Support Grows For Porter

[Fido]

Anyone wish to provide the definition of 'pedantic'?

Or just use Bean's posts as an example.

[Thebean]

My examples would be an example of a pedantic, who parlayed that pedantic tendency and way of thinking from knowing nothing about the business in May 1994 into 8 figure net worth via plays in three LCC's in the past 20 years. Just sayin'........

[st27]

"TORONTO, March 13, 2014 /CNW/ - Four major Toronto unions are supporting Porter Airlines' proposal to operate the Bombardier CS100 jet from Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport to longer-range destinations such as Vancouver, Los Angeles and Miami, saying that approval of the plan will benefit Toronto's economy and support much-needed manufacturing jobs."

Olivia Chow has is now a contender for the position of mayor of Toronto and has stated opposition to the expansion of YTZ. HHMMM .. an NDPer going against the unions???? Tough choices will have to be made.

[MD2]

Indeed, that is an interesting observation. It is easy to oppose something, but when one is in actual position of authority whose decisions directly affect the city and the livelihood of its people, a new perspective is formed that is founded in reality. There are many benefits to the expansion plans, especially to the people of Toronto and the new destinations, and Bombardier and its suppliers, and these benefits far outweigh any challenges that will be mitigated by responsible planning and execution.

Bean, perhaps you should share your wisdom with American Airlines whose high price tickets are sold by WestJet on their website. I understand it is not your favourite airline per say, but it is being endorsed and sold by them, so as far as the public is concerned those are "WestJet prices". In spite of your constant unfounded assertions, the travelling public knows what Porter has done to prices, for instance in Northern Ontario, and it will continue to do the same for the new destinations where people would like it to fly.

[mrlupin]

My examples would be an example of a pedantic, who parlayed that pedantic tendency and way of thinking from knowing nothing about the business in May 1994 into 8 figure net worth via plays in three LCC's in the past 20 years. Just sayin'........

Maybe you need to try doing that a second time to prove it wasn't just luck .

Success is often a result of conjuncture, and luck combined with skill and capital. We all like to take all the credit for success but in reality many extremely solid plans made by brilliant actors fail.

History is full of examples...

[Thebean]

Indeed, that is an interesting observation. It is easy to oppose something, but when one is in actual position of authority whose decisions directly affect the city and the livelihood of its people, a new perspective is formed that is founded in reality. There are many benefits to the expansion plans, especially to the people of Toronto and the new destinations, and Bombardier and its suppliers, and these benefits far outweigh any challenges that will be mitigated by responsible planning and execution.

Bean, perhaps you should share your wisdom with American Airlines whose high price tickets are sold by WestJet on their website. I understand it is not your favourite airline per say, but it is being endorsed and sold by them, so as far as the public is concerned those are "WestJet prices". In spite of your constant unfounded assertions, the travelling public knows what Porter has done to prices, for instance in Northern Ontario, and it will continue to do the same for the new destinations where people would like it to fly.

I am sure the folks in Calgary would be flattered you think WestJet dictates to American Airlines how to price its own iron on code share routes. Alas, as even you probably understand, that is not, nor is it ever the case.

AA sets the fares and that's that. Until WJ operates the route with its own iron, they'll stay at legacy levels.

However, it should be pointed out that an unrestricted Toronto-Chicago flight on Porter May 22nd, (picking a random date), will run you $247+ taxes. A WestJet Calgary-Chicago flight in "Plus" will cost $300+ taxes. That's over three times the distance for $53 more. Another example of Porter's "low fares".

Perhaps the folks in Windsor, Timmins, Sudbury and the Sault currently enjoy what they perceive as competition. My guess is they'll like it a whole lot more when WJ arrives in their short haul markets and last minute / walk up fares in that part of the world precipitously drop to the same levels enjoyed by folks in Western Canada over the last 15+ years.

For example, YYC-YXE, a 323 mile sector, is priced at $212 + taxes Monday. Porter's price on Toronto - Sault, at 319 miles, is priced at $265.50 + taxes Monday.

In a business where, collectively, the industry produced operating margins under 4% last quarter, cutting the highest fare by between 10 and 50%, and an average of about 30%, is going to have a very meaningful impact on the bottom line.

But then again, I would imagine you're well aware what happened to route profitability between YTZ and EWR the day WJ launched their 8x daily YYZ-LGA sched a couple of years ago.

If not, I'll remind you. The average last minute/walk up fare per mile from Toronto to northeast US business markets where there is no LCC competition, (Washington/Boston/Chicago) this coming Monday March 17th works out to $1.88 a mile. As can be expected, Porter's fare per mile modestly exceeds that average, (which includes Canadian based airlines as well as non-stop offerings by US Airways, AA and United), thus further debunking the Porter "low fare" myth.

Where there is competition, ie to the NYC area, the average fare per mile amongst the 5 carriers, (4 legacy/high cost and one LCC), works out to 82 cents a mile, with WJ holding down the bottom end at 74.2 cents and guess who, Porter, at the top with 95.5 cents a mile. That's quite a tumble from those all-important RASM building fares that were in the vicinity $1.88 a mile.

Anyone who thinks that sort of collapse hasn't severely impacted route profitability is whistling past the graveyard.

It's pretty hard to average up yields from those achieved by selling low advance purchase fares to compensatory levels when the all important top end collapses by about 45%.

It's also pretty hard to argue that Porters lower yields were compensated by higher passenger volumes.

US DoT Form 41 data shows that during the 3rd quarter of 2012, Porter enplaned a total of 104,853 passengers between YTZ and EWR. The number dropped to 97,658 in the third quarter of 2013.

WestJet started service to LGA in June 2012. WestJet enplanements between YYZ and LGA grew from 81,624 in 3Q 2012 to 93,568 in 3Q 2013.

If the market was stimulated by lower fares to New York, Porter didn't see any of it.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what probably happened to Porter's route profitability when traffic fell 6.9% and yields inevitably fell quite considerably to boot.

Conversely, it is safe to assume WestJet was quite happy to see traffic up close to 15% year over year, after the standing start in June 2012.

Only the most pesimistic observer could conjure up any sort of compelling scenario that would suggest that even after 18 years and something around 85 destinations, the downfall of WestJet would be expansion from Toronto into Timmins, Sudbury, Sault or Windsor.

Besides, it's not as if WJ hasn't had any experience entering new domestic markets with two incumbent carriers. See Feb 29 1996 to Dec 23rd 1999 for details.

[IFG]

My examples would be an example of a pedantic, who parlayed that pedantic tendency and way of thinking from knowing nothing about the business in May 1994 into 8 figure net worth via plays in three LCC's in the past 20 years. Just sayin'........

And that's to be honestly congratulated (probably envied by some), but why not leave your track record (which has some other stuff) out of the discussion. FWIW, your postings seem to me more obsession than pedantry, but by and large, they stand firmly on their own merits.

While all the apples-to-oranges fare comparison is beside the point, let's agree that a LCC (let's call it Encore?) would shake things up at YTZ. And I certainly do not argue that monopolies are good for people. I just don't understand why you don't see where the black hats are in this particular case, kind of an exception proving the rule, because it has been a rare case of protection preserving customer choice.

When YTZ was looking for a reason to continue in existence after AC had killed off its main tenant just for being there, and then pretty much moved away, where was Encore? Not yet an apple in WS's eye. Back then, it is hard to imagine anybody in their right mind exposing themselves to City's fate. It may be that an Encore, with WS's backing, could have pulled it off without preferred access, but they weren't there offering to try. Porter seized an opportunity, which yet may or may not pay off, that was occasioned by the actions of another player. So there's another villainy in your little drama besides monopoly, and it's predatory practice.

IAC, as a resident of the Soo', I look forward to Encore's presence, from either YYZ gateway. And even from YYZ, I imagine POE''s world will change a lot, too. So, I wonder why you're so obsessed with POE/YTZ, and so blind to the obvious backstory thereof.

Cheers, IFG

[Thebean]

No one wanted anything to do with Hamilton or Abbotsford when WJ went in there, yet there was never any discussion of either airport giving the first entrant virtual exclusivity in perpetuity.

Sony, (I assume), was the first to take a risk with the Walkman, but nobody ever suggest that Sony should have been given exclusivity to sell portable cassette players back in the early 80's.

Given the history of YTZ, I don't think many people would have objected to Porter having been given a 3-5 year window of exclusivity. But folks, it's 2014. If Porter remains so fragile it can't withstand a little direct, "wing tip to wing tip" competition after nearly 7 years in the game, one has to question whether or not the entire business is fundamentally viable. We've certainly never seen anything to suggest Porter is net profitable over the years. The last data made available showed quite the opposite.

It's pretty hard to accuse a business of being predatory when that business is perpetually profitable by any definition available.

It is not WJ's, Ryanair or Spirit's fault that they can generate solid profitability and create bonefide shareholder value with fare levels that put those airlines that didn't keep a very close eye on their costs in deep doo doo.

Had Porter devised a business plan that kept their unit costs rock bottom, resulting in sustainable rock bottom fares at all levels, they'd have nothing to worry about. It's unlikely any other airline would bother with YTZ, just as most airlines haven't bothered with Dallas Love Field. Southwest's cost structure and resultant low fares make it futile for competitors to enter that market with any sort of compelling market proposition. Sure, the new guys in the market could sell at a loss for a while, but what's the point of frittering away shareholders equity and valuable aircraft doing that for any length of time?

Alas, Porter's costs are too high, and high costs dictate the need for high fares. The high costs have left them horribly exposed to a far lower cost operator entering the market with a far more compelling value proposition for consumers.

Porter protects itself from normal competitive forces by ensuring they utilize all slots available, even at the expense of regularly flying near empty airplanes through the stratosphere to ensure no one else can compete with them on any non stop market except Toronto to Montreal.

It's a flawed business model and it has resulted in average fares, and especially fares paid for last minute business travel, being far higher than they should be.

The only way fares will drop to levels that make last minute, mostly business travel to downtown Toronto competitive with every other major North American city is to open the airport up to LCC competition.

As it stands, Toronto may be the only major city in the world with a downtown, so called "secondary" airport that proactively prevents wingtip to wingtip competition to develop thus preserving artificially high fares in the marketplace.

I can't imagine you'd find too many voters who are of the mind that $1,093 + taxes from Toronto to Chicago tomorrow, (Monday), and Tuesday is, under any circumstances, a reasonable price to pay for a one way ticket for a flight about the same distance as Edmonton to Vancouver, (which is priced at $233 + taxes tomorrow). The same traveler could fly from Toronto to Maui tomorrow, ten times the distance, and still have $200 to spare.

[j.k.]

My examples would be an example of a pedantic, who parlayed that pedantic tendency and way of thinking from knowing nothing about the business in May 1994 into 8 figure net worth via plays in three LCC's in the past 20 years. Just sayin'........

Trolling on internet forums crusading the same schtick over and over for what, the past five years? Then waving your 8 figure bank account as some sort of a justification for your apparent personality disorder like you're the only millionaire in the country and we should be impressed? Pathetic. Just sayin'...

As a word of advice you should learn a new dance, It's not that I disagree I'm just sick of hearing it... put that effort into writing your MP or something.

[IFG]

Heading out, so only brief reply. We're not in much disagreement about the market principles that you keep long-windedly re-educating me about. And I don't disagree that protection shouldn't be forever, but who else was offering an alternative?

I also don't doubt that WS/Encore have the wherewithal to do it unprotected, but YTZ would probably wonder about their commitment to stay as a major presence. YHM remains pretty disappointed. No doubt there can be lots of woulda-coulda-shoulda's, but your guys weren't there when YTZ wanted a tenant.

Gotta run, Cheers, IFG Cheers

[Thebean]

Trolling on internet forums crusading the same schtick over and over for what, the past five years? Then waving your 8 figure bank account as some sort of a justification for your apparent personality disorder like you're the only millionaire in the country and we should be impressed? Pathetic. Just sayin'...

As a word of advice you should learn a new dance, It's not that I disagree I'm just sick of hearing it... put that effort into writing your MP or something.

Heck. There are quite a few WJ pilots who are millionaires. Maybe if you'd taken the plunge way back when, you'd be one too. However, that, in of itself, means nothing.

What is relevant is an understanding that being pedantic, or a pitbull, can result in success. In western society, success is often measured, in part, by that sort of measurement.

I can't imagine you'd take financial advice from a financial advisor who was broke from having acted upon his own advice. In the same way, I tend to pay far more attention to people who obviously have a thorough understanding of a subject matter, and who have repeatedly parlayed that understanding into some sort of easily quantifiable measurement of success.

After seven + years into the program at WestJet, shareholders saw their $1 to $2.13 cent shares increase in value to about $68 after splits. Thus far, after 7 years, a Porter share and a roll of pennies will buy you a cup of hot steaming Jack Squat. If you want to pay attention to the folks with that sort of track record, I say "fill yer boots".

Take the info I provided on YTZ-EWR profitability. I'm all ears if you can produce data that is verifiable by an independent source that counters my theory that the route went to into the profitability toilet once LCC competition entered the market, and that it's more than likely the same will happen as LCC competition picks of the remainder of the safe harbor markets one by one over the next 18 months or so.

As for a commitment to YTZ, it's all fine and dandy that Porter flies umpteen flights a day to various markets from the Island, but what's the point if it hasn't generated anything close to a sustainable economic return for shareholders?

I very much doubt any other airline would replicate anything close to the frequency Porter has on the Island if Porter went pfft into the night tomorrow for the simple reason that Porter itself has firmly established that it doesn't make economic sense to do it.

The internet is a wonderful place to share ideas. Lets just say there are quite a few people who are more than intrigued by this file especially given the rather one sided arguments being promulgated by those with a very focused self interest in the issue.

If you're bored by it, do what I do. Don't bother reading it.

[IFG]

.... As for a commitment to YTZ, it's all fine and dandy that Porter flies umpteen flights a day to various markets from the Island, but what's the point if it hasn't generated anything close to a sustainable economic return for shareholders?

I very much doubt any other airline would replicate anything close to the frequency Porter has on the Island if Porter went pfft into the night tomorrow for the simple reason that Porter itself has firmly established that it doesn't make economic sense to do it.

The internet is a wonderful place to share ideas. Lets just say there are quite a few people who are more than intrigued by this file especially given the rather one sided arguments being promulgated by those with a very focused self interest in the issue.

If you're bored by it, do what I do. Don't bother reading it.

OK, you're getting warmer. I've never disputed your arguments about viability (but await the validation of a final outcome). It's still just a business attempt, under basically rational terms, which may or may not pay off. Enough with the misdirected screeds about monopoly. Your guys just weren't there with a better proposal when the property owner was shopping. Get over it! If you're calling correctly, the world will eventually unfold as it should.

Cheers, IFG

[boestar]

Bean.

Sony DID do that with the Beta video recording system. although it was the superior format it lost out to an inferior yet welcome to competition VHS. at some point the market will adjust.

[conehead]

I bought a Beta machine. Really liked it.

[Zan Vetter]

I'm less interested in the monopoly aspect of the porter story- though it doesn't seem right from the public's standpoint over the long term to let that situation continue indefinitely- than I am with the basically outlandish claims that porter is making in order to sell the story to city council and the public. Porter has to and has been talking out of both sides of their mouth in order to argue their point that jets are 1. a benefit to Toronto, but that 2. they are not a monopoly operator in Toronto (the city, not the city centre airport).

If they are not a monopoly, and competition exists at the other Toronto airport on all of their city pairs, then why do we need to expand the island airport to accommodate jets, exactly? What new ground is being broken, other than a make-work project for Bombardier assemblers and the construction industry? You can already get to Vancouver, LA and Miami from Toronto with numerous choices of carriers. But, if you claim that competition exists in the Toronto market and that no anti-competitive behaviour is occurring vis a vis their dominance of YTZ, the entire jets/c-series gambit is mooted. Toronto absolutely does not need island jet service to YVR, we already have hourly departures on multiple carriers from YYZ, which is 25km away! Likewise with LAX, there are probably 10 departures per day, on multiple carriers.

They are treading a very fine line and doing a good job of it though for now it seems. But they are peddling some grade-A political bullcrap when you look at it all together. Notwithstanding any of that, it remains to be seen of this jet will even be able to take a full load 2000NM from 5000 feet of pavement. I have my doubts, but let's say for the sake of argument that it can. Revolutionary, they say. OK fine. Then porter is faced with the reality of putting up a 110-seat jet against the competition's 150-, 250-, and 350-seat jets on the same city pairs! Even if it works, they're going to get crushed on CASM. And CASM as they say is all that matters. Many boardroom tears have been shed over shaving a half cent off of an airline's CASM. And porter's is going to be terrible if they put up equipment that is 25% smaller than the competition. Ergo, this entire thing is unsustainable over the long term, and is a bad plan.

I'll hang up and listen.

[Lakelad]

.
Support for jets at Billy Bishop rising slightly

A Forum Research poll of 1,271 Torontonians finds 46 per cent support jets on the Island airport, while 40 per cent are opposed.

Tue Mar 18, 2014 - Toronto Star
Leslie Armstrong - Staff Reporter

More Torontonians are in favour of putting jets on Billy Bishop Airport than oppose the idea, according to a Forum Research poll.

Of 1,271 people surveyed in the March 13 poll, some 46 per cent were in favour, up from 43 per cent since the last poll conducted in December, while opposition stands at 40 per cent.

The Forum poll comes after weeks of a multimedia campaign by Porter Airlines to drum up public support for allowing jets at the airport, including commercials, newspaper ads and a Facebook “poll” that, once clicked-through, asks for respondents’ postal code, identifies their local councillor and encourages them to write or call to express their support.

The results of the Forum poll showed that support for jet traffic at the island airport was strongest among men, at 58 per cent, wealthy respondents (53 per cent), those living in Etobicoke/York (56 per cent), those who drive to work or school (55 per cent), and supporters of Mayor Rob Ford (60 per cent).

In addition, 48 per cent were in favour of extending the runways to accommodate the jets, up from 44 per cent in December, while 40 per cent said they were opposed.

Support for the runway project, which would extend the landing area into the harbour, was most common among 18- to 34-year-olds (52 per cent), men (56 per cent), residents of Etobicoke/York (55 per cent), drivers (55 per cent), those holding a postsecondary degree (53 per cent), past Rob Ford voters (61 per cent) and future potential Ford voters (63 per cent).

Sixty-six per cent said having a downtown city airport was a good thing while 24 per cent said it was a bad thing. Nine per cent had no opinion on the matter.

The poll results are considered accurate within three percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

“When we polled Billy Bishop in December, the city had soured on the idea of extending the runways for jets slightly,” said Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research. “Now levels of enthusiasm are back up where they were when we began polling this issue last summer.”

.

[dagger]

Considering Porter has poured a huge sum into a message print and online ad campaign in recent weeks to get the poll numbers up, they haven't risen that much.

[Thebean]

As a private Corporation, Sony is / was entitled to do what they wanted with their product. IMO, they foolishly refused to license their Betamax technology, which, in most people's opinions, including my own, was better than VHS, and the rest is, quite literally, history.

The difference, of course, is that neither Sony, nor the regulator in the marketplace decided their "first mover" status warranted Sony being given any sort of regulated exclusivity. There was no government regulation preventing consumers being able to vote with their pocketbook and purchasing a VHS player if they felt like it. Indeed, the opposite was true and prices tumbled as a result. The first VCR I bought in the fall of 1982 cost me about $400 used. By 2000, they were well under $100.

However, consumers are being prevented from exercising the same sort of choice when it comes to flying out of Billy Bishop airport today. It defies belief that after 7+ years, Toronto's publicly owned downtown airport remains a defacto monopoly when downtown airports in every other major urban market in North America, if not the world, are open to normal competitive forces.

If Billy Bishop Airport was privately held and cut an exclusivity deal with Porter, there wouldn't be a story here. It would be a matter of a private business arrangement between two corporations. I believe that might have been the case if we were talking about a sched arrangement at Downsview.

However, Billy Bishop airport's "owner" is the taxpayer and the lands are public.

Under those circumstances, I find it offensive that an incredibly valuable taxpayer owned asset has been made almost exclusively available to a private corporation for the sole benefit of their shareholders.

I'm not familiar with who was the first mover when it came to cruise ship traffic in Vancouver way back when, but for the sake of discussion, let's pretend it was Holland America. I highly doubt it would have been deemed acceptable for the a Federal Gov't Agency to have allowed Holland America exclusive control of 85% of all dock space at Canada Place in perpetuity.

I also find it unlikely that a Federal Gov't Agency would permit, for example, Ritz Carlton Hotels being granted 85% of all hotel rooms both now and in perpetuity in Banff National Park or that access to the Thousand Islands National Park would be restricted solely to those boaters who purchased Campion boats.

Yet Porter has 85% of access to YTZ both now and in perpetuity. If a competitor wants to enter the market, offer a different sort of service and cut prices due to its lower costs, as it stands, they are out of luck.

It is as if some Soviet trained central planning genius on the YTZ file has determined that "look, you've got a Holt Renfrew in your market. Why on earth would you need a Walmart?"

This exclusivity has resulted in both artificially high prices for consumers and reduced choice in the market. If I deem it more convenient to fly from downtown Toronto to Boston later today, I have absolutely no choice in the matter, all thanks to government intervention.

Government policy ensures that consumers will be forced to pay highly inflated fares which, in this day and age, is preposterous.

I completely agree with the poster above that Porter is talking out of both sides of its mouth on this file. It is enormously entertaining to poke holes through their self-serving arguments.

I note with amusement that Porter issued a press release yesterday confirming what everyone already knows. After Montreal and Ottawa, Vancouver is the most popular destination from Toronto in Canada. Perhaps next time they should keep those costs down and simply download a copy of Stats Can 51-204. It's all in there and hasn't changed much since the last survey.

I can't wait to see Porter cut fares from Toronto to Vancouver by 60%, as claimed in their latest piece of PR nonsense.

The base fare for YYZ-YVR on WJ today is $482. I can't wait to see Porter cut the walk up fare, as promised, by 60% down to $192.80, not lose their shirt with the highest unit cost aircraft in its class and then try to explain to consumers how that makes sense that the base fare from on a trans-con flight from Toronto to Vancouver costs $66.20 less than their walk up base fare on a 203 mile monopoly leg from Toronto to Windsor.

[IFG]

OK, 'bean - Unless you imtroduce something new, my last comment, I won't match your OCD-ish addiction to this issue. None, NONE, of your analogies (and of course there's a boundless supply - you haven't even scratched the surface) is properly applicable.

Furthermore, your own arguments are inconsistant. You decry monopoly pricing, but fail to cite a single apple-to-apple example, & then gloat about the effect, on POE's yields, of WS's presence on comparable YTO routes, which shows price discipline. You decry lack of consumer choice when none, NONE, existed before POE, and none was at all likely. Your guys certainly weren't stepping up back then.

Forget the sideshow monopoly issue. Your posts argue that POE is not really viable now, let alone with Encore fares over its YTO routes. I imagine some here would dispute that, but I've never argued that point. If you're really sure of your analysis, I simply do not understand why you lack the confidemce to just sit back, await inevitible vindication, & maybe crow a lttle then.

Not holding my breath, tho'.

Cheers, IFG

[MD2]

Bean, what you continue to disregard is the fact that Toronto City airport is under no obligation to provide slots to your favorite airline when and if it desires. The slots were available for years, no one took them and in fact Air Canada walked away from them. It walked away from them because it kept shrinking the service from its height at the time of City Express to a meager 5 daily flights to only Ottawa. Then came along Porter, and while introducing a great product gave consumers a great choice away from the duopoly of Pearson and the rest is history. You know the root cause of your opposition to Porter or City airport, but City airport is a slots-controlled one. There are no slots available at the moment and there is great debate as how to grow it, if at all. If slots at City airport is truly what you and your favorite airline desire, then you're best to get behind this cause so that if and when more slots become available, your favorite airline may be able to benefit from it. Speaking from both sides of the mouth would be from the one hand implying that there is no benefit to the airport, and at the same time expecting to be greeted on a red carpet. Naturally neither are true or taken kindly by the airport and other people that draw their livelihood from it, mere mortals without "eight figure accounts".

Consumers have a good enough memory to remember the prices and services of the duopoly and are wise enough to see real potential and know that expanding the City airport adds to the diversity of Toronto's airport assets, increase air travel choices, while providing a great economical stimulus. It is a win-win situation.

[Thebean]

Using your logic, closing off DCA, LGA, MDW, BUR, ONT, SNA, LCY and SDU to virtually all competition would result in a winning economic proposition for consumers and massive economic growth in New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, in areas in the north, east and south of the greater Los Angeles area, downtown London and Rio de Janiero.

Sorry. I don't buy it. I don't think many would.

I'm sure Torontonians are absolutely thrilled with how Porter caused fares to Chicago to tumble to just $1,072 one way, before taxes for a 454 mile flight. If that's a 60% reduction from previous levels, as Porter would like us to believe, does that mean walk up fares to Chicago from Toronto used to be $1,787?

Porter doesn't seem to have any problem diffusing it's story no matter how silly and self-serving it becomes. Porterites tend to get very defensive when anyone challenges their story, which is incredibly easy to do.

Here are some facts to contemplate. Always better than vague conjecture that comes out of the Porter camp....

For US transborder flights to Porter's destinations booked Saturday March 15th for flights March 17th, Porter charged an average of 131.5% more per mile where there was no LCC competition, (BOS, MDW and IAD), than the average fare per mile charged by the 5 airlines, including an LCC, to any one of the 3 major airports in NYC area, ($1.904 vs .822 cents).

With the same parameters, (flights booked Saturday March 15th for flights March 17th), Porter's average fare per mile for flights from Toronto to Windsor, Sault, Timmins and Sudbury averaged $1.18 a mile with an average flight length of 274 miles.

A basket of 12 short haul markets in Western Canada booked Saturday March 15th for flights March 17th operated by both WestJet and Air Canada with an average flight length of 289 miles averaged just 74 cents a mile, making Porter's fare per mile 59.3% higher.

These facts hardly suggests Porter is doing what it can to keep fares low in the markets where they do not have to compete with an LCC. Indeed, it points to precisely the opposite conclusion. It is an inconvenient truth for Porter, and one they continuously try to sweep under the carpet.

I recently saw Sabre MIDT data out of a major western Canadian airport that shows the stimulation and fare reductions that have resulted since Encore launched three new, previously untapped markets all of which are considerably smaller than any of the markets Porter operates from YTZ.

Suffice it is to say that the numbers surprised even me. They were huge, in one case, in excess of 400% traffic growth with average fares reduced over 40% over a comparable 7 month window.

At some point, that sort of data is going to made available to decision makers and the media in Toronto.

Even the most obtuse politician or reporter will find it very difficult to continue to support the theory and policy that minimal competition at YTZ remains the best way of supporting low consumer prices and economic growth both in the GTA and outlying cities in Ontario and elsewhere.

[MD2]

Bean, you really need some new material...

[Thebean]

You need some more compelling arguments. Very few of Porter's arguments make any sense, nor can they be substantiated by any sort of verifiable fact.

[j.k.]

no matter how silly and self-serving it becomes.

Pot calling the kettle?

Seriously though, IF Porter is indeed charging a premium and people are buying it good for them. No love lost here for Porter, I'd love to see them canned and relegated into the history books but if they can charge '000s of bucks for a walk up and the person wants to pay it good. Be nice to see more money coming in to relieve the continuous push down on CASMs by industry waging war on wawcon.

[Guest longtimer]

I always find it funny when people say that Porter has a monopoly and thus is gouging their customers. No one forces anyone to fly on Porter as there is a rather large airport only a cab ride away that could be used instead. So if people are willing to pay the Porter prices, then surely as adult consumers that is up to them. Now if the island was the only airport in the GTA then I would have a different POV>