Perhaps Porter could win a concession that the restriction be changed based on sound, and the jets are kept, and instead they ban noisy jets and propellers.

I wonder how the sound profile of the existing and proposed planes compares to the ORNGE helicopters.

Yes the CSeries will undoubtedly be quieter than the Q400 and it will be a different kind of sound similar to "white noise" .

I suspect that Porter will ask that the restriction be changed to permit turbo-fans as quiet or quieter than the Q400. If they do so they will only have to worry about competition from Airlines operating the CSeries (at least for the near future). Boeing and Airbus are coming out with new models that will use the new engine technology ( 737MAX and A319/A320 NEO ) but they will not be available for at least two years after the introduction of the CSeries.

As for the ORNGE helicopters they are noisier than the Q400's although because they are used for MEDEVAC they would be exempt from any regulation although private operators can and do land jet powered Helicopters on the Island and no one has suggested they be banned.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

The noise when they are flying is hardly noticeable (especially due to the noise of the gardiner covering it), but the noise of their engines idling in the airport is terrible. You wouldn't get this in parkdale.

You hear little when the Q400's take off. When they land, the reverse thrust is easily heard across the lake. I can imagine a jets reverse will be quite noisy. Is that taken into account wher measuring airport noise?

 

[jamincan]

Personally, I have found that reverse thrust on a turboprop is significantly noisier than on a jet, or at least a more disruptive noise.

 

[kEiThZ]

Here's what I find inconsistent.

When Weston residents complain about noise and vibration from tracks, people tell them to suck it up for the good of the city. And the rumbling of trains going by has a far more acute impact (they complained about their houses vibrating) on those Weston residents, than noise from departing aircraft at YTZ will on any waterfront resident (even the Islanders).

So if Weston residents are viewed as NIMBYs hindering progress, why should the same label not apply to those near YTZ, who will be impacted even less?

For the record, I didn't support the Weston residents then. Because I want to see infrastructure developed in this city that enables us to finally get somewhere. I look at YTZ in the same light. We need to make the best of infrastructure we have, because we are simply terrible at actually building anything new.

 

[kEiThZ]

Personally, I have found that reverse thrust on a turboprop is significantly noisier than on a jet, or at least a more disruptive noise.

Agreed. And reverse thrust noise should actually be less on this aircraft that the Q400s for a whole host of technical reasons.