raptor
Senior Member
Isn't it easier to make T3 a domestic terminal?
|
|
|
Toronto Pearson International Airport
- Thread starter p5connex
- Start date
rbt
Senior Member
They'll have 7 to 10 years of use out of that design before any kind of an airside bridge could be completed. By the time the airlines agree, design occurs, construction completes, etc. they'll have recouped the operational efficiencies in the US security redesign and likely learned about a few mistakes to correct in future designs.
The most common transfer is domestic<->non-US international. Domestic<->USA transfers are less common, and International<->USA is extremely rare. There are a variety of ways you could do it. I picked the one that I thought would minimize the number of people making the long walk between terminals.
Either way, Air Canada probably would not agree to move their US operations to T3 as it really doesn't help them at all so that entire line of thought is wishful anyway.
Last edited:
TransitBart
Senior Member
I was at Pearson T3 today. I have not been in that terminal for years. I remember how large it felt compared to old T1 when it opened.
I have to retract that. Nothing can salvage the place. Finish pier G, and then H and I. Then start bulldozing T3. It's cramped and dumpy. The GTAA plan extends the new T1 structure in a straight line directly north replacing piers C, B and A.
isaidso
Senior Member
Agree 100%. T3 is obsolete. Tear it down and extend T1 over it. Does that plan also involve extending that massive parking facility as well?
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 273
- Location
- Back to East York... Alas!
Interesting for you to say that. I dropped off my wife for an Air Transat flight and we were pleasantly surprised by how much better and airy the (left) wing was at T3. They'll be able to keep it functional for another ten years, minimum, with the reno.
Good that Pearson is extending T1 to the left first. That'll be much more useful and much better for passenger comfort, je pense.
Good that Pearson is extending T1 to the left first. That'll be much more useful and much better for passenger comfort, je pense.
TransitBart
Senior Member
Until hell freezes over, Air Canada would not agree to move any operation from T1 because that would bugger its business plan to solicit US travelers and connect them to Europe and Asia. (It's working. People at my company do it.)
Furthermore, the world of airport terminals in 2016 is organized around the airline alliances like the Star Alliance and OneWorld. This means that Air Canada, United, Deutsche Lufthansa, Turkish, LOT Polish etc will ALWAYS share a terminal and American, Cathay and British will ALWAYS share another.
Their flight codeshares depend on it and oftentimes, they share check in facilities (to mitigate cost) and airside services for the same reasons.
TransitBart
Senior Member
In the original plan - the GTAA master plan document, it showed the parking lot about twice as large as now extended behind the main processor (terminal) facility. The answer to your question is yes.
Burnt creek
New Member
The airlines would have a say in that. And, they want their alliance partners in the same terminal. For example, all the star alliance partners are right now in terminal 1. Sky team and One world are for the most part in terminal 3. Hence for code sharing purposes this is the most practical option because it allow passenger to connect onto a code sharing flight without having to change terminals.
30 percent of passengers going through pearson are connecting passengers. Alot of that is canadian travelers connecting onto another flight.
Burnt creek
New Member
Sorry didnt see your post prior to my reply above. I ended up saying pretty much the same thing.
Dan416
Senior Member
In terms of the 401 offramps, I think it has to do with the new arterial road Mississauga is building east of Dixie Rd. It extends Creekbank Rd north over the 401 up to IIRC Netherhart Rd. Assuming that plan is still going ahead, anyway.
allabootmatt
Senior Member
Not anymore. Every AC European flight I have been on in last couple years has had a large and very noticeable contingent of Americans heading to or returning from Europe. This is core to AC's strategy and in London for example they are heavily marketing themselves as a way to get to the US (with giant ads in the Tube etc). Was also on an NY Metro North train recently that was totally wrapped in AC ads offering the vice-versa.
The International-US connections process has also been dramatically improved at T1. Considering the shambolic state of much of JFK, O'Hare etc it's a compelling alternative especially for people traveling to smaller US cities that lack non-stop overseas service.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Regarding International to US transfers: I have no knowledge of what the statistics are but when flying in to Pearson from Europe, specially from Heathrow, there are always European passengers transferring to the US via Pearson. One common transfer is Pearson to Orlando Florida (Brits or Europeans going to Disney World?).
Speaking of Heathrow, in the article they mention 5 minute benchmark security clearance. Ok, but everything else in Heathrow takes insanely long. Never take a connecting flight through Heathrow with a short turn-around!
Speaking of Heathrow, in the article they mention 5 minute benchmark security clearance. Ok, but everything else in Heathrow takes insanely long. Never take a connecting flight through Heathrow with a short turn-around!
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
I think Pier G is the key component here and needs to get started soon if not already in the final planning stages. US pre-clearance complicates operations and the current set up of swing gates (which can act as international or US gates) makes things worse. Once Pier G is completed then T1 can operate as domestic in pier D/E, international in pier F, and US in Pier G. This would allow mixing of Domestic and International passengers and sharing of retail facilities (read $$$) without having to worry about "gate x is an international gate today, but US tomorrow".
From there Piers I though H will be reanalyzed and adjusted for changes in demand. However an airside people mover would prove more valuable IMO as passengers become more cost conscious, you will see more passengers travelling from a domestic WestJet flight to, say and international Air Canada (or Lufthansa) flight. The current setup requires exiting the secure area travelling to the other terminal and rechecking into security. Having an airside connection would remove this burden.
From there Piers I though H will be reanalyzed and adjusted for changes in demand. However an airside people mover would prove more valuable IMO as passengers become more cost conscious, you will see more passengers travelling from a domestic WestJet flight to, say and international Air Canada (or Lufthansa) flight. The current setup requires exiting the secure area travelling to the other terminal and rechecking into security. Having an airside connection would remove this burden.
TransitBart
Senior Member
The division you have outline is precisely the new T1 (Star Alliance Terminal) plan from the 2008 GTAA master plan.