Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF

[danbrotherston]

I don't think the obstacle facing flights out of Kitchener was airport expansion. Much more likely is for us to spend money on this expansion, then flair goes under and we are once again left with 1-2 flights per day and the bill for all the work we did. The problem for airlines was always economics.

And you're right, GO train improvements would vastly improve accessibility to Pearson...which only further weakens the business case for our airport, since the main reason I'd pay more to fly out of Kitchener is to avoid travel to Pearson airport. Pearson has over a thousand flights per day, Kitchener will never meaningfully improve the flight options compared with Pearson.

True, but the time-savings can be significant. If you can trim 60-90 minutes of travel off your trip by avoiding Mississauga, and another 30-60 minutes within the airport (because YKF is small and you don't need to hike 3km to get to your gate), YKF can continue to be an appealing option for travelers.

We also know that Pearson is working at near-capacity for how many passengers it can transport in a day, and that the population of Canada is only growing, and eventually they may not be able to handle the amount of flight traffic in/out of YYZ even with expansions, in which case the smaller airports like Waterloo and Hamilton may need to pick up the slack.

The time savings from not going through Pearson are much larger than the travel time improvement (when we have a real GO Transit option), but when I am booking a flight that once or only a few times a day, and I expect to take a day travelling (which I do any time I am travelling) then I don't really care about saving 30-60 minutes.

The biggest advantage would be with morning flights where I'd get to sleep in longer, but that advantage is reduced because early morning travel is generally less busy anyway.

As for future Pearson plans, I know this is the claim, I've heard it many times. But Schiphol--a smaller airport land area wise--carries vastly more passengers, so clearly there is room for growth at Pearson--at least if we were able to efficiently (read: competently) move large numbers of people.

That being said, there are broader issues at play here. Most of our flights are to nearby destinations that should instead be served with high speed rail. So like, we shouldn't be building our infra assuming we will fail to solve climate change...because climate change is a real thing...we either solve it, and don't need as big an investment in air travel, or we don't solve it, and we also don't need as big an investment in air travel because our society collapses.

Of course, why should this be any different...every thing we build today, every house, every road, every car, every furnace, everything...is built with the assumption that business as usual will continue indefinitely. Yes, we are making progress in deploying renewables and even EVs, but nothing fundamentally is changing, every O&G company is continuing with the assumption they will grow indefinitely. These are either going to be enormous stranded assets, or they'll be monuments to our immense idiocy that we'll look up at from whatever is left.