MD2 Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Brian, how did those many world leaders and their entourage GET to Paris for their conference on climate control?Aviation is not the evil you portray. And that is why we don't have smog across the globe, but in places like Beijing. Check your facts before throwing punches mainly because people on this site may know a thing or two about aviation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 TORONTO STAR..TODAY 08 DECEMBER 2015Porter Airlines’ push to bring jet service to an expanded Toronto island airport is officially dead.PortsToronto, the federal port authority, said in a statement that it has halted work on an environmental assessment and two studies that were requested by city council in April 2014.“PortsToronto will complete the technical work currently underway, but will not proceed with further public engagement-related activities pertaining to the Porter Proposal to introduce jets,” said the statement from the agency’s chief executive Geoffrey Wilson.“As such, the studies will not be finished. PortsToronto will make data and information gathered to date available to the City of Toronto and stakeholders that may be helpful to the Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Plan currently being led by the City of Toronto.”Porter launched its controversial expansion proposal in April 2013.The runway would have been expanded 550 metres into what is now harbour. Installations of “jet blast deflectors” were also proposed as part of a bigger Billy Bishop airport forecast to see 5.5 million passengers a year, up from 2 million.In late November federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau seemed to definitively kill the proposal for jets when he said the government would not renegotiate an airport agreement among the City of Toronto, Ports Toronto and the federal government.But the port authority said at the time that, absent any specific direction from the federal Trudeau government, it was putting finishing touches on the studies for delivery to city council in early 2016.The ongoing studies were seized on as a source of hope by Councillor Jim Karygiannis and others who want to keep alive Porter’s dream of offering Bombardier CSeries jet service to destinations — including Miami and Los Angeles — not currently reachable via direct flights by Porter’s Bombardier Q400 turboprop planes.In September, Bombardier hosted more than a half-dozen Toronto councillors for a private tour of the new “whisper” jet.Councillor Joe Cressy, who represents the downtown ward that includes the airport, and was not on that tour, welcomed news that the studies will not be completed.Traffic chaos, particularly around the airport at the foot of Bathurst St., saw Cressy’s predecessor Adam Vaughan, now the area’s Liberal MP, spar for years with the port authority, which is still primarily governed by Conservative appointees.Cressy said there have been than 50 meetings in the past year about the Bathurst Quay plan to improve “public realm” and park space, and enhance community services including a new aquatic centre.PortsToronto said in its statement that it plans “to work collaboratively with the City of Toronto and waterfront stakeholders to ensure that the airport strikes an appropriate balance along the waterfront while continuing to offer a vital gateway for travellers.”The agency said it wants to work with the federal and city governments “to ensure a vibrant mixed-use waterfront community.”The federal government has signalled it intends to “reform” the Port Authority — which owns and maintains the island airport, the port of Toronto and the outer harbour marina, but no plans have yet been revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lando Calrissian Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 That means it's all over but the screaming. Better luck next time.(Of course, the questions went unanswered. The answers given not acceptable. Peace.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakelad Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 That means it's all over but the screaming.Looks like it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAS Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 REmember the old days when FRONT ST was on the water front? Everything south of that is man made anyway. Wetlands never existed in the area at least once the city showed up.So his condo is on land fill? But don't you dare dump dirt to extend a runway. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 No no no. We are going to beat this dead horse to a mush... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 There is another election in 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 But by then we may not be able to afford the cost of another election.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 There is another election in 4 years.I don't think you're going to have to wait that long, the RESA issue is probably going to be no less a freak show than this process was with the anti-YTZ forces demanding that the unsafe airport be closed and blah, blah, blah. Of-course I don't think that is a likely outcome and all that is required is an order in council directing the Toronto Port Authority to comply with the new standards. Should be marginally amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAS Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 How about instead if installing the "soft" concrete style RESA they just extend both ends of the runway a sufficient distance to achieve the overrun required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudder Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I wonder if the corporate barons that cannot seem to understand that the issue of YTZ expansion is dead finally get it? Probably not. Still waiting for the next round of whining and assertions that those that are duly elected "don't get it". YTZ was never intended to be a mini-Pearson.Time to focus on figuring out how to make a profit with existing airport infrastructure (which is pretty phenomenal and seemingly well suited for Q400 operators) or perhaps grow a pair and actually buy C-series to be operated anywhere in Canada, except YTZ.I predict no Porter C-series purchase because level playing fields are not nearly as attractive as quasi-monopolies. If the Port Authority is in fact dismantled or reinvented through new appointees by the new Federal government, I wonder what impact that may have on the slot allocation policy at YTZ?Looks like the money spent on advertising to influence public (and elected) opinion was money that could have been better spent because it affected absolutely nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briler Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Brian, how did those many world leaders and their entourage GET to Paris for their conference on climate control?Aviation is not the evil you portray. And that is why we don't have smog across the globe, but in places like Beijing. Check your facts before throwing punches mainly because people on this site may know a thing or two about aviation. We'll always have aviation. But less of it. Likely much less, if we listen to the scientists.You are confusing pollutants that cause smog and greenhouse gasses, that cause global warming.While nitrous oxide and other pollutants cause smog, the more dire concern is the burning of fossil fuels to emit carbon dioxide, that is not visible, but is causing the global warming that scientists are so concerned about. The "forcing" effect of emissions at high altitudes by aircraft greatly magnifies the impact of their emissions on climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I just did some quick math and it looks like I was wrong so deleted the post.A Full Q400 (74 seats) vs a Honda Civic (4 occupants)Q400 = (11Kg/h)/PassengerCar = (1.64Kg/h)/passengerThis is on a leg equivalent to YYZ-YUL. Values are approximate.The car still seems to be the more environmentall choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briler Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 And if you fly only 60% full, as Porter does according to the available data, the carbon emissions almost double. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 But still less than a car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briler Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 But still less than a carHow is 11 less than 1.64, using your numbers? Here's a chart that sets it out clearly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Typo. Should say plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I hear Mr. Garneau had a not so friendly encounter with some of his fellow Liberal MP's at the C Series certification festivities last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudder Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I hear Mr. Garneau had a not so friendly encounter with some of his fellow Liberal MP's at the C Series certification festivities last week.Unless they are cabinet ministers I am guessing that neither MG nor the PMO are losing sleep over it.There is a bigger picture for the government that is not centred on the wants of MP's from Quebec with ties to BBD, or others that are fans of boutique airlines. BBD is telling everybody (in the investment community) that they are OK (solvent) and that the skies are clearing. Lets wait and see (which is probably what the Federal government is also doing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingwarrior Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 A few of us has been asking for a while what is Porters plan B if the jets scheme doesn't work out.....now it's a little more formal. http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/porter-airlines-ambitions-fade-at-billy-bishop-airport-time-of-the-essence-to-deliver-new-strategy-258495 Air Canada and WestJet with their increased service offerings are eating Porters lunch...our racoon friend does look a little more anemic lately... If the hope of significant increased business from Melbourne and/or maybe Muskoka is going to fill the coffers to keep the lights on....well, no comment I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudder Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 I wonder who suggested putting the airline up for sale several months ago......It is either that or suck it up - buy the C series - then try to compete in the unregulated airport environment in Canada. Not sure were the funds would come from to sponsor that particular adventure.I would go the 'for sale' route and let the investors get back their principal. However, the terms of the lease agreement between Porter and TerminalCo may not be acceptable to potential buyers who will no doubt shrink the YTZ operation. And the airline itself has no intrinsic value other than the slot rights at YTZ. So what is it really worth (unless a lot of debt on the Q400 fleet has been retired)?Everybody is watching and waiting. Without the never ending 'jets at YTZ' diatribe there really is not much in the news about Porter. Cute little airline. Thats it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Why do airlines need to grow themselves into bankruptcy? If that really is the case in practice, the business model is poorly designed and unstable, no matter the entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingwarrior Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I wonder who suggested putting the airline up for sale several months ago...... It is either that or suck it up - buy the C series - then try to compete in the unregulated airport environment in Canada. Not sure were the funds would come from to sponsor that particular adventure. I would go the 'for sale' route and let the investors get back their principal. However, the terms of the lease agreement between Porter and TerminalCo may not be acceptable to potential buyers who will no doubt shrink the YTZ operation. And the airline itself has no intrinsic value other than the slot rights at YTZ. So what is it really worth (unless a lot of debt on the Q400 fleet has been retired)? Everybody is watching and waiting. Without the never ending 'jets at YTZ' diatribe there really is not much in the news about Porter. Cute little airline. Thats it. Rudder, you are right and I have felt it's time for our furry friends to be kicked out of the Billy Bishop nest nurtured by the Port Authority and Conservative government for 10 past years-its time to grow up now and compete in the real world without the support of the protected monopoly at the exclusion of other competitors at this publically subsidized facility. Porter doesn't have to leave at all...I just won't be buying a ticket not knowing whether when the next payroll might be met and the ticket honored...others likely feel the same. Lots of red flags all along...the aborted IPO that was so easy to spot that it would never get off the ground even with a huge syndicate behind the launch and silence of the Bay St lambs(analysts) The discontinuance of published load factor reports-if light bulbs didn't go off here well then some may have been asleep at the switch. The ridiculous notion that a tunnel was going to be built for a few more dollars than a bridge a decade later....final cost was double the original dollar amount put out by the TPA-On top of that this structure has seriously maxed the current AIF fee. I bet off the top it would come in close to $100 million based on other structures built Finally, the sale of the terminal for a rumoured 12 times to 13 times acquisition cost-only the naïve will really believe that $700 million or so was delivered to Porters coffers...the rent has been jacked up handsomely yet there will be no extended runways (a value criteria) and extension of the Tripartite agreement (other value criteria) that would allow for someone to pay up for the parcel of real estate. You don't pay full price on a property when only 1 out of 3 value factors gets delivered. Porter if lucky may received half of the rumoured amount and it is well known in certain circles that debt had to be paid off to Ex Dev ($350 million plus)leaving little in the coffers. Fully paid for Q400's are great but as the article mentioned there is no focus and it seems like Porter is twisting in the wind. Don't get me wrong, I don't want them to go under as we do need more competition in Canada. It is just that all the marbles have been placed downtown and ironically there may be a parallel with Bombardier....they let their competitors one up them by quickly putting out revamped planes and sold the heck out of them...the same may be true with Porter. Both AC and WJ are eating Porters lunch as all the marbles were bet on a too small hub without connecting traffic (well what do you think happens when Porter had 100% of slots for like 5 years)...both of these competitors moved quickly to capture low hanging fruit with similar planes and expanded their destinations. The options seems to be expanded turbo prop service at Billy Bishop with more political headwinds (and they haven't that successful there-there are little growth opportunities) or acquire the CS100 and fly from Pearson or Hamilton... Load factors likely still in the fifties on average-you know things can't be too great with only 7 pax on a recent trip from BOS Tick tock.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Maybe Porter could relocate to Downsview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudder Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Finally, the sale of the terminal for a rumoured 12 times to 13 times acquisition cost-only the naïve will really believe that $700 million or so was delivered to Porters coffers...the rent has been jacked up handsomely yet there will be no extended runways (a value criteria) and extension of the Tripartite agreement (other value criteria) that would allow for someone to pay up for the parcel of real estate. You don't pay full price on a property when only 1 out of 3 value factors gets delivered.Agreed. You pay me $700 million now and I agree to pay $70 million/yr in rent for 15 years........ it is nothing more than a de facto loan.The devil is always in the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.