Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[micheal_can]

The opposite. Porter has 85% of the slots at Billy Bishop and they love it! But Air Canada’s constant opposition and political pressure means that its a stretch to put jets into billy.

Here is AirCanadas statement on the jets at the island and yes Porter is still seriously pissed with the federal Liberals support of AirCanada.

Air Canada Responds to Developments at the Toronto Port Authority: No Support for Jets at Billy Bishop

On March 31, at a public consultation for the Master Plan for the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport by the Toronto Port Authority (also known as Ports Toronto), the following became clear: The...

aircanada.mediaroom.com

The funny part is that the press thinks it was the NoJets TO “citizens” group that did the convincing.

So Porter maxes out the island with turbo props providing downtown service but runs its CSeries jets to longer routes from Pickering, makes perfect sense. Billy remains a boutique airport, Pickering becomes the main domestic, everything to everyone player. Pearson maxes out Heathrow style.

If Porter really wanted to be serious, they would invest Billions into Hamilton and fly jets there. Invest in Transit, in Highway improvements, in parking, in hotels, in everything that is needed for a major international airport. This could draw carriers away from Pearson enough that there would not be a demand for Pickering for even more time. Hamilton's airport is uniquely positioned. It is surrounded by farmland. It is clear enough to build things like HSR to it. The highway to it is not hemmed in. In short, it is everything Pickering is, but. and this is a big but... It is already there waiting to be developed.

 

[MarkBrooks]

If Porter really wanted to be serious, they would invest Billions into Hamilton and fly jets there. Invest in Transit, in Highway improvements, in parking, in hotels, in everything that is needed for a major international airport. This could draw carriers away from Pearson enough that there would not be a demand for Pickering for even more time. Hamilton's airport is uniquely positioned. It is surrounded by farmland. It is clear enough to build things like HSR to it. The highway to it is not hemmed in. In short, it is everything Pickering is, but. and this is a big but... It is already there waiting to be developed.

Hamilton is simply to far away to properly service the majority of Toronto’s passenger needs. No private company is going to invest serious money into Hamilton for passenger travel unless the crisis in Toronto becomes severe. There are only so many in the eastern GTA who are willing to drive for two hours to get a flight. No amount of public infrastructure money will solve this tyranny of geography.
That said Hamilton businesses and politicians believe that opposing Pickering airport is a way to force growth thier way. That’s politics.

 

[kEiThZ]

It’s a international Hub with connectivity to only a few major Canadian cities.

Hard to have a Canadian hub without servicing Canadian destinations. I'm curious what cities you think will lose service completely.

So Porter maxes out the island with turbo props providing downtown service but runs its CSeries jets to longer routes from Pickering, makes perfect sense. Billy remains a boutique airport, Pickering becomes the main domestic, everything to everyone player. Pearson maxes out Heathrow style.

This really assumes that there is demand to fill the seats.

Pearson has kicked out anything less that 100 seats, and with the exception of a few grandfathered in players.

Of special note for Pickering will be the lack of congestion and ability to handle the new 50 seat regional electric ( or electric hybrid ) jets.

Electric 50 seaters aren't happening in our lifetimes. Despite what Mark says. The fastest path to cutting emissions for aviation is synthetic biofuels.

And given the rising costs and collapsing regional airline model, you won't find too many airlines flying 50 seaters to a hypothetical Pickering airport either.

 

[kEiThZ]

No private company is going to invest serious money into Hamilton for passenger travel unless the crisis in Toronto becomes severe.

An unsubstantiable assertion that directly contradicts investment made by the cargo carriers in Hamilton.

And unlike Pickering, Private investors don't have to pay for a whole airport. Just a terminal.

There are only so many in the eastern GTA who are willing to drive for two hours to get a flight.

Eastern GTA. The region with fewer and lower yielding residents. Airlines are all gunning to build airports to service this lot. I'm sure.

 

[micheal_can]

Hamilton is simply to far away to properly service the majority of Toronto’s passenger needs. No private company is going to invest serious money into Hamilton for passenger travel unless the crisis in Toronto becomes severe. There are only so many in the eastern GTA who are willing to drive for two hours to get a flight. No amount of public infrastructure money will solve this tyranny of geography.
That said Hamilton businesses and politicians believe that opposing Pickering airport is a way to force growth thier way. That’s politics.

Let's for a moment ignore the people boarding in Toronto. Let instead look at the passengers that are actuaally using the current airports. Iland serves business people wanting to get downtown quick. Pearson is great for those that want to travel elsewhere, either for business or for vacation. Pickering really has no purpose. Adding a 3rd airport close to Toronto is not going to draw more passengers that don't already get served now.

No one has given a clear use for Pickering. You have said companies could or might do something, but no air carrier has been screaming for it.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Let's for a moment ignore the people boarding in Toronto. Let instead look at the passengers that are actuaally using the current airports. Iland serves business people wanting to get downtown quick. Pearson is great for those that want to travel elsewhere, either for business or for vacation. Pickering really has no purpose. Adding a 3rd airport close to Toronto is not going to draw more passengers that don't already get served now.

No one has given a clear use for Pickering. You have said companies could or might do something, but no air carrier has been screaming for it.

Don’t look in the rear view mirror, look forward. As the regional jets get squeeze out of Pearson, where are they going? Or is it ok to just cancel access to Toronto from smaller Canadian cities so a privileged few can make more money?

Even on a VFR day today in the middle of summer business jets will not be able to get in ( some of them can’t now if they try on the same day it’s needed or the weather isn’t perfect), where are they going? Who cares you might say, let them take their businesses elsewhere.

Discount carriers, ticket sales, don’t exist at Pearson, it and Billy bishop, are now high price only destinations.
After 2030 Pearson has every slot locked, every seat of every aircraft that can get in or out is sold out weeks in advance. A bit of weather disruption has mean cancelled flights. You can not get a seat on short notice for love or money and even booking months in advance, a seat in or out of the city at Christmas or holidays will require a kings ransom.

By 2040 demand has so far exceeded supply that it impacts everything and everyone.

In response Torontos economy slows and finally stalls, growth goes elsewhere, London, Montreal , Buffalo, Ottawa ?

It’s a level of capacity crisis that can not be solved just By loosening the night Curfew at Pearson.

It takes 10 years to build Pickering, that means you have to think ahead, plan ahead, often against mega $$ dollar vested interests hungry to profit from the big squeeze . So far our politicians have taken the easy route, but not making a decision, is a decision.

 

[micheal_can]

Don’t look in the rear view mirror, look forward. As the regional jets get squeeze out of Pearson, where are they going? Or is it ok to just cancel access to Toronto from smaller Canadian cities so a privileged few can make more money?

Even on a VFR day today in the middle of summer business jets will not be able to get in ( some of them can’t now if they try on the same day it’s needed or the weather isn’t perfect), where are they going? Who cares you might say, let them take their businesses elsewhere.

Discount carriers, ticket sales, don’t exist at Pearson, it and Billy bishop, are now high price only destinations.
After 2030 Pearson has every slot locked, every seat of every aircraft that can get in or out is sold out weeks in advance. A bit of weather disruption has mean cancelled flights. You can not get a seat on short notice for love or money and even booking months in advance, a seat in or out of the city at Christmas or holidays will require a kings ransom.

By 2040 demand has so far exceeded supply that it impacts everything and everyone.

In response Torontos economy slows and finally stalls, growth goes elsewhere, London, Montreal , Buffalo, Ottawa ?

It’s a level of capacity crisis that can not be solved just By loosening the night Curfew at Pearson.

It takes 10 years to build Pickering, that means you have to think ahead, plan ahead, often against mega $$ dollar vested interests hungry to profit from the big squeeze . So far our politicians have taken the easy route, but not making a decision, is a decision.

View attachment 195497

All of this points to why Hamilton might work well. Seriously, if you are flying from a small city, you are likely not just going to Toronto. So, if you fly Say to Cuba, and you fly say from Sudbury, Thunder Bay Timmins, and London, if you connect in Hamilton or Pearson or Pickering, it is irrelevant. In fact, in that scenario, the ones from London would just drive to Hamilton.

Again, still not showing how expanding Hamilton would not solve the issue.

 

[MarkBrooks]

All of this points to why Hamilton might work well. Seriously, if you are flying from a small city, you are likely not just going to Toronto. So, if you fly Say to Cuba, and you fly say from Sudbury, Thunder Bay Timmins, and London, if you connect in Hamilton or Pearson or Pickering, it is irrelevant. In fact, in that scenario, the ones from London would just drive to Hamilton.

Again, still not showing how expanding Hamilton would not solve the issue.

Last call.. I will type fast:

Think of it like this, there are two towns, a big one called D and one a third of the size called H. By royal decree there is only one Beer store, and it is in H, the smaller town. To get beer people from D have to travel for two hours in each direction. This is costing a lot of time and travel expenses. But The politicians and businessmen from H think this is grand as the beer store is busy with long lineups and is creating jobs and making a lot of money for the town.

But The people from D are feed-up with traveling so far away from home and sending jobs and money away from their families and community. They decide it is time to build their own beer store and apply to the king for permission to let local investors build one with their own money on land already set aside for it.

The people of H ask the king to instead give them tax money to expand their store and reduce the lineups.

While the king is deciding, the temperance league from D start singing about the evils of Beer and ask that the land set aside for a beer store be given to them instead. They ask the King for money to build a church and hire a preacher to sing their praises.

What should the King do, will he let the people of D have their own beer store? Or will he be charmed into letting H keep its profitable setup? Or will the temperance league convince the king to decree that everyone should sstop drinking and attend church on Sundays?

 

[kEiThZ]

In response Torontos economy slows and finally stalls, growth goes elsewhere, London, Montreal , Buffalo, Ottawa ?

Arguing that economic growth is entirely dependent on airport capacity is pure FUD.

 

[kEiThZ]

Last call.. I will type fast:

Think of it like this, there are two towns, a big one called D and one a third of the size called H. By royal decree there is only one Beer store, and it is in H, the smaller town. To get beer people from D have to travel for two hours in each direction. This is costing a lot of time and travel expenses. But The politicians and businessmen from H think this is grand as the beer store is busy with long lineups and is creating jobs and making a lot of money for the town.

But The people from D are feed-up with traveling so far away from home and sending jobs and money away from their families and community. They decide it is time to build their own beer store and apply to the king for permission to let local investors build one with their own money on land already set aside for it.

The people of H ask the king to instead give them tax money to expand their store and reduce the lineups.

While the king is deciding, the temperance league from D start singing about the evils of Beer and ask that the land set aside for a beer store be given to them instead. They ask the King for money to build a church and hire a preacher to sing their praises.

What should the King do, will he let the people of D have their own beer store? Or will he be charmed into letting H keep its profitable setup? Or will the temperance league convince the king to decree that everyone should sstop drinking and attend church on Sundays?

This example really shows you that Pickering proponents aren't concerned about regional interests. They are concerned about Durham and their private interests only. The majority of GTA and Southwestern Ontario residents are in the West end. As is most of the high yielding business traffic. But Mark keeps talking about how sick of driving Durham residents are.

Also, Mark keeps saying private investors will pay for all of it. But in his website, the three levels of government are expected to pitch in $900 million and all the civil works. Since he doesn't like me pointing out facts, somebody might want to ask him if he can commit to not a penny of taxpayer funds going into Pickering.

 

[kEiThZ]

All of this points to why Hamilton might work well. Seriously, if you are flying from a small city, you are likely not just going to Toronto. So, if you fly Say to Cuba, and you fly say from Sudbury, Thunder Bay Timmins, and London, if you connect in Hamilton or Pearson or Pickering, it is irrelevant. In fact, in that scenario, the ones from London would just drive to Hamilton.

Again, still not showing how expanding Hamilton would not solve the issue.

Not just Hamilton but Ottawa and Montreal. A lot of those regional cities would benefit from flights to places beyond the GTA. And if they are travelling to Cuba, what's the necessity to connect in the GTHA? Why couldn't they connect in Ottawa or Montreal?

As it stands, every weather event in the GTA sees diversions to Ottawa and Montreal. Why make the network even more dependent on the GTA, and therefore more vulnerable to disruption.

Building up Hamilton as an LCC airport with some connections to various Ontario cities makes sense. Having those cities foster ties with another hub (in Ottawa or Montreal) also makes sense. Building another hub airport on the other side of the 416 just to serve them makes a lot less sense.

 

[nfitz]

If Region of Durham wants to build an airport, they can build an airport.

The problem is, they don't want to spend the money to build an airport. They want someone else to pay for it. They even want someone to pay for what Mirabel and Hamilton don't have (and Pearson didn't have until recently) - a rail link.

By all means, Durham should raise property taxes and build an airport!

 

[micheal_can]

Not just Hamilton but Ottawa and Montreal. A lot of those regional cities would benefit from flights to places beyond the GTA. And if they are travelling to Cuba, what's the necessity to connect in the GTHA? Why couldn't they connect in Ottawa or Montreal?

As it stands, every weather event in the GTA sees diversions to Ottawa and Montreal. Why make the network even more dependent on the GTA, and therefore more vulnerable to disruption.

Building up Hamilton as an LCC airport with some connections to various Ontario cities makes sense. Having those cities foster ties with another hub (in Ottawa or Montreal) also makes sense. Building another hub airport on the other side of the 416 just to serve them makes a lot less sense.

Let's use Sudbury as an example (as I live here these days). If Air Canada/Westjet/Porter were to add just 1 flight in/out a day to Hamilton, Ottawa or Montreal, especially during the winter, people would use it and then connect to their flights in those airports to hot destinations. This isn't about relieveing so much as it is a choice. Pearson will always be congested. Pickering will not change that. What can relieve it the fastest is air carriers starting to build options to go to other major airports.

Why is the 400 always packed on a long weekend between Toronto and Barrie? Because it is the only road out of Toronto going North. If they were to extend the 404 and 412 North of Lake Simcoe and the 427 towards Georgian Bay, all of a sudden their would be less traffic on the 400. Hamlton/Ottawa, etc are like the 404/416/427. They are underutilized. Why build a new highway that does not exist when others could be lengthened or widened? That is what Pickering represents, a new highway when others could be used.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Let's use Sudbury as an example (as I live here these days). If Air Canada/Westjet/Porter were to add just 1 flight in/out a day to Hamilton, Ottawa or Montreal, especially during the winter, people would use it and then connect to their flights in those airports to hot destinations. This isn't about relieveing so much as it is a choice. Pearson will always be congested. Pickering will not change that. What can relieve it the fastest is air carriers starting to build options to go to other major airports.

Why is the 400 always packed on a long weekend between Toronto and Barrie? Because it is the only road out of Toronto going North. If they were to extend the 404 and 412 North of Lake Simcoe and the 427 towards Georgian Bay, all of a sudden their would be less traffic on the 400. Hamlton/Ottawa, etc are like the 404/416/427. They are underutilized. Why build a new highway that does not exist when others could be lengthened or widened? That is what Pickering represents, a new highway when others could be used.

It is a highway, a 2Km long highway that can take the 2.3 million people of the Easter GTA anywhere they want to go without having to drive for two hours.

Pearson is the Hub ( or should be if it is allowed to balance its traffic load properly). Pickering is point to point, it is not envisioned as a hub although no doubt some of that will happen, just look at porter. Being a megahub is Pearson’s job and thanks to Pickering Pearson’s Will be able to do its job.

 

[micheal_can]

It is a highway, a 2Km long highway that can take the 2.3 million people of the Easter GTA anywhere they want to go without having to drive for two hours.

Pearson is the Hub ( or should be if it is allowed to balance its traffic load properly). Pickering is point to point, it is not envisioned as a hub although no doubt some of that will happen, just look at porter. Being a megahub is Pearson’s job and thanks to Pickering Pearson’s Will be able to do its job.

Name me a non GTHA airport that is a point to point airport.