Porter To Get C Series

[Thebean]

5000 feet is way too short for transport jets. The next shortest rwys at airports that I can think of in Canada that have even occasional jet service are 6000' and they don't have water at both ends, or either end.

Once the safety card is played, that 1,200 feet extension will be increased to a couple of thousand feet, (and rightly so)..

Porter is trying to restrain competition by making the runway long enough for Bombardier equipment, provided it only has a Porter logo on it, but not long enough for Boeing, Airbus and Emb equipment.

Boeing is a big player in Canada and one can be sure they'll be using their influence to suggest to the Feds that whatever's good for the goose at YTZ is good for the gander. Let's not forget that Boeing engineered the 737-800 for Gol to allow for operations at Rio's Santos Dumont Airport, with a sea level runway of 1,300 meters.

This is going to take quite a while to sort out. Were I BBD, I wouldn't be counting on confirming these orders anytime soon. In the meantime, I would presume that any firm, unconditional C Series orders will usurp Porter's thus far purely notional positions on the assembly line which would push deliveries further and further back. Four years is forever for an airline that is barely keeping its head above water.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see WJ Encore with its full complement of 40 Q400's before Porter sees the first of it's C Series jets to add to it's couple of dozen, and by that time, aging Q400's.....

Galileo Seven........

[Kip Powick]

Sure easy to see who works, or worked for, who in this thread. :Grin-Nod:

[MD2]

As I predicted a few days ago, it appears that other Canadian airlines have become interested in the C series! As I said Porter does the research, sets the trend and others follow suit. Good for Porter for doing its research and being original that bigger airlines such as the national carrier and big wealthy Westjet follow its example first on the Q400, and they will again on the C series. And why not, it is a technological marvel and Canadian built. However, one would hope that those who were once visionaries themselves and worked hard against all odds to build something noteworthy, would have the courage to acknowledge others in their vision and their efforts. True wealth is with one who wants prosperity for all

rudder, you referred to the existing Tripartite Agreement, that it not only restricts the noise level, it also restricts aircraft with jet engines again, based on the notion that hey are usually noisy. This proposal upholds the noise restriction based on noise level alone regardless of the aircraft. This makes much more sense than double discrimination.

I give you an example. The maximum blood alcohol concentration level (BAC) for diving is 0.08, above that driving is not allowed. It doesn't matter what one consumes, beer, wine, spirits, liqueur, anything above that is illegal. We cannot say max BAC level is 0.08 and you can only drink beer! It doesn't matter what one drinks, the BAC determines whether or not their judgment is impaired and therefore they should not drive. The same principle can be used for noise using the current NEF25 level as guideline which still discriminates against noise, but acknowledges the new advancements in technology. This is quite reasonable and in fact it is only under this guarantee that jets should be allowed because it is merited based on their performance. After all, the issue is noise and not some stigma attached to jets. The neighbourhood needs to be assured that this is not a request for indiscriminate lift of ban on all jets and next month old beat-up jets are going to appear at City airport. This makes perfect sense: discriminate against he noise 100%, but do not discriminate against the engines strapped to the airframe if they are quiet, burn less fuel and have less emissions. This is moving with technology and the exigencies of our time. I hope you can support this notion.

[Kip Powick]

"The maximum blood alcohol concentration level (BAC) for diving is 0.08,above that.........................."

The actual tolerance for diving is "0" BAC...yes, yes I know it was a typo but it does prove that I do read what is written. :biggrin2: even though this thread is becoming very predictable as to who is pro and who is con Porter's plan.........

[Thebean]

As I predicted a few days ago, it appears that other Canadian airlines have become interested in the C series! As I said Porter does the research, sets the trend and others follow suit. Good for Porter for doing its research and being original that bigger airlines such as the national carrier and big wealthy Westjet follow its example first on the Q400, and they will again on the C series. And why not, it is a technological marvel and Canadian built. However, one would hope that those who were once visionaries themselves and worked hard against all odds to build something noteworthy, would have the courage to acknowledge others in their vision and their efforts. True wealth is with one who wants prosperity for all

You've hit the nail on the head. This move is more about how to stimulate an exit strategy for Porter than just about anything else. It's Wardair circa 1989 all over.

If Porter was producing meaningful profits as they claim, they could do an IPO or a private placement and raise a boatload of cash in todays market. It'd be done in about a week once the paperwork was completed. They could use it to finance either C Series purchase or buy another dozen or more Q400's to jumpstart some growth.

They haven't. Enough said.

[Guest rozar s'macco]

I for one am fully prepared to acknowledge the crafty foresight that this type of plan took. Bravo!

I'm just wondering how safe it will all be, for the pilots that is. Talk around the hangar and flight deck is that we get our "A game" fully ready for anything shorter than say, 7000 feet ie. La Guardia (7001') and smaller. DCA RWY33 is 5500', and many pilots refuse that...in an E175...for landing. Forget takeoff! Deer Lake NL had an I think 6000' runway up until two years ago, when they lengthened it to 8005' for safety. Ft.McMurray is now 7503', lengthened for safety within the last 5 years. Lethbridge, a regular alternate for YYC arrivals is 6500', why don't we EVER use Medicine Hat? Because its only 5000'.

Porter has flown themselves into a bit of a coffin corner here. On one side there is the commercial interest of having a "public" airport modified to their exact specifications, such that it de facto excludes any competitors. On the other is the safety risk of staking the company on research that shows it is safe to operate a clean-sheet jet from such a special airport. Bow to safety, lose the commercial advantage. Reap the commercial advantage, risk the entire company every time it rains or snows!

As I said, I'm loving this from the sidelines. I can't wait to see the arguments around why the runway must be made longer, but not too long...

[MD2]

I think Porter wouldn't mind if they made the RWY even longer, but this is the minimum required. You can subscribe to a conspiracy theory if you wish, or acknowledge that the idea is to have minimum impact so that the noise standard is not changed, and airport boundaries are not increased and so on. I'm sure Porter is quite used to operating from there, and you find new aircraft are quite good in their performance.

[MD2]

You've hit the nail on the head. This move is more about how to stimulate an exit strategy for Porter than just about anything else. It's Wardair circa 1989 all over.

If Porter was producing meaningful profits as they claim, they could do an IPO or a private placement and raise a boatload of cash in todays market. It'd be done in about a week once the paperwork was completed. They could use it to finance either C Series purchase or buy another dozen or more Q400's to jumpstart some growth...

For an analyst you should know that airlines don't just buy a dozen or more planes as you say, first the proposal needs to be approved, the infrastructure put in place, and if there is a need then, the conditions are right and the market is ripe, they might do an IPO, save your cash! However they have said they have been profitable the last two years and profitable corporations don't do an IPO unless they can grow and conditions are right as I said before....

[Moon The Loon]

5000 feet is way too short for transport jets. The next shortest rwys at airports that I can think of in Canada that have even occasional jet service are 6000' and they don't have water at both ends, or either end.

Disagree. Balanced fields are attainable easily in aircraft such as the BAe146 and presumably the new Bombardier. Weight and obstacles might be factors affecting payload. Obviously overruns could be a problem if operating unbalanced.

[boestar]

The Specs I posted above are directly from the BBD CSeries Fact Sheets and the Q400 Fact Sheets. Apparently at MTOW the Q400 needs more runway than the CSeries. So whats the issue?

[boestar]

Not as good as the CSeries

E-190

Maximum Operating Speed M 0.82 M 0.82

Time to Climb to FL 350,16 min 16 min

TOW for 500 nm

Takeoff Field Length, ISA,6,745 ft 2,056 m

SL MTOW

Takeoff Field Length, ISA 4,157 ft 1,267 m

SL TOW to 500 nm

Landing Field Length, ISA,4,341 ft 1,323 m

SL MLW

Range 98 PAX @ 220 lb 2,400 nm 4,448 km

(100 kg), LRC

[Seeker]

Not as good as the CSeries

E-190

Maximum Operating Speed M 0.82 M 0.82

Time to Climb to FL 350,16 min 16 min

TOW for 500 nm

Takeoff Field Length, ISA,6,745 ft 2,056 m

SL MTOW

Takeoff Field Length, ISA 4,157 ft 1,267 m

SL TOW to 500 nm

Landing Field Length, ISA,4,341 ft 1,323 m

SL MLW

Range 98 PAX @ 220 lb 2,400 nm 4,448 km

(100 kg), LRC

Yeah, but I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts that the passengers will prefer the Mighty Embraer -

[blues deville]

Yeah, but I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts that the passengers will prefer the Mighty Embraer -

I think the overhead bins on the Cseries cabins will be a big plus for your carry-on business types. Not sure if the if the E-190s have that extra space.

[Guest rozar s'macco]

I bet people don't care about anything but the price of a ticket.

[Seeker]

I bet people don't care about anything but the price of a ticket.

Before they get on the flight they only care about price but as soon as they get on, comfort becomes very important to them.

[Super 80]

During the development of the E Series, Embraer broached the subject of an exception for E170 at YTZ.

[Thebean]

For an analyst you should know that airlines don't just buy a dozen or more planes as you say, first the proposal needs to be approved, the infrastructure put in place, and if there is a need then, the conditions are right and the market is ripe, they might do an IPO, save your cash! However they have said they have been profitable the last two years and profitable corporations don't do an IPO unless they can grow and conditions are right as I said before....

And how long do you think that would take to accomplish? I'd say ninety days max with an off the shelf prospectus. It's not rocket science.

Gol operates 187 seat 737-800's with short field performance kits at Santos Dumont, with 4,341 feet available at sea level. As it stands, the longest leg they operate is SDU-BSB, a tad under 600 miles.

YTZ has 3,988 feet at 347 feet above sea level. Adding 300 meters / 1,200 feet takes it to about 5,200 feet, almost a thousand feet more than SDU. My guess is that if jets are approved, the regulators won't want to cut anything too fine and require at least another 500 feet to that for safety reasons, or a total of 5,700 feet.

Depending on obstacles / second stage climb issues etc, it'd probably be quite easy to create an RNP approach and make good use of HUD's. I'm sure some bright ops spark lurking on the board would be able to tell us what sort of range could be achieved with a B737-800 with a comfy 150 seat configuration.

I wonder what the casm differential would be between a 107 seat C Series and a 150 seat 737-800? Shall we start the bidding at 35%? No matter what fare structure Porter dreamt up, WJ could comfortably undercut it by a significant degree, and be highly profitable in doing so.

I'm sure Boeing could make room on the line for one of their larger 737 customers and have 5 or so delivered a couple of years before the C Series is delivered to Porter for closed cycle ops to YTZ.

Prior to that, WestJet could humbly request a minimal number of slots to operate a paltry number of 737 flights a day from YTZ. How could anyone complain about a request for, say a total of 12 departures daily when Porter has more than that daily to Montreal? How would Porter roadblocking that request play into the media? Golly gee. All we want to do is operate 2 or 3 round trips a day from YTZ to YYC , YWG and YHZ and charge fares that are a fraction of what that nasty monopolist, Porter, is charging for their walk up YTZ- BOS flights?

What fun!!!

If Torontonians get their heads around jets at YTZ, and that's a pretty big if, I'll bet they'll be even more interested in competition that results in fares, and especially walk up fares, being slashed for services from YTZ.

As for facilities, YXX's passenger terminal was a converted truck washing bay for years. It took WestJet about 45 days to have it converted. No big deal.

So you see, nothing is impossible if someone wants it to happen. Been there. Done that.

Perhaps Porter is going to collectively mimic the immortal words of my old Campbell River fishing buddy, Hollis Harris who, when asked about WJ at launch was quoted as saying that Canadians were more interested in full service than low fares. I have a video cassette of that little gem. How wrong he was. I bet he chuckles about that today, if he even remembers saying it.

Could this scenario play out? Who knows? It's worth exploring. Regardless, I'm absolutely positive WestJet's intentions would be as serious as Porter's.....

[spreadsheet]

As I predicted a few days ago, it appears that other Canadian airlines have become interested in the C series!

I see AC and WestJet saying they'd want access to the island for their jets if Porter is granted access, but I don't see anywhere where they've showed interest in the C series. Where did you see that?

[Seeker]

Sometimes you do what you have to in this business. Westjet learned their lesson the hard way.

http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=6138fbd4-c3db-44ca-83a7-bfb6bcc0cbdb

This stuff is gold - couldn't write it better as fiction. I think my favourite part of that whole story is from December 2004 where Westjet actually filed a lawsuit saying "Air Canada is trying to ruin our reputation by telling the world about our unethical activities"!

[Maverick]

The last six or so 737-800's that WestJet has taken have the short field performance mods. I believe that was for the OGG-YVR legs.

[Fido]

This stuff is gold - couldn't write it better as fiction. I think my favourite part of that whole story is from December 2004 where Westjet actually filed a lawsuit saying "Air Canada is trying to ruin our reputation by telling the world about our unethical activities"!

Or the part where the undercover dick sat in the middle seat next to a WS exec and asked 'What you got there'.

[Super 80]

How exactly was Air Canada and WestJet sitting on their thumbs for the better part of a decade "Porter roadblocking"?

In any event, if WestJet Encore did express a real interest in operating out of YTZ I am sure the TPA could find some slots in the "Strategic Slot Reserve" to accommodate them. The statements by Air Canada and WestJet today remind me of what Alaska and others did when Southwest attempted to build a new passenger terminal at Boeing field. With one major difference. Before REGCO came forward the consensus, including the TPA was that YTZ was to close. I seem to recall David Collenette even put a date on it. (Of course Collenette was a Pickering true believer too). It is not within the mandate of the TPA to enable hit and run attacks that would jeopardize the survival of the facility. Porter is the only reliable partner they have ever had.

Quite frankly the TPA and Porter really haven't deviated from the original airport feasibility study that followed the creation of the TPA. One of the bullet-points in that study was accommodations for the CRJ700, this included a runway extension. Spoken or not, this has always been on the agenda. When the original recommendations were presented the only one that the City of Toronto went along with was the bridge.

[Thebean]

Ahh, Great memories. Lots of fun and games. All kinds of delicious 10 year old stories that can never be told, some of which one couldn't make up even if one tried.

Not sure what it has to do with Porter, or this thread, though....

Maybe just an attempted deflection. Best to keep the stick on the ice if you want to connect...

[Seeker]

Ahh, Great memories. Lots of fun and games. All kinds of delicious 10 year old stories that can never be told, some of which one couldn't make up even if one tried.

Not sure what it has to do with Porter, or this thread, though....

Maybe just an attempted deflection. Best to keep the stick on the ice if you want to connect...

It's going to take more than 10 years for you, oh sorry, I mean for Westjet to get past that shady history. Anyway.....back to the thread at hand.

[MD2]

Spreadsheet, that is my prediction since I don't believe their current jets meet the NEF25 noise limitations.

Bean, you lost me I'm afraid! I keep saying Porter doesn't need the money to do an IPO, you say it takes 90 days? All other things you said is fine and fair game, when there are slots available, your fiends can apply too, the terminal could actually use another tenant, but I'm afraid you're complaining to the wrong people for slots, Porter doesn't distribute them. I sound like a broken record when I mention again that by your own admission, Westjet didn't give the airport a minute's thought, well naturally they didn't get any slots, why are you complaining? Don't you get tired of this 7 year vendetta against Porter, its choice of planes, then your favourite airline buys he same, it's profitability, it makes profit, it's plans, etc.

Another thing, your favourite subject of walk-up fares. If as you say Porter is so unreasonable and expensive on Boston route and its similar high prices were shattered by Westjet on the New York route, wouldn't it be good business to do the same on the Boston route and the problem will be solved and they make more money? Why was it so effective for New York with flights from Pearson, but now you are fixating on City when Porter has spent over 7 years developing the airport? Time to celebrate your accomplishments and move on, or get some new material!