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

[jn_12]

So Porter called me today to say my evening flight to Chicago tomorrow was "rescheduled" to the earlier flight. The guy who called was really nice, and I don't mind (given work's quieted down), and the car rental gave me an earlier pick-up time without an increase of the reservation cost, so I don't mind at all, but it seems to me like that loads are likely quite light to Midway.

I can say with 100% certainty that it wasn't because of light loads. They don't cancel flights due to light loads. Never have, and trust me when I say there are flights that probably should be cancelled but go out anyway. I know why they did this, but I don't work there anymore so I don't want to get people in trouble by blabbing. It's nothing sinister and it's out of their control, I just don't know what they're telling passengers.

(moved from the closed thread)

As a happy customer who loves Porter as they are now, I think they need to be careful. This expansion is making them much less attractive to me. They're running the risk of losing everything that makes them so different and special. A much busier and bigger terminal? No thanks, that's not what I signed up for. I'd rather go back to getting aeroplan points at Pearson.

Well, did you notice a difference when they built the first expansion? They more than double the first lounge, and they're more than doubling this one. Essentially, the new terminal will just be a bigger version of the current lounge with some nicer amenities such as shops and restaurants. The current lounge sucks when there's a delay on your flight. There's literally nothing to do and you're pretty much trapped and forced to occupy yourself. At least the new terminal will allow people to wander around and grab a bite to eat.

 

[ShonTron]

I can say with 100% certainty that it wasn't because of light loads. They don't cancel flights due to light loads. Never have, and trust me when I say there are flights that probably should be cancelled but go out anyway. I know why they did this, but I don't work there anymore so I don't want to get people in trouble by blabbing. It's nothing sinister and it's out of their control, I just don't know what they're telling passengers.

Sinister? Nah - though perhaps low volumes seemed to be the simplest and most reasonable explanation (which I didn't find out - perhaps I'll ask). Interesting though, but I am looking forward to the trip.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Essentially, the new terminal will just be a bigger version of the current lounge with some nicer amenities such as shops and restaurants. The current lounge sucks when there's a delay on your flight. There's literally nothing to do and you're pretty much trapped and forced to occupy yourself. At least the new terminal will allow people to wander around and grab a bite to eat.

They most likley will add a duty-free shop, wi-fi, exchange counter, and all all the other goodies found in larger air terminals. Its all good.

 

[kEiThZ]

Sinister? Nah - though perhaps low volumes seemed to be the simplest and most reasonable explanation (which I didn't find out - perhaps I'll ask). Interesting though, but I am looking forward to the trip.

Maybe they had an aircraft servicability/availability issue? They are a small airline. If a bird is out of service I am sure it has a stiff impact on their schedule.

 

[Automation Gallery]

I don't think anyone looking at the situation would suggest such a thing (I voted for Miller, but was for the bridge).

A simple look at the data shows that Miller won a much bigger percentagein the recent election, when the bridge wasn't part of the campaign, than in the previous election where it was.

From todays National Post

Mr. Miller won his job by leading a campaign to block construction of a small bridge that would have saved Porter passengers the hassle of a ferry ride. He and a few similarly short-sighted allies consider the airport’s growth a blight on the waterfront (which the city has done its best to ruin anyway — but that’s a subject for another editorial), and an unacceptable annoyance to a few hundred eccentric hippies who resent any form of intrusion on their island neighbourhood. Even as the expansion was announced, in fact, Toronto councillor Adam Vaughan joined a motley group of protesters demonstrating against it.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...ial-board-how-not-to-run-a-canadian-city.aspx

 

[grey]

Utter drivel. Right-wing drivel.

 

[nicetommy]

As long as they continue to offer exceptional service at economy rates, they'll do fine. I flew Porter to Newark last November. I was shocked by how great the service was. Add to that the hassle-free travel to the airport, and they can't go wrong. They're running a top notch operation. I will definitely be flying with them again. My prediction for 2010: AirCanada will go bankrupt (once again) and Porter will continue expanding.

 

[Whoaccio]

As I have pointed out before the Q400 is a game changer. Porter is doing to the YYZ-YOW-YUL corridor what Westjet did to Air Canada out west. A single common fleet type with lower maintenance and operating costs, focus on profitable markets, etc. Except that the Q400 takes it to a new level. The amount of fuel used by a turboprop is substantially lower than a jet. So low in fact that Porter could break-even with only half the seats full on its planes. By comparison Westjet and Air Canada need somewhere between 70-80% of their seats full to break even. So before we see Porter going under it's far more likely that we'll see Westjet or Air Canada take a dive.

My point wasn't so much that Porter will go bankrupt, just that it its prospects for long term growth are minimal. There may be superficial similarities with Westjet's homogeneous fleet, but the 737 is a more robust aircraft than the Q400 which has allowed WJ to expand to a degree not possible with Porter. All the fuel efficiency on Earth won't let Porter run flights to Vancouver or Calgary or much more than the current destinations.

Thats not a real issue per se, so long as Porter is profitable (and I will trust Deluce et al that it is) it doesn't matter so much how big it is. But is the long term plan for the Island and YTZ to just be the home to a 20 aircraft fleet and some GA? Buttonville had more movements last month than YTZ and isn't feasible without direct subsidies. As of 2007, TPA lists expenses for YTZ at 6.5m versus an income of 5.1m (including the AIF). Even if the airport was mildly profitable, it would most likely represent a poor return on ROA.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Is Porter more of a Toronto thing than anything else? For example, do the chattering classes in Halifax, Montreal and Ottawa talk so highly of its service as they do in Toronto? My guess is that the small, downtown airport is - more than anything - Porter's niche, and any expansion plans or ambitions would just make them jump the shark.

 

[EnviroTO]

^ We aren't talking about bulldozing a park and building an airport here though. We are talking about NIMBYs who want to take down an airport that brings in revenue for the city, business into the core, will have a thousand employees and has kept hundreds of people employed in Toronto by sourcing only Toronto built aircraft. There is nothing close in your example.

I was commenting on the logic that the measure of good land use is how many people use it or how profitable it is. Parks are usually created to be an escape from the hussle and bustle of city streets and are usually not meant to be revenue generators. Because of that I think using quantity of people or dollars as a measure of whether or not a park should exists makes little sense.

Maybe we should convert the central waterfront into an airport district with off ramps from the Gardiner to help ease traffic congestion in the area, close in the gap to allow terminal expansion because there isn't enough space, extend the runways to allow larger aircraft and greater competition, and forget about Queens Quay as the centerpiece of the Toronto waterfront and instead move all the waterfront plans to Unwin Avenue or Queen St East in the beaches. Definitely the Music Garden needs to move when you can't hear the violin above the aircraft. Maybe it was wrongheaded to try and convert the waterfront from an industrial port and airport to live-work area and a park like waterfront because the railway, port, and airport were already there and have a right to be there forever. I could save $50 in airport limo fares and a 40 minute ride if I could get a flight to Tokyo from Toronto City Centre. Why should people who are going to New York get all the convenience... I want my flight at my doorstep too. What's wrong with extending the runways to allow A380s? The noise? This is a big city, the airport was there first, and you need to expect noise living downtown in a big city.

 

[nfitz]

From todays National Post

I'd hardly call an editorial in the Facist Post a credible source.

 

[jn_12]

Sinister? Nah - though perhaps low volumes seemed to be the simplest and most reasonable explanation (which I didn't find out - perhaps I'll ask). Interesting though, but I am looking forward to the trip.

Maybe they had an aircraft servicability/availability issue? They are a small airline. If a bird is out of service I am sure it has a stiff impact on their schedule.

Perhaps

 

[kEiThZ]

My point wasn't so much that Porter will go bankrupt, just that it its prospects for long term growth are minimal. There may be superficial similarities with Westjet's homogeneous fleet, but the 737 is a more robust aircraft than the Q400 which has allowed WJ to expand to a degree not possible with Porter. All the fuel efficiency on Earth won't let Porter run flights to Vancouver or Calgary or much more than the current destinations.

The B737 and Q400 are designed for different missions. Most aerospace engineers have always argued that narrowbody twinjets are inappropriate for short-haul. The dream aircraft for any aerospace engineer in this situation would be a 150 seat turboprop. But failing that the Q400 is the next best thing. My point earlier was that the Q400 allows Porter to be profitable in the zone where its competitors will operate at a loss.

I would not consider it a failure if Porter does not offer flights to Vancouver. They aren't aspiring to be a national airline. Their entire business model is geared towards being a regional carrier. The small airport, the turboprop aircraft, flights to secondary airports, etc. its all characteristic of regional airlines. And by that standard, Porter has been extremely succesful. Compare Porter to AC Jazz (its real competitor) and it's plainly obvious how well Porter is doing.

Thats not a real issue per se, so long as Porter is profitable (and I will trust Deluce et al that it is) it doesn't matter so much how big it is. But is the long term plan for the Island and YTZ to just be the home to a 20 aircraft fleet and some GA? Buttonville had more movements last month than YTZ and isn't feasible without direct subsidies. As of 2007, TPA lists expenses for YTZ at 6.5m versus an income of 5.1m (including the AIF). Even if the airport was mildly profitable, it would most likely represent a poor return on ROA.

The comparison between the Island and Buttonville is false. Buttonville is going to have siginificantly more aircraft movements as a general aviation airport with students doing circuits. That does not mean that it’s a better run airport. Indeed, it could not survive without subsidies either. On the other hand, if Porter hits a million passengers after its upgrades, the airport will raking in more than enough cash to pay for all its expenses. For any sort of public infrastructure that's really all you can expect. ROA is never that high in the transportation arean. Most airports in this country do not break even. If the Island does in a year or two that would already make it exceptional.

Is Porter more of a Toronto thing than anything else? For example, do the chattering classes in Halifax, Montreal and Ottawa talk so highly of its service as they do in Toronto? My guess is that the small, downtown airport is - more than anything - Porter's niche, and any expansion plans or ambitions would just make them jump the shark.

Word is catching on. I have heard civil servants on the bus in Ottawa sing Porter's praises. As their frequency increases so will their exposure. And that will increase their popularity.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I was commenting on the logic that the measure of good land use is how many people use it or how profitable it is. Parks are usually created to be an escape from the hussle and bustle of city streets and are usually not meant to be revenue generators. Because of that I think using quantity of people or dollars as a measure of whether or not a park should exists makes little sense.

Maybe we should convert the central waterfront into an airport district with off ramps from the Gardiner to help ease traffic congestion in the area, close in the gap to allow terminal expansion because there isn't enough space, extend the runways to allow larger aircraft and greater competition, and forget about Queens Quay as the centerpiece of the Toronto waterfront and instead move all the waterfront plans to Unwin Avenue or Queen St East in the beaches. Definitely the Music Garden needs to move when you can't hear the violin above the aircraft. Maybe it was wrongheaded to try and convert the waterfront from an industrial port and airport to live-work area and a park like waterfront because the railway, port, and airport were already there and have a right to be there forever. I could save $50 in airport limo fares and a 40 minute ride if I could get a flight to Tokyo from Toronto City Centre. Why should people who are going to New York get all the convenience... I want my flight at my doorstep too. What's wrong with extending the runways to allow A380s? The noise? This is a big city, the airport was there first, and you need to expect noise living downtown in a big city.

So then you'd agree that the buldozers once done with the island airport should continue on to the island houses and take those down as well? Certainly having people living on the island does nothing to contribute to the 'Park' that we envision the islands to be. Maybe those bulldozers should continue north to Yonge and Bay knocking over the Rogers Centre, CN Tower, First Canadian Place, Scotia tower and the TD Centre right? Surely having these buildings blight our views is a travesty that should be corrected. And creating a park in the centre of our great city is a much grander use of the land than those horrible towers. While we are at it lets take all that reclaimed land that was infilled at the shoreline south of front out and return the lake ontario shore to it's original state. Hmmm?

Let's get rid of the noisy streetcars and return to horse drawn cars. Wait the horses are smelly and poop everywhere.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Woodbridge:

Except that TIA is under TPA - a public agency, which must be responsive to the diverse needs of the public - and whether you like it or not, the public has decided the waterfront should be in part geared towards a more recreational use. Now, that's not to say the TIA isn't a legitimate use (though questions certainly exist with regards to transparency and legitmacy of the circumstances leading to the current arrangements), but it is more than fair to engage in debates around the future direction of the waterfront and the role of the land on which TIA sit on.

AoD