Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[gweed123]

I think one of the differentiations that needs to be made too is destination type. What I think Hamilton is great for is budget-conscious vacationers. There's a reason Swoop's US expansion has primarily focused on places like Florida and Las Vegas, and a big reason why the majority of Canadians who use Buffalo Niagara are going to those same places.

Yes, if you're planning a trip from Timmins to Hong Kong you'd likely need to fly through Pearson, but if you're planning a trip from Oakville to Orlando there's no reason why you should have to go anywhere near Pearson in order to complete that trip.

Pickering could conceivably fill that same function, only with a different carrier (Swoop likely wouldn't operate out of both).

As an aside, the biggest destination I'm waiting for Swoop to expand to is anywhere in SoCal that isn't LAX. There's plenty of secondary airports to choose from, all of which would be a welcome addition.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I could be mistaken but i thought that sunwing routes some of their flights from smaller cities (think northern Ontario) through Hamilton where they pick up additional passengers. Again my memory might mlbe faulty here.

 

[kEiThZ]

n Toronto and around the world there are two clear visions of how passengers should be moved by aircraft. The first is the Mega hub, an upsized version of the existing hub and spoke system in use at large airports since the 1970s. Pearson wants to become a mega hub. The second approach is called point to point , where passengers take a flight directly from an airport closer to their home, direct to a final destination.

Not to belabor the obvious, but passengers want point to point. No one wants to run around a mega hub ( looking like an expensive mega mall ) trying to find a connecting flight.

This is not an issue for Torontonians who actually live in the catchment of the mega-hub. Point-to-point would be, for example, flights from cities like Ottawa or Winnipeg or Edmonton to Europe. As it stands so many of those folks have to travel through YYZ, YUL, YVR or YYC.

What you are suggesting is a reliever airport meant to be effectively be a hub buster. There are upsides and downsides to that, as far as public interests go.

 

[kEiThZ]

Pickering could conceivably fill that same function, only with a different carrier (Swoop likely wouldn't operate out of both).

It won't. It's really not going to be that much cheaper to operate from Pickering. It'll work out to a few bucks cheaper than Pearson, but not cheap enough to stop people from going to Buffalo. Fundamentally, the issue in Canada is that aviation is a cash cow for the feds with airport rents. And that is before the added on provincial and federal fuel taxes. And all that is before we talking about normal user fees for airports, navigation, security, etc.

Nor are airports really going to solve the competition problem. It's not like JetBlue will suddenly start flying to Pickering when they know Air Canada could offer a competing service and write off 10 million on the sector and blow them off the route. Air Canada even has a whole division specifically meant to run low cost competition off international (sun/transborder/trans-atlantic) routes: Rouge. They could set up at Pickering and have all commercial traffic driven off within months.

 

[MarkBrooks]

It won't. It's really not going to be that much cheaper to operate from Pickering. It'll work out to a few bucks cheaper than Pearson, but not cheap enough to stop people from going to Buffalo. Fundamentally, the issue in Canada is that aviation is a cash cow for the feds with airport rents. And that is before the added on provincial and federal fuel taxes. And all that is before we talking about normal user fees for airports, navigation, security, etc.

Nor are airports really going to solve the competition problem. It's not like JetBlue will suddenly start flying to Pickering when they know Air Canada could offer a competing service and write off 10 million on the sector and blow them off the route. Air Canada even has a whole division specifically meant to run low cost competition off international (sun/transborder/trans-atlantic) routes: Rouge. They could set up at Pickering and have all commercial traffic driven off within months.

Actually you couldn’t be more wrong about the cost of operating out of Pearson vs Pickering. Those heavily invested in Pearson like to point out that landing fees, terminal fees and fuel cost will only be marginally cheaper at Pickering vs Pearson.

On the surface, this is true for these business operators ( the airport manager, fuel distribution etc). But what you are forgetting is that these are just part of the cost of a flight cycling at an airport. An airlines REAL OPERATIONAL COST IS BURN TIME. From the moment a Jet is lite up it is burning fuel, crew time, maintenance cycles and capital depreciation. This includes everything from taxi time to/ from a gate to being flow controlled enroute, to joining the Congo line coming in to land, to maintenance access and crew times. But perhaps the most insidious hidden cost is being able to have access to a landing slot at the time needed to make business sense for the traveler and ticket prices.

In all of these categories Pickering is a home run winner. The clearest example of this locally is Torontos City center airport and porter Airlnes. Try as they might AirCanada has been unable to displace Porter and to this day Porter is both the profit and cost winners on any route of its choosing. This is due to its airport operations advantage (and its a well run operation ).

What Porter has shown us is how vulnerable Air Canada is to lower cost carriers, operating out a modern uncongested airport. Take away AirCanadas advantage of having 56% of Pearson’s landing slots, including the majority of prime time access and premium control of terminal 1 , and they are in trouble.

And we have not a moment to waste, generation WOW and aviations green revolution is on the horizon and the Toronto Pearson monopoly is about to make our city uncompetitive road kill unless we get going! AirCanada and it’s investors will just need to adapt.
:
https://pickeringairport.org/torontos-generation-wow-challenge/

 

[kEiThZ]

Actually you couldn’t be more wrong about the cost of operating out of Pearson vs Pickering. Those heavily invested in Pearson like to point out that landing fees, terminal fees and fuel cost will only be marginally cheaper at Pickering vs Pearson.

Completely ignoring the entire issue of airport rents. And assuming that Pickering won’t have the same requirements imposed. One way to make your business case look good, I guess.

Still won’t make Pickering competitive with Buffalo or Niagara. I think you know that.

What Porter has shown us is how vulnerable Air Canada is to lower cost carriers, operating out a modern uncongested airport.

What Porter has shown is that survival of any competition is contingent on locking out predatory competition from Air Canada and Westjet. If Porter ever left the Island (where the own most of the slots and infrastructure), they’d be toast. No such protection for any carrier at Pickering.

And we have not a moment to waste, generation WOW and aviations green revolution is on the horizon

Laughable to talk about aviation being green when ICAO and IATA still fight plans to reduce emissions. You know what would cut emissions in the GTA? Rail investment that negates short haul flying in the Corridor.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Actually you couldn’t be more wrong about the cost of operating out of Pearson vs Pickering. Those heavily invested in Pearson like to point out that landing fees, terminal fees and fuel cost will only be marginally cheaper at Pickering vs Pearson.

On the surface, this is true for these business operators ( the airport manager, fuel distribution etc). But what you are forgetting is that these are just part of the cost of a flight cycling at an airport. An airlines REAL OPERATIONAL COST IS BURN TIME. From the moment a Jet is lite up it is burning fuel, crew time, maintenance cycles and capital depreciation. This includes everything from taxi time to/ from a gate to being flow controlled enroute, to joining the Congo line coming in to land, to maintenance access and crew times. But perhaps the most insidious hidden cost is being able to have access to a landing slot at the time needed to make business sense for the traveler and ticket prices.

In all of these categories Pickering is a home run winner. The clearest example of this locally is Torontos City center airport and porter Airlnes. Try as they might AirCanada has been unable to displace Porter and to this day Porter is both the profit and cost winners on any route of its choosing. This is due to its airport operations advantage (and its a well run operation ).

What Porter has shown us is how vulnerable Air Canada is to lower cost carriers, operating out a modern uncongested airport. Take away AirCanadas advantage of having 56% of Pearson’s landing slots, including the majority of prime time access and premium control of terminal 1 , and they are in trouble.

And we have not a moment to waste, generation WOW and aviations green revolution is on the horizon and the Toronto Pearson monopoly is about to make our city uncompetitive road kill unless we get going! AirCanada and it’s investors will just need to adapt.
:
https://pickeringairport.org/torontos-generation-wow-challenge/

According to the most recent gtaa master plan gate slots are not an issue. As they have pushed back planned terminal expansions...

 

[MarkBrooks]

According to the most recent gtaa master plan gate slots are not an issue. As they have pushed back planned terminal expansions...

It’s Landing Slots that is the constraining point, Pearson’s problem is Runways, not Terminals. I know it’s a hard idea to understand unless you are a pilot, so here is a quick explanation:

https://pickeringairport.org/pearsons-slot-problem-explained/

And can an additional runway be built? Yes in Pickering, Not at Pearson :

https://pickeringairport.org/is-building-pickering-better-than-building-a-sixth-runway-at-pearson/

And FYI, the masterplan section on capacity is a sales pitch, not a realistic plan. The plan is to use heathrow style management techniques ( stack and rack) while waiting for some magical future fix. It is full of self serving speculation about how future aviation technology advances that are not yet and may never go into practice, and easing of wake turbulence separation standards ( which is not going to happen) can solve Pearson congestion problems. Every year they can delay Pickering is money in the bank.

Find out more about the GTAAs masterplan here:

https://pickeringairport.org/managed-congestion-the-gtaas-answer-to-its-capacity-problem/

 

[MarkBrooks]

Completely ignoring the entire issue of airport rents. And assuming that Pickering won’t have the same requirements imposed. One way to make your business case look good, I guess.

Still won’t make Pickering competitive with Buffalo or Niagara. I think you know that.



What Porter has shown is that survival of any competition is contingent on locking out predatory competition from Air Canada and Westjet. If Porter ever left the Island (where the own most of the slots and infrastructure), they’d be toast. No such protection for any carrier at Pickering.



Laughable to talk about aviation being green when ICAO and IATA still fight plans to reduce emissions. You know what would cut emissions in the GTA? Rail investment that negates short haul flying in the Corridor.

You have made a number of fascinating assumptions in these statements, so perhaps let’s start there.

I am a fact based guy, so some facts that seem to not support your assumptions:
.
1) the New Pickering Airport Authority’s ground lease is expected to be a spitting image of the GTAAs Pearson lease, no ground lease advantages. The GTAA will insist. The competition advantages of the new airport is accessibility, and no congestion/ slot limitations.

2) Air Canada Jazz has been flying in and out of City center for years and countinues to do so to this day, no one is locking them out. Porter just pounds them into the ground the old fashion way, with relentless competition including better service.

3) Buffalo airports success at attracting hundreds of thousands of Canadians is a strong vote in favor of the need for Pickering Airport. Accessible aviation capacity combined with the boom in low cost carriers will be the cornerstone of the new airport. Passengers that today drive hours, right past Pearson and Hamilton, line up at a border crossing, all to get a seat on a flight out of buffalo will easily switch to Pickering for the same reasons they drive to buffalo. Ticket Price, Choice, cheaper parking, but something else too, easy access to point to point low cost carriers currently squeezed out of the Torontos sky.

 

[kEiThZ]

1) the New Pickering Airport Authority’s ground lease is expected to be a spitting image of the GTAAs Pearson lease, no ground lease advantages. The GTAA will insist. The competition advantages of the new airport is accessibility, and no congestion/ slot limitations.

That does not bode well for a business case supporting LCCs. Most of them rely on substantially lower operating costs at the field. Some savings from turn times, is not really going to convince many operators. Especially, when AC can set up Rouge there and pound them into the dirt.

And here I was thinking there would be some break on rents. If Pickering has to pay the same as Pearson, that’s absolutely terrible.

2) Air Canada Jazz has been flying in and out of City center for years and countinues to do so to this day, no one is locking them out. Porter just pounds them into the ground the old fashion way, with relentless competition including better service.

I dunno whether to hope that you are ignorant or are being disingenuous in your knowledge of what happened at YTZ. AC is incredibly limited at the Island specifically because Porter owns all the infrastructure and most of the slots and has been able to lock them out from competing. Unless you present otherwise, AC will do at Pickering exactly what they have done at YTZ before Porter came along and bought everything.

3) Buffalo airports success at attracting hundreds of thousands of Canadians is a strong vote in favor of the need for Pickering Airport.

It’s a vote in favour of substantially cheaper airfare. Something which Pickering airport will not be able to offer. But sure, I guess, you’ll be able to knock off 5% off a fare and get those who are marginal on traveling from Buffalo.

Fundamentally, to attract airlines, you have to offer yields higher than Buffalo, while promising travelers prices that are lower than Pearson. I am curious to see how this circle can be squared.

 

[micheal_can]

In order for Pickering Airport to succeed, it needs a carrier to base out of it. Hamilton has West Jet. Billy Bishop has Porter. Pearson has All International flights.

So, if we want this airport, then some new carrier needs to step forward and base their operations there.

 

[MarkBrooks]

That does not bode well for a business case supporting LCCs. Most of them rely on substantially lower operating costs at the field. Some savings from turn times, is not really going to convince many operators. Especially, when AC can set up Rouge there and pound them into the dirt.

And here I was thinking there would be some break on rents. If Pickering has to pay the same as Pearson, that’s absolutely terrible.



I dunno whether to hope that you are ignorant or are being disingenuous in your knowledge of what happened at YTZ. AC is incredibly limited at the Island specifically because Porter owns all the infrastructure and most of the slots and has been able to lock them out from competing. Unless you present otherwise, AC will do at Pickering exactly what they have done at YTZ before Porter came along and bought everything.



It’s a vote in favour of substantially cheaper airfare. Something which Pickering airport will not be able to offer. But sure, I guess, you’ll be able to knock off 5% off a fare and get those who are marginal on traveling from Buffalo.

Fundamentally, to attract airlines, you have to offer yields higher than Buffalo, while promising travelers prices that are lower than Pearson. I am curious to see how this circle can be squared.

Your reply’s are just dripping with a sense of defeatism for which there is no call. I am Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here as you must be either too young to remember or to old and jaded to remember correctly how business and entrepreneurial experience counts. For decades I have been privileged to fly and/or teach out of all of Torontos airports. I watched, with admiration, as Bob deluce build Porter from scratch while under constant assault. From the lawsuit over the bridge, to buying the terminal from under AirCanadas nose, to pushing them out when they haplessly expected to rule the roost just because of Their size. Then the jet ban fight and the fight over extending the runways. The status quo won some and Porter won some, but usually folks didn’t event understand who was lobbying who.
Our politicians and the traveling public have been hoodwinked for years, but no more.

Pickering is the solution to popping the cork on the Monopoly status quo and unleashing dozens of other entrepreneurs just like Bob. The Canadian aviation industry is full of bright entrepreneurs waiting to finally have equal access to Canadas largest passenger catchment area.

Try to image what it is like today, knowing your industry inside out, having the capital and business smarts but being unable to exploit that knowledge to create new opportunities because a monopoly called Pearson has no room, no landing slots, no flexibility. Because your politicians keep buying into their defeatist BS, deciding that you shouldn’t be given a chance.

Being entrepreneurial is not just about ideas and apps, it’s about being able to to move quickly into new markets, with new technology, new deals, new services.
With Pickering the operationally efficiency’s will be similar to the island, but with the added benefit of no jet ban. That’s a huge $$ boost over Pearson. The new prime time runway slots alone will attract startups and established businesses. And yes, Bob can finally have a real home for his CSeries jets.

All we have to do is to get our politicians to find the steel to ignore the mega monopoly lobbyists and instead step out of the way and unleash private enterprise. From funding and building the airport to new startups like JetsLines and porter, Pickering is the free for all shakeup that will become a shining star of the Canadian aviation industry !

Time to dump that defeatist attitude and build some enthusiasm back into your life!

https://pickeringairport.org/the-building-enthusiasm-for-pickering-airport/

 

[gweed123]

In order for Pickering Airport to succeed, it needs a carrier to base out of it. Hamilton has West Jet. Billy Bishop has Porter. Pearson has All International flights.

So, if we want this airport, then some new carrier needs to step forward and base their operations there.

Hamilton doesn't have WestJet. They bailed a few years ago. It has Swoop now (which is owned by WestJet, but is still considered a separate company, as you can't use WestJet dollars or anything to book Swoop flights).

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

You have made a number of fascinating assumptions in these statements, so perhaps let’s start there.

I am a fact based guy, so some facts that seem to not support your assumptions:
.
1) the New Pickering Airport Authority’s ground lease is expected to be a spitting image of the GTAAs Pearson lease, no ground lease advantages. The GTAA will insist. The competition advantages of the new airport is accessibility, and no congestion/ slot limitations.

2) Air Canada Jazz has been flying in and out of City center for years and countinues to do so to this day, no one is locking them out. Porter just pounds them into the ground the old fashion way, with relentless competition including better service.

3) Buffalo airports success at attracting hundreds of thousands of Canadians is a strong vote in favor of the need for Pickering Airport. Accessible aviation capacity combined with the boom in low cost carriers will be the cornerstone of the new airport. Passengers that today drive hours, right past Pearson and Hamilton, line up at a border crossing, all to get a seat on a flight out of buffalo will easily switch to Pickering for the same reasons they drive to buffalo. Ticket Price, Choice, cheaper parking, but something else too, easy access to point to point low cost carriers currently squeezed out of the Torontos sky.

I dont think pickering would be competing with buffalo. There are 1 million + people living east of the 404/dvp. Whom i predict would much rather drive a short distance east to pickering vs slogging through the very heart of GTA traffic to get to Pearson, Hamilton, or even Buffalo, all things being equal

 

[Fritter]

@MarkBrooks , I am just wondering if there are any documents showing what can be done right at Pickering, compared to what went wrong at Mirabel and lessons learned from the Mirabel experience?