Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[MarkBrooks]

@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?

Mirabel is night and day different from Pickering, not even worth a comparison but people do it any ways so wrote this up:

https://pickeringairport.org/mirabel-versus-pickering-airport-a-case-of-mistaken-identity/

The key point are, Toronto is growing , Montréal was not. Mirabel was a political build to replace an airport that in the end never closed ( Dorval, now Trudeau ) again for political reasons.
Pickering is economy and capacity driven and will be funded privately with a triple P. Mirabel was political, funded 100% by government more than 45 years ago. It is still operating today ( flew a corporate 9 seater turbine In a couple of weeks back) but it’s operating just at a fraction of it’s designed capacity, only one runway in use. Was there for an hour and only saw a 1 other real flight, Cseries 100 jet being run up after being finished at the plant. I have flown clients in there yearly but as we have lots of capacity at trudeau, and FBOs competing for our business usually we go there.
Compare that to Pearson, where we can’t get in for love or money during prime time, even in perfect weather. The big capacity squeeze is coming to Pearson and even if we stated building Pickering last year, it’s not arriving in time, in a decade, nothing smaller than a 200 seater will be landing. Toronto is in for a world of economic hurt, excess pollution, long wait times and stunted growth and Jet noise, constant noise from the Congo line of big jets trying to get in. The night restrictions will be the first to go.
Montréal May finally see that growth, as people migrate from Toronto for it’s accessible aviation.

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

I prefer realism and facts to emotion when it comes to business. And I don't see facts that support a business case here. I'm calling it as I see it. But I do wish you luck. Let's see if any investors bring more than well-wishes to the table.

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.

So many foreign observers have called out the cozy relationship between our major airlines and regulators. It's been the same under both Conservative and Liberal governments. I don't expect that to change.

 

[TransitBart]

Why is this a thread we care about? Has anyone here actually lived or worked in a city with two airports? Does anyone remember how well Mirabel worked out?

No international carrier is going to fly to both airports - YYZ and this one. Can you imagine a connection from Toronto on some secondary domestic flight if Pearson were the international hub and this one a domestic hub? That would be a total pain in the ass no matter how great the connection between the two. Flying from New York City is a total pain in the ass for this reason. Ask anyone who lives or works there. And nothing would destroy Air Canada's business as the second largest international airport in North America than splitting Toronto's commercial traffic into two airports.

This is a dumb idea.

If you are a Hamilton booster - John Munro sounds like a great idea, but it will never fly in any big way. It will remain a great place for Fedex and UPS and maybe some smaller vacation carriers.

Orly...not
Gatwick, Stanstead...not
Haneda, Narita. Tokyo almost pulls this off. There is no need to go from one to the other so Tokyo having two airports is not really bad.
Kennedy, Laguardia, Newark Liberty - a cluster**** - this is part of the basis of Toronto's success. That one can travel from Europe or Asia without the hell of having to get to Laguardia from Kennedy or suffer the inter-terminal hell that is Newark Liberty.

That I can think of - there are no other cities in the world which have split their commercial traffic. And there is a good reason why Toronto should not join that club. Pier G now. (Another thread.)

Pickering - other than for general aviation, is a terrible idea.

 

[TransitBart]

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.

John Wayne Airport - SNA in Orange County. I wish AC or some Star Alliance carrier flew there.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Why is this a thread we care about? Has anyone here actually lived or worked in a city with two airports? Does anyone remember how well Mirabel worked out?

No international carrier is going to fly to both airports - YYZ and this one. Can you imagine a connection from Toronto on some secondary domestic flight if Pearson were the international hub and this one a domestic hub? That would be a total pain in the ass no matter how great the connection between the two. Flying from New York City is a total pain in the ass for this reason. Ask anyone who lives or works there. And nothing would destroy Air Canada's business as the second largest international airport in North America than splitting Toronto's commercial traffic into two airports.

This is a dumb idea.

If you are a Hamilton booster - John Munro sounds like a great idea, but it will never fly in any big way. It will remain a great place for Fedex and UPS and maybe some smaller vacation carriers.

Orly...not
Gatwick, Stanstead...not
Haneda, Narita. Tokyo almost pulls this off. There is no need to go from one to the other so Tokyo having two airports is not really bad.
Kennedy, Laguardia, Newark Liberty - a cluster**** - this is part of the basis of Toronto's success. That one can travel from Europe or Asia without the hell of having to get to Laguardia from Kennedy or suffer the inter-terminal hell that is Newark Liberty.

That I can think of - there are no other cities in the world which have split their commercial traffic. And there is a good reason why Toronto should not join that club. Pier G now. (Another thread.)

Pickering - other than for general aviation, is a terrible idea.

How in the age of google did you buy into this misinformation? Name one other large metropolitan area in North American even close to Torontos size with only one jet airport ?
Even Atlanta, with the largest and busiest airport in North America with 5 runways in simultaneous operation ( double Pearson capacity due to night restrictions ) has at least 3 other Jet able airports, and another 3 able to handle exec jets, with in 30 miles ( one hours drive) each playing various roles from Logistics to manufacturing to regionals. While most of us will only ever travel through Atlanta, these airport play important roles.

Remember, Toronto has a Jet ban at the Island except for medivac , Buttonville / Oshawas runways are under 5000( to short for many loaded exec jets) , and everyone else is to far away.

Here is a list of similar cities and their Jet airports ( not including GA only airports)

New York City (6 Jet :. EWR, JFK, LGA, SWF, ISP, HPN)
Los Angeles (5 jet: LAX, ONT, BUR, LGB, SNA)
Chicago (two big ones: ORD, MDW, plus midsized KPDA, KGYY) note the population of the Toronto region will surpass Chicago just as Pickering is expected to be opening. So they will still have double our runway capacity even then.
Philadelphia (PHL, ACY)
Dallas (DFW, DAL)
Miami (MIA, FLL, PBI, MPB)
Washington, D.C. (DCA, IAD)
Houston (IAH, HOU, EFD)

The list goes on and on and on... there are plenty of aviation apps and online sites that can help you with this. Any airport with a 6000-7000 ft runway 100-150 ft wide

The real question is “will Toronto still be Open for Business In 2028?”.

For Ontario to be open for business it must provide the requisite infrastructure to support economic development. All forms of transportation are essential and especially efficient airport solutions. Business runs on logistics. And logistics depend on airports to move people and freight. All movement today must be cost effective and fast. With the current airport nearing capacity in 10 years, it cannot service the logistics industry equally as well as moving people. The Pickering Airport can augment YYZ. It can back-fill in the logistic gaps but most importantly it will be moving people who need accessible aviation infrastructure.

It will accommodate the ‘other’ air traffic for corporate, charter, police, military, medical, and more that YYZ cannot accommodate in the future. The geolocation diversity accelerates logistics by overcoming road traffic congestion. In order to truly be open for business Ontario must have the requisite infrastructure to make business move.

Or we can just give it all up so AirCanada shareholders can retire early to Florida without having to work for thier money. Competition is such a tiring thing.

 

[steveintoronto]

Has anyone here actually lived or worked in a city with two airports?

Yup.

The metropolitan area of London, England, United Kingdom is served by six international airports and several smaller airports. Together, they make the busiest airport system in the world by passenger numbers and the second-busiest by aircraft movements.[1] In 2016, the six airports handled a total of 163,231,321 passengers. The London airports handle 60% of all the UK's air traffic. The airports serve a total of 14 domestic destinations and 396 international destinations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airports_of_London

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Mirabel had a host of problems, but size of the cities aside, I'd emphasize that Pickering will have proper transport from day 1, isn't expected to fully replace Pearson, isn't focussing on international traffic and won't be predictated on forcing airlines to switch airports by government fiat.

 

[kEiThZ]

No international carrier is going to fly to both airports - YYZ and this one.

I think Mark Brooks' argument is that LCC carriers like WOW, Wizz Air, Norwegian and Ryanair would fly to Pickering instead of Pearson. And I actually agree with him, this thesis does sound plausible.

We see this in other parts of the world. In London, Ryanair mostly operates out of Stansted, Easyjet operates mostly out of Gatwick, BA operates mostly out of Heathrow with holiday flights out of Gatwick. Orly is basically an LCC airport for Transavia (owned by Air France-KLM) and Easyjet. Or we could get division by mainline alliance. In New York, effectively each airport has become an alliance hub. Newark for United/Star. JFK for American/Oneworld and Delta/SkyTeam. Tokyo with Haneda and Narita is going the same way.

Where I disagree with Mark is that this is achievable without vastly limiting predatory behaviour from Air Canada and Westjet. To do this at the Island, Porter had to show up with vast amounts of capital and virtually create an almost monopoly by buying out most of the airport. The likelihood of this happening in Pickering is low. And so AC would move just enough Rouge flights there to compete with all the European LCC competition coming in and drive them into the ground. And then pack up and move back to Pearson, once those carriers were driven away.

If they can find a way to lock AC and Westjet out, they may have a fighting chance. But the devil is in the details. And that's why I am saying, this is all fluff until we see actually investors show up with cash. At least, Mr. Brooks has some credibility, compared to the nonsense with MOOSE. we've discussed on here.

 

[micheal_can]

Mirabel had a host of problems, but size of the cities aside, I'd emphasize that Pickering will have proper transport from day 1, isn't expected to fully replace Pearson, isn't focussing on international traffic and won't be predictated on forcing airlines to switch airports by government fiat.

How will it be a success? All that you list makes no sense.

 

[kEiThZ]

Mirabel had a host of problems, but size of the cities aside, I'd emphasize that Pickering will have proper transport from day 1, isn't expected to fully replace Pearson, isn't focussing on international traffic and won't be predictated on forcing airlines to switch airports by government fiat.

Zero evidence of any of this. There's no plans for "proper transport" as of now....well there's no real plan for an airport yet either. And by default, Pickering will have to be more focused on international flying than Pearson. Most of our leisure flying from the GTA is to Sun destinations and Europe. This airport, if built, will be heavily focused on the Sun Belt in the US, the Caribbean and vacation destinations in Europe or feeder hubs to those from European LCCs.

There's no guarantee of a proper rail link when the airport is in service either. If the cost to build it is beyond what the airport operator is willing to help fully or substantially fund, there's no guaranteed any municipal authority will pick up the tab. The ridership for such a link is guaranteed to be substantially lower than UPE. And given the beating that took, why would Metrolinx or anybody else fund a link to this airport without the airport developer paying for it?

 

[rbt]

There's no guarantee of a proper rail link when the airport is in service either.

The location straddles the CP Peterborough corridor right? CP isn't going to agree to even hourly service on corridor without a substantial investment in new track.

Rail service to Pickering Airport would appear to depend on a VIA expansion which is slow moving under what should be a very supportive government.

So not just no guarantee; odds are stacked against it.

 

[lenaitch]

Any airport-to-airport link would have to utilize the CN York sub or CP North Toronto sub (if space is available and the locals don't holler) , both of which would have to be substantially built out or go via Union which would rather circuitous and still require much work on the east leg. I have a hard time seeing public money available or private money willing.

 

[JasonParis]

This has probably long-ago been discussed, but what is the possibility that GTAA would operate both airports?

 

[kEiThZ]

This has probably long-ago been discussed, but what is the possibility that GTAA would operate both airports?

I was under the impression that may have been the plan. But Mark's postings here have me wondering whether there's some lobbying going on against that. From a general aviation perspective, better for GTAA to operate both and manage the airspace to separate GA and commercial traffic. But I'm sure Mark's business buddies would disagree with that idea. If Pickering does end up as a commercial airport, GA in the GTA will be in real trouble.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I thought nav canada managed the airspace. Not the airport authority.