Jump to content

Porter looking for a buyer? Again? Still?


dagger
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

Annnnnd that approach is??

Merrill C. Meigs Field Airport (ICAO: KCGX) was a single runway airport which was in operation from December 1948 until March 2003, on Northerly Island, an artificial peninsula on Lake Michigan. Northerly Island was also the site of the Century of Progress (1933–34) in Chicago. Meigs Field airport was closed when the mayor of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, ordered the landing strip destroyed with bulldozers, without the thirty-day warning required by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meigs_Field

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, boestar said:

i like the Chicago approach to downtown airports...

boestar, the fact that you (and others?) promote and boast about such actions speaks volumes about your character, given that you are supposedly in aviation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd hate to see YTZ closed but don't see the need for it to be expanded either.  Porter has made the claim that there was/is a market for business travel from the airport and, apparently, they were correct.  For me personally, I wouldn't go anywhere on a Dash 8 if a jet option existed - being unable to outclimb weather/turbulence, the noise and vibration, cramped interior, etc.  The Dash is an excellent airplane but it's no jet and this is coming from a guy who spent a decade flying one and another decade flying around in the back of one.  Even if the total trip time was shorter I don't see the advantage and when you start looking at longer and longer flights the percentage of time saved (if it exists at all - I'm not really convinced) becomes less and less.

Edited by seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, seeker said:

I'd hate to see YTZ closed but don't see the need for it to be expanded either.  Porter has made the claim that there was/is a market for business travel from the airport and, apparently, they were correct.  For me personally, I wouldn't go anywhere on a Dash 8 if a jet option existed - being unable to outclimb weather/turbulence, the noise and vibration, cramped interior, etc.  The Dash is an excellent airplane but it's no jet and this is coming from a guy who spent a decade flying one and another decade flying around in the back of one.  Even if the total trip time was shorter I don't see the advantage and when you start looking at longer and longer flights the percentage of time saved (if it exists at all - I'm not really convinced) becomes less and less.

Seeker, just to clarify, are you referring to operating and riding in the Dash 8 100/300 variants?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canoehead, sorry, didn't specify, same issues with all of them but obviously the 300 is better than the 100 and the Q400 is by far the best.  Just to clarify, I love the Dash series (paid the mortgage for many years!) but, let's be realistic, it can't compare with a jet (that's a real jet, not an RJ) for passenger comfort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Executive class travel was always a premium product the carrier put a lot of effort into. I always wondered why they didn’t reconfigure a few RJ's to ‘executive class’ aircraft that seat 24, carry two FA’s, a pair of proper lavs and conduct limited operations with them on the triangle to begin with. The aircraft would become a ‘real jet’ and be in a league of its own in that configuration. I would have thought the advantages inherent in this approach would be of benefit to both the carrier and its executive customer base?
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27 February 2016 at 4:55 PM, seeker said:

I'd hate to see YTZ closed but don't see the need for it to be expanded either.  Porter has made the claim that there was/is a market for business travel from the airport and, apparently, they were correct.  For me personally, I wouldn't go anywhere on a Dash 8 if a jet option existed - being unable to outclimb weather/turbulence, the noise and vibration, cramped interior, etc.  The Dash is an excellent airplane but it's no jet and this is coming from a guy who spent a decade flying one and another decade flying around in the back of one.  Even if the total trip time was shorter I don't see the advantage and when you start looking at longer and longer flights the percentage of time saved (if it exists at all - I'm not really convinced) becomes less and less.

I appreciate that this may be your position, for now, but surely your position is influenced by your personal interests. There may be other "positions". For instance, a small group downtown wants the airport levelled to the ground, as another fancied above, land developers want to build more condos, or some may argue that no jets at Pearson and they should be moved to Hamilton airport. "Positions", as has been the experience with the Toronto city airport, do change frequently and usually improve with time.

so the task of the regulating bodies is to listen to these arguments, separate facts from fiction, commentary from analysis, and then plan in a way that not only responds to the needs of the city today, but mainly positions it well for the future. This has not been the case on this airport and usually policy has been made by force, such as cancelling the bridge and sending the equipment and workers away. This is shortsighted and politics of the bully and should have no place in our time and place of existence.

Toronto is a growing world class city which needs world class planning and infrastructure. Free from bias and other influences it can be seen that there needs to be more diversity in its airport assets. Having ONE airport, as large and fantastic as it may be, is just not good planning. This is evident on days that traffic slows to a crawl due to weather. If not already there, Toronto is fast approaching the time that much like New York, London, Paris, it too needs multiple airports that cater to various needs. Much like those cities, there could be airports handling long haul, continental, executive flights, cargo and so on.

As such, Pearson can handle long haul international flights, City continental flights, Hamilton cargo flights, and another airport catered more for executive flights. If Buttonville was to be expanded a bit, it could be ideal for that. Of course the airports will not be exclusive and some overlaps exist, but the majority will follow that example. It could also come a time that airlines focus on different airports within the city. This exists in London where BA is focused at Heathrow, charters out of Gatwick, Easyjet out of Luton, Ryan air out of Stansted and so on. In not too distant a future, the Pickering airport may also have to be built in addition to these. Aviation is becoming more affordable and available everyday, so the growth has to be handled somewhere.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/02/2016 at 8:21 AM, MD2 said:

boestar, the fact that you (and others?) promote and boast about such actions speaks volumes about your character, given that you are supposedly in aviation!

Just seeing if you are paying attention.  

I, like many others, do not want to see the airport closed but I do not think jets at the island are a good idea.  My personal opinion only.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised no one has referenced the experiences of other cities when discussing this issue.

Despite a loud and influential lobby group, Naples, Fl. has a significant amount of jet traffic and I can't see how it has negatively impacted the community.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

I am surprised no one has referenced the experiences of other cities when discussing this issue.

Despite a loud and influential lobby group, Naples, Fl. has a significant amount of jet traffic and I can't see how it has negatively impacted the community.

 

Why ruin a good argument with facts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as the law sets the limit on blood alcohol level, and not beer, win or liqueur, when judging an aircraft for urban airports, it should be based on the noise, not the "type" of engine that emits it, especially when it's based on old outdated definitions that associate "jets" with B707, DC8 and B727. The new pure power engines on the C series are not only quiet, but also very clean and environmentally friendly in every aspect that should not be associated at all with old "jet" engines like the JT8's (as gutsy as they were!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, seeker said:

 

 

1 hour ago, seeker said:

I guess when I really think about about it I don't have a problem with jets at YTZ, I just don't think the runway should be extended.  The airport serves a niche market very well as it is.

Slowly but surely we will convince you seeker. :) 

Edited by blues deville
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Seeker.  The constant lobbying to get tax payers to spend a lot of money on the airport expansion, without any real argument other than noise being made is tiring.  What's the ROI on this project?  Who benefits?  I've asked this before on this forum, but unfortunately I never got a proper response.  

I think the airport is fine the way it is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ng78 said:

I'm with Seeker.  The constant lobbying to get tax payers to spend a lot of money on the airport expansion, without any real argument other than noise being made is tiring.  What's the ROI on this project?  Who benefits?  I've asked this before on this forum, but unfortunately I never got a proper response.  

I think the airport is fine the way it is.  

Seeker has been in this business for several years and we are close to getting him to see what a runway extension could do for the city of Toronto and the economy. Don't undue all of of our hard work!! :)

Certainly you too can see how everyone will benefit from a project such as this. The spin off in job creation is endless. Take a look at how many worldwide projects where cramped cities have recovered land from various water systems. It's a common practice in smaller countries like the Netherlands and many places in Asia. Dutch companies are experts at it and often contracted to do theses mega projects. 

Did you know the city of Dryden, Ontario had its runway extended back in the late 1970's by a few hundred feet to ensure safe operation for jet (B737) aircraft? No headlines, no environmental issues and who benefitted? The entire city of Dryden and region of NW Ontario. Improvements to airports and better airline service has been and will always will be an integral part of an economy and growth. Just ask a tough little hockey player by the name of Hazel McCallion.

It's taken years for the city of Toronto to finally expand its subway system and roadway network due to shortsighted politicians and government bickering. Toronto is currently only second to LA in daily commuting times at a fraction of their population.

Did you know the island airport was built by the city of Toronto back in the early 1930's and was planned to be the main airport for the city? 

Some light reading for you....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Bishop_Toronto_City_Airport

Edited by blues deville
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ng78 said:

I'm with Seeker.  The constant lobbying to get tax payers to spend a lot of money on the airport expansion, without any real argument other than noise being made is tiring.  What's the ROI on this project?  Who benefits?  I've asked this before on this forum, but unfortunately I never got a proper response.  

I think the airport is fine the way it is.  

And I ask again, is funding for the project the only remaining obstacle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blues deville said:

Seeker has been in this business for several years and we are close to getting him to see what a runway extension could do for the city of Toronto and the economy. Don't undue all of of our hard work!! :)

Several years? Seeker has been in this business for 38 years!  I don't live in Ontario so it doesn't really concern me too much, won't really affect me.  As a pilot I love airports - the more the best - but as a taxpayer I hate to see waste and duplication.

Certainly you too can see how everyone will benefit from a project such as this. The spin off in job creation is endless.

Job creation at YTZ is job loss somewhere else.

Take a look at how many worldwide projects where cramped cities have recovered land from various water systems. It's a common practice in smaller countries like the Netherlands and many places in Asia.

This might be justified is a place that has no alternative but YYZ is only a 15 minute train ride away.

Did you know the city of Dryden, Ontario had its runway extended back in the late 1970's by a few hundred feet to ensure safe operation for jet (B737) aircraft? No headlines, no environmental issues and who benefitted? The entire city of Dryden and region of NW Ontario.

First of all, a runway extension in Dryden is cheap - two guys with a backhoe could do it in an afternoon.  Second of all, the extension was required to get any service at all ( the only airline service was 737 or DC-9) so you can't really compare YHD with YTZ.  If Dryden didn't do the extension the next nearest airport would be hours away. 

Improvements to airports and better airline service has been and will always will be an integral part of an economy and growth. 

But not at any cost, and not if it's simply duplicating some existing facility or service.  How would extending the runway at YTZ improve the lives of the citizens of the GTA?  On the Navcanada side it would require more staffing.  Should be a nonissue you might say but many times the delays at YYZ at caused by Navcanada not being able to staff properly.  On the airspace issue, it would complicate it naturally.  So, all the southern arrivals for YYZ get modified to allow for expanded YTZ operations; shorter, easier, cheaper?  Nope; longer, more complicated, more expensive. 

As far as construction goes, obviously the taxpayer will be involved somehow.  So there's a cost to the taxpayer and every airline flying into YYZ take's a small hit and therefore every person flying into YYZ pays just a little bit more. And what do we get for this?  We get duplication of something that we already have - jet service anywhere in the world just 15-20 minutes away.

 

 

 

Edited by seeker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...