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

If I were a Porter competitor, I would simply challenge in court the noise regulations, claiming that they've been intentionally set by the Port Authority not to protect the ears of the locals, but to block competition and favour the Authority's man.
 
Admiral Beez said:
If I were a Porter competitor, I would simply challenge in court the noise regulations, claiming that they've been intentionally set by the Port Authority not to protect the ears of the locals, but to block competition and favour the Authority's man.
Click to expand...

That challenge would lose.....because, simply stated, the planes currently allowed within those restrictions (notably the Q400) are widely in use by many airlines around the world....including the most likely people to launch such a court challenge (Air Canada and WestJet....the former actually using them from the island airport itself).
 
averagegeek said:
I think Boeing is only selling 737 MAXs with the CFM International LEAP-1B. I don't think it would be possible for Westjet to get a 737 with the PW1000G. If Westjet were to switch to Airbus, they could get the PW1000G on a A320neo. Since both air canada and westjet just placed orders for 737 MAX i don't see them switching to Airbus.
Click to expand...

May not be an "off the shelf" purchase but I imagine they could overhaul the plane and attach the PW1000G to a 737. Doesn't sound like something WestJet would be interested in doing though.
 
Admiral Beez said:
If I were a Porter competitor, I would simply challenge in court the noise regulations, claiming that they've been intentionally set by the Port Authority not to protect the ears of the locals, but to block competition and favour the Authority's man.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the port authority simply say that the noise regulations are set through public consultations and not arbitrarily by the authority? Then provide evidence that the locals want less noise as proof that they are not setting the noise restrictions excessively low in order to squeeze out competitors.

How would the competitor look to the CAIR group taking the port to court for setting noise restrictions excessively low, in essence requesting that the noise restrictions be reduced. Would be a PR nightmare.
 
I'm going to be pushing my councillor (Adam Vaughan) to move to designate the area around the Canada Malting Silos public parkland and handing the area from the Lake to Queens Quay (where there's a basketball court) to WaterfronToronto to redevelop as a much larger Ireland Park. This would permanently inhibit growth of Billy Bishop because it's near impossible to reverse public parkland use to private use and the airport can't grow without room for parking and alternate roads.

Further options would be to prioritize the construction of the Portland slip wave deck. With that in place, the extension of Don Leckie Way cannot be extended as proposed. Porter will either have to make it work as a small regional airline or move to Pearson Intl.

If you want to help, suggest these measures to your City Councillor.
 
MetroMan said:
I'm going to be pushing my councillor (Adam Vaughan) to move to designate the area around the Canada Malting Silos public parkland and handing the area from the Lake to Queens Quay (where there's a basketball court) to WaterfronToronto to redevelop as a much larger Ireland Park. This would permanently inhibit growth of Billy Bishop because it's near impossible to reverse public parkland use to private use and the airport can't grow without room for parking and alternate roads.

Further options would be to prioritize the construction of the Portland slip wave deck. With that in place, the extension of Don Leckie Way cannot be extended as proposed. Porter will either have to make it work as a small regional airline or move to Pearson Intl.

If you want to help, suggest these measures to your City Councillor.
Click to expand...

Wow someone is vindictive.

I guess you didn't shed a tear for Nortel or BlackBerry or Eaton's did you.
 
Yeah... hardly vindictive. It sounds like he just wants to prioritize future improvement in the area for those who use it for recreational purposes rather than those who use it to travel, which is more than fair in my books. Limiting growth doesn't threaten Porter's current operations or even it's plans to run jets out of the airport, and helps preserve Waterfront Toronto's large investment in the area at the same time.
 
averagegeek said:
I think Boeing is only selling 737 MAXs with the CFM International LEAP-1B.
Click to expand...
With today's news from Bombardier that the C-Series is further delayed another two years, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...es-entry-to-second-half-2015/article16362574/ this may give Boeing or Airbus time to consider a quiet jet of their own, with the same PW1000G engines and aerodynamic quieting features.

Also, Deluce's plan to extend the airport is dependent on these jets. If he can't get even one until 2016, that's got to impact his plans. Though it may be for the better if an airport friendly council is in place by 2018.
 
Admiral Beez said:
With today's news from Bombardier that the C-Series is further delayed another two years, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...es-entry-to-second-half-2015/article16362574/ this may give Boeing or Airbus time to consider a quiet jet of their own, with the same PW1000G engines and aerodynamic quieting features.
Click to expand...

The article (and others I have read) indicate that rather than in service in the Q3 2014 the in service date has been pushed back to the second half of 2015.....how is that a further 2 years?


Admiral Beez said:
Also, Deluce's plan to extend the airport is dependent on these jets. If he can't get even one until 2016, that's got to impact his plans. Though it may be for the better if an airport friendly council is in place by 2018.
Click to expand...

If they are in service in the second half of 2015....wouldn't Porter's delivery dates (ie. where they sit in the delivery order backlog...which is still under 200 planes at this point) determine when they can actually get one?

Regardless of this delay, the airport issue was and is going to determine when/if Porter takes delivery of these planes. There are a lot of approvals to be achieved and even if those approvals are delivered, there is a lot of work to be done before Porter wants to take these planes....so I am not sure how this new delay affects this.
 
TOareaFan said:
The article (and others I have read) indicate that rather than in service in the Q3 2014 the in service date has been pushed back to the second half of 2015.....how is that a further 2 years?
Click to expand...
If all goes to plan, the first aircraft rolls off the line in second half 2015. And, if past behaviour is any indication, further delays should be predicted. You can't run an airline on one aircraft, so if the first one enters an airline's fleet, for example, in July 2015, you won't have your order (IIRC Porter needs 30 aircraft) until well into 2016. There's your two years.

But if Deluce can run successfully on perhaps five or six aircraft, he should see some ops by Q3/2015.
 
Admiral Beez said:
If all goes to plan, the first aircraft rolls off the line in second half 2015. And, if past behaviour is any indication, further delays should be predicted. You can't run an airline on one aircraft, so if the first one enters an airline's fleet, for example, in July 2015, you won't have your order (IIRC Porter needs 30 aircraft) until well into 2016. There's your two years.

But if Deluce can run successfully on perhaps five or six aircraft, he should see some ops by Q3/2015.
Click to expand...

a) the in service date has been pushed back less than a year so it is not a "further" 2 year delay
b) they are building aircraft as the testing occurs
c) this (the delivery roll out) was always known (that is why as part of purchases airlines negotiate "delivery slots" as well as price)
d) irrespective of these dates/deliveries....the most optimistic date (given by Porter) for starting their jet service was "sometime in 2016). Not sure anyone suspected the airport would be ready prior to 2017 for this service,
 
TOareaFan said:
a) the in service date has been pushed back less than a year so it is not a "further" 2 year delay
Click to expand...
You're probably right, but my thinking was Bombardier has 200 aircraft on order, and that this new delay may see Porter's 30 aircraft being pushed further back.

Let's hope not, as it's good to see a Canadian-made aircraft success story.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top