kEiThZ
Superstar
To begin with, clearly the airport is not popular amongst the downtown community.
Debatable. And by the time the next election rolls out I am willing to bet that quite a few residents will have experienced Porter....and that would certainly change their minds.
Yes it provides a slightly cushier and quicker airport experience that Pearson, providing you have a short-haul destination......
Slightly is an understatement. From downtown, Porter can save you up to an hour (shorter wait times for boarding, less security, shorter trip to the airport). That's hardly insignificant. Blue 22 might alter that equation a tad but it won't shift the balance.
N
...but the airport has no runway expansion capability....
That's entirely a policy decision. Given the choice, I would bet that Deluce himself would pay for a lengthening of the runway. There's room for some extensions and expansion. And a slight runway extension (700ft for runway 08/26) would allow for Porter to max out the Q400's range-payload. They would be able fly to over half the continent non-stop. Saskatoon, Havanna, St. John's, Miami, Halifax, Denver and Nassau are just a few of the places that would be possible. Imagine the tourism potential, inbound and outbound....
...it can't handle (and people would flip) if you put down full-sized jets.
Nobody has ever suggested running full-sized jets from the island. At best the debate has been about allowing business jets and regional jets. Yet, there's scarcely a jet aircraft available today that could operate without too many load restrictions (because of runway length) from the island. Moreover, once you start getting into Boeing and Airbus narrowbodies, the airport's footprint itself would have to grow significantly (runway, ramps, terminal areas) beyond the available space. That's just a few among many reason why it would not be possible run jets out of the island. Those who suggest the slippery slope to jets are either fear-mongering or have no clue what they are talking about. You can probably count on one hand the number of jets that have balanced field lengths that would permit operation from the Island and none of those could even carry a quarter of the board members of any decent sized corporation, in one go.
That inherently limits the functional use of the place; not to mention the paranoid 9/11 type security thoughts.
Reagan and London City do fine. And La Guardia, JFK and Newark aren't exactly in the sticks either.
Leave air traffic to the GTAA; and turn Hamilton Airport into a second full-fledged International Airport, if Pearson needs the support.
Pearson airport is already too far east for a good chunk of the GTA and the periphery. Hamilton would be even worse.
BTW, Hamilton is an international airport. The problem is that not too many airlines care to operate out of there. And should we ever get transit in the region, Hamilton would become even less of a choice. Indeed, if regional rail service really improves, Hamilton residents could start using Pearson.
In the alternative; you could imagine over 100 acres of new parks; or even a small wilderness area (I've canoed behind the airport and its quite serene except for the airport part! LOL)
OR you could envision a new sustainable community, car-free, near downtown, similar to the existing Islands community but denser, with a retail hub for tourists, who can then stroll to and island beach. Could be a model community and yet highly profitable for taxpayers.
Other than opposing the airport, the city have never put forward any reasonable vision for the airport lands. And note I say reasonable. This means something with a half decent business case. If the day ever comes when they do propose something reasonable, I'll back it. And I seriously hope it's not some plan to over run the islands with condos. Bang up job they've done with the waterfront they have today.
N
As opposed to the airport which is a sinkhole for money and hack patronage appointed boards and staff.
The airport has only been unprofitable because of it's constant abuse by the City and the previous tenants (Air Canada) who had no interest in really using it (other than to lock out the competition). Give it a reasonable tenant (just like Porter is doing) and it will flourish. It will be generating a profit in short-order. It's target of a million passengers in a year is hardly piddling. And they are flying in the most environmentally responsible way possible...transit to the airport (and that too a short transit ride) and flying on a turboprop (that's also the best in its class for fuel efficiency, noise, etc) in a single class (no space hogging business passengers).
Aside from that, how come nobody ever brings up the subsidies the Island residents get? How about starting with the fact that they get to stay on incredibly valuable land for a song. And what about the need to maintain waterborne civic and emergency services? Or the impact on ferry services? Would we really run ferry services in the winter if there were no residents there? And how much value added are they providing to the city? How many jobs are they generating? The way I see it, they are reducing potential park space! In my books, the residents will have legitimacy when they start footing the real bill of living on the Island. I find it particularly egregious that some poor schlub in Malvern or Weston has to pay higher taxes to support some privileged folks who happen to luck out yet still demand that they should have the final say on all economically beneficial activity in their vicinity.
Last edited: