Porter To Get C Series

[inchman]

That is roughly as plausible as extending the runway at SNA over CA73. This proposal is just barely inside the realm of possibility.

But I would really, really like you to weigh in on whether you believe Air Canada could have possibly chosen a better course of action than losing umpteen lawsuits.

Ok, Ok, we know that AC filed some suits already. We don't need to keep reading it over and over and over....

[Super 80]

Do we need to keep reading Bean's insistence that the present situation was an inevitability in which all but the TPA and Porter are passive?

[Thebean]

How long do we have to listen to the story of how Air Canada messed up its handling of Toronto Island?

They did. They know it. But that is pushing ten years ago now. It's ancient history.

The industry has changed. Dynamics have changed. Competitors have / are changing. The rules around YTZ need to change with it. And not for the sole benefit of one commercial operator.

The best thing for Toronto Island Airport and Toronto area consumers is to ensure the airport is being serviced by at least one airline that can irrefutably establish it's ability to offer an economically sustainable product. That is not the case as it stands.

Whether or not there's an airline in Canada that fits that description that is even interested in YTZ is another question.

It's interesting how the thought of operating in a free, open market causes panic in the hearts and minds of Porterites.

Hiding behind regulation and red tape is not a particularly good business plan. If Porter was as good as they think they are, with a loyal customer base, they'd be waving the "bring it on" flag.

Kind of like the one that used to fly above WJHQ for the first 5+ years of it's existence.

[Guest rozar s'macco]

That is roughly as plausible as extending the runway at SNA over CA73. This proposal is just barely inside the realm of possibility.

But I would really, really like you to weigh in on whether you believe Air Canada could have possibly chosen a better course of action than losing umpteen lawsuits.

I agree that Air Canada could have chosen a better course of action in the past.

Wikipedia, on SNA airport:

The main runway, at 5,701 feet (1,738 m), is the shortest of any major airport in the United States.

I operated several flights into SNA. I recall it as a fairly benign operation performance-wise, except for the noise requirements of which we had to be very mindful. We would be payload restricted on departure sometimes, but that I believe was due to terrain/climb rather than runway length. And it was an EMJ, which is smaller than the CS100. But they had 700 more feet of runway than porters proposal, and it doesn't snow or even hardly ever rain in Southern California (it pours, ha ha).

[Super 80]

There was at one time a proposal to extend the runway at SNA to 8,000 feet, it would have crossed CA73 and extended onto the grounds of the Newport Beach Golf Course.

The proposal was met with threats of violence against the O.C. Board of Supervisors and threats of legislation forbidding FAA funds to be used for airfield improvements at SNA.

[Super 80]

How long do we have to listen to the story of how Air Canada messed up its handling of Toronto Island?

They did. They know it.

That is all I wanted to hear.

[MD2]

I don't see Porter doing anything but hiding behind the terms and regulations of that agreement.....

A straight yes or no of you please:

Would Porter be prepared to both publicly and privately support the expansion of the YTZ runway to 6,000 feet, allow access to any stage 3 aircraft that can safely operate there and to remove slot restrictions to allow for full competitive access to the airport? ...

That's not true, Porter has been the only airline that was willing to invest substantially at City airport for a long term commitment, as opposed to hit and run tactics shown by Air Canada which has largely treated not only the TPA, its competitors and suppliers, but also its own employees with arrogance and contempt. This behavior is a lingering side-effect of being a crown corporation. For Air Canada to succeed, it must change this behavior.

I certainly do not presume to speak for Porter, you can ask them if you want, or better yet, you can ask yourself. If you were involved with Porter and had worked over 7 years to put in place the infra-structure needed against all odds and all frivolous lawsuits from Air Canada/Jazz, would you do what you suggested? I can say as a citizen that I do not believe stage III aircraft are suited for urban airports. In Europe they have been talking about stage IV for years, why would we want to allow noisy stage III aircraft in our urban airports which should have even tighter noise restrictions than stage IV. That would be environmentally responsible which also puts the neighbouring communities at ease. Stage III also lack the performance of the new technology aircraft such as Bombardier C series. And whether you like it or not, urban airports have limited space and access and limited slots, such as Washington Reagan, or London City. This is normal.

How long do we have to listen to the story of how Air Canada messed up its handling of Toronto Island?

They did. They know it. But that is pushing ten years ago now. It's ancient history....

We have to listen to the story as long as it takes to stop blaming the TPA or Porter since losing so many court cases and being forced to pay legal fees is a pretty good indication that the TPA was correct and Air Canada was not. After all, the public knows that Air Canada is NOT really interested in having an operation at Toronto City airport; it has never been. It only shows up when there's a new competitor in an attempt to bankrupt them. This is evident in recent history. The reason is very simple and why Pearson and City are deemed common markets. This is why whenever Air Canada, Jazz or even WestJet had a choice, they have gravitated towards Pearson and consolidated their operations there. And it makes sense since that airport is their focus in the Toronto area. Porter is based at City, it is their focus, and it makes sense for them to grow their operation there.

[CanadaEH]

Porter hasn't demonstrated any ability to make a sustained profit. What does any of that matter?

[MD2]

This obsession that some seem to have with a private company's finances is very bizarre! Again, to its stakeholders, Porter seems to have done just that in spite of very competitive landscape, multiple frivolous lawsuits, constant public campaign, etc. and it still has not fully realized its potential...

At the same time, this amendment and this expansion plan is long overdue at City airport with or without Porter and will be beneficial for the city of Toronto. It is understandable that advocates of Air Canada and WestJet constantly speak against this plan because again they are NOT interested in increasing competition or even improving transportation for the public as they are for their own bottom line. It is more beneficial for them to focus their attention at their airport of choice in Toronto: Pearson. But it is to the benefit of the public to have more competition and multiple airports in a large growing city like Toronto. It is to the benefit of the public and city officials to showcase the city to the world, and one of the ways of doing that is having multiple convenient points of transportation. Of course we have to do it responsibly and minimize impact on the environment, not only at City, but also at Pearson and one of the ways is to move towards stage IV noise restriction and beyond, even at Pearson. It should not be as though people around Pearson don't matter and it is only the people around City airport, which are only a fraction of Pearson's neighbours, that are important.....

[Thebean]

Judging by the lack of historic / current profitability by anyone who has ever operated out of YTZ, it should be pretty obvious Porter's myopic YTZ focussed model does not work.

YTZ would likely work if it is made part of a larger network that includes typical network hubs. That means lots of V / W pattern flying and less frequency.

If Porter optimized its network and eliminated excess capacity, it would probably increase its loads 25-30% points and would have a chance of being consistently profitable. That means either a smaller Porter or going to the bank, the bank being YYZ.

Porter's problem is its business model requires that it uses every slot available to minimize head to head competition at YTZ, a battle which it knows it could not win.

I tend to agree with others on the board that suggest that when push comes to shove, the safety card will require a significantly longer runway than what is being suggested.

I doubt you'll find a bureaucrat anywhere that will want his / her name on the approval document that signed off on a short runway after a jet, (and heaven forbid its not a US based jet) ends up in Lake Ontario after an unfortunate incident with a contaminated runway in January. Not a good career move, nor one that would result in a happy time at the inevitable Court of Inquiry....think Walkerton.

MD: are you suggesting the WJ was NOT interested in "increasing competition or even improving transportation for the public" in Abbotsford? Hamilton? Kelowna, Comox? Nanaimo? Brandon? Trenton, (had the gov't played ball)? Kitchener/Waterloo and every other market they've gone into? That's a bit of a stretch...even for you.

By the way, there's little point in going thru the exercise of launching ang growing an airline if the business is not profitable. Without profits, the airline would simply join the ranks of the roughly 98% of startups that fail.

And WestJet was never handed $20m of taxpayers money to underwrite its operations over the first few years, unlike another startup I could mention.....

[Boney]

^{If Porter keeps posting numbers every quarter, then it stands to reason that they continue to show their books, so to speak, as the investment folks compare them to AC, WJA, TRZ, Chorus, etc. Why did they not do so this time? If they are unwilling to show their numbers, then the investment folks should dismiss them altogether.}

^{You can't have it both ways. Show up or go home.}

^IMHO

[MD2]

Boney, those may all be great companies, but they are all public. It may be that Porter is in no rush to be in heir company?! When and if it wishes to be there, I'm sure it will let us know.

...MD: are you suggesting the WJ was NOT interested in "increasing competition or even improving transportation for the public" in Abbotsford? Hamilton? Kelowna, Comox? Nanaimo? Brandon? Trenton, (had the gov't played ball)? Kitchener/Waterloo and every other market they've gone into? That's a bit of a stretch...even for you.

Please read the rest of the statement as well which read "not more than its own bottom line". That is certainly true; if any of those routes were not profitable, WestJet dropped them without hesitation. That was the point.

And WestJet was never handed $20m of taxpayers money to underwrite its operations over the first few years, unlike another startup I could mention.....

Perhaps, but neither did it have a bridge to its HQ cancelled. On the other hand, WestJet did have and continues to have its own share of sweet deals, be it airports waiving fees, or cities building them infrastructure, they have had their share.

And the proposed RWY extension is plenty long enough for this new technology aircraft. It may be that you are thinking of older technology aircraft to be concerned about runway length. Such great performance capabilities, and being quieter than stage IV will reassure the neighbouring communities.

[Boney]

MD2...My point is that every quarter the analysist compare their posted numbers against those of a public company. Do private companies have to give accurate numbers vs those public companies, which do by law?

It should be law that whenever a private company want to post their numbers, they are required to continue posting, even if its not in their best interest, else they be fined as though its a public company.

Either you are a private company, where what goes on at your shop is between you and Revenue Canada, or follow the same rules as public companies if you want to play. Can't have it both ways.

Hmmmmm

[MD2]

Well curiosity is a wonderful thing but unlike People's Republic of Korea, here there can be private companies which are not required to share their information, unless they wish to do that voluntarily for one reason or another; and they can stop so long as they remain private...

[rudder]

Well curiosity is a wonderful thing but unlike People's Republic of Korea, here there can be private companies which are not required to share their information, unless they wish to do that voluntarily for one reason or another; and they can stop so long as they remain private...

MD2 - know the only thing worse than when everybody wants to know about the Porter traffic and financial statistics? When nobody wants to know.

Be careful what you wish for

[Thebean]

Boney, those may all be great companies, but they are all public. It may be that Porter is in no rush to be in heir company?! When and if it wishes to be there, I'm sure it will let us know.Please read the rest of the statement as well which read "not more than its own bottom line". That is certainly true; if any of those routes were not profitable, WestJet dropped them without hesitation. That was the point.Perhaps, but neither did it have a bridge to its HQ cancelled. On the other hand, WestJet did have and continues to have its own share of sweet deals, be it airports waiving fees, or cities building them infrastructure, they have had their share.

And the proposed RWY extension is plenty long enough for this new technology aircraft. It may be that you are thinking of older technology aircraft to be concerned about runway length. Such great performance capabilities, and being quieter than stage IV will reassure the neighbouring communities.

I can't think of any so called "sweet deals, be it airports waiving fees, or cities building them infrastructure" over WJ's history that weren't available to any and all other airlines.

If you can, I'm all ears. Name one.

[boestar]

MD... You ever watch Dragons Den or Shark Tank?

All of those people are PRIVATE companies looking for investment. ALL of them are asked to disclose financials before ANY of the investors will touch them. this is the same game. Why would anyone build infrastructure (Investment) for an airline that will not disclose their financials? It would be a stupid move. Not rare just stupid.

Sure they "bought" some jets. hell I can buy jets on paper but who would invest in me?

Time will tell

[MD2]

I can't think of any so called "sweet deals, be it airports waiving fees, or cities building them infrastructure" over WJ's history that weren't available to any and all other airlines.

The same can be said about City airport. All its resources were available to other airlines including WestJet which as you said was not interested, and Air Canada/Jazz which held it for many years, but dwindled the traffic as their focus was on Pearson; Porter on the other hand has shown long term commitment and invested in the airport.

[Thebean]

Does that mean that if Disney Cruise Lines shows a long term commitment at Ogden Point in Victoria, another taxpayer owned property, that Disney should be given 85% of all wharfage over the cruise ship season? Our would it be better for competition's sake that the facility remain open to all comers?

WJ has spent a ton of money in both YXX and YHM, but never asked for nor expected a defacto monopoly there. If Porter wanted to operate 20x daily form YHM to YUL, they could start tomorrow. Therein lies the difference. It shouldn't be particularly difficult to comprehend, nor the general concept that when WJ operated a sole fleet type that couldn't operate into YTZ, the airport wasn't even talked about. That's changed with the move into turbprops. Do you really expect the world to stand still for ever?

The dance continues with MD2. Sometimes I think he acually believes Porter's own BS.

[Super 80]

If Disney Cruises were the only operator in the modern history of Ogden Point to express any interest in the site and the only cruise line to maintain a good faith relationship with the the operator it would be quite natural to reach that situation. Porter came to control their slots honestly and legally as has been affirmed by the courts countless times. What you seem to be arguing is that there should be some interventionist force that will step in when required to mitigate the affects of poor business decisions by Air Canada management.

[Kip Powick]

If Disney Cruises were the only operator in the modern history of Ogden Point to express any interest in the site and the only cruise line to maintain a good faith relationship with the the operator it would be quite natural to reach that situation. Porter came to control their slots honestly and legally as has been affirmed by the courts countless times. What you seem to be arguing is that there should be some interventionist force that will step in when required to mitigate the affects of poor business decisions by Air Canada management.

I think it is a safe bet to ........how shall I say.........have a " burr under your saddle" with respect to AC and their business dealings concerning the Island Airport.....

Puleeeese..... can you move on ???...................reading the constant theme that you keep regurgitating tends to illuminate you as a person who is very bitter about an issue, which has run its course, and one where you stated that you seem to have garnered personal satisfaction..

((your post))) http://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/398436-porter-to-get-c-series/page-18#entry1602350

Your post, above mine is,I believe, is a response to BEAN's post and he doesn't even mention AC...he is talking about WJ, and the aviation Industry in general, yet you keep harping about AC and their business decisions..relax.......what's been done has been done...............have a cool one...it's a weekend.

[IFG]

I think it is a safe bet to ........how shall I say.........have a " burr under your saddle" with respect to AC and their business dealings concerning the Island Airport.....

Puleeeese..... can you move on ???...................reading the constant theme that you keep regurgitating tends to illuminate you as a person who is very bitter about an issue, which has run its course, and one where you stated that you seem to have garnered personal satisfaction..

((your post))) http://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/398436-porter-to-get-c-series/page-18#entry1602350

Your post, above mine is,I believe, is a response to BEAN's post and he doesn't even mention AC...he is talking about WJ, and the aviation Industry in general, yet you keep harping about AC and their business decisions..relax.......what's been done has been done...............have a cool one...it's a weekend.

'Morning, Kip - Since about page 4 of this thread, I've mulled over saying the same thing to 'bean ... the constant theme, regurgitating etc. etc.

In his many-times-over postings here, and in many other threads, he has pounded on his theme, probably in an order of magnitude or two more frequently than has Super 80. No, he doesn't specifically reference AC very much, but we all know quite well that they are the compainant in this issue, not WJ, not even any of the US carriers that presented themselves as 'straw' applicants for slots.

Mr bean would have us believe that somebody (psst, it's AC) wants to compete with Porter and is being denied. Other observers are just jaded enough to think that AC simply wants to do another drive-by shooting at YTZ. The script has played out before, and the structure of AC's supposed competition doesn't generate any confidence that this time would be any different.

The operators of YTZ, for better or worse, want to see a committed operator there. That may be a feasable proposition, or it may not. The Porter investors will be answered as to that in due course, and 'beans commentary on the viability of Porter's operation may still be validated (the investors do appear to be very patient), but his observations on "competition" at YTZ are from a fantasy world. Super 80's comments are from the real one.

Cheers, IFG

[Thebean]

'Morning, Kip - Since about page 4 of this thread, I've mulled over saying the same thing to 'bean ... the constant theme, regurgitating etc. etc.

In his many-times-over postings here, and in many other threads, he has pounded on his theme, probably in an order of magnitude or two more frequently than has Super 80. No, he doesn't specifically reference AC very much, but we all know quite well that they are the compainant in this issue, not WJ, not even any of the US carriers that presented themselves as 'straw' applicants for slots.

Mr bean would have us believe that somebody (psst, it's AC) wants to compete with Porter and is being denied. Other observers are just jaded enough to think that AC simply wants to do another drive-by shooting at YTZ. The script has played out before, and the structure of AC's supposed competition doesn't generate any confidence that this time would be any different.

The operators of YTZ, for better or worse, want to see a committed operator there. That may be a feasable proposition, or it may not. The Porter investors will be answered as to that in due course, and 'beans commentary on the viability of Porter's operation may still be validated (the investors do appear to be very patient), but his observations on "competition" at YTZ are from a fantasy world. Super 80's comments are from the real one.

Cheers, IFG

The operators at YXX and YHM, and to a degree YQQ and YKF, all markets significantly smaller than YTZ, conveniently at the bottom of Yonge Street, a couple of blocks away from the largest transit hub in Canada, have seen a committed operator for as long as 15 years, (YXX) but never considered giving that operator an 85% share of the business pretty much in perpetuity.

Allegiant flies into dozens of markets in the US that have no major or minor airline competion, yet none of those markets have given Allegiant a monopoly.

What is it about Porter that makes it so weak, so fragile, so tentative that it needs protection from direct head to head competition in Canada's largest aviation market?

If anything, perhaps it illustrates the regulators understanding of just how weak Porter's business plan really is.

If Porter has won the "hearts and minds", let alone wallets of consumers in the GTA, they'd have absolutely nothing to worry about by supporting the opening up of YTZ. That's what happened in YXX as various shades of competitors rolled in time after time and couldn't develop any loyalty or traction in the market and make any money. They all moved along. That's how the free market works.

Porter's "fraidy cat" position clear indicates that after 7+ years, they very little confidence in their brand, their price/value proposition or the loyalty of their clientele.

Geez, I've seen countless mom and pop corner grocery store owners on the west coast compete successfully against Safeway, Save-On and Thriftys, all of whom would like nothing more than to see these stores go away. The mom and pops never get any protection from the big boys.

Just whiny Porter.

[Kip Powick]

'Morning, Kip - Since about page 4 of this thread, I've mulled over saying the same thing to 'bean ... the constant theme, regurgitating etc. etc.

In his many-times-over postings here, and in many other threads, he has pounded on his theme, probably in an order of magnitude or two more frequently than has Super 80. No, he doesn't specifically reference AC very much, but we all know quite well that they are the compainant in this issue, not WJ, not even any of the US carriers that presented themselves as 'straw' applicants for slots.

Mr bean would have us believe that somebody (psst, it's AC) wants to compete with Porter and is being denied. Other observers are just jaded enough to think that AC simply wants to do another drive-by shooting at YTZ. The script has played out before, and the structure of AC's supposed competition doesn't generate any confidence that this time would be any different.

The operators of YTZ, for better or worse, want to see a committed operator there. That may be a feasable proposition, or it may not. The Porter investors will be answered as to that in due course, and 'beans commentary on the viability of Porter's operation may still be validated (the investors do appear to be very patient), but his observations on "competition" at YTZ are from a fantasy world. Super 80's comments are from the real one.

Cheers, IFG

Valid points ...but we all know where Bean comes from and we all know where MD2 and Super Eight come from and it is human nature to want to "protect" ones turf, however, it gets very tiresome when individuals keep bringing up the past, (AC and 'the island'), and the discussion keeps going in circles.

The fact is that Porter will NOT show the numbers and that omission alone does not lend much credibility to their future plans..................I don't have a dog in this fight but from out here it looks like Porter wants exclusivity and if they don't get all they are asking for, this whole scenario may be a prelude to a "dump and run" exercise for the top brass of Porter.

Yes, AC may want on the field, WJ may be playing the cards very close to the vest, perhaps WJ will see if Porter can swing the deal and then "merge" the two companies, or perhaps AC will try the same thing........I think most of us have been around long enough to understand that what is "spoken to the masses" with a straight face, is not what has, or is going to happen......

[MD2]

Mr. Bean, let's say you are correct on all your assumptions, that WestJet could not operate from YTZ because of their aircraft, and Air Canada consolidated their operation to YYZ since it made sense for them, then came along Porter with a long term vision for YTZ. You can't blame the airport or Porter for wanting to do business. You seem to want to re-write history and renegotiate the slots, unfortunately as you say the world doesn't stand still, and YTZ certainly didn't stand still and did business with the partner that had a vision and commitment. Others missed their opportunity, Porter took it and the rest its history.

Slots allocations is part of tripartite agreement and you can't expect in all honesty for Porter to give up its slots so your favourite airline can come in and "compete" with it when everyone knows that the sole purpose would be to bankrupt Porter and then go back to the way things were. If other airlines want more slots, maybe they should lobby for more to be available and then all interested parties can have a few. Above all that, as you have indicated yourself, the GTA is a common market, and your favourite airline and Air Canada among others do compete with Porter from there, and thanks to Porter's presence, wherever it shows up, it drives down the prices which is great for consumers.

For 7 years you have been prophesying Porter's doom and gloom, that it is expensive, that it is bad for the industry; while we see in practice that it has offered a good product, consumers love it, it is the highest rated airline in Canada, so perhaps your prophecies are partial, dare I say self-serving. Thanks to Porter's demonstration, we know Props are NOT for boats only and they have their purpose and value and thankfully your favourite airline too is buying some and life will be grand. Time to get a new hobby and enjoy the sunshine.