Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
kEiThZ
Superstar
He apparently called Stintz too and tipped her about new destinations. But didn't say anything about jets or the runway expansion. In any event, I fail to see what if any impact it will have if the mayor did or did not know that they were going to propose an expansion.
Well you have a lot of councillors complaining that they didn't know anything. And they felt they should have known. So if anything, I guess Porter can be accused of incompetent lobbying.
As for the mayor knowing, I would expect any major corporation would at least tip the mayor of the city off as a courtesy before dropping a bombshell.
First, that fill has to go somewhere. Second, whether they wanted to extend the runway or not is irrelevant. They cannot extend the runway without approval from the other parties of the agreement. Three, Porter signed the LOI for the aircraft in late-December. I seriously doubt the TPA could have even seriously contemplated needing a runway extension till that point, if it was a vague idea floating around. And certainly not in June, when Porter probably no idea that they wanted to pursue the expansion.
Ummm. The TPA. It's part of the tunnel project.
Typical government agency. I would have managed it within an hour. Nothing in there is extremely sophisticated to anybody that knows the subject matter. And yes, one would think that Porter would have told their airport authority at least a few weeks before if they were going to push for an extension. Hence my surprise that it took 24 hours and not 1 hr.
Yes. You're clearly better than the average Canadian.
One would expect any authority of a major piece of infrastructure, be they public or private to undertake such studies and to do so with revenues they are earning. If they TPA can't tell you what impact they are having, there's no point to them existing.
You're off your rocker. Any secret deal would be pointless. Ford isn't enough to push anything through. Changes to the Tripartite agreement require the feds and City Council to concur with the TPA. Ford could be Deluce's mistress and it still wouldn't really help him much. He's gotta have 22 Councillors on side in addition to the feds (which in this case they are).
And the fact that Porter only signed a Letter of Intent reserving production slots, not a firm order, shows that even they aren't sure if it will go through or not. Hardly what anybody could call arrogance.
We also didn't have jets in 2003 that could operate with 85.7 decibels of noise.
Arguing against these "jets" is like saying you oppose laser printers today because you thought typewriters were noisy 30 years ago. The CSeries is literally set to be the quietest commercial aircraft of its size, ever produced. It'll be just as noisy as the Q400s operating from YTZ today. So please stop the fact-less fearmongering over "jets".
Sounds to me like you've already made your mind up.
Nothing will satisfy conspiracy theorists. Bombardier is putting out these numbers in accordance with regulations of Transport Canada, the FAA and the JAA. Yet, people like you will question whether it's "real".
Such an open mind. A "fair and balanced" opinion worthy of Fox News.
Hank
Active Member
I have to say, Keithz (and others) have done a great job of rebutting what so far have been a few very vocal, but badly researched and poorly thought-through arguments against the expansion (not to say that there are no valid arguments against it - traffic at the foot of bathurst is a concern in my mind, albeit one that really needs to be addressed whether they get the new planes or not). I just have to give keith and others kudos for presenting their arguments in a well-thought-out, cogent manner.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Thanks.
To be honest. I would never want to see a super busy major hub there. And if Porter were proposing that, I'd be opposed. But despite all the hype, what is being proposed here is a very modest expansions with substantial economic benefit to this city. I find that hard to oppose.
Looking at the noise complaints. From what I've read, the Q400 puts out 85 decibels EPNdB. The CS100 is apparently at 85.7 EPNdB and Bombardier is hoping for even less prior to delivery. We are talking a one-for-one swap when it comes to noise. So Porter could order another 12 Q400s and nobody would notice. But now because they've pre-ordered 12 "jets" which are as quiet as the Q400s which are there everybody is up in arms? Doesn't make sense to me.
If we want to have a substantive discussion on whether there should be an airport on the waterfront, I'm game. I'm actually even game to see the airport closed, given a strong enough alternative vision (other than just more space to play Ultimate). If we want to limit operations (personally, I favour booting General Aviation to reduce the total number of flights), then let's have that discussion. So let's have substantive discussions. Having a debate over semantics like whether or not to allow "jets" strikes me as embarrasingly ignorant.
ps. The CS100 is actually 6% below the noise limits allowed in the Tripartite agreement according to Aviation Week.
Last edited:
Cinnamon
Active Member
Yes, and it is illegal. This should be enough to say "no" to them without even listening what they want.
Yes, in third world countries; just "tip" politicians and do whatever you want.
May be I'm too idealistic but I refuse the bend over to a corporation who thinks it can do anything through good connections above and show no respect to the community.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Generally in municipal government it's considered a courtesy to meet with the mayor, ward councillor and/or committee chair before making a major project public.
Cinnamon
Active Member
Can you please tell us what kind of economical benefits are we looking at?
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
100% spot on with the questions and I bolded the summary for emphasis, because that's really what's important re: jets, etc.
I would only add that it is nearly impossible to determine good policy when the public sector body that is charged with setting/executing policy is, by all appearances, corrupt. Even Porters most fervent boosters on this board won't argue the fact that the TPA appears to be corrupt. They just don't care because their wishes are coincident.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
If the expansion is "very modest" how would it have a "substantial" economic benefit to this city? The modifiers you've used do not equate. I think that actual numbers would put the lie to that sort of weasel language.
Dan416
Senior Member
I find the fearmongering by some in this thread to be quite laughable. You live near an airport: get over it. Absolutely no frakking sympathy from this Mississaugan.
Cinnamon
Active Member
Schadenfreude.
But this is not what I'm trying to discuss, I don't even want to go there; doesn't worth it. My concern is ethics, I can live near an airport but I cannot live with corruption around me.
It is not enough to succeed; others must fail (Gore Vidal)
rdaner
Senior Member
Why aren't other runway options being considered such as only extending the runway to the west or building a new airport elsewhere on The Island by doing a landswap with the city? I support a bigger airport and more service but limiting it to TPA lands seems too limiting, confrontational and simple-minded. We need a mature, calm planning discussion with more options than ones presented.
Peepers
Banned
I don't see any contradictions in kEiThZ's statement.
A very modest extension of the runway (a few hundred feet) would allow Porter to utilize an aircraft with a substantially larger capacity and range to service every major city in North America (not just those within a 1,200 nm range). The benefits of this modest increase in runway length would be substantial - not only to Porter - but to Toronto.
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
If the runway is extended, won't the marine exclusion zone have to be extended also?
Cinnamon
Active Member
It is a substantial change.
What substantial benefits do you envisage for Toronto?