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

[bobbob911]

I don't think they were ever planning transcontinental were they? Jets are about coverage to the west coast and the Caribbean.

 

[bobbob911]

I would like to see the nojetsto group respond to this report since 1/3 of their argument is potentially debunked.

Respond to what? That report says that a)the Q400 series turboprops that Porter currently uses is extremely quiet, and b) small prop planes can be significantly louder than large prop planes. What does that have to do with jets?

 

[bobbob911]

FWIW, I'm interested by the number of 'but the new jets are quieter' arguments from BB expansion supporters. Has noise really been the major point of debate all this time? Since I don't live on the harbour, anything short of a daily Toronto Air Show level of noise seems like a bit of a straw man argument.

For me, being against the expansion is about the, well, expansion. As in, much longer runway, bigger terminal, bigger planes, more slots, more traffic as the passengers get to the airport, etc. I don't think we need a regional airport in downtown Toronto, but I understand that others like it a lot so I'm not advocating we do a Chicago and draw an X across the runway with a tractor. But I really don't get the idea of taking prime waterfront and making it into a much bigger airport. There are so many other, more lucrative as well as more 'socially' valuable uses for Toronto's main connection with Lake Ontario.

This. This is exactly what "No Jets" is shorthand for. Some of this (runway length, MEZ, blast wall, etc) is the science, some of it (landing slots, increased traffic and congestion) is speculation.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

If large transconti

Respond to what? That report says that a)the Q400 series turboprops that Porter currently uses is extremely quiet, and b) small prop planes can be significantly louder than large prop planes. What does that have to do with jets?

Transcontinental means across the continent. I.e. North America. Intercontinental would be between two continents, and so long distance. Still those kind of flights can be controlled by restricting the distances of flights, as LaGuardia once did.

 

[TOareaFan]

Again, with due respect, 'The Truth is Out There":

http://www.thestar.com/business/tec...s-of-high-costs-for-jets-at-billy-bishop.html

Even if you trust Porter's figures rather than Air Canada's claims, the runway is being expanded by 36% (1216m to 1658m). Yes, IMHO, that is a "much" longer runway. If you take AC's claims at face value, it's a "much much" longer runway.

My point was that some of that extension is happening anyway...no? So if you take that part out how much is the extension related solely to the C series and then have a discussion about whether it is "much" or "much much"....discussion/disclosure will determine that....and I am not pre-disposed to one or the other.

The first article I linked above quoted Deluce as saying the CSeries will need an expanded terminal. In the same sentence as the slots comment you overlooked the first time. I'm starting to think that you're only pretending to be reasonable and are actually trolling.

Apparantly my monday morning comprehension is not much better than my Sunday night ....actually when you directed me to the paragraph, I really didn't read it...just saw the "50" number you quoted and thought "what a dolt, how could I miss that". Not sure how much bigger the terminal would/could be...space is kinda tight...but, again, to my main point...discuss that, determine how big it needs to be and determine if that works/is ok.

Sure, take the catchy 'NoJets' phrase off the table. How 'bout "NoAsphaltInMyHarbour"?

Well, I am not a fan of any catchy phrases determining public policy/decisions.....so while the second one might be more honest...it does open up a discussion about a whole lot of other asphalt in the harbour that no one seems to mind....but, again, I would just rather the discussion be around the facts as opposed to any catch phrases.

 

[bobbob911]

If large transconti


Transcontinental means across the continent. I.e. North America. Intercontinental would be between two continents, and so long distance. Still those kind of flights can be controlled by restricting the distances of flights, as LaGuardia once did.

Yes, whoops - you're right.

 

[rbt]

I don't think they were ever planning transcontinental were they? Jets are about coverage to the west coast and the Caribbean.

They might do intercontinental flights too. Reykjavík is actually a shorter flight than Victoria, and Dublin is isn't much further. London is about 600km inside the CS300's max advertised range, so tight but possible.

 

[TOareaFan]

They might do intercontinental flights too. Reykjavík is actually a shorter flight than Victoria, and Dublin is isn't much further. London is about 600km inside the CS300's max advertised range, so tight but possible.

Their conditional order was for CS100s though...right? Is the range the same?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I don't think they were ever planning transcontinental were they? Jets are about coverage to the west coast and the Caribbean.

Can the Q400 or other twin turboprop airliners be configured for longer range and still make money? http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/424242

The out of production Saab 340B has a range of over 3975km (2145nm), well within range of Toronto to San Diego, CA. http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=347 I have to question if that's a typo or ferry range only?

Maybe Porter should buy up some of these http://www.saabaircraftleasing.com/prod/dataSheets/340Brochure.pdf

 

[TOareaFan]

30 seats? can't imagine what they would have to charge per seat to yield any money

 

[dowlingm]

They might do intercontinental flights too. Reykjavík is actually a shorter flight than Victoria, and Dublin is isn't much further. London is about 600km inside the CS300's max advertised range, so tight but possible.

Dublin cooped up in an Aer Lingus 757 is bad enough. No thanks in a C Series at econ cruise 0.78 Mach, especially heading westwards into the jet stream.

I think the La Guardia option makes sense, and for Porter too given that the longer the sector the more chance that AC and WS can throw on a faster widebody to eat into the time advantage of using YTZ with C Series.

 

[dowlingm]

Can the Q400 or other twin turboprop airliners be configured for longer range and still make money

as it is, one of the things that keeps Q400 in the game is its speed. It has those crazy powerful PW150 turboprops. But even then a sector like Chicago takes a while and these new flights to Florida even more so. Means you can't get as many rotations with the same aircraft/crew as you might otherwise. With oil at $50 rather than $140 the fuel burn saving doesn't make up for that so much. I think BBD have designs for a 90 seat stretch of Q400 kicking around but you'd probably still need some bit of runway extension to get that off the ground at YTZ, plus cash for BBD to test and certify the variant.

 

[freshcutgrass]

As for shutting the airport in favour of housing, why would you do that instead of funding the massive build-out Waterfront Toronto has planned? That way, you can keep your airport, get your affordable housing built through a sympathetic agency (Ports Toronto is nothing if not profit driven), and get smiles from the NIMBYs with all that new parkland. Win-win!

Not that they are very profitable (and never have been), but PT doesn't care about what's good for the city...it only cares about keeping its head barely above water to meet its mandate of financial self-sufficiency or face extinction (it should have been dismantled years ago for not meeting its federal mandate). This is before you factor in the deadbeat agency's tax arrears with the city to the tune of...what is it these days....$50 million?

It isn't even being taxed fairly even if PT actually paid their taxes. According to recent
Supreme Court of Canada rulings:

The property value that “would be attributable by an assessment authority” is to be attributed, to achieve the overall purpose of the Act: to deal equitably and fairly with Canadian municipalities in relation to payments in lieu of property taxation.

The Act requires that property value and tax rates be calculated as if the federal property were taxable property belonging to a private owner. …It is directed to fair and equitable payments with reference to what taxes would be payable if the site were taxable.

These recent decisions entirely support the City’s demands that the Toronto Port Authority pay taxes to the City in amounts that are “fair and equitable”, and that reflect what a private owner would pay.

215 acres of hyper-prime downtown waterfront property is worth 10 times what PT isn't paying in leu of taxes, and on top of it, represents a land use that is incompatible with the rest of downtown and has a detrimental effect of the development of the rest of the downtown waterfront.

I'm not against a small regional airport...just not in such an absurdly dumb spot. Put it at Downsview, where it already has jets, is next to a subway line, and nobody gives a crap as it's basically a suburban wasteland mess anyway.

It's time this obsolete, deadbeat 19th century federal agency was shown the door.

 

[rbt]

Their conditional order was for CS100s though...right? Is the range the same?

Slightly less. Something like 5500km instead of 6100km.

Of course, those are computer modelled specs. They'll get updated (and speculation is increased) once aircraft are finalized. London is around 5900km from Toronto (add a bit for landing/takeoff flight paths).

 

[diminutive]

Hahahaha... seriously, the future of the Island Airport is to be a very good city-centre regional airport that provides a second option to Pearson for travel to Eastern and Mid-Western North American destinations. Porter will have to either (a) see whether it can expand without its sugar daddy Ports Toronto at another airport or (b) be happy with being a Toronto-centric regional carrier or (c) sell itself to AC/WJ/other.

A "Toronto centric regional carrier" won't ever be worth more than >$200,000,000, though. In the long run it doesn't make sense to dedicate a large chunk of downtown land to something which is so minimal.

At some point people will make the same realization the railways made; that downtown land is much more profitably dedicated towards urban land uses.

As for shutting the airport in favour of housing, why would you do that instead of funding the massive build-out Waterfront Toronto has planned?

I don't think I ever suggested that one should be done at the expense of another. Not sure what point you were trying to make here.