Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[micheal_can]

It is called free enterprise, it is the economic system on which Canada and the Global economy runs. At the heart of that economy is Aviation, so no worries on finding investors.

The likelihood of this airport being funded entirely by private investment is about the same as Mexico paying for Trump's border wall...

There has already been one completely privately funded proposal, an industrial airport back in 2011. I still have the business case, it was a solid 8% return. at the time transport decided a bigger airport was the way forward. All we need is an RFP, and we get to findout.

8%? No wonder it didn't fly. Most businesses need a 10-20% return in order to consider something.

They proved on their own there is not a strong case for it. When will you agree?

 

[micheal_can]

I was thinking. If Pearson put a size limit on planes, such that only larger aircraft are permitted, they could reduce the demand for space. For example, lets say that no turboprop planes are permitted. That would reduce those planes and allow for other, larger planes to fly in and out. Kind of a revers to what is being done at Billy Bishop.

 

[Voltz]

I was thinking. If Pearson put a size limit on planes, such that only larger aircraft are permitted, they could reduce the demand for space. For example, lets say that no turboprop planes are permitted. That would reduce those planes and allow for other, larger planes to fly in and out. Kind of a revers to what is being done at Billy Bishop.

What about passengers connecting to small airports?

 

[micheal_can]

What about passengers connecting to small airports?

There is another thread about a Union West. This could be used along with increasing service on Via. I'll bet that per passenger emissions would be lower if we got rid of the smaller ones.

 

[Voltz]

There is another thread about a Union West. This could be used along with increasing service on Via. I'll bet that per passenger emissions would be lower if we got rid of the smaller ones.

I am in favor of increasing rail to take over short haul flights, but there is no way to take over all routes.

 

[micheal_can]

I am in favor of increasing rail to take over short haul flights, but there is no way to take over all routes.

Then reduce the number of flights such that it fills a larger plane.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Then reduce the number of flights such that it fills a larger plane.

If there is only one flight per day how do you propose to reduce the frequency further without eroding the demand.

Also the major aircraft using pearson are 319s and 737s not turboprops. Which means going from a 150-200 seat sigle aisle aircraft to a 260-400 seat wide body

 

[micheal_can]

If there is only one flight per day how do you propose to reduce the frequency further without eroding the demand.

Also the major aircraft using pearson are 319s and 737s not turboprops. Which means going from a 150-200 seat sigle aisle aircraft to a 260-400 seat wide body

You now see the obvious answers. If a place cannot fill more than a small plane, it does not need air travel to Pearson. Maybe other GTHA airports, like Hamilton or Waterloo. Maybe more passenger rail is needed.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

You now see the obvious answers. If a place cannot fill more than a small plane, it does not need air travel to Pearson. Maybe other GTHA airports, like Hamilton or Waterloo. Maybe more passenger rail is needed.

But if an airline can run a profitable route to Pearson it will. If the route were more profitable going to Hamilton or Waterloo, don't you think they would?

Take for example the daily flights to Kansas City MI on the 50 to 70 seat CRJ's. Do you think those passengers would be as willing to fly to Waterloo or London vs Toronto with all it's other flight connections? Could a rail service compete with this flight?

 

[micheal_can]

But if an airline can run a profitable route to Pearson it will. If the route were more profitable going to Hamilton or Waterloo, don't you think they would?

Take for example the daily flights to Kansas City MI on the 50 to 70 seat CRJ's. Do you think those passengers would be as willing to fly to Waterloo or London vs Toronto with all it's other flight connections? Could a rail service compete with this flight?

Many companies can do things profitably, but there are regulations preventing them. For example, many companies could lower the wage they pay employees and would still be very profitable, but there are laws on minimum wages.

That particular one could fly to Hamilton.

 

[MarkBrooks]

A more humorous question is, who has the time to read a 491 page report written by an accounting team? It turns out very few as a number of politicians and reporters appear to have confused the KPMG reports finding on when the passenger terminal is expected to be needed with when the airport itself will be needed. A summary posted by Transport Canada on the findings of just section one of a four part report did not help. perhaps they are playing a bit with the anti-aviation crowds Fixation with passenger capacity.

after reading all 491 pages including a 100 page biz plan and double checking, it is clear that all 6 scenarios suggested by KPMG break ground in 2026, with phase 1 open end of 2028. 8% IRR and a five year break even means private money.

Here is a more detailed review.

https://pickeringairport.org/kpmg-report-reaffirms-need-for-pickering-airport/

 

[micheal_can]

A more humorous question is, who has the time to read a 491 page report written by an accounting team? It turns out very few as a number of politicians and reporters appear to have confused the KPMG reports finding on when the passenger terminal is expected to be needed with when the airport itself will be needed. A summary posted by Transport Canada on the findings of just section one of a four part report did not help. perhaps they are playing a bit with the anti-aviation crowds Fixation with passenger capacity.

after reading all 491 pages including a 100 page biz plan and double checking, it is clear that all 6 scenarios suggested by KPMG break ground in 2026, with phase 1 open end of 2028. 8% IRR and a five year break even means private money.

Here is a more detailed review.

https://pickeringairport.org/kpmg-report-reaffirms-need-for-pickering-airport/

That actually shows the failings of the people writing the report. Having to do technical reports, myself, I have to remember that idiots who don't understand a thing in it are reading them and making the big decisions.

 

[pw20]

A more humorous question is, who has the time to read a 491 page report written by an accounting team? It turns out very few as a number of politicians and reporters appear to have confused the KPMG reports finding on when the passenger terminal is expected to be needed with when the airport itself will be needed. A summary posted by Transport Canada on the findings of just section one of a four part report did not help. perhaps they are playing a bit with the anti-aviation crowds Fixation with passenger capacity.

after reading all 491 pages including a 100 page biz plan and double checking, it is clear that all 6 scenarios suggested by KPMG break ground in 2026, with phase 1 open end of 2028. 8% IRR and a five year break even means private money.

Here is a more detailed review.

https://pickeringairport.org/kpmg-report-reaffirms-need-for-pickering-airport/

FWIW, 8% IRR is terrible rate of return for an infrastructure fund. Investors would typically be looking at 12-14%.

 

[micheal_can]

I wonder if we have past data on things that severely impacted travel what it did to the number or airplanes at Pearson. For intance, 9/11 and SARS. How long til the airlines recovered to pre emergency levels?

 

[SaugeenJunction]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1238992966921977864