Hi Tim,
sounds like you were a lot closer to this than myself. Admittedly I never worked on T2 or any of the other Pearson expansions. My understanding was in 1970 or so a very different T2 was envisioned that was to dwarf the original T1 in size and grandeur. This version was scaled back and totally repackaged due to cost over runs at Mirabel, and that the original version of T2, or now T3? would be built at a later date. Then the whole second airport at pickering seemed to be the way forward and this additional Terminal at Pearson seemed to drop out of the news. My question is once T2 was started was there really any plan for a future larger terminal at Pearson or did that only come much later in the form of current T3? Thanks
I don't think anyone really took the whole second airport thing seriously after what happened at Mirabel and I can't say if there was any other grand plan for T2. North America was a regulated airline environment until 1978 when the US deregulated, followed by Canada in the 1987 or 1988 period. Capacity increases in the 1980s, particularly at T2 were limited. 3 widebody gates were added in the Mod-Q extension of - my memory is a little fuzzy here - maybe 1990. I don't think there was ever a grand master plan that there is is today regarding terminal development. Remember that T3 was privately owned and operated under a joint venture between Lockheed Air Terminal and I forget the other party until taken over by the GTAA in 1996 when the GTAA was formed. Terminal One was absolutely bursting at the seams during that summer of 1990 and there were several times I remember having to walk from the employee lot because the shuttle was stuck in traffic trying to enter the terminal. Gate holds on inbound international flights were routinely 45 minutes because of the small customs hall. So Terminal three which should have opened that summer was desperately needed. When it opened in late February of 1991 it felt like paradise!
What we used to call T1NEW, developed to replace the 1960s T1, was the first terminal that I recall developed within the context of a truly master plan. It could really only work that way since so much had to be changed in terms of demolition and new construction of cargo facilities, added runways, control tower, fire halls, hangars and maintenance facilities and ground transportation.
You just didn't see explosive growth in the 1970s and1980s the way it happened in the 1990s and beyond and there are a couple of reasons for this. Open skies between Canada and the US took effect in 1994 meaning that any carrier from either country could offer point to point service to any city they chose. They didn't have to be a designated carrier on a particular route the way it was prior. For example, when eastern ceased ops in January of 1991, there was a route from Toronto to tampa that came up for grabs. American applied for and received emergency authorization to operate it. At some point, Delta was awarded the route. After open skies there was no longer this carrier designation required. It resulted in some interesting city pairs being served for short periods of time.
Another thing that happened in conjunction with open skies was the fifty seat jet market opening up. Air Canada recognized this and ordered a bunch CRJs that they could deploy on transborder routes and used them very effectively to increase traffic. This aircraft type also spurred some growth in Canada. Some routes that used to be operated with 100 seat DC9s like Toronto to Sydney, NS and had been dropped could now be operated with 50 seat CRJs.
The other thing that really made a difference - also in conjunction with a more liberalized bilateral agreement push between nations - was the introduction of the ultra long haul twin market and extending ETOPS. ETOPS (Extended Twin Operations or
Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming!) made some thinner routes viable. Air Canada and TWA were pioneers in this regard in the mid 1980s sending 767-200s to europe, proving that the two engines were reliable enough to safely fly across large bodies of water. Prior, aircraft needed three or four engines and that meant that some routes couldn't economically support a DC10 or 747. By the mid 1990s, the 777 entered service (Korean was the first operator of it that I recall seeing in the late 90s at YYZ with their 777-200) and then the 777-300ER came to be in the mid 2000s. Combine that with the opening of large sections of Russian airspace that made polar routes possible and a further extension of ETOPS times to something ridiculous like over 200minutes, growth was explosive. It has continued with the 787 and A350. Everybody likes to talk about the 747 being the game changer. No, in my book it was the 777 and specifically the 777-300ER.
The 70s and 80s were periods of modest growth and facility expansion reflected that. Liberalization of bilateral air agreements along with some technological advances later on caused growth to take off so to speak. I fear we might be on the cusp of stagnant growth for the next half decade based on what's happening stateside and elsewhere.
