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

Well, I am assuming most people speaking will be against the expansion. I was against it to till I used it this apst summer. The convience unbelievable as was the service and the time saved. And I live north of Eglinton
 
Palma said:
Well, I am assuming most people speaking will be against the expansion. I was against it to till I used it this apst summer. The convience unbelievable as was the service and the time saved. And I live north of Eglinton
Click to expand...

Apparantly, former Mayor Crombie admitted he is a regular user of the airport but is opposed to Jets. I don't get the anti-jet thing....not sure we should be legislating technology but, rather, the things we deem important (#of flights, #of passengers, noise levels)......if we can reach agreements on those things....why does anyone care about the technology that delivers them.
 
I've flown Porter to the following airports:

Ottawa (YOW)
Montreal (YUL)
Timmins (YTS)
Sault Ste. Marie (YAM)
Windsor (YQG)
Chicago-Midway (MDW)
New York-Newark (EWR)
Washington-Dulles (IAD)

And I'm flying to EWR again later this week. I live one streetcar ride away from YTZ. I used to live near a YYZ flightpath in Brampton, and I'm up near Bloor, far from Porter's flightpath. I completely oppose Island Airport expansion for reasons said earlier in this thread. The runway expansions, the extra traffic at the foot of Bathurst Street which is the cause of much of the local pollution already there. It's not such an opposition to jets, but these C100 "whisper jets" are unproven, the runway expansion affects, perhaps threatens, the enjoyment of the waterfront, and the business case is shaky.
 
Last edited:
Let porter deal with whether or not the business case makes sense or not.

The conditions of approval for the expansion that is being put forward to council means that if the new jets fail to meet the targets set out for it, the whole thing is called off.

The extra traffic is likely coming regardless, the proposed limits being put forward by the city are very similar to natural growth trends already. Its better to approve this and get the improved traffic management that comes with it (as well as slightly higher traffic levels) than to let the current setup deal with ever growing use of the airport using the existing fleet IMO.
 
If Porter folds, any airline could take over operations and fly any jet that can be landed at the airport. Other airlines might not use the quiet jets Porter is touting to get expansion approval.
 
Any jet that meets the regulations set out in the agreement, meaning any jet that at least equals the cs100 in noise, pollution, etc. They aren't just going to open the airport to whatever the hell is capable of landing there.
 
So I had a twitter conversation with Marchese about UPX last night
https://twitter.com/mark_dowling/status/448565337362276352

I got the impression from him (an impression I wouldn't have had to formulate if he'd give me a straight answer) that in the event UPX required public subsidy and he had a say in it, UPX would be more like a rapid transit line than a semi-express. As such that's a position that can reasonably be held as long as he accepts that the 4 coach length limit and limits on how many trains can be operated mean there's only so much capacity will be squeezed from that. He will also have to accept that the slower the service gets with more and more stops, the less business travellers will consider it a material advantage over using YTZ as his original tweet invited us to accept.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Any jet that meets the regulations set out in the agreement, meaning any jet that at least equals the cs100 in noise, pollution, etc. They aren't just going to open the airport to whatever the hell is capable of landing there.
Click to expand...
There appear to be some doubts about whether the tripartite agreement is legally enforceable whether models are written in or a noise level spec is written in to substitute for no jets. The problem is that TC, who presumably could impose an enforceable regime on the airport, are not part of the conversation. The anti YTZ (as opposed to anti jets) crowd have frequently claimed Porter's Q400s busts the limits on the noise spec they are supposed to meet individually. AC and WS are not above making applications to land say short field modded 737s or A319s just to stir the pot. That this project is being pushed by PD and not the Port Authority has allowed this to be painted as a commercial dispute not an infrastructure matter.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
Any jet that meets the regulations set out in the agreement, meaning any jet that at least equals the cs100 in noise, pollution, etc. They aren't just going to open the airport to whatever the hell is capable of landing there.
Click to expand...
Or until Boeing, Embraer or another manufacturer or airline claims that the regulations are an unfair trade restriction. International airports do not operate in a vacuum where they can set arbitrary rules, especially those designed to favour a specific aircraft or airline. A challenger would have a strong case if other similarly sized int'l airports in the Americas allow more industry standard jets.

For example, have a look at Santos Dumont International Airport in Brazil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santos_Dumont_Airport. It's an island airport right on the Rio waterfront. Its two runways are 1,323m and 1,260m, and both operate the Boeing 737 that Westjet owns.

Here's a 737 landing at Santos Dumont.
1179549.jpg


Using Santos Dumont as a precedent of an urban shoreline airport with jet ops, the expansion of Billy Bishop's main runway from 1,216m to 1,552m will be more than sufficient to allow for B737 operations.

And forget about the courts if you want. The city reports to the province. All it takes is for the province to order the city to change the sound and pollution regulations to whatever the TPA and Feds want.
 
Last edited:
dowlingm said:
There appear to be some doubts about whether the tripartite agreement is legally enforceable whether models are written in or a noise level spec is written in to substitute for no jets. The problem is that TC, who presumably could impose an enforceable regime on the airport, are not part of the conversation. The anti YTZ (as opposed to anti jets) crowd have frequently claimed Porter's Q400s busts the limits on the noise spec they are supposed to meet individually. AC and WS are not above making applications to land say short field modded 737s or A319s just to stir the pot. That this project is being pushed by PD and not the Port Authority has allowed this to be painted as a commercial dispute not an infrastructure matter.
Click to expand...

His position seems to be release the studies and then I'll tell you what's wrong with them.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Or until Boeing, Embraer or another manufacturer or airline claims that the regulations are an unfair trade restriction. International airports do not operate in a vacuum where they can set arbitrary rules, especially those designed to favour a specific aircraft or airline. A challenger would have a strong case if other similarly sized airports in North America allow more industry standard jets.

For example, have a look at Santos Dumont International Airport in Brazil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santos_Dumont_Airport. It's an island airport right on the Rio waterfront. Its two runways are 1,323m and 1,260m, and both operate the Boeing 737 that Westjet owns.

Using Santos Dumont as a precedent of an urban shoreline airport with jet ops, the expansion of Billy Bishop's main runway from 1,216m to 1,552m will be more than sufficient to allow for B737 operations.

And forget about the courts if you want. The city reports to the province. All it takes is for the province to order the city to change the sound and pollution regulations to whatever the TPS and Feds want.
Click to expand...

Many airports operate with noise restrictions and curfews, and many other restrictions. It would be pretty balsy and would attract a ton of negative press for whomever (boeing, airbus, airport authority) decides to bring up any of these restrictions as a unfair illegal trade restriction. I don't see that happening.
 
Just wanted to see what the islands looked like without the airport. Quick 5min MS paint job. Also, expanded that tiny Ontario Place park they are currently proposing.


AwidJa7.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top