Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

Last edited:
Rainforest said:
But the A220's will require an airport expansion, that means more restrictions on sailing.

And the competitive case isn't obvious. For one, the turboprop A220 are a bit slower than the jets. I read 829 kph typical, 871 kph max, while the jets cruise at something like 970 kph, sometimes even > 1,000 kph. Not a big deal for trips within the eastern half of Canada or to the eastern half of U.S., but for Toronto to London UK, the difference should be about 1 h each way. That kind of reduces the area within which the use of Billy Bishop is appealing.

Furthermore, transatlantic trips commonly include a connecting local flight, as opposed to regional trips that often go point to point. The London City and the Billy Bishop do offer some connecting options, but not nearly as many as Heathrow or Pearson. That means, harder to compete with those who fly between the primary hubs.

And if the business case isn't solid in the long term, then it doesn't look like a good idea to expand the airport. Probably better to stick with the plane sizes it can handle today, and regional trips only.
Click to expand...

Which version of the A220 is a turboprop?
Cinnamon said:
I guess only option will be to install an arresting system.
Click to expand...
Now that would be entertaining.
 
lenaitch said:
Which version of the A220 is a turboprop?
Click to expand...

I might be totally wrong here, but I googled it and got an impression that A220 are turboprops.

In any case, their speed is quoted as 829 kph typical, 871 kph max. That's about 100-150 kph below the typical speed of the large transatlantic jets in service now.
 
picard102 said:
Or they'll just apply for an exemption.
Click to expand...
I'd think that a large pool of water would be a very effective arresting system! :)

Rainforest said:
I might be totally wrong here, but I googled it and got an impression that A220 are turboprops.

In any case, their speed is quoted as 829 kph typical, 871 kph max. That's about 100-150 kph below the typical speed of the large transatlantic jets in service now.
Click to expand...
A220 are jets - it's the renamed C-series, that we've been discussing this this thread for decades,

Perhaps their slightly slower speed explains their higher seat-mile efficiency compared to the bigger jets.

Though seems to me that trans-Atlantic travel times are already slower than they used to be back when it was all 747s. Perhaps they just fly slower to save fuel.
 
Stopped on Family Guy the other night. I guess at least in this Universe Billy Bishop already has Jets landing at the airport!


1621388093078.png
 
According to the caption under the photo of Drake's Boeing 767 in this Macleans.ca article, it was landing “at the island airport”. I’m guessing it probably did not land there, but maybe at Pearson.

I don't recall hearing of pro sports teams using the island airport. I suppose it could become more useful to them if jets like the Airbus A220 were eventually allowed, but the 11p.m. curfew would often make it impractical along with the lack of a bridge for buses. The Air Canada Jetz Airbus A319 planes with 58 all business class seats used by NHL teams apparently require a minimum runway length of 6500 feet, with YTZ having a main runway of just under 4000 feet.
https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/home/book/charters.html

Edit: The Air Drake Boeing 767 did “flyovers“ of Pearson and the island airport. The association with CargoJet probably has it at Hamilton most of the time, though it has landed at Pearson.
 
Last edited:
SubHuman said:
According to the caption under the photo of Drake's Boeing 767 in this Macleans.ca article, it was landing “at the island airport”. I’m guessing it probably did not land there, but maybe at Pearson.

I don't recall hearing of pro sports teams using the island airport. I suppose it could become more useful to them if jets like the A220 were eventually allowed, but the 11p.m. curfew would often make it impractical along with the lack of a bridge for buses.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing a photo editor saw a plane, a lake and Toronto and made an assumption. Somewhere in the article it said it regularly lands at Hamilton.
 
lenaitch said:
I'm guessing a photo editor saw a plane, a lake and Toronto and made an assumption. Somewhere in the article it said it regularly lands at Hamilton.
Click to expand...
...or that photo editor took advice from the creative team behind Family Guy and other works by Seth MacFarlane.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top