Island Airport

[blues deville]

An old article but I with the Cseries now making some flight test progress, I wonder how long it will be before we hear about approval for the island airport runway extension. If the approval is given, how do they add runway surface at each end without disrupting daily aircraft operations as well as upsetting current instrument approach equipment?

Would it not make more sense to build an entirely new parallel runway (6000') south of the current 08-26 that could extend into the lake west of the airport and perhaps a have little impact on water vessels or the environment?

http://torontoist.com/2014/04/porter-jets-and-the-island-airport-a-primer/

And here's a link to some flight testing with good videos.

http://cseries.com/category/latest-tests/

[dagger]

An old article but I with the Cseries now making some flight test progress, I wonder how long it will be before we hear about approval for the island airport runway extension. If the approval is given, how do they add runway surface at each end without disrupting daily aircraft operations as well as upsetting current instrument approach equipment?

Would it not make more sense to build an entirely new parallel runway (6000') south of the current 08-26 that could extend into the lake west of the airport and perhaps a have little impact on water vessels or the environment?

http://torontoist.com/2014/04/porter-jets-and-the-island-airport-a-primer/

And here's a link to some flight testing with good videos.

http://cseries.com/category/latest-tests/

Won't hear much of substance on this file until April, when the City's evaluation reaches council. The position of the new mayor, John Tory, is that he's open to consideration of the expansion, but that the City won't fund the needed transit and access improvements to handle expanded traffic.

[blues deville]

Won't hear much of substance on this file until April, when the City's evaluation reaches council. The position of the new mayor, John Tory, is that he's open to consideration of the expansion, but that the City won't fund the needed transit and access improvements to handle expanded traffic.

You've got to love politicians, especially Toronto's with a permanent crack in their respective a$$'s from sitting on the fence.

Perhaps when they build it, people will come and they'll have no choice but to connect it properly to the city transit.

[dagger]

You've got to love politicians, especially Toronto's with a permanent crack in their respective a$$'s from sitting on the fence.

Perhaps when they build it, people will come and they'll have no choice but to connect it properly to the city transit.

With all due respect, screw that. We have a major airport, we have huge transit needs in this city that will cost every taxpayer a bundle. If there is going to be island airport expansion, let the federal government give the city a cut of the AIF to fund transit improvements. Otherwise, YTZ and Porter can get in line behind $50 billion worth of priority transit projects the GTA requires.

[blues deville]

With all due respect, screw that. We have a major airport, we have huge transit needs in this city that will cost every taxpayer a bundle. If there is going to be island airport expansion, let the federal government give the city a cut of the AIF to fund transit improvements. Otherwise, YTZ and Porter can get in line behind $50 billion worth of priority transit projects the GTA requires.

Agreed. Toronto has an airport that serves the community well. However, it's not always the most convenient or efficient. Blues deluxe met me for a US layover last weekend (Lone Star Bike Rally in Galveston, TX) and after landing back in YYZ, it took her 3 1/2 hours to get home. We live 30 minutes from Pearson.

There is a proven market for the downtown/area residents and the island airport. Toronto is not getting any smaller (take a look at the waterfront high rise construction between Jarvis and Spadina) so options such as Billy Bishop can give people a choice of airports going into the 21st century. The interesting thing about these new downtown high rises is the empty parking garages. No one has a car. They use mass transit and the island airport has now become an option and perhaps a good fit for their lifestyle. Add some runway length for medium range jets and the city airport becomes a showcase in how to provide air transportation options,

Toronto (and its genius politicians) need to look and think ahead to make the city flow. With a much smaller population, it's now rated number two behind LA with the worst commuter traffic times.

[dagger]

You're making an argument for a convenience airport. Look around. Is there a single freight forwarder near YTZ? No. Is there a logistics hub near the airport. No. Is there a food importer near the airport. No. Is there an industry located there because it wants just in time delivery of parts for manufacturing? No. That's all at YYZ, and for those who don't know Toronto, the industrial zone around YYZ extends for kilometres in all directions. It supports tens of thousands of jobs.

Secondly, with the pending transit options - the new express train in particular - downtowners will have added convenience getting to YYZ, which they will have to pay for with a high fare. Or they can take the TTC buses - 192 or 52 - and get there for the cost of a token.

What the consumer needs is not a choice of airports, but a choice of airlines. The competition is at YYZ, and it's abundant.

Fine. You are making an argument for a convenience passenger airport for those who can afford to travel, usually on business. YTZ isn't going to serve Europe, it isn't to serve Asia, the Caribbean, Bermuda, and many points in Canada and the US because even with jets, it would be a one runway airport with pretty tight slot limitations. It will offer no off-setting economic benefits like YYZ, and it won't offer any convenience to the vast majority of Torontonians sitting in traffic hell every day who are clamouring for more mass transit options. That is the priority and our genius politicians are smart enough to recognize the hunger for more transit. It was the policy focal point of the recent election. You talk about how long it took for Blues Deluxe to get home from YYZ. That's not an argument for YTZ, that's an argument for massive investment in mass transit expansion that would not only benefit travellers, but commuters and businesses throughout the region.

Expanding YTZ does nothing to "make the city flow" as you put it. Not like any of the proposals for new subway and LRT and electrified regional train service would do. Expanding YTZ has to stand on its merits as a niche project serving a small niche of the area population that both lives downtown and flies more than once a year. Frankly, your argument somehow relating YTZ expansion with easing Toronto gridlock is perplexing. It makes no sense.

Those who want the convenience of YTZ rather than take the express train to YYZ should basically fund the expansion and all access improvements by contributing financially through an enhanced AIF from which the city would get a cut. Maybe the AIF should be $35 or $50 to compensate for the supposed added convenience.

[blues deville]

You'll have to explain why an airport (or train station, bus stop, whatever) shouldn't be convenient. The nearly completed train line to YYZ won't make the Pearson experience any better for travellers. It's just an optional travel method to the same crowded line ups at security and customs. YTZ provides quick access for city dwellers (or anyone capable of getting into/out of Toronto) to modern air travel with time management being a key selling factor.

Yes. Porter, AC/SkyRegional, or anyone else operating from YTZ in the future (and I'm sure there will be others) provide a service to a target market. Just like anyone who shops at H&M, Costco or Walmart, they have their customer base. Westjet has been busy for many years providing air travel to markets not previously served by the other major airline. Certainly convenient for residents of smaller Canadian communities.

And I don't think YTZ is about to or will ever need to become a hub for FedEx or UPS and it won't be a launch pad for Europe or Asia but it will connect with cities in the range of the planned Cseries jets. Since Porter has set up shop, lots of jobs have been created as a result with more to come.

My intention is not to get into another long argument about YTZ, so I'll close here saying we can agree to disagree.

[MD2]

With all due respect, dagger is hardly a neutral citizen solely concerned with the well being of other citizens in Toronto. His concern with the public transit is very noble and probably warranted, but progress and development in public transportation system in Toronto need not come at the expense of other progress in the city, especially when it is one that affects the entire country.

This has been discussed here before, but Toronto needs more than just one airport, which by the way isn't even in Toronto. More flights at Pearson does not translate into more convenience as it further adds to the gridlock. When the sprawling terminal one was being built at Pearson, mostly for the benefit of Air Canada but without its investment, our friends at Air Canada did not complain, why is it that he expects other airlines to invest for the expansion of other airports? It makes it even more ironic when we recall that not long ago Pearson itself was being considered for relocation.

Those comments lack vision and understanding of the needs of an emerging global cosmopolitan city that Toronto is becoming. It would be like the English saying that they don't need 5 airports in London, close all of them and squeeze everything into Heathrow, or the French wanting to squeeze everything into de Gaulle in Paris, or the Americans wanting to squeeze everything into JFK in New York. Can we imagine what the effects of those decisions would have been?

The fact is that Toronto is growing, air travel is growing, and even with a partially focused vision, Air Canada will eventually be able to grow its traffic through Pearson substantially, so too will WestJet, with more international flights. What Toronto desperately needs is not only diversity in airlines, but also its airport assets that serve the same city and are focal points of various airlines. We see this around the world in large cities that have multiple airports, and various airlines focus in one or the other which makes sense for efficiency of their operation and eliminating redundancy.

At the same time, the Tripartite agreement is old and outdated because when it was written, jets quieter than some of the propeller driven aircraft were not envisioned. Now is the time to amend it and discriminate against the noise, not the type of engine that emits it. It is time to allow progress to unfold and showcase Toronto's potential to the world. At the same time, showcase the potential and the game-changing nature of the Canadian-built Bombardier C series at its home, as it did with the Q400 which increased its sales substantially and created more jobs. It's a win win situation.

[Thebean]

With all due respect, dagger is hardly a neutral citizen solely concerned with the well being of other citizens in Toronto. His concern with the public transit is very noble and probably warranted, but progress and development in public transportation system in Toronto need not come at the expense of other progress in the city, especially when it is one that affects the entire country.

This has been discussed here before, but Toronto needs more than just one airport, which by the way isn't even in Toronto. More flights at Pearson does not translate into more convenience as it further adds to the gridlock. When the sprawling terminal one was being built at Pearson, mostly for the benefit of Air Canada but without its investment, our friends at Air Canada did not complain, why is it that he expects other airlines to invest for the expansion of other airports? It makes it even more ironic when we recall that not long ago Pearson itself was being considered for relocation.

Those comments lack vision and understanding of the needs of an emerging global cosmopolitan city that Toronto is becoming. It would be like the English saying that they don't need 5 airports in London, close all of them and squeeze everything into Heathrow, or the French wanting to squeeze everything into de Gaulle in Paris, or the Americans wanting to squeeze everything into JFK in New York. Can we imagine what the effects of those decisions would have been?

The fact is that Toronto is growing, air travel is growing, and even with a partially focused vision, Air Canada will eventually be able to grow its traffic through Pearson substantially, so too will WestJet, with more international flights. What Toronto desperately needs is not only diversity in airlines, but also its airport assets that serve the same city and are focal points of various airlines. We see this around the world in large cities that have multiple airports, and various airlines focus in one or the other which makes sense for efficiency of their operation and eliminating redundancy.

At the same time, the Tripartite agreement is old and outdated because when it was written, jets quieter than some of the propeller driven aircraft were not envisioned. Now is the time to amend it and discriminate against the noise, not the type of engine that emits it. It is time to allow progress to unfold and showcase Toronto's potential to the world. At the same time, showcase the potential and the game-changing nature of the Canadian-built Bombardier C series at its home, as it did with the Q400 which increased its sales substantially and created more jobs. It's a win win situation.

You've been listening to Daddy for too long.

Name any airport in a free market economy other than Ko Samui Airport, which is privately owned and was built by Bangkok Airways, where one airline dominates operations to the same degree Porter dominates YTZ and where that scenario will not change for the indefinite future. Just one will do.

If there are community economic benefits to allowing jets into YTZ, the benefits would be exponential if normal competitive forces were allowed to prevail unlike the artificial restrictions that conveniently result in ridiculously high fares when the preponderance of fares are actually booked. We all know what short haul booking curves look like, old chap.

Not once have I heard an argument that Porter supports more competition at the airport. It's pretty easy to figure out why. The cheapest fare Porter has from their little fortress monopoly airport to Chicago over the next 10 days is over $700 one way, with nothing under $800 over the next 6 days. That must be doing wonders to stimulate demand and visitors into the GTA....

Meanwhile, where REAL competition exist at YYZ, you'd be hard pressed to find a flight to Fort Lauderdale, about 3x the distance, for over $400 one way in the next 10 days, and there are numerous options available for under $250.

BTW, how's that one stop, connecting in Boston, post clear, day long adventure to FLL working out? Overwhelming?

And how long will it take savvy Boston bound travelers without bags to figure out that they can save $443 by purchasing a one way YTZ-FLL flight tomorrow for $356, ditch the JetBlue portion and stay in Boston. Sure beats the $799 one way fare to Boston eh? After forking over the prorate to JetBlue, that'll leave about $200 for Porter. Sheer brilliance. Turn an $800 fare into a $200 fare. That'll do wonders for route profitability, not to mention point out the absurdity of Porter's pricing....

TTFN

[AAS]

Give it a few years. The UPEXPRESS will be the Mirabel of train service

[MD2]

Bean, instead of sarcasm, bullying and presumption keep your eyes on the ball "young" chap!

The idea is that Toronto needs more than one airport because more airlines and extra flights at Pearson, although may seem like more choices at first, they just add to the gridlock. At the same time, another airport doesn't necessarily mean all airlines doubling shops there too, in fact if they did, one has to wonder about their true motives and whether they want to flood the market with extra capacity, quash competition and go back to their previous comfortable arrangement to the detriment of consumers? Toronto, regardless of the airport, is a common market, one city, one people in need of multiple airports, multiple airlines translating into more choices for consumers. For instance, in London where there are multiple airports, various airlines have their focus at one of the airports, not all of them. This is a way to diversify not only airlines but also airports in large sprawling cities such as Toronto. I hope this makes the idea more clear.

And please, next time you quote a price from Porter, have the decency to also quote the prices of its competitors on the same route. It's only fair and responsible and transparent debate. Another thing, if as you say your beloved WestJet had no interest in partnering with JetBlue, and you have gone to extreme lengths to discredit its partnership with Porter as futile and worthless. One has to wonder then, why do you go on about it every chance you get? You should be happy and go on about your life. One would only get upset, obsessive, argumentative and repetitive if one feels opportunities have been lost and one cannot be happy for others' success, just saying...

[Zan Vetter]

YTZ needs a 7000 foot runway, mimimum, to even remotely be considered as even a minor, minor spillover airport for YYZ and thus a benefit to the city at large. Until Toronto city council considers expansion to that level or more, it will remain a niche property solely for the benefit of Porter and the people connected to it.

[Thebean]

Bean, instead of sarcasm, bullying and presumption keep your eyes on the ball "young" chap!

The idea is that Toronto needs more than one airport because more airlines and extra flights at Pearson, although may seem like more choices at first, they just add to the gridlock. At the same time, another airport doesn't necessarily mean all airlines doubling shops there too, in fact if they did, one has to wonder about their true motives and whether they want to flood the market with extra capacity, quash competition and go back to their previous comfortable arrangement to the detriment of consumers? Toronto, regardless of the airport, is a common market, one city, one people in need of multiple airports, multiple airlines translating into more choices for consumers. For instance, in London where there are multiple airports, various airlines have their focus at one of the airports, not all of them. This is a way to diversify not only airlines but also airports in large sprawling cities such as Toronto. I hope this makes the idea more clear.

And please, next time you quote a price from Porter, have the decency to also quote the prices of its competitors on the same route. It's only fair and responsible and transparent debate. Another thing, if as you say your beloved WestJet had no interest in partnering with JetBlue, and you have gone to extreme lengths to discredit its partnership with Porter as futile and worthless. One has to wonder then, why do you go on about it every chance you get? You should be happy and go on about your life. One would only get upset, obsessive, argumentative and repetitive if one feels opportunities have been lost and one cannot be happy for others' success, just saying...

Last time I checked, WJ operated in both YVR and YXX, as well as YHM and YYZ, not to mention YKF. All those airports are open for business. Porter could launch service to any one of those airports when ever they felt like it. Not so at YTZ. Sure, it's due to limited slots, but it's not as if Porter supports more slots being created at the airport to allow others entry into the market. They love the monopoly. Who could blame them. $1,000 for a 450 mile trip to Chicago? What's not to like? It's a monopolists wet dream.

I think you'll find that there are countless examples of airlines operating at multiple airports in large metropolitan areas, be it EWR/LGA/JFK, the three Washington DC area airports, the Boston area airports, the Miami/FLL airport, the numerous Los Angeles area airports. There's nothing stopping anyone from using the airport in Mesa as well as Sky Harbor. Toronto is the exception to the rule. Porter seems to acknowledge that after years of "success" the business and brand is so weak, it could not withstand normal competitive forces.

If you are wondering why the Porter story elicits the sound of crickets on Bay Street, re-read the last sentence.

I guess it all boils down to how one defines "success" in the business world.

I'm not sure your shareholders would define the return earned on their investment made 10 years or so ago as a "success". Thus far, their return after 10 years of Porter "success" wouldn't buy them a handful of Bazooka Joe gum.

Maybe you can explain the logic behind why a YTZ - BOS - FLL flight tomorrow costs $443 less than a YTZ - BOS flight on the SAME aircraft?

Be careful how you answer as if the answer is because of "competition", you're proved my point.

I can't wait till some bright spark at the CBC makes a story out of this. They love this kind of "airline rip off story". Why, they had a story on this sort of thing just today to do with another airlines student flight pass. It'll get picked up sooner or later. I can't wait to see how it's explained.

TTFN

[DEFCON]

WJ & AC marketers enjoy an ‘economies of scale’ advantage over the tiny by comparison Porter, which is I know, somewhat negated by Porter’s niche Island position. If head-on competition was to take place between these three carriers in select markets, which agency of government is capable of ensuring the two big players wouldn’t be discounting their offerings and making them available at a lower that cost basis solely for the purpose of crushing the little guy?

[Thebean]

WJ has a long history of profitably offering lower fares given it's significantly lower cost base.

Open competition at YTZ would ultimately cause all fare levels, and importantly, fares booked within 14 days of departure in Porters monopoly markets, (YTZ to Timmins , Sault, Sudbury, Windsor, Boston, Chicago, Washington and perhaps a couple more), to levels seen in markets where open competition exists, and where WJ has proven they can operate profitably on a consistent, annualized basis.

It's not the Competition Bureau's job to protect inefficient, high cost operations from consistently profitable lower cost operations.

Porter charges $443 more for a Toronto to Boston flight today than their Toronto to Boston to Fort Lauderdale flight, (with the Boston - FLL flight operated by jetBlue) for one reason and one reason only. Because they can. They have a protected monopoly on the market and consumers have no choice but to pay what Porter demands. Porter has no interest in seeing this scenario changed.

The very fact that Porter has to cut their fare by $443 to sell flights from YTZ to FLL over BOS to be competitive with n/s offerings to Fort Lauderdale where competition exists proves the point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Competition keeps fares low. Monopolies keep fares high.

[DEFCON]

While Porter may be charging more than you’d like to see Bean, the traffic they attract isn’t being forced to use the service either. I’m with you in that I too believe competition to be a good thing for everyone involved for the most part, but if the public really wants it, their representatives in government can’t sit back and allow the big guys to use their size advantage, aka AC’s historical style, to remove competition from the marketplace.

[inchman]

(Some) people keep saying "AC's historic style of removing the competition from the marketplace".

It is debatable if this was the case even in the case of CCA because they folded within a year of competition coming to the marketplace. If they were that weak, they probably weren't going to survive anyway or the owner took the opportunity to run with cash while the getting was good to leave the debtholders in the lurch, as is so often the case in Canadian airline bankruptcies.

Does anyone have any proof that AC was undercutting CCA prices? Or is it all rhetoric?

I can't think of any case where Air Canada "wiped out" the competition, then pulled out. So I don't see where this "historic style" comes from. As a matter of fact, there is not a burger joint in the world that wouldn't prefer to have the joint down the street close down. So, if there is a historic style, it is just normal corporate governance in every segment of business.

And what happened at the island was not a pull out.... it was certainly a decline, but it's simplistic to think that this was a strategy formed by AC and not a reaction to the overall uncertainty of the survival of the airport and its facilities. The island airport and infrastructure and potential future was on and off like a light switch... tunnel, bridge, tunnel, bridge, tunnel. Work from a trailer... ok you can build a terminal... Oh we gave the terminal you built to another company. Finally, if anyone wiped out the competition it was undoubtedly the monopoly holder of the terminal by ensuring that there was nowhere for Air Canada to operate from.

And even if it were true that AC intended to wipe CCA off the face of the planet, it was almost 25 years ago, 6 Presidents ago and an entire corporate entity ago.

It's just time to stop the talk of "AC's historic style" of removing the competition from the marketplace. I would even suggest that there have been many more attacks on Air Canada's market at many airports and markets than the other way around, even from companies that are supposedly aligned with them.

[Specs]

Isn't the target demographic for Porter ultimately the financial district wanting quick access to major US centres. A bit like London City airport. Premium fares are less of a concern for that group than is convenience/service.

When City Council starts to debate the Tri Partite agreement they will need to look at docklands and consider the impact that airport has had on London's Financial district and Canary Wharf. When it started you could only get Dash-7s in there. 20 yrs later you can fly to NYC in an A318.

[MD2]

Mr. Bean continues in the tradition of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf the Iraqi (mis)information minister, who hoped by repetition and sheer volume of the usual shibboleth and incantations, eventually unchallenged (simply because people get tired and give-up) misinformation and half-truths become accepted as truth. However, whenever one posts a price from Porter, one should have the decency to also post its competitors' prices on the same city pairs in the spirit of fair debate, otherwise it is misinformation and propaganda, period.

Regardless of what we think what the length of the runway should be as individuals based on our perceptions and preconceived notions, the fact is that a modest increase as has been proposed is quite sufficient to ensure a safe operation with minimum impact on the environment, especially on the Marine Exclusion Zone. The Canadian built C series offers the required performance and is quiet enough to be able to operate from city airports around the world. It is the right aircraft for the mission of flying out of busy, noise sensitive urban airports. This will uphold the current noise levels, and discriminates against the noise, but not the type of engine that emits it. We see this example in other areas as well; for instance for drivers the limitation is on the blood alcohol level because it impairs judgment and slows decision-making, but not the type of alcoholic beverage. It does not differentiate between beer, spirits and wine, simply blood alcohol level. It is quite simple really if we look it objectively.

[blues deville]

Last time I checked, WJ operated in both YVR and YXX, as well as YHM and YYZ, not to mention YKF. All those airports are open for business. Porter could launch service to any one of those airports when ever they felt like it. Not so at YTZ. Sure, it's due to limited slots, but it's not as if Porter supports more slots being created at the airport to allow others entry into the market. They love the monopoly. Who could blame them. $1,000 for a 450 mile trip to Chicago? What's not to like? It's a monopolists wet dream.

I think you'll find that there are countless examples of airlines operating at multiple airports in large metropolitan areas, be it EWR/LGA/JFK, the three Washington DC area airports, the Boston area airports, the Miami/FLL airport, the numerous Los Angeles area airports. There's nothing stopping anyone from using the airport in Mesa as well as Sky Harbor. Toronto is the exception to the rule. Porter seems to acknowledge that after years of "success" the business and brand is so weak, it could not withstand normal competitive forces.

If you are wondering why the Porter story elicits the sound of crickets on Bay Street, re-read the last sentence.

I guess it all boils down to how one defines "success" in the business world.

I'm not sure your shareholders would define the return earned on their investment made 10 years or so ago as a "success". Thus far, their return after 10 years of Porter "success" wouldn't buy them a handful of Bazooka Joe gum.

Maybe you can explain the logic behind why a YTZ - BOS - FLL flight tomorrow costs $443 less than a YTZ - BOS flight on the SAME aircraft?

Be careful how you answer as if the answer is because of "competition", you're proved my point.

I can't wait till some bright spark at the CBC makes a story out of this. They love this kind of "airline rip off story". Why, they had a story on this sort of thing just today to do with another airlines student flight pass. It'll get picked up sooner or later. I can't wait to see how it's explained.

TTFN

Bright spark? CBC? First time I've heard those words used together.

[MD2]

(Some) people keep saying "AC's historic style of removing the competition from the marketplace".

It is debatable if this was the case even in the case of CCA because they folded within a year of competition coming to the marketplace. If they were that weak, they probably weren't going to survive anyway or the owner took the opportunity to run with cash while the getting was good to leave the debtholders in the lurch, as is so often the case in Canadian airline bankruptcies.

Does anyone have any proof that AC was undercutting CCA prices? Or is it all rhetoric?

I can't think of any case where Air Canada "wiped out" the competition, then pulled out. So I don't see where this "historic style" comes from. As a matter of fact, there is not a burger joint in the world that wouldn't prefer to have the joint down the street close down. So, if there is a historic style, it is just normal corporate governance in every segment of business.

And what happened at the island was not a pull out.... it was certainly a decline, but it's simplistic to think that this was a strategy formed by AC and not a reaction to the overall uncertainty of the survival of the airport and its facilities. The island airport and infrastructure and potential future was on and off like a light switch... tunnel, bridge, tunnel, bridge, tunnel. Work from a trailer... ok you can build a terminal... Oh we gave the terminal you built to another company. Finally, if anyone wiped out the competition it was undoubtedly the monopoly holder of the terminal by ensuring that there was nowhere for Air Canada to operate from.

And even if it were true that AC intended to wipe CCA off the face of the planet, it was almost 25 years ago, 6 Presidents ago and an entire corporate entity ago.

It's just time to stop the talk of "AC's historic style" of removing the competition from the marketplace. I would even suggest that there have been many more attacks on Air Canada's market at many airports and markets than the other way around, even from companies that are supposedly aligned with them.

inchman, based on this post (and some of your previous posts) respectfully my dear, you seem to have a revisionist approach toward Air Canada's corporate policy. You asked if it has been approved, I draw your attention not only to Canadian Airlines and many other airlines such as Roots Air, but also more pertinently City Express that was muscled out of business from the very Toronto City airport when Air Canada and its subsidiaries flood the market with capacity with predatory prices (meaning well below its cost), only to increase its prices substantially, and I mean substantially, after its bankruptcy, and also substantially, and again I mean substantially, reduce its service and frequency. Numbers speak for themselves and it is a matter of public record that at the peak of City Express 400,000 passengers went through Toronto's City airport, which was reduced to a meager 25,000 by Air Canada as service was reduced and cities were dropped to only leave 5 daily flights to Ottawa in 2006.

As well, it is a matter of public record and Angus Kinear, then CEO of Canada 3000 testified under oath, that on all city pairs served by it, Air Canada under the scheme of Tango, undercut C3's prices on a daily and weekly basis to the extent that even for Canada 3000, an airline with much lower cost than Air Canada, the flights were operated at a loss simply to sustain cash flow. You may also recall the findings of the competition Bureau that came with the order of "Cease & Desist" for Tango, but only one day too late for Canada 3000.

There are many other examples. It has long been the corporate policy of Air Canada to protect itself by attempting to eliminate choice for consumers, instead of trying to woo consumers by its product and its innovation. This has had grave consequences for consumers not only to be left without choice and stuck with high prices at times, but also indirectly forced to intervene and bail-out Air Canada financially in various ways using public funds. For instance, it is also a matter of public record that Air Canada only became a private company in 1988, but in the span of 13 years (to 2001) collected as many billions in debt due to its reckless corporate behaviour in the market by predatory pricing to undercut and eliminate its competitors, amassing a debt which I believe was more than 10% of Argentina's national debt at the time. An Argentina that almost collapsed at the time. This is quite ironic because the public not only had to endure severe fluctuations in prices because of Air Canada, pay high prices when competitors were bankrupt, but using their tax dollars also to bail-out the very company that was the source of turmoil in air transport. It is surprising that you have forgotten these, or perhaps wished them differently so much and so long, that you have believed them yourself!

As you suggest years may have passed since then, but there remains two questions. One, has justice been served with regards to Air Canada's corporate practices or those executives that lined their pockets in the process? Two, has a meaningful change taken place in the corporate behaviour of the company to warrant total trust?

[Thebean]

While Porter may be charging more than you’d like to see Bean, the traffic they attract isn’t being forced to use the service either. I’m with you in that I too believe competition to be a good thing for everyone involved for the most part, but if the public really wants it, their representatives in government can’t sit back and allow the big guys to use their size advantage, aka AC’s historical style, to remove competition from the marketplace.

So we base our economy on protecting the inefficient?

I seem to recall a small airline about 18 years ago who went head to head against any and all comers that didn't require any government protection. Low costs were the protection. It's not the consumers fault that Porter has chosen to go with a high cost model.

Would you be in favor of the gov't protecting a new automobile manufacturer that needed to charge $40k for a car others could profitably produce and sell in the market for $30k?

Hey MD, at least have the imagination to come up with your own analogy. I was using Iraqi's info minister to describe Porter's continues drivel long ago.

Ok. So you have a beef with Air Canada. I don't recall WestJet driving anyone out of market or out of business. What are you so afraid of? Listening to you, one would assume that WJ would run from YTZ with its tail between its legs if it every tried to operate a few flights a day from there. Why isn't Porter willing to open a can of whoop ass on WJ and give them the arse kicking you feel they so rightly deserve?

Um, err.. I think we all know why. Porter is all talk and no trousers.

Canada 3000 tried to gobble up CanJet and Royal prior to 9/11. Anyone with a brain knew they bit off more than they could chew. Add 9/11 to the mix and it blew up in their faces. To blame Air Canada for Canada 3000's foolish business decisions is pure revisionist history. Does it surprise you that AK, the architect of the dumb strategy complained afterwards it was all a big conspiracy?

[DEFCON]

I hear you Bean, but I don't think the equation is all that simple in aviation; a different approach to managing competition must be taken by the Regulator if competition is to be encouraged and maintained. Porter wouldn't have had a chance from the start if they had to go head to head with AC & WJ out of Pearson; hence the niche market and I think it looks good on Deluce et al for taking the chance. Left to their own devices, the big carrier always seems to want to kill off the small to protect its market share and avoid 'death-by-a-thousand-cuts' at the hand of many smaller upstarts as was the case with virtually all the legacy carriers post deregulation.

"Would you be in favor of the gov't protecting a new automobile manufacturer that needed to charge $40k for a car others could profitably produce and sell in the market for $30k?"

While maybe not a new competition situation, the one you've described above does actually look quite similar when comparing the price I paid for my locally produced auto to that demanded of the US consumer for the same vehicle.

[blues deville]

So we base our economy on protecting the inefficient?I seem to recall a small airline about 18 years ago who went head to head against any and all comers that didn't require any government protection. Low costs were the protection. It's not the consumers fault that Porter has chosen to go with a high cost model.Would you be in favor of the gov't protecting a new automobile manufacturer that needed to charge $40k for a car others could profitably produce and sell in the market for $30k?Hey MD, at least have the imagination to come up with your own analogy. I was using Iraqi's info minister to describe Porter's continues drivel long ago.Ok. So you have a beef with Air Canada. I don't recall WestJet driving anyone out of market or out of business. What are you so afraid of? Listening to you, one would assume that WJ would run from YTZ with its tail between its legs if it every tried to operate a few flights a day from there. Why isn't Porter willing to open a can of whoop ass on WJ and give them the arse kicking you feel they so rightly deserve?Um, err.. I think we all know why. Porter is all talk and no trousers.Canada 3000 tried to gobble up CanJet and Royal prior to 9/11. Anyone with a brain knew they bit off more than they could chew. Add 9/11 to the mix and it blew up in their faces. To blame Air Canada for Canada 3000's foolish business decisions is pure revisionist history. Does it surprise you that AK, the architect of the dumb strategy complained afterwards it was all a big conspiracy?

Let's be clear. When those risky business decisions were made, 9-11 was not a part of modern history. Take away that horrible day and things may have ended differently and you might not be making continual references to "some airline". It opened a big door for your group.

[Super 80]

Name any airport in a free market economy other than Ko Samui Airport, which is privately owned and was built by Bangkok Airways, where one airline dominates operations to the same degree Porter dominates YTZ and where that scenario will not change for the indefinite future. Just one will do.

As I have been pre-occupied with learning about helicopters and not paying much attention to anything else, could you please update the list of airlines that have applied for slots at YTZ and were declined?