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

Please note that as per letter, Transport Canada is still considering making amendments to the current safety regulations. Therefore I don't see any reason why Porter should include this "possible" additional 150m safety zone into their 168m extension request. Once they get the approval for their 168m extension, any further extension introduced by Transport Canada will be a added on top of it; you cannot say "NO" to them.
 
Cinnamon said:
Well, according to a letter issued by dear TPA to dear Mr. Ford, it is parkland, and of course TPA wants to change it.
Click to expand...
No ... it says it's zoned as Parkland. The pub near my house is zoned residential ... that doesn't make the pub residential though. It's still commercial.

It's never been parkland, despite whatever the zoning faeries might have written.
 
Peepers said:
For some reason the National Post article with the Porter survey results has been scrubbed from their website.

Here is a link to another website with the survey results.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/115...aircraft-at-billy-bishop-toronto-city-airport
Click to expand...

Warren Kinsella did some digging into the "polling firm" behind that remarkable poll. They're basically non-existent, but he managed to link them to ... wait for it! ... Nick Kouvalis. So yes, the story got scrubbed.
 
k10ery said:
Warren Kinsella did some digging into the "polling firm" behind that remarkable poll. They're basically non-existent, but he managed to link them to ... wait for it! ... Nick Kouvalis. So yes, the story got scrubbed.
Click to expand...

If I were looking for an unbiased opinion on anything....the "person I would call last" would be a tie between Kouvalis and Kinsella. I had read Kinsella's piece yesterday and I don't think he says they did not exist....just that they don't have much of a google presence.
 
Then I'll revise it to "their reputation is basically non-existent". Which is the same thing if you're a polling firm. I mean come on, they must be the folks behind the push poll everybody mentioned last week, right?
 
k10ery said:
Warren Kinsella did some digging into the "polling firm" behind that remarkable poll. They're basically non-existent, but he managed to link them to ... wait for it! ... Nick Kouvalis. So yes, the story got scrubbed.
Click to expand...

As someone who supports the introduction of the CSeries at Island Airport I think it was absolutely stupid for Porter to associate themselves with Nick Kouvalis. He is like the conservative version of Warren Kinsella - a political operative who works in the shadows.

Porter could have gone to a reputable polling firm and the survey results would have been similar.

The Toronto Star did a survey (Forum Research) which found large support for jets being allowed on the Island. The numbers in support were not as high as the Porter survey but the questions were very different.

In the Star survey they did not refer specifically to the CSeries because they wanted to be able to compare the results with early survey's done.

The jet-related questions posed by the poll do not specifically refer to the quiet Canadian-made Bombardier jets, so as to properly compare the results with last year’s poll,
Click to expand...

This means that the Toronto Star survey was something like "Do you favor jets being allowed to fly to the Island Airport" whereas the Porter survey question was "Do you support allowing jets to fly out of the airport if they make a comparable amount of noise to the turboprops currently being flown from the Island Airport?"

To be sure some of the respondents to the Star survey were aware of the quiet properties of the CSeries but I suspect most of the respondents are ignorant of this fact just as most of the people on city council are completely ignorant on this issue.

While it was incredibly stupid for Porter to commission a political operative to carry out their survey it does not mean that the conclusions reached are incorrect.
 
Peepers said:
As someone who supports the introduction of the CSeries at Island Airport I think it was absolutely stupid for Porter to associate themselves with Nick Kouvalis. He is like the conservative version of Warren Kinsella - a political operative who works in the shadows.

Porter could have gone to a reputable polling firm and the survey results would have been similar.

The Toronto Star did a survey (Forum Research) which found large support for jets being allowed on the Island. The numbers in support were not as high as the Porter survey but the questions were very different.

In the Star survey they did not refer specifically to the CSeries because they wanted to be able to compare the results with early survey's done.



This means that the Toronto Star survey was something like "Do you favor jets being allowed to fly to the Island Airport" whereas the Porter survey question was "Do you support allowing jets to fly out of the airport if they make a comparable amount of noise to the turboprops currently being flown from the Island Airport?"

To be sure some of the respondents to the Star survey were aware of the quiet properties of the CSeries but I suspect most of the respondents are ignorant of this fact just as most of the people on city council are completely ignorant on this issue.

While it was incredibly stupid for Porter to commission a political operative to carry out their survey it does not mean that the conclusions reached are incorrect.
Click to expand...

You don't actually, have to guess at what the Porter commissioned iFusion Poll asked.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/137422535/Porter-Poll-Methodology

Now, the fact that I could find this much information about iFusion while Mr. Kinsella could not says, either, something about my brilliance or something about his bias (IMO).
 
The thing that bothers me is that the TPA nor Porter are abiding by Transport Canada regulations and releasing the Master Plan for the airport that was finished last year. Under TC regulations it is supposed to be on file at the Federal Offices up at Yonge/Sheppard. It is a closely guarded secret....
 
TOareaFan said:
You don't actually, have to guess at what the Porter commissioned iFusion Poll asked.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/137422535/Porter-Poll-Methodology

Now, the fact that I could find this much information about iFusion while Mr. Kinsella could not says, either, something about my brilliance or something about his bias (IMO).
Click to expand...

Yes at least with the iFusion survery we can see the exact questions.

Question 4 which simply asked if the respondent supported "jets" being allowed to fly into the Island - 51% were in favor (this compares with the 47% in the Toronto Star survey).

Question 4A is more precise. When asked if they support jets that are as quiet as the current turboprops support jumps to 66%!

There were two more questions from the survey - the results of which were not released. They were political in nature - something to the effect "your Councillor has stated that he opposes the introduction of Jets - Do you support your Councillor?"
 
I got that poll. They asked about whether I thought a certain Councillor (not mine and not one of the Waterfront/Beaches area councillors) was doing a good job. It seems they didn't do a great job of matching phone numbers with councillors.
 
themarc said:
The thing that bothers me is that the TPA nor Porter are abiding by Transport Canada regulations and releasing the Master Plan for the airport that was finished last year. Under TC regulations it is supposed to be on file at the Federal Offices up at Yonge/Sheppard. It is a closely guarded secret....
Click to expand...


where can i read more about this?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top