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

[Super 80]

Huh?

The extent to which this involves Trudeau is that the Island Airport decision puts a great big asterisk beside "fact-based decision-making" that says "*unless we think Adam Vaughn is going to have a public temper-tantrum."

The issue that leaves me completely exasperated with this country goes back more than twenty years now. That any group, no matter how small, how misinformed or dishonest can wrap themselves in the banner of environmentalism or the social good and effectively gain a veto on every single issue.

[rudder]

There is a closed long term tripartite agreement containing terms of use of a piece of asphalt 4000' long on Toronto Island.

The only disappointment here is for those who thought that multilateral agreement could be pried open using a glossy PR campaign and some influential political connections.

AC tried to get relief from that agreement (slot allocation). They failed. Porter tried to get relief from that agreement (airport purpose). They failed.

Time to move on.

[DEFCON]

This is Canada and the ball is still in play. I think we'll see a commitment to extend the runway etc. made over the next three years; it'll be called an economic 'stimulus project'.

In the alternative, being Canada, it's just as likely to expect AC / WJ to commit to the C Series and gain Federal support in a backroom deal that'll kill the Island project.

[Super 80]

The issue that is going to bubble up again sooner rather than later that is going to require a discussion about the runway independently is the RESA requirement.

[boestar]

Why not put the whole thing to a Referendum for the people of Toronto. See what the PEOPLE want. Let the people make the decision.

[J.O.]

The issue that is going to bubble up again sooner rather than later that is going to require a discussion about the runway independently is the RESA requirement.

That's why there was such a full court press to get the agreement reopened and the expansion approved last year. The RESA requirement has only recently come into force with the new issue of TP312 (Airport Standards) and now any expansion will need to comply with the new rules, at significant additional cost over what was originally proposed.

[Super 80]

The proposal as it existed included RESA and the Port Authority discussed the RESA issue prior to the Porter proposal. I believe they said they required 50m of lake fill at each end to accomodate it.

[J.O.]

The current standard for RESA requires a minimum of 150 meters at each end. The only way around it now is to install an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) which must be proven to stop the "critical" aircraft exiting the runway at a speed of 70 kts without damaging the aircraft. The EMAS to stop a fully loaded C Series would probably need to be 75 to 100 meters long and would cost signficantly more than a straight run-off area of 150 meters.

[Super 80]

I believe that has been a design assumption from the very beginning. Olivia Chow began agitating on the issue well before Porter's C Series proposal.

My recollection is the position of the Port Authority was they could accommodate the requirement with an additional 50m of lake fill at each end of the runway.

[MD2]

Brian Iler,

Porter said then, as it says now that the approval should be based on the performance of the aircraft, then conditional on that premise, now based on the facts which have come out.

Your argument that "jets have always flown out of Pearson..." is flawed because you are basing your discrimination against jets on the stigma of the past that jets are noisy and unfriendly to the environment, neither of which are true in the case of new technology invested in the Canadian-built C series and no amount of fear-mongering and propaganda are going to change the facts.

And the fact is that there is no good reason to continue to ban the Canadian-built C series aircraft from Toronto City airport other than saying it has been like this in the past. Discriminate against the noise level, not the type of engine that makes it, and these "jet" engines are as quiet if not quieter than Q400s, period.

[MD2]

J.O. you are mistaken in your assumption on Porter. At the same time, old rules need to be revisited to conform with the developments and needs of the time, otherwise to continue on status quo simply because it is easier equals being stuck in the past. Progress belongs to those who challenge status quo by their innovation. To oppose them will deprive future generations of the benefits of their genius.

rudder, when you speak of "benevolence of others towards a corporation's business plan" perhaps you mistake it for another which has used it multiple times to save its skin during bankruptcy, pension shortfall, threat of strike and the likes, whereas Porter has used its own capital to bear the risk of its plans and reaped the benefits of its genius as well. The terminal building at Toronto City airport is but one example.

You have also said in the past that it was Porter's fault to approach the conservative government and they had bet on the wrong "horse" as if it was Porter that brought that government! You seem to also advocate for the government dictating its policy without a consultative process IF it is what you favor!

However, these are dangerous and slippery slopes; and chances are that any government, if it seeks to promote democracy, if it seeks to promote Canadian innovation and ingenuity, if it cares about creating jobs and growing the economy, and providing affordable choices to consumers owes it to its citizens and to itself to examine the facts, especially when it was initiated by the previous government that in spite of its majority did not dictate a policy rather engaged in a fact-based dialogue and a consultative process. To do otherwise is tantamount to a dictatorship.

[boestar]

Well let me tell you.I live directly under what would be the downwind leg for 05 at pearson. So I can say without a doubt that no matter what plane flies over head, it is noisy. It does not bother me and I have lived in the same area under the same flight path for over 40 years. But to say that these aircraft are "Quiet" is a misnomer. They may be quiet(er) but are by no means unintrusive.

No I am talking about a phase of flight that is relatively quiet. Final approach can be quiet or noisy depending on the conditions. Takeoff is the real issue I think for the island. Where Pearson is surrounded by Subdivisions, Building and Trees the island is surrounded by Water. There is nothing to dampen the sound. That could be very intrusive to the neighbours of the airport. I would agree that it is. On a cool summer night I could hear (not so much now as there are not many left) a 727 at takeoff power on the ground from my house. I live 26Km as the crow flies from the airport. How would that reverberate from the island even if it were Quiet(er)?

[boestar]

[J.O.]

J.O. you are mistaken in your assumption on Porter. At the same time, old rules need to be revisited to conform with the developments and needs of the time, otherwise to continue on status quo simply because it is easier equals being stuck in the past. Progress belongs to those who challenge status quo by their innovation. To oppose them will deprive future generations of the benefits of their genius.

You have misread what I said. I was responding to the statement which suggested that Porter "needs" the expansion to survive and that without Porter, BBD and the C Series is dead.

[MD2]

boestar,

What is your point exactly? We are talking about state of the art new innovation entirely new aircraft C series, little different than your old B727 analogy!

Secondly, when we talk about noise it is meant the existing limit, not some arbitrary level that you might consider noisy or quiet, we are talking about maintaining the EXISTING accepted noise level, regardless of the type of aircraft. The analogy would be similar to say acceptable blood alcohol level for driving, whatever it may be, it is based on "alcohol" not the agent that creates it meaning wine, as opposed to beer, etc.

Lastly, contrary to what you perceive, the flight path of both arrival and departures out of Toronto City airport pass over water substantially reducing noise. In fact, standing on the ferry docks, one is more likely to hear the ferry and street traffic, or even Pearson traffic than the Q400 (or C series) aircraft flying in and out of Toronto City airport.

And by the way, as noisy as it is around Pearson with its over 1 million neighbors, the NIMBYs of Toronto City airport, as few as they are in comparison, still want to have more traffic around Pearson airport and its neighbors and that you seem to condone, well that is good for you. However, you are wrong in certain assumptions that one most your neighbors do not share your sentiments and more importantly, your noise assumptions are factually wrong as mentioned above.

[MD2]

boestar, I see you have welcomed yourself to the list of "usual suspects", enjoy!

J.O. I understood your reference, and wanted to clarify that while it does not seem to be the case, at the same time as I said, to continue on status quo as a matter of course is contrary to progress and innovation.

[Lando Calrissian]

[dagger]

The Island Airport saga is complex, and involves local politics, the lack of transparency by the port authority, the noise and air pollution issues, the cost of expansion both on the island and off - as in any significant activity increase would require expansion of transit and road access, and who is paying for that? The CSeries is a side issue. If it's fate depends on Porter's order, it's time for Bombardier to fold the program and sell off the blueprints. Also, extending the runways doesn't necessarily guarantee the maintenance of existing turboprop operations, so the question should be asked whether some of Porter's better used regional services would be cast off to open up slots for jets flying longer routes. I find Porter convenient for what it does: I'm flying this week to Chicago on PD because Midway is closer to where I am doing business on Chicago's south side. But if I were flying to Los Angeles, I'd rather go through Pearson, which is easier for me to get to early in the morning. If I lose Midway access, I'd fly from YYZ.

[Guest]

You have to wonder, "what if"

1. will Porter retrench and concentrate only on it's turboprop operation which our experts believe is running at a loss?​

2. If that is correct, how long will they be be able to hang on?

For my part I hope they are running at a Profit and continue to supply service and employment.

[rudder]

However, these are dangerous and slippery slopes; and chances are that any government, if it seeks to promote democracy, if it seeks to promote Canadian innovation and ingenuity, if it cares about creating jobs and growing the economy, and providing affordable choices to consumers owes it to its citizens and to itself to examine the facts, especially when it was initiated by the previous government that in spite of its majority did not dictate a policy rather engaged in a fact-based dialogue and a consultative process. To do otherwise is tantamount to a dictatorship.

City Council may or may not continue to examine this issue. That consideration may be the only ammunition available for any party to attempt to perpetuate the dialogue on potentially modifying the tripartite agreement. I still fail to understand how it can be considered unethical to honour a signed agreement that is still in force. That agreement seemed to work fine for the airline when Porter was guaranteed over 90% of the slots at TCCA. Should we poll the citizens about more 'choice' at the TCCA?

I loved the speech about jobs, the economy, and Canadian innovation. It couldn't possibly be about lining the pockets of the Porter investors or ensuring that Terminal Corp will have a reliable and predictable revenue stream after having just shelled out $750 million?

The only 'dictatorship' that Canada has ever known was just deposed in a bloodless coup known as democracy. And it would appear that BBD can take care of itself without the racoon as its only saviour.

Sunny ways my friend, sunny ways

http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/bombardier-inc-in-talks-with-canadian-government-on-cseries-investment-ceo

[MD2]

Former CPAIR, how long does Air Canada have? Or any other airline for that matter? I would have thought after 10 years of foretelling immanent doom and gloom for Porter by the so called self-proclaimed "experts" of this site, they would have given-up on that mantra, but perhaps not. At any rate, Porter is quite possibly the only airline around that owns all its assets and has the strongest balance sheet, rest assured it is NOT going anywhere except higher and higher.

dagger, this process is as transparent as one could make it. Please don't fall for the usual incantations of the NIMBYs who are as few as they are loud. The studies have been going on really well, the C series aircraft albeit behind schedule has been performing really well and exceeding expectations, and soon (early 2016) all facts and reports will be presented back to city council who will be able to debate on it and make an informed decision. If the Liberal government wants to stifle a consultative process that has been ongoing for over two years and dictate a policy to appease Adam Vaughan, it can certainly do that, however, I doubt that will be the case and reason will prevail. The conservative government realized this was a local matter and left it at local level, and this government will be wise to the same. Enjoy your flight.

[MD2]

rudder, admittedly I am not as political and partisan as you seem to be. However, if what you claim about the previous government being "pro-Porter" is true, I must salute them for not dictating their preference on the matter and rather devolving it to the local level where the balk of the decision belongs. Not being partisan also makes it difficult to celebrate this Liberal government as the "return" of democracy or government, especially when the scandals surrounding the last one are still remembered. Being pragmatic I prefer to wait for actual results and progress. I am waiting for this government to honor its campaign promise of job creation when Porter plans create hundreds of direct jobs in the GTA and more indirect jobs in Quebec and in Downsview. I am waiting for this government to support Bombardier as a Canadian icon during this downturn caused mainly by lower oil prices. I am waiting for it to honor the wishes of Toronto City Council and allow its consultative process about City airport to unfold. I am waiting for it to also support industry in other parts of Canada including Alberta and its oil industry. When those things happen, I will celebrate and applaud those achievements as the real "sunny ways".

[Lakelad]

.
Liberals abandon ‘evidence-based policy’ in Toronto

Tue Nov 17, 2015 - Financial Post
Terence Corcoran

Way back when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet were sworn in, the feel-good promises of the day were clearly enunciated. Trudeau declared that “government by cabinet is back” and that the Liberals will make sure “open data and evidence-based policy is at the heart of policy-making.” Cabinet ministers, we were told, will have authority to make some of their own decisions free from the bossy control of the PMO and policy insiders.

Noble objectives, to be sure, but apparently not actually all that high on the political priority list last Thursday when the Trudeau government abruptly killed the idea of allowing smaller passenger jets to land at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. Permission to fly jets into the downtown island facility is being sought by Porter Airlines, which operates a successful business flying passengers to scores of destinations using propeller-driven aircraft.

Rejection of the Porter plan is a strike against the airline’s expansion plans. It also undermines the already doubtful future of Quebec-based Bombardier. Porter intended to launch its jet service at the airport with Bombardier’s C-Series aircraft that would, over the course of the order, be worth US2.4-billion.

It would appear, based on public information available, that the Trudeau government decision to essentially kill the Bombardier sale and deny Porter the right to fly jets into Billy Bishop failed to meet any of the four principles set out by Trudeau only two weeks ago.

1. Government by cabinet: Under the circumstances, it would have been impossible for the federal cabinet to have made the decision to deny the jet request. The announcement, such as it was, came from Marc Garneau, Trudeau’s new transport minister, in two 9 pm tweets last Thursday.

2. Open data: There is no data upon which the government could have made a decision.

3. Evidence-based: Three major studies/reports underway to assess the impact of the jets on Toronto are in preparation and are expected sometime in the New Year. So there is no real evidence upon which the decision would have been based.

4. No more diktats from the PMO: If the Prime Minister’s Office did not make the decision on Porter’s request, then the question is who made the decision and why?

The route to the alleged decision against jets at Toronto’s airport took a bizarre path last Thursday when Garneau, just out of a cabinet meeting, was asked about the issue and how he would respond to the views of Adam Vaughan, newly elected Toronto Liberal MP and a strident opponent of the expanding the airport. “What I am doing at the moment,” said Garneau very clearly and forcefully, “is examining all of the factors that are involved. This is a complex issue and one that’s been going on for a number of years. I’m certainly aware of the letter from Mr. Vaughan and I take it seriously.”

That comment, delivered in a scrum following a meeting of cabinet, came around 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. in Ottawa. The “letter from Mr. Vaughan” is apparently a reference to a letter initiated by Vaughan and signed last June by a number of Toronto-area Liberal candidates, including Chrystia Freeland. The letter deals with other Toronto waterfront issues, but also contains a commitment “not to reopen the Tripartite Agreement.” That sentence, in local municipal political circles, translates into a commitment not to change an earlier decision to ban jets at the airport.

'Now, the trouble comes from the fact that this is not a formal Liberal Party platform promise.'

.

[Super 80]

So I talked to some people today and by the sounds of it the "new policy" begins and ends with the "tweets" and no actionable direction has been given to either the TPA or TC on the matter and nothing has been officially communicated to the City of Toronto either.

So as of yet, nothing has actaully happened and work continues.

[MD2]

To do otherwise would be tantamount to stifling a democratic consultative process which started over two years ago. It would only be prudent for the federal government to allow the process to unfold at the city level first as it should.

This only points out that the intentions of a certain MP was just that: stifle real discussions based on facts and studies. Why else would he try to stop a process that the city council unanimously adopted, a council in which he himself was a member! Clearly his intention back then to vote for the studies was NOT the discovery of the truth on the matter rather delaying the process. Now that he perceives himself in a position of power, he wants to stop it altogether without even finishing the discussions on the facts and findings! Not very nice!