Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[lenaitch]

I actually meant that a flight from North Bay would no longer land at Pearson.
I live in Sudbury. That airport would no longer be serviced by Pearson either.
So, using Frankfort as an example, I would fly to Munro. I would then get on the currently non existent GO RER to Union. I would then get on the GO RER to Pearson. I would then pass through security and fly to Frankfort.

So, the same thing in reverse. Keithz is correct. No airline would do that because no normal person would endure that. Feeder flights to the GTA would simply cease to exist. You want to fly to Europe? Drive to Toronto or Montreal. I doubt people in the UK are flying into City Centre or Stanstead then transiting to Heathrow.

I'm not exactly sure how that could even be coded into a single ticket but, admittedly, know little about the industry.

 

[JBR]

- INdurham | Local Online News

Pickering Council has given the thumbs down to their support for a future airport in Pickering after a raucous meeting that included ten delegates – nine in opposition to the airport – before the issue came to a vote more than four-and-a-half hours after it began

www.insauga.com

Pickering council not in support of local airport after vote

The City of Pickering will not be pushing for the federal government to approve an airport. During a meeting on Monday, councillors passed a motion stating t

www.durhamradionews.com

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

- INdurham | Local Online News

Pickering Council has given the thumbs down to their support for a future airport in Pickering after a raucous meeting that included ten delegates – nine in opposition to the airport – before the issue came to a vote more than four-and-a-half hours after it began

www.insauga.com

Pickering council not in support of local airport after vote

The City of Pickering will not be pushing for the federal government to approve an airport. During a meeting on Monday, councillors passed a motion stating t

www.durhamradionews.com

I posted a link to the first article up thread. My analysis remains the same. I find it interesting that Pickering is willing to designate the land surrounding the Pickering airport site as a "innovation corridor" paving over acres of farmland, but an airport is just too much.

For reference, Pickering's innovation corridor plan calls for 70 000 residents and up to 35 000 jobs spread across 800 acres (Link)

 

[micheal_can]

That's not how business works in real life. If you went to Air Canada and told them they can't fly to North Bay and Sudbury from Pearson, they wouldn't shift those flights to Hamilton, they would just drop service to North Bay and Sudbury. Places like North Bay and Sudbury are way too small to justify AC having to open up a second operation in Hamilton.

We see this all the time in cities with multiple airports. Airlines refuse to split operations. Instead they will just pay higher rents and fees and displace the discount and vacation carriers to the other airports when those rents become too much. Right now there's no reason for Pearson to do that. But if it becomes more congested, it won't be AC moving flights, it will be Sunwing, Air Transat, etc.

If Pearson limited the size of aircraft and told all air carriers that anything smaller cannot land unless there was an emergency, Air Canada would have to do something. That could be cancelling those routes, or it could mean moving those routes to another airport. We could also see a regional carrier take over the flights and operate them out of Munro.

So, the same thing in reverse. Keithz is correct. No airline would do that because no normal person would endure that. Feeder flights to the GTA would simply cease to exist. You want to fly to Europe? Drive to Toronto or Montreal. I doubt people in the UK are flying into City Centre or Stanstead then transiting to Heathrow.

I'm not exactly sure how that could even be coded into a single ticket but, admittedly, know little about the industry.

For airports in Sudbury and North Bay, as well as SWO, driving to Pearson is common. So, all this would do is make it more common. If there was better rail infrastructure to SSM, Timmins, North Bay and Sudbury, one could see people taking a train and then flying out of Pearson, leaving their car at home.

- INdurham | Local Online News

Pickering Council has given the thumbs down to their support for a future airport in Pickering after a raucous meeting that included ten delegates – nine in opposition to the airport – before the issue came to a vote more than four-and-a-half hours after it began

www.insauga.com

Pickering council not in support of local airport after vote

The City of Pickering will not be pushing for the federal government to approve an airport. During a meeting on Monday, councillors passed a motion stating t

www.durhamradionews.com

Sounds like this is a dead issue, till a new council comes in that wants it.

 

[kEiThZ]

If Pearson limited the size of aircraft and told all air carriers that anything smaller cannot land unless there was an emergency, Air Canada would have to do something. That could be cancelling those routes, or it could mean moving those routes to another airport. We could also see a regional carrier take over the flights and operate them out of Munro.

There's zero need for Pearson to do this. It would cut the airport's own revenue. Ultimately, people are mixing up what Pearson can or should do with what could be imposed on them. And right now, nobody (with any real power) is talking about imposing any sanctions or restrictions on Pearson.

Pearson won't restrict aircraft size unless ordered to do so by the government. Pricing forces airlines to manage those slots efficiently right now. If smaller aircraft become less profitable, they consolidate to larger aircraft and cut the number of flights. For example, they can replace three Jazz Q400 or E175 flights with 76-78 seats each with two mainline A220s with 137 seats each. This lets them cut the total flying done while adding 19% adding seats and freeing up a slot. Of course, this sucks for for people in the smaller towns. They lose flexibility in their schedule. But this is how airlines manage. This is also why governments won't be telling Pearson to cut small planes. They know exactly what would happen. And residents in cities losing services would probably be upset.

Ultimately, if there's a need to divert traffic, Pearson will price the slots higher and the market will sort out who needs to move and what services need to get cut. There's really no need to tell them what to do. Airlines will consolidate schedule. Or they'll move some flights to other hubs. Or they'll cut services they deem unprofitable and let somebody else serve that market to another airport (Hamilton in this case). But there's no way for the government to really shape that market. Just have to let it shake out.

 

[micheal_can]

There's zero need for Pearson to do this. It would cut the airport's own revenue. Ultimately, people are mixing up what Pearson can or should do with what could be imposed on them. And right now, nobody (with any real power) is talking about imposing any sanctions or restrictions on Pearson.

Pearson won't restrict aircraft size unless ordered to do so by the government. Pricing forces airlines to manage those slots efficiently right now. If smaller aircraft become less profitable, they consolidate to larger aircraft and cut the number of flights. For example, they can replace three Jazz Q400 or E175 flights with 76-78 seats each with two mainline A220s with 137 seats each. This lets them cut the total flying done while adding 19% adding seats and freeing up a slot. Of course, this sucks for for people in the smaller towns. They lose flexibility in their schedule. But this is how airlines manage. This is also why governments won't be telling Pearson to cut small planes. They know exactly what would happen. And residents in cities losing services would probably be upset.

Ultimately, if there's a need to divert traffic, Pearson will price the slots higher and the market will sort out who needs to move and what services need to get cut. There's really no need to tell them what to do. Airlines will consolidate schedule. Or they'll move some flights to other hubs. Or they'll cut services they deem unprofitable and let somebody else serve that market to another airport (Hamilton in this case). But there's no way for the government to really shape that market. Just have to let it shake out.

I think you are getting my point. There is lots that can be done, but since none of it is being done, it shows that Pearson could still grow. If Pearson was implementing any or all of this, then we could be at a point to think that maybe there is a possibility that Pickering is needed.

I do wonder though, for places with multiple airports in one area, what do they do to mitigate these challenges.

 

[kEiThZ]

I do wonder though, for places with multiple airports in one area, what do they do to mitigate these challenges.

 

[gweed123]

This is why in the VIA HFR/HSR thread I have advocated for a stop at Pearson, despite the proximity to Union. If we want to pull even a few percentages of air travelers off of planes, we are going to need integration between Pearson and the passenger rail network. In fact I believe there is a case for two routes through Toronto, one via Union, and another more direct route across Toronto.

This came up in my news feed today, interesting given that Pickering is developing an "innovation corridor" along much of the lands surrounding the proposed Pickering airport site. Converting farm lands into light industrial, warehouse, distribution and residential uses. But an airport is a line to far to cross.

Personally, I think that all HFR trips to Toronto should continue through Union to Pearson. There's a blank slate at Pearson right now as far as a rail hub goes, so Via (and Metrolinx, and Amtrak) should take advantage of that. With Amtrak specifically, there's the option of building a properly segregated pre-clearance facility, leveraging the existing customs workforce at Pearson.

 

[kEiThZ]

With Amtrak specifically, there's the option of building a properly segregated pre-clearance facility, leveraging the existing customs workforce at Pearson

This would be really difficult. Once cleared, the train would have to be sealed. If it stops anywhere all passengers would have to be cleared again.

 

[micheal_can]

Informative video, but it still does not answer how things are done when multiple airports exist in one area. For instance, is one usually for local flights and the other for long haul flights? Do they both take international flights or is one mainly used for them? These kinds of changes could make Pickering even les viable,.

 

[kEiThZ]

For instance, is one usually for local flights and the other for long haul flights? Do they both take international flights or is one mainly used for them?

This kind of separate utility has disappeared in most places because airlines want to make it easy to transfer from international to domestic. Deregulation of aviation meant that most governments stopped telling airlines which cities they could serve from which airport and how often.

The only rules that are still in place in some airports are perimeter rules. But increasingly those are being questioned too.

The Crazy Perimeter Rules For DAL, DCA & LGA

If aviation was a perfect economy, the only thing that would determine which airlines fly to an airport would be the demand for flights from that airport and the price…

yourmileagemayvary.net

Mostly, it's just simple, just build the infrastructure and let the market figure it out. There's really no need to impose restrictions. Airlines will decide which flights should be moved to other airports based on what makes them profitable. We already see this with the discount carriers that choose to use Hamilton Munro in addition to, or instead of Pearson.

 

[micheal_can]

This kind of separate utility has disappeared in most places because airlines want to make it easy to transfer from international to domestic. Deregulation of aviation meant that most governments stopped telling airlines which cities they could serve from which airport and how often.

The only rules that are still in place in some airports are perimeter rules. But increasingly those are being questioned too.

The Crazy Perimeter Rules For DAL, DCA & LGA

If aviation was a perfect economy, the only thing that would determine which airlines fly to an airport would be the demand for flights from that airport and the price…

yourmileagemayvary.net

Mostly, it's just simple, just build the infrastructure and let the market figure it out. There's really no need to impose restrictions. Airlines will decide which flights should be moved to other airports based on what makes them profitable. We already see this with the discount carriers that choose to use Hamilton Munro in addition to, or instead of Pearson.

Seems to me that the market in Canada has spoken, and moving anything from Pearson likely will never happen, unless forced., More reasons not to build another airport.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Personally, I think that all HFR trips to Toronto should continue through Union to Pearson.

This has been said before and I still think it's backwards. It's the legacy route along the lakeshore that is going to provide passengers for Pearson. Yes a few from Peterborough will be heading to the airport (they can transfer), but no one from Ottawa is going to ride the four hours to board a plane.

 

[kEiThZ]

Seems to me that the market in Canada has spoken, and moving anything from Pearson likely will never happen, unless forced., More reasons not to build another airport.

Pretty much. Pickering proponents have this idea that Pickering would become Toronto's version of Gatwick or Newark. I just can't see it. Every network carrier wants to fly to Pearson because that's where all the alliance carriers are. Discount carriers have Hamilton already. Pickering would largely steal and split discount airline traffic from Hamilton. And then consolidate general aviation from around the region. This wouldn't even be Toronto's Stansted. It would just become Durham's version of Munro.

Also, Pearson has a ton of room to improve. They still don't move as many passengers as JFK, O'Hare, Heathrow, LAX, or Charles De Gaulles. Plenty of room to squeeze out more efficiency and output from Pearson.

 

[kEiThZ]

This has been said before and I still think it's backwards. It's the legacy route along the lakeshore that is going to provide passengers for Pearson. Yes a few from Peterborough will be heading to the airport (they can transfer), but no one from Ottawa is going to ride the four hours to board a plane.

Correct. What needs to happen is that all Lakeshore East VIA trains need to terminate at Pearson instead of Union. And eventually, HxR should be a through service at Union and Pearson with no terminii except the end points. This would benefit GTA residents too. Not a bad no transfer airport access option for GTA East residents. Being able to get from a Scarborough or Markham or North Pickering station to the airport in 40 mins would be almost as fast as off-peak driving for half the cost of a 407 roundtrip bill.

Also, the big change in HxR travel pattern will not be Ottawa residents taking a train for 3-4 hrs to Pearson. They'll be taking the train for 1-1.5 hrs to Dorval.