NIMBYs won't care if they're quieter than the Q400s.
Of course not. It's just like the NIMBYs crying crocodile tears for the striking employees. They'd actually rather see them in the unemployment line with their employer out of business.
If the NIMBYs actually cared about noise, they'd be pushing for controlled noise profiles and noise exposure limits. Something akin to what you see at other city-centre airports (like at London City). In reality, the NIMBYs dont want "jets" because they always thought that restricting jets from the Island would prevent the realization of a commercially viable airline there, eventually leading to the airport's demise through financial unsustainability. They are pissed that Porter has proved them wrong.
And now that there are jets coming out that are as quiet or quieter than the Q400, their faux concern over noise is about to exposed for what it is: absolute opposition to the airport. They want to sink this piece of infrastructure that makes both tourism and business easier in Toronto just so they can hear the streetcars screeching by.
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?
It's the take off run at maximum take off weight and its the landing field length at maximum landing weight. In reality, because of the length of the runway, Porter won't be operating them anywhere near MTOW.
As for the MLW restriction, that can be overcome. Planes hardly ever arrive back at MLW, unless they are in an emergency. Porter could restrict aircraft loading such that planes will always be able to land at YTZ. Or their crew could burn fuel, dump fuel or divert to Pearson in the event of an emergency while at MLW.
Realistically, it's balanced field length that determines the aircraft's payload in a runway limited situation. In this case, I think they'll be close to the LCY limit of 1500nm. And that would allow them this:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?DU=mi&MS...fw,+atl,+stl,+mia,+hav,+yyt,+NAS&R=1500nm@ytz
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.
Introducing a new type may be onerous. But if Porter needs it to grow they have no choice. The CS100 gives them the range to cover most of the continent from YTZ. It also allows them to scale up capacity on some routes without increasing costs substantially.
As for Porter West. I doubt that. It'd be suicide to go up directly against Westjet or Air Canada at their hubs with 1/5 of the airplanes, a less established brand and no real network beyond YTZ to speak of.
