Comment 16360

By mark (registered) | Posted December 27, 2007 at 19:08:05

Mr. Mitchell, the CATCH 'article' you espouse has a fatal flaw in its logic. First off, drawing a parallel between Munro and Mirabel shows a complete lack of basic knowledge surrounding air traffic and airport economics. Mirabel was (and is) a consistent money-loser. Munro is a profitable airport, and its 2006 annual profits are double the prior year's profit.

More importantly, the article's thesis is weak because it somehow equates lower counts in air movements with a struggling airport. This is certainly not the case at Munro. An Airport's success is not measured strictly by how many flights are coming in and out of it, it is about the volume of passengers and cargo flowing through the airport. It is about smarter air traffic: cargo carriers operating out of Hamilton are using larger crafts, which means fewer flights are needed to transport larger amounts of cargo. I notice the CATCH article makes no mention of passenger counts or tonnes of air cargo handled at Munro. What do you suppose is the reason for this?

RTH is normally an online news source that supports transit improvements. Shouldn't we welcome any and all transit expansion? Why shouldn't the southern terminus of a RT be located at our airport - it is only logical that transport nodes be connected. And what about the low-wage earners that work at the airport - do they not deserve an affordable mode of transport to their place of work?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds