Porter To Get C Series

[Guest flywest]

On the subject of noise, has PW or BBD published figures for noise generated on the ground with max, or near max reverse thrust selected?

Most published noise figures account for take-off and approach. I'd be curious to see landing figures with greater than idle reverse selected, since as soon as the first drops of rain or flakes of snow start to fall on a 5000' runway, it will most likely be required. Most of the technology to reduce noise on new turbofans only applies to forward thrust, and the published noise footprint for landing is usually predicated on "being a good neighbour" and only selecting idle.

Assuming this plan is actually serious, and it ends up getting approval, the folks downtown could be in for some frequently noisy arrivals OR, the runway cold end up being much longer than initially proposed.

[groundeffect]

5000 ft? and they are claiming the island to LAX?

gfl!

I remember flying in and out of Deer Lake with a 319 at 6000' (now 8000)

That was non stop to yyz_ they want non stop to LAX???

[boestar]

I cannot stand the Embraer personally. I wish I didn't have to fly ion it all the time. The CSeries looks to be a roomier cabin.

[blues deville]

5000 ft? and they are claiming the island to LAX?

gfl!

I remember flying in and out of Deer Lake with a 319 at 6000' (now 8000)

That was non stop to yyz_ they want non stop to LAX???

Was your 319 made of new light weight materials and powered by new PW engines that burn 20% less fuel?

[Thebean]

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!

Ah MD. Lost again, eh? You love to obfuscate and take bits and pieces of whatever snippets suit your line of thought. What a clever chap!

I said it'd take 90 days for WestJet to do the analysis, pull the trigger and finance any narrow body or turbo prop aircraft order of approximately a dozen tails. Indeed, I would imagine most of the analysis was done about a year ago. I suspect WJ could pick up the phone to CIBC and Raymond James and arrange a bought deal in about 30 days, if they thought they needed to add to their $1.4b stock pile of cash. That's what a track record of industry leading profitability allows them to do. You understand profitability, right? Not cash flow, profitability?

I have been exceedingly clear in my thoughts on the matter. In years gone by, WJ had little interest in YTZ. Were that not the case, they might have actually paid attention to the numerous overtures made by Porter to WestJet to be bought out.

Operating transcon was a non-starter with B737-200's but that changed with the acquisition of 737NG's. Operating into YTZ with a fleet of 737NG's was obviously a non-starter, and for that reason, YTZ, and a couple of dozen other airports were never on the radar. News flash. We never paid much attention to places like Castlegar either with the fleet of NG's. The acquisition of the Q400's, or ATR's had that been the case, changed all that. As a result, I would imagine that WJ's position these days is that any airport that is within the capability of any of WJ's fleet is open season. I'm sure that is precisely Porter's thinking as well.

Should jets be permitted at YTZ, you can safely assume that WestJet will be in line to acquire a modest number of slots in order to operate there, just as Porter is able to operate anywhere else they choose in Canada. How could WestJet operating 6 or 7 round trips a day into YTZ possibly harm Porter, who operate twice as many daily flights to Montreal? Would that sort of frequency materially hurt Porter? I doubt the public would have much sympathy for Porter's arguments to the contrary, especially with the kinds of fares WJ would offer.

No one in Canada is particularly enamored with monopolies or near monopolies, and even less so of abusive, price gouging monopolies. One has only to listen to the ongoing misinformation people love to spout off about how Air Canada has a "monopoly" of some sort or another. The harsh reality, and one that the public currently does not comprehend, is that whatever percieved monopoly status Air Canada has in Canada, which is basically unmitigated nonsense in the first place, is nothing compared to the near monopolistic position Porter has managed to achieve at YTZ with control 85% of all commercial traffic at the airport. It was always difficult for Air Canada, the 800lb gorilla, to make this point as the public had little sympathy for their arguments.

Should WestJet decide to enter the fray and begin an informational campaign in the GTA, Porter's positioning will inevitably change. It will be hardpressed to play the "we're so hard done by Air Canada card". WJ will be able to make a very compelling case to the traveling public that their interests and pocketbooks are not being well served by one airline having a strangle hold on a publicly owned facility located within a stones throw of the center of Canada's largest aviation market.

There is more than enough historical evidence to illustrate to the public what happens to fares in markets that WestJet enters, even monopoly markets like YHM, YXX and YKF, and how walk up fares tend to stay ridiculously high when Porter is left to its own devices. What's that fare to Chicago tomorrow morning on Porter again? $1,141 for a 444 mile sector? That's quite the deal, considering WestJet will fly Torontonians from YYZ to FLL tomorrow, almost three times the distance for about one third of the price. One thing that's never changed over the near twenty years I've been around the industry is that Canadians have an inate sense of fairness and they really, really hate the idea of being ripped off.

Even if one argues that as an upstart, Porter should have been sheltered from excessive competition in its early days, that line of reasoning will begin to fall on deaf ears after 7 years. WestJet didn't receive any meaningful protection in its formative years so why the special treatment for Porter, especially operating out of Toronto? Like Porter at YTZ, WestJet spent a lot of time and energy developing YXX, YHM and YQQ. Sure, we were a little **bleep** when competition entered the fray but we did what we did best. We rolled up our sleeves and tried harder. Guess what. The competition disappeared. That's a very compelling story when brilliantly told when WJ trots out its best PR person, with tha World EoY Award tucked under his arm.

There are four methods to deal with competiton in the airline busines. Beat 'em, hire 'em, regulate 'em or copy 'em. Porter can't beat 'em because their unit costs are too high with the Q400's and the C Series. Did you happen to notice, let alone wonder why not a single LCC on the planet has touched the C Series with a 10 foot barge pole? Hiring another airline is a non-starter for Porter for obvious reasons, as is copying them. What's left? Hide behind regulations, (in this case, artificial constraints in the form of slots), and play the righteous indignation card anytime anyone even suggests that is not the case.

How is that going resonate with Joe Smallbusinessguy who has to wake up every Monday morning, unlock the doors of his widget shop and do battle with his competitors every day without the benefit of the sort of sweatheart deal Porter has in the market place; a cozy, gifted near monopoly, subsidized to the exclusion of others by taxpayers who underwrite a very significant proportion of the costs of operating the airport. That idea is not going to sell well on mainstreet. You can imagine the reaction the public would have had The Bay or Holt Renfrew, Giant Tiger or even the FlatIron Department store been annoited with an 85% share of the market, thus all but preventing Target's entry into the GTA?

I would suggest that the notional acquisition of the C Series by Porter, with deliveries at least 3 years away, which is forever in airlinespeak, will open up a Pandora's Box that will be very difficult to close. Porter should be careful what they wish for.

In any event, there's a pretty strong concensus amongst various senior people I know and respect in the industry that when one adds all this up, and takes into consideration a number of other issues that are best left unsaid for obvious reasons, that this little chapter in aviation history in Canada is all too similar to Wardair's order of MD88's in 1988-1989, which turned out to be a marvelous exercise in blowing smoke.

I guess we shall see, shan't we?

[MD2]

Bean, that's all fine, when Westjet is ready and there are slots available at the airport, I'm sure the terminal would be happy to use another tenant. But you still haven't answered the question. If you're so upset about the walk up fares to Boston and now you say Chicago, your favourite topic, what's stopping your favourite airline to do some flights to those places and slash the prices? After all, this is what you say happened in New York with profit for them, why not make even profit? The bait and switch only works for so long!

[rudder]

Any local policy that would establish or seek to preserve one carrier's 85% market share at any airport in the US would never survive under antitrust provisions. Sadly, it would appear such legal protections do not similarly exist in Canada.

If nothing else, hopefully shining a spotlight on the incestuous relationship between Porter and the TPA will be a byproduct of Porter's massive PR campaign highlighting YTZ.

[boestar]

I am a 6'4" tall "linebacker" type guy. the aircraft has never suited me. CRJs are even worse. The C series seems to have the right dimensions. Although I will still have the FA telling me to watch my head everytime I board the plane.

[Thebean]

Bean, that's all fine, when Westjet is ready and there are slots available at the airport, I'm sure the terminal would be happy to use another tenant. But you still haven't answered the question. If you're so upset about the walk up fares to Boston and now you say Chicago, your favourite topic, what's stopping your favourite airline to do some flights to those places and slash the prices? After all, this is what you say happened in New York with profit for them, why not make even profit? The bait and switch only works for so long!

You can bet the farm that will transpire in the next 24 months, old chum.

It's not about questioning me about Porter's usurous fares out of YTZ.

The issue is how Porter is going to be able win a PR battle defending the notion of said high fares to the GTA traveling public and why YTZ is the only airport in Canada that is not worthy of open, free competition.

In all but the very smallest commercial airports in Canada, consumers can to choose to fly Air Canada, WestJet, Bearskin, Pac Coastal, Calm Air, Central Mountain Air and on and on. In many airports east of Thunder Bay, consumers can add Porter to that mix. Any airline is able to choose to operate to any airport with, practically speaking no restrictions on frequency or aircraft type operated, provided the airport is physically capable of handling said equipment.

Should Air Canada, Porter or anyone else choose to operate at YHM or YXX, consumers in that market can make their own choice who they want to fly with, rather than having big government make that decision for them, and then have to pay through the nose as a consequence of the monopoly inducing regulation.

Then there's Toronto Island Airport, located at the epicenter of the source of, far and away, the largest number of O & D passengers in Canada, where, as a result of back door politics and dealings, largely beyond the view of the average consumer, Porter has managed to create a virtual monopoly where they need only have to compete head to head on normal commercial terms on one city pair. I can buy into the idea that Porter should have been given a 2-3 year headstart at YTZ, but 7+ years?

Now Porter want's to expand willy nilly into other markets, but conveniently be able to prevent it's competitors from doing the same, once again, trying to selectively hide behind archaic regulation that accidently on purpose results in a very consumer unfriendly, near monopolistic situation.

It was one thing to spout that idea off when "Big Bad Red" was the bad guy. It's going to be a little different trying to put WJ, one of the worlds leading LCC's, into that box.

The court of public opinion can be a brutal ajudicator and imo, this is going to be a very tough story to sell to a very savvy traveling public and sound bite focussed media,

[rudder]

This article makes it clear that there were some questionable contacts made with the Mayor's office two months ago about the topic of expansion to jet operations by Porter at YTZ.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/ford-had-advance-briefing-on-airport-expansion-plans/article11117837/

Latest Toronto City Council voting scorecard:

An informal tally of how city councillors feel about the expansion of the Island Airport, based on interviews and their Twitter activity:

Pro or leaning in favour

• Doug Ford (Ward 2-Etobicoke North)
• Mayor Rob Ford
• Paul Ainslie (Ward 43- Scarborough East)
• Michelle Berardinetti (Ward 35- Scarborough Southwest)
• Frank Di Giorgio (Ward 12 York South-Weston)
• Michael Thompson (Ward 37 Scarborough Centre)
• Norm Kelly (Ward 40 Scarborough-Agincourt)

Con or leaning against

• Ana Bailao (Ward 19 Davenport)
• Janet Davis (Ward 31 Beaches-East York)
• Glenn De Baeremaeker (Ward 38 Scarborough Centre)
• Shelley Carroll (Ward 33 Don Valley East)
• Adam Vaughan (Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina)
• Karen Stintz (Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence)
• Gord Perks (Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park)
• Pam McConnell (Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale)
• Sarah Doucette (Ward 13 Parkdale-High Park)
• Paula Fletcher (Ward 30 Toronto-Danforth)
• John Fillion (Ward 23 Willowdale)
• Mary Fragedakis (Ward 29- Toronto-Danforth)
• Gloria Lindsay Luby (Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre)
• Mary-Margaret McMahon (Ward 32 Beaches-East York) “I’m not keen on larger airplanes, and I’m not keen on expanding the airport.”
• Joe Mihevc (Ward 21 St. Paul’s)
• Peter Milczyn (Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
• Josh Colle (Ward 15 Eglington-Lawrence)

Undecided

• Jaye Robinson (Ward 25 Don Valley West)
• John Parker (Ward 26 Don Valley West)
• Raymond Cho (Ward 42 Scarborough-Rouge River)
• Gary Crawford (Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest) (his e.a. says He likes Porter but wants more info.)
• Doug Holyday (Ward 3 Etobicoke Centre)
• Josh Matlow (Ward 22 St. Paul’s)
• Ron Moeser (Ward 44 <QL>Scarborough East) <QL>(undecided until he sees further details)
• Denzil Minnan-Wong (Ward 34 Don Valley East)
• David Shiner (Ward 24 Willowdale)

Unknown

• Mary Augimeri (Ward 9 York Centre)
• Vincent Crisanti (Ward 1 Etobicoke North)
• Mark Grimes (Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
• Mike Layton (Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina)
• Frances Nunziata (Ward 11 York South-Weston)
• Cesar Palacio (Ward 17 Davenport)
• James Pasternak (Ward 10 York Centre)
• Kristyn Wong-Tam (Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale)
• Anthony Perruzza (Ward 8 York West)

[Mitch Cronin]

I am a 6'4" tall "linebacker" type guy.

6'4" by 4'6" ....? Hey, isn't that like the magic ratio or something?

[Mitch Cronin]

Hey! If Kip could sit on his own shoulders..... Who would be taller?

[Mitch Cronin]

How many Beans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

[Mitch Cronin]

....Ok, I'm sorry, have I interrupted an important discussion? oops.

[chockalicious]

The comments in the Globe and Mail story are pretty funny. Looks like a lot of people are not thrilled with expanding the airport.

I don't really care one way or the other but public sentiment certainly does not make it sound like it will be easy.

[Mitch Cronin]

Chock, I think polar ice caps have a better chance. The islands host, among other notables with connections... The RCYC, whose members probably account for half the wealth in the province, if not the country. (I truly have no way to know if that's accurate, but suffice it to say they are all very well connected folk) They're the ones whose masts provide the certain obstacles at the ends of the runways, and who like to entertain on their lovely sailing craft.... which are moored about as close to that airport as WestJet's YYZ hangar is to Terminal 3....

.... snowballs in hell. There won't be any jets there until that whole generation, and their age old fight, have been relegated to distant memory. Porter is playing with free publicity. That's all.

[rudder]

Question for MD2:

There is a comment from BBD in one of the articles surrounding the Porter C-series announcement that suggests that Porter has until year-end 2013 to lift the conditions (I am still trying to find the article again to provide the quote). Is that comment accurate?

If so, the obvious question is why is there a BBD December 2013 condition removal deadline for an aircraft with a very thin order book and Porter deliveries not planned until 2016/2017?

There is a thread on the Porter C-series announcement on another board that suggests an alternative strategy in respect of the planned order. It suggests that the CS100 will never meet the commercially viable performance requirements on a 5000' runway and therefore Porter will be able to bail on the orders but that will all happen AFTER the TPA commits to extending the runway. This runway extension will benefit Porter even within its existing Q400 operation so Porter ends up in a win-win even without the ability to run CS100's from YTZ nor having to actually accept the aircraft.

To expand on that hypothetical - why are the parties setting what appear to be arbitrary premature deadlines? Clearly, demanding that Toronto City Council act on the matter prior to year end clearly takes the issue away from the new city council and potential new mayor in 2014. Is this breach of contract round 2 (i.e. get current council to pass motion under supportive Mayor only to have a subsequent Mayor and council reverse the decision creating an opportunity to attempt sue for substantial alleged damages)?

There is no reason that the deadline for Porter to lift conditions of purchase should be any sooner than year-end 2014. And that will also mean that BBD will have to have demonstrated that the CS100 performance is as predicted.

It certainly appears that there is a sandbagging exercise going on. And I am not talking about the sandbags that will be required to fill Lake Ontario

[boestar]

Heck in this city the council will approve it, construction will begin then a new mayor will come in and cancel the whole thing and pay millions in penalties. someone will get rich and the taxpayers will get **bleep** off. Its the circle of TO

[Super 80]

Any local policy that would establish or seek to preserve one carrier's 85% market share at any airport in the US would never survive under antitrust provisions. Sadly, it would appear such legal protections do not similarly exist in Canada.

If nothing else, hopefully shining a spotlight on the incestuous relationship between Porter and the TPA will be a byproduct of Porter's massive PR campaign highlighting YTZ.

There is no law against your competitor having a hissy fit and walking away. Had Air Canada and Jazz managed their relationship with the TPA better they could have secured much greater access.

In any event the DOJ went after DFW and AMR and failed. And in those days Delta was still operating a hub there.

[rudder]

There is no law against your competitor having a hissy fit and walking away. Had Air Canada and Jazz managed their relationship with the TPA better they could have secured much greater access.

In any event the DOJ went after DFW and AMR and failed. And in those days Delta was still operating a hub there.

DOJ regularly compels airlines that exchange or sell airport assets or opportunities to surrender slots to preserve competition. 85% for one airline at a slot restricted airport would have to be deemed a de facto monopoly or at a minimum a significant barrier to meaningful competition. And any suggestion that YYZ based operations constitute 'competition' at YTZ are self serving. It is the TPA that is in the wrong here. Porter is simply playing the game on extremely sympathetic terms.

[Super 80]

The TPA proactively took itself to the competition bureau who signed off on the arragenement. YTZ and YYZ are the same market. Over the course of the litigation the federal court also found nothing improper in the relationship between the TPA and Porter.

The only reason Porter has the slots they do is because Air Canada and Jazz were incompetent and thought that the courts would re-write the rules in their favour.

Bad business decisions have consequences. Air Canada also could have had a shot at the relinquished Continental slots - but they screwed that up too.

[MD2]

Thebean, honestly you've been going on for 7 years about Porter's high prices, while others from your favourite airline complain about low prices. The reports seem to indicate Porter's presence in the East has reduced prices in comparison to the West where on comparable routes prices are $100 higher where there's is only AC and WJ. This is why it seems people in Vancouver and Calgary are looking forward to having Porter there as they are excited about their brand and product. At any rate, we are basically repeating ourselves, so I wish you well.

rudder, I don't know the details of the agreement, but my guess would be that the reason that Bombardier would impose a deadline is because understandably they are in the business of selling airplanes, not almost selling airplanes, or just collecting letter of interests. It is for that very reason that perhaps the order books are somewhat soft as you suggested, that they want to solidify the orders. I'm actually surprised they have given that long, I mean don't forget the letter was signed back in December.

We can talk about conspiracy theories all day and complain why is there a deadline, or why is the delivery date so late, or it seemed they met the officials first, or why did they announce it like this before asking the officials, etc, etc. however, this is a very competitive business and one has to start somewhere in a chicken and egg situation, and it seems this was the best way to do it. They have given some heads up without divulging the whole thing as I'm sure the decision making was a process for them too, they have put the orders conditional on approval which is very respectful to the officials, Bombardier, residents, and their own staff and especially customers who love the product and want it more. This is evident in customer surveys and in fact 87% of Torontonians support the airport. And that is probably why the order is for 2016 to allow time for this whole process, including the construction and the dialogue, to unfold.

Once the dialogue continues and people's concerns and fears are addressed they see that the proposal is actually very well thought and respectful. Remember, the modest extension requested is within the current confines of the airport, so boaters can still enjoy the same amount of the lake, not to mention that the of waterfront including some of the condos are built on reclaimed land. And the proposal is not asking for total lift of ban on all jets, only those that fall under the current noise limitation. So basically discriminate against the noise, but not the type of engine. And if the plane is comparably quite as the current planes flying in and out of there, why not and thereby create lots of jobs and improve the economy. As the Agreement has been amended twice before, it can be amended again. This is evolving and progressing with the exigencies of our time.

[Kip Powick]

These Links will take you to the Toronto Star...On the page you will see a link to PORTER, (in yellow), That link will take you to a massive PR sequence explaining what PORTER wants.

http://www.thestar.com/

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/12/ottawas_vip_challenger_jets_are_becoming_obsolete_documents_reveal.html

[rudder]

rudder, I don't know the details of the agreement, but my guess would be that the reason that Bombardier would impose a deadline is because understandably they are in the business of selling airplanes, not almost selling airplanes, or just collecting letter of interests. It is for that very reason that perhaps the order books are somewhat soft as you suggested, that they want to solidify the orders. I'm actually surprised they have given that long, I mean don't forget the letter was signed back in December.

That's OK. I think that I have figured it out.

By setting an arbitrary deadline with BBD of December 2013, Porter gives itself 2 opportunities rather than just 1 to get the support of Toronto City Council. If their ally Mayor Ford cannot get this past current council then I am fairly confident that the BBD deadline will magically be extended to beyond the results of the 2014 Mayoral election as this would most certainly be an election issue. That means that the matter can be placed before council in both 2013, and if necessary, again in 2014.

And as I said before, Porter places itself in an envious position to cash in at the expense of the City if this council approves the amendments to the Tripartite Agreement and a subsequent city council reverses that position therefore raising an argument on behalf of Porter for financial damages.

Silent of course in all of this are the Feds and the TPA who have clearly abdicated any sense of accountability on the matter.

[boxcar]

Has anyone discussed where all of Porters money is going to come from for these jets?

Anyone ever thought of a middle eastern based airline looking to get more access

to Canadian markets that the Gov has prevented them for doing thus far? Could Porter be this vehicle?

FFT???