News   Aug 11, 2020
 2     0 
News   Aug 11, 2020
 609     0 
News   Aug 11, 2020
 906     2 

Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
9,355
Reaction score
2,568
A single passenger car trip is always going to have more emissions per person. Put three passengers in the car, or change the car to a hybrid and the airplane doesn't look so good anymore. What Mark does get wrong is how quickly those emissions for cars will drop in the coming decade vs. aircraft. And no, I don't envision everyone driving EVs. But simple mandates on fuel efficiency along with more widespread hybridization are going to get emissions down much faster than anything happening on the aviation side. The best hope for aviation at the moment is lower scale electrification (say replacing the APU) in the coming decade, with eventually employing synthetic ecofuels several decades from now. Compare that to the possibility that new gas vehicle sales could be banned by 2040 in a lot of countries.

Comparisons to rail, however, get superfluous for certain destinations. We aren't going to build rail to Sudbury. At least not for a very long time. We're talking about a country that has a tough time getting decent rail service between the first, third and sixth largest metros which also happen to include the country's financial, tech, service, and political centres. So most people are still going to drive and fly to Sudbury in our lifetimes. Unfortunately for Mark, this may not be enough to make the case for a whole new major airport. The argument for a second commercial airport in the GTA has to around sufficient growth in national and international air traffic from the GTA that can't be adequately serviced by Pearson. That doesn't mean the odd flight to Sudbury, or simply splitting traffic to the exact same destinations in Europe with Pearson. That case is hard to make. It's why I still think Pickering launches as a large GA airport with a small commercial terminal, with some services for discount carriers. Can't see anyone really hubbing here.
 
Last edited:

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,930
Reaction score
1,159
Let's instead do Toronto to Montreal.....


You will see at that distance the train wins and the plane looses, and the car is the middle.

So, let's hear the argument about how a plane flying any distance is better for the environment than all other modes.....
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
9,355
Reaction score
2,568
What he also got wrong was the distance.


401km between both airports.

Good luck next time.
Can't really use driving distances while flying. Use Great Circle Mapper for aviation distances and add 10% for realism if you must.


The great circle distance is 340 km to Pearson and 351km to the Island.

For emissions, the ICAO calculator says 58.9 kg CO2 for Pearson-Sudbury and 54.2 kg CO2 for Billy Bishop-Sudbury.

To work out auto emissions, this calculator can be used to enter your own vehicle (seems to use EPA ratings):


I put in my car for 401 km. Got 0.04 metric tonnes (so 40 kg CO2). Admittedly, I drive a hybrid (not a Prius so not the most efficient out there....). I put in a 2019 Toyota Rav4 2WD and got 0.09 metric tonnes (~90 kg CO2). I also put in a 2019 Chevy Volt and got 0.03 metric tonnes (~ 30 kg CO2).

The comparison proves to me a few points:

1) The average vehicle is definitely not more efficient than flying for a single passenger. This is especially given the prevalence of trucks and SUVs in Canada.
2) The comparison fails when you add more than one passenger for most vehicles.
3) The comparison really fall apart when you have a more efficient vehicle.
4) Really proves why every family sedan and SUV should at least be somewhat hybridized these days, if not a plug-in with at least 50 km of electric range.
5) Really shows why auto emissions can be reduced faster than aviation emissions.
 

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
5,959
Reaction score
2,177
Location
Parkdale
Why the misrepresentation ? Pickering is a envisioned as passenger jet airport in the current business case I have seen. Oshawa will remain the city owned GA airport in the eastern GTA. Buttonvilles remains the private GA airport, open for as long as it’s owners wish. We need new passenger capacity.

If you don’t want to see tax dollars spent on Pickering then all the feds need to do is stipulate that in the RFP. Private investors would love to lock in an all private funded build out With appropriate billion $$ rewards.
Me? I don't want to see a Pickering airport at all, tax dollars or not.

It's ok....I'm a fanboy of Malazan, psychedelics, TFC, and beaches...it's not an insult.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,930
Reaction score
1,159

The Ford F 150 is the best selling new vehicle in Canada. Ironically, I own an older model.

From the Website: https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?tab=4 I get
0.14 metric tons:​
401 km in a USA 2018 FORD F150 SemiAuto-10 4WD Gasoline​
To go between Sudbury and Pearson. The truck would emit140kgs of CO2.
My car, a 2019 Subaru Imprezza is not much better.
0.10 metric tons:​
401 km in a USA 2019 SUBARU Impreza 5-Door Sport Man-5 4WD Gasoline​

And then for train, I was a lot more generous....
0.00 metric tons:​
401 miles travelled by long distance train​


So, the plane cannot compete with rail. That has been my argument all along.
 

MarkBrooks

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
257
Reaction score
112

The Ford F 150 is the best selling new vehicle in Canada. Ironically, I own an older model.

From the Website: https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?tab=4 I get
0.14 metric tons:​
401 km in a USA 2018 FORD F150 SemiAuto-10 4WD Gasoline​
To go between Sudbury and Pearson. The truck would emit140kgs of CO2.


My car, a 2019 Subaru Imprezza is not much better.
0.10 metric tons:​
401 km in a USA 2019 SUBARU Impreza 5-Door Sport Man-5 4WD Gasoline​
And then for train, I was a lot more generous....


0.00 metric tons:​
401 miles travelled by long distance train​
So, the plane cannot compete with rail. That has been my argument all along.
Yes, as you see flying is much for efficient than driving long distances, not to mention safer.
Via lists it’s CO2 emissions as 14.5 KG per seat between Toronto and Montreal, which is great if all your doing is going to Montreal. this is why we need High frequency rail where it makes sense, supporting our air transport system . Something we have been saying. Even the Toronto to Montreal route needs heavy subsidies right now, something that via needs to fix. (10 cents per passenger Km).

the tyranny of logistics stops HFR outside of this densely populated corridor.

see:

 

Woodbridge_Heights

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
2,823
Reaction score
615
Pickering would need a new or existing domestic airline to base itself out of it. Air Canada isn't moving, Westjet isn't likely to move (they moved FROM YHM to YYZ to better compete directly with AC), and Porter's competitive advantage is the island airport they are not likely to move.

So that leaves a 4th domestic airline to come in and try to carve out a piece of this pie for itself. So of the ~12 million pax in 2036 how many realistically could this new upstart airline attract? 5% 10% 15%? I have no way to determine the passenger shares between AC/WJ/PD but lets be conservative and say 5%. That gives Pickering Airlines 600,000 passengers per year or just under 2,000 passengers per day. Given the heavy commuter nature of this triangle our new Pickering Airlines would need at least hourly flights to Ottawa/Montreal/Quebec, and, assuming a 20 hr day we come up with just over 30 passengers per flight. Show me an airline business model that plans to be profitable with only 30 passengers per flight. Any new airline operating out of Pickering would need to capture at least 20% of the market to even begin thinking about being economical, a share that AC/WJ/PD and VIA are not going to give up easily.

I'm fully supportive of a Pickering airport but when you look at the numbers like this. It doesn't look so promising.
 
Last edited:

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,930
Reaction score
1,159
Yes, as you see flying is much for efficient than driving long distances, not to mention safer.
Via lists it’s CO2 emissions as 14.5 KG per seat between Toronto and Montreal, which is great if all your doing is going to Montreal. this is why we need High frequency rail where it makes sense, supporting our air transport system . Something we have been saying. Even the Toronto to Montreal route needs heavy subsidies right now, something that via needs to fix. (10 cents per passenger Km).

the tyranny of logistics stops HFR outside of this densely populated corridor.

see:

14kgs vs 54 kgs.... That's almost 4 times! So, where I live, it would be better on the environment to take a train than to fly.

Are you one of those that thinks we need more pipelines and more mining of the oil sands? To hell with the planet, right?
 

MarkBrooks

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
257
Reaction score
112
Pickering would need a new or existing domestic airline to base itself out of it. Air Canada isn't moving, Westjet isn't likely to move (they moved FROM YHM to YYZ to better compete directly with AC), and Porter's competitive advantage is the island airport they are not likely to move.

So that leaves a 4th domestic airline to come in and try to carve out a piece of this pie for itself. So of the ~12 million pax in 2036 how many realistically could this new upstart airline attract? 5% 10% 15%? I have no way to determine the passenger shares between AC/WJ/PD but lets be conservative and say 5%. That gives Pickering Airlines 600,000 passengers per year or just under 2,000 passengers per day. Given the heavy commuter nature of this triangle our new Pickering Airlines would need at least hourly flights to Ottawa/Montreal/Quebec, and, assuming a 20 hr day we come up with just over 30 passengers per flight. Show me an airline business model that plans to be profitable with only 30 passengers per flight. Any new airline operating out of Pickering would need to capture at least 20% of the market to even begin thinking about being economical, a share that AC/WJ/PD and VIA are not going to give up easily.

I'm fully supportive of a Pickering airport but when you look at the numbers like this. It doesn't look so promising.


I understand that you think that, but can you explain why you think WestJet or Porter would not want to expand their businesses once Pearson hits capacity? Why would they simple be happy with AirCanada dominance over Pearson? Do you believe a scarcity for profit business model is more profitable that expanding operations to Pickering?

When AirCanada runs out of space they can talk the GTAA into kicking someone else out ( up to a point, the power of holding the vast majority of slots and traffic). Where is that jet going?

Right now it’s just the small business jet owners, and who cares about them right? But are you going to kick out China Eastern, or Philippine airlines ? Nope, and when they want to add more routes, connecting Toronto to the booming Far East, where do they fly to or from? AirCanada is not giving up one of its slots those things are worth millions.
Pickering is called a reliever airport for a reason.

BTW, what’s with the fixation on Toronto-Montréal-Quebec corridor, the growth is not there. Although Pickering does give Porter a runway for its new CSeries Jets it wants to buy.

True Pickering will be more efficient than Pearson , faster turn around etc, less gas burned, it’s called operational efficiency. With Pickering Porter could fulfill its destiny, to be a pain in the butt to AirCanada. Neither WestJet or Porter should be expected to tip their hand this early. It will take 10 years to build Pickering Airport.
 

MarkBrooks

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
257
Reaction score
112
14kgs vs 54 kgs.... That's almost 4 times! So, where I live, it would be better on the environment to take a train than to fly.

Are you one of those that thinks we need more pipelines and more mining of the oil sands? To hell with the planet, right?
Which is why we should support building out rail when ever possible , the Toronto to Montreal route could even get back to $$ break even. Wouldn’t it be great to not have to subsidize just one passenger rail Route? as an air route the Toronto to Quebec corridor makes up just 14% of Pearson’s traffic.

unlike rail, Air Travel is of course a profit driven business.
 

Woodbridge_Heights

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
2,823
Reaction score
615
I understand that you think that, but can you explain why you think WestJet or Porter would not want to expand their businesses once Pearson hits capacity? Why would they simple be happy with AirCanada dominance over Pearson? Do you believe a scarcity for profit business model is more profitable that expanding operations to Pickering?
They can upgauge to larger aircraft and grow without needing additional gate or runway slots. The triangle is actually pretty saturated when it comes to the number of flights anyway, so no airline will be adding new flights, only moving to larger aircraft.

When AirCanada runs out of space they can talk the GTAA into kicking someone else out ( up to a point, the power of holding the vast majority of slots and traffic). Where is that jet going?

Right now it’s just the small business jet owners, and who cares about them right? But are you going to kick out China Eastern, or Philippine airlines ? Nope, and when they want to add more routes, connecting Toronto to the booming Far East, where do they fly to or from? AirCanada is not giving up one of its slots those things are worth millions.
Pickering is called a reliever airport for a reason.
This is one of the pros of a proposed Pickering airport. If the airport can attract a sufficient number of international airlines it can become viable. Proponents should be directing their focus to a non Star Alliance alliance, "One World"?, and the handful of international airlines currently receiving second class treatment by Pearson (TAP, etc)

BTW, what’s with the fixation on Toronto-Montréal-Quebec corridor, the growth is not there. Although Pickering does give Porter a runway for its new CSeries Jets it wants to buy.
You brought up the triangle, so you tell me.

True Pickering will be more efficient than Pearson , faster turn around etc, less gas burned, it’s called operational efficiency. With Pickering Porter could fulfill its destiny, to be a pain in the butt to AirCanada. Neither WestJet or Porter should be expected to tip their hand this early. It will take 10 years to build Pickering Airport.
Porter is not leaving the island, it is a MAJOR part of its competitive advantage.
 

Top