Porter Suffers Major Network Outage

[J.O.]

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/porter-experiencing-major-network-outage-1.1459383

[Thebean]

Officials at Porter told CBC News that the cancellations are due to outages affecting their system provider, Navitaire, which manages bookings for several small low-budget airlines. Navitaire is used by about 50 flight companies around the world, several of which are also experiencing problems.

What on earth is a "small low-budget airline"?

At $808 one way today for a YTZ-BOS flight or a budget conscious $1,158 one way for YTZ-MDW, (434 and 444 miles respectively), or as much as $2.60 per mile flown compared to 97 cents a mile on YYZ-LGA today where competition exists, it's hard to comprehend that particular description of the mistake on the lake for anything but what is: an anti-competitive defacto monopoly.

[Tango Niner]

Forgive my naiveté, but why can't WestJet Encore fly YTZ-BOS and bring down the cost per mile?

[Thebean]

I'm sure they'd be happy to, when aircraft are delivered and provided there is money to be made in doing so and if they could be gifted an appropriate number of slots to develop a modest network with sensible frequency as was the case with the current dominant player in the market.

I'd prefer to see them operate the -800's off the Island though. By the time an extension is added and if the apron is up to snuff, it wouldn't be a problem on flights with about a 600 mile radius from the Island.

See SDU for details....

There's nothing like a little competition from a perennially profitable airline to keep consumer prices honest.

[IFG]

Forgive my naiveté, but why can't WestJet Encore fly YTZ-BOS and bring down the cost per mile?

Oh, Come on, dude! Search "bean" & "Porter", for Pete's sake. Naivete ... guess you just needed a bean-fix - he's been flogging this horse damn near daily for how many years? You didn't join here yesterday ...

Many of his observations on Porter are right on the mark, but he's so obsessed that sometimes he just sucks and blows. Porter charges too much ... but apparently not enough to cover costs. They're a rip-off monopoly ... but oh-so-vulnerable to the drive-by shooting he so craves.

Still, his fondest wish may yet come true (they're certainly very patient investors around there ), & then the Islanders will probably have their peace. I doubt that any operator, but maybe WS, would be able to make a go of it there without the protection that a long-term commitment is providing, and they likely have little incentive to cannibalize their YYZ traffic if the Island nuisance goes away. AC would abandon it in a heartbeat (as before), since Canadian anti-predatory laws are so toothless.

Re: SDU - What term do they use for CRFI down there ....

Cheers IFG

[Tango Niner]

Oh, Come on, dude! Search "bean" & "Porter", for Pete's sake. Naivete ... guess you just needed a bean-fix - he's been flogging this horse damn near daily for how many years? You didn't join here yesterday ...

Many of his observations on Porter are right on the mark, but he's so obsessed that sometimes he just sucks and blows. Porter charges too much ... but apparently not enough to cover costs. They're a rip-off monopoly ... but oh-so-vulnerable to the drive-by shooting he so craves.

Still, his fondest wish may yet come true (they're certainly very patient investors around there ), & then the Islanders will probably have their peace. I doubt that any operator, but maybe WS, would be able to make a go of it there without the protection that a long-term commitment is providing, and they likely have little incentive to cannibalize their YYZ traffic if the Island nuisance goes away. AC would abandon it in a heartbeat (as before), since Canadian anti-predatory laws are so toothless.

Re: SDU - What term do they use for CRFI down there ....

Cheers IFG

OK, IFG, OK... you're right. I served up a slow one right down the middle of the plate for Bean to smack. I was craving a WestJet-friendly refresher on the YTZ situation, and took the lazy way out - let Bean re-explain it! He's always up for it

[IFG]

[Thebean]

In the immortal words of Dave Van Horne, " it's up, up and away!!"

[MD2]

Bean, I am a little perplexed when you already seem to know the reasons for this failure at the service provider level that affected many airlines and also know that events like this occur at all airlines including WestJet, but somehow relate a comment from CBC to the business of Porter and your favorite topic of "walk-up fares"??!!

[Thebean]

Anyone can cut / match discounted advance purchase fares. That's easy.

The full effect of price stimulation doesn't kick in until walk up fares drop dramatically, which typically only occurs when an LCC enters the market.

I doubt you'd see an LCC enter YTZ and try to extract $1,200 one way for a 400 mile trans border walk up sector....

Until that sort of competition appears at an airport, the economic benefit of the facility will never come close to reaching its full potential. Amusingly, Porter is trying to suggest the opposite is true.

There were lots of advance purchase low fares in Kelowna pre WestJet with both AC and CP in the market, but walk up fares were ridiculously high and that utterly stifled passenger traffic.

Kelowna Airport did 318,000 passengers in 1994, 348,000 passengers in 1995, 582,042 passengers in 1996, 741,547 passengers in 1997 and 799,663 in 1998. It's all a matter of public record.

Two guesses when WJ launched service in Kelowna.

It's amazing what low fares across the board, and the competitive response to low fares, will do for a city's economic development, rather than stifling it by limiting capacity and open, free market competition.

Check out how many hotels have been built in YLW over the past 15 years compared to, say Penticton, where, not coincidentally, there is very limited airline competition.

That's why Seattle told Allegiant to pound sand when they essentially demanded exclusivity at Paine Field.

Perhaps the City of Toronto will take a look at that file. They should.....

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004460923_painefield06m.html

[MD2]

Bean, I'm still not sure how that is related to the topic of this thread...?!

[Thebean]

Bean, I'm still not sure how that is related to the topic of this thread...?!

Mr Obfuscation strikes again.

It was you who brought up the "walk up fare issue" two posts ago.

A good salesman will blow through objections. Someone with brains sees right through the game.

[IFG]

Jeez, 'bean - Wasn't he trying to call you on it "two posts ago" because of your own segue from the cancelled flights due to IT screw-up a few days ago, to a last-minute-fares discussion, in this post (first reply in the thread):

Officials at Porter told CBC News that the cancellations are due to outages affecting their system provider, Navitaire, which manages bookings for several small low-budget airlines. Navitaire is used by about 50 flight companies around the world, several of which are also experiencing problems.

What on earth is a "small low-budget airline"?

At $808 one way today for a YTZ-BOS flight or a budget conscious $1,158 one way for YTZ-MDW, (434 and 444 miles respectively), or as much as $2.60 per mile flown compared to 97 cents a mile on YYZ-LGA today where competition exists, it's hard to comprehend that particular description of the mistake on the lake for anything but what is: an anti-competitive defacto monopoly.

Seems you're indulging in a little obfuscation yourself?

Cheers, IFG

[Thebean]

Keep looking at the trees. Some of us prefer to pay attention to the forest.

I invested my cash in Volaris in 2005. I bet Porter's investors wish they had done the same.

[IFG]

Congratulations, 'bean. No money in Porter, and I wish I'd done the same. Of course it does help to have access to founders' stock.

But there you go again, deflecting. The observation I made about your own "walk-up fare issue" was specific to that, it was your own, obfuscated little tree. Regardless of that, tho', you're very smart indeed (at least in some areas), and you make many good observations here, at least about those trees that you know something about ...

Have a good one, IFG

[Thebean]

Congratulations, 'bean. No money in Porter, and I wish I'd done the same. Of course it does help to have access to founders' stock.

But there you go again, deflecting. The observation I made about your own "walk-up fare issue" was specific to that, it was your own, obfuscated little tree. Regardless of that, tho', you're very smart indeed (at least in some areas), and you make many good observations here, at least about those trees that you know something about ...

Have a good one, IFG

Follow the ball.

The walk up fare discussion was in reference to the CBC story on Porter being a "low budget airline". I merely pointed out that $1,200 one way for a 430 mile sector would not be described by most people as being "low budget".

Conversely, I think there'd likely be a general consensus that a fare of $267 later today from Toronto to Montego Bay,a distance of 1,737 miles, priced as a result of normal marketplace competitive pressures, might be a better example of "low budget".

It's a message the folks at Porter aren't particularly comfortable with, especially whilst in the midst of a full court press PR campaign aimed at convincing Torontonians of the widespread economic benefits of expanding their defacto monopoly at YTZ. I don't think you'd find many Canadians are in favor of monopolies of any sort, given their propensity to relentlessly gouge consumers.

One gains access to early tranches of start up airline stock by knowing a little something about how the business works and sharing that knowledge with folks who are smart enough to understand they do not know it all. In Volaris's case, they have created a tidy, profitable business, and they did it going nose to nose with everyone, including a rival LCC.

Their shareholders are exceedingly happy. I doubt the same could be said for Porter's shareholders.

[IFG]

Oh, I've followed your ball for years, and often appreciated your game (condescension notwithstanding).

Here's a deal. 'bean. I just might be "smart enough to know don't know it all". Give me a try the next time you have an opportunity to share

Of course, I'm ready to reciprocate when you're in territory you know a bit less about, but I doubt you can even acknowledge that concept.

Cheers, IFG

[Thebean]

Oh, I've followed your ball for years, and often appreciated your game (condescension notwithstanding).

Here's a deal. 'bean. I just might be "smart enough to know don't know it all". Give me a try the next time you have an opportunity to share

Of course, I'm ready to reciprocate when you're in territory you know a bit less about, but I doubt you can even acknowledge that concept.

Cheers, IFG

There's lots I don't know about, most notably on the operations side of the business.....

That's why I make sure I have access to a number of folks I trust who have a ton of experience at start ups, LCC's and even some full service airlines.....

[IFG]

There's lots I don't know about, most notably on the operations side of the business.....

That's why I make sure I have access to a number of folks I trust who have a ton of experience at start ups, LCC's and even some full service airlines.....

OK, so my phone won't be ringing .

Look, 'bean – Can we bring your little brag-fest to an end, Christ, you don't even seem to see that I DO, recognize your accomplishments in the industry (and always have done). And I take most of your commentary very seriously. It's just too bad you let your obsessions and condescension get in the way.

You also seem to argue more with an imaginary adversary than the real one. I know your opinions about Porter, their business model etc. etc. I don't and haven't argued with them. I do think that you elide some of the realities and considerations that lead to the 'monopoly' at YTZ, when you go on about that, but even there I don't disagree at all, in principle, that caging markets is generally a bad thing.

Here, OK, I thought it a little rich that you directly called out MD' for for introducing a point when he was actually wondering how YOU had brought it up, and you did – you always do on Porter threads – but that's a very trivial point.

Looking forward to more of your wisdom (if not so much the style ) ...

Cheers, IFG

[MD2]

Mr Obfuscation strikes again.

It was you who brought up the "walk up fare issue" two posts ago.

A good salesman will blow through objections. Someone with brains sees right through the game.

Bean, it appears you eschew obfuscation, again!!

[Thebean]

My point is exceedingly clear.

Most people would tend to agree that charging $1,200 for a 430 mile sector is not consistent with the "low budget airline" moniker made in the news story, a description that is useful for Porter's latest PR campaign.

I didn't come up with the description, nor do I set the fares. I simply point out the obvious.

The focus on the messenger, rather than the message, intrigues me.

Any strategist worth his / her salt would recognize this must be a hyper sensitive issue for Porter and would heavily exploit this for their own purposes.

My apologies if there are people out there who are offended by Volaris's hard work and success. The employee shareholders of the company should be very proud of their accomplishments and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

[MD2]

Ok bean for whatever it's worth... you must be referring to a different article, not the one that was posted, perhaps this article in CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/porter-flights-cancelled-due-to-computer-outages-1.1858520

You seem to have picked-on one phrase that says this is for "small low-budget airlines" to quote the article but no part of it is actually in "quotation", meaning it could be from other sources, most likely from CBC, not to mention that the "low-budget airline" may also be in reference to the airlines' budget for this service.

At any rate, you have chosen to forgo the main story itself, but pick-up on one phrase - the source and meaning of which are not very clear - to once again advance your claim about Porter which is the ambiguity of bringing prices down, and at the same time being expensive! This is the part that is not very nice! Never mind that I have shown the inaccuracy of your claims about ticket prices on more than one occasion.

[IFG]

Hi again, 'bean

- Re: "My point is exceedingly clear"

Clarity is not the problem. I got your point just as clearly the first time you made it. I've said that, and expressed general agreement with the principles. The frustration is that I think you gloss over some considerations, and just keep hitting replay (and condescend hugely while doing so). You're absolutely no dummy, so one hopes for better. -

Re: "... Focus on the messanger rather than the nessage, intrigues me."

The message is clear, as you say, but further discussion flawed, so trying to engage the messenger? Seriously, I think you're claiming an ad hominem. Not so. My impatience with your implied put-downs makes no comment on the substance of your argument. BTW, ad hominem arguing doesn't cut it either way. Just as "that argument is rejected because that idiot made it" fails, so does "that argument prevails because that genius made it". All the self-aggrandizement in the world does not buttress ones case. -

Re: "My apologies if there are people out there who are offended by Volaris's hard work and success ...."

To whom is that codswollop directed? Oh! See "imaginary", above. Of course they can be proud, nobody said otherwise. BTW, that's a 'straw man' tactic

Cheers, IFG