Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF
(11-22-2018, 03:15 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: First, I don't think it's fair to make your points, and then declare the conversation over.

I didn't mean to be unfair. I figured you would have the last word in rebuttal to my post, but I wanted you to know that I wasn't going to respond. I feel like I'm not going to get anywhere continuing to discuss road usage/parking/etc. with you and this thread isn't really the place to have that discussion anyway, imo.
Reply


(11-22-2018, 04:25 PM)SammyOES Wrote:
(11-22-2018, 03:15 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: First, I don't think it's fair to make your points, and then declare the conversation over.

I didn't mean to be unfair.  I figured you would have the last word in rebuttal to my post, but I wanted you to know that I wasn't going to respond.  I feel like I'm not going to get anywhere continuing to discuss road usage/parking/etc. with you and this thread isn't really the place to have that discussion anyway, imo.

Fair enough.  FWIW I agree with you on the airport issues, I'm skeptical of whether YKF would ever serve connections from Pearson...and I think there are other options for increasing capacity at Pearson.
Reply
(11-20-2018, 04:43 PM)SammyOES Wrote: I'm always a bit skeptical of claims about capacity at major airports like Pearson.  There are ways to increase capacity without a new runway: bigger aircrafts on average, improvements in air traffic / ground control technology, moving some traffic earlier / later in the day, etc..  A lot of major airports are feeling these constraints so there are industry wide incentives to focus on these things.

Since we are getting back to the airport capacity discussion Smile I'll respond to this one now.

Airports can't practically mandate aircraft sizes. Landing slot constraints have pushed some airlines to adopt much larger aircraft (A380, for example) but passengers also want higher frequencies so there is the parallel but opposite movement to downgauge, from the 777/747 size range to the 787/A330 range.

Air traffic control technology is overdue for an overhaul but it's a long-term project. FAA started the NextGen project over 10 years ago, and the first phase of implementation is not due until 2025. Full benefits will be seen maybe somewhere between 2030 and 2040 in the US -- Canadian equivalent is TBD.

Opening more slots in the early mornings or late nights may be feasible, but it's subject to constraints through noise regulations and also matching slots at the flight destinations (or origins).
Reply
The thing that gives me hope here though is that it seems like everyone's economic incentives are aligned fairly well.  There are still a fair number of flights from YYZ on small regional planes (and "regional" seems to be covering a larger and larger area every year), if the cost per flight at Pearson goes up because of demand there'll be pressure on the airlines to use bigger planes.  And from the passenger point of view there's really not too much of a difference between flying on a smaller plane or a larger one.  250 passengers embark/disembark slower than 100, but aside from that the majority of the trip is roughly equivalent.   It does seem like the long haul routes are generally moving to smaller more fuel efficient planes - but what is the make up of traffic at Pearson?

I agree that progress on a lot of the air traffic control side of things moves slowly.  But that can change quickly if there becomes a big push to modernize - and technology itself can change quickly and totally upset the long range plans.  For example, if (big if?) we have full self-driving cars in 20 years, its hard to image that parts of that same technology won't flow through to vastly improving planes and plane movements.
Reply
(11-22-2018, 04:57 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Airports can't practically mandate aircraft sizes.

Fortunately, there is absolutely no reason why they should. Auctioning off the landing slots will do the trick. If some rich guy wants to occasionally pay a king’s ransom to land a 2-seat plane at rush hour, fine. Most of the time, large jets will be landing, spreading their landing slot fee amongst hundreds of passengers.

It’s for the same reason that I think HOV and HOT lanes are nonsense. Just put a congestion charge on the highway and let people decide whether they want to pay the congestion charge all by themselves or split it with one or more carpoolers. This also avoids the road design complexity of having special lanes.
Reply
Air traffic control is extremely cautious and conservative in moving to new technology. ATC has been a bottleneck in the tri-state (think NYC) area for decades, causing persistent delays and cancellations. But we are still 10 years (or so) away from even starting to break apart that logjam.
Reply
You will notice that the GTAA master plan is predicting passenger volume to double over the next 20 years, but plane movements to only increase 40% or so. I'm sure they're already accounting for bigger planes and spreading traffic out throughout the day more.

It's kind of funny to me that so many people feel the free market will solve traffic woes, but not other social problems. Evidence from Heathrow is that airlines will gladly sit on unused landing slots. Even with policies in place forcing them to use them, they will fly empty planes that passengers can't even book a seat on just to keep a slot. They're that valuable.

Airports use massive quantities of land. It's therefore in the public's best interest to make sure that we maximize their utilization. This is not something you want to leave for the free market to sort out.
Reply
(11-23-2018, 07:27 AM)jamincan Wrote: You will notice that the GTAA master plan is predicting passenger volume to double over the next 20 years, but plane movements to only increase 40% or so. I'm sure they're already accounting for bigger planes and spreading traffic out throughout the day more.

I'm curious (genuinely, this isn't a trick question), what has their history of success been in predicting growth?

(11-23-2018, 07:27 AM)jamincan Wrote: It's kind of funny to me that so many people feel the free market will solve traffic woes, but not other social problems.

I believe the free market is the best way to solve problems when everyone's incentives are aligned and costs/benefits are well understood and accounted for by everyone (this is obviously a huge simplification - but hopefully enough for this topic). Most social issues have very poorly aligned incentives. Healthcare for example with private practitioners/insurers is a bad place for the free market because "optimizing profits" and "optimizing health of a population" are very different things.

My previous comment by the way, doesn't mean that I think we need a purely free market solution. You can still add regulations to keep incentives aligned properly. A large fee for an idle gate or low capacity or more drastic measures like "use it or lose it" can help here. Obviously an airline would choose to maximize their profits over the general benefit of the airport and its user base - but it seems easy enough to prevent that.
Reply
(11-23-2018, 10:28 AM)SammyOES Wrote:
(11-23-2018, 07:27 AM)jamincan Wrote: You will notice that the GTAA master plan is predicting passenger volume to double over the next 20 years, but plane movements to only increase 40% or so. I'm sure they're already accounting for bigger planes and spreading traffic out throughout the day more.

I'm curious (genuinely, this isn't a trick question), what has their history of success been in predicting growth?

(11-23-2018, 07:27 AM)jamincan Wrote: It's kind of funny to me that so many people feel the free market will solve traffic woes, but not other social problems.

I believe the free market is the best way to solve problems when everyone's incentives are aligned and costs/benefits are well understood and accounted for by everyone (this is obviously a huge simplification - but hopefully enough for this topic).  Most social issues have very poorly aligned incentives.  Healthcare for example with private practitioners/insurers is a bad place for the free market because "optimizing profits" and "optimizing health of a population" are very different things.

My previous comment by the way, doesn't mean that I think we need a purely free market solution.  You can still add regulations to keep incentives aligned properly.  A large fee for an idle gate or low capacity or more drastic measures like "use it or lose it" can help here.  Obviously an airline would choose to maximize their profits over the general benefit of the airport and its user base - but it seems easy enough to prevent that.

Restrictions like that work to a certain extent, but when availability is constrained, eventually the slot itself has value, rather than what it represents and then all logic goes out the window and you have airlines flying empty planes to an airport just to hold onto a slot. (I realize this isn't an endemic issue, but it's just the most stark example I know). It's sort of a similar situation to real estate.

As to GTAA growth predictions, I don't think they've been so good in the past. The 2008 master plan was predicting much greater growth on smaller planes, and hence had far more terminal growth planned. They ended up not carrying forward most of that expansion when it was clear that the nature of growth was far different than expected. It kind of goes to show how the whole planning process for an airport is somewhat fraught. If the primary tenant of the airport changes tack, the entire plan goes out the window.
Reply
(11-23-2018, 11:33 AM)jamincan Wrote: Restrictions like that work to a certain extent, but when availability is constrained, eventually the slot itself has value, rather than what it represents and then all logic goes out the window and you have airlines flying empty planes to an airport just to hold onto a slot. (I realize this isn't an endemic issue, but it's just the most stark example I know). It's sort of a similar situation to real estate.

I’m suspicious of the empty planes. If they have to use the slot to keep it, they don’t really own it, do they? Which in turn suggests that there are complicated rules, rather than simple auctioning of slots, in operation. Also, why should incumbent operators get to hold on to historical slots, even if they are using them? If somebody else can outbid them, it suggests that it may be because they can provide more customer value using the slot than the incumbent can.
Reply
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...throw.html
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  GRT to Airport? Drake 33 18,278 02-08-2016, 11:39 PM
Last Post: Coke6pk

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links