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

Myrtle Beach is aprox 650 miles south of Toronto Bombardier Q500 planes can travel 1100 miles with out refueling, so Porter would have no problem having a direct flight to this destination. Atlanta at 950 miles would probably be the most southern city that this aircraft would fly on non-stop. Vegas with a distance of over 2200 miles would be out of the question with most likely two stop overs.

The problem for Porter is that they can't max out range when operating from the island. Because of the length of the runway they are restricted in the fuel-payload they can take before they extend their Balanced Field Length beyond the end of the runway. I don't know what the exact math is here since I don't have access to a Q400 operators manual but it could well be the case that Myrtle Beach is pushing it for them.
 
Well they've flown to Myrtle Beach before (not commercially) so it's obviously possible.
 
Well they've flown to Myrtle Beach before (not commercially) so it's obviously possible.

For commercial service though it really depends on the payload. I don't doubt that they could get to Myrtle Beach without many passengers and little luggage/cargo. The question is could they do it profitably if the runway at the Island allows say only 40-50 passengers for a trip that long.

I don't have a Q400 Balanced Field Length and Range-Payload charts. A quick glance at those would tell you how far they can operate from the Island while maintaining decent (and profitable) service.

jn_12 correct me if I am wrong but I assumed that this why they had issues with flying direct to Halifax. Hence the connection in Ottawa.
 
Well they flew to Myrtle Beach with passengers before. It was a private thing and I don't know exact details.

It's harder to fly those distances in the summer because of the warm air. It's something that you wouldn't really think of being an issue, but the only time Porter can fly to Halifax direct with a significant load is in the winter. So I don't know how things would go with a flight to Myrtle Beach in the Spring, but in the winter it shouldn't have a problem.

Two issues do come up though: space and weight. First, the back of the planes aren't big enough to fit a lot of bags. They might fit anywhere from 80-100 bags. When you have 70 people flying to Halifax, you might be looking at around that many bags or more easily. So you run the risk of bags not making flights, which in mass amounts is a logistical and costly nightmare. Simply put, you can't just say "well the bag won't be on this plane, but we'll put it on the next one" because the next plane probably will have the same issue, so you'd be perpetually bumping bags. The same goes for weight issues. Usually the planes can be roughly 60,000lbs including fuel, bags, people, crew, galleys and the physical aircraft and have the ability to take off. It depends on runway conditions, so this number can vary from 58,000 to 62,000lbs. I don't recall how much the plane physically weighs, but I think it is around 38,000lbs. Add fuel and people and you're leaving yourself with not a lot of room for bags.

I also don't know anything about profitability on these types of routes. It's true that 20-25 people is enough to break even on legs to Ottawa and Montreal, but that number goes up for Newark because of increased taxi time. I also don't know how much fuel costs.
 
It's harder to fly those distances in the summer because of the warm air. It's something that you wouldn't really think of being an issue, but the only time Porter can fly to Halifax direct with a significant load is in the winter. So I don't know how things would go with a flight to Myrtle Beach in the Spring, but in the winter it shouldn't have a problem.

What you are referring to is Density Altitude....altitude corrected for temperature and atmospheric pressure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_altitude

The warmer the temperature the higher the density altitude. Basically in summer the airfield 'feels' like its higher up in the atmosphere. Since the air is therefore less dense, you need to go faster to get the same amount of lift, which means you need a longer runway. That's why its harder in the summer to make it to Halifax off the Island though they could make it back from Halifax no problem.

That's why 'hot and high' is an issue. That's what makes Afghanistan for the military or Colorado or Andean airfields in the summer difficult, hot temperatures and high altitudes together. The runway at 2000ft above sea level is at about 5000 ft density altitude. So you need long runways for departures.

Two issues do come up though: space and weight. First, the back of the planes aren't big enough to fit a lot of bags. They might fit anywhere from 80-100 bags. When you have 70 people flying to Halifax, you might be looking at around that many bags or more easily. So you run the risk of bags not making flights, which in mass amounts is a logistical and costly nightmare. Simply put, you can't just say "well the bag won't be on this plane, but we'll put it on the next one" because the next plane probably will have the same issue, so you'd be perpetually bumping bags. The same goes for weight issues.

Is the bag thing a weight and balance issue or is it a space issue? I never knew they had space issues with the Q400 cargo hold. That's an interesting issue. Perhaps, Porter should consider getting rid of seats and adding leg room.


I also don't know anything about profitability on these types of routes. It's true that 20-25 people is enough to break even on legs to Ottawa and Montreal, but that number goes up for Newark because of increased taxi time. I also don't know how much fuel costs.

I don't think its increased taxi time thats the issue. It's probably the fact that Newark is a more expensive airfield to service (your American counterpart probably costs more to employ in Newark) moving the break-even point up. Fuel for taxiing normally only takes up 1-2% of the fuel load. And given the near zero taxi time at the island, I doubt it'd be a biggie if they incur a longer taxi, runway hold times at the other end.
 
Halifax is an issue of bulking out (either too little room for bags, or too much weight) and typically not weight and balance, especially if the plane is full. If it's not full, but there is a significant number of bags, that's when you run the risk of weight and balance issues popping up.

Newark's problem in terms of profitability is in fact the taxi time in Newark. The amount of fuel used on the ground is pretty significant as they often can wait in line to take off for anywhere up to an hour. They do put significantly more fuel in the planes coming from newark because of this. On a normal taxi (so on the Island) they use approximately 100lbs of fuel and the same goes for taxi-ing after landing. So even a half-hour taxi would use up a lot of fuel.
 
You can book connecting flights now (it appears only for post-March travel).

YOW-MDW via YTZ in April is $129 for flexible vs. $250-$400 on Air Canada (Tango Plus). Its $369 for Freedom vs. $510-1064 for Latitude.
 
And I bet Sudbury will be the next northern ontario city on the list. Lots of government and mining stuff there as well. Only problem is the airport is really out of the way.
 
Porter will double its Montreal Connection

"Porter now flies eight new 70-passenger Bombardier Q400 turboprop airliners and takes four more in April and May as it steps up service frequency. That will bring the fleet to a total of 12 Q400s for the summer season. Porter expects to take four more turboprops by yearend to bring the fleet to 18 and has options on two more for delivery in 2010. Deluce has said Porter is interested in ordering five to 10 more Q400s later. The aircraft has a 30-per-cent better fuel performance than equivalent pure-jet aircraft now available, he said."

I was on the ferry around 3:30pm (3:37 likely) off the island on Wednesday and it was packed going in both directions. And that isn't really the busy time.

If they are going to grow their aircraft fleet by 50% by the summer, a new bigger ferry is going to become a necessity. Or would adding a second ferry be a possibility?
 
They've already announced that a new ferry will be in place by December. It should fit around 200+ people.
 
I should e-mail my councillor suggesting that the city build a bridge to support one of our few growing industries in this time of recession.
 
Porter will double its Montreal Connection



I was on the ferry around 3:30pm (3:37 likely) off the island on Wednesday and it was packed going in both directions. And that isn't really the busy time.

If they are going to grow their aircraft fleet by 50% by the summer, a new bigger ferry is going to become a necessity. Or would adding a second ferry be a possibility?


Some of my friends flew Porter on the weekend for a trip we all took (I live near Pearson so it has never been an inconvenient airport for me).

It was their first time and the only complaint any of them had was that they were not sure how much time it actually saved them. They had left their car on Friday at their office near Bay and Addelaide.....on a flight that they had not checked any baggage....it was exactly 1 hour after they landed that they were putting the key in their car door.

It was, I believe, timing of the ferry (ie. it was "over there" when they were over here) and that led to just missing a shuttle bus...so it all combined to be a bit of a time monster.

Their suggestion was that it would work much better if there were two ferries (not sure if that is possible) so that one is always on each side of the crossing.

Other than that, they raved about the service/flight/etc.
 
Well the ferry departs each side every 7 minutes (so 15 minute intervals) and the bus runs every ten minutes. Potentially if you just missed the ferry and then on your way over you just missed the shuttle, you'd have a maximum 25 minute wait. That's just bad luck. The drive between Pearson and downtown is more than that, plus, they probably saved time at check-in and security. Time wise, I think if you're already downtown, Porter is the way to go. If you're near Pearson (as you are) it doesn't do much for you.

a 2nd ferry won't happen. They don't have the infrastructure (current or planned) to deal with it, and really to save people 7 minutes, it isn't worth it I don't think.
 
Well the ferry departs each side every 7 minutes (so 15 minute intervals) and the bus runs every ten minutes. Potentially if you just missed the ferry and then on your way over you just missed the shuttle, you'd have a maximum 25 minute wait. That's just bad luck. The drive between Pearson and downtown is more than that, plus, they probably saved time at check-in and security. Time wise, I think if you're already downtown, Porter is the way to go. If you're near Pearson (as you are) it doesn't do much for you.

a 2nd ferry won't happen. They don't have the infrastructure (current or planned) to deal with it, and really to save people 7 minutes, it isn't worth it I don't think.

So build a bridge!:D
 

Back
Top