daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Airports and Aviation > Airports

Airports discussions about existing airports



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 29th, 2008, 03:59 AM   #601
smokiboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,010
Likes (Received): 149

Can anyone tell me if there is thread dedicated to the proposed Toronto airport transit link?
Thanks
smokiboy está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 8th, 2008, 05:53 PM   #602
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,929
Likes (Received): 18198

Pilots landing in GTA report blinding lasers
Beams target cockpits in at least five incidents

5 March 2008
The Toronto Star

At least five pilots attempting to land at airports in the GTA have complained to Transport Canada about someone on the ground shining a laser at their planes, penetrating the cockpit window and flashing the pilots in the eye.

Transport Canada's civil aviation reports indicate the incidents are occurring with an increasingly alarming frequency in the GTA and Ontario. Deborah Baxter, a spokesperson with Transport Canada, says there have been 11 incidents reported in Ontario since last March but expects many more have gone unreported.

The safety risk is obvious. A laser flashing a pilot's eye can distract - or even worse - temporarily blind a pilot, or cause long-term damage to their retinas.

In the GTA incidents, the laser pointers seem to be shining from around the city - most recently on Feb. 21, when a cargo plane and a charter plane both reported a laser had been shone into their cockpits by someone standing near a highway in Vaughan.

A similar incident occurred Jan. 7, when an Air Canada Jazz pilot was beamed from more than 5 kilometres away from Pearson International Airport.

On May 11, another passenger jet reported a green light was being shone into the cockpit from the vicinity of Leslie St. and Lawrence Ave. E. in Toronto. In an October 2007 incident, a police helicopter flying over York Region was targeted while on a routine flight.

In each incident, police were informed and investigations ensued. But as yet, Transport Canada indicates there have been no arrests of individuals in the GTA, although a 16-year-old was caught but not charged.

However, Const. Wayne Patterson of Peel Regional Police, the force responsible for security around Pearson airport, said police could lay a charge of mischief - a criminal offence - against the perpetrators.

Baxter says the risk involved is enough to warrant police involvement. "Transport Canada is very concerned about the increasing frequency of laser-related incidents, whether they are directed at aircraft, cars, trucks, boats or trains," Baxter said.

Capt. Stephen Guetta, a pilot with Air Canada for 20 years, says he can't imagine what kind of person would knowingly try to blind a pilot on a landing approach over a bustling city like Toronto.

He says pilots generally rely on their instruments to navigate a plane toward a runway until they are within sight of the landing strip.

"The threat (from a laser pointer) is probably greatest when that airplane is a quarter to a half-mile from the threshold of the runway - when you're in the final 10 to 12 seconds prior to touchdown," Guetta said. "That's the highest risk, when you're moving from your instruments to looking outside. Trying to get your depth of perception. So you can imagine the danger of blinding a pilot at that point ... The pilot has very little time to react."

The long-term damage to a pilot is also troubling. In cases reported in B.C. and the U.S., pilots have been grounded permanently and had their wings taken away from them after lasers caused irreparable damage to their retinas.

Steve Lott, a spokesperson for the International Air Transport Association, a Montreal-based group representing 240 airlines, suggests the lasers being shone at airplanes involve more powerful lasers than the average laser pointer used in boardroom presentations.

High-powered telescopic lasers, the type used by astronomers to map out stars and by snipers to pinpoint distant targets, are much more powerful than the average handheld laser and would have a greater reach into the cockpit of a far-off plane.

"The most crucial parts of any flight are the takeoff and landing," Lott said.

"This is certainly not a game, whether it's kids playing a game or anything else."
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2008, 10:09 AM   #603
YU-AMC
Aviation/Travel Nerd
 
YU-AMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Whitchurch, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,248
Likes (Received): 1036

OMG how did he do that? Must be a strong lasser. I heard that cops are looking for them.
YU-AMC no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2008, 07:09 PM   #604
yyzhyd
Registered User
 
yyzhyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 646
Likes (Received): 9

LAN to YYZ

From a friend and reliable source on a.net

"From a fairly reliable source, I learned today that LA is looking to open Canada service effective Fall 2008. This person mentioned YUL as the city, though my intuition tells me it would likely be some sort of SCL-YYZ-YUL operation..."

Link to thread
http://www.airliners.net/discussions....main/3885242/

My guess they want a piece of that high-yield market on this route that AC has successfully captured.
yyzhyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2008, 07:57 PM   #605
kelw
Registered User
 
kelw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 223
Likes (Received): 0

Pearson given poor grade in airport review

Mar 16, 2008 04:02 PM
Dean Beeby
THE CANADIAN PRESS


OTTAWA–Toronto's Pearson airport gets low marks for efficiency and fee levels in an internal "scorecard" created by Transport Canada to monitor the financial health of Canada's major airports.

The rankings help confirm Pearson's global reputation as a high-cost facility for both airlines and passengers.

The draft scorecards, created for all 21 airports that Transport Canada has transferred to local management groups in the last two decades, were obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

They measure the productivity and efficiency of the facilities between 2002 and 2006 based on 29 categories, such as the number of passengers processed daily for each airport employee.

Transport 2000, a non-partisan lobby group, analyzed the numbers, specifically ranking Pearson's performance against two other comparable airports in size and growth, Calgary and Vancouver.

"For all measures of cost efficiency ... Toronto was significantly poorer than either Vancouver or Calgary," says the report by the non-profit agency.

"Operating expense per passenger is significantly higher for Toronto than either Vancouver or Calgary."

The analysis showed Toronto processed just 79 passengers daily for each airport employee over the five-year period, compared with 131 for Vancouver and 173 for Calgary.

The report also confirmed what many airlines and passengers know well: landing fees, terminal fees, parking fees and other revenue generators are much higher at Toronto.

Parking revenue over the five years averaged $3.12 for every passenger that passed through Pearson, twice as much as at Calgary and Vancouver.

"This area is a very profitable one for Toronto," says the report by Transport 2000's Gerry Einarsson.

A spokesman for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which runs Pearson, said the analysis needs context.

"It is important to remember that during this time (2002-2006) Toronto Pearson was being rebuilt, which explains the additional expenses and debt that other airports did not incur during the same time frame," Scott Armstrong said in a e-mail.

"The construction program was completed in early 2007, and the GTAA has been able to increase revenue and decrease expenses since the variable of construction and terminal changes has stabilized."

He noted that landing fees were trimmed by 3.1 per cent on Jan. 1.

The president of Transport 2000 says Pearson's ambitious $4-billion construction program may be a financial albatross for years to come.

"The airport itself greatly exceeds the capacity that's required right now," said David Jeanes. "They've built for future growth that may not materialize" because increasing fuel costs may curtail air travel.

"We may find ... that Pearson ends up being a white elephant. It may be overbuilt and have built-in costs that in the long term won't be sustainable."

And an airport facility can't readily be converted to other uses, such as housing, Jeanes said.

An industry spokesman laid much of the blame for Pearson's financial performance at the door of the federal government, which leases the property to the GTAA.

"The overall rent burden is way too high," said Fred Gaspar of the Air Transport Association of Canada.

Gaspar said the current GTAA administration is squeezed between debt-servicing for its massive construction program and a demanding landlord, Transport Canada. Those two factors make it much tougher to be cost-competitive and efficient.

Nevertheless, "we think they're headed in the right direction," Gaspar said, citing the recent cuts in landing fees and terminal charges for airlines.

Transport Canada created its airport scorecards under pressure from the federal auditor general, who in a 2005 report criticized the department for failing to properly monitor the impact of its airport policies.

Department spokesman Patrick Charette said the scorecard categories are being modified and shouldn't be used to rank one airport against another.

"For now, it's still an internal document," he said.

A recent global comparison by an expert at the University of British Columbia determined that Pearson is the world's most expensive airport to land an aircraft, far more expensive than the previous highest-cost facility, Tokyo's Narita International.
kelw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2008, 01:51 AM   #606
ACT7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,402
Likes (Received): 77

Quote:
Originally Posted by kelw View Post
Pearson given poor grade in airport review

Mar 16, 2008 04:02 PM
Dean Beeby
THE CANADIAN PRESS


OTTAWA–Toronto's Pearson airport gets low marks for efficiency and fee levels in an internal "scorecard" created by Transport Canada to monitor the financial health of Canada's major airports.

The rankings help confirm Pearson's global reputation as a high-cost facility for both airlines and passengers.

The draft scorecards, created for all 21 airports that Transport Canada has transferred to local management groups in the last two decades, were obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

They measure the productivity and efficiency of the facilities between 2002 and 2006 based on 29 categories, such as the number of passengers processed daily for each airport employee.

Transport 2000, a non-partisan lobby group, analyzed the numbers, specifically ranking Pearson's performance against two other comparable airports in size and growth, Calgary and Vancouver.

"For all measures of cost efficiency ... Toronto was significantly poorer than either Vancouver or Calgary," says the report by the non-profit agency.

"Operating expense per passenger is significantly higher for Toronto than either Vancouver or Calgary."

The analysis showed Toronto processed just 79 passengers daily for each airport employee over the five-year period, compared with 131 for Vancouver and 173 for Calgary.

The report also confirmed what many airlines and passengers know well: landing fees, terminal fees, parking fees and other revenue generators are much higher at Toronto.

Parking revenue over the five years averaged $3.12 for every passenger that passed through Pearson, twice as much as at Calgary and Vancouver.

"This area is a very profitable one for Toronto," says the report by Transport 2000's Gerry Einarsson.

A spokesman for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which runs Pearson, said the analysis needs context.

"It is important to remember that during this time (2002-2006) Toronto Pearson was being rebuilt, which explains the additional expenses and debt that other airports did not incur during the same time frame," Scott Armstrong said in a e-mail.

"The construction program was completed in early 2007, and the GTAA has been able to increase revenue and decrease expenses since the variable of construction and terminal changes has stabilized."

He noted that landing fees were trimmed by 3.1 per cent on Jan. 1.

The president of Transport 2000 says Pearson's ambitious $4-billion construction program may be a financial albatross for years to come.

"The airport itself greatly exceeds the capacity that's required right now," said David Jeanes. "They've built for future growth that may not materialize" because increasing fuel costs may curtail air travel.

"We may find ... that Pearson ends up being a white elephant. It may be overbuilt and have built-in costs that in the long term won't be sustainable."

And an airport facility can't readily be converted to other uses, such as housing, Jeanes said.

An industry spokesman laid much of the blame for Pearson's financial performance at the door of the federal government, which leases the property to the GTAA.

"The overall rent burden is way too high," said Fred Gaspar of the Air Transport Association of Canada.

Gaspar said the current GTAA administration is squeezed between debt-servicing for its massive construction program and a demanding landlord, Transport Canada. Those two factors make it much tougher to be cost-competitive and efficient.

Nevertheless, "we think they're headed in the right direction," Gaspar said, citing the recent cuts in landing fees and terminal charges for airlines.

Transport Canada created its airport scorecards under pressure from the federal auditor general, who in a 2005 report criticized the department for failing to properly monitor the impact of its airport policies.

Department spokesman Patrick Charette said the scorecard categories are being modified and shouldn't be used to rank one airport against another.

"For now, it's still an internal document," he said.

A recent global comparison by an expert at the University of British Columbia determined that Pearson is the world's most expensive airport to land an aircraft, far more expensive than the previous highest-cost facility, Tokyo's Narita International.
How are Calgary and Vancouver comparable in size, when YYZ is double what Vancouver is and nearly triple Calgary?? I "love" these doomsday articles aimed at Toronto which is nothing more than western Canada little-brother-syndrome at its finest. With so many more airlines that have announced service since T1 was finished, with so many more on the way, plus increased capacity from existing airlines, I'd like to know how Pearson is going to be considered a white elephant. Sorry, but it ain't another Mirabel...the economy is too damn strong here.
ACT7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2008, 07:22 AM   #607
Vancouverite
Registered User
 
Vancouverite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 399
Likes (Received): 11

The article was authored by Dean Beeby, Chief of the Canadian Press' Halifax bureau.

I don't know how much further east you can get from western Canada and its alleged "little brother syndrome".
__________________
Vancouverite in SSC | SFUVancouver in SSP

Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Athlete's Village | 1.4M sqft, LEED GOLD

Vancouver | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
Vancouverite no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2008, 08:26 AM   #608
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,929
Likes (Received): 18198

This article is about cost to operate, not traffic comparison between Canadian cities. Toronto's expansion was driven on questionable growth projections that has translated into huge cost increases for airlines. Until that extra demand gets here or the government decides to do something about what it charges the airports, I don't think the problem will change.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2008, 05:52 PM   #609
kelw
Registered User
 
kelw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 223
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACT7 View Post
How are Calgary and Vancouver comparable in size, when YYZ is double what Vancouver is and nearly triple Calgary?? I "love" these doomsday articles aimed at Toronto which is nothing more than western Canada little-brother-syndrome at its finest. With so many more airlines that have announced service since T1 was finished, with so many more on the way, plus increased capacity from existing airlines, I'd like to know how Pearson is going to be considered a white elephant. Sorry, but it ain't another Mirabel...the economy is too damn strong here.
Posts like this make me wonder whether some people actually read articles before they bash them.
kelw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2008, 03:21 AM   #610
Skybean
天豆
 
Skybean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,937
Likes (Received): 271

LOL. This is one of the funnier articles I've read in the past few days.

Pearson erased from report after CEO complaint

Mar 23, 2008 01:01 PM
THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA
–Toronto's Pearson airport is being dropped from a global review of airport efficiency after a complaint about its embarrassingly low ranking.

The president and CEO of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority demanded the removal of Pearson from the annual survey
of more than 150 major airports in a toughly worded letter last August.

"Should you decline this request, I see no other recourse than to pursue all means at our disposal to receive fair treatment," Lloyd McCoomb warned the lead researcher at the University of British Columbia.

McCoomb cited a "total lack of academic rigor" and ``unsupported findings" in the survey, saying the research was ``threatening potential harm to our reputation."

The 2007 edition of the report found that Pearson was among the least efficient airports in the world, and that its cost competitiveness was low. The survey noted that aircraft landing fees at Pearson – Canada's largest airport – are the highest in the world.

The survey is published by an international research group of 13 academics, headed by Tae Oum, a business professor at UBC. Detailed results are available for a fee of US$500, to help underwrite research costs, though a free summary is posted on the Internet (www.atrsworld.org/publications.html).

Oum said McCoomb's "intimidating" letter rattled him and, fearing legal action, he consulted the university's lawyer and others. In the end, the research group agreed to cut Pearson from the efficiency analysis in the 2008 edition of the survey, due in late May.

"I have to protect myself," Oum said in an interview.

The 2008 survey, however, will continue to rank Pearson's landing fees and other factual information that is generally available from public sources.

Oum declined to comment on his latest internal findings about Pearson's efficiency, citing McCoomb's letter, but said the airport's ranking has been relatively low for several years.

A spokesman for McCoomb said the president was not threatening legal action but, as a former professor of civil engineering at the University of Toronto, was simply speaking "academic to academic."

"There's no attempt to shut down research," Scott Armstrong said in an interview. "Academic freedom is not an issue.

"What's at issue is we're simply asking that if someone is going to go around making accusations about our company, as any business would be, we're concerned about that, so we want to know where they're coming from."

McCoomb challenged Oum's methodology and asked for access to the raw data so that a third party, hired by the GTAA, could make an independent assessment, Armstrong said. "That request was not honoured."

Oum says the research group decided "to keep the (international) data in house for competitive reasons," but offered to provide McCoomb all the raw data about Pearson, most of which the GTAA itself supplied last summer.

He acknowledged that the group's methodology – well-known among economists – is not the only one applicable, but said even when other analyses of efficiency are used, Pearson's results are similar.

"Basically, your airport needs to improve operating efficiency by benchmarking with more efficient airports," Oum told McCoomb in a written exchange last summer.

The Canadian Press obtained copies of relevant correspondence in the dispute.

At least one subscriber to the three-volume survey said both sides need to resolve the impasse.

"This does concern us," said Fred Gaspar of the Air Transport Association of Canada, representing commercial airlines.

"Clearly, it is in the interest of every stakeholder in commercial aviation to have access to full and transparent information about the costs of the aviation system.

"Dr. Oum is a highly respected academic international aviation researcher, so it would be our hope and expectation that he and the GTAA would be able to sort out any questions related to methodology."

Between 100 and 200 copies of the full airport survey are sold each year, mostly to airlines, investment bankers, airports and industry groups. No other airport has ever demanded to be dropped from the study, Oum said.

The 2007 study's findings echo those of internal Transport Canada ``scorecards" for 21 airport authorities across the country, obtained by The Canadian Press.

An analysis of the scorecards by the non-partisan lobby group Transport 2000 found that Pearson ranks poorly on efficiency when measured against comparable airports, such as Calgary and Vancouver.

Critics say an overly ambitious $4.4-billion construction program, along with high rents charged by Transport Canada, have made it difficult for the GTAA to operate efficiently.
__________________
My Photos」 ● Hong Kong 1|2|3 ● Macau 1 ● London 1 ● New York City 1
Photo Threads」 ● Flying Over Hong KongCity Life Series」 ● Hong KongShanghaiSeoulTokyo
Skybean no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2008, 08:18 AM   #611
kelw
Registered User
 
kelw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 223
Likes (Received): 0

Well I guess the CEO did the right thing since it's part of his job to defend the airport's reputation. But in the long run they still need to find ways to lower costs.

Last edited by kelw; March 24th, 2008 at 08:48 AM.
kelw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2008, 12:43 PM   #612
lena5538
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 178
Likes (Received): 9

i had been in Pearson International Airport for transportation. i was heading off to Vancouver. it was nice and clean.
lena5538 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2008, 05:40 PM   #613
globetrekker
Registered user
 
globetrekker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 283
Likes (Received): 0

US Airways is moving

US Airways will be moving from Terminal 3 to Terminal 1 on March 29th. That's great as I believe more airlines need to start utilizing our massive Terminal1, but why do you think US Airways is moving over and not larger, international airlines like British Airways, Air France and KLM (who I would love to see head over to to T1! Imagine Air Canada, Lufthansa, British Airways, Air France, Emirates and/or Etihad all parked next to each other!)? It may be due to the fact that US Airways is in the Star Alliance with Air Canada, Lufthansa and United Airlines, but I really think the larger airlines/aircrafts need to start moving to terminal 1. Why have this massive, brand new terminal if you're not going to allow the big players to operate out of it??? I want to see wide bodied aircrafts parked at T1.
globetrekker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2008, 05:43 PM   #614
globetrekker
Registered user
 
globetrekker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 283
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by lena5538 View Post
i had been in Pearson International Airport for transportation. i was heading off to Vancouver. it was nice and clean.
Which airport do you prefer? I haven't visited Vancouver yet, but some of the photos that I've seen of the airport are nice.
globetrekker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2008, 01:47 AM   #615
yyzer
Registered User
 
yyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 1,195
Likes (Received): 45

Quote:
It may be due to the fact that US Airways is in the Star Alliance with Air Canada
That, afaik, is the entire reason...

New Terminal One has plenty of space to expand passenger processing in the terminal itself, but the aircraft gates are already pretty full at peak times...they will probably need to begin Pier G eventually...
yyzer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2008, 03:42 AM   #616
ACT7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,402
Likes (Received): 77

I'm still perplexed as to how Vancouver and Calgary are comparable airports. Pearson is closer in size and "hub status" to places like Miami and San Francisco.
ACT7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2008, 08:07 PM   #617
Gil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,120
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACT7 View Post
I'm still perplexed as to how Vancouver and Calgary are comparable airports. Pearson is closer in size and "hub status" to places like Miami and San Francisco.
I'm thinking that Toronto was lumped in with Calgary and Vancouver in the context of Canadian airports. There are certainly other international airports with more in common with Pearson, but if the report was only looking at those within our own borders, then, yes I could see their reasoning. Vancouver is the main international hub for western Canada, while Calgary serves more of a domestic hub. Pearson serves both duties for eastern Canada for the most part.
Gil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2008, 03:20 AM   #618
spongeg
Registered User
 
spongeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 8,034
Likes (Received): 1739

i would guess they are comparing it to other Canadian airports which have the same landlord and rules etc

miami and san francisco are in another country
spongeg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2008, 04:38 PM   #619
globetrekker
Registered user
 
globetrekker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 283
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by yyzer View Post
That, afaik, is the entire reason...

New Terminal One has plenty of space to expand passenger processing in the terminal itself, but the aircraft gates are already pretty full at peak times...they will probably need to begin Pier G eventually...
Air India will be relocating from Terminal 3 to Terminal 1 as well on April 29.
On May 2, 2008, the airport community will welcome the arrival of Iceland Air’s inaugural flight from Reykjavik, offering Toronto Pearson passengers a new destination. http://www.gtaa.com/en/home/
globetrekker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2008, 08:46 PM   #620
kelw
Registered User
 
kelw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 223
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACT7 View Post
I'm still perplexed as to how Vancouver and Calgary are comparable airports. Pearson is closer in size and "hub status" to places like Miami and San Francisco.
Again, the article is about the comparison of operating efficiency, not traffic. The review surveys more than 150 airports around the world, including Vancouver and Calgary and others. Pearson pulled out of the survey after finding out its low ranking.
kelw no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
canada, canadian airports, northamerica airport hubs, toronto

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium