Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[Dan416]

In the longer term, the most interesting thing is that Pearson's airfield is very spacious. Runways need to be separated by 1,310m to allow them to operate independently. There is nearly 3,000 metres between the planned northern close parallel and the northernmost southern close parallel. That means that there would be room to "pave down the middle" and add a third independent parallel at the heart of the airfield. It would require the removal of some of the warehouses around Netherhart Rd and relocation of some of the infield cargo terminals, but that's minuscule compared to what St. Louis demolished for its now-unnecessary third independent parallel. It would be even easier to build if it were, say, 7,000ft which would generally be sufficient for anything up to a 737/A320. That would accommodate the vast majority of movements and still leave four runways for widebodies. Terminal 3 would also have to be replaced with a new building slightly to the north, extending up through the old Boeing lands. Replacing T3 is already part of GTAA's long-term plans. Such a new runway would give Toronto a comparable capacity to Atlanta, not including the NextGen benefits, which should be sufficient for most of the century.

Looking at the map, Netherhart Rd doesn't appear to be part of the airport lands. Are you saying the federal govt would have to expropriate that land for use as a runway? There's also Courtneypark's N-S section that's in the way.

 

[unimaginative2]

Looking at the map, Netherhart Rd doesn't appear to be part of the airport lands. Are you saying the federal govt would have to expropriate that land for use as a runway? There's also Courtneypark's N-S section that's in the way.

Yep. They're hardly high-value lands--less valuable than what St. Louis and Atlanta expropriated for their third independent parallels, or what Chicago will be acquiring for its runway re-arrangement project. Courtneypark could easily pass under the runway, just as it passes under the taxiway to the east.

The biggest challenges would be some grade issues, though they're far less dramatic than the six-storey high runway being built in Fort Lauderdale, and the eastern end where you'd probably to try and fit in an end-around taxiway and need to rearrange some of the T1 access roads. If you got rid of the second northern parallel, you'd have a lot more room to work with, but it should still be feasible with it.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The Hamilton Authority has been quite outspoken in viewing Pickering as a needless competitor... to listen to the Hamilton folks, the whole Pickering project is an attempt from the big bad GTAA to waste government dollars to stop their plucky little airport from continuing to skim off some of Pearson's overflow, particularly its cargo market. One assumes the key factor in cargo movements is landing fees and relative placement of the airport with the regional warehousing and logistics infrastructure. Seeing as that's skewed to the western side of the GTA already, I honestly don't know if getting a new, eastern option is really super-helpful, but I guess that presupposes that acres upon acres of farmland along the 407 extension aren't going to be converted into Bramalea-style forklift sprawl by then.

Hamilton also figures in the question of whether we need another low-cost passenger hub. Thought it was interesting you mentioned WestJet... Although the Ryanair/Southwest business model loomed large in WestJet's initial planning in the mid-'90s, even in the pre-9/11 heyday of folks predicting that cut-rate airlines would conquer the universe and that Michael O'Leary was the smartest man on earth, WJ never really went wholeheartedly all the way to that end of the airline service model spectrum---their service has never been so self-congratulatorily austere as the real low-cost fundamentalists, and they've never had things like unassigned cattle-call seating. From my perspective, over the past 5-10 years WestJet's been sliding pretty systematically back along the service model spectrum towards being a regularly-priced orthodox carrier, albeit with some legacy trappings of its salad days (i.e. the one-class cabins, and the standard roster of flight attendant jokes about fastening seatbelts).

The reason I mention this is that when WestJet first moved into Ontario around 2000, the management still seemed relatively focused on being a Canadian take on Ryanair/Southwest, and the learned-wisdom from those carriers was to go into a low-cost peripheral airport, not the main internationals. So true to that form, they went with Hamilton, not Pearson, as their Ontario hub, and that was tried for about 3 years before that plan was discarded and they decided paying the higher landing fees for Pearson were worth it. Now, given the rate of change in the airline industry, nobody has the slightest clue what sort of service model WestJet will be running in 2027 or whether they'll even exist, but I think the WestJet Hamilton experience suggests that it's easier said than done to assume the carriers would be racing to move their flights away from Pearson and all the connecting flight options that come with it.

The other folks that have had some success with secondary airports are the international charter carriers, the Thomas Cooks and such, who don't care so much about being plugged into a feeder network of domestic flights... Gatwick is sort of a good example of an airport with that focus. Again, Hamilton's dabbled with trying to lure that sector (Flyglobespan was there briefly, which didn't quite work out) but it never quite stuck. Perhaps it's just a case of Hamilton being just a little too far away to lure GTA customers, and being unfortunately placed on the same side of Toronto as Pearson rather than having it's own lobe of 905 to itself. Pickering would have a leg up on them on both accounts there.

Great analysis. I wonder what did eventually lead to westjets move to Pearson despite higher landing fees. Westjet claims it allows them to better serve the Toronto market, though there were accusations of a sweatheart deal from Pearson.

- a secret deal with Pearson wouldn't be shocking. With the Jetsgo faltering Pearson would have been left with a big hole in its services. Basically they'd on have a flag carrier serving the domestic market and no true alternates.
- if Munro airport is not offered as an arrival/departure airport by travel agencies such as expedia, travelocity, etc than not many passengers would even have an option to select Munro as an airport.
- Munro is also affected by it's proximity to Buffalo. A price concious consumer looking at driving out to Hamiton might look at fares for Buffalo and decide well since we're already on the road might as well drive another hour to Buffalo and save a few hundred bucks. Especially if their destination is in the US
- Perhaps Munro is too far away from Toronto for passengers to justify flying out of there.

Nine of this would have been affected by WestJet's move towards a more typical airline service.

 

[kEiThZ]

Pearson has a very ample runway layout and plenty of room for new terminal space. There's absolutely no reason why we should need a new commercial airport for the foreseeable future. Pearson isn't even growing that fast these days and it's no longer even in the top 30 worldwide. Still, Pearson is a successful, world-class airport because it is a major hub. Trying to split traffic would completely destroy Toronto's role as a hub.

Pickering is being built, first and foremost as a GA airport to replace Buttonville, Markham and Oshawa. All this talk about being a Pearson reliever is just that. Talk. They have the plans to ramp up if necessary. But nobody is committing to it yet.

If anything, we need more space for GA but it seems nuts to me to build a billion-dollar new airfield on prime farmland just so that we can build some condos at Buttonville. There are plenty of other airfields in the GTA that could easily handle all of the general aviation to relieve Pearson. Markham and Brampton could get some modest expansion and Oshawa and Hamilton could easily serve people on the edges. Hamilton already serves effectively as a cargo airport, and belly cargo will be going to Pearson anyway.

You ever flown out of those airports? Oshawa is hemmed in by housing already. I am surprised they don't get more Island like reaction from the residents. The problem with Markham and Brampton is airspace. They are smack in the middle of the approaches to Pearson. Putting anything more than GA there (and I don't even mean bizjets) could be problematic. This is why Pickering is needed as a GA reliever.

NextGen also promises dramatic increases in throughput without runway improvements just about the time that Pickering will be coming into service. It may be completely unnecessary.

Nextgen reduces terminal airspace congestion with continuous descent and all that good stuff. I question whether it will increase runway throughput significantly though. Especially with the mix we get at Pearson where your Emirates A380 is being tailed by a Jazz CRJ.

In the longer term, the most interesting thing is that Pearson's airfield is very spacious. Runways need to be separated by 1,310m to allow them to operate independently. There is nearly 3,000 metres between the planned northern close parallel and the northernmost southern close parallel. That means that there would be room to "pave down the middle" and add a third independent parallel at the heart of the airfield. It would require the removal of some of the warehouses around Netherhart Rd and relocation of some of the infield cargo terminals, but that's minuscule compared to what St. Louis demolished for its now-unnecessary third independent parallel. It would be even easier to build if it were, say, 7,000ft which would generally be sufficient for anything up to a 737/A320. That would accommodate the vast majority of movements and still leave four runways for widebodies. Terminal 3 would also have to be replaced with a new building slightly to the north, extending up through the old Boeing lands. Replacing T3 is already part of GTAA's long-term plans. Such a new runway would give Toronto a comparable capacity to Atlanta, not including the NextGen benefits, which should be sufficient for most of the century.

I dunno if I'd be that drastic to get another independent. But twinning 05/23 wouldn't hurt even if they need a new cargo terminal. And they could really use another 15/33 parallel for those days when winds go that way. That's when their runway throughput is really brought down.

Ultimately though, I would suggest that HSR should definitely be used to free up some slots at Pearson. Reducing the number of narrowbody flights could let Pearson focuse on the big birds.

 

[unimaginative2]

Pickering is being built, first and foremost as a GA airport to replace Buttonville, Markham and Oshawa. All this talk about being a Pearson reliever is just that. Talk. They have the plans to ramp up if necessary. But nobody is committing to it yet.

You ever flown out of those airports? Oshawa is hemmed in by housing already. I am surprised they don't get more Island like reaction from the residents. The problem with Markham and Brampton is airspace. They are smack in the middle of the approaches to Pearson. Putting anything more than GA there (and I don't even mean bizjets) could be problematic. This is why Pickering is needed as a GA reliever.

Yeah, but all I'm talking about is GA. Oshawa less hemmed in than Buttonville ever was and, as you say, people don't seem to be objecting to the GA traffic.
Moreover, if all of this is true, it's pretty crazy that they removed the few million a year subsidy to Buttonville and are now going to spend billions to replace it.

Nextgen reduces terminal airspace congestion with continuous descent and all that good stuff. I question whether it will increase runway throughput significantly though. Especially with the mix we get at Pearson where your Emirates A380 is being tailed by a Jazz CRJ.

A lot of people wouldn't agree, though, starting with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. They're counting on it for virtually all of the future demand growth in NYC.

I dunno if I'd be that drastic to get another independent. But twinning 05/23 wouldn't hurt even if they need a new cargo terminal. And they could really use another 15/33 parallel for those days when winds go that way. That's when their runway throughput is really brought down.

The 05/23 twin is already in the plans and they wouldn't even need to rebuild the cargo terminal. I'm talking about the long-term future, and I'd much rather have another independent at Pearson than build a whole new commercial airport on farmland both for the environmental benefits and the service benefits.

Ultimately though, I would suggest that HSR should definitely be used to free up some slots at Pearson. Reducing the number of narrowbody flights could let Pearson focuse on the big birds.

Absolutely, though in practice I'd say that--though I'm a huge supporter of HSR--its effect on airport movements is fairly limited. It's unlikely that Air Canada would give up its hourly Rapidair flights; they'd be more likely to downshift to E-Jets to maintain frequency. I agree that flights like Toronto-London and Toronto-Kingston could be eliminated and replaced with code-shares on HSR.

edit: Then again, travel time to Ottawa would likely be less than two hours. That would make it pretty difficult for the airlines to compete. They might be able to be coaxed into a code-sharing arrangement there too, which would definitely free up some slots.

 

[Dan416]

Yeah, but all I'm talking about is GA. Oshawa less hemmed in than Buttonville ever was and, as you say, people don't seem to be objecting to the GA traffic.
Moreover, if all of this is true, it's pretty crazy that they removed the few million a year subsidy to Buttonville and are now going to spend billions to replace it.

So true.

The 05/23 twin is already in the plans and they wouldn't even need to rebuild the cargo terminal. I'm talking about the long-term future, and I'd much rather have another independent at Pearson than build a whole new commercial airport on farmland both for the environmental benefits and the service benefits.

I wonder how much it'll cost to expropriate those warehouses along Netherhart (plus probably building a bridge for the new runway over Etobicoke Creek) compared to just building a new airport. I think you're right that just expanding Pearson makes more sense.

 

[unimaginative2]

I wonder how much it'll cost to expropriate those warehouses along Netherhart (plus probably building a bridge for the new runway over Etobicoke Creek) compared to just building a new airport. I think you're right that just expanding Pearson makes more sense.

I would cost vastly less to expropriate those warehouses than to build a whole new airport with the associated infrastructure. Like I said, Chicago, St. Louis, and Atlanta all expropriated at least that much for their expansions. The creek would likely be re-routed as it will be for the 05/23 twin.

Pickering really worries me because it's going to be funded with Pearson landing fees, which we're only just starting to get down to sane levels.

Pickering is being built, first and foremost as a GA airport to replace Buttonville, Markham and Oshawa. All this talk about being a Pearson reliever is just that. Talk.

But all the plans I've seen are for 10,000 ft runways. You hardly need that for GA traffic. If that's all they're planning to serve, why not just expand the Brampton airport? You could also extend the runway and build few extra facilities at the Markham airport for a few dozen million at the very most.

 

[Platform 27]

But all the plans I've seen are for 10,000 ft runways. You hardly need that for GA traffic. If that's all they're planning to serve, why not just expand the Brampton airport? You could also extend the runway and build few extra facilities at the Markham airport for a few dozen million at the very most.

It does seem that the "we need Pickering for GA to replace Buttonville and Oshawa" argument is a pretty transparent Trojan Horse to get a foot in the door and put some concrete in the ground. If we as a region really wanted to kick up our GA capacity, you could sprinkle around a few million here and there to the Markhams and Oshawas and Bramptons and so on and be more than adequate.

The official GTAA line is they want/we need a new ostensibly-GA-focused airport that's futureproofed for greater things, which is a niche than none of the existing GA facilities can fill. The key question is whether these "greater things" are so certain to be needed that we need to spend billions on 10,000 ft runways in farmland. The GTAA/Transport Canada studies seem to say yes, but would studies done by folks who don't have a dog in this fight say the same thing?

If we heed those who take a little less charitable perspective on the GTAA, there's a bit of an empire-building "world-class cities have multiple airports" penis-envy at play that's counting on the evolution from a GA-focused baby-Pickering towards those "greater things" becoming a relatively rapid inevitability once the initial political and financial hump of getting the facility started is overcome.

Here's another wildcard: if we do indeed get a Rouge Valley National Park in the next year or two, does it become that much harder to drop an airport next to it?

 

[unimaginative2]

I agree with Platform 27 that there does appear to be a bit of an empire-building mentality at GTAA. That can definitely be a good thing, since it has driven them to build the world-class facility we now have at Pearson. But I'd argue that it's a bad thing in this case. We're just getting landing fees down to a reasonable level after the major building campaign. The last thing we need to do is embark on another billion dollar project that, unlike Pearson, shows no probability of paying for itself in any foreseeable future. There's no way that GA can pay for 10,000 ft runways built to accommodate the A380.

It's pretty transparent that GTAA cut off the measly subsidy they paid to Buttonville a couple years ago because Pearson traffic was too low, and now they're claiming we need to spend billions on a whole new greenfield airport? The fact is that, regardless of their studies, Pearson growth has been pretty modest. We've been stuck around 30,000,000 passengers per year for years now. We've dropped out of the top 30 airports in the world. In fact, they've been constantly delaying new phases of T1. There are two whole concourses and a runway left to build in the master plan. It would make a lot of sense to finish those off before we move on to a greenfield site.

I have a suspicion that they're racing to get some kind of airport built at Pickering before the land just gets handed over as an environmental preserve once and for all. I sympathize with them, since it's a real asset to have an additional airport site on deck in case we suddenly get wild growth, but I fear this project will just milk Pearson, driving up landing fees and driving out airlines.

I've always thought that Downsview has potential at least for some limited executive traffic. The airport is barely used and nobody would likely notice ten or fifteen bizjets a day. It's a nice central location, too.

 

[canmark]

I'm going to be flying out of Pearson next week and noticed on their website that the train connecting the value parking lot/garage to the terminals is not operating. What's the deal?

Until October 31, 2013 the LINK train will be temporarily replaced by the Terminal Link bus, operating at the same intervals as the train, and bringing you directly to your terminal. Travel times are approximate and may be affected by road and traffic conditions.

 

[TOareaFan]

I'm going to be flying out of Pearson next week and noticed on their website that the train connecting the value parking lot/garage to the terminals is not operating. What's the deal?

I think it is shut down to allow construction of the ARL/UPE from Union to Pearson....if I am not mistaken it has been replaced by buses.

 

[interchange42]

You are not mistaken.

42

 

[drum118]

I think it is shut down to allow construction of the ARL/UPE from Union to Pearson....if I am not mistaken it has been replaced by buses.

Buses run every 2-3 minutes just like rail system route, but takes a few minutes longer to travel it. Depending on the time of day, can be longer cause by traffic and ridership.

They have started to modify the doors at the station to allow for longer trains. The rails are wrap for protection at Terminal one UP site.

 

[dowlingm]

What are a bunch of Fed Tories doing in Pickering tomorrow?
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1181167/media-advisory-transport-canada

 

[innsertnamehere]

Probably something for rouge park, considering the minister of parks and forestry will be there.

Too far north for anything related to the Pickering airport.