Toronto Pearson International Airport

[Napoleon]

Semantics, in airline terminology a direct flight is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_flight
"A direct flight in the aviation industry is any flight between two points by an airline with no change in flight numbers, which may include a stop at an intermediate point.[1] The stop over may either be to get new passengers (or allow some to disembark) or a mere technical stop over (i.e., for refuelling)"

"Direct flights" are one of the more obnoxious bits of airline terminology that mislead passengers. Many times in my experience, they're even worse than a normal connecting flight, as they won't hold the second leg if the first leg is late, and it's often fairly tight.

As for the every continent but Australia point, I don't think there are any flights to Africa from Pearson.

 

[TOareaFan]

"Direct flights" are one of the more obnoxious bits of airline terminology that mislead passengers. Many times in my experience, they're even worse than a normal connecting flight, as they won't hold the second leg if the first leg is late, and it's often fairly tight.

As for the every continent but Australia point, I don't think there are any flights to Africa from Pearson.

In a direct flight...since you don't change planes....how is it possible to miss the "second leg".....you are on the plane that will complete that leg anyway.

 

[jamincan]

EgyptAir flies to Cairo from Toronto and Ethiopian flies to Addis-Ababa with a technical stop in Dublin when flying into Toronto, but non-stop in the other direction.

 

[cdosrun]

Direct (adjective) — extending or moving from one place to another by the shortest way without changing direction or stopping.

That definition is 100% false when referring to flights. I fly quite frequently and am very familiar with direct flights like Edmonton to St. John's (via Ottawa) or Montreal to Wabush (via Sept-Iles) or Toronto to Buenos Aires (via Santiago).

Please note the difference between a Non-stop flight and a Direct flight in aviation parlance. In point of fact, you can easily fly direct from Toronto to Australia.

 

[Burnt creek]

Good explanations. I was unaware of that aviation parlance... Context is everything.

I took a "direct flight" more than 30 years ago where I landed but stayed on the plane. Every landing since then has always been a flight change for me.

Direct flights used to be far more common, and that was one of the a raison d'etre of Montreal's Mirabel airport -- back in the day, Montreal was a common stopover for international flights.

One of the main reasons for looking at Mirabel as a hub (at that time) was that aircrafts didnt have the range that they do today. Montreal was the closest major north american centre to europe. So aircraft needed to use Montreal for re fueling. Today, they fly from the west coast of north america to europe with reuiring re fueling.

 

[Napoleon]

In a direct flight...since you don't change planes....how is it possible to miss the "second leg".....you are on the plane that will complete that leg anyway.

See, they mislead you with their "direct" terminology. Almost every time I've seen a "direct" flight marketed it involves a change of plane. For example, with United you might have a "direct" flight from LAX to CDG with a stop in Chicago. It might be an A319 from LAX to ORD and then a 767 from ORD to CDG. Oftentimes there's only 45 minutes between flights.

 

[cdosrun]

See, they mislead you with their "direct" terminology. Almost every time I've seen a "direct" flight marketed it involves a change of plane. For example, with United you might have a "direct" flight from LAX to CDG with a stop in Chicago. It might be an A319 from LAX to ORD and then a 767 from ORD to CDG. Oftentimes there's only 45 minutes between flights.

Every direct flight Air Canada offers does not involve a change of plane.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

See, they mislead you with their "direct" terminology. Almost every time I've seen a "direct" flight marketed it involves a change of plane. For example, with United you might have a "direct" flight from LAX to CDG with a stop in Chicago. It might be an A319 from LAX to ORD and then a 767 from ORD to CDG. Oftentimes there's only 45 minutes between flights.

That's not a direct flight that's a connecting flight. And would be marketed as such with a clear statement indicating there is a stop in ORD and how long that connection is, furthermore your booking would have two flight #'s one from LAX to ORD and one from ORD to CDG.

In the example of Air Canada's flight 33 to Sydney. The entire flight is operated under the same flight number and a passenger who boarded in Toronto would not necessarily need to de-board the aircraft in Vancouver as the flight would continue on to Sydney under the same flight # with the same aircraft just with additional passengers who have boarded in Vancouver (and perhaps a few who have only paid for the flight from Toronto to Vancouver if that segment is marketed separately)

 

[Napoleon]

That's not a direct flight that's a connecting flight. And would be marketed as such with a clear statement indicating there is a stop in ORD and how long that connection is, furthermore your booking would have two flight #'s one from LAX to ORD and one from ORD to CDG.

Incorrect. If the flight number remains the same, then it is indeed a direct flight. You're right that there will be a note indicating that there is a change of plane, which usually involves a change of gauge.
See Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_flight

I've flown just over a million miles in the last decade, and I can assure you that this is one of those subtleties of air travel you learn about the hard way!

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Incorrect. If the flight number remains the same, then it is indeed a direct flight. You're right that there will be a note indicating that there is a change of plane, which usually involves a change of gauge.
See Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_flight

I've flown just over a million miles in the last decade, and I can assure you that this is one of those subtleties of air travel you learn about the hard way!

You are right, my mistake.

 

[rbt]

Construction starting at Pearson on a new AC hangar. While it's not the terminal the hangar door iris thing sounds pretty interesting.

https://canadianaviationnews.wordpr...new-hangar-at-its-toronto-pearson-global-hub/

 

[ahmedyusali]

Soon GTAA is going to announce the construction of Pier G Terminal 1- USA gates..

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Soon GTAA is going to announce the construction of Pier G Terminal 1- USA gates..

I feel like Sonic the Hedgehog waiting for this. Many have complained about lack of space at Pearson (see Flyertalk) and I feel that the US Transborder preclearance facilities are part of the reason for the space crunch.

Pier G needs to be designed with the preclearance requirements in mind, and allow the main ticketing hall to return to being open and airy as it was originally designed to be. On the airside of the terminal (after security) limiting the use of swing gates (which act as international or transborder depending on need) will open up the International Pier F.

I get that the Infield Terminal is available to be used if needed however that's only if absolutely necessary. If GTAA can see the capacity need than why not start building now to be prepared for it rather than wait until the capacity is needed, activate the IFT, and then start construction.

 

[muller877]

I feel like Sonic the Hedgehog waiting for this. Many have complained about lack of space at Pearson (see Flyertalk) and I feel that the US Transborder preclearance facilities are part of the reason for the space crunch.

Pier G needs to be designed with the preclearance requirements in mind, and allow the main ticketing hall to return to being open and airy as it was originally designed to be. On the airside of the terminal (after security) limiting the use of swing gates (which act as international or transborder depending on need) will open up the International Pier F.

I get that the Infield Terminal is available to be used if needed however that's only if absolutely necessary. If GTAA can see the capacity need than why not start building now to be prepared for it rather than wait until the capacity is needed, activate the IFT, and then start construction.

I wish it is as easy and put a shovel in the ground.

The GTAA has to create a new 30 year plan (or most likely a 2050 vision). The old one assumed a lot smaller planes (100 seats or less), different travel patterns and doesn't have the past 10+ years of changing airport mix around the GTA included (i.e. Porter and KW). It now also has the changing transit mix with the known commuters using transit (versus taxis and parking).

They have to re-design Pier G (and if they can keep Pier H) for these bigger planes. Also the deicing and runway capacities. They will also have to figure out how to move people around the terminal for connections (walk? Above the roof or tunneled transit?). Finally they have to figure out the parking and taxi requirements.

I would guess a 2+ year process. I'm guessing they are almost done.

But then the politicians and special interest groups will get involved. At the same time they will show what the future of the Pickering airport is. And the expected growth (or lack thereof) of Hamilton. The east will scream to stop their airport and the west will cry wanting more. So I'm guessing a year of back and forth after it is released before it can be made an official plan and shovels can be put in the ground.

 

[Burnt creek]

When they do build Pier G, i hope that they extend the people mover to that area. Right now, you have a long walk to get to the far end of terminal 1 when you exit the people mover at that terminal because it stops at west end of the terminal.

From what i can tell this should be a simple extension. If you walk (right now) to the far end of terminal 1 where those piers G, H, and I were planned, you will see that the site is already cleared and empty. There is nothing but gravel and hence nothing to be demolished or relocated.