blues deville Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 12 hours ago, seeker said: The C does not need to fly from YTZ to show it's strengths. Agreed. However, the 737-200 didn't just need to fly out of YYZ. Boeing added a gravel kit and they were pretty impressive at places like Resolute Bay, Hall Beach and some other romantic destinations. I think showcasing the CSeries at YTZ would be a huge deal. Operating out of YUL, YYZ, YVR will be good for AC too but the airplane will just blend into the rest of the AC fleet. The only ones who will really see its benefits will be the AC accountants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.k. Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Nice shot blues... I always liked this one of Boeing showcasing the 737s capabilities in Hope BC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 The Truckasaurus Rex....the last real "pilot handling" transport aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specs Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Something that bothers me about the C Series is that the thing is designed a bit like the 787 in that it needs a lot of IT support to be flown and managed well, e.g. the HMS. Smaller operators won't have that infrastructure and the costs and overhead associated with such a dedicated program, even if Bombardier does it on their behalf as a service, chew into the savings the aircraft produces. Could it be that only the larger airlines with the infrastructure already in place are the only potential customers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 8 hours ago, Specs said: Something that bothers me about the C Series is that the thing is designed a bit like the 787 in that it needs a lot of IT support to be flown and managed well, e.g. the HMS. Smaller operators won't have that infrastructure and the costs and overhead associated with such a dedicated program, even if Bombardier does it on their behalf as a service, chew into the savings the aircraft produces. Could it be that only the larger airlines with the infrastructure already in place are the only potential customers? Specs, can you expand on your comment about IT support for the CSeries? I have not heard of this as being a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 It's called an AME "E"...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 1 hour ago, blues deville said: Specs, can you expand on your comment about IT support for the CSeries? I have not heard of this as being a problem. The A320 has had AHM since the early nineties, the B777, B787 and even the B737NG has some sort of health management and of course the Embraer has its version... I can't see the C series health management increasing operation costs. If anything, these systems allow you to be proactive and transform unscheduled downtime into scheduled downtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specs Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 1 hour ago, blues deville said: 1 hour ago, blues deville said: Specs, can you expand on your comment about IT support for the CSeries? I have not heard of this as being a problem. I didn't say it's a problem - just a concern - This article gives a bit of info about the Health Monitoring System. Glabe and Mail - bombardier-has-high-hopes-for-c-series-diagnostic-tool The technology in this plane seems to be a big jump from simple FBW. I can't find anything more on the specifics of the systems. That could for commercial reasons or it's simply not there and my concern is misplaced. But if the aircraft is as software driven as I expect then I imagine that requires on-board servers and networks and additional data transmission equipment/costs. Maintenance bases may also require also require a comm network to communicate with the plane. I could be totally off base but if the aircraft is as advanced as the 787 lets say, all of that IT infrastructure has a huge cost that precludes a smaller carrier from being able to operate it effectively without a large IT infrastructure investment or a service contract with somebody to do it for them. Larger carriers with the infrastructure already in place could absorb the plane into their fleets with less fuss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 What infrastructure is needed? My understanding is that a contract with ARINC for data transmission and an internet-connected PC in the maintenance managers office are pretty much all you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zan Vetter Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 The idea that small, poorly capitalized airlines with no IT infrastructure can't operate it is a good thing imo. Pay to play; don't like it, go buy some old MD80s. Infrastructure is a competitive advantage that's why good companies invest in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specs Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 4 hours ago, seeker said: What infrastructure is needed? Exactly. I don't know enough to say. I'm just wondering and asking. Google 'e enabling on the 787' - your head will spin at all the new tech and abbreviations. Software parts are loaded via data communications. Security protocols are required to ensure the validity of the software and again on your networks to ensure the updates you send to the aircraft are secure? With the 787, Boeing come in 9-12 months ahead of your 1st delivery to help you get set up. I don't know what's in the C Series but I have suspicion it has similar tech and if so that could be an issue for smaller carriers. 737 MAX by comparison is more traditional in terms of design . You can sell 2 or 3 to a small carrier and all they then need is the crew. Will that be possible with the C-Series or will they also then need the IT support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Something they all should do is have a way to cut off all the electronic wizardry and be able to handfly the aircraft utilizing non-connected local systems. With the ability of the hackers out there today I want to know that you can get the airplane on the ground if somebody hacks into the onboard system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I agree totally with MD2; the C - Series needs to be showcased at urban airports, there are key feature of the aircrafts capabilities that needs to be demonstrated in these environments that can’t be appreciated at large hubs such as YYZ. I wonder if AC has plans to push the runway expansion project at YTZ, an issue that may be a condition of the sale that’s not in the public domain ... yet? And finally, the more I look at the overhead pics of YTZ, the more reasonable a plan to relocate Runway 26 to a point a half mile south of its current position seems. The westward expansion could be taken out into the Lake as far as necessary and ideally result in a 7000’ surface. There’s a couple of other collateral advantages too; the extension of Runway 26 would create a larger protected zone for boaters on the north side of said runway and reduce shoreline erosion on the mainland which would have the effect of reducing related maintenance costs to the Municipality. The arrival end of the new Runway 26 would remain completely clear of the inner harbour and perhaps solve a lot of the concerns with boats and boaters and the noise Brian Iler complains of wouldn’t hardly be an issue any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 29 minutes ago, DEFCON said: And finally, the more I look at the overhead pics of YTZ, the more reasonable a plan to relocate Runway 26 to a point a half mile south of its current position seems. The westward expansion could be taken out into the Lake as far as necessary and ideally result in a 7000’ surface. There’s a couple of other collateral advantages too; the extension of Runway 26 would create a larger protected zone for boaters on the north side of said runway and reduce shoreline erosion on the mainland which would have the effect of reducing related maintenance costs to the Municipality. The arrival end of the new Runway 26 would remain completely clear of the inner harbour and perhaps solve a lot of the concerns with boats and boaters and the noise Brian Iler complains of wouldn’t hardly be an issue any more. But....why? Why spend so much money duplicating what we already have? The, somewhat valid, complaint that it took too long to get to Pearson from downtown has been ameliorated by the UPS. I flew into YTZ once from YUL and it took longer to get to Union Station, to get the subway, than it would have taken to get to YYZ on the UPS. There's obviously some market for Dash 8 flying out of YTZ, I don't see the advantage but some people do clearly but this doesn't necessarily prove that the runway should be lengthened and the airport expanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 11 hours ago, seeker said: But....why? Why spend so much money duplicating what we already have? The, somewhat valid, complaint that it took too long to get to Pearson from downtown has been ameliorated by the UPS. I flew into YTZ once from YUL and it took longer to get to Union Station, to get the subway, than it would have taken to get to YYZ on the UPS. There's obviously some market for Dash 8 flying out of YTZ, I don't see the advantage but some people do clearly but this doesn't necessarily prove that the runway should be lengthened and the airport expanded. You would have to try YTZ more than once to see the benefits first hand. It's way faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specs Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 3 hours ago, seeker said: But....why? Why spend so much money duplicating what we already have? Duplication? Depending on where you're leaving from or going to in the GTA, YYZ is a world away and YTZ is a huge benefit. I can literally drive from YUL to Toronto (east end) in less time takes to make the same trip via Rapidair. That is not the case when flying to the Island. 3 hours ago, seeker said: The, somewhat valid, complaint that it took too long to get to Pearson from downtown has been ameliorated by the UPS. From YYZ to downtown 10 minute to get off the plane. 15 minutes to get to UPS. Pay the man $20.00. Wait for the next train. Arrive at Union station 1/2 hr later. 20 minutes from Union to final downtown destination. Retrace your steps on the trip back but leave a bit early. (all in all that's about 3 hrs return and $40-70/person+$40 for each additional train ticket) From YTZ to downtown 5 minutes to get off the plane, 10 minutes to shoreside cabs. 15 minutes to downtown destination. (1 hr and $40 bucks/person) From one frequent users perspective - YTZ vs YYZ:Total time savings on YUL return from YTZ vs YYZ = 2-3 hrs/trip Total trip costs savings = minimally $40+ (YTZ = transit, YYZ=car) In real day to day user terms it's actually a lot more if you forego transit from YYZ and use a cab or rent a car instead. 3 hours ago, seeker said: There's obviously some market for Dash 8 flying out of YTZ, I don't see the advantage but some people do clearly but this doesn't necessarily prove that the runway should be lengthened and the airport expanded. If it were not for the Island residents there is no reason the Island couldn't take on a larger role in the city. We're spending $billions on transit improvements over the next 2 decades to improve access to downtown and mobility around town while reducing congestion and pollution. It provides a huge capacity increase to the overall system, and unintentionally, greater accessibility to Union station and YTZ than YYZ for many GTA residents. I don't know if that increased accessibility or demand justifies jets or a longer runway but if Porter hangs on, their future certainly looks much brighter even if the status quo is maintained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 It is fait accompli that there will be additional lakefill at YTZ to accommodate the RESA requirement. There will simply be an order-in-council directing the Port Authority to come into compliance. The question becomes at what point will that be paved and at what point will the jet issue be revisited. Adam Vaughn wants to be named to a cabinet level position representing the City of Toronto, if he doesn't get that he will quit and run for mayor, he isn't going to stick around as a back-bencher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I believe Porter is going to do more than just hanging on! With such a strong brand, great product, and strong balance sheet, it will thrive. The case for expanding the City airport is overwhelming. Toronto needs more than one major airport; maybe even more than two in the future. This is quite clear in other large world class cities around the world. New York is served by 3 major airports and one large corporate airport, Paris is served by two major airports and one large corporate airport, London is served by 5 major airports, etc. It would be very short-sighted to sacrifice the potential and the needs of Toronto just to appease Air Canada. With a modest 200 meter increase on either end which has minimum environmental impact the city's airport assets will be diversified enough to serve it well, especially when one will be a textbook showcase for the Canadian built C series aircraft and significantly improve its sale potential and Canada's presence in world aviation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 ",,,a modest 200 meter increase on either end " What is that going to cost and who pays for it? I'm sure neither Porter nor Bombardier will be footing the bill, but they appear to be the only ones who benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 28 minutes ago, Warren said: ",,,a modest 200 meter increase on either end " What is that going to cost and who pays for it? I'm sure neither Porter nor Bombardier will be footing the bill, but they appear to be the only ones who benefit. Yeah, love that; "modest 200 metres" (at each end) - sounds so much better than saying that 1300' of runway would be added. Of course it should be paid for by the taxpayer since it's for the benefit of allll Canadians that a few privileged downtown Toronto folks get to save a few minutes and avoid mixing with the plebs at Pearson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 4 hours ago, Super 80 said: It is fait accompli that there will be additional lakefill at YTZ to accommodate the RESA requirement. There will simply be an order-in-council directing the Port Authority to come into compliance. The question becomes at what point will that be paved and at what point will the jet issue be revisited. Adam Vaughn wants to be named to a cabinet level position representing the City of Toronto, if he doesn't get that he will quit and run for mayor, he isn't going to stick around as a back-bencher. Not that I know much about politics or one is any distinction over the other, but for all intents and purposes Adam Vaughan's ideas are closer to NDP than Liberals, and frankly will not be surprising if that will come to pass. Although whichever party, even the Green party, once is given the mandate to form a government and is faced with the realities of running the country will change many previously held ideas. One cannot be a one trick pony in federal politics, as in it, much like life itself, a broader perspective, compromise, and most of all balance is required. Adam Vaughan does not have an impressive record on City airport debates and although during his tenure at city council voted for the studies to be completed on the proposed expansion -paid for by Ports Toronto- as soon as being elected as an MP in the new Liberal government tried to bully his way and kill the idea all together. This showed that he was not genuine in his vote for the study and did not actually want to discover the truth, rather to play politics and delay and derail the process without being concerned about the time, money and energy that was invested in the process by Ports Toronto, and the city council itself. He demonstrated that if he can, he is fully ready to muscle his way through the democratic process. Something of which he always accused the previous mayor and conservative government meanwhile he was the one that actually did it within hours of his election. He favours dictatorship over discussion and discourse if it is to his own ends and agenda. By all accounts, he has already lost his futile vendetta against Toronto City airport and Porter's decade long existence is a testimony to that. It is also a testimony to the value of this aviation asset for the city of Toronto and consumers. The airport is a great and convenient asset and all consumers, whether from Toronto or visiting it, benefit from it. It is also complementary to Pearson airport and not a competition. Together they enhance and increase Toronto's aviation and airport assets, and serve the same market. A true representative of the people would see this potential and seal of approval of citizens and would become a partner in its responsible and reasonable expansion as opposed to being an obstacle to progress and development. A development which like any other one will probably be funded the owner of the property which will in turn usually pass on the cost to its users as was the case with the tunnel, hopefully Pearson's lavish development and so on. If the aim is to work toward a solution, answers are there, however if the aim is to muddy the waters and engage in inane futile debates, well it appears there are many who do that already on this board and elsewhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverminds Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Apparently Bombardier will not be taking the remaining 25 E190s off AC's hands as part of the deal. Seems then to be a bit of a gamble on AC's part since the E190 is not in demand on the used marketplace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 It is pretty clear that the brokered deal on the purchase of the CS300 aircraft includes many elements in it far more compelling for Air Canada than pawning a few used aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Republic just filed for Chapter 11 which can't be good news for the CSeries. It might not be bad news, but it certainly can't be good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 On 21 February 2016 at 11:02 PM, Warren said: ",,,a modest 200 meter increase on either end " What is that going to cost and who pays for it? I'm sure neither Porter nor Bombardier will be footing the bill, but they appear to be the only ones who benefit. Is funding the only obstacle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.