Wednesday, August 28, 2013


Toronto Sun columnist Simon Kent is against those who are against expansion of Billy Bishop Airport. He conveniently forgets to mention (he probably doesn't even know) that an airport, by its very nature, has a huge 'footprint'.

Aircraft noise and smell (fuel) are issues, but there are others...

Kent states, "Opponents are warming up and already expressing doubts over the modest proposal by Porter Airlines to add 168 metres to either end of the tarmac."

No. First of all, that measurement, for those who have a hard time with metric distances, is an over 500 foot increase in the airstrip's length. Anyway, the lengthening invites larger aircraft -- jets -- which will up the overall capacity for the airport (which, of course, is the whole idea; hello, Porter Airlines). I'm not against this on the surface but the major problem is that Billy Bishop Airport lacks multiple access points; roads which are essential for the amount of traffic that a larger facility demands. Anyone who lives in Toronto and is familiar with the current mainland-island connection knows that the intersection of Bathurst and Front Streets is "impossible", never mind what will happen, not might happen, with airport expansion. Believe me, it wouldn't beeping stop: Service and transport vehicles, fuel tanker trucks, personal cars; the commotion, constant commotion, would be immense.

"That airport near Canary Wharf was officially opened on Nov. 5, 1987, after heated debate and handled just four airlines going to just Brussels, Paris and Plymouth. Today it is a spectacular success and home to 10 airlines, serving 43 destinations and carrying as many as 10 million passengers annually."

Again, he loses. London City Airport has efficient road access and is more than a little distance away from the city-centre, so his comparison is inauthentic.

Either Simon Kent does not know what he's talking about, or it's the usual neocon, Toronto Sun propaganda; and you're an "idiot" if you are against airport expansion. Didn't you know? Well, I'm safe because I would like to hear the various assessments and, based on my already-in-place great interest in civil aviation, I will make my own decision. But, for now, it does not look good.

"If Toronto is to keep growing and keep connected to the wider world, a second airport is essential."

Oh, really? I did not know that. And it's somewhat surprising that Simon Kent knows....

Turbulence lies ahead in Billy Bishop Airport debate

... I find it comical that the Toronto Sun photo editor chose a picture which obviously was taken on a smog day. That gets a grand "lol".


Jon said...

"If Toronto is to keep growing and keep connected to the wider world, a second airport is essential."

Right, because if the second airport isn't expanded, Toronto's growth will grind to a halt. You heard it here.

The fat cats want their jet set...

Barry Smight said...

Dear Mr. Kent,

Do you mean to say that Toronto not having a second airport is what is slowing down condominium development? I knew it!!

You bastards!!

You're my hero, Mr. Kent.


DonaldAR said...

I wanted to do a bunch of research on this topic, but am suffering from pre back-to-school ennui. Suffice to say: Excellent points, Mr. S! Might I add:
- The avaricious TPA operating the TIA: Bad Idea.
- Re-branding TIA with name identical to existing facility in same province (Billy Bishop / YOS in Owen Sound): borderline criminally stupid.
- City and / or Province and / or Feds not stepping in (yet) and working out a deal with (or expropriating) Buttonville, and telling TPA to go F themselves (FAT chance with Ford's Follies): priceless.

Barry Smight said...

Your adds are excellent.

There's definitely a sweetie-pie arrangement going on here...

Robert Deluce and Porter Airlines (Portland Airlines) are sneaky.

In the case of managing the Island Airport, the Toronto Port Authority is a ship of fools.