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

gabe said:
If Porter goes under during these uncertain times, will Air Canada keep flights out of YTZ.?
Click to expand...

They almost certainly would leave YTZ. Air Canada (and WestJet) have fixed landing, apron, and terminal fees at Pearson provided they hit PAX growth targets. They would reduce costs by quite a bit by consolidating at Pearson; particularly now when right-sized aircraft are readily available.

Those fixed costs are actually why United Airlines has pushed traffic into Pearson for Air Canada transatlantic connections. Air Canada and United have a joint venture agreement (profit sharing) for transatlantic traffic.
 
Last edited:
gabe said:
I wonder if YTZ. days are numbered? If Porter goes under during these uncertain times, will Air Canada keep flights out of YTZ.?
Click to expand...

LOL @ people who think the airport's days are numbered. If Porter goes under, somebody else will buy the assets and restart. Porter has shown the business model is profitable. And the terminal lease ending doesn't mean the airport closes.

gabe said:
Can these small airlines afford to have extra covid screening, people social distancing on flights? The whole airline industry is in for a drastic change.
Click to expand...

Ironically, I'd argue that Porter is safer than Air Canada or WestJet. They don't have many long haul destinations that could suffer long closures or stiff restrictions. They have less tourist traffic than the other carriers, with a regional network that is focused on largely business travel. And they have highly fuel efficient aircraft that have been substantially paid down. Only 10% of their fleet was delivered after 2011. They also have a business that has a literal and figurative moat. If there's one airline to be an owner in or have debt or bonds in today, it's Porter.

I don't think Porter has even laid off many employees. They used the wage subsidy program. And they will get part of whatever airline bailout happens federally.
 
Last edited:
^^ This presumes business travel returns to "normal". I'm not sure that it will. Companies are learning that people can work at a distance -- do people really need to be flying back and forth? And will people want to be flying? A family member who normally spends 150+ nights/year on the road has been told that he won't be returning to that routine for the foreseeable future.
 
kEiThZ said:
LOL @ people who think the airport's days are numbered. If Porter goes under, somebody else will buy the assets and restart. Porter has shown the business model is profitable. And the terminal lease ending doesn't mean the airport closes.



Ironically, I'd argue that Porter is safer than Air Canada or WestJet. They don't have many long haul destinations that could suffer long closures or stiff restrictions. They have less tourist traffic than the other carriers, with a regional network that is focused on largely business travel. And they have highly fuel efficient aircraft that have been substantially paid down. Only 10% of their fleet was delivered after 2011. They also have a business that has a literal and figurative moat. If there's one airline to be an owner in or have debt or bonds in today, it's Porter.

I don't think Porter has even laid off many employees. They used the wage subsidy program. And they will get part of whatever airline bailout happens federally.
Click to expand...
Air Canada (and some of the other major airlines) even ships cargo in its passenger planes on a regular basis:

 
Johnny Au said:
Air Canada (and some of the other major airlines) even ships cargo in its passenger planes on a regular basis:
Click to expand...

Yep. And belly cargo is a major revenue source for Air Canada and to a lesser extent Westjet. Porter doesn't really do freight so it wasn't a revenue stream for them to lose. For the bigger carriers, this is one more lost revenue stream preventing the resumption of profitability.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I can just imagine the homeless encampments on the former airport park. NYPD ensures that doesn’t happen in Central Park, but TPS don’t have the nerve or political backing to follow NYC’s lead. We’re more like Seattle or Vancouver, liberal minded cities where huge swaths of public land have been surrendered to tent cities due to some sense of public guilt. Instead, we need a New Yorker’s POV. One of the best things about the Toronto Islands is the pay to play ferry access keeping it civil. When I visit the Islands with my family it feels like the parks I used to visit in the 1970s, with no litter, lightly supervised kids running around having fun while their parents, uncles and aunts arrange a picnic. That level of childhood and parental freedom and civility is driven by the controlled access. What this city doesn’t need is another Allan Gardens like flop park. So, if we’re going to have a walkable access park in the former airport grounds we need to grow a pair and enforce the existing laws and by-laws that encourage normal public discourse and civility such as on littering, public intoxication, vandalism, sleeping in parks and public nuisance. Anyone who sees the litter, garbage and encampments under the Gardiner and along Lakeshore Bvld, Bayview Extension and Rosedale Valley Road should recognize that this city is just not ready to have nice public spaces downtown.

But I’m fine with the status quo. The Island is a great park to visit because of its limited access. The airport is great to have, and will likely have its permits or leases extended into the 2040s. One of the best parts of the airport is you avoid the chaos of Pearson, not the travel there, but the experience overall with the kilometres of walking, ages waiting for luggage, huge security lines, etc and then landing at equally busy airports. Fly from Billy Bishop and you often go to smaller airports, where deplaning is an ease, such as at Chicago Midway Instead of O’Hare. As for noise, anyone who’s ever heard a Piaggio P.180 Avanti take off from Billy Bishop would be surprised at how quieter a modern jet can be.
Click to expand...

How? Are the homeless swimming there? It would still cost money and have limited access I'd imagine.
 
kEiThZ said:
LOL @ people who think the airport's days are numbered. If Porter goes under, somebody else will buy the assets and restart. Porter has shown the business model is profitable. And the terminal lease ending doesn't mean the airport closes.



Ironically, I'd argue that Porter is safer than Air Canada or WestJet. They don't have many long haul destinations that could suffer long closures or stiff restrictions. They have less tourist traffic than the other carriers, with a regional network that is focused on largely business travel. And they have highly fuel efficient aircraft that have been substantially paid down. Only 10% of their fleet was delivered after 2011. They also have a business that has a literal and figurative moat. If there's one airline to be an owner in or have debt or bonds in today, it's Porter.

I don't think Porter has even laid off many employees. They used the wage subsidy program. And they will get part of whatever airline bailout happens federally.
Click to expand...

It seems like Porter was barely profitable. I could see some developers making pitches though. The land is obviously extremely valuable.
 
picard102 said:
The obsession with parks in this city, especially on the waterfront, likely will prevent that.
Click to expand...

Privilege is a fantastic thing. Demand parks for your hood and push aviation noise and emissions to Malton. Or even Scarborough and Pickering. I am grateful that environmental justice movements are picking up.

But also if anybody thinks that the airport will be replaced with a park and not condos and hotels, your naivete is telling and I've got some great oceanfront property to show you in Saskatchewan.
 
kEiThZ said:
Privilege is a fantastic thing. Demand parks for your hood and push aviation noise and emissions to Malton. Or even Scarborough and Pickering. I am grateful that environmental justice movements are picking up.

But also if anybody thinks that the airport will be replaced with a park and not condos and hotels, your naivete is telling and I've got some great oceanfront property to show you in Saskatchewan.
Click to expand...
...complete with premium genuine Saskatchewan seals that the late Super Dave Osbourne used to make his legendary safety harnesses and seatbelts:

 
I think we're missing something here. It may not be necessary to designate the whole area as a park, as this is prime real estate that could deliver a lot more bang for your buck. On the other hand, if height is a concern, condos and hotels may not be such a good idea, especially if we want to keep the islands car-free. Perhaps a middle ground can be reached, something like this:

bishop.png


Kidding aside, I think with the current crisis, it's far too early to tell whether we are better off with or without Billy Bishop. We should wait to see how the airport and Porter compare to the rest of the aviation industry, as well as assessing what demand returns, before seriously discussing what the future of the airport will be. Besides, as much as we do have a land shortage and housing crisis, we're better off developing and improving the mainland, from replacing downtown parking lots to opening up the yellow belt.
 
north-of-anything said:
I think we're missing something here. It may not be necessary to designate the whole area as a park, as this is prime real estate that could deliver a lot more bang for your buck. On the other hand, if height is a concern, condos and hotels may not be such a good idea, especially if we want to keep the islands car-free. Perhaps a middle ground can be reached, something like this:

View attachment 244476

Kidding aside, I think with the current crisis, it's far too early to tell whether we are better off with or without Billy Bishop. We should wait to see how the airport and Porter compare to the rest of the aviation industry, as well as assessing what demand returns, before seriously discussing what the future of the airport will be. Besides, as much as we do have a land shortage and housing crisis, we're better off developing and improving the mainland, from replacing downtown parking lots to opening up the yellow belt.
Click to expand...
Looks like Malvern will be relocating to Toronto Island.
 
north-of-anything said:
I think we're missing something here. It may not be necessary to designate the whole area as a park, as this is prime real estate that could deliver a lot more bang for your buck. On the other hand, if height is a concern, condos and hotels may not be such a good idea, especially if we want to keep the islands car-free. Perhaps a middle ground can be reached, something like this:

View attachment 244476

Kidding aside, I think with the current crisis, it's far too early to tell whether we are better off with or without Billy Bishop. We should wait to see how the airport and Porter compare to the rest of the aviation industry, as well as assessing what demand returns, before seriously discussing what the future of the airport will be. Besides, as much as we do have a land shortage and housing crisis, we're better off developing and improving the mainland, from replacing downtown parking lots to opening up the yellow belt.
Click to expand...

Like I said weeks ago bring back Harbour City. That was the plan decades ago and it makes a lot more sense than a boutique airport barely anyone uses.

unnamed1.jpg


http://www.developmentoftoronto.com/the-big-bet-the-toronto-harbour-commission-the-leslie-street-spit-airport-and-the-birth-of-torontos-urban-reform-movement/
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top