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

[ttk77]

So while I'm not in theory opposed to running the CSeries jets out of the island airport, every time Deluce or the TPA open their mouths my sleaze-meter goes off scale and I start wondering what they're not telling us and what they're trying to get away with. Can anyone think of a reason, besides running the jets with less noise, why Deluce/Porter might want the extra runway length?

 

[rbt]

Can anyone think of a reason, besides running the jets with less noise, why Deluce/Porter might want the extra runway length?

Territory expansion. A larger runway would allow for a higher takeoff weight (more fuel, passengers, baggage).

You can see this tradeoff today with their flights to Myrtle Beach; they run under capacity passenger wise to be able to carry the fuel to reach the destination.

The extra 64m of runway from the new adjusted expansion would allow for a slightly higher takeoff weight. CSeries requires 1,463m of actual run at maximum weight in zero wind; so zero safety margin. Recommended safety margin is 240m; the minimum safety margin is less but Canada usually targets 300m*).

So anything below 1,463m + 240m = 1,703m is either trading off on the safety or the takeoff weight or both.

A 400m expansion (200m per end) would bring the island airport up to a 1,616m length runway which remains below CSeries distance/passenger load capabilities with Canada's standard safety margin.

All numbers come from Wikipedia which is usually reliable for this kind of thing.

* 300m is high to accommodate a 747 stopping and was the result of the Air France crash at Pearson 8 years ago. Presumably a CS100 would require somewhat less so I'll stick with the 240m that was the previous international recommendation.

 

[Roy G Biv]

You would be surprised. There are lots of low income people living downtown who use Porter to connect with relatives in the cities currently served by Porter. Not only has Porter brought lower fares to these people - the savings in ground transportation costs ($3 subway vs. $60 airport limo) is significant to these people also. The lower the costs the more accessible air travel becomes to low income people.

As a regular Porter flier, I am calling absolute BS on this.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...are-for-leisure-survey-finds/article14114769/

Relatives of low income Torontonians? I don't think so.

AoD

 

[PinkLucy]

So while I'm not in theory opposed to running the CSeries jets out of the island airport, every time Deluce or the TPA open their mouths my sleaze-meter goes off scale and I start wondering what they're not telling us and what they're trying to get away with.

+1

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's to keep boats out of the area around the runway. I'd imagine the difference is due to the different landing vectors, or something.

The landing vector is already set by the alignment of the runway itself - and you definitely can't change the approach vector this close to the runway (literally right beside it)

rbt:

Bingo - the whole noise argument for the additional request is clearly a front for something else.

AoD

 

[Peepers]

Video taken earlier this week of medium-speed testing of the CSeries flight test vehicle #1 (FTV-1) at Mirabel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DVe5uiyS4_M

Jump ahead to 2:45 to listen to the engine run-up. Note comment of videographer Sylvain Faust "CSeries is so quiet ! Amazing...crickets are louder!

High speed testing is to commence this afternoon in fact you can see from the below link that FTV-1 is currently positioned on the runway!

http://planefinder.net/flight/BBD501


UPDATE: Reuters is reporting that first flight could come as early as this Sunday!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-bombardier-cseries-20130904,0,1142965.story

PARIS (Reuters) - Canada's all-new Bombardier CSeries passenger jet is being readied for a long-awaited maiden flight as early this weekend, possibly on Sunday, two industry sources said.

 

[Peepers]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...are-for-leisure-survey-finds/article14114769/

Relatives of low income Torontonians? I don't think so.

AoD

This is a good example of how worthless the reporting has become in the Globe & Mail. Here is the headline:

"Majority of trips out of Billy Bishop airport are for leisure, survey finds"

That is NOT what the survey found! In a survey of 700 residents of which 300 live south of Queen the majority surveyed used Billy Bishop for "leisure" travel.

If they had instead conducted a survey of passengers I am sure it would show a much different story because many passenger's do not live in Toronto, e.g. business travelers!

No mention in the G&M article about the overwhelming support from residents for the airport (87%!). No mention that a majority of residents surveyed (60%) support the introduction of jets.

I don't know if the writer - Guy Dixon is trying to mold the story or if he is just a moron (probably a mixture of both). The only persons he interviewed for this story were those opposed such as the head of "No Jets TO" and the idiot Adam Vaughan who seized on the flawed interpretation of the study (that majority of trips are for leisure travel) to contend that "this undercuts the argument for the airport as a vital economic driver given its close physical proximity to Toronto’s financial and corporate centre."

Also keep in mind that the term "leisure travel" would include people traveling to visit friends and relatives i.e. not purely people going on vacation.

 

[EnviroTO]

It's to keep boats out of the area around the runway. I'd imagine the difference is due to the different landing vectors, or something.

Yes, obviously it is to keep boats out of the area around the runway, but how is the boundary being set. Something is really messed up when the proposal to extend the runway the greatest amount suggests the lower increase in marine exclusion zone. If the marine exclusion zone doesn't need to be x metres from the threshold then is the current exclusion zone far larger than required, or is the proposed exclusion zone too small? Something doesn't seem right.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Peepers:

It's a rebuttal to your claim that Porter benefits lower income Torontonians, which so far no survey has supported and it has been anecdotally rebuffed by actual an Porter user. Rehashing your talking points wouldn't have done a thing to deflect the vacuity of your claim.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

As a regular Porter flier, I am calling absolute BS on this.

Concur. Porter probably has a higher proportion of business travelers. And business travelers are the bread and butter of any successful airline. That said, if you survey the random public, the vast majority will have used airline travel mostly for vacations. That's why surveys like the G&M one yield such bizarre results.

Poll the city on how many people regularly fly from Pearson and what they fly for. You'll get the same result. Business travelers flying monthly counts only as one vote in this survey. March Breaker flying once a year has the same weight. That's why the survey is ridiculous.

 

[kEiThZ]

rbt:

Bingo - the whole noise argument for the additional request is clearly a front for something else.

AoD

I've tried looking at it. And I really can't see what the extra 32m on each side gives them. It's not significant enough to add lots of range.

 

[rbt]

I've tried looking at it. And I really can't see what the extra 32m on each side gives them. It's not significant enough to add lots of range.

It might mean 4 more usable seats on a flight to southern Florida. In a business where a 5% margin is the difference between highly successful and complete failure, this could be a big deal.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

So while I'm not in theory opposed to running the CSeries jets out of the island airport, every time Deluce or the TPA open their mouths my sleaze-meter goes off scale and I start wondering what they're not telling us and what they're trying to get away with.

Yup. TPA appears to be a corrupt rats' nest. Those who support runaway expansion should at least be willing to acknowledge the TPA's questionable governance and its taint on all things airport-related.

 

[Peepers]

Concur. Porter probably has a higher proportion of business travelers. And business travelers are the bread and butter of any successful airline. That said, if you survey the random public, the vast majority will have used airline travel mostly for vacations. That's why surveys like the G&M one yield such bizarre results.

Poll the city on how many people regularly fly from Pearson and what they fly for. You'll get the same result. Business travelers flying monthly counts only as one vote in this survey. March Breaker flying once a year has the same weight. That's why the survey is ridiculous.

I don't think that the survey itself is ridiculous. What is ridiculous is the seriously flawed interpretation of the survey results by the Globe & Mail Transportation writer and Adam Vaughan. The writer clearly had an agenda by omitting from his story the highlights from the survey such as the fact a majority of residents surveyed - 60% - support the introduction of jets (this in a survey heavily weighted with sentiments south of Queen!) and that 87% of resident believe Billy Bishop is positive for the city.