Porter To Get C Series

[Super 80]

My understanding is Bombardier took this particular tail back and put it out of its misery.

[Seeker]

A monday or a friday build?

Tuesday, after the May 24 weekend.

[boestar]

The Serial number 4039 was also the 36th production aircraft produced. thats actually quite early in the production run and there were alot of issues in the early aircraft. SAS Was the launch customer and eventually gave the whole fleet back to BBD.

[dagger]

Maybe Bean will buy Porter... he's been awfully silent in this thread...

[Briler]

You might find this letter,sent on Wednesday to the CEO of the Toronto Port Authority of interest. He has not replied, to date.

From: Brian Iler
Sent: April 17, 2013 10:13 AM
To: Geoffrey Wilson (gwilson@torontoport.com)
Subject: Noise restrictions at the Island Airport

Geoff, I see the TPA is today quoted in the Financial Post as saying it “believes the CS100 is the only jet-powered aircraft that meets the noise restrictions at the airport”.

The TPA’s February 2009 Community Presentation admits that even the Q400 (flown by Porter and Air Canada) offends the Tripartite Agreement’s definition of aircraft generating excessive noise on two of the three parameters.

Breach of any one prohibits the aircraft. However, to date, the TPA has failed its duty to the public to enforce that prohibition.

This is from page 26 from that Presentation:

Q402 Tripartite

Flyover 78 84

Lateral 84 83.5

Approach 93.1 92

What are the stats for the CS100’s noise? According to Bombardier, the total of the three parameters (255) is lower than the total for “average turboprop” (about 256).

But the Q400 total is 245.1. Even with that, the Q400 breaches two of the three parameters.

It does seem that the “whisper jet” is louder than the Q400 – 255 v. 245. On its maker’s figures.

How does it then “meets the noise restrictions at the airport”?

The TPA has claimed it can average the breaches out, borrowing from one parameter that is not breached to address a breach of another. A tremendously weak argument: while that is permitted by the ICAO for compliance with the much weaker ICAO noise constraints, averaging is not contemplated by the Tripartite Agreement.

Nothing in the Tripartite Agreement permits totalling, or averaging.

Note the use of the word “or” in this relevant excerpt from the Tripartite Agreement:

aircraft generating excessive noise shall … include [those] which generate a noise level in excess of 84.0 EPNdB on takeoff (flyover), or in excess of 83.5 EPNdB on sideline at takeoff (lateral)to the flight path)or in excess of 92.0 EPNdB on approach

The limits are the limits, and each stands alone.

That makes sense – the limits address real concerns about noise, relied upon by the City in allowing the development of Bathurst Quay, and by all who have moved into the Bathurst Quay neighbourhood since they were put into place in 1983.

We need the breakdown of the three parameters for the CS100. As you’ve made the statement, you must have the data to back it up. Could you provide it?

As the data above suggest that the CS100 is considerably louder than even the excessively noisy (as defined in the Tripartite Agreement) Q400, you might correct your statement to the media, and suggest to Mr. Deluce that he do likewise.

[Super 80]

Anything that makes the squatters lives even a little bit more uncomfortable is fine with me.

[J.O.]

In today's Financial Post:

Porter Airlines likely angling for takeover by bigger rival, analysts say
Scott Deveau
Wednesday, Apr. 17, 2013
Several industry observers and analysts said they believe the most likely scenario would be for WestJet to buy Porter. Norm Betts/Bloomberg

Porter Airlines’ surprise move to start flying jets off Toronto Island has left several industry observers speculating its primary motivation is actually to solicit a takeover bid from one of its larger rivals, Air Canada or, more likely, WestJet.

Such a move would not be without precedent.

Wardair Canada, a privately owned carrier launched by Max Ward in 1953, established the model in Canada for this sort of “marshmallow order.” In 1989, the upstart announced a massive expansion plan — including an order for 12 MD-88s and two Airbus A310s — forcing the hand of its rival, Canadian Airlines, to take it over Wardair’s $600-million aircraft order was cancelled soon thereafter.

More than a few industry observers have pointed to the similarities between the Wardair’s takeover and Porter’s current plan, which includes purchasing up to 30 Bombardier CSeries, valued at roughly $2.08-billion, based on list price. I’m pretty skeptical that those planes will ever see the light of day.

Porter has said the CSeries order is conditional on getting the City of Toronto, the Toronto Port Authority and the federal government to agree to allow jets at its base at Billy Bishop Toronto City airport and to extend the runway there.

“I’m pretty skeptical that those planes will ever see the light of day,” said Ben Cherniavksy, Raymond James analyst, in an interview. “I’m even more skeptical that if they do see the light of day, it is a sustainable business proposition.”

Several other industry observers and analysts, who have spoken to the Financial Post on the condition of anonymity in recent days, said they too believe the most likely scenario would be for WestJet to buy Porter. Such a move would immediately establish a presence in the East for WestJet’s new regional carrier, Encore, when it is launched in the West in June. Porter and Encore both operate a fleet of Bombardier Q400s and an acquisition would suddenly give WestJet a strategic hold on Billy Bishop, they say.

Mr. Cherniavsky said he does believe there’s a strong case for a third national carrier in Canada given the rising costs at both WestJet and Air Canada. But, he said, he doesn’t believe the Island airport has the necessary feeder traffic to make anything more than a short-haul operation successful there.

Porter has proposed Vancouver, Calgary, Los Angeles and Miami, among other possible destinations, for its new CSeries aircraft, which has also raised eyebrows.

“The CSeries just can’t compete with the other carriers on the routes they are discussing,” Mr. Cherniavsky said. “There’s no significant network out of the island airport that would provide the kind of traffic flow the other airlines thrive off of.”

Because of this, Mr. Cherniavsky said he believes Porter’s motivation is a takeout. “I think they would like to be acquired by one of the other two carriers,” he said. “By making it look like they are going to up the ante, someone may come in and take them out.”

This isn’t to say that Porter would kill the plan if it gains the necessary approvals, Mr. Cherniavsky said, but he suspects a takeout is top of mind.

“I’m sure [Porter head Robert Deluce] legitimately believes he has some sort of business plan. I just don’t think he’s being realistic,” Mr. Cherniavsky said.

Several experts said the CSeries order would almost certainly be cancelled as well, if Porter was acquired.

Neither Air Canada nor WestJet would comment on the speculation. WestJet certainly has the means, with $1.4-billion in available free cash. “We are well capitalized, profitable and have the ability to fund these plans,” said Brad Cicero, Porter Airlines spokesman, in an email. He said the speculation of a takeover wasn’t surprising. “We have heard similar comments over the last seven years,” he said. “But our focus continues to be independent growth.”

There have also been questions about how Porter will finance the CSeries order, but it’s worth noting that the airline isn’t risking a huge amount of cash with this pact. Even if it gets the necessary government approvals, Porter is only on the hook for the firm portion of the order, which is for 12 CS100, an order valued at roughly $744-million based on list price.

Discounts of up to 40% are not uncommon on new aircraft programs, sources say.

At the same time, Export Development Canada and the province of Quebec would likely cover up to 85% of the financing at attractive rates, leaving Porter on the hook for less than $100-million for its CSeries order, a fairly manageable sum. If money were an issue, the airline could also raise funds through an initial public offering of its shares once the necessary approvals for the CSeries were granted.
As such, Porter’s plan, as it has been presented, is not without its merits. And while many have noted the expansion appears to be a long shot, an outright acquisition has its own complications, especially if the CSeries order stands.

David Newman, Cormark Securities analyst, said he believes the CSeries would offer an interesting, longer-haul element with initial destinations more leisure focused.

[Seeker]

As the data above suggest that the CS100 is considerably louder than even the excessively noisy (as defined in the Tripartite Agreement) Q400, you might correct your statement to the media, and suggest to Mr. Deluce that he do likewise.

Hi Brian, I seem to remember you posted on our little forum a year or so ago, welcome back.

I'm torn. As a pilot I'm very aware of limits and quite respectful of them but to refer to the Q400 as excessively noisy because it's half a decibel louder than the limit as it flies by and 1.1 decibels louder on approach seems to dilute your argument against the CS100 because you come off looking unreasonable. I know - a limit is a limit and you want to prevent something from getting grandfathered or worse to allow a new, higher, noise limit to be implemented. I get that.

It's unlikely that you will get any support for your protestations here anyway, personally I'd see the take-offs and landings at YTZ airport as a bonus to waterfront condo ownership. If I owned condo there I'd spend lots of time with a coffee or beer in hand just watching - it's like having a front row seat at an airshow. I used to live on the extended centreline of an airport and we would have DC-9s and old 737s flying over. You couldn't just hear them, you could feel them - it would shake the pictures off the walls. Believe me, a Q400 is not excessively noisy by any definition.

As a pilot I would be against restrictions on the use of the current airport but I would also be against expanding the airport. If it was up to me I would give free access to any commercial aircraft that wanted to use YTZ, including cancelling the existing noise agreement, but would reject any proposal to extend the runways.

[Thebean]

Maybe Bean will buy Porter... he's been awfully silent in this thread...

Bean has been floating off far flung continents and hence off the grid. Quite refreshing actually. TTFN.

[dagger]

Bean has been in one of the few places on the planet where connectivity to the outside world is extremely problematic......

Come on, connectivity in Calgary isn't that bad!

[rudder]

Set artificial and arbitrary deadlines..........

Porter warns that time is short, offers to fund airport jet study

Porter Airlines needs the city to approve its jet-powered plans for the island airport by July, and the short-haul carrier with national aspirations is willing to pick up the tab for a city report if that will speed up the process.

Robert Deluce, Porter’s president and chief executive officer, met with The Globe and Mail’s editorial board on Wednesday for an hour-long discussion on the airline’s plan to order jet aircraft and extend the runway at Billy Bishop airport.

Mayor Rob Ford’s cabinet-like executive committee passed a motion this week directing the city manager to write the report, but the committee asked Porter to pick up the tab, which Mr. Deluce said the company would “be more than happy” to do, provided the report is released in a timely manner at a reasonable cost.

Porter’s expansion plan must be approved by the three signatories to the tripartite agreement that governs the island airport, including the city. The proposal has rekindled a bitter dispute at City Hall, with some councillors complaining they were not properly consulted and that Porter is moving far too quickly.

But Mr. Deluce, whose airline took to the skies in 2006 and has a loyal following among both the business and leisure crowds, said the lack of meetings at City Hall during the summer means Porter must move fast to give the other parties in the tripartite agreement time to respond. He said the company must also abide by its conditional agreement with aircraft manufacturer Bombardier.

“I think any manufacturer will only wait so long with a conditional order. And it either becomes firm, or it falls away,” he said, although he declined to discuss terms of the deal.

Joe Pennachetti, Toronto’s city manager, said during Tuesday’s executive meeting that the report, which would look at amending the tripartite agreement and economic effects of the plan, among other things, could cost more than $200,000. John Livey, the deputy city manager, said staff would need to consult with affected parties, including residents, the school board, businesses and agencies such as Waterfront Toronto. Mr. Livey said a preliminary report is likely all that could be completed by July.

Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, a member of the mayor’s executive and chair of the public works committee, said on Wednesday that he did not believe a proper report could be completed until the fall.

“I think that’s an exceedingly aggressive timetable and it may not be realistic to expect staff to report back in time,” he said.

Adding further uncertainty to Porter’s plan is the fact that council could reject the request for the report at its meeting next month.

Mr. Deluce said he didn’t want to speculate on how councillors could vote, or what the company would do next if the report request were rejected. Lobbyist records show he has met with more than a dozen councillors since Porter’s expansion announcement earlier this month. Mr. Deluce characterized those conversations as “very positive” and called the amount of time to get a report done “reasonable.”

“It might be a bit early to know and decide what could or couldn’t be done there [by July],” he said.

Some area residents have long complained about airport noise and traffic, and former mayor David Miller campaigned in 2003 on his opposition to a bridge to the airport. Porter, however, is popular with many Torontonians. An opinion poll showed 87 per cent of residents believe the airport, of which Porter is the primary tenant, is a valuable asset for the city.

When asked for his vision for the airline, Mr. Deluce said the number of passengers going through the airport over the next seven to eight years could increase to 3.4 million from two million.

He called the pedestrian tunnel scheduled to open next year a “game-changer,” but maintained the airport’s footprint would remain largely the same.

Some councillors have accused the airline of wanting to pave Lake Ontario for its runway, although Mr. Deluce said that’s not true.

“It would extend 168 metres into the water at each end of the runway, and that would be inclusive of [the runway end safety area]. And that would be contained within the existing marine exclusion buoys. Anyone who would say that’s somehow going to tighten up the harbour, make it less enjoyable for boat traffic, that’s simply not the case because you have to navigate around those buoys today. You’d have to navigate around the same buoys in the same location if the extension were granted on the basis we’re asking,” he said.

Mr. Deluce cast doubt on claims the new planes would create more noise, calling the jets the quietest in production.

“It’s not a big airplane,” he said. “That’s part of the ‘jetphobia.’”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/porter-warns-that-time-is-short-offers-to-fund-airport-jet-study/article11540410/

[Guest rozar s'macco]

Theirs is the only big order for the C-series that Bombardier has. I think they won't let it "fall away" by July.

[rudder]

This is all a big game to use the current Mayoral administration (that are supportive) and paper estimates of noise levels and take-off distance performance to get approval for an aircraft that is not even projected to enter service until 2016/2017.

The fact that Porter wants this whole process 'rushed' is the biggest reason to SLOW THINGS DOWN! And because TC and the TPA are sitting ready with their rubber stamps of approval, the only impediment is Toronto City Council.

I hope that councillors that are sitting on the fence vote 'NO' simply because it would appear that the applicant is not interested in allowing it to conduct proper due diligence on the matter. A deserved response to Porter from council should be that they will get their answer next year. And if that means that the BS conditional orders with BBD will disappear, then so be it. What a joke - has anybody seen a line up out the door for this aircraft at BBD?

The is whole initiative is a scam. The fact that Porter is conducting an 'end run' around council with a pre-planned massive local PR campaign and biased surveys of public opinion makes it look like Porter is setting council up in the next election. I would not take kindly to that if I were on council.

[Super 80]

Olivia Chow and her entourage are going to set Toronto back fifty years, this effort has to be beyond the point of no return before the next election spools up.

Set artificial and arbitrary deadlines..........

[dagger]

The is whole initiative is a scam. The fact that Porter is conducting an 'end run' around council with a pre-planned massive local PR campaign and biased surveys of public opinion makes it look like Porter is setting council up in the next election. I would not take kindly to that if I were on council.

It smells like a plan to get approval and rush through an IPO based on this big "breakthrough" that makes past and current poor operating data irrelevant because the investor is buying the potential of conversion to an all-jet operation over time.

[Guest rozar s'macco]

Back when I was a waiter at The Keg, the sales training was called "Sell The Sizzle". In the fullness of time, I'm starting to understand how irritating it must be to negotiate with people like pilots; everything must be defined, proven, backed up with data, documented, with absolutely zero risk of subsequent changes.

Tell me (or anyone), if any business for sale was "so great" then why would it be for sale? That seems to be the underlying criticism of Deluce's motive to sell: the business is a piece of crap and therefore he wants out. That (the business is crap) may be true, but the fact that the business is for sale isn't proof.

So the seller is selling the sizzle? So what? This is the airline business, that's all there is. And yet, there are still hundreds upon thousands of airlines in he world.

[blues deville]

Adam Vaugh is another city councillor who will anything he can to shut down Porter. Toronto is now only second to LA in traffic congestion. Instead of spending their time killing anything related to the TCCA, I would rather see what these councillors can do about fxing the commuting travel times in Canada's largest city. That is a much bigger problem and impacts more people than the TCCA ever will.

Olivia Chow and her entourage are going to set Toronto back fifty years, this effort has to be beyond the point of no return before the next election spools up.

[Super 80]

Adam Vaughn is regarded as a crackpot even among the Toronto left, Olivia Chow is electable.

[MD2]

This is all a big game to use the current Mayoral administration (that are supportive) and paper estimates of noise levels and take-off distance performance to get approval for an aircraft that is not even projected to enter service until 2016/2017.

The fact that Porter wants this whole process 'rushed' is the biggest reason to SLOW THINGS DOWN! And because TC and the TPA are sitting ready with their rubber stamps of approval, the only impediment is Toronto City Council.

I hope that councillors that are sitting on the fence vote 'NO' simply because it would appear that the applicant is not interested in allowing it to conduct proper due diligence on the matter. A deserved response to Porter from council should be that they will get their answer next year. And if that means that the BS conditional orders with BBD will disappear, then so be it. What a joke - has anybody seen a line up out the door for this aircraft at BBD?

The is whole initiative is a scam. The fact that Porter is conducting an 'end run' around council with a pre-planned massive local PR campaign and biased surveys of public opinion makes it look like Porter is setting council up in the next election. I would not take kindly to that if I were on council.

rudder, as a matter of fact, the C series is scheduled to enter service in January 2014, not 2016/2017 as you wrote. Now if you are of the opinion that the flight testing is going to take 2-3 years-something that has never happened at Bombardier- well, that would be an "opinion". Or you may be referring to Porter's order which is for January of 2016, which is a different thing altogether and even that may be expedited if all things move faster. As for the noise level that is only on paper and so on; well much like Porter's order, the C could be allowed into the island conditional on meeting the noise standard - simple! This would be putting one's money where one's mouth is, don't you agree?

You seem to suggest that city council should vote no to the proposal out of spite! One would hope that elected officials are more level-headed and have a more balanced view to simply cut the nose to spite the face! If this proposal has so many benefits for the city of Toronto, why would the city council want to oppose it?! City councils around the world would seek and seize such opportunities for growth and prosperity of their citizens. For instance, you wouldn't find the city council of Dubai opposing Emirates Airlines for creating more jobs and prosperity in Dubai. Your suggestion to city council to prevent the growth of its own city is very strange and makes one wonder about the real source of all these emotions...

[J.O.]

Word on the street is that there's been a significant exodus from PD recently. Question is, "Why are they leaving if the future is so bright?"

[Seeker]

City councils around the world would seek and seize such opportunities for growth and prosperity of their citizens. For instance, you wouldn't find the city council of Dubai opposing Emirates Airlines for creating more jobs and prosperity in Dubai.

Ahhh, how do you figure this grand proposal will create jobs and prosperity - it's a zero sum game so any gain at Porter is offset by a loss somewhere else.

[MD2]

J.O. it is a matter of perspective, what is significant? People come and go all the time based on THEIR life priorities. For instance, I recall you had a friend there who presumably has left now for his priorities, perhaps you can ask him why he left and understand his perspective. Perhaps you already do and are speaking from that perspective...

seeker, that is not entirely true as this would generate new traffic as well. For instance over the last few years that traffic has grown several fold at City Center, it has also grown at a solid pace at Pearson. We can speculate that the growth may have been more there, but that is only speculation. Plus it is better to divide some of the traffic and it is not uncommon for large cities; of which Paris and London are prime examples. Plus from a perspective of TORONTO city council, more jobs are created in TORONTO proper by Porter which is based in it, as opposed to Montreal or Calgary. As well, it would help a Canadian manufacturer showcase its product to the world as an environmentally friendly innovation that it is. It is win-win.

[rudder]

rudder, as a matter of fact, the C series is scheduled to enter service in January 2014, not 2016/2017 as you wrote. Now if you are of the opinion that the flight testing is going to take 2-3 years-something that has never happened at Bombardier- well, that would be an "opinion". Or you may be referring to Porter's order which is for January of 2016, which is a different thing altogether and even that may be expedited if all things move faster. As for the noise level that is only on paper and so on; well much like Porter's order, the C could be allowed into the island conditional on meeting the noise standard - simple! This would be putting one's money where one's mouth is, don't you agree?

You seem to suggest that city council should vote no to the proposal out of spite! One would hope that elected officials are more level-headed and have a more balanced view to simply cut the nose to spite the face! If this proposal has so many benefits for the city of Toronto, why would the city council want to oppose it?! City councils around the world would seek and seize such opportunities for growth and prosperity of their citizens. For instance, you wouldn't find the city council of Dubai opposing Emirates Airlines for creating more jobs and prosperity in Dubai. Your suggestion to city council to prevent the growth of its own city is very strange and makes one wonder about the real source of all these emotions...

2016 is when Porter plans to place the aircraft in service so that is the relevant target for constructing the timeline for a review and decision making process - not a July 2013 council approval as the Porter CEO would prefer. The presumed Tripartite Agreement modification deadline is contrived. There is no justification for a December 2013 line in the sand. Good luck with your endeavour. But it is becoming clearer and clearer that you have had a plan all along to manipulate the process. I would expect that it may not go as smoothly as you would like.

[boestar]

As of April 10 there are 148 orders on the books split between the CS100 and CS300 aircraft models with 69 commitments including 12 conditional sales with 18 options for porter. That puts the order book at 217 firm and options. If the design expactations are met then the order book will grow. we will only know that when a fully completed aircraft has entered the flight test phase. Typically that would be airframe 3 or 4 off the line.

[Guest rozar s'macco]

If you don't hold councils feet to the fire, other issues take over and the review won't get done. Timelines artificial or not, are required.