Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[kEiThZ]

If Pickering has a business case, it's most definitely not built on flights to Timmins and Soo and Sudbury. It's somewhere between closing the Island, giving WestJet its own Toronto hub (ironic because it'd be in the Eastern GTA) and facilitating international and trans border LCCs like Norwegian, JetBlue, Southwest, Spirit, etc.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

There's a difference between "we need service" and "we need half a dozen slots per day of 37 and 50 seater flights to Pearson". There's no reason some of these flights can't be consolidated onto larger 70-100 seat aircraft.

All three of the cities you mentioned have 5-6 flights a day which could be consolidated onto 2-3 rotation per day. We don't need an entire other airport and shuttles across town to accommodate that traffic. Aside from the fact that Air Canada would never agree to having its feeder network split between two airports. Heck, they'd fight splitting it between two terminals at Pearson. And rightly so. It'd be terrible for business and efficiency.

When in lived in the US, I lived in one of richest counties in the country. A place where people actually commuted by private jet to the Bay Area. The local airport served a catchment of about a quarter million and still saw only 2-3 flights per day to each of three hub cities between two major carriers. Why is it that we insist that towns of less than 50k (Timmins) or 80k (Soo) or 160k (Sudbury) with lower per capita incomes, need to have nearly half a dozen flights a day to the biggest airport in the country?

I wonder how much of the service to these small towns are a result of a "wink wink nudge nudge" influence from the Canadian government dictating the AC must serve these destinations.

Towns like these can do just fine on 2-3 Q400 or CRJ900 runs, of 70-80 seats each. All they need is a morning, evening and maybe a midday flight. And if they want to fly downtown and don't intend to transit at Pearson, Porter provides that connection at YTZ. So what's the use of another airport here?

If anything, what these towns need are flights to cities other than Toronto. It boggles the mind that none of these three cities (particularly Timmins and Sudbury) have flights to Ottawa or Montreal. A result of forcing all traffic through Pearson.

Many Northern Ontario cities may even be closer to Winnipeg than Toronto

 

[MarkBrooks]

You are suggesting that we restrict our citizens freedom of movement, remove key links from smaller cities in Canada to Toronto, dictate to airlines what routes they can run , when and the equipment they should use, and all this so we can delay building a desperately needed airport for a couple of years? An airport that BTW will help Canada meet its 2030 emissions targets.

But hey, stranger things have happened, for instance , the no-jets lobby in Toronto stopped porter airlines from utilizing a quieter more fuel efficient , lower emissions per km aircraft ( the CSeries ) by convincing everyone that extending the city center runway by 1000 ft would be bad for the environment. A true “ thankyou for smoking moment” .

Q400 - on a 500km route is 3.49 liters per 100 km per seat
Even on the shortest routes , the CSeries 100 A220-100) is under 2.6 liters and rivals the A319Neo
The CSeries ( A220-100) drops to 2.28 Litres per 100 km per seat on medium routes and down to 2 on longer routes.
The q400 drops to only 2.7 under ideal long haul conditions.

Contrary to popular believe a number of larger aircraft burn more gas per seat.
For instance, the A380 under idea long haul conditions never goes below 3 liters per 100 km per seat.

You don’t have to take my word for it, you can get great Performance numbers with commercial route planning software( like piano X, the A380 is included with the free trail), but there are many other sources for this same info.

Note: Taxi time is a huge variable here, it’s 5 min at the island, 20 min and building at congested Pearson. Building Pickering today will be a huge boost to fuel efficiency of short haul routes and reduce carbon emissions across the board.

This is not even including the expected savings for more even traffic disruption and shorter drive times the urban planners are so excited by.



So have at it.

 

[kEiThZ]

I wonder how much of the service to these small towns are a result of a "wink wink nudge nudge" influence from the Canadian government dictating the AC must serve these destinations.

The thing is, AC can still maintain service with just as much (or more) seat capacity and do it more efficiently with fewer flights. It's also exactly what they will do as their current fleet of Dash 8s age out and get replaced with 78 seat Q400s and 76 seat CRJ900s.

The only think impacted with going from 5-6 flights to 3 flights per day is layover time in Toronto.

Many Northern Ontario cities may even be closer to Winnipeg than Toronto

Soo is closer to Winnipeg. But Timmins and Sudbury have substantial franco-Ontarian populations, you would think, would favour some connections to Ottawa and/or Montreal.

 

[kEiThZ]

You are suggesting that we restrict our citizens freedom of movement, remove key links from smaller cities in Canada to Toronto, dictate to airlines what routes they can run , when and the equipment they should use, and all this so we can delay building a desperately needed airport for a couple of years?

What an absolutely ridiculous strawman. Keeping the same seat capacity and cutting frequencies is "reducing freedom of movement"? Making someone spend an hour more in transit at Pearson is a massive issue? Seriously? It's hard to take anybody who engages in such hyperbole seriously.

Q400 - on a 500km route is 3.49 liters per 100 km per seat
Even on the shortest routes , the CSeries 100 A220-100) is under 2.6 liters and rivals the A319Neo
The CSeries ( A220-100) drops to 2.28 Litres per 100 km per seat on medium routes and down to 2 on longer routes.
The q400 drops to only 2.7 under ideal long haul conditions.

And none of these cover the 37-seat Dash-8-100 and 50-seat Dash-8-300 Jazz flies to YSB, YAM, YTS, YXU and YGK.

Consolidating from 5-6 rotations of Dash 8s to 3 rotations per day, would actually let Jazz switch to 78-seat Q400s or mainline 110/130- seat AC CS100/CS300 which are more fuel efficient as you point out. You seem opposed to that and want to keep facilitating half a dozen flights a day on 50 seaters at Pickering instead. So are you really interested in improving the efficiency of aviation or just boosting Pickering?

 

[jje1000]

Extending the island airport runways by 1km was bad though, especially when you consider the additional marine exclusion zones that further constricted the harbour.

So until they develop a jet that can take off at a shorter distance, turboprops are good enough for the Island.

That being said, I wonder if the Conservetives will be interested in approving some preliminary planning for the Pickering Airport. It's hardly something at the top of the list, but it does dovetail into their "any economy is good" mantra.

 

[kEiThZ]

That being said, I wonder if the Conservetives will be interested in approving some preliminary planning for the Pickering Airport. It's hardly something at the top of the list, but it does dovetail into their "any economy is good" mantra.

If they approve Pickering, Porter is all but dead. And AC will face much higher competition. What do you think the chances of them favouring that are? Heck, when Harper was in charge, he refused to expand landing rights for Emirates and was willing to give up basing rights in the UAE during a war to protect AC.

Pickering will only happen if they can sort out a way to help Porter move while not entirely losing their market. That's a tough proposition if they aren't willing to fund all the transit links to connect to downtown.

 

[Isotack]

You are suggesting that we restrict our citizens freedom of movement, remove key links from smaller cities in Canada to Toronto, dictate to airlines what routes they can run , when and the equipment they should use, and all this so we can delay building a desperately needed airport for a couple of years? An airport that BTW will help Canada meet its 2030 emissions targets.

But hey, stranger things have happened, for instance , the no-jets lobby in Toronto stopped porter airlines from utilizing a quieter more fuel efficient , lower emissions per km aircraft ( the CSeries ) by convincing everyone that extending the city center runway by 1000 ft would be bad for the environment. A true “ thankyou for smoking moment” .

Q400 - on a 500km route is 3.49 liters per 100 km per seat
Even on the shortest routes , the CSeries 100 A220-100) is under 2.6 liters and rivals the A319Neo
The CSeries ( A220-100) drops to 2.28 Litres per 100 km per seat on medium routes and down to 2 on longer routes.
The q400 drops to only 2.7 under ideal long haul conditions.

Contrary to popular believe a number of larger aircraft burn more gas per seat.
For instance, the A380 under idea long haul conditions never goes below 3 liters per 100 km per seat.

You don’t have to take my word for it, you can get great Performance numbers with commercial route planning software( like piano X, the A380 is included with the free trail), but there are many other sources for this same info.

Note: Taxi time is a huge variable here, it’s 5 min at the island, 20 min and building at congested Pearson. Building Pickering today will be a huge boost to fuel efficiency of short haul routes and reduce carbon emissions across the board.

This is not even including the expected savings for more even traffic disruption and shorter drive times the urban planners are so excited by.



So have at it.

Not to mention the noise argument. The geared turbofan that the 220 uses is way more quiet than even the turbo props. The gear allows the fan at the front to run a at a far more independent and efficient speed which is slower than the combustion turbine blades. The fan is effectively no longer running above the speed of sound which causes the noise. But politics doesn't care about that. They actually only care about quashing the island operations period. As for the runway... it's okay to dump landfill into the lake from the effort to "build density" in downtown Toronto, but I guess that doesn't fit their narrative either...lol

 

[lenaitch]

The thing is, AC can still maintain service with just as much (or more) seat capacity and do it more efficiently with fewer flights. It's also exactly what they will do as their current fleet of Dash 8s age out and get replaced with 78 seat Q400s and 76 seat CRJ900s.

The only think impacted with going from 5-6 flights to 3 flights per day is layover time in Toronto.



Soo is closer to Winnipeg. But Timmins and Sudbury have substantial franco-Ontarian populations, you would think, would favour some connections to Ottawa and/or Montreal.

Soo - Pearson = 520km; Soo - Wpg = 1015km. I have lived or worked in both Timmins and Sudbury and never observed a 'cultural connection' between their francophone communities and Ottawa or Montreal. Granted, I was not looking for it but it certainly wasn't obvious.

 

[kEiThZ]

Soo - Pearson = 520km; Soo - Wpg = 1015km. I have lived or worked in both Timmins and Sudbury and never observed a 'cultural connection' between their francophone communities and Ottawa or Montreal. Granted, I was not looking for it but it certainly wasn't obvious.

Perhaps. That still doesn’t take away from my point that the current 5-6 flights to Timmons, Sudbury and Soo can’t be consolidated into 3-4 flights with larger aircraft. Ditto, London and Kingston. This is why the idea that Pearson is extremely constrained is bunk. Demand is fungible and can be consolidated.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Perhaps. That still doesn’t take away from my point that the current 5-6 flights to Timmons, Sudbury and Soo can’t be consolidated into 3-4 flights with larger aircraft. Ditto, London and Kingston. This is why the idea that Pearson is extremely constrained is bunk. Demand is fungible and can be consolidated.

Canada is a free market economy, not a command control one. Bigger planes only have good mileage per seat on long routes with a high pax load. This is why the free market economy we have uses the Q400, the CRJ, and soon the CSeries, because they are more profitable, burning less gas. WestJet could easily run 737s into Thunderbay from Toronto, but they don’t, they use the Q400 due to the fuel burn and customer demand. Building Pickering is good for efficiency, reducing emissions and provide the freedom of movement our citizens demand.

 

[lenaitch]

Perhaps. That still doesn’t take away from my point that the current 5-6 flights to Timmons, Sudbury and Soo can’t be consolidated into 3-4 flights with larger aircraft. Ditto, London and Kingston. This is why the idea that Pearson is extremely constrained is bunk. Demand is fungible and can be consolidated.

Perhaps you are correct. I imagine that if the flights weren't profitable the airlines would drop them. Porter recently vacated their Toronto-North Bay service because of profitability. I don't subscribe to any 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink' influence, but honestly don't know if there are any federal subsidies for northern/remote service to these communities - I doubt it (they're not Iqualuit). Perhaps it could be solved via linked destinations vs. non-stop flights; i.e. Toronto-Sudbury-Timmins. It would lengthen each flight be likely result in better passenger loads. Soo is a bit 'off to the left' unless it is linked with TBay. I think Toronto (somewhere) needs to remain a regional hub as well as a trans-border/international one.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Perhaps you are correct. I imagine that if the flights weren't profitable the airlines would drop them. Porter recently vacated their Toronto-North Bay service because of profitability. I don't subscribe to any 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink' influence, but honestly don't know if there are any federal subsidies for northern/remote service to these communities - I doubt it (they're not Iqualuit). Perhaps it could be solved via linked destinations vs. non-stop flights; i.e. Toronto-Sudbury-Timmins. It would lengthen each flight be likely result in better passenger loads. Soo is a bit 'off to the left' unless it is linked with TBay. I think Toronto (somewhere) needs to remain a regional hub as well as a trans-border/international one.

The new small jets are extremely efficient once they are in the air, it’s the approach, stop, taxi and takeoff that kill fuel efficiency. For instance having a flight from Thunder Bay to Toronto stop in the soo ( it over flys the soo anyways ) would increase fuel consumption by as much as 50% for the route with all the associated GHG emissions. This is why most regional flights are point to point, and why Pearson is in such a calamity. They simply need more slots to remain efficient. Torontos only choice is to build Pickering or choke off economic growth. Pearson could become Canadas next infrastructure emergency if we don’t act fast.

 

[kEiThZ]

Bigger planes only have good mileage per seat on long routes with a high pax load. This is why the free market economy we have uses the Q400, the CRJ, and soon the CSeries, because they are more profitable, burning less gas.

Source?

WestJet could easily run 737s into Thunderbay from Toronto, but they don’t, they use the Q400 due to the fuel burn and customer demand.

You and I both know that frequency is the name of the game in business travel and that's why they don't run just one flight a day. But if they can find a better use for those slots, they absolutely will upgauge and redeploy those slots to higher value destinations.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Source?

If you have $20k try Piano X, but you can get good numbers just by using wiki, although be careful as the anti globalization crowd seems to keep editing this stuff, so cross check with individual manufacturers numbers to be sure.

Fuel economy in aircraft - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You and I both know that frequency is the name of the game in business travel and that's why they don't run just one flight a day. But if they can find a better use for those slots, they absolutely will upgauge and redeploy those slots to higher value destinations.

You bet, except they have a choke point beyond which the airport becomes dysfunctional. JFK hit that 20 years ago ( on time performance crashed, similar to what happened at Pearson this February ). The FAA implemented an enforcement action/restriction, 40 movements a hour per runway that is still in place today.