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

I'll head down there with Jeff Beukeboom and Dave Semenko to beat up these union thugs.
 
Now that the thread has make the quick descent into right-wing death squad territory ("Hank" doesn't sound like a Colombian name, but...), I feel a little bit more comfortable digressing. Did anybody else notice how TPA chair Mark McQueen tiptoed around the (latest) Ford fiasco:

Asked about his interactions with the mayor that night, event co-chair Mark McQueen said via email, “I don’t traffic in gossip,” and later said he sees no reason why the mayor would have been asked to leave.

“When I saw him interacting with guests, albeit from a distance, people were cheerfully introducing themselves to him and posing for photographs,” wrote McQueen, chair of the Toronto Port Authority, who sat at the head table.
Click to expand...
 
BREAKING NEWS!

Jon Ostrower - Aviation beat reporter for the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Porter has signed an order with Bombardier for 30 CSeries Jets!

This is very exciting news and it means that we could soon see Jet Service available at Toronto Island as the CSeries has the same noise profile as the Q400!

https://twitter.com/jonostrower

http://www.bombardier.com/en/corporate/media-centre/press-releases/details?docID=0901260d8027f220


BA-CS100_2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Of course, jets are not allowed to fly out of Billy Bishop/Toronto City Centre/Island airport. NIMBYs won't care if they're quieter than the Q400s. Mind you, I'd be happy to see jets fly out of the island. And perhaps a lengthened runway, 1000 ft or so westward.

Additional thoughts/speculation: Perhaps Porter and Transport Canada have been working behind the scenes to allow certain jets to fly there. That may be why there's been 3 months since the order.
 
Last edited:
PL1 said:
Of course, jets are not allowed to fly out of Billy Bishop/Toronto City Centre/Island airport. NIMBYs won't care if they're quieter than the Q400s. Mind you, I'd be happy to see jets fly out of the island. And perhaps a lengthened runway, 1000 ft or so westward.

Additional thoughts/speculation: Perhaps Porter and Transport Canada have been working behind the scenes to allow certain jets to fly there. That may be why there's been 3 months since the order.
Click to expand...

There will be a political battle no doubt but I suspect that Porter will prevail. "Jets" are strictly prohibited from landing at YTZ but strictly speaking the CSeries is not "Jet" powered. It is powered by a new generation of geared high-bypass turbo-fans. Not much different from a Q400 which is powered by a geared turbo-prop.

The National Post is now reporting on this story. Apparently Porter has a press conference scheduled for Wednesday morning.

http://business.financialpost.com/2...ning-to-announce-order-for-bombardier-planes/
 
Last edited:
Regardless of rules/laws/agreements......could it even operate at Billy Bishop?

According to wiki (so normal accuracy caveats apply)

Bombardier released the following reduced performance specifications, regarding operations from urban airports with short runways and steep approaches, like London City Airport.
Urban Operations
CS100
Max takeoff weight 53,060*kg (117,000*lb)
Max landing weight 49,895*kg (110,000*lb)
Maximum cargo payload 3,629*kg (8,000*lb)
Maximum payload (total) 13,676*kg (30,150*lb)
Max range 2,778*km (1,500*nmi)
Take off run at MTOW 1,219*m (3,999*ft)
Landing field length at MLW 1,341*m (4,400*ft)


Isn't the longest runway at YTZ shorter than that?
 
Peepers said:
There will be a political battle no doubt but I suspect that Porter will prevail. "Jets" are strictly prohibited from landing at YTZ but strictly speaking the CSeries is not "Jet" powered. It is powered by a new generation of geared high-bypass turbo-fans. Not much different from a Q400 which is powered by a geared turbo-prop.
Click to expand...

Do regulations specifically prohibit "jets"? Seems odd that regulations would be based on technology rather than specific noise and emissions profiles.
 
TOareaFan said:
Isn't the longest runway at YTZ shorter than that?
Click to expand...

Yes, the only commercial runway (night lighting, IFR, etc.) at CYTZ is 3988'. The runway lengths specified are for max weight, though. You could lower the length requirements by lowering the weight of the aircraft (less passengers, fuel etc.). I believe they run the Q400s at reduced weight in and out of CYTZ for the same reason. Of course, there's nothing stopping Porter from opening a second hub somewhere else. It's a big country out there.
 
can332 said:
Yes, the only commercial runway (night lighting, IFR, etc.) at CYTZ is 3988'. The runway lengths specified are for max weight, though. You could lower the length requirements by lowering the weight of the aircraft (less passengers, fuel etc.). I believe they run the Q400s at reduced weight in and out of CYTZ for the same reason. Of course, there's nothing stopping Porter from opening a second hub somewhere else. It's a big country out there.
Click to expand...

Sure....you could do that but these planes cost a lot more than Q400s so shy buy them (and introduce higher training/maint/etc costs by operating a varied fleet) if you are just gonna limit how they are used.

I think they will, as you say, use them for growth elsewhere.......either go more places from Ottawa and Montreal or create Porter West.
 
TOareaFan said:
Sure....you could do that but these planes cost a lot more than Q400s so shy buy them (and introduce higher training/maint/etc costs by operating a varied fleet) if you are just gonna limit how they are used.

I think they will, as you say, use them for growth elsewhere.......either go more places from Ottawa and Montreal or create Porter West.
Click to expand...

Based on the short-field specs Bombardier put out for London City Airport it does not look like there would be any real limits on how they can be operated. CYTZ's runway is just 11 feet shorter than the 3999 ft needed at max take-off weight.

Porter's busiest routes - CYUL - CYOW - KBOS - KEWR -KMDW are all within the 1500 nmi max range for the short-field specs. I would be very surprised if Porter doesn't plan on using the CSeries from CYTZ. It's just a fact of life. If Porter wants to increase capacity on these routes they need to start flying larger aircraft.

EDIT: I just noticed this tweet from Jon Ostrower who broke this story for the Wall Street Journal:

Jon Ostrower ‏@jonostrower 4h
It's understood that the CSeries jets will remain based at the island Toronto City airport, whose longest runway is just shy of 4,000ft.
 
Last edited:
^those maximums are already reduced from "normal" operations

Max takeoff weight 58,967*kg (130,000*lb)
Max landing weight 50,802*kg (112,000*lb)
Maximum cargo payload 3,629*kg (8,000*lb)
Maximum payload (total) 14,583*kg (32,150*lb)
Max range 5,463*km (2,950*nmi)
Take off run at MTOW 1,463*m (4,800*ft)
Landing field length at MLW 1,356*m (4,449*ft)

So, to take off at a London City length runway, they have already lost 13,000 pounds (10% ±)......and would need a bit more at YTZ.......as a layman it has me wondering how much they are actually gaining and is that worth the cost? (comes from the perspective of someone who has taken (±) 30 Porter flights and has only seen one full flight (and that was due to an earlier flight cancellation) so it is not intuitive to me that they need bigger planes.

Presumably, if these planes are going to take off from YTZ they will have to land there too......that runway is now 412 feet short.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top