Guest Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 How would Garneau and the Liberals know about the wish of the Torontonians if they don't allow their city council to exercise its democratic process and examine the studies that it ordered? Perfect example of "Daddy knows best" governance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share Posted November 27, 2015 I guess PAH equity partners must be thinking about their exit strategy now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Re, "Aren't the libs the party who was going to look after the average middle class and families? Are they instead singling out "higher class citizens" for special consideration?"Ahem; smiley or no, F.CPAIR, I have seen the stretching of a point many times, but this one is about to snap loudly!Not every whisper of the winds of change is a conspiracy or a failure of integrity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 This does not bode well for Porter. Their business model has now, for all intents and purposes, plateaued. They could not successfully launch an IPO when they owned that terminal. They stopped reporting their load factors. No more meaningful revenue growth opportunities. Meanwhile, costs to operate can only move up on an aging fleet. Staff will not see much growth opportunities ahead, while AIr Canada and Westjet have growth in their immediate future. Can expect a slow exodus of Porter employees towards the aforementioned airlines. Not pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 ai, speculate much?! I have a bit of land in the bush that is going to be prime land very soon, interested to buy it?!Seriously though, the process is the federal government's to kill if they want, sure! But let's remember that this is a process that was started for the "Torontonians" by their elected City Council. Seems logical that city council is the place to deliberate on city issues that concern Torontonians not handed down by the federal government. The previous government had the sense to devolve the issue to city council where it belongs; in due time this government will too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Re, "Aren't the libs the party who was going to look after the average middle class and families? Are they instead singling out "higher class citizens" for special consideration?"Ahem; smiley or no, F.CPAIR, I have seen the stretching of a point many times, but this one is about to snap loudly!Not every whisper of the winds of change is a conspiracy or a failure of integrity... Don: and not every one isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 What a pile of manure. That whole lakefront area of downtown is now filled with young couples/singles/dogs and folk my daughter's age... including my daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Never been one to speculate. Serious though, what more meaningful, I did say meaningful, growth opportunities are there for Portwr with its existing fleet? Unless I am mistaken, perhaps is the case, I believe the process was launched as a result of Porter launching this idea unbeknownst to even the TPA (now Ports Toronto). A process truly stemming from the citizens of Toronto would have been launched by them and not Porter. I if my memory is indeed serving me well then it is fairy disingenuous of Porter to advocate letting the citizens be afforded the process seeing its course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous Posted November 28, 2015 Author Share Posted November 28, 2015 But let's remember that this is a process that was started for the "Torontonians" by their elected City Council.Ah......no. This was started by Bob Deluce, hoping to coerce Toronto City Hall into changing their mind about CYTZ.....To support a business plan that was rapidly stalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I guess I'm not the only one to recall the process being started by Mr. Deluce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 What a pile of manure. That whole lakefront area of downtown is now filled with young couples/singles/dogs and folk my daughter's age... including my daughter.No kids just a dog, I guess then the position put forth re raising kids by the Viking was scurrilous ? Mitch, we are not talking about the whole lakefront just the area that would be adversely effected by an airport expansion. Does your daughter live in the very expensive high-rises in that area or not? Is she against the airport expansion? I would have thought you would be a supporter of the industry but perhaps that is not what paid your bills nor garnered your loyalty. However unlike me you have a pony in the race. For my part I grew tired of the special interest groups who moved in around an existing airport and then demanded their rights. But since I don't have a pony in the race I will back off. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lando Calrissian Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Lot of lies being told on this thread, already.But not surprising.Ports Toronto reform is next. Don't change that bat channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 affected properties would run from the don river and beyond to the west and beyond Leslie to the east. thats the whole waterfront... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 hmmm, for being "indifferent" some certainly spend a lot of time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Several topics merged all on Porter and Island Airport. I thought it might make the various interchanges easier to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Why would anyone take the word of any politician as being final? History says, it would be wise to place your bets on jets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Mitch, we are not talking about the whole lakefront just the area that would be adversely effected by an airport expansion. Does your daughter live in the very expensive high-rises in that area or not? Is she against the airport expansion? I would have thought you would be a supporter of the industry but perhaps that is not what paid your bills nor garnered your loyalty. Yes Malcolm, she lives very close. I support no industry as useless, wasteful and filthy as most commercial aviation is. People shouldn't fly. It's an inherently dangerous activity and one of the worst contributors to global warming. I love airplanes. ...but I despise commercial air travel for such useless purposes as has become common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 How is aviation so "dangerous" when statistically speaking it doesn't even compare for instance with driving which is a much bigger killer? And how is aviation a "worst contributor to global warming"? These are surely big claims and very eye-catching and sensational, especially for the anti-aviation crowd, but not founded in facts at all. Then again facts are not fantastic enough at times it seems! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Since it is no secret as to who I am, as a couple of posters always identify me by name, I asked the moderator to change my "Display Name" Cheers Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Since it is no secret as to who I am, as a couple of posters always identify me by name, I asked the moderator to change my "Display Name" Cheers MalcolmI think most of knew who you were about three posts in as former CPair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 I think most of knew who you were about three posts in as former CPair!Fair enough but perhaps you can identify who is posting as Mitch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lando Calrissian Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 So when do Larry Tanenbaum and friends back out of their investments? That new Lamborghini isn't going to pay for itself.No one invests in anything with a view to having no liquidity for nearly a decade.Maybe Mr. Deluce can give them each an oatmeal cookie and a Steamwhistle from the Porter lounge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briler Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 And how is aviation a "worst contributor to global warming"? These are surely big claims and very eye-catching and sensational, especially for the anti-aviation crowd, but not founded in facts at all. Then again facts are not fantastic enough at times it seems!MD2 - is it that you are naive, or just haven't been paying attention?Aviation's growing contribution to climate change has been increasingly noted and criticized in Europe.But certainly underlying the recent refusal of permission to expand the Island Airport was the sense that investing in fossil-fuel-intensive airports (like pipelines) is not indicated if we are to significantly reduce fossil-fuel emissions, as we must. The ICAO has been foot-dragging on this for years.Here's an excerpt from the Pickering anti-airport group Land over Landing's recent Submission, that nicely outlines the issue:Civil aviation’s carbon footprint is rapidly growing.The sector is responsible for 2 – 2.5 per cent of total global CO2 emissions.[47] It also has the dubious distinction of producing contrails, whose impact on theclimate is now thought to be even greater than that of CO2 emissions.And in 2010, it was estimated that without policy intervention, aviation emissions of CO2 would increase by between 1.9-fold and 4.5-fold by the year 2050.In response, the United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) obtained an agreement to develop rules by the end of 2016 to makecivil aviation carbon-neutral from 2020 onwards, through the implementation of three major mechanisms:• renewable biofuel use,• aviation technology improvements (aerodynamics, engines, etc.), and• “market based measures,” such as airfares.The research of Manchester University’s Prof. D.S. Lee et al. claims that the fuel and technology contributions will be so small by 2020 that airfares will have to increase until demand is flattened to meet the carbon neutral goal.The world’s jets rely on fossil fuels, burning through some 5 million barrels every day.Attempts to develop alternative fuels (from sources as varied as corn, Jatropha, Camelina, algae, wood pellets, used cooking oil, and most recently, halophytes) show promise but face hurdles:• So far, no one has been able to produce any of these alternative fuels in commercial quantities. Last year, Boeing’s Sustainable Biofuel Strategy Director, Darrin Morgan, commented that “It would be a significant milestone if we can get biofuels to one per cent of the total jet fueldemand.” The milestone may since have been reached, but that leaves 99 per cent to go, and the clock is ticking.• Certain biojetfuels can be used only as a percentage of the overall fuel used. Any higher percentage would require re-engineered jet engines or retrofitting.• Large areas of foodland are being taken out of production to grow feedstock for biofuels, and governments are starting to wake up to the fact that this situation can’t continue.Can the production of certain biojetfuels be geared up to commercial levels? How will the price of oil change in the future? How will biojetfuel be priced? How will CO2 emissions be priced or regulated? How will other jet emissions that cause the GHG effect be regulated?At some point, the world’s need to cut GHG emissions will draw the aviation industry into its crosshairs. Will the industry lose its subsidies? Be forced to charge the true cost of flying? Face tight restrictions and limitations on everything but essential travel and freight? Who knows? In a world in climate crisis, nothing will be business as usual.During the 2008–2009 global financial crisis, we learned the hard way that “too big to fail” was no ironclad protection against failure. Will the next (if a little unwieldy) rallying cry be: “too important to restrict, even if it jeopardizes our future survival”?Whatever the future holds for aviation, the sector (and its airports) will be unable to count on growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.