Jump to content

Porter To Get C Series


internet

Recommended Posts

Bill Freeman quote "In the meantime Porter’s current operation at the Island Airport is causing havoc for the residents of the Waterfront. The Island Airport expansion is incompatible with the live-work neighbourhoods that are emerging along the entire water’s edge and introducing jets will make things far, far worse."

So the jets that fly overhead Toronto's waterfront climbing and descending from YYZ are never seen or heard by these people?

What a joke. You can see but you can't hear Porter's Q400s because of the car noise on the Gardiner Expressway. Anyone who buys one of those new downtown Toronto condos with their balcony hanging over the elevated highway should thank the road traffic for blocking out the noise from the TCCA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 466
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Here's how it works, Blues....

You want to fly to Boston tomorrow for the day, you live near the College subway stop and you'd like to fly out of YTZ. You have one choice. Porter.

They charge $771 one way for the flight tomorrow morning, all of 434 miles, or $1.77 a mile. There is no other option other than YYZ or a circuitous connection over YUL.

Were there a couple of choices, especially with a LCC in the market, the fares would very likely be far less. Notice how YYZ-LGA is $338.50 tomorrow morning, or 98 cents a mile? Now if someone can satisfactorily explain why being forced to pay almost double per mile on a monopoly route operating from the downtown, publicly owned airport is somehow in the interests of the GTA's greater economic development, I'm all ears. I don't see it.

The difference is, WJ and AC can fly all day long into each others back yards with virtually no restrictions and compete for business.

Porter is hiding behind an artificial commercial wall and has been steadfast in its unwillingness to compete openly.

If YTZ is to be opened up, open it up for the benefit of all commercial enterprise. If it is to be commercially restricted, then there should be a heavy price exacted upon the anoitted enterprise for the privilege of operating with virtually no meaningful competition.

Paving over 50,000++ square feet of Lake Ontario in Toronto's harborfront for the sole commercial benefit of Porter's shareholders is going to be a fairly tough sell to the greater community.

A common sense quid pro qou would be to agree to it, provided that slots are dramatically increased and the majority go to new competitors, provided there are any. At that point, AC, WJ and others can pi$$ or get off the pot.

Porter has had a 7+ year head start to develop it's market, located at center ice of, by far, Canada's largest aviation market.

I seem to recall that even after the AC/CP merger, the Competition Bureau prevented AC from launching their LCC in Hamilton for, what, 2 years, with WJ having been in business for about 5 years at the time. You'd have a hard time convincing many people that Hamilton's cachment area is greater than YTZ's cachment area....

How long a head start does Porter need before having to face the world of open, unfettered competition and ensuring that prices are kept as low as possible in the marketplace?

You want to see the economic benefit of what open competition brings to an airport and the local community? Take a drive through Bellingham, Washington some time. It's absolutely unbelievable.

:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how it works, Blues....

You want to fly to Boston tomorrow for the day, you live near the College subway stop and you'd like to fly out of YTZ. You have one choice. Porter.

:cool:

That's correct. Not cheap but convenient. If you want a lower fare get a limo to YYZ ($50), line up at AC/AA/DL//UA check in bag drop (30 mins at peak times) then line up again for US customs (another 30 mins at peak times). Or drive to Buffalo and fly Southwest or Jet Blue. Lots of choices for whatever your wallet can afford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the airports you mention offer choices. Except YTZ. Therein is the rub.

If Porter wants to buy Billy Bishop airport, lock stock and barrel, that's fine with me. Once done, they can do what they want with it.

Then again, I wouldn't want to begin to guess how much that piece of dirt would be worth today, but it's far more than AC, WJ and Porter combined could ever dream of being able to afford.

So unless someone buys it and removes it from the public rolls, it's a publicly owned facility that currently, with the exception of the Toronto-Montreal route, has been basically been made available for the sole commercial benefit of a single corporate entity and its shareholders.

I have a problem with that concept, just as I'd have a problem if the Feds granted Hoilday Inn 85% of all beds in Banff and Travelodge got 85% of all beds in Lake Louise, both in federally owned Banff National Park. It would be equally absurd when both pressed ridiculous arguments that not only did they not have an overwhelmingly dominant / near monopoly position in the marketplace but also that they were entitled to 85% of any future hotel expansion that occured. Such an argument wouldn't pass the giggle test.

Yes, technology has changed and airplanes are considerably quieter than they were even a decade ago. But change works both ways. One can't make the argument that change is good, but only if the benefits of said change only flow to a single user. The world has changed and unlike 2002, there are now apparently a number of airlines that would quite likely be interested in offering consumers a choice when flying out of downtown Toronto.

It is absurd for competiton to be arbitrarily restricted at YTZ and nothing is going to convince me otherwise.

It's not a particularly difficult task to take a number of these sorts of points and craft them into a formidable PR campaign, especially should it eminate from a highly successful airline that has been instrumental in driving fares down over the past years, and supported by various other airlines.

Regardless, Porter has a long ways to go before the orders are firmed up. If history is any indicator, they're probably thinking the gambit will result in a phone call from Dorval or North East Calgary. I can't speak to Dorval, but I know that folks in Calgary learnt long ago not to chase ghosts.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with this whole announcement is that's it's starting to smell a lot like Jetsgo. Expand, expand, expand, pump, pump, pump. Fail. The ripple effect is felt by all the other carriers when irrational pricing comes into play...

One does not know how to reconcile such comments about Porter's irrational (low) prices with constant complaints from bean about high prices based on some selective examples. For instance, he doesn't tell you that for the same flight to Boston for $771 on Porter's flexible fare, Air Canada charges $777 for its lowest fare, and Westjet doesn't even fly there, and most people fall for the bait and switch, especially if it coincides with their agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One does not know how to reconcile such comments about Porter's irrational (low) prices with constant complaints from bean about high prices based on some selective examples. For instance, he doesn't tell you that for the same flight to Boston Air Canada charges $777 and Westjet doesn't even fly there, and most people fall for the switch and bate, especially if it coincides with their agenda.

Let's make it simple for you then.

Although Porter has produced an excellent product, just as Roots Air did, from a business perspective, it is irrational. It doesn't make money. Cash flow? Yes. Profit. I doubt it. We all know Porter paid out "Profit share" prior to it's failed IPO attempt in 2010, even though there was no profit to speak of. WestJet essentially did the same in 1996. It was good business to do so.

Investors want out, yet with this announcement I don't see how an IPO, let alone a private placement could succeed any time soon.

What are people investing in?

The chance that all the hoops will be jumped through in the next couple of years, the runway will be extended, the order will be confirmed and they'll be no impact to Porter's highly advantageous share of capacity at the airport? That's a high risk stretch for investors, They won't touch it until a bunch of balls are out of the air, and even so, it's not as if Porter has been able to parlay it's current near monopoly at YTZ into any sort of financial windfall for existing long suffering investors.

Or are investors investing in the existing operation with flat growth, declining market share, loads falling apart as others airlines l/f's are increasing, fuel around $90 a bbl and a higher and higher proportion of the fleet off the maintenance holiday all producing highly questionable profitability? Um. Pass.

Porter has backed itself in a corner, thus the "Galileo Seven" analogy. The C Series order could quite well be the last ditch flare.

Time will tell.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thebean, I honestly don't see what your issue is with Porter! First you claim it's too expensive, which I showed it wasn't. Then you say it's not profitable or the C series is not tested. Well frankly those are not your concerns unless you're a shareholder. It seems you might be upset that your favourite airline doesn't fly out of the island, in which case they should apply for some slots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rudder "outdated" simply means out of step with available technology. In today's fast progress environment, all things must be weighed regularly and modified if warranted, that's all.

How much do you want to bet that the position that Porter will advance is that the jet ban should be lifted on a specific aircraft type basis only (i.e. C-series)?

With Porter it is always about tilting the playing field rather than a level playing field. And their defence is always a history lesson that big bad old AC wants to beat up on them.

If I was AC I would call WJ right now and offer to withdraw their paltry operations at YTZ so long as WJ commits to YTZ using Encore. Then the big, bad AC excuse goes away and a carrier that has made a cottage industry of cost control would feed Porter their lunch.

Will that happen? Unlikely. Porter has proved to have very powerful friends that are willing to use their thumbs to tilt the scales. However, Toronto City Council will prove to be a test of this sphere of influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rudder, my understanding is that Porter is not seeking to change NEF 25, rather allow jets that meet that restriction based on new technology. The Canadian made C series meets that standard. I don't know which other aircraft might. So yes people initially get all worked up because of the stigma attached to jets, but in fact this proposal still abides by the noise standard. It's only asking to review and recognize the Quietness of the C series. As Canadians we should celebrate and showcase it to the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Air Canada was suing claiming that an expired agreement with a Jazz predecessor was somehow still in effect and therefore they didn't need to enter into an operating agreement with the TPA.

Air Canada made some terrible miscalculations in the months leading up to the launch of Porter and Jazz was simply incompetent and failed to communicate critical information to Air Canada and made no effort to preserve their operation on the island when they knew for months that they were going to be evicted from CCAL.

Now, that's a rewriting of history if I've ever read one. AC/Jazz even sued for over 3 years to get access. I don't see how the doors could be considered "open".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rozar s'macco

I don't know which other aircraft might.

Yes you do.

This is crafty as hell and I love it. Not because it will work but just for the sheer hubris of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you do.

This is crafty as hell and I love it. Not because it will work but just for the sheer hubris of it.

That's funny! Presumably other aircraft that use same type of engine and technology....

We have to be careful though not to read too much into things. This is NOT a request for an indiscriminate lift of ban on all jets. This is clearly stated. Rather it is a request to carefully consider the noise standard and allow the aircraft that meet that restriction, meaning they are quiet, but have a stigma of being a jet, and therefore the wrong impression of being noisy, attached to them. This is quite reasonable and also the reason why I said earlier Porter will set the trend for the C series just as it did for the Q400. This is the age of quiet aircraft, especially in urban airports.

As for the RWY extension too, it is to reclaim the land already inside the marine exclusion zone, so no new land. This would be land beyond the RWY at other airports, like Thunder Bay, when it was extended at Westjet's request. But due to its location, this property is in water at the island airport. And let's not forget that some of the RWY is already built on reclaimed land. So overall, it is a modest extension. Once those are done, it is logical to allow more slots so all interested parties can apply for them. It is win win for all.

It is stated here:

https://www.porterplans.com/Info/Airport

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is usually the problem that there are conflicting allegations and accusations based on one's perspective. Just after I have to remind someone that Porter has been on the receiving end of lawsuits from Jazz and Air Canada, someone else posts that Jazz sued for over 3 years!!

From the G&M. The lawsuit wasn't against Porter, per se, but, regardless as to what you might purport, access to the island was not wide open, and yes, they had to win a lawsuit to get back in.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/jazz-to-sue-in-federal-court-over-toronto-island-access/article1203743/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

inchman, I believe Jazz held 10 slots at the end for 5 return flights to Ottawa. These 10 slots were available to them, they wanted more, which were not available at the time. They sued, and lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rozar s'macco

No new land, just the land that is already there, but presently under water. Perfect! This is the BEST.

Likewise, no specific exclusion for the c-series, just a (ahem) [adjusts ascot] carefully considered amendment that fortuitously only allows the c-series, an airplane which no other Canadian competitor has or will have plans to buy now or ever! Very shrewd.

There is a very smart BBD salesman somewhere behind this. See, all comparably-sized jets are 10 more years old, and therefore noisier. Anything heavier is noisier. So, unless AC or WJ wants to buy a c-series, it will be no island jets for you! Monopoly maintained, perfectly legally. Brilliant! (No I won't invest)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that is the way I understand the language and that's probably why Porter had to research so much and possibly pay more for the C series. Don't forget they're more expensive and Porter doesn't make them, they have to buy them just Air Canada or Westjet might. As you can see, it is a hard enough battle allowing a new quiet jet that does meet the noise restriction, maybe Air Canada can push for the old noisy ones! Provided hey have the field performance. And you bet that bombardier is trying to capitalize on this at urban airports, including London. And why wouldn't they? Good for them for making a good product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the RWY extension too, it is to reclaim the land already inside the marine exclusion zone, so no new land. This would be land beyond the RWY at other airports, like Thunder Bay, when it was extended at Westjet's request.

You've said that a couple of times now and it's not true. So just for clarity and full disclosure, WestJet never requested a runway extension at YQT. WestJet was asked by the TBAA if they would support a runway extension which ultimately they did, although not unconditionally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Councillor McConnell, who represents Ward 28 of Toronto Centre Rosedale in which Billy Bishop Airport is located, fumed that Porter’s announcement “demonstrates a breathtaking level of arrogance and disregard for the Toronto residents.”

“That Porter would order the planes and announce its intentions to the media before even beginning a dialogue about amending the (Tripartite) agreement shows a lack of respect for Torontonians, elected officials, the public process, and the legislative process. Elected officials, not their company, will have the final decision on what happens with the runway ... (whose extension) is not as trivial as it may sound ... (and) will create significant problems for anyone who uses the harbour, from recreational boaters to businesses. This cannot be a snap decision, and elected officials should not be strong-armed into making it.”

She also lambasted the TPA, which she said “needs to start acting as an agency of the federal government, and by extension, concerned about the public interest (and) stop acting as a business agent for a private, for-profit company.”

McConnell also wondered whether an earlier project to fill in parts of Lake Ontario adjacent to the airport “was to quite literally lay the groundwork to expand the airport.”



Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Porter+CSeries+order+still+faces+hurdles/8224256/story.html#ixzz2Q7fwxMvt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Councillor McConnell might want to take a look at the other end of the harbour. A recreational boater or business appears to be dumping its bilge into her Ward 28 waterway.

Adam Vaughn too. Especially after this quote in the G&M :

Councillor Adam Vaughan, who said he is opposed to the Porter plan, said paving over the lake and filling in the aquatic environment is just something I dont think Torontonians should, or will, or want to consider.

post-8747-0-30173400-1365655704_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to lengthening the runway, it would probably be a good idea to add some EMAS to each end, especially considering the "terrain" that would be encountered in the event of an overrun. 5000 ft doesn't leave much room for error. Some want to add EMAS to a 9000 ft runway at YYZ with a 1000 ft overrun gently sloping into a ravine.

MD2 will probably spin this into a "fact" that water can act as EMAS.

I don't have a problem with Porter expanding and growing, but I do have a problem with governmental agencies giving preference to one corporation with such verve. Every aspect of the operation at YTZ seems to have been put into place to support Porter almost to the exclusion of any other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood the argument.

If I make an offer to the gov't to get them some revenue on their land after it has sat idle for years, isn't it reasonable that in exchange they give me some protection for the investment I'm going to commit, especially from competitors whose main intention would be to make the land idle again?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PERFoRMANCE

Range (225 lb. / 102 kg per pax., MToW, normal cruise)

Base (110 pax. @ 32” pitch) 1,500 NM 1,726 SM 2,778 km

Max (110 pax. @ 32” pitch) 2,950 NM 3,395 SM 5,463 km

speed (FL370, isA)

Maximum Cruise speed 0.82 Mach 470 kts 541 mph 871 km/h

Normal Cruise speed 0.78 Mach 447 kts 515 mph 829 km/h

Takeoff Field Length (isA, sL, MToW, Max. Thrust)

Base 4,000 ft. 1,219 m

Max 4,800 ft. 1,463 m

Landing Field Length1

(isA, sL, MLW)

Base 4,400 ft. 1,341 m

Max 4,450 ft. 1,356 m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noise Level (C-Series)

Margin to stage 4 21 EPNdB

Margin to stage 5 Up to 15 EPNdB



Noise Level (EHGW) (Q400)

Flyover 78.6 EPNdB

Lateral 84.0 EPNdB

Approach 93.1 EPNdB

Margin to stage 4 15.3 EPNdB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...