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

jcam said:
With an investor owning the terminal, they'd try to attract Air Canada or someone else to take up the slots if Porter de-camped. Everyone didn't make the investment in that airport infrastructure to fold up shop.
Click to expand...

You didn't hear it from me but I know from an inside source that if Porter ever goes under WestJet is poised to buy them out and add the Island and their fleet to their Encore program.

I'm not sure about a situation where Porter abandons the Island though, and continues with jets at Pearson etc.
 
robmausser said:
You didn't hear it from me but I know from an inside source that if Porter ever goes under WestJet is poised to buy them out and add the Island and their fleet to their Encore program.

I'm not sure about a situation where Porter abandons the Island though, and continues with jets at Pearson etc.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. To be honest all that would make sense; Porter operates the Q400 so there's instant fleet commonality. Then toss in that Westjet is backed by ONEX, and there have been rumours for years of Robert Deluce looking to offload Porter and sailing into the sunset so it's not an outlandish rumour.

I guess the thing to lookout for is if Porter starts taking drastic cost cutting measures, that would be the sign things are shaping up into play.

In terms of Air Canada returning to the Island Airport, it's not out of the question but they clearly dont know how to make proper use out of it as seen from their past experience from it. The only reason they would do it would be so they could prevent WestJet from having a monopoly over it.
 
Toronto Port Authority declared $19.5M net loss at the end of 2020, entirely due to the "material decline in revenues" in the Billy Bishop Airport. Only the pedestrian tunnel is costing them $6.5M/year for its capital financing, plus $1.5M/year for its operational and "lifecycle payment" costs. They also invested another $2.9M to convert the airport ferry to electric-power.

First they increased the the Airport Improvement Fees from $15 to $29 in an attempt to cut the losses : https://www.portstoronto.com/portst...op-toronto-city-airport-announces-aif-in.aspx
And, then they started to look for an investor for the airport: https://www.portstoronto.com/portst...to-releases-request-for-interest-(rfi)-t.aspx

I think it will be a tough sell unless they guarantee the extension of the runway and the lease of the airport beyond 2033.
 
Northern Light said:
According to this Globe and Mail article (linked below)......the relationship between Billy Bishop's operator and Porter is worse than tenuous, with lawsuits flying.

Additionally, court documents suggest that Porter was looking to cease all operations at Billy Bishop, prior to the pandemic.

www.theglobeandmail.com

Porter Airlines warned of losses, threatened to leave Toronto’s island airport in dispute with terminal owner

Porter Airlines warned Toronto island airport owner it was suffering losses long before pandemic
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
Click to expand...

Close the effing thing already - it's done.
 
kEiThZ said:
We should increase air traffic over the poor brown folk who live in Malton and Rexdale instead. It's what world class cities do.
Click to expand...

Pearson Airport has a noise management program which includes a "land use" planning. They discourage residential (or sensitive) land use in the Airport Operation Area, which is larger than the entire downtown Toronto:

PA2.PNG


Malton is "exempted" from this AOA. However, there are mitigations in place and the future developments in that area are strictly controlled with guideless such as:

Aircraft Noise Warning Agreement (ANWA) means an agreement between the Corporation of the City of Mississauga, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (or its successor) and the Developer to be registered on title that provides for, among other things, the following: a development agreement incorporating conditions related to noise mitigation consistent with findings of the detailed noise impact study; enforcement obligations, post-construction certification that development approval conditions have been satisfied, aircraft noise warning signage, and aircraft noise warning clauses regarding both indoor and outdoor activities in Purchase and Sale Agreements, sales materials, and in enrollment documents for schools and daycares.

On the other hand, Waterfront Toronto was strategically planned as a high density residential and recreational area. There are more than 10,000 condo units on the Queens Quay West only (yellow shaded area below), between the Stadium Road and the Yonge Street, and keep adding. More condo developments are coming on the Queens Quay East (blue shaded area) and the Villiers Island (red shaded area). I am not even counting the condos just north of the Gardiner.

A commercial airport in a such dense residential and recreational area is ridiculous.

WF.PNG
 

Attachments

  • 1622835886783.png
    1622835886783.png
    9.4 KB · Views: 98
kEiThZ said:
Won't someone please think of the upper middle class yuppies who can afford to live in the core...
Click to expand...

It is not the upper middle class "yuppies" live in the core, it is mostly the lower middle class who cannot afford to buy a house anymore. A significant portion of the condo units are rentals as well. As a matter of fact, if you are an essential worker, it is actually not sustainable to live outside of the downtown area (lack of good public transportation, etc.) The life in the Simpsons is no longer attainable: a family of 4, relying on the single income of the father working in a low-mid skill job, but living in a detached house with two cars, kids enjoying extracurricular activities, etc.
 
Cinnamon said:
As a matter of fact, if you are an essential worker, it is actually not sustainable to live outside of the downtown area (lack of good public transportation, etc.)
Click to expand...

I bet that's not what you actually mean. Essential workers don't all live in the downtown area, and lots of essential jobs are located outside the downtown area.
 
IMHO, if the airport is commercially sustainable without expansion and without increasing the flight frequency, then it should be retained. By the way, the lawsuit doesn't automatically mean the business model doesn't work. That might be the case, but it might be that one or both partners got too greedy.

But I wouldn't expand because the expansion would inconvenience the locals.
 
picard102 said:
The airport is a net asset, no one has presented an argument as to why it's not other than "pearson", "park" and "noise".
It's absolutely the best use of the land, and their dollars.
Click to expand...
They seem to be having financial troubles. If no one wants to invest, then close it. If someone wants to invest, good for them. But, don't expand it. Expanding an airport in the middle of downtown is a short-sighted move.

Sure, the airport is an asset. So is (actual) affordable housing, a waterfront district, and a park, among other things.
 
picard102 said:
The airport is a net asset, no one has presented an argument as to why it's not other than "pearson", "park" and "noise".
It's absolutely the best use of the land, and their dollars.
Click to expand...
Their dollars, being our tax money.

Also kind of absurd to suggest that that land could not be used to support billions in housing development so it is not the highest and best use of the land.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top