SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Canada (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Canadian Airport Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153826)

Dominion301 Aug 7, 2020 7:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodcory (Post 9004232)
The government already allows international flights to Mexico/Caribbean & the US from any Canadian destination.

Only flights from Europe, Africa, Australia and Asia are required to arrive at YYZ, YUL, YVR and YYC.

As for YQB-CDG, TS probably thinks the gov't restrictions will be gone by then.

Thanks. I was aware of transborder, but didn't know about sun spots.

thenoflyzone Aug 7, 2020 8:03 PM

Here is the NOTAM, which is in effect until
October 16:

Quote:

PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.1 OF THE
AERONAUTICS ACT, ALL COMMERCIAL AIR SVC CONDUCTING SKED
INTERNATIONAL SVC FOR THE TRANSPORT OF PASSENGERS ON AN INBOUND
FLT TO CANADA, EXC DIRECT FLT FM THE USA, MEXICO, CENTRAL
AMERICA, THE CARIBBEAN, SOUTH AMERICA, AND ST-PIERRE ET MIQUELON,

MUST, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISEMBARKING PASSENGERS, LAND AT ONE OF
THE FLW AP:

-AEROPORT INTL DE MONTREAL-TRUDEAU
-CALGARY INTL AIRPORT
-TORONTO-PEARSON INTL AIRPORT
-VANCOUVER INTL AIRPORT

THIS RESTRICTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ACFT OPERATED IN THE FLW
CIRCUMSTANCES:
-TECHNICAL STOPS WHERE PASSENGERS DO NOT DISEMBARK, OR
-AT ALTERNATE AP IDENTIFIED IN A FLT PLAN TO ADDRESS WX, OR
-ACFT SAFETY SITUATIONS, OR
-IN THE CASE WHERE SPECIAL AUTH HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TRANSPORT
CANADA: 1-888-857-4003.
Honestly, and as i said before, it’s kind of stupid. But it is what it is.

whatnext Aug 8, 2020 12:12 AM

Pretty scathing review of Canada's airport authorities in the Financial Post:

Peter Shawn Taylor: Why airport bankruptcies could be a good thing
Looming financial catastrophe could be the impetus necessary to force Canada’s airports into the 21st century


Author of the article:Special to Financial Post & Peter Shawn Taylor
Publishing date:Aug 06, 2020

....To shield Canadians from the horror of airports run by the private sector, which are in fact common in Britain, Australia and Europe, Ottawa instead handed them over to local, non-profit, non-share-capital airport authorities under 60-year leases. Canada is the only country to run its airports this way. There are good reasons why no one has ever copied us.

These leases require airport authorities to make hefty annual payments to Ottawa; since 1992 the federal government has reaped a cumulative $6.5 billion this way. But since it is still the ultimate owner of the land and buildings, Ottawa is essentially paying these fees to itself. And in a way that makes Canadian airports less competitive. To cover their costs, airport authorities were given virtually unlimited powers to levy fees on airport users. This explains why Canadian travellers often drive to the U.S. for cheap international flights.

Canadian airports also have an expensive tendency to “gold-plate,” or over-build, capital projects. Lacking a profit incentive, and with air travellers and airlines footing all the bills, airport authorities are notorious for constructing ever-grander manifestations of their own glory. In 2005, Giovanni Bisignani, then-CEO of the International Air Transport Association, famously decried the extravagant $4.4 billion Terminal 1 at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport as a “Versailles with boarding bridges.” More recent expansions in Ottawa, Winnipeg and Calgary — all financed with debt, of course — have drawn similar complaints.

All that debt is responsible for the sector’s current mayday moment. Canada’s airports owe a collective $15.2 billion, more than the combined provincial debts of Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador....


https://financialpost.com/opinion/pe...-9ebbeb9faba1/

Coldrsx Aug 8, 2020 12:15 AM

Taking my first flight since COVID Sunday to YYZ from YEG. Curious to see what an airport feels like.

samuelx88 Aug 8, 2020 1:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominion301 (Post 9004216)
I wonder what their winter schedule will look like? I'm guessing the gov't will permit out-and-back sun flights to outside of the big 4 given TS' schedule announcement earlier this week that includes YOW, YQB, YQM, YXU, YHZ and YHM or is these still subject to gov't approval?...especially since YQB is also supposed to have a weekly CDG.

From what I can see on Google Flight, YQB-CDG appears to be a twice weekly flight in winter. If the government doesn't approve that flight, they can stop in YUL on the CDG-YQB flight. TS did it that way back in late March and early April.

wave46 Aug 8, 2020 1:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext (Post 9004483)
Pretty scathing review of Canada's airport authorities in the Financial Post:

Peter Shawn Taylor: Why airport bankruptcies could be a good thing
Looming financial catastrophe could be the impetus necessary to force Canada’s airports into the 21st century


Author of the article:Special to Financial Post & Peter Shawn Taylor
Publishing date:Aug 06, 2020

....To shield Canadians from the horror of airports run by the private sector, which are in fact common in Britain, Australia and Europe, Ottawa instead handed them over to local, non-profit, non-share-capital airport authorities under 60-year leases. Canada is the only country to run its airports this way. There are good reasons why no one has ever copied us.

These leases require airport authorities to make hefty annual payments to Ottawa; since 1992 the federal government has reaped a cumulative $6.5 billion this way. But since it is still the ultimate owner of the land and buildings, Ottawa is essentially paying these fees to itself. And in a way that makes Canadian airports less competitive. To cover their costs, airport authorities were given virtually unlimited powers to levy fees on airport users. This explains why Canadian travellers often drive to the U.S. for cheap international flights.

Canadian airports also have an expensive tendency to “gold-plate,” or over-build, capital projects. Lacking a profit incentive, and with air travellers and airlines footing all the bills, airport authorities are notorious for constructing ever-grander manifestations of their own glory. In 2005, Giovanni Bisignani, then-CEO of the International Air Transport Association, famously decried the extravagant $4.4 billion Terminal 1 at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport as a “Versailles with boarding bridges.” More recent expansions in Ottawa, Winnipeg and Calgary — all financed with debt, of course — have drawn similar complaints.

All that debt is responsible for the sector’s current mayday moment. Canada’s airports owe a collective $15.2 billion, more than the combined provincial debts of Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador....


https://financialpost.com/opinion/pe...-9ebbeb9faba1/

So, we have a model that returns profit for the government. I'd rather have somebody flying subsidizing government as opposed to government subsidizing flying unless it's up to somewhere that needs an air connection. That $6.5 billion would have come out of somebody's pocket somehow to fund government otherwise.

I fail to see a downside here. Flyers pay for airport improvements directly, instead of it being weaseled out of government coffers. Government retains ownership of a valuable strategic asset that pays dividends (glares at Highway 407).

The only downside I see is that flying costs somewhat more. Who better to pay for aviation than the people who can afford to fly? I say this as someone who flies occasionally for leisure. Why should someone who never flies subsidize me?

Unless, of course, all one wants is cheap flying at someone else's expense. If $50 of airport improvement fees is stopping one from flying, um, perhaps flying isn't for them.

The private sector's all about airports because they know a cash cow when they see one. Especially one that doesn't have competition, like many airports in Canada. So, that $6.5 billion ends up in private hands. Just like the 407.

casper Aug 8, 2020 5:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46 (Post 9004569)
So, we have a model that returns profit for the government. I'd rather have somebody flying subsidizing government as opposed to government subsidizing flying unless it's up to somewhere that needs an air connection. That $6.5 billion would have come out of somebody's pocket somehow to fund government otherwise.

I fail to see a downside here. Flyers pay for airport improvements directly, instead of it being weaseled out of government coffers. Government retains ownership of a valuable strategic asset that pays dividends (glares at Highway 407).

The only downside I see is that flying costs somewhat more. Who better to pay for aviation than the people who can afford to fly? I say this as someone who flies occasionally for leisure. Why should someone who never flies subsidize me?

Unless, of course, all one wants is cheap flying at someone else's expense. If $50 of airport improvement fees is stopping one from flying, um, perhaps flying isn't for them.

The private sector's all about airports because they know a cash cow when they see one. Especially one that doesn't have competition, like many airports in Canada. So, that $6.5 billion ends up in private hands. Just like the 407.

Yes to some extent.

If the government had turned over the airports to the private sector it would have put the land and airport building up for sale to the highest bidder. The day after the sale it would have lost complete control over the future use of that land. Take Pearson or Vancouver as an example. No profit centered business would have invested in buying that land and then kept in reserve for aviation use. It would have maximized the return on that investment. We probably would not have had a second runway in Vancouver, instead condo towers and warehouses. The focus on Pearson would have been to reduce the number of runways to free up more land for development.

The government instead kept the land and chose to charge rent to the non-profit operating the airport. The alternative would have been to sell the land to the non-profit and the non-profit would be paying mortgage payments on the land.

thenoflyzone Aug 8, 2020 5:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper (Post 9004952)
Yes to some extent.

If the government had turned over the airports to the private sector it would have put the land and airport building up for sale to the highest bidder. The day after the sale it would have lost complete control over the future use of that land.

Not really. Transport Canada would still be the regulator and any private company or highest bidder would need the approval from TC before making big changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper (Post 9004952)
Take Pearson or Vancouver as an example. No profit centered business would have invested in buying that land and then kept in reserve for aviation use. It would have maximized the return on that investment. We probably would not have had a second runway in Vancouver, instead condo towers and warehouses. The focus on Pearson would have been to reduce the number of runways to free up more land for development.

Highly doubt TC would allow such a thing. Airport lands are designated for airport use. You can't just build condos on it willy-nilly. Approvals need to be obtained by the regulator, which in this case would still be Transport Canada, even in a private enterprise scenario.

Heck, even if you're off airport land but in close proximity, you can't build condos the way you want without TC approval, because of airport zoning regulations (AZR). Airport operations need to be protected from obstacles. So if you want to build a 20 storey condo off airport, but are in an AZR, TC can say "no, you're only allowed to build 5 storeys".

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/ope...ng-regulations

Check the zoning map for YUL in the link provided, as an example.

casper Aug 9, 2020 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone (Post 9004974)
Not really. Transport Canada would still be the regulator and any private company or highest bidder would need the approval from TC before making big changes.



Highly doubt TC would allow such a thing. Airport lands are designated for airport use. You can't just build condos on it willy-nilly. Approvals need to be obtained by the regulator, which in this case would still be Transport Canada, even in a private enterprise scenario.

Heck, even if you're off airport land but in close proximity, you can't build condos the way you want without TC approval, because of airport zoning regulations (AZR). Airport operations need to be protected from obstacles. So if you want to build a 20 storey condo off airport, but are in an AZR, TC can say "no, you're only allowed to build 5 storeys".

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/ope...ng-regulations

Check the zoning map for YUL in the link provided, as an example.

Here is how it works with the City of Richmond (where YVR) is located:

https://www.richmond.ca/plandev/plan...third%20runway.

Once it is private land TC role is fairly limited to ensuring the runway can be safely operated. In the case of Sea Island where the airport is located in Vancouver there is a mix of residential, retail, hotel and airport uses. If you look at Lulu island there is no shortage of Condo and office building on the approach to the airport.

At the time the airport was transferred over to the local authority it had one main runway and a short cross wind runway. The airport authority built the second parallel runway. That land could just as easily been used for development without interfering with the existing runways.

The same for Calgary.

Transport Canada solution was to retain ownership over the land and charge rent instead of selling the land.

Djeffery Aug 9, 2020 4:15 PM

I recall back in the mid 90's or so, there is a hotel to the east of Toronto Pearson that had to either be demolished or remove a couple floors as the airport was planning to add the new east-west runway along the south side the airport. I believe it is now the Hotel Indigo on Carlingview, but I never did find out if they did only remove the floors or rebuilt the entire hotel.

Dominion301 Aug 9, 2020 9:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext (Post 9004483)
Pretty scathing review of Canada's airport authorities in the Financial Post:

Peter Shawn Taylor: Why airport bankruptcies could be a good thing
Looming financial catastrophe could be the impetus necessary to force Canada’s airports into the 21st century


Author of the article:Special to Financial Post & Peter Shawn Taylor
Publishing date:Aug 06, 2020

....To shield Canadians from the horror of airports run by the private sector, which are in fact common in Britain, Australia and Europe, Ottawa instead handed them over to local, non-profit, non-share-capital airport authorities under 60-year leases. Canada is the only country to run its airports this way. There are good reasons why no one has ever copied us.

These leases require airport authorities to make hefty annual payments to Ottawa; since 1992 the federal government has reaped a cumulative $6.5 billion this way. But since it is still the ultimate owner of the land and buildings, Ottawa is essentially paying these fees to itself. And in a way that makes Canadian airports less competitive. To cover their costs, airport authorities were given virtually unlimited powers to levy fees on airport users. This explains why Canadian travellers often drive to the U.S. for cheap international flights.

Canadian airports also have an expensive tendency to “gold-plate,” or over-build, capital projects. Lacking a profit incentive, and with air travellers and airlines footing all the bills, airport authorities are notorious for constructing ever-grander manifestations of their own glory. In 2005, Giovanni Bisignani, then-CEO of the International Air Transport Association, famously decried the extravagant $4.4 billion Terminal 1 at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport as a “Versailles with boarding bridges.” More recent expansions in Ottawa, Winnipeg and Calgary — all financed with debt, of course — have drawn similar complaints.

All that debt is responsible for the sector’s current mayday moment. Canada’s airports owe a collective $15.2 billion, more than the combined provincial debts of Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador....


https://financialpost.com/opinion/pe...-9ebbeb9faba1/

I read that entire piece of drivel. Remember the “news” source, perennial money-losing, aka American-owned, propped up in perpetuity to spread a political ideology, National “Chastise if it’s not Privatized“ Post.

The “article” conveniently forgets to mention that save for YYZ T3, Canada’s airports were in poor shape and the airport authorities were given no money for improvements when established. Take YOW, the old terminal was a sad joke and embarrassment to Canada’s Capital. As incredible as old T1 at YYZ was for spotting, it was literally being held together with duct tape in its final decade.

Fact of the matter is, the airports were booming up until February 29, 2020.

casper Aug 10, 2020 1:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominion301 (Post 9005700)
I read that entire piece of drivel. Remember the “news” source, perennial money-losing, aka American-owned, propped up in perpetuity to spread a political ideology, National “Chastise if it’s not Privatized“ Post.

The “article” conveniently forgets to mention that save for YYZ T3, Canada’s airports were in poor shape and the airport authorities were given no money for improvements when established. Take YOW, the old terminal was a sad joke and embarrassment to Canada’s Capital. As incredible as old T1 at YYZ was for spotting, it was literally being held together with duct tape in its final decade.

Fact of the matter is, the airports were booming up until February 29, 2020.

The state of Canadian airports before the handover was a mixed bag. Most were consistent if not better than comparable airports in the US at the time. That is more a reflection of airports in the US being a mixed bag, some are modern and great architecture others look like they are held together with duct tape.

I actually liked the old Ottawa airport and though it was fine. Winnipeg was a very different story.

I think YVR, YXE, YUL, YEG, and YYC had the correct strategy of upgrade the existing building and build small incremental expansions. YYZ, YOW and YWG strategy of build new was likely more expensive and disruptive.

urbandreamer Aug 10, 2020 3:01 AM

On Airport Road today the airport was eerily silent, the gigantic fleet of parked rental cars yet the only thing that struck me? Zet's. Will they survive?

Dominion301 Aug 10, 2020 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper (Post 9005802)
The state of Canadian airports before the handover was a mixed bag. Most were consistent if not better than comparable airports in the US at the time. That is more a reflection of airports in the US being a mixed bag, some are modern and great architecture others look like they are held together with duct tape.

I actually liked the old Ottawa airport and though it was fine. Winnipeg was a very different story.

I think YVR, YXE, YUL, YEG, and YYC had the correct strategy of upgrade the existing building and build small incremental expansions. YYZ, YOW and YWG strategy of build new was likely more expensive and disruptive.

The old YOW terminal’s original 1959 architecture was quite impressive. However, the 1980s expansion removed any trace of what was left of the original design. The old terminal was literally falling apart by the end and unlike say YHZ, could not be expanded/remodeled a 3rd time...the first was in the late 70s when the first loading bridges were added. By the time the new building opened, the old one was already a million pax over capacity (let alone the 5.1 million pax last year - double the old building’s capacity of 2.5 million) and during the late 90s tech boom, there weren’t enough gates to add more flights at peak times, even though airlines wanted to. It was also in a poor location for expansion. The double taxiway behind the modern terminal wouldn’t have been possible at the old one for example.

Dominion301 Aug 10, 2020 8:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djeffery (Post 9005481)
I recall back in the mid 90's or so, there is a hotel to the east of Toronto Pearson that had to either be demolished or remove a couple floors as the airport was planning to add the new east-west runway along the south side the airport. I believe it is now the Hotel Indigo on Carlingview, but I never did find out if they did only remove the floors or rebuilt the entire hotel.

I remember the old Constellation hotel was torn down many years ago along Dixon, but that didn’t have anything to do with YYZ.

TorontoDrew Aug 10, 2020 8:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx (Post 9004490)
Taking my first flight since COVID Sunday to YYZ from YEG. Curious to see what an airport feels like.

YYZ is mostly steel, glass and stone so it should feel hard to the touch but smooth. Let us know.

Djeffery Aug 10, 2020 9:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominion301 (Post 9006502)
I remember the old Constellation hotel was torn down many years ago along Dixon, but that didn’t have anything to do with YYZ.

Did a little more digging, unfortunately couldn't find any before pictures though, and Google Earth time roll back doesn't give a good picture. Anyway, it's now the Best Western Premier at 135 Carlingview. It was a Novotel, built in 1995, and closed in 2001 for renovations. I want to say they removed 3 floors, or maybe 3 at one end and 4 at the other, but the hotel isn't one complete level across the top floor now anyway, east side is one floor higher. The hotel also has a runway extended centre line light in it's parking lot.

I stayed at the Constellation a few times when we were first married, as it was a cheap hotel for a pre-flight stay and car parking, but wasn't sad to see it go. Am surprised nothing has been built there though.

Coldrsx Aug 11, 2020 1:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew (Post 9006526)
YYZ is mostly steel, glass and stone so it should feel hard to the touch but smooth. Let us know.

Ha.

YEG reasonably busy, full flight, good precautions, a very long boarding and reasonably assured.

People were civil and pleasant.

Flying with a mask was not as odd as I expected.

YYZ dead when I arrived, rental area sorta busy, but quick.

whatnext Aug 11, 2020 2:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominion301 (Post 9005700)
I read that entire piece of drivel. Remember the “news” source, perennial money-losing, aka American-owned, propped up in perpetuity to spread a political ideology, National “Chastise if it’s not Privatized“ Post.

The “article” conveniently forgets to mention that save for YYZ T3, Canada’s airports were in poor shape and the airport authorities were given no money for improvements when established. Take YOW, the old terminal was a sad joke and embarrassment to Canada’s Capital. As incredible as old T1 at YYZ was for spotting, it was literally being held together with duct tape in its final decade.

Fact of the matter is, the airports were booming up until February 29, 2020.

Meh, what is an airport but a glorified bus terminal?

Zurich is my favourite airport and owned by a publicly traded company, in which local governments own a small share. If people are concerned about the land, the Feds could have leased it for 100 years.

swimmer_spe Aug 11, 2020 7:10 AM

Are new airport construction dead?
I hear lots about the Pickering Airport, and how YYZ is close to needing a relief airport. with the current world situation, will we see other ways to reduce the need for the relief, or will a new airport still be needed? One option is to add infrastructure to Hamilton's, and let it grow.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.