I've also used Miserabelle for travel purposes on airlines. My first trip was to LHR via BA back in '85. Then in '86, same destination, but on AC. In '87 I flew YMX-YYZ-GIG-GRU on Varig (DC10 YMX-GIG, then 747-300 to SAO). In '90, to LHR via BA again, then onwards to JNB. In '94, again LHR on BA and onwards to JNB. By '97, when I next went to LHR (this time onwards to AMS), it was from YUL and also my first ride on a Triple-seven (flown that one on BA and KE). Nothing, however, beat having 16 private pilots being ferried out to their aircraft in a PTV. Normally I rode those with what seemed like hundreds jammed in tight. Of all the commercial flights I took out of Miserabelle, all but one was on a 747. The exception was the flight to SAO, on a DC10. Anecdote: at one time they were to have a high-speed rail link to Miserabelle. Most of the route was on a Canadian National branch line that was to be upgraded for the job, connecting with an existing electrified commuter line into Montreal. There is even, in the basement of the YMX terminal building, a full rail station that is missing only two things: rails and trains (I also happen to be a railfan). Then there was autoroute 13, which stopped quite a few kilometers short. If a proper high-speed rail link and highway access been provided from the get-go, the YMX-YUL story might have had a different conclusion. I bet in the end YMX ends up the largest uncontrolled airfield in Canada... Mike Gammon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Evan McElravy" <emcelr@po-box.mcgill.ca> To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 6:02 PM Subject: Re: Speaking of Montreal... > Fiasco? Sometimes...Mirabel certainly is, arguably DIA as well. Dulles > though? OK, it was built in BFE, but it's not as if Washington can, you > know, do without international air service, and it sure isn't going into > DCA. DFW: lot of slime (Wright Amendment et al.) associated with it, not > ideally located, but having three airlines with hubs in the Dallas area has > been good for the city, and certainly Delta and American wouldn't have fit > at Love Field. Then there's Austin -- this was done relatively on the cheap > since the Air Force base was there for the taking. I was always fond of > Mueller, having flown into it many, many times, but it was truthfully far > too small (especially in the runway department, many times I flew in there > when the landings went clear to the end) and in the middle of an eminently > commercially developable area. So it's a mixed bag. > > Evan McElravy > emcelr@po-box.mcgill.ca > > > > > I think most major Canadian cities went through the "we are growing, we > > need a new airport" fiasco. A few US cities went through this as well, > > hence Dulles, Denver, Dallas, and recently Austin. >