Talk:Montréal-Mirabel International Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Montréal-Mirabel International Airport is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montreal articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Quebec
Quebec Portal
This article is part of the Quebec WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Contents

[edit] Chateau Aeroport-Mirabel hotel

I'm wondering if a brief mention of the Chateau Aeroport-Mirabel hotel is warranted in the article. If memory serves correctly, it was a fairly large hotel (5 story, 360 room) themed-resort that sat directly beside the airport. I know it was originally owned by CP Hotels in the 70's, then changed ownership at some point, and finally closed on August 26, 2002--shortly before the airport was closed to regular passenger traffic. The building was still standing and intact as of mid 2006 from what I can find through online research...even still furnished and setup, but locked and up not been used for the past +5 years. I'd almost go as far as saying abandoned.

It's a piece of the airport and its history, isn't it?-Apple2gs (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] older entries

Someone may wish to check the history of Mirabel. I am fairly certain that at the time the airport system was planned to be organized around gateways to which all international flights would go. Canada's two gateways were to be Vancouver and Montreal. Because supersonic flights were expected to be the future of international travel, they built Mirabel outside the city, avoiding noise disruptions to residents and allowing it to operate 24 hours a day. Dorval was supposed to remain a domestic airport. Unfortunately that system was never adopted. A high-speed rail link between the two was never built, making connections inconvenient. Because of this, Mirabel was never really adopted for international flights, the proximity to Montreal and convenience of Dorval being favoured. As it grew into less of an important airport, Pearson becoming the main hub in Eastern Canada, Mirabel was no longer really necessary.

  • Actually, AFAIK, the airport was built a Mirabel due to a dispute between the Quebec Premier and Trudeau. Trudeau wanted it closer, in St. Eustache, but that was too close to the Ontario border for the Premier. Thus the horrible compromise position. Burgundavia 06:47, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • The political decision to name Dorval Airport for former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is of note as Trudeau was one of the main proponents of the construction of Mirabel, originally expecting it to accommodate 26 million travellers a year.--66.102.74.146 15:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph which claimed that Dorval didn't close because of "political opposition from communities near Dorval", since that's completely rediculous. We would have loved it if they had closed Dorval. No more Jumbo Jets flying over our houses at 7:00 on a Saturday morning, no more airport traffic on the 20 while we're trying to get home from work. The whole point of Mirabel was to move the airport away from a populated area, but it was screwed up by government incompetance. - Mike, Pointe Claire

Anyone claiming noise pollution at Dorval is either deluded or from a different planet. The sonic footprint of a modern 747 is less than the DC-9's, DC-8's and older 727's & 737's that were the staple of Dorval in the early 80's, due to high bypass engines and modern technology. In addition, the alignment of the runways are such that final approaches and initial departures from Runways 06L & 06R (24L & 24R) are either over Lac. St. Louis or the industrial areas of Ville St. Laurent. The only traffic going out over Pointe-Claire proper is light- & medium-weight aircraft from Runway 28/10 (basically, the same sort of traffic Pointe-Claire has always seen). Given the fact that aircraft are getting quieter and quieter, this is a non-issue.

I used to work in Dorval (Fenelon boulevard) and the noise pollution was moderate. However, it is MUCH worse in Saint-Laurent, a densely populated area which lies right under the main approach airway. My brother-in-law used to live there; we could se the fine details under the Boeings as they was passing over us (by dozens) at dinner time. Hugo Dufort 08:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

More important questions would be a) why did the dimwits in Dorval Town Hall allow everybody and his brother to build right up to the airport fences, and b) what sort of idiot moves right up against an airport and expects nature park levels of quiet???? -Keith, Pointe-Claire.

I included the section NPOV tag, because IMO that section includes much material criticizing the lack of government action against Dorval (such as nbot instituting the Wright Amendment) and assertions that Mirabel was a white elephant, without providing opposing views. Ngchen 03:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If the airport was planned to have so many more passengers, four additional runways, five more terminals, high speed rail access, etc., and these things never came about due to the airports failure to develop, I think it's fair to call it a "white elephant" which is, as our own article states "a thing which is more trouble than it is worth".Brian Schlosser42 04:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the least NPOV article I've ever seen featured. It includes the word fiasco, which is a dead giveaway. The author should revisit this with a fresh approach to fact.

[edit] Please protect

With the major vandalism occuring the the featured articles of the day recently, I am terribly surprised that they have not been protected for the day. Do people really want to see images of penises in the middle of supposed featured articles? It ruins what we are trying to accomplish here. --AlexWCovington (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, and other complaints

This is a sorry excuse for a featured article. It is short, lacks comprehensiveness, and reeks of NPOV. Here is a blatant and inexcusable example:

--"It is remarkable that the federal government never considered enacting legislation similar to the Wright Amendment that would force airlines to use Mirabel instead of Dorval."

The author/s is asserting his/her own opinion, and it could've easily been worded to the effect that popular opinion felt enacting legislation would be a good idea. The words "It is remarkable" particularly stand out. Here is another:

--"It was the federal government's failure to close Dorval that ultimately made Mirabel redundant and a costly white elephant."

The article takes a decidedly anti-federal stance that, although the lack of federal initiative is (in part) factual, makes this article stand out as being one-sided. And then there's this:

--"These vehicles, similar to those at Washington Dulles International Airport, were rumored to cost one million Canadian dollars apiece (though the real figure was probably lower) and were prone to mechanical breakdowns."

An encyclopedia article has no place for "rumors." The real cost should've been researched and if the figures were not available, the author/s should simply mention that the vehicles were exceedingly expensive. Do not perpetuate unfounded facts.

I have no idea how this article made our beloved front page. 19 September 2005 is a sad day for Wikipedia. --Gsgeorge 05:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Further issues:
  • the sentence "In today's terms, the single Montréal-Mirabel TRRAMM line would have cost at least a billion Canadian dollars." Where is the source for this, and what does "in today's terms" mean?
  • "After 1976, its prestige value mostly used up, the airport began to decline in its importance." - this does appear to be the POV of the author, though this may be the case.
  • "Mirabel Airport is considered to be one of the best laid-out airports in the world." - by whom?
  • "A simple minimalist dark glass box sitting on top of a concrete bunker housing maintenance services, the terminal was hailed as an architectural triumph when it first opened."
  • I would definitely agree with Gsgeorge about the rumour bit. If we can source the rumours, we might be able to add them. However, wouldn't it be better (and easier!) to source the fact itself?
No offense to the author (I'm not sure who this is - I haven't checked the history), but this article seems to be written from the POV that there was nothing good about the Montréal-Mirabel International Airport. Even the good features are damned with either faint praise or criticism. I really don't think this is an NPOV article - which is sad because clearly the author is an expert in the material and has done a fair amount of research! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
It's even sadder that Wikisheep like Raul654 are removing the POV warnings from the article in an attempt to hide Wikipedia's flaws from the world. Since the POV problems are so obvious, why shouldn't we advertise that the problems are recognized and undergoing review? I'm not sure which is worse: the decision to frontpage this article or the actions of certain drones (e.g. Raul654) who are trying to quell dissent. Did you see his comment? "Do not POV tag while on main page." Our response: don't put articles with blatant POV violations on the main page, boy. This is Wikipedia's peer review in action? 138.88.203.93 08:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with what he did. The POV problem is bad, but not so bad that it must be seen on an article that is on the main page. In fact, with a few copyedits and a little bit of fact checking, this article would be main page material again. - 211.30.175.100 10:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and incidently: he's not your "boy". - 211.30.175.100 10:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree. The Hurricane Katrina article was on the main page for some time and there were short periods when it contained an NPOV tag for legitimate reasons, and it was removed only when the NPOV problems were taken care of--it was NOT removed out of protection of a 'front page' article from public eyes. Wikipedia is an open-source, public encyclopedia. If someone has a problem with an article, no matter their status in the Wikipedia community (anon user or admin), they should be able to bring attention to it without the article being babied for reasons of public interest. However bad the decisions by our administrators have been concerning this article, it looks like our complaints heeded at least one smart choice: the article has been taken off the main page. I guess that means we can add all the NPOV tags we want. --Gsgeorge 14:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I happen to notice the POV issues being brought up with this article and attempted to remove as much of the offending material as possible. Nevertheless, I need someone else to help go through the article and edit where necessary without further reducing the article. I contacted the person who nominated this article for FA, yet so far there is no response. Pentawing 01:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I decided to remove the POV tag after cleaning up much of the POV issues with the article and removing some unsubstantiated facts. Nevertheless, if someone still has an issue with the article, can you please inform me of the exact problems and if possible help in correcting them? Thanks. Pentawing 21:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Reference to airports in Hong Kong

"Closing down Dorval would have justified Mirabel's investment and usage, much like how the Hong Kong government mandated the closure of Kai Tak to make way for the larger Chek Lap Kok."

As a native Hong Konger I can tell you this is a bad comparison. The reason for the new airport is very clear - Kai Tak was completely, utterly, totally saturated for the last decade or two of its operation and was constantly running above designed capacity with no possibility of expansion. However there is no point keeping both airports for a number of reasons. First of all Kai Tek was situated in the dead centre of a densely populated area with one of the trickiest approach paths in the world which crews needed special endorsement to fly. I'm actually quite surprised that no major accidents happened but it was only a matter of time. Also because of Kai Tek the whole area around it had a development height limit - remembering that this is the middle of the Hong Kong harbour we are talking about, or the "greater CBD" area for lack of a better term. That place is worth a fortune if redeveloped without the height restriction. So, Kai Tek wasn't closed to force everybody to use the new airport, it simply ran out of shelf life. CW 08:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biased POV

Because of the reasons mentioned above, I have placed this POV problem on the top of the page. It is a shame having a featured article have a Biased point of view. Please correct quickly, so it would have a NPOV. Weirdperson11 23:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I went through the article a few weeks ago and attempted to repair the POV issues that were brought up. However, where else did you see POV issues within the article? Pentawing 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"The federal government's failure to close Dorval ultimately made Mirabel redundant and a costly white elephant." That's a subjective comment, if you change it to objective, maybe it would be better.

Also, "The government predicted that Dorval would be completely saturated by 1985 as part of its justification for building Mirabel. The federal government further claimed that 20 million passengers would be passing through Montréal's airports annually, with 17 million through Mirabel."

No sourcing info, if you could search through Canada archives, if you live in Ottawa, that would be nice. I think they have a archive online if this claim is true.

Who's "Some"? And are they experts or not. I now figured out that it is more uncited "facts" then POV problems.

"Mirabel Airport is considered to be one of the best laid-out airports in the world."

Subjective, if someone said that in a newspaper, that would be fine but change it to objective.

One other problem, there's no pictures of the airport from the ground. The aerial picture is black and white, what a load of crap, and there's some good diagrams but no pictures of the actual place. I suggest replacing the b&w photo with a color photo from Nasa World Wind and could do a aerial "picture" from Google Earth which would look OK (Tilt it 45o. Then it would look the best aerial way, and not look washed-out like it is at 60o or more). Don't know if it would infringe on copyright stuff.

Weirdperson11 01:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I live in the U.S., but I'll see what I can do (though it is quite limited, given that the Library and Archives of Canada does not post the actual materials online, only the listings and the holding library). However, if you feel you can reword the passages to make them more objective, go right ahead. You could also try to talk to AlbertR, who was one of the article's primary contributors. As for the images, this could be a problem. I know airliners.net has some images, but they are copyrighted. What we need is someone from Montreal who is willing to take some pictures of the airport. Pentawing 01:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of people from Montreal who work on Wikipedia. Try and find the regular contributors on the [Montreal] article, and see if you could get some people to go to Mirabel and take some snaps. On another note, I think they could also go to Ottawa for some info, or we could get someone else who lives in Ottawa, but I could steal the stuff from airliners.net if it really gets desperate! Weirdperson11 19:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

How dare you even suggest stealing from a.net! The images you uploaded do not belong on wikipedia: they are blatent copyright violations. They will be deleted in due course.

My responses to your POV soncerns:

1. "The federal government's failure to close Dorval ultimately made Mirabel redundant and a costly white elephant." I don't remember adding this; I'd rather it be removed. Mirabel was doomed to fail anyway. Dorval being closed wouldn't have made much difference.

2. "The government predicted that Dorval would be completely saturated by 1985 as part of its justification for building Mirabel. The federal government further claimed that 20 million passengers would be passing through Montréal's airports annually, with 17 million through Mirabel." This prediction can be found in the Financial Times of Canada pamphet-book cited at the bottom of the article, which is available avaiable at your local library (or at least mine).

3. "Some estimate that the sale of Dorval's land to private developers would have easily covered the cost of the proposed Montréal-Mirabel TRRAMM line and Autoroute highways." I did not add this, and it is pure unsourced conjecture, so delete it.

4. "Mirabel Airport is considered to be one of the best laid-out airports in the world." This should probably be removed as well, as it is unsubstantiated.

Alr 17:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I eliminated the POV passages. As for the second passage, can someone list the actual source? Pentawing 00:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Terminal (movie)

I removed the section showing that Terminal was filmed at Montreal Airport it was actually filmed at Palmdale Airport (in the old Rockwell hangars) near Los Angeles California. --Alohawolf 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • False. At least three places in the movie were clearly shot at Mirabel: the immigration desks and baggage caroussels (minus French signs, and international flags replaced by US flags), the scene where the United Airlines 747 taxies to the gate (a yellow Aéroports de Montréal sign is clearly seen on the jetway) and the drop-off zone and exterior view of the terminal (with digitally added New York skyline reflection). I have images to prove this. So, I'm reinstating that section, and adding details. -- AirOdyssey 04:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The Highway 50 has been greatly expanded in the recent years; it has been completed from Lachute to Highway 15 (through Mirabel). The map should be updated. Hugo Dufort 08:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirabel Airport may close permanently

In December 2006, in a move he called "correcting a historical injustice", Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the return of 4450 hectares of farmland expropriated to build Mirabel Airport. About 125 farmers, who rent their land from the federal government, were permitted to buy it back.

Does this mean Mirabel Airport will close permanently and get demolished and removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim856796 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

No — like the article says, Mirabel is only using 19% of its area. Jpatokal (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)