Oh oh....maybe the Liberals are serious about no expansion

[Vsplat]

MD2 you are still stuck on the notion of the agreement being temporary. Was there a sunset clause? If not, then what right would anyone have to presume they could declare such an agreement as obsolete?

Just a suggestion, but you might want to ease up lecturing here on what is or is not a jet, what is or is not a technological marvel. This is a topic specific forum, most of us can tell the difference.... Like the difference between an aircraft fitting in nicely and one that needs a runway extension to fit. And the difference between a low frequency, turboprop noise contour and that made by a high frequency turbofan. Decibels alone don't really tell the whole story, I think most people would agree.

But as you say, to each their own.

Vs

[MD2]

Vsplat, I appreciate your keen interest on the subject, and say to you that not all on this board are informed on all matters aviation. I don't really know yours or anyone else's depth of knowledge on this technology, but strictly speaking, the C series aircraft is actually NOT powered by a "jet" engine, rather by an ultra-high-bypass ratio geared turbofan engine. I would explain, but you seem to suggest that you already know.

You ask why is this agreement temporary? Because all things in life are. It is called evolution. And this very discussion further illustrates that it is out of date simply because the stigma that was attached to "jets" back then, and as I mentioned this aircraft does not really have the typical "jet" engine as is envisioned by the lay person. And agreements are amended all the time, like the one between Air Canada and Pearson and its terminals.

And likewise announcing major policy on a topic that affects thousands of jobs and billions of dollars by a tweet at midnight is not good governance. Neither is stifling a democratic process by simply suggesting following "election promises". Most seem to expect a consultative process and informed discussions in Canada. For instance, one would wonder has the new minister of transport actually seen and heard the C series aircraft that was manufactured in his own country before tweeting his policy? I fear not.

[Vsplat]

OK, thanks for setting your context. For the record, you have established the C series as a turbofan. You know that every "jet' airliner since the B727 has been turbofan powered, right? So the "jets" back then are turbofans.

I get it, you want the airport for the C Series. No argument will convince you otherwise. I am just glad that the 'everything is temporary so your rights are toast' mentality did not prevail in this case.

Vs

[Briler]

Wow. So insisting on rights guaranteed by the City and the Port Authority since 1983 to preserve the livability of your home and prime recreational area is "hostage" taking?

Such contempt - the too-frequent instances of that emanating from Porter/Ports Toronto are just what has so enraged the entire huge (not "tiny") waterfront community - and its many allies across the City. Any substantive response to the specific breaches of the rules by Porter/Ports Toronto pointed out above? No? I thought not.

A small community that settled next to City airport cannot hold it hostage for eternity.

[rudder]

Porter has a de facto monopoly at TCCA. Porter has expanded operations to the absolute limit of the capacity of the facility benefiting from the significant increase in terminal capacity and the pedestrian tunnel.

And that is not good enough. Now it wants longer runways in order to add hundreds of thousands of more passengers (and the associated revenues to the coffers of PAH) while hiding behind the cocoon of the slot allocation aberration being perpetuated at TCCA.

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

If Porter wants increased revenues, here are a couple of suggestions - stop discounting your fares, and look at the dozens of other existing airport facilities in Canada than can accommodate the C-series aircraft without modification.

I know that it will suck to compete on a level playing field, but that is how things work. Real life is not like the artificial economy that exists at TCCA.

[DEFCON]

Porter has been under continuous fire since day one. In spite of the many predictions of its demise, Porter instead has a substantial fleet and the ‘best balance sheet in the industry.

I think it's probably safer to place a bet in favour of the corporation and its future plans versus the wishes of a few unfairly disadvantaged condo dwellers. I think it’s unfortunate that people can’t rely on commitments made by politicians, but history tells us ...

[Briler]

From CommunityAIR's blog, today:

When Is a Jet Not a Jet?

In an astoundingly accurate example of Newspeak that would make George Orwell proud, the executive who developed Bombardier’s CSeries jet engine says it’s not a jet. It’s a turbofan claims Pratt & Whitney’s Graham Webb, the company’s vice-president of commercial engine programs. Pratt & Whitney supplies Bombardier with its engines for the CSeries jets so it’s in the company’s interest to help Bombardier get a toehold at the island airport and they’ve come up with a novel angle: We will no longer call it a jet.

Even Bombardier, ignoring the difference between a turbojet and turbofan, calls their CSeries “The world’s most advanced single-aisle jet.”

Perhaps it’s because, as a Wikipedia article points out,

“A turbofan engine is a gas turbine engine that is very similar to a turbojet. Like a turbojet, it uses the gas generator core (compressor, combustor, turbine) to convert internal energy in fuel to kinetic energy in the exhaust. Turbofans differ from turbojets in that they have an additional component, a fan.”

To paraphrase Shakespeare, a jet by any other name would befoul the waterfront as much.

So, what are we to make of Pratt & Whitney Vice-President Webb’s appearance in Canada’s National Post from his place in East Hartford, Connecticut?

For one thing, it appears that the reporter or her editor has drunk from the Porter marketing cup if the following sentence is anything to go by.

“The CSeries’ engine noise has been central to the debate around whether Porter should be allowed to fly the aircraft out of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, which is located on an island just south of the city’s heavily populated downtown waterfront.”

How convenient it is for a newspaper, that’s a recipient of the Porter advertising dollar largess, to ignore other “non-central” issues like effect of jets on the enjoyment of the waterfront, lack of a cost-benefit analysis of airport expansion, absence of funding to pay for expansion, etc., etc.

For another thing, the article looks like another page in the playbook of the Porter-Bombardier island airport duopoly to keep the issue alive long enough for city council to vote on the sham EA and pressure Transport Minister Garneau into changing his government’s position.

Consider the steady feed of print and electronic media articles that has popped up since the Star reported on October 20 Porter push for island airport jets is dead, says Adam Vaughan. Until the fatuous National Post piece about jets are not jets, the theme has been quite clear: let city council decide on jets. It’s almost as if the fix was in for council to decide in favour of airport expansion.

October 21, Cool your jets: Vaughan still opposed to Billy Bishop expansion, CityNews

October 22, Bombardier Inc’s CSeries could suffer another setback thanks to new Liberal government, National Post

October 22, Councillor fights to keep island airport debate alive, thestar.com.

November 2, Liberal opposition to jets at Billy Bishop airport a blow to Bombardier, Globe and Mail

November 3, Porter wants airport studies completed, despite Liberal win, thestar.com.

November 6, Billy Bishop, Bombardier and Trudeau’s war on Canada’s middle class, therebel

November 8, Bishop jet ban wrong-headed, thestar.com.

November 9, Porter wants studies on island jet plan to go ahead, thestar.com.

November 11, Porter Airlines works to win Liberals over for Toronto airport expansion as it enters debt-free era, National Post

November 13, Liberals have jumped the gun by shutting down Billy Bishop jets debate, Globe and Mail

November 15, What happened to fact-based decision-making on island airport?: Editorial, thestar.com.

November 16, Studies continue on “dead” island airport jets proposal, thestar.com.

November 17, Terence Corcoran: Liberals abandon ‘evidence-based policy’ in Toronto, National Post

November 21, Mr. Trudeau’s Bombardier problem, iPolitics

That’s a total of at least 15 mentions in a month or one every two days. Somebody must be calling in their markers.

Back to the question. When is a jet not a jet? It’s when you’re looking for a Hail Mary pass.

technology, but strictly speaking, the C series aircraft is actually NOT powered by a "jet" engine, rather by an ultra-high-bypass ratio geared turbofan engine.

[Briler]

And another post, from NoJetsTO's Ron Jenkins, on point:

Graham Webb (working dispassionately for the aircraft engine manufacturer supplying engines to the Bombardier CS100s that Porter Airlines wants to fly from BBTCA) persists in the argument that noise is the defining issue in discussions of BBTCA expansion. It isn't the main issue, and never was. Proponents of expansion have just wanted people to believe it was.

It's about appropriate and balanced uses of the waterfront today

It's about protecting a legacy of waterfront enjoyment for future generations

It's about not turning Toronto Harbour into a glidepath for 100+ foot aircraft each carrying 100+ passengers

It's about not further congesting the surrounding neighbourhood

It's about the health of the residents of the neighbourhood [and for many of them, the noise of the current operation is more than enough]

It's about protecting and enhancing the wonderful waterfront de-industrialization efforts of Waterfront Toronto, and making the most of the money spent by them

It's about ensuring public lands and resources are not handed over for the enrichment of private interests

It's about not letting a Port Authority without sufficient shipping traffic to sustain it become ever more parasitic on airport expansion to justify its existence

It's about honouring a far-sighted agreement that includes many well-considered airport constraints -- in addition to a jet ban

It's about the safe operation of an often fogbound airport next to a high rise downtown core

It's about future Port Lands development

It's about proper use of existing airport and transit infrastructure (Pearson and the UPX especially)

It's about understanding that NOBODY says they will pay for the massive cost (estimated at $1B) of the necessary lake filling and runway rebuilding that expansion would entail

It's about understanding that NOBODY says they will pay for the extensive groundside costs to mitigate effects of airport expansion

It's about protecting residential and commercial real estate values and the tax revenues they generate

It's about protecting birds on one of the most important migratory flight paths in North America

and it's about many more things in addition

Finally, it's about not insulting people's intelligence with specious arguments about whether a geared turbofan is a jet or not.

In any case, the CS100 is not the only "jet" that this expansion proposal would allow. The CS100, and any similar aircraft (true jets or pretend "not-jets") are NOT APPROPRIATE aircraft on Toronto's waterfront, and the massive lake filling to enable those aircraft is equally NOT APPROPRIATE. If it needs runway extensions to fly from BBTCA, then it doesn't fit at BBTCA. Even totally silent, these "Whisper Jets" (or are they now "Whisper Not-Jets"?) have their proper place elsewhere.

[Guest]

Brian: you forgot to add. It is about ensuring that residential property continues to rise in value.

[Briler]

Or, perhaps, ensuring they, and property tax revenues, aren't negatively affected by the proximity of a busy airport.

In two paired moderately priced neighborhoods north of Los Angeles International Airport, a study found "an average 18.6 percent higher property value in the quiet neighborhood, or 1.33 percent per dB of additional quiet.": http://airportnoiselaw.org/propval.html

[Lando Calrissian]

Why is the integrity of one's property value beneath consideration?

I've seen pleas for REASON!!!!!! from somebody born on third base ... tell me why my investment is less important than yours, and while you're at it, tell me whether you want to raise young children a few hundred metres from a JETPORT.

Don't dress up your avarice in a desire to help the poor people of Peel and Malton, either.

[Guest]

Lando, I would not want to raise my children in the middle of a downtown concrete jungle either. Great environment for Adults but not so great for children.

[Lando Calrissian]

Porter is not my problem anymore, from a quality-of-life standpoint. (And quality of life is at the heart of this struggle - no need to think otherwise or listen to stooges who frame it any other way). Doesn't mean I want to take a bath on my investments, made incidentally before Mr. Deluce and his friends made public lands their private cash cows.

It doesn't take an aerospace engineer to know jet aviation is not going to be great for real estate down there. Please. Let's be serious.

[Super 80]

Why is the integrity of one's property value beneath consideration?

I've seen pleas for REASON!!!!!! from somebody born on third base ... tell me why my investment is less important than yours, and while you're at it, tell me whether you want to raise young children a few hundred metres from a JETPORT.

Don't dress up your avarice in a desire to help the poor people of Peel and Malton, either.

The area smells like ripe garbage and stale urine, the airport is the least of it's problems from a "quality of life" perspective.

[Lando Calrissian]

The "area" smells like diesel fumes, is what it smells like.

Your sneering contemptuousness for the neighbourhood is noted, though. At least you're being candid about it.

[Guest]

The "area" smells like diesel fumes, is what it smells like.

And this is where and I quote you question "and while you're at it, tell me whether you want to raise young children a few hundred metres from a JETPORT." I surely would not like to raise young children in the midst of diesel fumes either. Thankfully aircraft don't emit diesel fumes. Here is a goto to the recent airquality report BBTCA:

https://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/Waterfront%20Secretariat/Shared%20Content/Files/BBTCA/131115%20BBTCA%20Final%20Report%201400311.pdf

[Lando Calrissian]

As stated parenthetically, I settled into the garbage-ridden and urine-besotted area ... before the garbage actually did come in.

I'll take my answers off the air from here on out. One love.

[Briler]

Certainly there has been a problem with the taxi drivers servicing the Airport urinating in the park that abuts the Airport ferry access. Not sure what else you might be referring to. Quality of life on the waterfront, aside from the noise and traffic generated by the Airport, is actually great.

[Boney]

To us aviators, its a turbofan not a pure jet. However, to the general public, a jet doesn't have a propeller. Yes I know, the fan or prop is shrouded but the public only see the props for prop airplanes as opposed to jets.

Cheers

[Super 80]

The "area" smells like diesel fumes, is what it smells like.

Your sneering contemptuousness for the neighbourhood is noted, though. At least you're being candid about it.

Oh please, this "neighbourhood" is an urban planning disaster and going to be a dangerous slum inside of twenty years and along with the rest of Toronto's condo clusters a cautionary tale for a century to come. Any potential the Toronto waterfront had, past tense, was squandered by the condos.

[MD2]

A fair and informed mind, in aviation or not, knows the difference between a turbo-prop, turbofan, or turbojet engine and the associated noise and emission levels. Add to that, the new revolutionary pure power engine by P&W is second to none in terms of its low emissions and even lower noise. The disbelievers, be it a few members on this board or a few politicians, have simply not seen or heard the C series aircraft in flight. To theorize about its wonders is not going to change their minds, but they have to see and hear it and judge it for themselves fairly.

The City airport is actually, dare I say one of the few points of development and a seemly sight in the area. The airport is one of the nicest things around there! And after the completion of the tunnel, the traffic moves so smoothly and continuously, as opposed to in pulses as it was before, that it is hardly noticeable. The airport expansion too will add to aesthetics of the area because it will happen responsibly as it has so far.

As for the property values, if one checks without bias one would clearly see that they have gone up substantially. This is due to better access. With airport expansion, another step might be building a Bathurst Go station with shuttle buses to the airport, improving public access. Improved access will limit traffic growth and likely increase the prices even higher. This is not good for land developers, condo corporations and their proxies who obviously would rather have things for cheaper. But having more condos on the water front is most certainly bad for the city aesthetics and the environment; it blocks the view of the lake, creates more demand on all infrastructure, etc.

And all things in life are relative and as such the community by City airport is not only small, but tiny in comparison to communities around Pearson airport. Living in suburbs one could have a higher expectation of peace and quiet than living right downtown. Not to mention that the C series and Q400 aircraft at City airport will not be the noise makers, but a myriad of other things. The proponents of community Air, all 30 or 40 them present on Oct 23, 2006 on the first day of operations for Porter Airlines can attest to this, that small as they were (are) they were noisier than the aircraft that they totally missed the first couple of departures! The story has remained the same since then. The real noise seems to come from other sources. If absolute serenity and wilderness is what one desires, then perhaps a move to the Muskokas are in order since that is not offered anywhere south of Lake Simcoe.

[boestar]

I sat through a presentation on the GTF a few months ago. It is just an engine. An efficient engine but just an engine. The fan and gearbox system is very innovative and allows the fan and the core to operate at their most efficient speeds nothing more.

This does allow the engine to operate somewhat quieter. But to say the engine is any different from a Rolls or a GE or CFM or whatever is simply BS.

It is an evolution of engine design.

[MD2]

It is quiet enough that for the first time in aircraft design they had to consider airframe noise! Usually the noisiest part of an aircraft is the engine that masks any other noise, however, in this case the airframe was noisier than the engines in some flight regimes that they had to focus more on streamlining and reducing its noise as well. And true that the main point for designing this engine was fuel savings, but its quietness ended up being the most salient point of its design! Point being the whole package ended up being much quieter than expected. Add to that the great field performance and better than expected range which makes for a great aircraft for urban operations.

[Boney]

Another great Canadian innovation. Yet, orders are down, and the island's runway is too short. To the public, it's a jet, even though it's as quite as the Q400, a prop airplane. You and I and other aviators and engineers know different, but that's the facts.

[Kip Powick]

the never ending "discussion" about the feasibility of a runway extension etc etc etc.......