Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

Porter's 70-seat planes might be a bit much for Ottawa-Thunder Bay, especially compared to Jazz's 50-seat CRJs (which I'm assuming its being dropped for not being filled). That said, a Dash-8 is more economical than a CRJ at $100/barrel oil, so maybe.
 
erikyow said:
Porter's 70-seat planes might be a bit much for Ottawa-Thunder Bay, especially compared to Jazz's 50-seat CRJs (which I'm assuming its being dropped for not being filled). That said, a Dash-8 is more economical than a CRJ at $100/barrel oil, so maybe.
Click to expand...

People don't realize how economical the Q400 is. You could break-even with 30-35 passengers. It's that efficient. Conversely, at $100/bbl, the CRJ might need 80% or higher load factors (40+ passengers) to break-even.

I have no clue why Jazz insists on holding on to the hoardes of 50 seat RJs. But at least they are slowly starting to replace them with Q400s.
 
ShonTron said:
Are you mixing up National Airport and Dulles? I understand the approach to DCA is what makes them paranoid, becuase there certainly are not additional security precautions for BWI, which is not much farther than Dulles and easier to get to by rail (MARC/Amtrak to terminal shuttle bus). I wouldn't think Dulles is the problem.
Click to expand...

Certainly could be. When I did those trips I seemed to be averaging about 8 flights per week to damn near everywhere. Looking at a map Regan does sound more familiar; so I probably did get them confused.
 
I imagine Continental is waiting to see where some of the chips may fall with regard to its merger with United. Maybe we'll see something like a 5/3 or a 6/2 split between Newark and Chicago-O'Hare. My reasoning for this is with the impending merger between Continental and United, and United and Air Canada's joint-venture agreement coming on-line soon (allowing them to effectively coordinate and operate their trans-border flights as if they were one airline), having United spreading the wealth a bit between Newark and Chicago would allow for Air Canada to directly compete on three of Porter's routes. Also, a split between Newark and Chicago with eight flights would be enough to put pressure on Porter's Newark flights (even though it would offer better frequency) to probably kill most or all of the profitability of that route and probably put the final nail in the coffin of the Chicago-Midway flights; flights which have never been very profitable (or at all). Unless, of course, there's a clause in the JVA that one or both of the governments asked to be put in that would exclude YTZ from it.

So, my guess is that Continental is just waiting (with Air Canada next to them) for some pieces to come together before announcing service to the Island.
 
With gas prices heading higher, I would expect that they will be using all of their Q400s on their existing routes, possibly replacing lower-efficiency RJs/etc. 8 slots would take 3-5 planes -- does Continental/Colgan/United have 3-5 Q400s sitting around?

EDIT: I notice here that, as of Jan 31st, Colgan still has 3 Q400s in the Bombardier backlog (the final 3 of an order for 30). They could be waiting on those.

According to this United is moving some Colgan Q400s to Washington Dulles.

The United 2011 Fleet plans shows them adding 9 Q400s by Q2 this year, bringing them to 29. I'm guessing the 3 in Q2 are the new ones about to come off the assembly line in Downsview.

United 2011 Fleet Plan
 
Last edited:
Chances are, however, as the Continental/United merger progresses, the Cleveland hub will be pulled down. There's no real need for it with hubs in Chicago, Newark and Washington-Dulles. So I imagine that once routes start getting cut from Cleveland, they'll reallocate those aircraft to other bases.

I know for many airports, unused slots have expirations. This might not be the case for YTZ, but in many cases Continental would only have so long to use them before they go back into the general pool.
 
erikyow said:
Also, a split between Newark and Chicago with eight flights would be enough to put pressure on Porter's Newark flights (even though it would offer better frequency) to probably kill most or all of the profitability of that route and probably put the final nail in the coffin of the Chicago-Midway flights; flights which have never been very profitable (or at all).
Click to expand...

Just wondering about your source on flight loads and Porter's profitability on those routes?
 
I found some numbers at http://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp?Table_ID=260&DB_Short_Name=Air Carriers (Bureau of Transportation Statistics) which looks at the number of passengers on international routes. I've pulled out Porters monthly transborder numbers for Jan-Sep 2010. The numbers shown are "to YTZ"/"from YTZ".

Jan 2010: BOS 1729/1858, EWR 5904/6100, MDW 1798/1722
Feb 2010: BOS 1495/1472, EWR 6397/6385, MDW 1934/2035
Mar 2010: BOS 2009/2029, EWR 8155/8167, MDW 2796/2805, MYR 410/444
Apr 2010: BOS 2949/3057, EWR 7064/7699, MDW 3351/3609, MYR 418/454, YYZ-PHL 59
May 2010: BOS 3423/3311, EWR 9243/9017, MDW 4537/4502, MYR 375/304, YUL-EWR 70
Jun 2010: BOS 3447/3693, EWR 8700/9164, MDW 4491/4691
Jul 2010: BOS 4392/4587, EWR 10295/10606, MDW 4946/5180, YQB-DET 36
Aug 2010: BOS 4923/4589, EWR 11599/11440, MDW 5410/5165
Sep 2010: BOS 4104/4143, EWR 10501/10731, MDW 4312/4415

We would need to work out how many flights there are per month to determine load factor, but those numbers seem quite respectable.

EDIT: For comparison, I dug out the ORD-YYZ data for the other airlines. I'm only going to show the ORD-->YYZ numbers in the format Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr/May/Jun/Jul/Aug/Sep:

United Air Lines Inc. 6421/7984/11751/8850/10736/7046/6424/6993/5959
Shuttle America Corp. 4054/3317/3445/3678/3592/3641/4082/4666/7145
Air Canada Regional 621/2710/406/427/743/632/409/317/500
American Eagle 8867/7968/11150/6219/6195/5956/6369/6596/6424
GoJet (United Express) x/531/1127/1408/1383/2333/2790/2467/108
Trans States Airlines x/33/x/265/351/437/335/270/x
Air Canada 6543/3832/8782/7755/8788/9278/x/x/x

Air Canada doesn't seem to have any numbers past June. Air Canada codeshares with GoJet, United Express, Trans States and Shuttle America, so the field isn't actually as crowded as it looks.
 
Last edited:
I admit most of the evidence is anecdotal from another, aviation-centered forum, that includes Porter insiders. So, take my opinion with a grain of salt. The fact that Porter is a private company means that very little is known with any certainty. Their failed IPO last year did give some glimpses into their operation but most information on Porter is largely conjecture.

Again, anecdotal evidence, shows that a last-minute business traveller can buy a ticket right now, leaving on Monday 28 March and returning Tuesday 29 March, for $59 each way to Chicago. The cheapest one can get to New York on those days is $559 each way, and to Boston one is shelling out $1,039 there and $939 for the return. And those cheap tickets to Chicago are present on other days next week, but not to the other US destinations. You only need a couple of those full-fare paying passengers who have to get to Boston before the RASK (revenue per available seat kilometre) is surpassing a fully loaded flight to Chicago at $59. Furthermore, tickets available for under $120 return three days out are rare, regardless of the market. And, to my knowledge, there is nothing happening in Boston or New York those days that would skew fares to such an extent in those markets over Chicago.

I do concede that this is just one week. Obviously, I'm sure there are times when I'm sure the Chicago route does OK and not everyone is paying bargain basement prices. But, from all I've seen (again, stressing its non-scientific nature but still from sources at least worthy of consideration), Chicago is most-likely the worst performing of the three, primary US routes (MYR being mostly a leisure destination can't really be counted using the same metrics). It's on average gets the lowest fares (despite a load factor that seems comparable to Boston) and is the longest of the three routes (albeit by only a few miles over Boston).

I also don't say this to be a naysayer. I am truly rooting for Porter. I think they're a relatively innovative company that has found itself a niche and it serves it well. I personally would love for Porter to be making bucket-loads of money on each and every flight. It just seems that at the moment, the evidence points to the operation resting on only a few profitable routes that Air Canada (and possibly down the road United) seems likely to try and get into rendering them unprofitable and bringing down the whole thing. And, above all, if there is someone on here with inside knowledge of Porter's operations who can refute what I've heard, I will absolutely concede that I was given wrong information.
 
It is possible that even if the loads are light, they would keep the Chicago service for several reasons:

- the more US destinations they can claim, the more visibility they get in the US and the more they look like a "real airline", particularly in American eyes.
- if they start cutting back on US destinations, it might be harder to argue for bring in US preclearance to YTZ
- I have heard that, for at least some of their planes, Porter has a commitment to spend a certain proportion of their flights on international routes because they got EDC funding.
- They may be planning to introduce Chicago service from other Porter stations (such as YUL, YQT and/or YOW) and don't want to pull out of the airport (admittedly this one doesn't seem very likely)

That said, looking at the numbers I posted above, MDW seems to be doing at least as well as BOS in raw passenger numbers.
 
I don't think anyone here knows as much about Porter as I do, as I worked there for nearly 2 years and still have many friends there. In fact, I flew with them last week on two full flights to/from Chicago (as standby passengers we were concerned we were only a couple passengers away from being bumped). That's not to say that every Chicago flight is like that, of course. However, back when I was working for Porter there were plenty of rumours here and on other boards spouted by whoever with grossly inaccurate information. As someone who saw the loads every day, I was baffled where some people were getting their information from. I would hear everything from "most people are getting their flights for free" to "they canceled a flight because zero people showed up for it". I would just take things with a grain of salt to be honest.

I think you're right to say that the Chicago route isn't performing as well as Boston and Newark (or at least to expectations), but the airline industry is very strange and it's very normal for the same flight on different days to have vastly different loads and from week-to-week that can change as well. I would also suggest that pricing isn't as simple as supply/demand. The loads to Chicago could be on par with Newark and Boston, but maybe Porter wants to fill those planes and entice more people to try them. It also might be a case where other airlines are keeping those prices low, whereas on the Boston and Newark routes, other airlines are raising their price as the day approaches. Porter has someone whose job is to watch what other airlines are doing with their prices and to alter their prices accordingly, and they probably wouldn't need that person if it was as simple as a formula that took into account passenger loads and the time between purchase and the flight.


SJC - That's pretty interesting. Do those numbers take into account flights which are diverted to Pearson? I'm sure they do, but all it takes is a one day for flights to depart/land at YYZ for the numbers in the winter months to be off by a few hundred. This is the first time I've heard of/seen that website. Thanks for that.


*I will say that inside info at Porter is meant to be kept inside the company, so I'm not sharing anything specific that I might know. It's not like my friends are sharing passenger loads for each flight with me anyways.
 
Last edited:
sjc said:
It is possible that even if the loads are light, they would keep the Chicago service for several reasons:

- the more US destinations they can claim, the more visibility they get in the US and the more they look like a "real airline", particularly in American eyes.
- if they start cutting back on US destinations, it might be harder to argue for bring in US preclearance to YTZ
- I have heard that, for at least some of their planes, Porter has a commitment to spend a certain proportion of their flights on international routes because they got EDC funding.
- They may be planning to introduce Chicago service from other Porter stations (such as YUL, YQT and/or YOW) and don't want to pull out of the airport (admittedly this one doesn't seem very likely)

That said, looking at the numbers I posted above, MDW seems to be doing at least as well as BOS in raw passenger numbers.
Click to expand...

All of these points are legitimate and point 3 is correct, which I don't think many people are aware of.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top