These 3 airport sites are interconnected. From a planning perspective, what one does, affects the other.
Growing Toronto will ultimately change the viability of Pickering, and likewise, and although not fully realized or acknowledged, Oshawa can change Pickering.
The GTAA/Federal plan of 1991 ...
A) Pickering is “required” when Toronto “overflows” in 2027-37 and,
B) Oshawa Airport will close when Pickering is operational. (see Oshawa Airport plan)
see links NASPL -Chapter2 ..and oshawa airport plan -introduction
We will be looking at them later.
The plan is broken, the facts have changed.
Toronto does not overflow, has no "Capacity" issues, and Oshawa is being managed to failure.
The possibility of no Toronto airport east of Yonge street is real.
Time for plan B.
||First let's look at Toronto - -
does it overflow?, if so when?
The graphic on the left is linked to the actual document.
If you select the "fact sheet" box on the left near the bottom you get
there are some lines of note see last 4 bullets
..A needs assessment study (NASPL) based on 2010 data predicted that an airport would be needed between 2027 and 2037. That data needs to be updated.
The fundamental point they are telling you here is that the NASPL limits were wrong..
..Transport Canada has initiated an aviation sector analysis to obtain updated aviation demand and capacity data. The work is expected to be completed in 2018.
(understand this refers to the KPMG study)
...In 2015, Transport Canada also mandated an Independent Advisor to carry out targeted stakeholder consultations on the economic development of the Pickering Lands.
(this refers to the Polonsky report also linked on the box to the left of the web document)
...The 2016 report of the Independent Advisor, along with the aviation sector analysis, will help inform future decisions on the economic development of the Pickering Lands.
So let's look at the "NASPL" to see what was wrong ....but first..
||lets look at
TC's original NASPL summary.
The graphic on the left is linked to the full original document as down loaded on May 9 2017 in PDF format. That page was replaced on the internet in the last two weeks of May of that year and is held on this site.
NOTE: "Core assumption..Toronto..would be built out to its maximum capacity...including building of a 6th runway.."
"additional airport will be needed....not expected to be required before 2027 and possibly not before 2037...
and so we need to look at "what needs to be updated" and why.
and for that we need to look at the NASPL.
As is, and linked. ...as a hyperlinked index and is very easy to navigate.
NOTE: this documnet is no longer available on the transport web site this is held, available on the internet, from the Waterloo airport web site.
My suggestion is for the reader to dual screen these 2 document.s
I will point out various pages for discussion in the tiles below.NASPL
see Chapter 4
Pages 3 -6 defines the formulae used to determine airport capacity for a 5 runway airport.
It consists of runway configuration, alignment, and weather, on a average hourly/daily basis multiplied by the days of use.
We provide a detail discussion of this section , as an addendum, for those who are interested . As noted page 1 above as a shortcut.
Note this document was available on the internet on the waterloo web site. That site has been redesigned. ..it is now linked to this web site.
The result for a 5 runway airport is shown at left.
A similar Table 4-2 is developed for a 6 runway airport.
Thus we are advised that 520,000 movements is the practical annual capacity limit at this time and that when approached the 6th runway will be built, delivering a Practical annual capacity limit of 580,000.
The airport is open 18 hours per day
and as you should know 365 days per year.
You will note that the formulae uses 10 hours per day and factors down the remaining 8.
Also of note 320 days is used. This artifically depresses maximum total (610,000) which is then factored further by 15 % to deliver the practical annual capacity.
They have stacked the assumptions. In logic terms it is called "begging the question".
The real number is 720,000. (see addendum)
total error..... of some 40%.
Please note also paragraph 4.2.3 of the NASPL and the remarks concerning 90 passengers per aircraft. This is further amplified in Para 4.4.5 Larger aircraft.
That increadable assumption we will talk about later. It but is a further error in the order of 40% which when combined with the above amount to a rather large 160 % missrepresentation in our view.
and that is the "data that needs to be updated".
The GTAA is, as in the "Governance of Canadian Airports", a "particular form of management and governance" . It was established as a Non Profit Corporation under the Canada Corporations Act Part II, and "do (es) not have share capital and evolved within a rather unusual governance framework".
"Accountability takes the form of an annual report as well as an informational meeting open to the public."
The web site above is a Justice Laws web site.
The Act is explained further here and details bylaws and financial statements by Corporations Canada web site.
The PAP (see opposite) was clearly written to deal with t he issues of the "unusual governance framework". It provides the public with certain "rights" . It is backed up by the lease agreement (GTAA ground lease ) and incorporated almost work for word. (Article 9) The By-laws are subservient to them both. As the reader will see no change to the By-laws or the lease agreement can be made without the written permission of the Minister, and that permission may, be "unreasonably withheld."
|In about 2013 Mr. Howard ENG joined the GTAA as CEO.
He is mandated within his rules of governance by the Public Accountability Principals for Canadian Airports (PAP) and a registered lease agreement, to give public accounting of plans, and projections along with a review of past performance.
In addition he has a corporate by-law. The previous version (# 16) is available by internet google
search and the "latest version" (dated 2014 and not available on the internet??) was emailed to us by Selma M. Lussenburg, Vice President Governance, Corporate Safety & Security, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary. You will note that this is BY-Law #1 ??? and she signes it, whereas we understand from the legal /lease agreement that it needed (?) to be signed by the Minister of Transport... ?or amendments provided.
I suspect he (Eng) soon realized he had a problem, and additionally that a public airing of the issue could be embarrassing to his board and political masters.
He changed the story.
This document comes from the 2008-2030 GTAA Master plan that is available on this site or in its parts on the internet.
I have not reviewed the complete document at this time.
See shortcut above Page 2
In order to understand there are a couple of things we need to know.
What does the GTAA say, before NASPL...
The graphic on the left is linked out to the internet and is activated by selecting it.
on page 5.1 of GTAA Strategy Master_Plan MP_Chapter 5 The Airside System
"The ultimate capacity of the Airport will largely be defined by the capacity of the airside system...."
and a few lines down is column 1
"The airside system is instrumental in defining the overall capacity of the Airport for the following key reasons:..."
see also bottom of column 2
"In the early 1990s, an environmental assessment was carried out by Transport Canada for the addition of three new runways at Toronto Pearson. Two of these runways have been constructed and commissioned. The third new runway that was approved as part of this process represents the final remaining element of the airside system..."
I understand this document to be pre 2010 ??
NOTE: This document delivers (on Page 5-11) the Practical Annual capacity calculation used in the NASPL discussed above and
NOTE: the following on the bottom of page 5-13
Since environmental approval has already been obtained for planned Runway 05R-23L, it could be constructed at the discretion of the GTAA when warranted by demand. A lead time of approximately three to four years would be required to design, construct and commission the new runway. see page 5-13
||the NASPL also very clear:
In the 2010 edition of the NASPL, linked on the left, we see that airports "practical annual capacity" has nothing to do with passengers and is related solely to runways,----their cofiguration, alignment, and weather.
This linked document has a hyperlinked index and is very easy to navigate.
Chapter 4 Pearson Capacity 4.2.2 Potential Airside Capacity
and Chapter 5 Airport Capacities ..various under the title Current Capacities
You will note that these Capacities make no mention of passengers.
Airport Capacity is ony indirectly related to passenger numbers. There are many capacities at an airport, being fuel, car parking, washrooms etc. the real capacity is defined by the numbers of aircraft the airport can handle over time, and their size.
And as in a bowling alley operation.
If the alley is all booked up on Friday night and Saturday, is it therefore at capacity?
To explain further in simplified terms, high use (business passengers) want the 5 pm landing slot. if Air Canada has a consistently full 737 at 4 pm booked out of Montreal to Toronto they will then put on a 767 to support the 5 pm landing slot. So there is one landing with twice or more of the passengers originally available.
A review of the aircraft available to Air Canada might be of interest.
||Mr. Engs changing views.
the tile oposite is linked to page that delivers all annual reports the link to the tile that delivers the sound recording is here (annual public meeting)
GTAA agm annual report for year 2014 delivered May 2015 presented the following:
1) Page18//pp (30/128) of the report advised there were 433,000 aircraft movements in 2014 and
projected 570,000 movements by year 2033. note a missprint there is 2 page 18s and 2 page 19s
2) Page 30//pp(42/128) of the report entitled “Flight Activity”, states:
“Total movements… 2014 /2013 represent an increase of 0.2 per cent…That…
illustrate the use of larger aircraft…”
3) Page 18 pp(30/128) of the report entitled “20 Year Strategy”, states:
average seats per departing aircraft 119 and forecasts 148 for 2033
4) Within the recording of the AGM and in response to a question from the audience, (Ms. Lisa
Summers), concerning runway/terminal expansion, (time 1:09:29 ), Mr. Eng said “(I) do not see
any need (runways) for many years to come…(he referenced) larger and quieter aircraft” and
then he made reference. to a 20 year look-out plan.
Thus he indicates based on 2014 results, that there is no 6th runway until beyond 2035, the 5 runway capacity is beyond 570,000 movements and increasing aircraft size is significant..
He has blown up the NASPL projections of 2011.
Please see Master Plan 2017-2037 below tile 16c you are in tile10 noted top left
||in Sept. 2015 he says
"regional air travel demand will start to approach a capacity milestone by the mid-2030s"
planning needed now.
By 2043 the regional air travel volume is expected to reach a staggering 90 million passengers annually, or more
regional air travel demand will approach a capacity
The looming demand/capacity gap
integrated, mult-airport system for Southern Ontario.."
What is interesting he now only talks of passengers and he never states what that his airport capacity is and remenber passengers are not directly related to capacity.
this is a lot of fluff.
||Dec 2016 he says
"There is a limited window of opportunity for Toronto Pearson to develop into a mega hub.
upwards of 80 million passengers by 2035,"
on page 7
"the GTAA has the capacity required to support this increase in growth. "
The potential for Toronto Pearson as an asset to generate increased economic growth for the region is considerable.
now capacity is not an issue and he wants money:
Recommendation 1 The Federal Government of Canada should move to enhance GTAA investments in a multi-modal hub by providing significant cost sharing of transit projects undertaken by the Province of Ontario and the cities of Toronto and Mississauga to connect a multi-modal hub at Toronto Pearson.
Recommendation 2 In order to reinstate acceptable security screening service levels, Toronto Pearson requires an additional allocation of $20 million in CATSA funding annually for additional officers in order to meet a standard processing time of 95 per cent of passengers in 10 minutes.
Recommendation 3 CATSA requires an estimated $25-30 million one-time investment to install CATSA Plus at all screening points at Toronto Pearson. Additionally, the GTAA will invest upwards of an estimated $30 million to retrofit the facilities to accommodate this new technology that will enable CATSA to significantly improve passenger throughput at every screening lane.
Recommendation 4 In order to accommodate the largest passenger growth sector, international passengers, Toronto Pearson requires $5 million annually in funding for additional CBSA officers. This would allow CBSA to meet a standard of screening 90 per cent of passengers in 20 minutes or less at all times of day, including peak hours.
total >$50 M
That Eng is one slippery dude and he appears to be operating outside his lease agreement see attached excerpt that says:
(a) this Lease is a completely carefree, absolutely net lease to the Landlord, and that the Landlord shall not be responsible during the Term for any costs, charges, expenses, and outlays of any nature or kind whatsoever including those arising from or relating to:
(b) the Tenant shall pay all costs, charges, expenses and outlays of every nature whatsoever and whether extraordinary or ordinary, and whether foreseen or unforeseen, including those arising from or relating to any subject matter referred to in Subparagraphs 2.01.01 (a) (i) to (vii) inclusive, in a manner and at the times more particularly described herein.
one has to wonder why.
The full GTAA lease agreement is available on the internet and is linked. please see Article 2 net lease para 2.01.01a and b p 35
||then in 2017
Southern Ontario Airport Network are pleased to launch their collective efforts to support Southern Ontario's future air travel needs.
See last page for summary statement.
This is a rehash of the two previous documents and promoted the Mega Hub. Mostly talks passenger numbers and overflow.
It provides a little information on each of the smaller players, Peterborough has joined.
A google search of the title
will provide a view of the players and the sales pitch.
Please note the comments on the top of page 6
"the best way to support the region is through open discussion about the opportunities and challenges that growth presents..."
As anyone who has attended a GTAA AGM will experience "talking the talk" and "walking the talk" are two very different things for Mr. ENG and the GTAA.
The AGM is the first and formost venue for this to occur. It does not.
||Is this information pervasive?
Toronto Regional Board of Trade aviation summit 2016
The link above goes to the full page shown on the left.
A link to the PDF of the report Collaberation, Connectivity and Competitveness shown is here. It is held on this site from our records.
I give you a quote from page 4 "Message from the President" (Janet De Silva) see para 2 line2
"in fact, that passenger traffic is on track to outgrow current facilities in a matter of decades."
This simply is not true and should provide some idea of the level of missunderstanding that Mr. Eng's remarks deliver.
Next page Introduction ..para 2
New research shows that Toronto Pearson
International Airport alone will reach its planned
capacity in the next 10–15 years.
also not true.. and Mr. Eng is very careful not to say this.
Page 8 and those above illustrate a classic .. of information taken out of context and should lead the reader to question why this has happened given that we understand Mr. Eng attended and presented.
||the tile oposite is linked to the 2016/17 annual report.
Conclusions 1 :
Airport capacity is based on the number of aircraft that can land and Take-off (movements) per hour.
Toronto practical annual capacity movement limit is 720,000 per year, not the 520,000 provided in the NASPL for a 5 runway airport when inputting their formulae correctly.
Aircraft passenger size averages at Toronto are now at 129.2, and this has grown at 5.2% and 6.4% over the last 2 years. Actual landed passengers being now estimated at 108 (106 in 2016,) up from the 90 planned for in 2011 an error of about 2% a year.
see page F5 ...Arrived seats per arrived passenger aircraft movements..attached report at left GTAA annual report
Passenger growth rates are projected at ~3% for the region and less for the GTAA.
see Page 11 GTAA annual report at left 110M for region 2043 65 M in 2033 p c19 =compounded 2.43%
Traffic constraints at the GTAA are reducing??
||Conclusions 2. Based on the information above..||
The Oshawa plan relies on Pickering, which in turn, is dependent on Toronto. It is circular inter-dependant and complex.
The original 1990s’ plans addressed:
a) Toronto overflow
b) Pickering build
c) Oshawa closure
The Toronto plan (NASPL 2010/11) was:
a) A 5 runway capacity (practical annual capacity) 520,000
b) And when Toronto numbers approached that limit a
c) A 6 runway would be built taking capacity to 580,000.
d) An average seat capacity per aircraft will not change significantly beyond 90
These plans anticipated:
• A 6 runway between 2021and 2027 (Naspl and TC) possibly to 2037
• Oshawa closure 2033
That plan started to break down....
May 2015 Mr. Eng says at the 2014/15 AGM:
• No 6th runway for 20 years
• 5 runway capacity 570,00 in 2033
• average seat capacity increasing beyond 90
May 2016 the 2015/16 Annual Report stated:
• Average seat capacity now 119
• Airport limits related to passengers 2037 (capacity report)
Nov 2016 Pickering Mayor declared:
• A 6th runway will not be built ( he receives regular GTAA briefings)
May 2017 Transport Canada announces:
• The Naspl numbers “need to be updated”
May 2017 the GTAA 2016/17 annual report says:
a) The 2020 annual movements will be 510,000 (currently 450,000 in 2016)
b) 110M passengers by 2043 (projected growth of 3%) Still no 6th runway construction....and is takes 4 years to build a runway
c) Aircraft passenger size averages 129.2 (6.2% increase) - see p f5 11 abv
Howard Eng, the new CEO (GTAA) arrived in mid 2012 and soon realized he had a problem.
There is no current mathematical model of any real limitation at Toronto Airport for a 5 runway airport, let alone for a 6 runway airport.
He changes the narrative. He no longer talks “Practical annual capacity, overflow, or the need for Pickering and only discusses increasing passenger numbers.
He releases multiple papers discussing limits, capacities and passengers out to the years 2037 but he never says his airport has a practical annual capacity limit.
The Toronto Board of trade, Transport Canada officials, Waterloo airport folks, and Pickering politicians, misconstrue his remarks.
Given the concluding remarks above it is necessary to repeat....
Aircraft sizes at Toronto are increasing at ~twice the rate of passenger growth (6 vs 3 %). As evidenced by GTAA AGM reports this situation has been building for some time, starting in 2014. This fact reduces the capacity constrainting issues of Toronto international. Hourly aircraft movements are the limiting constraint of any airport and as airlines become (landing slot) restricted they exercise their options to schedule larger aircraft (IE AC has a 10 fold plus fleet variability ).
We can all wish for a multi billion dollar facility in our neighbourhood, generating copious jobs and large revenues, or not.
The consequences on Oshawa are significant. Sometimes a little something like Oshawa is better than nothing.
We discuss this below.
||Given the existance of the KPMG study it would seem clear the GTAA has lost control and Eng (as evidenced above tile 12 ) is begging for money.
As originally conceived GTAA was to have the land , airport, the cost control and development therein.
While it still owns these airports, in 1992 the government handed over responsibility for their management and governance to local authorities. Canadian airports receive no subsidies from the federal government; they do, however, pay substantial rents to the government as the owner. Thus, the airports must fund the modernization of their infrastructure and their operating expenses by their own means. pg 7 para 2
Canada's major airports don't receive any subsidies and are responsible for their funding, which comes from both their own cash flow and loans. ppg 9 para 2.2 para 4
When creating supervisory mechanisms, Canadian airports rely, to a great extent, on rules of governance already in effect in the private sector. pg 13 para2
These 3 quotes are from the web document shown to the left and when pressed is linked to a pdf of that paper.
As noted above the GTAA 2008-2030 master plan is available on this site.
The reader should also note this new plan does not talk about the revised airport capacity. All precious plans gave the 5 runway and 6th runway / airport capacity limits. Only the 5 runway capacity is delivered. Given that nearly every surrounding airport is counting/planning on the "pending "Toronto capacity limit and overflow" why were these not produced?? Could it possibly be there is no limit? see link to separate Page 1 - we look at this.
|Latest breaking news Dec 1 2017 The tile to the left is linked to the document as submitted to Minister Transport.
see page 4
para 3 last lines that says
"Where our 2008 Master Plan anticipated the need for a
new runway, we now expect to be able to meet demand with existing capacity throughout our 20-year planning period."
This actually a rather curious statement and could perhaps better read--
we now expect to be able to meet demand with existing runways throughout our
20-year planning period."
The reader might find the whole paragraph worthwhile, and as you will see these numbers jump all over the place.
Pickering plan goes poof.. 5 runway capacity is not an issue for "20 years"
becomes not an issue until beyond 2037 and the 6 th runway, that in reality remains available puts the airport capacity out to relative infinity.
Simply put: no capacity limits to a 5 runway Toronto =no 6th runway required= no Toronto capacity limit in the most conservative projection until 2050, and most probably ever= no business case for Pickering.
As the reader will soon realize the GTAA is a master of saying in 10 pages what could be said in 1.
A summary / review document is linked.(Taking out the BS)
Apart from this review document we have initiated a separate page (Page 1) that looks at the estimates GTAA provide within this Master Plan that lead them to their conclusion quoted above in red. It is an update of Chapter 4 in the NASPL (see tile 5 and 6 above) and our review of that estimate (see addendum)
The 2010 NASPL delivered a 5 runway 520,000 practical annual capacity limit. This 2017 document revises that number to 615,000 or therabouts depending on where you take it from within. The reader should understand, there has been no material change, no weather change, no runway or taxiway configuration change, and no real proceedural change.
In fact GTAA have reduced the hourly runway movements they say they can handle and they still increase the number.
We look at how.... We arrive at practical capacity numbers of 667,000 as a low and a high of 883,000, seeing this number as a theoretic max. The truth lies between.
They are cooking the book....again??
|| However all of the above is mute.
see opposite , para 1 line 2
within the horizon of this Master Plan, come to carry an average of 140 passengers – a sizeable increase over the current 108.
RE; 108(actual arrived passengers) , -- that number is based on119 of arrived seats in 2014 GTAA annual report p 18 and a load factorof ~82%
123 in 2015 GTAA annual report p F4
129.2 in 2016 GTAA annual report p F5 shortcut the 2 previous are quoted here page f5
for an annual % increases of 5.2, 6.4
RE 140 passengers above --- that number is projected to be 148 in year 2033 GTAA report for year 2014 p 18
GTAA numbers ( 2016 report) indicate a `~2.4% passenger annual increase. (that from 44.3 in 2016 and estimated 65 M in 2033 p c19 annual report) see above tile 15
This report indicates 85M ( P 159 master plan) passengers in 2037 that is 20M in 4 years or a compounded growth of 7%.... this is NUTS.
these numbers are all over the place.
These arrival seat numbers indicate Aircraft seat numbers are increasing at double the rate of passenger increases. --Larger aircraft carry the same number of passengers with less movements. --The pressure on capacity is reducing not increasing. GTAA also advise cargo is shifting from dedicated freight aircraft to belly cargo operations at the annual rate of 3.5%. "Other airports are seeing this.." The co-incidence of these numbers seem remarkable.
||Mayor Ryan tweet Dec. 14
Please see the David Master (LOL) submission to Pickering planning council as below wherein he discusses the GTAA new Plan as it relates to Pickering Airport.
Linked below please find the Dec 4 2017 video of the Planning and Developement Committee meeting of the City of Pickering.
the video is available here https://www.viddler.com/v/2210a09c?secret=60288779
starting at time 58.20- 65.52 of 85:20
"Reign in your staff."
Mayor Ryan was present.
|Pickering Mayor Dave Ryan, and Durham Region councillor doesn't get it.
Probably means none of them do.
Note the date ---Dec. 14 and that is 2017
"When the lands were first expropriated 4 decades ago, it didn't make sense.
With Pearson reaching capacity in 2031, it makes sense now."
- GTAA CEO Eng said in 2014 report of May 2015 "No 6th runway required for 20 years.
- Durham council are briefed annually by their appointee to GTAA directorship.
- ~2 years ago Durham council received this linked document.
- The new Master Plan 2017-2037 (as above tile 16c) was issued Dec 1 2017. Durham council would have been briefed.
- Ryan's remarks are false and based on old information see tile 4, that was removed in May 2017 and replaced see tile 2a and 3. The only place I recollect seeing this 2031 type information is from the Oshawa Airport Plan. see tile 22.
-The master plan page 4. This is their view and contains numerous errors.
Because of an industry-wide shift to larger, high-density and more fully occupied aircraft, over the next two decades, proportionally fewer flights will move greater volumes of people and goods. We therefore project faster growth in passenger and cargo traffic than in aircraft movements – which we expect to grow at about 1.5% annually. Our most likely scenario for 2037 suggests that aircraft movements (takeoffs and landings) will increase to 632,000 from today’s 478,000. At the same time, the average number of passengers on a plane passing through Toronto Pearson will be 140, compared to 108 today. This represents a 30% increase in the productivity of our runway system. Where our 2008 Master Plan anticipated the need for a new runway, we now expect to be able to meet demand with existing capacity throughout our 20-year planning period.
Ryan has held these incorrect views for some time and has voted accordingly. Please see
https://www.viddler.com/v/4a7fed75?secret=54093561 --he speaks at the end.
It does not "make sense now" -- - - to repeat:
no capacity limits to a 5 runway Toronto =no 6th runway required= no Toronto capacity limit in the most conservative projection until 2050, and most probably ever= no "Toronto overflow " business case for Pickering.
This is a copy taken from the 2017 Master Plan delivered Dec.1 2016 Page 36.
Reminder, we have initiated a separate page that looks at the estimates GTAA provide within this 2017 Master Plan that leads them to their conclusions quoted above . It is an update of Chapter 4 in the NASPL of 2010 (see spreadsheet tile 5 and 6 as above) and our review of that estimate (see addendum)
You will note that the maximum hourly number taken from NASPL information is 119.4 and not the 108 used and ,that is their formulae, and numbers. see line 13. Of note that report was valid at the time this information was delivered. I can only guess where that 90max limit number comes from. The 108 is an IFR number arrising from the 2017 master plan that increases to 141.48 in VFR conditions , that occur 79% of the time, according to GTAA.
Please note: We have as always, attempted to discuss these issues with the GTAA, see letter attached. The GTAA do not respond..
Just to back this up see Linked a pdf copy of the Nov. 10. 2010 GTAA Community Environment and Noise Committee meeting chair Toby Lennox , Vice President , Corporate Affairs and Communications. see his remarks on page 5 where he says in Para 3 second line "pearson's average hourly capacity is 119 aircraft movements per hour..." Mr. Lennox preceeded Ms Mckee at her job.
|Other views the windows have been constrained in order that that scales are of similar height and length. They are linked to their original document.
This above from a Mark@MarkwBrooks tweet wherein he said
“Even if you believe the new capacity numbers at Pearson are more than just wishful thinking, it dosnt matter, they are still full in 10 years using historical 2016&2017 growth numbers”..You will notice that the GTAA graph to the left does not say that. "Mark Brooks, is a partner with Pickering Air Park which is proposing to build a privately-funded airport in the Pickering lands." I have no idea where this forecast came from and asked for source. Mr. Brooks does not answer such difficult questions. Mr. Ryan is follows Mr. Brooks.
This is from PORTSTORONTO BILLY BISHOP TORONTO CITY AIRPORT
COMMUNITY LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING #25 and a presentation therin from Lorrie Mckee gtaa director on Jan 25, 2017. Ms. Mckee appears to be the person responsible for the chart to the left as well . These comments caused considerable alarm.
Human Nature.. "Enthusiastic stupidity and sincere ignorance "??
It has certainly been around for some time.
The "rose fertilizer" is unending.
But perhaps the reader will find this document , Article 44 to the left , provides great clarity and unending amusement , to the current situation.
It is from the GTAA ground lease and is linked.
I understand the "term" is till 2056.. the term of the original lease agreement..
It is, was, and has always been it that document. It is unamended.
Pickering proposed to Toronto airport mid field is 56 KM.
Pickering council recent documents refer to the "Pickering International Airport". see David Master submission noted in tile 16e above.
Definition from Ground lease :"Major International Airport" means an airport serving large population centres which links Canada from coast to coast and internationally and which is used by air carriers as the point of origin and destination for international and interprovincial passenger and cargo air service in Canada. Article 1 of document linked opposite.
How, why, and who, inserted that "kill pill " into this document would be a story unto itself.
So too would be the story of the fly on the wall when the GTAA realized the situation. See Land Over Landings timeline around 2012-3.
||Additional points of discussion
GTAA is a serial OPUD
Cost of Pickering unknown - -- see links a
B cost mount scheduled more costs miribel final cost 152m costs 1.3 B Tc study
What does flow control mean ..cargo runs outside these times..it is the icing on the cake and GTAA is not about to get rid of it.
approaches pickering and their impact tile opposite is translated to a current google map.
Nov 14 2016 Pickering council public meeting re Pickering airport ...Mayor was understood to say that he understood the 6th runway at Toronto would not go ahead. Consequences of this information.
Fed. gov. has removed planning from GTAA??
please see page C28 or print page 126 of the 2016/7 GTAA annual report second line Aircraft movements 510 projected for the year 2020..Consequences of this information.
Waterloo master plan Nov 10 2016 presentation.
||The graphic on the left is linked to that document
"On a vision for the Pickering Lands:
Four MPs have indicated that there is a need to explore all possible options for development on the Pickering Lands. They have been vocal in their belief that if there is a shortfall in aviation capacity, it would be important to consider expanding/modifying the role of existing airports before deciding to build a new airport. They agreed that it was important to provide a solid business case to support any decision. At this point, in their opinion, a business case has not been developed to demonstrate the need for a reliever airport."
this quote above it is found on page 21 of the PDF document..the highlighting is mine
Polonski report .. Interviews..Federal government also found @ 40% of window of web document the full web based document link
Given the information provided above, the conclusions suggested are simply a mathematical result, and there is no business case for Pickering as conceived and presented. However there is the politics of it all and that is for another forum.
That is certain, Oshawa Airport will come under a great deal of scrutiny.
Now we look and Oshawa.
We try to answer the question "Is Oshawa open for business
going up in flames".
On the left ..a direct download, translated to a spread sheet, and graphed
from information provided from: press on the document for a full screen view
page 78/9 Airport business plan ...opposite is a graph of that information
Appendix 1: Oshawa Historical Aircraft Movement Chart 1974-2014
yellow it total movements
blue is local training
green is itinerant ( travelers/business)
the red is from notes and comments the airport has made with regard to its growth projections and those projections are to 2021 not the 2019 used within the plan.
Traffic is declining..
Projected growth is not credible. see page 11 Airport business plan opposite..
and we have no information other than
"Buttonville is closing "- which it isn't.
" their customers will come to us " ...which they aren't.
Buttonville traffic has declined by 50% since 2010 and Oshawa has shown no traffic increase , in fact
it has declined as above page 78 Airport business plan
The link above is a mark-up from a report ... Review of GTAA "Needs Assesment Study- Pickering Lands" by Malone Given Parsons LTD....(see page 28) provided to COPA .
|| Existing community benefits
see Effective Practices for Preparing Airport Improvement Program Benefit-cost ...
By Steven Richard Landau
The key directions of the Oshawa Airport business plan
see page 7 that says :
Identifies the role of the Oshawa Municipal Airport is to provide high quality aviation facility that:
1. Encourage economic growth;
2. Meet local and corporate aviation needs; and
3. Respect the surrounding neighbourhoods.
This document is linked to the sources of this information.
The airport does not encourage economic growth, does meet local and corporate needs.
The airport provides only .... see page 9 Airport business plan
"a significant overall economic impact. In 2005, the economic impact was estimated at 430 jobs, $12.3 million in annual taxes and $57.8 million in annual value added GDP. The airport has grown significantly since 2005 and the annual GDP is estimated to be significantly higher. The airport also generates approximately $1.5 million in total property tax revenue annually. "The Mayor suggests that is 64M/year as of 2015.
Opposite see what other airports provide in economic inpact as of 2014.
Oshawa provides $30M less than Waterloo annually and 1 tenth of what Hamilton provides.
The Oshawa population is some 70,000 households. ...160,000 voters
The airport provides ~$1000 per household per year of spin-off benefits now or ~$100 per month
At the Hamilton level that would be $1000/month
At the Island level that would be $3000/month.
and that says nothing about what has been lost over the last 20 years.
Can you afford that, can Oshawa business afford that?
Note also london City numbers vs island --perhaps $6000 is not unreasonable?
The Oshawa business plan is out of date. does not deliver "high-quality strategic and financial information." has no effective strategic planning and management process;
The tile oposite is linked to that document as of 2017 and held on this site... an internet link is also available
There are no published updates to this document as of Oct 12 2017 ...per wilcox airport manager.
Please see pages 73 and 76 of that plan. I have provided them together on one page .
While looking through this plan I hope the reader will keep in mind the quality and effort that is displayed as compared to the Waterloo master plan Nov 10 2016
and the web sites of :
I suspect the reader will find this web site is quite remarkable in the difference.
Oshawa is poorly governed and does not meet published standards as per the attached.
..airports must fund the modernization of their infrastructure and their operating expenses by their own means..
.governance practices..adopted...contains ..recommendations in areas of management, transparency and accountability.
p8..26 major Canadian airports that make up the National Airports System (NAS)...non-proft organizations,..
p 9 ..Accountability ..an annual report as well as an informational meeting open to the public.
Boards of Directors
p11..multi-jurisdictional representation..not accountable to any government body..
p12..governance standards ..based on good supervisory practices ..private sector corporations ..listed on stock markets.
....not allow any interests that they have, ..to confict .. the authority's interests.”
2.3.4. Communications, consultations and responsibilities
yearly...must adopt a business plan stating its strategic and operational objectives for the next fve year.. and including..
objectives.met; Statistics..governance..conficts of interest..Audited fnancial statements.. report; remuneration as well as benefts.. report on consultations.. hold an annual public meeting..
pg 13 governance must go further than supervision of activities and become “creative of value" .. take into account the evolution of their economic model
Pg22 Chapt3. An analysis of canadian airport governance...THE FOUR PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNANCE
1. Legitimate and credible directors;
Credibility is ..combination of the competence and integrity of the individuals on the board and the trust they inspire in management and other stakeholders. They must have knowledge and expertise in.. the field...in order to be able to engage as equals with the executives managing the business in question...
I particularly draw your attention to p 29 3.4. ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY AT CANADIAN AIRPORTS
In 2000, the Auditor General of Canada examined the transfers of airports and expressed concerns ...stated that: “the Department has failed to assume a leadership role and to properly monitor......."
2. An effective strategic planning and management process;
3. A high-quality strategic and financial information system;
Oshawa plans to close ---see pages 6, 9 , 26 of Airport business plan
You will note the differences between the two comments.
In 1997 the City of Oshawa signed a 50-year Operating and Options Agreement with the Federal government for the operation of the Airport. As a result, the City is required to operate the Airport until 2047 unless it becomes redundant. The opening of an airport in Pickering could cause the Oshawa Airport to become redundant. However, in 2008, Oshawa Council passed a resolution to continue operating the Airport until at least 2033 regardless of the status of an airport in Pickering.
As a condition of the transfer, Transport Canada required that the City of Oshawa operate the Airport until 2047. If the Airport becomes redundant, the City may close the Airport after 2033. The opening of an airport in Pickering could be a consideration for making the Oshawa Airport redundant, however there are no operational conflicts between the two airports that would force the closure of the Oshawa Airport.
The statement re. operational conflicts is questionable please see approaches pickering and their impact
To the left is a response from Gary Polonsky to my question why he had not taken Oshawa into consideration during his Jets Jobs /pickering review shown above.
Within his review you will see that he spoke to the Oshawa airport manager, Oshawa city officials, but no councilors made themselves available. No MPPs were available.
If one considers Mr. Polonsky 's remarks informed then the parties that did so are those mentioned above???
The Oshawa plan ..sell the land and live off the proceeds of $10M per year ...(....see Polonski letter).
The planning needs to change.
||The City appears to act contrary to Ontario Law.
please see para 126.96.36.199 and 188.8.131.52 of
2014 Provincial Policy Statement, Under the Planning Act - Ontario.ca
184.108.40.206 Airports shall be protected from incompatible land uses and development by:
a) prohibiting new residential development and other sensitive land uses in areas near airports above 30 NEF/NEP;
b) considering redevelopment of existing residential uses and other sensitive land uses or infilling of residential and other sensitive land uses in areas above 30 NEF/NEP only if it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the long-term function of the airport; and
c) discouraging land uses which may cause a potential aviation safety hazard.
and this has been in place for some time.... see
Provincial Policy Statement, 2005
This Provincial Policy Statement was issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act and came into effect on March 1, 2005.
220.127.116.11 Planning for land uses in the vicinity of airports shall be undertaken so that:
a) the long-term operation and economic role of airports is protected; and
b) airports and sensitive land uses are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other to prevent adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants.
18.104.22.168 Airports shall be protected from incompatible land uses and development by:
a) prohibiting new residential development and other sensitive land uses in areas near airports above 30 NEF/NEP, as set out on maps (as revised from time to time) that have been reviewed by Transport Canada;
b) considering redevelopment of existing residential uses and other sensitive land uses or infilling of residential and other sensitive land uses in areas above 30 NEF/NEP only if it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the long-term function of the airport; and
c) discouraging land uses which may cause a potential aviation safety hazard.
Some may think this is OK. However if one looks at the arc of city actions over time, the objectives expressed in the airport business plans, the actions taken by the city as viewed in newspaper archives,
and the reviews expressed by G. Polonsky (see tile above) as a result of his meetings with city officials, one may take a rather different view.
The Reader will note that the old Registered zoning for pickering has been removed from the government web site .
It is held on this site and can be viewed here.
|Consequences 1 Pickering promoted.. no.. respect for surrounding neighbourhoods?
There is no noise reduction. It increases.
This is a projection of the proposed runways at Pickering, and their approaches.
This Graphic to the left is linked to a current interactive google map that can be focused to any area of interest. The runway locations are based on the revised Legal zoning.
That information is linked. Old information New information ..
This airport is designed with 2 E/W runways. They are separated by 1 mile and are thus called Parallel runways.
The E/W runways are 10L-28R and 10R- 28L.The N/S runway is 15-33. Runways are normally referred to by their compass heading on approach. Thus the runway 28L approach would be the one that tracks over the Oshawa airport .
Normal approaches use a 3 deg. descent path (glideslope). Large and heavy aircraft require a “stabilized approach”. This is normally conducted from no less than a 10 nautical mile “window” not more than 3000’ as they must intercept the glideslope from below. Oshawa readers must then realize that most inbound aircraft, using the most used runway 28L
will track (transition) from the south, to the final approach, overhead Oshawa center at 3000' asl or ~2300' agl.
A 3 deg. glideslope rises at ~ 300’ per nautical mile thus the ten mile window at 3000”. This would be 300 ft per 1.85 KM. or ~160’ per KM. (rounded).
The map provides a scale in meters so the reader can determine the height of the aircraft (above airport ground level ) on approach. The airport (above sea level) elevation is reported as 240 M on average, that being variable but ~787ft.
Airside operations are not generally conducted using the full metric system.
We now have the documentation and the legal zoning that was not attached to the TC web site "new information" noted above.
This image is linked to a PDF of the original web based article.
|Consequences 2 Pickering promoted....no .... respect for surrounding neighbourhoods.
Loss of revenue...for Oshawa in addition to the tile 19a and b noted above..
then no Oshawa
the revenues of $1000 per household per year are gone
the costs do not.
The lost revenues of transferring an Oshawa airport to Pickering do not help Oshawa manage with Durham's largest number of citizens who struggle with the socio-economic determinants of health.
||The operational restrictions Oshawa places upon its customers are extraordinary.
Growth is reduced or eliminated.
Seneca College is an example. Oshawa planning is retrospective.
pg 6 - -Annual aircraft movements are forecast to gradually increase from the 10 year historical average of 61,500 to approximately 102,000 over the next five years as a result of the pending closure of the Buttonville Airport in 2016.unrealistic and unproven.
The Business Plan establishes a framework and go forward strategy for the operation of the Airport based on the current runway length as directed by Council.
p 7 That the City not permit any additional flight training facilities.
p14 The 1987 Master Plan proposed the following significant physical and operational changes to the airport:
Shift the role of the Airport towards catering primarily to air carrier and corporate/business aviation in conjunction with flight training and private aircraft operations.
p 16 In February 2011 the City retained the service of Genivar, an aviation consulting firm, to undertake a comprehensive study to examine the implications of a main runway extension (Runway 12/30) from 4,000 feet to 5,000 feet
.In June 2012 Council decided ...would not proceed with the runway extension....
On November 7, 2011 Council directed that should the Seneca College Aviation program wish to relocate from Buttonville to Oshawa airport that they do so without increasing aircraft movement numbers at the Airport. .... moved to Peterborough.
p 17 On January 30, 2012 Council directed that “the attraction of a scheduled airline service not be pursued or promoted and further that in the event a scheduled airline service expresses an interest in the future that it be required to specify the proposed nature of its activities and that public meetings be held prior to Council making any decisions”.
With regard to the attached at the left.
There is a clear admission they are on shaky ground..
see copa comments AIRPORTS Preserving the Federal Jurisdiction over Aviation.
this is a hot topic and clearly not a slam dunk
When is an airport not an airport? ;-))
P12 Airport business plan
|Who is in charge??
hard to say.. this is what they say...
this Committee "provide input" see opposite p 12
see also p 62 and 63
The "Airport Business Plan Working Group" and the "Airport Community Liaison committee
"Neither committee would be a formal advisory committee of Council"
So what power does the new "Airport Community Liaison Committee" have??
What are the "Terms of Reference".?
See tile 21 above .....
Accountable and transparent ? not.
Accountability and transparency are an integral part of the operation of the airport ...
fiduciary responsibilities? ???
expertise??..knowledge and expertise in.. the field..no
non political?... Legitimate and credible directors...engage as equals with the executives managing the business ???
annual reports? where?
serving the community interest?? surely not all.
providing value to the community?? not by half.
Transport Department has failed to assume a leadership role and to properly monitor? You bet.
strategic planning and management process;?? not demonstrated 2$M overrun of costs...
high-quality strategic and financial information system; ??? not demonstrated.
It would be interesting to have a record of the votes .... re conflict of interest.
shown above a graphiic of the proposed 2012
Oshawa airport plan presented by
Formerly Pryde Schropp McComb Inc. (PSMI)
NOVEMBER 29, 2011
this graphic is linked via the internet to the
Oshawa Development Services Committee report of the day and to which the full report is appended.
Now that the current Pickering plan's viability is no longer the case and Mr. Eng is begging for money, the situation is about to become rather more difficult for the Oshawa airport. There will be increased scrutiny.
The Airport business plan is significantly out of date.
The web site, when compared to other similar airports, is “old, unimaginative, dull and of limited quality”. It is incorrect and suggests a collective institutional obfuscation and disrespectful neglect .
(Please see Peterborough; Lindsay; Barrie; Kingston; Waterloo; Burlington; Brampton - linked tile 18).
The governance does not meet any reasonable standard re :
• An effective planning and management process
• A strategic framework
• Information on financial costs or revenues
• A legitimate and credible governance
• Composition of the committee appointees
• The training or orientation of appointees
The Oshawa airport has a large number of unusual, purposeful, operational restraints that are
contributing to the demise of the airport. They are, in the plans own words, of questionable “legality and jurisdiction”. They have furthermore resulted in the loss of customs support for the region.
The financial plan is out of date, presents incorrect costs and is over budget by 50%.
This is 2 million dollars overrun represents $20 per household, has no end in sight and is akin to buying new tires on your car without realignment.
In 2012 the city had a plan taking the airport to a significant operational threshold of 5000' for $5M. In 2017 they delivered a basic “retread” for $6M.
see tile oposite
The budget expenditures for the retread ballooned and the anticipated payout of increased traffic from Buttonville has not materialized.
We need an updated budget to identify and reflect the:
• Cost as built.
• Rationalization of the cost overrun.
• Revision of the total costs for the upgrade plan in light of new cost projections.
• Recapitulation of revenue streams (ie pages 11, 73, 76).
• Actual data from Buttonville airport as to their traffic in 2014/15/16/17.
• Reconsideration of the traffic that is actually transferring from Buttonville.
• Assessment of the training traffic coming from Toronto Airways and some understanding of the future of that business. (ie. What is their contract with the Chinese government or whoever).
This image is linked to it's document source and shows various photos of the "island airport".
|The real future with a link to the Porter Airlines web site the Toronto Island 4000' runway vision. and beyond.
Note: These airport images and the one below are sized so the scales are similar.
This Jep. chart is old but useful as it delivers a similar scale. The up to date airport charts are available by this above link to the Canadian database. Toronto /Oshawa executive airport (CYOO) is found at about the 60% mark. The rwy 12/30 is now 4246" long.
The reader should understand that Oshawa is different from the other two airports. Oshawa is not physically constrained, and to undersatand that you need to look at the airport plan of 2012 (just above) and the interactive google map in tile 24 above.
London City Airport (IATA: LCY, ICAO: EGLC) is an international airport in London, United Kingdom. It is located in the Royal Docks in the London Borough of Newham, approximately 6 NM (11 km; 6.9 mi) east of the City of London and a shorter distance east of Canary Wharf. These are the twin centres of London's financial industry, which is a major user of the airport. The airport was developed by the engineering company Mowlem in 1986–87. In 2016 it was bought by a Canadian-led consortium of Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo), OMERS, the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and Wren House Infrastructure Management of the Kuwait Investment Authority.
London City Airport has a single 1,500-metre (4,900 ft) long runway, and a CAA Public Use Aerodrome Licence (Number P728) that allows flights for the public transport of passengers or for flight training (but only for training necessary for the operation of aircraft at the airport). Only multi-engine, fixed-wing aircraft with special aircraft and aircrew certification to fly 5.5° approaches are allowed to conduct operations at London City Airport. The largest aircraft which can be used at the airport is the Bombardier CS100.
London City served over 4.3 million passengers in 2015, an 18% increase compared with 2014. This was the largest percentage growth among London airports, and a record total for London City. It was the fifth-busiest airport in passengers and aircraft movements serving the London area—after Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton—and the 13th-busiest in the UK.
the above is from a goggle search London city airport -wikipedia -
check out the photos on the linked web site
see also the official web site
Note also 2016 passengers - 4.539M movements- 85,169
2013 passengers - 3.379M, movements- 74,006
Totonto island 2013 passengers 2.3M movements 114,000
London City occupies 500,000 square metres of land, about 125 acres, or a quarter of the land size of Oshawa airport.
| and beyond ...the alternative future ....|
approach plates old available on the internet
linked to the original document.
The reader should also note: The linked graphic opposite, if the C Series "Literature" tab is used it will lead you to the C series 100 performance page which indicates the aircraft can operate from the existing Oshawa airport.
|what one airplane can do. |
This graphic is linked to the Bombardier performance page and is interactive. Readers should understand that shorter runways sometimes limit take- of weights - thus passengers can be traded for fuel. It would depend on how the airline chose to sell and operate the flight.
Please see also the "urban operation " operations and" literature" tab on that web site.
|| Some video
Evening Rush Hour Plane Spotting at London City Airport (In Heavy Rain) - 09/08/17
This is a 1hr 16 min video .. see at time 5:59 for a C Series landing and time 22:46 for it's taxi by and take-off. Note the sound levels ,, the climb rate, and the surrounding area .
This aircraft can operate from Oshawa as is.
Here are 2 other views of that airport.
Swiss CS100 London City Airport. Tower View. Full rotation
Please note the very different type of engine from other "Jet " aircraft. A different perspective of the airport. A landing ( :30" -2.00" ).. a taxi and take off (4:40--8:30)
A Day At London City Airport 27/10/2017 *E190, 170, RJ85, ATR, Q400, CS100, A318 & More*
Some of the "big iron".
Dash8 Q400 Panoramic approach over London city - EGLC / LCY cockpit an tourists overview..
Spotting at Toronto City Airport
-An axial compressor turbine engine driving a impellor/fan via a gearbox.
It is not a "jet" engine. It is a Geared Turboprop used in the Dash-8 - 200,. 300 ,400 and others.
The graphic is linked to it's video source.. The manufactures page is also linked
- A centrifical , reverse flow, compressor, turbine engine driving a propeller/fan via a gearbox.
The "Jet" terminology has more to do with the how the aircraft is classed with regard to its performance catagory, i. e. use of alternates, than its power source. If noise is the issue, then deal with that.
||To understand Pickering, one
needs to understand it is based on a decision in the early 1970s
. That decision then ,would have looked at the situation over the
preceding 20 years. To understand that , the linked graphic
opposite will give you some idea of what was going on in Canadian
aviation the '50's and '60's That starts with the Super
Constellation and grows to the Boeing 747. Commercial aviation was 50
Today is a far different story. One has to simply compare the "Connie"
to the C series for a full understanding of the magnitude of change.
Planners need to look at what is today, ....and project that...Planning based on what existed as a need 50 years ago is simply invalid.
cnbc Feb 23 2018 Phil Le Beau
Larry Page's Kitty Hawk Testing 'Flying Car' In Northern California | CNBC Ap 2017Kitty Hawk has started making flying vehicles in Silicon Valley. The start-up recently tested a prototype in Northern California that flies over water.
World’s First All-Electric VTOL Jet Tested – Are Flying Cars Here? Apr 22, 2017
This wasn't the very first flight they've had. Lilium have tested multiple smaller prototypes but this was the first full scale craft
The Lilium Jet – The world's first all-electric VTOL jet Apr 20, 2017
7 PASSENGER DRONES YOU HAVE TO SEE TO BELIEVE
Guess What Uber's Promising Now: Flying Cars | WIRED
Published on Oct 27, 2016
Forget self-driving cars, Uber has a new one for you... flying cars. The company calls it Uber Elevate and within a decade it’ll be a global network of on demand urban electric aircraft that take off and land vertically.
and 1year later
Uber targets 2020 for on-demand VTOL demo flights in Dallas and Dubai Apr 26, 2017
Larry Page’s Flying Taxis, Now Exiting Stealth Mode
| Planning for the future. The ultimate question...
To plan for the future one needs to look forward to the future with an eye to what has occured over the recent past.
Do the folks of Durham need a $5,000,000,000.00 dollar airport in the boondocks based on a view of aviation that is 60 years old and will forever be an enormous financial drain?
It is a vision based on "If you build it they will come." and they won't, just as they didn't in Mirabel.
An intelligently run Oshawa airport , that we already own , in the place where we need it, for $ 0.00 dollars, based on a clear, current view of the future , earning a return from Day 1.
How do we set that up? Used the same model as Transport used onToronto. The owner Oshawa, leases (ground lease) the property to a Not-for-profit Corporation, with an independent Board of community based professionals. to oversee the airports operation. The lease is a 60 year completely carefree, absolutely net lease to the landlord as per section 2.01.01 of the Toronto lease . We use the same set of by-laws augmented by the same PAP. We provide the Oshawa airport a long term stable planning base that will be attractive to commercial operations and a sustainable income base for the city of Oshawa. We place Oshawa on track to deliver $6000/month/household, as does Toronto Island Airport when operated at a London City level.
Does Pickering need to be built?
Yes, as a 3000 ' grass strip for the hobby types, and the small aircraft owners, where folks who love airplanes and "real flying " can gather and do their thing, --in hangers and open fields, free from the "big stuff".
Those readers who have travelled in rural England will know exactly what I am talking about. It is what we used to have in Canada 60 years ago, before the Transport Canada folks thought they knew better and didn't.