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

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Can we stop playing the left vs. right blame game please? It's just feeding into the suburb vs. dt elitist culture war that's eating away at our city right now. I'm a lefty and a resident living very close to the island airport, and I'm not against the new aircraft provided they live up to their noise claims. My feeling is that Vaughan and other councillors are opposed to this more because of the way that Porter and TPA have handled the situation and every other past situation regarding airport expansion/improvement. As we all know from Ford though, it's far easier to win people over with hyperbole and one-liners (ie: "gravy train" or "pave over the lake") than using reason and logically laying out an argument.

Your right.

The Tripartite agreement was amended before (to allow for the use of the dash-8 aircraft on the island), so there is no reason to act like the agreement is set in stone.
The new aircraft claim to be QUIETER than current aircraft using the island except that they use a technology that is banned in the tripartite agreement.
Is it unreasonable to suggest that this technology change should trigger a review of the noise limits portion of the agreement to something that limits aircraft based on it's noise profile vs the propulsion technology being used?

 

[dowlingm]

Noise isn't, or shouldn't be, the only issue. What's the emissions profile of the new engines *compared to a PW150 rather than to a turbofan*

 

[ttk77]

Noise isn't, or shouldn't be, the only issue. What's the emissions profile of the new engines *compared to a PW150 rather than to a turbofan*

Agreed. Every aspect of this plan needs to be balanced against WT's recreational aspirations for the area.

 

[kEiThZ]

Noise isn't, or shouldn't be, the only issue. What's the emissions profile of the new engines *compared to a PW150 rather than to a turbofan*

Good luck opening that can of worms. If anybody starts pushing that downtown than the region better be prepared for the really solid case that the residents of Malton, Mississauga and Rexdale will have on aircraft emissions. I hope the province has a plan for relocating all air traffic in the GTA to Barrie.

 

[kEiThZ]

I've said this before, but it's way to early to call anyone a NIMBY on this. Porter and the airport are important assets to this city and the proposal deserves to be studied and considered. That said, given the agreement in place and the fact that for a number decades we've been trying to turn this area into a liveable neighbourhood, tourist attraction, recreational destination and all around great place to hang out and have a good time, residents and those who use the area for recreational purposes have every right to be concerned about the proposal and it's potential to derail Waterfront Toronto's vision for the area until it can be shown that there will be minimal negative impact.

Porter and the TPA don't exactly have the best reputation when it comes to honesty, and every one of their claims needs to be verified before I would be comfortable letting this go ahead. Once it's been established that there will be negligible negative impact to WT's vision for the area and people still oppose the expansion plans, then go ahead and scream NIMBY all you want. For the time being though there are two perfectly legitimate plans/visions for the area and before supporting one over the other we need to see if they can both work at the same time.

The problem quite frankly is that authorities at all levels refuse to recognize the commercial value of the airport and keep insisting that everybody pretend the thing is little better than a crop duster hub.

Like so many other files, Toronto needs to grow up and stop pretending it's an overgrown small town.

An airport in heart of the city is a major asset. It's time we recognized it. Invest in the airport. Turn it into a nicely functioning regional airport that caters largely to our downtown residents and Bay Street business elites. And send the crop dusters elsewhere.

Seriously, increasingly commercial service would actually reduce the number of aircraft movements at the airport and have a less overall impact. That's something many fail to grasp.

 

[EnviroTO]

An airport in heart of the city is a major asset. It's time we recognized it.

Lots of cities have airports in the heart of the city and most do not recognize them as major assets. Kansas City, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Berlin Tegel to name a few. The ones that survive with the limited space more often end up being more expensive than their suburban counterpart. The air-rail service will deliver downtown elites to their Maple Leaf Lounge efficiently and onto their direct flight to over one hundred destinations all over the world. Toronto Union Station is the real asset downtown. Far more utilized than Pearson or Toronto Island, and still underutilized compared to what it could be with high speed rail.

 

[Andrew007]

Lots of cities have airports in the heart of the city and most do not recognize them as major assets. Kansas City, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Berlin Tegel to name a few.

Your choice of cities is amusing.

Detroit for instance. What's the point of having any airport if most of your citizens have already fled?

As for Kansas City, it had two downtown airports essentially abutting one another and they shut one down, Fairfax Airport in '85. The remaining facility, Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, is thriving and expanding. From its facebook page one reads, “In the shadows of the downtown skyline, up to 700 aircraft per day take off or land at the airport - everything from single-engine propeller craft to sleek corporate jets.†So if Kansas City is your standard, then its open doors for corporate jets at Billy Bishop!!

Now onto Cleveland's Burke Airport. From its homepage, under the title, “Moving Forwardâ€

“Since its inception in 1947, Burke Lakefront Airport has become a cornerstone of Northeast Ohio’s transportation system and continues to have tremendous potential as an economic engine for the City of Cleveland.

In order to further stimulate Burke’s growth and vitality, the airport has developed an improvement plan. Over the next five years, the airport will:

Increase main runway capacity and safety to:
Put Burke in compliance with current FAA regulations
Allow larger aircraft to safely utilize the airport
Attract and accommodate larger charter services and jets
Increase door-to-door cargo delivery business opportunitiesâ€

Doesn't sound like they are shutting down anytime soon.

Berlin's Tegel is not a major asset? Are you a comedian? Not only is it a critical part of their infrastructure, they are building a bigger and better replacement, the new Berlin Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport. Where do you propose to build a bigger and better replacement for Billy Bishop?

As for Chicago, Meigs field was shut down by Daley at the height of his power not as the culmination of some open democratic process but by a secret midnight assault led by the police that he personally ordered without any notice stranding dozens of planes as bulldozers carved up the runway in the middle of the night. Chicago had to pay significant penalties for his malfeasance. Are you a fan of mini-dictators?

In addition Chicago is served by two major airports and has considered adding a third airport over the past years. Moreover Midway, some 8 miles from the Loop, is surrounded on all sides by tens of thousands of residents, the closest homes being some 640 feet from the start of runway 31R at Midway. In comparison Billy Bishop is mostly surrounded by water with the closest residents on Stadium Rd being twice the distance as Midway's, some 1274 feet from the start of runway 15 at YTZ, a minor runway which the Porter jets would not use I might add.

Rather then seeing Midway as as economic deadweight, Emanuel wants to turn it into a cash cow for the city by privatizing it.

Furthermore, lamenting the loss of a downtown airport Chicago is planning to open next year a large heliport downtown to facilitate access to the core with hanger space for 60 helicopters. Where in Toronto's downtown core do you think we should place our heliport?

In fact a proper comparable would be something like LCY which far from closing down, the City of London, recognizing its immense value to the city's residents and business community, plans on expanding to accommodate some 8 million passengers a year.

In the case of NYC, a city with many airports and heliports, LaGuardia is only 3 miles from Manhattan and 4.9 miles from the start of runway 4 to Grand Central Station. I don't see anyone calling on shutting down LaGuardia or any other airports in the region. They are considered to be vital infrastructure. Indeed most are contemplating what expansions/improvements would be needed to support a growing vibrant economy.

I strongly suspect that in a survey of economists the vast majority would support the claim that Billy Bishop is a significant asset for Toronto giving Toronto a tremendous advantage when competing against other cities with its proximity to the downtown core, and its growth would contribute significantly to Toronto’s economic growth, which would benefit all its residents.

 

[Wrenkin]

Berlin's Tegel is not a major asset? Are you a comedian? Not only is it a critical part of their infrastructure, they are building a bigger and better replacement, the new Berlin Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport. Where do you propose to build a bigger and better replacement for Billy Bishop?

Berlin is not a great example, since the wall resulted in redundant infrasctructure. Willy Brandt is being built on the site of the present ex-East Berlin airport, Schönefeld, which isn't even in Berlin-proper. The "inner-city" airport was Tempelhof, also closed.

 

[EnviroTO]

Detroit for instance. What's the point of having any airport if most of your citizens have already fled?

Yet Detroit Metro (Wayne County)Airport is very successful. Somehow the downtown airport didn't save Detroit despite the jobs and huge advantage the city would supposedly have over other cities without a downtown airport.

As for Kansas City, it had two downtown airports essentially abutting one another and they shut one down, Fairfax Airport in '85. The remaining facility, Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, is thriving and expanding.

With no commercial flights.

Now onto Cleveland's Burke Airport. From its homepage, under the title, “Moving Forward”

“Since its inception in 1947, Burke Lakefront Airport has become a cornerstone of Northeast Ohio’s transportation system and continues to have tremendous potential as an economic engine for the City of Cleveland.

Of course their own marketing would say that. However there are no commercial flights there any more.

Berlin's Tegel is not a major asset? Are you a comedian? Not only is it a critical part of their infrastructure, they are building a bigger and better replacement, the new Berlin Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport. Where do you propose to build a bigger and better replacement for Billy Bishop?

Brandenburg is a Pearson, and Toronto already has one.

As for Chicago, Meigs field was shut down by Daley at the height of his power not as the culmination of some open democratic process but by a secret midnight assault led by the police that he personally ordered without any notice stranding dozens of planes as bulldozers carved up the runway in the middle of the night. Chicago had to pay significant penalties for his malfeasance. Are you a fan of mini-dictators?

How it shut down is irrelevant. The reality is that it wasn't important commercially.

Furthermore, lamenting the loss of a downtown airport Chicago is planning to open next year a large heliport downtown to facilitate access to the core with hanger space for 60 helicopters. Where in Toronto's downtown core do you think we should place our heliport?

We had one. Air Canada operated downtown to Pearson helicopter service. It didn't prove popular.

In fact a proper comparable would be something like LCY which far from closing down, the City of London, recognizing its immense value to the city's residents and business community, plans on expanding to accommodate some 8 million passengers a year.

Yes, there are examples of successful downtown airports, but it doesn't make or break a city. Toronto Island is currently successful, but the jobs and economic impact are grossly exaggerated by pretending that all the jobs are new rather than transfers from VIA, Greyhound, and Pearson, and pretending that jobs that they have created are higher paying than the ones the might have replaced. Canada 3000, Canadian, and Canjet probably could have stated similar benefits from Pearson.

In the case of NYC, a city with many airports and heliports, LaGuardia is only 3 miles from Manhattan and 4.9 miles from the start of runway 4 to Grand Central Station. I don't see anyone calling on shutting down LaGuardia or any other airports in the region. They are considered to be vital infrastructure. Indeed most are contemplating what expansions/improvements would be needed to support a growing vibrant economy.

La Guardia is an asset for New York that cannot be understated and is in a totally different ballgame than Toronto Island. JFK and Newark are congested and the only place New York can move the capacity of La Guardia to if it were to close is Stewart Newburgh Airport. New York is in a pickle in that they have no place to grow their airport capacity besides far north of the city. Contrast that to Toronto where Pearson could, and does during inclement weather, absorb Toronto Island's capacity easily. Most airlines operating at both JFK and La Guardia would probably prefer a single large hub but the capacity constraints do not allow it. It is the same issue that if Porter needs to operate some of its flights at Pearson for whatever reason the economics of keeping Toronto Island open changes completely. Air Canada knew the true value of Toronto Island versus Pearson and found that beyond the key routes of Ottawa and Montreal there was little value to it in serving other routes as getting those same routes operating out of Pearson improved the economics due to connecting flights and other shared efficiencies.

I strongly suspect that in a survey of economists the vast majority would support the claim that Billy Bishop is a significant asset for Toronto giving Toronto a tremendous advantage when competing against other cities with its proximity to the downtown core, and its growth would contribute significantly to Toronto’s economic growth, which would benefit all its residents.

I doubt it. Cargo = zero, international connectivity = poor to non-existent, pay = below mainline, etc. Great service and easy access to downtown only create new economic opportunities for the city if you believe that some business would not have located in Toronto without it, or new money was spent in the city. If someone holds a convention in Toronto most visitors would have no ability to fly Porter even if they wanted to, so how can it have such an impact that a business is going to choose not to locate in Toronto because of it?

 

[Peepers]

A major CSeries program milestone occurred yesterday (June 1st) when Flight Test Vehicle 1 ("FTV-1") was rolled out of the hangar at Mirabel for the first time to join the flight line:

image credit: Airliners.net Photographer : Matthew Lee , Contrails Aviation Photography



The historic first flight is now just mere weeks away! To help track the events leading up to this highly anticipated first flight Bombardier has created a special website - ""CSeries Hub" http://cseries.com/

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Yes, there are examples of successful downtown airports, but it doesn't make or break a city. Toronto Island is currently successful, but the jobs and economic impact are grossly exaggerated by pretending that all the jobs are new rather than transfers from VIA, Greyhound, and Pearson, and pretending that jobs that they have created are higher paying than the ones the might have replaced. Canada 3000, Canadian, and Canjet probably could have stated similar benefits from Pearson.

How can you say that Porter is siphoning passengers away from Air Canada, West Jet, VIA, Greyhound, etc when AFAIR the ridership in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle is growing, not shrinking and all players in the market have experienced some growth (some more than others but most are at least growing). If Porter were taking riders away from one of these competitors you would expect to see shrinkage instead of growth by one of those market players.


I doubt it. Cargo = zero, international connectivity = poor to non-existent, pay = below mainline, etc. Great service and easy access to downtown only create new economic opportunities for the city if you believe that some business would not have located in Toronto without it, or new money was spent in the city. If someone holds a convention in Toronto most visitors would have no ability to fly Porter even if they wanted to, so how can it have such an impact that a business is going to choose not to locate in Toronto because of it?

Are you suggesting that Porter pays significantly less for it's pilots, flight attendants, other airport/airline service workers than it's competitors Air Canada and West Jet; or less than what an employee would be paid working in the alternative parkland setting use on the island??? What evidence do you have to suggest that Porters salary is below mainline?

 

[EnviroTO]

or less than what an employee would be paid working in the alternative parkland setting use on the island???

Of course parkland is typically not expected to be industrious, we could probably find a way to milk more revenues out of Algonquin Park as well. I clearly stated "pretending that all the jobs are new rather than transfers from VIA, Greyhound, and Pearson" leaving out lawn mowing at Toronto Island. Yes, I am suggesting that the largely unionized workforce of Pearson is paid higher on average than the workforce at Toronto Island. For pilots of a Q400 Porter's pay is comparable to Jazz, but most of the people moving from Pearson to Toronto Island flights would have been sitting on larger aircraft flying out of Pearson which pays more. I would expect similar jobs at VIA to also pay more for similar work but not significantly. I think losing Greyhound / MegaBus jobs to Porter probably isn't a loss in any way but it does still not count as a new job when making claims about the economic impact. My primary argument is this travelling public that Porter serves isn't all a new stimulated market, it is largely composed of people who would have being finding an alternative mode of transport so the jobs are not 100% new jobs, and of the new jobs little of that number has to do with being at Toronto Island (e.g. there would have been similar levels of new jobs with a new airline created at Pearson).

 

[Peepers]

I found this article interesting:

Bombardier appears to name Odyssey Airlines as CSeries customer

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...s-to-name-odyssey-as-cseries-customer-386570/

Odyssey Airlines is a UK startup that plans to offer all business class service between London City Airport and New York. Unlike the British Airways A319 that currently service this route - the CSeries will not have to stop in Shannon for refueling - instead flying non-stop to New York.

Since the London/Toronto route is only 90 miles longer than the London/New York route it seems to me that the CSeries could be used on non-stop service between Toronto Island and London City Airport.

If the CSeries gets the go-ahead to operate from Toronto Island I would expect to see Porter and / or Air Canada offering non-stop CYTZ/EGLC service.

 

[sjc]

I doubt it. Cargo = zero, international connectivity = poor to non-existent, pay = below mainline, etc. Great service and easy access to downtown only create new economic opportunities for the city if you believe that some business would not have located in Toronto without it, or new money was spent in the city.

While there is obviously better international connectivity at Pearson, there is some connectivity at Toronto Island. You can connect to international flights through Montreal via Air Canada or Porter, and via Porter through Newark, Boston and Chicago. All of these airports have connections to numerous destinations.

Many travel websites will generate multiple-airline tickets that can get you to Toronto Island, even if you are starting at a non-Porter airport.

 

[rbt]

While there is obviously better international connectivity at Pearson, there is some connectivity at Toronto Island. You can connect to international flights through Montreal via Air Canada or Porter, and via Porter through Newark, Boston and Chicago. All of these airports have connections to numerous destinations.

Chicago Midway is shat for international flights with most connections requiring you to get on a bus to O'Hare.

If that passes for acceptable, we should just run a YTZ to YYZ shuttle bus and marvel at the international capabilities of YTZ, or Union Station in 2015.

Newark is the only one on that list that is useful. Logan has too many delays and rescheduling limitations to be particularly useful, particularly since Porter doesn't code-share so cancellations will mean staying the night on your own dime.

Many destinations at Montreal (except London or Paris) will get you routed through YYZ if there is a cancellation or your YTZ flight lands late (YTZ has a lot of weather constraints). You might as well start out at YYZ (park at YTZ, take Porter shuttle to Union station, take airport train/bus to YYZ as available).

Many travel websites will generate multiple-airline tickets that can get you to Toronto Island, even if you are starting at a non-Porter airport.

Taking trips involving multiple non-cooperating airlines (Porter has very few code shares) is an gamble and will sometimes result in a few large unexpected fees being added to your trip. Very few airlines will take a hit because one of their competitors flights was late landing; normally they'll charge you for the seat you missed and failed to cancel and then send you to the ticket desk to buy a new trip at whatever the same-day cost is.