Rockie wrote:Well, Chris Russell sure seems annoyed...
, Very Funny Rockie. Most of the stuff on this site is garbage, but that made my day. I can't believe I just wasted 10mins reading all of Chris Russell's tweets.
Interesting note at the end of the article about Porter considering jet service out West.
The above linked article wrote:In an interview earlier this week, Porter CEO Robert Deluce said the company “will remain viable, with or without jets.”
The airline has examined the possibility of operating out of other hubs besides Billy Bishop, including airports in Western Canada.
---------- ADS -----------
Being stupid around airplanes is a capital offence and nature is a hanging judge!
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
Mark Twain
5x5 wrote:Interesting note at the end of the article about Porter considering jet service out West.
Once upon a time Regco's business planned hinged on building a bridge and they couldn't do it without one. Turned out they could. Now it seems getting the C-Series might not hinge on extending the runway distance either. Funny that....
5x5 wrote:Interesting note at the end of the article about Porter considering jet service out West.
Once upon a time Regco's business planned hinged on building a bridge and they couldn't do it without one. Turned out they could. Now it seems getting the C-Series might not hinge on extending the runway distance either. Funny that....
Would it be realistic to suggest if this YTZ extension did proceed and thus permitting Cs operations, the the lobby would be on for Corporate and charter jet inclusion. It would be intense no doubt and the dynamic of Toronto Island would be greatly changed with the influx of additional traffic.
skymarc wrote:Were would you park all these corporate jets at CYTZ? The ramp is already crowded.
According to Vaughn all of lake Ontario will be paved over if expansion were to go ahead. Sounds like lots of parking room available in that case...again according to Vaughn
Maybe I don't know enough about this, but here's my take.
Isn't the Federal Government's involvement in the Tripartite agreement due to the Fed's (i.e. Transport Canada) oversight of all things aviation? As such, isn't their role tied to Transport Canada's role of ensuring aviation safety?
If that's the case, how exactly is "We're not going to re-open the Tripartite agreement because we say so" an appropriate statement from a body who's responsibility is to ensure Aviation Safety?
I'd accept safety or regulatory-related reason to say No, but refusing to even look at it??
Also, when did Twitter become an official channel for Government communications or official decisions? Maybe I haven't been in Canada long enough.
Garneau was speaking as a cabinet minister on behalf of the government, TC as an entity has nothing to do with it. The Port Authority is an "independent" federal agency leasing land whereas the federal government and city are the actual land owners, hence the tripartite agreement. In reality though the federal government will defer to the city, and the Port Authority will defer to both of the other two.
You guys are right. Looks like I'm fulla crap. Not the first time and likely not the last.
Thanks for the references. They're appreciated.
I accept the need for more reading. There's always something more a person can learn anyway.
Even me.
Speaking with an acquaintance at BBD I've also learned that yes, the FAA has a new matrix for landing distances they will have to publish for their C series. More reading I'll have to do. Maybe it will affect runway length at CYTZ?
So, it's been a great week for learning new stuff.
Gotta go wipe some egg off my face.
Cheers,
Gino
Regarding the TALPA-ARC on landing distance calculations, the FAA just issued an Advisory Circular on it on December 22nd, 2015. As per paragraph 2.2, it is strangely not mandatory. Perhaps it will be at some point but if not, why go through the exercise?