Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[lenaitch]

Sorry, yes, the Stouffville line. As far as the CP line, it is time CP finally realizes that they can allow passenger service along their corridors and can still run freight trains all at a profit. CN can do it, CP can. Or, we just buy that line from them via Nationalization.

At one time we had a publicly owned rail carrier and air carrier, but it was their entire operations. Beyond the obvious philosophical and financial implications, I'm not sure how nationalizing one segment of track would work. This wouldn't be like ML-owned tracks allowing relatively infrequent freight running rights; this would essentially be severing the CP mainline network. Whether you could accomplish all the transit dreams and still allow profitable freight opertions within the corridor would be the question. I'm not defending CP (or CN for that matter) and their apparent intransigence, but the mandate of corporations and governments are different. If CP sees non-profitability in eastern Canada, they wouldn't stay. how does invoking a 'national interest' square with crippling or throttling a major infrastructure corporation?

 

[micheal_can]

Fun fact. The majority of cargo travels in the bellies of passenger airplanes these days. Why do you think they've worked so hard to limit bags, for example? So the cargo carriers need to be co-located with passenger airlines to make transfers between their fleets and their passenger airline partners easier.

You are ignoring what so many of us have said earlier. Airlines these days base their business on connecting passengers through their hubs. Out of 100 pax on a flight from Sudbury, it's entirely likely that not even half have Toronto as their final destination.

Again. Who is going to pay for this? What it's called and what its capabilities are is all but irrelevant. Somebody has to pay for this. And if you insist that the airport authority does by charging airline or passengers, you just ruined the business case for Pickering.

People really need to stop thinking of airports as some standalone operation which you use once a year to go on vacation. They are intermodal mobility and logistics hubs. Would anybody here, for example, suggest splitting a GO/TTC bus terminal by a substantial distance?

I know that cargo is carried in all planes. The ones I refer to are the ones that are owned and operated by those cargo carriers.

Who pays for the cost of the rail line? The same that are paying for the new airport - the governments.
GO plans to use the Mid Town Corridor in the future.
Who pays/paid for the UP?

Where is the GO Bus and intercity coach terminals?

It should be noted. I am not necessarily opposed to building an airport at Pickering. I am skeptical this needs to be a major commercial airport with all the costs that entails. I have serious doubts about the business case. Especially in an era of increasing carbon taxes which are only going to make operating smaller aircraft at higher frequencies even more uneconomical.

I see the case for a large GA airport merging traffic from Buttonville, Markham and Oshawa though. Possibly even displacing the Island.

If you force Billy Bishop closed you may as well tell Porter to go bankrupt now.

If Porter moved, they could fly larger planes and potentially could expand like WestJet did a few years ago.

I don't know if there is a case for this airport right now, but as air travel becomes more popular, and as Canada's and the GTA's population increases, so too will the demand.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Worldwide Airfreight in all forms makes up about 30-35% of goods transported by value, but only 1% by weight. With hundreds of communities in Canada still missing all season road access, the stats are a bit different here, but still similar.

 

[Mo-tage]

Opening another airport with yet another airline or a new front for AC, Westjet, would probably do the same thing.

Being the exclusive domestic carrier at Pickering might give them a chance to survive, if they can pivot to a different business model. But, admittedly this would be a transition that could well take down the company.

I'd say an airport in Pickering would have limited impact on Porter, the island airport business model is unique and proven to be profitable for Porter. I can guarantee that business passengers have zero interest in heading all the way to Pickering for flights. And I suspect the numbers would show that not a lot of Porter's passengers are coming from areas like Oshawa or Pickering. When I lived in Toronto and used the Island Airport it offered convenience that couldn't come close to being matched by Pearson, much less an airport in the middle of nowhere in Pickering.

As an example, a few years ago I got stuck on a call, left my desk at King and York 30 min before my flight from the Island, was siting on the plane with 5 min to spare before they closed the door.

With respect to this entire Pickering argument, that airport location never made much sense to me. There are larger population centers west of the city, surely an expansion of Hamilton airport, would be far less expensive, and could draw traffic away from Pearson from the Niagara region, Hamilton and Burlington.

 

[MarkBrooks]

I'd say an airport in Pickering would have limited impact on Porter, the island airport business model is unique and proven to be profitable for Porter. I can guarantee that business passengers have zero interest in heading all the way to Pickering for flights. And I suspect the numbers would show that not a lot of Porter's passengers are coming from areas like Oshawa or Pickering. When I lived in Toronto and used the Island Airport it offered convenience that couldn't come close to being matched by Pearson, much less an airport in the middle of nowhere in Pickering.

As an example, a few years ago I got stuck on a call, left my desk at King and York 30 min before my flight from the Island, was siting on the plane with 5 min to spare before they closed the door.

With respect to this entire Pickering argument, that airport location never made much sense to me. There are larger population centers west of the city, surely an expansion of Hamilton airport, would be far less expensive, and could draw traffic away from Pearson from the Niagara region, Hamilton and Burlington.

Porters a great airline with well refined operations cost advantage over air Canada, just image what they could do with the CSeries jets, which are even more environmentally friendly, burning less fuel per pax than the Q400.

It’s all about the passenger catchment area. This table shows the customer base for Pickering is huge compared to Hamilton or Waterloo.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'd say an airport in Pickering would have limited impact on Porter, the island airport business model is unique and proven to be profitable for Porter.

Really depends on what connections there are to this Pickering airport. If you're in Scarborough or Markham for example, the Pickering airport could well be more convenient than the Island airport.

The bigger threat to Porter is that Pickering would give the authorities a great excuse to shutter the Island airport.

With respect to this entire Pickering argument, that airport location never made much sense to me. There are larger population centers west of the city, surely an expansion of Hamilton airport, would be far less expensive, and could draw traffic away from Pearson from the Niagara region, Hamilton and Burlington.

I absolutely agree. It really wouldn't take much investment to turn Hamilton into Toronto's version of Stansted. Needs better bus connections there. And more flights.

It’s all about the passenger catchment area.

Isn't it oh so convenient that you define catchment as a 30 km radius. Like nobody drives further than that to catch a flight, especially if it's cheaper. I guess the > 1.5 million Canadian passengers flying out of Buffalo must all be Niagara residents.

 

[MarkBrooks]

As the saying goes facts matter, if you don’t like the standard 30 km radius ( typical 30 min drive ). Then go pull other stats. The stats Canada database is free for all to use. We await your hard work.

The island airport will never be closed. It is profitable under every future scenario I have seen. It’s Porters cash cow and the port authority is making serious money from the lease. The real question is when will the runway be extended for Porters new CSeries jets?

The CSeries is lower emissions and quieter than the Q400, its only a matter of time until the public gets behind adding a 1000 ft to the runway to support lower noise and green house gas emissions.

See:

Does Canada’s New Carbon Tax Encourage Air Travel? - Friends of Pickering Airport

Print 🖨 PDF 📄 eBook 📱Canada is implementing its long-promised carbon tax on everything from natural gas to jet fuel. The goal of the carbon tax is to reduce emissions by encouraging Canadians to work, live and travel as efficiently as possible. Today the carbon tax is $20 per ton (4.4 cents per...

pickeringairport.org

 

[narduch]

I actually wonder if a Federal Conservative government would push for an Island expansion.

We already know that Ford is ready and willing to step over the City.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Porter may not be the only option though. There are other low cost/point to point airlines that may want first dibs at pickering. The sunwings and air transats of the industry should have no issue operating flights out of that airport, id imagine. Hell it would be a boon for vacation travellers in the eastern gta and beyond.

So eventually the model for pickering becomes a GA airport combining operations at buttonvile, etc into one airport and a small passenger airport focusing on leisure/low cost, and point to point services

 

[Mo-tage]

The 30km catchment area approach doesn't really take into account the geography of the area, for example the 30km catchment area population around YHM is relatively small, but if you include the populations of areas outside that zone but more conveniently located relative to YHM if it were to offer better service you'd add Waterloo Region (550,000 pop), Niagara Region (448,000 pop) and London (384,000 pop). This brings what I would call the practical catchment area for YHM into the area of 2.25mm. In addition there is meaningful overlap between the catchment areas of YYZ and YTZ with a new Pickering airport. Using 30km as a basis there is no overlap between YYZ and YHM.

Regarding clause 44 in the GTAA Ground Lease, early in my career I worked on a number of bond financings for Canadian airports. GTAA was, and is, by the far the largest borrower, currently debt outstanding is in the area of $6.6 billion. Clause 44 of the ground lease was specifically used in the marketing of the bonds to finance the terminal expansion and was an important credit consideration for bond purchasers to get comfortable that the billions of dollars they were going to lend would be safe. It also played a role in the airport achieving a strong credit rating in the "AA" range and was one of the factors that contributed to the airport being able to borrow at very competitive rates. There was no nefarious intent, it was a necessary clause at the time in order to help raise the money needed for the massive expansion. In addition, if you read the clause it specifically states that it does not restrict expansion at Hamilton, Toronto Island or Oshawa.

Many here may not be aware of the Canadian airport ownership model. The airports are owned by the Government of Canada and leased to what is known as a "non-share capital corporation" under a ground lease. An NSCC has no equity capital and is 100% financed by debt borrowings and operational cash flows. An annual rent is paid to the Government with airport rates and charges being set to cover costs. The GTAA management has a vested interest in protecting their jobs and what I am sure are good salaries, but if traffic were to plummet at the airport the parties with the most to lose are the bondholders.

 

[Amare]

I actually wonder if a Federal Conservative government would push for an Island expansion.

We already know that Ford is ready and willing to step over the City.

You wont have to wonder for much longer, Canada is turning into Conservative land with every passing day so it's only a matter of time .

The Conservatives would most likely grant an appproval seeing as they've been interested in reversing every single policy that has been put into place.

 

[kEiThZ]

The island airport will never be closed.

If it isn't, the case for Pickering stands worse.

The CSeries is lower emissions and quieter than the Q400

I am a huge fan of the CSeries and have friends who have worked on the airplane. But this blanket statement is deceptive.

It is more fuel efficient and has lower emissions PER PASSENGER. It also carries 1.5x the amount of passengers as a Q400. And it is quieter in certain directions. I am not sure it's actually quieter on lateral noise that a lot of the city is concerned about. Especially at departure with a full load. I will agree that it's definitely not substantially worse than the Q400.

. Hell it would be a boon for vacation travellers in the eastern gta and beyond.

The real question here is why do we need a discount carrier airport just for the Eastern GTA? What is stopping further investment in Hamilton and simply operating shuttle buses to various points in the GTA?

I go back to the example of London Stansted which is the discount carrier airport for the Greater London area. It is 35-40 miles from Charing Cross (about 55-65 km). Hamilton is only a little further (in terms of car or train travel) than that to Union Station at 83 km. If you land at Stansted, you are greeted with a plethora of options to get all over London and England from regional coach buses to National Rail. I fail to see why a whole new airport is needed to overcome what is effectively a deficiency of connectivity in Hamilton. And if we aren't willing to build those connections to Hamilton, what exactly would change at Pickering other than marginally easier driving for only the Eastern GTA? Stansted is full of discount carriers who are quite successful. Major hub for both Ryanair and Easyjet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stansted_Airport#Airlines_and_destinations

All over Europe, discount airlines operate to airports which are much further out of the city than Pickering would be. That's what allows them to offer discounts. So how does it make sense to build a brand new airport in Pickering and then charge the user fees necessary to pay for that while facilitating discount carriers?

 

[kEiThZ]

I know that cargo is carried in all planes. The ones I refer to are the ones that are owned and operated by those cargo carriers.

You missed my point. Cargo is routinely transferred between cargo airlines and passenger airlines at Pearson. Something might come in to Pearson on a Fedex flight and then fly out on an Air Canada flight. Hence, why cargo carriers like to be co-located with passenger airlines they partner with.

Who pays for the cost of the rail line? The same that are paying for the new airport - the governments.

Airports are paid for through user fees these days. See the airport improvement fee on your ticket next time you fly. And if those have to pay for the rail connection, Pickering is sunk.

GO plans to use the Mid Town Corridor in the future.

Then shouldn't airport expansion in Pickering wait till the Mid-town is built? Building the airport earlier effectively means relying exclusively on roads for connectivity.

If Porter moved, they could fly larger planes and potentially could expand like WestJet did a few years ago.

If they lose their monopoly at the Island, Air Canada and Westjet would crush them. As it stands, Porter's best sales pitch is that they fly you directly to downtown Toronto. Move them to Pickering and there's no real competitive edge at all. And worse, it'll be faster and easier to get downtown from Pearson with the UPE.

I don't know if there is a case for this airport right now, but as air travel becomes more popular, and as Canada's and the GTA's population increases, so too will the demand.

Why can't the demand be accommodated with larger airplanes at Pearson and an expansion of service in Hamilton? That's what I want answered.

Consider, for example, Air Canada's service to London Heathrow. The schedule for today has two 789 flights, one on a 77W and one on a 77L. Using Air Canada's seat counts from Wikipedia, that amounts to 1346 seats today to Heathrow. Let's assume that all four flights were switched to 450-seat 77Ws. That would increase the seat counts to 1800, an increase of 33.7%. Air Transat and Westjet fly to London Gatwick with smaller B763s, A310s and A332s. Upgauge those too and you can add a good bit more seats to the London area.

And what if AC needs another flight to London? Ask yourself if they really need three 37-seat and one 50-seat flights per day to Sault Ste. Marie. Would they not be better off with three 78 seat Q400 flights per day (adding 73 additional seats to Soo) and one additional slot (adding upto 450 seats) to London?

This is what I keep talking about. Pearson has plenty of room to increase capacity by the airlines there simply upgauging to existing destinations and rationalizing slots.

 

[narduch]

And what if AC needs another flight to London? Ask yourself if they really need three 37-seat and one 50-seat flights per day to Sault Ste. Marie. Would they not be better off with three 78 seat Q400 flights per day (adding 73 additional seats to Soo) and one additional slot (adding upto 450 seats) to London?

This doesn't really work though.

The location at Terminal 1 where Air Canada runs its flights to Sault Ste. Marie only handles small planes (Dash-8's, Q400's etc.). This is gates D1-D10.

So even if you got rid of a flight to Sault St. Marie (or Thunder Bay, London, Windsor, etc). you wouldn't be able to switch it to a larger Airbus or Boeing plane.

 

[kEiThZ]

This doesn't really work though.

The location at Terminal 1 where Air Canada runs its flights to Sault Ste. Marie only handles small planes (Dash-8's, Q400's etc.). This is gates D1-D10.

So even if you got rid of a flight to Sault St. Marie (or Thunder Bay, London, Windsor, etc). you wouldn't be able to switch it to a larger Airbus or Boeing plane.

I am not suggesting switching Soo, TB, London, Windor flights to Airbus or Boeing. I am suggesting replacing 37 seat Dash-8-100s and 50 seat Dash-8-300s with fewer rotations of the 78 seat Q400s, which can still use the D gates. That saves landing slots.

Landing slots are not paired with specific gates. They are just landing slots. AC could then add other Boeing or Airbus narrowbody or widebody flights to other destinations operating out of other gates.

Long term, Pearson has time to discuss adding more gates for narrowbodies, so that places like Timmins and Sudbury can eventually get mainline service with the CSeries.