Before composing any further, it is crucial for me to make it very clear that the writings on the blog represent solely my personal opinions and beliefs, and do not represent any other organizations or individuals, period. I am an aviation geek who loves aeroplanes from deep beneath my soul, and I am simply expressing myself through the Canadian Charter of Rights' Fundamental Freedoms.
So what is on the table during the recent elections? The story started when a new airline was born, one that is represented by a cute racoon mascot. It is a Canadian airline that utilizes and supports a full fleet of Canadian made aircraft, the Bombardier's Q400s. It is also the only Canadian airline who supports our nation's latest locally made commercial jet, the Cseries, which is an innovative aircraft built with materials and mechanisms that would reduce emissions and noise (just like the goal of all other major aircraft manufacturers in the world). This airline is based in the heart of Toronto, right at the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, where a runway expansion is required for the Cseries to operate. Obvious enough, you know why it has been brought into political matters and I will not be getting into that ...
YTZ opened in 1939, but prior to the development by its operator, part of Toronto Island served as a water aerodrome (an airport for seaplanes) since 1915 and provided training during War War I. As the new airport was developed, this site continued on for military training and resources transportation during War War II. Basically, aviation operation on the island started as early as the early years of aeroplane developments. The island was also the home of several cottages that mainly sheltered seasonal summer occupants. As of 1899, there were 8 summer seasonal tenants on the island, and the number of residents peaked in 1950s where over 600 cottages were built. Going through the timeline, the airport and the initial water aerodrome started somewhere in between. Disregarding who was here first or who contributed most on the island, the truth is, the airport facility was part of our national framework during the wars and contributed to the protection of our nation. The airport is not a living thing but the operator and all users of the facility made it a lively system that guarded the community and the harbour entry point into the heart of Toronto.
Despite the fact that there is a significant number of supporters in the Harbourfront community for this airport's operation and it's expansion plan, there is also a number of protesters, mainly refer themselves to the NoJets group. So, let me get this straight, aside from the NoJets members who live on the Island, numerous reside on the land side (Harbourfront area) and the majority of those residential buildings were built long after the airport was developed and the wars. It is really questionable for those who argues that the operation is taking over their living space and the community. Speaking of polluting the environment and creating city noises in this community, are all the buildings, roads, highways, human made "beaches", all kinds of vehicles and the recent big revamp of Queens Quay, not making the highest contribution to such matters? Every single building and resident along Queens Quay has been taking over the community and water space since they moved in. Furthermore, the houses on the island, together with every single building along Harbourfront, have located themselves there knowing the existence of the airport. Well yes, airports are there for aeroplanes to operate. True enough, a few cottages or what they used to be the rich's summer vacation homes, were there before the 1900s, but the existence of the majority of the homes that served as year-round shelters occurred after the airport existed. So why is the airport losing it's say about it's future?
It is very true that we and our ancestors invented things that caused significant pollution to the environment, and modern society has realized the adverse effects, leading to our modern day's "green movement". Don't get me wrong, I totally support going green, but only to a mitigation degree. In reality, and as I mentioned as much as we hate the reality in this world, we can only mitigate the amount of pollution. Everything we do today will cause some damage to the environment. We say we go green by biking more. How do you think your bicycles are made? Where do you think the metal pieces and the greasy chains came from? At least one of the parts that made up your bicycle was transported on the aircraft from somewhere around the world. How did they make the paint that were sprayed onto your fancy looking bicycle? How much environmental damage was made when designated bike lanes were built and how much more pollution will it create when long-term maintenance work on those roads is required? Yes, it is very true that in the long term, we may use less cars, which leads to less pollution, but back to my point, we are mitigating, not eliminating.
While we often question, do we need it? Well, we don't need most of the things that we have. The reality is, we live in a society where it's a matter of convenience. Do we need it? Of course we don't need it. Why do we need cars? Why do we need planes? Why do we need cell phones? Why do we need internet? Why do we need lights? Live in the world like our early ancestors in a cave ... oh wait, we would still be damaging the environment because we will be killing animals for food, or if we become vegetarians, we'll be killing trees and plants for food source. Unless you don't shower at all, even if you were to wash yourself in the river or lake, the particles coming off your body and hair would somehow pollute the waters.
Perhaps that may be a bit dramatic, but in reality, we do not need most of the things that we have or have invented today. We want them because they make it more convenient for our lives. This is why, now that we realize the amount of pollution we have caused in this world, we try to mitigate the issue by using more efficient systems, procedures, and methods. Airport operators from around the world have realized the damages caused to the environment and this is why there are environmental plans in place (well, true, more like a regulatory requirement), but there is something in place. Methods of constructions are becoming more and more environmental friendly. Extending runways on airports is no longer just simply digging the grounds and throwing tarmacs into the water. Every procedure of the construction plan requires careful environmental studies and ways to mitigate damages. Well yes, if you convert grassland into hard grounds, you are damaging it regardless, but what I am saying is, the methods have evolved to mitigate the amount of damages. The building you are living in used to be a clean fresh grassland (or water), so there is no doubt that we need what we have today. Modern airport operators would also relocate species should it takes over the space for aviation operations . Improved drainage and containment systems are also in place to prevent fuel leak and drainage of deicing fluid. There are many other ways that airport operators would impose to minimize damage to the environment and the community.
Aircraft manufacturers no longer focus solely on flight range, power, and speed, but rather adding on mechanisms that would reduce emission and noise, as well as enhancing cabin comfort. Newer generation aircraft such as the 787 Dreamliner, A350 and our latest proudly Canadian made Cseries, uses composites materials to reduce weight, resulting in fewer fuel consumption, and ultimately leading to less emission. Newer and more innovative engine options are chosen to further enhance fuel burning processes, and again resulting in lower emission and noise level. I don't mean one or two decibel lower; it is a significant amount of noise reduction. Go listen to an A320 that was originally built in the 80s for short-range, 100-200 passengers, and compare it to the newer generation 787 that was introduced in recent years for long-haul flights, 200-300+ passengers. You will notice that the 787 is much quieter and sounds more pleasant. This is why Airbus, the manufacture of the A320s, has now introduced an improved version, the A320NEO, which contains newer and more innovative materials such as new winglet and engine options to mitigate emission and noise issues. Yes, it still creates noise and it still pollutes the world, but it has been significantly reduced. Many aircraft types are also being redesigned for such purpose (E.g. 737 being converted to 737NG and 737MAX). Bombardier, our Canadian aircraft manufacturer, is in the final test phase of the Cseries, which is a brand new aircraft with increased composite materials and a new engine option. This engine is the first ever in the industry to operate differently than traditional jet engines, which involves a high-bypass geared turbofan technology. Ultimately, it is to significantly reduce emission and noise
So why is it so hard for our once a heroic airport to have a say of an expansion that supports our solely Canadian owned airline and our new proudly Canadian made aircraft? Many questioned if we need it. Ever since the new Airline commenced operation in 2006, the number of passengers grew from 22,000 to 2.4 million in 2014. I am fairly sure many are in support of the convenience of being able to travel directly from the heart of Toronto. This is especially true when we know how poor our highway systems and local traffics are in the Greater Toronto Area. Traveling to this airport could be steps from someone's home or office, or a matter of several stops on public transit, or even better on the complimentary shuttle service from Union station to the airport. Imagine if the 2.4 million passengers don't want to use this airport and decided to fly out from Toronto Pearson International Airport, how much more road congestion and vehicle pollution would it cause? True again, the new Union Pearson Express train is now available, but we are talking about a CAD27.50 one way fare, or a CAD3.00 regular public transit fare that will take 1.5 to 2 hours from downtown Toronto (much extra time for commuters east of Toronto). If you're speaking of creating or revamping road and public rail infrastructures, you're purely speaking of more pollution and damage to the environment from construction work, which is much worst compared to extending the runway out a couple hundred meters.
One of the funniest reality is, regardless if the airline wishes to introduce the Cseries jet operation at this airport, the Federal government (specifically Transport Canada) has recently imposed a regulatory requirement in the latest TP312 document for certain runway categories to include Runway End Safety Areas (RESA). YTZ's runway, which is over 1,200m falls under the category, and will require the extension of the runways to include RESA. That is, a minimum of 150m on each end of the runways. In reality, the extension is required regardless, and as the Airport Operator once said, it's a matter of how long it will be. And let me get this straight, the protesters and the newly elected Federal Liberals representative of this district are against the Jets because of potential noise and pollution to the community and environment, while the Federal government itself imposed a requirement to extend the runway safety ends. So regardless, pollution and taking over our natural environmental space is out of the protest reasoning. Noise? The jets is proven to be quieter than the current Q400 props. And no, it's not made up by anyone; it's proven by science and statistics. Moreover, the runway end safety areas is to improve safety and in alignment with international standards (International Civil Aviation Organization's Annex 14).
Air travel is no longer a want like when it first started; it is a need to connect the world. Hence, traveling in the most convenient and quickest way is essential. In this very globalized world, we often need to see our friends and family in the quickest manner, whether it is a sudden hospital visit or an out-of-town wedding celebration that you have minimal time to spare. Without air travel, it would take days or weeks with other modes of transportation, and that could just mean it's too late and you've missed an opportunity. Resources are shared across the nation and around the world. Disregarding our grocery "wants" from France or Italy, cities that got impacted by natural disasters need resources from around the world. Air transport makes it happen within hours, where human and food resources could be delivered for immediately rescue services. Allowing the operation of Jets at this airport will enhance resource and human connections around the world, and in many cases, a time sensitive need.
With the many years of service to our community, which includes both military and civilian operations, this airport deserves a say to it's future! Despite the fact that this airport's operation is tied by a Tripartite agreement that was set in 1983 (yes, 1983, that's been multiple revolutions of our modern world, from turntable records to compact disc to mp3 to itunes to iMusic, and same for VHS to VCD to DVD to Blu-ray to YouTube to Apple TV), I still believe that it would be respectful to allow the airport operator have a bigger say for the airport's future. Of course, taking into consideration of recommendations by relevant stakeholders is still crucial in order to think outside of the box to create a newer and better airport for our community and world travelers. We all wish to be respected, and fair enough, protesters could wish to have the public respect their opinions, but who will respect our heroic Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport who once served our nation and protected this very important port of our community?
 |
| Toronto Island Airport (Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport) Archives from City of Toronto |
#ProudlyCanadian #SupportCanadianMadeAircraft #Cseries
No comments:
Post a Comment