Toronto Pearson Airport New Terminal 1 [Archive]

DrJoe

November 18th, 2004, 03:45 AM

It was announced today that new $2Billion secondary airport is also planned for the Toronto area

Last Updated Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:48:34 EST
TORONTO - Plans are underway to create a $2-billion airport east of Toronto that may eventually handle 11 million passengers a year.

The Greater Toronto Airport Authority released a draft plan Tuesday to build the airport in stages over a 30-year period.

The airport authority said the new facility would be located north of the town of Pickering, just east of Toronto, and would generate $5 billion a year. Money for the airport would be raised privately through bonds and the securities market, said Steve Shaw, vice-president of the airport authority.

He said the new regional airport would take pressure off Toronto's Pearson International Airport, which generates annual traffic of about 50 million passengers per year.

"Pearson will always be the major international facility, but clearly there is a need for regional facilities," Shaw said. "General aviation needs to be accommodated. Pearson cannot handle that."

Among the general aviation traffic handled by the new airport would be recreational and company aircraft, including helicopters, and flying schools.

Ottawa has been gathering land

The federal government started expropriating land for a second international airport for Toronto more than three decades ago.

It abandoned a Pickering airport project in 1972 after public opposition and a withdrawal of provincial government support.

Some people who live in the area oppose the new plan. Stephen Frederick, president of Voters Organized to Cancel Airport Lands, said the area does not need another airport.

"The [passenger] forecasts are exaggerated to try and substantiate an airport," Frederick told the Globe and Mail. "It's ludicrous and it is just going to lead to a complete waste of resources."

Montreal's Mirabel Airport closed last month after opening to great fanfare in 1975. Supporters predicted that Mirabel would become a gateway to the world, luring 60 million passengers annually by 2010. At its peak, it drew no more than three million people a year.

----

Personally i think the GTAA is getting a little bit ahead of themselves here, they are now up to $6.5billion in spending. I dont mind the Pearson expansion at all but this new proposed airport is a complete waste of time and money.

digili_man

November 18th, 2004, 04:00 AM

are they going to build another terminal or something for Pearson?

CrazyCanuck

November 18th, 2004, 05:11 AM

I heard about the airport in Pickering a few weeks ago. I live in Ajax and I can't even fathom an airport in Pickering, one of the proposed runways means planes constantly flying over my house. This obviously spells the end for Buttonville airport in Oshawa.

DrJoe

November 18th, 2004, 06:18 AM

are they going to build another terminal or something for Pearson?

what do you mean???the thread is showing construction of the new terminal

benji45

November 18th, 2004, 06:37 AM

WOW. I like it alot, its like... I cant even explain, I was wrong all along about the new airport.

Nick in Atlanta

November 18th, 2004, 03:43 PM

lcohen999

November 18th, 2004, 04:35 PM

@zuhahmed: Do you know why YYZ basically shuts down at midnite and doesn't reopen until 6am, and are they planning on changing that in the near future?

Also, what will be the total cost of the revamping of the airport?

it has to do with noise regulations.

Because Person is so close to res. areas, planes are not allowed to land after 1am with a few exceptions (DC aircraft, etc)

Planes still land, but the numbers are very low

Grey Towers

November 19th, 2004, 02:18 AM

@DrJoe: That really is bizarre! Announcing a new $2B airport on one side of town, while your'e spending $4B+ on the other side of town basically remaking the terminals for the old airport. I personally don't see any tremendous growth at Pearson that will bring it up to 50 million passengers a year. Also, couldn't the GTAA have turned the old Canadian Air Force Base in the middle of North York into a "Pickering" type airport instead and for a lot less money. I know they are turning that air force base into the "world's biggest city park." Yippee!! Maybe I'm a cynic but I hate to see good runways go to waste!! Where the heck is Pickering anyway; I'll try to map it.
The Downsview Air Force base is not large enough, but it ain't doing much as a park either. The park has been in the planning stages for many years now, with little progress. Every time I drive past all I see is the world's largest car dealership.

Although it's certainly debatable that Toronto needs another airport, Pickering is fairly ideally located to be almost equidistant from downtown as Pearson on the other side of the city.

zuhahmed

November 19th, 2004, 02:48 AM

guys, today at work, i went to airport control tower for the first time, it was amazing inside, my uncle who works at the tower showed me how they control plane landing times, there accuracy was amazing, even just a split minute of diffrence in plane timing could mean disaster, but because of there accuracy of timings the planes land and take of at exact time there supoose to, i hope do that some day.

Nick in Atlanta

November 19th, 2004, 03:55 AM

I've never been up to the control tower, but at one point in my airport career I would occasionally schedule air cargo charters' takeoff times. I scheduled an Antonov An-124-100 Ruslan for takeoff one time. This is one of the biggest planes in the world, bigger than a 747 freighter. In my opinion it was a piece of junk, but it could hold a lot of freight. It was taking fire-fighting helicopters from Atlanta to Spain. Anyway, when I booked the "block time," which I believe is when you want to use a runway for takeoff, I had to specify that the plane needed three minutes to just sit on the runway getting its engines fired up, before it could even begin its takeoff. As Atlanta is one of the busiest airports in the world, the airport officials were not very happy to take a runway out of service for three or more minutes. Luckily, the crew was willing to takeoff very early in the morning when the airport was not that busy.

DrJoe

November 19th, 2004, 06:16 AM

Here's a few maps to show whats been happening/what is going to happen.

December 31, 2003
http://www.gtaa.com/images/12-31-2003.jpg

December 31, 2004
http://www.gtaa.com/images/12-31-2004.jpg

December 31, 2005
http://www.gtaa.com/images/12-31-2005.jpg

July 31, 2006
http://www.gtaa.com/images/7-31-2006.jpg

Final product...i think you need quicktime for this
http://www.gtaa.com/movies/p5.mpg

And here is a map of the current road and highway situation...talk about a head scratcher.
http://www.gtaa.com/documents/travellers_visitors/airport_roadway_map.jpg

Skybean

November 19th, 2004, 06:32 AM

^hehe.. Look at those roads. Hopefully they have good traffic signs.

There will be a shuttle system between the terminals no?

DrJoe

November 19th, 2004, 06:36 AM

yeah a "people mover" train thing is being constructed

lcohen999

November 19th, 2004, 04:32 PM

while the roads look crazy, they really are pretty simple to follow

If you want T1 then you follow one road for departures and another for arrivals,

follow a single road for T2 and it will take you to T2 and so forth.

the only time it gets a little more invovled is leaving the airport, but if you look at signs then it is really dummy proof

Nick in Atlanta

November 19th, 2004, 04:57 PM

Great set of diagrams Dr.Joe!! I figured out what was confusing me from the pictures. I thought the new terminal building was on Terminal 2. I didn't realize it was it's own new terminal 1. Is old terminal 1 still standing out on the apron partially knocked down or have they put it out of its misery and knocked it down completely?

zuhahmed

November 19th, 2004, 09:26 PM

guys even though i work at the airport, i am clueless on this, is emirates airlines starting a direct flight service from Dubai to Toronto?

Nick in Atlanta

November 20th, 2004, 12:59 AM

guys even though i work at the airport, i am clueless on this, is emirates airlines starting a direct flight service from Dubai to Toronto?

As of now, it looks like 2005 is already filled up with expansions to Seoul, Korea, Hamburg, Germany, Geneva, Switzerland and the Seychelles Islands. In addition, they will be doubling up service to Birmingham, England. However, it does not look like 2005 will include any expansions in the Americas, North or South. I do believe that Toronto would be included with other North American cities in a future expansion, but for right now you'll have to fly to JFK in New York City to pick up Emirates. :)

By the way, where do you want to travel to?

zuhahmed

November 20th, 2004, 02:06 AM

well, the thing is i go to dubai, almost every year, because my dad has buisness there. Right know to go to dubai, its really long. Toronto to London, wait for hours at London airport. Then go to dubai from there. its a drag.

Nick in Atlanta

November 20th, 2004, 02:51 AM

Gotcha! I'm sure that Emirates will eventually add Toronto, it's just a question of time. I know they want to add San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, Brazil in the near future.

If I were you I'd fly to JFK and fly nonstop on Emirates from there. :)

hkskyline

November 23rd, 2004, 07:37 AM

It's quite interesting to watch the IATA issue warnings that international airlines will stop flying to Toronto because of high landing charges, yet the GTAA is pushing ahead to spend a few billion to build a new airport in Pickering.

Nick in Atlanta

November 24th, 2004, 01:45 AM

@hkskyline: I can't understand it either. Unless Pickering is solely going to be used as a General Aviation (i.e., private planes) airport, but CAD$2 billion seems like way to much to spend on a GA airport. It seems that the GTAA sees it as a reliever airport for Pearson, when it "doubles" in passengers from 25 million in 2003 to 50 million in twenty-something years. But with the second highest landing fees in the world it is very hard for foreign and domestic airlines to make a profit flying a plane into Pearson. If you look at the roster of international airlines that have flown into Pearson and left after a while you would be astonished. They've lost more international airlines than most airports will ever see.

hkskyline

November 24th, 2004, 02:17 AM

Pickering is intended for general aviation and flight schools, replacing Buttonville. The next question is : is Pearson that busy such that consolidating everything into one isn't possible?

Commuter planes can choose to land at Toronto Island, which is just a short hop across the water from downtown. However, many NIMBY groups are opposed to larger airplanes flying above their island homes.

Nick in Atlanta

November 24th, 2004, 02:52 AM

I don't know about Toronto's island airport. It really is extremely limited in runway length and plane storage and access. I know that you've seen it HKSkyline, but do you really think it has a future besides housing a few little Cessna's? :)

hkskyline

November 24th, 2004, 03:24 AM

http://www.geocities.com/torontogallery/toronto/tower-sw01.JPG

The future of the Island Airport seems quite bleak. It's too small to handle larger jets, and too many citizen groups are opposed to expanding it. In addition, the city is trying to stop building a fixed link to the airport from downtown. Airlines will be very reluctant to use the facility, even though it is only steps away from the financial core. There was some interest to start intercity commuter service a few years ago when it seemed like the airport could be expanded and better connected to the mainland, but with a change in government that's not going to happen.

So is expanding Pearson a bad decision? Unfortunately, the charges to the passengers and airlines are way too high to justify such an expensive undertaking. While it's highly unlikely the major international airlines will stop flying to Canada's largest city any time soon, connectivity will suffer from restrained schedules and expansion. With the spectacular failure and closing of Montreal's Mirabel, politicians better give a deep thought before deciding on Pickering.

DrJoe

November 26th, 2004, 08:53 PM

Here's a couple pics someone took of the continuing construction.

This will be the largest pier at Pearson, it is the middle pier.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/yyzer/Nov25207.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/yyzer/Nov25206.jpg

You can see the outline of the old terminal 1 here.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/yyzer/Nov25205.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/yyzer/Nov25203.jpg

canuckbanana

November 26th, 2004, 10:34 PM

^^
Wow the last time I flew out of Pearson in late August there were still at least 3 or 4 stories left on the parking garage of old T1. The demolition went pretty quickly considering they are recycling old material.

On a side note, I will FINALLY be getting my first personal view of the new terminal in a couple weeks when I head to London. Very excited about that!

Filip

November 27th, 2004, 03:07 AM

I'm feeling a bit of nostalgia looking at that hole left by old T1.:(

Mr!Kiasu

November 28th, 2004, 02:20 AM

so the middle pier will be used for international flights and the left pier will be for US flights, or is it the other way around?

Filip

November 29th, 2004, 02:56 AM

I think it would be the middle pier, since it's the biggest and grandest. But of course I may be mistaken...

hkskyline

November 30th, 2004, 08:43 AM

I think it was a major mistake to send international passengers to the shuttle terminal. They carry a lot of luggage and had to travel long distances to reach Toronto. It's not a very good first impression to send them to some satellite terminal and then bus them to the main facility.

Nick in Atlanta

December 3rd, 2004, 05:37 AM

Filip

December 3rd, 2004, 05:39 AM

I think the problem is that there are not enough gates in the new terminal or the gates aren't big enough (one of the two for sure). That's why, but when International pier F is completed it will shift back to T1.

hkskyline

December 3rd, 2004, 05:41 AM

International flights on Air Canada and the Star Alliance use an infield shuttle terminal and passengers are transported by bus to / from the new Terminal 1. Eventually, once the old terminals 1 and 2 are torn and the new terminal is completed, these flights could then park at the main building.

Mr!Kiasu

December 4th, 2004, 02:30 AM

shuttling to the remote terminal is the most logical solution. besides, if indeed the middle pier is the international pier then the remote terminal will very soon be obsolete

Grey Towers

December 4th, 2004, 09:45 AM

Pickering is intended for general aviation and flight schools, replacing Buttonville. The next question is : is Pearson that busy such that consolidating everything into one isn't possible?
That's what I read too, but I don't understand the rationale of that if the intention is to ease Pearson's load. Buttonville seems to be serving its purpose well enough. Pickering, if built, should accommodate full-size jets and the concomitant infrastructure if it wants to be useful.
At 75 sq. kilometres (18,600 acres) the property is massive, more than large enough for a major int'l airport. On the other hand, land adjacent to Pearson is largely industrial, and could probably (correct me if I'm wrong) be expropriated by the government if an expansion (extra runways, terminals) is needed. I'm with the environmentalists; unless absolutely unavoidable, Pickering airport should be shelved.
Commuter planes can choose to land at Toronto Island, which is just a short hop across the water from downtown. However, many NIMBY groups are opposed to larger airplanes flying above their island homes.
NIMBYS aren't always wrong. If I lived in relative serenity in an island house I'd also decry an increase in noise pollution. I live 20 km from Pearson and, depending on the wind direction, the air traffic can quite a disturbance.

AK_Swift

December 5th, 2004, 01:22 AM

Nick in Atlanta

December 5th, 2004, 04:41 AM

Hey Nick do u know xactly which intl airlines stopped service to Toronto?

i know Virgin was one, and Royal Jordanian, but what else?

I've heard that Olympic is thinking of leaving and so is El Al. Virgin Atlantic and Royal Jordanian, were mentioned by you. Then there's Thai Airways, Air India, Vasp, Swissair, Air China, Iberia, Aeromexico, Aerolineas Argentinas, Varig, Singapore Airlines and Alaska Airlines.

Filip

December 5th, 2004, 04:44 AM

It's really too bad that all those airlines quit flying to TO. Are the landing costs responsible? If so, why is Pearson keeping these inflated prices knowing that it affects traffic to their airport and could cause it to lose even more revenue and flights?

AK_Swift

December 5th, 2004, 09:46 AM

with a list that big, im quite surprised that Pearson still continues on with its business strategy. Perhaps they have no alternative; someone has got to pay for that facility.

Filip

December 5th, 2004, 06:01 PM

That's why we've got a federal governement, unfortunately it's as stingy as it can get...:(

canuckbanana

December 5th, 2004, 06:07 PM

Nick in Atlanta

December 6th, 2004, 04:12 AM

Frankly, I doubt landing fees were the sole reason that all those airlines pulled out. Landing fees may have contributed to the unprofitability of routes served by those airlines, but I'm sure passenger loads/revenues had something to do with it as well. The Asian routes are better served through Vancouver, especially with the rise of airline alliances. Virgin stopped their brief Toronto flights after 9/11. Frankly I didn't give them much of a chance given that there are already 75 flights a week between Toronto and London.

Toronto has connections with main hubs around the world. Thus, it's not exactly necessary to have flights going to every city on every airline.

Also, given the relatively small Canadian market's geographic proximity to the large US market, it makes more sense for these airlines to provide services through US connections with codeshare partners.

There were obviously a variety of reasons why all those airlines left Toronto, but with a population over 5 million and over 50% being immigrants, who want to fly to their birthplace on a regular basis, it seems that Toronto could have maintained many of those airlines. Most left before 9/11, and the ones that are considering leaving now are doing so because of the high costs of operating out of Pearson.

hkskyline

December 17th, 2004, 06:26 AM

Aviation sector takes a hit as Ottawa fee freeze in doubt
Pearson's plan to hike charges to airlines adds further woes to the industry
SIMON TUCK
16 December 2004
The Globe and Mail

Canada's struggling aviation industry has suffered a painful one-two punch, as Transport Minister Jean Lapierre's plan to freeze, then lower, airport rents has been put on hold while Toronto's Pearson International Airport, the country's largest, says it will raise its key fee to airlines by 17 per cent.

The two developments will likely mean higher costs for Canada's airline industry and no relief for the businesses and travellers who use the facilities and services.

“I think it's an expensive place to run an airline,” said Karl Moore, a management professor at McGill University in Montreal.

Mr. Lapierre told The Globe and Mail last week that he had a plan to freeze and then cut the rent Canada's airports pay the federal government, part of a broader effort to improve financial health of the airline industry and the airport authorities that run the country's airports.

He wanted cabinet to approve a plan to have rent frozen for 2005 as an interim step, and then permanently lowered. But sources say that plan was quashed this week by Finance Minister Ralph Goodale and the Department of Finance. Despite a forecast for an $8.9-billion surplus in fiscal 2004-05, they're concerned about the government's fiscal health in the coming years in the wake of a series of big-budget spending moves.

“He just didn't convince his colleagues,” one airport executive said.

Mr. Lapierre said last week that any reduction would need Mr. Goodale's support. “It's up to Ralph.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Lapierre confirmed that he has spoken to Mr. Goodale about rents but wouldn't comment on the results of that conversation.

Airports will apparently now have to deal with the large rent increases contained in the federal government's previous schedule. According to the airline industry, airport rents are scheduled to rise Jan. 1 by about $18-million, or 6 per cent, to about $304-million for next year and then further in each of the next few years.

Airports have vowed to pass on any savings from reduced rent to the struggling airline industry through cuts to landing fees and the other charges.

Sources said the issue of rents may still be addressed in the new year, most likely in the federal government's spring budget.The industry also has concerns about the disparity in rents between the various airports. Toronto's Pearson International Airport, for example, is scheduled to pay about half, or $145-million, of the rent paid this year by all of Canada's airports. Vancouver International Airport is to pay about $79-million, while Montreal's Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport is to chip in about $29-million.

Airport rents were negotiated by airport authorities, after the federal government transferred control of the facilities to the not-for-profit operations more than a decade ago.

It's not the first time a Transport Minister has failed to convince a Finance Minister that airport rents should be cut. Mr. Lapierre's most recent predecessors — Tony Valeri and David Collenette — had also expressed interest in lowering airport rents, but never received support from the ministers of finance at the time.

The problem with lowering airport rents, from the government's point of view, however, is twofold: The money raised helps pay the bills at the Department of Transport, and the government is facing many requests for its surplus.

Toronto's Pearson airport announced late yesterday that it will raise landing fees 17 per cent for 2005 and total per-passenger charges 9 per cent. The landing fee jump marks a reduction from the 18-per-cent increase that had been listed earlier in a confidential draft of the airport authority's plans.

The airport authority said yesterday that it is constrained in what it charges because about two-thirds of its costs are fixed, and the authority has little discretion over the remaining one-third.

Airlines and Toronto politicians, are growing increasingly concerned about costs at Pearson, which have soared in recent years.

Landing fees are a major expense for airlines and some foreign-based carriers have said they're looking for alternatives.

Toronto's airport authority is trying to show it's heard the message. In its release yesterday, the new management said it is “committed to continuing to aggressively work on cost management.”

Warren Everson, spokesman for the Air Transport Association of Canada, said the rise in airport rents will particularly hurt the industry.

hkskyline

December 18th, 2004, 06:58 PM

Toronto airport set to raise user fees 17%
Paul Vieira
16 December 2004
National Post

OTTAWA - Management at Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International was set to raise user fees charged to airlines by 17% for 2005, industry sources said late yesterday. News of another double-digit fee increase at Canada's largest airport come as sources indicate Transport Minister Jean Lapierre has lost an initial battle to have a planned increase in airport rent scrapped for 2005. This latest increase imposed by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority is required to help finance the expansion at Pearson International. Last year, Pearson fees increased 25%. Airline groups have complained Pearson has become one of the most expensive airports for carriers in which to operate. The amount levied in user fees has tripled since the late 1990s as the airport required cash to fund its expansion in the face of declining airline traffic following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Also a factor in higher fees is the need to pay rent charged by the Crown.

Members of the City of Toronto's economic development committee passed a motion this week calling on the federal government to "substantially reduce" or eliminate the rent it charges to the country's main airports, which brings an estimated $250-million. The mayors of Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax have also written Mr. Lapierre calling for similar changes to the federal airport rent policy.

hkskyline

February 11th, 2005, 12:24 AM

Pickering airport foes try to stall plans
Protest over move to level homes in facility's path
Decision to build won't be made for four years
Stan Josey
Toronto Star
9 February 2005

Thirty-two years after an airport was first proposed for their area, North Pickering residents are still fighting to preserve their special country lifestyle.

More than two-dozen protestors, some carrying signs from the original "People or Planes" campaign in the 1970s, gathered outside the Pickering airport land-management office in Claremont yesterday as plans were being discussed to demolish 25 unoccupied houses by March 31.

Many of the homes are among 200 that will eventually have to be torn down to make way for a $2 billion general aviation airport being developed by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority over the next 30 years.

"It's a shame that they would spend $500,000 to take down perfectly good homes that could still be occupied," area resident Mike Robertson said. "There is no reason for these homes to be destroyed this early."

A large green John Deere farm tractor, decked out with a sign reading "Save the Land," partially blocked the roadway in front of the Transport Canada Pickering site office on Sideline 22, as demolition contractors arrived for a meeting with department officials.

They managed to delay the arrival and departure of the contractors, who are prospective bidders on the demolition of the 25 homes.

The protestors say some of the homes contain historic features - and maybe even family history - that will be destroyed when the boarded-up buildings are levelled next month.

But Transport Canada said the current call for tenders to demolish the homes is based on a "sound business decision" because they suffer from such things as mould, poor water quality and septic systems, and a general state of disrepair.

"As a landlord we are committed to maintaining houses in a good state of repair, and complying with housing and maintenance standards," said Transport Canada spokesperson Gail Crossman.

"A decision to demolish any home is based on a cost-benefit analysis, taking into account the condition and what it would cost to repair it."

She said none of the homes is being taken down because of the construction of an airport, "because a decision on whether or not to build an airport will not be made until 2009."

About 1,300 people lost their homes or farms in 1972 when the federal government expropriated 7,300 hectares of land to build a second international airport for Toronto.

That plan was shelved after three years, in the face of protests from the public and waning interest by the Ontario government. The current residents have been renting the homes from Transport Canada.

Mary Delaney of Heritage Pickering said it's a mistake to keep moving people off the land and out of the remaining homes. "Why do they want to empty the community of people when the airport is many years in the future?"

She said the latest tactic by Transport Canada to force people to move out of the homes is to say the heating systems are inadequate.

"Some people who have heated their houses for 30 years with wood have been told to move because they don't have furnaces," she said. "What sense does that make?"

Ron Tapscott, whose father's farm was expropriated under the original plan for an international airport 32 years ago, said it is "sad to see a farm community die."

"Every time a house has been vacated over the last 10 years, it has been boarded up," he said. "We think a lot of them could be fixed up and used by people, at least until they start building an airport."

Gabrielle Untermann, whose home sits on one of the planned runways, said it's a shame to sacrifice farmland for an airport that might never be needed.

"If we have to move, it will break our hearts," said Untermann, who was accompanied by her 15-year-old son Edward, who has lived all of his life in the peaceful countryside around the hamlet of Brougham.

While the airport, possibly replacing Buttonville and Oshawa airports, is still in the design stage, it will have to go through an environmental assessment and needs final approval from the federal government.

Nick in Atlanta

February 11th, 2005, 01:27 AM

Canada is the second largest country on this planet, with a population of only 30 million people, and the government can't find a piece of land within a reasonable distance of Toronto without a few people living on it. Just ridiculous! I think that the Pickering airport is only supposed to have one runway too!

G_DOG

February 11th, 2005, 01:32 AM

too many fucking nimbys thats why they spent 4 billion on redoing the airport and
increasing the capacity eventually to over 50 million.
looks awesome though i used to drive by it everyday on my way to work,and who wants to go all the way to pickering to catch a flight anyway!

howjimaru

February 11th, 2005, 04:21 AM

anyone got pics of recent aerial photos of new terminal?

Skybean

February 11th, 2005, 04:30 AM

Terminal 1 in Toronto currently. Eventually the whole airport is to be replaced.
http://www.gtaa.com/Images/TerminalNewGallery/images/Aerial.jpg
http://www.gtaa.com/Images/TerminalNewGallery/images/NewTerminal10.jpg
http://www.gtaa.com/Images/TerminalNewGallery/images/NewTerminal5.jpg
http://www.gtaa.com/Images/TerminalNewGallery/images/NewTerminal3.jpg

February 8th Update from UrbanToronto
Pier F ("Hammerhead") Under Construction
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/yyzer/Feb08104.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/yyzer/Feb08102.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/yyzer/Feb08103.jpg
http://www.pclaecon.com/Splashpage/Pier-F-East.jpg

centralized pandemonium

February 11th, 2005, 06:25 AM

Awesome.

canuckbanana

February 11th, 2005, 06:54 AM

It's my understanding that the gates on the outer part of 'hammerhead' will be A380 compatible, along with a few gates over at T3 (which is also being renovated).

orangeman

February 11th, 2005, 09:27 PM

It certainly looks like it. That is one large winf off the terminal.

Fabio

February 11th, 2005, 11:27 PM

nice, and great photos HkSkyline, and I love the access of the airport (highways).

:okay:

HK4EVER

February 12th, 2005, 02:35 AM

It's my understanding that the gates on the outer part of 'hammerhead' will be A380 compatible, along with a few gates over at T3 (which is also being renovated).

Yeah it looks like the contact piers on the end are two stories tall, which would be perfect for loading/unloading the A380. :cheers:

Skybean

February 12th, 2005, 05:55 AM

http://www.gtaa.com/Images/TerminalNewGallery/images/aerial3.jpg http://www.gtaa.com/Images/TerminalNewGallery/images/NewTerminal11.jpg http://www.gtaa.com/Images/TerminalNewGallery/images/NewTerminal12.jpg http://www.gtaa.com/Images/TerminalNewGallery/images/NewTerminal18.jpg http://www.gtaa.com/Images/TerminalNewGallery/images/NewTerminal7.jpg

hkskyline

March 8th, 2005, 06:48 PM

The drag on airspace
Crown rents on Canada's airports have become a profit centre for the federal government on the backs of airlines and their passengers
Giovanni Bisignani
Financial Post
8 March 2005

The recent federal budget was a huge disappointment for the air transport industry. After years of neglect, Transport Minister Jean Lapierre expressed a new vision for air transport that would move Canada toward a more efficient and globally competitive framework. But a huge opportunity to fix the problems with the National Airports Policy was lost when there was not a word about airport rent in the budget speech.

Specifically, the air transport industry's hopes were pegged on a commitment to a two-year freeze, and subsequent reduction and rapid elimination of Crown rents charged to airports. The industry was not asking the federal government to spend money on airports -- only to stop milking travellers and the air transport industry.

Let's remind ourselves of some history. Crown rents were established in 1994 when the federal government leased airports to local authorities to run. The government was spending $150-million just to maintain the airports and had no funds for desperately required development of new terminals and runways. Every single large airport development project since then has been funded by airport users -- the airlines and passengers. Crown rents were intended to ensure that the government got a return for the investments it had made on behalf of the taxpayer and that it would be "no worse off." We have to remember that the airport facilities in Canada were in dismal shape and fully depreciated.

Since then, Ottawa has collected more than $2-billion in rents while investing next to nothing back into the sector. Accordingly, the government has become "substantially better off." This year, Crown rents will be a $300-million dollar profit centre for the federal government. And they continue to rise annually.

The recently released auditor-general's report noted that Crown rent will be pulling in $1-billion annually by 2017. That report criticized the Transport Ministry for still not releasing the results of an airport rent study that was supposed to be completed in the fall of 2002. More than three years later we are still waiting for the results. Each year that we wait Ottawa increases the amount of money it takes out of Canadian airports and the pockets of travellers -- and still the government can provide no rationale for the policy.

Airlines pay for their own infrastructure, but cannot accept the need to pay when there is no value in return. Ottawa's money grab is damaging for the industry and for the cities and regions served. Toronto already ranks among the world's most costly airports -- a reputation that will do little to attract new business investment, more conventions and broader tourism. Toronto's airport administration must do a much better job of managing costs -- but federal Crown rent now represents nearly 20% of its budget.

This is happening at airports across the country. Crown rents make Canadian air travel more expensive. It is not surprising, therefore, that rent reduction or elimination is supported by a growing list of business and trade associations who recognize its punishing impact on economic competitiveness. These include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada and the Hotel Association of Canada. The mayors of Canada's major cities and many of their local business associations also support rent relief.

As Crown rent increases, airlines simply cannot afford to absorb these yearly cost increases. Without immediate action by the federal government, the competitiveness and affordability of air transport in Canada will suffer.

Globally, air transport directly employs four million people. An additional 28 million enjoy indirect employment. Their combined economic output is $1.6-trillion. Fixing the Crown rent situation is an easy way for Finance Minister Ralph Goodale to ensure that Canada keeps its share.

I encourage the minister to move quickly to remove the competitive disadvantage of Crown rents from Canada's airports.

Giovanni Bisignani is director-general and CEO of the International Air Transport Association.

hkskyline

March 9th, 2005, 07:17 AM

Runway debris prompts safety probe
Planes still landed, took off at Pearson after Jetsgo mishap left metal on ground
KEITH McARTHUR AND BRENT JANG
08 March 2005
The Globe and Mail

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is looking into why seven aircraft used a runway scattered with potentially deadly debris Friday afternoon, after a Jetsgo Boeing MD83 lost one of its two engines at Toronto's Pearson International Airport.

Pilots of the Vancouver-bound flight aborted takeoff at 3:18 p.m. after an engine blew and debris spilled onto the runway.

“The aircraft notified that it had a problem, but did not indicate at the time that there might have been a risk of debris or oil on the runway,” said Louis Garneau, a spokesman for Nav Canada, which runs the country's air traffic control system.

Over the next 20 minutes, seven aircraft took off and landed on the runway before Jetsgo advised traffic controllers that it may have spilled oil or debris. Only then did Nav Canada close the runway. Airport officials found an exhaust cone and several small pieces of metal on the runway.

Debris on runways can have tragic consequences. In 2000, a Air France Concorde jet plunged after takeoff from Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport. All 109 people aboard were killed when a sliver of metal from another aircraft punctured one of the Concorde's tires, which exploded and tore through the plane's wing, puncturing a fuel tank.

Jetsgo spokesman Brad Cicero said maintenance had been performed relatively recently on the Jetsgo aircraft's Pratt &Whitney engine.

On Friday, he said, “there were indications of a No. 1 engine malfunction during its takeoff role on the tarmac. Once that happened, the pilot notified the tower of the malfunction and taxied back to the gate.”

He said the 66 passengers and six crew members aboard Flight 174 transferred to a different aircraft to resume the flight to Vancouver more than two hours later.

He said the pilot would not have been able to see whether there was debris on the runway because the Boeing MD-83 is a rear-engine aircraft.

Mr. Garneau said air-traffic controllers will shut down a runway if they notice debris, but he added that the tower is 2.4 kilometres from the runway and that controllers did not notice anything unusual after the aborted Jetsgo flight.

Transportation Safety Board spokesman John Cottreau said federal investigators are assessing the Jetsgo case to determine whether it warrants a deeper probe.

Transport Canada spokeswoman Lucie Vignola said the federal department is aware of the incident. Normally, a pilot would “advise the tower” about any engine problems, she said.

Friday's incident is one in a series of problems plaguing Jetsgo Corp., a privately owned company based in Montreal.

“I think that Jetsgo should be grounded temporarily,” said Dianne Fraser of Toronto who was aboard another Jetsgo aircraft on Saturday that made an unscheduled stop in South Carolina in an unrelated incident. She said passengers were told that “one of the engines was leaking oil and had to be shut down.”

Ms. Fraser said her family went through a “harrowing experience,” made worse when “one of the flight attendants at the rear of the plane was praying out loud and crying.” The passengers made it safely to Toronto Sunday on a different Jetsgo plane.

In late January, a Jetsgo plane landing at Calgary International Airport skidded partly off the runway and hit a sign, prompting a safety board investigation.

And last month, Transport Canada revoked an operating certificate, forcing Jetsgo to run its flights at lower altitude, which is less efficient for fuel consumption. That certificate has yet to be reinstated.

Just before Christmas, Jetsgo faced thousands of angry passengers left stranded amid flight cancellations in a Toronto winter storm.

The federal Air Travel Complaints Program received 160 complaints in 2004 about the airline, more than triple the number lodged in 2003.

hkskyline

March 20th, 2005, 04:00 AM

Group fights link that divides
Airport rail line would block off Weston streets
Residents say move threatens their community
Kevin McGran
Toronto Star
11 March 2005

It's not as trendy as Queen. St. W., or the Beach, or Bloor West Village, but Weston has its own "downtown."

The stretch of Weston Rd. between Lawrence Ave. W. and Oak St. is lined with mom-and-pop shops, restaurants and taverns, catering to its working-class community.

The folks here like their neighbourhood and turned out en masse Wednesday night to protect it: 1,000 people trying to squeeze into a room built for 450. For safety reasons, the meeting was cancelled. It will be rescheduled at a larger venue.

At that time, even more are expected to rail against the idea that some of their cross streets might be blocked off to accommodate a rail link between Union Station and Pearson International Airport, to run along the expansion of the Georgetown GO Transit line.

When the air-rail link is added to the Georgetown expansion, it would increase the number of trains to the point at which Transport Canada regulations forbid level crossings - and there are three in Weston, on Church, King and John Sts. All three crossings would have to be blocked.

Residents fear that would strangle the old town's already struggling downtown.

"It's just not right," said long-time resident Leroy Hynes. "You don't want the community divided like this by a major train line.

"It's bad enough the tracks are there at all. If they're going to try and eliminate any foot access, car access, or seniors able to walk to downtown, it's going to wipe out downtown."

GO Transit officials were caught by surprise at the turnout. A meeting on the same subject the previous night in downtown Toronto drew about 50 people.

"In general, nobody wants to have any kind of change at all," said GO chairman Gordon Chong. "I'm not surprised they don't want to have a road closed. ... We clearly are sensitive to people's concerns."

It's expected to cost $45 million to design and construct the necessary upgrades on the Georgetown corridor, money GO Transit has been promised by both levels of government.

GO says closing the cross streets would be by far the cheapest answer, but it's only one of several options, which include building either underpasses or overpasses. Those would cost at least $10 million extra per crossing.

That answer doesn't satisfy area residents.

"Any project that's big with this much money and this much engineering, they have to consider their options," said Mary Louise Ashbourne, who got the word out to area residents.

"But the option of closing the level crossings in Weston is not an option. It is a non-starter. It will not fly."

This "town" nestled in a triangle formed by Jane St. and the Humber River, south of Highway 401, recently won another struggle against outsiders when it fought to hang on to street names that are identical to street names elsewhere in Toronto. In the 1970s, residents saved their 1914 public library and many are restoring their post-Victorian homes.

Now they're taking on the railway to make sure the west side of their community isn't cut off from the east, so kids on one side of the tracks can walk to school on the other, families can walk to their churches and shoppers can get to the shops.

"We have a very strong community here and we are not prepared to have it sacrificed for the sake of a link to the airport," Ashbourne said.

"If (GO) will accept the fact that closing roads is no longer to be considered an option, then they can get on considering the real options, and be creative."

The problem of what to do in Weston is one of a number faced by GO Transit officials, not the least of which is a challenge to the validity of the environmental assessment.

Although the corridor is owned by CN, GO is conducting an environmental assessment (due to end in September), because improvements to the rail corridor will allow GO to improve service to Georgetown.

But the owner of the proposed Blue-22 airport link - SNC Lavalin - is also a consultant on the environmental assessment.

In a submission that GO's board of directors will consider today, resident Mike Sullivan says that means SNC Lavalin is in a conflict of interest.

"If there were no air-rail link and only increased service by GO Transit, the level crossings would remain," Sullivan wrote the board. He wants the two projects assessed separately.

Weston is not the only dilemma facing the project.

In the Junction neighbourhood centred on St. Clair Ave. W. and Keele St., residents are angry that an underpass being considered will be too short.

GO proposes building an underpass for the north-south CN corridor where it intersects with CP Rail's east-west line. That underpass would emerge south of St. Clair Ave W., right at the point that the road narrows from six to four lanes.

That neighbourhood, which has been fighting the TTC over its proposal to put streetcars in a transit-only lane down the centre of St. Clair, sees an opportunity.

They want the underpass to be longer - stretching underneath St. Clair - and emerging on the north side. This would allow the road to be widened, ending the bottleneck.

The idea seems to be gaining traction; Junction resident Claude Bergeron said he had a positive meeting with GO chairman Gordon Chong. The city and the province are believed to be looking at the option.

"It sounds encouraging," Bergeron said.

The problem is money. An extended underpass would cost at least $50 million, and GO would either look to the city, the province or Ottawa to pay for it.

"If we can accommodate suggestions coming from the community and get funding to do it, then we're more than happy to do that," Chong said.

These issues come at a very dicey time for GO. Today GO's directors will formalize the beginning of negotiations with the federal government that they hope will result in Ottawa paying for a large portion of the $113.5 million needed to purchase 53 new locomotives and $274.3 million to buy 90 new rail coaches.

hkskyline

March 24th, 2005, 07:44 AM

El Al may drop Canada if fees increase further
Airport costs leave margins 'razor thin,' airline says
Chris Sorensen
23 March 2005
National Post

El Al, Israel's national airline, says there is a "very real possibility" it may remove Canada from its list of 50 global destinations unless something is done to rein in skyrocketing airport fees in this country.

The security-focused carrier, which operates five weekly flights to Toronto, says rising federal airport rents are being passed along to the airline in the form of pricey landing fees, leaving it with "razor thin" margins on flights to Canada.

That is particularly true at Toronto's Pearson International Airport, which, according to one recent study, is among the most expensive airports in the world to land a jetliner.

"It is forcing us to re-examine our service levels," Stanley Morais, El Al's Canadian general manager, told a federal transport committee yesterday. He said it costs about $12,000 to land a jumbo jet at Pearson International Airport, compared with about $3,000 in Tel Aviv.

"We want to continue flying to Canada, and to Toronto in particular, but we simply will not be able to continue doing so if costs keep increasing."

Mr. Morais, who is also the chairman of the Association of Airline Representatives in Canada, a group of 25 foreign airline operators that includes British Airways and Cathay Pacific, said Canada risks becoming "an island unto itself," with foreign carriers opting to bypass the country altogether.

Diana Khoury, who was representing Alitalia Airlines SpA, said rising airport fees have prompted the airline to halt several years of service expansions.

Rising airport rents are among the questions being looked into by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport. Rent charged to airports rose this year by 13%, to $268-million, and is scheduled to climb to about $500-million by the end of the decade.

The industry had expected the federal government, as part of its recent budget, to freeze future rent increases. But it never materialized.

Ottawa negotiated the rent structure and scheduled increases when it spun off the administration of airports to not-for-profit authorities in the early 1990s.

The Greater Toronto Airport Authority has promised to pass any savings from reduced or eliminated airport rents to airlines, saying such a move would stimulate travel and economic growth.

John Kaldeway, GTAA's chief executive, told the transport committee rent payments at Pearson have risen to $131.9-million in 2004 from $107-million in 1997.

Airport rents at Pearson account for about 18% of landing fees charged to aircraft, according to a GTAA spokeswoman. Another 40% goes toward servicing debt related to airport maintenance and expansion, including a new $3.6-billion terminal.

hkskyline

March 31st, 2005, 05:56 AM

Passenger volumes lift GTAA revenues in 2004
Airport ends year $112 million in red
Traffic up 15.7 per cent from 2003
Canadian Press
30 March 2005

The Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which operates Pearson International Airport, posted strong net operating revenues of $344 million in 2004, helped by the continuing recovery of passenger volume.

The company said yesterday its total revenue for the year ended Dec. 31 was $832 million, with passenger activity 15.7 per cent higher than in 2003.

Operating expenses came in at $488 million, including $130.4 million for ground rent paid to the federal government. Interest and financing costs were $268.0 million and amortization of $198.4 million, resulting in revenues falling $112.3 million below expenses, the GTAA said in a release.

During the year, the GTAA continued work on its airport development program, including opening the first phase of Pearson's new Terminal 1 in April.

The GTAA said it raised $850 million in capital markets during the year.

Pearson is one of the largest airports in North America in passenger and air cargo traffic, handling about 28.6 million passengers in 2004.

hkskyline

April 3rd, 2005, 04:07 AM

Tad turbulent as Terminal 1 turns 1
'Well, it's not finished yet'
Complaints roll in over bus to infield passenger terminal
Airports authority admits site still a work in progress
Kevin McGran
Toronto Star
2 April 2005

When Helga Bertsch flew to Frankfurt, she was looking forward to travelling through new Terminal 1 at Toronto Pearson International Airport.

She'd heard great things about the centrepiece of the $4.4 billion redevelopment at the airport. Then she got there and was ever so disappointed: not with the structure's grandeur but with the fact she had to take a bus to a terminal in the middle of the airport to catch her plane.

"That's what I hate," she said. "We have a new terminal here, but we're carted all over the place. It's kind of silly."

Complaints like Bertsch's have been common since the terminal opened; Wednesday will mark its first anniversary.

While more than 10 million passengers have travelled through the new terminal's gates, there is still significant work to be done on this otherwise user-friendly building.

"There's a feeling out there that: 'Well, you've opened your new terminal, and how come it's not this or it's not that or the other,'" said John Kaldeway, president of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

"Well, it's not finished yet.

"Because it's not finished, one of the least attractive features we have now is for all the international traffic to have to bus to the infield terminal. We do get some complaints about that. We understand those."

"It is kind of a hassle," Bertsch pointed out. "The buses are crowded and you're sweating and it's hot and it's bad air."

Currently, the new terminal houses Pier D, for Jazz planes carrying regional traffic, and Pier E, for Air Canada's domestic traffic.

The good news is that, with old Terminal 1 now demolished, paving will begin in spring that will allow the airport to open six more gates by the fall, meaning fewer bus trips to the infield terminal. That's welcome news to Air Canada, the new terminal's principal tenant, with 50,000 customers daily passing through Toronto.

"Bussing to the infield terminal is ... an irritant for our customers," said Air Canada spokeswoman Laura Cooke. "Our customers are bussed more than any of the other carriers.

"We are looking forward to bringing international flights back on to the new terminal as new gates come on line."

And construction continues on Pier F - an even grander pier within the new terminal featuring a hammerhead design that will house all international traffic. That pier will open in 2007, permanently ending bus trips to the infield terminal.

"By this October, a large percentage of that bussing will be gone when we open some new gates. By early 2007, it will be pretty much all gone."

Also coming this year is a "People Mover" - a light rail train that will operate between terminals and the outer parking lots.

It's been quite a year for the new terminal - the number of people travelling has increased, Air Canada came back from bankruptcy, Jetsgo went into bankruptcy, and the federal government is considering opening up Canada's air space to foreign competition.

And the debate about airport rent - spurred by complaints that the cost of doing business at Pearson was out of control because of its redevelopment program - hit a fever pitch.

"The federal government has been gouging the airport to the tune of $132 million a year for very little, if any, service provided," said Toronto Councillor Brian Ashton, a member of the city's economic development committee.

"That has an impact on airlines and their costs, on everybody that uses the airport. The consumer is being fleeced.

"It makes us uncompetitive as a region. It drives up costs. It drives international airlines away because it's too costly to land at Toronto."

Now the federal government - which had used Pearson as a cash cow - is considering reducing the rents it charges airports as a means to keep costs down and boost tourism by spurring more flights to Canada.

For the past two years, the international air industry has been making the case that Toronto is the second-most expensive airport in the world to do business with, even though it's not even among the busiest 25 airports.

Air Canada's Cooke said reducing rent would help make the new terminal more efficient, which would help Air Canada keep expanding its schedule by using Toronto as a growing hub for international traffic.

"We at Air Canada got our costs in line, our employees made a lot of sacrifices," Cooke said. "We have been continuing to offer low fares against the backdrop of escalating costs. Airlines have been in large measure absorbing the airport costs." Kaldeway has tried to appease airlines in some ways, especially on the rent issue. Kaldeway said any reduction in rent would be passed on to the airlines in the form of lower landing fees.

"Rent is clearly a huge issue for us, but it's a huger issue for the airlines because we do pass the cost on to them. It's 100 per cent part of the landing fees," said Kaldeway.

"If we get decent relief, they're going to get decent relief. It's just that simple. We'll pass it on to them."

The question the federal government will have to deal with is: Will airlines reduce their prices accordingly?

"It's almost inevitable," said Cliff Mackay, president of the Air Transport Association of Canada, the lobby that represents most of Canada's airlines. "Airline prices come down year after year. We see no reason to believe that if we get a cost break, that some of that isn't going to flow to our customers. The market is going to force us in that direction." Kaldeway said he hopes the airlines would pass on the savings, "but at the same time they're already giving the product away. Fares are so low, I don't know how you make fares any lower. I think what you do is you prevent more bankruptcies."

Cooke said Air Canada's transition to the new terminal went smoothly. Kaldeway said the first year of the new terminal was a success, although he admitted there were some hiccups getting employees to learn new systems, such as automated baggage handling.

"The building works well, particularly when people do what people are supposed to do," said Kaldeway. "That's not a shot at anybody, that's our people, concessionaire people, airline people, security people. When everybody does what they're supposed to do, the building and its systems work very well."

That sentiment was echoed by airport users who had arrived from other points in Canada and didn't have to get on a bus. Thomas Lindsay, arriving from Victoria, said it took him less than 20 minutes to get off the plane, get his suitcase and head out the door.

"It's really as good as you could ask for," Lindsay said.

samsonyuen

April 3rd, 2005, 01:12 PM

I HATE having to go to the infield terminal whenever I fly into Toronto. It's such a hassle. I can't wait til they finish the new piers.

hkskyline

May 2nd, 2005, 06:38 AM

April 13, 2005

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20050413/YYZ-FRA002.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20050413/YYZ-FRA003.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20050413/YYZ-FRA004.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20050413/YYZ-FRA005.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20050413/YYZ-FRA009.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20050413/YYZ-FRA010.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20050413/YYZ-FRA014.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20050413/YYZ-FRA023.jpg

hkskyline

May 5th, 2005, 04:43 PM

Pearson second most expensive place to land
5 May 2005
The Globe and Mail

For the second consecutive year, Toronto's Pearson International Airport has ranked second in an annual survey of the highest landing fees at airports around the world.

Pearson charged $8,203 (U.S.) for a Boeing 747-400 to land in 2004, compared with Tokyo Narita's $8,777 fee, according to the Air Transport Research Society's survey of 116 airports. In 2003, when the survey included 102 airports, Pearson had a $7,965 landing fee, second to Narita's $8,216 charge.

A strong Toronto aviation hub is important for moving passengers and stimulating the Canadian economy, so Pearson should restrain any future increases in landing fees to ensure that foreign airlines maintain Toronto as a North American gateway, said society president Tae Oum.

Boeing 747-400 landing fees last year at other Canadian airports were sharply lower than at Pearson: Ottawa ($2,395), Montreal ($2,238), Halifax ($2,217), Vancouver ($2,146), Calgary ($2,033) and Edmonton ($1,872). Ottawa placed 61st on the list of highest landing fees while Edmonton came 78th.

Pearson also had the second-most expensive landing fees in 2004 in the two other aircraft categories surveyed, charging $1,715 for an Airbus 321-100 and $497 for a CRJ200-LR — again trailing Narita for the second consecutive year.

Connie Turner, spokeswoman for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which oversees Pearson, said landing fees would be lower if the federal government reduced ground rent. She added that many foreign airports, notably those in the United States, get government subsidies that are unavailable to Canadian airports.

Prof. Oum, a professor at the University of British Columbia's Sauder School of Business, said other data suggests Pearson needs to diversify its revenue stream into areas such as retailing, fast food, car parking and leasing space to airport users.

The society's research shows that in 2003, the latest year for which it had data for other parts of its survey, 67 per cent of Pearson's revenue came from the aeronautical side — aircraft fees and certain terminal charges.

Airports in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax all relied less on aeronautical revenue, ranging from 46 per cent in Vancouver to 59 per cent in Edmonton, the society found.

Ms. Turner said Pearson focused last year on opening its new $3.3-billion (Canadian) Terminal 1, and is now developing new sources of non-aeronautical revenue.

Costs to land
Ranking of highest airport landing fees in 2004

Airport Landing fee* ($U.S.)
1 Tokyo Narita $8,777
2 Toronto Pearson 8,203
3 Osaka Kansai 7,643
4 Birmingham, England 7,035
5 Warsaw Chopin 5,954
6 New York LaGuardia 5,731
7 Oslo 5,510
8 Shanghai Hongqiao 5,465
8 Shanghai Pudong 5,465
8 Beijing Capital 5,465
8 Guangzhou Bui Yun 5,465
12 Vienna 5,463

SOURCE: AIR TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY

hkskyline

May 7th, 2005, 07:35 AM

Ottawa may cut airport rent increases: Plan doesn't give break to Toronto or Vancouver
Paul Vieira
6 May 2005
National Post

OTTAWA - Most of the country's airports are set to get a break on the future increases in rent charged by Ottawa under a new scheme to be announced in days, Ottawa insiders say -- just before a possible confidence vote that could bring down the minority Liberal government.

But the insiders say the relief will be at the expense of Toronto Pearson Airport, which pays half of the total annual rent to federal coffers. That airport, already one of the most expensive locations in the world for airlines to operate, is expected to see little or no reduction in rent in the short term under the proposal, which went before cabinet this week for approval.

Moreover, the proposal before the cabinet was tabled before the House of Commons transport committee delivers its report on airport rent. That report, sources say, will contain "strong language" that will "condemn" the current rent scheme and call for an overhaul.

The insiders -- who are familiar with the proposal but spoke on condition of anonymity -- say there are two key elements to the scheme governing airport rent, which is expected to add $273-million to federal coffers this year and $334.2-million in 2006.

First, a new formula will be established whereby each airport will have to pay a percentage of their revenue to the federal government. Insiders say this benefits the mid-size to small airports in markets such as Regina, Edmonton and Calgary, but is a blow to the country's biggest airports, especially Toronto and Vancouver.

"They will then forever be subsidizing small airports since the small airports will have pretty much zero revenue growth," said one industry official about what the Liberal government has tabled.

Meanwhile, growth in air traffic will likely be contained to the major markets, namely Vancouver and Toronto. And to accommodate growth, the airport authorities will need to raise money through user fees -- a major stream of revenue -- to build the needed infrastructure.

Air industry officials argue that rent should be based on a percentage of passenger traffic, not revenue, because that better reflects an airport's activity.

The second key element in the cabinet proposal is that Toronto's Pearson International -- which paid $142-million in rent last year -- will see little or no reduction in the rent increases that are scheduled to take effect during the course of that airport's lease. However, government sources said the senior minister for Toronto, Joe Volpe, was assuring Toronto-area MPs Pearson would not come out on the short end of any proposal to amend the current rent formula.

Irene Marcheterre, a spokeswoman for Transport Minister Jean Lapierre, said an announcement is expected shortly on airport rent, but there needs to be some "fine tuning" to the government's final proposal.

Ottawa negotiated the rent structure and scheduled increases when it spun off control of the airports to not-for-profit authorities in the early 1990s. Airports are forced to recoup the rent through higher user fees charged to airlines. The airlines, in turn, are forced to pass on the cost to customers through higher ticket prices, or absorb the cost to the detriment of its bottom line.

hkskyline

May 8th, 2005, 05:17 AM

Business booming at Pearson airport
Last Updated Fri, 06 May 2005 19:09:26 EDT
CBC News

TORONTO - The air travel business grew strongly in the first quarter, Canada's biggest airport said Friday.

The Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which runs Pearson International Airport in Toronto, said the number of passengers jumped by 10.5 per cent to 7.1 million in the three months ended March 31, compared with 6.5 million in 2004.

Revenues also surged, hitting $230.6 million, up from $193 million.

"The financial results reflect a continuation of the recovery in passenger volumes experienced in 2004," the non profit agency said.

GTAA said it had a $40.2 million loss in the quarter, compared with a surplus $6.1 million a year earlier.

Opening the new Terminal 1 in 2004 increased amortization payments, an accounting entry designed to recognize the cost of eventually replacing the building.

But amortization is not a cash charge, and in cash terms, the airport said it is making enough revenue to cover its operating and debt-service charges.

It has $5.66 billion of debt, and paid interest of $268 million in 2004, GTAA's annual report shows.

The airport said it took a $2.5-million charge in the quarter against the $5.4 million it is owed by Jetsgo, an airline that filed for bankruptcy protection in March.

In 2004, Pearson handled about 28.6 million passengers.

Skybean

May 13th, 2005, 02:44 AM

http://photos3.flickr.com/5073868_46c9a84d3f_b.jpg

http://photos4.flickr.com/5073827_bb40b52752_b.jpg

http://photos5.flickr.com/5073805_a3075b4714_b.jpg

http://photos4.flickr.com/5073775_74c1faba5f_b.jpg

http://photos7.flickr.com/11892428_d5100d7542_b.jpg

http://photos3.flickr.com/11892353_e3f0249e72_b.jpg

Marcanadian

May 13th, 2005, 03:26 AM

Very nice but i still havent been there.

Nick in Atlanta

May 14th, 2005, 12:18 AM

HKskyline posted an article which contained the following list of landing fees for a Boeing 747-400 in 2004.

Costs to land
Ranking of highest airport landing fees in 2004

Airport Landing fee* ($U.S.)
1 Tokyo Narita $8,777
2 Toronto Pearson 8,203
3 Osaka Kansai 7,643
4 Birmingham, England 7,035
5 Warsaw Chopin 5,954
6 New York LaGuardia 5,731
7 Oslo 5,510
8 Shanghai Hongqiao 5,465
8 Shanghai Pudong 5,465
8 Beijing Capital 5,465
8 Guangzhou Bui Yun 5,465
12 Vienna 5,463

SOURCE: AIR TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY

I understand why Tokyo-Narita and Osaka-Kansai are so expensive as the demand to fly into these cities is enourmous. New York's LaGuardia makes sense because it is the closest airport to Manhattan. The Chinese airports also make sense because China's economy is booming right now and there is a tremendous demand for access to mainland China.

Toronto's high rates have been discussed previously in this thread.

But, why is Birmingham, England the fourth most expensive and Warsaw, Poland the fifth most expensive? Oslo, Norway and Vienna, Austria are highly questionable, too.

hkskyline

June 9th, 2005, 06:21 PM

Pearson aims for fast checks at Customs
Chris Sorensen
Financial Post
June 9, 2005

The operator of Toronto's Pearson International Airport, in the midst of a $4.4-billion expansion, expects Ottawa to scrap mandatory customs checks for foreign passengers connecting to international flights within six months, helping to position the airport as a hub for global travellers.

John Kaldeway, chief executive of the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, said he sees Ottawa making the changes by the end of the year, a move GTAA has identified as crucial to the airport's growth strategy.

At present, all international passengers flying into Canada must be cleared by Canadian Customs agents before boarding connecting flights to the United States or elsewhere in the world. The process is seen as unnecessarily time-consuming by airport officials and airlines -- particularly Air Canada, which uses Pearson as its hub.

Mr. Kaldeway said the airport's new facilities, including a yet-to-be-completed international jetty called Pier F, have already been designed with transit lounges and other amenities to accommodate connecting passengers -- who wouldn't be allowed to leave the building.

"It's incredibly important to us that when we open Pier F that we have this agreement in place," Mr. Kaldeway said.

"International traffic is the largest growth area for the airport," he said in an interview yesterday.

The GTAA, already one of the most expensive airports in the world for airlines to operate, is in the midst of a controversial 10-year development program that has been budgeted at $4.4-billion. That includes a recently-completed terminal, a 1.5-km shuttle train and an international pier built around a sculpture so large it has to be installed before the building.

Mr. Kaldeway said the changes to customs rules, once adopted, should help Pearson offset its high costs by attracting more international flights, which in turn generates additional revenue through landing fees charged to airlines.

Meanwhile, the GTAA's largest customer, Air Canada, is also lobbying for the changes as it attempts to syphon international connecting traffic from major U.S. hub airports, where post-9/11 security measures require in-transit passengers to obtain special transit visas.

"The connecting customer is critical to Air Canada's success and the success of its Toronto hub," said Laura Cooke, an Air Canada spokeswoman.

In addition to the GTAA, the Vancouver International Airport Authority and Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport have been lobbying the federal government for similar changes. Vancouver's airport was previously permitted to streamline its customs procedures for connecting traffic, but the practice was scaled back in the wake of 9/11.

Like Toronto, Montreal's Trudeau International Airport already has the necessary infrastructure in place to keep in-transit passengers separate from other travellers. "For us, it's just a matter of taking a shroud off a sign," said Jim Cherry, chief executive of Aeroports de Montreal.

Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm

June 9th, 2005, 06:26 PM

@ Nick in Atlanta: I guess all those airports on the landing fees list makes sense... except Birmingham, England??? Where'd that one come from? :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

hkskyline

June 9th, 2005, 06:51 PM

New System to Link up Airport
Kevin McGran
Toronto Star
9 June 2005

Greater Toronto's newest rapid transit link goes into test mode today at Pearson airport.

Nicknamed Link, the $150 million, 1.5-kilometre elevated rail line will make three stops: at Terminal 1, Terminal 3 and a parking lot off Viscount Rd.

It won't stop at Terminal 2, which will be demolished over time to make room for continual expansion of Terminal 1.

The automated people mover, which will replace slow and expensive shuttle buses, should be open to the public by February. The free trip will take 31/2 minutes, with trains operating on two sets of tracks. Each train can carry 150 passengers.

"At last, we (won't) have three terminals in search of an airport," said Lloyd McCoomb of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. "You can park in the new (Terminal 1) and take a plane out of Terminal 3."

Link is part of the airport's $4.4 billion redevelopment, showcased yesterday for the media. Some other highlights from the ongoing project:

Pier F, Terminal 1's pier for international traffic, will open six gates in October and will be fully operational by January 2007. The gates mean fewer passengers will have to travel by bus to the hated Infield Terminal.

By fall, Terminal 3 will add 55 check-in facilities to seven just-opened gates.

Link should not be confused with the air-rail link from Union Station. That privately backed venture is being held up by an environmental assessment.

Passengers from the downtown train will be able to transfer to Link trains at Terminal 1.