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

innsertnamehere said:
all we have heard on for positions on it so far is from Chow, Vaughan, and the Ford bros. one of them doesn't have any say (Chow), so really the "score" so far is 2-1 in favor of the airport.
Click to expand...

From the Globe & Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...pansion-plans/article11117837/comments/?ord=0

An informal tally of how city councillors feel about the expansion of the Island Airport, based on interviews and their Twitter activity:

Pro or leaning in favour

Doug Ford (Ward 2-Etobicoke North)
Mayor Rob Ford
Paul Ainslie (Ward 43- Scarborough East)
Michelle Berardinetti (Ward 35- Scarborough Southwest)
Frank Di Giorgio (Ward 12 York South-Weston)
Michael Thompson (Ward 37 Scarborough Centre)
Norm Kelly (Ward 40 Scarborough-Agincourt)

Con or leaning against

Ana Bailao (Ward 19 Davenport)
Janet Davis (Ward 31 Beaches-East York)
Glenn De Baeremaeker (Ward 38 Scarborough Centre)
Shelley Carroll (Ward 33 Don Valley East)
Adam Vaughan (Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina)
Karen Stintz (Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence)
Gord Perks (Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park)
Pam McConnell (Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale)
Sarah Doucette (Ward 13 Parkdale-High Park)
Paula Fletcher (Ward 30 Toronto-Danforth)
John Fillion (Ward 23 Willowdale)
Mary Fragedakis (Ward 29- Toronto-Danforth)
Gloria Lindsay Luby (Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre)
Mary-Margaret McMahon (Ward 32 Beaches-East York)
Joe Mihevc (Ward 21 St. Paul’s)
Peter Milczyn (Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
Josh Colle (Ward 15 Eglington-Lawrence)
Mike Layton (Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina)


Undecided

Jaye Robinson (Ward 25 Don Valley West)
John Parker (Ward 26 Don Valley West)
Raymond Cho (Ward 42 Scarborough-Rouge River)
Gary Crawford (Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest)
Doug Holyday (Ward 3 Etobicoke Centre)
Josh Matlow (Ward 22 St. Paul’s)
Ron Moeser (Ward 44 Scarborough East)
Denzil Minnan-Wong (Ward 34 Don Valley East)
David Shiner (Ward 24 Willowdale)

Unknown

Mary Augimeri (Ward 9 York Centre)
Vincent Crisanti (Ward 1 Etobicoke North)
Mark Grimes (Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
Frances Nunziata (Ward 11 York South-Weston)
Cesar Palacio (Ward 17 Davenport)
James Pasternak (Ward 10 York Centre)
Kristyn Wong-Tam (Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale)
Anthony Perruzza (Ward 8 York West)

Editor's note: Michael Layton returned a phone call from the Globe Friday. His name has subsequently been added to the Con group.
 
Cinnamon said:
Brace yourselves for another Canada 3000. I think Porter will also disappear into thin air in a night. I'm sure Mr. Robert Deluce is already making his next almost perfect exit plan while we are discussing technical specifications of jets, how quiet they are, and getting excited about carrots, sorry, jobs promised. Just sad...
Click to expand...
While "we" are discussing? First post ever to Urban Toronto ... so I'm not sure how "we" comes into it.

Insider tip, or Air Canada employee?
 
I live in the area and in the summer the airplanes' noise can even drown your own voice if you go for a stroll around the music garden.

More frequent flights don't sound appealing to me or my neighbours.

That Porter would order the jets before getting clearance or consulting those who live around the airport adds insult to injury. I would have been a lot more likely to support them and their initiative if they weren't trying to force this through.
 
@RC8

It was a conditional order. Conditional on all sorts of regulatory approvals. It's not a firm order. Just a letter of intent. I would hardly suggest that is some grave violation of trust.
 
The opposition to this, for me, is just evidence that Toronto is hostile to any investment unless it involves building condos. For condos though, council bends over backwards with all kinds of exceptions to the rules.

Why even bother investing in this town any more?
 
kEiThZ said:
The opposition to this, for me, is just evidence that Toronto is hostile to any investment unless it involves building condos. For condos though, council bends over backwards with all kinds of exceptions to the rules.

Why even bother investing in this town any more?
Click to expand...

Okay, I think you're going a little overboard.

I support the idea of Porter being granted a runway extension and allowing quieter turbojets to fly in and out of the Island airport, but if council has the ultimate power to block this and it doesn't go ahead, I don't think this spells doom for downtown Toronto or for Porter, for that matter.

The Island airport is a nice amenity for downtown's success, but I think that you overstate its importance to the economic wellbeing of downtown. I really think the Island airport succeeded because of the increased regional importance of downtown, not the other way around.

Also, I have my doubts that investing millions of dollars in a new runway and buying new jets so that you can fly to destinations like Vancouver and LA is going to be such a gold mine for Porter. The business world is littered with examples of very successful companies that totally cornered a niche but then destroyed themselves because they thought they could make a large expansion into unchartered territories, committing large amounts of resources to this project while forgetting about their core business. Sometimes it's just better to stick to what you're good at then to try to be overly ambitious. Porter has a successful business model: it's a small, niche-oriented airline that uses a single airplane variant to fly to regional destinations that larger carriers either shun because of low profitability or have spun off to regional subsidiaries that provide horrible service. It can justify its high prices through superior service - superior service offered both in flight and by virtue of the fact that its island airport is small (for now). I think that Porter might have an easier time siphoning passengers away from Pearson on a 1 hour flight to Sault Ste Marie where their competition is a somewhat noncommital Air Canada Jazz than siphoning passengers away from Pearson for a customs-precleared 5 hour flight to LAX where their competition could be anything from AC to all the US flag carriers to Virgin America.

Hey, all power to them if they think that they can use their existing business model to fly to medium-range destinations with an entirely new aircraft where established flag carriers and low cost carriers already engage in fierce competition. I'm all for private companies having the right to test new business ideas through trial and error and I'm certainly not going to be like council and stand in their way, but I'm also don't think we should bend over backwards for them either.
 
kEiThZ said:
The opposition to this, for me, is just evidence that Toronto is hostile to any investment unless it involves building condos. For condos though, council bends over backwards with all kinds of exceptions to the rules.

Why even bother investing in this town any more?
Click to expand...

And the only reason why Councillors approve condo's is to get section 37 funds for their pets projects. They want this money for their war chests and they know that if they don't approve a project in some form the OMB is likely to overturn their decision. But for these factors I suspect that next to nothing would get approved /built in this city.

We are really being held back as a city by the bunch of losers at city hall. I don't think any of these Councillors had distinguished careers outside of politics. Adam Vaughan and Mike Layton are good examples. Both got into politics on the coat-tails of their late fathers.
 
Hipster Duck said:
Okay, I think you're going a little overboard.

The Island airport is a nice amenity for downtown's success, but I think that you overstate its importance to the economic wellbeing of downtown. I really think the Island airport succeeded because of the increased regional importance of downtown, not the other way around.
.
Click to expand...

I don't think that you can overstate the importance of this Airport to the city. A recent study revealed that Billy Bishop pumps $2 Billion into the Toronto economy and provides 1,700 direct and 5,700 indirect jobs.

"Billy Bishop airport proves to be an economic powerhouse"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-to-be-an-economic-powerhouse/article5169587/

If David Miller and Olivia Chow had their way none of these economic benefits would exist. Having a few extra acres of parkland on the Island is more important to them then employing thousands of people in good paying jobs!

If Porter is allowed to expand to serve every major city in North America these above impressive numbers will only grow larger. More people will be employed (in jobs that cannot be outsourced overseas). How can any politician with half a brain in their head be opposed to such plans?

These are measurable benefits. More difficult to measure but every bit as real are the number of companies that have decided to set up offices downtown because of the convenience of Billy Bishop airport. For the types of companies that occupy Grade A office space, quick and convenient airport connections is absolutely vital as many of their employees are on the road all the time. We have seen a big increase in the number of office buildings under construction or planned in downtown. I am sure to some extent Porter Airlines has played a part in this success. Imagine the impact if Porter was allowed to expand so that it can serve every major city in North America!
 
There's an oddly fitting congruence btw/the passing of/requiems of Margaret Thatcher and Porter's present expansion plans--like, to the "extreme anti-Thatcherite" POV, the galloping success of Porter is like high-style Saatchi-worthy Thatcherism at its euphemistic (or not) finest...
 
adma said:
There's an oddly fitting congruence btw/the passing of/requiems of Margaret Thatcher and Porter's present expansion plans--like, to the "extreme anti-Thatcherite" POV, the galloping success of Porter is like high-style Saatchi-worthy Thatcherism at its euphemistic (or not) finest...
Click to expand...
I hadn't realised that the condo owners were coal miners and unionists ...
 
Hipster Duck said:
Okay, I think you're going a little overboard.

I support the idea of Porter being granted a runway extension and allowing quieter turbojets to fly in and out of the Island airport, but if council has the ultimate power to block this and it doesn't go ahead, I don't think this spells doom for downtown Toronto or for Porter, for that matter.

The Island airport is a nice amenity for downtown's success, but I think that you overstate its importance to the economic wellbeing of downtown. I really think the Island airport succeeded because of the increased regional importance of downtown, not the other way around.

Also, I have my doubts that investing millions of dollars in a new runway and buying new jets so that you can fly to destinations like Vancouver and LA is going to be such a gold mine for Porter. The business world is littered with examples of very successful companies that totally cornered a niche but then destroyed themselves because they thought they could make a large expansion into unchartered territories, committing large amounts of resources to this project while forgetting about their core business. Sometimes it's just better to stick to what you're good at then to try to be overly ambitious. Porter has a successful business model: it's a small, niche-oriented airline that uses a single airplane variant to fly to regional destinations that larger carriers either shun because of low profitability or have spun off to regional subsidiaries that provide horrible service. It can justify its high prices through superior service - superior service offered both in flight and by virtue of the fact that its island airport is small (for now). I think that Porter might have an easier time siphoning passengers away from Pearson on a 1 hour flight to Sault Ste Marie where their competition is a somewhat noncommital Air Canada Jazz than siphoning passengers away from Pearson for a customs-precleared 5 hour flight to LAX where their competition could be anything from AC to all the US flag carriers to Virgin America.

Hey, all power to them if they think that they can use their existing business model to fly to medium-range destinations with an entirely new aircraft where established flag carriers and low cost carriers already engage in fierce competition. I'm all for private companies having the right to test new business ideas through trial and error and I'm certainly not going to be like council and stand in their way, but I'm also don't think we should bend over backwards for them either.
Click to expand...

You took the words right out of my mouth! Porter is known as a regional line. It just gives me WestJet vibes and worries me that they will lose focus of quality.
 
Peepers said:
I don't think that you can overstate the importance of this Airport to the city. A recent study revealed that Billy Bishop pumps $2 Billion into the Toronto economy and provides 1,700 direct and 5,700 indirect jobs.
Click to expand...

Toronto Pearson generates:
Directly, over 40,000 full-time jobs (2300% more)
Indirectly, over 185,000 jobs in the surrounding community. (3200% more)

I don't know how the study is coming up with Porter pumping $2 billion into the economy, but if it is to be believed would that mean Pearson pumps $40 billion into the economy?

I'm supposed to believe that there are a multitude of companies have decided to set up offices downtown because of Toronto Island which takes you to something like 10 destinations with little in the way of connections? If so with the global connections at Pearson and lower land prices we should be seeing those parking lots near the airport fill with headquarters fast. Hell, with a few more destinations for Porter the IOC won't be able to say no to having the Olympics here, a few more destinations after that and a downtown hospital will cure cancer. We will be capital of the world all thanks to Porter. God bless Porter.
 
EnviroTO said:
Toronto Pearson generates:
Directly, over 40,000 full-time jobs (2300% more)
Indirectly, over 185,000 jobs in the surrounding community. (3200% more)

I don't know how the study is coming up with Porter pumping $2 billion into the economy, but if it is to be believed would that mean Pearson pumps $40 billion into the economy?

I'm supposed to believe that there are a multitude of companies have decided to set up offices downtown because of Toronto Island which takes you to something like 10 destinations with little in the way of connections? If so with the global connections at Pearson and lower land prices we should be seeing those parking lots near the airport fill with headquarters fast. Hell, with a few more destinations for Porter the IOC won't be able to say no to having the Olympics here, a few more destinations after that and a downtown hospital will cure cancer. We will be capital of the world all thanks to Porter. God bless Porter.
Click to expand...

FWIW Pearson estimates that it generates $26 billion in revenue, and $6.8 billion in employment income. Not quite $40 million you stated but close, and we do not know what sort of multipliers TPA is using for the island and/or if the estimates are even apples to apples.

It's not much of a leap to go from $32 billion to $40 billion
 
RC8 said:
I live in the area and in the summer the airplanes' noise can even drown your own voice if you go for a stroll around the music garden. .
Click to expand...

I live in South Parkdale, just north of their flight path and noise is hardly noticable, we have bigger problems with the ornge helicopters flying overtop of us
to Billy Bishop

Anyways, i say bring them on.....lovely plane
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top