Canadian Airport Thread II

[AuxTown]

I thought it would be interesting to compare distance to city centre of different Canadian airports and there are two that really stand out:

Calgary - 15.0 km
Edmonton - 29.6 km
Halifax - 30.4 km
Montreal - 16.9 km
Ottawa - 10.9 km
St. John's - 7.7km
Toronto - 20.2 km
Vancouver - 11.7 km
Winnipeg - 9.5 km

I've been to both Edmonton and Halifax airports and I remember feeling they were far out of town, but I didn't realize they were that far! Why are they such outliers? Surely there was some land closer to town, no?

I feel like American cities have their airports better integrated into the city, but not sure if that is really the case....or if it is a good thing to have such a big "dead space" in the middle of your urban fabric (kind of how MTL does).

Anyway, just thought it was interesting.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

I thought it would be interesting to compare distance to city centre of different Canadian airports and there are two that really stand out:

Calgary - 15.0 km
Edmonton - 29.6 km
Halifax - 30.4 km
Montreal - 16.9 km
Ottawa - 10.9 km
St. John's - 7.7km
Toronto - 20.2 km
Vancouver - 11.7 km
Winnipeg - 9.5 km

I've been to both Edmonton and Halifax airports and I remember feeling they were far out of town, but I didn't realize they were that far! Why are they such outliers? Surely there was some land closer to town, no?

I feel like American cities have their airports better integrated into the city, but not sure if that is really the case....or if it is a good thing to have such a big "dead space" in the middle of your urban fabric (kind of how MTL does).

Anyway, just thought it was interesting.

A lot of the closer airports listed already existed in some shape or form prior to the 1950s and 1960s. They just happened to be far enough away from their cores as to be viable for larger operations. Edmonton's city airport was far too close and too small.

The development of greenfield airports in the 1950s and 1960s was influenced by the very noisy jets of the era and expected future supersonic aircraft. Listen to a 727 or DC-8 takeoff versus a modern 737MAX/A320neo.

American cities have more viable smaller airports that were still large enough for modern domestic operations (Midway, LaGuardia, Love Field, etc.) and absolutely massive 1950s-era growth closer to cities (O'Hare, LAX).

Phoenix-Sky Harbor is unusual in the sense that it is a very large airport very close to the central city - a testament to Phoenix's late-era growth.

[MonctonRad]

In Halifax's case, it is lumpy, Canadian Shield like topography and coastal fog that were issues.

[Innsertnamehere]

Vegas's airport is also very close to the strip - but that's more of a testament to how the "core" shifted towards the airport than the airport was being close to the core.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by thewave46

A lot of the closer airports listed already existed in some shape or form prior to the 1950s and 1960s. They just happened to be far enough away from their cores as to be viable for larger operations. Edmonton's city airport was far too close and too small.

The development of greenfield airports in the 1950s and 1960s was influenced by the very noisy jets of the era and expected future supersonic aircraft. Listen to a 727 or DC-8 takeoff versus a modern 737MAX/A320neo.

American cities have more viable smaller airports that were still large enough for modern domestic operations (Midway, LaGuardia, Love Field, etc.) and absolutely massive 1950s-era growth closer to cities (O'Hare, LAX).

Phoenix-Sky Harbor is unusual in the sense that it is a very large airport very close to the central city - a testament to Phoenix's late-era growth.

Boston-Logan and Newark are two other examples of large airports close to their city centres. Plus, Reagan National (DCA) is only ~6km from the White House. Compare that to Dulles (IAD) which is around ~45km from the centre of Washington.

Yes, those DC-9s and 727s were noisy. Just watch any New York Mets home game from the 1980s/early 90's on YouTube and you will constantly hear planes flying overhead as Shea Stadium was directly underneath flights paths to LGA.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

I thought it would be interesting to compare distance to city centre of different Canadian airports and there are two that really stand out:

Calgary - 15.0 km
Edmonton - 29.6 km
Halifax - 30.4 km
Montreal - 16.9 km
Ottawa - 10.9 km
St. John's - 7.7km
Toronto - 20.2 km
Vancouver - 11.7 km
Winnipeg - 9.5 km

I've been to both Edmonton and Halifax airports and I remember feeling they were far out of town, but I didn't realize they were that far! Why are they such outliers? Surely there was some land closer to town, no?

I feel like American cities have their airports better integrated into the city, but not sure if that is really the case....or if it is a good thing to have such a big "dead space" in the middle of your urban fabric (kind of how MTL does).

Anyway, just thought it was interesting.

Victoria (YYJ) is another airport a significant distance from its city centre. According to Google Maps, 27.1km from YYJ to the Fairmont Empress Hotel.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

I thought it would be interesting to compare distance to city centre of different Canadian airports and there are two that really stand out:

Calgary - 15.0 km
Edmonton - 29.6 km
Halifax - 30.4 km
Montreal - 16.9 km
Ottawa - 10.9 km
St. John's - 7.7km
Toronto - 20.2 km
Vancouver - 11.7 km
Winnipeg - 9.5 km

Another poster mentioned it, YYJ is quite the drive away from the core. Anywho, though it’s difficult to calculate, due to there being infinite variables that could alter the results, the most important metric is the amount of time that it would take to reach the airport from the core.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

In Halifax's case, it is lumpy, Canadian Shield like topography and coastal fog that were issues.

I can't speak to the accuracy of this but been told by friends from Halifax that the clearing of the land for the airport actually created somewhat of a micro-climate that results in much more fog than was present previously. Though probably still less than other areas. It is an annoying airport if you have to rely on cabs.


San Diego's airport is also very close to the core and I know has hampered development to some degree.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

In Halifax's case, it is lumpy, Canadian Shield like topography and coastal fog that were issues.

The fog didn't stop St. John's from building their airport in one of the most fog-prone areas of the city. Bunch of ninny pilots who want to see the runway prior to landing on it. Not in Newfoundland!

Anyway, even with good visibility in Halifax, keeping it on the runway seems to be a challenge.

Originally Posted by Ozabald

Boston-Logan and Newark are two other examples of large airports close to their city centres. Plus, Reagan National (DCA) is only ~6km from the White House. Compare that to Dulles (IAD) which is around ~45km from the centre of Washington.

New Yorkers might disagree with the concept of Newark being anywhere close to New York City.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The fog didn't stop St. John's from building their airport in one of the most fog-prone areas of the city. Bunch of ninny pilots who want to see the runway prior to landing on it. Not in Newfoundland!

Anyway, even with good visibility in Halifax, keeping it on the runway seems to be a challenge.



New Yorkers might disagree with the concept of Newark being anywhere close to New York City.

YYT was notorious for delays/cancellations due to fog. With upgrades to a CAT 3 ILS, fog delays are less common than in the past.
https://stjohnsairport.com/wp-conten...operations.pdf

True, but EWR is very close to Newark's downtown.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by niwell

I can't speak to the accuracy of this but been told by friends from Halifax that the clearing of the land for the airport actually created somewhat of a micro-climate that results in much more fog than was present previously. Though probably still less than other areas. It is an annoying airport if you have to rely on cabs.


San Diego's airport is also very close to the core and I know has hampered development to some degree.

Travelled to Halifax this summer for a conference. Cab fare to downtown Halifax was around ~$65. The drive is not that long given the distance as most of the drive is on freeways.

[Jaws]

Used Porter from YEG>YOW>EWR last week. Figured I'd steer clear of YYZ and give YOW a chance. Big mistake. There's no Nexus line at YOW U.S. security screening and there was only one security line open. 45 minutes to get through security and the line wasn't very long. There was a sign saying that there was a trial in progress and thanked us for our patience. I can unequivocally state that the trial was a failure. Came back through YYZ and the Nexus line was a breeze.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by niwell

I can't speak to the accuracy of this but been told by friends from Halifax that the clearing of the land for the airport actually created somewhat of a micro-climate that results in much more fog than was present previously. Though probably still less than other areas.

I don't doubt this for a second. I've flown into and out of Halifax Stanfield enough to know the real meaning of "zero visibility."

The airport in Halifax should really be at Shearwater.

Originally Posted by niwell

San Diego's airport is also very close to the core and I know has hampered development to some degree.

I quite like the airport in San Diego. I've been there a couple of times. Very convenient.

[ConundrumNL]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The fog didn't stop St. John's from building their airport in one of the most fog-prone areas of the city. Bunch of ninny pilots who want to see the runway prior to landing on it. Not in Newfoundland!

According to YYT website, local experts had suggested Cochrane Pond (just east of Galway today) as a better site, but the Canadian Government (it was primarily a RCAF base) selected Torbay.

Maybe the selected land didn't need as much work. It took them less then a year to build it.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by Jaws

Used Porter from YEG>YOW>EWR last week. Figured I'd steer clear of YYZ and give YOW a chance. Big mistake. There's no Nexus line at YOW U.S. security screening and there was only one security line open. 45 minutes to get through security and the line wasn't very long. There was a sign saying that there was a trial in progress and thanked us for our patience. I can unequivocally state that the trial was a failure. Came back through YYZ and the Nexus line was a breeze.

At the moment a dedicated lane isn't needed. In the past, when numbers have warranted it, they would offer front-of-the-line treatment to NEXUS program members.

Having gone through there 16 times so far this year, it's never taken me more than 10-15 minutes to go through security and US CBP preclearance. And that's without any FOL treatment. 15 min is a bad day when trapped behind a family with strollers etc.

Whatever that "trial" was caused you about a 3-4-fold increase in time. I'm not aware of that "trial" and I went through there 2 weeks ago, also to Newark.

Your experience is lightyears away from typical, FWIW. It's usually comically fast to go through there.

[MonctonRad]

FWIW, YQM is ideally situated in the greater Moncton area, only 7.5 km from Moncton city hall, and on the SE corner of the TCH/Highway 15 interchange. I live in the west end of the city, and, travelling by freeway, can be at the terminal in no more than 12-15 minutes.

Romeo LeBlanc International is fully integrated with the the remainder of the city, and is surrounded by a growing air industrial park. It may not have the stature of the larger airports in the country, but, has a bright future.

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by YOWflier

At the moment a dedicated lane isn't needed. In the past, when numbers have warranted it, they would offer front-of-the-line treatment to NEXUS program members.

Having gone through there 16 times so far this year, it's never taken me more than 10-15 minutes to go through security and US CBP preclearance. And that's without any FOL treatment. 15 min is a bad day when trapped behind a family with strollers etc.

Whatever that "trial" was caused you about a 3-4-fold increase in time. I'm not aware of that "trial" and I went through there 2 weeks ago, also to Newark.

Your experience is lightyears away from typical, FWIW. It's usually comically fast to go through there.

Good to hear that my experience was an anomaly. I have no idea what the "trial" was either as the signs didn't elaborate. Regardless, it's this type of experience which will sour travellers from using particular airports.

[Atrial78]

Originally Posted by YOWflier

At the moment a dedicated lane isn't needed. In the past, when numbers have warranted it, they would offer front-of-the-line treatment to NEXUS program members.

Having gone through there 16 times so far this year, it's never taken me more than 10-15 minutes to go through security and US CBP preclearance. And that's without any FOL treatment. 15 min is a bad day when trapped behind a family with strollers etc.

Whatever that "trial" was caused you about a 3-4-fold increase in time. I'm not aware of that "trial" and I went through there 2 weeks ago, also to Newark.

Your experience is lightyears away from typical, FWIW. It's usually comically fast to go through there.

I actually visited Ottawa last month and unfortunately on my departure had about a 45 minute wait to go through security. There was only one security lane open and this was at a busy time of the day. Funny enough, former PC leader Andrew Scheer was a couple spots behind me in line and did not look pleased.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

NRT daily was the right move. So 4 weekly frequencies are going there. So I guess the increase on the other 3 is 1x weekly each? Is that right?

So after everything that was said, it ended up being that.

YYC-BCN/EDI/FCO get 1x weekly additional frequency each, based on the official press release. It seems WS wants to keep some slack in the 787 S24 schedules, just like S23.

https://www.westjet.com/en-ca/news/2...ansion-across1

Originally Posted by YYCguys

There’s no WS base in YUL, but there are quite a few commuters from YUL and YOW that are based in YYZ.

I used the word "based" as in "living". Indeed, if there are that many of them living in Montreal, their commute will definitely suck from now on.

Someone on airliners brought up a good point as well. Will WS all but decimating their network in the east, and now relaunching TATL from the Maritimes, they will have almost no feed for these flights. YYZ TATL at least has significant O&D, so that should work, but one wonders if the YHZ/YYT TATL flights will last with little to no feed.

[q12]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

YYZ TATL at least has significant O&D, so that should work, but one wonders if the YHZ/YYT TATL flights will last with little to no feed.

One word: Tourism.

Europeans want to visit Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland (New Brunswick is more questionable, lol j/k)


https://twitter.com/ukgolfguy/status...82519923818616