News   Nov 12, 2024
 251     0 
News   Nov 12, 2024
 423     0 
News   Nov 12, 2024
 496     0 

Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

Mirabel is freight-only and general aviation with no terminal. I thought the plan for Pickering for day one was also freight and general aviation only. If they are building a terminal, then it would be bigger.

Was referring to the huge airfield at Mirabel. And YMX used to have a passenger terminal. Was demolished a few years ago.

Early consultations I saw for Pickering were about freight and GA. But I am guessing there's more of a push on from people like Mark Brooks to turn this into a Pearson reliever.
 
Headline in a local newspaper of a small town. Nobody would care outside that town. And nobody in that town drives the decisions of a publicly traded airline. This is reality. Airlines change services all the time. Headlines don't stop them. And if AC needs those slots, that's exactly what they will do. Don't like it? Drive.

If a city like Ottawa (1.3 million CMA population) can't sustain a handful of 50 seater flights to Chicago (9.5 million metro population), I wouldn't hold my breath too long for half a dozen daily flights to minor centres all over Ontario and Canada. The pilot shortage along with rising fuel and capital costs is forcing average aircraft size up. A slot shortage at Pearson will merely accelerate this trend for Air Canada. Indeed, AC is already phasing out 50-seaters. In 7-10 years, AC won't fly anything from Pearson with less than 75 seats in it unless there's extraordinary yields. This would mean that a city like Sudbury would go from seven Q300s to five Q400s per day.

This costs money. Who is going to pay? Pearson already has a $25 airport improvement fee. Do you want to pay $50? They build in accordance with projected demand for a reason. And they work with the airlines to optimize that infrastructure for every dollar spent, which includes encouraging the airlines to make the best use of slots that exist.

They'd cease to exist. Simple as that. Those flights are fed by the rest of the network at Pearson. There's no business case to run the majority of those flights without that feed.

This doesn't even pass the common sense test. Imagine you have are traveling from Sudbury to London Heathrow. So now instead of a standard 1-2 hr layover, AC would have build in a 3-5 hr layover for you to collect baggage, catch a shuttle bus to Pearson, and check in and clear security again. If the GTAA ever insisted on such a boneheaded strategy, I would expect AC to declare Montreal as their major Eastern hub and move more of AC's European services there and force a lot more Torontonians to connect in YUL instead. Would be hilarious to see the unintended side effect of lots of Jazz flyers traveling internationally, facing a double connection in addition to that bus ride from Hamilton.

First, Waterloo and Oshawa are too small to handle substantial diversion of traffic. I've flown at Oshawa. 4000ft runway, hemmed in by development and border services restrict it to only planes with less than 50 pax. Waterloo is better. One long runway. But CBSA needs a 2 hr notice for any large commercial service operating in.

Next, no airline sees substantial commercial potential in either airport. Westjet chose to hub Swoop in Hamilton rather than Waterloo for a reason.

Sudbury isn't a small town. It is larger than Barrie. When Porter cancelled flights in nearby North Bay, there was a lot of angered people. If a larger carrier did it, it would be met with boycotts. They wouldn't care why.

Do you think Pickering won't have an improvement fee? Seriously? They will have one at least as high as Pearson.

If flights are all centred around Pearson, then that proves Pickering also won't work. If we are going to spend billions on a new airport, why not first max out Hamilton''s first? The others, could be left as is for now, but they should find a way to prevent development that would hinder future airport needs.

Give me a business case for Pickering as, currently, there really seems like there is none.
 
Westjet at one pointed wanted to join OneWorld, but did not succeed. It has partnerships with a few OneWorld airlines (such as Cathay Pacific and Delta Airlines), though.

It would be interesting if Calgary and Pickering became fortress hubs for OneWorld airlines once Westjet succeeds in joining OneWorld.

Skyteam and non-alliance airlines would split between Pearson (Star Alliance) and Pickering (OneWorld).
 
Sudbury isn't a small town.

In terms of aviation demand it is. Seven flights a day of fifty seaters means 350 passengers departing each way (PDEW). And that assumes 100% load factor. That's really not all that much. A single AC 777-300ER to Heathrow has 50-100 more pax than all flights to Sudbury. And Air Canada has 4 flights per day to Heathrow and more to Gatwick. If they want to use a Sudbury slot or even two for a widebody international or even a 200 seat narrow body rotation, they won't even think twice.

It is larger than Barrie.

And Barrie has no air service to Pearson at all. This is the league being played in.

When Porter cancelled flights in nearby North Bay, there was a lot of angered people.

And nobody cared or noticed beyond North Bay. And Porter did it anyway.

And that's an airline for whom Northern Ontario is a huge part of their business. Air Canada and WestJet will care even less.

If a larger carrier did it, it would be met with boycotts.

LOL. Responding to service cuts with boycotts will only prove that there's even less demand.

In small towns in the US at least local businesses pledge to buy a certain amount of tickets to generate enough demand to keep service. A boycott would prove the route planner who suggested the cut right.

Do you think Pickering won't have an improvement fee?

Never said it won't. My point was that it could be quite high. And that would destroy the argument that low cost carriers would set up there.

If we are going to spend billions on a new airport, why not first max out Hamilton''s first?

Good question. I ask the same thing. Ask Mark Brooks.

Give me a business case for Pickering as, currently, there really seems like there is none.

I agree. There isn't really one. Beyond General Aviation and some light cargo. Building it as a commercial airport in the hopes of splitting traffic is a fool's errand.
 
Last edited:
Westjet at one pointed wanted to join OneWorld, but did not succeed. It has partnerships with a few OneWorld airlines (such as Cathay Pacific and Delta Airlines), though.

It would be interesting if Calgary and Pickering became fortress hubs for OneWorld airlines once Westjet succeeds in joining OneWorld.

Skyteam and non-alliance airlines would split between Pearson (Star Alliance) and Pickering (OneWorld).

I've considered this possibility. But it's hugely risky and costly for WestJet. Move to an airport which is less accessible than Pearson, has a smaller and less affluent catchment. All in the hopes of getting more slots? Tough sell. Doubt WS would ever agree to it. Would also require the support of all the Oneworld or SkyTeam partners. I can't imagine British Airways or Air France or American Airlines or Delta Air would be happy to end up in Pickering.
 
An interesting discussion. Discussion is good.

In answer to:
micheal_can said:
If we are going to spend billions on a new airport, why not first max out Hamilton''s first?
Good question. I ask the same thing. Ask Mark Brooks.


Answer: it’s all about accessible aviation. Hamilton is two hours drive from the 2.3 million people that live within 30 Km radius of the new Pickering airport. Pickerings catchment area ( that 30 km radius) with be the 5th largest in Canada. That’s three times the size of Hamilton’s passenger Catchment area.
A6350CD4-D886-4015-9F70-293487313861.jpeg
 
I've considered this possibility. But it's hugely risky and costly for WestJet. Move to an airport which is less accessible than Pearson, has a smaller and less affluent catchment. All in the hopes of getting more slots? Tough sell. Doubt WS would ever agree to it.

Agreed. Particularly since they've started diversifying their fleet. It doesn't take much imagination to see WS replacing their 737's on longer domestic routes like those 11 daily Vancouver trips or the 9 dailies to Calgary.
 
Was referring to the huge airfield at Mirabel. And YMX used to have a passenger terminal. Was demolished a few years ago.
Pickering layouts I've seen were also huge ... heck, both might have been designed by the same person in the 1970s!

Mirabel's 1970s terminal was knocked down years ago - it was more reminiscent to Terminal 2 in Toronto that was also knocked down years ago ... other than not having any gates. It's been a couple of decades since they moved scheduled flights from Mirabel back to Trudeau.
 
Agreed. Particularly since they've started diversifying their fleet. It doesn't take much imagination to see WS replacing their 737's on longer domestic routes like those 11 daily Vancouver trips or the 9 dailies to Calgary.

AC has 13 flights a day to YVR. Seven of them are widebodies.
WS has 11 and they are all a combination of 134 seat 737-700, 174 seat 737-800 and 113 seat 737-600 runs. What a waste of slots. I suspect the 737 MAX 10s were purchased mostly for YVR-YYZ, YYC-YYZ and YYC-YVR. Those are the busiest routes in Westjet's network aside from Edmonton-Calgary. Put in all 737 MAX 10 and they go to 9 flights a day with an average of 185 seat required for each flight on YVR-YYZ. The MAX 10 will have at least 200 seats. And Boeing's future NMA would give them evne more options.
 
News headline "Air Canada cutting 1 flight per day" would have the citizens and ultimately the customers up in arms. Who cares if it is bigger planes. Who cares the if the times are actually better.

For my work I fly to a lot of smaller cities that Air Canada services.

They change flight schedules and add and remove flights all the time in these places.

Air travel isn't a right. You can't live in a small remote city and expect amazing service.
 
For my work I fly to a lot of smaller cities that Air Canada services.

They change flight schedules and add and remove flights all the time in these places.

Air travel isn't a right. You can't live in a small remote city and expect amazing service.

He's also exaggerating. I don't find anything online of mass protests or boycotts in North Bay when Porter left. I actually found an article for a local taxpayer association whose President was happy with the decision since it meant an end to Porter's subsidies. Heck, AC cut service to North Bay a year after too. The demand just isn't there from some of these communities, despite what they believe.

And if they really believe they are hard done by, these towns are free to pay the airlines to run service to them. Just have to pay enough to AC or Westjet to make up for the difference of using that slot and/or airplane to a more profitable destination. How many towns willing to take up that offer?
 
An interesting discussion. Discussion is good.

In answer to:

Good question. I ask the same thing. Ask Mark Brooks.


Answer: it’s all about accessible aviation. Hamilton is two hours drive from the 2.3 million people that live within 30 Km radius of the new Pickering airport. Pickerings catchment area ( that 30 km radius) with be the 5th largest in Canada. That’s three times the size of Hamilton’s passenger Catchment area.View attachment 191965

So, Pickering will have about double of what Mirabel has? How many commercial passenger flights does Mirabel have a day? Double that is?

Now, how many flights does a non RT accessible Hamilton have per day? What if a rail line was built to connect to a GO line? What if it ran all day both ways to Union? What i there was an express from Union stopping only at some stations?

In short there is no business case, and we have already learned that a new airport in a city that already has one with accessible transit does not mean it will do well.
 
So, Pickering will have about double of what Mirabel has? How many commercial passenger flights does Mirabel have a day? Double that is?

Now, how many flights does a non RT accessible Hamilton have per day? What if a rail line was built to connect to a GO line? What if it ran all day both ways to Union? What i there was an express from Union stopping only at some stations?

In short there is no business case, and we have already learned that a new airport in a city that already has one with accessible transit does not mean it will do well.
Your Mirabel straw man aside ( can’t thing of two airports more different than Mirabel and Pickering ),
I just got to ask, if there is no business case, then why are private investors spending real $$$ building these business cases? Why are they asking the Feds for an RFP ASAP? Your case for no business cases makes no sense.

Even the original Airpark Business case was a slam dunk ( 2011). The fed said no then as the GTaA was opposed, but the ball was already rolling, and its only going to stop when the RFP drops. Then we will see...
 
Your Mirabel straw man aside ( can’t thing of two airports more different than Mirabel and Pickering ),
I just got to ask, if there is no business case, then why are private investors spending real $$$ building these business cases? Why are they asking the Feds for an RFP ASAP? Your case for no business cases makes no sense.

Even the original Airpark Business case was a slam dunk ( 2011). The fed said no then as the GTaA was opposed, but the ball was already rolling, and its only going to stop when the RFP drops. Then we will see...

Name me one company that would not want a multi billion dollar contract with the government? I bet the companies that built Mirabel were enjoying that money too.

No one has yet to show HOW it would work. Westjet has said nothing. None of the cargo companies have said anything. Who will fly in and out of it?
 

Back
Top