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

Peepers said:
The operator of Pearson did not have to go to Peel Region to get approval to land Airbus A380's. Why should the operators of Billy Bishop have to get approval from the city to operate a new type of aircraft? This concept is very outdated.
Click to expand...

A380 is not a new type of aircraft. It's a pretty minor adjustment to existing aircraft (long-range 747's mostly) and fit within the existing agreements.

If a modern Concorde was created, you can bet that Peel Region would be making a little bit of noise if Pearson proposed taking them.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
A380 is not a new type of aircraft. It's a pretty minor adjustment to existing aircraft (long-range 747's mostly) and fit within the existing agreements.

If a modern Concorde was created, you can bet that Peel Region would be making a little bit of noise if Pearson proposed taking them.
Click to expand...

I see your point, however for all intents and purposes within the air travel industry the A380 is as close to being a new aircraft type that it practically is a new type. From being giving it's own call designation 'Super Jumbo' for radio transmission, to having to create all new operation procedures for it. For example the A380 creates so much air turbulence behind it that it needs much more spacing behind it so that aircraft behind it are not caught in it's wake. Same sort of thing with ground operations.
 
rbt said:
A380 is not a new type of aircraft. It's a pretty minor adjustment to existing aircraft (long-range 747's mostly) and fit within the existing agreements.

If a modern Concorde was created, you can bet that Peel Region would be making a little bit of noise if Pearson proposed taking them.
Click to expand...

I think the important difference here is how aircraft are approved. The A380 complies with a set of environmental regulations in terms of noise and air pollution and is therefore allowed in as of right. Whether or not it's a radical or minor departure from the 747 or whatever is besides the point; it meets predetermined criteria and is allowed.

That is quite different from Porter/TPA/Bombardier having to get specific approval for the C-series, despite the fact it complies (or at least is expected to) with all the same regulations as the Q400 in terms of noise, pollution and so forth.

It'll become interesting if/when other carriers with C-series like aircraft try to use YTZ. The MRJ, 737MAX, A320NEO and the new E-Jets ought to all be able to meet similar noise and environmental restrictions as the Q400.
 
diminutive said:
It'll become interesting if/when other carriers with C-series like aircraft try to use YTZ. The MRJ, 737MAX, A320NEO and the new E-Jets ought to all be able to meet similar noise and environmental restrictions as the Q400.
Click to expand...

Deluce isn't that dumb. From that list, only MRJ and the new E-Jets would be able to operate from YTZ. The 737 MAX and the A320 NEO will be pushing it, even on the new runway. And they won't make the noise requirements, even with the new engines. Too much airframe noise. And out of the Q400, MRJ, E-Jets and the CSeries, the the CS100 has the absolute best business case.

The length of the proposed extension was very deliberate. The only way Air Canada or Westjet can compete with Porter will be to purchase their own fleets of CS100s. Westjet has effectively sunk that option with its purchase of the 737MAX. AC might still take up the CSeries. But with Porter controlling most slots and lots of ramp space, AC won't be able to do much at YTZ other than keeping fares to Ottawa and Montreal depressed.

Broadly, if Porter were to actually buy out the other operators and facilites at the airport, you could have a situation where total throughput goes up but the number of aircraft movements decreases.
 
I went to the consultation tonight, and I swear that I was the only person there who was pro airport expansion. At this point it is simply a consultation on directions for the report and to present their current findings. Residents refused to understand that the consultation was to determine the final scope of the study, and continuously repeated their dismay that there is not a completed report. They also got angry web a concern of their's was not in the current scope, despite the fact that the entire point of the meeting was to see what was missing from the current scope.

Residents complained about the bias of the survey and reported information, despite the fact that I did not see any obvious bias in them. I feel this probably has to do with the fact that the report likely does not support their doomsday predictions of the expansion.

The presentation boards discussed showed several scenarios of how traffic could've handled from increased use of the airport. Several options were entertained;

1. Extend streetcar down to airport, with an underground loop directly below existing drop off area

2. Build underground streetcar loop directly south of Queens Quay, with an extended underground passenger tunnel to reach it

3. Extend Dan Leckie Way into the lake and around to the drop off area to increase vehicle flow and reduce congestion

4. Build underpass below Queens Quay to allow for increased traffic flow

5. Increase shuttle frequency to allow for increased frequency to union station

Many questions were asked about noise., and the figures provided by the consultants were dismissed as the residents had looked up their own and asked the consultants to look at obscure reports they found online to support their arguments.

All in all, a very heated meeting with very few supporters if the expansion. They provided a map to show where in the city you are from, and almost all dots were directly beside the airport. I chuckled to myself several times when people complained about the affects of current operations on local residents, when these residents moved to that location knowing that the airport was there.

Apologies on any typoes, I'm typing this while riding a go bus on the DVP, so my typing is a bit spotty.
 
Thanks for your update. Was there any mention to looking at other locations on The Island for the airport or a different configuration or how future expansions could be handled?
 
not really, as there simply is no other way for the airport to be expanded. you can't exactly relocate it, and rotating the runway would have planes flying into condos.
 
innsertnamehere said:
not really, as there simply is no other way for the airport to be expanded. you can't exactly relocate it, and rotating the runway would have planes flying into condos.
Click to expand...

Relocation is possible elsewhere on The Island; it just takes a planning study that looks at the airport and hoped for expansion (I would love to see it triple in size!) with the other uses on The Island in a more professional manner. I really support the idea of a downtown airport but feel the current location is too problematic whereas a site further to the south creates more opportunities without sacrificing convenience.
 
The Toronto Port Aurthority has set the record straight regarding the survey released last week that was misinterpreted by Adam Vaughan and the Globe and Mail. Vaughan proclaimed that the survey showed that the majority of passengers were flying on "leisure". I pointed out how this was factually wrong and the TPA have confirmed this in a press release. Separate studies of passengers (as opposed to residents) revealed that 59% of passengers were travelling on business. Here is the press release:

9/9/2013
Recent Ipsos poll of Torontonians didn’t focus solely on airport users, frequency of use, or visitors to the City


The Toronto Port Authority (“TPA”), owner and operator of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (“Billy Bishop Airport”), confirmed today that 59 per cent of business travelers continue to be the airport’s primary customer.

Toronto (September 9, 2013) - The Toronto Port Authority (“TPA”), owner and operator of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (“Billy Bishop Airport”), confirmed today that 59 per cent of business travelers continue to be the airport’s primary customer.

Between October 10 to 17, 2012, Advitek Data Collection Services (“Advitek”) conducted a survey of 1,029 passengers (http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/tp_strategic_plan/Airport-Passenger-Survey-Summary-Report.pdf) from around North America who traveled in and out of Billy Bishop Airport. Advitek used a face to face methodology and asked passengers a list of concise questions.

A major conclusion of this survey was that the majority of passengers (approximately 59 per cent) use Billy Bishop Airport for business travel (page 17, figure 3.12 Purpose of Trip). Almost 37 per cent use the airport for pleasure travel.

“The Advitek study revealed that our core customers use Billy Bishop Airport for business, and that 30 per cent of all passengers use the airport one or two times monthly. This is consistent with business use travel patterns” said TPA President and CEO, Geoff Wilson.
Click to expand...

http://www.torontoport.com/About-TP...study-confirms-majority-of-Billy-Bishop-.aspx
 
Peepers said:
The Toronto Port Aurthority has set the record straight regarding the survey released last week that was misinterpreted by Adam Vaughan and the Globe and Mail.
Click to expand...
You may be entirely correct, but if so, it would be the first time the Toronto Port Authority ever set anyone straight about anything.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The presentation boards discussed showed several scenarios of how traffic could've handled from increased use of the airport. Several options were entertained;

1. Extend streetcar down to airport, with an underground loop directly below existing drop off area

2. Build underground streetcar loop directly south of Queens Quay, with an extended underground passenger tunnel to reach it

3. Extend Dan Leckie Way into the lake and around to the drop off area to increase vehicle flow and reduce congestion

4. Build underpass below Queens Quay to allow for increased traffic flow

5. Increase shuttle frequency to allow for increased frequency to union station
Click to expand...


Thanks for this report. In my opinion the only way to deal with the traffic situation which gets worse by the year would be to build a terminal in the area where the abandoned concrete silo's currently stand.

In this terminal you would have passenger check-in , security, customs pre-clearance, business lounges etc. Passengers would then take the tunnel to departure gates on the Island. Incorporated into the terminal would be a multi-level garage over-top of the terminal. I would loop the streetcar line inside the terminal.

With the construction of a landside terminal we could alleviate traffic congestion while at the same time freeing up space on the airside for the construction of more gates.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I went to the consultation tonight, and I swear that I was the only person there who was pro airport expansion.
Click to expand...

So was this you then?
Gwen Fogel on last night's consultation meeting
Even with the traffic insanity, (as a result of the TIFF congestion) the room was so full, they turned people away.

Sadly we are talking to brick walls. They are not listening to the public and the whole process is a sham.

I wrote to my city councillor(McMahon) and Chris Dunn this morning.
Only one person actually spoke in favor of the airport last night and by the time they answered his question, even he changed his mind!!

Gwen

Permalink: blog.communityair.org/2013/09/10/gwen-fogel-on-last-nights-consultation-meeting.aspx
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps something the TPA should consider is closing the two smaller runways and turning that space over for parkland. I don't imagine the two smaller runways are used that often as it is, and it might generate more goodwill to residents and would also increase the ramp space west of the current terminal.

If they were to do this, I also wonder why they couldn't build a recreational pathway around the west end of the main runway, improving access to the islands from the Bathurst St. area for what I imagine would be little extra cost. If they are going to improve the situation for the airlines, I don't see why they can't also try to improve the situation for residents.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top