On March 5, CommunityAIR’s Brian Iler posted a response tothe Toronto Port Authority’s CEO Geoffrey Wilson.  In an earlier email, Mr. Wilson charged thatCommunityAIR is spreading myths and factually incorrect information about theTPA’s airport operations.  Mr. Iler’sresponse may be read here.  http://blog.communityair.org/2010/03/05/response-to-the-tpas-myths.aspx

In the original email exchange between Mr. Iler and Mr.Wilson, Mr. Wilson attached a letter that appears was intended for posting onthe TPA website.  The letter contained aMyth/Fact section refuting CommunityAIR claims. The letter also contained the following, “I think we are both aware thatmany recent allegations made on the CommunityAIR blog are not factuallycorrect, and in our opinion, designed to mislead media and citizens.” 

Mr. Iler responded, “You statethat a number of statements made on the CommunityAIR blog are factuallyincorrect, implying that I and our organization do not care about truth. Thatis untrue and defamatory.”  Mr.Wilson’s letter did not appear on the TPA website but the TPA’s list of mythsand facts did. 

An examination of the first of the TPA’s facts follows.

The TPA version

Fact: Non-STOL aircraft can use the BBTCA, according toamendment of the Tripartite Agreement in 1985, provided they are approved byTransport Canada and the Canadian Transportation Agency. The Bombardier Q400used by Porter Airlines at BBTCA is a Non-STOL aircraft and has received suchapprovals.

Furthermore, commercial jet aircraft are prohibited fromusing the BBTCA under the Tripartite Agreement (the agreement governing theoperational parameters of the BBTCA signed by the TPA, federal government andthe City of Toronto).

CommunityAIR’s position

The Tripartite Agreement (Agreement) is a contract signed bythree parties: The City of Toronto; Transport Canada; The Toronto PortAuthority.  The Agreement allows forgeneral aviation and limited commercial STOL service operations.  Each signatory is legally bound by thedocument.  The Agreement was signed in1983.

Priorto 1983, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners ran the airport until its 21-yearlease ran out.  Senior levels ofgovernment wanted a STOL operation out of the airport and City Council agreedto a limited level of commercial service as detailed in the Agreement.  In 1999, the newly instituted Toronto PortAuthority took over all the Toronto Harbour Commissioners rights andobligations.

CityCentre Airways received an air operator licence for a Dash 7 service betweenToronto, Ottawa and Montreal in 1982.

In1985, the Agreement was amended to allow the Dash 8.  The Dash 8 at the time of the amendment wasthe 100 series, which carried 37-39passengers.  The first Dash 8-100 series plane flew on June 20,1983.  It entered airline service in 1984with NorOntair.  It was the only Dash 8in existence at the time of the amendment. It is CommunityAIR’s position that the Dash 8-100 series is the onlyDash 8 allowed under the amendment and agreement.

Clearly, the TPA and Transport Canada doesnot agree.  They believe the 1985amendment allows for any aircraft certified as a Dash 8 to use the airport fora limited commercial STOL service.  It ison this basis that they argue the Q400 is admissible at the airport.  Transport Canada’s position is that becausethe Q400 is a derivative of the Dash 8 and because Transport Canada and theCanadian Transportation Agency haveapproved it as such, it is admissible.

The facts that the Q400 is not a STOLaircraft by former Transport Minister’s own admission and that it is far largerand heavier than the Dash 8-100 series and that it has nearly twice thepassenger capacity and that it didn’t exist in 1985 don’t seem to matter.

It is almost as if Transport Canada andthe TPA are saying that the Q400 is admissible because we say it is and we backour claim on a technicality.

As for the TPA’s statement that the TripartiteAgreement prohibits the use of commercial jet aircraft, no one isdisputing it and their reasons for including the obvious are baffling.

Because theTripartite Agreement is a legal document, it would take a legal opinion to sortthe matter out.  CommunityAIR isnot a signatory to the agreement so can not challenge Transport Canada’s andthe TPA’s claim in court.  The City ofToronto is a signatory.  Unfortunately,for whatever reason, they have chosen not to protect their interests and thefuture of Toronto’s waterfront through a court ruling.

Bob Kotyk