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

[rbt]

There'd be challenges with longer flights if Porter wanted to target the tourist market. However, with Porter's current range restriction from the Island it can miss out not just the tourist market but some key business travel markets. That's where a runway extension would really benefit Porter.

Porter chose the airport to operate out of fully aware of all of the limitations of the facilities.

There is absolutely no reason Porter cannot operate out of two airports. One for longer range flights and the other for shorter range commuter flights.

 

[kEiThZ]

Porter chose the airport to operate out of fully aware of all of the limitations of the facilities.

There is absolutely no reason Porter cannot operate out of two airports. One for longer range flights and the other for shorter range commuter flights.

There's speculation that's why that they might setup another hub. However, it's travelers to/from Toronto that lose out from the lack of a direct connection in this case.

 

[jn_12]

Not to nitpick but that's not MTOW. MTOW = Maximum Take-off Weight. That number is consistent regardless of any other condition. What you are referring to is a weight restriction based on take-off distance. It is a balanced field length based on a specific fuel load and payload.

Having done many (thousands?) weight and balances for Porter, I can say that they call this value MTOW. Even the pilots call it MTOW. For them it is Maximum Take-off Weight for their current conditions (based on weather and take-off distance). This value usually varies within a 5000lb range. Perhaps you know why they use this term in the way they do, but either way it's the term that the people in charge of operations at Porter use, and I've never heard anyone contend otherwise. Not that it really matters. Just saying.

Like I said, there would be challenges if they wanted to fly further and it would most likely involve a significantly smaller passenger load (not a problem for an airplane that makes a profit with 35-40 passengers on-board). Weight and balance is a tough one. I guess you could close all the seats at the back (say the last 3-5 rows) for longer flights (little out of service signs?) to put all the pax forward (that's essentially the big weight and balance issue anyway...front-rear moment distributions...and they do work out if you move all the pax forward since they always weigh more than their bags anyway). I'd agree that the luggage issue is a tough one too. But it's not insurmountable. For example, Porter could have less luggage allowances for longer flights.

There'd be challenges with longer flights if Porter wanted to target the tourist market. However, with Porter's current range restriction from the Island it can miss out not just the tourist market but some key business travel markets. That's where a runway extension would really benefit Porter.

I just find it ridiculous that they can't make Halifax from the Island and that probably has more to do with payload restrictions arising from the short balanced field length than running out of luggage space (which obviously happens sometimes as you've pointed out). It should be noted that a higher take-off weight (achievable with a longer runway) arising from a longer flight (more fuel) would also solve a lot of weight and balance issues since the fuel tanks are often ahead of the centre of gravity anyway and filling them up will often help move the cg forward anyway.

I believe this year they will be doing strict baggage restrictions, but I don't know what those will be. Last year the restructions were any bag beyond the first two would be considered excess and be the first left off the flight if necessary.

I agree with everything else you've said. Some of those tactics (like moving passengers around to shift the weight distribution) are already done.

In my view this issue is one of the few that restricts Porter's potential. While it seems like a small issue from afar, from an operations stand point the carrying capacity of the plane causes a lot of stress and is often a key contributor to flights being late (The number of sprints I made having the change W&B's because of this is way more than anyone would think). Part of the problem is that the airline is still new so it doesn't have some of the structures set up that make this type of thing easier, and the new terminal perhaps will make things easier for operations staff. I guess we'll see.

 

[sjc]

>>>There's speculation that's why that they might setup another hub. However, it's travelers to/from Toronto that lose out from the lack of a direct connection in this case.<<<

If they expand beyond the current 20 planes and look to expanding into multiple hubs, I think the best approach would be to target routes which are currently poorly served by nonstop service to Toronto.

Probably the best candidates for hubs would be Ottawa and Thunder Bay (especially if they increased service to Thunder Bay to 6+ flights per day). Most of Canada can be reached from either of those. With frequent service to YTZ, the connection time doesn't need to be long.

From Ottawa they can serve Quebec and Eastern Canadian cities such as Halifax (as they already do), St. John's, St. John, Fredericton, Moncton, Quebec. Connecting through Ottawa will be easy and quick given the number of YOW-YTZ flights there are every day now.

From Thunder Bay they can serve western destinations such as Saskatoon, Calgary, Regina, Edmonton (perhaps later Edmonton City Centre if the rules there ever change) and perhaps some northern destinations like Yellowknife (direct or via Saskatoon/Winnipeg) and Iqaluit (and on to Nuuk?) which don't currently have good Toronto service.

Later they could add US destinations from Thunder Bay and Ottawa to support connecting service and look beyond supporting traffic to and from Toronto. As well, direct Thunder Bay - Ottawa flights would allow for east-west-north connections.

While I don't see Porter competing very much for Calgary - Toronto passengers, I think that there would be traffic for various portions of a Calgary-Saskatoon-Thunder Bay- Toronto flight, especially if there were connections from Thunder Bay besides Toronto (Chicago, Minneapolis, Iqualuit, Ottawa etc). The trick is to look for combinations not well served by Westjet and Air Canada.

EDIT: The key is for the hubs to be relatively non-busy airports that allow for quick turn around and as few delays as possible. The Ottawa stop from Toronto to Halifax isn't very long and doesn't really add too much to the total flight time. This allows Porter to compete with nonstop Halifax - Toronto flights. The ability to land downtown Toronto and a much quicker checkin process (you don't need to stand in an Air Canada line a thousand miles long) in Halifax make up for having to make a stop. Inexpensive is important too.

 

[EnviroTO]

I have heard the same rumor that Porter plans on adding a hub(s) outside Toronto to extend their reach after delivery of their 20th Q400. The rumour I heard involved an order of CSeries aircraft and a hub within reach of the Q400 from Toronto Island.

Pure speculation on my part but considering the Q400 reaches the Northeast without issue the goal would be to serve connections to places largely west of Toronto so it is most likely the hub would also be located west of Toronto. Thunder Bay is a bad connection point to South and Southwestern USA and ties up a Q400 too long with possible weight restrictions. I wouldn't be surprised if they chose London since it is central to Windsor, Sarnia, K-W, Hamilton and would have Q400s making the trip quite quickly. Back in the days of City Express and Air Ontario there were a number of London to Toronto Island Airport flights.

 

[jn_12]

^ any growth beyond the business plan will probably involve a hub in Montreal, Halifax or Ottawa. A hub in just one of these spots will take a lot of investment, so it will probably take 5 years or so to get even one of them up and running.

It would make little sense for them to operate a hub out of windsor or London. It would involve immense investment for little return. Why would you do that when you have large markets that can serve as hubs (for example, how many routes can Montreal be linked to in comparison?)

 

[Automation Gallery]

With the open skies policy.........No one has mentioned Porter setting up a hub in one of the their major US city destinations. Is that not a possiblity?

 

[sjc]

>>>With the open skies policy.........No one has mentioned Porter setting up a hub in one of the their major US city destinations. Is that not a possiblity?<<<

The problem with putting a hub in a US city is that they would not be allowed to sell tickets from one US city to another (cabotage) without a stopover in Canada (an actual stop, not just a connection).

While they could, for example run Chicago to Dallas flights, they could only fill those planes with connecting passengers from Canada. This could be practical if they start flying to the US from multiple places -- for example, if they from Toronto, Thunder Bay and Montreal to Chicago they might be able to include enough connecting passengers to fill flights to places like Denver or Dallas.

They would not be allowed to sell tickets from Chicago to Dallas.

 

[EnviroTO]

It would make little sense for them to operate a hub out of windsor or London. It would involve immense investment for little return. Why would you do that when you have large markets that can serve as hubs (for example, how many routes can Montreal be linked to in comparison?)

The problem is that Porter's customer base is largely a Toronto one. Torontonians aren't going to want to fly east north-east to go west or south. If they create a hub in Montreal or Ottawa they might as well brand it a completely different airline because the benefit of what it has already built will not translate. Porter is the convenient Toronto connection. They would be better off building a hub at Pearson to serve its existing Toronto customer base than to force people to fly east to connect west and south.

 

[sjc]

The problem is that Porter's customer base is largely a Toronto one.

I believe that Porter is becoming quite popular in Ottawa. It is generally harder (more expensive) to get an YOW-YTZ-YOW ticket than it is to get YTZ-YOW-YTZ.

Torontonians aren't going to want to fly east north-east to go west or south.

Ottawa is good for connecting to eastern destinations. For going west, Thunder Bay would be a better choice.

There is absolutely no reason Porter cannot operate out of two airports.

Supposing Bombardier was OK with it, is there any law in place that prevents Porter from setting up shop at Downsview?

 

[kEiThZ]

People forget that they aren't trying to compete with Air Canada mainline or Westjet directly. Their main rival is Air Canada Jazz. From that perspective, a hub in Ottawa makes a lot of sense if they want to grow. They could continue to use one aircraft type (the Q400) or could get a slight upgrade (the proposed Q400X) and they could reach most of Atlantic Canada with only slightly longer flight times, but significantly improved service. Most of Atlantic Canada is served by Jazz with service no where near what Porter offers. And there is a huge market for business and government travelers between Atlantic provincial capitals and Ottawa. And its not just Atlantic Canada. There's a number of flights daily between Washington and Ottawa for example and they are mostly on RJs flown by United Express (Chataqua Airlines) or Jazz. If you have a look at the destinations Air Canada serves from Ottawa, they are pretty much the same major markets that Porter serves now from Toronto. If they did open a hub in Ottawa, they could reduce some of the traffic from Toronto on these routes while ensuring that every plane between Ottawa and Toronto is packed. It'd be my pick if I was there planner...and I'd sign up to be the launch customer for Q400x and deploy them largely on flights to Ottawa, Montreal, Washington and New York (< 400nm is probably the max available because of runway length).

They may be a Toronto focused airline today but that does not mean that they are destined to stay that way forever. They will find their niches and grow into them like every other smart business has. While I don't think stories about a London or an American hub are really credible, I would not rule them out entirely. For example, London might be too far, but what about Hamilton? And while cabotage in the US is verboten for non-American owned carriers, this does not mean that Porter could not set-up an American-owned subsidiary where it is the significant minority shareholder with standing agreements to meet all the needs of all its Canadian travelers. If the business case was strong enough, it would not have trouble finding partners. Far simpler, would be for Porter to simply enter into codeshares with a few major American carriers (particularly those not in an alliance). Or it could partner with an American carrier and act as its regional affiliate funneling Canadians onto that carrier (a good potential partner would be someone with a similar operation...JetBlue or Virgin maybe?). There are a lot of options. And I think it's rather unwise to write all of them off completely just because they are a Toronto centric airline for now.

 

[kEiThZ]

Supposing Bombardier was OK with it, is there any law in place that prevents Porter from setting up shop at Downsview?

Depending on the number of flights it might be acceptable. However, there could be airspace conflicts given its proximity to Pearson. But I still don't see the point of having another hub mere miles from its custom built solely owned hub right in the core. Operating from Downsview would really harm that image of traveling to/from the city centre itself....though if they built a terminal right beside Sheppard West on Spadina extension with a GO station there as well, I suppose some of the intra-Toronto connectivity issues could be addressed (and it would force go to make the Barrie line a more regular service).

 

[kEiThZ]

Torontonians aren't going to want to fly east north-east to go west or south.

They will if the price is right, and the trip is convenient and the time differential is affordable to them. Not everyone is willing to pay the 'Air Canada' premium just to save 30 mins to an hour. Also, just have a look at the number of passengers from Ottawa and Montreal that connect through Pearson for a whole bunch of places including Washington, New York and sometimes even Boston all because Air Canada has better frequencies from Pearson. If the rest of Canada is willing to connect through Pearson, I am willing to bet that there's enough Torontonians to fill Porter's planes who will be connection through Ottawa or Montreal. And if the schedule were well co-ordinated, it should be noted that the connections would add, at worst, about an hour (worst case scenario for New York) and that includes increased travel distance (30 mins) and the changeover (30 mins). For a more easterly destination like Boston, the added time would be about 50 mins at worst (of which about 30 depends on the connection). Ultimately, though I'd say they are better off pressing the advantages of the Q400 and the Island airport and offering as many direct flights to the US as possible while keeping connections to a minimum.

 

[sjc]

But I still don't see the point of having another hub mere miles from its custom built solely owned hub right in the core. Operating from Downsview would really harm that image of traveling to/from the city centre itself

It might make sense once their passenger levels go beyond what they can handle at the island -- they cannot add flights indefinitely as they will run into the slot limit.

Ottawa and Montreal flights can be quite busy in the morning and afternoon. If the flights start getting consistently full and they get to the point where they can't add more flights, adding a flight or two from Downsview would allow them to continue to grow. If they are popular (and I would expect they might be for people living in mid- and north Toronto, especially with the subway access), they could add more flights as seems appropriate at the time.

The key would be to siphon off some of the non-connecting Ottawa-Toronto commuter traffic to allow the flights through the island to handle connecting traffic (as well as downtown travellers). If you can fill a plane, it is probably worth running the route as long as it doesn't mean empty planes somewhere else.

 

[kEiThZ]

If they ever really run out of room at the Island then Downsview would be a good alternative. But I do think it's quite a long ways away. With all the airside upgrades at the Island they aren't anywhere close to running out of slots, even when they have 20 aircraft operating from there.