micheal_can
Senior Member
How many flights to those airports could be replaced with Alto?
|
|
|
- Thread starter wyliepoon
- Start date
How many flights to those airports could be replaced with Alto?
Metroscapes
Active Member
On the flip side, a federal rail project would have been an opportunity to widen the corridor for a UP2 [Union-Pickering] rail link. But I'm not going to flog the dead horse too much.
Google flights in March suggests (roughly; Pearson / Billy Bishop):
- Ottawa: 18 / 10
- Montreal: 21 / 16
- Quebec City: 4 / 8
micheal_can
Senior Member
Lets say they keep10 from each. Imagine how many more flights from elsewhere can use those slots.
6ixGod
Active Member
It may keep PIckering dead, but it might be propelling Peterborough into the equation.
The Mayor of Peterborough seems to want ALTO to bypass the city to the south based on this comment
Leal said a local station could be located near the Peterborough Airport, which belongs to the city, though it is in neighbouring Cavan Monaghan Township. Leal points out it would allow the tracks to cross the Otonabee River at its narrowest point.
“That makes good construction sense,” Leal said. “That will be to the south of the city and would provide a more regional stop for the entire region.”
turbanplanner
Senior Member
Peterborough's lighting has been broken since January and won't be fixed until the end of march. Can't imaging running it as a commercial airport.
lenaitch
Senior Member
With increased traffic meaning increased investment, it is possible they might be able to maintain and upgrade their facilities. Pearson stated out as Malton and was a lot smaller.
micheal_can
Senior Member
From what I have been told, there are about 75 flights a day to/from Pearson to Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City. Lets say that gets cut down to 25 a day. That would mean 50 new slots open. With that happening, what case would be made for any air carrier to move to Peterborough? Who is going to move there? If they are willing to move, why have they not moved to Hamilton?
With this announcement, there isn't a business case to expand airports.
With this announcement, there isn't a business case to expand airports.
KingJames
Active Member
Hopeful that Porters expanding flight paths from YHM , means that we could see at least Montreal (to Porters hub ) and YOW added to the mix. No need for additional airports, beef up the secondary ones already in existence.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Keep in mind these are domestic, mostly, narrowbody flights (There are a few widebody flights between YYZ/YUL). Spread between two terminals (AC T1, and WJ/PD T3). Which domestic markets are AC/WJ/PD not serving now that they would with the freed up gates and aircraft time. Sure with YYZ's swing gates the reduced demand for domestic gates will free those gates up to be used for international flights, and the 321XLR is making trans-Atlantic flights a real possibility. It's just not going to massively open up schedules for the airlines.
A HSR would be competitive with air in the YYZ/YOW/YUL triangle but I don't see it resulting in a major reduction in service levels. There are nearly hourly flights (or more) between each airport pair from each airline and they do this for a reason as the there is both commuter level demand on these routes. If anything they might downgauge to smaller aircraft.
micheal_can
Senior Member
One thing to think of is if you are on an international flight, you tend to fly to your destination if you can, and with T-O-M, for most destinations,you can. If a reduction in flights between those airports can happen, it could mean that the destinations that do not fly to all of the 3 airports can, which makes those domestic flights even less needed. IF ALTO/the federal government really wanted to push that to happen, a station at each airport, connected to the terminals would further make this happen.