By Lauren McKeon In this vast land with few roads, air transportation is often described as the region’s lifeblood. If that’s correct, the patient isn’t doing too well. Indeed, you might say she’s had a triple bypass and, with tough new regulations on the way, stands to lose some fingers and toes too.

Asking a Northern airline what’s wrong with airport infrastructure is like asking the smart kid in class a simple math equation. Just as the kid will say two plus two equals four, the carrier will ask, “Where should I start?” The question is not easily answered because, as the kid might put it, the list is sooooooooo long.

Much of the airport infrastructure in the NWT and Nunavut was built decades ago. While Yellowknife’s aerodrome had $11.2-million in renovations in 2006, many of Nunavut’s airports were last improved in the ’70s. And none of the facilities were built with the expectation of a resource boom that would bring hundreds of thousands of people through territorial terminals each year. Couple these factors with the millions it costs to upgrade each airport and it’s easy to see why so many of the North’s airports are woefully below standard.

Easy to see, but hard to swallow. Annual passenger rates are growing each year (500,000 passengers for the NWT last year, and 250,000 for Nunavut), and subpar infrastructure has caused high costs and frustration for travellers, governments, businesses and carriers big and small. The range of issues is immense. From gravel runways and inadequate fuel storage to out-of-service washrooms, improper security fencing and late-night plane break-ins, the list goes on. In some cases, fixes can wait. In others, the situation is better described not as looming, but as a ticking bomb.

The infrastructure threat is most pressing for small carriers in Nunavut and the NWT (the Yukon, with a well-developed road system, is not as dependent on air travel, and the Whitehorse airport recently got $15-million in upgrades.) At the end of this year, Transport Canada will cement changes to Canada’s flying regulations, synchronizing rules for small aircraft with the U.S. The new rules will require certification for all aircraft to show they meet certain takeoff performance standards. There are six acceptable sources of detailed manufacturer data that can be used to obtain certification. Sounds simple enough, right?

Unfortunately, many of the smaller, older aircraft used by carriers in the North for scheduled services to and from communities don’t have the required data. It’s simply not available because manufacturers were not required to gather it when the aircraft rolled off the lines. So carriers won’t be able to use those planes to carry more than nine passengers. Nine is the magic number judged to be a safe total weight for planes without data; it’s also about half of what the many Twin Otters and Beech 99s flying the NWT normally carry. Worse still, carriers can’t upgrade to more modern planes, which have the manufacturer data necessary to become certifiable for operation at full capacity, because many Northern runways aren’t long enough to fly such planes safely. The regulations come into force on December 20.

“With the new regulations coming in there are going to be airplanes flying part empty,” says Stephen Nourse, executive director of the Northern Air Transport Association. His organization represents carriers from across the North, and combating the new rules is currently among NATA’s top priorities. Thanks to the ripple effect, he says, the new rules have more potential for disaster than rendering aircraft half-full. As airport infrastructure continues to age, Northern carriers will continue to watch as better, more fuel-efficient aircraft are developed, but will be unable to use them and costs will continue skyward.

None of this is good for Northern communities. Nourse sees two likely outcomes: One, carriers could go out of business; or two, in a bid to keep that from happening, carriers will cancel scheduled service to money-pit communities. That it has come to such drastic probabilities deeply frustrates Nourse. After all, the territorial government was given a decade-long warning about the changes to the regulations.

Transport Canada first introduced the new rules in 2000, but put them under a moratorium to allow airports time to get the proper infrastructure in place needed to use newer, certifiable aircraft. “I think partly the idea was all these airplanes would be gone by [2010] and the problem would go away,” says Nourse. “Well, that didn’t work.” Now, with less than six months to go on the moritorium, Nourse, and NATA carriers, believe the NWT government has done little to blunt the effects of the new rules.

“There will always be challenges,” says Delia Chesworth, the GNWT’s assistant director of airport facilities. Even so, she’s not about to concede to NATA’s assessment. Currently, she says, the territorial government is completing two runway expansion projects, in Tulita and Fort Good Hope. Trout Lake and Colville Lake are getting entirely new runways. Plus, she says, “We do … have numerous studies ongoing.”

A 2007 report, Airport Runway Optimal Lengths and Issues in the NWT, provided the government with some guidance. The report listed 12 communities – Tulita, Fort Good Hope, Trout Lake and Colville Lake among them – as needing new or expanded runways to meet the 2010 CAR regulations. Another four communities were recognized as needing improved runways to meet requirements for scheduled service or for newer aircraft able to fly in and out of the airport.

“Basically, we just make our improvements as often and optimally as possible,” says Chesworth. “[We] work toward maximizing the benefits available.” It’s all about identifying needs, she adds, and working within the budget and according to the department’s 20-year-plan to meet those needs. A fair answer, considering construction costs, but also one that’s cold comfort for communities and carriers alike if the new rules spell d-o-o-m, as many in the industry expect. When asked whether the possibility of cancelled service is something that worries the GNWT, Chesworth acknowledges the government is aware of the fear. But she won’t budge more than that: “I think it’s a concern that the GNWT is taking seriously.”

Not seriously enough for Warren Wright, president and part owner of North-Wright Airways Ltd., an NWT carrier servicing the Sahtu region. North-Wright operates scheduled service at five of the 12 locations identified as needing runway improvements to meet the new regulations. “We have brought this issue up … every year since the year 2000 at our NATA convention,” says Wright, “with still no action.” The GNWT’s current projects don’t do much for Wright either. He would like to modernize his fleet of Twin Otters. For Wright, current extensions in Tulita and Fort Good Hope still fall short of what’s needed. The extensions are set at 4,000 feet; Wright would like to see them at 4,500 or 5,000. That way, he can ditch his old planes before they go from being able to take a lucrative 18 passengers to an unprofitable nine.

Unfortunately, according to Wright, this logic isn’t working so well with government. “The government will tell you, ‘You can buy a Dash-8,’” he says. Indeed, a Dash-8 can make it into North-Wright’s destinations and is not subject to the new regulations. It’s also what many carriers in Nunavut, who are blessed with longer runways, use. There’s only one, major problem as Wright sees it: A Dash-8 is built to carry 30 passengers. In a region where flights max out at 20 passengers, and often travel with less, Wright would likely go broke trying to fill it. What’s needed, he says, is a middle ground, and a 19-passenger plane is that. However, so long as government suggests the fixing of planes instead of the fixing of runways, North-Wright’s future after 2010 remains uncertain.

Even with this harsh assessment of the government’s planning and action, Nourse says NATA doesn’t lay the blame for the CAR mess entirely at the territory’s feet. Transport Canada has to grab a broom, too.

Years ago, Transport Canada had separate standards for certain classes of Arctic airports, allowing for extreme variances between North and south in types of airplanes and remote construction costs. Now, there is one construction standard and that standard is often impossible to apply economically in the North. It also hasn’t been updated to coincide with the new aircraft rules. So, while newer aircraft are largely needed to comply with CAR’s 2010 regulation shift, there is no corresponding new rule to force governments to improve airport infrastructure to accommodate those new aircraft.

It gets worse. Under current construction standards, extending a runway past 4,000 feet changes the runway’s classification, meaning passing the 4,000-foot mark involves plenty more work than just adding more pavement. A longer runway means a wider runway; a wider runway means new loading systems. It goes on and on.

In the meantime, costs increase, magnified by the generally higher cost of construction in the North. The entire thing is based on the science of airports in the south, explains Nourse, where the intention of lengthening runways often signals bringing in giant planes. “That’s not the intent of what we’re going to do in Whati,” he says. “All we want to do [there] is bring in a Beechcraft safely.”

If it seems that the forecast is stormy and non-navigable for small carriers, take heart, there is one silver lining: charter flights will continue as normal. This means medevac flights won’t be affected (except to the extent where new runways may actually add medical flight service to some communities) and neither will mining flights or those into fishing and hunting lodges. Emergency flights are also exempted. It doesn’t seem like much, but it may provide some pennies for carriers struggling to profit off their regular, scheduled flights.

While things look grim for the small carriers, they’re not the only ones suffering. Poor airport infrastructure also drives up costs for large carriers in the NWT and Nunavut. Here, too, out-of-date runways have caused carriers to sit idle as their southern counterparts modernize their fleets. It’s not length that’s the big issue, but texture – namely, gravel. The problem is most prevalent in Nunavut, where many runways, and one hub, Cambridge Bay, are unpaved. “You know we continually face criticism as an airline for having old airplanes,” says Tracy Medve, president of Canadian North. “Well, [the 737-200] is the only jet airplane that has cargo and passenger combination capability that can operate on gravel.”

Unfortunately, aging aircraft, like aging infrastructure, can only be used for so long, and it’s unlikely anyone will develop a new aircraft that can run on gravel. Medve isn’t sure what this means for the future. “It’s not something we need to solve in the next six months,” she says. “But we’ve all got it on our minds I’m sure and we’re all scratching our heads about what we’re going to do. This is a big, big issue.”

Nourse can see one possibility, and it’s not a happy one. Airlines simply can’t continue with late-1970s and early-1980s equipment, he says. There comes a point, and that point is not far off, where it’s no longer economical. “They are struggling with this and they’re looking at places like Cambridge Bay, these last remaining holdouts, and [they’re saying], ‘Maybe it’s just time to bite the bullet,’” says Nourse. “And they just don’t get jet service anymore.”

Considering Nunavut has no road infrastructure between its 26 communities, the government would likely rather move mountains than consider the possibility of cancelled service. It’s too bad that fixing airport infrastructure in the territory requires about that level of effort. Studies are currently ongoing to determine how extensive improvements have to be, says John Hawkins, Nunavut’s director of transportation, policy and planning. One thing’s already clear though. Upgrading Nunavut’s airports and runways to any significant degree is extremely expensive. And the rate of return is extremely slow.

“We pay high costs, we’re used to paying high costs,” says Hawkins, “but the return can be such a long payback on such a huge investment.” In some situations, the solution involves relocation of the airport, which comes with a starting price tag of $30-million. Relocating an airport even five kilometres outside many communities is also fraught with difficulties. In some cases, it’s hard to find an ideal piece of terrain. In most cases, there’s no existing road built that could even connect a new airport with the town. Then there are other challenges like sewer, water, electricity and phone access.

All of which leads Hawkins to point out the obvious: There are two sides to everything. “What’s ideal for an air carrier,” he says, “might just not be physically possible to do.” This reality leads to some pretty big questions: Where does this leave air transportation in the North? Where does it leave those who provide it? And what about the North itself? Without a cost-effective way to reach our abundant resources, it’s unlikely the North will every truly open up. Carriers, however, aren’t entirely glum. Medve may not have all the answers now but she believes Northerners will stay true to their tough roots and meet any challenge thrown their way. Plus, there’s always that other option. “I know there are a lot of calls for building roads,” she says, “but I’m not going to weigh into that.”