Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[micheal_can]

And? It's not like Peel residents aren't in Hamilton's effective catchment. Square One to Hamilton airport is a 50 minute drive. Maybe a 1hr 15 mins in traffic. Plenty of folks will do that for a cheaper fare. Heck, might take almost that long getting to Pickering in traffic!

If you're building a large second airport, to rival Pearson, you have to cover where the actual population growth is. The Eastern GTA is actually quite well served by Pearson and the Island. Really, it's KWC, London, Hamilton, Burlington and Brantford that aren't well served by Pearson.

Look at the map. Look at where traffic is. Look at the areas of major population growth. Look at areas that are underserved. Look at where the infrastructure already is. Hamilton seems like a no-brainer to me. Just to build what's there at Hamilton today would probably take over a decade in Pickering.

The growth is not just east of Toronto. It is north and west of Toronto as well. Think of expanding Hamilton not to compete with Pearson, but to relieve it. The DRL in Toronto is not to compete with Line 1, it is to relieve it. GO train is not there to compete with the highways, but to relieve it.

So, building a GO train connection to Hamilton would make it more appealing to people. As someone who enjoys a yearly hot trip, when I talk about where to fly out of, Hamilton is also on my list. It is an extra hour drive, but if I can safe, then why not?

The ironic thing is, Pickering's airport location isn't a bad idea, but with so much more space in places like Hamilton and KW, and even London, why spend the money?

 

[jzair]

Pickering is really about splitting Pearson's traffic. Not so much about adding capacity to the region and facilitating a growing population.

We can all agree that unless Pearson start to significantly upgrade its gates in T1&T3 there will be a serious capacity issue (those wide body jets just can't get ahold of jet bridges anymore). How is the region going to make up for this shortage? How does splitting Pearson's traffic not beneficial for the long term?

It's not like Peel residents aren't in Hamilton's effective catchment

Yes, and that's why Pearson covers the entire Peel region perfectly, do you expect the Peel region's growth to outpace the capacity limit of Pearson with this type of suburban development? The point is that while both Peel and Hamilton already have pretty good airport infrastructure (as you've pointed out, Hamilton captures most of southwestern Ontario), eastern Ontario is lacking infrastructure.

It is also *highly* unlikely that we will see the GTA region require two full Pearson-sized airports due to a lack of population, even with recent significant growths, to support it year-round (don't forget how painful it is for AC and WS to fill seats in the winter seasons on their medium to long-hauls). Therefore it would make sense to be have smaller "narrowbody/regional only" airports to support alongside the Pearson megahub.

 

[kEiThZ]

The growth is not just east of Toronto. It is north and west of Toronto as well. Think of expanding Hamilton not to compete with Pearson, but to relieve it.

Compete and relieve are virtually the same thing in the context we are discussing. Air travel demand is reasonably fungible when we're broadly talking about the same region.

The ironic thing is, Pickering's airport location isn't a bad idea, but with so much more space in places like Hamilton and KW, and even London, why spend the money?

More to the point, there's already a decent field in Hamilton with good sized runways, room to expand the terminal and ramp, and passenger amenities like parking. Why would anybody not build on what's there?

So, building a GO train connection to Hamilton would make it more appealing to people.

Eventually, a great idea. But you don't definitely don't need that to start. I've been all over the world and taken great coach services right out of the airport. This is what is actually lacking in a lot of Canadian airports, where it's more normal to grab a cab than a large luxurious coach bus.

We can all agree that unless Pearson start to significantly upgrade its gates in T1&T3 there will be a serious capacity issue

And that's going to be far less work than building a whole new airport. It's also going to have b done regardless of what other airports are developed.

do you expect the Peel region's growth to outpace the capacity limit of Pearson

Not in the next few decades. Like I've said earlier. Plenty of room to upgauge aircraft. They just have to get to work building the infrastructure they need.

eastern Ontario is lacking infrastructure.

Eastern Ontario is not the eastern GTA. A Pickering airport won't really do much for someone in Kingston or Napanee or Brockville. Ottawa is closer. Montreal Dorval is almost the same distance as Pickering. What Eastern Ontario really needs is better rail and bus services connecting to Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.

If it really is about serving Eastern Ontario, then it should be a lot further away from the 416.

It is also *highly* unlikely that we will see the GTA region require two full Pearson-sized airports due to a lack of population, even with recent significant growths, to support it year-round (don't forget how painful it is for AC and WS to fill seats in the winter seasons on their medium to long-hauls). Therefore it would make sense to be have smaller "narrowbody/regional only" airports to support alongside the Pearson megahub.

We already have that in the Island. And to some extent the Western GTHA has that in Hamilton and take a look at how much regional flying they actually get. Airlines simply aren't moving regional flying to other airports. There's just not business case for it. Any new airport will largely be about bringing in new LCC/ULCCs like Swoop and Flair and their foreign counterparts like Southwest and Norwegian.

 

[micheal_can]

Bus will not draw people away from Pearson. So, if you know you can take a train all the way to one airport but not the other, you might pick the one with a train going to it.

 

[kEiThZ]

Bus will not draw people away from Pearson. So, if you know you can take a train all the way to one airport but not the other, you might pick the one with a train going to it.

You have evidence for such a blanket assertion?

Even today most people are driving to Pearson. And before UPE, people had no issues with buses to the core. In fact, there are still plenty of airport buses that go to Pearson:

Public Transportation

Out of Town Van Services

I'm starting to think you think that every Pearson user lives in the core and takes UPE to fly to Sudbury.

 

[jzair]

Plenty of room to upgauge aircraft

There is a fundamental problem with how airline operates its routes. If upgauging aircraft is so effective they would be sending 777s for every domestic route. But thats not nearly economical as having 10 daily ERJ/CRJ flights. This is also why the 787 has beaten the A380 in the past decade or so, and airlines will prefer to use smaller aircraft with higher frequency until airports around the world is in gridlock.

We already have that in the Island. And to some extent the Western GTHA has that in Hamilton and take a look at how much regional flying they actually get

Yes, but the island airport can't take on any jets, which is pretty useless for someone wanting to hop on a LCC to Europe for example.

Even today most people are driving to Pearson. And before UPE, people had no issues with buses to the core. In fact, there are still plenty of airport buses that go to Pearson:

Driving to Pearson is a must for many people due to the lack of transit choices.

This is taken from the 2017-2037 YYZ masterplan. When compared to other world-class airports, Pearson's share of transit users is not great (albeit a little better than other major North American cities). This is almost directly related to the fact that cities like Hong Kong, which has a transit ridership of 63%, has ones of the best metro/subway systems that reaches the airport. Even Vancouver sees more shares of transit users because of their Canada Line. Ultimately it proves that rail connections does draw in more passengers.

 

[narduch]

Anybody living, lets say west of Yonge St. would still go to Pearson even if Pickering was open. Unless they were saving way more money.

 

[rbt]

There is a fundamental problem with how airline operates its routes. If upgauging aircraft is so effective they would be sending 777s for every domestic route. But thats not nearly economical as having 10 daily ERJ/CRJ flights. This is also why the 787 has beaten the A380 in the past decade or so, and airlines will prefer to use smaller aircraft with higher frequency until airports around the world is in gridlock.

For now we're talking about deploying ERJ/CRJ flights to replace even smaller aircraft. Just as a peak at 8:52 am on the below page I see 23% of aircraft arriving/departing YYZ are quite a bit smaller than a CRJ and could be upsized to a CRJ or shifted to another airport like Buttonville. There were 8 DH8A,1 C56X, and 1 CL30 out of 44 spots on the page.

There were also a few CRJ1/2's which could be bumped to CRJ7/9's.

CYYZ Toronto Pearson Int'l Airport (CYYZ) - FlightAware

Toronto Pearson Int'l, Toronto, Ontario (CYYZCYYZ) flight tracking (arrivals, departures, en route, and scheduled flights) and airport status.

flightaware.com

If you have full day statistics (all take-offs/landings by aircraft type) that would be useful.

 

[jzair]

For now we're talking about deploying ERJ/CRJ flights to replace the numerous smaller aircraft. Just as a peak at 8:52 am on this page I see 23% of aircraft arriving/departing YYZ are quite a bit smaller than a CRJ and would be upsized to a CRJ. There were 8 DH8A,1 C56X, and 1 CL30 out of 44 spots on the page.

I don't think I've said anything about upgauging to replace smaller aircraft. In fact, as you've pointed out almost a quarter of all movements are performed by these regional aircraft. Narrowbody movements (A320s, 737s) almost dominate entire morning to noon departure boards.

 

[rbt]

I don't think I've said anything about upgauging to replace smaller aircraft. In fact, as you've pointed out almost a quarter of all movements are performed by these regional aircraft. Narrowbody movements (A320s, 737s) almost dominate entire morning to noon departure boards.

Keith, whom people seem to be arguing against (I thought that included your post, I apologize if that was mistaken), has been stating that replacing those smaller aircraft is a possibility to free up a large number of landing slots.

 

[rbt]

Here's a list of all airlines/airports with YYZ connections using aircraft smaller than a CRJ at least part of the day. I don't have frequencies (several are 4+ trips per day), but from here someone could look that up. Route data is from openflights.org.

AC, BDL with BEH
AC, BWI with DH1
AC, CLE with DH1
AC, CMH with DH1
AC, DTW with BEH CRJ
AC, MDT with BEH
AC, PIT with DH1
AC, ROC with BEH
AC, SYR with BEH
AC, YAM with DH1
AC, YFC with DH4
AC, YGK with BEH
AC, YQB with DH4
AC, YQM with DH4 CRJ
AC, YQT with DH4 CRJ
AC, YSB with DH1
AC, YSJ with DH4
AC, YTS with DH1
AC, YXU with DH1 DH4
AC, YYB with DH1
AC, YZR with BEH
UA, BDL with BEH
UA, CLE with DH2 DH3
UA, CMH with DH1
UA, DTW with BEH CRJ
UA, EWR with E75 ERJ DH4 CRA E90
UA, IAD with CRJ ERJ CR7 DH4
UA, PIT with DH1

 

[kEiThZ]

There is a fundamental problem with how airline operates its routes. If upgauging aircraft is so effective they would be sending 777s for every domestic route. But thats not nearly economical as having 10 daily ERJ/CRJ flights.

I have already addressed this ridiculous strawman. We aren't talking about sending 777s to Sudbury or London. We are talking about replacing a set of Dash 8 flights with a slight smaller set of flights on a larger turboprop.

Again. The example I give is replacing four 50-seat Dash-8-300 flights with three 78-seat Q400 flights. Airlines do this all the time. Air Canada and Westjet are both in the midst of a massive upgauging effort replacing 120 seat 737-700s/A319s and 150 seat A320s with 170 seat 737-MAX 8s. Air Canada is also going to replace 97-seat E190s with 130-seat A220-300s/CS300s. Do you think AC and Westjet will maintain the exact same flight schedules after swapping out aircraft with 20% more seats?

Yes, but the island airport can't take on any jets, which is pretty useless for someone wanting to hop on a LCC to Europe for example.

Which is all but irrelevant when talking about the regional flights that you were talking about:

Therefore it would make sense to be have smaller "narrowbody/regional only" airports to support alongside the Pearson megahub.

An LCC to Europe is not a regional flight. And expansion for those LCCs can be accomodated in Hamilton.

Driving to Pearson is a must for many people due to the lack of transit choices.

Which is exactly what I said in response to this:

Bus will not draw people away from Pearson.

Transit modal share for Pearson is low. Driving modal share is high. If people are driving anyway (and millions drive to Buffalo annually), then getting them to drive to Hamilton to catch a flight is not going to be that much of a challenge.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think I've said anything about upgauging to replace smaller aircraft.

Then you fundamentally don't understand what was being discussed here.

In fact, as you've pointed out almost a quarter of all movements are performed by these regional aircraft.

Which just goes to show how much room there is to upgauge.

Keith, whom people seem to be arguing against (I thought that included your post, I apologize if that was mistaken), has been stating that replacing those smaller aircraft is a possibility to free up a large number of landing slots.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

. I don't have frequencies

You can use flightaware to get detailed schedules.

Let's look at some simple examples for Air Canada/Jazz:

1) London, ON. Per day. there are five DH1 (aka Dash-8-100) and three DH4s (aka Q400). DH1s have 37 seats. DH4s have 78 seats. Replace those five DH1 flights with three DH4s trips and you will have saved two flights a day while adding 49 seats, a growth of 11.7% in seat capacity on this route while cutting the number of flights by 25%.

https://flightaware.com/live/findflight?origin=CYYZ&destination=CYXU

2) Sudbury, ON. Per day there are three DH4s, one DH1 and one DH3. The DH3 has 50 seats. Replace the DH1 and the DH3 with one more DH4 and you've saved one flight per day while cutting capacity by 9 seats, or 2.8%, while cutting frequencies by 20%.

https://flightaware.com/live/findflight?origin=CYYZ&destination=CYSB

Let's say they want to grow capacity and cut flights to Sudbury. Replace those five Jazz flights today with three 130-seat A220-300 flights a day on Air Canada, and you will have added 69 seats per day day, an increase of 21.5% while cutting frequencies by 40%.


I hope people are getting the picture. There's tons and tons of room for airlines to upgauge aircraft with slightly larger modes (20-50% higher seat counts usually) and cut 1-2 flights per day on most city pairs. Replace multiple 37-seat and 50-seat flights with fewer 78-seat Q400s. Replace multiple 78-seat Q400s with fewer 130 seat A220-300s, etc.

 

[crs1026]

I hope people are getting the picture. There's tons and tons of room for airlines to upgauge aircraft by 20-50% higher seat counts and cut 1-2 flights per day on most city pairs. Replace multiple 37-seat and 50-seat flights with fewer 78-seat Q400s. Replace multiple 78-seat Q400s with fewer 130 seat A220-300s, etc.

I can buy the argument.... halfway. As someone noted, frequency matters. When I was commuting to Timmins for business, the availability of flights was an acute concern - both at the home end and at the outer end. Two or three hours of waiting for the next flight was precious time wasted, and sometimes led to more drinks in the airport lounge than I might care to admit ;-). Swapping five departure options for three would have sent shivers up my spine.

However, cutting 5 departures to 4 and having seat availability in those larger planes might have been OK - and might have led to some seat sales that attracted more customers. So the argument holds without having to go seat to seat.... I'm sure AC will do some flight reduction with its 737 Max's, but also will plan for growth in ridership. That translates to some slots saved at YYZ.

- Paul

 

[jzair]

upgauging effort replacing 120 seat 737-700s/A319s and 150 seat A320s with 170 seat 737-MAX 8s. Air Canada is also going to replace 97-seat E190s with 130-seat A220-300s/CS300s. Do you think AC and Westjet will maintain the exact same flight schedules after swapping out aircraft with 20% more seats?

In fact yes, natural seat growth is prevalent during peak periods, upgauging does not imply reduction in frequency necessarily. It is quite common for AC and WS to swap their usual larger aircrafts with the smaller ones in winter/off-peak and redistribute those larger birds to the south/Caribbean destination. Having sufficient seat capacity is key to maintain competitive pricing strategy over other carriers. This is partially why AC has configured its 777s with the notorious 450 pax versions. Will it need less flights because it added seats? No, because people would still benefit from the added convenience in their itinerary.

then getting them to drive to Hamilton to catch a flight is not going to be that much of a challenge

There would also be little challenge for people to drive all the way to that far fetched place called "Pickering" either right? If transborder is that appealing to GTA residents then driving to Pickering would actually save them time due to one less border/customs crossing.

Then you fundamentally don't understand what was being discussed here.

I hope people are getting the picture. There's tons and tons of room for airlines to upgauge aircraft by 20-50% higher seat counts and cut 1-2 flights per day on most city pairs. Replace multiple 37-seat and 50-seat flights with fewer 78-seat Q400s. Replace multiple 78-seat Q400s with fewer 130 seat A220-300s, etc.

Again, cutting flight frequencies can mean a huge loss of customers to other competitors as you do not operate at the optimal times that people would want to travel. Why not just send one huge A380 with 800 seats to replace the numerous 787/767/777 combos to LHR?