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

[BermudaTO37]

Thanks for the info. I am looking forward to the flight. Shall see how it goes.

In responce to your Ryanair responce, as a leisure traveller, and trust me, I love a cheaper flight when I can find it, but that was an experience that I really don't want to do again. If it saves me $100, from my personal perspective, it is not worth it. Similarly to travelling to Buffalo vs Pearson, if in the end, I save $300, the hassel to get there and back vs getting off the plane here and a 20 minute ride home, I will spend the money. I just cannot get the horror out of my head of having to run across the tarmac with about 200 other people fighting for the good seats and to boot it was Prestwick just outside Glasgow in the middle of winter. It was quite the experience. LOL.

Anyhow, enough respect to everyone as everyone has their own opinions and thoughts. If it works for them, then so be it. Maybe it is that I am just getting lazy and complacent.

 

[kEiThZ]

Thank you for pointing this out. It is also my understanding and from reading what the CEO of the GTAA noted, all fees are included into the price and not separated out. So, one cannot compare actual prices. The only way would be to get the GTAA to provide a price break out so that everyone can see what the actual costs are to make an equitable comparison.

I have also looked at the flights on Porter and AC and I can tell you that they are on par with each other. So, if the fees are Pearson are so huge, how could it be that the prices are the same.

1) Most of your ticket price is comprised of fixed fees. NAVCAN, CATSA, AIFs/
2) Porter's strategy is not to be a discount airline. They are offering better value. You pay the same as AC but you get where you're going faster and you get better service along the way.

 

[kEiThZ]

Thanks for replying. I was wondering what you would say about this.

Let's say for the sake of this argument, Buttonville were to remain open. Could a Q400 operate from there? if it's a matter of runway length, could it be expanded? Combine the low cost of operating the Q400 with lower landing fees and I think you'd have a situation on par with what Porter has now. Now, if you undercut Porter/AC/Westjet's prices (which is clearly possible since Porter's prices aren't cheaper than AC/Westjet, but they make a profit on a lower load) and create a very no frills airline, would it not create some issues for the airline industry? I don't really buy the "public transit" argument because anyone can set up a bus at any time to service an airport. So the only thing I see standing in the way is a runway. I think if people could save $100 on each ticket, they would drive 30 minutes to go to an "out-of-the-way" airport. People in Niagara do it by crossing the border to Buffalo and many people would probably consider the border a pretty significant barrier.

Buttonville and the Island have virtually the same runway length. If they got 700 feet more in (just like the Island), they could operate to Max Range at MTOW. A quick look on Google Maps, to me, shows that they don't have much room to pull that off. So they would basically have the same constraints operating the Q 400.

The bigger problem however is noise. Buttonville is a lot closer to residents than the Island. And good stretches of the approaches would be over residential areas. There's no way residents would tolerate that much traffic over head. With YTZ, we're lucky, cause the noisiest bits are over water and a few hundred (or even thousand) feet away from residences.

As for the public transit argument... I agree that anybody can get an airport bus service going. However, the time and cost is not necessarily worthwhile for most passengers. It'll certainly not be as fast as say a GO train in from Hamilton, which is the level of service you usually have with suburban airports in Europe. Frequency can also be an issue. Is the bus going to be every 5-10 mins like many services at Pearson. Or are you going to be waiting 30 mins for a bus? That's not to say there's no market for operations from Hamilton. But it's definitely not competitive with the Island. Now if you want to set up an airline using narrowbodies to fly all over North America, Hamilton might be alright.

 

[jn_12]

ya sorry, I got lazy and could have simply measured the runways on google earth to answer my own questions. I think re: noise, the folks on the Island are far more vocal than any suburbanite. The amount of power the Islanders have is pretty large compared to any other "neighbourhood" in the city apart from maybe the Annex and Rosedale (maybe others, but that's not the point). If the complaints of noise at the Island weren't enough to cause Porter's downfall, I can't see there being an issue elsewhere. I guess it's impossible to know what people will actually do because it's based on a series of individuals with their own interests, but I find it difficult to believe anyone would be as vocal in opposition as the Islanders are/were. And I'm going to leave the transit issue out, only because I don't think it's worth us wasting time discussing right now. It's certainly a key component, but we know the issues.

However, going back to why this entire talk of Ryanair started, it was in response to HSR being a competitor for Porter in X years. I still think we're decades away from HSR. I don't think we'll see it before I have grandkids and I'm only 25. Whereas, the airline industry fluctuates so quickly that airlines can come and go in a snap, and we've seen from Porter that a good business plan is enough to shake things up and have some success. I feel that a low-cost airline working under the Ryanair model with planes as efficient (or better, in the future) as the Q400 could cause some problems for the 3 "strong" airlines in Canada before HSR is even on the horizon. I'm actually a bit surprised no one has figured out how to do it yet.

 

[kEiThZ]

ya sorry, I got lazy and could have simply measured the runways on google earth to answer my own questions. I think re: noise, the folks on the Island are far more vocal than any suburbanite. The amount of power the Islanders have is pretty large compared to any other "neighbourhood" in the city apart from maybe the Annex and Rosedale (maybe others, but that's not the point). If the complaints of noise at the Island weren't enough to cause Porter's downfall, I can't see there being an issue elsewhere. I guess it's impossible to know what people will actually do because it's based on a series of individuals with their own interests, but I find it difficult to believe anyone would be as vocal in opposition as the Islanders are/were. And I'm going to leave the transit issue out, only because I don't think it's worth us wasting time discussing right now. It's certainly a key component, but we know the issues.

The neighbourhoods around Buttonville are right beside the airport and right under the approach/departure paths. It's be like, having a subdivision at the end of the runway, in the harbour. So you can expect that this won't be taken sitting down by residents.

Also, with the runway being the length it is, there isn't much of a competitive advantage for any Q400 operator flying from Buttonville. They would face the same range/payload constraints as Porter operating from the Island, except they'd be operating from an airport that's far less accessible for passengers than YTZ.

However, going back to why this entire talk of Ryanair started, it was in response to HSR being a competitor for Porter in X years. I still think we're decades away from HSR. I don't think we'll see it before I have grandkids and I'm only 25. Whereas, the airline industry fluctuates so quickly that airlines can come and go in a snap, and we've seen from Porter that a good business plan is enough to shake things up and have some success. I feel that a low-cost airline working under the Ryanair model with planes as efficient (or better, in the future) as the Q400 could cause some problems for the 3 "strong" airlines in Canada before HSR is even on the horizon. I'm actually a bit surprised no one has figured out how to do it yet.

There's not enough of a market in Canada. Really the TOM triangle and the VEC triangle out west are about it. They can sustain small niche carriers in each. But I don't think there's room for another national carrier in Canada (discount or otherwise).

And in the GTA you need to find an airport that offers some advantage over Pearson. There's only one. And Porter's got it.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

What will be interesting to see is what the runway requirements for the low end of the 737 replacement program (Y1) are going to be...

Particularly if unducted fans are used Porter might just be able to get something with ~120 seats and transcontinental range into the island with only marginal expansion.

 

[kEiThZ]

What will be interesting to see is what the runway requirements for the low end of the 737 replacement program (Y1) are going to be...

Particularly if unducted fans are used Porter might just be able to get something with ~120 seats and transcontinental range into the island with only marginal expansion.

Y1 is probably going to grow in size. The 737-600 and the A318 didn't sell all that well. The 737-700 and the A319, however, did sell remarkably well. That would indicate that this is a good place to start with the next gen families. This means that runway requirements are going to grow if anything.

As for ducted and unducted fans, that stuff is still a long ways away. And even with propfans you're unlikely to get a bird that does transcon with 120 pax and has a BFL of less than 3000 ft.

 

[sjc]

If it saves me $100, from my personal perspective, it is not worth it. Similarly to travelling to Buffalo vs Pearson, if in the end, I save $300, the hassel to get there and back vs getting off the plane here and a 20 minute ride home, I will spend the money.

I don't own a car, so Porter has a major advantage over all other airports, being about a $20 cab ride from my apartment. To get to Pearson is more like $60-70, which means about around a $100 difference on a return trip. To go to Buffalo, I am looking at a couple of hours on the bus (plus getting to the bus station -- at which point, I am almost at the Porter terminal anyways). Not sure how I would get to Hamilton airport (cab from the Go train station?).

I wonder what percentage of Porter passengers don't own cars and how that compares to Westjet and Air Canada.

EDIT: I tend to fly back the same day when I travel to closer destinations. That is a lot easier to do by Porter than it would be taking the bus to Buffalo (for a flight to Chicago for example). If, by saving a couple of hundred dollars, I have to stay overnight (or for an extra night), the price differential starts to go down. This is also what keeps me off the train to Ottawa or Montreal, since you generally need to go the night before to get to a 9am-10am meeting.

 

[Justin10000]

I would use Porter over other carriers for cities Porter flies into. It's simply too convenient for someone without a car.
Fares are most likely cheaper through Buffalo, but if you factor in travel time, gas, and parking, Porter could be the better deal.

 

[sjc]

Jazz Air is ordering 15 Q400s for delivery starting in May of next year, with options for 15 more. They plan to replace CRJs with them and there is speculation that they will use some of them to return to Toronto Island.

Halifax-based Jazz wants to resume flights at the island airport later this year, possibly with existing Dash-8 turboprops in its fleet. But the aircraft order announced yesterday means Jazz could start using the 74-seat Q400 after the first of 15 turboprops is delivered in May, 2011...."We remain interested in resuming service to Toronto island as soon as possible," Air Canada spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said.

Edmonton Journal
Globe and Mail
Canada News Wire

Aircraft deliveries are planned to commence in May 2011. The aircraft will accommodate 74 passengers, and will be configured with a single cabin....The first 15 Q400 NextGen turboprops will replace 15 50-seat regional jets.

That is 4 more seats (one full row) than Porter aircraft have.

EDIT: I am not sure there is a lot for Porter to worry about over this. Most of these planes will likely go to existing routes where they are currently flying the about-to-be-replaced CRJs. If Air Canada/Jazz does put some Q400s into the island, it will likely only be to some of the major destinations like Ottawa and Montreal. They can't really offer a much better experience than Porter, except for Maple Leaf Lounge, although they may have a bit of advantage with the total number of flights from YOW or YUL (including YYZ flights) which will offer potentially better flexibility for passengers -- this may force some changes to Porter's flight-change rules.

If Continental moves in as well (likely Newark and Cleveland to start with), Air Canada would get Star Alliance connection opportunities -- but in most cases passengers could already fly directly to US destinations (from YOW or YUL) or transfer through Pearson. If the Island offers quick connection opportunities though (how fast can you connect through Pearson to a US destination?), perhaps there may be opportunities (for example, if Continental opens flights to non-hub destinations, especially ones currently served by small planes out of Pearson).

I would suppose London, Ont. might be an option as well (Air Ontario used to fly from the London to the Island, with continuing service to Montreal.) Air Canada will have the same range restrictions on destinations that Porter has -- even more so, with 4 more seats, so we aren't going to see YTZ-YVR anytime soon. LGA could be a possibility as AC has slots there -- this might impact on Porter's choice of expansion to LGA or Westchester County that they have been considering.

For each Air Canada Island flight, there will be landing fees and Airport Improvement Fees paid to the Port Authority (reducing the share of the airport facilities that Porter passengers need to pay for) and Porter will get money directly (as the terminal land lord) to help pay for the new terminal. If Air Canada planes need refueling, they need to buy it from Porter as well (unless they still sell gas at Stolport?). Porter might even get money for parking Air Canada planes in a hanger, unless Air Canada goes to Stolport for parking space.

In any case, the more airlines there are flying out of the island, and the more passengers use it, the less likely it becomes that the airport gets shut down.

And lets not forget that 30 (including options) new planes means good jobs for hundreds of residents of Toronto building those planes, and all the economic benefit that comes with that. Bombardier can make around 6-7 Q400s per month now that they aren't making Q100s,200s and 300s any more. They have a backlog of 75 (not including this order), so this will give a bit more job security to those workers. Those are jobs that are not going to the US or Brazil.

With multiple airlines and 1,000,000+ passengers per year, is it perhaps time to talk about how the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport should be served by transit? None of the current waterfront development plans and Transit City plans seem to consider the airport at all. Perhaps the Bathurst Street and Queens Quay street cars could terminate at the ferry terminal (or at least have some of them short turn there). Having a Downtown Relief Subway from the east (Pape?) could terminate at the airport after passing through Union Station. The issue needs to be framed in terms of reducing the road traffic to and from the airport. If a subway went to the airport, a lot fewer people would take cabs.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's a good decision by Jazz to replace the 50 seat CRJs with Q400s. The turboprops are way more fuel efficient. It'll really improve their profit margins. Right now, they probably don't make much on an RJ flight. I am suprised they went with a 74 seat layout, especially given Porter's struggles with luggage and such. You'd think they'd actually go even less than Porter (68 seats in 17 rows for example). It'd already be a step up from 50 seats anyway. I wonder why they need that much extra capacity.

As for returning to the Island. They could well be better off using the smaller Dash 8s. It's a much better match to demand. Though, those planes could be noisier than the Q400 which would be bad for the neighbours.

 

[sjc]

You'd think they'd actually go even less than Porter (68 seats in 17 rows for example). It'd already be a step up from 50 seats anyway. I wonder why they need that much extra capacity.

Going with fewer seats could give them a competitive advantage and give them potentially greater range as well. If they went with 51 seats (17 rows of 3), they could put in some nice big comfortable ones.

Or fill two-thirds of the plane with rows of 4 make the back area into a cash bar area with a bartender and seats along the side.

 

[Darwinkgo]

^ Since slots are likely priced by noise, it makes sense to use the Q400s even if you don't fill them (that is if the slots are priced at all). As for Porter struggling with the weight, most of the places Jazz is going to fly with these will not include a landing or takeoff at the Island.

I wonder if they are going to put the entertainment system on these since the flight times could get pretty long for some of these (Jazz already has the system on 75 seat CRJs)

 

[sjc]

^ Since slots are likely priced by noise, it makes sense to use the Q400s even if you don't fill them (that is if the slots are priced at all). As for Porter struggling with the weight, most of the places Jazz is going to fly with these will not include a landing or takeoff at the Island.

The key restrictions are runway length and the ban on jets which limits the choices of aircraft that Jazz could use.

If noise levels make a difference at the island, is a Q400 quieter or louder than a DHC8-100?

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Since slots are likely priced by noise, it makes sense to use the Q400s even if you don't fill them (that is if the slots are priced at all). As for Porter struggling with the weight, most of the places Jazz is going to fly with these will not include a landing or takeoff at the Island.

I wonder if they are going to put the entertainment system on these since the flight times could get pretty long for some of these (Jazz already has the system on 75 seat CRJs)

As per my knowledge, the slots aren't priced by noise, they are priced by demand. The number of slots is restricted by taking into account the cumulative impact of aircraft operating noise, throughout the day.

The reason I was wondering about the seat count has more to do with baggage capacity (especially if they fill every seat) and range (which would really be quite restricted at full payload).

Nevertheless, it's a great call to switch to Q400s. I have been hoping they'd do this for a long time. Airlines simply should not have jets anymore for anything less than 70 seats (and even that number is questionable).