News   Dec 23, 2025
 877     3 
News   Dec 23, 2025
 2.2K     1 
News   Dec 23, 2025
 3K     1 

Post: Buttonville airport faces grounding

wyliepoon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
2,011
Reaction score
3
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=1508630

Buttonville airport faces grounding

Funding arrangement ending early

Scott Deveau, National Post Published: Saturday, April 18, 2009


A ragged patch of land stitched to a stretch of Highway 404 in Markham has been home to the Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport for nearly five decades. But the airport's days may soon be numbered, with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority putting an early end to a decade-long funding arrangement with it as of this Monday, and its request for federal aid falling on deaf ears.

The Buttonville airport is a pinprick compared to Pearson International Airport. But the facility provides some much-needed airport capacity in the region and accommodates several vital services for the surrounding communities.

Not only does much of the police and air ambulance flying in the region come in and out of it, but Buttonville also handles the bulk of the corporate jet traffic that Pearson and Toronto City Centre Airport are unable--or unwilling -- to handle.

Big businesses, such as Magna International Inc., which is headquartered in nearby Aurora, regularly use the airport for their corporate travel. In addition, it is home to three flight schools, including one run by Seneca College, making it the 10th busiest airport in the country.

But just because an airport is busy doesn't mean it is profitable, according to Derek Sifton, Buttonville president, whose family has owned the airport and the land it sits on since 1963.

And the Siftons are not without options. The 73-hectare tract of land the airport is located on is a prime piece of real estate that has been valued at $150-million.

"We would like to see it continue as an airport. But the bottom line is that without this funding we can't justify sitting back and bleeding," Mr. Sifton said. "If someone were to buy the airport today, they wouldn't be sitting doing what we're doing. The economics don't work without that funding arrangement."

The GTAA has given a $1.5-million annual subsidy to Buttonville as part of a decade-long capacity management agreement, which was originally intended to ensure Buttonville kept its capacity while the GTAA focused on building a second international airport in Pickering.

However, with the Pickering plans in limbo, the GTAA made the abrupt announcement last October that it would be terminating its arrangement with Buttonville two years ahead of schedule.

Making matters worse, $300,000 of Buttonville's budget provided by York Region is contingent on the GTAA funding, and that is now also at risk.

The GTAA's chief executive officer, Lloyd McCoomb, blamed the cutback on the drop in passengers at Pearson.

Still, the decision appears to fly in the face of the GTAA's own corporate plan, which mandates it "provide the Greater Toronto Area with a regional system of airports that meets the current and future demands for air services."

"The GTAA is not responsible for the development of a regional system of airports; that responsibility quite properly resides with the government of Canada," Mr. Mc-Coomb said in a March 11 letter to Mr. Sifton. "Simply put, the rationale for providing this subsidy for Buttonville Airport no longer exists."

Mr. Sifton, along with local and provincial politicians and other stakeholders, has appealed to Ottawa to replace the funding, but they have been stonewalled.

"If the airport were to close due to the loss of funding from the GTAA, it would have a severe impact on the local economy, as well as effectively creating a capacity shortfall in the GTA," Jim Bradley, the Ontario Minister of Transportation, wrote in a letter to federal Transport Minister John Baird.

Mr. Baird has not responded to the letter.

"The decision to close Buttonville Airport or keep it open is a decision for its owners," said Chris Day, a spokesman for Mr. Baird. "Local Conservative MPs as well as Minister Bradley have contacted the Minister on this issue, and we are currently looking at those requests."

Thornhill Conservative MPP Peter Shurman, whose provincial riding neighbours Buttonville Airport, accused the federal minister of "screwing around with it for six months," adding that the airport facilitates millions of dollars in economic activity in the region each year. He called the $1.5-million annually Buttonville is asking for "peanuts" compared to the returns it brings.

"This airport serves a private and public function, it should have some subsidy," he said. "The fact that the feds have not stepped up and found a way to channel money in at this point is nonsense."
 
The GTAA wants to build Pickering airport. Why would the GTAA give money to a private operation when their airport is used to show a lack of need for Pickering airport? The federal government takes money from the GTAA... why would the GTAA give money to Buttonville? For that matter how would the federal government justify giving money to privately run Buttonville while charging other airports and not making the lands other airports sit on available for sale? The business case for Pickering airport is tied to business moving there from Buttonville, Markham, and Oshawa. Without general aviation at Pickering there is no justification for the airport. A few cargo operations and a few vacation charters aren't enough to make it work.
 
I wonder if there is enough potential YKZ-YUL or YKZ-YOW traffic to support Porter Airlines coming in with a couple of q400s.

There are a lot of businesses in the region around Buttonville. At least some of them must have employees that travel.

Flights to Buttonville would not really take away from Porter's YTZ traffic as anyone flying from/to York region would almost certainly be using Pearson currently.

Slap a $10-15 passenger fee on the Porter passengers to help make up the loss of money from the GTAA.

Bearskin has run YKZ-YOW off and on, but that was on tiny 9-seaters and was relatively expensive.

They could run a Porter shuttle bus to the subway to make the service even more attractive.
 
^ Buttonville has an even shorter runway than the Island. That's already a limiting factor for Porter (that's why they can't do Toronto-Halifax direct). Aside from the operations issue, a big part of Porter's sales pitch is that you have service right from downtown. It would really be change in their business model to start operating from suburbs...and it's likely that the market is probably not that great anyway.

As for Buttonville...as an aviation enthusiast and urbanite I say shut it down. It's some crowded airspace to operate in, right under Pearson's approaches, and with Downsview and Markham nearby. Move the training schools and bizjets out to Oshawa.

Personally, I'd like to see Pickering get built to consolidate traffic from four airfields in the GTA: Buttonville, Markham, Oshawa and the Island airport. The land from all four airports is extremely valuable for development and in most cases particularly well suited for dense development. The Island would also be freed up for that park fantasy that many waterfront residents and local politicians have. And building a Pickering-Union airport link would be fairly easy with the existing Seaton sub.
 
Missed in that article is that the airport probably can survive but they'd have to jack up a fees for operators. Also, if the airport does generate that much economic activity for the region, perhaps Markham and the province will step in with the 1.5 million that's needed.
 
As for Buttonville...as an aviation enthusiast and urbanite I say shut it down.

It's probably because of Buttonville that Markham Centre/Downtown Markham and the 404/7 area isn't seeing any tall buildings like other suburban centres, since this area is under Buttonville's flight path. It's good to see that developers like Remington have worked around this by promoting a downtown with more human scale buildings, but as long as the airport is there there will be no "landmark" tall building that will define the area.
 

Back
Top