Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[micheal_can]

Even if we converted 100% of flights to Ottawa and Montreal to rail, that's what--a few dozen per day?

I thought the real target for HSR was driving.

It is driving and flying. Driving is their first target, but if they go for HFR, we might see it being competitive with flying too. Gate to gate, no, but add in the time through security and all of a sudden, flying isn't that much faster.

 

[Deadpool X]

Even if we converted 100% of flights to Ottawa and Montreal to rail, that's what--a few dozen per day?

I thought the real target for HSR was driving.

There are about 40 daily departures from Pearson for Montreal and Ottawa. That's 80 flights including landing and that's about 6% of daily flights from Pearson. It's not large but it's not insignificant either.

By not having 80 flights with small planes, we can have 80 flights with large planes which will have 3 times more passenger load. With that change, we are talking about 18% extra passenger capacity from mid haul and long haul flights.

 

[afransen]

I thought there was around 1200-1300 daily departures from Pearson, so that would be closer to 3-4% no?

I'm not saying we shouldn't invest in HSR, just that avoiding the need to develop Pickering airport doesn't seem to be a compelling argument. I'm more convinced that Pearson could absorb a lot of growth (and network effects make it so it is better to have that traffic in one airport than two) and that Hamilton is a good secondary airport with lots of room to grow.

 

[micheal_can]

I thought there was around 1200-1300 daily departures from Pearson, so that would be closer to 3-4% no?

I'm not saying we shouldn't invest in HSR, just that avoiding the need to develop Pickering airport doesn't seem to be a compelling argument. I'm more convinced that Pearson could absorb a lot of growth (and network effects make it so it is better to have that traffic in one airport than two) and that Hamilton is a good secondary airport with lots of room to grow.

It is not about the arguments for building the HSR, it is the argument for things that will make the Pickering airport not viable. Via is going ahead with HFR and possibly HSR regardless of this airport being built. It is one more thing that questions the need for the airport.

 

[kEiThZ]

Using rail to relieve Pearson only works if there's air-rail integration and requirements to stop short-haul flying. The obvious targets would actually not be flights to Ottawa and Montreal. They'd be flights to London and Kingston. But these can only be cut if and when Pearson gets an HSR station. Building an HSR station at Union might not be enough.

HSR will help divert some traffic away from Pearson though. The planned Dorval station will make traveling from Montreal a lot better for residents of Ottawa, Quebec City and maybe even Kingston.

Add up all of the above and Pearson could save 40-50 slot pairs per day. But you can't just substitute a 777 for an A220. The larger sized aircraft drive higher separation requirements. So those 40-50 slot pairs for short haul might realistically drive 20 widebody long haul slots per day.

There's a lot of moving parts here. HFR/HSR should reduce some regional passenger demand. Does this free up enough capacity at Pearson? Can additional capacity requirements be accommodated at existing airports (Hamilton, Peterborough, Waterloo, Pearson 6th runway, etc) reasonably? For my money, the billion or two that would be spent on Pickering could go a long way being spent on bolstering existing airports with existing servicing infrastructure.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

This is why in the VIA HFR/HSR thread I have advocated for a stop at Pearson, despite the proximity to Union. If we want to pull even a few percentages of air travelers off of planes, we are going to need integration between Pearson and the passenger rail network. In fact I believe there is a case for two routes through Toronto, one via Union, and another more direct route across Toronto.

This came up in my news feed today, interesting given that Pickering is developing an "innovation corridor" along much of the lands surrounding the proposed Pickering airport site. Converting farm lands into light industrial, warehouse, distribution and residential uses. But an airport is a line to far to cross.

 

[kEiThZ]

Discussions on Passenger demand for Pickering routinely ignore how much catchments are shaped by transport options to the airport. In a world with GO RER, it's just as easy to access Pearson by transit from parts of Durham region, as it would be to drive to the Pickering Airport. I expect, any honest review would point this out.

And, for cargo to the area, it's probably better just to develop Peterborough a bit more. Justifying a new airport for cargo, over and above just investing marginally in Peterborough would be rather difficult. It's an hour's drive on the highway from Peterborough airport to where Pickering airport would be. Hardly onerous. Better than getting cargo from Pearson or Hamilton.

Pickering Airport proponents want to pitch this as necessary for regional aviation capacity. And as an avfan I get it. But as a taxpayer, I can't see the business case. Especially in the context of an existing airport an hour away (Peterborough), tens of billions in rail infrastructure being built in the region which will improve access to Pearson, and a possible $12-30B intercity rail line that would provide some level of demand relief to Pearson.

 

[Deadpool X]

I thought there was around 1200-1300 daily departures from Pearson,

That number also includes arrivals.

 

[micheal_can]

Discussions on Passenger demand for Pickering routinely ignore how much catchments are shaped by transport options to the airport. In a world with GO RER, it's just as easy to access Pearson by transit from parts of Durham region, as it would be to drive to the Pickering Airport. I expect, any honest review would point this out.

And, for cargo to the area, it's probably better just to develop Peterborough a bit more. Justifying a new airport for cargo, over and above just investing marginally in Peterborough would be rather difficult. It's an hour's drive on the highway from Peterborough airport to where Pickering airport would be. Hardly onerous. Better than getting cargo from Pearson or Hamilton.

Pickering Airport proponents want to pitch this as necessary for regional aviation capacity. And as an avfan I get it. But as a taxpayer, I can't see the business case. Especially in the context of an existing airport an hour away (Peterborough), tens of billions in rail infrastructure being built in the region which will improve access to Pearson, and a possible $12-30B intercity rail line that would provide some level of demand relief to Pearson.

If they moved all cargo to Hamilton unless it was on a passenger plane, it would potentially open more slots up. With GO RER, if they could extend it to Hamilton's airport, they could then move the regional planes, such as the ones from Northern ON and SWO to Hamilton. This might even make Hamilton attractive to the sunny air carriers like Sunwing, Air Transat and others that mainly fly to the warm destinations in the winter.

Simply put, if there was a way to properly organize air traffic in the GTHA it would likely make Pickering Airport even less viable.

 

[kEiThZ]

If they moved all cargo to Hamilton unless it was on a passenger plane, it would potentially open more slots up.

This doesn't work. A lot of cargo travels in the belly of passenger airplanes. So they need to be co-located. For example, if somebody in Ottawa orders an iPhone, that device might travel on a freighter from Guangdong to Pearson. But once it reaches Pearson, a whole box of stuff from Apple will get loaded on the next flight to Ottawa. Freight operators who don't need to transfer loads or who find Pearson too expensive will operate out of Hamilton right now.

With GO RER, if they could extend it to Hamilton's airport, they could then move the regional planes, such as the ones from Northern ON and SWO to Hamilton.

Passengers from Northern Ontario and SWO aren't just traveling to the GTA. A passenger from Sudbury who is going on business to Frankfurt or Paris needs to go to Pearson. Hamilton can't serve them. Airlines will not be shifting feeder flights away from their hubs.

The only airlines that can use Hamilton are discount airlines like Flair and Swoop which focus on point to point travel. And they largely already do that. A rail connection might improve this business a bit. But it won't drastically reduce flights to those same destinations from Pearson.

This might even make Hamilton attractive to the sunny air carriers like Sunwing, Air Transat and others that mainly fly to the warm destinations in the winter.

Vacation and charter carriers generally book slots at off-peak hours when Pearson has the room. That's why when you take a vacation package the flight is at some ungodly hour or at best in some midday departure bank when traffic is lighter. They use cheaper slots to serve customers who are fare sensitive and not time sensitive.

Ultimately the arguments for a Pickering airport are just reaching. There's enough capacity in the region that can be developed to meet needs. And there's no absolute need for substantial general aviation in the region. We could close Buttonville, Billy Bishop, Markham and Oshawa after HSR is built and just relocate the flight schools and business jet traffic to Waterloo, Hamilton, Peterborough and Guelph, with emergency services housed at Downsview. Mark Brooks might get a stroke when he hears that idea but the reality is that General Aviation really isn't that necessary for the region that it has to go within 50 km of downtown Toronto.

 

[micheal_can]

This doesn't work. A lot of cargo travels in the belly of passenger airplanes. So they need to be co-located. For example, if somebody in Ottawa orders an iPhone, that device might travel on a freighter from Guangdong to Pearson. But once it reaches Pearson, a whole box of stuff from Apple will get loaded on the next flight to Ottawa. Freight operators who don't need to transfer loads or who find Pearson too expensive will operate out of Hamilton right now.

I would argue that if the y had it that no bulk cargo can go through Pearson, only small items, such as that phone you mention that there would be no issue. Also, if the bulk cargo shippers want the access, they either need to transship it between the airports or find a way to get more of those passenger planes in Hamilton.

Passengers from Northern Ontario and SWO aren't just traveling to the GTA. A passenger from Sudbury who is going on business to Frankfurt or Paris needs to go to Pearson. Hamilton can't serve them. Airlines will not be shifting feeder flights away from their hubs.

The only airlines that can use Hamilton are discount airlines like Flair and Swoop which focus on point to point travel. And they largely already do that. A rail connection might improve this business a bit. But it won't drastically reduce flights to those same destinations from Pearson.

That is where GO RER comes in. If you were told you would save money by flying out of Hamilton, you would take those flights. Also, if you had a connection in Pearson, you would ensure you can make it.
Personally, whenever I fly, I never take the short flight locally. I drive to the airport and park and fly,

Vacation and charter carriers generally book slots at off-peak hours when Pearson has the room. That's why when you take a vacation package the flight is at some ungodly hour or at best in some midday departure bank when traffic is lighter. They use cheaper slots to serve customers who are fare sensitive and not time sensitive.

This could give them better flying times, and possibly better rates. Both of those would potentially draw more customers.

Ultimately the arguments for a Pickering airport are just reaching. There's enough capacity in the region that can be developed to meet needs. And there's no absolute need for substantial general aviation in the region. We could close Buttonville, Billy Bishop, Markham and Oshawa after HSR is built and just relocate the flight schools and business jet traffic to Waterloo, Hamilton, Peterborough and Guelph, with emergency services housed at Downsview. Mark Brooks might get a stroke when he hears that idea but the reality is that General Aviation really isn't that necessary for the region that it has to go within 50 km of downtown Toronto.

He has not been around for a while. Maybe he has given up trying to convince us on his plans.

 

[lenaitch]

Vacation and charter carriers generally book slots at off-peak hours when Pearson has the room. That's why when you take a vacation package the flight is at some ungodly hour or at best in some midday departure bank when traffic is lighter. They use cheaper slots to serve customers who are fare sensitive and not time sensitive.

Line like Sunwing also operate directly out of place like TBay, Windsor, etc. during the high season, which helps to reduce the load.

I would argue that if the y had it that no bulk cargo can go through Pearson, only small items, such as that phone you mention that there would be no issue. Also, if the bulk cargo shippers want the access, they either need to transship it between the airports or find a way to get more of those passenger planes in Hamilton.

Changing air freight practices, used around the world, to solve a Pearson-only problem wouldn't end well.

That is where GO RER comes in. If you were told you would save money by flying out of Hamilton, you would take those flights. Also, if you had a connection in Pearson, you would ensure you can make it.
Personally, whenever I fly, I never take the short flight locally. I drive to the airport and park and fly,

Our daughter flies fairly regularly starting in North Bay. Back when they had decent flights, she could take an early morning flight out of NB to connect to wherever she is going, usually with minimal layover. Now you would have her, what, fly from NB to Pearson after the clearance lead time, retriever her luggage and schlepp it onto transit from Pearson to Hamilton (that doesn't even go to Munro and I'm not aware is on anyone's books) in time to allow another clearance and re-check luggage, to catch an 'onward' flight (can't even call it 'connecting)?

Actually, the single flight out of NB now is in the middle of the day and accommodates just about no one, so people are either driving to Pearson or Ottawa or taking a hotel on the strip. All of these machinations are not making employers happy.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's so weird how people think that the multi billion dollar airlines operating out of airports have no idea what they are doing.....

Airlines will not be splitting up cargo or passenger operations. Hubs exist because they are massively efficient and create more options for passengers and freight operators.

Cutting the odd off-peak cargo or vacation flight or the handful of flights to remote Ontario destinations won't do much. There's only one way to cut flights to Pearson. And that's to cut the traffic that is strictly origin-destination. That's the flights to Ottawa, Montreal, London, Kingston and Windsor. And there's only way to cut those: with high speed rail.

 

[micheal_can]

Changing air freight practices, used around the world, to solve a Pearson-only problem wouldn't end well.

Building a greenfield airport to solve a problem that does not exist also won't end well.

Our daughter flies fairly regularly starting in North Bay. Back when they had decent flights, she could take an early morning flight out of NB to connect to wherever she is going, usually with minimal layover. Now you would have her, what, fly from NB to Pearson after the clearance lead time, retriever her luggage and schlepp it onto transit from Pearson to Hamilton (that doesn't even go to Munro and I'm not aware is on anyone's books) in time to allow another clearance and re-check luggage, to catch an 'onward' flight (can't even call it 'connecting)?


Actually, the single flight out of NB now is in the middle of the day and accommodates just about no one, so people are either driving to Pearson or Ottawa or taking a hotel on the strip. All of these machinations are not making employers happy.

I actually meant that a flight from North Bay would no longer land at Pearson.
I live in Sudbury. That airport would no longer be serviced by Pearson either.
So, using Frankfort as an example, I would fly to Munro. I would then get on the currently non existent GO RER to Union. I would then get on the GO RER to Pearson. I would then pass through security and fly to Frankfort.
For hot destination flights, such as the Caribbean, they could also fly out of Munro.

It's so weird how people think that the multi billion dollar airlines operating out of airports have no idea what they are doing.....

Airlines will not be splitting up cargo or passenger operations. Hubs exist because they are massively efficient and create more options for passengers and freight operators.

Cutting the odd off-peak cargo or vacation flight or the handful of flights to remote Ontario destinations won't do much. There's no only one way to cut flights to Pearson. And that's too cut the traffic that is strictly origin-destination. That's the flights to Ottawa, Montreal, London, Kingston and Windsor. And there's only way to cut those: with high speed rail.

HSR in the Corridor will be a gamechanger in those airports. It could even drive down prices that are not under the airline's control such as development fees.

 

[kEiThZ]

I actually meant that a flight from North Bay would no longer land at Pearson.
I live in Sudbury. That airport would no longer be serviced by Pearson either.

That's not how business works in real life. If you went to Air Canada and told them they can't fly to North Bay and Sudbury from Pearson, they wouldn't shift those flights to Hamilton, they would just drop service to North Bay and Sudbury. Places like North Bay and Sudbury are way too small to justify AC having to open up a second operation in Hamilton.

We see this all the time in cities with multiple airports. Airlines refuse to split operations. Instead they will just pay higher rents and fees and displace the discount and vacation carriers to the other airports when those rents become too much. Right now there's no reason for Pearson to do that. But if it becomes more congested, it won't be AC moving flights, it will be Sunwing, Air Transat, etc.