By: Olli McIntyre, Senior Research Analyst and Head of Daily Ops

Executive Summary

Air services function as the Arctic highway network of North America. They form the only viable connection to the outside world for remote ‘fly-in’ communities without all-season road access to their nearest city.

Nunavut and Nunavik (northern Quebec) are entirely made up of these fly-in communities, 40% of the Northwest Territories communities are fly-ins, and in Labrador, this figure sits at 30%. For the Canadians that reside in these communities, northern air carriers are the only year-round means to receive the critical supplies and medical services required for their survival and most basic needs.

Canada is hardly an outlier in this. In Alaska, 82% of its communities are only accessible by air all year-round, and in Greenland, there are no roads that connect any of its communities.

However, the state of Canada’s northern air infrastructure is what makes Canada an outlier. In Greenland, 14 of its 18 runways are paved, and Alaska has over 50 paved runways. Whilst in comparison, only 7 of Canada’s 117 remote northern airports are paved, leaving the rest of the network dependent on the ticking time bombs that are gravel runways.

The gravel dilemma

The only planes that can land on gravel surfaces are turboprops or jet aircrafts fitted with gravel kits that protect the underbelly and prevent debris from entering the turbofans and risking engine failure.

For decades, Boeing 737-200s were the main aircrafts used to supply the Canadian Arctic, precisely because they are the only jet aircrafts approved to land on Canadian gravel runways.

The 737-200 went out of production two decades ago, and the Canadian 737-200 fleet is quickly aging into retirement. Canada already has the largest fleet of aging aircrafts in the world, hosting 13 of the 30 oldest aircrafts used on scheduled passenger and charter services, and all of these are 737-200s.

Prolonging the service life of these aging aircrafts is difficult. Boeing has both suspended the production of gravel kits and spare parts for the 737-200 and has restricted all future aircrafts from landing on gravel.

This is not just a Boeing move; it is industry-wide. Composites are the material of choice for aviation because they’re lighter, fuel-efficient, increase cargo capacity and lower operational costs. The downside is that debris from gravel punctures composite materials.

Why not switch to turboprops?

Turboprops have less than 30% of the cargo space and half of the passenger-carrying capacity of modern jet aircrafts. On a 500-mile flight between Whitehorse and the gravel runway served community of Old Crow, a turboprop burns more fuel per seat than a jet aircraft would on 1,000 mile journey from Vancouver to Whitehorse.

Turboprops are slower and have a lower range, meaning more pilot hours and aircrafts are required to fly the same routes as a jet aircraft.

On top of this, for communities that do not have access to a road or rail network or where a sealift or barge service is unfeasible, then, as a necessity for survival, fuel has to be transported by air. However, if that fuel is transported by air on turboprops that are slower, less fuel efficient and with lower carrying capacity, then that cost is ultimately reflected in the price of fuel.

These costs associated with gravel runways are shouldered by locals without an alternative, and in a conflict scenario, by the Canadian military.

If a gravel runway serves a community, and they no longer have access to a supply route supported by a 737-200, then jet aircrafts without gravel kits bringing critical supplies from southern Canada will need to land in paved northern hubs such as Inuvik, Whitehorse, Yellowknife and Iqaluit. However, all the supplies onboard that jet aircraft would need to be loaded onto four separate turboprops to provide the same service as the 737-200 did. However, with a nationwide pilot and aviation mechanic shortage, the flying hours and additional personnel required for this could not feasibly be met.

How to phase out gravel runways

This crisis cannot be resolved through a campaign of paving runways across northern Canada with asphalt.

When permafrost melts, it destabilizes the soil underneath the runways built on top of it, leading to cracking, potholes and even collapse, meaning it needs extensive annual maintenance. In Iqaluit airport alone, melting permafrost has caused $300 million worth of damage in its lifetime.

However, aluminum panel runways have been used by NATO since the 1970s, and they do not require the maintenance levels that asphalt does in permafrost environments. Cambridge Bay and Resolute Bay currently have jet aircraft routes, but when the 737-200 goes offline, these airports will need to pave their runways to avoid the turboprop curse. The cost of laying an asphalt runway at these strategic Arctic airports would cost $35 million, and an aluminum runway would cost $90 million. However, after 20 years, the price differential is removed, and after 40 years, there is a saving of around $80 million.

There is not just a logistical or economic calculus at play here. China and Russia are flexing their muscles in the Arctic, and Ottawa just bought F-35s that can only land in a fraction of northern Canada’s airports. Supplying military personnel and mobilizing military assets across the Arctic requires heavy transport aircrafts and jet fighters that are unable to land on gravel.

All views expressed are the author's own. 

Photo credit: Jérôme J.X. Lessard, DND.