AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
You will have to remind me when that cap was instituted.
AoD
Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
You will have to remind me when that cap was instituted.
AoD
TOareaFan
Superstar
The current agreement is being fully respected. So much so that a reasonably successful business buying new planes from another business has included the agreement in their conditional purchase agreement. There is an over $2B agreement in place that is conditional upon an amended agreement tri-party agreement being signed......in other words Porter have said to Bombardier, "if our current agreement stands, we have to cancel this purchase as respecting the current agreement means we can't buy your planes."
Now, it might be legit criticism to say, why would they not negotiate the amendment prior to announcing this deal (ie. during the 4 months that have passed since they signed the letter of intent)? It might be legitimate criticism to call today's announcement a bit of a pressure point to achieve the amendment....but the current agreement is fully respected.
From Adam Vaughan's Facebook page
dowlingm
Senior Member
Downsview isn't an option - GTAA doesn't want encroachment on the YYZ approaches. I'd rather relocate Bombardier's Q400 line and turn the place into a massive Transit Oriented Development which might actually bring in enough $ to bring the Sheppard line across the West Don Branch.
As for the extension - I think the Hearn towers will basically mean that any extension split would bias to the west. Unless Robert Deluce has plans for those too...
Porter could make a play for TTC/Metrolinx by offering their extension as an outlet for tunnel spoil - barge it down the Don and into the harbour!
As for the extension - I think the Hearn towers will basically mean that any extension split would bias to the west. Unless Robert Deluce has plans for those too...
Porter could make a play for TTC/Metrolinx by offering their extension as an outlet for tunnel spoil - barge it down the Don and into the harbour!
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
TOareafan:
Respect for an agreement is different from following the letter of the agreement, which is a legal obligation. What was the spirit of the agreement? Would it have been violated when there was the intent to change it in the first place while claiming otherwise? Can you honestly say that "respecting" it?
See above.
PinkLucy:
Well, I found AV's language a bit problematic/hyperbolic - basically appeal to emotion stuff.
AoD
Respect for an agreement is different from following the letter of the agreement, which is a legal obligation. What was the spirit of the agreement? Would it have been violated when there was the intent to change it in the first place while claiming otherwise? Can you honestly say that "respecting" it?
See above.
PinkLucy:
Well, I found AV's language a bit problematic/hyperbolic - basically appeal to emotion stuff.
AoD
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
dowlingm
Isn't THAT funny the TPA opposed the original WT/MVVA plan for the Lower Don Lands (involving a minor lakefill at the mount of the current Don to the supposed impact of lakefilling on "shipping"? (like the impact of the West 8 proposed wooden bridges would, as argued?) I kid you not.
AoD
Isn't THAT funny the TPA opposed the original WT/MVVA plan for the Lower Don Lands (involving a minor lakefill at the mount of the current Don to the supposed impact of lakefilling on "shipping"? (like the impact of the West 8 proposed wooden bridges would, as argued?) I kid you not.
AoD
Last edited:
Agreed re Vaughan's post. Just throwing it out there because you know he is going to have lots to say.
js97
Senior Member
This is the same Adam Vaughan that's been okay with building up his ward with a condo in every corner (and tearing down historic buildings and opera buildings?)
The guys is not credible with some of the hogwash he spews.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
How about we build a new island just for this airport further into the lake, with proper bridges to allow freighters underneath, transit links, etc.? Sort of like....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chūbu_Centrair_International_Airport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Airport
This would enable big jets to fly directly into Toronto without disturbing the locals. If Kobe's 1.5 million can support an island airport, then maybe we can too.
We could then convert the Toronto Islands into something else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chūbu_Centrair_International_Airport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Airport
This would enable big jets to fly directly into Toronto without disturbing the locals. If Kobe's 1.5 million can support an island airport, then maybe we can too.
We could then convert the Toronto Islands into something else.
dowlingm
Senior Member
AoD - to be fair though the difference is that the runway extensions aren't near shipping docks for Redpath etc on the east harbour but yachting docks on the west harbour.
Interesting to see the reactions from Council's middle-ish: Stintz and Carroll both saying they are pro-Porter but anti-jets.
Interesting to see the reactions from Council's middle-ish: Stintz and Carroll both saying they are pro-Porter but anti-jets.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Not saying on this issue in particular, but the middle is where commonsense usually prevails.
kEiThZ
Superstar
http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCATRE78L5FO20110922?sp=true
As per my understanding from other reading the number of slots was restricted based on the noise exposure forecast. So I would argue that if the CS100 can be accomodated under the current NEF, that the net impact should not substantial (some impact from the noise points moving with runway extension).
Unbelieveably over the top. Drinking water? Really? The Toronto ferries for example are far, far dirtier than any Q400 or CS100. Ditto for all the marine craft using marine diesel out on the Lake. How come Vaughan isn't worried about them contaminating our drinking water? Or what about all the pollution caused by increased traffic in the core by virtue of there being more residents and commercial activity? Does he not think that impacts the Lake at all? Oh right, the kickbacks that developers give him make that justifiable.
Not just that. There is no way Bombardier can conduct test flights and such with regular commercial traffic impeding that operation.
If there was a business case for it, Bombardier would have sold the land and moved their facilites themselves. Not only is there no business case, some of those building may well have heritage considerations, making them difficult to remove (then again, Torontonians by and large are not too concerned with preserving heritage buildings...).
Where the extension goes will require study. There's a whole bunch of factors involved.
Even though your suggestion is in jest...
The TTC is already touting their upcoming $15 a ride airport rail link as an alternative. I can't see them being too interested in any cooperation. Likely because they see an expanded Porter as a threat to their business case for the ARL. It's too bad they are being shortsighted. I could easily a passenger flying to YTZ and then getting on the ARL to get to Pearson to take an international flight that Porter might have an interline agreement or codeshare with.
In any event, the Porter-Bombarder agreement is only a conditional offer. We will now have the debate on whether this is good for the city or not. And Porter will only buy the airplanes if they can win the condition they need to make their operation commercially viable. If council votes against it, Porter will simply cancel the purchase.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Few thoughts.
1) CAIR's argument was (and still is?) that the Q400 planes are nowhere near the Dash-8 aircraft that existed at the time that the tripartite agreement was signed. That those who signed it could not have envisioned a future where the Dash-8 aircraft went from 30 - 60 passenger aircraft to 80+ passengers on the Q400's. Therefore the Q400's cannot be seen as similar to and variants of the Dash-8 100's of the 80's, and thus they want the tripartite agreement to clarify the stance taken on Dash-8's.
2) Now Porter arrives and states that the agreement could not have envisioned a future where jet powered aircraft could compete with prop aircraft, on fuel economy, noise, efficiency, etc, etc, etc. So therefore they want to open the tripartite agreement to have it modified to allow the new C-Series. Wonder now how CAIR respond to a similar request by Porter to amend the tripartite agreement. I'm sure I can guess their response.
3) One of the biggest noise complaints were during engine run ups in the mornings. It is my understanding that engine run ups are required for prop engines but not jet engines? That removes a significant amount of noise creation
4) With Porter using almost all available slots at YTZ the only way to grow is to increase the capacity of the aircraft leaving YTZ per slot. Q400's seat about 80 (around 70 in Porter's configuration), the C-Series seats about 110 in it's roomiest configuration. Therefore Porter can get passenger growth of somewhere between 37-57% per slot just by moving to the C-Series.
1) CAIR's argument was (and still is?) that the Q400 planes are nowhere near the Dash-8 aircraft that existed at the time that the tripartite agreement was signed. That those who signed it could not have envisioned a future where the Dash-8 aircraft went from 30 - 60 passenger aircraft to 80+ passengers on the Q400's. Therefore the Q400's cannot be seen as similar to and variants of the Dash-8 100's of the 80's, and thus they want the tripartite agreement to clarify the stance taken on Dash-8's.
2) Now Porter arrives and states that the agreement could not have envisioned a future where jet powered aircraft could compete with prop aircraft, on fuel economy, noise, efficiency, etc, etc, etc. So therefore they want to open the tripartite agreement to have it modified to allow the new C-Series. Wonder now how CAIR respond to a similar request by Porter to amend the tripartite agreement. I'm sure I can guess their response.
3) One of the biggest noise complaints were during engine run ups in the mornings. It is my understanding that engine run ups are required for prop engines but not jet engines? That removes a significant amount of noise creation
4) With Porter using almost all available slots at YTZ the only way to grow is to increase the capacity of the aircraft leaving YTZ per slot. Q400's seat about 80 (around 70 in Porter's configuration), the C-Series seats about 110 in it's roomiest configuration. Therefore Porter can get passenger growth of somewhere between 37-57% per slot just by moving to the C-Series.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I'm very disappointed in Stintz's reaction. She was the one person I would have considered voting for. If her opposition to this is part of her platform, I'll have to reconsider. There is no real technical evidence that the CSeries will be louder than the Q400s. So if her opposition is based on the CS100 being a "jet", I'll have to reconsider her as brainless as so many other politicians.
I'm hoping she'll reconsider and that this isn't a knee-jerk reaction.
And they can't be pro-Porter and anti-jets. Porter is a business. Porter needs to expand to survive. The only way they can do that is to dedicate the slots they have to better yielding destinations. If they simply continue with the status quo, they'll limp along until Air Canada finds a way to ramp up at the Island and kill them off. See City Express.
I can't believe that there are middle of the road councillors opposed to a thousand more jobs in this city. I can expect opposition from Vaughan or Chow or other downtown councillors. But Stintz dismissing this off-hand? Disappointed.
Electrify
Senior Member
Q: How big and loud are these planes compared to the standard planes which fly out of Pearson? If they aren't much worse than what is already coming in and out of Billy Bishop, then I guess it could work. If these are essentially Bombardier's standard jets that you see out of major airports... well, are they freaking insane?!?
On the plus side, if Ford supports this, then you can bet your ass he is toast come the next election.
On the plus side, if Ford supports this, then you can bet your ass he is toast come the next election.