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

[Peepers]

Peepers:

It's a rebuttal to your claim that Porter benefits lower income Torontonians, which so far no survey has supported and it has been anecdotally rebuffed by actual an Porter user. Rehashing your talking points wouldn't have done a thing to deflect the vacuity of your claim.

AoD

When I said that lots of low-income travelers benefit from Billy Bishop I did not mean to suggest that a majority (or even significant percentage) of passengers are low-income. The point I was trying to make is Porter has helped to bring down the cost of air travel to certain destinations (this is proven by studies). Anytime you reduce the cost of a service you make it more accessible to those in the low-income bracket and this is a good thing!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

When I said that lots of low-income travelers benefit from Billy Bishop I did not mean to suggest that a majority (or even significant percentage) of passengers are low-income. The point I was trying to make is Porter has helped to bring down the cost of air travel to certain destinations (this is proven by studies). Anytime you reduce the cost of a service you make it more accessible to those in the low-income bracket and this is a good thing!

Nice try, your comment was made in the context of the challenges the extension may have on boaters (sic "the elite" that you didn't care about). Your words, verbatim, underlined for emphasis:

As for what socioeconomic group does Porter serves it serves EVERY group - the entire spectrum - although to the extent Porter has brought lower airfare and lower ground transportation costs from downtown - Porter is of particular importance to those in the lower income bracket.

The latter is what's been disproven.

AoD

 

[picard102]

The latter is what's been disproven.

I don't see how that was disproven. How is an airline with cheaper fares not important to those in lower income brackets who need to fly?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

picard102:

It wasn't bourne out by the reality - that Porter is of particular importance to business travellers, as observed by individuals who actually use the service. Cheaper fare does not equate to a) cheap enough as a mode for those in the lower income brackets and b) services destinations required by those in lower income brackets. It's a case of an incomplete theory masquerading as reality.

AoD

 

[Automation Gallery]

Gee, even The Star is on board....http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/09/07/olive_why_porters_island_plans_should_fly.html

Why Porter's island plans should fly
Plan to expand airport and bring in jets would boost aerospace, airline sectors

With the new jet aircraft, Porter would come close to claiming status as a national airline. Potential destinations would now include Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver, along with the likes of Miami and Orlando, home of Disney World. Porter already flies to New York and Chicago.

Porter has been so mired in controversy since its 2006 launch that it’s easy to miss the real story of the airline’s winning business model. It consists of business-class amenities at coach-class fares; a respectful treatment of fliers that long ago went out of style; and resistance to starry-eyed over-expansion that has grounded so many carriers, new and long-established alike.

The seven-year-old Porter has achieved profitability in its past two fiscal years — an unusual feat in a global industry that typically loses billions of dollars a year — which is due to a loyal and growing fan base of travelers.

Holding back a home-grown success story in this branch-plant economy of ours is perverse. It is especially misguided when most other forms of transportation in North America’s fourth-largest city are in varying states of dysfunction

 

[innsertnamehere]

It's an opinion piece, not an editorial, meaning that just a single reporter agrees rather than the editorial board of the paper. regardless, I agree with him.

 

[TOareaFan]

This is the part of the story/opinion that interests me:

As it happens, on a per-traveler basis, the new 107-passenger jets Porter will buy if it can win approval for its runway extension are more fuel-efficient and less noisy than the 70-seat turboprops it currently relies on exclusively. That would seem to be an environmental “two-fer.”

That sort of leaves the opponent with only "there should be no airport....period" argument left.

 

[chriskayTO]

That sort of leaves the opponent with only "there should be no airport....period" argument left.

There's still the issue of filling in the harbour to extend the runway.

 

[innsertnamehere]

.. Which was going to happen anyways, and nobody complaine when that happened.

 

[Voltz]

There's still the issue of filling in the harbour to extend the runway.

It would hardly be 'filled in'. If the runway was already extended as proposed hardly anyone would even notice.

 

[Peepers]

Gee, even The Star is on board....http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/09/07/olive_why_porters_island_plans_should_fly.html

Why Porter's island plans should fly
Plan to expand airport and bring in jets would boost aerospace, airline sectors

I agree obviously with the thrust of the article that Jets should be permitted (as any rational person would). I would take issue with the contention that in a "smack-down" between Ford and Olivia Chow over the issue of Jets - this issue could push Chow over the top. This statement defies logic.

The recent Billy Bishop poll (which was heavily weighted with downtown respondents) revealed that 87% of those surveyed believed that Billy Bishop airport was good for Toronto. Olivia Chow's position has always been that the airport should be shut-down. Never mind jets Chow has been opposed to any scheduled airlines operating from the Islands.

As for the question of jets the survey found that south of Queen Street opinion was split 50/50 but north of Queen opinion was 60% in favor of jets. Olivia Chows riding extends all the way up to Dupont so it is safe to say that a MAJORITY of the residents of her downtown riding favor the introduction of jets.

I suspect that Chow realizes that she is on the losing side of this battle because she has been mostly silent lately. I wonder if the NDP party leader told her to tone down her opposition to a proposal that would bring $Billions in business to Quebec's most important company Bombardier?

I wish a reporter would ask Chow if she has ever used Porter for her many commutes between downtown Toronto and Ottawa and if so what was her opinion of the service? Did she find it convenient? If she says that she has never used the service she would be in violation of travel expense rules for MP's that require they obtain the lowest practicable airfare. If Chow claims to have never flown on Porter there should be an investigation into her expenses dating back to when she became an MP and she should be forced to pay out of her own pocket (with interest) the difference in higher airfare costs (plus Limo costs).

 

[adeel]

I agree obviously with the thrust of the article that Jets should be permitted (as any rational person would). I would take issue with the contention that in a "smack-down" between Ford and Olivia Chow over the issue of Jets - this issue could push Chow over the top. This statement defies logic.

The recent Billy Bishop poll (which was heavily weighted with downtown respondents) revealed that 87% of those surveyed believed that Billy Bishop airport was good for Toronto. Olivia Chow's position has always been that the airport should be shut-down. Never mind jets Chow has been opposed to any scheduled airlines operating from the Islands.

As for the question of jets the survey found that south of Queen Street opinion was split 50/50 but north of Queen opinion was 60% in favor of jets. Olivia Chows riding extends all the way up to Dupont so it is safe to say that a MAJORITY of the residents of her downtown riding favor the introduction of jets.

I suspect that Chow realizes that she is on the losing side of this battle because she has been mostly silent lately. I wonder if the NDP party leader told her to tone down her opposition to a proposal that would bring $Billions in business to Quebec's most important company Bombardier?

I wish a reporter would ask Chow if she has ever used Porter for her many commutes between downtown Toronto and Ottawa and if so what was her opinion of the service? Did she find it convenient? If she says that she has never used the service she would be in violation of travel expense rules for MP's that require they obtain the lowest practicable airfare. If Chow claims to have never flown on Porter there should be an investigation into her expenses dating back to when she became an MP and she should be forced to pay out of her own pocket (with interest) the difference in higher airfare costs (plus Limo costs).

just curious...is porter defn cheaper than say air canada for flying between toronto and ottawa? maybe she takes the train? lol

 

[Peepers]

just curious...is porter defn cheaper than say air canada for flying between toronto and ottawa? maybe she takes the train? lol

Air fares fluctuate all the time. On certain days Air Canada might be cheaper - on another day Porter might have the lowest fare. Ground transportation costs will always be much more expensive travelling to Pearson vs. Billy Bishop from downtown. I don't know what VIA rail fares are like but if they are always cheaper than flying and Chow has been exclusively taking the train between Ottawa and Toronto this would let Chow off the hook. I doubt that this is the case however and I think further investigation is needed.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I think it's an interesting, and perhaps brilliant, strategy by Deluce. Create the wedge within the 'anti' crowd. Those who oppose the noise and pollution (but accept the airport's existence) would likely support this 'minor' expansion in exchange for a quieter and less polluted area. Cleave those away from the hardcore anti-airport crowd, and frame it to say that the anti-airport will never be satisfied by anything except a closure of the airport and thus are unable to negotiate with them. Turn the moderates into supporters and off you go...

That said the main thrust of the disagreement, I think, is exactly this. Porter and TPA are operating, the anti-airport crowd want nothing less than bulldozing of the airport. In this environment it is difficult if not impossible to maintain a positive dialogue. Imagine if Pearson's neighbours suddenly decided they wanted Pearson completely demolished. What could the GTAA do to appease this group? Nothing, there is nothing short of closing the airport that would appease them. This is the situation that exists with Porter.

Furthermore to say that 30-40 years ago some plan or some politician stated that the airport would be demolished, and thus SHOULD be demolished is, to be honest, childlike. Many plans are made and not followed through on, for one reason or another. At any one time there were plans for Highways, demolition of Union station, removal of streetcars, and yet plans change and things are not executed.

 

[Peepers]

Furthermore to say that 30-40 years ago some plan or some politician stated that the airport would be demolished, and thus SHOULD be demolished is, to be honest, childlike. Many plans are made and not followed through on, for one reason or another. At any one time there were plans for Highways, demolition of Union station, removal of streetcars, and yet plans change and things are not executed.

This is a good point. Another thing that people need to recognize is the fact that two of the parties to the tripartite agreement - the old City of Toronto and the Toronto Harbor Commission - no longer exist anymore! The tripartite agreement was crafted to satisfy the mostly left wing city council of the old City of Toronto. At the time Metro council did not have any objection to the expansion of the airport. I think instead of amending the tripartite agreement it should just be torn up. The operator of Pearson did not have to go to Peel Region to get approval to land Airbus A380's. Why should the operators of Billy Bishop have to get approval from the city to operate a new type of aircraft? This concept is very outdated.