Jump to content

Support Grows For Porter


Guest longtimer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Now he starts with personnal attacks...

You don't have to start with personnal attacks when someone has a different viewpoint then yours...

Lets get back to basics.

If Westjet wants to fly out of YTZ, let them apply for it. Period.

The price comparison I put was for an AC flight from YYZ to YTS. If AC prices are so high, then an opportunity to collect an economic profit exists. All Encore has to do is spool up and undercut AC and Porter. Again simple isn't it?

If westjet can bring new competition and lower prices, then bring it on. Quit your whining and put up or shut up. If instead of your long winded posts, those would have been lobbying letters, you'd probably be chairman on YTZ by now. You are have been sounding like a broken record for the past year, bring something constructive to the discussion instead of repeating the same diatribe every week.

No one is against your teal colored carrier and what it brings to Canada but as of now, you are moaning, groaning and complaining about Porter and your beloved airline has yet to ask for slots. It almost looks like a grudge or a chip on your shoulder and that transpires in your posts. Your posts used to be read with interest because you brought interesting information to the discussion. Now they are bitter post with the same being repeated ad nauseum.

Clear enough for you?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now he starts with personnal attacks...

You don't have to start with personnal attacks when someone has a different viewpoint then yours...

Lets get back to basics.

If Westjet wants to fly out of YTZ, let them apply for it. Period.

The price comparison I put was for an AC flight from YYZ to YTS. If AC prices are so high, then an opportunity to collect an economic profit exists. All Encore has to do is spool up and undercut AC and Porter. Again simple isn't it?

If westjet can bring new competition and lower prices, then bring it on. Quit your whining and put up or shut up. If instead of your long winded posts, those would have been lobbying letters, you'd probably be chairman on YTZ by now. You are have been sounding like a broken record for the past year, bring something constructive to the discussion instead of repeating the same diatribe every week.

No one is against your teal colored carrier and what it brings to Canada but as of now, you are moaning, groaning and complaining about Porter and your beloved airline has yet to ask for slots. It almost looks like a grudge or a chip on your shoulder and that transpires in your posts. Your posts used to be read with interest because you brought interesting information to the discussion. Now they are bitter post with the same being repeated ad nauseum.

Clear enough for you?

Who says anything about teal?

I don't have a problem with Air Canada or any other airline being able to compete head to head at YTZ. It's not as if they've been able to do anything commercially viable other than to one destination with the multitude of slots they've acquired over the years.

A cursory review of Porter's transborder loads clearly indicates they have excess capacity in the market. Running at a 62% l/f during a peak summer month when competitors are running at 73% and 76% during the same month might be a wee bit of a clue that it might be a good time to ditch a couple of frequencies a day.

That goes double when loads are barely 56% during a month when business travelers reappear. When you are running 56% loads on a route you've operated for 5 years, it's pretty hard to make the claim that fares are high because demand outstrips supply. They average 31 empty seats a departure. The only way you make that work, if it is even possible to make that work is to charge ridiculously high fares as a result of a monoply. Porter gets hoisted by their own petard, once again.

Dig up the data yourself. It's on-line.

Any rational airline in a normal market would reduce capacity, reduce frequency and move on. Not Porter, who's business plan requires it to use all slots available, regardless of losses incurred for fear of freeing the slots up and opening themselves up to direct competition.

Personal attacks?

If you don't like or are not interested in the thread, then do what I do when I'm not interested in a thread. Don't read it.

Judging by some of the emails I get from various folks, I'd say there is a fair amount of interest in this file.

:wink_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly you have not. Just a pro-consumer-crusader doing his bit... Jeeezus.

So then you are in favor of monopolies?

Out of curiousity, how many different brands of car did you test drive before selecting the one that best suited your needs?

I bet you enjoyed the benefit of having a number of competitive dealers nearby and not being forced to drive as much as an hour to check out any alternatives, eh?

YTZ should be open to all comers. WestJet, Air Canada, Delta, American and United, who's recent request for slots, I am told, was shot down in flames, thereby ensuring Porter's ability to charge high fares on the route United was interested in operating.

:wink_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Mr. Bean doesn't seem to get is that Toronto City airport, like many other urban airports, has a finite number of slots available. When there are no slots available, there are none. There is already pressure to keep the growth measured and requests for more slots should be directed to the policy makers not Porter which itself is a user of those slots. Personal vendetta is quite clear, but life is too short to keep grinding that axe...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Mr. Bean doesn't seem to get is that Toronto City airport, like many other urban airports, has a finite number of slots available. When there are no slots available, there are none. There is already pressure to keep the growth measured and requests for more slots should be directed to the policy makers not Porter which itself is a user of those slots. Personal vendetta is quite clear, but life is too short to keep grinding that axe...!

There are four ways for high cost / high fare airlines to deal with consumer friendly low cost / low fare airlines.

Beat 'em.

Hire 'em.

Regulate 'em.

Copy 'em.

Porter's strategy is the third one on the list. They hide behind regulation that prevents them from having to deal with normal competitive forces. The difference MD fails to point out is that every slot controlled airport in North America has LCC competition in order to ensure consumers aren't forced to pay the sort of rip off fares Porter constantly foists on consumers who can't book well in advance.

Porter does not have to deal with the threat of a competitor ever launching a new head to head service leaving from a gate 25 meters away. Moscow's GUM department store was also given that sort of treatment in the Soviet era.

If there isn't enough competition at US slot controlled airports, the US DoT ensures there is, as they recently did by forcing AA/US Airways to give up slots at Washington's DCA to reduce their dominance to well below 65% of flights. Porter has 85% of YTZ flights.

In Porter's twisted world, every car dealership in the GTA would be given a 36 square mile exclusionary zone where no other dealer of any sort was allowed to sell a car. That'd drive prices down, eh?

By the way, when you are running a 49.7% l/f on one of your "big four" transborder markets during the same month when your competitors cumulative loads average about 78%, you might want think about cutting capacity.

Except that in Porter's world, that would likely mean making slots available to a competitor.....which Porter is deathly afraid of doing because of its pathological fear of having to actually compete head to head on anything but one route, (Toronto-Montreal), from their taxpayer subsidized fortress hub.

Everyone in the business knows precisely what happens to fares when a competitor enters a market with even one frequency a day which is why Porter would rather fly empty airplanes thru the atmosphere than run a profited oriented business.

Check out what a fare booked within 7 days of departure from YVR to YXJ costs now compared to Spring 2012 after the introduction of one round-trip a day by a competitor compared to the incumbent's 4x daily schedule. That's what scares the pants off Porter these days.

There's only one way to make money in the business. Have revenues exceed costs.

If we are to believe high operating cost Porter is able to make money with loads 30% points below their cumulative competitors loads on the identical market, there's only one way to do it and that's to have seriously high fares to make up the shortfall. Running 70 seat airplanes with frilly service is not indicative of a low cost structure.

Once again, Porter is hoisted on its own high fare petard.

07-minister.jpg

"We breakeven with 48% load factors, regardless of

what fares we charge!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say I was in favour of a YTZ monopoly? No.

You're like some sort of neo-con ultra-partisan! "If you're not with me you're against me." And changing the statement while you're at it.

You're the guy who said:

Who says anything about teal?

Ummm... maybe you haven't noticed but it's pretty much all you talk about.

It's like some kind of second coming... the Teal Saviour... ... and theBean has been called to smite the Beast Raccoon.

I think your message clearly has ulterior motives given your past with the Teal Saviour and whether your message is on or not is irrelevant because you carry on and on... business model, sustainability, capacity, pricing, reporting, your current issue with monopoly is just the flavour of the times on Porter from you.

I have said earlier, I would be happy to see them disappear. I don't like Porter. But the boy has been crying Bullsht too long and why? Not for the sake of the poor people of downtown Toronto who deserve LCC service from their doorstep. For other unannounced motives? Corporate shill planting beans to discredit the competition? Some sort of I-am-always-right narcissistic personality disorder? Likely... something... but I don't really care.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say I was in favour of a YTZ monopoly? No.

You're like some sort of neo-con ultra-partisan! "If you're not with me you're against me." And changing the statement while you're at it.

You're the guy who said:

Ummm... maybe you haven't noticed but it's pretty much all you talk about.

It's like some kind of second coming... the Teal Saviour... ... and theBean has been called to smite the Beast Raccoon.

I think your message clearly has ulterior motives given your past with the Teal Saviour and whether your message is on or not is irrelevant because you carry on and on... business model, sustainability, capacity, pricing, reporting, your current issue with monopoly is just the flavour of the times on Porter from you.

I have said earlier, I would be happy to see them disappear. I don't like Porter. But the boy has been crying Bullsht too long and why? Not for the sake of the poor people of downtown Toronto who deserve LCC service from their doorstep. For other unannounced motives? Corporate shill planting beans to discredit the competition? Some sort of I-am-always-right narcissistic personality disorder? Likely... something... but I don't really care.

I'll say it once again for the record: I have no problem with ANY and ALL airlines being permitted to do what they please at YTZ. Any competition is better than no competition.

UAL is the latest to have their slot requests denied. There are probably 100 markets around the world that would give their left nut to have United Airlines commence service to their airport, but not YTZ.

Meanwhile, the holder of 85% of slots grossly under uses the resource. As every other airline on the planet is forced to be efficient with their capacity, thus driving average loads well into the 80% range, Porter putzes around flying empty airplanes between their markets burning hydro carbons to their hearts content with the sole purpose of ensuring no one else can make better use of the slot.

Let's face it. The reason Porter abruptly stopped releasing their traffic statistics in March 2013 wasn't because the numbers were so strong they'd cause all the competitors to run for the hills, white flags held above their heads.....especially given they reported their system load factor at 58.1% in March 2013, down almost 2% points from March 2012.

Maybe Porter was a tad embarrassed at their rather uninspiring 54.5% trans border l/f in April 2013, compared to Air Canada's 82.1% trans border l/f in the same month, Jazz's trans border l/f of 63.37% or WJ's trans border l/f of 80.64% .

Given the delta between their March and April transborder numbers, I'll bet MD2 lunch Porter's system l/f was worse in April 2013 than it was in March 2013.

Porter could cut capacity and slot utilization virtually in half, freeing up slots to airlines who are actually interested in generating a profit and maximizing traffic and therefore economic activity in the GTA, but we all know that's never going to happen.

07-minister.jpg

"We made money operating with a 42% load

factor from Toronto Island to Washington-Dulles

in April 2013!".

:wink_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

United (Continental) was awarded 16 slots and voluntarily relinquished them.

But bean doesn't like facts get in the way of a good "argument"! Who cares that US Airways retracted their application, or Continental relinquished their slots, it's just good entertainment to keep repeating the same stuff (or not!)

Plus, he genuinely believes his favourite WestJet should be given what they want when they want, preferably with some concessions and freebies from the airport. If he says people should give their body parts to have United service their airport, you can imagine what they should give for WestJet!

He has also worked out every airlines's business plan for them: frequency, slots, destinations, all. Wow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, old chum, I'll put my record of generating original airline business plans and reverse engineering others over the past 15+ years against the stellar economic results of Porter's first 7 years in business.

But don't ask me. Ask Ontario Teachers how their WestJet investment turned out after 7 years and compare that answer to how OMERS and Edgestone feel about their 7 year+ investment in Porter thus far.

I'm pretty sure United's rejection is more recent than the event MD2 refers to.

If Porter were carrying industry normal loads, (ie in low 80% range), it might suggest they are making good use of a finite resource others such as Air Canada and United have been requesting for quite some time.

Alas, Porter flies half empty airplanes in and out of YTZ everyday and their own data proves it. For example, in March 2013 Porter had a system l/f of just 58.1%. According to DoT data, Porter's YTZ transborder l/f was 55.2% in March 2013, dropping to 54.1% in April 2013, obviously a significant contributing factor for cancelling their monthly l/f press release.

It would not be difficult to precisely calculate their domestic l/f but for the sake of discussion, it certainly wasn't anymore than about 62%.

If Porter operated in a normal environment, ie, the way airlines operate at every other airport in the world with normal competitive forces that prevented wholesale high fare gouging, they would be forced to reduce frequency on their routes to push loads into an industry standard range between the upper 70%'s and low 80%'s.

The inconvenient truth in Porter's case is that if they did so on trans border routes alone, they'd free up enough slots to operate about 26 more departures a day out of YTZ and likely at least that many slots again if they ran their domestic frequency more efficiently. It's just math and a little analytical brain power.

Porter's problem is that without a new fleet type, they have nowhere else to go from YTZ. The last thing they want to do is turn back enough slots to allow competitors to operate something close to 60 departures a day from YTZ, up from about 15.

As Porter likes to point out, the Island Airport is the source of economic activity in the GTA. Imagine how much more economic activity could be generated if the slots were used more efficiently for the benefit of everyone, not just Porter's long suffering shareholders.

At some point, even the TPA is going to figure out that there may be enough slots available under current rules to allow for a good competitive environment, provided the slots are used more efficiently.

Porter's habit of endlessly flying half full airplanes out of YTZ is not an efficient use of a finite resource, namely limited slots, let alone unnecessary hydrocarbons.

Lots of sizzle from the Porter gang, but, as usual, no steak.

Perhaps one day MD2 will provide some verifiable data in support of his pro-monopoly position. Repeatedly saying it isn't so isn't much of a basis for an argument.

07-minister.jpg

"Even though US DoT data says we flew loads under

43% from Newark to Tremblant in March 2013, I can

categorically tell you they are lying infidels and our

planes were full! Those 14.51 extra skiers a day we

carried to Mont Tremblant during March 2013,

which would fill a couple of chairs on a ski lift,

caused an economic boom, the likes of which has

never been seen before!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been no further slot allocation at YTZ since United relinquished theirs voluntarily.

Here is a little experiment. WestJet relinquished one of their slots at SNA which was subsequently awarded to Interjet. Go to the OC Board of Supervisors and demand it back. See what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always a great discussion but I'm going to suggest the parties involved here on the forum agree to "pistols at 20 paces" and just get it over with.

Apparently this worked well in the 18th century....all disagreements completely solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been no further slot allocation at YTZ since United relinquished theirs voluntarily.

Here is a little experiment. WestJet relinquished one of their slots at SNA which was subsequently awarded to Interjet. Go to the OC Board of Supervisors and demand it back. See what happens.

No slot allocation, which is not to say their haven't been any recent requests that have been turned down.

One forgets the fiscal position UAL was in a few years ago. The world changes, except in Toronto as evidenced by yet another season ending Maple Leaf meltdown....

Who said anything about WJ requesting its old slot back at SNA? Thanks for another red herring.

:wink_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it a red herring?

If airline X voluntarily relinquished a slot or slots at a slot controller airport and it was reallocated to another airline what entitles them to get it back on demand? Why would the Board of Supervisors be any more obligated to entertain such a request than the TPA?

However i'm skeptical of your claim that United has been denied slots because if they have been they sure didn't cry to the DOT about it. Indeed there is nothing recent on the docket except for a filing from Community Air complaining about the C Series. And best of all the DOT mistakenly identified Brian Iler as a representative of Porter Airlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it a red herring?

If airline X voluntarily relinquished a slot or slots at a slot controller airport and it was reallocated to another airline what entitles them to get it back on demand? Why would the Board of Supervisors be any more obligated to entertain such a request than the TPA?

However i'm skeptical of your claim that United has been denied slots because if they have been they sure didn't cry to the DOT about it. Indeed there is nothing recent on the docket except for a filing from Community Air complaining about the C Series. And best of all the DOT mistakenly identified Brian Iler as a representative of Porter Airlines.

Who said anything about anyone getting a slot back on demand?

I simply point out the insanity of the current situation and the gaping holes in the arguments put forth by proponents of the highly inefficient status quo monopoly.

I could care less who acquires any slots that come available in the future, though from a consumer perspective, having an LCC operate in the airport is more than likely to result in greater fare compression than the alternative.

In saying that, I have no greater knowledge than anyone else when it comes to what WJ may or may not be considering down the road,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure United's rejection is more recent than the event MD2 refers to.

"Pretty sure" is not a fact. United relinquished the slots awarded to Continental after the merger, and that is a fact.

Perhaps Porter is not in favour of status quo either and wants more growth and slots, but a " measured growth" has been deemed necessary by the policy makers, and that too is a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pretty sure" is not a fact. United relinquished the slots awarded to Continental after the merger, and that is a fact.

Perhaps Porter is not in favour of status quo either and wants more growth and slots, but a " measured growth" has been deemed necessary by the policy makers, and that too is a fact.

I am led to believe UAL reapplied for slots about a year ago, separate to the United / Continental request referred to elsewhere. The request was shot down in flames.

If existing slots were being used efficiently, there'd be more than enough available to meet the needs of both Porter and others over the next few years.

There aren't many stand alone airlines on the planet that consistently operate a network with l/f's hovering around 60%. Normal circumstances would result in consolidation of frequency or down gauging to push loads into the 80% range.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a study done that showed Porter as being one of the worst polluters in the aviation business, measured by emissions produced per passenger flown. At the very least, Porter pumps out more emissions per passenger flown than any other Q400 operator in North America.

Another feather in Porter's cap.....

By placing no economic value on the slots, the TPA has allowed Porter to make lazy use of a finite resource, at the expense of the environment and consumers pocketbooks.

It's an argument the GTA Greenies have yet to figure out and exploit. Give them time and some insight and they will.

It's very media friendly story.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longtimer

Re slots,

Scott Deveau, Financial Post · Apr. 12, 2011 | Last Updated: Apr. 13, 2011 10:19 AM ET

The newly merged United Continental Holdings Inc. has abandoned its plans to launch a new service from Toronto Island, putting into play the 16 landing slots it was granted there.

“We have decided to not to continue with this plan,” Rahsaan Johnson, a spokesman for the airline, told the Financial Post in an interview. “The long and short of it is, with fuel prices where they are, we just don’t think we’ll reach our financial performance expectations.”

The U.S. carrier may consider service from Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport sometime in the future, but in the meantime, would be forfeiting its current landing slots, Mr. Johnson said.

“We’ll reassess in the future when economic conditions look more favourable,” he said. “But we’ve elected not to launch that service.”

Continental Airlines was granted 16 landing slots at Billy Bishop last year in an auction that also granted 44 additional slots to incumbent carrier, Porter Airlines Inc., and 30 slots to Air Canada. Continental has since merged with United Airlines under the latter’s name.

Air Canada intends to launch its own service from the Island on May 1, under its new Air Canada Express brand, offering 15 daily flights between Billy Bishop and Montreal.

The Toronto Port Authority will consult with the firm it hired to run the slot auction, Airport Coordination Ltd. (ACL), to determine what to do with United landing slots, said Mark McQueen, the authority’s chairman. He said the priority is to grant the slots to a carrier that will add new destinations.

“Our goal remains to increase the number of new destinations that are served by Billy Bishop airport. Our intention is to work with industry to find a way to achieve that goal,” Mr. McQueen said. “We certainly will welcome Continental/United down the road should they change their minds. But in the meantime, we’re going to have to sit down with ACL.”

Any airline wishing to offer service from the airport, however, will still be subject to an exclusivity agreement between the port authority and the City Centre Terminal Corp., which is also owned by Porter Airlines chief executive, Robert Deluce. Under the terms of the five-year deal, carriers wanting to offer service from Toronto Island must rent terminal space from CCTC.

Mr. McQueen said it remains a possibility that the United landing slots may ultimately be offered to Air Canada or Porter, if they’re interested.

“Our goal is to increase new destinations, whether that is with current carriers or a new carrier, that remains the goal,” he said.

Peter Fitzpatrick, Air Canada spokesman, said the country’s largest carrier would definitely be interested in new landing slots at the airport if they were made available.

Financial Post

scdeveau@nationalpost.com

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If existing slots were being used efficiently, there'd be more than enough available to meet the needs of both Porter and others over the next few years.

The argument is fairly repetitive so I'll make this my final comment. The slots are being used as efficiently as possible for business routes require high frequency. Leisure routes have lower frequency and the new leisure routes served by the C series will also likely have lower frequency.

People familiar with the history of Toronto airports know that these slots are worth anything because of Porter otherwise they were there for years for any airline and none took them, in fact Air Canada continuously decreased service/use of slots to 10 daily, one third of their slots now. If Porter was to be no more, commercial service will more than likely dwindle, as it did before. Many have pointed this out which is the uniqueness of Toronto City airport and the reason it is a common market with Pearson.

It is not unusual for different airlines to have different focus airports in large cities. For instance in London, England, there is a similar situation where EasyJet focuses on Luton, Ryanair on Stansted, charters on Gatwick and BA and other legacy carriers mainly on Heathrow. A similar situation can and will exist in Toronto and frankly it makes most economical sense as it brings operating costs of airlines to the lowest by not duplicating service at close by airports of the same city, and still providing competitive service to the consumers. This situation already exists in Toronto which is evident in the price being reasonably competitive and as well reduced substantially from the duopoly days.

The consumers are happy with this because they much rather see multiple airlines offering service as opposed to one or two airlines bankrupting others and then jacking up the prices. In time, this will flourish even more as the number of transit passengers will grow, through both City and Pearson, as hubs of the respective airlines. It is a win-win situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is fairly repetitive so I'll make this my final comment. The slots are being used as efficiently as possible for business routes require high frequency. Leisure routes have lower frequency and the new leisure routes served by the C series will also likely have lower frequency.

People familiar with the history of Toronto airports know that these slots are worth anything because of Porter otherwise they were there for years for any airline and none took them, in fact Air Canada continuously decreased service/use of slots to 10 daily, one third of their slots now. If Porter was to be no more, commercial service will more than likely dwindle, as it did before. Many have pointed this out which is the uniqueness of Toronto City airport and the reason it is a common market with Pearson.

It is not unusual for different airlines to have different focus airports in large cities. For instance in London, England, there is a similar situation where EasyJet focuses on Luton, Ryanair on Stansted, charters on Gatwick and BA and other legacy carriers mainly on Heathrow. A similar situation can and will exist in Toronto and frankly it makes most economical sense as it brings operating costs of airlines to the lowest by not duplicating service at close by airports of the same city, and still providing competitive service to the consumers. This situation already exists in Toronto which is evident in the price being reasonably competitive and as well reduced substantially from the duopoly days.

The consumers are happy with this because they much rather see multiple airlines offering service as opposed to one or two airlines bankrupting others and then jacking up the prices. In time, this will flourish even more as the number of transit passengers will grow, through both City and Pearson, as hubs of the respective airlines. It is a win-win situation.

More unsubtantiated, unmitigated nonsense from MD2.

Why don't you ask two of your loyal customers on the Island, one of whom just purchased a ticket to the NYC area on a flight tomorrow for $408 and the other who paid $1,268 to Chicago how they feel about the monopoly situation?

Porter's arguments in support of maintaining their monopoly are, as usual, ridiculous. What you fail to point out is that in your UK examples, I would imagine that all the airlines you mentioned would quite likely be interested in further expanding operations to other area airports if they could.

EasyJet operates at its base at Luton, but also at London Southend, Stansted and Gatwick. BA is in both LHR and Gatwick. Ryanair operates from both Luton and Stansted, just 26 miles apart.

Southwest operates at LAX, ONT, BUR and SNA in the Los Angeles Metro Area, ISP, EWR and LGA in the NYC area, DCA, BWI and IAD in the Washington area, BOS, MHT and PVD in the Boston area, OAK, SFO and SJC in the San Francisco area...do I really need to go on?

Remind us again how many airlines fly from Toronto Island to Chicago, Boston, Washington, Sudbury, Timmins, Sault, Windsor, Quebec City?

All of the above airlines can substantiate a pretty good history of profitability operating from multiple urban airports. And then there's Porter's track record......

If you think LCC airlines are in business to bankrupt competitors and then raise fares, you are delusional. LCC's are in business to create shareholder value, something Porter shareholders have yet to experience. It is not the fault of an LCC that they have devised a business model that generates asm's at a significantly lower cost than, say, Porter.

Your theory that competition will bankrupt competitors and force fares up is equally absurd. Forgetting about the fact that Porter has been ensconced at BBA for 7+ years and presumably has a "loyal" clientele that will continue to fly Porter regardless of fares charged, your theory is not supported by real world experiences.

The fare from Abbotsford to Calgary tomorrow morning , a 400 mile monopoly market is $264.73, about $20 less than the fare from Vancouver to Calgary.

The fare from Brandon to Calgary tomorrow, another monopoly market, is $285, about $26 less than the fare from Winnipeg to Calgary.

The fare from Kitchener/Waterloo to Calgary tomorrow, another monopoly market, is $474, about $22 less than the fare from Toronto to Calgary.

Do I need to continue or is the point starting to stick?

Then there's Porter, who's fare from the Island to Windsor, a monopoly route, tomorrow, and Saturday is $390 for a piddly 203 mile sector. Compare that to Calgary - Edmonton, a short 162 miles, tomorrow for $232.

Where competition exists, Porter drops fares, as evidenced by the $323 fare to Montreal. The only monopolist gougers out there from YTZ are Porter and they are desperate to keep it that way.

07-minister.jpg

"The smog behind me is not a result of our flying

empty airplanes in and out of downtown Toronto

all day long. We flew 919 transborder departures

from YTZ in 2012 and although the data we reported

to the infidels says we ran a 44.1% load factor, these are

lies!!! We could dramatically cut emissions by

reducing frequency and still have plenty of seats

for everyone, but that would mean giving up

slots to competitors and having to compete in

a normal marketplace"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bean,

Does WJ even want to fly out of Billy Bishop? I haven't read any press that would indicate it is actively seeking slots there. If it isn't seeking to start flying and therefore offer customers a choice, why all the posts...

You appear to be the only one upset about the situation. Why do you have such an axe to grind with Porter? When did you become the grand defender of the people against monopolies?

The Teal carrier hasn't made application for slots.. when it does and get denied, your complaints might have credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...