Jump to content

Oh oh....maybe the Liberals are serious about no expansion


anonymous
 Share

Recommended Posts

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)/Passenger

Car = (1.64Kg/h)/passenger

This is on a leg equivalent to YYZ-YUL. Values are approximate.

The car still seems to be the more environmentall choice.

Just catching up and reading through this thread.... sorry for the late reply. The Q400 burns 6x more fuel per hour per passenger, but also goes about 6x faster. So, total burn per passenger is about the same, provided both vehicles are full. We know that most cars go about 1/4 full and airplanes go about 3/4 full, so the aircraft is WAY more environmentally friendly. In addition, the airplane can go back and forth on 6 legs a day and last for 20 years. The car will last maybe 10 years, but you need at least 30 cars per day to fly just one turn ... 2 legs... 90 cars to transport the same number of people back and forth as 6 legs on a Q400. You need to scrap 90 cars just on age every 10 years, vs 1/2 of an airplane. And all of those cars would have to go back and forth every day... (no time for a meeting... just driving), each of those 90 cars would put on 1000 km per day... I'll let you do the math and decide if those cars would really last 10 years.

If all of the people who flew YYZ- YUL every day (one-way, all carriers) ... say 3000, drove 2 per car, it would put 1500 more cars on the road... given the busy-ness of the 401 now, that would require an extra lane in each direction, at minimum, at least in many spots. What is the fuel usage and attendant greenhouse gases would it take to build a lane of a highway?... all that heavy equipment... how much environmental damage is caused by the gravel pits and all of the mud and spilled fuel, tar wash and hydraulic fluid washing into the streams around the highway? How many of those half million people would die or be injured in traffic accidents? How much would it cost at $US3-5 million per mile?

Similar questions would have to be asked if those people took the train. Current track stock could not handle an extra 3000 people per day in each direction, so there would be a tonne of construction required (but the extra rolling stock required would be good for Canadian transportation builders... Bombardier!!!) . And diesel train engines generate NO2 gases, which are 400 times worse than CO2 with respect to greenhouse effects and also convert to acid rain. (Diesels generate lower quantities of NO2 per seat than aircraft generate CO2 but the net effect of diesel is 11 times the greenhouse effect per seat.)

Despite the enormous amount of fuel we use on a daily basis, aviation is one of the most efficient and environmentally friendly forms of transportation.

Don't let anyone tell you any different.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a "zombie" company that has negative working capital and no clear ability to create value for investors.

It's where a great deal of the anger toward it has come - that it has failed in spite of tremendous exemption and distracted attention from more successful enterprises. And yet it still wants to keep on its training wheels, hand out like Oliver Twist.

It's also why there has been more than a whiff of desperation attached to its expansion plans.

Merry Christmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amusing how a handful of "usual suspects" who as they admit have "a great deal of anger toward Porter" agree with one another to keep predicting imminent doom and gloom for Porter, as they have been for the past years! Honestly, stop worrying about Porter's investors and enjoy the holiday season, and Merry Christmas to you too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amusing how a handful of "usual suspects" who as they admit have "a great deal of anger toward Porter" agree with one another to keep predicting imminent doom and gloom for Porter, as they have been for the past years! Honestly, stop worrying about Porter's investors and enjoy the holiday season, and Merry Christmas to you too!

Hang in there MD2, Merry Christmas and a prosperous NewYear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhetorical conceit is what lost the expansion fight, in the absence of fact.

But I don't have to say anything. Seven pax on a flight speaks for itself. No IPO five years later speaks for itself. And when no one is even talking about the company good or bad (as we're seeing lately), then you really know the goose is cooked.

Anger? Please. Government just told an old rich man no, for once in like ever. That is exhilarating. A true Christmas miracle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not the one who hitched dreams of expansion to a firecracker of an issue in a political climate that has grown more and more uncertain since it was hatched. I understand partisan politics here quite clearly; the expansion proponents seem horrified that the party in power makes the rules, after theirs did it for nearly a decade. That is not naivete, it's ignorance.

McQueen saw the writing on the wall. Why do you think he walked in August?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I presume 'McQueen' worked for Porter? I'm sorry, but I know next to nothing of the guts of the operation.

I'm just the kind of person that appreciates aviation, the positive influence of competition and the really great service Porter provides.

All in all, I look at Porter as the little airline that so many said could never be. The carrier has endured constant assaults from many directions, often simultaneously and yet, all these years later Porter remains solidly entrenched in the game in spite of all the expert predictions to the contrary?

Today's Ministerial absolute no is tomorrows maybe and next month's let's do some noise testing at the Island and see what we have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some put too much emotions into such deliberations and depend way too much on what they perceive as "partisan politics" but business, finance and economy are much larger and have to do with numbers. Governments, once in power, see the need to create jobs, grow the economy and support local companies, so they eventually will, especially if it's for such a great product, then it is a win-win situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RESA issue is going to necessitate an adults-only conversation about the runway at YTZ. I don't foresee Transport entertaining local eccentrics on the issue or any sane politician opining on runway standards. The TPA will simply be ordered to comply with the requirement. Ironically the anti-airport clowns were musing about a "Transport Canada made us do it" runway extension strategy even before Porter made their C Series proposal when Olivia Chow attempted and failed to make an issue of the looming RESA requirement. I believe no later than 2011 the TPA stated they would require a minimum of 50m of fill on each end of the runway to comply.

That doesn't get jets in there any time soon, but when the issue is revisited the scope of the project will be much smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RESA issue is going to necessitate an adults-only conversation about the runway at YTZ. I don't foresee Transport entertaining local eccentrics on the issue or any sane politician opining on runway standards. The TPA will simply be ordered to comply with the requirement. Ironically the anti-airport clowns were musing about a "Transport Canada made us do it" runway extension strategy even before Porter made their C Series proposal when Olivia Chow attempted and failed to make an issue of the looming RESA requirement. I believe no later than 2011 the TPA stated they would require a minimum of 50m of fill on each end of the runway to comply.

That doesn't get jets in there any time soon, but when the issue is revisited the scope of the project will be much smaller.

There is an alternative for RESA compliance that does not require a runway extension - an extension which would be exceptionally difficult to get approval for in the highly politicized environment the Island Airport operates in.

One of the organizations that fought the jets issue has published this analysis: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B86yxyGd4xMWZl9QV0lYNTVQYUk/view

It concludes:

The coming Transport Canada RESA requirement at BBTCA can be met without lake filling, in three ways:

• Reducing Declared Runway Distances: should be assessed as to cost and operational effect.

• Implementing EMASes: should be assessed as to technical feasibility, cost, and operational effect.

• Taxiway Redesign: is the best option, as it almost certainly provides the most cost effective RESA implementation (other than Reducing Declared Runway Distances) without compromising runway length, and without requiring amendment of the Tripartite Agreement. Its technical feasibility matches that of the design already offered in the “200m+200m expanded runways” design.

Lake Filling to Implement RESAs should be discarded as an option on the grounds of costs of lake filling and Tripartite Agreement non-compliance.

The emphasis currently given by PortsToronto to Lake Filling to Implement RESAs suggests that RESA implementation options are either

1) not fully thought out, or

2) are presenting lake filling as a fait accompli to reduce opposition to the full lake filling proposal advanced by Porter Airlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some put too much emotions into such deliberations and depend way too much on what they perceive as "partisan politics" but business, finance and economy are much larger and have to do with numbers. Governments, once in power, see the need to create jobs, grow the economy and support local companies, so they eventually will, especially if it's for such a great product, then it is a win-win situation.

There's a disconnect here.

Porter fans always point to their supposed great service.

But I see, now, one hundred pages, with dozens per page, of tweets to Porter by its unhappy customers, found at a website titled "Porter Fail - Documenting customer satisfaction with Porter Airlines"

Check it out, at https://porterfail.wordpress.com/satisfaction-stories/satisfaction-stories-51-100/satisfaction-stories-91-100/portersatisfaction100/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an alternative for RESA compliance that does not require a runway extension - an extension which would be exceptionally difficult to get approval for in the highly politicized environment the Island Airport operates in.

One of the organizations that fought the jets issue has published this analysis: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B86yxyGd4xMWZl9QV0lYNTVQYUk/view

It concludes:

The coming Transport Canada RESA requirement at BBTCA can be met without lake filling, in three ways:

• Reducing Declared Runway Distances: should be assessed as to cost and operational effect.

• Implementing EMASes: should be assessed as to technical feasibility, cost, and operational effect.

• Taxiway Redesign: is the best option, as it almost certainly provides the most cost effective RESA implementation (other than Reducing Declared Runway Distances) without compromising runway length, and without requiring amendment of the Tripartite Agreement. Its technical feasibility matches that of the design already offered in the “200m+200m expanded runways” design.

Lake Filling to Implement RESAs should be discarded as an option on the grounds of costs of lake filling and Tripartite Agreement non-compliance.

The emphasis currently given by PortsToronto to Lake Filling to Implement RESAs suggests that RESA implementation options are either

1) not fully thought out, or

2) are presenting lake filling as a fait accompli to reduce opposition to the full lake filling proposal advanced by Porter Airlines.

This will only be as difficult as Transport allows it to be. I don't think you will find a terribly receptive audience in the Aerodrome Standards Section.

And that report doesn't make any sense to me. I certainly can't reconcile their taxiway suggestion to this:

(2) The Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices recommends that a RESA be provided at each end of a runway strip where the code number is 3 or 4 and that it extend from the end of a runway strip for as great a distance as practicable, but at least 90 metres. The runway strip ends 60 metres from the runway end. The RESA begins at the end of the runway strip which results in the RESA ending 150 metres from the runway end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the tweets Brian.

Wouldn't let us off due to lightning - Porters fault?

Wouldn't let us off- no Customs agent - Porters fault?

Engine run shakes condo windows. Really big engines or really cheap windows.

Pilot flew thru lightning???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Porter has provided a AVIATION WEEK a glimpse into their crystal ball of PLAN B now that Porters been shut down on the jets issue at YTZ

The article:

http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/after-setback-porter-airlines-mulls-strategy-change


A spirited discussion on the topic can be found here:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6600675/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The C - Series is a beautiful and capable aircraft. The Federal Government of Canada ought to get squarely behind this machine, promote its excellence and avoid risking its falling into the dustbin of history behind its once equally advanced cousin, the Avro Arrow.

"there are indications at least one U.S. carrier is looking for a stake at the airport, and might even be willing to challenge Porter’s dominance there as a violation of the Canada-U.S. Open Skies agreement that guarantees reciprocal two-country airport access"

Star Alliance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every US airline that has ever applied for slots at YTZ was granted them (US Airways and Continental), none commenced service and none intended to commence service. Air Canada told the US airlines they could use Porter to re-fight the Elysair precedent at the DOT and like every other strategy Air Canada employed it failed miserably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DEFCON,

Indeed the C series aircraft is great in many aspects and if there is a US carrier that MAY be interested in the C series aircraft, there is one CANADIAN carrier that for sure is interested and committed to this CANADIAN aircraft and has put money on it for some time and wants to showcase its urban operations capabilities from CANADA's largest city! What better way to support and promote this great Canadian aircraft than showcasing it from a great Canadian urban airport?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DEFCON,

Indeed the C series aircraft is great in many aspects and if there is a US carrier that MAY be interested in the C series aircraft, there is one CANADIAN carrier that for sure is interested and committed to this CANADIAN aircraft and has put money on it for some time and wants to showcase its urban operations capabilities from CANADA's largest city! What better way to support and promote this great Canadian aircraft than showcasing it from a great Canadian urban airport?

Great airport, perhaps but def. a good souce of employment for all concerned with the Island airport including of course the Porter Employees. You have to wonder if the NIMBYs get their way and drive Porter out, how many folks would become unemployed other than those who are directly working for Porter? Has anyone seen any numbers, other than those generated by Porter, that talk to the economic impact of the present operations at the Island airport?

Also to be fair we would need to know the same for those objecting to Porter and the net impact if they moved away.

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...