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

TOareaFan said:
not sure that is true...it could mean some routes get combined....so, for example, instead of separate planes leaving YTZ for Thunder Bay and North Bay....perhaps it is Toronto-NB-TB-Toronto.......some routes may be reduced in frequency to free up slots...some slots may become available (ie. if AC abandon YTZ).
Click to expand...

That's kinda splitting hairs, but I'll rephrase:

In order to add jet flights to new destinations, Porter will have to get rid of existing flights from YTZ. It would only make sense that the first places to get trips chopped would be lower-demand destinations such as North Bay or Timmins.

Even if AC abandoned YTZ, that would add only one additional slot per hour.

Porter has proposed a quite a few new destinations.

porter-routes.jpg
 
ShonTron said:
Interestingly, I just heard a radio ad that Porter's now flying to North Bay. It's too bad they were focused on jets for a while; the strength has always been short-haul flights; destinations like Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins and now North Bay provide some competition to AC Jazz.
Click to expand...
North Bay service starts October 7th, with a daily flight from North Bay to and from Toronto, and another daily flight from North Bay to and from Timmins.
 
MetroMan said:
Deluce picked a fight that he can't win. Had he kept his little regional business, he and his airline would've been doing just fine, popular amongst Torontonians, tolerated by waterfront residents. As it stands now, he's public enemy number one to those in the waterfront community, many city council members and others in higher government. He's burned too many bridges. It's time to move to Florida.
Click to expand...


Matt Elliot had an AMA during the Gardiner debate and I asked him about the Island Airport expansion and whether or not he saw parallels between the two debates. He seems to think, like MM, that Porter's expansion prospects look bleak.

Here's my question and his response:

Q: The island airport expansion issue has taken the backseat lately with the Gardiner debate. Do you think the Gardiner debate - the lobbying, the stakeholders, the council divisions - show any hints of what is to come with the island airport expansion debate? Both issues concern waterfront development and expose a divide between a corporate, time-is-money mindset and a progressive-oriented, quality-of-life narrative.

Matt: Yeah, we haven't heard much about the airport lately. That's a good point. I think, yes, the island airport debate will be similar to the Gardiner East debate. Lots of money. Lots of lobbying. Lots of misinformation.

I have to say, though, that I'm not too worried at this point about this council voting to allow jets and an expanded runway on the island. My sense is that Porter hasn't been able to cobble together a compelling case for most councillors. Tory's apparent conflict-of-interest also limits the mayor's office's role in any debate on the subject.

The federal election (assuming a result other than a Harper majority) could also change the debate radically. So keep an eye on that!
Click to expand...
 
Megaton327 said:
Interesting, as I live near Fleet and Bathurst and I have never once heard the planes in any capacity whatsoever while inside my building.
Click to expand...

I moved into a unit at Fleet & Fort York in 2005. There was a substantial change in sound levels between 2005 and 2009, almost entirely due to the airport. The final year before we moved we didn't open the balcony door any more. Didn't much like Gardiner either but at least it was a constant drone.

Actually, I think watching the concrete plant is what I enjoyed the most; you'd never know when the pink truck would show up and that driver kept it unimaginably clean.
 
Last edited:
I also live near the airport. Regular flights aren't much of a disturbance. You can hear them, but there are plenty of other noises. What is the most annoying, however, are the engine maintenance runs. That can be loud.

The worst flight noise is from the smaller planes and helicopters. And the jets during the air show :)
 
PinkLucy said:
I also live near the airport. Regular flights aren't much of a disturbance. You can hear them, but there are plenty of other noises. What is the most annoying, however, are the engine maintenance runs. That can be loud.

The worst flight noise is from the smaller planes and helicopters. And the jets during the air show :)
Click to expand...
That is the irony about the noise objection......both, the current fleet of Q400s and the proposed fleet of C series planes are quieter than a lot of the craft that can use the airport. If the (or one of the) issues is noise then they should regulate noise not technology.

This past saturday was armed forces day at BMO Field and they had a fly over by a military plane.....every match day we watch (but do not hear) multiple Q400s arrive and leave the airport........but this military prop was loud...we could hear it approach from a distance ....as it flew over it was really loud....as a guy in the row behind me pointed out "kinda ironic that that could legally land at the Island but those new quieter jets cannot".
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Or regulate the number of flights and the footprint of the airport (i.e. existing).

AoD
Click to expand...
Sure...but I would imagine the airport has/needs multiple regulations to deal with multiple issues....I was just talking specifically about the noise objection. The days of "all jets are noisier than all props" is clearly behind us and if noise is an issue, regulate that with the science we have...not an archaic ban on a specific technology.
 
TOareaFan said:
This past saturday was armed forces day at BMO Field and they had a fly over by a military plane.....every match day we watch (but do not hear) multiple Q400s arrive and leave the airport........but this military prop was loud...we could hear it approach from a distance ....as it flew over it was really loud....as a guy in the row behind me pointed out "kinda ironic that that could legally land at the Island but those new quieter jets cannot".
Click to expand...
Aha, and now I know why I saw a C-130 flying at a very low altitude over Yonge street on Saturday. I was quite puzzled as to what it was doing at this altitude. Did it really land and take off at the island, or just do a flyby? I mean I guess it's technically possible, just seems crazy.
 
Napoleon said:
Aha, and now I know why I saw a C-130 flying at a very low altitude over Yonge street on Saturday. I was quite puzzled as to what it was doing at this altitude. Did it really land and take off at the island, or just do a flyby? I mean I guess it's technically possible, just seems crazy.
Click to expand...
No I do not think it landed and took off from the island...it came over the stadium from the south and most people heard it before they saw it.....the point the guy was making was that it was a bit weird that, technically and legally, it could land at the island but the C series could not.
 
TOareaFan said:
another example of lumping the wrong things together.....that is a plane that (clearly) can currently land at the Island and is louder than the planes than they are trying to block from landing at the airport.
Click to expand...

To be fair, frequency is a consideration.

The old flight-school aircraft were actually noisier than the Q400's most of the time (reverse thrust being the exception) but they were rarely out before 10am and rarely after 6pm, and even then there only seemed to be a handful.

I liked watching the occasional pilot learning how to land and take-off in the middle of the afternoon. Getting woken up by 6am landings made me unhappy (so I moved; someone else's problem now).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top